Milk Price III

Finest

Okay I suppose total rubbish is a bit strong but honestly if there is something better out there please share it's not widely known or advertised or quoted . I'm curious to know why or what makes it better . Is it only available to members of some exclusive secret club. . As for headlines journalists will write those with or without profit monitors just like they do about teachers , nurses , ceo's , doctors , dentists , unmarried mothers , and so on .

Calfscour

Finest wrote: »

Okay I suppose total rubbish is a bit strong but honestly if there is something better out there please share it's not widely known or advertised or quoted . I'm curious to know why or what makes it better . Is it only available to members of some exclusive secret club. . As for headlines journalists will write those with or without profit monitors just like they do about teachers , nurses , ceo's , doctors , dentists , unmarried mothers , and so on .

Do you work for Teagasc?

mahoney_j

Calfscour wrote: »

Do you work for Teagasc?

Wondered that myself or maby the ifj not that’s any of our business

Finest

mahoney_j wrote: »

Wondered that myself or maby the ifj not that’s any of our business

Go on throw some muck when you're stumped I know I'm new and it's hard to break into a cosy
club just like creamery committees . Its obviously hard to accept the questioning of time time honoured views on here . When examples are asked for to back up your arguments you go to bed telling me that I know things I'm not disclosing .

blue5000

MOD NOTE Ok folks take a chill pill and calm down a bit. We're all a bit stressed with weather atm, no need to be knocking lumps off each other. Yes finest I agree it is hard to break in here, but take it softly, we were all new here once.

mahoney_j

Aghhhh Yeadh I had a great nights sleep thanks for asking and it’s pissing rain now so I’m happy out

Wildsurfer

Finest wrote: »

Go on throw some muck when you're stumped I know I'm new and it's hard to break into a cosy
club just like creamery committees . Its obviously hard to accept the questioning of time time honoured views on here . When examples are asked for to back up your arguments you go to bed telling me that I know things I'm not disclosing .

Welcome to boards Finest, I think you'll have to bother breaking in, you just kicked in the front door!

Buford T. Justice XIX

Finest wrote: »

Go on throw some muck when you're stumped I know I'm new and it's hard to break into a cosy
club just like creamery committees . Its obviously hard to accept the questioning of time time honoured views on here . When examples are asked for to back up your arguments you go to bed telling me that I know things I'm not disclosing .

There's no cosy club, we've discussed it numerous times here, so much so that both sides don't comment much on it at all anymore. Fire 'cost of production' or 'cop' into the search bar above and choose search this forum and you'll see many discussions of it both in the milk price threads and dairy chat threads.


From my perspective, quoting a cost of production figure while leaving out the cost of one of the three biggest costs, (feed, fertiliser and labour) is throwing a false accounting figure around for sport. It's purpose was and should remain a comparison figure for use between farms to isolate where farmers can increase profitability.



By rights, it should be renamed the comparative cost of production or similar. Its use outside the farm gate should have a notional labour figure added as that would bring it much closer to what it is currently being used for.


On the PM itself, I don't go anywhere near it anymore. Using my accounts figures, I am in the lowest 10% in cost of production but putting those figures into the PM, I come out in the top 20% of cost of production. Despite being told by my advisor to cut costs, they cannot tell me where those costs can be cut. In truth, I probably should be spending more to increase output and dilute the increased costs over more production but that wouldn't be the advise I would be getting.


It's a good comparison when used where and how it should be used but it's not a figure without flaws that we should all bow down before.

wrangler

Finest wrote: »

Go on throw some muck when you're stumped I know I'm new and it's hard to break into a cosy
club just like creamery committees . Its obviously hard to accept the questioning of time time honoured views on here . When examples are asked for to back up your arguments you go to bed telling me that I know things I'm not disclosing .

