Milk Price- Please read Mod note in post #1

keep going

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Just because I don't use boards to boast about my achievements doesn't really mean a whole lot. I love farming but don't like to be misrepresented by fat cats in suits honestly some farmers seem to have a fetish for overpaid paid people in suits.

It isnt a question of boasting but surely you cant know every thing about farming as wel and personaly i like to bounce things around on here when im making some decisionsl.to be fair I shouldnt have asked that question in this or any thread but it struck me this morning when I was having the flakes.

Water John

Back to product mix and its potential to reflect a better price.
It is also about looking at what we are actually facilitating and getting our % of that.

The prime example I still have is the product supplied to Danone by DG had a premium. Danone requires a grass based product for its premium market on which it makes a premium price.
That premium is no longer returning to DG. Whether it ever reached the DG supplier is a moot point.

Others have looked at providing key products in the fitness nutrition area. This yields a dividend.
Who has bet on the wrong horse?
And what pain will their suppliers suffer because of it.

Dawggone

Milk isn't independently tested??
I'd find it hard to agree to that...

As regards being the last to find out milk price, a month in arrears, that's a bit childish of all involved to expect that in this day and age they can't set a basic minimum.
The way my crew work is that the different manufacturing plants, which are all in hand, forward buy the milk from producers at a guaranteed minimum base price, an open ticket as it were, and if the price rises in the three months then you're paid more. IYKWIM.
I'm getting a min price for 3.2p and 3.8bf of 28.75cpl until end of June, if price rises (:):)) in the meantime I get the bonus...they are also *promising* to raise base price to 30cpl from July. We'll see...

keep going

Water John wrote: »

Back to product mix and its potential to reflect a better price.
It is also about looking at what we are actually facilitating and getting our % of that.

The prime example I still have is the product supplied to Danone by DG had a premium. Danone requires a grass based product for its premium market on which it makes a premium price.
That premium is no longer returning to DG. Whether it ever reached the DG supplier is a moot point.

Others have looked at providing key products in the fitness nutrition area. This yields a dividend.
Who has bet on the wrong horse?
And what pain will their suppliers suffer because of it.

fitness nutrition and protein extracts is old news now and margins are squeezing

Water John

I am aware of that, Keep Going. My point is, who is usually at the front of the curve. Things always roll forward, especially product dev.
Who is regularly late on the curve.

kowtow

Without wishing to make this about the IFA per se, I note Healy's specific comment the other day as follows:-

“Co-ops have to give stronger signals of what markets exist at a viable price and then farmers can make informed decisions on volumes over and above that,” he said.

On the one hand you could read this as a call for transparency, but I wonder if it isn't actually a call for two tier pricing at the co-op level ... as we have discussed here before and particularly in the context of the UK & France with Dawg..

Tier 1 milk, contracted - with a market - at x price & tier 2 milk (surplus) at spot price?

Even if this wasn't specifically what Healy was aiming at it is the logical conclusion of what he describes, otherwise, when a co-op announces that it has premium markets for a million litres but everything else must go to powder every farmer in the district will produce the whole million litres and hope for the best.

rangler1

Farmer Ed wrote: »

But for IFA intervention. I think it is fair to say we would not have msas and farmers would now have independent milk testing and possibly co management may have been forced to be a bit more responsible when spending money that would ultimately have to come from farmers.
So where would we be without Ifa?
give us a break please.

Your first sentence reflects very badly on the intelligence of farmers, do you not think that farmers are capable of reading a contract and deciding to sign using their own cop on or have the initiative to get independent advice. Sound like another of your conspiracy theories to me

freedominacup

rangler1 wrote: »

Your first sentence reflects very badly on the intelligence of farmers, do you not think that farmers are capable of reading a contract and deciding to sign using their own cop on or have the initiative to get independent advice. Sound like another of your conspiracy theories to me

Rangler I've been on your side of this particular row and I think you've been fair enough in your comments so far but ifa did pretty much categorically support the msa's, for what reason I don't know. No point in trying to pretend otherwise or to pretend it didn't influence farmers.

Water John

You can add to that Freedom, those senior IFA who at processor meetings stood and voiced, in total contrast to IFA official policy, that there was no need for independent milk testing.

Transparency, has many facets.

whelan2

freedominacup wrote: »

Rangler I've been on your side of this particular row and I think you've been fair enough in your comments so far but ifa did pretty much categorically support the msa's, for what reason I don't know. No point in trying to pretend otherwise or to pretend it didn't influence farmers.

In fairness though, it was mainly pressure from Glanbia that made people sign, the fact you would lose any bonuses etc.

Water John

The pressure in DG was also horrendous. People constantly hassled by DG staff.
Milk projections were also pushed high by those staff.
This in turn was used to justify expansion plans and spend.
I think they claimed at some time that 97% had signed. 60 or 70 suppliers left and the figure they now give is 93%??

