SURVEY OF NEW ZEALAND FARMER INTENTIONS
AND OPINIONS, OCTOBER-DECEMBER,
by
J.G. Pryde
P.J. McCartin
RESEARCH REPORT NO. 136
March 1983
ISSN 0069-3790
1982
CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I.
BACKGROUND
11.
INDEX O F T A B L E S
111.
CONCLUSIONS
IV.
TABLES O F R E S U L T S
V.
APPENDICES
A.
QUESTIONNAIRE
B.
SAMPLE S T A T I S T I C S
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors recognise the special contribution from the large number
of farmers throughout New Zealand who responded to the questionnaire.
In addition thanks are due to some progressive major companies and organisations whose foresight and financial contributions enabled this exercise
to be undertaken.
They include:
Dalgety New Zealand Limited
New Zealand Insurance Company Limited
Ivon Watkins-Dow Limited
Rural Radio of Radio New Zealand
Waitaki New Zealand Refrigerating Company Limited
East Coast Fertiliser Company Limited
Blue Wing Honda Limited
Indebtedness is acknowledged to the Government Statistician and his
staff for drawing the sample of farmer respondents.
Special thanks are owed to Janice Glen for her careful and systematic
preparation of the first draft of this report, to the staff of the Computer
Centre of Lincoln College, and to many others who helped from time to
time .
I.
1.1
BACKGROUND
INTRODUCTION
This is the fifth major survey of New Zealand Farmer Intentions and
Opinions undertaken.
The others relate to 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1981.
All were aimed at providing agricultural policy makers and those in the
agri-business sector in New Zealand with better data on which they could
formulate policies and plans.
The surveys have continued in response to demands from various quarters
although at no time has any claim been made that the results are completely
conclusive. Obviously factors such as the unscheduled occurrence of drought's
and the non-response from a section of the sample have an effect on the
validity of the final results.
The survey not only attempted to 'sound out' farmers on their development plans, etc. but endeavoured to pursue enquiries relating to financial
matters raised in the 1978 and 1981 surveys and also a special survey
in which J.G. Pryde was involved in 1980'.
The questions were included
in the 1982 survey in the hope that some important data on farmer indebtedness,
etc. could be secured to fill in gaps in our information on the capital
and debt structure of New Zealand farms.
1.2 THE SAMPLE
A stratified randomsample of just over 3,000 dairy, sheep-beef and
arable farmers was drawn by the Department of Statistics from an up-to-date
list of farmers classified according to the New Zealand Standard Industrial
Classification.
The sample was stratified by farm type within Official
Statistical areas.
Farms below 20 hectares were eliminated and the total
sample represented about seven percent of the estimated 45,000 full-time
farmers in New Zealand.
1.3
RESPONSE RATE
Just over 1,800 farmers (or about 60 per cent) responded to the mail
l.
A R e v i e w o f the R u r a l C r e d i t S y s t e m i n New Z e a l a n d 1964 t o 1979,
J . G . P r y d e a n d S . K . M a r t i n , R e s e a r c h R e p o r t N o . 114, A . E . R . U . ,
Lincoln College.
questionnaire (a copy of which is included as Appendix A to this report)
and, of these 1,616 satisfactorily completed the questionnaire as at the
closing date, 10 January 1983.
The questionnaires were dispatched in early October 1982. A reminder
was sent to non-respondents in November.
1.4 ACCURACY
Again, responses were well spread throughout the 13 Provincial Land
Districts. No follow-up surveys of non-respondents were undertaken. Statistics
on the sample are given in Appendix B to this Report.
11.
INDEX OF TABLES
Page
Table
1.
1A
Dairy Farmers' Production
Expected Number o f Cows i n M i l k p e r Herd
-
By
P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
1B
Expected M i l k f a t p e r Cow
-
By P r o v i n c i a l
Land D i s t r i c t
2.
2A
Sheep and Beef F a r m e r s ' P r o d u c t i o n
E s t i m a t e d B r e e d i n g Ewe Numbers
-
By P r o v i n c i a l
30
Land D i s t r i c t
2B
E s t i m a t e d B r e e d i n g Ewe Hogget Numbers
-
By
P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
2C
E s t i m a t e o f Ewe Hoggets Mated
31
-
By P r o v i n c i a l
32
Land D i s t r i c t
A t t i t u d e s t o w a r d s F a t Lamb - P r o d u c t i o n ~ oicyl
-
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
33
F a c t o r s R e l e v a n t t o F a t Lamb P r o d u c t i o n P o l i c y
-
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
34
A c t u a l F a t Lamb P r o d u c t i o n Trend o v e r t h e l a s t 10
Years
-
35
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
E s t i m a t e d Beef B r e e d i n g Cows i n Herd
-
By
P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
E s t i m a t e d Beef B r e e d i n g H e i f e r s i n Herd
P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
3.
I n t e n d e d E r e c t i o n o f New F e n c i n g
3A
-
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
3B
-
By Farm Type
-
By
'
Page
Table
4.
The Most Important F a c t o r s L i m i t i n g Expansion
o f Farm Output
4A
The Three Most Important F a c t o r s L i m i t i n g
Expans i o n o f Output
4B
-
The Three Most Important F a c t o r s L i m i t i n g
Expansion of Output - By Age o f Farmer
4C
- By Farm Type
4D
-
5.
