beef price tracker

Panch18

Jjameson wrote: »

With excellent facilities and a bit of help at key periods maybe not but for most of us having to get by with baler twine and me myself and Irene the whole year 10 years of this ****e is making an old men of a young ones. A 40 hour week is considered a full time job for most of the population.

That’s a long week for the teagasc employees

They have made slaves of farmers

declanflynn

Hard Knocks wrote: »

It’s not so simple
The number of suckler herd is reducing and should level at 500-600,000 by 2022
Our Dairy herd has increased from 800,000 to 1.3m
On top of this to control the market there is allot of beef imported and processed here

we need to let the exporters have the calf marts to themselves for 5 or 6 weeks in the spring, that would result in 2 things,
Cheaper calves and less of them.
We need to set up a nationwide exporting body to really push exports funded by say a €2 charge by the taging companies everytime they send out a tag.
Further down the line farmers need to build a processing plant(s) - dont say we cant do it, surly the sum of all the farmers in Ireland is greater than the sum of Larry and friends

Duke92

Factory man told if I’m going to buy cattle only buy them if your going to be able to make money at €3 a kg

Bass Reeves

I got sick this morning in to my porridge. Lads blaming BP. BP were not there in the winter of 2018/19, neither were they there with the bull saga of 4-5 years ago. BP biggest issue is they looked at everything from a suckler farmer perceptive. Were they right about feedlot beef should not be considered same as grassfed. Yes they were. However the way the top table cannot sit down to sort things out is a disastrous for the last 3-6 months.

AIBP did not buy processing units in Poland since last summer. Wrangler has been on about it for the last 2years. However it convenient to forget it now. I have said for over the last year that beef price is dictated by the lowest priced beef in the Market. Processor's and retailers have been itching to get it onto British shelves for the last 2-3 years. It didn't work this time they were too smart hiding the country of origin and it backfired.

Is 200/ acre-head attainable in 12months yes but someone needs to take a loss on the animal somewheteu. The processor want to establish a situation where 50%+of cattle come from larger operations running a 70-100day system. The problem is the costs of these guys are horrendous. Any lad full-time around the ring will become a slave to this system.

However a lot of lads need to cop on. 5/kg or permanently above 4.5/kg of a base is only need by Suckler farmers. Processor's, The FJ, IFA and Teagasc are all enslaving lads in the suckler system. Lads that turn there nosed up at dairy bred stock are doing themselves a disservice. The pup of the export weanling or quality animal is a limited market and processor's do not want 400kg carcass beef especially U grade animals. The only reason processor's want suckler bred stock is for to equalise supply over the winter.

The reality is that the exporting of calves and weanlings is on a rope edge. It could go at any stage and the exporting live in general is a time bomb. However at sub 3.5/kg on fairly average farms it not possible to carry a calf to slaughter and have a margin even if calves are cheaper than present. If winter finishing you are definitely losing money. Moving an animal (I hope it never stops) through 3-4 farms giving 100+ euro in fees and transport adds losses into the system. At 4/kg the system kinda works and fairly efficient guys make a few bob.

What needs to happen, Suckler cows needs to drop to well below 500k especially if the export market falls away and IMO they will. Cuts your costs concentrate on a grass based system, forget about winter finishing cattle that are sub 24 months, hope guys still produce stores and peddle away.

mf240

Lads won't like this but in 2009 I had fifteen sucklers alongside the dairy cows. I didn't put them in calf that year and took them to the factory. Never sorry

Albert Johnson

Jjameson wrote: »

With excellent facilities and a bit of help at key periods maybe not but for most of us having to get by with baler twine and me myself and Irene the whole year 10 years of this ****e is making an old men of a young ones. A 40 hour week is considered a full time job for most of the population.

I used to follow the mantra of expansion and efficiency when I first started out at sucklers. No matter what went wrong it was always because I hadn't worked hard enough or smart enough and there was always room for improvement and further investment. I could never catch up to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow promised by the likes of the state advisors, the Journal ect. It took me years to realize most of what I was being sold was no more than a pipe dream.

