Inghams Group Limited (ING) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Welcome to the Inghams FY '26 Interim Financial Results Briefing. [Operator Instructions] I will now hand over to Inghams' Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director, Ed Alexander.

Good morning, and thank you for joining us today. My name is Ed Alexander, Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director of Inghams, and it is my pleasure to welcome you to our interim results presentation. On behalf of Inghams, I would like to acknowledge traditional owners, both past and present as custodians of this land that we are meeting on today. Joining me for today's presentation is our CFO, Gary Mallett. At the conclusion of the formal presentation, we will take any questions you may have on our results, the business and our outlook for the remainder of financial year '26. Our first half result is below expectation and below the potential of this business. As we outlined in our November trading update, the primary driver was elevated operational costs in Australia that arose from 3 key areas: excess inventory carried over from financial year '25, higher cost to serve as we onboarded new customers and products and transitional supply chain inefficiencies including the value-enhanced consolidation into our New South Wales Ingleburn facility. These factors reduced network efficiency and increased unit costs in H1. The actions we have implemented to address these issues have reduced inventory by $27 million during the half, which has enabled a return to normal production settings and an improvement of unit costs as we move into half 2. At the same time, the business fundamentals have definitely improved. The first half saw a return to positive volume growth in the second quarter, driven by significant new business wins. Net selling prices improved across the half, driven by growth in our retail channel and a strong recovery in wholesale pricing as channel economics improved. New Zealand remained resilient, driven by stable operations and strong branded performance. Overall, the first half earnings we have announced this morning are not where we would like them to be and are well below the potential of the business over the medium and long term. Turning to our key performance indicators for the half. As you can see, group volumes were slightly lower year-on-year, reflecting financial year '25 changes, but the trend improved throughout the half. Net selling prices increased modestly, supported by mix improvement and wholesale market recovery. New Zealand performance has been stable, providing a partial counter to the weaker performance in the Australian business. We will discuss most of these key metrics in more detail throughout the presentation. As we outlined in our trading update in November last year, the key driver of the result has been an increase in operational costs. Beyond general inflation across labor ingredients, utilities and packaging, the elevated cost drivers have been $19 million related to excess inventory management, $6.7 million related to incremental supply chain and logistics costs, $3.8 million related to lower farming performance and $1.8 million related to the transition at Ingleburn. We have made solid progress against our cost reduction program during the first half of financial year '26 and remain on track to deliver $60 million to $80 million of savings for the full year. Measures are in place to restore operational performance in the second half, including improved planning discipline, supply chain stabilization and targeted operational initiatives across farming and processing. Significant progress has been made against our key financial year '26 operating initiatives, and we have more to do. Firstly, the group returned to volume growth in Q2 with strong non-Woolworths retail growth and QSR volumes increasing on the back of new supply arrangements. Secondly, our voice of customer metrics have improved across all major segments, and we are maintaining high service levels whilst growing volume, which is testament to the capability of our team and the potential of the business. Thirdly, we have addressed excess inventories. Processed poultry inventories were reduced by $27 million in the half and the resulting working capital improvement underpins strong cash conversion of 113%. The organizational restructure has been implemented, delivering expected annualized savings of $8 million to $10 million. Operations and procurement savings are being achieved, and we are on track to meet our full year cost reduction target as further savings are delivered progressively throughout the second half. We also saw unit costs improved sequentially in Q2 versus Q1. With inventory normalized, production settings have returned to more normal levels. Whilst there is more to be done, the business enters the second half now with stronger operational control and positive momentum. Looking at our volume performance in more detail. Group core poultry volumes declined 0.7% versus the prior competing period, albeit with a positive trend through the half returning to growth in quarter 2. In Australia, volumes declined 0.5% with QSR up 9% and wholesale up 4.5%, offsetting the retail channel decline. In New Zealand, the 1.6% decline was largely driven by lower other poultry product sales, which fell 41.5% due to the closure of key export markets. Excluding OPP, New Zealand core volumes increased by 2.7%. Retail is the story of successful customer diversification with non-Woolworths retail growing strongly at 16.6%. Combined foodservice, wholesale and export volumes increased 3.8% versus PCP with strong Australian food service growth of 11.9% due to increased customer demand. As you can see from the bottom right-hand chart, we can see a clear improvement from Q1 to Q2, and we're expecting this momentum to be maintained in the second half. Turning now to pricing. Group core poultry NSP increased 1.4% to $6.43 per kilogram. In Australia, core poultry NSP grew 1.1%, while New Zealand NSP increased 4.4% in local currency. Retail NSP increased 1.5%, driven mainly by a favorable mix shift while New Zealand retail pricing increased 3.9% in local currency, driven in part by 11% growth in high-value further processed products. QSR pricing eased slightly, down 1.2%, reflecting the new Nando supply agreement and growth in McDonald's McWings demand, which has a lower price per kilogram. The standout story here is the wholesale channel recovery. Wholesale pricing recovered strongly, up 4.5% year-on-year with clear week-on-week momentum throughout the half, up 20.9% over the half. Export channel pricing growth was also strong at 20.5% versus PCP, underpinned by solid growth in both Australia and New Zealand as export markets progressively returned to normal operations. I will now hand to Gary to cover the financials in more detail.

