AN ECONOMIC SURVEY OF DAIRY-FARM GROUPS IN NORTH AUCKLAND, SEASON 1927-28.

New Zealand Journal of Agriculture, Volume XL, Issue 5, 20 May 1930, Page 300

AN ECONOMIC SURVEY OF DAIRY-FARM GROUPS IN NORTH AUCKLAND, SEASON 1927-28.

( Concluded.)

E. J. Fawcett,

M.A. (Cambridge), Farm Economist, Department of Agriculture

2. Dargaville Group—Hobson County.

In the first article, published last month, a group of dairy-farms at Ruawai, in Otamatea County, was discussed. The present analysis deals with no farms near Dargaville, in Hobson County, which is bounded by Otamatea on the south, Hokianga on the north, and Whangarei on the east. A portion of the county is adjacent to Kaipara Harbour, but there is also a long sea-coast line. The major portion of the district is hilly or undulating, and it contains a large proportion of unimproved land. Dairying is carried on along the valleys and tidal flats, but farms are on the whole larger than those dealt with previously. The total occupied area of Hobson County as given in the 1927-28-statistics was 300,212 acres. Of this area 155,800 acres were improved, including 154,700 acres of grassland hay and ensilage comprised 227 acres only, while 731 acres were under the plough. Thus it will be appreciated that the county produces little other than grass for stock feed. Stock in the county consisted of the following : Horses, 1,990 ; dairy cows in milk and dry, 19,006 ; . other cattle and young stock, 24,963 ; sheep wintered 1928, 121,080 ; pigs (31st January, 1928), 6,532. • - ‘ . The no farms in the Dargaville group milked 4,177 cows, or 21-98 per cent, of the total dairy cows in the county. On a sheepunit basis dairy cows represented approximately 32 per cent, of the grazing-stock of the county. ... • ..

Butterfat Production, Size of Farm, etc.

In the first four tables farms have been grouped according to production per acre, cows milked per 100,acres productive area, production per cow, and size of farm respectively. Tables are comparable with those dealing with the Ruawai group in every case. ' - by.-'' ■

A number of interesting comparisons may be made between the figures pertaining to the Dargaville and Ruawai groups. ' The .area of non-productive land is considerably higher on Dargaville farms than in

the case of Ruawai. Despite this fact and.. the possible advantage which may be given if the areas assessed as non-productive are too high, production per acre does not reach the level of the top. farms in the Ruawai group. The factor accounting for this position is - the lesser number 'of cows milked-per given area, and the range of, cows milked shows a much wider variation. The influence of the density of milkingcows more than counterbalances the higher-producing animals found on a few farms in the Dargaville group. The wide range of productive area (Table 4), taken in conjunction with the number of cows milked per farm, clearly illustrates that many of the Dargaville farms are not highly improved -even on that area shown as productive. Generally speaking, ■dairying is not in such an advanced state as in the Ruawai district. Top-dressing and Labour. " It will'be seen that top-dressing is not extensively.; practised,'being in approximately the same stage as at Ruawai. The remarks in the preceding article pertaining to manuring and labour apply equally .to the position shown in Tables 5 and 6. .. ....

Gross Returns. It will be noticed that in groups of comparable per-acre production range gross returns per 100 acres are lower than at Ruawai. This is accounted for by lesser returns from pigs, and a more serious position

in the cattle account. The position is uniformly lower over the whole range, which indicates that the average conditions obtaining on Dargaville farms offer considerable scope for improvement.

Maintenance Expenses. Expenses of maintenance are lower in the Dargaville than in the Ruawai group. Drainage rates affect only five farms, which materially reduces costs. Owing to . the fact that farms are generally larger and contain, at least a proportion of dry land, wintering-off is not so extensively practised. Of the whole group only twenty - nine farms winter stock away, resulting in a distinct saving in annual expense. Although a reduction in maintenance expenses has been effected in this way, .it is undoubtedly mainly responsible for the lesser per - acre production as compared with the Ruawai group, and the adoption of more wintering-off in the Dargaville area is a- question worthy of consideration.