I'm not saying that any industry can stagnate and there's always an opportunity to refine and improve. However there has to be a fair reward for effort expended and it has never been present in the broader beef game in my lifetime. There's a line from a Slim Dusty song about the demise of the Australian small farmer that "You can work all day for no return at all", this echoes the situation many Irish beef farmer's are in currently imo. The processors continually change the rules of the game mid play and all your hard work can be wiped out with a single change in specification.

I'm by no means a model farmer but I do believe I should receive fair reward for an in demand product that I produce to the best of my abilities. The current way of working seems to enable the processors to screw as much out of me as possible while still allowing me to continue trading. Mean while the power's that be create countless additional jobs off the back of my industry while refusing to face the elephant in the room, namely the complete lack of profitability for those not lucky enough to be any thing apart from a beef farmer.

I have no doubt beef farming is only a disease and indeed a burden both financially and mentally to a lot of those involved if the truth was known. I'd love to be able to proffer a solution to any of the problems above but there doesn't seem to be any appetite to change the status quo as it works for almost everyone apart from the beef producer. It baffles me that an industry could accept it's own demise with so little resistance over the year's but I suppose it's a real life death by 1,000 cuts. As whether there's sufficient time or interest to reverse this fate I remain hopeful but not that optimistic.

Bass Reeves

mf240 wrote: »

Lads won't like this but in 2009 I had fifteen sucklers alongside the dairy cows. I didn't put them in calf that year and took them to the factory. Never sorry

When I bought the farm in 2003 FIL thaught I should go into sucklers. I struggle to find a system and it was not until I managed to get a slatted unit on the place that I really became profitable. However I exited always found winter finishing a challenge as well as workload heavy

Bass Reeves

Albert Johnson wrote: »

I used to follow the mantra of expansion and efficiency when I first started out at sucklers. No matter what went wrong it was always because I hadn't worked hard enough or smart enough and there was always room for improvement and further investment. I could never catch up to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow promised by the likes of the state advisors, the Journal ect. It took me years to realize most of what I was being sold was no more than a pipe dream.

I'm not saying that any industry can stagnate and there's always an opportunity to refine and improve. However there has to be a fair reward for effort expended and it has never been present in the broader beef game in my lifetime. There's a line from a Slim Dusty song about the demise of the Australian small farmer that "You can work all day for no return at all", this echoes the situation many Irish beef farmer's are in currently imo. The processors continually change the rules of the game mid play and all your hard work can be wiped out with a single change in specification.

I'm by no means a model farmer but I do believe I should receive fair reward for an in demand product that I produce to the best of my abilities. The current way of working seems to enable the processors to screw as much out of me as possible while still allowing me to continue trading. Mean while the power's that be create countless additional jobs off the back of my industry while refusing to face the elephant in the room, namely the complete lack of profitability for those not lucky enough to be any thing apart from a beef farmer.

I have no doubt beef farming is only a disease and indeed a burden both financially and mentally to a lot of those involved if the truth was known. I'd love to be able to proffer a solution to any of the problems above but there doesn't seem to be any appetite to change the status quo as it works for almost everyone apart from the beef producer. It baffles me that an industry could accept it's own demise with so little resistance over the year's but I suppose it's a real life death by 1,000 cuts. As whether there's sufficient time or interest to reverse this fate I remain hopeful but not that optimistic.

Two things look a the losses on the 2-3 demonstration farms and the workload involved. If you have children make sure they are educsted, and do a good college course ( there is a lot of rubbish ones)or a trade. Finally as a lot of farmers wl not stand together it time to look after oneself for a while. Im a while a lot of lads will realize that it's like as Seamus Mallon said of the GF agreement ''its Sunningdale for slow learner's''

Grueller

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Two things look a the losses on the 2-3 demonstration farms and the workload involved. If you have children make sure they are educsted, and do a good college course ( there is a lot of rubbish ones)or a trade. Finally as a lot of farmers wl not stand together it time to look after oneself for a while. Im a while a lot of lads will realize that it's like as Seamus Mallon said of the GF agreement ''its Sunningdale for slow learner's''

Couldn't agree more re the kids. If they have a gra for it they will come back to it in some way. If not so be it.

