<%BANNER%>
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Abstract
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Grove situation
 Costs of inputs
 Spray program
 Costs and returns
 Bibliography














Budgeting costs and returns
ALL VOLUMES CITATION SEARCH THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00026157/00025
 Material Information
Title: Budgeting costs and returns
Series Title: Economic information report
Portion of title: Budgeting costs and returns for Central Florida citrus production
Budgeting costs and returns for for <sic> Central Florida citrus production
Physical Description: v. : ; 27 cm.
Language: English
Creator: University of Florida -- Food and Resource Economics Dept
Publisher: Food and Resource Economics Dept., Agricultural Experiment Stations and Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville
Creation Date: 1975
Frequency: annual
regular
 Subjects
Subjects / Keywords: Citrus fruit industry -- Economic aspects -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Citrus fruits -- Marketing -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: governmental publication   ( marcgt )
serial   ( sobekcm )
 Notes
General Note: Title varies slightly: <1992-93>- Budgeting costs and returns for Central Florida Citrus Production.
General Note: Description based on: 1978-79; cover title.
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000313320
oclc - 08042638
notis - ABU0053
lccn - sn 82000631 /g
System ID: UF00026157:00025

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Abstract
        Abstract
    Table of Contents
        Page I
    Introduction
        Page 1
    Grove situation
        Page 2
    Costs of inputs
        Page 3
    Spray program
        Page 4
        Page 5
    Costs and returns
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Bibliography
        Page 9
Full Text


R. P. Muraro

Ben Abbitt


Economic Information
Report 65


Budgeting Costs and Returns:

Central Florida Citrus Production,

1975-76







1 4 '
'I


Food and Resource Economics Department
Agricultural Experiment Stations and
Cooperative Extension Service
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Goainpvitll 32611


December 1976















ABSTRACT


Estimated costs and returns of growing round oranges in
the central Florida citrus area are presented for the second
consecutive year. The format presented may be used by indi-
vidual growers to budget costs and returns utilizing individual
data on specific groves.

Key words: citrus, central Florida, budgeting, costs
and returns













TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page


INTRODUCTION. . . . .

METHOD. . . . .

THE GROVE SITUATION . . .
Age and Production Per Tree .
Calculations of Production Per Acre

COSTS OF INPUTS . . .

SPRAY PROGRAM . . . .

COSTS AND RETURNS . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . .


2
. . .. .2
... ... ... .
...............................3

................................

................................

................................


LIST OF TABLES


Table
1 Costs of inputs supplied on a custom basis used
in calculating costs . . . .

2 Costs of chemicals used in calculating costs

3 Spray program used in budget based on custom
rates and application of two 500-gallon tanks
per acre . . . . . .

4 Estimated annual per acre costs and returns for a
mature round orange grove producing citrus for
processing in Central Florida. . . .

5 Schedule of production practices in Central
Florida citrus groves. . . . .












BUDGETING COSTS AND RETURNS:
CENTRAL FLORIDA CITRUS PRODUCTION, 1975-76



R. P. Muraro and Ben Abbitt


INTRODUCTION


There is always a time lag between the collection of

production costs and returns data and when they are analyzed

and published. This time lag is due to the manner in which

these data become available. Production costs in one year

are understood to relate to the crop which is harvested the

following season.

In order to obtain current data for various decision-making

purposes, a budget may be synthesized from present cost and

return data. 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 break-even prices.


METHOD


The data presented here were developed from surveying custom

operators, input suppliers, and from discussions with colleagues

at the Agricultural Research and Education Center in Lake Alfred.


R. P. MURARO is a Farm Management Extension Agent stationed
in Polk County. BEN ABBITT is an Extension Farm Management
Economist stationed at the Agricultural Research and Education
Center, Lake Alfred.








The assumptions made as to a particular grove situation are

thought to be typical of a healthy, mature, rough lemon-rooted

round orange grove in the ridge area, or central part of the

state. The generation of costs and returns data is designed

to be applicable to any grove situation. A grower can substitute

his individual grove costs and expected returns into the budget

format and develop a budget for a particular grove.

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. Specific production practices vary from grove to

grove. Many combinations of practices and various tree combination

accomplish the production of acceptable yields and returns.

