Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Farming a welfare scheme or viable business?
Options
Comments
-
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.
that is kinda the point, looking at this from an EU perspective if it had just been treated like another industry , consolidation would have taken place and prices would have risen, businesses cant run at a loss. Bear in mind that consolidation in this case would have been a response to mechanisation after WW2, which should have altered the structure of the industry quite radically.
In the end the European economy is the loser as some % of people which could be better employed elsewhere in the economy were instead employed as pencil pushers in the various dept. of agriculture or on farms around Europe.A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
-
brianthebard wrote: »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.
suicides among the farming community have more to do with social isolation than financial hardship , farmers are more likely to be not married than men in any other occupation , this has always been the case0 -
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.
farmers in england and the usa ( who recieve subsidies also ) are paid no more at the present time for milk than irish dairy farmers , dairy farmers in NZ (who dont recieve subs) are on a lot less for their milk
farmers in england do tend to recieve more for thier meat produce than here but this is mainly due to the chief player in the meat factory business ( larry goodman ) here gouging farmers0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
I'm not talking about this thread, I'm talking about Irish society in general, as I made quite clear in my comments.Point me at the post in this thread asking for cheaper food...
*sigh* have you even read through this thread? It has clearly been demonstrated that this is not the case.in any case food would probably get cheaper as unity production costs fall when units produced from one source increase. Simple economics.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 6185
Are you for real? If you make a claim, then BACK it up. If you can't back it up then DON'T make it, or state that you don't have any evidence and it's just your opinion.yes , all autopsys have accountants and psychiatricsts working along side them so as to explain cause of death
ask a stupid question and all that
Thanks, efla, I saw your post. I'm just wondering how much is due to loneliness and how much is due to other issues, such as from financial stress and working such long hours. The social side is certainly an aspect, and further evidence of the lack of 'vitality' in rural communities that I mentioned earlier.I cited some above....
My problem with irishbob's argument was that he claimed social issues, rather than financial issues are more to blame. I'd like to know where his data is to back that up.0 -
Are you for real? If you make a claim, then BACK it up. If you can't back it up then DON'T make it, or state that you don't have any evidence and it's just your opinion.
Thanks, efla, I saw your post. I'm just wondering how much is due to loneliness and how much is due to other issues, such as from financial stress and working such long hours. The social side is certainly an aspect, and further evidence of the lack of 'vitality' in rural communities that I mentioned earlier.
My problem with irishbob's argument was that he claimed social issues, rather than financial issues are more to blame. I'd like to know where his data is to back that up.
I dont think its as easy to separate as financial/social - both are connected. Finance was one prospect attracting women to agricultural life; when early industrialization began under protectionism, women deserted for jobs in cities both at home and abroad.
Brody and Hughes' argument was that the present state of mental health was the result of a long-developing combination of post-famine consolidation and single transmission of property, development of industry and international trade, and subsequent cultural devaluing of farm life.
There are debates over weather this was a question of under-reporting, but Brodys approach goes beyond statistics by examining demoralization through disruption in aspects of rural life such as the seasonal cycle, celebrations, marriage patterns and industrial development. The problem of finance developed as a result of other processes that removed certain people from the land, and which also are suspected to have led to demoralization/depression amongst farmers.0 -
Advertisement
-
Brody and Hughes' argument was that the present state of mental health was the result of a long-developing combination of post-famine consolidation and single transmission of property, development of industry and international trade, and subsequent cultural devaluing of farm life.
There are debates over weather this was a question of under-reporting, but Brodys approach goes beyond statistics by examining demoralization through disruption in aspects of rural life such as the seasonal cycle, celebrations, marriage patterns and industrial development.
I'll take a link to that if you have it. That seems a very odd conclusion to draw, I'd be interested in seeing their premises. Under-reporting would be a huge issue in any study here, anyone growing up in a rural area will have heard of quite a few cases where a suicide was not publicly recorded as such, at least a decade ago anyway. Maybe not so much nowadays but there were strong taboo and cultural reasons for hiding a suicide even in the present day in most rural areas I've had contact with. The taboo against mental illness itself is certainly still strongly in force (if not as bad as it used to be).0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
I dont think its as easy to separate as financial/social - both are connected.
