Group Title: Economic information report
Title: Indian River citrus packinghouses and the southward movement of production
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00026491/00001
 Material Information
Title: Indian River citrus packinghouses and the southward movement of production
Series Title: Economic information report
Physical Description: iii leaves, 15 p. : map ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Kilmer, Richard L
Spreen, Thomas H
University of Florida -- Food and Resource Economics Dept
Publisher: Food & Resource Economics Dept., Agricultural Experiment Stations, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Food and Resource Economics Dept., Agricultural Experiment Stations, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1983
Copyright Date: 1983
 Subjects
Subject: Citrus fruit industry -- Florida -- Indian River County   ( lcsh )
Citrus fruits -- Florida -- Indian River County   ( lcsh )
Orange industry -- Florida -- Indian River County   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 15.
Statement of Responsibility: Richard L. Kilmer, Thomas H. Spreen.
General Note: Cover title.
General Note: "April 1983."
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00026491
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: notis - AHF9024
alephbibnum - 001545504
oclc - 20784014

Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE



The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida






Richard L. Kilmer Economic Information
Thomas H. Spreen Report 180




Indian River Citrus Packinghouses
and the Southward
Movement of Production














Uni of F\orida




Food and Resource Economics Department
Agricultural Experiment Stations April 1983
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville 32611
















ABSTRACT


Existing packinghouses are located near older groves. As more
citrus is grown farther south in Florida, transportation cost increases
will occur unless new packinghouses open near the new production
areas. This paper is concerned with the impact of the southern movement
of citrus production in the Indian River marketing district on the size,
number, and location of citrus packinghouses.

The southern movement of citrus production does suggest the need
for construction of a new packinghouse in Jupiter, Florida. Existing
packinghouses could be reconfigured into larger packinghouses. In
general, however, the Indian River packinghouse capacity is located
where the production is located.


Key words: Grapefruit, Indian River, oranges, packinghouses, plant
location.



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


We wish to express our appreciation to Mr. George Kmetz, formerly
with the Indian River County Appraisers office, for his assistance in
determining the building costs for Indian River packinghouses and to the
Florida Department of Citrus for financial assistance.
















i

















TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT ............................................................ i

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................. ii

LIST OF TABLES ................................................... iii

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................... iii

INTRODUCTION ............... .... .................................. 1

PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................. 1

Overview of the Study ........................................ 4

DATA FOR MODEL ..................................... ....... 5

Supply and Demand ........................................... 5
Assembly and Distribution Costs .............................. 7
Packing Costs ............. ................................. 8
Other Assumptions ............................................ 11

RESULTS .............. ............ ... ....... .......... .......... 11

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................. ...................... 14

REFERENCES ............................... .... 15


















ii

















LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Projected production of oranges and grapefruit in the
Indian River marketing district, 1979 1980 and
1983 84 seasons ........................................... 6

2 Projected disposition of Indian River fresh citrus
shipments, 1979 80 season ................................ 7

3 Estimated fresh citrus truck hauling costs per 1-3/5
bushel, 1979 80 season .................................... 8

4 Estimated variable and fixed costs per 1-3/5 bushel
box, 1979 80 season ....................................... 9

5 Estimated land, packinghouse, equipment, and working
capital cost in the Indian River marketing district,
1980 dollars ................................................ 10

6 Static and dynamic solutions to the packinghouse
location problem, 1979 80 through 1983 84 ............... 12

7 Packinghouse size configuration for the best
dynamic solution ............................................ 13


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

1 Indian River district grapefruit and orange produc-
tion, packinghouses and ports for fresh fruit ............... 2

2 Indian River marketing district projected produc-
tion and packing of oranges and grapefruit,
1979 80 through 1983 84 ................................. 3








iii

















INDIAN RIVER CITRUS PACKINGHOUSES
AND THE SOUTHWARD MOVEMENT OF PRODUCTION


Richard L. Kilmer and Thomas H. Spreen


INTRODUCTION


The Indian River area is a marketing order district on the east
coast of Florida (Figure 1). Nearly two-thirds of its western border is
separated from the Interior marketing district by swampland that con-
tains little or no citrus. In the past 15 years, new plantings have
been concentrated in the southern half of the district. The projected
growth in grapefruit and orange production from 1979-80 to 1983-84 is
12.3 percentage points greater in the southern production area (Figure
1) than in the northern area (26.9 and 14.6 percent, estimated from
Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, 1980 and Fairchild).
Existing packinghouses are located near older groves. As more citrus is
grown farther south, transportation cost increases will occur unless new
packinghouses open near the new production areas.


