Buying Local

[Skeddan]

the snag is that the days of 30 acres providing a living for a farming family are over and this island isn't big enough to allow this. all the farmers working together does nothing to address the acres/land available per farmer ratio on the island. the farmers do indeed meet and talk and try and make the best of the system they have. the snag being the abatoir dictate what they will pay for the meat and then dictate what they will sell it at. the farmer doesn't offer his stock to the abatoir at price A and hope they give him what he wants. and this doesn't take into account for the farmer the severe increase in fuel cost now for his tractor and the shipping cost and delivery cost of animal feeds and also you don't see poor vets either. being the first proper link in the chain with only ONE buyer for your products does put you in a sticky spot. If tynwald wasn't traditionally full of farmers i'm sure they would have had the shit end of the stick years ago, some would say they have had it anyway. there are a few farmers and farms out there that rent their land to other farmers and have taken manual day jobs to get by or even improve their lot. this gives the farmer renting your farm more land at his disposal and a better chance of making a living. we should all emulate the good life, a few chickens and a pig in the back garden with an allotment full of veggies.

 

WTF - I thought the Fatstock Marketing Association (or whatever they're called) run the abattoir and are effectively the middle man - and that the FMA is owned by the farmers who produce livestock. So if FMA sell meat processed in the abattoir at a profit, the farmer gains.

 

I can't see how anyone could imagine a 30 acre farm could be viable by itself - unless chicken battery farm, bananas or the like. These are really 'lifestyle blocks'. If someone wants that, ok. They could grown their own, and sell some surplus, have homestays, but not really an agricultural business. As you say, they could rent their land - which brings and income and 'manages the countryside' etc. So if they are being subsidised, it's not benefiting the general populace - the land would still be used for farming, only much more efficiently, which would bring down prices and increase profits and make the industry profitable and economic. (paying tax in rather than out, reducing prices, etc.).

 

What possible benefit can paying this subsidy have to anyone but the farmer? - i.e. in keeping him in the lifestyle to which he is accustomed and keeping everything stagnant? (and dragging everything else down with tax burden, higher prices, poor economic performance etc.).

 

You mention shipping and delivery cost of animal feeds (concentrates/supplements). These and fertilisers are clearly more expensive in IoM than UK and a disadvantage for produce heavily reliant on such imports. Am I right in thinking these come over on the ferry? Wouldn't it make more sense to have fertiliser bulk shipment in dry bulk cargo vessel and store locally? (even if it means building a big storage facility). Cost of fertiliser is abt. 60-85% down to transport costs - the big dry bulk vessels are by far the cheapest. (NZ fertiliser shipped by land couldn't compete with Aussie shipments delivered direct to NZ ports by ship from over 1200 miles away). 20,000 tonnes or so shipped direct in bulk this way could mean fertiliser would be much lower cost than for many farmers in UK, especially as cut out middle man as well as having lower cost. (edit to add - at a guess shipping cost would be abt. £60 per tonne shipped from producer in Qatar vs. £40 tonne from UK distributor/middleman as at present). Lower cost here would have big knock on savings throughout - lower cost of feed - wheat, barley, grazing etc.).

 

It seems like it's a bit 'bucket and spade in the garden' at the moment, and not so much a business but a struggling way of life. Invest money into fertilizer storage depot or whatever infrastructure is lacking, but to just bandage the problem in subsidies when even these aren't enough to compete - it's just sad.

[WTF]

the snag is that the days of 30 acres providing a living for a farming family are over and this island isn't big enough to allow this. all the farmers working together does nothing to address the acres/land available per farmer ratio on the island. the farmers do indeed meet and talk and try and make the best of the system they have. the snag being the abatoir dictate what they will pay for the meat and then dictate what they will sell it at. the farmer doesn't offer his stock to the abatoir at price A and hope they give him what he wants. and this doesn't take into account for the farmer the severe increase in fuel cost now for his tractor and the shipping cost and delivery cost of animal feeds and also you don't see poor vets either. being the first proper link in the chain with only ONE buyer for your products does put you in a sticky spot. If tynwald wasn't traditionally full of farmers i'm sure they would have had the shit end of the stick years ago, some would say they have had it anyway. there are a few farmers and farms out there that rent their land to other farmers and have taken manual day jobs to get by or even improve their lot. this gives the farmer renting your farm more land at his disposal and a better chance of making a living. we should all emulate the good life, a few chickens and a pig in the back garden with an allotment full of veggies.