That is exactly my point. Irishbob is attempting to belittle the negative impact that financial stress can have on the mental health of the farming community by claiming that it is more to do with social issues than financial problems.
I would agree with your posts.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »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.
I wasn't saying that it wasn't a decent quality paper only that by its nature it'll be biased in its reporting. Every newspaper is biased in some way, it's just a matter of how much and in what direction.brianthebard wrote: »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)
And I'd argue that environmentally it would be best for only a minority to be living outside of urban areas due to the heavy car dependence such a life brings.brianthebard wrote: »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.
Perhaps, still so long as oil remains as cheap as it is the food market will remain global. This most likely will change dramatically in time unless some wonder technology is developed but it's what we have right now.brianthebard wrote: »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....
You're getting at a different thing to what I was trying to get at. It was more that one larger farm might be able to give full time farm employment to one or two farmers rather than having the same land split among several people who have to farm part-time. A full time farmer, assuming that he's got enough knowledge to know what the land is best suited to, can maintain fences, spend more time looking for good breeding options outside of his own herd to improve genetic quality etc etc.0 -
I'll take a link to that if you have it. That seems a very odd conclusion to draw, I'd be interested in seeing their premises. Under-reporting would be a huge issue in any study here, anyone growing up in a rural area will have heard of quite a few cases where a suicide was not publicly recorded as such, at least a decade ago anyway. Maybe not so much nowadays but there were strong taboo and cultural reasons for hiding a suicide even in the present day in most rural areas I've had contact with. The taboo against mental illness itself is certainly still strongly in force (if not as bad as it used to be).
Scheper-Hughes' book was re-released in 2001, so you may have an easier time finding it than Brody. Any university or local library should have a few copies of Iniskillane, the only printed runs were in the 1970's. I dont have any links, as neither have been made available online. The article in the initial post deals with under-reporting in detail, and should be available through JSTOR. I have some other more up to date papers but i'll have to PM those on Tuesday if you want them? (I wont be in work until then).
Hughes' was involved in a lifelong dispute with her participants, who were angry at her publication of details concerning sexual orientations/habits. Most of her fieldwork involved psychometric testing - Brody lived in 'Iniskillane' for about a year as best I remember. I can e-mail Peter Gibbons critique of Brody if you wish, its a good synopsis - its my own scan so I cant host and link it.0 -
I see, coolio.I wasn't saying that it wasn't a decent quality paper only that by its nature it'll be biased in its reporting. Every newspaper is biased in some way, it's just a matter of how much and in what direction.
Maybe. But with food being made into oil (or replacing oil to be more exact) its hard to know how things will shape up.Perhaps, still so long as oil remains as cheap as it is the food market will remain global. This most likely will change dramatically in time unless some wonder technology is developed but it's what we have right now.You're getting at a different thing to what I was trying to get at. It was more that one larger farm might be able to give full time farm employment to one or two farmers rather than having the same land split among several people who have to farm part-time. A full time farmer, assuming that he's got enough knowledge to know what the land is best suited to, can maintain fences, spend more time looking for good breeding options outside of his own herd to improve genetic quality etc etc.