PROBLEM STATEMENT


The problem to be examined in this study is concerned with the
impact of the southern movement of citrus production (Figure 2) in the
Indian River marketing district on the size, number, and location of
citrus packinghouses.




RICHARD L. KILMER and THOMAS H. SPREEN are assistant professor and
associate professor of food and resource economics.















Jacksonville







North
District

Titusville E. N Port Canaveral
CocC a EN
Tampa P Melbourne N

Vero Beach E,N
South Ft. Pierce E,N,P
SDistrict
\isric Stuart N

Jupiter N
E Location of existing
packinghouses
N Potential location of
new packinghouses Port
Port
P Ports Everglades P








Figure 1.-Indian River district grapefruit and orange
production, packinghouses and ports for fresh
fruit







3









60000


55000


50000
South district
45000 production


0S 40000
0
o
S35000

x
,. 3000)
F-
,: 25000


LO 20000


15000 North district production


1oooo South district packing


3000 '
North district packing

2000 r .. ,_
1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-

Season

Figure 2.--Indian River marketing district
projected production and packing
of oranges and grapefruit,
1979 80 through 1983 84








4




Overview of the Study


An analytical approach to this study is to identify a number of
supply points representing groups of groves and a number of demand
points or "destinations". In this study, demand points are regions of
the U.S., Canada, and five possible ports of export (see Figure 1). In
1979, there were 35 existing plants in four locations. These plants are
divided into two groups designated as small (under 500,000 1 3/5 bushel
boxes) and large (over 500,000 boxes). Only larre new plant:; are con-
sidered and are allowed to open at the four existing locations and three
new locations (see Figure 1). Using estimates for the cost of shipping
fruit from the supply points to the packing plants (the assembly
problem), the cost of shipping fruit from the plants to the demand
points (the distribution problem), and the cost of packing the fruit at
the packing plants, the best configuration (size, number and location)
of the plants is determined by that configuration which allows assembly,
packing, and distribution of the fruit at least cost.
The optimal configuration for a particular crop year can be deter-
mined via a mixed integer programming model. Using the computer, total
assembly, packing, and distribution cost associated with each feasible
configuration,1 the least cost configuration is determined.
The mixed integer programming model gives the optimal configuration
for a given crop year, but does not indicate how the industry can best
adjust from the existing configuration to another one. This problem is
not trivial since there are costs associated with opening new plants and
closing old plants called transition costs. To find the optimal path of
adjustment from the existing configuration to a new configuration, a
dynamic programming model is used. A mixed integer programming model
determines the best plant configuration for a particular crop year.





1A feasible configuration is one in which the plants have sufficient
capacity to pack all of the fruit available.








5




This solution is excluded and the model is run again to find the second
best configuration.
The process is repeated until several solutions are formed. In
this study, the crop years 1979-80 through 1983-84 are each analyzed in
this manner. Using dynamic programming, the optimal path is found
beginning with the existing configuration through the 1983-84 crop year
which minimizes the sum of assembly, packing, and distribution costs
over these years plus the transition costs incurred as new plants open
and old plants close.
For a technical description and justification of the particular
methodology used, see Kilmer, Spreen, and Tilley. The remainder of this
report is to document the data used in the analysis and to report the
results.


