Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine debate -
Tuesday, 3 Feb 2015

Dairy Industry (Resumed): ICOS and Positive Farmers

We have two more groups before us: Mr. Martin Keane, Mr. Seamus O'Donohoe and Mr. T.J. Flanagan from the Irish Cooperative Organisation Society, ICOS; and Mr. Michael Murphy and Mr. Con Hurley from Positive Farmers. I welcome the witnesses. We have heard from the Irish Dairy Board and Bord Bia. We will now hear from people involved in production, both in the primary and processing sectors. I am very interested in hearing their opinions on price volatility and how to best manage it.

Before we begin, I bring witnesses' attention to the fact that they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given, and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members have already been reminded of their responsibilities with regard to privilege.

I will take opening statements from both groups and we will then have questions. I apologise as some Members of the Seanad were called away. Hopefully they will return. Everything goes on the record here. We look forward to hearing the contributions from both groups. I invite Mr. Keane to make his opening statement.

Mr. Martin Keane

I thank the Chairman and committee for inviting us here and showing an interest in what we have to say about the difficulties facing the industry regarding volatility. I am joined by Mr. T.J. Flanagan, who is dairy policy executive, and Mr. Seamus O'Donohoe, who is chief executive of ICOS. I am a dairy farmer from County Laois and am president of ICOS. We appreciate greatly the opportunity the committee is giving us. I understand that there is a time constraint.

We are discussing what is probably the 90% of production that goes towards products for export and not the 10% that is used in the domestic liquid milk market. The big challenge from the industry's perspective is market weakness. We have one chart that demonstrates the level of movement from the peak. The two lines relate to butter and skimmed milk. They range from a return of more than 40 cent to 20 cent, so that shows the level of flux that must be dealt with by the industry. The bottom portion of that graph demonstrates clearly where intervention levels are. Intervention levels are at about 20 cent. The European intervention system at 20 cent is relatively inadequate because it is eight or nine cent below the cost of production.

The ongoing volatility is exacerbated by many different contributing factors. One of them is the short-term global supply. For the past 18 months, weather across the globe ranging from North America to New Zealand has been favourable to agricultural production. This culminated in a production increase of about 4% or 4.5% while demand was only growing by about 2%, so therefore there was oversupply.

China was huge in the market in the earlier part of 2014 and would have imported huge quantities of whole milk powder. I suppose this was driven by its experience in 2013 when it experienced a shortage, an internal drought and a problem with foot and mouth disease. New Zealand was not in a position at that time to balance up for its internal deficit. That fuelled China's appetite for huge imports in the earlier part of 2014. As a consequence, it has exited the market for some time and this has exerted a significant downward pressure on the market.

While it is a political decision and we respect the authority of the EU to make political decisions driven and informed by what is going on in Ukraine, the Russian embargo dumped a lot of product back onto the market for which new homes had to be found. A total of 250,000 tonnes of cheese and 30,000 tonnes of butter needed a new home. While we are not exporting huge quantities directly to Russia, it nevertheless has driven the oversupply in the European situation.

The superlevy is another issue. Quotas end on 1 April 2015. All of the opportunity that was spoken about earlier exists and farmers have been gearing up to deal with the opportunity to expand for the first time in a generation. We have had the imposition of quota for more than 33 or 34 years, so naturally farmers have been taking the advice that there is an opportunity to expand and have been looking at their relative position 30 years ago when the size of the output from the Irish dairy industry was equivalent to that of New Zealand. Over that 30-year period, New Zealand's output quadrupled while Ireland's stood still. There was that pent-up need to expand. Farmers are slightly ahead of the game in the sense that they have been building up stock numbers. This is a requirement because one cannot turn on the milk tap. It is not like a water tap that one can turn on. One needs to plan well in advance. The Commission committed to a soft landing. Our experience has shown that this has not worked and the soft landing has not materialised. Ireland is almost 6% over quota with a bill in the region of €100 million. It would probably be reduced if the current spell of cold weather continues. We are looking at that type of impact. The bill across Europe could be €2 billion.

ICOS has been working to combat the problem for five years. It would have had speakers at many of the annual events at which they would have spoken about the challenges and opportunities. We would have tried at European level to convene a coalition of like-minded people to see if something more could be done. Those on the other side of the debate were greater in number so there was no great chance of success. We now find ourselves at the eleventh hour with a huge problem.

Much of the challenge is around cashflow management. This year, 2015, looks like a perfect storm of negativity, with milk prices forecast to be at least ten cent per litre back on the average for the past year and a half. This would not be overstating the impact. This takes €500 million from the cashflow of farmers and rural areas. If one factors in the superlevy bill, which may cost farmers €100 million, one can understand the difficulty faced by this industry, particularly farmers as the first link in the chain.

The other thing that has happened over the past year and a half is that farmers have funded the early years of the expansion and much of that has been funded from the cashflow generated in 2013 and 2014. Some of that needed to be capitalised but probably the banking facilities that were available to farmers were not as robust as they might have been and their appetite to lend might not have been as deep as people would have perceived it to be.

Farmers would have used a certain amount of their cashflow and this put them in a very invidious position heading into 2015. If one takes into account those two points and the fact that the income return from the market for 2014 was strong and then considers that the cash has been spent but that we will still have to pay tax bills in the latter part of 2015, one can see that these are three huge challenges which need to be dealt with.

