Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#256
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
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 |
#258
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
"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 $8.30 to 22.50. http://www.nass.usda.gov/ok/bulletin01/page092.pdf These are averages. The individual rents will vary a great deal depending on productivity. Much of the ground is rented on a crop share basis in Oklahoma and Texas. My wife does rent one place for cash because it lends it's self to cattle better than crops and the tenet pays what we consider a rate that is higher than it would make any other way and it gives him freedom to graze the cropland or sell the crops as suits him. Our land prices peaked in '79 and have never recovered to the dollar value of the times before adjustment for inflation. Here is a page that has US land values from 1950-1996. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications...96/ao236d2.pdf The 4% return on capital and labor is historically about right for agriculture. Better operators over here double that or a little better. Gordon |
#259
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
Xref: 127.0.0.1 uk.business.agricultu105220 sci.agricultu61687
"Jim Webster" wrote in message ... Gordon Couger wrote in message news:JgVO9.470662$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 |
#260
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
"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 $3.00 an acre over application costs. Gordon |
#261
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 18:17:08 -0000, "Michael Saunby" wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . ..The contribution of education to the UK GDP is slightly less, about 5 per cent in 2001. The contribution of farm production to the GDP is currently about 0.8 per cent. Quite likely true. Sad, but true. OK, and, as I said, UK employs 2 % of its workforce producing just 0.8 per cent of the GDP in agricultural products. Subsidy money would seem better spent getting rid of a bunch of old farmers who have gotten used to be fed by society, than to continue supporting this kind of imbalance. Just counting the farm gate price as the farmers contribtuion to GDP is a bit misleading. There are also those that sell to him and those that process what he raises. He is one esential part of the agricultural machine that is a pretty damn big business everywhere when you take it as a whole. I agree that the goverment should run a more prodcutive program but they farm the program they have just like every other subsidiesed farmer in the world. Gordon. |
#262
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
|
#263
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
Gordon Couger wrote in message news:kQbP9.141432$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 |
#264
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
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 |
#265
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 07:53:16 +0000 (GMT),
("David G. Bell") wrote: On Saturday, in article "Torsten Brinch" wrote: 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. Fascinating. You are so close, and yet you don't see it. The categories: [Agriculture,Industry,Services] = 100% From which can be concluded, dear Dr Watson, that 'Agriculture' is CIA's secret code name for [agriculture+forestry+fisheries] |
#266
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 07:30:24 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . 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. That's not how it is done. The 0.8 % would include both the income made from selling products at farm gate prices, and the direct subsidies to the farmers. In UK, in absolute numbers that would be about £4 billion, and £2.5 billion respectively -- to the sum total of £6.5 billion ~ 0.8 % of the GDP. There are also those that sell to him and those that process what he raises. Certainly, but we can't count the contribution to GDP from those activities as contributions to GDP done by agriculture. |
#267
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 19:58:42 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote: 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. How do you know without knowing the source, is there a column showing the acreages traded? Source not given but elsewhere he uses *Estates Gazette and Farmers Weekly* |
#268
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Saturday, in article
"Torsten Brinch" wrote: On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 07:53:16 +0000 (GMT), ("David G. Bell") wrote: On Saturday, in article "Torsten Brinch" wrote: 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. Fascinating. You are so close, and yet you don't see it. The categories: [Agriculture,Industry,Services] = 100% From which can be concluded, dear Dr Watson, that 'Agriculture' is CIA's secret code name for [agriculture+forestry+fisheries] You are a bloody-minded little toad, aren't you. One minute you're saying that "it is difficult to get them to fit that CIA figure", and then you call your critic a fool for suggested that the category might be differently defined, when you damn well knew it was when you posted your little lies. -- 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. |
#269
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 06:49:52 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote: .. Agriculture is the largest single business in the US when you take is as a whole Get real. Taken as a whole, agriculture contributes less than 1 % of the US GDP, and there are very many businesses in US that contribute just as much than that or more. Telephone and telegraph alone contributes more than 2% of the US GDP, just to name one. In 2001 farm production contributed just 0.8 % of the US GDP, incidentally same as for UK. |
#270
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Tour-2002 vs.2009 - 2-2002-2009-Front_Walk.jpg (1/1) | Garden Photos | |||
Tour-2002 vs.2009 - 1-2002-2009-August-Front.jpg (1/1) | Garden Photos | |||
[IBC] BONSAI Digest - 8 Jun 2003 to 9 Jun 2003 (#2003-161) | Bonsai | |||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002 | sci.agriculture | |||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002 | sci.agriculture |