Global environmental sustainability and food security are fundamental societal issues, and most crop production relies upon inputs from organic or inorganic nitrogen sources. Previous research in the Global North has demonstrated a typical over application of nitrogen across global agriculture with substantial negative impacts on the environment. The objective of this work was to draw on English Farm Business Survey (FBS) data of non-organic General Cropping and Cereal farms to explore the relationship between farm gate nitrogen balance, fertilizer application advice and farm business performance. A mixed effects generalized modeling approach was used to partition the variance into random (such as year, or farm ID) and fixed effects (those of interest). Whilst the financial performance of farm businesses is subject to high variance and multiple drivers, a negative relationship was detected between business performance and farm gate nitrogen balance, we demonstrate that nitrogen lost to the environment of >60 kg per hectare is associated with a significant negative impact on farm performance. Supplier-provided fertilizer advice was also associated with reduced farm performance. These results imply a positive effect on farm performance of enhancing on-farm understanding of crop nutrient requirements through the provision of accredited fertilizer advice. Within the stated bounds our model demonstrates good predictivity on randomly subsetted data, and is presented as a tool for use in scenario modeling of interventions such as agri-environment schemes, Natural Capital and Ecosystems Assessment, and the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Abstract To find opportunities to improve performance, comparisons between farms are often made using aggregates of standard typologies. Being aggregates, farm types in these typologies contain significant numbers of atypical enterprises and thus average figures do not reflect the farming situations of individual farmers wishing to compare their performance with farms of a 'similar' type. We present a novel method that matches a specific farm against all farms in a survey (drawing upon the Farm Business Survey sample) and then selects the nearest 'bespoke farm group' of matches based on distance (Z-score). We do this across 34 dimensions that capture a wide range of English farm characteristics, including tenure and geographic proximity. Means and other statistics are calculated specifically for that bespoke farm comparator group, or 'peer set'. This generates a uniquely defined comparator for each individual farm that could substantially improve key-performance-indicators, such as unit costs of production, which can be used for benchmarking purposes. This methodology has potential to be applied across the full range of FBS farm types and in a wider range of benchmarking contexts.

We estimate the marginal returns to spending on Crop Variable Inputs (CVI) (such as fertilizers and crop protection), to explore whether observed spending maximises physical or economic returns to farmers.Data are taken from the Farm Business Survey for 2004-2013, where gross margins and input spending are available, in over 10,300 crops of conventional winter wheat or oilseed rape in England and Wales.Marginal spending on CVIs generate financial returns significantly less than £1 per marginal pound spent.This suggests that expenditure on CVIs exceeds an economic optimum that would maximise profit.However marginal physical products (crop yields) are positive, but small and significantly different from zero.This suggests that, on average, farmers approximately maximise yields.These results hold across a wide range of alternative economic models and two crop species.Similar results have been reported in estimations for Indian grain production and for maize in China.In practice, farmers are making decisions on input use in advance of having information on a variety of factors, including future yield, product quality and price, making it difficult to optimise input levels according to expected profit.Farmers may be consistently optimistic, prefer to avoid risk, or deliberately seek to maximise yields.Some farmers may put on the standard recommended application irrespective of input or expected output price.It is also possible that advice may sometimes aim to maximise yield, influenced by an incentive to encourage greater sales.Excessive input use both reduces private profits and is a cause of environmental damage.There are thus potential private as well as social benefits to be gained from optimising levels of input use.