In the context of industry strategies, Food Harvest 2020 identified volume targets. That is fine and reference was made to volume and opportunity in the discussion which took place earlier. There is an aspect of all of this which cannot be overstated, namely, the need to ensure the resilience of the sector. We need to grow margins and not just volume. If we learn anything from New Zealand, it is that volume alone is not the answer. We must also ensure that family farms are economically viable. It is from such farms that the industry itself and the jobs to which it gives rise flow. In recent times we have been working to discover whether there is a way to counter volatility. Some progress has been made in the context of farmers being offered the option to fix a price in respect of a proportion of the milk they produce. This idea has not gained a great deal of traction, however, because when prices are high it is difficult to persuade someone to accept a fixed price in the mid-30 cent range when they can get 39 cent on the market. It is also very difficult to get consumers to buy into the concept when retail prices for milk are low. This concept must be further developed and expanded because there are huge advantages, not just for farmers themselves but for the industry in general and for end users.

Back-to-back contracts could play a role in this regard. These relate to circumstances where everyone is prepared to buy into a concept whereby there needs to be a reasonable share of the cake for all involved in order that the overall position is sustainable in the long term. In America, there are options around future markets and future contracts. For example, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange sets the daily price of grain and farmers can take hedging positions as a result. It is our contention that some sort of mechanism of this sort should be developed, whether in Ireland or at European level. Serious consideration should be given to this matter.

We welcome the announcement earlier today that funding is being made available for research on moving up the value chain, which is to be carried out in Limerick and at Moorepark. In the context of the development of the Irish dairy industry, there is an absolute necessity for us to move up the value chain. We must not just chase volume, we need to chase value as well.

People are bound to ask what we want. In the first instance, we are seeking a resolution to the superlevy bill of €100 million. The challenge in that regard will be massive. However, removal of the butterfat adjustment could allow us to save up to one third of that amount. The latter is technically possible. In 2008, for example, the impact of the bill was halved when a 2% proportion was identified. There is a further 2% to be obtained now by adjusting our butterfat coefficient. The Irish dairy industry has been making progress in terms of adding more value to milk by means of the solid content. When the base was set, butterfat levels were much lower than is currently the case. The superlevy is not driven by litres, it is driven by percentage butterfat.

We are of the view that serious consideration should be given to the level of intervention that exists. The latter is far below the cost of production and is set at a base of approximately 20 cent, which clearly does not send a positive signal to buyers. If the base was between 24 and 26 cent, it would send a very different message out to the purchasing community across the globe. This could give rise to a two-pronged benefit because if overheating took place, product that is placed in intervention could be released into the market in order to cool things down. It is not just a one dimensional tool and it could give rise to various opportunities. It is worth examining and we ask that serious consideration be given to it.

Other jurisdictions have access to volatility management financial tools. Such tools are not allowed in Ireland. In good years, those in such jurisdictions can place a certain percentage of their profits in accounts that are similar to the SSIAs people used to have in Ireland.

The moneys involved can be drawn down at some future date. It is at this point that they attract taxation. We are not advocating that tax should not be paid on profits. However, such facilities would assist in smoothing out some of the fluctuations between good years and poor ones. The instruments to which I refer are available to people in Australia and New Zealand. I am of the view that, from a national perspective, we should consider introducing something similar here. There would probably be a short-term cost involved but, as time passed, money would flow back into the Exchequer. These measures are designed to negate some of the worst exigencies of what is happening in the context of cashflow and cash management on farms for 2015. In the long term, we need to continue to support innovation and technology. We are of the view that, in conjunction with Enterprise Ireland and the third level institutes, we need to encourage the pursuit of excellence and impress on people the need to add more value.

There has been a great deal of discussion about infant formula. I would not underestimate or understate the traction Ireland has in the infant formula market internationally. Part of our impact in this market is driven by the fact that we have good-quality assurance systems and we are seen as being trustworthy because we do what we say. Some countries prefer to use formula that is produced externally rather than internally. Reference was made earlier to the huge opportunity that exists in this regard in China. Each baby in China has four or five people interested in it as a result of the policy which obtains there. As a result, no expense is spared to ensure that there is a high-quality product available. We can supply that product, promote the image of Ireland and move up the value chain.

Mr. Cotter referred earlier to the ageing population. With ageing comes challenge. In that context, there is a major opportunity regarding clinical nutrition and high-protein supplements for people who are ageing in order to prevent muscle wastage. The opportunities do not exist just at one end of the spectrum; they extend the entire way along it. As a result, we need to invest in technology and build a platform of expertise in order that we might add value to the products we are already supplying.

Market access is critical. Some people selling into China have a marked advantage as a result of the zero-rate tariffs they have obtained. The 15% rate we are obliged to pay represents a huge impediment. Work needs to be done, probably at European level, to free up this and other markets. The recent trade delegation to China was very well organised and extremely successful. All the major players from the Irish industry took part in that mission and were on message, which was good to see. However, the barriers to entry need to be addressed.

I thank the committee for its time. If the Chairman or members have any questions they wish to pose, we will endeavour to answer them.

Mr. Michael Murphy

It is a great honour to come before the committee today. I wish to warn everyone that there will be a small amount of repetition because I will be making some of the same points as previous speakers. I will commence by making introductions. I am a dairy farmer operating in Ireland but I also have interests in the United States and New Zealand and I do a little work in Chile. Mr. Hurley was dairy editor of the Irish Farmers' Journal for 31 years.

