- Farmer Scientist Exchange Forum Findings
- Table 2: Factors associated with sustainable farming in New Zealand that were identified through the farmer/scientist/policy-adviser exchange forum.
- Table 3: Recommended practices to achieve characteristics desired in 'sustainable' soils.
- Table 4: Ways identified by exchange forum participants to achieve desired attributes of water supplied (or available) to rural communities
- Table 5: Problems identified with achieved desired animal traits for sustainable animal production.
- Table 6: Measures suggested to maintain a healthy plant community in pastoral farming systems.
- Table 7: Priority of needs to obtain sustainability for different types of livestock production
- systems in New Zealand.
- Table 8: Key sustainability factors identified by the participants in the forum (Objective 1).
- Table 9: Technologies and management practices important for achieving the goal of sustainable farming (Objective 2).
- Table 10: Constraints to the adoption of sustainable technologies and management practices in livestock farming, identified by the participants (Objective 3).
- Table 11: Constraints and research areas identified by the Shannon and Himatangi dairy discussion groups.
- Classification of farms in New Zealand
- Farm and household characteristics
- Views of farmers on sustainability issues
- Sustainable technologies and management practices adopted by farmers
- Adoption of livestock specific practices
RESULTS
Farmer Scientist Exchange Forum Findings
Factors associated with sustainable farming
The factors associated with farming sustainably was the first question addressed in the forum. A list was prepared by both the farmer and scientist/policy- adviser groups, as summarised in Table 2. Both groups held, in general, similar views, but their wording to describe the advantages differed. The primary concern of farmers was long-term profitability and economic and social viability, followed by compliance with the RMA. In contrast, the scientist group accorded high priority to the obligations to be met under the RMA, followed by the need to maintain international competitiveness in agricultural production. Concerns about inter-generational transfer of farms featured in both groups. The farmer group emphasised information exchange with agencies and farmer groups, while the scientist group favoured altruism and a long-term transient culture. Both groups agreed on managing and improving the environment, including its natural resources.
Table 2: Factors associated with sustainable farming in New Zealand that were identified through the farmer/scientist/policy-adviser exchange forum.
Farmer Group |
Scientist/Policy-Adviser Group |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Concept pyramids
The ideas in the concept pyramids, developed separately by the farmer and scientist groups, six resemble each other in a number of cases, but differed in others. The pyramids prepared by both groups appear in Appendix 3, however each of the six issues are briefly discussed below. Because of the inter-linkages between soil and water, they were merged for discussion (see Appendix 3).
Soils
There was a general consensus on the qualities associated with "sustainable soils". The farmer group described the most desirable traits for sustainable soils as "a good soil structure, stable soils and fertile soils", while the scientist/policy- adviser group suggested "stable soils, uncontaminated soils, fertile soils, good structure and a low level of erosion". There was also considerable overlap between the groups in the practices that they identified which were known/could be undertaken to achieve these traits, such as fertiliser use, tree planting and not using erosion-prone land for grazing. Actions to maintain or improve existing soils, as specified by both groups, are summarised in Table 3.
Table 3: Recommended practices to achieve characteristics desired in 'sustainable' soils.
Farmer Group |
Scientist/Policy-Adviser Group |
|
|
The farmer group also discussed and identified present shortcomings in farming practices and agreed on a set of actions in order to attain desired soil characteristics on their farms. Their suggestions included:
- education on alternatives to tillage
- research on ways to establish and protect trees
- objective (fact, not fictitious) information on fertiliser use
- research on soil characteristics in adverse conditions, such as a wet spring
- landscape architecture and rural planning
- a better system for information transfer
- fencing unsuitable country to prevent soil erosion (with some support of public funds).
Water
Both groups agreed that New Zealand rural communities should have access to clean and abundant water resources. The farmer group accorded priority to the availability of abundant clean water, as required, and at an affordable price. The scientist group, on the other hand, accorded high priority to technical characteristics of water such as low concentrations of coliforms, and nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen, and a good freshwater habitat for wildlife. Both groups a-reed that the desired water quality and volume would require appropriate land-use management to be put in place at the catchment level. Other suggestions from the groups, with respect to water, are summarised in Table 4. Neither group explicitly stated concern for downstream users' access to water, but this was embedded in their response (e.g. "keep animals out of streams").
Table 4: Ways identified by exchange forum participants to achieve desired attributes of water supplied (or available) to rural communities
Farmer Group |
Scientist/Policy-Adviser Group |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The scientist/policy-adviser group voiced the following suggestions to facilitate the availability of quality water to farming communities:
- extension education on water quality
- definition of measurement standards for water quality
- measure adverse cumulative catchment water and soil effects
- biophysical criteria for defining land parcels according to sustainability
- development of information technology to integrate biophysical, economic factors on temporal and spatial scales, and predict outcomes
- research on the impact of fertiliser applications on water quality
Animals
Both the farmer and the scientist/policy-adviser groups agreed that a match between land characteristics and the type of animal farmed was important. The farmer group emphasised physical and reproductive animal traits, while the scientist/policy-adviser group specified profitability (reflected by efficiency in marketing and price forecasting) as their major concern. Both groups did not define specific animal characteristics, but outlined the problems which required the attention of all stakeholders (Table 5).
Areas of agreement between the groups were on the need for more effective breeding programmes, in particular for disease resistance, as well as research on animal health and welfare. The scientist/ policy-adviser group considered the 'animal' issue on a more global scale than farmers and looked at pricing and marketing as well as production aspects.
Table 5: Problems identified with achieved desired animal traits for sustainable animal production.
Farmer Group |
Scientist/policy-adviser Group |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plants
The establishment and maintenance of the right pasture species to attain a stable plant community was highlighted by both groups. However, the scientist/policy-adviser group was more specific than farmers about technical parameters such as low toxin levels, nutritious pasture and seasonal pasture growth rates. Measures suggested to maintain healthy plant community are described in Table 6.
Table 6: Measures suggested to maintain a healthy plant community in pastoral farming systems.
Farmer Group |
Scientist/Policy-adviser Group |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Social
Both groups began their pyramids for the social issue with local government, the fan-Lily and the community. In fact, the two concept pyramids for social issues closely resembled each other, although the scientist/policy-adviser pyramid combined economic and social issues. Both groups agreed that in order to have happy families and a supportive community it is important to have accessible services (education, health, financial institutions), alternative employment opportunities and improved means of communication. Areas most needed to attain social sustainability were the linkages between technologies and community groups (scientist/ policy-adviser group), and increasing 'grassroot' involvement in policy making and establishing pro-active community lobbyists (farmer group) to influence local and national governments policies.
Economic
Similar pyramids for economic issues were developed by both groups and these emphasised profitability, affordable land, their 'clean and green' image and marketing strategies. The scientist/ policy-adviser group went into considerable detail to show the elements that were required in order to achieve long-term profitability, such as a minimum cash surplus, effective management strategies, a stable government and reliable 'quality' information. The group included many elements that were beyond the control of farmers or the farming community, and in some cases beyond the control of New Zealand (for example, the farming sector, being export-oriented, is subject to fluctuations in overseas demand and this influences product prices paid to farmers).
The scientist/policy-adviser group prepared a list of areas that required attention in order to achieve the desired social and economic goals as follows:
- personal development - knowledge /skills, goal setting;
- access expertise and information;
- collect and evaluate market information;
- monitor farm indicators - (e.g. soil fertility, faecal egg counts);
- monitor "social" indicators - "quality of life"; and
- contribute actively to the community.
Factors such as international markets and political stability were identified as major constraints to pastoral farming, and these were acknowledged to be largely beyond the control of farmers.
