Rice exports bags US$10M more in bumper first crop

May 13 2018

Source

As of May 7, the rice industry has harvested 86 percent of its 2018 first crop production and it is a bumper crop.The harvesting is 75,137 hectares of the 87,538 hectares sown. This is a significant increase in production from 310,748 tonnes earlier in the year to 448,926 tonnes.

GRDB’S General Manager, Nizam Hassan

General Manager of the Guyana Rice Development Board (GRDB), Nizam Hassan, highlighted the areas that have improved. He said that the first crop was a success and the performance will continue growing from 2017.“What we have seen in the first crop; generally, there have been improved productivity issues. Pests and disease were managed; farmers were being paid faster than previous crops; prices paid were improved from previous crops to $3000 per bag of paddy.”With a bumper first crop, GRDB is highly optimistic going into the second crop.

With the increase of this production from January to April 2018, there has also been an increase in exports with sales increasing by over US$10 million.Hassan compared the current production to that of 2017, noting that the increase is credited to the exploration of new markets.
“For the period January to April 2018, we exported 139,501 tonnes valued at US$57.7 million compared to 120,811 tonnes valued at US$47 million for the corresponding period last year.  So, I’m talking about the first four months of 2018 compared with the first four months of 2017, in terms of the volume, that’s about 15 percent more we’ve exported.
“The increases in the exports have primarily come of course from new markets that we’ve been exporting to.”


One such new market is Mexico, which Guyana began exporting to in 2017, ending that year with 113,525 tonnes of paddy shipped.
For this year up until May, 61,350 tonnes have been exported. The aforementioned combined with 2017’s amount saw 174,875 tonnes valued at US$51.4 million being exported so far.Most regions have harvested over 78 percent of their cultivation so far.Recently, the Rice Board released its “GRDB 15”, a new paddy variety that is promising higher yields.Rice millers had been tagging one of the best yields in recent years for the performance of rice.Guyana would need the good news as the majority of the sectors had underperformed with the exception of gold.The average yield was about 37 bags per acre, it is being reported.

The first crop has been one of the best in year, authorities are disclosing, with more monies earned than the same period last year.

The updated harvest as of May 7, 2018 is as follows:
Region          Paddy Production (M/T)    Percentage of hectares harvested     
Region 2          76,836.8          96.3%
Region 3          43,422.8          97.8%
Region 4          366,126.5          96.7%
Region 5          3,069,376.5          82.7%
Region 6          1,724,427.0          79.1%
Region 9          14,227.2          100.0%

Original Post
Reeper posted:

I would not be shouting from the roof tops about bumper crop since $3000 a bag is a far cry form $4500 a bag in 2015 before apnu took over. 

from previous crops to $3000 per bag of paddy.”With a bumper first crop, 

Nagamootoo promised the rice farmers $9,000 per bag for paddy in 2015.  He has $6,000 per bag more to keep his promise.  

What I find interesting is the farmers are planting more at the lower price point.  Are the racking large losses?  Would be interesting to see if this is sustainable.  I believe productivity/yields are partially mitigating the lower price. 

Reeper posted:

I would not be shouting from the roof tops about bumper crop since $3000 a bag is a far cry form $4500 a bag in 2015 before apnu took over. 

from previous crops to $3000 per bag of paddy.”With a bumper first crop, 

if they are making a profit @ $3000/bag then they have brought costs down and/or are increasing yields . . . meaning that the industry is competitive

that's far better than sitting on your inefficient ass, saddled with an unsustainable production set up and wishing for $4500/bag

that's Jagdeo sugar economics . . . look where it got we

ronan posted:
Reeper posted:

I would not be shouting from the roof tops about bumper crop since $3000 a bag is a far cry form $4500 a bag in 2015 before apnu took over. 

from previous crops to $3000 per bag of paddy.”With a bumper first crop, 

if they are making a profit @ $3000/bag then they have brought costs down and/or are increasing yields . . . meaning that the industry is competitive

that's far better than sitting on your inefficient ass, saddled with an unsustainable production set up and wishing for $4500/bag

that's Jagdeo sugar economics . . . look where it got we

How did you arrived at a profit of $3000/bag .

Dave posted:
ronan posted:
Reeper posted:

I would not be shouting from the roof tops about bumper crop since $3000 a bag is a far cry form $4500 a bag in 2015 before apnu took over. 

from previous crops to $3000 per bag of paddy.”With a bumper first crop, 

if they are making a profit @ $3000/bag then they have brought costs down and/or are increasing yields . . . meaning that the industry is competitive

that's far better than sitting on your inefficient ass, saddled with an unsustainable production set up and wishing for $4500/bag

that's Jagdeo sugar economics . . . look where it got we

How did you arrived at a profit of $3000/bag .

