• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Abstract
 Title Page
 Center information
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures
 Acknowledgement
 Summary
 Background
 Objectives
 Procedure
 Findings
 Conclusions and recommendation...
 Appendix
 Reference






Group Title: Industry report - University of Florida, Florida Agricultural Market Research Center ; no. 85-1
Title: An economic analysis of agricultural alternatives on the Broward County Miccosukee Indian reservation
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00026924/00001
 Material Information
Title: An economic analysis of agricultural alternatives on the Broward County Miccosukee Indian reservation
Series Title: Industry report Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
Alternate Title: Miccosukee Indian reservation
Physical Description: xi, 113 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Degner, Robert L
Publisher: Florida Agricultural Market Research Center a part of the Food and Resource Economics Dept., Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.
Place of Publication: Gainesville FL
 Subjects
Subject: Agriculture -- Economic aspects -- Florida -- Broward County   ( lcsh )
Soils -- Florida -- Broward County   ( lcsh )
Mikasuki Indians   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 112-113.
Statement of Responsibility: a report by Robert L. Degner ... et al..
General Note: "April 1985."
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00026924
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000989111
oclc - 17856150
notis - AEW5969

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

Ag%20Alt%20on%20Miccosukee%20Indian%20Resv ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Abstract
        Abstract
    Title Page
        Page i
    Center information
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
        Page iv
    List of Tables
        Page v
        Page vi
        Page vii
    List of Figures
        Page viii
    Acknowledgement
        Page ix
    Summary
        Page x
        Page xi
    Background
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Objectives
        Page 3
    Procedure
        Page 3
    Findings
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
    Conclusions and recommendations
        Page 54
        Page 55
    Appendix
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
    Reference
        Page 112
        Page 113
Full Text




INDUSTRY REPORT 85-1


An E
Agricu
on the
Miccosukee


.r..


, APRIL 1985


A/M
















ABSTRACT


The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida owns 19,000 acres of land

in the Everglades. The agricultural potential of the land was evaluated

by a team of physical scientists and agricultural economists. Shallow

topsoil, hard bedrock, high rainfall and poor drainage combine to limit

the scope and probable success of many crops. Virtually all of the acre-

age could be used for livestock, but rice and vegetable acreage would be

limited to an estimated 2,500 and 1,000 acres, respectively. The most

promising alternatives are, in order of probable success, beef cattle

(cow/calf operation), rice and vegetables.



Key Words: Miccosukee Indians, Everglades, beef cattle, rice, vegetables.

















AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURAL ALTERNATIVES
ON THE BROWARD COUNTY MICCOSUKEE INDIAN RESERVATION












A Report by

Robert L. Degner, David L. Dodson,
James R. Simpson, Rom Alderman and William M. Stall












A research project conducted for the
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida





April 1985





The Florida Agricultural Marker Research Center
a part of
The Food and Resource Economics Department
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville, 32611


















The Florida Agricultural Market Research Center

A Service of
the Food and Resource Economics Department
of the
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences


The purpose of this Center is to provide timely, applied research on

current and emerging marketing problems affecting Florida's agricultural

and marine industries. The Center seeks to provide research and informa-

tion to production, marketing and processing firms, and groups and organ-

izations concerned with improving and expanding markets for Florida agri-

cultural and marine products.

The Center is staffed by a basic group of economists trained in

agriculture and marketing. In addition, cooperating personnel from other

IFAS units provide a wide range of expertise which can be applied as

determined by the requirements of individual projects.














TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page


LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . .


LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES . . . .

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . .

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . .

SUMMARY ... .........

BACKGROUND .. ........ .... .... ...

OBJECTIVES . . . . . .

PROCEDURE .. .. .. .... .. .

FINDINGS . . . . . .

Basic Resources of the Subject Tract . .

Location . . . .

Climate, Soil and Water . . .

Limitations to Crop Production ....

Current and Potential Land Use . .

Agricultural Alternatives . . .

Livestock . . . .

Assumptions . . ....


Scenario I:


10 percent interest


amortized over 10 years


rate,


Scenario II: 13 percent interest rate,
amortized over 15 years . .

Conclusions and qualifications . .

Rice . . . . . .

Land development costs . . .

Rice culture and basic assumptions ..

iii


. vi

S. viii

S. ix

S... x

. 1

.. 3

3

4

4

4

7

8
S. 10
. 4

. 7

. 8





. 11
. 11

12


. 12














TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED


Financial analyses


Production budgets .

Cash flow analysis .

Market outlook for rice .

Conclusions and qualifications

Vegetables . . . .

Land development costs .

Suggested crops . .

Broccoli . . .

Cabbage . . .

Carrots . .

Cauliflower . .

Chinese cabbage . .

Collard, mustard and turn

Escarole, endive .. ...

Lettuce . . .

Potatoes . . .

Conclusions and qualifications

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . .

APPENDIX A . . . . .

APPENDIX B . . . . .

APPENDIX C . . . . .


Page

. 24


p greens


. .


REFERENCES . . . . . . .














LIST OF TABLES


Table PagE

1 Summary of current level of development and land use,
subject property. . . . . 6

2 A cash flow analysis for Scenarios I and II comparing
operating returns of a cattle enterprise with an
annual cash lease, assuming a discount rate of five
percent . . . . ... . .. 14

3 A cash flow analysis for Scenarios I and II comparing
operating returns of a cattle enterprise with an
annual cash lease, assuming a discount rate of ten
percent . . . . ... . .. 16

4 1981 and 1982 U.S. rice acreage, production, and per
acre yields for major rice-producing states . ... 19

5 Soil ratings and limitations and features affecting
selected water management practices .. . . 20

6 Estimated land development costs for rice . ... 23

7 Start-up investment costs for 1,000, 1,500 and 2,500
acres with low and high land development costs . .. 25

8 Annual revenue, costs, and returns for 1,000, 1,500
and 2,500 acres with low and high land development
costs . . . . . . 27

9 Breakeven prices for rice for 1,000, 1,500 and 2,500
acre operations and low and high land development
costs . . . . . . 29

10 Cash flow analysis for 10 years of production with
high land development costs and a constant price of
$9.83 per cwt. . . . .. . 30

11 Cash flow analysis for 10 years of production with
low land development costs and a constant price of
$9.83 per cwt. . . . ... ..... 31

12 Cash flow analysis for 10 years of production with
high land development costs and a price decreasing
from $9.83 per cwt. to $6.95 per cwt. at a rate of
$0.32 per year . . . .... .... 32













LIST OF TABLES CONTINUED


Table Page

13 Cash flow analysis for 10 years of production with
low land development costs and a price decreasing
from $9.83 per cwt. to $6.95 per cwt. at a rate of
$0.32 per year . . . .... ..... 33

14 Historical, estimated, and projected U.S. farm rice
prices, 1960-1995 . . . ... ...... 35

15 Estimated land development costs for vegetables . .. 42

16 Estimated yields, breakeven prices, and net returns
per acre for selected vegetable crops . . .. 43

17 Per capital consumption of selected foods . ... 44

18 Prices for selected vegetables, 1982-83 season . .. 45













LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES


Table Page

1 Research team members . . . ... 57

2 Levels of crop management and labor requirements for
selected crops . . . . ... 100

3 Vegetable harvest information . . . .. 101

4 Average or estimated vegetable yields . . .. 102

5 Estimated costs and returns for broccoli, 1984-85
season, high land development costs . . .... 103

6 Estimated costs and returns for cabbage, 1984-85
season, high land development costs . . ... 104

7 Estimated costs and returns for carrots, 1984-85
season, high land development costs . . .... 105

8 Estimated costs and returns for cauliflower. 1984-85
season, high land development costs . . .. 106

9 Estimated costs and returns for Chinese cabbage,
1984-85 season, high land development costs . ... 107

10 Estimated costs and returns for collard greens,
1984-85 season, high land development costs . ... 108

11 Estimated costs and returns for mustard and turnip
greens, 1984-85 season, high land development costs . 109

12 Estimated costs and returns for leaf crops, 1984-85
season, high land development costs . . .. 110

13 Estimated costs and returns for potatoes, 1984-85
season, high land development costs . . .. 111













LIST OF FIGURES


Figure Page

1 Miccosukee Tribe of Indians reservation area . 2

2 Northwest Broward County, Florida showing the sub-
ject 19,200 acre tract of land owned by the
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida and the
major soil associations found on the tract ... ... 5

3 Soil depth of improved land, Miccosukee reserva-
tion, September 1981 . . . . 9

4 Historical, estimated, and projected U.S. farm
rice prices, 1960-1995 . . . .... .36


viii













ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


This research was funded in part by a grant from the Miccosukee

Tribe of Indians of Florida. Appreciation is expressed to Tribal chair-

man Buffalo Tiger for his support of the project, and to Ms. Carol Kruse

and Ms. Teresa Kelly of the Tribe's planning department for their help

throughout the study.

We are grateful to the numerous faculty and staff members that

contributed to various segments of the research. Thanks go to

Dr. Jose Alvarez and Mr. Francisco Rohrmann for assisting in the economic

evaluation of rice production, to Mr. Dalton Harrison for his analysis of

land development costs, and to Drs. David Jones and George Snyder for

their appraisal of the tract's physical potential for rice production.

Thanks also go to Ms. Christine Grande for collecting and analyzing

vegetable data and for editing several drafts of the manuscript. We are

also grateful to Ms. Renelle Kiddy for typing the manuscript.













SUMMARY


*The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida owns a 19,000 acre tract of
land in northwest Broward County. The objective of this study was to
examine alternative agricultural enterprises for the tract which were
likely to provide the greatest economic returns to the Tribe.

*The production potential of the land was evaluated by a research team
comprised of eight faculty members from five departments in the Insti-
tute of Food and Agricultural Sciences at the University of Florida.
All members of the research team made at least one on-site inspection.
Economic evaluations were made using published data and information
obtained through industry interviews.

*There was no detailed soil survey map of the subject tract which could
help to assess the crop production potential. Most of the soil is rela-
tively shallow, poorly drained and subject to flooding. A hard, lime-
stone bedrock, which is at or near the surface, will hamper cultivation
and could make land development costs quite expensive. Digging of
canals and ditches to serve scattered tracts of arable land could cost
three times what similar efforts would cost elsewhere.

*Despite potential development problems associated with crop production,
there appear to be pockets of soil that are deep enough to facilitate
cultivation. On the northern portion of the tract, there may be 2,500
acres with soil depths of 12 inches or more, of which 1,000 acres may be
18 inches or deeper.

*Given the physical and environmental constraints of the subject tract,
the cow/calf ranching operation appears to offer the greatest potential
at present. Assuming a high level of management and favorable, long-
term financing, the net present value of the enterprise to the Tribe is
equivalent to a current cash lease of about $7.05 to $10.44 per acre,
depending on financing assumptions.

*Rice production appears to be feasible on about 2,500 acres. Assuming
relatively high land development costs, the initial investment would
range from about $800,000 for 1,000 acres to $1.8 million for 2,500
acres. An additional undetermined acreage would be required for the
construction of holding ponds for water drained from the cultivated
acreage during periods of heavy rainfall and flooding.

*Returns to rice production are estimated at $56, $89, and $87 per acre
for small, medium and large sized operations of 1,000, 1,500 and 2,500
acres, respectively, assuming rice prices remain at present levels of
$10.00 for the primary crop and $9.00 for the ratoon crop. However, if
rice prices continue their long-term trends over the next decade, prices
will decline by an average of 32 cents per hundredweight per year. This
rate of decline will result in substantial losses.













*The research team was not optimistic about vegetable production because
of the shallow soil, high water table, and hard bedrock which makes cul-
tivation difficult and land development expensive. However, there
appears to be limited potential for a few crops.

*Fruiting crops were excluded because the deeper soils are thought to be
relatively high in organic material. Leaf crops, salad crops, crucifers
or cole crops, and shallow-rooted corns, tubers or root crops were sug-
gested.

*Broccoli, cabbage and carrots show substantial losses.

*Cauliflower, Chinese cabbage, and various types of greens appear to have
profit potential. The major concern is the limited market faced by all
these crops. Additional quantities could quickly depress prices to
unprofitable levels.

*Lettuce and winter potatoes also may have profit potential. However,
the labor requirements of lettuce and the lack of a nearby labor pool
and housing may pose problems.

*The vegetable industry is risky and very competitive. Vegetable prices
are characterized by extreme price fluctuations. Even with the best
production techniques and management, a series of seasons with low
prices could prove disastrous for a new vegetable enterprise without
substantial resources.

*Market entry for some crops may be very difficult. Arrangements to pro-
vide pre-cooling and selling services must be made in advance for speci-
fic crops.

*A detailed soil survey and an engineering study must be made prior to
making plans for rice or vegetable production.

*Finally, the cow/calf livestock operation has the lowest return on a
per acre basis, but virtually all of the subject tract can be used.
Further, the cow/calf enterprise has been tried and proven, and has much
of the required investment in place. A conservative strategy would be
to operate a cow/calf operation and gradually develop rice and vegetable
acreages after detailed soil surveys are complete and as adequate capi-
tal is available.













AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURAL ALTERNATIVES
ON THE BROWARD COUNTY MICCOSUKEE INDIAN RESERVATION

Robert L. Degner, David L. Dodson,
James R. Simpson, Rom Alderman and William M. Stall


BACKGROUND


The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida was once a part of the

Creek Confederacy. Today, the Tribe is comprised of approximately 450

individuals, most of whom live in south Florida. The Miccosukees are

closely akin to the Seminoles, and their cultures share many of the same

beliefs and practices. After centuries of displacement by white

settlers, the Miccosukees retained approximately 200,000 acres of land

in the Everglades region of south Florida (Figure 1). The Tribe's land

holdings are found in several locations. The relatively small 40-Mile

Reservation area, where tribal headquarters and virtually all residences

are located, is on U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail) in Dade County, approximately

40 miles west of Miami. Most of their land is located in northwest

Broward County, to the north and south of State Highway 84, Alligator

Alley (Figure 1).

The Miccosukees are a proud people that prize independence. A

basic, long-term goal of the Tribe is to become economically self-

sufficient by developing tribal enterprises (Miccosukee Tribe of Indians

of Florida, p. 7). Several commercial, non-agricultural enterprises are

currently in operation, and more are planned.



Director of the Florida Agricultural Market Research Center and
Associate Professor, Visiting Assistant in Agricultural Economics, Exten-
sion Livestock Marketing Economist, Economic Analyst, and Vegetable Crops
Specialist, respectively, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
University of Florida.





























































Figure l.--Miccosukee Tribe of
Indians Reservation
Area.

Source: Miccosukee Planning
Department












In keeping with this goal of economic self-sufficiency, the Tribal

Planning Department requested that the Florida Agricultural Market

Research Center (FAMRC) evaluate the agricultural potential of a 19,200

acre tract located within the Broward County Reservation. This subject

tract will be described in detail later.


OBJECTIVES


The primary objective of this study was to examine alternative

agricultural enterprises to identify those that were likely to provide

the greatest economic returns to the Tribe. Specific objectvies were to:

1. Identify specific vegetable and agronomic crops that can
be produced commercially on the improved acreage of the
subject tract.

2. Determine which types of livestock operations are commer-
cially feasible.

3. Determine the costs of Inputs necessary to efficiently
produce and market the crops and livestock identified in
(1) and (2) above and estimate returns to land and risk.

4. Evaluate the current market situations of the various
commodities, the future market outlook, and the probable
impact of increased quantities marketed.


PROCEDURE


The production potential of the Miccosukee agricultural land was

evaluated by a research team comprised of eight faculty members from

five departments in the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences

(IFAS) at the University of Florida. Departments represented by team

members included Agricultural Engineering (water management), Soil

Science, Agronomy, Vegetable Crops, and Food and Resource Economics

(Appendix Table 1). On-site inspections of the subject tract were












In keeping with this goal of economic self-sufficiency, the Tribal

Planning Department requested that the Florida Agricultural Market

Research Center (FAMRC) evaluate the agricultural potential of a 19,200

acre tract located within the Broward County Reservation. This subject

tract will be described in detail later.


