# Why should the government do anything about the fodder crisis?



## Brendan Burgess (5 Jan 2018)

I have heard the IFA complaining that the government has done nothing about the fodder crisis. 

But could someone explain why the government should do anything? 

The farmers knew in advance that it was coming when they got the very wet weather. Surely it was up to them then to prepare for it either by destocking or buying in fodder in anticipation of the shortage. Or was their attitude "The government will rescue us."? 

Brendan


----------



## odyssey06 (5 Jan 2018)

How many "fodder crisis" events have we had in the last 20 years? 
Doesn't seem like something that should catch business owners, which farmers are, by surprise...


----------



## JohnJay (5 Jan 2018)

the early wet weather was part of the problem Brendan. Farmers usually get 2 "cuts" of silage, but because of the bad weather in late summer, a lot did not get their second round. Plus farmers had to put animals in much earlier than usual, so they have started to use their feed much earlier than usual. There is a huge shortage of feed in the country, so there is a limited amount of it to buy and it is very expensive. 

Destocking is not as easy as it sounds. There are X amount of mouths to feed in the country and Y amount of feed. Feed can be imported, but at huge cost as the logistics are expensive. The UK also has a fodder shortage, so it will have to come from further afield.


----------



## Woodsman (5 Jan 2018)

There is no fodder crisis in the east and south of Ireland. The problem is occurring however with increasing regularity, mostly in what are called the BMW (border, midland and western) regions.
Farmers in Sligo, Leitrim and Cavan are particularily hard hit due to incessant rain and a drumlin soil that has very poor drainage properties. It is difficult to understand why farmers in these areas persist in carrying on keeping livestock which is essentially an uneconomic activity. They are surviving almost solely on their Single Farm Payments from the EU. The interesting part of this debate is that the land these farmers own is considered the best in Europe for growing trees but, as was discussed on the RTE programme Ear to the Ground recently, there is a local perception that a farmer who gives up a life of hardship with little economic return and plants trees on his land is in some way considered a failure, despite the fact that he would be earning far more from forestry and would have time to both manage his woods and if he/she wished, take on an off farm job. Forestry is a very emotive subject in Leitrim despite the clear evidence that it brings huge benefits to the individual farmers and the community at large in terms of increased employment and the production of timber for both construction and fuel, most of which we currently import


----------



## Dan Murray (5 Jan 2018)

Very interesting, Woodsman

Can you elaborate on the economics please? Specifically, how much up front costs and how long before a return arrives and the time lag between the two, etc., etc.


----------



## Purple (5 Jan 2018)

Farming is not an economic activity. It is a mechanism to harvest grants from the EU.


----------



## Early Riser (5 Jan 2018)

Woodsman said:


> there is a local perception that a farmer who gives up a life of hardship with little economic return and plants trees on his land is in some way considered a failure,



Is it that he/she is considered a failure or is it also (or mainly) that large scale forestation is regarded as anti-social by local communities ?



Woodsman said:


> Forestry is a very emotive subject in Leitrim despite the clear evidence that it brings huge benefits to the individual farmers and the community at large



It obviously is very controversial, particularly as regards to benefits (or otherwise) to the community at large.These links note some of the views on both sides:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ire...try-casting-a-shadow-across-leitrim-1.2709073

https://www.farmersjournal.ie/forestry-regulation-not-adhered-to-leitrim-ifa-chair-217027

 I am not familiar with the County and am not invested in one side of the dispute or other.But it is interesting to hear the discussion. Out of curiosity, Woodsman, do you have a stake in this yourself?



Purple said:


> Farming is not an economic activity. It is a mechanism to harvest grants from the EU



Is forestry any different in this regard?


----------



## Purple (5 Jan 2018)

Early Riser said:


> Is forestry any different in this regard?



[broken link removed]


----------



## Purple (5 Jan 2018)

Why do some businesses not have to operate in an open market, relying for the majority of their income on hand-out's while others get nothing?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (5 Jan 2018)

I would see a really strong reason for subsidising forestry.  We need more forests. The long term nature of the business means that most people couldn't engage in it.  

I don't see why we subsidise general farmers. But then I have not lived through food scarcity. I might think differently if I had done. 

I would subsidise environmentally friendly farming. I would definitely penalise the environmentally unfriendly farming. 

Brendan


----------



## T McGibney (5 Jan 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I would subsidise environmentally friendly farming. I would definitely penalise the environmentally unfriendly farming.



That's exactly what the current system does.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (5 Jan 2018)

T McGibney said:


> That's exactly what the current system does.



That's great. It's ages since I looked at this area. 

Brendan


----------



## Early Riser (5 Jan 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I don't see why we subsidise general farmers. But then I have not lived through food scarcity.



Yes , I believe that the historical - and living - memory of food shortage was at the origin of the CAP :

_The common agricultural policy has its roots in 1950s Western Europe, whose societies had been damaged by the second world war, and where agriculture had been crippled and food supplies could not be guaranteed.
_
We do have high food production standards in the EU. In the absence of some form of subsidy could farmers produce affordable food without these standards being abandoned - hormone promoted beef and chlorinated chicken, etc ? In Ireland, I understand, the standards are high even by EU standards - grass fed beef and milk from grass-fed cows. We have a fairly successful agri-business built around this. Would this continue if we abandoned standards (and associated costs)?



Brendan Burgess said:


> We need more forests



Probably so - but I wouldn't like to be living with forestry encroaching all around, ie, my viewpoint is likely to be influenced by whether I am, for instance, a Dubliner, or a Leitrimer.