Thanks, Ed, and good morning, everyone. Commencing with our profit and loss on an as-reported basis. Ed has already outlined the changes in volume, NSP and cost versus PCP. So to summarize, revenue was largely flat at $1.61 billion, down just 0.1% versus PCP. Core poultry revenue was actually higher, up 0.7%, driven by NSP growth across both markets. This increase was offset by lower byproducts revenue, down 5.1% due to lower Australian pricing and a reduction in external feed down 9.9% due to the combined effects of lower volumes and pricing. Total costs grew 5% or $69.7 million versus the PCP due to inflationary effects, the elevated operational costs in our Australian farming, processing and supply chain operations and the AASB 16 impact of the grower contract conversions. Due to the conversion of 68 growers to variable performance-based contracts over the last 18 months, there has been an increase in as-reported operating costs of $29.5 million versus the prior period. As expected, this has been largely offset by lower AASB 16 depreciation and interest charges. We saw a benefit from lower feed, with internal feed costs declining $24.9 million versus PCP, reflecting the sustained improvement in market pricing of key feed inputs. Depreciation declined 23.6% due largely to the reduction in AASB 16 depreciation from grower contract conversions. Net finance expense increased 2.9% due to higher average debt balance, partially offset by lower AASB 16 interest. Net profit after tax was $18.1 million, which is down 64.9% versus PCP. Now turning to the balance sheet. We made significant progress on addressing our inventory levels during the half. Inventories and biologicals declined $24.3 million versus FY '25 year-end. Our targeted inventory reduction initiatives delivered a $27.1 million decrease in processed poultry, including $13.7 million from turkey and $12.7 million from chicken. Feed inventory reduced $4.4 million due to lower feed costs and timing of usage, partially offset by an increase in other inventories of $10.9 million due to higher ingredients and packaging items. Right-of-use assets decreased $64.8 million or 8%, while lease liabilities reduced by $65.9 million, reflecting the conversion of 68 contract growers to variable performance-based contracts. Net debt increased $35.7 million to $466.1 million, reflecting lower earnings and ongoing capital expenditure. As a result, leverage was 2.4x at the end of the first half, which is above our policy range of 1x to 2x. We expect leverage to trend lower in the coming periods as earnings improve. Moving now to cash flow performance. Operating cash flow for the half was $134.3 million, down $32.8 million on the prior corresponding period. This reduction was largely driven by lower earnings, though we saw a partial offset from improved working capital. The substantial progress we made in optimizing working capital, mainly through our inventory reduction, resulted in cash conversion improving significantly to 113%, an increase of 18.6 percentage points. We invested $47.6 million in capital expenditure during the period allocated across 3 categories: $13.6 million in sustaining, $18.9 million in core growth initiatives, and $15.1 million in high-growth opportunities that position us for future expansion. During the half, we paid a fully -- paid a final fully franked FY'25 dividend of $0.08 per share. AASB 16 principal payments decreased as a result of the conversion of contract growers to performance-based variable contracts, which reduced our AASB 16 lease obligations. Now turning to our capital expenditure. Stay-in-business CapEx was $13.6 million, which is 43.2% of pre-AASB 16 depreciation. While this is nominally lower than previous periods, some of our investment expenditure during the period could be considered to have an SIB element to it. Our growth investment activities continue to focus on automation, strategic infrastructure upgrades, and improved processing capabilities across Australia and New Zealand, all of which is designed to improve earnings quality and resilience over time. In Australia, the fully cooked capability at Lisarow is now operational, enhancing the group's proposition to key retail and QSR customers. The new Victorian pet food capability is nearing completion and is expected to be operational from April '26, enabling greater value extraction from Offal and OPP as part of a broader strategy to maximize returns from our core protein platform. In New Zealand, the new QSR 9 cut and DSI capability is fully commissioned and performing to plan. In addition, further retail automation investments, including fixed weight and automated tray packing, will support improved efficiency and retail competitiveness. The Bostock farming expansion is expected to deliver a 20% increase in volume, which will support our future Australian market strategy for the brand. Overall, our capital expenditure continues to reflect a disciplined approach to investing in both operational continuity and strategic growth initiatives. Leverage at the end of December was 2.4x underlying EBITDA pre-AASB 16, which is above the upper end of our capital management policy range of 1x to 2x. This elevated position reflects 2 factors: lower EBITDA over the trailing 12 months and higher net debt from ongoing capital expenditure programs. We expect leverage to progressively trend down toward our policy range as earnings recover in future periods. Net debt was $466 million at the end of the period. You can see from the chart that this is the highest level, but it's important to note that our debt facilities are well structured with maturities in November '27 and November '29. Currently have $199 million in committed and undrawn facilities, providing adequate financing capacity. This slide summarizes our capital management outcomes for the half against our established framework. As outlined in the previous slide, sustaining capital was $13.6 million and investing capital was $34 million. The Board declared a fully franked interim dividend of $0.04 per share, representing a payout ratio of 70% within our target range of 60% to 80% of underlying NPAT. Leverage at 2.4x, as I've noted, is above our target range. Turning now to the current feed market dynamics. Feed costs are a significant input for our business, and market pricing conditions for our key feed inputs, wheat and soy meal, have continued to be favorable. On soybean, global markets are currently seeing ample supply from major producers. Brazil has emerged as the dominant supplier in 2025-'26 with forecast record production and competitive export pricing. Chinese demand remains a key driver of global soybean trade. On wheat, global markets are characterized by healthy supply volumes and elevated inventories, with major exporters all reporting strong 2025-'26 harvest. AB's Forecast forecasts an increase in Australian wheat production to approximately 35.6 million tons for 2025-'26, well above the 10-year average, driven by strong yields in Western Australia and the recovery in South Australia and Victoria. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has also raised their global wheat production forecast. You can see from the chart that both wheat and soy prices in Australian dollar terms have moderated from their highs, with our internal feed cost declining $24.9 million in the half versus the PCP. I'll now hand back to Ed to discuss the segment performance.

