 Felly ydych chi'n gweithio eich dynach o'r panel aeth yma? Wel, dwi'n gwybod, rydyn ni'n mynd i'n mynd i ddim ymlaen i Peter, dwi'n dwych, ond ond, ein gwasanaeth a'r gwasanaeth, mae'n dweud o'r gwirioneddau ar gyfer y gaf. Wel, y cyfrifiadau yma sy'n golygu'r gwerthau cyffredinol gweithiol, oes yna'r ymlaen i? OK. Those are right. Okay. Director sorry. I think there's two things I think David pointed out. There is no right or wrong model. The thing is is there's sades of grey with regard to how these models will work. But I think one of things about what we look at with our farming relationships is. We take a very simple principle, corporates are good at raising money, farmers are good at farming. Rodd yn amlwg, rydyn ni'n gofnod ai'r gynhyrch arwain yn ddau gwirwyr yn y bobl ac yn y bobl yn ddau'r gobl. Felly i'r mewn medau a gydrofodiasoedd sy'n gwybod nhw i wybodaeth yr sgolriro. Roedd yn bêl i ddweud yn rai'n ei wneud yn ymgyrchu, ac mae'r bobl yn ymddug yn cael eu hyd yn ymddangos yw'r gwirwyr mewn drws沒關係, ac mae'n amlwg yn ddweud. Roedd y siŵr gallu cyfnod lle ei chyfyddo gwirwyr yn ei hwngol, ac doedd weithio cyfansio awrwag ffarrwyddo i'r uddiadol, a oes yn cael cyfansio'r ffarrwyd yn cael eu cyfan i ddim nickname ac rydyn ni'n amryliau'r darthlu a fathio na ddim yn cael eu cyflog. Felly, allan o wahanol, byddai'r ffarrwyd yn du'r peri sy'n newid o fathio. Ac oes yn cael eu ffo modd o ffarrwyd fel y fathio, ac roedd yn gallu wahanol o'i funud. Felly yn cael eu bwysig? Felly, mae'n ei ddych chi i dweud y quotos Mae'n meddwl gwahod rwyf yn ei dynai, sydd roi fod yw'r meddwl gwahod yw'r meddwl gwahod yw'r meddwl gwahodir yw'n meddwl gwahod yw'r meddwl mae mae meddwl gwahod yn ei dynai, yn ei dynol ddigwydd. Mae meddwl gwahod yn ei dynai yw'r meddwl gwahod, yn yr adspun i'r adnod o'r cyfrecydd sydd dod o'r adnod os yw y ffordd. Mae meddwl gwahod, mae rai fod yn waith amhaf i dyrwun, a i dufnod arfer iawn. mae'r gwybod phobl yn ystod o'r llwylo'n gwybod mewn dylai'r cyffredinol i'r dyffredinol yma. Felly mae'n fawr ydym ni. Yn ystod gwaith mae'n fawr? Yn ystod, mae'n gwybod i chi'w cyffredinol a phobl yn gwneud yn cyffredinol i'r cyffredinol. Mae'n gwybod peirio'n gwirio'n cyffredinol. Well, I do have one for Peter now, which is on some of your data looking at how influential capital land appreciation was. Now, when you are an investor and looking at what is wrong with looking at total returns and how should investors see capital appreciation of agricultural ar gyfer? Well there's nothing wrong with thinking about capital appreciation in every sensible investor would. I think you just need to understand what's happened to the price of farmland, and that the increase we've seen has pretty much been in a period from about 2002 through to 2009 or 2007, and since then it hasn't done much. So it's great if you have land gyda'r ystryf? A hynny'n dryddio'r cystafell nawr. Yn gyfrifod hwnna, fel yna yna llawer o fy dyfodd ychydig oedd, ond mae'r cyfrifolau ar yr hyn arbennig, rydym ni'n parfwysydd yw hefyd, criOS inni yn rhanu rhagor. Mae ydych chi'n cael y gorffeni ar yr hyn yn y pethau. Yn gyfaint o'i cyrraed. ac mae gennym o'n ddwybod i fel ffaisio i ddweud o ddweudio'r cyfnod. Felly, yn ffawr o'r ddweudio ar gweithio'r cyfleoedd, y ddweudio'r peiriau yn ffocws o'r ffordd fyddai'r cyfnod o'r ddweudio'r cyfnod, yn ffawr o'r ddweudio'r cyffredinol? Mae hynny'n dweud yn cael ei ddweudio'r cyffredinol, mae nhw'n ychydig beth oedd o'n ddweudio'r cyffredinol, felly, os pan ddodd anodd, ddodd hwnna ddodd anodd yn ffair, a ddodd nid o'ch wneud ddefnyddio ar fynd y rherod, ac mae wych yn benedig ar geiswyd, rydych yn fwy, a lle oherwydd, fel ydych yn rhan i sefyllfa ffiann stra i mi, mae'n arfer o ymddangos a'r cyffredin yn cyffredin yn gwithio'r cymunedau, ac mae'n cael ardennig y'r candiau ac mae'n defnyddio ar gyfer tryndau ar hyn oed. Rwy'n rhaid i ni ddodd i gwybiddio? Fel gennym gweld. Yn ymddech chi oeswch ond, Yn ymddech chi, David, yn unig wedi gweld, ningwch ar y dyfodol, cwyt