Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

sick of propping up non performing farms

245

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,049 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    happy days, a lot of that goes straight back into the economy, so all good



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 854 ✭✭✭Pinsnbushings


    Where do farmers put it under the mattress? They multiply that 1.6 billion investment into more than 16 billion of exports, much of which props up the rural economy..how much of that social protection money goes the other way on imported cigarettes and cheap beer??



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,951 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    Sounds like you are agreeing with me. Yes the market should be allowed to operate normally, and yes that would mean higher prices. But eventually it would also be more efficient, the lads who run a good farm and a tight ship would see the benefit as all the poor operators drop out of the market. Farmers as suppliers would gain more leverage instead of being beholden to the supermarkets.

    No it probably won't happen, just as with the health service governments have created a problem too big for them to fix. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭Jonnyc135


    So If 500g of mince went from €3.50 to €14 in order for beef farmers to become viable and payments to be cut, you would have no problem paying it which would be the fair price for the poorest cut of meat. If the answer is yes then fair play, I suspect most people reading this would not agree.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭893bet


    Great point re the money that is brought into the country. For balance alot of our inputs are however imported also.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,951 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    I would have no problem paying the fair market price, whatever that may be.

    I also don't agree that it would be a jump from 3.50 to 14 overnight, none of this happens in a vacuum. The supports need to be phased out, the market will be turbulent for a period and then will stabilise, then become competitive again. That would take place over years or more likely decades.

    None of this addresses the core point made, which is that farming includes a sizeable cohort who run a business solely with the aim of doing just enough to qualify for government payouts. In many other industries that would simply be considered as a scam.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,550 ✭✭✭Deub


    Do you have a number or percentage for “sizeable”?



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,485 Mod ✭✭✭✭K.G.


    Because we re worth it



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,066 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    Ultimately the problem is that people want to eat too many times a week and repeatedly so. Nor have they any interest in changing that filthy habit.


    We certainly can continue to rely on the Ukraine and Russia for grain, as can the rest of the world. Vlad is apolitical when it comes to resources and leverage. Maybe we need to completely hand over supply, even more than now, to Russia and China etc



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,327 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Tractor worth 10k?????

    I think the 1990's called and asked when you are coming home from your time travel escapades.



    Any subsidy and scheme is there to benefit the consumer - not the farmer. Let's see how much the consumer is whinging later on the the year when food inflation bites.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,274 ✭✭✭alps


    Subsidisation goes on across the board with most industries in some format, be it tax breaks (multinationals), infrastructural, (including electrical supply, services, roads, ports), direct job investements (IDA), foreign diplomatic backup.

    Investement in jobs that produce goods and services sold abroad return handsomely for the country. Its really not important that the primary producer (where most of these subsidies are targeted) makes profit, rather than they can keep producing.

    Regardless of my farm profit, if I sell €200,000 product from my farm, typically €700,000 is brought into the country on the back of it.

    Countries can only survive by selling stuff...money in..



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,866 ✭✭✭White Clover


    Are you suggesting that something as essential as food production should be left to the mercies of capitalism and "the market" ?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 854 ✭✭✭Pinsnbushings


    Fair point as we are discovering with fert this year.. but we will adapt and contribute a hell of a lot more than the vast majority of social welfare spend..how much of that 33 billion is spent on hap payments going to pension funds and the wealthy among us and farmers are the ones bothering the op.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 854 ✭✭✭Pinsnbushings


    Honestly that's great in theory but it won't work out for society as a whole on a number of fronts..social, environmental, animal welfare, food security, food safety and I could go on and on. Are we learning nothing from this energy crisis



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,951 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,951 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    Are there animal welfare companies that only exist to pick up animal welfare subsidies? Are there food safety regulators that only do the bare minimum to justify their government subsidies? Are there energy companies that carefully produce just enough to get their subsidy and stop there?

