survey of sugar beet

7/29/2019 Survey of Sugar beet

1/42

A SURVEY OF

MID CANTERBURY FARMERS' ATTITUDESTO GROWING SUGAR BEET

D. LEITCHP D, CHUD LEI GH

G,A,G. FRENGLEY

Discuss ion Paper No. 39Agr icu l tu r a l Economics Research un i t

Lincoln Col lege


2/42


3/42


4/42

CONTENTS

PageLIST OF TABLESLIST OF FIGURESSUMMARYCHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTIONCHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY

2 .1 Area Surveyed2 .2 Se lec t ion of Sample2 .3 Survey Technique

CHAPTER 3 RESPONSE AND RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS3.13.23.3

Response RateResponse Pa t te rnRespondent Ch a ra c t e r i s t i c s

3.3 .1 Age Dis t r ibu t ion3.3 .2 Sta tus3 .3 .3 Farm Type3.3 .4 Farm Size and Locat ion

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS

445

67999

1010

4.1 I n t e r e s t ln Sugar Beet Product ion 114.2 Charac te r i s t i c s o f In te res ted 12Respondents

4.2 .1 I n t e r e s t by4.2.2 I n t e r e s t by4.2.3 I n t e r e s t by4.2.4 I n t e r e s t by

Farm TypeAge GroupSo i l DepthFarm Size

GroupGroup

12131314

4.3 Labour and Machinery Resources of 14Respondents4.3.1 Labour Resources4.3.2 At t i t udes to Addi t iona l Labour 144.3.3 Machinery Resources 154.3.4 At t i t udes to Forms of Access to 16Machinery

4.4 A tt i tudes to Cont rac tua l Agreements 184.5 At t i tudes to By-Product Use 184.6 Exper ience and Knowledge of Beet 19Growing


5/42


6/42

4 .6 .1 Farmers '4.6 .2 ProblemsFodder4 .6 .3 Farmers '

Bee t4.7 Farmers ' Use

LIST OF REFERENCESAPPENDIX 1

Exper ienceExper ienced byBeet GrowersKnowledge of Sugar

of Extension Serv ices

192020

22

2325


7/42


8/42

LIST OF TABLES

Page

1. Comparison of Mail Survey Response Rates 62. Age Dist r ibut ion of Respondents 93. Sta tus of Respondents 94. Farm Types of Respondents 105. Dist r ibut ion of Farm Sizes of Respondents 106. Reasons fo r no I n t e r e s t in Sugar Beet 127. Numbers of Respondents I n t e r es t ed i n Sugar Beet 13by Age Group8. I n t e r e s t by Farm Size 139. Reasons of In teres ted Growers fo r not wanting to 14Employ Additional" Ful l - t ime Labour

10. Machinery OWned or Avai lable to Respondents 1511. Favoured Alterna t ives of Respondents In teres ted 16

in Sugar Beet Product ion to Gaining Access toSugar Beet Harves ter12. Favoured Alterna t ives of Respondents In teres ted 17

in Sugar Beet Product ion to Gaining Access toa Prec is ion D r i l l13. Propor t ion of In teres ted Sugar Beet Growers 18

Who Ind ica ted an I n t e r e s t in Using By-productsfor Livestock

14. Propor t ion of In teres ted Sugar Beet Growers who 18Indica ted an I n t e r e s t in Using Feed NutsDerived From Pulp

15. Problems Experienced by Fodder Beet Growers16. Sources of Most Useful Knowledge17. Requirements Before Commencement of Growing18. Use of Extension Services19. Use of "Extension Services by In teres ted andNon-Interes ted Sugar Beet Growers

1920202122


9/42


10/42

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

1. CumuLative Response Rate 8


11/42


12/42

1

SUMMARY

A pos t a l survey o f farmers in Mid Canterbury wasca r r i ed o u t in 1977 in order to asce r t a i n the i n t e r e s t ,resources and a t t i t u d e s o f farmers to the growing o fsugar b e e t in t h e i r r eg ion .

An extremely high n e t val id response ra te wasobta ined to the survey . Resu l t s i nd ica ted t h a t the rewas cons iderab le i n t e r e s t in sugar be e t product ion .Negat ive a t t i t udes appeared to be assoc ia ted withunfami l ia r i ty with the crop . Greater i n t e r e s t wasapparent on in tens ive cropping farms than on mixedcropping and l ives tock farms; grea t e r i n t e r e s t was alsodisplayed by younger as opposed to o lde r farmers .

Expanding labour requi rements assoc ia t ed withsugar b e e t production was cons idered a cons t ra i n t bysome o f the i n t e re s t ed growers. The use o f con t rac to rsappeared a favoured a l t e rna t ive in gain ing access toaddi t iona l machinery such as a sugar b e e t harves te r and aprec i s ion d r i l l .

Commitment to a minimum area o f b e e t fo r ani n i t i a l per iod o f years d id no t appear a major cons t ra i n tto those i n t e re s t ed in th e crop . A s t rong i n t e r e s twas expressed in the use o f by-products fo r l ives tockfeed .

Eigh t percen t of respondents had grown fodder b e e ton a regula r bas i s . Most respondents ind ica ted theyr equ i red more advice on crop husbandry i f they were tocommence sugar bee t product ion .