That’s not what he is saying.  He’s saying profitable at a price of $3k/bag.  Same question I have but asked in another way.  

We don’t have numbers but behaviors.  If the planters are losing, then why is output increasing?  Is there another magic at work?

i believe productivity and efficiency is having an impact. 

Dave posted:
ronan posted:
Reeper posted:

I would not be shouting from the roof tops about bumper crop since $3000 a bag is a far cry form $4500 a bag in 2015 before apnu took over. 

from previous crops to $3000 per bag of paddy.”With a bumper first crop, 

if they are making a profit @ $3000/bag then they have brought costs down and/or are increasing yields . . . meaning that the industry is competitive

that's far better than sitting on your inefficient ass, saddled with an unsustainable production set up and wishing for $4500/bag

that's Jagdeo sugar economics . . . look where it got we

How did you arrived at a profit of $3000/bag .

Easy, Math  is poison for him.

I wonder why the PPP freaks think that a Venezuela market at the old prices is available.  Venezuelans are literally battling with stray dogs at garbage dumps to find food. Why will the Venezuelan gov't pay more than the world price for rice when they cannot even provide basic services to their people?

I say let private people sell rice to Guyana and then wait for them to squawk when they don't get paid.

Noted that the rice farmers say that they are now getting paid faster.  

Al yuh notice when PNC ruling Guyana some people does suddenly find Jesus Some people so RACIST and DUMB they would never be able to know how deep in shit they are since it will be natural for them to think they are Ivy League qualified!!!

ronan posted:
Reeper posted:

I would not be shouting from the roof tops about bumper crop since $3000 a bag is a far cry form $4500 a bag in 2015 before apnu took over. 

from previous crops to $3000 per bag of paddy.”With a bumper first crop, 

if they are making a profit @ $3000/bag then they have brought costs down and/or are increasing yields . . . meaning that the industry is competitive

that's far better than sitting on your inefficient ass, saddled with an unsustainable production set up and wishing for $4500/bag

that's Jagdeo sugar economics . . . look where it got we

Whether they make a profit is still unknown, I supposed you can make the argument they would not invest if they didn't make a profit. Time will tell whether they will continue to plant at these prices. 

Reeper posted:
 

Whether they make a profit is still unknown, I supposed you can make the argument they would not invest if they didn't make a profit. Time will tell whether they will continue to plant at these prices. 

No one expands production if they are losing.  This would mean that they would spend more to grow more, but also lose more because of an unsustainable price.

It appears as if their yields have improved  and in addition they claim that they are being paid faster.  Having to fund their receivables when the PPP was playing games with paying them drove up their costs.

I believe they are profitable, the big ones at least.   Guyana has a high cost and this needs to be addressed.  They need to benchmark with other low cost producers and dissect their cost structure and adopt best practices.

The govt also needs to explore added value down streaming.  As KP said, they should consider bringing back some elements of F in the FCH program.

caribny posted:
Reeper posted:
 

Whether they make a profit is still unknown, I supposed you can make the argument they would not invest if they didn't make a profit. Time will tell whether they will continue to plant at these prices. 

No one expands production if they are losing.  This would mean that they would spend more to grow more, but also lose more because of an unsustainable price.

It appears as if their yields have improved  and in addition they claim that they are being paid faster.  Having to fund their receivables when the PPP was playing games with paying them drove up their costs.

Good point, not sure that yields have improved as there is no mention of bags per acre yield. However if Guyanese farmers are to compete with word market prices, they have no choice but to employ economies of scale and the latest technologies to cut down inefficiencies. 

“What we have seen in the first crop; generally, there have been improved productivity issues. Pests and disease were managed; farmers were being paid faster than previous crops; prices paid were improved from previous crops to $3000 per bag of paddy.”

Baseman posted:

I believe they are profitable, the big ones at least.   Guyana has a high cost and this needs to be addressed.  They need to benchmark with other low cost producers and dissect their cost structure and adopt best practices.

The govt also needs to explore added value down streaming.  As KP said, they should consider bringing back some elements of F in the FCH program.

What about govt subsidies? Put that oil money to use productively. 

