Fw: Multivariate herd data

[Guest guest]

-

markjon chatburn <protection_farms >

<Pancaratna.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net>; <protection_farms >

Cc: <iscowp (AT) earthlink (DOT) net>

Tuesday, July 09, 2002 7:51 AM

Multivariate herd data

 

 

> Pancaratna prabhu,

>

> I finally got round to creating the multivariate herd

> data that is so necessary for a proper business plan,

> whatever the format. Play with it at will.

>

> Cows/yr is the determinant factor of how many calves

> are to be born each year.

>

> Milking yield responds to a 4-year lactation that can

> be altered. Also, for a 3- or 2-year lactation one can

> put in zero and alter the other 2 years accordingly.

> Though this could change herd population dynamics in

> terms of breeding, though non-milking cows should take

> up the slack in the available herd of mothers to

> impregnate.

>

> Milk price is in L8, and it is a/the major factor.

>

> The system is semi-primed, not like the first excell

> file I sent, which was fully primed.

>

> The system does not bifuricate, though it can be seen

> that an eigth of the herd are non-lactating mothers.

> These could be formed as a seperate herd, in terms of

> the financial model, thus reducing the first herds.

> Again this is a pyramid model which requires ever

> ending expansion into an ever ending market. As long

> as this can be factored into the model there is a good

> 20, 40, 60, 80 or more years of market growth. As the

> supply grows demand will grow in a positive-feedback

> cycle which is hugely beneficial for the system as a

> whole.

>

> There needs to be a %efficiency correlation in it as

> well, which I will do later. No business can expect to

> be 100% efficient to the model, except after many

> years when all the problems are ironed out.

>

> The costs I have put in relate to the ones you gave,

> converted to £s. All my numbers relate to litres, £s

> and decimals. The whole world works in metric, only

> the Yanks do not. It would help to have conversions

> both way, though I have not included it.

>

> The two land costs relate to renting and buying. The

> buying option is obviously the best. Also, if the land

> bought is bequeathed to charity (i.e.VEDA), thus

> owning both the cows and the land, which has a

> reciprical contract to give permanent free use to the

> business based on a Standards criteria, then that

> solves the lifetime-assurance system we were looking

> at. If the business goes bankrupt then there is land

> capital to back up for life the animals. The business

> would be not-very profitable, but that is not THE

> idea.

>

> The cost of animal insurance for medical bills is not

> included - any data? This should be an internal system

> with moneys being put by for the needs of the herd.

>

> The internal rate of return (IRR) for the business is

> pathetic if looked at a capitalist

> "milk-it-for-profit" mentality. Yet it secures land,

> lifetime-assurance for the animals, milk yield and

> oxen for crop production. It is ideal for CSA, wherein

> CSA full members invest in shares which then are

> backed with bank loans to secure the full-herd

> mortgage, with profit from non-used land in the first

> 10 to 20 years then the first 15 years make profit

> followed by loss for 40 years, then profit onwards.

> CSA full-members would thus reap back there initial

> investment plus dividends/profits. It would also

> require them to buy year-shares for milk and crops. An

> assortment of relationships could be formed wherein

> initial investment could be devested to pay for

> year-shares.

>

> A seperate crop production model would be needed. This

> may be registered as a different business if deemed

> fit. The idea is to stop cross-subsidisation, for each

> component part to be self sustaining. Thus when

> adversity comes the backbone - cows and land - are

> assured via the charity. The appendage businesses -

> crops, tourism, temples, cafes, restaurants, ox carts,

> horse carriages, etc., can all go banckrupt, but the

> backbone will remain for other appendage businesses to

> reappear in fairer times.

>

> There has, as yet, been no modelling of ox/cropping,

> the assumption being that it will not make enough

> profit to pay off oxen's maintenance. This could and

> should be erroneuous. Thus, if oxen make profit and

> support themselves then the costs are dramatically

> reduced.

>

> Neither included are public costs (tax, asset

> insurance, lobbying etc.) and benefits (cheap land

> rents, grants, legislation), nor charity costs and

> benefits. ISKCON has a huge amount of experience with

> the latter of which it is mostly supporting the

> current system (Adopt A Cow, etc.). All I am doing is

> inserting private capital and supplier/consumer

> relationships into this - yet if the price is right

> then it could go it alone privately. But then why

> neglect public and charitable institutions? Utility is

> the means, to exploit all factors at out disposal to

> create a viable system that puts us on the land for

> good. Those who go subsistence all the better, but

> first they need the land and expertise.

>

> Creating a charity (not-for-profit organisation) in

> the image of what I suggested in VEDA would then add a

> lot of capital to the system as well as being the

> bankruptcy protection that is needed as the land would

> be bequeathed.

>

> It is inherently complex, but I believe I am starting

> to get the backbone of the system in place. With data,

> structural modification and addition we could soon

> have a very good business model. But to move further

> on it I sincerely believe we should raise some money

> to get a notable expert in the field to go over the

> structure and the data with a tooth pick. I have been

> accused of recklessness with this model, but I would

> not want to go ahead with it until it has been peer

> reviewed, and not by just devotees, who whilst

> experienced are not always expert Ag economists, but

> by karmi-business-heads who have been in the business

> for years. One who has worked in third world countries

> with oxen, worked in the first world in both

> conventional and organic, with CSA's, etc.

>

> This is after all a theoretical model, and reality is

> much different to theory. Yet the model should be as

> close as possible to mirroring reality.

>

> Hope all finds you well,

>

> Mark

>

>

>

> Sign up for SBC Dial - First Month Free

> http://sbc.