• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Abstract
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures
 Summary
 The Florida citrus industry
 Procedures
 Estimated harvesting costs, 1973-74...
 Factors affecting harvesting...
 Effects of harvest mechanization...
 Factors affecting adoption of mechanical...
 Harvesting methods
 Budget data
 List of citations














Group Title: Economics report - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station ; no. 65
Title: Analysis of costs for selected orange harvesting systems in Florida
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027710/00001
 Material Information
Title: Analysis of costs for selected orange harvesting systems in Florida
Series Title: Economics report - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station ; no. 65
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Roetheli, J. C.
Zepp, Glenn A.
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Publication Date: 1974
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027710
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 28577038

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Abstract
        Abstract
    Acknowledgement
        Page i
    Table of Contents
        Page ii
        Page iii
    List of Tables
        Page iv
        Page v
    List of Figures
        Page vi
    Summary
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
    The Florida citrus industry
        Page 4
    Procedures
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
    Estimated harvesting costs, 1973-74 season
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
    Factors affecting harvesting cost
        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
    Effects of harvest mechanization on the Florida citrus industry
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
    Factors affecting adoption of mechanical harvesting
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 44
    Harvesting methods
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
    Budget data
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
    List of citations
        Page 66
        Page 67
Full Text

July 1974


\ Economics Report 65


An Analysis of Costs for Selected


Orange Harvesting Systems in Florida


Food and Resource Economics Department
Agricultural Experiment Stations
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville 32611
in cooperation with
National Economic Analysis Division
Economic Research Service
United States Department of Agriculture


Joe C. Roetheli

Glenn A. Zepp


_ I _~












ABSTRACT


Mechanically harvesting oranges would cost less than hand picking
in all but very low producing groves under typical 1973-74 conditions
in Florida, according to estimates derived in this study. A trunk
shaker system had the lowest estimated harvesting costs--$0.75 per
box. Other mechanical systems having lower ora.-iq harvesting costs
than for hand picking were a limb shaker at $0.77, a waterblast at
$0.80, an airharvest at $0,82, a partial trunk shaker at $0.80, a
half limb shaker at $0.82, and a partial waterblast at $0.85. The
estimated costs for hand picking during the 1973-74 season were $0.89
per box. Grove labor wage increases raise hand picking costs more
than mechanical harvesting costs. High fruit prices tend to raise
mechanical harvesting costs relative to hand picking costs. At least
260 acres of fruit need to be harvested annually for mechanical har-
vesting to be chap-,'- than hand picking. Adoption of harvest mechan-
ization eliminates about five picker jobs for each equipment operator
job it creates. The estimated labor requirement for citrus harvest-
i'-i in Florida would decline about 48,000 worker months if all early
and midseason processing oranges were harvested mechanically.

Key words: Capital-labor substitution, citrus harvest mechanization,
citrus harvesting costs.
















Appreciation is expr~;;-*d to Dr. Donald L. Brooke and Mr. Charles
L. Anderson for valuable assistance in this research, to Dr. James
:jl'tiranm Mr. Richard Toole and Mr. Art Mathias for data and suggestions
used in developing budgets, and to numerous reviewers in the Food and
Resource '..nomics Dr.hiir tr'Int, the Florida Citrus Commission, and the
Economic Research Service, '"DA, for ;pn-viding valuable comments and
suggestions on earlier drafts of this report The authors are wholly
res:i.,s ible for any errors.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . .

LIST O TABLES . . . .

LIST OF FIGURES . . .


THE FLORIDA CITRUS INDUSTRY .

The Grove Labor Situation .
riil Di'SR . *


rpOrOFDURES. .. *


Mechanical Harvesting Operations
Tv,/p s of Costs . .
Fixed Costs . .
Variable Costs .
Overhead Costs . .
Labor Costs . .
Lost-Fruit Cost .
Total Harvesting Costs. .


ESTIMATED HARVESTING COSTS, 1973-74 'ASON. .

Hand Picking . .
Mechanical Harvesting, "Full Systems".
Mechanical Harvesting, "Partial Systems"
Cost by Operation.. . .
Net Returns Per Acre. . .


. . .


FA.CTiO~' AFFECTING :-'!::',' ING COST . . . .

Effect of ,rali on Harvesting Cost . .
E-'crr of Fruit Price on Harvesting Cost . . .
Ef- :.t of 'r.,l? -...ion Level on Harvesting Cost. . .
Effect of Grove Size on the Cost of Mechanical Harvesting. .
Effect of Recovery Rate on Harvesting Costs . . .


