Why do we get subsidies

20silkcut

A very basic question I know.
Personally I have in receipt of very much needed subsidies for nearly ten years now SFP reps ANC etc but honestly if I was asked to explain to a non farmer why I get them and what is the realpolitik behind them I'm not sure I have the answer.

Avatar MIA

20silkcut wrote: »

A very basic question I know.
Personally I have in receipt of very much needed subsidies for nearly ten years now SFP reps ANC etc but honestly if I was asked to explain to a non farmer why I get them and what is the realpolitik behind them I'm not sure I have the answer.

Food supply is a top priority. Control of food supply is very important. i.e. the EU would not want to be dependent on non EU countries to feed itself.

If farmers were not to receive subsidies then food would have to be more expensive at the shop counter. It could be argued that it's the consumer that's being subsidised indirectly.

Preservation of the countryside for environmental and for continued use for farming for generations to come is important.

Food supply is only going to become more important as time goes on.

emaherx

20silkcut wrote: »

A very basic question I know.
Personally I have in receipt of very much needed subsidies for nearly ten years now SFP reps ANC etc but honestly if I was asked to explain to a non farmer why I get them and what is the realpolitik behind them I'm not sure I have the answer.

The reason is/was to keep the price of our produce down, so that everyone can afford milk, bread, meat and vegetables etc. In theory it was a great idea except we don't control the price of our produce and there is nothing to stop the supermarkets, factories and other distributors from making as much as they like. Now we can't just go back to a system without payments and just get a fair price either as we have competition from other subsidised countries who all use subsidies for the same reasons.

I think that's it in simplest terms. However I'm sure there is a bit more to it.

20silkcut

Coincidentally Joe Healy is just on the radio now debating this issue with an English academic who thinks CAP should be entirely environmental.

Willfarman

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Food supply is a top priority. Control of food supply is very important. i.e. the EU would not want to be dependent on non EU countries to feed itself.

If farmers were not to receive subsidies then food would have to be more expensive at the shop counter. It could be argued that it's the consumer that's being subsidised indirectly.

Preservation of the countryside for environmental and for continued use for farming for generations to come is important.

Food supply is only going to become more important as time goes on.

I could draw my entire sfp with 25 inedible donkeys. In fact it would allow me to pass cross compliance very easily. Producing anything only risks your payment.

20silkcut

Any half baked economist would tear you to shreds on the cheap food argument.
The markets would be flooded with even cheaper food if EU subsidies were removed.

farmerjj

20silkcut wrote: »

Coincidentally Joe Healy is just on the radio now debating this issue with an English academic who thinks CAP should be entirely environmental.

Loved it, a english lad telling us what we should do on the way out the door and going into direct competition with the EU.Priceless:rolleyes:

Avatar MIA

20silkcut wrote: »

The markets would be flooded with even cheaper food if EU subsidies were removed.

Expand

allthedoyles

20silkcut wrote:

Any half baked economist would tear you to shreds on the cheap food argument. The markets would be flooded with even cheaper food if EU subsidies were removed.

Is it time to remove the subsidies then ?

hytrogen

Avatar MIA wrote:

Preservation of the countryside for environmental and for continued use for farming for generations to come is important.

If that was the case forestry subsidies would be ten fold what they are to create incentives away from agri/livestock farming

Avatar MIA

hytrogen wrote: »

If that was the case forestry subsidies would be ten fold what they are to create incentives away from agri/livestock farming

Keeping the land as arable is environmental.

20silkcut

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Expand

Beef and grain farming would cease in this country allowing cheaper beef from South America and cheaper grain from the worlds breadbaskets. It's not a pretty argument but if your trying to convince the consumer that CAP makes food cheaper your on a hiding to nothing.

Avatar MIA

20silkcut wrote: »

Beef and grain farming would cease in this country allowing cheaper beef from South America and cheaper grain from the worlds breadbaskets. It's not a pretty argument but if your trying to convince the consumer that CAP makes food cheaper your on a hiding to nothing.

You missed out on the point of food security/quality/safety. The EU is a bubble.

You cannot compare EU produced food and whatever the likes of South America would ship to the EU if allowed.

20silkcut

Again the hypothetical economist will say that food security works both ways and the world would be a better place if we were all mutually food dependent.

