STUDIED IN COSTS
Ol"
PlWDUC~rI
GIl
TOWN MIT.JK SUPPL1 J?ARIvIS
by
R~J.
GI;LLESPIE
Reseapch Report NO.77
May 1977
THE AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS RESEARCH UNIT
Tm, UNIT was established in 1962 at Lincoln College, University of Canterbury.
Its major sources of funding have been annual grants from the Department of
Scientific and Industrial Research and the College. These grants have been supplemented by others from commercial and other organisations for specific research
projects within New Zealand and overseas.
The Unit has on hand a programme of research in the fields of agricultural
economics and management, including production, marketing and policy, resource
economics, and the economics of location and transportation. The results of these
research studies are published as Research Reports as projects are completed. In
addition. technical papers, discussion papers and reprints of papers published or
delivered elsewhere are available on request. For list of previous publications see
inside back cover.
The Unit and the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and
the Department of Farm Management and Rural Valuation maintain a close
working relationship in research and associated matters. The combined academic
staff of the Departments is around 25.
The Unit also sponsors period ic conferences and seminars on appropriate
topics, sometimes in conjunction with other organisations.
The overall policy of the Unit is set by a Policy Committee consisting of the
Director, Deputy Director and appropriate Professors.
UNIT POLlCY COMMITTEE : 1977
Professor J. B. Dent, B.Sc., M.Agr.Sc., Ph.D.
(Farm Management and Rural Valuation)
Professor B. J. Ross. MAgr.Sc.
(Agricultural Policy)
Dr P. D. Chudleigh, B.Sc., Ph.D.
UNIT RESEARCH STAFF: 1977
Director
Professor J. B. Dent, B.Sc .. M.Agr.Sc., Ph.D.
Deputy Director
Dr P. D. Chudleigh. B.Sc., Ph.D. (N.S.W.)
Research Fellow in Awicultural Policy
J. G. Pryde, O.B.E., M.A. (N.z.), F.N.z.I.M.
Senior Research Economist
G. W. Kitson, M.Hort.Sc.
Research Economists
L. E. Davey. B.Agr.Sc. (Hons.), M.Sc.
R. J. Gillespie, B.Agr.Sc. (Trinity College)
R. G. Moffitt, B.Hort.Sc., N.D.H.
Dr G. T. Oborne, B.Agr.Sc., Ph.D.
K. B. Woodford, M.Agr.Sc.
W. A. N. Brown, M.Agr.Sc .• Ph.D. (Manitoba)
i
CONTENTS
pREFACE
1•
iii
ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT
iv
SUMMARY OF THE 1974-75 AND 1975-76 NATIONAL
SURVEYS
v
BACKGROUND
SUMMARY
1
1.1
4
4
1.2
1.3
1.4
:.5
2.
Page
Objectives of the National Farm Survey
Climatic Conditions
Producer Prices
Town Milk Production Data
Town Milk Suppliers and Quotas
DESCRIPTION OF THE SURVEY
The Sample
Data Collection and Assembly
5
8
9
11
16
PHYSICAL AND PRODUCTION DATA
3~1
3~~
3.3
3.4
Physical Characteristics of Farms
Ownership and Land Tenure
Labour
Milk Production
18
21
21
22
4.. FINANCIAL DATA
4.1
4.2
403
4.4
4.5
4 6
0
Introduction
Capital Structure
Gross Farm Revenue
Farm Expenditure
Farm Incomes
Relative Importance of Principal Revenue
and Expenditure Components
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ApPENDICES
A.
Producer Associations Included in Survey
Survey Definitions and Treatment of Data
B.
C.
Reliability of Survey Estimate$
D.
Survey Results by Quota Size
E.
Survey Results by Herd, Size
F.
Herd Structure and Herd Testing
G.
H.
I.
J.
Shed T~es ~nd E~fluent Disposal Systems
Supplementary Feed Use
, , ' '.
Cash Flow Statement
Comparison with Survey Results of Previous Years
24
24
28
30
30
42
43
44
45
52
53
59
63
66
68
69·
73
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table No ..
1 ..
2 ..
Title
National Average Town Milk Producer Prices
Town Milk Prices for Years Ending 31 August
1975 & 1976
3"
4 ..
5"
6"
7"
8 ..
15 ..
16.
17 ..
18 ..
19"
20.
21 ..
220
23 ..
24"
, 25 ..
'26"
27"
28"
29"
30.
31"
32"
33 ..
34 ..
350
36 ..
370
38 ..
390
LfOo
41 ..
42"
43 ..
Total Town Milk Production
Town Milk Suppliers and Daily Quotas
'Quota Holding Companies 1975-76
Geographic Distribution of Sample
Distribution of Sample by Quota Size
Distribution of Account Balance Dates in
Sample
Average Area of Town Supply Farms
Utilisation of Farm Area
Distribution of Diff.erent Types of F,arm
Ownership
Labour Units per Farm
Milk Production
Proportion of Total Milk Production Sold as
Surplus by Quota and Herd Size
Capital Structure - Value of all Assets
Capital Structure - Liabilities and Net Worth
Gross Revenue
Farm Expenditure
Depreciation of Farm Assets
Net Farm Income
Cash Surplus from Farming
Net Cash Income by Age Group
Net Cash Income by Value of Farm Assets
Net Farm Income at Imputed Interest on Net
Worth and Total Assets
Revenue and Expenditure Components
Reliability of Survey Estimates
Physical Characteristics by Quota Size
Capital Structure by Quota Size
Gross Revenue by Quota Size
Expenditure by Quota Size
Net Income by Quota Size
Physical Characteristics by Herd Size
Gross Revenue by Herd Size
Expenditure by Herd Size
Net Cash Income by Herd Size
Dairy Stock, Balances
Beef and Sheep Stock Balances for all Farms
Use of Herd Testing
-Shed Types
'
Distribution of Type~of Effluent Disposal
Supp~ementary Feed Use
Summary of Cash Flow 1975-76
Comparison with Survey Results of Previous
Years
7
8
9
10
13
14
17
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
29
32
35
37
38
39
3~
41
42
52
53
54
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
64
65
65
66
67
68
71
73
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No ..
1 ..
2"
3.,
Title
Distribution of Milk Suppliers by Quota Size
Cash Flow Statement
Survey Comparisons
Pa,$£.
15
72
74
iii
PREFACE
This Report is the third in the annual series of
cost of production surveys on New Zealand town milk supply
farms o
The surveys are being undertaken by the Unit on a
contract basis for the New Zealand Milk Board and the Town
Milk Producers Federation of New Zealand (Incq)o
As in the past the major objective of the surveys
is to determine the average net farm income being received
by town milk producers in New Zealand.
Nevertheless the opportunity provided by the surveys
has been used to collect additional data so that over a
period of time a more comprehensive profile of the industry
will be built
up~
John Gillespie carried out the field work and analysis
for the
Report~
Professor
Director
May 1977
J.B~
Dent
iv
ABBREVIATIONS USED IN
.
THI~3
REPORT
~~--~~ ~~-.~'..,...,...,--
I--"~:-:-G~~-~~>""~~:::-):~:~-prod. ha
:::
productive hectares
1
-
litres
L U
G
0
-
:::
million
milk produced
milk prodo
expso
I,abour Units
:=
expenses
equipment
equip"
Hilk Prod'ucer
N.A.
:::
Association
==
Not Available
.
v
.SUMMARY Of ':£.~I~ J 27}-f-75 AND 19.'Z2.-.7.~
NATIONAL SURVEY RESULTS
I
/"
1
,:1.
Characteristic
1974-75
Total TO\m Milk Producers
(No. )
1 ,69:3
Farms in Survey
(No. )
Total Farm Area
(ha/farm)
Productive Farm Area
(ha/farm)
Dairy Productive Farm Area
(ha/farm)
Daily Quota
(l/f8.rm)
Herd Size
( cavJs/farm)
Labour
(L. U./fo.l.'m)
Milk Production
(l/farm)
90
82. LI·
73.2
71".7
728
102
1.96
369,611
LI' ,i-f85
5,053
(l/ha)
(l/prad.haJ
(l/dairy
prod.ha)
(l/L. U.)
(l/co\rJ)
1
Total Value of Assets
($/farm)
Gross Revenue
($/farm)
Total Expenditure
($/farm)
Net Income
($/farm)
Gross Revenue
(cents/I)
Total Expenditure
(cents/I)
(cents/I)
_ Net Income
\..1
1975~76
/1,709
90
86 o~5
77$7
7502
'726
'105
2~O2
385,346
Lf,1.f66
I.t , 959
1+,945
5,124
188,577
190,759
3,659
3~611
203,724
38,328
24,696
13,632
10.370
6.682
3~688
223~081
38,:513
27~1'70
11,31.+3
9.995
7.051
2.S4 Ll·
_ _ w.__·· _ _ _ _ _·.,.·-_ _.,.,......,. __• _ _ _ _ _ _· . _
SUMHARY
The information presented in this Report has been
prepared primarily for the NoZ. Milk Board and the
of Town Milk Producers of N.Z. (Inc.)"
Fede~ation
The Report forms a
continuing set of statistics on the costs and incomes of town
supply producers in New Zealando
The 1975-76 survey results are
briefly summarised as follows:
*
The average size of the farms surveyed (including
was 86~26 ha 9 3.85 ha more than in 1974-75~
run-~ff
areas)
Run-offs were used
by 46 percent of the farmers in the sample of 90 compared with
38 percent in the previous year.
The average productive area used
for dairying remained similar to the 1974-75 survey (75.2 ha
compared to 74.7 ha)o
*
The distribution of ownership and land tenure types was
similar to those reported in the 1974-75 Report, except that the
proportion of trust farms increased from 303 percent to 607
percent, while individually owned farms declined by 3.4 percent.
All farms in the survey were operated by at least one of the
owners~
shareholders or trustees.
* The average number of milking cows per farm increased from
102 03 to 10503 cows~ while the total dairy herd numbers remained
at an average of 160 head. Herd sizes ranged from 33 to 256 coWSs
Non-dairy stock numbers increased by 11 percent, with most of the
increase occuring in the South Island.
*
Total milk production per farm increased by 403 percent;
North Island farms showed a 3.9 percent increase, while South
Island farms showed a 5.1 percent increase.
*
The proportion of milk sold at town milk prices declined
from 8001 to 76 05 percent of total milk production.
Both North
and South Island farms sold a smaller proportion (3.6%) of milk
at town milk prices than in the previous survey year.
* Milk production per cow and per productive dairying area
increased marginally ItJ'hile production per total hE). declined by half
of one per"cent
*
0
The total amount of labour engaged on survey farms increased
by 205 percento
family labouro
More family labour
irJaS
engaged in lieu of non-,
Milk output per unit of labour engaged increased
by approximately one percento
Average daily quota per farm remained constant.
of farms held the same quota as the previous year and very few had
significant increases.
Daily quotas on the surveyed farms ranged
from 226 litres to 1,964 litres.
* The average net price received per litre of all milk produced
was 809052 cents compared with 9.4959 cents in 1974-75, a 606
percent decline"
* Milk sales accounted for 89 percent of gross revenue, a two
percent declineo
*
Increases in
Total farm expenditure increased by 10 percento
overhead expenses accounted for most of this increaseo
* Net depreciation per farm increased by nearly one third ,
mainly as a result of increased special allowances on new plant,
equipment and vehicles.
* The average net farm income for all farms for the
Survey year was $11,3430
1975~,?6
The North Island income w~s $12,080 1
and South Island was $9,8000
On average, net farm incomes declined
by 20 percent from the 1974=75 Surveyo
The comparative figures
for that year were $13,632, $14,483 and $11,837"
The results show
that there was little change in income
between the two
rel~tivity
Islands"
* Net farm income on a cents per litre of milk produced basis
declined from 3069 cents to 2094 centss a 25 percent declineo
*
Livestock trading profit increased from $1,708 per farm to
$2,266;
this reflected the improved market prices for livestocko
-3-
* The average value of farm assets was $223,081 which
an increase of 10 percent over the 1974-75 survey_
repre8ellte~
Most of this
increase was due to an increase in land values.
* Total liabilities per farm
a 2007 percent
increase~
were$51.~21 LI
compared to $1+2, ~·48,
Farmers refinancing during the year had
to borro\oJ at considerably higher interest rateso
*
Net Worth on all farms increased by 8.7 percent from the
previous survey.
South Island farms had no increase in Net Worth,
whilst North Island farms increased by 11.3 percent.
*
A Cash Flow analysis shows that average
repayments"
borr~wing
exceeded
The cash surplus from the year1s trading on 75
percent of surveyed farms was approximately $1,000.
* The average cost of all new equipment and vehicles purchased
during the survey year was $3.639 per farm.
*
The amount of money spent on farm development work was $876
compared with $1,116 in 1974-75, a 27 percent decline.
* Farms in the 1,000 - 1,200 litre quota group showed the
highest returns on a per litre of milk produced basiSe
*
The rate of return on farm capital was 3.97 percent for all
farms~
*
The Capital Turnover Percentage was 1704 percent for all farms o
* The labour and management residual was
$'1
~057
for all farml30
No attempt has been made in this Report to draw any
concl usions on the differences in pr'ofi tability bet1tJeen North
and South Island farms or whether an increase in t01tJil milk price
is justifiable"
The analyses have been carried out primarily to
meet the basic objective of the survey, namely the determination
of an average net farm income for New Zealand.
... 4-
1.
BACKGROUND
Object~ves o~
1.1
the National Farm
Surve~
As in previous years, the principal objective of the
1975-76 survey was to ascertain the average net farm income
received by town milk producers in New Zealand.
Information
produced by the survey is used to assist decisions concerning
applications for price increases from specific producer groups.
The national average cost and return levels are used as benchmarks
with which costs and return figures derived from smaller regional
surveys can be compared.
The survey data obtained also provide a
continuing set of statistics on the economic position of town
supply dairy farms.
The availability of such information is of
value to the individual farmer, regioJ:lal
policy
1.2
advisors~
and Government
makers~
Climatic Conditions
In general, rainfall experienced in the North Island
during 1975 was close to normal, while the South Island experienced
five to ten percent more rainfall than normale
Marlborough and
North Canterbury received rainfall of 20 percent above normalo
Temperatures throughout the country were a little higher
than the 30 year average.
by 100 - 150 hours.
worst affecterL
Sunshine hours were mainly below normal
The Dunedin - Balclutha - Invercargill area was
Dunedin had part:i:culatlylot..r sunshine hours$
Northland and Marlborough had appreciably more sunshine than normal c
There
vlaS
an exceptionally high frequency of winds
throughout the country during the 1975 winter.
on 1
Augu~t
A major wind storm
caused considerable damage to many Canterbury farms o
Winter rainfall was well above normal on the West Coast, Otago
and Southland and also in the Western districts of the North Island ..
Such inclement weather made 'feeding-out' very unpleasant in these
areas.
The weather in November and December vIas C,ooler and drier
than normal over the greater part of the country..
Some irrigation
was necessary in Canterbury, Wairarapa and parts of Otago during
these months, but considerably less than in the previous few yearsa
-,7'·
January 1976 was unusually cloudy and wet in the North
Island and the northern part of the South Island.
Pastures were
greener than usual, which made it a good month for milk productione
By contrast, rainfall was lower than normal over Central Otago and
North West Southland.
February 1976 was the coldest February for the last 39
years, with three spells of particularly wintry weather.
The cold
temperatures retarded pasture growth in many areas.
Apart from the lower part of the South Island which
experienced drought in the autumn, weather conditions over the
early part of the year allovJed most farmers to enter the 1976 winter
with adequate reserves of stored feed.
The heavier rainfall and slightly warmer conditions
experienced in many areas enabled the majority of town milk farmers
to produce more milk from grass than in the previous year.
Producer Prices
Changes in the town milk producer price have continued
to be linked with changes in the average manufacturing price for
whole milk for all major uses.
An increase (or decrease) in price
of one cent per kilogram of milkfat results in an increase (or
decrease) of 0.06 cents per litre in the town milk producer price.
Town Supply milk prices are established on the first day of September
each year for the ensuing 12 month period.
The prices are linked to
manufac·turing prices which were established in June
0
The national average advance prices for the year commencing
on September 1975 were fixed at 806889 cents per litre for finest grade,
803219 cents per litre for first grade, and 7.5899 cents per litre for
second gradeo
After a number of price adjustments during the 1975-76
N.Z, Milk Board year, the final national prices per litre for the three
glades of town milk were 1000371, cent$ for finest, 9.6701 cents fOJ;:J;irst,
and 8.9381 cents for second.
payments and bonuses.
These final prices include all supplementary
Table I gives a summary of the national average
town milk producer prices for finest grade milk over the past three
N.Z.
M~lk
Board financial years.
'l'ABLE
Source:
New Zealand
l1ill~
'I,
Board 23 rd Annual Report p 1976
Most producer companies are actually paid at standard
seasonal prices.
These prices average back to the national average
prices referred to in Table
1.
Sorne producer companies elect to
vary their milk prices throughout the year to compensate for
climatic conditions, or as a means of enoouraging higher production
in the more difficult production months.
Where within year
variations of prices arB utilised, the entire payout must average
back to the national average price.
As in past years special producer prices, over and above
the national average price. have been paid in certain districts
with particular production problems.
A proportion of these
allowances is reviewed each year.
'rable 2 summarises the natienal, seasonal and district town
milk prices for the year ended 31st
August~ v
1976"
~rABI.E
2
Town Milk Pro.d.E2~~.£L,f2LI!~,§~....!gll8:..sj;, ,1"~~.1276
PART 10
NATIONAL AND SEA.SONAL PHICKS
i-~---~------q-<-,~-~--~w~~--~~-'1
I
I
Seasonal Prices
I---·----~-~~-
Grade of IvIilk
'y
deard
en e
3"1 Augu,st
I
I,
I
National
mown
..L
Milk
"JO '''',''''. '''8
~,~~_
Spring &
Summer
(Sept s to
l'
:n -1)
ca,)w::L.c.
~
~."
Autumn
Winter
\'~"b
t , ,(M
,~: e e O
, ay t" 0
April
August
", lnc.~
;' 'J')
T"
e!l
~
e!l
e!l
, .•
I)
:Lnc
~
I
r-j"-!-i-n-e-s-t----~~-i'-"'"-1-9-7-5---9~G""1"-7";;;;9:...7----7.,,.;;,..~--;~L:23-: 10153
I
I
1976
9.9471
8.2276
9.9276
1975
8~81;~?
'7~326
9.0561Os}86
!1976
9,,5801
7.8606
9,,560612 .. 1106
i Second
8,,0807
6,,59 1+
8.32 Lf
First **
I
19'75
___ ~~~~~':::
L-~~~_a::~~
PART 2..
8_)
s_ _
12.4776
10 054
0
~8_.8_2~S_6_1~·!.,,:?8"~. ~l
_ _ _ ...