Distribution of Gross Returns. In Table 9 the effect of low maintenance. expenses and a comparatively low labour reward resulting from the smaller number of cows milked per 100 acres is reflected in certain sub-groups in the interest surplus. This is especially , noticeable in the second sub-group, where the number of cows milked drops from 67-2 to 51 per 100 acres. Thus, with this sub-group, if family labour only is depended upon, the interest surplus becomes inflated at the . cost of the family reward for labour. This is a typical instance of where a higher price may be paid for land than is warranted by its production, through an underestimation of the worth of labour. •

Interest Surplus. The following table illustrates the effect of the point just noted, the interest surplus being converted into a high gross capital as a result of low maintenance expenses and labour reward.

Owing to a lesser number of cows being milked per 100 acres, the value of stock and plant is also lower throughout than in the Ruawai .group. This again tends to show a better capital position on land and improvements, as shown in Table 11.

The combination of low stock and plant values, low maintenance expenses, and comparatively low cow-density has resulted in quite a favourable capital position, both per acre and per cow milked, when compared with the same production sub-groups of the Ruawai district. Table 12 shows the capital position on land and improvements as established above, compared with Government valuation per 100 acres, It will be seen that they run much more evenly than the same tabulation for Ruawai.

Conclusion.

• - In conclusion, it can be said that the two groups discussed are very similar in so far as expenditure on working and upkeep is low. Both groups have heavy replacement costs and are handicapped through lack of personal capital. Dargaville has - the advantage of lesser drainage rates, and is not compelled to winter stock off farms to any extent. On the other hand, the ratio of non-productive to productive land is higher, and where non - productive land has even a moderate capital indebtedness it must become a menace to the productive area on which it depends for payment of interest. The fact that wintering on' the farm restricts the. capacity for milking-cows puts Dargaville in a less advantageous position so far as labour reward is concerned. . If the same results were obtained with a lesser amount of labour it would be a decided advantage, but such is not the case. Attention must again be called to ’ the fact that the season under review had a dry period which affected production to some extent.

In addition to the two groups discussed a survey of dairy-farms in the vicinity of Whangarei was made. It is, however, not considered advisable to- publish the figures, as the dry summer experienced in 1927-28 had a very serious effect on the volcanic soils of the Whangarei district. , ' Correction. —In the second column of Table 7 in the first article (April Journal, page 248) the sign “ lb.” should be “ J.”

* Two farms. •• f Nine farms. J Twenty-three farms. § Twelve farms.

Butterfat per -Range. Number of Farms in Group. Butterfat per Acre. Butterfat per Cow. Number of Cows milked per 100 Acres. Number of Cows . milked per Farm. Productive Area. Non- , . productive ,. Area. Total Area. ■■ . • lb. . lb. lb. Acres. Acres. Acres. . . lb... . .lb. . ' . Acres. Acres. Acres. ■■ 140-159-9 3 I5O-4 224-1 67-2 53'7 79’3 io-o 89-3 120-139-9 10 . 129-9 261-5 51-0 35-4 7i-5 ' 17-9 . 89-4 100-119'9 18 • 111-9 . 221-8 - ■ 51-5 34-7 66-o io-6 76-6 •80- 99-9 24.. ■ 91-1 205-4 45'5 36-6 82-1 II-O 93'1 ' 60- 79-9 ■ 20.-. 68-6 ■ 196-7 35-3 .42-1 122-6 21-3 143-9 40- 59-9 21 5 T '9 - I7I-5 30-8 . 39-o 125-8 ‘.nt 25-6 ?• I5I-4 20- 39-9 . 14 ' .. 30-4 - I5O-7. • ' .20-9 35’5 ' 183-4 .p2 149-7 • -.•Zil ! 233-1

Table 1.-Farms grouped according to Butterfat-production per Acre (Productive Area).

