Is CAP undermining rural economies in the EU?

macraignil

The CAP (common agricultural policey) has used a large portion of the EU budget for decades with the aim of reducing the price of food. Farmers have been given direct payments from the EU to allow them to grow their business and improve production. Larger farms using larger machinery are now able to produce food at costs far lower than those producing crops without machinery.
When bank credit was reviewed a few years ago it was revealed that only a handfull of industrialised EU member states were working as growing economies. Have the member states that have a larger dependance on primary production of food faced an EU sponsered assault on the price of their products?
At the same time as CAP payments allowed the large food grower buy the machinery needed to sell their crop at a fraction cheaper at the supermarket, producers of products like volkswagen cars saw the price they could charge increase. The net effect of the scheme for employment is less work in the field and more work in making machinery. Has CAP forced the EU into the current situation where the member states most dependant on primary production are to languish in long term recession and stagnation? I have heard of a lot of suicides near where I live in recent years and there is some german woman on a programme on TV making people feel bad for having eaten too much. Are CAP and now austerity the economic tools to be applied to depopulate the rural economies of the EU?


[MOD]Godwinning in the thread title...avoid in future.[/MOD]

Victor

macraignil wrote: »

Auschwitz to austerity?

Exaggerate and hyperbole much?

macraignil wrote: »

Are CAP and now austerity the economic tools to be applied to depopulate the rural economies of the EU?

Urbanisation and worker specialisation has been going on for 8,000-12,000 years and has been accelerated for the last 400 years with the agricultural and industrial revolutions. People have been moving from agrarian economies to industrial and service based ones for the whole time. The Nazis came to power only 80 years ago and the CAP is only 51 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Agricultural_Policy

And of course, agricultural countries and regions have changed their focus - using niche products, food processing, tourism and the like to compete in areas that industrial economies can't.

Your theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Cody Pomeray

I think the thread title is symptomatic of the blindness to the outside world that is symbolized by Common Agricultural Policy.

Is it undermining rural economies?

It is undermining global trade. It is undermining attempts to reduce global poverty and create trade justice.

If you want to draw a likeness with Auschwitz (always a risky one to try pull off) you might better refer to the deliberate and systematic persecution of the outsider.

macraignil

I was not saying austerity is the same as auschwitz but mentioned them because both words start in au and both words relate to German policy. Sorry if this was to exaggerate.

I am very interested in scrutiny of my suggestion that the Common Agricultural Policy is contributing to rural depopulation in less industrialised EU member states. I would very much appreciate if somebody can offer some.

I am not suggesting that people have not moved to cities before CAP was put in place in the EU or that the Nazis are involved in running CAP. I am also not suggesting that rural economies are not still working hard to make a living with various strategies.

If I was to have a theory it would be that if the money currently used in the CAP scheme to pay farmers cash based on the size of their business was directed in a more local employment promoting manner it would have much greater benefit.

Cody Pomeray

But you still want to keep the funds under CAP, or are you talking about steering funds out of CAP and into some other rural development programme?

Because if you're talking about shifting money around within CAP - away from direct payments (Pillar I) and into Rural development (Pillar II) - then you're not really changing anything. You're just changing the reasons why you're giving the same people their money. Their funds are unchanged. They are still not going to hire any extra workforce, and may in fact decrease production.

And if you're talking about removing money from CAP and shunting it elsewhere, then you're going to do serious damage to rural development and the attractiveness of the countryside as a place to live.

Not criticizing your post btw, just wondering where you're coming from.

Farmer Pudsey

As a farmer I am an agnostic on CAP. In the first place Pillar1 funds are only used against Milk, Meat and Grain production in Ireland. It funds also tabacco and wine productions in southern Europe. Vegetable, Fruit, poultry and pig producers do not receive CAP funds.

Ireland is a net benificary of CAP funds if it moved to Pillar2 we would not receive anywhere near the same funding. There was a thread on the Farming Forum V the way funding was distributed you should read same re farmers opinion. There is a spit over historical payments.

The EU imposes more conditions on it farmers regarding any other economic area. Hormones are banned compared to the US and policed compared to Brazil. Pigs are no longer teathered compared to other countries. Chicken is produced to higher standards compared to imported Thailand poultry. GM technology is not allowed at present.

If they were removed EU wide I would have no issue and there was no cap on production. However in the short term food production would be interrupted to a certain extent as large Supermarket groups would use there muscle to keep prices below economic production costs to hold onto or gain market share, as they do at present. If food production droped across the EU by 20% I wonder what impact it would have on food prices.

I agree regarding Mechanisation however from what I see most highly mechanised area's of farming are operating on unsustainable margins. They are finding it harder to replace same and a lot seem to be going down the hire route rather than leasing and straight purchasing is gone completely. This is a sign that a lot of these operation are losing money. Most of these business are on a knife edge. By the way bar grain none of the highly mechanised area's receive CAP funding.

Regarding depending on other area's of the world to produce our food this might well drive up the price of food in these area's. China is trying to buy huge swathes of land in New Zealand and South America to secure food production for it own people. Argentina has imposed large Agriculture Tarriff's on exports to keep the price of food down for its own population. In Africa corruption is more of an issue than access to markets.

macraignil

I am not suggesting removing money from CAP and shunting it elsewhere. My suggestion is that because of the continued depopulation of rural areas it would be more beneficial for CAP money to be directed more towards investment by the farmer in creating more employment in their local community.

I believe that much of the CAP money already distributed has being used on machinery and overinflated land prices. If the same cash was earmarked to be used on generating employment on the farm with alternative farm enterprises or more managed farm production to produce higher value goods, then the social benefits would be greater. (The idea still faces the problem in Ireland of highly restrictive residential planning regulations in most of the countryside if it was to create the rural employment the scheme should be generating.)

If every farmer in the country was able to create a part time job with part of the subsidy money then our dole ques would be less of a problem.

Cody Pomeray

macraignil wrote: »

I am not suggesting removing money from CAP and shunting it elsewhere. My suggestion is that because of the continued depopulation of rural areas it would be more beneficial for CAP money to be directed more towards investment by the farmer in creating more employment in their local community.

I'd have some questions about that approach from a commercial point of view, but first of all lets stick to funding.

Now realistically, to do that, you have three choices.

1. you are going to have to decrease direct payments (making farming less attractive)
2. you're going to have to decrease rural development payments, making the countryside less of an attractive habitat for rural humans, or
3.you're going to have to substantially increase the CAP budget.

Aside from all this, there is a serious question to answer about what we want farmers to be. At the moment, CAP views farmers as producers of commodities under Pillar 1, and as rural caretakers under Pillar 2. You're now talking about a 3rd role for farmers, to make them into local investors.