Thank you, Gary. In Australia, revenue was broadly flat against the first half of '25. Core poultry volumes were down 0.5%, but underlying that, there was a positive shift. While retail channel growth slowed, we delivered stronger QSR growth, up 9%, reflecting the new business we have won over the past year. Wholesale volume increased 4.5% against the backdrop of significantly improved fundamentals. Byproducts revenue declined 6.7% due to softer tallow pricing, and our external feed business saw lower revenue on lower volumes, and input cost deflation flowed through to pricing. On costs, total costs increased 6.4%. As Gary noted earlier, we converted further growers to variable performance-based contracts, and this saw Australian operating costs increase $30.8 million, largely offset by lower AASB 16 depreciation and interest costs. While we also faced some inflationary pressures across labor, ingredients, utilities, and packaging, the key driver was elevated operational costs driven by inventory-related costs, elevated cost to serve as we onboarded new customers, and some transitional supply chain inefficiencies. Stripping these out, underlying cost growth was 3.7%. SG&A increased 11%, largely reflecting the further centralization of group functions we've undertaken, plus some one-off items in the prior corresponding period. Adjusting for one-off items, SG&A declined 1.9%. As Gary noted earlier, our internal feed costs declined on PCP due to lower input prices. Turning now to New Zealand. Core poultry volumes declined 1.6%, but grew by 2.7% with the exclusion of OPP. External feed volumes declined about 9% following the loss of some customer business in the prior period. Revenue was marginally down as core poultry NSP grew 4.4% in New Zealand dollar terms, largely offsetting the volume decline. The New Zealand business delivered a 2.5% reduction in total costs versus PCP. Lower international feed input prices drove about $1 million of that improvement, while increases in labor, utilities, freight, and packaging were offset by reductions to repairs and maintenance as well as consulting costs. SG&A declined almost 22%, reflecting the benefits of the centralization of some functions. I would also note that FX movements reduced our reported EBITDA by approximately $0.8 million in Australian dollar terms versus the PCP. New Zealand remained stable with solid top-line growth driven by brand and enabled by efficient operations. Turning now to our guidance and our outlook. We are updating our guidance for financial year '26 underlying pre-AASB 16 EBITDA to a range of $180 million to $200 million. This revision reflects the timing of operational recovery. The measures we have been implementing are working, but are taking longer to translate into financial results than we initially anticipated. We now expect the benefits to be more heavily weighted towards the fourth quarter. We are seeing this particularly in [Audio Gap]

