Milk Price- Please read Mod note in post #1

atlantic mist · 07-06-2014 09:42PM

see FrieslandCampina uped the june milk price to 42cent and were going the opposite way

RightTurnClyde · 08-06-2014 11:37AM

I happy enough with a 2 cent drop. Think of the poor reps, those new Passats don't come cheap. If 2 cent keeps my coop rep in a new TDI Passat with leather seats, I'm happy.:)

slippy wicket · 08-06-2014 11:50AM

RightTurnClyde wrote: »

I happy enough with a 2 cent drop. Think of the poor reps, those new Passats don't come cheap. If 2 cent keeps my coop rep in a new TDI Passat with leather seats, I'm happy.:)

The poor lads down here are driving skodas.
Wexford still getting the hind teat. ðŸ˜œ

loveta · 08-06-2014 11:52AM

RightTurnClyde wrote: »

I happy enough with a 2 cent drop. Think of the poor reps, those new Passats don't come cheap. If 2 cent keeps my coop rep in a new TDI Passat with leather seats, I'm happy.:)

The 2 cents cut aint paying for that comfy new passat its welded into the price your for the product your buying and paying for to the rep when he lan ds for his spondoules :eek:

Brown Podzol · 08-06-2014 12:55PM

atlantic mist wrote: »

see FrieslandCampina uped the june milk price to 42cent and were going the opposite way

That may be only 13.5% difference in price between FrieslandCampina and Irish price but it represents c. 33% less profit for Irish farmers. The price to pay for the inefficient structure of the Irish dairy industry. This does not include the amount of profit invested tax efficiently on behalf of farmers by FrieslandCampina available to them when they retire from farming.

atlantic mist · 08-06-2014 01:09PM

that would be nice something when we retire, not much pension contributions with a notional milk profit of 6c per liter id imagine (as per indexed scheme)
management and employees im sure have a nice pension for when they retire, payed for by ourselves of course.

find it funny employee costs always accounted in there accounts but the cows milk themselves for our cost base

castletrader · 08-06-2014 02:21PM

http://www.agriland.ie/news/friesland-campina-ups-milk-price-june/
Are we happy to see our coops going the opposite way on price ??????:mad:

Brown Podzol · 08-06-2014 02:54PM

castletrader wrote: »

http://www.agriland.ie/news/friesland-campina-ups-milk-price-june/
Are we happy to see our coops going the opposite way on price ??????:mad:

Contracts, designed by ICOS, to maintain the status quo. A few more Stratroy's, Fonterras or hopefully a Chinese co. needed to shake up the Irish dairy industry and force efficiency. It's a pity that some co-ops will have to go broke, destroying farmer wealth, for this to happen.

5live · 08-06-2014 03:03PM

Brown Podzol wrote: »

That may be only 13.5% difference in price between FrieslandCampina and Irish price but it represents c. 33% less profit for Irish farmers. The price to pay for the inefficient structure of the Irish dairy industry. This does not include the amount of profit invested tax efficiently on behalf of farmers by FrieslandCampina available to them when they retire from farming.

Partly. The Irish dairy industry is structured towards producing commodities for sale for further processing/additions for value added.

The FrieslandCampina model is structured mainly towards producing value added directly for sale to the consumer ie probiotic yogurts, milk based commodities with perceived(?) health benefits and other consumer driven products.

The nearest products we have that are comparable are Baileys and Kerrygold. Tbh we don't have an history of producing value added consumer products and probably will not unless we amalgamate a lot of processors into a Fronterra/FrieslandCampina type model where we could allocate a large % of turnover to R&D.

The last large scale amalgamation was Waterford/Avonmore and there were still a rump of farmers until quite recently that were against the merger. Just like a rump of farmers in Kerry still against the formation of Kerry co-op and against the PLC model.

milkprofit · 08-06-2014 05:28PM

atlantic mist wrote: »

that would be nice something when we retire, not much pension contributions with a notional milk profit of 6c per liter id imagine (as per indexed scheme)
management and employees im sure have a nice pension for when they retire, payed for by ourselves of course.

find it funny employee costs always accounted in there accounts but the cows milk themselves for our cost base

ye look at fixed price document:eek:
glanbia allow producer 6 cents for him her self
24000 euro for average producer (400,000 lt ):rolleyes:

awaywithyou · 08-06-2014 06:26PM

Prob not the right thread but sure it caused a few arguments a while back...:)

http://www.agriland.ie/news/chief-state-solicitor-examine-irregular-milk-movements/

stanflt · 08-06-2014 08:43PM

awaywithyou wrote: »

