Posts by farmerknowsnothing

The financial question: What happens when the agreement ends?

Imagine converting 20 acres of agricultural land into a wildlife restoration project supported by an environmental agreement.

For several years, the payments contribute towards your business income.

However, the agreement eventually expires, payment rates change or the scheme closes to new applications.

Would your project remain financially sustainable?

Before making substantial changes, farmers should consider the likely costs of ongoing management, future income uncertainty, tax implications and any continuing legal or environmental obligations.

A project that depends entirely on temporary financial support may expose the business to additional risk.

Independent advice from an appropriately qualified land agent, accountant or environmental adviser can help farmers evaluate the available options.

Farming with wildlife: Small changes can make a difference

Environmental improvement doesn't always require removing entire fields from agricultural production.

Maintaining hedgerows, creating suitable field margins, protecting watercourses and managing existing habitats can all contribute to wildlife conservation.

For livestock farmers, appropriately positioned trees and hedgerows may also provide shelter and shade.

Arable farmers may find opportunities to improve field boundaries or manage consistently unproductive corners for environmental benefits.

However, not every proposed intervention is suitable everywhere. For example, planting trees on existing species-rich grassland could damage an already valuable habitat.

The most effective approach begins by understanding what's already present and identifying opportunities for genuine improvement.

Rewilding: Opportunity or unnecessary loss of agricultural land?

Rewilding has become an increasingly prominent subject in discussions about Britain's countryside.

Supporters argue that restoring natural processes can improve biodiversity, support healthier ecosystems and potentially create new income opportunities.

Some farmers, however, are concerned about the potential loss of productive agricultural land, changes to traditional farming practices and uncertainty surrounding long-term financial returns.

Both perspectives raise important questions.

A productive arable field may have very different restoration potential from degraded wetland, marginal pasture or land that repeatedly suffers from flooding.

Equally, allowing land to regenerate naturally doesn't guarantee that every environmental objective will be achieved.

Successful restoration requires suitable objectives, appropriate management, monitoring and an understanding of existing habitats.

Rewilding should therefore be assessed according to the characteristics of the land rather than treated as a universal solution.

Countryside Stewardship: Is the payment worth the commitment?

Environmental schemes can provide farmers with additional income for managing land in ways that deliver environmental benefits.

Activities may include restoring habitats, improving water quality, protecting soil, managing grassland or creating wildlife corridors.

However, the advertised payment rate doesn't necessarily represent additional profit.

Imagine receiving an annual payment to manage part of your land for environmental purposes.

That land previously generated income from grazing or crop production. You may now face establishment costs, additional maintenance and restrictions on certain agricultural activities.

Would the environmental payment cover those costs and compensate for the agricultural income you've given up?

Farmers should compare the financial return from the proposed agreement with the realistic alternatives before committing.

It's also important to check whether proposed activities are compatible with existing environmental agreements.

Five things every farmer should consider

- Environmental schemes and payments: Investigate which stewardship and environmental funding programmes are available in your country. Check eligibility, payment conditions, agreement lengths and management obligations before committing agricultural land.

- Farming alongside wildlife: Consider how hedgerows, field margins, wildflower habitats, ponds and woodland can support biodiversity while allowing productive farming to continue.

- Rewilding and habitat restoration: Assess whether restoring natural processes is appropriate for your land. Rewilding may involve changes to grazing, vegetation management or water movement, but it doesn't automatically mean abandoning all agricultural activity.

- Protecting productive farmland: Identify which parts of your holding offer the greatest agricultural value and which might be more suitable for environmental improvement. Avoid making irreversible changes without understanding their consequences.

- Financial planning and long-term management: Calculate establishment expenses, maintenance costs, lost agricultural income and potential environmental payments. Consider what happens when an agreement expires or government policy changes.

Farming and protecting the natural environment are often presented as competing priorities. Yet healthy soils, functioning ecosystems, clean water and thriving wildlife can all contribute to the long-term sustainability of agricultural businesses.

Whether you're considering Countryside Stewardship, restoring hedgerows, introducing wildlife habitats or investigating rewilding, understanding the financial and practical implications is essential.