Hi, Ed can you hear us? [Audio Gap]

Turning now to our guidance and our outlook. We are updating our guidance for financial year '26 underlying pre-AASB 16 EBITDA to a range of $180 million to $200 million. This revision reflects the timing of operational recovery. The measures we have been implementing are working, but are taking longer to translate into financial results than we initially anticipated. We now expect the benefits to be more heavily weighted towards the fourth quarter. We're seeing this particularly in supply chain and logistics performance. The flat first-half performance for the New Zealand business has also contributed to the revised outlook. I want to emphasize that the fundamentals of our business are strengthening. The improved inventory position has enabled a return to normal production settings, which is supporting improved unit costs. We have clear actions in place to reduce supply chain costs, and targeted operational initiatives are underway. This implies a materially stronger second-half performance relative to the first. While the first half is disappointing, our return to positive top-line growth and improved operational foundations means that we are well positioned for improved earnings momentum into financial year '27. We are focused on restoring unit cost discipline, improving return on capital, and strengthening cash generation. That concludes the formal presentation. I will now hand back to the operator, and we'll take your questions. Thank you.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Richard Barwick from CLSA.

My question is focusing on the change in the guidance. I just want to go right to the point where you're talking about the operational improvements taking -- they're working, but they're taking longer. Can you sort of step through that exactly? Because I mean, the delta we're talking, midpoint to midpoint, is about $30 million. So, it's a pretty material downgrade to the way you're thinking about your underlying EBITDA. So yes, what has -- if it's working but taking longer, can you sort of provide a little bit more of a framework around that so the way we think about it --so we can have some a bit more confidence as we move into '27?

Yes, sure. Thank you, Richard. I mean, look, at some point, I suppose, I'd say -- as I said, the downgrade largely reflects on as a result -- as opposed to a deterioration in trading condition more holistically. And I think that if I think about it, the supply chain inefficiencies in particular are things that when we provided previous guidance to the market, we assumed that they would have improved by the start of quarter 3. And it certainly feels like that will push on into quarter 4. And I think that will make sense. I think as we've -- as we've talked in length, I think the business has been very successful at diversifying our customer portfolio. We've seen non-Woolworths retail growth of 16%, QSR growth of 8%. And that ultimately has resulted in a fair bit of additional complexity within our supply chain and logistics area of the business. So I'd say that's the sort of biggest area as it relates to a change in the guidance provided. The second is just some continuation, I suppose, of inefficiencies that have been previously called out. We assumed that farming performance would be back on track by now. That's improving, but improving at a lesser rate than what we previously assumed. And then finally, the transition of value enhanced from our major primary processing sites to Ingleburn is simply taking longer to get up to efficient operations. So I'd say those are the three big areas that have resulted in the adjustment of guidance provided. As I said, I think positively we do now have the inventory under control and therefore, a return to normal production settings and so we have seen from quarter 3 an immediate improvement in unit cost.

