If funding stopped?

telecaster

Genuine question.

If all funding to Irish farmers was phased out, what percentage of farms would remain viable businesses in your estimate?

Atilathehun

telecaster wrote: »

Genuine question.

If all funding to Irish farmers was phased out, what percentage of farms would remain viable businesses in your estimate?

0%! Price of food in the shops would rise to well above cost of production. You would need more cash to feed yourself. Scarey, eh:cool:

reilig

I recon that there would be a good clear out of non viable farmers - at least 30% would be unviable and they would get out. But as Attilla points out, the EU and the irish Government don't want this to happen because it would mean the end of cheap food for European Consumers. Ordinary people on the streets would then have to pay at least the cost of production for food and while it would be a good thing for farmers, it would be a bad thing for the ordinary consumer who could see the cost of filling their shopping trolly rise by as much as 25%. Costs could be controlled by the farmers by controlling demand and supply and this isn't really what governments want!

bbam

Yea I'd say rellig is right.
The 20% who are only making less than €5k profit would be a danger of coming to the wall.
I would be interested to see what % of farm output these farms represent. If it were too high they would continue to get some level of support.
Every farmer worth anything should be working towards being viable without supports, maybe it should be compulsory to have a plan in place to become viable over the next few years. There could easily be a SFP penalty for those not planning to be viable.

fodda

reilig wrote: »

I recon that there would be a good clear out of non viable farmers - at least 30% would be unviable and they would get out. But as Attilla points out, the EU and the irish Government don't want this to happen because it would mean the end of cheap food for European Consumers. Ordinary people on the streets would then have to pay at least the cost of production for food and while it would be a good thing for farmers, it would be a bad thing for the ordinary consumer who could see the cost of filling their shopping trolly rise by as much as 25%. Costs could be controlled by the farmers by controlling demand and supply and this isn't really what governments want!

Well if you give the public their EU money back it should even things out except they will probably spend it on cheaper imported food.:D:D

But the EU will never give our money back.

Imports and home grown will control prices and not farmers.

reilig

fodda wrote: »

Well if you give the public their EU money back it should even things out except they will probably spend it on cheaper imported food.:D:D

But the EU will never give our money back.

Imports and home grown will control prices and not farmers.

But sure imports can't compete with out beef, lamb or milk at the moment. Brazilian Beef is no longer cheaper than Irish. There is very little cheaper imported food to be got now. Even though we operate one of the best traceability systems in the world for our food, we are still able to produce it cheaper than most of the rest of the world - Its all about the climate that we have.

fodda

What i mean Rellig is that your lamb for instance will not sell any higher than imported lamb.........in other words the imported goods and what the public can grow themselves will determine how little the actual price will go up.

I dont think that prices would rise much at all.......your nearest competitor/customer is only a few hundred euros ferry ride away for an artic load of meat.

500euro divided by 20 ton divided by 1000kg = 2.5 cents per kilo ........ not much?

Farmer Pudsey

fodda wrote: »

What i mean Rellig is that your lamb for instance will not sell any higher than imported lamb.........in other words the imported goods and what the public can grow themselves will determine how little the actual price will go up.

I dont think that prices would rise much at all.......your nearest competitor/customer is only a few hundred euros ferry ride away for an artic load of meat.

500euro divided by 20 ton divided by 1000kg = 2.5 cents per kilo ........ not much?

They go through the roof. The production of food in the EU would reduce by at least 25%. Hill lamb from the west of Ireland would be the first to go. Dairy farmers would have to shoot Holstein and jerseyX bull calves at birth as there would be no market for them. Most livestock farmers would reduce there output. Grain farmers would go out of buisness after one or two bad years. This would have a donimo effect on pig and poultry production and also on the dairy industry.

pakalasa

What would happen if funding stopped?
Cows would calf, sheep would lamb, barley would be sewn. The public would complain about the high food prices, but still sit down to their 3 meals a day. For as long as we have hungry tummys, we'll have farmers.

bbam

pakalasa wrote: »

For as long as we have hungry tummys, we'll have farmers.

Yes, but in what country will they be farming?
Surely there would be a few years of lads trying to get bye, waiting for retail prices to raise to get a fair price for their product. If this doesn't happen quick enough then lads would go to the wall.
If prices do creep up it will be a problem to compete with imported foods. The large multinational food chains will not want their margins reduced and will source food where ever it gives them the best margin.
The buying public are becoming shorter and shorter on cash and there well may come the time that the small premium paid for Irish produced foods will just be too much and they will go with the cheapest foods on the shelves. There is little point in producing a premium product for a domestic market that can't afford it.

Tipp Man

bbam wrote: »

pakalasa wrote: »

For as long as we have hungry tummys, we'll have farmers.

Yes, but in what country will they be farming?
Surely there would be a few years of lads trying to get bye, waiting for retail prices to raise to get a fair price for their product. If this doesn't happen quick enough then lads would go to the wall.
If prices do creep up it will be a problem to compete with imported foods. The large multinational food chains will not want their margins reduced and will source food where ever it gives them the best margin.
The buying public are becoming shorter and shorter on cash and there well may come the time that the small premium paid for Irish produced foods will just be too much and they will go with the cheapest foods on the shelves. There is little point in producing a premium product for a domestic market that can't afford it.

Yeah but Irish farmers aren't producing in general for the domestic market. The vast vast majority of beef and milk are exported

pakalasa

Plus 80% or so are part-timers as it is anyhow, so effectively not viable full-time outfits as it is.

bbam

Tipp Man wrote: »

Yeah but Irish farmers aren't producing in general for the domestic market. The vast vast majority of beef and milk are exported

Fair point, wasn't thinking of that.
The bottom 20% of farms that are making less than €5000. Do you think that includes the SFP. I didn't see the breakdown of the data. Maybe they already get little or no SFP already so it would be if little impact to them.
I know we're planning towards no SFP in a few years just in case. If its there great and if it's not well well be ok.

