| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#121
19-05-2003, 01:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 19:13:20 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote: http://www.defra.gov.uk/esg/work_htm...urrent/chapter 9.pdf gives agrimonetary compensation 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 £0 £0 £152.4 £76.6 £28.6 £25 figures in £millions. (Note, the source is misquoted. The number £25 is not a forecast of 02/03 (*). It is the RPA administered fraction of the forecasted £28.6 million payed out in 01/02.) According to the NFU, over the past 3 years, agrimonetary compensation has been potentially available, to a sum total of £433 million, of which £291 million was actually paid. That is £142 million/3 years, or £47 million/yr. gone missing. That's only a few % of the total dole handed out to you during that period. How can this be significant for your situation? (* Looking into the future, the British governments decision not to claim full agrimonetary compensation in 2001 will mean a further minus to you of about £40 million during 2002/03.) |
|
#123
19-05-2003, 01:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 10:20:48 +0000, Tim Lamb wrote: In article , Torsten Brinch writes On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 20:16:08 +0000, Tim Lamb wrote: I was thinking more of the level initially set for intervention, the sums available for export support etc. OK, and what were you thinking about these matters? Hmm. It was your brain I hoped to explore. The initial level was set quite high and then reduced drastically in subsequent years. Would you be referring here to one of the errors in McSharry, which you said was quickly adjusted? The money might have been better used if spread less thickly at the top but I guess the present arrangement can be defended as *fair*. I would be interested in how you would you go about doing that. I suppose, to retain fairness, you could have a fixed payment to each farm with a top up acreage payment. This might detract from any unwritten agenda to encourage farm amalgamation though. How does this defend the present agreement as fair? How do you come up with a system that is fair from every point of view? Gordon |
|
#124
19-05-2003, 01:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 16:19:10 -0600, "Gordon Couger"
wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 10:20:48 +0000, Tim Lamb wrote: The money might have been better used if spread less thickly at the top but I guess the present arrangement can be defended as *fair*. I would be interested in how you would you go about doing that. I suppose, to retain fairness, you could have a fixed payment to each farm with a top up acreage payment. This might detract from any unwritten agenda to encourage farm amalgamation though. How does this defend the present agreement as fair? How do you come up with a system that is fair from every point of view? You do not need to. In the case of McSharry consensus was reached by upping the total amount of money handed out, such that on average everybody got more. This way the smaller farmers could get a dole approaching what they would've received under a system with the originally intended top capping, and the bigger farmers got more than they would've received with or without it. Understandable everyone could be immediately happy with that deal, not least the big farmers. However, without the capping built into the system, taxpayers money was effectively being used to boost the competitive edge of the bigger farmer, at the expense of smaller farmers, and to the detriment of society at large. I am asking how this system can be defended as fair. |
|
#125
19-05-2003, 01:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 16:19:10 -0600, "Gordon Couger" wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 10:20:48 +0000, Tim Lamb wrote: The money might have been better used if spread less thickly at the top but I guess the present arrangement can be defended as *fair*. I would be interested in how you would you go about doing that. I suppose, to retain fairness, you could have a fixed payment to each farm with a top up acreage payment. This might detract from any unwritten agenda to encourage farm amalgamation though. How does this defend the present agreement as fair? How do you come up with a system that is fair from every point of view? You do not need to. In the case of McSharry consensus was reached by upping the total amount of money handed out, such that on average everybody got more. This way the smaller farmers could get a dole approaching what they would've received under a system with the originally intended top capping, and the bigger farmers got more than they would've received with or without it. Understandable everyone could be immediately happy with that deal, not least the big farmers. However, without the capping built into the system, taxpayers money was effectively being used to boost the competitive edge of the bigger farmer, at the expense of smaller farmers, and to the detriment of society at large. I am asking how this system can be defended as fair. I don't think that it is possible to come up with a system that is fair by everyone's standards. The price support model is badly flawed becase it encourages over production and is really hard on third world countries with no resources to support their agriculture. In the