Effects of Variable Recovery Rate on Harvesting Costs...
C .v--. ing Costs with rF. h.r Studies . .


EFFECTS .-' r::1 -.ST '- :-.." .I"'!7A ION ON THE FLORIDA CITPlIS INlUSTRY .


ii


19
23
24
30
32
34
34


. *
* *







TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)



Effects of Mechanization on Labor . .
Changes in Use per Acre . . .
Changes in Total Use . . .
Changes in Job Skills . . .
Effects of Harvest Mechanization on Capital Use.
Partial Mechanization of Valencias . .

FACTORS AFFECTING ADOPTION OF MECHANICAL HARVESTING


Fresh Market Fruit . .
Valencia Variety . . .
Grove Damage . . .
Added Risks . . .
Labor Availability . .


APPENDICES . . . . . . .

LIST OF CITATIONS . . . . . .


3Pge
36
36
37
38
39
39












LIST OF TABLES


Table Page
1 Estimated hourly labor costs with selected grove wage
rates for harvesting o, anies in Florida, 1973-74
season . . . 8

2 Estimated piece-rates and amount of oranges harvested
per day for selected production levels by a crew of 18
pickers in Florida, 1973-74 season . 10

3 Estimated labor costs for hand picking oranges for
selected production levels and grove labor wage levels
in Florida, 1973-74 season . . . 10

4 Estimated average fruit recovery and loss rates for
selected methods of harvesting oranges in Florida,
1973-74 season . . . . 11

5 Estimated machinery and labor costs, by operation, and
lost-fruit cost for harvesting oranges in Florida with
selected harvesting systems, 1973-74 season. . 15

6 Comparison of costs, revenue, and net returns per acre
from oranges for the hand harvesting and the limb shaker
systems in Florida, 1973-74 season . ... 18

7 Estimated total harvesting costs per box for oranges in
Florida with selected harvesting systems and alternative
grove labor wages, 1973-74 season. . . 19

8 Estimated total costs per box recovered for harvesting
oranges in Florida with selected harvesting systems and
alternative fruit prices, 1973-74 season . 24

9 Estimated total costs per box recovered for harvesting
oranges in Florida with selected harvesting systems at
alternative production levels, 1973-74 season . 27

10 Estimated costs per box recovered for harvesting oranges
with selected-systems and acre.nes in Florida, 1973-74
season . . . . . . 31

'11 Estimated costs per box recovered for harvesting oranges
with the airharvest system at selected fruit prices and
fruit recovery rates in Florida, 1973-74 season. . 32







LIST OF TABLES (Continued)


Table Page
12 Estimated total costs per box recovered for harvesting
oranges in Florida with selected harvesting systems at
three production levels and three recovery rates, 1973-
74 season. . . . .... ..... .35

13 Estimated capital and labor use for selected orange
harvesting systems in Florida, 1973-74 season. .... 37

14 Utilization of Florida orange crop, 1970-71 and
1971-72 seasons. . . . . 37

15 Budget for operating a hand harvest system with 18
pickers in Florida, 1973-74 season . . ... 55

16 Budget for operating a trunk shaker system in Florida,
1973-74 season . . . . .. 56

17 Budget for operating a limb shaker system in Florida,
1973-74 season . . . ... .. 57

18 Budget for operating a waterblast system in Florida,
1973-74 season . . . . . 58

19 Budget for operating an airharvest system in Florida,
1973-74 season .. . . . .. . 59

20 Budget for operating a shaker-catching frame system in
Florida, 1973-74 season. . . . . 60

21 Budget for operating a partial trunk shaker system in
Florida, 1973-74 season . . . 61

22 Budget for operating a half limb shaker system in
Florida, 1973-74 season. . . . .. 62

23 Budget For operating a partial waterblast system in
Florida, 1973-74 season. . . . ... 63

24 Budget for operating a partial limb shaker system in
F.orida, 1973-74 season. . . . ... 64












LIST OF FIGURES


Figure Page
1 Estimated costs per box recovered for selected orange
harvesting systems at the typical labor cost, fruit
price, and production level in Florida, 1973-74 season 16

2 Estimated costs per box recovered for harvesting oranges
in Florida with selected harvesting systems at alternative
grove labor wages, 1973-74 season. ... . ... 21

3 Estimated costs per box recovered for harvesting oranges
in Florida with selected harvesting systems at alternative
delivered-in fruit prices, 1973-74 season. . .. .25

4 Estimated costs per box recovered for harvesting oranges
in Florida with selected harvesting systems at alternative
production levels, 1973-74 season. . . 28

