Milk Price III

Mooooo

're Bord bia, how many farms weren't qa now? Fairly few id say. We are qa and any cows we send don't get a bonus but the factory still sell it as bord bia approved which it is. Bord bia is only another advertising arm for processes which farmers pay for.
On the kerrygold issue no doubt the action is being taken by someone to knock it back so they can gain market share. Whatever about beef where the Aussies and the US have vast ranges where some of their meat may come from totally grass id imagine bar nz there are few enough countries that have as much grass in the dairy cows diet as ourselves.

wrangler

Mooooo wrote: »

're Bord bia, how many farms weren't qa now? Fairly few id say. We are qa and any cows we send don't get a bonus but the factory still sell it as bord bia approved which it is. Bord bia is only another advertising arm for processes which farmers pay for.
On the kerrygold issue no doubt the action is being taken by someone to knock it back so they can gain market share. Whatever about beef where the Aussies and the US have vast ranges where some of their meat may come from totally grass id imagine bar nz there are few enough countries that have as much grass in the dairy cows diet as ourselves.

It'd be hard for QA on burger beef to have any credibility alright

Mooooo

wrangler wrote: »

It'd be hard for QA on burger beef to have any credibility alright

The pig industry have a DNA farm to fork don't they?

alps

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

http://www.thatsfarming.com/news/july-2018-stuart

How the phuq have we a journalist again publishing figures from profit monitors...

This time it's the calculation of %grass in the milking cows diet...derived from the profit monitor..


How much longer are we going to put up with this chyte of profit monitor figures being published....it's soo damaging

Its absolute booooolllooox

6600

Finest wrote: »

Strathroy appear well off the pace in the north are all suppliers on abc 2.5 pence is a big gap

How would they rank in price in the North? Are buyers very competitive for milk or all have their own patch? Are you paid per litre flat or on solids up there? Sorry for all the questions just we are in a bit of a bubble down here with a few big buyers.
Strathroy shook up the market here bringing a bit of competition. Down here they guarantee a minimum base of 0.6 of a cent ex. VAT over Glanbia and they also pay the quality payments which Glanbia don't. So for June Glanbia 32c, Strathroy 33.2c both including VAT.

mahoney_j

alps wrote: »

How the phuq have we a journalist again publishing figures from profit monitors...

This time it's the calculation of %grass in the milking cows diet...derived from the profit monitor..


How much longer are we going to put up with this chyte of profit monitor figures being published....it's soo damaging

Its absolute booooolllooox

Fully agree and simple answer is don’t do one ,I don’t tbh and the few I did do I saw no benefit ,full analysis of my own fully audited and costed accounts with accountant far better exercise

Finest

6600 wrote: »

How would they rank in price in the North? Are buyers very competitive for milk or all have their own patch? Are you paid per litre flat or on solids up there? Sorry for all the questions just we are in a bit of a bubble down here with a few big buyers.
Strathroy shook up the market here bringing a bit of competition. Down here they guarantee a minimum base of 0.6 of a cent ex. VAT over Glanbia and they also pay the quality payments which Glanbia don't. So for June Glanbia 32c,
Strathroy 33.2c both including VAT.

The milk league figures up north have them 2.5p/litre off the top and puts them bottom of the pile.
Why would they better glanbia down south but then decide to pay less than glanbia up north are northern farmers supplementing there excursion down south if I was a northern supplier I wouldn't be happy . I take it from your post that your milk price is fully linked to the glanbia price this would mean if their business returns less than Glanbia's other farmers have to subsidise your price which appears to be the case at present.

whelan2

mahoney_j wrote: »

Fully agree and simple answer is don’t do one ,I don’t tbh and the few I did do I saw no benefit ,full analysis of my own fully audited and costed accounts with accountant far better exercise

Some bank managers ask for them

Finest

mahoney_j wrote: »

Fully agree and simple answer is don’t do one ,I don’t tbh and the few I did do I saw no benefit ,full analysis of my own fully audited and costed accounts with accountant far better exercise

Accounts are for tax purposes they rarely give an accurate view of actual performance . Accountants also differ greatly in their presentation so unles you're with a large practice like ifac you don't have much to compare against . Does you're analysis just involve benchmarking yourself against yourself year on year .

mahoney_j

Finest wrote: »

Accounts are for tax purposes they rarely give an accurate view of actual performance . Accountants also differ greatly in their presentation so unles you're with a large practice like ifac you don't have much to compare against . Does you're analysis just involve benchmarking yourself against yourself year on year .

