Milk Price- Please read Mod note in post #1

Water John

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.

Water John

Excellent post, Bass.
Paper never refused ink.

browned

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.

browned

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.

browned

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.

browned

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

kowtow

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.

browned

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.

kowtow

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.

kowtow

browned wrote:

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.

Only if he forgets to hand in his bank account details when he starts work...

Ed.. 'be positive' just isn't enough to cut it these days in hard markets. I think your going to have to run a couple of ideas up the flagpole when you get in there. Leverage vertical synergies, pick low hanging fruit, maybe rebrand and reposition. And give those heroes out in Nigeria a big bonus.

whelan2

homingbird wrote: »

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.

Alot of the smaller farmers are the most efficient and will weather this storm

Farmer Ed

Water John wrote: »

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?

U turn! I'd say he must be suffering from whiplash. Their actions now and the success of those actions will be evidence of how serious They are about putting the horse back in the stable after they were activity involved in opening the stable door in the first place

whelan2

I remember lads posting on here this time last year that 27-28cpl was the new 19cpl and that the price wouldnt drop blow 27cent. How low will it go? Interesting times ahead in the next few weeks when April price is announced.

Farmer Ed

browned wrote: »

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.

Ah but I'm planning on being in the 10% of the best paid board members

browned

kowtow wrote: »

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?

He admitted to insulting 7 writers about an article 1 writer wrote, how is that fair on the 6 other writers? I've no issue with it being discussed Ive actively discussed the issue with various posters on here. I do take issue with insulting people who aren't here to defend themselves but if that's something that's allowed and encouraged who am I to object.

browned

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Ah but I'm planning on being in the 10% of the best paid board members

I'm lost here ed. you protest against the wages these board members get for months but at the same time you say if in their position you'd actively strive to be in the top paid bracket.

fepper

browned wrote: »

I'm lost here ed. you protest against the wages these board members get for months but at the same time you say if in their position you'd actively strive to be in the top paid bracket.

I think his point is if you can't beat em ,join em in the merry go round!!

mahoney_j

whelan2 wrote: »

I remember lads posting on here this time last year that 27-28cpl was the new 19cpl and that the price wouldnt drop blow 27cent. How low will it go? Interesting times ahead in the next few weeks when April price is announced.

Well we know Glanbia are going to be 20 ,wonder will the sheep follow......

Willfarman

homingbird wrote: »

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.

Bank and merchant debt is going to kill off dairy farmers whether they be big or small..

The smaller lads were usually hard reared on f all money.. Straightening bent nails and wouldn't borrow a bob. "Have the price of it or do without"

I predict the billy big balls lads with their new leased jeeps and tractors and loans on land costing Celtic tiger development money will drop like flies!!

Sure 30 years of quota has a hape of these lads hooked on cocaine and hookers, the polish lad they had milking the cows can't be paid now and after spending so long cruising the Algarve its easy forget how to do it yourself I'd say..

kevthegaff

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.

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.

Browned you are milking once a day, do you think if everyone went to OAD will the price reflect our solids? I severely doubt it. You may not be In the top 10% either

browned

fepper wrote: »

I think his point is if you can't beat em ,join em in the merry go round!!

But how will that change anything for the good. If we constantly complain about guys doing nothing on boards to extract a handy wage and when presented with the opportunity ourselves only go and do the same.

Farmer Ed

browned wrote: »

I'm lost here ed. you protest against the wages these board members get for months but at the same time you say if in their position you'd actively strive to be in the top paid bracket.

Ah browned I thought I had your blessing. Please don't be negative. If we are all possitive everything will be grand. Anyway I've no interest in being on the west cork boards. They don't pay enough.

WheatenBriar

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

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.

