Memorias e informes

4.3.1 PCA analysis of annual change

The PCA of the annual change of the core variables over the period of ARGOS resulted in reducing the data to 5 Principal Components (see Table 4.14). PC1 measures change in profit in terms of both Effective Farm Surplus (EFS) and NFPBT – whatever the units. It also balances this with the change in equity because presumably improving equity decreases profit and change in efficiency (FWE/GFR) because improving efficiency will increase profit. PC2 measures the change in cropping balanced by the change soil nitrogen and pH, indicating the drain cropping is on the soil resource. PC3 is a measure of the change in efficiency in terms of the change in profit made per stock unit. PC4 is a measure of how a change in the lambing % changes the meat production/ha, which again seems a logical relationship – so is a measure of the relationship between lambing and meat production. PC5 measures the change in Olsen P.

4.3.2 Cluster analysis of annual change

A cluster analysis using the five PC scores assigned to each farm resulted in a solution with 5 clusters (see Table 4.15). The 5 cluster solution was the first to separate out each of the variables although there was not a reasonable scatter of the farms across the clusters, two of the groups having just one member. It is clear from Table 4.15, that Clusters 1 and 3, the groups which only have 1 member each, have extreme values of a particular PC.

Unbalanced anovas carried out on the original core ‘change’ variables help to describe the clusters/groups. This was also done for the average and the variation of these core variables.

Pathways to Sustainability

The results are in Tables 4.16 to 4.23. The non-lambing farmer has not been placed into a group because it was not clear where this farmer fitted.

What is immediately apparent from Table 4.16 is that the cluster analysis did not discriminate between all the variables, especially Olsen P, pH, FWE/GFR and EFS/farm. It may be that the annual changes were so small and so variable that this was impossible unless the analysis is taken further to more clusters. However, as it was, two of the clusters only had one member, so it is would seem that there is one larger dominant cluster. This also indicates that the sheep/beef farms are very different and it is hard to classify them satisfactorily.

It is also apparent that over the years accounted for here (2003/4 – 2009/10) this group of farmers have not earned any more from their farming (adjusted for 2009 dollar value). The only variables that could be said to have increased annually are the amount of equity and the N status of soils. In other words, there is no evidence of increasing intensification or efficiency but capital may have increased slightly.

Group 1

2B (1 integrated)

This farmer is increasing his profit, decreasing his equity and increasing his efficiency. It looks as if he is improving production and developing his property. He entered ARGOs later when an ARGOS farm was joined with his farm just as he was taking over the family farm from his father. The decreasing equity may be related to the time when he bought the farm from his father. The excessive rate of change may be related to the difference between the first year of data and those following.

Group 2: The productivists

2A, 4A, 5A, 8A, 11A, 3B, 8B, 9B, 10B, 2C, 9C, 12C (5 organic, 4 integrated, 3 conventional)

This group of farmers has increased their lambing percentage and the resultant meat production compared with the other groups. They have possibly increased their profit as measured by EFS but not NFPBT or their equity.

Additional data: The farmers in this group consistently have the lowest costs (with Group 4). They have the highest density of introduced bird spp.

Attitudinal data: Farmers in this group place the most importance on measuring their financial situation by using profit/loss, equity or return on capital statistics. They indicated that they do not care about their neighbours’ approval of their farming practices but do care about off-farm quality and are neutral about the relationship between climate change and their farming practices, while believing that technology will help to decrease greenhouse gas emissions. They are very supportive of tree planting for many reasons.

Group 3

11C (1 conventional)

This farmer has dropped in both profit making and efficiency. He is developing a more extensive property in addition to the ‘home’ farm and this would result in a decreasing intensity of all per hectare results.

Group 4: The investors

Pathways to Sustainability

This group has increased their equity and N status of their soils. It would appear that they have not changed their levels of profit or production and have the lowest NFPBT/ha or /su, and a decline in lambing percentage.

Additional data: With Group 2, Group 4 has consistently the lowest expenses. The farms in this group have the highest density of introduced insectivorous birds.

Attitudinal data: Group 4 differ a little from Group 2 here. Though they also indicate that it is important to them to measure their financial situation by noticing their equity and return on capital, they are the group that expresses most disagreement about the relationship between farming and climate change issues. They are also supportive of both birds and tree planting.

Group 5: ‘On the way up?’

4B, 6B, 11B (3 integrated)

The farmers in this group have increased their profit more than any of the other groups. They are becoming more intensive with high lambing percentage, profit and cropping. They have the most variable profits and soil pH. In fact this group consistently dominates the results with the highest values for all the variables whatever category, except for the attitudinal variables.

Additional data: The farmers in Group 5 have the highest expenses (vehicles and fuel, fertiliser, weeds and pests), the biggest increase in cash cropping, fertiliser, and weeds and pests expenses, and the most variable cash cropping, feed, and weeds and pests expenses. They apply more fertiliser in the form of K, N and S whether measured per ha or su, and the most N per farm, and their applications of N (however measured) and K (kg/su) are the most variable. In addition they have increased the N (kg/ha or su) applied and decreased the S (kg/ha). They have the most variable stock units per ha, and the highest scanning percentages. Their farms have the lowest density of introduced birds and introduced insectivorous birds.

Attitudinal data: The members of this group place less importance on ways of measuring their financial situation – profit/loss, equity and return on capital. They indicate that they do not care what their neighbours think of them and their farming. They are least concerned about planting trees for whatever reason.