 

WTF - I thought the Fatstock Marketing Association (or whatever they're called) run the abattoir and are effectively the middle man - and that the FMA is owned by the farmers who produce livestock. So if FMA sell meat processed in the abattoir at a profit, the farmer gains.

 

I can't see how anyone could imagine a 30 acre farm could be viable by itself - unless chicken battery farm, bananas or the like. These are really 'lifestyle blocks'. If someone wants that, ok. They could grown their own, and sell some surplus, have homestays, but not really an agricultural business. As you say, they could rent their land - which brings and income and 'manages the countryside' etc. So if they are being subsidised, it's not benefiting the general populace - the land would still be used for farming, only much more efficiently, which would bring down prices and increase profits and make the industry profitable and economic. (paying tax in rather than out, reducing prices, etc.).

 

 

 

 

that may be what the FMA is supposed to achieve, but bottom line is that farmers do rely on subsidies at present. as to 30 acres not being viable, the first farm i lived on was just over 20 acres and we made a living with one parent working else where. and the second farm was just over 30 acres which allowed the working parent to leave the external employment.

i believe the current owners of the farm rent the land out to a neighbour now....

[Skeddan]

that may be what the FMA is supposed to achieve, but bottom line is that farmers do rely on subsidies at present. as to 30 acres not being viable, the first farm i lived on was just over 20 acres and we made a living with one parent working else where. and the second farm was just over 30 acres which allowed the working parent to leave the external employment.

i believe the current owners of the farm rent the land out to a neighbour now....

'barely viable' would be better, but not really as commercial operations. As you said earlier - non-subsidised NZ lamb imported from other side of the world can be cheaper than lamb reared locally with subsidies. 'Farmers rely on subsidies' - but it seems only because of big inefficiencies and poor overall management - i.e. lack of any real strategy beyond subsidies and a welfare farming system.

[WTF]

that may be what the FMA is supposed to achieve, but bottom line is that farmers do rely on subsidies at present. as to 30 acres not being viable, the first farm i lived on was just over 20 acres and we made a living with one parent working else where. and the second farm was just over 30 acres which allowed the working parent to leave the external employment.

i believe the current owners of the farm rent the land out to a neighbour now....

'barely viable' would be better, but not really as commercial operations. As you said earlier - non-subsidised NZ lamb imported from other side of the world can be cheaper than lamb reared locally with subsidies. 'Farmers rely on subsidies' - but it seems only because of big inefficiencies and poor overall management - i.e. lack of any real strategy beyond subsidies and a welfare farming system.

 

unfortunately 'british' labour is probably the most expensive lazy labour available. long gone are our days of colonial rule raping other countries of their resources. now we have to 'work' ourselves the whole exercise is beyond many.

[Skeddan]

that may be what the FMA is supposed to achieve, but bottom line is that farmers do rely on subsidies at present. as to 30 acres not being viable, the first farm i lived on was just over 20 acres and we made a living with one parent working else where. and the second farm was just over 30 acres which allowed the working parent to leave the external employment.

i believe the current owners of the farm rent the land out to a neighbour now....

'barely viable' would be better, but not really as commercial operations. As you said earlier - non-subsidised NZ lamb imported from other side of the world can be cheaper than lamb reared locally with subsidies. 'Farmers rely on subsidies' - but it seems only because of big inefficiencies and poor overall management - i.e. lack of any real strategy beyond subsidies and a welfare farming system.

 

unfortunately 'british' labour is probably the most expensive lazy labour available. long gone are our days of colonial rule raping other countries of their resources. now we have to 'work' ourselves the whole exercise is beyond many.

Labour shouldn't be a big component in costs. Sure it is at the moment as it is all desperately inefficient and subsidised.

 

"long gone are our days of colonial rule". No, still going - the UK still seem to be ruling IoM.

 

(In French Polynesia, they ship in milk from France - much much more expensive than from NZ, but of course it's not about the economy in French Polynesia, but in France. Similarly rather, than source fertilizer etc. at spot rates, IoM is buying at high prices from UK and paying nearly the same in shipping as it would cost to ship from Qatar).

 

It would require working, but I don't think the whole exercise would be beyond most. Of course I'd rather see the farming sector be helped onto its feet - but if they can't be arsed and the govt can pull itself together, I'd think it better to stop subsidies totally and let people go to the wall if it's going to come to that. Be a shame, but they'll probably have to sell up - but then the people taking over would be making a go of it rather than thinking of the business as about handouts. The real fault though is not with the farmers - its with DAFF and IoMG who offer nothing beyond a stagnation strategy.