OBJECTIVES


The primary objective of this study was to examine alternative

agricultural enterprises to identify those that were likely to provide

the greatest economic returns to the Tribe. Specific objectvies were to:

1. Identify specific vegetable and agronomic crops that can
be produced commercially on the improved acreage of the
subject tract.

2. Determine which types of livestock operations are commer-
cially feasible.

3. Determine the costs of Inputs necessary to efficiently
produce and market the crops and livestock identified in
(1) and (2) above and estimate returns to land and risk.

4. Evaluate the current market situations of the various
commodities, the future market outlook, and the probable
impact of increased quantities marketed.


PROCEDURE


The production potential of the Miccosukee agricultural land was

evaluated by a research team comprised of eight faculty members from

five departments in the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences

(IFAS) at the University of Florida. Departments represented by team

members included Agricultural Engineering (water management), Soil

Science, Agronomy, Vegetable Crops, and Food and Resource Economics

(Appendix Table 1). On-site inspections of the subject tract were













conducted in January, May and November 1984, and each team member made at

least one visit.

In addition to the expertise provided by the researchers, Food and

Resource Economics personnel conducted personal and telephone interviews

of many industry representatives. They included ranch managers that were

knowledgeable of ranching practices in the Everglades area, vegetable

growers, packers, shippers, vegetable and rice brokers, and food

retailers. Secondary data on production, prices, and consumption trends

were also obtained and analyzed for most of the crops whenever available.


FINDINGS


Basic Resources of the Subject Tract


Location


The subject tract consists of 19,200 acres located in far northwest

Broward County, approximately 40 miles southwest of the greater

Fort Lauderdale area (Figures 1 and 2). Approximately 60 percent of the

tract lies in the north of Alligator Alley and the remainder to the

south. Snake Road is a well-maintained, paved road that bisects the

property from north to south. Although paved access is excellent, dis-

tance to various agricultural markets is relatively great. Distances to

major market areas for vegetables, cattle and rice range from 40 to

appruAimately 85 miles. These distances add appreciable marketing custs

to some potential enterprises. Further, there is no ready pool of agri-

cultural laborers near the property. The distance from labor markets and

the lack of suitable housing could have a negative effect on obtaining

sufficient low-cost laborers for labor-intensive enterprises.













IP I COU T
I ALM E AC M C 0 U M TY


MICCOSUKEE
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
14-49


HIGHWAY 84-
ALLIGATOR ALLEY


I NORTHWEST
i BROWARD COUNTY
FLORIDA
S 14


SI IIt



Figure 2.--Northwest Broward County, Florida showing the subject 19,200
acre tract of land owned Sy the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of
Florida and the major soil associations found on the tract.
(Note: Numbers 11-16 refer to soil associations. See Table 2).












Table 1.-Summary of current level of development and land use, subject
property.


Current Use Acreage

Improved pasture 10,000

Semi-improveda 1,520

Unimproved 7.680

Total 19,200

aAll improved and semi-improved pasture lies north of Highway 84 and
is leased for grazing. Two hundred acres of the improved pasture is sche-
duled to be used for an interchange on Interstate 75. This acreage was
deducted from the total available for livestock production.

All unimproved pasture lies south of Highway 84 and is currently idle.













Climate, Soil and Water


Because the general environmental conditions of the Everglades area

have been well documented elsewhere, only a brief overview is presented

here (Florida Department of Administration, Veri and Bergamschi). The

proximity of the Everglades region to the tropics results in a climate

that is characterized by two basic seasons rather'than the four that are

typical of temperate climates. A wet, warm season lasts from May to

November, followed by a cool, dry season for December through April.

Temperatures are moderate, and for most of the year are conducive to

producing a wide variety of crops. In most of the Everglades area, the

mean annual average temperature is 73 degrees Fahrenheit, and the aver-

age for July is only 82 degrees Fahrenheit, In the winter, killing

frosts occur, but temperatures rarely drop below 30 degrees Fahrenheit.

However, temperatures for the subject tract have not been specifically

established. If the water table were lowered to accommodate crop produc-

tion on a large scale, the temperature extremes may change slightly due

to the lack of the moderating influence of the saturated soils.

The mean annual rainfall is approximately 60 inches with 75 percent

of it coming during the May to November period. Tropical storms, some-

times reaching hurricane proportions, result in widespread flooding.

There are no official detailed soil survey maps of the subject

tract. Older, general soils maps show four soil associations on the sub-

ject tract. They are, in decreasing order of total area, the Pompano-

Charlotte, the Lauderhill-Dania, the Ochopee-Broward, and the Broward-

Pompano associations (Figure 2). In general, the soils are nearly level,

poorly to very poorly drained, and most of the area is subject to flood-

ing. Some of the soils of the subject tract consist primarily of













organic peats, but most appear to be shallow, infertile mineral soils

over Tamiami limestone. Several soil samples showed an organic content

of 4 to 17 percent. However, deeper areas of soil may contain higher

proportions of organic matter and may be subject to rates of subsidence

approaching one inch per year.

A summary of the estimated agricultural potential for the four soil

associations indicates moderate and even high potential for some agri-

cultural uses (Table 1). However, the shallow soil and hydrological

characteristics of the area pose serious obstacles to many agricultural

uses.


Limitations to Crop Production


An unofficial study of the northern portion of the subject tract

made several years ago indicates that the soil depth varies from zero

(exposed bedrock) to about 24 inches, and much of the area has soil

depths of less than 12 inches (Figure 3). Additionally, the depth of

the Tamiami limestone bedrock from the surface is extremely variable.

This variability makes it difficult to find large, contiguous tracts of

land suitable for cultivation. Further, the limestone which lies beneath

the soil is very hard, which makes cultivation difficult in many areas

and impossible in others because of potential damage to equipment.

Another major obstacle to production of many crops is the high water

table. The topography of the area ranges trom 10 to 12 feet above sea

level. The South Florida Water Management District maintains the water

table at about 10 feet during much of the year, resulting in standing

water in some areas of the subject tract. The high water table, coupled

with shallow soil in many areas, makes it difficult if not impossible to

























Legend: Nuabers
in circles refer
to soil depth in
inches. Letters
are as follows:
P Potd, R -
Surface Raoc.


( .@2@@@4@@

G@@@@G@@@

Bea 1.oM Acres













@1 0 @G @

@ @ ( @ @0















1 ( 34 @ G
) @ O (5)

3 O O







:I D 9 0 (Q


@@, 0
00@ 0
480 Acre
0@ 9Q


@@ (D



480 Acres
(D3)9 -
@@@@
@@@i~


0G
@


720 Acres
00 0.


000 ,
480 Acru


480 Acre
@00C


GO
@0)


E72
7:0 Acres


-E-8


!S@ ( 2 ( 03

00 Ace a 0 Ac


@@ @

1-9

600 Acres
000


E-10




600 Acres
5 G D G


Figure 3.--Soil depth of
1981.


improved land,


Miccosukee reservation, September


Source: Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida.


___ __ _ r 1


I


"~













bed the soil high enough to get crop root zones high and dry enough for

satisfactory production.

Despite these limitations, there appear to be pockets of soil that

are deep enough to facilitate cultivation of crops if adequate drainage

is provided. According to rough estimates based on the unofficial study,

there may be as much as 2,500 acres of land with soil depths greater than

12 inches on the northern tract alone. Of the 2,500 acres, about 1,000

acres may have soil depths of 18 to 24 inches. Unfortunately, the deeper

pockets of soil may be widely dispersed over the subject tract, which

would increase development costs and make farming more difficult. Fur-

ther, the deeper soils may lie in areas designated as "wetlands." Accor-

ding to personnel of the South Florida Water Management District, permits

for development might be difficult to obtain. Additionally, the deeper

soils may contain higher proportions of organic matter and thus be sub-

ject to oxidation rates of up to one inch per year. Rapid depletion

rates would make it difficult to recoup land development costs before the

topsoil became too shallow to cultivate.


Current and Potential Land Use


The northern portion of the subject tract is currently leased to a

private firm for cattle production and consists of 10,000 acres of

improved pasture and about 1,500 acres of semi-improved pasture. The

southern portion, which contains approximately 7,680 acres, is unimproved

and is currently not being used for any agricultural purpose (Table 1).

Approximately 200 acres of the improved pasture at the intersection

of Alligator Alley and Snake Road are scheduled to be used for an inter-

state highway (1-75) interchange, sites for non-agricultural businesses,













and homesites for members of the tribe. After these developments, 19,000

acres will remain in the subject tract and will be available for various

agricultural uses. All of the remaining tract could be used for cattle

production, but because of the limitations discussed earlier, an esti-

mated 2,500 acres could possibly be used for rice, and perhaps 1,000

acres for vegetables. However, the estimates of the total arable acreage

should be used with caution until a more accurate determination of soil

depth is made. Obtaining a detailed soil survey map of the tract should

be given high priority before making extensive investments in crop enter-

prises.


Agricultural Alternatives


Livestock


The lease held by a private firm on the improved and semi-improved

portion of the subject tract will expire in 1986. The firm has developed

and used the land for a cow/calf ranch. The lessee has a first option on

renewing the lease for another five years, providing the tribe does not

want to use it for their own purposes. One possibility is for the tribe

to purchase cattle and operate a cow/calf operation themselves. The con-

sensus among members of the research team was that a cow/calf operation

is the only commercially feasible livestock enterprise at present.

There are, of course, many ways to structure a cow/calf operation.

The purpose of this report is to present a long-term (11 years) financial

analysis derived from a basic management plan under two different financ-

ing scenarios. Under both scenarios, the herd is liquidated in the

eleventh year. This is done to show the magnitude of the accumulated













equity. Alternate situations can be explored with the computer program,

BEEFLOAN, used for the analysis.


Assumptions


All of the assumptions can be determined by reviewing the printouts

in Appendix A. However, some major assumptions are:

*92 percent calf crop.

*10 percent culling in cow herd.

*all cattle purchased in late 1986 by a 100 percent loan,
i.e. no equity used.


*heifers bred as yearlings to calve at two years of age.

*calves all sold at weaning or as lightweights, i.e. no
backgrounding.

*beginning inventory of 2,380 brood cows, 520 yearlings, and
100 bulls or 3,050 animal units.

*no income taxes paid by ranch. Individuals receiving divi-
dends would pay personal income tax.

*no additional land development costs are incurred. The
pastures are used and maintained in their current conditions.

Overall, the main assumption is the ranch being quite well managed

and that a high calf crop is possible as a result of this management plus

a conservative stocking rate. It should be noted that all projections

are in current, i.e. actual dollars. This means that the figures shown

include inflation. Costs increase at varying rates, which are shown in

the computer output. Cattle prices fluctuate with the anticipated cattle

cycle, but all returns are assumed to be subject to a five percent annual

inflation rate. Given these assumptions, two scenarios are developed for

evaluating the financial impact.













Scenario I: 10 percent interest rate, amortized over 10 years


The assumption in this scenario is that a $1.8 million loan is taken

out at the beginning of 1986 to purchase cattle, equipment and facili-

ties. This loan is amortized over 10 years at a fixed interest rate of

10 percent. The actual operation, and first calf crop received, begins

in 1987 and runs for a total of 10 years, with the last projected year

being 1996. The loan is repaid in 1995 since it begins in 1986.

Review of the income statement (page ) indicates that funds for

addition to retained earnings (frequently called net cash flow) are only

marginally positive in all years except the last three, 1994-1996. There

is a reasonably high amount of funds for addition to retained earnings in

1986 because the loan includes money for operating capital. Some of that

would be necessary for 1987 when a negative cash flow is projected.

The large addition to retained earnings (net cash flow) shown in

1996 is partly due to the fact that total liabilities are negligible

because the initial loan has been repaid. However, the major contributor

to positive cash flow in the final year is the liquidation of the opera-

tion shown in the computer output as "intermediate assets," the value

ascribed to the herd.

An analysis of the net cash flow, which includes the value of the

herd in the eleventh year, shows that the income stream from Scenario I

has a net present value of $1.65 million when discounted by five percent

to account for the assumed inflation rate. This return is equivalent to

an annual cash lease of $10.44 per acre (Table 2). If the income stream

of the enterprise is discounted by 10 percent, the net present value is

approximately $1.03 million. The 10 percent rate accounts for inflation

and assumes the net cash flow can earn a five percent real rate of












Table 2.--A cash flow analysis for Scenarios I and II comparing operating
returns of a cattle enterprise with an annual cash lease, assuming
a discount rate of five percent

Net Cash Flows

Scenario I Scenario II

Year Ending Operating Leasing Operating Leasing

-------------------Dollars----------- ----

1986 87,422 198,398 101,829 133,867

1987 (11,832) 198,398 2,575 133,867

1988 46,441 198,398 60,848 133,867

1989 (16,635) 198,398 (2,228) 133,867

1990 25,446 198,398 39,853 133,867

1991 23,433 198,398 37,840 133,867

1992 (15,198) 198,398 (791) 133,867

1993 (51,877) 198,398 (37,470) 133.867

1994 81,029 198,398 95,436 133,867

1995 161,219 198,398 175,622 133,867

1996 2,405,247 1,647,974 1,298,212 133,867

Net Present Value 1,647,974 1,647,974 1,111,958 1,111,958

Breakeven Lease
Fee per Acre 10.44 7.05

aThe discount rate of five percent is assumed to account for inflation,
but provides a real rate of return of zero on the income stream.












return. This return is equivalent to an annual cash lease of $8.34 per

acre (Table 3). It should be stressed that these cash lease equivalents

of $10.44 and $8.34 are upper bounds estimates of the value of the land

for cattle grazing to the tribe, given the assumptions of the BEEFLOAN

computer program and the debt structure associated with Scenario I.

These hypothetical lease values make no provision for risks or profit.

Because most lessees would seek compensation for risk taking, it is

unlikely that the property could be leased for the maximum figure. How-

ever, several county agricultural agents in South Florida reported that

leases for improved pasture ranged from $15 to $25 per acre. Native

range lease fees range from $1.00 to $3.00 per acre, with most in the

$1.00 to $2.00 range. Using average market prices of $20 for improved

pasture and $1.50 for native range results in a weighted average price of

slightly over $11.00 per acre for the 19,000 acre subject tract, very

similar to the highest computed value.


Scenario II: 13 percent interest rate, amortized over 15 years


In this scenario, a $1.8 million loan is also obtained but at a

higher interest rate, 13 percent. Because most years would have nega-

tive cash flows if a 10-year amortization schedule were selected, 15

years have been chosen. In this situation, there are three years of

negative cash flow with the other years being quite variable. By 1994,

there is a respectable net cash flow which improved steadily from then

on. As with Scenario I, annual cash flows are analyzed for the first

eleven years and the net present values of the income stream calculated.

In the eleventh year, the value of the herd is included in the net cash

flow, less outstanding liabilities. Discounting by five percent to












Table 3.-A cash flow analysis for Scenarios I and II comparing operating
returns of a cattle enterprise with an annual cash lease, assuming
a discount rate of ten percent

Net Cash Flows

Scenario I Scenario II

Year Ending Operating Leasing Operating Leasing

-----------------Dollars-------------------

1986 87,422 158,551 101,829 112,441

1987 (11,832) 158,551 2,575 112,441

1988 46,441 158,551 60,848 112,441

1989 (16,635) 158,551 (2,228) 112,441

1990 25,446 158,551 39,853 112,441

1991 23,433 158,551 37,840 112,441

1992 (15,198) 158,551 (791) 112,441

1993 (51,877) 158.551 (37.470) 112.441

1994 81,029 158,551 95,436 112,441

1995 161,219 158,551 175,622 112,441

1996 2,405,247 158,551 1,298,212 112,441

Net Present Value 1,029,799 1,029,799 730,313 730,313

Breakeven Lease
Fee per Acre 8.34 5.92

aThe discount rate of ten percent was used to account for (1) an
assumed five percent inflation rate and (2) an assumed real rate of return
on the income stream of five percent.












account for the assumed inflation rate results in a net present value of

$1.03 million and $730 thousand using a discount rate of 10 percent.

