Farming a welfare scheme or viable business?

nesf

taconnol wrote: »

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?

In farming it works like this: X amount of produce is made by Y people. Find the amount X can be sold for and divide it between the Y people. The easiest agricultural example is a modern milking parlour versus the old way of each cow being milked individually by a separate person. It works out an awful lot cheaper per litre at the shop by the modern method because fewer people need to get a living wage from the milk produced. One or two people can manage a fairly large herd and milk them whereas before it could take upwards of six or seven (or more, I'm not expert on it) to do the work in the old system.

Edit:

As an aside, the benefit for lower labour intensity for the economy is this. Each person not needed in the milking parlour because of the new machinery can produce something else or provide a different service. For the same number of people we can expand the number of "things" produced in the economy. The good sides of this is that we don't need as many people to produce sufficient for the country to subsist, which is obviously a good thing.

sink

taconnol wrote: »

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?

It's not industry specific, it's a universal rule and I'm not saying that the increased cost of increased labour per unit area does outstrip the surplus value produced. I'm asking the question does it?

taconnol wrote: »

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

I simply assumed there was more to it than picking it up and spreading it around, forgive my ignorance. For instance does it cost more to disperse than the equivalent agrochemical?

nesf

taconnol wrote: »

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

Someone needs to be paid to collect it. Another person has to make the equipment you use to collect it. The efficiency of this equipment means how much time that person needs to spend collecting it. You can apply the same logic to storing it, spreading it and so on. Even with manure there's plenty of production costs involved. Manure pits don't dig themselves.

brianthebard

SkepticOne wrote: »

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

Realised your argument went to muck so decided to twist my words from now on? Nice.

rasper wrote: »

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

the average household cost of food as a percentage of their budget has halved in the past few decades.

brianthebard

sink wrote: »

It's not industry specific, it's a universal rule and I'm not saying that the increased cost of increased labour per unit area does outstrip the surplus value produced. I'm asking the question does it?

A big part of the problem today is the large number of farmers who are working part time because they've been forced to take a second job. They only have so much time to invest in the farm, and usually that's enough, which has added to the slow decline of the industry. Although you're right that at a certain point the cost of employing more people would outweigh the profit from their labour, if a small farm (the average sized Irish farm) was run along the intensive lines Tac is talking about they could increase labour at least 3 or 4 times, because they would be investing in different businesses (animal husbandry, aquaculture, horticulture, fruit, secondary production) and still find it profitable.

I simply assumed there was more to it than picking it up and spreading it around, forgive my ignorance. For instance does it cost more to disperse than the equivalent agrochemical?

Its a by product of animal husbandry, and thus free if you keep animals. But most larger tillage farmers do not, because as Tac pointed out they indulge in monoculture.

nesf wrote: »

Manure pits don't dig themselves.

No but animals can spread their own manure.

SkepticOne

brianthebard wrote: »

Realised your argument went to muck so decided to twist my words from now on? Nice.

Merely pointing out that you were making the case of farming being a welfare scheme rather than a viable business to those who may not have realised it.

nessie911

SkepticOne wrote: »

Merely pointing out that you were making the case of farming being a welfare scheme rather than a viable business to those who may not have realised it.

you still have not told me what quailifys you to make that statement...

brianthebard....No but animals can spread their own manure.
Tell me what animal that you know of will spread the manure over a field??
Cause as far as im aware you will have spots with manure and spots with out, until the farmer spreads the manure which has accumulated over the winter in the sheds...

Originally Posted by rasper
Wheres all this cheap food, nothing cheap in this country only diverted taxes

Well see if you read all the posts you would see that the point has all ready been made about the cost of food... The farmer is not being paid alot, but the factory's and shops are charging a lot more. E.G. Milk farmer receives 20 cent a litre, but it costs him 21 cent to produce it, then the factory's charge what they like, and then the shop adds what they like, the shop makes more from the carton of milk than the farmer does....

CAN ANYONE TELL ME HOW THAT IS FAIR???

SkepticOne

nessie911 wrote: »

Well see if you read all the posts you would see that the point has all ready been made about the cost of food... The farmer is not being paid alot, but the factory's and shops are charging a lot more. E.G. Milk farmer receives 20 cent a litre, but it costs him 21 cent to produce it, then the factory's charge what they like, and then the shop adds what they like, the shop makes more from the carton of milk than the farmer does....

CAN ANYONE TELL ME HOW THAT IS FAIR???

But farming is the only industry that gets compensation from the State (directly and via the EU) when it can't cut a deal with its buyers. Is that fair?

turgon

The milk co-ops can give so little because they know they can get it for so little. If the subsidies were erased tomorrow and the co-ops bought for the same, the farmers would just close shop. So, to prevent their milk supply disappearing, the co-ops would have to give a higher price.

nessie911

SkepticOne wrote: »

But farming is the only industry that gets compensation from the State (directly and via the EU) when it can't cut a deal with its buyers. Is that fair?

see you are just not getting it... On one hand you want to get rid of the subsidies, but on the other hand you wan to still pay the same amount for your food... You cant have it all your way...

Its not the farmers who cant cut a deal, because they use to get paid more for there products in the 80's, the problem is that the government are setting how much the farmer receives for there product because they are receiving subsidies. They are forced to sell their product for low prices on the grounds that these subsidies are to subsitise the amount of money they should be geting for there product. If these Subsidies were taken away the consumer would be charged a grate deal more for the product they are buying, because the farmer would have to charge more for selling his product to the factorys, its only logical when you think about it.

I think that every farmer in the country would prefer it if subsidies were remove, because then they would get paid for the product they are producing.

turgon

nessie911 wrote: »

see you are just not getting it... On one hand you want to get rid of the subsidies, but on the other hand you wan to still pay the same amount for your food

Where did he say that?

Macha

nesf wrote: »

As an aside, the benefit for lower labour intensity for the economy is this. Each person not needed in the milking parlour because of the new machinery can produce something else or provide a different service. For the same number of people we can expand the number of "things" produced in the economy. The good sides of this is that we don't need as many people to produce sufficient for the country to subsist, which is obviously a good thing.

Not to be smart, but you can't just look at this from a purely economic point of view. There are serious environmental and social ramifications from having very few people involved in farming.

Firstly, you have a serious disconnect between the origins of food and consumers to the point where there are kids these days that don't have a clue where their food comes from. People are losing important skills like vegetable growing. I made my first vegetable garden this year and my mother, who grew up on a farm, was laughing at me stomping around without a clue what I was doing.

This disconnect impacts on the quality of our food as people have very little idea what goes into their food or what is involved. It also leads to a loss of appreciation of the value of good food, as can be evidenced by people demanding ever cheaper food, regardless of the quality or origin.

A serious reduction of people involved in farming contributes to the "emptying out" of rural Ireland and the significant social issues that arise, including elderly people left on their own, lack of public transport and rural life in general.

Then there are the environmental issues, involved with practicing farming that relies heavily on heavy machinery, oil and chemicals.

I'm just saying that I don't agree with looking at everything from a purely economic point of view, or that if you are going to look at it that way, well then you have to consider all costs and knock-on effects.

brianthebard wrote: »

A big part of the problem today is the large number of farmers who are working part time because they've been forced to take a second job. They only have so much time to invest in the farm, and usually that's enough, which has added to the slow decline of the industry. Although you're right that at a certain point the cost of employing more people would outweigh the profit from their labour, if a small farm (the average sized Irish farm) was run along the intensive lines Tac is talking about they could increase labour at least 3 or 4 times, because they would be investing in different businesses (animal husbandry, aquaculture, horticulture, fruit, secondary production) and still find it profitable.

Its a by product of animal husbandry, and thus free if you keep animals. But most larger tillage farmers do not, because as Tac pointed out they indulge in monoculture.

Yes, this is exactly the sort of farming that needs to be more widespread. There are a few main principles to permaculture but the main one is closing the circle: making outputs into inputs. So you reduce outgoing waste and also reduce the amount of chemicals or fertility that needs to be brought onto the farm.

me_right_one

silverharp wrote: »

dont know if anyone caught the end of Prime time , usual standard questions and responses as to the value of agriculture and why the gov. shouldnt cut subsidies.

Logically should I care about farming in Ireland ? either a business makes money or is doesnt , if it cant stand on its own two feet then is it not destroying wealth on a net basis for the country?
The prime time piece mentioned the social aspects. Again nothing stands still in time, maybe a third of the country reverting to forestry or whatever the next best use of the land is the best thing if it not profitable to farm.
Yet another point was a potential shortage of food at some point in the future. Again , people arent stupid , they will reclaim the land and put it back into use when the time is right.