I want to talk about the specific difficulties for dairy farmers in 2015 and place these in the context of ongoing measures. We are of the view that everything fits together. Our first slide shows the price of milk in the period 2005 to 2015. Members can see the level of volatility. In 2009 the price was 22.6 cent, whereas in the previous two years it was much higher. We are of the view that the price in 2015 is going to be way down. Again, in the past two years it was much higher. We do not know what the position will be exactly, but this pattern is likely to be repeated every three, four, five or six years.

We would like to refer to what we term the grass-poor route. When quotas were effectively removed in Northern Ireland in 1995, people brought heaps of stuff onto their farms, racked up their costs and moved away from grass.

Their costs would increase from 30 cent to 35 cent a litre. They will be in deep trouble this year. We are probably advocating for the need to go the grass-rich route, which is probably about 70% to 75% of the diet. It takes a lot of skill on the part of farmers. We want farmers to get help to enhance their skills in those areas.

I refer to specific difficulties for dairy farms in 2015. The superlevy will be perhaps €100 million. There may be a milk price drop of 30% from 27 cent to 23 cent; we do not know. There will be growing debt-to-fuel expansion and tax bills next November will top up on a very good 2014. Many farm families will have serious cashflow difficulties in 2015, in particular if a low milk price year coincides with that, as it did in 2009. Many farmers took two or three years to dig themselves out of a hole. That may or may not happen again. The actions of the Irish State, the Government or State bodies could be considered to alleviate these cashflow problems. Lobbying in Europe has been mentioned. I will leave that to ICOS, the IFA and the ICMSA.

Banks need to be considerably more flexible and I will give two particular examples. The Teagasc funding needs to be maintained, and possibly increased, in terms of upskilling existing farmers and adequately training young farmers coming into the sector. Many people are very happy with the state of training, but I question that quite strongly.

We will be hit periodically by very low milk prices. Do we have the necessary risk management tools in place? The US has wheeled in some risk management tools, to which Mr. Keane referred.

Sometimes it is useful to look back as a possible predictor of the future. I read Des O'Malley's book during Christmas, in which he said he was disappointed with the Irish response to EU membership. I would contend that the facts do not support that statement. In the period 1964 to 1974 Irish milk production jumped by 59% and from 1974 to 1984 it jumped another 76%. In that 20-year period Irish milk production almost trebled. There was hugely enhanced knowledge and cutting-edge world class research at Moorepark.

If we follow sensible policies we can do at least as well over the next 20 years. Looking forward to 2020, an increase of 50% will not be a problem and is very close to being a done deal. Unless policies are sensible, we may end up like New Zealand where 25% to 28% of farms run into problems. We need to ask whether we should put some sensible policies in place. The real challenge is doubling production by 2025 and trebling it by 2030. It is a question of whether we will have a superb dairy industry in the future. We will have a very good dairy industry, but we could have a superb one.

On rebuilding a prosperous Irish rural economy, Dublin is flying ahead, as we all know. Many areas of rural Ireland are still in recession. We have to build on sectors of comparative advantage which can transform the rural economy. In terms of tourism, the Wild Atlantic Way is superb and other ideas like that would be wonderful. A major plank should be a flourishing dairy industry.

What is the major prize? Dairy exports at constant prices could be trebled from €3 billion to €9 billion. Unlike multinationals, which are very welcome, the money generated from exports of dairy products largely stays within the State. It whirls around and creates many jobs.

It is predicted that if we trebled production, the number of jobs in the dairy service sector would double. Dairy farm incomes would increase by €560 million per annum. It is calculated that the rural economy would increase by €4.25 billion every year. It would be a rural stimulus. It would create opportunities for young people to get into farming and for the beef and tillage sectors, which are currently losing money. It is a major prize.

I apologise if the next slide is slightly technical. It refers to a range in production costs and percentage grazed grass. The axis on the left refers to costs in terms of cent per litre, and runs from low cost at the bottom to high cost at the top. The right refers to situations where there is no grazed grass in the system, which correlates to a very high cost, and on the left it is shown that very high levels of grazed grass correlate to a very low cost.

I draw the attention of the committee to Northern Ireland. When Northern Ireland was quota free, in effect, people put a lot more feed into the system, drove up production costs, considerably increased output and worked harder at a higher level of risk for lower profits. It was madness. The Irish industry is now at approximately 60% grazed grass. Instead of moving to 40% grazed grass, we need to put a lot of effort into ensuring that our farmers move to the left of the axis.

One can ask what the relevance of that is, but it is quite simple. It takes skill. There is a dual challenge in terms of upskilling existing farmers. We need a strong advisory service. Our research is excellent, but we need an increased emphasis, and probably resources, on getting that message out to every interested farmer.

I also want to emphasise the need for excellent skilled young people to come into the industry. About 600 people a year are entering agricultural colleges, which sounds good, but I question the figures. I am aware that the Chairman had the benefit of going through the farm apprenticeship board, as I did, which provided excellent training schemes. In the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, about 75 highly trained people went through that scheme who were well fit to manage farms. That stopped a number of years ago and is currently being revived. About 16 people a year go through the schemes.

Kerry estimates it needs about 75 people. I do not have estimates for the rest of the country, but the figure of 16 can be compared with a demand which is close to 300. One person is responsible for people coming through the system. There is a need to put some money into the sector. The return will be significant. It is one area in which the State can invest and get a return of well over 100% per year every year.