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
The Most E f f e c t i v e Expansion I n c e n t i v e
5A
-
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
5B
-
By Farm Type
5C
-
By Age o f Farmer
6.
6A
P a s t u r e Renovation
P e r c e n t a g e o f Farm Regarded a s P l o u g h a b l e By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
6B
-
6C
P a s t u r e Improvement Programme C a r r i e d Out
By Farm Type
-
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
6D
-
6E
Area of P a s t u r e Improvement
By Farm Type
-
by P r o v i n c i a l
Land D i s t r i c t
6F
-
6G
Method Used i n P a s t u r e Improvement Programme
By Farm Type
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
6H
-
By Farm Type
-
Table
61
R e s u l t s o f P a s t u r e Improvement Undertaken
-
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
6J
-
6K
Main Type o f Scrub and Brushweed
By Farm Type
-
By
P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
6L
-
6M
Area o f Scrub and Brushweed
By Farm Type
-
By P r o v i n c i a l
-
By P r o v i n c i a l
Land D i s t r i c t
6N
- By Farm Type
60
Scrub and Brushweed C l e a r e d
6P
. 6Q
Land D i s t r i c t
53
-
53
By Farm Type
Method o f C l e a r i n g Used
-
By P r o v i n c i a l Land
-District
-
By Farm Type
6s
Success o f C l e a r i n g
6T
-
7.
7A
-
55
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
55
By Farm Type
Fertiliser
Method Used t o Apply F e r t i l i s e r
-
By P r o v i n c i a l
Land D i s t r i c t
56
-
56
By Farm Type
View o f Paying E x t r a f o r a More C o n c e n t r a t e d
Fertiliser
-
-
57
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
57
By Farm Type
View of Paying E x t r a f o r a B e t t e r P h y s i c a l Q u a l i t y
Fertiliser
-
-
58
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
By Farm Type
View of Paying E x t r a f o r B e t t e r R a t i o s of N.P.K.
58
-
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
59
-
59
By Farm Type
Page
Table
View o f Paying E x t r a f o r S u p e r i o r Chemical Q u a l i t y
-
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
60
-
By Farm Type
60
Which F e r t i l i s e r W i l l Become More Widely Used
-
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
61
-
61
By Farm Type
Source of Advice
-
-
62
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
63
By Farm Type
Importance o f P h y s i c a l and Handling P r o p e r t i e s
-
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
64
-
64
By Farm Type
Importance o f Cost p e r Tonne
-
By P r o v i n c i a l
Land D i s t r i c t
65
-
65
By Farm Type
Importance of Guaranteed S o l u b i l i t y
-
By P r o v i n c i a l
Land D i s t r i c t
66
-
66
By Farm Type
Importance o f High C o n c e n t r a t i o n
-
By P r o v i n c i a l
Land D i s t r i c t
67
-
67
By Farm Type
Importance of t h e Cost p e r kg. o f S o l u b l e N u t r i e n t s
-
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
68
By Farm Type
68
Importance o f Every Granule C o n t a i n i n g t h e C o r r e c t
Proportion of Nutrient
-
-
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
By Farm Type
69
69
S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e Cost of F e r t i l i s e r C u r r e n t l y
Used
-
-
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
By Farm Type
70
71
Table
Page
7CC
Satisfaction with the Percentage of Available
Phosphorus in Fertiliser Currently Used - By
Provincial Land District
7DD
-
7EE
Satisfaction with the Physical Quality of
By Farm Type
Fertiliser Currently Used
-
By Provincial Land
District
7FF
- By Farm Type
7GG
Satisfaction with the Concentration per Tonne
Weight of Fertiliser Currently Used
-
By
Provincial Land District
7HH
-
711
Satisfaction with the Quality of Service Provided
By Farm Type
by Suppliers
-
7JJ
8.
88
-
By Provincial Land District
By Farm Type
Insurance
Person Involved with Farm Paperwork and Insurance
Matters
8B
-
-
Overall
Source of Advice on Fire and General Insurances Overall
8C
Opinion of Insurance Companies Offering an Office
Service Only
8D
-
Overall
Reasons for Changing Insurance Companies within
the last three years
9.
9A
-
Overall
Radio
How Often Respondents Listen to 'Rural Report'
By Provincial Land District
9B
-
By Farm Type
9C
-
By Age of Farmer
-
Table
9D
Page
How Often Other Members o f Household L i s t e n
t o 'Rural ~ e p o r t '- By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
-
By Farm Type
-
By Age of Farmer
-
How O f t e n Respondent L i s t e n s t o 'Farm News'
By
P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
- By Farm Type
-
By Age o f Farmer
How O f t e n Respondent L i s t e n s t o 'Farm N e w s ' t h e n
switches t o f R u r a l R e p o r t '
-
By P r o v i n c i a l Land
District
88
-
By Farm Type
89
By Age o f Farmer
89
How O f t e n Respondent L i s t e n s t o 'Farm News' Before
7 O'clock
-
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
90
-
By Farm Type
91
-
By Age of Farmer
91
How O f t e n Respondent L i s t e n s t o 'Minute w i t h
eat' -
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
92
-
By Farm Type
93
-
By Age o f Farmer
93
How O f t e n Respondent L i s t e n s t o ' L a n d l i n e '
-
By
94
P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
-
By Farm Type
By Age of Farmer
Opinion on Continuance o f Radio Programmes
P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
-
By Farm Type
-
By Age of Farmer
-
By
96
Page
Table
10.
