TOMATOES AND THE CLOSER ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIP
WITH AUSTRALIA
R. L. Sheppard
Views expressed in Agricultural Economics Research Unit Discussion Papers
are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
Director, other members of the staff, or members of the Policy or Advisory
Committee.
Discussion Paper No. 75
Agricultural Economics Research Unit
Lincoln College
Canterbury
New Zealand
November 1983
ISSN 0110-7720
THE AGRICULTURAL ECONO/'v1TCS RES.EARCH UNiT
Lincoln College, Canterbury, N.Z.
The Agricultural Economics Research Unit (AERU) was est3.blished in 1962 at Lincoln
College, University of Canterbury. The aims of the Unit arc LO assist bywayof economic
rcst:arch those groups involved in the many aspects ofNe',;;,' Zealand primary production
and product processing, distribution ;lnd n1<lrketing.
Major sources of funding have be.en annual grants from the Department of Scientific
and Industrial Research and the College. However, a substantial proportion of the
Unit's budget is derived from specific project research under contract to government
departments, producer boards, farmer organisations and LO commercial and industrial
groups.
The Unit is involved in a wide spectrum of agricultural economics and management
research, wi.th some concentration on production economics, naturai resource
tconomics, mHketing, processing and transportation. The results of research projects
rire published as Research Reports or Discussion Papers. (For further information
regarding the Unit's publications seethe inside back cover). The Unit also sponsors
periodic conferences and seminars on topics of regional and national interest, often in
conjunction with other organisation~.
. •.
The Unit is gUIded in policy formation hy an Advisqry Committee first established in
:982.
The AERU,the Department of Agricultural Economics and Mar\<:eting, and the
Department of Farm Management and Rural Valuation maintain a close working
relationship on research and associated matters.'fhe heads of these two Departments
He represented on the Advisory Cornrilittee, and together with the Director, constitute
in AERU PoHcy Committee.
.
UNIT ADVISORY COMlvIITTEE
G:W. Butler, M.Sc., Fi1;dr., F.R.S,N.Z.
(Assistant Director-General, Department of Scientific & Industrial Research)
B.D. Chamberlin
(Junior Vke-President, FederatedF?smers of New Zeilland Inc.)
F.D. Chudleigh, B.Sc.(Hons), Ph.D.
(Director, Agricultural Economics Research Unit, Lincoln College) {ex officio}
]. Clarke, -C.M~G.
(Member, Ne",. Zealand Planning C01Jn.ciJ)
J.B. Dent, 13.Sc.; M.Agr.Sc., Ph.D.
(}~:;-of::~sor & He£l.d of Departl-.nent of FarDJ. IviB.nagement & Rural v~~ju~..tion, Liricoin. Col1.ege)
E.J. Neilson, B.A.,B.Corh., F.eA., F.c.I.S.
(Lincoln Colkge Council)
B.]. Ross, M,Agr.Sc.,
(P'_ofessc,) & Head of Department of AgriccltlJ1'al Economics & Marketing, Lincoln ColJege}
P. Shirtcliffe, :S.Com., AeA
(I,Iorninee of Advis.Qry Committee)
Professor SirJ?iil.CS Stewart, M.A., Ph.D.,b~p. V,F.M., FNZIAS, FNZSFM
(Principd of Lincoln College)
E,J, Stonyer, B.Agr. Sc.
(Director, ECO;lomics Division, Ministry of Agl,'i<:uIture and Fisheries)
UNIT RESEARCH STAFF: 1983
Director
P.D. Chudleigh, B;Sc. (Hons), Ph.D.
Re.llltlrchFeli(Nu i1l Agrialltural Pollc.v
J.G. Pryde, O.B.E., M.A., F.N.Z,LM.
Senior Researc,~ Economists
A.C. Beck, B'sc.Agr., M.Ec.
KL. Leathers, B.S" M.S., Ph.D.
RD. Lough,RAgLSc.
R.L Sheppard, B;Agr.Sc.(Hons). B.B.S.
Research Economist
R:G. Moffitt, B.Hort.Sc., T-J.D.H.
il.ssi.rtant ReJeearrh 'EcoflomiJts
G. Greer, B.Agr.Sc.(Hons) (D.S.I.R SecQndment)
SA Hughes, B.Sc.(Hons), D.RA.
G.N. Kerr, B.A., M.A. (Hons)
M.T. Laing, B.Com.(Agr), M.Com.(Agr) (Hons)
P.J. McCartin, R Agr.eom:
P.R. McCrea,B.C6m. (Agr)
J.P. Rathbun, B,Sc., M.Com.(Hons)
Post Graduate Fellows
N. Blyth, B.Sc.(Hons)
c.rz.G. D,nkey, B.Sc., M.Sc.
Secretary
C.T. Hill
CON TEN T S
Page
LIST OF TABLES
( iii)
LIST OF FIGURES
(iii)
PREFACE
(v)
(vii)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
(ix)
SUMMARY
SECTION
SECTION 2
SECTION 3
SECTION 4
INTRODUCTION
I. I
CER Negotiations
1.2
CER Negotiations - Tomatoes
AUSTRALIAN TOMATO SUPPLY POTENTIAL
5
2. I
Introduction
5
2.2
Australian Tomato Supply
5
2.3
Queensland Production
5
2.4
Queensland Production Costs
6
2.5
Required New Zealand Returns
6
2.6
Queensland Fruit Fly
7
2.7
The Queensland Market
7
NEW ZEALAND TOMATO PRODUCTION AND PRICES
II
3. I
Introduction
II
3.2
Production Costs
12
3.3
Product Supply and Market Prices
14
THE POSSIBLE AUSTRALIAN SUPPLY IMPACT
19
REFERENCES
APPENDIX
2
23
Tomato Production Costs - Queensland
25
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
Australian Fresh Vegetable and Tomato Access to New Zealand
under CER
3
2
Monthly Average Tomato Prices - Brisbane Wholesale Market
8
3
Monthly Tomato Throughput - Brisbane Wholesale Market
9
4
New Zealand Tomato Production
11
5
Auckland Region Production Parameters 1981/82
13
6
Tomato Supply and Price at Auction 1982
15
7
Average Monthly New Zealand Tomato Prices at Auction
16
8
Access for Australian Tomatoes -Quantity
20
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
2
Page
Monthly Tomato Prices and Throughput - Brisbane Wholesale
Market
10
Average Monthly New Zealand Tomato Prices
17
(iii)
PREFACE
The Closer Economic Relationship (CER) with Australia has evoked both optimistic
and pessimistic views on the impact on New Zealand manufacturing industries.
Views regarding the impact on the New Zealand agricultural and horticultural
sectors have been less well vented.
An exception has been in the glasshouse tomato industry where considerable
fears are held regarding the effect of the access given to Australian tomato
growers on the viability of New Zealand producers.
This paper presents information on the CER agreement and data on costs
and supply from both Australia and New Zealand. The paper concludes that the
impact of the CER agreement on the New Zealand industry is likely to be small,
at least for the next five years.
P D Chudleigh
Director
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research reported upon in this Discussion Paper was undertaken while
the author was on a period of Australian Conference Leave from Lincoln College.
The financial assistance of Lincoln College which enabled the research to
be undertaken following conference attendance in Brisbane is acknowledged.
The financial assistance received from the New Zealand Institute of
Agricultural Science through the Westpac Travel Award for 1982/83 is also
gratefully acknowledged.
(vii)
SUMMARY
The Closer Economic Relationship with Australia agreement (CER) was brought
into effect on I January 1983. The CER provided for the liberalisation of trade
between New Zealand and Australia. This liberalisation is to be effected
through the gradual elimination of barriers to trade following an established
formula. Some departures from the formula are provided for where specific
products would be treated in an inappropriate manner if the formula were followed.
The objective of the liberalisation procedure is complete removal of barriers
to trade by 1995.