13/42

2

1 . INTRODUCTION

with a renewed publ ic i n t e r e s t in sugar bee tproduct ion in 1976 and with the poss ib i l i t y o f aGovernment f e a s ib i l i t y s tudy, the A.E.R.U. i n i t i a t ed ani nve s t i ga t ion aimed a t es t ab l i sh i ng the capaci ty andwi l l ingness o f farmers to under take sugar b e e t product-ion .

For many years Mid Canterbury has been cons ideredas a su i t ab l e loca t ion fo r a f i r s t at tempt to es t ab l i sha sugar be e t i ndus t ry . Other areas have been evaluated ,notably South Otago, (Frampton, 1964); however,MidCanterbury was se lec ted as th e most su i t ab l e region forthe purposes o f the s tudy repor t ed he re .

The i nve s t i ga t ion had th e fo l lowing objec t ives :( i) To assess farmers ' i n t e r e s t in growing

sugar be e t .( i i ) To asce r t a i n farmers ' presen t machinery

and l abour r esources from the po in t o fview o f sugar b e e t product ion .

( i i i ) To appra i se farmers ' reac t ions tod i f f e ren t forms o f access to s p e c i a l i s tmachinery and equipment .

( iv) To t e s t farmers ' reac t ions to requ i redplanning and con t rac tua l arrangements .

(v) To est imate the ab i l i t y o f farmers toachieve th e exper t i se required fo r theproduct ion o f be e t .

(vi) To assess a t t i t udes to using sugar bee ttops , crowns, and pulp by-products asl ives tock feed .

(v i i ) To gauge farmers ' a t t i t udes to hi r inga dd i t i ona l labour .

(v i i i ) To review fa rmers ' presen t use o fextens ion se rv ices .


14/42

3

The i nve s t i ga t ion was ca r r ied o u t by means o f apos ta l sample survey o f farmers in the Mid Canterburyr eg ion .

Because o f necessary l i m i t a t i ons to quest ionnai relength , many ques t ions were framed assuming ce r t a i nspec i f ied cond i t ions exis ted and farmers were requ i red toanswer with these condi t ions in mind. This requi rementi s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c fea ture o f most mail surveys , wherein terv iewers are no t pre s e n t .


15/42

4

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 AREA SURVEYEDAn a rea within a 32 km rad ius o f Ashburton Pos t

Office was def ined as the i n i t i a l survey a rea . Someadjus tment to t h i s i n i t i a l a rea was made by using thebanks of the Rakaia and Rangi ta ta r i ve r s as over r id ingboundaries.

Soi l types with in t h i s area were c la s s i f i edaccording to t h e i r depth with the a id o f a s o i l map.Those areas o f land where the combined A and B s o i lhorizon d id no t exceed 30 cm were excluded from thesample a rea . The remaining area was s t r a t i f i e d usingtwo s o i l depth ca tegor ie s , 30 - 60 cm and 60 cm p lus .Waterton s o i l s were excluded from the sample area asthey were considered unsui tab le fo r sugar b e e tproduct ion .

2.2 SELECTION OF SAMPLEThe s ize of each farm with in the sample area

was obta ined from th e va lua t ion r o l l a t the AshburtonCounty of f i ce s . Farms l e s s than 40 hec ta res wereexcluded. The reason fo r th i s was t h a t sugar b e e ti s genera l ly grown in a four to f ive year ro t a t ion .The assumption was made t ha t e igh t hec ta res would be aminimum area per farm des i red by process ing companies.This suggested t h a t farms l e s s than 40 hec ta res would beincapable of mainta in ing the annual minimum supply .

The re s t r i c ted popula t ion o ~ farms in the samplearea was divided in to the two so i l depth groups ea r l i e rdef ined wi th the a id of a farm loca t ion map. Arandom sample o f farms was se lec ted from each s o i ldepth group; propor t iona l rep resen ta t ion from each so i ldepth group was used to se l ec t a t o t a l of 140 farms,represent ing approximately 20 percen t o f the e l ig ib lepopula t ion .


16/42

5

2.3 SURVEY TECHNIQUEOn the 4 th February 1977, farmers were mailed th e

f ive page quest ionnai re with a cover ing l e t t e r (AppendixI) . Five days l a t e r they were mailed a pos tcardthanking them if they had responded and prompting themi f they had n o t done so a l ready .

Af te r a fu r the r nine days had passed , a l l nonrespondents were mailed a fu r the r reminder l e t t e r .Fourteen days l a t e r , remaining non-respondents weresent a f ina l reminder.

Large brown machine franked envelopes were usedin outward mai l ings . Experience by Ambler (1977)and O'Donnel l (1969) i nd ica ted the re was little economicadvantage in us ing white envelopes o r stamps. Brownmachine f ranked envelopes were used a l so fo r re turnmail ing .


17/42

6

3. RESPONSE AND RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS

3 .1 RESPONSE RATEThe mai l survey y ie lded a n e t va l id response of

92 percen t . This outcome i s compared to o ther recen tA.E.R.U. mail surveys in Table 1 .

