Well, the 'between Christmas and New Year' slot is usually the one which is used to take a look forward at what the next year might hold in store – and to take a stab at predicting how things are going to pan out over the next 12 months.

But given the fact that the past season saw the November, 2022, wheat futures – which were sitting somewhere around the £195/t in December, last year, shoot up to break the £350/t in the middle of May – I reckon it would be a pretty foolhardy pundit who would make any firm predictions on the grain marketing front.

That certainly seems to be the case. All those individuals and institutions which normally pop up at this time of year to give us their insightful views in a cheery (or sometimes sobering) New Year grain market message, are keeping the heids well down this year.

With the year just passed seeing three different UK Prime Ministers – including the shortest ever incumbent – and four different Chancellors of the Exchequer, the outbreak of a major global conflict, the continued knock-on consequences of a worldwide pandemic, chaos in the fuel and energy markets and unresolved Brexit issues rumbling on, then we can only hope that some of these ripples begin to die down over the next 12 months.

But with runaway inflation and strikes and pay deals filling the headlines, who knows what will emerge from this winter of discontent?

One issue which might, in quieter times, have been figuring on the front pages of the newspapers, has been quietly proceeding through the Westminster parliamentary process with barely a mention – and that is the UK Government’s Genetic Technology (precision breeding) Bill, which has now reached the final straits.

Of course, there is still the possibility that this could still stir up a bit of a brouhaha on this side of the Border, for, as far as anyone knows, the Scottish Government remains steadfastly opposed to the introduction of similar measures aimed at relaxing the strict controls on the use of such technology on this side of the Border. It has already stated it will ensure that any relaxation of the current strict regulations will not apply in Scotland.

We might, however, find that the SNP’s well-rehearsed argument behind its reluctance to accept gene editing – which focuses on maintaining the country’s ‘clean, green’ image – could be turned on its head as it becomes clearer that any ban on the commercial use of this technology will deny the country’s grain growers access to varieties which are either resistant or more tolerant to diseases and environmental stresses.

That would leave Scotland’s arable sector with no option but to continue using the current dwindling armoury of synthetic pesticides, growth manipulators and fertilisers.

For 2022 did seem to see a bit of a sea change in the public attitude to these technologies, with a growing realisation that they could play an important role at the nexus of food security, climate change mitigation and environmental issues and the cost of living crisis.

Also on the home front, as far as policy is concerned, if ‘perma-crisis’ was one of the recent ‘words of the year’ then perma-stasis would seem to be the best alternative for the speed of the country’s development of a new agricultural package.

For, unless Santa has managed to deliver a real surprise, it looks like we’re going to enter 2023 knowing precious little more about the nuts and bolts of how the new strategy will be delivered as we did this time last year.

I mentioned in my last piece that, despite ScotGov’s ambitions to lead the world on emissions reductions, the awful report card delivered by the independent Climate Change Committee on the administration’s poor performance on cutting greenhouse gas emissions was unlikely to make things any easier for us.

But the arrival of a new biodiversity strategy, with associated targets on halting biodiversity loss by 2030 and then reversing it by 2045, are only likely to make delivering what everyone wants even tougher.

Another issue that I would hazard is likely to gain more traction over the course of the next 12 months will be the growing concern over the use – and the availability – of phosphate fertilisers.

Read more: Brian Henderson: Challenging times for politics and farming

For, with the vast majority of the world’s reserves of this important plant nutrient being sited in geopolitically fragile areas – such as Morocco, China, Algeria, Syria and South America – there’s been a bit of a realisation that not only are supplies finite and becoming increasingly depleted, but they could also be weaponised in the same way as we found energy and grain supplies over the past year.

There’s also the fact that only around a half of the estimated 174,000 tonnes of the stuff imported into the UK every year is actually utilised by crops. That's at the same time as the problem of build-up in waterways and rivers seen in some countries might not be a huge problem in Scotland, but doesn’t mean that it’ll stop environmentalists clamouring for change.

Soil analysis would be one method of reducing our annual use and could actually save us money by applying less if it wasn’t actually needed.

But a more curious fact which has emerged is just how bad the country has become at recycling the stuff. For not only does some of it leach from fields, but a huge amount of that which is utilised is wasted through the human sewage system.

I can assure that I’m not taking the p*ss here, but it’s been estimated that most of our needs could probably be met by better sewage management which would allow the phosphorous excreted in urine to be recovered and recycled into fertilisers.

Of course fertiliser, in whatever form, is likely to be a major consideration for any farmer currently drawing up their cropping plans as we move into the New Year – with most folk probably considering paring back on applications if, as is likely, there’s no major fall in prices in the short term.

The likely effects of any major changes in the amount of nitrogen fertiliser which we use on the UK’s overall grain production was actually the subject of a recent AHDB project.

It modelled the effects of four different scenarios – a reasonable, best-case scenario based on AN prices of between £600-650/t, the most likely scenario based with AN at £700-750/t, a reasonable worst case of £850-950/t and an extreme worst case scenario, based on AN prices of between £1000-1100/t.

The AHDB’s ‘most likely’ scenario, assuming wheat at more than £250 a tonne (which might look slightly optimistic at the moment) was likely to result in those carrying out a cost/benefit analysis cutting their average N applications to the crop by around 10% – reducing the average of around 190kg/ha down to 170 kg/ha – and this, they predicted would result in a reduction of just over 0.1 tonnes per ha, or a fall of 1.3%.

Apparently, that’s because the yield response from the first 100kg/ha delivers the greatest effect and after that any additional response levels off fairly quickly.

The model also showed that N use could be reduced by 30%, if it is priced at over £1000/t – an approach which the AHDB predicted would reduce average wheat yields by around 0.43 tonnes/ha, or 5.4%.

Interestingly, the model also factored in some of the likely effects of a major spell of adverse weather could have on overall production.

So, while any national reduction in the use of N was expected to see a fall in wheat production of between 1.3% and 5.3%, it was sobering to see just how much more effect the weather could have on that figure.

For when bad weather – particularly at sowing time – was factored into the modelling equation, it showed that the reduction could be more than 30% for winter-sown crops. This highlighted the fact that adverse weather is likely to have a much greater effect on overall production than any of our attempts to play about with N application rates.

So, it only goes to show you that predicting what the next 12 months will hold is as difficult as predicting the weather over that period.

But whatever it does hold, I wish you all the best for the New Year, when it comes …