To any Horse owners.....

[neil_g]

I always find it amazing when people bring morality into economics and free market. What's pricing got to do with morality - its all about supply and demand.

my point was (im assuming thats aimed at me as i used the word "moral") that as a fellow horse owners, the people who also own horses who are bumping up the cost of hay and screwing others over (effectively) when they should understand other peoples position when affording these things is morally questionably.

 

[ujjwaldey8165]

my point was (im assuming thats aimed at me as i used the word "moral") that as a fellow horse owners, the people who also own horses who are bumping up the cost of hay and screwing others over (effectively) when they should understand other peoples position when affording these things is morally questionably.

Yes, indeed it was ( though all in a friendly manner, I assure you )
And my point was exactly that. By raising the price of hay, the seller is not screwing anyone - there is no concept of screwing in a free market pricing. Because, by the same token, the horse owner is screwing the hay-seller by paying him low prices at other times of the year, or past years.
There is no morality involved in affording it either. If you cant afford it, dont have a horse - as simple as that. There is no god-gifted right for anyone to own horses. But if you do own one, make sure you can pay for it - its not someone else responsibility to understand the horse owner's position or to ensure he can pay for it. And its the same with everything else in life - cameras, big houses, cars etc etc. ( Food, cloth, basic shelter, basic education and basic health service is somewhat different.)

 

[neil_g]

Because, by the same token, the horse owner is screwing the hay-seller by paying him low prices at other times of the year, or past years.

surely thats the farmers fault for setting a low price in the first place? but by increasing the cost in times of high demand through desperation is nothing other than profiteering in my opinion.

There is no morality involved in affording it either. If you cant afford it, dont have a horse - as simple as that.

the morality arises (or i'd like to think it does) when the person selling the hay in the first place also owns horses and in theory could sympathise with the others.

do you own a pet? do you love it? what if the price of owning it increased beyond your means of funding it by 100% would you simply turn around and say "hay ho, i cant afford tiddles anymore so id better sell her.." no you wouldnt. so why should people profiteering be allowed to effectively force people to sell up, when as above, if they also own horses should be sympathising.

 

[ujjwaldey8165]

Ah, so its the farmers fault now to have set the prices low. And the farmers fault again to have raised it. Talk about 'heads I win tails you lose'

What has 'sympathy' do with morality. I could very well understand your predicament ; but that does not morally obligate me to financially support you and your hobby ( the 'you' is generic not aimed at you individually, of course). You made the choice to have a horse, you are responsible for its upkeep.

And since you ask - yes, i have had pets - a dog, in fact. But I will never have pets which I can't afford to keep even if prices rise by 100%. If I cant afford that, I will not have pets. And not just pets - I use the same arguments for everything else in life.I dont start a family if I cant afford to put food on the table. I dont buy houses I cant afford to repay in bad times, I dont buy cars I cant afford to buy outright, I dont buy cameras unless I can afford to lose them without going bankrupt. Consequently, I have very few things, but at least I dont have to invoke morality to save my situation. And honestly, i have no sympathy for those who do.

 

[treeman]

Ah, so its the farmers fault now to have set the prices low. And the farmers fault again to have raised it. Talk about 'heads I win tails you lose'

I just need to correct one point, hay has never been low in price. Hay prices have been sufficiently high enough for a farmer to make a living over the years. This year the grass yield is low, farmers have had to put up prices to cover the loss of income from that low yield, I have absolutely no argument with that.
However, the fact that some farmers are holding back their hay or over charging, will cause distress and hardship to some horse owners. This may not be a moral issue, but more an issue of social conscience, or is that a slippery slope to Communism, Ujjwal?

 

[ujjwaldey8165]

I just need to correct one point, hay has never been low in price. Hay prices have been sufficiently high enough for a farmer to make a living over the years. This year the grass yield is low, farmers have had to put up prices to cover the loss of income from that low yield, I have absolutely no argument with that.
However, the fact that some farmers are holding back their hay or over charging, will cause distress and hardship to some horse owners. This may not be a moral issue, but more an issue of social conscience, or is that a slippery slope to Communism, Ujjwal?

