Recent comments by: Rural Realist
Reality of supply and demand. I remember many oat marketers including CBH saying while they were optimistic for oat demand they wouldn't doubling acres, which is what we did.
D8 some real expertise there!
Even if money was wasted going long oats, do you not think exactly the opposite would have been true last year?
Did you know it's cheaper to keep running down old sites with minimal maintenance than it is to build new ones (not that I don't think we should build new ones).
The fact is they had a profitable year because of volume in the system, and the rebates reflect exactly that.
Although that must be an inconvenient slap in the face to the AGC proponents.
US office closed after failure. Pacific and Russian offices both still operating and very much successful.
Mr Jones is a bright fella. Proposes groups of large farms building shared storage facilities so that they don't need to travel more than 15km. Where have I heard that idea before?
Wow Brad. For an astute mind I feel you might have got completely lost within yourself. So many outlandish claims will only serve to undermine the support you had.
The fact is that AGC deliberately held back detail regarding share dilution, which meant directors and Graincorp were getting a very good deal, and pulling the wool over growers.
If this company is going to float it will be on grower terms. Not Graincorps.
Dear Retiring Soon,
I might point out that equity can't be pulled out of a hat. I'd value my land at roughly $500/acre. If my FOB costs were $20 higher I'd only value it at $300/acre max. That extra $200/acre in value is there because I have a cooperative freight and handling system to get my grain to port. And I can borrow against that $200/acre.
So before you jump off that cliff chasing carrots, just make sure there's enough carrots.
Good stuff Mr. Newman. We farmers love a whinge, but when you look over the fence, or storage and handling costs are pretty reasonable (best in the world?).
As a grower I realise that whatever I sold my shares for, the increase in FOB cost would detract equally if not more from my land value. Something nobody seems to want to consider.
CBH director spin marketing 101:
1. Suggest problem exists within organisation
2. Indicate you have the solution
3. Receive votes, get elected
It's currently just as cheap to freight grain from Perth to EU and back to Perth than it is to go from WA to SA one way. This is how hilariously short sighted Labor/unions are. Capping the growth of the nation in order to protect a very few unsustainable jobs.
Surely these pseudoscience companies have a limited life? I'm surprised A2 is still operating.
C'mon Fairfax. I mean I get the increased focus on 'soil health'. But 'link between chronic disease and soil health'? Looking forward to the anti-vaccination article next week.
There's no reason why pools can't work. The problem is you cant give a PDS before the pools are finalised, as you can't say weather those tonnes will be sold on track, shipped or transferred to the marketers cash book. I believe a better product would be for growers to sell basis to the marketer, then the only duty of the pool manager is to sell when the futures price is suitable.
Come on Boris, of course I don't doubt that. But I think that it's still a lot closer to the truth than the nonsensical diatribe from D8.
Deregul8 I'm afraid that's incorrect. CBH Grain has the same information on stock and quality that any other trade has, which is a positive outcome from the ACCC involvement.
It's also impossible to completely hedge yourself. If you have a good system to hedge barley, oats and lupins then please let me know. These markets cannot be fully hedged, so traders in these markets are more exposed (why there is little competition in these markets).
Typical rhetoric from growers who want to cash in on CBH so they can sell off their farm by MIA. Anyone without air in the head can see this is just business as usual, traders who generally hold a long position such as CBH operating in a year where prices decreased are of course going to be impacted.
This is a free kick in most Australian soils. Most broadacre croppers are getting >1 tonnes per hectare carbon storage annually.
For the rest of the world they need to figure out how to stop it going backwards before they can get any sequestration. Good initiative nonetheless.
The 'escapes' and 'contamination' can be handled by the federal governing body OGTR. No need to have double/triple handling for regulation.
Sat information is 2 weeks older than what it needs to be. So probably doesn't take dry concerns which have surfaced in previous 2 weeks. Expects these to be included in subsequent crop report (perhaps too late)
Surely there's a formal term for people who undermine competition by slander in order to drive up prices for their own product?
Hi Jock, indeed you couldn't trust traders to pass the full value on to the grower. But provided growers become fully aware and critical of pool return reports then any traders taking out more than fair share will be quickly identified and will find it hard to attract volume the following year.
PGA are living in the 18th century. If they think we hold some kind of market advantage my staying secretive then they're wrong. With modern tech, customers can guess this amount within 10% anyway, and are only put off by a perceived lack of trust when we refuse to give them our exact numbers.
We have been using MPCI for 4 years in WA now. It certainly isn't cheap, but it's cost effective for us. It's enabled us to expand with less risk.
As a WA farmer I'd gladly welcome exploration and extraction on my property. I'd gladly welcome any business which could support local contractors and other businesses in my local towns. 'Fracking' has a long uneventful history in Australia so unlike the 'Close the Gate' nutjobs I'm open to negotiation!
The problem is the survey questions are loaded to begin with. If I asked someone if they'd eat food which has been grown using pesticides I bet most would say no.
WTF I appreciate your skepticism, however chemical companies are often enticed/forced to fund studies as part of regulatory processes, even though the universities running the projects are completely independent. There is still a lot of completely financial independent studies out there. The sad thing is that a byproduct of knee-jerk reactions and blanket rulings on chemical application will come with a host of feedbacks; more tillage, greater fuel use, lower production, greater portion of food imported (from countries with different agchem regimes) and therefore more food miles.
What D8 said. They're not there to make dividends. Why pay tax when you can invest in your existing asset?
I'm not jealous of their payroll tax bill either!
Excellent move, the only way to get positive traction on this issue is to engage with the science deniers, not to shout at them across the room.
This is actually a great opportunity for Australian agriculture. Canola biofuel prices are being more aligned with relevant emissions, and Australian erosion has become near negligible with the introduction of no-till, stubble retention and CTF. Especially compared to other canola production areas such as Europe, Canada and the Black Sea.
I believe there is research continuing in Germany to determine if the 'wind turbine syndrome' is placebo or if certain people are more prone to subsonic noise effects than others. Nevertheless new turbines produce negligible noise anyway!
Having lived near a wind farm for a year, they certainly didn't affect me, and Invey perhaps there are other factors why they aren't in cities, i.e. land, cabling, power station costs.
Appreciate Bob's support but hope he reads the suggestions from the industry in the white paper first. Need to address double dipping of tax on existing MPCI first, let the private Insurers work on a fair playing ground before looking at Govt intervention. Some good suggestions in the white paper such as removing stamp duty on insurance in WA, or at most providing a small tax concession on MCPI.