Bass Reeves

Grueller wrote: »

Couldn't agree more re the kids. If they have a gra for it they will come back to it in some way. If not so be it.

Framing is grand in a part-time setup as long as you have a job, but being a slave to a system is stupid. Renting a few acres here and there driving a 15-20 year old Jeep improvishing yourself and your family. Play the system draw you payments, stock to a profit level have a we fenced farm. 15 hours a week would run a 100 acre drystock farm that is well set up maybe less.

Albert Johnson

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Two things look a the losses on the 2-3 demonstration farms and the workload involved. If you have children make sure they are educsted, and do a good college course ( there is a lot of rubbish ones)or a trade. Finally as a lot of farmers wl not stand together it time to look after oneself for a while. Im a while a lot of lads will realize that it's like as Seamus Mallon said of the GF agreement ''its Sunningdale for slow learner's''

The demonstration farms have always been a source of wonder for me and have served as more of a warning than an encouragement imo. I've always liked what I've done both in and out of farming and I'm determined/thick enough to find a means of continuing to do what I enjoy. However it is a constant battle and not something I'd encourage anyone to do without total commitment. Our industry seems to be blessed with slow learner's but even they seem to be thinning out in recent years. I do believe that a lot of businesses based on beef production are shooting themselves in the foot by let there customer base whither away before there eye's.

Base price

Grueller wrote: »

Couldn't agree more re the kids. If they have a gra for it they will come back to it in some way. If not so be it.

+1. I encouraged mine when they were young to rear a few pet lambs, chickens/turkeys and buy a few calves with their confirmation money. It's a good way to teach them responsibility and finances at a young age. If they ever return to farming it will be only as a hobby/pastime.

Base price

Albert Johnson wrote: »

The demonstration farms have always been a source of wonder for me and have served as more of a warning than an encouragement imo. I've always liked what I've done both in and out of farming and I'm determined/thick enough to find a means of continuing to do what I enjoy. However it is a constant battle and not something I'd encourage anyone to do without total commitment. Our industry seems to be blessed with slow learner's but even they seem to be thinning out in recent years. I do believe that a lot of businesses based on beef production are shooting themselves in the foot by let there customer base whither away before there eye's.

TBH I reckon the demise of the beef industry it's more down to cheaper alternatives like chicken and pork which is what most households buy as their main protein source.

I'm just back from the butchers after paying €28 for a leg of lamb. I could have bought a rolled boned out stuffed breast of turkey for €16 which would have yielded more meat.

Albert Johnson

Base price wrote: »

TBH I reckon the demise of the beef industry it's more down to cheaper alternatives like chicken and pork which is what most households buy as their main protein source.

I'm just back from the butchers after paying €28 for a leg of lamb. I could have bought a rolled boned out stuffed breast of turkey for €16 which would have yielded more meat.

I agree about the switch to other protein source's and I can't see why this trend won't be continued. Chicken and pork are of course cheaper, often quicker to cook and more versatile than the traditional choice cuts of beef or lamb. This will all influence people's decisions especially seeing as they now have to cook the majority of what they eat for the meanwhile.

We can't really compete on price so we're depending on a superior eating experience but this argument falls short if the consumer isn't prepared to buy and cook out products. I suppose branding and marketing have a part to play but it's a tough ask imo. Having said that our local butcher seems to be doing a much better trade than in normal times so perhaps people are making a review of there shopping and dinning habits.

Duke92

Jjameson wrote: »

Base or all in? For backend?

He wasn’t saying for back end for summer

DukeCaboom

Jjameson wrote: »

A procurement manager for Abp gave 2.20 A kg for nice but very well done 13 month stores 500ish kg today I hear just the same. 2.50 a kg for hairier lads.

