Milk quality and the penalty clause
Several points regarding the true nature of these payments and the difference between high and low somatic cell counts (SCC) need to be clarified.
This payment is not a bonus - it is a penalty, and Joe Sheehy made this point. Why then are co-ops penalising milk under 400,000 SCC?
Low SCC milk is interpreted as that under 200,000, and only 15% of the September milk sent to Dariygold Co-op was under 200,000. However, the top price was given for less than 15% of Dairygold milk, and this price will be recorded on the price league tables. This is not an accurate representation of the price paid to Dairygold suppliers, but it will appeal to the public perception that the co-ops wish to promote.
In his article, Mr Sheehy seems to suggest that 400,000 is a high SCC level. However, this is the level imposed by the EU and milk above this is heavily penalised. In the mid ‘90s it cost farmers a lot of money and effort to get milk to this EU standard, and they did not do it on their own. Collective action achieved the end results.
What is different about this discussion of SCC levels? There is no collective action. The co-ops are merely playing with figures, suggesting that SCC is very low and prices are very high. This is for the benefit of the shareholder, not the supplier. There is no genuine commitment to further reduce the levels of SCC. If there was, then this penalty on high SCC farmers would go directly to helping them eliminate problems. The costs of reducing and maintaining SCC below 200,000 far outweigh the benefits both to farmer and processor.
As a farmer, I take offence at Mr Sheehy’s comments on ‘rubbish milk’. Controls exist within the co-op system to ensure top quality milk is supplied at all times.
Sean O’Leary
Chairman
North Cork IFA
Gortanelig
Burnfort
Mallow
Co Cork
