Milk Price- Please read Mod note in post #1

wats the craic

pedigree 6 wrote: »

Do what they did in wexford. Run the company down for 2- 3 years.
Then glanbia will come in and save/buy the company as there will be no alternative and have it backed by the IFA as well.
Farmers happy, workers happy, everyone happy.;)

the problem in wexford the manegment had no history in running a company on their own and a couple of had agenda of merging with glanbia at all costs . they always relied on the parent company to make the hard dedicions . prob was the most stressfull time of farming life with all the ****e and talking ****e behind my back , they are very quiet now doe ...

mf240

Glanbia are going to feed all the Chinese babies and butter ever last slice of Nigerian bread.

Meanwhile paddy Irish farmer won't Have time to piss, trying to look after a couple of hundred cows on his own for peanuts. Glanbia are offering free heart screening to suppliers now but it's our fcuking heads need examining!

keep going

kevthegaff wrote: »

If glanbia take over DG I can't see any positives, next up will be arrabawn:-(

is there any other option

Water John

Well there was a master plan down south about 25 years ago when Dairygold was formed. There was a pot of dosh and room for four seats on the Board of DG for the 4 West Cork Coops areas. ICOS delighted.
They are all still dreaming. People have choices.

keep going

its hard to figure things out,fellas who are not members are going to agm but not going to their own agm and other fellas who are members are not going to agms.im lost

alps

keep going wrote: »

is there any other option

Of course there is.....just say NO..


These guys aren't used to No..They don't know how to deal with No...They get confused by No...

They're just too used to hearing Yes...

keep going

alps wrote: »

Of course there is.....just say NO..


These guys aren't used to No..They don't know how to deal with No...They get confused by No...

They're just too used to hearing Yes...

and carry on as we are? everyone happy,the current structure is almost 30 years old in alot of respects.what about a few new ideas.should farmers leave processing alltogether and just have marketing arm,buy back plcs control of processing.break down the coops ionto seperate businesses and pull out of retailing agri supplies.amalgamate some but not all.can not the west cork be repeated on larger scale where milk processing is separate to goops business.do we need to pay the right people more.should we be actively looking to partner outside our country.should certain businesses stop trying to be all things to its shareholders.would some businesses be better off as part of a large foreign multinational.,is the coop model dead in this self centered and self absorbed times.how should p[rocessing be financed,should farmers play any part in that.what sort of time frame should be adopted for investments.if you were to start from scatch what would you do.

alps

Oh boy...Some amount of questions there..All very relevant..Would love to have a go at them but not tonight..

What I would say is that, if you were yo replicate a model, for me it would be Friesland Campina...control of product from farm to fork. Profits made anywhere in yhe chain are channeled back towards the shareholder farmer.
System that encompasses the advantages of our coop/plc systems with the shareholder (bondholders)benefiting. Dividends and payouts only to existing suppliers directly proportional to their supply. An entry and exit mechanism for bonholders, and a tax effecient way of building a pension fund for the farmers....

Not a misprint...A pension fund for the farmers...

kowtow

keep going wrote:

and carry on as we are? everyone happy,the current structure is almost 30 years old in alot of respects.what about a few new ideas.should farmers leave processing alltogether and just have marketing arm,buy back plcs control of processing.break down the coops ionto seperate businesses and pull out of retailing agri supplies.amalgamate some but not all.can not the west cork be repeated on larger scale where milk processing is separate to goops business.do we need to pay the right people more.should we be actively looking to partner outside our country.should certain businesses stop trying to be all things to its shareholders.would some businesses be better off as part of a large foreign multinational.,is the coop model dead in this self centered and self absorbed times.how should p[rocessing be financed,should farmers play any part in that.what sort of time frame should be adopted for investments.if you were to start from scatch what would you do.

Blank canvas?

Split collection from processing, let any farmer invest and contract in whatever processing at whatever risk suits him but let the coops collect the milk and take it there.

Not one powerful processor but multiple processors and multiple coops so everyone can supply milk to the greatest possible number of different buyers.

That way the processors must compete for milk which keeps them honest. if they don't have to do that (as now) they have no incentive to reduce costs or, because they can pass then on to the captive supplier base via the milk price.

You need a host of inventive processors big small and tiny supplied from all over the nation by lots of efficient coops carrying the milk. At its heart a co-op is just a way of sharing a milk lorry.

