Food more expensive than ever yet farmers complain of low remuneration for products

Montroseee

Any farmer I have conversed with in the past 4-5 years has bemoaned the low prices their produce is now fetching. I have relatives involved in the industry and know families involved in it through college, so I am not just basing it on two or three opinions.

I recently talked briefly with a farmer in a pub who claimed he was getting the lowest price for chicken and beef since the 90's. For cost cutting measures I opt for cheaper alternatives like canned fish because I find chicken too pricey at the moment in places like tesco, dunnes , lidl etc.

My question is, where is this money going when food has not dropped in price one bit? Are the farmers still chasing Celtic Tiger prices? I heard on the radio a typical weekly shop for a family has gone up again this year and has done throughout this recession.

jasonmcco

Farmers get subsidies to be farmers.
This needs to be stopped.It is unfair.

readyletsgo

Tesco, Spar, Aldi, Lidl, Superquinn, Supervalu etc all pay the farmers **** money and charge over the odds to the consummer. The Companies behind these names make the money, not the farmers. I know this all too well as my dad (along with a LOT of other other farmers/market gardeners) was forced out of market gardening when tesco came to Ireland in the 90's taking over the companies running the show here.

Read up on it.

TeddyTedson

I don't think food is more expensive than ever, is it?

I know that when big supermarkets decide to do something like half price meat deals, they tell their suppliers that they're paying half price. It's not tesco who lose out. The suppliers generally can't afford to lose the contract with supermarkets.

tommy2bad

Theirs a lot of factors contributing to the shop price of food. It's not just farmers and the final seller involved in food production.
Starting with the farmer who produces veg or beef, chicken then on to the butcher/factory, then the processors who bake or tin or package a product, the distribution, then the retailer.

A shortage or price rise in any one commodity has a knock on effect on the price to the consumer. Oil for example has a big effect on both the factory/processors and distribution chain.

Add in the increased buying power of large multiples and you have downward pressure on the primary producer - the farmer who compensates by producing more to get the same return.

The subsidies were to ensure supply, not to compensate for falling prices but as in everything an unseen consequence was a drop in price.

Messing with a market has an effect and just allowing the market to run on has another effect.
We still have a historically low food price if you judge by the proportion of a household income is spent on food.

WesternZulu

jasonmcco wrote: »

Farmers get subsidies to be farmers.
This needs to be stopped.It is unfair.

If supermarkets were willing to reflect the true price of production in the prices that they offer for produce then there would be no need for such subsidies.
A scenario that most farmers would prefer.

tommy2bad

WesternZulu wrote: »

If supermarkets were willing to reflect the true price of production in the prices that they offer for produce then there would be no need for such subsidies.
A scenario that most farmers would prefer.

The trouble is it's a global market for the supermarkets, do the pay the latin american production price or the dutch intensive farming price?

Mr Benevolent

Montroseee wrote: »

Any farmer I have conversed with in the past 4-5 years has bemoaned the low prices their produce is now fetching. I have relatives involved in the industry and know families involved in it through college, so I am not just basing it on two or three opinions.

Farmers are just one part of the chain. I haven't noticed food becoming more expensive as I shop in Aldi and Lidl.

DrumSteve

I just go to the butchers if I want meats, works out cheaper.

When do farmers not complain?

pastorbarrett

I find chicken and beef to be at times worryingly cheap. 10 chicken fillets for 10 euro? No thanks. Food, particularly meat products, which require an investment of care and best practice on the part of the producer shouldn't be cheap.

Also, where meat is concerned, it's really worth learning to cook with cheaper cuts. They're often WAY tastier.

coffee_cake

meridiangroup wrote: »

Food, particularly meat products, shouldn't be cheap.

, it's really worth learning to cook with cheaper cuts. They're often WAY tastier.

What

Scotty #

Producer > Processor > Distributor/Wholesaler > Retailer

Producer has always received the smallest cut of the final price. I think to a certain extent, they only have themselves to blame.

