Milk Price- Please read Mod note in post #1

Not sure how hair colour affects them, but a certain amount of brainpower and balls by them might affect milk price.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I always think it is great the way Teagasc and the journal quote the top 10%. These may be at a different development stage or on different land. Yes one can cut costs but this can only go so far. The lowest cost producers in the world NZ are going broke. The reality is that we are hitting the point where it will cost some farmers to produce milk.

The FJ article as one poster said was condescending. Cut back fertlizer use and silage quanity made save 20-30 euro/head and if we get a very dry summer, a one that will not grow as much grass as last year or we get a long winter next year again that couple euro will quickly go out the door in a meal bill.

I bet you they have a top 10% in NZ as well and a middle section of dairy farmers that made money. In any business you have a top 10%. American company's operate a bonus scheme, there target is that 60-80% of workers will make the bonus, 10-20% will exceed the bonus targets and get a higher bonus. The final 10-20% will not make the grade and generally if these are the same people year after year the company squeezes them out.

If we transfer this to dairying the top 10-20% are those that make that extra profit, the middle 60-80% should make a profit and the bottom 10-20% will be the lads that if they fail to change there systems will go broke.

However at present the middle 60-80% are suffering as well. If milk slumps much lower they will be producing at a loss. Processors are not often efficient enough and high wages that they earn are not reflected in there ability to manage the business.

What is happening in milk is also happening in grain. And next year beef will be the same

you can say that the top 10% of farmers are made up of lads with favourable land and at a later stage of development but you could equally say that the top 10% is made up of lads on so called marginal lands and the early stages of development. the fact of the matter is they don't publish all the farmers who made up the top 10% in a given year so its all just speculaton. are the kiwis the lowest cost producers in the world still? as far as I know the milk price in nz was lower 10 years ago than it is at present and at that stage they defiantly were the lowest cost producers in the world. the problem for the kiwis was better milk prices lead to systems creep and made some of them less competitive. there are still plenty of nz dairy farmers thriving in the current market conditions. the problem is you don't hear about these lads as much and as a result you just hear about the lads who shout the loudest about things going wrong.

on the nitrogen he says to do a budget on how much silage you need to take you over the winter. his advice is if you can produce all your silage needs from your outfarms putting out excessive nitrogen on the milking platform will result in expensive round bales that aren't required. resulting in a saving in N and contractor costs of 10 euros(quite modest). if he was to put in a proviso for every different circumstance that can happen on a farm them the article would run over the course of 4 or 5 pages and no one would bother reading it.

I don't disagree with the point that processors are efficient enough but all im suggesting is that neither are the farmers. at the end of the day my farm is my business if it fails it will be my fault. everything that has lead me to that point will be because of a choice I made and no amount of complaining about china, the eu, nz, russia, the states, the eu commissioner, teagasc, ifj, ifa, the government, the department of ag, the coop, the weather will change that fact.

Milked out

AFAIK two states in the US had the lowest cop last time I saw a list, not 100% but they were Def below nz. Lads at the end of the day browned is right take from those articles what you will but the quality ,or lack of, of the written word or its content is there for you to take in or ignore. Our own discussion group had similar content discussed 2 months ago, get rid of bottom 10% of herd but then you'll just have extra silage etc, etc nor arguing just discussion of what we can do. Simple as that. Unless you get involved at meetings and let your views known etc you won't have any impact on price paid or coop cost saving but at least you do within your own gate. Personally I won't be cutting back on fert as stocked high enough and I ain't planning on reliving 2013 anytime soon but others may be in a position to do so. Have cut back on recording and a few other things but basically if this trough drags on we will all have to look at everything

darragh_haven

pedigree 6 wrote: »

I'll take that as a firm NO then.

FFS you asked the question 19 mins ago. He just might have a life outside of boards.ie. Or maybe a long relaxing sh1t

Pedigree, I got on about a reply or back up proof on another site, almost 24 hours after an original request and got a Mod warning!!!!

kevthegaff

Water John wrote: »

Pedigree, I got on about a reply or back up proof on another site, almost 24 hours after an original request and got a Mod warning!!!!

