Where's all cattle gone?

[Lovegoodstock]

I understand that. From what I see in, say, the motor industry is that manufacturers compete, customer expectations increase and regulations on emissions, safety, traceability, environmental criterion etc. So they either step up to the plate or go the way of Michael Edwards and his Metro and square steering wheel Allegro?

Enjoying the reading, and bordering forgetting the point and what I said, but I was saying others effectively absorb the cost but in reality bar the paperwork pass the cost on, your two examples rightly back up your argument. However the way I see it, the idea of quality assurance schemes in any industry is to improve quality. Nearly all industries schemes, no evidence, my opinion, would be run by people that are not industry experts. Most of my fable inspectors are good young kids on first rung of ladder that have never farmed, or the other end those that have tried and failed. Back to the motor industry, and others, aim is to improve standards, they wont lose net margin, so you have volkswagen paper over cracks,lie, to meet requirements to keep price down, isolated case in emissions maybe, or only ones caught, or others will use less steel, don't offer a spare wheel, the costs are passed on somewhere in my opinion

 

[JP1]

Enjoying the reading, and bordering forgetting the point and what I said, but I was saying others effectively absorb the cost but in reality bar the paperwork pass the cost on, your two examples rightly back up your argument. However the way I see it, the idea of quality assurance schemes in any industry is to improve quality. Nearly all industries schemes, no evidence, my opinion, would be run by people that are not industry experts. Most of my fable inspectors are good young kids on first rung of ladder that have never farmed, or the other end those that have tried and failed. Back to the motor industry, and others, aim is to improve standards, they wont lose net margin, so you have volkswagen paper over cracks,lie, to meet requirements to keep price down, isolated case in emissions maybe, or only ones caught, or others will use less steel, don't offer a spare wheel, the costs are passed on somewhere in my opinion

Sadly Grenfell may well be testament to this ; certainly on testing methodologies and "accepted practice / theory"

I'm alway minded of this meme

But there again I'm told I'm not a proper farmer, so I have no opinion either.........

 

[Lovegoodstock]

I am Farm Assured RT with Acoura - if you read any posts you'd know that. I had to after I lost 40p /kg for cul cows - deadweight or local market, all go to the same buyer

Name one business that can upmark their prices for assurance?

Ok taken a while, and havnt spent the whole night dwelling on it, Black cabs? Dearer than uber, main reason I think are their drivers are subject to being checked out, and at the minute have to pass the London knowledge, I may be wrong but uber drivers don't have to do either?

 

[JP1]

Ok taken a while, and havnt spent the whole night dwelling on it, Black cabs? Dearer than uber, main reason I think are their drivers are subject to being checked out, and at the minute have to pass the London knowledge, I may be wrong but uber drivers don't have to do either?

Black cabs have been undercut by a technology system basically. In my opinion even if the dfriver doesn't need to do the Knowledge, every Uber taxi should be inspected and licensed by the Carriage Office to be on a level playing field. I don't think the black cab is adding a premium for something, they are just more expensive than Uber

 

[JP1]

Should we vote that our stakeholders (supermarkets, processors and retailer outlets) should have a reduction in their regulatory burden in an effort to keep them globally competitive? If they don't need assurance, then maybe farming can do with less too?

 

[beefandsleep]

Stakeholders? I don't think you used that in the right context JP1. Since they will buy any old sh!t from any old place to undercut the home market I would not describe them thus.
Once again, the heavy regulation of other sectors is not a sensible argument that we should accept the same. We have regulations that provide consumer and environmental protection, they are enforced by law, are mainly sensible and proportionate. Farm assurance adds nothing to that other than further cost on producers.

 

[Lovegoodstock]

Sadly Grenfell may well be testament to this ; certainly on testing methodologies and "accepted practice / theory"

I'm alway minded of this meme

View attachment 543886

But there again I'm told I'm not a proper farmer, so I have no opinion either.........

