|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help ||
|Table of Contents|
ALL VOLUMES CITATION SEARCH THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
|Table of Contents|
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
R. P Murr Economic nformion
R. P.: Murcro Economic Iniorrni;rjo
Indian River Citrus Production,
19 77-7 8
" -. ,
ood and Resource Economics Department
agricultural Experiment Stations and-
ooperative Extension Service
stitute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
.versity of Florida, Gainesville 32611
Estimated costs and returns of growing white seedless
grapefruit in the Indian River area of Florida are presented
for the fourth consecutive year. The format presented may
be used by individual growers to budget costs and returns
utilizing individual data on specific groves.
Key words: citrus, Indian River, budgeting, costs .and
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . .
METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION ..
THE GROVE SITUATION ....
Age and Production Per Tree
COST OF INPUTS. .
SPRAY PROGRAM .
COSTS AND RETURNS .
ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION
LIST OF TABLES
1 Cs.lcula.tion of production per acre . 3
2 Costs of inputs supplied on a custom basis
i:ed in calculating costs ... . 4
3 Costs of chemicals used in calculating
costs . . . .. 4
4 Spray program used in budget based on
custom rates and application of two 500-
gallon tanks per acre . . 5
5 Estimated annual per acre costs and returns
for a mature white seedless grapefruit on
sour orange rootstock, Indian River area,
orida .. . . . 6
6 Estimated annual per acre costs and returns
for a mature, white seedless grapefruit
grove producing citrus for fresh fruit
packing in Indian River area, 1974-75--
1977-78 . . . . 7
7 Schedule of production practices in Indian
River groves . .. .. . 9
. . . 1
. . . 2
. . 3
BUDGETING COSTS AND RETURNS:
INDIAN RIVER CITRUS PRODUCTION, 1977-78
R. P. Muraro and Ben Abbitt
Current data on costs and returns are needed by citrus
growers in order to formulate realistic budgets for their
operations. Budget analysis provides the basis for many
grower decisions. For example, budget analysis can be used
to calculate potential profits from an operation, to
determine cash requirements for an operation, and to
determine brea-k-even prices.
This paper presents a budget constructed from current
data an. -ill serve as a format for growers to develop
costs and returns from their individual records.
METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION
The data presented here were developed by surveying
custom. : operators, input suppi ers, growers, and colleagues
at the Agricultural Research and Education Center in Lake
Alfred. This annual survey is conducted in January.
R. P. MURARO, Farm Mranagement Extension Agent, Polk
County, Bartow, FL 33830. ,BEN AB]BITT, Area Economist,
Food and Resource Economics Departmen.t, University of
Florida, AREC, Lake Alfred, FL 33850.
THE GROVE SITUATION
It is difficult to define a "typical" grove; therefore,
it is necessary to state the assumptions under which a
budget was constructed. The assumptions made as to a
particular grove situation are thought to be typical of a
healthy, mature, sour-orange-rooted, white seedless
grapefruit grove in the Indian River area of the state.
Specific production practices vary from grove to grove.
Many combinations of practices and various tree combinations
seem to accomplish production of acceptable yields and
returns. The generation of costs and returns procedure is
designed To be applicable to any grove situation. A grower,
realtor, or land appraiser can substitute individual grove
costs and expected returns into the budget format and
develop a budget for a particular grove.
In The following budget, good management and cultural
practices are assumed. Beyond this general assumption,
the following specifics are assumed:
1. A 20-year-old irrigated grove;
2. Vari-ety is white seedless on sour
Tree loss is 3 percent annually;
4. Trees are pulled and replaced when
production falls below 50 percent
of expected yield;
5. Production is for fresh use; and
6. Tree spacing is 70 trees per acre.
Age and Production Per Tree
3% pulled and reset
3% 1 year old
3% 2 years old
3% 3 years old
3% 4 years old
57% 5-19 years old
3% producing 50% of'expected yield
25% mature producing
Table 1.--Calculation of production per acre
Trees Percentage age Boxes/tree Total boxes
70 0.03 0.50 1.05
70 0.03 1.10 2.31
70 0.57 4.40 175.56
70 0.03 3.75 7.88
70 0.25 7.50 131.25
Total boxes/acre 318.05
COSTS OF INPUTS
Costs for various production inputs are the average
of the data obtained from the survey. These average
costs are shown in Tables 2 and 3.
The spray program presented here is believed to be of
the type followed by a majority of growers. It is not the
exact program outlined in the Florida Citrus Spray Guide 1978,
nor is it necessarily the most economical spray program.
Most growers in the Indian River area produce grapefruit for
the fresh market and their.spray program is formulated to
produce a fruit of this quality. Table 4 outlines the spray
program which is used for calculations in the.budget which
Table 2.--Costs of inputs supplied on a custom basis used in
Unit Low High
Avg. Your cost
Mowing (9'-10' rotary)
Removing trees (plus driver)
(front end loader)
Power saw w/o operator
Tractor and driver
Truck and driver
Water tru :
Table 3.--Costs of chemicals used in calculating costs
Item Unit Cost Your cost
Copper, tri-basic Lb. .84
Zinc, 335 zn Lb. .35
Manga.ese-su.lfate Lb. .10
Chlorobenzilate Gal. 16.40
Ethio. Gal. 13.36
Keithane Gal. 16.00
Bonla;e Lb. 7.91
Oil, 97% Gal. .96
Sticker Gal. 6.06
Sulphur dust Ton 111.80
Krovar II Lb. 5.08
16-0-16 fertilizer Ton 97.20
16-0-16-4 MgO fertilizer Ton 105.74
8-2-8 fertilizer Ton 66.46
Table 4.--Spray program used in budget based on custom
rates and application of two 500-gallon tanks
Item Amount/acre Cost Your cost
Post bloom application
Summer oil application
Mit icide a-plication
Ke it ane
COSTS AND RETURNS
Table 5 shows the estimated costs and returns based
on data presented earlier and with a custom-caretaker
providing grove management. This table, as do the others,
has a column reserved for the individual grower to insert
data from a particular grove. 'This will allow a comparison
of the grower's costs and returns with those of the
hypothetical case presented.
- -- ------------I-I
Two items of cost which are not included in the budget
are ad valorem taxes and interest on grove investment.
These costs vary. from grove to grove depending on age,
location, soil, and time of purchase or establishment.
They should both be considered in arriving at a net return
to land and trees (total return minus costs).
Estimated annual costs and returns for mature, fresh,
white seedless grapefruit on sour orange rootstock in the
Indian River area have been collected and published the
past three years. Estimated cost and return histories for
these years and 1977-78 are presented in Table 6.
Table 6.--Estimated annual per acre costs and returns .for
a mature, white seedless grapefruit grove
producing citrus for fresh fruit packing in
Indian River area, 1974-75--1977-78.
Total Net return
Gross specified to land
Year Price/boxa Yield revenue costs and tre s
197-75 1.90 318 60.1.20 331..05 273.15
1975-75 1.41 318 448.38 341.07 107.31
1976-77 2.00 318 636.00 364.11 271.89
1077-7- 1.75 318 556.50 358.91 197.59
"Estima ed at time of printing and are not published prices.
Shown in Table 7 are production practices for Indian
River citrus and a range of times during the year when
they would likely'be performed. There are two benefits to
developing such a table for an individual grove. First,
it shows what work is needed and when, so that operations
can be planned well in advance. Second, it can be
helpful if an annual cash flow analysis is developed
to plan financing. The individual grower can achieve
benefits by developing a plan for a particular grove.
ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Since 1931, through the cooperation of Florica
citrus growers, the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
and the Florida Cooperative Extension Service have conducted
annual studies of citrus grove costs and returns. These
data have been summarized annually and averaged in varying
time scans. Annual cost and return histories can
be made available upon request.
The most recent time span (consecutive years) that
these .nnualicost--and return figures have been averaged
is the five growing seasons 1971-76. These annual cost
and return histories and preceding histories are recorded
in Factors to Consider in Purchasing a Citrus Grove.
Conies of this circular can be obtained at your County
Cooperative Extension Service Office or by writing
Dr. Donald L. Brooke, Professor in the Food and
Resource Economics Department, University of Florida,
IFAS, Gainesville, has conducted this annual study in
Brooke, Donald L. and Ben Abbitt. Factors to Consider
in Purchasing a Citrus Grove. Florida Cooperative
Extension Service Circular 437. University of
Florida, IFAS, Gainesville, Florida.. 1978.
DuCharme, E. P.. "Tree Loss in Relation to Young Tree
Decline and Sand Hill Decline of Citrus in Florida."
Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 84:48-52. (October 1970).
Florida Citrus Spray Guide 1978. University of Florida
Cooperative Extension Service Circular 393D.
Muraro, Ronald P. "Comparative Citrus Budgets."
Polk County Extension Service. March 1976.
Muraro, Ronald P. "Summary Custom Rate Survey for-Nine
Indian River Citrus Caretakers." Bartow: Polk
County Extension Service. March 1976.
Muraro, Ronald P.' "Cost of Resetting a Citrus Grove."
Bartow: Polk County Extension Service. September 1976.
Reitz, H. J., C. D. Leonard, et. al. Recommended
Fertilizers.and Nutritional Sprays for Citrus.
University of Florida Agricultural Experiment
Stations Bulletin 536C. December 1972.
This public document was promulgated at an annual
cost of $372''or $.34 per copy to furnish the
citrus industry with 'current data on cost of
production for the Food and Resource Economics
Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences, and the University of Florida.