DATA FOR MODEL


Supply and Demand


Oranges and grapefruit represented 97 percent of the citrus packed
in the Indian River marketing district during the 1979-80 marketing
season (Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 1980,
p. 37). In order to project the future production of oranges and grape-
fruit by supply area, tree data by age and variety (Florida Crop and
Livestock Reporting Service, 1980) are combined with yield information
by tree age and variety (Fairchild, 1977, pp. 24-32) (Table 1). The
varieties are early and midseason oranges, 'Valencia' oranges, 'Temple'
oranges, seedy grapefruit, white seedless grapefruit, and pink seedless
grapefruit. The Indian River marketing district shipped 6.8 and 67.1
percent of the oranges and grapefruit harvested to packinghouses in
1979-80 (calculated from the Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting
Service, 1981, p. 28, and Florida Department of Agriculture and Con-
sumer Services, 1980, p. 37). Even though oranges and grapefruit are
brought to a packinghouse, only 65.6 and 76.1 percent of the deliveries








6




Table 1.--Projected production of oranges and grapefruit in the Indian
River marketing district, 1979-80 and 1983-84 seasons

1979-80 1983-84
Location Oranges Grapefruit Oranges Grapefruit

------------------1 3/5 bushel box--------------------
Northa 8,699,047 3,529,207 9,957,905 4,055,227
South 24,022,998 19,756,592 29,739,736 25,824,685

aSee Figure 1 for location.


were actually packed during the 1979-80 season (Hooks and Kilmer,
1981a, p. 4). The remainder was shipped to processing plants. Total
one and three-fifths bushel boxes packed in the Indian River marketing
district are projected for the 1979-80 through the 1983-84 marketing
seasons (Figure 2), after considering tree age, variety, yield, and the
percentage of citrus taken to the packinghouse which was actually
packed.
The projected oranges and grapefruit packed are either exported
(1.7 and 40 percent) or shipped intra and interstate (98.3 and 60 per-
cent--Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 1980, pp.
33-34). North America is divided into five demand areas with central
points for distribution at New York City, Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Toronto, Canada (Table 2). Each region is assumed to maintain its
1979-80 market share for oranges and grapefruit through 1983-84 (Florida
Department of Citrus, 1980) (Table 2). Fresh citrus is exported through
Ft. Pierce, Jacksonville, Port Canaveral, Port Everglades, and Tampa,
all in Florida (Table 2). The 1979-80 market share (Table 2) for each
port is assumed to remain unchanged through the 1983-84 marketing season
(Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 1980, p. 35).







7




Assembly and Distribution Costs


The distribution costs (Table 3) from packinghouses in the Indiana
River district to the five North American cities (already identified)
are determined by averaging actual quoted rates for oranges and grape-
fruit from November 1979 through May 1980 (U.S. Federal-State Market
News Service). The distribution cost per one and three-fifths bushel
from the packinghouses to the ports is equal to .2049 plus .0041 times
one-way distance in miles (Updated Machado, 1978, p. 100, to 1979-80
dollars). The cost of hauling the oranges and grapefruit from the
citrus groves to the packinghouses and the cost of hauling eliminations
from the packinghouse to a processing plant is $.00727 per one and
three-fifths bushel mile (calculated from Hooks and Kilmer, 1981b, p.
7).


Table 2.--Projected disposition of Indian River fresh citrus shipments,
1979-80 season

Location Oranges Grapefruit

--------------1 3/5 bushel box---------

Domestic regions

Atlanta 428,255 (30%) 891,838 (13%)
Chicago 265,607 (19%) 1716,664 (24%)
Los Angeles 139,943 (10%) 655,156 (9%)
New York 474,522 (33%) 3,011,292 (42%)
Toronto 119,666 (8%) 854,054 (12%)

Subtotal 1,427,993 (100%) 7,129,004 (100%)
Port of exit
Ft. Pierce 7,049 (28%) 1,334,315 (28%)
Jacksonville 1,664 (7%) 315,020 (7%)
Port Canaveral 3,535 (14%) 669,061 (14%)
Port Everglades 3,575 (14%) 676,675 (14%)
Tampa 9,317 (37%) 1,763,542 (37%)

Subtotal 25,140 (100%) 4,758,613 (100%)
TOTAL 1,453,133 11,887,617







8




Table 3.--Estimated fresh citrus truck hauling costs per 1 3/5 bushel,
1979-80 season

Cost
Oranges Grapefruit

Atlanta $1.09 $1.01
Chicago 2.72 2.67
Los Angeles 4.88 4.58
New York 2.72 2.67
Torontoa 3.24 3.18

aToronto was estimated by taking the rate to New York times 1.19 to
account for the extra distance to Toronto.
Source: U.S. Federal-State Market News Service.



