new australian vegetable growing farmsdata.daff.gov.au/data/warehouse/9aab/9aabf/2012/avfesd9... ·...

Australian vegetable growing farms

An economic survey 2010–11 and 2011–12 Therese Thompson and Kyann Zhang

Research by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural

and Resource Economics and Sciences

ABARES research report 12.11 December 2012

© Commonwealth of Australia 2012 Ownership of intellectual property rights Unless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights, if any) in this publication is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia (referred to as the Commonwealth). Creative Commons licence All material in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence, save for content supplied by third parties, logos and the Commonwealth Coat of Arms.

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence is a standard form licence agreement that allows you to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt this publication provided you attribute the work. A summary of the licence terms is available from creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en. The full licence terms are available from creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode. This publication (and any material sourced from it) should be attributed as Thompson, T & Zhang, K 2012, Australian vegetable growing farms: an economic survey 2010–11 and 2011–12, ABARES research report 12.11 prepared for Horticulture Australia Limited, Canberra, December. CC BY 3.0. Cataloguing data Thompson, T & Zhang, K 2012, Australian vegetable growing farms: an economic survey 2010–11 and 2011–12, ABARES Research report 12.11 prepared for Horticulture Australia Limited, Canberra, December. ISSN 1447-8358 ISBN 978-1-74323-053-4 ABARES project 43189 Internet Australian vegetable growing farms: an economic survey 2010–11 and 2011–12 is available at daff.gov.au/abares/publications. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) Postal address GPO Box 1563 Canberra ACT 2601 Switchboard +61 2 6272 2010| Facsimile +61 2 6272 2001 Email [email protected] Web daff.gov.au/abares Inquiries about the licence and any use of this document should be sent to [email protected].

The Australian Government acting through the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry represented by the

Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, has exercised due care and skill in preparing and

compiling the information and data in this publication. Notwithstanding, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and

Forestry, ABARES, its employees and advisers disclaim all liability, including liability for negligence, for any loss, damage,

injury, expense or cost incurred by any person as a result of accessing, using or relying upon any of the information or data

in this publication to the maximum extent permitted by law.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

iii

Contents

Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ viii

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1

2 Overview of the industry .................................................................................................................. 2

Australian vegetable production ................................................................................................... 2

Employment in the vegetable industry ...................................................................................... 5

3 Farm performance .............................................................................................................................. 6

Seasonal conditions and water availability ............................................................................... 6

Physical characteristics .................................................................................................................... 7

Farm financial performance............................................................................................................ 9

Capital and debt ................................................................................................................................ 18

4 Comparison of financial performance of selected vegetable growing farms ............ 22

Specialist potato, tomato and lettuce growers ..................................................................... 22

Farms growing vegetables under cover .................................................................................. 23

Vegetable growers by rate of return ......................................................................................... 24

5 Recent trends ..................................................................................................................................... 29

Changes in the vegetable industry............................................................................................. 29

Cash costs of vegetable production ........................................................................................... 32

Industry issues .................................................................................................................................. 38

Appendix A: Survey methods and definitions .................................................................................. 47

Appendix B: Detailed survey estimates .............................................................................................. 55

References ...................................................................................................................................................... 78

Tables

Table 1 Gross value of vegetable production, by state, 2010–11 ................................................ 3

Table 2 Gross value of vegetable production, 2010–11 .................................................................. 3

Table 3 Proportion of vegetables produced from each state, 2010–11 (in value terms) .. 4

Table 4 Employment in the vegetable industry, by state, August 2012 .................................... 5

Table 5 Vegetable growers’ assessment of seasonal conditions, by state, 2010–11............ 7

Table 6 Area planted to vegetables, 2009–10 to 2011–12 ............................................................. 8

Table 7 Distribution of vegetable growing farms, by area planted to vegetables, by state, 2010–11 ................................................................................................................................ 8

Table 8 Area planted, quantity produced and yield, by vegetable crop, 2009–10 to 2011–12 ............................................................................................................................................. 9

iv

Table 9 Quantity sold, receipts and price received, by vegetables crop, 2009–10 to 2011–12 .......................................................................................................................................... 10

Table 10 Financial performance of vegetable farms, by state, 2009–10 to 2011–12 ....... 12

Table 11 Financial performance of vegetable farms, 2009–10 to 2011–12 ......................... 16

Table 12 Financial performance indicators, by state, 2009–10 to 2011–12........................ 17

Table 13 Distribution of vegetable farms, by equity ratio and farm cash income, 2010–11 ............................................................................................................................................... 21

Table 14 Selected estimates for specialist potato, tomato and lettuce farms, 2010–11 ............................................................................................................................................... 22

Table 15 Financial performance and debt characteristics of specialist potato, tomato and lettuce farms, 2010–11 .......................................................................................... 23

Table 16 Selected estimates for farms that grew vegetables under cover, 2010–11 ....... 24

Table 17 Financial performance and debt characteristics for vegetable farms, by rate of return to capital, 2010–11........................................................................................ 25

Table 18 Selected characteristics of vegetable farms by rate of return to capital, 2010–11 ............................................................................................................................................... 26

Table 19 Selling outlets and future intentions of vegetable growers, by rate of return to capital, 2010–11 ............................................................................................................ 27

Table 20 Socioeconomic and training characteristics for vegetable farms, by rate of return to capital group, 2010–11 .......................................................................... 28

Table 21 Components of cash costs of production per tonne for vegetable growers, 2010–11 ............................................................................................................................................... 33

Table 22 Cost of production per tonne for vegetable growers, 2008–09 to 2010–11 ..... 34

Table 23 Cost of potato production per tonne, by area of potatoes planted and quantity of potatoes harvested, 2008–09 to 2010–11 ...................................................... 34

Table 24 Cost of potato production per tonne for vegetable growers, 2007–08 to 2009–10 ............................................................................................................................................... 35

Table 25 Scenario specifications ........................................................................................................... 36

Table 26 Estimated increase in input costs as a result of a carbon price .............................. 36

Table 27 Change in processing costs, per tonne ............................................................................. 36

Table 28 Change in total receipts arising from a carbon price .................................................. 37

Table 29 Change in economic value of farm production .............................................................. 37

Table 30 Change in the economic value of farm production ...................................................... 37

Table 31 Food safety precautions undertaken, by state, 2010–11 .......................................... 38

Table 32 Food safety precautions undertaken, by area of vegetables planted, 2010–11 ............................................................................................................................................... 39

Table 33 Pest and disease monitoring, by state, 2010–11 .......................................................... 39

Table 34 Vegetable production methods, by state, 2010–11 ..................................................... 40

Table 35 Vegetable selling methods, 2010–11 ................................................................................ 40

v

Table 36 Ownership characteristics of vegetable farms, by state, 2010–11 ........................ 41

Table 37 Use of computers in vegetable farms, by state, 2010–11 .......................................... 42

Table 38 Use of technology in vegetable farms, by area of vegetables sown, 2010–11 .. 42

Table 39 Intentions of vegetable growers in five years, by state, 2010–11 ......................... 42

Table 40 Age of operator and area operated, by intention in five years, 2010–11 ........... 43

Table 41 Intentions to expand vegetable production area in the next three to five years, by state, 2010–11 ....................................................................................................... 44

Table 42 Management practices to improve vegetable farm productivity, by state, 2010–11 ............................................................................................................................................... 44

Table 43 Constraints to changing vegetable crop mix, by state, 2010–11 ............................ 45

Table 44 Major growth opportunities for vegetable farms, by state, 2010–11 .................. 45

Table 45 Impediments to developing export markets, by state, 2010–11 ........................... 45

Table 46 Impediments to future business viability of vegetable farms, by state, 2010–11 ............................................................................................................................................... 46

Table A1 Population and sample numbers for the Australian vegetable industry survey, 2010–11 ............................................................................................................................... 48

Table B1 Selected estimates of vegetable farms, by state, 2010–11 ....................................... 56

Table B2 Vegetable yields, by state, 2010–11 .................................................................................. 57

Table B3 Farm cash receipts of vegetable farms, by state, 2010–11 ...................................... 59

Table B4 Quantity sold, value of production and price received, by vegetable type, by state 2010–11 .............................................................................................................................. 60

Table B5 Farm cash costs of vegetable farms, by state, 2010–11 ............................................ 62

Table B6 Financial performance of vegetable farms, by state, 2010–11 ............................... 63

Table B7 Area irrigated and irrigated vegetable production, by state, 2010–11 ............... 64

Table B8 Volume of irrigation water used and use per hectare, by state, 2010–11 ......... 65

Table B9 Cost of vegetable production, by state, 2010–11 ......................................................... 66

Table B10 Selected physical estimated of vegetable farms, by area of vegetables planted, 2010–11 ............................................................................................................................. 67

Table B11 Vegetable yields, by area of vegetables planted, 2010–11 .................................... 68

Table B12 Farm cash receipts of vegetable farms, by area of vegetables planted, 2010–11 ............................................................................................................................................... 70

Table B13 Quantity sold, value of production and price received, by area of vegetables planted, 2010–11 ............................................................................................................................. 71

Table B14 Farm cash costs of vegetable farms, by area of vegetables planted, 2010–11 ............................................................................................................................................... 73

Table B15 Financial performance of vegetable farms, by area of vegetables planted, 2010–11 ............................................................................................................................................... 74

Table B16 Cost of production, by area of vegetables planted, 2010–11 ................................ 75

vi

Table B17 Area irrigated and irrigated vegetables production, by area of vegetables planted, 2010–11 ............................................................................................................................. 76

Table B18 Volume of irrigation water used and use per hectare, by area of vegetables planted, 2010–11 ............................................................................................................................. 77

Figures

Figure 1 Gross value of vegetable production, 1991–92 to 2011–12 ........................................ 2

Figure 2 Distribution of vegetable farms by estimated value of agricultural operations, 2010–11 .................................................................................................................................................. 4

Figure 3 Area planted to vegetables, 2005–06 to 2011–12 ........................................................... 8

Figure 4 Index of price received, by vegetable crop, 2005–06 to 2011–12.......................... 10

Figure 5 Total cash receipts, 2010–11 ................................................................................................ 11

Figure 6 Proportion of receipts from the sale of vegetables, 2005–06 to 2011–12 .......... 13

Figure 7 Total cash receipts, by state, 2005–06 to 2011–12 ...................................................... 14

Figure 8 Composition of cash costs of vegetable farms, 2010–11............................................ 15

Figure 9 Total business capital of vegetable farms, 30 June 2009 to 30 June 2011 .......... 18

Figure 10 Proportion of vegetable growers acquiring land, 2007–08 to 2010–11 ........... 19

Figure 11 Composition of net capital additions, 2007–08 to 2010–11 .................................. 20

Figure 12 Total farm debt of vegetable farms, 2010–11 .............................................................. 20

Figure 13 Total farm debt and total business capital, 2005–06 to 2010–11 ....................... 21

Figure 14 Individual costs as a proportion of total cash costs, under cover and not under cover, 2010–11 ........................................................................................................... 24

Figure 15 Individual costs as a proportion of total cash costs, by rate of return to capital, 2010–11 ......................................................................................................................... 27

Figure 16 Australian vegetable farmers’ terms of trade, 1970–71 to 2011–12 ................. 29

Figure 17 Number of farmsa and area planted to vegetables, 2005–06 to 2010–11 ........ 30

Figure 18 Intentions to expand vegetable production area in next three to five years, 2005–06 to 2010–11 ........................................................................................................ 30

Figure 19 Rate of return excluding capital appreciation, by area planted to vegetables, 2005–06 to 2010–11 .............................................................................................. 31

Figure 20 Intentions to expand vegetable production area in the next three to five years, by state, 2010–11 ....................................................................................................... 43

Figure 21 Impediment of labour to future viability of vegetable farms, 2005-06 to 2010–11 ......................................................................................................................................... 46

Maps

Map 1 Australian rainfall percentiles, 2010–11 and 2011–12 ..................................................... 6

vii

Boxes

Box 1 Major financial performance indicators ................................................................................. 11

Box 2 Potential short-run effects of carbon pricing on the Australian vegetable industry ............................................................................................................................................... 36

Australian vegetable growing farms: An economic survey 2010–11 and 2011–12 ABARES

viii

Summary This report contains results from the most recent survey of Australian vegetable growers

conducted by ABARES between February and August 2012 on behalf of Horticulture Australia

Limited. This is the sixth annual survey of Australian vegetable growers conducted by ABARES.

Comprehensive data on the physical, financial and socioeconomic characteristics of vegetable

growing farms in 2010–11 and some provisional projection data for 2011–12 were collected as

part of this survey.

In 2010–11, an estimated 2746 commercial vegetable farms (those with an estimated value of

agricultural output of at least $40 000) operated in Australia. In 2010–11, the average area

planted to vegetables was 38 hectares per farm; however, it is estimated that half of Australian

vegetable growers produced vegetables on areas of 12 hectares or less. In 2011–12, the average

area planted to vegetables was estimated to have remained at 38 hectares per farm.

The main results from the survey are as follows.

2010–11

A lower proportion of vegetable growers indicated experiencing drought or below average seasonal conditions in 2010–11 than in 2009–10. An estimated 26 per cent of vegetable growers indicated they experienced drought or below average seasonal conditions in 2010–11 compared with 36 per cent in the previous financial year. However, 21 per cent of vegetable growers experienced flood conditions.

Average vegetable yields per farm are estimated to have fallen by 12 per cent in 2010–11 to 27 tonnes per hectare, mainly reflecting production losses due to heavy rain and flood damage in a number of vegetable growing regions.

Total cash receipts for vegetable farms in 2010–11 are estimated to have averaged $792 200 per farm, of which 84 per cent was derived from the sale of vegetables. Vegetable receipts are estimated to have increased between 2009–10 and 2010–11, with an increase in average farmgate prices more than offsetting the lower average quantity of vegetables.

Total cash costs averaged around $630 600 per farm in 2010–11, which was an increase of 11 per cent over the previous financial year. On average, hired labour again accounted for the largest share of cash costs per farm in 2010–11.

The average farm cash income for vegetable farms in 2010–11 was $161 600 per farm, which was around 14 per cent higher than the previous financial year. The rise in average farm cash income was largely due to higher prices received for vegetables.

The proportion of vegetable farms realising negative farm cash income remained stable at 17 per cent in 2010–11.

Vegetable farms had an estimated average rate of return to capital, excluding capital appreciation, of 2.9 per cent in 2010–11. Larger farms, with more than 70 hectares of vegetables planted, realised a higher average rate of return to capital, excluding capital appreciation, of 5.1 per cent.

The equity ratio (business assets as a percentage of total farm capital) of vegetable farms remained high in 2010–11, averaging 84 per cent. Only an estimated 5 per cent of vegetable farms had both an equity ratio of less than 70 per cent and a negative farm cash income.


ix

Almost all vegetable growers were concerned about pests and diseases. An estimated 98 per cent of growers followed a set pest and disease monitoring program. This was higher than previous survey years and is likely to be due to increased pest and disease activity resulting from wet conditions.

At the time of the survey, an estimated 72 per cent of vegetable growers expected to still be engaged in vegetable production in five years time. Additionally, 18 per cent of vegetable growers intended to expand vegetable production in the next three to five years.

The most common factor growers considered an impediment to future viability of vegetable growing was increased farm input costs. Most vegetable growers also highlighted low farmgate vegetable prices and marketing costs as further impediments to future viability.

Access to and/or cost of labour was not viewed as a major impediment to the future viability of vegetable production, with only 7 per cent of vegetable growers indicating that it was an impediment in 2010–11, compared with 62 per cent in 2006–07.

2011–12

Average vegetable yields per farm are estimated to have increased by 9 per cent in 2011–12 to 30 tonnes per hectare, following improved seasonal conditions.

The average total cash receipts for Australian vegetable farms are estimated to have increased in 2011–12 to $810 000 per farm, with an increase in average vegetable production offsetting the decrease in farmgate vegetable prices.

The average area planted to vegetables is estimated to have remained stable in 2011–12 at 38 hectares per farm. Total cash costs are also estimated to have been similar to the previous financial year at $632 000 per farm.

The average farm cash income for vegetable farms is estimated to have increased by around 11 per cent to $179 000 per farm. This increase was mainly due to higher average receipts.

Potential short-run effects of carbon pricing

Vegetable growers and processors have experienced the effects of carbon pricing since its introduction on 1 July 2012.

It is estimated that input costs for vegetable growing farms will increase by around 0.2 per cent and 0.3 per cent in 2012–13 and 2014–15 respectively as a result of higher electricity and transport costs.

It is estimated that processing costs per tonne of vegetables produced will increase by an estimated $8.38 and $12.61 in 2012–13 and 2014–15 respectively.

The impact of carbon pricing on the vegetable growing industry is estimated to range from $1095 to $3328 per farm in 2012–13 and from $1260 to $4621 per farm in 2014–15 depending on the pass back of processing costs. These estimates are marginally higher than ABARES previous estimated impact on the broadacre sector and slightly lower than the estimated impact on the dairy industry.


1

1 Introduction The Australian vegetable production sector is an important supplier of food to the domestic

market and also provides vegetable inputs for the processed vegetable products consumed in

Australia or exported.

Since 2007, ABARES has conducted an annual survey of vegetable growers to provide industry

and government with information about production and the financial situation of vegetable

growers in Australia. The past five surveys have been funded by Horticulture Australia Limited

(HAL) with funding support also provided by the Australian Government Department of

Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

This report contains the results from the most recent vegetable survey that ABARES conducted

from February to August 2012 to collect farm physical and financial data covering 2010–11 and

2011–12. In addition, the survey included information on issues affecting the vegetable industry

such as water usage, pests and diseases, vegetable selling points, future farming intentions, farm

constraints and cost of production.


2

2 Overview of the industry

Australian vegetable production

The Australian vegetable production sector is an important supplier of food to the domestic

market, supplying most of the fresh vegetables consumed in Australia and also providing

vegetable inputs for the processed vegetable products consumed in Australia or exported.

The gross value of vegetable production has remained around $3.5 billion since 2005–06 (in

2011–12 dollars). In 2010–11, the gross value of vegetable production was around $3.4 billion

(Figure 1, Table 2), and accounted for around 7 per cent of the gross value of Australian

agricultural production (ABS 2012a). In 2011–12, the gross value of vegetable production is

estimated to have remained around $3.4 billion (ABARES 2012a).

The Australian vegetable industry has been growing in real terms since the early 1990s, with the

gross value of Australian vegetable production (in 2011–12 dollars) increasing at an average

annual rate of 2 per cent since 1991–92 (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Gross value of vegetable production, 1991–92 to 2011–12

s ABARES estimate.

Source: ABS 2012, Value of Agricultural Commodities Produced, Australia, cat. no. 7503.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics,

Canberra.

The wide range of climate and soils in Australia enables many types of vegetables to be grown in

various parts of the country. The main vegetable producing regions include parts of the Murray–

Darling Basin; south-east Queensland close to Brisbane, and Bundaberg and Bowen in the north

of Queensland; the Mornington Peninsula, Bacchus Marsh, Clyde and Werribee regions close to

Melbourne, and Lindenow in the far east of Victoria; south-east South Australia, and Virginia

close to Adelaide; northern Tasmania; and south-west Western Australia and areas close to

Perth, including Gingin.

Queensland and Victoria were the two largest contributors to Australian vegetable production

collectively, accounting for over half the gross value of vegetable production in Australia in

2010–11 (Table 1).

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

19

91

–9

2

19

92

–9

3

19

93

–9

4

19

94

–9

5

19

95

–9

6

19

96

–9

7

19

97

–9

8

19

98

–9

9

19

99

–0

0

20

00

–0

1

20

01

–0

2

20

02

–0

3

20

03

–0

4

20

04

–0

5

20

05

–0

6

20

06

–0

7

20

07

–0

8

20

08

–0

9

20

09

–1

0

20

10

–1

1

20

11

–1

2s

2011–12 $m


3

Table 1 Gross value of vegetable production, by state, 2010–11

$m % New South Wales 439 13 Victoria 726 22 Queensland 1 077 32 South Australia 502 15 Western Australia 357 11 Tasmania 184 6 Northern Territory 52 2 Australian Capital Territory a 0.4 0 Australia 3 338 100

a The percentage for the ACT is less than 0.01.

Note: Values in 2010–11 dollars.


Canberra.

In 2010–11, Queensland was the largest vegetable producing state in terms of value of

production. Queensland produced over half of Australia’s tomatoes, in terms of value of

production, and over 70 per cent of Australia’s French and runner beans and capsicums

(excluding chillies) (Table 3). The climate in Queensland allows most vegetables to be grown

year round which allows Queensland producers to supply southern states outside their growing

seasons. Many southern growers are restricted to growing vegetables during the warmer

months of late spring, summer and early autumn.

The Australian vegetable industry is characterised by a number of widely grown crops such as

potatoes and tomatoes, as well as a wide variety of smaller scale vegetable crops (Table 2). In

2010–11, potatoes and tomatoes accounted for almost one-third of the value of all vegetable

production in Australia. Around one-third of Australia’s potato production was by vegetable

farms in South Australia and a further 20 per cent from vegetable farms in Victoria (Table 3).

Tasmania produced the highest proportion of Australia’s processing potatoes, followed closely

by South Australia.

Table 2 Gross value of vegetable production, 2010–11

$m % Potatoes 553 17 Tomatoes 418 13 Mushrooms 293 9 Onions 274 8 Melons 188 6 Lettuce 164 5 Carrots 131 4 French and runner beans 130 4 Capsicums (excl. chillies) 114 3 Broccoli 105 3 Sweet corn 86 3 Pumpkins 71 2 Asparagus 69 2 Herbs 46 1 Cauliflowers 43 1 Green peas 10 0 Other vegetables 645 19 Total vegetables 3 338 100

Note: Values in 2010–11 dollars


Canberra.


4

Table 3 Proportion of vegetables produced from each state, 2010–11 (in value terms)

NSW Vic. Qld SA WA Tas. NT ACT a % % % % % % % %

Potatoes 11 20 9 34 9 16 0 0 Tomatoes 11 13 55 12 9 1 0 0 Mushrooms 34 33 14 7 0 0 0 0 Onions 5 9 13 49 10 14 0 0 Melons 28 3 29 2 15 0 23 0 Lettuce 10 34 39 6 8 2 0 0 Carrots 1 20 10 20 34 16 0 0 French and runner beans 1 19 73 0 5 2 0 0 Capsicums (excl. chillies) 3 4 73 9 8 2 0 0 Broccoli 5 47 28 2 16 2 0 0 Sweet corn 11 16 42 0 31 0 0 0 Pumpkins 35 3 36 4 18 1 3 0 Asparagus 2 97 0 0 1 0 0 0 Herbs 10 27 58 3 2 0 0 0 Cauliflowers 17 30 27 9 12 5 0 0 Green peas 5 20 13 0 1 61 0 0 Other vegetables 18 20 40 6 3 0 6 0 Total vegetables 13 22 32 15 11 6 2 0

a The percentage for the ACT is less than 0.01.