In relation to long term MSA's most are seething, and are saying, fool me once, etc.

The option pointed out above may be a better route.
Define market and supply required.
If some one wants to produce surplus for a dump price, off with them.

rangler1

freedominacup wrote: »

Rangler I've been on your side of this particular row and I think you've been fair enough in your comments so far but ifa did pretty much categorically support the msa's, for what reason I don't know. No point in trying to pretend otherwise or to pretend it didn't influence farmers.

I know from anything i was involved in, that we'd always be recommending that farmers get independent advice and usually be one of the slides of the explanatory presentation.....you can lead a horse to water blah blah etc.

Was it not because of the commitment that processors were going tput into milk and they wanted a guaranteed supply.
They have to take your milk now because of the MSA even though they don't want it

kowtow

Should the Ifa at the time... rather than the usual independent advice nonsense... have been using its unique collective status to highlight some of the glaring inequities of the agreements as proposed.

I remember thinking the terms breathtaking at the time, from what little I saw of them. They had more in common with a doorstep lender than a supposed cooperative partner - a first year law student could have outlined the most glaring issues and yet to do so seemed beyond the measure of IFA and the like?

It's very difficult for individual farmers no matter how well advised to amend these agreements because the processor will... reasonably... object that they'd be negotiating several hundred different contracts.

kowtow

rangler1 wrote:

They have to take your milk now because of the MSA even though they don't want it

Surely we used to have cooperatives to do that? You know... before the MSA and all that. Or did I miss something?

Farmer Ed

http://m.independent.ie/business/farming/shareholders-urged-to-come-out-in-force-at-dairygold-meeting-29182646.html
Sorry guys I understand this is a milk price thread. But these are the historical facts of the matter.

mahoney_j

freedominacup wrote: »

Rangler I've been on your side of this particular row and I think you've been fair enough in your comments so far but ifa did pretty much categorically support the msa's, for what reason I don't know. No point in trying to pretend otherwise or to pretend it didn't influence farmers.

Have to admit I've been only dropping in and out of this thread over last while .on the Msa I take it thst it's just the Glanbia Msa that ye have the gripe with rather than msas in general .in comparasion to the Glanbia one arrabawns is very straight forward .2500 1 Euro shares required per 100 k milk supplied no 7 year contract no requirement (yet) to sign one no different payement structure to shared up suppliers and non shared up ,no revolving funds etc etc.i understand why coops want msas (certainty of supply for contracts etc )but in glanbias and dairygolds case the agreement goes way way further than that and could be said are penal against a supplier .i thought long and hard last year about jumping from Arrabawn to either of above but aspects of the Msa and Plc element involved deterred me .quite happy I gave my crowd a year to see how things went .msa signed now without as much as a second thought and glad I'm a member of a hard working ,performing farmer owned coop

Buford T. Justice XIX

kowtow wrote: »

Surely we used to have cooperatives to do that? You know... before the MSA and all that. Or did I miss something?

Strictly speaking, there was no need for an MSA for co-ops as they supposedly
had the best interests of their suppliers inbuilt into the structure from the start.

The MSAs were more to supply similar rights as given to farmers supplying co-ops to dairy farmers supplying non co-ops.

Farmer Ed

mahoney_j wrote: »

Have to admit I've been only dropping in and out of this thread over last while .on the Msa I take it thst it's just the Glanbia Msa that ye have the gripe with rather than msas in general .in comparasion to the Glanbia one arrabawns is very straight forward .2500 1 Euro shares required per 100 k milk supplied no 7 year contract no requirement (yet) to sign one no different payement structure to shared up suppliers and non shared up ,no revolving funds etc etc.i understand why coops want msas (certainty of supply for contracts etc )but in glanbias and dairygolds case the agreement goes way way further than that and could be said are penal against a supplier .i thought long and hard last year about jumping from Arrabawn to either of above but aspects of the Msa and Plc element involved deterred me .quite happy I gave my crowd a year to see how things went .msa signed now without as much as a second thought and glad I'm a member of a hard working ,performing farmer owned coop

To be fair to Arrabawn I don't think they would ever have seen the need for an msa but apparently the big boys having tied their own suppliers down decided to go poaching the neighbours suppliers. compared to other msas Arrabawns one looks fairly harmless.

mahoney_j

Farmer Ed wrote: »

To be fair to Arrabawn I don't think they would ever have seen the need for an msa but apparently the big boys having tied their own suppliers down decided to go poaching the neighbours suppliers. compared to other msas Arrabawns one looks fairly harmless.

