Farming a welfare scheme or viable business?

ei.sdraob

Moriarty wrote: »

What area of business are you in? I can imagine few businesses more critical to a countries well being and survival than agriculture. Nothing else matters if you can't feed yourself. The government support is there because it's an infrastructure that should be protected from failure due to the vagaries of market forces.

The idea is that farmers have a stable, predictable market and the consumer gets a stable, predictable supply of safe, high quality food. That's not completely where we are at the moment, but it's the underlying principle and something that deserves full support.

You don't need much of an imagination to see what could happen if Europe becomes unable to feed itself - just look at the turmoil in the energy import markets for some idea of where that will lead us.

Europe unable to feed itself? come on some of the best agricultural land is in Europe,

very highly unlikely to happen short of a complete system collapse, last time the continent was not able to feed itself was after WW2 with everything bombed to the ground and millions of people on the move

eating meet everyday of the week is not vital for survival, billions of people live on basic crops like rice and wheat

safe and high quality food can come from private enterprise, no need for state subsidies

we and the eu are subsidizing the farmers who's business is not viable due to tiny farm sizes

farming is approached here as "a way of life" not as a business and hence this failure

lets say tomorrow all subsidies are removed, what would happen?:

small farmers with unvailable businesses would go out out of business and sell their land and equipment, this would be bought up by larger businesses or ones that are cunning and realize that the only way to turn a profit is an economy of scale

we would not starve if these farmers who spend all their time at the local pub or the races decide not to work, since a need for food would be fulfilled by the market

Originally Posted by c-note
Farmers make up 7% of the irish workforce, when you add food processors etc that makes 10%.
if the grants etc stopped in the morning, unemplyment could jump from around 11% now, to somewhere near 20%.
So instead of grants the government would just double the social welfare payments, and loose out on whatever income tax they're currently collecting from the agri industry.

hence the need to cut welfare

also the construction sector was supported by unsustainable government policies, look how that ended up
.

Tipp Man

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Farmers are up in arms because they are producing for under the costs of production in dairy tillage and beef, that's why.

eddiej

Every now and again an absolutely ridicolous nonsense thread appears on boards. This is one of the most ilinformed biggoted and generally offensive threads around. Turgon, Donegallfella etc. please please please stop, all of your opinons are very valuable the exact same as everyone elses but please get your facts right. There is just far too much bull**** being bandied about here that is simply wrong. I really dont want to go an pick 4 pages of posts apart bit by bit so this is a summary.

1)Crops that suit Ireland, grass (as has been said), oats (no longer wanted) and surprise surprise anyone remeber the potato. Spud growers have not recieved any subsidy and a very small number survive as commercial farmers living and dying like every other business.

2) Farmers in Ireland are some of the most efficient in the world. Wheat yields in Ireland 4-4.5 tonnes / acre, USA Canada Austrailia 1-1.5 tonnes / acre, hmmmm wonder why they must have much larger acreages.

3) CAP was set up after WWII to help us after the horrors of the war. Obvioulsy it needs to be updated and has been, payments no longer attached to production, set aside gone, intervention stocks empty, there was 6 weeks supply of grain for the EU going into the 07 harvest hence the price of food sky rocketed. So the CAP which is the latest version of the cheap food policy going since the corn laws is just that and subsidy programme which is designed to provide cheaper food for the consumer.

4) Irish people yes are too attached to the land and there is not enough leasing of land to allow a smaller number of larger scale viable farmers. But please remember there are approx 1mill dairy cows in Ireland 20,000 dairy farmers that gives average size 50 cows per herd. Lets scale up 1000 cow herd, we have 1000 dairy farmers, small monopolies lead to price gouging just l;ook at multiples and they wont stop their margin when the farmer starts taking their lump so price rises.

5) Environmental subsidies should be just that purely for maintaining the land andhave nothing to do with the vialbility of the farm. People should look at our tourist industry, we have very little "natural" land in this country it is man made and man maintained. That is what all these tourists come to see so lets just ditch the tourist industry, typical Irish mentallity stick your head in the sand focuss on one issue only and ignore the big picture, posters here are probably all FF with an attitude like that.

6) Blaming farmers for bloated public sector and media hyped pork scare which was just plain stupid but dont bother look at the facts lets go hysterical and dump all the pork is wrong. try FF for that one.

