Milk Price III

Buckmickley

Keepgrowing wrote: »

What indicators are pointing to a higher price? I see maintained position for Irish price at best, unless there's something I'm missing

Well wouldn't the end of this year being the start of the notice period for most for leaving Glanbia be one,Strathroy are canvassing and meantime gdt certainly has another cent or two we really should be getting ,Glanbia will want to be competitive to get people signing

Water John

Well, it seems some on here will sign anything. Why bother reading it.
We are getting enough for it.

Farmer Ed

whelan2 wrote: »

Did they not say the same last month?

And they hardly deserve a gold medal for saying it. That's what their paid for. But in all fairness its a bit counter productive when farmers start criticising them for doing their job. I don't see any other union Representatives demanding a pay freeze for their members. Seems to me as farmers we are setting the bar very low for ourselves.

Farmer Ed

kevthegaff wrote: »

Do they drink unpasteurised milk?

A very intelligent question surely.

Mooooo

Keepgrowing wrote: »

What indicators are pointing to a higher price? I see maintained position for Irish price at best, unless there's something I'm missing

Its the fat, butter price, thats keeping things up at the moment, protein product is still lagging, depends on how intervention stocks will be received afaik. Didnt fix at 30 as felt price will be around that for the length of time offered in Dairygold. this was only the second fixed price offered so will be interesting to see how they go forward, would not be happy with future option being dependant on previous participation as i believe that removes the ability of the farmer to make use of them as we see fit ourselves to manage our own risk as we were led to believe is the reasoning behind them

Keepgrowing

Don't get me wrong I'd love more for my milk but indicators aren't making a rise look likely.

Ifa make similar claims but I'm no sold on politicians musings

Keepgrowing

https://twitter.com/joeorei30053570/status/869476069845475328

mahoney_j

I'm a dairy farmer and would love more for my milk but I think the bigger picture needs to be looked at ,is it in our best interests to see milk heading for and above mid 30s ????medium to long term I think not as lads will open the tsps by feeding more (in a lot of cases inefficiently )flood the market and hasten a price collapse back to low 20s for a prolonged period ,processors in a way are trying to protect us from our selves and also protect there own balance sheets .only thing for us farmers is we don't really know how transparent they are in doing so
We're offered fixed schemes to protect our income and lads rubbish them and in some cases think there there too smart on milk price ,this is for every farmer to decide .im currently in with over 20% fixed in Arrabawn's first scheme for 3 years and am awaiting news of scheme 2 next year I like the idea of knowing a portion of my income is protected for next 3 years and further by this I will looses out if price heads over 32 but I've a lovely cushion for when market tanks again

Farmer Ed

mahoney_j wrote: »

I'm a dairy farmer and would love more for my milk but I think the bigger picture needs to be looked at ,is it in our best interests to see milk heading for and above mid 30s ????medium to long term I think not as lads will open the tsps by feeding more (in a lot of cases inefficiently )flood the market and hasten a price collapse back to low 20s for a prolonged period ,processors in a way are trying to protect us from our selves and also protect there own balance sheets .only thing for us farmers is we don't really know how transparent they are in doing so
We're offered fixed schemes to protect our income and lads rubbish them and in some cases think there there too smart on milk price ,this is for every farmer to decide .im currently in with over 20% fixed in Arrabawn's first scheme for 3 years and am awaiting news of scheme 2 next year I like the idea of knowing a portion of my income is protected for next 3 years and further by this I will looses out if price heads over 32 but I've a lovely cushion for when market tanks again

OK we get it. If prices rise then the extra money saved by the co op by paying you less will be shared amongst the other suppliers. If prices fall then the other suppliers will have to subsidise your milk price.

Might not have the exact quote 100% correct here. But I think it was John B Keane who said the only way to make every farmer happy is to give everyone a little bit more than the next man.

kowtow

Farmer Ed wrote:

Might not have the exact quote 100% correct here. But I think it was John B Keane who said the only way to make every farmer happy is to give everyone a little bit more than the next man.

I reckon a lot of us would settle for earning the same in real terms as our grandfathers!