Msa of some form is cruical to any coop now I think

Water John

For some MSA's were 'insurance' for their lenders. In effect, the farmer by committing 7 years milk, without any knowledge on price, is a guarantee that has commercial value.
Its both for lenders and possible purchasers of the business.
Whole lot of diff between short term and long term MSA's
No problem with an annual one with a window in the off season for transfer. Lets call it a Bosman for Milk.

As Kowtow pointed out, they was nothing but downside for the farmer.
The upside of sorts was that his milk price would not have a penalty.
Doubt if that penalty would have stood legal challenge.

I hope Joe Healy takes it up a level.
A better return to the farmer in price per litre is the key measure.

Farmer Ed

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Strictly speaking, there was no need for an MSA for co-ops as they supposedly
had the best interests of their suppliers inbuilt into the structure from the start.

The MSAs were more to supply similar rights as given to farmers supplying co-ops to dairy farmers supplying non co-ops.

100% correct the whole idea of msas was introduced in this thing called the Eu milk package to protect farmers from the likes of the tescos of this world. msas were never designed to be used by co ops as co ops are already contractually obliged to process all milk produced by members.
The spin that uncontracted milk would not be collected was just that.Spin.

alps

rangler1 wrote: »

I know from anything i was involved in, that we'd always be recommending that farmers get independent advice and usually be one of the slides of the explanatory presentation.....you can lead a horse to water blah blah etc.

Was it not because of the commitment that processors were going tput into milk and they wanted a guaranteed supply.
They have to take your milk now because of the MSA even though they don't want it

You are absolutely correct Rangler, nnd any farmer that got independent advise at the time, with regard to the DG contract anyway, was advised not to sign.

Following this advise and a bad tempered meeting with the woman who gives IFA presentations, they finally relented to getting their own independent advise, which I personally followed up with the dairy chairman who felt it was ok....He had seen a synopsis of the advise but not the full advise..

I think you have stepped slightly outside your knowledge zone in this. It's my opinion that not only did dairy farmers not read and understand this contract, neither did committee members, and it wouldn't surprise me ..board members.

I will for the umpteenth time rever to clause 6.3 which states

The society may assign or transfer or deal in any other manner with any or all of its rights and obligations under this agreement....

At least with an uncontracted shareholder the society must collect and pay for all of the milk from all of the grazing cows that that shareholder is milking in the catchment area of the coop...A much stronger contract for the farmer....

I know this has not got to do with milk price.....but it will...

Farmer Ed

alps wrote: »

You are absolutely correct Rangler, nnd any farmer that got independent advise at the time, with regard to the DG contract anyway, was advised not to sign.

Following this advise and a bad tempered meeting with the woman who gives IFA presentations, they finally relented to getting their own independent advise, which I personally followed up with the dairy chairman who felt it was ok....He had seen a synopsis of the advise but not the full advise..

I think you have stepped slightly outside your knowledge zone in this. It's my opinion that not only did dairy farmers not read and understand this contract, neither did committee members, and it wouldn't surprise me ..board members.

I will for the umpteenth time rever to clause 6.3 which states

The society may assign or transfer or deal in any other manner with any or all of its rights and obligations under this agreement....

At least with an uncontracted shareholder the society must collect and pay for all of the milk from all of the grazing cows that that shareholder is milking in the catchment area of the coop...A much stronger contract for the farmer....

I know this has not got to do with milk price.....but it will...

If you look at Dairygolds milk price at the moment and the gap opening up between them and other Co ops that took a more prudent approach to investment. Unfortunately it has a lot to do with milk price. Sorry if that is viewed as a conspiracy theory. But the facts speak for themselves.

mf240

Creamerys line the pockets of ifa. Ifa would endorse whatever there told. That's what it boils down to.

mahoney_j

Farmer ed did dairygold sh1t on your dinner or wrong u in another life ,u never seem to have a good thing to say re them !!!!

rangler1

alps wrote: »

You are absolutely correct Rangler, nnd any farmer that got independent advise at the time, with regard to the DG contract anyway, was advised not to sign.

Following this advise and a bad tempered meeting with the woman who gives IFA presentations, they finally relented to getting their own independent advise, which I personally followed up with the dairy chairman who felt it was ok....He had seen a synopsis of the advise but not the full advise..

I think you have stepped slightly outside your knowledge zone in this. It's my opinion that not only did dairy farmers not read and understand this contract, neither did committee members, and it wouldn't surprise me ..board members.

I will for the umpteenth time rever to clause 6.3 which states

The society may assign or transfer or deal in any other manner with any or all of its rights and obligations under this agreement....

At least with an uncontracted shareholder the society must collect and pay for all of the milk from all of the grazing cows that that shareholder is milking in the catchment area of the coop...A much stronger contract for the farmer....

I know this has not got to do with milk price.....but it will...