I don't see the wisdom of doing that. Not least because farmers are not always natural businessmen. I think rural investment and rural commercial enterprises can be enhanced by other sources of EU funding: e.g. a scheme whereby the European Investment Bank would provide lending institutions with capital for on-lending specifically to rural SMEs, similar to the EIB-AIB scheme we've seen recently.

I definitely wouldn't consider it wise to diminish farmers' roles as custodians of the countryside and as producers of valuable export goods, and try to make them into local entrepreneurs.

Pete_Cavan

macraignil wrote: »

I believe that much of the CAP money already distributed has being used on machinery and overinflated land prices. If the same cash was earmarked to be used on generating employment on the farm with alternative farm enterprises or more managed farm production to produce higher value goods, then the social benefits would be greater. (The idea still faces the problem in Ireland of highly restrictive residential planning regulations in most of the countryside if it was to create the rural employment the scheme should be generating.)

Are you suggesting that farmers save up in order to buy a new piece of machinery or some neighbouring land with the grants they receive? These are usually large purchases and done as a planned investment, using external financing (loans), as part of a longer term plan, not just taking a notion and then paid for with cash up front. I would love to hear about some of these "alternative farm enterprises" you have in mind because this seems to me to be some buzz words thrown together to suggest something but with no intention to elaborate on what. Many farmers do look for "alternative" incomes where possible but these are usually to generate a bit of cash rather than actual "enterprises", i.e. selling firewood. Seems like Underpants Gnomes economics to me and the ridiculous comparison to Auschwitz supports that.

And we do not have "highly restrictive residential planning regulations in most of the countryside", it is actually very lacks here compared to other countries and I would suggest that more restrictive planning and encouraging clustered settlement patterns would actually create more employment in rural areas than the current system.

bbam

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Are you suggesting that farmers save up in order to buy a new piece of machinery or some neighbouring land with the grants they receive?

Actually Pete that's mostly what happens..
The historic method of dividing the direct farm payments meand that farms are basically paid based on their business near 20 years ago, there is no account for current business or decline in activity.

I know a number of farms receiving €60K plus in direct payments.
One was honest enough to tell me he splits the payment, half is used for payments of loans in the bank for machinery and parcels of land, the rest runs the house... whether the farm turns a profit or not is secondary as his income is sure and his farm grows as he used direct payments to expand.. He admitts he didnt know a heifer from a hog when the reference years were done as his late father was running the farm.. this is wrong!

It is well recognised that farms receiving larger SFP can operate on less and less profit margins as their income is secure anyway, this has skewed the whole business as they are being subsidised to sell produce at near break even prices, thus decimating the market for all.

Agriculture would be better off in the long run without direct payments in their current format.

Even the new flat rate option being touted isn't going far enough.

And to clarify, yes we receive a SFP, marginally above the average value, we will loose in the leveling of payments, but I'd rather it was taken from everybody and we had a decent sustainable business where the profit was on the animals and not via direct payment..


A previous poster mentioned the controls on farming practice, and linked the direct payments as some form of reward..
This simply isnt true, the controls are there to ensure best practice, animal welfare and quality food for the consumer, most farmers would welcome these being written into law and the SFP abolished, it could be done with the stroke of a pen..
Farmers realise that animal welfare and best practice leads to better produce and thus better returns and profits..

Essentially the direct payments (SFP) is forcing out ordinary farms for the super farms run/controlled by Goodman and the like. the recent meat scandal surely makes people realise this is not good for anyone, producer or consumer. Larry Goodman ran thousands of cattle through the books of his feedlot "farms" en-route to factory during the payment reference years as he and others were tipped off as to what was going on.. as a result they draw down obscene amounts of direct payments for their "farming" enterprises.

macraignil

I am happy to see that Pete Cavan is interested in alternative farm enterprises. There has been a lot of research in this area and some also in this country by Teagasc. Examples I remember being investigated included growing mushrooms, vegetables, forestry, growing fruit and nuts, producing higher value food products by further processing of crops and animal products. Farm house cheese, yoghurt, prepared vegetables, wine, cider, beer...

I am not familiar with the term "Underpants Gnomes economics" and would very much like to know how this relates to my suggestion that CAP funding be linked to creating local rural employment.

I would also like to know of these other countries where the rural planning laws are more restrictive. I have always had an interest in living in the countryside but being from close to an urban centre I would not qualify to build a new home in most of the county I am from and a site that might become available near the city where I might qualify as a local resident is unlikely to be affordable. When I enquired about one nice sized site near my parents house a few years ago the first question I was asked was how many houses did I intend on building there and was told if I was only looking to build one the land would be too expensive for me.

The cases I have heard of here include a person seeking planning on a site in county Cork a mile and a half from where they grew up and being told they were not local enough to qualify to apply. Another friend required the comissioning of an Ecology report so they could build on a standard pasture field on their own farm ( I studied ecology and there was no evidence of any wildlife on the site requiring protection) There is also a substantial development charge levied by the County Council without any improvement to the services provided to the new house by the Council. In Galway I read that for a time new builds in the county had to follow the tradition of small windows in keeping to the local traditional style that had its beginning in the Tax on window size that existed historicaly under English taxation.

What sort of clustered development patterns create more employment and how do they do this? I am very interested to know how these outweigh the increased productivity a person can have from cultivating crops or running other enterprises that need more space than is allowed in recently built housing developments.

Farmer Pudsey

Macraignil the biggest problem with your plan is that we do not have the population to market these products into. 90% of the food we produce in Ireland is sold outside the country. most of the products are cottage type industry which requires a vibrant farmer market which in turn requires a big population base.

This is possible in France and parts of England however you need a population to be consuming 50%+ of what we produce in the country. This cottage type product has to build up a profile to sell. I see farmers selling there own Vegetable's in Rural Ireland struggling. If you build up a market someone else comes along and competes which drives down your profitability. It is impossible to build up meat brands like this. You can see the struggle that Large Irish meat companies have with UK supermarkets.

Only a small % of the population can afford to pay premium prices for these products. Capital outlay is large to even set up a small brewing operation we have a number of micro breweriess in Ireland and most are struggling. there are many firewood processors at present most are only working for a wage after a large outlay. Giving some else a grant to start up in competition will only wipe them out. The same with most other cottage industry, this has become Leaders biggest headache we have reached saturation point with a lot of these type of small industry. You need a tremendous product and resolve to survive in this type of enterprise at present.

SeanW

Godwinned in the first word of the title ... never seen that before

Conmaicne Mara

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Only a small % of the population can afford to pay premium prices for these products. Capital outlay is large to even set up a small brewing operation we have a number of micro breweriess in Ireland and most are struggling. there are many firewood processors at present most are only working for a wage after a large outlay. Giving some else a grant to start up in competition will only wipe them out. The same with most other cottage industry, this has become Leaders biggest headache we have reached saturation point with a lot of these type of small industry. You need a tremendous product and resolve to survive in this type of enterprise at present.

