Teagasc National Farm Survey 2014 Results

Transcription

1 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Teagasc National Farm Survey 24 Results Thia Hennessy and Brian Moran Agricultural Economics and Farm Surveys Department, Rural Economy Development Programme, Teagasc, Athenry, Co Galway, Ireland ISBN

2 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to thank all who contributed to the National Farm Survey 24 the farmers who participate voluntarily, the Central Statistics Office who select the sample and provide the population weights. Grateful acknowledgement is due to the Teagasc research staff involved in the collection and validation of the farm data: P. Bryce, J. Colgan, A Curley, L. Deane, L. Delaney, P. Harnett, P. Hayes, P. Healy, P. Madden, E. McGrath, M. Nicholson, J. Robinson, J. Teehan and to M. Moloney for the administration of the survey.

3 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUMMARY 24 Family Farm Income 24 2 Income by Farm System Income Distribution 4 Importance of Direct Payments 5 Regional Overview & Offfarm Employment 6 Viability Analysis 7 Overview of dairy farm system 8 Overview of the cattle rearing system 9 Overview of the cattle other system Overview of the sheep farm system Overview of the tillage system 2 Overview of the mixed livestock system APPENDIX List of Tables 5 APPENDIX 2 Background Notes 86 APPENDIX Classification of farms 88 APPENDIX 4 Glossary of terms 9 NOTE: The electronic version of this report is available on the Teagasc website

4 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24

5 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24

6 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Family Farm Income 24 Family farm income is the principal measure used in the National Farm Survey. The average family farm income across all 78,64 farms in 24 was 26,642, representing a 5 percent increase on the 2 average. payment fell by 2 percent in 24, mostly due to a reduction in the Single Farm Payment to establish a crisis reserve. Input expenditure, particularly on animal feed stuffs, was very high in 2 as a result of the fodder crisis. Total direct costs fell by 9 percent from 2 to 24. Total overhead costs increased slightly. Costs consumed 69 percent of output on the average farm in 24, an improvement on the 2 figure of 7 percent. Family Farm Income represents the return from farming for the farm family to their labour, land and capital. It does not include nonfarm income. Figure : Average Family Farm Income 25 to 24 The increase in income was mostly driven by reduced input expenditure. The value of gross output declined by 2 percent driven by reductions in the returns to production and direct payments. The various components of farm income are outlined in Table. 4 /farm 25 Table : Average Family Farm Income Gross Output (of which direct pay ts) Total Costs (of which direct costs) ( of which overheads) Family Farm Income 84,9 9,9 58,26,454 26,86 26,642 2 Change from Family farm income has generally followed an upward trend since the low point of 29. Following two years of stagnation in 22 and 2, a small increase of 5 percent in 24 is evident. However, income still lags behind the record levels recorded in 2. % ,642 was the average farm income in 24, a 5 percent increase from 2. Lower cattle slaughter prices along with a slight reduction in direct payments, led to a fall in gross output values. The average direct 2

7 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Income by Farm System 24 Income varies quite considerably by farm system. Dairy farms are consistently the most profitable farms with an average income of 67,598 in 24. rearing farms had the lowest average farm income at,69 in 24. Table 2: Average Farm Size and Income per hectare 24 Dairy is the most profitable system with an average income of 67,598 Figure 2: Average Farm Income by System 2 & 24 8, 2 Income Dairy Rearing Sheep Tillage Mixed Livestock ha /ha, All The largest income reduction is on cattle other farms. Income is down 5% 24 6, /farm Size 4, The year on year change in income varied across the farm systems. Total production costs declined across all farm systems. However, the reduction in expenditure was insufficient to offset the falling finished cattle price for cattle other farms and was insufficient to maintain tillage farm income. 2, Dairy Sheep Tillage Mixed Rearing L'stock The large variation in average farm income across the farm systems is driven by differences in both farm size and profitability. The average farm size in 24, across all systems of farming, was 48 hectares and the average income was 555 per hectare in 24. Figure : Percentage change in income by system 2 to 24 Mixed Tillage Sheep The drystock sector, cattle and sheep farms, is characterised by low profitability and small holdings. The average income per hectare was 266 on Rearing farms in 24, the lowest of the farm systems. Rearing Dairy 2 2 % change in income 4