I'd say the glanbia/dairygold spinsters are trying to figure out who Walter J and Farmer Ed for knocking their good name online:-D!!

http://www.vice.com/read/the-united-states-officially-has-way-too-much-cheese-right-now-vgtrn?utm_source=vicefbus&utm_campaign=global

browned wrote:

Sucessfull businesses tend not to hide behind excuses.

Quite right.

Trouble is I don't see any excuses here, just a keen interest in a monopoly business owned by those supplying it.

An excuse would be something like "the rep in Nigeria is having trouble because the milk price thread on boards.ie is giving away the reality at farm level"

Timmaay

It's all right everyone, the US are aware of their oversupply problem and are activity encouraging everyone over there to eat more cheese

briangriffin

jaymla627 wrote: »

Take it you supply one of the west cork co-ops and must have a nice bit fixed on top of that....I got just under 25 cent last month and about the same in Feb, how would you go at that wasn't white water either Bf around 4% and pr3.35%

Price here was 25 cent a litre
Protein was 3.25 group average 3.23
Butterfat was 4.1 group average 4.20
Group average price was 23 cent plus 2 cent in supports
In fairness if your getting 35 cent a litre for March milk this year id imagine you are one of very few getting it

Bass Reeves

browned wrote: »

you can say that the top 10% of farmers are made up of lads with favourable land and at a later stage of development but you could equally say that the top 10% is made up of lads on so called marginal lands and the early stages of development. the fact of the matter is they don't publish all the farmers who made up the top 10% in a given year so its all just speculaton. are the kiwis the lowest cost producers in the world still? as far as I know the milk price in nz was lower 10 years ago than it is at present and at that stage they defiantly were the lowest cost producers in the world. the problem for the kiwis was better milk prices lead to systems creep and made some of them less competitive. there are still plenty of nz dairy farmers thriving in the current market conditions. the problem is you don't hear about these lads as much and as a result you just hear about the lads who shout the loudest about things going wrong.

on the nitrogen he says to do a budget on how much silage you need to take you over the winter. his advice is if you can produce all your silage needs from your outfarms putting out excessive nitrogen on the milking platform will result in expensive round bales that aren't required. resulting in a saving in N and contractor costs of 10 euros(quite modest). if he was to put in a proviso for every different circumstance that can happen on a farm them the article would run over the course of 4 or 5 pages and no one would bother reading it.

I don't disagree with the point that processors are efficient enough but all im suggesting is that neither are the farmers. at the end of the day my farm is my business if it fails it will be my fault. everything that has lead me to that point will be because of a choice I made and no amount of complaining about china, the eu, nz, russia, the states, the eu commissioner, teagasc, ifj, ifa, the government, the department of ag, the coop, the weather will change that fact.

Browned off if you had read my post I was making the point that Teagasc/IFJ continual point about the top 10% is often misleading. That the top 10% is not the best reference point. I think this fad that if we were all as good as the top 10% that everything would be rosy. The reality I was pointing out was that the middle 60-80% costs are the real cost to look at. The Kiwi may not be as efficient as they were but underling costs are creeping up such as Fertlizer, general costs etc.

Your point about nitrogen and silage and the IFJ are correct. However this is the same paper that a few weeks ago was advising tillage farmers because of the late season to sow forage crops for dairy farmers rather than grain crops.With the year that is in it at present it is unlikly that there will be an excess of forage around. Most dairy farmers use surplus bales as high quality forage to supplement at grass in spring and autumn. Growing grass is an inexact science and right sized covers changes to surplus or shortages very fast. However you may be right there is small saving.

However some of the rest are questionable. Few enough farmers will be doing any fencing or any capital expenditure that is not necessary. I had to laugh at the straw and online savings while true they require one thing CASH. Very little online is credit and I doubt if I went down to Wexford and orders 100 bales of straw off browned off the tillage farmer he would give me credit either.

This from a piece that started off that cash reserves of 300/cow were need at the start of the year:eek:. On a 100 cow herd if you bought the straw and got it landed in the yard you are looking at 10-14/bale if travelling any distance I imagine. The ivermectin is a real saver especially on young light stock. If you want to know what are the cheapest dosing materials contact your local fairly efficient beef farmers not only will he tell you the cheapest he f@@king tell you where to buy it as well. Because believe it or not ivermectin vary in price. But to get value you need to buy multi pack 2.5L for 100 euro. Now to put it in perceptive you will dose over 300 animals at 400kg's with that.

