|
Why is the discussion of subsidies limited to industrial farms. Where I live small farmers are entitled to subsidies just as much as large farms. And it is generally recognised here that although small and part-time farmers help maintain rural economies, they limit efficiency and hinder long term development. Though it's politically difficult to say that small farmers should be bought out and replaced by larger organisations.
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 21:20 |
|
|
Junior G-man posted:In the EU larger farmers get more subsidies because the basic payment is per hectare; the more land you have, the more subsidies you get. I know the US has switched to an insurance-based model of 'protecting' farmers, but I'm not too familiar. I'm from Ireland so we would be using the EU rules. That's what I meant though, small scale are just as entitled to large industrial farmers to subsidies, as it per hectare a larger farmer would receive more but as a percentage compared to production it would be the same. And there's all sorts of benefits available to small farmers and young farmers that industrial farms wouldn't be entitled to. So I always find it odd when people rail against the evil industrial farms receiving corporate welfare. Though I hadn't heard of the US insurance-based model. I've heard people say that as a small island we have too many farmers for the arable land so there's over production in some areas due to duplication. That the land would be better utilised if we had fewer but much larger farms. I assume the same would be true on a wider scale, that larger farms are better able to use their available land and produce more efficiently with less waste.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 22:02
|
|