Today's Country Hour mentioned one valuation of CBH as $7.93 billion. If I heard this figure correctly, and if this was to be evenly split amongst say 6000 shareholders, each would get an average of around $1.3 million worth of shares.
This figure cannot be an accurate estimate, though I think I remember that South Australian growers received an average of $300,000 worth of shares when ABB was "de-mutualised" in July 1999. If my figures are right, and ABB was worth $300,000 in 1999, CBH could be worth $1.3 million for each grower now.
No matter what the long term dangers of outsider share-holders controlling grain handling, this sort of money could be very handy now. Presumably, cashed-up farmers who might think otherwise could buy the shares of others who need to money for survival.
Wonder what CBH thinks?
Tuesday, 27 November 2012
Monday, 26 November 2012
My car restoration syndicate
Some photos below of our car restoration project. It is an Armstrong Siddeley Whitley, 1951 18HP model.
I think the word to describe it is "vicarious" - other people in "my" syndicate are doing the hard yards, and I am wandering past from time to time, with my hands in my pockets. Perhaps the proper role of a consultant.
The start - July 2011 -
Now -
I think the word to describe it is "vicarious" - other people in "my" syndicate are doing the hard yards, and I am wandering past from time to time, with my hands in my pockets. Perhaps the proper role of a consultant.
The start - July 2011 -
Now -
The "Dutch disease" - our resource curse
The "Dutch disease" - a term that goes a long way to explaining our current farming problems is getting airplay recently.
In the Netherlands in the 1970s, the north sea oil fields created a resource boom, that drove up wages and increased the value of their currency. Although great for the country as a whole, the side-effects of high wages and inflated currency devastated other industries such as (for them) manufacturing.
The W.A. mining boom is causing similar harm to farming. As well as raising wages and inflating the currency, it is sucking finance away from farming.
This is not the whole of the current farm problem, but on top of everything else, it is all devastating. (I believe our lack of productivity growth is our major issue).
Whether the community thinks it is worthwhile to help industries affected to allow an adjustment period, remains to be seen. For example do we need to manufacture cars in Australia?
In the Netherlands in the 1970s, the north sea oil fields created a resource boom, that drove up wages and increased the value of their currency. Although great for the country as a whole, the side-effects of high wages and inflated currency devastated other industries such as (for them) manufacturing.
The W.A. mining boom is causing similar harm to farming. As well as raising wages and inflating the currency, it is sucking finance away from farming.
This is not the whole of the current farm problem, but on top of everything else, it is all devastating. (I believe our lack of productivity growth is our major issue).
Whether the community thinks it is worthwhile to help industries affected to allow an adjustment period, remains to be seen. For example do we need to manufacture cars in Australia?
"Notwithstanding" - DNA testing of soil
"Notwithstanding" my scepticism about hi-tech machines to study soil biology such as presented on the Landline program, an offer by Professor Andy Whiteley seems to good to refuse.
He has been appointed for four years to the University of W.A., amongst other things, to compile a soil DNA database for W.A. His project is funded by the State government, and is high-powered recognition of the potential value to the community.
Apparently the DNA testing is so easy, it can be offered as a free service to involve people like school-kids to submit samples - so-called "citizen science".
Well, this certainly could include us.
I have contacted Andy, explaining that not only can we provide soil samples, but also can back them up with facts relevant to the farm. The farm facts (our database) that can go alongside, should make the results a lot more meaningful. He will be able to do number-crunching for his purposes, but hopefully we will also be able to do our own interpretation of the data.
Sunday, 11 November 2012
Landline soil secrets likely to stay secret
Landline yesterday featured the newly sponsored GRDC soil biology project. They have exactly the right idea. We have seen enough in paddocks to agree that soil biology could lift water use efficiency from current levels of 50 to 60 per cent.
But they have Buckley's chance of doing much more than spending the $20 million over the next five years, and making their case for their third slice of the cake.
What have we learned from the first of these five-year soil biology projects?
And is rhizoctonia a major limitation to crop performance?
The Chicago man, Jack Gilbert, who was "full of praise for the GRDC approach", has already analysed 15,000 soil samples from around the world. We (W.A. farmers) have probably checked 150,000 soil samples over the last 30 years (5,000 samples a year?). What has this done for W.A. soils? Just look at the imbalance that has arisen between phosphorus and lime. So what chance to you give Chicago?
Maybe Pauline Mele's 30 billion bits of data from her Illumina sequencer will be more accurate?
I could go on, but you get the idea.
I wouldn't bother with this, if I couldn't suggest a better way.