Canberra.

In 2010–11, an estimated 4093 vegetable farms, with an estimated value of agricultural output

(EVAO) of at least $5000, operated in Australia. Of these, 2625 vegetable farms had an EVAO of

at least $50 000 (ABS 2012b). These farms accounted for 64 per cent of all vegetable growing

farms and an estimated 98 per cent of the total value of agricultural operations for Australian

vegetable industry farms in 2010–11 (Figure 2). While 36 per cent of Australian vegetable

industry farms had an EVAO of less than $50 000, these farms only accounted for around 2 per

cent of the total value of vegetable industry operations in Australia in 2010–11. This survey

includes farms growing vegetables with an EVAO of $40 000 or more.

Figure 2 Distribution of vegetable farms by estimated value of agricultural operations, 2010–11

Note: The ABARES vegetable growing industry survey includes establishments with an EVAO of $40 000 or more.

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics

10

10

20

30

40

50

60

<$50k $50k to $150k $150k to $350k $350k to $500k $500k to $1m >$1m

share of farms

share of value of agricultural operations

%


5

Employment in the vegetable industry

Vegetable growing in Australia is typically more labour-intensive than other agricultural

industries. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) indicate that vegetable

production directly employed around 15 000 people in Australia in August 2012, equivalent to

around 5 per cent of Australia’s total employment in agricultural (Table 4). The Northern

Territory and Tasmania had the highest proportion of their agricultural workforce employed in

the vegetable growing industry, at around 25 per cent and 14 per cent respectively, while New

South Wales and Victoria had the largest number of people employed (5000 and 4000 people

respectively). Employment in vegetable and fruit processing employed an additional 8000

people nationally. These figures do not include estimates of seasonal or casual employment and

therefore understate total employment in the vegetable industry.

Table 4 Employment in the vegetable industry, by state, August 2012

Vegetable growing Proportion of state’s agricultural employment

Vegetable and fruit processing

(’000) % (’000) New South Wales 5 7 4 Victoria 4 5 3 Queensland 2 7 1 South Australia 1 2 0 Western Australia 1 3 0 Tasmania 1 14 1 Northern Territory 1 25 0 Australian Capital Territory 0 0 0 Australia 15 5 8

Source: ABS, Labour Force, Australia, Detailed, Quarterly, cat. no. 6291.0.55.003 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.


6

3 Farm performance

Seasonal conditions and water availability

Prevailing seasonal conditions and availability of water are important determinants of vegetable

farm performance. Seasonal conditions and rainfall typically vary across Australia, both within

and between years. While rainfall is an important part of the availability of water for irrigation

and crop production, use of water storages also allows temporal shifts between the incidence of

a rainfall event and use of water.

Following several years of well below average rainfall, seasonal conditions generally improved

across the main vegetable growing regions of Australia during the second half of 2009–10. High

rainfall continued across most of Australia in 2010–11 (Map 1), particularly in the first six

months of the financial year when most vegetable producing regions of Australia experienced

rainfall that ranged from above average to the highest on record. A number of extreme weather

events were experienced in 2010–11, including flooding and cyclone activity. Heavy rain and

widespread flooding were experienced across eastern Australia in early 2011, particularly in

Queensland, Victoria, New South Wales and Tasmania. Flooding disrupted farm activities such as

planting and harvesting and caused damage to some farm infrastructure.

Map 1 Australian rainfall percentiles, 2010–11 and 2011–12

2010–11 2011–12

Source: Australian Bureau of Meteorology

More than half of Australia’s vegetable growers reported average or above average seasonal

conditions in 2010–11 (Table 5). Seasonal conditions continued to be good in 2011–12, with

most vegetable producing regions of Australia experiencing average to above average rainfall


7

(Map 1). Growing conditions were favourable across Australia, with some regions recording

favourable conditions two seasons in a row.

Most South Australian and Western Australian vegetable growers experienced good seasonal

conditions in 2010–11. Despite patches of below average annual rainfall, Western Australia had

a high proportion of farms experiencing average to above average seasonal conditions,

accounting for 93 per cent of farms. Similarly 92 per cent of growers in South Australia reported

average to above average seasonal conditions in 2010–11.

Table 5 Vegetable growers’ assessment of seasonal conditions, by state, 2010–11

percentage of farms Drought Below

average Average Above

average Flood

New South Wales % 0 10 58 22 10 Victoria % 0 24 39 9 28 Queensland % 0 32 11 9 48 South Australia % 0 7 64 28 1 Western Australia % 0 7 78 15 0 Tasmania % 1 86 8 0 5 Australia % 0 26 39 14 21

Source: ABARES Australian vegetable growing farms survey.

An estimated 26 per cent of vegetable growers reported experiencing below average seasonal

conditions in 2010–11. This was a significant improvement from 2009–10 in which 36 per cent

of growers experienced drought or below average seasonal conditions.

Tasmania, Queensland and Victoria had the highest proportion of growers indicating below

average seasonal conditions in 2010–11. When combined with farms that experienced flooding,

almost all Tasmanian vegetable growers (92 per cent) reported experiencing adverse seasonal

conditions.

In 2010–11, 21 per cent of vegetable growers indicated they had experienced flooding; these

growers were mostly in Queensland and Victoria. The floods in Queensland were particularly

severe for vegetable growers, with almost half the vegetable growers in that state reporting

flooding in 2010–11.

Physical characteristics

In 2010–11, the average area operated by vegetable growers is estimated to have been

214 hectares per farm. Reflecting improved seasonal conditions, the average area planted to

vegetables increased by 6 per cent in 2010–11, to 38 hectares per farm (Table 6, Figure 3). The

average area planted to vegetables is estimated to have remained steady at 38 hectares per farm

in 2011–12.

On average, Victorian vegetable farms had the largest area planted to vegetables in 2010–11 and

2011–12, at 52 hectares per farm. Vegetable farms in New South Wales had the smallest average

area planted to vegetables, at 24 hectares per farm in 2010–11 and 26 hectares in 2011–12.

However, these average sizes mask a wide dispersion of farm sizes and vegetable production

activities.

To investigate these dispersions a distribution of vegetable growing farms by area planted to

vegetables is presented in Table 7. Most vegetable farms are small, in terms of area planted to

vegetable crops, with a relatively small number of large vegetable farms. It is estimated that the

smallest 25 per cent of farms produced vegetables on areas of 4 hectares or less and the smallest


8

50 per cent on areas of 12 hectares or less in 2010–11 (Table 7). The largest 25 per cent of farms

grew vegetables on areas of 35 hectares or more.

Table 6 Area planted to vegetables, 2009–10 to 2011–12

average per farm 2009–10 2010–11 p 2011–12 y

ha ha ha New South Wales 21 24 (24) 26 Victoria 40 52 (14) 52 Queensland 49 42 (16) 39 South Australia 42 38 (12) 38 Western Australia 26 33 (15) 33 Tasmania 32 32 (10) 34 Australia 35 38 (7) 38

p Preliminary estimate. y Provisional estimate.

Note: Figures in parentheses are standard errors expressed as a percentage of the estimate.


Figure 3 Area planted to vegetables, 2005–06 to 2011–12

average per farm



Table 7 Distribution of vegetable growing farms, by area planted to vegetables, by state, 2010–11

25th percentile 50th percentile 75th percentile Average New South Wales ha 2 5 15 24 Victoria ha 8 20 44 52 Queensland ha 5 12 40 42 South Australia ha 1 5 40 38 Western Australia ha 6 9 30 33 Tasmania ha 6 17 32 32 Australia ha 4 12 35 38


The distribution of vegetable farm size varied considerably between states. For example, the

smallest half of vegetable producers in New South Wales and South Australia planted areas of

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11p 2011–12y

ha


9

5 hectares or less to vegetables, while in Victoria they planted areas of 20 hectares or less. The

largest 25 per cent of farms in South Australia planted an area of 40 hectares or more, compared

with only 15 hectares or more for the largest 25 per cent of farms in New South Wales.

In 2010–11, average yields for most vegetable crops are estimated to have been lower than the

previous year (Table 8). Overall, the average vegetable yield per farm decreased to 27 tonnes

per hectare, mainly reflecting production losses due to heavy rain, flood damage, and an

associated increase in pest and disease activity in a number of vegetable growing regions.

Average vegetable yields per farm are estimated to have risen in 2011–12 to 30 tonnes per

hectare, following improvements in seasonal conditions and less widespread adverse weather

events.

Table 8 Area planted, quantity produced and yield, by vegetable crop, 2009–10 to 2011–12

average per farm Area planted (ha) Quantity produced (t) Crop yield (t/ha)

2009–10 2010–11 p

2011–12 y

2009–10 2010–11 p

2011–12 y

2009–10 2010–11 p

2011–12 y

Potatoes 11 12 13 444 435 483 39 36 39 Pumpkins 1 1 1 26 24 23 23 22 23 Green peas 1 1 1 6 2 3 6 4 4 Beans 3 3 4 16 16 19 6 5 5 Tomatoes 2 2 1 138 55 106 66 55 84 Onions 2 1 1 77 70 71 48 49 51 Carrots 1 1 1 67 45 50 64 53 52 Cauliflowers 1 1 1 30 33 32 41 28 28 Lettuce 1 2 2 38 48 48 31 27 26 Broccoli 2 2 2 19 26 25 9 11 12 Cabbage 1 1 1 36 23 23 58 35 35 Other vegetables 9 10 10 166 185 199 18 20 21 All vegetables 35 38 38 1 063 962 1 083 31 27 30

ha Hectare. p Preliminary estimate. t Tonne. y Provisional estimate.


Lower average yields in 2010–11 more than offset the increased area planted to vegetables and

resulted in a fall in the quantity of most vegetables produced. Overall there was a 9 per cent

reduction in average vegetable production per farm in 2010–11 to 962 tonnes (Table 8). The

largest percentage fall in average production was estimated to have been for tomatoes (down by

60 per cent in 2010–11), with the largest decline occurring in Victoria (down by around 70 per

cent). Victoria is the major producer of tomatoes for the processed tomato market, accounting

for around 65 per cent of total production (ABARES 2012a). Tomatoes grown for processing are

grown outdoors (as opposed to tomatoes for fresh consumption which are increasingly grown in

glasshouses) and are therefore more subject to changes in seasonal conditions.

In 2011–12, the average total quantity of vegetables produced per farm is estimated to have

risen as a result of yields increasing and the area planted to vegetables remaining stable.

Increased average production per farm is estimated to have occurred in all states with the

largest increases occurring in New South Wales and Tasmania.

Farm financial performance

Changes in vegetable prices

Vegetable growing farms produce a variety of vegetable products and the prices farmers receive

for these products can vary widely from year to year. Indexes of vegetable prices show mixed


10

results from 2005–06 to 2011–12. Overall, prices for potatoes, pumpkins and onions trended

upward, while prices for carrots fell (Figure 4).

Figure 4 Index of price received, by vegetable crop, 2005–06 to 2011–12

average per farm



Overall, the average price received for vegetables in 2010–11 increased by 23 per cent, mainly

reflecting reduced supply due to production losses as a result of heavy rain and flood damage.

Growers received higher average prices for most vegetables, but slightly lower prices for

pumpkins and lettuce (Table 9). In 2011–12, the average price received for vegetables per farm

is estimated to have decreased due to increased supply as a result of favourable seasonal

conditions and abundant supplies of irrigation water. However, prices are estimated to have

remained higher than in 2009–10.

Table 9 Quantity sold, receipts and price received, by vegetables crop, 2009–10 to 2011–12

average per farm Quantity sold (t) Total receipts ($) Price received ($/t)

2009–10 2010–11 p

2011–12 y

2009–10 2010–11 p

2011–12 y

2009–10 2010–11 p

2011–12 y

Potatoes 426 437 474 159 430 173 100 174 000 374 400 370 Pumpkins 23 27 25 10 200 11 500 11 000 441 420 450 Green peas 6 2 3 3 860 3 800 6 000 686 1 570 1 600 Beans 16 16 19 23 050 27 300 33 000 1 419 1 720 1 740 Tomatoes 138 55 104 53 990 52 200 55 000 391 950 530 Onions 69 65 71 29 430 32 600 27 000 428 500 390 Carrots 56 46 50 13 010 13 200 15 000 234 290 310 Cauliflowers 30 33 31 20 960 23 500 27 000 695 720 840 Lettuce 38 48 48 53 490 65 000 63 000 1 392 1 360 1 320 Broccoli 19 25 25 26 950 38 700 35 000 1 416 1 520 1 410 Cabbage 36 23 23 19 370 18 500 17 000 533 810 720 Other vegetables 166 191 202 160 730 208 500 217 000 966 1 090 1 070 All vegetables 1 024 968 1 075 574 460 667 600 680 000 561 690 630

p Preliminary estimate. t Tonne. y Provisional estimate.


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

potato

pumpkin

onion

carrot

index 2005–06


11

Farm cash receipts

In 2010–11, total cash receipts for Australian vegetable farms are estimated to have risen by

12 per cent to average $792 200 per farm (Table 10). Australia-wide, cash receipts from the sale

of vegetables accounted for an estimated 84 per cent of average farm cash receipts on vegetable

growing farms (Figure 5).

Figure 5 Total cash receipts, 2010–11

average per farm


Potatoes were the major vegetable crop in 2010–11 accounting for an estimated 26 per cent of

total vegetable receipts. Income from the sale of potatoes was the major source of vegetable

receipts in all states except Queensland where tomatoes accounted for the highest proportion.

In Tasmania, receipts from the sale of potatoes accounted for almost 70 per cent of vegetable

receipts.

Box 1 Major financial performance indicators

Total cash receipts: total revenues the business received during the financial year. Total cash costs: payments the business made for materials and services and for permanent and casual hired labour (excluding owner manager, partner and family labour). Farm cash income: total cash receipts – total cash costs Farm business profit: farm cash income + changes in trading stocks – depreciation – imputed labour costs Profit at full equity: return produced by all the resources used in the business. farm business profit + rent + interest + finance lease payments – depreciation on leased items

Rate of return: return to all capital used

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

NSW Vic. Qld SA WA Tas. Aust.

other receipts

vegetable receipts

$'000

Au

stralian vegetab

le grow

ing farm

s: An

econ

om

ic surv

ey 20

10

–1

1 an

d 2

01

1–

12

A

BA

RE

S

12

Table 10 Financial performance of vegetable farms, by state, 2009–10 to 2011–12

average per farm Total cash receipts ($) Total cash costs ($) Farm cash income ($)

2009–10 2010–11 p 2011–12 y 2009–10 2010–11 p 2011–12 y 2009–10 2010–11 p 2011–12 y New South Wales 366 920 343 900 (21) 371 000 297 250 254 300 (21) 256 000 69 680 89 500 (29) 114 000 Victoria 755 910 916 200 (14) 945 000 571 190 725 600 (12) 717 000 184 720 190 600 (29) 228 000 Queensland 909 550 799 000 (16) 795 000 783 130 644 900 (14) 638 000 126 420 154 100 (33) 157 000 South Australia 800 630 987 000 (14) 882 000 605 030 730 000 (16) 712 000 195 600 257 000 (18) 170 000 Western Australia 916 350 1 414 600 (21) 1 420 000 756 320 1 189 700 (25) 1 179 000 160 030 224 900 (19) 242 000 Tasmania 614 810 554 600 (8) 696 000 474 600 454 500 (9) 484 000 140 210 100 000 (19) 212 000 Australia 707 670 792 200 (7) 810 000 565 580 630 600 (8) 632 000 142 090 161 600 (12) 179 000





13

Total receipts from the sale of vegetables are estimated to have increased by around 16 per cent

in 2010–11, with higher vegetable receipts in Western Australia, South Australia and Victoria

being partially offset by lower receipts in other states. With production of most crops declining

in 2010–11, the increases in cash receipts were largely the result of higher vegetable prices.

In recent years the proportion of total cash receipts from the sale of vegetables for Australian

vegetable growing farms decreased slightly (Figure 6), reflecting increased diversification into

other commodities such as livestock. However, in 2010–11, the proportion of receipts from the

sale of vegetables increased as higher prices resulted in increased vegetable receipts.

Figure 6 Proportion of receipts from the sale of vegetables, 2005–06 to 2011–12

average per farm



Vegetable farms in Tasmania had the lowest average proportion of cash receipts coming from

vegetable sales, at 56 per cent of total cash receipts. In contrast, vegetable farms in Western

Australia averaged 90 per cent of cash receipts from vegetable sales. In 2011–12, the proportion

of total receipts from the sale of vegetables is estimated to have remained stable at around

84 per cent.

In 2010–11, vegetable farms in Western Australia had the highest average total cash receipts at

$1 414 600 per farm following a large increase in receipts in that year. Total cash receipts

increased for Western Australian vegetable farms following a combination of improved seasonal

conditions, with higher production as a result of increased yields and a larger area planted to

vegetables, and higher prices received for vegetables.

Vegetable farms in New South Wales had the lowest average cash receipts at $343 900 per farm,

largely reflecting the smaller average area planted to vegetables per farm in that state (Table

10). Total cash receipts for New South Wales vegetable farms fell slightly due to a small decrease

in receipts from both vegetables and other farm products. While the area planted to vegetables

increased in 2010–11, production was lower due to some crop losses—particularly tomatoes—

and a fall in average yields (Figure 7).

In 2011–12, average total cash receipts for Australian vegetable farms are estimated to have

increased slightly to $810 000 per farm. An estimated increase in vegetable production is

expected to have more than offset the decrease in vegetable prices, resulting in an increase in

0

20

40

60

80

100

%


14

vegetable receipts (Table 9). Total cash receipts are expected to have increased in all states

except South Australia and Queensland in 2011–12.

Figure 7 Total cash receipts, by state, 2005–06 to 2011–12

average per farm



Farm cash costs

Total cash costs for vegetable growing farms increased by 11 per cent in 2010–11 to average

$630 600 per farm (Table 10). The increase in cash costs was mainly the result of a rise in

expenditure on contracts paid, and on fertiliser and seed which are associated with the larger

area planted to vegetables in 2010–11.

In 2010–11, the largest share of average cash expenditure per farm was on hired labour

(15 per cent) (Figure 8, Table 11). Other major costs included contracts paid (10 per cent),

fertiliser (10 per cent), seed (8 per cent) and crop and pasture chemicals (7 per cent).

Total cash costs were highest for vegetable growers in Western Australia (averaging around

$1 189 700 per farm) and lowest in New South Wales (averaging around $254 300 per farm).

Western Australia also had the highest cash costs per hectare and per tonne of vegetables

produced in 2010–11. New South Wales had the lowest cash costs per hectare; however,

Tasmania had the lowest cash costs per tonne of vegetables produced.

The lower cash costs per tonne for Tasmanian vegetable farms is likely to be due to the higher

proportion of production for the processing market and the production mix undertaken on these

farms. On average, potatoes and carrots accounted for 77 per cent of the vegetable production

on Tasmanian vegetable farms and tend to be less labour intensive (that is, more suited to

mechanisation). The higher proportion of produce being sold to processing rather than the fresh

market would also reduce the level of handling and grading that would occur on farm, thereby

reducing labour costs. In addition, Tasmanian vegetable farms are more diversified into

commodities other than vegetables, which tend to be less labour intensive than vegetable

production. A detailed breakdown of cash costs during 2010–11 for vegetable growers by state

can be found in Appendix B, Table B5.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

New South Wales

Victoria

Queensland

South Australia

Western Australia

Tasmania

Australia

2011–12

$'000


15

In 2011–12, average total cash costs were estimated to have increased slightly to $632 000 per

farm, mainly as a result of increased expenditure on electricity and rates.

Figure 8 Composition of cash costs of vegetable farms, 2010–11

average per farm


Farm cash income

On average, farm cash income for Australian vegetable farms in 2010–11 was estimated to have

been $161 600 per farm, 14 per cent higher than the previous financial year, as total cash

receipts rose more than total cash costs (Table 11). The proportion of vegetable farms realising

a negative farm cash income remained steady at 17 per cent. In 2010–11, a higher proportion of

farms with negative farm cash income experienced adverse seasonal conditions (below average,

drought or flood) compared with the national average.

Vegetable farms in South Australia had the highest average farm cash income in 2010–11, at

$257 000 per farm, while New South Wales had the lowest average farm cash income, at around

$89 500 per farm (Table 12). South Australian vegetable farms were able to take advantage of

good seasonal conditions which led to higher yields and an increase in average production per

farm, despite a decrease in the area planted to vegetables. Increased production combined with

higher prices resulted in total cash receipts for South Australian vegetable farms increasing

more than costs.

Despite having the lowest average farm cash income, largely reflecting the smaller average area

planted to vegetables per farm, farm cash income for New South Wales vegetable farms

increased by 28 per cent in 2010–11 as total cash costs fell by more than total cash receipts.

Farm cash income increased for all states except Tasmania in 2010–11, where average farm cash

income fell by around 29 per cent. Despite higher vegetable prices nationally, prices Tasmanian

vegetable farms received were lower due to the higher proportion of produce sold directly to

processors and decreased quality due to poor seasonal conditions. The decrease in farm cash

income was mainly a result of lower prices received and reduced production as a consequence of

0 20 40 60 80 100

Motor vehicle expence

Rates

Plant hire

Insurance

Land rent

Electricity

Repairs and maintenance - buildings

Administration

Repairs and maintenance - vehicles

Fuel, oil and grease

Freight

Packing charges and materials

Interest paid

Crop and pasture chemicals

Seed

Fertiliser

Contracts paid

Hired labour

$'000


16

large crop losses, lower yields, and reduced quality because of poor seasonal conditions

including heavy rain and flood damage.

In 2011–12, average farm cash income for vegetable farms is estimated to have increased by

around 11 per cent to $179 000 per farm, mainly because of slightly higher receipts, following

increased production, and relatively stable cash costs. Higher farm cash income for most states

was partially offset by a decrease in average farm cash income for South Australia. Despite a

small increase in production in South Australia, lower prices received for vegetables—especially

potatoes, tomatoes and onions—resulted in a decrease in vegetable receipts and hence, farm

cash income.

In contrast, farm cash income for Tasmanian vegetable farms is estimated to have experienced a

large increase. Higher yields, due to improved seasonal conditions, combined with a larger area

planted to vegetables resulted in higher average production for Tasmanian vegetable farms.

Despite a small decrease in potato prices, the price Tasmanian growers received for vegetables

increased driven mainly by higher onion and carrot prices. Higher production and prices are

estimated to have resulted in an increase in farm cash income for Tasmanian vegetable growers

for 2011–12.