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 grove, irrigated;
2. Type is round orange on rough lemon rootstock;
3. Tree loss is 2 percent annually;
4. Trees are pulled and replaced when production
fall below 50 percent of expected yield;
5. Production is for processing only; and
6. Tree spacing is 70 trees per acre.


Age and Production Per Tree
Situation Boxes/tree
2% pulled and replanted 0
2% 1 year old 0
2% 2 years old 0
2% 3 years old .6
2% 4 years old .9
28% 5-19 years old 3.6
2% producing 50% of expected yield 3.0
60% 20 years old 6.1









Calculations of Production Per Acre


70 x 0.02 x 0.6 =
70 x 0.02 x 0.9 =
70 x 0.28 x 3.6 =
70 x .0.02 x 3.0 =
70 x 0.60 x 6.1 =
Boxes/acre =


.84
1.26
70.56
4.20
256.20
333.06


COSTS OF INPUTS


Costs for various production input items are the average

of the data obtained from a survey of custom operators and

suppliers of fertilizer, chemicals, and other inputs conducted

in January, 1976. These costs are shown in Tables 1 and 2.

On-tree orange prices reported by the Florida Crop and Livestock

Reporting Service were used.



Table 1.--Costs of inputs supplied on a custom basis used in
calculating costs

Item Unit Low High Average Your Cost
---------Dollars-----------------
Dilute spray Tank 6.75 10.00 8.39 $
Dusting, ground Acre 2.50 5.00 3.75
Dusting, aerial Lb. .03
Fertilizing (bulk) Acre 2.00 5.00 3.21

Dolomite application Acre 2.50 3.75 3.38
Chopping Acre 3.00 4.85 4.05
Discing Acre 3.50 5.00 4.34
Topping Hr. 110.00
Hedging, 2-sides Hr. 28.00 110.00 43.50

Front-end loader Hr. 10.00 28.00 20.14
Bulldozer Hr. 13.50 25.00 20.40
Truck and driver Hr. 6.50 10.00 8.02
Tractor and driver Hr. 7.00 12.00 8.38
Chain saw Hr 1.00 6.00 3.10
Labor Hr. 2.85 4.00 3.48








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.


Table 2.--Costs of chemicals

Item


Chlorobenzilate
Neutral copper, 53% cu
Zinc, 36% zn
Borates
Manganese, 24-27% mg
Ethion

Oil
Delnav
Sulphur
Sticker
Krovar II
16-0-16


used in calculating costs

Unit Cost Your Cost

-------Dollars-------
Pint 2.24 $
Lb. .86
Lb. .32
Lb. .34
Lb. .10
Pint 1.54

Gal. .94
Pint 3.38
Lb. .05
Pint .78
Lb. 5.15
Ton 96.36


SPRAY PROGRAM


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 1976 Spray and Dust Schedule, nor is it

necessarily the most economical spray program. Most growers

of fruit for processing use at least two sprays and one dust

in their insect and disease control program. These costs are

presented in the budget.

Table 3 outlines this program as a post bloom, a summer oil,

and a fall miticide application. The first two are dilute sprays

while the third is an aerial application of sulphur. Table 3 shows





5



a supplemental miticide application that may be used when

additional control for rust mite is needed.


Table 3.--Spray program used in budget based on custom rates
and application of two 500-gallon tanks per acre

Item Amount/Acre Cost Your Cost

Post Bloom Application
Chlorobenzilate 2 pints $ 4.48 $
Zinc 15 Ibs. 4.80
Borates 1.25 lbs. .43
Manganese 15 lbs. 1.50
Sticker 1 pint .78
Application 2 tanks 16.78
Total $28.77


Summer Oil Application
Ethion 6 pints $ 9.24 $
Oil 8 gal. 7.52
Copper, 53% cu 3 Ibs. 2.58
Application 2 tanks 16.78
Total $36.12


Fall Miticide Application
Sulphur 70 Ibs. $ 3.50 $
Application, ground $0.3/lb. 3.75
Total $ 7.25

Grand Total $72.14


Supplemental Miticide Application
Ethion 5 pints $ 7.70 $
Sticker 1 pint .78
Application 2 tanks 16.78
Total $25.26








COSTS AND RETURNS


Table 4 shows the estimated costs and returns based on

data presented earlier, and with a custom-caretaker providing

grove management. Several items of cost were not included in

Table 4. For instance, a supplemental miticide (Table 3)

would add $25.26 to operating costs. Ad valorem taxes in Polk

County last year would have added another $20-$30 per acre.