But first, check it out for yourself -
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2012/s3630158.htm
But they have Buckley's chance of doing much more than spending the $20 million over the next five years, and making their case for their third slice of the cake.
What have we learned from the first of these five-year soil biology projects?
And is rhizoctonia a major limitation to crop performance?
The Chicago man, Jack Gilbert, who was "full of praise for the GRDC approach", has already analysed 15,000 soil samples from around the world. We (W.A. farmers) have probably checked 150,000 soil samples over the last 30 years (5,000 samples a year?). What has this done for W.A. soils? Just look at the imbalance that has arisen between phosphorus and lime. So what chance to you give Chicago?
Maybe Pauline Mele's 30 billion bits of data from her Illumina sequencer will be more accurate?
I could go on, but you get the idea.
I wouldn't bother with this, if I couldn't suggest a better way.
But first, check it out for yourself -
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2012/s3630158.htm
Thursday, 8 November 2012
Beware of agronomists - GIWA "Seeding Success"
G.I.W.A. - "a voice for the grain industry", organised an agronomy update in Perth yesterday. It was a good chance to share yarns about how to grow a good crop. But the theme of the discussions and many of the talks could drive you to drink.
The cynical view is that agronomists have to find something that can be sprayed. So any new weed problem, disease or insect outbreak was keenly discussed. Of course, the breakdown of the old, cheaper herbicides is the next big thing.
You can now add new crop varieties to the hot topics. The farm supply industry has great plans, especially for canola seed sales, but also new cereal varieties.
I don't deny that I find all this interesting, but the axe hanging over our head, of the financial credit squeeze was hardly mentioned. Fair enough perhaps. After all, it was an agronomy meeting.
My problem is that we know a lot about what we can see - weeds, diseases, insects etc. However, "we", as an industry, don't know why we are only averaging 50 to 60 per cent of water use efficiency. It gets hardly a mention.
Another old chestnut for me, is that the more you spray with insecticide, the more insect problems you seem to have. I still can't prove this, but some of the discussion added further support to this theory. After lengthy discussion about threshold levels for spraying aphids in canola, it slipped out that "the crops are only getting the S.P. knockdown". You can't beat an agronomist on this one - the spray is cheap, you will be going over the paddock anyway, and it is not worth taking the risk of not spraying. Even better for the agronomists, is that if you do keep going hard with insect sprays, you will probably soon be seeing plenty of insect problems.
Maybe as the Monty Python galaxy song goes, "pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space, 'cos there's bugger all down here on earth".
The cynical view is that agronomists have to find something that can be sprayed. So any new weed problem, disease or insect outbreak was keenly discussed. Of course, the breakdown of the old, cheaper herbicides is the next big thing.
You can now add new crop varieties to the hot topics. The farm supply industry has great plans, especially for canola seed sales, but also new cereal varieties.
I don't deny that I find all this interesting, but the axe hanging over our head, of the financial credit squeeze was hardly mentioned. Fair enough perhaps. After all, it was an agronomy meeting.
My problem is that we know a lot about what we can see - weeds, diseases, insects etc. However, "we", as an industry, don't know why we are only averaging 50 to 60 per cent of water use efficiency. It gets hardly a mention.
Another old chestnut for me, is that the more you spray with insecticide, the more insect problems you seem to have. I still can't prove this, but some of the discussion added further support to this theory. After lengthy discussion about threshold levels for spraying aphids in canola, it slipped out that "the crops are only getting the S.P. knockdown". You can't beat an agronomist on this one - the spray is cheap, you will be going over the paddock anyway, and it is not worth taking the risk of not spraying. Even better for the agronomists, is that if you do keep going hard with insect sprays, you will probably soon be seeing plenty of insect problems.
Maybe as the Monty Python galaxy song goes, "pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space, 'cos there's bugger all down here on earth".
Monday, 5 November 2012
Economists getting worse!
This time 20 out of 27 economists surveyed by Bloomberg predicted a Reserve Bank rate cut that didn't happen.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-06/rates-on-hold-in-november/4355798?WT.svl=news1
You can only feel sorry for economists. Presumably they are trying to do a good job. Maybe it is just the Reserve Bank that got it wrong.
But it is even sorrier for us, if these guys are running our economic affairs. Let's just hope that they are not doing too much harm.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-06/rates-on-hold-in-november/4355798?WT.svl=news1
You can only feel sorry for economists. Presumably they are trying to do a good job. Maybe it is just the Reserve Bank that got it wrong.
But it is even sorrier for us, if these guys are running our economic affairs. Let's just hope that they are not doing too much harm.