Priorities within pastoral systems
The specific priority needs of research for respective farming systems represented at the Exchange Forum are summarised in Table 7. Financial viability was identified as the first and foremost issue of sustainable pastoral agriculture system. The three sub-groups (dairy, sheep and beef and deer) identified different indicators of financial viability. For example, the dairy group expected to see more concrete measures of allowable environmental impacts, demand characteristics, optimal input and output combinations and their feasibility, and the health of dairy cows. All parameters were directly or indirectly related to financial viability. Similarly, the sheep and beef cattle group was concerned about stabilising farm returns, increasing the reliability of market and technology information, obtaining more responsive lending and increasing the participation of community and farmer lobby groups. Environmental and non-tariff barriers were also voiced by the deer group, as a constraint to their on-going viability.
Conclusion from the farmer-scientist exchange forum
The forum accorded high priority to the need for better communication and information flow to and from farmers as evidenced by substantial gaps between the understanding and expectations of agricultural production systems by the farmers and the scientist/policy-adviser group. The lack of an organised technology transfer system and weak inter-agency coordination were identified by the participants as a cause of duplication of research and technology development. Farmers, in particular, identified that access to "reliable" information had become their major concern. The need for increased effort to develop more effective extension services and information transfer from research to the farming community was highlighted. Farmer discussion groups were suggested as a potential media for ensuring more effective technology transfer to farmers.
Within the farming community itself, the areas of priority were the need for greater support and involvement of farmers in lobby groups, and encouraging their greater participation in local or regional committees /groups that were responsible for managing resources associated with farming (such as water catchment management groups). Greater community support was also emphasised, which reflected partly on the need for a greater drive from within the community, and also the need to maintain adequate rural services to meet the needs of farmers.
Table 7: Priority of needs to obtain sustainability for different types of livestock production systems in New Zealand.
Dairy |
Sheep and beef |
Deer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| maximise optimal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Market research, information and forecasting was specifically cited as an important element of communication to rural communities. Farm profitability remained at the top of farmers' minds and stable returns for their produce was a major concern. Farmers reported they have not received timely or reliable market signals from the meat and wool industries in particular, and this posed considerable difficulties with long-term planning'
The participating farmers in general, expressed reasonable support for the Resource Management Act as an instrument in providing a framework within which the adoption of environmentally friendly and sustainable fanning practices could be planned. However, the competency of implementing agencies and environmental standardisations appeared as major issues of concern, and farmers expressed their view that they need to develop an effective lobby group to have input into the setting up and definition of standards. Off-farm income was identified as an important element of sustainable farming Off-farm employment and off-farm investment were highlighted as an immediate concern by many farmers. The outcome of the Forum in terms of the three objectives set out for the day are summarised in Tables 8, 9 and 10.
With respect to Objective 1, the Forum participants agreed that the six components of sustainability be clearly defined as:
- soil characteristics (good structure, stable, fertile, uncontaminated and low sediment content);
- water quality (clean, abundant, affordable, good fresh water habitat and low coliform, P and N content);
- farming with animal(s) suited to the land,
- plant attributes (right species, stable plant community, low toxin levels, nutritious pastures and appropriate seasonal growth);
- social /community indicators (happy farm families, supportive community, consultative and proactive local government and committed community leaders); and
- economic factors (long-term profitability/viability, profitable markets and affordable land) (Table 8).
Table 8: Key sustainability factors identified by the participants in the forum (Objective 1).
Soils: |
Water |
Animals: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plants: |
Social: |
Economic: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
To attain these sustainability factors the participants identified 28 specific technologies and management practices (Objective 2; Table 9). The land management practices considered important for achieving the goal of sustainable farming included low tillage, land use according to land gradient, tree planting on steep slopes and poor soils, humus restoration on depleted soils, sabbatical fallowing, judicious and effective fertiliser application, retirement of extra steep land from grazing, correct stocking levels according to land type, better knowledge of soil types, maintaining full vegetative cover, nutrient application to replace losses, maintaining soil depth for water storage and productive use, a proper balance of pasture and trees, soil condition monitoring, riparian buffer strips, steps to minimise erosion, long-term planning for land use, monitoring farm indicators, and planned gravel extraction. The environmental management practices considered by the participants for sustainable farming were control of drench and other chemicals going through the ground into water, ability to dispose of "used" water, correct effluent/ irrigation applications for given soil characteristics, keeping animals out of streams and minimising soil erosion. A third set of practices, economic management factors, a-reed amongst the participants included the farmer's personal development (knowledge/skills and goal setting), accessing expertise and information and collecting and evaluating market information. The final set of practices recommended by the participants for achieving the goal of sustainable farming involved monitoring social and quality of life indicators and active participation of the entire community.
Table 9: Technologies and management practices important for achieving the goal of sustainable farming (Objective 2).
Practices |
Practices |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The participants identified eight specific constraints to the adoption of sustainable technologies and management practices in livestock farming (Objective 3; Table 10). Lack of finance reflected by lenders' reluctance to advance loans when farmers needed cash for undertaking practices for sustainable farming was one of the major constraints faced by farmers. Second, farmers were not convinced that they should be entirely responsible for environmental degradation, particularly in light of the fact that any pollution due to farming is usually difficult to source (non-pollution). Plant and animal pests featured as the third constraint and the participants , in general, agreed that existing technologies for plant and animal pest control, were inadequate. Fourth, modem farming is time demanding and quite stressful, especially in the light of low farm returns in which farmers cannot afford to employ extra farm worker(s). At the time of the Exchange Forum, participants were concerned about the prevailing political instability, changes in government policies towards agriculture and the upcoming MMP election.
Table 10: Constraints to the adoption of sustainable technologies and management practices in livestock farming, identified by the participants (Objective 3).
Constraints |
Constraints |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changing international markets and non-tariff barriers introduced increased volatility to farm profitability (Table 11). The farmers in particular felt that they had low morale in comparison to people engaged in other occupations. Finally, changing rural demographics and increased reliance on off-farm income (in the presence of fewer opportunities) in order to maintain the viability of their farms imposed difficulties for farmers and constraints on their ability to farm sustainability.
Rapid Rural Appraisal (Dairy Group Discussion) Findings
The purpose of the second stage of this research project was to corroborate some of the findings of the Farmer-Scientist/Policy-adviser Exchange Forum and to probe further in terms of the future of farmers with respect to sustainable livestock farming. The results from the two discussion groups proved to be very much alike and largely resembled the findings generated by the forum. Both groups expressed the view that there was too much information on farming available for farmers to absorb. As a consequence, some farmers were confused when they wanted to source factual information. The Occupational Safety and Health Act was a particular annoyance to farmers and they thought paper work related to the Act was cumbersome and unnecessary. Findings from the farmer group meetings are summarised in Table 11.
The discussion groups identified seven key constraints relevant to their dairy farming and suggested a number of potential research areas (Table 11). Farmers were concerned about the excessive dependence on 'pasture-only' dairy production system. They had very little knowledge about the economics of feeding options or of different levels of feed input. They were keen to see alternative but profitable methods to the 'pasture only' system. Farmers also felt that more accurate weather forecasting information was important to their pasture management.
The farmers suggested they were probably "pushed" by fertiliser company representatives and consultants to apply higher levels of fertiliser than is necessary. They were looking for public domain information on the recommendations for the most economic rate of fertiliser application.
Although dairy farmers have lobby groups, the participants in the discussion group were not clear about their effectiveness or their own role with respect to particular lobby groups. They expected support for enhancing the effectiveness of such groups. There was a market information gap between the farmers and the meat processors, reflected by low prices for dairy cattle sold for meat. Market information, including the present milk payout indicators, were considered confusing and the participants hoped that a more refined milk payout indicator could be formulated (e.g. to reflect the actual value of products less processing costs).
