data.daff.gov.audata.daff.gov.au/brs/data/warehouse/pe_abarebrs... · australian bureau of...

Duane Riley

Trish Gleeson

Peter Martin

Stephen Hooper

Walter Shafron

ABARE RESEARCH REPORT 02.4

Beef Industry 2 0 0 2

proudly produced for:

Report on the Australian Agricultural and Grazing

Industries Surveys of the Beef Producers

A u s t r a l i a n

RR_02/4 beef title 23/7/02 4:30 PM

Australian Bureau of Statistics

Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research

Australian Dairy Corporation

Australian Forest and Wood Products Researchand Development Corporation

Australian Institute of Criminology

Australian Society of Animal Protection

Australian Wool Innovation

CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and IndustrialResearch Organisation)

Dairy Research and DevelopmentCorporation

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries andForestry – Australia

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Department of Industry, Tourismand Resources

Environment Australia

Fisheries Research and DevelopmentCorporation

Fisheries Resources Research Fund

Grains Research and Development Corporation

Grape and Wine Research and DevelopmentCorporation

Institute of Energy Economics, Japan

Land and Water Resources Researchand Development Corporation

Meat and Livestock Australia

Murray–Darling Basin Commission

New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture andFisheries

Office of Resource Development, NorthernTerritory

Rural Industries Research and DevelopmentCorporation

Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation

Western Australian Chambers of Minerals and Energy

RESEARCH FUNDING. ABARE relies on financial support from

external organisations to complete its research program. As at the date of this

publication, the following organisations have provided financial support for

ABARE’s 2002-03 research program. We gratefully acknowledge this assistance.

RR_02/4 beef cover 23/7/02 4:28 PM

© Commonwealth of Australia 2002

This wo rk is copy right. The Copyright Act 1968 p e rmits fair dealing for study,re s e a rch, news rep o rt i n g, criticism or rev i ew. Selected passages, tables or diagra m sm ay be rep roduced for such purposes provided ack n owledgment of the source isi n cl u d e d. Major ex t racts or the entire document may not be rep roduced by anyprocess without the written permission of the Executive Director, ABARE.

ISSN 1037–8286ISBN 0 642 76457 3

R i l ey, D., Gleeson, T., Martin, P., Hooper, S. and Shafron, W. 2002, Australian BeefIndustry 2002, Rep o rt of the Au s t ralian Agri c u l t u ral and Grazing Industries Surveyof Beef Producers, ABARE Research Report 02.4, Canberra.

Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsGPO Box 1563 Canberra 2601

Telephone +61 2 6272 2000 Facsimile +61 2 6272 2001Internet www.abareconomics.com

ABARE is a professionally independent government economic research agency.

Meat and Livestock Australia disclaimerM e at and Live s t o ck Au s t ralia makes no rep re s e n t ation as to the accura cy of anyi n fo rm ation or advice contained in the rep o rt and ex clude all liab i l i t y, whether inc o n t ract, tort (including neg l i gence or bre a ch of stat u t o ry duty) or otherwise as aresult of reliance by any person on such information or advice.

ABARE project 1807

textRR 02.4 BEEF 23/7/02 3:51 PM Page ii

foreword

The Au s t ralian beef industry ex p e rienced an outstanding year in 2001-02,building further on the strong financial perfo rmance of the previous twoye a rs. The competitiveness of Au s t ralian beef on ex p o rt markets was boostedby a we a ker Au s t ralian dollar, with ex p o rts of beef and veal increasing to947 000 tonnes in calendar year 2001, valued at almost $4.4 billion.

However, events from late 2001, including the fall in Japanese demand forbeef with the discovery of BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) in theJapanese herd and the strengthening Au s t ralian dollar, have lowe red beefprices. Once again, the need to maintain the competitiveness of Australianbeef through continual improvement in product quality, marketing progra m sand productive efficiency has been brought into sharp focus.

The impact of the discove ry of BSE in Japan re flects concern wo rl dw i d eover animal health and food safety and unders c o res the need for the Au s t ra l i a nbeef industry to ach i eve widespread adoption of production and pro d u c tintegrity systems.

This report, which was commissioned by Meat and Livestock Australia, isexpected to assist in the drive for efficiency gains, providing a factual basisfor the further development of the beef industry. The info rm ation in the rep o rtis mainly based on fa rm surveys conducted annu a l ly by ABARE, thro u g hclose cooperation with industry re s e a rch funding orga n i s ations incl u d i n gMeat and Livestock Australia.

The focus in this rep o rt is on results for the ye a rs 1998-99 to 2000-01 fo rspecialist beef pro d u c e rs — that is, pro d u c e rs engaged mainly in ru n n i n gbeef cat t l e. The info rm ation contained in the rep o rt contri butes signific a n t lyto a better understanding of Au s t ra l i a ’s beef pro d u c e rs, and will assist theindustry in analysing the issues that it will face over the coming years.

BRIAN FISHER KEITH ADAMS DAVID CROMBIE

Executive Director President ChairmanABARE Cattle Council Meat and Livestock

of Australia AustraliaJuly 2002

iiiAustralian beef industry 2002

textRR 02.4 BEEF 23/7/02 3:51 PM Page iii

acknowledgments

This rep o rt uses data collected in ABA R E ’s surveys of Au s t ra l i a ’s bro a d-a c re industries. These surveys are vo l u n t a ry. Their success depends on thec o o p e ration of fa rm e rs, their accountants and marketing orga n i s ations inp roviding info rm ation on fa rm operations. These surveys would not be possi-ble without their full cooperation and assistance.

The report was funded by Meat and Livestock Australia and was developedin cooperation with the Adv i s o ry Committee of Meat and Live s t o ck Au s t ra l i a .The authors ack n ow l e d ge the helpful comments from Peter Weeks and SylviaAthas of Meat and Live s t o ck Au s t ralia and Mark Ritchie and Mich a e lHartmann from the Cattle Council.

A BA R E ’s Survey Data Analysis Section and the Data Management andCollection Section compiled the survey info rm ation presented in this rep o rt .

iv ABARE research report 02.4

textRR 02.4 BEEF 23/7/02 3:51 PM Page iv

contents

Highlights 1

1 Markets for Australian beef cattle 5Export markets 6Domestic market 9Feedlot sector 10Live cattle exports 11

2 Industry overview 12Beef cattle production 12Trends in beef cattle numbers 13Industry description and survey coverage 14Beef cattle on dairy farms 15Specialist beef properties 15

3 Physical characteristics and herd performance 18Size of the average beef herd 18Branding rates 18Turnoff 18Stocking rates 21Herd performance of groups ranked by return on capital 22

4 Beef producers’ financial performance 24Receipts 24Costs 24Farm cash income and farm business profit 26Financial performance of nonspecialist beef properties 26Farm investment 28Debt, equity and farm capital 32Rate of return 33

vAustralian beef industry 2002

textRR 02.4 BEEF 23/7/02 3:51 PM Page v

Financial performance of corporate properties 34

5 Live cattle 36Markets for live cattle 36Northern live cattle industry 39

6 Beef cattle turnoff methods 42Turnoff methods, Australia 42Turnoff methods, by state 42Long term trends 50

7 Pasture and livestock management 53Pasture on beef farms 53Environmental issues 53Beef management practices 55Impediments to adoption of new practices 58Use of formal training 59

AppendixesA ABARE farm survey methods and definitions 61B Selected physical and financial estimates 70C Pasture and livestock management in the beef industry 98

References 128

vi ABARE research report 02.4

textRR 02.4 BEEF 23/7/02 3:51 PM Page vi

FiguresA Australian beef cattle 5B Value of Australian beef and veal exports 6C Cattle on Australian feedlots 10D Distribution of specialist beef properties, by herd size,

2000-01 15E Distribution of specialist beef properties, by state,

2000-01 17F Beef cattle branding rates, for selected states 19G Turnoff rates, for selected states 19H Stocking rate of specialist beef properties, by state,

1998-99 to 2000-01 22I Specialist beef producers 26J Farm cash receipts, 2000-01 28K Beef industry properties acquiring land 28L Specialist beef producers 30M Specialist beef producers 32N Specialist beef producers, rate of return, by herd size 33O Specialist beef producers, rate of return 35P Australia’s live cattle exports 37Q Live cattle exports, by destination 38R Turnoff of beef cattle in the major live export regions 41S Farm cash income 41T Methods of selling beef cattle 43U Turnoff per property and auction sales 50V Turnoff per property and over the hook sales 51W Over the hooks sales as a proportion of total turnoff,

5 year average 51X Selling methods in the pastoral zone, 5 year average 52

Maps1 Beef cattle, by statistical local area (shire) 122 change in beef cattle numbers between 1997 and 2001 13

viiAustralian beef industry 2002

textRR 02.4 BEEF 23/7/02 3:51 PM Page vii

Tables1 Australian exports of beef and veal, by destination 72 Distribution of properties, herd and receipts, by herd size,

2000-01, specialist beef properties 163 Selected physical estimates, specialist beef producers,

Australia 204 Selected components of cash receipts and cash costs,

specialist beef producers, Australia 255 Selected farm performance estimates, specialist beef

producer, Australia 276 Physical and financial performance estimates, nonspecialist

beef producers, Australia 297 Farm business debt, at 30 June, by main purpose of loan 308 Liquid assets available to farm business at 30 June 2001,

specialist beef properties 319 Selected estimates for corporate and noncorporate beef

specialists, average 1998-99 to 2000-01 3410 Australian exports of live cattle, by destination 3711 Selected physical and financial estimates, Australia’s major

live export regions 4012 Methods of selling beef cattle, Australia 4513 Beef cattle turnoff methods, 1998-99 to 2000-01, by top

and bottom specialist producers 4914 Land use in 2000-01, by livestock classification 5415 Change in environmental issues in the two years to 2000-01,

by livestock classification 5516 Beef management practices in 2000-01, by livestock

classification 5617 Beef management practices in 2000-01, by livestock

classification 5718 Factors limiting the implementation of new practices in

2000-01, by livestock classification 5819 Number of days spent on formal training in 2000-01, by

livestock classification 59

viii ABARE research report 02.4

textRR 02.4 BEEF 23/7/02 3:51 PM Page viii

20 Selected physical estimates, specialist beef producers, New South Wales 70

21 Selected components of cash receipts and cash costs, specialist beef producers, New South Wales 71

22 Selected farm performance estimates, specialist beef producers, New South Wales 73

23 Selected physical estimates, specialist beef producers, Victoria 74

24 Selected components of cash receipts and cash costs, specialist beef producers, Victoria 75

25 Selected farm performance estimates, specialist beef producers, Victoria 77

26 Selected physical estimates, specialist beef producers,Queensland 78

27 Selected components of cash receipts and cash costs, specialist beef producers, Queensland 79

28 Selected farm performance estimates, specialist beef producers, Queensland 81

29 Selected physical estimates, specialist beef producers, South Australia 82

30 Selected components of cash receipts and cash costs, specialist beef producers, South Australia 83

31 Selected farm performance estimates, specialist beef producers, South Australia 85

32 Selected physical estimates, specialist beef producers, Western Australia 86

33 Selected components of cash receipts and cash costs, specialist beef producers, Western Australia 87

34 Selected farm performance estimates, specialist beef producers, Western Australia 89

35 Selected physical estimates, specialist beef producers, Tasmania 90

36 Selected components of cash receipts and cash costs, specialist beef producers, Tasmania 91

37 Selected farm performance estimates, specialist beef producers, Tasmania 93

ixAustralian beef industry 2002

textRR 02.4 BEEF 23/7/02 3:51 PM Page ix

38 Selected physical estimates, specialist beef producers, Northern Territory 94

39 Selected components of cash receipts and cash costs, specialist beef producers, Northern Territory 95

40 Selected farm performance estimates, specialist beef producers, Northern Territory 97

41 Land use in 2000-01, by livestock classification, by state 9842 Change in environmental issues in the two years to 2000-01,

by livestock classification, by state 10543 Beef management practices in 2000-01, by livestock

classification, by state 11244 Factors limiting the implementation of new practices

in 2000-01, by livestock classification, by state 11945 Number of days spent on formal training in 2000-01, by

livestock classification 127

x ABARE research report 02.4

textRR 02.4 BEEF 23/7/02 3:51 PM Page x

highlights

More Australian farms run beef cattle than engage in any other agriculturala c t iv i t y. Beef cattle are carried on both large and small fa rms in almost allp a rts of Au s t ralia. In 2000-01 there we re around 19 900 ‘specialist beefp ro p e rties’ engaged mainly in running beef cattle and a further 23 350 pro p-e rties that had more than 50 beef cattle but we re mainly engaged in enter-prises other than beef cattle.

Markets for Australian beef cattleA dep re c i ating Au s t ralian dollar re l at ive to the US dollar and Japanese ye n ,combined with strong demand in Au s t ra l i a ’s major ex p o rt markets, re s u l t e din escalating prices for beef cattle throughout 2000 and 2001. Since the begi n-ning of 2002, howeve r, strengthening of the Au s t ralian dollar combined withweak demand from Japan stemming from concern about BSE (bovine spongi-fo rm encep h a l o p at hy or ‘mad cow’ disease) have combined to result in fa l l i n gbeef prices from their highs of last year.

The domestic market accounts for around a third of Au s t ralian beef pro d u c-tion with the remaining two - t h i rds ex p o rt e d. The United States and Jap a na re the dominant markets for Au s t ralian beef, with the Rep u blic of Ko re a ,Canada and Chinese Taipei also being important.

Australian exports to Japan fell by 2 per cent in 2001. Discovery of BSE ina Japanese dairy cow in September 2001 and the discovery of three subse-quent cases resulted in reduced Japanese demand for beef. However, lowershipments to Japan we re offset by a 13 per cent rise in ex p o rts to the UnitedS t ates in 2001. Although demand for beef has been strong in the UnitedS t ates, access to the US market is constrained by a tari ff rate quota, with thequota being filled for the first time in early December 2001. With Au s t ra l i a np roduction expected to rise in 2002 and demand from Japan expected toremain weak, the US quota will again act as a constraint on ex p o rts to theUS market this year. Australia is expected to increase its beef exports to theRepublic of Korea significantly following the liberalisation of Korea’s beefretail marketing and distribution system in late 2001.

1Australian beef industry 2002

textRR 02.4 BEEF 23/7/02 3:51 PM Page 1

In March 2002 there we re ap p rox i m at e ly 622 000 cattle in feedlots, 1 percent higher than in March 2001. Reflecting the weakness in Japanese demand,c attle on feed destined for Japan had fallen by 7 per cent, with beef beingd ive rted to other markets such as Ko rea and the domestic market. The domes-tic market now accounts for 43 per cent of the number of cattle on feed.

Beef cattle numbersThe Au s t ralian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) estimates that there we re 25.4million beef cattle in Australia at the end of June 2001, an increase of 4 percent from June 2000.

The beef herd in nort h e rn Au s t ralia, and part i c u l a rly in nort h e rn and centra lregions of Queensland, the southern Nort h e rn Te rri t o ry and the Pilbara regi o nof We s t e rn Au s t ralia is estimated to have grown by more than 20 per centb e t ween 1997 and 2001. Howeve r, beef cattle nu m b e rs in south easternQueensland and many higher ra i n fall areas in southern Au s t ralia are esti-mated to have fallen during this period.

Around 60 per cent of the Australian beef herd in 2000-01 were carried onl a rger pro p e rties in nort h e rn Au s t ralia. Pa rt of the increase in cattle nu m b e rsin nort h e rn Au s t ralia stems from increased herd pro d u c t iv i t y. Branding rat e sin both Queensland and the Nort h e rn Te rri t o ry have grown stro n g ly sincethe mid-1990s and the turn o ff rate in the Nort h e rn Te rri t o ry has risen steadilyover the past decade.

Beef producers’ financial performanceHigh saleya rd prices for beef cattle in the fi rst six months of 2001-02combined with re l at ive ly small increases in fa rm costs to result in theestimated farm cash income for specialist beef properties in 2001-02 beingthe highest in over 25 years, in real terms. Farm cash incomes for specialistbeef producers have now remained relatively high for four years in succes-sion. Farm cash incomes for nonspecialist producers have also been histor-ically high.

Sustained high farm profitability in the Australian beef industry over recentye a rs has resulted in an increase in on-fa rm investment. In 2000-01 thenumber of fa rms acquiring additional land and expanding the size of theirbeef enterprise was the greatest in the past 25 years.

2 ABARE research report 02.4


Fa rm debt decreased on specialist beef pro p e rties between 1997-98 and 2000-01, liquid assets ava i l able to fa rm businesses increased and the value of fa rmassets rose as demand for grazing land boosted land prices.

A significant proportion of specialist beef farms have also taken advantageof fa rm management deposits. These deposits are an important risk manage-ment tool available to producers enabling pretax farm income to be movedbetween high income years and lower income years.

