11.0 THE FUTURE OF THE SHAREMILKING INDUSTRY

A series of focus group meetings was held in order to gain an insight as to how current sharemilkers and farm owners view the current state of the sharemilking industry and its future over the next five to ten years.

The objective of this was to gain the honest views of those people currently involved in the industry, rather than relying on speculation and hearsay from other sources. The focus group concept was adopted in preference to larger meetings because it was important to cover a wide range of topics in some depth. The areas of most interest for the meetings was to gain some insight into the future structure of the sharemilking industry and how various factors such as increasing land price, decreasing cow price and other pressures will effect farm owner and sharemilker decisions.

METHODOLOGY

Focus Groups

The focus group technique involves inviting a small number of selected participants to meet and discuss the topics relevant to the purpose of the meeting. The focus group is an important research tool often used for programme evaluation, marketing, public policy development, advertising and communications.

The strength of the focus group technique is that information is expressed in the group members= own words and context, as opposed to answering direct questions either as a survey or individual interview situation and that there can be genuine discussion among the group members.

Focus groups do, however, have their limitations. It is important to remember that this is not a statistically valid survey and only represents the opinion of a small number of those involved in the sharemilking industry.

In conducting a focus group meeting it is important that the group leader allows the discussion to develop in a less structured approach than might be adopted for a more formal meeting. Specific questioning is avoided in most instances so that the group members are not led into drawing conclusions.

Participant Selection

The participant selection was based on volunteers who offered to participate in the focus groups in the postal survey which was sent out to them. Picking of key farmers was avoided so that the result would not be skewed toward the view of those who are perhaps more progressive or more informed in the dairy industry. The only selection which happened was in an effort to spread the participants over the different farm sizes and areas.

Those people invited to focus groups included:

  • Farm owners with 50/50 sharemilkers on their properties.
  • 50/50 sharemilkers.
  • Young farmers who had been in the industry less than five years and who are either farm workers or had recently started on a contract or lower order milking job.
  • Other industry representatives. These included Livestock Improvement Corporation consulting officers and dairy company representatives.

Both the young farmers and the industry participants were selected via personal contacts of Agriculture New Zealand consultants.

Focus Group Meetings

The meetings were held during the week of Monday, 15 July 1996. The Waikato meetings were held in Morrinsville with the Canterbury meetings held in Leeston and Culverden.

The meetings were conducted by John Greer, an experienced focus group facilitator, and Geoffrey Taylor of Agriculture New Zealand in the Waikato, with John Greer and Alan Hawkins facilitating the meetings in Canterbury.

In addition to notes being taken, each meeting was audio recorded. The participants were aware that the discussion was being recorded and that the purpose of this was to provide a reference for the writer to refer to in preparation of a final report.

The key areas of the sharemilking system which were investigated were:

  • the strengths and weaknesses of the sharemilking system;
  • what the industry is likely to look like in the future;
  • what sharemilkers would do if they were forced to leave the industry;
  • how sharemilkers plan to purchase farm land; and
  • how the problems might be solved in the future.

FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS

11.1 STRENGTHS OF THE SHAREMILKING SYSTEM

The sharemilking system is unique to New Zealand. It has provided a ladder to farm ownership for many New Zealanders in the past. Exactly why it is regarded so highly was asked of the sharemilkers and the farm owners.

Central Waikato Region

From the sharemilkers' point of view the key points as described were:

  • The ability to build equity toward achieving a goal through being able to build cow numbers.
  • A rural lifestyle.
  • Education in farming and business skills.
  • A challenge to climb the next step to farm ownership.
  • A good stepping stone to farm management.
  • It is a more profitable business than other possible options.

From the farm owners' point of view the strengths of the sharemilking system are:

  • They no longer have to milk cows but can still be involved with the farm.
  • A sharemilker who has some capital tied up in cows is more likely to do a good job of running the farm and produce more, thus maintaining the value of the farm for future sale.
  • A sharemilker is a comparatively cheap labour force on an hourly basis compared to factory labour.
  • Younger people coming into the industry are good to challenge traditional ideas which generally leads to increasing production and profitability for both parties.
  • It enables a farm owner to retain the farm rather than sell it, as the farm is seen as a good investment when capital gain and income are both considered.

These ideas are in no specific order but reflect a wide variety of reasons for both sharemilkers and farm owners to be involved with the sharemilking industry.