Banks need to have more flexible policies and I will highlight two such areas. On interest-only periods, Bank of Ireland, which has a clearly stated policy, has said it will grant an interest-only year once in the lifetime of a particular loan. A loan could be for a term of ten or 15 years. As we saw, one can expect years where income is reduced, and over the course of a loan a farmer could easily be hit three or four times by such years. Banks need to be more flexible in respect of interest-only periods. For example, after 2009, during which some farms were wet and milk prices decreased, farmers required two or three years to climb out of that hole.

Sometimes when businesses are basically sound, it is necessary for banks to extend an interest-only period for two years. The State now has a big influence on the banking system.

The second point on banks I would like to highlight concerns the financing of young farmers who do not have hard assets as collateral. Irish banks say they will give an applicant very little money without hard collateral, be it land or property. We all know a particular policy costs the State €60 billion odd. A young Irish farmer finds it very hard to get even €30,000. The banks state one may get more but, from my experience of talking to young people, I understand they are not getting it.

Two young Irish people whom I know very well are in the United States with UMB. US banks tend to be either very big or very small. UMB is the strongest of all the small rural banks. I met its representatives at a fairly high level in the past 12 months. They said they always consider three factors. The first is the person and his or her track record and integrity. The second is the actual project, and the third is collateral. If two of the three factors are very good, the bank goes ahead with the loan. Irish banks are not doing this, except for tiny sums. With regard to future development, we are choking the potential of many very good young people. We need to move on that.

On supporting the introduction of risk-management schemes, I refer members to the last US farm Bill. Reference was made to greater "covering forward" or "fixing forward". Glanbia is doing that to some extent and it should be encouraged more.

In the last US farm Bill, the United States brought in a kind of insurance policy to insure for margins. It does not put more money into farmers' pockets over the cycle but protects the profit margin where there are awful dips. Even in the bad years, it will give one a certain profit margin. We should examine this very seriously. There is no reason we could not implement such a proposal. It should be self-funding.

With regard to the direction Irish farmers should take, when quotas are lifted I hope to God we move left. If we do we will have a very vibrant, strengthening dairy farming industry.

My final message is that we have a considerable comparative advantage in Ireland in terms of producing milk at low cost from grass. More grass means more money in farmers' pockets, more sustainability and more processing and exports. If we follow good policies, we can build a superbly internationally competitive dairy industry for the benefit of Irish farm families and the rural and national economies; let us all play our part.

I thank Mr. Murphy. That was interesting.

It is very interesting. I thank both ICOS and Positive Farmers for their contributions. We will take a lot away from what was said here today.

I will address the second submission first. If I understand the delegates correctly, they are saying we should keep the input cost down and focus on profit rather than production. One will not have any final choice; one can hedge one's bet on the sales price but one does not have final control over that since markets will be volatile. One will not have any control over the external input costs. All one can do is try to reduce the external input cost by focusing on grass.

Over the past two or three years, I became fascinated by a certain phenomenon that I encountered by accident. I went down to Cork where people started complaining about being undercut in the liquid milk market. The complaint was that the milk was coming in from Northern Ireland. Not being very familiar with the dairy sector, I was a little taken aback in the beginning until I understood what had happened. Effectively, the quotas disappeared in 1995. One would think it would be easier to grow grass in the south of Ireland than in the North as there is a longer season and more grass. Therefore, I could not understand how the prices could have been worse in Cork.

I am interested in hearing whether the delegates believe I am correct in my analysis. When the quota was introduced in the North, farmers increased production considerably. That, in itself, forced prices down somewhat, particularly in the liquid milk trade as the milk must be got rid of. They opted for very dear systems. Do we have evidence that the margins in the North went down? Logic would ordain they had to go down. One cannot have a dear system without an effect on the margin. This is certainly the case in the liquid milk market, which is at the lower end of the market. Irrespective of how much one increases quantity, one is left in a more vulnerable set of circumstances. Although one might sustain one's profit by producing a greater quantity, is the delegates' message that one is more vulnerable to shocks, including those associated with health and price? If that is the case, we should consider the Northern Ireland situation, in particular. The phenomenon is somewhat akin to what happened in New Zealand, but that occurred on a mega-scale. If what I describe happened right here on this island, we have a lot to learn. I am certainly getting a clear message from the delegates today that farmers should increase grass productivity and keep the cattle on the grass for as long as possible. If I understand the delegates correctly, they are saying the grass element should amount to 75% while the remaining elements should be reduced to 30% or 40%.

I call food production with a narrow margin and a vastly increased amount of production "treadmill farming". One is doing a lot of cycling but not going anywhere or gaining. I am worried that while the industry and Ireland Inc. want an increasing amount of product in order to have more sales and, consequently, more money coming into the country, there is a danger. I worry that the uninitiated, inexperienced or people who always chase the money when told where it will be, or those who always chase the rainbows, will get drawn into this and become victims of what should, in the longer term, be a good story for those who are experienced, have their costs right, know what they are doing and have a high level of productivity without losing the run of themselves.

With regard to investment, the delegates are saying one should invest and focus on profit and safety. A sad lesson we learned last week is that 58% of fatalities on farms occur on dairy farms although they comprise only 17% of farms. Therefore, farmers should invest in safety. Having a safe farm adds to profitability in any case, and it is normally more efficient. There should be more focus on profit than production. I presume the delegates will refer to the need to focus on inputs, such as grass, rather than getting gold-plated equipment or milking parlours.

