'Current subsidies are funding in-efficient farming' - Micheal Gove (Chat away)

[gone up the hill]

The thread is about Gove's comments on farmers being inefficient. As a politician he is responsible for spending tax payers money. If you asked most tax payers if they agreed to the "crap farmers" I was referring to who live very well while doing extremely little apart from owning land I think most would agree with him.

Most don't give sweet FA

 

[steveR]

is being efficient necessarily about producing more produce ?
I would have thought it was about producing more profit

A little like the question of, "what is "sustainable agriculture"...! IMO, it has a similar reply as you suggest for measuring efficiency.

 

[Henarar]

Tell me mr Gove, which government decided that paying AD plants to generate energy was very efficient , with maize being carted miles and grown on already subsidised land.
Can’t blame the farmers who do it, including folks like me who grow the maize, but it was your policy.
Suddenly we are the villains again!

To bloody right

 

[5312]

is being efficient necessarily about producing more produce ?
I would have thought it was about producing more profit

But it is not about producing more profit, it is like someone on welfare taking as many benefits as possible. That is what Gove is concerned with, taxpayer handouts and getting little in return for them.

Obviously, in a normal business with no subsidies then it would be just about producing profits.

 

[gone up the hill]

But it is not about producing more profit, it is like someone on welfare taking as many benefits as possible. That is what Gove is concerned with, taxpayer handouts and getting little in return for them.

Obviously, in a normal business with no subsidies then it would be just about producing profits.

They are getting a supply of cheap food that doesn't depend on imports.

 

[steveR]

I agree. Money for old rope. Shame it ended last year after 10 years.

What! You haven't renewed with one of the superior new Enviro Schemes....? What a surprise....

My latest scheme runs out in 2020, just in time to get an idea of what's next in line from HM Govt. I am not holding my breath at present for anything sensible coming from

 

[Henarar]

But it is not about producing more profit, it is like someone on welfare taking as many benefits as possible. That is what Gove is concerned with, taxpayer handouts and getting little in return for them.

Obviously, in a normal business with no subsidies then it would be just about producing profits.

The taxpayer handout has nart to do with production of produce and everything to do with profit

 

[S J H]

Maybe not, but have certainly had many years to change things, if they were so concerned.

I don't think they could have. Think how many people they'd of put out of business and how many jobs would have been lost.

 

[S J H]

You have no idea if that would be the case or not that they would carry on...

Things would look a hell of a lot different if subs go, input prices rise 25% and farm gate prices drop 25%..

Nothing is certain at all what will happen post Brexit and to assume you know is dangerous ground.

You have no idea either GUTH.

But why would inputs rise and outputs drop? That has no logic.

 

[gone up the hill]

You have no idea wither GUTH.

But why would inputs rise and outputs drop? That has no logic.

No I don't but until we know either way it would be utter folly to call for subs to go!

Logic if trade deals/ tariff's go against us both ways. ( ie imports and exports )

 

[S J H]

No I don't but until we know either way it would be utter folly to call for subs to go!

Logic if trade deals/ tariff's go against us both ways. ( ie imports and exports )

Trade deals and tariffs are not the same as subsides though.

 

[jendan]

The thread is about Gove's comments on farmers being inefficient. As a politician he is responsible for spending tax payers money. If you asked most tax payers if they agreed to the "crap farmers" I was referring to who live very well while doing extremely little apart from owning land I think most would agree with him.

You did not make the distinction (or mixed it up) between landowners not really farming the land themselves but claiming BPS,and "crap farmers" either owner occupiers or tenants farming it themselves,however crappily,(and "innefficient")but still getting a decent living without over working.

 

[Farmer Roy]

No it isn't. What you are assuming is that the 'more efficient' producers always produce more from the same amount of land. Some for sure. But its also possible to be be 'more efficient' by producing less, but at a lower cost, so your profit is greater.

Efficiency is about cost of production, not getting the maximum amount of grain from a 10 acre field regardless of cost.

If I produce 2t/acre of wheat but my costs are £100, i'm in a better position to the man who produces 3t/acre but whose costs are £250/acre. He produced more, but I was more efficient (cost per tonne of production £50 vs £83). I also made slightly more overall profit (with grain at £140/t), and I had less capital at risk in the ground too.