TABLE 1.COMPARISON OF MAIL SURVEY RESPONSE RATES

SURVEY

A.E.R.U. Transpor tUse Survey 1975-76Farmer In ten t ionsSurvey (Pryde, 1975)Sugar Beet Survey

SAMPLESIZE

3156

54 814 0

USABLE RESPONSEAS %

QUESTIONNAIRESDESPATCHED

52.7

61.583.6

CORRECTEDSAMPLESIZE

2811

502130

USABLE NETRESPONSE

RATE

59.2

67.192.1

The cor rec ted sample s ize al lows fo r non-responsedue to known dea ths , r e t i r ements o r address changes. Inthe sugar b e e t survey, seven percen t of the sample f e l lin to t h i s category despi te using th e most recent va luat ionr o l l in def in ing the popu la t ion . Other pos t a l surveys haveyie lded s im i l a r r e s u l t s . In the t r a ns por t surveyconducted by Ambler of the A.E.R.U. in 1975-76, re turnedl e t t e r s and l e t t e r s advis ing of death or re t i remen taccounted fo r 10.4 percen t o f quest ionnai res mailed(Ambler, unpubl ished da ta ) . In t h i s case names andaddresses had been der ived from a Minis t ry of Agricul tureand Fisher i es address list compiled 10 months previously .Pryde (1975) using the same source found 8.4 percent ofques t ionna i res mailed ou t were re turned due to addresschanges, deaths or re t i remen t s .


18/42

7

3.2 RESPONSE PATTERNQuest ionnaires were despatched a t a busy t ime o f

the year for farmers. However, 72 percen t of r ep l i e swere obta ined with in th ree weeks. As shown in Figure1 , t he re was a lagged response to the f i r s t tworeminders. The l e s s s ign i f i can t response to the t h i rdreminder was hardly su rp r i s i ng , consider ing tha t 89percen t of ques t ionna i res had been re turned a t the t imeof i t s mai l ing.


19/42

-*'

8

100 Ftg.1 CUMULATIVE RESPONSE RATE

90

80

70

20

10

t3rdReminder Sent

, lagged Response

2nd Reminder Despatched

\ lagged Response

1st Reminder Despatched

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32Day of Reply (vlCekends omitted)


20/42

9

3 .3 RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS3.3 .1 Age Dis t r i bu t ion

The age d i s t r ibu t ion of respondents i s shownin Table 2. Sixty th ree percen t o f respondents werebetween 36 and 55 years o f age.

TABLE 2.AGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS

AGE GROUP (YRS) % RESPONDENTSlB - 25 5 .226 - 35 12.936 - 45 27.646 - 55 35.356 - 65 16.465 + 2 .6Total 100.0

3.3 .2 Sta tusOwner opera to rs made up the major i ty o f

respondents (see Table 3 ) .TABLE 3.

STATUS OF RESPONDENTSSTATUS

OwnerOWner - non opera to rManagerLessee ManagerOtherTota l

% RESPONDENTS90.61.72 .64 .3O.B

100.0


21/42

10

3.3.3 Farm TypeMixed cropping and l ives tock farms dominated

the sampled farms.shown in Table 4.

The d i s t r i bu t ion of farm types i s

TABLE 4.FARM TYPES OF RESPONDENTS

FARM TYPE % RESPONDENTS

Mixed Cropping & Livestock 76.7Intens ive Cropping 19.0Dairying 3.4Store Lamb Product ion 0 .0In tens ive Fa t t en ing 0.0Other 0 .9Tota l 100.0

3.3.4 Farm Size and LocationThe average dis tance of farms from Ashburton

Post Office was 21 ki lomet res (s tandard deviat ion of9.5 ki lometres) . The average farm s ize was 185hectares ( s tandard devia t ion of 94.1 hectares) . Thedis t r ibu t ion of farm s i zes i s shown in Table 5 .

TABLE 5.DISTRIBUTION OF FARM SIZES OF RESPONDENTS

FARM SIZE (ha) % RESPONDENTS40 - 81 10.382 - 202 57.2203 - 324 22.2324 + 10.3Tota l 100.0


22/42

11

4. RESULTS

4.1 INTEREST IN SUGAR BEET PRODUCTIONOne of the objec t ives o f th e survey was to assess

the i n t e r e s t o f farmers in becoming regula r sugar bee tproducers. The assumpt ion was made t h a t farmers wouldwil l ing ly commence sugar bee t product ion only i f n etre turns from the crop a t l e a s t equal led the long run n e tre tu rns t h a t could be expected from othe r farmen t e rp r i se s . Hence, farmers were asked if they wouldse r ious ly cons ider growing sugar beet if it were moreprof i t ab le than any othe r crop . Seventy percen t r ep l i edin the a f f i rma t ive to t h i s proposa l .

Consider ing the assumpt ions under which r ep l i e s toth i s quest ion were given , it would be unwise to concludet h a t 70 percent of farmers with in the survey area werew i l l i ng to commence sugar b e e t product ion . It does,however, i nd i c a t e a wide i n t e r e s t in the crop .

The quest ionnai re a l so sought reasons fromfarmers who d id not wish to cons ider bee t product ion ,even under the above assumpt ion. A number o f po t en t i a lreasons were presented in the ques t ionna i re and farmerswere asked to ind ica te the appropria te reasons for t h e i rlack o f i n t e r e s t .

Table 6 shows the f requencies of reasons i nd ica tedby respondents who did no t wish to cons ider beet produc t -ion . These r e su l t s do not ind ica te t h a t any s ingle

f a c ~ o r represents a primary dis incet i t ive ; however, thet ab le does show t h a t the respondents ' re luc tance to t rythe crop i s l a rge ly i n sp i red by the des i re to see thecrop proven. In add i t ion , non i n t e re s t ed farmers c lea r lywish to know more about the crop and how it can bein tegra ted in to t h e i r l ives tock system before accept inggrowing con t rac t s .


