"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 18:17:08 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .

..The contribution of education to the UK GDP is slightly
less, about 5 per cent in 2001. The contribution of farm production to
the GDP is currently about 0.8 per cent.

Quite likely true. Sad, but true.

OK, and, as I said, UK employs 2 % of its workforce producing just
0.8 per cent of the GDP in agricultural products. Subsidy money would
seem better spent getting rid of a bunch of old farmers who have
gotten used to be fed by society, than to continue supporting this
kind of imbalance.


Surely all that would do is push up the average farm size, it's not as if
farms cease to exist when the farmer is given early retirement - he'll just
let it to a younger farmer.

Even if such a scheme reduced production the 2% producing 0.8% of GDP are
producing more that 50% of our food. If they stopped then we'd need to
import a great deal more - might that not risk taking food that ought to be
feeding people in Africa, or is it intended that we compete with American
to help them diet?

Michael Saunby

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 19:11:20 -0000, David P
wrote:

In article ,
says...

total GDP. The contribution of education to the UK GDP is slightly
less, about 5 per cent in 2001. The contribution of farm production to
the GDP is currently about 0.8 per cent.

I would not dream of doubting you - but can you substantiate that
please?
Is it a very current 'current' -

NFU current fact sheet should suffice:
"Farming contributes £6.65 billion to the national economy or 0.8% of
the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), employing 557,000 farmers and farm
workers, or 2.0% of the UK workforce."
http://www.nfu.org.uk/info/report.asp

the figures I have seen are about a year old and said it was
around 2% of GDP.

Mr van Winkle, I presume :-) Agriculture's contribution to the UK GDP
has been decreasing for quite a while, it dropped below the 2 % point
nearly 20 years ago.


Probably in step with the rise in the food processing industries. I expect
far more potatoes in the UK are sold in the form of ready to cook chips
than in sacks from farms. The contribution to GDP of those in the food
processing industries would be harmed very much if UK farming were to be
significantly reduced, since it wouldn't really make much sense to make
cheese, cakes, pies, etc. in a country with none of the raw materials and
very expensive (and often unionised) labour.

Michael Saunby

On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 20:04:16 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .

.. UK employs 2 % of its workforce producing just
0.8 per cent of the GDP in agricultural products. Subsidy money would
seem better spent getting rid of a bunch of old farmers who have
gotten used to be fed by society, than to continue supporting this
kind of imbalance.


Surely all that would do is push up the average farm size,

What evidence do you have for that?

On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 20:08:46 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
.. Agriculture's contribution to the UK GDP
has been decreasing for quite a while, it dropped below the 2 % point
nearly 20 years ago.


Probably in step with the rise in the food processing industries.

The ratio between agricultures contribution to GDP and household food
expenditure in the UK has been closely constant (approx. 1:9) for more
than 30 years.

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 20:04:16 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .

.. UK employs 2 % of its workforce producing just
0.8 per cent of the GDP in agricultural products. Subsidy money would
seem better spent getting rid of a bunch of old farmers who have
gotten used to be fed by society, than to continue supporting this
kind of imbalance.


Surely all that would do is push up the average farm size,

What evidence do you have for that?

It happens. The number of farmers in the UK has been falling for over a
century, the total area of farmed land has hardly changed, the average size
of holdings has increased.

The UK does not permit farm land to be used for any other purpose without
planning consent - not easy to get and other uses are not well liked by
non-farmers, e.g. land fill, golf courses, housing, etc. Farm land is too
valuable for a farmer to simply allow it to revert to scrub without payment
from government - payments are available in some areas to plant woods.

Unless you are proposing to pay farmers to trash their land then if they
are encouraged to leave farming they will sell or let their land to another
farmer. This already happens. How could it not happen?

Michael Saunby

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 20:08:46 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
.. Agriculture's contribution to the UK GDP
has been decreasing for quite a while, it dropped below the 2 % point
nearly 20 years ago.


Probably in step with the rise in the food processing industries.

The ratio between agricultures contribution to GDP and household food
expenditure in the UK has been closely constant (approx. 1:9) for more
than 30 years.


So? Does this mean that GDP from food processing is negligible and like
agriculture should be handed over to other countries to waste their money
on so the UK can concentrate on the really useful things it does such as
state health care and education? (aka "taking in each others washing").