Farmer Pudsey

pakalasa wrote: »

Plus 80% or so are part-timers as it is anyhow, so effectively not viable full-time outfits as it is.

Bar milk none of the rest are vaible without SP at present.When a bad yeras comes in grain, beef or lamb it is the SP that keeps the show on the road. Even in milk most farmers get a small SP though they would not be as dependant on it as beef,sheep and grain farmers.

Because of compliance costs and economies of scale most EU food production is below cost. Sure cows will calve and sheep will lamb but if there was no SP there would be less of them also as I posted earlier alot of dairy bred cattle would be slaughtered at birth as it is unenomical to finish them.

We have seen for the last 3-5 years the huge variation in grain price's and the problem's it causes when too low for grain farmers and at present when it is too high to white meat producers. The present generation in Europe has no memories of famine it is after all over 60 years since there has been any food shortages in the Western World.

I have read somewhere that the western world is only about 7 days from famine as that is the amount of food is accessible at any one time. Now if the SP went it would take from 6 month-2 years for the start of effect to be seen. If supermarket chains kept prices down too long production would drop sharply as farmers would be loseing money.

alderdeer

[Quote
I have read somewhere that the western world is only about 7 days from famine as that is the amount of food is accessible at any one time .[/Quote]


I better get a bigger freezer
????? Now what to put in it,

johngalway

telecaster wrote: »

Genuine question.

If all funding to Irish farmers was phased out, what percentage of farms would remain viable businesses in your estimate?

Don't know, but it will be dictated by the bottom line and nothing else. It does not necessarily follow that good farmers stay in farming and bad farmers get forced out if funding was withdrawn.

The farmers with the biggest margin, or deepest pockets get to stay in if they wish. A farmer spending nothing, or very little on his/her stock will still be able to have his stock and farm away, while a farmer reseeding, fertilising, feeding, etc could be forced out a lot quicker due to not being able to cover his/her costs.

johngalway

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I have read somewhere that the western world is only about 7 days from famine as that is the amount of food is accessible at any one time. Now if the SP went it would take from 6 month-2 years for the start of effect to be seen. If supermarket chains kept prices down too long production would drop sharply as farmers would be loseing money.

Yes, it's due to how Supermarkets supply themselves. Warehouses/distribution centres empty very quickly.

reilig

bbam wrote: »

Fair point, wasn't thinking of that.
The bottom 20% of farms that are making less than €5000. Do you think that includes the SFP. I didn't see the breakdown of the data. Maybe they already get little or no SFP already so it would be if little impact to them.
I know we're planning towards no SFP in a few years just in case. If its there great and if it's not well well be ok.

It includes SFP. I think I read somewhere that almost 50% of farmers are using some of their SFP to pay their bills instead of having it as profit.

kermit_the_dog

johngalway wrote: »

Don't know, but it will be dictated by the bottom line and nothing else. It does not necessarily follow that good farmers stay in farming and bad farmers get forced out if funding was withdrawn.

The farmers with the biggest margin, or deepest pockets get to stay in if they wish. A farmer spending nothing, or very little on his/her stock will still be able to have his stock and farm away, while a farmer reseeding, fertilising, feeding, etc could be forced out a lot quicker due to not being able to cover his/her costs.

nor does it automatically follow that food prices in the supermaket would sky rocket , ireland isnt the only country in the world which produces food , while convenient , the IFA line that subs to farmers is primarily about keeping food affordable is pretty spurious , its a political policy rather than a consumer one , consumers and tax payers do not owe farmers a living yet the farmer arguement sails pretty close to saying that , when the coal pits were closed in the north of england and wales in the early to mid eighties , the price of coal didnt sky rocket for consumers despite the fact that the miners were put on the scrap heap , granted that closing the mines devestated communitys and the same would happen in rural ireland but thats another story in itself

did food prices sky rocket in new zealand supermarkets in 1984 when farmer subs were ended , NO , small farmers simply sold up and large farms became the norm , large farmers took a hit on their income but they survived by scaling up

johngalway

kermit_the_dog wrote: »

nor does it automatically follow that food prices in the supermaket would sky rocket , ireland isnt the only country in the world which produces food , while convenient , the IFA line that subs to farmers is primarily about keeping food affordable is pretty spurious , its a political policy rather than a consumer one , consumers and tax payers do not owe farmers a living yet the farmer arguement sails pretty close to saying that

did food prices sky rocket in new zealand supermarkets in 1984 when farmer subs were ended , NO , small farmers simply sold up and large farms became the norm , large farmers took a hit on their income but they survived by scaling up

I didn't refer to Supermarket prices at all.

There's no guarantee a large farmer would be able to survive any more than a small farmer, it will be dependent on how the particular business is structured. Take away payments and drop stock prices and see how attractive high input costs are then.

What I find interesting is how easily people, who other wise would be against them, accept increased food miles when it comes to discussion of payments.

Just my personal opinion, but, I don't want to be buying food that's produced in Argentina, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, Kenya etc.

Inputs in this country are expensive however, remove payments and there would be increased pressure to lose a regulation or thirty.

I was always of the opinion that payments were more to keep the rural family farm farming to the benefit of communities in rural areas in different European countries.