This is farming blind spot. It's been living in the post war 'produce more at all costs' mentality for so long that it only measures 'efficiency' in output per acre. Its forgotten entirely about the profit margin on its operations, because the taxpayer has always supplied a healthy one at the end of the year.

Its entirely possible UK food production could halve eventually as a result of these changes, yet at the end of it everyone still in the industry will be making a profit, because they're farming larger areas more extensively, producing less but at far lower COP.

err, I was going to keep out of this discussion, as they all seem to go around in circles . . .

but, I have to agree wholeheartedly with this post. To me, it does sum up one of the major differences between agricultural production in our two countries

 

[Farmer Roy]

The point is that farming is like perennial teenager, living at home with its parents (the State) and not wanting to leave home and go its own way, because 'You'll miss us when we're gone! Who'll mow the lawn? Who take the bins out? I do loads around here, it'll all go to rack and ruin if I go! You'll be lonely without me! You don't want that so keep giving me the allowance, even though I'm 45....'

At some point the people get fed up of hearing the same old excuses, and say 'You know what, just go. We're fed up with the whining. And yes we'll have to find someone to mow the lawn. Its not the hardest thing in the world. We'll survive. Close the door on the way out.'

As in any failing relationship there's only one way to see if there's anything of value left - split up and give it time apart. Maybe all the points made previously were valid, and there is something worth salvaging, but that can only happen when both parties want to salvage something. At the moment the farming industry is begging the UK public to keep paying us, and they're 'Why should we?' Thats no basis for a longterm relationship.

Who knows, in 15-20 years time all those predictions about world production crises will have proved true, and the UK public will come crawling back 'Please produce more, we'll pay you extra!' and farmers will be 'Sorry, we're doing quite nicely in the free market, thanks.'

Ultimately 'You'll miss us when we're gone' can only be proved by leaving.......

I'm glad you said this & not me

 

[ollie989898]

If all contributors here recognised that subsidies are effectively permitting a lot of producers to dump products into the marketplace with scant regard for the cost of their production then perhaps they would not be so in favour of them?

If your argument is that you want a fair return on your beef or lamb then you must realise that the net effect of subsidies is that you are rarely going to see that? With such a wide range of costs of production as reported by the industry itself, and subsidies allowing even the bottom 15% worst performing to continue in the game, what hope do those in the middle 70% have?

 

[ollie989898]

They are getting a supply of cheap food that doesn't depend on imports.

Only it's not cheap, the tax payer paid for it first of all, and the stuff is still more expensive than many imported sources.

 

[milkloss]

What we need is quotas

 

[ollie989898]

What we need is quotas

Which some milk buyers are already installing, in effect. Even those that don't, won't pay the full dollar for milk which is surplus to requirements, OR which does not meet the standards demanded by the marketplace. As a result, producers have to react accordingly.

I can only assume that if UK beef or lamb was more scarce, and not just churned out for the craic by all and sundry, it would be worth more on the hook?

 

[milkloss]

Which some milk buyers are already installing, in effect. Even those that don't, won't pay the full dollar for milk which is surplus to requirements, OR which does not meet the standards demanded by the marketplace. As a result, producers have to react accordingly.

I can only assume that if UK beef or lamb was more scarce, and not just churned out for the craic by all and sundry, it would be worth more on the hook?

So with these reductions in production how do you handle the problems brought about by it? Slaughterhouses not seeing enough throughput, not enough beef for export so the market contracts and other similar issues. Note I couldn’t think of an arable issue here and that’s probably because it’s mostly arable boys claiming they don’t need or want the sub (tongue quite firmly in cheek!)

 

[fudge]

Handy sound bite from oh so lovable journalist. But on could argue that subsidies were inflating asset prices. Subsidy is not confined to the UK or Europe for that matter. Removing all government support from agriculture simply exports production to other subsidised producers such as those in Europe or the USA. I cannot for the life of me see how that promotes efficiency. Indeed in the long run it could be costly both economically and environmentally.