Farmers also felt that dairy farm workers were not adequately trained in technology and farm management. They also expressed concern that researchers were not necessarily sensitive to the needs of farmers. An on-going training programme to up-skill dairy farm staff and a closer association between farmers and researchers were recommended by the discussion groups. The respondents also indicated that while there was a lot (in some cases excessive) of information about technologies and management practices in the market place, this often had not been critically reviewed in clear terms for farms. They thought that institutions like Massey University should take an active role as an independent evaluator of technologies and management practices for dairy farmers.
Table 11: Constraints and research areas identified by the Shannon and Himatangi dairy discussion groups.
Constraints faced by dairy farmers |
Research areas identified |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As indicated earlier, the RRA was carried out only with dairy discussion groups and because of time constraints. Similar discussions with sheep/beef and deer groups were not able to be held. In the light of this limitation, a decision was taken to focus on the third stage of the research, that is the national mail survey.
National Mail Survey Findings
The lessons learnt from the Farmer Scientist/ Policy-adviser Exchange Forum and dairy farmer discussion groups, along with interactions with stakeholders, formed the basis for the national mail survey. The objective of the survey was to identify household- and farm-level sustainable technologies and management practices adopted by farmers and to analyse the constraints that they face in adopting them. Information was collected on various issues related to sustainable pastoral agriculture in New Zealand. This included farmer perceptions about selected sustainable farming and land management practices, sources of farming information, practices adopted by farmers (land retirement, use of inorganic fertilisers and organic manure, tree planting, soil erosion, soil drainage, pugging damage control, weed control, new pasture cultivars, silage management, water management, farm and household characteristics, and enterprise specific practices). The survey results are drawn from 316 useable questionnaires (313 had complete
Classification of farms in New Zealand
The number of total breeding cows, other cattle, breeding ewes, other sheep, hinds and other deer were converted to total stock units. Based on the distribution of total stock units and enterprise type, farms were classified into four categories:
- Dairy farms (with more than 60 cows);
- Larger sheep, beef and/ or deer farms with more than 500 stock units;
- Smaller sheep, beef and/ or deer farms with total stock units between 50 and 500; and
- Hobby farms (total stock units less than 50). The distribution of farms in the four classes is presented in Table 12 (see Tables at the end of the report). The survey sample contained 23% dairy, 23% larger units (sheep, beef and/or deer), 27% smaller units (sheep, beef and/or deer) and 28% hobby farms. The hobby farm category also contained farms with no livestock in 1996. Most results are discussed in terms of these four farm categories.
Farm and household characteristics
Age
An average farmer was 44 years old, with little variation across different farm types (Table 13).
Hobby farmers were the youngest of the farm classes (43.8 years) while those from the larger units were the oldest group (45.5 years).
Gender
Nearly one-fourth of the sample respondents were women (Table 13). Gender composition across farm class was statistically significant (P < 0.001). The major reason for this was that the dairy farm group had more women respondents (36%), while the hobby farms group had only 14% women respondents. This result confirms the increasing role of women in dairy farming.
Educational level
Nearly two fifths of the respondents had an educational qualification up to the fifth form, while 28% had higher school certificate and 27% had post-high school qualifications (Table 13). Respondents from all four farm classes had achieved a similar educational attainment. The educational qualification of the partners of respondents was marginally higher than theirs, but also fairly similar across farm classes, except the partners of dairy farm respondents, who had a lower level of educational attainment. This may be associated with the fact that 36% of the dairy respondents were women.
Involvement on current farm
Farmers were asked to indicate their years of involvement on the current farm. This ranged from four (hobby farms) to nine years (larger units) across the farm types (Table 14). The result is consistent with the expectation that larger capital outlays and other commitments are required on dairy and larger unit sheep, beef and/or deer farms and hence a longer involvement is common on such farms (8 to 9 years).
Dependency on farm
On average, dairy, larger unit, smaller unit and hobby farms supported 4.1, 3.8, 1.0 and 1.2 household members respectively, in 1991. By 1996 the dairy farms supported 20% more household members and smaller units supported 30% more household members. On the other hand, larger units and hobby farms supported 13% and 9% fewer household members, respectively. The result implies that in the absence of increased off-farm revenue, dependency on farm income has increased on dairy and small farms, while it has somewhat decreased on larger unit and hobby farms. The results also reflect the recent (1995 onwards) economic downturn and reduced size of drawings from the farm businesses in the face of reduced opportunities for alternative income.
Farm size
Total farm area
The distribution of farm size by farm class appears in Table 15. Farms were grouped into five area categories: less than 50 ha, 50-100 ha, 100-150 ha, 150-250 ha and over 250 ha. The average farm size by farm type was 114, 463, 34 and 23 ha for dairy, larger units, smaller units and hobby farms, respectively, and the farm size distribution by farm type was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Almost 91% of hobby farms and 85% of the smaller units were less than 50 ha. On the other hand, 47% of the dairy farms were between 50 and 100 ha, and another 21% were between 100 to 150 ha. Twenty-one percent of dairy farms and 73% of the larger units exceeded 150 ha.
Effective farm area
Effective farm area exhibited a similar pattern to total farm area for the different farm size categories. The mean effective area was 90, 71, 83 and 70% of the total area for dairy, larger units, smaller units and hobby farms, respectively (Table 16). The coefficient of variation of the effective area was 71, 144, 139 and 198% for dairy, larger units, smaller units and hobby farms, respectively. The greater variation in effective area on non-dairy properties was expected, as these properties usually have greater proportion of steeper topography not suitable for grazing (Table 16).
Land contour
Nearly 62% of the dairy and hobby farms comprised flat land, while half of the larger units were rolling/easy hill country (Table 16). Twenty-one percent of the larger units had steep hill land. The higher proportion of farms with steep hill contour was consistent with the 71% effective area for grazing. One-third of the dairy and smaller units had rolling/easy hill topography.
Livestock composition on different types of farm
The mean number of capital livestock by farm class is summarised in Table 17. An average dairy farm had 234 cows in milk in the 1996/97 season, which is slightly larger than the 1995 national herd average of 196 cows (LIC 1996). The coefficient of variation was 53%. The smallest and largest dairy herds had 72 and 660 cows, respectively. As of 1 July 1996, both larger and smaller units were dominated by breeding ewes (means of 1579 and 104, respectively).
Farm ownership structure
About 58% of farms were operated under a partnership agreement and 30% of farms had a sole owner (Table 18). Only 12% of farms were structured as a family company, trust or other form of ownership. Ownership structure varied significantly across the different farm classes. Two-fifths of hobby farms and less than one-fifth of the larger units were under sole ownership. Twenty-two percent of larger units were owned by a family company or trust.
Position of the farm operator
Almost two thirds (60%) of the farm operators were partners, and, as expected, about one fifth (23%) of the dairy farms had a sharemilker or other operator Table 18). The representation of sharemilkers in dairy farming in the survey sample is lower than that reported in the LIC data (23% vs. 33%; LIC 1996). Fewer than 4% of the farms were managed by a manager and this reflects the relatively higher cost of managerial staff. Variation between farm operator position and farm class was significant P < 0.001.
Labour employment on farm
One-fourth of the farms had at least one full-time or part-time worker(s). Farm labour was largely restricted to dairy farms and larger units; 57% and 37% of these farms had a full- or part-time worker employed. Only 7 and 10% of the smaller units and hobby farms employed a worker, respectively.
About 21% of f - arms, excluding the smaller units, had faced problems with the availability of skilled farm workers.