The granting of access to the New Zealand market for Australian tomatoes
is included in the agreement. The level of access provided caused New Zealand
growers of hothouse tomatoes to express concern over the possible impact of
imports on the New Zealand industry. This Discussion Paper provides a report
on an investigation of the likely impact of Australian tomato supplies on the
New Zealand market. It is established that the most probable source of exports
to New Zealand is Queensland. A review of Queensland tomato production costs
indicates that a price of $A5.00/10 kg carton would be required by Queensland
growers to cover their variable production costs. Additional costs involved
in exporting to New Zealand result in a New Zealand market price of $NZI7.00/
10 kg carton ($NZI.70/kg) being required by Queensland growers. This price
can be achieved on the New Zealand market between June and November. Exporting
to New Zealand would therefore only be attractive to Queensland growers during
that period.
The New Zealand hothouse tomato growing industry supplies approximately two
thirds of the tomatoes for the freshmarket. These supplies are predominantly
during autumn, winter and spring when higher prices are available. During
summer, prices are lower as outdoor grown- tomatoes become available. The
hothouse tomato growing industry considers that the high winter prices are
essential to their profitability. It is probable that some price reductions
will occur as a result of imports from Australia being available during winter.
However, the quality of the Australian product is likely to be inferior to
that available in New Zealand and therefore the price impact will be less.
In addition, up to 1988 the quantity of tomatoes able to be imported from
Australia is limited to a level equivalent to between 0.57 per cent and 1.01
per cent of average New Zealand annual hothouse tomato production. The
average variation in New Zealand hothouse tomato production from year to year
(over 1975 to 1981) exceeded the total allowable Australian supply by between
14 and 25 times. Therefore the impact of New Zealand supply variations on
the market price is likely to be greater than the impact of supplies from
Australia.
Over the longer term, increased supplies from Australia can be expected
to have a greater impact on the New Zealand market. The establishment of
appropriate premiums for higher quality New Zealand tomatoes through the use
of an effective marketing system would reduce this price lowering effect of
imports from Australia. Some reduction in New Zealand hothouse tomato production
could be expected as less efficient growers fail to achieve adequate returns.
There is likely to be increased total demand for tomatoes during the winter
period when lower priced Australian tomatoes are available. Increased outdoor
tomato production during the summer months could also be expected to offset
reduced hothouse tomato supplies during summer. Overall, prices are likely
to be reduced (with premiums available for high quality product) and tomato
consumption could be expected to increase.
(ix)
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
CER Negotiations
The Closer Economic Relationship with Australia agreement (CER) emerged
as a concept during 1979. Following the annual NAFTA (New Zealand/Australia
Free Trade Agreement) Ministerial meeting in April 1979, the Australian and
New Zealand Prime Ministers requested senior officials in both Governments
to examine ways of achieving closer economic co-operation between the two
countries. In March 1980, the Australian Prime Minister visited New Zealand
and a communique was issued from the meeting of the two Prime Ministers that
established the framework for examination of possible arrangements for a closer
economic relationship. Negotiations continued between Australian and New
Zealand Government Ministers and officials, including extensive discussions
between Government officials and industry sector representatives in both
countries, during 1980 and 1981 culminating in a meeting between the New
Zealand Prime Minister (and other New Zealand Ministers) and the Australian
Deputy Prime Minister from 20-21 April 1982. This meeting finalised the
major content of the agreement that was brought into effect from 1 January 1983.
The New Zealand Prime Minister, in his Press Statement of 4 June 1982,
outlined the CER agreement as "a comprehensive agreement covering trade and
aspects of economic relations with our most important trading partner. It
is broad in scope and open-ended in duration although it is proposed that
there will be a major review of the arrangements after five years to examine
whether adjustments are needed to ensure that they are bringing benefits to
both countries on a reasonably equitable basis."
The objectives of the CER Agreement are:
"
(i)
to strengthen the broader relationship between Australia
and New Zealand;
(ii)
to develop closer economic relations between the Member
States through a mutually beneficial expansion of free
trade between New Zealand and Australia;
(iii)
(iv)
to eliminate barriers to trade between Australia and
New Zealand in a gradual and progressive manner under
an agreed timetable and with a minimum of disruption;
and
to develop trade between New Zealand and Australia under
conditions of fair competition." (CER, 1983)
The overall direction taken by the agreement is to liberalise trade
between the two countries. In New Zealand, this involves a removal of import
licencing for Australian goods, tariff reductions and removal of export
incentives for goods exported to Australia. Movement toward trade liberalisation has been tied to a formula in the agreement which involves a steady
reduction in trade barriers with the ultimate objective of complete liberalisation in 1995. Some special provisions have been established for particular
products outside the general formula.
1.
2.
1.2
CER Negotiations - Tomatoes
During the Closer Economic Relationship negotiations between Australia
and New Zealand, proposals were put forward regarding the levels of access
available for different classes of products. The CER access formula for
the fresh and chilled vegetable area was for access for Australia to New
Zealand of a total annual value of $NZ200,000 in the first year of CER.
Within this overall level, tomatoes were set at 10 per cent of the total,
an initial import value of $NZ20,000. These proposals had received favourable
consideration by the New Zealand tomato growing industry.
As CER negotiations proceeded, it became apparent that some changes in
the general access formulae for Australian goods to New Zealand would be
required in order to ensure the finalisation of a CER agreement. It was
therefore agreed (in association with a number of other changes for a range
of products) that the minimum base access level of $NZ200,000 CIF for fresh
and chilled vegetables would be increased to $NZ400,000 CIF. Within this
access level for fresh and chilled vegetables it was further agreed that the
initial access level of $NZ20,000 for tomatoes was not commercially viable.
Therefore the provision for tomatoes was increased from $NZ20,000 to NZ$ISO,OOO.
This access level for tomatoes was agreed to by the New Zealand Government
subject to agreement being reached on a suitable and acceptable method of
minimising the impact of imports of Australian tomatoes on the New Zealand
market. Negotiations on this aspect between the New Zealand Vegetable and
Produce Growers' Federation and the Queensland Committee of Direction of
Fruit Marketing (C.O.D.) in association with the Australian Commonwealth
Department of Primary Industry took place during November/December 1982.
As no agreement was reached in these negotiations, further discussions were
held between Government officials of both countries in December 1982.
These discussions resulted in an import procedure for Australian tomatoes
being established for the first 18 months licencing period from I January 1983
to 30 June 1984, under which 100 per cent of the EAL'slwill be allocated
to Fruit Distributors Ltd (FDL)2 who will act as a sole importer during that
period. Prior to 30 June 1984, consultations will take place between the
2
Exclusive Australian Licences
Fruit Distributors Ltd (FDL) is an unlisted public company, established
at the request of Government on I January 19SI. It was established to
import and distribute citrus fruits, bananas and pineapples in New Zealand.
Fresh grapes were included in 1961. At present there are 39 shareholder
companies which operate in the wholesale fruit and produce business. The
obligations imposed on FDL by Government are:
"(a)
To import adequate supplies of fresh citrus fruits, bananas, pineapples and grapes and to distribute these equitably throughout the
country at reasonable prices.
(b)
To encourage the development of the fruit business in certain
Pacific Island nations.
(c)
To accord a reasonable measure of protection to the citrus fruit
and fresh grape growing industries in New Zealand.
In return for meeting this obligations, the company has the sole right to
import bananas, citrus fruits, pineapples and grapes." (Fruit Distributors
Ltd, 1981).
3.
industries and officials of New Zealand and Australia to consider whether
FDL will remain the sole importer beyond 30 June 1984. In the absence of
an agreement for FDL to continue as the sole importer, EAL's will be allocated
in each licencing year from I July 1984 to 30 June 1988 on the basis that
not less than 40 per cent is allocated by open tender. A review of the allocation of EAL's will be undertaken in 1988. In addition (where agreement
regarding FDL is not reached), EAL's applicable from the licencing year I July
1984 will be tagged as being required to be used as follows: 50 per cent in the
period I July to 30 December and 50 per cent in the period I January to 30 June.
