Milk Price III

Water John

the problem may arise at the other end, where markets begin to freeze out, dairy products from GMO fed cows.
I should think the differential wouldn't be massive between GMO and non GMO. The maize and soya would be the 2 ingredients, affected.
€435 is nearer to organic.

kevthegaff

Dont shoot me but Is gm that bad?

Water John

If the market wants it.

jaymla627

kevthegaff wrote: »

Dont shoot me but Is gm that bad?

Only issue is the prevalence of round-up resistant weeds that's occurring in the states after years of using the stuff, I don't think theirs any evidence to suggest it's more harmful to humans then gm free crops

Gawddawggonnit

Timmaay wrote: »

Let's say a typical 90 cow herd is on 600kg/yr, and supplying 500kl of milk. The 2c/l non GMO bonus would be worth 10k, and divide this by the 54 tons of nuts needed for the yr, 185e. A standard nut is 250, add the 185e to this, 435e. That's your non GMO nut breakeven price, but it wouldn't be worth your while unless the nut was coming in at 350 tops.

Why use gmo maize? There’s plenty top quality native feed barley available, just pay a fair price for it.

....as WJ says there’s a lot more to producing a quality product than pricing everything down to the last fraction of a cent. If the consumer wants gmo free, then give it to them. Don’t always be the last to change. Bord bia greenwash won’t nail down markets for you. French and German farmers/processors are stealing a march on you guys with regards the environment and sustainability....native news channels here are bragging on about French Ag/Food now being the most sustainable in the world...

Edit. ....French news also reporting some salmonella contamination in baby formula that has caused up to 22cases of gastroenteritis. Lactalis plant in Croan is the source.
A bit of balance.

Timmaay

kevthegaff wrote: »

Dont shoot me but Is gm that bad?

When there are gonna be near 3 billion mouths more to feed in 30yrs time, with the same amount of agricultural land available, many won't have a choice in the matter.

Gawddawggonnit

Timmaay wrote: »

When there are gonna be near 3 billion mouths more to feed in 30yrs time, with the same amount of agricultural land available, many won't have a choice in the matter.

We’re already producing enough food for over 10bln people and have vast tracts of land that’s either not producing or under producing.
Ag technology is far outpacing pop growth.

Farmer Ed

Timmaay wrote: »

kevthegaff wrote: »

Dont shoot me but Is gm that bad?

When there are gonna be near 3 billion mouths more to feed in 30yrs time, with the same amount of agricultural land available, many won't have a choice in the matter.

Problem is if things got that tight you could make the argument that we should be eating the grain and not feeding it to livestock.

Also my understanding is that one of the things driving Irish butter sales in the states is the belief by the costumers that it is actually is as near to grass fed GM free as they can gets their hands on.

Mooooo

One issue with gmo, or perceived issue, is the control the gmo seeds give to the company selling it. It's like

wrangler

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Problem is if things got that tight you could make the argument that we should be eating the grain and not feeding it to livestock.

Also my understanding is that one of the things driving Irish butter sales in the states is the belief by the costumers that it is actually is as near to grass fed GM free as they can gets their hands on.

Thats like saying nearly pregnant.........it's either gm free or it isn't

Keepgrowing

Gmo free is Gmo free not nearly or most of the time.

Mills, trucks, warehouses, cargo ships etc have to become Gmo free.

We have loads of great quality Irish com free barley so that's the energy sorted

The only protein grain we grow is beans. Beans have a few issues ie they become very unstable when pelleted. Solution would be to forget pelleting and mix into coarse rations. That's all fine till you meet a year like this where crops were being harvested into November and some not at all.

It's not as simple as we think.

Farmer Ed

wrangler wrote: »

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Problem is if things got that tight you could make the argument that we should be eating the grain and not feeding it to livestock.

Also my understanding is that one of the things driving Irish butter sales in the states is the belief by the costumers that it is actually is as near to grass fed GM free as they can gets their hands on.

Thats like saying nearly pregnant.........it's either gm free or it isn't

Not really its about the amount of GM that has been fed to the cows. As Irish cows are perceived to be largely grass fed then the yanks see that as exposing themselves to as little GM as possible in the absence of a steady supply of 100% GM free butter. Its like saying if you wanted to avoid getting drunk you'd chose the drink with the lowest alcohol content. Better example than the pregnancy analogy I think.

Mooooo

Tbh id say it's more to do with the health benefits and taste of grass fed butter etc being used on social media etc with dairy fats being healthier than sugars and all that bullet proof coffee and the like.

wrangler

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Not really its about the amount of GM that has been fed to the cows. As Irish cows are perceived to be largely grass fed then the yanks see that as exposing themselves to as little GM as possible in the absence of a steady supply of 100% GM free butter. Its like saying if you wanted to avoid getting drunk you'd chose the drink with the lowest alcohol content. Better example than the pregnancy analogy I think.