Live cattleL ive cattle ex p o rts have re c ove red signifi c a n t ly from the 1998-99 Asianeconomic dow n t u rn, but are still exposed to curre n cy instability in the keymarkets of Indonesia, the Philippines and Egypt. Australia exported around822 500 cattle in 2001, 9 per cent lower than in the previous year.

The northern live cattle industry of Australia supplies 75–80 per cent of thel ive cattle tra d e. Fa rm cash incomes of pro p e rties in the major live ex p o rtregions more than doubled in 2000-01. For pro p e rties in these nort h e rnregions, a slight reduction in receipts from live cattle sales were more thano ffset by a 64 per cent rise in receipts from sales of other beef cattle destinedfor slaughter or the store market.

Pasture managementO ver 92 per cent of the area operated by beef pro d u c e rs is devoted to pastureproduction systems. On average, 92 per cent of the available grazing area isnative pasture.

O ver the two ye a rs to 2000-01, the quality of pastures on beef fa rms, asrep o rted by pro d u c e rs, ch a n ged ve ry little. Howeve r, weed re l ated pro bl e m sin pastures we re rep o rted as an issue on 95 per cent of fa rms, and 26 per centof beef pro d u c e rs observed an increase in weed pro blems. Soil acidity pro b-lems were thought, by producers, to be increasing on 6 per cent of proper-ties. In addition, 2 per cent of pro d u c e rs rep o rted an increase in dry l a n dsalinity pro blems, while 4 per cent rep o rted an increase in soil ero s i o nproblems.



Herd managementAlmost 70 per cent of beef producers rely solely on pastures to finish cattlefor slaughter, with an additional 15 per cent relying on pasture plus supple-ments. The use of fo dder crops to finish cattle for slaughter was more wide-s p read in Queensland, but ove rall only around 11 per cent of fa rms usedfodder crops.



markets for Australian beef cattle

The fi rst two ye a rs of this new century have marked a period of ch a n ge dfo rtune for the Au s t ralian beef industry, with rap i d ly escalating beef cat t l eprices and favorable seasonal conditions encouraging a strong expansion inthe Australian beef cattle herd.

Au s t ralian saleya rd cattle prices have increased marke d ly in the past twoye a rs, rising by around 40 per cent to an estimated ave rage of 305 cents ak i l ogram (dressed weight) in 2001-02, the highest ave rage in real terms since1988-89 (figure A).

The main contributor to this strong performance was the weaker Australiand o l l a r, part i c u l a rly against the US dollar. Fo l l owing a sharp decline in 2000,the Au s t ralian ex ch a n ge rate dep re c i ated signific a n t ly further in the first ninemonths of 2001, trading at a low of US48c in September 2001. With a we a k-ening US economy throughout 2001 and stagnating Japanese economy, thel ower Au s t ralian dollar resulted in increased demand for imported Au s t ra l i a nbeef because of its improved competitiveness in local curre n cy terms. SinceS eptember the Au s t ralian dollar has ap p re c i ated marke d ly, trading US51cin early Ja nu a ry and around US57c in early Ju n e. It is important to note,h oweve r, that even an Au s t ralian dollar valued at around US60c is low in

5

1

Australian beef industry 2002


h i s t o rical terms and would still benefit Au s t ralian beef ex p o rts when Jap a n e s edemand recovers.

The stro n ger prices of the past couple of ye a rs have been encouraging therebuilding of the herd, wh i ch had been declining to 1999. Since then, then ational herd has expanded by a further 4 million to almost 27 million. Th i sh e rd rebuilding has been aided by good seasons in many cattle pro d u c i n gregions. As a result, tighter cattle supplies for slaughter against demandplaced further upward pressure in prices.

E vents in late 2001, howeve r, have resulted in a turn a round in the industry ’sfo rtunes. Global economic slow d own linked to the terro rist at t a cks in theUnited States, the fall in Japanese demand for beef with the discove ry ofBSE (bovine spongi fo rm encep h a l o p at hy, or ‘mad cow’ disease) in theJapanese cattle herd late in 2001 and the strengthening Au s t ralian dollar haveall combined to result in falling beef prices from their highs of last ye a r. Th eAustralian saleyard cattle indicator price is estimated to have fallen to aver-age 236 cents a kilogram (dressed weight) in June 2002. This compares withan average of 296 cents a kilogram in January 2002 and a high of 363 centsa kilogram in September 2001.

Export marketsWith around two - t h i rds of Au s t ra l i a ’s beef and veal production ex p o rt e d,demand developments in key importing nations are of critical import a n c e.S a l eya rd prices for cat t l e, and hence producer incomes, are heav i ly influ e n c e dby economic and trade developments in Au s t ra l i a ’s major markets in Asiaand the Pa c i fic. Tra d i t i o n a l ly, Au s-t ra l i a ’s ex p o rt markets have beend o m i n ated by the United States andJapan, with the Rep u blic of Ko re a ,Canada and Chinese Taipei alsobeing important markets (figure B).In volume terms, the United States,Japan and Ko rea are the large s texport markets for Australian beef,and together accounted for aro u n d82 per cent of Australia’s total beefex p o rts in 2001 (shipped we i g h t )(table 1).



While gre ater volumes of beef and veal we re shipped to the United Stat e sthan Japan in 2001, around three-quarters of the beef shipped to the UnitedStates is lean manufacturing quality beef. The higher value of beef shippedto Japan places the Japanese market as the most important in terms of ex p o rtrevenue (figure B).


1 Australian exports of beef and veal, by destination a

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

kt kt kt kt kt kt kt ktAmericasCanada 59.6 33.3 28.7 35.0 38.6 43.3 41.5 50.9United States 263.7 210.7 179.9 220.9 285.2 291.1 352.4 397.7

AsiaChinese Taipei 35.6 31.7 23.8 35.0 33.7 34.7 28.6 29.1Hong Kong, China 2.0 4.1 3.8 3.4 6.2 3.2 3.6 4.9Indonesia 5.0 10.4 16.6 24.3 1.7 11.6 13.1 9.6Japan 319.0 320.3 280.5 311.7 320.9 313.3 325.7 319.1Korea, Rep. of 57.4 63.6 57.6 60.9 33.5 77.9 73.3 56.8Malaysia–Singapore 9.4 10.9 11.7 12.7 11.0 10.6 5.5 8.8Philippines 6.4 14.9 20.5 26.9 20.2 20.4 14.3 19.7Other 2.2 4.1 4.9 5.1 4.8 3.7 6.9 1.1

EuropeEuropean Union b 6.6 7.8 11.9 10.8 11.0 8.9 5.6 6.5Other western Europe 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.5CIS 0.1 3.5 3.2 9.6 24.5 8.4 1.4 5.3Eastern Europe 0.1 7.1 4.7 8.9 18.7 2.5 2.1 0.2

Middle EastSaudi Arabia 0.2 0.3 2.3 1.1 2.6 1.0 0.5 5.0Other 0.9 0.7 3.7 3.0 7.2 13.1 2.2 5.0

OceaniaNew Zealand 3.1 3.9 3.7 1.8 1.8 1.6 3.1 1.4Pacific Isles 1.8 2.8 3.1 3.1 3.1 2.1 2.3 2.5Papua New Guinea 11.4 8.9 12.8 10.8 7.0 8.2 7.1 4.8

Other 14.3 14.0 20.1 25.1 31.5 12.1 12.1 17.5

Total beef and veal 792.4 748.9 694.8 801.7 855.3 868.0 901.6 946.6

a Fresh, chilled or frozen, in shipped weight. b Regarded as twelve countries until 1 January 1995,then fifteen countries.Source: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry – Australia, Export Statistics, LivestockExports, Canberra.


United StatesDemand for Au s t ralian beef in the United States is constrained by a tari ffrate quota (TRQ) limiting the amount of beef that can be imported into thatm a rket. The TRQ was set at 378 214 tonnes (product weight) in 1994 as partof the WTO Agreement on Agri c u l t u re, with any out of quota beef ex p o rt e dat a tariff rate of 26.4 per cent.

Reduced cow slaughter and nonfed beef production in the United Stat e s ,l ower import prices for Au s t ralian beef in US curre n cy terms, and higherAustralian beef and veal production resulted in increased exports of beef tothe United States in 2001. As a result, Au s t ralian ex p o rts to that marke tre a ched the import quota limit in early December. This was the first time thequota has been re a ched since it was introduced in 1995 as part of the UScommitment under the WTO Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture.

In 2002, with higher beef production expected in Au s t ralia and weak demandf rom Japan, the likelihood of the quota being filled earlier than December ishigh.

JapanThe discove ry of BSE (bovine spongi fo rm encep h a l o p at hy or ‘mad cow ’disease) in the Japanese cattle herd late last year was a major setback fo rbeef demand in that market as consumer confidence in beef was adve rs e lya ffe c t e d. Demand for beef in Japan fell marke d ly fo l l owing confirm ation ofBSE in a Japanese dairy cow in mid-September last ye a r, with a further twocases confirmed by the end of 2001. Early in May 2002 a fo u rth case of BSEwas detected in Japan and this may further delay wh at has been a slow re c ov-e ry in Japanese beef demand. After initially falling by around 50 per centafter the first BSE case, beef consumption in Japan had re c ove red to be only17 per cent lower in Ap ril 2002 compared with the same month a year earl i e r.

Japan is the second largest ex p o rt destination for Au s t ralian beef by vo l u m e,and the largest export destination by value. Approximately 319 000 tonnesof beef and veal we re shipped to Japan in calendar 2001, at a value of A$1.7billion. Beef and veal exports to Japan declined in each of the four monthsf rom October 2001 to Ja nu a ry 2002. While improving slow ly since Ja nu a ry,exports in June 2002 were still around 35 per cent lower than in September,prior to the fall in consumer demand.



Republic of KoreaOffsetting subdued demand in Japan, exports of Australian beef and veal toKorea are expected to rise in response to stronger economic growth, and asmarket liberalisation presents greater opportunities for exporters.

P rior to last Sep t e m b e r, Ko re a ’s beef marketing system discri m i n ated aga i n s tbeef imported from Au s t ralia and the United States, re s t ricting sales ofi m p o rted beef to speciality retail outlets that did not sell domesticallyp roduced beef or to be sold sep a rat e ly from domestic beef in some super-m a rkets. A WTO dispute panel ruled in favor of Au s t ralia and the UnitedS t ates in late 2000, and re q u i red Ko rea to liberalise its beef retail marke t i n gand distri bution system. An implementation period was agreed to and liber-alisation achieved in September 2001.

Au s t ralia ex p o rted 57 000 tonnes of beef to Ko rea in 2001, making that coun-try the third largest market for Australian beef. As a result of the liberalisa-tion of Ko re a ’s beef market system, prospects for signifi c a n t ly incre a s i n gAustralian beef exports to Korea are strong.

Domestic marketThe domestic market is the largest single market for Au s t ralian beef, account-ing for around a third of Au s t ralian beef production. Th e re fo re, deve l o p-ments in domestic consumption are like ly to have an important influence onthe market prospects for the Australian beef industry.

Th roughout the 1990s, annual consumption of beef and veal in Au s t ra l i aremained between 36 and 40 kilograms per person and accounted for ove rt wo - t h i rds of red meat (beef, veal, mutton and lamb) consumption. In 2000-01 per person consumption of beef fell by 11 per cent to 34 kilograms inresponse to high retail prices. In 2001-02, howeve r, retail prices for compet-ing meats such as lamb and pork also rose considerably and per pers o nconsumption of beef is e s t i m ated to have re c ove red slightly to 35.4 kilogra m s .Falls in retail prices as a result of the lower saleya rd cattle prices in 2002 arel i ke ly to result in higher beef consumption over the next few ye a rs than in thep revious two ye a rs .



Feedlot sectorDespite the incidences of BSE in Japan, and the subsequent fall in Au s t ra l i a nbeef ex p o rts to that market, results from the March 2002 Au s t ralian LotFe e d e rs’ Association / Meat and Live s t o ck Au s t ralia survey indicated thatthe number of cattle on feed in Au s t ralia has continued to ri s e, albeit slow ly.The number of cattle in feedlots at 31 March 2002 was ap p rox i m at e ly6 2 2 000, margi n a l ly higher than the number of cattle on feed in the Decemberquarter 2001 and 1 per cent above that in the March quarter 2001.

Reflecting the weakness in Japanese demand, the number of cattle on feedin the March 2002 quarter destined for the Japanese market was 7 per centl ower than was the case a year earl i e r. With demand for grain fed beef inJapan remaining re l at ive ly weak, beef that would have prev i o u s ly beenshipped to the Japanese market is being dive rted to other markets, incl u d i n gKorea. The number of cattle on feed destined for the Korean market in theMarch quarter totaled 21 000, around 31 per cent higher than in the Marchquarter 2001.

Th roughout the 1990s the domestic market grew in importance as a desti-n ation for lot fed cat t l e, and this trend has continued into the new century( fig u re C). While the number of cattle destined for the domestic market asat March 2002 remained unchanged from that in March last year, at around2 7 5 000, the domestic market now accounts for 43 per cent of the totalnumber of cattle on feed.



Live cattle exportsAu s t ralia is the leading ex p o rter of live cattle in the wo rl d, ex p o rting live-s t o ck by sea from 18 Au s t ralian ports to 44 ove rseas destinations, mostly insouth east Asia and the Middle East (MLA 2001). Demand for live cat t l ere a ched its cy clical peak during 1997 befo re falling in response to the Asianeconomic downturn, with exports to Indonesia, the largest market, particu-l a rly affe c t e d. While the industry is still exposed to instability in Asian curre n-cies, live s t o ck ex p o rts have re c ove red signifi c a n t ly. In 2001, Au s t ra l i aex p o rted around 823 000 cattle valued at around $514 million. Further detailabout Australia’s live cattle markets is contained in chapter 4.



industry overview

Beef cattle productionBeef cattle production is the most common enterprise on Australian farms.Properties running beef cattle can be found in almost all parts of Australia.H oweve r, the nat u re of beef production va ries both across and within stat e s .P roduction is ge n e ra l ly more intensive in the higher ra i n fall regions of thes o u t h e rn states than in nort h e rn Au s t ralia, wh e re the number of hectare sneeded to run one beast is much higher.

S h i res with the largest number of beef cattle are mainly located in Queenslandand the Northern Territory (map 1). The Victoria River District and Barkly

12

2

ABARE research report 02.4


Tableland areas of the Nort h e rn Te rri t o ry and Dalrymple shire in Queenslande a ch carried over 450 000 beef cattle at 30 June 2001. Other areas with largenumbers of beef cattle (350 000–450 000) included the shires of Cloncurry,Carpentaria, McKinlay and Belyando in Queensland.

Trends in beef cattle numbersBeef cattle nu m b e rs increased to a peak of 29.8 million in 1976 befo re decl i n-ing to a low of around 19.4 million in 1984. Numbers since have generallyincreased (see figure A).

A c c o rding to the ABS Agri c u l t u ral Commodity Survey (October 2001), thenumber of beef cattle in Au s t ralia is estimated to have increased by 4 percent from 24.5 million in June 2000 to an estimated 25.4 million beef cattleat the end of June 2001. In addition, there we re an estimated 3.4 million dairyc at t l e, taking the total number of cattle in Au s t ralia to 28.8 million at the endof June 2001.



The trend in beef cattle nu m b e rs between nort h e rn and southern Au s t ra l i ahas diffe red marke d ly in recent ye a rs (map 2). The ove rall increase in then ational herd was driven large ly by an increase in the nort h e rn herd betwe e n1996-97 and 2000-01. Th at increase re flects herd buildup on nort h e rn pro p-e rties (Queensland, Nort h e rn Te rri t o ry) fo l l owing good seasonal conditionsand improving herd pro d u c t iv i t y, and in response to improving beef cat t l eprices and growth in live export markets.

L a rge increases have occurred in nort h e rn and central regions of Queensland,the southern Nort h e rn Te rri t o ry and in the Gascoy n e, Murchison and south-ern Pilbara region of Western Australia (map 2).

In contrast, cattle nu m b e rs in southern Au s t ralia (New South Wales, Vi c t o ri a ,South Australia and southern beef regions of Western Australia) decreasedbetween 1996-97 and 2000-01.

Industry description and survey coverageMost data and info rm ation on wh i ch this rep o rt is based we re obtained fro mproperties included in ABARE’s Australian agricultural and grazing indus-t ries survey (AAGIS). These surveys provide a unique fa rm dat abase combin-ing physical, financial and socioeconomic info rm ation that is suitable fo rre s e a rch and analysis of issues at national, stat e, industry and regional leve l .

Of the 73 500 farms represented in the 2000-01 Australian agricultural andgrazing industries survey, an estimated 19 900 pro p e rties we re engage dm a i n ly in running beef cat t l e. These pro p e rties are termed ‘specialist beefp ro p e rties’. A further 23 350 pro p e rties in the surveyed bro a d a c re industri e sran more than 50 beef cattle but we re engaged mainly in enterp rises otherthan beef cattle. These properties are termed ‘nonspecialist beef properties’in this report.