Reeper posted:
Baseman posted:

I believe they are profitable, the big ones at least.   Guyana has a high cost and this needs to be addressed.  They need to benchmark with other low cost producers and dissect their cost structure and adopt best practices.

The govt also needs to explore added value down streaming.  As KP said, they should consider bringing back some elements of F in the FCH program.

What about govt subsidies? Put that oil money to use productively. 

Subsidies should be used if and when appropriate and not to prop inefficient operations.  Oil monies should be used to build infrastructure and an efficient power grid to bring down overall cost of doing business. 

Baseman posted:
Reeper posted:
Baseman posted:

I believe they are profitable, the big ones at least.   Guyana has a high cost and this needs to be addressed.  They need to benchmark with other low cost producers and dissect their cost structure and adopt best practices.

The govt also needs to explore added value down streaming.  As KP said, they should consider bringing back some elements of F in the FCH program.

What about govt subsidies? Put that oil money to use productively. 

Subsidies should be used if and when appropriate and not to prop inefficient operations.  Oil monies should be used to build infrastructure and an efficient power grid to bring down overall cost of doing business. 

Question, when the US gives out subsidies to farmers, how do they determine that they are not propping up inefficient operations? Maybe this could be a model to leverage. 

Reeper posted:
Baseman posted:
Reeper posted:
Baseman posted:

I believe they are profitable, the big ones at least.   Guyana has a high cost and this needs to be addressed.  They need to benchmark with other low cost producers and dissect their cost structure and adopt best practices.

The govt also needs to explore added value down streaming.  As KP said, they should consider bringing back some elements of F in the FCH program.

What about govt subsidies? Put that oil money to use productively. 

Subsidies should be used if and when appropriate and not to prop inefficient operations.  Oil monies should be used to build infrastructure and an efficient power grid to bring down overall cost of doing business. 

Question, when the US gives out subsidies to farmers, how do they determine that they are not propping up inefficient operations? Maybe this could be a model to leverage. 

They actually do.  The USG sets certain floor pricing based on data over time and also other countries.  The subsidies are to ensure domestic food security.  All developed nations do that as basic food commodities exist in a perfect mArket condition, as such, profits go to zero unless there are shortages.  No govt wants shortages but actually some overproduction.  That ensures food security but also drives prices to -0-. The excess is then ”dumped” on the spot market.  Few countries provide subsidies for export as a policy.  Guyana and other 3rd world situations are different however, subsidies make sense if you are exchanging local costs for forex. 

You cannot just simply copy policies without getting to the purpose why countries chose to do certain things. The imperatives could be different. 

In the case of Guyana, productivity and efficiency should first be addressed then subsidies, if needed.  

Reeper posted:

Seems like the GOG needs to examine this approach of subsidies. Too bad they didn't see fit to help save the sugar industry. Maybe it is not too late?

how are they NOT helping to save the sugar industry?

mass canecutter employment unsustainability shouldn't be that difficult a concept to grasp in 2018

Reeper posted:

Seems like the GOG needs to examine this approach of subsidies. Too bad they didn't see fit to help save the sugar industry. Maybe it is not too late?

I’ve always supported subsidizing sugar in exchange for forex. However, I am not privy to the entire business case.  I believe sugar, as a forex earner, deserved the subsidy as long as it’s local currency input costs being traded for forex. This is why I do not understand the value proposition of the new skeldon plant.  But again, I don’t know the business case there either. 

Baseman posted:
Reeper posted:

Seems like the GOG needs to examine this approach of subsidies. Too bad they didn't see fit to help save the sugar industry. Maybe it is not too late?

I’ve always supported subsidizing sugar in exchange for forex.

economic nonsense . . . pure politicking on your part

you bloody well know that is unsustainable and only delays hard reforms that can actually save the industry

Reeper posted:
Baseman posted:
Reeper posted:
Baseman posted:

I believe they are profitable, the big ones at least.   Guyana has a high cost and this needs to be addressed.  They need to benchmark with other low cost producers and dissect their cost structure and adopt best practices.

The govt also needs to explore added value down streaming.  As KP said, they should consider bringing back some elements of F in the FCH program.

What about govt subsidies? Put that oil money to use productively. 

Subsidies should be used if and when appropriate and not to prop inefficient operations.  Oil monies should be used to build infrastructure and an efficient power grid to bring down overall cost of doing business. 

Question, when the US gives out subsidies to farmers, how do they determine that they are not propping up inefficient operations? Maybe this could be a model to leverage. 