I'd have to farm my sheep differently, breed them hardier, not feed them, not put out fert and keep them on the hill mostly instead of in the fenced land which I'd hope to get cattle in for which I don't have at the moment.

kermit_the_dog

johngalway wrote: »

I didn't refer to Supermarket prices at all.

There's no guarantee a large farmer would be able to survive any more than a small farmer, it will be dependent on how the particular business is structured. Take away payments and drop stock prices and see how attractive high input costs are then.

What I find interesting is how easily people, who other wise would be against them, accept increased food miles when it comes to discussion of payments.

Just my personal opinion, but, I don't want to be buying food that's produced in Argentina, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, Kenya etc.

Inputs in this country are expensive however, remove payments and there would be increased pressure to lose a regulation or thirty.

I was always of the opinion that payments were more to keep the rural family farm farming to the benefit of communities in rural areas in different European countries.

I'd have to farm my sheep differently, breed them hardier, not feed them, not put out fert and keep them on the hill mostly instead of in the fenced land which I'd hope to get cattle in for which I don't have at the moment.

how come some people have an issue with buying food from foreign countries yet drive cars which are foreign built etc

agree about red tape but thats also political , its about keeping civil servants in jobs

bbam

kermit_the_dog wrote: »

how come some people have an issue with buying food from foreign countries yet drive cars which are foreign built etc

agree about red tape but thats also political , its about keeping civil servants in jobs

Ah no. Eating food produced in Ireland is about traceability and quality food. We know where it is produced and under what conditions. That's different to a mass produced car. And I don't have the option to buy a car manufactured in Ireland which would support Irish jobs.

Tora Bora

kermit_the_dog wrote: »

how come some people have an issue with buying food from foreign countries yet drive cars which are foreign built etc

agree about red tape but thats also political , its about keeping civil servants in jobs

You see, food produced here, has to have full tracability, from farm to fork. There is a fine cohort, of box tickers employed to police the system.
If a farmer opeerates outside the regulations, sooner or later he will no longer be able to send food into the supply chain.

On the other hand, it's quite OK, for food from foreign places, without any regulation, and no traceability to find it's way on to your plate.
It's cheaper ................... but ............ well you decide if you want to eat it:eek:

kermit_the_dog

bbam wrote: »

Ah no. Eating food produced in Ireland is about traceability and quality food. We know where it is produced and under what conditions. That's different to a mass produced car. And I don't have the option to buy a car manufactured in Ireland which would support Irish jobs.

the arguement about food produced in foreign countries being sub standard is completley over done IMO , its of course one which suits the IFA , a bullock with a mile of ID and red tape behind him in ireland is no more safe than one in argentina with a minimum amount of paper work , ive eaten beef in argentina , every bit as nice as whats here

reilig

kermit_the_dog wrote: »

the arguement about food produced in foreign countries being sub standard is completley over done IMO , its of course one which suits the IFA , a bullock with a mile of ID and red tape behind him in ireland is no more safe than one in argentina with a minimum amount of paper work , ive eaten beef in argentina , every bit as nice as whats here

People's opinions and the real facts differ considerably.

The biggest beef producing countries in the world - Brazil and Argentina, legally allow the use of growth hormones.

That's why I'm sure that the beef you tasted in Argentina was mouth wateringly tasty.

Do you actually want to eat beef from a bull that was pumped to twice its size by hormones?? Eat enough of it and you could find hair growing in places where there shouldn't be hair and extra functioning body parts.

Neither does Brazil or Argentina have a BSE policy in place. BSE is directly linked to high rates of CJD in these countries.

What about the food poisoning scare from germany 2 years ago where butter beans poisoned by a sewerage leak killed 73 people??


People have a right to choose food which can be traced back to the farmer who produced it. Our food in ireland can command higher prices on international markets because of the traceability schemes that we have in place. Irish people want to eat irish food for this reason. Even the british public would prefer to buy irish meat to British meat because they know that what they are eating is safe!!

bbam

kermit_the_dog wrote: »

the arguement about food produced in foreign countries being sub standard is completley over done IMO , its of course one which suits the IFA , a bullock with a mile of ID and red tape behind him in ireland is no more safe than one in argentina with a minimum amount of paper work , ive eaten beef in argentina , every bit as nice as whats here

Eating this beef produced with hormones once is fine, and if ANY beef is hung fr 30 days it will be tasty. However eating produce laced with hormones and suspect pesticides for the long term has suspect long term health implications.
(my moobs are bad enough without eating hormones too. )

kermit_the_dog

reilig wrote: »

People's opinions and the real facts differ considerably.

The biggest beef producing countries in the world - Brazil and Argentina, legally allow the use of growth hormones.

That's why I'm sure that the beef you tasted in Argentina was mouth wateringly tasty.

Do you actually want to eat beef from a bull that was pumped to twice its size by hormones?? Eat enough of it and you could find hair growing in places where there shouldn't be hair and extra functioning body parts.

Neither does Brazil or Argentina have a BSE policy in place. BSE is directly linked to high rates of CJD in these countries.

What about the food poisoning scare from germany 2 years ago where butter beans poisoned by a sewerage leak killed 73 people??


People have a right to choose food which can be traced back to the farmer who produced it. Our food in ireland can command higher prices on international markets because of the traceability schemes that we have in place. Irish people want to eat irish food for this reason. Even the british public would prefer to buy irish meat to British meat because they know that what they are eating is safe!!

i knew that american farmers used growth promoters and even milk promoters , funny the IFA never complain about that , thats right american beef isnt sold in europe , i also knew brazilian practices were known to be suspect , was not aware of their being problems in argentina , saw plenty of angus and hereford over there and they were not balloned up or anything , pasture based grazing is normal in argentina , they use GM crops in argentina but the jury is still out on whether that is any harm , ive been to new zealand aswell and their beef and lamb was fine

kermit_the_dog

reilig wrote: »

People's opinions and the real facts differ considerably.