So farming , just another lobby or "strategic" resource that should not be questioned?

Its neither. Its a nescessity. No farming, no food

turgon

taconnol wrote: »

Firstly, you have a serious disconnect between the origins of food and consumers to the point where there are kids these days that don't have a clue where their food comes from.

I dont see how that is relevant to the issue of subsidies. Food will be produced in the same way regardless of the presence of subsidies. The only thing that will change is the size of farms.

taconnol wrote: »

People are losing important skills like vegetable growing. I made my first vegetable garden this year and my mother, who grew up on a farm, was laughing at me stomping around without a clue what I was doing....
This disconnect impacts on the quality of our food as people have very little idea what goes into their food or what is involved.

How does that pertain to farm subsidies? True, it would be nice if we were all like my parents growing their own food. But its not economical.

taconnol wrote: »

A serious reduction of people involved in farming contributes to the "emptying out" of rural Ireland and the significant social issues that arise, including elderly people left on their own, lack of public transport and rural life in general.

Firstly one most prove that rural Ireland is based on agriculture. In my personal experience it s certainly not. If I consider 4 of my closest friends that live in the country, only 1 of them lives on a farm. People are attracted to the country for many many more reasons than farming.

But either way, what your suggesting is that we must pay huge tax based subsidies to keep a group of people living the way they want. Surely if they demand money so they can keep the their comfort, that is unfair on thos who have to fork out?

me_right_one

turgon wrote: »

I dont see how that is relevant to the issue of subsidies. Food will be produced in the same way regardless of the presence of subsidies. The only thing that will change is the size of farms.

No it wont. You're obviously not from the country.

bluestar87

The 'economy of scale' argument continues to arise here. Firstly, you can not dismiss Irish Beef farmers as being 'inefficient' on the basis that they do not have the ability to hire staff on slave labour wages as they do in Brazil. Are the 'efficient' farmers those who do not have to pay 8.85/hour for staff? Are the 'efficient' farmers those who rip up the rainforest to make way for cattle? It is easy for those removed from the realities of the marketplace to make statements regarding efficiencies.
If you continue to pursue 'economy of scale' to the nth degree then please explain to me what industry in Ireland would survive in a free market globalised marketplace? And don't anybody patronise me about the creation of a knowledge based economy.
In relation to food availability, the world’s population will hit 10bn; we're only at 6.7bn at the moment. The number of arable acres in the world is decreasing. The Brazilians are reducing their beef herd. At a time of plenty it's easy to take food availability for granted. Crop failure is always a possibility. Yields of crops are not increasing, the yields we are getting over the last 10 years are getting harder to sustain. Do not take the food producers for granted. We are way too reliant on FDI in Ireland. Our future as an economic entity depends on food. We have the ability to feed much of Europe and it is not just farmers that will benefit from food sales. Most of the profit in food production is in processing. Denmark does not export live pigs. They export fully processed and packaged Bacon and Pork. The job creation potential of such a food revolution is massive. We can not afford to dismiss it.

nessie911

"Firstly one most prove that rural Ireland is based on agriculture. In my personal experience it s certainly not. If I consider 4 of my closest friends that live in the country, only 1 of them lives on a farm. People are attracted to the country for many many more reasons than farming.

But either way, what your suggesting is that we must pay huge tax based subsidies to keep a group of people living the way they want. Surely if they demand money so they can keep the their comfort, that is unfair on thos who have to fork out?

.........Quote from some one

Well I will look at the country from my own experience as I am from there. The majority of the rural area around me depends on farming. he shops depend on local farmers spending there money there, they depend on farmers for there veg meat etc... Alot of local people depend on farms providing jobs for there kids for the summer months. The local town where i am from has a pop of around 3000 people, of whom about 70percent of them buy there veg etc at the farmers market on a sat. If local farmer were to shut up shop they would have very little way of getting food, as transport links are very limited.

Farmers don't want these subsidies, they want to be fed for the product they are producing. I don't understand why people cant understand that fact. Its not them who want subsidies, its the government so they can control the cost of food.

Just because only one of your friends lives on the farm, does not mean that the others do not relay on farming or have not in the past.

silverharp

nessie911 wrote: »

Farmers don't want these subsidies, they want to be fed for the product they are producing. I don't understand why people cant understand that fact. Its not them who want subsidies, its the government so they can control the cost of food.

