Indo Article 2/3 of Irish Farms Unviable

bbam

Have many read this article ??
http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/economically-viable-farms-908198-May2013/#comments

Its hardly a surprise... The question is can anything be done? With the ever rising price of raw inputs its hard to see how any sweeping changes can bring more lads into real profit...
And I wonder of the 1/3 that are profitable.. Is this real profit or SFP supplemented profi?

bob charles

bbam wrote: »

Have many read this article ??
http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/economically-viable-farms-908198-May2013/#comments

Its hardly a surprise... The question is can anything be done? With the ever rising price of raw inputs its hard to see how any sweeping changes can bring more lads into real profit...
And I wonder of the 1/3 that are profitable.. Is this real profit or SFP supplemented profi?

I doubt that figure, I would think it would be at least 75% are unprofitable. Time to face up to the fact that allot of us shouldnt be farming at all

Damo810

Not surprising. Whole industry needs a rethink, especially the beef industry, we're lagging so far behind on a large portion of farms. Simple things to increase output, rotation grazing systems, better use of natural fertilisers, better bloodlines leading to better growth rates, easier calvings and higher carcase value. Too many farmers still view slurry as waste, throw a few bullocks on a 12 acre field all summer and keep using cheap bulls, along with average cows. How much land is wasted throughout the country too?

The age factor isn't helping too. Alot of the older farmers are still using the same techniques from 50 years ago, it's no surprise that younger farmers are more productive, 40% according to Macra .

How many farms will go out of business in the next 20 years?

Sam Kade

bob charles wrote: »

I doubt that figure, I would think it would be at least 75% are unprofitable. Time to face up to the fact that allot of us shouldnt be farming at all

When are you bailing out Bob?

bob charles

Sam Kade wrote: »

When are you bailing out Bob?

we will see

Damo810 wrote: »

How many farms will go out of business in the next 2 years?

Sorry had to correct that for you

pakalasa

My grandfather was a part-time farmer. Would that make him a visionary?:D

bob charles

Damo810 wrote: »

Not surprising. Whole industry needs a rethink, especially the beef industry, we're lagging so far behind on a large portion of farms. Simple things to increase output, rotation grazing systems, better use of natural fertilisers, better bloodlines leading to better growth rates, easier calvings and higher carcase value. Too many farmers still view slurry as waste, throw a few bullocks on a 12 acre field all summer and keep using cheap bulls, along with average cows. How much land is wasted throughout the country too?

The age factor isn't helping too. Alot of the older farmers are still using the same techniques from 50 years ago, it's no surprise that younger farmers are more productive, 40% according to Macra .

I used to have a lovely perception like yourself and the self help agencies that all could be sorted with these changes that I keep hearing being harped on about. the minority that are doing the above are only speeding up their aging process.

One of my grandfathers im told was an alcoholic - serious visionary IMV

Damo810

bob charles wrote: »

I used to have a lovely perception like yourself and the self help agencies that all could be sorted with these changes that I keep hearing being harped on about. the minority that are doing the above are only speeding up their aging process.

There are obviously not the only problems. There are plenty of farms out there who are using such practices and are still not viable. But they are contributing to the problem.

If your doing everything to the best of your ability, and still not making anything out of farming, you need to look at changing system/type of farming but too many are still not making use of the information available to them..How many farms around the country are achieving full productivity and still not sustainable, at least on a part-time basis?

Manoffeeling

I view mine as a pension fund and a low interest savings account.

bob charles

Damo810 wrote: »

How many farms around the country are achieving full productivity and still not sustainable, at least on a part-time basis?

30%/40% achieving full production?

of that number how many are sustainable (i prefer the term profitable before SFP)

25% profitable out of the 30/40% in full production?

wonder how many are profitable out of the farms not at full production

bet it could be a similar % as the ones in full

Damo810

bob charles wrote: »

30%/40% achieving full production?

of that number how many are sustainable (i prefer the term profitable before SFP)

25% profitable out of the 30/40% in full production?

wonder how many are profitable out of the farms not at full production

bet it could be a similar % as the ones in full

Seriously doubt it's even that high.

As for sustainability, that completely depends on what you class as sustainable. The article defines it as "having the capacity to pay family labour at the average agricultural wage and provide five per cent return on non-land assets."

It's no surprise the majority of our farms can't pay family for their work and still have something for themselves. How many farms in Ireland are even capable of keeping someone on fulltime at a full agri wage? West of the country's farms are generally below 100 acres, but does that mean a 100 acre farm isn't sustainable? Just because it can't keep 2 people employed?