23/42

a

4.2

12

TABLE 6REASONS FOR NO INTEREST IN SUGAR BEET

ReasonCouldn ' t be botheredWould t r y l a t e r when p r o v e ~D o n ' t know enough about itSoi l n o t s u i t a b l e fo r sugarb ee t

Propor t ion o fRespondents a5.9

41.255.9

Doesn ' t s u i t l i ves tock system14.744.126.5ther

Percen tages do no t add to 100 as many responden t sind ica ted more than one reason fo r t h e i r non-i n t e r e s t in suga r b ee t .

CHARACTERISTICS OF INTERESTED RESPONDENTS4 .2 .1 I n t e r e s t by Farm Type

Ninety s ix pe rcen t o f responden t s from i n t ens ivecropping farms expressed i n t e r e s t in growing the c rop.This was in c o n t r a s t to 68 percen t o f responden t s frommixed cropp ing and l i ves tock fa rms . These farmtypes were the only two with s i g n i f i c a n t numbers ineach ca tegory (See Table 4 .)

4.2 .2 I n t e r e s t by Age GroupAge has o f t e n been c i t e d as an i n f l u e n t i a l

v a r i ab l e in a f a rmer ' s dec i s ion to d ive r s i fy h is produc t ion or i n i t i a t e a new e n te rp r i s e . S t a t i s t i c a l l y th esurvey was ab le to conf irm t h i s s ince more o f th e non-in te res ted . responden t s were in th e o id e r age bracke t .This i s shown in Table 7. The value o f th e cor rec tedChi-square va lue was 2.715 which was s i g n i f i c a n t a t the90 pe rcen t l e v e l .


24/42

13

TABLE 7NUMBERS OF RESPONDENTS INTERESTED IN

SUGAR BEET BY AGE GROUP

Age Group18-45vr 45 vr +f ~

In te res tedin growingSugar Beet

YES

NO

41 39

11 23__ _____ 1...--___

4.2 .3 In t e re s t by Soi l Depth GroupThe survey r e su l t s d id no t show any r e l a t i on -

ship between th e area of heavy cropping so i l on the farmand i n t e r e s t in growing sugar bee t . One poss ib le reasonfo r t h i s i s t h a t farmers hold di f fe r ing views on whatcons t i t u t e s a heavy cropping s o i l . This became apparentwhen ana lys i s revealed the average so i l depth in croppingso i l termed as 'medium' exceeded t h a t termed ' heavy ' by25mm.

4.2.4 I n t e r e s t by Farm Size GroupAnalysis showed no re la t ionship between farm

s ize group and i n t e r e s t in the crop . This i s shown inTable 8 , where the Chi-square value fo r d i f fe rences was1.316 which was not s ign i f i can t a t the 90 percen t l eve l .

In te res tedin growingSugar Beet

,

!i

TABLE 8INTEREST BY FARM SIZE

Farm Size (ha)40-81 82-202

YES 7 47NO 5 19

I202-324 324 +19 8

I 6 I 4I Ii 1


25/42

14

4.3 LABOUR AND M A C H I ~ E R Y RESOURCES OF RESPONDENTSAn es t imate of the present labour and machinery

resources of farmers was considered an impor tan t objec t iveof the survey . This information al lows some ind ica t ionof the l ike ly fu ture demand fo r s p e c i a l i s t machinery andlabour if a sugar beet indust ry was es tab l i shed in thea rea .

4 .3 .1 Labour ResourcesFi f ty f ive percent of survey r e s p o n d ~ n t s were

employing two or more fu l l t ime s t a f f . Of the farmswhich were s ingle man un i t s , 70 percen t were using casuallabour a t some t ime during the year . Six ty two percen tof a l l respondents were employing casual labour .

4.3 .2 Att i tudes to Addi t ional LabourFarmers were asked if they would still

cons ider growing sugar beet i f i t meant addi t iona l fu l lt ime labour would be requi red . Of po t en t i a l growerrespondents , 39 percent indica ted t h a t they would beamenable to h i r ing addi t iona l labour and 18 percen tind ica ted they would not take on a dd i t i ona l labour; 43percent were uncer ta in .

In te res ted growers were asked t h e i r main reasonfo r no t wanting to employ addi t iona l fu l l - t ime labour .Resul ts a re shown in Table 9. Although farmers wereasked to s ta te t h e i r main reason fo r not wanting to hi remore fu l l t ime labour , many gave the dual answer of' cos t s and accommodation' .

TABLE 9REASONS OF INTERESTED GROWERS FOR NOT WANTING TO EMPLOY

ADDITIONAL FULL - TIME LABOURReason

No AccommodationLabour CostsAccommodation and cos t sOther reasonsTota l

Frequency of Reason (%)22.713.627.336.4100.0


26/42

15

4.3 .3 Machinery ResourcesTable 10 ind ica tes t h a t farmers are genera l ly

wel l equipped with bas ic farm implements requ i red fo rsugar bee t product ion . Howe"ver, the low numbers o fava i lab le prec is ion dr i l l s and in ter-row cu l t iva to r ssugges t t h a t many farmers would be unable to commenceimmediate bee t growing opera t ions without a dd i t i ona lcap i t a l out lay or the provis ion of a re l i ab le cont rac t ingserv ice . Fi f ty percen t of respondents d id not haveaccess to top dress ing equipment; however, cont rac t ingse rv ices already e x i s t in the area .

