3 Sub Regional Analysis
Expenditure patterns have been analysed in detail by creating tables of expenditure by individual expenditure categories for each of the four sub-regions and the total region as a whole. At a detailed level, these are attached in the Appendices and calculate expenditure in each of the four locations in total, average per property and per hectare.
These tables have then been aggregated up into spending sector analysis split between farm working expenses, capital expenditure and personal expenses. These are shown in the summary tables.
3.1 Summary Tables
Table 5: Farm Working Expenses
| Out | ChCh | Ash/Tim | Small | Total | ||
| North | 5.30 | 78.09 | 6.59 | 140.91 | 230.89 | |
| $/ha | Central | 20.36 | 234.25 | 10.83 | 338.01 | 603.45 |
| Mid | 85.44 | 46.97 | 652.49 | 121.83 | 906.73 | |
| South | 20.48 | 12.05 | 221.42 | 142.45 | 396.40 | |
| Total | 27.91 | 77.84 | 195.78 | 167.51 | 469.03 | |
| North | 2% | 34% | 3% | 61% | ||
| % | Central | 3% | 39% | 2% | 56% | |
| Mid | 9% | 5% | 72% | 13% | ||
| South | 5% | 3% | 56% | 36% | ||
| Total | 6% | 17% | 42% | 36% |
Farm working expenses include the full range of goods and services required to run the farming operation.
Table 5 presents this in two formats, as dollars per hectare and as a percentage of the total.
Points to note from the table are:
- Mid and Central Canterbury farms have a much higher level of spending on farm working expenses at $603 and $906 per hectare respectively.
- A very high proportion of farm working expenditure is spent locally in all regions. This is the highest at 80–90 percent in Mid and South Canterbury where Ashburton and Timaru are supported very strongly. North and Central Canterbury spend between 60 and 66 percent of their farm working expenses in small towns with the majority of the remaining expenditure occurring in Christchurch.
- In summary, this means that a large proportion of day to day farm working expenditure goes through the local economy in all of the sub-regions.
Table 6: Capital
| Out | ChCh | Ash/Tim | Small | Total | ||
| North | 0.00 | 12.85 | 0.05 | 6.74 | 19.64 | |
| $/ha | Central | 0.00 | 43.13 | 6.39 | 51.10 | 100.62 |
| Mid | 3.12 | 1.03 | 121.74 | 5.06 | 130.96 | |
| South | 1.25 | 0.61 | 64.01 | 9.16 | 75.03 | |
| Total | 0.97 | 11.80 | 42.87 | 13.83 | 69.47 | |
| North | 0% | 65% | 0% | 34% | ||
| % | Central | 0% | 43% | 6% | 51% | |
| Mid | 2% | 1% | 93% | 4% | ||
| South | 2% | 1% | 85% | 12% | ||
| Total | 1% | 17% | 62% | 20% |
Capital expenditure includes all developmental expenditure, plant and machinery, buildings and other capital expenditure. Therefore, we would assume that the majority of capital expenditure is on reasonably expensive items. However, Table 6 shows us that:
- Spending patterns are very similar to farm working expenditure in that an even greater proportion of expenditure in Mid and South Canterbury goes through Ashburton and Timaru.
- In North and Central Canterbury, there is a trend towards more capital expenditure occurring in Christchurch and less in the smaller towns.
- The other interesting point to note is that even with large capital items, there is very little expenditure occurring outside the Canterbury region.
