Archive for May, 2008

Will Stock & Grain Prices Increase To Cover Farmers’ Fuel Costs?

Even though grain commodity prices might be attractive, the soaring price of diesel is driving down farmers’ profits and forcing them to think twice about planting crops.
Diesel has hit $1.80 a litre and fuel-monitoring company Fueltrac has warned it could reach $2 by next year. How can farmers recoup increased input costs?

National Farmers’ Federation economist Charlie McElhone said the price of fuel was “most definitely” a problem for farmers and was eroding margins. Article on fuel costs to farmers
Country Women’s Association NSW president Margaret Roberts says there are less trips to town because of fuel costs. Article on fuel costs to farmers. When input costs increase in most other industries, prices have to increase to assist in covering such costs. How can Australian farmers increase their sell-price when they are beholden to the ‘price makers’, the Buyers – whether through agents or ‘direct’ the buyers make the price?! Something should be done! But what?! Is this what you expect groups like your MLA, Cattle Council (CCA) & NFF to be working on or are they really just involved at the advertising end and assisting processors/buyers to have more control over quality?

What do you think? Please leave a comment below for others to see.

Leave a Comment

Producers & Consumers Rorted But Graeme Samuel (ACCC) Won’t Act!

It’s starting to look very much like Graeme Samuel is hiding something. We see Prof Ian Fels on TV stating directly that the ACCC can do something about prices if they use Sec 47 of their Act. However, Graeme Samuel discounts all the evidence provided and won’t even follow it up!


And then of course, the MLA and Cattle Council didn’t even submit anything to the ACCC on the differential between the prices their producer members get paid by their processor members (Can you believe the MLA has both producer & processor members – What a conflict!) followed by how much the retailers then charge – Shame on you, MLA & CCA!

What The ABA Has To Say Today


Australian Meat Consumers and Producers Rorted as Supermarkets take 53% of Consumer Dollar
plus Interest Due to Late Payment.

ACCC’s Graeme Samuel just doesn’t understand!

ABA Chairman, Brad Bellinger has responded strongly to the statement by ACCC Chairman, Mr Graeme Samuel that producer organizations have given him no “smoking gun” evidence of supermarket bullying.

He said “Mr. Samuel is not doing his job, if he is only directing his ACCC Officers to look for an individual handgun with smoke coming from its barrel. The ACCC needs to recognize that farmers’ conflict with the supermarkets, originates in a one sided shootout, where a duopoly of Supermarkets have all the weapons of mass discounting to reduce producers’ prices, while maximizing their retail margins.

Mr Bellinger explained, “ABA has provided ACCC with the US and UK figures on their producers’ share of the consumer dollar, which clearly show that Australia’s Supermarkets gouge the biggest margins – 53% gross retail margin, as opposed to under 30% in UK and USA. Australian producers are being forced out of business, as they get 25% of the consumer dollar, as opposed to 47% in USA”.

He continued, “The drought is being used as an excuse – this has nothing to do with drought – it is blatant rorting of the system by a duopoly retail structure that is unique in the OECD world. The UK Competition Commission has criticised the power of the four major supermarket chains in UK and the UK Government has appointed an Ombudsman to monitor food prices. The US has over 50 supermarket chains and real competition. Australia, alone, has such an uncompetitive closed shop that it is strangling beef producers with the lowest prices received and our consumers with some of the highest beef prices in the Western World.”

Mr Bellinger said, “Australia is in the dark ages in regulation of the food chain. He pointed out that the US introduced the Stockyard and Packers Act in 1921, to regulate their meat chain. That Act mandates compulsory reporting of sale prices and ensures that producers are paid on the day that they sell their stock. This ensures speedy payment and transparency through the chain, and avoids the long waits and huge interest profits obtained by slow paying retailers in Australia.

Mr Bellinger said, “I call on Mr Samuel to lift his eyes from his pathetic handgun search and to look at the collateral damage to all Australian producers and consumers caused by the ever increasing firepower of Australia’s unique Supermarket duopoly”.
(Sourced from The Australian Beef Association (ABA) www.austbeef.com.au website)

What do you think? Please leave a comment below for your peers to see.

Comments (2)

Is Mulesing A Lost Battle? (German clothing giant bans mulesed wool)

Another international fashion giant has slapped a ban on Australian wool from mulesed sheep.  (It is also opposed to ‘clip mulesing’, an alternative Australian farmers hoped would be acceptable to PETA and clothing retailers.

An Anti-Mulsing Website. An Anti-Mulsing image
German-based Clemens & August (C&A), with more than 1,100 stores in 16 European countries, is the latest to join Hugo Boss, Abercrombie & Fitch, Timberland, H&M and more than 10 other major retailers in the boycott.

C&A posted a statement on its website announcing it “fervently opposes” mulesing and will direct its buyers not to source wool from farmers who practice the controversial technique.

The company also raised concerns the Australian wool industry would fail to meet a deadline to phase out mulesing by 2010.

C&A’s move followed lobbying from US-based animal rights group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which has led the global anti-mulesing campaign against Australian farmers.

“For C&A, the current situation is not tolerable and alternative methods as previously advised by the Australian Wool Industry are urgently needed,” C&A states on the “social responsibility” page of its website.

“As C&A does not see any significant progress we get the impression that the Australian Wool Industry is not in a position to meet the deadline to eliminate this practice until 2010.”

Mulesing involves cutting skin from the hindquarters of sheep to prevent fly larvae from feeding on the tissue, but PETA claims the practice is cruel.

PETA has targeted Australian wool farmers because mulesing is predominantly performed in Australia.
(This information was gained from AAP)

So, what do you think? Despite the ethical/practical points of view, doesn’t this argument come down to whether the market is big enough for those producers who continue to mulse?

What do you think?

Please leave a comment below for your peers.

Comments (4)