Farmers take milk off shelves at large supermarkets Re price of milk

[Mesterh]

The thing is, like some said the cows need to be milked! And there is a lot of contracts where the farmers have to sell the there Dairys, also once the cows have been milked and you have a full tank of milk, if you are refusing to sell the milk, what are you going to do with it? As there not allowed to tip it down the drain or spread it on the land, huge fines, it's only if every farmer in the country did it, they wouldn't be able to do much about it!! Vicious circle really!

 

Fines for dumping the milk!

 

From what I can see then any subsidies are basically going from the government to the supermarkets.It looks like the the farmers are over a barrel, they have no choice but to produce a product that they have to give away.

 

Christ it's milk, I have no idea how much it costs I just buy it when I need it. I wouldn't know or care if the price went up and I guess most of consumers would think the same.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

 

Christ it's milk, I have no idea how much it costs I just buy it when I need it. I wouldn't know or care if the price went up and I guess most of consumers would think the same.

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

 

(1) The Key is the subsidies. If more of your countrymen and women really knew how much waste takes place daily they would be sickened beyond belief.

 

 

(2) Removing said price supports and subsidies would be the key to helping the producers and consumers, not that the government does not want to help the producers and consumers, the government gets there controlling interest covered always up front.

 

FYI stopping the milk production even for a few days would also be meaningless since I am sure all excess milk and milk by products is purchased by the government for later use and or waste:thumbdown:

easy-lift guy

 

Hi Ted!

 

(1) Very true! And often overlooked, ignored or not understood - mores the pity!

 

(2) I'm not absolutely sure of this but I got into a discussion on a (dare I say it?) different forum about what was referred to as a "price subsidy." I think there may be some historic reference to price subsidy which is currently confused with other subsidies such as countryside stewardship. Happy to be corrected from anyone that knows, and I did mean to read into this buy haven't yet, but I'd be surprised if the current suit of subsidies are titled (or intended) as "price subsidy."

 

How did the big move go? All well and settled I hope

[csservices]

Only 86% self sufficient according to BBC breakfast yesterday.

 

The problem is the exchange rate.The super markets say they can import it cheaper so understandably they want to pay less for U.K milk.

 

Countries like France look after their farmers with higher subsidies,so the French farmers can afford to sell their milk cheaper.

 

During Labour's reign subsidies were taken away from working farmers and given to land owners - not good if you are a tenant farmer.Also 20-25 % of subsidies now go to environmental schemes and the quangos that run them.

 

Yep it was stated earlier this year that the UK is only self sufficient in food for 362 days at any one time I think it was and that's something Winston Churchill said we needed to sort out at the end of the second world war!

[Robbyrasta]

Erhm- not sure if subsidies are paid to landowners and not the farmers?

 

As far as I am aware it's paid to active farmers.

 

It is ture that a few football clubs were paid farming subsides on their training grounds....

( but of coarse that never makes tabloid press)

[csservices]

Erhm- not sure if subsidies are paid to landowners and not the farmers?

 

As far as I am aware it's paid to active farmers.

 

It is ture that a few football clubs were paid farming subsides on their training grounds....

( but of coarse that never makes tabloid press)

 

It was supposed to be getting sorted out so as it was paid to the farmer not the landowner, but in the end the government basically wimped out, so nothings really changed if the landowner can provide invoices to show they have paid for work to be doneon the land that classifies them as an active farmer, the lease I have on the ground I rent states that I will not carry out any improvement works on the land ie fencing,drainage, fertilising, spraying even chain harrowing, rollING and spraying. I have to do it because the landlord does nothing, but because the above is stated in the lease he gets the rent, subsidies and any available grants, it's a complete pee take.

[mendiplogs]

Totally agree! There needs to be a thorough review of subsidies. Never mind an individual stance on subsidy, the absolute scandal has to be that the subsidy is paid to the land owner, not necessarily the farmer.

 

There's no doubt that farming is hard graft - esp hill / moor - but the fact that the subsidy meant to sustain these hard activities may (in some cases) not even reach the hard working farmer, but rather stay with the fat-cat landowner is a total outrage!

 

It's an old-ish article and I've seen better but can't find the one I was looking for:

 

Farm subsidy loophole costs millions - BBC News

 

Hi mate it very large landowners that are getting large subsidy is not necessarily a farmer with say 502,000 very large landowners that are getting large subsidy is not necessarily a farmer with say 500/thousand acres thanks Jon

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Erhm- not sure if subsidies are paid to landowners and not the farmers?

 

As far as I am aware it's paid to active farmers.

 

It is ture that a few football clubs were paid farming subsides on their training grounds....

( but of coarse that never makes tabloid press)

 

I very much hope things have changed and the surprise you express is based on recent changes to the system....... But in the not too distant past (the details below are 2013) it certainly WAS the case that subsidies might just have well have been given straight to the investor and cut the farmer out all together for all the good they did. I rather doubt it's changed a great deal with players such as NT, Duchy of Cornwall, Crown estates to name but a few as significant beneficiaries. It tends to take a very long time to change a system with heavy weight players such as those with big chips on the table.

 

Revealed: how we pay our richest landowners millions in subsidies

 

Farming subsidies: this is the most blatant transfer of cash to the rich | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

Rich landowners paid millions in farming subsidies - BBC News

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Hi mate it very large landowners that are getting large subsidy is not necessarily a farmer with say 502,000 very large landowners that are getting large subsidy is not necessarily a farmer with say 500/thousand acres thanks Jon

 

I think I know what you mean Jon!

 

Nope...... I was wrong! :confused1:

Edited August 6, 2015 by kevinjohnsonmbe

[mendiplogs]

I very much hope things have changed and the surprise you express is based on recent changes to the system....... But in the not too distant past (the details below are 2013) it certainly WAS the case that subsidies might just have well have been given straight to the investor and cut the farmer out all together for all the good they did. I rather doubt it's changed a great deal with players such as NT, Duchy of Cornwall, Crown estates to name but a few as significant beneficiaries. It tends to take a very long time to change a system with heavy weight players such as those with big chips on the table.

 

Revealed: how we pay our richest landowners millions in subsidies

 

Farming subsidies: this is the most blatant transfer of cash to the rich | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

Rich landowners paid millions in farming subsidies - BBC News

 

Hi mate all so a very large Hoover owner has it has over 25,000 acres of land to so look at the subsidy there thanks John