This agreement results in the level of access shown in Table 1 where real
(after inflation) increases from year to year of 15 per cent have been included
plus an allowance of 10 per cent for inflation: it should be noted that the
initial access at $NZ400,000 for fresh vegetables is for a twelve month period
based on a June year. The agreement did not come into effect until I January
1983 therefore only half of that initial access is available in the first June
year.
TABLE I
Australian Fresh Vegetable and Tomato Access to New Zealand under CER
a
Tomatoes
07.5% of
Fresh Vegetables)
Total Fresh
Vegetables
January 1983
July 1983 to
July 1984 to
July 1985 to
July 1986 to
July 1987 to
a
b
to
30
30
30
30
30
30 June 1983
June 1984
June 1985
June 1986
June 1987
June 1988
200'00~1 706 OOOb
506,000
640,090
809,714
1,024,288
1,295,724
'
75,000} 264 750 b
189,750
'
240,034
303,643
384,108
485,897
Tomatoes are included in the "Total Fresh Vegetables" access.
The Exclusive Australian Licence for I January 1983 to 30 June 1984 will
be issued as one block for $706,000 for fresh vegetables, including $264,750
for tomatoes.
The New Zealand Vegetable and Produce Growers' Federation has indicated
that it believes imports would only occur during the period of relatively
higher prices for tomatoes on the New Zealand market (during the New Zealand
winter months) and this would lower prices at that time. The effect of this,
according to the New Zealand Federation, would be the loss of adequate income
for the New Zealand glasshouse industry and the loss of New Zealand based
tomato supply. It was further considered that the loss of the hothouse tomato
supply for New Zealand would result in imports from Australia over the total
year at a higher average cost than was available from the New Zealand industry.
(This was based on the assumption that almost all fresh tomatoes for the New
Zealand market were grown in hothouses. However, only approximately 65 per
cent of fresh market supplies are hothouse sourced (Table 4).)
4.
The level of controversy apparent in the situation indicated a need for
an objective study of the likely impact on the New Zealand tomato industry of
imports of Australian tomatoes. Section 2 of this report presents the findings
from the review of the Australian tomato growing industry, Section 3 presents
information on the New Zealand glasshouse tomato production system and Section 4
of the report presents some conclusions regarding the likely impact of Australian
tomato supplies.
SECTION 2
AUSTRALIAN TOMATO SUPPLY POTENTIAL
2.1
Introduction.
A review of the potential for tomato imports to New Zealand from Australia
was undertaken during a visit by the author to Australia in February 1983. The
review involved an examination of the basis of tomato production in Australia
(i.e. indoor vs outdoor, importance of supply regions) and the costs involved
in tomato production. From this information, an assessment of the most likely
supply areas, the potential of those areas to supply tomatoes to New Zealand
and the required returns in New Zealand could be undertaken. Where a potential
for tomato supply from Australia could be identified, the required returns
could be compared with the New Zealand tomato prices (prior to imports) and
the possible impact of Australian tomato supply assessed.
2.2
Australian Tomato Supply
The Australian fresh tomato market is based primarily upon the ability
of the Queensland area to grow tomatoes under field conditions for a large
portion of the year. This has meant that the Queensland industry has developed
to a point where it supplie.s a major proportion of the total fresh market
for tomatoes in the Eastern and South-eastern part of Australia. The development has resulted in the virtual elimination of glasshouse grown tomato supply
in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. The development of the
Queensland industry has largely been a result of the development of the variety
of tomato called "Floradade". This tomato is bigger than that normally grown
in New Zealand, has a firm texture, a strong skin and is therefore able to
withstand considerable post harvest treatment, transport and storage. A
shelf life for this product in excess of two weeks is· accepted.
In view of this situation, the investigation of the Australian tomato
growing industry has been limited to a review of the Queensland situation
as it is unlikely that significant supplies of tomatoes to New Zealand will
come from any other area of Australia.
2.3
Queensland Production
In 1980-81, total Queensland production of tomatoes was 55,660 tonnes.
This represented approximately 20 per cent of total Australian tomato production, but in excess of 70 per cent (author's estimate) of Australian production
of fresh market tomatoes. Queensland tomato production has been increasing
steadily with 1980-81 production representing an increase of 80 per cent over
the 1975-76 production level. The area planted to tomatoes has increased
from 2,400 to 3,400 hectares over the same period. Also, tomatoes are the
most valuable vegetable crop in Queensland being worth an estimated $A37
million in 1980-81. Since 1980-81, production in the Bundaberg region has
continued to increase dramatically as the transfer from sugar cane growing
to other forms of land use has occurred.
In the Northern growing area around Bowen, which is the major production
area, the harvest time is spread from May to November with peak production
occurring from July to October. In the Bundaberg district there are two
5.
6.
distinct peaks of production, in June and early July and in October/November.
In the southern parts of Queensland, the main harvest period is from December
to March. Therefore, the northern regions of Queensland have a supply period
which is predominantly within the winter months. The ability of Queensland
to supply tomatoes over the temperate climate winter period is of significance
to the New Zealand supply situation in view of the CER agreement.
2.4
Queensland Production Costs
In the Bowen area of Queensland, the variable production cost per 10 kg
carton of tomatoes is estimated to be $A4.80 as at January 1983 (Appendix),
This cost is assessed as the variable cost associated with the placing of
the product in the Brisbane market. In the Bundaberg district the variable
cost per 10 kg carton has been assessed at $A4.91 as at January 1983 (Appendix).
The equivalent cost for the south-east Queensland region has been estimated
at approximately $A4.8s per carton (Appendix). These costs represent in
January 1983 dollars the cost of production during the peak of the season for
each district. Therefore, it would appear to be appropriate to assume a
variable cost for Queensland tomato production at around $As.OO per 10 kg
carton for the 1983 production season (representing an average for all districts).
As this is an estimate of the average production cost, there will be
considerable variation around this level. Where production is undertaken
on a family basis, it is common for the cost of production to not include
a return to the family labour. For production from larger enterprises, the
inclusion of higher labour costs will mean a higher recognised specific
production cost.
2.5
Required New Zealand Returns
In order for a long term commitment to be made to the New Zealand market,
it would be necessary for Queensland growers to be able to achieve a return
of approximately $A 5.00 per 10 kg carton at a point equivalent to the Brisbane
market. In order to achieve this, the New Zealand price would need to cover
the transport to New Zealand plus the Queensland production cost and handling
costs. At present, the airfreight rate for the transport of tomatoes to New
Zealand is $AO.70 per kg, or $A7.00 per 10 kg carton. Additional handling
costs of $AI.OO could be expected to be incurred. Therefore a total return
on the New Zealand market of $AI3.00 would be necessary. At an exchange rate
of $NZI.33 per $AI.OO, a New Zealand market price of at least $NZI7.00 per
10 kg carton would be required.
If it was possible to transport tomatoes to New Zealand by sea, the
freight component would be reduced from $A7.00 per carton to $A3.00 and
this would result in the reduction of the required New Zealand price to
approximately $NZI2.00 per carton. The period required for the transport
of tomatoes by sea from Australia to New Zealand, including time for arrival
at the Australian wharf and delivery from the New Zealand wharf to the New
Zealand market, is approximately 7 days. The variety of tomato grown in
Queensland (Floradade) would probably withstand this period of transport
without undue deterioration. However, the uncertain nature of trans-Tasman
shipping arrangements and the necessity for the product to be guaranteed
delivery within the specified time, would probably act to inhibit movement
of tomatoes by sea. The availability of lucrative markets within Australia
would counteract the usefulness of the New Zealand market given the uncertainties associated with sea transport. Therefore, it is likely that only
tomatoes transported by air would become available in the New Zealand market.
7.
