Tarw Coch
Member
- Location
- Bottom of Wats Dyke
Surely It partly depends when they start, perhaps they're working shifts.
British farmers some of the most inefficient in the world!!!?
- Thread starter JCfarmer
- Start date
bobajob
Member
- Location
- Sw Scotland
To be honest, whenever I have been on Dutch or Danish farms or other businesses I have always been very impressed with how well run they are. New Zealand likewise. Also driving through Austria, I am always impressed with how tidy the farms look, although I have not actually been on them..
I have always got the impression that they they make more profit and can afford more staff and machinery.
I know that we could do better if we could afford better equipment and other investments, but the profit is just not there, most of it taken by the supply chain.
IMHO too many British farms are run by a miserable older generation, very set in their ways, who refuse to listen to anything that the younger generation has say!
Tin hat on!
Yeah but I gather it will be a different story on many Danish Farms if you looked at their bank accounts and borrowing/ overdrafts, a lot of them will carry a large debt that they will never ever have a hope of paying off. They have a different attitude to debt. Yes tidy well kept farms but more efficient?!
- Location
- Ceredigion
how many can cover that, is it just you,or do you have backup ?
Midlands Today news story saying we are the most inefficient compared to....
The States
Germany
France
Netherlands
These were the ones listed on the graph for efficiency. We have not invested and embraced new technology like our counterparts and lack of investment in the next generation.
But we don't get extra investment from government like some of the others!FRANCE
yep for some reason new zealand went down the high tec road as well .
and a
look up corn wars on you tube.
it is one big add,
but to those farmers it is a sport to get the highest yield ,
and strangely interesting to watch
Twice ?
the only way you can look being efficient is to devide profit by work hours.
as a contractor i have paid to work when things go wrong.
i now take a little less an hour. but look at the jobs a lot closer when quoting .
and some times you have to turn down work ,
than drop your price
as a contractor i have paid to work when things go wrong.
i now take a little less an hour. but look at the jobs a lot closer when quoting .
and some times you have to turn down work ,
than drop your price
- Location
- Northumberland
Son covers most of the time. I`m the supersub if he is away
I am sure this has been mentioned but, productivity growth, they define as not yield but our ability to make more from less input,
Which has not been how we have been encouraged, we had a system that encouraged us to produce max yields grow as much as we can, it ended in glut and over supply which crashed commodity prices. So they moved the encouragement to enviomental things where we are encouraged to leave margins plant hedges fallow land, all these reduce our returns and production so, it seems odd they then compair use to the USA where they had very poor historic yields per HA and have only ever chased increasing efficiency putting land in production, not taking it out, also moving yields from 2.5t/ha to 4.6t/ha is not hard in 25years which is a 75% increase in output that then only requires them to reduce inputs in the same way we have by making farms bigger use less labour just the same as we in the uk have done to make them 75% more efficent, it's just a silly joke to even make that comparision at all, as I am sure others have said.
The fact they think it's possible for us to be more efficient is fine just show us how, don't say we are getting less efficient, unless the reasons we are are our fault, and truthfully over production is our enemy not our friend, if we had all increased yields by the same factor as the USA farmers have, it would drop £50/t of the price of wheat, how would we be better off?
Let's not forget the USA allowed GM crops what has also allowed their farmers to reduce spray costs to control weeds and pests that afflicted their crops we have had no similar innovations. And I for one think that's good because it's causing problems for them, that may well come back and cost them more long term. Making insects resistant to chemicals is not good. Neither is making weeds resistant to chemicals.
Which has not been how we have been encouraged, we had a system that encouraged us to produce max yields grow as much as we can, it ended in glut and over supply which crashed commodity prices. So they moved the encouragement to enviomental things where we are encouraged to leave margins plant hedges fallow land, all these reduce our returns and production so, it seems odd they then compair use to the USA where they had very poor historic yields per HA and have only ever chased increasing efficiency putting land in production, not taking it out, also moving yields from 2.5t/ha to 4.6t/ha is not hard in 25years which is a 75% increase in output that then only requires them to reduce inputs in the same way we have by making farms bigger use less labour just the same as we in the uk have done to make them 75% more efficent, it's just a silly joke to even make that comparision at all, as I am sure others have said.