My argument is that Gov./EU's cant know what the correct price of anything should be, they dont set the price of computers or airline tickets so why should they be anymore successful when it comes to food.
Markets are very simple mechanisms , if there is a shortage of something, prices go up and new production comes on line, if their is a glut and prices fall below the cost of production , producers leave that market and put their capital to better use.
The system we live under now means nobody knows the true cost of anything. Have land prices in Ireland since the 1970's reflected their economic value or their enhanced grant value? have subsidies led to gaming by various people in the chain? Why does the EU subsidise exports of food to places like Africa to undercut local producers. I remember coming across an example where in a particular town the only tinned tomatoes available were Italian, the piece then went on to a local farmer who couldnt sell his crop, connection?
Once I see any producer group arguing over grants/benefits etc. the logical point to make is that they are not focusing their efforts on trying to serve their customers. Its not their fault but thats why one has to stand back and be critical of the whole setup.

nesf

taconnol wrote: »

Not to be smart, but you can't just look at this from a purely economic point of view. There are serious environmental and social ramifications from having very few people involved in farming.

I'm not sure the social ramifications are that large. The vast majority of people haven't been farmers for generations at this point but society hasn't collapsed and neither has the quality of food production (in fact one could realistically argue that food quality is a lot better today than it was a century ago). The environmental one is a concern but are smaller farms less damaging than large farms? Bear in mind that multiple small farms hiring more people create more pollution on one level purely because of the need for all these people to travel to work. I think your first point clashes with your second.

ninty9er

c-note wrote: »

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.

The only people out of a job are the farmers as the same amount of produce is going to be produced, juts by a fraction of farmers.

eddiej wrote: »

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.

Farming and tourism are 2 different industries. Stop diluting the argument.

nessie911 wrote: »

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.

Bull****...the efficient farms will thrive...basically we'll weed out the inefficient and/or lazy people. Those who work hard have nothing to fear.

nessie911 wrote: »

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

I'm fairly sure Padraig Walshe wasn't worried about the 100,000 people who have been made unemployed in the last year when he took to the stage in Tullamore or wherever and demanded that famers get this that and the other, so you're right, most people don't care about the farmers, because they don't give a **** about us either.

taconnol wrote: »

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.

Nobody here is demanding cheaper food...I think most of the argument surrounds the waste of money that CAP is. 80% of the subsidies we get are CAP. If the CAP budget we've received since 1973 was pumped into schools, roads, trains, hospitals we'd be living in European Dubai. If we had gotten the same amount of money we have gotten from CAP for general expenditure we could build 35 Metro Norths or 16,000 high spec average sized schools at €3million each or 48 National Children's Hospitals.

We don't want cheap anything...we want VALUE.

brianthebard

SkepticOne wrote: »

Merely pointing out that you were making the case of farming being a welfare scheme rather than a viable business to those who may not have realised it.

I'm sure you're aware that that was not my argument. Rather I'm guessing you had no proper comeback and decided to say "I know you are but what am I?" or something similar.

brianthebard

nesf wrote: »

I'm not sure the social ramifications are that large. The vast majority of people haven't been farmers for generations at this point but society hasn't collapsed and neither has the quality of food production (in fact one could realistically argue that food quality is a lot better today than it was a century ago). The environmental one is a concern but are smaller farms less damaging than large farms? Bear in mind that multiple small farms hiring more people create more pollution on one level purely because of the need for all these people to travel to work. I think your first point clashes with your second.

Well firstly you've got the extremely high rates of suicide and depression amongst farmers. Then more globally you have issues like the Haitian riots a couple of years ago, or the current drought in Australia which have meant that people can't even bathe any more, and reduced their rice production to a trickle.
And yes, smaller farms as a rule are less damaging. You only have to look at the US or Brazilian models of megafarming to see this is the case. One state produces milk and only milk, resulting in massive silage lakes. One state produces corn and only corn, that is then sent to the first state to feed the cattle. The second state then has to buy artificial fertiliser to make up for the loss of nutrients as a result of exporting their produce and not closing the circle.
I'd like you to expand on the premise that food quality is of a higher level than a century ago. There have no doubt been changes in hygiene and such but what else do you see as having improved? How are you measuring food quality?
Finally the transport issue; you already know how many people commute to towns and cities in this country, if even a small portion of those people were to only travel one or two miles from their homes in a rural village to the farm they worked on, as opposed to the 10 miles plus (usually much more) they currently travel, then the pollution figures have decreased.

nesf

brianthebard wrote: »

Well firstly you've got the extremely high rates of suicide and depression amongst farmers.

