Interesting that 'Farm & Forestry' in the Social section...

pburns

Interesting that 'Farm & Forestry' in the Social section rather than under 'Biz'. Considering agriculture was the central plank of our economy not so long ago and is still quite a significent sector in terms of employment...

Does this reflect the reality of today's society or the perceptions of cosmopoliton 'net moderators. Is farming is just a hobby these days? Are rural 'issues' are more to do with protecting the environment than contributing to the market economy?

The_Conductor

While farming may not be the central plank in the economy that it once was- it is still plays the third most important role in the economy of any of the old EU 15- and contributes about 8.2% of our GDP. In addition about 1 in 12 people gainfully employed are farmers. Despite what the media says- we also have a pretty ok age profile in farming with around 14% of farmers under 35 years of age, and only 43% over the age of 55.

Rural issues, while farming may play an integral role in many of them, are issues which equally face all those not living in the major urban areas.

Certainly farming has gotten a lot more cosmopolitan than it may have been in the past- Teagasc now have SMS text services for farmers and run a number of education and training courses very successfully online and by distant education- where once pupils would have had to attend lecture theaters in Dublin, Galway or Cork.

A lot of the farming focus, especially in smaller holdings, has migrated from raw production to value added activities and this is reflected in the greater diversity of enterprises being explored (many of which are guided through the Teagasc Farm Families programme).

So- in short, while farming is still an important sector of the economy- it has migrated in recent times into a number of related but not necessarily production orientated areas- and could well be deemed for many as much a social as a business undertaking (especially as so many farmers have either part-time or full-time employment off the farm and farm their holdings around off-farm employment).

It would be interesting to have a discussion about the relative merits of farming as a social rather than as a business undertaking- which does appear to be the direction a lot of it is going.....

maidhc

smccarrick wrote:

It would be interesting to have a discussion about the relative merits of farming as a social rather than as a business undertaking- which does appear to be the direction a lot of it is going.....

It would.

I think we are in a period of transition at the moment, but I don't think too many farmers are particularly anxious to produce the countries food for free. Although it must be said that is close to what is happening for many farmers at the moment.

Capt'n Midnight

I remembered hearing on the news that only 2% of farming land changes hand each year.

Considering the value of land, you'd expect many to sell off enough to divest elsewhere to lock in the gain before land drops again.

The_Conductor

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

I remembered hearing on the news that only 2% of farming land changes hand each year.

Considering the value of land, you'd expect many to sell off enough to divest elsewhere to lock in the gain before land drops again.

I don't think so- very few farmers are mercenary in the manner that you are suggesting. A lot of farmers farm at only very small profit or even at a loss- because it is in their blood, and they have no need, want or urge to do otherwise. If you checked I think you would find that the vast majority of land that changes hands on an annual basis is actually farmers retiring and selling their land to sons or relatives, very little land hits the open market at all (other than through land hitting the market after a farmer passes on).

maidhc

smccarrick wrote:

I don't think so- very few farmers are mercenary in the manner that you are suggesting. A lot of farmers farm at only very small profit or even at a loss- because it is in their blood, and they have no need, want or urge to do otherwise. If you checked I think you would find that the vast majority of land that changes hands on an annual basis is actually farmers retiring and selling their land to sons or relatives, very little land hits the open market at all (other than through land hitting the market after a farmer passes on).

Absolutely. Farmers will sell off farm property they own at the drop of a hat, but rarely ever want to sell their own farm.

Capt'n Midnight

smccarrick wrote:

I don't think so- very few farmers are mercenary in the manner that you are suggesting. A lot of farmers farm at only very small profit or even at a loss- because it is in their blood, and they have no need, want or urge to do otherwise.

based on the book value of land the return on investment of many farms is tiny. best to capitalise on it, sell off a bit of land , and put the money aside for a rainy day or for when land prices drop again, on the radio they said about the worst thing to do was to reinvest back in the farm because in most cases you wouldn't get the money back , or maybe diversify in to eco-tourism or wind farms or what have you

Wishbone Ash

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

based on the book value of land the return on investment of many farms is tiny. best to capitalise on it, sell off a bit of land , and put the money aside for a rainy day or for when land prices drop again

A lot of farmers are reluctant to sell land that has been in their families for generations or which was built up gradually, developed from nothing or hard fought for.

In saying that, quite a few farms come on the market in the greater Dublin area and there doesn't seem to be the same attachment to specific land as in other areas rural areas. No doubt the excessive prices made by Dublin farmland helps matters. Many sell up here and use the money to buy a much bigger farm further out in Dublin or in surrounding counties.

maidhc

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

based on the book value of land the return on investment of many farms is tiny. best to capitalise on it, sell off a bit of land , and put the money aside for a rainy day or for when land prices drop again, on the radio they said about the worst thing to do was to reinvest back in the farm because in most cases you wouldn't get the money back , or maybe diversify in to eco-tourism or wind farms or what have you

Tbh land prices are unlikely ever to drop by any margin.

Plain and simple farmers don't look on the farm as any kind of investment or asset with a capital value. They generally treat the farm as a "normal" person would their family home.

There isn't much wrong with that attitude either.

Capt'n Midnight

maidhc wrote:

They generally treat the farm as a "normal" person would their family home.

There isn't much wrong with that attitude either.

Fine as long as they don't need subsidies. People in cities have to sell houses they can't afford to keep. A lot more would happily sell off a room / part of their garden if only it was so easy to get them out of debt.

I have no problem at all with a per farmer subsidy like the "farmers dole" to pay for social cohesion etc. I have a problem with productivity or area related subsidies that keep intensive, chemical based farming going long after it's unecomical.

The_Conductor

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

I have no problem at all with a per farmer subsidy like the "farmers dole" to pay for social cohesion etc. I have a problem with productivity or area related subsidies that keep intensive, chemical based farming going long after it's unecomical.

Well production based subsidies are gone now- and you could argue that the various flavours of REPS are a payment to pay for social cohesion (and to maintain the upkeep and diversity of the rural environment). The single payment- which is an area related subsidy is due to be phased out in 2013- so we are going down that road one way or the other......

maidhc

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

I have no problem at all with a per farmer subsidy like the "farmers dole" to pay for social cohesion etc. I have a problem with productivity or area related subsidies that keep intensive, chemical based farming going long after it's unecomical.

I agree! There however a very coherent theory that farmers never got any production based subsidies. While the money was paid to the farmers, they lost it at the other end due to reduced commodity prices. Since the non-producton related SFP was introduced last year we have seen the price of beef at the farm gate (for example) rise substantially. Larry Goodman and co benefited more for subsidies that any farmers as they got their raw materials at a massive undervalue and sold on to the public at market value.

As smccarrick said, the subsidies are being phased out quite quickly. What is going to happen then to agriculture then is anyones guess. I suspect however that life will go on.

stanflt

What’s more interesting is that I’ve posts from 12 yrs ago coming up on page one

Lady Haywire

stanflt wrote: »

What’s more interesting is that I’ve posts from 12 yrs ago coming up on page one

Now I do too

stanflt

Lady Haywire wrote: »

Now I do too

Must be a viruse- maybe corona

tanko

maidhc wrote: »

Tbh land prices are unlikely ever to drop by any margin.

Plain and simple farmers don't look on the farm as any kind of investment or asset with a capital value. They generally treat the farm as a "normal" person would their family home.

There isn't much wrong with that attitude either.

So much for land prices being unlikely to ever drop by any margin since 2006.
"Ever" turned out to be a few short years.