----------



## rob oyle (5 Jan 2018)

T McGibney said:


> That's exactly what the current system does.


I would suggest that the current system very much does NOT penalise damaging farming practices. And the lobbyists/industry want that to continue. Remember when the Citizens Assembly recommended that there be a carbon tax on environmentally damaging farm practices last year (which would stay within farming and go to those that do the opposite)?  The IFA were against that without exploring the issue. Industry groups and their political bedfellows consistently come out against any real reform or change in farming.

We have programmes like Origin Green that, snazzy ads and PR aside, do nothing for the environment but allow the IFA to claim that we are 'efficient' in some way. We are so inefficient that Ireland is actually a net food importer, because we have to feed 24 million farmed animals. Two-thirds of all the land in Ireland is used to feed these animals and according to Teagasc, no money (directly) is made from doing so - as Purple said above, it's a nationwide operation to harvest EU/CAP funds.


----------



## JohnJay (5 Jan 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I don't see why we subsidise general farmers. But then I have not lived through food scarcity. I might think differently if I had done.
> 
> Brendan


Grants don't just subsidise farmers, it subsidises the food that you buy in the supermarkets. The prices that farmers now get for animals/milk is not sustainable. a litre of milk in a supermarket is not much more than it was 20 years ago. Farmers would gladly forgo their grants if they could get a sustainable price for their goods, but the big meat companies and supermarkets are keeping this artificially low. Someone close to me is a large and efficient farmer. He would not even break even if he did not have grants.


----------



## Purple (5 Jan 2018)

rob oyle said:


> Ireland is actually a net food importer


We are a net calorie importer. That's because we don't product our own sugar and we import animal feed. That's not really the same as being a net food importer.
If we stopped the really environmentally damaging farming practices such as beef production we'd just end up importing the beef we consume which would have a greater net environmental impact as we'd have to add the carbon miles to the equation. The same goes for dairy etc. There's a strong argument for reducing the environmental regulations around farming in the EU as we currently only produce about one third of the food we could produce and import the balance. In effect we have just outsourced our pollution and environmental damage to other countries.


----------



## Purple (5 Jan 2018)

JohnJay said:


> Grants don't just subsidise farmers, it subsidises the food that you buy in the supermarkets. The prices that farmers now get for animals/milk is not sustainable. a litre of milk in a supermarket is not much more than it was 20 years ago. Farmers would gladly forgo their grants if they could get a sustainable price for their goods, but the big meat companies and supermarkets are keeping this artificially low. Someone close to me is a large and efficient farmer. He would not even break even if he did not have grants.


That's incorrect. The current system is built on grants and protectionism. If we traded openly with the rest of the world our food prices would be close to what they are now, hundred of millions of people would be lifted out of poverty and starvation and there would be no need for the massive grants and subsidies. Our current system is utterly unethical and unjust.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (5 Jan 2018)

JohnJay said:


> Grants don't just subsidise farmers, it subsidises the food that you buy in the supermarkets.



Good point. But scrap the food subsidies completely. Make us pay the proper price for food.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (5 Jan 2018)

Purple said:


> If we stopped the really environmentally damaging farming practices such as beer production we'd just end up importing the beef we consume



Why? Is it that after a night in the pub drinking beer we buy a lot of beef burgers?


----------



## Purple (5 Jan 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Why? Is it that after a night in the pub drinking beer we buy a lot of beef burgers?


Freudian slip; should have been beef. Edited now.


----------



## T McGibney (5 Jan 2018)

rob oyle said:


> I would suggest that the current system very much does NOT penalise damaging farming practices. And the lobbyists/industry want that to continue. Remember when the Citizens Assembly recommended that there be a carbon tax on environmentally damaging farm practices last year (which would stay within farming and go to those that do the opposite)?  The IFA were against that without exploring the issue. Industry groups and their political bedfellows consistently come out against any real reform or change in farming.



The Citizens Assembly hardly counts as an authoritative source here. Look up the detail of the main schemes. They are peppered with environmental conditions. Farmers who fail to comply are punished severely.


----------



## Early Riser (5 Jan 2018)

Purple said:


> If we traded openly with the rest of the world our food prices would be close to what they are now, hundred of millions of people would be lifted out of poverty and starvation and there would be no need for the massive grants and subsidies



This may be so provided we significantly changed our dietary habits away from meat and chicken - No? Otherwise the biggest beneficiaries would probably be the US, Argentina and Brazil. There is, of course a strong argument that we should change diet - and probably will have to over the following decades.

And, if we don't change from meat and chicken, is there a broad acceptance from the consumer for lower standards? Even as regards GM foods there seems to be considerable resistance despite the scientific evidence of safety.

The other argument for subsidies (and the original one) though is in terms of maintaining food sufficiency in the EU. This is ideological rather than economic.


----------



## Purple (5 Jan 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Good point. But scrap the food subsidies completely. Make us pay the proper price for food.
> 
> Brendan


Scrap the trade barriers and we'd be paying the same as we are now or less. 
The subsidies come from taxes so in reality we are paying the full price, just not in the supermarket.


----------



## Purple (5 Jan 2018)

Early Riser said:


> This may be so provided we significantly changed our dietary habits away from meat and chicken - No?


Not necessarily, there are plenty of countries which can produce chicken and beef. 
Why is importing garlic from china without paying the correct duty regarded as being as serious a pedophilia?