Rations and 3 way mixes everyone knows that they are cheaper than nuts. There are some of us being telling stupid dairy farmers that for years. However they are not very successfull with automatic feeders. However JK of the FJ will tell you to put a few troughs in the yard (opps capital expenditure) and to feed away. Maybe you can feed it under the fence like us beef farmers do at times.

I really liked the picture's of the 7 amigo's at the top of the second page of the savings. One for got to wear the dunces hat as there are only 13 savings I taught they all had to contribute 2. It like everything else there is a lazy 10-20%. In this case it is 14.2857% of the staff. However if like my american company example one might have contributed 3 and the dunce contributed nothing

But we really need to do the figures. If one got the total saving of the gospel according to Aidan it equates to 2.3 c/l. It is unlikely that anyone will gain more than 1c/L from reading it. On your bit about complaining, lobbying and highlighting inefficiency in co-op's 1c/L would be a small gain. To put it in context this article was only a journalist farting around to sound like he had a contribution to make.

Interesting article by Sean O'Leary in The Irish Examiner today.
Big change of tack, one could say a U turn on MSA's.

Basically also saying enough is enough on price.

Do I see the hands of a new president in it?

keep going

Farmer Ed wrote: »

You are dead right. Feel free to open another thread on suitable fashion tips for board members. I've noticed lately an increasing number of people dying their hair blue.

maybe he is trying to disguise himself ,what with recent controversies and the price of milk falling.

Excellent post, Bass.
Paper never refused ink.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I really liked the picture's of the 7 amigo's at the top of the second page of the savings. One for got to wear the dunces hat as there are only 13 savings I taught they all had to contribute 2. It like everything else there is a lazy 10-20%. In this case it is 14.2857% of the staff. However if like my american company example one might have contributed 3 and the dunce contributed nothing

To put it in context this article was only a journalist farting around to sound like he had a contribution to make.

a nice and classy contribution to make. pity none of it has any relevance to anything being discussed but hey why not insult a few writers to get a few thanks.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Browned off if you had read my post I was making the point that Teagasc/IFJ continual point about the top 10% is often misleading. That the top 10% is not the best reference point. I think this fad that if we were all as good as the top 10% that everything would be rosy. The reality I was pointing out was that the middle 60-80% costs are the real cost to look at. The Kiwi may not be as efficient as they were but underling costs are creeping up such as Fertlizer, general costs etc.

.

how would things not be rosy if all farmers were as efficient at producing milk as the current top 10% are. surely if farmers currently in the bottom 10% sold milk at a higher milk value over base while at the same time lowering their costs they would be better off than where they currently are? you seem to think that 60-80% of farmers cannot aspire to reach the efficiency of the top 10%, why is that what is the limitation to stopping these farmers reaching this. surely the limitation exists among the top 10% as their gains are reduce with every year while the 60-80% aren't as burdened with the diminishing level of gain.
I worked on a farm in nz 10 years ago that never spread fertiliser, never fed meal and never had a vet call out, in this example how do costs that weren't there 10 years ago creep up without having to be introduced in the first place.

kowtow wrote: »

Quite right.

Trouble is I don't see any excuses here, just a keen interest in a monopoly business owned by those supplying it.

An excuse would be something like "the rep in Nigeria is having trouble because the milk price thread on boards.ie is giving away the reality at farm level"

I was wondering would it be a help if we posted our milk prices. I would hope that if someone is low that help could be given, on the other hand if high perhaps your tips could help us all.

I would suggest posting your processors base inc Vat for comparison
Post your Nett price for others to help or be helped
I think that solids should be included.
I suggest any seasonal/liquid contract price be excluded or seperated.

I feel that we as farmers do a lot of bitching about processor prices and rightly so IMO. I also feel that we should not worry about it as we can do nothing about base price but we certainly do something about it at farm level.

What do you all think?