Table 11 Financial performance of vegetable farms, 2009–10 to 2011–12

average per farm 2009–10 2010–11 p 2011–12 y Cash receipts Vegetable cash receipts $ 574 460 667 600 (9) 680 000 Other cash receipts $ 133 210 124 600 (11) 130 000 Total cash receipts $ 707 670 792 200 (7) 810 000 % of cash receipts from vegetables % 81 84 (2) 84 Cash costs Hired labour $ 90 270 96 600 (12) 96 000 Fertiliser $ 52 970 62 300 (8) 63 000 Contracts paid $ 47 250 62 500 (19) 65 000 Seed $ 41 590 50 500 (10) 53 000 Fuel, oil and grease $ 32 860 32 500 (9) 34 000 Crop and pasture chemicals $ 33 450 42 100 (9) 44 000 Repairs and maintenance – vehicles $ 30 700 31 600 (10) 29 000 Interest paid $ 37 100 39 700 (14) 38 000 Repairs and maintenance – buildings $ 15 700 20 300 (16) 15 000 Electricity $ 12 940 14 200 (22) 17 000 Administration $ 14 610 20 500 (10) 21 000 Land rent $ 8 210 12 500 (19) 13 000 Packing charges and materials $ 33 740 35 100 (12) 35 000 Rates $ 10 200 8 200 (7) 8 000 Freight $ 31 790 34 100 (13) 37 000 Total cash costs $ 565 580 630 600 (8) 632 000 Farm financial performance Farm cash income $ 142 090 161 600 (12) 179 000 Farm business profit $ 41 920 48 500 (38) 58 100 Rate of return a excl. capital appreciation % 2.8 2.9 (18) 3.1 incl. capital appreciation % 3.1 2.2 (29) na Farm capital at 30 June b $ 3 222 940 3 523 700 (6) na Farm debt at 30 June c $ 514 110 565 100 (14) na Equity ratio cd % 84 84 (2) na

a Rate of return to farm capital at 1 July. b Excludes leased plant and equipment. c Average per debt responding farm.

d Equity expressed as a percentage of farm capital. na not available. p Preliminary estimate. y Provisional estimate.



Au

stralian vegetab

le grow

ing farm

s: An

econ

om

ic surv

ey 20

10

–1

1 an

d 2

01

1–

12

A

BA

RE

S

17

Table 12 Financial performance indicators, by state, 2009–10 to 2011–12

average per farm Farm cash income Farm business profit Rate of return a (%)

2009–10 2010–11 p 2011–12 y 2009–10 2010–11 p 2011–12 y 2009–10 2010–11 p 2011–12 y New South Wales 69 680 89 500 (29) 114 000 –21 980 –8 500 (328) 9 000 –0.2 0.7 (236) 1.6 Victoria 184 720 190 600 (29) 228 000 80 460 50 400 (92) 81 000 3.5 2.8 (32) 3.3 Queensland 126 420 154 100 (33) 157 000 19 570 42 700 (114) 39 000 2.9 3.0 (52) 2.8 South Australia 195 600 257 000 (18) 170 000 102 490 148 600 (30) 54 000 4.5 5.6 (20) 2.9 Western Australia 160 030 224 900 (19) 242 000 57 130 101 100 (42) 110 000 2.4 3.0 (31) 3.2 Tasmania 140 210 100 000 (19) 212 000 38 450 9 600 (176) 112 000 2.9 2.0 (28) 4.9 Australia 142 090 161 600 (12) 179 000 41 920 48 500 (38) 58 000 2.8 2.9 (18) 3.1

a Rate of return excluding capital appreciation. p Preliminary estimate. y Provisional estimate.




18

Farm business profit

In line with increases in farm cash income, the average farm business profit of vegetable farms

was higher in 2010–11 than in 2009–10 for New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and

Western Australia (Table 12). Farm business profit was lower in Victoria despite a small

increase in farm cash income because of a decrease in trading stocks. In line with a fall in farm

cash income, farm business profit also decreased for Tasmanian vegetable farms in 2010–11.

Return to capital

The average rate of return to capital, excluding capital appreciation, is estimated to have been

2.9 per cent in 2010–11, up slightly from an average of 2.8 per cent in 2009–10 (Table 12).

Vegetable farms in South Australia realised the highest rate of return on average during 2010–

11, while vegetable farms in New South Wales had the lowest average rate of return on capital.

On average the performance of vegetables growers in 2010–11 was slightly better than that of

broadacre farms which achieved an average rate of return, excluding capital appreciation, of

2.5 per cent (ABARES 2012b). In 2011–12, the rate of return to capital, excluding capital

appreciation, is estimated to have again improved slightly, averaging 3.1 per cent per farm.

Capital and debt

The average total capital value of vegetable farms in Australia is estimated to have been around

$3.5 million per farm in 2010–11. Vegetable farms in Western Australia and Victoria had the

highest average capital values per farm, $5.6 million and $4.9 million respectively (Figure 9).

Figure 9 Total business capital of vegetable farms, 30 June 2009 to 30 June 2011

average per farm


Producers’ capacity to generate farm income will be influenced by both past investments in

additional land to expand the scale of farming activities and new infrastructure, plant and

machinery to boost productivity in the longer term. In 2010–11, vegetable growers’ expenditure

on additional capital averaged $62 400 per farm. Vegetable growers in Victoria had the largest

average expenditure on additional capital in 2010–11 at $141 400 per farm. In contrast, New

South Wales had the smallest average expenditure on additional capital at $9500 per farm.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000


30 June 2009

30 June 2010

30 June 2011

$'000


19

Only a relatively small proportion of farms buy land in any one year (Figure 10), but most

producers make some investment in plant, vehicles, machinery or infrastructure each year.

However, because land transactions are much larger than other investments, the value of land

purchases dominates total investment.

Figure 10 Proportion of vegetable growers acquiring land, 2007–08 to 2010–11

p Preliminary estimate.


In 2008–09 and 2009–10 investment in plant, machinery and farm infrastructure (such as

buildings, irrigation systems, water supply structures and fencing) is likely to have been

stimulated by the investment allowance offered to businesses that committed to investing in

depreciating assets between 31 December 2008 and 31 December 2009. This was part of the

Australian Government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan to support economic activity during the

global financial crisis.

Net investment is the difference between the total value of plant, vehicles, machinery and farm

infrastructure purchased and the total value of those items sold or disposed of. Over the period

2007–08 to 2010–11 tractors accounted for around 35 per cent of average total net capital

additions (excluding land) for vegetable growing farms; motor vehicles accounted for 18 per

cent; crop harvesting and handling equipment and irrigation equipment 12 per cent each;

cultivation, sowing and planting equipment 11 per cent; buildings, fences and yards and

computing and workshop equipment 6 per cent each; and houses and accommodation and

livestock handling equipment 1 per cent each (Figure 11).

Average farm debt of vegetable growers at 30 June 2011 was $565 100 per farm, up by around

2 per cent from average debt at 1 July 2010 (Figure 12). The increase in debt was mainly a result

of financing additional on-farm investments; however, some farms experienced an increase in

working capital debt as a result of losses due to a range of weather conditions, including flood

and hail. The largest proportional increase in farm debt was for vegetable farms in New South

Wales, where debt grew by 16 per cent but remained low in absolute terms when compared

with the other states.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11p%


20

Figure 11 Composition of net capital additions, 2007–08 to 2010–11



Figure 12 Total farm debt of vegetable farms, 2010–11

average per farm


On average, land purchases accounted for 36 per cent of farm debt at 30 June 2011 and a further

32 per cent was working capital debt. The composition of farm debt was similar in 2009–10;

however, the proportion of debt accounted for by land purchase fell slightly over the past three

financial years from 49 per cent in 2007–08.

The equity position of Australian vegetable farms can be gauged using an equity ratio, which is

total business equity as a percentage of total owned capital. The equity ratio of Australian

vegetable farms decreased from 94 per cent in 2005–06 to 84 per cent in 2010–11, as debt grew

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11p

Computer, office, workshop and other equipment

Livestock handling

Buildings, fences, yards and structures

Houses and accommodation

Vehicles

Irrigation equipment

Harvesting and handling

Cultivation, sowing, fertiliser and spraying

Tractors2011–12

'000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900


1 July 2010

30 June 2011

$'000


21

at a faster rate than the value of farm capital (Figure 13). Despite the fall in equity, vegetable

growers remain in a relatively strong equity position (Table 11).

Figure 13 Total farm debt and total business capital, 2005–06 to 2010–11

average per farm



The interest-to-receipts ratio is the ratio of interest payments on farm debt to total cash receipts

and is a measure of farmers’ ability to service debt from farm revenue. The average interest-to-

receipts ratio of vegetable farms in 2010–11 was around 5 per cent, slightly lower than in the

previous year because of higher receipts.

Vegetable growers that have low equity (those with an equity ratio of less than 70 per cent) and

negative farm cash incomes are the most likely to have difficulty meeting debt servicing

requirements or undertaking future borrowing to fund future investments (Table 13). In 2010–

11, only 5 per cent of vegetable farms had both a negative farm cash income and an equity ratio

of less than 70 per cent. An estimated 73 per cent of vegetable farms were operating with high

equity and positive farm cash income. Compared with the national average, Victoria had a higher

proportion of vegetable farms with both a negative farm cash income and an equity ratio of less

than 70 per cent, at 11 per cent.

Table 13 Distribution of vegetable farms, by equity ratio and farm cash income, 2010–11

Farms with low equity a Farms with high equity b negative cash income positive cash income negative cash income positive cash income

% % % % New South Wales 5 10 7 77 Victoria 11 9 12 68 Queensland 4 12 8 76 South Australia 2 9 2 87 Western Australia 3 5 27 65 Tasmania 3 13 25 59 Australia 5 10 12 73

a Farms with an equity ratio of less than 70 per cent are defined as having low farm equity. b Farms with an equity ratio of

more than 70 per cent are defined as having high farm equity.


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11p

capital

debt

2011–12

$'000


22

4 Comparison of financial performance of selected vegetable growing farms

Specialist potato, tomato and lettuce growers

Specialist producers have been defined as those vegetable farms growing potatoes, tomatoes or

lettuce, but not a combination of these products. While specialist potato and tomato growers

earned around 80 per cent of their receipts from the sale of either potatoes or tomatoes in

2010–11, lettuce growers were less specialised, earning less than half their receipts from the

sale of lettuce (Table 14).

On average, specialist potato growers operated a larger area of land and planted a larger area to

vegetable crops than lettuce or specialist tomato growers in 2010–11. Tomato growers generally

have a smaller area planted to vegetables, partly because of the higher proportion of tomato

growers operating intensive enterprises that use protection, such as glass, poly, plastic or

shadecloth. Lettuce growers were also more diversified in terms of other vegetable crops

planted.

Table 14 Selected estimates for specialist potato, tomato and lettuce farms, 2010–11

average per farm Specialist potato

growers a Specialist tomato

growers a Lettuce growers a Remaining

vegetable farms Proportion of vegetable farms % 26 13 7 53 Total area operated ha 382 91 355 145 Area planted to vegetables: Potatoes ha 45 0 0 1 Pumpkins ha 1 0 1 2 Green peas ha 1 0 0 1 Beans ha 1 0 1 5 Tomatoes ha 0 12 0 0 Onions ha 3 0 0 1 Carrots ha 2 0 2 1 Cauliflowers ha 0 0 4 2 Lettuce ha 0 0 28 0 Broccoli ha 1 0 18 2 Cabbage ha 0 0 5 1 Other vegetables ha 2 2 15 16 All vegetables ha 56 14 73 30

a Specialist producers have been defined as those vegetable farms growing either potatoes, tomatoes or lettuce, but not a

combination of these products.


On average, lettuce growers had a farm cash income of around $349 200 per farm in 2010–11,

compared with $282 500 for specialist potato growers and $77 500 for specialist tomato

growers (Table 15). Additionally, the rate of return to capital, excluding capital appreciation,

was higher for lettuce growers, at 4.3 per cent. Specialist potato growers had the next highest

rate of return, excluding capital appreciation, while the average rate of return for specialist

tomato growers was lower than the remaining unclassified farms.


23

Table 15 Financial performance and debt characteristics of specialist potato, tomato and lettuce farms, 2010–11

average per farm Specialist potato

growers a

Specialist tomato growers

a

Lettuce growers a

Remaining vegetable farms

Total cash receipts $ 1 068 300 (10) 530 600 (34) 2 335 800 (18) 531 200 (14) Total cash costs $ 785 800 (11) 453 100 (29) 1 986 600 (15) 431 500 (15) Farm cash income $ 282 500 (13) 77 500 (69) 349 200 (46) 99 800 (21) Farm business profit $ 150 100 (22) –15 500 (312) 166 800 (77) –400 (5 621) Rate of return b % 4.1 (15) 0.4 (611) 4.3 (37) 1.5 (54) Equity ratio cd % 88 (2) 84 (7) 76 (6) 82 (4) Farm business debt c $ 637 100 (15) 283 300 (37) 1 788 000 (17) 448 900 ( 20) Interest to receipts ratio % 5 (17) 3 (32) 6 (19) 6 (18) Change in debt during the year c % –3 (215) 9 (216) 0 6 (40)

a Specialist producers have been defined as those vegetable farms growing either potatoes, tomatoes or lettuce, but not a

combination of these products. b Rate of return to farm capital excluding capital appreciation at 1 July. c Average per debt

responding farm. d Equity expressed as a percentage of farm.



Farms growing vegetables under cover

In 2010–11, an estimated 13 per cent of vegetable growers produced vegetables under cover

such as glass, poly, plastic or shadecloth. Because of the intensive nature of producing vegetables

under cover, these farms operated a much smaller average land size and had a smaller area

planted to vegetables (Table 16).

A higher proportion of cucumber and tomato growers produced vegetables under cover. An

estimated 84 per cent of vegetable farms that grew cucumbers did so under cover in 2010–11.

Additionally, an estimated 37 per cent of vegetable farms that grew tomatoes did so under cover

in 2010–11.

Reflecting the small scale of production, in terms of area planted to vegetables and quantity of

vegetables produced, average farm cash income for growers that used covered production in

2010–11 is estimated to have been lower than for those that did not (Table 16). However,

growers using cover reported much higher unit receipts for their crops than did other growers.

Additionally, the average estimated rate of return, excluding capital appreciation, achieved by

growers using covered production was 0.3 per cent, compared with 3.0 per cent for growers that

did not grow under cover.

Vegetable growers using covered production also had fewer non-vegetable farm enterprises in

2010–11, with an average of 96 per cent of receipts from the sale of vegetables, compared with

an average 84 per cent for other growers.

Farms that did not use covered production paid a higher proportion of total cash costs on

freight, hired labour, fertiliser, contacts, vehicle maintenance, land rent, interest and chemicals

(Figure 14). These higher costs are likely to be associated with the relatively larger area planted

to vegetables. In contrast, farms growing crops under cover had a higher proportion of

expenditure on packing charges and materials, seed, building maintenance, rates and electricity,

which is consistent with the type of production undertaken on these farms.


24

Table 16 Selected estimates for farms that grew vegetables under cover, 2010–11

Average per farm Grow under cover a Did not grow under cover Total area operated ha 5 (15) 238 (11) Area planted to vegetables ha 2 (18) 41 (7) Age of operator/owner years 52 (5) 54 (2) Total cash receipts $ 283 500 (25) 848 800 (8) Total cash costs $ 221 000 (25) 676 200 (8) Farm cash income $ 62 500 (36) 172 600 (13) Farm business profit $ –8 000 (272) 54 700 (38) Price received for vegetables $/t 1680 (16) 670 (8) – tomato price $/t 1700 (25) 870 (40) – other vegetables $/t 1420 (11) 1070 (16) Proportion of receipts from vegetables % 96 (2) 84 (2) Rate of return excluding capital appreciation b % 0.3 (562) 3.0 (18) Equity ratio cd % 87 (4) 83 (2) Farm business debt c $ 159 900 (28) 610 700 (14) Interest to receipts ratio % 4 (21) 5 (12) Change in debt during the year c % 3 (147) 2 (130)

a Growers that earned at least 50 per cent of receipts from vegetables grown under cover. b Rate of return to farm capital

at 1 July. c Average per debt responding farm. d Equity expressed as a percentage of farm.



Figure 14 Individual costs as a proportion of total cash costs, under cover and not under cover, 2010–11

average per farm


Vegetable growers by rate of return

To investigate differences in farm characteristics based on financial performance, vegetable

growing farms were ranked by rate of return and allocated to top 25 per cent, middle 50 per

cent and bottom 25 per cent performance categories. Rate of return to capital (excluding capital

appreciation) is a relatively complete measure of farm economic performance that values all

0 5 10 15 20

Rates

Insurance

Land rent

Electricity


Administration




Freight

Interest paid


Seed

Contracts paid

Fertiliser

Hired labour

Did not grow under cover Grow under cover

%


25

farm inputs and outputs and is not as strongly correlated with farm size as most other measures

(such as farm cash income and farm business profit). To reduce year-specific effects on farm

performance, such as seasonal conditions, three-year moving average rates of return were

calculated for each farm.

Farms ranked in the top 25 per cent by rate of return had an estimated average farm cash

income of around $525 100 per farm, compared with negative $28 900 per farm for farms in the

bottom 25 per cent (Table 17). Vegetable farms in the bottom 25 per cent received more than

double the off-farm income of those in the top 25 per cent.

The top 25 per cent of vegetable farms had an average total area operated of 389 hectares,

compared with 189 hectares for vegetable farms in the middle 50 per cent and 86 hectares for

vegetable farms in the bottom 25 per cent (Table 18).

A higher proportion of vegetable farms in the top 25 per cent had a food safety program in place

in 2010–11, at 75 per cent compared with 53 per cent for vegetable farms in the bottom 25 per

cent. A higher proportion of farms in this group conducted a food safety assessment of their

water source, tested produce for chemical residues, had a pest and disease monitoring program

in place, and participated in or considered an environmental management program in 2010–11.

There was some variation in the factors that vegetable growers viewed as impediments to the

future viability of their business. A larger proportion of bottom performing farms viewed low

vegetable prices, urban expansion and changes in production practices to ensure environmental

sustainability as impediments, compared with higher performing farms.

Table 17 Financial performance and debt characteristics for vegetable farms, by rate of return to capital, 2010–11

average per farm bottom 25% middle 50% top 25% Total cash receipts $ 230 300 (53) 542 600 (12) 1 840 000 (8) Total cash costs $ 259 100 (53) 469 700 (13) 1 314 900 (8) Farm cash income $ –28 900 (75) 72 900 (14) 525 100 (12) Farms with negative farm cash income % 43 (31) 13 (29) 1 (138) Farm business profit $ –130 100 (23) –27 700 (35) 374 900 (16) Farms with negative farm business profit % 100 (0) 65 (10) 3 (54) Proportion of receipts from vegetables % 76 (14) 79 (4) 88 (3) Rate of return a % –6.0 (14) 0.6 (41) 10.1 (10) Total off farm income $ 27 300 (26) 24 800 (13) 12 000 (50) Equity ratio bc % 83 (9) 85 (3) 82 (4) Farm business debt c $ 293 900 (61) 583 700 (15) 780 000 (25) Interest to receipts ratio % 9 (29) 8 (13) 3 (27) Change in debt during the year c % 24 (54) 5 (40) –7 (84)

a Rate of return to farm capital at 1 July excluding capital appreciation. b Average per debt responding farm. c Equity

expressed as a percentage of farm.




26

Table 18 Selected characteristics of vegetable farms by rate of return to capital, 2010–11

average per farm/percentage of farms bottom 25% middle 50% top 25% Total area operated ha 86 (58) 189 (17) 389 (31) Area sown to vegetables ha 19 (61) 26 (7) 79 (11) Have a food safety program in place % 53 (30) 65 (8) 75 (5) Have a pest and disease monitoring program in place

% 96 (5) 99 (1) 100 (0)

Conducted a food safety assessment of the farms water source

% 38 (46) 40 (14) 56 (12)

Have participated in or are considering an environmental management program

% 30 (24) 32 (17) 43 (19)

Test produce for chemical residues % 46 (24) 60 (11) 71 (9) Impediments to future business viability Environmental sustainability % 14 (44) 8 (26) 10 (31) Increased farm input costs % 83 (12) 66 (9) 84 (5) Availability of irrigation water % 19 (40) 18 (23) 34 (21) Quality of irrigation water % 9 (67) 2 (69) 13 (34) Access/cost of labour % 9 (32) 4 (37) 11 (21) Low prices due to imports % 66 (19) 59 (10) 52 (10) Low prices for other reasons % 54 (31) 52 (13) 49 (11) Increased marketing costs % 59 (20) 49 (12) 67 (9) Closure of local processing plant % 10 (20) 15 (29) 12 (29) Urban expansion % 25 (24) 20 (21) 19 (31) Other % 24 (41) 18 (25) 19 (20)



A greater proportion of growers in the top 25 per cent sold vegetables interstate and to state

capital wholesale markets, whereas farms in the bottom 25 per cent sold more produce to local

markets (Table 19). The bottom 25 per cent produced a relatively small proportion of potatoes

and a higher proportion of tomatoes compared with the higher performing farms in 2010–11.

This may have been influenced by tomato crop losses as a result of seasonal conditions

experienced in 2010–11. The higher performing farms also tended to have a higher yield, with

the top 25 per cent having an average vegetable yield of 29 tonnes per hectare, compared with

the bottom 25 per cent, which had an average vegetable yield of 24 tonnes per hectare in

2010–11.

Hired labour accounted for the largest proportion of costs, at 17 per cent of total costs for the

top 25 per cent. This was higher than hired labour costs for the middle 50 per cent and the

bottom 25 per cent (14 per cent and 13 per cent, respectively) (Figure 15). This is likely to be

due to the larger scale of higher performing farms in terms of area planted and quantity

harvested.

The average age of vegetable farm operators did not differ significantly between different rates

of return. A higher proportion of the better performing producers attended conferences and

obtained specialist training or advice from a consultant in 2010–11, while a slightly higher

proportion of the bottom 25 per cent attended workshops (Table 20).