I've my own views on CAP, but there's a very important point up here. The cost involved in setting up rural business. Teagasc has a list of diversification ideas somewhere on their site, some costed. I don't know how awful exact their costings are but some for basic products are bloody eye wateringly expensive and far out of reach for most.

Lbeard

macraignil wrote: »

The CAP (common agricultural policey) has used a large portion of the EU budget for decades with the aim of reducing the price of food.

No, this is the subsidy mythology for the townies. The purpose of the CAP, and the agricultural subsidies in Europe and America is to keep a bulwark of right-wing voters in the rural areas. For example in Germany before the second world war there was a serious discussion on banning modern farm machinery and methods, because of a fear this would lead to a depopulation of rural right wingers, and a swelling of the urban proletariat. Who of course through their experience of exploitation would become left wing and trounce the barons and the Vons out of power and riches.

Farmers have been given direct payments from the EU to allow them to grow their business and improve production. Larger farms using larger machinery are now able to produce food at costs far lower than those producing crops without machinery.

Something common to farmers the world over; they're deeply conservative. They like their nice way of life and do not want to see it change. But they're also thick and greedy. Capitalism appeals to their greed, but they have a fantasy version of capitalism. In their version of capitalism, it always serves the interests of a the conservative rural man in his cloth cap and tweed jacket. who pulled himself up by his own britches ....on the family ranch. Capitalism in reality is one of the most explosive and unconservative forces there is. The forward thinking farmer thinks if he gets some more capital equipment, mechanisation, chemicals, his yields will increase and he will be wealthier - it never crosses his mind that every other forward thinking farmer is going to get their hands on the same capital goods, their yields will increase, and the laws of supply and demand kick in, and produce prices fall. The backward thinking farmer, who is not as stupid and ignorant as he looks, has a simple heuristic that any progress is bad. If he shuns moderisation (which is really capital) he'll get screwed too.

Shoemaker used to be a profession many made a living from. But the shoemaker could only make as many shoes as his fast as his hands could go. As a result shoes were an expensive luxury and most people in Ireland went bare foot. With mechanisation (from capital), in the present day a handful of people can make thousands of shoes in a day. There are very few shoemakers but everyone has shoes.

When capitalism destroyed the livelihood of shoe makers, were they given subsidies. No they were told "Gesh up, gesh out, you're only tramps". But when it came to the unproductive farmers of Ireland, England, Europe, and the US, it was a different story.


The average farm size in Germany in the 1930s was just four acres. 4 acres. Which these days sounds nearly impossible but four acres when all you have in terms of mechanisation is a horse, a plow and maybe a cart, is as much as a person could manage. Food productivity was very low, many foods were luxuries. But even then there was enough modernisation that German farmers needed subsidies to maintain their way of life - they ate and lived much better than urban German factory workers but of course they had to be kept in the lifestyle they'd become accustomed to. America was more advanced than Germany so agricultural subsidies had been introduced much earlier.

Very much like the shoemakers, with mechanisation, a small number of farmers can farm thousands of acres. And there is an obesity problem with American farmers (probably with Irish farmers too - it's very rare you'd see a skinny one), because they love their food and with mechanisation they get such little physical exercise

If you look at a map of the US, the blue states those who vote democrat, and that are the most agriculturally productive, receive the least agricultural subsidies - because their farms are profitable. Very profitable; agriculture is California's biggest earner. The red states, the most right-wing receive nearly all the federal agricultural subsidies. The productive people who vote for the democrats, support the unproductive right-wing people who hate them. If you zoom in on a map that shows the distribution of agricultural subsidies and who votes republican/democrat, in a red state you'll find the townies vote democrat and the rural people vote right-wing 'free market' republican. The average subsidised Irish farm is 40 acres, the average subsidised American farm is 400 acres. After subsidy top up, the average farmer in a red state earns over $80,000, and in some red state areas its' as high as $450,000. You can see why rural people would be very conservative. In red states townies have the lowest incomes, averages as low as $10,000. But money is dolloped on the rural communities. Government jobs, civil engineering, police, selling cars and tractors to the farmers, pubs and restaurants for all that government money to be spent in. Which is rural life in Ireland, England, Germany, and America - for Ireland add ghost estate building. Which is why rural people are so right-wing and conservative.

There are disabled people sleeping on the streets of Dublin. People who are not drug addicts or alcoholics. It's not that they've fallen through the system - with all the cut backs there isn't a system there. If you do not have family to help you, and you have a disability, you can be in big trouble. And sleeping on the streets can be the better option than a homeless hostel with drug addicts and violent alcoholics.

But if you are a farmer. And you have been too feckless to prepare for the possibility of bad weather, it's an emergency. The rescue trucks are rolling, had to send them to England and back, tens of millions of euros worth of free hay. "Here boys, free hay!!!...Don't put your hand in your pocket at all..it's on the townies". and they're giving out free fertilizer and hardship payments are in the pipeline. And what's the hardship? I've heard it's selling a milker, for the price of a dry cow. Not exactly losing the roof over your head, is it. Because that what happens to a townie if they're feckless.

"Bush foddar prices went through da roof, we needed de free hay", you might say. But who's making a killing on foder?.........It's other farmers, gouging. So when the crisis is over the feckless won't be hard done by. The fodder sellers will have had a record year. And the cute will have got free hay though they didn't need it. New wellington boots all round. It's a hard life, isn't it

What do townies get in return? We get feckless Fianna Fail (they still vote for them in feckless land), and on top of the feckless farmers who can't cope with the natural elements, we get the feckless rural builders, who fecklessly piss away tens of billions on building estates in the middle of nowhere.

We've been told for years that rural Ireland is dying. If only it would.

macraignil

I agree with Farmer pudsey that rural business is difficult to make profitable. In a time when most businesses are in difficulties it requires a good deal of imagination and hard work to make a successful new business. It is very important to look at the unique selling point of any product that can be produced. For example I have grown some Jerusalem artichoke for goumet restaurants in recent years and found the roots I have been producing are larger and of better quality than the wholesale product that is imported. Another crop I have found a demand for is Kale and leaf vegetables like this have a much better flavour when supplied fresh rather than through the wholesale market.

I agree the domestic market for many products is not very big. Producing for export makes a lot more sense when there is no sign of the Irish economy functioning again any time soon. There is a great improvement in transport links over recent years and selling over the internet is possible with the correct approach to advertising. I also found very usefull information there that could be used to help grow a business.