1 0A
Meat I n d u s t r y
Option a s a Payout Method f o r Meat
-
By
P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
1 OC
-
10D
Opinion o f a " S i n g l e S e l l e r " Marketing System
10B
By Age o f Farmer
By S i z e o f Farm
-
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
I OE
-
By Age of Farmer
l OF
-
By S i z e o f Farm
L a s t V i s i t t o a Meat P r o c e s s i n g P l a n t
100
-
By
P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
1 OH
-
By Age of Farmer
103
101
-
By S i z e o f Farm
103
1OJ
Option t o Suggested Improvements i n t h e System o f
Lamb Marketing
-
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
104
-
By Age o f Farmer
105
-
By S i z e o f Farm
105
Opinion of a Minimum P r i c e f o r Sellling Lamb Overseas
-
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
106
-
By Age o f Farmer
107
-
By S i z e o f Farm
107
Opinion o f R e s t r i c t i o n s on Farmers t o S e l l Through
T r a d i t i o n a l E x p o r t e r s - By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
-
108
By Age o f Farmer
:- By S i z e o f Farm
11.
1 1A
Farmer Opinion
Assessment o f E f f e c t i v e n e s s of Farmer Co-operative
O r g a n i s a t i o n s C o n t r o l l e d by Farmer D i r e c t o r s
P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
-
By
110
Table
Page
11B
-
By Farm Type
111
11C
-
By Age o f Farmer
111
11D
Expected R a t e o f I n f l a t i o n i n 1982-83 S e a s o n
-
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
-
By Farm Type
-
By Age o f Farmer
Opinion o f t h e 12 month Wage, P r i c e and R e n t
Freeze
-
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
-
By Farm Type
-
By Age o f Farmer
Prediction
Farming
-
o f S h o r t Term E f f e c t o f t h e F r e e z e on
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
-
By Farm Type
-
By Age o f Farmer
P r e d i c t i o n o f Long Term E f f e c t o f t h e F r e e z e on
Farming
-
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
1 IN
-
By Farm Type
110
-
By Age o f Farmer
1 IP
R e s p o n d e n t ' s P r e f e r e n c e o f Two Given O p t i o n s on
Land I n v e s t m e n t - By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
11Q
-
By Farm Type
I 1R
-
By Age o f Farmer
12.
12A
C a p i t a l S t r u c t u r e and I n v e s t m e n t
Values o f A s s e t s a s a t 30 J u n e 1982
-
By
P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
12B
-
12C
D i s t r i b u t i o n o f L i a b i l i t i e s a s a t End o f 1981-82
By Farm Type
Season - By S o u r c e
Page
Table
New Loans During the 1981-82 Production Season
-
By Source
Main Reasons for Additional Medium and Long Term
Borrowing in 1980-81
-
Overall
Ability to Borrow all the Money Required During the
1981-82 Season
-
Overall
Average Amount which Respondent was Unable to
Borrow
Reasons Given for Declining Funds
Did Respondent Either Not Borrow But Believe He
Could Have or Borrowed But Could Have Borrowed
More
Why Respondent Did Not Borrow More Finance During
198 1-82
111. CONCLUSIONS
The major c o n c l u s i o n s drawn from r e s p o n s e s t o t h e 1982 Survey
a r e a s follows:-
1.
D a i r y Farmers
(a)
Number o f cows i n m i l k .
--
Whereas t h e a v e r a g e number o f cows i n m i l k a t December 1981 was 142
i t was e x p e c t e d t h a t a t December 1982 t h i s would be 149, an i n c r e a s e o f
4.9 p e r c e n t .
E a s t C o a s t , Nelson, Westland and Southland i n d i c a t e d s u b s t a n t i a l
i n c r e a s e s i n t h e i r h e r d numbers.
(b)
( T a b l e 1A)
Average annual m i l k f a t p e r cow.
Respondents e s t i m a t e d t h e average m i l k f a t produced p e r cow t o be
151 k i l o g r a m s f o r t h e 1981-82 s e a s o n , and e x p e c t e d t h i s f i g u r e t o r i s e
t o 155 k i l o g r a m s f o r t h e 1982-83 s e a s o n , a n - i n c r e a s e of 2.6 p e r c e n t .
( T a b l e 1B).
2.
Sheep and Beef Farmers
(a)
Number of b r e e d i n g ewes ( e x c l u d i n g ewe h o g g e t s ) .
A t mid-1981 r e s p o n d e n t s had an a v e r a g e of
,
1947 b r e e d i n g ewes and
a t mid-1982 t h e a v e r a g e number had i n c r e a s e d by 4 . 1 p e r c e n t t o 2026 b r e e d i n g
ewes.
Northland i n d i c a t e d t h e h i g h e s t i n c r e a s e a t 10.8 p e r c e n t and
Westland a d e c r e a s e of 6.8 p e r c e n t .
(b)'
( T a b l e 2A)
Number of ewe h o g g e t s .
On a v e r a g e , r e s p o n d e n t s had 625 ewe h o g g e t s i n t h e i r sheep f l o c k s
a t 30 June 1981 and an e s t i m a t e d 605 a t 30 June 1982, a d e c r e a s e of 3.2
percent.