Number of Cows milked per loo Acres —Range. Number of Farms in Group. Number of Cows . per 100 Acres. . Average. Butterfat per Acre. Butterfat per Cow. Number of Cows milked per : Farm. Productive Area. Nonproductive Area. Total Area. 60-69-9 IO 63-9 lb. 123-8 lb. 192-9 39-o Acres. 60-5 Acres. 23-3 Acres. 83-8. 5°-59’9 15 53’9 .112-2 208-3 43-o 79-i 12-3 91-4 40-49-9 25 44-8 96-7 215-7 32-7 73-o 8-9 81-9-3°-39-9 35 34-70-9 202-7 40-7 117-2 19-5 136-7 20-29-9 18 36-2 45-2 171-4 34-6 131-7 39-8 I7I-5 10-19-9 8 17-2 27-5 161-6 38-8 ' 228-7 66-8 ' 295-5

Table 2.-Farms grouped according to Cows milked per 100 Acres (Productive Area).

Butterfat per CowRange. Number of Farms in Group. Butterfat per Cow —• Average. Butterfat per Acre (Productive). Number of Cows milked per 100 Acres. Number of Cows milked per Farm. Productive Area. Nonproductive Area. Total Area. lb. lb. lb. Acres. Acres. Acres. 325-349'9 2 lb. 337-1 lb. 124-8 37-o 27-5 Acres. 74-o Acres. 2-5 Acres. 76-5 300-324-9 O 275-299-9 2 278-9 102-3 36-7 21-5 60-5 . 2-5 63-0 25 o -274-9 8 266-5 II5-3 43'3 36-6 85-5 7-4 92-9 225-249-9 13 236-8 108-0 45'5 33-o 77-5 8-5 . 86-3 200-224-9 32 2IO-2 . 89-8 42-8 4-1-5 108-9 18-3 127-2 175-119-9 22 185-7 • 73-5 .. 39-8 . 36-5 IOI-I 28-8 129-9 I 5°- I 16 I62-2 54-6 33-7 38-8 134-4 . 25-8 160-2 125-149-9 IO I42-5 . 53'4 37'4 42'3 I2I-I ■ 45-8 166-9 100-124-9 5 116-0 3i-7 27'4 36-8 147-8 10-2 158-0

Table 3 .—Farms grouped according to Butterfat-production per Cow (Productive Area ).

Size of Farm Range. Number of Farms in Group. Productive Area— Average. Butterfat per Acre. Butterfat per Cow. Number of Cows milked per 100 Acres. Number of Cows milked per Farm. Nonproductive Area. Total Area. Acres, Acres. . lb,lb. Acres, Acres. 20- 29-9 - I Acres. 28-0 lb. 102-0 lb. 238-0 42-9 12-0 Acres, ■ 3-o - Acres. 31-0 30- 39'9 . 7 .. 35’5- ’ II3-2 216-3 . •52-9 18-7 io-3 45-8 40- 49-9 IO 43'6 109-2-224-5 - 49-7 21-7 12-5 56-1 50- 59'9 IO 54-1. 102-0 231-5 43-7 . 23-6 7-6 ■ 61-7 60- 69-9 10 62-9 ' 83-9 193-7 43-4 27-3 19-2 82-1 70- 79-9 • 8 . 73-9 65-4 188-8 34'6 25-6 I3-I . 87-0-80- 89-9 10 .85-0 . 79-8 177-6 . 45-o • ■ 38-1 19-6 104-6 90- 99-9 8 93’8 82-4 . 207-6 . ; 38-5 36-1 . 6-8 ioo-6 100-109-9 10 103-2 70-1 178-2 ■ 38-9 40-2 25-7 128-9 110-139-9 10 . 122-2 94-8 - 221-8 ; 42-2 52-0 .9-8 132-0-140-169-9 IO 152-7 50-9 I72-8 . 28-7 44- 1 59-o 211-7 170-199-9 4 192-0 ' 64-8 166-9 ■ 36-7 76-8 46-2 238-2 200-299-9 11 231-9 50-0 177-9 27-7 63-7 .39-6 271-5 300-399-9 2 373'5 29-4 186-5 16-2 6o-o 92-5 466-0-16-2 .. . ? ■ ’• ■ ’• ■k ■' ■ 6o-o 92-5 : 466-0-

Table 4.-Farms grouped according to Size of Farm (Productive Area).