27

Table 19 Selling outlets and future intentions of vegetable growers, by rate of return to capital, 2010–11

average per farm / percentage of farms bottom 25% middle 50% top 25% Proportion of growers selling For export % 9 (67) 2 (34) 2 (58) Direct to food services % 3 (87) 7 (54) 3 (155) Interstate % 5 (95) 16 (28) 32 (19) State capital wholesale % 52 (31) 53 (10) 70 (10) Local market % 38 (37) 14 (31) 7 (53) Direct to processor % 24 (21) 36 (12) 26 (12) Direct to retail % 20 (33) 20 (25) 14 (44) Proportion of vegetable revenue received from selling For export % 1 (71) 0 0 Direct to food services % 1 (87) 3 (82) 1 (155) Interstate % 2 (102) 12 (35) 20 (22) State capital wholesale % 43 (33) 45 (12) 51 (14) Local market % 30 (50) 9 (37) 2 (56) Direct to processor % 21 (23) 26 (13) 19 (11) Direct to retail % 3 (33) 6 (22) 6 (68) Intentions of vegetable growers in five years Vegetable production % 76 (8) 70 (9) 70 (7) Other agricultural production % 8 (59) 17 (30) 12 (44) Leave agriculture % 15 (29) 13 (42) 18 (28)



Figure 15 Individual costs as a proportion of total cash costs, by rate of return to capital, 2010–11

average per farm


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Insurance

Electricity

Land rent

Administration


Interest paid



Freight


Seed


Contracts paid

Fertiliser

Hired labour

top 25 % middle 50 % bottom 25 %

%


28

Table 20 Socioeconomic and training characteristics for vegetable farms, by rate of return to capital group, 2010–11

average per farm/percentage per farm bottom 25% middle 50% top 25% Age of owner/operator 52 (5) 54 (3) 54 (3) Educational attainment of owner/operator Primary school completed % 3 (80) 4 (56) 8 (59) Year 10 or less % 47 (16) 39 (16) 43 (13) Year 11 or 12 % 23 (30) 40 (17) 31 (23) Trade apprenticeship/technical college % 19 (40) 5 (31) 9 (33) University education % 5 (70) 11 (30) 7 (30) Training undertaken Field days % 47 (21) 69 (8) 59 (13) Conferences % 24 (26) 23 (22) 33 (15) Workshops % 40 (26) 34 (17) 34 (14) TAFE % 0 2 (55) 3 (69) University % 0 0 0 Specialist training % 12 (47) 17 (25) 21 (17) Other % 0 3 (52) 16 (39)




29

5 Recent trends

Changes in the vegetable industry

Structural adjustment is a continuing process of change in the size, composition and

characteristics of industries. Farmers are continually responding to changes in a range of factors

that affect their farm business. Some of these responses involve relatively short-term decision-

making, such as size of area to be cropped and application rates for fertiliser and irrigation

water. Other responses involve longer-term decisions that require significant investment in

capital equipment or management practices.

Terms of trade

A measure of the business operating environment for farmers is the terms of trade, which is the

ratio of prices received by farmers to prices paid for farm inputs. For Australian vegetable farms

prices paid for farm inputs have been increasing over time. However, prices received for

vegetables also tended to increase, resulting in relatively stable terms of trade for vegetable

growers since the mid 1980s (Figure 16).

Changes in the terms of trade from year to year have largely reflected changes in vegetable

prices. For example, a sharp spike in prices in 2010–11 was the result of widespread heavy rain

and flooding in eastern Australia, lead to an increase in the terms of trade for vegetable growers.

Figure 16 Australian vegetable farmers’ terms of trade, 1970–71 to 2011–12

Note: ABARES estimates. Ratio of index of vegetable prices received by farmers and index of prices paid by farmers

Number and size of vegetable farms

Over the years, farm numbers in Australia have been declining and farms have been getting

larger. Changes in vegetable farm numbers and farm area have tended to occur incrementally as

farms continually adjust the size (Figure 17) and nature of their operations in response to

changes inherent in the market.

The average rate of decline in the number of vegetable farms over the six years to 2010–11 was

6 per cent a year. The rate of change in farm numbers varied between states with Tasmanian

0

50

100

150

200

250

Prices paid

Prices recieved

Terms of trade

Index 1997-98

=100


30

farm numbers decreasing by a rate of 8 per cent a year and Queensland and Western Australian

at 4 per cent a year.

Figure 17 Number of farmsa and area planted to vegetables, 2005–06 to 2010–11

a Vegetable growing farms with and EVAO of $40 000 or more. p Preliminary estimate.


During this period of declining farm numbers, the average area planted to vegetables per farm

increased. The average area planted to vegetables per farm increased at an average rate of 6 per

cent a year. The largest growth was experienced by Western Australian vegetable growers with

an average increase of 12 per cent a year, while South Australian vegetable growers increased

the area planted to vegetables by an average of 3 per cent a year since 2005–06.

Consistent with the trend of an increased average area planted to vegetables per farm, of the

vegetable growers that intended expanding vegetable production in the next three to five years,

the most common method of expansion was to use existing farmland to plant more vegetables

(Figure 18). In 2010–11, the proportion of farmers intending to purchase more land to enable

expansion of their vegetable production increased.

There is evidence in the Australian vegetable growing industry that financial performance is

related to scale of production. In three of the six survey years the average rate of return for

farms with an area of less than 5 hectares planted to vegetables was negative. While the average

rate of return for farms planting 5 to 20 hectares remained positive over the survey years, it did

not exceed 1.5 per cent. In contrast, the average rate of return for farms planting more than

70 hectares has been higher than 5 per cent for 2005–06 to 2010–11.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

number of vegetable farms

area planted to vegetables (average per

farm) (right axis)

no. ha


31

Figure 18 Intentions to expand vegetable production area in next three to five years, 2005–06 to 2010–11

percentage of farms


Note: For farms expecting to expand area of vegetables in the next three to five years


Figure 19 Rate of return excluding capital appreciation, by area planted to vegetables, 2005–06 to 2010–11

average per farm



Enterprise mix

One factor affecting vegetable growers’ responses to the current situation is the anticipated

returns from various farm enterprises. Allocation of land and other resources among farm

enterprises is determined in part by the relative expected returns from the different enterprises.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70Additional vegetable area using existing farm

Use existing area more intensively

Purchase more land

Lease more land

Sharefarming arrangement

%

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

>70 hectares

20–70 hectares

5–20 hectares

<5 hectares

%


32

A vegetable grower seeking to maximise farm profits will allocate land and resources according

to that combination of enterprises that yields the highest expected net return.

An individual farmer would not consider the relative returns from all enterprises, but rather

would concentrate on the suite of enterprises that best suit their farm’s unique resource base

(including soil capability and existing investment in on-farm infrastructure) and their

management experience and capabilities.

Using the survey data, changes in the mix of enterprises on farms between 2005–06 and 2010–

11 were examined. Vegetable growing farms became more diversified over this time. Generally,

the results show some increase in the number of enterprises undertaken on vegetable farms,

with a greater variety of vegetables produced on individual farms. An increase in the proportion

of vegetable farms producing beef cattle and sheep, as well as increases in average beef cattle

and sheep herd sizes on these farms, is also evident.

In 2005–06, around half the vegetable farms produced only one type of vegetable; the remaining

farms produced either a variety of vegetables or ran additional non-vegetable enterprises, such

as other crops or livestock. While single vegetable producing farms still made up one-third of

vegetable farms in 2010–11, 21 per cent produced more than one vegetable, 28 per cent

produced a combination of vegetables and other crops, and 16 per cent produced vegetables and

sheep and/or beef.

Cash costs of vegetable production

To provide an indication of the cash cost of producing vegetables, growers participating in the

survey were asked to apportion each major cost component to producing various vegetable

outputs as well as non-vegetable outputs.

Given that most farms earned the major part of their cash receipts from one or two vegetable

crops, the overall results reflect the whole-farm breakdown in costs (Figure 8). However,

differences in the relative importance of cost items among various crops reflect the production

characteristics of those crops (Table 21).

In 2010–11, it is estimated that the average cost of producing potatoes (including the value of

family and partner labour) rose by 7 per cent to $286 a tonne (Table 22), reflecting increased

expenditure on fertiliser, sprays and chemicals, contracts and seed. On average, the value of

family and partner labour, as a proportion of total costs of potato production, was around 3 per

cent in 2010–11. Hired labour was the largest cost item for most vegetable crops. However, for

potatoes the largest cost item was fertiliser, while for tomatoes and onions it was contracts paid.

Other major cost items for vegetable growers in 2010–11 included seed and repairs and

maintenance.

Au

stralian vegetab

le grow

ing farm

s: An

econ

om

ic surv

ey 20

10

–1

1 an

d 2

01

1–

12

A

BA

RE

S

33

Table 21 Components of cash costs of production per tonne for vegetable growers, 2010–11

average per farm Potatoes Pumpkins Beans Tomatoes Onions Carrots Cauliflowers Lettuce Broccoli Cabbage

$/t $/t $/t $/t $/t $/t $/t $/t $/t $/t Administration 8 (17) 23 (24) 24 (17) 27 (36) 16 (47) 10 (31) 28 (49) 27 (38) 40 (36) 28 (54) Fuel, oil and grease 19 (9) 33 (17) 58 (18) 35 (33) 17 (21) 19 (27) 38 (40) 46 (31) 60 (29) 47 (38) Hired labour 29 (12) 131 (25) 363 (27) 131 (26) 35 (13) 60 (42) 134 (37) 188 (24) 233 (23) 164 (31) Contracts paid 23 (22) 21 (43) 66 (50) 188 (55) 75 (33) 23 (31) 53 (31) 68 (26) 154 (19) 46 (25) Other costs 49 (15) 191 (24) 210 (21) 160 (31) 44 (18) 43 (31) 118 (37) 214 (20) 303 (25) 158 (28) Electricity 5 (11) 12 (19) 33 (18) 11 (39) 7 (21) 8 (28) 26 (69) 37 (43) 44 (44) 41 (51) Packing materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 (70) 0 0 Fertiliser 48 (17) 77 (23) 103 (21) 60 (35) 63 (29) 30 (16) 65 (35) 87 (34) 130 (19) 67 (41) Repairs and maintenance 23 (7) 59 (18) 133 (12) 61 (25) 35 (26) 23.5 (16) 60 (58) 75 (42) 108 (32) 85 (46) Freight 11 (13) 58 (29) 141 (29) 53 (86) 6 (24) 13 (31) 35 (43) 56 (26) 69 (22) 46 (29) Seed 35 (9) 44 (23) 100 (16) 69 (31) 26 (17) 21 (14) 74 (35) 98 (27) 113 (23) 59 (45) Spray and chemicals 26 (22) 46 (20) 103 (21) 47 (20) 45 (27) 19 (18) 51 (42) 53 (37) 83 (26) 64 (37) Imputed labour cost 9 (17) 44 (39) 66 (55) 47 (50) 9 (18) 13 (31) 25 (36) 21 (42) 25 (22) 23 (30) Total 286 (8) 737 (19) 1 398 (17) 891 (23) 378 (22) 283 (21) 707 (36) 971 (23) 1 364 (16) 828 (32)




34

Table 22 Cost of production per tonne for vegetable growers, 2008–09 to 2010–11

average per farm Cash cost per tonne

excluding imputed labour costs Cash cost per tonne

including imputed labour costs 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 p 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 p

$/t $/t $/t $/t $/t $/t Potatoes 270 (6) 255 (5) 277 (8) 281 (6) 266 (5) 286 (8) Pumpkins 665 (30) 476 (39) 694 (19) 689 (30) 504 (40) 737 (19) Beans 1 362 (20) 1 081 (14) 1 332 (17) 1 454 (21) 1 120 (14) 1 398 (17) Tomatoes 374 (99) 313 (33) 843 (25) 396 (100) 324 (32) 891 (23) Onions 354 (17) 305 (15) 370 (23) 364 (17) 318 (15) 378 (22) Carrots 237 (29) 197 (23) 269 (21) 241 (28) 208 (23) 283 (21) Cauliflowers 618 (22) 662 (30) 682 (37) 654 (19) 702 (27) 707 (36) Lettuce 731 (17) 1 094 (9) 950 (23) 748 (17) 1 118 (9) 971 (23) Broccoli 1 302 (14) 1 344 (9) 1 339 (17) 1 328 (14) 1 402 (8) 1 364 (16) Cabbage 337 (28) 494 (32) 805 (33) 355 (28) 515 (32) 828 (32)


Note: Imputed labour is the value of family and partner labour inputs into the business. Figures in parentheses are standard

errors expressed as a percentage of the estimate.


Preliminary data on the relationship between enterprise size (in terms of area of potatoes

planted and quantity of potatoes produced) and average cost of potato production are included

in Table 23. This analysis suggests that unit production costs are lower for larger farms.

The estimated cost per tonne of producing potatoes was lower as the quantity of potatoes was

higher. For potato growers that harvested less than 100 tonnes, the average cost per tonne was

$1160, compared with around $260 for growers that harvested more than 1000 tonnes.

The trend toward fewer but larger vegetable growing farms suggests there are economic

advantages to operating larger farms. Further analysis of this cost of production data could be

undertaken to help the industry better understand why structural changes have been occurring

and aid planning for change.

Table 23 Cost of potato production per tonne, by area of potatoes planted and quantity of potatoes harvested, 2008–09 to 2010–11



including imputed labour costs

2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 p 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 p $/t $/t $/t $/t $/t $/t

Quantity of potatoes harvested <100 tonnes 1 070 (50) 1564 (47) 1 121 (56) 1 339 (36) 1 673 (46) 1 160 (56) 100–250 tonnes 438 (20) 396 (17) 797 (20) 450 (19) 482 (17) 846 (20) 250–1000 tonnes 336 (7) 274 (10) 326 (9) 350 (7) 289 (10) 347 (9) >1000 tonnes 252 (9) 243 (8) 255 (11) 261 (8) 251 (7) 260 (11) Area of potatoes planted <5 hectares 823 (38) 510 (67) 996 (23) 985 (32) 606 (56) 1 034 (24) 5–20 hectares 294 (6) 283 (8) 302 (16) 310 (6) 294 (9) 325 (17) 20–50 hectares 240 (10) 231 (11) 258 (16) 259 (7) 248 (11) 274 (15) >50 hectares 266 (10) 250 (8) 271 (13) 271 (9) 255 (7) 275 (12)






35

The costs associated with producing potatoes varied across the states (Table 24). In 2010–11,

the cost of producing potatoes (including family and partner labour) was highest in Western

Australia, at an estimated $413 per tonne, and lowest in South Australia, at $231 per tonne. This

cost difference may have been influenced by the size of production for potatoes between states.

In 2010–11, Western Australian vegetable farms planted 17 hectares and harvested 672 tonnes

of potatoes, on average, compared with 25 hectares and 982 tonnes in South Australia. A

detailed breakdown of the costs associated with other vegetable production can be found in

Table B9 and Table B16. The future cost of production for vegetables may be affected by carbon

pricing; for insight into possible short run effects of carbon pricing on the vegetable industry,

see Box 2.

Table 24 Cost of potato production per tonne for vegetable growers, 2007–08 to 2009–10



including imputed labour costs 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 p 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 p

$/t $/t $/t $/t $/t $/t New South Wales 285 (20) 384 (24) 272 (17) 301 (15) 389 (24) 277 (18) Victoria 255 (7) 229 (9) 274 (19) 276 (7) 248 (9) 292 (19) Queensland 346 (51) 333 (29) 259 (29) 365 (52) 342 (28) 270 (30) South Australia 270 (15) 279 (10) 227 (12) 274 (14) 282 (10) 231 (12) Western Australia 412 (11) 301 (6) 405 (7) 428 (11) 316 (6) 413 (7) Tasmania 216 (8) 212 (9) 230 (10) 222 (8) 219 (9) 239 (10) Australia 270 (6) 255 (5) 277 (8) 281 (6) 266 (5) 286 (8)






36

Box 2 Potential short-run effects of carbon pricing on the Australian vegetable industry

The Australian Government’s carbon pricing scheme began on 1 July 2012. While emissions from the agriculture sector will not be subject to a carbon price, farm activities are likely to be affected through higher electricity and transport costs. It is expected that vegetable growers will also be affected by the effects of carbon pricing on vegetable processors. In 2011, ABARES released a report which evaluated possible short-run effects of a carbon pricing scheme on the beef, sheep, dairy, crops and mixed livestock–crop industries (Whittle et al. 2011). Using the same methodology, further analysis has been undertaken for the Australian vegetable growing industry. Details of the scope of the carbon pricing scheme and specifications of the ABARES farm financial model can be found in Whittle et al. (2011).

Farm level effects The features of the carbon pricing scheme over 2012–13 and 2014–15 are summarised in Table 25. These scenarios are in line with the government policy specifications outlined in Securing a Clean Energy Future (Australian Government 2011). Fuel used by heavy on-road transport will only be subject to a carbon price from 2014–15; therefore increased costs for freight have been included in the 2014–15 analysis.

Table 25 Scenario specifications

Specifications 2012–13 2014–15 Emission price ($/tonne CO2-e) $23.00 $25.40 Processor pass-through rate (%) 0, 20, 60, 100 0, 20, 60, 100 Includes impact of Carbon Price on: electricity; fuel: processors electricity; fuel: processors; freight

It is estimated that a carbon price will result in slightly higher input costs for vegetable growing farms, increasing by around 0.2 per cent and 0.3 per cent in 2012–13 and 2014–15, respectively (Table 26).

Table 26 Estimated increase in input costs as a result of a carbon price

average per farm

Increase in costs 2012–13 $1 095 0.2% 2014–15 $1 260 0.3%

Food processing costs Beyond the farm gate, electricity, fuel and freight constitute a small percentage of processor input costs amounting to less than 8 per cent of total costs (ABS 2011). As a result, processing costs are estimated to increase by less than 1 per cent in 2012–13 and 2014–15 (Table 27). The additional costs arising from the carbon price were divided by produce volume to determine the additional cost per tonne of vegetables produced.

Table 27 Change in processing costs, per tonne

Increase in costs excluding refrigerants Increase in costs including refrigerants 2012–13 $6.45/t 0.09% $8.38/t 0.12% 2014–15 $10.56/t 0.15% $12.61/t 0.18%

It is estimated that increases in refrigerant prices will result in processing costs rising by $1.93 per tonne of produce in 2012–13, and $2.05 in 2014–15 (in 2011–12 dollars). As a consequence, the total increase in processing costs per tonne as a result of the carbon price is estimated at $8.38 and $12.61 in 2012–13 and 2014–15, respectively.

Price effect The effect of carbon pricing on farm revenue will depend on the percentage of cost pass-through by processors, the size of processors and the number of farms selling to large processors. Cost-price pass-through is the extent to which processors pass cost increases to farmers by reducing prices paid for farm produce. In a worst-case scenario processors would pass-through 100 per cent of carbon-related costs, although such a scenario is unlikely. Scenarios of cost-price pass-through at 20 per cent and 60 per cent have been included in the analysis. Table 28 summarises the estimated fall in vegetable receipts per farm resulting from cost pass-through. As noted in Tulloh et al. (2009), determining the extent of the pass-through is difficult for a number of reasons, including that not all processors will be above the 25 000 tonnes of CO2-e emissions threshold, the information about emissions and processors’ cost structures is limited as is the understanding of the degree of pass-through downstream to wholesalers and consumers and upstream to agricultural producers.


37

Table 28 Change in total receipts arising from a carbon price

average per farm Cost-price pass through rate 20% 60% 100%

2012–13 % –0.1 –0.2 –0.3 2014–15 % –0.1 –0.3 –0.5

Note: The carbon price is assumed to be $23 and $25.40 per tonne of CO2-e in 2012–13 and 2014–15, respectively.

Due to the lack of precise information on processor emissions it has been assumed that all vegetable processors exceed the 25 000 tonnes of CO2-e threshold at which the carbon price applies. As such, these results are likely an overestimate as some processing facilities would not exceed the threshold and would therefore not have increased costs as a result of carbon pricing.

Overall effects on an average farm economic value in the short run The overall farm-level impact of a carbon price has been estimated as the change in economic value of vegetable farm production (farm cash income plus the value of change in stocks) in 2012–13 and 2014–15 (Table 29). The potential decline in overall economic value appears to be small, as was the result for broadacre farms in the previous study. The inclusion of freight in the scheme in the 2014–15 estimate does not appear to have a marked impact on the economic value where the cost pass-through from processors is low. However, where processors pass on a larger share of costs, increases in the cost of freight will have a slightly higher impact on vegetable producers.

Table 29 Change in economic value of farm production

average per farm Cost-price pass through rate 0% 20% 60% 100%

% $ % $ % $ % $

2012–13, without increase in refrigerant costs –0.7 –1 095 –0.9 –1 439 –1.4 –2 127 –1.8 –2 814

2012–13, with increase in refrigerant costs –0.7 –1 095 –1.0 –1 542 –1.6 –2 435 –2.1 –3 328

2014–15, without increase in refrigerant costs –0.8 –1 260 –1.2 –1 823 –1.9 –2 948 –2.6 –4 074

2014–15, with increase refrigerant costs –0.8 –1 260 –1.2 –1 933 –2.1 –3 277 –2.9 –4 621

Note: The average economic value of farm production for 2006–07 to 2010–11 was $156 995 per farm; the percentage decrease in the economic value of farm production is measured relative to these figures.

Results compared with other sectors Table 30 provides a comparison of the carbon price impact on different sectors. It is important to note that while this may offer a guide to the relative impacts of the carbon price on different sectors, results for the vegetable industry are not directly comparable to other industry results due to changes in the assumptions taken to convert the model for the vegetable sector. However, given that carbon prices are consistent between the analyses, insights can be inferred.

Table 30 Change in the economic value of farm production

average per farm 2012–13 2014–15 Cost–price pass-through rate 0% 20% 60% 100% 0% 20% 60% 100% Wheat and other crop % –0.3 –0.5 –0.9 –1.4 –0.4 –0.7 –1.2 –1.8 Mixed livestock and crops % –0.5 –0.7 –1.3 –1.8 –0.6 –0.9 –1.6 –2.4 Sheep % –0.5 –0.8 –1.3 –1.8 –0.6 –1.0 –1.7 –2.4 Beef % –0.4 –0.7 –1.2 –1.8 –0.5 –0.9 –1.7 –2.5 Sheep–Beef % –0.6 –0.9 –1.5 –2.1 –0.7 –1.1 –2.0 –2.8 Dairy % –1.1 –1.7 –3.0 –4.3 –1.1 –1.8 –3.3 –4.7 Vegetables % –0.7 –1.0 –1.6 –2.1 –0.8 –1.2 –2.1 –2.9

a Results include impact of cost increase in refrigerants. Note: Results for broadacre and dairy taken from Whittle et al. (2011) The decrease in economic value over all scenarios for vegetables is observed to be marginally higher for vegetables than the broadacre sectors, and slightly lower than that of dairy. This can be attributed to the relative level of electricity use in each sector. It is expected that the carbon price impact would be higher for the dairy industry as it uses more electricity throughout production compared with the vegetable and broadacre industries. These differences become somewhat less pronounced when emissions from freight come under the carbon pricing policy in 2014–15.


38

Industry issues

Food safety

Australia’s vegetable growers have no nationally consistent food safety requirements. However,

some buyer-based standards are in operation which address food safety and apply to a number

of growers across Australia. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is developing a

proposed Primary Production and Processing standard for horticulture, which will include

vegetable growers, as part of a series of national food safety standards (FSANZ 2012).

An estimated 65 per cent of Australian vegetable farms had a food safety program in place in

2010–11 (Table 31). The proportion of vegetable farms that had a food safety program varied

between states. South Australia had the highest proportion with an estimated 87 per cent of

growers while around 31 per cent of vegetable growers in New South Wales had a food safety

program in place.