Hold on it's not the view of everyone
All agriculture institutions are fair game here, easy target etc., I've just given up trying to defend.
Lots of farmers use Profit monitors and lots of good advisors in teagasc too.
Teagasc guided lots of farmers on dairy start ups/ expansion and now it's been turned so some farmers blaming teagasc for the trouble they're in...easy target again.
As for publishing Profits, I don't think anyone outside farmers has the slightest interest....they'll buy the cheapest food, irish or otherwise.

whelan2

wrangler wrote: »

Hold on it's not the view of everyone
All agriculture institutions are fair game here, easy target etc., I've just given up trying to defend.
Lots of farmers use Profit monitors and lots of good advisors in teagasc too.
Teagasc guided lots of farmers on dairy start ups/ expansion and now it's been turned so some farmers blaming teagasc for the trouble they're in...easy target again.
As for publishing Profits, I don't think anyone outside farmers has the slightest interest....they'll buy the cheapest food, irish or otherwise.

Somerhing like 10% of dairy farmers complete a profit monitor. Imo these would probably be the better farmers.

mahoney_j

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

There's no cosy club, we've discussed it numerous times here, so much so that both sides don't comment much on it at all anymore. Fire 'cost of production' or 'cop' into the search bar above and choose search this forum and you'll see many discussions of it both in the milk price threads and dairy chat threads.


From my perspective, quoting a cost of production figure while leaving out the cost of one of the three biggest costs, (feed, fertiliser and labour) is throwing a false accounting figure around for sport. It's purpose was and should remain a comparison figure for use between farms to isolate where farmers can increase profitability.



By rights, it should be renamed the comparative cost of production or similar. Its use outside the farm gate should have a notional labour figure added as that would bring it much closer to what it is currently being used for.


On the PM itself, I don't go anywhere near it anymore. Using my accounts figures, I am in the lowest 10% in cost of production but putting those figures into the PM, I come out in the top 20% of cost of production. Despite being told by my advisor to cut costs, they cannot tell me where those costs can be cut. In truth, I probably should be spending more to increase output and dilute the increased costs over more production but that wouldn't be the advise I would be getting.


It's a good comparison when used where and how it should be used but it's not a figure without flaws that we should all bow down before.

Your second last paragraph is most interesting your been told cut costs based on pm figures but the advisor can’t say where from ,there is nothing wrong with spending more to increase output as long as your getting most possible from grass and cow will respond to the extra feeding .the fact that we’re told this is the wrong approach is just plain wrong and shows what’s lacking from our advisory body it’s just grass and cow numbers ,wheels have come off that model this year and tbf they’ve come off most .the latest wisdom last weekend when drought broke and rain arrived was not to spread fertliser as there was /is mineralized n in ground .granted main thing lacking was moisture but conditions were perfect for spreading so common sense said to go no matter what some were preaching ,think of the growth lost ,weather dry again from tomorrow for a week

wrangler

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

There's no cosy club, we've discussed it numerous times here, so much so that both sides don't comment much on it at all anymore. Fire 'cost of production' or 'cop' into the search bar above and choose search this forum and you'll see many discussions of it both in the milk price threads and dairy chat threads.


From my perspective, quoting a cost of production figure while leaving out the cost of one of the three biggest costs, (feed, fertiliser and labour) is throwing a false accounting figure around for sport. It's purpose was and should remain a comparison figure for use between farms to isolate where farmers can increase profitability.



By rights, it should be renamed the comparative cost of production or similar. Its use outside the farm gate should have a notional labour figure added as that would bring it much closer to what it is currently being used for.


On the PM itself, I don't go anywhere near it anymore. Using my accounts figures, I am in the lowest 10% in cost of production but putting those figures into the PM, I come out in the top 20% of cost of production. Despite being told by my advisor to cut costs, they cannot tell me where those costs can be cut. In truth, I probably should be spending more to increase output and dilute the increased costs over more production but that wouldn't be the advise I would be getting.


It's a good comparison when used where and how it should be used but it's not a figure without flaws that we should all bow down before.

How do you know they're leaving out feed and fertiliser costs in the cost of production

mahoney_j

whelan2 wrote: »

Somerhing like 10% of dairy farmers complete a profit monitor. Imo these would probably be the better farmers.