US paying the farmer to idle acres was extremely unpopular wiht the public at large and since much of the US is moisture limited the layout land would be summer fallowed and would make up for half the lost production the next year. Other direct methods of support have met with fierce political opposition over here. Why should the government support the farmers way of life and not the watch maker, black smith, printer or other tradesman that technology has displaced? Keeping farms operating is a strategic necessity but their size doesn't matter in the first world where there should be jobs for anyone wiht the management ability to run a small farm. In the second and third world it is important to keep everyone with a way to make a living so they have to be very careful about mechanizing agriculture and not end up with cities surrounded with millions of starving poor driven off the farm with no work anywhere. Farming is a nice way of life. Ranching is even better. But I don't think it should be government subsidized. Food production only needs to be subsidized to the point that it is stable enough to stay in business. Every other business on earth is consolidating and getting larger why should farming be different. It is not a business that lends its self to big business even real big farmers are still basically family operations. Some like Waggoner http://www.waggonerranch.com/ are very rich families. But there is not enough profit for the waste that the typical corporate business generates. A farm or ranch typically operates on less than 8% return to capital and labor and that won't work for share holders. Gordon |
|
#126
19-05-2003, 01:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
In article , Torsten Brinch
writes The money might have been better used if spread less thickly at the top but I guess the present arrangement can be defended as *fair*. I would be interested in how you would you go about doing that. I suppose, to retain fairness, you could have a fixed payment to each farm with a top up acreage payment. This might detract from any unwritten agenda to encourage farm amalgamation though. How does this defend the present agreement as fair? Fair in the schoolground sense of a group faced with dividing up a bag of goodies. Any attempt to give less to a *fat* child will be resisted. regards -- Tim Lamb |
|
#127
19-05-2003, 01:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
In article , Torsten Brinch
writes Do you think you are drawing attention to a significant factor in the situation, and if so, why? I've seen the thought expressed on a website, from memory, that "as long as these unclaimed monetary compensations are not made available British family farms will continue to disappear". I consider that hype unbased in reality, what do you think? From the figures you and Jim have posted, this would not be sufficient to *save* loss making businesses. It is very illustrative of our present Governments attitude to the farming industry and rural interests. Bearing in mind the average age of farmers faced with the decision, it does not read as supportive or caring. regards -- Tim Lamb |
|
#128
19-05-2003, 01:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
Tim Lamb wrote in message ... In article , Torsten Brinch writes Do you think you are drawing attention to a significant factor in the situation, and if so, why? I've seen the thought expressed on a website, from memory, that "as long as these unclaimed monetary compensations are not made available British family farms will continue to disappear". I consider that hype unbased in reality, what do you think? From the figures you and Jim have posted, this would not be sufficient to *save* loss making businesses. It is very illustrative of our present Governments attitude to the farming industry and rural interests. Bearing in mind the average age of farmers faced with the decision, it does not read as supportive or caring. it all makes the governments message to farmers to be entrepenurial look a bit sick. You have a group of people who are, on average, in their late fifties and are short of spare capital and tell them to go out there are start new businesses. Sounds like they found a buzz word and used it on the first industry they came to. -- Jim Webster "The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind" 'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami' regards -- Tim Lamb |
|
#129
19-05-2003, 01:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 20:08:55 -0600, "Gordon Couger"
wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . In the case of McSharry consensus was reached by upping the total amount of money handed out, such that on average everybody got more. This way the smaller farmers could get a dole approaching what they would've received under a system with the originally intended top capping, and the bigger farmers got more than they would've received with or without it. Understandable everyone could be immediately happy with that deal, not least the big farmers. However, without the capping built into the system, taxpayers money was effectively being used to boost the competitive edge of the bigger farmer, at the expense of smaller farmers, and to the detriment of society at large. I am asking how this system can be defended as fair. I don't think that it is possible to come up with a system that is fair by everyone's standards. You