‘Pasture for Life’ makes good financial sense
A recent research project called ‘Sustainable Ecological and Economic Grazing Systems: Learning from Innovative Practitioners’ (SEEGSLIP) has highlighted the positive effects feeding no grain to cattle and sheep can have on enterprise Gross Margins.
Fifty-six Pasture for Life (PfL) members were interviewed on all aspects of their farming systems, including their finances. Their Gross Margin figures (Output minus Variable Costs) have been compared to the Farm Business Survey (FBS) for England.
Breeding sheep flocks
The top PfL farms are making more Gross Margin at £106/head than the top FBS farmers at £93/head (Table 1).
PfL farms based in the uplands have a much better Gross Margin at £41/head than the average upland farm in the FBS survey at £21/head (Table 1).
The main reason for these results is that the variable costs on the PfL farms is much lower than for the FBS farms – at £21/head average for PfL, compared to £53/head for the lowland FBS average and top farms (Table 1). These costs would include concentrate feed and vet and med bills.
Table 1
Pasture for Life Gross Margin (GM) comparison for Breeding Sheep Flocks with Farm Business Survey (FBS)
| £/ewe | PFLA Average | Lowland | Upland | Bottom | Top | FBS Lowland | FBS LFA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (<250m) | (>250m) | 33% | 33% | Av. Top | Av. Top | ||||
| Output | 84 | 88 | 66 | 47 | 118 | 112 | 146 | 63 | 131 |
| Total Variable Costs/head | 21 | 21 | 25 | 31 | 12 | 53 | 53 | 42 | 54 |
| Gross Margin/head | 63 | 67 | 41 | 16 | 106 | 59 | 93 | 21 | 77 |
| Number of farms | 24 | 19 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 277 | 72 | 53 | 14 |
| Number of ewes | 330 | 265 | 574 | 162 | 124 | 290 | 280 | 545 | 307 |
Suckler beef farms
The output from the PfL suckler beef farms is almost double that of the benchmarked FBS farms at £1,158/head for the average compared to £516 and £540 for the FBS averages for lowland and upland systems.
Table 2
Pasture for Life Gross Margin (GM) comparison for Suckler Beef with Farm Business Survey (FBS)
| £/cow | PFLA Average | Lowland | Upland | Bottom | Top | FBS Lowland | FBS LFA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (<250m) | (>250m) | 33% | 33% | Av. Top | Av. Top | ||||
| Output | 1158 | 1183 | 1029 | 718 | 1706 | 516 | 663 | 540 | 623 |
| Total Variable Costs/head | 193 | 202 | 150 | 254 | 150 | 216 | 185 | 214 | 143 |
| Gross Margin/head | 965 | 981 | 879 | 464 | 1556 | 241 | 470 | 221 | 422 |
| Number of farms | 37 | 31 | 6 | 12 | 12 | 295 | 70 | 142 | 35 |
| Number of suckler cows | 51 | 52 | 46 | 51 | 43 | 36 | 34 | 41 | 39 |
The probable reason for this is that the PfL farms are selling their calves finished, whereas the FBS farms are selling six-month-old stores for other farmers to finish.
However, despite PfL farms keeping their cattle six months longer or more, the variable costs across all the systems were remarkably similar, from £193/head for the PfL average and £216/£214 for the FBS averages for lowland and upland.
In essence, PfL farmers are achieving twice as much output for the same amount of variable costs.
When looking at an enterprise level – the FBS lowland farms are achieving an income of just £18,576 (£516 x 36 cows), whilst the PfL farms are gaining £59,058 (1,158 x 51 cows).
Beef finishers
Output from the PfL farms finishing beef animals is significantly lower than the FBS documented enterprises at £458/head compared to £548/head. This will probably be because the PfL cattle are native breeds and their growth is not being pushed on by grain feeding.
Table 3.
Pasture for Life Gross Margin (GM) comparison for Beef Finishers with Farm Business Survey (FBS)
| £/head | PFLA Average | Bottom | Top | FBS Finishing from the suckler herd | |
| 33% | 33% | Average Top | |||
| Output | 458 | 185 | 712 | 548 | 764 |
| Total Variable Costs/head | 54 | 24 | 81 | 309 | 323 |
| Gross Margin/head | 404 | 161 | 631 | 238 | 441 |
| Number of farms | 9 | 3 | 3 | 229 | 63 |
| Herd size | 81 | 66 | 128 | 80 | 80 |
However, once again there is wide variation in the variable costs between the two approaches, with PfL costs sitting at £54/head compared to £309/head for the FBS sample. This will be due to PfL animals being fed no expensive grain or concentrates.
This leads to the PfL farms having a much healthier average Gross Margin of £404/head, as opposed to the FBS farms at an average of £238.
More research
The research was carried out by the UK centre for Ecology and Hydrology (UKCEH), Lancaster University, Natural England and SRUC, and led by Dr Lisa Norton of UKCEH. The project was funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), the Economic and Social Research Council, the Natural Environment Council and Scottish Government.
Now the PfL is looking to gather and produce enterprise costings data down to Net Margin level, to highlight differences in fixed costs between 100% pasture-fed farmers and conventional lamb and beef producers.
Read more in the July 2021 issue of Direct Driller magazine http://www.directdriller.com/latest-issue/
