SURVEY OF NEW ZEALAND FARMER INTENTIONS
AND OPINIONS, OCTOBER
-
DECEMBER 1 9 8 6
by
J.G. P r y d e
P.J. M c C a r t i n
RESEARCH REPORT NO. 188
AUGUST 1987
ISSN 0069-3790
The Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit (AERU)
operates from Lincoln College providing research expertise for
a wide range of organisations concerned with production,
processing, distribution, finance and marketing.
The AERU operates as a semi-commercial research agency.
Research contracts are carried out for clients on a commercial
basis and University research is supported by the AERU through
sponsorship of postgraduate research programmes. Research
clients include Government Departments, both within New
Zealand and from other countries, international agencies, New
Zealand companies and organisations, individuals and farmers.
Research results are presented through private client reports,
where this is required, and through the publication system
operated by the AERU. Two publication series are supported:
Research Reports and Discussion Papers.
The AERU operates as a research co-ordinating body for the
Agricultural Economics and Marketing Department and'the
Department of Farm and Property Management, Accounting and
Valuation. This means that a total staff of approximately 50
professional people is potentially available to work on research
projects. A wide diversity of expertise is therefore available for
the AERU.
The major research areas supported by the AERU include trade
policy, marketing (both institutional and consumer), accounting,
finance, management, agricultural economics and rural
sociology. In addition to the research activities, the AERU
supports conferences and seminars on topical issues and AERU
staff are involved in a wide range of professional and College
related extension activities.
Founded as the Agricultural Economics Research Unit in 1962
from an annual grant provided by the Department of Scientific
and Industrial Research (DSIR), the AERU has grown t o become
an independent, major source of business and economic research
expertise. DSIR fundina was discontinued in 1986 and from April
1987, in recognition of the development of a wider reseakh
activity in the agribusiness sector, the name of the organisation
was changed to the Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit.
General policy direction is provided by an AERU Review
Committee which meets annually. An AERU Management
Committee comprised of the Principal, the Professors of the two
associated departments, and the AERU Director and Assistant
Director administers the general Unit policy.
AERU REVIEW COMMITTEE
Professor B J Ross, M.Agr.Sc.
(Principal, Lincoln College)
Professor R H Juchau, B.Com., B.Ed., M.A.
(Professor of Accounting and Finance, Lincoln College)
Professbr A C R$ner, B.Com. (Hons), M.Soc.Sc.
(Professor of Agricultural Economics, Lincoln College)
P G Bushnell, B.Agr.Sc., M.Agr.Sc., Ph.D.
(Director, Economics Division, Ministry of Agriculture and
Fisheries)
B D Chamberlain
(President, Federated Farmers of New Zealand)
R T J Clarke, M.Sc., Ph.D.
(Chief Director, Department of Scientific and Industrial
Research)
E J Neilsdn, C.B.E., B.A., B.Com., F.C.A., F.C.I.S.
(Lincoln College Council)
P J Rankin, M.A., M.P.A.
(Director, New Zealand Planning Council)
P Shirtcliffe, B.Com., A.C.A.
(Nominee of Review Committee)
J G Pryde, O.B.E., M.A., F.N.Z.I.M.
(Director, Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit)
(ex officio)
R L Sheppard, B.Agr.Sc. (Hons), B.B.S.
(Assistant Director, Agribusiness and Economics
Research Unit) (ex officio)
AERU MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 1987
Professor A C Bywater, B.Sc., Ph.D.
(Professor of Farm Management)
Professor R H Juchau, B.Com., B.Ed., M.A.
(Professor of Accounting and Finance)
Professor A C Rayner, B.Com. (Hons), M.Soc.Sc.
(Professor of Agricultural Economics)
AERU STAFF 1987
Director
J G Pryde, O.B.E., M.A., F.N.Z.I.M.
Assistant Director
R L Sheppard, B.Agr.Sc. (Hons), B.B.S.
Visiting Research Fellows
G R Griffith, B.Ag.Ec., M.Ec., Ph.D.
Professor L T Wallace, Ph.D.
Senior Research Economist
S K Martin, B.Econ., M.A. (Hons), Ph.D., Dip. Tchg.
Research Economists
G Greer, B.Agr.Sc. (Hons)
R G Moffitt, B.Hort.Sc., N.D.H.
Professor A C Zwart, B.Agr.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D.
(Professor of Marketing)
J G Pryde, O.B.E., M.A., F.N.Z.I.M.
(Director, AERU)
R L Sheppard, B.Agr.Sc. (Hons), B.B.S.
(Assistant Director, AERU)
S.K. Martin, B.Econ., M.A.(Hons), Ph.D., Dip.Tchg.
(Senior Research Economist, AERU)
Research Sociologist
J R Fairweather, B.Agr.Sc., B.A., M.A., Ph.D
Assistant Research Economists
J E Chamberlain, B.Agr.Sc.
T P Grundy, B.Sc. (Hons), M.Com.
J C Robertson, B.Com.Ag., M.Com.
Secretary
R Searle
CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
SECTION 1
BACKGROUND
1.1
Introduction
1.2
The Sample
1.3
Response Rate
1.4
Accuracy
1.5
The Resul t s o f t h e Survey
1.6
Compari sons wi t h Previous Surveys
SECTION 2
INDEX OF TABLES
SECTION 3
CONCLUSIONS
SECTION 4
TABLES OF RESULTS
APPENDICES
2
A. QUESTIONNAIRE
ACKNOULEDGEMENTS
The authors wish t o record t h e i r thanks t o those farmers
throughout New Zealand who, by responding t o t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e provided
us and the i n d u s t r y w i t h a wealth o f data on a wide range of subjects.
I n a d d i t i o n thanks are due t o the sponsoring o r g a n i s a t i o n s
w i t h o u t whose support t h i s exercise would n o t have been p o s s i b l e . They
incl ude :
The AMP Society
New Zeal and Rai 1 ways Corporati on
The New Zealand Farmer
Special thanks a r e due t o Susan Clemes o f t h e Computer Centre
o f L i n c o l n College, f o r her assistance w i t h the data e n t r y . Thanks a r e
a l s o expressed t o the many o t h e r s who helped from time t o time.
SECTION 1
BACKGROUND
1.1
I n t r o d u c t i on
T h i s survey i s t h e n i n t h major survey o f New Zeal and Farmer
I n t e n t i o n s and Opinions.
A l l have been aimed a t p r o v i d i n g p o l i c y
makers and those i n t h e a g r i - b u s i n e s s s e c t o r i n New Zeal and w i t h d a t a
on which they can f o r m u l a t e p o l i c i e s and planning.
,.
The surveys have been c o n t i n u e d i n response t o demands from
those who want d a t a on what farmers a r e i n t e n d i n g t o do, what they a r e
t h i n k i n g on major issues, aspects of t h e f i n a n c i a l side, and what a r e
some o f t h e f a c t o r s t h a t determine t h e i r i n p u t purchases.
I n t h i s survey were i n s e r t e d s p e c i a l q u e s t i o n s on f i n a n c i a l
m a t t e r s r a i s e d i n e a r l i e r surveys. I n a d d i t i o n some q u e s t i o n s were
i n c l u d e d t o a s c e r t a i n some f e e l i n g s and views o f t h e r u r a l s e c t o r on a
range o f i s s u e s i n c l u d i n g Insurance, t h e News Media and Transport.
1.2
w
The Sample
A s t r a t i f i e d random sariiple o f 3,325 d a i r y ,
sheep-beef and
a r a b l e farmers was drawn from an up-to-date l i s t o f farmers c l a s s i f i e d
a c c o r d i ng t o t h e New Zeal and Standard I n d u s t r i a1 C l a s s i f i c a t i on.
The
sample was s t r a t i f i e d by farm t y p e w i t h i n O f f i c i a l S t a t i s t i c a l areas.
Farms below
20 hectares were e l i m i n a t e d
and t h e t o t a l
sample
represented about e i g h t p e r c e n t of t h e e s t i m a t e d 45,000
full-time
farmers i n New Zealand.
1.3
Response Rate
Approximately 1885 farmers ( o r about 57 p e r c e n t ) responded t o
t h e m a i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e ( a copy of which i s i n c l u d e d as Appendix A t o
t h i s report)
and, of these,
1599 s a t i s f a c t o r i l y completed
the
q u e s t i o n n a i r e as a t c l o s i n g d a t e 3 1 December 1986.
The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was dispatched i n t h e f i r s t week o f October
1986. Reminders were s e n t t o non-respondents l a t e r i n October and
a g a i n i n November.
1.4
Accuracy
As wi 11 be seen from t h e t a b l e s , responses were we1 1 spread
throughout t h e 13 P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t s . No f o l l o w - u p surveys o f
non-respondents were undertaken.
1.5
The Results o f t h e Survey
T h i s r e p o r t contains o n l y a p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e l a r g e amount o f
data derived from t h i s comprehensive survey. Those readers who desi r e
addi ti onal a n a l y s i s of the responses should c o n t a c t the authors.
1.6
Compari son w i t h Previous Years
A1 so contained i n t h i s r e p o r t are some tab1 es comparing
resul t s w i t h r e s u l t s of s i m i l ia r questi ons i n previous surveys.
1986
5
SECTION 2
INDEX OF TABLES
Page
No.
1
D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Respondents
a
b
2
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
By Type o f Farm
Comparison - O v e r a l l
D i s t r i b u t i o n O f Respondents Farm Types
a
b
4
-
Average Area o f Farms Surveyed
a
b
c
3
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
Comparison
Overall
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
Comparison
Overall
-
D a i r y Farming
( A ) and (B) Average Cow Number Per Farm
i By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
ii By Age o f Farmer
(C) and (D) Average M i l k f a t Per Farm
i By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
ii By Age o f Farmer
5
7
Sheep And Beef Farming
(A)
Main Farm C l a s s i f i c a t i o n - Sheep/Beef
i By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
(B)
i and i v Ewe Hogget Numbers -~1985 and 1986
ii and v Ewe Hoggets Mated - 1985 and 1986
iii and v i Breeding Ewes Less Hoggets
- 1985 and 1986
(C)
i and iii Beef Breeding Cow/Hei f e r Numbers
1985 and 1986
ii and i v Beef Breeding H e i f e r Numbers
1985 and 1986
-
Fenci ng
New Fencing E r e c t e d 1985-86 and 1986-87 Seasons
a
b
c
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
By Type o f Farm
Comparison - O v e r a l l
10
Computers
A
Respondents who Own o r have Regular Access t o a M i c r o &
Computer
a
b
c
B
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
By Type o f Farm
By Age o f Farmer
Length o f Time Respondents have Owned Micro-Computers
a
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
Types o f Micro-Computers Owned by Respondents
C 1
a
b
C 2
By O v e r a l l
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t s and O v e r a l l
S i z e o f Memory i n Computers Owned by Respondents
a
C 3
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t s and O v e r a l l
Number of D i s k D r i v e s i n Computers Owned by Respondents
a
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t s and O v e r a l l
a
C 5
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t s a n d ' o v e r a l l
Width o f P r i n t e r Owned b y Respondents
R
a
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t s and O v e r a l l
Average Number o f Hours Respondents Use t h e i r MicroaComputer
f o r Business, Education and E n t e r t a i n m e n t
a
H
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t s and O v e r a l l
Respondent' s Major Suppl i e r o f Assi stance f o r SOFTWARE
Problems
a
G
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t s and O v e r a l l
Respondent's M a j o r S u p p l i e r o f A s s i s t a n c e f o r HARDWARE
Problems
a
F
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t s and O v e r a l l
Where Respondents Purchased t h e i r Micro-Computer
a
E
43
C a p a c i t y o f D i s k D r i v e s i n Computers Owned b y Respondents
C 4
D
42
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t s and O v e r a l l
The M a j o r Use Respondents Have f o r T h e i r Computers
a
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t s and O v e r a l l
44
I
Respondents O p i n i o n on t h e Costs and B e n e f i t s o f
Micro-Computers
a
J
Reasons Respondents Do Not Yet Use a Computer
a
K 1
-
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t s and O v e r a l l
Respondents Who Require F u r t h e r I n f o r m a t i o n
B e s t Means o f O b t a i n i n g t h e I n f o r m a t i o n
a
I1
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t s and O v e r a l l
Respondents Who Require F u r t h e r I n f o r m a t i o n
Major Two Areas
a
K 3
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t s and O v e r a l l
Respondent's O p i n i o n On Whether S u f f i c e n t I n f o r m a t i o n
i s A v a i l a b l e on Micro-Computers
a
K 2
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t s and O v e r a l l
-
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t s and O v e r a l l
Farming Education
Repondents O p i n i o n as t o t h e Minimum l e v e l o f Farming/Farm
Managememt T r a i n i n g Required f o r a Person T a k i n g on Farm
Flanagement R e s p o n s i b i t i e s Today
a
b
c
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
By Type o f Farm
By Age o f Farrner
12
Farmer O p i n i o n
(1A)
Product Expectations
1
Respondents Opinions Regarding The S h o r t Term Market
Prospects O f Sheep Meat
a
b
2
Respondents Opinions Regarding The Medium Term
Market Prospects O f Sheep Meat
a
b
3
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
By Type o f Farm
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
By Type o f Farm
Respondents Opinions Regarding The Long Term Market
P r o s p e c t O f Sheep Meat
a
b
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
By Type o f Farm
55
N C U
COW
COW
ee
Respondents Opinions Regarding The Medi urn Term
Market Prospects O f H o r t i c u l t u r a l Produce
a
b
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
By Type o f Fann
Respondents Opinions Regarding The Long Term Market
Prospects O f H o r t i c u l t u r a l Produce
a
b
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
By Type o f Farm
Respondents Opi n i on Regardi ng The S h o r t Term Market
Prospects o f Deer I n d u s t r y Products
a
b
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
By Type o f Farm
Kespondents Opinions Regarding The Medium Term
Market Prospects o f Deer I n d u s t r y Products
a
b
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
By Type o f Farm
Respondents Opinions Regardi ng The Long Term Market
Prospects o f Deer I n d u s t r y Producets
a
b
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
By Type o f Farm
Kespondents Opinions Regarding The S h o r t Term Market
Prospects O f Goat I n d u s t r y Products
a
b
By P r o v i n c i a l Land U i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
By Type o f Farm
Respondents Opinions Regarding The Medi urn Term
Market Prospects O f Goat I n d u s t r y Products
a
b
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
By Type o f Farm
Kespondents Opinions Regarding The Long Term Market
Prospects O f Goat I n d u s t r y Products
a
b
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
By Type o f Farm
Respondents Opinion Regarding t h e F u t u r e Prospects
f o r A g r i c u l t u r a l Produce
a
By O v e r a l l
Respondents Optimi sm Regardi ng t h e Short, Medi urn
and Long Term Market Prospects f o r Various Products
a
Comparison
-
Overall
(2)
I n f l a t i o n Expectati'on
A
Respondents P r e d i c t i o n as t o t h e Rate o f I n t e r n a l
I n f l a t i o n i n New Zealand i n t h e F o l l owing Twelve Months
a
b
c
(3)
E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f Federated Farmers
A
How Respondents Rate t h e E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f
Federated Farmers
a
b
c
d
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
By Type o f Farm
By Age o f Farmer
Comparison - O v e r a l l
(4)
Income S t a b i l is a t i o n Schemes
A
Respondents Opinion on Which Forrn o f Income
S t a b i 1 is a t i o n Scheme They would Support
a
b
c
d
(5)
3z
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
By Type o f Farm
Comparison - O v e r a l l
A
By
By
By
By
P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
Type o f Farm
Age o f Farmer
S i z e o f Farm
Budget F o r e c a s t
,Y Respondents P r e d i c t i o n s as t o t h e L i k e l y S i t u a t i o n
O f T h e i r 1986-87 Budget
a
b
c
d
By
By
By
By
P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
Type o f Farm
Age o f Farmer
S i z e o f Farm
(6)
Rural Bank
A
Respondents I n t e n t i o n s t o a p p l y f o r t h e Rural Bank
D i s c o u n t Scheme
a
b
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
By Type o f Farm
(7)
A i d t o Farniing
A
Respondents O p i n i o n as t o t h e S i n g l e Most I m p o r t a n t
T h i n g T h a t Could be Done t o A s s i s t Farming
a
Overall
(8)
F i r e and Smoke D e t e c t o r s
A
Respondents I n d i c a t i o n as t o Whether They Own a
F ir e Dectector
a
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
B
Respondents I n t e n t i o n t o Purchase a F i r e D e t e c t o r
w i t h i n t h e Next Year
a
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
Spouse Working O f f Farm
Respondents Spouse Who Work Off-Farm
a
b
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
By Type o f Farm
Marketing o f Lamb i n N o r t h America
Respondents Opinion on t h e F u t u r e M a r k e t i n g o f
New Zeal and Lamb i n N o r t h America
a
b
c
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
By Type o f Farm
By Age o f Farmer
The 'Think B i g ' P r o j e c t s
Respondents Opinion on t h e Value o f t h e 'Think B i g '
P r o j e c t s t o Primary I n d u s t r y
a
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
Rural Support/Neighbour Watch Schemes
Respondents Opinion on Rural Support Schemes
a
By P r o v i n c i a l Land Ui s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
Capi t a l S t r u c t u r e and Investment
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 as a t End o f 1985-86 Season
a
By Source
Whether Respondents made any NEW BORROWING d u r i n g t h e
1985-86 Season
a
b
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
By Farm t y p e
P r o p o r t i o n o f NEW BORROWINGS used t o r e f i n a n c e
a
b
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
By Type o f Farm
Respondents Assessment o f Which F a c t o r i s t h e
MOST IMPORTANT WHEN BORROWING FINANCE
a
b
c
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
By Type o f Farm
Comparison - O v e r a l l
101
D 2
Respondents Assessment o f Which F a c t o r i s t h e
LEAST IMPORTANT WHEN BORROWING FINANCE
a
b
c
E
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
By Type o f Farm
Comparison - O v e r a l l
P r o p o r t i o n o f MEW BORROWINGS Made by Respondents U s i n g
Off-Shore Finance
a
b
c
F
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
By Type o f Farm
By Age o f Farmer
Respondents who Borrowed Off-Shore O p i n i o n s on t h e B e n e f i t s
o f Such Loans Cornpared w i t h On-Shore Loans
a
b
c
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
By Type o f Farm
By Age o f Farrner
Respondents Off-Farrfl Investments
G
a
b
c
d
By
By
By
By
P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
Type o f Farm
Age o f Farmer
S i z e o f Farm
The Value of Off-Farm Investments h e l d by Respondents
as a Percentage o f T o t a l Farm C a p i t a l
H
2
a
b
c
d
By
By
By
By
P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
Type o f Farm
Age o f Farmer
S i z e o f Farm
13
Personal
A
Age O f Respondents
a
b
c
B
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
By Type o f Farm
Comparison - O v e r a l l
Sex O f Respondents
a
b
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
By Type o f Farm
SECTION 3
CONCLUSIONS
The f o l l o w i n g i s a summary o f t h e major r e s u l t s and c o n c l u s i o n s
d e r i v e d from t h e responses t o t h e 1986 L i n c o l n C o l l ege New Zealand
Farmer I n t e n t i o n s and Opinions Survey. They a r e s e t o u t i n t h e same
o r d e r as i n t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e (Appendix A ) .
Readers w i s h i n g t o c o n s u l t t h e d e t a i l e d t a b l e s should r e f e r t o
' S e c t i o n 2 - Index o f Tables' f o r page references.
1.
P r o v i n c i a1 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Responses
Once agai n t h e d i s t r i b u t i on by P r o v i n c i a1 Land
District
r e f l e c t e d t h e spread o f farmers throughout New Zeal and.
Almost
t w o - t h i r d s were from t h e N o r t h I s l a n d w i t h t h e South Auckland/Bay o f
P l e n t y P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t accounting f o r j u s t on 25 p e r c e n t o f
respondents;
13 p e r c e n t o f respondents were from t h e Canterbury
P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t - t h e second l a r g e s t response n a t i o n wide and
t h e b i g g e s t o f t h e South I s l a n d d i s t r i c t s .
2.
Average Area O f Farms Surveyed
I n t h i s survey t h e average area of farms n a t i o n a l l y was 322
hectares;
t h i s was 10 p e r c e n t below t h e comparable f i g u r e o f 357
hectares i n t h e 1985 survey. D a i r y farms recorded t h e s m a l l e s t farm
s i z e a t 85.8 hectares, ~ h e e p l ~ e efarms
f
t h e l a r g e s t a t 485.5 w h i l e f o r
Cropping farms t h e average area was 181.0 hectares.
3.
A n a l y s i s By Farm Type
The respondents were d i s t r i b u t e d 31 p e r c e n t m a i n l y d a i r y (32
p e r c e n t i n 1985), 56 p e r c e n t m a i n l y sheeplbeef (53 p e r c e n t in 1985),
3 p e r c e n t m a i n l y c r o p p i n g ( 4 p e r c e n t i n 1985) and 9 p e r c e n t ' o t h e r '
( 9 p e r c e n t i n 1985) - t h e m a j o r i t y o f which b e i n g combinations o f t h e
t h r e e mai n c a t e g o r i es
.
4.
Uai r y Farmers
(A & B ) Cows i n m i l k and h e r d s i z e .
Whereas t h e estimated average number o f cows i n m i l k a t
December 1985 was 166 i t was expected t h a t a t December 1986 t h i s t o t a l
would i n c r e a s e by one t o 167 cows - an i n c r e a s e o f 0.6 p e r c e n t .
D i s t r i c t s such as Hawkes Bay, Nelson, Otago and Southland showed above
average increases i n herd sizes, w h i l e t h e East Coast Land D i s t r i c t ,
We1 1 ington, and Canterbury showed decreases i n herd s i z e .
(C & U ) M i l k f a t P r o d u c t i o n
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 farm t o
be 26,443 k i l o g r a m s f o r t h e 1985-86 season e x p e c t i n g t h i s f i g u r e t o
f a l l t o 26,204 k i l o g r a m s f o r t h e 1986-87 season - a decrease o f 0.9 p e r
cent. The l a r g e s t a n t i c i p a t e d decreases were i n t h e D i s t r i c t s o f
C e n t r a l Auckland, Hawkes Bay, Taranaki, W e l l i n g t o n and Canterbury.
Marlborough,
production.
Otago and Southland showed increases i n expected
5.
Sheep and Beef Farms
(A)
C l a s s i f i c a t i on of Responding Sheep and/or Beef Farms
milkfat
Compared w i t h t h e 1985 Survey t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f respondents
can be recorded as f o l l o w s : High Country 2.2 per c e n t (1.7 i n 1985);
H i l l Country 29.4 per c e n t (29.9 per c e n t ) ; Hard H i l l Country 6.3 p e r
c e n t (6.8 p e r c e n t ) ;
I n t e n s i v e F a t t e n i n g 10.1 per c e n t (10.4 p e r
c e n t ) ; F a t t e n i ng/Breeding 45.4 per c e n t (43.6 per c e n t ) ;
Mixed
c r o p l f a t t e n i n g 6.7 per cent (7.5 per c e n t ) .