5 Estimated costs per box recovered for harvesting oranges
in Florida with the airharvest system at selected re-
covery rates and fruit prices, 1973-74 season. .... .33












AN ANALYSIS OF COSTS FOR SELECTED ORANGE
HARVESTING SYSTEMS IN FLORIDA*'


Joe C. Roetheli and Glenn A. Zepp


SUMMARY


Mechanically harvesting oranges would cost less than hand picking in
all but very low producing groves under typical 1973-1974 conditions in
Florida according to estimates derived in this study. A trunk shaker
system had the lowest estimated harvesting cost--$0.75 per box. Other
mechanical systems having lower orange harvesting costs than for hand
picking were a limb shaker at $0.77, a waterblast at $0.80, an airharvest
at $0.82, a partial trunk shaker at $0.80, a half limb shaker at $0.82,
and a partial waterblast at $0.85. Harvesting by two of the mechanical
systems, the partial limb shaker and the shaker-catching frame, cost more
than hand picking under all conditions studied. Estimated costs for those
two were $0.98 and $1.15 per box, respectively, for the 1973-74 season.
The estimated costs for hand harvesting during the 1973-1974 season were
$0.89 per box. Typical savings from harvesting with a limb shaker were
estimated at $33.35 per acre for the 1973-1974 season.



*Report of a cooperative study between the Food and Resource
Economics Department of the University of Florida and the Economic
,f.es~r-.ch Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. This report is based
on an unpublished M.S. thesis by Roetheli [11].



JOE C. ROETHELI was formerly a research assistant in Food and Resource
:.;l ,,nii cs at the University of Florida. GLENN A. ZEPP is an agricultural
economist in the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of .* culture
and associate professor of food and resource economics at the Universi
of Florida.






Wage increases for grove workers would raise hand harvesting costs
more than mechanical harvesting costs. For e,:(ample, a doubling of the
hourly wage for grove workers would raise hand harvesting cost nearly
$0.80 per box, or about double the original hand picking costs. But the
same wage increase would raise mechanical harvesting costs for oranges
only about $0.10 to $0.15 per box, or less than a *' percent increase.
Mechanically harvesting oranges required less than 20 hours of labor per
acre contrasted to an average of over 60 hours for hand picking.
Changes in fruit prices ~lt',ct the pi-FitabiliLt, of harvesting or-
anges mechanically through the effect on lost-fruit cost. High fruit
prices raise costs of harvesting mechanically relative to hand picking.
A $1.40 per box change (either up or down) in the ,-rice of oranges from
the $2.71 per box typical price would cause a correoponding $0.10 per box
change in costs for mechanical harvesting. It would not change costs for
hand picking. At the $3.30 per box fruit price, hand picking changes
from being more expensive to less expensive than harvesting with the par-
tial waterblast system. A similar change occurs between hand picking and
harvesting with the trunk shaker system when the price of oranges reaches
$4.50 per box.
The amount of fruit harvested per season affects harvesting costs.
At least 260 acres of fruit need to be harvested for mechanical harvesting
to be cheaper than hand picking. The partial trunk shaker has the lowest
costs at this acreage.
The percentage of marketable fruit recovered with mechanical har-
vesting systems affects total harvesting costs. A higher percentage
fruit recovery results in lower fruit losses and lower harvesting costs
per box than a lower percentage fruit recovery. The percentage of fruit
recovered affects costs more when fruit prices are high than when they
are low.
The estimated labor requirements for citrus harvesting in Florida
would decline about 48,000 worker months if all early and midseason proc-
essing oranges were harvested mechanically. Worker job skill needs are
different for mechanical harvesting than for hand picking. With mechani-
cal harvesting most jobs are for equipment operators, while with the
hand harvesting system most jobs are for pickers. .,Ad.pcion of harvest






