Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
France to link food prices to farmers’ cost of production!!!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave645" data-source="post: 4390316" data-attributes="member: 55822"><p>As for cost plus, there will be no sticking to it it's a minimum not a max, if they want to set a max price so we are all on contract as it were, it would never produce good years the years all businesses need to invest and cope with mistakes or break downs.</p><p>As others have pointed out cost plus has been tried and it failed, it's because it's very difficult to get right, if you blanket set it, some will thrive at tax payers expense while some still barely stay in business.</p><p>If you do it at a per farmer level so they asses your farm and set a price for your farm giving you a basic minimum living that varies from farm to farm who buys it if your produce is 25% more expensive than the next farmers. It's just a mess.</p><p>Any new system needs to force farmers to be efficient, it also has to offer tax payers a good return on there money, it also has to reflect what the farmer has invested and is investing. It has to allow dead wood to be trimmed but allow new blood to enter the industry, it has to help cover some of the volatility farming has to weather from all sides.</p><p>I am open to suggestions I have made some in the past but non have really covered all bases, not in a way that doesn't corrupt the open market in some way. The bottom line is we need farmers in the world and we don't want shortages of food, so we will never see true market openness if it risks putting the farming industry in the floor.</p><p></p><p>As daft as it seems agencies like the old milk marketing board and potatoe marketing boards, agencies that help farmers market and control over supply may be closer to the right way forward that this threads suggestion. It would be a bit like what they used setaside for in the EU to bring production down to stop the pressure of over supply, it forced food prices up but it stabilised farm gate prices we don't operate with massive food mountains any more. Which is only a good thing.</p><p></p><p>The uk has an opportunity to shape the uk farming industry to meet uk demands cut imports and reduces exports of unwanted food. By reducing production of these foods. But that type of leadership has to come from the top with the clout to enforce it. It needs oversite looking carefully at what's imported and exported read the consumer demands like the supermarkets do. the problem is we aren't nessaseraly the cheapest place to produce all this food sure we can do better that 60% which is the current % we produce of the food consumed in the uk but will we be cheaper, or will we just push world prices up by trimming the fat, once a commodity isn't in oversupply it's price tends to rise.</p><p>Will farming in the uk be profitable even under production control to reduce over supply, will farmers still need other support only time would tell.</p><p>If any system that pays sub is still in place after any other reforms, they should look at it differently we have an area payment now, prity much flat rate, if this moved to a minimum income guarantee based on area farmed instead....</p><p>So Mr ex has 300 acres his minimum income garentee is 30k. One year he makes 20k so gets 10k sub the next he makes 30k so gets non. The sub compensates for bad years but gives nothing in good.</p><p>Mr ex with 3000 acres has the same income guarantee level but it would look strange that he would need more sub than the small farmer.</p><p>Mr ex with 100 acres his minimum income is say 15k because (that's just from the farm) his small farm is not expected to bring him a 30k living from it every year. Similar things could be done with herd numbers and farm sizes so it fits in all areas of the industry.</p><p>This is very similar to joe publics income support..........we don't make you wealthy just keep you fed. The numbers are just examples of what it may be like the actual numbers may be better or worse.</p><p>This also helps if we end up with cost of production above the world market price so have to sell at a loss.</p><p></p><p>As daft as it is quota systems done right will help a lot.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave645, post: 4390316, member: 55822"] As for cost plus, there will be no sticking to it it's a minimum not a max, if they want to set a max price so we are all on contract as it were, it would never produce good years the years all businesses need to invest and cope with mistakes or break downs. As others have pointed out cost plus has been tried and it failed, it's because it's very difficult to get right, if you blanket set it, some will thrive at tax payers expense while some still barely stay in business. If you do it at a per farmer level so they asses your farm and set a price for your farm giving you a basic minimum living that varies from farm to farm who buys it if your produce is 25% more expensive than the next farmers. It's just a mess. Any new system needs to force farmers to be efficient, it also has to offer tax payers a good return on there money, it also has to reflect what the farmer has invested and is investing. It has to allow dead wood to be trimmed but allow new blood to enter the industry, it has to help cover some of the volatility farming has to weather from all sides. I am open to suggestions I have made some in the past but non have really covered all bases, not in a way that doesn't corrupt the open market in some way. The bottom line is we need farmers in the world and we don't want shortages of food, so we will never see true market openness if it risks putting the farming industry in the floor. As daft as it seems agencies like the old milk marketing board and potatoe marketing boards, agencies that help farmers market and control over supply may be closer to the right way forward that this threads suggestion. It would be a bit like what they used setaside for in the EU to bring production down to stop the pressure of over supply, it forced food prices up but it stabilised farm gate prices we don't operate with massive food mountains any more. Which is only a good thing. The uk has an opportunity to shape the uk farming industry to meet uk demands cut imports and reduces exports of unwanted food. By reducing production of these foods. But that type of leadership has to come from the top with the clout to enforce it. It needs oversite looking carefully at what's imported and exported read the consumer demands like the supermarkets do. the problem is we aren't nessaseraly the cheapest place to produce all this food sure we can do better that 60% which is the current % we produce of the food consumed in the uk but will we be cheaper, or will we just push world prices up by trimming the fat, once a commodity isn't in oversupply it's price tends to rise. Will farming in the uk be profitable even under production control to reduce over supply, will farmers still need other support only time would tell. If any system that pays sub is still in place after any other reforms, they should look at it differently we have an area payment now, prity much flat rate, if this moved to a minimum income guarantee based on area farmed instead.... So Mr ex has 300 acres his minimum income garentee is 30k. One year he makes 20k so gets 10k sub the next he makes 30k so gets non. The sub compensates for bad years but gives nothing in good. Mr ex with 3000 acres has the same income guarantee level but it would look strange that he would need more sub than the small farmer. Mr ex with 100 acres his minimum income is say 15k because (that's just from the farm) his small farm is not expected to bring him a 30k living from it every year. Similar things could be done with herd numbers and farm sizes so it fits in all areas of the industry. This is very similar to joe publics income support..........we don't make you wealthy just keep you fed. The numbers are just examples of what it may be like the actual numbers may be better or worse. This also helps if we end up with cost of production above the world market price so have to sell at a loss. As daft as it is quota systems done right will help a lot. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
France to link food prices to farmers’ cost of production!!!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top