Finally I too have PhD (they come ten a penny these days and would not really see it as anything major, somebody who has developed the skill to drive a 35 tonne track machine will the skill of a surgeon is just as well qualified and skillful) there is a farm at home (160acres +) dont farm it its let out bar 10 acres but at least I can get my facts right, its far too easy to pick out examples that suit you. This thread is just poor ****e and I'll prob be banned but so what.

Tipp Man

turgon wrote: »

I worked on a farm 3 years ago for two summers in a row. The farmer I was working for was pretty well off, he had like a €150,000 surround sound system, nice cars etc etc. I think he had a 200 acre dairy farm, but I could be way off. I know he had more land than he used, for quotas etc. Anyway, he got €40,000 in CAP grants last year. Thats more than the average industrial wage. Clearly unsustainable.

Now, people are maintaining that removing these grants is useless; who is it hurting etc. The fact is that you are paying higher taxes for this produce. Even if you don't drink milk, don't eat beef, dont consume Irish cereals. The government has decided you must pay for this food, even if you don't eat it.

Instead, consumers should have their own control over to what food producers their money goes. If you think Irish beef is really great, then speak with your wallet. Equally if you don't care you should be fully entitled to eat cheap Brazilian beef.


Its clear that some members of the farming community have come to expect the government to pay for their lifestyle. Demanding retirement aid and REPS grants and all that. Its completely unsustainable.

First of all you worked there for 2 summers but have no clue about how big his farm was or exactly what he was doing but yet you know his subsidies, hmm very dubious, but anyway lets assume your numbers, 200 cows easily produce 1m litres, at a cost of 21-22 cent, whilst selling for 20 cent, now he's down 1-2m cent or 10-20k which means he now has 20-30k, but hold on to milk 200 efficiently (as all you guys all crave) he has made serious investment in machinery, buildings, infastrucure etc, on borrowed money, we'll ignore that. also to manage 200 cows he would need at least 1.5 men hired. suddenly his 40k subsidy has dissappeared and he's still not making a loss. this my friend is clearly unsustainable

Tipp Man

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Fella you might have a PHD but its clearly not in any business discipline, what is the point of the above post?? It is clear that this has absolutely nothing to do with farming income, a farmer sold development land for big money, he sold capital (and paid capital gains tax i may add), which has absolutley nothing to do with farm income. everyone knows that farmers are capital rich but income poor these days. Subsidies are to support farm income because they are producing for such a poor price. and when a farmer sells his land its gone. Also the fact that he is receiving the retirement scheme is absolutely no different to any well off family receiving the childrens allowance or old age pansion

brianthebard

turgon wrote: »

The only reason they are shut out of the market is to give precedence to EU meat. Lets not pretend that its because of standards.

well when you prove that claim I'll take you seriously.

SkepticOne

eddiej wrote: »

1)Crops that suit Ireland, grass (as has been said), oats (no [irrelevant facts about farming removed]

The general thrust of most arguments in favour of subsidies is that farming is a difficult business and that without subsidies many farm businesses would not survive.

This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the question of why farming is privileged above other industries. What is the benefit to society as opposed to farmers themselves.

One thing that has been mentioned is food security. The best form of food security is money in peoples pocket with which they can buy food from around the world as well as Ireland. Cutting subsidies and lowering tariffs would help here.

nessie911

It's the ol' JOBS card is it?
Well, the contruction sector had a bigger slice of the pie and i don't remember seeing too many folks here advocating grants to keep them afloat. said by some one.

well if you actulaly taught about it there were alot of government factures which helped to keep the construction sector going.E.G. Grants for farmers to build sheds, silage pits, crushes, milking parlores, first time buyers morage relief were all to keep people building. If you look at it now in less than a year the cost of building a shed has gone back by 60%. All these scemes which were brought in were brought in to not alone benifit the farmers but also for the builders, builder suppliers, etc etc.

This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the question of why farming is privileged above other industries. What is the benefit to society as opposed to farmers themselves. said by some one.

Well you tell me how much of your own food do you grow your self. Like do you have your own milk etc. You want your money in your pocket, well i can tell you one thing your money in your pocket wont go far because all the grants and scemes which are available here are available in every every europen country, so if they are cut in every eu country then will you buy your food as cheap. LIke they said b4 the sugar beat plants were shut that we would but our sugar cheaper from europe, it is now more expensive than it ever was, and at the loss of around 1,500 jobs, excluding lorry drivers and farmers.

