frazzledhome wrote: » If your 2-3c ahead where's the return from, not the market. Why didn't your co op go to 41? It's the same difference just paid a different way.
kowtow wrote: » Seriously worried that co-ops take up forward trading "on behalf of their farmers, to offer a stable price" Unless a number of primary producers voluntarily opt to lock in a specific price (transparently) for a stated quantity over a stated period, they have nothing to hedge. And they sure as hell aren't the people to trade. Because we are the ones who have to cover their losses.
frazzledhome wrote: » Coop shareholders voting so only them. This is an issue that needs to be dealt with. Co op can only pay its shareholders
farmersfriend wrote: » Signed up suppliers need an opportunity to buy shares if top ups are going to be the way forward.
red bull wrote: » Fair play to Arrabawn, top of Journal league for first time in ages. Arrabawn suppliers took a hit on price it seems to put infracsture in place to to take increased supply. I have information that suggests they take milk from Glanbia and Dairygold to process at added value
TerryFear wrote: » episodes of dynasty LOL
mahoney_j wrote: » Can I have a vodka with that #locked!!!!!
red bull wrote: » Most of my Quota is in Aurivo, not for long I think. Confused
frazzledhome wrote: » What I'm referring to in that post has nothing to do with forward trading
whelan2 wrote: » 30.5cpl for November
milkprofit wrote: » Perhaps nobody in the industry down south industry is brave enough to prioritise the interests of the producer over the policy-makers lust for a 50% increase in milk production by 2020? A 50% increase remains a valid and worthwhile target, but in that regard, our destination has to be more important than our speed. Should rapid expansion plans be put on hold on some farms until markets recover? I fear for the negative consequences for some, of trying to adjust to the demands of larger herds and increased loan repayments without the cushion of a decent milk price. It’s easy to measure the financial fall-out. The effect on the mental and physical health of farm families under stress can be more difficult to quantify. Years such as 2015 are all about saving the business and leaving any stresses that arise outside the house where they belong. I hear many younger farmers in particular, outlining that they will milk a lot more cows in 2015 to ‘dilute their costs’. However, I am also aware of many farmers who are planning to milk 10-15% less cows next year, while also rearing 10-15% less youngstock, with a view to not incurring the costs in the first place. They have already sold a lot of stock to raise cash to bolster next year’s budget. With poorer cows removed and less heifers coming into the herd, most expect to deliver close to the same milk output as 2014 but with reduced expenditure on feed, fertiliser and silage related costs in particular. These farmers are focussed on their own goals and profits, not those of their processors, advisors or Government policy makers. do u agree
milkprofit wrote: » Perhaps nobody in the industry down south industry is brave enough to prioritise the interests of the producer over the policy-makers lust for a 50% increase in milk production by 2020? A 50% increase remains a valid and worthwhile target, but in that regard, our destination has to be more important than our speed. Should rapid expansion plans be put on hold on some farms until markets recover? I fear for the negative consequences for some, of trying to adjust to the demands of larger herds and increased loan repayments without the cushion of a decent milk price. It’s easy to measure the financial fall-out. The effect on the mental and physical health of farm families under stress can be more difficult to quantify. Years such as 2015 are all about saving the business and leaving any stresses that arise outside the house where they belong. Well said. Unfortunately I hear many younger farmers in particular, outlining that they will milk a lot more cows in 2015 to ‘dilute their costs’. However, I am also aware of many farmers who are planning to milk 10-15% less cows next year, while also rearing 10-15% less youngstock, with a view to not incurring the costs in the first place. They have already sold a lot of stock to raise cash to bolster next year’s budget. With poorer cows removed and less heifers coming into the herd, most expect to deliver close to the same milk output as 2014 but with reduced expenditure on feed, fertiliser and silage related costs in particular. These farmers are focussed on their own goals and profits, not those of their processors, advisors or Government policy makers. do u agree
Greengrass1 wrote: » If farmers did they budgets right they shouldn't have sell stock. I'm not selling anything. We'll knew it wouldn't stay at 39c forever
5live wrote: » We knew it wouldn't stay but nobody was thinking a fall to mid 20s...... He reckons you should never waste a crisis because in a crisis you find yourself having to make decisions that would be a million miles away from what would be 'normal'. Next year is another one of those years.
joejobrien wrote: » Well said. Unfortunately many believed it would remain at high prices forever and a day and couldnt see the woods from the trees and some ithink may be even on here:D All jokes aside, it is the processor that will win out irrespective of the producer making money. Make no mistake ,They will have a margin
Dawggone wrote: » Bang on there. Should be read and reread. Processors will always have a margin. BTW. Where have you seen processors posting figures for the maximum they can pay for milk?? NEVER. Guys come on here and elsewhere quoting the minimum they can produce milk for....AND they don't even include a wage for themselves!! Wages always get paid in the real world.