Lol 2 yrs ago not last year

Positivity is a rare comodity when every litre going out the yard loses you 5 to 8c and you see people in the plc not there as long as we who founded the co op that made that plc,earning millions and taking decisions to reduce farmer income even more whilst selling our shares in the plc for to part pay for our milk that they make a large profit on....
Yeah not the best breeding ground for positivity

keep going

Ah lads relax will ye about this article.while this article isnt up to much browned point is 100% correct, only the efficent will make money out of milk from now on.while the the teagsc model isnt suitable for every one you cant ignore the fact thatifyour costs are high you re out of business.anyway I cant belive youre arguing over this when we have an eye witness account of a board member dying their hair , I have my suspicion about another ceo as well

whelan2

WheatenBriar wrote: »

Lol

Positivity is a rare comodity when every litre going out the yard loses you 5 to 8c and you see people in the plc not there as long as we who founded the co op that made that plc,earning millions and taking decisions to reduce farmer income even more whilst selling our shares in the plc for to part pay for our milk that they make a large profit on....
Yeah not the best breeding ground for positivity

Sure we are worse to sit back and let them do it

keep going

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Ah browned I thought I had your blessing. Please don't be negative. If we are all possitive everything will be grand. Anyway I've no interest in being on the west cork boards. They don't pay enough.

Yes this is true and I have the grey hairs to prove it

fepper

browned wrote: »

But how will that change anything for the good. If we constantly complain about guys doing nothing on boards to extract a handy wage and when presented with the opportunity ourselves only go and do the same.

They aren't too many fall guys willing to sacrifice their moral grounds if they are being paid by the offender (coop) shooting yourself in the foot syndrome

browned

kevthegaff wrote: »

Browned you are milking once a day, do you think if everyone went to OAD will the price reflect our solids? I severely doubt it. You may not be In the top 10% either

I'm not advocating oad. It's a choice. What I'm saying is i could have just as easily continued as I was and complain about the low price but I didn't and did something about it, plenty other here have reduced costs while upping production so are in a better position as a result.
I'm firmly in the bottom 40% of producers so I can see from first hand the waste that is still in my business. There's 5-6c or more of low hanging fruit still to be picked from my business.

Bass Reeves

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.

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.

I would have assumed that as all seven had there phots's at the top of the article that they all contributed there idea's on cost savings. If you take the gain you take the pain. I think you fail to grasp my point. What is efficient this year was inefficient last year and vica versa. At 40c/L it is efficient to use meal and other strategy's to increase production buy 10-30%. It is now time to hunker down as every dairy farmer knows.

However I dislike up to figures it like going into a restaurant and seeing dinner's from 5 euro and when you look at it in detail it is sausages and chips. The article gave savings without qualifying them. Like the point I made about rations not working with automatic feeders, and paying for straw at the start of the year when cash flow is tightest. If there is one thing about most farmers they take market opportunities.

Spouting about limiting N when at present grass growth has been below average in most farms and silage ground is behind growth levels is a bit rich. It is very easy for advisor's and journalist's to give there sixpence, however they will all get paid at the end of the months and will not be back 30-50% in there check.

The reality is that it is the price of milk is the issue. The big co-op's especially with PLC arms could and should do more to support price. This hiding behind shareholder accountability is BS. A few were glorying in bringing the bad news and none are looking at there own costs and seeing if they can reduce them.

When you look at the sheanigans that went on with the farmers that left DG for Arrabawn and the lads that went from Glanbia to Stratroy people are right to question Co-op structure and politics. A lot of this is costing more than the 1c/L that may accrue from the journal article.

This idea that is fostered that we can only control inside the farm gate is a disservice to farmers. Finally it is not the most fittest, the efficient or the best that survive it is those that adapt best to circumstances.

browned

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Ah browned I thought I had your blessing. Please don't be negative. If we are all possitive everything will be grand. Anyway I've no interest in being on the west cork boards. They don't pay enough.

I never said you didn't have my blessing. I think you'd earn every penny you got while one the board. Sure you'd be too busy on here complaining about yourself on the board of dg at any rate.

WheatenBriar

browned wrote: »

I'm not advocating oad. It's a choice. What I'm saying is i could have just as easily continued as I was and complain about the low price but I didn't and did something about it, plenty other here have reduced costs while upping production so are in a better position as a result.
I'm firmly in the bottom 40% of producers so I can see from first hand the waste that is still in my business. There's 5-6c or more of low hanging fruit still to be picked from my business.