Victor

Lbeard wrote: »

For example in Germany before the second world war there was a serious discussion on banning modern farm machinery and methods, because of a fear this would lead to a depopulation of rural right wingers, and a swelling of the urban proletariat. Who of course through their experience of exploitation would become left wing and trounce the barons and the Vons out of power and riches.

Part of this was also about reducing unemployment in a form of economic Ludditeism.

bbam

Lbeard wrote: »

But if you are a farmer. And you have been too feckless to prepare for the possibility of bad weather, it's an emergency. The rescue trucks are rolling, had to send them to England and back, tens of millions of euros worth of free hay. "Here boys, free hay!!!...Don't put your hand in your pocket at all..it's on the townies". and they're giving out free fertilizer and hardship payments are in the pipeline. And what's the hardship? I've heard it's selling a milker, for the price of a dry cow. Not exactly losing the roof over your head, is it. Because that what happens to a townie if they're feckless.

"Bush foddar prices went through da roof, we needed de free hay", you might say. But who's making a killing on foder?.........It's other farmers, gouging. So when the crisis is over the feckless won't be hard done by. The fodder sellers will have had a record year. And the cute will have got free hay though they didn't need it. New wellington boots all round. It's a hard life, isn't it

.

What a rant and a load of old cobblers too..
Seriously that's some work of fiction there, but don't let facts get in the way of a rant...

1. Not all farms got caught short in the current weather.
2. There is no free fodder, other than that being shared among farmers themselves.
3. The hay/silage coming in from France & England is expensive to farmers, very expensive. Paying nearly 3X what it costs to make here. Actually bales are costing ~€55/€60, and can be made here at a cost of €18
4. Can you provide any evidence of free fertilizer ? Actually fertilizer is at record high prices, as is diesel and meal.
5. While there is some disgusting "gouging" going on with the selling of fodder, most was sold at market value and vast ammounts were shared through good will among farmers.

If the rest of that post was as factual as the above then it may as well be published on the "onion" website along with the other crackpot stories.

Tombo2001

macraignil wrote: »

I was not saying austerity is the same as auschwitz but mentioned them because both words start in au

Well you could have said Austria to Austerity or Audaciousness to Austerity or Authority to Austerity.........but you did choose the word Auschwitz........

When I drive around rural Mayo or Cavan or Roscommon and wonder where the kids growing up there will be able to find jobs when they grow up.......CAP wouldnt be the biggest problem I see.

It may be undermining rural economies, but so are a lot of other things....

Farmer Pudsey

Lbeard wrote: »

No, this is the subsidy mythology for the townies. The purpose of the CAP, and the agricultural subsidies in Europe and America is to keep a bulwark of right-wing voters in the rural areas. For example in Germany before the second world war there was a serious discussion on banning modern farm machinery and methods, because of a fear this would lead to a depopulation of rural right wingers, and a swelling of the urban proletariat. Who of course through their experience of exploitation would become left wing and trounce the barons and the Vons out of power and riches.

Something common to farmers the world over; they're deeply conservative. They like their nice way of life and do not want to see it change. But they're also thick and greedy. Capitalism appeals to their greed, but they have a fantasy version of capitalism. In their version of capitalism, it always serves the interests of a the conservative rural man in his cloth cap and tweed jacket. who pulled himself up by his own britches ....on the family ranch. Capitalism in reality is one of the most explosive and unconservative forces there is. The forward thinking farmer thinks if he gets some more capital equipment, mechanisation, chemicals, his yields will increase and he will be wealthier - it never crosses his mind that every other forward thinking farmer is going to get their hands on the same capital goods, their yields will increase, and the laws of supply and demand kick in, and produce prices fall. The backward thinking farmer, who is not as stupid and ignorant as he looks, has a simple heuristic that any progress is bad. If he shuns moderisation (which is really capital) he'll get screwed too.

Shoemaker used to be a profession many made a living from. But the shoemaker could only make as many shoes as his fast as his hands could go. As a result shoes were an expensive luxury and most people in Ireland went bare foot. With mechanisation (from capital), in the present day a handful of people can make thousands of shoes in a day. There are very few shoemakers but everyone has shoes.

When capitalism destroyed the livelihood of shoe makers, were they given subsidies. No they were told "Gesh up, gesh out, you're only tramps". But when it came to the unproductive farmers of Ireland, England, Europe, and the US, it was a different story.


The average farm size in Germany in the 1930s was just four acres. 4 acres. Which these days sounds nearly impossible but four acres when all you have in terms of mechanisation is a horse, a plow and maybe a cart, is as much as a person could manage. Food productivity was very low, many foods were luxuries. But even then there was enough modernisation that German farmers needed subsidies to maintain their way of life - they ate and lived much better than urban German factory workers but of course they had to be kept in the lifestyle they'd become accustomed to. America was more advanced than Germany so agricultural subsidies had been introduced much earlier.

Very much like the shoemakers, with mechanisation, a small number of farmers can farm thousands of acres. And there is an obesity problem with American farmers (probably with Irish farmers too - it's very rare you'd see a skinny one), because they love their food and with mechanisation they get such little physical exercise

If you look at a map of the US, the blue states those who vote democrat, and that are the most agriculturally productive, receive the least agricultural subsidies - because their farms are profitable. Very profitable; agriculture is California's biggest earner. The red states, the most right-wing receive nearly all the federal agricultural subsidies. The productive people who vote for the democrats, support the unproductive right-wing people who hate them. If you zoom in on a map that shows the distribution of agricultural subsidies and who votes republican/democrat, in a red state you'll find the townies vote democrat and the rural people vote right-wing 'free market' republican. The average subsidised Irish farm is 40 acres, the average subsidised American farm is 400 acres. After subsidy top up, the average farmer in a red state earns over $80,000, and in some red state areas its' as high as $450,000. You can see why rural people would be very conservative. In red states townies have the lowest incomes, averages as low as $10,000. But money is dolloped on the rural communities. Government jobs, civil engineering, police, selling cars and tractors to the farmers, pubs and restaurants for all that government money to be spent in. Which is rural life in Ireland, England, Germany, and America - for Ireland add ghost estate building. Which is why rural people are so right-wing and conservative.

There are disabled people sleeping on the streets of Dublin. People who are not drug addicts or alcoholics. It's not that they've fallen through the system - with all the cut backs there isn't a system there. If you do not have family to help you, and you have a disability, you can be in big trouble. And sleeping on the streets can be the better option than a homeless hostel with drug addicts and violent alcoholics.