Define a good farmer whelan !!!!

mahoney_j

wrangler wrote: »

Hold on it's not the view of everyone
All agriculture institutions are fair game here, easy target etc., I've just given up trying to defend.
Lots of farmers use Profit monitors and lots of good advisors in teagasc too.
Teagasc guided lots of farmers on dairy start ups/ expansion and now it's been turned so some farmers blaming teagasc for the trouble they're in...easy target again.
As for publishing Profits, I don't think anyone outside farmers has the slightest interest....they'll buy the cheapest food, irish or otherwise.

Supermarkets for one do look at the gouging and below cost selling of fresh produce like milk and veg

Mooooo

wrangler wrote: »

How do you know they're leaving out feed and fertiliser costs in the cost of production

Labour, one of the three biggest.
Fdc tell you how you're doing compared to others in terms of costs alright. Labour and land cost should be included in anything published imo.

RightTurnClyde

Speaking of PMs, Teagasc are out again
http://www.thatsfarming.com/news/teagasc-mid-year-outlook

whelan2

mahoney_j wrote: »

Define a good farmer whelan !!!!

The ones who bother to do a profit monitor

wrangler

Mooooo wrote: »

Labour, one of the three biggest.
Fdc tell you how you're doing compared to others in terms of costs alright. Labour and land cost should be included in anything published imo.

Labour means nothing, I could put in €25/hr and you put in €15/hr and i could put in 12 hr days and you might be fitter and do it in 8hrs.

Immediately I'd have €100000 against my costs and you'd have €50000.
The same with land cost sure my land is worth 500/acre and you could be 400.
Other costs are real as in charged ut by merchants, vets etc where as land and labour could be ego trips

wrangler

mahoney_j wrote: »

Supermarkets for one do look at the gouging and below cost selling of fresh produce like milk and veg

They'll buy as cheap as they can, below cost means below their cost not ours

mahoney_j

whelan2 wrote: »

The ones who bother to do a profit monitor

I beg to differ so there’s 90% ****e farmers in the country so !!!!,like grassland measuring tiny amount do iif and use agriet /pasturebsse lots others grass measure in different ways and don’t use either

Mooooo

wrangler wrote: »

Labour means nothing, I could put in €25/hr and you put in €15/hr and i could put in 12 hr days and you might be fitter and do it in 8hrs.

Immediately I'd have €100000 against my costs and you'd have €50000.
The same with land cost sure my land is worth 500/acre and you could be 400.
Other costs are real as in charged ut by merchants, vets etc where as land and labour could be ego trips

Im paying the equivalent of 280 an acre on every acre to the bank so it's fairly fcuking real alrite. What's wrong with putting in a figure when publishing all this of a standard labour figure of 40k and land of 200. As you say yourself anyone could have any costs on those but them buying published as if they are non existent is wrong as well

mahoney_j

wrangler wrote: »

They'll buy as cheap as they can, below cost means below their cost not ours

Point I’m msking there is they see profit monitor cop of low 20s and high teens and think farmers are minted making a fortune and should all produce milk at same level ,the reality is a million miles from that

whelan2

mahoney_j wrote: »

I beg to differ so there’s 90% ****e farmers in the country so !!!!,like grassland measuring tiny amount do iif and use agriet /pasturebsse lots others grass measure in different ways and don’t use either

No. They are using figures off farmers who bother to complete a profit monitor who are in a minority. Not posting on this anymore as some seem to have a major bee in their bonnet about it. Other people are entitled to their views. They don't have to be the same as yours. You can twist other people posts to suit yourself if you want

Finest

Labour is not a common cost but is included in the pm under fixed costs this is where it should be . The big figure is gross margin it is comparable across all farms . If an advisor tells you to cut costs it's ro improve your gross margin , cutting variable costs is self explanatory and can be done in the short term . its up to individual farmers what they do with gross margin they can horde it and muck like slaves or they can reinvest back into the farm and have all the gadgets or employ labour to make life easy . Everyone is different when it comes to fixed costs and fixed costs are often long term commitments that can't be changed . It's a pity to see profit monitors knocked when people fail to understand this fundamental . By the way I'm still waiting for examples to improve on it I'm certainly open to giving something new a try

mahoney_j

whelan2 wrote: »