Prob not the right thread but sure it caused a few arguments a while back...:)

http://www.agriland.ie/news/chief-state-solicitor-examine-irregular-milk-movements/

now now :P

i hope its premier milk;)

milkprofit · 08-06-2014 10:48PM

stanflt wrote: »

now now :P

i hope its premier milk;)

All under the carpet now

atlantic mist · 09-06-2014 09:18AM

5live wrote: »

Partly. The Irish dairy industry is structured towards producing commodities for sale for further processing/additions for value added.

why is this who decided to just base our selves on commodities does 20% of our product get sold in domestic market??
Do all our production plants just produce commodity products, if so we should be highly specialised al ready, but dont think they are seen as major building occuring at most coops

we in gii had a consumer products with strong brand but they are now with glanbia plc, wait till you see them being sold to a foreign competitor in time to come

cant understand the speration of value added products from our commiedy products, they would certainly help us in years of low world milk price a good mix of both products

i no this is contray to all the info on farming papers but would we be better off with smaller coops specialising in high value added goods to maximise farmers return than competing with lower cost regions of production on the commiedy market
or
would each coop be better off to do a joint venture with one of the leading word dairies seen as they hav access to markets al ready and just need product, save us needing sales staff and they having a larger product mix with better value added products
by each dairy joining a different large dairy it would keep competitiveness in home market and give suppliers a choice depending on products

5live · 09-06-2014 11:08AM

atlantic mist wrote: »

why is this who decided to just base our selves on commodities does 20% of our product get sold in domestic market??
Do all our production plants just produce commodity products, if so we should be highly specialised al ready, but dont think they are seen as major building occuring at most coops

we in gii had a consumer products with strong brand but they are now with glanbia plc, wait till you see them being sold to a foreign competitor in time to come

cant understand the speration of value added products from our commiedy products, they would certainly help us in years of low world milk price a good mix of both products

i no this is contray to all the info on farming papers but would we be better off with smaller coops specialising in high value added goods to maximise farmers return than competing with lower cost regions of production on the commiedy market
or
would each coop be better off to do a joint venture with one of the leading word dairies seen as they hav access to markets al ready and just need product, save us needing sales staff and they having a larger product mix with better value added products
by each dairy joining a different large dairy it would keep competitiveness in home market and give suppliers a choice depending on products

There is more chance of all processors being taken over than them all joining up.

As i see it, there are so many boards and so many on those boards that they consider joining up as cutting their own throats as their chances of being on the board is halved if two processors join. They seem to revel in being on the board with the prestige that brings them.

And don't forget that their seat MUST be kept warm for their son so he too can get the prestige that the family owns and deserves:rolleyes:.

The problem with small niche processors concentrating on high value-added is the small processor will not have the R&D capacity to invest in developing products and further developing any new related products when the developed ones come off patent. And then you have 4 or 5 small units doing the exact same R&D to develop the same or similar products.

If we had one large processor allocating, say, 5% of turnover to R&D then any related R&D could be joined up and the saved money could be used in a different area to develop different products or extend the patent rights in already developed products.

But its not going to happen:(

Brown Podzol · 09-06-2014 11:25AM

5live wrote: »

There is more chance of all processors being taken over than them all joining up.

As i see it, there are so many boards and so many on those boards that they consider joining up as cutting their own throats as their chances of being on the board is halved if two processors join. They seem to revel in being on the board with the prestige that brings them.

And don't forget that their seat MUST be kept warm for their son so he too can get the prestige that the family owns and deserves:rolleyes:.

The problem with small niche processors concentrating on high value-added is the small processor will not have the R&D capacity to invest in developing products and further developing any new related products when the developed ones come off patent. And then you have 4 or 5 small units doing the exact same R&D to develop the same or similar products.

If we had one large processor allocating, say, 5% of turnover to R&D then any related R&D could be joined up and the saved money could be used in a different area to develop different products or extend the patent rights in already developed products.

But its not going to happen:(

That's the problem in a nutshell and dairy farmers are not interested or not informed enough to force change.

Milked out · 09-06-2014 11:38AM

I see the freisland campina quote is also for june price, as opposed to us finding half way thru july what price we'll get for the same month:rolleyes:

freedominacup · 09-06-2014 02:23PM

5live wrote: »

There is more chance of all processors being taken over than them all joining up.

