Unpredictable factors make for an uncertain season

For, as everyone is well aware, the weird summer weather did have a considerable effect on the crops - with plants which had been fried in the dry June being resuscitated by the incredibly wet July, resulting in a late flush of green secondary growth.

READ MORE: Arable Matters: Levy funding and fighting retailers

This manifested itself not only through its influence on yields, but also in the huge variability in ripening within crops. And, for us at least, the traditional approach of using variety and sowing date, backed up by a wander round the field and hand thrashing some of the crop for the moisture meter was pretty much thrown out the window as harvest progressed.

And with combine-cut moistures often varying by as much as 3-4 per cent across the field even after a good dose of glyphosate, it was often still a bit of a guessing game as to just how ready the crop was for cutting – but clearly a balance had to be struck between the still ripening grain and that which was set to fall off the head.

Yield-wise the spring barley was a bit of a mixed bag, with the early sown stuff on lighter land being a bit disappointing, while the later sown crops on heavier ground went some way towards redeeming the crop.

Curiously though, given the levels of uneven ripening and maturity, screenings didn’t seem to be a major issue in the spring barley, but needless to say there had to be a problem somewhere. And came in the level of skinned grains.

We couldn’t have been alone in this for, while the early cut crops got away quite quickly, the skinning issue saw movement dry up until the maltsters began to realise just how widespread the problem was. And scale of the trouble must have been quite significant as they eventually decided to raise the level for intake more than once (plus I’ve an inkling that skinning doesn’t actually stop the grain malting, it just makes the speed of the process a bit more erratic.

READ MORE: Arable Matters: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in our soils

Trying to avoid the problem did create a bit of a headache on the combine though, constantly looking over my shoulder to monitor what was coming into the tank and adjusting the settings in an attempt to strike a balance between a clean but skinned sample and one which was just too awny.

Spring oats were variable as well, but the sample looked a bit better than I might have expected. I guess, however, that this was due to the fact that the unfilled grains from the secondary growth which were mainly just husk, were blown over the back of the combine. I suspect there might be a few green lines emerging up and down the fields over the next couple of weeks though.

Almost a distant memory now, the wheat, which was cut early – and to be fair at reasonable moisture levels – provided one of the surprises of the year, returning pretty decent yields, giving a bit of an unusual but pleasing start to the harvest.

But, as always there had to be a downside here as well– and while the wheat must have been amongst the bonniest we’ve cut for many years, poor weather in other areas of the country, and indeed the globe, has seen crops grown for milling downgraded to feed, resulting in this market being flooded with additional grain – a fact which has probably contributed to the recent slide in both the spot and futures markets.

In summary then, a harvest which was far from plain sailing to gather in, yields which weren’t spectacular and prices well down on what many of us had hoped.

Add all that to the fact that these crops were amongst the most expensive we’ve ever grown and it’s going to be a bit of a sobering experience when we get down to looking at the arable sector’s bottom line.

But, in the search for a silver lining, the timing of a less than perfect harvest might not be all bad.

For while everyone had their noses firmly to the grindstone, I doubt if many have had a chance to take along hard look at the dozen documents released by the Scottish Government last week outlining some of the possible routes for developing future farm policy and delineating how support might be shaped.

Now I couldn’t imagine that anyone shouted ‘hip-hooray - more reports’ on their release - but we ignore them at our peril.

For even the briefest of glances at one of the papers clearly shows that some of the options could spell immediate danger for the cropping sector - unless they are swiftly and strongly resisted.

One key change is the fact that, unlike previous reforms, it is extremely unlikely that there will be the same emphasis on maintaining the status quo in the share out of support – and its more than likely that the new measures will see a substantial redistribution of funding.

And that means there will be winners and losers.

At the moment support payments are split into 3 regions, and while the better Region1 land accounts for around 42 per cent of the area, it gets 80% of the payments, with Region 2 accounting for 22% of land getting just 8% while Region 3 accounting for 33% of land gets only 4% of the support budget.

And while these shares might have reflected the overall level of total production in the regions, that’s unlikely to remain the main criteria for sharing out support in the future.

With everything up for grabs in the new scheme, various options are looked at as to how things might be doled out in the future - and the likely implications of each approach are highlighted.

Putting an upper cap on payment levels is one option up for consideration, as is reducing them over a certain level, with the number of units being affected and sums being freed up for redistribution being noted if the cap is placed at £250,000, £100,000 and £50,000.

But another hair-raising option which would be simple to operate - and which might gain political support from certain quarters - would be to scrap the 3 region system and move to a single region with flat rate payments across all land, from prime arable to the roughest of hill.

The paper points out that this would see a significant decline in Region 1 support rates from around £221/Ha to £108/Ha.

READ MORE: Arable Matters: 'Fungus the Bogeyman' raises cause for concern

And while arable land would therefore see its support halved at a stroke, without any limits being placed on overall payments, large landholdings in Region 2 and Region 3 would see a huge uplift in their payments.

“Such an approach would significantly impact Scotland’s productive agricultural areas and significantly reduce the profitability of low ground agriculture,” the report notes, adding that while it might be administratively simple the stakeholder backlash would be significant.

For reasons totally outwith our control the previous two year’s harvests were good to producers – and with a couple of good years under our belts, there was a danger that we in the cropping sector might forget just how reliant our businesses often are on support payments.

But maybe the cold shower of this year’s harvest will act as a wake-up call to shake us out of any complacency, and remind us that good returns from the cereal sector are in no way guaranteed.

And this must act as a spur to make sure that the arable sector makes its voice heard loud and clear.