ADDITIONAL, I,OCAL prnCES:~"U"~~1'"~"""'~-=--~!
Cents per litre over six
t
"
t
autumn and winter months
"
D::Ls,r::LC
_ _ _ _ _ _,_ _ _ _ _~~_._19,~1976
I
I
..-J
i
(a)
All South Island
(b)
Tokoroa and Mangakino
Rotorua
0,7'.35
0 ,550
0.735
0,,550
0 660
0 .. 660
Gisborne
0~367
00367
Hawke!s Bay
0.367
0.367
Ruapehu
0.735
o.'! 85
0.·735
Christchurch
0.367*
0~367*
Dunedin
OQl
0~250*
v.lellington
30~mile
area
0
0
0.2.50*
Central Otago
0,7:35"
1 • '100*
0.735*
10100*
.southland
0,; '73.5*
007.35*
North Otago
Source:
Note:
I
o ~ 18~7
Oa
Balclutha
'
N.Z. Milk Board 22nd & 23rd Annual Reports, 1975 &
1976.
The above national and seasonal prices include the
interim final payment, a smal~. final payment has yet
to be determined.
**Final adjustment:
The final seasonal prices for first
grade milk are 7 9506 e/l for spring and summer,
9.6506 ell for autumn and 12.2006 ell for winter.
1~4
Town Milk Production Data
.....-
~~
Total town milk production in the year
ending
increased by eight percent, over' tho p:l:'0viou,s Year",
31 August
~976
More favourable
climatic ccndi tions during the year helped to bring this about
0
Table 3 shows the total p:'coduction and ,sale of milk passing through
tJ:1e National Hilk Scheme for the years ending 31 August '19'1.5 and
3'1 August 19760
TATfCE 3
!£.t:Jll.~~ym~igu r2.<1uc t =h.~B,
I
I
I
I
ILZ e 1',1:ilk Board 2:3rd Annual Report
Source:
Table 3 shows that: the:re '\lYaB a three percent drop in the
proportion of milk sold at town milk prices from the
1974-75
to the
19'75,-76 years&
Total .1Jilk sales for the year
than for the previous
year~
\'II€-re1 ~
9 Ll percent lower
but sales from '1 February to 31 August
~
1976 were 5.46 percent below the sales for the corresponding months
of the previous year",
'Fha fact. that higher re1:l3.il prices for milk
were introduced on ': Febr'uary'19'76 may account for some of this
decreaseo
There was an overall increase of
quota (N.Q.).
3054
percent in nominated
Most producer companies had small increases in their
nominated quota from the previous year.
The only companies with a
smaller N, Q~ than the
hTarkworth
PX'6VJ.0l.1S
year
"Yere
Go~op
Milk
Producers Ltd. and the Te Kuiti Milk Producers Co-op Ltdm
Total milk production in t;1:1e Du,n'3din> Balclutha and Gore
districts declined by approximately n:l.. ne percent overall from the
previous year.
All other' dLstri(d:;s with the except;ion of
Foxton and Gray increased milk prodl.lc:tiono
Dargaville~
-9-
There were 1,704 direct town milk quota holders during the
1975-76 Milk Board year compared with 1.693 for the previous year.
In the previous two national cost surveys eight Dairy
Since 1 September 19751 there have only
Companies have held quotasD
been five companies holding quotas and these five companies have
held almost the same total quota as the eight companies in the previous
year~
A summary of the number of quota holders over the past three
years is given in Table 4e
Table 5 gives details of quota holding
companies in 1975-76~
TABLE 4
T01t!U
A
Hil]~~uEl?l,i,eors
and Da il;X
7
---------'-'-·~i'->-------------------
I
Year ending I
31 August I
'rype of Quota
Holders
1974
Total N.Z. Suppliers
j
1975
1976
Dairy Companies
Total
N.Q.
(1)
1~225s299
119 08 9
jDirect Quota Holders
1~214~210
: Total N,Z0 Suppliers
11254~050
II
Dairy Companies
Direct Quota Holders
Total N.Z. Suppliers
Dairy Companies
Direct Quota Holders
Source:
51,691
1,202,359
1,298,528
51,376
1,247,152
N.Z. Milk Board
~uot8;s
-10-
TABLE 5
guota Holding Companies 1975-76
Name of
Company
Quota
held
(1)
East Tamaki
East Tamaki
Bruntwood
15,216
1,103
8,110
Levin
I Henley
23,333
3,614
I Total
51,376
I
Supply
District
No .. of subquota
holders
Auckland
Franklin
63
6
Hamilton
vlellington
Dunedin
9
73
12
I
Proportion of
Total Nominated
Quota:
Total
Proportion of
Total no .. of
Suppliers:
30956%
!
Source:
N.Z. Milk Board
163
9.538%
-11-
2e
DJ~SCRIPTION
2.1
The sample
OF THE SURVEY
The sampling unit in the survey was the farm. and the main
sources of data were the farmer and the annual set of farm accounts@
For a farm to qualify for inclusion in the sample, the following set
of criteria had to be satisfied:
(i)
The farm supplied a producer association that had a
nominated quota (N.Q.) of more than 16,000 lit res
daily~
I
0
0
,ll
)
The farm itself had a daily quota of more than 200
litresG
(iii) The farm received at least 75 percent of gross
revenue from town milk sales.
(iv)
The farm engaged no sharemilker.
(v)
The farmer had been producing town milk on a
particular farm over ~he entire survey period.
(vi)
Ownership of the farm
vIaS
could be treated as owner
uncomplicated and the farm
operated~
(vii) The farmer agreed to participate in the survey and
provide the necessary data.
It should be noted that criteria (iii) excluded most of
the larger pedigree breeders with town milk quotas, and farms with
other major enterprises in addition to town milk productions
Provided farms satisfied these eligibility criteria,
farms randomly selected for the 1974-75 survey were included in
the 1975-76 sample.
Eighty two percent of North Island producers
and 66 percent of South Island producers who participated in tte
1974-15 survey were included in the
1975~76
sample.
-12-
New participants. in the survey were selected randomly
from the New Zealand Milk Board's quota records.
Representatives
of the New Zealand Milk Board and the Producer Companies contacted
all new farmers selected and determined whether they were eligible
to be included in the sample.
The sample was stratified both by producer association and
by quota size.
Table 6 shows that the number of survey farms
selected from each producer association is in proportion to the
total number of suppliers to each association
g
Table
7 shows the
distribution of the sample by quota group in the two islands.
Figure 1 compares the percentage distribution of producers by quota
group in the sample with the national population.
TABLE 6
Name of ~roduccr
Association in
0urvc;y*
Nn, of
Suppliers
Proportion P ropor t'lon
for
of
~! Quota **
y ear l~ndine
Population
31 Gt AUCl1st
1<)7G
_
<
~
,,' . . . .
~
cl
• • • • • • • • ' ' . '.- •• ~.,.,.~ •• " . " ....... _ ...... ~ ....... ,.~, •••• _ '". , •• " . "
';JhoDcarei
Shore, )
Auckland Co-op)
.
)
NcZ,o Co-op
)
!~orth
Thames Valley
Hamilton
\'10 Bay of Plenty
B. Bay of Plenty
Botorua
Tokoroa
Gisborne
.Hawkes Bay
Manawatu
Waira.rapa
lv/ellington
~
36
146
216
2.4
9.6
1Lf 02
32
50
35
19
36
25
31
80
2" 1
3.3
2.3
!
('I
~
-
~
._~
__. ___ . __. . . . _.. . . . _. _. . . . . . .
~
~_.
~-
-...~
1 .1
1
(28.52
2.2
10.0
14.5
2
9
13
2
1.40
13.23
2.2
5.6
3.3
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
4.5
2.2
3.3
4.4
1.2
8.9
1
8
(
(
(
1. 71
6.05
2.29
1.39
2.12
1.76
2.03
4.93
2.26
1 .61
2. Lf
1.6
2.0
5.3
2.2
2.1
5.2
1.2
11.2
_~
1 .9 Lt
1 •.3
--
('.1
. ·_. . . _. . . . ,-. ......' ..........."...".'"..".,......... ,......." ' . . . __. ____
1.2
32
79
17
170
Wanganui
.r~
18
3~
New Plymouth
...... '
Propn of farms
No. of
from each
Farms
in
Association as
Sur·vey
~~ of total
fnrms in cample
3.9 Lt
--
-
5
3
1
1
1
1
4
2
3
Lf
1,056
69.6
75.18
67.8
61
Lf1
2.26
145
45
2.7
9.6
3.0
3.3
1).4
3.3
3
12
3
Y+
2.2
Southland
7.8
5.1
2.2
5.6
4.4
2
119
78
2.15
4.54
3.70
5
4
South leland
462
30.4
24 .. 82
32.2
29
1,518
100.0
100.0
90
North Island
Nelson
Oanterbury D.F. ~
Metropolitan Milk
(
(12.17
:
bouth Canterbury
Dunedin
New Zealand
100.0
*The namee of producer aesociations have been abbreviated here;
to Appendix A for full nlltnets •
** Because of criteria (i) (see page 11)
refer
I
the population has been reduced to
1,518 town milk suppliers. The rem&ining 191 ~uppliers supply Producer
Companies with less then 16,000 litre N.Q.
-·14TABLE 7
.J?j.stributi,on of Sample by Quota Size
New
Quota Size
(litres)
200
~ealand.
No .. of
farms
%
North Island
South Island
No .. of
farms
,......
No" of
f
arms
%
of
Jo
I
II
J
I
400
14
15 .. 6
8
13",1
6
401 - 600
601 = 800
22
24 .. 4
20 .. 71
,
21~3
9
31",0
23
25 .. 6
13
16
26,,2
7
24,,1
801 -1000
15
6
16.6
12
4
3
2
10,,4
6.7
19,,7
6,,5
5.6
2 .. 2
3
4,,9
2
1401 -1600
5
2
2
3,,3
0
6 .. 9
0
1601 -1800
1
1.1
107
0
0
over 1800
2
2 .. 2
1
2
3",3
0
0
90
100 .. 0
=
1001 -1200
1201 -1400
Total
61
100 .. 0
29
6.,9
10000
I
FlGUR[:; 1
Proportion
of Hulk
sUPf:J~iers
(%)
30
SurvO~l
S,3F1L)le:;
20
10
o
200
to
4uo
400
to
Goo
r:oo
to
800
to
QOO 1000
1000 1200 1 i,C)(1
to
to
to
1200 14uo 1 (,On
r>:)t- (1:i. t·~::- '::<
1 (00
to over
180C
1 (,Cie)
-16If a farm selected for the survey did not meet all criteria
at the time of the field interview, a randomly selected
farm in the same quota group was substituted.
sample of 90 farms, 100 farmers were
cont~cted
back~up
To obtain the final
by the field officero
The main reasons for farms being dropped from the sample
at the field interview stage were:(i)
The producer had changed his mind regarding
participation in the surveyor was unavailable
for interview ..
(ii) The farm had not been producing town milk for
the entire 12 month period.
202
Data Collection and
Assembl~
Field work commenced in JanuarY'1977 and was completed by
March 1977 ..
To maintain uniformity and 'conti,riui ty of the survey'i the
manual of procedures as introduced by,~he N~w Zealand Milk Board
,
and the Town Milk Producers'
'
Federa.ti6n~of
.
followed"
New Zealand (Inc,,) was
"
..
Appendix B gives details of,defini.tions, procedures and
imputed values used ..
A set o;f farm wo:tk:l.:n$'~.ccounts for the 1975-76 financial
year was obtained from the farmer or his accountanta
Milk
production records for the farms surveyed were compiled from
records of producer associations..
Accounts of farms employing
managers were adjusted to an owner-operated basis"
'Likewise 9
partnerships and family companies were treated as owner operated farms
by assuming one of the partners (members) as owner9 and the other(s)
as employee(s)~ provided they were engaged in farm work~
All financial and production data collected referred to
the farm's financial year"
Table 8 shows the distribution of farm
account balance dates among the surveyed farms.
It can be seen that
two thirds of all balance dates were March 31st 19760
TABI. .E 8
]'inancial rClst!lts for 1;he survey farms \V'ere dex<i \,fed largely
from the farm accounts.
Most of the farm accounts collected in the
sur'Vey showed suffic:Lent breakdovJ1l of f,rxpenses 1 J:"'3VenU.es and o'(;hEir
financial da:1:;aa
In cases \1hercthere \vas insufficierJ:G oetai19 it; was
necessary to ask the fa:cmer for c:lr;:J,rificatioYJ."
details or confirmation 'tIfe:ee Bought f:com the
instances~
In some
further
aGcou~tJ.tant"
Where possible ~ data we:r'e transferred directly from i;he farm
ax::c:ounts to the relevant income and expenditure ca:c€;gorie s o:n, the
aS1:lembly form"
Trade
discounts~
Bubs:Lc1ies, and al1,',)1. .)'al:1.l:~eB for personal
use "Jere deducted from the ep:px'op:ciate expen,se i tern 'befor"", en,t:ry",
Development expendi t"l.;(X'e 'vrcU'l isola.ted. and deducd::ed from. the relevant expense
items 1iJhere appropriate"
ven in Appendix Bu
,['his is a statistl,cal p;3.ckage of' Gom::;mter progx'ammes developed at
Stanford Un:t.versity and snp.'por'i:ed by Social Sc:tene,e D8.'!:a ,service
of the Institute of Governme:r:d: Affai:cs ';l.t the University of
Califo:rni.a~ Davis, UcS.A"
-183..
301
PHYSICAL, AND PRODUCTION DATA
Physical Characteristics of Farms
Table 9 shows both the average total farm area and the average
productive area of town supply farms
~ncluding
run-off units.
farm area is defined as the total farm area less waste areas.
Productive
A fuller
definition of productive area is given in Appendix B.
The average size of the farm plus run-off was 86.28 ha, an
increase of 3cr87 ha or 4.7 percent compared with the
197~-75
survey.
North Island farms were 1" 66 hOI. smaller \.;hile South Island farms 'were
15.72 ha larger.
Farm sizes ranged from 23 .. 1 ha to 31469 ha in the
North Island and 27 .. 1 he. to 4·66 .. 5 he. in the South Island, with respective
standard errors of 6 .. 27 and 18.25 ..
Table 9 also shmvs an estimate of the average total productive
area used for milk production.
To arrive at this estimate
it was
necessary to subtract an estimate of the productive area of the farm that
was not used for dairying.
to 5.93 ha in
197:::~?6;
This area increased from
4~60
ha in 197 4=75
North Island decreased ,,!hile South Island
increased. significantly ..
Thirty two percent of the surveyed farms 'grazed out' stock on
other neighbouring farms during the survey year..
The grazing out area
during the year was converted to an annual basis depending on the number
of months of grazing"
Some farmers rely very heavily on off-farm
grazing during 'pinch' periods of feedingo
-19TABLE 9
--------_._i
(:.aJ
·1
86.28
81.69
95.941
77.70
7~::~
~~:~~ I
t~er::J.a:nd
Unproductive area
Productive area
! Estimated non-dairying
South!
Island I
(ha) I
I
I
area
:::: 1::::1
1.
,1
. Estimated 'grazing out'
I
area
!
Estimated productive
area* utilised :for
i
milk production
I
North
Islano.
(ha)
,:0W
Average total area
.,
I\
I,!
75.19
78.47
68,,29
1
I
L---.-____....._________--____-~------------------------------~I
*hereinafter abbreviated to dairy productive hectares$
3~1.2
Run-off Units
Forty six percent of the surveyed farms included run-off
units.
Half of the North Island farms had run-off units while in
the South Island the proportion was 30 percent.
These units were
primarily used for grazing young dairy stock or some sheep and beef
cattle and were 8i tuated from 5 - 30 kilometres a\'lay from the home
farm a
The average area of a run-off unit in the North Island was
36,,6 ha while in the South Island it \nfas 65. Lt1 hao
E:l.ght of the
nine South Island farms with run-offs had an average run-off area
of 21.35 ha whilst one farm had a run-off area of 41708 ha
(principally used for sheep and beef grazing).
-20 ....
Table 10 gives a brief slunmaryo,f.land U'se on the 90 surveyed
farr.1S ..
Utilisation of Farm Area
u._
_ _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- - . ,...... _ _
~
•
70
Crol~s
Forage
5
Sheep and beef cattle
Fa.sture
Gash crops
r
C'
76
Dairy pas'!;u:,t"e
I
•
Unl1J:'odud;j.ve
lfUl.d
".
9
j
II
9
0
.
'10
0
"
7
.. '
1
,
' . 15··
1
.. 1~1
--~.--.--- !.~ ~~~'--~~.~-
Total"
I ____ ,--... . _ _ ,..
. . 1....-.
I .____
(
-_
-.l.I
F'avoul'able climatie conditions for dairying throughout the
country during
1975 ..q6 enabled most farmers to reduce the use of
irrigation compa.red vJith. the previous year.
Irrigation was principally
used in the early ,summer and autumn perio.ds.
Fifty two percent (15) of the surveyed South Island
farms (principally ill. Canterbury) used irrigation during the survey
year with an average total oper~ting time of 667 hours per farm.
The 197 1+-75 survey
sb.Q'\~ed
that. 59 percent of the farms used irrigation 1
1>li th an average operating time of '1,070 hours per farm.
Six percent (1~) of the North Island farms (South Auckland
and vlairarapa) used irrigation during the year \oJith an average total
operating time of
688 hours per farm*
All farms with irrigation used some form of mechanical
irrigat.ion equipment;
manual shift irrigators
predominated~
expendit.ure associated v.J::i.th irrigation is given in Table 19 ..
The
-21 ...
Table 11 Sh01tlS the distribution of different types of farm
ownership"
Sole owner operators predomine.ted in the South I61and 9
1tJhereas almost 60 percent of farms in the North Island were owned by
partnerships or other types of multiple ownerships@
1975~76
of ownership types in the
The distribution
sample is similar to the previous
survey except that the South Island sample had a larger proportion of
family companies and trusts and a smaller proportion of indi vidue.l
owners.,
TABLE 11
~~
Different Types of FE.;.rm Ownex,sh,i.J2,
Type of Farm
O\V'Uership
Individual owner
"""'""!
New
Zealand
North
Island
South
Island
C% farms)
06 farms)
(~6
farms)
l!.
Ii
50,,0
Partnership:(i)
(iii)
husband-wife
20,,0.
father-sones)
2,,2
24",6
1 .. 6
other fe~ily
181
1,,6
18,,9
21 ,,Lr
Family company
0",0
1~<,8!
~!_;_~_:_:_:_e______________~!~___~_:_~________~_:_.~______~
. ! Total
1.
I
100,,0
100 .. 0
100",0
The distribution of land tenure on the surveyed farms was
similar to the previous two surveys..