Buckmickley

Of course farmers ratcheted up production post quota and of course they took the end of quotas as an opportunity to maximise the production capability of their land and that is what we are seeing

BUT

There is a natural limit to that
Dairy numbers are essentially a 2 to 3 year planning process
We are now entering a period where farmers will be taking breeding decisions based on not having much more room to use growth to compensate for lower prices
whats wrote in surveys is to be honest a paper never refuses ink job
2 of the new entrants near me have went with Strathroy
No need to buy shares and frankly a better milk price,I have seen the statements
Glanbia need to be cognisant of that
And I don't mean using the cookie jar as you call it

Fixed price is a complicated issue
The words I used earlier were just to convey how clever the system is TOO for Glanbia because the frankly scandalous requirement to enter more and more of them to get priority allocations ensures a captive supplier at the lower prices which is surely better for the processor than the supplier
In that respect I'm 100% with the earlier speaker who said the same thing

Doing my own maths,I'll have made up any ground lost by year end for instance by not going in

Of course people would like to have certainty
But to quote a speaker at the Glanbia vote,it would be nice to be able to pay ourselves aswell

mahoney_j

Buckmickley wrote: »

Of course farmers ratcheted up production post quota and of course they took the end of quotas as an opportunity to maximise the production capability of their land and that is what we are seeing

BUT

There is a natural limit to that
Dairy numbers are essentially a 2 to 3 year planning process
We are now entering a period where farmers will be taking breeding decisions based on not having much more room to use growth to compensate for lower prices
whats wrote in surveys is to be honest a paper never refuses ink job
2 of the new entrants near me have went with Strathroy
No need to buy shares and frankly a better milk price,I have seen the statements
Glanbia need to be cognisant of that
And I don't mean using the cookie jar as you call it

Fixed price is a complicated issue
The words I used earlier were just to convey how clever the system is TOO for Glanbia because the frankly scandalous requirement to enter more and more of them to get priority allocations ensures a captive supplier at the lower prices which is surely better for the processor than the supplier
In that respect I'm 100% with the earlier speaker who said the same thing

Doing my own maths,I'll have made up any ground lost by year end for instance by not going in

Of course people would like to have certainty
But to quote a speaker at the Glanbia vote,it would be nice to be able to pay ourselves aswell

Over 3 years how would u fare out by fixing ????.i just really can't fathom how some see fixed schemes as some sort of poison chalice when efficetvly what your doing is protecting a portion of your income ,instead I think some are overthinking it and more worried about others gaming or loosing at there expense .your income is your business ,nobody else's

Buckmickley

Except I do care what I'm paid relative to my dairy farmer peers,doesn't everyone?

Buford T. Justice XIX

Keepgrowing wrote: »

Don't get me wrong I'd love more for my milk but indicators aren't making a rise look likely.

Ifa make similar claims but I'm no sold on politicians musings

https://twitter.com/elisabethmahy/status/869806320706359296

mahoney_j

Buckmickley wrote: »

Except I do care what I'm paid relative to my dairy farmer peers,doesn't everyone?

Honest answer is I couldn't give a sh1te what anyone else is paid as I've no control over it ,all that worries me is what and how much I get paid that's something I do have control over

Mooooo

mahoney_j wrote: »

I'm a dairy farmer and would love more for my milk but I think the bigger picture needs to be looked at ,is it in our best interests to see milk heading for and above mid 30s ????medium to long term I think not as lads will open the tsps by feeding more (in a lot of cases inefficiently )flood the market and hasten a price collapse back to low 20s for a prolonged period ,processors in a way are trying to protect us from our selves and also protect there own balance sheets .only thing for us farmers is we don't really know how transparent they are in doing so
We're offered fixed schemes to protect our income and lads rubbish them and in some cases think there there too smart on milk price ,this is for every farmer to decide .im currently in with over 20% fixed in Arrabawn's first scheme for 3 years and am awaiting news of scheme 2 next year I like the idea of knowing a portion of my income is protected for next 3 years and further by this I will looses out if price heads over 32 but I've a lovely cushion for when market tanks again

mahoney_j wrote: »

I'm a dairy farmer and would love more for my milk but I think the bigger picture needs to be looked at ,is it in our best interests to see milk heading for and above mid 30s ????medium to long term I think not as lads will open the tsps by feeding more (in a lot of cases inefficiently )flood the market and hasten a price collapse back to low 20s for a prolonged period ,processors in a way are trying to protect us from our selves and also protect there own balance sheets .only thing for us farmers is we don't really know how transparent they are in doing so
We're offered fixed schemes to protect our income and lads rubbish them and in some cases think there there too smart on milk price ,this is for every farmer to decide .im currently in with over 20% fixed in Arrabawn's first scheme for 3 years and am awaiting news of scheme 2 next year I like the idea of knowing a portion of my income is protected for next 3 years and further by this I will looses out if price heads over 32 but I've a lovely cushion for when market tanks again

Agree with you on certain things but the processors protecting us from ourselves I don't buy. The market price will be the market price regardless it should be passed on, if lads want to make use of fixed price schemes no problem have done myself but thy should be optional and not dependant on previous participation. If they want to manage my risk for me pay me rent and a wage and work away themselves

Buckmickley

Mooooo wrote: »

Agree with you on certain things but the processors protecting us from ourselves I don't buy. The market price will be the market price regardless it should be passed on, if lads want to make use of fixed price schemes no problem have done myself but thy should be optional and not dependant on previous participation. If they want to manage my risk for me pay me rent and a wage and work away themselves