These operating returns are equivalent to annual lease rates of $7.05

and $5.92 per acre, respectively. The same precautions discussed in con-

junction with Scenario I are to be used in interpreting these figures.

These hypothetical lease fees are the maximum values of the land when

used for cattle grazing by the tribe.


Conclusions and Qualifications


Analysis indicates that a very high management level will be

required to make the cow/calf operation a viable alternative if all capi-

tal required is obtained from loan funds. The maximum interest rate

which seems possible is 13, and possibly 14, percent as a longer amorti-

zation period would be required at higher rates. It is unlikely that a

basic cattle loan can be obtained for 10 years, much less for more than

15 years. The point is that, while numerous assumptions could be

analyzed about pasture maintenance programs, stocking rates, calf crop,

etc., the main factors to be considered are interest rates and equity

contribution.

Analysis of the net worth statements demonstrates that if the opera-

tion were run in the manner described in this report, the tribe would be

in a very respectable financial position within six to seven years. The

problem is the earlier period.

Cattle prices are another major factor which influence net cash

flow. The projections are reasonable and, if anything, conservative.

Thus, the potential does exist for greater cash flows than those indi-

cated. However, considerable risk does exist that prices could be lower

in some years than projected.













Rice


Rice production in the Everglades has proven to be economically fea-

sible at various times in history. It was cultivated in the 1950's until

a disease outbreak led the U.S. government to ban production in 1957.

This ban was lifted in the early 1970's, and production slowly increased

to about 9,000 acres in 1981. Florida's production is still minuscule

compared to other U.S. growing areas (Table 4)..

The Everglades area amply meets the physical requirements for grow-

ing rice. A large area of flat land, an abundance of water, and a nearly

optimum climate make some areas of the Everglades suitable for rice cul-

ture. However, as noted in an earlier section, the subject tract has

relatively shallow soil, which makes land development relatively expen-

sive and restricts the total acreage suitable for rice to about 2,500

acres.


Land development costs


Research team members most knowledgeable about water management pro-

blems tended to be pessimistic about any potential for crop production on

the subject tract for reasons discussed previously, namely the shallow

soil and water management problems. However, there was general agreement

that rice production had greater potential than other types of crops.

Even so, extensive and expensive measures would be required for rice pro-

duction. The effects of water management on yield can be profound.

Since rice is an aquatic crop, considerable research has been directed

toward this management factor. Excessive water depths can reduce tiller-

ing, thus reducing the number of panicles (stalk heads) in a given area.

If rice fields are not properly leveled, low areas may be flooded too












Table 4.-1981 and 1982 U.S. rice acreage, production, and
for major rice-producing states.


per acre yields


State


Arkansas

California

Louisiana

Mississippi

Missouri

Texas

Florida


Acres

1981 1982

--1,000----

1,540 1,330

605 560

667 598

337 260

76 80

579 458

9 N.A.


Production

1981 1982

million cwt.

70.0 59.0

43.5 37.0

27.0 24.0

14.8 11.0

3.0 3.4

27.2 21.5

0.3 N.A.


Yield

1981 1982

--cwt./a--

45 44

72 66

40 40

44 42

39 43

47 47

36 N.A.


Source: "R/J Rice Update," The Rice Journal, 85(1982), page 9 and Florida
Agriculture in the '80s: Field Crops, IFAS, page 47.
























Table S.--Soil ratings and limitations and features affecting selected water management practices.a


Soil Features Affecting
Water Ianagement Water Management

Embankments, Excavated Pond
Map Name of Association Percent of Dikes and Ponds, Reservoir
Symbol with Component Soils Association Levees Aquifer Fed Areas Drainage Irrigation


11 Broward-Pompano
Broward

Ponpano
Others

14 Ochopee-Broward
Ochopee

Broward

Others

15 Pompano-Charlotte
Pompano

Charlotte

Others


Severe
Severe
PG,SE
Severe


Severe
Severe
PG.TL.UF
Severe
PG.SE


Severe
Severe
SE,PG
Severe
SE,PG


Severe
Severe
DTHM,UTR
Slight


Severe
Severe
DTR
Severe
DTW.PTR


Slight
Slight

Slight


SE.PTR PTR
SEPTR DTP

SE.SL CC.WT
-


SE.)TR.SL ITR,WT TLWT
SE,DTR,SL DTP. ,T TL,WT

SE.PTR PTR PR


SE.SL CC.WT
SE,SL CC.WT

SE.SL CCWT


Continued




















Table 5.--Soil ratings and limitations and features affecting selected water management practices--continued.a

Soil Features Affecting
Water Management Water Management

Embankments, Excavated Pond
Map Name of Associationb Percent of Dikes and Ponds. Reservoir
Symbol with Component Soils Association Levees Aquifer Fed Areas Drainage Irrigation

16 Lauderhlll-Dania Very Severe Severe SE.SL.EH WT.ElH UT
Lauderhill 60 Very Severe Severe DTR.SLEH WT,E WT
CP,LS.EH PTR
Dania 30 Very Severe DTR DTRSL,EH WT,DTR VT
CF,LS6EH,TL
Others 10 -- -

aThe overall rating for the association is based on the rating for the dominant soil (soil that makes up the
greatest percentage of the association) or soils If more than one soil has the same rating.
bOther represents minor soils In the association. No one of the individual minor soils makes up as large a per-
centage of the association as the major soil with the lowest percentage.
CThe percentages are estimates and are not based on measured acreage.

Abbreviations: CC = Cutbanks Cave. CP = Compressible, CTR Depth to Rock, DOT = Deep to Water, EE Erodes Easily.
EH = Excess Humus, LS = Low Strength, PDY Productivity, PG Piping, PR = Percolates Rapidly, SE -
Seepage, SL = Slope, TL = Thin Layer, UF Unstable Fill, WT Wet.

Source: Adapted from The Florida General Soils Atlas with Interpretations, Regional Planning Districts IX and X,
Florida Department of Administration. Division of State Planning, Bureau of Comprehensive Planninn, July 1975.













deeply while high areas may remain unflooded, reducing yield. Therefore,

poor land preparation and leveling can reduce yields. A summary of the

problems associated with water management practices reveals that most

problems are severe for the soil types found on the subject tract (Table

5).

Estimates of land development costs associated with water control

measures were developed. Costs include a basic engineering study to

determine specific details of the water management system, drainage and

irrigation pumps, land leveling, and blasting and excavation of main

canals and lateral ditches. A "low" cost estimate indicates what costs

are on typical muck soils. The low-cost land development estimate is

$215 per acre. This amount, amortized over 10 years at 13 percent,

results in an annual cost of $40 per acre.

A "high" cost estimate was developed to account for increased blast-

ing and excavation costs which are anticipated because of the hard bed-

rock and relatively small, scattered fields of deeper soils. The initial

high-cost investment was $495 per acre, and the amortized annual cost was

$90 per acre (Table 6). The high-cost estimates are probably most accu-

rate. However, a detailed soil survey, at least providing more accurate

soil depths, and an engineering study are required to refine these esti-

mates.


Rice Culture and Basic Assumptions


Because of the long growing season in the Everglades area, rice is

capable of producing two crops from one planting. Optimum planting time

is March 15 to May 15, and harvesting for the first crop begins about 120

days after planting. The expected yield for the first crop is 40 cwt.












Table 6.--Estimated land development costs for rice.


Development Costsa

Item Low High

-----Dollars-----

Drainage pump--25,000 GPM and 40 h.p. diesel power
unit 25,000 25,000

Irrigation pump--7,500 GPM and 15 h.p. power unit 12,500 12,500

Blasting and excavation for mains, laterals 90,500 271,500

Engineering studyc 5,120 5,120

Land leveling 3,200 3,200

Total costs 136,320 317,320

Average cost per acre 215 495

Annual amortized cost per acred 40 90

aBased upon 640 contiguous acres comprised of 80 acre blocks. Costs
are rounded to nearest five dollars.

bThis drainage capacity will remove the equivalent of 2 inches of
rainfall in 24 hours.

cBased upon a $20,000 study for 2,500 acres.

dBased upon an interest rate of 13 percent over 10 years for all costs
except leveling. Leveling is amortized over five years.












per acre after drying. The quality of rice from the first crop is

slightly higher than that produced by the second or ratoon crop. Cur-

rently, the first crop brings about $10 per hundredweight (cwt.) in

Florida.

After harvesting the first crop, the fields are flooded again and

few rice stalks grow from the stubble. The second crop is called the

ratoon crop. Harvesting for the ratoon crop begins approximately 80 days

after the first harvest, and the expected yield is 20 cwt. per acre. The

ratoon crop currently receives a price of $9.50 per cwt. in Florida. The

expected yields and current prices for the two crops give a weighted

average price of $9.83 per cwt.

Three rice farm averages were analyzed for the subject tract: 1,000

acres, 1,500 acres, and 2,500 acres. One thousand acres was chosen as a

starting point because it is about the smallest acreage that can pay a

manager and appear to generate a profit. The next size (1,500 acres)

was chosen because it is the largest acreage that can use the original

equipment complement. The 2,500 acre size was the estimated total area

available for cultivation and requires a larger equipment complement.


Financial analyses


The initial investment costs for the three acreages and for the two

land development costs were estimated. These costs include land develop-

ment costs and machinery and equipment for rice production. It should be

noted that drainage and irrigation pumps and power units are included in

the machinery and equipment category (Table 7). Detailed machinery

requirements are found in Appendix B. Assuming high land development

costs, the initial investment ranges from about $787,000 to $1.8 million.
















Table 7.--Start-up investment costs for 1,000, 1,500 and 2,500 acres with low and high
costs.


land development


Cost Levels, Items


1,000 Acres 1,500 Acres

Per Acre Total Per Acre Total

-----------------------------Dollars--


2,500 Acres

Per Acre Total


Low Costs:

Land development

Machinery and equipment

Totals


High Costs:


Land development

Machinery and equipment


Totals


154.00

351.23

505.23


154,000

351,230

505,230


154.00

234.15

388.15


231,000

351,230

582,230


154.00

275.38

429.38


385,000

688,460

1,073,460


436.00

351.23

787.23


436,000

351,230

787,230


436.00

234.15

670.15


654,000

351,230

1,005,230


436.00

275.38

711.38


1,090,000

688,460

1,778,460


__


--













The financial aspects of rice production are analyzed using production

budgets and a cash flow analysis. Each is discussed below.

Production budgets.--Budgets put all costs on an annual basis by

depreciating fixed costs over several years. The budgets in Appendix B

include yearly variable costs, depreciated fixed costs (machinery, land

development, etc.), interest, and taxes. Table 8 summarizes the budgets

while a more detailed presentation is made in the Appendix.

If low land development costs are assumed, the net returns of the

1,000 acre operation will be about $108 per acre, while of both the

1,500 acre and 2,500 acre operations are about $140 per acre (Table 8).

However, with high development costs, a more realistic assumption,

returns per acre are estimated at $56, $89 and $87 for the small, medium,

and large operations, respectively. These estimated returns are based

upon average yields of 60 bushels per acre for two crops per season at a

weighted average price of $9.83 per cwt. Varying yields and prices can

drastically change the financial picture. Various scenarios are shown in

the "Sensitivity Analysis" tables in the Appendix. For example if high

land development costs are assumed and the yield per acre is only 50

bushels, at present prices the 1,000 acre operation would lose nearly

$17 per acre. At a price of $8.83 per cwt., the loss would be about $67

per acre (Appendix B).

From the revenues, costs and returns, breakeven prices may be calcu-

lated. A breakeven price is the price at which revenues just equal cuLst

and returns equal zero. The most critical breakeven prices are probably

those for 1,000 acres because any losses in the early years will mean

that more money must be borrowed to expand the acreage. The breakeven

prices for 1,000 acres are $8.02 per cwt. for the low land development















Table 8.--Annual revenue, costs, and returns for 1,000, 1,500 and 2,500 acres with
opment costs.


low and high land devel-


1,100 Acres 1,500 Acres 2,500 Acres

Cost Level, Item Per Acre Total Per Acre Total Per Acre Total

---------------------------- ar-----------------------------


Low Development Costs:


Revenue

Total costs

Returns


590.00

481.58

108.42


High Development Costs:

Revenue

Total costs

Returns


590.00

533.55

56.45


590,000

481,580

108,420




590,000

533,549

56,451


590.00

449.24

140.76




590.00

501.21

88.79


885,000

673,853

211,147




885,000

751,807

133,193


590.00

450.54

139.46




590.00

502.51

87.49


1,475,000

1,126,351

348,649




1,475,000

1,256,276

218,724













costs and $8.89 per cwt. for the high land development costs (Table 9).

While these prices are lower than the expected price of $9.83 per cwt.,

they are not significantly so, as price fluctuations of a dollar per cwt.

are common in the rice market.

Breakeven prices for 1,500 acres and for 2,500 acres are $8.35 and

$8.37, respectively. However, it is important to note that in the case

of high land development costs, the 2,500 acres gives a greater total

return than the 1,500 acres at any price above $8.41 per cwt.

Cash flow analysis.--The budgets distribute the costs in a manner

that presents a constant, annual picture. However, they do not show the

manner in which actual expenditures would be made. To show this, four

hypothetical cash flows have been developed. All are in constant 1983

dollars. Two cash flows use a constant rice price of $9.83 per cwt., one

with high and one with low land development costs (Tables 10 and 11).

The other two cash flows use a rice price which decreases at a rate of

$0.32 per year, from $9.83 per cwt. the first year to $6.95 per cwt. the

tenth year. The rationale for decreasing price is discussed in a later

section. One of these cash flows is for low and the other for high land

development costs (Tables 12 and 13). A period of ten years was chosen

for the cash flows because that is the longest expected life for any of

the equipment. In the first two years, 1,000 acres are planted; in the

third and fourth years, 1,500 acres are planted; and in years five

through ten, the full 2,500 acres are planted.

Each cash flow table shows gross income (rice sales and loans

received), expenses (production costs and loan payments), net cash flow,

and the cumulative balance. The rice sales are calculated from the

appropriate prices and acreages with the expected yield of 60 cwt. per








29



Table 9.--Breakeven prices for rice for 1,000, 1,500 and 2,500 acre opera-
tions and low and high development costs.

Cost Level 1.000 Acres 1 500 Acres 2.500 Acres


Low land development costs

High land development costs


--------- Dollars per Cwt.-----------

8.02 7.48 7.51

8.89 8.35 8.37












Table 10.-Cash flow analysis for 10 years of production with high land
development costs and a constant price of $9.83 per cwt.


Gross Income Expenses

Loans Production Loan Net Cumulative
Year Rice Sales Received Costs Payments Cash Flow Balance

--------------------------- Dollars ----------------------

1 590,000 1,156,892 1,156,892 225,442 364,558 364,558
2 590,000 5,104 369,662 231,209 (5,767) 358,791
3 885,000 401,202 759,992 309,047 271,163 575,953
4 885,000 0 651,992 309,047 33,961 609,913
5 1,475,000 1,049,971 1,659,884 571,701 293,386 903,299
6 1,475,000 2,355 905,654 574,361 (2,660) 900,639
7 1,475,000 0 886,654 571,701 16,654 917,284
8 1,475,000 0 889,154 571,701 14,145 931,429
9 1,475,000 0 891,654 571,701 16,654 948,075
10 1,475,000 0 891,654 346.259 237,087 1,185,162

Total 11,800,000 2,615,522 8,948,190 4,282,169 1,185,162 1,185,162












Table ll.--Cash flow analysis for 10 years of production with low land
development costs and a constant price of $9.83 per cwt.