One of the biggest mistakes landowners can make is entering an environmental agreement because the payments appear attractive without fully understanding the management requirements, restrictions and long-term consequences.

The important question: Can farmers increase biodiversity, protect their land and generate additional income without sacrificing the future of food production?

Important

Grassland management, fertiliser use, manure applications, silage storage and drainage may be subject to agricultural and environmental regulations. Requirements vary across the United Kingdom and depend on the location and circumstances of each farming business.

Silage effluent can cause serious water pollution, and poorly stored hay or improperly managed silage facilities can create significant safety risks. Follow current environmental and health and safety guidance, and seek qualified agronomic, veterinary or engineering advice where appropriate.

A disclaimer can help explain the intended use and limitations of your spreadsheet, but it cannot guarantee protection against legal claims or exclude liabilities that cannot lawfully be excluded. If you intend to distribute or sell the workbook, have a qualified solicitor review your disclaimer and any accompanying terms of use

Up for a discussion:

1. Have you achieved better results from permanent pasture or regularly reseeded grass leys?

2. Has rotational grazing genuinely reduced your feed costs or improved livestock performance?

3. Do you prioritise higher silage yields or better nutritional quality when deciding when to cut?

4. Have you found making your own hay and silage more economical than purchasing conserved forage?

5. What's been your biggest grassland-management challenge: fertiliser costs, unpredictable weather, poor drainage, machinery availability or maintaining productive grazing?

One final question: If you had £10,000 available to improve your grassland enterprise, where would you invest it first?

Would you reseed underperforming fields, improve drainage, introduce rotational grazing, upgrade silage storage or invest in forage testing and better nutrient management?

I'd be particularly interested in hearing from farmers who have measured their grass production costs and compared the results before and after making changes.

What actually delivered the greatest improvement, and which investments failed to produce the expected return?

Sharing practical experiences, genuine costs and successful management strategies could help other farmers improve forage quality without unnecessarily increasing expenditure.

Successful grassland management isn't simply about producing the most grass. It's about growing the right forage, preserving its nutritional value and delivering a worthwhile return while protecting the land for future seasons.

The bigger discussion: Is home-grown forage always cheaper than purchased feed?

Producing grass, hay and silage on your own farm can provide valuable control over livestock feeding.

However, home-grown forage isn't free.

Land, fertiliser, lime, seed, machinery, labour, contractors, storage and unavoidable harvesting losses all contribute to its cost.

A farmer producing enormous quantities of expensive, poor-quality silage may achieve a worse financial outcome than one producing smaller quantities of highly nutritious forage.

Likewise, purchasing additional feed isn't necessarily a mistake when the full cost of producing an equivalent feed on the farm would be greater.

The most important consideration is understanding the nutritional and economic value of each option.

Soil fertility: Are you feeding the grass or wasting fertiliser?

Productive grassland requires appropriate soil conditions and nutrient availability.

Regular soil testing can help farmers understand pH, phosphorus, potassium, magnesium and other relevant characteristics.

Nitrogen applications should reflect expected grass growth, soil nutrient supply, the intended cutting or grazing system and applicable regulations.

Organic manures can provide valuable nutrients, but their contribution should be accounted for when planning additional fertiliser applications.

Applying more fertiliser doesn't automatically improve profitability, particularly when soil acidity, drainage or compaction limits grass growth.

Farmers should monitor the financial return from fertiliser expenditure rather than judging success solely by how quickly grass appears to grow.

Hay production: Are you producing feed or storing future problems?

Hay remains an important forage for many livestock enterprises, particularly smaller holdings and businesses requiring dry conserved forage.

However, producing good-quality hay depends heavily on suitable harvesting conditions.

Grass that hasn't dried sufficiently can deteriorate during storage and may generate dangerous levels of heat.

Farmers should understand appropriate baling moisture, inspect storage conditions and monitor newly stored hay for signs of heating.

Hay should be protected against weather damage while maintaining suitable storage conditions.

Machinery scheduling also matters. Delays between cutting, turning, baling and storage can reduce quality or expose the crop to unexpected rainfall.

