The case for headland set-aside: consideration of whole-farm gross margins and grain production on two farms with contrasting rotations

A - Papers appearing in refereed journals

Sparkes, D. L., Ramsden, S. J., Jaggard, K. W. and Scott, R. K. 1998. The case for headland set-aside: consideration of whole-farm gross margins and grain production on two farms with contrasting rotations. Annals of Applied Biology - AAB. 133 (2), pp. 245-256. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.1998.tb05825.x

AuthorsSparkes, D. L., Ramsden, S. J., Jaggard, K. W. and Scott, R. K.
Abstract

Spreadsheet calculations were used to compare headland set-aside with rotational set-aside in terms of gross margin and grain production on two farms with contrasting rotations. At Broom's Barn, Suffolk there was a five course rotation consisting of sugar beet and four cereals, while at Bunny Park, Nottinghamshire oilseed rape was the break crop, followed by three cereals. For both farms a sensitivity analysis was used to investigate the effect of the proportion of the farm required to be set aside, the extent of headland yield reduction and the cereal price on the outcome of the spreadsheet calculations. In general headland set-aside out-performed rotational set-aside. Yields on headlands were always less than the main body of the field, but it was on the turning headlands where yield was particularly depressed. Thus the advantage, in terms of gross margin, of setting aside the headlands was greatest when the requirement could be fulfilled by fallowing most turning headlands, but no nonturning headlands. Generally, rotational set-aside reduced grain production more than headland set-aside, but when the spreadsheet models were adjusted to maintain the area of sugar beet, the situation was reversed. In this case headland set-aside produced a larger gross margin and had the greatest impact on grain production. An extension of the analysis is to ask the question: even if set aside is not an option, is it worthwhile to crop rather than fallow headlands? For cereals and oilseed rape the answer is in the affirmative; the gross margin for headlands remains positive, even when prices are much reduced, because the arable area payment more than offsets the variable costs. This does not hold for crops such as sugar beet that are not eligible for arable area payments. An additional benefit from headland set-aside is its potential to enhance the environment through increased habitat diversity and the provision of 'buffer zones' to prevent agrochemicals from drifting into hedges and watercourses.

KeywordsAgriculture, Multidisciplinary
Year of Publication1998
JournalAnnals of Applied Biology - AAB
Journal citation133 (2), pp. 245-256
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.1998.tb05825.x
Open accessPublished as non-open access
Funder project or code218
451
ISSN00034746
PublisherWiley

Permalink - https://repository.rothamsted.ac.uk/item/87zq5/the-case-for-headland-set-aside-consideration-of-whole-farm-gross-margins-and-grain-production-on-two-farms-with-contrasting-rotations

25 total views
0 total downloads
0 views this month
0 downloads this month