Why should the government do anything about the fodder crisis?

Brendan Burgess

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
52,099
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
 
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...
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Farming is not an economic activity. It is a mechanism to harvest grants from the EU.
 
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,
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

Is forestry any different in this regard?
 
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?
 
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
 
Brendan Burgess said:
I don't see why we subsidise general farmers. But then I have not lived through food scarcity.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
 
T McGibney said:
That's exactly what the current system does.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
rob oyle said:
Ireland is actually a net food importer
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top