As for the 25%, theres more than that making money in the country, before they get their SFP. You can't seriously say that the men getting 2-5K SFP are only getting that in profit, and losing money elsewhere.

If your running things as well as you can being as productive as the farm can be and still not making money then theres something wrong in your system, because if your losing money on the actual farming side of things and relying solely on grants your not going to last very long in the future..

bob charles

Damo810 wrote: »

Seriously doubt it's even that high.

As for sustainability, that completely depends on what you class as sustainable. The article defines it as "having the capacity to pay family labour at the average agricultural wage and provide five per cent return on non-land assets."

wonder why they dont consider a return needed on land assets, statistics manipulation?

look at this another way how much money does members farms have to make to cover a wages cost of say €12 an hour for every hour worked. Taking 12 as the stress of borrowings/being manager is a bit more that your tenner an hour jobbie.

Stinicker

There needs to be more and more money moved away from agriculture and into forestry, Ireland's climate has changed to a far wetter colder one and hundreds of thousands of acres need to be transferred from farm land into forest. The 20 year limit of the forestation payments needs to be revised upwards to allow land-owners to have a good income from forestry throughout their lives.

I am in my mid-twenties and have absolutely zero interest in farming but stand to inherit land valued at over 1million but the payments from forestry means that if I plant soon I will be out of that income source by the time I am in my mid-forties when I expect to most need with teenagers etc. I won't farm the land as it is something I am not good at and I cannot stand the Irish climate and the incessant rain, I already spend as much time as possible abroad and I will probably be faced with the prospect of selling the land which has been in the family since the 1600's.

freedominacup

Stinicker wrote: »

There needs to be more and more money moved away from agriculture and into forestry, Ireland's climate has changed to a far wetter colder one and hundreds of thousands of acres need to be transferred from farm land into forest. The 20 year limit of the forestation payments needs to be revised upwards to allow land-owners to have a good income from forestry throughout their lives.

I am in my mid-twenties and have absolutely zero interest in farming but stand to inherit land valued at over 1million but the payments from forestry means that if I plant soon I will be out of that income source by the time I am in my mid-forties when I expect to most need with teenagers etc. I won't farm the land as it is something I am not good at and I cannot stand the Irish climate and the incessant rain, I already spend as much time as possible abroad and I will probably be faced with the prospect of selling the land which has been in the family since the 1600's.

TBH land policy should be encouraging/incentivising people in your situation to sell. Take your million and invest it in something that will continue to provide you with capital security and an income well past your forties.

freedominacup

Damo810 wrote: »

Not surprising. Whole industry needs a rethink, especially the beef industry, we're lagging so far behind on a large portion of farms. Simple things to increase output, rotation grazing systems, better use of natural fertilisers, better bloodlines leading to better growth rates, easier calvings and higher carcase value. Too many farmers still view slurry as waste, throw a few bullocks on a 12 acre field all summer and keep using cheap bulls, along with average cows. How much land is wasted throughout the country too?

The age factor isn't helping too. Alot of the older farmers are still using the same techniques from 50 years ago, it's no surprise that younger farmers are more productive, 40% according to Macra .

How many farms will go out of business in the next 20 years?

I don't doubt the 2/3rds figure for a second. It's a best case scenario at any rate. However from the foundation of the state and even before it this has been true and govt policy for the past 100+ years has been to try to keep the tide out with a bucket in this regard. Any scheme regardless of cost is used to try to keep this 2/3rds on the land all have failed. The 2/3rds that were there at E.U.accession in '73 are gone. The 2/3rds that were keeping average dairy farm size at around 120,000 litres 20 years ago
are gone despite a myriad of schemes and restrictions on expansion in parts of the country to try to keep them farming. This 2/3rds unviable are a burden that the remainder of the industry is saddled with every generation because politicians can't help themselves but interfere. When I get to retirement time if I manage to stay farming the same arguments will be being played out all that will have changed is the numbers involved. Funnily enough the article linked to above confirms my opinion of Macra as a bunch of lightweights who should never be taken seriously. Their solution to a problem caused by political/government interference calls for more government interference:rolleyes: genius.

Figerty

As a part time farmer, I make sure the farm shows almost zero profit each year. I am paying the high rate of tax in the off farm job.

I have to invest in the farm to bring it around to a reasonable order after years of neglect. My accountant is very solid on the most efficient way of doing this financially and that means running a loss 2 years out of 3 while offsetting the loss against the off farm earnings.

Nothing illegal or corrupt in this, just using the tax system to make it easier to redevelop the land. So I will show a loss 2 years out of 3...or 66% of the time.

freedominacup

Figerty wrote: »

As a part time farmer, I make sure the farm shows almost zero profit each year. I am paying the high rate of tax in the off farm job.