Eight-eight percent of the total
surveyed land area was held by freehold land title"
Land rented from
other farmers accounted for 11 percent of the area with the remaining
one percent held under Crown and Maori leases"
Table 12 shovls the average number of labour units engaged on the
surveyed farms in 1975-76"
Proportions of casual and permanent labour
and family and nOrI·-family labour are also given in
~lable
12~
The total
number of labour units engaged on';>e suryeyed farms was marginally
up on the 1974":'75 survey..
Family labo;:.r units increased by six percent
while 110n family labour units declined by four percents
-22All people that were involved in farm work (excluding children
under 12 years) were taken into account in assessing the number of
labour units engaged on each farm.
A labour unit is fully defined
in Appendix B.
TABLE 12
Labou,r .Uni ts Eer;, Farm
~--.
Hew
North
Island
South
Island
0 .. 98
0 .. 40
.£.:j0
0 .. 97
0,,40
0,,06
0099
0,,41
0,,19
'1" 1+3
Permanent non-family
1048
0.1.}7
Casual
0 .. Q1
0 .. 48
Oao8
1 .. 59
0 .. 43
0,,03
O~54
0 .. ,56
0 .. 46
2 .. 02
1 .. 99
2",05
93
72
89
f
Type of Labour
Zealand
Farmer
Permanent family
Casual family
Total family labour units
non~family
units
Ir·-··Total non-family labour
----..-Total I,abour Units
~.
I
I
I
J
Proportion of permanent labour (96)
Proportion of family labour
(?~)
I
I
1
92
73
~l
,
78
The distribution of labour units for each of the quota and
herd grohps io given in Tables 26 and 31 respectively (Appendices D
and E) ..
3 .. 4
Milk Production
Milk production relates to e13.ch supplier's income year..
Details
of milk production on the surveyed farms are given in Table 13"
Table '14 gives the proportion of milk sold as surplus to factories by
quota and by herd size.
less than in 1974-75..
Daily quotas per farm averaged 2 litres
The average quantity of milk sold at town milk
prices on North Islafld farms was one percent less than in 1974 -75 ~ ';Jhile
ill the South Island it was one percent more.
The proportion of total
milk sold at town milk prices declined by 3c6
percent~
TABLE '13
111:1)1:;
pro?;.~
...
r--------'~~-~.---'
I
!
~
;
South
Island
~~--,'-~'.......f-"'-=--'---"""""---'----i
. Daily quota
I
I
North
Island
ITe'tl
Unit
Milk Production
I
--.--~~-
(l/farm)
'726
77'1
632
Milk production sold for
town supply
(l/farm)
294~792
313,871
25h,660
Milk production sold for
factory supply
(l/farrrd
90\)5,54
92~;:~8'7
86~90'7
(l/farm)
:38,5 '13 l f6
o6\) 158
341~567
3') 474
4,222
4, 972
3 1 560
Total milk production
i
Proportion of total
production Bold for
factory SUP1Jly
2.3,,:>
Proportion of total
production sold for
town supply
,?6G5
I,: :;::~~~~~:::I:::·
1
105,,3
3 9 660
l/total ha
~,~
~~~:~:;h:rOd.ha
4]959
!
~- ... ~
4~ 191
'190.17652C41100
l/farm/day
--
1+66
5,002
l/labonJ:" unit
\1
~
I
!
1 ,0.~)6
UOOK'O' _ _~_~~~~~
00)
1 ~ 113
:_'"
166$618
!
936!
______ J,'
,_~"'""'"'
f'l,:l,;tk ~dtiq,n...,:S.21· d as
f.El::E1:~2 t a ..pnsLJIe£..<l,. Si z c:
~i'£EL£i ~2ie~"o>
I
_4~~~~'_~~_-"
Quota
Size
I
I'
No o
of
Suppliers
Proportion of !
total milk
! Herd
production sold!
Size
as surplus
I
( 9 6 ) ! (No" C01rlfS)
No.
of
Suppliers
Proportion of I
total mi.lk
production sold
as surplus
(Ii tres)
C%)
1~--~--~~~>~-------------i
I
200~ 400
I
401- 600
601:': 800
801~1000
i 100'1-'1200
I 120'J~11+00
II
j
1401~1600
1601-1800
over 1800
" Lf
2;::>
23
15
6
5
2
1
2
29" 9
3"1" 4
22~5
'18,,2
18",7
19oc~
2203
15.8
11,,7
!
30,,, 39
lrO~ 59
60"," 79
i 80~ 99
I 100=''119
I 120-1'-f9
150-'199
200-249
I 250-299
!
I
i
-----------"~"- - " - - 1 , - ,
Nevi Zealand
90
l......_ _ _ _ _ _~_ _ " _ _
-j,,,,:
27
r.::
t
!
Nit.>
~--....J_.: ~VJ
1
'10,,6
-1 ')
25~5
t '-
20
18
12
11
12
26 8
2
12 .. 4
12 .. 4
23 6
26,,5
22,,6
25&'9
9
0
II
-------------,---------i
Z
.Jea.1 an 1./,;:,
00
;'
23 .. 5
i
i
.. ,t;
-24,-
4"
FINANCIAl, DATA
4.1
Introduction
Most information contained in this section is presented in
the form of tables in which averages
2,r6
given on a per farm, per cow,
per total hectare and on a per lJ"tre of total milk produced basis ..
This survey report differs from the 1974-75 report in that the
financial results are presented per total hectare rather than per
estimated dairy productive hectareo
Relative standard errors of
selected variables are given in Appendix
Due to the small sample
C~
involved~
the reader should be
careful when comparing ref::mlts behreen NCJrth and South Islands ..
Analyses of financial data by quota and herd size is given in
.~>.ppendices
D and E respectively"
Cash flow analyses on North and South
Island farms are presented in 1'<PPEmdix 10
Survey results of previous
years are given in Appendix J.
4",2
~pi t.a}~. Struc:Eiure
The procedure,s adopted ill assessing the capital value of
assets and liabilities a.rc similar to :previous surveys and are
presented in Appendix BG
Tables 1,5 and
assets and liabilities and net; worth"
16 61 va the value of farm
The average value of all farm
assets was $228,029 per farm which represented an increase of
approximately 10 percent over the 197 1+-75 survey..
values contributed to most of this increase..
The increase in land
Although the book value
of all farm buildings increa.sed marginally (three percent) from the
previous
year~
the costs of erecting ne'w farm buildings during the
year increased substantially"
Host of the new buildings erected
during the year were in the form of additional accommodation and
hayshedse
Addi tio:n.s to milking sheds were re109.1;i vely minor"
'fhe book valu.e of plant and equipment increased from
$4,611 to
$4~980~ all eight pe:rcont rise indicat:ing that farmers were
purchasing new assetsa
from
The book value of all farm ','cc"icles increased
$4,379 to $5,482 which is a 25 percent increase.
The average
value of all plant and vehicles purchased per farm during the
survey yea:t' 1IlaS $3 9 6390
1975-76
New tractors and cars accounted for the
greater proportion of this amount ..
-25There was a small increase in livestock values, mainly due
to an increase in sheep and beef cattle standard values and a small
increase in overall numbersc
The average value of money invested
in company shares (Dairy and Agricultural company shares) increased
by about 47 percent while the amount of worki.ng capital increased
by about nine percente
Total liabilities showed a 20.7 percent increase from the
previous year;
liabilities on South Island farms increased by 21,,5
percent and on North Island f8,rms by 20,,2 percent..
farms caused much of the increase..
Refinancing of
Net worth on South Island farms
remained the same while in the North Island net ,..,orth increased by
11,,3 percent.
Equity in all farms increased by 8.7
percent~
TABLE 15
Capital Structure - Value of all Assets,
North Island
!iew Zealand
Per
farm
Per /
total ha
$ .,
$
ASSETS
Per
cow
$
1975~76
Per litreJ
milk prod
Per
farm
Per
cow
South Island
Per
Per litre
total ha milk prod.
$ -
cents
Per
farm
Per
cow
Per
total hac
$
$
$
Per litre
milk prod.
$
$
184,974
1,582
2,264
45.54
155,441
1,923
1,620
45,,51
903
8
11
0.22
820
10
0.24
0.65
centF3
cents
175,458
1,666
2,034
876
8
10
45e53
0.23
Farmer's House (~)
2,412
23
28
0.63
2,508
21
31
0.62
2,208
27
9
23
Other Farm Houses
4,654
44
54
1.21
" ,416
38
54
1,,09
5,154
64
54
1.51
Farm Buildings
63
47
76
5,52..:5
4,617
67
108
5.743
71
2.57
1,,68
5,482
52
64
1.43
4,879
57
60
91
60
Farm vehicles
39
42
1.36
1.14
8,762
58
1.70
1.29
47
Plant & Equipment
6,567
4,980
1.20
6,751
84
70
1097
Dairy stock
18.324
174
212
4.75
20,288
174
248
5.00
14,194
176
148
4.16
Other Stock
1,130
11
13
0.29
485
4
6
0.12
2,488
31
26
0.73
Company Shares
1,179
11
14
0.31
1,170
10
14
0.29
1,199
15
12
0.35
Working Capital
2,019
19
23
0.52
2,088
18
26
0 0 51
1,875
23
20
0.55
Total farm 1\ssets' 1223,081 29118 2,586
57.89
1,9 8 3
231,85:
~----------------+-------------------------------+---.---=Sundry Debtors
2,528
24
29
0.65
2~834
24
29 8 38
57 e 09
204,635
2,532
2,133
59.92
35
0.70
1,883
23
20
0.55
29
0 •.58
2,574
32
27
0.75
Land
Improvements
I
Cash at Bank etc_._~1,2'420
Total all assets
1~289029
23
2,165
28
2,643
~o63
59.17
.
2,347
20
~~=.-----------t------------------I
1237 tX:5?
2,L27
2,902
58.37
209,092
2,587
2,180
61022
I
f\J
0'1
I
'.I:ABLE
']6
C8J?i tal Structure - L.;!.abili ties and Net Horth 9 1975=76
Nort;h Island
New Zealand
i
~=---------------------------.~----~--==-=------=------~~.
Per
Per
. farm
__~~~_~~___~~,.e..L~___
LIABII,ITIES
Ourrent
Li,abili ties
6,.908
=----CO"'"""",,
I" ,"
00
L+49306
xed
Per litre I Per
Per
Per
!
Per litre I Per
Per
,:;ow total ha milk prod~ farm
CO\-J
total 111'1 milk prod,,! farm
_
~
~ ,,,,,>«c,,...,••_'Itl>C<.. ~ O";,~ ~ "..."....'~ ~,."...",.,.~~.~~~_~~.
$
$
Per
South Island
.,
.:,••,,,:..
ce r.:rt is
$
80
1,,79
514
11G50
....
CO"l
Per
i
litr~
Per
total ha milk prod!
-==uv~_1
......
$
$
7 ~ '183
4,2y,
$
6~1
88
366
523
cents
$
"If)
10Q52
!
I
$
$
6 9 330
'790......
66
47~6"15
589
496
13~94
5~79
~
Gents
1
Q
85
I
lli&~'b:ili ties
". '*
(I
CIW:=.
~
f'
If
594
13~29
4 9/916
427
61 't
12c29
53 9 945
667
562
33 899
Lf5
1,,0'1
3~974
34
L~9
,),,00
3,742
46
3~
2 9 004
44,,87
83 ~ 142
'19566
29 2l12.
45.,08
:15·i~405
1 9 8'73
1 ,578
Tota.l
ies
Specifi~
1
0
~1
0
Reserves
Gapi tiS,l
(Net vlorth
172~
6
~ 641
.~~~~c=~*=~__~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-=~,~~~~.~~
Total
-~-----~~.-..
228~029
C'~'165
2~643
59017
2,027
2%902
58",3'7
~~
f
:20 9 ~092
j
____
~:33
-=~=~.-==~=.~.~~~=~~~~~~~>
2~587
2 ~'180
61,,22
~-.-.~"=~---~----------
.,[\
-284$3
Gross Farm Revenue
Table 17 gives the source of revenue on the surveyed farmse
Milk sales contributed 89 percent of gross revenue, ,,!hich was two
percent less than the previous year.
proportion of milk sold at town milk prices declined by 3 6 percent.
0
'l'he average price received per total litre of milk produced \\Tas
809052 cents compared with 9.4959 cents in 1974-75, a 6&6 percent
decline.
This drop was mainly due to the fact that 3.6 percent more milk
\\Tas sold at factory supply prices "/hile quota levels remained consta.nt"
Livestock profit increased by 33 percent, indicating
improved livestock sale prices..
also contributed to this
A small increase in livestock numbers
increase~
The standard values for all dairy
and beef livestock used in this survey have remained
constant~
while
sheep values increased $5/head"
Proceeds from the sale of bobby calves sho\rJed a slight fall
from $619 to $582, a six percent drop, although per calf prices
increased five percente
Prices paid for bobby calves varied widely
from area to area and improved considerably during the survey yearo
Income from other sources increased by 38 percent from
1971j -750
The imputed revenue vahle for the employee's house was
increased by 10
percent~
.
Overal1 9 gross revenue per farm increased 1?y only half of
one percent 9 and on a per hectare basis it declined from $465 to $446 9
or four percent less.
TABLE 17
Gross Revenue.
New Zealand
GR OSS REVENUE
Per
farm
Per
cow
$
$
Per
total ha
$
1975~76
North Island
Per litre
milk prod
Per
farm
Per
cow
,:;ents
$
$
Per
total ha
$
South Island
Per litre
milk prodo
Per
farm
cents
$
Per
cow
$
Per
total ha
$
cents
80 9 3
356
325.89
3038
397.73
4,13
8.91
0 009
36,134
287
309.07
2.45
4l f2.33
3.5'1
8.90
0.07
Wool & Skins
Sold
130
1.23
1.50
0.03
32
0.27
0.39
0.01
337
4.17
3051
0.10
Contrac~ing
199
1089
2.31
0.05
181
1.55
2.22
0.04
236
2092
20 46
0.07
Rent & Lease
fees
300
20
85
3048
0.08
352
3.01
4.31
0.09
189
2.34
097
0.06
Employees house
667
7.73
26.26
3.23
0.17
0.59
0.07
715
1,952
306
6.12
16.70
2.62
8.75
23.90
3.7 4
0.18
0.48
0.07
565
I 2.928
223
7.00
36.22
2.74
5,90
30.52
2.31
446037
9.99
39.959
341.79
489. 'i5
9.84
35,475
438.88
369.76
Hilk Sales
Produce Sold
34~316
Other revenue
279
6.33
21,52
2.65
Gross Revenue
38,513
365074
Livestock profit
2~266
-
-
30,493 . 377.25 .317 84
6.24
5.25
504
Per litre
milk prod.
0
I
I
i
o. '15
0.16
0.86 .
0.06
10 •.39
i
N
\.0
I
-30-
Table 18 gives a breakdown of expenditure per farm into
five major categories.,
Total expenditure per farm increased from
$249696 in 197 1f-?5 to $27,170, a ten percent increase"
Labour,
operating and administration expenses remained at the same level
per farm and per litre of milk produced"
by 25 ps'rcent compared "dth 1974-758
Overhead expenses increased
Higher depreciation allowances
increased net depreciation per farm by 27 percent"
expenses~
Of the operating
and herd
testing~
vehicle
increased significantly.
expenses
declined~
expenses~
contracting, power? breeding
farm repairs and maintenance
On the other
hand~
feed and fertiliser
principally due to the better climatic condit;ions
and static quotas$
Expenditure on adminstration declined from $794 to $727"
This was mainly due to less legal fees being included in general
administra'~i ve
expenses0
Accounting fees per farm increased from
$235 to $278, an 18 percent
increase~
Telephone charges increased
slightly from the previous year.
Insurance expenses increased from $368 to $409 per farm,
a Lf1 per'cent
increase~
A number of farmers took out new insurance
policies on their farms or upd.ated the insurance value of farm
assets during the survey yeare
The following d.ata on interest payments sho", a rising
per farm interest bill over the past three survey
NcZs
$
1973 ~. 74
1974 - 75
'1975 - 76
2~445
2,766
3,408
periods~
N.I.
$
Solo
$
2,62 1+
2,785
3 9 349
2,068
2,726
3,533
1'his increase in interest payments reflects rising
interest rates and an increased debt load" In the 1975=76 survey~
ten percent of North Island farms had interest payments less than
$200 p"a,,;
similarly in the South Island"
The average interest rate
-31-
on all liabilities per farm was 6.65 percent for the survey year.
It,
~,hould
be noted that interest payments would not have been made
on some family mortgages and certain other liabilities.
The a'verage rate payment per farm increased from $63 Lr to $'7 l 0
an 18 percent increase.
Increased Governmertt valuations on many far'lus
sreatly influenced the increase in rates.
Rent payments on land doubled from the previous
reflecting higher capital values of land..
thus
year~
The 1975-76 survey incl "~ld6d
a slightly higher percentage of farms renting land than the previous
year.
Most development expenditure is now tax deductiblsQ
Few
farm accounts show development expertditure as a separate item and thuB
it is difficult to separate mairttenance from development expenditure"
As a result the normal set of farm accounts obscures the true rate of
reinvestment in
farms~
The developetent expenditure for North Island
farms has been assessed at $903 per farm and $820 per South Island
farmcr These values have been included in the total value of farm
assetso
A definition of allowable development expense is given in
.AIypendix B ..
~
TABLE 18
~~di t.~re.$=J.2.2.2.:1.§.
•.,,....:.,,,~....,
'~~'''·'"".oe.,,,
I
Nev,
I
1
EXPENSES
,".~
i
L __.=,=~-=
.1 ,
•
Per
farm
I
ILAB01JR
IFamil Y Labour
-
IFaLmiblY Casual
a our
iNon Family Labour
Non ~amily Casual
Laoour
!
IU
.
I npaJ..'d"'"
.J:! amJ..ly
Labour
Per
cow
Per
total ha
:P
$
19554
14,,76
18,,00
290
2,,75
3,,36
l i d -
I,
i,ealand
2i1~-9
~---1~""Per Ii tre i Per
t:
0
cenJs,:J)
0 040
11,396
Oe08
20041
24091
0.56
357
3,,39
4e14
0,,09
I
420
3099
4087
0 10
910
8064
10 55
0021-t
5~680
53,,94
65~83
i
I
I
!Sub-total Labour
\.
I
.
!
=""
1
..........-
j
i
.=-~,,~=.
Per
Per litre i
total ha milk_?~
1 ~888
23636
-19,68
0,,07
264
3.27
2.75
0,,08
29021
0 .. 59
17745
21~59
18,,19
0051
3~49
~-,,99
0 10
155
1 .. 92
1062
0 .. 05
3., 9 J-j-
5 .. 64
0 "11
336
Lto -15
3,,50
0 .. 10
7084
11 .. 21
0 .. 23
896
11.9 LI-
17 09
302
2.58
3070
12~386
20"Lf1
408
461
0
0
0
oj)
,!;
do
~
:p
0
I
0
0
0
lShed Expenses
I
IPower
jFeed
ilFertiliser and
Seed
,I
9 .. 3 1+
."