Some of the points the Irish Dairy Board made are the same as those made by the delegates today. On seeking a resolution to the superlevy issue, I understand the Minister is saying it cannot be done. Are the delegates saying that, as an Opposition spokesperson, I should be telling him to go back and try harder? Do they believe it is not a dead letter and that it is possible not only to obtain a deferral but also a butterfat adjustment or some kind of write-off?

My second question for ICOS, which is a fair one, concerns whether there is any way of reducing the superlevy fine by storing milk on the farm or elsewhere so it may not be purchased by the co-operatives until 1 April, rather than in the last week of March.

By how much could the superlevy be reduced if milk could be held back for a week or two? What is the rule about when one has to buy the milk? Could Mr. Keane's organisation store the milk for the co-operatives?

I am interested in what Mr. Keane said about volatility management. A proposal on tax was put by the farming organisations this year, and I think that is an issue for the future.

With regard to preferable access to the Chinese market, do the witnesses believe that enough is being done at European level to get into China without any of the import tariffs?

When everything went wrong in the economy and people could not get credit, and good projects could not get funding, having worked both as a co-operative manager involved in agriculture and in industry I began to wonder whether we had made a classic mistake in selling the ICC and ACC banks. Whether it be a co-operative bank or a State bank, is there a need for small, industry-specific banks that would not deal with property or anything like that but focus just on productive industry and agriculture, as did the ACC in the past and the ICC in terms of industry? If there was a bank with, say, €2 billion capitalisation, and it need not be very big, we might be able to hive off part of AIB into it because we own it, and we should not be in a hurry to sell it. Do we need specialist banks that know the industry and can take the approach the witnesses are talking about? I agree that the number one priority is the person. I do not care what one goes at in life. I often point to the fact that a good friend of mine who has a degree in Celtic studies has one of the only knitwear factories left in Ireland. The only difference is that it is located on the Aran Islands because he became very skilled and kept upmarket. Logic would tell one he should have closed down a long time ago but he is doing very well. He is hugely successful because he changed with the markets. He focused on the high end of the market and one can only buy his product in the dearest places. However, that success was to do with the creativity of the person and their project, not the location. Is it more likely that a specialist bank would adhere to the criteria the witnesses spoke about rather than general high street banks that are trying to deal with 1,000 different types of industry at the one time?

I welcome both sets of delegations to what is a very interesting discussion. I will focus in particular on Mr. Murphy's presentation. I read with interest last week the document he and Mr. Hurley produced, given their history and experience of the situation in New Zealand and Northern Ireland. In that document they referenced the difficulties developing in Northern Ireland in particular, which are probably on a smaller scale to what is happening in New Zealand. They make reference to advice, Teagasc and where we should be going in the future. I suggest that they should be giving advice to farmers in Ireland more so than some of the people who have been giving advice in recent years.

There is a figure that has not been mentioned. I am open to correction on it but I do not believe I am wrong. Twenty years ago, in 1995, farmers were receiving 27p per litre for milk. That is the equivalent of the price we are getting now. Like Mr. Murphy, I am a small dairy farmer in Carlow and that is the price we are getting at the moment. Input costs have probably quadrupled since then yet we are expected to take the same amount of money. Therein lies the issue. The inputs are the major issue that has not been addressed in those 20 years.

We just keep producing and getting the same type of figure. Mr. Murphy and Mr. Hurley rightly referenced that every few years an opportunity arises for the price to increase for a short period, but it reduces just as quickly.

The big issue is the young farmer who may have been involved in a different area of expertise in recent years, say, tillage, who decides to take the opportunity of going into milk production because he sees the crock of gold at the end of the rainbow. He may have a large block of land ideally located, in theoretical terms, for producing milk but the investment he will need to do that is where the problem arises. If he has to invest €300,000, €400,000 or €500,000 to get into the system, he will be facing major difficulties if we have the volatility that was mentioned and if he is basing his potential profit on a price of 30 cent per litre, with no guarantee of that for the future. He is the one who is probably facing more difficulty at the moment as opposed to someone who has been in the system for many years who may only increase numbers by 20 or 30 as opposed to entering from the bottom, so to speak. He is the one who needs more help and advice from everybody, be it in terms of skills or a bank in particular. It is in that area that he needs the help.

The banks have a huge part to play, and I understand we will deal with those at a later stage.

Bank of Ireland has been offering flexibility in its terms but more needs to be done on that.

All of us have to aim for the Food Harvest 2020 targets but if we do not have efficiencies at farm gate level, we are going nowhere. Efficiencies are crucial, and I agree with what the witnesses said in that regard.

The superlevy will be the first obstacle to any development we might have. If we are facing levies of €100 million, that is a substantial amount of money. The farmers liable for those fines are the people we need to develop the industry, and they are starting from a very difficult position. Deputy Ó Cuív has left but he asked if anything could be done about that or if he should be doing more as Opposition spokesman. Where we stand has been clearly laid out. In terms of a European context, we have been told not to knock on that door, that we know the rules and we should adhere to them. However, it is an issue on which we should be able to get some leeway in the coming period.

The elephant in the room, so to speak, is the liquid milk situation. It is not being discussed but it is the key issue. Mr. Murphy concentrated on grass production, which is crucial, but as I have said in previous meetings, we seem to be heading for a situation where we will be looking for a drop of milk for our Corn Flakes in a few years' time. It is not possible to produce milk during the winter months for the money we are being offered. The input costs are too expensive and we will end up in a situation where we will not have a constant supply of liquid milk at that time of the year. I would welcome Mr. Murphy's comments in that regard.