Originally Posted by turgon
The only reason they are shut out of the market is to give precedence to EU meat. Lets not pretend that its because of standards.

well every media source who went to south america, and other eu bodies includikng the stupid mandelson said that irish beef was of a far higher quality than that of the south american beef. they said that they seen animals being hung from trees with there troats slit,m this meat was then been sold to consumers, where are the hygein standarts???

Our neighbour is collecting the Early Retirement Scheme pension. In 2006 alone, he sold over €1 million euros' worth of sites. He bought a brand new 4x4 jeep and a new tractor, got a new car for his wife, built an extension onto his house, paid for his daughter's 300-guest wedding and month-long honeymoon, gave his son and his daughter both sites for their houses, and paid for half the construction costs in each case.

like you just stated he didnt make his money from farming, he made it from selling land, which most farmers did not do, so what was your point you were trying to make cause i dont think must people can understand your argument.

ei.sdraob...
Europe unable to feed itself? come on some of the best agricultural land is in Europe, lets say tomorrow all subsidies are removed, what would happen

Well first of all yea europe was not able to feed them selves befor thats why cap was introduced. so get your facts rite. seceondly if all these subsidies were taken away tomorrow, all farms in ireland and europe would be gone, because they are all being subsitised, farmers at the min are receiving 20cent and its costing them 21cent to produce it, other countries are alot more expensive to produce we are one of the cheapest countries.

turgon

eddiej wrote: »

Spud growers have not recieved any subsidy and a very small number survive as commercial farmers living and dying like every other business.

Why cant we do this for every farm business?

eddiej wrote: »

2) Farmers in Ireland are some of the most efficient in the world. Wheat yields in Ireland 4-4.5 tonnes / acre, USA Canada Austrailia 1-1.5 tonnes / acre, hmmmm wonder why they must have much larger acreages.

I dont get your point.

eddiej wrote: »

the CAP which is the latest version of the cheap food policy going since the corn laws is just that and subsidy programme which is designed to provide cheaper food for the consumer.

And I suppose the CAP money comes out of thin air?? Its picked off the vast money tree out the back in Dail Eireann??

No. We pay for these grants with our tax, so the food isn't really cheaper at all - we are just paying for it indirectly. So why not just get the people who are eating to pay, rather than the whole tax payer?

eddiej wrote: »

Lets scale up 1000 cow herd, we have 1000 dairy farmers, small monopolies lead to price gouging just l;ook at multiples and they wont stop their margin when the farmer starts taking their lump so price rises.

And as with anything competition comes in. If this monopoly shock scenario is so true, why arent prducts like Goats Milk €10/litre?

eddiej wrote: »

5) Environmental subsidies should be just that purely for maintaining the land andhave nothing to do with the vialbility of the farm.

So we have to pay farmers money to make their land look pretty for tourists??

If we want to promote tourism then the government could no doubt establish national parks, and promote existing tourist locations like in mountainous areas.

eddiej wrote: »

6) Blaming farmers for bloated public sector and media hyped pork scare which was just plain stupid but dont bother look at the facts lets go hysterical and dump all the pork is wrong. try FF for that one..

Tipp Man wrote: »

First of all you worked there for 2 summers but have no clue about how big his farm was or exactly what he was doing but yet you know his subsidies, hmm very dubious

Firstly my father is good friends with him, and secondly, one can find out anyones CAP subsidies.

brianthebard

SkepticOne wrote: »

The general thrust of most arguments in favour of subsidies is that farming is a difficult business and that without subsidies many farm businesses would not survive.

This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the question of why farming is privileged above other industries. What is the benefit to society as opposed to farmers themselves.

One thing that has been mentioned is food security. The best form of food security is money in peoples pocket with which they can buy food from around the world as well as Ireland. Cutting subsidies and lowering tariffs would help here.

Most farmers do not feel privileged. As has already been pointed out in this thread there hasn't been an increase in price paid to farmers since the eighties. I don't know of any other industry where workers are receiving exactly the same amount of money for their production/work as they did in the eighties. And the benefit to society, as already pointed out (again) is cheap food. Yes subsidies might be paid through taxes, but the difference that paying a real living wage to farmers for their produce as opposed to subsidising would be far greater.