I don't think I am really. The feed issue for instance, if a farmer wants to keep 200 cattle to avail of economics of scale it may impact his feed bill if his farm is unable to produce enough grass to feed them. So costs and efficiencies become a factor there. Does he have the option to take rest land, or is that going to cost him through more feed bills, having to take the cattle indoors while resting the grass? You can point to almost any farm in the country and double the number of animals on the land theoretically, but whether bigger is really better and really leads to more efficiencies is very questionable.0 -
ok so after reading the ten pages of this thread i though id put in my two cents
*a lot of the farm payments will end in the near future 2012 onwards
*farmers are paid subsidies to provide cheap food and provide food security the world population is increasing but the amount of arable land is decreasing . that is why s korea tryed to buy half of madagascar last year and why s arabia and eygpt are buying huge tracks of land in aficra
*the unburdened free market system finds a natural balance ie finds the price that people are willing to pay for a given product. lets say the market says that its cheapest to produce grain in brasil most of the production moves to that area because its so cheap and the infrastructure has been built up there. you get one bad harvest or political instability and you get grain shortages around the world prices rise people will go hungry. you might get a glut on the market next year as grain production goes up that's assuming that you have enough farmers who have the skill base and money to start production those who had been driven out of business plant a crop harvest it the price of grain drops and they go out of business and will be unlikely to do the same again in the future if there a shortage.
*most small farmers are getting old and will die off in a couple of years and are not in most cases been replaced by younger farmers because its easyier to work 40 hours in a job then work 365 days a year looking after animals and all that comes with that.
*those farmers that will be able to survive will be working larger farms with less labor which is mechanized and as others have posted dependent on oil for fertilizers and fuel. this will effect the totality of Irish society because instead lots of little farmers and their faimlys keeping local business, going you will one or two big farmers in an area
*climate change is real and will have a dramatic effect on food production. not in the future now you only have to look at this year i know people who were putting their cattle back into sheds at the end of may because their was no grass in the fields. luckily that sorted itself out but what if next year its worst just look at Australia and the drought they have.
* the landscape of ireland is an manicured lawn maintained by farmers if the land is not maintained then it will go wild very quickly. if in the future that land is needed for production you just cant turn a switch and start up production right away.lets say im a big beef farmer with 450 acres of land it might well be cheaper for me to put all my cattle in one feedlot and cut silage off the land. it might work out even cheaper to let the land go wild and feed them grain instead of grass. but next year the price spike in grain and that land that has gone wild and is not quick to reclaim. im stuck with a large amount of cattle which i need to feed so i sell them off which may cause a glut on the market which means i might go out of business and shortage of beef next year.
* farming suffers bigtime with the law of diminising returns with reguard to infastructure and most industrialed farmers no matter how big they are will never make a return
the point is that if you leave food production to smaller and smaller groups you are not giving yourself room to wiggle if circumstances change.
anyone who has an an interest i recommend that you read pual roberts the end of food follow up to his book the end of oil.
http://www.amazon.com/End-Food-Paul-Roberts/dp/0618606238
video lecture can be found here
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=42126138164039094170 -
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.
efla i was hearing about this report in an series of anthropology lectures i got off the net. from what i understand she claims that up to 10% or 20% percent of all the single men in the west of ireland were Schizophrenics and were in mental instutions at some point in their lifes
is their any stats to back that claim up.0 -
I just wanted to point out that it isn't always a negative to let land lie fallow. It's a good way to let natural processes replenish the nutrient content of the soil.elpresdentde wrote: »* the landscape of ireland is an manicured lawn maintained by farmers if the land is not maintained then it will go wild very quickly. if in the future that land is needed for production you just cant turn a switch and start up production right away.lets say im a big beef farmer with 450 acres of land it might well be cheaper for me to put all my cattle in one feedlot and cut silage off the land. it might work out even cheaper to let the land go wild and feed them grain instead of grass. but next year the price spike in grain and that land that has gone wild and is not quick to reclaim. im stuck with a large amount of cattle which i need to feed so i sell them off which may cause a glut on the market which means i might go out of business and shortage of beef next year.
It's interesting how often farming cattle crops up here. With all the talk of the negatives of monoculture farming, or whatever the phraseology; it is my observation that the pro-farming lobby on this thread appear to be engaged in just that, it's all about beef.
As for my personal tastes, beef is not a major component of my diet. And so rather than this type of farming representing a critical component of a functioning society, they must be farming beef as part of a business model.