8 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Income Distribution 24 There is a wide variation in farm incomes across the farm population. Although average farm income increased in 24, there was no significant improvement on low income farms. In 2 approximately 2% of farms produced a farm income of less than 5, and this proportion increased to 24% in 24. At the opposite end of the spectrum, 8% of farms produced an income of over 5,. Figure 5: Income Distribution by System 2 & 24 % 75% 5% 25% % Dairy Rearing <, 5% of farms earned over, while 24% earned less than 5, 24 2 <5, >5, Figure 6 presents the income per labour unit distribution in 24. The relatively low labour input on tillage farms is reflected in the higher incomes when expressed on a per labour unit basis. The income per labour unit exceeded 5, on 48% of dairy farms, percent of mixed farms and 27 percent of tillage farms in 24. % of farms 2 5, On average there was. family labour units employed on each farm. The average amount of unpaid labour supplied was highest on dairy farms at.6 labour units and lowest on tillage farms at.98. Figure 4: Farm Income Distribution 2 & 24 Sheep Tillage Mixed L'stock Figure 6: Income Distribution per labour unit 24 5, 2, 25, >5, There was also a wide distribution in income across farm systems. The vast majority (59%) of cattle rearing farms earned less than,. While close to 5 percent of sheep and cattle other farms also earned less than,. It is only on the specialist dairy and mixed livestock farms that there is a core of farmers earning over 5,. Twothirds of dairy farms and almost half of mixed livestock farms earned over 5,. % 75% 5% 25% % Dairy Rearing <, 4 Sheep Tillage Mixed L'stock 5, >5,

9 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Importance of Direct Payments 24 Direct payments continue to form an important part of income. In 24 the average direct payment was 9,9 and this accounted for 72 percent of income on average. The Single Farm Payment, the largest payment, was 4,9 on average in 24. Direct payments are comprised of the Single Farm Payment (SFP) and payments relating to the Disadvantaged Area Scheme (DAS), the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme (REPS) the newer AgriEnvironmental scheme (AEOS). As can be seen from Figure 7, the average subsidy payment has been declining slightly in recent years. The average direct payment was 9,9 in 24, accounting for 72% of income Figure 7: Composition of subsidy payments 25 /farm 2 SFP 2,767 5,42 8,25 8,5 26,29 25,65 % All 9,9 72 REPS 2 AEOS 24 Figure 8: Average Market Income by system 24 5, 22 4, /farm Dairy Rearing Sheep Tillage Mixed Livestock 22 DAS Figure 8 presents market income, i.e. income before direct payments for each of the farm systems. As can be seen the two cattle systems and the sheep system consistently have negative market incomes over the last three years. Table : Value of direct payments and contribution to income 24 Contribution to Income 5 Table presents the average direct payment per farm and the contribution to income across the various farm systems. As can be seen tillage farms, followed by mixed livestock farms, had the highest direct payments. rearing farms were the most reliant on direct payments accounting for 49 percent of income. Direct Payment , 2,,, Dairy 5 Sheep Tillage Mixed Rearing L'stock

10 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Regional Overview and Offfarm Employment 24 Farm income varies widely by region in Ireland driven by farm scale, system, profitability and direct payments. Those regions where dairying is more prevalent are generally more profitable and have a lower reliance on direct payments. The number of farm households with offfarm employment peaked in 26 at 59 percent and declined to 49 percent in 22. There has been a slight recovery in 2 and 24 Figure : Rate of Offfarm Employment % of farms 8 The southeast is the most profitable farming region 4 2 Figure 9: Average Income & direct payments by region 24 FFI Farmer Farmer & Spouse Direct Payments % FFI , Offfarm employment is most prevalent in the West and Midlands regions % /farm, 2,, Border East M'ldsS'westS'eastSouth West The prevalence of offfarm employment varies regionally. In the West and Midlands regions 44 and 6 percent of farmers respectively work off farm. Average farm income was highest in the Southeast at just over 42,. The Border was the most disadvantaged region in 24 with the lowest farm income and the highest reliance on direct payments. Figure : Rate of offfarm employment by the farmer by region 24 % of farmers 5 5% of farm households have offfarm employment 4 2 Border East 6 M'lds S'West S'east South West

11 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Viability Analysis 24 A farm business is deemed to be viable if the farm income is sufficient to remunerate family labour at the minimum agricultural wage, which was 9, 67 per labour unit in 24, and provide a 5 percent return on the capital invested in nonland assets, i.e. machinery and livestock. The viability of farming varies substantially by system. Figure : Percentage of farms viable, sustainable and vulnerable by system % 75% Farms that are not viable but have an offfarm income, earned by either the farmer or the spouse, are considered to be economically sustainable. Farm households that are operating nonviable farm businesses and where neither the farmer nor the spouse works off the farm are considered economically vulnerable. 5% 25% % Dairy Viable Figure 2: Percentage of farms viable, sustainable and vulnerable 2 7 Sustainable Mixed Live'k Sustainable Rearing Sheep Vulnerable Almost 8 percent of dairy farms were viable in 24 compared to only 5 percent of cattle rearing farms. Viability also varied considerably by region. The southeast had the highest proportion of viable farms at over 5 percent compared to just 6 of farms in the west. The presence of offfarm employment improves the economic situation in most. However, almost 45 percent of farm households in the border were vulnerable. Viable Tillage Vulnerable Figure 4: Percentage of farms viable, sustainable and vulnerable by region Thirtyseven percent of farms were viable in 24, a further percent of farm households were sustainable because of the presence of offfarm income while the remaining 2 percent of farms are economically vulnerable. The viability of farming increased marginally from 2 when 5 percent of farms were classified as economically viable. % 8% 6% 4% 2% % Border Mideast M'lands S'west S'east Viable 7 Sustainable Vulnerable South West