I have to invest in the farm to bring it around to a reasonable order after years of neglect. My accountant is very solid on the most efficient way of doing this financially and that means running a loss 2 years out of 3 while offsetting the loss against the off farm earnings.

Nothing illegal or corrupt in this, just using the tax system to make it easier to redevelop the land. So I will show a loss 2 years out of 3...or 66% of the time.

Did your accountant give you any advice as to whether your money might be better invested elsewhere?

jaymla627

Dont think this problem of irish farms being unviable is just a irish thing, spent a year in australia managing a 300 cow dairy farm that was part of three farms the farmer leased/owned totalling 1,000 cows before i left could see money was really tight trouble getting wages/suppliers calling to the yard looking for the boss man had to use his jeep one day to move some heifers seen a folder on the seat with cashflow/bank loans etc total debt levels where in our around 4 million along with a annual rental bill of 250,000 a year on top of this, his net profit at the time was 1 cent a litre needless to say was chatting a good friend whoz still managing a 1,200 cow unit beside this man saying its only a matter of time before he goes to the wall
HE was also telling us 3 farms about an hour from him running over 1,400 cows each had all gone into recievership the past week so the point is big is not always better, and while people think irish farms are the only ones doing it tough worldwide farmers are under serious pressure both big and small.

kowtow

bob charles wrote: »

wonder why they dont consider a return needed on land assets, statistics manipulation?

That was my thought exactly when I read the article.

What % would be profitable if you included a €300 / acre land charge?

To the extent that they are true these statistics are grim reading. I can't think of an example in history of an industry which has survived over the long term, let alone prospered, only on the basis of state intervention and the fiction that it's principal resource is available free of charge.

The one exception might be slavery.

reilig

freedominacup wrote: »

Did your accountant give you any advice as to whether your money might be better invested elsewhere?

You could buy a load of shares or build houses - wait a minute, didn't people try that already.

Personally I see investing in my own land and farm as a secure investment which I have control of. I can manage it and the amount of work and effort that I put into it is usually reflected in the return. Investing with a third party or in something that I do not have control of does not allow this.

bob charles

kowtow wrote: »

The one exception might be slavery.

:D

Tipp Man

Figerty wrote: »

As a part time farmer, I make sure the farm shows almost zero profit each year. I am paying the high rate of tax in the off farm job.

I have to invest in the farm to bring it around to a reasonable order after years of neglect. My accountant is very solid on the most efficient way of doing this financially and that means running a loss 2 years out of 3 while offsetting the loss against the off farm earnings.

Nothing illegal or corrupt in this, just using the tax system to make it easier to redevelop the land. So I will show a loss 2 years out of 3...or 66% of the time.

Think Figerty sums it up perfectly. There are a huge amount of part timer farmers (in beef in particular) who actually don't want or need to show a profit every year. What is the point for them of pushing things to the max, more cows to calve, more work, more stress about weather etc etc when they will end up making a (very) slightly higher profit and then pay half of it over to the tax man? doesn't make sense to me and people are 100% right not to push things too much

It's a right pain in the ass for full time farmers though as it is completly restricting the supply of land, both rental and for sale. But so be it

Tipp Man

Damo810 wrote: »

Not surprising. Whole industry needs a rethink, especially the beef industry, we're lagging so far behind on a large portion of farms. Simple things to increase output, rotation grazing systems, better use of natural fertilisers, better bloodlines leading to better growth rates, easier calvings and higher carcase value. Too many farmers still view slurry as waste, throw a few bullocks on a 12 acre field all summer and keep using cheap bulls, along with average cows. How much land is wasted throughout the country too?

The age factor isn't helping too. Alot of the older farmers are still using the same techniques from 50 years ago, it's no surprise that younger farmers are more productive, 40% according to Macra .

How many farms will go out of business in the next 20 years?

Productivity blah blah blah blah Output blah blah blah

There is little to no reward in beef for being productive.

Anyway what has productivity got to do with anything?? It's about profit at the end of the day - not productivity. You can be perfectly profitable without being very productive and you can be hugely productive and still be making losses. I don't really care how productive I am - but i do care how profitable I am. Now in cows it pays to be productive and on top of the game - it 100% doesn't in beef

As i said on another thread there are an unprecedented amount of farmers going to go broke in Ireland in the next 20 years - and the vast majority of them will be the guys who you class as "productive"

kowtow

Tipp Man wrote: »

Think Figerty sums it up perfectly. There are a huge amount of part timer farmers (in beef in particular) who actually don't want or need to show a profit every year.

This of course is where the definition of "active farmer" for the purposes of SFP becomes interesting - and fraught with difficulties.

On the face of it, the apparent purpose of SFP would be better achieved by limiting it's payment to those who obtained the majority of their income from farming, whether they owned or rented the land in question in a given year.

Other schemes, including more generous environmental subsidies, might be more appropriate for someone who farms part time, especially on a relatively small holding. In theory a part time farmer would have a choice between "stewarding" his own land with a light stocking rate etc. - and receiving a payment to do so - or renting it to someone fully engaged, who with the benefit of SFP might pay a more realistic return on the asset.

If SFP automatically tailed off on higher acreages, this would also favour young and expanding farmers whose principal challenge is scale to cover fixed costs - it might also make it easier for the part timer who would be full time if he had access to land to realise his ambition.

Figerty

freedominacup wrote: »

Did your accountant give you any advice as to whether your money might be better invested elsewhere?

I have money invested else where. Not a lot, but it's not all in one pot.

I use the farm to reduce the tax bill, you are correct that it might be better invested elsewhere but I want to improve the land and make the land pay better in the longterm. Put in the work now and hopefully life will be easier later.

Right now the tax regime makes it better value to me to improve the land and offset the cost against the tax. Also buying a diesel car and offsetting a portion of this was also useful; all legal and above board. No different to private sector business minimising profits to avoid a large tax bill legitimately

To answer Damo's point. I have improved bloodlines, I have quality calves now on poor land. Improved drainage, and roadways through the land.

I have made better use of what I have and I am trying to improve it for the future so that I can reduce input costs.

Figerty

kowtow wrote: »

This of course is where the definition of "active farmer" for the purposes of SFP becomes interesting - and fraught with difficulties.

On the face of it, the apparent purpose of SFP would be better achieved by limiting it's payment to those who obtained the majority of their income from farming, whether they owned or rented the land in question in a given year.

Other schemes, including more generous environmental subsidies, might be more appropriate for someone who farms part time, especially on a relatively small holding. In theory a part time farmer would have a choice between "stewarding" his own land with a light stocking rate etc. - and receiving a payment to do so - or renting it to someone fully engaged, who with the benefit of SFP might pay a more realistic return on the asset.

If SFP automatically tailed off on higher acreages, this would also favour young and expanding farmers whose principal challenge is scale to cover fixed costs - it might also make it easier for the part timer who would be full time if he had access to land to realise his ambition.

Not really, the Single farm payment and CAP were setup to help guarantee the supply of food. This shouldn't discriminate against small or large. There are many arguments on this

The scale of the payment should be linked to the amount of land farmed and level of activity...... but do we want to start that debate again!!!!!

kowtow

Figerty wrote: »

Not really, the Single farm payment and CAP were setup to help guarantee the supply of food. This shouldn't discriminate against small or large.

Of course it should discriminate between small and large. The supply of food is guaranteed by keeping the maximum amount of domestic land in food production, at the highest environmentally acceptable yield possible.

In the simplest example, the SFP helps the small farmer buy a tractor and fert spreader which the larger farmer would easily finance out of income. By subsidising the fixed costs of smaller farmers you allow them to produce where doing so would otherwise be loss-making - in other words you lower the investment barrier - of course, this tends to keep them on the land and may or may not keep land out of the hands of larger farmers.

The unintended consequence of CAP / SFP would actuall tends to reduce the food supply, by de-risking large landholdings and masking inefficiency.

bbam

Funny the way profitability in Beef always seems to come back to SFP, who should get it and how much they deserve compared to the historic model employed..
You'd think profitability in Beef production would centre round Breeds, techniques, equipment, managment and stockmanship..

But no.. aparrently the SFP is the primary concern for our industury, and this had damaged it, possibly byond repair. A sad fact.
Maybe the townies opinion of farmers only being interested in the size of their handout from the EU, is closer to correct than we'd like to admit

Tipp Man

bbam wrote: »

Funny the way profitability in Beef always seems to come back to SFP, who should get it and how much they deserve compared to the historic model employed..
You'd think profitability in Beef production would centre round Breeds, techniques, equipment, managment and stockmanship..

But no.. aparrently the SFP is the primary concern for our industury, and this had damaged it, possibly byond repair. A sad fact.
Maybe the townies opinion of farmers only being interested in the size of their handout from the EU, is closer to correct than we'd like to admit

The reason for that is that there is NO profitability in beef without it - certainly nothing worth talking about

bbam

Tipp Man wrote: »

The reason for that is that there is NO profitability in beef without it - certainly nothing worth talking about

I'd say there is no profitability in Beef BECAUSE of it.

kowtow

Tipp Man wrote: »

The reason for that is that there is NO profitability in beef without it - certainly nothing worth talking about

There are many complex elements in a profitable chain, but the only two ESSENTIAL ones are a producer and a customer. Last time I looked customers were paying between €10 and €50 per kg for most cuts of beef.

So there is no fundamental reason why beef cannot be profitable. It's just the system which we have allowed to develop and find ourselves a slave to.

bob charles

bbam wrote: »

I'd say there is no profitability in Beef BECAUSE of it.

to make money from a beef animal someone up along the line before slaughter has to loose allot of money producing the animal. Animals cannot be slaughtered for less than 6 euro a kilo so as to reward each and every step of the ladder. Would 6 euro even be enough? no matter what techniques are used (unless illegal ones:D) the pie just isnt big enough to divide so as to leave everyone a living from beef production.

bbam

bob charles wrote: »

to make money from a beef animal someone up along the line before slaughter has to loose allot of money producing the animal. Animals cannot be slaughtered for less than 6 euro a kilo so as to reward each and every step of the ladder. Would 6 euro even be enough? no matter what techniques are used (unless illegal ones:D) the pie just isnt big enough to divide so as to leave everyone a living from beef production.

But if the SFP was pulled supply would fall as many producers would leave the business. With a reduced supply the remaining suppliers should comman a better price. At the moment when supplies are right factory prices increase. Imagine taking 50% of the suppliers out ofthe market. Then we would have an industry where money could be made on the primary product. A proper business model.

Tipp Man

bob charles wrote: »

to make money from a beef animal someone up along the line before slaughter has to loose allot of money producing the animal. Animals cannot be slaughtered for less than 6 euro a kilo so as to reward each and every step of the ladder. Would 6 euro even be enough? no matter what techniques are used (unless illegal ones:D) the pie just isnt big enough to divide so as to leave everyone a living from beef production.

that's it in a nutshell

Tipp Man

bbam wrote: »

But if the SFP was pulled supply would fall as many producers would leave the business. With a reduced supply the remaining suppliers should comman a better price. At the moment when supplies are right factory prices increase. Imagine taking 50% of the suppliers out ofthe market. Then we would have an industry where money could be made on the primary product. A proper business model.

Like a lot of things a great idea in theory but in practice not so great - Note the highlighted bits below

And he is dead right to be thinking like that

Figerty wrote: »

As a part time farmer, I make sure the farm shows almost zero profit each year. I am paying the high rate of tax in the off farm job.

I have to invest in the farm to bring it around to a reasonable order after years of neglect. My accountant is very solid on the most efficient way of doing this financially and that means running a loss 2 years out of 3 while offsetting the loss against the off farm earnings.

Nothing illegal or corrupt in this, just using the tax system to make it easier to redevelop the land. So I will show a loss 2 years out of 3...or 66% of the time.

mf240

bob charles wrote: »

to make money from a beef animal someone up along the line before slaughter has to loose allot of money producing the animal. Animals cannot be slaughtered for less than 6 euro a kilo so as to reward each and every step of the ladder. Would 6 euro even be enough? no matter what techniques are used (unless illegal ones:D) the pie just isnt big enough to divide so as to leave everyone a living from beef production.

The super markets take all the profit. At what the consumer pays there would be a modest living for all involved.

Damo810

Tipp Man wrote: »

Productivity blah blah blah blah Output blah blah blah

There is little to no reward in beef for being productive.

Anyway what has productivity got to do with anything?? It's about profit at the end of the day - not productivity. You can be perfectly profitable without being very productive and you can be hugely productive and still be making losses. I don't really care how productive I am - but i do care how profitable I am. Now in cows it pays to be productive and on top of the game - it 100% doesn't in beef

As i said on another thread there are an unprecedented amount of farmers going to go broke in Ireland in the next 20 years - and the vast majority of them will be the guys who you class as "productive"

It doesn't pay to be productive in beef? Seriously? Profit and productivity are in direct correlation. If your not productive, you won't be profitable. Getting the most Kg live-weight gain off grass as opposed to concentrates, increasing your stocking rate by good grassland management, buying the right animals to suit your system leading to better FCR's, better carcase values and most of all, higher profit per hectare. How can you seriously say it's not important to be productive in beef?

I agree that plenty of farms will go out of business in the next 20 years, I said that in my first post in this thread, but it won't be the guys achieving €500+ profit per hectare, it'll be the men, buying a few bullocks that are throwing them out on the land. Of course there will be men getting greedy, getting deeper in debt than they can manage but that's not linked to productivity.