You raise a good point Mark. In fact prices are never high or low - its just the value at which 2 people decide to trade. The figure could be perceived to be 'high' or 'low' depending or ones ability or willingness to pay. But the prices are just that, an agreed amount for transaction to happen. So the prices of hay had never been low or high, its just been the price for the day

And the fact that the prices have been sufficient to make a farmer his living is no proof that its high. Surely, it depends on how the farmer lives - and I dont think many farmers ( around the world, not just here) live an envious lifestyle. So I would contend that, from a farmers perspective, commodity prices, such as that of hays, are never high - if anything the farmer will argue that they are unusually low given the uninsurable risks the farmers usually face.

Thanks for agreeing that its not a moral issue, I dont think it is. Holding back commodities cost a seller money; and exposes him to risks of price fall. Just as stocking up on 6 months hay supply exposes the buyer to risks of price fall. Why is it that a buyer stocking up hay for the winter is a perfectly acceptable ( and socially conscienciable ) behaviour, while its not for the seller to stock up? If you have horses ( or anything else) you have to be ready to face the hardship. Nothing to do with conscience - social or otherwise.

Its this social conscience argument which is begining of the slippery slope. And at the bottom of that abyss lies the path of Mao.

 

[Briony]

As farmers ourselves, we charge on the yield of that year. i.e this year because of the weather and the grass not growing we are having to charge more for the hay to coever the costs and make a substantial living, silage and haylage makers are having a hard time because they normally take 2 crops per year of the fileds but because of the lack of rain this season they have only been able to cut 1 cut (not all I hasten to add).

The same with the corn, the wheat has ripened very quickly and the ears have corn in them but most of them are smaller grains therefore more to the tonne and then we get paid less because there is more grains the have to go into the tonne, if you get my gist:shrug:, but saying that we are getting more to the tonne this year than last year as the Russians have had a bad harvest and having to buy corn from us

Farming is very dependant on the weather, as always have been and if for instance we have had the weather to make the grass grow quicker and thicker then we would have made more hay and the prices would not have gone up. :shrug:

I will add though lat year we were selling hay at £2.75 per bale which we thought was cheap so would have put the prices up anyway.

We could afford last year to sell a crop off the field collected at £1.50 per bale which we did as we had too much.

 

[treeman]

As farmers ourselves, we charge on the yield of that year. i.e this year because of the weather and the grass not growing we are having to charge more for the hay to coever the costs and make a substantial living, silage and haylage makers are having a hard time because they normally take 2 crops per year of the fileds but because of the lack of rain this season they have only been able to cut 1 cut (not all I hasten to add).

The same with the corn, the wheat has ripened very quickly and the ears have corn in them but most of them are smaller grains therefore more to the tonne and then we get paid less because there is more grains the have to go into the tonne, if you get my gist:shrug:, but saying that we are getting more to the tonne this year than last year as the Russians have had a bad harvest and having to buy corn from us

Farming is very dependant on the weather, as always have been and if for instance we have had the weather to make the grass grow quicker and thicker then we would have made more hay and the prices would not have gone up. :shrug:

Just out of interest though, do you think it's acceptable for a farmer to add considerably more, other than enough to cover his loss of usual yield?

It might suggest that the rural community is not as together as we may like to think we are :shrug:

 

[ujjwaldey8165]

Farming is very dependant on the weather, as always have been and if for instance we have had the weather to make the grass grow quicker and thicker then we would have made more hay and the prices would not have gone up. :shrug:

Anyone who tracks commodity prices, or have studied the economics of commodity market is well aware of the weather risk farmers face around the world ( which takes various forms - from lack of water to pest control). And most of this risk is either uninsurable or cant be mitigated. Which is why the prices of commodities do yo-yo and the farmers are always at the receiving end of the swing. When the prices are high, the traders make a killing; and when prices are low, the farmers are left holding the can.

I am not a farmer; but I have an interest in a particular commodity trade ( not agricultural produce) and I have found that the lowest risk strategy is to buy on the spot market and trade out your position as soon as possible - otherwise you might lose the shirt.