Applying a difference-in-difference approach with propensity score matching, we examine the impact of participation in the Entry Level Stewardship (ELS) scheme on cereal farm incomes in eastern England. We assess the extent to which impacts are related to a) the source of income affected – whether only from agricultural or total business income; b) the channel of the impact – through land use and/or labour input; and c) the level of impacts through time. In addition, we assess the appropriateness of the level of the ELS payment. We find that: a) entering the ELS scheme could negatively affect cereal farm incomes – in particular, the total business income; b) that negative impacts arise primarily in relation to the use of land resources; c) that impacts may diminish over a relatively short period of time; and d) that the ELS payment broadly compensates for losses without providing over compensation. Given the diminishing negative impact over time, the level of ELS payment might need to be reviewed in the longer term, although policy evaluation should consider the wider implications for efficiency of alternative payment levels. We also discuss some limitations of the approach and potential extensions.

type="main" xml:id="jage12043-abs-0001"> Applying a difference-in-difference approach with propensity score matching, we examine the impact of participation in the Entry Level Stewardship (ELS) scheme on cereal farm incomes in eastern England. We assess the extent to which impacts are related to a) the source of income affected – whether only from agricultural or total business income; b) the channel of the impact – through land use and/or labour input; and c) the level of impacts through time. In addition, we assess the appropriateness of the level of the ELS payment. We find that: a) entering the ELS scheme could negatively affect cereal farm incomes – in particular, the total business income; b) that negative impacts arise primarily in relation to the use of land resources; c) that impacts may diminish over a relatively short period of time; and d) that the ELS payment broadly compensates for losses without providing over compensation. Given the diminishing negative impact over time, the level of ELS payment might need to be reviewed in the longer term, although policy evaluation should consider the wider implications for efficiency of alternative payment levels. We also discuss some limitations of the approach and potential extensions.

Farming and the countryside are viewed by the British public as important, to a much greater degree than suggested by their economic significance. This may indicate deep insight about the importance of food supply and ecosystems, which could in turn manifest itself through the Common Agricultural Policy, and legitimise the CAP.

This paper investigates the economic impacts of the reforms both on the EU sugar sector but also more globally and examines the intended and unintended consequences of the reforms. This provides insights into the likely impacts of the further reforms proposed for 2015 – namely the removal of sugar beet quotas within the EU. We find, in line with other studies that whilst the reforms have improved the economic efficiency of the EU sugar sector the nature of the reform process has meant that these gains have not been maximised. This is due to the fact that production was cut in some of the more efficient regions of Europe as well as the least efficient. Our modelling highlights that the reforms have led to alternative trade patterns emerging both internally within the EU as well as externally. Internally, cessation of production in a number of countries provides opportunities for those remaining in production. Externally the significant decline in EU sugar on the world market has provided opportunities for other countries. It would appear that Brazil and Thailand have been amongst the main beneficiaries of the disappearance of EU sugar from the world market.

Agri-environment schemes were introduced in the mid-1980s. Their primary objectives have developed from initially aiming to hold back intensification towards stimulating environmental enhancement. The introduction of Entry Level Stewardship (ELS) in England represents a third stage in seeking to extend the coverage of schemes across the majority of agricultural land. This aims to influence land use along the whole of the intensive margin. The ELS offers a wide range of options for which farmers are awarded points. Selection of options equivalent to 30 points per ha in lowland areas entitles farmers to a payment of £30 per ha. By September 2007, 4.4 million ha had been entered into the scheme, equivalent to 47% of the agricultural area. From amongst the options on offer, 34% of points were for boundary options, 20% for intensive grass options, 16% for management plans and 13% for options taking arable land out of production. The choice of options varies across the country with a higher proportion of the agricultural area entered in the East. Entry into the scheme is associated with total agricultural area, cereals farming, larger farms, a lower proportion of area in Environmentally Sensitive Area and Countryside Stewardship schemes and grazing livestock numbers. While the ELS has introduced a large number of new entrants into agri-environment schemes, the extent of the environmental impact is uncertain. Given the large number of options available, it is likely that farmers will have chosen options that involve relatively little change and incur limited cost. At the same time, it would be surprising if the environmental gains were of the types most valued within local areas. The ELS approach implies that public goods provided from agricultural land should be paid for irrespective of what would have happened in the absence of the scheme. While this may be a fairer approach, it may also undermine the idea of land stewardship and imply that payments will continue to be required in the long term in order to sustain provision. The ELS does establish a framework within which incentives could be targeted to deliver specific benefits within particular contexts and suggestions are made as to how policy might be developed for this.