Source? (am curious rather than questioning here)

Is the rate noticeably different to other rural dwellers? I vaguely remember some stats (which I could be misremembering) which highlighted higher suicide and depression rates among rural populations. I'd also point out caution in interpreting your above quote in that where I grew up at least there was next to no public infrastructure for public mental health other than GPs who are a poor substitute for trained psychiatrists. We could see higher suicide rates in farmers merely because they are less likely to be screened, have worse access to health services and traditionally anyway are more likely not to indicate to others that they are having psychological issues (the last is anecdotal but definitely something present where I grew up).

brianthebard wrote: »

Then more globally you have issues like the Haitian riots a couple of years ago, or the current drought in Australia which have meant that people can't even bathe any more, and reduced their rice production to a trickle.
And yes, smaller farms as a rule are less damaging. You only have to look at the US or Brazilian models of megafarming to see this is the case. One state produces milk and only milk, resulting in massive silage lakes. One state produces corn and only corn, that is then sent to the first state to feed the cattle. The second state then has to buy artificial fertiliser to make up for the loss of nutrients as a result of exporting their produce and not closing the circle.
I'd like you to expand on the premise that food quality is of a higher level than a century ago. There have no doubt been changes in hygiene and such but what else do you see as having improved? How are you measuring food quality?
Finally the transport issue; you already know how many people commute to towns and cities in this country, if even a small portion of those people were to only travel one or two miles from their homes in a rural village to the farm they worked on, as opposed to the 10 miles plus (usually much more) they currently travel, then the pollution figures have decreased.

On the transport issue, you're assuming that these people should be living in rural areas. Move those people into urban areas and you remove the transport problem (this isn't a clear issue, I'm from a rural area and most of my family who live there wouldn't even live in a village never mind a proper urban area, but transport based pollution is a fact of life when we allow people to live in the countryside).

Food quality has increased for a variety of reasons, most technological. Refrigeration, the ability to routinely and quickly test for many pathogens that cause food based disease and general hygiene. A movement away from farming doesn't necessarily lead to a decrease in the quality of food.

On the large farming issue, the American style system isn't the only large farm model. Even moving from the average farm having 50 to 200 head of cattle would result in efficiencies without inviting the problems that monoculture in the States has brought.

Macha

turgon wrote: »

I dont see how that is relevant to the issue of subsidies. Food will be produced in the same way regardless of the presence of subsidies. The only thing that will change is the size of farms.

Why do you think that food will be produced in the same way and that the only thing that will change is the size of the farm? Subsidies and taxation are flexible tools that can encourage or discourage different farming methods. Just look at the REPS scheme (that unfortunately seems to have hit a roadblock).

turgon wrote: »

How does that pertain to farm subsidies? True, it would be nice if we were all like my parents growing their own food. But its not economical.

I didn't say that everyone should grow their own food. But that doesn't stop people growing some food in their windowsill, balcony, back garden, allotment. As for saying it's not economical, you clearly have never grown a season's worth of potatoes out of a €3 pack of seed potatoes before. It's no coincidence that sales of seed packets have gone up significantly since the recession. More like people don't know how, or think it's too much work or are a bit afraid of the idea of growing some of their own veg.

turgon wrote: »

Firstly one most prove that rural Ireland is based on agriculture. In my personal experience it s certainly not. If I consider 4 of my closest friends that live in the country, only 1 of them lives on a farm. People are attracted to the country for many many more reasons than farming.

Tourism and agriculture/forestry - what are the other major economic activities based in rural Ireland? If we don't have any, these places just turn into dormitory towns for people commuting to/from the larger urban areas - a very environmentally damaging urban development pattern.

turgon wrote: »

But either way, what your suggesting is that we must pay huge tax based subsidies to keep a group of people living the way they want. Surely if they demand money so they can keep the their comfort, that is unfair on thos who have to fork out?

Where did I say we should pay huge tax-based subsidies?

nesf wrote: »

I'm not sure the social ramifications are that large. The vast majority of people haven't been farmers for generations at this point but society hasn't collapsed and neither has the quality of food production (in fact one could realistically argue that food quality is a lot better today than it was a century ago).