SkepticOne

It seems the question raised by the OP has been answered by brianthebard above.

Farming is indeed a welfare scheme and not a viable business.

nessie911

brianthebard wrote: »

Most farmers do not feel privileged. As has already been pointed out in this thread there hasn't been an increase in price paid to farmers since the eighties. I don't know of any other industry where workers are receiving exactly the same amount of money for their production/work as they did in the eighties. And the benefit to society, as already pointed out (again) is cheap food. Yes subsidies might be paid through taxes, but the difference that paying a real living wage to farmers for their produce as opposed to subsidising would be far greater.

I totaly agree with what you are saying, but the majourity of people who are on this thread do not care about farmers and know very little about it... It seems to me the ones who are giving out about the farmers think they know better than them... The way i see it would they walk up to a brain sergon and tell him he is not doin a good job, everyone in the country seems to belive that they know more about farming than farmers do....

Why arnt htese people more concerned with the amout of money which is being paid to the government. Like ya dont see them thinking that they should get less...

I dont no of any other job do you get paid extra if you go to work, or i dont no of any job that you get paid money for travel, hotels, makeup, hollidays and olny have to sit in the dail for 90 days...

But every1 ere seems to forget about the fact that its there taxes are paying for brian cownes make up, like bertie was spending 400 a week on his looks and we were the ones paying for it...

nessie911

SkepticOne wrote: »

Farming is indeed a welfare scheme and not a viable business.

Just how big is your farm, and tell me what qualifys you to make that statment.

Because I dont no about you but i dont exactly tell people that there business is a welfare scheme with out knowing there business inside out, cause that statement is like saying all irish are drunks. Every farm is different.

SkepticOne

nessie911 wrote: »

Because I dont no about you but i dont exactly tell people that there business is a welfare scheme with out knowing there business inside out, cause that statement is like saying all irish are drunks. Every farm is different.

Take it up with brianthebard. He's the one saying farmers need subsidies.

nessie911

SkepticOne wrote: »

Take it up with brianthebard. He's the one saying farmers need subsidies.

But your the one who is making a statement so i am wondering how much you actualy know about farming.

farmers would not need subsidies if they were paid for there product but the reason these subsidies are there is to keep down the price of food.

Every farmer would much rather to be paid for there product than to be subsidiesed.

rasper

brianthebard wrote: »

Most farmers do not feel privileged. As has already been pointed out in this thread there hasn't been an increase in price paid to farmers since the eighties. I don't know of any other industry where workers are receiving exactly the same amount of money for their production/work as they did in the eighties. And the benefit to society, as already pointed out (again) is cheap food. Yes subsidies might be paid through taxes, but the difference that paying a real living wage to farmers for their produce as opposed to subsidising would be far greater.

Wheres all this cheap food, nothing cheap in this country only diverted taxes

nessie911

rasper wrote: »

Wheres all this cheap food, nothing cheap in this country only diverted taxes

This is my point, everyone of you seems to be making the same point with out researching the point you are making!!!!

For example the farmer produces milk for 20cent a liter, and it is sold in the shops for around 1:20, the shop makes more than the farmer for storeing it on his shelf for a day than the farmer does for feeding, housing and maintain the cow for years.

Farmers are producing the food for cheap, the problem is the fact that there are no laws on how much the factors and shops can charge for these products...

Farmers are still being paid the same for beef as they were in the 80's but the cost of producing that beef has gone through the roof, and the amount of rules and paper work that the farmer has to obay to is on real. Doctors would not have as much things to do.

I would like to see how happy you would be if you were being paid no subsities but were being asked to produce a product for the same money as you were geting 20 years ago. No other comany is still receiving the same amount of money for a product as they were geting 20 years ago.

rasper

sounds like the subsidies have created a corrupt market, so remove the liability from the taxpayer and allow the market to dictate the position , if that means ineffcient farms fold (or carry on as a lifestyle business) so be it

RedPlanet

interesting article at wikipedia about CAP.
I found this illuminating:

CAP price intervention has been criticised for creating artificially high food prices throughout the EU.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Agricultural_Policy#cite_note-autogenerated1-18

sink

I know nothing about farming but I do know a little about markets. It seems to me that the subsidies are in fact what's keeping the price of farming produce at an artificially low level. So farmers are on the one hand saying that they're only being paid 1980's prices for their produce and on the other hand saying they need subsidies to continue producing at that price. Well if you remove the subsidies the price paid for produce will rise, you are in fact your own worst enemies.