And so I resent paying these guys charity to operate a business, one which looks rather like a part-time enterprise, from my pov, judging by how often i see some of these guys in a local pub during weekdays.
Do we know how much of our land resources in this country are commited to this monofarming?
Also, statistically, how many beef farmers do we have vs vegetable farmers?0 -
I just wanted to point out that it isn't always a negative to let land lie fallow. It's a good way to let natural processes replenish the nutrient content of the soil.
It's interesting how often farming cattle crops up here. With all the talk of the negatives of monoculture farming, or whatever the phraseology; it is my observation that the pro-farming lobby on this thread appear to be engaged in just that, it's all about beef.
As for my personal tastes, beef is not a major component of my diet. And so rather than this type of farming representing a critical component of a functioning society, they must be farming beef as part of a business model.
And so I resent paying these guys charity to operate a business, one which looks rather like a part-time enterprise, from my pov, judging by how often i see some of these guys in a local pub during weekdays.
Do we know how much of our land resources in this country are commited to this monofarming?
Also, statistically, how many beef farmers do we have vs vegetable farmers?
Well ya see if you had bothered to read all the pages you would have read the fact that i was talking about the dairy industry. The dairy industry is the biggest farming industry in ireland not beef. At the present time the dairy farmers are milking cows for 20 cent a litre and it is costing them 21 cent a litre to produce that litre.
So with out subsities what are they ment to do. They would be quite happy if they were paid a good price for there milk rather than being subsitised.
Also i do agree that there are two many part time farmers, but why do you want to punish all the full time farmers at the same time.0 -
Whether they'd be dairy farmers or beef, the point is the same.
The fact is, these people are monofarming not because they are fulfilling a critical component of society (feeding society), but rather to suit a particular business plan.
And it sounds like you are conceding the original post of this thread: that farming is in reality a welfare scheme, not a viable business because being so dependant on subsities is NOT being a viable business.0 -
Advertisement
-
And it sounds like you are conceding the original post of this thread: that farming is in reality a welfare scheme, not a viable business because being so dependant on subsities is NOT being a viable business.
Did you go and read any of my previouus posts, that is not what i am saying, and i think it is your only argument is to twist what people are saying... thats just so smart...
Can you tell me what the word subsity means go look at my post on it, you might under stand a little better0 -
Are you for real? If you make a claim, then BACK it up. If you can't back it up then DON'T make it, or state that you don't have any evidence and it's just your opinion.
Thanks, efla, I saw your post. I'm just wondering how much is due to loneliness and how much is due to other issues, such as from financial stress and working such long hours. The social side is certainly an aspect, and further evidence of the lack of 'vitality' in rural communities that I mentioned earlier.
My problem with irishbob's argument was that he claimed social issues, rather than financial issues are more to blame. I'd like to know where his data is to back that up.
at best , its guess work figuring out why anyone ends thier own life , its not like figuring out why smokers die younger
i think its credible to conclude that many farmers commit suicide due to social isolation seeing that farmers tend to work on thier own in area which are socially isolated , two and two together as they say0 -
What you and the other pro-farmers have been doing hereto, is rationalizing subsities. That is not the same thing as debunking farming as a welfare scheme.Did you go and read any of my previouus posts, that is not what i am saying, and i think it is your only argument is to twist what people are saying... thats just so smart...
Can you tell me what the word subsity means go look at my post on it, you might under stand a little better0 -
I just wanted to point out that it isn't always a negative to let land lie fallow. It's a good way to let natural processes replenish the nutrient content of the soil.
It's interesting how often farming cattle crops up here. With all the talk of the negatives of monoculture farming, or whatever the phraseology; it is my observation that the pro-farming lobby on this thread appear to be engaged in just that, it's all about beef.
As for my personal tastes, beef is not a major component of my diet. And so rather than this type of farming representing a critical component of a functioning society, they must be farming beef as part of a business model.
And so I resent paying these guys charity to operate a business, one which looks rather like a part-time enterprise, from my pov, judging by how often i see some of these guys in a local pub during weekdays.