Gross Income Expenses

Loans Production Loan Net Cumulative
Year Rice Sales Received Costs Payments Cash Flow Balance

Dollars

1 590,000 874,892 874,892 218,857 371,143 371,143
2 590,000 0 369,662 218,857 1,481 372,625
3 885,000 246.368 618,992 288.903 223.473 596,097
4 885,000 0 541,992 288,903 54,105 650,202
5 1,475,000 727,682 1,377,884 533,545 291,253 941,455
6 1,475,000 0 905,654 533,545 35,801 977,256
7 1,475,000 0 886,654 314,688 273,658 1,250,914
8 1,475,000 0 889,154 244,642 341,204 1,592,118
9 1,475,000 0 886,654 0 588,346 2,180,464
10 1,475,000 0 891,654 0 583,346 2,763,810

Total 11,800,000 1,848,941 8,243,190 2,641,941 2,763,810 2,763,810












Table 12.--Cash-flow analysis for 10 years of production with high land
development costs and a.price decreasing from $9.83 per cwt. to
$6.95 per cwt. at a rate of $0.32 per year.


Gross Income Expenses

Loans Production Loans Net Cumulative
Year Rice Sales Received Costs Payments Cash Flow Balance

--------------------------Dollars------------------------------

I1 590,000 1,156,892 1,156,892 225,442 364,558 364,558
2 570,800 5,104 369,662 226,437 (20,195) 344,363
3 827,400 415,629 759,992 313,048 169,988 514,351
4 798,600 27,641 541,992 319,298 (35,050) 479,301
5 1,283,000 1,180,582 1,659,884 614,625 189,074 668,375
6 1,235,000 237,279 905,654 682,087 (115,462) 552,913
7 1,187,000 333,741 886,654 794,288 (160,202) 392,711
8 1,139,000 496,443 889,154 1,004,543 (258,254) 134,457
9 1,091,000 752,197 886,654 1,455,473 (498,930) (364,473)
10 1,043,000 1,256,127 891,654 2,649,454 (1,241,982) (1,606,455)

Total 9,764,796 5,861,635 8,948,190 8,284,695 (1,606,455) (1,606,455)












Table 13.-Cash flow analysis for 10 years of production with low land
development costs and a price decreasing from $9.83 per cwt. to
$6.95 per cwt. at a rate of $0.32 per year.


Gross Income Expenses

Loans Production Loan Net Cumulative
Year Rice Sales Received Costs Payments Cash Flow Balance

------------------------------Dollars---------------------------

1 590,000 874,892 874,892 218,857 371,143 371,143
2 570,800 0 369,662 218,857 (17,719) 353,424
3 827,400 265,568 618,992 285,290 188,686 542,110
4 798,600 0 541,992 285,290 (28,682) 513,428
5 1,283,000 864,456 1,377,884 501,536 268,036 781,464
6 1,235,000 124,190 905,654 536,845 (83,309) 698,155
7 1,187,000 188,499 886,654 381,360 107,485 805,640
8 1,139,000 83,514 889,154 416,730 (83,370) (722,270)
9 1,091,000 164,384 886,654 448,843 (80,113) 642,157
10 1,043,000 249,497 891,654 730,774 (329,931) 312,226

Total 9,764,800 2,814,998 8,243,191 4,024,382 312,226 312,226












acre for both crops. It is assumed that all of the first year's crops

must be met by borrowing money. In later years, money is borrowed only

if the cumulative balance is not large enough to cover the costs of pro-

duction. The loan received would be equal to the difference between

current production costs and the previous year's cumulative balance.

Production costs (land development, machinery, operating expenses,

etc.) are the actual costs that occur in each respective year. These

costs are the actual costs, rather than depreciated costs, and include

no interest charges. Constant annual loan payments (including interest

charges) were calculated for each amount of money borrowed. The payback

periods for each loan were chosen to maximize total returns at the end of

ten years.

Finally, net cash flow is equal to gross income minus expenses. The

cumulative balance is equal to the net cash flow plus the previous year's

cumulative balance.

Assuming that rice prices remain at current levels, the net present

value of the rice enterprise over the 10-year period is about $1.2 mil-

lion with high land development costs and almost $2.8 million with low

costs (Tables 10 and 11). However, if rice prices continue to decline at

the present rate over the next 10 years, the net present value of the

enterprise would reflect a loss of $1.6 million with high land develop-

ment costs, and a positive value of slightly over $300,000 with low land

development costs (Tables 12 and 13).


Market outlook for rice


The market outlook for rice is mixed. A look at historical farm

rice prices (Table 14 and Figure 4) shows a steady, long-term decline in













Table 14.--Historical, estimated, and projected U.S. farm rice prices,
1960-1995.


Actual Estimated and Projected
Year Average Pricesa Prices from Linear Regression


1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995


15.31
17.12
16.60
16.30
15.74
15.57
15.20
14.83
14.32
13.45
13.27
13.14
16.03
30.94
22.63
15.46
12.29
15.60
12.46
14.41
15.48
9.91
8.37
8.48


16.84
16.51
16.19
15.86
15.54
15.21
14.89
14.56
14.24
13.91
13.59
13.26
18.33
28.79
23.07
17.36
11.64
16.70
10.99
10.66
15.73
10.01
9.69
9.36
9.04
8.71
8.39
8.06
7.73
7.41
7.08
6.76
6.43
6.11
5.78
5.46


a
All prices are in constant 1983 dollars.


-- -I----------------














Figure 4.--Historical, estimated, and projected .U.S. farm rice prices, 1960-1995.


32
+
30 -

28

26 + Actual

24 -
4 Estimated
$4
2 22-

20 -
00

0 1 Bo1 8 -
+
16 -+ +
+
14 +
+
a 12

S 10

8 ++

6 -

4 -

2 -



60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94


Year












terms of constant 1983 dollars. A linear regression (F value 116.836,

a = 0.0001, R2 = 0.9175) puts the price decline at 32 cents per year.

When this is projected into the future, the price decreases to $5.46 per

cwt. in 1995. Although the rate of price decline may slow, it is likely

to continue to fall. Most of the past decline in U.S. rice prices can be

traced to the world rice market. World rice production has been increas-

ing steadily over the last 20 years, but relatively little rice is traded

in the world market. The majority of rice-consuming nations produce

their own rice. Consequently, they have little to export and need to

import little. World trade as a share of production has been only four

to five percent over the last 20 years.

In contrast, the U.S. has exported from 45 to 70 percent of its rice

production over the last five years. This range shows how dependent U.S.

farmers are on foreign rice markets. The increased self-sufficiency of

other countries, the generally lower production costs of those countries,

and the recent high value of the U.S. dollar have all contributed to a

price squeeze for U.S. rice farmers.

The second reason that the Florida rice price may not continue to be

high is that there is currently only one mill in operation in South Flor-

ida. Frequently, in situations with one buyer and several producers, the

buyer is able to set prices that are unprofitable for the producers.

However, there are several alternative marketing possibilities. The

first of these alternatives is a rice mill in South Florida that is cur-

rently inoperative. It is rumored that efforts are being made to reopen

the mill. This mill could provide competition to the other mill and pos-

sibly keep the price of rice at higher levels for growers.













A second alternative is to use the services of grain brokers to con-

tact more buyers. Several grain brokers in the Miami area were con-

tacted, and they expressed confidence in being able to market Florida

rice. They felt this might be done domestically or by export to the

Caribbean. Many individuals associated with the Florida rice industry

view Puerto Rico as a potentially important market for Florida rice.

This market may be developed, but it will be difficult.

The current Puerto Rican rice situation was explored by interviewing

executives of several of the major rice mills by telephone in late 1984.

Puerto Rico consumes approximately 3.6 million cwt. of rice per year.

About four percent is produced locally, with the rest coming from the

United States, primarily California and the Mississippi River Basin area.

Per capital consumption in Puerto Rico is estimated at 100 to 125 pounds

per year, compared with U.S. consumption of 9.8 pounds in 1983.

Virtually all rice imported by Puerto Rico is hulled, milled U.S.

No. 1 white rice. Short rice comprises approximately 75 percent of

Puerto Rican sales. Medium and long grain rice account for 20 and five

percent of sales, respectively. Other Caribbean islands reportedly

prefer long rice. White rice imported into Puerto Rico is recleaned,

fortified with iron, niacin and thiamine, coated with glucose, and pack-

aged before selling. Processed rice is sold in bales of 60 pounds, each

containing 20 three-pound bags for consumer sales. The wholesale price

of a 60-pound bale was $14.00 in January 1985. Other price data were not

available, due to the highly concentrated nature of the Puerto Rican

wholesale rice market and confidential nature of the information.

The executives interviewed felt that Florida had little potential

for rice production because of growing problems. Additionally, spokesmen












for two firms which control an estimated 60 percent of the Puerto Rican

retail market said they were also rice producers and would not be inter-

ested in buying Florida rice. The highly concentrated and vertically

integrated rice industry in Puerto Rico may pose barriers to market entry

that would be difficult to overcome. One executive stated that the cook-

ing quality of rice produced in Florida may not be accepted by Puerto

Rican consumers. As an example, he stated that the Dominican Republic

had failed to enter the Puerto Rican market because they produced a

yellow rice that was unacceptable to the Puerto Rican consumer. Thus, it

may be necessary to evaluate Florida-produced rice through an appropriate

survey of consumers in Puerto Rico.

A final element in a marketing strategy for rice is to consider par-

ticipating in the USDA rice program. This program is administered by the

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) and is

designed to "support and stabilize farm prices and to conserve farm

land." All of the existing ASCS programs were initialed by the 1981 Farm

Bill and are scheduled to run through the end of 1985.

To be eligible for the current program benefits, a farm must have a

two-year history of rice production. A given farm's historical average

rice acreage constitutes its acreage "base." The 1985 program requires

the farm must reduce its planted acreage by 35 percent of the base to

comply with a 20 percent acreage reduction program and a 15 percent cash

land diversion. There is a diversion payment rate of $3.50 per cwt. of

the farm's average rice yield on 15 percent of the base. For the rice

grown on the remaining 65 percent of the base acreage, the farmer has

the option of selling the rice himself on the open market or receiving a

"loan payment" (a guaranteed price) on rice that is put into storage.













Participating farmers are eligible to receive a deficiency payment equal

to the difference between the target price (determined by the Secretary

of Agriculture) and the weighted average U.S. farm price. Farmers

receive the deficiency payment in addition to whatever price is received.

The current target price is $11.20 per cwt. With the current target

price and the costs presented in the various budgets, it would probably

be advantageous to participate in the program. However, Congress is now

debating the next Farm Bill to decide the future of all farm programs.

The President and Congress are leaning towards large reductions in farm

programs. However, there is likely to be some type of rice program in

the future, but price supports may be significantly reduced and eventu-

ally phased out.


Conclusions and qualifications


If rice is selected as an agricultural option, it should be tried

first on a small acreage and then increased as capital, production and

marketing expertise permit. At present price levels and the high land

development costs, net returns range from $56 to about $89 per acre,

depending on the size of operation. It is stressed that these returns

are achievable with high levels of management but, even so, there is a

large element of risk involved with both the physical aspects of rice

production and the future of rice prices. At average yields, price

declines of $1.00 to $2.00 will result in operating losses. Similarly,

depending on the acreage, losses or only very small positive returns will

be experienced if average yields drop to 50 bushels per acre. Given the

weather risks, i.e. flooding and possible hurricanes during the peak har-

vest periods, a major portion or perhaps an entire crop could be lost,













resulting in a loss of over $400 per acre. Thus, it appears that the

potential for rice production is marginal.


Vegetables


Because of the physical limitations of the tract, vegetables are

viewed as having the least potential. Again, the research team was pes-

simistic with respect to vegetable production because of the shallow

soil, high water table, and hard bedrock which makes cultivation diffi-

cult.

It was recommended that vegetable production be considered only on

deeper soils, preferably 18 to 24 inches in depth. This depth would

facilitate bedding to get root zones higher above the water table. Also,

the additional soil would allow a greater usable life in the event the

soils are subject to higher rates of subsidence. Thus, an estimated

1,000 acres appear to offer some potential for vegetable production.


Land development costs


Land development costs for vegetables were estimated to be somewhat

higher than those for rice because of the increased drainage capacity

required for vegetables. In the event of heavy rains and flooding, most

vegetable crops can be severely damaged if water is allowed to cover the

root zone for 24 hours. The low land development costs for vegetables

were estimated at $252 per acre. The annual cost, when amortized over a

10-year period at 13 percent interest, was $45. However, because of the

hard bedrock and the scattered tracts, the land development costs on the

subject tract are expected to be closer to the high cost estimate of $535

per acre. The amortized annual cost for the high estimate is $100 per

acre (Table 15).












Table 15.-Estimated land development costs for vegetables.


Development Costsa

Item Low High

------Dollars------

Drainage pump--50,000 GPM and 80 h.p. diesel power
unit 50,000 50,000

Irrigation pump--7,500 GPM and 15 h.p. power unit 12,500 12,500

Blasting and excavation for mains, laterals 90,500 271,500

Engineering studyc 5,120 5,120

Land leveling 3.200 3,200

Total costs 161,320 342,232

Average cost per acre 252 535

Annual amortized cost per acred 45 100

aBased upon 640 contiguous acres comprised of 80 acre blocks. Costs
are rounded to nearest five dollars.

bThis drainage unit will remove the equivalent of 4 inches of rainfall
in 24 hours.

CBased upon a $20,000 study for 2,500 acres.

dBased upon an interest rate of 13 percent over 10 years for all costs
except leveling. Leveling is amortized over five years.













Table 16.--Estimated yields, breakeven
selected vegetable crops.


Crop


Broccoli

Cabbage

Carrots

Cauliflower

Chinese cabbage

Collard greens

Mustard and turnip
greens

Endive and escarole

Lettuce

Potatoes


Estimated
Yieldsa

Units

350

450

300

400

500

400


350

500

500

200


prices, and net returns per acre for


Breakeven
Price per
Unit



8.22

4.94

7.23

7.89

6.01

5.78


6.18

6.42

6.42

11.18


Observed
Market
Prices

Dollars

7.00*

3.52

5.25

8.91*

6.35*

7.00*


7.00*

5.17

7.34

14.80


Estimated
Returns
per Acre



-426

-639

-594

408

170

490


285

-625

460

724


aEstimated yields are derived from information in Appendix Table 4 and
obtained from the vegetable production specialist.

bPrices marked with an asterisk (*) are estimates derived from weekly
price reports and interviews with produce brokers and buyers. Others are
season average prices reported by the Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting
Service in 1982-83.

CStandard industry units are shown in Appendix Table

dIncludes all types. The price is based upon a reported $18.83 per
cwt. and is for a weighted average carton weight of 59 lbs.


--











Table 17.--Per capital consumption of selected foods.


Minor
Vege- Cauli-
Year Broccoli Carrots Escarole tables Cabbage flower Lettuce Rice

--------------------------- Pounds ---------------------------


1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982


.92
1.00
.96
.98
1.01
1.07
1.19
1.24
1.33
1.6
1.69
1.85
1.83
1.94
2.12
2.33
2.68
2.85
3.0
3.32
3.68


7.99
8.24
7.92
8.11
7.65
7.86
8.83
7.32
7.26
7.44
8.11
8.28
8.49
7.88
7.80
6.88
7.38
7.34
7.73
7.93
8.67


3.1
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.4
2.3
3.2
2.6
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.7
2.8
3.1
3.1
3.2
2.8
NA


11.2
11.1
10.7
10.3
10.3
10.5
10.9
10.3
10.3
10.8
10.2
10.3
10.6
10.4
10.2
9.9
10.2
9.8
9.9
9.4
NA


1.42
1.29
1.2
1.2
1.25
1.25
1.26
1.2
1.0
1.05
1.15
1.17
1.2
1.25
1.38
1.4
1.37
1.8
1.86
2.17
2.11


19.8
20.7
20.3
21.0
20.9
21.4
21.8
21.8
22.4
22.4
22.5
23.0
23.5
23.5
24.2
25.8
25.6
25.9
26.7
25.6
25.3


7.4
6.6
7.1
7.6
7.3
7.5
7.9
8.3
6.7
7.6
7.0
7.0
7.5
7.6
7.1
7.5
5.7
9.4
9.4
11 .0
11 .8


aFarm weight.

bMinor "deep green" and "deep yellow" vegetables as reported by the
USDA includes mustard, turnip and collard greens as well as other items
such as chinese cabbage, spinach, etc.