South Auckland, Nelson and S o u t h l a n d i n d i c a t e d t h e l a r g e s t
d e c r e a s e s i n numbers, w h i l e Northland showed a s u b s t a n t i a l i n c r e a s e of
21.3 p e r c e n t .
( T a b l e 2B)
(c)
Number of ewe hoggets mated.
In the autumn of 1981 respondents put an average of 88 ewe hoggets
to the ram; the corresponding number for the autumn of 1982 was 98; an
increase of 11.4 percent.
There were very substantial changes according
to Provincial Land District, the highest being Northland with an estimated
85.1 percent increase, and Southland with a 40 percent increase.
Westland
and Canterbury expected substantial decreases (45.6 and 41.9 percent).
(Table 2C).
(d)
The attitude of respondents to fat lamb production over the past
ten years.
The majority of respondents intended to increase production (67.5
percent).
Figures varied somewhat according to provinces; for example
93.3 percent of East Coast respondents intended to increase production.
Taranaki and Nelson had even intentions of maintaining production at
42.9 percent, while 21.4 percent of Westland respondents intended to decrease
production.
(e)
(Table 2D).
Factors relevant to fat lamb production over the past ten years.
'Pride in your livestock', 'rising on-farm costs', 'desire for a greater
income' and 'changes in the price of lamb' were rated as the most important
factors by respondents.
The introduction of a guaranteed price for lamb,
changes in killing and freezing charges and changes in wool prices were
classified as the next most important group of factors. The least important
-
factors relevant to lamb production over the decade were 'changes in labour
availability', 'the farmer nearing retirement' and 'the introduction of
irrigation'.
(£1
(Table 2E).
Actual fat lamb production trends over the last ten years.
The over-all trend was for increased production (68.7 percent), with
a quarter of respondents merely maintaining production and only 7 percent
declaring they had decreased lamb production over the period.
(g)
(Table 2F).
Number of beef breeding cows/heifers (936 valid observations).
Respondents had at 30 June 1981 an average of 65 beef breeding cows/
heifers; the corresponding number at 30 June 1982 was 59
-
a decrease
of 9.2 percent.
Apart from Southland where respondents indicated no change
in numbers, all Provincial Land Districts showed a decrease, with Central
Auckland, Nelson and Westland showing estimates of substantial decreases
in cow numbers.
(Table 26).
(h) Number of beef breeding heifers.
At 30 June 1981 respondents had an average of 15 beef breeding heifers
in their cattle herds; at 30 June 1982 the average number was 14, a decrease
of 6.7 percent. A large number of Marlborough and Nelson respondents (43.7
and 42.7 percent) estimated decreasing heifer numbers.
3.
Fencing
Respondents erected an average of 869 metres of new fencing in the
1981-82 season and intended to decrease this to 792 metres during the
1982-83 season, a fall of 8.9 percent. Central Auckland and Marlborough
showed intentions of very substantial decreases, as also did cropping
farmers.
4.
(Tables 3A, 3B).
Factors Limiting an Expansion of Farm Output
The chief limiting factors chosen by respondents were the cost of
finance (12.3 percent of all responses), inadequate profits from expanded
output ( 1 1.4 percent), the cost of additional farm inputs (10.2 percent),
and income tax levels (8.8 percent).
The next two highest ranking factors
were the productive limitations of the type of land farmed (7.9 percent)
and the size of the farm (7. 1 percent).
The importance of the limiting
factors varied somewhat according to the Provincial Land District, farm
type and age of farmer.
4.
(Tables 4B-4D).
The Most Effective Expansion Incentive
The most important production expansion incentive by far, in the
view of respondents would be the reduction in inflation rate (singled out
by 45.7 percent of respondents).
The second would be the reduction in
income tax (18.6 percent), and thirdly, increased subsidy to reduce the
cost of fertiliser (15.3 percent).
Just over 3 percent of respondents
suggested higher supplementary minimum prices and 5.3 percent mentioned
a reduction in the cost of farm credit. Between the main farm types there
were some differences in response patterns. For example whereas 32 percent
of mainly cropping farmer respondents and 29 percent of dairy farmers
mentioned the need for a reduction in income tax, only 14 percent of sheepbeef farmers cited this as an effective expansion incentive. Also, respondents in the 35 years and under age group considered a reduction in income
tax as a less important incentive than did older farmer respondents.
(Table 5A - 5C).
6.
Pasture Renovation
(a)
Percentage of farm regarded as ploughable.
On average 21.5 percent of respondents regarded under 25% of their farm
as ploughable, 13.3 percent as 25-50%, 21.3 percent as 50-75% and 43.9
percent as 75-100% ploughable.
Relevance of farm type was quite significant
in the determination of these classifications. (Tables 6A, 6B).
(b)
Indications of whether respondents have undertaken a pasture improvement
programme.
On average 71.6 percent of respondents are carrying out a pasture
improvement programme.
(Table 6C, 6D).
(c) Area of pasture improved last and this season.
On average respondents improved 15.0 hectares in the 1981-82 season
and indicated they plan to improve 14.2 hectares in the 1982-83 season.
(Table 6E, 6F).
(d) Method used in pasture improvement programme.
The main method used in pasture improvement on average was mechanical
cultivation, at 42.5 percent; 29.1 percent of respondents used more than
one method, while 12.9 percent used broadcast seed.
'Undersowing' ranked
next at 10.6 percent and lastly, chemical treatment (4.9 percent).
varied somewhat according to farm type.