2.6
Queensland Fruit Fly
Imports of fruit and vegetables from the Queensland area are at present
banned by the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries on plant health
grounds. This ban is imposed because of the danger of introducing Queensland
fruit fly into New Zealand. Tomatoes are not able to be fumigated as they
cannot withstand the treatment and therefore an alternative treatment method
will need to be established before imports of tomatoes can occur. Investigations are presently underway in Queensland to develop such a treatment.
Present research indicates that a 3 minute dip in a solution of Dimethoate
at a concentration of 425 mg per litre provides an adequate kill of fruit fly.
This form of treatment has recently been accepted by the Victorian state
authorities in Australia. Correspondence between the Australian Health
Department and the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries would
indicate that it is probable that New Zealand will accept a similar treatment.
However, it is likely that the negotiations on the treatment will be protracted
given the importance of the inhibition of fruit fly arrival in New Zealand
and the likely pressure that will be brought upon the New Zealand authorities
by the agricultural/horticultural industry in New Zealand.
2.7
The Queensland Market
With an annual production level in excess of 55,000 tonnes and significant
increases in tomato production occurring it is apparent that the Queensland
tomato growing industry has a considerable potential to supply tomatoes to
New Zealand. Such supply would be dependent upon the achievement of an acceptable return to Queensland growers. It would appear that a price level of
approximately $NZI7.00 per 10 kg carton would be required in the New Zealand
market before supply from Queensland would be an economic proposition. This
assessment assumes that the supply of tomatoes from Queensland to New Zealand
would be undertaken on a continuing basis and therefore would be required to
provide a return which offsets at least the variable production and marketing costs incurred by Queensland growers. However, if prices available in the
Australian market fall to levels lower than the variable cost of production and
marketing, it is probable that Queensland growers would consider supply to
New Zealand where the return from the New Zealand market exceeded the returns
available in Australia. During 1982, the average price on the Brisbane wholesale market fell below $A5.00 per 10 kg carton during June, July, August and
December. This would imply that during those months there exists a potential
for supply to New Zealand at prices lower than the variable cost of production
and marketing.
A further factor that must be considered is the degree of supply and
price variability that exists on the Australian market. As an indication
of this, Tables 2 and 3 present the monthly average prices for coloured
tomatoes and the monthly throughput on the Brisbane Wholesale Market. This
information is also shown in Figure I.
Prices on the Brisbane Wholesale Market (Table 2 and Figure I) indicate
a constant general price level from 1978 to 1982 with substantial fluctuation
around this level. In real terms (after inflation) prices have declined
over the period. The fluctuations in price have some relationship with the
movements in throughput quantities with higher prices being related to lower
throughputs.
Over the period (1978-82), the monthly market throughput has tended to
increase from around 1,450 tonnes per month in 1978 to approximately 2,100
tonnes per month in 1982. This increase in throughput (approximately 45 per
cent) reflects the increased Queensland tomato production and is reflected
in declining real prices (after inflation).
8.
TABLE 2
Monthly Average Tomato Prices Brisbane Wholesale Market
Tomatoes - Coloured a
($A/I0 kg carton)
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
January
5.55
5.00
13.52
6.39
6.84
February
6.27
5.21
6.65
8.75
5.04
March
7.85
5.20
8.50
9.91
6.07
April
9.06
3.43
7.83
12.37
5.72
May
II. 59
3.76
5.90
10.80
5.37
June
7.38
3.41
4.43
8.06
4.76
July
4.49
3.73
4.71
6.07
3.90
August
4.92
3.05
7.37
12.61
4.70
September
8.78
4.70
9.16
8.53
11.58
October
8.07
5.25
5.13
6.57
6.57
November
7.53
5.02
4.24
7.88
5.68
December
6.90
10.47
6.27
10.53
3.82
Annual Average
7.35
4.79
6.80
8.91
5.82
a
Green tomatoes are also sold through the Brisbane Wholesale Market. Supplies
have diminished in importance, however, and in 1982 a marked price difference
between coloured and green tomatoes only existed in January, February, April
and May when green tomato prices were approximately 20 per cent below coloured
tomato prices.
Source: Prices and Market Throughput on the Brisbane Wholesale Market,
Rocklea; Queensland DPI, Marketing Services Branch, February 1983.
9.
TABLE 3
Monthly Tomato ThroughputBrisbane Wholesale Market
(tonnes)
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
January
1276
1972
1782
1717
1815
February
1432
1667
1658
1651
1923
March
1714
1695
1755
1712
2564
April
1352
1749
2068
2056
2034
May
1396
2111
1657
1429
1825
June
1063
1487
1386
1469
2129
July
1195
1523
1668
1994
1731
August
1616
2106
1421
1363
1678
September
1364
1950
1759
2356
2268
October
1251
2735
2485
1911
2103
November
2055
1972
2142
1710
2150
December
1886
1487
1905
2583
2820
17600
22454
21686
21951
25040
Total
Source: Prices and Market Throughput on the Brisbane Wholesale Market,
Rocklea; Queensland DPI, Marketing Services Branch, February 1983
The highest monthly average price achieved on the Brisbane Wholesale
Market between 1978 and 1982 was $AI3.52 per 10 kg carton in January 1980.
This is equivalent to $NZ1.80/kg. Over the June to November period (when
N.Z. prices are highest), the highest monthly average price on the Brisbane
Wholesale Market was $AI2.61 per 10 kg carton in August 1981. This is equivalent to $NZ1.68/kg. (The lowest price on the New Zealand market between 1980
and 1982 for the June to November period was $1.60/kg ~n June 1981 (Table 7).)
It would therefore appear that even though there is considerable price
variability on the Brisbane Wholesale Market the general level of prices
has remained relatively constant (a decline in real terms). Even when prices
have peaked, the level is equal to or lower than New Zealand seasonal peak
prices. Increasing Queensland production will probably tend to restrict real
price increases On the Brisbane Wholesale Market, if not lead to a further
reduction.
In order to assess the potential for Queensland to supply tomatoes to
New Zealand, it rema~ns to examine the New Zealand industry in terms of its
production, the cost of that production and the prices achieved on the New
Zealand market. Comparisons between the New Zealand return and that required
by Australian producers (given their own market situation) can then be made
and an assessment of the potential impact provided.
FIGURE I
o
Monthly Tomato Prices and Throughput ~.
Tomato Price
~
Market Throughput
Brisbane Wholesale Market
(Actual Prices)
14
Price
$A/IOkg
Carton
12
10
8
6
4
2
o
3000
~
2600
2200
1800
1400
J F M A M J J
1978
A S 0 'N D
J F M A M J J A SON D J F
1979
M A M J
.. ':r
~~~~~~~
J A SON D J F M A M J J
1980
1981
A SON D J
F M A M J
J A SON
1982
D
1000
Market
Throughput
(tonnes)
SECTION 3
NEW ZEALAND TOMATO PRODUCTION AND PRICES
3. I
Introduction
The New Zealand fresh tomato market is predominantly supplied by tomatoes
from the hothouse industry with approximately two thirds of the fresh market
tomatoes coming from this source. However, fresh market tomatoes constitute
only approximately 50 per cent of total tomato production (Table 4).
TABLE 4
New Zealand Tomato Production
(a)
Volume (tonnes)
Freshmarket
Year
Processing
(Outdoor)
Total
Outdoor
Hothouse
Total
1975
8984
15534
24518
25709
50227
1976
8383
19060
27443
19779
47222
1977
6025
21055
27080
33819
60899
1978
9992
14864
24856
31935
56791
1979
8271
15618
23889
1930 I
43190
1980
9528
18306
27834
29454
57288
1981
9523
8672
18266
27789
20185
47974
17529
26201
25740
51941
Average
(b)
Proportion from Each Source (%)
Year
% of total
% of total freshmarket
1975
36.6
63.4
48.4
51.2
1976
30.5
69.5
58. I
41.9
1977
22.2
77 .8
44.5
55.5
1978
40.2
59.8
43.8
56.2
1979
34.6
65.4
55.3
44.7
1980
34.2
65.8
48.6
51.4
1981
34.3
65.7
57.9
42. I
Average
33. I
66.9
50.4
49.6
Source: New Zealand Horticulture Statistics 1983, Economics Division, Ministry
of Agriculture and Fisheries, Wellington.