If farmers want to invest in and commit to particular processors let them do that as an investment decision and by supply contract, not have it forced on them by an accident of geography. Let no farmer be a slave to the powder trade just because his only lorry goes in that direction.

keep going

kowtow wrote: »

Blank canvas?

Split collection from processing, let any farmer invest and contract in whatever processing at whatever risk suits him but let the coops collect the milk and take it there.

Not one powerful processor but multiple processors and multiple coops so everyone can supply milk to the greatest possible number of different buyers.

That way the processors must compete for milk which keeps them honest. if they don't have to do that (as now) they have no incentive to reduce costs or, because they can pass then on to the captive supplier base via the milk price.

You need a host of inventive processors big small and tiny supplied from all over the nation by lots of efficient coops carrying the milk. At its heart a co-op is just a way of sharing a milk lorry.

If farmers want to invest in and commit to particular processors let them do that as an investment decision and by supply contract, not have it forced on them by an accident of geography. Let no farmer be a slave to the powder trade just because his only lorry goes in that direction.

in that model,who owns the processors and who owns the transporters

keep going

alps wrote: »

Oh boy...Some amount of questions there..All very relevant..Would love to have a go at them but not tonight..

What I would say is that, if you were yo replicate a model, for me it would be Friesland Campina...control of product from farm to fork. Profits made anywhere in yhe chain are channeled back towards the shareholder farmer.
System that encompasses the advantages of our coop/plc systems with the shareholder (bondholders)benefiting. Dividends and payouts only to existing suppliers directly proportional to their supply. An entry and exit mechanism for bonholders, and a tax effecient way of building a pension fund for the farmers....

Not a misprint...A pension fund for the farmers...

to be fair i dont expect anybody to have all the answers nor do i,just feel we should think a few ideas out.tell us more how the balance of profit is maintained in friesland.

Farmer Ed

keep going wrote: »

to be fair i dont expect anybody to have all the answers nor do i,just feel we should think a few ideas out.tell us more how the balance of profit is maintained in friesland.

I think we need to take a closer look at the west cork model first. Then we need to look at the modern set of co op rules as put together on behalf of the wexford milk suppliers. I feel most likely if it was to be looked at objectively we would scrap the ICOS. When was the last time their president didn't come from one of the big two co ops?
All they have done over the past year is constantly call on co ops to cut the price of milk. What on earth do we need them for?

Buford T. Justice XIX

kowtow wrote: »

Blank canvas?

Split collection from processing, let any farmer invest and contract in whatever processing at whatever risk suits him but let the coops collect the milk and take it there.

Not one powerful processor but multiple processors and multiple coops so everyone can supply milk to the greatest possible number of different buyers.

That way the processors must compete for milk which keeps them honest. if they don't have to do that (as now) they have no incentive to reduce costs or, because they can pass then on to the captive supplier base via the milk price.

You need a host of inventive processors big small and tiny supplied from all over the nation by lots of efficient coops carrying the milk. At its heart a co-op is just a way of sharing a milk lorry.

If farmers want to invest in and commit to particular processors let them do that as an investment decision and by supply contract, not have it forced on them by an accident of geography. Let no farmer be a slave to the powder trade just because his only lorry goes in that direction.

For me, that looks too similar to what existed when the Dairy Disposal Board was set up to move away from farmers not having any say over processing.

And that time and the times of the DDB were very bad times for dairy farmers.

kowtow

keep going wrote: »

in that model,who owns the processors and who owns the transporters

First and most important principle, farmer co-ops own the transporters. The overriding principle of a co-op should be to get the farmers milk to the market, ie. to the processor able to pay best for it at the time, subject to the approval of the farmer. In other words the co-op takes the milk to market because sharing an expensive time sensitive milk lorry with your neighbours is quite obviously the common sense thing to do.

Processors can be owned by anybody who wants to process. In the first instance of course most co-op suppliers already own part of a processor, so perhaps you would split these out. Existing suppliers would end up with distribution shares, processing shares, and milk supply agreements would then need to be addressed.

Distributors could certainly keep agri-supply, inputs etc. I would have thought. Is there any obvious reason why a large scale international dairy commodity business is the best entity to weigh dry and compound straights or sell fertiliser, or a cup of coffee, or green diesel, or a bunch of filter socks?