It's cheaper to subsidize farmers than to import food for over 300 million people.  Plus most countries do not produce at a level that is acceptable to the FDA.  Or Americans would be eating plastic rice from China. The US produces some sugar locally in Florida, Louisiana, and Hawaii.

Reeper posted:

Seems like the GOG needs to examine this approach of subsidies. Too bad they didn't see fit to help save the sugar industry. Maybe it is not too late?

Looks like the govt wants to backtrack and keep a few of the estates functioning.  They can downsize but not without developing new industries to create employment for those who are displaced from the sugar industry.  Foreign exchange in the Treasury is depleting as the price of Gold is also dwindling while the sugar estates are closing.  Tough economic times are ahead if that oil lottery isn't distributed well and it doesn't arrive on time.

Bibi Haniffa posted:
Reeper posted:
Baseman posted:
Reeper posted:
Baseman posted:

I believe they are profitable, the big ones at least.   Guyana has a high cost and this needs to be addressed.  They need to benchmark with other low cost producers and dissect their cost structure and adopt best practices.

The govt also needs to explore added value down streaming.  As KP said, they should consider bringing back some elements of F in the FCH program.

What about govt subsidies? Put that oil money to use productively. 

Subsidies should be used if and when appropriate and not to prop inefficient operations.  Oil monies should be used to build infrastructure and an efficient power grid to bring down overall cost of doing business. 

Question, when the US gives out subsidies to farmers, how do they determine that they are not propping up inefficient operations? Maybe this could be a model to leverage. 

It's cheaper to subsidize farmers than to import food for over 300 million people.  Plus most countries do not produce at a level that is acceptable to the FDA.  Or Americans would be eating plastic rice from China. The US produces some sugar locally in Florida, Louisiana, and Hawaii.

Stupidity of the highest order!

ronan posted:
Baseman posted:
Reeper posted:

Seems like the GOG needs to examine this approach of subsidies. Too bad they didn't see fit to help save the sugar industry. Maybe it is not too late?

I’ve always supported subsidizing sugar in exchange for forex.

economic nonsense . . . pure politicking on your part

you bloody well know that is unsustainable and only delays hard reforms that can actually save the industry

Nope, every dollar of USD earned equated to over $10 USD equivalent in Local Currency input costs.  I support the sugar subsidy unless you can prove the input costs saps Forex!

Baseman posted:
ronan posted:
Baseman posted:
Reeper posted:

Seems like the GOG needs to examine this approach of subsidies. Too bad they didn't see fit to help save the sugar industry. Maybe it is not too late?

I’ve always supported subsidizing sugar in exchange for forex. However, I am not privy to the entire business case.

economic nonsense . . . pure politicking on your part

you bloody well know that is unsustainable and only delays hard reforms that can actually save the industry

Nope, every dollar of USD earned equated to over $10 USD equivalent in Local Currency input costs.  I support the sugar subsidy unless you can prove the input costs saps Forex!

so, where did you get your numbers from?

my reading of the literature informs that, outside the ACP/US preference arrangements, Guyana produced & sold sugar at a net foreign currency loss

i am also quite sure that you are quite aware that the $GY is not a reserve currency

ronan posted:
Reeper posted:

Seems like the GOG needs to examine this approach of subsidies. Too bad they didn't see fit to help save the sugar industry. Maybe it is not too late?

how are they NOT helping to save the sugar industry?

mass canecutter employment unsustainability shouldn't be that difficult a concept to grasp in 2018

Come on now, the govt have thrown up the white flag, closing down estates etc.  I haven't heard of any move by this govt to increase productivity and reduce cost lost to inefficiencies and corruption.  Unless you have not been keeping abreast of the news out of Guyana, the govt has been trying to sell off Guysuco's assets and have been doing its best to keep out of making moves to turn around the industry.

ronan posted:
Baseman posted:
ronan posted:
Baseman posted:
Reeper posted:

Seems like the GOG needs to examine this approach of subsidies. Too bad they didn't see fit to help save the sugar industry. Maybe it is not too late?

I’ve always supported subsidizing sugar in exchange for forex. However, I am not privy to the entire business case.

economic nonsense . . . pure politicking on your part

you bloody well know that is unsustainable and only delays hard reforms that can actually save the industry

Nope, every dollar of USD earned equated to over $10 USD equivalent in Local Currency input costs.  I support the sugar subsidy unless you can prove the input costs saps Forex!

so, where did you get your numbers from?

my reading of the literature informs that, outside the ACP/US preference arrangements, Guyana produced & sold sugar at a net foreign currency loss

i am also quite sure that you are quite aware that the $GY is not a reserve currency

Where did you get that from?  The Sugar industry in Guyana remains a highly manual industry with very limited mechanization.  Additionally, the power is produced by burning the crushed cane.  Where does this foreign currency input costs come from?