Source: Food Consumption, Prices and Expenditures, 1962-82, USDA, Statis-
tical Bulletin No. 702, pp. 25-29, 31.












Table 18.--Prices for selected vegetables, 1982-83 season.

F.O.R. Price

Season
Crop Unit Range Average

Broccoli 21 lb. carton 3.00-10.50a b

Cabbage 50 lb. crate 3.00-12.00 3.52

Carrots 48-1 lb. carton 3.00-7.50 5.25

Cauliflower 30 lb. carton 5.00-14.00 b

Chinese cabbage 45-50 lb. carton 4.00-12.00 b

Endive 28-30 lb. carton 3.00-10.00 5.17

Escarole 28-30 lb. carton 3.00-12.00 5.17

GreensC 25 lb. cartons 6.00-8.00 7.00

Lettuce cwt. d 18.83

Potatoes cwt. 8.00-16.00 9.30

Broccoli prices are not reported for Florida. These prices of Cali-
fornia broccoli were obtained from The Packer, various issues, November
1983-October 1984.

bNot reported.

CIncludes collard, mustard and turnip greens. Prices were obtained
for the current season from produce brokers and major retailers.

rice ranges are not reported for lettuce because of the number of
different types and containers.

Sources: Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service and The Packer.













Suggested crops


Although the shallower soils on the tract are largely mineral soils,

it is believed that the deeper pockets of soil are relatively high in

organic material. Fruiting vegetables such as tomatoes, peppers and

cucurbits do not do well in this type of soil because the high nitrogen

levels result in excessive vegetative growth and reduced fruiting capa-

bilities. Thus, leaf crops, salad crops, crucifers or cole crops and

shallow-rooted corn, tuber, or root crops were judged to offer the great-

est potential. A number of vegetables in these categories were selected

for economic evaluation. They were broccoli, cabbage, carrots, cauli-

flower, Chinese cabbage, collards, mustard and turnip greens, endive,

escarole, various types of lettuce, and potatoes.

Most of these crops require a medium to high level of management and

have medium labor requirements. They would be grown during the cooler

portion of the year, with harvests coming in the winter and spring

months. Peak labor requirements would occur during harvesting and pack-

ing (Appendix C, Tables 2 and 3). It was assumed that potential yields

on the subject tract would tend to be average to slightly below average

for the industry to compensate for the potentially severe growing condi-

tions on the subject tract (Table 16, Appendix C, Table 4). A brief

description of each crop follows, along with a discussion of its economic

potential.

Broccoli.--Broccoli has received a lot of attention in Florida in

recent years, and many feel it is a potentially profitable crop. Its

popularity has increased dramatically, with per capital consumption more

than tripling in the past 20 years (Table 17). While it can be grown

satisfactorily, it has not emerged as a widely grown commercial crop in












Florida. Post-harvest handling requirements are the primary reason.

Broccoli must have ice placed in the carton at the field to maintain

quality. Facilities to provide the necessary ice are very expensive, and

few firms have made the necessary investment. The cost of producing

broccoli on the subject tract (the breakeven price) is estimated at $8.22

per carton. F.O.B. prices for broccoli are not reported for Florida, but

in California the price ranged from $3.00 to $10.50 per carton in the

1983-84 season (Table 18).

Cabbage.--Florida usually produces about 15,000 acres of winter and

spring cabbage, more than any other state, although Texas and California

are important producers. The Hastings area produces about 54 percent of

the state's total, while the Sanford area, south Florida and west Florida

produce 21, 17 and 6 percent, respectively.

Supplies in competing areas have drastic effects on growers' prices.

Growers' net returns statewide have generally been poor. In the mid- to

late-seventies and early eighties, Florida cabbage growers experienced

losses in three of eight years and slight to moderate returns in four of

the eight years (Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, 1983). Per

capital consumption continues its long-term decline (Table 17). The cost

of producing cabbage on the subject tract was estimated at $4.94 per

crate (Table 16, Appendix C, Table 6). The most recent published prices

are for the 1982-83 season, when cabbage prices averaged $3.52 per crate.

At this price, losses on cabbage would be well over $600 per acre (Table

16). Season average prices have exceeded $5.00 per crate only twice in

the five years from 1978-79 through 1982-83 (Florida Crop and Livestock

Reporting Service).













Carrots.--About 95 percent of the 10,500 acres of carrots grown in

Florida are grown in the muck soils in the Zellwood area and the remain-

der in the Everglades. Carrot production is highly mechanized from seed-

ing through packaging. Moat carrot producers have very large acreages,

which enable them to efficiently utilize the expensive, specialized

equipment. Assuming an average yield of 300 sacks per acre, the break-

even price on the subject tract would be about $7.23 per sack (Appendix

C, Table 7). The average price received by farmers in 1982-83 was only

$5.25. At this price, the loss per acre would approach $600 (Tables 16,

18). Over the past five seasons for which data are available, carrot

prices have averaged $5.70. The situation is unlikely to change very

much because per capital consumption has been very stable over the past 20

years (Table 17).

Cauliflower.--Cauliflower is a minor vegetable crop in Florida.

Consequently, no production statistics are available. Total acreage is

thought to fluctuate from 400-1,200 acres, with most produced in the

Zellwood, Manatee-Ruskin, and Belle Glade areas. The greatest problem

for the Florida industry is the availability of suitable cultivars.

There are no cultivars resistant to stress caused by fluctuating tempera-

tures, and the lack of adequate leaf cover for the developing curds is

also a problem. All commercially available cultivars require tying,

which increases production costs. Even so, cauliflower appears to have

potential. Although production costs on the subject tract wonild he abont

$7.89 per carton, estimated Florida F.O.B. prices in 1982-83 were $9.81.

These prices would result in net returns of slightly over $400 per acre

(Table 16, Appendix C, Table 8). Prices have tended upwards during the

past few seasons. While still relatively low, per capital consumption of












cauliflower has almost doubled in the past decade. Increased population

in Florida and higher transportation from the western U.S. growing

regions has helped make Florida more competitive. It should be noted,

however, that this is a relatively small market, and sizeable new acre-

ages and production could quickly reduce F.O.B. prices to unprofitable

levels.

Chinese cabbage.--Chinese cabbage is another minor crop for which

few production statistics are available. However, shipment figures indi-

cate that total annual acreage in Florida ranges between 500 to 1,200

acres. Consumption statistics are equally sparse. Consumption statis-

tics for Chinese cabbage are usually combined with a number of other

minor vegetables. The minor "dark green" vegetable category has shown

relatively stable per capital consumption around three pounds per year

(Table 17).

Production costs on the subject tract would be about $6.00 per

crate (Table 16, Appendix C, Table 9). During much of the 1982-83 sea-

son, the Florida price ranged from $4.00 to $5.00 per crate. However,

higher prices of $10.00 to $12.00 per crate toward the end of the season

resulted in an estimated weighted average price of about $6.35 per crate.

This weighted average price would result in a net return of $170 per

acre (Tables 16 and 18). However, if all production had been sold at the

prevailing prices from November through March, the average price received

would have been about $4.50 per crate, resulting in a loss of more than

$750 per acre. As with other minor vegetables, sizeable increases in

production would undoubtedly reduce F.O.B. prices.

Collard, mustard and turnip greens.--These greens are grown through-

out Florida throughout the year, but they yield best during the cool













seasons. Acreage is centered around large population centers and in the

muck soils of the Everglades and Zellwood areas. The most recent acreage

data (1980-81) put fresh market acreage at 650 and acreage for processing

at 2,500 acres. At that time, the fresh market greens brought nearly

$9.00 per carton, and greens for processing brought about $4.00 per cwt.,

or the equivalent of $1.00 per carton (Institute of Food and Agricultural

Sciences, 1983). During the 1984-85 season, fresh market greens brought

an average of about $7.00 per carton.

The breakeven price of collard greens on the subject tract is esti-

mated at $5.78 per carton, compared with $6.18 for mustard and turnip

greens. At the current price of $7.00, returns would be $490 per acre

for collard greens and $285 for mustard and turnip greens (Table 16,

Appendix C, Tables 10 and 11). Although these figures appear promising,

there are serious constraints on market demand. Greens are consumed pri-

marily by people indigenous to the south. Brokers and retailers note no

marked upward trend in consumption, and state that supplies have gener-

ally been adequate. Several stated that additional supplies could easily

result in F.O.B. prices of about $5.00 per carton, which would be well

below the estimated cost of production on the subject tract.

Escarole, endive.--Harvested acreage of escarole and endive totalled

5,600 acres in the 1982-83 season. Florida typically supplies over 80

percent of the U.S. market requirements. Over two-thirds was grown in

the Everglades, with much of the remainder grown in the Zellwood area.

Small acreages are also grown in mucklands near Lake Placid and Sarasota.

The breakcven price of escarole and endive was estimated to be $6.42 per

carton for the subject tract. The 1982-83 average price of only $5.17

would have resulted in losses of $625 per acre (Table 16, Appendix C,












Table 12). The average price for the five-year period ending with the

1982-83 season was only $4.70. Thus, it appears that there is little

potential for these crops.

Lettuce.-Acreage of lettuce has nearly doubled over the past

decade. In the 1982-83 season, 14,400 acres were planted and 12,900

acres harvested in Florida. In the Lake Okeechobee area, iceberg was the

most important type grown, accounting for nearly two-thirds of the units

shipped. Romaine, Boston, leaf and bibb accounted for about 17, 9, 6 and

3 percent, respectively. During the five most recent seasons for which

data are available (ending with 1982-83), the average F.O.B. price has

been nearly $18.00 per cwt. In 1982-83, the average price was $18.83,

which is equivalent to about a weighted average price of about $7.34 per

carton. The cost of production on the subject tract is estimated at

$6.42, resulting in estimated net returns of $460 per acre (Table 16,

Appendix C, Table 12). These returns appear favorable, but it should be

noted that there are production problems such as root rots, poor head

quality (due to high temperature), etc. associated with shallow muck

land. Even so, the yield of 500 cartons appears realistic and should be

profitable with proper management.

Potatoes.--Winter potatoes are currently grown in Dade, Lee, Collier

and Martin counties. White and red cultivars are produced for both

potato chipping and the fresh market, but the majority of the winter crop

is sold as higher priced new fresh market potatoes. The winter crop is

planted in September to December and harvested in January through April

(Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, 1983). In south Florida,

acreage planted declined from 9,700 acres in 1979 to 6,800 acres in 1983,

despite reasonably strong prices. Over this five-year period, winter













potato prices averaged $13.29 per cwt. and ranged from a low of $7.15 in

1979 to $20.40 in 1981. The estimated breakeven price of potatoes on the

subject tract is $11.18 per cwt. (Table 16, Appendix C, Table 13). The

1983 price of $14.80 results in a net return of $724 per acre, and the

five-year average price results in a net return of $422 per acre. While

the returns appear attractive, it must be remembered that Florida's

winter potatoes are marketed in an extremely competitive environment,

affected not only by other south Florida producers, but by the prospect

of new growers in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona. Additionally, advances

in technology may make storage potatoes more competitive as well (Insti-

tute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, 1983).


Conclusions and qualifications


The research team was not optimistic about vegetable production on

the subject tract because of the serious physical limitations, namely the

shallow soil, high water table, and hard bedrock which makes cultivation

difficult and land development expensive. There was agreement, however,

that deeper pockets of soil (18 inches and more) could possibly be

developed for vegetable production. It was recommended that fruiting

crops be avoided because of potential production problems. Vegetables

such as leaf crops, salad crops, crucifers or cole crops, and shallow-

rooted corns, tubers or root crops were suggested. An experienced, com-

petent manager was viewed as an essential element in any production

plans.

Evaluation of broccoli, cabbage, carrots, endive and escarole all

show projected losses. Broccoli and carrots both have relatively high

production costs. Broccoli requires special handling (ice in the













packages at the field) and carrots require specialized equipment.

Cabbage returns have tended to be quite low for a number of years.

Endive and escarole have production costs that are substantially greater

than recent market prices. Thus, it appears that these crops have little

potential.

Cauliflower, Chinese cabbage, and greens (primarily collards,

mustard and turnip) all appear to have some profit potential. The major

concern is the limited market faced by all of these crops, particularly

the greens. Additional quantities on the market could quickly depress

prices to unprofitable levels.

Lettuce and potato production also appears to have potential, given

the relatively strong prices experienced in recent years. Lettuce

requires substantial hand harvest labor, however, and the isolated pro-

duction area and lack of suitable housing for laborers could result in

serious labor problems. On the other hand, potato production is largely

mechanized and potatoes require no precooling. Another positive factor

in the larger markets for lettuce and potatoes would probably suffer

smaller impacts as a result of increased production. Vegetable produc-

tion is an extremely risky and competitive business. Returns can be very

high, or losses can be very large. Weather, insects, and diseases can

play havoc with the best of plans. The fortunes of competing growers in

Florida and in other U.S. growing areas can be tremendous impact as well.

Market development is another paramount concern. A new entrant into

the vegetable industry will have to provide potential customers with an

incentive to do business with his firm; otherwise, they will prefer to

deal with known, established firms. Incentives are typically better

quality and lower prices. Precooling services will be required for the













potentially profitable vegetables (except for potatoes), and those ser-

vices are available through some firms in the Lake Okeechobee area.

Similarly, some shippers will also be willing to provide selling ser-

vises, provided new supplies from the subject tract do not compete

directly with their own production or that of close business associates.

Thus, marketing arrangements must be made in advance of any production

and examined very carefully.


CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


The subject tract is an extremely valuable resource, but it has

rather severe physical limitations for most agricultural enterprises.

The first priority should be to obtain a detailed soil survey which shows

depth to rock. Once this has been accomplished, the areas of deeper,

tillable soil should be studied to see if they are subject to "wetlands"

regulations, which may restrict their development for agricultural pur-

poses.

Use of the tract for a cow/calf operation, as is currently being

done, is least affected by the constraints of shallow soil and the high

water table. With high level management, virtually the entire 19,000

acre tract can be used for cattle production. The long-term value to

the Tribe of a cow/calf operation would be about $10.00 per acre, depend-

ing on the type of financing and investment alternatives that are avail-

able.

Rice production appears to have some immediate potential on an esti-

mated 2,500 acres, but the long-term outlook is not favorable. Although

growing conditions are severe and land development costs relatively high,

vegetable production may be possible on up to 1,000 acres.












Many commercial vegetable crops do not appear profitable. But there

are a few crops, namely cauliflower, Chinese cabbage, lettuce and winter

potatoes, that appear to offer profit potential. However, the vegetable

industry is competitive and prices are extremely volatile. Vegetable

producers have to have "staying power" or "deep pockets" to be able to

withstand substantial losses, frequently during consecutive seasons.

Developing suitable marketing contacts frequently poses problems for new

entrants into vegetable production.

It is recommended that continuation of the cow/calf enterprise be

considered. It has been operated for a number of years, and many of the

necessary improvements have been made. Long-term financing will be

required for herd acquisition, and the early years may pose cash flow

problems. Nevertheless, the long-term outlook is thought to be favor-

able.

After detailed soil surveys and adequate engineering studies have

been made to identify specific locations and acreages for crop produc-

tion, gradual entry into rice or vegetable production can be explored.

For the long term, a cow/calf operation, combined with other crop enter-

prises on the most suitable areas, will probably yield the greatest

possible returns for the Tribe.










































APPENDIX A












Appendix Table 1.-Research team members.


Faculty Member


Jose Alvarez, Ph.D.


Robert L. Degner, Ph.D.

David L. Dodson, M.S.

,Dalton S. Harrison, M.S.A.


David B. Jones, Ph.D.

James R. Simpson, Ph.D.

George H. Snyder, Ph.D.

William M. Stall, Ph.D.