(Table 6G, 6H).
Figures
(e)
Results of pasture improvement undertaken.
Overall 70.6 percent of respondents rated the results of their pasture
improvement programme as being 'good', while 24.5 percent rated them as
'excellent'.
Only 4.6 percent were 'poor', and 0.2 percent 'disastrous'.
(Tables 61, 65).
(f)
Type of scrub and brushweed on farm.
A total of 45.3 percent of respondents stated they had no scrub
or
brushweed, while 35.6 percent described it as 'scattered'; 5.7 percent stated
they had 'solid blocks' of scrub and brushweed, while 13.4 percent had incidence
of 'scattered' and 'solid block' infestation.
(g)
(Tables 6K, 6~).
Area of scrub and brushweed.
On a national basis the largest area was 5.3 hectares of 'other scrub'.
The next was 4.2 hectares of scrubweed, 2.8 hectares of gorse, 0.9 hectares
of blackberry and 0.4 of broom.
The Nelson province showed an above-average
area of 24.3 hectares of 'other scrub'.
Marlborough recorded the highest
incidence of scrubweed; Westland the highest percentage of gorse infestation;
East Coast and Westland the highest percentage of blackberry and Marlborough
the highest incidence of broom.
(h)
(Tables 6M, 6 ~ ) .
Scrub and brushweed cleared in 1981-82, and intending to clear 1982-83.
Respondents indicated they cleared 4.5 hectares on average in the 1981-82
season, and intended to clear 3.1 hectares in the 1982-83 season
of around one-third.
a decline
Reductions in planned scrub and brushweed clearance
were especially high in Taranaki and Marlborough.
(i)
-
(Tables 60, 6P).
Method of clearing used.
While 43.5 percent of respondents said they had no scrub to clear,
17.7 percent used chemicals, 14.1 percent mechanical means and 12.2 percent
used both; 3.9 percent used 'other' methods and 8.6 percent did not clear
any scrub at all.
Between Provincial Land Districts and main farm types
there were significant differences in methods used to clear scrub and
brushweed.
(j)
(Tables 64, 6R).
Success of clearing.
Overall, 40.9 percent of respondents said their clearing was successful,
w h i l e o n l y 1 . 1 p e r c e n t s a i d i t w a s n ' t and 2.7 p e r c e n t s a i d t h e y ' d i d n ' t
know';
4 4 . 7 : > z r c m t hz2 no s c r u b t o c l e a r and 10.6 p e r c e n t s a i d t h e y
d i d n o t c l e a r any s c r u b a t a l l .
able 6S, 6 T ) .
7.
Fertiliser
(a)
Method u s u a l l y used t o a p p l y f e r t i l i s e r .
The most common method used by f a r was s u r f a c e ground s p r e a d i n g a t
62.9 p e r c e n t .
The n e x t was by f i x e d wing a i r c r a f t a t 32.2 p e r c e n t , w i t h
t h e o t h e r methods b e a r i n g l i t t l e s i g n i f i c a n c e . ( H e l i c o p t e r 1.5%, d r i l l i n g 3%
and s i d e d r e s s i n g 0 . 4 % ) . ( T a b l e s 7A, 7 ~ ) .
(b)
Respondents' view of paying e x t r a f o r a more c o n c e n t r a t e d f e r t i l i s e r .
F i g u r e s show t h a t 58.2 p e r c e n t of r e s p o n d e n t s were p r e p a r e d t o pay
e x t r a , w h i l e 29.7 p e r c e n t were n o t , and 12.1 p e r c e n t s a i d t h e y d i d n ' t
know w h e t h e r t h e y would be p r e p a r e d t o pay e x t r a .
(c)
( ~ a b l e s7C, 7 ~ ) .
Respondents' view o f paying e x t r a f o r a b e t t e r p h y s i c a l q u a l i t y
fertiliser.
O v e r a l l 40.9 p e r c e n t were p r e p a r e d t o pay e x t r a , w h i l e 35.7 p e r c e n t
were n o t , and 23.5 p e r c e n t s a i d t h e y d i d n ' t know.
(d)
(Tables 7E, 7F).
Respondents' view o f p a y i n g e x t r a f o r b e t t e r r a t i o s of N . P . K .
Many r e s p o n d e n t s were p r e p a r e d t o pay e x t r a , on a v e r a g e (42.4 p e r c e n t ) ,
wfiile 33.9 p e r c e n t were n o t and 23.7 p e r c e n t d i d n o t know.
( T a b l e s 7G,
7H).
(e)
Respondents' view o f paying e x t r a f o r s u p e r i o r chemical q u a l i t y .
Once a g a i n , many r e s p o n d e n t s were p r e p a r e d t o pay e x t r a , on a v e r a g e
( 5 1 . 6 p e r c e n t ) , w h i l e 23.1 p e r c e n t were n o t and 25.2 p e r c e n t d i d n o t know.
( T a b l e s 71, 7 5 ) .
(£1
Respondents' view o f which f e r t i l i s e r w i l l become more w i d e l y used
i n t h e i r f u t u r e farming e n t e r p r i s e .
C o n c e n t r a t e d N.P.K.S.
was r a t e d a s becoming t h e most w i d e l y u s e d
f e r t i l i s e r (44.2 p e r c e n t ) , w i t h s i n g l e super-based p r o d u c t s n e x t w i t h
27.0 p e r c e n t .