Avatar MIA

20silkcut wrote: »

Again the hypothetical economist will say that food security works both ways and the world would be a better place if we were all mutually food dependent.

A commie economist maybe :pac:

hytrogen

Avatar MIA wrote:

Keeping the land as arable is environmental.

Not in terms of tackling the national greenhouse gas emissions effectively, particularly those by which farming produces the highest in this country.

emaherx

20silkcut wrote: »

Any half baked economist would tear you to shreds on the cheap food argument.
The markets would be flooded with even cheaper food if EU subsidies were removed.

That may be true. But it is the simple answer to your basic question. Subsidies were originally introduced to keep food affordable for everyone.

Removing them today may have a very different effect. As food from developing countries will be cheaper as well as all the other subsidised countries of the world.

Lu Tze

20silkcut wrote: »

Beef and grain farming would cease in this country allowing cheaper beef from South America and cheaper grain from the worlds breadbaskets. It's not a pretty argument but if your trying to convince the consumer that CAP makes food cheaper your on a hiding to nothing.

Its not solely for cheaper food, its to produce a high quality product, within the EU, for as cheap as possible. This is to ensure food is affordable to everybody, isnt pumped full of hormones etc, and there is a secure food chain independent of influence outside the EU i.e. war, outbreak of disease in food stocks, mass crop failures in other parts of the world.

Remove the the subsidies, and if any of the above happen, how cheap will the imported food be then, with little or no supply left within the EU? If they could do the same with energy they would. One country doesnt pay its gas bill to russia, and half of eastern europe freezes over winter when the valve is closed.

Avatar MIA

hytrogen wrote: »

Not in terms of tackling the national greenhouse gas emissions effectively, particularly those by which farming produces the highest in this country.

Great. We'll have a perfectly habitable planet in 100 years time, but nobody will be alive to enjoy it because we'll have stopped producing food to feed people. Is that what sustainable means?

Or is there a plan to feed people that dosen't include the use of land for agriculture? Should we consider Soylent Green?

mahoney_j

20silkcut wrote: »

A very basic question I know.
Personally I have in receipt of very much needed subsidies for nearly ten years now SFP reps ANC etc but honestly if I was asked to explain to a non farmer why I get them and what is the realpolitik behind them I'm not sure I have the answer.

We get it so we can produce top quality affordable food ,without we'd have gm this ,hormone produced beef etc expensive crap food .thats it in a nutshell ,lots lots more To it though

hytrogen

Lu Tze wrote:

Its not solely for cheaper food, its to produce a high quality product, within the EU, for as cheap as possible. This is to ensure food is affordable to everybody, isnt pumped full of hormones etc, and there is a secure food chain independent of influence outside the EU i.e. war, outbreak of disease in food stocks, mass crop failures in other parts of the world.

But food quality has declined in the past two decades due to increases in productivity rates while we export our higher quality grade goods at a cheaper rate than we pay at home.

Lu Tze wrote:

Remove the the subsidies, and if any of the above happen, how cheap will the imported food be then, with little or no supply left within the EU? If they could do the same with energy they would. One country doesnt pay its gas bill to russia, and half of eastern europe freezes over winter when the valve is closed.

Energy is being traded across the single market, Germany produced something like 120% of its national requirement one week during the summer through renewables and exported it, meanwhile nearly crippling Poland's or one of their neighbours grid prices in the process. We're already exporting to France and importing energy from Britain & NI

20silkcut

Avatar MIA wrote: »

A commie economist maybe :pac:

And the CAP is not "commie" ??

Avatar MIA

20silkcut wrote: »

And the CAP is not "commie" ??

A subsidy =/= communism

20silkcut

mahoney_j wrote: »

We get it so we can produce top quality affordable food ,without we'd have gm this ,hormone produced beef etc expensive crap food .thats it in a nutshell ,lots lots more To it though

South American beef is sold in many restaurants in this country and appears to be as top quality as any home produced stuff.
At the end of the day the consumer will pick the cheaper of two identical cuts of beef regardless of where it comes from.

charolais0153

All soya bean we get is "gm" on the bag. If that's getting into the food chain then we are essentially eating food that was made from gm

hytrogen

Avatar MIA wrote:

Great. We'll have a perfectly habitable planet in 100 years time, but nobody will be alive to enjoy it because we'll have stopped producing food to feed people. Is that what sustainable means?

