Member log in

Milk price reflects costs, not need

OPINION

Fonterra’s reduction in the milk solid payout to dairy farmers comes hot on the heels on an announcement by the Commerce Commission that the company’s calculation behind the setting of the milk price is fair.

This has prompted the suggestion supermarkets should be investigated in terms of their profit margins.

Although one supermarket chain has announced the profit margin on milk is just over 5%, no comment on stock-turn was made. A 5% margin on a product that goes out every day is somewhat more lucrative than 10% on yearly turnover.

Standard & Poor’s, the credit rating agency, reports that return on invested capital for supermarkets in developed countries is 16%. This includes the loss leaders (special offers) supermarkets use to attract customers.

The overall concern in society is that “milk is too expensive”. There appears to be an increase in the feeling that “we produce it so it should be cheaper here”, overlooking the fact that milk is cheaper now than it has been for many years.

In 1999, two litres cost just under $4 in today’s money. It is currently possible to buy two of these for $5.20.

The evidence is also that few house vendors would sell their property to a neighbour at half the price they could achieve on the open market, yet this appears to be what is expected from farmers.

What it costs to produce

What has yet to be understood is what it costs to produce milk.

Data from Statistics New Zealand show that since 1992 the cost of food has increased approximately 45% but farmers’ expenses have risen more than 60%. Fuel, power, labour and fertilisers have been the major drivers.

A Rabobank report released this month shows that dairy farmer perception of their farm business viability has decreased from more than 60% confidence in December last year to approximately 50% in June 2012.

At that stage, Rabobank calculated that 20% of dairy farmers would be unviable. The latest decrease in payout will put more dairy farm businesses into the unviable category, and farmer confidence is already decreasing.

The problem for society is that the drop in price will not affect the domestic price of liquid milk but it might affect the ability of people to pay for it.

Each dollar increase in the milk solid payout means more money circulating in New Zealand.

The NZIER calculates this is worth $270 in the back pocket of each and every New Zealander, which is more than what is required to pay for the average annual milk consumption of 90 litres.

A decrease in payout means less money circulating.

Kiwis benefit when New Zealand food is in demand overseas and people are prepared to pay premium prices for it. The alternative is a third-world economy.

Jacqueline Rowarth is Professor of Agribusiness at the University of Waikato

More by Jacqueline Rowarth

Comments and questions
15

What strikes me is to see NZ milk products sold overseas cheaper than in New Zealand (even with the overvalued NZ$). I guess these guys also make money on their sales and the transport to overseas is surely more expensive than the distribution here in New Zealand. Where is the catch in all that?? I do not know enough about production costs here in NZ to comment on this but I do understand very well that somebody must make a lot of money on the back of everyday New Zealanders in this country.

"somebody must make a lot of money on the back of everyday New Zealanders in this country."
It is true that supermarkets are doing quite well, but milk is too cheap and low -margin to be adding a lot to supermarket profits.
You can always keep a cow or two on your life-style block, but you'll want at least $1/litre for any surplus milk to make the milk you consume yourself cheaper than buying the same amount at the supermarket.

Hi FB Too wet for fishing so I'll amuse my self winding up NBR readers!
Cheers.

Quote “The commission noted several limitations to the dry run review, some of which will be rectified in future statutory reviews. These included not all the information received from Fonterra being available in the form sought, and not reviewing the appropriateness of the capital asset values used in the model ” Unquote

Strange they could come to a definite conclusion without all the info. they asked for? Did they ask for something that Fonterra believed they didn’t need?

The four greatest selling products in supermarkets are fizzy drink, chocolate biscuits, petfood and smokes.
Milk seems to attract all the critisism. It is absolutely, patheticly cheap. Cheaper than bottled water. If you went out and followed the production procedure you wouldnt say another word. The farmer portion of the price is probably under a quarter.

The transport cost per serving is higher inside NZ than oversea, so an irrelevant worry.

Milk in NZ is mainly sold a a liquid product. You pay good hard cash, to cart around ~90% water. Transport inside NZ is expensive (I have seen transport costs from china to NZ much much cheaper than shipping the same items from port to smaller center..) Milk sent overseas from NZ is predominantly dried, ultimately to be reconstituted in factory, or in home. Never mind the costs associated with a degradable food product versus a powder that can survive for years.

Production costs in NZ are high, and only getting higher.

Profit margins for the markets are higher than they let on. By profit, i mean gross.

Where did the Commerce Commission say that Fonterra's setting of the raw milk price was fair?
I read that the ComCom said that it was "not inconsistent with the DIRA."

Just think about the GST portion (15%) for NZ buyers of milk. That alone would make our milk overseas cheaper where there is no such tax.

Its real ironic that theGov. calls a Com Com enquiry when the tax portion is far higher than the farmer portion of the retail price.

The enquiry...pure politics.

Follow the money on this one.

Its the banksters that have manipulated the high value of land temporarily, to get the biggest share they can without sending the poor old farmer to the wall. ..

Interest costs now form a significant component in the price of milk, & theres a fat chance banksters will let the price come down too much. They & their mates will just purchase enough forward orders at a price to limit their exposure to farmers high debt levels.

Lets not forget the role the supermarket duopoly play in the price fixing also.

You all have valid comments, but I think the author is missing the point.
Which is, DIRA 2001 Sutton and parliament told Com. com to "look the other way" while they passed legislation creating Fonterra.
That was wrong and needs to be undone, unless someone can sensibly explain, Why investors in dairy production deserves privileged legislation over and ahead of investors in production of other goods and services?

Jacqueline Rowarth is Professor of Agribusiness at the University of Waikato
Well please explain why you believe your statement; "farmers’ expenses have risen more than 60%. Fuel, power, labour and fertilisers have been the major drivers."unquote, has ANYTHING to do with the retail price of milk in NZ?
Pleeease pretty please.

In case I didn't make myself clear Ms Rowarth, you say, "What has yet to be understood is what it costs to produce milk." I would like to know what that has to do with the retail price that milk is sold at?
Please answer? After all said and done, you are the "Professor of Agribusiness at the University of Waikato ".

Fonterra are crooks. Period.

Yes they are. But they are our crooks.

The reality is the cost of milk at farm gate, ex fonterra is 80% of the final cost of liquid milk. Fonterra rort the price with the milk price manual and the use of a hypothetical competitor. A load of nonsense Maf and com com were ineffectual thru the review process. It was point less. The cost of transport is higher and the number of staff earning >$100k is ridiculous for what they deliver. I look for to the chairman elect setting the business back on course. Now that is slipping behind its competitors on the global stage. Nz farmers atelier the best. Fonterra is not

I think a lot here miss the point WHY there's such a discrepancy between different 'brands' of milk, where it is the 'same' product in the 'same' bottle with a different label.
Example @Countdown: Homebrand milk is $3 per two litre bottle. The 'same' milk with an Anchor label is $4.60
And then the supermarket claims they only make 5% on the Anchor milk?
Rubbish I say!