----------



## galway_blow_in (5 Jan 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I have heard the IFA complaining that the government has done nothing about the fodder crisis.
> 
> But could someone explain why the government should do anything?
> 
> ...



i grew up on a farm , my brother is a dairy farmer in the east ,  i myself  own some land which i have let out long term

the government  absolutely should not do anything !

1 . the crisis is very regional , there is not a crisis in the east and in much of the south , its primarily in the north west and especially in donegal , there was a genuine crisis in the spring of 2013 as not only did the winter last into early may , the previous summer was the wettest on record so farmers anywhere never got a break , it was countrywide , feed was imported from as far away as france

2. cattle prices are quite strong at the moment which was not the case in 2013  , any farmer who is facing a looming feed shortage need only load up animals in the trailer and head to the local mart , he should be pretty well paid right now

3. in the areas where feed shortage is a problem , this has happened many times before and will most certainly happen again  , its overwhelmingly due to weather and the weather is simply much wetter in the west and north west , add to that the land is of much poorer quality in these areas too , much of this area of the country would be better planted in forrestry and forrestry is more profitable than beef anyway


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Jan 2018)

Purple said:


> Scrap the trade barriers and we'd be paying the same as we are now or less.
> The subsidies come from taxes so in reality we are paying the full price, just not in the supermarket.



Excuse my ignorance, but I don't get how scrapping subsidies would do anything but put prices up? As stated earlier by another poster, the 'profit' some farmers get for their produce is not sustainable.
I understand the point that if that reduced taxes via stopping subsidies would offset price increases in the supermarket, but by opening our food supplies to the 'free market' we would risk increased price fluctuations on an increased basis. This is good when food is cheap, but bad when prices go too high - the current unrest in Iran has been attributed to high food prices by some commentators.

The system we have now at least secures food price stability.


----------



## Early Riser (5 Jan 2018)

Purple said:


> Why is importing garlic from china without paying the correct duty regarded as being as serious a pedophilia?



I think you are referring to the sentence of a man for the evasion of €1.6 million in tax on garlic imports. I do think the level of duty on garlic seems ridiculous and it is (I understand) totally out of synch with other import duties (agricultural included). The comparison with pedophilia is just ridiculous.


----------



## Woodsman (5 Jan 2018)

It is a few hours since I last posted and since then a large number of queries have come in. I will try and briefly reply to some. Firstly, I have many years of experience in livestock production, tillage and forestry. I also expanded in to other activities as farming alone was not sufficient to provide a comfortable living. Farming provided a far better income in years gone by before subsidies arrived.Currently Irish farmers are producing and selling food at cost or a little below that. They only survive because of the Single Farm Payment. This is in reality a subsidy to the consumer who benefits from purchasing food at a historically low price. Is this a good thing? I cannot answer that but maybe it is one reason for the rise in obesity in developed countries. In the meantime, farmers in poorer regions who do not receive subsidies, cannot compete on a world market. 
Regarding forestry, it is a complex issue but the Teagasc website gives a good overview of the returns. To date, forestry has returned in the region of 8% pa for the past two decades. A farmer who decides to cease farming conventionally can have his land planted and fenced and maintained under the afforestation scheme and look forward to a (almost) tax free return of app €8k per acre after app 35 years. Ideal for a pension. In the meantime he receives a tax free annual premium for 15 years to reach the first thinning stage when an income flow begins. Land was available for planting in the mid 1990s for €800/€1000 per acre. Similar land, if it can be found is now making app €5k per acre. Given the returns available, I cannot understand why farmers with marginal land who are struggliing to survive will not plant at least some of their holdings. Many have done so and have profited from it but there is still an underlying prejudice against forestry which makes no economic sense.


----------



## galway_blow_in (5 Jan 2018)

Woodsman said:


> There is no fodder crisis in the east and south of Ireland. The problem is occurring however with increasing regularity, mostly in what are called the BMW (border, midland and western) regions.
> Farmers in Sligo, Leitrim and Cavan are particularily hard hit due to incessant rain and a drumlin soil that has very poor drainage properties. It is difficult to understand why farmers in these areas persist in carrying on keeping livestock which is essentially an uneconomic activity. They are surviving almost solely on their Single Farm Payments from the EU. The interesting part of this debate is that the land these farmers own is considered the best in Europe for growing trees but, as was discussed on the RTE programme Ear to the Ground recently, there is a local perception that a farmer who gives up a life of hardship with little economic return and plants trees on his land is in some way considered a failure, despite the fact that he would be earning far more from forestry and would have time to both manage his woods and if he/she wished, take on an off farm job. Forestry is a very emotive subject in Leitrim despite the clear evidence that it brings huge benefits to the individual farmers and the community at large in terms of increased employment and the production of timber for both construction and fuel, most of which we currently import



large swathes of the west and north west will be planted in trees in the next few decades , its a certainty , the only focus of the powers that be going forward is with regard expanding the dairy industry , its far and away the most profitable agri sector but the problem is with dairy expansion comes the challenge of meeting the countries carbon targets , happily this can be met by expanding the forestry sector in tandem with the dairy sector , the beef sector will be sacraficed in order for the dairy sector to grow , its already been decided , what will happen in the coming years is a stick rather than carrot approach will be used to coax beef farmers into planting their land , most likely subsidies will be reduced unless land is planted , up to now the direct payments to beef farmers were enough for them to be able to avoid having to plant but the reality is europe can source its beef from many parts of the world and the powers that be now actively want irelands beef industry slimed down

beef will still be produced here but most of it will come from dairy cows as happens in new zealand


----------



## Early Riser (5 Jan 2018)

Woodsman said:


> Many have done so and have profited from it but there is still an underlying prejudice against forestry which makes no economic sense



I can clearly see from your summary that it makes economic sense for the individual farmer. But is this the main source of objection in, say, Leitrim?