Table 7: Personal
| Out | ChCh | Ash/Tim | Small | Total | ||
| North | 1.70 | 17.88 | 20.14 | 8.35 | 48.06 | |
| $/ha | Central | 3.96 | 42.74 | 47.88 | 19.67 | 114.26 |
| Mid | 5.10 | 57.76 | 64.01 | 25.78 | 152.65 | |
| South | 2.64 | 26.22 | 29.93 | 12.72 | 71.51 | |
| Total | 2.98 | 31.98 | 35.88 | 14.78 | 85.63 | |
| North | 4% | 37% | 42% | 17% | ||
| % | Central | 3% | 37% | 42% | 17% | |
| Mid | 3% | 38% | 42% | 17% | ||
| South | 4% | 37% | 42% | 18% | ||
| Total | 3% | 37% | 42% | 17% |
In the original survey, respondents were asked to split the location of their personal expenditure into a number of detailed categories which included clothing, durables, entertainment, groceries, health, insurance and education. However, respondents were not asked to detail their personal expenditure activities in such detail. They were only asked to split personal expenditure into general, insurance and education. Therefore, the results in Table 7 are heavily influenced by the use of aggregated responses to overall personal expenditure from the more detailed study. However, Table 7 indicates that personal expenditure is more evenly spread than other expenditure items. The original survey indicated that the general trend was that immediate personal needs such as groceries, health, insurance and education were predominantly bought in smaller centres but that discretionary expenditure on things such as clothes and entertainment and durables were most likely to be spent in Christchurch or outside the region.
Table 8: Total
| Out | ChCh | Ash/Tim | Small | Total | ||
| North | 7.00 | 108.82 | 26.78 | 156.00 | 298.60 | |
| $/ha | Central | 24.32 | 320.12 | 65.10 | 408.78 | 818.33 |
| Mid | 93.67 | 105.77 | 838.24 | 152.67 | 1,190.34 | |
| South | 24.36 | 38.88 | 315.36 | 164.33 | 542.93 | |
| Total | 31.86 | 121.62 | 274.53 | 196.11 | 624.13 | |
| North | 2% | 36% | 9% | 52% | ||
| % | Central | 3% | 39% | 8% | 50% | |
| Mid | 8% | 9% | 70% | 13% | ||
| South | 4% | 7% | 58% | 30% | ||
| Total | 5% | 20% | 44% | 31% |
Table 8 represents the regional analysis of total expenditure. Major points to note are:
- North Canterbury—Much lower expenditure per hectare at $300/ha than all other regions. However, the majority (60 percent) is spent in small towns with a high proportion (30 percent) of the remainder being spent in the major centre of Christchurch.
- Central Canterbury—Has a much higher overall spending level at approximately $820/ha but has a very similar spending pattern split as North Canterbury with approximately 55 percent of spending occurring in small towns and the majority of the remainder occurring in Christchurch.
- Mid Canterbury—Has by far the highest expenditure per hectare at approximately $1,200/ha than all the others and has a very dominant pattern of spending this (72 percent) in Ashburton. The remainder of Mid Canterbury farmers’ spending is spread between small towns, Christchurch and outside the region.
- South Canterbury—Has a predominance of approximately 90 percent of its expenditure occurring either in small local towns or in Timaru itself, with only 10 percent of its expenditure occurring outside the South Canterbury region. Overall spending at $540/ha is, however, relatively low.
- Total—Total expenditure per hectare across the region is $624/ha with 34 percent of this ($196) occurring in small towns, 44 percent ($275) occurring in either Ashburton or Timaru, and surprisingly only 20 percent ($121) occurring in Christchurch itself.
3.2 Detailed Results
The detailed analysis of expenditure by the four farming sub regions by individual items is contained in Tables A1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 held in the Appendix.
Analysis of the detailed regional expenditure analysis shown in Tables A1 to 5 can be summarised as follows:
- Farmers purchase the majority of their direct inputs, or goods, as close to the farm as possible. This is shown in the fact that a very high proportion of expenditure categories such as animal health, crop expenses, fertiliser, freight, seeds, shearing, etc are either purchased in small local towns or in Ashburton and Timaru.
- A much higher proportion of services, both professional and semi-skilled, are purchased in the larger towns of Ashburton, Timaru and the city of Christchurch.
- Capital expenditure patterns are even more highly concentrated on the medium cities of Ashburton and Timaru.
Drawings are much more evenly distributed with even amounts of general drawing expenditure occurring in the larger cities and a smaller proportion in small towns.
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