Does Deputy Pringle want to contribute?

I am okay, Chairman.

Deputy Ó Cuív explained that he had to leave but the witnesses might take the questions raised.

Mr. Michael Murphy

I largely agree with what Deputy Ó Cuív said. As dairy farmers we are price takers.

As Deputy Deering suggested, input costs have increased very substantially. If 75% of the diet is grass, it is cheap and within one's control. I am strongly suggesting that people control what they can and be less exposed to extremely dear inputs. In Northern Ireland, there is a fair amount of evidence that dairy farmers average 85 hours per week right throughout the year, and not just in busy periods. Teagasc did a survey and it suggested such farmers get approximately €5 per hour return for their capital, labour and management. They cannot afford to hire other people. There are more financial problems on the approximately 4,000 dairy farms in Northern Ireland than there are on all other farms on the island of Ireland. We should learn cheaply from some of the mistakes they have made so as not to repeat them. In a year like this there will be incredible stress on some of those farms.

A point was made about new entrants, capital costs and so on. It is not something that anybody can control but I advise anybody going into beef, sheep or tillage farming to spend at least a year or two on very good dairy farms. It would be a fantastic investment of anybody's time, as that person could avoid so many mistakes. If a person is investing in all the bells and whistles but if the skills are not good and he or she is hit with a year like this one straight off, that person would be very exposed. It is important to have really good training systems for young people coming into the industry. That will lead to good outcomes in all sorts of areas and one would get a better return on training than any other single element.

I cannot comment on the liquid milk system and it is probably more of an ICOS issue. I am not involved with it. I can comment on inputs. We are a pretty expensive country when it comes to buying farm inputs. The same drugs that could cost €75 here might cost €20 in Missouri in the United States. Some of these drugs might be made in Ireland but there seems to a policy of pricing according to the market. With human health medicines, for example, perhaps the State has not got the best value in certain areas, and that may be the case in certain areas in dairy farming. I am surprised farm organisations have not tackled that area a bit more. The Government cannot do much but farm organisations could do quite a bit.

Mr. Murphy was asked about the banks.

Mr. Michael Murphy

There is a substantial lack of relevant expertise in the main banks. Bank of Ireland may have expanded operations but until recently, there were only approximately four specialised agricultural advisers. In New Zealand, the ratio is probably one per 100 or 150 farmers but we are off that scale. It is a shame that Rabo, which had more expertise in the area, has taken the decision to move from this country. Part of the reasons banks seek hard collateral is because they do not have the experienced personnel to evaluate the people and projects.

On the question of whether there should be a State bank, currently none of the banks has enough expertise in the agricultural area.

Mr. Martin Keane

Deputy Ó Cuív asked if people should do more in the advocacy area around the superlevy and finding a solution. I understand and fully appreciate the political arena in which Commissioner Phil Hogan operates and take full cognisance of that. With the superlevy butterfat coefficient adjustment, it is a technical adjustment within the powers to be done. That is my understanding under the Common Agricultural Policy programme. It is doable from a technical perspective. I do not know what other areas of impediment exist but it is a technical possibility and we advocate that it be looked at.

Storing milk is not an option. We are selling ourselves as a quality-assured milk-producing country and our products are quality assured to the highest standard. The facility for storing milk for more than two or three days is not there and it is not recommended that it be stored any longer than two or three days at most. All players in the industry will do everything they can from the co-operative perspective to facilitate as much storage as is practical without compromising the quality of the end product. We do not have great latitude in that respect.

There was mention of the EU perspective, China and barriers to trade. At EU level, agricultural exports relative to other types of exports are not significant but they are significant from an Irish perspective. More work could and should be done. We do not want to talk ourselves into a depression as there are major opportunities, and a small proportion of a huge market would satisfy the appetite for growth in Ireland. We will not move the dial much but there are opportunities. If we had an entry point, it would be very advantageous.

The banks have moved somewhat in the past year to try to be more user-friendly, but lending against assets is a major restriction. I do not advocate reckless lending in any way and we have a fair idea of the impact that may have had not only on the economy but on the people. Nobody would advocate that. Nevertheless, there is much merit in having a bank with specific expertise and which deals with one industry. It should have an in-depth understanding of challenges and opportunities. I do not wish to volunteer any more than that now but one can see how there would be an advantage in having a specific set of skills.

Deputy Deering made a point about prices which is exactly on the money. We have not got to the price he outlined but the indicators are that we may be getting there. There is some good news from New Zealand, with the global dairy trade up 9%. Perhaps a foot has been put under the fall but the level is still very low. Input costs in Ireland are very high and we are price takers when it comes to fertiliser and imported feed. Our use of nitrogen is in the tenths of 1% for the world. Nobody will rush here with thousands of tonnes of nitrogen and we are a kind of add-on to Europe.

I agree with Mr. Murphy's comments about efficiency and we must drive it at farm level. There must be a major emphasis on training. I do not disagree with any of those comments. The farm apprenticeship board and the training programme, which lasted three or four years, gave participants a wealth of different experiences. They did not just listen to one prophet and they had the advantage of having three or four different producers scattered throughout the country. They came out of it with a fairly broad perspective. There could be a major benefit there.

New entrants to farming, regardless of their age, be they young or middle-aged, face a big challenge because of their lack of experience and the initial capital expenditure needed to start up. They are in a vulnerable position to deal with volatility. I would caution against being heavily leveraged. The biggest impediment to the development of any of the industry is being too heavily leveraged as one cannot sustain any dip for a period of months, not to mention years.

