Janet wrote:
In article ,
lid says...
As I said before, is it because there are efficient farms in the
market that *can* sell at that price, and it is only inefficient
ones who can't?
Not necessarily. They all face the same regulation, feed and labour
costs and the same market price paid per litre.
Regardless of their "efficiency" as a dairy farmer, those farmers who
have some alternative stock, crop or income, can better afford to
subsidise and weather the current dairy losses, than those who only
dairy.
If a dairy farmer goes bust, he can't just turn his business on a
sixpence and start selling chickens or potatoes instead; because such
turnarounds take time before there's any product to sell AND require
capital investment (impossible when broke).
That's true of any failed business, unfortunately. It's never pleasant for
the person concerned. But as a society we can't therefore just prop up every
such business of nothing would ever improve. We'd still be weaving in our
front rooms instead of having cheap factory clothes. Indeed, we'd still be
farming on strips instead of having enclosed fields. A lot of people lost
their livelihoods to create the enclosed farms we're discussing.
If a dairy farmer goes bust, he has gone bust. He needs to turn his business
to another product, if he can, before that happens. If he can't do that,
there's nothing anyone can do about it. It's a failed business. Tough for
the farmer, but good for the consumer. His land will be purchased by someone
who can use it more efficiently, thus enhancing the general good. It's the
process which has transformed us all from being poor peasant farmers to
advanced westerners living in unprecedented luxury compared to them. We
can't stand in its way.
Ian