(B)
Sheep Numbers
Number o f Ewe Hoggetts.
On average, respondents had 500 ewe hoggets i n t h e i r sheep
f l o c k s as a t 30 June 1985 and an estimated 487 as a t 30 June 1986 - a
decrease of 2.6 per cent. Nelson (34.4 p e r c e n t ) and Central Auckland
(22.3 per c e n t ) had t h e
l a r g e s t estimated percentage decreases.
Northland, Marlborough, Westland and Otago showed increases.
Number o f Ewe hoggets mated.
I n t h e autumn o f 1985 respondents p u t an average o f 64 ewe
hogyets t o t h e ram; the corresponding number f o r t h e autumn o f 1986
was 55 - a decrease o f 14 per cent. Southland recorded t h e l a r g e s t
40 per cent, C e n t r a l
d e c l i n e a t 58 per c e n t f o l l o w e d by Otago
Auckland - 26 p e r c e n t and Nelson - 25 per cent. F o r t h e Marlborough
P r o v i h c i a l Land D i s t r i c t an increase o f 57 per c e n t was estimated i n
t h e number o f ewe hoggets mated. The o t h e r regions t o show an i n c r e a s e
were Canterbury (13.8 per c e n t ) , East Coast (13.3 per c e n t ) and Hawkes
Bay (12.7 p e r c e n t ) .
-
'<
Number o f Breeding Ewes ( e x c l u d i n g ewe hoggets)
A t mid
by mid 1986 t h e
an increase o f
Southland and
Westland showed
(C
1985 respondents had an average o f 1,880 breeding ewes;
average number was estimated t o have'increased t o 1,887
0.4 per cent. The l a r g e s t percentage increases were i n
Northland a t 7.6 and 4.5 per cent.
East Coast and
decreases o f approximately 11 per cent.
Femal e Beef Breedi ng Stock.
The o v e r - a l l average estimated
numbers o f beef breeding
cows/heifers a t 30 June 1986 i s almost 4 per c e n t h i g h e r than a t mid
1985. Westland (20.3 per c e n t ) , Nelson (14.8 p e r c e n t ) and W e l l i n g t o n
(13.0 per c e n t ) showed t h e g r e a t e s t increases.
I n r e s p e c t o f beef breeding h e i f e r s only, t h e r e i s an estimated
r i s e o f 13 p e r c e n t i n t h e number o f these h e i f e r s compared w i t h a y e a r
e a r l ie r w i t h the South Auckl andlBay of P l e n t y , West1 and, Canterbury and
Otago d i s t r i c t s
r e c o r d i n g by f a r
t h e 1a r g e s t estimated average
increases.
7.
Fenci ng
Respondents estimated t h a t an average of 432 metres o f new
fencing had been erected on t h e i r farms i n 1985-86 and t h a t i n t h e
1986/87 season they intended t o e r e c t 285 metres - a decrease o f 34 p e r
cent. Some o f t h e l a r g e s t decreases are expected t o be i n t h e
Northland, Taranaki, Wellington, Westland, Canterbury and Southland
areas. Nelson i s the o n l y D i s t r i c t t h a t i s expecting an increase. A l l
farm types a r e expected t o record a d e c l i n e i n new f e n c i n g w i t h
D a i r y i n g showing the l a r g e s t decrease a t 54 per cent.
10.
Com~u
ters
(A)
Own o r Have Regular Access t o Micro-Computers
S i x per c e n t o f respondents i n d i c a t e d t h a t they owned
micro-computer,
another 4 p e r c e n t had r e g u l a r access t o such
machi ne.
(B)
a
a
Time Computer Owned
The average time respondents had owned a micro-computer was 19
months. Wellington (48 m0nth.s) and Nelson (36 months) were the two
regions where respondents had owned computers t h e longest.
(D)
Where Respondents Purchased Micro-Computers
Computer agents i n respondents nearest c i t y (50 p e r c e n t ) were
the major s u p p l i e r s o f micro-computers, l o c a l agents supplied 26.8 p e r
c e n t o f the equipment purchased.
( E & F) Suppliers o f Assistance
-
Hardware and Software Problems
The s u p p l i e r o f t h e computer was a1 so t h e major s u p p l i e r o f
assistance when Hardware and / o r Software problems a r i s e . 77 p e r c e n t
o f respondents i n d i c a t e d t h a t they would use the s u p p l i e r f o r Hardware
assistance and 54 per c e n t f o r Software assistance.
(GI
Time Spent on Computers
Respondents i n d i c a t e d t h a t each week they use t h e i r computers
on average 3.4 hours on business, 1.7 hours on education and 1.7 hours
on entertainment
(ti
Magor Uses o f Computers
The major uses respondents used t h e i r micro-computers f o r were
(15.2 p e r
' F i n a n c i a l Recording' (33 per c e n t ) , 'Cashfl ow/Budgetingl
c e n t ) and 'Games' (15.2 per cent".
(1)
Costs and Benef it s o f M i cro-Computers
Forty-two p e r c e n t o f respondents i n d i c a t e d t h a t they were o f
t h e o p i n i o n t h a t t h e ' B e n e f i t s ' o f computers exceeded t h e 'Costs'.
T h i r t y t h r e e p e r c e n t were o f t h e opposite opinion.
( J)
Why idot Using Computers
The main
reasons
given by respondents f o r n o t y e t
using
a
computer were 'Too Expensive' (26 p e r c e n t ) , 'Waste o f Time' (17
cent) and 'Need Time' (17 per c e n t ) .
per
Avai 1a b i 1ty o f I n f o r m a t i on, Areas Lacki ng and Sources
(K)
F o r t y - e i g h t per c e n t o f respondents were of the o p i n i o n t h a t
i n s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n was avai 1able on computers. The main areas
t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n were 1a c k i ng were 'Systems ~ v a1ai b l e ' (33 p e r c e n t ) ,
'What Can They Do' (22 per c e n t ) and 'A1 1 Uses' (18 p e r c e n t ) .
Farming Education
11.
The q u a l i f i c a t i o n 'apprenticeship w i t h dad on t h e home farm'
was r a t e d by t h e h i g h e s t number o r respondents as t h e minimum needed b y
a person t a k i n g on farm management r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s today, 25 p e r c e n t
i n d i c a t e d t h i s qua1 if i c a t i o n . Degrees i n A g r i c u l t u r a l Commerce and
A g r i c u l t u r a l Science were r a t e d the lowest a t 1.7 and 0.8 p e r c e n t
respectively
Trade C e r t i f icates were r a t e d h i g h e r than Di p l omas.
.
12
Farmer Opinion On Other Issues
12(1)
Short, medium and l o n g term market expectations
Tarm products
of
specific
Respondents were asked, even i f they do n o t produce a l l o f a
l i s t o f products, t o i n d i c a t e how they f e l t about t h e i r f u t u r e market
prospects i n the short-term ( n e x t y e a r ) , medi um term (1-3 years) and
1ong-term (3-10 years).
b
I n respect o f SHEEPMEAT, 48 p e r c e n t were ' p e s s i m i s t i c ' i n t h e
short-term (80 per cent i n 1985), 33 per c e n t were 'reasonably
s a t i s f i e d ' (12 per c e n t ) and 19 p e r c e n t were ' o p t i m i s t i c ' ( 9 p e r
c e n t ) . I n t h e medium term the l e v e l o f optimism had increased t o 24
per c e n t (16 per cent i n 1985) w i t h 54 per c e n t being 'reasonably
s a t i s f i e d ' (43 per cent), 22 per c e n t were s t i l l p e s s i m i s t i c ( 4 1 p e r
c e n t i n 1985). I n t h e long term optimism rose t o 47 p e r cent, compared
w i t h 42 per c e n t i n 1985.
I n respect o f BEEF, 23 per c e n t were ' o p t i m i s t i c ' i n t h e
short-term and 61 per c e n t e r e 'reasonably s a t i s f i e d ' . I n 1985 t h e
comparative f i g u e s were 16 per cent ' o p t i m i s t i c ' and 59 p e r c e n t
'reasonably s a t i s f i e d ' .
I n the medium term optimism rose t o 30 p e r
c e n t w i t h 6 1 p e r c e n t being 'reasonably s a t i s f i e d ' . This compares w i t h
26 per c e n t ' o p t i m i s t i c ' and 63 per c e n t 'reasonably s a t i s f i e d ' i n
1985. I n regard t o the long-term prospects o f beef, 42 per c e n t were
' o p t i m i s t i c ' (45 per c e n t i n 1985) and 47 per c e n t were 'reasonably
s a t i s f i e d ' (45 per cent i n 1985).
I n respect of WOOL, 53 per c e n t were ' o p t i m i s t i c ' i n t h e
short-term (26 per c e n t i n 1 9 8 5 ) and 43 per c e n t 'reasonably s a t i s f i e d '
(57 per c e n t i n 1985). I n respect o f the medium term, 53 p e r c e n t were
' o p t i m i s t i c ' ( 4 1 per c e n t i n 1985) and 43 per c e n t were 'reasonably
s a t i s f i e d ' (52 per cent i n 1985). For the l o n g term, 56 p e r c e n t s a i d
they were ' o p t i m i s t i c ' ( t h e same as i n 1985) and 6 p e r c e n t were
' p e s s i m i s t i c ' ( a l s o the same as i n 1985).
In
respect o f D A I R Y PRODUCE, 13 per c e n t were ' o p t i m i s t i c '
in
t h e s h o r t - t e r m (17 p e r c e n t i n 1985) and 53 p e r c e n t were ' p e s s i m i s t i c '
(29 p e r c e n t i n 1985). For t h e medium term optimism was a t 19 p e r c e n t
(18 p e r c e n t i n 1985) and pessimism was a t 29 p e r c e n t (30 p e r c e n t i n
1985). For t h e long-term, 37 p e r c e n t were ' o p t i m i s t i c y 3 3 p e r c e n t
i n 1985) and 22 p e r c e n t ' p e s s i m i s t i c 7 2 6 p e r c e n t i n 1985).
On HORTICULTURAL produce, 33 p e r c e n t were 'optirnistic"(31
per
c e n t i n 1985) i n t h e short-term;
over t h e medium term 32 p e r c e n t were
' o p t i m i s t i c ' compared t o 29 p e r c e n t i n 1985; Over t h e l o n g term, 35
p e r c e n t s a i d t h e y were ' o p t i m i s t i c ' ( t h e same as i n 1985).
I n r e s p e c t o f DEER INDUSTRY products i n t h e short-term, 41 p e r
c e n t o f respondents were ' o p t i m i s t i c ' ( 5 1 p e r c e n t i n 1985) and 50 p e r
(40 p e r c e n t ) . F o r t h e medium term t h e
c e n t 'reasonably s a t i s f i e d '
optimism d e c l i n e d t o 35 p e r c e n t ( 3 1 p e r c e n t i n 1985), w i t h 55 p e r
c e n t 'reasonably s a t i s f i e d ' (57 p e r c e n t ) , w h i l e f o r t h e l o n g term 33
per cent
were ' o p t i m i s t i c ' (27 p e r c e n t i n 1985), 47 p e r
cent
'reasonably s a t i s f i e d ' (46 p e r c e n t ) and 20 p e r c e n t " e s s i r n i s t i c ' (27
per cent)
.
Regarding t h e s h o r t term prospects f o r GOAT INDUSTRY p r o d u c t s
50 p e r c e n t were b p t i m i s t i c ' (57 p e r c e n t i n 1985) and 10 p e r c e n t
' p e s s i m i s t i c ' ( t h e same as i n 1985); over t h e medi urn term 43 per c e n t
were ' o p t i m i s t i c ' ( 4 1 per c e n t ) , and 14 p e r c e n t ' p e s s i m i s t i c ' ( 1 2 p e r
c e n t ) and over t h e long-term 40 p e r c e n t were ' o p t i m i s t i c ' (36 p e r
c e n t ) and 23 p e r c e n t ' p e s s i m i s t i c ' (24 p e r c e n t ) .
12 ( 2 )
I n f l a t i o n e x p e c t a t i o n s 1986/87
The respondents' p r e d i c t i o n o f "che 1ik e l y i n t e r n a l i n f l a t i o n
r a t e over t h e n e x t 12 months d i s c l o s e d a n a t i o n a l average p r e d i c t i o n o f
14.6 p e r cent. T h i s p r e d i c t i o n compares w i t h 11.8 p e r c e n t p r e d i c t e d
i n t h e 1985 survey i n r e s p e c t of t h e p e r i o d a y e a r e a r l i e r .
12 ( 3 )
E f f e c t i v e n e s s of Federated Farmers
Respondents were asked t o r a t e t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e
Federated Farmers O r g a n i s a t i o n . Three p e r c e n t r a t e d t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n
as ' v e r y e f f e c t i v e h i t h 28 p e r c e n t r a t i n g i t ' e f f e c t i v e "
43 p e r
c e n t of respondents described Federated Farmers as ' s o - s o ' , 16 p e r c e n t
considered them ' i n e f f e c t i v e ' and 10 p e r c e n t ' v e r y i n e f f e c t i v e '
Cropping and ' O t h e r ' farmers were t h e most c r i t i c a l o f Federated
Farmers w i t h
33 and 28 p e r
c e n t r e s p e c t i v e l y r a t i n g them
as
'ineffective' o r 'very ineffective'
Younger farmers were a1 so more
c r i t i c a l o f t h e o r g a n i s a t i on.
.
.
12 ( 4 )
Income Stab1 is a t i o n
F i f t y - s i x p e r c e n t of respondents r e p o r t e d t h a t i f g i v e n t h e
c h o i c e they would choose a ' s e l f funded' income stab1 is a t i o n scheme
r a t h e r than a scheme funded by l e v i e s imposed on a l l producers. Hawkes
Bay and South1 and showed t h e s t r o n g e s t support f o r ' s e l f funded'
schelnes, whi 1e Marl borough and West1 and s t r o n g l y supported t h e l e v y
Sheep and Beef farmers w i t h 62 p e r c e n t s u p p o r t i n g t h e " e l f
scheme.
funded' scheme were t h e s t r o n g e s t supporters amongst t h e d i f f e r e n t farm
types. A l l age groupings e q u a l l y supported t h e two schemes w i t h
between 52 and 58 p e r c e n t s u p p o r t i n g t h e ' s e l f f u n d e d h c h e m e s .
The
l a r g e r t h e farm t h e g r e a t e r t h e s u p p o r t f o r a ' s e l f funded' scheme.
12(5)
Budget Forecast
The m a j o r i t y of respondents (66 per c e n t ) p r e d i c t e d t h a t t h e i r
budget f o r t h e 1986187 farming year would be described as ' f a i r '
Eleven per c e n t described t h e i r budget prospects as 'good' and 23 p e r
c e n t as 'bad'.
Sheep and Beef farmers were the most o p t i m i s t i c w i t h 14
per cent d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r budget prospects as 'good'. Farmers 'Over
60' and small farmers were t h e most p e s s i m i s t i c w i t h o n l y 8 per c e n t o f
both groups p r e d i c t i n g ' good' budgets.
.
12(6)
Rural Bank
Respondents were asked t o i n d i c a t e how they i n t e n d t o r e a c t t o
t h e Rural Bank mortgage discount scheme.
T h i r t e e n per c e n t o f
respondents i n d i c a t e d t h a t they i n t e n d t o apply f o r the scheme, f o r t y
per cent do n o t i n t e n d t o apply. O f t h e remainder 10 per c e n t a r e
undecided and 37 p e r c e n t do n o t c u r r e n t l y h o l d loans from t h e Rural
Bank. Cropping farmers a t 26 per c e n t a r e t h e group i n t e n d i n g t o make
most use o f t h e discount scheme, w h i l e o n l y 9 p e r c e n t o f d a i r y farmers
i n t e n d t o apply.
12(7)
A i d t o Farming
Sixteen p e r c e n t o f respondents r e p o r t e d t h a t a ' r e d u c t i o n i n
i n t e r e s t r a t e s ' would be the s i n g l e most i m p o r t a n t t h i n g t h a t c o u l d be
done f o r farming i n New Zealand today. Other f a c t o r s t h a t r a t e d h i g h l y
were a ' r e d u c t i o n i n i n f l a t i o n ' (12 per c e n t ) ,
'maintain a stable
d o l l a r ' (10 p e r c e n t ) , 'improved marketing' ' ( 9 p e r c e n t ) , and a 'change
o f Government' ( 8 per c e n t ) .
'%
12(8P
F i r e and Smoke Detectors
Twenty-one
per cent o f
respondents i n d i c a t e d t h a t they
c u r r e n t l y have a f i r e and/or a smoke d e t e c t o r i n t h e i r house. Taranaki
w i t h 42 per c e n t and Hawkes Bay w i t h 34 p e r c e n t r e p o r t e d t h e h i g h e s t
number o f detectors.
While Northland, Westland and Otago ( a l l 7 p e r
cent) r e p o r t e d t h e lowest l e v e l s o f detectors.
F i v e per c e n t o f respondents i n d i c a t e d t h a t they i n t e n d t o
purchase a d e t e c t o r w i t h i n the next year, w i t h a f u r t h e r 23 per c e n t
' n o t sure' o f t h e i r purchasing i n t e n t i o n s .
12(9)
Spouse Working O f f Farrn
Respondents were asked t o i n d i c a t e whether t h e i r spouse worked
off-farm.
Ten per c e n t r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e i r spouse was i n ' f u l l t i m e
p a i d employment' , 20 per c e n t i n ' p a r t time p a i d employment' , 9 p e r
c e n t i n 'unpaid work' and 62 per c e n t do n o t work o f f farm.
12(10)
Marketing o f Lamb i n North America
As a s o l e s e l l e r i n the North American market DEVCO r e c e i v e d 12
per cent support from respondents; the opposing view - o f a l l o w i n g
several s e l l e r s i n the market received 58 per c e n t w i t h 30 per c e n t of
respondents havi ng ' no opi n i on '
.
SheepIBeef and Cropping farmers i n d i c a t e d t h e s t r o n g e s t support
f o r many s e l l e r s i n the 'North American' market w i t h 69 and 67 p e r c e n t
respectively.
Younger farmers a l s o gave stronger support t o t h e many
s e l l e r option.
12(11)
The "Think
Big' Projects
Respondents were very evenly spread over t h e f o u r o p t i o n s given
as t o t h e e f f e c t o f t h e 'Think B i g ' p r o j e c t s t o t h e primary i n d u s t r y .
Twenty-nine per c e n t b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e p r o j e c t s were ' h e l p f u l ' , 25 p e r
c e n t ' harmful ' , 22 per c e n t 'no e f f e c t ' and 25 per c e n t had 'no
opinion'.
Taranaki (44 per c e n t ) , East Coast (32 per c e n t ) and South
AucklandIBay o f P l e n t y (32 per c e n t ) showed above average b e l i e f t h a t
t h e p r o j e c t s were ' he1 p f u l '
.
12(12)
Rural SupportINeighbourhood Watch Schemes
Twenty-three per c e n t o f respondents i n d i c a t e d t h a t they
c u r r e n t l y have a Rural S~apportINeighbourhoodNatch scheme, w h i l e 54 p e r
c e n t consider t h a t t h e r e i s a need f o r one i n t h e i r d i s t r i c t , 16 per
c e n t consider they have no need f o r one and 7 per c e n t have no o p i n i o n .
12
C a ~t a
i l S t r u c t u r e and Investment
(A)
L i abi 1 it i e s a t end of 1985-86 season
Respondents were asked t o i n d i c a t e the d i s t r i b u t i on o f t h e i r
l i a b i l i t i e s a t the end of t h e 1985-86 season. T h e i r responses a r e s e t
o u t i n Table 12(A).
(B)
New Borrowi ngs d u r i n g 1985-86 season
When asked if they undertook any new borrowing ( i n c l u d i n g
o v e r d r a f t ) d u r i n g t h e 1985-86 p r o d u c t i o n season, 30 p e r c e n t i n d i c a t e d
t h i s compares w i t h 36 per c e n t i n t h e 1984-85
i n the affirmative;
season.
(C)
P r o p o r t i o n o f new l i a b i l i t i e s used t o r e f i n a n c e e x i s t i n g debt
Respondents who had new 1 ia b i 1 iti es d u r i n g t h e 1985-86 season
were asked what p r o p o r t i o n of t h e new l i a b i l i t i e s was used t o r e f i n a n c e
e x i s t i n g debt.
On average 30 per c e n t - o f new l i a b l i t i e s was used t o
refinance.
T h i s compares w i t h a f i g u r e o f 22 per c e n t f o r t h e 1984-85
season. Otago a t 41 per c e n t r e p o r t e d the h i g h e s t f i g u r e w i t h Westland
a t one per c e n t r e p o r t i n g t h e lowest f i g u r e .
(D)
Importance o f Borrowing Factors
When asked t o i n d i c a t e which of f o u r nominated f a c t o r s was t h e
most important t o them as a borrower, 49 per c e n t s a i d i t was t h e ' r a t e
o f i n t e r e s t ' , ( t h e same as i n 1985) and 42 per c e n t the 'annual
instalments' , (40 per c e n t i n 1985), 3 per c e n t t h e 'amount a v a i l a b l e
f o r borrowing' ( 6 per c e n t i n 1985) 5 p e r c e n t t h e ' l e n g t h o f time they
had t h e use of t h e funds' ( t h e same as i n 1985) and one per c e n t t h e
' securi t y r e q u i r e d '
.
When asked t o i n d i c a t e t h e l e a s t i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r t o them as a
borrower 61 per c e n t o f respondents s a i d i t was t h e ' s e c u r i t y
r e q u i r e d ' , 22 per c e n t t h e 'amount a v a i l a b l e ' f o r borrowing (45 per
c e n t i n 1985 ) 12 per c e n t s a i d i t was t h e ' p e r i o d o f t h e l o a n ' (38 p e r
c e n t ) , 3 per c e n t t h e i n t e r e s t r a t e ( 5 per c e n t ) and 2 p e r c e n t s a i d
t h e 'annual i n s t a l m e n t s ' (12 per c e n t ) .
(El
Use o f Off-shore Borrowing
Respondents were asked t o what e x t e n t t h e i . r new borrowings were
financed by o f f - s h o r e funds. Of new borrowings j u s t over one per c e n t
was frorn off-.shore funds. Central Auckland ( 5 per c e n t ) and W e l l i n g t o n
( 4 per c e n t ) were t h e regions r e p o r t i n g t h e h i g h e s t f i g u r e s .