Specialist beef pro p e rties carried around 62 per cent of Au s t ra l i a ’s beef cat t l ein 2000-01, while nonspecialist beef pro p e rties carried around 27 per centof the total beef cat t l e. The remaining 1 per cent of the national beef herdwas carried on pro p e rties with fewer than 50 beef cattle (in the surveye dindustries). Overall, it is estimated that the survey covered a total of around23 million beef cattle (around 91 per cent of the national beef herd) in 2000-01. The remaining 9 per cent of the national beef herd not cove red by thes u rvey we re on dairy fa rms, fa rms with an estimated value of agri c u l t u ra l



o p e rations between $5000 and $22 500, in feedlots, and on pro p e rties inother industries not covered by ABARE’s surveys.

Beef cattle on dairy farmsDairy farms are an important source of beef cattle for slaughter in southernAustralia. Estimates from ABARE’s Australian dairy industry survey indi-c ate that around 436 400 beef cat t l e, or around 2 per cent of the national beefh e rd, we re held on dairy fa rms in 2000-01. Small beef herds are often ru nby dairy farmers in conjunction with their dairy herd and many dairy farm-e rs often mate cows from the dairy herd with a beef breed bull. The re s u l-tant crossbred calves are reared either as vealers or as yearlings. Farmers inindustries other than dairying finish a proportion of these cattle. Cull dairyc ows and bobby calves also contri bute to the total slaughter of cattle inAustralia.

In 2000-01, dairy farmers sold an estimated 1.6 million cattle for slaughter,c o m p rising 250 000 beef cat t l e, 1 million bobby calves and 330 000 culldairy cows. In total, cattle sold for slaughter by dairy farmers accounted foran estimated 18 per cent of the national cattle slaughter in 2000-01.

Specialist beef propertiesO ver two - t h i rds of the total beef cattle on specialist beef pro p e rties in 2000-01 we re on pro p e rties that ran more than 1000 beef cattle (fig u re D). Almost30 per cent were on farms that ran more than 5500 beef cattle (table 2).



Small specialist beef properties, those with less than 300 beef cattle carried11 per cent of the herd, but contributed around 13 per cent of the total grossvalue of beef cattle sales in 2000-01 (fig u re D). This large ly re flects the loca-tion of small beef industry pro p e rties in the high ra i n fall areas of southernAu s t ralia — turn o ff rates are higher and the value of animals turned off ishigh compared with the pastoral regions and nort h e rn areas of Au s t ra l i a(where herd sizes are generally larger).


2 Distribution of properties, herd and receipts, by herd size, 2000-01Specialist beef properties

NSW Vic Qld SA WA Tas NT Australia

% % % % % % % %Proportion of specialist beef propertiesFewer than 300 cattle 17.9 17.6 8.0 1.8 3.7 1.8 b 50.7300–550 cattle 10.6 3.5 7.8 b 1.0 b b 22.9550–1000 cattle 3.5 3.1 1.7 b 1.0 0.6 b 10.01000–2800 cattle 0.6 0.9 8.8 b 0.6 b b 11.72800–5500 cattle b b 2.2 b b b b 2.8More than 5500 cattle b b 1.2 b b b b 1.8

All specialist beef properties 32.5 25.1 29.7 2.3 7.0 2.4 1.0 100.0

Proportion of specialist beef herdFewer than 300 cattle 4.1 3.7 1.8 b b b b 11.0300–550 cattle 6.0 1.5 3.7 b 0.5 b b 11.7550–1000 cattle 2.7 2.5 1.7 b 1.0 0.5 b 8.61000–2800 cattle 1.2 1.3 18.1 0.7 1.4 b 0.8 23.72800–5500 cattle b b 11.9 b 1.7 b 1.2 14.8More than 5500 cattle b b 16.6 0.8 4.0 b 8.8 30.3


Proportion of specialist beef cattle receiptsFewer than 300 cattle 4.5 4.3 2.3 b 1.1 0.6 b 13.2300–550 cattle 6.5 2.3 4.3 b b b b 13.5550–1000 cattle 5.4 3.2 1.6 b 0.7 0.5 b 11.41000–2800 cattle 1.7 2.1 24.7 0.6 0.9 b 0.5 30.72800–5500 cattle b b 10.7 b 1.4 b 0.6 12.7More than 5500 cattle b b 11.9 0.9 2.3 b 3.4 18.5


a Major feedlots excluded. b Less than 0.5 per cent.Note: Figures may not add to 100 due to rounding.


Larger specialist beef cattle properties mostly located in northern Australiacarry the majority of the herd. Around 63 per cent of the total beef cattle onspecialist beef pro p e rties in 2000-01 we re on pro p e rties with more than 300beef cattle in Queensland and the Nort h e rn Te rri t o ry. These pro p e rt i e sproduced around 58 per cent of the total gross value of cattle sales in 2000-01 — less than their contri bution to the total herd and re flecting the lowe rt u rn o ff rates and lower value of animals turned off in nort h e rn Au s t ra l i acompared with southern Australia.

Of the estimated 3200 specialist beef pro p e rties with more than 1000 beefc attle operating in Au s t ralia in 2000-01, less than 300 (or 10 per cent) oper-ated in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia or Tasmania (table 2).



physical characteristics and herdperformance

Size of the average beef herdThe number of cattle turned off for slaughter increased only slightly in 2000-01 to 8.7 million. Good seasonal conditions in most beef producing regi o n s ,ex cluding southern Queensland, leading to high branding rates, are estimat e dto have resulted in a 2 per cent increase in the ave rage number of beef cat t l eon specialist farms in 2000-01. The 2000-01 estimate, however, is approxi-m at e ly 2 per cent lower than the ave rage for the period 1997-98 to 1999-2000 (table 3). Herd building occurred on specialist beef pro p e rties in alls t ates ex c ept New South Wales in 2000-01. Howeve r, herd building isexpected to be constrained in 2001-02 by dry seasonal conditions in largep a rts of New South Wales, Vi c t o ria, Queensland and nort h e rn parts of We s t e rnAu s t ralia. Ove rall, turn o ff of cattle from specialist beef pro p e rties is ex p e c t e dto increase in 2001-02.

Herd performance is reflected in measures such as branding, death, turnoffand stocking rates. Changes in these measures can re flect better fa rm manage-ment practices, re s p o n s iveness to ch a n ging env i ronments, and ability to meetparticular market needs.

Branding ratesBranding rates, on average, generally rose in most states in the latter half ofthe 1990 (fi g u re F). Howeve r, there we re significant fl u c t u ations betwe e nthe ye a rs. Branding rates are higher in the southern states of Au s t ralia, re fle c t-ing the ava i l ability of better nu t rition throughout the year and a lower impactof disease and parasites on rep roduction. Th e re is considerably more va ri-ability in the branding rates of specialist beefp ro p e rties in the nort h e rn beef states — aresult of a higher incidence of droughts anda dve rse seasonal conditions in nort h e rn beefp roducing areas compared with the southernbeef pro p e rties that are pre d o m i n a n t ly in thehigh rainfall zone.

18

3


The beef cattle bra n d i n grate is the number of calvesm a rked as a perc e n t age ofthe number of cows mated.


B randing rates in Queensland have improved considerably since the dro u g h t sof the mid-1990s, when the average branding rate was as low as 66 per cent( fig u re F). In the Nort h e rn Te rri t o ry, branding rates improved over the decade,increasing from 57 per cent in 1989-90 to 70 per cent in 2000-01.

TurnoffN ational and state turn o ff rates over the past ten ye a rs have va ried consid-erably in response to changes in seasonal conditions and commodity prices( fig u re G). Beef pro p e rties in southern states, with more intensive gra z i n gin higher rainfall areas, have higher turnoff rates than beef properties in thenorthern states where extensive grazing systems dominate beef production.



Tu rn o ff rates have trended stro n g ly upwa rds in the Nort h e rn Te rri t o ry in thepast decade, peaking at 34 per cent in 1999-2000 (fig u re G). In Queensland,t u rn o ff rates trended up between 1994-95 and 1996-97 but fell sharp ly in1997-98, in part because of the downturn in the live export trade during thefirst six months of 1998. Tu rn o ff rates rebounded in Queensland in 1998-99and 1999-2000 before falling slightly in 2000-01.

I m p rovements in turn o ff rates in nort h e rn Au s t ralia are at t ri bu t able to ch a n ge sin herd husbandry, animal genetics and the targeting of new marke t


3 Selected physical estimates, specialist beef producers a

Australia Average per property

3 year average 2000-01 p1997-98 to1999-2000 Bottom 25% b Average Top 25% b

Population no. 17 347 19 878Sample no. 319 318

Age of owner manager yrs 58 (1) 55 (7) 59 (2) 60 (4)Area operated 30 June ha 13 469 (6) 7 364 (23) 12 458 (14) 32 330 (11)Area cropped ha 35 (12) 23 (20) 35 (15) 48 (25)Sheep 30 June no. 77 (26) 1 (98) 40 (38) 141 (53)

Beef cattle 30 June no. 815 (3) 259 (15) 795 (6) 1 839 (17)Bulls no. 19 (5) 5 (23) 18 (10) 43 (30)Cows no. 339 (3) 112 (16) 337 (6) 783 (20)Replacement heifers no. 84 (5) 18 (33) 77 (7) 189 (11)Calves no. 199 (4) 59 (18) 187 (8) 418 (22)Other cattle no. 175 (5) 66 (26) 177 (9) 406 (15)

Beef cattle purchased no. 42 (11) 17 (49) 43 (23) 72 (48)Beef cattle sold no. 262 (3) 105 (18) 275 (8) 565 (16)Beef cattle turned off no. 300 (4) 125 (17) 300 (8) 611 (15)Share of females in beef herd % 42 (1) 43 (8) 42 (2) 43 (5)

Beef cattle branding rate % 77 (1) 71 (6) 78 (1) 79 (5)Cows mated per bull no. 18 (5) 22 (21) 19 (7) 18 (29)Turnon rate % 9 (14) 10 (31) 7 (18) 6 (57)Turnoff rate % 37 (3) 46 (13) 38 (4) 34 (10)Death rate % 2.5 (6) 4.6 (39) 2.3 (8) 1.9 (16)

a Major feedlots excluded. b Ranked by rate of return in 2000-01. p Preliminary. s Provisional. na Notavailable. ns Not supplied.Note: Figures in parentheses are standard errors expressed as percentages of the estimates. A guide tointerpreting these is included in appendix A. Year to year changes in both sample and populationaffect the comparability of estimates between years.


o p p o rtunities through the feedlot industry and live ex p o rt trade (enabl i n gsmaller and younger animals to be turned off).

Tu rn o ff rates tend to fl u c t u ate to a gre ater extent in the southern stat e scompared with the northern states. Turnoff rates in Victoria rose markedlyin 1996-97, dry seasonal conditions resulting in the fo rced sale of cattle anda reduction in herd sizes. Victorian turnoff rates increased slightly in 2000-01 after three years of declining turnoff rates in response to continuing dryseasonal conditions in some parts of the state combined with the increasingp rice of cattle for re s t o ck i n g. Movement of small beef fa rms into the special-ist beef producer cat ego ry also causes flu c t u ations in the turn o ff rate in south-ern states.

Stocking ratesAve rage stocking rates for specialist beefp ro p e rties va ry considerably across the beefp roducing states, re flecting regional diffe r-ences in cl i m atic and agronomic conditions.S t o cking rates can also va ry within the sameregion between ye a rs re flecting seasonalconditions and relative commodity prices.

O ver the period 1998-99 to 2000-01, theave rage stocking rate was 7.7 hectares per


The number of beef cattle turned off equals the number of beef cattle sold plusany cattle transferred to other properties. These transfers occur between prop-e rties with a common ow n e r, or wh e re the owner of a pro p e rty also owns a sep a-rate feedlot which is partly supplied from the property. The extent of transfersis more pronounced in the larger pro p e rties in Queensland and the Nort h e rnTerritory.

The turnoff rate is the ratio of cattle turned off to the average number of cattleheld at 1 July and 30 June in the financial year.

The number of beef cattle t u rned on equals the number of beef cattle purch a s e dplus any cattle transferred from another property.

Net turn o ff is the diffe rence between the number of cattle turned off and thenumber turned on.

The beef cattle s t o cking rat eis the number of hectares ofgrazing land per beef cat t l ee q u ivalents carri e d. Beefc attle equivalents assumest h at one sheep equals eightbeef cattle and one dairyc attle is the equivalent of oneand a half beef cattle.


beef equivalent (fig u re H). The highest ave rage stocking rates over the peri o dwe re in Vi c t o ria (0.3 hectares) and Tasmania (0.5 hectares), re flecting thehigher average rainfall in the beef producing areas of these states.

The states wh e re ra n geland beef production is more prominent had the lowe s ts t o cking rates over the 1998-99 to 2000-01 peri o d. In the Nort h e rn Te rri t o rythe average stocking rate was 33 hectares per beef equivalent — less than aq u a rter of the stocking rate of the ave rage specialist beef pro p e rt y. The ave r-age stocking rate was also re l at ive ly low in We s t e rn Au s t ralia (12.7 hectare s )and South Australia (10.3 hectares).

Herd performance of groups ranked by returnon capitalRanking the specialist beef pro p e rties by the rate of re t u rn to capital, am e a s u re of the re t u rn to all re s o u rces used in the fa rm business, enables ac o m p a rison of the herd perfo rmances of the top and bottom perfo rming fa rm s .

Top performing farms often run much larger herds than bottom performingfa rms. The ave rage herd size for the top 25 per cent of fa rms, ra n ked by rat eof re t u rn in 2000-01, was more than double the ave rage for specialist beeffa rms and more than seven times the ave rage of the bottom perfo rming fa rm s(table 3).

D e ath rates va ry widely among pro p e rties, with the bottom perfo rming gro u precording a death rate in 2000-01 that was two and a half times higher than



the top perfo rming group. The Nort h e rn Te rri t o ry and Tasmania had theb i ggest diffe rential, with the bottom perfo rming group re c o rding a death rat emore than four times higher than the top group in both states in 2000-01.

Top performing beef properties also tend to have higher branding rates andfewer cows mated per bull (higher bull to cow ratio) than the bottom group.This was part i c u l a rly the case in Queensland, wh e re the top group had ab randing rate of 77 per cent and mated 18 cows per bull in 2000-01 compare dwith the bottom perfo rm e rs who re c o rded a branding rate of 58 per cent andmated 25 cows per bull.

A dditional tables for each state and for the top and bottom 25 per cent ofproperties (ranked by rate of return on capital) within each state, similar totables 4, 5 and 6, are presented in the appendix tables.



beef producers’ financialperformance

ReceiptsHigher saleya rd prices for beef cattle in 2001-02 are estimated to have re s u l t e din beef cattle receipts for specialist pro p e rties being around 11 per cent higherthan in 2000-01 (table 4). When compared with the three year ave rage fro m1997-98 to 1999-2000, beef cattle receipts in 2001-02 are estimated to haverisen by 49 per cent.

In addition, higher prices received for other farm products during 2001-02,s u ch as wh e at, wool and sheep meat, have resulted in total fa rm re c e i p t sincreasing by over 20 per cent.

The pro p o rtion of receipts derived from beef cattle sales va ries among special-ist pro d u c e rs. Ranked according to rate of re t u rn on capital, the top 25 percent of specialist pro d u c e rs, on ave rage, derived 91 per cent of their totalreceipts from beef cattle wh e reas the bottom 25 per cent derive d, on ave r-age, 86 per cent of their total receipts from beef cattle.

CostsMajor costs for specialist beef properties include beef cattle purchases (16per cent), rep a i rs and maintenance, wages for hired lab o r, fo dder and fuel.Total cash costs for specialist beef properties are estimated to have risen by13 per cent in 2001-02, to average around $142 300. High demand for storec attle as pro d u c e rs sought to expand their herds resulted in higher prices. Asa result, expenditure on beef cattle purchases is expected to have increasedby 5 per cent in 2001-02.

With improved receipts, pro d u c e rs spent more on rep a i rs and fe rt i l i s e r. Someex p e n d i t u re on rep a i rs and maintenance in the past two ye a rs may have beend e fe rred in ye a rs of lower income, part i c u l a rly on southern Au s t ralia fa rm s .H oweve r, in part it is also a risk management strat egy to ensure that fa rmm a ch i n e ry and improvements will be able to function as re q u i red over anumber of years, some of which may have much lower incomes.

24

4



Farm cash income and farm business profitFarm cash income (the difference between total cash receipts and total cashcosts) is estimated to have averaged $98 700 per farm in 2001-02, a 36 percent increase from 2000-01 and almost triple the three year average for thep e riod 1997-98 to 1999-2000 (table 5). The fa rm cash income earned in2001-02 is the highest re c o rded in real terms for the beef industry in over 25years (figure I).