And then -- so just the way you're thinking about the operating environment. So the volume -- from a volume perspective, are you seeing that things are playing out more or less the way that you had anticipated? There's no negative or a slower recovery in volumes than you're expecting?

No. I'd say I think the business has performed very strongly from a volume perspective, Richard. I think -- I mean, if anything, we're probably slightly exceeding our expectations where volume is concerned. And you can see through the graphs provided in the presentation, that across the second half, we're seeing a return to historical volume growth of between that sort of 2.5% to 3.5%. So volume continues to perform strongly. And as said, I think underlying market fundamentals, including wholesale economics also continue to perform strongly.

Our next question comes from Ajay Mariswamy from Macquarie.

My question is around the --that cost out program that you talked to around it being $60 million to $80 million coming out over the coming year. And in terms of that downgrade that you put through, which to Richard's point, is about $30 million. Should we expect that to be a step-up in the first half of '27? Or how should we think about the shape of that?

Firstly, I'd say look, in relation to the cost out program as we sort of said in the presentation, that broadly remains on track. I'd say, as we hit the end of the half, across continuous improvement, procurement as well as changes to organizational structures, we've removed about $40 million of cost from the business and therefore, remain on track to deliver the $60 -- to $80 million for the full year. The reality is that is more than being offset by a combination of embedded inflation, which once adjusted for feed as well as other operating costs sits at around 3.5% as well as the operational efficiencies related to inventory and supply chain management. So I look at it more as I think as the half progresses day-to-day, that those operational efficiencies become normalized and therefore, we get more into the cost impulse that you see of the business is just far lower than what we're going through at the moment, which is largely a stabilization period as we've diversified the customer base.

Got it. And then just secondly, in terms of the demand side of things in terms of tendering, can you give us some color around -- so we saw that Nando's win in terms of QSR side of things. On the retail side of things, how are things tracking? And outside of price, how else are you looking to be more competitive outside of price alone?

Yes. Look, good question. I mean I'd say they're tracking very strongly. If I go quite specifically to the point, I think there's been concerns raised across the market around Ingham's ability to both win business as well as fully offset the impacts from the Woolworths transition. And I'd say, if anything, what this result shows us is that, that is factually correct, and it's reflected by the fact that across Coles, ALDI, and Metcash, our portfolio has grown on average by 17% and also reflected by the growth of 9% through our QSR customers. In terms of competing on non-price-related sort of variables, I think what we bring to the table is this sort of diversified network that allows for good customer service levels which customers have said is one of their most important priorities. I think as a business, we've always prided ourselves on being leaders as it relates to quality and animal welfare. And I think increasingly, we're thinking about the role of consumer insights and category insights as a basis through which we can grow the category in partnership with our customers. And the feedback that we're getting and which is reflected in both the Advantage survey results as well as our internal voice of customer surveys is that customers as well are genuinely valuing those aspects of our value proposition and it becomes a big basis for how we win outside of just price alone, which obviously has to remain competitive.

And our next question comes from Ben Gilbert from Jarden.

Maybe just one for Gary, just on balance sheet. Where do you see -- do you see net debt ending the year up on where it is at the moment? And I'm just thinking around the path to that sort of leverage ratio. You sort of talked to it coming down. Is there any color you can give us around covenants or how the discussions around the banks are just interested sort of through those points, please?

So covenants are well above our guided 1% to 2% and well above our current levels. So conversations with the banks have been good. In regard to net debt, we do expect that will be lower from the end of the year. And with higher earnings, you will see a reduction in leverage, may still be above the two, but we do see it trending down and see it continuing to trend down into future periods.