The Backwards Man

Remember years ago when farmers used to protest in Dublin every turnabout?
You don't see that anymore because people don't have as much sympathy for people driving €100,000 tractors and €50,000 jeeps.

CAP > supermarket cartels

Paramite Pie

Montroseee wrote: »

My question is, where is this money going when food has not dropped in price one bit? Are the farmers still chasing Celtic Tiger prices? I heard on the radio a typical weekly shop for a family has gone up again this year and has done throughout this recession.

My weekly shopping has dropped and my parents shopping has definitely dropped too.

Did farmer prices even increase much during the Celtic Tiger? I was under the impression that many turned away from farming in that time period.

TeddyTedson wrote: »

I don't think food is more expensive than ever, is it?

I know that when big supermarkets decide to do something like half price meat deals, they tell their suppliers that they're paying half price. It's not tesco who lose out. The suppliers generally can't afford to lose the contract with supermarkets.

I worked in Dunnes and can confirm its the same practise there. Anything that is half price is usually the suppliers who bear the cost, not the supermarket. I remember sales reps telling me that their companies were often selling their stuff at 'cost price' during special offers, meaning they made no profit on those products for that promotion cycle.:eek:

meridiangroup wrote: »

Also, where meat is concerned, it's really worth learning to cook with cheaper cuts. They're often WAY tastier.

Also marinading cheaper cuts make's them so tender and juicy, you'd never know it was cheap meat. I imagine that's what many restaurants do!:P

WesternZulu

The Backwards Man wrote: »

You don't see that anymore because people don't have as much sympathy for people driving €100,000 tractors and €50,000 jeeps.

Yeah because all farmers have €100,000 tractors and €50,000 jeeps.

The Backwards Man

WesternZulu wrote: »

Yeah because all farmers have €100,000 tractors and €50,000 jeeps.

Quite a lot of them do.

WesternZulu

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Quite a lot of them do.

Well they are few and far between where I come from in the west unless they are contractors.

Mr Benevolent

bluewolf wrote: »

What

He's right. Do you cook much?

pastorbarrett

bluewolf wrote: »

What

One portion of chicken popcorn coming up...

bbam

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Remember years ago when farmers used to protest in Dublin every turnabout?
You don't see that anymore because people don't have as much sympathy for people driving €100,000 tractors and €50,000 jeeps.

CAP > supermarket cartels

That's an Ill informed post, bordering on ignorant.
Tractors and often jeeps are machinery for the job. How many factory workers operate equipment worth €100k ?
I worked in a factory where equipment cost millions each.
And yes it's often tax efficient to own a newer piece of machinery, but that's the approach all business take. Be as tax efficient as possible.


Another post mentioned subsidies. The majority of farmers (including myself) think that the day the subs were brought in was a bad day for Irish farming. It's totally unacceptable that farms are getting the equavilent of the average industrial wage as a sub. This lessens the need to farm for a profit and so ruins the market for those of us who need a profit. The price for Our produce is dictated by the person willing to sell for the least, if you have a guaranteed income from the sub, sale prices are less important.

coffee_cake

Mr Benevolent wrote: »

He's right. Do you cook much?

I do, but I don't post on boards that cheap meat is dodgy and we should stay away from it except that it's tastier and we should use it more
10 fillets for 10 from the butcher does me fine

pastorbarrett

bluewolf wrote: »

I do, but I don't post on boards that cheap meat is dodgy and we should stay away from it except that it's tastier and we should use it more
10 fillets for 10 from the butcher does me fine

In reference to cheaper cuts, I wasn't implying the meat was of inferior quality, just less expensive.

Knasher

The Backwards Man wrote: »

You don't see that anymore because people don't have as much sympathy for people driving €100,000 tractors and €50,000 jeeps.

Farm equipment has a high upfront cost but generally it is bought on credit and is used over a very long period of time in order to recoup the cost. There is a tractor on my Dads farm that is about 40 years old and still sees daily use. He doesn't own a jeep and the newest tractor is about 8 years old by now, it was expensive when he bought it, but it still has tons of years left it in to recoup that cost.