Ok first, this 'generations' thing is just false: the 'Green Revolution' happened in the 1950s/60s, not the middle of the 17th century. You're trying to create a strawman with the 'society hasn't collapsed statement'. I'm not talking about a collapse of society in general, I'm specifically talking about rural Irish society. And I'm not talking about a collapse, but a decline in vibrancy in the communities as farmers are pushed into working 40-hour off-farm jobs and then an extra 15-hours/week on the farm - not sustainable. And I'm talking about these places just turning into dormer towns for the larger urban areas.

I think you'll find there has been a significant change in the manner of food production, most of it coming from abroad and, as I have stated earlier, the number of inputs increasing significantly. Such high levels of external inputs, particularly from oil, are not sustainable. Also, I don't consider an apple that's been flown over from NZ as better quality than an apple I can get down the road.

There is also the issue of food security if we become over-dependent on food flown in from abroad, or indeed if our domestic agriculture is over dependent on imported oil.

nesf wrote: »

The environmental one is a concern but are smaller farms less damaging than large farms? Bear in mind that multiple small farms hiring more people create more pollution on one level purely because of the need for all these people to travel to work. I think your first point clashes with your second.

Ok the commuting pollution from more people travelling to work is minuscule when compared with:
-fuel used in heavy machinery and embodied energy in production of said machinery
-increased use of petro-based fertilisers, including production, packaging and transportation of fertilisers to the farm (plus disposal of packaging)
-increased use of other external inputs (eg pesticides), including production, packaging and transportation of said inputs to the farm (plus disposal of packaging)

I could go on. It is very well documented that organic farms are far less carbon-intensive than 'regular' farms, for example.

Sorry, what did you mean when you said first point and second point? Sorry, can't quite make it out

ninty9er wrote: »

I'm fairly sure Padraig Walshe wasn't worried about the 100,000 people who have been made unemployed in the last year when he took to the stage in Tullamore or wherever and demanded that famers get this that and the other, so you're right, most people don't care about the farmers, because they don't give a **** about us either.

Sorry, how does that prove that farmers don't care about others?

ninty9er wrote: »

Nobody here is demanding cheaper food...We don't want cheap anything...we want VALUE.

Well then I'm confused because the newspapers and media are practically bursting with info on Lidl/ALdi specials, couples complaining that even with their €200,000 combined annual salary they've started shopping in Lidl and the appearance of website like www.cheapeats.ie, Tesco's extreme discount range seeing increased sales?

But no one wants cheaper food?

brianthebard

nesf wrote: »

Source? (am curious rather than questioning here)

Is the rate noticeably different to other rural dwellers? I vaguely remember some stats (which I could be misremembering) which highlighted higher suicide and depression rates among rural populations. I'd also point out caution in interpreting your above quote in that where I grew up at least there was next to no public infrastructure for public mental health other than GPs who are a poor substitute for trained psychiatrists. We could see higher suicide rates in farmers merely because they are less likely to be screened, have worse access to health services and traditionally anyway are more likely not to indicate to others that they are having psychological issues (the last is anecdotal but definitely something present where I grew up).

Honestly don't have one, its a stat I see and hear widely reported from time to time but I don't know where I'd start looking it up (farmers journal I guess). You make a good point though.

On the transport issue, you're assuming that these people should be living in rural areas. Move those people into urban areas and you remove the transport problem (this isn't a clear issue, I'm from a rural area and most of my family who live there wouldn't even live in a village never mind a proper urban area, but transport based pollution is a fact of life when we allow people to live in the countryside).

I'm assuming these people live in rural areas because of the way housing estates have been built all over the country in the last 15-20 years, filling smaller villages with a new population that commutes to work in the larger towns.

Food quality has increased for a variety of reasons, most technological. Refrigeration, the ability to routinely and quickly test for many pathogens that cause food based disease and general hygiene. A movement away from farming doesn't necessarily lead to a decrease in the quality of food.

Refrigeration has been around for over 100 years afaik. The ability to test for pathogens is good, but countered by the increase in new diseases and illnesses as a result of industrial farming. Also the overuse of vaccinations would be a sign of decreased quality, as would the huge food miles on many products. Vegetables that have been picked begin to lose their nutrition straight away. Veg picked on a local farm and sold in a supermarket (or farmers market, or whatever) within a day or two of harvesting is of a better quality than veg picked in Italy or Israel or Kenya, processed, packaged, and transported here. This also feeds into the environmental aspect you mentioned before.