Views of farmers on sustainability issues
Farmers were asked to express their views on 14 issues concerning the sustainability of farm businesses. They were asked to reveal their preferences at one of five levels (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree and strongly agree). The term "sustainability" was worded as 'long-term viability" to minimise antagonism toward the former term. Long-term viability is implicit with farmers being able to afford to comply with, and implement practices for, the RMA, and is a term which farmers are used to relating to. Viability is a more encompassing term than "profitability" because while the latter may be positive, it does not necessarily reflect the asset or cashflow position of the firm. In contrast, it is axiomatic that if a farm is viable, it must also be profitable.
The response for all farms is summarised in Table 19. For presentation purposes in this report, the five response categories were reduced to three (strongly disagree /disagree, neutral, agree/strongly agree). The chi-square statistics were computed to test independence between farmer opinion and farm classes. Ten of the 14 statements reflecting farmer views were statistically different across the four farm classes. Farmers agreed, or strongly agreed, to statements positively related to farm profitability. Caring for a better environment was clearly reflected in their views, particularly when such actions could be related to increased farm profitability. For example, 82% of farmers revealed that they were willing to change management practices in order to control soil erosion; 86% thought that the long-term economic well-being of the farm businesses was just as important as protecting the environment; 92% of farmers expressed support for practices to improve water and soil quality if these were profitable; and 74% indicated that they were unlikely to become members of a Landcare group, or similar, community group for managing natural resources if farming is unprofitable.
In general, clear disagreement/ strong disagreement was found with respect to 4 of the 14 statements. Nearly 62% of the farmers did not think that weeds should only be controlled by biological means, which is consistent with the fact that most of the farmers indicated that they used chemical sprays to control weeds on their farms (Table 39). More than half (53%) of the farmers did not agree with the statement that all continuously running waterways should be fenced off from livestock. This reflects the high cost, and in many cases impracticability, of fencing off small water ways in particular, from livestock. Almost half of the farmers (49%) disagreed with the statement that reliable market information to guide long-term farm management decisions was readily available to farmers. Similarly, 44% of the farmers disagreed that given time the RMA would help to improve the profitability of farm businesses. Sixty-nine percent of the farmers held the view that growth promotants should be discouraged for beef production and 62% of the farmers considered animal welfare on New Zealand farms to be very good. Seven of the 14 statements on sustainability issues are discussed next by farm class.
Weed control only by biological means
Dairy farmers were most opposed to the statement that "weeds should only be controlled by biological means" (76%). Even two-fifths of the hobby farmers disagreed with this statement (Table 20). Less than one-fifth of the farmers were neutral to this statement. The farmer's view reflected that weed control is an important problem and would have to be contained effectively and within a short period of time. The farmers' response indicates that they do not have confidence in (or perhaps are unaware) of non-chemical means of weed control.
The Role of the RMA
Only 15% of the farmers agreed that "given time the RMA will improve the profitability of farm businesses", while 44% disagreed with the statement and 42% were neutral (Table 21). The proportion of farmers expressing a neutral opinion suggests that either it is too early to assess the long-term effect of the RMA or that there is confusion regarding the economic and financial impacts of the RMA on individual farms. This result has implications for Councils and other agencies responsible for establishing standards and overseeing the implementation of the RMA. The "bottomline" for the vast majority of farmers is that the cost of changes in farming practice need to be more carefully linked with long-term farm business viability.
Fencing off all running. waterways from livestock
Farmers on larger units sheep, beef and/or deer farms were most opposed to the statement that "all continuous running waterways should be fenced off from livestock (71%), compared to 40% of hobby farmers, 45% of the dairy farmers, and 59% of those on smaller units (Table 22). On the other hand, 45% of the hobby and 38% of the dairy farmers agreed with the statement. Strong opposition to fencing off all continuous running water from larger units stems from the fact that fencing costs are likely to be prohibitive, particularly on hill country and such fences are likely to compromise livestock movement and farm access.
Greatly restricted use of agricultural chemicals
About 44% of dairy farmers disagreed that farmers would support greatly restricted use of agricultural chemicals in order to enhance the 'clean and green' image of New Zealand agriculture, while 20% were neutral and only 36% agreed with the statement (Table 23). Farmer opposition to the statement should be interpreted in the light of need to effectively control pests, diseases and weed on farms within a short period of time (e.g. while ragwort can be controlled biologically this takes considerable time and the effectiveness of control is related to increases and subsequent rapid falls in the population of the control agent).
Protecting water quality
Two-fifths of the commercial farmers (both dairy and large units) did not agree with the statement that "protecting water quality is more important than using fertiliser to maintain soil fertility" (Table 24). Overall, 45% of the respondents agreed with the statement. Farmers considered that the application of fertiliser was equally important to the maintenance of pasture productivity. Nearly two-thirds of the hobby farmers agreed with the statement, and this may have been motivated by their greater concern for water quality, than the amount of pasture grown.
Future generation in farming career
Less than half of the farmers in any class (dairy, larger units, smaller units, hobby) agreed that children from farm families continue to be interested in taking up a career in farming (Table 25). Changing lifestyle, low returns from farming, greater capital requirements for future farm operations and limited prospects for further career enhancement are likely to have shaped farmers' views on the 'desirability of their children pursuing a farming career' statement. Some 44% of dairy, as well as hobby farmers, expressed neutrality to the statement. Thus, there is quite a high level of uncertainty or ambiguity amongst the farmers about the feasibility (desirability) of the inter-generational transfer of farm property.
Reliable market information to guide long-term farm management decisions
An overwhelming majority of respondents from the larger unit sheep, beef and/or deer farms (73%) disagreed with the statement that "reliable market information to guide long-term farm management decisions is readily available" (Table 26). Interestingly, 44% of dairy farmers also disagreed with the statement. Less than one-third of the farmers agreed with the statement. The farmers' view on this matter was also reflected in comments to a later question in the survey (see Appendix 1) on the lack of transparency in market organisations, the prohibitive cost of acquiring information independently' and the inadequacy of market information systems to provide a reasonable indication of the Ionger-term outlook for specific pastoral farming products.
Sustainable technologies and management practices adopted by farmers
Sustainable technologies and management practices adopted by New Zealand farmers were broadly grouped into five categories land management, pasture growth and development, livestock specific technologies, information technologies and socioeconomic factors. Land management included retirement of land from grazing, application of inorganic fertilisers and organic manure, tree planting soil erosion control. Pasture growth and development included soil drainage, control of soil pugging damage weed control, new pasture cultivars and water management. Information technologies covered farmer access to a computer and the agricultural knowledge and information system. The socioeconomic factors included farm ownership, off-farm employment and farm finance. In the following sections specific technology and management practices associated with these aspects are briefly discussed.
Land retirement
Magnitude of land retirement
Twenty-seven percent of the farmers reported that they had retired some land from grazing in the past five years (Table 27). Larger sheep, beef and/or deer units retired more land from grazing than any other farm class (on average 94 ha compared to 36 ha in dairy, 15 ha on smaller units and 8 ha on hobby farms). However, the coefficient of variation in all four farm class was very high (more than 200%). This may have been due to the retirement of the whole farm or ownership of a larger share of country not suitable for grazing by some of the respondents. The median farm area retired from grazing was much smaller (less than 3 ha on dairy and hobby farms, 3.3 ha on larger units and 6.0 ha on smaller units). Land retirement practices were consistent with the recent low returns from sheep and beef cattle, in particular.
