Shortening/simplification of supply chains

[Guleesh]

I’ve just managed to catch up with this thread and I would conclude that we will have to agree to disagree,you have strongly held views on the subsidy system which i fundamentally disagree with. I take it that you are in receipt of these subsidies well nobody is forcing you to accept them. If you feel so strongly I challenge you to forgo these subsidies withdraw the SAF form you have recently filled in and let’s see how you get on . Please do show the rest of us how it should be done. Without subsidies we go back to subsistence farming and the whole agricultural supply industry disappears,capital investment stops,no fencing ,no shed building no infrastructure investment at all.

Agree to disagree, I respect your viewpoint, you may be right. I enjoy the discussion, it's given me something to think about whilst on lambing rounds.

The best advice I can give on how to increase profits in livestock is to start by cutting costs, then continue to grow by investing your time and expenditure on improving and increasing carrying capacity of your land rather than thinking more money and time spent on livestock will improve your livestock- Your livestock should work for you not the other way around, it costs nearly nothing to keep good records and use them to take advantage of the more profitable genetics that doubtless already exist and can proliferate through your flock or herd. You don't need government funded sheds and equipment, they aren't really help you increase the profitability of your animals. I believe many existing farmers and crofters can rise to the challenge of no subsidies if the situation arises.

Although I do have strongly held views, I ultimately didn't join TFF to offend people, especially not others in the Highlands, and am sorry if I have.

I sincerely offer my best wishes to you.

 

[Macsky]

We're not getting anywhere here, i respect your views and opinions and agree with some of them, but i think we view things differently.

I'll claim what i am eligible for, but i won't lie on application forms about what is really happening on the ground and i won't change my circumstance to ensure eligibility for schemes- i reject this idea you have of martyrdom, it's just honesty - something many people value, in fact many people view some crofters in the same league as benefit cheats or disability allowance cheats.

I'd encourage anybody to find ways to improve their businesses profitability, it is possible to make money without subsidy, although i don't yet make a full wage as it's still quite early days for me in terms of growing a business i'm very happy with the profit i make exclusive of subs considering the actual hours that go in. I don't doubt there's some harder working farmers but If somebody with enough land to keep them in full time work is grafting harder than a bricklayer and can't make a living from it maybe it's because they're not doing a good job? - in fact it is because they're not running a good business. If the improvements that you mention you want subsidised are worth undertaking then the extra profit they bring will repay the cost, that's how investments work, it's not fair to have the taxpayer fund private business investments.

Agriculture other than self sufficiency, is business, you are creating something you don't need for others to buy, it's not done as a gift to society its done to make a profit and i still reject the idea that the country should fund bad business. I have no worries if all subsidies disappear, i'm confident of my ability to make a living.

This is all constructive, it’s good to see other’s viewpoints, and get the chance to get my own in order and test them on a slightly wider forum than the space between my ears ?

I quite believe there are those who cheat the system, but you’ll find that with any system anywhere, it’s the nature of man.

Until our produce is selling for a fair share of its true market value then subsidies will remain vital, and this is where this tangent is very relevant to the OP.

Political will is exactly what’s needed to enable primary producers to claw back some more market share, breaking up the monopoly of meat processors and also the promotion of red meat in the diet. And I disagree with @delilah that we should do this mainly from an environmental point of view, as the bulk of that campaign is incredibly shallow and hypocritical. Rather it should be done on the grounds of health. That is the most powerful campaigning platform there is! Just look at how it has been used to promote innutritious, highly processed byproducts of industrial agriculture and turn them into staples and best sellers!

There is no other food source on earth that is more nutritionally complete and nutrient-available than beef, this should be the basis for a solid campaign, and the environmental benefits of grass reared stock would just make folk feel all the better about it.

 

[delilah]

Political will is exactly what’s needed to enable primary producers to claw back some more market share, breaking up the monopoly of meat processors and also the promotion of red meat in the diet. And I disagree with @delilah that we should do this mainly from an environmental point of view, as the bulk of that campaign is incredibly shallow and hypocritical. Rather it should be done on the grounds of health. That is the most powerful campaigning platform there is! Just look at how it has been used to promote innutritious, highly processed byproducts of industrial agriculture and turn them into staples and best sellers!

There's two conversations going on here. What are we talking about; shortening the supply chain, or the benefits of red meat ?
Agree 100% that health is a key argument for eating red meat, but there's no health benefit in shortening the supply chain (well there is, asthma from pollution etc, but it's a side issue).
That is where I am saying the environmental movement is on our side, as the biggest thing exciting the greens is the need to leave fossil fuels in the ground, and you do that by shortening the supply chain.

 

[Guleesh]

This is all constructive, it’s good to see other’s viewpoints, and get the chance to get my own in order and test them on a slightly wider forum than the space between my ears ?

I quite believe there are those who cheat the system, but you’ll find that with any system anywhere, it’s the nature of man.

Until our produce is selling for a fair share of its true market value then subsidies will remain vital, and this is where this tangent is very relevant to the OP.

Political will is exactly what’s needed to enable primary producers to claw back some more market share, breaking up the monopoly of meat processors and also the promotion of red meat in the diet. And I disagree with @delilah that we should do this mainly from an environmental point of view, as the bulk of that campaign is incredibly shallow and hypocritical. Rather it should be done on the grounds of health. That is the most powerful campaigning platform there is! Just look at how it has been used to promote innutritious, highly processed byproducts of industrial agriculture and turn them into staples and best sellers!

There is no other food source on earth that is more nutritionally complete and nutrient-available than beef, this should be the basis for a solid campaign, and the environmental benefits of grass reared stock would just make folk feel all the better about it.

As long as the world population continues to grow the demand for food will grow with it, and as you rightly point out, grass fed beef is up at the top in regards to nutrition. I'm not worried about the vegan fad, it comes and goes in cycles (it often takes a few years for the health implications of the diet to really kick in)

Supply chains are already pretty short for land based ag? Lambs go live from here to be finished on one farm further south, then mostly just straight to the abattoir. They get transported live by road but it's no different distances than the days livestock were walked by drovers. In modern times more animals are killed at less abattoirs as we refrigerate the meat and can transport it dead more easily and quickly. We still need to get the food from the countryside to the cities. I don't really see a huge issue other than if the abattoir was nearer me I could cut out the middleman to an extent and finish a few lambs myself.

I know there are already plenty efforts made specifically to market scotch beef and lamb, I see the adverts, but what is done internationally? Maybe more than I know, i don't really take much notice tbh, but one thing I do see time and time again, is marketing bodies targeting their product at its own producers, Memorably to me, as a fine example (quite a few years back now) the Scottish tourist board was advertising Scotland as a holiday destination through commercials on Scottish television.

Globalization is still the trend, so we still need to compete with other countries for our share to 'feed the world' in an international market. We've seen for 100+ years various countries agri-industries boom and bust on the back of trade deals, usually bust as all the eggs were in one basket.

It's going to be very hard to sell to the world the idea that our produce is twice as good as anywhere else so therefore worth twice the price but I do think we have a very good reputation nationally for quality food, (Scotland alone probably has a higher reputation, especially with plenty more marketing photos showing cute lambs sitting on top of heathery hills)
But we need to remember plenty other countries are fighting for the same market share and getting better at it all the time so it's not going to be easy.

I think it's all dependant on government to remove barriers and get our produce into every possible place on earth it can, to build market share in lots of smaller segments across more countries rather than the proable scenario of chasing one big trade deal after another, with constant threat of more foreign imports, and UK farming being used as a bargaining chip, leaving continual uncertainty.