I don't see why a farmer should need to own a processor to supply it, but there is no reason at all why he shouldn't choose to support a particular processor by investing in it (as he does today) - he might choose to support more than one. And of course he can support a processor by contracting with it for his milk supply (or perhaps an equivalent volume of a certain quality) - at a fixed price, at a variable price, for a term or on whatever he can agree. Maybe he wants to basically supply powder at the floating market price, have a fixed price liquid contract with another supplier, and supply 30,000 litres a year for free to a small scale cheese-maker in return for shares while they get started and into market, whatever - provide a rich efficient distribution network and let entrepreneurial creativity do the rest.

There's obviously an issue of logistics - where the actual milk from an actual farm goes. Some processors will need to know this (particularly the artisan ones) and others won't care as long as the quality can be certified. It ought to be possible for co-ops to exchange powder milk in the way electricity companies do - and simply deliver the net balance to each other to minimise costs. In other words, if I want to supply 100,000 litres to powder the milk might come from Whelan's tank, because when push came to shove less lorry journeys were involved. That much is not rocket science.

And of course there is the big issue - what happens to the milk nobody wants? The answer is, the same as happens today, someone will buy it for the minimum price and turn it into powder for intervention or God knows what - and that is what is happening today, no matter how much it is disguised by loyalty payments, support payments, or any other return of shareholders funds.

Edit:

And when excess milk has to be virtually given away, more farmers will choose to support some little artisan, or an innovative vodka, or a science based protein start up, and some will fail and some will succeed and each time around we will have a more exciting, higher premium, dairy processing market so sell into. Our milk supply will grow because we have the products for it, not the other way around. Ask yourself, if amazon or google or apple were doing dairy processing in Ireland, would they really do it the way it is done today?

kowtow

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

For me, that looks too similar to what existed when the Dairy Disposal Board was set up to move away from farmers not having any say over processing.

And that time and the times of the DDB were very bad times for dairy farmers.

See my more detailed answer above. Farmers should certainly invest in and own processors just as they do today, they just shouldn't be tied by geography or to a single processor who gets fat and inefficient by exploiting their de facto monopoly on the milk lorry,

We need processors to compete, and to be able to enter at any scale, invent, create and keep each other honest (i.e. keep their own costs down) if we are to make anything of Irish milk other than powder.

alps

keep going wrote: »

to be fair i dont expect anybody to have all the answers nor do i,just feel we should think a few ideas out.tell us more how the balance of profit is maintained in friesland.

It's been 5 years since I've been through this operation so fir give me if there are some inaccuracies, but the just of it will be accurate. Heading on a fact find mission (ahemm) in June and will get up to speed with the detail.

Suppliers are required to hold a specific amount of bonds relative to the amount of milk they supply. They can build up these bonds over a time but will only be paid dividend on the bonds they hold, therefore there is an urgency to get up to the required amount.
The coop pays a "market leading price" as some here may be familiar with. The coop profits are then split at the end of the year with 50% staying with the coop and 50% going to the farmers. The 50% to the farmers is split 20% as a 13th milk payment on what you supplied and 30% as a bonus onto your bonds, relative to bond/supply figures. If you only hold half the required bonds that you require for your milk supply then you will only get half of this 30% payment.
There is no point in holding bonds in excess of your milk supply requirement, as you will only get the bonus relative to your supply.
My impression is that there are tax insentives to this bond fund. It may be tax allowable on purchase as was the quota, and the bonus added to the pot tax free through your working life. This fund grows as your pension fund, which is available to draw down on retirement. Of course when you stop supplying, you will no longer get bonuses. Bonuses are kept for suppliers.

The coop has the use of the 50% of profits for reinvestment, expansion etc. It's a quantifiable figure that management know they will have the use of without opposition from yhe suppliers, and the suppliers can see that the profits derived from their endeavour, make their way back to the farm gate, and not off to non producing shareholders.

Again, will brush up on the data in the summer...

Water John

Some excellent positive thoughts and ideas there Kowtow.
In the eyes of our present lords, I'd say your ideas are dangerous.

The renewable energy market is a good analogy. You can accept being tied with a guaranteed price range or be free to play the market yourself.
The only reason people have long term Power Purchase Agreement, which have a long term fixed price is to obtain the capital finance to build the generator.

This particular aspect does not apply to dairying so, either a price range guaranteed or one has licience to play the market and also supply specific clients.
The key part of your suggestions is the mix of options. these then are in constant flux.