Future land retirement Plans
Farmers were also asked about their future plans for land retirement (in the next three years). Ten percent of all farmers (40% of the farmers who had retired land in the past 5 years) reported that they planned to retire additional land from grazing. Respondents on larger sheep, beef and/or deer units were planning to retire an average of 16 ha land from grazing, compared to less than 2 ha on dairy farms, 6.2 ha on smaller units and 3.1 ha on hobby farms (Table 28). Relatively easier land contour, good soils and comparatively higher returns for dairy farms were likely to have all contributed to a smaller area being set aside from grazing by dairy farmers. If returns for sheep and beef improve in the next three years, farmers planning to retire more land may revisit their goals for land retirement. Their decisions may involve higher stocking rates on available land, the withdrawal of part of the recently retired land for grazing or a reallocation of dairy and non-dairy land.
Impact of land retirement on farm income
No clear indication of the impact of land retirement from grazing on farm profitability was obtained from the survey respondents (Table 29). Half of the farmers who had already retired land thought that their farm returns had not been reduced by this practice, while 12% thought their income had increased and 20% thought their income had decreased relative to the situation before land retirement. Another 17% of the farmers were unsure about the impact of land retirement on their income.
Farmers were asked to identify the reasons for retirement of land from grazing (Table 30). Nearly 23% of the farmers had retired land because they wanted to change their farming system (reallocate their farm area under different farm enterprises), and 47% of the farmers wanted to establish forestry. Other reasons such as enhancement of the environment, improvement of soil structure, shelter for livestock, preservation of native bush and lower labour requirements were also cited as important factors in their decisions to retire land. Reasons for land retirement were fairly uniform across farm class. Fewer than 30% of the farmers mentioned the unprofitability of farming soil erosion control or increasing production as the reason for retiring land.
Application of chemical fertilisers
Trends in chemical fertiliser use
Almost all of the dairy and larger unit sheep, beef and/or deer farmers had applied chemical fertilisers in the past five years (Table 31). Interestingly, the majority of respondents on smaller units and hobby farms also had applied chemical fertiliser in the past five years. Half of the farmers reported that chemical fertiliser use on their farms had increased in the past five years and about 39% had maintained the application rate. Only 10% of the farmers had decreased chemical fertiliser use. An overwhelming majority of dairy farmers (77%) reported that they had increased, and only less than 2% had reduced, the use of chemical fertiliser in the past five years. The farmers' response to this question, combined with the information on finances (Table 54), indicates that dairy farmers as well as sheep, beef and/ or deer farmers are under pressure to increase the use of chemical fertiliser to maintain soil fertility and thus pasture productivity. Compared to 1995, slightly more than one-fourth of the farmers had increased the application of chemical fertiliser on their farms.
Information for chemical fertiliser application decisions
Farmers were asked to indicate the frequency of reliance on four specified parameters for chemical fertiliser use on their farms. The parameters were: soil test results, an independent consultant's advice, advice from a chemical fertiliser company representative, and their own judgement and experience. The frequency of reliance was recorded as never, occasionally, regularly and always (Table 32). Slightly more than one-sixth of the farmers always used soil test results, 4% of the farmers always relied on an independent consultant's advice, 6% of the farmers always relied on chemical fertiliser company representatives and 34% of the farmers always used their own judgement and experience. More than two-fifths of the dairy and larger unit sheep, beef and/or deer unit farmers, and about 28% of other farmers, regularly depended on soil test results. Slightly more than one-fifth of the farmers regularly relied on chemical fertiliser company representative's advice and 32% of the farmers on larger units regularly relied on an independent consultant's advice. Thus, the majority of the farmers used mixed criteria to decide how much chemical fertiliser to apply. Relatively more inexperienced farmers, as well as those on large farms, were more likely than the other categories of farmers, to rely on an independent consultant or a chemical fertiliser company representative for advice.
Application of organic manure
Trends in organic manure application
One-fourth of the farmers had in the past five years applied organic manure to their farms (Table 33). Forty two percent of the farmers who had applied organic manure to their farm also reported that the use of organic manure had increased since 1991. There was no major distinction across farm classes, except dairy farms, where 24% of the farmers who had applied organic manure reported that the use of organic manure on their farm had decreased in the past five years.
Perceived impact of organic manure
More than three-fifths of the farmers (62%) perceived that the application of organic manure on their farm was "most important" for increasing the organic matter in soil, and more than half of the farmers thought that it was "most important" for increasing pasture productivity (Table 34). Twenty-eight percent of the farmers thought that organic manure applications were "most important" for reducing the use of chemical fertilisers, although dairy farmers were not convinced that the use of organic manure would achieve this aim. This result is not surprising, given that dairy farmers tend to apply much higher rates of chemical fertiliser than farmers with other classes of livestock. None of the dairy farmers thought that the application of organic manure was "most important" because it enabled disposal of dairy shed effluent. However, an overwhelming majority (81%) of dairy farmers thought that organic manure application was "somewhat important in helping with the disposal of dairy shed effluent. This concept is promoted by the regional councils as a means of in-land disposal.
Tree planting
Area established in trees
More than three-fourths of the farmers (78%) had planted trees at some stage on their farms and this behaviour was fairly uniform across the four farm classes (Table 35). In the past five years, slightly fewer than half of the farmers (all classes) had planted trees on their farm. The average area in tree plantation varied across farm classes (13.5 ha for larger units, 9.4 ha for smaller units, 2.1 ha for dairy farms and 1.9 ha for hobby farms). If current market conditions prevail, farmers planned to plant further land in woodlots in the next three years (on average 9.4 ha for larger units, 18.5 ha for smaller units, 4.5 ha for dairy farms and 1.7 ha for hobby farms). Farmers also recognised that their planting regime may change under different market conditions for farm and forestry produce.
Importance of tree planting to farmers
Farmers were given eight reasons for planting trees and asked to indicate the importance of each in the context of their own farm. Three choices were offered: not important, important and very important. An overwhelming majority of the farmers considered shade and shelter for livestock, and the improvement of farm appearance, as an "important" or "very important" reason for tree planting (Table 35). Nearly two-thirds of the farmers considered tree planting to be important or "very important- for erosion control, and nearly three-fifths of the farmers viewed tree planting as an investment crop. Only two-fifths of the farmers expressed the importance of tree planting in terms of providing timber for the farm use and slightly more than one-third considered tree planting to be "important" for providing a riparian strip to protect waterways. Proportionately more of the farmers on large units attached importance to planting of trees for erosion control, timber for farm use, riparian strip protection of waterways and shelter for livestock, compared to other farmers.
Soil erosion control
Type and intensity of Problem
Farmers were asked to indicate the intensity on their properties of landslips, run-off of top soil and stream bank erosion as no problem, or a minor, moderate or severe problem. Nearly two-thirds of the farmers reported no problem with landslips and slightly more than half of the farmers reported no problems with stream bank erosion (Table 36). More than one-fifth of the farmers indicated all three types of soil erosion were a minor problem. One in eight farmers reported that landslips were a "moderate to severe" problem, and one in eleven farmers reported run-off of top soil as being a "moderate to severe" problem, while one in five farmers had experienced "moderate to severe problems with stream bank erosion. The severity of erosion problems was relatively more pronounced on the larger sheep, beef and/or deer farms.
Steps taken to control soil erosion
A number of steps had been undertaken by farmers to control soil erosion. These included withdrawal of land (temporarily or permanently) from grazing, planting of trees, planting groundcover vegetation, the use of minimum tillage, riparian planting, and establishing physical barriers (Table 37). Tree planting was the most popular step; 45% of the farmers had planted trees to control soil erosion. One-fourth of the farmers had withdrawn land from grazing, while 15% had adopted riparian planting or constructed physical barriers. Thirteen percent of the farmers (dominated by the dairy and hobby farmers) had used minimum tillage technology. Six percent of the farmers had taken other steps, such as oversowing by air, control of water run-off with drainage, controlled grazing and lower stocking rates, improved fencing, and installing an improved flood and race irrigation system.