Department, Specialization


Food and Resource Economics (FRE)
(Farm Manegement)

FRE (Marketing Research)

FRE (Farm Management)

Agricultural Engineering (Water
Management)

Agronomy (Rice)

FRE (Livestock Marketing)

Soil Science (Soil Chemistry)

Vegetable Crops (Vegetable Pro-
duction)








58










PARAMETERS

Base Yeuar 1996

:n~lation Rate (global growth rate)i Z.00%

Percent appreciation For Lanua values 4.007

Averagq value o+ Land (Not Worth Stmt): saca

















PRICE TABLE Page 1-1
BASE YEAR: 1996
86 87 SS 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
Medium frame 01 Steers
De1lated 4-5 CAT (C/CWT) 64 70 73 67 70 70 64 60 70 7Z 80
200-300 lbs. 83 98 111 104 113 121 116 114 142 162 183
300-400 lbs. 72 83 94 88 97 102 96 96 119 134 151
400-330 lsb. 64 74 S3 78 83 09 86 84 103 116 I30
50-Up lbs. 5 62 68 64 70 73 71 70 S3 93 103
Medium ramne *2 Steers
200-300 lbs. 73 88 100 93 104 109 104 103 128 145 164
300-400 bas. 66 76 a6 80 88 93 89 88 108 1=- 1Z7
400-550 lbs. 60 68 7772 79 S3 79 78 96 107 120
550-Up lbs. 51 58 64 60 65 68 66 65 78 96 96

Medium frame l9 HMfers 53 6 71 66 73 76 73 72 88 99 111
Medium rame #2 Heifers 53 61 68 64 70 74 71 70 85 95 107
Utility grade cews 40 45 49 47 50 53 51 50 59 66 73
Cutter grade cows 38 43 47 45 46 50 48 48 56 62 69
Bulls 47 52 58 5 59 61 59 59 70 77 85








CURRENT HERD MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Page 1-2
YEARm-R> S6 87 BsB 9 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
Percent weaned al-F crcp 927. 92% 927. 927. 92%7. 927. 97. 927. 92% 927. 92%
BREEDING FEMALES
Percent culled 10% 10 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
Percent death less 1% 1%. 1% 1. I. 1. 1%7 1 1% 1% 17.
X replaced by purchase 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%7 0%
% Replacements to herd 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%
REP1. HEIFER CALVES
% held far replacements 34% % 34. 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34%
Percent culled 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
Percent purchased 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
BULL.S.
Percent culled 21% 21% 21% 21% 21% 21% 211% 21% 21% 21% 21%
Percent death loss 1% 1% 1% 1% Z1% X 1% X 1%7 1%7 1
Percent replaced 22% 22% 227% 22% 2% 2% 22% 22% 22.% .2% -2%
MARKET CALVES
7 sold as lightweit 20% 20% 2 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 207.
% sold at weaning 90% 90% 90% 0O% S0% S0% 90% 90% S0% 0% 90 %
% sold after background 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%














AVERlAG CATTLE WEIGHTS Page 2-1

Type Weight

Choice weaned steers 450
Good weaned steers 425
Choice backgrounded steers 600
oSad bactgrounded steers 580
Choice weight steers & heiers 300
Soad lightweight Steers & heifers 275
ChJioac weaned hlfers 422
Seed weaned hei-ers 400
Choice backgrounded heifers 450
GlSd Sackgrounded heifers 430
Utility cows s50
Cutter cows SO0
Bulls 1,200
Non-treding Females (1-2 yr olds) -750










Page 2-2
GRADING PERCENTAGE INFORMATION

Percent liMgtweight calves grading Med. 1 O5%
Percent weaned calves grading Md. 1 80%
Percent ackground calves grading Med. l 0%
Percent cull cows grading utility 50%


BEGINNING INVENTORY OF CATTLE

For Beqinning of Year: 1996
(OIr and aC Year)! 1S

Breeding Females 2,380
Non-traading Females (1-2 year olds) 520
Bulls 100














LI4M Ur1LIrATIGa


1 W19N 1?M 11f IM IffO It M 192 I9fI 1 l4 199
TUAL AM
Ihtlne~ 7,6u0 1,60 1,6u0 7,50 7,60 7,60 7,6A0 7,650 7,680 7,40 7,"50
Siiromd 130 t 1,t20 1,21I 1,20 I,'= ,I2m I,'= 1,=0 1,20 1,20
FM lris m 9,800 9, 9,00 9,80o 9.80 ,800 9,00 9,00 0 9,8o ,ao 9,100 9,100





CSIA CAfCIT
I.-,in -I< 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



mttia RaW 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 2.0 0.0 20.0 20.4 20.4 20.4 21.0
s-i oruweud ML LO LO L0 LO LO 5.0 L. LO 3.0
hly-spro. l M. .S3 L.s S L3 3.1 .3.

















1986
PROJECTIONS CF INCOME FRCM CATTLc SAL=S


CALVES
Wmaned


IWt/Hd I Nuaiber s/Cwt :Incom /Hd ITotal Inc=meo
I LSS 1 Head I DOLLARS


SteMrs
CHOICE
sa00


Sackqnd Stfmrs
CHOICE
GOOD

Lt. Steers & Hei4ars
CHOICE
GOOD

Weaned Hei fers
CHOICE
G5000D

Sackgnd Hei4ers
CHOICE
GOOD

cuu.a. cows
Sale at Meaning
UTILITY
CUTTER


BULLS

TOTALS-


450
425


600
580


300
275


423
400


450
430



850
900


1,200


S64.00
59.70


o 55.1.3
o 51.19


190
190


533
133


2988
254


331
297


71.57
65.72


55. 08
53. 10


0 64.00
0 59.70


119
119

21

2,164.


40.1:


46.78


HERD COUNT AND

HERD COUNT -Beginning oa Year
Brood Cows
Unbred 1-2 year ads
Bulls


LAND UTILIZATION
NC. Head

2,380
520
100

3,000


Animal Units

2,380
520
150

3,0350


HERD MANAGEMENT During Year
Weaned calves
Cows to replace (deatmn culled)
Replacement h eier calves


LAND UTILIZATION
Native Range
Semi-improved pasture
Fully improved pasture

TOTAL CARRYING CAPACITY


Acres
7,680
1,520
9,C00

19,000


197,738
43, 54


40,896
34,425


124, 65
2:,274


40,614
36,519

11,789

oS., 464


2,190
262
263


20.0

-3.-.


Cap. (AU)


Carrying
384
304
2,800

3,489
















1987
PROJECTIONS OF INCOME FROM CATTLE SALES


I Wt/Hd I Number I S/Cwt IIncome/Hd iTotal Income!
I LS I Head I DOLLARS
CALVES
Weaned Steers
CMOICZ 450 686 *73.0 331 226, 915
c000 425 172 68.32 290 49,811

Sackqnd Steers
CHICS 600 0 61.92 372 0
GOOD s50 0 57.5S 334 0

Lt. Steers & Heifers
CHOICE 300 190 82.97 249 47,374
QOOD 275 190 75.95 209 39,753

Weaned Heiers
CHOICE 425 552 62.06 268 142,606
000 400 133 60.79 243 32, 42

Backgnd Heiiers
CHOICE 430 0 73.50 331 0
GOOD 430 0 68.32 294 0

CULL COWS
Sale at Weaning
UTILITY 850 119 44.79 381 45,269
CUTTER 800 119 42.73 342 40,648

BULLS 1,200 21 52.29 627 13,177

TOTALS 2,1622 s637, 98


HERD COUNT AND LAND UTILIZATION
No. Head Animal Units
HERD COUNT -Beginning a4 Year
Brood Cows 2, 37 2,378
UnBred 1-2 year olds 523 523
Bulls 100 150

TOTAL 3,001 3,031

HERD MANAGEMENT During Year
weaned calves 2,188
Cows to replace (deatM & culled) 262
Replacement heifer calves 263

LAND UTILIZATION Acres #Ac/cBw Carrying Cap. (AU)
Native Range 7,680 20.0 384
Semi-improved pasture 1,520 5.0 304
Fully improved pasture 9,800 3.5 2,800

TOTAL CARRYING CAPACITY' 19,000 3,488
















1988
PROJECTIONS OF INCOME FROM CATTLE SALES


SWt
IL
CALVES
Weaned Steers
CHOICE


Sackand Steers
CHOICE


Lt. Steers & Heifers
CHOICE


Weaned Heifers
CHOICE
GOOD

Backgnd HifeCtr
CHCICS


CUtL. CoWS
Sale at Weaning
UTILITY
CUTTER

BULLS


/Md I Number I S/Cwt Income/Hd ITcoal !nccme!
JS I Head I COLLARS


450
425


600
580


300
275


425
400


450
430



850
800

1,:00


TOTALS


HERD COUNT AND

HERD COUNT -Beginning c+ Year
Broad Cows
Unbred 1-2 year olds
Bulls

TOTAL


686 s8Z2.69
171 76.68


0 68.49
0 63.70


190
190


52
130


0
0



119
119

21

2, 12


93.99
85.94


70.78
68.21


82.69
76.68



49.27
46.96

57.62


LAND UTILIZATION
No. Head

2, 78
524
100

3,002


372
326


282
236


301
273


53,665
44,927


160,045
36,294


49,796
44,664

14,520

71M5,056


Animal Units

2,378
524
150

3,052


HERD MANAGEMENT During Year
Weaned calves
Ccws to replace (deatM & culled)
Replacement heifer calves


LAND UTILIZATION
Native Range
Semi-improved pasture
Fully improved pasture

TOTAL CARRYING CAPACITY


Acres
7,680
1,520
9,800

19,000


2,188
262
263


#Ac/ccw
20.0
5.0
3.3


Cap. (AU)


Carrying
384
304
2,800

3,488















1989
PROJECTIONS OF INCOME


CALVES
Weaned Steers
CO40ICE
GSOD

Sackgnd Steers
CHCIC2
CM I Q
so=2


Lt. Steers & Heifers
CHOICE
5000
GOOD

Weaned Hei-Frs
CHOaICE


Backgnd Heif rs
CHOICE


CULL CcWS
Sale at Weaing
UTILITY
CUTTER


BULLS

TOTALS


FROM CATTLE SALE


I W/Hd Number I s/Cwt IIncome/Hd !Total Incomel
I LBS Head I DOLLARS


662
172-


*77.Sa
72.02


349
=06


239,469
32,504


0 64.82
0 60.27


300
27Z


425
400


450
430



850
900


190
190


532
132


0
0



119
119


1,200


87.84
80.32


66.47
64.07


77. 6
72.02



46.77
44.~60

54. 6&


264
221


398
337


50,160
42,045


.1350,332
34,09:


0
0



47,275
42,423

13,771

S672,076


HERD COUNT AND

HERD COUNT -Beginning a@ Year
Broad Cows
Unbred 1-2 year olds
Bulls

TOTAL


LAND UTILIZATION
No. Head

2,379
524
100

3,0043


Animal Units

2,379
524
150

3,053


HERD MANAGEMENT During Year
Weaned calves
Cows to replace (death & culled)
Replacement heifer calves


LAND UTILIZATION
Native Range
Semi-improved pasture
Fully improved pasture

TOTAL CARRYING CAPACITY


Acres
7,680
1,520
9,800

19,000


2, 18
262
263


#Ac/enw
20.0
5.0
3.3


Cap. (AU)


Carrying
394
304
2,800

3,488

















1990
PROJECTIONS CF INCOME FROM CATTLE S9LES


Wt/Hd I Number SI /Ct TIntcom/Hd I Toal Incomel
SLSS I Head I DOLLARS


Steers
CHOICE
GOOD


Sackqnd Sters
CHOICE
6000

Lt. Steers & Hei4ers
CHOICE
000o

lWanmd Wei4or'
CHOICE
WOQO

BSakqnd Hei fer
CHOICE
GD00

CULL CfWS
Sale at Weaning
UTILITY
CUTTER


600
580



275


425
400


450
430


1,200


686 Se. 09
172 79.86


0 70.20
0 65.21


96.87
88.42


72.79
70.15


291
243


309
2S1


0 s9.09
0 78.86


21

2,1.63


50.44
48.06

59.01


429
394

706


HERD COUNT AND

HERD COUNT -!eginning a4 Year
Broad Cows
Unbred 1-2 year lids
Skulls

TOTAL


LAND UTILZZATION
No. Head

2, 79
523
100

3,004


Animal Units

2, 79
525
150

3,054


HERD MANAGEmIENT During Year
Weaned calveu
COws to replace (death & culled)
Replacement heifer calves


LAND UTILIZATION
Native Range
Semi-improved pasture
Fully improved pasture

TOTAL CARRYING CAPACITY


Acres
7,680
1, 20:
9,800

19,000


#Ac/cow
20.0
5.0
3.5


Carrying Cap. (AU)
384
304
2,800

3,488


CALVES
Weaned


262,771
57,503


55,332
46, 298


164,670
37, 42


BULLS

TOTALS


51,000
45,733

14,870

1735, 520


2,199
262
263
















S19 1
PROJECTIONS OF INCOME FROM CASTLE SALES


I Mt/Hd I Number i
: LBS I Head I


Steers
CHOICE
GOOD


Backgnd Stears
CHOICE
GOOD

Lt. Steers & Heifers
0C10ICS
GOO

Weaned Heifers
CHOICE
GOOD

Backgnd HNetirs
CHOICE


CULL COWS
Sale at Weaning
UTILITY
CUTTER


1,200


BULLS

TOTALS


687
172


600



300
275


425
400


s/Cwt !Income/Hd ITtal Inccmer
DOLLARS i


s89. 34
82.72


0 73.24
0 68. 16


101.97
93.00


0 89.34
0 92.72


119
119

21

2,164


52.52
50.02

61.48


___-- --. _-----40--C


402
352


439
395


402
336



446
400

738


273,99
60,340


5, 115
47,610

1L,492

771 ,522


HERD COUNT AND

HERD COUNT -Geginning c4 Year
Brood Caws.
Unbred 1-2 yar olds
Bulls

TOTAL


LAND UTILIZATION
No. Head

2,380
525
100

3,005


Animal Units

2,380
525
150

3,053


HERD MANAGEMENT During Year
weanew calves
Cows to replace (death & culled)
Replacement heifar calves


LAND UTILIZATION
Native Range
Semi-improved paature
Fully improved pasture

TOTAL CARRYING CAPACITY


Acras
7,680
1,520
9,800

19,000


OAc/Ccw
20.0
5.0
3.5


Carrying Cap. (Au)
384
304
2,900

3,488


CALVES
Weaned


58,263
48,712


172,807
39, 186


2, 19
262
263


___ ~_ __ _1 __ ________ __II ____
















1992
PROJECTIONS OF INCOME


FRCM CATTLE SALES


CALVES
Weaned


I Wt/Hd i Number I S/Cwt IIncoam/Hd ITotal Incomae
I LBS I Head I DOLLARS


Steers
CHOICE
GOOD


Backgnd Steers
CHOICE
6000

Lt. Stners & Hiirfrs



Waned Weie4r-
CHOICE
000D

Backgnd Heifers
CHOICE
GOOD

CUL.. COWS
Sale at meaning
UTILITY
CUTTER


450
423


600
580


300
275


423
400


450
430


1,200


667
172


385.77
79.48


386
=38


0 70.69
0 65.76


191




1=3


97.68
89.15


73.36
70.70


0 85.77
0 79.48


119
119

21

2, 164


50.77
48.37

59.40


432.
387

7173


HERD COUNT AND

nMRD COUNT -aeginning of Year
Broad Cows
Unbred 1-2 year olds
Sulls

TOTAL


LAND UTILIZATION
No. Head

2,380
525
100

3,006


Animal Units

2.380
52!
150

3,056


HERD MANAGEfMENT During Year
Weaned calves
Cows to replace (death & culled)
Replacement heifer calves