Honestly though this stuff is basic economics, that applies to every business. Per person farms have comparatively high net profits and high expenses, its the difference between them, the gross profit, that actually matters.

The Backwards Man

bbam wrote: »

That's an Ill informed post, bordering on ignorant.
Tractors and often jeeps are machinery for the job. How many factory workers operate equipment worth €100k ?
I worked in a factory where equipment cost millions each.
And yes it's often tax efficient to own a newer piece of machinery, but that's the approach all business take. Be as tax efficient as possible.


Another post mentioned subsidies. The majority of farmers (including myself) think that the day the subs were brought in was a bad day for Irish farming. It's totally unacceptable that farms are getting the equavilent of the average industrial wage as a sub. This lessens the need to farm for a profit and so ruins the market for those of us who need a profit. The price for Our produce is dictated by the person willing to sell for the least, if you have a guaranteed income from the sub, sale prices are less important.

You've just made my point for me. How many farmers would have to worry about being tax efficient were it not for the subs? Prices are no better now than they were in the 80s but can you honestly say that there are many farmers who are worse off now than they were then? Most are a lot better off.

bbam

The Backwards Man wrote: »

You've just made my point for me. How many farmers would have to worry about being tax efficient were it not for the subs? Prices are no better now than they were in the 80s but can you honestly say that there are many farmers who are worse off now than they were then? Most are a lot better off.

Absolutely wrong.
Most farmers are not better off now. Approx 2500 farms out of the 130,000+ farms in the country receive subs that make a real financial difference to their business. The vast majority receive less than €5000 per year. In the whole the subs have destroyed the business. They were to ensure food production levels were high as Europe wants to be food Independant. .

The real reason you don't see as many farmers protesting is that they have finally seen through the IFA who claim to represent farming Ireland. They only represent the top brass of farmers as they are primarially staffed by the same farming families. Smaller farmers are turning their backs on the IFA in droves.

Beef cattle ex farm are selling for similar prices to the 1980's. Yet feed, fertiliser and fuel have increased by something like 400%.

bbam

bbam wrote: »

Approx 2500 farms out of the 130,000+ farms in the country receive subs that make a real financial difference to their business.

Care to backup that?

http://www.teagasc.ie/agrifood/

While farming in general continues to be very reliant on subsidies, subsidies accounted for 98% of family farm income on average in 2010, increases in the market value of produce has seen market based gross output per farm increase by 23% from 2009 to 2010.

Taken from midway down in the section on the National Farm Survey 2010 - I would call 98% of income a real financial difference.

bbam

I'll pull some numbers later. I'm on the phone now.
Subs aren't the gravy train people think they are.

It's easy for a small-modest sub to be 98% of a farm income if the farm income is a pittance in the first place.

Paramite Pie

The Backwards Man wrote: »

You don't see that anymore because people don't have as much sympathy for people driving €100,000 tractors and €50,000 jeeps.

All of that money came from selling land during the boom years. People are always so quick to be judgemental.

For example, I used to have a decent wage. Bought myself a nice i-phone and a laptop. Then I was on the dole a few months and if people saw me with an i-phone they'd be making all kinds of assumptions that that's where taxpayers money goes, never entertaining the fact that I may have had a job once:rolleyes:

Capt'n Midnight

jasonmcco wrote: »

Farmers get subsidies to be farmers.
This needs to be stopped.It is unfair.

We should go back to the framers dole.

The payments should be to support the individual farmers to keep communities alive not to line pockets of industrial concerns.

Payments per head / acre / tonne need to be stopped.
Payments that are spent on imports need to be reduced. Things like tractors and fertilizer and fuel are generally imported. If the productivity increases they give can support such things then they don't need payments.


Payments to improve land that cost more than improved lane in the vicinity (this has happened in other parts of the EU), should be made illegal





Also this
Ireland has more farmers aged over 80 than under 35

Honey-ec

bbam wrote: »

It's easy for a small-modest sub to be 98% of a farm income if the farm income is a pittance in the first place.

Any business that requires subsidies of that level clearly isn't viable and should be allowed to fail.