Producing hay successfully requires balancing crop maturity, weather opportunities, labour availability and machinery capacity.

Silage: Why cutting date can matter more than total yield

Silage production involves preserving forage through fermentation under suitably anaerobic conditions.

The quality of the finished silage depends on several factors, including the crop at harvest, dry matter, cleanliness, wilting, chopping, compaction and storage.

Delaying harvest may increase the quantity of grass collected, but crop maturity can reduce digestibility and nutritional value.

Cutting earlier may produce higher-quality forage, although weather, yield and harvesting costs must also be considered.

This creates an important financial decision.

Is producing an additional tonne of lower-quality silage more valuable than harvesting slightly less forage that better meets your livestock's nutritional needs?

The answer depends on your particular farming system.

Poorly fermented or contaminated silage can reduce feed intake, increase waste and create animal-health risks.

Farmers should follow suitable ensiling procedures, maintain their storage facilities and obtain forage analysis before developing winter feeding plans.

Never enter a confined silage storage area or approach potentially dangerous silage gases without appropriate safety procedures.

Rotational grazing: Can better grass utilisation reduce feed costs?

Rotational grazing involves moving livestock between grazing areas to manage grass availability and allow pasture recovery.

When properly managed, it can help farmers control grass utilisation, maintain productive swards and match livestock demand with available forage.

However, moving animals frequently does not automatically improve performance.

Paddock size, grass growth, livestock demand, soil conditions, fencing and access to clean water all influence the system's effectiveness.

During rapid spring growth, pasture may recover quickly. During drought or colder periods, considerably longer recovery intervals may be necessary.

Farmers should adapt their grazing arrangements to actual conditions rather than following an inflexible calendar.

Overgrazing can reduce grass recovery and expose soil, while leaving excessive mature grass may reduce grazing quality.

The objective is to balance livestock performance with the long-term productivity of the pasture.

Grass leys and reseeding: Is your pasture still productive?

An established field isn't necessarily a productive field.

Over time, desirable grass species can decline, weeds can become established, soil fertility may change and repeated machinery or livestock traffic can damage soil structure.

However, reseeding is not automatically the correct solution.

Before investing in a new grass ley, investigate whether poor productivity is caused by soil acidity, nutrient deficiencies, compaction, drainage problems or inappropriate grazing management.

A new seed mixture will not necessarily solve underlying problems if those conditions remain unchanged.

When reseeding is justified, consider the intended purpose of the field.

A grazing ley may require different characteristics from one intended primarily for intensive silage production.

Species selection should reflect soil conditions, local climate, persistence, livestock requirements and the expected management system.

The most expensive grass seed isn't automatically the most suitable.

Grass is one of the most valuable crops on any livestock farm, yet its true production cost and potential are often underestimated. Whether you're managing permanent pasture, establishing new grass leys, producing hay or making silage, the decisions you make throughout the growing season directly influence livestock performance and profitability.

One of the biggest mistakes farmers can make is assuming that having plenty of grass automatically means having good-quality forage. A field producing enormous quantities of grass may still deliver disappointing results if it's harvested too late, poorly managed or unsuitable for the nutritional requirements of the animals eating it.

Purchased feed, fertiliser, machinery, fuel, contractors and storage can represent substantial expenses. Making better use of home-grown forage may reduce those costs, but only when its production and nutritional value justify the investment.

Five things every grassland farmer should prioritise:

- Grassland management and reseeding: Regularly assess pasture productivity, grass species, weed populations, soil fertility and drainage. Reseed where the potential improvement justifies the establishment costs and disruption.

- Rotational grazing: Match livestock numbers to grass growth, allowing suitable recovery periods between grazing. Avoid excessive grazing pressure and unnecessary soil damage, particularly during wet conditions.

- Silage quality and harvesting: Choose cutting dates according to crop maturity, weather, intended livestock requirements and forage quality. Follow suitable wilting, ensiling, sealing and storage procedures.

- Hay production and storage: Harvest hay when conditions are appropriate, achieve suitable dryness and store it safely. Poor drying or storage can lead to substantial losses and dangerous heating.