Canterbury Region

From the sharemilkers' point of view, the Canterbury groups agreed that the main strength of the sharemilking system was the path it provided to farm ownership along with the ability to gather equity to follow that path. Those strengths which were not identified by the Waikato groups included:

  • A career option in the country.
  • The simplicity of the agreement.

From the farm owners' point of view many of the same strengths were identified in Canterbury as were in the Waikato. The most important exception was:

  • Sharemilkers allow farm owners to free up capital as they bring cows with them.
  • For the farm owner, sale of their herd can release a significant amount of capital which allows them a number of options. These may include purchasing a larger farm or conversion, purchasing a house in town, or investing the capital to provide additional, regular income.
  • A representative of corporate farmer Tasman Agriculture Ltd also identified a number of strengths of the sharemilking system which are applicable to the corporate situation only. From the sharemilkers= point of view these include:
  • Career progression through the corporate system allows competent sharemilkers to grow cow numbers and thus equity.
  • Monitoring and feedback provided on performance.
  • Support for the sharemilker from an area manager.
  • Subsidised consultancy.
  • An annual conference.
  • Regular field days.
  • Support of other sharemilkers in the system.
  • Corporates converting large farms to dairying provide sharemilkers with an opportunity to expand relatively rapidly in the first few years, thus accelerating their ability to build capital.

From the corporate owners= point of view, the strengths of the sharemilking system which were identified were similar to those already mentioned. However, one important addition was made:

  • Having no investment in livestock decreases risk associated with farming as stock prices tend to be relatively volatile.

Summary of the Strengths of the Sharemilking System

In summary, the two main strengths identified in the sharemilking system are:

  • Its ability to allow farm owners to stop milking cows and at the same time retain ownership and derive an income from the farm.
  • Its ability to allow sharemilkers to gather equity toward their goals.

The mutual benefits gained by the sharemilker and farm owner have ensured the continued existence of the sharemilking industry in the past and will provide the basis for its future existence.

Corporate sharemilking systems also seem to have the advantage of a superior support network for the sharemilker, as well as the opportunity to progress within that corporate structure onto larger farms. This is an opportunity that other sharemilkers must compete fiercely for.

11.2 WEAKNESS OF THE SHAREMILKING SYSTEM

Central Waikato Region

The sharemilking system also has its weaknesses and some of these were identified in discussion. From the sharemilkers' point of view these include:

  • Cow prices are not keeping up with inflation in land values, meaning that sharemilkers are taking longer to purchase their first farms.
  • Being dependent on the progress of others above you in the sharemilking industry to move onto the bigger jobs in order to build capital.
  • The effective hourly rate of pay compared with someone working in town is poor.
  • There is a lack of security at the end of your sharemilking contract, given that a sharemilker generally does not own a house and has to find somewhere to graze their cows.
  • Some conditions of employment on farms are poor, e.g. a sub-standard dwelling or farm dairy.
  • It can be hard on your family at certain times of the year.
  • Many of the small farms which have 50/50 sharemilking jobs available are no longer big enough to support a family.
  • There is a high level of risk compared with lower order sharemilking jobs.
  • Although a sharemilker owns a substantial asset in cows, they feel that in effect they are still not their own boss, which can lead to conflict with farm owners.
  • Tax penalises sharemilkers for gathering cows as an asset, because change in numbers of livestock is taxed whereas changes in land values or capital gain is not.

From the point of view of the farm owner, the weaknesses of the sharemilking system are:

  • Today you need a bigger farm to sustain a 50/50 sharemilker.
  • The return on capital is not as good as you might get in other investments such as a bank investment.
  • Taking dairy company share costs out of the farm owners' portion of the milk income leaves them less disposable income compared with the sharemilker.
  • Neither capital gain nor share value are realised until sale of the farm and therefore a lower income must be accepted until such time.
  • In the past the farm owner has borne more expenses than the sharemilker has.
  • To utilise a 50/50 sharemilker costs more than it does to employ a lower order sharemilker.

Once again these weaknesses are listed in no specific order.

Canterbury Region

Sharemilkers in the Canterbury region also identified lack of security and the increasing gap between land and cow prices, which makes it difficult to move into farm ownership, as the major weaknesses of the sharemilking system. Other points made included:

  • If the chips were down the sharemilker would come off worst especially in the case of a corporate owner or investor who is trying to derive a return from capital invested.
  • In the Canterbury region there are few smaller jobs (150 to 250 cows) for sharemilkers to get started on.