Use of poor quality water for pre-harvest and post-harvest activities is the most common cause

of produce contamination (FSANZ 2012). In 2010–11, an estimated 44 per cent of Australian

vegetable farms undertook a food safety assessment of their water source (Table 31). A lower

proportion of vegetable growers in New South Wales and Victoria conducted a risk assessment

of their farm’s water source than the national average. Vegetable farms in South Australia again

had the highest level of participation with 60 per cent conducting a food safety assessment of

their water source.

More than half of vegetable growers tested their produce for chemical residues. However, the

proportion of growers that tested vegetables for chemical residue again varied between states,

with an estimated 23 per cent of vegetable growers in New South Wales conducting such a test,

compared with 74 per cent in Western Australia.

Table 31 Food safety precautions undertaken, by state, 2010–11

percentage of farms NSW Vic. Qld SA WA Tas. Aust.

% % % % % % % Have participated in or are considering an environmental management program

42 (24) 42 (26) 17 (41) 26 (22) 48 (28) 45 (21) 34 (12)


31 (30) 31 (14) 51 (26) 60 (27) 53 (24) 46 (22) 44 (11)

Test produce for chemical residues

23 (34) 72 (15) 63 (17) 70 (25) 74 (15) 71 (15) 59 (8)

Have a food safety program in place

31 (28) 70 (15) 65 (22) 87 (10) 80 (13) 78 (13) 65 (8)



A greater proportion of large vegetable farms—defined in this report as those with more than

70 hectares of vegetables—undertook food safety measures, compared with other growers

(Table 32). An estimated 93 per cent of large vegetable farms reported testing produce for

chemical residues, compared with 37 per cent for the smallest vegetable farms (those with less

than 5 hectares of vegetables).


39

Table 32 Food safety precautions undertaken, by area of vegetables planted, 2010–11

percentage of farms <5 hectares 5–20 hectares 20–70 hectares >70 hectares

% % % % Have participated in or are considering an environmental management program

17 (41) 42 (18) 34 (17) 50 (15)


38 (36) 33 (17) 51 (11) 69 (11)

Test produce for chemical residues 37 (37) 61 (11) 65 (12) 93 (5) Have a food safety program in place 48 (21) 60 (13) 76 (9) 90 (1)



Pests and diseases

If not properly managed, pests and diseases can reduce crop yield and quality, therefore

reducing prices received and income. Accordingly, most vegetable growers were concerned

about pests and diseases, with an estimated 98 per cent of vegetable growers following a set

pest and disease monitoring program (Table 33). This was the highest proportion reported since

the survey started in 2005–06 and is likely to be due to increased pest and disease activity

resulting from wet conditions in 2010–11.

Table 33 Pest and disease monitoring, by state, 2010–11

percentage of farms % New South Wales 91 (6) Victoria 100 (0) Queensland 100 (0) South Australia 100 (0) Western Australia 100 (0) Tasmania 100 (0) Australia 98 (1)



Vegetable production and selling methods

An estimated 13 per cent of vegetable growers produced vegetables under cover such as glass,

plastic or shadecloth in 2010–11 (Table 34). For many of those growing vegetables under cover,

there tended to be a mix of covered and uncovered crops. On average, 79 per cent of the

vegetable receipts on these farms came from the sale of vegetables grown under cover.

In 2010–11, an estimated 6 per cent of growers produced vegetables using hydroponics. As with

vegetable growers producing crops under cover, there tended to be a mix of hydroponic and

non-hydroponic crops. On average, 82 per cent of vegetable receipts on these farms came from

the sale of vegetables grown using hydroponics.

Farms growing vegetables under protection or using hydroponics had a smaller average area of

vegetable crops planted.


40

Table 34 Vegetable production methods, by state, 2010–11


% % % % % % % Growers producing vegetables under cover

14 (54) 5 (30) 2 (67) 53 (21) 19 (54) 2 (66) 13 (19)

Vegetable revenue produced under cover

14 (54) 4 (29) 1 (62) 47 (27) 5 (72) 1 (111) 10 (22)

Vegetable revenue produced under cover for those who used protection

100 (1) 86 (19) 68 (18) 89 (14) 26 (48) ns 79 (68)

Growers producing vegetables using hydroponics

15 (54) 4 (32) 2 (58) 4 (78) 8 (74) 1 (114) 6 (33)

Vegetable revenue produced using hydroponics

14 (58) 4 (32) 1 (60) 4 (78) 3 (64) 1 (114) 5 (37)

Vegetable revenue produced using hydroponics for farmers who used hydroponics

91 (15) ns 56 (31) ns ns ns 82 (12)

ns Not supplied because of insufficient sample points.



Vegetable growers typically sell their produce into one of three market segments: the fresh

vegetable market; the processed vegetable market; and/or the export market. Of the fresh

markets available to vegetable growers, an estimated 57 per cent of growers sold produce to the

state capital wholesale market, with almost half of vegetable revenue being received through

those outlets in 2010–11 (Table 35). Selling direct to a processor was another common method,

with 31 per cent of vegetable growers selling direct to processors and 23 per cent of vegetable

revenue being received from this market. In Tasmania an estimated 95 per cent of growers sold

their produce directly to a processor in 2010–11.

Table 35 Vegetable selling methods, 2010–11

percentage of farms/average per farm NSW Vic. Qld SA WA Tas. Aust.

% % % % % % % Proportion of growers selling For export 8 (81) 2 (64) 2 (88) 1 (72) 2 (72) 10 (36) 4 (38) Direct to food services 2 (142) 8 (98) 0 3 (104) 23 (48) 0 5 (43) Interstate 6 (52) 15 (39) 26 (32) 46 (37) 10 (65) 2 (74) 18 (19) State capital wholesale 75 (12) 33 (29) 70 (16) 66 (24) 68 (18) 7 (56) 57 (8) Local market 26 (34) 11 (87) 23 (50) 1 (88) 30 (41) 7 (62) 18 (24) Direct to processor 10 (28) 62 (16) 12 (31) 25 (43) 10 (46) 95 (4) 31 (9) Direct to retail 35 (26) 16 (62) 7 (37) 5 (66) 44 (26) 4 (74) 18 (17) Proportion of vegetable revenue received from selling For export 1 (81) 0 0 0 0 1 (37) 0 Direct to food services 1 (124) 7 (98) 0 1 (104) 4 (47) 0 2 (69) Interstate 4 (57) 12 (44) 15 (33) 33 (46) 4 (81) 1 (88) 11 (22) State capital wholesale 63 (13) 28 (34) 58 (16) 46 (35) 53 (19) 2 (55) 46 (9) Local market 15 (44) 9 (89) 17 (74) 0 (88) 20 (42) 4 (77) 12 (34) Direct to processor 8 (28) 40 (21) 7 (36) 19 (52) 4 (52) 90 (5) 23 (10) Direct to retail 10 (38) 3 (43) 3 (43) 1 (60) 14 (31) 2 (82) 5 (19)




41

Ownership characteristics of vegetable farms

In 2010–11, an estimated 84 per cent of vegetable farms were operated as a partnership, 11 per

cent as a sole operator and 4 per cent as a company (Table 36).

Table 36 Ownership characteristics of vegetable farms, by state, 2010–11

percentage of farms / average per farm NSW Vic. Qld SA WA Tas. Aust. Business structure Sole operator % 14 (45) 10 (81) 7 (49) 25 (63) 7 (98) 5 (79) 11 (27) Partnership % 78 (11) 85 (10) 89 (4) 67 (24) 93 (7) 92 (5) 84 (4) Company % 8 (81) 3 (54) 4 (49) 7 (71) 0 3 (68) 4 (36) Highest educational attainment of owner/operator Primary school % 15 (52) 0 2 (83) 3 (66) 0 7 (96) 5 (40) Year 10 or less % 29 (28) 55 (20) 66 (13) 32 (50) 19 (38) 15 (40) 42 (10) Year 11 or 12 % 40 (21) 27 (36) 17 (41) 54 (30) 59 (22) 33 (32) 34 (12) TAFE % 9 (64) 6 (52) 9 (63) 5 (58) 19 (49) 17 (41) 10 (24) Degree % 5 (84) 10 (54) 7 (43) 4 (54) 4 (124) 28 (36) 9 (23) Unknown % 2 (84) 2 (91) 0 2 (44) 0 0 1 (50) Age of Operator/owner yrs 53 (4) 55 (4) 53 (4) 51 (3) 56 (4) 54 (4) 54 (2) Spouse yrs 42 (8) 41 (13) 49 (5) 38 (15) 48 (11) 48 (6) 45 (4)



The average age of owner/operators of Australian vegetable farms was estimated to be around

54 years in 2010–11. Most owner/operators had an education level of Year 12 or less. An

estimated 10 per cent had a TAFE qualification and 9 per cent had a university degree.

An estimated 77 per cent of vegetables growers received income from off-farm sources in

2010–11, and the average income received from these sources was $22 200 per farm. Western

Australia had the highest average off-farm income in 2010–11 at $37 800, while farms in South

Australia had the lowest average off-farm income at $9600 per farm.

Use of computers

An estimated 72 per cent of vegetable growers used a computer to help run their business

during 2010–11 and 16 per cent used a global positioning system (GPS) for preparing, planting

and/or harvesting crops.

The internet was commonly used to help vegetable growers manage their financial affairs

(43 per cent of growers) and obtain weather information (42 per cent), while only 10 per cent of

vegetable growers used a computer to find media releases (Table 37).

A higher proportion of larger vegetable growers used a computer and GPS system than smaller

growers (Table 38). Fewer small vegetable farms used the internet for all categories in the

survey than growers who had more than 70 hectares of vegetables sown. Only 16 per cent of

small vegetable farms used the internet to access market information compared with 53 per

cent of larger vegetable farms with more than 70 hectares of vegetables.


42

Table 37 Use of computers in vegetable farms, by state, 2010–11

percentage of growers NSW Vic. Qld SA WA Tas. Aust.

% % % % % % % Proportion of growers using a computer for Education resources 7 (61) 7 (46) 12 (55) 17 (40) 0 39 (26) 12 (21) Financial affairs 30 (24) 41 (22) 37 (28) 33 (24) 85 (9) 56 (19) 43 (9) Industry links 12 (60) 41 (26) 24 (31) 17 (35) 1 (99) 36 (23) 23 (15) Market information 17 (44) 25 (37) 34 (27) 17 (35) 6 (77) 57 (15) 26 (14) Media releases 2 (82) 5 (90) 11 (32) 8 (41) 0 43 (25) 10 (18) Weather information 31 (20) 42 (26) 33 (33) 25 (31) 64 (19) 80 (11) 42 (10) Purchasing farm inputs 14 (42) 8 (32) 23 (37) 15 (44) 5 (78) 33 (26) 16 (18) Other 6 (57) 8 (56) 3 (70) 1 (63) 10 (68) 0 5 (31)



Table 38 Use of technology in vegetable farms, by area of vegetables sown, 2010–11

percentage of growers <5 hectares 5–20 hectares 20–70 hectares >70 hectares Farms using a computer in their business % 40 (26) 79 (8) 87 (5) 93 (3) Farms using GPS during crop production % 0 17 (31) 17 (22) 44 (13) Use of the internet for Education resources % 9 (32) 6 (49) 18 (26) 23 (28) Financial affairs % 25 (39) 41 (17) 51 (12) 71 (7) Industry links % 8 (57) 25 (26) 27 (25) 39 (14) Market information % 16 (19) 19 (33) 32 (20) 53 (11) Media releases % 6 (23) 10 (44) 8 (29) 23 (23) Weather information % 16 (60) 46 (12) 51 (11) 68 (9) Purchasing farm inputs % 9 (54) 11 (45) 22 (22) 35 (21) Other % 6 (53) 3 (70) 8 (64) 1 (72)



Future in vegetable growing

At the time of the survey, 72 per cent of vegetable growers expected to still be engaged in

vegetable production in five years’ time. An estimated 13 per cent expected to focus on other

agricultural production in five years’ time and around 15 per cent expected to leave agriculture

(Table 39).

Table 39 Intentions of vegetable growers in five years, by state, 2010–11


% % % % % % % Vegetable production 73 (11) 64 (16) 71 (15) 78 (22) 71 (18) 78 (10) 72 (7) Other agriculture 14 (49) 22 (43) 8 (69) 2 (82) 19 (70) 16 (41) 13 (24) Leave agriculture 13 (46) 14 (62) 21 (44) 20 (85) 10 (68) 6 (78) 15 (26)



On average, producers that indicated an intention to leave agriculture in five years’ time

operated a smaller holding of land and had a smaller area planted to vegetables than the average

in 2010–11 (Table 40). Those who intended to focus on other agricultural production operated a

larger area than the average.


43

Table 40 Age of operator and area operated, by intention in five years, 2010–11

percentage of farms Intention Age of operator/manager Area operated Area planted to vegetables Vegetable production 53 (2) 223 (15) 45 (13) Other agricultural production 55 (6) 290 (48) 21 (19) Leave agriculture 55 (4) 106 (51) 17 (49) Average 54 (2) 214 (15) 38 (11)



During 2010–11, an estimated 18 per cent of vegetable growers intended to expand vegetable

production in the next three to five years (Figure 20). Around 24 per cent of vegetable growers

in Tasmania expected to expand vegetable production in the next three to five years, while

14 per cent of growers in Western Australia expected to expand vegetable production.

Figure 20 Intentions to expand vegetable production area in the next three to five years, by state, 2010–11

percentage of farms


Of those intending to expand vegetable production in the next three to five years, the most

common method of expansion was to use existing farmland to plant more vegetables (48 per

cent) (Table 41).

Vegetable growers were also asked which management practices would improve the

productivity of their farm business (Table 42). The most common response was the production

of higher yielding varieties (41 per cent), followed by expanding technology use (26 per cent).

An estimated 32 per cent believed they were already as productive as possible.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


%


44

Table 41 Intentions to expand vegetable production area in the next three to five years, by state, 2010–11

percentage of farms expecting to expand area of vegetables in the next three to five years NSW Vic. Qld SA WA Tas. Aust.

% % % % % % % Use existing land more intensively

19 (114) 22 (71) 19 (78) 57 (59) 0 50 (56) 27 (32)

Additional vegetable area using existing farm

76 (32) 69 (39) 29 (54) 36 (67) 45 (76) 19 (38) 48 (20)

Purchase more land

3 (261) 25 (109) 62 (35) 14 (101) 45 (0) 65 (38) 35 (25)

Lease more land 12 (78) 5 (81) 28 (70) 50 (70) 78 (40) 26 (66) 26 (28) Sharefarming arrangement

0 0 11 (122) 0 4 (55) 8 (76) 4 (81)



While a high proportion of vegetable growers indicated that a move to higher-yielding varieties

would improve farm productivity, an estimated 95 per cent indicated they faced one or more

constraints to changing crop mix. Water availability and knowledge of or experience with

growing particular crops were the most common constraints indicated (Table 43).

Table 42 Management practices to improve vegetable farm productivity, by state, 2010–11


% % % % % % % Expand mechanisation

16 (38) 21 (25) 7 (36) 36 (40) 23 (43) 38 (27) 20 (14)

Introduce or expand technology use

21 (35) 27 (24) 23 (39) 26 (45) 23 (40) 50 (22) 26 (14)

Increase scale of operation

11 (53) 6 (38) 5 (55) 15 (63) 36 (37) 26 (34) 13 (19)

Improve financial management

9 (60) 18 (25) 6 (61) 12 (55) 31 (44) 38 (23) 16 (17)

Higher yielding varieties

31 (31) 45 (23) 35 (30) 59 (29) 23 (40) 73 (13) 41 (11)

Introduce genetically modified vegetables

13 (51) 4 (43) 8 (59) 12 (68) 5 (75) 5 (58) 8 (27)

Nothing 48 (18) 21 (46) 36 (28) 24 (73) 32 (36) 14 (59) 32 (14) Other 13 (46) 7 (65) 11 (52) 1 (103) 13 (48) 7 (96) 10 (26)




45

Table 43 Constraints to changing vegetable crop mix, by state, 2010–11


% % % % % % % Soil type or topography 16 (37) 18 (33) 30 (42) 19 (27) 11 (69) 24 (35) 21 (20) Climate suitability 42 (24) 21 (27) 30 (27) 17 (29) 14 (54) 26 (34) 27 (13) Water availability 19 (43) 29 (27) 33 (22) 21 (51) 38 (30) 26 (38) 28 (13) Knowledge or experience

– growing 16 (51) 38 (29) 16 (42) 34 (31) 60 (18) 22 (34) 28 (14) – marketing products 28 (27) 51 (19) 22 (40) 32 (49) 37 (27) 20 (34) 31 (13)



Producing high-quality vegetables and selling direct to retail were the strategies most commonly

agreed to be opportunities for growth (Table 44). Only 6 per cent of vegetable growers saw

hydroponics as an opportunity to expand their vegetable growing business.

Table 44 Major growth opportunities for vegetable farms, by state, 2010–11


% % % % % % % Exports 10 (47) 11 (52) 4 (122) 9 (55) 21 (41) 28 (32) 12 (22) Selling direct to retail 35 (27) 30 (13) 8 (47) 19 (32) 58 (19) 20 (34) 26 (11) Direct to food services sector 10 (63) 21 (32) 7 (59) 23 (53) 50 (26) 6 (42) 17 (18) Niche products 12 (33) 11 (53) 18 (44) 15 (54) 31 (46) 37 (27) 18 (18) High quality produce 29 (29) 36 (26) 74 (11) 61 (26) 41 (34) 83 (10) 53 (8) Value adding on farm 5 (77) 6 (49) 4 (68) 12 (34) 11 (53) 11 (47) 7 (22) Under protective cropping 18 (49) 9 (90) 2 (112) 7 (108) 6 (82) 8 (62) 8 (33) Hydroponics 13 (62) 0 3 (78) 18 (81) 0 2 (66) 6 (42) Other 15 (50) 27 (39) 4 (54) 4 (29) 15 (51) 2 (110) 12 (24)



An estimated 12 per cent of vegetable growers indicated export markets as a viable outlet for

expanding their vegetable growing business. However, growers highlighted a number of

impediments to developing markets (Table 45). Around 80 per cent of vegetable growers

believed development of export markets was too difficult or time-consuming. Inadequate prices

for exported vegetables, shipping costs and insufficient farm infrastructure were also commonly

stated to be impediments to developing export markets.

Table 45 Impediments to developing export markets, by state, 2010–11


% % % % % % % No local agents 4 (74) 9 (47) 5 (59) 1 (134) 0 26 (34) 7 (24) Prices not high enough 34 (26) 44 (20) 16 (41) 68 (22) 54 (21) 57 (19) 39 (10) Shipping costs too high 9 (58) 16 (32) 7 (43) 23 (56) 22 (42) 31 (29) 15 (17) Transport not available 5 (81) 0 3 (70) 0 18 (72) 6 (77) 5 (40) Infrastructure on farm needed 13 (55) 9 (37) 3 (70) 15 (71) 1 (101) 39 (24) 11 (21) Too hard/time consuming 83 (7) 72 (11) 94 (6) 62 (23) 79 (9) 71 (13) 80 (4)



Increased farm input costs were the factor most commonly reported as an impediment to future

viability of vegetable farms (Table 46). An estimated 74 per cent of vegetable growers viewed


46

input costs (such as water, fuel and fertiliser) as an impediment. Other impediments reported by

the majority of vegetable growers included low vegetable prices and increased marketing costs.

Table 46 Impediments to future business viability of vegetable farms, by state, 2010–11


% % % % % % % Increased farm input costs

84 (6) 78 (13) 57 (20) 80 (22) 94 (5) 70 (16) 74 (6)

Increased marketing costs

50 (20) 39 (26) 68 (13) 50 (24) 64 (16) 66 (15) 56 (8)

Low prices due to imports

45 (21) 62 (18) 70 (14) 47 (26) 41 (34) 80 (12) 59 (8)

Low prices for other reasons

45 (22) 48 (16) 44 (26) 70 (24) 61 (15) 63 (18) 52 (9)

Availability of irrigation water

20 (39) 31 (26) 14 (29) 16 (61) 28 (36) 36 (29) 22 (14)

Quality of irrigation water

8 (61) 9 (48) 6 (67) 5 (44) 5 (111) 0 6 (30)

Environmental sustainability

8 (67) 6 (39) 4 (71) 1 (56) 14 (51) 43 (25) 10 (20)

Urban expansion 47 (16) 14 (35) 4 (82) 35 (44) 29 (36) 3 (102) 21 (14) Closure of local processing plant

2 (82) 27 (39) 3 (150) 8 (63) 0 58 (19) 13 (21)

Access/cost of labour 0 6 (50) 2 (79) 16 (74) 9 (81) 23 (32) 7 (27) Other 12 (51) 17 (31) 17 (43) 33 (51) 52 (20) 2 (60) 20 (17)



At the time of the survey, access to and/or cost of labour was not considered a major

impediment to the future viability of vegetable production, with only 7 per cent of vegetable

growers considering it an impediment in 2010–11, compared with 62 per cent in 2006–07

(Figure 21).

Figure 21 Impediment of labour to future viability of vegetable farms, 2005-06 to 2010–11

percentage of farms



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11p%


47

Appendix A: Survey methods and definitions Target population

The vegetable survey is designed from a frame (population list) drawn from the Australian

Business Register (ABR) and maintained by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). The ABR-

based frame provided to ABARES consists of agricultural businesses registered with the

Australian Taxation Office, together with their corresponding statistical local area, industry

classifications and size of operation variable. The size variable is an indicator of the extent of

agricultural activity.

ABARES surveys target vegetable establishments that make a significant contribution to the total

value of agricultural output (commercial farms). Farms excluded from ABARES surveys will be

the smallest units, and in aggregate will contribute little to the total value of vegetable

production.

The vegetable growing industry definition is based on the Australian and New Zealand Standard

Industrial Classification (ANZSIC). This classification is consistent with an international standard

applied comprehensively across Australian industry, permitting comparisons between

industries, both within Australia and internationally. Farms assigned to a particular ANZSIC

class have a high proportion of their total output characterised by that class. Further

information on ANZSIC and on the vegetable growing industry is provided in Australian and

New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification (ABS 2006, cat. no. 1292.0).

For the purpose of this survey, vegetable farms in the sample were selected from units classified

in ANZSIC 0122 (Vegetable growing, under cover) and 0123 (Vegetable growing, outdoors).

These classes consist of units engaged mainly in growing vegetables, with primary activities

including capsicums, cucumbers, herbs, lettuces, tomatoes, asparagus, beans, carrots, garlic,

zucchinis, onions, peas and potatoes.

Survey design and sample weighting

The target population is grouped into strata defined by state and size of operation. The size of

each stratum was determined using the Dalenius–Hodges method (Lehtonen & Pahkinen 2004).

The sample allocation to each stratum is a compromise between allocating a higher proportion

of the sample to strata with high variability in the size variable and an allocation proportional to

the population of the stratum.