.~~~~~~----~--'-=------------------------r--------
,
=----1
!
j
1..,
& herd
IIBreedi~g
Test:l. ng
I
I
oj •
~-~,",~!---------~--
IOPERAl'ING
,
_
IContractin g
IAnimal Health
~-~.=
cen t S
0034
=--=
South Island
cen t s
0.,55
J
!
= "'.......-...
'"
!
Per
Per litre j Per
Per
total ha milk prods: far~~w".
$
II
"""""",,,,~,~.'~'"
'"
I
i
ILabour
Accommodation
c
1;_
0
d-
..D
c"
North Island
Per
milk prodcJ!,~r,m•. ~ __ . .CO'"
,
I
i'
i
10 33
6 .. 56
0,,23
0 .. 15
1 9 046
626
8 .. 95
-12,,80
0,,26
.5 .. 35
7 .. 66
94
0.11
46~-'
3,,98
4.32
4.86
5.27
5.93
0
22074
452
552
1,847
3.87
18 62
0.12
0.13
0.51
17.61
21,,49
0.48
2,080
891
566
8 46
5 .. 38
426
4 05
0
0
1
"if.
~ ,
6 .. 98
5 .. 88
0 .. 16
0 .. 15
564
441
5,,45
4 .. 60
0.13
5,,69
0,,11
346
4~28
3 .. 61
0 .. 10
0 .. 11
5 '"1-;Z
5,,31
27 .. 25
0" 1 l f
4 .. 1+7
0$45
463
429
2,203
4 .. 82
15.80
5 .. 53
6076
22.61
22.96
0.13
0 .. 63
17.79
25.46
0,,51
"'1,378
17,,05
14,,36
0 .. 40
I
!
455
512
1,962.
1,854
4~72
0,,14
L_______~~__'" ______~________:._._=._."~___="_,. _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _~.~~~.._ _ ~
9
(../
.=__ .... _e
_-'
TABLE 18 (continued)
Farm Expendit.:p.re 9 1975=76
o'f
I
.~~-~-=
He1J.! Zealand
II EXPENSES
CONTD~
I
Per
farm
Per
cow
$
$
'
I
!
.
IvJeed 8<
'~est
+. 1
...j83
!. Con~ro
IVehicle Exps..
!.
'Grazing Exps"
Freight
IRepairs and
Maintenance
I
IIrrigation Exps..
!
Per
total ha
$
I
1,,7-+
2,,12
cents
0 .. 05
tota~
IISubOpe·rat~l1g
I,Total Loabour,'
and perat~ng
I
I / !
I
195
Per l~tre
milk prod~!
0
;
cents
$
I! 2~25o~
80
0,,76
0 .. 93
0,,02
I
1 ..
67
2 .. 39
Per
cov,
$
$
0 .. 05
i
I
I
I
1,,95
0
$
1 .. 65
30~36 25,,58
cents
I
0 .. 05.,
'I
2,,60
2 .. 73
3 .. 72
3.91
0407
0 .. 08
209
383
2,,59
4.74
2 .. 18
3 .. 99
19Q30
27.62
0,,56
2,001
24 .. 76
20 .. 86
0 .. 59
25
0,,20
0 .. 31
0 .. 01
190
2,,35
1,,98
0.06
i11,219 138,,80 116 .. 94
·3 .. 28
1116,503
204,,17 172,,02
.
4,,83
304
319
I
"
I
Per
Per l~tre
total ha milk prod l
0.72
0 .. 06
0.11
I
.
111 937
113 .. 36
138,,35
3 .. 10
112 276
,
105 .. 00
150,,28
3,,02
''1'17.617
167.30
204.18
4.57
118.145
155.20
222.12
4.46
~'
j
i
!I~
.
278
176
2,,64
,,,67
3 .. 22
2~04
0,,07
0,,05
I
I
!
l
!
..~_,~_.~_.------~ -----------+1---------------...,
!
-=
I
I
Telephone
'Ii
Per
farm
I
158
'
I
!
29109
18 .. 04
25 .. 82
0.,52
! 2,454
0 .. 56
;'
Ii
!'General
292
181
2 .. 50
1~55
3057
2.21
0,,07
0 .. 04
270
2.,31
3,,31
743
6,,36
9 09
!I
248
164
3 .. 07
2,,03
2,,58
1,,71
0 .. 07
0,,05
0,,07
281
3,,47
2093
0",08
0",18
693
8,,57
7 ~~-;.--.~~
I
!
L Administr,ation
:l_~
Per
total ha
$
25,,20
~
ADI1INISTRATION
Accountancy
iII Sub=total·
I, Administration
$
20.65
0~09
!
. J
."
i
II
2,174
2 .. 5 9 3 .. 16
3 .. 23
3$94
0 .. 58
0 .. 07
Per
cow
i
21~09
-.':-'
!
Per
farm
2,221
273
340
!
25~74
.
.
Per l~tre 1
milk prod,,!
South Island
North Island
.
_______._ . . . ._.. _... I1
273
2 .. 59
3,,'16
727
6 .. 90
8,,42
0.,07
0 '19
0
0
I
I
0
rp!\b"?T:ii'
'10
._J_~
.,..,.~~~,
(~o"'?o';nuea~)
t,.,..L'" v..&..
~
! 8,;!Pt ~ldiJ.E£_e~9
192;~
_":(lCS
New Zealand
North Island
,
! -_ _ _ _ _
"__
..,_.~_ _ ~_~_ _ _.~
_ _ _ ~~=.".
EXPENSES CONTD.
P er
P er
farm
cow
P
-er
total ha
l'
J.
!I p er
, ~~rG
milk prod~ fe.rm
',..,
~er
P er
P
_er
i
CO"..;
, ,I . _
total ha
I
P
1 l'CrQi
:er
milk proc~<>
0
•
0
i
!
!
South Island
I
I
.=
i
ToQ=~
,
I
• • ~=,=_>
p
P er l ~' t r~I
er D
ler p'er
farm
COvJ total ha milk prod!
••
....J
~_
4. _ _ _
i
$
$
'5)
cents
$
$
$
cents
OVERHEADS
409
39[,,08
3.88
32.37
4,,74
0.11
Interest
39.,50
0.88
0 20
8 .. 66
Rates
7L~7
7 s 09
Rent
1,047
9~95
12.,13
0$27
r-----------+--- ----~------'". . -.--~
Sub,-total
5,611
53,,29
65,,03
1,,46
O
Jver h eav.s
4
:J
,
._----
Total Cash Exps"
Net Depreciation
23,955
3~215
227.49
30 .. 53
277 .. 63
37,,26
396
3,Yf9
3.39
28.65
6092
12.03
809
I 1,Lr07
~ r
~...~
'
5,961
50,,99
258 02
0
314089
0
41~00
9090
17,,22
6,,22
Oc83
7 .. 05
~-,-----,~~----
$
I 3,030
127i 879
238047
a _ _ '"~
,
_
cents
I
II
7,,63
6,,43
0.18
3,,58
3,,01
0.08
72,,97
1 .. Lf7
I
!I'
304,,18
37.09
4,876
60,,33
341.27
=....~
6 .. 11
0,,75
~
(22,072
~
13, 603
"... -- i
6.86
50.82
~5i675
1 ~43
•
273 .. 07
44.57
i
I
!
!
230,,06
37,,55
!
6 .. 46)\
-~ "'
1,,05 I:
!
j
i
!
=
I
212 .. 55
25 .. 92
$
' I
5.41
4055
O~13
I
;+3~71 36.83
1.04 I
OG10
437
0 .. 82! 3'1533
0 .. 20
617
0.35
289
-.-,. _.
Lf,8L:9
l2
!
!
I
$
i
"~=-!' - -
----+-----~~~---,----"~--,.
~ ,---~,.
!
27 ~ 170
4 85
1
.\
317.64
267.61
7.511
1
-35The depreciation allowances for all farm assets are givG,,}
in Table 19..
During the 1975-76 financial year, the Government
considerably increased the depreciation allowances· on new,. plant,
ment, vehicles and
in order to increase investment.
buildings~
equip~
These
allowances took the forci of'a first ye~r d~preciation allowance,which
replaced ordinary depreciation and
asset",
aff~cted
the book value of the
The depreciation·allowances ranged from 40 to 70 peJ;cent of
the cost price"
TABLE 19
~preciation
of Farm Assets
Ordinary
Type of Asset
Plant and
Equipment
. First year
Gross
and Sp.eci,al .. Depreciation.
$
S.I~
744
705
N.I.
S ~ I.
1,093
1,357
N.I.
$
379
914
..•
I Vehicles
i
Buildings
TOTAL
"
506
527
N.I.
S .I.
N.I.
S.I.
I
I
I
!
639
739
(301)*
(250)*
2,343
1,018
2,589
1,653
-Io--T
$.
I
I
1,1 23
1,619
I
I
1,732
2,096
I
,,~-
I
506
527
I
3,361
Lf,242
I
Gross Deprecia.tion
N.I.
S.L
$3,361
$4,242
Less Personal Depreciation
on cars
N.I.
S.I.
$193
$,197
Less Depreciation
recovered on Plant
and Vehicles by sales
and trade-inE!o
. -_....
N .I.
S.I.
$138
N.I.
$3,030
$3,603
I
$4~·2
_----
Net Depreciation
SQI~
*In keeping with previous policy on town milk surveys, special
depreciation on farm buildings has not been taken into account.
405
Farm Incomes
Net farm income averaged $11,343 in 1975-76, a
decline of $2,289 or 20 percent compared with the 1974-75
survey.
Table 20 gives the net farm income per farm, per cow,
per total ha and per litre of milk produced based on interest
actually paid.
Appendix B gives details of methodology used
to calculate the variou$ farm inc9mes.
The net farm income on a per litre of milk
produced basis declined from 3.69 cents in 1974-75 to 2.94
cents, a
25~5
because of
expenses..
percent decrease.
Net farm incomes fell
static revenues and the large increase in overhead
The additional milk produced on many farms only
received surplus milk prices.
To maintain last year's income,
producers would have had to produce approximately five percent
more milk at town milk prices or receive an additional 0.75
cent/litre for all town milk produced"
TABLE 20
~arm_I~~?me,
e" olucome !
Based on
l~ Per
Interest
Paid
farm
l'j
l~ew
LJeaolauQ.
~
Per
cow
Per
total ha
,
w-;
_
"
Per litre
milk prod,
I
H O.!:(,l.!.
==:'WQl"Q'
I Per
Ifarm
=::
19Z2-16
ol Solano"
e
Per
=
Per
total ha
CO\'iI'
Per litre
milk procl
II Per
farm
OQuc;n
.LS.Lana
Per
C01l1
Per
to'Galha
Per litre
~
~-"""'<'"
I$
38,513
Gross Farm
Revenue
Total
Expenditure
$
365",74
cents
$
446 37
0
39,959
9099
$
$
34'1 .. 79
Lr89" 15
cents
9084
$
\35,475
$
438088
$
369",76
cents
10039
I
127
~ 170
258,,02
314089
0
I
1119343
I
27,879
7 05
238 .. 47
341027
6,,86
259 675
317064
267,,61
7051
I
I
Net Income
$
I
milk prodo!
107,,72
131048
2,,94
o
112~080
I
~
\)J
103,,32
-
147,,88
2,,98
99 800
I
!
=-
121,,24
102" 15
2,,88
-..J
i
'I:able 21 sb.ows the ca,sh surplus available to farmers after
the year.13 tradingo
All imputed cost,s are exc:ludecL
Also any
ck balances are ignoredQ
changes in the value of
Taxation has
not been deducted o
:J:'ABLE21
?~-l
North
Island
NE)\v
Zealand
--
$
'1
@
$
South
Island
$
I
Cash Recieved: ~ ($ per farm)1
36 ~ '134
30~ ~'93
19 68 1
603
2,109
2/16
,582
i~~
694
3 Lr8
" '" "8
~L
"'_....l.."L..,...,.,.,~
38 s 736
L!0~311
359 430
Labour 8!' Operating
1169287
"
'A'
to
I
1.0: ,,;'7)8
1
Over_1saa.[3
&: ,d.mJ.. nJ..st:ra .;:ton
,/,
'16 9 768
159 2 71
6 9 704
59569
Milk Sales
Dairy Cattle Sales
Sheep
& Beef
Sales
,
Bobby Calf Sales
Other farm income
'rOTAI,
19 41 9
'I 489
20 Cash Spent; ,,"
0
0 '
Catt;le Purchases
119088
SXJee'Y'l & Beef Gattle
.t'
Purchase,s
!!
.58
923
_122,
259 00 3
'166
727
!2
TOTAL
F-~~---~~-'
530
,/J.
~~122,
Sundry
9.353
1
Lf s /1 85
229 Lf59
-=~~=~~~=~='~'~~~---~~~~-I
30 CASH S1ll1PLUS F'HOM FARMING
i
"i
1+9551
15~308
12 9971
L--_=_,~~.~,~=,~_,J,_~_=~.~~~~~~~~_..,g
Other farm income in the above table refers to cash
received from all other sources during the year (ego contracting,
produce sold e'\:;oo)o
Tables 22 and 23 give analysis of net
farmer
age gx'oups and value of fax"IT.I a,Shs8'tso
farm income by
Each 'J:able gives
supplementary physical Hnd fin,SI,ncial J.nf(;rmation o
It, \\1il2., be noted
that the youngest farmers are paying the highest in:terest paymentso
-39TABLE 22
!!&Sash Farm Income
Age Group
'I
2
20 -, 30
Years
31 -
No" of Farmers
per Group
ltO
p;¥
Age
G~
3
4
41 - 50 51 - 60
24
38
A~I
5
61 - 70
20
all farms::
2
90
r-------~,-_o-~-,-,.----~----------------------------.-.~--.'-~-~-----------,
(1)
Quota
Herd Size '(cows)
Years of
Experience
619
100
eyrs)
742
108
767
106
6
11
'726
105
21
22
Interest
Payments
($)!
Lf,627
3,661
3,812
750
Total Assets
($) 1139.734
219?978
243,816
207 9 348
223,081
Total
Liabili ties
($)
I 65,357
54,066
59,280
12,940
51,214
I
Interest as %
of Liabilities
Gross Revenue ($)
Cash Expenses ($)
Net Cash Farm ($)
Income
6,,65
35,879
22,256
35,744
22,432
41,350
25,472
38,729
24,125
24,092
16,510
38,513
23,955
1~8
13,623
I
Total liabilities per farm varied widely, with much depending
on the year of purchase and location of property..
Some farms with a high
valuation and high equity have expanded recently by buying additional
land at relatively high prices with low equity capitaL
TABLE 23
Net Cash F,a.rm
Average Value
of Farm Assets
$,000 per fa.rm
Under 100
100 ~. 200
201 ~ 300
301 - 400
401 _. 500
501 = 600
Total
No"of
Farms
Income,.?Lyal~ol
Age of
Farmer
(yre)
Interest
Paid
$
Farm, !,ssets
Total
Liabilities
$
Net Cash
Farm Income
$
6
3'1
27
11
6
3
'+0,,5
43,,Lf
44',,5
46,,4
46,,5
40,,3
1,626
2,565
3,553
4, 1817
,3,875
9,967
28,033
43,822
50,935
61,788
59,533
135,842
8,784
11,175
21,534
25,576
22,911
90
44,,0
3,408
51,214
14',558
1Lr,258
"""'~
"
"
~-
/.lo503
Farm In£2..mes at I,El,E,.uted ,Interest Rates
In order to standardise the procedure of calculating farm
incomes by the application of imputed interest rates, it is suggested that
varying rates of imputed interest be applied to both the total vahle of
farm assets and the net worth of the farmer.
In the former method, the
imputed interest; is applied. to the total value of farm assets and. 'J:,he
actual interest paid is added back on to the net farm incomeo
Any
differences occuring in interest payments betvJeen farms will be
eliminatedo
This is the method that has been published in previous_
Survey Reports" In the latter method, the imputed interest is applied to
the net worth of the farmer and deducting it from the net farm income.
The actual interest payment is left in as an expense"
The two methods
are compared in Table 240
To recall, the interest payments per farm for New Zealand were
$3,408 1 $39349 for North Island and $3 1 533 for South Island"
Changes in the Net Worth position from the 1974-'75 Survey for
North and South Island farms are summarised in Table 24,s
TABLE 24,
I
j
New Zealand
~\
~
(97~-75
$/farm'
!
'"1159 ~ 131
iiet Worth
. -
17 2 9916- 164 7 Lr77
~
I
A" Interest ra-te
applied on Net
irlorth
5 %
7 %
BQ Interest rate
applied on Total
Assets
3~%
5 %
7 %
1974-75 1975~76
$/farm ','li/farm
1975-76
$/farm
I
i
I
I
South Island
North Island
197'-}-'75
$/farm
183 1 142 1151 9 126
-
i
1975~76
t/farm
!
i
151,405
1
I
!
I
5~320
I
I 5,675
j
1
I
29 493
29 6 97
=761
6 9 259
29969
29923
='740
I
230
4,281
19 258
29
7,674
}-f~ 721
785
6 9 171
3 9 101
-991
~7
98
I
99 268
6 9 212
2,137
6 9 943
39597
-865
9~972
6,845
29 6 75
7 9 314
3 9 836
-801
I
I
Three measures of economic profitability have been applied to the
basic data of the preceding sections.
The measures adopted are the same
as those that are applied to the N.Z. Meat and Wool Board's Economic
Service 'Sheep and Beef Farm Survey, 1974-75' Report.
Definitions of
terms used are given in Appendix B.
NeVI Zealand
$ / f arrll-·" '''-'~;B7farm
1.
Working expenses
2.
Plus assessed Managerial Reward
3.
Total adjusted Working Expenses
4.
Working Capital
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
100..
11.
12.
}'arm Capital
TOTAl, FARM CAPITAIJ*
16,287
7,255
1,962
215,'-,Lt71
-._.
Net Farm Income
100
3,lf08
Plus Assessed Salaries Paid
Plus Interest Paid
Plus Rent Paid
Sub-total (7+8'b9+10)
15,898
Less assessed Managerial Reward
...l.L2 55
8,6 Lf3
Economic Farm Surplus
13 • E~~~~~.~~~':<~ S1~.2.
C.
14.
15$
Total Farm Capital
16.
~!~t~i~;~~...~en~.£f£.£
Gross Farm Income**
IJa~~,
37,846
21'7, Lf33
J.f:~;;t~?b
Management Residual
215,471
2,420
170
Farm Capital
18.
1 8a •
19.
20.
Plus Cash at Bank
210
TOTAL EQUITY CAPI'-T.'.\J,
22.
Net Farm Income plus ManaGerial Salaries
11,4 J+3
23.
24.
Less 7.5% of Equity Capital
12,5 00
217,891
Sub - tot al (1 7 + 1 8 )
Less Fixed Liabilities
Less Current Liabilities
L aho~;lsl. ..t1§!.£§.ge.mo ELn t-Be si ~ US'll
*This does not include house and car.