This
100 thousand percent

mahoney_j

Mooooo wrote: »

Agree with you on certain things but the processors protecting us from ourselves I don't buy. The market price will be the market price regardless it should be passed on, if lads want to make use of fixed price schemes no problem have done myself but thy should be optional and not dependant on previous participation. If they want to manage my risk for me pay me rent and a wage and work away themselves

fixed schemes are optional and no one is obliged to enter it

Point I'm making in that moo is that with higher prices lads will throw all caution and reasoning out the window just to produce more milk at a higher price but at end of the day they in a lot of cases will be making little if any extra money from it ,plays into processors hands then as there margin will be the same ,then what happens after the milk glut ,markets tsnks and we're back in low 20s again .by holding back on higher prices I believe that they are protecting us (and themselves)for this by building reserves so when markets tank there will be a cushion for them there to hold price over what markets troughs will pay ,arrabawn last year propped milk to the tune of 1 million euro.
On fixed schemes I've no issue with lads who fix in all the offerings of previous schemes been given priority ,only fair as there the ones taking the risks and gaining the rewards ,wouldn't think it's fair a lad that fixed high when prices are low but opts out when prices are high is given same chance

Mooooo

mahoney_j wrote: »

fixed schemes are optional and no one is obliged to enter it

Point I'm making in that moo is that with higher prices lads will throw all caution and reasoning out the window just to produce more milk at a higher price but at end of the day they in a lot of cases will be making little if any extra money from it ,plays into processors hands then as there margin will be the same ,then what happens after the milk glut ,markets tsnks and we're back in low 20s again .by holding back on higher prices I believe that they are protecting us (and themselves)for this by building reserves so when markets tank there will be a cushion for them there to hold price over what markets troughs will pay ,arrabawn last year propped milk to the tune of 1 million euro.
On fixed schemes I've no issue with lads who fix in all the offerings of previous schemes been given priority ,only fair as there the ones taking the risks and gaining the rewards ,wouldn't think it's fair a lad that fixed high when prices are low but opts out when prices are high is given same chance

You are talking about controlling the price you yourself receive however if participation is dependant on previous entry you are relieving that control to a certain extent . Supply in this country will not affect market price, it is world price we get paid. Processors holding back on higher prices means more profit for them, pay me the market rate and I'll manage my own affairs when it comes full circle be that by having milk fixed or methods outside of coop and milk prices. I have yet to see who is buying at these fixed prices?
Edit to add on your last point, I believe it is unfair it is either a tool used to manage risk when one wishes too or it's not. If it's a requirement to participate previously to gain entry it is then not so

Buckmickley

mahoney_j wrote: »

.by holding back on higher prices I believe that they are protecting us (and themselves)for this by building reserves so when markets tank there will be a cushion for them there to hold price over what markets troughs will pay ,arrabawn last year propped milk to the tune of 1 million euro.

Do ye hear that lads they're protecting us

jaymla627

Buckmickley wrote: »

Do ye hear that lads they're protecting us

I'd reckon its the eu that will be "protecting us" will be interesting to see if irelands derogation gets renewed in the summer, it will be a pretty cheap way to make us turn off the taps supply-wise...

rangler1

Buckmickley wrote: »

Do ye hear that lads they're protecting us

What else is new,you're just not protected by quota anymore.

kowtow

mahoney_j wrote: »

On fixed schemes I've no issue with lads who fix in all the offerings of previous schemes been given priority ,only fair as there the ones taking the risks and gaining the rewards ,wouldn't think it's fair a lad that fixed high when prices are low but opts out when prices are high is given same chance

I'd differ with you on that.

If schemes depend on past participation then eventually you will end up with two tier pricing where you have fixed suppliers on longer term fixed prices - and everyone else on "spot". The spot suppliers will always have to make up the shortfall in the fixed schemes when the co-op got it's bets wrong on market prices. That would be an invidious situation, particularly if the spot suppliers are also tied in by an MSA (in other words compelled to take other peoples betting losses because they refused or were unable to join the same bet).

That's not a hedging tool.

If schemes are transparent and open to all, and most importantly matched by supply contracts up the chain, then they are a great thing.

If that happens and a farmer - as in your example - fixed high(ish) and prices dropped then it is not the co-op or his fellow farmers taking the loss, but the customer upstream who is locked into the higher priced contract. The farmer takes the profit. If prices rise in the meantime the farmer is missing out on a peak price, perhaps, but has security and the upstream customer has saved a bit of money.

Mooooo

kowtow wrote: »

I'd differ with you on that.