C attle nu m b e rs on specialist beef cattle pro p e rties are estimated to haveincreased in 2001-02. Increases in herd sizes boosted the buildup in tradingstocks on specialist beef properties and further contributed to a large rise infa rm business pro fit. Fa rm business pro fit is estimated to have tripled in 2001-02, rising by around $44 000 per farm (table 5).

Financial performance of nonspecialist beefpropertiesNonspecialist beef pro p e rties produce a gre ater dive rsity of agri c u l t u ra lcommodities. On ave rage, around 37 per cent of fa rm receipts for non-specialist beef pro p e rties we re derived from beef cattle in 2000-01 (fig u reJ). In comparison, specialist beef pro p e rties derived around 90 per cent offarm receipts from the sale of beef cattle (table 4).

O ver the three ye a rs to 1999-2000 nonspecialist beef pro p e rties re c o rd e dhigher fa rm cash incomes than specialist beef pro p e rties (table 6). Howeve r,


in 2000-01 and 2001-02 there wa slittle diffe rence in the ave rage fa rmcash income between beef specialistsand nonspecialist beef pro d u c e rs. In2001-02, higher beef cattle receiptscombined with higher sheep andcrop receipts, are expected to resultin an increase in total cash re c e i p t sof around 9 per cent. Expenditurefor nonspecialist beef pro p e rties aree s t i m ated to fall slightly in 2001-02m a i n ly as a result of reductions ina reas planted to crops in south east-ern Queensland.

Farm cash incomes for nonspecialist beef producers are estimated to rise in2001-02 to $99 500, more than double the ave rage for the 1997-98 to 1999-2000 period.

Farm investmentSince 1998-99, the number of specialist beef properties purchasing or leas-ing additional land has increased to the highest level re c o rded since ABA R Es t a rted surveying bro a d a c re fa rms in 1977-78. Over 7 per cent of all special-ist beef pro p e rties increased the amount of land they operated in 2000-01( fig u re K). Land purchasing is present across all fa rm sizes, with the only



6 P hysical and financial perfo rmance estimates, nonspecialist beef pro d u c e rs(in 2001-02 dollars) a Australia Average per property

3 year average1997-98 to 1999-2000 2000-01 p 2001-02 s

Population no. 21 239 23 349Sample no. 447 419

PhysicalAge of owner manager yrs 55 (1) 55 (2) naArea operated, 30 June ha 5 336 (5) 5 062 (10) naBeef cattle, 30 June no. 330 (4) 297 (5) naBeef cattle purchased no. 37 (12) 28 (19) naBeef cattle sold no. 143 (4) 123 (6) na

ReceiptsBeef cattle $ 70 309 (5) 78 987 (7) 95 805 (10)Crop sales $ 85 198 (5) 91 086 (10) 99 691 (14)Sheep $ 27 871 (5) 34 451 (9) 39 318 (10)Wool $ 47 743 (3) 57 770 (8) 55 814 (11)Agistment $ 1 147 (17) 650 (24) naGovernment assistance $ 732 (14) 2 861 (31) naOff-farm contracts $ 3 791 (13) 5 327 (25) naTransfers of livestock (outward) $ 630 (48) 1 243 (50) naOther cash receipts $ 11 957 (6) 10 480 (9) naTotal cash receipts $ 249 378 (3) 282 854 (5) 308 941 (7)

Total cash costs $ 201 132 (3) 211 195 (6) 209 485 (8)

Financial performanceFarm cash income $ 48 246 (5) 71 659 (8) 99 457 (12)Buildup in trading stocks $ 4 338 (39) 1 366 (266) 20 513 (21)Depreciation $ 22 140 (3) 22 014 (6) 22 457 (8)Total imputed labor cost $ 42 829 (2) 41 158 (3) 45 043 (3)

Farm business profit $ –12 384 (18) 9 852 (53) 52 470 (22)

Interest paid $ 16 424 (5) 17 001 (9) 17 411 (12)Profit at full equity (excl ca) $ 7 150 (34) 29 846 (19) 73 250 (16)Capital appreciation $ 19 360 (15) 99 295 (8) naProfit at full equity (incl ca) $ 26 510 (15) 129 141 (9) na

Total capital, 30 June $ 1 674 776 (3) 1 703 386 (5) naTotal farm debt at, 30 June b $ 212 441 (5) 198 902 (10) naFarm equity, 30 June b $ 1 425 019 (3) 1 431 918 (5) naFarm equity ratio, 30 June b % 87 (1) 88 (1) na

Off farm wages and salaries c $ 8 139 (10) 9 431 (15) naTotal non farm income c $ 17 843 (9) 21 043 (9) na

Farm liquid assets, 30 June c $ 70 331 (10) 96 267 (14) na

Rate of return (excl ca) % 0.4 (33) 1.9 (18) 4.5 (16)

a All broadacre farms with more than 50 beef cattle, excluding specialist beef properties. b Averageper farm responding on debt. c Average per responding farm. p Preliminary. s Provisional. ca Capitalappreciation is the estimated increase or decrease in the value of capital items during the financialyear. na Not available. ns Not supplied.



d i ffe rence between small fa rms and large fa rms being in the amount of landpurchased. Increased demand for land has also resulted in increases in landprices, particularly in northern cattle areas. These increases are reflected inhigher farm capital values in 2000-01.

After rising in the early and mid-1990s, ave rage fa rm debt for specialist beeffa rms declined in 1998-99 and 1999-2000, befo re increasing again in 2000-01 (fig u re L). The ratio of fa rm debt to fa rm cash income, neve rtheless, ishigher that it was in the late 1970s and early 1980s.


7 Farm business debt, at 30 June, by main purpose of loan Average per farm

1988-89 1995-96 2000-01

$ % $ % $ %

Land purchase 24 158 (35) 34 54 867 (22) 49 62 051 (27) 59Land development 3 565 (36) 5 2 325 (38) 2 2 536 (58) 2Structural development 583 (49) 1 3 309 (54) 3 562 (98) 1Plant and equipment purchase 2 910 (28) 4 2 885 (23) 3 4 706 (23) 4Livestock purchase 6 261 (43) 9 3 398 (28) 3 2 158 (34) 2Working capital 21 942 (15) 31 34 876 (10) 31 24 137 (54) 23Debt reconstruction 9 137 (42) 13 9 269 (30) 8 9 790 (37) 9Other purposes 1 616 (125) 2 0 0 0 0

Total farm business debt 70 173 (17) 100 110 930 (12) 100 105 939 (20) 100

Note: Averages for farms for which a response to farm business debt questions was obtained. Figuresin parentheses are relative standard errors.


The composition of fa rm debt has ch a n ged over the past thirteen ye a rs .I n c reases in fa rm debt in 2000-01 we re mainly to finance land purch a s e.D ebt for land purchase accounted for 59 per cent of debt specialist beef pro p-e rties in 2000-01, compared with only 34 per cent in 1988-89 (table 7). Deb tto finance wo rking capital has also decreased over time, re flecting theimprovement to farm cash incomes.

E ffe c t ive management of off - fa rm sources of finance is a critical area of ri s km a n agement in the case of any future dow n t u rn in fa rm receipts. As a conse-quence of higher farm cash incomes in recent years, liquid assets availableto specialist beef businesses to meet short term cash funding are now signif-i c a n t ly higher than a decade ago. Ave rage liquid assets at 30 June 2001 we re$97 900, only $8000 below the average level of farm debt (table 8).

In addition, the composition of the liquid assets of farms has changed. Onec o n t ri butor to the increase in liquid assets has been in the total value of share sheld by fa rm e rs in publ i cly listed companies. Another ve ry important ch a n gehas been in the pro p o rtion of liquid assets held in income equalisation funds,p a rt i c u l a rly fa rm management deposits. At 30 June 2001, nat i o n a l ly aro u n d9 per cent of specialist beef properties held farm management deposits andalmost 20 per cent of specialist beef properties in Queensland. The averagel evel of deposits was the equivalent of around 7 per cent of ave rage fa rmreceipts for the period 1997-98 to 1999-2000, a re l at ive ly small amount incomparison with the variability in receipts of specialist beef properties.


8 Liquid assets available to farm business at 30 June 2001, specialist beefproperties Average per farm

Trading accounts and cash on hand $ 19 488 (24)Bank deposits $ 42 154 (38)Building society, credit union deposits $ 147 (94)Finance company deposits $ 502 (64)Debentures, bonds and unsecured notes $ 298 (65)Shares in public companies $ 16 508 (29)Total farm management deposits, FMBs and IEDs $ 12 363 (30)Other cash investments $ 6 439 (72)

Total liquid assets at 30 June $ 97 898 (20)

Proportion of farms with farm management deposits % 9.3 (33)

Note: Averages for the estimated population represented by sample farms for which a response to farmliquid assets question was obtained.


Debt, equity and farm capitalOver the past decade new investment in the beef industry broadly followedm ovements in fa rm cash income. During periods of low beef prices, such asd u ring the drought affected periods of 1991-92 and 1996-97, there was as i g n i ficant level of disinvestment as fa rm e rs sold assets and attempted toreduce debt.

In 2000-01, with beef prices and farm incomes much higher than they hadbeen for many ye a rs, specialist beef pro d u c e rs we re able to increase theirfa rm equity by reducing debt while at the same time increasing their inve s t-ment in fa rm capital. Ave rage fa rm debt (at 30 June) for specialist beef pro p-e rties had fallen by 13 per cent when compared with the ave rage for the thre eyear period from 1997-98 to 1999-2000. At the same time, investment infa rm capital had risen by 14 per cent in 2000-01 when compared with thesame three year period.

The ave rage equity ratio for specialist beef pro p e rties is high re l at ive to thatfor other bro a d a c re industries. In 2000-01, equity ratios on specialist beefproperties averaged 93 per cent.

Farm equity is generally higher in states where there is a high proportion ofsmall beef pro p e rties in cl o s e ly settled higher ra i n fall areas. For ex a m p l e,equity ratios averaged 97 per cent in New South Wales whereas they aver-aged 89 per cent in the Northern Territory.



Rate of returnRate of return to capital at full equity is one measure which may be used toassess the ability of pro p e rties to obtain a re t u rn on their investment in fa rmbusiness, indicating the return to all of the resources used in the farm busi-ness. At the national level, specialist pro p e rties are estimated to have re c o rd e da rate of re t u rn to capital of 4.2 per cent in 2001-02, signific a n t ly higher thanthe ave rage rate of re t u rn in 2000-01 of 1.9 per cent, despite a substantiali n c rease in the total value of capital invested in beef fa rms. In the three ye a rp e riod from 1997-98 to 1999-2000, when beef prices we re considerablyl owe r, the rate of re t u rn for beef specialists was negat ive, ave raging –0.1 percent.

R ates of re t u rn va ried across pro d u c e rs, howeve r, with the top 25 per centof producers (by rate of return) earning a 7.5 per cent return on their invest-ment. By contrast, the bottom 25 per cent in terms of performance, earnednegative returns of –7.6 per cent on average.

In the beef industry, as in most agricultural industries, there is a strong linkb e t ween pro p e rty size (measured here as herd size) and rate of re t u rn. Inmost ye a rs, pro p e rties with large herd sizes ge n e rate higher rates of re t u rnthan smaller pro p e rties (fig u re N). Low rates of re t u rn for small specialistbeef pro p e rties are part ly a consequence of their location in closer settledareas where property values per hectare are high, there is greater emphasison the ‘lifestyle’ aspects of farming and there is greater accessibility to off-farm employment.



9 Selected estimates for corporate and noncorporate beef specialists,average 1998-99 to 2000-01 Average per farm

Top 10% OtherCorporate of family beef industryproperties properties a properties

Area operated at 30 June ha 529 477 (5) 59 678 (5) 2 052 (16)Beef cattle at 30 June no. 15 536 (6) 3 348 (3) 355 (4)Beef cattle purchased no. 237 (27) 154 (23) 28 (13)Beef cattle transferred in no. 1 459 (14) 105 (65) 0Beef cattle sold no. 3 460 (9) 995 (5) 152 (4)Beef cattle transferred out no. 2 262 (10) 106 (51) 4 (45)Proportion females in herd % 58 (2) 50 (3) 52 (2)Turnoff rate % 37 (4) 33 (6) 44 (4)

Family weeks worked wks 0 123 (3) 71 (3)Total labor weeks worked wks 601 (3) 202 (3) 78 (3)Age of operator manager yrs 43 (1) 56 (2) 58 (1)

ReceiptsBeef cattle gross receipts $ 1 589 588 (8) 581 715 (6) 77 828 (4)Total cash receipts $ 2 342 103 (6) 655 183 (6) 90 629 (4)

ExpensesTotal cash costs $ 1 529 607 (5) 444 100 (7) 66 819 (4)

Financial performanceFarm cash income $ 812 496 (10) 211 084 (12) 23 811 (10)plus buildup in trading stocks $ 100 789 (83) 19 996 (98) –2 174 (91)less imputed family labor cost $ 0 (0) 56 748 (3) 32 325 (3)less depreciation $ 119 076 (5) 35 401 (5) 11 224 (4)Farm business profit $ 787 480 (10) 138 930 (10) –21 912 (12)Total closing capital $ 12 886 389 (5) 4 532 621 (4) 995 374 (3)Rate of return % 6.8 (9) 4.4 (6) –1.6 (17)

OtherGross receipts per head $/hd 459 (3) 585 (2) 511 (3)Costs / receipts ratio a % 63 (4) 68 (5) 73 (3)Costs / receipts ratio b % 67 (4) 81 (4) 120 (3)

a Ranked according to closing cattle numbers. b Costs exclude imputed value of family labor anddepreciation. c Costs including imputed value of family labor and depreciation.Note: Figures in parentheses are relative standard errors. A guide to interpreting these measures ofsample variation is included in appendix A.

Financial performance of corporate propertiesIt is estimated that around 1 per cent of specialist beef industry pro p e rties in2000-01 could be cl a s s i fied as corp o rate pro p e rties — that is, pro p e rties thatwe re owned by a publ i cly listed company. These pro p e rties, howeve r,contributed over 6 per cent of the value of beef cattle sales in 2001-02 and



held an estimated 10 per cent of thenational beef herd at 30 June.

The pro file of corp o rate pro p e rt i e sc o m p a red with the largest 10 percent of specialist fa m i ly ow n e dspecialist beef pro p e rties (ra n ke da c c o rding to herd size) and theremainder of fa m i ly owned special-ist beef pro p e rties are presented intable 9.

The financial perfo rmance of corp o-rate pro p e rties on ave rage is betterthan fa m i ly owned pro p e rties (fig u re O). Rates of re t u rn to capital for corp o-rate owned specialist beef pro p e rties are consistently higher than rates ofre t u rn for the top 10 per cent of fa m i ly owned pro p e rties (ra n ked by herds i ze) and the remainder of specialist fa m i ly owned beef pro p e rties. This re s u l tis mainly attributable to the larger scale of operations on corporate proper-ties, wh i ch on ave rage over the three year period to 2000-01 carried four anda half times the number of beef cattle compared with the biggest 10 per centof fa m i ly owned fa rms, and 43 times the number of beef cattle compare dwith the remainder of family owned beef specialist properties. The proxim-ity of these larger pro p e rties to live ex p o rt markets has also contri buted tothe performance of corporate and larger pastoral properties in recent years.



live cattle

The live ex p o rt market sources cattle from both nort h e rn and southern cat t l ep roduction systems in Au s t ralia. Howeve r, the markets targeted by live cat t l eproducers vary among the states. Cattle from southern states have typicallybeen ex p o rted to north African markets and have been of bos tauru s b re e d s .In northern Australia, live cattle exports have principally been to south eastAsian countries and of bos indicus b reeds with a high Brahman content ow i n gto their ability to cope well with tropical conditions. Howeve r, a grow i n gacceptance of bos indicus cattle in north African markets and their suitabil-ity for transport by ship has resulted in enormous growth of this industry innorthern Australia.

A specialised industry has developed in northern Australia to supply cattlefor the live tra d e. Escalation of south east Asian demand for live feeder cat t l ein the early to mid-1990s influenced the breeding management systems ofm a ny nort h e rn Au s t ralian pro p e rties (ABARE 1999). Traditional bre e d i n gand fattening systems that typically turned off bullocks at around 4–5 yearsof age we re conve rted to enterp rises with a higher pro p o rtion of bre e d e rsand turning cattle off at a much younger 2–3 years of age.

By stat e, We s t e rn Au s t ralia ex p o rts the largest number of cat t l e, with 42 percent of the total volume ex p o rted in 2001 (up from 33 per cent in 2000). Th eN o rt h e rn Te rri t o ry reduced its volume to 30 per cent in 2001 from 33 percent in 2000. Queensland, the third most important state in terms of liveex p o rt volumes, also decreased its share of ex p o rts in 2001 to 20 per centfrom 26 per cent in 2000.