Farm owners in Canterbury highlighted few concerns. However, they suggested that the risk of getting a poor sharemilker was the major risk involved from their perspective.

SHAREMILKER AND FARM OWNER CONCERNS

The main concern from the sharemilkers' point of view seems to be their inability to make progress through the sharemilking system compared with 5-10 years ago. The main reason given for this is the increase in land value relative to cow prices meaning that it is taking longer to build equity, through building cow numbers, to purchase their first farm. This means that sharemilkers either have to move on to bigger jobs, 600-800 cows, or stay at smaller jobs for a longer period of time and invest earnings in other areas.

This problem is causing a back-log in the sharemilking system making it more difficult for new entrant sharemilkers to progress through the industry as they have done in the past. With this comes intense competition for those jobs which are available. This competition can impinge on the security of the sharemilkers= futures. If, for example, at the end of a contract a sharemilker is unable to find a job, the only option they have is to sell up their herd and move into town. The types of careers they would be looking at in town will be discussed later. However, such careers are predominately practically based and tend to carry a lower salary package. This can mean a reduction in standard of living for some sharemilkers.

As a further result of the increase in land prices, the size of an economically viable dairy unit (one which can support a family and debt servicing from its income) has increased from about 40 ha, up to approximately 60 ha. This has flow-on affects down the sharemilking chain. Sharemilkers now need more equity in order to purchase a first farm.

Purchasing of a farm will also often mean a large drop in lifestyle for a sharemilker and many consider that this is not acceptable and spend another couple of years sharemilking to avoid it.

Canterbury sharemilkers are finding a situation opposite to those in the Waikato in so far as farm size is concerned. Waikato sharemilkers have an abundance of smaller jobs from 120 to 180 cows on which to commence their sharemilking career. The problem for Waikato sharemilkers is the difficulty in finding larger jobs due to congestion further up the system. Conversely, Canterbury sharemilkers are finding the lack of smaller jobs difficult because it means they have to accumulate a lot more capital in order to finance themselves into a herd. For this reason, a number of the larger Canterbury farms are run by people who have come into farming from other areas of life or are returning to farming, but who have the capital required.

The Canterbury sharemilkers also felt there was a higher risk involved in working for a corporate owner or investor as they are driven by financial indicators of success, such as return on investment. It was felt that in a downturn, the sharemilker may be forced to take a reduced profit share so that the owners can maintain their return on investment.

Farm owners identified the weakness of small farm size in the Waikato as well. A 40 ha farm which used to comfortably support a sharemilker and farm owner is now only providing just enough income for the farm owner, even if the farm is debt free. The opinion of the accountant of one of the group members in the Waikato was that a minimum of 350 cows is needed to support a 50/50 sharemilking operation. At an average stocking rate, this represents a 125 ha farm which is 34 ha larger than the present average in the region.

Other weaknesses from the farm owners' perspective focused around their disposable income which they feel has been compromised through higher farm expenses and dairy company shares being levied for increased production. Canterbury farm owners did not rate this a weakness but identified the risk of getting a bad sharemilker as their primary concern. However, they were prepared to balance this risk with the possibility of getting a top performer.

11.3 THE FUTURE OF THE SHAREMILKING INDUSTRY

The primary purpose of this series of meetings was to establish what the sharemilking industry may look like in 5-10 years time. The expectations of the sharemilkers and farm owners, as participants in the industry at present, are outlined below. These opinions are not necessarily representative of either group.

