kowtow wrote: » Quite! If we relied on domestic liquid the fields would be empty.. We've been major exporters longer than we've been an independent nation.. at one point we were the global price setter for butter. Switzerland has a similar population size to Ireland and exports, if my rough calculation is correct .. I will check tomorrow. . nearly 7 billion litres as cheese with a manufacturing milk price of over 60 cent. Everything is possible.
kowtow wrote: » I have a feeling we will look back at this period and be grateful the price came off as quick as it did. There's still time to make sure we get the coops we need and to influence the value chain. If we thought we had learned all there was to learn on April 1st and all we had to do was sign up and sit back then we never deserved to succeed anyway. We produce wonderful milk on family farms in a landscape which is world renowned. Every success story has to start somewhere and that's not a bad place to begin. If we work as hard on our supply chain as we do on our grazing then anything is possible.
kowtow wrote: » Quite! If we relied on domestic liquid the fields would be empty.. We've been major exporters longer than we've been an independent nation.. at one point we were the global price setter for butter. Switzerland has a similar population size to Ireland and exports, if my rough calculation is correct .. I will check tomorrow. . nearly ? billion litres as cheese with a manufacturing milk price of over 60 cent. Everything is possible. Edit: replaced figure as definitely wrong. Will try to find correct figure but can't on phone.
Dawggone wrote: » I've been having a butchers at that link you posted Kowtow. Excellent read. It does signal the big exposure long term to land price and scale. It blows away a few myths that have been doing the rounds with the last couple of years.
Buford T. Justice V wrote: » I did a bit of asking around about not having figures for wages included in farm costs. Apparently the trade off was if they include a farm wage in the Costs Of Production, then they would also have to include the SFP in it also. You can't have it both ways, tbf.
kowtow wrote: » I totally get the logic of not including wages when comparing farms for specific purposes - or against each other on performance metrics. My first approach would always be return on investment / profit generated per ha or per €100,000 capital investment. I'd still strip out farmers wages for these purposes, but not when trying to establish cost of production or competitive advantage. But there is a qualitative difference between dairy farming & other enterprises. Without a full time labour unit (or a family working together day in day out to make up the equivalent of one) you don't get any milk, full stop. Unlike tillage or even beef, you can't really remove this problem by scaling down to a minimal number of cows, and when you scale up the number of full time labour units per litre sold increases in a reasonably predictable pattern. Unless you can find a part time cow, full time labour is an inherent part of dairying. The nearest equivalent I can think of would be intensive horticulture. If you stripped out labour costs I'm not sure that the resulting figures - tens of thousands of margin per hectare, presumably - would be particularly useful, because without full time labour all you would have is salads rotting in the tunnels. I agree that SFP poses a problem here, because it is different from farm to farm, but in a sense that is even more reason to ensure that cash costs figures aren't misused by pretending that full time farmers don't need to eat.
Buford T. Justice V wrote: » That's the crux of the problem right there. ... But the use of those figures by those outside farming, who wouldn't necessarily know that income isn't included in the costs figure, will give an inherently biased perspective on what the total returns needed for a sustainable system, not just survival of the very, very fittest which we seem to be promoting at the minute.
kowtow wrote: » The correlation between global feed prices & oil is pretty consistent, so if you want to know what the 6 - 18 month price outlook is that's the place to look. What's more, unless Ireland really can change the product mix and move up the value chain, there are good reasons to believe that the global price of feed will always be very close to the price of Irish milk.
bogman_bass wrote: » That goes for "soft" commoditities in general does it not and will probably become more so since bio-fuels came into the mix. Oil price is high so value of ethonol goes up. Price of ethanol goes up so the price of corn goes up. Price of corn goes up then the price of milk goes up.
farmerjj wrote: » Anyone know what dairygolds milk price is going to be for july
frazzledhome wrote: » http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11498702 Nothing fixes low prices like low prices
Henwin wrote: » kerry are dropping their milk price by 2 cent a litre
kowtow wrote: » I think if they don't talk a bounce out of the GDT tomorrow we had better hold on to our hats - it's a pity they gamed it by playing with the volume but definitely an auction to watch. What they are trying to do is put a floor in the price to draw out any demand which has been sitting out there, reluctant to catch a falling knife. If they do manage to do this what we need to watch for is the scale and volume of trade over the next couple of auctions. We need fear of missing the low to turn into greed for the maximum savings over a longer cycle. I don't know that anyone is holding out too much hope for that. Does anyone know what the Irish price equivalent is for $2000 WMP (which I think is the futures quote in advance of the GDT auction)? Oil fell back quite hard to a new interim low at it's close today so not sure whether other markets will be able to make a temporary floor even if the relatively quiet little NZ milk market does!
whelan2 wrote: » glanbia statements up now
kowtow wrote: » Does anyone know what the Irish price equivalent is for $2000 WMP (which I think is the futures quote in advance of the GDT auction)?
Greengrass1 wrote: Real inspirational guy and all with building 800 cows from nothing but what about the tax bill
kowtow wrote: » Could be wrong but I don't recall any capital gains tax in NZ.
Buford T. Justice V wrote: » That's the crux of the problem right there. Teagasc figures are designed for use in comparisons between farms and for that purpose only. Farmers can see their costs relative to other farmers costs and see why they are higher than other farmers and how to reduce them without the whole system collapsing. But the use of those figures by those outside farming, who wouldn't necessarily know that income isn't included in the costs figure, will give an inherently biased perspective on what the total returns needed for a sustainable system, not just survival of the very, very fittest which we seem to be promoting at the minute.
alps wrote: I'm also involved in a European cost comparison group, where your own input is factored in as a costeo at 15 euros per hour, and your land is costed in at the same rate as the land rent in your area. That leads to some interesting conclusions. It is the realistic measure of the cost of producing milk.
alps wrote: » There is a huge Data Protection issue going on here also. Our discussion group have been on this with a number of years now. Data can only be used for the purpose for which it is collected. This data is only submitted by farmers for the production of cost comparisons between like minded farmers who also submit figures for that sole purpose. I feel it is illegal fro teagasc to use the figures for anything else. Illegal for use in publications, illegal for distribution to coops and industry, illegal for use by government. It is solely for the use of cost comparison between the farmers who submit the figures. We have an agreement from our advisor that our figures go no further in the system than for the use of our individual discussion group. We trust that this is adhered to but have no way of knowing. To make the figures realistic each member puts in a figure of 40k per family work unit, not unreasonable because that's what you would have to pay to replace you. I'm also involved in a European cost comparison group, where your own input is factored in as a costeo at 15 euros per hour, and your land is costed in at the same rate as the land rent in your area.That leads to some interesting conclusions. It is the realistic measure of the cost of producing milk. I can tell that at under 35c/l Irish farmers are subsidising milk price through free labour, free land, free depreciation....of course you can keep going for quiet some time without paying for the above...but no other right minded industry would.
Greengrass1 wrote: » http://i.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/dairy/71044096/cashed-up-sharemilker-enda-hawe-now-ready-to-buy Real inspirational guy and all with building 800 cows from nothing but what about the tax bill
Mehaffey1 wrote: » Some fellow alright, he came in to talk to my Ag class, my tutor used to be his calf rearer, small world out here. Very controversial sharemilker of the year but he did get a crazy in calf rate for a couple of years running and went from the end of mating one year to the end of calving the next year with only 1 cow dying out of near 600 which was pretty special for NZ