Much value has been driven from the liquid milk market both at processor and producer level. Much of the overflow from Northern Ireland, because of the state of the industry in England and the flow of milk from England to Northern Ireland, would have given those producers an opportunity to expand at a great pace. In terms of costs, it was probably not managed particularly well, but there were opportunities for processors to acquire milk that was contracted on the spot market at very competitive prices and sell it into a market in the Republic where milk was contracted, in other words, where people had contracted volumes to supply milk 365 days of the year. Those volumes would have commanded a premium commensurate with the extra costs attaching to it. Some 25% or 26% of the milk consumed in the Republic is from Northern Ireland. I am not whingeing about that other than to say that there was not a level playing field in the sense that the southern Irish processors were buying on contract whereas milk from Northern Ireland was being sold here having been bought on the spot market and there were times that they had huge price advantages. They have driven value from the food chain from the processor right back to the producer. I would not disagree with that.

Does Deputy Pringle wish to add a comment?

Yes. I apologise for missing the presentations but I had to briefly step out. Two questions came to mind as I was listening to the contributions. Much of the discussion seems to be around our being able to command a premium for our product being green, so to speak, and being of a good and higher quality. Is any premium being delivered in terms of price for farmers, if our product is extremely marketable, of high quality and the result of better quality production or is all being kept within the co-operatives and factories? In terms of driving efficiencies to improve matters for dairy farmers, what evidence is there that efficiencies can be gained by the current structures that are in place?

Mr. Michael Murphy

In terms of grass-fed animals, it is a wonderful story in the sense such practice results in a drop in costs, it is environmentally friendly and it has health benefits in terms of CLAs, which are not highlighted enough. For example, farmers in Holland who let their cows out to graze for 126 days a year for six hours a day are paid a bonus. The Dutch perceive there is a benefit to be gained in the market from being able to tag on to the product that the animals were grass-fed.

We have been down that road already. Does most of our milk not come from animals that have been grass-fed?

Mr. Michael Murphy

We have said-----

It would probably be more appropriate to put that question to Bord Bia or to the Irish Dairy Board which are commanding premium for some of the end products from milk that is produced in that way.

Can the premium not come through to the farmer when we already have all of that in place?

The difference is probably between the price they are being paid and the world market price, although that may be too simplistic.

Mr. Michael Murphy

Irish butter will command a much higher price in Germany than any other buttter. The sale of Irish butter in the United States is an emerging story and it is beginning to move into the same position.

The dairy farmer who produces the milk to make the butter should get the premium.

It goes back to world market prices. Does Mr. Keane wish to add a comment?

Mr. Michael Keane

There is no doubt that the Kerrygold brand commands a premium, particularly in the German market.

The Irish Dairy Board would contend that the totality of the returns from the market drives the profit both to the Irish Dairy Board and to the suppliers and processors. When the market reaches rock bottom, whether it was 2006, 2009 or 2012, the price to the primary producer while it is very weak never falls to the full extent of the commodity price that is quoted on the world stage. One would have to deduce from this that an element of the premium definitely gets transferred down the line. Farming organisations and others would contend that is not a big enough share and I would not necessarily disagree with that. It is not an easy task to get transparency on it.

On Deputy Pringle's question on whether efficiencies can be gained and measured, they can. At farm level, there is huge divergence in terms of the top 10%. To take the top and bottom figures in any scale is an extreme, but to take the top quartile and the bottom quartile, there could be variances in production costs of 8 cent to 10 cent. That is a big earn, there is a huge value addition to be gained on farms if we can educate farmers and have a sufficient knowledge transfer to execute that. In other words, if we can bring the bottom quartile anywhere near the level that the top quartile is performing, there would be a huge economic benefit not only for those farms but for the communities in which they are located.

Is that measured on volume?

Mr. Michael Keane

No, it is measured on efficiency, on the cost of production per litre. There is a huge variation between those at the top and those at the bottom of the scale. There is a great job of work to be done to execute a knowledge transfer to improve the efficiency and the managerial skills of the farming population.

This chart demonstrates some of the shift from a high input system, which involves feed concentrates and a good deal of confinement, shown on the right-hand side, to a low input system, in which much of the milk would be produced from grass-fed animals. The further left one moves along that chart the greater the efficiency of the operation.

I do not think that many of the producers in Ireland would be on the right-hand side of that graph.

Mr. Michael Keane

I am not in a position to give exact numbers but a fairly significant cohort of the 18,000 milk suppliers would probably be more to the right-hand side than to the left-hand side of that graph. Mr. Michael Murphy may have exact figures.

I note Mr. Hurley wishes to contribute.

Mr. Con Hurley

It is easy to talk about figures and all the speakers are correct in that there is a big difference in efficiencies between the top and bottom producers, but as Warren Buffett said, it is only when the tide goes out that one discovers who has been swimming naked. That is what happened to farmers in Victoria in Australia during the past 15 years. They had high costs. They went down that route. In other words, they went in the opposite direction. They had a system of low grass-grazing and high costs. The social carnage that has occurred there during the past decade has been horrific in terms of physical illness, mental illness, marital break-ups and suicides. I do not want to forecast that happening here, but Northern Ireland is on the verge. With the current drop in prices, the Northern Ireland producers are getting, on average, 30 cent to 35 cent per litre. Milk prices are going to drop to 25 cent to 27 cent. There will be serious problems there in the next 15 to 20 months. When we are talking about figures loosely like this, we must remember that we are talking about people, farm families, children on farms, marriages and social cohesion. If anything, that is one of the main reasons farm families should be keeping their costs down.