L i q u i d f e r t i l i s e r s were t h i r d a t 14.3 p e r c e n t and t r i p l e
super-phosphate close behind at 13.3 percent.
bottom of the scale at 1.1
'Suspensions' were at the
percent. There was some important variation
between Provincial Land Districts and farm types.
(~ables7K, 7~).
Respondents' most recent source of advice when applying fertiliser
(g)
to pasture.
A total of 35 percent of respondents said they did not seek any advice
at all while 28.6 percent used a Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries advisor
and 10.2 percent a fertiliser company representative; 9.1 percent sought
advice from a soil testing firm and 7.6 percent from a private consultant.
Figures varied somewhat according to Provincial Land District and farm
type.
(h)
(Tables 7M, 7N).
Respondents' view on importance of physical and handling properties.
Over half of respondents (50.9 percent) regarded this as being 'important', .
33.4 percent as 'very important', 12.6 percent as 'neutral', and 3.1 percent
as having 'no importance'.
(i)
(Tables 70, 7P).
Respondents' view on importance of cost per tonne.
The majority of respondents (69.3 percent) regarded the cost per
tonne as being 'very important', and 24.4 percent as 'important'.
Only
4.6 percent were 'neutral' and 1.7 percent regarded it as having 'no
importance'.
(j)
(Tables 74, 7R).
Respondents' view on importance of guaranteed solubility.
This was rated as being 'very important' by 40.4 percent and as 'importantt
by 46.5 percent, 11.4 percent of respondents remained 'neutral' and 1.7 percent
regarded it as 'not important'.
(k)
(Tables 7S, 7T).
Respondents' view on importance of high concentration.
This was rated as 'importantf by 37.9 percent of respondents' and
'neutral' by 30.6 percent; 24.0 percent regarded it as being 'very important',
while 7.5 percent thought it had 'no importance' at all.
(1)
(Tables 7U, 7 V ) .
Respondents' view on importance of the cost per kg. of soluble nutrients.
This was also rated as 'very important'by the largest pe.rcentage of
respondents (49.0) and 'important' by 33.1 percent; 15.3 percent remained
'neutral' and 2.5 percent thought it as being of 'no importance'.
7W, 7x).
(Tables
(m)
~ e s p o n d e n t s 'view on importance o f e v e r y g r a n u l e c o n t a i n i n g t h e c o r r e c t
proportion of nutrient.
On a v e r a g e 34.0 p e r c e n t r a t e d t h i s a s ' i m p o r t a n t ' , w h i l e 27.6 p e r c e n t
remained ' n e u t r a l ' ;
23.9 p e r c e n t thought i t ' v e r y i m p o r t a n t ' , and 14.5
p e r c e n t viewed i t a s having 'no i m p o r t a n c e ' .
(n)
( T a b l e s 7Y, 7 2 ) .
Respondents' r a t i n g o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e c o s t of f e r t i l i s e r c u r r e n t l y
used.
Respondents were mainly d i s s a t i s f i e d ( 4 6 . 1 p e r c e n t ) and v e r y d i s s a t -
,
i s f i e d (22.8 p e r c e n t ) .
(0)
( T a b l e s 7AA, 7BB).
Respondents' r a t i n g o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e p e r c e n t a g e of a v a i l a b l e
phosphorus i n f e r t i l i s e r c u r r e n t l y u s e d .
About h a l f ( 5 0 . 1 p e r c e n t ) s a i d t h e y were ' s a t i s f i e d ' ,
remained ' n e u t r a l ' ,
w h i l e 20.5 p e r c e n t
and 15.2 p e r c e n t c l a i m e d t o be d i s s a t i s f i e d .
(Tables
7CC, 7DD).
(p)
Respondents' r a t i n g o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e p h y s i c a l q u a l i t y o f
f e r t i l i s e r c u r r e n t l y used.
The m a j o r i t y o f r e s p o n d e n t s ( 5 9 . 3 p e r c e n t ) r a t e d themselves a s b e i n g
' s a t i s f i e d ' w h i l e 19.2 p e r c e n t remained ' n e u t r a l ' .
(q)
( T a b l e s 7EE, 7FF).
Respondents ' r a t i n g o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n p e r t o n n e
weight of f e r t i l i s e r c u r r e n t l y u s e d .
Nearly h a l f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s (47.2 p e r c e n t ) s a i d t h e y were e i t h e r ' v e r y
s a t i s f i e d ' o r ' s a t i s f i e d ' and 22.4 p e r c e n t remained ' n e u t r a l ' ;
s a i d t h e y were ' d i s s a t i s f i e d ' .
(r)
18.7 p e r c e n t
( T a b l e s 7GG, ~ H H ) .
Repondents' r a t i n g o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e q u a l i t y of s e r v i c e p r o v i d e d
by s u p p l i e r s o f f e r t i l i s e r c u r r e n t l y u s e d .
A m a j o r i t y o f r e s p o n d e n t s (54.4 p e r c e n t ) were ' s a t i s f i e d ' w i t h t h e
s e r v i c e , w h i l e 29.6 p e r c e n t were ' v e r y s a t i s f i e d ' .
( T a b l e s 711, 755).
8.
Insurance
(a)
Person involved in respondents' general farm paperwork and insurance
matters .
Overall the results show that the husband is the most involved with
both the general farm paperwork and insurance matters.
(b)
(Table 8A).