----------



## galway_blow_in (5 Jan 2018)

Purple said:


> Farming is not an economic activity. It is a mechanism to harvest grants from the EU.



true but the subsidies also allow the larry goodmans of this world to pay as little as possible for beef , he has more influence on the irish government envoy to europe when it comes to agricultural subsidies than hundreds of thousand of beef farmers combined


----------



## odyssey06 (5 Jan 2018)

JohnJay said:


> Grants don't just subsidise farmers, it subsidises the food that you buy in the supermarkets. The prices that farmers now get for animals/milk is not sustainable. a litre of milk in a supermarket is not much more than it was 20 years ago.



How has the price of milk been kept steady by grants and subsidies? 
Were they not being subsidised 20 years ago, or have they increased to match inflation?
Are Irish subsidies higher than French ones, or are they common to EU - I noticed that milk prices in France were higher than Ireland, for example.

Any idea what the price of a litre would be without them - to keep it simple, we assume it's Irish milk and suppliers haven't switched to cheaper sources in the brave new subsidy-free world?


----------



## Purple (5 Jan 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Excuse my ignorance, but I don't get how scrapping subsidies would do anything but put prices up? As stated earlier by another poster, the 'profit' some farmers get for their produce is not sustainable.


If we were in an open market globally then prices would drop significantly as we would be able to buy food produced in low cost countries without the large duties we impose.


----------



## Purple (5 Jan 2018)

Early Riser said:


> I think you are referring to the sentence of a man for the evasion of €1.6 million in tax on garlic imports. I do think the level of duty on garlic seems ridiculous and it is (I understand) totally out of synch with other import duties (agricultural included). The comparison with pedophilia is just ridiculous.


The same week as he got a 6 year prison sentence a pedophile got a lower sentence. It was in d'papers at the time.


----------



## galway_blow_in (5 Jan 2018)

JohnJay said:


> Grants don't just subsidise farmers, it subsidises the food that you buy in the supermarkets. The prices that farmers now get for animals/milk is not sustainable. a litre of milk in a supermarket is not much more than it was 20 years ago. Farmers would gladly forgo their grants if they could get a sustainable price for their goods, but the big meat companies and supermarkets are keeping this artificially low. Someone close to me is a large and efficient farmer. He would not even break even if he did not have grants.



thats the IFA line 

the reason farmers cant make a living producing beef in ireland is because beef operations are far too small , without subsidies the best farmers who produce beef can make in or around 150 euro per cow ( a cow produces a calf per year and it takes minimum sixteen months to bring to slaughter and in most cases over two years ) 

the problem is the average beef cow herd is less than twenty so the average suckler ( suckler  = beef cow ) farmer makes no more than three thousand euro per year from his farm without subsidies , had the average farmer two hundred suckler cows as is the case in most countries in europe , let alone canada , australia or new zealand , he could make 30 k without subsidies 

subsidies to farmers are what prevents small inneficient farmers from having to sell up , its what keeps a floor under land prices which are the highest in europe in ireland , if you remove subsidies , the price of meat for consumers wont rise a cent but a flood of farmers will exits the industry and with it a flood of land will come on the market , allowing sufficiently large farmers to buy land cheaper and expand to a sufficient level of scale 

its adding two and two and coming up with five to assume that if subsidies went , the consumer would automatically have to pay more for beef , its a flawed theory  borne of entitlement on the part of farmers where they simply assume they cannot be done without and must be supported in some shape or form


----------



## galway_blow_in (5 Jan 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Excuse my ignorance, but I don't get how scrapping subsidies would do anything but put prices up? As stated earlier by another poster, the 'profit' some farmers get for their produce is not sustainable.
> I understand the point that if that reduced taxes via stopping subsidies would offset price increases in the supermarket, but by opening our food supplies to the 'free market' we would risk increased price fluctuations on an increased basis. This is good when food is cheap, but bad when prices go too high - the current unrest in Iran has been attributed to high food prices by some commentators.
> 
> The system we have now at least secures food price stability.



the CAP doesnt just revolve around paying subsidies to european farmers , its about keeping out cheap imports from other parts of the world , its protectionism on a truly enormous scale , the backbone of this racket is the rural french


----------



## galway_blow_in (5 Jan 2018)

Woodsman said:


> It is a few hours since I last posted and since then a large number of queries have come in. I will try and briefly reply to some. Firstly, I have many years of experience in livestock production, tillage and forestry. I also expanded in to other activities as farming alone was not sufficient to provide a comfortable living. Farming provided a far better income in years gone by before subsidies arrived.Currently Irish farmers are producing and selling food at cost or a little below that. They only survive because of the Single Farm Payment. This is in reality a subsidy to the consumer who benefits from purchasing food at a historically low price. Is this a good thing? I cannot answer that but maybe it is one reason for the rise in obesity in developed countries. In the meantime, farmers in poorer regions who do not receive subsidies, cannot compete on a world market.
> Regarding forestry, it is a complex issue but the Teagasc website gives a good overview of the returns. To date, forestry has returned in the region of 8% pa for the past two decades. A farmer who decides to cease farming conventionally can have his land planted and fenced and maintained under the afforestation scheme and look forward to a (almost) tax free return of app €8k per acre after app 35 years. Ideal for a pension. In the meantime he receives a tax free annual premium for 15 years to reach the first thinning stage when an income flow begins. Land was available for planting in the mid 1990s for €800/€1000 per acre. Similar land, if it can be found is now making app €5k per acre. Given the returns available, I cannot understand why farmers with marginal land who are struggliing to survive will not plant at least some of their holdings. Many have done so and have profited from it but there is still an underlying prejudice against forestry which makes no economic sense.