Oh look a spin doctor, we all know what sustainable means so try not to be a smartallic next time?

Avatar MIA wrote:

Or is there a plan to feed people that dosen't include the use of land for agriculture? Should we consider Soylent Green?

Ever heard of the magical wizardry of Agri-forestry? One of those things that are trendy and is being adopted across the single market? It's the new hipster farming that allows for dapper clothing & majestically groomed facial hair too. Scary right?

20silkcut

Avatar MIA wrote: »

A subsidy =/= communism

So the CAP is communism

Nekarsulm

20silkcut wrote: »

So the CAP is communism

Not really.
This is Communism.
https://insightcuba.com/faq/how-does-cuba%E2%80%99s-food-rationing-system-work

pedigree 6

20silkcut wrote: »

A very basic question I know.
Personally I have in receipt of very much needed subsidies for nearly ten years now SFP reps ANC etc but honestly if I was asked to explain to a non farmer why I get them and what is the realpolitik behind them I'm not sure I have the answer.

Basically politians think farmers are like children and have been presented this view by our lobby groups. They think that ag won't survive without subs yet we have farmers at present farming without them or on the bare minimum. Yet some farmers need 100's of thousands to farm and others can farm without. Subs have been the ruination of farming in this country and have removed the fluidity of change and economics of farming.
We now have the highest land price and oldest generation of farmers ever in this country. Farmers are now farming for subs instead of trying to farm for income in their own right. We have farmers now breeding show ponies for a hobby and getting a bps on top of this. We will now end up half the country planted here because of forestry subs and all to meet some made up nonsence that our European overlords have in mind for this country. The eu now farms the farmers in this country and no one bats an eyelid. Would this country have been better without subs it depends who you talk to. If you're in receipt of 20k up then you want to hang on to them to the very end. If below you're better off that there were no subs to level off the playing field.
No fairness in the system nor will there ever be.

Compare this to new Zealand and a lot of farmers here wouldn't be able to cope with the economics (and physical work) of farming.

20silkcut

Lu Tze wrote: »

Its not solely for cheaper food, its to produce a high quality product, within the EU, for as cheap as possible. This is to ensure food is affordable to everybody, isnt pumped full of hormones etc, and there is a secure food chain independent of influence outside the EU i.e. war, outbreak of disease in food stocks, mass crop failures in other parts of the world.

Remove the the subsidies, and if any of the above happen, how cheap will the imported food be then, with little or no supply left within the EU? If they could do the same with energy they would. One country doesnt pay its gas bill to russia, and half of eastern europe freezes over winter when the valve is closed.

Russia is a rogue isolationist state.

Let's for argument sake say that we do a deal with the South Americans where they supply us with beef at the sacrifice of our beef industry and we supply them with dairy products at the sacrifice of their dairy industry then you have mutually dependent food security and both entities using their comparative advantage and cheaper beef for us and cheaper dairy products for them.

Timmaay

hytrogen wrote: »

Not in terms of tackling the national greenhouse gas emissions effectively, particularly those by which farming produces the highest in this country.

I'm obviously bias here considering it's my livelihood ha, but compare grass fed low input milk/beef here in Ireland on permanent grasslands which need zero irrigation etc, against feedlot/indoor systems that are based on ploughing up all the ground to sow corn that gets fed to the animals. I'm not saying the Irish situation is perfect, and we can definitely all make progress to reduce artificial nitrogen dependence, sow grasses which are lower in protein and result in a more balanced cow diet etc, however once we keep our eye on the ball we can certainly produce milk and beef that is amoung the lowest emissions intensity in the world.

If you believe the whole vegan environment argument, should we all eat as much meat or dairying as we do? Maybe not, however simple as from a global point of view (or even just within Europe), if Ireland is one of the lower energy intensive places to produce beef and dairy then it's a backward step to restrict it, and say allow an acre of rainforest be felled in Brazil instead. Of course all this is assuming a static market, and not where all the Irish dairy surplus milk gets turned into infant formula and sold to developing world mothers who are perfectly capable of feeding the baby themselves ha.