12 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Dairy Farm System 24 There were approximately 5,654 specialist dairy farms with an average FFI of 67,598 in 24, a 7 percent increase on 2. Table 5: Average Dairy Enterprise Indicators Dairy farm incomes increased by 7% on average in 24 Production (litres/ha) Milk Price ( /litre) Gross output ( /ha) Direct Costs( /ha) Gross Margin ( /ha) Table 4: Components of average dairy income Gross Output (of which direct pay ts) Total Costs (of which direct costs) ( of which overheads) Family Farm Income 9,28 2,767 22,685 72,52 5,64 67,598 Change from 2 Change from 2 % , ,5,575 2,578 Dairy enterprise gross margin per hectare increased by 6 percent in 24, driven by increased production and lower costs. % Milk price unchanged and production up % in 24 Figure 5 presents the distribution of income on dairy farms. Income increased significantly from 22 to 24. The proportion of farms earning over, continues to increase. The 7 percent increase in the average dairy farm income was mostly driven by reduced expenditure. The animal feed bill declined substantially on dairy farms, with expenditure on purchased concentrate feeds down 24 percent and bulky feeds down 2 percent. Figure 5: Distribution of Dairy Income 22 to 24 4 Milk production per farm increased by percent in 24, supported by higher yields and a 2 percent increase in the average dairy herd size. With almost no change in milk price and increasing production, dairy enterprise gross output increased by just percent. The 24 income figures do not reflect the full superlevy bill due to be paid by dairy farmers for the 24/25 quota year % of farms 2 <, 8 5, 57, 7, >,

13 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Rearing Farm System 24 There were approximately 5,77 cattle rearing farms with an average FFI of,69 in 24. Suckler cow production is the dominant enterprise on these farms. Table 7: Farm Indicators Farm Size (hectares) Livestock Units Livestock units per hectare Single Farm Payment( /ha) Gross Margin ( /ha) rearing farm incomes increased by 9% on average in 24 The average gross margin per hectare on cattle rearing farms was 666 in 24. This included a Single Farm Payment of 244 per hectare. Table 6: Components of average cattle rearing farm income 24 Gross Output (of which direct pay ts) Total Costs (of which direct costs) ( of which overheads) Family Farm Income 24 Change from 2 9,894 5,42 29,525,98 5,66,69 % Weanling prices were up % in 24, while direct costs were down 7% Figure 6 presents the distribution of income on cattle rearing farms. The proportion of farms earning over 2, increased from 2 to 24 but so too did the proportion earning less than 5,. Total farm gross output increased by percent, despite a 2 percent decline in direct payments. Although finished cattle prices fell in 24, the average price of weanlings, the principal output of cattle rearing farms, increased by percent. Figure 6: Distribution of Rearing Income 22 to 24 % of farms 4 As with the other livestock farms, cattle rearing farms benefitted from the recovery following the fodder crisis. Expenditure on concentrate and bulky feed fell by 2 and 7 percent respectively <5, 9 5, 2, 25, >5,

14 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Farm System 24 There were approximately 25,674 cattle other farms, with an average FFI of,2 in 24, a 5 percent decrease on 2. fattening is the dominant enterprise on these farms. Table 9: Farm Indicators Farm Size (hectares) Number of livestock units Livestock units per hectare Single Farm Payment( /ha) Gross Margin ( /ha) Average income on cattle other farms decreased by 5% in 24 The average gross margin per hectare on cattle other farms was 796 in 24. This included a Single Farm Payment of. Table 8: Components of cattle other average farm income Gross Output (of which direct pay ts) Total Costs (of which direct costs) ( of which overheads) Family Farm Income 5,954 8,25 7,6 9,79 8,555, Change from 2 The average annual finished cattle price fell by percent in 24 % Figure 7 presents the distribution of income on cattle other farms. The movement of farms from the higher income to the lower income categories from 2 to 24 is evident. Total farm gross output decreased by 9 percent on cattle other farms. These farms are mainly specialised in finishing animals for slaughter and the average annual finished cattle price was down percent in 24, leaving overall farm gross output down 9 percent on average. Figure 7: Distribution of Income 22 to 24 % of farms Total direct costs declined by 5 percent. Animal feed is a larger element of total expenditure on cattle other farms relative to other farm systems and as such these farms benefitted disproportionately from the recovery following the fodder crisis. <5, 5, 2, 25, >5,