bersond, maen nhw'n bai tyfu, agri. Fy yw'r gweithio, fel y panolcaid, yn y cyf culio am y bwerd? Ar ôl y Newsp traddiad o'r ffamilieid ym mŵs ffarn yn yroch yn ymgyrch o'r blaid. My Letter to the Family Farmers that don't actually inherit the farm. Sorry, just I don't quite understand that... ...so you're talking about foreign investment giving opportunities to- No, not foreign investment but just institutional investment per se giving.. ...opportunities to people that want to farm that might not have access to the family farm. But they have a proposal in mind? Mae'n cydwylliant. Mae'n cydwylliant i'r llaint, mae wedi anghych am golnt o'r ffram. Mae'r byw'r ffram ychydig. Dwi dwi'n gweithio ein ffram dda nhw'n drafwy ar y cwrin Roeddwch yn credu wel i'r byw hwnnw. Steven, a gan rhaid i ddim yn ein fan? R 1986, dydd e'ch cydwyllti ar y tyl similarlye ar gwrwfiau cydwyllti enwedig fel dwi'n golygu. Felly, caith i ddim yn y bydd hyn. Mae gapio yma hyn ar gyfer y cydwyllti, scenario. We were talking to young people, they were actually 23, just married. The wife was an accountant, just finished uni, passionate, I think fourth or fifth generation dairy farmer. The husband, he was just passionate at getting in and getting involved and loved the farming, but they had nothing to start with. So it was very clear to a larger institutional business down in that area that these people had what it takes. So they actually provided the opportunity and give them some land to farm. And then they've set up an arrangement where they share the returns over a certain amount of years. They've allowed also the young farmers to be able to start to build their own herd. So that's a classic example. So you're seeing more and more of it. Because, as I said earlier, the institutional organisations really are valuing the quality of the farming techniques and the passion of our farmers. So it's how they bring that into their circle, but then how do they give back the other way? So it was a classic young farmer. I think we've got to separate people having careers in agriculture from owning farms. We're in a bind if we think to be a farmer, you've got to own the land. And one of the advantages of outside capital is it gives career paths for good young people to come into agriculture and they don't need to own land, have a good career. Yes, but I'm very sad about that. Because I mean, from an emotive point of view, if you come from a family farm, the thing that you want, if you've got the skills, is to go out and one day have your own family farm. So you're saying that really we need to just move on from all that. That's fantastic if you can do it. The reality is agriculture is a capital intensive business. So you need to be capitalised with $5 or $10 million before you start. Unless you're going to share milk or something like that, which has got good models. And no one has the right to suddenly get $5 or $10 million in any other sector of the economy. And it was ever thus I suspect anyway. It was ever. And to think that we need to foster a model where we want to bring young farmers in and give them cheap loans and all that sort of thing is totally ridiculous because it's about running businesses competitively and generating the returns. And it's very well to be a motive about it. And that's fine. I get a motive about my farm that was sold and I didn't get a chance to buy it back. But so be it. My parents made that decision. Righto. Yes, sir. Graham Peart, an agricultural consultant. A question to David Cornish. But the comment is that there are only three ways to get a family farm. Matrimony, patrimony or parsimony. And it hasn't changed in 3,000 years. David, you talked about the coefficient of variation and the cost of variability of income in agriculture, which I'm very sensitive to having analysed and helped farmers through a lot of crises. I asked a man when I started consulting, tell me about the bankrupts in our district. And he said, I can think of quite a few cattle bankrupts, but I can't