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.