Once GM is allowed you'd need a department official in every yard to monitor that farmers were actually using minimum GM.
Next we'll be seeing 'nearly organic''

alps

wrangler wrote: »

Once GM is allowed you'd need a department official in every yard to monitor that farmers were actually using minimum GM.
Next we'll be seeing 'nearly organic''

We have a dept official in every yard, doing exactly that....in dairying anyway

alps

Mooooo wrote: »

Tbh id say it's more to do with the health benefits and taste of grass fed butter etc being used on social media etc with dairy fats being healthier than sugars and all that bullet proof coffee and the like.

Health, or even perceived health benefits is what consumers seem to be willing to pay for...i just don't know about the green environment image...just don't think anyone wants to pay for it...

Farmer Ed

alps wrote: »

Mooooo wrote: »

Tbh id say it's more to do with the health benefits and taste of grass fed butter etc being used on social media etc with dairy fats being healthier than sugars and all that bullet proof coffee and the like.

Health, or even perceived health benefits is what consumers seem to be willing to pay for...i just don't know about the green environment image...just don't think anyone wants to pay for it...

Agreed and especially when it comes to the Americans. Health care is such a big expense over there that they seem to be getting more an more concerned about how diet may be effecting their health.

Gawddawggonnit

Keepgrowing wrote: »

Gmo free is Gmo free not nearly or most of the time.

Mills, trucks, warehouses, cargo ships etc have to become Gmo free.

We have loads of great quality Irish com free barley so that's the energy sorted

The only protein grain we grow is beans. Beans have a few issues ie they become very unstable when pelleted. Solution would be to forget pelleting and mix into coarse rations. That's all fine till you meet a year like this where crops were being harvested into November and some not at all.

It's not as simple as we think.

European non gmo soya can’t be that much more expensive than gmo soya. Also soya is not usually included at high rates in dairy feed.
(Irish osr is gmo free as well.)

IMO, the big question is will there be a return back to the farmer???

They want me to go non gmo, allow 24/7 cameras in dairy shed and commit to grazing for at least 100days per year. Fair enough...IF I get recompensed for such works. The non gmo feed and grazing cows are already in practice.

It’s all very fine for their marketing department to demand such measures but the money MUST trickle down to the primary producer.

There’s an initiative here from Gov level to guarantee a percentage of final sale price to go back to farmers. I’m not holding my breath but it can’t be bad...

Buford T. Justice XIX

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

European non gmo soya can’t be that much more expensive than gmo soya. Also soya is not usually included at high rates in dairy feed.
(Irish osr is gmo free as well.)

IMO, the big question is will there be a return back to the farmer???

They want me to go non gmo, allow 24/7 cameras in dairy shed and commit to grazing for at least 100days per year. Fair enough...IF I get recompensed for such works. The non gmo feed and grazing cows are already in practice.

It’s all very fine for their marketing department to demand such measures but the money MUST trickle down to the primary producer.

There’s an initiative here from Gov level to guarantee a percentage of final sale price to go back to farmers. I’m not holding my breath but it can’t be bad...

The return to the farmer is determined by how much can safely be syphoned off by everyone outside the farm gate first.

If they are all well padded then some small portion can be paid to the farmer.

Not too much though, you wouldn't want the farmer actually making a lot of money for his labour.

Water John

Some were speculating that Glanbia were targeting non GMO, by tying feed purchase to fixed milk contracts. Doubt it myself.

No problem with applying standards that are higher than other countries. We don't inject dairy cows to increase yield eg. But the farmer must benefit.

whelan2

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

The return to the farmer is determined by how much can safely be syphoned off by everyone outside the farm gate first.

If they are all well padded then some small portion can be paid to the farmer.

Not too much though, you wouldn't want the farmer actually making a lot of money for his labour.

Aye, everyday collection for uht milk is a prime example of this. Have zero communication with the farmer on the ground about what's going on

Floki

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

They want me to go non gmo, allow 24/7 cameras in dairy shed and commit to grazing for at least 100days per year. Fair enough...IF I get recompensed for such works. The non gmo feed and grazing cows are already in practice.

As a counter agreement insist on live GPS tracking of the milk lorries and open access live filming of the milk intake depot, the processing plant and the managers office.

Gawddawggonnit

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

The return to the farmer is determined by how much can safely be syphoned off by everyone outside the farm gate first.

If they are all well padded then some small portion can be paid to the farmer.

Not too much though, you wouldn't want the farmer actually making a lot of money for his labour.

Amen.