II.
12.
It is apparent from the supply information that a considerable degree of
annual variation occurs in the level of hothouse tomato supply. Over the
seven year period (Table 4), this annual variation averaged 2532 tonnes or
14.4 per cent of the average annual supply for the period. Total average
annual freshmarket supply variation was 1745 tonnes or 6.7 per cent of average
annual supply, indicating that outdoor tomato production tended to move in the
opposite direction to hothouse production. This indicates a degree of substitutability between the two types of production.
The majority of production for the fresh market is located around major
population areas. The greatest concentration of hothouse tomato production
occurs in the area surrounding the Auckland metropolitan district.
It is claimed by the New Zealand hothouse tomato industry that the profitability of this form of production is dependent upon the achievement of reasonably high prices during the winter period. This achievement, it is suggested,
enables growers to produce tomatoes during the summer period in competition
with the outdoor grown tomatoes and enables the acceptance of a lower price
during that period as the majority of their costs have been covered during the
winter production season. There is therefore a considerable degree of crosssubsidisation between the winter season, which is exclusively supplied by
the hothouse industry, and hothouse production in the summer, when outdoor
grown tomatoes are also available.
3.2
Production Costs
The
Growers'
cropping
November
Protected Crops Profile Committee of the Vegetable and Produce
3
Federation has undertaken a survey of the Auckland region protected
industry for the 1981-82 season. This research was reported in
1982 (Protected Crops Profile Committee, 1982).
The report established that approximately 78.5 per cent of the total
value of output of the protected crop industry in this area was from sales
of tomatoes which amounted to approximately $13m for the 1981-82 season.
Other crops of importance were carnations at 10.8 per cent of the total
revenue, cucumbers at 5.4 per cent and grapes at 2. I per cent. The total
protected area allocated to tomatoes was approximately 607,000 square metres
with 386 growers reporting that they were involved in tomato production.
Approximately 90 per cent of growers had
3,000 square metres with 79 per cent being on
metres. Approximately 60 per cent of growers
properties for less than 10 years with nearly
properties for more than IS years.
protected areas of less than
areas of less than 2,000 square
had been occupying their present
31 per cent being on their
The major sales outlet used by protected crop growers was the central
market (or auction system) with 83.6 per cent of the value of produce passing
through that outlet.
The number of persons employed on an equivalent full-time permanent
basis was established at approximately 860 in the Auckland area. When
casual labour is included in this calculation, the total employment on an
equivalent full-time basis was determined'at approximately 1,200 persons.
3
Crops growing under environmental protection (mainly glasshouses).
13.
The information presented in Table 5 provides a summary of the financial
data reported in the Protected Crops Profile Committee Report, 1982
TABLE 5
Auckland Region Production Parameters 1981/82
Average
for Region
Number of Properties
469
Average Production:
kg/m2
17.20
7 kg cartons/m2
2.5
Average Price:
$ / carton (7 kg)
I 1.44
J. 63
$/kg
Average Income:
29.00
$/m2
Average Costs:
Production Costs $/m2
Overhead Costs $/m2
I 1.17
Total $/m2
19.88
$/carton (7 kg)
8.71
7.95
Average Net Profit:
$/m2
9.18
$/carton (7 kg)
3.67
Source:
Protected Crops Profile Committee Report (1982), "A
Profile of the Auckland Region's Protected Cropping
Industry 1981-82 Season", New Zealand Vegetable and
Produce Growers' Federation.
These data indicate that the overall average cost of production for a
7 kg carton of tomatoes for the 1981-82 season was $7.95 ($1. 14/kg). The
data also indicate that this cost was associated with a net profit of $3.67
per carton ($0.52/kg) and an average price of $11.44 per carton ($1.63/kg).
An important element of the financial profile which has not been reported
is the degree of variability over the year in the volumes of product marketed
per month and the prices received for that product. As there is a marked
seasonal variation in price and quantity marketed, the impact of any variation
in the monthly supply on the grower returns will be considerable. Any analysis
that does not take these factors into account can therefore only be indicative.
14.
3.3
Product Supply and Market Prices
A breakdown of a grower's sales and returns during 1982 is given in
Table 6 (N.Z. Commercial Grower, 1983). This analysis indicates a consistently
high price between the end of August and the middle of November when sendings
to the particular auction were low. However, this information can only also
be considered as an indication of the likely return given that there will
be considerable variations in price according to the quality of the product
sold and the general distribution of product supply to the market.
The Department of Statistics has provided a monthly analysis of average
prices for tomatoes sold at auction for 1980, 1981 and 1982. This information
is presented in Table 5. Figure 2 illustrates the seasonal nature of tomato
prices.
The following auction companies were contacted and asked to provide
information on tomato revenue and quantities sold on a monthly basis for
1981 and 1982: Produce Markets Ltd, Turners & Growers Ltd (Auckland),
Radley & Co. Ltd, Turners and Growers (Wellington) Ltd, MacFarlane and
Growers Ltd and Market Gardeners Ltd. The informativn requested has, however,
not been provided.
IS.
TABLE 6
Tomato SupplZ and Price at Auction 1982
(Single Grower Records)
Week
Starting
June
July
August
September
October
Quantity
(cartons)
Source:
a
a
Average Price
($/kg)
21
5
10.08
1.44
28
45
16.29
2.33
5
136
10.28
1.47
12
81
10.32
1.47
19
80
12.43
1. 78
26
114
11.86
1. 69
2
110
9.83
1.40
9
156
9.60
1. 37
16
136
13.71
1. 96
23
142
13.93
1. 99
30
121
22.60
3.23
6
77
23.62
3.37
13
66
17.45
2.49
20
53
17.69
2.53
27
55
16.70
2.39
4
67
16.17
2.31
11
43
22.51
3.22
18
36
29.89
4.27
25
35
23.44
3.35
56
19.14
2.73
8
71
19.31
2.76
15
82
6.62
0.95
22
/17
6.80
0.97
29
97
6.17
0.88
6
84
8.65
1. 24
13
94
7.70
I. 10
20
52
4.54
0.65
27
10
4.80
0.69
November
December
Average Price
($/7 kg carton)
"How Imports Could Put Growers out of Business", N.Z. Commercial
Grower, Vol. 38, No. I, January/February 1983; N.Z. Vegetable
and Produce Growers' Federation Inc.
The average price per 7 kg carton for the June to December period
was $13.24 ($1.89/kg) for the 2221 cartons sold.
FIGURE 2
4 ..
Average Monthly New Zealand Tomato Prices
,.
1980
---0
1981
)Co- - - - - t (
1982
)4
0- -
3
$/kg
2
~
/J\
/~~~--~ \
\
~
/
\
/
r
/'
//
I
/
I
"'~-~:.
-d
-.j/
I' .....\
-0- - -
o Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
Months
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
.......
SECTION 4
THE POSSIBLE AUSTRALIAN SUPPLY IMPACT
The level of Queensland tomato production and the growth of production
that has occurred indicate that there is a considerable potential for Queensland
tomato growers to supply tomatoes to the New Zealand market. Such supply
would be economic when the price on the New Zealand market exceeded $NZI7.00
per 10 kg carton ($1.70/kg). (This is equivalent to $11.90 per 7 kg carton.)
This conclusion is based upon the likelihood that supplies of Queensland
tomatoes would be airfreighted to New Zealand rather than consigned by sea.
This assumption is likely to be valid as the time delay in transporting
tomatoes by ship would be considerable and would tend to have a very significant
effect upon the shelf life of the product once it arrived and was sold in
New Zealand. It should be n.oted that further developments in controlled
atmosphere transport systems would tend to make shipment of tomatoes by
sea a more attractive proposition.
