What do farmers want from trees?

Press, 22 June 1984, Page 22

What do farmers want from trees?

By

DERRICK ROONEY

Why do farmers plant trees, and what do they hope to get from them? - Some surprising answers to these questions emerged from a survey by two Massey University economists of 137 farm properties in the Wellington forest conservancy. The results of the survey were detailed in a paper presented to the recent conference of the Institute of Foresters in Christchurch by the two men, Dr A. D. Meister, reader in natural resource economics, and Mr P. G. Smaller, research officer with the Centre for Agricultural Policy Studies. One of their more surprising conclusions is that the forestry encouragement grants, promoted by the Government and administered through the Forest Service, have apparently caused no significant increase in the planting rate on farms. The survey also showed that a majority of farmers do not bother to obtain financial or silvicultural advice before planting woodlots, and that only a minority belong to farmforestry associations or attend field days. The survey indicated that most farm afforestation was in Pinus radiata, and that a high percentage of property owners planted woodlots for dual or multiple purposes, rather than a single purpose. The production of sawlogs was listed as the primary end use of only 2.3 per cent of the woodlots surveyed. Interestingly, pulp accounted for a larger pro-

portion: 2.6 per cent. Pole production was listed as the primary use of 21.8 per cent, and 4.6 per cent was earmarked for posts. The owners of 28.8 per cent of the surveyed area had not decided what to do with their trees, and 2.1 per cent would not harvest their trees. About 38 per cent of woodlots were planted for dual protection-production purposes.

On the 137 surveyed properties, the average woodlot area was 10.6 ha; but fewer than 36 per cent of the owners were members of a forestry association, and 58 per cent of them had never attended a field day or seminar on forestry.

Fewer than half of them had received forestry encouragement grants from the Government, and about 80 per cent of those who had received grants said they would have planted trees regardless of whether assistance was available.

Few said they would increase their plantings if financial assistance were increased.

The authors of the survey say this casts doubt on whether increases in Government assistance could, lead to any significant increase in the planting rate. They say the results suggest that the forestry encouragement grants are a bonus to those already committed to planting trees, rather than an incentive to those who are not.

On the other hand, they note that the delayed payment of the grants is often a disincentive to those who are already servicing large debts, and who cannot carry the costs of establishment in the initial period. The difficulty of obtaining a grant free of some form of control was another common complaint about the system. Though the provision of good access to woodlots is generally regarded as important to profitability of the crop, only 30 per cent of the farmers surveyed indicated that their plantings had been made with regard to access for harvesting. Some 60 per cent of the farmers thought that access and the type of terrain would cause no difficulties at harvest.

“This may be due to optimism rather than favourable sites,” the authors say. “For example, one farmer explained that although his woodlot was on very steep land, with very difficult access, he was certain that in the next 15 years, by the time the trees were ready to harvest, sufficient technological progress would have been made to allow for harvest by helicopter. Many farmers expressed views in this vein,” the authors say. “There seemed to be little recognition by farmers of the effects that access and terrain may have on costs and returns.”

About 60 per cent of the farmers in the survey con-,

sidered that the main disadvantage of woodlots were the extra work they created, and the cash expenditure for no immediate return. A similar percentage considered that the labour needs of woodlots conflicted with other farming activities, and a high percentage engaged outside labour for such jobs as pruning and thinning. “This finding is surprising, as one of the claimed advantages from diversifying into trees is the complementary nature of the crop in terms of management and labour needs,” the authors say. Shelter (28.6 per cent) and weed and erosion control (21.8 per cent) were the major advantages seen by farmers in woodlot planting. A small percentage (5.9) saw woodlots primarily as a source of cheaper fencing materials, and 10.9 per cent listed the aesthetic appeal of woodlots as their major advantage. The authors say it is clear from their study that woodlots will make a contribution to income if they are not planted on land capable of carrying a “reasonable number” of stock.

They note also that some farmers appear happy with stumpage returns which are very low in terms of the prevailing price.

Additional silvicultural and financial advice would clearly have been of benefit to many of the surveyed farmers, the authors say. After expressing surprise that none of the farmers had listed forestry encouragement grants among the advantages of woodlots (“FEGs are, after all, just money in the hand”), the authors say that recent changes in the legislation have helped to make the grants more easily available, and have “freed up” some of the time of forestry extension officers. Information should now be much more readily obtainable. “Forestry for small growers is an exciting new option, especially as farm forestry, rather than forestry on farms,” the paper concludes. “The options are wide open to suit a wide range of small growers. However, to avoid disappointment the venture should be carefully planned in terms of silvicultural as well as financial and management aspects."