The biggest beef producing countries in the world - Brazil and Argentina, legally allow the use of growth hormones.

That's why I'm sure that the beef you tasted in Argentina was mouth wateringly tasty.

Do you actually want to eat beef from a bull that was pumped to twice its size by hormones?? Eat enough of it and you could find hair growing in places where there shouldn't be hair and extra functioning body parts.

Neither does Brazil or Argentina have a BSE policy in place. BSE is directly linked to high rates of CJD in these countries.

What about the food poisoning scare from germany 2 years ago where butter beans poisoned by a sewerage leak killed 73 people??


People have a right to choose food which can be traced back to the farmer who produced it. Our food in ireland can command higher prices on international markets because of the traceability schemes that we have in place. Irish people want to eat irish food for this reason. Even the british public would prefer to buy irish meat to British meat because they know that what they are eating is safe!!

the british prioritise food price above all , if the british dictated policy in europe , subs would have been dumped long ago , ireland has france to thank for the protection of farm subs

reilig

kermit_the_dog wrote: »

the british prioritise food price above all , if the british dictated policy in europe , subs would have been dumped long ago , ireland has france to thank for the protection of farm subs

personally, as a farmer, I would be a lot happier if there were no subs. At least the public would not be disgruntled about paying it. I'd prefer to let economics take its course and have food sold at the cost of production instead of paying farmers subs to sell it below cost. Instead, the public would be disgruntled about having to pay a price for food in the supermarkets which was greater than the cost of production.

bogman_bass

kermit_the_dog wrote: »

nor does it automatically follow that food prices in the supermaket would sky rocket , ireland isnt the only country in the world which produces food , while convenient , the IFA line that subs to farmers is primarily about keeping food affordable is pretty spurious , its a political policy rather than a consumer one , consumers and tax payers do not owe farmers a living yet the farmer arguement sails pretty close to saying that , when the coal pits were closed in the north of england and wales in the early to mid eighties , the price of coal didnt sky rocket for consumers despite the fact that the miners were put on the scrap heap , granted that closing the mines devestated communitys and the same would happen in rural ireland but thats another story in itself

did food prices sky rocket in new zealand supermarkets in 1984 when farmer subs were ended , NO , small farmers simply sold up and large farms became the norm , large farmers took a hit on their income but they survived by scaling up

You have to remember that european farmers arent being paid to produce foood, they are being compensated for highers standards of enviromental stewardship and animal welfare that make us uncompetitive on the world stage.

You can take away the payments but then you have to take away the nitrates directive and allow us to use hormones in cattle and store our slurry in clay lined lagoons so we are on an even footing with the US and brazil

kermit_the_dog

reilig wrote: »

personally, as a farmer, I would be a lot happier if there were no subs. At least the public would not be disgruntled about paying it. I'd prefer to let economics take its course and have food sold at the cost of production instead of paying farmers subs to sell it below cost. Instead, the public would be disgruntled about having to pay a price for food in the supermarkets which was greater than the cost of production.

food like houses does not have to be sold at the cost of production in ireland , its a mistake to think otherwise

kermit_the_dog

bogman_bass wrote: »

You have to remember that european farmers arent being paid to produce foood, they are being compensated for highers standards of enviromental stewardship and animal welfare that make us uncompetitive on the world stage.

You can take away the payments but then you have to take away the nitrates directive and allow us to use hormones in cattle and store our slurry in clay lined lagoons so we are on an even footing with the US and brazil

europeans are uncompetitive when it comes to producing many things other than food in 2012 , thats why manufacturing moved east in a big way this past decade and a half yet the price of coal , watches , shoes or toys did not sky rocket

some might argue that the safety net of subs needs to be removed including the protectionist policy of CAP , thus allowing competition from developing countries and the food they produce

its a complex issue but thinking that the ending of subs will coincide with a marked increase in the price of beef in the supermarket is fancifull and short sighted , its based on a sense of moral entitlement but certainly not cold economics

fodda

kermit_the_dog wrote: »

food like houses does not have to be sold at the cost of production in ireland , its a mistake to think otherwise

What does that mean?

kermit_the_dog wrote:

europeans are uncompetitive when it comes to producing many things other than food in 2012 , thats why manufacturing moved east in a big way this past decade and a half yet the price of coal , watches , shoes or toys did not sky rocket

Other people werent uncompetitive, the asians just work for much less wages because they do not have the high overheads of other nations. Good employment prospects will not return to Europe until you get Europeans to work for not much more than their Asian competitors. How you manage to do that is somebody elses problem to work out.

johngalway

kermit_the_dog wrote: »

how come some people have an issue with buying food from foreign countries yet drive cars which are foreign built etc

agree about red tape but thats also political , its about keeping civil servants in jobs

I imagine because it's easier to find a car that's built outside of Ireland than a car that's built in Ireland

kermit_the_dog

fodda wrote: »

What does that mean?



Other people werent uncompetitive, the asians just work for much less wages because they do not have the high overheads of other nations. Good employment prospects will not return to Europe until you get Europeans to work for not much more than their Asian competitors. How you manage to do that is somebody elses problem to work out.

their appears to be an assumption among farmers that the removal of subs would inevitabley lead to an increase in the price of food items for consumers by virtue of the fact that without subs , farmers would be producing food below cost price , my point is that the housing market as it sits at the moment leaves us with a situation where its cheaper to buy a house in some cases than for a builder to construct one , no one thinks the price of houses should rise in order to cover the builders costs

btw , im only challenging commonly held views , dont think im in favour of seeing a quater of farms in ireland shutting down , i like the culture which exists in the irish countryside just like i like the one which exists in france

i might be totally wrong but im uneasy about how sure some farmers seem to think the end of subs will without question see a large increase in what factories and creamerys pay for produce

Viewtodiefor

kermit_the_dog wrote: »

fodda wrote: »

What does that mean?