No. They are using figures off farmers who bother to complete a profit monitor who are in a minority. Not posting on this anymore as some seem to have a major bee in their bonnet about it. Other people are entitled to their views. They don't have to be the same as yours. You can twist other people posts to suit yourself if you want

I ain’t twisting things Nd others have different views which there well entitled to as I said before if we all agreed life would be very boring

jaymla627

mahoney_j wrote: »

Point I’m msking there is they see profit monitor cop of low 20s and high teens and think farmers are minted making a fortune and should all produce milk at same level ,the reality is a million miles from that

Fur coat no knickers is a lot of it to, I’d rather have feed in the yard for the winter ahead and a cop in the 30 cent range, then scrolling donedeal looking for non-existant feed our trucking in artic loads of soya hulls to keep going....
It’s going to be unprecedented what happens this winter/spring the mills have already warned they won’t be able to keep up with demand

freedominacup

mahoney_j wrote: »

Your second last paragraph is most interesting your been told cut costs based on pm figures but the advisor can’t say where from ,there is nothing wrong with spending more to increase output as long as your getting most possible from grass and cow will respond to the extra feeding .the fact that we’re told this is the wrong approach is just plain wrong and shows what’s lacking from our advisory body it’s just grass and cow numbers ,wheels have come off that model this year and tbf they’ve come off most .the latest wisdom last weekend when drought broke and rain arrived was not to spread fertliser as there was /is mineralized n in ground .granted main thing lacking was moisture but conditions were perfect for spreading so common sense said to go no matter what some were preaching ,think of the growth lost ,weather dry again from tomorrow for a week

That's not teagasc advice mj, it's NZ research where they are much more used to dealing with the aftermath of droughts. I've been there. Very expensive lesson. We have fert spread now but there was no way I was going out with it until grass started to move. Even at that we needed the rain we're getting this morning to be sure of a response.

Finest

jaymla627 wrote: »

Fur coat no knickers is a lot of it to, I’d rather have feed in the yard for the winter ahead and a cop in the 30 cent range, then scrolling donedeal looking for non-existant feed our trucking in artic loads of soya hulls to keep going....
It’s going to be unprecedented what happens this winter/spring the mills have already warned they won’t be able to keep up with demand

I reckon cop will have very little to do with feed reserves this winter .

mahoney_j

Finest wrote: »

Labour is not a common cost but is included in the pm under fixed costs this is where it should be . The big figure is gross margin it is comparable across all farms . If an advisor tells you to cut costs it's ro improve your gross margin , cutting variable costs is self explanatory and can be done in the short term . its up to individual farmers what they do with gross margin they can horde it and muck like slaves or they can reinvest back into the farm and have all the gadgets or employ labour to make life easy . Everyone is different when it comes to fixed costs and fixed costs are often long term commitments that can't be changed . It's a pity to see profit monitors knocked when people fail to understand this fundamental . By the way I'm still waiting for examples to improve on it I'm certainly open to giving something new a try

Right fully costed Labour for a start including family Labour ,land charge ,capital repayments on farm loans .these are a start and should be included for any published figures .look at greenfield there fully costed cop is in mid 30s I think and pm is low to mid 20s if I’m correct
There’s is many other costs like drawings ,payement to parents tax etc which are costs to the farm and have to be paid from it .some of these are personal and understandable people don’t want to divulge these .a change of figure from cop as is given currently certainly needs changing

freedominacup

Mooooo wrote: »

Im paying the equivalent of 280 an acre on every acre to the bank so it's fairly fcuking real alrite.

Kg said it hete a few years ago. Two of the basic fundamentals required to increase tonnes of grass grown were a high Sr and a highish debt level. Keeps you focused.