As i see it, there are so many boards and so many on those boards that they consider joining up as cutting their own throats as their chances of being on the board is halved if two processors join. They seem to revel in being on the board with the prestige that brings them.

And don't forget that their seat MUST be kept warm for their son so he too can get the prestige that the family owns and deserves:rolleyes:.

The problem with small niche processors concentrating on high value-added is the small processor will not have the R&D capacity to invest in developing products and further developing any new related products when the developed ones come off patent. And then you have 4 or 5 small units doing the exact same R&D to develop the same or similar products.

If we had one large processor allocating, say, 5% of turnover to R&D then any related R&D could be joined up and the saved money could be used in a different area to develop different products or extend the patent rights in already developed products.

But its not going to happen:(

It should be a standard ICOS rule that in order to go forward for a board election to any co-op the farmer in question should have physical and financial performance in the top 5 percent at a minimum. All area elections should be gotten rid of as well. If the three best candidates for three board poitions in glanbia happened to be living on whelan2's road then so be it the "rest" of glanbia would have no local reps. Board elections should take place 2 years in advance of the candidates being due to take up their positions in order to give them time to complete an MBA. We need people with real proven ability on our boards. The standards laid out above should be absolute minimums.

sheebadog · 09-06-2014 02:29PM

freedominacup wrote: »

It should be a standard ICOS rule that in order to go forward for a board election to any co-op the farmer in question should have physical and financial performance in the top 5 percent at a minimum. All area elections should be gotten rid of as well. If the three best candidates for three board poitions in glanbia happened to be living on whelan2's road then so be it the "rest" of glanbia would have no local reps. Board elections should take place 2 years in advance of the candidates being due to take up their positions in order to give them time to complete an MBA. We need people with real proven ability on our boards. The standards laid out above should be absolute minimums.

Massive+1. However we don't live in a meritocracy Freedom.

5live · 09-06-2014 03:10PM

freedominacup wrote: »

It should be a standard ICOS rule that in order to go forward for a board election to any co-op the farmer in question should have physical and financial performance in the top 5 percent at a minimum. All area elections should be gotten rid of as well. If the three best candidates for three board poitions in glanbia happened to be living on whelan2's road then so be it the "rest" of glanbia would have no local reps. Board elections should take place 2 years in advance of the candidates being due to take up their positions in order to give them time to complete an MBA. We need people with real proven ability on our boards. The standards laid out above should be absolute minimums.

I agree in general with that but the MBA, while nice, wouldn't really be necessary?

From Kerrys point of view, the farmers on the board had enough knowledge and experience to back Brosnan, Friel and McCarthy and grow the business from the tangled remains of the Dairy Disposal Board.

I wouldn't agree with the top 5%though. You would be including only the long established in that figure and excluding a huge number of proficient farmers still building their business and draining, building housing and fertility from the group eligible to be elected. Top 25% would include those and have a good reserve eligible to serve who may be unable to due to health/family/other issues.

The education part overall, though, i agree with. There is some recognition of the issue of financial training in the new Dept scheme for new entrants but there should be 20-30 places available each year in large co-ops to educate farmers on the issues needed for management and board participation. A couple of specialised modules in finance and management and further ones dealing with responsibilities of Board members would be my way of going and, as you said, possibly leading up to an MBA for those few with the time and energy to complete it.

atlantic mist · 09-06-2014 03:20PM

difficult one thou whos top 5% the coop, icbf, teagasc, or the revenue
the top 5% could be different with each

would we not be better to act like institutional investors and appoint some one with business experience/international experience in the area to work on our behalf and report back so that we can concentrate on our core business and they will ensure the strategic direction aligns with ours

director with out the know how are pointless, they are filling seats instead of providing leadership and expertise, ensure mangemant are running company as efficiently as possible, i dont think anyone should put themselves forward without some form of training

freedominacup · 09-06-2014 03:27PM

5live wrote: »

I agree in general with that but the MBA, while nice, wouldn't really be necessary?

From Kerrys point of view, the farmers on the board had enough knowledge and experience to back Brosnan, Friel and McCarthy and grow the business from the tangled remains of the Dairy Disposal Board.

I wouldn't agree with the top 5%though. You would be including only the long established in that figure and excluding a huge number of proficient farmers still building their business and draining, building housing and fertility from the group eligible to be elected. Top 25% would include those and have a good reserve eligible to serve who may be unable to due to health/family/other issues.