Comparing respondents i n t e re s t ed in the sugarbee t crop with those not i n t e r e s t ed revea ls non i n t e r e s t e ~farmers were s l igh t ly l e s s well equipped than thosein te res ted . It was "not poss ib le to ascer t a in whetherava i lab i l i ty of equipment may have inf luenced a farmer ' sdecis ion to ind ica te i n t e r e s t in the crop.

I f the prec i s ion d r i l l i s removed from the list ofmachinery i tems ana lys i s revealed t ha t only 10.2 percen to f farmers owned or had access to a l l of the remainingi t ems.

TABLE 10MACHINERY OWNED OR AVAILABLE TO RESPONDENTS

% OwnershipAmongstMachinery Item In te res tedRespondentsTruck (grea te r than 2 tonne s) 81. 5Plough 100.0In ter-row Cul t iva tor 34.6

S p r a ~ Gear {for crop sprayingby t r ac t o r ) 74.1Topdresser 53.1Prec i s ion Dr i l l 8.6Tra i l e r 63.0

% OwnershipAmongstNon-Interes tedRespondents44.1

100.026.561.847.1

8 .841.2


27/42

16

4.3 .4 At t i tudes to Forms of Access to MachineryAnt ic ipa t ing t h a t many farmers would no t own

a prec i s ion d r i l l the quest ionnai re sought from thoserespondents wi thout dr i l l s t h e i r reac t ion to var ious formso f d r i l l ownership o r access , on the assumption t h a taccess to a d r i l l was e s s e n t i a l . Simi la r reac t ion wassought to d i f f e r e n t forms o f access to a sugar bee tharves te r .

Farmers were to ld t h a t a sugar bee t h a rv e s t e rc os t $20,000 and a prec i s ion d r i l l $2,600. A range o faccess a l t e rna t i ves were presen ted and respondents wererequi red to ind ica te t h e i r most probable ac t ion .Resu l t s a re shown in Tables 11 and 12.

TABLE 11FAVOURED ALTERNATIVES OF RESPONDENTS INTERESTED IN

SUGAR BEET PRODUCTION TO GAINING ACCESS TOSUGAR BEET HARVESTER

% Favouring EachAl te rna t ive Al t e rna t iveWould buy own 16.4Rely on Leasing 0 .0Organise a Syndicate 13.9Use Contractors 57.0Rely on Friends o r Neighbours 0.0Would Use More than one o f aboveAl te rna t ives 12.7Tota l 100.0

TABLE 12FAVOURED ALTERNATIVES OF RESPONDENTS INTERESTED IN

SUGAR BEET PRODUCTION TO GAINING ACCESSTO A PRECISION DRILL

Al te rna t ive % Favour ing EachAl te rna t iveWould buy own 18.9Rely on l eas ing 0.0Organise a Syndicate 11.9Use Contrac tors 44.6Rely on Friends or Neighbours 1.4Would use more than one o f abovea l t e rna t i ves 12.2


28/42

17

Inspec t ion o f both Tables revea l s t h a t desp i t ethe new pr ice d i f f e r e n t i a l of $17,400 between the tw omachinery i tems , t he re appears to be little change in thepercentage o f respondents who would purchase each of thetwo i t ems .

Contract ing appeared a favoured a l t e rna t ivefo r both machinery i t ems .

4.4 ATTITUDES TO CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTSThe quest ionnai re sought to assess farmers '

a t t i t udes to a commitment to an annual minimum area fo ran i n i t i a l per iod of yea rs . Of those respondents whoind ica ted i n t e r e s t in the crop, 87 percen t ind ica tedthey would agree to grow a spec i f ied minimum a rea (13percen t would no t accept t h i s ) , and 82 percen t i nd ica tedthey would be prepared to en te r in to a cont rac t to growbee t fo r a number o f consecut ive years .4.5 ATTITUDES TO BY-PRODUCT USE

Farmers were informed t ha t the tops and crowns o fsugar bee t had a s imi la r nu t r i t i ve va lue per hec ta re tot u rn ips . They were then asked i f they would envisageusing the windrowed tops and crowns as s tockfeed . Seventynine percen t o f those respondents who had i nd ica ted ani n t e r e s t i n growing sugar bee t repl ie 'd in th e a f f i rma t ivewith a fu r the r 17 percent uncer ta in .

At t i tudes by farm type are shown in Table 13 whichind ica te s a s t rong i n t e r e s t in the use o f tops and crowns,


29/42

18

espec ia l ly by mixed cropping and l i ves tock fa rmers .Farmers were a l so asked t o ind ica te t h e i r

i n t e r e s t in using pulp by-produc ts such as a feed nut wi tha feed value equ iva len t to bar l ey . Seventy one p e r cen to f p o t e n t i a l sugar bee t growers r e p l i e d in the a f f i rma t ivewith 20 p e r cen t uncer t a in . A t t i tudes by farm typeare shown in Table 14. Future promotion campaigns fo rsuch feed nut s would have some in f luence on these f igu res .In add i t ion , process ing companies would n ot be committedto se l l i ng by-produc ts so le ly in Ashburton County.