[WTF]

that may be what the FMA is supposed to achieve, but bottom line is that farmers do rely on subsidies at present. as to 30 acres not being viable, the first farm i lived on was just over 20 acres and we made a living with one parent working else where. and the second farm was just over 30 acres which allowed the working parent to leave the external employment.

i believe the current owners of the farm rent the land out to a neighbour now....

'barely viable' would be better, but not really as commercial operations. As you said earlier - non-subsidised NZ lamb imported from other side of the world can be cheaper than lamb reared locally with subsidies. 'Farmers rely on subsidies' - but it seems only because of big inefficiencies and poor overall management - i.e. lack of any real strategy beyond subsidies and a welfare farming system.

 

unfortunately 'british' labour is probably the most expensive lazy labour available. long gone are our days of colonial rule raping other countries of their resources. now we have to 'work' ourselves the whole exercise is beyond many.

Labour shouldn't be a big component in costs. Sure it is at the moment as it is all desperately inefficient and subsidised.

 

"long gone are our days of colonial rule". No, still going - the UK still seem to be ruling IoM.

 

(In French Polynesia, they ship in milk from France - much much more expensive than from NZ, but of course it's not about the economy in French Polynesia, but in France. Similarly rather, than source fertilizer etc. at spot rates, IoM is buying at high prices from UK and paying nearly the same in shipping as it would cost to ship from Qatar).

 

It would require working, but I don't think the whole exercise would be beyond most. Of course I'd rather see the farming sector be helped onto its feet - but if they can't be arsed and the govt can pull itself together, I'd think it better to stop subsidies totally and let people go to the wall if it's going to come to that. Be a shame, but they'll probably have to sell up - but then the people taking over would be making a go of it rather than thinking of the business as about handouts. The real fault though is not with the farmers - its with DAFF and IoMG who offer nothing beyond a stagnation strategy.

 

 

the farmers would rather be on their feet, but the systems in place and world economies don't allow that to happen locally.

 

my point about colonial rule was instead of building making and producing what you want from where you live, it is easier to have others do it elsewhere and then get it from them cheaper than can be done locally. examples such as youngs prawns caught in scotland being shipped in containers to the far east to be shelled by hand and then shipped back to the UK!! call centres being moved to india. shirts for £5 in marxys, you wont get a legally operating british company in the UK with british labour knocking them out at that price. and don't forget the french stole polynesia from the locals like the europeans stole america, australia, new zealand, india, south africa etc. just in recent decades/centuries we have stitched these countries up with trade agreements so tight we are content to let them have them back. not the falklands though. i find it quite ironic that america, a country stolen from the native indians by white europeans is likely to get a president decended from people stolen from africa to do their dirty labourious tasks. the KKK in the deep south must be loving it NOT. there could be another american civil war.

[Skeddan]

the farmers would rather be on their feet, but the systems in place and world economies don't allow that to happen locally.

 

...instead of building making and producing what you want from where you live, it is easier to have others do it elsewhere and then get it from them cheaper than can be done locally.

Yes. This means looking at where one might compete at get best returns by offering better value than others. Certainly some of the systems in place hinder that (e.g. subsidies and fragmentation in farming industry), and though not all are (e.g. EU spec for abattoir if want to export to EU) some are within power to change. However that needs a coordinated strategy that has to be led, and restructuring won't happen by leaving it to farmers to try to muddle through it all.

 

This comment in Andersons Report:

We are confident that the introduction of the Single Payment will lead to a restructuring of Isle of Man farming and if this is combined with improved performance along the whole food chain there is every prospect of a prosperous farming sector for the future.

 

Good examples of co-operation and collaboration at farm level have been seen in recent years in the UK with one success leading on to others. We would encourage, for example, the formation of discussion groups to share results. This can lead to buying collectively starting with the obvious such as feed and fertiliser to overhead costs such as insurance and banking.

A Single Payment system alone won't bring about the restructuring or improved performance needed for a prosperous farming sector.