But if you are a farmer. And you have been too feckless to prepare for the possibility of bad weather, it's an emergency. The rescue trucks are rolling, had to send them to England and back, tens of millions of euros worth of free hay. "Here boys, free hay!!!...Don't put your hand in your pocket at all..it's on the townies". and they're giving out free fertilizer and hardship payments are in the pipeline. And what's the hardship? I've heard it's selling a milker, for the price of a dry cow. Not exactly losing the roof over your head, is it. Because that what happens to a townie if they're feckless.

"Bush foddar prices went through da roof, we needed de free hay", you might say. But who's making a killing on foder?.........It's other farmers, gouging. So when the crisis is over the feckless won't be hard done by. The fodder sellers will have had a record year. And the cute will have got free hay though they didn't need it. New wellington boots all round. It's a hard life, isn't it

What do townies get in return? We get feckless Fianna Fail (they still vote for them in feckless land), and on top of the feckless farmers who can't cope with the natural elements, we get the feckless rural builders, who fecklessly piss away tens of billions on building estates in the middle of nowhere.

We've been told for years that rural Ireland is dying. If only it would.

I did not even think it deserved a reply I will not put down what I think of it. What really annoyed me is that two people (one who thinks he know it all) thanked it.

Most people do not understand what is happening at present in farming. After 18 months of atrocious weather a lot of farmers are in a serious predicament. This is due to a number of reasons, a lot of farmers have pushed the boat out to try to achieve a level of scale that will generate a justified return on investment.

How many understand that the beef you eat and milk you drink is produced for the lowest price in Europe yet out direct I/P are higher. The only advantage we had was a climate that could grow grass cheap. Think about how many times you have cut your lawn this year compared to other years.

Farmers that are lowly stocked are struggling but not under the immense pressure of those that have tried to increase o/p over the last few years. We are in the middle of the peak grass growing season and it is at a dead stop. The other factor is that all cattle and sheep need a certain amount of fibre we cannot just feed them on meal and ratio we have to source fibre which is hay and straw abroad.

The price of certain types of young stock has collapsed not because farmers are greedy but because farmers are afraid to take on extra mouths to feed as they cannot fodder what they have. The fallout from this will be felt for a while however we cannot go on strike we have to carry on.

A couple of people have replied to it and I can understand there frustration.

Lbeard

bbam wrote: »

1. Not all farms got caught short in the current weather.

I know that. And it's not really surprising where there is problems. More or less the places where they have a longer winter, every year.

2. There is no free fodder, other than that being shared among farmers themselves.

So was I dreaming last night, when I heard hour by hour reports on the radio reporting the progress of the trucks with free bales of hay?

3. The hay/silage coming in from France & England is expensive to farmers, very expensive. Paying nearly 3X what it costs to make here. Actually bales are costing ~€55/€60, and can be made here at a cost of €18

Supposedly even as high as €80.

4. Can you provide any evidence of free fertilizer ? Actually fertilizer is at record high prices, as is diesel and meal.

Just going on talk I've heard on the radio.

5. While there is some disgusting "gouging" going on with the selling of fodder, most was sold at market value and vast ammounts were shared through good will among farmers.

There are farmers who just grow grass and sell it. This will be a very good year for them. It's not a communist country.

If the rest of that post was as factual as the above then it may as well be published on the "onion" website along with the other crackpot stories.

The "onion" or the Firmirs Journal.

Lbeard

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Most people do not understand what is happening at present in farming.

You mean the townies. What would they know, they're lower class tramps God did not chose to give farms to. What would they know? They're not successful businessmen who pulled themselves up in the world by their own bootstraps.

And we've been hearing about the grass for months at this stage. But you never hear a farmer who isn't bellyaching. It's hard to tell when they're crying wolf or not.

After 18 months of atrocious weather a lot of farmers are in a serious predicament.

Shock horror. Atrocious weather in Ireland. 18 months? Townies have had a far longer experience of atrociousness than 18 months. It's been years at this stage. We'll be paying for those ghost estates in rural areas for a long time to come. That was a ball, wasn't it. And it's a laugh, the farmers who got millions for a few acres of bog, and now they're getting the land back for a few thousand. A bit of part time farming, a bit of building - or why not rent out the land, or sell grass and go full time building.

This is due to a number of reasons, a lot of farmers have pushed the boat out to try to achieve a level of scale that will generate a justified return on investment.

Yes. And in business if you take risks, and your luck runs out, you go out of business. Right-wingers applaud this. Creative destruction, the inefficient, unproductive and feckless are driven out of business, and they are replaced by better providers. Progress, without it we'd be still be buying sour milk from the back of a donkey cart. Townies would be living on stale bread and dripping sandwiches.

A couple of people have replied to it and I can understand there frustration.

What I don't understand, is when you became a socialist?

Farmer Pudsey, are you a socialist? Do you want to see socialism in Ireland, or just socialism for the farmers, and free enterprise for everyone else. That's what we have, isn't it.

If you're running a business, or an employee, if your luck runs out you can lose your shirt. And this is happening all the time.

Except, it virtually never happens to farmers. I could count on the fingers of one hand the farms that have been taken by the banks in the last ten years. 168,000 farmers, and on one hand I can count the farms that have been possessed by the banks.

Is business so bad and hard that virtually no farmer ever fails, no matter how feckless and unlucky they've been? If it's so hard, why is it that farmers never lose their farms. Never. And even if they run up huge debts through non farm business, they don't lose their farms.

The bank might turn up and claim a field, but they don't sell it or rent it out to anyone. In a few years, when business improves for the farmer he gets his field back. That's wonderful. No business would ever fail if it worked like that.

If farming is such a hard life, how come very few ever sell off, take the cash and set themselves up in some easy business. As well as the sun shining out of the arse of farmers, everything they touch turns to gold.

johnnyskeleton

I think the big issue is more why large companies like greencore are getting massive subsidies.

http://www.thehandstand.org/archive//june2009/articles/eu.htm

There can be no question of them being anything other than a large profitable (state owned?) company.

I agree with subsidies on a temporary basis if there is a specific productive need. But ongoing subsidies when there is plenty of food being produced seems a bit wasteful to me.

shanered

Good link above

Farmer Pudsey

Lbeard wrote: »

You mean the townies. What would they know, they're lower class tramps God did not chose to give farms to. What would they know? They're not successful businessmen who pulled themselves up in the world by their own bootstraps.

And we've been hearing about the grass for months at this stage. But you never hear a farmer who isn't bellyaching. It's hard to tell when they're crying wolf or not.



Shock horror. Atrocious weather in Ireland. 18 months? Townies have had a far longer experience of atrociousness than 18 months. It's been years at this stage. We'll be paying for those ghost estates in rural areas for a long time to come. That was a ball, wasn't it. And it's a laugh, the farmers who got millions for a few acres of bog, and now they're getting the land back for a few thousand. A bit of part time farming, a bit of building - or why not rent out the land, or sell grass and go full time building.