East
Coast, Hawkes Bay, Marlborough, Nelson, Westland, Otago and Southland
r e p o r t e d no cases of off-shore borrowing. D a i r y farmers ( 2 per c e n t )
were the farm type r e p o r t i n g t h e h i g e s t f i g u r e s . Farmers 'under 3 6 '
and 'over 60' r e p o r t e d no cases o f o f f - s h o r e borrowing w h i l e farmers i n
the age group '51 -60' i n d i c a t e d t h a t 3.5 p e r c e n t o f t h e i r borrowing
was off-shore.
(F
Benefi t o f Borrowi ng Off-Shore
O f t h e 15 respondents who i n d i c a t e d they had borrowed o f f - s h o r e
60 per cent i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e b e n e f i t s obtained from such borrowing
was g r e a t e r than borrowing on-shore.
Seven per c e n t recorded s i m i l a r
b e n e f i t s and 33 per c e n t r e p o r t e d t h a t they obtained l e s s b e n e f i t from
borrowing o f f - s h o r e compared t o borrowing on-shore.
(GI
O f f - f a r m Investments
Respondents were asked t o i n d i c a t e what type, i f any, o f
o f f-farm investments they c u r r e n t l y
have.
Forty-Seven p e r c e n t
i n d i c a t e d t h a t they have 'no o f f - f a r m investments', 5 per c e n t have
' r e a l e s t a t e ' , 34 p e r c e n t have ' f i n a n c i a l investments' and 14 per c e n t
>have M t h ' r e a l e s t a t e ' and ' f i nanci a1 investments'.
(14)
Off-Farm Investments as a Percentage o f Farm C a p i t a l
Respondents on average have o f f - f a r m investments o f 11 per c e n t
as a percentage o f t o t a l farm c a p i t a l . Westland a t 39 per c e n t
r e p o r t e d t h e h i g h e s t f i g u r e and Taranaki a t 5 p e r c e n t r e p o r t e d the
lowest f i g u r e . The o l d e r t h e farmer t h e h i g h e r t h e percentage o f t o t a l
farm capi t a l he1 d as off-farm investments, whi 1e ' under 36 ' farmers
h e l d 4 p e r c e n t farmers ' o v e r 60' h o l d o f f - f a r m investments o f 2 1 p e r
cent.
13
Personal Data
(A)
Age o f respondents
The average age o f respondents i n t h e Survey was 45 years
same as t h e 1985 survey.
(B)
the
Sex d i s t r i b u t i o n o f respondents
Ninety-two per c e n t o f respondents were male and 8
were female. This compares w i t h 95 and 5 per c e n t i n 1985.
per
cent
SECTION 4
TABLES OF RESULTS
TABLE 1 ( A )
D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Respondents
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
%
North I s l a n d
North1 and
C e n t r a l Auckldnd
South Auckl and/
Bay o f P l e n t y
E a s t Coast
liawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 i n y t o n
South I s l a n d
A
Flarl borouy h
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
9tayo
Southland
N a t i o n a l Average
100.0
D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents
By Provinci a1 Land D i s t r i c t
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
1977
1978
1979
1986
%
of
,o
X
1984
:A
1985
%
1981
:i,
1982
%
1983
%
%
-
9.0
3.0
11.O
3.0
9.5
1.9
9.1
1.7
9.6
1.8
8.7
3.6
10.6
3.5
9.2
3 .O
26 .O
2.0
8.0
10.U
25.0
2.0
6.0
9.0
12.0
24.8
2.9
6.2
8.4
9.9
26.4
2.5
6 .O
9.6
10.9
24.0
2.4
5.9
7.3
11.6
23.6
2.7
6.5
7.8
10.9
22.6
2.7
6 .0
8.4
10.2
24.6
2.3
5.6
8.8
11.5
-
2.0
2.0
1.O
14.0
8 .O
9 .O
2.0
2.0
1.0
11.0
7.0
9.0
2.0
2.4
1.5
13.9
7.9
8.7
2.1
2.4
1.4
13.5
8.3
6.1
2.1
1.8
1.7
14.2
8.5
9.2
1.8
1.7
1.1
14.9
8.3
8.4
2.3
3.0
1.7
13.1
7.3
8.6
1.9
1.8
1.1
13.0
7.2
10.0
....................................................................................................................
North I s l a n d
N
r0
North1 and
Central Auckl and
Sth AucKland/
Bay of Plznty
East Coast
i-tawites Bay
Taranalti
'dell i nyton
6.0
South I s l a n d
t4arl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1 and
TABLE 2(A)
Average Area o f Farms Surveyed
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and Overall
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Average s i z e
(Hectares)
.......................................................................
North I s l a n d
North1and
Central Auckl and
South Auckland/
Bay o f Plenty
East Coast
tlawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 ington
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
Westland
Canterbury
Otayo
South1 and
National Average
321.7
TABLE 2(B)
Average Area o f Farms Surveyed
By Type o f Farm
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Average Size
(Hectares)
.......................................................................
Dairy
SheeplBeef
Cropping
Other
National Average
489
878
51
147
85.8
485.5
181.O
194.0
323.3
TABLE 2(C)
Average Area o f Farms Surveyed
Overall
.......................................................................
Year
Average Size
(Hectares)
.......................................................................
TABLE 3 ( A )
D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Respondents Farm Types
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------.-----Mainly
Dairy
Mainly
Sheeplbeef
Mainly
Cropping
Other
%
%
%
%
147
47
40.8
44.7
49.7
44.7
0.0
2.1
9.5
8.5
389
36
88
139
184
60.4
5.6
3.1
67.6
14.7
30.8
80.6
80.7
26.6
76.1
1.3
5.6
0.0
0.7
2.2
7.5
8.3
10.2
5.0
7.1
30
28
17
204
114
157
16.7
21.4
47.1
6.4
4.4
5,7
60. i)
71.4
47.1
61.8
81.6
83.4
6.7
0.0
0.0
15.2
4.4
0.6
16.7
7.1
5.9
16.7
9.6
10.2
31.2
56.1
3.3
9.4
No. of V a l i d
Observations
North Island
North1 and
C e n t r a l Auckl dnd
South Aucklandl
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 ington
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Can t e r b u r y
Otayo
Southl and
ldational Average
.......................................................................
3
Note: The "Other" c a t e g o r y i s made up o f farms d e s c r i b e d by respondents
as b e i n g %
Sheep/Beef & Cropping
DairyISheep & Beef
Sheep/Ueef & Other
D a i r y & Other
Other - Undefined
3.9
1.6
0.8
0.3
2.8
-------------------------------------------.-------------------------------------------------------------------.-------------------------------
TABLE 3 ( B )
U i s t r i b u t i on of Respondents Farm Types
Overall
........................................................................
........................................................................
Dai ry
Year
%
SheepI'Beef
%
Croppi ng
Other
%
%'
........................................................................
TABLE 4 ( A ) & 4 ( B )
Average Expected Number Cows i n lvlilk Per Farm
a t End o f 1986 Cornpared w i t h End o f 1985
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
......................................................................
----------------------------.------------------------------------------
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
End o f
1985
End o f
1986
%
Change
166
167
0.6
.......................................................................
North Island
North1 and
C e n t r a l Auckl and
South Auckland/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Hay
Taranaki
We1 1in g t o n
60
21
233
2
8
93
27
South I s l a n d
5
6
8
13
5
9
M a r l borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otayo
Southland
N a t i o n a l Average
TABLE 4 ( A ) & 4 ( B )
Average Expected Idumber Cows i n M i l k Per Farrn
a t End o f 1986 Compared w i t h End o f 1985
By Aye o f Farmer
......................................................................
--------------------------------------------.-------------------------No. o f V a l i d
Observations
End o f
1985
End o f
1986
167
168
.......................................................................
%
Change
Under 35
36 - 50
51 - 60
Over 6U
N a t i o n a l Average
0.6
TABLE 4 ( C )
4(D1
Average Mi 1k f a t Per Farm i n 1986/87 Season
Compared with 1985/86 Season
By Provincial Land D i s t r i c t and Overall
.......................................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------No. of Valid
Observations
1985/86
(Kilograms)
1986/87
(i(i 1ograms)
%
Change
,,,,,,,,,---------------',--I-,----,-------------------------------
North I s l a n d
North1 and
Central Auckl and
South Auckland/
Bay o f P l e n t y
E a s t Coast
tiawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 ington
59
21
21338
25625
21408
25114
-
0.3
2.0
227
2
7
92
26
28511
8500
32913
28507
24916
28594
8500
30732
27788
22754
0.3
0.0
- 6.6
-2.5
- 8.7
26443
26204
-
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
Nest1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1 and
National Average
.......................................................................
0.9
TABLE 4 ( C ) & 4(D)
Average Milkfat Per Farm i n 1986/87 Season
Cornpared wi ti.1 1985/86 Season
By Age of Farrner
.......................................................................
--------------------------------------------.--------------------------No. o f Valid
Observations
1985/86
(Ki l oyrarns)
1986/87
X
(Ki 1o g r a ~ n s ) Change
.......................................................................
Under 36
36 - 50
51 - 60
Over 60
National Average
26648
26404
-
0.9
TABLE 5(A)
Main Farm C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f Responding Sheep and/or
Beef Farmers
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
....................................................................................................................
_____-_---___^---------------------------------------_--------------------------------------------------------------
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Mixed Crop
Fattening
%
%
%
%
0 .O
0.0
36.6
28.6
9.9
0.0
14.1
19 .O
38.0
52.4
1.4
0.0
2.2
29.4
6.3
10.1
45.4
6.7
Hill
Country
Hard H i 11
Country
F a t t e n i ng
Breeding
%
Intensive
F a t t e n i ng
%
High
Country
....................................................................................................................
North I s l a n d
IV
'
9
North1 and
C e n t r a l Auckl and
South Auckl and/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 i n g t o n
71
21
119
27
70
37
140
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1and
N a t i o n a l Average
16
19
8
123
91
130
TABLE 5 ( B ) i 8 5 ( B ) i v
Average Estimated Breeding EWE HOGGET
Numbers p e r respondent a t m i d 1986 compared w i t h m i d 1985
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Mid
1985
Mid
1986
500
487
%
Change
.......................................................................
North Island
North1 and
C e n t r a l Auckl and
South Auckl and/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 ing t o n
72
21
119
27
71
36
135,
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1 and
N a t i onel Average
18
20
8
126
93
131
-
2.6
TABLE 5 ( B ) i i & 5(B)v
Average Estimates o f EWE HOGGETS MATED Autumn 1986
Compared w i t h Autumn 1985
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and Overall
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Autumn
1985
Autumn
1986
%
.......................................................................
Change
North I s l a n d
North1 and
Central Auckland
South Auckl and/
Bay o f Plenty
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 ington
72
21
120
27
71
36
139
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Cant e r b u r y
Otago
South1 and
N a t i onal Average
3
18
20
8
126
93
131
64
55
-
.......................................................................
14.1
TABLE 5 ( B ) i i i & 5 ( B ) ~ i
Average Estimated Breeding EWE WMBERS a t 30 June 1986
Compared w i t h 30 June 1985
By P r o v i n c i a1 Land U i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
No. o f Val i d
Observations
Mid
1985
Mid
1986
%
Change
North Island
North1 and
C e n t r a l Auckland
South Auckland/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 ington
72
21
912
1087
953
1046
-
120
28
71
36
139
1533
2397
2576
1659
2121
1495
2128
2465
1625
2125
-
18
20
8
126
93
131
1756
131236 1
1850
2286
2109
1660
1244
320
1869
2342
2269
1880
1887
4.5
3.8
-
2.5
11.2
4.3
2.0
0.2
-
5.5
5.2
11.4
1.O
2.5
7.6
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1 and
N a t i o n a l Averay e
%
-
0.4
TABLE 5 ( C ) i & 5 ( C ) i i i
Average Estimated BEEF BREEDING COWS/HEIFERS I n Herd
a t 30 June 1986 Compared w i t h 30 June 1985
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
M id
1985
Mid
1986
72
21
101
48
102
47
120
28
71
36
139
58
152
76
43
54
59
143
76
45
61
50
52
%
Change
North I s l a n d
North1and
Central Auckl and
South Auckland/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 ing t o n
-
1.O
2.1
1.7
5.9
0.0
4.7
13.0
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1and
N a t i o n a l Average
3
18
20
8
125
93
131
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
4.0
TABLE 5 ( C ) i i & 5 ( C ) i v
Average Estimated BEEF BREEDING HEIFERS i n Herd
a t 30 June 1986 Compared w i t h 30 June 1985
By P r o v i n c i a l Land U i s t r i c t and Overall
.......................................................................
No. o f Val i d
Observations
Mid
1985
Mid
1986
Change
15
17
13.3
.......................................................................
%
North I s l a n d
No,rthland
Central Auckl and
South Auckland/
Bay o f Plenty
East Coast
tiawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1ington
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
tdel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1 and
N a t i onal Average
.......................................................................
E r e c t i o n o f NEW FENCING ( i n m e t r e s ) i n t h e 1985/86
season and t h e 1986/87 season
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t s and O v e r a l l
No. o f V a l i d
observations
%
1985-86
1986-87
143
46
615.5
162.5
311 .0
117.1
385
35
87
137
182
271.3
645.7
376.1
364.9
394.6
431.5
Change
North Island
North1and
C e n t r a l Auckl and
South A u c k l a n d l
Bay o f P l e n t y
E a s t Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
Wellington
49.5
27.9
201.8
615.9
283.5
211.4
266.5
-
284.9
-
34.0
25.6
4.6
24.6
42.1
32.5
South I s l a n d
PSarl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1and
N a t i o n a l Average
TABLE 7(B)
ERECTION o f NEd FENCING ( i n M e t r e s ) i n t h e 1985-86
Season and t h e 1986-87 Season
By Type o f Farm
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
observations
%
1985-86
1986-87
434.8
284.7
Change
Da-i r y
SheepIUeef
Cropping
Other
N a t i o n a l Average
-
34.5
TABLE 7(.C)
Erection of NEW FENCING ( i n metres) in the Current Season
and the Previous Season
Overall
.......................................................................
Year
Current
Season
Next
Season
Per cent
Change
.......................................................................
TABLE 10(A)a
Respondents Who Own o r Have Regular Access t o a Micro-computer
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t s and Overall
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Have
Own
Have Regular
Access
Neither
%
%
%
.......................................................................
North I s l a n d
North1 and
Central Auckland
South Auckland/
Bay o f Plenty
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1i n y t o n
142
47
4.2
10.6
5.6
4.3
90.1
85.1
382
34
88
140
182
6.5
11.8
5.7
3.6
11.O
4.5
5.9
3.4
1.4
4.4
89.0
82.4
90.9
95.0
84.6
5.6
4.2
90.2
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1 and
1559
National Average
TABLE 10(A)b
Respondents Who Own o r Have Regular Access t o a Micro-computer
By Type o f Farm
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Have
Own
X
Have Regular
Access
%
Neither
%
--_--------------------iC-------------------------------------------------
Dai r y
SheepIBeef
Cropping
Other
5.7
National Average
4.1
90.2
TABLE 10(A)c
Respondents Who Own o r Have Regular Access t o a Micro-computer
By Age o f Farmer
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
'>
Have
Own
%
Have Regular
Access
%
5.8
4.2
Neither
%
Unde~?
36
36 - 50
50 - 60
Over 60
National Average
90 .O
TABLE 1 0 ( B ) a
Length o f Time Respondents have Owned Micro-computers
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Months
.......................................................................
North Island
North1and
C e n t r a l Auckl and
South Auckland/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 ington
5
5
23
3
4
4
18
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1 and
N a t i o n a l Average
19
TABLE 10( C ) l a
Types o f Micro-computers Owned by Respondents
Overall
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
No. o f v a l i d
Observations
%
.......................................................................
Type of
M i cro-computer
Apple I1
Spectrum
IBM
Corona
Commodore 64
Sanyo
Comrnodore Executi ve
VC 88
VC 20
H i tach i MB6890
IBlvl AT
Apple L i s a
Spectrovideo
Excel
Atari
Epsom
BBC
Sega
Mac I n t o s h
Dick Smith
I S M 64
Commodore
Apple L I c
Bondwell
Amstrad CPC 6128
Amstrad
I M C 1000
Radio Shack
Tel e v i deo
S i ncla i r
Tandy 1000
Redstone
TABLE 10(C) l b
Type of Computer Owned by Respondents
By Provincial Land D i s t r i c t s and Overall
No. of Valid
Observations
I BM
%
I BM
Commodore
Compatablie
%
%
Other
%
North I s l a n d
North1 and
Central Auckland
South Auckland/
Bay of Plenty
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
Wellington
6
5
0.0
20.0
50.0
20.0
16.7
20.0
33.3
40.0
24
3
4
5
19
12.5
33.3
0.0
0.0
15.8
12.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
26.3
29.2
66.7
25.0
60.0
15.8
45.8
0.0
75.0
40.0
42.1
1
2
0.0
0.0
100 .O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
6
4
5
16.7
0.0
0.0
33.3
0.0
0.0
16.7
50.0
40.0
33.3
50 .O
60.0
10.7
17.9
27.4
44.0
South Island
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Carlterbury
Otayo
South1 and
-
-
-
-
-
84
National Average
TABLE 10(C )2a
Size o f Memory i n Computers Owned by Kespondents
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t s and Overall
.......................................................................
No. o f Valid
Observations
Less than
64K
- 256K
%
%
.......................................................................
64
Over
256K
%
North I s l a n d
Northland
Central Auckland
South Aucklandl
Bay o f Plenty
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
Wellington
5
4
40.0
25.0
60.0
25.0
0.0
50.0
22
2
4
3
20
27.3
0.0
0.0
33.3
20.0
54.5
100.0
100.0
66.7
45.0
18.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.0
27.6
55.3
17.1
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1and
National Average
........................................................................
TABLE 10(C)3a
Number o f Disk D r i v e s i n Computers Owned by Respondents
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t s and Overall
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
None
One
Two o r More
%
%
%
4
5
0.0
20.0
50.0
40.0
50.0
40.0
21
3
4
5
20
9.5
0.0
0.0
40.0
5 .0
61.9
66.7
75 .O
60.0
30.0
28.6
33.3
25.0
0.0
65 .O
11.4
50.6
38.0
North I s l a n d
North1and
Central Auckland
South Auckland/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1ington
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
O'ta y o
South1 and
National Average
TABLE 10(C )4a
Capacity o f Disk Drives i n Computers Owned by Respondents
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t s and Overall
_---------------------------------------------------*-----------------.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Less Than
151K
- 350K
%
%
.......................................................................
151
Over
350K
%
North I s l a n d
North1and
Central Auckl and
South Auckland/
Bay o f Plenty
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 ington
2
4
100 .O
50.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.0
14
35.7
21.4
42.9
3
3
10
33.3
66.7
30.0
0.0
33.3
50.0
66.7
0.0
20 .O
44.4
24.4
31.1
-
-
-
-
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
Sout h l and
National Average
,.---------"+----------------------------------------------------------------.................................................................
TABLE 10 (C )5a
Width o f P r i n t e r Owned by Respondents
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t s and O v e r a l l
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Less Than
80 Col umns
80 o r More
Col umns
%
%
18.9
81.1
North Island
North1 and
C e n t r a l Auckl and
South Auckl and/
Bay o f P l e n t y
E a s t Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 ington
5
3
13
1
4
1
I5
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1 and
N a t i o n a l Average
TABLE 10(D)a
Where Respondents Purchased t h e i r Micro-computer
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and Overall
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
No. of V a l i d
Observations
Local
Agent
%
City
Agent
%
Overseas
%
Other
%
North Island
North1and
Central Auckland
South Auckland/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes t3ay
Taranaki
We1 1ington
6
5
0.0
0.0
16.7
60.0
16.7
0.0
66.7
40.0
24
3
4
4
19
29.2
66.7
25 .O
25.0
42.1
58.3
33.3
25.0
75.0
26.3
4.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.5
8.3
0.0
50.0
0.0
21.1
26.8
50.0
4.9
18.3
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Can t e r b u r y
Otayo
South1 and
N a t i o n a l Averaye
TABLE 10(E)a
Respondent' s Major Suppl ie r o f Assi stance
F o r HARDWARE Problems
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
........................................................................................................
No. o f Val i d
Observations
Computer
suppl ie r
%
Local
Group
%
Neighbour
%
Farm
Accountant C o n s u l t a n t
%
%
School
Teacher
%
50 .O
60.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 .O
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.5
33.3
0.0
0.0
16.7
Other
%
North I s l a n d
North1 and
C e n t r a l Auckl and
South Aucklanal
Bay o f P l e n t y
E a s t Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 ing t o n
ij
5
22
3
4
4
18
90.9
4.5
33.3
33.3
75.0
50.0
83.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.0
0.0
1
2
100.0
50.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.0
0.0
0.0
6
66.7
100.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.7
16.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
77.2
2.5
3.8
1.3
0.0
2.5
12.7
South I s l a n d
Mar7 borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1 and
N a t i onal Average
-
3
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TABLE 10(F)a
Respondent's ~ $ j o rS u p p l i e r o f Assistance
For SOFTWARE Probl ems
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
........................................................................................................
........................................................................................................
No. o f Val i d
Observations
Computer
Supplier
%
Local
Group
%
Neighbour
%
Farm
Accountant Consultant
%
%
School
Teacher
%
6
5
33.3
40.0
16.7
0.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
16.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.3
40.0
23
3
4
4
17
65.2
66.7
25 .O
50.0
47.1
21.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.9
4.3
0.0
0.0
50.0
5.9
4.3
0.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
25 .O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 .O
0.0
5.9
4.3
33.3
25.0
0.0
35.3
1
2
0.0
50.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.0
100.0
0.0
5
3
5
60.0
100 .O
60.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
40.0
0 .O
20.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
53.8
9.0
6.4
2.6
2.6
6.4
19.2
........................................................................................................
Other
%
North Is l and
North1 and
Central Auckl and
South Auckland/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 lington
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1 and
National Average
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TABLE 10(G)
Average Number o f Hours Respondents Use t h e i r Micro-computers f o r
Busi ness, Education and Entertainment
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
......................................................................
No. o f Val i d
Observations
Business
Hours
Education
Hours
Entertainment
Hours
......................................................................
North I s 1and
North1and
Central Auckl and
South Auckland/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 ington
5
5
4.7
3.2
0.7
0.7
0.3
0.5
19
3
4
2
17
2.7
3.0
6.0
0.5
2.8
3.8
0.0
1.O
0.0
1.O
1.7
0.0
5.0
3.5
1.O
1
1
2.0
2.0
5 .O
2.0
10.0
2.0
4
3
3
7-3
4.3
2.7
2.5
0.0
0.3
2.5
2.3
0.0
3.4
1.7
1.7
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1 and
3
National Average
-
-
-
-
TABLE 10(H)a
The Major Use Respondents Wave f o r T h e i r Computers
By P r o v i n c i a l Lahd D i s t r i c t and Overall
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
....................................................................................................................