I trust my solicitor and would always get his opinion on agreements before i sign them, likewise accountant.....then if it's wrong i've done my best

Water John

Mahoney, can't answer for Ed, but yeah, can't think of anything good ATM.

I certainly don't have unrealistic expectations. I'm not looking for whiter than white. Know a good few businesses, DG are about the IW of farming business.

Farmer Ed

mahoney_j wrote: »

Farmer ed did dairygold sh1t on your dinner or wrong u in another life ,u never seem to have a good thing to say re them !!!!

Not in another life they have done enough in this one.

whelan2

nearly a full day with out a post on the milk price thread :eek:

Milked out

P for April came in at 3.28 first time in 7 years p was below base price for a full month. Of all the years it comes in the one with one of the lowest m8lk prices then.

blackdog1

Milked out wrote:

P for April came in at 3.28 first time in 7 years p was below base price for a full month. Of all the years it comes in the one with one of the lowest m8lk prices then.

April was a disaster for solids for most people. I'll be feeding silage for another week I'd say grass growth wasn't there yet. Only thing saving me is I'm winter milk and this is keeping my solids up. Hitting 3.54 p and 3.9f at the moment. April I did 3.43 and 4.0 f but I'm down 3 litres a cow on last year. Longest Winter/spring in memory.

Farmer Ed

http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/irish-dairy-farmers-paid-third-lowest-milk-price-in-europe/

whelan2

Farmer Ed wrote: »

http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/irish-dairy-farmers-paid-third-lowest-milk-price-in-europe/

Think I will move to Cyprus

WheatenBriar

An even bigger price drop must be on the way..

https://www.glanbiaconnect.com/news/gii-offer-free-heart-health-checks

Farmer Ed

WheatenBriar wrote: »

An even bigger price drop must be on the way..

https://www.glanbiaconnect.com/news/gii-offer-free-heart-health-checks

I

If.it drops.much more you'd want a great heart to put up with it.

MANSFIELD

Farmer Ed wrote: »

I

If.it drops.much more you'd want a great heart to put up with it.

If it drops much more ,you would have to ask yourself is it worth staying milking cows .

whelan2

MANSFIELD wrote: »

If it drops much more ,you would have to ask yourself is it worth staying milking cows .

What's the alternative

Dawggone

whelan2 wrote: »

What's the alternative

Tillage!!

:)


Edit.
Snails?
I payed €22 for 6 escargots over the weekend. Someone must be making a margin...

darragh_haven

Dawggone wrote: »

Tillage!!

:)


Edit.
Snails?
I payed €22 for 6 escargots over the weekend. Someone must be making a margin...

France consumes 23,000 ton of snails per year. There is a girl on twitter atm growing snail in meath for the french market

kowtow

darragh_haven wrote: »

France consumes 23,000 ton of snails per year. There is a girl on twitter atm growing snail in meath for the french market

What have I been telling you all?

Slow Food is very hip.

#aheadofthecurve

RightTurnClyde

darragh_haven wrote: »

France consumes 23,000 ton of snails per year. There is a girl on twitter atm growing snail in meath for the french market

Do you "grow snails" or "rear snails" ??

darragh_haven

RightTurnClyde wrote: »

Do you "grow snails" or "rear snails" ??

Havent a scooby doo.

kowtow

WheatenBriar wrote: »

An even bigger price drop must be on the way..

https://www.glanbiaconnect.com/news/gii-offer-free-heart-health-checks

When I read articles like that I can't help hearing the booming voice of a New York Jewish banker friend of mine shouting:

"Will you stop frigging around the f**cking edges and pay for the f**cking milk already???!!"

Water John

Quite shocking that farmers in Poland are paid 3 cent more than us.

darragh_haven

Water John wrote: »

Quite shocking that farmers in Poland are paid 3 cent more than us.

Why? Are we better than them for some reason?

Water John

Would not think so for a minute. Very good friends with a number of polish people. I hold them in high esteem.

I would expect Eastern European countries to be still behind us in terms of price for raw produce. Still developing after communism.

The prime point, not to be missed and to be repeated ad nauseum is that we the Irish farmer is on the hind tit. Keep asking the question, why?

Farmer Ed

darragh_haven wrote: »

Why? Are we better than them for some reason?

No but I'd imagine the cost of living would be a lot less in Poland than here. The average industrial wage would typically be a lot less in Poland. It's All relative.

mf240

RightTurnClyde wrote: »

Do you "grow snails" or "rear snails" ??

Its a very slow market.!

Waffletraktor

Would it not be a large domestic market?
Or is the ifa dairygold board to blame for that as well

Dawggone

Water John wrote: »

I would expect Eastern European countries to be still behind us in terms of price for raw produce. Still developing after communism.

It's a global market...

The fact that there's 120 million population between themselves and the Germans may have something to do with it.