I understand that Ireland is grass rich. Is that not the case? The far right-hand side of the graph is based on cattle that are housed all year round and fed grain. How much more can we squeeze out of it without consolidation and rationalisation within farms, reducing the number of farmers and making farms bigger?

Mr. Michael Murphy

I would add a few comments on that issue. The top 5% of farmers are more than three times as profitable as what would be regarded as general average.

Second, I will throw out some interesting recent information from the United Kingdom in respect of the different approaches, namely, the grass-rich and the grass-poor approaches. While the very best farmers can skin the cat in almost any way, I refer to the average industrial wage in the United Kingdom. In the case of those people who, broadly speaking, were following the grass-rich route - it was not very rich but with a reasonable amount of grass of more than 50% - it took 127 cows to make the average industrial wage. In the case of people who were more to the right on the graph we presented, it took 459 cows to make the average industrial wage. Moreover, in a year like this, even if one had 10,000 cows one still would be making a huge loss.

While that is interesting, one must factor into that graph the points made by Deputy Deering about all-year production, which makes it very hard to get back to the position as represented on the left of the graph. One must take into account a greater input from non-grass sources because of the nature of the production cycle. Does the Deputy not agree that essentially, it all boils down to price? Everyone agrees the price premium for undertaking to supply milk 365 days a year has not been reflected in the general pricing differential and that has been the problem.

Mr. Con Hurley

One final comment is that when we are advising farmers to move to the left, that is a technical piece of advice; not a political piece of advice.

They could take it politically as well. There is a subtle difference.

I remember, years ago, after listening to the New Zealand advisers, a man took up a leaf of grass and asked me what it was. When I told him it was a leaf of grass, he replied that it was not; it was a total diet for a cow that was going to produce milk. I then said that was a different way. It was a man in Ardfinnan and I believe the witnesses know who I am talking about. While the point is that it is difficult, nevertheless I believe this has been really interesting.

Before I wind up this meeting, I note we are lining up the banks to appear before the joint committee next Tuesday because there is no doubt about their intricate involvement, being part of it and having skin in the game. The level of expertise is a huge issue, as the ability to evaluate a farm business plan, particularly from somebody who does not have a strong asset base other than a single farm payment cheque, is a skill that must be honed and developed and this has been a problem.

To summarise, this is an area in which I am fascinated anyway but there are immediate, ongoing, mid-term and long-term issues. The immediate issue is about intervention prices. The European Union intervention price is practically useless, because it is the world market price and does not bear any resemblance to the actual cost of production. The joint committee has made this point previously. As for the superlevy and the soft landing, I am not sure what can be achieved but the solution to it will be political. There also is the immediate issue of bank flexibility.

In respect of ongoing issues, there is the idea of the insurance policy, forward buying and selling, as well as the tax code from the perspective of sheltering money. While the Minister for Finance has stated the five-year averaging introduced in the last budget may address this in part, it possibly is not enough. There also is the issue of access to markets. In addition, there obviously is the issue of banks, credit and the way in which young farmers can be recognised. Within the tax code at least, there have been some developments in share farming partnerships that facilitate a person who has land but has nobody to farm it or who has decided not to farm it. Consequently, there may be ways in which this could overcome the capital expenditure issue. There could be a ten-year plan in which 10% could be reduced from one's equity in it over the period of the ten-year plan.

In the long term, the major issue is knowledge transfer, which is about training enough farmers. As Mr. Michael Murphy stated, I am a product of the farm apprenticeship board and have the marks to prove it. While it certainly was a learning curve, it definitely benefits those who wish to get into management. The new course to which he referred is a brilliant course that needs to be developed. In general, education has been a key component in trying to manage and develop the economy and society. The joint committee cannot emphasise education enough because for rural-based economic communities to thrive, at their core must be well trained farmers.

These farmers generally, albeit not necessarily, will be young and will be supported by the advisory service, the financial services and obviously, by the political system. The joint committee will finish its hearings on this subject with the banks next week and I hope it then will come up with a short report. It should be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas and the relevant information, recommendations and whatever should be sent to the various interest groups and stakeholders. Hopefully, we also will be able to forward this to all the witnesses who have appeared before the joint committee for their observations, as although the report will have been concluded at that point, that still would be worthwhile.

This meeting has been valuable regardless of the fact that few members are present. Everything is recorded and Ronan McCabe, the policy officer who is assisting us, certainly will help members in drafting what we hope will be something constructive on the entire issue. It is fascinating to hear that the real challenge will be doubling the output by 2025 and trebling it by 2035 and this undoubtedly is attainable. I refer to one point that has not been mentioned although it was mentioned in other contexts. The earlier comment made by representatives of Bord Bia on the sustainable dairy assurance scheme was that this is environment-proofed. The perspective of the people who eventually will go out and sell the product is that in a system like this, Ireland's product actually is good for the global environment. This is because in other countries, it takes perhaps three or four times the acreage or hectarage of land to produce the same amount of milk as do farmers here. I let everyone else speak first and then they cannot come back at me.

I thank all the witnesses for their attendance and for their presentations.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.45 p.m. until 2 p.m on Tuesday, 10 February 2015.
Top
Share