Why should the government do anything about the fodder crisis?

[Leo]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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/

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.



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/



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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[galway_blow_in]

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