The workings out are all correct and fine, but @Properjob is answering the wrong question, so I’m afraid it’s a failThank God someone can do simple maths!
The workings out are all correct and fine, but @Properjob is answering the wrong question, so I’m afraid it’s a failThank God someone can do simple maths!
Maybe because it is something that is (or at least should be) easily comparable with some degree of accuracy, without disclosing too much about your business on a public forum.Why would you compare something if it doesn't tell you what is better, getting lost now?
The workin
Sorry, I fail to see how I am answering the wrong question, this entire thread is about comparing variable costs/t. What is the point if it is not possible to determine which is better? I am talking purely about VC’sThe workings out are all correct and fine, but @Properjob is answering the wrong question, so I’m afraid it’s a fail
It’s just a simple question. It gives a rough guide. If you are way up the cost scale and only getting 3t/a you should be asking some questions about your agronomy and inputs. And remember you don’t have to answer the question.Sorry, I fail to see how I am answering the wrong question, this entire thread is about comparing variable costs/t. What is the point if it is not possible to determine which is better? I am talking purely about VC’s
im not really seeing the issue, clive asked for something, if you dont think it important ignore it.
£28-50 here
what it has made me think about is yield potential, 28 came from a cheap program on good ground which yielded well, 50 came from a full program of expensive products on average ground which gave its best yield ever, if it hadnt it would have been worse.
with prices as they are after storage and drying wheat isnt a lot over 100 quid, if you pay a rent of 200/ha and 125/ha harvesting and try to make a profit with a £50/t vc spend your establishment system needd to be very cheap or you arent earning much.
the thing i would like to know more about is npk source and cost per unit from those posting good results, as the largest vc spend its the best place to look for savings if the rest isnt too agrii
Depends on your output
Oh behave. You know full well it is impossible to price organic matter. Here chopping straw this year would have slowed the combine substantially, we were using 95% of available hp leaving trails of straw. How would you price a delayed harvest?Oh, yes, I haven't started on that yet! Perhaps another thread based on what else separates the best from the worst, but I can see why Clive wants to keep this to variable costs.
What is output?
Yield
Price - marketing & price risk management
Timing of harvesting, inputs & sales
Attention to detail - comes into timing too
Straw sold or not - will impact variable costs for P and K replacement.
Organic matter?
Double behave Brisel. You are not allowed to debate this matter......... anyway perhaps this new variable costs/t idea is a good thing, may lead to better prices for some of us.Just fuelling the debate. Variable costs/tonne is so simple yet potentially so misleading.
Montana yield was c.8.1t/ha which is about a ton down on last year. It looked well in the spring but just went off early. In hindsight, I could have used less N as we hit over 15% protein. It was on lighter ground which I have only just started farming - low organic matter after years of abuse growing veg. Not growing Montana this year as ADM were dragging their heels with contracts.@moretimeforgolf how did your Montana yield? Have heard very variable results this year, wondering if has hit it physiological peak?