"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster wrote:
is a very small niche market

A lot of farmers converted around 1999 to organic milk, and were
by 2001 able to call their milk organic and get a higher price.
Suddenly there was a lot more on the market. But they were asking
more for it than imported organic milk in the shops. The
disributors sold excess as non-organic, presumably to try to keep
organic label prices up.

No, they sold it as conventional because no one was willing to pay
organic
price for it, not enough people actually want the damned stuff

There is a bit of a problem with milk because a lot of health-conscious
people think milk is designed for young cows, not adult humans.

That is a smaller proportion than those who buy organic


Besides what is `organic price'? After conversion what proportion of costs
is subsidy, compared to non-organic? What rake off is going to
distributors?

Milk is not directly subsidised in the EU, but the price is supported by
intervention buying, this has very little effect on the market because
quotas long ago cut out the largest element of over production
..

Do you not think that bringing organic into the picture has saved jobs for
a few dairy farmers, as well as given more wealth to some distributors? I
see jobs rather than profit as the key in the future.

Organic milk has done neither

So really the industry was getting a margin
for organic, but not so much overall because a good proportion of
farmers were doing it.

Rubbish, the proportion of UK output that is organic is very small
indeed

And what proportion of organic milk is imported and sold cheaper and why?

Not every organic standard is the same, also in the EU organic production is
directly subsidised in many countries, so they can produce organic milk and
undercut UK organic production. In much of the EU the conversion grant
continues after conversion, in the UK it only lasts until conversion is
over. Now this has been changed and UK organic producers are getting
continuing subsidy



You are starting to feel the EU competition in milk. I think you are
going to find the price for non-organic dropping, too, and organic
getting some of a premium but being easier to sell. It will be the
protecting factor for the farmers who have gone to it as subsidies
go off.

Total rubbish. People are actively costing out quitting organic
production
and going back to conventional dairy production because the costs of
organic
are so much higher.

How much of that is the distributors' fees?

Sorry but I have better things to do with my life than do your homework.
Organic milk is, at the farm gate, about 25ppl, if they get an organic
premium, conventional is currently about 19ppl (annual rolling figures). As
I don't buy milk I don't know what the retail prices are.


The only thing that stops them is that they will have to
pay back the organic conversion grant if they give up within a certain
period. Organic is not easier to sell

Perhaps a bit harder for milk. Give us the relative subsidy data.

organic gets more subsidy than conventional as it gets everything
conventional gets plus conversion grant



New Zealand had a guaranteed butter fat and farming in general
market in the UK until UK joined EU. Then we went through a lot of
strife, a lot of farms were sold as subsidies were removed.

For a long time we did not see organic produce in New Zealand shops,
it was all going to Japan. Now some is available.

Organic carrots here sell for over double in shops. Organic milk is
25 to 35% more. I think there will be a race to enter the market as
non-org prices will drop.

And immediately the organic price will drop and it will become
uneconomic.
It is a niche market and very sensitive to overproduction. In the EU we
saw
it first in Denmark, then we saw it in the UK,

I suppose checking that food is non-GM has increased cost.

not especially for organic, biggest increase will be the insistence that all
feed for organic milk cows has to be organic. Up until now only 80% (or
thereabouts) had to be, which meant you could feed a lot of cheap
conventional maize and similar. While the supermarkets make a big thing
about being GM free, only a couple of them actually do anything about it.

As I said, this changes on a daily or weekly basis on cattle that eat
grass
alone

But not anything like the huge difference when going to grain feed.


grain feed is more consistent, so the changes will be less noticeable. A
Herd permanently housed can aim at a more consistent product.

Snip

Maybe because the effect is within variation between breeds or or
other variations of cows. But set up 15 or 16 pairs of animals
and see what happens.

Or even better watch what happens to a herd of a thousand or more dairy
cows
as different loads of maize gluten arrive every week. If there is any
difference between them and the proportion of GM/NonGM you will know
within
a couple of days.

What about from year to a couple fo years later as the amount of unkown GM
increases?

The data is there and will be monitored. You always compare this year with
previous years for benchmarking



Now Torsten has shown us something which does not disprove it,
rather shows a trend indicating a bigger experiment than 8 pairs
*is* justified.

Why waste time on an experiment when you have thousand cow herds out
there
in the real world feeding the damn stuff?

Then show us your figures from year to year.


Certainly, please post your salary cheques

Anyway we don't currently run a beef lot or large dairy herd,

One guy recounts a few tall tales

You always say it is only one, each time we give a different
example. Our examples have added to several.

And none of them more than cosy anecdotes, none of them condescend to
provide any hard evidence. Doubtless Gordon could dig out a score of
beef
fatteners who will provide pleasant anecdotes about how well beef
fattens
off GM maize. Somehow I doubt you will find these at all acceptable

GM maize is more estrogenic so I suspect it would have steroidal effect.

Probably cancelled out by the clover that was worrying you a week or two
back




And note the author of the one Torsten gave gets Monsanto funding.

So what

So he might be worried about funding for his dept drying up if he finds
problems.
well run beef unit

What percentage do you change at? Donkins result was a 3% drop. That
means say you change feed at 5% you only have 2% more to go.

The result wasn't valid note.

It showed a trend but was only done with 16 cows. It was valid as far as
it went.

Also a beef unit finishing several thousand
head would pick up trends faster

Need to take weather into account from year to year, too.

Weather effects alter from day to day among dairy cattle


improve palatability?

No

Not before it was imported?

No,

What guarantee?

don't be silly, to improve palatability would increase cost and would
leave
the product different. They would have to charge for it and declare it.
Anyway, how would they improve palatability at no cost, pray tell, the
feed
industry has been looking for this magic solution for generations

So much of the GM stuff is loss leader that the companies would probably
pay that to keep up market cofidence in their seeds, so they can still
sell their associated chemicals which bring in the profit.

Gods you talk rubbish. You have of course evidence to back this up?

Jim Webster