Apparently we’re all spending far too much on machinery – and we’ll need to mend our ways once the icy blast of Brexit blows over our gleaming ranks of tractors, combines, balers and other equipment.

As keen as a dusty day at the drilling to take the shine off the contents of our machinery sheds, an advisor type – or knowledge exchange manager to use the trendier title – touched a raw nerve last week when he delivered a home truth which, to be honest, most of us would have to own up to.

While the AHDB, which carried out the study, perhaps had the figures to back up our own anecdotal beliefs, the huge variation in spending on machinery which can be seen between different farms probably didn't come as a surprise to many.

For we all know neighbours who seem to have an endless supply of money (or credit!) and you get the impression that when the local machinery dealer rep turns up, they don’t like to put the cheque-book down until they’ve finished it.

Conversely, if your shed – and yard – is full of shiny machinery, then you’ll probably know a neighbour who keeps his equipment for so long that he spends more time working on it than he does working with it.

I’ll have to come clean here, though, and admit that while I was ready to throw my support behind all those who like to keep the shiny stuff in the bank rather than in the shed, I got my come-uppance.

For both the sprayer and the main tractor – neither of which are in the first flush of youth – decided to throw their toys out of the pram and break down, just in time for last week’s long-weekend to throw an additional spanner in the works of the often time-consuming job of tracking down spares for elderly equipment.

But, while you’ve got to admire the AHDB chappie for sticking his head above the parapet and giving it to us straight, I guess it’s a bit like telling the kids to 'turn that bl**dy din down' when they’re listening to what passes for music these days.

It does nothing more than open up an argumentative streak which, although defensive on one side might show signs of a lack of understanding of a complex issue on the other – and for many in this business, their equipment holds a dear and special place in their hearts.

This can even extend to the sort of zealous support of a particular set of colours which is equalled only in the field of football, with the greens, the blues and the reds all having their own fervent fanboys.

While the fact that there is a tendency within the industry to spend too much on machinery came as no surprise, some of the figures did make me sit up and take notice.

I was certainly surprised by the fact that machinery costs were the biggest single area of spend in growing a tonne of wheat – for I’m pretty sure that while most of us might look towards keeping fertiliser costs down, being economical with sprays and even trying to keep land costs down, few of us would normally have fixed costs like machinery built into our budgets in such an integral way.

But the fact that they can account for around 30% of overall production costs should clearly have us sitting up and taking notice.

It was interesting that although the AHDB report showed machinery and labour costs ranged from £288 to £593/ha, this wasn’t necessarily linked to farm size. This led the report’s authors to conclude that some bigger units weren’t actually getting the economies of scale which they had probably hoped for – meaning that the common belief that scale helps to spread costs does not always ring true.

Trying to get a handle on the Scottish situation – for we tend to be even more over-machined than they are down south, simply to compensate for the trickier climatic conditions – someone told me about a wee exercise he’d carried out at farm management group meetings.

When the members were asked to work out what machinery would be required for a huge farm in their region (which just happened to cover the combined area of their own farms) in almost every case it was almost exactly one quarter of their actual joint outlay on machinery!

Of course, two other factors often come into play in machinery decisions as well – and while we all might like to have a bit of spare capacity, especially after last year’s catchy harvest and this year’s seven-day wonder spring, there’s no getting away from the 'boys and their toys' aspect – and the desire to keep one model ahead of the neighbours.

This latter aspect can be an expensive business – as someone said, those involved in farming can sometimes blur the line between business and pleasure like no other industry.

Of course, there’s the tax aspect as well. While my accountant tends to tell me not to spend money on machinery purely to save tax, there’s actually little gleam or warm glow of satisfaction in writing a cheque out for the inland revenue.

But while there are undoubtedly many factors to be taken into consideration for deciding on what kit we need to do a specific series of jobs, when the cost per hour of the actual annual usage and the overall life-expectancy we’re getting out of some extremely expensive equipment is subjected to some scrutiny, then we’re so many miles behind other industries that they’d think us mad.

While most industries would expect a piece of equipment which cost tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds to be kept working virtually 24/7 to get a pay back, they’d also expect a huge working life – with perhaps a first major overhaul at around 40,000 hours.

How many tractors or combines will get that sort of usage, or last that long?

So it may well be that life will be different after Brexit and we’ll be forced to keep our machines longer and squeeze more out of them – and, indeed, this has happened in many parts of the world such as Australia and New Zealand, where they often have big equipment but keep it for years.

But, of course, some of us might just take the upcoming threat of harder times as an excuse to stock up on new equipment now before the effects of Brexit bite!