Bass Reeves

browned wrote: »

a nice and classy contribution to make. pity none of it has any relevance to anything being discussed but hey why not insult a few writers to get a few thanks.

If you noticed a few that thanked your post thanked mine as well. Yes I did insult them just like they have insulted farmers

browned wrote: »

how would things not be rosy if all farmers were as efficient at producing milk as the current top 10% are. surely if farmers currently in the bottom 10% sold milk at a higher milk value over base while at the same time lowering their costs they would be better off than where they currently are? you seem to think that 60-80% of farmers cannot aspire to reach the efficiency of the top 10%, why is that what is the limitation to stopping these farmers reaching this. surely the limitation exists among the top 10% as their gains are reduce with every year while the 60-80% aren't as burdened with the diminishing level of gain.
I worked on a farm in nz 10 years ago that never spread fertiliser, never fed meal and never had a vet call out, in this example how do costs that weren't there 10 years ago creep up without having to be introduced in the first place.

This idea that if we all are in the top 10% everything will be rosy is a fallacy. In all industry and business there will be a top tier, middle tier and a bottom tier. At different stages of a business you may be in any sector of this. However as a general rule only the most inefficient lose. Now what is efficiency for the last 20+ years in agriculture we have been fed this. Some of it such as early grazing, shortening winters etc is very apt and those that have followed it in general have won.

However in any business the middle section should make a profit. Agriculture and it is not just an Irish problem has found that the more we produce the less profit we make. You highlighted about this NZ farm that spread no fertlizer, never fed meal and no vets bills. You cannot do without fertlizer forever and in truth judicious use of fertlizer shortens the winter. We are being fed a model that is not completely compatable with all of Ireland. We will always have an annual herd test so w will have a vets bill maybe we can do without ration. But even on the Greenfields farm they found that at stages use of supplementation was very profitable.

We can never reach the farm scale of NZ so it is not a completely apt model. That is not to say we cannot get more efficient but at present efficienty is not the issue.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

If you noticed a few that thanked your post thanked mine as well. Yes I did insult them just like they have insulted farmers

This idea that if we all are in the top 10% everything will be rosy is a fallacy. In all industry and business there will be a top tier, middle tier and a bottom tier. At different stages of a business you may be in any sector of this. However as a general rule only the most inefficient lose. Now what is efficiency for the last 20+ years in agriculture we have been fed this. Some of it such as early grazing, shortening winters etc is very apt and those that have followed it in general have won.

However in any business the middle section should make a profit. Agriculture and it is not just an Irish problem has found that the more we produce the less profit we make. You highlighted about this NZ farm that spread no fertlizer, never fed meal and no vets bills. You cannot do without fertlizer forever and in truth judicious use of fertlizer shortens the winter. We are being fed a model that is not completely compatable with all of Ireland. We will always have an annual herd test so w will have a vets bill maybe we can do without ration. But even on the Greenfields farm they found that at stages use of supplementation was very profitable.

We can never reach the farm scale of NZ so it is not a completely apt model. That is not to say we cannot get more efficient but at present efficienty is not the issue.

How have 6 writers who haven't contributed to an article insulted farmers? If you were so insulted by the article why not send in a letter of complaint to the journal instead of taking pot shots at writers on a internet chat room.

Of course there will always be a top middle and bottom I'm not arguing that point. All I'm saying is that if for the example all the farmer in the bottom 10% produced milk to the quality and efficiency level of the top 10% then they would be better off financially. You suggested in a previous post that they wouldn't be and I cannot figure out why this wouldn't be the case.

"The more we produce the less profitable we become" might that have something to do with why milk prices are so low in the first place? We seem to think that the solution to low milk prices caused by an oversupply in the market is to produce more of the same product.

Where have I suggested that we follow the kiwis down the no meal, fert or vet route. It has been done to death and Ireland and nz are not comparable in terms of low cost due to many factors. I was responding to your line that the reason the kiwis have become less compeditive was due to a rise in input costs. I mearly asked how could input cost that weren't tgere 10 years ago rise. The simple answer is if I didn't feed ration 10 years ago and I'm feeding it now there is a rise in my cost of production not because the cost of ration has risen in that 10 year period but due the introduction of ration in the first place.