Sad to see 130 out of 3,000 turn up at DG AGM. Worse was the beaten down nature of those present.

kowtow

I'm going to add an imaginary worked example of what happens on day one, because some people arent as comfortable with balance sheets / shares / etc. rather than just milk price:

Supplier Fred currently sends 1 Million litres to OldCoop at 27c per litre. He's not quite sure but he suspects that 2c a litre of that is some kind of support, frankly hes grateful for it if a bit worried for the future.

OldCoop splits into LorryCoop and ProcessingCoop. He gets distribution shares (should be worth near to nothing, just working capital for transport fee) in LorryCoop and processing shares & a supply agreement from ProcessingCoop for the balance. Now time to look at milk supply agreements.

ProcessingCoop (which he is a shareholder and a supplier of, milk delivered by transport coop) says - ok boys, we've actually only got markets for 900,000 litres at 27c, the rest is costing us 6c a litre which is coming out of your own shareholders funds and we we can't do any more, so we'll take 900,000 litres from you at 27c for the next 12 months, but your distributor will have to clear the rest at market or sell to someone else. Fred agrees to supply the 900k litres, and with the surplus elects to sell 80,000 litres at 21c for powder through his distributor. He'd rather give milk away at that price so for a bit of a punt he manages to get a premium contract at 40c for the other 20,000 litres with a local yoghurt guy whose rented some space from LorryCoop and got a grant from the Enterprise Board. The only drawback is the yoghurt guy can only pay him in shares & yoghurt but there is a beach nearby and it's tasty stuff, and if he can make a go of it he'll be good for 50k litres a year in the future.

Fred will lose 6c per litre on the 80k of his surplus powder that went to intervention, but he will get that back via dividend, or in shareholder capital from the OldCoop Processor, because they didn't have to lose the money selling powder on his behalf as they had been doing all along. So far he hasn't lost a penny.

And in theory he's made a bit more than he would have, because he sold 20k litres at 40c to the yoghurt guy.

Two years later he's added a couple of milk contracts (one with shares attached) in two other processors. One a big name baby food who now buy from all over the country, and one an exciting protein foods manufacturer. He manages to get fixed price contracts for 250k of his production at 29c - which makes him feel safe enough to expand production to 1.3 million litres as he now has two fixed price contracts and a transparent relationship with 4 processors through a single farmer owned distribution mechanism.

Of all the processors he supplies, his original (OldCoop) dissapoints him most. They say they'll take the extra milk he's going to produce but they've been a bit slow in getting rid of expensive directors and a bit stuck in their old ways. There's another converted co-op down the road who are running a bit leaner and will pay more and fix a larger amount if he wants it, so he told the new interim manager of OldCoop (ProcessingCoop) last week that if they want a shout at his extra litres (which they are crying out for, because they are losing quite a few of the go-ahead suppliers) they had better make sure they present some decent plans - with sensible costings - and reduced boards & executive pay at the suppliers meeting next month. If they don't, he'll send half his supply down the road. His Father and Grandfather both built that co-op - and they make some good products - so he wants to give it a chance, but they need to get their act together and stop wasting his money.


And so on..

Milked out

kowtow wrote: »

I'm going to add an imaginary worked example of what happens on day one, because some people arent as comfortable with balance sheets / shares / etc. rather than just milk price:

Supplier Fred currently sends 1 Million litres to OldCoop at 27c per litre. He's not quite sure but he suspects that 2c a litre of that is some kind of support, frankly hes grateful for it if a bit worried for the future.

OldCoop splits into LorryCoop and ProcessingCoop. He gets distribution shares (should be worth near to nothing, just working capital for transport fee) in LorryCoop and processing shares & a supply agreement from ProcessingCoop for the balance. Now time to look at milk supply agreements.

ProcessingCoop (which he is a shareholder and a supplier of, milk delivered by transport coop) says - ok boys, we've actually only got markets for 900,000 litres at 27c, the rest is costing us 6c a litre which is coming out of your own shareholders funds and we we can't do any more, so we'll take 900,000 litres from you at 27c for the next 12 months, but your distributor will have to clear the rest at market or sell to someone else. Fred agrees to supply the 900k litres, and with the surplus elects to sell 80,000 litres at 21c for powder through his distributor. He'd rather give milk away at that price so for a bit of a punt he manages to get a premium contract at 40c for the other 20,000 litres with a local yoghurt guy whose rented some space from LorryCoop and got a grant from the Enterprise Board. The only drawback is the yoghurt guy can only pay him in shares & yoghurt but there is a beach nearby and it's tasty stuff, and if he can make a go of it he'll be good for 50k litres a year in the future.