On the large farming issue, the American style system isn't the only large farm model. Even moving from the average farm having 50 to 200 head of cattle would result in efficiencies without inviting the problems that monoculture in the States has brought.

There would still be the same issues of monoculture but on a different scale don't you think?

nesf

taconnol wrote: »

Ok first, this 'generations' thing is just false: the 'Green Revolution' happened in the 1950s/60s, not the middle of the 17th century. You're trying to create a strawman with the 'society hasn't collapsed statement'.

There has been a steadily decline in the number of people needed to work the land since the 17th century. The number itinerant farm labourers has dramatically declined since threshing machines and similar became common. The Green Revolution as a big step but it wasn't the first one.

taconnol wrote: »

I'm not talking about a collapse of society in general, I'm specifically talking about rural Irish society. And I'm not talking about a collapse, but a decline in vibrancy in the communities as farmers are pushed into working 40-hour off-farm jobs and then an extra 15-hours/week on the farm - not sustainable. And I'm talking about these places just turning into dormer towns for the larger urban areas.

This is moral question (i.e. you and I aren't going to agree on it!). Personally I don't understand what vibrancy is added by someone working the land compared to working a 9-5 for the community. Yeah that person might be happier working the land but vibrancy? I'm not sure where you're coming from here.

taconnol wrote: »

I think you'll find there has been a significant change in the manner of food production, most of it coming from abroad and, as I have stated earlier, the number of inputs increasing significantly. Such high levels of external inputs, particularly from oil, are not sustainable. Also, I don't consider an apple that's been flown over from NZ as better quality than an apple I can get down the road.

There is also the issue of food security if we become over-dependent on food flown in from abroad, or indeed if our domestic agriculture is over dependent on imported oil.

Ish. The modern food transported half way around the globe isn't feasible running into the future but conversely it isn't feasible for it to be cheaper to fly lamb in from New Zealand (which is hardly a low wage country) compared to buying it from local farmers.

Our domestic agriculture has been dependent on imported oil for longer than (most likely) you and definitely I have been around. This is something that only technology will get us out of, returning to a pre-tractor farming era wouldn't exactly be feasible!

nesf

brianthebard wrote: »

Honestly don't have one, its a stat I see and hear widely reported from time to time but I don't know where I'd start looking it up (farmers journal I guess). You make a good point though.

I wouldn't trust any statistics reported in the Farmer's Journal as unbiased! This is one of those "headline" stats that plays well to a certain audience, it might very well be true but the analysis given by the FJ etc might be inaccurate.

brianthebard wrote: »

I'm assuming these people live in rural areas because of the way housing estates have been built all over the country in the last 15-20 years, filling smaller villages with a new population that commutes to work in the larger towns.

Which was idiotic planning. If you're serious on the environmental question you have to accept that having people living together in urban areas is far preferable to having them spread out over the countryside. It minimises their commute both to work and the shops but also to access services. From a moral/fiscal standpoint it's also far preferable since more people can access more services which ties into the above. Part of the reason for poor mental health infrastructure in rural areas is that the population density makes it infeasible to provide good infrastructure there. The problem is that many people living in rural areas (members of my family included) would never move willingly into an urban area.

brianthebard wrote: »

Refrigeration has been around for over 100 years afaik. The ability to test for pathogens is good, but countered by the increase in new diseases and illnesses as a result of industrial farming. Also the overuse of vaccinations would be a sign of decreased quality, as would the huge food miles on many products. Vegetables that have been picked begin to lose their nutrition straight away. Veg picked on a local farm and sold in a supermarket (or farmers market, or whatever) within a day or two of harvesting is of a better quality than veg picked in Italy or Israel or Kenya, processed, packaged, and transported here. This also feeds into the environmental aspect you mentioned before.

Agreed to a point. Food miles aren't necessarily a bad thing though, it's far better to produce certain goods in different countries (i.e. Munster has some superb dairy land and the butter and other dairy products produced here is of superb quality, food miles in this case may be worth it due to the quality of the product for people in other countries).

brianthebard wrote: »

There would still be the same issues of monoculture but on a different scale don't you think?

Ish, I was more getting at that having one farm with 200 cattle is better than four farms with 50 cattle in an area from an efficiency point of view.

brianthebard

nesf wrote: »

I wouldn't trust any statistics reported in the Farmer's Journal as unbiased! This is one of those "headline" stats that plays well to a certain audience, it might very well be true but the analysis given by the FJ etc might be inaccurate.