Avatar MIA

20silkcut wrote: »

So the CAP is communism

=/= =/= =

20silkcut

Timmaay wrote: »

I'm obviously bias here considering it's my livelihood ha, but compare grass fed low input milk/beef here in Ireland on permanent grasslands which need zero irrigation etc, against feedlot/indoor systems that are based on ploughing up all the ground to sow corn that gets fed to the animals. I'm not saying the Irish situation is perfect, and we can definitely all make progress to reduce artificial nitrogen dependence, sow grasses which are lower in protein and result in a more balanced cow diet etc, however once we keep our eye on the ball we can certainly produce milk and beef that is amoung the lowest emissions intensity in the world.

If you believe the whole vegan environment argument, should we all eat as much meat or dairying as we do? Maybe not, however simple as from a global point of view (or even just within Europe), if Ireland is one of the lower energy intensive places to produce beef and dairy then it's a backward step to restrict it, and say allow an acre of rainforest be felled in Brazil instead. Of course all this is assuming a static market, and not where all the Irish dairy surplus milk gets turned into infant formula and sold to developing world mothers who are perfectly capable of feeding the baby themselves ha.

Obviously we can't produce cheap beef here if a mercosur trade deal would finish the beef industry here.

murrak123

charolais0153 wrote: »

All soya bean we get is "gm" on the bag. If that's getting into the food chain then we are essentially eating food that was made from gm

Perhaps the most important point. Once that cat gets out of the bag, the premium product that we market as grassfed will be goosed.

Cavanjack

Heard lately that farm subsidies only cost each EU citizen €150 a year.
Another theory I heard is that if we quit producing food in the EU because of high costs and were to rely only on food imports and a war broke out we'd have no food within a few days.
The only problem I have with subsidies is the way they are distributed in Ireland. Getting paid for what You produced 15 years ago is beyond a joke.

Panch18

20silkcut wrote: »

Lu Tze wrote: »

Its not solely for cheaper food, its to produce a high quality product, within the EU, for as cheap as possible. This is to ensure food is affordable to everybody, isnt pumped full of hormones etc, and there is a secure food chain independent of influence outside the EU i.e. war, outbreak of disease in food stocks, mass crop failures in other parts of the world.

Remove the the subsidies, and if any of the above happen, how cheap will the imported food be then, with little or no supply left within the EU? If they could do the same with energy they would. One country doesnt pay its gas bill to russia, and half of eastern europe freezes over winter when the valve is closed.

Russia is a rogue isolationist state.

Let's for argument sake say that we do a deal with the South Americans where they supply us with beef at the sacrifice of our beef industry and we supply them with dairy products at the sacrifice of their dairy industry then you have mutually dependent food security and both entities using their comparative advantage and cheaper beef for us and cheaper dairy products for them.

Firstly you only have to look at what Argentina did to export tariffs a few years ago to realise that dealing with countries like that for food supplies is highly undesirable. There policies can change at the whim of a certain politician and then Europe is left high and dry crying for beef, and europes beef herd has been decimated to get this deal which would take years to reestablish

Secondly What makes you think we are cheaper at dairy than the South Americans?? Even if we are today will we be in the future? They have cheap labour, cheap land and lots of it. Why do you thinks the kiwis are investing there? Countries like Uruguay can and will match our dairy industry

20silkcut

Panch18 wrote: »

Firstly you only have to look at what Argentina did to export tariffs a few years ago to realise that dealing with countries like that for food supplies is highly undesirable. There policies can change at the whim of a certain politician and then Europe is left high and dry crying for beef, and europes beef herd has been decimated to get this deal which would take years to reestablish

Secondly What makes you think we are cheaper at dairy than the South Americans?? Even if we are today will we be in the future? They have cheap labour, cheap land and lots of it. Why do you thinks the kiwis are investing there? Countries like Uruguay can and will match our dairy industry

But if you have a trade deal in place where they depend on us for their dairy in the same way that we depend on them for our beef it is not in their interest to cut off our beef supply.
Let's assume Uruguay Argentina Brazil can produce dairy products at the same price as us. They also have massive amounts of beef they want to sell to us.
Let's say we buy their beef.
They can if they want hoard all the money and store it in jars and under the floor boards and we keep giving them our paper for their beef which is a fantastic deal for us.
Or they spend the money buying our dairy products which are now cheaper than theirs cause they have more money and their currency has appreciated.
They also further invest in beef at the expensive of their own dairy which further enforces interdependency.