Angus?

Dunedin

Neddyusa wrote: »

There are no beef farmers out there making €200/acre profit.
Not mathematically possible with beef at e4.50/kg not to mind e3.30 or whatever it is now.

If they think they are making that "profit" there's two possibilities:

1. They are counting subsidies, income from other enterprises or (worse again) off-farm income as income from "beef farming"

And/Or

2. They are not including their full costs of production:
The ones usually left out are labour, capital, buildings and machinery - and God forbid you put a price on it - land.

If you use the logic of not counting subs as part of income, then say for example that Farmer A is making €10k loss on normal production but has subs of €50k. It’s still €40k profit so they should pack it in just because there was a loss in production. Whilst no one is happy that cost of production is barely covered and in a lot of cases it’s not even, but reality is that the subs are there and we benefit from them. The day they’re gone is the day the farmers will really exit and rightly so.

Secondly, in some and indeed a lot of cases there are sheds in situ on farms that are long paid for and it’s only a paper cost if you are including them.

Finally labour cost. If I go to an off farm job and get €500 per week then that or €26000 per year is my salary. Likewise if I end up with €26000 on farm profit (including subs) then that’s my income and covers the (my) labour cost.

We often get caught up in factoring every last cost. Do you always hear of people working off farm talking about cost of going to work but I can tell you that diesel, car wear and tear, tax insurance, parking in some places, buying/bringing lunch, an odd fiver/tenner/twenty for Mary in accounts birthday or Fred’s leaving present. I commute to Dublin to work. Reckon it costs me €150 fuel/€10 tolls/€10 lunch/€10 misc each week which is nearly €9k a year.

farawaygrass

Dunedin wrote: »

If you use the logic of not counting subs as part of income, then say for example that Farmer A is making €10k loss on normal production but has subs of €50k. It’s still €40k profit so they should pack it in just because there was a loss in production. Whilst no one is happy that cost of production is barely covered and in a lot of cases it’s not even, but reality is that the subs are there and we benefit from them. The day they’re gone is the day the farmers will really exit and rightly so.

Secondly, in some and indeed a lot of cases there are sheds in situ on farms that are long paid for and it’s only a paper cost if you are including them.

Finally labour cost. If I go to an off farm job and get €500 per week then that or €26000 per year is my salary. Likewise if I end up with €26000 on farm profit (including subs) then that’s my income and covers the (my) labour cost.

We often get caught up in factoring every last cost. Do you always hear of people working off farm talking about cost of going to work but I can tell you that diesel, car wear and tear, tax insurance, parking in some places, buying/bringing lunch, an odd fiver/tenner/twenty for Mary in accounts birthday or Fred’s leaving present. I commute to Dublin to work. Reckon it costs me €150 fuel/€10 tolls/€10 lunch/€10 misc each week which is nearly €9k a year.

Good points. I can’t ever get my head around putting in a charge for the land. It’s like having your cake and eating it. Renting it is an alternative and if it makes more sense to the person then they’ll make that decision. I’m far from well up on business or accounting so smarter people will tell me different no doubt

Bass Reeves

Dunedin wrote: »

If you use the logic of not counting subs as part of income, then say for example that Farmer A is making €10k loss on normal production but has subs of €50k. It’s still €40k profit so they should pack it in just because there was a loss in production. Whilst no one is happy that cost of production is barely covered and in a lot of cases it’s not even, but reality is that the subs are there and we benefit from them. The day they’re gone is the day the farmers will really exit and rightly so.

Secondly, in some and indeed a lot of cases there are sheds in situ on farms that are long paid for and it’s only a paper cost if you are including them.

Finally labour cost. If I go to an off farm job and get €500 per week then that or €26000 per year is my salary. Likewise if I end up with €26000 on farm profit (including subs) then that’s my income and covers the (my) labour cost.