 

Buying collectively is indeed an 'obvious'. I don't see a 'discussion group' is likely to get very far though. Take fertiliser. Probably the most cost-effective would be to buy in bulk at spot prices probably from Qatar and ship 20,000 tonnes or so to IoM costing £60 per tonne or so. This would have lower cost than collective buying from UK at much higher wholesale prices there with shipping at £40 per tonne over and above what UK farmers pay (which still leaves IoM uncompetitive against UK). Collective buying from UK might bring landed price in IoM down say from £195 tonne to £185, but it will still always be £40 higher than price paid by UK farmers buying collectively. Direct bulk shipping of fertiliser would bring cost down enormously - maybe £120 tonne at those price levels, and perhaps £25 tonne cheaper than UK farmers pay.

 

If you were managing the 'one big farm' that's what you'd probably do. This would significantly reduce costs throughout the whole value chain from arable through to dairy and meat production. Just like prisoners dilemma, it might be in their best interests, but I think it unlikely that management by various committees of all the little farmers in different farming sectors would ever be able to do this. This leads to a bottom up approach rather than one with 'topsight' thinking that one might have with a holistic approach.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head when you say the systems in place don't enable achieving the kind of efficiencies and performance improvement needed to be competitive. It seems DAFF, MNFU and Andersons think that restructuring will just magically happen to make the farming sector prosperous. What is needed is a clear strategy for improved performance that takes a holistic approach to the whole farming sector and value chain.

 

Imported NZ lamb and UK milk is cheaper than the equivalent local products. By all means get from others if it is cheaper and better value than could be done locally. The mistake though is to take for granted that this could not be done cheaper locally when very possibly it could be. From what I've seen there is huge scope for reducing costs and improving efficiencies if one takes a 'joined up' approach. The Manx farming sector could be highly competitive - going further than anyone might think is possible. Maybe like a kind of mini-NZ on the doorstep of the UK, but with higher value product. There's every opportunity for a very prosperous farming sector without any subsidies at all. That means being savvy about strategic transformation rather than just subsidies.

 

I'm sure as you say the farmers would rather be on their feet. The hurdle is that the kind of 'step change' this would take means that it needs to be tackled at high level, probably starting with DAFF Minister. Meanwhile DAFF is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic (or the little Manx version of it), and the band plays on without changing their tune.

 

Are you are saying Manx farming has no hope of being competitive or economic in a world market? IMO that shouldn't be taken for granted, and it is that attitude which poses the single greatest threat to Manx farming.

[WTF]

its catch 22, if you want cheap food, it has to be imported due to the costs of producing it here, if you want to suppoort farmers locally by buying at a price that would sustain the farmer without subsidy, it would be 3 or 4 times the price. and dont forget that different governments globally and their tax structures also affect costs. there will NEVER be a world in which a gallon of fuel or anything else costs the same globally. they can't even have the same price locally and it all comes in the same way. like most things locally, the only way they survive is to charge over the odds to a captive market. electric, boats, planes, fuel, the list is large. then there a businesses that cant survive and get government funding to keep them going. manx radio, strix through grants and subsidies and there must be others. horse trams but that is douglas corpy. the government won't ( for good reason i'm sure ) let 'important' in their eyes businesses fold. look at the big panic over the banks doing one?? the whole island economy is not a lot different to the banks, rob peter to pay paul and keep him going.

[pongo]

1. This is my understanding of what is supposed to happen - I may be wrong in the detail:

 

Farming grants on the IOM are being abolished at some point in the future - more or less in line with what is happening in the EU. In order to carry on giving money to farmers, the farming grants are to be replaced with grants for looking after the land. The thinking (slightly flaky argument IMO) is that the land should be managed.

 

2. This is what I personally think should happen:

 

Import cheap food for people who want cheap food. Encourage the local farmers to produce premium priced food and value added products for export. There is no point trying to compete on price.

 

Scrap the farming grants and spend the money subsiding the ferries which will benefit all industries including farming - whilst taking care to ensure that this does not result in the ferries charging more.

 

3. I am talking through my bum btw. I actually know nothing about farming and this is completely off the top of my head.

[Sebrof]

3. I am talking through my bum btw. I actually know nothing about farming and this is completely off the top of my head.

 

That doesn't stop certain other posters.

 

But there is a huge amount of sense in suggesting a big subsidy for the ferries - for residents, for tourists, for exporters, and for importers. All would benefit.

 

S

[homarus]

3. I am talking through my bum btw. I actually know nothing about farming and this is completely off the top of my head.

 

That doesn't stop certain other posters.

