A group of 24 Hawke's Bay hill country farmers are working with service providers to improve the resilience of their farming systems. An important step in the process was to undertake an inventory of their risk management strategies. Farmers were interviewed about their farming systems and risk management strategies and the data was analysed using descriptive statistics. There was considerable variation in the strategies adopted by the farmers to cope with a dryland environment. Importantly, these strategies had to cope with three types of drought and also upside risk (better than expected conditions), and so flexibility was critical. Infra-structure was important in managing a dryland environment. Farmers chose between increased scale (increasing farm size) and geographic dispersion (owning a second property in another location) through to intensification (investing in subdivision, drainage, capital fertiliser, new pasture species). The study identified that there may be scope for further investment in infra-structural elements such as drainage, deeper rooting alternative pasture species and water harvesting, along with improved management of subterranean clover to improve flexibility. Many of the farmers used forage crops and idling capacity (reduced stocking rate) to improve flexibility; others argued that maintaining pasture quality and managing upside risk was a better strategy in a dryland environment. Supplementary feed was an important strategy for some farmers, but its use was limited by contour and machinery constraints. A surprisingly large proportion of farmers run breeding cows, a policy that is much less flexible than trading stock. However, several farmers had improved their flexibility by running a high proportion of trading cattle and buffer mobs of ewe hoggets and trade lambs. To manage market risk, the majority of farmers are selling a large proportion of their lambs prime. Similarly, cattle are either sold prime or store onto the grass market when prices are at a premium. However, market risk associated with the purchase of supplements and grazing was poorly managed.
Can Labor Market Imperfections Explain Changes in the Inverse Farm Size—Productivity Relationship? Longitudinal Evidence from Rural India