Panch18

Why would they pay us more money for our dairy than they could produce it themselves for??

in general the EU is not a cheap milk producer

20silkcut

Panch18 wrote: »

Why would they pay us more money for our dairy than they could produce it themselves for??

in general the EU is not a cheap milk producer

If we buy their beef it enriches their economy making their currency increase in value. Making our dairy products more competitive. As you can see in the wake of brexit it is very much in our interest to do business with countries whose currencies appreciate in value.
Remember countries have finite resources of labour and land and if they are increasing their beef industry they are not increasing their dairy industry.

StupidLikeAFox

Cavanjack wrote: »

Another theory I heard is that if we quit producing food in the EU because of high costs and were to rely only on food imports and a war broke out we'd have no food within a few days.

Fair point, if we were to become dependent on Brazilian beef for instance, then down the line some dictator get into power in Brazil he would have us by the short and curlies

Welding Rod

Willfarman wrote: »

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Food supply is a top priority. Control of food supply is very important. i.e. the EU would not want to be dependent on non EU countries to feed itself.

If farmers were not to receive subsidies then food would have to be more expensive at the shop counter. It could be argued that it's the consumer that's being subsidised indirectly.

Preservation of the countryside for environmental and for continued use for farming for generations to come is important.

Food supply is only going to become more important as time goes on.

I could draw my entire sfp with 25 inedible donkeys. In fact it would allow me to pass cross compliance very easily. Producing anything only risks your payment.

Who said donkeys are inedible?

Welding Rod

20silkcut wrote: »

Panch18 wrote: »

Why would they pay us more money for our dairy than they could produce it themselves for??

in general the EU is not a cheap milk producer

If we buy their beef it enriches their economy making their currency increase in value. Making our dairy products more competitive. As you can see in the wake of brexit it is very much in our interest to do business with countries whose currencies appreciate in value.
Remember countries have finite resources of labour and land and if they are increasing their beef industry they are not increasing their dairy industry.

Dealing with the **** who run those countries is no better than signing a contract with some crackhead in Temple Bar. You couldn't rely on it two minutes after signing it!
On top of that their currency swings of a few hundred percent from Monday to Thursday make any kind of deal impossible.
How many times have the Argies defaulted on their debt?

Timmaay

Welding Rod wrote: »

Who said donkeys are inedible?

Not tesco anyways.

hytrogen

Timmaay wrote:

I'm obviously bias here considering it's my livelihood ha, but compare grass fed low input milk/beef here in Ireland on permanent grasslands which need zero irrigation etc, against feedlot/indoor systems that are based on ploughing up all the ground to sow corn that gets fed to the animals. I'm not saying the Irish situation is perfect, and we can definitely all make progress to reduce artificial nitrogen dependence, sow grasses which are lower in protein and result in a more balanced cow diet etc, however once we keep our eye on the ball we can certainly produce milk and beef that is among the lowest emissions intensity in the world.
If you believe the whole vegan environment argument, should we all eat as much meat or dairying as we do? Maybe not, however simple as from a global point of view (or even just within Europe), if Ireland is one of the lower energy intensive places to produce beef and dairy then it's a backward step to restrict it, and say allow an acre of rainforest be felled in Brazil instead. Of course all this is assuming a static market, and not where all the Irish dairy surplus milk gets turned into infant formula and sold to developing world mothers who are perfectly capable of feeding the baby themselves ha.

Hi fives all round here and I do enjoy my steaks rare & bloody with a pint of full moo-juice! A fine wine & cheese board to polish off the evenings entertainments and I am in the bin but totally worth it..

20silkcut

Welding Rod wrote: »

Dealing with the **** who run those countries is no better than signing a contract with some crackhead in Temple Bar. You couldn't rely on it two minutes after signing it!
On top of that their currency swings of a few hundred percent from Monday to Thursday make any kind of deal impossible.
How many times have the Argies defaulted on their debt?