North I s l a n d
~1
0
North1 and
Central Auckl and
South Auckl and/
Bay of Plenty
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1ington
6
5
0.0
0.0
33.3
0.0
16.7
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.3
0.0
0.0
40.0
0.0
40.0
16.7
0.0
23
3
4
4
19
8.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.3
39.1
33.3
25.0
25.0
26.3
4.3
66.7
0.0
0.0
26.3
8.7
0.0
50.0
25.0
0.0
4.3
0.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 .O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.3
0.0
0.0
25.0
5.3
4.3
0.0
0.0
25.0
21.1
21.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.5
4.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.3
1
2
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0 .O
50.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.0
5
3
4
0.0
0.0
0.0
40.0
66.7
50.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
25.0
3.8
32.9
15.2
7.6
2.5
0.0
0.0
6.3
10.1
15.2
6.3
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
He1 son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1 and
National Average
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
1.
4.
7.
10.
P a y r o l l Work
Livestock/Producti on/Paddock
Accessing Data Bases
Games
Recording
2.
5.
8.
11.
F i nanci a1 Recording
Stock/Inventory Control
Word Processing
Other
3.
6.
9.
Cashfl ow/Budgeti ng
DebtorsICredi t o r s System
Spreadsheets
....................................................................................................................
TABLE 1 0 ( I ) a
Respondents Opinion On t h e Costs and B e n e f i t s of Micro-computers
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
......................................................................
No. o f Val i d
Observations
Benefits
Benefits
Exceed Costs Equal Costs
%
%
B e n e f i t s Less
Than Costs
......................................................................
%
North I s l a n d
North1and
Central Auckland
South Auckland/
Bay of P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 ington
6
5
50.0
40.0
16.7
20.0
33.3
40.0
19
3
2
4
18
36.8
33.3
0.0
0.0
55.6
26.3
33.3
50.0
75.0
27.8
36.8
33.3
50.0
25.0
16.7
1
1
100 .O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
6
3
3
66.7
33.3
33.3
0.0
33.3
0.0
33.3
33.3
66.7
41.7
25 .O
33.3
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1 and
H a t i onal Average
-
-
,
-
-
TABLE 10( J ) a
Reasons Respondents Do Not Yet Use a Computer
t o Assi s t * wi t h Management
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
...............................................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Dont
Know
Too
Expensive
Need
T i me
%
%
%
Waste o f
T i me
%
W i l l Get
One Soon
Other
%
%
...............................................................................................
North I s l a n d
North1 and
C e n t r a l Auckl and
South Auckland/
Bay o f P l e n t y
E a s t Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 ington
120
37
4.2
2.7
27.5
18.9
22.5
18.9
15.0
24.3
4.2
0.0
26.7
35.1
323
26
76
126
145
6.2
11.5
11.8
7.1
4.1
25.4
19.2
22.4
27.0
21.4
18.3
19.2
11.8
18.3
18.6
20.1
15.4
14.5
18.3
13.8
4.6
11.5
7.9
3.2
6.9
25.4
23.1
31.6
26.2
35.2
26
26
17
172
97
142
0 .O
11.5
5.9
5.8
4.1
4.2
23.1
23.1
23.5
30.2
29.9
26.8
11.5
15.4
17.6
12.8
15.5
12.0
19.2
7.7
11.8
15.7
15.5
20.4
3.8
3.8
11.8
9.9
10.3
9.2
42.3
38.5
29.4
25.6
24.7
27.5
5.8
25.8
16.6
17.3
6.5
28.1
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
Sout h l and
N a t i o n a l Average
TABLE 1 0 ( K ) l a
Respondent's Opinion On Whether S u f f i c e n t I n f o r m a t i on
is Avai 1a b l e on M i cro-computers
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
No. o f v a l i d
Observations
Yes
%
No
%
.......................................................................
North I s l a n d
North1 and
Central Auckl and
South Aucklandl
Bay of P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1ington
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1and
National Average
123
38
329
30
76
113
160
TABLE 10(K)2a
Respondent's Who Requi r e F u r t h e r I n f o r m a t i on
M a o r Two Areas
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
-
................................................................................................................
No. of V a l i d
Observations
Cost o f
Hardware
Cost o f
Software
Operating What Can
Costs
They Do
%
Systems
Avai 1abl e
%
Instructions
on Use
%
A1 1
Uses
%
%
%
60
20
5.8
0.0
5.0
2.6
1.7
0.0
27.3
23.1
27.3
38.5
13.2
12.8
19.8
23.1
150
9
30
60
66
3.9
0.0
5.1
6.2
1.5
4.3
0.0
5.1
0.9
4.4
4.6
5.6
1.7
7.1
6.7
22.6
27.8
22 .O
19.5
14.3
30.8
27.8
35.6
34.5
35.6
15.1
22.2
10.2
12.4
17 .O
18.7
16.7
20.3
19.5
15.6
7
9
5
59
47
58
6.3
0.0
10.0
4.3
2.1
8.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
3.2
2.6
12.5
0.0
20.0
6.8
4.3
2.6
18.8
31.6
40.0
25.6
21.3
17.5
37.5
36.8
30.0
32.5
36.2
32.5
6.3
21.1
0.0
14.5
12.8
14.0
18.8
10.5
0 .O
14.5
20.2
21.9
4.3
3.3
4.7
22.4
32.8
14.1
18.4
................................................................................................................
%
N o r t h I s 1and
North1 and
Central Auckl and
South Auckl and/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 ington
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
Sou t h l and
N a t i o n a l Average
TABLE 10(K)3a
Respondent' s Who Requi r e F u r t h e r I n f o r m a t i on
Best Means o f O b t a i n i n g t h e I n f o r m 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 and O v e r a l l
-
....................................................................................................................
No. o f Val i d
Observations
Formal Local
Informal
Workshops Government
Booklet
Advi sors
Demonstrations Dernonstrati ons Seminars
Form
%
%
%
%
%
Commerci a1
Consultants
%
....................................................................................................................
Articles
Magazi nes
%
North Island
VI
Ln
North1 and
Central Auckl and
South Auckland/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
Nell ington
60
20
15 .O
10.0
20 .O
15.0
16.7
25.0
18.3
20.0
6.7
5.0
15.0
10.0
8.3
15.0
154
1
10
7
15
10.4
0.0
0.0
28.6
13.3
20.1
0.0
10 .O
28.6
40 .O
23.4
100.0
40.0
14.3
13.3
24.3
0.0
20 .O
14.3
20.0
8.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 .O
8.1
0.0
20.0
14.3
13.3
8.1
0.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
3
5
1
28
28
12
33.3
0.0
0 .O
7.1
10.7
33.3
0.0
0.0
100.0
25.0
17.9
16.7
33.3
40.0
0.0
17.9
14.3
33.3
0.0
40.0
0.0
14.3
25 .O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.1
10.7
8.3
33.3
20.0
0.0
21.4
17.9
8.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.1
3.6
0.0
11.7
20.7
21.2
19.6
6.7
14.0
6.1
South I s 1and
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Cant e r b u r y
Otago
South1 and
179
N a t i o n a l Average
....................................................................................................................
TABLE 11(A)a
Respondents Opinion as t o The Minimum Level o f Farming/Farm Management
T r a i n i ng Requi r e d f o r a Person Taking on Farm lilanagement Responsi b i 1it i e s Today
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
===================================================s===============================================
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
1
%
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
136
36
5.9
2.8
15.4
2.8
18.4
20.6
2.9
13.9
19.9
25.0
11.8
5.6
0.7
0.0
2.2
0.0
22.8
19.4
349
30
76
127
160
4.9
0.0
9.2
6.3
4.4
14.9
23.3
14.5
20.5
23.1
18.1
6.7
13.2
12.6
11.3
7.4
16.7
9.2
7.1
15.6
22.3
20.0
25 .O
8.7
11.3
8.3
13.3
19.7
7.1
8.1
0.9
0.0
0 .O
0.0
4.4
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
22.3
20.0
9.2
37.8
20.6
26
27
15
3.8
0.0
6.7
3.7
3.8
3.7
34.6
44.4
33.3
17.0
15.1
24.3
3.8
7.4
13.3
8.5
7.5
11.0
7.7
7.4
6.7
17 .O
16.0
11.0
3.8
7.4
20.0
9.6
9.4
12.5
15.4
7.4
0 .O
13.8
10.4
9.6
15.4
0.0
0.0
1.6
1.9
2.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.9
0.7
15.4
25.9
20.0
28.2
34.0
24.3
4.7
18.6
13.4
10.6
15.5
10.2
1.7
0.8
24.5
North I s l a n d
WI
m
North1 and
Central Auckl and
South Auckl and/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 ington
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
Westl and
Can t e r b u r y
Otago
South1 and
National Average
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
188
106
136
A Pass i n A g r i c u l t u r a l a t Secondary School
A one y e a r course a t Tel f o r d / F l ock House/Techi c a l In s t i t u t e
Trade C e r t i f i c a t e i n Farming
O i p l oma i n A g r i c u l t u r e
Trade C e r t i f i c a t e i n Farm Management
6.
7.
8.
9.
Diploma i n Farm Management
Bachelor o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Commerce
Bachel o r in Agri c u l t u r a l Science
An 'Apprenticeship' w i t h Dad on home farm.
TABLE 11(A)b
Respondents Opinion as t o The Minimum Level o f Farming/Farm Management
T r a i n i ng Requi r e d f o r a Person Taking on Farm Management Responsi b i 1iti es Today
By Type o f Farm
.................................................................................................................
2
%
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
1
%
453
777
44
130
5.1
4.5
0.0
5.4
16.1
20.8
11.4
16.2
4.6
18.6
7
3
4
5
%
%
%
6
%
%
8
%
9
%
2 1 .O
9.8
4.5
11.5
5.3
12.2
25 .O
13.8
20.5
13.1
9.1
16.2
7.1
11.7
18.2
9.2
0.7
2.1
4.5
2.3
0.7
1.O
2.3
0.0
23.6
24.7
25 .O
25.4
13.4
10.5
15.7
10.2
1.7
0.9
24.4
.................................................................................................................
Dai ry
SheepIBeef
Cropping
Other
National Average
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
A Pass i n A g r i c u l t u r a l a t Secondary School
A one year course a t Telford/Flock House/Techical I n s t i t u t e
Trade C e r t i f i c a t e i n Farming
Dip1 oma i n A g r i c u l t u r e
Trade C e r t i f i c a t e i n Farm Management
6.
7.
8.
9.
Diploma i n Farm Management
Bachelor o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Commerce
Bachel o r in Agri c u l t u r a l Sci ence
An 'Apprenticeship' w i t h Dad on home farm.
TABLE 11(A)c
Respondents Opinion as t o The Minimum Level o f Farming/Farm Management
T r a i n i ng Requi r e d f o r a Person Taki ng on Farm Management Responsi b i 1 iti es Today
By Age o f Farmer
.................................................................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Under 36
36 - 50
51 -. 60
Over 60
National Average
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
293
644
299
162
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
3.1
5 .O
6.8
16.0
18.9
21.4
16.7
10.9
15.2
12.4
13.0
12.3
10.9
10.0
8.6
18.8
16.9
15.1
6.8
8.2
10.7
10.4
11.1
3.1
1.1
2.0
1.2
0.3
1.4
0.7
0.0
27.3
19.9
23.7
35.8
4.6
18.6
13.4
10.7
15.7
10.2
1.7
0.9
24.1
4.3
A Pass i n Agri c u l t u r a l a t Secondary School
A one y e a r course a t Te1 f o r d / F l ock House/Techical I n s t i t u t e
Trade C e r t i f i c a t e i n Farming
Diploma i n A g r i c u l t u r e
Trade C e r t i f i c a t e i n Farm Management
6.
7.
8.
9.
Diploma i n Farm Management
Bachelor o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Commerce
Bachel o r in Agri c u l t u r a l Science
An 'Apprenticeship' w i t h Dad on home farm.
TABLE 12(1A)la
Respondents Opinions Reyardiny t h e SHORT TERM ( N e x t Year)
Market Prospects o f SHEEP MEAT
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
----.------------------------------------------------------------------.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Optimistic
Reasonably
Satisfied
Pessimistic
%
%
%
123
41
11.4
9.8
29.3
31.7
59.3
58.5
312
30
78
109
172
16.7
26.7
11.5
15.(5
19.2
37.8
40.0
25.6
34.9
34.3
45.5
33.3
62.8
49.5
49.5
27
27
15
22.2
18.5
33.3
14.8
20.0
20.0
190
25.3
2b.2
20.7
31.1
34.6
38.7
44.4
66.7
60.0
43.7
39.3
40.7
18.7
33.7
47.6
.......................................................................
North I s l a n d
North1and
C e n t r a l Auckland
South Auckl and/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Iiawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 i n g t o n
South I s l a n d
Mar: borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otag0
South1 and
107
150
N a t i o n a l Average
Respondents Opinions Kegardi ny t t i e SHORT TERM (Next Year)
Market Prospects o f SHEEP MEAT
By Type o f Farin
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Dai r y
Sheep/Beef
Cropping
Other
N a t i o n a l Average
394
809
42
126
Optimistic
Reasonably
Satisfied
P e s s i ~ nsi t i c
%
%
%
15.5
20.4
16.7
15.9
34.8
34.5
26.2
28.6
49.7
45.1
57.1
55.6
18.5
33.8
47.8
TABLE 12 (1A)Za
Respondents Opinions Regarding t h e MEUIUM TERM (1-3 Years)
Market Prospects o f SHEEP MEAT
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
No. o f Val i d
Observations
Optimistic
Reasonably
Sa.ti s f ied
Pessimistic
X
%
%
.......................................................................
North I s l a n d
North1and
Central Auckl and
South Auckland/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1ing t o n
131
42
13.0
9.5
55.0
64.3
32.1
26.2
332
30
78
111
174
22.6
20.0
21.8
16.2
24.7
55.7
56.7
61.5
59.5
58.6
21.7
23.3
16.7
24.3
16.7
26
24
15
195
109
148
34.6
33.3
13.3
30.3
35.8
28.4
42.3
50.0
53.3
49.2
45.0
50.7
23.1
16.7
33.3
20.5
19.3
20.9
24.0
54.3
21.8
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
Wes t 1 and
Canterbury
Otago
Southland
N a t i o n a l Average
3
TABLE 12(1A)2b
Respondents Opinions Regarding the MEUIUM TERM (1-3 Years)
Market Prospects o f SHEEP MEAT
By Type o f Farm
----------------------------------------------------------------------.......................................................................
No. o f Val i d
Observations
Optimistic
%
Uai r y
Sheep/Beef
Cropping
Other
N a t i o n a l Average
412
816
44
133
Reasondbly
Satisfied
%
59 .0
Pessimistic
%
17.0
27.7
15.9
23.3
51.8
56.8
54.1
24.0
20.5
27.3
22.6
23.8
54.3
21.9
TABLE 12 (1A)3a
Respondents Opinions Regarding t h e LONG TERM (3-10 y e a r s )
Market Prospects o f SHEEP MEAT
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
-_--_------------.-----------------------------------------------------.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Optimistic
Reasonably
Satisfied
Pessimistic
%
%
%
128
43
35.2
46.5
38.3
32.6
26.6
20.9
325
29
80
112
172
42.8
48.3
50.0
31.3
44.2
37.8
37.9
32.5
53.6
38.4
19.4
13.8
17.5
15.2
17.4
25
26
16
189
1U8
148
60.0
53.8
43.8
53.4
60.2
58.1
28 .O
26.9
31.3
31.2
22.2
25.7
12.0
19.2
25 .O
15.3
17.6
16.2
46.9
34.9
18.2
North I s l a n d
North1 and
C e n t r a l Auckland
South Auckland/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 ington
South I s l a n d
Marl borouy h
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1 and
N a t i o n a l Average
'
.......................................................................
3
TABLE 12(1A)3b
Respondents Opinions Regarding t h e LONG TERM (3-10 Years)
Market Prospects o f SHEEP MEAT
By Type o f Farm
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
No. o f Val i d
Observations
Optimistic
%
Dai r y
Sheep/Reef
Cropping
Other
N a t i o n a l Average
4U6
812
43
129
Reasonably
Satisfied
%
Pessirni ~ t i c
%
38.9
49.9
60.5
46.5
42.1
32.0
27.9
34.1
19.0
18.1
11.6
19.4
46.7
35.0
18.3
TABLE 12(1A)4a
Respondents Opinions Regarding t h e SHOKT TERM (Next Year)
Market Prospects o f BEEF
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Optimistic
%
Reasonably
Satisfied
%
Pessirni s t i c
%
North Island
North1 and
C e n t r a l Auckl and
South Auckl and/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Tarariaki
We1 1 ingLon
126
41
16.7
12.2
69.0
53.7
14.3
34.1
322
28
78
111
172
22.7
39.3
12.8
21.6
25.0
63.0
53.6
75.6
65.8
65.1
14.3
7.1
11.5
12.6
9.9
28
27
15
184
104
140
28.6
22,2
13.3
30.4
28.8
22.9
57.1
55.6
73.3
54.3
52.9
54.3
14.3
22.2
13.3
15.2
18.3
22.9
23.3
61.3
15.3
South I s l a n d
Marl borouy h
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1 and
N a t i o n a l Average
TABLE 12 (1A)4b
Respondents Opinions Regarding t h e SHOKT TERM (Next Year)
Market Prospects o f BEEF
By Type o f Farm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Optitnistic
X
Dai ry
Sheep/Beef
Cropping
Other
N a t i o n a l Average
405
800
40
122
Reasonably
Sati sfied
%
Pessimistic
%
21 .O
24.2
22.5
22.1
65.2
59.6
62.5
60.7
13.8
15.9
15.0
17.2
23.2
61.4
15.4
TABLE 12(1A)5a
Respondents Opinions Reyardi ng ttie MEDIUM TERN (1-3 Years)
Market Prospects o f BEEF
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
----------------.--.----------------------------------------------------.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Optimistic
%
Reasonably
Satisfied
Pessilni ~ t i c
X
%
.......................................................................
North I s l a n d
North1 and
C e n t r a l Auckland
South Auckland/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Iiawkes i3ay
Taranaki
Me11 i n g t o n
129
43
27.1
20.9
59.7
65.1
13.2
14.0
329
30
78
113
174
30.1
30.0
26.9
31.0
30.5
62.0
63.3
67.9
61.1
59.8
7.9
6.7
5.1
8.0
9.8
25
26
16
189
109
142
36 .O
19.2
18.8
30.7
34.9
28.2
52.0
69.2
75.0
63.5
58.7
54.2
12.0
11.5
6.3
5.8
6.4
17.6
29.5
61.2
9.3
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West I and
Canterbury
Otago
South1 and
N a t i o n a l Average
TABLE 12(1A)5b
Respondents Opinions Regarding t h e MEDIUM TERM (1-3 Years)
Market Prospects o f BEEF
By Type o f Farrn
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Optimistic
%
Dai r y
Sheep/Beef
Cropping
Other
d a t i onal Average
415
815
43
123
Reasonably
S a t i s f ied
Pessimistic
%
X
27.7
30.3
32.6
28.5
63.1
60.0
55.8
63.4
9.2
9.7
11.6
8.1
29.4
61.1
9.5
TABLE 12 (1A)6a
Respondents Opinions Reyardi ny t h e LUNG TERM (3-10 y e a r s )
Market Prospects of BEEF
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
___-------------------------------------------------------------------No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Optimistic
Reasonably
Satisfied
P e s s i ~ nsi t i c
%
%
%
132
42
41.7
45.2
43.2
45.2
15.2
9.5
332
31
80
111
172
45.5
51.6
42.5
38.7
39.5
44.3
41.9
51.3
52.3
50.6
10.2
6.5
6.3
9.0
9.9
25
27
15
183
105
137
40.0
33.3
40.0
37.7
47.6
43.8
56.0
55.6
26.7
51.9
43.8
37.2
4.0
11.1
33.3
10.4
8.6
19.0
42.4
46.5
11.1
.......................................................................
North I s l a n d
M o r t h l and
C e n t r a l Auckl and
South Auckland/
Bay of P l e n t y
E a s t Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 i n g t o n
South I s l a n d
Marl borouy h
Me1 son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1 and
N a t i o n a l Average
TABLE 12(1A)6b
Respondents Opinions Regarding t h e LONG TERM (3-10 Years)
Market Prospects o f BEEF
By Type o f Farin
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Op'tiinistic
%
Dai ry
Sneep/Beef
Cropping
Other
N a t i o n a l Average
413
807
40
125
Reasonably
Satisfied
Pessimistic
%
%
42.9
42.3
32.5
43.2
46.2
46.3
47.5
48.8
10.9
11.4
20.0
8.0
42.2
46.6
11.2
TABLE 12(1A)7a
Respondents Opinions Regarding t h e SHORT TERM (Next Year)
Market Prospects o f WOOL
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Optimistic
Reasonably
S a t i s f ie d
Pessimi s t i c
%
%
%
126
42
48.4
42.9
44.4
47.6
7.1
9.5
317
28
79
112
173
47.9
35.7
62.0
38.4
64.2
47 .O
57.1
35.4
55.4
31.8
5 .O
7.1
2.5
6.3
4.0
26
27
15
190
106
148
42.3
48.1
73.3
57.9
61.3
56.1
50.0
48.1
26.7
39.5
35.8
42.6
7.7
3.7
0.0
2.6
2.8
1.4
53.1
42.6
4.3
.......................................................................
North I s l a n d
North1 and
C e n t r a l Auckl and
South Auckland/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Ijawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 ington
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otayo
South1 and
N a t i o n a l Average
TABLE 12(1A)7b
Respondents Opinions Regardi ng t h e SHORT TERM (Next Year)
Market Prospects o f WOOL
By Type o f Farin
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Optimistic
%
Dai ry
Sheep/Beef
Cropping
Other
N a t i o n a l Average
402
810
43
122
Reasonably
Satisfied
P e s s i ~ nsi t i c
"/,
%
39.8
59.0
55.8
55.7
53.7
37.8
44.2
38.5
6.5
3.2
0.0
5.7
53.0
42.7
4.3
TABLE 12 (1A )8a
Respondents Opinions Regarding t h e MEDIUM TERM (1-3 Years)
Market Prospects o f WOOL
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Optimistic
%
Reasonably
Satisfied
Pessimistic
%
%
Worth I s l a n d
North1 and
C e n t r a l Auckl and
South Auckl and/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 ington
126
42
46.0
38.1
48.4
59.5
5.6
2.4
323
28
77
111
172
52.0
42.9
55.8
40.5
57 .O
43.3
50.0
42.9
53.2
37.8
4.6
7.1
27
26
15
194
105
150
48.1
50. U
60.0
59.3
60.0
56.7
44.4
50.0
40.0
38.1
37.1
41.3
7.4
0.0
0.0
2.6
2.9
2.0
1.3
6.3
5.2
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
Southland
N a t i o n a l Average
Respondents Opinions Kegardi ng t h e MEDIUM TERM (1-3 Years)
Market Prospects o f WOOL
By Type o f Farrn
.......................................................................