Simple answer is yes,I don’t get the fascination of comparing accounts with anyone else as every farm is different .profit monitors has too many crucial figures omitted and throwing out willy waving ridiculous cop into public domain is a huge disservice to any farmer . bottom line figure is profit and cash in account after all costs are accounted for .

Buford T. Justice XIX

mahoney_j wrote: »

Simple answer is yes,I don’t get the fascination of comparing accounts with anyone else as every farm is different .profit monitors has too many crucial figures omitted and throwing out willy waving ridiculous cop into public domain is a huge disservice to any farmer . bottom line figure is profit and cash in account after all costs are accounted for .

I wouldn't agree with the comparisons part of that, j. The Profit Monitor is a great tool as it allows comparisons between farms on common costs so farmers can see where they may be able to cut costs or see where their costs are cut too much and they may be able to increase inputs to get a greater, more profitable output.


However, its use should be confined to comparisons, imo, as the figures don't include apparently insignificant costs like farmer labour. It's like saying Teagasc is vastly over funded because we don't include labour costs of its 1,100 staff in its running.

Finest

mahoney_j wrote: »

Simple answer is yes,I don’t get the fascination of comparing accounts with anyone else as every farm is different .profit monitors has too many crucial figures omitted and throwing out willy waving ridiculous cop into public domain is a huge disservice to any farmer . bottom line figure is profit and cash in account after all costs are accounted for .

Are you living in a bubble?, how do you set goals for yourself? ,does any other farmer influence your decisions ? and if they do why do they, is it just on appearances.? The bottom line cannot be just cash or profit , net worth must also come into it , a farm like any other business can be relatively profitable in a given year but could be doomed long term , by the way the same logic applies to our coops . While profit monitors are not the be all and end all they are the only standardised tool for comparing financial performance available to us , common costs gross output and gross margin on a per ha basis are always relevant , some fixed costs though are farm specific .

mahoney_j

Finest wrote: »

Are you living in a bubble?, how do you set goals for yourself? ,does any other farmer influence your decisions ? and if they do why do they, is it just on appearances.? The bottom line cannot be just cash or profit , net worth must also come into it , a farm like any other business can be relatively profitable in a given year but could be doomed long term , by the way the same logic applies to our coops . While profit monitors are not the be all and end all they are the only standardised tool for comparing financial performance available to us , common costs gross output and gross margin on a per ha basis are always relevant , some fixed costs though are farm specific .

Am I living in a bubble ,certainly not
Do I set goals ,defibetly yes
Do other farmers/decisions influence decisions ,yes
I go to farm walks ,open days etc ,financial info especially profit monitor means little to me as it is not accurate nor relevant to me I am interested and very interested in grassland management ,reseeding ,fertliser ,soil fertility and maximizing grass growth
Cows ,breeding ,feeding ,management .these are the core to any dairy farm .in a non arrogant way why would I compare financial data to another farm common and fixed costs vary from farm to farm for lots of very different reasons and due to stages of development etc then there’s the costs not accounted for in profit monitors like Labour ,land ,capital costs on loans etc etc these have to be accounted for and paid for by the business
Fair enough some of these are private costs and not everyone wants to air these which is perfectly understandable hence my reason for actual accounts withbwarts and all included ,this is a true reflection of where I’m going

Mooooo

I don't think the issue is with the pm's themselves, as Buford said it's the sharing of that information publicly thru journalism or whatever else and giving a false idea of profitability out there. Does the coop include labour, land costs/ opportunity costs doing there accounts? You can be damn sure they do.

Finest

M J seems to have a problem with profit monitors themselves and doesn't see a need to have any standardised analysis of financial performance . All what mahoney calls the core of a farm business ie cows, grassland , soil fertility etc are different on every farm the only way you can say what's working is to look at all these factors in conjunction with a profit monitor . Tax accounts are useless for this purpose. By the way common costs are called so for a reason they are relatively common across all farms . Looking at gross output , variable costs and gross margin gives a good overall view of a business on all farms . When you do a profit monitor all costs can be recorded labour , interest on capital expenditure etc and the report will generate a net worth this is useful for comparing the business year on year but is rarely used in public and rightly so. A profit monitor that's accurately done is invaluable . With regard to publication of figures a lot of farmers financial information is already public , like milk price , subsidies and input costs. With many farmers converting to companies their accounts are also available to the public.

mahoney_j

Finest wrote: »

M J seems to have a problem with profit monitors themselves and doesn't see a need to have any standardised analysis of financial performance . All what mahoney calls the core of a farm business ie cows, grassland , soil fertility etc are different on every farm the only way you can say what's working is to look at all these factors in conjunction with a profit monitor . Tax accounts are useless for this purpose. By the way common costs are called so for a reason they are relatively common across all farms . Looking at gross output , variable costs and gross margin gives a good overall view of a business on all farms . When you do a profit monitor all costs can be recorded labour , interest on capital expenditure etc and the report will generate a net worth this is useful for comparing the business year on year but is rarely used in public and rightly so. A profit monitor that's accurately done is invaluable . With regard to publication of figures a lot of farmers financial information is already public , like milk price , subsidies and input costs. With many farmers converting to companies their accounts are also available to the public.

