Maatalousrakennusten määrä ja arvo sekä rakennusten kapasiteetin hyväksikäyttö eräiden Pohjois-Karjalan kuntien alueella vuonna 1960

Authors

• Viljo Ryynänen Helsingin yliopiston maanviljelystalouden laitos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.23986/afsci.71623

Abstract

The object of the study is to establish the volume and value of agricultural buildings and the utilisation of the capacity of certain buildings on the farms investigated. The material was collected from five communes south and west of the town of Joensuu. It includes all (129) the farms in these communes which relinquished field area under a compulsory purchase order for the building of new highways in 1956—1961. Tables 1 and 2 show the distribution of land use and the average arable land area of the farms in the investigation area as a whole. The farms were divided into size classes according to the arable land: size class I 2.00–9.99 hectares of arable land; II 10.00–24.99 hectares; III 25.00–49.99 hectares. The average areas and volumes of the buildings are shown in Tables 3 and 4. The area of dwelling houses per person was 17.6 sq.m, in farms of I size class, 21.3 sq.m, in II class and 28.5 sq.m, in III class. The area of the livestock buildings per hectare of arable land increases to start with the arable area increase (Fig. 1). The maximum area of buildings per hectare is on farms with c. 8 hectares of arable land. Above this figure the area of buildings per hectare decreases with the increase in the arable land. As the number of livestock grows per hectare of arable land when the size of the farms diminishes (Fig. 2), small farms have the smallest area of building per animal. This is largely because the smaller the farm the more often a boiling house, a milk cooling room and even an entrance hall are absent in the livestock buildings. Most of the buildings on smaller farms are of wood and, having a short life, approximate more closely to the building need of the farms at the time of investigation than do the stone cow sheds of larger farms. Fig. 3 shows the area of livestock buildings per hectare of arable land as a cumulative frequency curve. The pronounced deviation in the investigation material in regard to this quality is quite distinct. The deviation is considered in more detail in Table 5. The average volume of straw feed storages on the farms studied is large (Tables 3 and 4). The larger the number of storages, the more storage space per hectare there is on the farms. Fig. 4 shows the volume of straw feed storages by farm size class as a cumulative frequency curve. The mean age of the buildings or building groups is fairly low (Table 6). The buildings on the farms of size class I have the lowest mean age. The mean age of the buildings increases with the arable area of the farm. The dwelling and storage buildings are almost exclusively of wood (Table 7), bus a considerable proportion of the livestock buildings are of stone. The value of the buildings was calculated by farm size classes for whole farms as well as per hectare of arable land (Tables 8—11). The value of the outbuildings per hectare of arable land as a function of the arable area is given in Fig. 5. The value of these buildings per hectare grows with the increase in arable area until it reaches its maximum on farms of c. 7 hectares of arable land, when it again falls almost linearly with the increase in the arable area. The mean current value of the buildings in the year of investigation was 62 per cent of the replacement value. In addition, the study sought to establish the utilisation of the capacity of the livestock buildings and straw feed storages. The volume or area of the buildings, the requirement of livestock buildings and straw feed supplies at the time of the investigation was likewise ascertained. The utilisation of capacity is expressed as the radio of the building requirement and the volume or area of buildings on the farms at the time of the investigation. The number of domestic animals on the farm in the year of investigation is taken into account in calculating the need of livestock buildings. It is assumes that one cow needs 6.5 sq.m, of floor space when tied up. The other domestic animals are converted into livestock units (abbreviated ny) according to the floor space needed by them. To the floor area needed by domestic animals was added the area of the boiling house, milk room and entrance hall. The straw feed storage requirement was calculated from the storable hay and straw harvest of the farm. The crop estimate was based on five-year means. It is assumed that a straw feed storage holds 50 kg/cu.m. of dry hay and 35 kg/cu.m. of straw at the time of storing. The livestock building space averages 12.2 sq.m./ny on farms with 2.00–9.99 hectares of arable land, 11.7 sq.m./ny on farms with 10.00–24.99 hectares of arable land and 14.1 sq.m./ny on those with 25.00–49.99 hectares. The utilisation of the capacity of the livestock buildings on the farms in the year of investigation is shown in Table 12 and Fig. 6. The utilisation of the capacity varies greatly, 30.2 per cent of all the farms use 90 per cent or more of the calculated maximum capacity of the livestock buildings. The livestock buildings space utilised on these farms is 6.5 sq.m./ny if boiling house and milk room are excluded and 8.0 sq.m./ny when these are included. The utilisation of the capacity of livestock buildings of different ages is shown in Table 14. The poor utilisation of the capacity of livestock buildings is due largely to the c. 30 per cent reduction in the number of domestic animals per hectare of arable land in the course of the last two decades. In some cases the farm had been divided among the heirs and the original farm was left with outhouses too large for the needs of the farm. The utilisation of the capacity was very low in these cases. The utilisation of straw feed storages appears in Table 14. Some farms have storages that are too small. The utilisation of the capacity on these farms is thus not illustrative of the true use. The number of straw feed storages is considerable on several farms. Fig. 7 shows the dependence between the number of storages and the utilisation of the capacity. Utilisation of the capacity of straw feed storages seems to be poorer on farms with a low farming intensity than on intensively cultivated farms.