And then just second one from me. Just interested around the SG&A side of things as well in terms of if we strip out the one-offs, what were the actual cost reductions in SG&A for one-off in the first half?

Yes. Look, Ben, the big drivers of the SG&A reduction in the first half was the operational restructure that we did and talked about at the AGM, and I think we've signposted it as $8 million to $10 million, and that is flowing through in terms of SG&A reductions, and that was largely a delayering, I suppose, a delayering of the business. From a New Zealand perspective, the key reductions came from, firstly, on a reported basis, the centralization of activities, but then within that geography, the reduction in repairs and maintenance as well as consulting cost.

Our next question comes from Craig Woolford from MST Marquee.

Just I'm going to use Slide 28, just to ask a question around the SG&A. I'm using the underlying pre-AASB figures. You've got distribution expenses and admin expenses. They've still grown quite materially, like up 8% and 12% or circa $18 million increase and yet you'd have some cost out. Like what's creating such inflation in those two cost items to that extent?

Yes. Look, from a distribution--in terms of distribution expense, I'd say there's two big drivers that we've partially dealt with through the first half, and there's probably a more structural element as we look forward. The first as it relates to the first half is that with the excess inventory, we've had to incur increased distribution expense, both in relation to third-party warehouse, but also in relation to our warehouses being totally full of product. And therefore, there's inefficiencies as it relates to product movement. Importantly, now that's now 80% of total utilization, so you can get back into efficient operations. I think the more structural one is that with customer diversification, what we're seeing is effectively a combination of both customer and SKU proliferation. And all our customers have sort of different ordering times, different ordering windows, different [type of] expectations. And that certainly created some complexity, which is taking some getting used to. And so how it manifests itself within the P&L is that we're having to do more runbacks, et cetera, and more trucking to deliver to our customers' service level requirements. And that's really the big driver, I suppose, of that inflation. I do think that once we've got -- we're back in growth and we've got stability and all the big leaps in new business by and large have been onboarded, there's now an opportunity to stabilize the operation, get back to optimize fresh inventory levels. And at that point in time, we should be able to materially reduce the unit cost of distribution.

Back on the early slide that we had in the key drivers, I think it was around Page 7, the waterfall chart, there's $9 million of one-offs labeled on that chart. So that's in SG&A. So it's pretty flat SG&A. It's really the cost reductions that Ed's been talking about happened during the period, and that's being offset probably by inflation at the moment. So we'll see -- expect to see that to drop in the second half.

What were -- what were those one-off items?

So in the prior year, FY -- first half FY '27. So there was sort of some settlements that we had on some commercial matters that we had in that period of time and some releases of provisions last year.

So it's a benefit in the PCP --

Benefit in the PCP -- and then yes, the net is $9 million.

Okay. And then just clarifying the supply -- you talked about supply chain inefficiencies as one of the issues around the downgrade [indiscernible]. Just to be clear, like is this because there's still an imbalance between production and demand? Or is it some other supply chain inefficiency?

No. Look, I'd say our supply demand is very balanced at the moment, Craig. And in fact, I'd say there's very strong demand out in the market. The supply chain inefficiency is just the incremental complexity that customer diversification has ultimately created within our supply chain. And I think it's fair to say that it's an area of the business as well where we can afford to work on how we become more disciplined such that we can continue to provide very good service through to the customers whilst at the same time, managing cost to serve. I genuinely feel like within the first half, in some ways, we had a perfect storm of warehouses full of inventory, coupled with a lot of new customers and products coming online, which just related to complexity that ultimately led to a massive uptick as it relates to supply chain costs. And that's what I mean. There's an element of that, but it's definitely temporary, and we'll be able to manage it through improved processes as well as the inventory reduction. There will be a slight element of it as well, which is slightly more structural. But whatever way you turn it, we need to improve or turn our focus to how we make sure that that's an efficient part of the supply chain.

And Craig, just to be clear, so there was some imbalances during the half, especially early in the half. But I think Ed was talking about as of now, we feel like we're back in balance.

