Lisäpellon etäisyyden vaikutus viljelyn kustannuksiin ja pellon hankintahintaan

Abstract

Maatalouden rakennekehityksen yksi keino on tilakoon kasvattaminen lisäpeltoa hankkimalla. Suomen olosuhteissa on yleistä, että lisäpeltoa ei ole saatavissa läheltä. Mitä kannattaa maksaa kaukana olevasta pellosta? Asiaa on selvitetty maatalouden taloudellisessa tutkimuslaitoksessa laskemalla etäisyyden aiheuttamat kustannukset maidontuotantoa ja viljanviljelyä harjoittavilla tiloilla. Tulosten perusteella pellon etäisyys on merkittävä kustannustekijä, ja sen tulisi vaikuttaa pellosta maksettavaan hintaan ja vuokraan. Esimerkiksi 16 lehmän maitotilalla 5 hehtaarin sijainti 10 km:n päässä aiheuttaa vuodessa lähes 1000 markan lisäkustannuksen hehtaaria kohden. Viljatilalla vastaava lisäkustannus on vuodessa noin 500 mk/ha. Ero johtuu pääosin siitä, että viljanviljelyssä pellolla käyntikertoja on vähemmän. Tutkimuksessa selvitettiin myös aktiivitilojen lisäpellon hankintaa vuosina 1995 ja 1996. Tulosten mukaan etelän viljatilat maksoivat lisäpeltohehtaarista keskimäärin 17 750 mk ja maitotilat 15 500 mk. Keskimääräinen etäisyys talouskeskuksesta lisäpellolle oli viljatilalla 2,0 km ja maitotilalla 1,5 km. Kaukana olevia peltoja mieluummin vuokrattiin kuin ostettiin. Oletettavasti johtuen sijaintitekijästä, maitotilat saavat vuokrattua peltoa lähempää ja halvemmalla kuin viljatilat. Lisäpellon etäisyydellä ei ollut selvää vaikutusta pellosta maksettavaan hehtaarihintaan. Tämä lienee pitkälti seurausta siitä, että peltoa tulee myyntiin kysyntään nähden liian vähän: jos lisäpeltoa haluaa, siitä on maksettava käypä markkinahinta. Lisäpeltoa hankitaan harvoin yli 12 kilometrin etäisyydeltä tilan talouskeskuksesta. Kun osto tai vuokraus tehdään näin kaukaa, etäisyys jo ennestään hallinnassa olevalle pellolle on useimmiten lyhyt. Tällöin etäisyydestä aiheutuvaa haittaa pienentää se, että samalla suunnalla olevia peltoja voidaan viljellä samoilla käyntikerroilla. Monissa tapauksissa kaukana sijaitsevan pellon viljelykierto poikkeaa tilan muiden peltojen viljelykierrosta siten, että peltoa pyritään kesannoimaan enemmän kuin tilan muita peltoja tai sitä käytetään pelkästään rehuviljan tuotantoon.

This study was concerned with the costs caused by the distance to additional arable land as well as the effects of the distance on the purchase and rent prices paid for additional arable land. First, the costs were calculated by means of the farm models. The models used were dairy farm models with 16 and 32 cows as well as cereal farm models with 40 and 80 hectares. The cost of the distance for the dairy farm models was calculated according to the labour input of silage and for the cereal farm models according to the labour input for feed barley, using the labour input norms for agriculture calculated by the TTS Institute. The locations of the arable land at distances of five to ten kilometres from the economic centre were examined. In the case of dairy farm models of 16 cows and cereal farm models of 40 ha the additional arable land area was 5 ha, and in the case of dairy farm models of 32 cows and cereal farm models of 80 ha it was 10 ha. The purchasing and use of additional arable land were examined by means of a questionnaire sent to the bookkeeping farms in order to determine whether the distances between the additional arable land, the economic centre of the farm, and the earlier arable land areas influenced the price paid for the arable land. In the farm model study the cost of the distance per hectare was the lowest in the cereal farm model of 80 ha with the additional area of 10 ha. As the distance grew from five to ten kilometres, the cost increased from FIM 190 to 415 per hectare. Correspondingly, the cost of the distance in the case of a cereal farm model with 40 ha varied between FIM 214 and 493 per hectare. The cost of the distance was the highest in the dairy farm model of 16 cows with the additional arable land area of 5 hectares. In this case the cost varied between FIM 444 and 940 per hectare. In the case of the larger dairy farm model (32 cows) the cost of the distance was between FIM 355 and 766 per hectare. The results of the questionnaire indicated that the distance to the additional arable land had no effect on the prices paid. However, both the purchasing and renting of additional land decreased considerably when the distance was longer than the 8-12 kilometres, and land was purchased or rented at longer distances only in a few individual cases. The questions concerning the use of additional arable land indicated that when the additional land was located relatively far away from the farmers had become adjusted to the fact that the crop rotation of the additional land differed from that of the other arable land areas. The additional area was either monotonously under fodder cereals or it was set aside more frequently than the other parcels of the farm. The comparison of the acquisition of additional arable land between milk producers and cereal producers indicated that in areas A and B milk producers purchased additional land closer to the economic centre and at a lower price than cereal producers. Instead, in areas C1 and C2 milk producers showed considerable willingness to expand and acquired additional land even further away than the other farmers of the area. When the future willingness to expand was asked, the farmers were prepared to increase their arable land area by means of additional land located even further away. On average, milk producers were prepared to acquire additional land located relatively close to their economic centres, but cereal producers were more willing to both rent and purchase land located at a longer distance than other farmers. In all production lines farmers are prepared to rent arable land at a longer distance than in the case of purchasing the land in the future, too.