Other people werent uncompetitive, the asians just work for much less wages because they do not have the high overheads of other nations. Good employment prospects will not return to Europe until you get Europeans to work for not much more than their Asian competitors. How you manage to do that is somebody elses problem to work out.

their appears to be an assumption among farmers that the removal of subs would inevitabley lead to an increase in the price of food items for consumers by virtue of the fact that without subs , farmers would be producing food below cost price , my point is that the housing market as it sits at the moment leaves us with a situation where its cheaper to buy a house in some cases than for a builder to construct one , no one thinks the price of houses should rise in order to cover the builders costs

btw , im only challenging commonly held views , dont think im in favour of seeing a quater of farms in ireland shutting down , i like the culture which exists in the irish countryside just like i like the one which exists in france

i might be totally wrong but im uneasy about how sure some farmers seem to think the end of subs will without question see a large increase in what factories and creamerys pay for produce

People have options regarding housing eg rent move out to cheaper housing, hold off buying or move in with parents etc etc. However everyone has to eat regardless of the price so I think this comparing housing to food is misleading.

kermit_the_dog

Viewtodiefor wrote: »

People have options regarding housing eg rent move out to cheaper housing, hold off buying or move in with parents etc etc. However everyone has to eat regardless of the price so I think this comparing housing to food is misleading.

ireland isnt the only country which produces food , id be suspicious of the idea that consumers will happily pay through the nose for food were subs to end

Farmer Pudsey

kermit_the_dog wrote: »

ireland isnt the only country which produces food , id be suspicious of the idea that consumers will happily pay through the nose for food were subs to end

Ireland is not the only country that get SFP as well. If SFP stoped a lot of farmers in Europe would be under pressure mosy have higher average payments than Ireland and larger critical mass. It is what would happen to grain that would be the key not cattle farming. Right accross Europe cattle finishing is carried out like white meat farming very intensive.

While these countries have large populations and finishers have access to byproduct ( brewers grains, biscuit, bread and breakfast cereal product, lately veg& potato peeling's) they have to balance with cereals to get starch/protein right. If grain went up in price and it would these farmers would need a serious price hike as well. Consumer's would have no choice in the matter as nobody will produce food at a complete loss.

Also these big farms would be under more pressure because of machinery/stock repayments. A small farmer can withstand a years or two of losses but a big farmer with a large pool of machinery, diesel bill and labour costs would be under pressure.

All you have to do is look at winterfinishing in ireland it is becoming unsustainable and these are the farmers with the highest SFP

reilig

If the supports ended, then the number of farmers in this country would decrease rapidly - after all, its a business. It won't be sustained if it is losing money. As one of the largest food exporters in the world - beef, lamb and milk, we would have less to export. There would be a huge gap in the market.

Now, your argument is that some other country would fill this void. What other country in the world produces enough beef, lamb and milk to fill this void?? A number of years ago, we would have all agreed with you that Brazil or Argentina would be capable of this. This is no more, and their food producing capacity is decreasing year on year as they use more of their land and utilise their warm climates to grow biofuel. If you compare both Brazil and Argentina in 2012 to 10 years previous (2002), their capacity to produce beef has been reduced by 40% as they now produce crops which can be utilised to make ethanol. Both countries now stand as 2 of the biggest producers of ethanol in the world. Ethanol is far more profitable than beef. Several countries, including the USA are also following this route. 2008 was the first year that the USA had both a beef and a dairy deficit and they had to start to import.

Developing countries like China and India now recognise the importance of Ireland in the world's future of food production. They are not visiting Irish farms just for a holiday.

Ireland is a key player in world food production. Our climate ensures that we can grow grass cheaply and produce meat and milk at a very low cost - withour relying on grain crops which are subject to major price fluctuations depending on droughts and world demand.

As oil becomes more and more expensive across the world, land for food production becomes more and more scarce. In common with that, food becomes more and more scarce. People want clean and traceable food - exactly what we can produce on or mainly grass diet. We will be the ones to supply it. As food prices increase, I have no doubt that the subsidies will be reduced - we are seeing it already. Those who can afford food, will pay hansomely for it. Those who can't afford it will have to look at other means to get their vitimins and minerals. This will be done, as we have already been told, by the production of dried bugs.

In the long term, a small subsidy paid directly to farmers is probably a cheap way of keeping food cheap for the consumer. If the consumer is forced to pay the cost of production, he will also have to pay money to the middle men (the processor and the supermarket) and when all of this is added up, food will be very expensive.

There's always someone complaining about farmers - most just do it to get a reaction. Farmers are the mainstay of the rural economy. They are the backbone of 100,000 jobs in this country in the food industry (farming, processing and restaurants). The small amount that they receive has a major multiplier effect when it is put back into the economy - as it is in the majority of cases. 1000 euro given to a farmer will create and sustain a lot more employment than 1000 euro spent by the IDA or Leader or any development agency. Farmers contribute majorly to Income Tax and VAT in this country - 90% are not registered for VAT and therefore pay VAT on everything that they buy.

Its easy to look from the outside and say that its money for nothing. But if we look at where it goes, how its spent and what it sustains, there is no doubt that money paid to farmers in this country is money well spent.