the only valid reason for not planning is that you may be at the mercy of a very small number of buyers once the forest matures in thirty years plus , add to that were someone in brussels to decide one day that subsidies for trees were twice too high , where would someone be who was ten years into a plant ? , i know the same could happen with subsidies for cattle farmers but at least they can sell their land , land once planted immedietely falls sharply in value

that the planter has to be bribed with a tax free premia is itself cause for scepticism


----------



## Purple (5 Jan 2018)

galway_blow_in said:


> the CAP doesnt just revolve around paying subsidies to european farmers , its about keeping out cheap imports from other parts of the world , its protectionism on a truly enormous scale , the backbone of this racket is the rural french


It also allows us to dump heavily subsidised food on developing countries. Back in the day when we produced sugar a bag of Irish Sugar was cheaper in South Africa than local cane sugar.


----------



## Early Riser (5 Jan 2018)

Purple said:


> It was in d'papers at the time.



Indeed twas. And twas a silly tabloid point. The sentence (disproportionate as it was) was for tax evasion - the garlic was incidental. Fortunately it was subsequently reduced to two. How excessive or inadequate the sentences are for tax evasion is, I suggest, a separate topic. (And yes the duty on garlic does /did seem extraordinary.)


----------



## galway_blow_in (5 Jan 2018)

Purple said:


> It also allows us to dump heavily subsidised food on developing countries. Back in the day when we produced sugar a bag of Irish Sugar was cheaper in South Africa than local cane sugar.



the CAP is one of the biggest obstacles to improved prosperity in the third world


----------



## Leo (5 Jan 2018)

JohnJay said:


> a litre of milk in a supermarket is not much more than it was 20 years ago. Farmers would gladly forgo their grants if they could get a sustainable price for their goods



I think it would be interesting to see what would happen to milk prices and subsequently demand if subsidies were taken away. 

The EU is currently facing problems of what to do with increasing reserves of skimmed milk powder without further dropping milk prices, and Irish farmers are reporting plans to increase milk production by ~30% over the next 3-4 years with the coops needing to invest so they can handle increased volumes.


----------



## Woodsman (5 Jan 2018)

Hi Early riser
The main objections to forestry seem to be from people who want things to remain as they were in their childhood. A bit like the luddites, they hate any alternatives that might change rural life as it is. But the milk churn and the donkeys bringing it to the local creamery are all gone and they will not come back. The landscape will alter of course but this has not created problems in say, Wicklow or indeed Co Wexford where a thriving group of farm foresters harvest their own timber and chip it and sell the chip to hotels and hospitals etc for large scale heating schemes. There is also an inherited suspicion of trees as they are associated with the time when the only  people planting were the British and trees are associated with "The Big House". There is an old joke from the West of Ireland that goes "You never see trees around a cottage".
Re Galway Blow Ins comment on the availability of purchasers, currently there are many sawmills and traders anxiously seeking standing timber to buy. We import huge amounts of Sitka spruce for example from Scotland as our larger sawmills cannot get enough raw material here in Ireland. Most of this is then exported back to the UK for construction use. Many other farmers with very small woods supply the local community with wood fuel. Forestry provides a great opportunity to farmers, large and small, to diversify and survive in areas where mainstream farming is struggling.


----------



## Early Riser (5 Jan 2018)

Purple said:


> If we were in an open market globally then prices would drop significantly as we would be able to buy food produced in low cost countries without the large duties we impose.





galway_blow_in said:


> he CAP doesnt just revolve around paying subsidies to european farmers , its about keeping out cheap imports from other parts of the world , its protectionism on a truly enormous scale , the backbone of this racket is the rural french




 Probably so - provided we are willing to accept food produced to different standards. Are we - given the resistance to GM food ? And do we (EU) abandon the principle of food sufficiency (a non economic question)? And what happens the land then - forests everwhere? 

And why just agriculture ? Should there not be also tariff free access for Chinese produced cars?
Labour seems plentiful in, say, Bangladesh. I'm sure there are car companies who would set up there if they were granted tariff-free access to the EU - and very definitely so if it was simultaneously accompanied by a lowering (or abolition?) in EU standards, as is being suggested for food.


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Jan 2018)

Purple said:


> If we were in an open market globally then prices would drop significantly as we would be able to buy food produced in low cost countries without the large duties we impose.



Its a nice sentiment, but it doesnt countenance for periods of drought, flooding, crop failure, animal disease etc. Nor does it countenance for periods of food abundance, driving down prices and profits, pushing otherwise useful farmers out of the sector. This is fine until demand begins to exceed supply and there is a shortage of farmers. Unfortunately it takes months to harvest crops, but if im hungry today I will want food today.


