6.11 Change in debt between 1995 and 1998

In our survey we also asked farmers to tell us their total debt, including current and term liabilities, in 1995. Between 1995 and 1998, average total liabilities per farm increased substantially only on dairy farms and cropping farms. The increase was not so substantial on the other farm types (Table 25). A comparison of current and term liabilities between 1995 and 1998 is presented in Appendix 10.2.

Table 25 Comparison of total liabilities in 1995 with liabilities in 1998, for those farms providing data for both years

Farm Type

1995

1998

Change

Change (%)

Average liabilities — nominal dollars

Sheep and beef

$194,419

$224,716

$30,297

15.6

Dairy

$393,110

$495,739

$102,629

26.1

Horticulture

$152,058

$161,643

$9,585

6.3

Cropping

$386,542

$500,951

$114,409

29.6

Other

$149,402

$168,410

$19,009

12.7

1995 1

1998

Change

Change (%)

Average liabilities — 1995 debt converted to 1998 dollars

Sheep and beef

$202,137

$224,716

$22,579

11.2

Dairy

$385,563

$495,739

$110,177

28.6

Horticulture

$154,734

$161,643

$6,909

4.5

Cropping

$405,057

$500,951

$95,894

23.7

Other

$152,808

$168,410

$15,602

10.2

1 Data for 1995 have been converted to 1998 dollars by using the following conversion factors: Sheep and beef 1.0397; Dairying 0.9808; Horticulture 1.0176; Cropping 1.0479; Other 1.0228. Note that the NZSIC PPI for dairy farming decreased between these two years.

The relatively small percentage increase in farm debt between 1995 and 1998 (from Table 25), and very large percentage increase between 1988 and 1998 (from Table 23), indicates that most of the increase in debt occurred between 1988 and 1995 (Table 26).

Table 26 Increase in average debt per farm between 1988 and 1998 and between 1995 and 1998 by farm type

Farm type

Percentage change between
1995 and 1998

Percentage change between
1988 and 1998

Sheep and beef

11

  36

Dairy

29

206

Horticulture

5

   8

Cropping

24

257

Other

10

Not available

6.12 Comparison with data from other sources

We have compared the results of our survey with the results of other, comparable analyses of New Zealand farm liabilities. The sources of these comparisons are discussed in Appendix 10.3. The best data for comparative purposes are that of the Meat and Wool Economic Service (M&WES) and the Dairy Board because both organisations collect data for a large number of farms and present the average of the data in their reports. The data provided by the accounting firms (Preston 1999; P.S. Alexander and Associates 1999) are not based on such a large sample of farms and may be geographically biased to farms in Canterbury.

Sheep and beef farms

Data from the M&WES show both current and term liabilities to be a little higher than our estimate of sheep and beef farm debt.

Table 27 Comparison of sheep and beef farm average liabilities from our survey with data from other sources

1988 Liabilities

1998 Liabilities

Source

Current
$

Term
$

Total
$

Current
$

Term
$

Total
$

MAF 1 / This study

38,000

140,000

157,000

37,127

190,872

227,999

M&WES

40,638

146,029

186,667

54,613

210,118

264,731

Accountant 1

Hill …………………………

299,733

Flatland …………………….

217,972

Accountant 2

Hill …………. 27,917

271,269

299,186

Flatland …… 4983

193,714

198,697

Downlands …. 32,969

330,950

363,919

1 Total for the 1988 study does not represent the sum of current and term liabilities, because each figure was calculated only for those farms with that particular type of liability, not all farms.

Dairy farms

The average total liabilities of owner-operated dairy farms are 12 percent lower in the New Zealand Dairy Board’s (1999) survey than in our survey; for sharemilkers the Dairy Board average total liabilities are 24 lower than our data (Table 28).

Table 28 Comparison of dairy farm average liabilities from our survey with data from other sources

1988 Liabilities

1998 Liabilities

Source

Current
$

Term
$

Total
$

Current
$

Term
$

Total
$

All dairy farms

MAF 1 / This study

2,000

137,000

145,000

48,800

458,260

507,059

Owner operators

MAF / This study

Not available

53,348

502,488

555,836

Dairy Board

23,185

167,129

190,314

43,959

445,411

489,370

Accountant 1

751,766

Accountant 2

13,570

530,244

543,814

Sharemilkers

MAF / This study

Not available

33,176

187,048

220,225

Dairy Board

16,240

31,624

47,864

 

32,562

134,748

167,310

1 Total for the 1988 study does not represent the sum of current and term liabilities, because each figure was calculated only for those farms with that particular type of liability, not all farms.