-------------------.-------------.--------------------------------------No. o f V a l i d
0 b s e r v a t i ons
Optimistic
X
Dai ry
Sheep/beef
Croppi n y
0t h e r
N a t i onal Average
4U3
808
42
133
Rea~ona~bly Pessimistic
Satisfied
%
%
43.2
57.3
59.5
53.4
51.1
40.1
38.1
39.8
5.7
2.6
2.4
6.8
52.9
43.2
3.9
TABLE 12 ( 1A )9a
Respondents Opinions Regarding t h e LONG TERM (3-10 y e a r s )
Market Prospects o f WOOL
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Optimistic
Reasonably
S a t i s f ied
Pessimi s t i c
X
%
%
.......................................................................
North I s l a n d
North1 and
C e n t r a l Auckl and
South Auckl and/
Bay of P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
Wellington
126
42
52.4
50.0
41.3
42.9
6.3
7.1
325
30
81
112
170
53.8
53.3
54.3
44.6
55.9
39.4
40.0
42.0
5 1 .t3
38.2
6.8
6.7
3.7
3.6
5.9
25
27
16
193
lU7
145
60.0
44.4
56.3
63.7
63.6
57.2
32 .O
48.1
37.5
31.6
31.8
36.6
8.0
7.4
6.3
4.7
4.7
6.2
55.5
38.7
5.7
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otayo
South1 and
N a t i o n a l Average
TABLE 12(1A)9b
Respondents Opinions Regarding the LONG TERM (3-10 Years)
Market Prospects o f WOOL
By Type o f Farm
-----------------------.-----------------------------------------------.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Dairy
Sheep/Beef
Cropping
Other
N a t i o n a l Average
403
813
44
129
Optitnistic
Reasonably
Satisfied
Pessimi s t i c
X
%
%
47.1
59.2
54.5
58.9
45.9
35.8
40.9
34.9
6.9
5.0
4.5
6.2
55.5
38.8
5.7
TABLE 12(1A)lOa
Respondents Opinions Regarding t h e SHORT TERM (Next Year)
Market Prospects of DAIRY PKODUCE
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Optimistic
%
Reasonably
Sati sfied
Pessiini s t i c
%
%
.......................................................................
North I s l a n d
North1 and
C e n t r a l Auckl and
South Auckl and/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
Wellington
123
38
13.0
5.3
31.7
18.4
55.3
76.3
324
24
75
114
161
17.3
8.3
10.7
23.7
9.9
34.0
58.3
42.7
27.2
38.5
48.8
33.3
46.7
49.1
51.6
27
27
15
176
100
130
7.4
18.5
13.3
11.9
7.0
11.5
29.6
14.8
20.0
31.3
49.0
29.2
63.0
66.7
66.7
56.8
44.0
59.2
13.4
33.9
52.7
S o u t t ~I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel soti
West1 and
Canterbury
Otdgo
South1 and
~ d a tonal
i
Average
TABLE 12(1A)lOb
Respondents Opinions Regardi ny t h e SHORT TERM (Next Year)
Market Prospects o f DAIRY PRODUCE
By Type o f Farm
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Optimistic
%
Reasonably
S a t i s f ied
%
Pessimi s t i c
.......................................................................
Dai r y
Sheep/Beef
Croppi n y
Other
N a t i o n a l Average
422
755
37
113
%
18.2
11.4
5.4
8.8
27.3
37.2
37.8
35.4
54.5
51.4
56.8
55.8
13.2
33.9
52.9
TABLE 12(1A)11a
Respondents Opinions Regarding t h e MEDIUlv1 TERM (1-3 Years)
Market Prospects o f DAIRY PRODUCE
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
----------------------------.-----------------------------------------------------------------------.------------------------------------------
No. o f V a l i d
Observati sns
Optimistic
%
Reasonably
S a t i s f ied
Pessimi s t i c
%
%
.......................................................................
North Island
North1and
C e n t r a l Auckland
South Aucklandl
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 i ngton
130
40
21.5
15.0
52.3
50.0
26.2
35.0
328
25
75
117
163
24.7
24.0
29.1
16.6;
57.0
64.0
57.3
41.8
52.8
12.0
30.7
29.1
30.7
11.5
8-0
20.0
14.4
l5,0
12.3
57.7
68.0
33.3
48.9
53.0
44.6
30.8
24.0
46.7
36.7
32.0
43.1
18.9
52.1
29,O
"12.0
18.3
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Idel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1 and
26
25
15
180
100
130
N a t i o n a l Average
Respondents Opinions Regarding the MEDIUM TERM (1-3 Years)
Market Prospects o f DAIRY PRODUCE
By Type o f Farm
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Optimistic
%
Reasonably
Satisfied
Pessimistic
%
%
.......................................................................
Dai r y
SheepIUeef
Croppi ny
Other
N a t i o n a l Average
43 1
760
38
116
30.6
13.4
10.5
13.8
51.5
51.7
55.3
53.4
17.9
34.9
34.2
32.8
18.9
51.9
29.2
TABLE 12 (1A) 12a
Respondents 0 p i n i ons Regarding t h e LONG TERM (3-10 y e a r s )
Market Prospects o f D A I R Y PRODUCE
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Opti~nistic
Reasonably
Satisfied
Pessimistic
X
%
%
North I s l a n d
North1 and
Central Auckland
South Auckland/
Bay of P l e n t y
E a s t Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
Wellington
129
39
36.4
56.4
44.2
28.2
19.4
15.4
340
25
76
117
163
50.6
36.0
28.9
44.4
30.7
35.0
44.0
39.5
35.9
48.5
14.4
20.0
31.6
19.7
20.9
25
25
15
176
100
128
40.0
28.0
33.3
27.3
30.0
26.6
44.0
52.0
26.7
46.0
41 .O
39.1
16.0
20.0
40.0
26.7
29.0
34.4
37.4
40.4
22.2
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
Sou t h l and
N a t i o n a l Average
.......................................................................
b
TABLE 12 (1A)12b
Respondents Opinions Regarding t h e LONG TERM (3-10 Years)
Market Prospects o f D A I R Y
By Type o f Farin
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Optitnistic
%
Reasonably
S a t i s f ied
%
Pessimi s t i c
.......................................................................
Dai r y
Sheep/Beef
Croppi ny
Other
N a t i o n a l Average
440
7 58
36
117
%
59.8
26.3
22.2
31.6
28.6
46.7
50.0
39.3
11.6
27.0
27.8
29.1
37.5
40.3
22.2
TABLE 12 (1A) 13a
Respondents Opi n i ons Ueyardi ng t h e SHOUT TERM (Next Year)
Market Prospects o f HURTICULTUKAL PRODUCE
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
------------------------------.----------------------------------------.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Optiinistic
%
Reasonably
Satisfied
Pessimistic
%
%
.......................................................................
North Island
P l o r t t ~and
l
Central Auckl and
South Auckland/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranak i
Well i n g t o n
123
41
35.8
24.4
54.5
68.3
9.8
7.3
305
23
73
108
160
32.5
39.1
38.4
31.5
29.4
59.3
60.9
52.1
55.6
63.1
8.2
0.0
9.6
13.0
7.5
26
25
15
173
101
126
38.5
36.0
40.0
29.5
33.7
32.5
50.0
60.0
53.3
59.0
54.5
57.1
11.5
4.0
6.7
11.6
11.9
10.3
32.5
58.0
9.5
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
~tayo.
South1 and
N a t i o n a l Average
"?
.......................................................................
TABLE 12(1A)13b
Respondents Opinions Regarding t h e SHORT TERM (Next Year)
Market Prospects o f HORTICULTURAL PKODUCE
By Type o f Farm
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Optimistic
%
Reasonably
Satisfied
Pessirni s t i c
%
%
.......................................................................
Dai r y
Sheep/Beef
Cropping
Other
N a t i o n a l Average
394
744
40
114
29.9
34.0
37 5
29.8
.
59.6
56.9
57.5
60.5
10.4
9.1
5.0
9.6
32.5
58.0
9.4
TABLE 12 (1A)14a
Respondents Opinions Regarding t h e MEDIUM TERM (1-3 Years)
Market Prospects o f HORTICULTURAL PRODUCE
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Optimistic
%
Reasonably
S a t i s f ie d
%
Pessimistic
%
--------d--------------------------------------------------------------
North Island
North1 and
C e n t r a l Auckland
South Auckland/
Bay o f P l e n t y
E a s t Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 in g t o n
125
42
35.2
26.2
57.6
71.4
7.2
2.4
322
26
73
108
158
34.5
46.2
31.5
29.6
31.0
58.7
46.2
61.6
61.1
60.1
6.8
7.7
6.8
9.3
8.9
23
25
15
174
101
130
34.5
20.0
26.7
25.9
35.6
29.2
56.5
76.0
66.7
58.6
53.5
63.1
8.7
4.0
6.7
15.5
10.9
7.7
31.6
59.7
8.7
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otayo
Southland
N a t i o n a l Average
TABLE 12 (1A )14b
Respondents Opinions Regarding t h e i4EDIUIVI TERM (1-3 Years)
Market Prospects o f HORTICULTURAL PRODUCE
By Type o f Farm
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Optimistic
%
Reasonably
Satisfied
Pessimi s t i c
%
%
.......................................................................
Dairy
Sheep/Beef
Cropping
Other
N a t i o n a l Average
404
755
37
117
30.7
32.1
35.1
29.9
62.1
58.3
56.8
63.2
7.2
9.7
8.1
6.8
31.5
59.9
8.6
Respondents Opinions Regarding the LONG TERM (3-10 y e a r s )
Market Prospects of HORTICULTURAL PRODUCE
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
Edo. o f V a l i d
Observations
Optimistic
%
Reasonably
Satisfied
Pessimistic
%
%
.......................................................................
North I s l a n d
North1 and
Central Auckland
South Auckland/
Bay o f Plenty
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 i n y t o n
123
43
34.1
41.9
53.7
48.8
12.2
9.3
315
26
74
110
158
41.3
46.2
32.4
32.7
36.7
45.1
34.6
52.7
51.8
50.0
13.7
19.2
14.9
15.5
13.3
23
26
34.8
23.1
33.3
27.6
34.7
34.7
52.2
65.4
60.0
54.6
53.1
50.8
13.0
11.5
6.7
17.8
12.2
14.5
35.4
50.5
14.1
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1 and
15
174
98
124
National Average
TABLE 12(1A)15b
Respondents Opinions Regardi ng the LONG TERM (3-10 Years)
Market Prospects of HORTICULTURAL PRODUCE
By Type o f Farm
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Dai ry
SheepIBeef
Cropping
Other
National Average
396
748
37
119
Reasonably
Satisfied
Pessimi s t i c
%
%
%
37.4
35.3
29.7
31.9
49.2
50.7
54.1
54.6
13.4
14.0
16.2
13.4
35.5
50.7
13.8
Optilnistic
TABLE 12 (1A )16a
Respondents Opinions Regarding t h e SHOUT TERM (Next Year)
Market Prospects o f DEER INDUSTRY PRODUCTS
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Optimistic
%
Reasonably
Satisfied
Pessimi s t i c
%
%
.......................................................................
North Island
N o r t n l and
C e n t r a l Auckl and
South Auckland/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 lington
125
37
40.0
37.8
52.0
51.4
8.0
10.8
306
23
72
107
162
45.1
52.2
41.7
25.2
36.4
47.7
34.8
52.8
53.3
52.5
7.2
13.0
5.6
21.5
11.1
26
26
15
173
102
137
26.9
61.5
40.0
49.7
41.2
35.8
73.1
38.5
53.3
43.4
50.0
55.5
0.0
0.0
6.7
6.9
8.8
8.8
40.9
50.1
9.0
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1and
N a t i o n a l Average
3
.......................................................................
TABLE 12(1A)16b
Respondents Opinions Regarding t h e SHUKT TERM (Next Year)
Market Prospects o f DEER INDUSTRY PRODUCTS
By Type o f Farm
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Dai ry
Sheep/Beef
Cropping
Other
N a t i o n a l Average
392
759
36
117
Optimistic
Reasonably
Satisfied
Pessimistic
%
%
%
40.3
41.6
36.1
40.2
48.7
50.5
55.6
50.4
11.0
7.9
8.3
9.4
41.0
50.0
9.0
TABLE 12(1A)17a
Respondents Opinions Regarding t h e MEDIUM TERM (1-3 Years)
Market Prospects of DEEK INDUSTRY PKODUCTS
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and Overall
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Optimistic
%
Reasonably
Satisfied
Pessimistic
%
%
.......................................................................
North I s l a n d
North1and
Central Auckl and
South Auckland/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
Well i n g t o n
124
39
34.7
30.8
60.5
64.1
4.8
5.1
314
26
72
104
166
37.6
42.3
41.7
22.1
31.3
54.1
46.2
54.2
59.6
51.8
8.3
11.5
4.2
18.3
16.9
23
26
15
177
99
137
8.7
38.5
33.3
41.8
39.4
31.4
91.3
57.7
60.0
50.3
50.5
54.7
0.0
3.8
6.7
7.9
10.1
13.9
34.9
55.1
10.0
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otayo
South1 and
National Average
TABLE 12(1A)17b
Respondents Opinions Regarding t h e MEDIUM TERM (1-3 Years)
Market Prospects o f DEEK INDUSTRY PKODUCTS
By Type o f Farm
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Optimistic
%
Dai r y
SheepIBeef
Cropping
Other
N a t i onal Average
397
762
38
116
Reasonably
Satisfied
Pessimistic
%
%
34.5
34.8
42.1
36.2
55.9
54.7
47.4
55.2
9.6
10.5
10.5
8.6
35 .O
54.9
10.1
TABLE 12 (1A) 18a
Respondents Opinions Regarding the LONG TERM (3-10 y e a r s )
Market Prospects o f DEER INDUSTRY PRODUCTS
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
----------------.------------------------------------------------------.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Opti~nistic
Reasonably
Satisfied
Pessimi s t i c
%
%
%
North Island
North1 and
C e n t r a l Auckl and
South Auckland/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Ha~lrkesBay
Taranaki
We1 1 i n g t o n
123
38
36.6
31.6
50.4
52.6
13. U
15.8
313
25
77
109
160
38.7
40.0
33.8
22.0
28.1
44.4
32.0
45.5
52.3
47.5
16.9
28.0
20.8
25.7
24.4
23
27
15
176
99
13G
8.7
25.9
40.0
35.2
40.4
29.4
87.0
44.4
53.3
45.5
41.4
47.8
4.3
29.6
6.7
19.3
18.2
22.8
33.3
47.2
19.5
South I s l a nd
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otayo
South1 and
N a t i o n a l Average
TABLE 12(1A)18b
Respondents Opi n i ons Reyardi ng t h e LONG 'TEtiivl (3-10 Years)
Market Prospects o f DEER INUUSTKY PRODUCTS
By Type o f Farm
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
No* o f V a l i d
Observations
Optimistic
8
Reasonably
S a t i s f ied
X
Pessimi s t i c
.......................................................................
Dai r y
Sheep/Beef
Cropping
Other
N a t i o n a l Average
392
765
37
118
%
33.7
33.6
37.8
30.5
49.5
45.0
45.9
51.7
16.8
21.4
16.2
17.8
33.5
47.0
19.6
TABLE 12(1A)19a
Respondents Opinions Regardi ny t h e SHOKT TERM (Next Year)
Market Prospects o f GOAT INDUSTRY PKODUCTS
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Optimistic
Reasonably
Satisfied
Pessimistic
%
%
%
124
37
45.2
45.9
40.3
37.8
14.5
16.2
304
27
74
108
160
46.7
55.6
56.8
41.7
46.3
42.1
25.9
37.8
47.2
45.0
11.2
18.5
5.4
11.1
8.8
26
25
15
175
99
133
57.7
64.0
46.7
52.6
62.6
52.6
38.5
28.0
40.0
38.9
28.3
36.8
3.8
8.0
13.3
8.6
9.1
10.5
50.0
39.6
10.4
North I s l a n d
North1 and
Central Auckland
South Auckland/
Uay of P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
Wellington
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otayo
Southland
N a t i o n a l Average
3
.......................................................................
TABLE 12(1A)19b
Respondents Opinions Kegardi ny t h e SHOKT TERM (Next Year)
Market Prospects o f GOAT INUUSTKY PKODUCTS
By Type o f Farrn
.......................................................................
-------------------------------------.---------------------------------140. o f V a l i d
Observations
Optimistic
%
Dai ry
Sheep/Beef
Cropping
Other
N a t i o n a l Average
389
757
37
117
Reasonably
Satisfied
Pessimistic
S
%
43.7
53.2
43.2
53.0
44.2
36.7
43.2
41.0
12.1
10.0
13.5
6.0
50.1
39.5
10.4
TABLE 12 (1A )20a
Respondents Opinions Regarding t h e MEDIUM TERM (1-3 Years)
Market Prospects o f GOAT INDUSTRY PRODUCTS
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
------------------.----------------------------------------------------No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Optimistic
%
Reasonably
Sati sfied
P e s s i ~ nsi t i c
%
%
North Island
North1 and
C e n t r a l Auckland
South Auckl and/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 i n y t o n
121
39
38.3
35.9
43.0
46.2
18.2
17.9
309
27
77
105
164
43.0
55.6
46.8
43.8
39.6
42.1
29.6
50.6
41.0
47.0
14.9
14.8
2.6
15.2
13.4
23
25
15
P77
100
134
34.8
48.0
33.3
43.5
48.0
46.3
56.5
44.0
53.3
42.9
39 .O
38.8
8.7
8.0
13.3
13.6
13.0
14.9
43.2
43.0
13.8
South I s l a n d
Flarl borouy h
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
~tayo
South1 and
. N a t i ogal Average
TABLE 12 (lA120b
Respondents Opinions iiegardi ng t h e MEI~IUMTERM (1-3 Years)
b1arke-t Prospects o f GOAT INDUSTRY PRODUCTS
By Type o f Farm
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
No. s f V a l i d
Observations
Dai r y
SheeplBeef
Cropping
Other
N a t i o n a l Average
390
763
37
117
Oyti~nistic
Reasonably
S a t i s f i ed
P e s s i ~ nsi t i c
%
%
%
42.1
43.9
43.2
42.7
43.1
42.3
43.2
46.2
14.9
13.8
13.5
11.1
43.2
42.9
13.8
TABLE 12(1A)21a
Kespondents Opinions Regarding t h e LONG TERM (3-10 y e a r s )
Market Prospects o f GOAT INDUSTRY PKODUCTS
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Upti~nistic
UbSer~ati~nS
%
Reasonably
Satisfied
Pessimistic
%
%
North Island
North1 and
C e n t r a l Auckl and
South Auckl and/
Bay o f P l e n t y
E a s t Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
Wellington
122
40
313
29
77
110
161
42.5
43.4
36.1
37.5
20.5
20.0
40.3
51.7
46.8
40.0
33.5
37.4
17.2
39.0
36.4
40.4
22.4
31.0
14.3
23.6
26.1
South I s l a n d
Marl borouy ti
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otayo
South1 and
23
26
15
178
101
131
idati onal Average
21.7
34.6
8.7
34.6
40.1)
39.3
-a+B* . 2
s
-2
-
43.6
41.2
31.7
35.9
22.9
40.2
37 .O
22,g
I&-
L+, :
,
Respondents Opinions Regardi ny t h e LONG TERM (3-10 Years)
Market Prospects o f GOAT INDUSTRY PKODUCTS
By Type o f Farm
.......................................................................
---------------------------.-------------------------------------------No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Opti~ilistic
Reasonably
Sati sfied
Pessimistic
%
%
%
.......................................................................
Dairy
Sheep/Beef
Cropping
Other
l d a t i o n a l Average
394
768
37
118
40.6
40.1
37.8
42.4
37.8
36.3
32.4
39.0
21.6
23.6
29.7
18.6
40.4
36.9
22.7
TABLE 12( 1A)22a
Farmer Opinion on Future Market Prospects
for Agri cul tural Produce
By Overall
_______-_----------.---------------------------------------------------.......................................................................
Optimi s t i c
Reasonably
Sati sfied
Pessimistic
%
%
%
.......................................................................
Sheep Meat
Short Term
Medi urn Term
Long Terni
18.7
24.0
46.9
Beef
Short Term
lvledi um Term
Long Term
23.3
29.5
42.4
Wool
Short Term
Medi urn Term
Long Term
53.1
52.9
55.5
Dairy Produce
Short Term
Medi urn Term
Long Term
Horticultural Produce
Short Term
Medium Term
Long Term
32.5
31 .G
35.4
Deer Industrv Produce
S h o r t Term
lvledi um Term
Long Term
40.9
34.9
33.3
Goat Industry Produce
Short Term
Medi um Term
Long Term
50.0
43.2
40.2
TABLE 12 ( 1A)23a
Respondents Optimi sm Regarding t h e S h o r t , Medi urn
and Long Term Market P r o s p e c t s f o r V a r i o u s P r o d u c t s
Compari son - O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
1983
1984
1985
1986
%
%
%
%
14.1
46.6
28.6
14.2
49.9
14.5
48.4
41.4
16.9
54.6
51.9
39.5
8.7
16.2
26 .0
17.2
30.5
51.4
57.4
18.7
23.3
53.1
13.4
32.5
40.9
50.0
16.4
31.7
33.7
13.9
41 - 3
21.6
35.5
46.0
16.1
45.3
39 .G
35.0
15.9
25.6
41 .0
17.5
29 .O
30.9
41.1
24.0
29.5
52.9
18.9
31.6
34.9
43.2
33.5
31.9
44.7
25.3
40.5
37.8
34.3
50.8
27.5
43.8
32.8
34.7
42.4
45.4
56 .O
32.7
34.5
27.3
36.4
46.9
42.4
55.5
37.4
35.4
33.3
40.2
.......................................................................
S h o r t Term
Sheepmea t
Beef
Wool
Dairy Produce
H o r t i c u l t u r a l Produce
Deer I n d u s t r y Produce
Goat I n d u s t r y Produce
-
Medium Terrn
Sheepmea t
Beef
Wool
Dairy Produce
N o r t i c u l t u r a l Produce
Deer I n d u s t r y Produce
Goat I n d u s t r y Produce
-
Long Term
r
Sheepmea t
Beef
Wool
Dai r y Produce
t l o r t i c u l t u r a l Produce
Deer I n d u s t r y Produce
Goat I n d u s t r y Produce
-
TABLE 12 (2A)a
Respondents P r e d i c t i o n s as t o t h e Rate o f I n t e r n a l I n f l a t i o n i n
New Zeal and i n t h e F o l l o w i n g Twelve Months
( a s measured by t h e Consumer P r i c e I n d e x )
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Inflation
%
North Island
North1 and
C e n t r a l Auckland
South Auckl and/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 l in g t o n
121
42
350
30
79
115
169
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Cartteebury
Otago
South1 and
1410
N a t i o n a l Average
14.6
L-----B---------------------------------------------------------------.......................................................................
