The Multiplier Effect

[bumkin]

"Cost of production pared to the bone" whilst still producing loss making wool.

If you want government control of the market bring back quotas and a centrally planned economy. Or one step further, nationalise the land.

Why should my taxes compensate you for your poor business systems?

You're not producing food. You're producing globally traded commodities. You're receiving the global price. Add value, become more efficient or complaining about a "fair price".

It's business, not everyone is supposed to be successful.

yes, we produce wool it's just an added cost to meat production,

and yes we produce a global commodity but we have our hands tied if the government wants to place restrictions on us then they should compensate.

i am not sure how you quantify success but trying to work out what the government are going to do next and how it will affect us is difficult

you assume I have poor business systems it would be immodest of me to state otherwise

 

[unlacedgecko]

yes, we produce wool it's just an added cost to meat production,

and yes we produce a global commodity but we have our hands tied if the government wants to place restrictions on us then they should compensate.

i am not sure how you quantify success but trying to work out what the government are going to do next and how it will affect us is difficult

you assume I have poor business systems it would be immodest of me to state otherwise

Why do you produce wool? It's not compulsory.

That you think the government should compensate you for having to comply with restrictions is just mind blowing. I have to comply with restrictions when I drive my truck. There is no compensation, just prosecutions, fines and jail time for non compliance.

You stated you're disadvantaged by your current business systems and expect government support because of them.

Average field size of 6ac sounds great. I spend a lot of time and money reducing field sizes on rented blocks.

 

[ajd132]

"Cost of production pared to the bone" whilst still producing loss making wool.

If you want government control of the market bring back quotas and a centrally planned economy. Or one step further, nationalise the land.

Why should my taxes compensate you for your poor business systems?

You're not producing food. You're producing globally traded commodities. You're receiving the global price. Add value, become more efficient or complaining about a "fair price".

It's business, not everyone is supposed to be successful.

Best post I have read on here for a long time

 

[bumkin]

Why do you produce wool? It's not compulsory. input to this thread sounds

That you think the government should compensate you for having to comply with restrictions is just mind blowing. I have to comply with restrictions when I drive my truck. There is no compensation, just prosecutions, fines and jail time for non compliance.

You stated you're disadvantaged by your current business systems and expect government support because of them.

Average field size of 6ac sounds great. I spend a lot of time and money reducing field sizes on rented blocks.

your input to this thread has a rude and personal tone and it's quite unpleasant, what i am trying to say but obviously, very badly, we produce in this country to a very high standard of welfare and husbandry and quite rightly too, but when there is a chance of cheap imports through overproduction with no traceability it's allowed in undercutting our prices,
I did not say I was disadvantaged by my business systems I started with nothing and worked up from there I farm three farms one of which I own outright my systems have worked alright for me.
why do we produce wool? its a fact of life we keep sheep and they produce wool.

 

[unlacedgecko]

your input to this thread has a rude and personal tone and it's quite unpleasant, what i am trying to say but obviously, very badly, we produce in this country to a very high standard of welfare and husbandry and quite rightly too, but when there is a chance of cheap imports through overproduction with no traceability it's allowed in undercutting our prices,
I did not say I was disadvantaged by my business systems I started with nothing and worked up from there I farm three farms one of which I own outright my systems have worked alright for me.
why do we produce wool? its a fact of life we keep sheep and they produce wool.

That's awesome. I love a success story.

As I said in my previous post, sheep don't have to produce wool.

So you've got a USP for your product, the high welfare standard. Why do you need government support? Isn't that USP enough on its own to differentiate the product in the market place?

 

[Devil's advocate]

Yes,cut the potato haulm off,admittedly,in our home planting of 50 kg of seed.Slugs in the swedes,spin on some pellets.

You‘ve made a very good point in that arable farmers are tied during the growing and seeding times of year however have little timely jobs during winter.

Livestock need checking daily throughout the year,crops at certain stages simply do not.

And they don’t escape.....

Well I'm here 365 days a year & feel very tied. I'm not unusual either.

I think the real point is most farmers of all types work hard.

Some are wealthier than others & some are in family parnerships. Those with trusted family are the ones who can take time out providing sufficent funds for holidays etc.