I made the 10x assumption given the fact that normal economic activity tend to have a 3/4 multiplier effect through the economy.  Forex finance the importation of production materiel for further added value easily 2 or 3 Times.  As long as significant Forex is earner over local costs, it's a great value proposition!

I believe closing the estates were out of spite and not well founded!

Baseman posted:
ronan posted:
Baseman posted:
ronan posted:
Baseman posted:
Reeper posted:

Seems like the GOG needs to examine this approach of subsidies. Too bad they didn't see fit to help save the sugar industry. Maybe it is not too late?

I’ve always supported subsidizing sugar in exchange for forex. However, I am not privy to the entire business case.

economic nonsense . . . pure politicking on your part

you bloody well know that is unsustainable and only delays hard reforms that can actually save the industry

Nope, every dollar of USD earned equated to over $10 USD equivalent in Local Currency input costs.  I support the sugar subsidy unless you can prove the input costs saps Forex!

so, where did you get your numbers from?

my reading of the literature informs that, outside the ACP/US preference arrangements, Guyana produced & sold sugar at a net foreign currency loss

i am also quite sure that you are quite aware that the $GY is not a reserve currency

Where did you get that from?  The Sugar industry in Guyana remains a highly manual industry with very limited mechanization.  Additionally, the power is produced by burning the crushed cane.  Where does this foreign currency input costs come from?

I made the 10x assumption given the fact that normal economic activity tend to have a 3/4 multiplier effect through the economy.  Forex finance the importation of production materiel for further added value easily 2 or 3 Times.  As long as significant Forex is earner over local costs, it's a great value proposition!

I believe closing the estates were out of spite and not well founded!

well, well . . . a big bluff of unrelated gibberish about "multiplier" to excite howling clowns like Nehru who know nothing about most anything

banna please . . . you should have sensibly stuck to "However, I am not privy to the entire business case"

anyways, i will bring the analysis and respond to the core issue in a dispositive manner later on

lil busy right now

Ronan, you remind me of Ronan Farrow.  

Satchel Ronan O'Sullivan Farrow (born December 19, 1987) is an American journalist, lawyer, and former government advisor. In late 2017, Farrow's articles in The New Yorker helped to uncover the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations. For this reporting, The New Yorker won the 2018 Pulitzer Prize for public service, sharing the award with The New York Times.

Reeper posted:
Baseman posted:

I believe they are profitable, the big ones at least.   Guyana has a high cost and this needs to be addressed.  They need to benchmark with other low cost producers and dissect their cost structure and adopt best practices.

The govt also needs to explore added value down streaming.  As KP said, they should consider bringing back some elements of F in the FCH program.

What about govt subsidies? Put that oil money to use productively. 

We don't even know what these oil revenues will be.  I think that Guyanese should stop spending money before it is earned.   In any case subsidies in farming need to go to expanding non traditional sectors and also basic food production, including agro industries.  Its a disgrace that Guyana imports fruit juices from Barbados!  Guyana should export its own as well as the concentrates to manufacturers in the Caribbean.

Reeper posted:
 

Question, when the US gives out subsidies to farmers, how do they determine that they are not propping up inefficient operations? Maybe this could be a model to leverage. 

Subsidies are determined by political lobbying.  The big guys get the subsidies and the small guys become indebted with many forced out of business.

Bibi Haniffa posted:
 The US produces some sugar locally in Florida, Louisiana, and Hawaii.

Sugar isn't an essential food and yet its massively subsidized.  In fact corn is subsidized more as a sugar source than as food source.

The corn, sugar and other lobbies are strong.  The guys who grow lettuce and tomatoes aren't so lucky. 

Bibi Haniffa posted:
?

Looks like the govt wants to backtrack and keep a few of the estates functioning.  They can downsize but not without developing new industries to create employment for those who are displaced from the sugar industry.  .

So we see that the "terrible" PNC is more concerned about the plight of the sugar workers than your boy Jagdeo was when he sold bauxite and 80% lost their jobs and the entire economy of Region 10 went into a tailspin.

It is up to the private sector to introduce new industries. Maybe more useful than another fast food outlet when obesity. HBP, and diabetes are at critical levels.

Add Reply

Likes (0)

×
×
×
×
×