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Jan 2018)

galway_blow_in said:


> the CAP doesnt just revolve around paying subsidies to european farmers , its about keeping out cheap imports from other parts of the world , its protectionism on a truly enormous scale , the backbone of this racket is the rural french



Im not disputing that there are issues around CAP and WTO agreements etc, but I dont think its as clear cut as that. Currently my basket of shopping has 'fresh' green beans from Egypt and peppers from SA.


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Jan 2018)

Leo said:


> I think it would be interesting to see what would happen to milk prices and subsequently demand if subsidies were taken away.



You raise an interesting point. I think it was this time last year that milk prices fell quite a bit.
In your local supermarket the branded milk price stayed put, but the 'own label' milk dropped to around €0.80 a litre. The odd thing is that the milk is sourced from same creamery


----------



## galway_blow_in (5 Jan 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Its a nice sentiment, but it doesnt countenance for periods of drought, flooding, crop failure, animal disease etc. Nor does it countenance for periods of food abundance, driving down prices and profits, pushing otherwise useful farmers out of the sector. This is fine until demand begins to exceed supply and there is a shortage of farmers. Unfortunately it takes months to harvest crops, but if im hungry today I will want food today.



in new zealand in 1984 when subsidies were removed , smaller operators simply sold their land and went to work for larger farmers , nowadays it would not be unusual for half a dozen people ( who dont own an acre of land themselves )  to work on a thousand acre dairy farm for their entire career , these would be skilled people within that sector and paid accordingly ,  the problem here is farms are so small


----------



## cremeegg (5 Jan 2018)

Early Riser said:


> Probably so - provided we are willing to accept food produced to different standards. Are we - given the resistance to GM food ?



There is no connection between permitting tariff free imports of food and food standards. The EU can permit tariff free import of foods produced to any standard it likes. With a market of 350million (give or take a few Brits) there will be no shortage of suppliers.



Early Riser said:


> And do we (EU) abandon the principle of food sufficiency (a non economic question)?



A fair question, but does the present system of subsidy not actually support inefficient farming and so lower food output and security.



Early Riser said:


> And why just agriculture ? Should there not be also tariff free access for Chinese produced cars?



For two important reasons, because from a moral perspective closing the wealthiest market in the world to outside agriculture is wrong, it prevents the poorest people in the world from developing their economies. Chinese cars producers can stand on their own.

Secondly,from a point of the EUs self interest, we have a huge competitive advantage in car production, we have little in agriculture.


----------



## JohnJay (6 Jan 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Good point. But scrap the food subsidies completely. Make us pay the proper price for food.
> 
> Brendan



Correct. But we would also have to tackle the problem of a cartel in the meat factories, something that we have failed to resolve over the years


----------



## Early Riser (6 Jan 2018)

cremeegg said:


> There is no connection between permitting tariff free imports of food and food standards. The EU can permit tariff free import of foods produced to any standard it likes. With a market of 350million (give or take a few Brits) there will be no shortage of suppliers.



Maybe. Assuming the standards remain in place, where do you reckon the meat imports would come from to meet current demand levels ? (whether or not we should be changing our dietary habits to lower demand is another matter). The Americans , Canadians and others, I understand, are pressing for the relaxation of EU standards to align more with their own.

As regards hormone promoted beef, the agricultural sector are portrayed as the main lobbyists. But it was actually consumer groups who pressurised the EU into this ban. What domestic farmers lobbied for was a level playing field - if hormone use was to be banned, then hormone imported beef must be banned. I think they have subsequently come to realize the positive advantages of being hormone free producers.



cremeegg said:


> A fair question, but does the present system of subsidy not actually support inefficient farming and so lower food output and security.



I suppose it must do to some extent.But there are surely other factors,eg environmental standards.But open markets without subsidy exposes us to a considerable risk regarding food security.Food is a particularly vulnerable commodity - weather, disease, war,etc. Even in the past year problems in Brazil seem to have caused major issues in world markets:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...t-scandal-leaves-the-world-hungry-for-chicken

https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/w...ustry-counts-the-cost-of-rotten-meat-scandal/



cremeegg said:


> For two important reasons, because from a moral perspective closing the wealthiest market in the world to outside agriculture is wrong, it prevents the poorest people in the world from developing their economies. Chinese cars producers can stand on their own.



Sure. But, as noted, world food supply is volatile and vulnerable. It makes sense to subsidise to ensure some stability and reliability for ourselves (whether as currently done or otherwise). Ok lets leave China out of it. Bangladesh is poor and labour is cheap. It is never going to be able to meet our food supply needs. But manufacturing jobs could be transferred there. If we going down the moral route, why not let car manufacturers base themselves there and import freely into Europe - we could have cheaper cars. It would be a tremendous boost for their economy and employment. We are not vulnerable in the same way to volatility in this area - if supply was interrupted for 6 months we could manage, but not with food.

I don't see this happening.


----------



## Early Riser (6 Jan 2018)

Woodsman said:


> Hi Early riser
> The main objections to forestry seem to be from people who want things to remain as they were in their childhood. A bit like the luddites, they hate any alternatives that might change rural life as it is. But the milk churn and the donkeys bringing it to the local creamery are all gone and they will not come back.



I don't know about you,Woodsman, but I have been around long enough to have seen a tremendous amount of change in the countryside and in farming (although a townie myself) - say from the 1960s. And there was tremendous change in earlier generations too. Farmers and rural communities seemed to have coped with (embraced?) this change well enough. If anything the outlook could be characterised as quite mercenary - going wherever the buck is. So I don't think the issue is change per se - and I don't think the Luddite appellation is helpful. As I say , I'm not involved, but for the opposition in Leitrim it seems to be opposition to this specific change. Maybe it will come anyway - but many seem to see it as a death knell (for local communities)rather than change.



