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!
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.
Mooooo wrote: » How many businesses do you deal with that don't take account of opportunity cost?
Bass Reeves wrote: » 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.
Bass Reeves wrote: » Agri contractors are one. Most businesses look at return on investment. But ROI is cyclic. Some one that made business investment 5+7 years ago in general has had a great return even though the ROI might not have looked great. The ROI on investments that were made in the last 6months may not be great. Pub/Restaurant near us was leased in late 2017 tenants three it up after the two years on account of the return. Another Established business took it over there return may not be great. But two business looked at it totally different
mr.stonewall wrote: » Just wondering did anyone get quotes for the next few days.
Robson99 wrote: » Heard talk of 3.30...but that second hand info... Have to laugh at people who are calling out the BPM and how there are not doing anything about this now. What makes me laugh really is that the factories are now giving the two fingers to their buddies who crossed the pickets with cattle last August and fell out with neighbours and friends over it... didn't take the factories long to **** them buddies over as well
Duke92 wrote: » €3:40
kk.man wrote: » The European consumer may not be able to spend money on expensive beef after all this so we might be looking at low beef prices for some time.
Looney1 wrote: » Opportunity cost.?? Income that could be earned elsewhere if not farming??? Am I right
Butcher Boy wrote: » motty put some amount of weanlings through the ring yesterday in gortnalea ,some serious stock there.
Jjameson wrote: » 3.30 I’m told 2nd hand as well. And if they’re big bullocks you’d be lucky to get a day.
Murang wrote: » How was that sale run
Mooooo wrote: » Yes. With farming it mainly relates to the land and your time. It's more for decision making purposes. For example farming the land yourself vs the return from leasing it or you working on farm vs working elsewhere and the difference between income in both cases. Also land cost should be included if one is to expand or take on new land either buying or renting. If you include a land charge in your current costs it won't be long telling you whether or not it's worth it to take on more. There is the caveat that buying land is building wealth also. Partly the reason capital land costs can't be written off here. They can in the Netherlands but if you are to sell there, there are then higher taxes on it. Also I disagree with profit from the farm being your wage as such. Any business profits may rise or fall but that should be after all costs are paid, most years anyway, and that should include a wage for yourself. Profit should then determine what extra investment can be made in the business be it building or whatever and/ or more for yourself If that be what you want to do Agree with Bass tho. Subsidies and Europe aren't the solution to farming incomes. It has to come from sales and if they can't cover costs than a correction would have to come sooner or later. We are in a bad position in not being able to withhold our product to our buyers. If subsides weren't there one could argue the only beef , milk or tillage being produced would be that which would cover it's costs. At the moment there is too much beef being supplied to processors at below the cost of production. The returns should be there to pass back some profit from the processor / food outlet side but we have no tool to do it without dropping production. The beef buckos aren't in the top 50 rich list every year for no reason Profit monitors are now starting to include wage figures but as farmers people saying they can produce x at y cost when that cost doesn't include everything is only shooting ourselves in the foot
Jjameson wrote: » For what kind of cattle and killing what part of the country?
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.
I says wrote: » I bought just enough fert to go a bag to the acre and set stock what I have. I’ve bought no summer grazers and won’t bother me backside with silage this year. No point in doing anything else because the money isn’t in it, what I’ve out at the moment is worthless than I paid for them last backend. Christ above the dairy calves must be worthless this time. How long will this last who knows it’s what’s left after is the thing.
Duke92 wrote: » Bullocks and heifers good cattle don’t know is there any different for fr Waterford
Duke92 wrote: » I’m presume you mean the farmers in the west A lot would be great I’ll agree but not all They want to get the same wage as the guy milking 200 cows in southeast some joke They should just leave it as a carbon sink over there
Robson99 wrote: » I take it you are not categorizing all farms in the West to be left as a carbon sink. There is ****e farms and ****e farmers in the South and East as well as the West. The main difference with farms in the West is that in the majority of cases 50 acres+ is a good size farm where it only the size of some fields in other parts
Robson99 wrote: » So it still could be 3.30 in other parts of the country
Duke92 wrote: » I don’t think so the only place I seen that was on here
lalababa wrote: » Yep , very true, but alot on the farming forum including myself are espousing that maybe that 10k loss on cattle production could be largely mitigated by cutting numbers & inputs..ie going extensive or even organic. If rearing 100 cattle intensively makes a 10k loss then rearing 50 cattle with little or no inputs may actually make a profit.
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
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/73a050bf46afce149fa8c6da703ec9d2.svg)