Markets for live cattleL ive cattle ex p o rts increased rap i d ly in the mid-1990s (fig u re P), encourage dby a growing Asian feedlot industry. The Australian live cattle export tradehas been dominated by south east Asia and north Africa with the large s tbu ye rs being Indonesia, the Philippines, Egypt and Malaysia (table 10). Other important markets include Israel, Jo rdan, Japan, Saudi Arabia andBrunei.

36

5



The economic dow n t u rn in seve ral south east Asian countries in 1998 dra m at-i c a l ly reduced live cattle demand from the region, especially from the large s tm a rket, Indonesia (fig u re Q). Some of the effects of the dow n t u rn in demandfrom south east Asia were offset by improved demand for live cattle in the


1 0 Australian exports of live cattle, by destination a

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

’000 ’000 ’000 ’000 ’000 ’000 ’000 ’000Slaughter cattleBrunei 9.0 7.6 5.8 6.5 7.6 16.8 19.1 19.9Egypt 0.0 15.5 52.2 37.5 119.6 240.5 207.6 203.2Indonesia 118.0 217.8 386.5 421.7 41.2 159.5 296.7 287.7Israel 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 8.7 8.7 15.8 32.6Japan 11.0 9.8 14.9 19.4 17.0 12.4 14.4 17.4Jordan 0.0 1.1 4.3 2.5 18.1 37.6 40.7 13.2Libya 2.7 0.0 10.0 105.3 120.7 23.1 0.0 0.0Malaysia 29.4 37.6 44.0 57.5 42.7 65.2 56.5 77.5Philippines 120.3 186.2 200.0 253.8 215.9 266.1 223.8 97.4Other 0.5 3.0 5.4 6.3 5.4 3.8 12.5 48.9

Total 290.9 478.7 724.1 910.5 597.0 833.7 887.0 797.9

Breeding cattle 10.3 38.2 17.0 35.2 24.1 10.6 9.0 24.6

Total live cattle 301.1 517.0 741.1 945.7 621.1 844.2 896.0 822.5

a Fresh, chilled or frozen, in shipped weight. b Regarded as twelve countries until January 1995, thenfifteen countries.Sources: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry – Australia, Export Statistics, LivestockExports, Canberra; ABS, International Trade, electronic data service, cat. no. 5464.0, Canberra.


north African and Middle Eastern markets and increased shipping capacity.M a rket re c ove ry in south east Asia in 1999 was led by Indonesia and thePhilippines. Howeve r, political and curre n cy instability over the past twoye a rs, combined with some consumer uncertainty over food safety concern sas a result of European incidences of BSE have thus far prevented live cat t l eex p o rts re t u rning fully to their pre-Asian economic dow n t u rn levels in thePhilippines.

AsiaHigh prices for Australian cattle and a devaluation of the Indonesian rupiarelative to the Australian dollar contributed to a 3 per cent fall in live cattleex p o rts to Indonesia (the largest ex p o rt destination for Au s t ralian live cat t l e )in 2001 when compared with the previous ye a r. Another issue that couldh ave affected demand for live cattle in Indonesia is the imposition by theIndonesian government of a 10 per cent value added tax.

H oweve r, with higher Au s t ralian cattle supplies and hence lower prices in2002, live ex p o rts to Indonesia have rebounded stro n g ly in 2002. Exports inApril 2002 rose by 4 per cent when compared with March and were almostdouble April 2001 exports to Indonesia.

In the Philippines, high Australian cattle prices and weak economic perfor-mance resulted in live cattle ex p o rts to the Philippines falling by 56 per centin 2001. High prices for imported beef and cattle have resulted in Philippinec o n s u m e rs substituting altern at ive protein sources, including pork, poultry



and bu ffalo meat, in place of beef. Another factor affecting Philippine demandfor live cattle and beef in the first half of 2001 was a consumer backlash asa result of publicity surrounding BSE in Europe. However, as is the case inIndonesia, exports in 2002 have improved, rising by 34 per cent in the fourmonths to Ap ril when compared with the same period in 2001. Exports inApril alone have quadrupled to around 12 000 when compared to the 3000exported to the Philippines in April 2001.

E x p o rts to Malaysia remained strong throughout 2001, rising by 37 per centto 77 500. In the calendar year to April 2002, exports had risen a further 4per cent on the same four months of 2001.

North Africa and Middle EastE gypt was the second largest ex p o rt destination for Au s t ralian live cattle lastye a r, close behind Indonesia and accounting for about a quarter of total ship-ments. Howeve r, ex p o rts of feeder and slaughter cattle to Egypt fell by 2 percent in 2001 to around 203 000. While bans on imported beef and cattle fro mthe European Union, stemming from BSE concerns, resulted in higher ex p o rt sto Egypt in the fi rst half of 2001, weak economic perfo rmance and theresumption of subsidised EU imports later in the year affected demand forAu s t ralian cat t l e. Prior to the BSE cases, Ireland was a major supplier ofbeef to Egypt.

In Egypt, reduced economic growth and a we a ker Egyptian pound haveresulted in lower demand for Australian live cattle in 2002. Exports of livec attle to Egypt we re 68 per cent lower in the four months to Ap ril compare dwith the corresponding period a year earl i e r, with no shipments to Egy p tduring the month of April.

Northern live cattle industryThis nort h e rn live cattle industry of Au s t ralia — cove ring the Nort h e rnTe rri t o ry, the nort h e rn and we s t e rn regions of Queensland and the Kimberl eyand Pilbara regions of Western Australia — supplies 75–80 per cent of thel ive cattle tra d e. The pro p o rtion of pro p e rties in these regions ex p o rting livec attle remained at around 29 per cent in 2000-01, compared with only 22per cent two ye a rs earl i e r, re flecting the large increases in cattle nu m b e rsrequired to supply the recovering trade after the 1998 collapse in exports toAsia (table 11).



For nort h e rn pro p e rties part i c i p ating in the live tra d e, the ave rage nu m b e rof live cattle sales declined by 10 per cent in 2000-01, averaging 244 cattleper property (table 11). Despite this fall, the number of live cattle sales perproperty averaged 37 per cent higher than two years earlier, with the valueof those sales 78 per cent higher than in 1998-99.


1 1 Selected physical and financial estimates, Australia’s major liveexport regions a Average per property with more than 50 beef cattle

1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 p

Area operated, 30 June ha 107 650 (7) 97 612 (9) 110 635 (10)Beef cattle, 30 June no. 3 145 (9) 3 133 (10) 3 414 (8)Turnoff rate % 30 (11) 33 (13) 30 (7)Share of females in herd % 57 (4) 59 (3) 57 (2)

Number sold– live export no. 178 (27) 270 (26) 244 (18)– other no. 479 (12) 440 (15) 585 (17)

Proportion of propertiesexporting cattle % 22 (31) 29 (23) 29 (17)

Gross receipts per head– live export $/hd 382 (4) 460 (3) 496 (3)– other $/hd 406 (8) 461 (6) 569 (5)

ReceiptsLive cattle sales $ 67 997 (29) 124 290 (26) 121 123 (17)Other beef cattle sales $ 194 307 (14) 202 905 (15) 333 007 (15)Beef cattle total $ 262 305 (13) 327 195 (13) 454 129 (12)Total cash receipts $ 436 392 (11) 495 139 (11) 611 038 (10)

ExpensesTotal cash costs $ 325 314 (11) 389 021 (15) 363 844 (9)

Indicators of financial performanceFarm cash income $ 111 078 (19) 106 118 (27) 247 194 (15)plus buildup in trading stocks $ 22 080(102) 48 316 (55) 57 482 (80)less depreciation $ 39 027 (18) 34 980 (10) 39 435 (8)less imputed family labor cost $ 50 326 (9) 44 064 (5) 51 912 (8)Farm business profit $ 43 804 (47) 75 390 (31) 213 329 (15)

Profit at full equity excl ca $ 75 407 (30) 105 604 (23) 246 764 (13)Closing capital $ 2 828 578 (11) 3 184 339 (6) 4 187 379 (6)Rate of return excl ca % 2.6 (32) 3.5 (22) 6.8 (12)

a Includes ABARE regions 311, 313, 332, 711, 712, 713, 714, 511, 512 and northern parts of region312. ca Capital appreciation is the estimated increase or decrease in the value of capital items duringthe financial year. na Not available. ns Not supplied.Note: Figures in parentheses are relative standard errors. A guide to interpreting these measures ofsample variation is included in appendix A.


Total beef cattle sales for properties in these major live export regions aver-aged $454 000 per pro p e rty in 2000-01, a rise of 39 per cent. The decline inl ive cattle sales was more than offset by the number of other cattle turn e doff (figure R). Consequently, receipts from cattle turned off for the slaugh-ter or store cattle trade rose by 64 per cent in 2000-01, compared with adecline of around 3 per cent in average receipts for cattle turned off for thel ive tra d e. Returns for other cattle we re more at t ra c t ive than live cattle re t u rn sin 2000-01, with producers receiving a 23 per cent rise in gross receipts perhead for these cattle and grossing more than $70 per head more than theyre c e ived for live cattle ex p o rts. In comparison, there was no diffe re n t i a lb e t ween live cattle re t u rns and re t u rns for other cattle in 1999-2000, withgross receipts per head for both averaging around $460.



beef cattle turnoff methods

P ro d u c e rs use diffe rent methods to market their beef cattle in response toch a n ging markets and other fa c t o rs. To monitor these ch a n ges, ABA R Ecollects data each year on pro d u c e rs’ methods of turning off beef cat t l e.S u rvey results for period 1995-96 to 2000-01 are summarised here at then ational and state levels, and any significant ch a n ges from previous ye a rsare identified.

Turnoff methods, AustraliaSale by auction remains the most common method used to sell beef cattle inAu s t ralia. Genera l ly, cattle for auction are sold on a dollars per head or centsper kilogram liveweight basis. ‘Over the hooks’ is the next most commonmethod of sale, fo l l owed by padd o ck sales and ‘over the scales’ sales to amuch lesser extent (figure T).

In ge n e ral auction sales have retained a re l at ive ly large pro p o rtion of totalbeef cattle turn o ff per pro p e rty (table 12) because a wide va riety of live s t o ckcan be sold by this method (for ex a m p l e, stud and store stock as well asslaughter cattle).

Th e re are significant diffe rences in the turn o ff methods used by top andbottom performing specialist beef producers when they are ranked accord-ing to their rates of re t u rns over the three ye a rs 1998-99 to 2000-01 (tabl e13). Top perfo rming beef specialists had a mu ch higher use of over the hookssales than the bottom 25 per cent of farms. The use of the auction system toturnoff beef cattle was favoured by almost half of the bottom 25 per cent ofspecialist beef producers.

Turnoff methods, by stateThe use of diffe rent selling methods over the period 1995-96 to 2000-01, bys t at e, for bro a d a c re pro p e rties with more than 50 beef cat t l e, is shown infigure T and tables 12 and 13.

42

6



N ew South Wales and Vi c t o ria, both with a large number of small beefp ro d u c e rs had the gre atest pro p o rtion of cattle sold by auction in 2000-01— an ave rage 66 per cent of all cattle turned off in New South Wales and 78per cent in Vi c t o ria. Auction sales have also been the dominant fo rm of beefc attle turn o ff in South Au s t ralia in recent ye a rs, with 53 per cent of beefcattle sold by this method in 2000-01.

The pro p o rtion of auction sales has increased marke d ly in Queensland inrecent ye a rs, from 23 per cent in 1998-99 to 39 per cent in 2000-01. Th eproportion of paddock sales in Queensland over the same period more thandoubled to 15 per cent in 2000-01 whereas the level of over the hooks salesd ra m at i c a l ly decreased from 52 per cent in 1998-99 to 35 per cent in 2000-01.

We s t e rn Au s t ralia and the Nort h e rn Te rri t o ry had the largest pro p o rtion ofc attle sold over the scales (ex cluding auction) in 2000-01. Wh e reas thep ro p o rtion of beef cattle sold through the auction system has declined inWe s t e rn Au s t ralia and the Nort h e rn Te rri t o ry since 1998-99, the shift hasbeen accompanied by increased over the scales sales (ex cluding auctionsales) in Western Australia (19 per cent in 1998-99 to 34 per cent in 2000-01) and the Nort h e rn Te rri t o ry (26 per cent in 1998-99 to 42 per cent in 2000-01).


1 3 Beef cattle turnoff methods, 1998-99 to 2000-01 aTop and bottom specialist producers Average per farm

Bottom 25 % Top 25 %

Beef cattle 30 June no. 259 (14) 1 839 (4)Number turned on no. 30 (24) 129 (16)Number turned off no. 125 (11) 611 (4)

Turnoff rate % 46 (10) 34 (3)

Share of total turnoffPaddock sales % 15 (27) 11 (17)Over the hooks sales % 18 (18) 37 (8)Auction sales % 45 (10) 33 (9)Over scales (excl auction) % 8 (60) 8 (26)Other sale methods % 8 (59) 8 (25)Transfers off farm % 13 (21) 10 (22)

a Top and bottom are the average for the top and bottom 25 per cent of farms ranked by rate of return.Note: Figures in parentheses are relative standard errors. A guide to interpreting these measures ofsample variation is included in appendix A, as are explanations of other items.


Long term trendsC h a n ges in the re l at ive importance of diffe rent selling methods have occurre dwith ch a n ges in the stru c t u re of beef cattle production in Au s t ralia and inresponse to ch a n ging markets. The pro p o rtion of beef cattle sold per fa rmt h rough the auction system has declined over the long term — dropping fro mup to 63 per cent in the mid-1980s to as low as 43 per cent in 1998-99 (fig u reU). However, the proportion of sales made through auction increased againafter 1998-99 and reached 49 per cent in 2000-01. The recent increase mayhave reflected a temporary shift by producers, especially in Queensland, tot u rning off cattle using the auction system during a period of higher beefcattle prices.

In contrast, the pro p o rtion of over the hooks sales increased from a low of12 per cent in 1986-87 to an historical high of 33 per cent in 1998-99. Overthe hooks sales declined to 25 per cent in 2000-01 (fig u re V) as pro d u c e rssw i t ch ed to using padd o ck sales and the auction system to turn o ff beefc at tle.

O ver the longer term, ch a n ges in the distri bution of pro p e rty sizes and thed i s t ri bution of the beef herd across beef production regions are like ly to havehad a significant effect on survey estimates of cattle selling methods. Large rp ro d u c e rs are more like ly to sell over the hooks or over the scales livewe i g h t .Smaller producers who are largely found in the higher rainfall areas of thes o u t h e rn states are mu ch more like ly to use the traditional auction system asopposed to other selling methods.



D i rect methods of sale such as over the hooks selling can provide pro d u c-ers with more information on the carcass quality of cattle they produce andreduce carcass damage caused by additional handling required for saleyardauction sales.

Whereas the use of the auction system to sell beef cattle has declined in thelong term across the pastoral, northern high rainfall and southern high rain-fall beef zones, the trend for selling beef cattle using other selling methodsincluding over the hooks differs considerably between these beef zones.

The increase in the use of over the hooks selling methods has been mostm a rked in the nort h e rn high ra i n fa l l / wh e at – s h e ep zone (pre d o m i n a n t lyQueensland) increasing from 20 per cent of total turn o ff in 1984-85 to aro u n d



50 per cent in recent years (figure W). In the southern high rainfall zone thei n c rease in the use of ‘over the hooks’ to sell beef cattle (5 year moving ave r-age) has been more gradual.

In 2000-01, over the hooks, over the scales, auction and other sale methodse a ch contri buted to ap p rox i m at e ly 20 per cent of beef cattle turn o ff in thep a s t o ral zo n e. Howeve r, beef cattle turn o ff methods have ch a n ged consid-e rably in the past two decades in the pastoral zone of Au s t ralia, wh e re thelargest beef properties are located.

The use of over the hooks sales has va ried considerably over time and hasdeclined by around half since 1993-94 (figure W). This has been accompa-nied by significant increases in the use of over the scales and other sale meth-ods in the pastoral zone, from less than 10 per cent of total turnoff each in1993-94 to 22 per cent of total turn o ff each in 2000-01 (fi g u re X). Th e s etrends accompany development of the live cattle trade in northern Australiad u ring the 1990s. Live ex p o rt cattle are large ly turned off over the scales anda re mainly sourced from the larger pastoral zone beef pro p e rties in nort h e rnAustralia.