Brilliant, sums up a lot of things in this world. Im fairly young on the whole scheme of things in the farming world, but would have loved the generation of working your way up the company, so you knew your job. My partner from farming backing, commands the rare commodity of common sense, has done really well for herself, in a large multi national firm in sales. They have an unbelievable uk staff turnover of 50%, her manager comes in raw, has to, in theory tell her what to do, with no sales experience as opposed to 15 years of my partner, the incentive of being a manager, far more pressure from above, possibly 50k lower salary depending on bonuses. Same as farming any industry, the stupidity is mad, surely in this case should be an incentive to get a good or the best manager. All industries relative in different ways, farming should be rewarded for being assured, in a big way, so if you don't or fail you are crucified, not when things are short you get equal, or when things are short they can buy a foreign alternative with little or no reliable standards, otherwise it makes a complete mockery of any assurance scheme, and in my eyes is an abuse of those customers that try and support the great british assured brand

 

[JP1]

Brilliant, sums up a lot of things in this world. Im fairly young on the whole scheme of things in the farming world, but would have loved the generation of working your way up the company, so you knew your job. My partner from farming backing, commands the rare commodity of common sense, has done really well for herself, in a large multi national firm in sales. They have an unbelievable uk staff turnover of 50%, her manager comes in raw, has to, in theory tell her what to do, with no sales experience as opposed to 15 years of my partner, the incentive of being a manager, far more pressure from above, possibly 50k lower salary depending on bonuses. Same as farming any industry, the stupidity is mad, surely in this case should be an incentive to get a good or the best manager. All industries relative in different ways, farming should be rewarded for being assured, in a big way, so if you don't or fail you are crucified, not when things are short you get equal, or when things are short they can buy a foreign alternative with little or no reliable standards, otherwise it makes a complete mockery of any assurance scheme, and in my eyes is an abuse of those customers that try and support the great british assured brand

In my book, farmers should await the results of any Brexit deal and then literally blockade the ports and make a bit public song and dance about anything coming in sub UK standard

 

[milkloss]

In my book, farmers should await the results of any Brexit deal and then literally blockade the ports and make a bit public song and dance about anything coming in sub UK standard

Don't worry JP, they'll make sure the 'paperwork' is in order

 

[Lovegoodstock]

Black cabs have been undercut by a technology system basically. In my opinion even if the dfriver doesn't need to do the Knowledge, every Uber taxi should be inspected and licensed by the Carriage Office to be on a level playing field. I don't think the black cab is adding a premium for something, they are just more expensive than Uber

Indeed black cabs have been undercut with technology, partly, but the question was any industry passing on the cost directly, black cabs are regulated to take bookings at a weeks notice that uber don't, an expense as they have to honour that even if get a more viable customer, officially regulated not to share different customers unlike uber, fair few other things that is a regulated cost past on to customer as brought up when the industry met with government

 

[Lovegoodstock]

In my book, farmers should await the results of any Brexit deal and then literally blockade the ports and make a bit public song and dance about anything coming in sub UK standard

Quite agree, not to the extent the French did all those years ago as that was nothing short of disgusting, however was a successful campaign, yet the big difference in my opinion, their farmers are more valued and listened to by the country and government, and their government is their power within the country, does anyone really believe any of our governments in last 20 years are more powerful than the supermarkets or banks, and believe they would dictate to either what they are to do?

 

[milkloss]

Forbes article for @JP1 , its American but you'll get the gist.

The Insidious Cost Of Regulation
Apr 4, 2017 @ 10:45 AM
The first thing to realize about regulation is that it is a tax. In simple terms, if the government wants a certain outcome, it can tax you and use the money to try and accomplish that outcome, or it can require that you expend resources to produce the desired outcome.

The second thing to realize is that while you know what you pay in taxes directly (income tax, property tax, etc.), you do not know what you pay in indirect taxes. For example, few small-business owners who offer a delivery service know how much tax is included in the price of a gallon of gas. Few pay attention to the taxes on their phone, utility bills, internet bills and the like. But even more obscure is the cost of complying with regulations that must be passed on in product prices. Higher costs for electricity used to bake pizza due to regulation of electric utilities are passed on to consumers of pizza. These costs are hidden in the prices of goods and services and never disclosed to the final consumer.

Employers don’t pay the minimum wage; customers do in the form of higher prices to cover labor costs. Competition compels employers to find ways to reduce the use of labor as well to keep prices low, so job loss often pays for the cost of regulation. Every dollar a minimum wage worker gets comes out of the pockets of consumers and reduced job opportunities.

When bank regulators require more reporting and recordkeeping and send in teams of analysts to examine records and take up the time of bank employees, this cost must be paid for by bank customers, including small-business owners. The costs of complying with the Bank Secrecy Act are paid for by customers, but they never see the costs directly. When a firm is required to change its signage by L&I (Licensing and Inspections), this cost is passed on to customers. When producers are continually required to change labels on products or restaurants required to print new menus to report calorie content, the customer pays. If firms cannot pass these costs on, profit will continually be eroded until it is no longer profitable to stay in business.

Measuring these costs is difficult and complex. The Competitive Enterprise Institute noted that in 2015 the government issued over 80,000 pages of rules including 76 “major” rules costing more than $100 million to implement. They put the cost at $1.9 trillion, more than taxes collected by the federal government. The NFIB Research Center found in its 2016 Small Business Problems and Priorities survey that small-business owners view unreasonable government regulations as a top priority, second only to the cost of health insurance. One in three respondents find the problem a “critical issue.” On top of this are state and local government regulations. And the regulatory changes imposed often generate a stream of additional costs into the future and distort business investment decisions.

For small businesses, these regulatory costs are numerous and very different depending on the nature of the business and the regulator. In a 2017 NFIB survey, small-business owners said that the greatest problem created by regulation is cost of compliance. Almost 70 percent of small-business owners said they check out compliance requirements themselves, which takes time away from producing goods and services for their businesses. In 2009, the Small Business Administration put compliance costs at over $10,000 per employee. It has only grown since then. The regulators do not coordinate their activities nor do they undertake “cost benefit” analyses to see if the benefits of the regulation are justified by the cost. As a result, more than half of small-business owners do not believe the benefits of the regulations they face justify the cost of compliance. Politicians pass the regulations, agencies implement them and we pay the costs in hundreds, even thousands of different ways, a hidden tax that is of the same magnitude as the total sum of income taxes we pay. It’s an insidious cancer that will be very hard to eliminate.

 

[JP1]

Forbes article for @JP1 , its American but you'll get the gist.

The Insidious Cost Of Regulation
Apr 4, 2017 @ 10:45 AM
The first thing to realize about regulation is that it is a tax. In simple terms, if the government wants a certain outcome, it can tax you and use the money to try and accomplish that outcome, or it can require that you expend resources to produce the desired outcome.

The second thing to realize is that while you know what you pay in taxes directly (income tax, property tax, etc.), you do not know what you pay in indirect taxes. For example, few small-business owners who offer a delivery service know how much tax is included in the price of a gallon of gas. Few pay attention to the taxes on their phone, utility bills, internet bills and the like. But even more obscure is the cost of complying with regulations that must be passed on in product prices. Higher costs for electricity used to bake pizza due to regulation of electric utilities are passed on to consumers of pizza. These costs are hidden in the prices of goods and services and never disclosed to the final consumer.

Employers don’t pay the minimum wage; customers do in the form of higher prices to cover labor costs. Competition compels employers to find ways to reduce the use of labor as well to keep prices low, so job loss often pays for the cost of regulation. Every dollar a minimum wage worker gets comes out of the pockets of consumers and reduced job opportunities.

When bank regulators require more reporting and recordkeeping and send in teams of analysts to examine records and take up the time of bank employees, this cost must be paid for by bank customers, including small-business owners. The costs of complying with the Bank Secrecy Act are paid for by customers, but they never see the costs directly. When a firm is required to change its signage by L&I (Licensing and Inspections), this cost is passed on to customers. When producers are continually required to change labels on products or restaurants required to print new menus to report calorie content, the customer pays. If firms cannot pass these costs on, profit will continually be eroded until it is no longer profitable to stay in business.

Measuring these costs is difficult and complex. The Competitive Enterprise Institute noted that in 2015 the government issued over 80,000 pages of rules including 76 “major” rules costing more than $100 million to implement. They put the cost at $1.9 trillion, more than taxes collected by the federal government. The NFIB Research Center found in its 2016 Small Business Problems and Priorities survey that small-business owners view unreasonable government regulations as a top priority, second only to the cost of health insurance. One in three respondents find the problem a “critical issue.” On top of this are state and local government regulations. And the regulatory changes imposed often generate a stream of additional costs into the future and distort business investment decisions.

For small businesses, these regulatory costs are numerous and very different depending on the nature of the business and the regulator. In a 2017 NFIB survey, small-business owners said that the greatest problem created by regulation is cost of compliance. Almost 70 percent of small-business owners said they check out compliance requirements themselves, which takes time away from producing goods and services for their businesses. In 2009, the Small Business Administration put compliance costs at over $10,000 per employee. It has only grown since then. The regulators do not coordinate their activities nor do they undertake “cost benefit” analyses to see if the benefits of the regulation are justified by the cost. As a result, more than half of small-business owners do not believe the benefits of the regulations they face justify the cost of compliance. Politicians pass the regulations, agencies implement them and we pay the costs in hundreds, even thousands of different ways, a hidden tax that is of the same magnitude as the total sum of income taxes we pay. It’s an insidious cancer that will be very hard to eliminate.

May all be true but nobody any time soon is going to "roll back" the regulation. Just like tax it's about as certain as death. Every sound byte muppet politician promising it is being disingenuous and the likes of Grenfell, if anything, are likely to turn the political tide towards tighter regulation

 

[JP1]

Quite agree, not to the extent the French did all those years ago as that was nothing short of disgusting, however was a successful campaign, yet the big difference in my opinion, their farmers are more valued and listened to by the country and government, and their government is their power within the country, does anyone really believe any of our governments in last 20 years are more powerful than the supermarkets or banks, and believe they would dictate to either what they are to do?

I get the sense that mainstream media are almost expecting direct cation. I've heard Andrew Marr, Andrew Neil, Jon Snow, Laura Kuenssberg, Adam Bolton, Robert Peston, David and Jonathan Dimbleby all trot our the hormone beef and chlorine washed chickens line

 

[milkloss]

May all be true but nobody any time soon is going to "roll back" the regulation. Just like tax it's about as certain as death. Every sound byte muppet politician promising it is being disingenuous and the likes of Grenfell, if anything, are likely to turn the political tide towards tighter regulation

I agree but you must admit the article explained to you how the cost of regulation is handled by businesses other than ag. I am sure you can now see why farmers bemoan costly regs when they have no way of passing the costs back to thier customers like other trades do.

 

[JP1]

I agree but you must admit the article explained to you how the cost of regulation is handled by businesses other than ag. I am sure you can now see why farmers bemoan costly regs when they have no way of passing the costs back to thier customers like other trades do.

I think UK Gov has just expected most competitive businesses to swallow regulation costs and strive for more efficiency. Certainly in road transport and in labour intense event services where I have direct management experience

Nobody has yet answered my question as to how much deregulation farming should allow its stakeholders e.g. Supermarkets , processors and other retailers

 

[Gatehouse Farm]

Think the title of this thread is rather apt "Where's all cattle gone?" Well done guys another good thread taken completely off course

 

[beefandsleep]

I think UK Gov has just expected most competitive businesses to swallow regulation costs and strive for more efficiency. Certainly in road transport and in labour intense event services where I have direct management experience

Nobody has yet answered my question as to how much deregulation farming should allow its stakeholders e.g. Supermarkets , processors and other retailers

It's not a sensible question, just none sense to avoid replying to points made re farm assurance, a tactic you have accused others of many times. Regulation of other sectors is not our concern, in fact much ag legislation and assurance in particular is basically to the benefit of the "stakeholder" group you mention.
As you mentioned, regulations aren't going to be rolled back so every advancement should be fought if we wish to avoid being swamped. To invite more is mental and to submissively accept is to invite more.

 

[Henarar]

but nobody any time soon is going to "roll back" the regulation.

Who said they were ? but that don't mean we have to just except more without even voicing an opinion about it just cos someone doing a completely different job has to put up with it does it ? which is what I done to Guy Smith and the NFU when they were on about WLA
As above even you get techy when its going to adversely affect you don't you
RT could have been used as a great way to promote British food instead of just another cost THAT is the great shame
I would sign up tomorrow if I thought a big % of our end customers were actively seeking it out and there was a genuine premium on it and support WLA as a great way to distinguish our produce from birth
But no its just a processor/supermarket stick to keep us in order

 

[JP1]

It's not a sensible question, just none sense to avoid replying to points made re farm assurance, a tactic you have accused others of many times. Regulation of other sectors is not our concern, in fact much ag legislation and assurance in particular is basically to the benefit of the "stakeholder" group you mention.
As you mentioned, regulations aren't going to be rolled back so every advancement should be fought if we wish to avoid being swamped. To invite more is mental and to submissively accept is to invite more.

I don't want more regulation

I asked if others thought deregulation across stakeholder industries should be supported as this could in the end benefit farming too. Could not would.



Back to the OP. Cattle becoming concentrated on fewer larger holdings . All year round housed dairy cows. Many fewer mixed and smaller farms. Cattle lower margin / high capital lock up. Infrastructure like markets and vets declining (certainly this area).

If you go to France or Italy , I've often been struck with how little livestock you actually see in fields from the roadside