Just leave it and that we’ve different views ,I just really can’t get the fascination u o/others have comparing with others when the only true and one that matters is your own

older by the day

mahoney_j wrote: »

Just leave it and that we’ve different views ,I just really can’t get the fascination u o/others have comparing with others when the only true and one that matters is your own

I agree, how do you measure success, 2 cent a litre more and he fell in the yard covered in Shiite, no one would pick him up. With some lads it all about cutting costs and too perished to pay anyone, too perished to meet a girl and buy her a drink. Success is having a healthy and happy family and friendly neighbours that will help when times are tough. I fecking hate giving all that information for free to teagasc, a state company, I don't ask to see my advisors payslip

mahoney_j

older by the day wrote: »

I agree, how do you measure success, 2 cent a litre more and he fell in the yard covered in Shiite, no one would pick him up. With some lads it all about cutting costs and too perished to pay anyone, too perished to meet a girl and buy her a drink. Success is having a healthy and happy family and friendly neighbours that will help when times are tough. I fecking hate giving all that information for free to teagasc, a state company, I don't ask to see my advisors payslip

Nail on head fully agree

kowtow

Surely the profit monitor is *only* useful for comparison when it is comparing benchmarks / KPI's which are simple enough to be clearly defined and common to all farms.

Most of those would be non-financial, or only barely financial, to my mind.

Fully financial KPI's are only really useful when more than one choice is presented and tested, in other words you can weigh off the relative financial return of taking a different investment path. Otherwise KPI's - grass grown / utilised, solids per cow, ration per cow, these are the things which can be effectively compared from farm to farm and used as inputs in a more specific financial model which is really for the farmer alone.

As a simple example take average milk price received / milk sales - this is, surely, primarily a function of the co-op supplied and people often have no choice whatsoever in that. Isn't milk solids sold per cow a better way of comparing farms?

I think labour hours / kgms would be a very useful addition if it could be collected effectively, similarly kgms / ha - no need to specify (for KPI purposes) whether land is rented bought or stolen, that's a separate decision not amenable to being compared farm to farm.

Gawddawggonnit

blue5000 wrote: »

Perhaps this is why cull cows are so popular in France? What I mean is all my cull cows are fattened on grass only.

The frogs reckon that a 9yr old cow is the best of meat...

Panch18

mahoney_j wrote: »

Simple answer is yes,I don’t get the fascination of comparing accounts with anyone else as every farm is different .profit monitors has too many crucial figures omitted and throwing out willy waving ridiculous cop into public domain is a huge disservice to any farmer . bottom line figure is profit and cash in account after all costs are accounted for .

Cash cash cash a million times over

I actually think a lot of lads don’t know if they’re making money or not unless they are told so

Finest

kowtow wrote: »

Surely the profit monitor is *only* useful for comparison when it is comparing benchmarks / KPI's which are simple enough to be clearly defined and common to all farms.

Most of those would be non-financial, or only barely financial, to my mind.

Fully financial KPI's are only really useful when more than one choice is presented and tested, in other words you can weigh off the relative financial return of taking a different investment path. Otherwise KPI's - grass grown / utilised, solids per cow, ration per cow, these are the things which can be effectively compared from farm to farm and used as inputs in a more specific financial model which is really for the farmer alone.

As a simple example take average milk price received / milk sales - this is, surely, primarily a function of the co-op supplied and people often have no choice whatsoever in that. Isn't milk solids sold per cow a better way of comparing farms?

I think labour hours / kgms would be a very useful addition if it could be collected effectively, similarly kgms / ha - no need to specify (for KPI purposes) whether land is rented bought or stolen, that's a separate decision not amenable to being compared farm to farm.