In addition, transfers of beef cattle off-farm to other pastoral holdings or tofeedlots for fattening has increased significantly in the pastoral zone, froma round 10 per cent of total turn o ff in the late 1980s to over 30 per cent ofturnoff in 1999-2000.



pasture and livestock management

In 2000-01, ABARE undertook for Meat and Live s t o ck Au s t ralia a surveyof pasture and live s t o ck management practices used by sheep and beefproducers. In this section, results are reported for producers with more than50 beef cattle. Respondents were then further classified into specialist beefp ro d u c e rs and nonspecialist beef pro d u c e rs. In total, 682 beef pro d u c e rs we res u rveyed to rep resent around 45 000 beef fa rms. Of these, 284 fa rms (rep re-senting a population of 20 300) we re identified as specialist beef pro d u c e rs .Au s t ra l i awide tables are presented in this ch ap t e r, with tables for the indi-vidual states presented in appendix C

Pasture on beef farmsO ver 92 per cent of the ave rage beef pro d u c e r ’s fa rm area is devoted to pasturep roduction systems. Among specialist beef pro d u c e rs, nat ive pastures occu-pied 92 per cent of the grazing area, with sown pastures contri buting a furt h e r7 per cent (table 14). Sown pasture occupied a mu ch higher pro p o rtion oftotal grazing area in southern Au s t ralia, re flecting the more cl i m at i c a l lyfavo red areas. In South Au s t ralia, for ex a m p l e, more than 80 per cent of gra z-ing area was under sown pasture species (appendix C).

A round a third of pro d u c e rs had no clear goals for the quality or quantity ofpasture they produce and only 9 per cent of producers have developed anddocumented goals. Of the farms with goals to improve pasture quality, onlya round 20 per cent of beef pro d u c e rs ex t e n s ive ly monitor their progre s stoward achieving those goals (table 14).

Environmental issuesAt the national level, pro blems with soil erosion, dryland salinity and soilacidity on beef producing farms were reported to have changed little in thep e riod 1999-2000 to 2000-01. Around 38 per cent of beef pro d u c e rs rep o rt e dt h at soil erosion was not an issue on their pro p e rt y, 57 per cent rep o rted thatsalinity was not an issue on their pro p e rty and 40 per cent that soil aciditywas not an issue for their property (table 15).

53

7



Controlling weeds in pastures was an issue for 95 per cent of beef produc-e rs surveye d. Over the past two ye a rs, weed pro blems in pastures we rerep o rted to have increased most on fa rms in Tasmania (40 per cent rep o rt-ing increased weeds) and least in Queensland (14 per cent rep o rting incre a s e dweeds).


1 4 Land use in 2000-01, by livestock classification aAverage per farm

Specialist Nonspecialist All beefbeef producers beef producers producers

Total area operated ha 7 822 (19) 5 243 (9) 6 456 (12)

Total grazing area at 30 June– under crop or fallow

about to be sown ha 32 (26) 291 (10) 169 (9)– sown to mix of perennial

and annual pastures ha 166 (17) 272 (9) 222 (9)– sown to perennial pastures ha 277 (21) 117 (14) 192 (15)– sown to annual pastures ha 49 (32) 75 (24) 62 (19)– native pasture ha 6 378 (22) 4 399 (10) 5 330 (13)– total ha 6 901 (20) 5 155 (9) 5 976 (12)

Change in the density of perennial pasture species in sown and native pastures in the past two years– large decrease % 2 (83) 2 (44) 2 (48)– some decrease % 15 (28) 13 (19) 14 (17)– no change % 56 (11) 58 (7) 57 (6)– some increase % 20 (23) 18 (17) 19 (14)– large increase % 4 (62) 5 (33) 5 (33)– not an issue % 2 (55) 5 (26) 3 (25)

Description of goals for quality and quantity of pasture production– no clear goals % 31 (19) 32 (12) 32 (11)– developed or partly developed % 61 (9) 58 (7) 59 (6)– developed and documented or

partly documented % 8 (44) 10 (18) 9 (21)

Extent to which progress to achieving goals is objectively measured a– not at all % 13 (33) 25 (13) 20 (14)– to some extent % 66 (10) 53 (7) 59 (6)– to a large extent % 20 (25) 22 (11) 21 (13)

a Only includes farms with goals for quality and quantity of pasture production.Note: Figures in parentheses are relative standard errors. A guide to interpreting these measures ofsample variation is included in appendix A, as are explanations of other items.


Beef management practicesA round 30 per cent of beef pro d u c e rs said that they had no clear goals toi m p rove the rep ro d u c t ive perfo rmance of their herd or to better meet marke ts p e c i fic ations for selling live s t o ck (table 16). Less than 20 per cent of pro d u c-


1 5 Change in environmental issues in the two years to 2000-01, by livestock classification Average per farm

Specialist Nonspecialist Allbeef producers beef producers beef producers

% % %Weeds in pasture– large decrease 4 (78) 2 (47) 3 (50)– some decrease 19 (24) 16 (16) 17 (15)– no change 46 (9) 52 (7) 49 (6)– some increase 24 (20) 20 (15) 22 (13)– large increase 2 (44) 6 (35) 4 (28)– not an issue 5 (58) 5 (29) 5 (32)

Soil erosion– large decrease 1 (96) 1 (71) 1 (58)– some decrease 8 (40) 7 (27) 8 (24)– no change 56 (10) 44 (9) 50 (7)– some increase 3 (54) 4 (42) 4 (33)– large increase 0 (0) 1 (83) 0 (83)– not an issue 33 (15) 43 (10) 38 (9)

Dryland salinity– large decrease 1 (113) 0 (0) 0 (113)– some decrease 1 (72) 5 (34) 3 (31)– no change 46 (10) 30 (10) 37 (7)– some increase 1 (97) 4 (32) 2 (32)– large increase 0 (154) 1 (118) 0 (117)– not an issue 52 (9) 61 (5) 57 (5)

Soil acidity– large decrease 2 (76) 0 (96) 1 (72)– some decrease 7 (42) 5 (19) 6 (24)– no change 50 (11) 45 (9) 47 (7)– some increase 4 (80) 8 (26) 6 (30)– large increase 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)– not an issue 38 (11) 42 (9) 40 (7)

Note: Figures in parentheses are relative standard errors. A guide to interpreting these measures ofsample variation is included in appendix A, as are explanations of other items.


e rs have developed and documented goals to improve the rep ro d u c t ive perfo r-mance of their flock and to meet market specification when selling the live-s t o ck. Howeve r, of the fa rms that had developed and (part i a l ly or fully )


1 6 Beef management practices in 2000-01, by livestock classificationAverage per farm


% % %Goals for reproductive rates– no clear goals 29 (17) 29 (14) 29 (11)– developed or partly developed 47 (9) 50 (9) 49 (6)– developed and documented or

partly documented 19 (22) 18 (14) 18 (13)– not applicable 5 (57) 3 (51) 4 (40)

Objective measurement undertaken of reproductive rate goals a– not at all 6 (44) 7 (29) 7 (25)– to some extent 61 (8) 62 (5) 62 (5)– to a large extent 33 (14) 30 (10) 32 (8)

Goals for market specifications– no clear goals 25 (17) 35 (11) 30 (10)– developed or partly developed 62 (8) 49 (9) 55 (6)– developed and documented or


Objective measurement undertaken of market specifications goals a– not at all 8 (33) 8 (31) 8 (23)– to some extent 66 (7) 62 (6) 64 (5)– to a large extent 26 (16) 30 (13) 28 (10)

Goals for liveweight at specific ages– no clear goals 38 (11) 41 (10) 39 (7)– developed or partly developed 49 (10) 44 (10) 46 (7)– developed and documented or


Objective measurement undertaken of achieving the liveweight at specific ages goals a– not at all 14 (29) 11 (25) 12 (20)– to some extent 51 (11) 58 (10) 55 (7)– to a large extent 35 (14) 32 (18) 33 (12)

a Only includes farms with reproductive, market or liveweight goals.Note: Figures in parentheses are relative standard errors. A guide to interpreting these measures ofsample variation is included in appendix A, as are explanations of other items.


documented goals, around 90 per cent rep o rted that they objective ly measuretheir achievement or progress toward these goals to some extent (table 16).

A round 20 per cent of pro d u c e rs had developed or part i a l ly developed go a l sfor live weight at specific ages and carry out objective measurement towardachievement of these goals (table 16).

Not surp ri s i n g ly, the beef cattle production systems of specialist beef pro d u c-e rs are focused on the production of beef cattle for slaughter. Over 80 percent of specialist beef pro d u c e rs raise beef cattle for slaughter compare dwith 71 per cent of nonspecialist beef producers (table 17). For nonspecial-ist beef pro d u c e rs, the production focus is more dive rs e, with the pro d u c t i o nof store stock also important.

The majority of producers rely solely on pastures to finish their beef cattlefor slaughter, with around a quarter of pro d u c e rs also using supplements.Fo dder crops are used to finish slaughter stock by around 7 per cent of fa rm sand by almost 25 per cent of producers in Queensland (appendix C).


1 7 Beef management practices in 2000-01, by livestock classificationAverage per farm


% % %Main beef cattle production system– live export cattle producers 3 (35) 3 (37) 3 (25)– stock for breeding 3 (43) 3 (37) 3 (28)– store cattle producer 13 (32) 23 (12) 18 (13)– slaughter cattle producer 81 (5) 71 (4) 76 (3)

Main method of finishing cattle for slaughter a– pasture 67 (10) 68 (6) 67 (6)– pasture plus supplements 16 (29) 14 (24) 15 (19)– fodder crops plus supplements 5 (44) 6 (41) 5 (30)– fodder crops 7 (57) 6 (31) 6 (33)– feedlotting 6 (51) 5 (24) 5 (29)– other 0 (0) 1 (79) 1 (79)

a Only includes farms that mainly sold cattle for slaughter.Note: Figures in parentheses are relative standard errors. A guide to interpreting these measures ofsample variation is included in appendix A, as are explanations of other items.


Impediments to the adoption of new practicesThe cost of implementing new practices was given by 74 per cent of pro d u c-e rs as a limiting factor to the adoption of new practices (table 18). Other


1 8 Factors limiting the implementation of new practices in 2000-01, by livestock classification Percentage of farms


% % %Skills and knowledge to implement improved practices– not at all 64 (10) 56 (6) 60 (6)– to some extent 35 (18) 38 (10) 36 (10)– to a large extent 2 (60) 6 (39) 4 (33)

Reducing the risk associated with new practices– not at all 51 (9) 47 (9) 49 (6)– to some extent 41 (12) 45 (8) 43 (7)– to a large extent 9 (37) 8 (32) 9 (25)

Time to try new practices– not at all 38 (13) 35 (10) 36 (8)– to some extent 39 (14) 44 (10) 42 (8)– to a large extent 23 (18) 21 (17) 22 (12)

Time to learn about new practices– not at all 36 (13) 35 (10) 35 (8)– to some extent 38 (13) 45 (9) 42 (8)– to a large extent 26 (15) 21 (18) 23 (12)

Cost of implementing new practices– not at all 29 (14) 23 (14) 26 (10)– to some extent 39 (16) 42 (10) 40 (9)– to a large extent 32 (18) 35 (11) 34 (10)

Uncertainty of the result of the new practices– not at all 37 (12) 44 (9) 41 (7)– to some extent 37 (15) 38 (10) 38 (9)– to a large extent 26 (19) 18 (19) 22 (13)

Development of a vision for change– not at all 58 (11) 65 (6) 62 (6)– to some extent 34 (18) 23 (14) 28 (12)– to a large extent 9 (38) 12 (26) 11 (22)



i m p o rtant impediments we re the lack of time to try new practices (65 percent of pro d u c e rs), the time to learn about the new practices (64 per cent)and the uncertainty over the like ly outcome of any ch a n ges made (59 percent). Developing a vision for ch a n ge and possession of the skills needed toimplement ch a n ge we re not considered to be significant impediments tochange by the majority (over 60 per cent) of producers (table 18).

Use of formal trainingOn ave rage, beef pro d u c e rs spent around 4.5 days attending fo rmal tra i n i n gin 2000-01, with the main emphasis being on improving business manage-


1 9 Number of days spent on formal training in 2000-01, by livestockclassification Average per farm

Specialist beef producers

Bottom 25% a Average Top 25% a

Business management skills 0.6 (33) 1.3 (23) 2.0 (37)Staff management 0.0 (240) 0.0 (63) 0.1 (80)Computer skills 0.2 (70) 1.2 (52) 2.1 (70)Technical farm management 0.1 (63) 0.6 (28) 0.6 (30)Other 0.0 (0) 0.3 (113) 0.3 (72)

Nonspecialist beef producers



All beef producers



a Ranked by rate of return.Note: Figures in parentheses are relative standard errors. A guide to interpreting these measures ofsample variation is included in appendix A, as are explanations of other items.


ment skills and computer skills (table 19). Nonspecialist beef pro d u c e rsi nvested around 60 per cent more time on fo rmal tra i n i n g, with pro d u c e rson ave rage spending 5.3 days on fo rmal courses compared with 3.4 days fo rspecialist producers during 2000-01 (table 19).

Better perfo rming fa rms devoted substantially more time to fo rmal tra i n i n g.The top 25 per cent of farms, ranked on the basis of the rate of return of thefa rm business, undertook an ave rage of 7 days training per fa rm in 2000-01,c o m p a red with 2.7 days for the bottom 25 per cent of fa rms. In all stat e s ,little time was devoted to courses aimed at improving staff management skillsby beef producers. The most marked contrast was between top and bottomperforming specialist beef producers who spent 5 days and less than 1 dayin formal training, respectively, in 2000-01.



ABARE farm survey methods anddefinitions

ABARE farm surveysFarm surveys conducted by ABARE have been a prime source of physicaland financial info rm ation for the Au s t ralian fa rm sector for the past fo rt yye a rs. This info rm ation has been collected through close cooperation, ino p e rational and financial terms, between ABARE and key re s e a rch and deve l-opment funding orga n i s ations. It has been used to undert a ke economicresearch into industry and government policy areas.

S u rveys undert a ken for 2000-01 included the Au s t ralian agri c u l t u ral andgrazing industries survey, wh i ch cove rs mu ch of the bro a d a c re sector of agri-c u l t u re and fo rms the basis for mu ch of the data presented in this rep o rt .A BA R E ’s annual surveys of Au s t ralian bro a d a c re industries provide a uniquedatabase that integrates detailed financial and physical information for justover 70 per cent of Australian farm business units.

B e t ween June and Nove m b e r, ABARE survey offic e rs visit sample fa rm s .These offic e rs interv i ew fa rm e rs to obtain physical and financial details ofthe farm business for the latest financial year ended 30 June. Further infor-m ation is subsequently obtained from accountants, selling agents and marke t-ing organisations on the signed authority of responding farmers.

I n fo rm ation is collected on production, share fa rm i n g, live s t o ck, cro p p i n g,i rri gation, fe rt i l i s e r, land tenu re, lab o r, costs, re t u rns, debts and capital inve n-t o ry. Considerable effo rt is made to reconcile the info rm ation obtained fro mthe va rious sources to produce an accurate description of the physical andfinancial characteristics of each sample farm in the survey. Respondents tothe surveys are also contacted by telephone in October each year to obtaine s t i m ates of production and expected receipts and costs for the current fin a n-cial year. ABARE used the responses received in October 2001 to calculateestimates for 2001-02.

61

A


appendix


Target populationsA BARE survey designs and samples are based on data drawn from theBusiness Register maintained by the Au s t ralian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).These data include info rm ation on agri c u l t u ral establishments in each stat i s-tical local area classified by size and industry.

The estimates published in this rep o rt cover establishments with an estimat e dvalue of agri c u l t u ral operations of $22 500 or more. As the most commontype of specialist beef properties are small semicommercial or subcommer-cial pro d u c e rs, a large pro p o rtion of pro p e rties have an estimated value ofagri c u l t u ral production of around the $22 500 thre s h o l d. The Au s t ra l i a nB u reau of Statistics derives the EVAO of each fa rm as the sum of the va l u e sof each livestock and cropping activity on the farm, calculated by multiply-ing the number of animals on the fa rm plus those disposed of during the ye a rand the area and production of crops by three-year weighted average pricesassociated with each activity. Hence small changes in beef prices, or smallch a n ges in the decisions of small pro d u c e rs can have a re l at ive ly large impacton the number of fa rms with an EVAO of more than $22 500. Over the peri o dc ove red by this rep o rt the thre e - year moving ave rage saleya rd indicator beefp rice ro s e, and so the number of pro p e rties cl a s s i fied as specialist beef pro d u c-ers increased.

Enterprise changes and movement in industry classificationFa rms cl a s s i fied to a particular industry in one year do not necessari ly main-tain that classification in the following year. Changes in industry classifica-tion occur as a result of changes in commodity prices and enterprise mix. Ifthe price of output from one industry rises, for ex a m p l e, re l at ive ly more fa rm sa re like ly to be cl a s s i fied as being in that industry. Similarly, in ye a rs of highp roduction and/or prices, more fa rms are like ly to exceed the EVAO thre s h-o l d. Fa rm amalga m ations and part ow n e rship ch a n ges can also lead to indus-try changes and changes in EVAO.

A n a lysis of data on–fa rm nu m b e rs and EVAO over the past few ye a rs hasshown a considerable degree of mobility between the broadacre industries,p a rt i c u l a rly between the wh e at and other crops and mixed live s t o ck – c ro p si n d u s t ries, the beef and sheep–beef industries, the sheep and sheep – b e e findustries, and between the sheep and mixed livestock–crops industries.



Reliability of estimatesOnly a small number of farms out of the total number of farms in a particu-lar industry are used to produce the survey estimates. In 2000-01, 458 special-ist beef fa rms and 462 nonspecialist fa rms we re surveye d. The diffe re n c e sbetween these estimates and the estimates that would have been obtained ifi n fo rm ation had been collected from all fa rms are called sampling erro rs .The more fa rms in the sample, the lower the like ly sampling erro r. Th u s ,regional estimates are like ly to have gre ater sampling erro rs than those ofs t ate estimates, and state estimates are like ly to have gre ater sampling erro rsthan those of national estimates. To indicate the re l i ability of the survey esti-m ates, sampling erro rs have been calculat e d. These ‘re l at ive standard erro rs ’ ,ex p ressed as perc e n t ages of the survey estimates, are given next to each esti-mate in parentheses.

Nonsampling errorsThe values obtained in a survey are affected by erro rs other than those dire c t lyre l ating to the sampling pro c e d u re. For ex a m p l e, it may not be possible tocontact certain types of fa rms, the respondent may provide inaccurate info r-m ation, or the respondent may differ from nonrespondents in a va ri able beings u rveye d. ABA R E ’s ex p e rience in conducting surveys of ru ral industries hasresulted in pro c e d u re designs aimed at minimising nonsampling erro rs .However, users of survey data should bear in mind that both sampling andnonsampling errors do occur.

Sample weightingThe estimates in this rep o rt are calculated by ap p ro p ri at e ly weighting thed ata collected from each sample fa rm, then using these weighted data toc a l c u l ate population estimates. Sample weights are calculated so sample esti-m ates of the nu m b e rs of fa rms in va rious ge ographic regions and industri e s ,as well as outputs at these levels, correspond as cl o s e ly as possible to know ndata from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and elsewhere.

Because output level and mix va ry from fa rm to fa rm, sample weights diffe rfrom farm to farm. Typically, larger farms have smaller weights, reflectingthe strategy of sampling a higher fraction of the larger farms than of smallfa rms (the fo rmer having a wider ra n ge of ch a ra c t e ristics and accounting fo ra much larger proportion of total output).



definitions

Owner The primary decision maker for the farm business. Thismanager person has some share in the farm business and is iden-

t i fied by discussion between interv i ewer and interv i ewe eas (one of) the key decision maker(s) in the fa rm bu s i-ness. This person is usually re s p o n s i ble for the day today operation of the farm. Previously termed ‘operator’or ‘cooperator’ in ABARE publications.

Physical itemsBeef cattle C attle kept pri m a ri ly for the production of meat, irre-

spective of breed.

Hired labor E x cludes the fa rm business manage r, part n e rs and fa m i lylabor, and work undertaken by contractors. Expenditureon contract services appears as a cash cost.

Labor M e a s u red in wo rk - weeks, as estimated by the operat o ror manage r. It includes all wo rk on the fa rm by the oper-at o r, part n e rs, fa m i ly, hired permanent and casual wo rk-e rs, and share fa rm e rs but ex cludes wo rk done bycontractors.

Total I n cludes all land operated by the fa rm business, wh e t h e rfarm area owned or rented by the business. Land share fa rmed on

another farm is excluded.

Financial itemsCapital The value of fa rm capital is the value of all the assets

used on a fa rm, including the value of leased items bu tex cluding mach i n e ry and equipment either hired or usedby contra c t o rs. The value of ‘owned’ capital is the va l u eof farm capital excluding the value of leased machineryand equipment.



A BARE uses fa rmer va l u ations of sample pro p e rties. Th evaluation includes the value of land and fixed improve-ments used by each farm business in the survey, exclud-ing land share fa rmed off the sample fa rm. Residences onthe farm are included in the valuations.

L ive s t o ck are valued at estimated market prices for theland use zones within each stat e. These values are basedon re c o rded sales and purchases by sample fa rms and oni n fo rm ation from state dep a rtments re s p o n s i ble for agri-culture.

ABARE maintains an inventory of plant and machineryfor each sample fa rm. Individual items are valued atreplacement cost, dep re c i ated for age. Each ye a r, thereplacement cost is indexed to allow for changes in thatcost. The total value of items purchased or sold duri n gthe survey year is added to or subtracted from fa rm cap i-tal at 31 December of the re l evant financial ye a r, irre-spective of the actual date of purchase or sale.

Debt and D ebt info rm ation is collected at the survey interv i ew,assets supplemented by info rm ation contained in the fa rm

accounts.

Change The estimated diffe rence between debt at 1 Ju ly andin debt the following 30 June within the one survey year, rather

than between debt at 30 June in consecutive years. It isan estimate of the ch a n ge in indebtedness of a give np o p u l ation of fa rms during the financial ye a r, so is unaf-fected by ch a n ges in sample or population between ye a rs .

Farm liquid Assets owned by the fa rm business that can re a d i lyassets be conve rted to cash. Th ey include savings bank dep o s i t s ,

i n t e rest bearing deposits, deb e n t u res and shares. Th eyexclude items such as real estate, life assurance policiesand other farms or businesses.

Receipts and Receipts for live s t o ck and live s t o ck products sold arecosts d e t e rmined at the point of sale. Selling ch a rges and

charges for transport to the point of sale are included inthe costs of sample farms.



Receipts for crops sold during the survey year are grossof deductions made by marketing authorities for freightand selling ch a rges. These deductions are included infa rm costs. Crop receipts include amounts re c e ived in thes u rvey year for crops harvested and delive red in prev i-ous ye a rs. Receipts for other fa rm products are deter-mined on a ‘farmgate’ basis.

Fa rm receipts and costs re l ate to the whole area operat e d,i n cluding areas operated by on-fa rm share fa rm e rs. Th u s ,cash receipts include receipts from the sale of pro d u c t sp roduced by share fa rm e rs. On-fa rm share fa rm e rs’ costsa re amalga m ated with those of the sample fa rm wh e rep o s s i ble; otherwise, the total sum paid to share fa rm e rsis treated as a cash cost.

Some sample fa rm businesses engage in off - fa rmcontracting or sharefarming, employing labor and capi-tal equipment also used in normal on-fa rm activ i t i e s .Since it is not possible to make an accurate allocation ofcosts between off - fa rm and on-fa rm operations, theincome and ex p e n d i t u re at t ri bu t able to such off - fa rmo p e rations are included in the receipts and costs of thesample farm business.

Total Payments made by the fa rm business for mat e rials andcash costs s e rvices and for permanent and casual hired lab o r

( ex cluding owner manage r, partner and other fa m i lyl abor). It includes the value of live s t o ck tra n s fe rs ontothe pro p e rty as well as any lease payments on cap i t a l ,p roduce purchased for re s a l e, rent, interest, live s t o ckp u rchases and payments to share fa rm e rs. Capital andhousehold ex p e n d i t u res are ex cluded from total cashcosts.

• Handling and marketing expenses include commis-sion, yard dues, levies etc for farm produce sold.

• A d m i n i s t ration costs include accountancy fees, bank-ing and legal expenses, postage, stat i o n e ry, subscri p-tions and telephone.



• C o n t racts paid re fe rs to ex p e n d i t u re on contracts suchas harve s t i n g, etc. Capital and land deve l o p m e n tcontracts are not included.

• Other cash costs include stores and rations, seedp u rch a s e d, electri c i t y, art i ficial insemination and herdtesting fees, adv i s o ry services, motor ve h i cl eexpenses, traveling expenses and insura n c e. Wh i l e‘other cash costs’ comprise a re l at ive ly large pro p o r-tion of total cash costs, individually the componentsa re re l at ive ly small ove rall, and as such, have not beenlisted.

Total Total of reve nues re c e ived by the fa rm business duri n gcash receipts the financial ye a r, including reve nues from the sale of

l ive s t o ck, live s t o ck products and crops, plus the value ofl ive s t o ck tra n s fe rs off a pro p e rt y. It includes reve nu ere c e ived from agistment, royalties, reb ates, refunds, planth i re, contracts, share fa rm i n g, insurance claims andcompensation, and government assistance payments.

Financial performance measuresBuildup in The imputed value of all ch a n ges in the inve n t o ries oftrading t rading stocks during the financial ye a r. It includes thestocks value of any change in herd or flock size or in stocks of

wool, fruit and grains held on the fa rm. It is negat ive ifinventories are run down.

Capital C h a n ge in the value of land and improvements, plant,appreciation l ive s t o ck and other tra d able stocks, such as wool and

grain, arising from ch a n ges in their prices during thefinancial year

Depreciation E s t i m ated by the diminishing value method, based onof farm the replacement cost and age of each item. The rat e simprove- applied are the standard rates allowed by the Commis-ments, ioner of Ta x ation. For items purchased or sold duri n gplant and the financial ye a r, dep re c i ation is assessed as if theequipment t ransaction had taken place at the midpoint of the ye a r.

D ep re c i ation on items subject to a finance lease is not



accounted for in calculating fa rm business pro fit, sincecash costs already include finance lease payments.

Farm business The value of owned capital, less fa rm business debt atequity 30 Ju n e. The estimate is based on those sample fa rms fo r

which complete data on-farm debt are available.

Farm equity C a l c u l ated as fa rm business equity as a perc e n t age ofratio owned capital at 30 June.

Farm business Fa rm cash income plus buildup in trading stocks, lessprofit d ep re c i ation, less the imputed value of the ow n e r

m a n age r, partner(s) and fa m i ly lab o r. The buildup in tra d-ing stocks is the imputed value of all ch a n ges in the inve n-tories of trading stocks during the financial year. If thisfig u re is negat ive, then inve n t o ries are being run dow n .Note that ‘buildup in trading stocks’ re fe rs to the ch a n gein trading stocks, not the level of inventory.

Farm cash The diffe rence between total cash receipts and totalincome cash costs

Off-farm Collected for the owner manager and spouse only, thisincome measure includes income from wages, other businesses,

i nvestment and social we l fa re payments. The re s u l t ss h own are ave rages for the fa rms for wh i ch off - fa rmincome info rm ation is ava i l able for both the ow n e rmanager and spouse.

Imputed Payments for owner manager and fa m i ly labor maylabor cost bear little relationship to the actual work input. An esti-

m ate of the labor input of the owner manage r, part n e rsand their families is calculated in wo rk weeks and a va l u eis imputed at the re l evant Fe d e ral Pa s t o ral Industry Awa rdrates.

Profit at Fa rm business pro fit, plus rent, interest and fin a n c efull equity lease payments, less dep re c i ation on leased items. It is

the re t u rn produced by all the re s o u rces used in the fa rmbusiness.

Profit at full Profit at full equity plus capital appreciationequity includingcapital appreciation



Rates of Computed by ex p ressing pro fit as a perc e n t age of totalreturn opening capital. The fo l l owing rates of re t u rn are esti-

mated:

• rate of return excluding capital appreciation; and

• rate of return including capital appreciation.



70

B


selected physical and fin a n c i a le s t i m a t e s

appendix

tablesRR 02.4 BEEF APPs B and C 23/7/02 4:16 PM Page 70

pasture and livestock managementin the beef industry

98

C


appendix

4 1 Land use in 2000-01, by livestock classification a

New South Wales Average per farm


Total area operated ha 687 (24) 2 920 (19) 2 250 (18)Total grazing area at 30 June– under crop or fallow


and annual pastures ha 152 (30) 233 (14) 208 (13)– sown to perennial

pastures ha 80 (42) 80 (20) 80 (19)– sown to annual pastures ha 6 (114) 37 (40) 28 (38)– native pasture ha 315 (36) 2 186 (24) 1 625 (22)– total ha 573 (20) 2 858 (19) 2 172 (18)


Description of goals for quality and quantity of pasture production– no clear goals % 21 (58) 34 (17) 30 (18)– developed or partly

developed % 60 (15) 57 (10) 58 (8)– developed and documented

or partly documented % 19 (64) 9 (31) 12 (34)

Extent to which progress to achieving goals is objectively measured b– not at all % 8 (67) 28 (15) 21 (15)– to some extent % 44 (36) 46 (10) 46 (13)– to a large extent % 48 (31) 26 (14) 34 (17)

Continued ➮



Victoria Average per farm


Total area operated ha 355 (28) 725 (22) 484 (18)Total grazing area at 30 June– under crop or fallow



pastures ha 8 (103) 75 (43) 31 (40)– sown to annual pastures ha 32 (54) 34 (40) 33 (37)– native pasture ha 114 (61) 112 (159) 113 (68)– total ha 337 (29) 701 (23) 464 (18)






Continued ➮




Queensland Average per farm


Total area operated ha 11697 (24) 8 480 (10) 106 52 (18)Total grazing area at 30 June– under crop or fallow



pastures ha 722 (23) 272 (29) 576 (20)– sown to annual pastures ha 99 (43) 7 (48) 69 (42)– native pasture ha 9 802 (29) 7 506 (11) 9 056 (21)– total ha 10 849 (26) 8 308 (10) 10 024 (19)






Continued ➮




South Australia Average per farm





pastures ha 13 (100) 188 (38) 140 (38)– sown to annual pastures ha 1 (97) 45 (62) 33 (62)– native pasture ha 76 (55) 3 353 (94) 2453 (93)– total ha 406 (21) 4 279 (73) 3214 (71)






Continued ➮




Western Australia Average per farm


Total area operated ha 15 642 (92) 26 086 (4) 20 963 (34)Total grazing area at 30 June– under crop or fallow



pastures ha 0 (0) 33 (94) 17 (94)– sown to annual pastures ha 60 (50) 626 (36) 348 (33)– native pasture ha 11 334 (107) 24 578 (4) 18 081 (33)– total ha 11 553 (105) 25 906 (4) 18 865 (32)






Continued ➮




Tasmania Average per farm





pastures ha 66 (36) 232 (33) 147 (27)– sown to annual pastures ha 0 (0) 28 (68) 14 (68)– native pasture ha 197 (50) 411 (30) 301 (26)– total ha 450 (25) 1277 (20) 852 (16)


Description of goals for quality and quantity of pasture production– no clear goals % 18 (47) 13 (58) 16 (36)– developed or

partly developed % 66 (24) 65 (18) 66 (15)– developed and documented



Continued ➮




Northern Territory Average per farm


Total area operated ha 257 912 (10) 257 912 (10)Total grazing area at 30 June– under crop or fallow

about to be sown ha 11 (38) 11 (38)– sown to mix of perennial

and annual pastures ha 132 (24) 132 (24)– sown to perennial

pastures ha 36 (133) 36 (133)– sown to annual pastures ha 27 (133) 27 (133)– native pasture ha 226 364 (11) 226 364 (11)– total ha 226 570 (11) 2265 70 (11)

Change in the density of perennial pasture species in sown and native pastures in the past two years– large decrease % 0 (0) 0 (0)– some decrease % 5 (78) 5 (78)– no change % 63 (13) 63 (13)– some increase % 28 (35) 28 (35)– large increase % 2 (129) 2 (129)– not an issue % 3 (64) 3 (64)

Description of goals for quality and quantity of pasture production– no clear goals % 20 (22) 20 (22)– developed or partly

developed % 63 (15) 63 (15)– developed and documented

or partly documented % 18 (49) 18 (49)

Extent to which progress to achieving goals is objectively measured b– not at all % 13 (79) 13 (79)– to some extent % 69 (13) 69 (13)– to a large extent % 18 (58) 18 (58)

a Ranked by rate or return. b Only includes farms with goals for quality and quantity of pastureproduction.Note: Figures in parentheses are standard errors expressed as percentages of the estimates. A guide tointerpreting these is included in appendix A.