How will the price rise? you may ask. The small inefficient "lifestyle" who depend entirely on subsidies will inevitably fail. The overall output of the agricultural sector will fall for a short period, but the demand for produce will remain fairly static as basic food items are an inelastic product. The decrease in the number of suppliers will eliminate much of the competition in the agricultural sector increasing the supply side bargaining power of individual farmers. Land from failed farms will be available for purchase by the more commercially viable industrial size farms allowing them to increase their production capacity and benefit from larger economies of scale. The increased bargaining power of individual farmers together with the decline in completion and short term supply will enable farmers to demand more money for their produce, which they will be able to produce cheaper through economies of scale.

Macha

sink wrote: »

How will the price rise? you may ask. The small inefficient "lifestyle" who depend entirely on subsidies will inevitably fail.

That's quite an assumption. Care to prove that smaller farms are more inefficient with some statistics?

Also, larger farms are very dependent on oil from fertilisers to heavy machinery. Let's see what happens when we allow our agricultural system to be totally dependent on oil (at the moment it takes about 10 calories from oil to make 1 calorie of food) and then oil prices go up. Suddenly those small inefficient "lifestyle" (wtf?) farms aren't so inefficient anymore.

sink

taconnol wrote: »

That's quite an assumption. Care to prove that smaller farms are more inefficient with some statistics?

Also, larger farms are very dependent on oil from fertilisers to heavy machinery. Let's see what happens when we allow our agricultural system to be totally dependent on oil (at the moment it takes about 10 calories from oil to make 1 calorie of food) and then oil prices go up. Suddenly those small inefficient "lifestyle" (wtf?) farms aren't so inefficient anymore.

I told you I know sfa about farming, but I know business and markets and I know that in virtually all primary and secondary industries efficiency is a product large economies of scale and large scale mechanisation. Unless you can point to some reason why farming is different I will continue to follow that thesis.

I have little knowledge in regards to fertiliser and oil consumption so I'm not going argue there.

Macha

sink wrote: »

Unless you can point to some reason why farming is different I will continue to follow that thesis.

That's quite lazy on your part but fine:

1. multiple cropping: as explained above, while large farmers almost always use monocultures, and one or at the most two cropping cycles per year, small farmers are more likely to intercrop various crops on the same field, plant multiple times during the year, and integrate crops, livestock and even aquaculture, making much more intensive use of space and time.

2.land use intensity: larger farmers and land owners tend to leave much of their land idle, while small farmers tend to use their entire parcel.

3. output composition: large farms are oriented toward land extensive enter-prises, like cattle grazing or extensive grain monocultures, while small farmers emphasize labor and resource intensive use of land. As in the U.S. case, large farms may produce crops with lower value than do smaller farms.

4. irrigation: small farmers may make more efficient use of irrigation.

5.labor quality: while small farms generally use family labor -- which is personally committed to the success of the farm -- large farms use relatively alienated hired labor.

6.labor intensity: small farms apply far more labor per unit area than do larger farms.

7.input use: small farms often use far more inputs per unit area than larger farms, though the mix on small farms favors non-purchased inputs like manure and compost while large farms tend to use relatively more purchased inputs like agrochemicals.

8.resource use: large farms are generally less committed to management of other resources -- such as forests and aquatic resources -- which combine with the land to produce a greater quantity and better quality of production.

Even minus increased labour quality/intensity, you still have significant qualitative differences that lead to higher efficiencies in larger farms.

sink wrote: »

I have little knowledge in regards to fertiliser and oil consumption so I'm not going argue there.

It's certainly something to read up on. Remember: a lot of the current costs to larger farms are externalised (carbon, pollution, etc). Add these in and suddenly agri-business doesn't like quite so attractive, economically or otherwise.

astrofool

If the small farmers are as efficient as you say they are, they should flourish if the subsidies are abolished. The vast majority of subsidies go to big farms who know how to milk the system.

This thread is a very angry thread, with those on the agricultural side flying into *rage* whenever someone might question their life and how "they don't know me and the work I do", very american daytime TV.