TABLE 12(2A)b
Respondents P r e d i c t i o n s as t o t h e Rate o f I n t e r n a l I n f l a t i o n i n
New Zeal and in t h e F o l 1owi ng Twelve Months
( a s measured by t h e Consumer P r i c e I n d e x )
By Type o f Farm
------------.----------------------------------------------------------.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Inflation
%
.......................................................................
Dai r y
Sheep/Beef
Croppi ng
Other
N a t i o n a l Average
14.6
TABLE 1 2 ( 2 A ) c
Respondents Estimate o f t h e I n f l a t i o n Rate
F o r t h e Next Twelve Months
Compari son - O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
Year
I n f l a t i o n Rate
%
TABLE 1213A)la
How Respondents Rate t h e E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f Federated Farmers
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
......................................................................................................
......................................................................................................
No o f Val i d
Observations
Very
Effective
Effective
SO-SO
X
%
%
Ineffective
%
3.1
28.4
43 .O
16.0
....................................................................................................
Very
Ineffective
%
dorth Island
North1 and
C e n t r a l Auckl and
South Auckl and/
Bay of P l e n t y
E a s t Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1ington
144
48
380
34
88
136
182
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1 and
N a t i o n a l Average
28
29
16
204
114
158
9.5
TABLE 12(3A)lb
How Respondents Rate t h e E f f e c t i v e n e s s of F e d e r a t e d Farmers
By Type o f Farm
......................................................................................................
No o f Val i d
Observations
Very
Effective
%
Effective
SO-SO
Ineffective
X
X
%
Very
Ineffective
%
3.1
28.2
43.2
16.1
9.4
....................................................................................................
Dai r y
Sheep/Beef
Cropping
Other
N a t i o n a l Average
TABLE 12(3A)lc
How Respondents Rate t h e E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f F e d e r a t e d Farmers
By Age o f Farrner
......................................................................................................
......................................................................................................
No o f Val i d
Observations
8
Under 36
36 - 50
51 - 60
Over 60
N a t i o n a l Average
320
721
322
182
Very
Effective
Effective
%
SO-SO
%
Ineffective
%
Very
Ineffective
%
%
1.9
2.9
3.1
6 .O
23.4
25.7
32.3
42.9
44.1
43.6
43.2
36.8
18.4
18.0
13.0
8.2
12.2
9.8
8.4
6.0
3.1
28.6
42.8
15.9
9.6
TABLE 1 2 ( 3 A ) l d
How Respondents Rate t h e E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f
Federated Farmers
.......................................................................
Rating
Very E f f e c t i v e
Effective
SO - SO
Ineffective
Very I n e f f e c t i v e
No Opinion
1981
1986
%
%
6.1
43.5
32.5
10.5
4.2
3.1
TABLE 12 (4A)a
Respondents O p i n i o n on Which form o f
income S t a b l i s a t i o n Scheme They Would Support
By P r o v i n c i a l Land U i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Producer
Scheme
%
S e l f Funded
Scheme
44,.3
55.7
%
North I s l a n d
North1 and
C e n t r a l Auckland
South Auckl and/
Bay o f P l e n t y
E a s t Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1ington
144
46
371
34
88
133
181
South I s 1and
28
29
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1 and
15
200
113
156
N a t i o n a l Average
TABLE 12(4A)b
Respondents O p i n i o n on Which form o f
I nco~neStab1 is a t i on Scherne They Would Support
By Type o f Farm
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
B b s e r v a t i ons
Producer
Scheme
%
=
S e l f Funded
Scheme
%
Uai ry
SheepIBeef
Croppi ng
Other
N a t i onal Average
44.3
55.7
TABLE 12 ( 4 A ) c
Respondents Opinion on Which form of
Income S t a b l i s a t i o n Scheme They Would Support
By Age o f Farmer
.......................................................................
No. of Valid
Observations
Producer
Scheme
Sel f Funded
Scheme
%
%
Under 36
36 t o 50
51 t o 60
Over 60
g a t i onal Average
44.4
55.6
TABLE 12(4A)d
Respondents Opinion on Which forin of
Income Stab1 i s a t i on Scheme They Woul d Support
By S i z e of Farm
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
No. of Valid
2
Observations
Under 100 Hectares
100 - 300 Hectares
Over 300 Hectares
National Average
Producer
Scheme
S e l f Funded
Scheme
%
%
44.3
55.7
607
545
37 2
TABLE 12[5A)a
Respondents P r e d i c t i o n s as t o t h e L i k e l y S i t u a t i o n
o f t h e i r 1986-87 Budget
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
--------------.--------------------------------------------------------No. o f Val i d
Observations
Good
Fai r
Bad
%
%
%
144
45
5.6
2.2
63.2
64.4
31.3
33.3
377
34
88
133
178
10.6
2.9
13.6
10.5
12.9
61.8
55.9
71.6
72.9
73.0
27.6
41.2
14.8
16.5
14.0
29
20.7
13.8
0.0
9.8
12.4
16.7
69.0
69.0
68.8
58.4
60.9
10.3
17.2
31.3
19.6
29.2
22.4
10.9
65.8
23.2
.......................................................................
idorth I s 1and
N o r t i l l and
C e n t r a l Auckland
South Auckl and/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
I-lawkes Bay
Taranaki
Wellington
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Me1 son
Nest1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1 and
29
16
204
113
156
idati onal Average
70.6
-- ---.--. -- ------- -- -----.--- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2
TABLE 12(5A)b
Respondents P r e d i c t i o n s as t o t h e L i k e l y S i t u a t i o n
o f t h e i r 1986-87 Budget
By Type o f F a r ~ n
----------------------------------------------------------------------No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Good
Fai r
Bad
%
%
%
477
865
49
144
7.5
13.5
10.2
7.6
65.0
66.1
63.3
67.4
27.5
20.3
26.5
25.0
11.0
65.8
23.2
.......................................................................
l)ai ry
SheeplBeef
Cropping
Other
N a t i o n a l Average
Respondents P r e d i c t i o n s as t o t h e L i k e l y S i t u a t i on
o f t h e i r 1986-87 Budget
By Age o f Farmer
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Good
Fair
%
%
Bad
%
Under 36
36 - 59
5 1 - 60
Over 60
11.1
Wati onal Average
65.6
23.3
TABLE 12 (5A) d
Respondents P r e d i c t i o n s as t o t h e L i k e l y S i t u a t i o n
of t h e i r 1986-87 Budget
By Size o f Farin
.......................................................................
_-----------------------------------.-------------.---------------------No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Good
Fai r
Bad
%
%
%
603
547
377
8.0
12.2
13.8
68.0
63.6
65.0
24.0
24.1
21.2
11.0
65.7
23.4
.......................................................................
Under 100 Hectares
100 - 300 Hectares
Over 300 Hectares
2
1533
N a t i o n a l Average
TABLE 1 2 ( 6 A ) a
Respondents I n t e n t i o n s To Apply f o r The K u r a l Bank D i s c o u n t Scheme
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
-------------------------.----------------------------------------------
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Intend
Applying
%
Not
Undecided
Applying
%
X
No KBFC
Loans
"/,
Worth I s l a n d
N o r t h 1 and
C e n t r a l Auckl and
South Auckl and/
Bay o f P l e n t y
E a s t Coast
tlawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 l in g t o n
143
47
11.2
6.4
39.9
36.2
11.9
12.8
37.1
44.7
378
33
88
136
181
9.5
24.2
2.3
5.9
10.5
43.9
39.4
51.1
44.9
41- 4
10.1
12.1
9.1
3.7
7.2
36.5
24.2
37.5
45.6
40.9
29
29
16
203
115
152
13 - 8
3.4
12.5
21.2
25.2
23.0
44.8
24.1
31.3
31.5
28.7
36.2
10.3
13.8
6.3
8.9
14.8
15.1
31.0
58.6
50.0
38.4
31.3
25.7
13.3
39.4
10.1
37.2
South I s l a n d
War1 borough
Nel son
Wes t l and
Canterbury
Otago
S o u t h l and
N a t i o n a l Average
--------------
-------------------.----------.--.---.-------------------------------------
Respondents I r i t e n t i o n s To Apply For The Rural Bank D i s c o u n t Scheme
By Type o f Farm
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Dai r y
Skeep/Ueef
Cropping
Other
H a t i o n a l Average
480
865
51
144
Intend
Applying
%
Mot
Undecided
Applying
%
%
No RBFC
Loans
%
9.4
15.3
25.5
11.1
4b.3
38.5
15.7
31.9
10.2
9.2
15.7
11.8
34.2
37.0
43.1
45.1
13.3
39.5
10.0
37.2
TABLE 12(7A)a
Respondents Opinion a s t o t h e Single Most Important
Thing That Could be Done t o A s s i s t Farming
Overall
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
No of Val i d
Observations
%
.......................................................................
233
Reduce I n t e r e s t
178
Reduce I n f l a t i o n
Maintain a S t a b l e Dollar
147
129
Irnprove 1Sarketi ng
118
Change Governrnant
T r e a t a l l Sectors Equally
93
84
Increase Income
77
Lower Off Farm Charges
75
Cheaper On Farm Costs
59
Devdlue t h e Dollar
47
Rernove a1 1 P r o t e c t i o n
39
Rational i ze Off Farrn
39
Reduce Overseas P r o t e c t i o n
25
Reduce e f f e c t of Trade Unions
13
Increase Subsidies
13
SMP ' s
31
Other Financial
49
Other
16.1
12.3
10.1
8.9
8.1
6.4
5.8
5.3
5.2
4.1
3.2
2.7
2.7
1.7
0.9
0.9
2.1
3.4
TABLE 12(8A)a
Respondents I n d i c a t i o n as t o Whether
They Own a F i r e D e c t e c t o r
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Yes
No
%
%
21.2
78.8
North I s l a n d
N o r t l i l and
Central Auckl and
South Auckland/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Tarariaki
We1 1 i n g t o n
147
48
385
33
88
137
181
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
~tago
South1 and
N a t i o n a l Average
29
29
15
206
111
158
.......................................................................
------- >---------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 12(8B)a
Respondents I n t e n t i on t o Purchase a F i r e D e t e c t o r
w i t h i n t h e Next Year
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Yes
%
No
%
5.0
72.2
Not Sure
%
.......................................................................
North Island
North1 and
C e n t r a l Auckl and
South Auckland/
Bay o f P l e n t y
E a s t Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1ington
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
Sou t h l and
1430
2
Mati onal Average
.......................................................................
22.7
TABLE 12(9A)a
Respondents Spouse Who Nork o f f Farm
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
F u l l Time
Paid
P a r t Tirne
Paid
%
Unpaid
klork
No Other
Work
%
%
'%,
North I s l a n d
North1 and
C e n t r a l Auckl and
South A u c k l a n d l
Bay o f P l e n t y
E a s t Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 ington
138
47
10. 1
10.6
18.8
21.3
10.1
17.0
60.9
51.1
37 1
34
84
132
178
3.2
8.8
4.8
21.6
23.5
29.8
10.6
20.2
8.4
8.8
8.3
6.8
12.9
60.9
58.8
57.1
68.9
56.7
13.1
25.0
21.4
11.8
18.5
18.9
19.0
3.6
10.'7
11.8
6.2
4.5
9.8
67.9
64.3
47.1
69.2
67.6
58.2
9.6
19.8
8.8
61.9
13.6
10.1
South I s 1and
Marl borough
Nel son
kl,estl and
Canterbury
Utago
South1 and
2 13
28
17
195
111
153
N a t i o n a l Average
3.6
3.6
29.4
6.2
9.0
TABLE 12(9A)b
Respondents Spouse iJho Work o f f Far111
Uy Type o f Farin
-------.------------.--------------------------------.-------------------.......................................................................
Ho. o f V a l i d
Observations
Dairy
SheepIBeef
Cropy ing
Other
N a t i o n a l Average
474
844
F u l l Titne
Paid
X
P a r t Time
Paid
Unpaid
Work
X
%
No Other
Work
%
16.7
11.0
8.2
8.2
5.0
63.3
62.3
55.1
56.8
8.8
61.9
49
9.1
9.2
8 2
139
14.4
20.3
28.6
23.7
9.6
19.7
TABLE 12(10A)a
Kespondents Opinion on t h e F u t u r e M a r k e t i n g o f
New Zeal and Lamb i n N o r t h America
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Devco
Sole S e l l e r
%
Many
Sellers
X
.......................................................................
No
Opinion
X
North Island
North1 and
C e n t r a l Auckl and
South Auckland/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 ington
141
45
9.9
6.7
52.5
44.4
37.6
48.9
362
35
87
132
180
14.4
11.4
8.0
8.3
12.3
48.1
51.4
77.0
38.6
68.9
37.6
37.1
14.9
53.0
18.3
28
10.7
14.3
25.0
10.3
14.0
11.5
53.6
57.1
43.8
66.5
61.4
72.0
35.7
28.6
31.3
23.2
24.6
16.6
11.8
57.9
30.4
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
Sou t h l and
2
N a t i o n a l Average
28
16
2U3
114
157
TABLE 12 (10A)b
Respondents Opinion on t h e F u t u r e M a r k e t i n g o f
New Zealand Lamb i n N o r t i i Arnerica
By Type o f Farm
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
452
87 1
51
144
Dai r y
Sheep/Beef
Cropping
Other
N a t i o n a l Average
Devco
Sole S e l l e r
Many
Sellers
No
Opinion
%
%
%
13.3
11.5
5.9
10.4
35.6
68.9
66.7
57.6
51.1
19.6
27.5
31.9
11.7
57.8
30.4
TABLE 12(1OA)c
Respondents Opinion on t h e F u t u r e M a r k e t i n g of
New Zealand La~irb i n N o r t h America
By Age o f Farrner
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Devco
Sole S e l l e r
Many
Sellers
No
Opinion
%
%
%
.......................................................................
"'
Under 36
36 - 50
51 - 60
Over 60
N a t i o n a l Average
321
G99
314
180
12.8
9.2
14.3
15.6
59.8
61.5
54.1
48.9
27.4
29.3
31.5
35.6
11.8
58.1
30.1
TABLE 12(11A)a
Respondents Opinion on t h e Value o f
t h e ' T h i n k B i g ' P r o j e c t s t o P r i ~ n a r yI n d u s t r y
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
He1 p f u l
Harmful
No
Effect
No
Opinion
%
%
%
%
143
47
28.0
27.7
22.4
29.8
23.8
19.1
25.9
23.4
368
34
86
138
178
31.8
32.4
25.6
44.2
27.0
23.6
11.8
30.2
18.1
30.9
22.3
23.5
19.8
23.9
18.0
22.3
32.4
24.4
13.8
24.2
28
26
17
202
112
153
21.4
23.1
23.5
20.8
26.8
26.1
14.3
23.1
35.3
33.2
23.2
20.9
32.1
23.1
17.6
20.8
17.0
25.5
32.1
30.8
23.5
25.2
33.0
27.5
28.7
25.1
21.7
24.5
North I s l a n d
N o r t t i l and
C e n t r a l Auckl and
South Auckland/
Bay o f P l e n t y
E a s t Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 ington
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
Westland
Canterbury
Otayo
South1 and
N a t i o n a l Average
2
.......................................................................
---------------------------------------.--------------------------------
TABLE 12 (12A)a
Respondents Opinion on Rural Support Schemes
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
Mo. o f V a l i d
Observations
Have
Scheme
%
Need
Scheme
%
Dont Need
Scheme
%
146
48
17.1
20.8
58.2
54.2
15.8
12.5
8.9
12.5
379
34
88
139
183
28.5
29.4
19.3
29.5
33.3
53.6
52.9
68.2
52.5
47.5
11.9
11.8
12.5
10.1
14.2
6.1
5.9
0.0
7.9
4.9
28
28
17
204
113
159
21.4
25.0
5.9
17.2
12.4
13.2
57.1
39.3
52.9
54.4
57.5
50.9
10.7
28.6
41.2
19.6
24.8
23.3
10.7
7.1
0.0
8.8
5.3
12.6
22.7
54.0
16.1
7.2
.......................................................................
No
Opi n i on
%
North I s l a n d
North1and
Central Auckland
South Auckland/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 ington
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
Westland
Canterbury
Otayo
South1and
N a t i o n a l Average
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 as a t End o f 1985-86 Season
- By Source
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
1.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
R u r a l Bank
Govt. Agency o t h e r
t n a n R.B.F.C.
T r u s t e e Savings Bank
2espondents T r a d i n g Bank
Building Society
I n s u r a n c e Coinpany
Stock
and S t a t i o n Agent
T
r u s t Company
9.
S o l i c i t o r s T r u s t Fund
2.
4
o
?-I
10. Fanii l y Loan
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
L a s t Owner o f Farm
Local Body
Finance Company
D a i r y Company
P r i v a t e Savings BanK
Offshore
Other
Long Tern1 = Lonyer t h a n 10 y e a r s
Medium Terr~i= 3 - 10 y e a r s
S h o r t Tenil = Up t o 3 y e a r s
Average Arnoun t
Borrowed
$
Average
I n t e r e s t Rate
Long
Term
Medi urn
Term
Short
Te rrn
%
%
%
%
TABLE 12(B)a
Whether Respondents Made Any NEW BORROWING d u r i n g
t h e 1985-86 Season
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
Yes
%
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
No
%
D o n ' t Know
%
North Island
North1and
C e n t r a l Auckland
South Auckland/
Bay of P l e n t y
E a s t Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
Wellington
141
46
24.8
32.6
74.5
67.4
0.7
0.0
361
30
84
133
175
31.6
30.0
28.6
28.6
27.4
68.4
70.0
71.4
71.4
72.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
27
27
17
194
107
148
33.3
33.3
17.6
34.0
27.1
31.8
66.7
66.7
82.4
66.0
72.9
68.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
29.9
70.0
0.1
South Is l dnd
i,larl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Cdrlterbury
Otayo
South1 and
N a t i o n a l Averdye
0.0
0.0
TABLE 12(B)b
Whether Respondents Made Any NEW BORROWING d u r i n g
t h e 1985-86 Season
By Type o f Farm
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Yes
%
No
%
D o n ' t Know
%
28.9
27.9
47.8
39.4
70.8
72.1
52.2
60.6
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
29.9
70.0
0.1
.......................................................................
Dairy
Sheep Beef
Croppi ng
Other
N a t i o n a l Averaye
46 3
835
46
137
TABLE 12(C)a
P r o p o r t i o n o f NEW BORROWINGS Used t o Refinance
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
P r o p o r t i on
%
North I s l a n d
North1and
Central Auckl and
South Auckland/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
tiawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 ington
26
13
94
6
19
34
40
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
EJel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1 and
National Average
30.5
P
TABLE 12(C)b
P r o p o r t i o n o f NEW BORROWINGS Used t o Refinance
By Type o f Fdrm
------------------------------.----------------------------------------.......................................................................
No. o f Val i d
Observations
.
Proportion
%
Dai r y
Sheep/Beef
Crogpi ng
Other
National Average
30.1
TABLE 1 2 ( D l ) a
Respondents Who Borrowed i n t h e 1985-86 Season
Assessment o f Which F a c t o r i s t h e
MOST IMPORTANT WHEN BORROWING FINANCE
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................................
No o f V a l i d I n t e r e s t
Observations
Rate
Amount
Avai 1a b l e
Period
o f Loan
Securi t y
Annual
I n s t a l ~ n e n t s Required
%
%
%
%
%
50.0
50.0
33 . 3
46.2
55.2
63.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.2
0 .O
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.1
0 .O
6.5
50 - 0
50.0
66.7
41.5
44.8
28.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.1
0 .O
0.0
49.2
3.2
4.6
42.1
0.9
North Island
idorthl and
Central Auckland
South Auckl and/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1iny t o n
35
15
109
9
23
38
47
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1 and
N a t i o n a l Average
8
8
3
65
29
46
TABLE 12(Dl)b
Respondents Who Borrowed i n t h e 1985-86 Season
Assessment of Which F a c t o r i s t h e
MOST IMPORTANT WHEN BORROWING FINANCE
By Type o f Farm
.......................................................................................
.......................................................................................
No o f Val i d I n t e r e s t
Observations
Rate
%
Dai ry
Sheep Beef
Cropping
Other
N a t i o n a l Average
129
229
21
53
Amount
Avai 1a b l e
%
Period
o f Loan
%
Ann u a 1
Instalments
%
Securi t y
Requi r e d
%
39.5
50.7
61.9
62.3
3.9
1.7
5.4
4.8
50.4
42.4
0.8
9.5
5.7
0 .O
23.8
1.9
28.3
4.8
1.9
49.3
3.2
4.4
42.1
0.9
0.4
TABLE 12(D1) c
Respondents Assessment o f Which F a c t o r i s t h e
MOST IMPORTANT when Borrowing F i nance
Overal l
.......................................................................
_________-_----____---------------------------------------------------1984
1985
1986
%
%
%
.......................................................................
I n t e r e s t Rate
Amount Avai l a b l e
P e r i o d o f Loan
Annual I n s t a l ments
Securi ty Required
39.5
15.7
12.0
32.9
-
TABLE 12(D2)a
Respondents Who Borrowed i n t h e 1985-86 Season
Assessment o f Which F a c t o r i s t h e
LEAST IMPORTANT WHEN BORROWING FINANCE
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................................
.......................................................................................
No o f Val i d I n t e r e s t
Observations
Rate
Amount
Avail able
Period
o f Loan
Annual
Instalments
Security
Required
%
%
%
%
%
34
14
5.9
7.1
20.6
7.1
11.8
21.4
2.9
0.0
58.8
64.3
104
7
21
35
46
1.O
0.0
0.0
2.9
2.2
20.2
28.6
13 .O
22.9
21.7
8.7
28.6
23.8
5.7
10.9
2.9
0.0
4.8
0.0
4.3
67.3
42.9
52.4
68.6
60.9
8
7
3
60
24
43
0.0
0.0
33.3
3.3
0.0
2.3
25.0
0.0
33.3
30.0
33.3
18.6
37.5
0.0
33.3
11.7
20.8
9.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.0
2.3
37.5
100.0
0.0
53.3
45.8
67.4
2.5
22.2
12.3
2.2
60.8
.......................................................................................
N o r t h Is l and
North1and
Central Auckland
South Auckl and/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 ing t o n
South I s l a n d
N a r l borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1 and
N a t i o n a l Average
TABLE 12 (D2) b
Respondents Who Borrowed i n t h e 1985-86 Season
Assessment o f Which F a c t o r i s t h e
LEAST IMPORTANT WHEN BORROWIMG FINANCE
By Type o f Farm
.......................................................................................