From the information provided in Table 7 it can be observed that the
export of tomatoes from Australia to New Zealand could be attractive from
June until November. This is the period when the average New Zealand price
exceeded $1.70/kg in 1982. Under the most pessimistic assumptions, it
could be suggested that the average price for tomatoes would be reduced
to a maximum of $1.70/kg over the period when Australian imports were occurring. This would reduce the annual simple average price from $2.08/kg (from
Table 7) to $1.46/kg. This is a reduction of $0.62/kg or a fall in the
average price of 30 per cent. Such a fall in prices would result in increased
demand for tomatoes. It is assumed that the increased demand would be met
by imports from Australia. From the average prices given in Table 5, a
fall of 30 per cent from the average of $1.63/kg is equivalent to $0.49/kg.
Average production per square metre is given as 17.20 kg. A price reduction
of $0.49/kg would ,therefore be equivalent to $8.43/m 2 . Such a decline would
reduce the average net profit from $9. 181m 2 to $0.75/m2. This would be likely
to result in a decrease in the New Zealand supply of tomatoes. Australian
tomato supplies would then be required to offset the reduced New Zealand
tomato supply as well as meet the additional demand resulting from the decreased
price. Such a situation would require substantial tomato supplies from
Australia.
The situation as described should be regarded as an extreme scenario.
The aspects of Australian supply volume and quality differences must be
considered.
The level of access for Australian tomatoes is given in Table I. The
access level can be converted into equivalent tomato quantities using the
assumed import price. These quantities are given in Table 8 where the
January 1983 price has been given as $1.70/kg and inflated at 10 per cent
per year.
From the analysis given in Table 8, it can be observed that annual
Australian tomato supplies can only be between approximately 100 and 177
tonnes up to June 1988. This is equivalent to between 0.38 per cent and
0.68 per cent of total annual average freshmarket production (for 1975-1981)
and 0.57 per cent to 1.01 per cent of average hothouse production (from
Table 4). This level of Australian supply is not likely to have any significant impact on the total New Zealand tomato market. If the total additional
supply were to be directed to anyone market over a short time period, some
19.
20.
TABLE 8
Access for Australian Tomatoes - Quantity
(Assuming a 1983 eIF price of $1.70/kg and a 10% inflation rate)
kg
January 1983 to 30 June 1983
44, 118
July 1983 to 30 June 1984
101,471
July 1984 to 30 June 1985
J 16,692
July 1985 to 30 June 1986
134, 195
July 1986 to 30 June 1987
154,325
July 1987 to 30 June 1988
177 ,473
impact could be expected, especially where product is sold through an auction
system. However, this is more a result of the marketing system used and
the consequent over-reaction of the price to changes in supply. Where growers
establish firm supply arrangements with specific buyers, the price impact of
the Australian supplies is likely to be very small.
It should be noted that the average annual variation in New Zealand
hothouse tomato supply for 1975-1981 was 2532 tonnes. This variation is
14-25 times the allowed access for Australian tomatoes through to 1988.
The effect of local hothouse supply variations could therefore be expected
to be much greater than that likely to occur as a result of imports from
Australia.
It is, however, probable that where imports are concentrated in any
one area (city) the price impact could be substantial over a short period.
However, it would not be in the interests of Queensland exporters to drive
prices down for the small volume of product they are able to send to New
Zealand. Therefore, it is more likely that product releases on the New
Zealand market would be under some commercial control. The longer shelf
life of Floradade tomatoes would contribute to a controlled release onto
the New Zealand market.
Quality differences between Australian and New Zealand tomatoes must
also be considered. A likely situation is the replacement of poor quality
New Zealand tomatoes with the supply from Australia at the lower price ranges
while the price for top quality tomatoes continues to be high.
This scenario
is based upon the observation of the quality of Australian field crop Floradade
tomatoes. The type of tomato is significantly different to that produced
in New Zealand. The taste characteristics, the shape and the skin texture
differ from that presently accepted by the New Zealand market. It is generally
agreed that the Queensland product is of an inferior quality to the product
presently available in New Zealand and that the Queensland tomato type usually
competes because of its high yields, low per unit production costs and long
shelf life. As the Queensland product would still be at a comparatively high
price (i.e. versus the prices achieved during the summer period in New Zealand)
the product may not be as acceptable to consumers as the traditional New
Zealand tomato type. This would mean that the Queensland product would move
into
lower quality areas of the market and would therefore tend to replace
21.
part of the poorer quality production of the New Zealand varieties at a lower
price. This may encourage an increase in consumption at the lower price end
of the market which may tend to absorb the limited supply of Queensland tomatoes
that would be possible under the CER arrangements. The impact on the price
achieved for higher quality glasshouse produced tomatoes in New Zealand may
be small. Where New Zealand growers are able to establish a satisfactory
marketing arrangement that ensures the price for higher quality product is
reflected in the returns that they receive, their ability to compete with
supplies from Australia would be enhanced. This may require movement away
from the traditional auction system of tomato selling to, perhaps, a co-operative
approach to price negotiation between groups of producers and individual buying
enterprises.
It is considered that the most likely result of access for Australian
tomatoes to the New Zealand market would be some further economic pressure on
growers who are at present operating on a marginal basis and the encouragement
of increased efficiency amongst the remaining growers of high quality product.
The price required by Australian growers will ensure that supply will only be
viable for six months of the year. Also, the present access arrangements only
allow for very small quantities to be imported and the price-effect of these
imports is likely to be small. Over the longer-term, when access levels are
likely to increase substantially, more pressure on the New Zealand hothouse
tomato sector is probable. Increased competitive pressure from Australia
is likely to result in some reduction in New Zealand hothouse tomato production.
The time span over which this will occur is relatively long, however, and
alternative uses for the resources employed in the sector, are likely to be
available. In any case, the capital resources involved in hothouse tomato
production should have been written-off prior to the competitor pressure
becoming substantial. Where the quality aspects of New Zealand hothouse
tomatoes are effectively emphasised, the premiums available are likely to
be adequate to ensure that a continuing supply is required, at a lower level
than at present.
Reduced production of New Zealand hothouse tomatoes is likely to result
in reduced summer supply from this source as well as in winter. Any price
increases in the summer would however, result in increased outdoor tomato
production and any price changes are therefore likely to be small. Overall,
the annual average price of tomatoes in New Zealand is likely to be lower,
with a higher level of consumption, reduced hothouse supplies, increased
outdoor production, and increased Australian supplies.
REFERENCES
Anon. (1981); The Who, What and Why of Fruit Distributors Limited.
Fruit Distributors Ltd, Wellington.
Anon. (1982); A Profile of the Auckland Region's Protected Cropping
Industry 1981/82 Season. Protected Crops Profile Committee, Vegetable
and Produce Growers' Federation Inc., Wellington.
Anon. (1983); Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relationship.
Agreement. Government Printer, Wellington.
Trade
Anon. (1983); How Imports Could Put Growers out of Business; N.Z. Commercial
Grower, Vol. 38 No. I; N.Z. Vegetable and Produce Growers' Federation Inc.,
Wellington.
Anon. (1983); New Zealand Horticulture Statistics, 1983; Statistics Section,
Economics Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Wellington.
Muldoon, R.D. (1982);
Press Statement, 4 June 1982.
Sing, W.C. (1981); Costs and Returns - Tomatoes - Bowen; Farm Note; AGDEX
262/821, No. F 100/Jul 81; ISSN 0155-3054, Queensland Department of
Primary Industries.
Wickstead, L.T. (1982); Costs and Returns - Ground Crop and Trellis Grown
Tomatoes - Buudaberg District; Farm Note; AGDEX 262/821, No. FI/Jan B2;
ISSN 0155-3054, Queensland Department of Primary Industries.
Wilson, R. (ed.) (19B3); Prices and Market Throughput on the Brisbane Wholesale
Market, Rocklea. Marketing Services Branch, Queensland Department of
Primary Industries, Brisbane.