LAND UTILIZATION
Native Range
Semi-improved pasture
Fully improved pasture

TOTAL CARRYING CAPACITY


Acres
7,680
1,520
9, 00

19,000


#Ac/cow
20.0
5.0
3.5


Carrying Cap. (AU)
384
304
2, 0o

3,488


265,041
57,991


55,833
46,712


166,067
37,658


BULLS


51,368
46,060

14,970

5741,699


2,190
262
263

















1993
PROJECTIONS OF INCOME FROM CATTLE SALES


I Wt/Hd I Number /Cwt 'Income/Hd !Total Inccmal
I LS I Head DOLLARS


saekqnd Stears
CHOICE
5000

Lt. Sterps & Heifers
CHOICE
GOOD

earned Hei-ers
C04CICE
GOO

Backgnd Heif er
CHOICE
GOOD

cuL. Caws
Sale at W eaning
UTILITY
CUTTER

BULLS

TOTALS


450
425


687 s94.43
172 78.26


0 69.73
0 64.87


96.08
87.71


3 72.24
S 69.62


0 84.43
0 78.26


380



418
376


2Se
241


307
278


380
327


50. 12
47.76


1.,200


704


21

2, 165


26:,986
57, i2i


54,932
45,971


163,572
7, 093


50,723
45, 487


14,774

S730,659


HERD COUNT AND

HERD COUNT -Beginning o+ Year
Brood Cows
Unbred 1-2 year Olds
Bulls

TOTAL


LAND. UTILIZATION
Na. Head

2,381
525
100

3,007


Animal Units

2,381
525
150

2,057


HERD MANAGEMENT Ouring Year
Weaned calves
Cows to replace (deatf & culled)
Replacement heiier calves


LAND UTILIZATION
Native Range
Semi-improved pasture
Fully improved pasture

TOTAL CARRYING CAPACITY


Acres
7,680
1,520
9,900

19,000


ACl/cow
20.0


Carrying Cap. (AU)
384
304
2,800

3,488
:,o


CALVES
Weaned


Steers
CHOICE
SCMo
















1994
PROJECTIONS OF INCOME FRCM CATTLE SALES


WI t/Hd I Number I S/Cwt !Incme/Hd !Total Income!
1 LBS I Head DOLLARS


Steers
CHOICE
c9tozc


450
425


Sacknnd Steers
CHOICE
GO=O

Lt. Steers & Heifers
CHZCIC
GOOD

Weaned Heifers

GOO

Backgnd Heifers
CHOICE
GOOD

CULL COWS
Sale at Weaning
UTILITY
CUTTER


1.200


687 1103.42
172 95.52


0 =5.31
0 77.59


191 108.17
191 108.17


32u
122


a8.19
84.99


465
406


zoo
450



297


375
340


319,815
69,741


67, 988
56,710


199,768
45,295


O 103.42
0 .95.52


119
119

21

2,166


59.39
56.49

69.64


60,124
53, 82


17,550

5890,.81a


HERD COUNT AND

HESD CDUNT -Beginning a0 Year
Broad Cows
Unbred 1-2 year olds
Bulls

TOTAL


LAND UTILIZATION
No. Head

2,382
526
100

3,008


Animal Units

2,382
526
150

3,058


HERD MANAGEMENT During Year
weaned calves
Caws to replace (deatM & culled)
Replacement heifer calves


LAND UTILIZATION
Native Range
Semi-improved pasture
Fully improved pasture

TOTAL CARRYING CAPACITY


Acresa
7,680
1,520
9,600

19,000


4Ac/cow
20.0
5.0
3.3


Ca-rrying Cap. (AU)
384
304
2,800

3,488


CALVES
Weaned


BULLS

TOTALS


2, 9i
626
262
















199S
PROJECTIONS OF INCOME FROM CATfTL SALES


I Wt/Hd I Nuaber I s/Cwt !Income/Hd ITotal Income!
1 L5S I Head I DOLLARS


Steers
CHcICE
GsOD


Sackqnd Steers

GOOD

Lt. Steers & Hiefwrs
CMIC9
6000

Weaned Hei-ers
CHOICE
G00D

Backqnd Heifers
CHOICE


CiULL COWS
Sale at Weaning
UTILITY
CUTTER

BULLS

TOTALS


430
42=


60co
5z0



273


423
400


430
430



aao
950
800


1,200


6617 9116.3Z
172 107.26


0 92.36
0 86.25


19l 134.38
191 122.09


533
1332


99.05
95.45


0 116.33
0 107.26


21

2,166


52.4
456


500


403



421
982

524
461




500


77. 14


19,440

$999,979


HERD COUNT AND

HERD COUNT --oginning a4 Year
Broad Caow
Unbred 1-2 year aids
Bulls

TOTAL


LAND UTILIZATION
No. Head

2,283
526
100

3,009


Animal Units

2,:83
526
150

3,059


HERD MANAGEMENT During Year
Weaned calves
Cows to replace (death & culled)
Replacement hei~er calves


LAND UTILIZATION
Native Range
Semi-improved pasture
Fully improved pasture

TOTAL CARRYING CAPACITY


Acres
7,680
1,520
9,800

19,000


#Ac/cow
20.0
5.0
3.5


Carrying Cap. (AU)
384
304
2,800

3,488


CALVES
Wearied


339,912
79, 42


76,.86
64,029


=4, 438
50,886


66,532
39131Z


2,192
262
263
















1996
PROJECTIONS OF INCOME FROM CATTL5S SAL23


SWt/Hd Numbner I /Cwt IIncome/Hd ITotal Income!
1 L3S Head 1 DOLLARS


Backand Sters
CHOICE
6000

Lt. Steers & Hei ers
CHOICE
SCOQO

Weaned Heifers
CHOICE


6000
GOD=


CULL COWIS
Sale at Weaning
UTILITY
CUTTER

SULLS


450
425


600
590


300
275


425
400


450
40


950
SOo

1,200


TOTALS


HERD COUNT AND

HERD COUNT -B1ginning oQ Year
Broad Cows
Unbred 1-2 year olds
Bulls


688 S1i3.51
172 119.95


0 102.54
0 95.61


191 151.14
191 137.12


532 110.78
122 106.74


0
0



119
119

21

2,167


130.31
119.95


72.51
68.86

95.24


LAND UTILIZATION
No. Head

2,384
526
100

3,010


409,236
87,636


453
377


471
427


586
516


616
551

1,023


86,500
71,938


251,094
56,927


73, 456
65, 656

21, 4.1

l, 117,92=


Animal Units

2,384
526
150

3,060


HERO MANAGEMENT During Year
Weaned calves
Ccws to replace (death & culled)
Replacement heifer calves


LAND UTILIZATION
Native Range
Semi-improved pasture
Fully improved pasture

TOTAL CARRYING CAPACITY


Acres
7,680
1,520
9,800

19,000


CALVES
Weaned


Steers
CHCICS
SCCO


2, 292
262
26.


tAc/ccw
20.0
5.0
3.5


Cap. (AU)


Carrying
384
304
2,900

3,488
















PIOJCTitaS OF OPIEATIXiS 511t S


TrTE t 198t 1987 11 1 19 0 191 1 2 19i3 1994 1M9 1 6


LAWR UP!
Rand ft aquw t 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a 0 0 0
Si Fornme 3.0oo 21,000 2kZ0 27,09 23,921 0,= 31, 35,09 35,19% ,4 Jf29 A M 40,7/3
RMU Laer S.MLO 40o,o0 41,91 44,a6Z 4,27 4=1,00 31,04% =,414 :,313 V,148 62,126 63,34
Parll taru 2.001 ,20 3,962 6,1OU 6,204 6,30 6,4538 6,4 4,723 6,380 6,9W 7,142
mrkat 's Cs. 2.00 2,600 2,650 2,703 2,735 2,313 2,370 2,2 2LM 9 3,049 3,111 3,174

SIiOTMRL 7,450 74,811 3,055 84,11 Ui7 2,6 96,641 101,820 to1,023 111,06 u11,393


CATTLE uIuIeI
FEB
Come
Car

OtbIr

SuLTOTAI


VETRBMwT CUTSES


fPaMTuw EPSEi
Frtillar
native lao
sai-iprarud
Folly-i.pro


LiUs
ative Roge
e-i-iraved
Fily-iprewG.


2.00L 44,000 44,81M
L001 0 0
0.001 11,200 11,491

57,M00.a,3


473, 11
0
(1,412

01,301


40,72

11, 492

60427


49,771 50,781
0 0
11,49 11,41W

61,266 62SO0


11,814 22,37 S,942 2,039 6,1
0 0 0 0 0
11,502 11,504 11,310 11,513 11,517

63,31b 64,M37 63,4S2 64,5 67,675


3.001 2 no,000 2 2 0 A2,1 2A ,7 226,40 27,49 28342 1,00 30,045 0,9%6


Cartlcr
I0.00
10.00
1200




M.OO
0.00
4.00


SUiTOTMA


Sd
Fertilia (Additional)
ULi (Additional)


3TUOTM.


Sad
Sur-imorovd
lly-tprvwrd

asllTLrn


0.00 04 0
.001 15,200 1,441h
7.001 147,000 137,20 1


4
17,729
8,300


0 4 0 4 4 0 0 0
19,141 20,679 22,32 24,120 21,030 28,114 30,335 32,31
180,081 192,687 206,17 220,607 23,050 232,573 270,254 239,171


1U2200 173704 1 "6030 19 221 213 22209 24722 262100 230708 300633 32117


0.002 0 0
7.003 0 0
7.002 4

0 0


0
0
0

0


0
0
0

0


0
0
0

0


0
0


0
0
0

0


1.001 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0


0
0

0

0

0
0


0
0


0


0
0

0
4


1.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2,001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


0
0
0

0


0
0

0


0
I

0


0
0
0









`0

0
0














P OJECTIO MS F PtRATINna i IPsISS


TLE lata 1986 117 1198 1989 I 190 1991 1192 1193 1194 I 1M 1"96


PAItlMt Um I'ES W 1T'o.

achbiafry lln
aistiaq Pautur 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other usm 6.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SuAlTL. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 0

Rut CatAcr,
etive .Raqe so.00 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ftItairve 10.00 0.001 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
!Mi-tYarv 4.00 .a ,oz i ( o o o a o
FPlly-iur. 0.00 0.001 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cawervatta .OO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

9i0i8tI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


SMITOTL FO PA1STi 12,200 17 I,70 16I,05 1i9,22 213,6k 228,509 244,723 262,100 320,701 300,63 21,997


REPAISs, sUIPPES AM3 InUTS
Rpatn I Riatauun 2L00 10,000 10,00 11,02 11,376 12,15 12,71 3 13,l40 14,071 14,773 13,13 16,239
Sup9lius LOU 3,000 3,440 3,823 6,2 6,02 7,347 7,934 8,569 9,255 9,9w 10,715
as I 11i 4.00 200 2,6- 2,704 2,812 2,92 3,042 3,162 3,270 3,421 3,28 3,701
U1gt. Pswr I tar LOz 1t,20 1.2I6 1.3 1.39 1.059 1.232 1.08 1.689 1,773 1.862 1.9m5

SATSTA 1,700 19,70 20,814 2,076 2141 24,6W8 26,107 27,618 29,224 30,92 32,73


01ACHIISTRAfTW
bI Wtits Tun,
UcLis s El. 2.001 0 a0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
taswwr L .00 4,0a0 4,200 *4,11 4,631 4,6A2 1,10S 5,3a !5,62 5,910 &,205 6,516
Telwaaame L001 400 23 531 579 64 63 670 704 731 776 814
OHiOal thr .01 M 50 5M 3 5 51 61 64 67 70 74 71 31

SIBTOTA 4,M0 4,77 5,s016 5,27 53S1 ,2807 6,097 6,402 ,722 7,0? 7,411

TOTAL CAI EPESE 33=9,400 a57102 376003 396117 417496 440215 46423 490016 17290 546217 77122

















froth


Catus
SRd
TarWr L N
Air Calt
oap
Crnv ay,SM"..
atrm
Stock Svtidert
RIicallnUc



mUa EPWIES


31,464

0
300

0

0
4



319,400


19i8 1983 1989 1990 191 1992 11993 1994 1995 1996

637,39 71,04 72,0746 M 7,20 771, 741,699 r70,9 890,81 999,979 1,117,9T2
0 0 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0
315 331 347 365 33 42 422 443 45 49
4 0 0 0 4 a 0 0 0 0


S 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

438,213 75,n 3 i2,424 735,385 771,03 742,101 731,081 891,241 ,000,44 ,11i,412

3513102 376.00 396,117 417.194% 4,1 44,33 490.014 17,290 354.287 !77,122


sasS iaEP 219,34 231,110 339,323 276,37 318 331,690 277,144 241,0o3 373,771 4:4,1:7 431,290


1NTIfTc ePr1 234,000 22,210 221,61 214,273 205,92M 16,4w i,A1i 173,762 160,141 144,730 127,8
TTA CT aEVERY 1i0,:4 20,801 30,81 310,801 320,801 1W4,=3 8,444 1,464 9,444 8,464 5,032
CAPTn aIIM I(J. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T SOT. ,NI S A AUM 4 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0

TOT. IN CAll 4aJuSf 3 394,14 !49,011 S42,449 B,074 324,723 3W,114 194,89 182,226 161,640 12,214 132.390


PMIETAZ imii
(MAami
1KW 1TAX

AFTER TAB IMKS


MROgSi TEMPTS
CONMTIMTI=mi
E LOM


(17,031) (267,901) (203,J48) (23,749) (20,3,34) (29,42=) 3,44 3,839 205,346 300,943 408,900

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1173,0311 1247,9011 (23,014 (233,719) (203,334) (27,423 ) 83,44 3,839 205,3 3040,9543 408,900


STATEWNT O RSTAL IO 6I2N1Os

0 101,129 104,404 1kS,12 L3,022 202,87 240,718 23,92A 202,454 277,892 473,14
219,44 321,110 933,= 2763,307 318,238 31,6390 277,744 241,06U 73,971 454,l 7 341,290
4 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,800,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a


(MRUg)
LOAn PATaOTS 2178,3 278,3 278,= 2, 277a,53 T, 7 270,9 270,53= 7,Ea ,533 "8, 271,353
1J0KTAX PTH"IT 0 0 0 0 0 0
ItTI T PAYS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.THrA.M..LS 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 a
CWPITRL OPEnuITMRE 1,5,000 0 4 0 1,3 4 0 ia

FillB FOR ADITIrO
TO RETAIN EANINIS 101,329 2,575 60,84a (2,2231 39,853 37,840 (791) (37,470) 9,434 175,622 2,753

RETAINo E0ANIS 101,i29 104,404 i1,252 163,022 202,871 240,718 239,926 202,43h 2?7,392 47:,!14 7n6,2a
(SIDIN SmAlmC


_ ~__ __ ____


ST Af t r S 1 T















I1 C S T71 C I t A I CU L AT t


Calaw 1 Calm 2 Colus Calue 4 Calu-. Colia i Calv. 7 Cal luT C lu 9


Cal. I or
2, 000
Taia Miclea
Tmelt ~cfUimr
eam, is lMas

(175,031 (173,031)
1267,901) (217,901)
(20,Oaa) (2i,Oaa )
(211,749) (2,769)
(201,4) (28,C4)
(29,421) 12,4ai
BlW66 21,000
m,m, -2,aoo

44,3 2,000
441,100 2,00


Cal. 3 r
Col. 1 23,000

Cal. 2 is lnat

o4
o 0


a a oo
o 0
0 0
o 9
1a,4u4 2,000
3,339 21,000
I,3J1 21,000
273,?o 23,000
a3,iO 23,000


YE41


Im
1934

if
19U91

Im
1192


199


Col.
Lai
Ca. 4



m
=,94
0
0

a
0
0
0
51,444



31, no


Cur" F~nrI

rrywr
YIW1a

137,21)

(144,46)


1273,404)
125,921)3
(2asZm

(129441)
(28,37)


20 of 22 af
Cal. 2 Cnl. 4

(5t,00 m
IS3,MOO
(a40,171 a
(11,14)
(41,667) 0

1,000 1,00

,0o 2,0oo0
3,000 .,:00
3,006 3,00
3,000 3,10


48 af S& u of lavwtsn t Iacas
Cal. S Cal 1,7,2 Cr dit Tn


0
0
o
0
0

14,0 3
4,243
74,37'
120,4 1
172,272


140,6171



14,743
A1,07i
130o,9
182,72


2,300
0
a
0


a
0
0
0


(37,Z06)
3,8ao0)

(21,754)
(41,66141
(7,+416)

14,743
01,076
130,913
182,772


Adjustut

Ta

0
a
0
a
0
0

0
0
0
0
154,183


IEt


Im


Im
Lill
19"

i19
1992
1914
19%
1"as















N ET IT STAT NT


AS'TS


cm r S-V
Fig
atd
Swplife
furtilzr
Cah ShIins
ulasilmaus
C&As R.aeurlR.)