15 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Sheep Farm System 24 There were approximately 2,95 sheep farms with an average FFI of 5,65 in 24, a 28 percent increase on 2. While this seems like a substantial increase it follows a particularly poor year for sheep farmers in 2. Table : Farm Indicators Farm Size (hectares) Number of ewes Livestock units per hectare Single Farm Payment( /ha) Gross Margin ( /ha) Sheep farm incomes increased by 28% on average in The average gross margin per hectare on sheep farms was 599 in 24 this included a Single Farm Payment of 26. Table : Components of sheep farm income 24 Gross Output (of which direct pay ts) Total Costs (of which direct costs) ( of which overheads) Family Farm Income 24 Change from 2 48,727 8,5,66 6,6 7, 5,65 % The average annual lamb price increased by 5 percent & production was up by 2% Figure 8 presents the distribution of income on sheep farms. A recovery back towards 22 income levels in 24 is evident with the number of farmers in the higher income categories increasing. Total farm gross output increased by 5 percent on sheep farms despite a percent reduction in direct payments. Lamb prices increased by 5 percent in 24 and lamb production was up by 2 percent. The total gross output from sheep production on sheep farms increased by percent in 24. Figure 8: Distribution of Sheep Income 22 to 24 % of farms 4 Total direct costs declined by 8 percent, again reflecting the recovery from the fodder crisis. The overall impact was a 28 percent increase in income <5, 5, 2, 25, >5,

16 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Tillage Farm System 24 There were approximately 6,65 tillage farms with an average FFI of 28,995 in 24, a percent increase on 2. Table : Farm Indicators Farm Size (hectares) Hectares of Cereals Crop output ( /ha) Single Farm Payment( /ha) Farm Gross Margin ( /ha) Tillage farm incomes averaged at 28,995 in 24 The average gross margin per hectare on tillage farms was,8 in 24. This included a Single Farm Payment of 7. Table 2: Components of tillage farm income 24 Gross Output (of which direct pay ts) Total Costs (of which direct costs) ( of which overheads) Family Farm Income 24 Change from 2 8,56 26,29 79,56 9,27 4,59 28,995 % ,54 7,8 The gross output of crops on tillage farms increased by 2% in 24 Figure 9 presents the distribution of income. While fewer farms are earning less than 5,, the numbers earning over 5, have declined. Gross output on tillage farms was more or less unchanged from 2 to 24, while direct payments decreased by percent. Costs on tillage farms did not decline as much as the other systems given the relative unimportance of livestock costs on tillage farms. Figure 9: Distribution of Tillage Income 22 & 24 4 % of farms Total costs declined by just percent on tillage farms driven by a 7 percent decline in fertiliser expenditure and a 25 percent decline in animal feed. Given that output value was more or less unchanged, the outcome was a very slight increase in the average tillage farm income in <5, 2 5, 2, 25, >5,

17 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Mixed Livestock Farm System 24 There were approximately 2,76 mixed livestock farms with an average FFI of 56,8 in 24, an percent increase on 2. While most mixed livestock farms have a dairy enterprise, they are not specialised in dairy production and typically also have a substantial cattle enterprise. Table 5: Farm Indicators Farm Size (hectares) Number of Cows Total Livestock Units Livestock units per hectare Single Farm Payment( /ha) Gross Margin ( /ha) Income on mixed livestock farms increased by % in 24 Mixed livestock farms are intensively stocked at.68 livestock units per hectare. They also have the largest average land area of all of the farm systems. Table 4: Components of Mixed Livestock farm income Gross Output (of which direct pay ts) Total Costs (of which direct costs) ( of which overheads) Family Farm Income 6,6 25,65 5,8 6,228 4,95 56, ,589 Change from 2 Mixed farms have a low specialisation in dairy production with an average herd size of 44 cows % Figure 2 presents the distribution of income. The numbers earning over 5, have increased considerably in 24. Figure 2: Distribution of Mixed Livestock Income 22 & 24 Similar to the other farm systems, gross output and direct payments decreased in value on mixed livestock farms. Input expenditure declined, with direct costs in particular decreasing by 4 percent. Mixed farms typically have large animal feed bills, purchased concentrate feed can comprise up to 25 percent of input costs on these farms. In 24 expenditure on purchased concentrates declined by 28 percent % of farms 2 <, 2, 25, 57, >7,