Also, if you feel aggrieved that its your tax money, be happy in the knowledge that all of the money comes from European Funds. Ireland is a net receiver as opposed to contributor to the European purse.

kermit_the_dog

reilig wrote: »

If the supports ended, then the number of farmers in this country would decrease rapidly - after all, its a business. It won't be sustained if it is losing money. As one of the largest food exporters in the world - beef, lamb and milk, we would have less to export. There would be a huge gap in the market.

Now, your argument is that some other country would fill this void. What other country in the world produces enough beef, lamb and milk to fill this void?? A number of years ago, we would have all agreed with you that Brazil or Argentina would be capable of this. This is no more, and their food producing capacity is decreasing year on year as they use more of their land and utilise their warm climates to grow biofuel. If you compare both Brazil and Argentina in 2012 to 10 years previous (2002), their capacity to produce beef has been reduced by 40% as they now produce crops which can be utilised to make ethanol. Both countries now stand as 2 of the biggest producers of ethanol in the world. Ethanol is far more profitable than beef. Several countries, including the USA are also following this route. 2008 was the first year that the USA had both a beef and a dairy deficit and they had to start to import.

Developing countries like China and India now recognise the importance of Ireland in the world's future of food production. They are not visiting Irish farms just for a holiday.

Ireland is a key player in world food production. Our climate ensures that we can grow grass cheaply and produce meat and milk at a very low cost - withour relying on grain crops which are subject to major price fluctuations depending on droughts and world demand.

As oil becomes more and more expensive across the world, land for food production becomes more and more scarce. In common with that, food becomes more and more scarce. People want clean and traceable food - exactly what we can produce on or mainly grass diet. We will be the ones to supply it. As food prices increase, I have no doubt that the subsidies will be reduced - we are seeing it already. Those who can afford food, will pay hansomely for it. Those who can't afford it will have to look at other means to get their vitimins and minerals. This will be done, as we have already been told, by the production of dried bugs.

In the long term, a small subsidy paid directly to farmers is probably a cheap way of keeping food cheap for the consumer. If the consumer is forced to pay the cost of production, he will also have to pay money to the middle men (the processor and the supermarket) and when all of this is added up, food will be very expensive.

There's always someone complaining about farmers - most just do it to get a reaction. Farmers are the mainstay of the rural economy. They are the backbone of 100,000 jobs in this country in the food industry (farming, processing and restaurants). The small amount that they receive has a major multiplier effect when it is put back into the economy - as it is in the majority of cases. 1000 euro given to a farmer will create and sustain a lot more employment than 1000 euro spent by the IDA or Leader or any development agency. Farmers contribute majorly to Income Tax and VAT in this country - 90% are not registered for VAT and therefore pay VAT on everything that they buy.

Its easy to look from the outside and say that its money for nothing. But if we look at where it goes, how its spent and what it sustains, there is no doubt that money paid to farmers in this country is money well spent.

Also, if you feel aggrieved that its your tax money, be happy in the knowledge that all of the money comes from European Funds. Ireland is a net receiver as opposed to contributor to the European purse.

im not complaining about farmers , im posing questions about what might happen in the future

good post btw

6600

A lot of the other farmers I know seem to be talking about this subject lately. Two in particular said they'd like to see the SFP done away with. These were young (well 40) dairy farmers who are probably fed up looking at tillage and beef farmers working land for little more than the SFP when they could make a few pound out of it. These two prob have small SFP's themselves and work hard but make a living.
Like those two I am in the younger bracket but in sucklers and tillage. Making small profit and using the SFP for capital spending. I can see the SFP and subs are not going to last so trying to set up to have a chance to do without it.

The SFP is not index linked so is getting smaller as time goes by. REPS/AEOS/DA etc are gone/cut already. Anyone can see the way things are going.

fodda

Regards with what Reilig said above which i mostly agree with but i dont think that grant assistance removal will push prices up as somebody always steps in when an oppertunity appears.

But if you want to see what problems you really have and what will really push up prices (and your costs) and this i believe has already started big time. So you will have to adjust and plan your farming activities if you still want to be there in a few years and farm with as little of artificial means as possible.

Watch this 2009 BBC documentary on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJMgfKqKXwY

BeeDI

kermit_the_dog wrote: »

ireland isnt the only country which produces food , id be suspicious of the idea that consumers will happily pay through the nose for food were subs to end

Ireland isn't the only country where farmers ger subsidies either. If subsidies go for Irish farmers, than they will also go for all EU farmers.

The entire European food production base will have to adapt to the new scenario! Farmers will need higher prices for their products, or go out of business, right across Europe.
So it's not just a simple sum, where if the Irish farmers dont keep you fed at the price you currently pay, you will just eat imported food.
Oh, you say, to hell with all the European farmers, I'm happy to eat Argentinian meat, etc. The price of food imported from S America and the likes would simply jump, in a scenario where Europe started to import on a grand scale, you would be back to square one.
One more thing, if Europe imported meat etc, on a grand scale from Argentina, for example, price for meat in their own domestic market would rise sharply! Their own population would take to the streets, and the their government would have to impose export limits!!!
This already happened in 2007, for example.

djmc

I think most farmers would not want to loose the farm or family home
If funding stoped I would try to reduce stock levels if the were not making money even if it meant becoming a hobby farmer with an off farm job and keeping a few animals for the deep freeze
If stock numbers were low enough you could outwinter stock and have a very small output .
just because farmers go out of business does not mean that they will sell land to bigger farmers.
A bigger scale only works if there is a profit to be made.
Its all about supply and demand food supply would drop demand would increase
followed by price

bbam

I'd say a big factor would be farm borrowings. I know a few lads borrowed with the ideas that the SFP would be paying the loan back for the foreseeable future. Lads who have borrowed heavily to expand could be caught short. These could well be profit making enterprises, just heavily borrowed.
Some of the 20-30 cow suckler men with €60k tractors could be dragging the auld 165 out of mothballs.

