25.03.2013 Views

Narcissus and Daffodil

Narcissus and Daffodil

Narcissus and Daffodil

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Economics of bulb production 135<br />

These figures give some idea of the high variability in returns for some crops, particularly<br />

field vegetables <strong>and</strong> roots. Climatic factors, particularly rainfall, have a<br />

significant effect on market prices, notably for potatoes.<br />

Crops marked with an asterisk in the above list are within the Integrated<br />

Administration <strong>and</strong> Control System (IACS) of agricultural support. IACS is the<br />

system for administering farm support payments within the EU. Included in this<br />

regime is the requirement for an area of arable l<strong>and</strong> to be set-aside from food<br />

production, in order that support payments can be claimed on both that l<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />

on l<strong>and</strong> cropped with combinable crops such as wheat <strong>and</strong> oilseed rape. These<br />

support payments are known as Arable Area Payments, or simply area payments,<br />

<strong>and</strong> are one of the main pillars of support under the Common Agricultural Policy<br />

(CAP). The current level of gross margin is heavily reliant on these subsidies which,<br />

for the 1999 harvest (including an element of agromonetary compensation), were<br />

as follows (£/ha):<br />

Cereals 235<br />

Proteins 340<br />

Oilseeds 254<br />

Linseed 456<br />

Obviously, changes in the level of support will alter the relative profitability of<br />

such crops. In order to be eligible for these payments, one of the requirements of<br />

the scheme is that, an area of l<strong>and</strong> must be ‘set-aside’ <strong>and</strong> not used for food<br />

production, in return for which a subsidy of around £298/ha is payable.<br />

FIXED COSTS<br />

As mentioned previously, the allocation of fixed costs is not often carried out, yet<br />

different farming systems carry with them different fixed cost structures, particularly<br />

in the area of labour <strong>and</strong> machinery costings. Within each type of enterprise<br />

there will still be considerable variation due to differences in business circumstances<br />

<strong>and</strong> efficiency. The ‘top 25% figures’ are frequently presented to give an<br />

indication of the performance levels of the most efficient businesses. Table 5.4<br />

(University of Nottingham Rural Business Research Unit, 1998) shows the actual<br />

results for 1996–1997 <strong>and</strong> 1997–1998 for costed farms, grouped by cropping type<br />

<strong>and</strong> farm size.<br />

As a long-term trend, root <strong>and</strong> vegetable farms generate higher gross margins<br />

associated with high-value crops such as potatoes <strong>and</strong> sugar beet. However, exceptional<br />

grain prices, at the same time as a high area payment, gave high levels of<br />

profitability in 1996. In contrast, by the 1998 harvest, the gross margin for a cereal<br />

farm was nearer £200/ha, with many farms generating a negative net farm income.<br />

This trend has continued in 1999.<br />

Machinery costs are usually higher on mixed cropping farms, with depreciation<br />

reflecting a higher value of capital investment in specialist equipment. The use of<br />

agricultural contractors used to be more common on mixed cropping farms, but is<br />

now an increasing trend on all types of farm, as machinery becomes more expensive.<br />

The point at which it is cheaper to use contractors differs with cropping type

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!