    Is this thread about the non performing farms or is the thread title badly inaccurate?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,998 ✭✭✭c.p.w.g.w


    Something that most people seem ignorant about it food prices...if we made it so farmers had to turn a profit without government help, the cost of food would be vastly higher than it currently is..



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,646 ✭✭✭Packrat


    Tractor for 10k? Go on done deal and send me the links for all those 10k tractors which aren't 35 years old or a garden toy.

    Good for you that you've no problem paying the real price of your food. You're in a tiny minority there though, - most supermarket customers never buy any lamb (Just one example) because they can't afford even the heavily discounted loss leader prices it's sold at. Same with steak.

    They buy mince - at a third of the production cost.

    Tell me, what do you do yourself?

    “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command”



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,903 ✭✭✭✭mickdw


    In my opinion farm grant payments have ruined farming.

    Go back 30 to 35 years ago and here in west of Ireland a fairly average few week old calf was going for 300 punts plus and meat was affordable in shops.

    Now a similar class of animal at same age might go for 450 euro. A tiny rise in prices over 35 years yet diesel and everything else is likey at least 10 times the price now.

    This is only sustainable due to grants.

    Now shop meat prices have not stayed down at 1980s prices - they have gone up with cost of living so I can only assume that the meat factories, distributors and retailers are making a mint.

    I don't think meat needs to be produced so cheaply in order for meat to be affordable in shops.

    I think there is enough margin the system that would allow farmers be paid reasonably and the meat in the supermarket shelf still affordable.

    Grant aids allows prices be pushed Into the ground.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,171 ✭✭✭minerleague


    Subsidies distort trade, but without them we will end up ( like pig and poultry ) with a smaller number of farms chasing scale. This is never ending. Although as a farmer I do get tired of predictable response of farm organisations to every "crises" by looking for extra money.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,327 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Sure lads already have to chase scale to try to not lose too much. Either that or play the system and go to minimum levels (which is probably more profitable than actually working your bollix off!)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,916 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Actually currently the supports the majority of farmers get via CAP are very modest with 80% of the money going to large industrial operators. Its even more extreme in the US in terms of the USDA budget and farm numbers there. Alot of countries in Asia have huge budgets to support the likes of rice production - indeed their experience has been similar to the old CAP with increasing levels of production support leading to falling margins for farmers and dumping of product on adjacent markets leading to price pressure for farmers there!!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 984 ✭✭✭Still stihl waters 3


    If you're going to make something up at least make it believable



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,171 ✭✭✭minerleague


    "play the system" intimates doing something illegal? The EU have been pushing farmers in the direction of minimizing production for years ( gone that way myself ) but we see what happens re food security for ourselves depending on importing cheap food from elsewhere



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 854 ✭✭✭Pinsnbushings


    What do you call performing ? there was a massive push for farmers to reduce production, and concentrate on environmental objectives in the new cap..stewardship of the countryside was going to be the service farmers were to perform for society..food production was only a nuisance.

    I haven't time to research it fully, but a quick Google shows the ispca received almost 1/2 million in government grants in 2018, I'm sure all that was spent in a super efficient manor.

    OPEC would show that energy is far from a free market and there is massive subsidies in that industry..check out the PSO levy and how viable wind turbines are without subsidisation.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,327 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    No. Play the system just means to assess the system and play, perhaps cynically, by its rules to your own benefit.

    If you are producing 25T of beef carcass weight a year and making hardly any profit, you might realise that, under the rules of the system imposed on you, you might make more profit producing only 5T of beef from the minimum amount of animals needed, then playing the system would be making the rational choice to cut down on production.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 984 ✭✭✭Still stihl waters 3


    To be honest if any business person needs to be told this they need to rethink their goal in life, too many farmers playing the numbers game killing themselves with work when they could "play the game" and take life a bit easier



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,550 ✭✭✭Deub


    42 what? Farmers? %?

    Are you claiming something as a fact when in reality, it is only your opinions?



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement