Current issue: 54(1)

Under compilation: 54(2)

Impact factor 1.683
5-year impact factor 1.950
Silva Fennica 1926-1997
1990-1997
1980-1989
1970-1979
1960-1969
Acta Forestalia Fennica
1953-1968
1933-1952
1913-1932

Articles containing the keyword 'maanviljelijä'.

Category: Article

article id 5094, category Article
Veli-Pekka Järveläinen. (1980). Kuka on maanviljelijä? Silva Fennica vol. 14 no. 4 article id 5094. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.a15035
English title: Who is a farmer?

This paper comments on the article written by Simo Hannelius that is published in the same issue of Silva Fennica (Who is the non-farmer forest owner? Silva Fennica 14 no. 4). Hannelius suggests that researchers dealing with the behaviour of private forest owners should change their classification to agree with the concepts presented in the Farm Economy statistics, and that the recommended concept of farmer forest owner is understood as a forest owner who has taxable net incomes (state taxation) from farming. Other private forest owners would be classified as non-farmers. Veli-Pekka Järveläinen states in his opinion that when distinguishing a farmer and a non-farmer, the key criterion should be the profession, which has been proved to be an important parameter in behavioural research.

  • Järveläinen, ORCID ID:E-mail:
article id 5075, category Article
Simo Hannelius. (1980). Kuka on metsätilanomistaja? Silva Fennica vol. 14 no. 2 article id 5075. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.a15016
English title: Who is the non-farmer forest owner? The semantic influence of the non-farmer forest owner-concept to research results and published statistics.

Research into the forestry behaviour of private forest owners in Finland began 10 years ago. The private forest owners have been dichotomously classified into two groups, farmers and non-farmers. The farmer forest owner was considered to derive his main income (earnings) from agriculture. This classification is compared to the concepts in statistical publication Farm Economy 1976 (Maatilatalous). On the basis of this examination, it is recommended that researchers dealing with the behaviour of private forest owners should change their classification to agree with the concepts presented in the Farm Economy statistics. The recommended concept of farmer forest owner is understood as a forest owner who has taxable net incomes (state taxation) from farming. Other private forest owners are classified as non-farmers.

The PDF includes a summary in English.

  • Hannelius, ORCID ID:E-mail:
article id 4828, category Article
Juhani Numminen. (1970). Pellonvaraussopimusten alaisten peltojen metsitys. Silva Fennica vol. 4 no. 4 article id 4828. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.a14617
English title: Afforestation of agricultural land under soil bank contracts.

Under the soil bank act, which took effect in 1969, 85,000 hectares of agricultural land were withdrawn from agricultural production in order to cut down the heavy surpluses of grain and butter in Finland. The farmers have a possibility to afforest their soil bank land partly on public funds, and if they choose to do so they receive a compensation of 250 Fmk for 15 years, instead of the nine years which is the maximum duration of a soil bank contract.

The study involved interviewing of 136 farmers sampled from the total of 13,368. The farmers were planning to afforest a total of 18,600 ha by the end of 1972. The main species were birch (Betula sp.) 40%, Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) H. Karst.) and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) both 30%. The main reasons (mentioned by 65% of the farmers) for afforestating the soil bank land were the unfavourable conditions for agriculture. On the other hand, 43% of those who had decided not to afforest felt that their land is too good to be planted with trees. One fifth of those not afforesting said that they themselves would not benefit from the afforestation and therefore were not interested in investing in forestry. The attitudes of the farmers seem to have also influenced their decision on afforestation. Those who had taken a positive decision on afforestation appeared to take more positive attitude in regard to forestry than other farmers.

The soil bank act does not seem to solve permanently Finland’s problem of the surpluses of agricultural products since the soil bank farmers planned to revert two thirds of the soil bank land under cultivation on the expiration of the soil bank act.

The PDF includes a summary in English.

  • Numminen, ORCID ID:E-mail:

Register
Click this link to register for Silva Fennica submission and tracking system.
Log in
If you are a registered user, log in to save your selected articles for later access.
Contents alert
Sign up to receive alerts of new content
Your selected articles

Committee on Publication Ethics A Trusted Community-Governed Archive