Annual
Instalments
%
Security
Required
76
Period
o f Loan
76
4.0
1.9
0.0
0.0
23.2
23.3
22.2
16 .O
10.4
13.3
16 - 7
14.0
1.6
1.9
0.0
6.0
60 - 8
59.5
61.1
64.0
2.2
22.3
12.7
2.2
60.5
No o f V a l i d I n t e r e s t
Rate
Observations
%
Dai r y
Sheep Beef
Cropping
Other
125
210
18
50
Amount
Available
%
403
N a t i o n a l Average
.......................................................................................
TABLE lZ(D2)c
Respondents Assessment o f Which F a c t o r i s the
LEAST IMPORTANT when Borrowing Finance
Overall
.......................................................................
1984
%
1985
1986
%
X
.......................................................................
I n t e r e s t Rate
Amount Avai 1a b l e
Period o f Loan
Annual I n s t a l ments
S e c u r i t y Required
10.4
35.9
27 .O
26.7
-
TABLE 12(E)a
P r o p o r t i o n o f NEW BORROWINGS Made by Respondents Using
OFF-SHORE Finance
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
P r o p o r t i on
%
N o r t h I s 1 and
North1 and
C e n t r a l Auckl and
South Auckland/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawlces Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 ing t o n
35
14
110
8
23
36
45
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
Sou t h l and
N a t i o n a l Average
1.4
TABLE 12(E)b
P r o p o r t i o n o f NEW BOKKOWIiJGS Made by Respondents Using
OFF-SHORE Finance
By Type o f Farm
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
P r o p o r t i on
%
.......................................................................
Dai ry
Sheep/Beef
Cropping
Other
N a t i o n a l Average
TABLE 12(E)c
P r o p o r t i o n o f NEW BORROWINGS Made by Respondents Using
OFF-SHORE Finance
By Age o f Farnier
.......................................................................
No. o f Val i d
Observations
3
P r o p o r t i on
%
Under 35
36 50
5 1 60
Over 60
-
8
N a t i o n a l Average
71.9
.......................................................................
TABLE 12(F)a
Respondents who Borrowed Funds OFFSHORE
Opinions on t h e B e n e f i t s o f Such Loans Compared w i t h On-shore Loans
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and Overall
.......................................................................
No o f Val i d
Observations
Greater Than
On-shore
Sarne as
On-shore
Less Than
On-shore
%
%
%
North I s l a n d
North1 and
Central Auckl and
South Auckland/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1inytori
South
-
1
2
100.0
50.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.0
1
1
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
1
4
100.0
75.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
25.0
-
-
-
-
Island
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1 and
2
1
2
-
-
-
-
0.0
0.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
0.0
50.0
100.0
0.0
60.0
6.7
33.3
15
National Average
Respondents who Borrowed Funds OFFSHORE
n i o n s on t h e B e n e f i t s o f Such Loans Compared w i t h On-shore Loans
By Type o f Farm
.......................................................................
No o f Val i d
Observations
Dai r y
Sheep Beef
Cropping
Other
6
7
2
-
N a t i o n a l Average
G r e a t e r Than
On-shore
Same as
On-shore
Less Than
On-shore
%
%
%
66.7
71.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.0
33.3
60.0
6.7
33.3
-
28.6
50.0
-
-
Respondents who Borrowed Funds OFFSHORE
Opinions on t h e B e n e f i t s o f Such Loans Compared w i t h On-shore Loans
By Age o f Farmer
.......................................................................
/do o f V a l i d
Observations
G r e a t e r Than
On-shore
Same as
On-shore
Less Than
On-shore
%
%
%
60.0
6.7
33.3
.......................................................................
3
Under 36
36 - 50
51 - 60
Over 60
N a t i o n a l Average
TABLE 12(Gja
Respondents OFF-FARM Investments
t3y P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t atld O v e r a l l
----------------------------------------------------------------------____---------------------------------------------.-----------------?4o of V a l i d
Observations
No Off-Farm
Investments
Real
F i n a n c i a l Real E s t a t e
E s t a t e Investments Investments
%
X
%
%
133
46
57.9
41.3
5.3
6.5
21.1
37.0
15.8
15.2
353
27
81
121
173
53.0
51.9
35.8
66.1
43.9
7.9
3.7
6.2
5.8
4.0
26.6
25.9
39.5
21.5
32.9
12.5
18.5
18.5
6.6
19.1
27
27
16
190
104
144
44.4
25.9
43.8
37.9
39.4
39.6
3.7
0.0
0.0
2.1
3.8
4.9
48.1
63.0
37.5
47.9
42.3
41.7
3.7
11.1
18.8
12.1
14.4
13.9
47.0
5.1
34.1
13.7
.......................................................................
North I s l a n d
North1 avid
C e n t r a l Auckland
South Auckl and/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
Wellington
Soutii Is l and
Marl borough
Nel son
Wes tl and
Canterbury
0tago
Southland
N a t i o n a l Average
TABLE 12(G)b
Respondents OFF-FAR14 InvesQnents
By Type o f Farm
........................................................................
.......................................................................
No o f Val i d
Observations
No Off-Farm
Investments
%
F i n a n c i a l Real E s t a t e
Real
E s t a t e Investments Investments
X
%
%
*----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dai r y
Sheep Beef
Croppi ny
Other
N a t i o n a l Average
439
811
49
134
59.0
41.3
51 .O
43.3
6.6
4.3
0.0
6.0
23.7
39.2
36.7
34.3
10.7
15.2
12.2
16.4
47.2
5.0
33.9
13.8
Respondents OFF-FARM Investments
By Age of Farmer
.......................................................................
No o f V a l i d
Observations
No Off-Farm
Investrnents
Real
F i n a n c i a l Real E s t a t e
E s t a t e Investrnents Investments
01
%
%
/o
.......................................................................
Under 36
36 - 50
51 - 60
Over 60
303
6 78
290
163
National Average
%
62.0
46.0
42.4
31.3
4.0
4.7
7.6
4.9
28.1
34.8
33.4
42.9
5.9
14.5
16.6
20.9
47 .O
5.2
34.0
13.8
.......................................................................
TABLE 12(G)d
Kespondetlts DFF-FARM Investrnents
By Size o f Farnt
.......................................................................
-------------------------------.--------------------------------------No o f V a l i d
Observations
No Off-Farrii
Investments
%
Real
F i n a n c i a l Real E s t a t e
E s t a t e Investments Investments
%
%
.......................................................................
*,
Less than 100 ha
100 - 300 ha
Over 30U ha
555
526
348
%
55.1
43.0
39.9
5.9
3.8
6.0
25.9
40.5
37.6
13.0
12.7
16.4
47.0
5.2
34.1
13.7
1429
National Average
TABLE 12(H)a
The Value o f OFF-FARM Investments h e l d by Respondents
as a Percentage of TOTAL FARM CAPITAL
- By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
........................................................................
........................................................................
No o f Val i d
Observations
Percentage
%
North Island
North1 and
Central Auckl and
South Aucklandl
Bay of P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 ington
52
25
155
12
48
40
92
South Is l a.nd
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Can t e r b u r y
Otago
South1 and
N a t i o n a l Average
22.7
TABLE 12(H)b
The Value o f OFF-FARIVI Investments h e l d by Respondents
as a Percentage o f TOTAL FARM CAPITAL
3y Type o f Farm
........................................................................
Mo of Val i d
Observations
Percentage
%
D a i ry
Sheep Beef
Cropping
Other
N a t i o n a l Average
22.7
TABLE 12(H)c
The Val ue of OFF-FARM Investments he1 d by Responderits
as a Percentage o f TOTAL FARM CAPITAL
By Age o f Fariner
-------------.----------------------------------------------------------........................................................................
No o f V a l i d
Observations
Percentage
X
........................................................................
Under 36
36 - 50
51 - 60
Over 60
22.7
National Average
TABLE 12(H)d
The Value o f OFF-FARM Investments h e l d by Respondents
as a Percentage o f TOTAL FARM CAPITAL
By S i z e o f Farm
.........................................................................
........................................................................
+4o o f Val i d
Percentage
Observations
%
........................................................................
Less than 100 ha
100 - 30U ha
Over 300 ha
National Average
22.5
TABLE 1 3 ( A ) l a
Age O f Respondent
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t
........................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Average Age
(Years)
North Island
North1 and
C e n t r a l Auckl and
South Aucklandl
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 ington
South I s l a n d
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1and
N a t i o n a l Average
45.4
2
TABLE 1 3 ( A ) l b
Age o f Respondent
By Type o f Fartn
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Average Age
(Years)
.......................................................................
Dairy
Sheep Beef
Cropping
Other
N a t i onal Average
45.4
TABLE 13(A)lc
Age o f Respondents
Comparison O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
Year
Average Age
(Years)
.......................................................................
TABLE 13( B) l a
Sex of Respondents
By P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t and O v e r a l l
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Ma1e
%
Femal e
145
47
88.3
93.6
11.7
6.4
389
35
87
138
182
90.7
94.3
97.7
83.3
91.8
9.3
5.7
2.3
16.7
8.2
91.8
8.2
%
.......................................................................
North Is l and
North1 and
C e n t r a l Auckland
South Auckland/
Bay o f P l e n t y
E a s t Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
We1 1 i ngton
South 1.sland
Marl borough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
South1 and
N a t i o n a l Average
?,
TABLE 1 3 ( B ) l b
Sex o f Respondents
By Type o f Farrn
.......................................................................
No. o f V a l i d
Observations
Ma1e
Fernal e
%
%
.......................................................................
Dai r y
Sheep Beef
Croppi ny
Other
N a t i o n a l Average
91.8
8.2
APPENDIX A
Lincoln College
New Zealand Farmer
011084
151757
Intentions and Opinions Survey
Lincoln College
Canterbury
New Zealand
-
-
- .
Telephone. Christchurch 252 811
Dear Farmer,
I t i s now 10 years since I commenced surveying farmer intentions and opinions.
During t h a t period the farming scene has changed dramatically, especially on
the economic side.
I have b u i l t u p a large bank of data much of which has been passed onto farmer
leaders and t o the policy makers. Some have said i t i s imprecise but none
have been able t o point t o a b e t t e r information source. Thus I have been
encouraged t o continue the surveys thanks t o the tremendous co-operation of
farmers throughout New Zealand. Now t h a t farming i s passing through very
d i f f i c u l t times I see no reason why I should be reluctant t o gather information
on the s t a t e of the industry today. Besides, i f I can get signals from farmers
on t h e i r problems t h e i r needs and t h e i r intentions t h i s must be recorded and i f
possible used t o help the industry.
I have made the survey shorter t h i s year. I t asks special questions r e l a t i n g
t o your media i n t e r e s t s , transport of your inputs and output, your insurance
needs and your views on the computer as a possible aid t o your operations. As
usual I ask you some questions on your livestock numbers, expectations of the
various farm products, your estimate of i n f l a t i o n in the year ahead and some
v i t a l queshions on finance including, f o r the f i r s t time, any off-shore borrowing
you may have undertaken. As in the past I shall disseminate the over-all responses
through the media when we have received s u f f i c i e n t responses.
In answering the questions please do not feel you have t o consult others. Give
your off-the-cuff answers and having completed the exercise, p u t the form in
the enclosed addressed postage-paid reply envelope and post i t t o me a t the
College.
Once again I give you my personal assurance t h a t your responses will be confidential
t o me - only the over-a1 1 responses a r e pub1 ished. I hope you find the questions
interesting.
Thank you in a n t i c i p a t i o n ,
J.G. Pryde
Research Fellow in
Agricultural Policy
-
'
OCTOBER-DECEMBER 1986
Please answer q u e s t i o n s by i n s e r t i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e NUMBER i n
I n some cases t h e response r e q u i r e d i s a few words, w h i c h we
t h e box.
w i l l encode l a t e r .
1.
PROVINCIAL LAND DISTRICT
Your f a r m i s i n t h e P r o v i n c i a l Land D i s t r i c t o f :
N o r t h 1and
C e n t r a l Auckl and
South Auckland/
Bay o f P l e n t y
East Coast
Hawkes Bay
Taranaki
2.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6
Wellington
Marlborough
Nel son
West1 and
Canterbury
Otago
Southland
(7)
(8)
(9
(10)
( 11)
(12
(13)
FAKM AREA
I n t ~ e c t a r e s , t h e t o t a l area o f y o u r farill i s :
(One h e c t a r e = ayprox. 2.5 a c r e s )
3.
TYPE OF FAK!\I
Your f a r m i s PII1HII\JLY:
Dairying
Sheep Beef
Cropping
P
Otl~er
4.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(idow
(Now
(Now
(Now
yo
go
go
go
to
to
to
to
Question
Question
Question
Question
4)
5)
5)
6)
D A I R Y FAKPIEIIS
(A)
Your t o t a l cows i n rni l k a t December 1985:
( B ) Your t o t a l cows i n n i i l k a t Dece~nber 1986 w i 11 be:
(C)
T o t a l m i l k f a t p r o d u c t i o n i n t h e 1985/86 season ( k g )
( D ) E s t i m a t e d t o t a l [ n i l k f a t p r o d u c t i o n i n 1986/87 (Kg)
MOW GO TO QUESTION 6.
SHEEP AldD BEEF FARMERS
(A)
You would d e s c r i b e y o u r farril as MAINLY:
i-ligh Country
H i l l Country
Hard H i l l Country
(B)
(1)
(2)
(3)
I n t e n s i v e F a t t e n i ny
F a t t e n i n g Breeding
Mixed Cropping and
Fattening
(4)
(5)
(6
Sheep Numbers
(i) As a t 30 June 1985 how many ewe hoggets d i d
you have?
( i i ) How many ewe hoggets d i d you p u t t o t h e ram
i n t h e autumn o f 1985?
(ii
i) Excl u d i ng
those ewe
hoggets, how many
b r e e d i n g ewes d i d you have a t mid-1985?
( iv ) As a t 30 June 1986 how many ewe hoggets d i d
you have?
How many ewe hoggets d i d you p u t t o t h e ram
(v)
i n t h e autumn o f 1986?
( v i ) Excluding
those ewe
hoggest, how many
b r e e d i n g ewes d i d you have a t mid-1986?
(C)
Beef Breeding Cow/Hei f e r s
(i) A t
30 June 1985 Row many b e e f b r e e d i n g cows
d i d you have?
( i i) A t 30 June 1985 how Inany beef b r e e d i n g
h e i f e r s d i d y o u have?
( i i i ) A t 30 June 1986 how many b e e f b r e e d i n g cows
d i d you have?
( i v ) A t 30 June 1986 how many b e e f b r e e d i n g
h e i f e r s d i d y o u have?
MILFKE I GHT
(A)
Do RAILWAYS o p e r a t e a door t o door ( i . e .
farm t o f i n a l
d e s t i n a t i o n ) p i c k up and d e l i v e r y s e r v i c e i n y o u r area?
Yes ( 1 ) No ( 2 ) Not Sure ( 3 )
(B)
D i d RAILFKEIGHT r u n a Cdoolrail campaign i n y o u r
l a s t year?
Yes (1) No ( 2 )
Not Sure ( 3 )
I f YES d i d y o u c o n s i d e r t h i s s e r v i c e u s e f u l ?
Yes ( 1 )
No ( 2 )
I f YES p l e a s e s p e c i f y how i t was u s e f u l t o you
area
(C)
Please r a t e RAILWAYS' c u r r e n t performance f o r t h e riiovelnent o f
y o u r m a j o r o u t p u t (wool, l i v e s t o c k , f r u i t , g r a i n e t c . ) under
t h e f o l l o w i n g headings.
Very Good ( 1 ) Good ( 2 ) S a t i s f a c t o r y ( 3 ) Poor
Very Bad ( 5 )
(4)
Speed o f T r a n s i t
Damages Goods
Reliability
Security
Door t o Door d e l i v e r y
Price
(D)
Please r a t e ROAD HAULIEKS' c u r r e n t performance f o r t h e
lnovernent of y o u r rnajor o u t p u t (wool , 1 i v e s t o c k , f r u i t , g r a i n
e t c . ) under t h e f o l l o w i n g headings.
Very &od . ( 1 ) Good ( 2 ) S a t i s f a c t o r y ( 3 ) Poor
Very Bad ( 5 )
(4)
Speed o f T r a n s i t
Darnages Goods
Reliability
Security
Door t o Door d e l i v e r y
Price
(E)
What THKEE f a c t o r s do you c o n s i d e r MOST CRITICAL
d e c i s i o n t o purchase FEKTILISEK?
to
your
............................................
I.........
(F)
Cornpared t o 1985 how much FEKTILISEK a r e y o u
purchase i n 1987 and 1988?
Over 50 p e r c e n t l e s s
10 -24 p e r c e n t l e s s
The Same
10 - 24 p e r c e n t more
Over 50 p e r c e n t rnore
( 1)
(3)
(5)
(7)
(9)
25 - 49 p e r c e n t 1ess
1 - 9 percent l e s s
1 - 9 p e r c e n t more
25 - 49 p e r c e n t more
planning
(2)
(4)
(6)
(8)
to
What l e n g t h o f new permanent f e n c i n g ( i n m e t r e s ) do y o u i n t e n d t o
e r e c t i n t h e 1986/87 season and what d i d y o u e r e c t i n t h e 1985/86
season? ( 1 c h a i n = 20 m e t r e s ) . I f none, p l e a s e e n t e r 0.
New Fencing
8.
MEDIA
(A)
How much INFOKMATION and ADVICE do y o u c o n s i d e r y o u need
t h e f o l 1owi ng i t e m s ?
No a d v i c e ( 1 ) L i t t l e a d v i c e ( 2 ) Some
Considerable advice ( 4 )
advice
on
(3)
Weed and P e s t C o n t r o l
Farm F i n a n c i a l Manageinent
Deer Farmi ng
Horticul Lural
Goat Fa r m i n g
A y r i c u l t u r a l Research
?,
Farni F o r e s t r y
Sources and Use o f Farril Finance
(B)
F o r EACH o f t h e f o l l o w i r i g farin i n p u t s and s e r v i c e s , WHICH
FOKi-I OF iJlEBIA do y o u f e e l i s t h e most he1 p f u l t o YOU i n
a s s i s t i n g you t o make y o u r own p u r c h a s i n g d e c i s i o n s ?
Magazines (1) Newspapers ( 2 ) Radio ( 3 ) T e l e v i s i o n ( 4 )
Other ( 5 )
Animal Heal t t l Products
F e r t i 1 is e r
A y r i c u l t u r a l c h e ~ n i c asl
Farnl l ~ l a c t ~ i n e rand
y equipment
V e h i c l e s and blotor b i k e s
Fencing e q u i pmerit/materi a1 s
Stock Foods
Breeding Stock
C)
Farrning p u b l i c a t i o n s should a s s i s t you i n your buying
d e c i s i o n s by c r i t i c a l l y analysing and r e p o r t i n g on t h e
q u a l i t y and e f f e c t i v e n e s s of many d i f f e r e n t farm products you
must buy.
L i s t u p t o THREE farriling p u b l i c a t i o n s t h a t you
receive and i n d i c a t e your s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e way they give
you t h i s a s s i s t a n c e ?
Very s a t i s f a c t o r y ( I ) S a t i s f a c t o r y ( 2 ) So-So ( 3 )
Unsati s f a c t o r y ( 4 ) Very Unsatisfactory ( 5 )
I.....
................................................
......................................................
( D ) Please
l i s t in order
pub1 i c a t i o n s t h a t :
the
FARM MAdAGEMENT
THREE
Most infl uence your
i~iakin g?
B.
Most influence your purchase of PUODUCTS/SERVICES
e s s e n t i a l t o running your farril business?
farm
deci sion
..............................................
I f you were a b l e t o g e t only ONE
regul a r l y , which ONE would you choose?
Please specify
(F)
inlportance
A.
I.......
(E)
of
FARMING
publication
.......................................
It
has been suggested t h a t
t o p i c s covered in
rural
p u b l i c a t i o n s do not cover a wide enough range t o c a t e r
adequately f o r the needs and i n t e r e s t s of r u r a l women
throughout New Zealand.
Would you c a r e t o suggest some
ADUITIONAL t o p i c s ?
(G)
How i m p o r t a n t do y o u r a t e EACH o f t h e f o l l o w i n g
c o n t a i n e d i n an advertisrnent f o r a f a r ~ ni n p u t ?
facts
Very I r n p o r t a r ~ t( 1 ) I m p o r t a n t ( 2 ) So-So ( 3 )
U r ~ i r n p o r t a n t ( 4 ) Very Unimportant ( 5 )
I t s price
Maker's c l a i m s
B e n e f i t s t o user
Cost savings
Where a v a i 1a b l e l o c a l l y
D i s t r i b u t o r ' s nalile
Spares a v a i 1 a b i 1 ity
Warranty p e r i o d
Other ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y
9.
................)
INSURANCE
(A)
Ldhich o f t h e f o l l o w i n g would be y o u r MAJOR reason
s e l e c t i ng an insurance company f o r L i f e I n s u r a n c e ?
for
Word o f blouth
Kecommendati on
A d v e r t i semen t
Farmer A s s o c i a t i o n
Sought t h e Cheapest p r i c e
F a m i l y Connection
I n s u r a n c e agent s e r v i c e
S i z e o f i n s u r a n c e company
Type o f c o v e r o f f e r e d
(B)
Which o f t h e f o l l o w i n g would be
s e l e c t i n y an i n s u r a n c e companies
Insurance?
your
for
MAJOR reason f o r
F i r e and General
Word o f Mouth
Reco~~imenda
ti on
A d v e r t i semen t
Fariner A s s o c i a t i o n
Sought t h e Cheapest p r i c e
Fami l y Connection
I n s u r a n c e agent s e r v i c e
S i ze o f i n s u r a n c e company
Type o f c o v e r o f f e r e d
C l a i m payment s e r v i c e
(C)
Do y o u c o n s i d e r t h a t you a r e k e p t a d e q u a t e l y i n f o r m e d w i t h
r e g a r d s t o NEW PRODUCTS, SERVICES and RATE CHANGES by y o u r
I n s u r a n c e Companies?
Yes (1) No ( 2 )
(D)
Do you c o n s i d e r Insurance Cornpanies p r o v i d e ADEQUATE SERVICE
t o t h e farrni ny comrnuni t y ?
Yes ( 1 )
(E)
Do you c u r r e n t l y use any form o f Insurance Company FINANCE?
Yes ( 1 )
(F)
No ( 2 )
No ( 2 )
Do you hope t o use Insurance Company FINANCE a t some
ti me?
future
Yes ( 1 ) No ( 2 )
(GI
Do you use y o u r L i f e Assurance f o r LOAN PKOTECTION?