Fair enough, I'm only online cause I'm waiting for a document to print, so not really going to go searching for evidence. I think the FJ is one of the better quality papers in this country though.

Which was idiotic planning. If you're serious on the environmental question you have to accept that having people living together in urban areas is far preferable to having them spread out over the countryside. It minimises their commute both to work and the shops but also to access services. From a moral/fiscal standpoint it's also far preferable since more people can access more services which ties into the above. Part of the reason for poor mental health infrastructure in rural areas is that the population density makes it infeasible to provide good infrastructure there.

Agree on the planning, but I'm not trying to argue here that it was a good idea, only to point out that if more people became employed in farming it wouldn't necessarily cause an increase in pollution and could cause a decrease for the reason I gave and others (such as not having to go as far to buy food, local industries, etc)

Agreed to a point. Food miles aren't necessarily a bad thing though, it's far better to produce certain goods in different countries (i.e. Munster has some superb dairy land and the butter and other dairy products produced here is of superb quality, food miles in this case may be worth it due to the quality of the product for people in other countries).

Personally I'd prefer people in South Africa or New Zealand gave producing butter a go themselves first before flying it to them from Munster. There's a reason the national cuisine varies from country to country, its connected to what that country can produce well and what it is limited in producing. Obviously there are no longer such restrictions but the reason behind it is still worth considering.

Ish, I was more getting at that having one farm with 200 cattle is better than four farms with 50 cattle in an area from an efficiency point of view.

Ish! I think there's probably more to it than that. What does the 200 cow farmer feed his cattle? What does heifers and bulls does he use to breed? Does he have enough time to be on the farm every day or just evenings and weekends? Is the land suited to cattle? Are the fences in good condition? Are the calves fattened correctly? Are the fields properly tended to? Does he drain the land when needed? Does he mix other animals with his cattle to improve efficency? Are the four 50 cow farmers capable of producing the same amount of cattle on a smaller acreage? I could go on....

nessie911

silverharp wrote: »

My argument is that Gov./EU's cant know what the correct price of anything should be, they dont set the price of computers or airline tickets so why should they be anymore successful when it comes to food.quote]

They might not know the cost of food, but what they do is control the price that the farmer gets for it... If You look at the word subsitity, you must under stand that it means to subsitise something. In order to be subsitising something you must know that there is a reason for it needing to be subsitised.

The reason that farmers needs subsities is because they are not been paid the true vaule of there food. If the same farmers were farming in france or england or the usa they would receive more for there food, and receive less subsities.

My point about subsities is that since they were introduced farmers have been receiving the same amount or a less amount of money than it cost to produce there product, that is the reason subsities are being paid.

If subsities were taken away the price of food would rise, and if it didnt rise not even the bigger farms would be left. I know some of your theories are that the big farms will buy the smaller ones but they cant aford it either because with out subsities and with out the cost of food rising they to will be runing at a loss.

Ostrom

nesf wrote: »

Source? (am curious rather than questioning here)

Scheper-Hughes, Nancy., 2001 [1970's]. Saints, Scholars and Schizophrenics: Mental Illness in Rural Ireland. UC Press

American psychiatrist visiting in the late 1970's/early 1980's. It was estimated at the time, that the west of Ireland experienced the highest incidence of schizophrenia per unit area in Europe.

Brody, H. 1973. Change and Decline in the West of Ireland.

Re-visited (roughly) the site of Arensberg and Kimballs 1930's fieldwork (now assumed to be Luogh, Co. Clare) and presented some case studies of mental illness, and some conversations with local medical staff. Local GP accounts suggest anti-depressants were dispensed in significant quantities to a large proportion of single rural farmers. Very enjoyable read - have a look at Peter Gibbons critique also. Reports from the Dudley Nurse scheme during the late 19th century also suggest depression and mental illness were beginning to present significantly amongst the rural population - with the arguments for increase in observation/shift in medical attention that need considering.

Suicides are reported as common across both texts. Many later papers also suggest coroners were unlikely to return verdicts of suicide due to religious stigma, so it is likely many went unreported.

See also: Clarke-Finnegan M, Fahy TJ., 1983. Suicide Rates in Ireland, Psychological Medicine, 13(2):385-91

Suggests an actual rate three times the reported. Have some more up to date articles, can PM citations if you wish