Multivariate herd data

[Guest guest]

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.