And our next question comes from Evan Karatzas from UBS.

Just with the restructuring cost, the $60 million to $80 million, how much will the one-off restructuring cash costs be in the second half that you'll have to pay? Like correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like it was only $4.5 million in the first half, which just feels a bit light for that scale of cost out program.

So there won't be a huge amount in the second half. So a lot of it is around continuous improvement procurement savings. So yes, a lot of that sort of one-off cash costs we've already incurred in the first half. So there will be some in the second half, but probably not as much as the first half.

Okay. All right. Fair enough. And then just sort of coming to the industry supply-demand situation. Can you just give an idea of how you're seeing this as we get to Jan and Feb and how you're seeing any potential changes to supply as well over the next 12 months?

Sorry, Evan, was that a question -- we just dropped out for a second. Was that a question in relation to the [Baiada] plant?

Yes, sure. And any other changes to the supply you're seeing? [indiscernible] I just want to understand the industry supply-demand situation, how you're seeing this through Jan and Feb as well and any potential changes to supply over the next 12 months across the industry?

Yes. Look, I mean as it relates to -- through Jan and Feb, the market has remained very tight. And I think what we've seen, obviously, with the increase in CPI and therefore increasing pressure at some level on cost of living across Australia, I think we should expect for that demand tailwind to continue as it relates to poultry. And I think really pleasingly, we are seeing growth across all our channels, notwithstanding the Woolworths change. Look, as it relates to changes in the industry, our understanding is there will not be a significant impact within this financial year as it relates to new volume coming on board. It's obviously an area that we're watching. But I think as it relates right now, we've got good stability as it relates to our customer agreements.

And our next question comes from Jonathan Snape from Bell Potter.

Look, I just want to get a head around -- I'm looking at this slide of the Australian business as a reference point. I guess, what the one-off costs or the full impact of this inventory reduction, supply chain inefficiencies and all that sort of stuff was. It looks like it was about $30 million in the first half, like if I just look at the comments you made around what the cost would have been if it didn't have it in there. So is it right to kind of assume that maybe they were highest in 1 quarter, unwound a little bit in 2Q, unwinding a little bit more in 3Q and then kind of gone by 4Q, not there next year. And we should be seeing that $8 million to $10 million flow through in fourth quarter with a run rate full realization in 2027. Is that kind of how you would think about it and how you kind of bridge the improved second half?

Yes, exactly, John, I think that's really neatly put. I think -- probably the one caveat that I'd say is I genuinely think that the supply chain costs that we've called out, there's an element of temporary and there is an element of structural as it relates to those costs in particular in terms of -- it's probably the only one where the profile was slightly different. And in fact, we saw an uptick in Q2 as more complexity came on board with the customer diversification. But very broadly speaking, that's exactly how we look at it. This is a transition year for Inghams. It's a stabilization year for Inghams. We genuinely look at ourselves as having strong foundations and a good -- hopefully, a very strong run rate entering FY '27.

Okay. And I guess the follow-on on this is, if I looked at that waterfall you had on Slide 7, which kind of itemizes it all down. And then kind of look like at Slide 9. In terms of the -- I just want to make sure I'm not double counting something here. In the first quarter, obviously, the volumes are down 4 million or 5 million [indiscernible] 1,000 tons, 4,000 tons or 5,000 tons probably looks a bit. And it looks like the run rate is going to kind of get all that back as we get into '25 or most of it. Is there an impact in that little chart up there that kind of counts in, I guess, the lost sales in that period?

Within the -- yes, I mean, I suppose -- the waterfall.

It's in there.

Yes. I mean, look, there's a group revenue at the far right of that waterfall, which talks to a negative $1 million. I think it's fair to say if you think about when the first tranche of the Woolworths adjustment happened, Jo was at the end of quarter 1. So there's definitely a sort of materiality of lost sales that we sit in there. It's not called out in any material sense. But we've got the negative $1 million there. I think it's fair to say our top line performance improved as the half progressed. And therefore, you can say, yes, I suppose.