TABLE 13PROPORTION OF INTERESTED SUGAR BEET GROWERS WHO I N ~ I C A T E D

AN INTEREST IN USING BY-PRODUCTS FOR LIVESTOCKNotFarm Type In t e re s t ed In t e r e s t e d Uncer ta in Tota l(% ) (%) (%) ( %

Mixed Cropping& Lives tock 83.0 1 .7 15.3 100.0In tens iveCropping 66.7 9.5 23.8 100.0

TABLE 14PROPORTION OF INTERESTED SUGAR BEET GROWERS WHO INDICATED

AN INTEREST IN USING FEED NUTS DERIVED FROM PULP

NotFarm Type In t e r e s t e d In t e r e s t e d Uncer ta in Tota l(%) (%) (%) (% )Mixed Cropping& Livestock 76.3 5 .1 8.6 100.0In tens iveCropping 57.1 19.1 23.8 100.0


30/42

19

4.6 EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE OF BEET GROWING4.6.1 Farmers ' Exper ience

Sugar bee t i s an un t r i ed crop fo r mostfarmers, except fo r a smal l propor t ion who have hadexper imental p lo t s on the farm or who have had overseasexper ience . For t h i s reason the ques t ionna i re soughtto es t ab l i sh farmers ' exper ience with a s imi l a r crop ..Fodder bee t was chosen as i t s sowing and harves t ingrequ i rements are s imi la r in many r espec t s to sugar bee t .

Whils t 25 percent o f respondents had someexper ience growing fodder bee t , only 6 percent of respond-ents had grown fodder be e t on a r egu l a r bas i s . Of these8 regula r fodder bee t growers , 2 sowed t he i r own bee t and3 ca r r i ed ou t t he i r own harves t ing ; 5 of these 8 r egu l a rgrowers were using t h e i r bee t fo r grazing purposes .

4.6 .2 Problems Exper ienced by Fodder Beet GrowersFarmers were asked to ind ica te the problems

they had exper ienced with fodder bee t . Resul t s a reshown in Table 15.

TABLE 15PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED BY FODDER BEET GROWERS

ProblemSo i l too shal low or stoneyWeedsUnsui table in ro ta t ionWet Soi l a t Harvest ingOtherNo Problems

% RespondentsExperiencing Problem3 .4

58.63 .46.9

20.717.2

4.6.3 Farmers ' Knowledge o f Sugar BeetSome knowledge o f farmers ' cur ren t knowledge

of sugar bee t product ion i s of importance in planningfu ture extension serv ices . Farmers were requested toind ica te where they had obta ined the most usefu l knowledge


31/42

20

abou t suga r b e e t and to s t a t e what requi rements inknowledge and o t h e r arrangements they would see asim por tan t befo re they would commence growing th e crop .Resu l t s a re shown in Tables 16 and 17 .

TABLE 16SOURCES OF MOST USEFUL KNOWLEDGE

% i n t e r e s t e d growerr e sponden t s i nd i c a t i ngvar ious source of use fu lknowledge on suga r b e e t

Reading magazinesand books 21.8Prev ious Exper iencewith Fodder Beet 14.1Talk ing to o t h e rFarmers 7 .7Approach from aCommercial Firm 5 .1Other Sources 6.4Have little o r noKnowledge 44.9Tota l 100.0

TABLE 17

% n o n - i n t e r e s t e d growerrespondents i nd ica t ingvar ious sources o f u se f u lknowledge on sugar b e e t

19.40 .09 .60 .06 .5

64.5100.0

R E Q U I R E ~ l l i N T S BEFORE C O ~ E N C E M E N T OF GROWING% i n t e r e s t ed growerrespondents i nd i c a t i ngrequi rement

More advice on crop husbandryInformat ion on long term f i na nc i a lr e t u r n sGuaranteed minimum pr i c e fo r cropA f i na nc i a l i n t e r e s t in t he p roces s ing fac to ryInformat ion abou t i r r i g a t i o n requi rementsAn opt ion to use the b e e t as l i ve s t oc k feedOther

79.582.180.824.460.343.62 .6


32/42

21

A major po in t o f i n t e r e s t i s t h a t 45 percen t o fi n t e re s t ed grower respondents admi t ted little o r noknowledge o f sugar bee t product ion . This impl ies aconcer ted extens ion programme would be necessary if asugar bee t indust ry were e s t a b l i s he d . Such a programmewould have a good chance o f success as a lmos t 80 p e rc e n to f i n t e re s t ed respondents ind ica ted they would requ i remore advice on crop husbandry before commencing to growthe crop.

4 .7 FARMERS' USE OF EXTENSION SERVICESA list of ex tens ion se rv ices ava i lab le to farmers

in the survey area was presen ted in the quest ionnai re andfarmers were asked to ind ica te whether they had soughtadvice from such sources in the l a s t twelve months.Resul ts a re shown in Table 18.

TABLE 18USE OF EXTENSION SERVICES

% respondentsService using the se rv iceFarm Improvement Club Adviser 18.3Minis t ry of Agr icu l tu re & Fi s he r i e sAdviser 33.9Pr iva te Farm Consul tan t 13.9Lincoln Farm Advisory Service 1 .9A Commercial F i e l ~ Service 46.7

Seventy percen t o f a l l respondents made use of a tl e a s t one of the l i s t ed se rv ices . Those respondentswho ind ica ted they were i n t e re s t ed in growing sugar bee twere more l i ke ly to be using extens ion se rv ices (Table 19) .This re la t ionship was s ign i f i can t a t the 99 percen t l e ve l(Chi square = 7 .46) .