Yes. And in business if you take risks, and your luck runs out, you go out of business. Right-wingers applaud this. Creative destruction, the inefficient, unproductive and feckless are driven out of business, and they are replaced by better providers. Progress, without it we'd be still be buying sour milk from the back of a donkey cart. Townies would be living on stale bread and dripping sandwiches.




What I don't understand, is when you became a socialist?

Farmer Pudsey, are you a socialist? Do you want to see socialism in Ireland, or just socialism for the farmers, and free enterprise for everyone else. That's what we have, isn't it.

If you're running a business, or an employee, if your luck runs out you can lose your shirt. And this is happening all the time.

Except, it virtually never happens to farmers. I could count on the fingers of one hand the farms that have been taken by the banks in the last ten years. 168,000 farmers, and on one hand I can count the farms that have been possessed by the banks.

Is business so bad and hard that virtually no farmer ever fails, no matter how feckless and unlucky they've been? If it's so hard, why is it that farmers never lose their farms. Never. And even if they run up huge debts through non farm business, they don't lose their farms.

The bank might turn up and claim a field, but they don't sell it or rent it out to anyone. In a few years, when business improves for the farmer he gets his field back. That's wonderful. No business would ever fail if it worked like that.

If farming is such a hard life, how come very few ever sell off, take the cash and set themselves up in some easy business. As well as the sun shining out of the arse of farmers, everything they touch turns to gold.

You seem to have anger management issue's Lbeard. Yes farms and machinery are reposed. Very few farmers made money out of houses and not all of us got handed land on a plate. Some of us worked for it. The reason that few farmers fail is that very few borrow serious money. Very few run up serious debts and when things get tough they put there shoulder to the wheel. In my locality with in a few miles I have seen at least six forced/bank sale's in the last 2-3 years. Now it was with the owner agreement but they were sold all the same.

There is no free hay at present the Government is subsidising the cost of transport from abroad. However this Hay/Haylage is costing 3-4 time normal and is being feed when cattle should be out on grass.

Just to give you an idea of the cost involved at grass cattle cost 30-50 cent/day, feeding inside about 1.50/day when being finished about 3-4 euro/day. Most that are under pressure are getting on with it.

Yes some farmers worked in the building industry and most of these would be part time farmers.

I do not understand how you blame farmers for rural/urban ghost estate's, in a building boom that was driven more by urban greed. To my understanding it was banks lending cheap money aided by a political elite that allowed an excess of houses and development to be build. It allowed the building sector to become too big in this country.

Am I a socialist no in my younger day I leaned towards it however I have since understood that you get out of life what you put into it. This is not measured in money terms. However I do believe in fairness and if you read some of posts from other threads I contributed to you would see where I stand on other issue's.

The reason few sell is that they have a reluctance to part with what was hander down to them and wish to pass it on to the next generation. there is an amount of people that do not farm that rent land very few will sell it is an Irish phenomon to an extent.

But then you seem a very balanced individual you seems to have a chip on both shoulders.

macraignil

Thanks for all the responses to my question on the Common Agricultural Policy. I have definately learned some new information on the subject. I would never have realised the level of payments being made to large businesses without the link shared above.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

macraignil wrote: »

The CAP (common agricultural policey) has used a large portion of the EU budget for decades with the aim of reducing the price of food.

That has never been the aim of the CAP. Ostensibly, CAP was about promoting food security. More realistically, its primary aim has been to protect agricultural incomes. It was never about providing cheap food for consumers; if European food prices were low, third countries wouldn't have much interest in getting access to the market.

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

90% of the food we produce in Ireland is sold outside the country. <...> I see farmers selling there own Vegetable's in Rural Ireland struggling.

Is it fair to say there's a problem around how we conceive of Irish agriculture. We're brought up to believe that the country is fantastically fertile. In fact, quite a large amount of land in the West is of marginal value, while a lot of the rest of our land is best suited to livestock production. Hence, as you hint at, we produce more meat than we need - and export it - while importing the bulk of our day-to-day food needs. Where it is economic to produce veg, like North County Dublin, we actually do it.

bbam

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Is it fair to say there's a problem around how we conceive of Irish agriculture. We're brought up to believe that the country is fantastically fertile. In fact, quite a large amount of land in the West is of marginal value, while a lot of the rest of our land is best suited to livestock production. Hence, as you hint at, we produce more meat than we need - and export it - while importing the bulk of our day-to-day food needs. Where it is economic to produce veg, like North County Dublin, we actually do it.

Thats a quite accurate description of Irish land in general..

The land in most areas might be fertile enough to grow some veg on a subsistance style scale but not near good enough to provide returns on an economic scale.. Thus, only the best most fertile tracts are used for commercial growing of fruit/veg.
Sadly.. Huge tracts of extremly fertile land in dublin and its hinterland were lost to development.

macraignil

The land in most areas might be fertile enough to grow some veg on a subsistance style scale but not near good enough to provide returns on an economic scale.. Thus, only the best most fertile tracts are used for commercial growing of fruit/veg.

I disagree with this statement and believe there is enough fertile land in the country for much more horticultural production. The situation described above would not be the case if the CAP funds were distributed in a more rural emploment promoting maner. There are nearly half a million people in this country spending their time applying for non existant jobs at the same time as almost nothing has been done to promote work in horticulture in this country. The fact that only the land closest to Dublin is being used for vegetable production is symptomatic of the cost of running a business in this broken economy more than any lack of fertile land.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

macraignil wrote: »

The fact that only the land closest to Dublin is being used for vegetable production is symptomatic of the cost of running a business in this broken economy more than any lack of fertile land.

If there's no shortage of fertile land, can you account for the practice known as the Lazy Bed?

macraignil

The practice of Lazy bed cultivation can be carried out on fertile and less fertile land and is popular as a way of saving time in cultivation. Why would this gardening and subsistance agriculture method have an impact on a modern day horticulture business? The current funding pattern of CAP investment has resulted in agriculture using machinery being more dominant and the practice you mention as I understand it is not possible to do by machine. I am not trying to say all land in Ireland is fertile and suitable for horticulture but that much of it could be developed to promote more rural employment. Even less than fertile land can be used in a way that generates employment if the economics of the business can be established. Growing Christmas trees or container grown plants for example do not need very fertile soil. Access to market and competitive labour costs form more substantial development obstacles in the current Irish economy.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

macraignil wrote: »

The practice of Lazy bed cultivation can be carried out on fertile and less fertile land and is popular as a way of saving time in cultivation.

Grand, but isn't it more typically associated with people trying to grow potatoes on rock in the West of Ireland; something you'd hardly be doing if fertile land was abundant.

macraignil wrote: »

I am not trying to say all land in Ireland is fertile and suitable for horticulture but that much of it could be developed to promote more rural employment.