Fred will lose 6c per litre on the 80k of his surplus powder that went to intervention, but he will get that back via dividend, or in shareholder capital from the OldCoop Processor, because they didn't have to lose the money selling powder on his behalf as they had been doing all along. So far he hasn't lost a penny.

And in theory he's made a bit more than he would have, because he sold 20k litres at 40c to the yoghurt guy.

Two years later he's added a couple of milk contracts (one with shares attached) in two other processors. One a big name baby food who now buy from all over the country, and one an exciting protein foods manufacturer. He manages to get fixed price contracts for 250k of his production at 29c - which makes him feel safe enough to expand production to 1.3 million litres as he now has two fixed price contracts and a transparent relationship with 4 processors through a single farmer owned distribution mechanism.

Of all the processors he supplies, his original (OldCoop) dissapoints him most. They say they'll take the extra milk he's going to produce but they've been a bit slow in getting rid of expensive directors and a bit stuck in their old ways. There's another converted co-op down the road who are running a bit leaner, and he told the new interim manager last week that if they want a shout at his extra litres (which they are crying out for, because they are losing quite a few of the go-ahead suppliers) they had better make sure they present some decent plans - with sensible costings - and reduced boards & executive pay at the suppliers meeting next month.


And so on..

Is the market not like that in thr UK? Suppliers switching and changing and then getting caught out in a prolonged down turn and a lot more than 10% of milk is going at below oat of production? And they have a big domestic market

Farmer Ed

Dairy farm classified add from Australia.

We are fonterra suppliers, spring calvers. We are drying off so getting less and less in the vats.
This 2500 litres was worth 1350$ to us 3 weeks ago.
Now worth $350, take our your running costs and we are in negative!
So now fonterra your not having it either cause there's ANOTHER cost, paying you to pickup!
Anyone after calf milk in Leongatha area PM us if you would like any.
Maybe others need to stop being keyboard Heros and stop giving them milk and make a stand!

kowtow

Milked out wrote: »

Is the market not like that in thr UK? Suppliers switching and changing and then getting caught out in a prolonged down turn and a lot more than 10% of milk is going at below oat of production? And they have a big domestic market

I think there are elements of that in the UK model but I don't think they have the flexibility for a single farm to supply multiple processors? It's vital that the milk lorry is co-operatively owned by local farmers.

In the end, we are in a free global market, there is no magic premium in the Irish market any more than the UK market to save us from ourselves. Either processors are selling milk for a profit and passing it on to us via milk price & dividends, or they are handing us back our own money and making us fools to ourselves. Either way, along the way, they are helping themselves to a chunk of the takings while we run all the risks.

It's actually a really interesting cultural question... we all say that farmers don't have enough control, co-ops must pay more etc. etc. - but if we are honest do we actually want to decide at farm level which processors we sell our milk to, or is that a step too far in terms of our confidence in ourselves?

Do we really want to run businesses, or do we want to be contracted producers and let more qualified people decide how the money should be split up.

I wonder how different all the various answers would be.

Dawggone

kowtow wrote: »

First and most important principle, farmer co-ops own the transporters. The overriding principle of a co-op should be to get the farmers milk to the market, ie. to the processor able to pay best for it at the time, subject to the approval of the farmer. In other words the co-op takes the milk to market because sharing an expensive time sensitive milk lorry with your neighbours is quite obviously the common sense thing to do.

Processors can be owned by anybody who wants to process. In the first instance of course most co-op suppliers already own part of a processor, so perhaps you would split these out. Existing suppliers would end up with distribution shares, processing shares, and milk supply agreements would then need to be addressed.

Distributors could certainly keep agri-supply, inputs etc. I would have thought. Is there any obvious reason why a large scale international dairy commodity business is the best entity to weigh dry and compound straights or sell fertiliser, or a cup of coffee, or green diesel, or a bunch of filter socks?