SoJoMo

reilig wrote: »

People's opinions and the real facts differ considerably.

The biggest beef producing countries in the world - Brazil and Argentina, legally allow the use of growth hormones.

People have a right to choose food which can be traced back to the farmer who produced it. Our food in ireland can command higher prices on international markets because of the traceability schemes that we have in place. Irish people want to eat irish food for this reason. Even the british public would prefer to buy irish meat to British meat because they know that what they are eating is safe!!

Price usually wins but when consumers are given a choice they don’t want hormones or GMs or chemicals.

The USA also allows hormones into their food and even GM products and the FDA has no problems with that to the extent that its not even required to label them as such all because of lobbying by the chemical companies.
Now it looks like the irish farming bodies would like the same. I personally don’t want any of that shyte in the food I eat or produced in Ireland and if Ireland manages to keep all that out then irish farming has a unique selling point and reason to boast about its quality and thus has a future without EU funding.

But there is no future in participating in a race to the bottom. Pumping baby cattle full of meal in order to kill them at 16-24 months, its not natural and does not produce quality food. Keeping animals housed for up to 6 months on slats over a pit of their own **** is not good for man or beast. A lot of the grain used grown with chemicals and dried with chemicals like Urea.
So we are forcing ourselves to ignore our most valuable asset, grass, in order to compete with producers who will always have the benefit of economies of scale

bbam wrote: »

Ah no. Eating food produced in Ireland is about traceability and quality food. We know where it is produced and under what conditions.

kermit_the_dog wrote: »

the arguement about food produced in foreign countries being sub standard is completley over done IMO , its of course one which suits the IFA , a bullock with a mile of ID and red tape behind him in ireland is no more safe than one in argentina with a minimum amount of paper work

I have to agree here, our red tape did not prevent BSE, we still have problems with TB and other diseases and the regulations did not prevent the pork scare a year or two ago.
Ireland only tells itsself that it has quality food … sure it was only within the last couple of years that the Farmers Journal reported that german supermarkets had irish beef for sale in the bargain bins…. And those germans like to eat their meat raw!
I can see the face of the pig farmer on me rashers but those pigs still had to be fed antibiotics to be kept alive in conditions that no one would boast about.
The same with chickens that a kill at something like 10 to 15 weeks.

That’s the future of irish cattle farming and its what the likes of the IFA and big producers will look for to balance the ending of eu funding.

As for irish meat commanding a premium internationally…. Sure is the journal/IFA not regularly quoting prices around Europe so show that irish prices are lower, inorder to prove that irish farmers deserve a better price
Plus, I don’t know but I cannot believe the received wisdom that we are an important international beef producer… what % of the global meat trade do our exports account for?

What might happen in time is the likes of Tescos renting\owning farms and the farmer being an employee on his farm …. I believe this is happening in the UK
There can only be a future for small to medium farmers if we are not forced to fatten cattle unnaturally and we maintain our unique “green” selling point

reilig

Ireland is the fourth largest beef exporter in the world with annual exports in the region of 500,000 tonnes.

Very few other countries in the world can export this amount after they have fed their own population.

Can you post up some links to back up your statement that irish Farming bodies want GM crops and Hormones? That's fluff in my opinion. The only mention of GM crops in ireland in the last 5 years has been Teagasc carrying out a small field trial on Blight resistant potatoes. Why would any farming body in a country which exports 90% of its meat based on its green and natural image, want to introduce Hormones???? Please don't make up something for the sake of saying something - people from all over the world read this forum and they may believe you!!

Ireland only tells itsself that it has quality food

Did you make this up? We have the best traceability system in the world. When you buy meat in this country, you know what farm it came from. You can find out how it was fed and how it was slaughtered. No other country operates to this level of traceability. Its the key to our quality food and they key to our green image.

Yes, the pork scare was a blip for irish pork, caused by 1 man's foolishness. But it was easily managed because of the traceability system that we operate - not 1 piece of meat from this farm was eaten.

What is wrong with feeding cattle meal? If its grown properly and it is traceable, its a perfectly natural food. As for your statement about keeping cows on slats over tanks??? You obviously don't know a lot about it. Cows are much happier and healthier lying on a warm dry rubber slat mat than ploughing to their bellies in winter muck and rain. A cow's natural instinct is to take shelter in bad weather.

Also, can you provide us with a link to your statement about Irish beef in the German bargain Bins?

Also, what would your definition be of fattening cattle unnaturally??

SoJoMo wrote: »

Price usually wins but when consumers are given a choice they don’t want hormones or GMs or chemicals.

The USA also allows hormones into their food and even GM products and the FDA has no problems with that to the extent that its not even required to label them as such all because of lobbying by the chemical companies.
Now it looks like the irish farming bodies would like the same. I personally don’t want any of that shyte in the food I eat or produced in Ireland and if Ireland manages to keep all that out then irish farming has a unique selling point and reason to boast about its quality and thus has a future without EU funding.