The fact they think it's possible for us to be more efficient is fine just show us how, don't say we are getting less efficient, unless the reasons we are are our fault, and truthfully over production is our enemy not our friend, if we had all increased yields by the same factor as the USA farmers have, it would drop £50/t of the price of wheat, how would we be better off?
Let's not forget the USA allowed GM crops what has also allowed their farmers to reduce spray costs to control weeds and pests that afflicted their crops we have had no similar innovations. And I for one think that's good because it's causing problems for them, that may well come back and cost them more long term. Making insects resistant to chemicals is not good. Neither is making weeds resistant to chemicals.
glasshouse
Member
- Location
- lothians
The biggest obstacle to progress on uk farms is the astronomical rents that are charged for generally run down poorly equipped farms.
You cant run a marathon with your arms tied behind your back and pouring blood from a neck wound.
You cant run a marathon with your arms tied behind your back and pouring blood from a neck wound.
Steevo
Member
- Location
- Gloucestershire
I disagree. The biggest obstacle to UK farms is that the value of the goods they produce are out of kilter with the rest of goods in the UK economy.
If British steel companies folded up tomorrow, would people mind? I think doubt they would value them and would just buy elsewhere, if they don't already.
If Honda/Nissan moved production abroad, would people notice? I think they would value the cars these brands made just the same and keep on buying regardless.
If British farming packed up tomorrow would the shopper notice? Most wouldn't value British food over imported enough to do anything about it. To many food is food.
There would certainly be plenty of comments about not being able to walk dogs through overgrown fields, or the lack of a pretty landscape to look out on though. These do have a value that would I think be sorely missed.
What is tap water worth? Well, it's free of course!!
How about if you didn't have access to tap water.....how would you value it then?
glasshouse
Member
- Location
- lothians
WRONG!!!
If produce rose in value, rents would rise even more, so whats the point?
Everyone thought they were going to make money when wheat trebled in 2007,but it only took 2 yrs for rents to double and wheat dropped back to £100, leaving us worse off .
Steevo
Member
- Location
- Gloucestershire
The landlord cannot force a tenant to pay a price if he is not willing to do so - the landlord merely accepts the price offered by the tenant.
- Location
- NSW, Newstralya
Yes, but human nature, you are always going to end up with a bidding war if something is in short supply
bobajob
Member
- Location
- Sw Scotland
Every thread on here glasshouse turns into a landlord, tenant debate/ rant!!
That’s some chip on your shoulder to carry through life.
(I am a tenant btw, and I pay a fair amount in rent every yr )
Keep it on topic- this is about the nonsense the AHDB have come up with.........
That’s some chip on your shoulder to carry through life.
(I am a tenant btw, and I pay a fair amount in rent every yr )
Keep it on topic- this is about the nonsense the AHDB have come up with.........
glasshouse
Member
- Location
- lothians
Sod renting ground, been there got the t'shirt. I ended up keeping more cows to cover rent and bought in feed and just became a busy fool. Rents are high because people keep having a punt that thay are better than the last mug. Now i keep less but better quality and make more of my own feed by improving my own acres. I do still buy some fodder but im buying less every year. The local perception would be that ive gone backwards but my bank account would tell a different story.
Cowabunga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion,Wales
I suspect that their measure is far more simplistic than that. They almost certainly define productivity as the value of output per labour unit, or per labour unit cost.
Since agricultural output in financial terms, and indeed in physical terms in some areas, has declined faster than the labour [paid and unpaid], they assume a lower productivity. If the price of food doubled tomorrow, then our productivity, in their financial terms, would double as well.
They may use some other measures, but they cannot possibly measure inputs in other ways as far as I can see. They can only see productivity in financial terms.
It could be that if I borrowed a couple of million Quid that I could at least double my productivity. The question is though, could I reliably service those borrowings at the current price we receive for our goods. Would my business be better placed for that increased productivity? In my case, no. Not at all.
ollie989898
Member
British steel is, I am afraid, an irrelevance economically and internationally so it's a bad example. The value of commodities world wide are what they are, as I posted in another thread, the value of some commodities has not changed appreciably in 20 years. Technology means more and more can be produced per labour unit. Agriculture is precisely the same.