Figerty wrote: »

To answer Damo's point. I have improved bloodlines, I have quality calves now on poor land. Improved drainage, and roadways through the land.

I have made better use of what I have and I am trying to improve it for the future so that I can reduce input costs.

Exactly my point. Your choosing to not make any profit, but have the ability to do so, because you've taken steps to make your farm productive and profitable.

bob charles

bbam wrote: »

But if the SFP was pulled supply would fall as many producers would leave the business. With a reduced supply the remaining suppliers should comman a better price. At the moment when supplies are right factory prices increase. Imagine taking 50% of the suppliers out ofthe market. Then we would have an industry where money could be made on the primary product. A proper business model.

would price increase with reduced supply, it would increase competition a little bit but price wouldnt go up SFA. our prices are governed by world prices as are all other commodities, but the big difference is we have to conform to rules that many dont have to. Some of these rules and regs dont cost money, but they cost time and are constantly becoming more of a head ache for farmers preventing them from doing what they know best, ie quality assurance bullsh*t, exact area measuring, and so on.

so in short if numbers of animals fell to 15k a week in the slaughterhouses I doubt there would be much if any a price increase.

Anyone remember the championing of the change to the Grocery Order a few years ago? well maybe the same crowd never imagined that the chickens will always come home to roost.

I

kowtow

bob charles wrote: »

to make money from a beef animal someone up along the line before slaughter has to loose allot of money producing the animal. Animals cannot be slaughtered for less than 6 euro a kilo so as to reward each and every step of the ladder. Would 6 euro even be enough? no matter what techniques are used (unless illegal ones:D) the pie just isnt big enough to divide so as to leave everyone a living from beef production.

Where I lived until recently a Sunday lunch of beef would cost in the region of €100, sometimes more.

Certainly less meat in the diet, but all local and very high quality, and like the milk and cheese, it provided a good income with little or no subsidy for farmers.

Timmaay

bob charles wrote: »

would price increase with reduced supply, it would increase competition a little bit but price wouldnt go up SFA. our prices are governed by world prices as are all other commodities, but the big difference is we have to conform to rules that many dont have to.

Agreed on the world market, but also our prices seem to be governed by how far we are willing to be bent over a barrel by the factories :P, which at the minute is right over with zero lub! And the likes of the tax relief on parttime farmers does nothing to reduce this, they are going to be happy to keep on producing beef for no profit once it ofsets their tax bill. If dairying was not such a workload and unviable for parttime farmers, would it be similarly on its knees?

Damo810

bob charles wrote: »

would price increase with reduced supply, it would increase competition a little bit but price wouldnt go up SFA. our prices are governed by world prices as are all other commodities, but the big difference is we have to conform to rules that many dont have to. Some of these rules and regs dont cost money, but they cost time and are constantly becoming more of a head ache for farmers preventing them from doing what they know best, ie quality assurance bullsh*t, exact area measuring, and so on.

so in short if numbers of animals fell to 15k a week in the slaughterhouses I doubt there would be much if any a price increase.

Anyone remember the championing of the change to the Grocery Order a few years ago? well maybe the same crowd never imagined that the chickens will always come home to roost.

I

Aren't some factories already importing carcasses too? I may be wrong, but on a visit to Dawn a few years back I think they mentioned that they imported some carcasses where there wasn't enough supply.

Figerty

Damo810 wrote: »

It doesn't pay to be productive in beef? Seriously? Profit and productivity are in direct correlation. If your not productive, you won't be profitable. Getting the most Kg live-weight gain off grass as opposed to concentrates, increasing your stocking rate by good grassland management, buying the right animals to suit your system leading to better FCR's, better carcase values and most of all, higher profit per hectare. How can you seriously say it's not important to be productive in beef?

I agree that plenty of farms will go out of business in the next 20 years, I said that in my first post in this thread, but it won't be the guys achieving €500+ profit per hectare, it'll be the men, buying a few bullocks that are throwing them out on the land. Of course there will be men getting greedy, getting deeper in debt than they can manage but that's not linked to productivity.



Exactly my point. Your choosing to not make any profit, but have the ability to do so, because you've taken steps to make your farm productive and profitable.

Indeed Damo,
A lot of companies do the same.... hence apple had a bond auction recently rather than take money out of the banks in places like ireland and pay a repatriation tax.

I will have no problem paying tax on profit in the future, right now it is about reinvestment and development.