We often get caught up in factoring every last cost. Do you always hear of people working off farm talking about cost of going to work but I can tell you that diesel, car wear and tear, tax insurance, parking in some places, buying/bringing lunch, an odd fiver/tenner/twenty for Mary in accounts birthday or Fred’s leaving present. I commute to Dublin to work. Reckon it costs me €150 fuel/€10 tolls/€10 lunch/€10 misc each week which is nearly €9k a year.

The day animals are losing you money is the day you start to stock at what is the minimum efficient rate. Too many lads are fixated with numbers. As well many cannot see difference between profit and loss. Your take a lad working writing off a 15k car, spending, 5k/year on fuel, 2k on ancillary car expenses (servicing,maintenance, tyres,washing at a filling station, tools etc) giving him a 6,666 euro in a tax write off/ year. Now this lad looks at his bottom line and he see he only has 15k in profit which is the same or less than his SFP and cannot see the real story

He lays a patio. The hardcore cement and sand goes through the books, the tools he uses are all from the farm. The 3-4 trailer loads of timber are cut with the farm chainsaw and some of the timber is a few broken stakes. Then there the falling hydrochloride to clean the footpaths and the bit of spray for the lawn and the bit of weedkiller fit the Dutch at the back of the house. There the battery drill from Lidl that is in the garage used to put together the odd flat pack.

Having said that there is still the lad that goes to the co-op Saturday morning to buy the two bags of calf crunch, the bag of milk powder, and a bit of this and that. Paying through the nose for everything and not keeping half his receipts

Water John

Albert Johnson wrote: »

I agree about the switch to other protein source's and I can't see why this trend won't be continued. Chicken and pork are of course cheaper, often quicker to cook and more versatile than the traditional choice cuts of beef or lamb. This will all influence people's decisions especially seeing as they now have to cook the majority of what they eat for the meanwhile.

We can't really compete on price so we're depending on a superior eating experience but this argument falls short if the consumer isn't prepared to buy and cook out products. I suppose branding and marketing have a part to play but it's a tough ask imo. Having said that our local butcher seems to be doing a much better trade than in normal times so perhaps people are making a review of there shopping and dinning habits.

Butcher on TV said his choice roast cut sales had doubled with the lockdown.

richie123

Dunedin wrote: »

If you use the logic of not counting subs as part of income, then say for example that Farmer A is making €10k loss on normal production but has subs of €50k. It’s still €40k profit so they should pack it in just because there was a loss in production. Whilst no one is happy that cost of production is barely covered and in a lot of cases it’s not even, but reality is that the subs are there and we benefit from them. The day they’re gone is the day the farmers will really exit and rightly so.

Secondly, in some and indeed a lot of cases there are sheds in situ on farms that are long paid for and it’s only a paper cost if you are including them.

Finally labour cost. If I go to an off farm job and get €500 per week then that or €26000 per year is my salary. Likewise if I end up with €26000 on farm profit (including subs) then that’s my income and covers the (my) labour cost.

We often get caught up in factoring every last cost. Do you always hear of people working off farm talking about cost of going to work but I can tell you that diesel, car wear and tear, tax insurance, parking in some places, buying/bringing lunch, an odd fiver/tenner/twenty for Mary in accounts birthday or Fred’s leaving present. I commute to Dublin to work. Reckon it costs me €150 fuel/€10 tolls/€10 lunch/€10 misc each week which is nearly €9k a year.

Couldn't agree with that logic.
Just because sheds are paid for doesn't mean they won't be repaired or replaced at great cost and it doesn't matter when.
Cost for land has to be included because if you diddnt farm it it would have serious value leased out tax free.
This is a common thought trap that huge numbers of farmers fall into.

Dunedin

richie123 wrote: »

Couldn't agree with that logic.
Just because sheds are paid for doesn't mean they won't be repaired or replaced at great cost and it doesn't matter when.
Cost for land has to be included because if you diddnt farm it it would have serious value leased out tax free.
This is a common thought trap that huge numbers of farmers fall into.