Butterfat per AcreRange. Amount of Manure. Lime per Acre (not included in Manure). Number oi Farms in Group. Per Acre. Per Cow. Per Pound of Butterfat. lb. Cwt. Cwt. lb. Cwt. 140-159-9 ... . . i-5 • 2-3 1-2 ' . 3 . 120-139-9 . . i-6 3-6 i-0-6 10 . _ 100-119-9 i-5 3’0 i-5 0-4 18 _ 80- 99-9 1-2 2-7 • i-5 0-3 0'3 24 24 60- 79-9 . . 0-9 2-7 i-5 °’5 ■ 20 40- 59'9 . • • ■ • • 0-7 2-4 . i-6 .. . o-3 . .21 20- 39-9 • • o-5 2-5 1'9 - 0-2 14 -

Table 5.-Manure used for Top-dressing: Farms grouped according to Butterfatproduction per Acre (Productive).

Butterfat per Acre —Range. Labour Units per ■ 100 Acres. Number of Cows milked • per Labour Unit. Butterfat produced per - • Labour Unit. • Number of Cows milked per 100 Acres. Number of • Farms in Group. ' * lb. ’ lb. 140-159-9.. 4'4 15-7 lb. . 3,504.. 67-2. .- 3 120-139-9.. 4-4 12-3 . 3,133 5i-o 10 100-119-9. . .. 5’0 XI-4 2,488 ■ 51-5 18 ' 80- 99-9. . ’ . . .' 3-6 1.3-5 . 2,783.. 45’5 24 66- 79-9. . 2-4 16-3 . 3,184-7 35’3 20 40- 59-9- • 2-4 1.4-4 2,339 . 30-8 21 20-39-9.. i-5 15-4 2,336 . 20-9 14

Table 6.—Labour: Farms grouped according to Butterfat - production per Acre (Productive ).

Butterfat per Acre—Range. Gross Returns per r Acre—Range. 100 Acres. Gross Returns per Number of Cows 100 Acres. milked per 100 Acres. Number of Cows Gross Returns per milked per 100 Acres. Cow. Gross Returns per . Cow. lb. £ £ 140-159-9 67-2 £ 140-159-9 1, 000 1,000 67-2 14-88 120-139-9 1,006 51-0 19-73 100-119-9 828 5I\5 16-08 80- 99-9 ' 709 - 45'5 15-58 60- 79-9 530 35-3 15-01 40- 59-9 402 30-8 13-05 20- 39-9 • 261 20-9 12-49

Table 7. —Gross Returns: Farms grouped according to Butterfat - production per Acre (Productive).

Butterfat per Acre• Range. Manure. Rates. Fences. Cultivation. Power. Winter Grazing. Depre- | ciation. Sundries. Total. Cost per Cowmilked. 1 Sundries. Total. Cost per Cow milked. Actual Cost lb. ■ £ ' £ £ i. £ '. £ £ . £ £ ‘ £ £ 140-159-9 46-2 33'8 5-i 10-3 27-2 7-0 II-7 44-2 185-5 ■ 2-76 120-139-9 55-i 37-9 21-3 2-5 2I-I 5-o 16-6 33’8 193-3 3-79-100-119-9 49’7 36-0 9-8 16-2 15’2 14’9 17-9 24-1 184.1 3'57 80- 99-9 34’9 35’4 7-8 8-2 ■19-7 13-2 13-2 18-8 151-2 3-32 60-79-9. 33'9 23-0 4'3 6-8 n-7 2-1 n-6 15-7 109-1 3-09 40- 59-9 24-3 19-2 II-2 5'4 7-5 4-8 io-8 10-9 94-1 3-06 20- 39-9 17’9 15'2 3:6 7-1 6-2 2-4 7-1 ii-i ii-i 70-6 70-6 3-38 3-38 Percentage of Total.. • 140-159-9 24'9 18-2 2-7 5'6 14-7 3’8 6-3 23-8 100 120-139-9 28-5 19-6 II-O i-3 10-9 2-6 8-6 17'5 100 100-119-9 26-9 19-6 5-3 • 8-8 8-3 8-i 9'7 13-3 100 80— 99-9 23-1. 23-4 5’2 5’4 13-0 8-7 8-7 12-5 100 60- 79-9 31-1 2I-I 4-0 6-2 10-7 i-9 io-6 14-4. 100 40- 59'9 25-8 20’4 u-9 5-7 8-o 5-i n-5 n-6 100 20- 39-9 25'3 21’5 5'1 IO-I 8-8 3'4 io-i 15-7 100

Table 8. —Expenses: Farms grouped according to Butterfat - production per Acre (Productive). (All Figures per 100 Acres.)

