Stacking analysis for Arable: Breakdown of SFI income for options A and B

The tables accompany Figures 2 and 5 of the arable analysis. The graphs show the three-year projection of income received by the virtual farm from direct payments and SFI actions for options A and B.

Option A – breakdown of income (Figure 2)

*Both sides of hedgerow entered

For CSAM1, soil organic matter testing was carried out on a third of the area entered into the action per year of the three year SFI agreement.

For CSAM2 and CSAM3, the costs associated with carrying out the action were found to be higher than the payment received for the 455 ha arable farm, resulting in an overall deficit of £182 and £615 for each year of the scheme. This deficit, however, can be absorbed by income received from other actions where the payment outweighs the cost. The cost of seed used and spraying and drilling costs will also vary from farm to farm and so may provide a positive payment in other cases.

As the 455 ha virtual arable farm does not have the means on farm to apply nutrients at a variable rate for PRF1, contractor costs are used. For farms that have equipment to carry out variable rate application of nutrients, the net payment, and so overall income from the action will be higher than that shown in the table.

For SOH1, there is a deficit in year 1 as reduction in yield is accounted for with the associated cost factored in.

It was assumed that the farm incurred no extra cost for carrying out the actions HRW1, HRW2, HRW3, IPM1 and NUM1, and so the net payment rate was identical to the gross payment rate, as published by Defra (and shown in Table 1 on the arable main page).

Option B – breakdown of income (Figure 5)

*Both sides of hedgerow entered

CIPM2, CAHL1 and CAHL3 provide a lower income in year 1 due to associated establishment costs.

The income from AHW2 could be higher for farms that use saved seed on-farm. The income shown for the 455ha virtual arable farm is based on purchased supplementary seed.