Packing Costs


Existing packinghouse capacities over time are assumed to be the
1979-80 volume packed plus 20 percent2 (Florida Department of Agricul-
ture and Consumer Services, 1980, pp. 18-24). Existing plants were
categorized as small (100,000 to 500,000 one and three-fifths bushels
annually) or large (500,001 to 850,000). All new plants are assumed to
be large plants.
The variable costs for existing and new packinghouses includes
labor (less 30 percent of the foreman labor that is assumed fixed),
direct operating expenses less repairs and maintenance, 30 percent of
the administration expense, and 50 percent of the sales expense (Table
4). Fixed costs for existing plants are composed of overhead and




2Packinghouse capacity figures are not available; therefore annual volume
packed was used. Kilmer and Tilley found that Florida packinghouses operate
at an 11 month average of 50 percent of capacity. Capacity utilization for
some individual plants will be greater than 50 percent. Thus, the potential
individual packinghouse capacity is assumed to be 20 percent greater than the
volume packed by each packinghouse in 1979-80.






9




investment servicing cost (debt servicing plus net return on invest-
ment). Overhead includes repairs and maintenance, insurance, taxes and
licenses, 30 percent of foreman labor, 70 percent of administrative
expense, and 50 percent of sales expense (Table 4). Investment ser-
vicing cost is $.125 per one and three-fifths bushel (calculated from
Hooks and Kilmer, 1981a, and Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services, 1980, p. 37).3


Table 4.--Estimated variable and fixed costs per 1 3/5 bushel box, 1979-
80 season

Packinghouse
Cost Smalla Largea

Variable

Materials $1.068 $ .975
Labor (.70) .900 .743
Direct operating .104 .120
Administrative (.30) .074 .052
Sales (.50) .081 .118
Total variable cost $2.227 $2.008


Fixed
Labor (.30) .078 .062
Repairs and maintenance .251 .112
Insurance .054 .028
Taxes and licenses .019 .024
Administrative (.70) .172 .123
Sales (.50) .081 .118
Total fixed cost $ .655 $ .467

aSmall is 100,000 to 500,000 1 3/5 bushel box annual volume; large
is 500,001 to 850,000 1 3/5 bushel box annual volume.
Source: Packinghouse records.




3The $.125 figure is taken from accounting records and is labelled as
depreciation and rent. Data on actual debt servicing and net return on
investment are not available. Ideally, this information is needed from each
packinghouse.






10




The same estimate of overhead for existing plants is used for new
plants. Using data provided by KIetA (1982), total estimated facility
costs for a new large plant in 1980, including land, building, offices,
and equipment, was $1.7 million (Table 5). It is assumed that a 20
percent downpayment of $340,000 would be required, the remainder
financed at 16 percent for 20 years. The annual debt servicing costs
are $229,387. The downpayment, $340,000, represents net investment.
Since all costs are in constant 1979 dollars, a real rate of return
(nominal interest rate minus the inflation rate) on net investment of 3
percent is assumed. The downpayment is a fixed cost but also can be
viewed as a transition cost, since it is a cost which is incurred only
in the year the plant opens.


Table 5.--Estimated land, packinghouse, equipment, and working capital
cost in the Indian River marketing district, 1980 dollars
a
Packinghouse
Item Small Large

Landb $ 63,000 $ 105,000
(6 acres) (10 acres)

Packinghouse building, metal,
dock height $ 346,892 $ 607,000
(28,571 sq.ft.) (50,000 sq.ft.)

Packinghouse equipment $ 230,053 $ 314,053
Fork lifts $ 48,000 $ 72,000

Office building $ 63,839 $ 85,120
(3,000 sq.ft.) (4,000 sq.ft.)

Office equipment $ 44,889 $ 44,889

Operating capital $ 210,500 $ 421,000
$1,007,173 $1,649,062


aEach packinghouse has a central sizer, packer aids, no miechani'al
palletization, and no cold storage.
Source: b.--Kmetz, 1982; c.--Industry source; d.--Packinghouse records.