Yes ( 1 )
(H)
No ( 2 )
Do you use y o u r L i f e Assurance f o r ESTATE PKOTECTION?
Yes (1) No ( 2 )
( I)
Do you use y o u r L i f e Assurance f o r INVESTMENT?
Yes ( 1 ) No ( 2 )
( J ) Do you use y o u r L i f e Assurance f o r FAMILY PROTECTION?
Yes ( 1 ) No ( 2 )
(K)
Do you use y o u r L i f e Assurance f o r ACCESS TO FINANCE?
Yes ( 1 ) No ( 2 )
(L)
Do you c o n s i d e r y o u r L i f e Assurance u s e f u l
FUNDIIdG?
for
RETIREMENT
Yes ( 1 ) No ( 2 )
(M)
Upon whom do you r e l y t h e MOST f o r insurance advice?
Insurance Cottipany
Local Insurance Agent
Farrriers A s s o c i a t i o n
Stock and S t a t i o n Company
Bank Manager
Accountant
Sol i c i t o r
Friends
Other
(N)
(1)
(2)
,,
(3
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8
(9)
Cihat a r e t h e TOTAL PREMIUMS p a i d by you each y e a r i n r e s p e c t
o f you and y o u r f a m i l y f o r :
A.
L i f e Insurance
$
B.
F i r e and General Insurance
$
10.
COMPUTERS
Do you own, o r have r e g u l a r access, t o a micro-computer?
(A)
Have Own ( 1 ) Have access t o ( 2 )
Neither (3)
I F NITHER GO TO QUESTION ( J )
(B)
F o r how many months have you used a computer?
(C)
Give t h e f o l l o w i n g d e t a i l s o f t h e computer
...................................
Memory S i z e ( k ) . ........................
Number o f D i s k D r i v e s ...................
Brand
Capacity o f Disk Drives.................
Width o f P r i n t e r ( C h a r a c t e r s )
(Dl
...........
Where d i d you g e t t h e computer from?
Cornputer agent i n l o c a l business c e n t r e
Computer agent i n n e a r e s t c i t y
Overseas
Other ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y . .
.)
.................
(E)
,Y
Who i s y o u r
p r o b l erns?
major
Computer suppl ie r
Local Computer Group
Neighbour
Accountant
Farm C o n s u l t a n t
School Teacher
Other ( p l e a s e speci fy
Who i s y o u r
problerns?
major
Computer s u p p l i e r
Local Conlput e r Group
Neighbour
Accountant
Farrn C o n s u l t a n t
School Teacher
Other ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y
(GI
How much t i m e
( h o u r s ) on:
Business
Education
Ent e r t a i nment
supplier
of
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
assistance
for
HARDWARE
for
SOFTWARE
(1)
(2
(3)
(4
(5)
...................)
supplier
of
(6)
(7)
assistance
......
do you spend u s i n g y o u r computer
each
week
(H)
What i s t h e MAJOR use o f y o u r computer?
P a y r o l l work
Financial recording
Cashfl ow/budgeti ng
(cash
Livestock/production/paddock
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
book)
recording
Stock/i nventory control
D e b t o r s / c r e d i t o r s system
Accessing d a t a bases
Nord p r o c e s s i n g
Spreadsheets
Games
Other ( p l e a s e specify..
(6)
(7
(8
(9
(10)
(11)
...................
(I)
Using a computer i n c u r s e x t r a c o s t s and produces e x t r a
benefits.
Which o f t h e f o l l o w i n g r e f l e c t s y o u r s i t u a t i o n ?
B e n e f i t s g r e a t e r t h a n c o s t s ( 1 ) J u s t break
Costs a r e rnuch g r e a t e r t h a n b e n e f i t s ( 3 )
NOW ti0 TO QUESTION
(J)
Why do y o u
management?
NOT
even (2)
(K)
yet
use a
co~nputer t o
he1 p
with
your
Don' t know
(1)
Cornputer systems a r e t o o expensive
(2
Would use one i f c o u l d f i n d t h e t i m e t o l e a r n how
t o use them
(3
W i l l never g e t one as t h e y a r e a waste o f t i m e and
lnoney
(4)
P l a n t o y e t one soon
(5
Other ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y
(6)
..........................
(K)
Do y o u t h i n k t h e r e i s enough i n f o r m a t i o n
computers and prograrns f o r farmers?
available
about
Yes (1) No ( 2 )
I f NO what a r e t h e TWO MAJOR t y p e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n you r e q u i r e ?
Cost o f hardware (computer, p r i n t e r e t c )
Cost o f s o f t w a r e ( c o n t r o l 1 ing i n t r u c t i o n s )
Computer o p e r a t i n g c o s t s
What computers can do i'n b r o a d terms
Systems a v a i 1a b l e t o fdrrners
I n s t r u c t i o n s on how t o use a computer
D e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n o f each p o s s i b l e use o f a
computer
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4
(5)
(6
(7
What i s t h e b e s t way t o g e t t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n :
Through w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l i n b o o k l e t form
Oryanised l o c a l formal d e ~ n o n s t r a t i o n sand
discussions
I n f o r r i i a l dernonstra'iions and d i s c u s s i o n s b y l o c a l
agent
Workshops and seminars r u n o v e r s e v e r a l days
Formal Government a d v i s o r s y iv i ng in d i v i dual
d e ~ n o n s t r a t i o nand a d v i c e
Commercial c o n s u l t a n t s g i v i n g i n d i v i d u a l
d e ~ n o n s t r a tons
i
and a d v i c e
A r t i c l e s i n rnagazi nes and/or j o u r n a l s
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4
(5)
(6
(7)
11.
FARMING EDUCATION
(A)
Which o f t i l e f o l l o w i n y q u a l i f i c a t i o n s i n f a r m i n g do you
c o n s i d e r now p r o v i d e s t h e IdIdIMUM l e v e l o f f a m i n g / f a r m
management t r a i n i n g f o r a person t a k i n g on farm management
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s today ( t h i s i n c l u d e s owner-managers)?
A pass i n A g r i c u l t u r e a t Secondary School
A one y e a r course a t T e l f o r d / F l o c k House/Tech
Institute
Trade C e r t i f i c a t e i n Farming
Diploma i n A g r i c u l t u r e
Trade C e r t i f i c a t e i n Farm Management
Diploma i n Farm Management
Bachelor o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Commerce
Bachelor o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Science
An ' a p p r e n t i c e s h i p ' w i t h Dad on t h e home farm
12.
(1
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8
(9)
FARMER OPIIqION
(1)
PRODUCT EXPECTATIONS
(A)
Even i f you do n o t produce a l l o f t h e f o l l o w i n g products, how
do you f e e l about t h e i r FUTURE MARKET PROSPECTS i n t h e s h o r t
term ( n e x t y e a r ) rrlediurn term (1-3 y e a r s ) and l o n g therm (3-10
years).
(Please complete a1 1 boxes).
Optilnistic (1)
Reasonably s a t i s f i e d ( 2 )
Pessimistic (3)
Short
Medi um
Long
Sheep Meat
Beef
W
Wool
Dai ry Produce
H o r t i c u l t u r a l Produce
Deer I n d u s t r y Products
Goat I n d u s t r y Products
(2)
INFLATION EXPECTATIONS
(A)
I f you were asked t o p r e d i c t t h e r a t e o f i n t e r n a l
i n f l a t i o n i n New Zealand i n t h e n e x t t w e l v e months,
what woul d you c o n s i d e r t h e most 1 i k e l y r a t e t o be ( a s
measured by t h e Consurner P r i c e Index).
( 3)
EFFECT1VENESS OF FEDERATED FARMERS
(A)
I f you were asked t o r a t e t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e Federated
Fariners o r g a n i s a t i o n over the p a s t two y e a r s how would you
assess i t ?
Very E f f e c t i v e (1) E f f e c t i v e ( 2 ) 'So-So'
I n e f f e c t i v e ( 4 ) Very I n e f f e c t i v e ( 5 )
(3)
(4)
INCOME STABL ISATION
(A)
If i t i s assumed t h a t Govern~nents in the f u t u r e will not
underwrite schemes t o s t a b i l i s e farm incomes, which one of
the fol 1owi n y two statements woul d sun1 u p your a t t i t u d e ?
I would support schernes in which a1 1 the producers of
a p a r t i c u l a r product have a levy imposed on t h a t
product, these l e v i e s would go i n t o a fund which would
be used when p r i c e s went below a c e r t a i n l e v e l . ( 1 )
I would want t o i n v e s t my own surpluses and would not
want t o c o n t r i b u t e t o any Producer Schenies
(2)
(5)
BUDGET FORECAST
( A ) By
now you will no doubt have completed your budget f o r e c a s t
f o r t h e 1986-87 farming year. How would you describe your
l i k e l y s i t u a t i o n in the l i g h t of t h i s farm budget?
Good (1) F a i r ( 2 )
Bad ( 3 )
(6) RURAL BAldK
(A)
On 2 July 1986 Government announced t h a t the Rural Bank will
make a v a i l a b l e a discount scheme. I t would o f f e r t o ' a d j u s t
i t s own mortgages on a property, including land development
encouragement 1oans, by reducing the principal surn owed by
the farmer t o the Bank and siinul taneously increasing i t s
i n t e r e s t r a t e t o 17.5 per c e n t , i n such a way t h a t t h e
farmers debt servicing payments remain a t the sarne level a s
they were before.
The e f f e c t o f the reduction in t h e
p r i n c i p l e sum owed by the far~meri s t o increase h i s equity in
the property. ' Which of the following statements sums u p your
s i tuation?
I
I
I
I
intend applying f o r the above scheme.
shall not be applying f o r the above scheme.
am s t i l l undecided.
have no loans fro111the Rural Bank.
( 1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(7)
AID TO FARI7IIdG
(A)
I f you, a s a farr~ier,were asked, what in your opinion was the
SINGLE most important thing t h a t could be done t o a s s i s t
farrniny in New Zealand today what would i t be?
(8)
FIRE AND SMOKE DETECTORS
(A)
Do you
house?
c u r r e n t l y have a f i r e and/or srnoke detector in your
Yes ( 1 )
No ( 2 )
(B)
Do you i n t e n d t o purchase a f i r e and/or smoke d e t e c t o r w i t h i n
the n e x t y e a r ?
Yes ( 1 )
No ( 2 )
Not Sure ( 3 )
(9)
SPOUSE WORKING OFF FARM
(A)
Does y o u r spouse work o f f farm?
Yes, i n FULL t i m e p a i d employment
Yes, i n PART t i m e p a i d e ~ n p l o y ~ i ~ e n t
Yes, i n UNPAID community work
No
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(10) MARKETING OF LAMB I N NORTH AMERICA
(A)
Which o f t h e f o l l o w i n g staternents r e f l e c t s y o u r o p i n i o n on
t h e way Nez Zealand lainb should be marketed i n N o r t h America?
D.E.V.C.O.
should c o n t i n u e t o have s o l e s e l l i n g
r i g h t s f o r NZ lamb i n t h e N o r t h America market
(1)
should no l o n g e r have s o l e s e l l i n g r i g h t s
D.E.V.C.O.
f o r NZ lamb i n the N o r t h America inarket
(2)
No Opinion
(3
(11) THE 'THINK B I G ' PROJECTS
(A)
>?
Which o f t h e f o l l o w i n g statements b e s t r e f l e c t s y o u r views on
t h e 'Think B i g ' p r o j e c t s ?
The ' T h i n k
industry
B i g ' p r o j e c t s are h e l p f u l t o the
The ' T h i n k
industry
B i y ' p r o j e c t s a r e harmful t o t h e
primary
(1)
primary
(2)
The 'Think B i g ' p r o j e c t s have no e f f e c t on t h e primary
industry
(3)
No Opinion
(4)
( 1 2 ) RURAL SUPPOKT/NEIGHBUUKHOOU WATCH SCHEMES
(A)
Which o f t h e f o l l o w i n g statements a p p l i e s t o y o u r area?
We have a Rural Support/Neighbourhood watch scheme (1)
We do n o t have a Rural Support/Neighbourhood
sche~ne, b u t I consider t h e r e i s a need f o r one
watch
(2
We do n o t have a Rural SupportjMeiyhbourhood watch
(3)
scheme, and I consider t h e r e i s no need f o r one
No Opinion
(4
12.
CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND INVESTMENT
(A)
A t t i l e end o f t h e 1985-86 season, how were y o u r l i a b i l i t i e s
( i n c l u d i n g c u r r e n t account o v e r d r a f t ) d i s t r i b u t e d among t h e
f o l l o w i n g sources. Please i n d i c a t e t h e term f o r w h i c h each
l o a n was g r a n t e d and t h e CURRENT i n t e r e s t r a t e .
i.e. Long Term (Longer t h a n 10 y e a r s )
i9ediunl Terrn ( 3 - 10 y e a r s )
S h o r t Term ( u p t o 3 y e a r s )
(1)
(2)
(3)
I f you have no l i a b i l i t i e s p l e a s e t i c k
Lender
Amount
1.
Rural Banking and Finance Corp.
2.
Govt. Agency o t h e r than KBFC
3.
T r u s t e e Savings Bank
4.
Your T r a d i n g Bank
5.
Building Society
6.
I n s u r a n c e Company
7.
Stock and S t a t i o n Agent
8.
T r u s t Company
9.
S o l i c i t o r s ' T r u s t e e Funds
10.
Family l o a n
11.
L a s t Owner o f Your Farm
12.
Local Body
13.
Finance Company
14.
D a i r y Compdny
15.
P r i v a t e Savings Bank
16.
Offshore
17.
Other ( s p e c i f y )
(8)
Term
Int.
D i d you rnake any new b o r r o w i n g ( i n c l u d i n g o v e r d r a f t
r e f i n a n c i n g ) d u r i n g t h e 1985-86 p r o d u c t i o n season.
Yes ( 1 )
No ( 2 )
and
D o n ' t Know ( 3 )
I f NO t h e n go t o Q u e s t i o n ( F )
(C)
What p r o p o r t i o n o f y o u r
r e f i n a n c e e x i s t i n g debt.
new
P r o p o r t i o n o f New Borrowing ( % )
liabilities
were
used
to
(D) When you borrow t h e r e are f i v e main f a c t o r s :
The
The
The
The
The
interest rate
amount avai 1a b l e f o r borrowing
l e n g t h o f time you have use o f t h e funds
annual payinents ( i n t e r e s t p l u s c a p i t a l )
amount o f s e c u r i t y r e q u i r e d
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
To you as a borrower, which f a c t o r i s t h e MOST
important
To you as a borrower, which f a c t o r i s t h e LEAST
important
(E)
During r e c e n t times some farmers have made use o f OFF-SHORE
borrowing f a c i l i t i e s . What percentage o f y o u r new borrowings
were made OFF-SHORE?
P r o p o r t i o n o f borrowing OFF-SHORE ( % )
(F)
1f' one o f t h e sources o f y o u r borrowings was OFF-SHORE
f i n a n c i a l b e n e f i t of t h i s loan t o you o v e r a l l , has been:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Greater than On-Shore loans
The same as an On-Shore l o a n
Less than an On-Shore l o a n
(G)
the
I t has been s a i d t h a t i n r e c e n t y e a r s i n c r e a s i n g numbers o f
farrners have i n v e s t e d i n OFF-FARM assets. A f t e r r e a d i n g t h e
f o l l o w i n g f o u r statements, which one would apply t o you?
I have no OFF-FARM inves t ~ n e n t s
(1)
I have soine OFF-FARlrl r e a l e s t a t e
(2)
I have sonie OFF-FARM f i n a n c i a l investrnerlts ( e .g.
(3
Shares)
I have some OFF-FliRI4 r e a l e s t a t e and sorne OFF-FARM
f i n a n c i a l investinents (e.g.
shares)
(4)
(H)
What would t h e value o f these OFF-FARM investments r e p r e s e n t
as a percentage o f y o u r TOTAL FARM CAPITAL?
Percentage o f TOTAL FARM CAPITAL ( % )
13.
PERSONAL
Now I \vou'ld 1 i k e t o know a few
answering t h i s questionnaire.
(A)
Aye ( i n y e a r s )
(B)
Sex:
detail s
about
the
person
Male (1) Fernale ( 2 )
You have now completed t h e questionnaire. Place i t i n t h e
addressed envelope and p o s t i t (no stamp i s r e q u i r e d ) . We w i l l then be
a b l e t o process y o u r answers along w i t h t h e o t h e r s t o g e t t h e o v e r a l l
s i t u a t i o n . Your answers rernain c o n f i d e n t i a l t o me.
Thank you f o r your co-operation.
John Pryde
RESEARCH REPORT
The Optimal Location of Egg Production in New Zealand,
A.C. Beck, J.P. Rathbun, C.D. Abbott, 1984.
An Economic Survey of New Zealand Town M i l k )
Producers, 1983-84, R.G. Moffitt, 1985.
The Economics of Irrigation Development of the Amuri
Plains irrigation Scheme, Glen Greer, 1984.
A Financial and Economic Survey of South Auckland Town
Milk Producers and Factory Supply Dairy Farmers, 198384, R.G. Moffitt, 1985.
An Economic Survey of New Zealand Wheatgrowers:
Enterprise Analysis, Survey No. 8, 1983-84, R.D. Lough,
P.J. McCartin, 1984.
Optimal Pricing and Promotion for Agricultural Marketing
Agencies, S.K. Martin, L. Young, A.C. Zwart, 1986.
An Economic Survey of New Zealand Wheatgrowers:
Financial Analysis, 1982-83, R.D. Lough, P.J. McCartin,
1984.
A Contractual Framework for Evaluating Agricultural and
Horticultural Marketing Channels, S.K. Martin, A.C. Zwart,
1986.
Farmland Pricing i n an Inflationary Economy with
lmplications for Public Policy, K.L. Leathers, J.D. Gough,
1984.
An .Integrated Framework for Analysing Agricultural
Marketing Issues, S.K. Martin, A.N. Rae, A.C. Zwart, 1986.
Labour Mobility Between New Zealand and Australia, R.L.
St Hill, 1986.
An Analysis of Production, Consumption and Borrowing
Behaviour in the North Island Hill Country Pastoral Sector,
A.C. Beck, J.B. Dent, 1984.
Survey of New Zealand Farmer Intentions and Opinions,
November 1985-January 1986, J.G. Pryde, P.J. McCartin,
1986.
New Zealand's Inshore Fishery: a Perspective on the
Current Debate, R.A. Sandrey, D.K. O'Donnell, 1985.
A Financial and Economic Survey of South Auckland Town
Milk Producers and Factory Supply Dairy Farmers, 198485, R.G. Moffitt, 1986.
Land Policy and Land Settlement in New Zealand, J.R.
Fairweather, 1985.
Farm Enlargement in New Zealand, J.R. Fairweather, 1985.
An Economic Survey of New Zealand Town Milk
Producers, 1984-85, R.G. Moffitt, 1986.
Market Prospects for Maize, S.A. Hughes, R.L. Sheppard,
1985.
An Economic Survey of NZ Wheatgrowers: Financial
Analysis, 1984-85; R.D. Lough, P.J. McCartin, 1986
Factor Cost Analysis of a New Zealand Meat Processing
Company, M.D. Clemes, L.D. Woods, 1985.
The Effect on Horticulture of Dust and Ash: Proposed
Waikato Coal-Fired Power Station, P.R. McCrea, October
1986
An Economic Survey of New Zealand Wheatgrowers:
Enterprise Analysis, Survey No. 9, 1984-85, R.D. Lough,
P.J. McCartin, 1985.
A Study of the Determinants of Fattening and Grazing
Farm Land Prices in New Zealand, 1962 to 1983. P.G.
Seed, R.A. Sandrey, B.D. Ward., December 1986
An Economic Survey of New Zealand Wheatgrowers:
Financial Analysis, 1983-84, R.D. Lough, P.J. McCartin,
1985.
8172.
Biological Control of Gorse: an ex-ante evaluation, R.A.
Sandrey, 1985.
173.
The Competitive Position of New Zealand Fresh Fruit
Exports, M.T. Laing, S.A. Hughes, R.L. Sheppard, 1985.
174.
Marketing Structures for the Horticultural Industry, N.L.
Taylor, R.G. Lattimore, 1985.
Farmers' Responses to. Economic Restructuring i n
Hurunui and Clutha Counties: Preliminary Analysis of
Survey Data. J.R. Fairweather, July 1987.
Survey of NZ Farmer Intentions and Opinions, OctoberDecember 1986. J.G. Pryde, P.J. McCartin, July 1987.
Economic Adjustment in New Zealand: A Developed
Country Case Study of Policies and Problems, R.G.
Lattimore, July 1987.
DlSCUSSlON PAPERS
104.
Farmlands Grain (N.Z.) Society Ltd - A Marketing Audit
1980-84, R.G. Lattimore, 1986. (not available)
105
Proceedings of the New Zealand Rural Economy and
Society Study Group Seminar, J.R. Fairweather (ed.),
October 1986
106
Papers presented at the Eleventh Annual Conference of
the New Zealand Branch of the Australian Agricultural
Economics Society, Blenheim. Volume 1 and 2. December
1986
Farm Structure Change in New Zealand and Implications
for Policy, J.R. Fairweather, 1986.
107
Gorse and Goats: Considerations for Biological Control
of Gorse. R.A. Sandrey, January 1987.
Accounting Developments and Implications for Farm
Business, R.H. Juchau, 1986.
108
Red Deer: The Economic Valuation. R.A. Sandrey, January
1987.
Maori Fishing Rights in New Zealand: an Economic
Perspective, R.A. Sandrey, 1986.
109
Rural New Zealand; what next? Ralph Lattimore and Tim
Wallace (eds.), July 1987.
Government's Role in Adverse Events Assistance, T.E.
Dickinson, R.A. Sandrey, 1986.
110
Dairying in Japan and the Benefits of Adopting New
Zealand Pasture Grazing Techniques. R.G. Moffitt, April
Supply Response Parameters in New Zealand Agriculture
- a Literature Search, M. Wood-Belton, R.G.J. Lattimore,
1985.
Papers Presented at the Tenth Annual Conference of the
New Zealand Branch, Australian Agricultural Economics
Society, 1985.
An Examination of Alternative Marketing Structures - a
literaturesearch, D.E. Fowler, R.L. Sheppard, S.A. Hughes,
1985.
1987.
The Treatment of Taxation in Capital Investment Appraisal,
N.T. Williams, 1986.
111
Selling New Zealand Products in Japan. R.G. Moffitt, July
1987.
Additional copies of Research Reports, apart from complimentary copies, are available at $20.00 each.
Discussion Papers are usually $15.00 but copies of Conference Proceedings (which are usually published
as Discussion Papers) are $20.00. Discussion Paper No. 106 is $20.00 per volume and Discussion Paper
No. 109 is $29.70.