I don't see why a farmer should need to own a processor to supply it, but there is no reason at all why he shouldn't choose to support a particular processor by investing in it (as he does today) - he might choose to support more than one. And of course he can support a processor by contracting with it for his milk supply (or perhaps an equivalent volume of a certain quality) - at a fixed price, at a variable price, for a term or on whatever he can agree. Maybe he wants to basically supply powder at the floating market price, have a fixed price liquid contract with another supplier, and supply 30,000 litres a year for free to a small scale cheese-maker in return for shares while they get started and into market, whatever - provide a rich efficient distribution network and let entrepreneurial creativity do the rest.

There's obviously an issue of logistics - where the actual milk from an actual farm goes. Some processors will need to know this (particularly the artisan ones) and others won't care as long as the quality can be certified. It ought to be possible for co-ops to exchange powder milk in the way electricity companies do - and simply deliver the net balance to each other to minimise costs. In other words, if I want to supply 100,000 litres to powder the milk might come from Whelan's tank, because when push came to shove less lorry journeys were involved. That much is not rocket science.

And of course there is the big issue - what happens to the milk nobody wants? The answer is, the same as happens today, someone will buy it for the minimum price and turn it into powder for intervention or God knows what - and that is what is happening today, no matter how much it is disguised by loyalty payments, support payments, or any other return of shareholders funds.

Edit:

And when excess milk has to be virtually given away, more farmers will choose to support some little artisan, or an innovative vodka, or a science based protein start up, and some will fail and some will succeed and each time around we will have a more exciting, higher premium, dairy processing market so sell into. Our milk supply will grow because we have the products for it, not the other way around. Ask yourself, if amazon or google or apple were doing dairy processing in Ireland, would they really do it the way it is done today?

+1. Excellent.

There was an attempt by farmers here before the end of quotas to do something similar.
It was proposed that farmers create a Coop that had only two jobs to do. Transport and auction milk to the processors. WAR!
The Coops took a case to court saying that the farmers didn't own their quota (which was true as French farmers were never allowed a free asset), and thus 'Production Rights' were born...however supply contracts could be closed in 15 working days.
Coops don't like competition or losing control over their suppliers...just like the large retailers.

By the way, what is the minimum (€) that you have to invest to become a fully shared up supplier?
It's €2k per million litres here.

kowtow

Dawggone wrote: »

+1. Excellent.

There was an attempt by farmers here before the end of quotas to do something similar.
It was proposed that farmers create a Coop that had only two jobs to do. Transport and auction milk to the processors. WAR!
The Coops took a case to court saying that the farmers didn't own their quota (which was true as French farmers were never allowed a free asset), and thus 'Production Rights' were born...however supply contracts could be closed in 15 working days.
Coops don't like competition or losing control over their suppliers...just like the large retailers.

By the way, what is the minimum (€) that you have to invest to become a fully shared up supplier?
It's €2k per million litres here.

No idea on the share-up as I don't supply a co-op, although might start soon with the excess.

I think that French example ought to be studied very carefully by every Irish dairy farmer. The fact that the processors were so keen to fight - on a technical point - NOT to have the system tells you much more than any post of mine can about why we need to rebuild this from the ground up.

If you have a link or anything to coverage of it flick it over to me.

Dawggone

kowtow wrote: »

No idea on the share-up as I don't supply a co-op, although might start soon with the excess.

I think that French example ought to be studied very carefully by every Irish dairy farmer. The fact that the processors were so keen to fight - on a technical point - NOT to have the system tells you much more than any post of mine can about why we need to rebuild this from the ground up.

If you have a link or anything to coverage of it flick it over to me.

I've nothing on it and it's from a couple of years ago. I was shocked by the speed that the Coops took the case. They killed the idea dead before it could get any traction.
In the Irish situation the farmers have a much stronger position because they own their right to supply from the legacy of owned quotas.

I posted about it here three or more years ago.

Water John

Excellent stuff. The biggest obstacle is, as usual, farmers themselves.
The lot yesterday were a cowed bunch.
Would take a lot of leadership. That is some thing sadly lacking in this country.

kowtow

Water John wrote: »

Excellent stuff. The biggest obstacle is, as usual, farmers themselves.
The lot yesterday were a cowed bunch.
Would take a lot of leadership. That is some thing sadly lacking in this country.

I know what you mean but I sometimes wonder if we are always waiting for a leader to show up and tell us what to do.

Maybe it's not top down leadership but local example we need and a bit of creative disruption. There is a self-satisfied corporate gravy train which needs to be stopped in it's tracks, if only to give those involved at every level time to think hard and creatively about what we are actually doing.