23.
APPENDIX
Tomato Production Costs - Queensland
I.
Bowen Region
(Source: Farm Note: AGDEX 262/821 No. FIOO/Jul 81)
(Assumed yield 15 000 kg per hectare)
(Costs as at July 1981)
Preharvest costs:
$A/ha
Land preparation
Planting
Fertiliser
Crop Protection
Irrigation
$A/IO kg Carton
56
308
180
714
55
Total
$A 1,313
$AO.87
Harvesting and Freight Costs:
Picking and packing
Freight
I. 72
0.80
Total
$A2.52
Selling Costs:
Commission, levy, sales promotion
- 12.33% of gross income
Handling costs - $AO.02/carton
$AO.74
0.02
$AO.76
Variable Costs Summary:
Preharvest Costs
Harvesting and Freight Costs
Selling Costs
$AO.87
2.52
0.76
Total Variable Costs
$A4.15
In order to convert the cost from a July 1981 level to a January 1983
estimate, the Queensland Department of Primary Industries recommended the
use of a 10 per cent annual rate of increase, viz.
July 1981
July 1982 (+10%)
January 1983 (+5%)
$A4.15
4.57
4.80
25.
26.
2.
Bundaberg Region
(Source: Farm Note: AGDEX 262/821, No. Fl/Jan 82)
(Assumed Yield 75,000 kg per hectare)
(Costs as at January 1982)
Preharvest Costs:
Land preparation
Planting
Fertiliser
Crop Protection
Irrigation
Total
$A/ha
$A/ !okg Carton
234
1630
938
2702
1650
$A7154
$AO.95
Harvesting and Freight Costs:
Picking and packing
Freight
$AI.83
0.90
$A2.73
Selling Costs:
Commission, levy, sales promotion (12.33% of
gross income)
Handling costs
$AO.76
0.02
$AOo78
Variable Costs Summary:
Preharvest Costs
Harvesting and Freight Costs
Selling Costs
$AO.95
2.73
0.78
Total Variable Costs
$A4 .46
In order to convert the cost from a January 1982 level to a January 1983
estimate, the Queensland Department of Primary Industries recommended the use
of a 10 per cent annual rate of increase, viz.
January 1982
$A4.46
January 1983 (+10%)
4.91
27.
3.
Coastal South-East Queensland
(Source: K. Bengston, Farmer, pers. comm.
Department of Primary Industries)
(Assumed yield 30,000 kg per hectare)
(Costs as at January 1983)
Confirmed by Queensland
$A/ha
Preharvest Costs
4500
$A/lOkg Carton
I. 50
Harvesting and Freight Costs:
Picking and Packing
Freight
$AI.80
0.70
$A2.50
Selling Costs:
Commission, Levy, Sales Promotion (12.33% of
gross income)
Handling Costs
$AO.84
0.02
$AO.86
Variable Costs Summary:
Preharvest Costs
Harvesting and Freight Costs
Selling Costs
$AI.50
2.50
0.86
Total Variable Costs
$A4.86
RECENT PUBLICATIONS
RESEARCH
105.
135.
REPolrr's
Potatoes: A Comu7rJi?f Suroiyof Chri§!tburchand Auckld'rdHoUJe-
SJ.irt;eyoj i-lfew Zealand Farmer Infeiztioizfand Opinions, J!I!Y~
Sepie'nber, ]979,J:G. Pryde, 1980, .
.
107. A Survey oj Pestnmd Pestidde. [}sefl1 Canterb£!yyandSouihia;·u/.
JD~ M11mford, 198(L.
.
.'.
..
.
.•.....
108. '. Aj,Ecoiujmic Sm7!eyo/iVdvZea14nd. Toliin Milk PYfJditcers, i97g:
79, RG. MQffit(1930..
'..
. ....
109. Chango', ill UmiedKz;"1gdim llfleai Deindnd,RL ShePi?ard;.
106.
1980~
.
i983.
1980.
'.
.'
. . . . . . ..... .' ..... .
.AnATlalysis ojAlternaJive WbeatPricing Schemes; M.M. Rich;
LJ Foulds, 1980'.
.'
...... ..•....... .•........
M.M. H.ith,-1980,
Multiplie,'s fro", Reg/oQal.Non~Sttrvey.lnP!it-O!itpritTI1.bir:sfor
New' Zeid:in.l.~ L.J·:I:"Iu:1?bard \Xl:..lL~~ Bro::vn... 19~.r:;
118 Smve-j of the H eafth of NeY.} Zealand F arJlle;s.' Ot:tober~ NovemiJ.er
1980) ].G. Pryq.e 1981.
..
119 I-fari"ia.i!ture il2 Aktiroa County,
RIo. Shepparii..., 19EP~
An Economic Survey 0/ NewZeaiand Totv1! Milk ProdlJcers,1.979-'-
117
EconomiCkelationship; witbin ihejapaniseFeehmdLivestoci.·.
Sector, M. Kagatsume, AC Zwart, f983.
.
.
49:
The Cost oj Overseas Shippi,1g: Who
DISCUSSION PAPERS
·50
. 55.
J.
56.
7
SO, i1~G. Ivfoffit~:!<~9En.
121. . Ail :E.cO)-;o)'lJ,ic S;.j'lVej! of ]Ve-di 'Ze!1~aT1d hV7hetitgrozi!e;?". ·.Ef1tiirPr~~~
./i;u:fy5iJ~_ Si1,,·ziey]vo. 5 1980-81>7 R. D~ L011gh, P.]: ¥cCartin,
MJvL }lic"i-"i] 1981.
.
.
i23.
'57.
18.
. 59.
.
.
.
S.hcpparci, 1.982.
l'l5e f\Jr:;UJ .Z~e{xi'j?!r!1Jvheat (flit/Flo1-1,? IrJdustry.- .iviarket ~tr!.t~~.~~ it"nd"
Policy Xmp!it:.:Jt:!o.'1J, B·.l,~·. Bo:rYell~ A.. C~ Zwart; 1?l8l. . : ..
125.
Tbe ECOYfl'JITJics of Soil', COiJ-fervai'ion OJ::d· Wat~r ..IIlQn.'!c;6r!ent
J?olicii.·J in t~e .Otago ijigb·CotJ7i.t'i'Y~ G~T.·Harri~,.?~~~._: .'. "
126.
St!J"vry of Flew Zealand F~'mi.?7 J;-ztmtirJIIS a.1d OpiJit'ons,Se"pttfrnberNovembei, 1981, ].G. Pryde, 1';}82.
. ' ..... ~
The New ZealdndPostordDves/oc.k Sector: Ail E!:{;'li8mdtii/M'-ode!"
(i/emo71 TtvoI M.T.Laing, 1982.
. ',«
128. A Farm-love/.Madetto E';tiluate the .impactsof c:!t"rr~llt Energy
Policy OptiO>7J, A.M.IvL rhompspIl, 1982.
..
.....
Ail Economic Stlri1ey ojNezu. Zedland Town .Milkl'rodij;~rJ 1913.r)~
81,
130.
131.
132.
RG.
Moffitt, 1982
'[be New ZeaijiidPofatoMarketing Systffllj
1982.
.
.'.
.....
'ItLSheppai-d/
.... .•....
An Ecollllmic Survey oflVew Zealand Wbeat-growe7Tf.~t~jJrisi
lJlllilysL~ S!!rrfey /:[0.
19fJ1-82,ICD.Lough, P,J;l\1cCairlii/
lVLM. Rich, 19SL
..
... .
An EWl/{mic Survey of New Zedarld WbeatgrolVers:Fi11,1Flcial
,Ailf]~VJtJ~. 19BO-8J._ ~D.· L<;i:ugh, P-J. lv1-cCartiI), 198~:· .
.
Tbe BE C Sheepmeat Regime:' Arrangements'ttnd ImpliclJtions,
N. Blyth,. 1980.
....
