Case studies

Case 1. Collaboration of selected group of farmers

Analysis was performed for 6 selected farms in the Lublin Province (Pawluk, 2007). Farm owners were members of the same family and collaborated with each other in an informal way for many years. It was mainly neighbours’

cooperation, settled in monetary terms. However, there were also settlements by exchange of work and agriculture products. The farms under consideration were diverse in terms of agricultural land areas and technical equipment (Table 7.2).

The agricultural areas varied from 8.57 ha (the smallest farm) to 76.47 ha (the biggest farm).

Table 7.2. Characteristics of selected farms Item

104

The total value of machineries varied from EUR 27,300 to EUR 476,400. Tractor power saturation was on average 2.5 kW/ha. The machinery was relatively old as the average age was almost 19 years and it varied from 10.2 to 21.7 years. The above indicates low investment ability of the farms.

a)

b)

Figure 7.3. For selected farms: a) Export and import of work hours b) Income (exported) and cost (imported) of contract work 80

105

The number of contract work done by a particular farm depended on its work and machinery capacity and varied between 12 hrs. to even 80 hrs. per year (Figure 7.3 a). The yearly income varied between PLN 100/EUR 25 to even PLN 7,790/ EUR 1,947 (Figure 7.3 b).

The analysis of the operation cost of the machinery used in farmers’

collaboration showed its reduction due to the increase of machines use during a year. Such reduction reached even 62% in the case of a combine harvester.

Farmers assessed the collaboration positive as: ‘Very Good’ – 2 answers, ‘Good’ – 3 answers and ‘Acceptable’ – 1 answer.

Farmers that participated in the survey wish to have more neighbouring farmers taking part in the collaboration, which can reduce the costs and rent prices. The calculation done for a combine harvester indicates that even a small increase in usage can reduce the yearly operation costs even by 62% (Figure 7.4).

Figure 7.4. Changes in the unit operation costs (in euro per hour) of combine harvester as a function of yearly usage (hours per year)

Case 2. Collaboration of farmers from selected village

Investigation in order to assess cooperation ties created between farmers was done in 2004 (Kowalczuk, 2005; Lorencowicz, 2006). The study covered all 20 farms from one village. Structured interviews were used to collect the data.

The average arable area of farms was 24.83 ha (from 10 to 46 ha). They were equipped with tractors (from 1 to even 4, with average of 2.3 tractors per farm)

176

107

79

0 50 100 150 200

Operation cost [PLN/h]

Operation costs [EUR/h]

28 h/y 57 h/y 100 h/y

106

and a set of machines (from 14 to 32 items). Almost 50% of the farms had combine harvesters (9 items) and their technical equipment was better both in terms of number as well as quality in comparison to the region average. The above was due to specialised production and also to the fact that their average size was more than 3 times bigger than the region average. However, despite a higher income, a lot of machines were old including the use of horse cart as the form of transport.

The average age of tractors was 16.3 years whereas the combine harvester’s average age was 20.9 years. It is worth noting that even such old machines were used for cooperation. The reason for collaboration between farmers was that actually there was not a single farm with all the required machines.

The most popular machines to be taken from outside (import) were transportation trailers, vacuum tank spreader and combine harvesters. Those three machines constituted together 25% of all cases, whereas there are in total 36 types of machines in cooperation. The most popular machines to be taken outside (export) were transport trailer and tractor (17% cases) and the rest of 83%

cases were covered by 45 different tools, machines and tractor aggregates. All farmers utilized part of technical equipment within machine sets. Depending on the farm this was from 1 to 11 machines. There were 24 types of machines used in that way, and in half of the cases it were machines for sowing and planting.

Typically such machine set was created by two partners, but there were five cases of 3 partners, three cases of 4 partners and even one case of 7 partners. There were also cases of cooperation in case of other machines useful in farm work as chain saw or workshop equipment (welding apparatus).

The application of own technical equipment outside of the farm increased the yearly usage from few to few dozen hours. The most used outside machines were:

manure spreaders – 315 hrs (mainly in transport), tractors – 228 hrs and transportation trailer – 196 hrs. Despite such broad range of cooperation the main form of settling was non-monetary, such as manual labour or machine work (Figure 7.5). Interestingly, the farmers more often gave information about monetary settlements for outside machines (import) than their own machines (export). Such asymmetry can be attributed to fear of the farmers to disclose extra income.

107

Figure 7.5. Form of settlement for machinery

Figure 7.6 shows the complexity of cooperation ties. The figure presents ties only for two selected farms.

Figure 7.6. Cooperation ties between two selected farms No payment;

40.5%

Machinery exchange;

26.0%

Machinery work; 3.5%

Manual labor; 7.0%

Payment;

21.0%

Others; 2.0%

trailer for animal transport,

wagon, winnower Farm

36a Farm

40

vacuum truck, forage harvester, mill

108 a)

b)

Figure 7.7. Example of cooperation ties of 2 selected farms

a) farm 36 a - export, farm 40 – import of machinery work;

b) farm 36 a – import, farm 40 – export of machinery work

109

Apart from small, mutual cooperation there were several other connections with other farms in the system (Figure 7.7). Farm no. 36a exported machines to other five farmers and imported from ten, while farm no. 40 exported machines to seventeen farmers and imported from twelve (excluding farm no 36a). This example indicates large and complex systems of cooperation; the above example was no exception within investigated farms.

This study proved that, apart from seldom cases, there are no farms isolated from the surrounding and cooperation in terms of machinery is common. Such cooperation is informal and farmers do not create any rules (for instance in the form of written agreement of regulations). Relations between partners are formed by local tradition and different type of neighbour and family connections. Access to others, apart from own ones, technical equipment increases not only the level of work mechanization but also reduces production costs, in the Polish conditions from 25% to even 40%.

It is envisaged that the level of cooperation can be stimulated not only by advisory activities but also by appropriate financial schemes encouraging joint machines purchase or increase of its usage, for instance is service.

7.5. Conclusions

Farmers’ collaboration is an important form of satisfying technological needs in the case of fragmented agriculture. At the same time it reduces the costs and outlays. It allows the farms to fulfil the requirements for sustainable agriculture, improving, at the same time, the quality of life for farm families.

According to the farmers under investigation, the most important factor in favour of collaboration was the lack of own equipment and, in the case of elderly farmers, the limited possibility of own work. Despite relatively low economic gain and frequent use of non-monetary forms of settlements, the farmers’

collaboration practised throughout the years afforded proper operation of the farms and protected their owners in the case of lack of technical means.

The types of collaboration presented above cover only issues related to organization of work of machinery in farms. Certainly farmers develop cooperation in other areas. It includes procurement of means of production, trading of the agricultural products, advisory or training activities. All of such actions increase farmers’ income, their living standards, professional satisfaction and also fulfilment of their personal plans.

110

In conclusion, it is reasonable to state that farmer’s collaboration, also in the aspect of machinery using and work organization, improve the sustainability in social and economic areas.

7.6. References

Culpin C. 1975. Profitable farm mechanization. Crosby Lockwood Stapels, London

de Toro A., Hansson P.-A. 2004. Machinery Co-operatives – a case study in Sweden. Biosystem Eng., nr 87 (1), p.13-15.

Kooperationen gründen und erfolgreich führen. 2005. KTBL-Schrift Nr. 433, Darmstadt, pp.182 Kowalczuk D. 2005. Ocena zakresu współpracy rolników przy wykonaniu prac maszynowych.

Typescript of MSc work under supervising of E.Lorencowicz, WIP AR Lublin, pp. 58

Landers A. 2000. Farm machinery selection, investment and management. Farming Press, Kent, pp.

152.

Lorencowicz E. 2005. Wyposażenie techniczne i formy mechanizacji małych gospodarstw rolnych.

Rozprawy Naukowe AR w Lublinie, z. 300, pp. 108

Lorencowicz E. 2006. Kooperacja jako element racjonalnego wykorzystania środków technicznych w gospodarstwach rodzinnych. RN SERiA, t. VIII, z. 7, 99-102

Lorencowicz E., Cupiał M. 2012. Wpływ dotacji unijnych na koszty eksploatacji maszyn rolniczych.

RN SERiA, XIV, 7, p. 81-86

Pawluk B. 2007. Kooperacja rolników jako sposób na redukcję nakładów i kosztów mechanizacji.

Typescript of MSc work under supervising of E. Lorencowicz, WIP AR Lublin, pp. 44

SAI – Sustainable Agriculture Initiative. Definition. http://www.saiplatform.org/sustainable-agriculture/definition (accessed 23 Oct. 2013)

Theunissen P. 2002. An Economical Approach to Agricultural Machinery Management. Computus Management Information (Pty) Ltd, Betlehem, pp.256

Weshe R. 2004 Formen der Zusammenarbeit landwirtschaftlichen Betriebe.

www.ktbl.de/betrieb/leitfaden (accessed 18 Jan. 2005)

Witney B. 1988. Choosing and Using Farm Machines. Longman Scientific and Technical Essex, pp.

412

111

8. VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ON FARMS WITH DIFFERENT AGRICULTURAL