don't need to. The question can also be phrased as: By which standards can this system be defended as fair? The price support model is badly flawed becase it encourages over production and is really hard on third world countries with no resources to support their agriculture. The McSharry reform was made necessary, because EU had committed itself to WTO agreements, that meant that production related subsidies had to enter a period of phasing out. In the US paying the farmer to idle acres was extremely unpopular wiht the public at large and since much of the US is moisture limited the layout land would be summer fallowed and would make up for half the lost production the next year. Other direct methods of support have met with fierce political opposition over here. EU Commissioner of Agriculture, Fischler came out this year with proposal for further reform on top of McSharry. Under the proposal farmers must tie up a minimum of 10% of land in setaside to be eligible for the dole payments. Against this, British farmers have argued that this rule would be unnecessary, since they are to have handed out the money unrelated to how much they produce anyway. Indeed a man could go out buying 20,000 acres of arable land to set aside the lot, and cash the annual farm subsidy check. Why should the government support the farmers way of life and not the watch maker, black smith, printer or other tradesman that technology has displaced? Yes, the quest of our times. We are set on paying all this money to the farmers, in desperate need of ways to justify it. Keeping farms operating is a strategic necessity but their size doesn't matter in the first world where there should be jobs for anyone wiht the management ability to run a small farm. snip ref to sec/thrd world Political reality in EU is that farm size does matter. Hence the more or less hollow references to family farms, the country side etc. Farming is a nice way of life. Ranching is even better. But I don't think it should be government subsidized. Food production only needs to be subsidized to the point that it is stable enough to stay in business. I agree. Every other business on earth is consolidating and getting larger why should farming be different. It is not a business that lends its self to big business even real big farmers are still basically family operations. Some like Waggoner http://www.waggonerranch.com/ are very rich families. But there is not enough profit for the waste that the typical corporate business generates. A farm or ranch typically operates on less than 8% return to capital and labor and that won't work for share holders. One of the reactions on Commissioner Fischler's proposal to put in a capping system in the subsidies "Initial estimates from the National Farmers' Union suggest that almost 600 English farms - about 2 per cent of the total - would exceed the 300,000 Euro ceiling, representing a total financial loss of about £62m if the measure was approved. About 30 Scottish farms would also be affected." 600 English farms = 2 % of the total = Total number of English farms = 30,000 farms 600 English farms losing £62 million = A loss of ~£100,000 per farm. 600 English farms on status quo, receiving 300,000 Euro + £100,000 = Status quo = an average £300,000 hand-out to each of 600 farms. If we go for Fischler's proposal, they will only get £200,000 and there will be £62 million to give to somebody else. Perhaps we could discuss the best use of these £62m. Who should have it? |
|
#130
19-05-2003, 01:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 09:59:21 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote: In article , Torsten Brinch writes Do you think you are drawing attention to a significant factor in the situation, and if so, why? I've seen the thought expressed on a website, from memory, that "as long as these unclaimed monetary compensations are not made available British family farms will continue to disappear". I consider that hype unbased in reality, what do you think? From the figures you and Jim have posted, this would not be sufficient to *save* loss making businesses. It is very illustrative of our present Governments attitude to the farming industry and rural interests. Yes, and as you said it hasn't helped. But in the total picture of it all, it's more like a pebble in your wellies. We see dole clients run totally mad at the community centers on occasions, if they are cheated for a penny less than the maximum they can get out of the system. It is very human, but it does represent some loss of sense of proportions. Bearing in mind the average age of farmers faced with the decision, it does not read as supportive or caring. In the context it read as political hype "Support me and my party at the election, because we will hand out the money -- or support the other side, they will keep the money away from you, and the family farm will be doomed." |
|
#131
19-05-2003, 01:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 09:48:40 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote: In article , Torsten Brinch writes The money might have been better used if spread less thickly at the top but I guess the present arrangement can be defended as *fair*. I would be interested in how you would you go about doing that. I suppose, to retain fairness, you could have a fixed payment to each farm with a top up acreage payment. This might detract from any unwritten agenda to encourage farm amalgamation though. How does this defend the present agreement as fair? Fair in the schoolground sense of a group faced with dividing up a bag of goodies. Any attempt to give less to a *fat* child will be resisted. The present arrangement is that the fatter the child the more he gets, a school-child would most certainly consider that to be unfair. |
