It’s not, gross margin is just from growing the crops, not machinery costs. But I agree using costs including machinery but excluding other ‘fixed’ costs is sensible. Varying labour costs will skew figures massively.
What Lee has quoted looks like more of an Operating Margin. You'd use this with more diverse enterprises that have very different machinery requirements, organic etc & is probably a better benchmark than a gross margin. The tricky bit in a mixed business is calculating what that is unless you have very good disciplined records.
Inviting wrath here, but taking the 'joy' of what you do out the equation, can similar margins not be met with the Stewardship options? I know there's a lot of "it's sacrilege" chat going on and I'm not talking about that, in terms of cropping or stewardship...can't be that much difference if 'time spent' put in the mix?
I know i'm stirring the hornet's nest but I'm genuinely interested as some 'discussions' Ive been party too aren't far off warfare currently!
As above, define the "margin." CS/ELMS will carry a different cost structure to arable - knowing where (and quantifying) your underperforming bits would be put to better use is not an easy task.
What happened to the "topper farming" that Mid Term Review was going to create in 2005? Most people just seemed to carry on as before and treat the change in title of their payment as a job to keep the DEFRA media department busy. That is not the case this time!