 

But there is a huge amount of sense in suggesting a big subsidy for the ferries - for residents, for tourists, for exporters, and for importers. All would benefit.

 

S

 

It'll never happen ! Far,far too sensible an idea , much better to claw back all the subsidy money from farming and fishing and with the revenue saved employ a few more University graduates to save the day!

[Skeddan]

its catch 22, if you want cheap food, it has to be imported due to the costs of producing it here, if you want to suppoort farmers locally by buying at a price that would sustain the farmer without subsidy, it would be 3 or 4 times the price.

You seem to say IoM could not produce cheaper locally than imported. (which is why farmer has to have subsidy). I disagree - that's no more than a bogus superstition. There's no good reason why IoM could not produce cheaper locally than imported. It could well even produce at much lower cost than UK - so that unsubsidised Manx produce imported into UK would be cheaper than UK produced equivalent.

 

The very high cost of local production is because farming being done is a very inefficient way with very low productivity. Four times more labour goes into producing a litre of milk in IoM than it takes a dairy farmer in NZ. 400% more - and labour certainly isn't the cheapest in IoM. High yield breeds yield more per acre than breeds in Manx or UK dairy production. Less could be spent on feed supplements with advanced grassland management. Fertilizer costs could be lower than in UK with bulk purchasing from producer cutting out the middle men in UK. People like to think NZ farming is lower cost because labour electricity fuel etc. are cheaper. They are, but that has almost nothing to do with it and make minimal difference to end price - it is because it is vastly more efficient and productive. If Manx farming made similar effort at efficiency and productivity, local cost of production would come down enormously.

 

IoM doesn't 'have' to have its high costs of local production. This is how it is at the moment, but it is not a given that cannot be changed. It's perfectly possible to turn the farming sector into a highly efficient highly prosperous one which could produce at lower cost than UK. It could even produce lamb without subsidies whose local price would be competitive with NZ imported lamb.

 

The mantra seems to be local production will always have very high costs, so we need the subsidies. The fallacy is to claim that Manx farming cannot be made more efficient and costs of production can never be brought down much. There's huge savings and gains to be made. It would only take a little investment, and unlike subsidies that would get a commercial return.

 

If Manx farmers want to get on their feet, that's the way to go. If they don't think it's possible, and don't believe it can be done, then why support people with subsidies to run what they think is a no-hope business and have no will to improve? Pulling the benefits may push some out of farming, but it will make way for others who will make a go of it.

 

Apart from 'soft' factors like management capability, unwillingness to change, pretend jobs, and dosh for the boys and the like are there actually any real hard obstacles? i.e. ones which would also be an impediment if run in joined up way (e.g. as one big farm) by skilled management. What are the unsolveable impediments that means Manx farming could never make much improvement over current very poor productivity? What exactly is standing in the way?

 

I really can't see what there is - doesn't it all boil down to the way things are run and the people running things?

 

It's as if there is some terrible curse which has turned what should be fertile and prosperous land into a wasteland of hardship struggle and toil, and no real hope that this curse will ever be lifted.

[Skeddan]

But there is a huge amount of sense in suggesting a big subsidy for the ferries - for residents, for tourists, for exporters, and for importers. All would benefit.

Not really as much sense as you might suppose. Why subsidise ferry to transport fertiliser and plastic milk containers to and fro? Better not to subsidise that. Instead ship fertiliser by dry cargo vessel direct from producer. Have reusable 'rinse and return' milk containers. The subsidy would only brush the problems under the carpet and gets in the way of real solutions. What sense in subsidising very expensive transport of very expensive fertiliser from the UK or sending plastic milk containers full of air backwards and forwards?

[Slim]

But there is a huge amount of sense in suggesting a big subsidy for the ferries - for residents, for tourists, for exporters, and for importers. All would benefit.

 

Wouldn't that make it harder for the local producers by making imports cheaper?

[Sebrof]

But there is a huge amount of sense in suggesting a big subsidy for the ferries - for residents, for tourists, for exporters, and for importers. All would benefit.

 

Wouldn't that make it harder for the local producers by making imports cheaper?

 

Well, one reason given for high farm costs is the high cost of the three Fs- fuel, fertiliser, feed - all of which are imported (to a greater or lesser extent). So I think there would be an offset.

 

But it was somebody else who said that the farming subidy should be replaced by a ferry subsidy. I am in favour of the latter, not withdrawing the former (unless and until a way can be found to make Manx produce competitive).

 

S