**Excludes imputed value for employeets house.
'1111e taxable farm income for eacl1 farm in the survey was
recorded from each set of farm acconntso
for North Island farms
1IJaS
'rlhe taxable farm income
$8~993 and South Isla..nd $7~64,59 giving
a New Zealand average of $8.5580
4 6
0
~ Im;£ortill1ce
Co~
of Princi &1 Hev~nue and Expenditu!.E2.
The relative importance of the principal revenue and
expenditure components is
detailed in Table 25"
TABI,E 25
ReveE.:,1..1,..e~eBd
r-No:"' .
EXEenq.,i!I!,re .£2,.l}lE.on~n.te
,p
North
Island
~aland
;
%
?I¥V
%
-
South
Island
%
_Grost[ Hevenue:
89" '1
90,,3
86,,0
5 .. 9
5 .. 0
80 2
4,,'7
5,,8
100,,0
100,,0
'100,,0
Labour
20 9
21.,1
20,,6
Operating
4400
4307
Administraticm
4309
2,,7
207
207
Overheads
2007
Depreciation
'1108
2104·
1008
19,,0
14,,0
10000
~]OOoO
100,,0
rUlk Sales
I
t
Livestock Profit
·~~:'~~
Total
500
~",,·cwn'F'l:
n
.
~~~""~c.==
~
Exne:tlditure~
u.w."'~f~~-'
Expenditure:
0
---~--+-----------:69,,8
Re venue Ratio (%)
72,,4
7005
.
-43-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Agricultural Economics Research Unit
gratefully acknowledges the co-operation
and assistance willingly provided by
officers of the New Zealand l1ilk Board,
Town Milk Producers' Federation of
New Zealand CInco), and Milk Producer
Companieso
In particular, thanks are
expressed to the individual town milk
producers for co-operating in the survey
and making the information contained in
accounts so freely availableo
-4·4APPENDIX A
PRODUCER
_
_
ASSOCIATIONS
INCLUDED IN SURVEY
___
"""'~
-""'_'_~_l'PI""_04';"'_'~"""'';'''';''~
North Island
Whangarei Milk Marketing Coo Ltd.
North Shore Co-op Milk Producers Ltd.
Auckland Co-·op Milk Producers Ltdo
l1'he New Zealand Co-op Dairy Co" Ltd .. (Ambury' s)
~
Auckland"
Thames Valley Hilk Producers Ltd"
Hamilton Milk Producers
r~td ..
Western Bay of Plenty (Co-op) Hilk Producers Ltd .. ~ Tauranga
Eastern Bay of Plenty (Co--op) Milk Producers Ltd .. , Whakat ane
Rotorua Co~op Hilk Producers Co .. Ltd ..
Tokoroa Co-op Hilk Producers Coo Ltd ..
Gisborne Co-op Milk Producers Assn .. Ltd"
Hawke~s
Bay Milk Producers Co-op Ltd"
New Plymouth Town Milk Co-op Ltd.
Wanganui Co-op Milk Supply Co. Ltd.
i1anawatu Milk Producers Co .. Ltd.,
~lelL}'gton
Dairy Farmers Co-op Assn" Ltd.
Willowbank Dairy Ltd .. Masterton
South Island
Nelson Co-op Milk Pr04ucers Assn" Ltd ..
Canterbury Dairy Farmers l,td"
Metropolitan Milk Ltd ..
South Canterbury Co-op Milk Supply Co .. Ltd. (Timaru)
Dunedin Dairy Farmers Co-op Milk Supply Co. Ltde
Southland Co-op Milk Producers Assn .. Ltd .. (Invercargill)
SOURCE:
N.Z. Milk Board,
•• 1+5APPENDIX B
SURVEY
","0,""::0<
DJ!~FINITIONS
L)o:
AND TREATl1ENT OF DATi\.
;)~"'~""~""'_~~ _ _'OV"_""'-"~=~~
The same basic survey principles and procedures have been
adopted as in surveys of previous years.
The following definitions
and principles were adopted in extracting and assembling data from
each farm:
TurAL FARM AREA: ~rhis was the total area farmed by the producer
during the 1975-76 financial year. It included rented land
and run=off ullits~ but did not include any cgrazing out' land.
PRODUCTIVE FARl1 AREA: The productive area of the farm included that
land to which stock had regUlar access. It was the area
grazed by stock plus the area in roads, yards, races and farm
buildings.
The productive area of run-off units was also
included. Areas under swamp, steep gullies riverbeds
and dense bush were excluded.
j
PRODUCTIVE FARH AREA USED FOR DAIRY STOCK: This was the estimated
total productive area of land used for pasture and fodder
production for dairy stock grazing during the income yea~
Estimated areas used for beef cattle and sheep ,grazing "
have been deducted. All grazing out areas used by farmers
during the year have been converted to an annual grazing
area and ~re included in the estimated area.
RUN-OFF UNITS: R'Lmc~off units were land areas separated from the
main farm and VIera mainly uGed to rear young dairy stock or
carry other stock from time to time. Run-off units were
included in total farm area.
LABOUR UNIT: A labour unit was defined as a \.jorker ~ 1IJhether owner
or employee, who worked on the farm full time over the
survey period. Fractional units of labour were used'll/hen
including work carried out on a part year or part time basis.
Any work carried out by children under 12 years was ignored.
Cadet and student workers 'vIere assessed according to the
amount of useful work carried out.
VAIJUJ~
OF LABOUH UNIT: A standard wage of $5 1 100 per annum ~ with or
without the provision of a house, was assumed for the
imputed wage of male workers over 17 years; the imputed wage
assumed for women and 12 - 17 yr. youths was $4,600 per annum.
The standard wage for male workers in the 1974-75 survey was
$4,600 and $4,000 for women and 12 - 17 year old youths.
UNPAID LABOUR: Any unpaid family labour vJas assessed and valued.
Wives and other partners in the farm business were the only
sources of unpcdd labour
Q
-46HOUSE RENT FOR EMPLOYEES: \\There a house was provided by the farme:r
for an employee (including other family members)~ the
rental was assumed to be a fair rental for the district.
The average rental was between $25 - $30 per week.
FULL BOARD AND LODGING: This was assessed at $17 per week per person;
this represented an increase of $2 per week compared with the
previous surveyo
PRODUCE USED: A figure of $165 per annum for produce used per full
time married labour unit was adopted to cover milk9 meat~
vegetables and firewood usedo This allowance was not
extended to the owner Or members of the farm family~ The
value of produce used was included in labour accommodation
expenses. The 1974-75 value for produce used was $150$
LAND VALUES: The most recent Government valuation for each land
assessment was obtained. The Valuation Department~s
flFarmland Sales Price Index l1 (base year 1960) was used to
update all land assessments to 1976 values. To obtain a
value for land only, the total opening book value of all farm
buildings was deducted from the "updated" capital value of
the farm.
DEPRECIATION OF FARM BUILDINGS: The opening book values of all farm
buildings were used to determine depreciation. Ordinary
depreciation rates were applied (ieo no special depreciation
allowances) to the book values. The normal 2B5 percent
depreciation rate was applied to opening book values of all
houses on the farm except that rates were applied to only one
quarter of the book value of the farmer's dwelling.
DEPRECIATION OF OTHER ASSETS: Depreciation on all other capital
items except farm buildings was based on rates used for
taxation purposes~ All personal allowances for depreciation
(eg. motor car), were deducted from the gross depreciation.
WORKING CAPITAL: Working capital was calculated by dividing the
total cash expenses on each farm by 120 Hence, cash
expenses for a month were considered equivalent to the
annual working capital for the farm.
DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE: Certain capital expenditures may be treated
as expenses for income tax purposes. The deduction of these
expenses for tax purposes may be deferred, either in whole or
in part, for up to nine years, and includes, inter alia 9
expenditures on the following:
(i)
Eradication of animal and vegetabte pests
(ii) Construction of fences
(iii) Construction of roads, access tracks, and topdressing
landing strips
(iv) Sinking of bores and the construction of dams
(v)
Swamp drainage.
Fertiliser expenditure may also be deferred for up to four
yearso All development expenditure that was included in the
farm operating expenses was isolated and deducted from the
relevant expenditure item. Development ~xp~l1diture f:1a.s; ~~~n
included in the farm assets,
QUOTA:
This was the average daily quota per farm for the 1975-76
income year"
STANDARD VALUES USED IN THE VALUATION OF' LIVESTOCK: Numbers of
dairy stock in the various classes were determined partly
from the farm accounts and partly from discussions vii th the
farmer" The following standard values per head were applied
t;o the various classes of stock:
$ 50($20 in 19'14 ~75)
Young Bulls
All Cows
$125
$200
Bulls
Heifers=in-Calf $100
$ 10 ($5 in 1974~75)
$ 80
Heifers
All Sheep
$ 50
All Beef Cattle $100
Yearlings
$ 20
Calves
The standard values applied to livestock for the 1975-76 survey
were similar to the 1974~75 survey except for the increases in
the value of young bulls and sheep"
MILK GRADES are defined by
N.Z~
Milk Board
as
follows:~
Finest Grade: For milk which passes a 5=hour reductase test
and which while generally complying with the accepted
notional standard of 4,,37& fat f01' town milk~ does not fall
below 3,,5?& fato
First Grade: For milk which passes a 3-hour reductase test
but fails to pass the 5=hour test and/or '\r!hic:h contains
3025% fat but not 305%~fat$
Second Grade: For milk which fails to pass a 3-hour reductase
test and/or contains less than 3 .. 25% fato
INCOME:
TOTAL, MILK SALES ~ The value of all milk sales was extracted from
each set of accounts and checked against the monthly milk
payments as provided by each Producer CompanYe Milk receipts
,include all relevaX):t; special payments made by the Producer
Company during the farmvs financial year ..
PRODUCE SOLD~ Proceeds from the sale of cerea1 9 seed 9 fruit or
fodder crops"
WOOL AND
SKINS~
Proceeds from the sale of these items"
CONTRACTING: Gross proceeds from contracting work undertaken by
the farmer or his employees s ego fencing s hay baling9
bulldozing etco
RENT AND LEASE FEES: Grazing fees and rent received from farm
cottages or lando
.EMPL.oY;EE's HOUSE AND PRODUCE: This value is the sum of the annual
imputed rentRl value of the farm employee!s house(s) and the
$165 per annum allowance for each married non-family
permanent worker for produce used~
LIVESTOCK PHOFI:I';
:pJ;'oi'i<c fX'omi;b,e livesto(:k trading accounts.
The survey sta.y,aa:vd va1;.H1C were applied to all li vesto(;:ka
Stock balan~es W0re derived with the aid of the farmer
and farm acoountso
Oi,rHEB.:
Sa18 (xC 'i::imt(:~:(', l)U:;.:,t.d" ar,,(l
items~ and interest
from Dairy Compa:ny ;sha:t'es and 1xnrestrru3':J:rf:;s"
GB.OSS RE\lENUE~
SUrr!, cd a:lt;lH) above :i:o.com0 i tams"
income haa nat been
in 'th e fmr'iTey"
EXPENDI'I'URE:
J?AHILY I,<ABOUR;
Does n0t include Bnd of year bonuses at •
FAMILY CASUAl" LlrBOulL
'l4agf.:s Pfl:Lf1 to all fam::t1y members for ca.sual
work during the yeara Wi~~B that were only involved
oeca sional1y in fe,X'nl I'jork ~ bu t,
1~;1a.im8d "'lages for
taxation purposes were included in this 6ategory.
~1j'a.gc;S', paid to permanent 1!.on~fam:Lly membersQ
Payments fo:c AiY:ddent CcYmpE!:i.18ation are :tnclucled in this
NON-]!'J-UlILY LABOUIi;
8J110unt
6
CILS1JA1 I,JIJ30UR:; Casual wag",iB p<?:id fex' re~"ieI milking~
casual Ie6ding~ b.a.y makix"g at ,; d';i,x':Lng~;he year'O Contractors I
work is excluded a
NON~"FAMI1Y
valae of unpaid family labour was
mw AID l!"AMII,Y I,AHmJR,
assessed a6
Hen
g~
Yo
r)'\I'6J:'
( inc:r.eased :from
.,95
"17 ;'learf! (JI'Ctge;
,,'('5 in '19?4""(5)
per hour
12-17 year old youths, women. and aged people:
hour (increased from $1.15 in 1974-75)
Children under 12 years:
$1030 per
Nilo
LABODR AGC011HODAJ:J::ON:
B hYr.,U:3 <:8,1
€ld as 'the sum of the
imputed ~c<-;XLtal VSllu<5 of fcu:'m (;o1;'tage( s) per annum and
$165 per annum for
1tJorke:r.< s)
e used
non-family permanent
0
CONTHAC'rING: P,,;\ym€n r; t
c'Gntra-:::'l::.or's foI' \10rk done ~ such as
bulldozing, f81'.1.,;j,:ng~
ilal:;:Lm~ bay or silage making
and harvElc:rc'ing"
~I'h:L" ~Un01jnt; in·,,;}, udes all v£;t;eri:na:r~y fees and
blo:lt G(\tltr~:J19 f:a,cial ee:z;erria Go:o:crol a:r.vl various
testing fees"
ANIMAL HEAI,TH;
dr1.}gs~
BB.EEDING AND HElm
l'E:S'J::I~\)',j: ~
breeding, herd testing
Ay,!:; :Lfi
and pedigree expeUeeSa
SHED EXPENSES
R(ibbex''I,1al'€:9
misct~llaru:,(,YLuc:
ropes~
item,s .for
1tJh<3re appli!;]ab18"
POHER:
l"cwkets , cleansers and
1-/'81a:1;;88 have been deducted
ShRUBo
ElectriuB0,d orr t;hE! farm and up
the domestic aoccunto
tr)
one~quarter
of
FEED:
Purchases of haY9 straw9 dairy meal~ grains 9 minerals 9
calf f'00d 9 dog food and miscellaneous items such as baler
twine" Rebates were ded'l.lcted where applicable"
FERTILISER AND SEED: Includes cost of fertiliser and seed~ freight
and spreading chargeso Subsidies and rebates have been
deduotedo
WEED AND PEST CONTROL~ This amou:n.t includes cost of materia:i.s and
some spraying worko In some cases the cost of spraying
wOJ':,k is inclucled in contracting expenseso
VEHICLE EXPENSES: Includes fuel~ repairs 9 licences~ registration 9
insurance and so on for all vehicles.. Personal allowances
for vehicle running have been deducted where they were
shown in accountso
GRAZING
EXPENSES~
Grazing fees incurred during the yearo
REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE: Repairs to buildings, plant 9 fences,
water supply, races, etc.
IRRIGATION EXPENSES: Repairs to irrigation equipment and imputed
values for power and vehicle costso
ACCOUNTANCY~
TELEPHONE:
Accountancy fees paid on all farm
accounts~
Postage 9 telephone rentals and tollso
GENERAL ADMINISTRNrION: Items not allocated elsewhere" eg", Farm
advisory services~ legal fees~ subscriptions, travelling
expenses and sundry i'temso
General insurance of farm assets~ accident
compensation levy is included in labour expenses"
INSTJRANCE~
RATES:
RENT:
The amounts paid to County Councils Harbour Board 9
Catchment Board. 9 Rabbit Board or Drainage Board"
]'ees paid, for Crown lease or short=term renting" Excludes
all internal ren.ts paid to trust and companies etc"
NET DEPRECIATION: Includes all special and ordinary depreciation
less personal allowances~ plus any loss on sale of an
asset and less any profit on sale of an asseto
TOTAL FARM EXPENDITURE:
NET ]'ARM
INCOME~
Sum of all the above expenditure
items~
Gross Farm revenue less total farm expenditure ..
NET CASH INCOME: This is the difference between the gross farm
revenue and total cash expenses (excludes depreciation)"
CAPITAL STRUCCeURE ~
~
SUNDRY
DEBTORS~
AV'e;;rage value of general sundx"y debts to the
fa:em aGc(;Jullto Th'8 ma,jority of thiz amount, is m"nthly milk
payments due from the P:rod'Lu::(~r Companieso
CASH IN BANK etco ~ Average value of all cU:J:'I'ent accou.nts held at
Banks a:n.d Commercial firmt) for the faI'm Us financial yeaI"o
TOTAL ALI, ASSET,;1 ~
assetso
CDRRENT
LI111UI,I1'IEB~
Avera.ge balarWE:~ owing OXl general sundry
cred.:i tor's 9 hire purchase 9 Btl.ort t er'm loans and bank
overdraftso
FIXED LIABILITIRS;
and loans",
TOTAL
LIABILITIES~
SPECIFIC
The Bum of Et11 curren!'; and long term fa.rm
Avera.ge balance
01tl~tng
on all long term mo:r·tgages
Sum of curre:nt and fixed liabilitieso
RESER'\7ES~
Examples of these are taxa.f;iol1 mcmies 9 develop=
ment reserves a.nd :i.rlCC)lne equalisa't:tCYJ:l funds" The total
speci,fic reserV8S per farm .,Jere par't:1.y estimated"
CAPITAl, (NET WOHTH): 11:h16 vstlue is obtajo:rtBd by £l'ubtracting the
value of to1;al liabilit~les and t~peG:Lf.'1c reserves from the
total value (QJr all assEd;s"
WOI{KING: EXPENSES ~ Cash payments fOl' labour (ex(~ludes imputed
values) 9 operating and administrative expenses"
ASBES8Em MANAGERIAl, REil,fAl1.D: Th:is itS an assessment of the payment
that should be imputed to an owner=operator for his/her
own lallour and management skillo Calculated by adding
$.5 9 1 00 (imp,x!;ed vaJ_ ue (of farm 'W'o:r'ker ~ S 'l,1l'age) and one
percerLt of :F'aI'm Gapi tal",
l'WRKING CAPI:rAI,: This is estimated to be one i;,welff;;h of the
total adjusted working ",xpenseso Since town supply farms
have monthly milk cheques b,eing pa:i.d. into their current
accounts 9 one t""161£'th of t:hese expenses is considered a
large e:nough pl"oport:L:mo ~rhe Sheep and Beef Survey allows
.50 percent 0:1" these expenses g as income may be received
infrequ.ently"
FARM CAPITAl,; This is the sum of ·the (~api>tal value of land and
buildings (excl.uding homestead) ~ plant and machinery 9
farm vehieles (excluding private car valued at $2,~ 000)
and all liv8stoek"
=51-'
TOTAL :E'ARN GAPI'.rAL:
:L'hisis the .Bumor lJorking and Farm Capi te.l
0
MANAGERIAL SAI"JIlUES: This is .an average assessed value of all
managerial salaries paido
INTEREST PAID:
RENT PAID:
This is the act'Cl,al average interest paido
This is the actual average rent paido
ECONOMIC F'ARM SURPLUS: This is the difference between the sum
of net farm income 9 salaries paid s interest and rent9
and the assessed managerial reward.