The purpose of this article is to discuss possible scenarios for UK sugar beet production after the reform of the sugar regime. The analysis is built on an evaluation undertaken by the University of Cambridge and The Royal Agricultural College of the impact that reforming the EU sugar regime may have on UK agriculture. The analysis focuses on the implications of reductions in quota and the support price and on the possible reactions by British Sugar, as the final outcome in terms of production will depend on the interaction between British Sugar and sugar beet farmers. The analysis indicates that British Sugar strategies such as reallocating the available quota to the more efficient producers or paying higher beet prices might mitigate the impacts of the reform. The key factor in limiting the overall impact on production is the extent that the industry can restructure and reduce its cost base. For example, following a 40 per cent reduction in the sugar beet price we estimate that if farmers could reduce their average costs by 20 per cent, about 52 per cent of UK beet production would still be viable, compared to less than 20 per cent if costs were not altered.

The purpose of this article is to discuss possible scenarios for UK sugar beet production after the reform of the sugar regime. The analysis is built on an evaluation undertaken by the University of Cambridge and The Royal Agricultural College of the impact that reforming the EU sugar regime may have on UK agriculture. The analysis focuses on the implications of reductions in quota and the support price and on the possible reactions by British Sugar, as the final outcome in terms of production will depend on the interaction between British Sugar and sugar beet farmers. The analysis indicates that British Sugar strategies such as reallocating the available quota to the more efficient producers or paying higher beet prices might mitigate the impacts of the reform. The key factor in limiting the overall impact on production is the extent that the industry can restructure and reduce its cost base. For example, following a 40 per cent reduction in the sugar beet price we estimate that if farmers could reduce their average costs by 20 per cent, about 52 per cent of UK beet production would still be viable, compared to less than 20 per cent if costs were not altered.

The purpose of this paper is to study the effect that the imminent reform in the European Union (EU) sugar regime may have on farm productivity in the United Kingdom (UK). We perform the analysis on a sample of sugar beet farms representative of all the UK sugar beet regions. To estimate the changes in productivity, we estimate a multi-output cost function representing the cropping part of the farm, which is the component that would be mostly affected by the sugar beet reform. We use this cost function to compute the new allocation of outputs and inputs after the changes in the sugar beet quota and price support. This are subsequently used to compute measures of total factor productivity. Our results show slight decreases in the productivity at the individual farm level under both quota and price support reduction. However, when considering the aggregate level, the reduction in the price support shows significant increases in productivity, in contrast to the results obtained from a reduction in quota.

Narrow-leafed lupin (Lupinus angustifolius) is now an established major crop in southern Australia, albus lupin (L. albus) is grown on a smaller scale, and there is interest in cultivating other lupin species. With any new crop, it is crucial that its phenology, particularly times of flowering and maturity, matches the target environment. We investigated times of flowering, maturity, and seed filling of several lupin species of agricultural interest to southern Australia. Established genotypes of L. angustifolius and L. albus flowered earliest, in 70-75 days, but L. luteus cv. Teo and some L. angustifolius lines with restricted branching matured earliest. Differences between genotypes in rates of seed filling and final seed weights meant that time of maturity was only poorly correlated with flowering time. We investigated the role of photoperiod in the timing of flowering and maturity in 12 lupin species/genotypes by: (a) growing plants under both long days in the UK and short days in Australia; and (b) growing plants under short days in Australia with or without lighting to extend the photoperiod. Flowering was clearly hastened by long days in all genotypes in both situations. However, the responses were much greater when days were naturally longer than when they were artificially lengthened. This was probably due to the illuminance requirements for perception of photoperiod by lupin not being saturated by the artificial lighting.