Soil drainage
Farm drainage status
On average : 70% of the area of the surveyed farms had free draining soils (median 80%). More (37%) of the dairy farms had poor draining soils than other farm classes (Table 38). On average 11% of the farm area was in tile or mole drains, and 5.4% of the area had been contour drained. No specific drainage system was in place on 68% of the area of the 'average' survey farm. On average, 47% of the land on dairy farms had had some form of drainage installed.
Pugging damage control
Intensity of pugging damage to pastures
Sixty percent of the farmers reported "no" or "minor" pugging damage to pasture, while 30% had a "moderate" problem and 10% reported pugging to be a "serious" problem. Probably due to the flatter contour and greater preponderance of heavy soils, pugging damage was relatively more pronounced on dairy farms than the other farm classes. Nearly two-thirds of the dairy farmers reported "moderate to severe" pugging damage to pastures.
Steps taken to reduce pugging damage during winter-spring season
Rotational grazing with regular shifts of livestock was the most popular step taken by farmers (69%) to reduce pugging damage. Fewer than half of the farmers had never fenced off the wettest areas from grazing, while 43% of the farmers had never used on-off grazing. More than 70% of the farmers never held animals in a sacrifice paddock/river accretion, on a feed pad or on a race-way to mitigate pugging damage to pasture. The use of these techniques was largely dominated by dairy farmers. For example, on-off grazing had been adopted by 37% of the dairy farmers.
Weed control
Time spent on weed control
On average, farmers spent 22 days per year controlling weeds on their farms. Dairy farmers spent at least 50% more time than other types of farmers on weed control (Table 39), despite dairy farms being much smaller in terms of area than the larger units. The time allocated to weed control indicates that weeds are serious a problem for most farmers.
Method of weed control
More than 80% of the dairy, larger units and smaller unit farmers, and more than half of hobby farmers considered chemical sprays to be important or "very important" for weed control (Table 39). Cutting or grubbing plants out, or removal of flowering heads, was the second most popular method of weed control (more than 70% of the farmers attached importance to this method). Livestock grazing pressure was also widely adopted for weed control, particularly by non-dairy farmers, 65% of whom considered this method to be "important" or "very important". More than three-fourths of farmers (all classes) responded that they either did not use or considered biological methods of weed control to be not important. Only 14% of dairy and hobby farmers, and 24% and seven of those on larger units and smaller units, respectively, considered biological method of weed control was "important"; none of the farmers thought that this method to be "very important". Other methods of weed control adopted by farmers included: burning, "peppering", re-grassing, cropping, slashing, mulching, mechanical cultivation, shading by tree planting and mowing.
New pastures and feed crops
New cultivars
The adoption of new pasture cultivars was largely dominated by dairy farmers. More than half (56%) of the dairy farmers had adopted new pasture cultivars in recent years, compared to 15% or fewer of the farmers associated with the other farm classes (Table 40). This probably reflects the more favourable physical and financial circumstances of dairy farmers to establish pastures. Of those farmers who had planted new pasture cultivars, the mean area established varied from 7.4 ha (smaller units) to 14.4 ha (dairy farms). Most of these farmers indicated that they would plant new cultivars again.
Crops for animal feed
Larger units (sheep, beef and/or deer), on average, had planted the greatest area in crops for animal feed in 1995 (5.7 ha), followed by dairy farms (3.6 ha). The smaller units and hobby farms also had allocated some to land crops for feed (0.9 and 0.6 ha, respectively (Table 40)).
Silage Preparation
Method of silage preparation
One-third of all farmers reported that they had made silage. This was largely dominated by dairy farmers (83%) (Table 41). Of the dairy farmers who had made silage, half of them used a pit for storage, 44% had a covered stacked on the ground surface, 63% used plastic wraps, and 24% had a concreted ground bunker. Of the farmers on larger units, only 15% had a silage pit in the ground, 12% had a covered stacked on the ground surface or a concreted bunker, and almost all (96%) had used plastic wraps. Respondents from smaller units had neither a pit in the ground or a concreted ground bunker, but 90% of these who had made silage in this farm category had used plastic wraps. None of the farmers surveyed used casein-based sprays as a protective wrap. Because of their low cost, plastic wraps are popular amongst all farmers, but their disposal presents a growing environmental problem as more and more farmers adopt baleage technology.
Control of Effluent seepage from silage
Two-thirds of the farmers who had made silage had no measure in place for silage effluent control. One-third of dairy farmers and one-sixth of hobby farmers, and fewer than 4% of the larger unit farmers used a ground soakage or a pond for this purpose (Table 41). One-fifth of the farmers thought that their silage system had no seepage problem and thus did not require any effluent control measure.
Livestock water management
Shortage of livestock drinking water
In general, the availability of livestock drinking water was satisfactory with only 4% of the farmers indicating that they experienced water shortages every year (Table 42). Another 16% experienced occasional water shortages. Of the larger unit farms, 7% had experienced a water shortage every year, while 23% had experienced an occasional shortage of water.
Sources of livestock drinking water
A bore was the major source of livestock drinking water on dairy, smaller units and hobby farms (Table 42). One third of the larger unit farms depended on streams for livestock drinking water. Other sources of livestock drinking water included rain water, dams and town/rural water supply schemes. One-fifth of the larger unit farmers also treated bore water, whereas, 11% of the dairy farmers treated stream water.
Provision of water to livestock
Most of the farms had troughs (90%), but livestock also had access to water in other ways (Table 43). Nearly half of the larger unit farms allowed livestock access to unfenced dams. Livestock also drank water from unfenced streams on dairy (24%), larger units (65%), smaller units (44%) and hobby farmers (41%). Livestock from 8-9% of the smaller and larger units also drank from sources such as drains, swamps, duck ponds, puddles, a well and a managed water race. Fewer than one-fifth of the farmers had chemically tested the drinking water for their livestock.
Protection of waterways
Two-fifths of all farms had fenced-off waterways from livestock (Table 43). The adoption of this measure varied considerably across farm classes but was most widely adopted by dairy farmers (60%) and least by those on the larger units (28%). This low level of adoption may stem from the high cost of fencing on hill country as well as the lower overall intensity of livestock farming. Farmers cited several reasons for fencing-off waterways from livestock: protection of livestock (10%), protection of water/ flora /fauna (20%), protection from flash flooding (19%) and compliance with regulations or as a demarcation to the property (12%). Reasons for not fencing included no requirement to fence (22%) and to keep drains open (19%).
Adoption of livestock specific practices
Dairy farms
Non-pasture feed supplements
Slightly more than one-third (35%) of the farmers used non-pasture feed supplements to feed milking cows (Table 44), and of these, 68% reported an increase in their farm income.
Induction of dairy cows
Almost all dairy farms had induced dairy cows (96%). On average, 13 cows per farm were induced in 1995 (Table 44). Banning induction because of animal welfare concerns would therefore impact on virtually all dairy farmers, but the economic consequences, on average, are likely to be relatively small (i.e. 13 cows from an average herd of 234 cows).
Treatment with CIDRs
Most of dairy farmers (94%) reported that they had treated some of their cows (mean 26 cows per herd) with CIDRs to initiate oestrus for mating in 1995 (Table 44). Commercial CIDR technology is relatively new (mid-80s) but these results indicate that it is widely adopted by dairy farmers. There are suggestions, in some quarters (e.g. Animal Welfare "lobbyists") that the use of CIDR technology by farmers should be restricted or banned. This would require dairy farmers to focus much more closely on herd feed management in early lactation. Better feeding should also reduce the need for inductions.
Empty cows
Farmers reported that 7% of their cows were empty at the end of the 1995/96 season.