"dal


SutaL CIRET


1h U M 1U 1I9 1990 19\1 1992 1M9 1M94 1995 199


0


100
1,00


a


10 110 11n 1
a a a a
1,050 1,105 1,1! 1,214
a 0 a 0
525 51 579 60
4 9 a a
104404 165532 1602 20237


659
0
240718


0

0
6702

23T926


141
0
1,407
0
704
0
2024%


148
0
1,477

759
a
797892


776
0
47=14


143

1,429
0
814
a


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

103.29 104.084 147,014 14.377 204,23 242.740 242.070 204,707 200,25. 573,44 751,375


IIU IIIlATE

itabnr 1-2 yr aids
nMr
4 ahir
i Eqmipumt


I1zz!


4,008

212520


SDUTOT IiTEiM IATI 1,030,24


905,376

42,746
4,200


M9.?14
13.411
69,143
4,410


945,500


4,431


1,020,002
158.143
70,811
4,862


1,062,34
204.808

3,101


17,750 14,250 10,75 7,50 13,754

1144&22 12775 121043 1201470 13724


1.027,34
200.015
71,28
5,4a


1,014,452
197,307
o70,
51,42


1,202473
234,11:
33.74
5,o10


1,30,442
2?.070
92,571
4,205


1,469,120
286.032
104229
4,214


14,271 10,408 ,245 2,082 4

1318538 129348 12317 1490570 182639


FIED
ULa
uildinqi
ther


7.00


7.00Z


11400000

0


TOTAL FIIE 11,448,13

TOTAL ASSETS 12,442,s5


11II6000 12230240 =128230 142338 1389843 14424637 1.00122 154014 7 14225755 1L4747a 5
44355 4024 395 314652 2732 231 187.0 14449 10146 71i


11700= 12370494 12S39403 12M8044 1397193 1444788 15020372 154146 16235903 16481982

131731 114838 2372 7333 14247124 16208345 h1122427 17US704 9 t8402469 1944414















1 T 109 a T I i T A T I A A T


19i1 1987 1998 1919 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1M99 1996


LIArILITIE!

t~cuts ,plyum 200


SITUTAL C"lWf 200


4

210


m2
0


232 243 2 2 211
0 0 0 4 0

22 !243 2 22* 281


1TIEDhIATE


4 0
a 0
a 0
a 0
0 0
Not Def4ad 0
Not Win~ 0
Ndt eflhiamd 0
Not Wiad 0
ItaTd tHU 4

SUITTA I1T91 IMATS 0


o 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0Q 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 4
O 4 4 0


a 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


.M TEID
Mrtq4 Fin Land 17346 170140 A41C74 134014 1511401 1429341 133I62 12318 111241
nortqmar I-Farn a a a 0 0 0

SaBTITM. LMF-Tl l 17B44S 1705140 1i427 15t4014 1311401 142U934 13U66 123185 1113UI

TOTAL LIABILTIE 17W 170550 1h4849 1594246 151144 1421603 1336i96 12213 111336


ItRIBlI WNIINa


TOTAL XT M0M3.

TMTAL LIAl &
IEST 10l


1012 104404 15 163023 202578 240711 239 26 202436 297892 473514 72619
10743044 11362U 12001091 1247442 1313911 1336357 1443113 O8833 16 37041 16948969 17919720

108l447n 11U4 46 121AU 43 12a30467 13! 2UA 1407707! 14671446 1!2911 t16349!2 17423483 IA!5999


1210253 13172311 1214183 14234712 14174333 1306678 1008345 16523427 17448709 18402469 19848414


310


10o


09


22h
0
Si


979476
0

97967&

979916


028499
0

=2499

U2SE25
o4

KB4M














ISWsII C TAL MD FT ANCIAL ,IAM UT RATIOS



19 6 1987 1988 19lP 1990 1991 1992 1991 L994 M199 1996

PROFIT II.ITY

Aftr Ta tInsM
nim IeITr a -i.AL -L44 -i.9i7 -.LOS -1i.I. -0.211 .2O. 0.828 1.261 1.753 2.190
het lortI

Iarwus ina Mt Mwrth
sDIn 0 fSUTT a ----A WL2 64.102 L985 LAS 3.232 4.2 4.2 46.2 6.i6 7.08O
Prniois Ynr's .LL

Total Ca Exmpeua
BaM RATIO 0.47 .O 60 0.2 0.a9 0U.567 0.570 0.42i6 40. a.0.5 0.5. 4 0.516
rus Rawipta


PROFn M "3l -4.3 I 4.420 -4.4 -4.5 -4.=3 4.0.. 0.112 0.0o0 0.20 0.301 0.U
ross Racuipt

Protas IcTM
BO EMCICT *---- -72L4 -112.3A -. -10oL80 -V7.37 -12. 32.0 24.71 86.22 126.30 171.2
1 of ttithr Cm

PrtnU lanco
uLMW I FICCT -9.21 -14.1 -10. -tLh3 -10.76 -t1. 4.. :.10 o10.1 13.84 21.1
Total A -cs,


LI1UI1ITY RATtOS

Carrmt Amts
Ca RR ATO aI 217. 1 .4 0216 737.4 71213 342..4 951.04 10.18 727.41 1016.12 134.16 2268.03
Currut Liabillti

Carr. + lati n. Alsts
NTEIESIATE RATIO 576L.41 6032.7 6550.21 .940.22 6196.16 603.U6 5822.93 5340.97 6201.79 6982.94 79"9.56
Sort Iatars. DAIt



SOLVENT CY

Total Liabs M t torth
M.LAma LEV~RGE 1.11 1.13 1.14 1.13 1 1 1.10 1.09 1.08 1.07 1.06 1.04
fMt lortl

Total Liabilitim
LaLIER ITO T- 0.162 0.149 0.1:3 0.122 0.113 0.102 0.091 0.081 0.068 0.0U1 0.044
(SETMS1UITM Not Wortl

Total Aurts
ASSTIU LAB IT 7.13 7.72 .43 8.99 9.34 10.83 11.97 13.41 15.47 18.78 2.51
RATIO Total Liabiltiis









































APPENDIX B













I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Rice acreage
Expected yield (dry)
Expected price
Interest rate oper.loans
Interest rate mach.loans
Operator wage
Labor hours
Machinery hours
Fuel costs
Hauling to dryer
Distance to dryer
% moisture at harvest
7 moisture desired
Cost of drying




II. MACHINERY USE
-----------------

Times over -->
--Machine-------
Tractor 1, 185 HP
Tractor 2, 140 HP
Tractor 3, 120 HP
Disk offset, 9'
Disk offset, 11'
Disk harrow, 21'
Roller, 10'
Grain drill, 19'
Hopper trailer
SP combine, 16'
Levee disc

II. MACHINERY USE, CONT.
--------------------


1,000 acres
40 cwt/acre
10 $/cwt
13.00%
13.00%
5.50 $/hour
10 hours/day
9 hours/day
1.00 */gallon
0.005 $/cwt/mile
200 miles
21.00%:
12.50%
1.40 $/cwt


Land Land Land
Breaking Disking Disking Planting Rolling

2 2 2 1 4
--------------Acres/Day-----------------


Build
Levees Harvest


Other


Times over --->
--Machine--------
Tractor 1, 185 HP
Tractor 2, 140 HP
Tractor 3, 120 HP
Disk offset, 9'
Disk offset, 11'
Disk harrow, 21'
Roller, 10'
Grain drill, 19'
Hopper trailer
SP combine, 16'
Levee disc


1 1 0
------Acres/Day------
160 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 30 0
60 30
160 0 0













III. MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT


Item

Tractor 1, 185 HP
Tractor 2, 140 HP
Tractor 3, 120 HP
Disk offset, 9'
Disk offset, 11'
Disk harrow, 21'
Roller, 10'
Grain drill, 19'
Hopper trailer
SP combine, 16'
Levee disc
Irr & drain pumps
Pick-up truck

Total


Total
New Cost

60,000
45,000
35,000
4,000
5,000
9,000
.1,530
12,000
7,200
73,500
10,000
75,000
14,000

351,230


Fuel Number --Fixed Costs--- Variable


Gal/Hr.

8.0
4.5
3.8







4.5


3.0


of Items

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1


Total $

12,090
9,068
7,053
806
1, 008
1,814
308
2,418
1,451
14,810
2,015
15,113
4,081

72,033


S/Acre

12.09
9.07
7.05
0.81
1.01
1.81
0.31
2.42
1.45
14.81
2.02
15.11
4.08

72.03


Cost/Hr

9.00
5.50
4.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0.00
0. 0
5.50
0.00
G.00
4.00


IV. PRE-HARVEST COSTS


A. Variable Costs

Seed
Fertilizer
Herbicide
Fungicide
Insecticide
Aircraft
Labor
Mach. & equip.
Irrig & drain
Miscellaneous
Interest


Unit

lb.
ton
gal.
lb.
gal.
acre
hour
hour
acre-inch
dol.
dol.


Total Variable Costs

B. Fixed Costs

Mach. & equip.
Land leveling
Canals (high cost)
Manager's salary


Quantity

100
0.05
0.5
1
0.125
1
2.129
1.916
64
10.00%
13.00".


Times Over

1

2
2
2
5

variable


Price

0.22
360.00
9.75
8.25
10.56
3.00
5.50
variable
0.50


Unit Quantity Tot Cost


acre
acre


1,000 1,422
1,000 79,429
25,000


Total Fixed Costs -----------------------

C. Total Pr-e-arvest Costs

Variable costs
Fixed costs

Total Pre-Harvest Costs ----------------


Cost/Ac.

22.00
18.00
9.75
16.50
2.64
15.00
11.71
11.32
32.00
13. 9
9.93

162.74

Cost/Ac.

72.03
1.42
79.43
25.00

177.88


162.74
177.88

340.63













V. TOTAL COSTS PER ACRE, FIRST CROP
-------'-----------------------'---


Activity

Growing
Harvesting
Hauling to dryer
Drying


# Acres # Hrs. Unit


5
custom hired
custom hired


1 hour
cwt.
cwt.


Guantity Cost/Un.


0.20
43.89
40.00


23.22
1.00
1.40


Total Costs


VI. RETURNS TO FACTORS OF PRODUCTION, FIRST CROP


Total Revenue

Variable Costs


Returns to Fixed Costs, Etc.


Fixed Costs


Returns to Land and Risk


Total $

400,000


$/Acre

400.00


267,273 267.27

132,727 132.73

177,883 177.88


(45,157)


(45.16)


VII. PARTIAL BUDGET FOR RATOON CROP


A. Added Costs

Fungicide
Insecticide
Aircraft
Labor
Irrig. & drain.
Miscellaneous
Interest
Harvesting
Hauling to dryer
Dryina


Unit

lbs
pt.
acre
hour
acre-inch
dols.
dols.
acre
cwt.
cwt.


Quantity Times Over

0 0
1.5 1


1
1
20
10.00%
13.00%
1
21.94
20 00


Price

0.00
1.32
3.00
5. 00
1.00


1 4.40
1.00
1.40


Total Added Costs (A)


B. Added Revenue

Additional Rice


Unit

cwt.


Quantity

20


Price

9.50


Total Added Revenue (B) ---------------------


C. Net Change (B-A) ------------------------


Cost/Ac.

340.63
4.64
43.89

445.00
445.16


$/Cwt

10. 00

6.68

3.32

4.45

(1.13)


$/Acre

0.00
1.98
3.(00
5.00
20.00
3.00
1.07
4.40
21.94










190.60


101.61


-----------------------------------------


---------------------













VIII. TOTAL RETURNS TO FACTORS OF PRODUCTION, BOTH CROPS


Total $ $/Acre $/Cwt

590,000 590.00 9.83


Total Revenue

Variable Costs


355,666


Returns to Fixed Costs, Etc.


234,334 234.33

177,883 177.88


Returns to Land and Risk





IX. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS, BOTH CROPS


Tot. Revenue
Per Acre

391.67
441.67
491.67
541.67
591.67

470.00
530.00
590.00
650.00
710.00

548.33
618.33
688.33
758.33
828.33


Total Costs
Per Acre

508.58
508.58
508.58
508.58
508.58

533.55
533.55
533.55
533.55

558.52
558.52
558.52
558.52
558.52
558.52


Net Returns
Per Acre


(116.91)
(66.91)
(16.91)
33.09
83.09

(63.55)
(3.55)
56.45
116.45
176.45

(10.19)
59.81
129.81
199.81
269.91


355.67


5.93

3.91

2.96

0.94


Yield
Per Acre

50
50
50
50
50

60
60
60
60
60

70
70
70
70
70


Price
Per Cwt.

7.83
8.83
9.83
10.83
11.83

7.83
8.83
9.83
10.83
11.83

7.83
8.83
9.83
10.83
11.83


Fixed Costs













IV'. PRE-HARVEST COSTS

B'. Fixed Costs

Mach. & equip.
Land leveling
Canals (low cost)
Manager's salary


Unit Quantity Tot Cost


acre
acre


1.000 1,422
1,000 27,459
25,000


Total Fixed Costs


C'. Total Pre-Harvest Costs

Variable costs
Fixed costs

Total Pre-Harvest Costs ------------------>


Cost/Ac.

72.03
1.42
27.46
25.00

125.91


162.74
125.91

288.66


V'. TOTAL COSTS PER ACRE, FIRST CROP


Activity

Growing
Harvesting
Hauling to dryer
Drying


# Acres # Hrs. Unit


5
custom hired
custom hired


1 hour
cwt.
cwt.


Quantity


0.20
43.89
40.00


Total Costs


Cost/Un. Cost/Ac.

288.66
23.22 4. 64
1.00 43.89
1.40 56.00

393.19


VI'. RETURNS TO FACTORS OF PRODUCTION, FIRST CROP


Total Revenue

Variable Costs


Returns to Fixed Costs, Etc.


Fixed Costs


Total $

400,000


$/Acre

400.00


267,273 267.27

132,727 132.73

125,914 125.91


Returns to Land and Risk


$/Cwt

10.00

6.68

3.32


-----------------------------------------


6,813


6.81 0.17













VIII'. TOTAL RETURNS TO FACTORS OF PRODUCTION,


Total $ $/Acre $/Cwt


Total Revenue

Variable Costs


Returns to Fixed Costs, Etc.


Fixed Costs


Returns to Land and Risk


590,000 590.00

355,666 355.67

234,334 234.33

125,914 125.91

108,420 108.42


IX'. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS, BOTH CROPS


Yield Price
Per Acre Per Cwt.


50
50
50
50
50

60
60
60
60
60

70
70
70
70
70


7.83
8.83
9.83
10.83
11.83

7.83
8.83
9.83
10.83
11.83

7.93
8.83
9.83
10.83
11.83


Tot. Revenue
Per Acre


391.67
441.67
491.67
541.67
591.67

470.00
530.00
590.00
650.00
710.00

548.33
618.33
688.33
758.33
828.33


Total Costs
Per Acre


456.61
456.61
456.61
456.61
456.61

481.58
481.58
481.58
481.58
481.58

506.55
506.55
506.55
506.55
506.55


Net Returns
Per Acre

(64.94)
(14.94)
35.06
85.06
135.06

(11.58)
48.42
108.42
168.42
228.42

41.78
111.78
181.78
251.78
321.78


9.83

5.93


2.10

1.81


BOTH CROPS




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