How often respondent would seek advice on fire and general insurances
from various sources.
Nearly half of the respondents (48.4 percent) would always seek advice
from their wife or husband, while 43.2 percent would always make the decision
themselves.
(c)
(Table 8B).
Opinion of insurance companies offering an office service only, with
no visits to the farm.
Just over half of all respondents were opposed to an office service
only, 26.8 percent held a favourable opinion and 21.3 percent held no opinion.
(Table 8C).
(d)
Reasons for changing insurance companies within the last three years.
.'Dissatisfaction with the previous company' was the main reason given
for changing companies, with 'price' as the second and 'requirement of
mortgage or finance' as the third.
(Table 8D).
.
9.
Radio
(a)
Frequency with which respondents listen to various radio programmes.
On average, results showed that respondents listen to farming programmes
quite infrequently. The programme most listened to was 'Farm News' at
7 o'clock (26.5 percent of respondents listened to this five days a week),
then 'Rural Report' (13.3 percent of respondents listened to this five
days a week).
Many respondents commented on the inconvenient times of
these programmes (e.g. during milking in the mornings).
(b)
(Tables 9~-9U).
Respondents' opinion on how important it is that Radio New Zealand
continue to offer programmes about farming on both the National Programme
and Commercial Stations.
A total of 45.1 percent though it 'very important' that farming programmes
continue. Another 29.5 percent thought it 'impor.tant, 20.0 percent remained
'neutral' and 5.3 percent thought it had 'no importance'.
showed above average signs of 'no importance'
and Westland (13.6 percent).
-
Two provinces
Central Auckland (21.4 percent)
(Tables 9V-9X).
10. Meat Industry
(a)
Respondents' option as a payout method for meat.
A majority indicated they favoured full schedule payout at slaughter
(70.7 percent on average), and 29.3 percent favoured an interim payment
(say 90% at slaughter and a later payout of the residual).
(Tables IOA-IOC).
Opinion of a "single seller" marketing system for meat (similar to
(b)
the present system operated by the Dairy Board).
Overall, most respondents were 'favourable' towards this 'single
seller' system for meat (59.4 percent).
while 19.4 percent had 'no opinion'.
Some were 'opposed' (21.1 percent),
Of those who said they were opposed
a classification by ~rovincialLand District showed that the largest percentage
were in the Hawkes ~af~rovincialLand District (47.3 percent).
Respondents
from the largest farms were the most opposed to the suggested system.
(Tables
IOD-IOF).
Respondents' last visit to a meat processing plant and inspection
(c)
of all the facilities.
Within the last five years 27.9 percent of respondents had visited
a plant, while 22.5 percent stated they never had; 20.1 percent had undertaken such a visit more than ten years ago, and 17.8 percent within the
last year.
These figures varied somewhat from the averages according to
Provincial Land Districts.
(Tables IOG-101).
Respondents' option to suggested improvements in the system of lamb
(d)
marketing that has operated over the last five years.
.
On average, 35.4 percent of respondents wanted one selling organisation
for all markets; 23.6 percent wanted one for particular markets and multiple
sellers for traditional markets, while 22 percent had no opinion; 10.1
percent wanted multiple sellers for all markets and 9.0 percent opted for
the continuation of the system operative over the last five years.
Results
varied somewhat according to the Provincial Land District of the farmer
respondents.
(Tables 10J- 10~).
(e)
Opinion on the imposition of a minimum price below which lamb could
not be sold to .overseas importers.
Respondents were generally favourable towards this (49.0 percent on
average), 29.5 percent had 'no opinion' and 21.5 percent were 'opposed'.
By size of farm, respondents from the largest enterprises were the greatest
supporters (60%).
(f)
(Tables 10M-100).
Opinion of the suggestion that there be restrictions on the rights
of farmers to sell through traditional exporters.
Respondents were generally opposed to this suggestion (43.5 percent
on average), 38.7 percent had 'no opinion', while 17.8 percent favoured it.
(Tables IOP- ]OR).
11.
Farmer Opinion on Various Issues
(a)
Assessment of the rate of effectiveness over the last two years of
farmer co-operative organisations controlled by farmer directors.
Many respondents rated their performance as 'effective' (43.9 percent
on average) and 27.7 percent as 'so-so', while 14.8 percent thought the
effectiveness of farmer co-operative directors be rated as 'very effective';
6.2 percent of respondents gave them a rating of 'ineffective' or 'very
ineffective'. Dairy farmer respondents accorded the directors a higher
rating than did sheep-beef or cropping farmers.
(Tables IIA-IIC).
4
(b)
The rate of inflation.
The average of the rates of internal inflation predicted by respondents
for the next twelve months was 13.5 percent.
The "twelve months' in question
would in most cases be the last quarter of 1982 and the first three quarters
of 1983.
(c)
(Tables I ID-] IF).
The twelve month wage, price and rent freeze imposed by the Government
on 22nd June 1982.
The majority of respondents' reaction to this was 'favourable' (86.5
percent on average); 8.7 percent were 'opposedf and 4.8 percent expressed
'no opinion'.
(d)
(Tables I1G-111).
The effect of the freeze on the financial position of farming in
the short term (within the next year).