Effluent disposal system
All dairy farmers reported that they had some kind of effluent disposal system in place. Half of them applied effluent to pasture using a manually shifted sprinkler or spray irrigation, or by spreading with a slurry tanker. One-third of the farmers had open-ponding, barrier ditches or long drains for effluent disposal. One-sixth of the farmers disposed of their dairy shed effluent using a honey wagon.
Standard of effluent disposal system
All of the dairy farmers considered that their effluent disposal system fulfilled Regional Council standards for effluent disposal. Ninety percent of them also felt that their existing system was adequate to meet Regional Council requirements for another three years, providing the standards were not tightened. Those who thought that their system was not adequate for the next three years, reported that an upgrade to their system would cost between NZ$100 to NZ$20,000 (on average NZ$7,508).
Sheep farms
Problem of drench resistance
Some sheep farmers were experiencing a drench resistance problem. Nearly one-fifth of the farmers reported a resistance problem with white drenches, while only 6% of the farmers faced a resistance problem with clear drenches (Table 45). Only one farmer reported a resistance problem with IVOMEC.
Steps taken to overcome drench resistance problem
The most popular way of overcoming a drench resistance problem amongst sheep farmers was to alternate drench fan-Lilies between seasons (83%), followed by grazing management to spell pastures (60%), increasing the proportion of cattle (25%) and drenching on the basis of faecal egg counts (16%). The first technique was most preferred by the larger unit farmers, while the second method was widely adopted by farmers on the smaller units. Only 4% of the farmers bought livestock from farms with a known worm resistance status (Table 45).
Purchase of Performance recorded rams
Forty-three percent of sheep farmers purchased performance recorded rams (Table 45). The proportion of farmers purchasing performance recorded rams was much higher (70%) on the larger properties, than on the smaller units (15%), and hobby farms (8%).
Pregnancy diagnosis by ultrasound scanning
A quarter of the sheep farmers had adopted pregnancy diagnosis of ewes by ultrasound scanning (Table 45). Like the purchase of performance recorded rams, there was a large variation in this practice between farm types. The adoption of scanning was lower on smaller unit farms compared to larger unit farms (9 vs. 42%).
Mating of ewe hoggets
One quarter of the sheep farmers had adopted mating of ewe hoggets (Table 45). The practice was more popular on the smaller (33%) than the larger (18%) properties.
Cover comb sheering
Forty-five percent of the larger farms and 21% of the smaller farmers reported that they had used cover combs for late autumn or winter-spring shearing of ewes (32% of all sheep farmers) (Table 45). Some 29% of the farmers on larger units and 13% of those on smaller units had used the technique for shearing hoggets (19% of all sheep farmers).
Beef cattle farms
Use of growth promotants
Only 6% of all beef cattle farmers (10% of those on large units and fewer than 5% of the other farmers) reported that they had used growth promotants in their cattle (Table 46). Of those farmers who had used gowth promotants, 80% planned to continue using the technology. Half of the farmers expressed the view that a ban on the use of growth promotants would decrease their farm income, 20% thought their income would not change and 30% were not sure of the likely impact of a ban on their farm income.
Deer farms
Pregnancy test by ultrasound scanning.
Six of the 21 deer farmers were using ultrasound scanning for pregnancy testing their hinds (Table 47). Proportionately, more number of the deer farmers on larger units were using this technology than those on smaller deer farms (29% vs 33%).
Herd testing. for TB infection
Tuberculosis infection is a major concern of the deer industry and most of the deer farmers were testing their herds for TB (Table 47).
Agricultural knowledge and information
Sources of knowledge and information
More than three-quarters of the farmers relied on farm publications, farming journals and newspapers for information pertaining to new farming practices and new equipment (Tables 48 and 49). Notable sources of published information were the farming sections in local newspapers, free farming bulletins and papers, the Dairy Exporter, Farm Adviser, Straight Furrow, New Zealand Farmer, Country Wide, Cross Country, Ploughman, Farming News, Dairyman, and the New Zealand Deer Farmer and company newsletters. Other major sources of information on new farming practices were membership of farmer associations (12%) and attendance at farmers conferences (eg. New Zealand Grasslands Association), travel to research stations and other leading farms, and participation in local, regional and national farm shows (7%). Other sources of information about new equipment included attendance at farmer conferences, travel to research stations and other leading farms, participation in local, regional and national farm. shows (19%), and membership of farmer associations (less than 4%). Farmers relied least on the mass media such as radio, television and Agritech 2000, for information on new farming practices and equipment.
Affiliation with farm advisory and other groups
Dairy farmers were more active in farm discussion groups compared to other farmers. Three quarters of dairy farmers participated in group discussions organised by Livestock Improvement Advisory staff and utilised their services (Table 50), Fewer than 7% of all sheep, beef and/or deer farmers had joined a Lenders community group. However, 18% of the larger unit farmers, 9% of the smaller unit farmers and 12% of the hobby farmers belonged to one or more other groups/ organisations. The list of groups, referred to by farmers, included a local farmers' group, Black and Coloured Sheep Breeds, Biodynamic Association, New Zealand Dairy Farmers' Association, Tree and Nut Association, Olive Association, Emu Farmers' Association, Viticulture Association, MRDC Group, Chestnut Growers Association, Orchardist Group, Small Farmers' Association, Team Avocado and NZBIG. Membership of various organisation was not necessarily related to pastoral farming.
Use of consultants
One in six dairy farmers employed a private consultant, but only 6% of these employed FarmWise consultants. Nearly 22% of the larger unit farmers, 6% of the smaller unit farmers and 8% of the hobby farmers also used the services of a private consultant, for specific technical and financial analysis pertaining to their farm. Farmers appeared to be cautious about employing private consultants and low prices for wool and beef are also likely to be constraining their ability to use a consultant. Because of inadequate knowledge, nearly 37% of the dairy farmers had a consultant on their farm for advise about suitable effluent disposal systems.
Computers on farm
Nearly half (44%) of the responding farmers had access to a computer (either they owned it or had access to hardware owned by someone else). Maintaining farm accounts and cash management were two major uses of the computer by farmers (Table 51). For example, 55% of the farmers rated the use of a computer for maintaining farm accounts as most important and 46% considered a computer to be important for cash management. One-quarter of farmers thought that a computer was most important for maintaining farm performance records and 30% of the farmers suggested that a computer was important for educational purposes. Only one in seven farmers used a computer for feed budgeting, and was dominated by dairy farmers (23%) compared to other farm classes (10-14%).
Occupational Health and Safety Act
The Occupational Health and Safety Act was certainly not popular amongst the farming community, particularly among the sheep, beef and/or deer farmers with larger properties (Table 52). More than half of the dairy and larger unit farmers, and nearly half of the other farmers (smaller unit and hobby), perceived the Act to be complicated. Nearly one-fifth of the farmers thought that the Act was restrictive and hindered their farming operation.
Off-farm employment
Number of household members working off-farm
Farmers considered off-farm employment to be part of the household requirement to meet mortgage obligations and provide cash flow for farming activities. Both men and women were engaged in off-farm activities (Table 53). As perhaps could be expected, almost 85% of those on smaller unit farms and 73% of those on hobby farms had at least one household member employed off-farm. However, 54% of those on the larger farm units and 39% of dairy farmers had at least one member working off-farm. The relatively high daily labour requirement in dairy farming is likely to be the main reason for the lower involvement of their household members in off-farm employment. The contribution of of f-farm employment in the survey households was: NZ$28652, NZ$33792, NZ$54321 and NZ$60400, for dairy, larger unit, smaller unit and bobby farm, respectively. Such income has the potential to have an important impact on farm viability or the standard of living for the farm family.