RATE OF RE'.I:URN: 'I'his is the ratio of the Economic Farm Surplus
to the Total Farm Capital expressed as a percentagr;;i o
CAPITAL TURNOVER PERCENT.A.GE: This is the ratio of Gross Farm
Income to T,)tal Farm Capi'tal expressed as a percentage
It gives an indication of the rate at which a capital
investment reproduces itself in the form of gross income"
0
IJABOUR AND HANAGEHENT R:ESIDUAJ~: ':rhis is an a.ssessment of what
the farmer earns as a rewal'd. for his/her own labour and
management, if a7i percent interest (similar to Economic
Service Rapa:!:',/;) is applied to his/her own equi ty capital ~
in addition to the interest o.lready paid on borrowed
capi tal
A sum of ?i p("J:r'cent of the calculated Equity
Capital is subtracted from the .sum of Net Farm Income
and Manag{1rial Salaries paid"
0
*Source:
N.Z" Heat a:nd hrool Bocu:'<li;l ~c(JllOrJ:Lc ,'}crvice,
and Beef Farm Survey '19?Lf -75.
Q
~Sheep
-52APPENDIX C
RELIABILITY OF SURVEY ESTIMATES
Estimates of farm characteristics based on a sample of farms
are likely to differ from the estimate which would have been obtained
had information been collected from all farms in the
population~
The
differences are called sampling errors and their likely size in
percentage terms is called the relative standard error of the
estimate~
These relative standard errors (R.S.E1s) for key variables are given in
Table 26.
TABLE 26
Reliabili ty of Survey Estimat.e.§.
I----------------------------~--------------------~-------------------
I
r-'''~
. _-
1974-75
Survey Year
Herd Size
Variable
(No. Cows)
Average Quota (1)
Total farm area eha)
Total milk pro duction (1)
Gross revenue ($)
Total expenditure ($)
Net Farm Income ($)
Average
102.30
728.35
82.41
369,611
38,328
24,696
13,632
R.S.E.* (%)
5032
5.38
7.93
5 .. 19
5.26
5.85
5 .. 96
1975-76
Average
R.S.E.* (%)
105.33
726.02
86.28
385,334
4.88
5.28
8.37
4.96
5 .. 10
38~522
27,170
11,343
5~90
5$96
*Based on 95% confidence level.
For example:
The average herd size for all farms Has 105 cows, with
an R.S.E. of 4.88%.
From this we can be 95% certain
that the actual average herd size of all
farm~
in the
population was between 94 and 115 cows (105±1$96x4.88.%).
-53APPENDIX D
stmVEY RESULTS BY 9UOTA SIZE
The survey results by quota size are set out in Tables 2'7 to
310
Results are expressed per farm, per litre of total milk produced and
per litre of quota milk produced.
While the distribution of quotas in
the sample is closely similar to the populationi care should be taken
when making comparisons between groups, due to the small number of
Table 27 summarises the important physical
farms in some quota sizes.
characteristics of each quota size.
TABIJE 27
Physical Characteristics by Quota Size
i
I
,I Quota
I
!
!
Pt'oportion of ,.. Total I
Total farm Total milk milk sold at
labour:
area
production surplus prices I units:
: 1974-75 1975-76
1974-75 1975-76 engaged
I
(ha)
(1)
%
%
·
size No. of farms
(1)
I
I
I
200- 1+00
II 1+01- 600
601- 800
I
I 801-1000
11 001 ~'1200
I 1201-1400
11401-1600
I
1601-1800
over 1800
I
!
Average
14
24
23
14
6
4
14
22
23
15
6
5
o
2
2
1
3
2
90
90
Lf2e33
65. Lf1
70.42
93.35
126 .. 48
202.39
161.65
169.42
225.45
I
I
!
i
197,445
284,948
354,401
433,455
560,104
701,249
712,456
866,999
917,589
I
2804
26.6
17.9
18.9
29.9
31.4
22 .. 5
1802
18 7
19.3
22.5
15 8
0
I
11.8
17.5
6
1044
1.7 Lf
1 <172
J
2~05
I
2.75
3 .. 39
3.27
I
3050
Lfo
60
2
01
I
j
Ii
0
i
I
;
!
I
I
I
I
TABLE 28
_£c;.pital ~t,;::±s:t~~~~
______
~_~_~_,._..'"~~..........-c~
I
'I
I
!
!_, .
L
I
I
I
,
~-.
Land
& Buildings
!#
I TPlant t9 Vehicles
&:
k
<I
'I
OC.
~1VeB
I
Ivli;scellaneous
,-,=,~=~
:b,..oo:oo.",,-~~"'"
188 9 984
119~793
1419431
171,483
b S,'77'')t-
2'~;.::
'" 'V t:C:;2
v
~
1,583
2~'18'1
::>9, 9 a~
b#
-,
J !
I,ong Term Liabilities
2229 0
,,--, ...~~.;';'!"",r.::
449306
(cents ne:r'
litre "
!~
..t:'"
total milk produced)
I
I
Land &: Buildings
Plant, Vehicles
&
"'"
v
/1
'9
$
lYliscellaneO\lS
~
"t'omll'~
',';
,r<C'E'P"
<J..u
J-l.,:;,,j"";b
J..••
.;>:::
ro
~ .Jb
vUIrer'b
0= '"
L"
'bL~lat~...
'~a"!.:L
... es
y"":,
~
"
/'~
,
.J.
:1:
I
$
$
$
236.402
218,596
316 1 027
411,206
338,578
0:>7
~~ "
40 9.3?hv
5!::
:J16
<-l ~ '- a
6,7g ~..,R04.
6 1~ ;88
~-'
3 9 1.36
4986'(
6 9 '424
5,486
6 9 392.;.
605
3,4~J
-Z;?
,../ - .. £I
1_.
~;=>53~ 21'1',;'6;2639789
;; ~0:35
8 9 051
s6'?2
~.Lf9668
-'l<"~_~""';~
6 II' 7 8 0 1'VI
r-::
46~
101 ~890
~'"='
I",
.f">/l
,
"1
,~
"j'l' 0
840
"
'1)'
, " t l'7'"'0
,t
8'1 $843
9<560
I
i i
I
I'f
r-..=~~~
!
,,"'
~~/ ' - \ ,ro
~,'~
5) -.
=~~""~=6~7~"~-j'7S:~)6>26~;1
~
~
/1'
I
II
49a04
60,,67
49,,63
48,,'39
54,,5~·
39,,03
45007
~"h
( .....'
8,,49
7,,95
8,,07
7",39
7,,20
'7087
8Q67
Oe80
0"
0
0"
0 0 87
0,,92
0
l
M
1
0
0",
1I
,,::,~c"""""""'~
;~
'-.
over 1 Eoo
.
57~7237",59
i
i
Livestock
,
~,
1401 .. 1600
$
c=~~~~=~.......-~~~""'~~==.
6.
39942
22962'743~398
~!.
~1000 1001~12001201 ~1 ~OO
~ '~'""i
.~~.-~~,~~
l
i
",<",
98' ~;S~=~'1;8'"~~669264
6 9 908
I
! ....
39198
Cl1:e:rent I2:iat;ilities
~
,1
801
,=~.~~
$
--x---.i. . .-=
.
~·800
$
!
f
,~~===
601
$
:
·.rOTA;~~TS
o.
401 =600
$
,
I
~
.200=400
uota uroups
I
I
($ per farm)
I
!
Quota Size (li tres)
Al~
Q
.,. . "
~~~.
0
~~''-=~'''''''''"'''""",""""
'" '6''}''"
II
69 " 91'0
~'8 '2~
::J
0,/7
'-?
)~'7'
".Lt,,?
"'~_ _~""
,~'"' 65
OC:"
4~
'(,,1un
_"""··~~.~rl!IIIC<'>""'~'""",""":=::,,,,,,,::"-,:,,._,,'._::.,,••:';;.,.,'e....o,,.•••~_~••::,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,~,,,,,_..~,.,..,,,,...,,.~
i1
}"l"t'
",arm L'1aDl,
l ,~es!i
.,.,
,L.ong CTi
.J
179
,0,
'
t:;'O
"i''''! OJ
00
C:., 20
1 " 4~
c:
1 " 8e0
111,1:
' 'O"TO
1'5 "c:.''''3
//<176
t
~
10 ",;7.
''''1
?
·_iP
1*'.
:a~
'Q,....,:::: ..
Rb"
1 ,,-,
;>4
2·OJ.;;
~a
'"'6'
",/.
1::''2
''+'''''';,.)
(1
')",<::,',
~."
r-,::
':)./0"-.
~~~~=OI.::O""=
0
7'7
6,,80
o~
t::.~~""",>_.,~~
t:.?"'1,'
0/,,'10
~1"" 66'
45
"0
,c;
i'
~
,:"4
1
,,,0
I
J
'1"
Ob~ i,
, !" L9
f·.
"
.,....,..,,~~~<;1"'""~
5
a.
TABLE 28 (continued)
r
-----
=--'
Quota Size (litres)
Q
tAl~.
. uo a uroups
I
-
~I
(cents per litre
200-400
401-600
601-800
801-1000
-.
1001-1200
1201-1400
1401 ~1600
over 1600
-O-f--~------C-/-I--------C-/-l--------C/-I-------C-/-I-------C/-I---------C-/-1--------C-/-l---------C~,/-1---------C-/-l--~4
quota milk produced)
Land & Buildings
64 .. 11
89Q38
71,,91
64,,18
67033
Lf8 e 76
57 .. 10
74 .. 16
42 .. 57
Plant~ Vehicles &
Livestock
10 .. 15
12",51
'11 .. 51
'10 .. 71
9,,12
8099
9,,98
11015
7,,'11
1 .. 08
1 .. 18
1 ,,1'1
1~29
0 .. 89
1009
1,,16
0.,99
0,,80
Hiscellaneous
7.5 .. 3 Lf
10;;
(1'7
,~/~-,
9,h
;:;;0;
- ,~-'.-'
76$18
77,,34
58,,8 Lf
68,,24
86~30
I
2 .. 3~'
2 .. 9 Lf
3,,18
1 .. 88
2 .. 29
1 .. 51
3 .. 02
2,,13
_
15034
16 .. 88
22 .. 06
15.60
12.72
10.33
18.41
14.76
'rOTAL ASSETS
Current Liabilities
Long Term Liabilities
5'1..08
I
"..,
i
!
1~86 I ~
5.73
I
29
T.il.BLE
_""",,_"'c:=O:::
=""'_"""""""::~
Quota Size (litres
All
Quota Groups
($ per
farm0-o,-o
Milk Sales
Other Revenue
Gross Revenue
(cents
per litred of d)
~ - 'lk
t o t aL
IDl
pro uce
I
I.'
I
200-400
401-600
601-800
801-1000
1001-1200
1201-1400
1401-1600
over 1600
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
32,049
'$'"
34.316
1.931
770
1.277
1.363
39,245
2,454
2,661
38,513
18 9 60 Lf
27,538
35j,3~·1
~::.~.O
/1
c/.L
/1
C
16,978
/
c 1
24,713
/,
C, ....
C
''
50,584
3,356
2,6 27
61,542
6,540
6.618
56,?~~=~-.!.~_,,?:0
C
/1
/
c 1
63,108
5~138
2,118
81,288
5,143
3,535
70136~91966
I
c,1
c/ 1
I
i
\Jl
Other Revenue
8.9'1
8.60
8Q67
9004
0 059
0.43
0.54
0.54
0.49,_ _ _ _ 0.39
0.45
0038
___
___
Gross Revenue
9099
(cents per
Ii tre of
quo t a mlOlk pro d uce d\)
C
Hilk Sales
Livestock Profit
Milk Sales
Livestock Profit
Other Revenue
~
'/1
<
11.64
0.77
0.66
~_~
9.05
0.57
_ 0.61
_ ="O'P
9~66
9D96
f'/1
~
c /1
c,/1
"'/"
'"' .l.
12.67
0.64
0057
12.56
0.79
0 65
11.99
0.72
0.51
11.18
0.69
0.76
9.42
,-
--
0
10.23
9003
0.60
0 47""""_ _
6
10 '10
0
13.07
13.88
14.00
13.22
12.63
0093
0.9 4
8,,86
0.72
0.30
9 02
0.57
0.39
10065
9088
9,,98
/1 e o
/1
c
11.28
0.75
0 59
0
11.12
1.18
1.19
~,··~o::I'SF<'<.'I:<~Ot
...............
Gross Revenue
,~
8~78
12 62
0
13.49
.~~;=~~::
C
/1
11.38
0.93
0.38
0
C
;"'1
.L
10.22
0065
0044
.no::~
12.69
11.31
0'\
i
TABLE 30
E~'p_endi"ture
_III
All
Quota Groups
($ per farm)
$
5~680
Labour
Depreciation
11,937
727
5,611
'3,215
Total Expenditur-e
27,170
Operating
Administration
Overheads
~uota
b;Z
.Size
_~
Quota Size (litres)
200=400
401=600
601-800
$
$
$
801=1000
1001-1200
1201=1400
1401 =1600
over 1600
$
$
$
$
$
13 ~ 161
19~976
21~560
1,)472
17,234
7,206
26,563
1,128
12,494
5,782
56,291
60,633
65,943
3,988
8,764
604
4'1 676
2,425
3,983
11,767
649
4,507
3'1 039
5,996
14'1 037
800
6,355
3,112
10s284
14,768
1,037
5,352
5,092
12,887
21,241
1 '1187
13,374
7,602
12,069 - -20,457
23,945
30,300
36,533
109
5,725
479
2,304
1,452
2~
I
(cents per litre of
total milk produced)
c/l
c/l
e/l
e/l
c/l
e/l
c/l
c/l
c/l
1,,07
2 .. 90
0024
1 .. 17
0,,74
1 .. 40
3 .. 08
0.21
1 .. 64
0",85
1012
3 .. 32
0,,18
1.,27
0,,86
1 .. 38
Depreciation
1 .. 47
3 .. 10
0.19
1 .. 46
0 .. 83
0 .. 18
1.,47
0.72
1.84
2 64
0 .. 19
0 .. 96
0 .. 91
1,,84
3 .. 0)
0 .. 17
1 .. 91
1.,08
1 .. 85
),,03
0,,20
2,,42
1,,01
2,,22
2 .. 95
0 .. 12
1 .. 39
0,,64
Total Expenditure
7 .. 05 -
6.,12 -
7,,18
6 .. 75
6,,99
6 .. 54
8.,03
8 .. 51
7,,32
Labour
Operating
Administration
Overheads
i
\J1
"J
I
3~24
0
-
(cents per litre of
quota milk produced)
Labour
Operating
Administration
Overheads
Depreciation
e/l
c/l
e/l
c/l
e/l
c/l
e/l
e/l
e/l
1 .. 93
4,,05
0,,25
1 ,,90
1,,09
1,,57
4,,27
0,,36
1,,49
4",40
1,,08
2,,03
4,,46
0,,3-1
2 .. 38
1",22
1",69
1 ,,14
1.,71
4.. 00
0,,23
1081
0088
2,,29
3,,29
0024
-1" 19
1 '" 14
2,,33
3 084
0 21
2,,42
1037
2037
3.,89
0 26
3" 11
1030
2055
3,,39
0.,14
1.,59
0.,74
'I'otal Expenditure
9,,22
9,,00
10,,40
8~96
.8063
8 15
10,,17
10,,93
8" 41
~L.72
0",2L~
~---.-----~-----.--.-.--.-.---.---
..
-.------------
0
... -
0
0
fl '\
(~
...:t
(.)""
C.(':,
(\1
0
',-"
co
'X}
<::~'
<fP,
~:
0'\
0
0
I':', '-D
'
0
_T
0
0
I
a
,.::J"
0
t,,,
,,~
,~
H
0,
~,
0
o
0
0,
O()
o
~'"
(J\
~_J
1'<\
i
! co
"':T
Q
0
a
0
0
tX)
nJ
0
()
"I,
0
(\J
,[\
'-.,0
<?;o>
0
~,C\
'1"--'
c\
"C"
0
0
(\j
C
,<r
~-'
',""
lr\
~
U
r-,
(f.l
fJJ
H
+~
or!
d
'-'
m
N
or-!
tQ
ill
=}.),
"
1'<\
0
;j
G':j
;-=1
g::q
«:.:r.
8
v-
.-0
<11
~
or-!
tQ
ro
+>
0
:;::i
G'
,,-
0
\.,0
"
',,'"
EI\
0
0
0
0
\{)
"
"
[\1
N"\
a
OC!
L',.,
.:::t
0
'_I
"
0
0
0
r.
0
i"'\
tv·"':
(0
"
<ff:r
0
-::t.
_-t"
0
0
..::t.
~"
0
a
\.,0
0
CO
'{;"-'
'-D
0',
;;r,. . . ,
CD
~
-f:,L}
a
!)
0
0".
\,0
1\(',,-
,)()
cx·,,,,'
0
0
0
t\(""~
(X)
..,;:t
0
0
..,;::t-
0
<t
~'\O
(J,l
s
0
0
q
t-~
+l
(\)
Z
0
r.x:,
a
0
\f)
-y-}
a
'\,~'
a
(\.1
0
7'
E>=
't-.
0
r:. .
~
.. :.1"
Ci
0
g
f\.i
,<t..
G
0
0
''?-.()
0
,,,,"\
.>:'"
-T
.:::t"
0
0
0
.:::r
<{p
IT
a
0
(\I
\-0
0'\
',,0
0
~1\.
nj
!'f\
\.1\
G
co
;\J
,0
ry'"
"
a
0;)
7£\
0
\,0
C(}
0
0
~(\
~~'\
'\"'"
~".-
![j
Ai
,P
<C')
>-!
r,-i t':i
rl
<r!
rn
eoi,:>
0
~
Gi'
£:H
(;)
un
m
-L",
;:~
'1) '<:)
0
~'i
",p, :}.:;
od 9!
~"...,
S
~'1
m
4""')
'Aoj"'
<f.+:>j'
'~." '
<1"
;.:l
q
!?"'1
!F"'~
,'xl
ill od
{j) ,'t-~
$21 ~
lID
p::;
u~ (f~
ro
d..)
coi3
+~
~ ~~
1,1 (\
f:>
v:v
.p
~
ro
E'~
~
o
,~
~~ ~~
<;.., ,..!