18 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Appendices 4

19 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 APPENDIX LIST OF TABLES TABLE a TABLE b TABLE c TABLE d TABLE e Farm Financial Results by Size (UAA Ha) Resources per Farm by Size (UAA Ha) Gross Output and Direct Payments by Size (UAA Ha) Direct and Overhead Costs by Size (UAA Ha) Demograhic Data by Size (UAA Ha) Dairying System Dairying System Dairying System Dairying System Dairying System TABLE 2a TABLE 2b TABLE 2c TABLE 2d TABLE 2e Farm Financial Results by Size (UAA Ha) Resources per Farm by Size (UAA Ha) Gross Output and Direct Payments by Size (UAA Ha) Direct and Overhead Costs by Size (UAA Ha) Demograhic Data by Size (UAA Ha) Rearing System Rearing System Rearing System Rearing System Rearing System TABLE a TABLE b TABLE c TABLE d TABLE e Farm Financial Results by Size (UAA Ha) Resources per Farm by Size (UAA Ha) Gross Output and Direct Payments by Size (UAA Ha) Direct and Overhead Costs by Size (UAA Ha) Demograhic Data by Size (UAA Ha) System System System System System TABLE 4a TABLE 4b TABLE 4c TABLE 4d TABLE 4e Farm Financial Results by Size (UAA Ha) Resources per Farm by Size (UAA Ha) Gross Output and Direct Payments by Size (UAA Ha) Direct and Overhead Costs by Size (UAA Ha) Demograhic Data by Size (UAA Ha) Sheep System Sheep System Sheep System Sheep System Sheep System TABLE 5a TABLE 5b TABLE 5c TABLE 5d TABLE 5e Farm Financial Results by Size (UAA Ha) Resources per Farm by Size (UAA Ha) Gross Output and Direct Payments by Size (UAA Ha) Direct and Overhead Costs by Size (UAA Ha) Demograhic Data by Size (UAA Ha) Tillage System Tillage System Tillage System Tillage System Tillage System TABLE 6a TABLE 6b TABLE 6c TABLE 6d TABLE 6e Farm Financial Results by Size (UAA Ha) Resources per Farm by Size (UAA Ha) Gross Output and Direct Payments by Size (UAA Ha) Direct and Overhead Costs by Size (UAA Ha) Demograhic Data by Size (UAA Ha) Mixed Livestock System Mixed Livestock System Mixed Livestock System Mixed Livestock System Mixed Livestock System TABLE 7a TABLE 7b TABLE 7c TABLE 7d TABLE 7e Farm Financial Results by Size (UAA Ha) Resources per Farm by Size (UAA Ha) Gross Output and Direct Payments by Size (UAA Ha) Direct and Overhead Costs by Size (UAA Ha) Demograhic Data by Size (UAA Ha) All Systems All Systems All Systems All Systems All Systems 5

20 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 TABLE 8a TABLE 8b TABLE 8c TABLE 8d TABLE 8e Farm Financial Results by System of Farming Resources per Farm by System of Farming Gross Output and Direct Payments by System of Farming Direct and Overhead Costs by System of Farming Demographic Data by System of Farming All Farms All Farms All Farms All Farms All Farms TABLE 9a TABLE 9b TABLE 9c TABLE 9d TABLE 9e Farm Financial Results by European Size (TSO) Resources per Farm by European Size (TSO) Gross Output and Direct Payments by European Size (TSO) Direct and Overhead Costs by European Size (TSO) Demographic Data by European Size (TSO) All Farms All Farms All Farms All Farms All Farms TABLE a TABLE b TABLE c TABLE d TABLE e Farm Financial Results by System of Farming Resources per Farm by System of Farming Gross Output and Direct Payments by System of Farming Direct and Overhead Costs by System of Farming Demograhic Data by System of Farming FullTime Farms FullTime Farms FullTime Farms FullTime Farms FullTime Farms TABLE a TABLE b TABLE c TABLE d TABLE e Farm Financial Results by System of Farming Resources per Farm by System of Farming Gross Output and Direct Payments by System of Farming Direct and Overhead Costs by System of Farming Demograhic Data by System of Farming PartTime Farms PartTime Farms PartTime Farms PartTime Farms PartTime Farms TABLE 2a TABLE 2b TABLE 2c TABLE 2d TABLE 2e Farm Financial Results by System of Farming Resources per Farm by System of Farming Gross Output and Direct Payments by System of Farming Direct and Overhead Costs by System of Farming Demograhic Data by System of Farming Objective One Region Objective One Region Objective One Region Objective One Region Objective One Region TABLE a TABLE b TABLE c TABLE d TABLE e Farm Financial Results by System of Farming Resources per Farm by System of Farming Gross Output and Direct Payments by System of Farming Direct and Overhead Costs by System of Farming Demograhic Data by System of Farming NonObjective One Region NonObjective One Region NonObjective One Region NonObjective One Region NonObjective One Region TABLE 4a TABLE 4b TABLE 4c TABLE 4d TABLE 4e Farm Financial Results Resources per Farm Gross Output and Direct Payments Direct and Overhead Costs Demographic Data By Region All Farms By Region All Farms By Region All Farms By Region All Farms By Region All Farms 6

21 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Table A (24) Farm Financial Results by Size (UAA Ha) Dairying System Size (UAAHa) < 5 5 < >= Hill Farms Subsidies and Direct Payments Direct Costs = Gross Margin Overhead Costs = Family Farm Income Net Sales & Receipts Current Cash Expenditure = Cash Income (Approx) Net New Investment = Cash Flow Machinery Livestock: Breeding Trading Land & Buildings Gross New Investment Loans Closing Balance Total Standard Output (TSO) < < 2 2 < 2 6. Gross Output of which Land / Quota Let Overall Results ( ) Asset Values ( ) Distribution % of Farms Soil Group : () (2) () = Total