Do we know how much of our land resources in this country are commited to this monofarming?
Also, statistically, how many beef farmers do we have vs vegetable farmers?
i think the clue is the name c.a.p common agriculture policy different areas have specialized in what they can best produce we have specialized in dairy and beef suits the climate. sure you can grow cabbages in cork but not as well as you can grow them in the south of france0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
Well it's definitely difficult but I don't think it's as difficult to make out as you say. You can look at research on farmers' mental health.. For example, this recent article:at best , its guess work figuring out why anyone ends thier own life , its not like figuring out why smokers die younger
i think its credible to conclude that many farmers commit suicide due to social isolation seeing that farmers tend to work on thier own in area which are socially isolated , two and two together as they sayFarmers are suffering from severe mental stress as a result of the combination of falling incomes, weather difficulties and loan repayments.
Callers to a southern rural helpline are looking for advice on how to deal with major financial worries, acute anxiety and depression.
Many calls are from young men who have lost their off-farm job and are now relying on diminishing returns from the farm.
Huge on-farm investment and delayed grant payments have also increased the financial burden.
http://www.independent.ie/farming/news-features/stressed-farmers-turn-to-advice-line-1757749.html
Just using the "it stands to reason" argument, is not very 'credible' at all.
I think that there are definitely a lot of farmers for whom their farms are most definitely not some sort of "lifestyle" choice.0 -
I doesn't matter what the general public is saying. That's not part of the argument here. Accept it and move on.I'm not talking about this thread, I'm talking about Irish society in general, as I made quite clear in my comments.
Have you been living under a stone for the last 20 years. Farmers make up a small fraction of the rural population now. Massive acreage doesn't equal lots of people or vice versa. The co-ops will still have to accommodate the same amount of produce=same amount of jobs...some of the displaced farmers may even decicde to work in this type of industry.elpresdentde wrote: »*those farmers that will be able to survive will be working larger farms with less labor which is mechanized and as others have posted dependent on oil for fertilizers and fuel. this will effect the totality of Irish society because instead lots of little farmers and their faimlys keeping local business, going you will one or two big farmers in an area
Local shops started dying years ago. I have a newsflash for you: Farmers shop in Tesco too!
That's like saying "I'm not talking about the new car sales industry, I'm talking about the second-hand car sales industry"...IT's all the one:rolleyes:Well ya see if you had bothered to read all the pages you would have read the fact that i was talking about the dairy industry. The dairy industry is the biggest farming industry in ireland not beef. At the present time the dairy farmers are milking cows for 20 cent a litre and it is costing them 21 cent a litre to produce that litre.
I certainly can't anyway, no such word exists, not in English anyway.Can you tell me what the word subsity means go look at my post on it, you might under stand a little better0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
Yes it does matter. The issue is farmers' subsidies and why so many rely on subsidies to make ends meet. An important, if not the most important downward pressure on prices is demand from consumers for ever cheaper food. To argue that this is not relevant is absurd.I doesn't matter what the general public is saying. That's not part of the argument here. Accept it and move on.
I'm not accusing anyone here of hypocrisy, if that's what you're worried about.0 -
Consumers cant get food for €0.00 - theres a minimum limit below which it is not profitable to make food. Eliminate subsidies and this downward limit simply rises.
Consumers are paying a high price for food. Its just at the moment a lot of this price is tax.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Advertisement
-
elpresdentde wrote: »efla i was hearing about this report in an series of anthropology lectures i got off the net. from what i understand she claims that up to 10% or 20% percent of all the single men in the west of ireland were Schizophrenics and were in mental instutions at some point in their lifes
is their any stats to back that claim up.
Really? That would really make me question the study. Those kinds of rates just shouldn't happen outside of very small clusters (i.e. the stats could have been correct but the sample so small to artificially inflate the numbers). 1/2 in 10 schizophrenia rates isn't a raised rate, it's incredibly high to the point of near impossibility for any large population.0
Advertisement