In 2010–11, there were an estimated 2746 commercial vegetable farms in Australia (Table A1).

These farms accounted for 67 per cent of all vegetable growing farms (ABS 2012b). Results are

based on 282 vegetable farms that responded to the survey. Queensland, New South Wales and

Victoria had the largest numbers of commercial vegetable farms, accounting for around two-

thirds of vegetable farms across Australia. The Northern Territory has been excluded from the

survey since 2009–10 because of the small number of commercial vegetable farms and the

associated confidentiality requirements.

Farm-level estimates published in the report are calculated by appropriately weighting the data

collected from each sample farm and then using the weighted data to calculate population

estimates. Sample weights are calculated so that population estimates from the sample for

numbers of farms and areas of vegetables planted correspond as closely as possible (at a state


48

level and by groups of farms by area of vegetables planted) to the most recently available ABS

estimates from data collected in the Agricultural Census and Agricultural Survey. The weighting

process ensures estimates are applicable for all commercial vegetable growing farms rather than

just those in the sample.

Table A1 Population and sample numbers for the Australian vegetable industry survey, 2010–11

No. of growers Realised sample New South Wales 567 44 Victoria 529 50 Queensland 767 64 South Australia 303 51 Western Australia 305 37 Tasmania 275 36 Australia 2 746 282

The weighting methodology for the vegetable survey uses a model-based approach, with a linear

regression model linking the survey variables and the estimation benchmark variables. The

details of this method are described in Bardsley and Chambers (1984).

Benchmark variables used to weight the data provided by the ABS include:

total number of farms in scope

total area planted to vegetables for human consumption.

Generally, larger farms have smaller weights and smaller farms have larger weights, reflecting

the strategy of sampling a higher fraction of larger farms than smaller farms (the former having

greater variability of key characteristics and accounting for a much larger proportion of total

output) and the relatively lower number of large farms.

Survey questionnaire

The survey of vegetable growing enterprises covered the following topics.

Pre-interview questions, to:

determine eligibility and stratification level

establish business structure and activities

confirm address and location

check availability of financial and production data.

Production details

Vegetable-related production for the survey year.

Details of each type of product (including quantity produced, sales, transfers and stocks on hand).

Labour

Family and hired labour.

Workers’ status in the operation, hours worked and wages paid.


49

Questions about operators’ and spouses’ education, off-farm work and government assistance.

Assets

Type and value of liquid assets (owned by or available to the business), land, vehicles, plant and equipment, and buildings and other structural improvements used in the business.

Liabilities

Details of farm debt.

Income and expenses

All costs and income associated with the vegetable business.

Supplementary survey questions covering a range of issues, including:

irrigation water and chemical usage

pests and diseases

farm sale outlets

sources of information

future intentions

constraints

relationship of growers with main buyers.

The questionnaire used in the 2012 survey is similar to that used since 2007.

Reliability of estimates

The reliability of the estimates of population characteristics presented in this report depends on

the design of the sample and the accuracy of the measurement of characteristics for the

individual sample farms.

Preliminary estimates and provisional projections

Estimates for 2009–10 and all earlier years are final. All data from farmers, including accounting

information, have been reconciled, final production and population information from the ABS

has been included and no further change is expected in the estimates.

The 2010–11 estimates are preliminary based on full production and accounting information

from farmers. However, editing and addition of sample farms may be undertaken and ABS

production and population benchmarks may also change.

The 2011–12 estimates are provisional projections developed from the data collected through

on-farm interviews undertaken between February and August, as well as from the preliminary

estimates. Projection estimates include crop and livestock production, receipts and expenditure

up to the date of interview, together with expected production, receipts and expenditure for the

remainder of the projection year. Modifications are made to expected receipts and expenditure

where significant production and price change has occurred post-interview. Provisional

projection estimates are subject to greater uncertainty than the preliminary and final estimates.


50

Preliminary and projection estimates of farm financial performance are produced within a few

weeks of completion of survey collections. However, these may be updated several times at later

dates. These subsequent versions will be more accurate, as they will be based on upgraded

information and slightly more accurate input datasets.

Sampling errors

Only a subset of farms out of the total number of farms in a particular industry is surveyed. The

data collected from each sample farm are weighted to calculate population estimates. Estimates

derived from these farms are likely to be different from those that would have been obtained if

information had been collected from a census of all farms. Any such differences are called

‘sampling errors’.

The size of the sampling error is most influenced by the survey design and estimation

procedures, as well as the sample size and variability of farms in the population. The larger the

sample size, the lower the sampling error is likely to be. Hence, national estimates are likely to

have lower sampling errors than industry and state estimates.

To give a guide to the reliability of the survey estimates, standard errors are calculated for all

estimates and reported for selected estimates in the appendix tables. These estimated errors are

expressed as percentages of the survey estimates and termed relative standard errors (RSEs).

Comparing estimates

When comparing estimates between two groups, it is important to recognise that the differences

are also subject to sampling error. As a rule of thumb, a conservative estimate of the standard

error of the difference can be constructed by adding the squares of the estimated standard

errors of the component estimates and then taking the square root of the result. For example:

Suppose the estimates of total cash receipts were $100 000 in Victoria and $125 000 in

Tasmania—a difference of $25 000—and the RSE is given as 6 per cent for each estimate. The

standard error of the difference can be estimated as:

so a 95 per cent confidence interval for the difference is:

Hence if a large number (towards infinity) of different samples are taken, approximately 95 per

cent of the time the difference between the two estimates will be between $6174 and $43 826.

Also, since zero is not in this confidence interval, it is possible to say that the difference between

the estimates is statistically significantly different from zero at the 95 per cent confidence level.


51

Definitions

Owner–manager The primary decision maker for the farm business. This person is usually

responsible for day-to-day operation of the farm and may own or have a

share in the farm business.

Physical items

Beef cattle Cattle kept primarily for producing meat, irrespective of breed.

Dairy cattle Cattle kept or intended mainly for producing milk or cream.

Hired labour Excludes the farm business manager, partners and family labour, and

work done by contractors. Expenditure on contract services appears as a

cash cost.

Labour Measured in work weeks, as estimated by the owner–manager or

manager. It includes all work on the farm by the owner–manager,

partners, family, hired permanent and casual workers and sharefarmers,

but excludes work done by contractors.

Total area operated Includes all land operated by the farm business, whether owned or

rented by the business, but excludes land share farmed on another farm.

Financial items

Capital The value of farm capital is the value of all the assets used on a farm,

including the value of leased items but excluding machinery and

equipment either hired or used by contractors. The value of ‘owned’

capital is the value of farm capital excluding the value of leased

machinery and equipment.

ABARES uses the owner–manager’s valuation of the farm property. The

valuation includes the value of land and fixed improvements used by

each farm business in the survey, excluding land share farmed off the

sample farm. Residences on the farm are included in the valuations.

Livestock are valued at estimated market prices for the land use zones

within each state. These values are based on recorded sales and

purchases by sample farms.

Before 2001–02 ABARES maintained an inventory of plant and

machinery for each sample farm. Individual items were valued at

replacement cost, depreciated for age. Each year, the replacement cost

was indexed to allow for changes in that cost.

Since 2001–02 total value of plant and machinery is based on market

valuations provided by the owner–manager for broad categories of

capital, such as tractors, vehicles and irrigation plant.

The total value of items purchased or sold during the survey year was

added to or subtracted from farm capital at 31 December of the relevant

financial year, irrespective of the actual date of purchase or sale.


52

Change in debt Estimated as the difference between debt at 1 July and the following 30

June within the survey year, rather than between debt at 30 June in

consecutive years. It is an estimate of the change in indebtedness of a

given population of farms during the financial year and is thus unaffected

by changes in sample or population between years.

Farm business debt Estimated as all debts attributable to the farm business, but excluding

personal debt, lease financed debt and underwritten loans, including

harvest loans. Information is collected at the survey interview and

supplemented by information contained in the farm accounts.

Farm liquid assets Assets owned by the farm business that can be readily converted to cash.

They include savings bank deposits, interest bearing deposits,

debentures and shares but exclude items such as real estate, life

assurance policies and other farms or businesses.

Receipts and costs Receipts for livestock and livestock products sold are determined at the

point of sale. Selling charges and charges for transport to the point of

sale are included in the costs of sample farms.

Receipts for crops sold during the survey year are gross of deductions

made by marketing authorities for freight and selling charges. These

deductions are included in farm costs. Receipts for other farm products

are determined on a ‘farm gate’ basis. All cash receipt items are the

revenue received in the financial year.

Farm receipts and costs relate to the whole area operated, including

areas operated by on-farm sharefarmers. Thus, cash receipts include

receipts from the sale of products produced by sharefarmers. If possible,

on-farm sharefarmers’ costs are amalgamated with those of the sample

farm. Otherwise, the total sum paid to sharefarmers is treated as a cash

cost.

Some sample farm businesses engage in off-farm contracting or share

farming, employing labour and capital equipment also used in normal

on-farm activities. Since it is not possible to accurately allocate costs

between off-farm and on-farm operations, the income and expenditure

attributable to such off-farm operations are included in the receipts and

costs of the sample farm business.

Total cash costs Payments made by the farm business for materials and services and for

permanent and casual hired labour (excluding owner–manager, partner

and other family labour). It includes the value of livestock transfers onto

the property as well as any lease payments on capital, produce

purchased for resale, rent, interest, livestock purchases and payments to

sharefarmers. Capital and household expenditures are excluded from

total cash costs.

Handling and marketing expenses include commission, yard dues, and

levies for farm produce sold.

Administration costs include accountancy fees, banking and legal


53

expenses, postage, stationery, subscriptions and telephone.

Contracts paid, refers to expenditure on contracts such as harvesting.

Capital and land development contracts are not included.

Other cash costs include stores and rations, seed purchased, electricity,

artificial insemination and herd testing fees, advisory services, motor

vehicle expenses, travelling expenses and insurance. While ‘other cash

costs’ may comprise a relatively large proportion of total cash costs,

individually the components are relatively small overall and, as such,

have not been listed.

Total cash receipts Total of revenues received by the farm business during the financial year,

including revenues from sale of livestock, livestock products and crops,

plus the value of livestock transfers off a property. It includes revenue

received from agistment, royalties, rebates, refunds, plant hire, contracts,

share farming, insurance claims and compensation, and government

assistance payments to the farm business.

Financial performance measures

Build-up in trading

stocks

The closing value of all changes in the inventories of trading stocks

during the financial year. It includes the value of any change in herd or

flock size or in stocks of wool, fruit and grains held on the farm. It is

negative if inventories are run down.

Depreciation of

farm improvements

Estimated by the diminishing value method, based on replacement cost

and age of each item. The rates applied are standard rates allowed by the

Commissioner of Taxation.

Farm business

equity

The value of owned capital, less farm business debt at 30 June. The

estimate is based on those sample farms for which complete data on

farm debt are available.

Farm business

profit

Farm cash income plus build-up in trading stocks, less depreciation and

the imputed value of the owner–manager, partner(s) and family labour.

Farm cash income The difference between total cash receipts and total cash costs.

Farm equity ratio Calculated as farm business equity as a percentage of owned capital at 30

June.

Imputed labour

cost

Payments for owner–manager and family labour may bear little

relationship to the actual work input. An estimate of the labour input of

the owner–manager, partners and their families is calculated in work

weeks and a value is imputed at the relevant Federal Pastoral Industry

Award rates.


54

Off-farm income Collected for the owner–manager and spouse only, including income

from wages, other businesses, investment, and government assistance to

the farm household and social welfare payments.

Plant and

equipment

For items purchased or sold during the financial year, depreciation is

assessed as if the transaction had taken place at the midpoint of the year.

Calculation of farm business profit does not account for depreciation on

items subject to a finance lease because cash costs already include

finance lease payments.

Profit at full equity Farm business profit, plus rent, interest and finance lease payments, less

depreciation on leased items. It is the return produced by all the

resources used in the farm business.

Rates of return Calculated by expressing profit at full equity as a percentage of total

opening capital. Rate of return represents the ability of the business to

generate a return to all capital used by the business, including that which

is borrowed or leased. The following rates of return are estimated: rate

of return, excluding capital appreciation; and rate of return, including

capital appreciation.


55

Appendix B: Detailed survey estimates

Au

stralian vegetab

le grow

ing farm

s: An

econ

om

ic surv

ey 20

10

–1

1 an

d 2

01

1–

12

A

BA

RE

S

56

Table B1 Selected estimates of vegetable farms, by state, 2010–11

average per farm New South Wales Victoria Queensland South Australia Western Australia Tasmania Australia Population no 567 529 767 303 305 275 2746 Sample no 44 50 64 51 37 36 282 Total area operated ha 178 (44) 165 (13) 216 (23) 375 (19) 172 (18) 249 (20) 214 (11) Seasonal conditions for vegetable growers Above average % 22 (32) 9 (54) 9 (46) 28 (56) 15 (85) 0 14 (23) Average % 58 (14) 39 (26) 11 (49) 64 (26) 78 (18) 8 (62) 39 (10) Below average % 10 (62) 24 (43) 32 (38) 7 (71) 7 (80) 86 (7) 26 (16) Drought % 0 0 0 0 0 1 (89) 0 (89) Flood % 10 (68) 28 (36) 48 (25) 1 (71) 0 5 (57) 21 (19) Age of operator/owner years 53 (4) 55 (4) 53 (4) 51 (3) 56 (4) 54 (4) 54 (2) Highest educational attainment of owner/operator Primary school % 15 (52) 0 2 (83) 3 (66) 0 7 (96) 5 (40) Year 10 or less % 29 (28) 55 (20) 66 (13) 32 (50) 19 (38) 15 (40) 42 (10) Year 11 or 12 % 40 (21) 27 (36) 17 (41) 54 (30) 59 (22) 33 (32) 34 (12) TAFE % 9 (64) 6 (52) 9 (63) 5 (58) 19 (49) 17 (41) 10 (24) Degree % 5 (84) 10 (54) 7 (43) 4 (54) 4 (124) 28 (36) 9 (23) Unknown % 2 (84) 2 (91) 0 2 (44) 0 0 1 (50) Business structure Sole operator % 14 (45) 10 (81) 7 (49) 25 (63) 7 (98) 5 (79) 11 (27) Partnership % 78 (11) 85 (10) 89 (4) 67 (24) 93 (7) 92 (5) 84 (4) Company % 8 (81) 3 (54) 4 (49) 7 (71) 0 3 (68) 4 (36)


Au

stralian vegetab

le grow

ing farm

s: An

econ

om

ic surv

ey 20

10

–1

1 an

d 2

01

1–

12

A

BA

RE

S

57

Table B2 Vegetable yields, by state, 2010–11

average per farm for farms growing specified vegetables New South Wales Victoria Queensland South Australia Western Australia Tasmania Australia Potatoes Area sown ha 120 (42) 35 (19) 27 (29) 97 (18) 51 (24) 24 (8) 45 (10) Quantity harvested t 3 172 (44) 1 091 (25) 826 (34) 3 877 (23) 2 030 (24) 1 104 (9) 1 594 (11) Yield t/ha 26 (11) 33 (9) 35 (17) 40 (8) 40 (3) 46 (4) 37 (4) Pumpkins Area sown ha 7 (38) na 2 (70) na na na 8 (19) Quantity harvested t 117 (29) na 33 (64) na na na 140 (18) Yield t/ha 20 (29) na 19 (5) na na na 22 (54) Green peas Area sown ha na na na na na 22 (38) 12 (26) Quantity harvested t na na na na na 73 (36) 43 (32) Yield t/ha na na na na na 4 (7) 4 (14) Beans Area sown ha na na 53 (69) na na 12 (22) 32 (49) Quantity harvested t na na 261 (54) na na 42 (32) 164 (39) Yield t/ha na na 5 (18) na na 4 (25) 5 (15) Tomatoes Area sown ha 10 (41) 23 (44) 20 (45) 1 (117) na na 12 (25) Quantity harvested t 161 (63) 1 052 (49) 955 (39) 87 (221) na na 402 (29) Yield t/ha 44 (11) 62 (40) 56 (10) 122 (140) na na 55 (19) Onions Area sown ha na na 10 (19) 70 (27) na 9 (18) 16 (14) Quantity harvested t na na 396 (18) 3 785 (30) na 525 (15) 766 (15) Yield t/ha na na 44 (11) 54 (12) na 59 (5) 49 (7) Carrots Area sown ha na na na na na 8 (16) 11 (17) Quantity harvested t na na na na na 528 (22) 542 (18) Yield t/ha na na na na na 70 (13) 53 (9) Cauliflowers Area sown ha 16 (59) 13 (21) na 12 (29) 9 (25) na 14 (21) Quantity harvested t 509 (65) 317 (31) na 399 (31) 233 (30) na 387 (25) Yield t/ha 37 (2) 24 (19) na 33 (8) 26 (8) na 28 (7) Lettuce Area sown ha 6 (43) 83 (70) 28 (30) 15 (78) 24 (41) na 26 (34) Quantity harvested t 149 (34) 1 865 (71) 816 (62) 290 (43) 761 (36) na 653 (33) Yield t/ha 24 (38) 22 (54) 41 (23) 19 (45) 32 (27) na 27 (27)

Au

stralian vegetab

le grow

ing farm

s: An

econ

om

ic surv

ey 20

10

–1

1 an

d 2

01

1–

12

A

BA

RE

S

58

Table B2 Vegetable yields, by state, 2010–11 (cont.)

average per farm for farms growing specified vegetables

New South Wales Victoria Queensland South Australia Western Australia Tasmania Australia Broccoli Area sown ha na 71 (18) na na 11 (14) 9 (45) 34 (13) Quantity harvested t na 735 (29) na na 312 (17) 77 (38) 375 (19) Yield t/ha na 10 (18) na na 28 (18) 8 (8) 11 (13) Cabbage Area sown ha 3 (25) 30 (53) na 11 (22) na na 11 (25) Quantity harvested t 99 (10) 823 (40) na 449 (38) na na 368 (20) Yield t/ha 33 (14) 28 (28) na 42 (23) na na 35 (15) Other vegetables Area sown ha 9 (42) 52 (61) 30 (25) 7 (37) 7 (20) 7 (67) 20 (20) Quantity harvested t 142 (45) 558 (45) 612 (33) 215 (26) 197 (34) 59 (80) 367 (22) Yield t/ha 18 (12) 11 (52) 22 (17) 32 (28) 27 (35) 11 (12) 20 (16) All vegetables Area sown ha 24 (24) 52 (14) 42 (16) 38 (12) 33 (15) 32 (10) 38 (7) Quantity harvested t 512 (30) 1 101 (16) 816 (18) 1 517 (16) 1 162 (17) 1 211 (11) 963 (7) Yield t/ha 25 (8) 22 (14) 22 (19) 40 (7) 36 (7) 39 (6) 27 (7)

na not available because of insufficient sample points.


Au

stralian vegetab

le grow

ing farm

s: An

econ

om

ic surv

ey 20

10

–1

1 an

d 2

01

1–

12

A

BA

RE

S

59

Table B3 Farm cash receipts of vegetable farms, by state, 2010–11

average per farm New South Wales Victoria Queensland South Australia Western Australia Tasmania Australia Cash receipts Potatoes $ 89 200 (65) 219 400 (26) 41 700 (46) 347 400 (24) 366 800 (49) 216 500 (15) 173 100 (16) Pumpkins $ 8 300 (40) 500 (70) 31 200 (36) 4 800 (105) 3 700 (55) 500 (87) 11 500 (29) Green peas $ 1 300 (74) 13 000 (104) 1 600 (112) 0 0 5 700 (35) 3 800 (70) Beans $ 2 700 (71) 29 100 (67) 73 200 (47) 0 0 6 700 (40) 27 300 (38) Tomatoes $ 32 400 (27) 68 500 (49) 102 100 (128) 23 300 (91) 10 500 (76) 0 52 200 (71) Onions $ 0 7 300 (73) 20 700 (44) 98 100 (47) 109 800 (76) 23 400 (26) 32 600 (34) Carrots $ 4 000 (75) 13 400 (71) 10 700 (79) 12 300 (67) 25 400 (77) 25 900 (24) 13 200 (30) Cauliflowers $ 22 500 (61) 15 100 (49) 13 800 (76) 17 400 (49) 76 500 (74) 16 300 (52) 23 500 (33) Lettuce $ 28 500 (47) 70 400 (57) 34 200 (62) 60 700 (50) 263 500 (86) 0 65 000 (42) Broccoli $ 1 300 (73) 99 500 (30) 9 500 (59) 23 100 (57) 118 600 (87) 8 800 (46) 38 700 (33) Cabbage $ 9 700 (35) 29 400 (52) 11 100 (71) 6 800 (43) 58 500 (100) 4 400 (80) 18 500 (41) Other vegetables $ 71 800 (25) 198 600 (41) 347 400 (22) 276 100 (47) 245 800 (46) 6 400 (50) 208 500 (16) Other cash receipts $ 72 200 (33) 151 900 (20) 101 800 (33) 116 900 (38) 135 600 (23) 239 900 (11) 124 600 (11) Total cash receipts $ 343 900 (21) 916 200 (14) 799 000 (16) 987 000 (14) 1 414 600 (21) 554 600 (8) 792 200 (7) Cash receipts from vegetables

% 79 (7) 83 (4) 87 (4) 88 (5) 90 (4) 57 (7) 84 (2)


Au

stralian vegetab

le grow

ing farm

s: An

econ

om

ic surv

ey 20

10

–1

1 an

d 2

01

1–

12

A

BA

RE

S

60

Table B4 Quantity sold, value of production and price received, by vegetable type, by state 2010–11

average per farm for farms growing specified vegetables New South Wales Victoria Queensland South Australia Western Australia Tasmania Australia Potatoes Quantity sold t 3 172 (44) 1 150 (24) 838 (35) 3 822 (22) 2 009 (24) 1 095 (9) 1 606 (11) Receipts $ 1 177 300 (42) 436 900 (21) 346 200 (31) 1 371 600 (25) 1 103 600 (26) 353 600 (10) 635 900 (11) Price received $/t 370 (2) 380 (6) 410 (13) 360 (11) 550 (5) 320 (5) 400 (4) Pumpkins Quantity sold t 117 (29) na 33 (64) na na na 158 (24) Receipts $ 33500 (29) na 21000 (22) na na na 66 900 (16) Price received $/t 290 (6) na 640 (42) na na na 420 (14) Green peas Quantity sold t na na na na na 74 (33) 43 (32) Receipts $ na na na na na 13 360 (49) 64 300 (52) Price received $/t na na na na na 390 (5) 1490 (44) Beans Quantity sold t na na 261 (54) na na 42 (32) 164 (39) Receipts $ na na 499 300 (73) na na 27 100 (35) 282 600 (55) Price received $/t na na 1910 (27) na na 640 (14) 1720 (24) Tomatoes Quantity sold t 161 (63) 1 052 (49) 955 (39) 87 (221) na na 402 (29) Receipts $ 91 100 (18) 546 600 (131) 1 741 700 (34) 230 300 (244) na na 382 400 (40) Price received $/t 570 (52) 520 (88) 1 820 (10) 2 660 (27) na na 950 (23) Onions Quantity sold t na na 385 (18) 3 504 (30) na 452 (21) 706 (15) Receipts $ na na 210 200 (14) 1 465 900 (37) na 55 000 (21) 354700 (29) Price received $/t na na 550 (11) 420 (11) na 120 (9) 500 (21) Carrots Quantity sold t na na na na na 528 (22) 555 (18) Receipts $ na na na na na 55 800 (20) 159 500 (24) Price received $/t na na na na na 110 (14) 290 (23) Cauliflowers Quantity sold t 509 (65) 317 (31) na 399 (31) 233 (30) na 386 (25) Receipts $ 218 400 (49) 151 600 (16) na 293 300 (36) 379 800 (35) na 277 500 (19) Price received $/t 430 (16) 480 (22) na 740 (9) 1 630 (7) na 720 (15) Lettuce Quantity sold t 155 (36) 1 865 (71) 774 (59) 282 (40) 761 (36) na 648 (33) Receipts $ 221 300 (31) 1 319 640 (89) 795 900 (49) 867 100 (39) 1 729 200 (27) na 883 600 (24) Price received $/t 1430 (17) 708 (24) 1 030 (20) 3 080 (42) 2 270 (32) na 1 360 (17)