4 2 Change in environmental issues in the two years to 2000-01, by livestock classification New South Wales Average per farm


Weeds in pasture– large decrease % 0 (141) 3 (62) 2 (60)– some decrease % 30 (33) 12 (29) 17 (22)– no change % 23 (25) 56 (10) 46 (9)– some increase % 31 (48) 18 (22) 22 (24)– large increase % 4 (80) 7 (49) 6 (42)– not an issue % 12 (85) 5 (45) 7 (50)

Soil erosion– large decrease % 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)– some decrease % 2 (157) 9 (36) 7 (35)– no change % 58 (15) 38 (16) 44 (12)– some increase % 5 (85) 4 (50) 4 (44)– large increase % 0 (0) 1 (90) 1 (90)– not an issue % 33 (30) 47 (15) 42 (14)

Dryland salinity– large decrease % 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)– some decrease % 0 (0) 4 (47) 3 (47)– no change % 63 (12) 27 (14) 38 (9)– some increase % 0 (0) 1 (131) 1 (131)– large increase % 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)– not an issue % 37 (20) 66 (6) 58 (6)

Soil acidity– large decrease % 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)– some decrease % 8 (101) 3 (46) 4 (61)– no change % 72 (13) 45 (14) 53 (10)– some increase % 0 (0) 7 (46) 5 (46)– large increase % 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)– not an issue % 20 (23) 45 (13) 38 (11)

Continued ➮



4 2 Change in environmental issues in the two years to 2000-01, by livestock classification Victoria Average per farm






Continued ➮



4 2 Change in environmental issues in the two years to 2000-01, by livestock classification Queensland Average per farm






Continued ➮



4 2 Change in environmental issues in the two years to 2000-01, by livestock classification South Australia Average per farm


Weeds in pasture– large decrease % 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)– some decrease % 16 (80) 39 (27) 33 (26)– no change % 65 (27) 29 (40) 39 (25)– some increase % 4 (98) 25 (32) 19 (31)– large increase % 0 (0) 7 (62) 5 (62)– not an issue % 15 (97) 0(1093) 4 (112)




Continued ➮



4 2 Change in environmental issues in the two years to 2000-01, by livestock classification Western Australia Average per farm






Continued ➮



4 2 Change in environmental issues in the two years to 2000-01, by livestock classification Tasmania Average per farm






Continued ➮



4 2 Change in environmental issues in the two years to 2000-01, by livestock classification Northern Territory Average per farm


Weeds in pasture– large decrease % 3 (64) 3 (64)– some decrease % 1 (52) 1 (52)– no change % 81 (11) 81 (11)– some increase % 16 (54) 16 (54)– large increase % 0 (0) 0 (0)– not an issue % 0 (0) 0 (0)

Soil erosion– large decrease % 0 (0) 0 (0)– some decrease % 0 (0) 0 (0)– no change % 58 (11) 58 (11)– some increase % 0 (0) 0 (0)– large increase % 0 (0) 0 (0)– not an issue % 42 (15) 42 (15)

Dryland salinity– large decrease % 0 (0) 0 (0)– some decrease % 8 (80) 8 (80)– no change % 0 (0) 0 (0)– some increase % 3 (126) 3 (126)– large increase % 0 (0) 0 (0)– not an issue % 89 (7) 89 (7)

Soil acidity– large decrease % 0 (0) 0 (0)– some decrease % 0 (0) 0 (0)– no change % 1 (38) 1 (38)– some increase % 0 (0) 0 (0)– large increase % 0 (0) 0 (0)– not an issue % 99 (0) 99 (0)

Note: Figures in parentheses are standard errors expressed as percentages of the estimates. A guide tointerpreting these is included in appendix A.



4 3 Beef management practices in 2000-01, by livestock classificationNew South Wales Average per farm


Goals for reproductive rates– no clear goals % 26 (49) 30 (21) 29 (20)– developed or partly developed % 53 (15) 49 (15) 50 (11)– developed and documented or

partly documented % 20 (56) 17 (23) 18 (24)– not applicable % 1 (135) 5 (62) 3 (59)

Objective measurement undertaken of reproductive rate goals a– not at all % 5 (96) 8 (42) 7 (39)– to some extent % 39 (34) 59 (9) 53 (11)– to a large extent % 56 (22) 33 (14) 40 (13)

Goals for market specifications– no clear goals % 18 (64) 38 (16) 32 (17)– developed or partly developed % 76 (15) 47 (14) 55 (10)– developed and documented or


Objective measurement undertaken of market specifications goals a– not at all % 7 (66) 7 (47) 7 (38)– to some extent % 47 (25) 61 (10) 56 (11)– to a large extent % 46 (25) 32 (18) 37 (15)

Goals for liveweight at specific ages– no clear goals % 17 (69) 40 (16) 33 (17)– developed or partly developed % 77 (15) 46 (15) 56 (11)– developed and documented or


Objective measurement undertaken of achieving the liveweight at specific ages goals a– not at all % 12 (52) 9 (37) 10 (31)– to some extent % 24 (45) 58 (16) 45 (15)– to a large extent % 65 (19) 32 (29) 44 (17)

Main beef cattle production system– live export cattle producers % 1 (119) 1 (75) 1 (64)– stock for breeding % 4 (69) 1 (54) 2 (47)– store cattle producer % 19 (59) 22 (19) 21 (21)– slaughter cattle producer % 77 (15) 76 (5) 76 (6)

Main method of finishing cattle for slaughter b– pasture % 67 (23) 67 (8) 67 (9)– pasture plus supplements % 25 (57) 16 (30) 19 (29)– fodder crops plus supplements % 5 (99) 8 (49) 7 (44)– fodder crops % 2 (126) 6 (41) 5 (40)– feedlotting % 1 (170) 1 (61) 1 (71)– other % 0 (0) 2 (86) 1 (86)



4 3 Beef management practices in 2000-01, by livestock classification Victoria Average per farm continued















4 3 Beef management practices in 2000-01, by livestock classification Queensland Average per farm continued















4 3 Beef management practices in 2000-01, by livestock classification South Australia Average per farm continued










Objective measurement undertaken of achieving the liveweight at specific ages goals a– not at all % 8 (56) 8 (86)– to some extent % 52 (26) 62 (17)– to a large extent % 40 (35) 30 (25)


Main method of finishing cattle for slaughter b– pasture % 58 (21) 0 72 (13)– pasture plus supplements % 11 (55) 65 (47) 19 (47)– fodder crops plus supplements % 14 (66) 35 (86) 4 (99)– fodder crops % 10 (47) 0 (0) 0 (0)– feedlotting % 4 (104) 0 (0) 5 (42)– other % 2 (90) 0 (0) 0 (0)



4 3 Beef management practices in 2000-01, by livestock classification Western Australia Average per farm continued















4 3 Beef management practices in 2000-01, by livestock classification Tasmania Average per farm continued















4 3 Beef management practices in 2000-01, by livestock classification Northern Territory Average per farm continued


Goals for reproductive rates– no clear goals % 14 (30) 14 (30)– developed or partly developed % 33 (30) 33 (30)– developed and documented or

partly documented % 53 (18) 53 (18)– not applicable % 0 (0) 0 (0)

Objective measurement undertaken of reproductive rate goals a– not at all % 0 (0) 0 (0)– to some extent % 60 (16) 60 (16)– to a large extent % 40 (24) 40 (24)

Goals for market specifications– no clear goals % 18 (28) 18 (28)– developed or partly developed % 39 (21) 39 (21)– developed and documented or


Objective measurement undertaken of market specifications goals a– not at all % 0 (0) 0 (0)– to some extent % 61 (12) 61 (12)– to a large extent % 39 (19) 39 (19)

Goals for liveweight at specific ages– no clear goals % 15 (39) 15 (39)– developed or partly developed % 50 (16) 50 (16)– developed and documented or


Objective measurement undertaken of achieving the liveweight at specific ages goals a– not at all % 4 (117) 4 (117)– to some extent % 58 (11) 58 (11)– to a large extent % 38 (21) 38 (21)

Main beef cattle production system– live export cattle producers % 53 (9) 53 (9)– stock for breeding % 3 (126) 3 (126)– store cattle producer % 41 (2) 41 (2)– slaughter cattle producer % 3 (121) 3 (121)

Note: Figures in parentheses are standard errors expressed as percentages of the estimates. A guide tointerpreting these is included in appendix A.



4 4 Factors limiting the implementation of new practices in 2000-01, by livestock classification New South Wales Percentage of farms


Skills and knowledge to implement improved practices– not at all % 69 (20) 61 (8) 63 (9)– to some extent % 31 (44) 35 (16) 34 (17)– to a large extent % 0 (453) 5 (83) 3 (82)

Reducing the risk associated with new practices– not at all % 83 (10) 55 (12) 63 (8)– to some extent % 17 (50) 36 (16) 30 (16)– to a large extent % 0 (453) 9 (47) 6 (47)

Time to try new practices– not at all % 58 (20) 35 (15) 42 (12)– to some extent % 38 (30) 42 (16) 41 (14)– to a large extent % 4 (94) 23 (24) 17 (23)

Time to learn about new practices– not at all % 52 (20) 36 (15) 41 (12)– to some extent % 39 (24) 38 (17) 38 (14)– to a large extent % 10 (48) 26 (24) 21 (22)

Cost of implementing new practices– not at all % 53 (21) 26 (21) 34 (15)– to some extent % 35 (29) 38 (16) 37 (14)– to a large extent % 12 (43) 36 (16) 29 (15)

Uncertainty of the result of the new practices– not at all % 66 (14) 53 (12) 57 (9)– to some extent % 28 (36) 33 (16) 32 (15)– to a large extent % 6 (78) 14 (33) 12 (31)

Development of a vision for change– not at all % 82 (12) 70 (9) 74 (7)– to some extent % 18 (53) 19 (23) 19 (23)– to a large extent % 0 (453) 11 (42) 8 (42)

Continued ➮



4 4 Factors limiting the implementation of new practices in 2000-01, by livestock classification Victoria Percentage of farms

Nonspecialist Specialist All beefbeef producers beef producers producers








Continued ➮



4 4 Factors limiting the implementation of new practices in 2000-01, by livestock classification Queensland Percentage of farms









Continued ➮



4 4 Factors limiting the implementation of new practices in 2000-01, by livestock classification South Australia Percentage of farms









Continued ➮



4 4 Factors limiting the implementation of new practices in 2000-01, by livestock classification Western Australia Percentage of farms









Continued ➮



4 4 Factors limiting the implementation of new practices in 2000-01, by livestock classification Tasmania Percentage of farms









Continued ➮



4 4 Factors limiting the implementation of new practices in 2000-01, by livestock classification Northern Territory Percentage of farms


Skills and knowledge to implement improved practices– not at all % 99 (0) 99 (0)– to some extent % 0 (0) 0 (0)– to a large extent % 0 (0) 0 (0)

Reducing the risk associated with new practices– not at all % 51 (10) 51 (10)– to some extent % 48 (10) 48 (10)– to a large extent % 0 (0) 0 (0)

Time to try new practices– not at all % 40 (16) 40 (16)– to some extent % 20 (33) 20 (33)– to a large extent % 39 (18) 39 (18)

Time to learn about new practices– not at all % 40 (16) 40 (16)– to some extent % 26 (26) 26 (26)– to a large extent % 34 (22) 34 (22)

Cost of implementing new practices– not at all % 34 (24) 34 (24)– to some extent % 18 (22) 18 (22)– to a large extent % 48 (19) 48 (19)

Uncertainty of the result of the new practices– not at all % 49 (9) 49 (9)– to some extent % 50 (9) 50 (9)– to a large extent % 0 (0) 0 (0)

Development of a vision for change– not at all % 99 (0) 99 (0)– to some extent % 0 (0) 0 (0)– to a large extent % 0 (0) 0 (0)



4 5 Number of days spent on formal training in 2000-01, by livestock classification Average per farm


no. no. no.New South WalesBusiness management skills 0.4 (60) 1.6 (21) 1.2 (20)Staff management 0.0 (0) 0.1 (55) 0.0 (55)Computer skills 1.8 (89) 1.8 (41) 1.8 (39)Technical farm management 0.6 (53) 1.2 (19) 1.0 (19)Other 1.1 (123) 0.5 (49) 0.7 (63)

VictoriaBusiness management skills 1.0 (55) 1.5 (29) 1.2 (33)Staff management 0.0 (239) 0.7 (83) 0.2 (80)Computer skills 1.7 (102) 1.2 (23) 1.5 (75)Technical farm management 0.0 (63) 2.5 (63) 0.9 (62)Other 0.0 (0) 0.1 (58) 0.0 (58)

QueenslandBusiness management skills 2.4 (32) 2.1 (23) 2.3 (24)Staff management 0.1 (69) 0.0 (70) 0.0 (56)Computer skills 0.6 (32) 1.8 (32) 1.0 (23)Technical farm management 0.9 (41) 1.6 (23) 1.1 (24)Other 0.0 (51) 0.1 (67) 0.1 (45)

South AustraliaBusiness management skills 0.8 (73) 1.9 (36) 1.6 (32)Staff management 0.0 (0) 0.1 (149) 0.1 (149)Computer skills 0.0 (0) 1.2 (53) 0.9 (53)Technical farm management 0.0 (0) 1.5 (33) 1.1 (33)Other 0.0 (0) 0.2 (83) 0.1 (83)

Western AustraliaBusiness management skills 0.7 (59) 1.5 (36) 1.1 (31)Staff management 0.0 (258) 0.1 (94) 0.1 (125)Computer skills 0.3 (95) 1.2 (49) 0.8 (44)Technical farm management 0.7 (83) 2.2 (29) 1.4 (30)Other 0.0 (0) 0.2 (94) 0.1 (94)

TasmaniaBusiness management skills 1.0 (47) 2.9 (37) 1.9 (30)Staff management 0.0 (0) 0.0 (78) 0.0 (78)Computer skills 1.5 (112) 0.9 (53) 1.2 (74)Technical farm management 1.0 (104) 1.1 (28) 1.0 (52)Other 0.2 (110) 0.4 (116) 0.3 (85)

Continued ➮



4 5 Number of days spent on formal training in 2000-01, by livestock classification Average per farm Continued


no. no. no.Northern TerritoryBusiness management skills 7.3 (47) 7.3 (47)Staff management 0.4 (57) 0.4 (57)Computer skills 1.4 (39) 1.4 (39)Technical farm management 2.4 (51) 2.4 (51)Other 1.1 (81) 1.1 (81)




references

A BARE 1999, Au s t ralian Beef Industry 1999, ABARE Research Rep o rt99.10, Canberra.

Gleeson, T., Bri t t l e, S. and Nelson, R. 200), ‘Meat outlook to 2006-07’,Australian Commodities, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 50–62.

MLA (meat and Live s t o ck Au s t ralia) 2001, ‘Live cattle ex p o rts’, MLA BeefSheet 7, Sydney (www.mla.com.au).

US Dep a rtment of Agri c u l t u re 2001, L ive s t o ck, Dairy and Po u l t ry Situat i o nand Outlook, Washington DC, January 24.



survey data services

Customised data tabulationsABARE can provide special tabulations to meet specific requirements suchas estimates for subpopulations and regions, and/or cross tabu l ation of va ri ables and quantiles. Th e re is a ch a rge for these services based on the sizeand complexity of the request.

C o n t a c t: Peter Martin (+61 2 6272 2363 or pmart i n @ ab a re. gov.au) or Cid Riley (+61 2 6272 2253 or [email protected])

Supplementary surveysABARE’s survey system allows for additional questions to be added to themain survey or to the telephone survey to obtain info rm ation on specifi ctopics. These questions can be directed to all farms or to farms with partic-ular ch a ra c t e ristics or locations. Advice on surveys and questionnaire designis also available.

Contact: Peter Martin (+61 2 6272 2363 or [email protected]).

Statistical consultancyABARE can provide expert advice on

• designing and selecting a sample

• data analysis

• graphical presentation of results

• time series analysis

• data modeling and simulation

• statistical software evaluation.

Contact: Walter Shafron (+61 2 6272 2190 or [email protected]).



Mapping servicesA BARE has softwa re, computing equipment and staff trained in dat am ap p i n g. ABARE is also anticipating being able to cross tabu l ate surveyd ata with info rm ation on other va ri ables such as cl i m ate and topograp hy thatwill allow more sophisticated assessment of a ra n ge of fa c t o rs affecting ru ra lAustralia.

Contact: Greg Griffiths (+61 2 6272 2372 or [email protected])

ASPIREThis computer package provides time series data from 1977-78 to 1996-97on a wide range of physical, financial and socioeconomic characteristics offarms covered in ABARE’s annual surveys.

ASPIRE provides graphical presentations of ABARE survey data. It allowsup to six va ri ables to be compared simu l t a n e o u s ly. ASPIRE also prov i d e st abular output and can be used to ex p o rt data to other programs. Th ree pack-ages are available:

• Australian agricultural and grazing industries survey (AAGIS)

• Australian dairy industry survey (ADIS)

• AAGIS and ADIS combined.

Contact: Peter Martin (+61 2 6272 2363 or [email protected])

Ag@ccessAg@ccess is a softwa re pack age that provides perfo rmance bench m a rks fo rfa rms in Au s t ra l i a ’s bro a d a c re and dairy industries. It allows users to obtainb e n ch m a rk statistics for their ge ographic area of interest. Users can alsoc re ate color maps to visualise ge ographic pat t e rns of measures of fa rm performance across Australia.

Contact: Ray Hinde (+61 2 6272 2213 or [email protected])



data.daff.gov.audata.daff.gov.au/brs/data/warehouse/pe_abarebrs... · australian bureau of...

Documents