Forget politicians, do it locally - I like the Australian idea above. Why not club together and buy a calf pasturiser (or make one, it's a doddle) and share excess milk for calves while the price is low as now. Stop buying milk replacer in the creamery. Do the same with fert and arguably feed. Small local buying groups all working to a simple template would surely make enough difference that it would begin to show up in the monthly spreadsheets. If you can find someone to pasturise bottle it, or make yoghurt out of it within regulations then give it away on the co-op forecourt to every retail customer stopping for petrol and get the world to understand the problem.

And that's important - because the only way to actually influence these businesses is through their own management reporting systems and the public perception (we are not the public, we are tied suppliers), which is why it would probably be easier for me with a team of 3 to merge the two largest co-ops in the country than it would be for the ten largest farmers in any district to actually make a real change to the way their local co-op is run. I know it it outrageous, but organisations which grow the way our co-ops have been allowed to always become creatures of their own ambition - and that is not the way they were designed to be. They were made to be small, and local, and co-operative.

milkprofit

GLANBIA average pay 70,000e
Strathroy 35 000k

whelan2

Any other prices for April?

alps

Dawggone wrote: »

+1. Excellent.

There was an attempt by farmers here before the end of quotas to do something similar.
It was proposed that farmers create a Coop that had only two jobs to do. Transport and auction milk to the processors. WAR!
The Coops took a case to court saying that the farmers didn't own their quota (which was true as French farmers were never allowed a free asset), and thus 'Production Rights' were born...however supply contracts could be closed in 15 working days.
Coops don't like competition or losing control over their suppliers...just like the large retailers.

By the way, what is the minimum (€) that you have to invest to become a fully shared up supplier?
It's €2k per million litres here.

Ranges from 1.5c to 4c/l

So for your million litres...15,000 to 40,000

Dawggone

German gov. announces support for dairy farmers.
Portuguese gov. announces financial support in the way of loans for farmers.

French and German dairy farmer unions call for the removal of intervention for dairy products and the reintroduction of temporary production controls i.e. QUOTA. Saying that intervention is supporting overproduction into a non existing market...


Just saying.

kevthegaff

Dawggone wrote:

French and German dairy farmer unions call for the removal of intervention for dairy products and the reintroduction of temporary production controls i.e. QUOTA. Saying that intervention is supporting overproduction into a non existing market...

Looks like the ball is rolling, my days in dairy could be numbered.

Dawggone

kevthegaff wrote: »

Looks like the ball is rolling, my days in dairy could be numbered.

And mine. If quota comes back I'll have to cut numbers in a big way.

kowtow

Dawggone wrote: »

And mine. If quota comes back I'll have to cut numbers in a big way.

Can't remember if there is a judicial review mechanism for the EU. Probably not given their fondness for opaque centralised government.

Capricious move if it does happen, classic jr territory.

Dawggone

kowtow wrote: »

Can't remember if there is a judicial review mechanism for the EU. Probably not given their fondness for opaque centralised government.

Capricious move if it does happen, classic jr territory.

Yes. Capricious/fickle. But then was it Keynes that said 'When the facts change, I change my mind'...

Let's face it, would the appetite be there to fight the reintroduction of quotas? As in the countries that count?

kowtow

Dawggone wrote: »

Yes. Capricious/fickle. But then was it Keynes that said 'When the facts change, I change my mind'...

Let's face it, would the appetite be there to fight the reintroduction of quotas? As in the countries that count?

I suspect if there was compensation attached there wouldn't be... but amazing scope for argument on the basis of it. My guess is you'd be more likely to get a new form of quota which does the same job.. possibly nitrates related? tradeable? ... give it a green label will save paying compensation to anyone.

Good for organics, people with big milky Holsteins, and close friends of politicians I suspect.

Would look at the first with interest, always aim to be the second, and cut off my own head before becoming the third.

whelan2

milkprofit wrote: »

GLANBIA average pay 70,000e
Strathroy 35 000k

Is it true that the lakelands guys are on expenses only?

Dawggone

kowtow wrote: »

I suspect if there was compensation attached there wouldn't be... but amazing scope for argument on the basis of it.

Of course there'll be a sweetener.

If it does happen...temporary seems to be the main word use.

Having said that Big Phil would never be able to return to the shores of the Emerald Isle again. Not without a Kevlar suit anyhow.