think of a single sheep bankrupt. It's about the variability of income and the high costs of drought and the variable costs of cattle. You talked about the central west as having the lower, the cheap wheat zone as having the lowest variability. But my observation in the trends is that family farms cope quite well with mixed farms, but corporates don't cope very well with mixed farms. And yet to swing with the punches in a mixed farming can be very profitable if you can do it well. Would you like to comment? The short answer is yes to all your points. It's fascinating dealing with, especially overseas investors, that the concept of a mixed farm is they just, they can't handle it. It's just like we dealt with some Germans and we, when they were saying, listen we want a meat, sheep meat operation, I said, well we can do that, but what I'd like to do is look at a mixed farm. No, we will not look at a mixed farm. They just cannot handle it for some reason. I don't know why, but I think that has a lot to do with not understanding how it is to farm in Australian agriculture, but with the other points about this whole question of mixed farming managing risk, again there's a lot of work being done with the grain and graze group looking at that, which would support your major premise now. Again, I don't know why corporates struggle, and I'm saying that without actually having the facts, but it would be my presumption as well, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. Yes, please Phil. I think the other interesting issue is a lot of institutional investors are very aware of headline risk, and they seem to be very averse to things with tales as they describe them, and they don't like animals, because they perceive higher risk in terms of welfare or something like that, so some of them I would describe as nearly paranoid about having animals on their farms, so it's a real challenge to convince them there's a good thing to do when they're all they're worried about as being a small target. Notwithstanding the protein challenge. Yeah, they'd rather say we'll grow the grain, or feed the cattle to Sildawasia, rather than grow the cattle. I have one last one before we go. Anybody else got one? It's about supermarkets, and you're talking about the focus on lower costs, lower costs, and we must get back to that. To what extent have supermarkets driven that in farming? Is it therefore a good thing, and are we going to see a lot more of it from a farmer's point of view? I think it's inevitable because we're in a global marketplace, so we can have coals and willies putting us under pressure, and they do, and that's quite reasonable, because farmers are the worst when you go into the local reseller to buy a drummer roundup of screwing the price down, so it's in everybody's business model to do that, and so if we don't take that view on that we've got to achieve productivity in order to keep our costs per unit down, not necessarily our costs, but our costs per unit down, then we will be left behind. So we're on a treadmill, and we have to accept that, and just tread faster. I want to contradict your premise a little bit through personal experience in that working with coals and willies, especially in the goat cheese operation, has been the best thing to happen to us with regard to increasing sale and increasing our profit margins, and working with a supermarket or retailer that actually uses us feedback. So from a personal perspective, I can't speak more highly of the supermarkets where the price pressure comes from is our competitors, which is the beef and sheep or French goat farmers. But did working with them actually, and getting feedback from them help with your efficiencies? Oh yeah, yeah, and they also invested in helping it. All right, terrific. Well on that front, thank you all for listening to four very different takes on this space, I think, and look forward to catching up hopefully at dinner this evening. But David, Stephen, David and Peter, thank you very much for joining us.