Costs for freeze protection were not included. A crew

standing by to light heaters two nights in one season would

result in an extra cost of approximately $9.25 per acre. The

cost of setting up and removing heaters and the amount of fuel

necessary for one or two nights is not included in this cost.

In addition, a wide variation may exist in the cost of fuel

from one area to another. Individual growers are in a better

position to estimate these "firing" costs.

Shown in Table 5 are production practices for Florida

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 is a must if an annual cash flow

analysis is to be developed to plan financing. The individual

grower can achieve benefits by developing a plan for a particular

grove.














bO


0






o


b.O
0




"d
ftq











0

a)








0
Cd











a
Cd























O
CH







0



CIa









S-i
41
ci,












C 0
0




CO
a)
I r


I h










Cd0







a,
o i-









1- <


Cd
N Lo 0

0')O~r


(0 -i C LO

CrI- OCN


Co
,0
rL-





m0

0

rH


Cd

LO
O-1



4 -)

C )

o*)
o0

-10
4)


cdcd


0) (B
00

E-4E-4


I- -I.


Cd

4-)
-Cd


00



T- <
w-w-k
a^ _


0
0>

0 0)
H 0 a0
o a),


a- -C d



0 N OH 0 *H 0 0 H a
Mf )r-i -p r- (+-) ?-i) r +-i b 4 a d4 a)
Oa)Cd d Cddd D, d h fC l bf -O4

0) Hb ) i 4- 04 +) +-) 4-)10 (r 0 H O~ D r-i

W Cd 4) Cd 0 Cd '40 Cd a H -i 4 0 0) -H a) 0
*H *H *HO *Hk a *C4 H 4:g< 0

0a) o a- 0 k-
acx0 Q > w E-


4-,
a0
cd




4-)
F-i



Cda

a


O




6c-


LO C

0W


00 r Ce


0
La)C

CD C.)
F-i



4-)
ci,2
C O^





Cl)
aa )4
c) C.0

'-3 '-4
T3^^

*O
^3
k r (
0 '
c^r
-^^
(dM


000 o

C 00 00
'-1


o

It
Cd


a)
Na

f-i -H
Q) 4-) 9
Cd 0) w
rA P









































fr fr W X X



W WW frX


fr




fr




X


(1


0) >a
-a oo0 4-3
0c 0 h 4-' 4- z
Sc f (W
SO 0 0c
- ,- 0 0 0 d a
SOH O0 d o '-- 0 0

OO N a o a)0 1H4 'H ql -
0, ) 4-o .0 b H O -H 4-~ )
, Eri-HH-H 0 ES r- hflQc4cd k r!-
>m2 HS-(S- a)a 0 C) qHd bDO H-
oC 0 c4- 0 d a) C G a) 0 H a 3
a4 aa) k k k
Co Q 4 E-o


0 2
O

ak
ao
0 r


H
0

N a
0HO

b 4) 4- Q
H Cd a) a)
94 ; P


O





CO
a
a)














0
(0






H







0
0






OC
a
CQ



























0





WO
Qo
a




0
0)




















0


CO
ri
o






4o-I

d






0





? &









BIBLIOGRAPHY


I DuCharme, E. P. "Tree Loss in Relation to Young Tree Decline
and Sand Hill Decline of Citrus in Florida." Proceedings
of the Fla. State Hort. Soc. 84:48-62 (Oct. 1970).

2] Florida Citrus Spray and Dust Schedule 1975. Univ. of Fla.
Coop. Ext. Serv. Cir. 393A, Feb. 1975.

3] Harrison, D. S. and R. C. J. Koo. Sprinkler Irrigation Systems
for Citrus. Univ. of Fla. Agr. Ext. Rpt. AE 73-15 (Rev.)
Gainesville: Aug. 1974.

[4] Muraro, Ronald P. "Comparative Citrus Budgets." Bartow: Polk
County Ext. Serv., Mar. 1976.

[5] Muraro, Ronald P. "Summary Custom Rate Survey for Interior
Citrus Caretakers." Bartow: Polk County Ext. Serv., Mar.
1976.

[6] Reitz, H. J., C. D. Leonard, et al. Recommended Fertilizers and
Nutritional Sprays for Citrus. Univ. of Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Bull. 536C, Dec. 1972.