On the land lying fallow thing, this was a quick response to BriantheBard's first post, and it should have been crop rotation rather than fallow, but jeez, turn down the flaming a little bit.

Macha

astrofool wrote: »

This thread is a very angry thread, with those on the agricultural side flying into *rage* whenever someone might question their life and how "they don't know me and the work I do", very american daytime TV.

There is a lot of ignorance being expressed on here about the realities of farming today. Reducing everything down to pure economics, as many seem to want to do is ignorant and short-sighted. I'm not even a farmer but I'm pretty sick and tired of the attitudes expressed towards the farming community while everyone demanding their food to be cheaper, cheaper, cheaper.

You talk about others being melodramatic while using phrases like "flying into a rage"? Pff..

turgon

I dont know whos demanding food be cheaper while simultaneously calling for the removal of subsidies.

sink

taconnol wrote: »

That's quite lazy on your part but fine:

I don't have the time to begin researching farming practices, what has taken you a few minutes to write out here would probably take me a few hours to research on my own. I thank you for your efforts.

Most of your points are quiet positive but I have issues with these.

taconnol wrote: »

6.labor intensity: small farms apply far more labor per unit area than do larger farms.

Human labour is generally the most costly input into production for most industries. Higher labour intensity for small farms will only increase the return on investment ratio if the value produced per unit area increases at a greater rate than the cost of the additional labour input. I find it unlikely that would be the case.

taconnol wrote: »

7.input use: small farms often use far more inputs per unit area than larger farms, though the mix on small farms favors non-purchased inputs like manure and compost while large farms tend to use relatively more purchased inputs like agrochemicals.

While there is no doubt renewable resources like manure and compost are a definite plus, again it's a question of whether value produced per unit area increases at a greater rate than the cost of the additional input. Although compost and manure first appear to be a completely free resource you have to factor in labour and other production costs.

taconnol wrote: »

It's certainly something to read up on. Remember: a lot of the current costs to larger farms are externalised (carbon, pollution, etc). Add these in and suddenly agri-business doesn't like quite so attractive, economically or otherwise.

I take your points, with reservations. I don't necessarily see the current structure subsidies as the best way to achieve the benefits you have laid out. The reality is, the subsidies place downward pressure on market prices and are disincentive to increased efficiency. I don't have an answer but it is something I will spend more time researching and thinking on.

sink

To add I'm not demanding food be cheaper. Cheap food brings with it it's own problems such as massive trade imbalances with the developing world wiping out any hope of them developing their own agricultural sector. And it's not even cheap as we pay for it through our taxes.

nesf

taconnol wrote: »

6.labor intensity: small farms apply far more labor per unit area than do larger farms.

This is one of the bigger problems with small farms. Less crop needs to pay more wages. Much of the industrial progress over the past two centuries has come from lowering the labour intensity of different professions.

Macha

sink wrote: »

Human labour is generally the most costly input into production for most industries. Higher labour intensity for small farms will only increase the return on investment ratio if the value produced per unit area increases at a greater rate than the cost of the additional labour input. I find it unlikely that would be the case.

Again, you're basing this on an assumption, extrapolated from other industries. TBH, I'm not sure what it is in agriculture - brianthebard, would you know?

sink wrote: »

While there is no doubt renewable resources like manure and compost are a definite plus, again it's a question of whether value produced per unit area increases at a greater rate than the cost of the additional input. Although compost and manure first appear to be a completely free resource you have to factor in labour and other production costs.

What other production costs? I genuinely don't mean to come across as bolshy but manure is manure.

sink wrote: »

I take your points, with reservations. I don't necessarily see the current structure subsidies as the best way to achieve the benefits you have laid out. The reality is, the subsidies place downward pressure on market prices and are disincentive to increased efficiency. I don't have an answer but it is something I will spend more time researching and thinking on.

Well, I don't agree with the current subsidies either.

Firstly, let's factor in all the costs of agriculture (how much damage did the bovine coliforms cause in Galway both to the environment, the local economy, etc? - and that's just one example). The cost of carbon credits for all that heavy machinery and transportation (It's effectively another subsidy, seeing as the taxpayer collectively pays for it).

Then remove the subsidies and we'll see what sort of prices food really fetch on the open market from the different types/sizes of farms. Plus, as has been mentioned by others, some of the larger farms receive insane amounts of money through subsidies.

Probably being too idealistic but a girl can dream.