Farmer Ed

kevthegaff wrote: »

I'd say the glanbia/dairygold spinsters are trying to figure out who Walter J and Farmer Ed for knocking their good name online:-D!!

What on earth are you talking about? Gill and Dg are by far the best paying co ops to be on the boards of. When I grow up I want to be on the boards of both of them and possibly 20 more reputable quangos as well if I can pull it off.

What spinsters do you talk of? I thought they were all married?
Surely you are not referring to their pr consultants? And very reputable pr consultants they have too. Dairygold use Keating and associates. you'll find Pat in his basement office in Dublin. He even won an award for getting farmers to vote for reox
If my memory serves me correctly he had a budget of something like 100k for selling that one CEO's may come and go in Co Ops. But the pr consultants live on.
Maybe when I grow up I would like to be a Pr consultant as well.
If you want Dg to comment on any matter call pat in Dublin. The highly qualified people in Mitchelstown will not talk to the media without taking to pat first.

WheatenBriar

browned wrote: »

Of course there will always be a top middle and bottom I'm not arguing that point. All I'm saying is that if for the example all the farmer in the bottom 10% produced milk to the quality and efficiency level of the top 10% then they would be better off financially. You suggested in a previous post that they wouldn't be and I cannot figure out why this wouldn't .

Because,there a large number of vanity farms around,contributing to the 'top statistic' many of whom cannot pay the real bills behind that vanity especially this year

browned wrote:

I feel that we as farmers do a lot of bitching about processor prices and rightly so IMO. I also feel that we should not worry about it as we can do nothing about base price but we certainly do something about it at farm level. What do you all think?

I suspect you are taking that statement a little out of its original context.

It's true that for the most part our processors are price takers on the world market.. always will be as long as we insist on producing surplus commodity milk.

However - the culture and management of our coops is still under our control if only we would excersise it.

Do you consider yourself a farmer or a miner? To answer your question if we all become as efficient as the top 10th today, and the present commodity approach continues, land will become more expensive, as will inputs, coops will take more, and the farmers will not get quite as much as you think.

briangriffin

WheatenBriar wrote: »

Because,there a large number of vanity farms around,contributing to the 'top statistic' many of whom cannot pay the real bills behind that vanity especially this year

I think suggesting the solution to the current crises and it is a crises for the vast majority of farmers who are getting paid in or around 25 cent a litre is to become more efficient is in itself a little condescending. Every farmer knows that if the price of milk drops then savings must be made in the cost of production. But even the top 10 percent will suffer when the cost of production teeters around the price paid by the coop. External factors do play an important role aswell like this years weather thats not me blaming the weather and ignoring my own inefficiencies its me stating the obvious if my cows have been out in spring the past 10 years before the 10 th of February and this year they are only out the 10th of March thats another expense to factor into the cost of production but its outside of my control barring i build a giant umbrella for just my plot.

patsy_mccabe

Jeez, the negativity on this thread compared to one year ago. I'll be killed for saying this but a lot of dairy farmers mollycoddled under the quotas. All this anger directed towards the COOPs is a bit childish. The same COOPs that were paying the high prices only last year. I'll run for cover now.

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Ah now you're being negative. You shouldn't trample on my dreams just like that.
As one prominent board member who was co opted on to yet another board recently is reported to have said. "Be positive, be positive.be positive" Obviously the man has the whole situation under control.

I've been anything but negative ed, just being realistic. I'm just worried that you may be financially worse off going on one of these boards.

browned wrote:

How have 6 writers who haven't contributed to an article insulted farmers? If you were so insulted by the article why not send in a letter of complaint to the journal instead of taking pot shots at writers on a internet chat room.

presumably the writers insulted farmers by writing it?

This is an open 'chat room' full of farmers, journalists, and people from all over the industry. We even have a lonely hearts spot for milk powder sales people in Nigeria.

Why wouldn't we discuss a journal article? Is it OK to discuss ear to the ground or must we send letters to the editor there as well?

homingbird

The low price that is their now is to kill off the small farmer as it is not paying the co-op collect from them so this price will remain until it has served its purpose & shall go lower if it does not achieve its target.