On what basis? Are you envisaging pre-famine levels of poverty?

macraignil

As far as I know greater efforts were made to cultivate difficult land when larger land owners controlled much of the countries most fertile land. Many of the estate houses of these land owners were burned when Ireland became independent. The historic use of such marginal land was a symptom of unfair land distribution at that time. It is not fair when looking at our natural resources to exclude large areas of fertile land that under current government plans will simply grow grass to feed an efficient dairy herd.

I do not believe we need pre-famine levels of poverty to get a benefit from more rural employment. We are in a position to grow as a food exporter and as food is predicted to increase in price the entire country could benefit from a more varied rural economy. In no other EU country was agriculture so dependent on two sectors (Dairy and Beef). These are not the most labor intensive farm enterprises, but from government plans for farming we are set for more of the same.

Boskowski

The thread title is actually - I don't know what, insult isn't a good enough word here really - to the people who lost their lives there.

It's a disgrace and the OP should be deleted for it. Totally braindead thread title. I'm disgusted.

P.S. The rest of what was said I can't follow either. Logic there is none.

macraignil

I intended no insult towards anybody who has died. I simply used two words starting with au that relate to german policy. I am sorry for mentioning words related to Germany.

Boskowski

Fair enough but still a bit over the top dont you think?

Are you suggesting that Germany still acts today in the 'tradition' of Auschwitz?

K-9

Mod:

Title amended, it does seem a bit OTT and attracting attention. Pm me with any issues.

Farmer Pudsey

macraignil wrote: »

As far as I know greater efforts were made to cultivate difficult land when larger land owners controlled much of the countries most fertile land. Many of the estate houses of these land owners were burned when Ireland became independent. The historic use of such marginal land was a symptom of unfair land distribution at that time. It is not fair when looking at our natural resources to exclude large areas of fertile land that under current government plans will simply grow grass to feed an efficient dairy herd.

I do not believe we need pre-famine levels of poverty to get a benefit from more rural employment. We are in a position to grow as a food exporter and as food is predicted to increase in price the entire country could benefit from a more varied rural economy. In no other EU country was agriculture so dependent on two sectors (Dairy and Beef). These are not the most labor intensive farm enterprises, but from government plans for farming we are set for more of the same.

The reason Irish agriculture is down to a few reasons. We have a low population base and have not go a huge pupulation density. This leads to the situtation that it is very hard to set up small micro horticulture traders. Also climate is against us to produce other than traditional vegatables ( spuds, carrots,onions, lettuce etc) non trad vedgetables( tomato's, peppers, etc) need tunnels/Glasshouses for to have a effective supply season.

We have failed to set up a market type farm retail sector. Weather is part of the reason the other is again our sparsly populated country as well as traditionall there was resistance from small shops in town and villages these are now gone as well.

Grain has only become efficent grown with the advent of fungisides as our moist climate traditionally only allowed oats in most of the country and barley in the Sunny South East. We now have amoung the highest grain yields in the world but spray costs are horrendus compared to elsewhere. Maize can only be commercially grown as a livestock feed crop and even at that it is economicall questionable wheather it should be grown.

We had no tradition of forrestry post 1600's as the British used it in shipbuilding and in gen eral it was not replaced. We are increasing O/P but time from planting to harvest is long and with a income source few farmers can plant and afford to wait.

Traditional sheep farming in the uplands along the west coast is uneconomical unless on a large scale 1000's of acres rather than hundreds.

Our main agriculture advantage is our ability to grown grass. This has allowed us to develop a fairly effecient Dairy sector however we have failed to develop internationally known brands ( however few other countries have either most are in the hands of private companies) and are dependant on commodity prices. Beef and Lamb are the same. However over the next 30 years this may change as demand for meat and dairy products increase and production costs increase in elsewhere.

dahak

macraignil wrote: »

... The historic use of such marginal land was a symptom of unfair land distribution at that time. It is not fair when looking at our natural resources to exclude large areas of fertile land that under current government plans will simply grow grass to feed an efficient dairy herd.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, are you trying to compare the fairness of Ireland's historic land ownership with the fairness of individual farmers deciding to use their land to grow grass? There is no our natural resources in this case, the government does not own the land, all the government can do is provide some support for the dairy industry, whether that be on a processor or farmer level. The vast majority of the investment required to expand the dairy industry in Ireland post 2015, is coming and will come from the farmers and the cooperatives, for a case in point here see the GII Belview plant and how this is being funded.

macraignil wrote: »

We are in a position to grow as a food exporter and as food is predicted to increase in price the entire country could benefit from a more varied rural economy. In no other EU country was agriculture so dependent on two sectors (Dairy and Beef). These are not the most labor intensive farm enterprises, but from government plans for farming we are set for more of the same.

What do you suggest that we produce agriculturally to export?
You seem to be suggesting that Ireland Inc find some crop (evidently not grass) that is labour intensive, so that we provide rural employment, and has export markets? This magical crop would have to high value to support the high labour cost involved and be demanded on the world markets. If you know of such a crop I'm sure there are a great many farmers that would be very interested!

This also goes completely against the trend that started with the agricultural revolution and has continued at pace since then; less farmers, producing more food, more efficiently (land and labour). There is a very strong argument that CAP has actually restricted this trend, by slowing down the rate that farmers have left the land. Without the CAP support mechanisms many small farmers would have otherwise been forced to leave due to the lack of economic viability of their holdings.

You also keep using the term fertility, but you don't seem to fully understand what that means from an agricultural standpoint. Much of our land area is just not suitable for producing arable crops. Market gardening in Ireland has traditionally been around the North Dublin region due to soils and climate (see rainfall and sunshine maps below).

There is a massive rainfall gradient across Ireland with a general South West to North East pattern. This has a huge impact on what can be grown and where. As Farmer Pudsey points out crops like Maze can not be grown for grain in Ireland as we do not have the climatic conditions.

macraignil

I am not sure our only advantage for farming in Ireland is growing grass. I agree there are many obstacles to establishing a successful business here. The idea that CAP being reformed to encourage more local rural employment may not necesarily rely on establishing a new business on a farm. Maybe some farmers or farm businesses with a payment over a certain threshold could use some of the payment to support a community employment type position where somebody who is unemployed for over a certain lenght of time can help out with maintenance and general operations in the existing farm business for a better social welfare payment. It would be nice if all those employed under the scheme could add a new source of income to the farm but if they could simply make the existing business run a bit more smothly there would still be benefit to the farmer, the long term unemployed and rural communities. Its good to have an efficient dairy sector but too much dependance on one area is dangerous. Some more young people working with farmers might bring some new ideas to diversify income to the farm. It would be nice if the farm enterprise and the unempoyed person could be matched in a way that gives them both the best experience of the scheme.

srsly78

dahak wrote: »

What do you suggest that we produce agriculturally to export?
You seem to be suggesting that Ireland Inc find some crop (evidently not grass) that is labour intensive, so that we provide rural employment, and has export markets? This magical crop would have to high value to support the high labour cost involved and be demanded on the world markets. If you know of such a crop I'm sure there are a great many farmers that would be very interested!