The cynic in me fully concurs with the cynicism of your post...

K.G.

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

The return to the farmer is determined by how much can safely be syphoned off by everyone outside the farm gate first.

If they are all well padded then some small portion can be paid to the farmer.

Not too much though, you wouldn't want the farmer actually making a lot of money for his labour.

My thoughts are on gm are absolutly no benifit in banning to anyone but no doubt some clowns might foce it through .if it does come in it will only become a standard with no preimum to producer so why rush into it8

Farmer Ed

K.G. wrote: »

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

The return to the farmer is determined by how much can safely be syphoned off by everyone outside the farm gate first.

If they are all well padded then some small portion can be paid to the farmer.

Not too much though, you wouldn't want the farmer actually making a lot of money for his labour.

My thoughts are on gm are absolutly no benifit in banning to anyone but no doubt some clowns might foce it through .if it does come in it will only become a standard with no preimum to producer so why rush into it8

I thought the initial post suggested that there was a 2 cent per litre premium being offered in the UK?

Either way one things for sure Its doubtful that the average consumer cares much about irrelevant stuff like if a farmer has a record of his dog being wormed ect. So in the absence of us being able to compete in the premier division in terms of offering the consumer what their perceived health requirement's are? Possibly who ever it was that suggested the Board Bia quality assurance scheme was nothing more than a load of "green washing" may well have a point.

Maybe we are at a cross roads? Do we decide to go down the low cost commodity route? If so you are correct and all these farm inspections and regulations benefit no one other than the people employed doing the Inspection's.

alps

Farmer Ed wrote: »

I

Maybe we are at a cross roads? Do we decide to go down the low cost commodity route? If so you are correct and all these farm inspections and regulations benefit no one other than the people employed doing the Inspection's.

We are well down the road of low value commodities, and listening to the Chairmen of all the processors at Punchestown, we are going to embark on another round of massive investment to concrete our position in such markets....

However each and every one of them stressed they they are all, individually, pushing to produce "value added commodities".....now there an oxymoron....

Farmer Ed

alps wrote: »

Farmer Ed wrote: »

I

Maybe we are at a cross roads? Do we decide to go down the low cost commodity route? If so you are correct and all these farm inspections and regulations benefit no one other than the people employed doing the Inspection's.

We are well down the road of low value commodities, and listening to the Chairmen of all the processors at Punchestown, we are going to embark on another round of massive investment to concrete our position in such markets....

However each and every one of them stressed they they are all, individually, pushing to produce "value added commodities".....now there an oxymoron....

I'm afraid you have hit the nail on the head. Maybe better then to own up to that reality. If we are only chasing the commodity market well then why not police us to the same level as our competitors and cut the crap about us producing " value added".

Actually I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of these jokers get paid more, the more they spend farmers money like there's no tomorrow. There has been a precedent that we know of where bonuses were linked to money spent. Could we be seeing this again?

wrangler

Farmer Ed wrote: »

I thought the initial post suggested that there was a 2 cent per litre premium being offered in the UK?

Either way one things for sure Its doubtful that the average consumer cares much about irrelevant stuff like if a farmer has a record of his dog being wormed ect. So in the absence of us being able to compete in the premier division in terms of offering the consumer what their perceived health requirement's are? Possibly who ever it was that suggested the Board Bia quality assurance scheme was nothing more than a load of "green washing" may well have a point.

Maybe we are at a cross roads? Do we decide to go down the low cost commodity route? If so you are correct and all these farm inspections and regulations benefit no one other than the people employed doing the Inspection's.

Inspections with notice mean nothing anyway apart from the fact the farmer was compliant that day. We're lucky our customers take it serious......so far :cool:

Farmer Ed

wrangler wrote: »

Farmer Ed wrote: »

I thought the initial post suggested that there was a 2 cent per litre premium being offered in the UK?

Either way one things for sure Its doubtful that the average consumer cares much about irrelevant stuff like if a farmer has a record of his dog being wormed ect. So in the absence of us being able to compete in the premier division in terms of offering the consumer what their perceived health requirement's are? Possibly who ever it was that suggested the Board Bia quality assurance scheme was nothing more than a load of "green washing" may well have a point.

Maybe we are at a cross roads? Do we decide to go down the low cost commodity route? If so you are correct and all these farm inspections and regulations benefit no one other than the people employed doing the Inspection's.

Inspections with notice mean nothing anyway apart from the fact the farmer was compliant that day. We're lucky our customers take it serious......so far :cool:

Problem is seeing as we are only producing commodities by the look of it, there's a strong possibility or customers don't even care.

Floki

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Problem is seeing as we are only producing commodities by the look of it, there's a strong possibility or customers don't even care.

It's a good excuse though.....