Au

stralian vegetab

le grow

ing farm

s: An

econ

om

ic surv

ey 20

10

–1

1 an

d 2

01

1–

12

A

BA

RE

S

61

Table B4 Quantity sold, value of production and price received, by vegetable type, by state 2010–11 (cont.)

average per farm for farms growing specified vegetables New South Wales Victoria Queensland South Australia Western Australia Tasmania Australia Broccoli Quantity sold t na 735 (29) na na 312 (17) 77 (38) 374 (19) Receipts $ na 869 390 (21) na na 756 500 (16) 106 000 (26) 568 100 (13) Price received $/t na 1 180 (13) na na 2 420 (3) 1 380 (14) 1 520 (11) Cabbage Quantity sold t 99 (10) 823 (40) na 449 (38) na na 366 (20) Receipts $ 90 800 (13) 554 100 (41) na 155 300 (26) na na 296 300 (19) Price received $/t 910 (5) 670 (7) na 350 (21) na na 810 (11) Other vegetables Quantity sold t 142 (45) 593 (43) 606 (33) 266 (28) 197 (34) 59 (80) 374 (22) Receipts $ 111 200 (18) 1 004 400 (48) 490 600 (23) 482 400 (22) 436 600 (33) 37 600 (84) 407 400 (15) Price received $/t 780 (42) 1 690 (31) 810 (20) 1 810 (11) 2 220 (9) 630 (98) 1 090 (16) All vegetables Quantity sold t 512 (30) 1 137 (15) 825 (17) 1 512 (15) 1 155 (16) 1 175 (11) 968 (7) Receipts $ 271 700 (22) 764 300 (16) 697 200 (17) 870 100 (17) 1 279 000 (24) 314 700 (12) 667 600 (9) Price received $/t 530 (14) 670 (12) 850 (13) 580 (16) 1110 (31) 270 (7) 690 (8)



Au

stralian vegetab

le grow

ing farm

s: An

econ

om

ic surv

ey 20

10

–1

1 an

d 2

01

1–

12

A

BA

RE

S

62

Table B5 Farm cash costs of vegetable farms, by state, 2010–11

average per farm New South Wales Victoria Queensland South Australia Western Australia Tasmania Australia Hired labour $ 27 100 (31) 98 300 (19) 136 300 (16) 74 700 (23) 198 900 (40) 36 800 (16) 96 600 (12) Fertiliser $ 33 100 (21) 57 100 (13) 48 000 (17) 77 700 (13) 151 200 (24) 56 600 (10) 62 300 (8) Contracts paid $ 14 200 (37) 93 700 (18) 60 200 (61) 90 900 (41) 88 300 (39) 48 700 (18) 62 500 (19) Seed $ 24 300 (28) 54 600 (17) 42 400 (20) 81 000 (16) 91 500 (31) 39 900 (11) 50 500 (10) Fuel, oil and grease $ 20 500 (21) 39 400 (14) 25 100 (13) 42 700 (10) 59 500 (38) 23 700 (12) 32 500 (9) Crop and pasture chemicals $ 17 000 (16) 34 700 (17) 40 600 (15) 52 900 (20) 93 000 (27) 44 100 (9) 42 100 (9) Repairs – motor vehicles and plant $ 19 800 (21) 40 100 (13) 31 400 (15) 30 900 (17) 49 300 (45) 21 600 (14) 31 600 (10) Interest $ 12 000 (27) 58 300 (20) 37 600 (20) 40 800 (22) 60 400 (67) 42 800 (16) 39 700 (14) Repairs – buildings and structures $ 6 700 (19) 15 200 (19) 24 100 (18) 20 600 (28) 46 200 (54) 18 000 (17) 20 300 (16) Electricity $ 6 100 (16) 11 500 (18) 11 800 (15) 16 100 (21) 42 700 (65) 9 200 (16) 14 200 (22) Administration $ 8 000 (18) 23 900 (25) 16 400 (17) 13 300 (18) 61 000 (21) 14 500 (16) 20 500 (10) Land rent expense $ 8 700 (53) 23 700 (40) 9 000 (33) 12 600 (24) 10 000 (33) 11 200 (41) 12 500 (19) Insurance $ 7 000 (17) 12 500 (22) 8 900 (16) 8 600 (18) 23 100 (19) 8 900 (11) 10 700 (8) Rates $ 4 600 (18) 16 500 (15) 6 300 (14) 8 800 (16) 4 000 (13) 8 300 (18) 8 200 (7) Lease payments $ 400 (92) 0 2 500 (53) 0 0 700 (89) 800 (45) Produce purchased $ 0 1 000 (111) 1200 200 (118) 0 1 100 (89) 600 (87) Motor vehicle expense $ 2 500 (15) 6 300 (35) 5 700 (25) 6 000 (50) 7 000 (48) 5 900 (17) 5 300 (14) Plant hire expense $ 1 900 (64) 4 200 (25) 5 100 (21) 1 200 (38) 62 000 (84) 6 100 (61) 10 300 (56) Packing charges and materials $ 14 700 (27) 30 000 (27) 56 000 (20) 42 600 (36) 53 000 (18) 200 (81) 35 100 (12) Freight $ 9 700 (41) 28 200 (21) 58 600 (21) 43 100 (33) 39 000 (45) 11 700 (22) 34 100 (13) Other cash costs $ 16 000 (38) 76 300 (43) 17 700 (23) 65 400 (31) 49 500 (35) 44 600 (23) 40 100 (18) Total cash costs $ 254 300 (21) 725 600 (12) 644 900 (14) 730 000 (16) 1 189 700 (25) 454 500 (9) 630 600 (8)


Au

stralian vegetab

le grow

ing farm

s: An

econ

om

ic surv

ey 20

10

–1

1 an

d 2

01

1–

12

A

BA

RE

S

63

Table B6 Financial performance of vegetable farms, by state, 2010–11

average per farm New South Wales Victoria Queensland South Australia Western Australia Tasmania Australia Total cash receipts $ 343 900 (21) 916 200 (14) 799 000 (16) 987 000 (14) 1 414 600 (21) 554 600 (8) 792 200 (7) Total cash costs $ 254 300 (21) 725 600 (12) 644 900 (14) 730 000 (16) 1 189 700 (25) 454 500 (9) 630 600 (8) Farm cash income $ 89 500 (29) 190 600 (29) 154 100 (33) 257 000 (18) 224 900 (19) 100 000 (19) 161 600 (12) Farms with negative farm cash income

% 12 (52) 23 (31) 12 (41) 4 (62) 30 (37) 28 (34) 17 (17)

Build-up in trading stocks $ –11 000 (89) –12 100 (65) –7 900 (56) 6 100 (95) –5 500 (62) 3 500 (83) –6 400 (46) Depreciation $ 27 500 (10) 70 100 (17) 41 000 (11) 55 500 (10) 54 100 (12) 41 800 (10) 47 000 (6) Operator and family imputed labour

$ 59 500 (5) 58 000 (8) 62 600 (6) 59 000 (6) 64 300 (7) 52 200 (9) 59 800 (3)

Farm business profit $ –8 500 (328) 50 400 (92) 42 700 (114) 148 600 (30) 101 100 (42) 9 600 (176) 48 500 (38) Farms with negative farm business profit

% 64 (13) 50 (22) 64 (17) 48 (30) 41 (26) 72 (8) 58 (8)

Profit at full equity – excluding capital appreciation

% 12 600 (237) 132 400 (37) 90 700 (54) 202 600 (22) 171 400 (28) 64 200 (27) 101 300 (19)

– including capital appreciation

% –17 700 (182) 99 200 (69) 105 100 (50) 136 600 (37) 109 600 (61) 63 400 (28) 78 400 (29)

Rate of return a – excluding capital appreciation

% 0.7 (236) 2.8 (32) 3.0 (52) 5.6 (20) 3.0 (31) 2.0 (28) 2.9 (18)

– including capital appreciation

% –1.0 (183) 2.1 (64) 3.5 (49) 3.8 (37) 1.9 (77) 1.9 (28) 2.2 (29)

Change in debt during the year c

% 16 (73) –3 (212) 3 (198) 11 (54) 3 (49) –3 (74) 2 (124)

Farm debt at 30 June c $ 174 400 (27) 801 600 (19) 588 400 (18) 589 700 (21) 811 400 (68) 543 600 (16) 565 100 (14) Farm capital at 30 June b $ 1 809 900 (15) 4 859 200 (11) 3 035 000 (8) 3 703 700 (11) 5 626 700 (22) 3 320 500 (8) 3 523 700 (6) Equity ratio cd % 90 (3) 83 (4) 80 (4) 82 (4) 86 (9) 84 (3) 84 (2) Interest to receipts ratio c % 3 (29) 6 (21) 5 (21) 4 (21) 4 (51) 8 (15) 5 (12)

a Rate of return to farm capital at 1 July. b Excludes leased plant and equipment. c Average per debt responding farm. d Equity expressed as a percentage of farm capital.


Au

stralian vegetab

le grow

ing farm

s: An

econ

om

ic surv

ey 20

10

–1

1 an

d 2

01

1–

12

A

BA

RE

S

64

Table B7 Area irrigated and irrigated vegetable production, by state, 2010–11

average per farm for farms growing specified irrigated vegetables New South Wales Victoria Queensland South Australia Western Australia Tasmania Australia Area irrigated Potatoes ha 120 (42) 38 (24) 27 (29) 97 (18) 51 (24) 24 (8) 47 (11) Pumpkins ha 5 (25) na 11 (37) na na na () 8 (26) Green peas ha na na na na na 36 (60) 8 (55) Beans ha na na 53 (69) na na 11 (26) 32 (50) Tomatoes ha 10 (41) 23 (44) 20 (45) 1 (117) na na 12 (25) Onions ha na na 10 (19) 70 (27) na 9 (19) 17 (14) Carrots ha na na na na na 6 (9) 10 (17) Cauliflowers ha 16 (59) 13 (21) na 12 (29) 9 (25) na 14 (21) Lettuce ha 6 (43) 83 (70) 28 (30) 15 (78) 24 (41) na 26 (34) Broccoli ha na 71 (18) na na 11 (14) 10 (60) 34 (13) Cabbage ha 3 (25) 30 (53) na 11 (22) na na 12 (26) Other vegetables ha 10 (43) 42 (34) 31 (25) 7 (37) 8 (24) 5 (29) 20 (18) All vegetables ha 24 (25) 48 (15) 41 (16) 38 (12) 37 (15) 28 (8) 37 (8) Production Potatoes t 3 172 (44) 1 244 (29) 826 (34) 3 877 (23) 2 030 (24) 1 104 (9) 1 675 (11) Pumpkins t 152 (27) na 234 (26) na na na 8 (26) Green peas t na na na na na 36 (60) 43 (62) Beans t na na 261 (54) na na 38 (37) 164 (39) Tomatoes t 161 (63) 1 052 (49) 955 (39) 87 (221) na na 402 (29) Onions t na na 396 (18) 3 785 (30) na 564 (16) 796 (15) Carrots t na na na na 437 (17) 491 (17) Cauliflowers t 509 (65) 317 (31) na 399 (31) 233 (30) na 387 (25) Lettuce t 149 (34) 1 865 (71) 816 (62) 290 (43) 761 (36) na 653 (33) Broccoli t na 735 (29) na na 312 (17) 76 (53) 379 (19) Cabbage t 99 (10) 823 (40) na 449 (38) na na 379 (20) Other vegetables t 155 (45) 630 (47) 636 (33) 215 (26) 269 (17) 29 (68) 399 (23) All vegetables t 538 (30) 1 122 (17) 809 (18) 1 517 (16) 1 371 (16) 1 140 (9) 37 (8)



Au

stralian vegetab

le grow

ing farm

s: An

econ

om

ic surv

ey 20

10

–1

1 an

d 2

01

1–

12

A

BA

RE

S

65

Table B8 Volume of irrigation water used and use per hectare, by state, 2010–11

average per farm for farms growing specified irrigated vegetables New South Wales Victoria Queensland South Australia Western Australia Tasmania Australia Volume of irrigation water applied Potatoes ML 395 (46) 40 (37) 55 (41) 405 (27) 200 (23) 62 (13) 132 (14) Pumpkins ML 10 (33) na 21 (33) na na na 18 (22) Green peas ML na na na na na 21 (36) 5 (30) Beans ML 2 (50) na 42 (76) na na 5 (40) 26 (54) Tomatoes ML 33 (4) 88 (16) 78 (30) 4 (97) na na 45 (9) Onions ML na na 22 (64) 515 (35) na 21 (20) 69 (24) Carrots ML na na na na na 11 (27) 34 (20) Cauliflowers ML 33 (68) 51 (27) na 56 (15) 85 (39) na 55 (21) Lettuce ML 32 (52) 363 (97) 64 (45) 56 (54) 299 (45) na 147 (40) Broccoli ML na 248 (41) na na 121 (28) 13 (66) 130 (26) Cabbage ML 10 (13) 101 (51) na 56 (9) na na 55 (25) Other vegetables ML 20 (34) 214 (67) 69 (32) 45 (42) 65 (25) 2 (77) 60 (22) All vegetables ML 69 (22) 134 (39) 82 (20) 188 (17) 234 (43) 56 (14) 114 (14) Irrigation water per hectare Potatoes ML / ha 3 (18) 1 (37) 2 (32) 4 (14) 4 (37) 3 (11) 3 (12) Pumpkins ML / ha 2 (20) na 2 (52) na na na 2 (32) Green peas ML / ha na na na na na 1 (25) 1 (30) Beans ML / ha na na 1 (20) na na 0 (28) 1 (14) Tomatoes ML / ha 3 (38) 4 (29) 4 (36) 5 (81) na na 4 (21) Onions ML / ha na na 2 (49) 7 (14) na 2 (16) 4 (16) Carrots ML / ha na na na na na 2 (25) 3 (14) Cauliflowers ML / ha 2 (17) 4 (28) na 5 (16) 9 (21) na 4 (16) Lettuce ML / ha 5 (22) 4 (86) 2 (37) 4 (30) 13 (16) na 6 (35) Broccoli ML / ha na 3 (47) na na 11 (20) 1 (23) 4 (31) Cabbage ML / ha 3 (33) 3 (56) na 5 (20) na na 5 (24) Other vegetables ML / ha 2 (15) 5 (58) 2 (13) 7 (12) 8 (9) 1 (83) 3 (16) All vegetables ML / ha 3 (15) 3 (37) 2 (12) 5 (10) 6 (44) 2 (11) 3 (13)



Au

stralian vegetab

le grow

ing farm

s: An

econ

om

ic surv

ey 20

10

–1

1 an

d 2

01

1–

12

A

BA

RE

S

66

Table B9 Cost of vegetable production, by state, 2010–11

average per farm New South Wales Victoria Queensland South Australia Western Australia Tasmania Australia Potatoes $/t 272 (17) 274 (19) 259 (29) 227 (12) 405 (7) 230 (10) 277 (8) – including imputed labour $/t 277 (18) 292 (19) 270 (30) 231 (12) 413 (7) 239 (10) 286 (8) Pumpkins $/t 268 (21) na 828 (22) na na na 694 (19) – including imputed labour $/t 316 (21) na 873 (23) na na na 737 (19) Greenbeans $/t na na 1 537 (21) na na 1 078 (22) 1 332 (17) – including imputed labour $/t na na 1 617 (21) na na 1 116 (22) 1 398 (17) Tomatoes $/t 687 (70) 483 (22) 1 440 (43) 2 171 (20) na na 843 (25) – including imputed labour $/t 808 (67) 507 (22) 1 462 (45) 2 312 (21) na na 891 (23) Onions $/t na na 356 (13) 256 (11) na 142 (9) 370 (23) – including imputed labour $/t na na 367 (12) 261 (11) na 148 (9) 378 (22) Carrots $/t na na na na na 118 (15) 269 (21) – including imputed labour $/t na na na na na 121 (15) 283 (21) Cauliflowers $/t 164 (24) 788 (14) na 471 (39) 1 779 (35) na 682 (37) – including imputed labour $/t 198 (33) 809 (14) na 483 (39) 1 819 (33) na 707 (36) Lettuce $/t 1 168 (33) 480 (31) 849 (38) 2 242 (45) 1 434 (25) na 950 (23) – including imputed labour $/t 1 209 (31) 485 (31) 864 (38) 2 376 (47) 1 457 (24) na 971 (23) Broccoli $/t na 1115 (17) na na na 1 043 (22) 1 339 (17) – including imputed labour $/t na 1140 (17) na na na 1 061 (22) 1 364 (16) Cabbage $/t 599 (12) 431 (9) na 388 (34) na na 805 (33) – including imputed labour $/t 698 (13) 438 (9) na 401 (34) na na 828 (32)



Au

stralian vegetab

le grow

ing farm

s: An

econ

om

ic surv

ey 20

10

–1

1 an

d 2

01

1–

12

A

BA

RE

S

67

Table B10 Selected physical estimated of vegetable farms, by area of vegetables planted, 2010–11

average per farm <5 hectares 5–20 hectares 20–70 hectares >70 hectares All farms Population no 772 943 674 357 2746 Sample no 63 67 84 68 282 Total area operated ha 34 (45) 100 (31) 256 (25) 828 (16) 214 (12) Age of operator/owner years 52 (5) 56 (3) 51 (4) 54 (4) 54 (2) Seasonal conditions for vegetable growing Above average % 10 (67) 18 (34) 7 (37) 21 (18) 14 (22) Average % 53 (14) 36 (21) 34 (15) 30 (14) 39 (9) Below average % 23 (41) 28 (24) 30 (16) 16 (23) 26 (15) Drought % 0 0 0 1 (89) 0 Flood % 14 (67) 18 (40) 29 (16) 32 (11) 21 (18) Educational attainment of operator/owner Primary school completed % 13 (44) 2 (89) 1 (129) 1 (92) 5 (37) Year 10 or less % 47 (22) 42 (16) 38 (20) 40 (17) 42 (10) Year 11 or 12 % 32 (32) 31 (20) 42 (18) 30 (16) 34 (12) Trade apprenticeship/ technical % 4 (51) 14 (45) 12 (30) 6 (47) 10 (25) University education % 4 (46) 11 (41) 7 (39) 16 (34) 9 (22) Business structure Sole operator % 18 (68) 11 (44) 3 (88) 10 (38) 11 (36) Partnership % 82 (15) 84 (5) 90 (4) 79 (5) 84 (5) Company % 0 5 (85) 7 (41) 8 (49) 4 (37)


Au

stralian vegetab

le grow

ing farm

s: An

econ

om

ic surv

ey 20

10

–1

1 an

d 2

01

1–

12

A

BA

RE

S

68

Table B11 Vegetable yields, by area of vegetables planted, 2010–11

average per farm for farms growing specified vegetables <5 hectares 5–20 hectares 20–70 hectares >70 hectares All farms Potatoes Area planted ha 3 (21) 10 (18) 26 (8) 109 (20) 39 (12) Quantity harvested t 101 (33) 399 (22) 845 (13) 4 080 (20) 1 382 (13) Yield t/ha 35 (11) 42 (6) 34 (7) 38 (4) 37 (3) Pumpkins Area planted ha 2 (20) 5 (21) 13 (29) 11 (14) 8 (16) Quantity harvested t 33 (35) 96 (27) 149 (25) 505 (47) 140 (19) Yield t/ha 15 (55) 19 (14) 16 (27) 48 (37) 22 (17) Green peas Area planted ha na 5 (5) 21 (43) 27 (37) 17 (26) Quantity harvested t na 24 (52) 52 (23) 121 (49) 62 (28) Yield t/ha na 5 (46) 2 (23) 5 (15) 4 (19) Beans Area planted ha 1 (90) 9 (47) 10 (32) 111 (58) 32 (50) Quantity harvested t 4 (77) 54 (56) 56 (3) 561 (46) 165 (39) Yield t/ha 12 (23) 6 (25) 6 (29) 5 (16) 5 (15) Tomatoes Area planted ha 2 (19) na 7 (31) 31 (24) 12 (9) Quantity harvested t 88 (24) na 93 (113) 1 396 (22) 399 (43) Yield t/ha 46 (86) na 47 (29) 48 (8) 55 (18) Onions Area planted ha na 5 (7) 9 (19) 36 (17) 16 (13) Quantity harvested t na 298 (10) 420 (17) 1 641 (22) 775 (15) Yield t/ha na 63 (3) 52 (9) 46 (12) 49 (8) Carrots Area planted ha na 5 (8) 8 (13) 34 (30) 10 (14) Quantity harvested t na 324 (3) 327 (26) 1 460 (34) 476 (16) Yield t/ha na 66 (9) 42 (17) 49 (10) 51 (7) Cauliflowers Area planted ha na 7 (25) 14 (56) 26 (18) 14 (22) Quantity harvested t na 146 (23) 462 (59) 708 (23) 383 (26) Yield t/ha na 25 (16) 33 (5) 28 (13) 29 (8) Lettuce Area planted ha 2 (45) 3 (77) 18 (14) 72 (46) 26 (33) Quantity harvested t 73 (50) 74 (79) 411 (40) 1 898 (40) 653 (31) Yield t/ha 42 (27) 25 (17) 28 (24) 27 (34) 27 (26)

Au

stralian vegetab

le grow

ing farm

s: An

econ

om

ic surv

ey 20

10

–1

1 an

d 2

01

1–

12

A

BA

RE

S

69

Table B11 Vegetable yields, by area of vegetables planted, 2010–11 (cont.)

