Where to now for farmers on Banks Peninsula?

Press, 29 March 1985, Page 29

Where to now for farmers on Banks Peninsula?

Political and economic awareness among the fanners of Banks Peninsula is at a high level. This has been fostered by some forthright leadership by their Federated Farmers representatives, an informative field day recently, some plain speaking from M.A.F. advisers in the region and no doubt by the gravity of the financial problems facing hill county sheep farmers with limited diversification opportunities. Judging by the frequency with which the Banks Peninsula branch chairman, Mr Paul de Latour, and the meat and wool representative, Mr Rick Menzies, bring strongly-worded remits to North Canterbury Federated Farmers meetings, local gatherings out on the peninsula must be lively affairs.

Peninsula fanners may be in no worse position than dryland sheep farmers on the plains, but when the senior farm adviser from Christchurch, Mr Grant McFadden, says, “we are on our own” it seems to ring round the hills and bays, invoking insularity from peninsularity. Mr McFadden was summing up after informative sessions on budgetary problems facing farmers and their diversification alternatives during the annual Banks Peninsula field day, at Mr Richard Coop’s Port Levy property. Subsidies will go, said Mr McFadden, and the Government has set its course against changes in policy. So farmers must sit down

and analyse their strengths and weaknesses.

He was echoing the words of Mr Grant White, the M.A.F. adviser with responsibility for the peninsula, who had stressed that farmers must take stock early (tomorrow, he said) and then take action to combat the projected $4 per stock unit drop in gross income for 1985-86. Mr White had taken the M.A.F. Advisory Division’s estimates of the effects of the 1984 Budget on farm incomes and put them into a 1985-86 budget for an average peninsula farm. This is 310 effective hectares, 2300 stock units (20 per cent cattle), 100 per cent lambing, 4.5 kg wool clip and debt servicing of $5 a stock unit annually. In the 1984-85 financial year the average farmer had about $9500 left in net income (after allowing for ?8000 personal drawings, $4OOO education expenses and $2OOO aside for capital replacement) but in 1985-86 this would turn into a $2340 deficit assuming that the farmer took no action. The options for the peninsula property which was still only 60 to 65 per cent developed revolved around decreasing pasture wastage, said Mr White. The message, which was not a new one, was to subdivide, rotationally graze, increase stock and get alongside farmers who had already honed their management skills. Subdivision, even with money at 12.5 per cent, still gave a good return, he said.

Those further along the development road must look at per head performance by attention to hogget growth and selection, maintained ewe liveweights in summer, fast lamb growth rates, strategic use of fertiliser, attention to the cattle policy and to flexibility when the seasons turn dry. Fortunately farmers were going into the squeeze with a good result from thepresent year and an extra 0.5 stock unit per ha, and another 5 per cent in lambing could transform the 1985-86 deficit into a $3OOO surplus. Mr Menzies then took the Coop woolshed floor to explain that the branch had forwarded a remit to the meat and wool executive of North Canterbury Federated Farmers objecting to the Budget measures. It read: “That it become meat and wool section policy to totally oppose the introduction of budgetary measures aimed at restructuring the sheep farming industry until sheep farmers’ incomes have significantly improved.” The next day in Christchurch the remit was moved and discussed but some executive members thought that it called for too great a reversal of federation policy. Mr Menzies argued that the federation was losing sight of its primary responsibility, to protect the livelihood of its members.

The federation’s leaders were muddling . around in economic theory, he said, and would have nothing con-

crete to show when the Government’s measures failed to deliver.

Other speakers said that the federation was committed to a package of economic reforms and these had to be given time to work. The remit was referred back to all branches for discussion with a view to having a full debate at the annual conference of the North Canterbury section, on April 19. Having pursued the agropolitical alternative, as it were, the Banks Peninsula farmers turned to farm diversification and four speakers gave their views to the field day. And it was pertinent that they were all local farmers. Mr Mark Shadbolt, of French Farm, a deer farmer, said farmers had to weigh very carefully the options before proceeding. Because a diversification alternative was fashionable, or a neighbour had spent $1 million, were not sound reasons. He gave details of four ways of diversifying into deer: weaner stags for resale as yearlings; weaners or yearling stags for vension or velvet production; weaner hinds for re-sale as yearlings or hinds for breeding and the sale of offspring. Newcomers were often forced by the high cost of female stock to start with weaner stags and gain sufficient experience handling deer to recommend themselves to an off-farm investor.

But no approach was pos-

sible without deer fencing and yards, which on a 25 ha block would cost a minimum of $50,000, he said. Deer farming was no longer speculative, he said, and the peninsula was suited to deer because of minimum stock health problems. Mr Robin Reynish, of Pigeon Bay, said that the long-term market for mohair looked very good and that Angora goat farming had obviously caught the imagination of farmers and investors this year. He had worked hard on presenting a lot of figures to show that commercial mohair production was more profitable than sheep farming over the same area, but the recent high prices for stock had rather mucked up those figures. He conceded that while the major part of income came from the sale of surplus stock then a farming industry could still be considered speculative. But the pros and cons of diversifying into Angoras have certainly been widely discussed lately. Mr Gary Simes, of Wainui, bubbled over with enthusiasm for tourism as a diversification. Perhaps this was, as he admitted, because his wife did most of the work, but then she also got the income. Obviously it was not an economic alternative to regular farming but it could be a very enjoyable experience and brought a number of benefits. Financial returns averaged about $3O to $35 each night that overseas guests stayed in the homestead and from $lOO to $l4O a week for longer-term guests in a self-contained cottage with all mod cons. He said that establishment costs were low but then talked about visiting Ballantyne’s for extra linen, blankets and cutlery. Among the disadvantages he listed were disruption to farming programmes, the loss of privacy and the endless questions from guests. Mr Ged Foley, of Robinsons Bay, spoke of diversification into dry sheep on the peninsula, something he thought could be viable at about two-thirds wethers and one-third ewes. Wethers would need shearing every eight months and crutching every four months but he clearly envisaged wool returns of more than $2O a head annually for crossbred wethers. An outlet, such as live sheep exporting or the establishment of Banks Peninsula Meats in new premises, would be needed for cull wethers, he thought.