Many respondents a s s e s s e d t h a t i t w i l l ' s t r e n g t h e n i t ' ( 6 3 . 6 p e r c e n t
on a v e r a g e ) , 7.4 p e r c e n t t h a t i t w i l l 'weaken i t 1 , and 29.0 p e r c e n t t h a t
i t w i l l do ' n e i t h e r ' .
(e)
( T a b l e s 11J-1 1 ~ ) .
The e f f e c t o f t h e f r e e z e on t h e f i n a n c i a l p o s i t i o n o f f a r m i n g i n
t h e l o n g e r term ( w i t h i n t h e n e x t f i v e t o t e n y e a r s ) .
29.8 p e r c e n t , on a v e r a g e , o f r e s p o n d e n t s a s s e s s e d t h a t i t w i l l ' s t r e n g t h e n
i t 1 , 21.9 p e r c e n t t h a t i t w i l l 'weaken i t ' and 48.3 p e r c e n t t h a t i t w i l l
do ' n e i t h e r ' .
(f)
( T a b l e s 1 IM-110).
P r e f e r e n c e f o r t h e o p t i o n o f a h i g h r e t u r n on i n v e s t m e n t i n l a n d
and a low c a p i t a l g a i n upon s a l e OR a low r e t u r n on i n v e s t m e n t i n
l a n d and a h i g h c a p i t a l g a i n upon s a l e .
The m a j o r i t y of r e s p o n d e n t s p r e f e r r e d a high r e t u r n and low c a p i t a l
g a i n (86.2 p e r c e n t ) , w h i l e t h e r e m a i n i n g 13.8 p e r c e n t p r e f e r r e d a low
r e t u r n and h i g h c a p i t a l g a i n .
( T a b l e s I IP-I IR).
12.
C a p i t a l S t r u c t u r e and Investment
(a)
Values of a s s e t s o f r e s p o n d e n t s a s a t 3 0 t h June 1982.
The average v a l u e t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s p l a c e d on t h e i r farmland was $466,055,
' o t h e r farm a s s e t s ' $102,066 and ' o f f - f a r m '
a s s e t s $30,514.
( T a b l e s 12A,
12B).
(b)
D i s t r i b u t i o n of l i a b i l i t i e s a s a t end o f 1981-82 s e a s o n .
An a n a l y s i s of t h e s e , based on t h e number of v a l i d o b s e r v a t i o n s s t a t e d , -
i s s e t o u t i n Table 12C.
(c)
( T a b l e 12C).
New l o a n s o b t a i n e d d u r i n g t h e 1981-82 p r o d u c t i o n s e a s o n .
During t h e 1981-82 p r o d u c t i o n s e a s o n , o f t h e new l o a n s d e c l a r e d by
respondent farmers, t h e over-all
a v e r a g e was $36,130.
Some o f t h e h i g h e s t
l o a n s were from T r u s t e e Savings Banks ($93,421 a v e r a g e ) and T r u s t Companies
($70,223 a v e r a g e ) a t i n t e r e s t r a t e s around 15 p e r c e n t , m o s t l y f o r a medium
term.
(d)
able 1 2 ~ ) .
Main r e a s o n s f o r a d d i t i o n a l medium and long term borrowing i n 1980-8 1 .
The main r e a s o n f o r a d d i t i o n a l medium and long t e r m borrowing i n
1980-81 was f o r t h e f i n a n c i n g of farm development.
( T a b l e 12E).
(e)
Ability to borrow money required during the 1981-82 season.
Only 8.3 percent of respondents stated they were unable to secure
the finance they were seeking.
(Table 12F).
(£1 Average amount which respondent was unable to borrow.
An analysis of this, based on the number of valid observations stated,
is set out in Table 12G. (Table 12G).
(g)
Reasons given for declining funds.
Reasons given for being unable to secure finance included 'no funds
available' (6 percent) and 'Income not sufficient' (3 percent).
(h)
able
12H).
During the 1981-82 season did respondent either:
Not borrow but believe he could have obtained finance if required
OR borrowed finance but believed that if required could have borrowed
more.
The majority of respondents (67 percent), answered 'Yes' to this
question.
(i)
(Table 121).
Why respondent did not borrow more finance during 1981-82.
The main reason given was 'didn't want to increase indebtedness'
by 40 percent of respondents.
13.
Personal
(a)
Age of respondent.
(Table 125):
-
The average age of respondents was 44.2 years.
(b)
sex^ of
respondent.
This was predominantly male (95.8 percent).
(c )
(Tables D1, D2).
Education
(Tables El, ~ 2 ) .
.
About half of respondents had reached secondary school level;
18.8
percent of these had obtained school certificate and 9.0 percent University
Entrance.
(d)
(~ablesF], F2).
Tertiary Education.
Most respondents had no tertiary education; a large percentage of
t h o s e who d i d , r e c e i v e d i t a t e i t h e r L i n c o l n C o l l e g e o r Massey U n i v e r s i t y .
T h e r e was a c l e a r c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e i n c r e a s i n g age o f t h e respondent
and d e c r e a s i n g l i k e l i h o o d of h a v i n g r e c e i v e d t e r t i a r y e d u c a t i o n .
(Tables
G I-G 1 0 ) .
(e)
Overseas t r a v e l t o o b s e r v e f a r m i n g .
A t o t a l o f 39.1 p e r c e n t o f r e s p o n d e n t s had a t some time t r a v e l l e d abroad
t o o b s e r v e farming i n o t h e r c o u n t r i e s .
( T a b l e s H1, H2).