 

[Dave645]

I have read some of this thread and, your squabbling over sectors while the real answer is small farmers in either sector, if you are going to support farming as an industry, then you need both sectors, after you draw that conclusion, to answer the thread the best bang for that £1 is small farmers your supporting a family and a business, they keep the farm going and keep things local.
So my answer is not Mr Dyson, but Mr small family farm or small holder.
in reality out of the £3 billion farms did get in the old system, 90% of it went to 10% of the farmers.
That’s a lot of money to already wealthy people.
So in effect you can cut out 90% of that 3 billion and just support the 90% that only got that 10% of 3 billion, leaving the 10% the big guys, they should have economy’s of scale. To soften the blow and turn a profit like I do on my small farm outside of any subsidy we get.
The best bang for the £1 is always going to be the 90% of farmers that only got 10% of the sub under the old system.

 

[delilah]

I have read some of this thread and, your squabbling over sectors while the real answer is small farmers in either sector, if you are going to support farming as an industry, then you need both sectors, after you draw that conclusion, to answer the thread the best bang for that £1 is small farmers your supporting a family and a business, they keep the farm going and keep things local.
So my answer is not Mr Dyson, but Mr small family farm or small holder.
in reality out of the £3 billion farms did get in the old system, 90% of it went to 10% of the farmers.
That’s a lot of money to already wealthy people.
So in effect you can cut out 90% of that 3 billion and just support the 90% that only got that 10% of 3 billion, leaving the 10% the big guys, they should have economy’s of scale. To soften the blow and turn a profit like I do on my small farm outside of any subsidy we get.
The best bang for the £1 is always going to be the 90% of farmers that only got 10% of the sub under the old system.

Is that to say, then, that ELMS should be weighted, with the first x Ha receiving a higher payment ? To support, as you put it, the 90%, and new entrants ?

 

[Tarw Coch]

Is that to say, then, that ELMS should be weighted, with the first x Ha receiving a higher payment ? To support, as you put it, the 90%, and new entrants ?

I first heard the word modulation used about the time SFP I think it was was at the planning stage and as I understood it it meant that the more you claimed the more the amount paid would taper off.
So I was quite surprised when it was introduced as an across the board reduction

 

[bumkin]

I first heard the word modulation used about the time SFP I think it was was at the planning stage and as I understood it it meant that the more you claimed the more the amount paid would taper off.
So I was quite surprised when it was introduced as an across the board reduction

you must remember that the people that negotiate on our behalf are at the top of the N F U and generally they are big farmers and they are not going to negotiate something that is not in their favor

 

[unlacedgecko]

you must remember that the people that negotiate on our behalf are at the top of the N F U and generally they are big farmers and they are not going to negotiate something that is not in their favor

Exactly. And both Houses of Parliament are stuffed with large landowners.

 

[Tarw Coch]

you must remember that the people that negotiate on our behalf are at the top of the N F U and generally they are big farmers and they are not going to negotiate something that is not in their favor

Yes, I realised some time ago that they aren’t negotiating for farmers like me so I stopped paying them.
Some things they negotiate may be of benefit to me but that’s only because it suits their needs too.

 

[bumkin]

That's awesome. I love a success story.

As I said in my previous post, sheep don't have to produce wool.

So you've got a USP for your product, the high welfare standard. Why do you need government support? Isn't that USP enough on its own to differentiate the product in the market place?

on the subject of wool, it would go against the grain to have those easy care things the wool falls off, my neighbour has some of those they look a mess and so do the fields with all that wool blowing about and the ewes still get flye blown,i just think its a shame more cant be done to use a superior product rather than the alternative petrochemical product that doesn't biodegrade or hold warmth,i don't need government support I could rent my farm out and have an easy living but that's not what I'm about I like to farm there is a great deal of achievement and satisfaction in building up a farm and producing good livestock and crops

 

[Dave645]

Is that to say, then, that ELMS should be weighted, with the first x Ha receiving a higher payment ? To support, as you put it, the 90%, and new entrants ?

That’s ok with me, it makes sense. That top 10% got around a million£ a year.
that’s retirement money to most people, it was ridiculous. The joke was they could draw that and not grow a single crop.

support was designed to support farmers of all types, so having a farm size, animal head based support, that reduces then stops increasing in size as the farm size increases makes sense. All I can say is if the big farmers near me can afford to rent on multi year agreements for £250/ acre then why are we supporting them, at the same level as small farmers and new entrants.
I can make a profit over my support payment, even on my small farm so they with there economies of scale should do, if bigger is better.
While I understand farming is inherently risky, I would rather see the USA version where the government help out in bad years over and above the normal levels of help. Rather than blanket payments that make no sense like a big land owner getting a million £ in tax payers money.

I am not saying what I suggest is perfect but it will distort the land rent market far less.