The education part overall, though, i agree with. There is some recognition of the issue of financial training in the new Dept scheme for new entrants but there should be 20-30 places available each year in large co-ops to educate farmers on the issues needed for management and board participation. A couple of specialised modules in finance and management and further ones dealing with responsibilities of Board members would be my way of going and, as you said, possibly leading up to an MBA for those few with the time and energy to complete it.

If you're serious you'd get it done. BIL had to do one or his career was going to come to a sudden halt. He had no formal qualifications, plenty of industry qualifications but no real third level. He was spending 25-30 weeks a year outside the country and working 60-70 hours per week min while doing it. He mentioned to his boss that it wasn't an easy gig. Boss's reply "consider yourself lucky you don't have a couple of kids in the mix like I had doing mine". Tbh candidates should have their expenses covered while doing the course.

freedominacup · 09-06-2014 03:30PM

atlantic mist wrote: »

difficult one thou whos top 5% the coop, icbf, teagasc, or the revenue
the top 5% could be different with each

would we not be better to act like institutional investors and appoint some one with business experience/international experience in the area to work on our behalf and report back so that we can concentrate on our core business and they will ensure the strategic direction aligns with ours

director with out the know how are pointless, they are filling seats instead of providing leadership and expertise, ensure mangemant are running company as efficiently as possible, i dont think anyone should put themselves forward without some form of training

Physical and financial performance. People who are driving output and profit.

whelan2 · 09-06-2014 03:31PM

should also be an age limit

5live · 09-06-2014 04:02PM

freedominacup wrote: »

If you're serious you'd get it done. BIL had to do one or his career was going to come to a sudden halt. He had no formal qualifications, plenty of industry qualifications but no real third level. He was spending 25-30 weeks a year outside the country and working 60-70 hours per week min while doing it. He mentioned to his boss that it wasn't an easy gig. Boss's reply "consider yourself lucky you don't have a couple of kids in the mix like I had doing mine". Tbh candidates should have their expenses covered while doing the course.

I can see the merit in doing it but I don't think its the be all and end all. Maybe have it as an ultimate aspiration IF there was a large processor formed.

Many co-ops are small with only a few hundred farmers, 24% of whom are over 65 and only 8% under 35 overall in the country. It would be difficult to get enough qualified farmers to even sit on the board in those processors not to mind have enough to provide for elections to sit on the board.

5live · 09-06-2014 04:07PM

whelan2 wrote: »

should also be an age limit

That would rule out Warren Buffet so?

The age limit is a very blunt instrument. In a lot of cases, those older farmers provide valuable experience and knowledge while younger ones provide energy and new ideas. To have one or other only weakens the business but a blend of both is best, imo. But how would that be achieved? No idea really.

Panch18 · 09-06-2014 04:14PM

atlantic mist wrote: »

difficult one thou whos top 5% the coop, icbf, teagasc, or the revenue
the top 5% could be different with each

would we not be better to act like institutional investors and appoint some one with business experience/international experience in the area to work on our behalf and report back so that we can concentrate on our core business and they will ensure the strategic direction aligns with ours

director with out the know how are pointless, they are filling seats instead of providing leadership and expertise, ensure mangemant are running company as efficiently as possible, i dont think anyone should put themselves forward without some form of training

I think this is a good point

You need top class business men in charge of the coops - not top class farmers. It's a different ball game

whelan2 · 09-06-2014 04:24PM

5live wrote: »

That would rule out Warren Buffet so?

The age limit is a very blunt instrument. In a lot of cases, those older farmers provide valuable experience and knowledge while younger ones provide energy and new ideas. To have one or other only weakens the business but a blend of both is best, imo. But how would that be achieved? No idea really.

i suppose what i meant is these lads that see their seat on the board as a job for live should not be let get comfortable in their position. Yes the experience is great from more senior memeber and a bit of get up and go from the younger people but in reality are there many younger people interested or available to do such jobs

Viewtodiefor · 09-06-2014 04:25PM

whelan2 wrote: »

i suppose what i meant is these lads that see their seat on the board as a job for live should not be let get comfortable in their position. Yes the experience is great from more senior memeber and a bit of get up and go from the younger people but in reality are there many younger people interested or available to do such jobs

Ill do it no problem!

5live · 09-06-2014 04:32PM

Viewtodiefor wrote: »

Ill do it no problem!

Then you probably shouldn't get the job:-)

Milk Price- Please read Mod note in post #1

Comments