Proceerlings ;/a Seriiindi- OJ1 FittttreDirect!o;sforNewZealand
La172bJllIarketing. edited byRL Sheppaid;Rj:'1:3rqdie~19S0,
.The Evaldation of Job Creati071ProRrarr:~elwitb.Partr~ltIar
Rejefe11£';' trj the Farm Emj>ioyment Pmi!.rtimmr:, G. T. HartiS>
1981.'
.
.'.
..
.
nf New Zealand Pew'oral Livt/Jt~dc Sector-: a jJte!imzl{ary
.ewfmmeiric model. M. T. Laing, A.C'Zwart, ~98L .
.
TheSchedll/f?f'rii"e System and theiVewZea!onJpmoProdlJcer;
N.M; Shidboit, 198.1.
.
The ,FJIY"/her Prot(,5.ring fJf Mt'a!, K. M. Silcod:, RL Sheppard,
198L
. Japanese .-1,~riclI/tll?"a! Polity Developme."1!: Imp/ieattonI/or NeuI·
Zealand. A: C Zwart, ] 981.
. '
!l;teresl RqtcJ:
Fact's
and Fallacies, leE. Woodford. 1981,
The EEC Sbeepmeat Regi-me: One Year On, N. Blyth; 198L
62.
The New Zealand Meat Trade in ,be ':980',-: a proposalfor change;
B-J-Ross,R.L Sheppard, A.C. Zwart, 1982. '.
SU?p!eia¢?!tary lVft!Ji~!Jm Prices: a production .t:~c¢7Ztlp¢? R.f.~
Sh.eppatd;J.M. Biggs, 1982.
Pfoceedingsoja Seminar on Road 'Transparlin RuralAYeas, ~dited ...
by P~D.Chudleigh, AJ. Nichoison, 1982; .
. .
.
J\L Blyth; 1981.
.·63.
Evaluolion of FB'i7lJ
K.B. Woodford, 1981.
{)WT.?TS£lip
Sayings
Accoz!Jitj~
QiJality int~e New Zealand Wbeat and FloUI'Marhets,M.M.
Rkh,1982.
'.
.....
.'
66;
DeSign . CO~Si(le-lations jor Computer Bas~a..Miltket~·ngand
Irzjo-/mation Systi:1ns, .P.L Nuthal!, 1982:"
..'
67.
ReagaJ']of72its'dtid fhi New Zealand
I3ohaJl; 1983.
Agricplf!lral$.e~(Ofii;w:
.
.'
68 . '. '.' Energy. We in N~w Zealand Agrii:Jif::m:!fprodllct!o~,'iDi" .
69
¢hudleigh,Glen'breer,1983.
.c·
Ft,rm j:ina~r:eDatti.: Avazlability alid Reil"/re1l1e';ts>Gl~n G~eer,
.1983
. ..... .... '.' . '
'.
6,
Th;
.
P~storaiiivesto!:k
.
-
-
Sector and tbe SitppleJJzentJ&:Mt17t1l1um
Price Poiicy,M;T. Laing,
A.c. Zwart, 1983;
.
.
.
71.
.Marketing Im'titlltiOf/S for Neif.l Zealand Sbeepmetits,ACZ.wart,
·fo~~
72.
S!lpporting fbe Agriculturtil Sel:tor:' RatiOllale and PoliGy, P.D.
ECOlJOrfh!:,r
,?/ !-'he Sbe.ep B'Tee~/iilg Operation; of the DepoT/ment 0/
73.
!jJZlq
La.m{r
SJ';"OJc,)"
133. /1lt :;']';It.n'iu.t.-,
JH(/7J£lge!l?t'?I~<. ~;r~'~Jgi~J
Jrr"·~~'(l(.,!c! r:al'licrbftrjl
134.
. .
.
.
Lin
127.
129.
Green
Spiqu!iiig Broi:colJ; R.L Sheppafd.1980:
61.
. ,
124.
Chudleigh,
A Review. oj {,be World S}Jer:jJn,eat Market: Va!. j ~ .Overvie-.u of
In/ematfono! Trade, .vol. 2 - .t1lhTTalia; New Zealond&A,-gjlfJ1tint:f,
Vol. 3 - 1;~eEEC (10), VotA - North America, Japal1& The
il'liddle Etm~ Vol. 5 - Et25te?1J Bloc, U.S.S.K &. l'llongolia,
.
S,?t!j"orJal;~)! it.! tbe l\f..~;; .Ze?iland Afeut Py'ocessing I~d~itry~. ·Itt.
Pays? Pop,
1980..
Market EViJlu(liio~: a Sysle7llaticAppro(2ch~Fmzeiz,
60.
~~a~~f;;[:;~9~;;~_K ir~:~~?~~f f:!~ft:,e:~.::n::~:
1.931.
.
14°·
11.3. An Econorlt.1c Suweyoj New Zealand Wheatgrower"s;:E11terjJrisi< 51.
An:lysij, Slimey tva 4 ~~7?-80, RD. Lough,RlvL MacLean,"
P.J. McCawn, M.M. .Kich~ 1980.
.
.....••....
114. A Review oj tb.e Rural eredi".! System in ReI{! ZedliJiid,1964
1979; J.G. Pryde;S.K~ Ma~tin, 1980.
.
.' .
115. ·A Socio- Ecorw)YzicStudy of Far??! Workers afJd Farm' Md1iagt;r5,:'
G.T.Harris; 1 9 8 0 . .
..
116. An EC07iOl7lic Suroey·of.New·Zcaland Wheatgrowd;j;F(m:J"l1dal
, 54.
Analysis, 1978-79,RD. Lough, Rll.1.: MacLean, PJ. Mceartin;
122.
...'. .
139: AT/Economic Sljrveyojliew Zeti~nd T{}w~Milk PrOducers, .198182, RG. Moffitt, 1983;
..
....
. .
jjrureflosis Eradication: a descrtption oj a planning irlOdel,.kC.
Beck, 198.0.
.
,.. .
111.. F/sh: A ConSlJm~rSMroey ofChristchurch Hotisel;oldS;~J- Btbdi(:l,
112.
Survey of New Zealand Fanner IntentionJandOpinions, OctoberDecember! 1982,J.G. Pryde. P.J.McGirtin,1983:
137. IJi.ves/ment and Supply Response in the N.di'ZctlitmdPastrJra!
Sec/or: AT/ EcojlOinetr/cMIJ/{el. M.t~Liing;A.C.fv,>'art, 1983
TiJe .World Sheepmeai Mill-kef; aiJ ew~omejric model; N. Blyth,
136.
. holdj, M.M. Rich, }iLJ. Melior>.; 1980.
110.
Water and Choice i11 Canterbury. K.L Leathers, B.M.H. Sharp,
W.A.N.Brown,1983 .
'..
dYf.J
Sbee.b F!.!rmJ.
Ci!7ti
l\I_~\tL
DrrlJftiilg
Policie"j
Shadbolt. 1982:
A. T~G. J1.AcJ\.rthur, 1983.
i9B3.
.
Chudleigh, Glen Greer, RL. Sheppard. 1983.
Re!atillg to the Funding of PrimaryProtessillgReJearcb
Throllgh R eJearch Associa/lollI, N. Blyth, lLC. Beck, 1983.
!~,_ddit.i.:::nd '.:-opies ofResea.rch R.eport3, ;.;lpart from complimentary copies? are available at :~6.00 each. Discussion
a~e usu~.lly $4.00 bu't COpi.ES GfConference Proceedings (which are usually published as Discussion Papers) are
o;,~~. :C;iS':'ES5~OD Paper I'fo.
is available ;l1:.~4.00 per. volurne(S20 for the set). Remit,(2..I!ce shou!d accornpany orders
~" ..;.... l;"~:~:,·::d (;): J3ookshop, LiIlc01.n Co(L:ge, C3.l.:l:erbury, l\J(~w Zea.!.?nc. Please add ~)O.90 pe:.: Co:)?}," to cover postage_
on