But there is no future in participating in a race to the bottom. Pumping baby cattle full of meal in order to kill them at 16-24 months, its not natural and does not produce quality food. Keeping animals housed for up to 6 months on slats over a pit of their own **** is not good for man or beast. A lot of the grain used grown with chemicals and dried with chemicals like Urea.
So we are forcing ourselves to ignore our most valuable asset, grass, in order to compete with producers who will always have the benefit of economies of scale




I have to agree here, our red tape did not prevent BSE, we still have problems with TB and other diseases and the regulations did not prevent the pork scare a year or two ago.
Ireland only tells itsself that it has quality food … sure it was only within the last couple of years that the Farmers Journal reported that german supermarkets had irish beef for sale in the bargain bins…. And those germans like to eat their meat raw!
I can see the face of the pig farmer on me rashers but those pigs still had to be fed antibiotics to be kept alive in conditions that no one would boast about.
The same with chickens that a kill at something like 10 to 15 weeks.

That’s the future of irish cattle farming and its what the likes of the IFA and big producers will look for to balance the ending of eu funding.

As for irish meat commanding a premium internationally…. Sure is the journal/IFA not regularly quoting prices around Europe so show that irish prices are lower, inorder to prove that irish farmers deserve a better price
Plus, I don’t know but I cannot believe the received wisdom that we are an important international beef producer… what % of the global meat trade do our exports account for?

What might happen in time is the likes of Tescos renting\owning farms and the farmer being an employee on his farm …. I believe this is happening in the UK
There can only be a future for small to medium farmers if we are not forced to fatten cattle unnaturally and we maintain our unique “green” selling point

chickenfarmer

SoJoMo wrote: »

The same with chickens that a kill at something like 10 to 15 weeks.

Can you explain your point here in relation to chickens ??

axel7

A lot of the grain used grown with chemicals and dried with chemicals like Urea.

What's wrong with chemicals to grow grain? It's used to grow the grass in the system you feel we should pursue in order to have any future- grass based farming.

SoJoMo

reilig wrote: »

Ireland produces over 1 million tonnes of beef every year and almost 900,000 tonnes of that is exported (Live and dead). We are one of the most important and biggest beef exporters in the world. Very few other countries in the world can export this amount after they have fed their own population.

I don’t disagree but my question was not what % of our produce is exported which is high and very important to us but what % of the international trade is made up of our exports?

reilig wrote: »

Can you post up some links to back up your statement that irish Farming bodies want GM crops and Hormones? That's fluff in my opinion. The only mention of GM crops in ireland in the last 5 years has been Teagasc carrying out a small field trial on Blight resistant potatoes. Why would any farming body in a country which exports 90% of its meat based on its green and natural image, want to introduce Hormones???? Please don't make up something for the sake of saying something - people from all over the world read this forum and they may believe you!!

One of the reasons that the Greens were disliked in the last government was that they wanted to make ireland GMO free.
How many of our farming bodies have organised a campaign to ban GMOs and stop the trials by Teagasc? And it says enough that a government body that’s there to help Irish farmers are even allowed to do this without all farmers complaining.
If the IFA does not actively come out against it and protect our land and food from GMOs then they are secretly, uncontroversailly and tacitally agreeing with it. The current IFA man has argued for the allowing of GMO feed to help the profits of the pork industry and so its not a long step from that to wanting something similar and more to help the profits of the all farmers when the EU funding ends. If he/them were actively against GMOs in ireland then he’d say so and be fighting to protect our “green” status.
http://www.ifa.ie/IFAInformation/tabid/586/ctl/Detail/mid/2202/xmid/4245/xmfid/23/Default.aspx

reilig wrote: »

Quote:
Ireland only tells itsself that it has quality food

Did you make this up? We have the best traceability system in the world. When you buy meat in this country, you know what farm it came from. You can find out how it was fed and how it was slaughtered.

Again, I can see the name and maybe the face of the pig farmer on my pack of bacon but but his pigs are still being feed antibiotics in conditions that no one would boast about and I fear thats what will happen to the beef industry if/when eu supports end. Tracebility is a nice gimmicky selling point but does not prove anything only the source of the meat.

reilig wrote: »

Yes, the pork scare was a blip for irish pork, caused by 1 man's foolishness. But it was easily managed because of the traceability system that we operate - not 1 piece of meat from this farm was eaten.

If traceibility worked so well to remove the contaminated pork from the food chain then why was all pork removed – possibility PR/optics – but still it has to be said that the result of traceibility on the consumer was very little.

reilig wrote: »

What is wrong with feeding cattle meal? If its grown properly and it is traceable, its a perfectly natural food. As for your statement about keeping cows on slats over tanks??? You obviously don't know a lot about it. Cows are much happier and healthier lying on a warm dry rubber slat mat than ploughing to their bellies in winter muck and rain. A cow's natural instinct is to take shelter in bad weather.

Well I wont presume to tell you what you do or dont know but from my experience when our cattle are given a choice in winter to go out and sit at the back of a ditch or go inside on the concret slats then 6 days out of 7 they will stay out side even in bad weather and they usually end up being the healtiest ones. You go stand on a concret factory floor in your rubber booths for as little as 8 hours a day and you will feel the affects.
Meal is natural, using Urea to dry it is not and fattening/killing a bull at 16 months or a chicken at 10-12 weeks is not but thats what more irish farmers might have to do in the race to the bottom when EU funding ends.
This is my point and is the future I see for farming when EU funding ends

reilig wrote: »

Also, can you provide us with a link to your statement about Irish beef in the German bargain Bins?

Fair enough but give me time to find it. I remember reading it as a small point in an article about something else and it just struct me as very contradictory to the usual cliche they trot out…. Thats why I remembered it

SoJoMo

chickenfarmer wrote: »

Can you explain your point here in relation to chickens ??

My point was that if the EU supports go then beef farming will end up being a "stack em high sell em cheap" business ... high volume/low margin