Milk price is not just a function of a coop . Also kgs of milk solids are not of equal value on farms even where they supply the same purchaser eg. A kg of milk solids supplied with 10 kgs of water is worth more than a kg with 11kgs of water . Achieving a high output in terms of price and yield is often devalued if a herd does not have a reasonable level of replacements introduced , this is why the gross output figure on pms is so important as it allows for inventory change. Variable costs on Irish farms are easy to compare , high output farms usually have high variable costs often eroding the gross margin figure . A good gross margin gives a farmer more choice for the future of his business , he can choose to invest the margin in infrastructure or labour to make his life easier without a gross margin you're stumped. Labour costs are after gross margin this becomes hard to compare between farms . On a well developed farm labour will be low whereas a farmer starting out may have no choice but to work hard to build up his business so I don't see the point in comparing labour / kg of milk solids , in both these cases the gross margin should not be affected by circumstance.

Finest

older by the day wrote: »

I agree, how do you measure success, 2 cent a litre more and he fell in the yard covered in Shiite, no one would pick him up. With some lads it all about cutting costs and too perished to pay anyone, too perished to meet a girl and buy her a drink. Success is having a healthy and happy family and friendly neighbours that will help when times are tough. I fecking hate giving all that information for free to teagasc, a state company, I don't ask to see my advisors payslip

Completing a profit monitor / using it to analyse your business and many of the things that you mention as success are not mutually exclusive. 2 cent a litre more profit does not mean you've a crappy uninvested farm , you do not understand the profit monitor.

Finest

On this whole profit monitor I am amazed at the antipathy towards it here . I wonder when posters here give out about or praise their milk purchaser how do they analyse their performance are they comparing metrics between a number of purchasers or is it like mahoney j where you compare within the business year on year or is it just milk price for one given month .

mahoney_j

Finest wrote: »

On this whole profit monitor I am amazed at the antipathy towards it here . I wonder when posters here give out about or praise their milk purchaser how do they analyse their performance are they comparing metrics between a number of purchasers or is it like mahoney j where you compare within the business year on year or is it just milk price for one given month .

The antipathy towards itvwith very good reason has been done and done and done again on here .personslly think it’s highly flawed and it’s content (and lack of it )is abused in the way it’s just thrown bout freely .most of us are simple dairy farmers who just want to control what’s in our control worrying about others or processors is secondary

Finest

mahoney_j wrote: »

The antipathy towards itvwith very good reason has been done and done and done again on here .personslly think it’s highly flawed and it’s content (and lack of it )is abused in the way it’s just thrown bout freely .most of us are simple dairy farmers who just want to control what’s in our control worrying about others or processors is secondary

Give me a couple of examples of lack of content in a properly completed profit monitor. Us simple dairy farmers still control the processing of our milk it's time we smartened up no wonder coop managers get away with murder .

mahoney_j

Finest wrote: »

Give me a couple of examples of lack of content in a properly completed profit monitor. Us simple dairy farmers still control the processing of our milk it's time we smartened up no wonder coop managers get away with murder .

Naghh u seem very well versed on this and sound like u have the answers so I’ll add no more .u know fine well the many things not included.im off for my beauty sleep !!

alps

Finest wrote: »

While profit monitors are not the be all and end all they are the only standardised tool for comparing financial performance available to us.

There are far better models available through other other organisations and advisors, through people who take their GDPR and their client confidentiality responsibilities serious.

The abuse of farmers' commercially sensitive information has been atrocious..

Finest

alps wrote: »

There are far better models available through other other organisations and advisors, through people who take their GDPR and their client confidentiality responsibilities serious.

The abuse of farmers' commercially sensitive information has been atrocious..

Total rubbish a lot of private advisors use the profit monitor , a lot more private advisors give no comparative analysis at all but hey they walk the farm four times a year charge a couple of grand and talk bs I suppose different strokes for different folks . The only private company with scale that I can think of that could do this might be fdc but go on enlighten us if it's better than the pm I'm all ears . In other words please back up your statement by giving us an example you can even cross off the farmers name for the GDPR. If it's better than the pm I'll certainly give it a go it could be of great service to us all .

Burning Tires

Finest wrote: »

Total rubbish a lot of private advisors use the profit monitor , a lot more private advisors give no comparative analysis at all but hey they walk the farm four times a year charge a couple of grand and talk bs I suppose different strokes for different folks . The only private company with scale that I can think of that could do this might be fdc but go on enlighten us if it's better than the pm I'm all ears . In other words please back up your statement by giving us an example you can even cross off the farmers name for the GDPR. If it's better than the pm I'll certainly give it a go it could be of great service to us all .

Pull back on the throttle a bit there and maybe consider that someone elses opinion might be as valid as yours.
PMs are a useful too but leave a lot to be desired. They are also abused and used to publish headline fugures in the press that are grossly missleading.