- Understanding production costs: Calculate the actual cost of growing, harvesting and storing forage. Analyse feed quality and compare home-grown forage against purchased alternatives.

The important question: Are you managing your grassland to produce the greatest amount of forage, or the greatest nutritional and financial value?

Imagine operating a mixed livestock farm with 120 acres of grassland.

Your first silage cut produces an impressive yield, and your storage facilities are completely full. However, when winter arrives, forage analysis reveals that the silage contains less energy and protein than expected.

You subsequently need to purchase additional concentrates to maintain livestock performance.

Meanwhile, another farmer harvested a smaller quantity of higher-quality forage and requires considerably less supplementary feeding.

Which enterprise has actually achieved the better result?

The answer depends on the cost of producing the forage, its nutritional value and how effectively it meets the needs of the animals consuming it.

Important
A disclaimer can help explain the intended use and limitations of my research, but it cannot guarantee protection against legal claims or exclude liabilities that cannot lawfully be excluded. If you intend to distribute or sell the workbook, have a qualified solicitor review your disclaimer and any accompanying terms of use.

A question for the farming community

For those growing cereals, oilseeds or pulses:

What has had the greatest effect on your profitability during the last five years?

Has it been:

- Fertiliser cost?
- Grain price?
- Machinery?
- Blackgrass?
- Weather?
- Rotation?
- Soil management?
- Contracting?
- Storage?
- Changing drilling dates?

And perhaps an even more useful question:

Which farming practice did you once consider essential, but eventually stopped doing because the figures showed it wasn't actually paying?

Those answers could be particularly useful to younger farmers because agriculture often contains practices that continue simply because:

“That is how we have always done it.”

The strongest arable businesses increasingly challenge that assumption with records and evidence.

A successful arable farm is not simply one that produces crops. It is one that converts soil, rainfall, machinery, knowledge and capital into a sustainable margin while leaving the land capable of doing it again next season.

The bigger discussion: Are we farming for tonnes, or farming for margin?

Arable farming has historically celebrated yield.

Highest-yielding wheat.

Best barley crop.

Biggest combine.

Fastest drill.

But future farm resilience may require measuring something different.

Not:
“How many tonnes did I grow?”

but:
“How much did each tonne cost me to produce?”

And perhaps eventually:
“How much profit did every hectare produce after accounting for the long-term effect on my soil and rotation?”

That is a very different way of viewing an arable farm.

A 12-tonne wheat crop can be impressive.

A sustainably repeatable 9-tonne crop with lower risk, lower cost and better soil may sometimes be the stronger business.

50. The biggest arable mistake: Chasing yield without understanding margin

Imagine two farmers.

Farmer A

Wheat yield:

10.5 t/ha

Full production cost:

£1,950/ha

Farmer B

Wheat yield:

9.2 t/ha

Full production cost:

£1,430/ha

Suppose wheat is worth:

£190/t

Farmer A

Revenue:

10.5 × £190 = £1,995

Margin before other omitted income:

£45/ha

Farmer B

Revenue:

9.2 × £190 = £1,748

Margin:

£318/ha

Illustrative figures only.

Farmer A wins the yield competition.

Farmer B wins the business calculation.

That distinction deserves far more attention in agriculture.

49. The 20 questions worth asking after every harvest

1. Which crop generated the highest net margin, not simply the highest yield?
2. Which field performed worst?
3. Why?
4. Which variety performed best?
5. Which treatment clearly paid?
6. Which treatment probably did not?
7. Which fields showed compaction?
8. Did drilling timing affect performance?
9. Which weeds are becoming more difficult?
10. Is resistance increasing?
11. Did nitrogen rates match realistic yield?
12. Did any crop fail market specification?
13. How much grain required drying?
14. How much did storage cost?
15. Was machinery capacity sufficient?
16. What caused harvest delays?
17. What broke down?
18. Which crop improved the following crop?
19. What was the break-even price for each crop?
20. What should be done differently next year?

The answers are often worth considerably more than simply knowing the farm's average yield.