Wrong mindset
why cant those savings be a bonus on top of a better price?
They are your savings,your earned crust,not a co op's or a plc
Why does it always have to be the farmer?

mahoney_j

Willfarman wrote: »

Bank and merchant debt is going to kill off dairy farmers whether they be big or small..

The smaller lads were usually hard reared on f all money.. Straightening bent nails and wouldn't borrow a bob. "Have the price of it or do without"

I predict the billy big balls lads with their new leased jeeps and tractors and loans on land costing Celtic tiger development money will drop like flies!!

Sure 30 years of quota has a hape of these lads hooked on cocaine and hookers, the polish lad they had milking the cows can't be paid now and after spending so long cruising the Algarve its easy forget how to do it yourself I'd say..

Some times it's best say nothing at all than post a pile of crap........

Farmer Ed

browned wrote: »

I never said you didn't have my blessing. I think you'd earn every penny you got while one the board. Sure you'd be too busy on here complaining about yourself on the board of dg at any rate.

Thanks for your support. Do you mind if I use you as a reference when myself and the other lads on the remuneration committee give ourselves a pay rise. At the moment I have an opening for a campaign manager. Are you interested?

Willfarman

mahoney_j wrote: »

Some times it's best say nothing at all than post a pile of crap........

Well tongue in cheek but not crap old chap.. I hold fast to my point and opinion.

freedominacup

Willfarman wrote: »

Well tongue in cheek but not crap old chap.. I hold fast to my point and opinion.

Wtf is smaller under 5'6", 5'10", 6'? Small farmer/farming is a mindset.

browned

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Finally it is not the most fittest, the efficient or the best that survive it is those that adapt best to circumstances.

Bang on the money bass. The current circumstances is 22c/l and falling. Those that adopt to this new reality will survive and those that cling to the past will not.

browned

WheatenBriar wrote: »

Wrong mindset
why cant those savings be a bonus on top of a better price?
They are your savings,your earned crust,not a co op's or a plc
Why does it always have to be the farmer?

How is me taking control of my own business the wrong mindset.
If people aren't happy with the milk price why not go out and sell their own milk cut the coop out of the equation. Plenty of farmers havent excepted poor prices in the past and added value to their milk be it in the form of cheeses, yogurts etc. this way you have full control of production marketing and sales of your produce and you're the one getting the bonuses

fepper

browned wrote: »

Bang on the money bass. The current circumstances is 22c/l and falling. Those that adopt to this new reality will survive and those that cling to the past will not.

That's always the way it was in farming or any self-employment

Willfarman

freedominacup wrote: »

Wtf is smaller under 5'6", 5'10", 6'? Small farmer/farming is a mindset.

I agree completely I was merely making a point dispelling another posters theory about low milk price putting out smaller producers first who could be big men or women but with handy sized farms and herds...

Big or small farm the first to fall will be those with unsustainable debt Imo.

Water John

Yes, but the price is 22c and falling in those who have chosen in lazy management fashion to put most of their product in commodity along with those who restructured and moved their profit into plc and screwed the farmer.
As in 2008/9 you will see the gap widening out to 4 cent in base price.

browned

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Thanks for your support. Do you mind if I use you as a reference when myself and the other lads on the remuneration committee give ourselves a pay rise. At the moment I have an opening for a campaign manager. Are you interested?

Sorry man I wouldn't have a strong enough pharyngeal reflex to last the interview let alone a days work

Water John

Lets keep a close look on base price over the next while and see if the gap widens.
I'm betting on 4 cent. That's 24K if you are supplying 600,000 litres.
I'd be ok on that as drawings.

kowtow

Ah God no, not the west cork boards. They've barely got chocolate on the digestives and there is a whiff of farmer about them.

Go for the big boys, get a cheap suit, and get on with taking the 'culture' out of agriculture.