Michael Saunby

On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 19:17:02 -0000, David P
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 13:23:47 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , David P
writes

can. Just looking at 93-01 inflation would give a '01 value of c 4700
as cf the annual average of 7357.

Pity you mentioned that! Now Torsten will be convinced we are all money
grubbing capitalist *******s.....


The land value increases are relevant to this thread only to the
extent they have affected farm profitability, e.g. to which extent
land value increases may have increased the cost of renting land in
the farmers accounts, and thereby contributed to the low UK farm
profitability up to 2002.


I don't have rental figures

Income from let land, % on capital value
(Source IPD Let land index July 2002)
1981 2.8
1982 2.9
1983 3.3
1984 3.4
1985 3.2
1986 4.0
1987 5.3
1988 6.3
1989 5.9
1990 4.0
1991 4.5
1992 4.4
1993 5.4
1994 4.7
1995 5.2
1996 4.2
1997 3.9
1998 3.9
1999 3.9
2000 4.1
2001 3.9

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 19:11:20 -0000, David P
wrote:

In article ,
says...

total GDP. The contribution of education to the UK GDP is slightly
less, about 5 per cent in 2001. The contribution of farm production to
the GDP is currently about 0.8 per cent.

I would not dream of doubting you - but can you substantiate that please?
Is it a very current 'current' -

NFU current fact sheet should suffice:
"Farming contributes £6.65 billion to the national economy or 0.8% of
the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), employing 557,000 farmers and farm
workers, or 2.0% of the UK workforce."
http://www.nfu.org.uk/info/report.asp

the figures I have seen are about a year old and said it was
around 2% of GDP.

Mr van Winkle, I presume :-) Agriculture's contribution to the UK GDP
has been decreasing for quite a while, it dropped below the 2 % point
nearly 20 years ago.

g

I managed to find my source. They were 1999 stats and whilst I would
strongly dispute anything the NFU put out [joke!] I would not dream of
disputing my source...but I am permitted to misquote it.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/uk.html

Apologies to you Torsten.

--
David
Visit http://www.farm-direct.co.uk for your local farmgate food supplies.
FAQ's, Glossary, Farming Year and more!

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 21:37:07 -0000, David P
wrote:

In article ,
says...
The land value increases are relevant to this thread only to the
extent they have affected farm profitability, e.g. to which extent
land value increases may have increased the cost of renting land in
the farmers accounts, and thereby contributed to the low UK farm
profitability up to 2002.


I don't have rental figures

Income from let land, % on capital value
(Source IPD Let land index July 2002)
Putting the two together..

1993 3,791 5.4 204.71
1994 4,229 4.7 198.76
1995 4,788 5.2 248.98
1996 6,058 4.2 254.36
1997 6,448 3.9 251.47
1998 6,134 3.9 239.26
1999 6,655 3.9 259.55
2000 7,103 4.1 291.22
2001 7,357 3.9 286.92

Something is clearly wrong there. I guess the yields that you are
quoting are yields on values subject to tenancy whereas I have quoted VP
[no tenancy] values.

"The income return from let land has remained relatively stable at
between 3 and 5% for the past decade. As rents on farms let under
traditional (Agricultural Holdings Act) tenancies started to fall in
the late 1990s due to the slump in farm incomes, their replacement
with higher Farm Business Tenancy rents and income from diversified
activities on farms and estates has helped maintain and even increase
income. Residential rents have increased and land owners have
diversified into commercial lettings of redundant farm buildings.
It is rent from these 'non-core' assets that has maintained the
long-term modest growth in overall income."

Rents are certainly *not* in excess of £100/acre
under AHA's. Rents under FBT's do have a tendency to hover around that
level but those rents are not related to the productive capacity of the
land.

There is only a small number of FBTs in the IPD sample, they
reported average rents of £79 per acre, while rents on traditional
leases were £62 per acre. Seasonal grazing rents averaged £57 per acre
in 2001.

Umm - are we actually going anywhere with this or have we simply
digressed into an interesting exchange of figures?

Dunno. It seems selfevident to me, that high price of farmland must be
adverse to farm profitability, but we may well be just looking at one
head of a multi headed monster. It should be possible to quantify the
total effect and asses its significance. E.g. if it can be estimated
to amount to £5 per increase in rent per acre , that should be enough
to influence the profitability of the total operation significantly
when we are talking current net incomes per acre as low as those we
saw in the first post to this thread.

Rents are lower in the US as are land prices. $21 to $65 USD for dryland and
$50 to $72 USD for irrigated rent. Pasture goes from $8.30 to 22.50.

http://www.nass.usda.gov/ok/bulletin01/page092.pdf

These are averages. The individual rents will vary a great deal depending on
productivity.

Much of the ground is rented on a crop share basis in Oklahoma and Texas. My
wife does rent one place for cash because it lends it's self to cattle
better than crops and the tenet pays what we consider a rate that is higher
than it would make any other way and it gives him freedom to graze the
cropland or sell the crops as suits him.

Our land prices peaked in '79 and have never recovered to the dollar value
of the times before adjustment for inflation. Here is a page that has US
land values from 1950-1996.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications...96/ao236d2.pdf

The 4% return on capital and labor is historically about right for
agriculture. Better operators over here double that or a little better.

Gordon

Xref: 127.0.0.1 uk.business.agricultu95900 sci.agricultu59985


"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

Gordon Couger wrote in message
news:JgVO9.470662$WL3.125217@rwcrnsc54...


I expect that the subsidy in the EU is always going to be higher than
anywere else becuse they can't employ the economies of scale that new
wold
can or get the cheap labor that Asia can. One the theory behide a
subsidised
system is to level the playing feild with the trading partners that
can
produce for less cost. IMHO it should be a direct subsidy and not a
price
support. Price supports just screw up the system. But I don't run the
show.
I expect that subsdies will always be with us because the respective
countries can't afford the results of high food prices it is cheaper
to
subise the farmer than to be put out of office becuse of high food
prices.
Food prices are very inelastic. A very small shortage results in a
very
large increase in price. So unless they go to price controls I don't
think
the market can adjust to a moderate price for food. It is either high
or
low. It can only be mantined in the middle by artificial means.

Gordon

the economies of scale argument are very important. PR and popular
perceptions are also important here. I suspect it would be politically
impossible to set up a really big US style feed lot in the UK. Similarly
can you imagine the situation in Denmark if they opened some really big,
US style, pig feeder units.

Also important is government attitude to agriculture. I can remember US
politicians equating missile silos and grain silos as equally important
strategic weapons. Similarly I have heard perfectly respectable
commentators on this side of the Atlantic point out that some at least
of the impetus behind the current US farm plan is that US might lose
it's primier position as world source of soya to Argentina and Brazil.
American has, probably since the war, done sweetheart grain deals etc
with countries it has decided are friendly, and while I can see the need
for this sort of thing, US grain going into (for example) Jordan and
Egypt does unbalance the concept of the world market.
Personally I can see the arguments on both sides, and am willing to
agree that the advantages gained by this policy in the political arena
outweigh the dislocation to world trade. But it does mean that other
countries have to take steps, normally by offering subsidies, to cope
with this sort of US policy.

We do use food as weapon or carrot depending on the point of view. Ag
exports are an important part of forgein policy. Agriculture is the largest
single business in the US when you take is as a whole and the goverment
knows that. They look at the whole works not piece meal we have a lot of
people hard at work to make sure that they don't forget.

My main concerne is cotton and the big customer is India. My main
competeters are third world countries with very very cheap labor and better
growing conditions than I have. So I see the problem from about the same
point of view as you do. All my competitors have lower land, labor and
machinery cost than I have.

We also compete with Brazil, Argentina, Austrialia and incresingly China. If
India ever modernizise thier agriculture they can raise all the cotton that
they need that would in effect make every bale in the US total over supply.
Currently their production is half the average of the rest of the world. BT
cotton alone would close a lot of that gap.

I think it foolish of the UK and EU to be subsidising farmers and not be
utilizing them to produce food, feed and fiber. I really like your business
but you should be rasing your own cow feed as long as the goverment is
keeping you in business anyway. That's why I say price supports screw up the
system. You are paid for set aside and buy grain from us. If the subsidy was
direct you could raise the feed yourself or what ever paid the best and let
the market sort it's self out. If we are going to have a cheap food policy
going through the motions of trying to limit production and always failing
is fruitless and expensive.

Just pay the farmer so much an acre and be done wiht it if you want to keep
him around.

Gordon

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 09:11:09 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

The only winning statagy I see for the farmer is lowering the cost of
production.

I think the experience in UK over the last several years is that
efforts to lower the cost by cutting down on ag. inputs have largely
been neutralized by increasing prices, particularly on fuel and
fertilizer. Cutting labor costs looks to have been more successful.