Woodsman said:


> There is also an inherited suspicion of trees as they are associated with the time when the only people planting were the British and trees are associated with "The Big House". There is an old joke from the West of Ireland that goes "You never see trees around a cottage".



Yes I am familiar with it - "the house of the planter is known by the trees". But I doubt that this has anything to do with the issue here. I think people generally recognize a big difference between tree- lined avenues and spruce forests.


----------



## TheBigShort (6 Jan 2018)

I agree with Early Riser here. We can argue all we want the negative consequences of farm subsidies but the crux of the issue is to ensure a ample supply of food for the people of Europe.
This is not immoral, this is basic human behaviour manifesting itself at EU wide level. If it is having the negative knock on effects as mentioned earlier then that needs to be resolved for sure, but the availability of ample price affordable food is priority over whether that price was determined through free market ideology or not.


----------



## galway_blow_in (6 Jan 2018)

Early Riser said:


> Maybe. Assuming the standards remain in place, where do you reckon the meat imports would come from to meet current demand levels ? (whether or not we should be changing our dietary habits to lower demand is another matter). The Americans , Canadians and others, I understand, are pressing for the relaxation of EU standards to align more with their own.
> 
> As regards hormone promoted beef, the agricultural sector are portrayed as the main lobbyists. But it was actually consumer groups who pressurised the EU into this ban. What domestic farmers lobbied for was a level playing field - if hormone use was to be banned, then hormone imported beef must be banned. I think they have subsequently come to realize the positive advantages of being hormone free producers.
> 
> ...



you have to remember that " tracability " is really just another word for beauracracy , its likely that an army of civil servants in argentina dont make a living like they do here administrating payments to farmers , argentinian beef is just as good as irish beef and that country has vast land resources , the best land in the world bar ukraine and a good climate for grass based beef production , its a different beast altogether than neighbouring brazil where standards are indeed not great 

the CAP is very political and many suckle off it , were the number of farmers reduced through a reduction in subsidies , farm machinery business would hugely suffer and thats just one sector which feeds off the CAP as there is effectively zero profit made on the vast majority of beef farms in this country , its an entire industry on the dole


----------



## odyssey06 (6 Jan 2018)

While this has expanded in scope into an interesting discussion on the policy of CAP in general, this reader at least is convinced now that the answer to the original question - the fodder "crisis", is that the government should do nothing.


----------



## Early Riser (6 Jan 2018)

galway_blow_in said:


> you have to remember that " tracability " is really just another word for beauracracy , its likely that an army of civil servants in argentina dont make a living like they do here administrating payments to farmers , argentinian beef is just as good as irish beef and that country has vast land resources , the best land in the world bar ukraine and a good climate for grass based beef production , its a different beast altogether than neighbouring brazil where standards are indeed not great



You are probably more familiar with Argentinian beef than I am. But is the claim for high quality largely historic - to the time it was mostly grass-fed beef ? This is now more a niche product and most  Argentine beef currently is produced in feedlots and fed on grain - as in the US. Conditions are said to be grim with anti-biotic use persistant to control chronic disease.And hormones are widely used.

https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/9031-China-raises-alarm-over-Argentine-beef



Again, I read that in an effort to reassure export markets they have recently introduced (the apparently dreaded) "traceability":

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-are-argentina-s-next-move-to-ramp-up-exports

In relation to our need for food security, I am not sure that relying on Argentina would be a good idea, due to its political and economic volatility. The beef industry seems to have been considerably affected since the turn of the century. It wasn't even able to produce enough to meet its existing export quota to the EU in at least one year:

[broken link removed]

http://www.beefmagazine.com/beef-exports/argentina-provides-lesson-how-ruin-beef-industry

In any event, I don't see how turning to Argentina satisfies any of the moral imperatives that have been raised by other posters. It is volatile but not an impoverished "third world" country.



galway_blow_in said:


> you have to remember that " tracability " is really just another word for beauracracy



Traceability is indeed bureaucratic. That is not the same as it being "another name for bureaucracy.

It surely has a role in quality control, disease tracing, abuse tracing (hormones etc) ?


----------



## galway_blow_in (6 Jan 2018)

farming in argentina is pasture based to quite a large degree , its climate suits the growing of grass , i visited argentina in 2004 with my brother and actually stayed on a dairy farm in BA province for a few days


----------



## Early Riser (6 Jan 2018)

galway_blow_in said:


> farming in argentina is pasture based to quite a large degree , its climate suits the growing of grass , i visited argentina in 2004 with my brother and actually stayed on a dairy farm in BA province for a few days



Beef farming has rapidly moved from grass towards the American intensive grain/soya feedlot model:

_"Hand in hand with the rising supremacy of soy is the decline in grass-fed cattle in favour of feedlot cattle – a low cost form of factory farming. This has allowed farmers to increase the efficiency with which they rear their cattle, and, at the same time, free up land to cultivate the more profitable grains.