Profit = income less expenses. If I do no repairs on shed then I cannot claim anything (sum total of repairs in two of my sheds in pass 5 years is one light put in). If I own the land then I cannot claim this as an expense either.

Wouldn’t like to be trying to justify to revenue audit that I’ve included in cost of my own land or repairs which I didn’t do. And the contra on this is that I inherited both from late father with no debt or bills on either land or sheds so should I not include this as a gift....?

All I’m saying is that at the end of the day/year, I’m trying to ascertain figure of profit from my or any farm. I factor all income including subs less actual costs. That tells me whether I’ve made or loss money. The tax returns are a separate entity with claims for depreciation, stock relief, etc to lower the tax bill as much as possible, all within the realms of what’s allowed or not.

Bass Reeves

richie123 wrote: »

Couldn't agree with that logic.
Just because sheds are paid for doesn't mean they won't be repaired or replaced at great cost and it doesn't matter when.
Cost for land has to be included because if you diddnt farm it it would have serious value leased out tax free.
This is a common thought trap that huge numbers of farmers fall into.

Any you allow for repairs. I have sheds that originally cost including some mats about 135k. I drew back vat of about 18k, grants of 62 K leaving a net cost of 55k. Part of it was done without a grant, tank put in under a straw bedded area. All of that was depreciated at 40c/ euro leaving a net cost after tax of 33k for accommodation for about 100 cattle.

Now these sheds were build to grant spec and all beams were galavinized. Expected minimum lifespan before serious repairs is 40years +. Give it that over that time it has an aver of 80 cattle/ year wintered in it the cost / head is about 17/ head before tax or 10 euro after tax. The real cost is towards the bottom figure as for most of it two of the kids were in college and drawing a wage from the farm, two cars were being depreciated as was there fuel car tax etc. Interest on a land loan was very high ( hitting 5%at one stage) for about three years of it due to the recession

You cannot put it land charge unless your are renting land as if you were not farming you cannot draw GLAS, ANC or a few other schemes such as KT or beef genetic scheme. If you decide to rent then you with lease ( income tax free) year renting and pay tax on it. Your other choice is sell the land.

None of us are making a fortune but it a matter of seeing wood from the trees. That is not to say I am not annoyed about level of profitability in the sector. I do not see Europe as the answer.

I was looking through some old accounts it ten years since the beef base was this low. Beef prices peaked pre Brexit. Since then the amount of money that has been taken from farmers is about 350 in net terms, costs have gone up 150 million I expect since then. That 500 million less in Irish farmers pocket's from the beef sector

Robson99

Good loser wrote: »

Don't you understand that the price of cattle is determined by market forces?
Supply and demand? Factories reflect these forces in their quotes which fluctuate from day to day.
Have you never heard the expression 'cattle are scarce'?
No factory was responsible for the daft store prices of Jan and Feb 2020.
.

Factory agents were the driving force buying stores in Jan and Feb. They were not active at the back end of last year and hence stores were cheaper then.
It wasn't the farmers buying in Jan and Feb the agents were filling the sheds so as they would have a supply of cattle now when they should have been getting scarce.
As always the would rather pay over the odds in the mart than to rise them 10 or 20 cent.
Factories don't reflect prices ....They manipulate them to suit THEMSELVES

Bass Reeves

Robson99 wrote: »

Factory agents were the driving force buying stores in Jan and Feb. They were not active at the back end of last year and hence stores were cheaper then.
It wasn't the farmers buying in Jan and Feb the agents were filling the sheds so as they would have a supply of cattle now when they should have been getting scarce.
As always the would rather pay over the odds in the mart than to rise them 10 or 20 cent.
Factories don't reflect prices ....They manipulate them to suit THEMSELVES

It worse than that. As these cattle went into factory owned feedlots, they also would have contracted cattle to larger private feedlots. All this beef would have a projected cost and a contracted price. It more than likely was contracted in at a price of a base if 4/kg+.