The other type of grass :pac: Just need to sort out the small illegality problem first.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

macraignil wrote: »

I am not sure our only advantage for farming in Ireland is growing grass.

But on what basis? I don't think any of the things that people have told you are particularly controversial.

macraignil wrote: »

Maybe some farmers or farm businesses with a payment over a certain threshold could use some of the payment to support a community employment type position where somebody who is unemployed for over a certain lenght of time can help out with maintenance and general operations in the existing farm business for a better social welfare payment.

I know it's always but, but I'm not sure you've taken into account that the majority of Irish farms are two small to even fully occupy one person. Page ten of this publication sets it out:

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/agriculture/2010/aglabinput_2010.pdf

Again, I know its all terribly negative. But you have to bear in mind that Government policy since whenever has been to stimulate rural areas. However, and not just in Ireland, there's simply no easy way of creating rural employment with incomes that satisfy the material expectations that we all have.

I'd guess that probably any strategy that could be mentioned has been tried, in some form, at this stage. The overall effect of CAP, though, is surely to inflate the level of income that it's possible to generate from agricultural land. There might be good reasons - food security, or environment - to give two fingers to CAP and try a national approach. But part of that approach would probably involve expecting that agriculture earnings would fall.

macraignil

I know it's always but, but I'm not sure you've taken into account that the majority of Irish farms are two small to even fully occupy one person. Page ten of this publication sets it out:

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/agriculture/2010/aglabinput_2010.pdf

Again, I know its all terribly negative. But you have to bear in mind that Government policy since whenever has been to stimulate rural areas. However, and not just in Ireland, there's simply no easy way of creating rural employment with incomes that satisfy the material expectations that we all have.

I'd guess that probably any strategy that could be mentioned has been tried, in some form, at this stage. The overall effect of CAP, though, is surely to inflate the level of income that it's possible to generate from agricultural land. There might be good reasons - food security, or environment - to give two fingers to CAP and try a national approach. But part of that approach would probably involve expecting that agriculture earnings would fall.






The reason I suggested a CAP payment threshold before the scheme might take effect was to allow larger farm enterprises be selected for such community employment type schemes.
Yes it is terribly negative to say that some stimulus to rural employment has not alrteady been tried. Using CAP funding to directly support jobs in coopperation with the countries social welfare sounds to me to be very different to what has been tried already. I am not suggesting to give two fingers to CAP but that the existing CAP funding should be chaneled to directly support rural employment. Earnings from farming are set to increase worldwide as growing world populations demand more food. To support employment in an industry that is set for growth may create real jobs for the future. The net effect of the scheme should be to improve food security and the rural environment.

Lbeard

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Traditional sheep farming in the uplands along the west coast is uneconomical unless on a large scale 1000's of acres rather than hundreds.

Upland sheep farming isn't really economical anywhere in Ireland. My family had grazing rights to two large sites (I'm not saying where). For various reasons it wasn't worth the bother (having grazing rights to thousands of acres of upland is not a licence to print money). And there's several good arguments that we shouldn't be doing it at all.

There's a guy in Waterford, he has some kind of breed of highland cattle up in the Waterford mountains. The conditions are suitable for them, and the product fetches a premium price.

These guys might be far more profitable than sheep.


http://www.bigpictureagriculture.com/2011/10/ten-miniature-cattle-breeds-for-your.html


Being herd animals, several mini-cattle would be well suited to two or three acres. They are 25-30% more feed efficient than large cattle.

They're completely unsuitable for milking (unless you're a dwarf and need small milkers). But, apparently because of their size, their meat is very tender - more premium cuts. Probably given the right conditions they could be a very profitable premium product.

macraignil

I asked a farmer about the option of rearing Dexter cattle a native breed known to do well on more difficult land. The point he made was that the carcas of the animal would be small. I would agree with his point that the lower weight of meat from the animal would need to be taken into account when calculating the returns from the enterprise.

The development of mixed grazing should also be of interest to farmers as it is said that more than one type of grazer will make better use of the fodder available. Horses for example will avoid eating Doc Leaves while other grazers will feed on them and in turn allow more space for grass. I saw on TV recently that a breed of sheep has been developed to shed its wool naturaly and so save on the cost of having it sheared. There also was a breed of goat being reared in the UK that was developed in South Africa to be a superior meat producer.

macraignil

Boskowski wrote: »

Fair enough but still a bit over the top dont you think?

Are you suggesting that Germany still acts today in the 'tradition' of Auschwitz?

I agree the original title to the thread was a bit over the top. The link between Germany exterminating people in camps in the early 20th century and deflating the economies of the euro currency area with austerity in the 21st century is very subjective.

From my own experience of economic opportunities in Ireland it often seems like we are being encouraged to leave as with the austerity policy from Germany in place, employment that could support having a family is almost impossible to find. The complete lack of productive employment for such a high proportion of the Irish population has only loose similarities with being detained in a camp and I have no evidence to suggest that Angela Merkel is going to send over any gas chambers for reducing the dole ques any time in the future.

macraignil

Having discussed my idea of promoting rural employment through a supported employment scheme linked to CAP payments on boards.ie and in real life, I decided to send an e-mail to the irish minister of agriculture whose e mail address is quoted on the FG website as simon.coveney@oir.ie. The email was not delivered for some reason and I failed to get an answer to my question on weather any measures in the new CAP reforms were to assist in generating rural employment.

This reminds me of when we had the "your country your call" website inviting suggestions on how to stear the irish economy out of stagnation and my suggestion that decriminalising cannibis for the economic benefits was not even allowed be mentioned on the thread of suggestions.

I hear lots of talk about the economy turning the corner and ready for growth in the media, but searching through websies for the jobs available currently I have found most would barely allow a comfortable lifestyle in this country. The only thing that keeps the irish economy from colapsing at the moment from what I can see is the thousands of imigrants from low cost EU countries that are happy to work here for lower wages as they can return home in a few years as wealthy people in their own country. Bertie Ahern's trickle down economics is trickeling down all the way to the stagnant backwaters of former communist europe just like Angela Merkal would like to see. A stagnant island in the atlantic is insignificant if our germanic overlords can once again regain their rightfull place as the leaders of Europe.