Q'j
~7>
Pll"l
'n ro
ot,)
P
(';
1}
m
w
",,'l,)
~
I'j
t"j
ti'~
C';
~.:;
15'
a
0
~
0',
<:X)
O()
"
~'"
~59-
APPENDIX E
SURVEY REsuvrs BY HERD SIZE
The survey results by herd size are set out in Tables 32
to 360
Results are expressed per farm and per litre of total milk
producede
The distribution of the number of farms within each
herd group is very similar to the 1974-75 survey except for
differences in the 150-199 and 200-249 cow herd groupso
Most f.'3,rms
within each herd size group sold a greater proportion of t01;'3,1 m::Llk
at surplu.s prices than in the previous survey period"
TABLE 32
Ehxs,ical
Herd
Size
r
(cows)
Charact~stics
'rotal
farm
area
No" of farms
I 1974=75 1975-76
.!
b.;z
,B;,~
,S,ize
Total milk
production
Proportion of
milk sold at
surplus prices
Total
labour
units
1974~75 1975~76
(ha)
(1)
7G
%
505
24 .. 9
23,,4
21,,0
20 05
2404
21,,0
1203
28 05
10 6
2505
2305
26 5
2206
2509
2'700
1204
1204
1025
1,,48
1055
1074
2019
.2.024
2.76
3067
1909
2305
2 001
i
;
30= 39
Lj,O= 59
60- 79
80= 99
100~119
120-149
150-199
200~249
I
I
j
I
I
II
i
I
250~299
""""""""""'........
4
2
~~,..."""""'",.",
L~::.er~og,e
1
13
20
'18
14
12
6
1
12
20
18
12
1'1
12
2
2
~"-"""'~'-'~"''''''''''''''''''''''''''~~''''~-.:>«~'''
L_ . 90
34 0
3704
58,,6
68 8
8906
118.5
14007
16002
21+202
0
0
86,,3
~
628~789
83 1 9 861
877 9 667
"t7JV7
; : ., -
90
~:;>=
1439365
201 9 730
279 9 073
333 9 3'79
381 9141
45Lj,~ 134
-
385 ~3lt6
0
0
l~o05
___ .11':
Because of the large increase i.n depreciat;:i,on on some farm,s
and the uneven distribution of such expenses within herd size groups,
depreciation expenses are not broken down by herd sizeQ(Table 34L
Appendix B gives the definition of net cash income used in
Table 350
TABLE 33
k.~epue
b;Z Herd Size
Hard Size (Noo Cows)
Noo of
CC),llS
(.$ par farm)
I
I
Livestock Profit I
Hilk Sales
Other Revenue
Gross Revenue
,
30=39
40=59
60~79
$
.$
.$
'J";I ~ 6'"9'7
694
!
'1,
Q
<..)
~
'06'
'+
19 2 70
21::
'/ 9 0"I
.$
.$
150~199
,
200= 249
I
250=299 i
l
!
-~$
.$
'~~ I
2 0;:; ~ Oro
0 ()
j-'5 9 210
-,
40 9 504
5'3
2:'74
' 9:;,
76 ~"'749
""'9
I \, n t:::j I
'1 9 359
1~6'lLI'
3~195
29472
49 044
6 9 201
3956'71
2~Lf60
3~653
39440
3,2'15
39290
40~865
46 9 629
60 9 858
1 ~119
1"12 9 39 1
20 9 2-85
28 9 095
'1 ~06'1
"~~
.
I
-
!
I
~. ~ ~<I
-':~,9,1,6~.?"80~~,
Iry"
(cents per litre
of total milk
produced)
e/l
e/l
Milk Sales
8" 'j 6
Livestock Profit
0048
9" 12
0 6,')
Other Revenue
0,,0
Oa,30
0 40
0
e/l
c,/l
e/l
9,,18
8",72
902,3
0",49
0 Lf8
0
0
0~32
::~~""'"'
Gross Revenue
120=149
rJ
(
609
I
100~119
.$
0
!
80~99
8,,64
10,,05
10,,07
9'$52
e/l
e/l
e/l
8,,92
8"Lf9
9,,23
9002
Oe84
0 54
0,,64
0,,75
0.,41
0 65
0,,80
0,,55
0",39
0037
26
9,,68
10~37
9,,80
0
0
~'""",_~'...-..o
10072
10 0
II
0
B
T.ABIJ}~
EXEenditure
I
I
l
.~
No~ of Cows
b~
34
Herd Size
.!.J.er
..
'IT
d
_ 30=39
Size (No", Cows)
100-119
40=5~~_ 60-79 .~~o _8_0_~9~9___~_,
_,
120~149
15°",199
200"~249
250=299
$
$
$
.:p
Q
($ per farm)
t
$
$
$
$
$
I
'
1'1
~OLfO
I
2,150
59942
516
29 868
39 0 39
4~422
6~063
99593
492
39566
"10 9 230
760
1+ 9 883
139550
827
It ~ 926
,t.
I
Labour
IOperating
I Administration
I Overheads
!
I ']}otal
13~ 699
4'18
19980
~~---~+~-.--~~~~~~~
Cash Expens'es 7 ~ 137
']'1 9476
~10s349
179 12
:3
20~433
'16~821
26 9 964
'19594
26 9 334
'1 ~042
940
,~~.'~-~'-~---~~~~~-~-
16 9690
....
_~C)I<O«.x
~=
(cents per litre
of total milk
producedJ
6 9 541
13 9 680
833
8 9 090
!
0'.
~
~
ell
ell
ell
0,,73
2,,58
1 0 09
1
I
I Labour
Administration
0 29
Overheads
1,,38
1,,07
2.95
0026
1,,42
Total Cash Expensesl :tc98
5070
I Operating
0
3",44
0" 18
1.28
1033
3,,07
0 .. 23
1,,46
1,,59
3.,56
0.22
1.29
1,,44
3,,01
0.18
1,,78
5,,99
6,,09
6,,66
6 41
0
1065
2,,68
2,,06
0 0 15
1,,31
0,,19
2,,26
2033
3000
0 12
1.,41
5,,79
7,75
6,,86
3~24
0
TABLE 35
Net Cash Income by Herd Size
,_ _ _ ioi
:0
--Herd Size
No~
30=39
of Cows
80=99
60-79
40-59
($ per farm)
$
Gross Revenue
Total Cash
Expenses
$
$
....... '"
.~
$
$
=
120=149
---
150=199
250-299
200=249
~:~o::.
$
$
$
...
~
.....
$
12,391
20,285
28~095
31 9743
40,865
46 9 629
60~858
86 ~ 165
85~980
7 '1137
11,476
16,690
20~295
25,366
29,144
36,347
64,499
60~222
8 9 809
11,405
17,485
24,511
21~666
=
Net Cash Income
100~119
:
~~,"~Q
(No .. Cows)
5,254.
.
11 j1t48
. -
C
-
....
15 9 499
a
=.
.~
,
...........
25,'758
(cents per litre
of total milk
produced)
ell
Gross Revenue
8,,64
10 0 05
10,,07
9,,52
10 .. 72
10,,26
9 .. 68
10 .. 37
9 .. 80
Total Cash
Expenses
4§98
5 .. 70
5 .. 99
6 .. 09
6.,66
6~41
5 .. 79
7.75
6 86
4035
4008
3,,43
4Q06
3G85
3 .. 89
2,,62
2094
Net Cash Income
-".~~-
..- - - . -... -.. -
~
-
-
-
-
.... ----~--"--
ell
ell
ell
ell
ell
ell
ell
-~
ell
I
0'\
f\)
!
3066
---.---.-----.-~
-
-
--.--~.-
.. --.----.----~---------~-.".-,."--"-~-,-
0
-63APPENDIX F
HERD STRUCTURE AND HERD TESTING
About 89 percent of all cows in the surveyed herds were
the remainder being Friesian-Jersey crossg Shorthorn
and Ayrshire
Friesian~
0
•
Data collected on stock balances is given in Tables 36
and 370
The average size of town supply herds continued a long-
term general increase in both IslandsQ
105 cows in
surveY$
1975-76~
Herd size averaged
a rise of three percent from the 1974-75
However 9 total dairy stock numbers per farm remained at
the same levels
Sheep and beef cattle numbers increased by about ten
percent, with most of the increase occurring on South Island
farms.
Sheep and beef cattle numbers were insignificant on the
surveyed North Island farmS e
TABLE 36
[! :- =
~.:':W
I! All
Stock
! 104
I
~ T-T
~ ..J.';~ t:I."
'.... ~ :=.2 '1'1 =o(~ "" '7, .t!'
.c.,e.~.
S .l.,... a.CoL
~~ 'i,,~O)
Of\r~
;
L~ ('J"'" 0
i
~
~
'.~""..,..~
:
';1
""'
W ""
L<',~l
~
V.:.).{;!2,
'-'
rc
: : '),-..?
v ""'~
'l...-.
, :J~
<:0 0
j
/
+ '.
~
'Y
0
~.>
<'"
7,
\h
v
4.62.
,'11:::
' ../
'".
,
!
12;
I
";
~~,
0
, .
~
'l'
-.
~< . .
. " . . 1 '
~
~
,.~
J
~
J
~J
<=
119
, ../ 3
~
"'f~
~
L:"zcg Buu.s
I
r,
"l'"
j-'<j
I Is
~ u
., ,
.:'iI
i::
./
' ./r::
",
,~
rri
'i
~/,
'I
5>
9
,v 9
4,00
.')'
~20~
689
"jh
,"'v -"
. /'''
)
.~
'
4,
10
~
"~
'f4
'"
4:)
...
-
...
....,
,~
L'"
.....
.
Ij
!..
~
I
,"~~~~."~~,=.=~,
1
f~...;t;
f
'-,~-~~-~,~~~~=~.~=.~-,~~~.~=~~--~~=-~=~=~~=i-~.~~~'-' ~~==.~~.~~= > ,
"(
~,-' CI ,'"
?"
:::
1 "") '""
r'~:J
~ ~
~ 1"...;."~,'
.,1,
~~"'1
r;'
'7
Q
t
~.c..,~! :: "I •
~ i:
F
1,."" (1
!-==~-=~-~-~
'11\
4
cj5
"1
~
'-'
.., '-;0:
OJ
'149
'
, 9 '
-1
./"
~' ~-'
<'"
1;
c;..
../
I
'"-''3'Wf'!'"
~
~h
107
'I'
Average Value
$
:t\l(loper
Farm
Fum
I;
-P',e.'!""SI"
L 0;;;::,,,, ."... •
'='
.b
t"'i'
'
. / "
./
!
C':r~':':':::'1
.p
" .. c... , . , k
"1o:.:;:,?
~~''--;'''~
" ~ r:J ~n
" ,
...,
H...
CO~"i's
/\,11
'1_"7-;:
~/
,
-
,
~
9~
'-t
<"•
N oper
Fe,rm
} .
.~
.
S-toch:
$
-,~"-.,...,.f
.~"=.~=~_~o.-~
Average Value
Average Value
$
No.,per
Farm
"i~
! ,_
i
t .:
~
1.5
oper
South I,sland
North I slan{l
New Zea1a,na
~_~~_'I-!~~-=----=.-
Average Value
$
f""'
h., . 7
r'
.:/0
t:;
'"
!~ ""'.
C~
<C
Is~
12~9461151L\
1 " " ' " .
!
,I
.Nooper
Fa~m
~......",.~;:'<
'-' ,I, S
/
i '
,c ' ' .ngs
South
:t:t'rerf3tge Va~ue
Farm
COWiE;
I '\"'J"~P'""
North_Iel~n~
Zealand
fAyerage \ta1u.:;
Iljo"per
$
0
I Open::Lng
1L~~
pairy Stock
~~ I_~
C j)'
""';."
Oil
tr ,,~.~
C 1,.;8.,.:1.,;
q I
i~.=~~~~-~-~>~=~==~".~.>~=-~--,~':"-~=-~~~~",~~==~~.-,,~~=~,=->·==·~=-~~~·~~~·-=.~-~~=~=~I
r
I
!
! .,....;
~
i,
~
_.
)
I
! !
1
i
!
: /,,...
.
"~i0'1r.;"J~3
•
L
0
,.~
'-~
~~
i
. ,
.,
",}
t"':
v
I:
~
i
'; 0
c..U
~~
:,. . :
"'~
~
_C" ~
"S
3 44
~
""';.E
5
'...-- _~... ,f'
: 9,---)0
..(
I~I
.
3
2
~=. ~~,=,,,<",",,,,,,,,,,-~--=,,,,=:-~=,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
;::: 9
C:.J
C:,.'J
~
i
(").ner>1,Yjg
~. .£:"
<;
,"
".J",
c~
•
1",~·~"i~;'i"~~~~~~~=
'i'~ 'i! ,-,~'7?!
.r '9 • .
_..
.
,
,
."< CCt;;--+C>"'l>!~
..s ... !,-,c~,_'d:\
P
",-,,0,1,'.. r.,)l
.....,
-...
~
'"
::;:.<~"Jl,
I
~
l Opening Balanl;;e
;
1,./
J
.i
,~
881
,/
't
Qd?'
.
SV v
~,,~~~,~,,=""
1990'('6
208
" ""~)
' ,/.,./
20 3 864
:;
"",J
,d·1
""?v'-t'i
,.~~.~
'15>3159
~~
NOTE:
I Di:l:sJ:-J::LC'·
=,
'7
<5
'~09
..- - -
-=~~~~:::>"""""~~"""""""'''''''"~''''.''''<;''''.'''';'':"",,",,~
v
l
C~
L!."
"",ij!
et~
P~:~)-b-~)v'"
'78<:< ----T--·-·--~--------~-(~'~b'·94-;;:;
.... ~
~.
'<f
~
""
'-"
SoLd
~
.
'
"
~
"...J
I•
I
ZL'S' !
./
~
U
~
~~-
Closing BalaTl':"e
~_~
Stock numbers and va.lues have been rout'Lded to nearest whole numbero
Figures in brackets have not been inc:luded in ,stock balances"
,
~-~~'~~'''----~---i
"i9
'
19,0 7 ::'
__
~""''''-''<"-_'~
::o~~
2o~864
'153
~~~""",,"''''''''_:.J<~~~~
=~~,5,o317 J
:rABLE 37
,BeeL~~~~~
1 .. ,-'·). .
,
O:pening Stock
Average Value
E'arm
__IJl",
---"~~
Average Va.lue
Glosing Stock
"
"
N
,o",per'
'"
'"
"
Hooper
t
"
N'
'
$
:Farm
b
'"
"
All Sheep
All Beef Cattle
Sub~Total
~26
23
6
29
"
All Sheep
35
6
41
,
All Beef, C~ttle
Sub-Total
;
29.2"
b19
All Purchases
29
310,
Reared
Replacem,ents
1:3
=
Opening TJotal
Livestock Profit
71
7:1 "I
27
De~:ttb8s KLlled
3
,~tco
603
=
---~
92~
385
~
~...:..,.;.,.:
Opening Balance
"
'~~
:,AII Sales
-,
,~
-'
=~
,
31::'2:
. ./~/
'71
1~311.J.
,
"
~
~
I--'-~
Closing Balance
7'1
1 ~,314
--~~~=~
TARLE 38
lL~=9!-:,.~~
Proport:ion cf Farms, (%),
Herd !lJe,sting
Not '
Total
H~r~ T~st:ing
";"~,....uww
North Island
South Island
59
52
New Zealand
5,'7' •
~-:--~
Lrl
'100
':: 1+8
100
43, '
100
There was a seven pe:r"cf.mt' increase' in the number of; farms
herd testing compared with 'the 1974=75 survey ~
testing ,l1as the predominant meth,od"
of own recording was noteda
M:on'!:;hly herd
A,n i.ncrease in the use
-66APPENDIX G
SHED TYPES AND EFFLUENT DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
The distribution of shed types in North and South Islands
is given in Table 39. The herringbone milking shed was the
predominant type in the North Island, while the walk-through (or
internal race) was the most common in the South Islando Other
types of cowsheds included tandem and abreast types.. The age of
cowshed was based on the year of construction or year of latest
major renovation~ There was a small increase in the number of
rotary sheds in the sample from the previous year.. The number of
pairs and cupsets in use per shed remained the same.
TABLE 39
Shed Types
Type of Cow shed in Use
New
Zealand
North
Island
-(perc~nt
Herringbone (all types)
Walk"';Through
Rotary
All Others
Total
Age of Cowshed
(y:ears)
Pairs of Cupsets in Use (No.)
South
Island
of :;farms) .
24
66
8
56
28
8
8
100
100
100
12
10
15
9
9
7
45
40
7
3
7
Table 40 gives the distribution of the types of effluent
disposal systems on the 90 surv~Yed farms.
Distribution of Types of
Effluent Disposal System
~ffl~ent p~sposal
New
Zealand
North
Island
.....
Systems
South
Island
p
(percent of farms)
Spray Irrigation
32
23
Use of Sumps
'17
15
Pumping onto Pasture
12
52
20
8
Cartage from Shed
6
15
2
Settling Tanks
8
11
13
0
25
34
7
100
100
100
Into Streams etco
Total
-
-
The proportion of farms di,sposing of their effluent into
streams and wa'ter courses remained about the same as in 1974-75,.
However~
systems ..
it was noted that many farmers have plans to upgrade these
.AJ?P:E~NDIX
II
Data collected on 8upplemer. . tax'j'" Ised use is presented in
Table 41
<!J
More f'allollrable Glimatic
{~(:)nctlt;ions
compared with the previous yea!' e:1utbled
supplementary feed
dairy
stock~
purchase~so
Ne.~.rly
Ifjf,1o!.J<Y'
farm~3
~h';:)
farmers to red.uce thei:>::'
~\relL,
number of South Isla.nct fa.rmers makin,g: s:1.1age
less than in the pI'evious year"
An increase in th.e
l,V'aS
noted"
fHlding meal
The average amount
1ti'aS
abcru.t 45 percent
Goats of <supplementary feed
are presented in Table 190
TABTJE
If'1
~l2E1!~8>~11~.~€:~~~>J2Z2>:Z.~,
~~~~'--~~"'-~="==>~'~~---il,
Type of F'eed.
Un:i:ts/f~.rm
New
Zeala:':J.d.
Lj'900~:;
Isla:c.d.
South
Island
::,; v 250
5~590
290
'132
Nor':;;h
Hay
'bales
Silage
tOlmes
F'orage Crop
180
309
30'7
Grain
i;:.)nnes
3 o c'j
10&)
4,,3
6,,8
Meal
tormeEl
702
9.,.5
207
Meal
Propori;ioYl fa:r:ms
5'7
24·
Grain
Proportion farms
'1 Lf
~
38
Meal
torme~JfaJ::"m
"1308
'16,,;;
"l"! 00
Grain
ton:n.es/ £'1').rm
c'Oo.3
330.5
'18,,0
%)
1!7
_l"~
the yearQ
19'75~'76
9.l1,t;he surveyed fax'ms fed h19,Y to
and '7.5 perc;ent fed. silage as
of da.:i.ry meal feo. per farm 011 t::i:HX"Ie
for dairying during
./
:r:ql~c'chases
APPENDIX I
CASH FLOW STATEMENT
A Cash Flow Statement has been prepared from the farm
accounts and is presented in Table 420
Such a statement presents a
useful summary of all money transactions during the year ~ incl ud:tng
those of a capital and perisonal natureo
De,prec:iati,on of farm assets
is not taken into account and all imputed values have been ignoredo
All South Island farms in the f3urvey were analysed for a
Cash Flow S'catemento
Only 38 of the 61 North Island farms eQuId be
analysed for a Casb, F'low Sta'l:;ement. because of a lclck. of data on some
ac:c:ountso
It was noted that most physical a:nd financial characterist:ics
of the 38 farms were about 10 percent smaller than the North, Island,
average
Three of the characteristics of the farms included in Cash
0
Flow Statement are shown
below~~
South Island
North Isle.:nd
Sub
Total
Sample
Number of farms
29
6'1
Herd Size (No. cows/farm)
8'1
1 '17
632
209 s 092
77'1
38
109
702
237~032
213~335
Quota Size
(l/farm)
Total farm assets ($/farm)
New
Zealand
90
'105
726
228 9 029
In some instances 'there were problems in determining the
precise amount of mortgage repayment during the year",
Payments made
to other family members are sometimes not fully revealed in the set of
farm accounts"
Hence the increase in the farm work.ing capital for the
financial year may include some monies that were paid to family members.