11




Other Assumptions


Once a new plant is opened, it is not allowed to close. An exist-
ing plant which covers cash costs but not all investment servicing costs
is closed after three years. If existing plant is closed for less than
three years, it can re-open at zero start-up cost. A look at the past
industry adjustments in number of packinghouses actually in operation
from one season to another reveals an industry able to make short-term
adjustments in numbers. From the 1964-65 season to 1965-66, packing-
house numbers increased from 160 to 225 (State of Florida total --
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services). By the 1968-
69 season, the number of packinghouses declined to 169. A similar
decrease occurred from 1969-70 season until 1971-72 when the number of
packinghouses declined from 211 to 164.


RESULTS


The model includes oranges and grapefruit produced in 13 locations
in the Indian River district of Florida, 35 existing packinghouses at
four locations, potential opening of new packinghouses at three loca-
tions where no packinghouses currently exist (Figure 1), five consump-
tion regions in the U.S. and Canada (Table 2), and five export points
(see Figure 1 for the Florida locations).
The static mixed integer solutions for 1979-80 through the 1983-84
seasons are obtained from a mixed integer plant location model which
contained small and large existing packinghouses and large new packing-
houses. The costs associated with the best solutions are shown in Table
6. The costs have been discounted to 1979 using a 3 percent real dis-
count rate (without inflation). The costs in 1983-84 are adjusted to
reflect the present value of the cost of packing citrus from 1983-84 on
indefinitely, assuming that configuration and supply and demand levels
remain unchanged. Using estimated discounted transition costs (Kilmer,
Spreen, Tilley) and the static solutions from the mixed integer program-






12




Table 6.--Static and dynamic solutions to the packinghouse location problem,
1979-80 through 1983-84a

Rank Dynamic Static solutions for seasons
ordered program
solutions solution 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84
(through infinity)b

-------------------------- thousand $ ------------ ------------

1 2,548,660 59,083 60,762 62,799 64,829 66,901
"(Best) (2,296,922)
2 2,568,282 59,083 60,782 62,807 64,832 66,911
(Fourth Best) (2,297,276)
3 59,094 60,838 62,821 64,863 66,914
(2,297,396)
4 59,101 60,852 62,826 64,865 66,925
(2,297,750)
5 59,109 60,862 62,900 64,882 67,001
(2,300,387)
6 59,118 60,877 62,907 64,884 67,012
(2,300,741)
7 59,139 60,884 62,919 64,904 67,015
(2,300,831)
8 59,146 60,922 62,920 64,924 67,025
(2,301,186)
9 59,152 60,939 62,941 64,926 67,025
(2,301,186)
10 59,176 60,943 64,977 67,046
(2,301,896)
Initial
configu-
ration 2,605,366 62,350 63,687 65,167 66,779 68,371
(2,347,383)

Transition cost 2903c 365 320 329 302
(Best)
Transition cost
(EQUEth hest) 2903c 365 320 329 302
Transition cost -
(Initial conf.) OC 0 0 0 0

aAll costs are in 1979 dollars.
bPresent value of collection, packing, and distribution cost from 1983-84
to infinity, assuming plant configuration, supply, and demand remain unchanged.
CTransition cost to initial configuration.





13




ming model, dynamic solutions to the packinghouse location problem are
obtained and two such solutions are shown in Table 6. The solid under-
lined elements represent the least cost path over time. The dashed
underlined elements represent the fourth least cost path over time.
The best solution in 1979-80 calls for the immediate closing of 24
existing plants (11 remain open) and building six large plants for a
total of 17 plants (Table 7). By the 1983-84 season, nine existing
houses are still operating. One of the new packinghouses is located at
Jupiter in the southern part of the region (Figure 1) where no existing
packinghouses are located. By employing the dynamic solution for pack-
inghouses instead of allowing the initial plant location and relative
sizes to exist over time, the packinghouses in the Indian River market


Table 7.--Packinghouse size configuration for the best dynamic solution

Capacity Initial Packinghouse number for seasons
Location (1-3/5 bu. box) configuration 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84