There is technology to get the inputs where they do the most good. They tell
me the fertilizer spreader www.greenseeker.com puts a twenty dollar bill in
the farmers pocket on every acre it runs over top dressing nitrogen in wheat
over spreading the same amount of nitrogen evenly over the field. The hope
to have 10 in the field this spring. This technology is really pretty crude
compared to what could be done if soil fertility maps, yield maps,
historical data and weed recognition were added to it.

I can't find the reference but I think the Ag research group in Denmark is
doing the best I have seen on weed recognition by shape. It was getting
close enough that if it was combined with spectral data and would run fast
enough it would work. Their method was impressive.

Only putting fertilizer and weed killer where it is needed is one way to
reduce costs and environmental impact. When we started we were using 1-meter
square sensing area and we thought that it would be plenty small. Well the
variation in nitrogen in the soil is a lot smaller. In the case of nitrogen
the small-scale variation is probably not too important but it is in the
case of phosphorus. Seedlings need it as soon as they spout.

I know from personal experience that a gallon of Round Up can be spread over
100 acres with precise application and get better weed control than a steel
hoe. I did in a couple of years in cotton. Unfortunately I can't program a
computer to recognize a weed as well as human can but some one will some
day.

The machines will be hired out to do the work because it will be a long time
before the price gets down to the point a farmer can afford one. But the
cost are being quoted at $1.00 to $3.00 an acre over application costs.

Gordon

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 18:17:08 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .

..The contribution of education to the UK GDP is slightly
less, about 5 per cent in 2001. The contribution of farm production to
the GDP is currently about 0.8 per cent.

Quite likely true. Sad, but true.

OK, and, as I said, UK employs 2 % of its workforce producing just
0.8 per cent of the GDP in agricultural products. Subsidy money would
seem better spent getting rid of a bunch of old farmers who have
gotten used to be fed by society, than to continue supporting this
kind of imbalance.

Just counting the farm gate price as the farmers contribtuion to GDP is a
bit misleading. There are also those that sell to him and those that process
what he raises. He is one esential part of the agricultural machine that is
a pretty damn big business everywhere when you take it as a whole.

I agree that the goverment should run a more prodcutive program but they
farm the program they have just like every other subsidiesed farmer in the
world.

Gordon.

On Saturday, in article

"Torsten Brinch" wrote:

You are welcome, no need for apologies, you have all the right in the
world to ask until you are satisfied, for support of quantitative
claims on sci agriculture. Also, your CIA source has 1.7% of GDP
produced in the agricultural sector by 2 % of the workforce in 1999,
and that as close to what you quoted as any could ask.

However, looking at DEFRA data in the Agenda 2000 papers it is
difficult to get them to fit that CIA figure, 1.7% of GDP for 1999.
The DEFRA data series would indicate a figure close to 1 % for 1998,
and there is not a single data point above 1.5 % since 1987.

I don't know where the CIA gets its data from -- does it just use
official figures for friendly powers? But it seems to me to be quite
possible that the CIA shifts some of the food-processing element of GDP
into agriculture, so as to create consistent categorization.

This could be similar to the way in which there are arguments over
comparing unemployment figures in different countries, because of
different counting standards.

And if MAFF/DEFRA are setting things up to diminish the apparent
importance of actual farming, some of us wouldn't be so surprised.


--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"Let me get this straight. You're the KGB's core AI, but you're afraid
of a copyright infringement lawsuit over your translator semiotics?"
From "Lobsters" by Charles Stross.

Gordon Couger wrote in message
news:kQbP9.141432$qF3.10817@sccrnsc04...


Just pay the farmer so much an acre and be done wiht it if you want to
keep
him around.


this is the way EU policy is moving, from headage payments to area
payments.
The idea is that they will be tied in to environmental matters so will
not be production related and hence outside the scope of the WTO.


We await developments with interest.


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'

Gordon

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
Well it is undoubtedly a spike.

Please. You must be able to see the '90 data point is almost certainly
not a spike. I must assume you have by now checked that you didn't
simply make a transcription error from John Nix. So, what is John
Nix's source of the data?

No. I have checked again. Not my transcription error. Remember, these
are small acreages.

Source not given but elsewhere he uses *Estates Gazette and Farmers
Weekly*

regards


--
Tim Lamb