Thank you. And our next question is a text question from Adam Olstein, private investor. Adam asks, can you please elaborate on the status of the non-stay-in-business CapEx and expected direction of this in the second half?

Thanks, Adam. I feel overall, we had CapEx of $46 million in the first half, and I suspect that will be a bit lower in the second half. There was a number of multiyear projects that carried over into the first half. So in total, I think it will be down a little bit. And I think the proportion of that of SIB will be a bit higher in the second half as well. So the sort of the overall sort of 40s percent of depreciation, I expect to return more to that normal 75% to 90% range.

And our next question is another text question from Chris Joyce, also a private investor. Chris asks, processed inventory reduced by $27.1 million and seems to have been accompanied by an EBITDA loss of $19 million. In essence, an NRV of only 30% versus the previously capitalized value. What was the realized -- why was the realized price so poor or low?

So there are probably two different things, although I can see why they're trying to be connected. So partly in reducing that inventory did drive that $19 million, for example, we needed to reduce the amount of birds that we were growing in the field and processing less processing through the plant. Therefore, you have a lower fixed cost recovery. We had some downgrade of material. So some products produced for render rather than for a higher value. So it's not that, that $19 million is a loss on sale or an NRV, it's costs that are associated with having an imbalance in supply. By taking those actions, it allowed us to reduce our inventory, and it was then done at unprofitable prices as a result of that, of which you can see from the NSP increase, also the improvement in the wholesale market. So market economics are quite strong. So a complicated answer. I hope that answered the question, Chris.

And our next question is another text question from Victor Yan from Wavestone. Victor asks, can I ask any change in the competitive environment with Baiada Tamworth volumes coming online from April 2026? Are customers preempting this dynamic in tender conversations? And what is Ingham's response strategy? Also, do you have any view on Baiada's unit cost on chicken from the Tamworth plant benchmarked versus Ingham's cost position?

Yes. Thanks for the question. I mean shorter answer is no, we're not seeing any change in either competitor dynamics and/or conversations with customers. I think as I said earlier, our focus from Ingham's perspective is on how do we, in a material way, enhance our value proposition over time to customers. And from our perspective, we see our network as a point of competitive advantage because we can provide localized service and good customer service levels at a low cost. We see ourselves as being the market leaders in quality and welfare and sustainability and we think that through investment in consumer insights and category over time, that in turn makes us the value leaders in terms of the perceived value within the market. And I think very positively, as it's called out within the document, our voice of customer results reflect that -- plus the customer results reflect that and indeed, the growth of the top line from a volume perspective and new customers brought on board also reflect that. So short answer is no but we obviously have line of sight as to relation to competitive dynamics and unit costs. Our focus remains heavily on our operation, on our value proposition and how we continue to enhance it over time.

Thank you. And our next question comes from Lila A., a private investor. Lila asks, what are your top three business risks for the next 6 to 12 months? Thank you.

Thanks, Lila. I mean, look, there's -- and let me think about that. I suppose if I think purely in relation to earnings, we need to focus on the pace and speed of operational improvement. And obviously, that was the basis for the guidance that's now being provided or the updated guidance that's been provided. But one is the pace of operational improvement. We're very aware that, that needs to improve. I'd say the other material risk is the kind of key variables of our business is feed cost, which I'd say is low risk over the next six months just in terms of due to our procurement policy. But certainly, wholesale pricing, we're very aware that the foundations or the economics of wholesale are currently strong and therefore, as a major player within the market, we need to play our role in terms of ensuring that those economics remain somewhat strong. And look, they're probably the two ones that I'm most focused on. Obviously, there's changes that our competitors are investing behind, as was called out in the previous question. That certainly remains a risk, but it's something that we feel like we're increasingly bringing a very strong answer to the pace.

Thank you. As there are no further questions now, I'll hand back to Ed to close the meeting.

Brilliant. Thanks very much [indiscernible]. Look, on behalf of the management team, I'd like to thank everyone for joining us today, and we look forward to meeting with many of you over the coming weeks. Thank you very much.