I just don't understand some of the hay producers here.
People are already whining about the price of hay this year (whole other rant about them) and the same old hay producers are replying they need to charge such high prices because yields are low, land and equipment costs are high. Some had bad weed problems and some needed lots of fertilizer. Blah blah blah.
Why, as a buyer, is that my problem?
First cut is only JUST coming off now so yields are fairly hypothetical at this point. Other than the fact they were lower last year. Yet what other commodity would a producer expect to get more for selling just because their yields were lower?
And what other commodity would a producer be able to demand more money for because they bought new equipment or expensive land or needed extra fertilizer or herbicides? I can tell you the cereal, oilseed and pulse crop producers don't get this luxury.
There are a few things I recognize as effecting market price of a commodity. Supply, demand, location and environmental factors. I do not recognize land and equipment costs and maintenance as market effecting. As a producer, be it crops, hay, veggies or livestock, upkeep and expansion should be factored in to what you can earn within the market. Not charge more and hope you can get it to allow you to do what you want so that you can charge more.
Maybe it's because hay relies so heavily on private sales while other commodities go through auctions and elevators that help stabilize their prices... Who knows. But their logic still baffles me.
Does the UK suffer from such backwards pricing?
(As a disclaimer, I'm not against prices rising. That's a part of life today. Although I'm still going to source the cheapest of good quality I can find. I'm simply against using land and equipment costs as a reason for driving up prices. Use older equipment and don't buy more expensive land if you can't afford it without jacking up prices stupidly high. Like any other producer has to do.)
People are already whining about the price of hay this year (whole other rant about them) and the same old hay producers are replying they need to charge such high prices because yields are low, land and equipment costs are high. Some had bad weed problems and some needed lots of fertilizer. Blah blah blah.
Why, as a buyer, is that my problem?
First cut is only JUST coming off now so yields are fairly hypothetical at this point. Other than the fact they were lower last year. Yet what other commodity would a producer expect to get more for selling just because their yields were lower?
And what other commodity would a producer be able to demand more money for because they bought new equipment or expensive land or needed extra fertilizer or herbicides? I can tell you the cereal, oilseed and pulse crop producers don't get this luxury.
There are a few things I recognize as effecting market price of a commodity. Supply, demand, location and environmental factors. I do not recognize land and equipment costs and maintenance as market effecting. As a producer, be it crops, hay, veggies or livestock, upkeep and expansion should be factored in to what you can earn within the market. Not charge more and hope you can get it to allow you to do what you want so that you can charge more.
Maybe it's because hay relies so heavily on private sales while other commodities go through auctions and elevators that help stabilize their prices... Who knows. But their logic still baffles me.
Does the UK suffer from such backwards pricing?
(As a disclaimer, I'm not against prices rising. That's a part of life today. Although I'm still going to source the cheapest of good quality I can find. I'm simply against using land and equipment costs as a reason for driving up prices. Use older equipment and don't buy more expensive land if you can't afford it without jacking up prices stupidly high. Like any other producer has to do.)
More money than sense a lot of the time. If people are getting that price when they're asking it, fine. Doesn't mean I want to pay it 