Now that beef has to be paid for by Irish farmers. This amplifies any price drop to Irish farmers. We will hear the baloney hard seller achieving a higher price but the reality is that these contracts always cost ordinary farmers and a blind eye is turned to there effect.

The bull saga of 4-5 years ago was amplified by factory feedlots filled in September to prevent the annual Christmas price rise, The horse meat saga reduced beef consumption and the factories crucified Bulll finishers

richie123

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Any you allow for repairs. I have sheds that originally cost including some mats about 135k. I drew back vat of about 18k, grants of 62 K leaving a net cost of 55k. Part of it was done without a grant, tank put in under a straw bedded area. All of that was depreciated at 40c/ euro leaving a net cost after tax of 33k for accommodation for about 100 cattle.

Now these sheds were build to grant spec and all beams were galavinized. Expected minimum lifespan before serious repairs is 40years +. Give it that over that time it has an aver of 80 cattle/ year wintered in it the cost / head is about 17/ head before tax or 10 euro after tax. The real cost is towards the bottom figure as for most of it two of the kids were in college and drawing a wage from the farm, two cars were being depreciated as was there fuel car tax etc. Interest on a land loan was very high ( hitting 5%at one stage) for about three years of it due to the recession

You cannot put it land charge unless your are renting land as if you were not farming you cannot draw GLAS, ANC or a few other schemes such as KT or beef genetic scheme. If you decide to rent then you with lease ( income tax free) year renting and pay tax on it. Your other choice is sell the land.

None of us are making a fortune but it a matter of seeing wood from the trees. That is not to say I am not annoyed about level of profitability in the sector. I do not see Europe as the answer.

I was looking through some old accounts it ten years since the beef base was this low. Beef prices peaked pre Brexit. Since then the amount of money that has been taken from farmers is about 350 in net terms, costs have gone up 150 million I expect since then. That 500 million less in Irish farmers pocket's from the beef sector

When you do a profit monitor you include a land cost wether you own it or not
You include depreciation on assets ..machinery sheds etc.
You include a wage for yourself and any family members/friends etc you had working.
it's irrelevant if all these figures makes the bottom line outrageous.
That's the way accounts work.your only fooling yourself otherwise.
It's important because when our farm leaders go to Europe looking for any financial help in times of hardship we need the most realistic figures based on the full facts not lads saying there doing great when in reality what there doing is losing hand over fist.

richie123

Jjameson wrote: »

There’s going to be a generation of lads going to their graves as old men, never a day hungry or a night without a roof over their head but still on their dying breath saying “I’m not making a living”

You can farm it or rent it but you are a right gom if you are farming and charging yourself rent!

Depreciation on sheds are not an actual cost to you but you still use it as a cost in your tax returns now do you understand !!!!:):)

mr.stonewall

Just wondering did anyone get quotes for the next few days.

DukeCaboom

mr.stonewall wrote: »

Just wondering did anyone get quotes for the next few days.

You don't wanna know!!

Bass Reeves

richie123 wrote: »

When you do a profit monitor you include a land cost wether you own it or not
You include depreciation on assets ..machinery sheds etc.
You include a wage for yourself and any family members/friends etc you had working.
it's irrelevant if all these figures makes the bottom line outrageous.
That's the way accounts work.your only fooling yourself otherwise.
It's important because when our farm leaders go to Europe looking for any financial help in times of hardship we need the most realistic figures based on the full facts not lads saying there doing great when in reality what there doing is losing hand over fist.

Well when these farm leaders go to Europe they are not making much use of these magic mushrooms accounts. We did profit monitor's for the KT groups, labour and land costs were only included if they were on your accounts.

The powers that be in Europe are not fools either and they can look through the reality of what is presented in front of them. Last year after the beef price costing us 350illion they gave us a 50 million fund, government topped it up by 20 million. I got 400 euro and will have to drop production by 4-5 bullocks to not have to pay it back. More than likely the 400 goes straight back to them. Europe has no answers to our beef crisis.