Did I just compare my farming enterprise to Apple!!

bob charles

Timmaay wrote: »

Agreed on the world market, but also our prices seem to be governed by how far we are willing to be bent over a barrel by the factories :P, which at the minute is right over with zero lub!

Are we being bent over a barrel by the meat factories? is it not more like they are being bent over a barrel by next up the line. many tried beef processing and failed (including a company as shred as Kerry). Its a very high turnover, low margin business.

Meat is just another commodity nowadays, no longer are we hearing about the Dublin Market:D. Price paid in Ireland depends on world prices minus a certain % for carriage along with exchange rate and export refunds.

Tipp Man

Damo810 wrote: »

It doesn't pay to be productive in beef? Seriously? Profit and productivity are in direct correlation. If your not productive, you won't be profitable. Getting the most Kg live-weight gain off grass as opposed to concentrates, increasing your stocking rate by good grassland management, buying the right animals to suit your system leading to better FCR's, better carcase values and most of all, higher profit per hectare. How can you seriously say it's not important to be productive in beef?

.

You talk about profit per acre like making changes actually makes a difference - what are we talking about here - a change of what 20-30 an acre?? maximum??

You look down on a guy who is buying a few cattle and letting them run free for a year - but the chances are that he could be making just a much money as anybody at cattle - he has zero cost, he has zero work, he has zero investment in sheds, machinery etc etc. The money in cattle is so low it doesn't really matter. All the income/profit comes from SFP so really it's a case of keeping costs as low as possible to add a few quid to it - it doesn't matter whether that's an E grade BB bull or a P grade Holstein cow

Most cattle lads would make more money renting the land for tillage or cows - around here anyway

As i said cows are a different matter entirely - being sharp there can change your profits by a few hundred per acre quite easily

Tipp Man

Damo810 wrote: »

I agree that plenty of farms will go out of business in the next 20 years, I said that in my first post in this thread, but it won't be the guys achieving €500+ profit per hectare, it'll be the men, buying a few bullocks that are throwing them out on the land. Of course there will be men getting greedy, getting deeper in debt than they can manage but that's not linked to productivity.
.

Just to clarify i suppose it boils down to what you class as being good profit - judging by above it seems that you would class 500 per hectare as decent profit - I wouldn't

bob charles

Tipp Man wrote: »

Just to clarify i suppose it boils down to what you class as being good profit - judging by above it seems that you would class 500 per hectare as decent profit - I wouldn't

150ha - 375ac of farmland for €75K, no thanks m8

Damo810

Tipp Man wrote: »

You talk about profit per acre like making changes actually makes a difference - what are we talking about here - a change of what 20-30 an acre?? maximum??

You look down on a guy who is buying a few cattle and letting them run free for a year - but the chances are that he could be making just a much money as anybody at cattle - he has zero cost, he has zero work, he has zero investment in sheds, machinery etc etc. The money in cattle is so low it doesn't really matter. All the income/profit comes from SFP so really it's a case of keeping costs as low as possible to add a few quid to it - it doesn't matter whether that's an E grade BB bull or a P grade Holstein cow

Most cattle lads would make more money renting the land for tillage or cows - around here anyway

As i said cows are a different matter entirely - being sharp there can change your profits by a few hundred per acre quite easily

.

Far more than 20-30 an acre.

€0.25 to put on 1Kg liveweight on grass.
Over €2 to do that indoors, on concentrates.

I'm not looking down on him at all, that's his decision, but according to the article his setup is nonviable. He's not being productive and all he's doing is farming for the SFP, do you really think the likes of them farmers will last another 20 years? Or the farms that had men like that before will be taken on by young upcoming farmers? They'd be as well to start afresh and buy new land, because the chances are the lands not been looked after, theres very little machinery there, nothing in the way of sheds and a large investment will be needed..

So your advice to beef farmers is move out of the way and let some fella grow a bit of wheat on his fields. May as well pack my bags in the morning so..

How is being at the top different in beef, the difference between a good animal suited to finishing and a small animal that'll be hard finished and have a poor food conversation ratio is huge..

Tipp Man wrote: »

Just to clarify i suppose it boils down to what you class as being good profit - judging by above it seems that you would class 500 per hectare as decent profit - I wouldn't

I meant per acre, apologies...

Massey10

Stinicker wrote: »

There needs to be more and more money moved away from agriculture and into forestry, Ireland's climate has changed to a far wetter colder one and hundreds of thousands of acres need to be transferred from farm land into forest. The 20 year limit of the forestation payments needs to be revised upwards to allow land-owners to have a good income from forestry throughout their lives.