We wondered whether this discrepancy was caused by our data showing a smaller proportion of dairy farmers being sharemilkers than the Dairy Board’s records. Because they tend to own more land than sharemilkers, farm owners tend to have higher debt. According to the Dairy Board, there are 14 673 dairy farms in New Zealand, of which 5238 are sharemilkers. Because our data show a higher proportion of farm owners (85.6 percent) than the Dairy Board records (64.3 percent), we would expect our calculated liabilities to be greater than the Dairy Board’s. We recalculated average dairy-farm debt for New Zealand, using weighted liabilities for sharemilkers and dairy farm owners. Using the Dairy Board data for total liabilities and the proportion of farms in each ownership category, the average dairy-farm debt is $400,000; using our liabilities per farm and Dairy Board data for the proportion of farms, the figure is $435,000. This reduces the difference between the two estimates, to the point where the Dairy Board average is only 8 percent lower than ours.

There are several other possible reasons for the differences between the Dairy Board data and ours. The Dairy Board used a different sampling strategy from our survey. They derived their sample of farms from Livestock Improvement Corporation lists. They sampled only factory supply farms. Also, they removed farms with fewer than 30 dairy cows, those with less than 50 percent of their gross farm income from dairying, and those with no separate accounts for their dairy enterprise. This would give them a precise average of a "pure" dairy farm, one that concentrated on dairying. For the purposes of our survey, however, New Zealand farming is often not very "pure", and many farms have multiple enterprises. By including such farms we have likely increased accuracy, but at a cost of precision. The Dairy Board was more rigorous than we were in removing liabilities from farmers’ accounts that they considered to be private items, such as cars and extra houses. We accepted the liability figures in the farm accounts; the Dairy Board removed items they considered private. This would decrease the average liabilities in the Dairy Board data, compared with the averages in our data.

The total liabilities for dairy farms supplied by one accounting firm is very similar to our data ($530,224 compared to $502,488); the data on term liabilities supplied by the other accounting firm is for a term debt in excess of our survey figure for total liabilities per dairy farm. Both accounting firms are based in Canterbury, and their figures may not reflect national averages.

Horticulture farms and cropping farms

We are not aware of any other reliable source of debt data for the horticulture sector.

For cropping, the data provided by the two accounting firms are similar to the data for our survey, although their data show slightly lower debt levels than ours (Table 29). Both accounting firms are based in Canterbury, and their figures may not reflect national averages.

Table 29 Comparison of horticulture and cropping farm average liabilities from our survey with data from other sources

1988 Liabilities

1998 Liabilities

Source

Current
$

Term
$

Total
$

Current
$

Term
$

Total
$

Horticulture

MAF 1 / This study

49,000

138,000

162,000

45,562

120,926

166,488

No other data sources

Cropping

MAF 1 / This study

48,000

168,000

197,000

104,985

395,966

500,951

Accountant 1

340,716

Accountant 2

Intensive …………………

365,002

Mixed cropping ………….

224,285

1 Total for the 1988 study does not represent the sum of current and term liabilities, because each figure was calculated only for those farms with that particular type of liability, not all farms.

6.13 Respondents’ comments

Many respondents provided us with written comments. Most of these simply clarified the figures they had provided or explained why parts of the questionnaire did not apply to them. Some of them commented upon their debt in general terms, and their responses are summarised in Table 30. The most common remark (28 percent) was that they needed off-farm work or income, with comments like Beef farming is a lifestyle now — we are both working off the farm to support it; Wife has to work to make ends meet, as with most other women in this area; and We now farm beef and my wife sells real estate and I get to sleep in; we no longer get calls from our friendly bank manager. Numerous farmers (20 percent) were proud of having no debt, and these farmers often had a positive outlook: We have been freehold since 1986, have reared 2 sons, and been around the world 4 times. All this on an "uneconomic" farm. We like not answering to a bank manager. Some (17 percent) commented that things were crook: the so-called "level playing field" is on such a tilt my farm activity in total is about to fall off. Don’t bother to send me more statistic forms — I won’t be around to fill them out. The other common response (16 percent) was that they were just getting by or going backwards slowly: Our farming business makes enough money to maintain but there is virtually nothing with which to develop and improve. Several of these farmers commented that they enjoyed the lifestyle: Return on investment is unrealistic — but it’s a good life!

Table 30 Respondents’ general comments on their debt (n=146, 155 multiple responses)

Response

Frequency of response (%)

Need off-farm work / have off-farm income

28

Have no debt

20

Things are crook

17

We get by / slowly going backwards / but enjoy lifestyle

16

Lifestyle / hobby

8

Drought-affected

8

Retired / receive superannuation

7

Things are good

6

Sold off part of farm to reduce debt

4

Previous Page TOC Next Page

Contact for Enquiries

Rural Affairs Coordinator
Sector Performance Policy
MAF Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND

Phone: +64 4 894 0675
Fax: +64 4 4 894 0745
Contact this person

 




WebSite survey