|
#132
19-05-2003, 01:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
Torsten Brinch wrote in message ... On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 20:08:55 -0600, "Gordon Couger" wrote: 600 English farms losing £62 million = A loss of ~£100,000 per farm. 600 English farms on status quo, receiving 300,000 Euro + £100,000 = Status quo = an average £300,000 hand-out to each of 600 farms. If we go for Fischler's proposal, they will only get £200,000 and there will be £62 million to give to somebody else. Perhaps we could discuss the best use of these £62m. Who should have it? what have you got against farm workers? why is it OK for farmers to split holdings on paper between members of their families, (a common strategy in much of europe,) and get all the money, but if you keep the holding in one management unit and employ staff you will not get the money. So what has Torsten got against agricultural workers? -- Jim Webster "The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind" 'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami' |
|
#133
19-05-2003, 01:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
Torsten Brinch wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 09:48:40 +0000, Tim Lamb wrote Fair in the schoolground sense of a group faced with dividing up a bag of goodies. Any attempt to give less to a *fat* child will be resisted. The present arrangement is that the fatter the child the more he gets, a school-child would most certainly consider that to be unfair. except that the larger farm supports more people. Also what is a large farm? A large pig unit can cover a small acreage, a very major dairy unit less land than a middle sized arable outfit. Constructive discussion is one thing, but play ground comparisons soon break down into nonsense. One thing considered in the mid term review was to set up labour bands so the more labour you had, the more money you got, so a small family outfit which included granny, two maiden aunts and three school aged children would be supported heavily. A sensible commercial operation actually producing food wouldn't get anything at all. Yet in the former case they would be drawing state pensions, child allowance etc as well. -- Jim Webster "The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind" 'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami' |
|
#134
19-05-2003, 01:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 12:45:13 +0100, Torsten Brinch
wrote: One of the reactions on Commissioner Fischler's proposal to put in a capping system in the subsidies "Initial estimates from the National Farmers' Union suggest that almost 600 English farms - about 2 per cent of the total - would exceed the 300,000 Euro ceiling, representing a total financial loss of about £62m if the measure was approved. About 30 Scottish farms would also be affected." 600 English farms = 2 % of the total = Total number of English farms = 30,000 farms 600 English farms losing £62 million = A loss of ~£100,000 per farm. 600 English farms on status quo, receiving 300,000 Euro + £100,000 = Status quo = an average £300,000 hand-out to each of 600 farms. If we go for Fischler's proposal, they will only get £200,000 and there will be £62 million to give to somebody else. Perhaps we could discuss the best use of these £62m. Who should have it? We better take off from your beloved status quo, then. Now, imagine this, believe it or not, additional funding has been made available in the EU budget to be put into the farm end of food-production. The share allotted to farming in England has been set to £62m/yr. Who should have it? |
|
#135
19-05-2003, 01:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 15:45:05 +0100, Torsten Brinch
wrote: Now, imagine this, believe it or not, additional funding has been made available in the EU budget to be put into the farm end of food-production. The share allotted to farming in England has been set to £62m/yr. Who should have it? Right, it's just not plausible. Grin. So, back to EU Commissioner Fischlers proposal, to cap the subsidy per farm to no more than 300,000 Euro (~$300,000) a year: (Senator Chuck Grassley, February 2002, commenting the capping provisions of the new US Farm Bill): "In another David vs. Goliath victory, I successfully fought to cap farm subsidy payments at no more than $275,000 a year. Currently, they are virtually unlimited in some cases. And studies showed that 10 percent of the farmers in the United States were receiving 60 percent of the farm payments from the Federal Treasury. Not only does this erode public support for the farm program, it also undercuts the intention of the farm safety net." (Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, commenting the capping decision): "There's nothing wrong with operators who want to expand beyond the size of a family operation, but there is no reason for government programs to support them beyond that level." |
| 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 | |||
Linear Mode
