|
|
Discussion Forum
Started by farm-advice at 22 Jun 2009 9:38 AM. Topic has 10 replies.
  
|
|
Sort Posts:
|
|
|
|
 22 Jun 2009, 9:38 AM
|
farm-advice
Joined on 09 Nov 2005
Posts 473
|
The Economics of Wildlife-friendly Farming
|
|
|
|
|
|
The RSPB and Smiths Gore have looked at the incentives for picking some of the most wildlife-friendly options in Entry Level Stewardship to check that the payments are sufficient to fully compensate farmers for taking some land out of production through the scheme.
The results are very positive. Skylark plots in particular have a very positive budget balance. Over-wintered stubbles make very good economic sense if you already have spring crops in the rotation. The cost-benefits of including broad-leafed flowering plants in field margins can be covered by the net margins of the buffer strip options. The nectar flower mixtures and wild bird seed mixtures give a comparable return to growing wheat at current prices.
Details of the options can be seen at http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/farming/advice/economics/index.asp.
Smiths Gore have created an on-line calculator to allow you to use your own figures to work out your economic returns on these options at http://www.smithsgore.co.uk/publications.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
23 Jun 2009, 4:26 PM
|
jjj
Joined on 14 Jan 2008
Posts 6
|
Re: The Economics of Wildlife-friendly Farming
|
|
|
|
|
|
The RSPB advises active management of these environmental options. for example the application of Nitrogen, herbicides and pesticides, if required, to Wild bird seed mixtures. Surely these ought to be included in the financial analysis.
More importantly, the analysis implies that Fixed Costs would be reduced by £295 / ha, for every hectare of Wild Bird Seed mixture grown. I thought there might be a hint in the title (FIXED!). In my experience, my rent, depreciation, finance charges etc figures have not fallen. In fact you could argue that they have increased (albeit marginally) with the purchase of a mower, and a drill to sow Kale. I would be delighted to know where I have gone wrong.
I appreciate that there is an on-line calculator which allows me to input my own costs. However, I am not convinced that the published examples are a fair representation of the true financial situation, and would certainly not like policy makers to draw too many conculsions from them.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
23 Jun 2009, 10:08 PM
|
Matthew
Joined on 07 Oct 2006
Worcester
Posts 34
|
Re: The Economics of Wildlife-friendly Farming
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting reading. I presume that the calculations for the wild bird mix which include cutting in June are an error !
Matt
Matt
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
24 Jun 2009, 9:00 AM
|
richardwinspear
Joined on 09 Nov 2005
Posts 131
|
Re: The Economics of Wildlife-friendly Farming
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Matt
This error is my fault - we have corrected the calculations but not the assumptions, which are obviously from the pollen and nectar option.
jjj - I have asked Smiths Gore to explain the fixed cost element in detail, but no it would not take account of purchased machinery.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
26 Jun 2009, 4:30 PM
|
richardwinspear
Joined on 09 Nov 2005
Posts 131
|
Re: The Economics of Wildlife-friendly Farming
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi jjj
Smiths Gore have replied to your query with the following explanation of the fixed costs:
The costings include herbicide costs for spraying injurious weeds. The reason savings in fixed costs have been included in the calculations is because fixed costs are very different for these environmental options compared to normal cropping, so leaving the normal fixed costs in would not give a true picture of the economics – only a partial picture at gross margin level. There are of course fixed costs (labour and machinery) associated with the options and they have been included in the costings in the contractors’ costs (therefore listed as variable costs) so that we could outline the breakdown of these costs in detail.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05 Aug 2009, 5:58 PM
|
meadowmaker
Joined on 14 Mar 2008
Posts 10
|
The Economics of Wildlife-friendly Farming
|
|
|
|
|
|
Normal
0
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
Wild flower margins
The RSPB/Smith Gore financial calculations are at present flawed because they only factor in a single cut per year, not including baling. I can't understand why only the one cut per annum is costed, because everyone involved in establishing and managing wild flower grassland knows that this level of management is simply insufficient and will lead to loss of wild flowers.
I've said more on this on the discussion posting on wild flower margins.
Sue Everett
www.meadowmaker.me.uk
Sue Everett
www.meadowmaker.me.uk
See also: www.wildmeadows.org.uk and www.floralocale.org
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
07 Aug 2009, 10:55 AM
|
richardwinspear
Joined on 09 Nov 2005
Posts 131
|
Re: The Economics of Wildlife-friendly Farming
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
03 Oct 2009, 7:58 AM
|
jjj
Joined on 14 Jan 2008
Posts 6
|
Re: The Economics of Wildlife-friendly Farming
|
|
|
|
|
|
And please ask Smiths Gore to explain how the application of nitrogen to Wild life seed plots has been costed.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
07 Oct 2009, 4:27 PM
|
Jason Beedell (Smiths Gore)
Joined on 07 Oct 2009
Posts 2
|
Re: The Economics of Wildlife-friendly Farming
|
|
|
|
|
|
A fixed cost reduction of £295/ha was applied to take account of reduced agricultural labour and machinery usage. This figure is based on typical stubble to stubble contracting rates.
Specific costs related to the establishment and management of the stewardship option were then included as variable costs.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
07 Oct 2009, 4:29 PM
|
Jason Beedell (Smiths Gore)
Joined on 07 Oct 2009
Posts 2
|
Re: The Economics of Wildlife-friendly Farming
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whilst it is permissible to apply nitrogen to aid establishment of the seed plots/strips, a nitrogen application was not included in the example costed as it will not always be necessary or possible to do so. Where the seed crops is being established as a 6m+ strip along a field boundary, the proximity to watercourses can prevent nitrogen applications.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
|