Central Waikato Region

  • There will be fewer jobs as more farms amalgamate and more sharemilkers take on more than one job.
  • There will continue to be a 50/50 sharemilking industry, due to the fact that as owners retire they will employ sharemilkers to run the farm. This is seen as a preferable option as sharemilkers are seen to be more motivated workforce because they have their money tied up in cows.
  • The gap will continue to widen between cow and land prices.
  • Costs in the 50/50 agreement will swing further towards the sharemilker, e.g. this is currently happening with a large percentage of agreements giving the sharemilker all the bobby cheque, but making them pay all animal health and all grazing costs. In today's depressed beef climate, this favours the owner.
  • In the medium term there will be a lack of good staff coming through the industry. As a resolution to this problem the possibility of importing staff from overseas has been raised. However, at present it seems the Government will not issue these people visas to work on farms and insist that farmers should be recruiting staff from New Zealand's current unemployed.
  • Farm staff and sharemilkers will need to be better educated in the future due to increased competition for a more limited number of jobs. Such education may be formal or informal so long as it is seen by sharemilkers and employers as providing an edge over the competition.
  • The average age of farmers is going to increase further.
  • There will be an increased incidence of lower order agreements in the short term. In the longer term, 50/50 agreements are expected to increase again as the average age of the farm owner population increases.
  • It is unlikely that land ownership will trend towards the European situation where land is held tightly within families and therefore there will always be the opportunity for new farmers to buy into the industry. The reasons given for this were death, marriage breakups, and the poor image of farming resulting in the farmer=s children seeking employment outside the industry.
  • Sharemilkers will take longer to progress through the system and will stay in their sharemilking jobs for longer periods.
  • Lower order sharemilking jobs may disappear through review of the labour laws. If this does happen, current lower order jobs will have to become either waged positions, which means that farm owners will have to pay milkers for three weeks of annual holidays plus 11 days statutory holidays. They will also have to pay for relief labour over this period. Alternatively the farm owner will turn to 50/50 type agreements where a contractual relationship is recognised rather than an employer/employee relationship, thus avoiding the problem.
  • Partnerships between existing small farms to produce larger farms may produce economic units for sharemilkers to operate on.

Canterbury Region

The views of farmers and sharemilkers in the Canterbury region, on the future of the sharemilking industry, identified the following main points.

  • Sharemilkers will find it increasingly difficult to achieve their farm ownership goal due to the increasing gap between land and cow prices.
  • Sharemilking positions will bottleneck from the top, as sharemilkers find it more difficult to make the move to farm ownership or on to a larger sharemilking job.
  • There may be more professional sharemilkers.
  • Managers are unlikely to be employed as they have been trialled on the larger corporate farms with the result that production and profitability went backwards. However, if employing a farm manager proved to be a more profitable management arrangement it would definitely be considered.
  • The 50/50 agreement is likely to swing more to the owners' favour especially on the corporate and investment farms.

The general impression of those people involved in these discussions is that there will not be a large amount of change in the sharemilking industry as we know it. The fact that farm owners see sharemilkers as a much more reliable and capable labour force than either lower order sharemilkers or farm managers indicates that as the farm owner population ages we will see more 50/50 sharemilking contracts available. In addition the possible reform of labour laws, which is being mooted in some political quarters, would see lower order sharemilking and contract milking positions become employee-employer relationships rather than independent contractors which is their current status. This would mean that the farm owner either has to employ a farm manager and give them the mandatory 11 statutory days holiday and three weeks annual leave, which would necessitate hiring another labour unit for that period, or alternatively opt back to the 50/50 type agreement where a contractual relationship is recognised between the two parties.

The possibility, especially in the case of the investor, exists for the 50/50 agreement to be ratcheted further in the favour of the farm owner. The consequences of this may well be that 50/50 sharemilkers are no better off than lower order sharemilkers are at present. This would undoubtedly force sharemilkers to re-evaluate their position in the industry. As a result, an exiting of some of the more motivated, skilled sharemilkers from the industry may see production decline.

Canterbury has yet to go through many of the experiences which Waikato sharemilkers and farm owners have had over the past 5-10 years. These include a greater bottleneck at the top of the sharemilking ladder resulting in increased competition, and greater difficulty for sharemilkers in finding a suitable job.

It is generally acknowledged that the size of an economic unit has increased over the past 5-10 years and will continue to do so over the next 5-10 years. Because of this it is expected that dairy farms on average will get bigger and fewer in number. Other land use pressures, such as lifestyle blocks or city expansion, may also impact on the amount of land available and therefore the number of sharemilking jobs available.

Tasman Agriculture Limited

Following the focus groups, correspondence with Tasman Agriculture Limited revealed further detail about the philosophy behind the company=s move to a varied agreement. As large farm owners in the Canterbury region, their views on the future of the 50/50 agreement are important as it is likely their initiative will result in other smaller land owners following their lead.

Tasman Agriculture hold the view that there are major inadequacies in simply changing the 50/50 sharemilking agreement to transfer a higher level of expenses to the sharemilker. The company feels that this does not address the fundamental problem of the 50/50 sharemilking agreement, as historically drafted, as it does not provide a flexible sharemilking agreement which provides for changes in economic conditions.

