So much for market forces......

Bury the Trash

Member
Mixed Farmer
An international conservation group ranked NZ as the second most culprit
for deforestation in the world ,is it not time to repair the damage done from
previous generations?
Perhaps NZ should reverse their successful farming production for a more
back to nature ,tourism led approach?
High levels of glyphosate and over use with poor restrictions can not be good for
a country that sells itself on sustainable ,environmentally friendly produced food.
Land use :unsure:

And quite likely a buisness advisor on the subject of our ( relative to nz) small flocks / herds would be saying 'best got rid of'
So what then . .
 

lloyd

Member
Location
Herefordshire
If the economic situation was correct I would love to buy uk built tractors and cars etc rather than German

Something else that needs to change and probably will post brexit I think

I can’t afford to lead by example and have no mandate to do so but I will do whatever makes most financial sense - it’s our governments job to sort that by controlling the cost of imports not mine !

Of course an assett rich businessman can lead by example.
If that person can't then there is little hope for a low paid average Jo.
 

Kiwi Pete

Member
Livestock Farmer
The glyphosate thing seems strange? Would there be much use on grazing land? If at all?
Virtually no need for it in a pastoral system, in a more intensive or extractive system, perhaps.
My own interpretation is that it is actually indicative of topsoil loss as much as anything else - for eg spray off an area, crop it, outwinter cattle on it and hey presto it's in the system, gravity of course does the rest.... it certainly isn't the land's fault that it's there.
 

Kiwi Pete

Member
Livestock Farmer
An international conservation group ranked NZ as the second most culprit
for deforestation in the world ,is it not time to repair the damage done from
previous generations?
Perhaps NZ should reverse their successful farming production for a more
back to nature ,tourism led approach?
High levels of glyphosate and over use with poor restrictions can not be good for
a country that sells itself on sustainable ,environmentally friendly produced food.
The trees are gone with a few matches - surely a good enough signal that trees aren't quite "the answer to climate change" that politicians believe them to be?
It seems quite an odd state of affairs, that any thinking government would wish to incentivise the planting of pine forests on land that could be permanently under moderately productive grass.

As for the glypho, I watch with detached amusement as the world kills itself in the name of more abundant food, decades ahead of the time the food is needed - the closest I've been to it was when I sprayed my driveway with it in 2007, other than what's in my food and drink of course
 

Highland Mule

Member
Livestock Farmer
I can’t afford to lead by example and have no mandate to do so but I will do whatever makes most financial sense - it’s our governments job to sort that by controlling the cost of imports not mine !

I'm going to guess that you're in the top 10% of wealth for this country and the top 0.1% for the globe as a whole. On that basis alone, I'd challenge your assertion that you can't afford to lead by example.
 

Bury the Trash

Member
Mixed Farmer
No, not at all, they simply put forward AHDB reports to back up their agenda.
I'll see if I can find their studies for your perusal.

I believe the "more sustained grass growth" part to be true enough, for about a quarter of the NZ land area; the remainder being too high, too dry or too wet - the advantage here is that nobody with that type of land is trying to do too much with it, and long may it stay that way.

As for the water - always an interesting topic, it's always polluted after it's been through a town or city, but the blame slides right off and back to the catchment.
Oddly the main pollutants other than heavy metals and e. coli are good old glyphosate residues, with nitrates much lower down the list in most all NZ waterways.
That's down to the availability heuretic in most media reports, IMO the real question is what's all the glyphosate doing in the water, if it is so benign, safe, inert, and good for the planet?
What you need down there is a group like 'surfers against sewage ', if thers a turd floating on the beach, they will say so :sneaky:
 
Unlike more profitable regions of the UK, here in NI subs make up 86% of farm income. Can someone tell me why no subs wouldn't put almost eveyone here out of business?

Doesn't that tell us something about the 86% of farms who are clearly doing something wrong that the remaining 14% aren't? If they are given £200 merely for passing go and that is all they ever do then what is the point in doing what they are? Just as well shut up shop and go and get a job? Like I said, I am a completely useless watercolour painter but I don't expect to stay at home painting watercolours to throw in the bin whilst the tax payer funds my habit.

You can't justify billions of pounds worth of tax payers cash with the sole excuse of: 'it's food, innit'.
 

Highland Mule

Member
Livestock Farmer
Unlike more profitable regions of the UK, here in NI subs make up 86% of farm income. Can someone tell me why no subs wouldn't put almost eveyone here out of business?

Income, I doubt. Profit, perhaps.

If you don’t understand the difference, then you’re probably in the group that should be out of business anyway.
 

Bury the Trash

Member
Mixed Farmer
Doesn't that tell us something about the 86% of farms who are clearly doing something wrong that the remaining 14% aren't? If they are given £200 merely for passing go and that is all they ever do then what is the point in doing what they are? Just as well shut up shop and go and get a job? Like I said, I am a completely useless watercolour painter but I don't expect to stay at home painting watercolours to throw in the bin whilst the tax payer funds my habit.

You can't justify billions of pounds worth of tax payers cash with the sole excuse of: 'it's food, innit'.
All the people and ' local 'skills/ knowledge would then be lost.

Keeping hedges and similar etc in place costs money that actually 'pure buisness ' model doesnt replace.