average per farm for farms growing specified vegetables <5 hectares 5–20 hectares 20–70 hectares >70 hectares All farms Broccoli Area planted ha na 3 (37) 18 (23) 68 (15) 34 (13) Quantity harvested t na 48 (37) 313 (44) 627 (21) 375 (20) Yield t/ha na 18 (15) 17 (24) 9 (11) 11 (12) Cabbage Area planted ha na 4 (19) 5 (14) 31 (40) 11 (30) Quantity harvested t na 106 (17) 121 (48) 1071 (29) 373 (23) Yield t/ha na 31 (18) 48 (18) 35 (21) 35 (17) Other vegetables Area planted ha 2 (16) 6 (12) 21 (15) 122 (16) 20 (11) Quantity harvested t 66 (30) 105 (41) 513 (24) 1946 (24) 368 (16) Yield t/ha 40 (25) 18 (37) 26 (14) 17 (19) 20 (12) All vegetables Area planted ha 2 (11) 10 (6) 36 (4) 189 (11) 38 (7) Quantity harvested t 87 (85) 259 (12) 1002 (8) 4648 (12) 963 (8) Yield t/ha 40 (84) 28 (9) 30 (6) 26 (10) 27 (7)



Au

stralian vegetab

le grow

ing farm

s: An

econ

om

ic surv

ey 20

10

–1

1 an

d 2

01

1–

12

A

BA

RE

S

70

Table B12 Farm cash receipts of vegetable farms, by area of vegetables planted, 2010–11

average per farm <5 hectares 5–20 hectares 20–70 hectares >70 hectares All farms Cash receipts Potatoes $ 1 600 (88) 37 300 (34) 180 700 (15) 888 300 (27) 173 100 (18) Pumpkins $ 1 800 (63) 12 400 (32) 15 000 (34) 23 600 (53) 11 500 (22) Green peas $ 700 (90) 300 (71) 10 400 (154) 7 300 (60) 3 800 (104) Beans $ 1 400 (88) 18 100 (71) 1 300 (58) 156 500 (47) 27 300 (38) Tomatoes $ 57 800 (40) 15 500 (69) 42 300 (64) 155 300 (179) 52 200 (72) Onions $ 0 4 500 (79) 16 800 (50) 206 700 (37) 32 600 (31) Carrots $ 0 11 100 (60) 13 700 (53) 46 000 (47) 13 200 (31) Cauliflowers $ 0 16 100 (39) 29 100 (44) 83 000 (66) 23 500 (35) Lettuce $ 14 300 (77) 6 200 (54) 70 400 (30) 319 400 (70) 65 000 (46) Broccoli $ 0 6 700 (55) 35 700 (44) 212 400 (50) 38 700 (37) Cabbage $ 0 8 600 (40) 5 200 (50) 109 200 (57) 18 500 (45) Other vegetables $ 107 500 (162) 79 100 (45) 234 200 (30) 720 300 (27) 208 500 (28) Other cash receipts $ 64 900 (46) 74 100 (18) 168 800 (13) 303 600 (17) 124 600 (10) Total cash receipts $ 250 100 (71) 290 000 (14) 823 700 (9) 3 231 600 (13) 792 200 (10) % of cash receipts from vegetables % 74 (27) 74 (8) 80 (4) 91 (2) 84 (2)


Au

stralian vegetab

le grow

ing farm

s: An

econ

om

ic surv

ey 20

10

–1

1 an

d 2

01

1–

12

A

BA

RE

S

71

Table B13 Quantity sold, value of production and price received, by area of vegetables planted, 2010–11

average per farm for farms growing specified vegetables <5 hectares 5–20 hectares 20–70 hectares >70 hectares All farms Potatoes Quantity sold t 101 (33) 416 (21) 855 (12) 4 148 (20) 1 407 (13) Value of production $ 60 100 (12) 169 800 (29) 343 200 (11) 1 578 500 (20) 547 600 (13) Price received $ / t 590 (21) 410 (11) 400 (6) 380 (6) 390 (4) Pumpkins Quantity sold t 33 (35) 96 (27) 149 (25) 707 (57) 158 (25) Value of production $ 25 300 (19) 48 000 (30) 76 000 (28) 199 400 (40) 66 800 (18) Price received $ / t 780 (27) 500 (29) 510 (12) 280 (18) 420 (16) Green peas Quantity sold t na 24 (52) 52 (23) 121 (49) 62 (28) Value of production $ na 8 200 (35) 174 400 (73) 90 300 (80) 97 400 (56) Price received $ / t na 340 (16) 3 330 (53) 740 (59) 1570 (8) Beans Quantity sold t 4 (77) 54 (56) 56 (3) 561 (46) 165 (39) Value of production $ 14 200 (78) 183 700 (77) 36 700 (20) 855 900 (67) 285 500 (53) Price received $ / t 3 800 (1) 3 410 (45) 650 (16) 1 530 (26) 1 730 (21) Tomatoes Quantity sold t 88 (24) na 93 (113) 1 396 (22) 399 (43) Value of production $ 172 500 (25) na 149 900 (68) 890 300 (59) 369 600 (44) Price received $ / t 1 970 (17) na 1 610 (68) 640 (71) 930 (29) Onions Quantity sold t na 274 (23) 345 (23) 1 568 (22) 713 (16) Value of production $ na 68 400 (69) 106 400 (34) 945 000 (31) 361 600 (26) Price received $ / t na 250 (77) 310 (34) 600 (40) 510 (32) Carrots Quantity sold t na 324 (3) 327 (26) 1 559 (32) 490 (15) Value of production $ na 101 900 (59) 104 800 (43) 438 100 (34) 147 700 (26) Price received $ / t na 310 (57) 320 (42) 280 (34) 300 (26) Cauliflowers Quantity sold t na 146 (23) 462 (59) 703 (24) 381 (27) Value of production $ na 154 600 (29) 254 100 (38) 512 000 (36) 270 600 (21) Price received $ / t na 1 060 (14) 550 (26) 730 (24) 710 (18) Lettuce Quantity sold t 73 (50) 74 (79) 417 (40) 1 866 (40) 648 (31) Value of production $ 391 300 (46) 112 000 (84) 675 400 (24) 2 228 000 (35) 883 600 (24) Price received $ / t 5 360 (60) 1 510 (34) 1 620 (40) 1 190 (22) 1 360 (19)

Au

stralian vegetab

le grow

ing farm

s: An

econ

om

ic surv

ey 20

10

–1

1 an

d 2

01

1–

12

A

BA

RE

S

72

Table B13 Quantity sold, value of production and price received, by area of vegetables planted, 2010–11 (cont.)

average per farm for farms growing specified vegetables <5 hectares 5–20 hectares 20–70 hectares >70 hectares All farms Broccoli Quantity sold t na 48 (37) 309 (45) 627 (21) 374 (20) Value of production $ na 146 800 (39) 342 900 (37) 1 030 900 (14) 568 100 (13) Price received $ / t na 3 030 (2) 1 110 (18) 1 640 (13) 1 520 (11) Cabbage Quantity sold t na 12 (119) 15 (81) 516 (25) 371 (24) Value of production $ na 120 200 (8) 65 800 (63) 836 500 (31) 297 000 (24) Price received $ / t na 1 100 (17) 500 (21) 790 (14) 800 (11) Other vegetables Quantity sold t 81 (31) 103 (42) 508 (24) 1 960 (24) 374 (15) Value of production $ 143 500 (34) 170 400 (46) 574 200 (23) 1 703 800 (24) 404 100 (15) Price received $ / t 1 770 (25) 1 650 (21) 1 130 (24) 870 (19) 1 080 (13) All vegetables Quantity sold t 98 (84) 260 (12) 994 (7) 4 670 (11) 968 (8) Value of production $ 185 200 (94) 215 900 (20) 654 900 (12) 2 928 000 (14) 667 600 (11) Price received $ / t 1 890 (15) 830 (14) 660 (13) 630 (13) 690 (10)



Au

stralian vegetab

le grow

ing farm

s: An

econ

om

ic surv

ey 20

10

–1

1 an

d 2

01

1–

12

A

BA

RE

S

73

Table B14 Farm cash costs of vegetable farms, by area of vegetables planted, 2010–11

average per farm <5 hectares 5–20 hectares 20–70 hectares >70 hectares All farms Hired labour $ 29 800 (155) 32 500 (27) 88 900 (16) 425 000 (21) 96 600 (19) Fertiliser $ 13 900 (53) 21 500 (16) 60 000 (7) 278 800 (11) 62 300 (8) Contracts paid $ 10 300 (537) 16 500 (34) 68 500 (29) 285 700 (29) 62 500 (32) Seed $ 15 000 (29) 14 200 (16) 48 200 (9) 227 400 (17) 50 500 (10) Fuel, oil and grease $ 9 500 (143) 14 500 (11) 32 600 (6) 129 900 (20) 32 500 (16) Crop and pasture chemicals $ 8 600 (85) 9 800 (14) 45 600 (11) 193 500 (11) 42 100 (9) Repairs - motor vehicles and plant $ 8 100 (65) 14 900 (11) 33 600 (7) 123 100 (21) 31 600 (12) Interest $ 8 700 (34) 15 100 (20) 39 900 (12) 171 300 (26) 39 700 (15) Repairs - buildings and structures $ 7 000 (32) 6 200 (27) 17 900 (12) 90 700 (28) 20 300 (17) Electricity $ 4 300 (92) 5 200 (15) 13 500 (12) 60 900 (44) 14 200 (26) Administration $ 7 900 (29) 12 300 (25) 16 000 (8) 78 300 (14) 20 500 (9) Land rent expense $ 2 400 (181) 3 500 (43) 9 000 (17) 64 300 (31) 12 500 (23) Insurance $ 4 100 (47) 6 000 (14) 12 000 (8) 35 000 (18) 10 700 (10) Rates $ 4 000 (13) 4 100 (11) 9 600 (14) 25 000 (15) 8 200 (8) Lease payments $ 300 (90) 100 (88) 1 200 (62) 3 100 (54) 800 (36) Produce purchased $ 0 598 (123) 1 318 (97) 800 (89) 600 (65) Motor vehicle expense $ 3 400 (36) 3 200 (14) 4 500 (10) 16 900 (29) 5 300 (14) Plant hire expense $ 800 (500) 3 400 (60) 8 300 (36) 52 500 (94) 10 300 (64) Packing charges and materials 17 900 (45) 11 000 (23) 39 400 (24) 127 700 (18) 35 100 (13) Freight $ 5 600 (37) 11 300 (21) 39 100 (22) 146 300 (20) 34 100 (13) Other cash costs $ 23 500 (98) 17 600 (25) 33 300 (16) 148 700 (34) 40 100 (24) Total cash costs $ 185 300 (100) 223 400 (12) 622 500 (9) 2 684 800 (13) 630 600 (11)


Au

stralian vegetab

le grow

ing farm

s: An

econ

om

ic surv

ey 20

10

–1

1 an

d 2

01

1–

12

A

BA

RE

S

74

Table B15 Financial performance of vegetable farms, by area of vegetables planted, 2010–11

average per farm <5 hectares 5–20 hectares 20–70 hectares >70 hectares All farms Total cash receipts $ 250 100 (71) 290 000 (14) 823 700 (9) 3 231 600 (13) 792 200 (10) Total cash costs $ 185 300 (100) 223 400 (12) 622 500 (9) 2 684 800 (13) 630 600 (11) Farm cash income $ 64 800 (27) 66 700 (29) 201 200 (13) 546 800 (23) 161 600 (12) Proportion of farms with negative farm cash income

% 14 (83) 18 (33) 14 (30) 25 (27) 17 (24)

Build-up in trading stocks $ –3 856 (86) –1 900 (92) –6 231 (102) –23 951 (76) –6 400 (48) Depreciation $ 15 300 (11) 25 200 (7) 57 100 (5) 153 700 (12) 47 000 (5) Operator and family imputed labour $ 55 900 (7) 57 300 (5) 63 500 (4) 67 800 (7) 59 800 (3) Farm business profit $ –10 200 (165) –17 800 (105) 74 400 (33) 301 400 (41) 48 500 (39) Proportion of farms with negative farm business profit

67 (13) 69 (11) 37 (16) 47 (14) 58 (7)

Profit at full equity excl capital appreciation $ –5 100 (348) –7 700 (262) 76 200 (51) 490 600 (29) 101 300 (19) inc capital appreciation $ 1 100 (1400) 900 (1917) 124 000 (20) 540 000 (24) 78 400 (29) Rate of return a excl capital appreciation % 0.1 (1445) 0.0 (1917) 3.3 (21) 5.1 (23) 2.9 (39) inc capital appreciation % –0.3 (463) –0.4 (263) 2.0 (52) 4.6 (32) 2.2 (45) Change in farm debt during the year c % –0.5 (806) 5.6 (54) 4.3 (70) 0.8 (540) 2.1 (123) Total farm debt at 30 June c $ 110 100 (43) 201 000 (19) 549 000 (12) 2 628 400 (24) 565 100 (15) Total farm capital at 30 June b $ 1 598 100 (264) 2 122 500 (16) 3 824 800 (6) 10 819 700 (11) 3 523 700 (34) Farm equity ratio cd % 92 (4) 91 (3) 86 (2) 76 (5) 84 (2) Interest to receipts ratio c % 3 (43) 5 (29) 5 (14) 6 (20) 5 (13)

a Rate of return to farm capital at 1 July. b Excludes leased plant and equipment. c Average per debt responding farm. d Equity expressed as a percentage of farm capital.


Au

stralian vegetab

le grow

ing farm

s: An

econ

om

ic surv

ey 20

10

–1

1 an

d 2

01

1–

12

A

BA

RE

S

75

Table B16 Cost of production, by area of vegetables planted, 2010–11

average per farm <5 hectares 5–20 hectares 20–70 hectares >70 hectares All farms Potatoes $/t 2 383 (85) 376 (20) 266 (10) 266 (12) 277 (8) – including imputed labour $/t 2 696 (88) 403 (21) 282 (10) 269 (12) 286 (8) Pumpkins $/t 3 358 (27) 336 (31) 605 (30) 944 (15) 694 (16) – including imputed labour $/t 3 767 (28) 375 (30) 664 (29) 950 (15) 737 (16) Greenbeans $/t 433 (157) 2 154 (33) 841 (37) 1 245 (20) 1 332 (17) – including imputed labour $/t 876 (157) 2 623 (30) 882 (37) 1 254 (19) 1 398 (17) Tomatoes $/t 1 533 (19) 1 862 (40) 620 (46) 666 (57) 843 (23) – including imputed labour $/t 1 733 (16) 1 989 (41) 651 (44) 669 (56) 891 (21) Onions $/t na 153 (54) 235 (16) 445 (25) 370 (22) – including imputed labour $/t na 169 (55) 243 (16) 452 (25) 378 (21) Carrots $/t na 225 (50) 311 (42) 271 (28) 269 (22) – including imputed labour $/t na 245 (51) 331 (43) 278 (28) 283 (22) Cauliflowers $/t na 882 (15) 322 (42) 989 (47) 682 (40) – including imputed labour $/t na 803 (19) 304 (42) 978 (48) 707 (39) Lettuce $/t 4 361 (72) 968 (41) 1 244 (32) 789 (36) 950 (23) – including imputed labour $/t 4 770 (75) 1 052 (43) 1 277 (32) 796 (36) 971 (23) Broccoli $/t na 1 512 (21) 934 (15) 1 524 (21) 1 339 (18) – including imputed labour $/t na 1 625 (21) 967 (14) 1 541 (20) 1 364 (17) Cabbage $/t na 721 (9) 620 (27) 842 (44) 805 (37) – including imputed labour $/t na 821 (9) 652 (27) 852 (43) 828 (35)



Au

stralian vegetab

le grow

ing farm

s: An

econ

om

ic surv

ey 20

10

–1

1 an

d 2

01

1–

12

A

BA

RE

S

76

Table B17 Area irrigated and irrigated vegetables production, by area of vegetables planted, 2010–11

average per farm for farms growing specified irrigated vegetables <5 hectares 5–20 hectares 20–70 hectares >70 hectares All farms Area irrigated Potatoes ha na 10 (18) 28 (6) 131 (19) 47 (13) Pumpkins ha na 5 (26) 12 (13) 11 (15) 8 (12) Green peas ha na na na 39 (53) 39 (53) Beans ha na 9 (47) na 109 (57) 32 (50) Tomatoes ha 2 (19) 7 (31) 31 (24) 128 (11) 12 (9) Onions ha na 5 (7) 9 (20) 34 (17) 17 (13) Carrots ha na 5 (8) 8 (13) 33 (27) 10 (13) Cauliflowers ha na 7 (25) 14 (56) 26 (17) 14 (21) Lettuce ha 2 (45) 3 (77) 18 (14) 72 (46) 26 (33) Broccoli ha na 3 (37) 18 (23) 70 (15) 34 (13) Cabbage ha na 4 (19) 5 (14) 31 (39) 12 (29) Other vegetables ha 2 (16) 7 (16) 23 (13) 120 (18) 20 (12) All vegetables ha 2 (12) 10 (6) 33 (8) 187 (11) 37 (8) Production Potatoes t na 402 (21) 924 (11) 4 788 (19) 101 (33) Pumpkins t 45 (32) 108 (31) 182 (32) 534 (46) 171 (21) Green peas t na na na 200 (56) 200 (56) Beans t na 54 (56) na 548 (45) 164 (39) Tomatoes t 88 (24) 118 (147) 1396 (22) 3 829 (84) 402 (43) Onions t na 298 (10) 449 (17) 1 576 (20) 799 (14) Carrots t na 324 (3) 327 (26) 1 457 (30) 491 (15) Cauliflowers t na 146 (23) 462 (59) 701 (22) 387 (26) Lettuce t 73 (50) 74 (79) 411 (40) 1 898 (40) 653 (31) Broccoli t na 48 (37) 313 (44) 644 (22) 379 (20) Cabbage t na 106 (17) 121 (48) 1 050 (29) 374 (23) Other vegetables t 69 (33) 128 (25) 582 (24) 2 071 (24) 399 (16) All vegetables t 86 (86) 279 (10) 990 (8) 4 712 (12) 984 (8)



Au

stralian vegetab

le grow

ing farm

s: An

econ

om

ic surv

ey 20

10

–1

1 an

d 2

01

1–

12

A

BA

RE

S

77

Table B18 Volume of irrigation water used and use per hectare, by area of vegetables planted, 2010–11

average per farm for farms growing specified irrigated vegetables <5 hectares 5–20 hectares 20–70 hectares >70 hectares All farms Volume of irrigation water applied Potatoes ML na 16 (22) 75 (14) 395 (22) 132 (16) Pumpkins ML na 15 (64) 15 (37) 42 (57) 18 (35) Green peas ML na na na 23 (33) 23 (33) Beans ML na 5 (77) na 93 (60) 26 (54) Tomatoes ML 11 (42) 45 (52) 131 (24) 348 (12) 45 (14) Onions ML na 8 (33) 29 (46) 163 (28) 70 (24) Carrots ML na 16 (23) 24 (26) 118 (42) 34 (23) Cauliflowers ML na 19 (39) 47 (43) 130 (37) 55 (25) Lettuce ML 4 (33) 19 (100) 78 (18) 452 (49) 147 (39) Broccoli ML na 8 (40) 67 (47) 266 (33) 130 (27) Cabbage ML na 12 (15) 8 (43) 169 (33) 54 (28) Other vegetables ML 5 (42) 19 (20) 82 (13) 344 (31) 60 (20) All vegetables ML 8 (174) 26 (16) 102 (9) 587 (21) 114 (15) Irrigation water per hectare Potatoes ML / ha na 2 (21) 3 (14) 3 (14) 3 (11) Pumpkins ML / ha na 3 (40) 1 (34) 4 (49) 2 (26) Green peas ML / ha na na na 1 (22) 1 (22) Beans ML / ha na 1 (43) na 1 (15) 1 (14) Tomatoes ML / ha 6 (26) 6 (24) 4 (35) 3 (11) 4 (13) Onions ML / ha na 2 (34) 3 (33) 5 (17) 4 (15) Carrots ML / ha na 3 (30) 3 (16) 4 (24) 3 (15) Cauliflowers ML / ha na 3 (27) 3 (16) 5 (29) 4 (19) Lettuce ML / ha 3 (36) 7 (26) 4 (10) 6 (46) 6 (35) Broccoli ML / ha na 3 (22) 4 (26) 4 (39) 4 (31) Cabbage ML / ha na 3 (28) 2 (45) 5 (33) 5 (27) Other vegetables ML / ha 3 (43) 3 (18) 4 (12) 3 (25) 3 (16) All vegetables ML / ha 4 (173) 3 (15) 3 (10) 3 (19) 3 (14)




78

References ABARES 2012a, Agricultural commodities, September quarter 2012, Australian Bureau of

Agricultural and Recourse Economics and Sciences, Canberra.

ABARES 2012b, Australian farm surveys results 2009–10 to 2011–12, Australian Bureau of

Agricultural and Recourse Economics and Sciences, Canberra.

ABS 2011, Australian National Accounts: Input–Output Tables 2008–09, cat. no. 5209.0.55.001,

Australian Bureau Statistics, Canberra.

ABS 2006, Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification, cat. no. 1292.0,

Australian Bureau Statistics, Canberra.

ABS 2012a, Value of Agricultural Commodities Produced—Australia, cat. no. 7503.0, Australian

Bureau Statistics, Canberra.

ABS 2012b, Agricultural Commodities, Australia, 2010–11, cat. no. 71210.0, Australian Bureau

Statistics, Canberra.

Australian Government 2011, Securing a Clean Energy Future, Canberra.

Bardsley, P & Chambers, RL 1984, ‘Multipurpose estimation from unbalanced samples’, Journal

of the Royal Statistical Society, Series C (Applied Statistics), vol. 33, pp. 290–99.

FSANZ 2012, Primary Production and Processing Standard for Horticulture, Food Standards

Australia New Zealand, Canberra.

Lehtonen, R & Pahkinen, E 2004, Practical methods for design and analysis of complex surveys,

2nd edn, John Wiley and Sons, West Sussex.

Tulloh, C, Ahammad, H, Mi, R & Ford, M 2009, ‘Effects of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme

on the economic value of farm production’, Issues insights, 09.6, ABARE, Canberra, available at

adl.brs.gov.au/data/warehouse/pe_abare99001646/09.6_cprs_farm.pdf (pdf 315.99 kb).

Whittle, L, Hug, B, Heyhoe, E, Ahammad, H & Berry, P 2011, Possible short-run effects of a carbon

pricing scheme on Australian agriculture, ABARES research report 11.10, December, Canberra.

http://adl.brs.gov.au/data/warehouse/pe_abare99001646/09.6_cprs_farm.pdf

new australian vegetable growing farmsdata.daff.gov.au/data/warehouse/9aab/9aabf/2012/avfesd9... ·...

Documents