Tasman believe that a sharemilking agreement which retains relativity in expenses between owner and sharemilker, but moves to address the gross share of income as payout levels change, is a much more flexible approach to ensuring a fairer distribution of revenue between sharemilker and owner at differing payout levels.

To highlight his point, utilising the budget summary for Canterbury farm owners and sharemilkers, the following sensitivity table can be drafted.

TABLE 41: Return on Capital to Canterbury Sharemilkers and Farm Owners Under a "Traditional 50/50 Agreement"

Farm gate payout

per kgMS ($)

ROC (%)

Sharemilker's share Owner's share
3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00

4.20

(0.38)

2.46

5.30

8.14

10.98

13.81

16.65

4.90

5.66

6.42

7.18

7.94

8.70

9.46

According to Tasman Agriculture, the above table highlights the inadequacy of both the current 50/50 sharemilking agreement and of any move to amend on a fixed basis the percentage received by owner and sharemilker under that agreement (ie to a 45/55 agreement etc) or any move to change the distribution of expenses. Simply, owners= and sharemilkers= returns are leveraged to payout increases, however sharemilkers' returns are more heavily leveraged as their investment is relatively smaller than the owners=.

As the above table shows, deviations away from the base case scenario of $3.60 per kilogram of milk solids have an impact upon the relative returns received by sharemilker and owner.

To address this fundamental problem, Tasman Agriculture have based their sharemilking agreement on a remuneration clause that adjusts the percentage share of remuneration at different levels of payout.

Under their Staggered Agreement which commenced 1 June 1996, the sharemilking agreement remains as a 50/50 agreement up to $3.40 per kilogram of milk solids, and above $3.40 per kilogram of milk solids the remuneration share is adjusted to a 70/30 split. This guarantees the sharemilker a 50/50 share up to $3.40 per kilogram of milk solids without transferring fixed costs to the sharemilker which would unduly penalise them if payouts were to fall, and from an owner's point of view distributes more equitably payout increases above $3.40 per kilogram of milk solids.

Once again, using the Canterbury budget summary and the Tasman Agriculture Staggered Agreement, the following sensitivity table can be drafted:

TABLE 42: Return on Capital to Canterbury Sharemilkers and Farm Owners Under the Tasman Agriculture "Staggered 50/50 Agreement"

Farm gate payout

per kgMS ($)

ROC (%)

Sharemilker's share Farm owners' share
3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00

4.20

(0.38)

2.46

5.30

7.00

8.71

10.41

12.11

4.90

5.66

6.42

7.49

8.55

9.62

10.68

As can be seen in the above table, the effect of the Staggered Agreement is to decrease the ROC of the sharemilker, while increasing that of the farm owner. Under this scenario the sharemilker retains the same level of risk at low payouts, and will receive a lesser return in the higher payout Aboom@ years which usually balance out the Abust@ years.

Tasman have put forward a number of valid arguments pertaining to this situation. However, the relatively low return on capital which sharemilkers will receive under this agreement is likely to further slow their progress toward farm ownership or any other goal. Even though Tasman do provide a career structure within their company to help deal with this, which offers a reasonable amount of security, it may not fully compensate for the inability of the sharemilker to purchase a farm.

It must also be remembered that this agreement has been set up in a company where the farms in question are in Canterbury and are typically 400 cows or greater.

11.4 SHAREMILKERS EXITING THE INDUSTRY

Given the expected trends towards fewer, larger farms, it is highly likely that some of the current sharemilking labour force will find themselves without a job at some stage. The groups were asked if this was to happen, what would they envisage themselves doing. Some of the suggestions included:

  • building;
  • engineering;
  • truck driving;
  • purchase of a small business;
  • go overseas, eg. to Australia, to purchase a farm;
  • become a farm consultant;
  • become a farm manager.

The variety of possible occupations were largely practically based. These positions tend to carry with them a lower salary package than those of a professional town worker. This was inconsistent with the sharemilkers= image of themselves as "high flying business people" while they were sharemilking or farm owners. This image is likely to be the result of these people being in control of multimillion dollar assets as represented by land, buildings and stock.

A surprising point was that the majority of these sharemilkers would rather work in town than become a farm manager or a farm worker on a dairy property, almost to the exclusion of considerations such as salary. It seemed to be that once they had been in charge of their own farming operation they would find it incredibly difficult to give up the reins to someone else.