Comunities such as they are would completely disappear most likley tourism would shrink further as well further reducing money availuable locally.
 
All The people and ' local 'skills would then be lost.

Keeping hedges and similar in place costs money that actually 'pure buisness ' model doesnt replace.

Comunities such as they are would completly disapear, most likley tourism would shrink further as well further reducing money availuable locally.

I'm sorry are these people being paid to produce food or as tourist attractions? If they want to be tourist attractions I am sure jobs with the National Trust are available. Throwing 20K of tax payers money at wholly unprofitable businesses has to stop, it's a complete waste. And don't give me the 'but they spend it on cow cake and fertiliser' line: those industries are all tied up by national or even multinational companies who the tax payer should not care a cent for.

If folk want paying money to trim their hedges that is an entirely different matter and a small sum would be provided for that. Giving them blanket money to churn out endless beef, lamb or whatever into marketplace that could well do without it is madness for the entire industry.

What is it with those farmers who complain about market forces yet insist on totally ignoring market forces by producing stuff despite the fact even the most broken calculator can't make it stack up?

Folks must recognise that years of subsidisation has meant farming practice and output is now totally out of kilter with the natural environment and market demands- all it has done is put off the inevitable and do untold damage to the environment and the industry itself.
 

Bury the Trash

Member
Mixed Farmer
I'm sorry are these people being paid to produce food or as tourist attractions? If they want to be tourist attractions I am sure jobs with the National Trust are available. Throwing 20K of tax payers money at wholly unprofitable businesses has to stop, it's a complete waste. And don't give me the 'but they spend it on cow cake and fertiliser' line: those industries are all tied up by national or even multinational companies who the tax payer should not care a cent for.

If folk want paying money to trim their hedges that is an entirely different matter and a small sum would be provided for that. Giving them blanket money to churn out endless beef, lamb or whatever into marketplace that could well do without it is madness for the entire industry.

What is it with those farmers who complain about market forces yet insist on totally ignoring market forces by producing stuff despite the fact even the most broken calculator can't make it stack up?

Folks must recognise that years of subsidisation has meant farming practice and output is now totally out of kilter with the natural environment and market demands.
You generalise wrongly, it would be better described ...'.Its not a complete waste nor is it a completely unwasteful system.'

Losing local communities and knowledge has a long term cost.
 

le bon paysan

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Limousin, France
French get all the subs going yet a 19 kilo lamb is apparently worth £110/ head currently over there!

As for other country's and subs, all developed country's including NZ either directly or in-directly sub their farmers, America is now giving direct subs to their farmers due to low prices so there is no way on earth that UK farmers can compete with other country's that are getting subs. especially when you have such high welfare etc standards in the UK which don't come cheap!
Subs have nothing to do with high land prices, they are driven in the UK by rollover money and very high city wages/ bonuses!

French get all the subs going yet a 19 kilo lamb is apparently worth £110/ head currently over there!

As for other country's and subs, all developed country's including NZ either directly or in-directly sub their farmers, America is now giving direct subs to their farmers due to low prices so there is no way on earth that UK farmers can compete with other country's that are getting subs. especially when you have such high welfare etc standards in the UK which don't come cheap!
No we don't, we get what you get except ours is still on livestock and LFA and you get your sub's in one payment with no onus to do any work.
Yes our lamb is 110 pounds a head, but being undercut by Spanish lamb.
Our NI contributions cost us over 8000 a year but our land price is cheaper because of land tax and other restrictions.
If you think your hard done by now just wait , Boris is going to trade you out
 

Cowabunga

Member
Location
Ceredigion,Wales
Doesn't that tell us something about the 86% of farms who are clearly doing something wrong that the remaining 14% aren't? If they are given £200 merely for passing go and that is all they ever do then what is the point in doing what they are? Just as well shut up shop and go and get a job? Like I said, I am a completely useless watercolour painter but I don't expect to stay at home painting watercolours to throw in the bin whilst the tax payer funds my habit.

You can't justify billions of pounds worth of tax payers cash with the sole excuse of: 'it's food, innit'.
:banghead: You really don't understand how that works. Think again. And again, until you understand what "subs make up 86% of farm income" actually means.
 

Cowabunga

Member
Location
Ceredigion,Wales
Income, I doubt. Profit, perhaps.

If you don’t understand the difference, then you’re probably in the group that should be out of business anyway.

What it actually means is the for every £100 of net farm income, the average farmer gets £86 of it from the subsidy. There are probably some farms that derive 110% from the subsidy.

I wonder whether you and Ollie can work out how that works?
 

lloyd

Member
Location
Herefordshire
It's quite amusing on here that certain individuals who've never
run a farm business in their own right are so knowledgeable
about subsidies.
These were a huge success providing food at a price
that was just above the cop to the general public of all income
streams.
It allowed farmers to reinvest in their businesses and diversify to
a point that the modern farmers are far more efficient today than they were
20 years ago.
No subsidies =higher food prices as change will be forced so no oversupply
In the market which means dearer food.
The ignorance of some is unreal,we have had to farm in a highly regulated fashion
to receive these subsidies something which alot of our competitors haven't.
Subsidies go ,fire up the D9 and no more regulation from this UK government.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 77 43.5%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 62 35.0%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 28 15.8%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 4 2.3%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,286
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top