Dawggone

kowtow wrote: »

I suspect if there was compensation attached there wouldn't be... but amazing scope for argument on the basis of it. My guess is you'd be more likely to get a new form of quota which does the same job.. possibly nitrates related? tradeable? ... give it a green label will save paying compensation to anyone.

Good for organics, people with big milky Holsteins, and close friends of politicians I suspect.

Would look at the first with interest, always aim to be the second, and cut off my own head before becoming the third.

Nitrates definitely in the crosshairs anyhow. It's an easy sell and as you say, cheap and 'green'.

kevthegaff

Dawggone wrote: »

Nitrates definitely in the crosshairs anyhow. It's an easy sell and as you say, cheap and 'green'.

another reason to keep land prices inflated😡

kowtow

kevthegaff wrote: »

another reason to keep land prices inflated😡

Surely on nitrates the profit lies with the biggest cow on the smallest area? - Or would the nitrates "ticket" travel with the land?

Roll nitrates into SFP entitlements, make them more tradeable and pledge to reduce the payout element steadily every year from here to eternity? Make Europes farmers greener and cheaper? grant aided AD plants everywhere to get around it?

I can see endless fun here, there'll be so many oversized and ugly digesters in Munster it'll look like the canape table at an EU leaders summit.

Water John

Whelan you are right on Lakeland. Expenses only. But also the boys in DG are taking a 10% cut on their salary. Lets be fair here!!!.

Guy in NI with 150 Cows and chickens also. AD plant was as good as the cows he said.

Any options will be welcome in Munster. Nitrates and Greenhouse gases will be important in the future. Why not grant aid them AD plants, as the Germans do?

Farmer Ed

http://www.thatsfarming.com/news/ttip-leak-irish-worry

Dawggone

kevthegaff wrote: »

another reason to keep land prices inflated😡

Yes.

Dawggone

kowtow wrote: »

Surely on nitrates the profit lies with the biggest cow on the smallest area? - Or would the nitrates "ticket" travel with the land?

Roll nitrates into SFP entitlements, make them more tradeable and pledge to reduce the payout element steadily every year from here to eternity? Make Europes farmers greener and cheaper? grant aided AD plants everywhere to get around it?

I can see endless fun here, there'll be so many oversized and ugly digesters in Munster it'll look like the canape table at an EU leaders summit.

Nitrates are on a per hectare basis. Every cowpat counted and weighed...funny, cows indoors are allowed more nitrates, so mine are housed for 11mts, officially...

Clovers and legumes are a very worthy antidote.

freedominacup

Farmer Ed wrote: »

http://www.thatsfarming.com/news/ttip-leak-irish-worry

Would they ever take their subsidies and their endless interference in markets and on farms and shove it up in their holes. And then fcuk off back under whatever socialist, interventionist dreamland stone they crawled out from under. We're on the way to a reasonably free market where you stand or fall on your abilities. Let the chips fall where they may.

Dawggone

SFP to be paid out before end of summer.


So, when the new Min. of Ag. announces that he organised early payment of SFP to help hard pressed farmers cash flow...tell him that Dawg organised it.

Dawggone

freedominacup wrote: »

Would they ever take their subsidies and their endless interference in markets and on farms and shove it up in their holes. And then fcuk off back under whatever socialist, interventionist dreamland stone they crawled out from under. We're on the way to a reasonably free market where you stand or fall on your abilities. Let the chips fall where they may.

+1000.


Edit.
Was talking to a merchant the other day and said as much. In fact I went as far as saying that the sooner milk hits 14cpl the better.

Also, I'd like to see intervention finished.
Put dairy on the same playing pitch as grains...

kevthegaff

Dawggone wrote: »

SFP to be paid out before end of summer.


So, when the new Min. of Ag. announces that he organised early payment of SFP to help hard pressed farmers cash flow...tell him that Dawg organised it.

Is that in ireland dawg

Dawggone

kevthegaff wrote: »

Is that in ireland dawg

In France. But the French are the civil servants of Europe and the Germans are the 'Ministers', and when it's decided in France to pay SFP at a certain date it happens EUwide. It's never a measure that is won/achieved by an Irish Ag Min...even though they like to make the announcement at the ploughing fest in Sept...as if they're great men for looking after farmers.

Water John

Ah Michael Creed can announce it at Cork Summer Show.
We won't say anything to steal his thunder Dawg.