Assuming that farm managers become more common (at the expense of sharemilking positions) as was suggested, the groups were asked what sort of salary package they would accept for being a professional manager. There were a variety of answers to this question, ranging from $30,000 up to $60,000. The majority of the group members seemed happy, or did not object to the idea, that they would only be paid $30-35,000 to do such a job. This is also in sharp contrast with the wages which a professional business person would be paid in town. This may help to explain why sharemilkers would be reluctant to take the step backwards as they expect their income would be severely affected.

11.5 PURCHASING A FARM

Having established that sharemilkers today regard purchasing a farm as being a more difficult proposition than it was in the past, we were interested to find out how they were dealing with this situation. The first reaction of most sharemilkers was to try and produce more. However, this was seen to cost money and none of those present had witnessed large increases in profitability on their farm over the last few years. Investment outside the farm was minimal within the group.

The primary area of reinvestment for the majority of sharemilkers was in cows. It was then pointed out to them that "keeping all your eggs in one basket" may be a risky proposition. Other areas of possible investment identified included urban property, partnership sharemilking, beach houses or land in general. This demonstrated a fairly narrow corridor of thinking. One group member suggested that there is a need for further information on investment opportunities.

11.6 SOLVING THE PROBLEMS

Most concern among both sharemilkers and farm owners centred around the increasing cost of farming in a climate of decreasing returns. The first solution thought of was to increase the payout. However, it was soon realised that an increased payout would only lead to increasing land prices. A current farm owner said that "farmers need to look at what they are paying for land." This seems to be essential.

Other solutions on how to fix the problems also centred around increasing the profitability of farms. Some suggestions included:

  • Leaving the cows on the farm when a sharemilker moves on. This would negate the problem sharemilkers face in their first season of having lower production while the cows acclimatise. This decrease in production due to moving the herd represents a huge cost to both the sharemilker and farm owner. The sharemilker would also stand to save on the cost of carting cows from one farm to another. Farm owners would have the benefit of paying money to raise calves which would go to increasing or maintaining production on their own farms. This has been an area of conflict with many farm owners not wanting to rear calves because the calves would not come into production on their property.
  • This seems highly unlikely as personalisation of herds through breeding to attain high quality cows or even sentimental reasons will preclude sharemilkers readily swapping cows.
  • A farm owner and sharemilker may go into partnership where all income and costs (excluding debt servicing) are split 50/50. This would negate the need to have trade offs throughout an agreement and would lead to full disclosure and a better feeling of fairness between both parties.
  • On an individual farm basis, a greater focus must be put on profit versus production. This will give both parties better returns without providing indicators to outsiders, for example, an increase in payout, which may lead to those outsiders bidding the price of land up further.
  • Because sharemilkers are getting held up in the system, they must be inventive and think of other ways to invest the returns they are gaining from their cows at present. This will assure their ability to gather equity to purchase a farm in the future.
  • Sharemilkers need to look at other options, eg purchasing a farm in Australia, or perhaps purchasing a different type of business which will allow them to gain equity more rapidly than they would be able to in a sharemilking position.
  • Equity ventures between sharemilkers with, for example, sheep and beef farmers who are converting a property would provide the sheep and beef farm owner with the experience of the sharemilker to run the milking herd. It would also provide the sharemilker with an opportunity to get a stake in the farm thus ensuring greater security than a regular 50/50 agreement.
  • Sharemilkers will need to rethink their position on farm ownership and be more prepared to consider sharemilking as a career.
  • The team approach to the job, between farm owner, sharemilker and farm worker, must be more widely adopted giving opportunities for all parties to achieve more out of their position. In conjunction with better working conditions this will lead to a more motivated work force.

The suggestion most likely to achieve positive change for both the sharemilkers and farm owners, was to focus more on profitability than on production. This will give both parties a better return on their investment and a greater income to invest in those areas which are most important to each individual.

This must go hand in hand with the suggestion that sharemilkers and farm owners need to broaden their horizons and look to alternative means of gathering capital, or maintaining their lifestyle. Alternatives may include urban or commercial rental/investment property, bank investments, or company shares. In the words of one of the Waikato group members "The innovative person with well set goals is the most likely to achieve them."

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

 
Print this page Print this page




WebSite survey