1,000s
North
Titusville 100-500 2* -
501-850 1 1 1 1 1
Cocoa 100-500 1* 1* 1* 1* -
501-850 -
Melbournea 501-850 -

South
Vero Beach 100-500 11* 1* -
501-850 7* 7*,1b 7*,2 7*,3 7*,3 7*,4
Ft. Pierce 100-500 12* -
501-850 2* 2*,3 2*,3 2*,3 2*,4 2*,4
Stuarta 501-850 -
Jupitera 501-850 1 1 1 1 1

aNew location.
b7*, 1 means seven existing plants operating and one new plant operating in
that year.





14




district could save $56,706,000 (1979 dollars) or 2.2 percent of the
best dynamic solution. During 1983-84 alone, total assembly, packing,
and distribution costs could be reduced by $1,470,000 or $.086 per one
and three-fifths bushel box (1979 dollars).
Finally, most of the existing packinghouses close in the first
season, 1979-80. This is not unusual and is entirely feasible (See
other assumptions).


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


The southern movement of citrus production does suggest the need
for construction of a new packinghouse in Jupiter, Florida, which is
located in the southern part of the Indian River marketing district.
Existing capacity could be reconfigured into larger packinghouses.
Instead of building new plants in the same cities where old (existing)
plants are located, the old packinghouses could be enlarged to take
advantage of economies of size. In general, however, the Indian River
packinghouse capacity is located where the production is located. Total
collection, packing, and distribution costs could be reduced by only 2.2
percent if the industry closed all small packinghouses and maintained
and built new packinghouses. Only the cost side of the packinghouse
industry, however, is explored in this study. Small packinghouses that
pack for a select market may be quite profitable. Also, a small pack-
inghouse may have management that is just as cost efficient as a large
packinghouse. Thus the southerly shift in citrus production will have a
small effect on existing packinghouse size and location over the next
decade; however, a new packinghouse is needed in the southern portion of
the district.







15




REFERENCES


Fairchild, Gary F. 1977. Estimated Florida Orange, Temple, and Grape-
fruit Production, 1976-77 through 1981-82. Econ. Res. Dept., Fla.
Dept. of Citrus, CIR No. 77-1.

Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. 1981. Florida Agricul-
tural Statistics: Citrus Summary.

1980. Florida Agricultural Statistics: Commercial
Citrus Inventory.

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of
Fruit and Vegetable Inspection. Various dates. Season Annual
Report.

Florida Department of Citrus, Market Research Department. 1980. Annual
Fresh Fruits Shipments Report.

Hooks, R. Clegg, and Richard L. Kilmer. 1981a. Estimated Costs of
Packing and Selling Fresh Florida Citrus, 1979-80 Season. IFAS
Econ. Info. Rpt. No. 145.

1981b. Estimated Costs of Picking and Hauling Fresh
Florida Citrus, 1979-80 Season. IFAS Econ. Info. Rpt. No. 151.

Kilmer, Richard L., and Daniel S. Tilley. 1979. "A Variance Component
Approach to Industry Cost Analysis," Southern Journal of Agricul-
tural Economics 11:35-40.

Kilmer, Richard L., Thomas H. Spreen, and Daniel S. Tilley. 1982. "A
Dynamic Plant Location Model of the East Florida Fresh Citrus Pack-
ing Industry." Unpublished report, Food and Resource Economics
Dept., Univ. of Fla.

Kmetz, George P. "The 1980 Cost to Build a New Packinghouse." 1982.
Unpublished report, Indian River County Appraisers Office, Vero
Beach, FL.

Nachado, Virgilio A.P. 1978. "A Dynamic Mixed Integer Location Model
Applied to Florida Citrus Packinghouses." Unpublished Ph.D. disser-
tation, Univ. of Fla.

sweeney, Dennis J., and Ronald T. Tatham. 1976. "An Improved Long-Run
Model for Multiple Warehouse Location," Management Science
22:748-758.

U.S. Federal-State Market News Service. Various dates. Fruit and
Vegetable Truck Rate Report.





University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs