"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 18:12:43 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 16:48:37 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:

Production volume is not affected in a meaningful way by the number
of
farmers. The labour (including management) required to produce a
tonne
of
any commodity is constantly falling. Farmers are forced to leave the
industry due to ever increasing production efficiency. To reduce the
volume of production you must take land out of use, either
temporarily
by
creating wildlife reserves or similar, or permanently by creating
woodlands, housing estates, airports, roads, etc.

Farmer income is not affected in a meaningful way by the production
volume. The labour (including management) required to produce a tonne
of any commodity is constantly falling. Farmers are forced to leave
the industry due to ever increasing production efficiency. This means
fewer farmers remain to share the total income from farming between,
and each of them can get more. To reduce the number of farmers you
must aid the restructuring of farm businesses, amalgamation, transfer
to other jobs, retirement etc.


Why waste money on reducing the number of farmers?

I just explained it. Such that each can have a reasonable income.

The UK has "income support" for that. The only reason some farmers aren't
eligible is because they own land. If they did sell the land to another
farmer then the same quantity of crops would be grown and the nation
wouldn't know the difference.


UK employs 2 % of its workforce producing only 0.8 % of the GDP in
agricultural products.

Sad though it is, that's actually quite good for the UK. The vast majority
of UK workers contribute very little to GDP, e.g. those working in tourism,
teachers, nurses, etc.

Money would seem better spent getting rid of a
bunch of old farmers who have gotten use to be fed by society, than to
continue supporting this kind of imbalance.

The farmers only get payments if they produce. The old farmers I know are
keeping hold of what land they can, and letting it out, because they don't
have very good pensions. The land they own is their pension. The
agricultural value of their land is established by the level of subsidy,
the development value by government policy - so it's government policy
either way. I suppose the laws on inheritance tax and capital gains could
be changed to force some to sell up.


It happens naturally as
production efficiency increases.

Certainly. The current subsidy system is being criticized of promoting
'hyper'-efficiency, by distorting the market for land and agricultural
inputs, leading to an artificial high competitive edge for larger farm
businesses . This would lead to a mis-allocation of society's
resources, just as well as keeping non efficient producers in business
will. In the UK, indeed it is apparently the complete middle section
which is being forced out of business, rather than the tapering off
from top to bottom which would expectedly be seen under the healthy
natural development you are referring to.


Farming is being divided into two distinct industries - a hyper-efficient
food production industry and another pretty fields with traditional farming
that supports tourism, hobby farming, etc. This seems to be current
government policy. I guess farmers must soon choose which game they want
to play.

Michael Saunby