33/42

22

TABLE 19

USE OF EXTENSION SERVICES BY INTERESTED

AND NON-INTERESTED SUGAR BEET GROWERS

Use of Extens ion Services

In te res ted inGrowing sugarbee t

YESNO

YES

6317

NO

1817


34/42

23

REFERENCES

AMBLER, T. I . (1977): Response Pa t te rns to a mail Surveyof New Zealand Farmers, A.E.R.U. Research ReportNo. 78, Lincoln Colleg e, Canterbury.FRAMPTON, A.R. (1964): The Economics o f Growing Sugar Beeton Farms in South Otago. M. Agr. Sc. Thes is .Massey Univers i ty of Manawatu.O'DONNELL, B.C. (1969): TheMai l Survey in Agr icu l tura lEconomics Research. Occ .. Paper No . 1 . Dept.

Ag. Econ. and Farm Mgt. , Massey Univers i ty .PRYDE, J .G. (1975): A Pos ta l Sample Survey of SheepFarmers Att i tudes to Incent ives and Obstacles toIncreas ing Farm Output and Other Agr icul tura lPolicy I s sues . A.E.R.U. Disc . Paper No 31,Lincoln Col lege , Canterbury.


35/42


36/42

25

Lincoln CollegeCanterbury_ ~ ' l ~ I ; = i l l f New Zealand-----UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE-------------

1878 1978 Telephone: Halswell 8029

APPENDIX I

4 February 1977

Dear S i r ,

You may know t h a t a de ta i l e d s tudy on th e f e a s i b i l i t y o f e s t a b l i sh i n g a sugar b ee t i n d u s t r y in New Zealand i s soonto be i n i t i a t e d . There appears to be wide fa rmer suppor tand i n t e r e s t in such a development but the re i s little f i rmbackground i n fo rma t i o n . Because o f t h i s we a re conduct inga survey o f fa rmers i n f e a s i b l e su g a r b e e t growing a r ea s .Your name was s e l ec t ed a t random to make up a sample o ffa rmers in your county .

The su cces s o f th e survey depends on you comple t ingth e enc losed q u es t i o n n a i r e . We assure you t h a t a l lr e p l i e s rece ived w i l l be t r e a t e d with the s t r i c t e s tco n f id en ce and t h a t no i n fo rma t i o n abou t i n d iv id u a l fa rmersw i l l go beyond t h i s Co l l eg e .

The ques t ionna i re t akes ab o u t 10 minutes to comple teand we would apprec ia t e having your r e p l i e s by th e 18 February .You w i l l f ind a s tamped addressed envelope fo r th e r e t u r nmai l ing .Thank you,

Yours ' s incere ly ,

J .B . DentPro fes s o r o f Farm Management


37/42

26

SUGAR BEET SURVEY

PART A. GENERAL FARM INFORMATION1 .2.

What i s the t o t a l area of your proper ty?How fa r i s the proper ty from theAshburton Post Office?

3. How would you c lass i fy your posi t ion?3.1 Owner operator3.2 Owner non-manager3.3 Manager in consul t a t ion with owners3.4 Lessee manager3.5 Other (please s ta te ) .

4. How do you c lass i fy your proper ty?4 .1 Mixed cropping and s tock4 .2 Intensive fa t ten ing4.3 Intensive cropping4.4 Store lamb product ion4 .5 Dairying4.6 Other (please s ta te ) .

------

-----

5. How many people work fu l l time on the farm for morethan 6 months of the year? ( inc luding owner/manager)

acres

miles

I1I\---_ ...

6. Did yo u employ any par t t ime labour l a s t year? YESD NO D--( include wife but not contractors)7. Which of the fol lowing machinery do you e i ther own orhave easy access to when the t ime ar i ses?

7.1 Truck (greater than 2 tons)7.2 Plough7.3 An inter-row cu l t iva to r7.4 A prec i s ion d r i l l7.5 Spray equipment (sui table for crop

spraying by t rac tor )7.6 Tra i le r (heavy duty)7.7 Fer t i l i s e r topdresser7.8 None of the above


38/42

278. Our so i l map i nd i ca t e s your proper ty i s on a

i . e . A s o i l s u i t ab l e fo r cropping. Your farm may a lsocover o the r s o i l t ypes . I f t h i s i s the case you may makeal lowance fo r it in the fol lowing t ab l e . Please fill it in asaccura te ly as you can.

8 .1 What percentage o f the farmi s on each s o i l type?

8 .2 On average, what would thedepth of each s o i l be togravel o r sand? ( in inches)

8 .3 What percentage of each typei s cur rent ly i r r iga ted?

heavycroppings o i l

mediumcroppingso i l

l i g h tcroppings o i l

Any comments. e . g . Although my s o i l i s on Wakanui silt loam, it i sshallow and unsu i t ab le fo r heavy cropping.

PART B. THE NEXT QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT VARIOUS ASPECTS OF SUGAR BEETPRODUCTION9. I f sugar bee t was more pr o f i t ab l e than any o the r crop, would you

se r ious ly consider growing the crop now?