22 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Table B (24) Resources per Farm by Size (UAA Ha) Dairying System Size (UAAHa) < 5 5 < >= Hill Farms Tillage of which Total Cereals " Potatoes Grassland Silage Hay Pasture Rough Grazing U.A.A Remainder of Farm Forage & Crop Acreage Dairy Cows Cows HeifersinCalf < Year Old Year Old Male Year Old Female => 2 Year Old Male => 2 Year Old Female Bulls Total Sheep (avg. no) Ewes Sheep Total Sheep Grazing Livestock Units Dairy Cows Sheep Horses Total Livestock Units Family Total < < 2 2 < 2 6. Area Owned Total Area LAND (ha) LIVESTOCK LABOUR UNITS 8

23 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Table C (24) Gross Output and Direct Payments by Size (UAA Ha) Dairying System Size (UAAHa) < 5 5 < >= Hill Farms < < 2 2 < ( ) GROSS OUTPUT LIVESTOCK Dairying of which milk of which Suckler Welfare Scheme Sheep & Wool of which Sheep Welfare Scheme Pigs Poultry Horses 47 9 SubTotal Livestock of which Disease Compensation CROPS Wheat Barley Feeding Barley Malting Oats Potatoes of which Forestry Premium SubTotal Crops TOTAL LIVESTOCK & CROPS Machinery Hire Revenue Current Receipts Decoupled Direct Payments / Subs of which Single Farm Payment " REPS " DAS " Subsidies AEOS Income from Land Let Income from Quota Let InterEnterprise Transfers TOTAL GROSS OUTPUT

24 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Table D (24) Direct and Overhead Costs by Size (UAA Ha) Dairying System Size (UAAHa) < 5 5 < >= Hill Farms Fertiliser Crop Protection Purchased Seed Hire of Machinery Transport Livestock (A.I. Vet etc.) Casual Labour SubTotal Fodder Crop Adjustment TOTAL DIRECT COSTS OVERHEAD COSTS ( ) Rent of Conacre Car, Electricity, Phone Current Hired Labour Interest Charges Machinery Depreciation Machinery Operating of which Fuel & Lub Buildings Depreciation Buildings Maintenance Land Improvement Depreciation Land Improvement Maintenance OVERHEAD COSTS TOTAL NET EXPENSES < < 2 2 < 2 6. Purchased Concentrates Purchased Bulky Feed DIRECT COSTS ( ) Distribution % of farms Costs % Output 2

25 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Table E (24) Demograhic Data by Size (UAA Ha) Dairying System Size (UAAHa) < 5 5 < >= Hill Farms Widowed % Single % Separated % = Total Household Size (no.) < 24 (no.) < 24 % HH (no.) % HH Demograph. Viable % HH < < 2 2 < 2 6. Age of Holder Marital Status Married % Holder Household Offfarm sources of income Holder and/or Spouse Offfarm Job % HH Offfarm Job Holder % HH Offfarm Job Spouse % HH Pensioners (no.) Pensioners % HH Unemployment Etc. (no.) Unemployment Etc. % HH F.F.I. ( ) < 5 FFI FFI FFI FFI FFI FFI7TO >

26 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Table 2A (24) Farm Financial Results by Size (UAA Ha) Rearing System Size (UAAHa) < 5 5 < >= Hill Farms Subsidies and Direct Payments Direct Costs = Gross Margin Overhead Costs = Family Farm Income Net Sales & Receipts Current Cash Expenditure = Cash Income (Approx) Net New Investment = Cash Flow Machinery Livestock: Breeding Trading Land & Buildings Gross New Investment Loans Closing Balance < < 2 2 < 4. Gross Output of which Land / Quota Let Overall Results ( ) Asset Values ( ) Total Standard Output (TSO) Distribution % of Farms Soil Group : () (2) () = Total

27 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Table 2B (24) Resources per Farm by Size (UAA Ha) Rearing System Size (UAAHa) < 5 5 < >= Hill Farms Tillage..... of which Total Cereals " Potatoes..... Grassland Silage Hay Pasture Rough Grazing U.A.A Remainder of Farm Forage & Crop Acreage Dairy Cows..... Cows HeifersinCalf < Year Old Year Old Male Year Old Female => 2 Year Old Male => 2 Year Old Female Bulls Total Ewes Sheep Total Sheep Dairy Cows Sheep Horses Total Livestock Units Family Total < < 2 2 < 4. Area Owned Total Area LAND (ha) LIVESTOCK Sheep (avg. no) Grazing Livestock Units LABOUR UNITS 2

28 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Table 2C (24) Gross Output and Direct Payments by Size (UAA Ha) Rearing System Size (UAAHa) < 5 5 < >= Hill Farms < < 2 2 < 4..4 ( ) GROSS OUTPUT LIVESTOCK Dairying of which milk of which Suckler Welfare Scheme Sheep & Wool of which Sheep Welfare Scheme Pigs Poultry Horses SubTotal Livestock of which Disease Compensation Wheat Barley Feeding 66 2 Barley Malting Oats Potatoes of which Forestry Premium SubTotal Crops TOTAL LIVESTOCK & CROPS Machinery Hire Revenue Current Receipts Decoupled Direct Payments / Subs of which Single Farm Payment " REPS " DAS " Subsidies AEOS Income from Land Let Income from Quota Let InterEnterprise Transfers 2 TOTAL GROSS OUTPUT CROPS 24

29 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Table 2D (24) Direct and Overhead Costs by Size (UAA Ha) Rearing System Size (UAAHa) < 5 5 < >= Hill Farms Fertiliser Crop Protection Purchased Seed Hire of Machinery Transport Livestock (A.I. Vet etc.) Casual Labour SubTotal Fodder Crop Adjustment TOTAL DIRECT COSTS Rent of Conacre Car, Electricity, Phone Current Hired Labour Interest Charges Machinery Depreciation Machinery Operating of which Fuel & Lub Buildings Depreciation Buildings Maintenance Land Improvement Depreciation Land Improvement Maintenance OVERHEAD COSTS TOTAL NET EXPENSES < < 2 2 < 4. Purchased Concentrates Purchased Bulky Feed DIRECT COSTS ( ) OVERHEAD COSTS ( ) Distribution % of farms Costs % Output

30 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Table 2E (24) Demograhic Data by Size (UAA Ha) Rearing System Size (UAAHa) < 5 5 < >= Hill Farms Widowed % Single % Separated % = Total Household Size (no.) < 24 (no.) < 24 % HH (no.) % HH Demograph. Viable % HH < < 2 2 < 4. Age of Holder Marital Status Married % Holder Household Offfarm sources of income Holder and/or Spouse Offfarm Job % HH Offfarm Job Holder % HH Offfarm Job Spouse % HH Pensioners (no.) Pensioners % HH Unemployment Etc. (no.) Unemployment Etc. % HH F.F.I. ( ) < FFI FFI FFI FFI FFI 5 7 FFI7TO > 26

31 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Table A (24) Farm Financial Results by Size (UAA Ha) System Size (UAAHa) < 5 5 < >= Hill Farms Subsidies and Direct Payments Direct Costs = Gross Margin Overhead Costs = Family Farm Income Net Sales & Receipts Current Cash Expenditure =Cash Income (Approx) Net New Investment = Cash Flow Machinery Livestock: Breeding Trading Land & Buildings Gross New Investment Loans Closing Balance < < 2 2 < 5.6 Gross Output of which Land / Quota Let Overall Results ( ) Asset Values ( ) Total Standard Output (TSO) Distribution % of Farms Soil Group : () (2) () = Total

32 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Table B (24) Resources per Farm by Size (UAA Ha) System Size (UAAHa) < 5 5 < >= Hill Farms Tillage of which Total Cereals " Potatoes Grassland Silage Hay Pasture Rough Grazing U.A.A Remainder of Farm Forage & Crop Acreage Dairy Cows Cows HeifersinCalf < Year Old Year Old Male Year Old Female => 2 Year Old Male => 2 Year Old Female Bulls Total Ewes Sheep Total Sheep < < 2 2 < 5.6 Area Owned Total Area LAND (ha) LIVESTOCK Sheep (avg. no) Grazing Livestock Units Dairy Cows Sheep Horses Total Livestock Units Family Total LABOUR UNITS 28

33 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Table C (24) Gross Output and Direct Payments by Size (UAA Ha) System Size (UAAHa) < 5 5 < >= Hill Farms < < 2 2 < ( ) GROSS OUTPUT LIVESTOCK Dairying of which milk of which Suckler Welfare Scheme Sheep & Wool of which Sheep Welfare Scheme Pigs Poultry Horses SubTotal Livestock of which Disease Compensation Wheat Barley Feeding Barley Malting Oats 62 6 Potatoes of which Forestry Premium SubTotal Crops TOTAL LIVESTOCK & CROPS Machinery Hire Revenue Current Receipts Decoupled Direct Payments / Subs of which Single Farm Payment " REPS " DAS " Subsidies AEOS Income from Land Let Income from Quota Let InterEnterprise Transfers TOTAL GROSS OUTPUT CROPS 29

34 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Table D (24) Direct and Overhead Costs by Size (UAA Ha) System Size (UAAHa) < 5 5 < >= Hill Farms Fertiliser Crop Protection Purchased Seed Hire of Machinery Transport Livestock (A.I. Vet etc.) Casual Labour SubTotal Fodder Crop Adjustment TOTAL DIRECT COSTS < < 2 2 < 5.6 Purchased Concentrates Purchased Bulky Feed DIRECT COSTS ( ) OVERHEAD COSTS ( ) Rent of Conacre Car, Electricity, Phone Current Hired Labour Interest Charges Machinery Depreciation Machinery Operating of which Fuel & Lub Buildings Depreciation Buildings Maintenance Land Improvement Depreciation Land Improvement Maintenance OVERHEAD COSTS TOTAL NET EXPENSES Distribution % of farms Costs % Output

35 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Table E (24) Demograhic Data by Size (UAA Ha) System Size (UAAHa) < 5 5 < >= Hill Farms Widowed % Single % Separated % = Total Household Size (no.) < 24 (no.) < 24 % HH (no.) % HH Demograph. Viable % HH < < 2 2 < 5.6 Age of Holder Marital Status Married % Holder Household Offfarm sources of income Holder and/or Spouse Offfarm Job % HH Offfarm Job Holder % HH Offfarm Job Spouse % HH Pensioners (no.) Pensioners % HH Unemployment Etc. (no.) Unemployment Etc. % HH F.F.I. ( ) < FFI FFI FFI FFI FFI FFI7TO > 9

36 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Table 4A (24) Farm Financial Results by Size (UAA Ha) Sheep System Size (UAAHa) < 5 5 < >= Hill Farms Subsidies and Direct Payments Direct Costs = Gross Margin Overhead Costs = Family Farm Income Net Sales & Receipts Current Cash Expenditure =Cash Income (Approx) Net New Investment = Cash Flow Machinery Livestock: Breeding Trading Land & Buildings Gross New Investment Loans Closing Balance < < 2 2 < 8. Gross Output of which Land / Quota Let Overall Results ( ) Asset Values ( ) Total Standard Output (TSO) Distribution % of Farms Soil Group : () (2) () = Total

37 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Table 4B (24) Resources per Farm by Size (UAA Ha) Sheep System Size (UAAHa) < 5 5 < >= Hill Farms Tillage of which Total Cereals " Potatoes..... Grassland Silage Hay Pasture Rough Grazing U.A.A Remainder of Farm Forage & Crop Acreage Dairy Cows..... Cows HeifersinCalf < Year Old Year Old Male Year Old Female => 2 Year Old Male => 2 Year Old Female Bulls Total Ewes Sheep Total Sheep Dairy Cows Sheep Horses Total Livestock Units Family Total < < 2 2 < 8. Area Owned Total Area LAND (ha) LIVESTOCK Sheep (avg. no) Grazing Livestock Units LABOUR UNITS

38 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Table 4C (24) Gross Output and Direct Payments by Size (UAA Ha) Sheep System Size (UAAHa) < 5 5 < >= Hill Farms < < 2 2 < ( ) GROSS OUTPUT LIVESTOCK Dairying of which milk of which Suckler Welfare Scheme Sheep & Wool of which Sheep Welfare Scheme Pigs Poultry 7 Horses SubTotal Livestock of which Disease Compensation Wheat Barley Feeding Barley Malting Oats Potatoes of which Forestry Premium SubTotal Crops TOTAL LIVESTOCK & CROPS Machinery Hire Revenue Current Receipts Decoupled Direct Payments / Subs of which Single Farm Payment " REPS " DAS " Subsidies AEOS Income from Land Let Income from Quota Let 6 InterEnterprise Transfers TOTAL GROSS OUTPUT CROPS 4

39 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Table 4D (24) Direct and Overhead Costs by Size (UAA Ha) Sheep System Size (UAAHa) < 5 5 < >= Hill Farms Fertiliser Crop Protection Purchased Seed Hire of Machinery Transport Livestock (A.I. Vet etc.) Casual Labour SubTotal Fodder Crop Adjustment TOTAL DIRECT COSTS Rent of Conacre Car, Electricity, Phone Current Hired Labour Interest Charges Machinery Depreciation Machinery Operating of which Fuel & Lub Buildings Depreciation Buildings Maintenance Land Improvement Depreciation Land Improvement Maintenance OVERHEAD COSTS TOTAL NET EXPENSES < < 2 2 < 8. Purchased Concentrates Purchased Bulky Feed DIRECT COSTS ( ) OVERHEAD COSTS ( ) Distribution % of farms Costs % Output 7. 5

40 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Table 4E (24) Demograhic Data by Size (UAA Ha) Sheep System Size (UAAHa) < 5 5 < >= Hill Farms Widowed % Single % Separated % = Total Household Size (no.) < 24 (no.) < 24 % HH (no.) % HH Demograph. Viable % HH < < 2 2 < 8. Age of Holder Marital Status Married % Holder Household Offfarm sources of income Holder and/or Spouse Offfarm Job % HH Offfarm Job Holder % HH Offfarm Job Spouse % HH Pensioners (no.) Pensioners % HH Unemployment Etc. (no.) Unemployment Etc. % HH F.F.I. ( ) < FFI FFI FFI FFI FFI 5 7 FFI7TO > 6

41 Teagasc National Farm Survey: Results 24 Table 5A (24) Farm Financial Results by Size (UAA Ha) Tillage System Size (UAAHa) < 5 5 < >= of which Land / Quota Let Subsidies and Direct Payments Direct Costs = Gross Margin Overhead Costs = Family Farm Income Net Sales & Receipts Current Cash Expenditure = Cash Income (Approx) Net New Investment = Cash Flow Machinery Livestock: Breeding Trading Land & Buildings Gross New Investment Loans Closing Balance Total Standard Output (TSO) < < 2 2 < 5. Gross Output Overall Results ( ) Asset Values ( ) Distribution % of Farms Soil Group : () (2) ()..... = Total