A group of disgruntled Dairygold milk producers say they are being left with no alternative but to call an extraordinary general meeting in an effort to get the proposed milk supply agreement shelved.

A spokesperson for the group said this week they are worried that the present agreement is based on a predicted 63.5% increase in milk which resulted from, what they term to be ‘ a badly conducted and therefore inaccurate survey whereas two previous surveys showed an estimated 30% increase’.

The group, comprising members from mid Cork, Mitchelstown, Limerick, East Cork, Tipperary and Dunmanway, charge Dairygold with failing to negotiate with them ‘in any meaningful way.’

They want a new milk supply agreement and capitalisation contract drawn up ‘with proper forecasting and costings’. The spokesperson said Dairygold’s figures don’t add up ‘and may not allow many of its suppliers to have a secure income into the future’. They believe others think similarly and that the agreement is a long way off being agreed.

“We feel this leaves us with no alternative but to call an EGM in an effort to get Dairygold to shelve the proposed milk supply agreement and capitalisation contract and do proper forecasting and costings. Their figures do not add up and may not allow many of it’s suppliers to have a secure income in to the future.
“We believe this to be the overwhelming view of the majority of Dairygold members who need a future in farming.”

The statement was signed by Ned McCarthy, Mid Cork; Sean Keating, Mitchelstown; David Thompson, Limerick; Michael McGrath, East Cork; Eoin Bourke, Tipperary and Tony O’Donovan, Dunmanway.

When contacted, a spokesman for Dairygold told The Avondhu that, as at the time of going to press, they hadn’t received any notification of an EGM. He advised that, to date, they’ve met with over half their milk suppliers in one-to-one consultations. He further stated that over half of Dairygold’s milk suppliers have already signed the new agreement.

“We would encourage any supplier who has an enquiry or concern on any matter to engage with Dairygold’s milk advisers in one-to-one consultations. Based on experience, these one-to-one discussions are able to solve any concerns that have arisen to date,” he concluded.

Meanwhile two local milk suppliers, Noel Shinnick and Eugene Sheehan, who were formerly part of a protest group spoke out this week, saying they too still have concerns which haven’t been addressed. Theirs centre on their belief that the agreement removes quota rights from suppliers, that they are not allowed to sell on their quota as part of the proposed new agreement and that, on milk price, they want a price that’s based on market returns but Dairygold won’t agree.

“We’re not asking for a guaranteed price, just to go with the market price,” Noel Shinnick said. Another concern they have is the tax implications of the proposed revolving fund and share-up. They believe there’s a more tax efficient way of receiving payment such as a deferred payment scheme. They also asked Dairygold to attach a copy of the clarification they issued previously to suppliers to the agreement itself, signed and stamped by the board. They say Dairygold declined to do so.

“While we had an open and frank meeting with Dairygold about these issues, we made no ground,” he said.