Thus, the timeless image of cows grazing idly on the vast swathes of the Pampas – roughly the size of France – is becoming more and more a thing of the past. Grain-fed, feedlot cattle are becoming an industry norm. Around a third of all Argentine beef now comes from cattle, which, at some point or other, have been reared in this manner."_ (The Argentina Independent, 2013)

_"The days of the gaucho have long been a romantic anachronism, but it would seem that cattle ranching is heading in the same direction. Gone are the days when cattle ranged freely in the pampas, arguably some of the finest pastureland in the world, and just reason for the renown and quality of Argentine beef and dairy products. In 1991, the feedlot made its debut in Argentine territory, and despite the fact that the relation between E. coli infection and beef deriving from cattle enclosed in feedlot operations has been widely established, the feedlot continues to prosper in Argentina even today, largely as a result of nearsightedness on behalf of policy makers, and greed reflected in the beneficiaries of the feedlot system, primarily abattoirs and meat distribution  plants. Not unexpectedly, Argentina has the world’s highest mortality rate of Uremic-Hemolytic Syndrome, a disease related to E. coli (strain 0157:H7) contamination."_ (The Argentina independent, 2011)

_"Argentina used to breed free-ranging cows on open grasslands, but its ranchers have shifted to industrial meat production in fattening corrals. This change has increased problems like deforestation and carbon emissions."_ (2015,  )


----------



## galway_blow_in (6 Jan 2018)

things changed quite a bit since the time i was there so , remember thinking the farm was understocked and over staffed , ranches gave locals a job as gauchos , while a poor country , i remember thinking it really shouldnt be , liked the place very much


----------



## odyssey06 (6 Jan 2018)

Would Argentina style feedlots be permitted under EU standards, were they an overseas EU territory ala Martinique?


----------



## galway_blow_in (6 Jan 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> Would Argentina style feedlots be permitted under EU standards, were they an overseas EU territory ala Martinique?



sure both spain and italy both have a feed lot type beef production model


----------



## odyssey06 (6 Jan 2018)

galway_blow_in said:


> sure both spain and italy both have a feed lot type beef production model



So the EU can have no general objection to beef imports from Argentina on standards\health grounds.

It appears that more Argentinian beef... and products from Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay could be on their way:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davids...-gunning-for-massive-trade-deal-by-christmas/


----------



## galway_blow_in (6 Jan 2018)

brazil is a lot more powerful than argentina politically so they might gain more access than their smaller neighbour  but  personally id prefer eat an argentinian steak than a brazilian one , brazilian farming practices leave a lot to be desired


----------



## Delboy (6 Jan 2018)

galway_blow_in said:


> brazil is a lot more powerful than argentina politically so they might gain more access than their smaller neighbour  but  personally id prefer eat an argentinian steak than a brazilian one , brazilian farming practices leave a lot to be desired


+1. Having travelled in both countries, the taste/flavour of the beef in Argentina is so far ahead of Brazil its out of sight. When I asked the locals why there was such a difference in the beef in 2 towns on either side of the border, it was explained that it all came down to farming practices and the use of supplements/drugs on the Brazilian side.


----------



## Early Riser (6 Jan 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> So the EU can have no general objection to beef imports from Argentina on standards\health grounds.



I suspect that they can, eg, growth hormones are in use in Argentina:

_"The use of hormones to increase weight gains and dressing percentage is common 
practice in North American feedlots, also in Australian and South African.......  These measures, as well as the import of beef produced with the help of these substances,are banned in the EU; the meat imported to the EU must verifiably be produced without the use of HGP." _

Argentina has for a long time had a quota for beef imports into the EU ( provided standards met). But the Argentine beef industry went through a decade of steep decline and wasn't always able to meet its existing (relatively small) quota. I understand it is now recovering - but to nowhere near historic levels.

Brazil is a much bigger producer - but, as galway_blow_in has said, it has a history of much more questionable standards and the enforcement of agreed standards. It is not only the EU that has had major concerns about their procedures - also the US, China and others (See here, for example: ).

Probably quotas will increase in future trade deals. But it will most likely be dependent on each of the countries introducing verifiable tracing systems for animals and reliable national enforcement  and inspection. I can't see hormone produced beef being allowed in the EU any time soon so, to keep a level playing-field, this section of their production will have to be segregated.

Feedlots are allowed in the EU. But hormones are not. And registration of animals and traceability systems are required. There are also animal welfare standards. I think there have been some issues in regard to intensive production methods in Spain, resulting in EU intervention.

Feedlot production is increasing worldwide. Over 95% of South African beef is produced in feedlots. One caters for approx 150,000 cattle and is reputed to be the biggest in the world. Perhaps not surprisingly, there has been a corresponding increase in consumer demand for grass fed beef (and organics). All the more reason we should hang on to ours.


----------



## Early Riser (6 Jan 2018)

Delboy said:


> +1. Having travelled in both countries, the taste/flavour of the beef in Argentina is so far ahead of Brazil its out of sight. When I asked the locals why there was such a difference in the beef in 2 towns on either side of the border, it was explained that it all came down to farming practices and the use of supplements/drugs on the Brazilian side.



I don't if you got to taste Uruguayan but it reputed to ahead of the Argentinian. Apparently their industry thrived while the Argentinian one was in decline (due to the political and economic troubles). I believe it has a certified grass-fed and hormone-free beef production system and a well regarded traceability system. They also have feedlot system but this a small part of production (at the moment - will it grow?).


----------



## Delboy (6 Jan 2018)

No, didn't get to Uruguay. I was in Argentina just after the last crash and for €10 you got the most beautiful,juicy steak the size of a dinner plate. The chips and other sides had to come in sperate dishes!!!


----------