Number Maintenance. Labour. Interest. Total. .Butterfat of per Acre —• Range. Number of,. Farms in Group. Maintenance. Labour. ' Interest. ■ Total. " ' Per 100 Acres. Percentage of Total. Per 100 Acres. . Percentage of Total. .Per, 100 Acres. Percentage of Total. Per 100 Acres. Percentage. - ■ lb. £ ' £ ' ■ £ £ 140-159-9 18-5 £ £ £ I4O-I59-9 3 3 .. 185 185 18-5 ■ 470 47’0 345 ■ 34’5 1,000 200-0 120-139-9 IO 193 19-2 357 35'5 456 45’3 ,006 100-0 100-119-9 18 . 184 22-2 361 43'6 283. . 34'2 828. 100-0 80— 99-9 24 151 21-3 3i9 45-o 239 33'7 709 100-0 60- 79-9 20 109 20-6 247 46-6 174 32-8 530 100-0 40- 59-9 21. 94 23-4 216 53'7 • 92 . 22-9 402 100-0 20-39-9 14 7i 27-2 146 55'9 44 16-9 261 ioo-o

Table 9.—Distribution of Gross Returns: Farms grouped according to Butterfatproduction per Acre (Productive).

Butterfat per Acre Range. Number of Farms in Group. Number of Cows milked per 100 Acres. Interest Surplus , per 100 Acres. Gross Capital represented at 7 per Cent. . _-‘lb. ’ ' ‘ ' 140-159-9 ’ .. 3 . 67-2 £ 345 £ . . 4,929 120-139-9 . ■ ... IO 51-0 456 6,514 100-119-9 18 5i-5 283 4.043 80- 99-9 '• . . 24 45'5 239 3,414 60- 79-9 20 35-3 174 ,486 40- 59-9 21 . 30-8 92 1,314 20- 39-9 J 4 20-9 ... 44 629

Table 10. —Interest Surplus and Capital: Farms arranged according to Butterfatproduction per Acre (Productive).

Butterfat per Acre —Range. Number of Farms in Group. Number of Cows milked per 100 Acres. Gross Capital. Valuation of Stock and Plant. Net Capital Land and Improvements Value of Land and Improvements per Cow milked.. : lb. ■ ■ £ ■-. £ ■ ,£ - £ £ 140-159-9 3 67-2 4.929 1,017 3,912 58-21 120-139-9 10 5I-° 6,514 902 . 5,612 110-04 100-119-9 18 5i-5 4,043 906 3,137 60-91 80— 99-9 24 45-5 • 3.414 778 636 57’93 60- 79-9 20 35’3 2,486 611 1,875 53-12 40- 59-9 21 '■ ■ 30-8 ; . 1,314 551 • 763 ' 24-77 20- 39-9 14 20-9 629 380 249 11-91

Table 11. —Farms grouped according to Butterfat-production per Acre (Productive).

Butterfat per Acre • Range. Number of Farms in Group. . ' Value of Land and Improvements per . 100 Acres. Government Valuation per too Acres. ■ lb. £ . £ 140-159-9 ’ 3 3-912 3,3°4*. 120-139-9 IO 5,612 . . 3,ii8f 100-119-9 .. ■ 18 ' : ■ ' 3.137. 3,636 ' 80- 99-9 . . 24 ■ ,636 - 3,2281: 60-79-9 20 1,875 - 2,463 . 40- 59-9 21 763 - . 2,098 20- 39-9 14 249 i,788§

Table 12.—Farms grouped according to Butterfat-production per Acre (Productive).