10.YES D NO I I

I f 'NO' what reasons do you have fo r th i s?than one box.) (You can t i ck more

10.110.210:310.4

10.510.6

I cannot be bothered.I may t ry l a t e r when provenI don ' t know enough about itI don ' t th ink my so i l i s r ea l ly su i t ab le fo rsugar beet .Doesn ' t s u i t my s tock systemOther (p lease s ta te )

II


39/42

28

11. Imagine t h a t sugar b e e t has turned o u t to be a pro f i t ab l ecrop and you have decided to commit yourse l f to long term

12.

sugar b e e t produc t i on . You must now ob ta in th e use ofspec ia l i s t equipment (a harves te r valued a t approximately$20,000 and a prec is ion d r i l l valued a t $2,600) .Which o f th e fol lowing would bes t descr ibe your ac t ionin the case of t he harves te r?11.1 I would probably look to buying my own

h a rv e s t e r .11. 2 I would probably r e ly on l eas ing11. 3 I would t r y to organise a syndicate11.4 I would most l i ke ly use con t rac to rs1l .5 I would re ly on f r iends or neighbours11.6 Other ( s ta te )I f you d o n ' t al ready have a prec is ion d r i l l , which o fth e fo l lowing would bes t descr ibe your ac t ion inacquir ing th e use o f th e dr i l l ?12.1 I would probably buy my own d r i l l12.2 I would probably r e ly on l eas ing12.3 I would t r y to organise a syndicate12.4 I would probably r e ly on con t rac to rs12.5 I would r e ly on f r i ends or neighbours12.6 Other ( s ta te )

iI

13. In order tobe prepared

assure the i n i t i a l supply fo r a fac to ry would youto undertake th e fo l lowing tw o commitments:BBi) an agreed minimum acreage(U) growing fo r a number o f consecut ive years

PART C.14. Have you eve r had exper ience in growing the s im i l a r crop

fod,der beet? YESD 11OIf 'NO' to Q.18. ""o I

15. Do you grow fodder bee t regular ly? YESCl NO DI f 'NO' go to Q.17. " f


40/42

29

16. I f you do grow fodder b e e t r egu l a r l y , do you( i) do your own sowing? YES NO( i i ) do your own harvest ing? YES NO

I GRAZE17. What problems have you exper ienced with fodder bee t?

17.1 Soi l too shallow or s toney17.2 Weed problems17.3 Does no t s u i t r o t a t i on17.4 Wet so i l a t harves t ing17.5 Other (please s t a t e )17.6 No problems.

18. Where have you acquired your most usefu l knowledge of sugarb e e t product ion? (Tick only one box)

19.

18.1

18.218.3

18.418.518.6

I have little or no knowledge o f sugar bee tproduct ion .Reading magazines, books, & newspapersThrough previous exper ience growing fodderb e e tThrough t a lk ing to o th e r farmersThrough approaches from a commercial firmOther (please s ta te )

Before going into sugar b e e t product ion , which of thefo l lowing would you cons ider necessary for yoursel f?(You can t i ck any number o f boxes)19.119.2

19.319.419.519.619.719.8

More advice on the crop husbandryIn format ion about th e long term f inanc ia lre tu rns .A guaranteed minimum pr i ce fo r th e 'cropA f inanc ia l in te r e s t in the processing fac toryInformation about i r r iga t ion requirementsAn opt ion to withdraw from the con t rac tAn opt ion to use the b e e t as s tock feedOther (please s ta te )

__ - l


41/42

30

20. I f sugar bee t turned ou t to be pro f i t ab l e , b u t you foundt h a t to grow it you needed addi t ional fu l l t ime l abour ,would you still consider growing the crop?

YESD NOD DON'T KNOWD21. I f 'NO' what main reason do you have fo r t h i s ?21.1 No labour accommodation21.2 cos t of l abour21. 3 Other reasons

22. Over the pas t year have you ever sought advice from anyo f th e fol lowing people?

YES22.1 Farm Improvement Club adv ise r22.2 Minist ry o f Agr icu l tu re adv ise r

NO

----22.3 Pr iva te Farm Consul tant22.4 Lincoln College Farm Advisory Service22.5 A commercial f ie ld serv ice .

(e .g . a f e r t i l i s e r or weed spraying f i rm)

23. Sugar bee t tops and crowns have a s imi la r nu t r i t i ve value

24.

p er acre to tu rn ips . Would you envisage us ing these topsand crowns as s tock feed? (The tops look a b i t l i k e fodderbee t and are usual ly windrowed then s e t s tocked. )

YES o NO l - , DON'T KNOWSugar bee t farmers are usual ly given the chance to bu y t h e i r dr iedsugar bee t pulp back a t a discount r a te . Th e pulp i s in nu tform and has a feed value equ iva len t to bar ley . I f the pr i cemade it worthwhile , would you cons ide r using th e nuts as s tock

YES o NO D DON'T KNOWfeed .

25. YOUR NAME26. YOUR AGE ( jus t t i ck the range) .

-18 - 25 25 - 35 35 - 45 45 - 55 55 - 65 65 +

D


42/42

31

27. Correct pos t a l address _______________________________________________

28. Telephone No.29. Any comments you may wish to add - they wi l l be apprecia ted .

survey of sugar beet

Documents