If schemes depend on past participation then eventually you will end up with two tier pricing where you have fixed suppliers on longer term fixed prices - and everyone else on "spot". The spot suppliers will always have to make up the shortfall in the fixed schemes when the co-op got it's bets wrong on market prices. That would be an invidious situation, particularly if the spot suppliers are also tied in by an MSA (in other words compelled to take other peoples betting losses because they refused or were unable to join the same bet).

That's not a hedging tool.

If schemes are transparent and open to all, and most importantly matched by supply contracts up the chain, then they are a great thing.

If that happens and a farmer - as in your example - fixed high(ish) and prices dropped then it is not the co-op or his fellow farmers taking the loss, but the customer upstream who is locked into the higher priced contract. The farmer takes the profit. If prices rise in the meantime the farmer is missing out on a peak price, perhaps, but has security and the upstream customer has saved a bit of money.

Kowtow your explanations are invaluable. More clarity around the schemes would make a big difference

briangriffin

Maybe I'm a bit cynical or maybe I dont quite fully understand the fixed milk price scheme, but from what I've read you get paid 31 cent on solids based on constituents of 3.6 fat and 3.3 protein regardless of what solids you provide. That's giving with one hand and taking with the other, thst added to the need to have partook in a previous scheme makes it a non runner for me, ultimately and here's my cynicism again I don't believe the Fixed price scheme is to benefit anybody but Glanbia if prices tank itll be the non participants who pay the price and subsidise the FPS, if prices rise its more profit for the glanbia at the participants loss, and as for Glanbia protecting the farmer from himself pull the other one,

Mooooo

briangriffin wrote: »

Maybe I'm a bit cynical or maybe I dont quite fully understand the fixed milk price scheme, but from what I've read you get paid 31 cent on solids based on constituents of 3.6 fat and 3.3 protein regardless of what solids you provide. That's giving with one hand and taking with the other, thst added to the need to have partook in a previous scheme makes it a non runner for me, ultimately and here's my cynicism again I don't believe the Fixed price scheme is to benefit anybody but Glanbia if prices tank itll be the non participants who pay the price and subsidise the FPS, if prices rise its more profit for the glanbia at the participants loss, and as for Glanbia protecting the farmer from himself pull the other one,

No it's a portion of your milk fixed at 31 cent base, the regular solids adjustment is then done. If. You have high solids and for arguments sake fixed all your milk at 31 you would prob get 34 or 35 or whatever due to solids adjustment

jaymla627

briangriffin wrote: »

Maybe I'm a bit cynical or maybe I dont quite fully understand the fixed milk price scheme, but from what I've read you get paid 31 cent on solids based on constituents of 3.6 fat and 3.3 protein regardless of what solids you provide. That's giving with one hand and taking with the other, thst added to the need to have partook in a previous scheme makes it a non runner for me, ultimately and here's my cynicism again I don't believe the Fixed price scheme is to benefit anybody but Glanbia if prices tank itll be the non participants who pay the price and subsidise the FPS, if prices rise its more profit for the glanbia at the participants loss, and as for Glanbia protecting the farmer from himself pull the other one,

You do get paid on solids over the base at whatever rate the fixed price of 31 cent returns, you"ve got to take the cards your dealt glanbia on past form aren't going to pay a market leading price and have no problem paying the lowest base price in the country when all supports etc are stripped back....
If you weigh up all this its pretty much a no brainer to sign up to fixed price schemes with them, where 30 plus cent is on offer especially when the cookie jar money is included on top

Farmer Ed

Actually to say fixed schemes are optional is not 100% true. I one famer gets paid more then other farmers will have to get paid less to make up the difference. In theory the money the co op has at the end of any month to share between its milk suppliers is not a lot different to sharing a bar of chocolate. If I get more someone else gets less. Simple as that really. That is what makes these such a fundamental shift in the indology of how our co ops are supposed to operate.

Buckmickley

Well thankfully 60% of Glanbia farmers did not take up the fixed schemes and a good proportion of the minority that did only took some and ignored the frankly stupidest fix price offers
It's the lads willing to sign up For prices below what is a reasonable return on their labour and investment that I believe are misguided and that's including the ones in the bubble signing up for them all so as to have a max allocation all the time
But to be frank,those lads deep down probably know this but are resigned to it

mahoney_j

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Actually to say fixed schemes are optional is not 100% true. I one famer gets paid more then other farmers will have to get paid less to make up the difference. In theory the money the co op has at the end of any month to share between its milk suppliers is not a lot different to sharing a bar of chocolate. If I get more someone else gets less. Simple as that really. That is what makes these such a fundamental shift in the indology of how our co ops are supported to operate.

You've a greatishhhhhh way of spinning things ,on fixed schemes Arrabawn's is 30.6 plus solids not just base ,facts lads facts not fiction