Since this is the first Cash Flow Statement prepared for the
national town milk. farm cost survey and only 75 percent of t;he 90
farms were included in the Cash FI0111 analysis 9 this summary shOUld be
interpreted with some care.
-70Figure 2 shows the Cash Flow situation for North and South
Island farms in diagramatic forme
It will be seen that there was an
increase of $19270 during the year for North Island
for South Island farmso
farms~
and $19050
This is the approximate amount left over
at the end of the year for the farmer to add to his bank account and
have available for capital investment in the ensuing years
42
',rABLE
S~L~~~~
, SOUthYSIan8, '
Cash recei ved ~
(29 famre,)
~"
.$
1o~~:
Milksal~s
Dairy
Sheep
Bobby
Other
Irorth'~r';land
Ce:ttle Sales
and Beef Bales
Calves Sales
Farm Income
(38 farms)
,$
.~~
-~$'
33 ~52'7
30 9 493
1 1 68'1
'19 41 9
'348
19 461
2~200
89
649
-I
~30<1
379766
2
<3
}i"rom Oth®r Sources;
I~DT~dends
Borrowing
Sundry
228
29 84 5
86
305
'+ ~ 310
-"1"/5
If 9 '188
Sub~total
40 9 190
":£.otaLQp;.§lL~
Cash Spent;=
'1" On~~i!lg~~~,!i,!iE,!!:1!
Labour and Operating
Overheads and
Admird,st:ra:1::ion
Cattle Purchases
Sheep and Beef Cattle
P''1,rchases
Sundry
15 9 2'7"1
'14 9943
59,560
530
866
166
6 9 0 1+7
"'\ ~,395
Flant and Eq'l:lipmerd:;
Vehicles
Buildings
Farm Development
Mortgage and Loan
Repayments
2 ~ "l?9
29 1t80
19 200
823
1 9 960
Dr;.wrng;
0
~-
:T:ax
Life Insurance
Investment in Shares
229524
'1 ~230
1 ~470
846
874
29515
8 9 642
Sub~total
3. On Personal Items:
1"15
22 9 ,393
Sub=total
2" O~&L~~:
') Lf
,_,
6~935
5~668
4~ '163
2s920
723
299
3 9 325
8Lf9
35~'
8 9 1 O~)
39 91 ~\O
SUb=t;otal
Total Expenditure
~-~
Increase in Wa;cki,n,g Capital
for Year
19 050
."..."""'~
.~-~""
10 9 196
399 655
~~
_"roo
19 270
~.
FIGURE 2
CASH FLOW STATEMENT
Where the Money Came From and How it was spent
NORTH ISLAND FARMS
(sub sample)
SOUTH ISLAND FARMS
CASH
RECEIVED
$40,190
BORROWED
$4,310
OTHER FARM
INCOME
$1,939
LIVESTOCK
SALES
$3,448
CASH
CASH
RECEIVED
SPENT
$40,190
$40.925
$17,317
FARM CASH
EXPENSES
BORROWED
$2,84 5
OTHER FARM
INCOME
$1,61 5
LIVESTOCK
SALES
$2,93 8
$30,493
$40.925
$17, 975 FARM CASH
EXPENSES
-.J
IV
MILK SALES
MILK SALES
CASH
SPENT
$1,396
LIVESTOCK
PURCHASES
3,533
INTEREST
$1,960
MORTGAGES
REPAID
$5,859
NEW FA"RM
ASSETS
2,920
TAXATION
446 OTHER ASSETS
823
DEVELOPMENT
DRAWINGS
INCREASE IN
1,050
WORKING
CAPITAL
$33,52 7
$1, 419
LIVESTOCK
PURCHASES
$3, 015 INTEREST
$2, 515 MORTGAGES
REPAID
$3, 546 NEW FARM
ASSETS
$3, 325 TAXATION
,< 469 OTHER ASSETS
~
874 DEVELOPMENT
$6, 517 DRAWINGS
4,886
INCREASE IN
$1, 270 WORKING
CAPITAL
-73~
APPENDIX J
COMPARISON lllII'H SURVEY RESULTS OF PREVIOUS YEARS
-...;.....;..;,.,....--.",
In order to demonstrate New Zealand trends in town milk production
and farm income~ data from surveys of the previous four years have been
presented along with 1975~76 results in Table 430
TABLE 43
9ompari,s"~~~.&!g've;r B~;ht,s
--~~
CHARACTERISTIC
N0Z~
( a)
cn~~'"CWr7""'C=e=--
(No o
)
-
PHYSICAL
1972='73
1973~74
19'74=75
19,?5"~76
19 81 7
1 ~ 782
174
1 v 743
90
1~693
'19709
90
-
181
oonr..,....,......
Productive Farm
66,,0
(ha)
Area.
(1)
641
Daily Quota
Herd Size (No:©ows)
93
Milk Production
CI/farm) 339~079
Milk Produc·tion
210 9608
(l/labour unit)
Milk Production
Cl/prodoha)
Milk Produ©tion
(l/dairy prod"ha)
Total Labour Units
(L" U.)
Engaged
(b)
~
"/971 =72
Suppliers (No,,)
Survey Sample
9fJ.;rey;i.ous llf,ar,§
-
74,,9
-
90
?'rl
73 0
0
73.,2
-77Q7
68.2
100
682
100
728
102
726
105
362~746
.356 ~ 985
369~611
385~334
176 9 94'7
175~854
188~577
190,759
5~ 138
4 9 842
Lr 9 890
59 053
4,959
N•.Ao
NoAo
N"A"
499 1+5
5~ 124
1 061
2 05
2,,03
1896
2 .. 02
0
]'INANCIAL
Total Assets($/farm)
Gross Revenue
($/farm)
77~034
959552
167~952
203 9724
222~098
259789
31 9 800
359 875
38 9 328
38,513
Gross Revenue
• ((i/li 'tre)
7,,607
8077
10,,050
10,,370
90995
Total Expenditure.
($/farm)
'159723
199564
23 9 ,351
24 9 696
27,170
Total Expenditure
Co/litre)
Net Income ($/farm)
40635
50394
6 542
6 .. 688
7,,051
10 9 066
2,,972
'12 9 236\
3G377
12 9524
3.508
13,632
3,,682
11,343
2.9 1+4
Net Income (c/litre)
0
----~~.,.".,...~~---.....,.,...,..-~
Survey comparisons are given in the form of histograms in
Figure 3" The data for these histograms are taken from the last
six national farm cost surveys@
74.
FIGURE 3 SURVEY
Daily Quotas
l.
1
COMPARISO~S
1
400
750
700
Total Milk Production
2.
-
-
r--
r--
r--
.
...--
r-
r-
r-
r--
-
350
650
,-
r-
600
-
-
r-
-
300
~
..
ii!!I
70/7l
80%
78
-
3.
I
I
72/73
74/75 75/76
I
74/75 75/76
$
r--
-
40
-
76
I
72/73
Revenue: Expen d'lture Ratlo
4
Proportion on which Town M'llk
Prices Payable ;--
I
I
70/7l
-
-
r--
-
32
.--
~
74
-
1-
24
r-
r--
~
-
-
16
r-
f-f--
r--
72
.--
r-
II-
I--
70
-
-
8
~
:01:::I
I
•
70/7l
5.
$'000
I
T
I
72/73
I
74/75 75/76
70/71
c/1'
Net Farm Income (NFl)
4 _
6.
I
74/75 75/76
NFl Per Litre Milk Produced
14
12
-
10
.
8
-
6
-
,-,
-
r-
I
I
72/73
r-
r
r-
ro-
.....,--
3
-
.--.
...-
,-
2 -
:~
I
I
70/71
I
72/73
SURVEY YEARS
I
I
T
74/75 75/76
t
l
I
70/71
I
72/73
SURVEY YEARS
74/75 75/76
RECENT PUBLICATIONS
RESEARCH REPORTS
48. Proceedings oj an N.Z. Seminar on Project Evaluation in
Agriculture and Related Fields, R. C. Jensen (ed.), 1968.
49. Inter-Industry Structure oj the New Zealand Economy,
1961-5, B. J. Ross and B. P. Philpott, 1%8.
.
50. Fresh Vegetable Retailing in New Zealand, G. W. KItson,
1968.
.
51. Livestock Targets in North Canterbury ijlll Country: The
Impact oj Changing Prices, J. L. Morns, H. J. Plunkett
and R. W. M. Johnson, 1968.
52. Sectoral Capital Formation in New Zealand, 1958-65,
T. W. Francis, 1968.
53. Processing Peas: A Survey oj Growers' Returns, 1967-8,
B. N. Hamilton and R. W. M. Johnson, 1968.
54. Fertiliser Use in Southland, R. W. M. Johnson, 1969.
55. The Structure oj Wool and Wool Textile Production,
Trade and Consumption, 1948-68, B. P. Philpott, G. A.
Fletcher and W. G. Scott, 1969.
56. Tower Silo Farming in New Zealand-Part 1: A Review,
D. McClatchy, 1969.
.
57. Supply and Demand Projections oj the United KIllFdom
Meat Market in 1975, D. R. Edwards and B. P. PhIlpott,
1969.
.
58. Tower Silo Farming in New Zealand-Part II: Economic
Possibilities, D. McClatchy, 1969.
59. Productivity and Income of New Zealand Agriculture,
1911-67, D. D. Hussey and B. P. Philpott.
.
60. Current Trends in New Zealand Beef ProductIOn and
Disposal, D. McClatchy.
61. Land Development by the State: An Economic Analysis of
the Hindon Block, Otago, E. D. Parkes.
62. An Economic Analysis of Soil Conservation and Land
Retirement on South Islalld High Country, R. W. M.
Johnson, 1970.
63. A Regional Analysis of Future Sheep Production in New
Zealand, R. W. M. Johnson, 1970.
64. An Economic Assessment of the Middle Class and Upper
Middle Class Market in Malaya as a Potiential Outlet for
New Zealand Meat and Dairy Products, K. Y. Ho, 1970.
65. Capital Formation in New Zealand Agriculture, 1947-67,
R. W. M. Johnson, 1970.
66. Distribution Costs and Efficiency for Fresh Fruit and
Vegetables, G. W. Kitson, 1971.
67. The Optimisation of a Sixteen Sector Model of the New
Zealand Economy, T. R. O'Malley, 1973.
68. An Analysis of Lands and Survey Development Projects,
1945-69, H. J. Plunket, 1972.
69. Quantitative Techniques jor Forecasting: A Review with
Applications to New Zealand Wool Prices jor 1974-5,
Joan Rodgers, 1974.
70. A Practical Guide to Tax Planning using Procedures for
Income Equalisation, P. J. Charlton, 1975.
71. Studies in Costs of Production: Process Peas and Beans,
1974-75, W. O. McCarthy, R. G. Moffitt, P. W. Cosgriff
and P. D. Chud1eigh, 1975.
72. Location ot Farm Advisory Officers in New Zealandan Application ot Facility Location Analysis, Joan R.
Rodgers, Owen McCarthy and Vicki Mabin, 1975.
73. The Ambulance Facility Location Problem-a Survey at
Methods and a Simple Application, Janet Gough and
W. O. McCarthy, 1975.
74. Studies in Costs of Production: Town Milk Supply Farms
1973-74, R. J. Gillespie, 1976.
75. Stabilising Post-Tax Incomes of New Zealand Sheep
Farms, P. D. Chudleigh, M. J. Blackie and J. B. Dent,
1976.
76. Studies in Costs ot Production: Town Milk Supply
Farms 1974-75, R. J. Gillespie, 1976.
MARKET RESEARCH REPORTS
I. Processing Plant Location Studies: 1: Theory and a
Simple Application to N.Z. Wool Selling Centres, W. O.
McCarthy, J. L. Rodgers and C. R. Higham, 1972. .
2. Processing Plant Location Studies: 11: Policy Alternatives
tor N.Z. Wool Selling Centres, C. R. Higham, J. L.
Rodgers and W. O. McCarthy, 1972.
3. Doing Business in Japan, W. O. McCarthy (ed.), 1972.
4. The Japanese Distribution System and Implications for
New Zealand Traders, G. W. Kitson, 1973.
5. Prospects and Strategies in Promoting Tourism Between
Japan and New Zealand, G. W. Kitson, 1973.
6. Market Assessment, W. O. McCarthy (ed.), 1973.
7. Optimum Site, Number and Location of Freezing Works
in the South Island, New Zealand - A Spatial Analysis,
R. J. Brodie and W. O. McCarthy, 1974.
8. The Japanese Food Market and Implications for New
Zealand, G. W. Kitson, 1975.
9. Structure and Corporate Relationships in the Japanese
Wool and Wool Textile Industries, G. W. Kitson, 1976.
DISCUSSION PAPERS
3. Economic Evaluation of Water Resources Development,
R. C. Jensen, A.N.Z.A.A.S., Christchurch, 1968.
4. An Illustrative Example of Evaluation Procedures, A. C.
Norton and R. C. Jensen, N.z. Assn. of Soil Conservators, May 1968.
5. The Shape of the New Zealand Economy in 1980, B. P.
Philpott and B. J. Ross, N.Z. Assn. of Economists, August
1968.
.
6. Economic Problems of New Zealand Agriculture, R. W.
M. Johnson, A.N.z.A.A.S., Christchurch, 1968..
.
7. Recent Trends in the Argenline Beef Cattle SituatIOn,
R. W. M. Johnson, November, 1968.
8. Price Formation in the Raw Wool Market, C. J.
McKenzie, B. P. Philpott and M. J. Woods, N.z. Assn.
of Economists, February 1969.
.
9. Agricultural Production Functions, A. C. LeWIS, N.Z.
Assn. of Economists, February 1969.
10. ReRional Economic Development in the Cr;ntext of the
Changing New Zealand Economy, B. P. PhIlpott, Nelson
Development Seminar, April 1969.
.
11. Quarterly Estimales of New Zealand Meat Price, Consumption and Allied Dala, 1946-65, C. A. Yandle.
12. Indicative Economic Plal/I/ing with a Sixteen Sector Pro.
;ection Model of the New Zealand ECOn~JI11Y, B. J. Ross
and B. P. Philpott, A.N.Z.A.A.S., AdelaIde, 19~9.
.
13. Recent Developments ill Ihe Meat Indllstry With particular reference to Otago and Southland, R. G. Pilling,
Otago Branch, N.Z. Econ. Soc., October 196?
.
14. The Future Profitability of Beef ProductIOn In New
Zealand, R. W. M. Johnson, N.Z. Inst. Agr. Sc., August
1970.
15. Demand Prospects for Beef, B. P. Philpott, N.z. Inst.
Agr. Sc., August 1970.
16. The Siructure of Wool and Wool Textile Production,
Trade and Consumption, 1958-69, B. P. Philpott and W.
G. Scott, June 1970.
17. Trends in the Terms of Exchange and Productivity in
the New Zealand Dairy Industry, R. W. M. Johnson,
June 1970.
I R. M arketinR Margins for New Zealand Lamb and for a!l
Lamb and MillIon in the United Kingdom, A. C. LeWIS
and S. M. C. Murray. July 1970.
19. A Pilot Optimisation Model for the 1972-3 N.D.C. Plan,
B. P. Philpott and T. R. O'Malley, August 1970.
20. Recent Trends in Capital Formation in New Zealand
A Rriculture, 1964-9, R. W. M. Johnson and S. M. Hadfield, 1971.
21. Productivity and Income of New Zealand Agriculture,
1921-67, (Supplement to Research Report No. 59), S. M.
Hadfield, 1971.
22. Some Aspects of the Economics of Nitrogen Storage
Farming in New Zealand, B. P. Philpott,!. D. Greig and
A. Wright, 1972.
23. Economic Aspects of Stone Fruit Marketing ill New Zealand, A. W. Smith 1972.
24. New Zealand, The Ten, and Future Market Strategies,
c.c.c. Bulletin. No. 559, W. O. McCarthy, 1972.
25. The Wool Acquisition Controversy, C.C.c. Bulletin, No.
577, W. O. McCarthy, 1974.
26. Productivity, c.C.C. Bulletin, No. 579, B. J. Ross, 1974.
27. Investment on the Rural Scene, paper presented to N.Z.
Inst. of Valuers Seminar B. J. Ross, 1974.
28. The Oil Crisis and International Economic Stability, B.
J. Ross, 1974.
29. Christchurch Tomorrow-A discussion of the future development of Christchurch as a Regional Centre, J. W.
Wood, 1975.
30. Use made of Transport by Farmers: A Pilot Survey with
FindinRS Relating to Ashburton County, New Zealand,
T. I. Ambler, 1975.
31. A Postal Sample Survey of Sheep Farmer Attitudes to
Incentives and Obstacles to increasing Farm Output and
other Agricultural Policy Issues, J. G. Pryde, 1975.
32. Proceedings of a Seminar on Costs Beyond the Farm
Gate, 12th March 1976, J. G. Pryde, W. O. McCarthy,
D. L. Fyfe (eds.), 1976.
33. A Postal Survey of the Opinions of a Group of Farm
Management Society Members on Incentives and Obstacles
to Increasing Farm Output, J. G. Pryde, 1976.
34. A Statistical Analysis of Sources of Variance of Income
on Sheep Farms in New Zealand, P. D. Chudleigh and
S. J. Filan, 1976.
35. Rate Regulation and Economic Efficiency in Rural Road
Goods Transport, T. I. Ambler, 1976.
36. Proceedings of a Seminar on Wool Marketing in the
1980's-Held at Lincoln Col/eRe 21 October, 1976, W. O.
McCarthy and J. G. Pryde (eds.), 1976.
37. Some Economic Aspects of Conference and Non-Conference Wool Shipping, P. D. Chudleigh, 1976.
Additional copies of Research Reports and Market Research Reports, apart. from complim.entary copies,
are available at $2.00 each. Discussion Papers are $1.00 (except No. 32 which IS $3.00). Remittance should
accompany order.