 

[Briony]

Just out of interest though, do you think it's acceptable for a farmer to add considerably more, other than enough to cover his loss of usual yield?

It might suggest that the rural community is not as together as we may like to think we are :shrug:

No is the answer to your question, we don't believe on jumping on the band wagon but then we are not hay and straw merchants. It is the dealers that are the middle men and therefore bumping up the prices considerably more that they ought to go up.

If we get a good yield next year then the prices of our hay will be cheaper as there will be more.

I probably will not be selling that much as I have 3 here to feed also. but at least I do not have to buy in hay and straw otherwise then I would not be keeping the.

At one stage I had 16 brood mares :bang::bang:

 

[ujjwaldey8165]

No is the answer to your question, we don't believe on jumping on the band wagon but then we are not hay and straw merchants. It is the dealers that are the middle men and therefore bumping up the prices considerably more that they ought to go up.

But why ever not Nicki ( assuming you can access the market)? The point is, if you dont,someone else will - and the traders will do it. And the reason they will, is thats the price the market will bear, given the demand and supply. So isn't your best strategy to let the middlemen make a fixed profit; and you taking the price risk. Becuase when the prices are low, you always end up taking the price risk anyways.

The trouble with small farmers ofcourse is the ability and resources to access the market; but big farmers or farming co-operatives who act as aggregators always take the price risk and cut the middle man out.

 

[Briony]

But why ever not Nicki ( assuming you can access the market)? The point is, if you dont,someone else will - and the traders will do it. And the reason they will, is thats the price the market will bear, given the demand and supply. So isn't your best strategy to let the middlemen make a fixed profit; and you taking the price risk. Becuase when the prices are low, you always end up taking the price risk anyways.

The trouble with small farmers ofcourse is the ability and resources to access the market; but big farmers or farming co-operatives who act as aggregators always take the price risk and cut the middle man out.

Because we are not greedy farmers:nono: we have put our prices up this year as we realised we were selling to cheap last year, and we are happy with that, yes if after christmas I realise I have too much hay for myself then we will seel some out at the going rate, but hay is not the main commodity on the farm, corn is, so therefore we will sell at the highest rate which will put up food prices in the supermarket :shrug:

 

[ujjwaldey8165]

Because we are not greedy farmers:nono: we have put our prices up this year as we realised we were selling to cheap last year, and we are happy with that, yes if after christmas I realise I have too much hay for myself then we will seel some out at the going rate, but hay is not the main commodity on the farm, corn is, so therefore we will sell at the highest rate which will put up food prices in the supermarket :shrug:

Very different points, isn't it.

Being greedy has nothing to do with pricing it at the highest possible level at which you can sell. And even if you are not greedy, the traders will sell at the highest possible level at which the market will clear - so your cheap pricing will make no difference.
Of course I can see that hay is not your main commodity; so you are really not bothered about its prices. And my point was not particularly about hay -but any commodity in general.

If I read you right, then you are saying that where food produce are concerned, you will sell at the highest possible prices - which is kind of what I was arguing. ( the hay was merely an example, the principle that pricing has nothing to do with morality applies to any pricing)

 

[Briony]

Very different points, isn't it.

Being greedy has nothing to do with pricing it at the highest possible level at which you can sell. And even if you are not greedy, the traders will sell at the highest possible level at which the market will clear - so your cheap pricing will make no difference.
Of course I can see that hay is not your main commodity; so you are really not bothered about its prices. And my point was not particularly about hay -but any commodity in general.

If I read you right, then you are saying that where food produce are concerned, you will sell at the highest possible prices - which is kind of what I was arguing. ( the hay was merely an example, the principle that pricing has nothing to do with morality applies to any pricing)

Let's just agree to disagree:bang:

 

[chunkytfg]

As this is my first post i'm going to stick to the original question. Here in east anglia We are paying around £4-4.50 a bale but it's pretty much rubbish. Either mega dusty or just plain manky!

Fortunately our little shetty x welsh mountain puts weight on just looking at the stuff and our ISH needs to stay on a diet due to being such a good 'do-er'. Still we are struggling to get hold of it atm and our local hay farmer has had an equally bad year as last year!