I am in my mid-twenties and have absolutely zero interest in farming but stand to inherit land valued at over 1million but the payments from forestry means that if I plant soon I will be out of that income source by the time I am in my mid-forties when I expect to most need with teenagers etc. I won't farm the land as it is something I am not good at and I cannot stand the Irish climate and the incessant rain, I already spend as much time as possible abroad and I will probably be faced with the prospect of selling the land which has been in the family since the 1600's.

You just want money for nothing so you can live abroad .The amount of money that goes in forestry and the value of the crop after 40 -100 years is money badly spent .Good land should not be planted at all

Massey10

Figerty wrote: »

As a part time farmer, I make sure the farm shows almost zero profit each year. I am paying the high rate of tax in the off farm job.

I have to invest in the farm to bring it around to a reasonable order after years of neglect. My accountant is very solid on the most efficient way of doing this financially and that means running a loss 2 years out of 3 while offsetting the loss against the off farm earnings.

Nothing illegal or corrupt in this, just using the tax system to make it easier to redevelop the land. So I will show a loss 2 years out of 3...or 66% of the time.

Will you keep doing it this way every year .Whats the point in farming is it just a hobby for you.

redzerologhlen

Damo810 wrote: »

.

Far more than 20-30 an acre.

€0.25 to put on 1Kg liveweight on grass.
Over €2 to do that indoors, on concentrates.

I'm not looking down on him at all, that's his decision, but according to the article his setup is nonviable. He's not being productive and all he's doing is farming for the SFP, do you really think the likes of them farmers will last another 20 years? Or the farms that had men like that before will be taken on by young upcoming farmers? They'd be as well to start afresh and buy new land, because the chances are the lands not been looked after, theres very little machinery there, nothing in the way of sheds and a large investment will be needed..

So your advice to beef farmers is move out of the way and let some fella grow a bit of wheat on his fields. May as well pack my bags in the morning so..

How is being at the top different in beef, the difference between a good animal suited to finishing and a small animal that'll be hard finished and have a poor food conversation ratio is huge..



I meant per acre, apologies...

I see where tipp man is coming from to a point Damo. Only a young lad myself and have made a lot of changes over the last few years to make the farm more profitable but it back firing in a big way this year. There's a lot of stress involved too in ''living on the edge'' when it comes to stocking rate, needing to have cattle turned out early etc. Our place probably has one of the highest rainfall levels in Ireland and I can honestly say we would have been a lot better off financially if we kept the same amount of stock we had 2 years ago and tightened up the calving and improved the genetics. It was a very low input and low stress system and they always left a nice profit.

On the bit in bold all I will say is if you are breeding cattle breed the best you can and if you are buying all you should see in front of you is euros be it a jersey calf or a blue bull fit for the hook because depending what you give for them one could leave as much as the other. My auld lad made a fortune for years buying slips of shorthorn and whitehead weanling that other lads wouldnt look at, I can remember one bunch of 30 that he turned 8 thousand pounds on in six weeks and they werent ''pretty'' stock

Tipp Man

Damo810 wrote: »

.

Far more than 20-30 an acre.

€0.25 to put on 1Kg liveweight on grass.
Over €2 to do that indoors, on concentrates.

I'm not looking down on him at all, that's his decision, but according to the article his setup is nonviable. He's not being productive and all he's doing is farming for the SFP, do you really think the likes of them farmers will last another 20 years? Or the farms that had men like that before will be taken on by young upcoming farmers? They'd be as well to start afresh and buy new land, because the chances are the lands not been looked after, theres very little machinery there, nothing in the way of sheds and a large investment will be needed..

So your advice to beef farmers is move out of the way and let some fella grow a bit of wheat on his fields. May as well pack my bags in the morning so..

How is being at the top different in beef, the difference between a good animal suited to finishing and a small animal that'll be hard finished and have a poor food conversation ratio is huge..



I meant per acre, apologies...

I can guarantee to you that the guys who are leaving cattle run wild for a year or more won't go out of business - how can they? They have no money spent and have no costs. You can only go broke by spending money - if you have no costs to meet then you don't need to have anything like the same turnover.

I'm not advising any beef farmer to roll over for tillage - just highlighting that tillage farmers are paying more for conacre than cattle farmers are making as profit - that's the simple reality of the matter

By a good animal suited to finishing you mean a continental, by food coversion you mean abiltiy to convert nuts - now if you buy the Fr a lot cheaper, don't put a ton of nuts into him at 300 then you can take a much lower price on the hook and still leave the same or more profit. Been buying a lot of cattle all our lives and on a grass based system they is f##k all difference between having a quality continental and a half decent Fr.

There is no beef farmer making 500 Euro an acre profit by the way