What can be said of this post? Insular xenophobic. This sort of attitude will ensure that the CAP remains and those countries will continue to experience wild currency fluctuations.
Really what this thread highlights to me that the CAP is 100% a protection racket and far from providing cheap food for the consumer it actually 'protects' the consumer from cheap food.
All this talk of Brazilian dictators and crackhead Argentinians maybe if we actually engaged in proper trade with them and let them reach their full potential we might have another block of prosperous countries that buy goods from us. Protectionism has been an utter failure 100% of the time it never works.
And agriculture is enveloped in it,a failed strategy.

Cattlepen

hytrogen wrote: »

Oh look a spin doctor, we all know what sustainable means so try not to be a smartallic next time?


Ever heard of the magical wizardry of Agri-forestry? One of those things that are trendy and is being adopted across the single market? It's the new hipster farming that allows for dapper clothing & majestically groomed facial hair too. Scary right?

Sorry for being a bit confused here but what are you trying to say here?

kowtow

Avatar MIA wrote:

You cannot compare EU produced food and whatever the likes of South America would ship to the EU if allowed.

South America and south Africa produce some of the best beef in the world.

Mooooo

It is difficult to do business in some of those countries. One irish company had to pull out of Brazil as much due to difficulties with corruption etc. The other hand is these are developing countries agri one of the main industries they can and will drive on they won't say they will stop dairy if we buy their beef etc.
The main problem with cap is the realignment necessary if it goes, if processors here want primary producers they will have to pay for it or it won't be there, that cost won't just be borne by the processor and supermarkets margins. The way it is at the moment it is basically protecting secondary and tertiary margins as opposed to primary producers and consumers

kowtow

As a means of making food less costly, subsidies are mis-conceived and nowadays largely self-serving.

The CAP has been massively capitalised into high land prices, and high input prices (including capital inputs where grant supported) which actually stifle innovation and quality.

Subsidies encourage, some would say force, farmers onto a treadmill producing commodity goods at the lowest price, which benefits the food industry (who buy them cheaply) and the regulatory industry (taking someones CAP is much easier than following due process => more regulators, more regulation). It's no accident that the often ridiculous food safety guidelines are written in very close collaboration with the largest players in the food industry.

And even if food were cheaper for the consumer - the costs are enormous in other ways. First, subsidies are paid by taxpayers - not by Governments. Second, the burden of obesity and diet related illness which increasingly appears to be linked to the industrialisation of food has enormous health & life costs, financial and otherwise. There are a billion obese people in the world, and there are a billion starving. The food processing, medical, and regulatory organisations are now occasionally admitting that the direction they have given to consumers in the past is wrong (on dairy fats, for example).

Subsidies don't make food cheap, they make farmers cheap - and that doesn't help any of us.

20silkcut

Mooooo wrote: »

It is difficult to do business in some of those countries. One irish company had to pull out of Brazil as much due to difficulties with corruption etc. The other hand is these are developing countries agri one of the main industries they can and will drive on they won't say they will stop dairy if we buy their beef etc.
The main problem with cap is the realignment necessary if it goes, if processors here want primary producers they will have to pay for it or it won't be there, that cost won't just be borne by the processor and supermarkets margins. The way it is at the moment it is basically protecting secondary and tertiary margins as opposed to primary producers and consumers

If we buy their beef more of their land will be used for beef farming. More of our land will become available for dairy farming they will have more money to buy our dairy products.

Why would they invest in their dairy industry Supplying their home limited markets when they have the demand to supply an extra 500 million people in Europe with beef which they can do so cheaply.
Of course it would make sense for dairy farmers in South America to switch to beef and buy dairy products with their newly appreciated currency. If they decide they want to be a major player in dairy then they can't keep us supplied with beef.

Mooooo

20silkcut wrote: »

If we buy their beef more of their land will be used for beef farming. More of our land will become available for dairy farming they will have more money to buy our dairy products.

Why would they invest in their dairy industry Supplying their home limited markets when they have the demand to supply an extra 500 million people in Europe with beef which they can do so cheaply.
Of course it would make sense for dairy farmers in South America to switch to beef and buy dairy products with their newly appreciated currency. If they decide they want to be a major player in dairy then they can't keep us supplied with beef.

That's where you're caught. They decide to go dairy and we don't take their beef but our own beef herd is gone so we are caught. + it's the Asian market they'll target same as ourselves. Beef falls in easy with their grain ground so they don't need to divert ground from dairy anyway