Commuting distance
One way commuting distance to off-farm work varied widely between farm classes (Table 53). Dairy farm household members travelled an average of 18 km each way (coefficient of variation, CV 67%), while the larger unit household members travelled farthest at 45 km each way ( CV 188%). Smaller unit household members travelled 28 km each way ( CV 128%) and hobby farmers travelled an average of 30 km each way (CV 89%). Shorter commuting distances for dairy farm household members reflects the generally closer proximity of these farms to urban centres.
Farm finance and maintenance of properties
Status of farm maintenance and mortgage
Nearly one-third of the farmers indicated that they had not been able to maintain their property due to financial constraints during the past five years. Only 57% of the farmers on the larger units (sheep, beef and/or deer) had been able to maintain their properties (Table 54). Their first priority has been to repay their mortgage commitments. Due to adverse economic returns, half of the farmers had rescheduled their financial obligations at some stage during the past five years. Ten percent of the farmers have not been able to meet their mortgage commitment on time (even after rescheduling of debt).
Debt repayment and farm development as priorities
Farmers were asked where they would allocate extra income if their farm income in 1996/97 increased by 10%. An overwhelming majority of the dairy and larger unit farmers responded that their first priority was to repay debt (Table 55). A similar view was also expressed by more than two-fifths of the smaller units and hobby farmers. The majority of farmers (except those on larger units) also accorded a high priority to investing in farm development and maintenance. One in six farmers thought that a part of the extra income would be allocated to off-farm investment, as a security through a more diversified portfolio, and one in seven farmers indicated that extra income would be used to expand agricultural investment. Only one in fourteen farmers would use the extra income for educational purposes. The farmers' preferences, however, should be interpreted with caution since multiple answers were provided by most of the farmers (i.e. funds would likely be allocated to several activities, rather than a single option).
Marketing arrangements
Satisfaction with current marketing arrangements
Fewer than half of the farmers surveyed were satisfied with current marketing arrangements for their produce. Dissatisfaction was highest amongst the sheep, beef and/or deer farmers. Only 26% of the larger unit and 41% of the smaller unit farmers were satisfied with current arrangements (Table 54). Their response is very likely to be associated with the recent low returns for farm produce. Even 32% of the dairy farmers reported that they were not satisfied with current marketing arrangements.
Areas of change Proposed
Farmers suggested four areas of change in marketing arrangements (Table 54): altering the pricing structure (38%), improving market organisation (35%), increasing market promotion (19%) and expanding market information and research (8%). The hobby farmers dominated the suggestion for market promotion, while dairy farmers dominated the response for more market information and research. The pricing structure suggestions were mainly made by smaller unit farmers, and these included payment of a premium for quality, less price fixing and creating more stable returns. The list of changes suggested for market organisation included: collective marketing; integration of farmers, marketing organisations and processors; ensuring payment for stock in receivership situations; and an independent review of the beef industry. Ideas for market promotion included: sound marketing strategies and expansion of export markets, diversification of existing markets, and promotion of beef as a "natural alternative" in the US and Japanese markets. Finally, the list of suggestions for market information and research included: development of new markets, market information from the end-users, and developing processing possibilities for beef and lamb prior to its export.
Expected farming status of current New Zealand farmers in 2006
Farming status quo
About 44% of farmers thought that in 10 years time they would continue to be farming as present (Table 56). However, substantial variation existed across farm classes. For example, only onequarter of the dairy farmers expected to be farming as now, in contrast to more than half of those on the larger unit and hobby farms (54-55%).
Farming on the same farm but different enterprise
One in nine farmers planned to change their farming enterprise in the next 10 years, but they still expected to be on their present farm (Table 56). Hobby farmers were the most likely, and dairy farmers the least likely, to change to another enterprise.
Farming on a different farm
Interestingly, nearly one-quarter of the farmers surveyed revealed that they would be on a different farm in 10 years from now (Table 56). Thus, the expectation of changing properties was more pronounced amongst the dairy and smaller unit farmers. This reflects the progressing in the dairy industry from sharemilking to farm ownership. Purchasing a small block of land is also a way of accumulating capital toward farm
Employing others To run farm
One in nine farmers expected that they would employ somebody else to run the farm by 2006 (Table 56). The response to this particular question was heavily dominated by dairy farmers, because one in three dairy farmers expected to have others to run their farm. This result corroborates those from other studies (Rauniyar and Parker 1996) and confirms the role of sharemilkers as dairy farmers age.
No longer involved in farming.
Ten percent of the small unit and hobby farmers and 12% of the larger unit farmers expected not to be farming in 10 years time (Table 56). Their response reflected a pessimistic outlook for farm returns. However, almost all dairy farmers expected to still be in farming in 2006.
Retirement
One in five farmers expected to retire by 2006. This expectation was fairly uniform across all but the hobby farm class (Table 56), and is consistent with the age structure indicated in Table 13.
Inter-generational transfer of farms
Only 30% of the farmers were planning to pass their farm onto their children (Table 56). However, this result was confounded by a number of factors. For example, it was stated that many children are not interested in a farming career. Only 30% of the farmers were saving part of their farm income for their retirement, and this most likely reflects the relatively low produce returns in recent years. Surprisingly, 40% of the farmers were retaining their farm past the time of normal retirement as a safeguard against uncertainty engendered by present government policies on health and superannuation.
Essential factors for long-term viability of farm businesses
Economic factors
Among all the factors specified as affecting the long-term viability of farm business, economic or financial factors stood out as the major concern for the overwhelming majority of farmers (Table 57). Reference was made to farm profitability in terms of favourable market interest rates and exchange rates for the New Zealand dollar, stable government agricultural policies, diversified opportunities and incentives for on- and off-farm investment, less capitalisation of farm land values, a stable local community economy and access to farm credit.
Social and community factors
Social factors were rated as the second most important issue for the long-term sustainability of farm businesses. Nearly half of the dairy and larger unit farmers, and more than one-fifth of other farmers sought attention in this area (Table 57). The health status of farmers and their families, rural life style, less regulation of community activities, fewer "kids" on farm, and better rural services (education, health, childcare, fire protection and policing) were reported by many of the farmers as social concerns.
Productivity factors
Farmers expressed concern for attaining higher productivity from their livestock. One-third of the farmers thought that farm productivity per hectare of land and per unit labour could further be enhanced (Table 57). They realised it would be possible only through technological breakthroughs and effective research output. Effective measures for better drainage and weed control, enhancing the reliability of water and energy supply, TB control, a higher standard of breeding stock (improved genetics), residue-free farm production and quality control were seen as key productivity issues for the Iong-term. sustainability of farm businesses.
Marketing factors
One in five farmers had concerns about the marketing of farm produce (Table 57). Issues such as a collective export market for primary products, innovative market research to identify and develop niche markets, transparency in the activities of middlemen and processors, and the direct linkage of farmers with processors, export market diversification away from a single market dependency, a fair reward for premium quality, and effective but reliable market forecasting were highlighted by the farmers as issues that required attention in relation to marketing.
Environmental factors
Most of the farmers thought that they were already fanning sustainably and providing due care for the environment Concern for the environment was largely expressed by the smaller unit and hobby farmers (Table 57). They emphasised aspects such as the "clean and green" image of New Zealand farm produce, the protection of water quality, soil erosion control, and organic/Biodynamic farming practices as some areas that needed further attention. Environmental concerns were expressed only by 1, 3, 11 and 14 % of the dairy, larger unit, smaller unit and hobby farms, respectively.
| © MAF 2000 | ||
| MAFnet Help | Important Disclaimer |
Contact for Enquiries
MAF Information Services
Pastoral House
25 The Terrace
PO Box 2526
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
Fax: +64 4 894 0721
Contact this person