mechanizations eliminates about five picker jobs for each equipment
operator job it creates. Mechanical harvesting may lower employment
peaks in the Florida citrus industry, but labor needs will remain seasonal.
Currently mechanical harvesting is practical only for early and mid-
season processing oranges. Pitting and discoloration of the peel caused
by the abscission chemical makes the fruit less desirable for the fresh
market. In addition, the mechanical systems which are described in this
study do not harvest the late season Valencia variety satisfactorily.
Valencia oranges have both mature and immature fruit on the tree at har-
vest time. The mechanical methods tend to damage the immature fruit when
removing the mature oranges.
If the Valencia variety cannot be harvested mechanically, harvesting
firms may wish to employ hand harvesting crews for the early and midseason
orange harvest in order to assure that pickers are available for the
Valencia harvest. This could retard adoption of mechanical orange har-
vesting in Florida.
Risk of obsolescence also may retard adoption of mechanical har-
vesting. A new type system, satisfactory for all varieties, could out-
date the present equipment in a short time.
A larger portion of total harvesting costs are fixed with mechanical
harvesting. This is another source of added risk. If a crop failure oc-
curs, the firm still incurs the high fixed costs for mechanical harvesting.
With hand picking the firm incurs a smaller fixed investment cost.
A shortage of pickers during the 1972-73 season extended the Valencia
harvest into August, beyond the optimal harvesting period. Continued
-hoitdqes of pickers would tend to speed up adoption of orange harvest
mechanization. The passage by growers of a referendum to collect a self-
imposed tax on citrus sales to fund research on mechanical harvesting
indicates concern among growers about the future availability of citrus
pickers. Development of a mechanical system suitable for Valencia oranges
may be speeded by this additional research. If a system is developed
which harvests early, midseason, and Valencia varieties satisfactorily,
rapid adoption of mechanical harvesting would be expected.






THE FLORIDA CITRUS INDUSTRY


Citrus contributed $579 million, or 34 nercnI:, of the $1.66 billion
cash receipts from farming in Florida during 1972 [9]. Florida citrus
retailed at approximately $1 billion for the 1970-71 season. Average pro-
duction of Florida citrus was 190,245,000 boxes per year on 809,000 acres
in the three seasons 1968-69 through 1970-71. Florida produces about 30
percent of the world's orange crop and 50 percent of the world's grape-
fruit.
Employment in citrus provides an imnporttant source of income for agri-
cultural workers. Nearly 26,000 workers picked ciirus during the peak har-
vesting period of the 1970-71 season [7, p. 1]. Another 9,000 persons
worked in nonharvest grove operations [6, p. 9].


The Grove Labor Situation


The number of workers available for harvesting citrus during the
1972-73 season in Florida decreased substantially from previous years.
Peak employment was 21,350 pickers compared with 26,000 pickers during
1971-72 [7, p. I]. Shortages of pickers were reported during parts of the
1972-73 season. Harvesting extended into August, beyond the optimal har-
vesting period. Higher wages accompanied this shortage of workers, re-
sulting in higher production and harvesting costs. In some instances, the
piece-rate picking cost approached $1.00 per box.
Grove labor costs probably will continue to increase. The 93rd U.S.
Congress passed a bill to increase the minimum hourly wage for farm workers
from the present $1.30 to $2.30 within three years. Such legislation tends
to increase grove labor costs by raising the entire wage scale for agri-
cultural workers.
Labor contracts have been signed between two citrus producers and a
union representing citrus workers in Florida. Widespread unionization
could increase labor cost through higher wages and increased fringe
benefits.
The Florida citrus Industry may be approaching a transition from
labor-intensive hand picking of citrus to capital-intensive mechanical
harvesting methods. At least five different methods of mechanical fruit






removal, suitable for harvesting early and midseason processing oranges,
have been developed. Florida producers harvested about 1,000 acres mech-
anically--less than 1 percent of the total orange crop--during 1972-73.
During 1973 citrus growers passed a referendum to collect a self-
imposed tax on their sales to fund research on mechanical harvesting.
Further improvements to mechanical harvesting systems for Florida citrus
should result from this additional research and development.
Rapid adoption of mechanical harvesting methods could result from
either the development of new harvesting technology or increased labor
costs. The combination of both situations increases further the chances
of adjustments from hand picking to mechanical harvesting.


Purpose


The objective of this study was to determine the costs for harvesting
oranges in Florida by hand picking and by mechanical harvesting. Estimates
were derived for different grove labor wage rates, fruit prices, and pro-
duction levels. A second objective was to determine some effects of
adopting harvest mechanization on the use of grove labor and capital in
the Florida citrus industry.


PROCEDURES


Operations in hand picking and mechanical harvesting were identified
and described. Costs and technical data were developed for each of ten
different harvesting systems. Harvesting costs, by operation, were com-
puted for each system under a range of fruit prices, production levels,
wage rates, and fruit recovery rates. Harvesting costs were developed
for each of the ten systems, using combinations of five different wage
levels, five fruit prices, five production levels, and three levels of
machinery operating efficiency.
Cost estimates developed in this study were for the 1973-74 season.
The analysis was based on data and information available at the end of
the 1972-73 season. In some cases actual costs during 1973-74 may have
been different from those used in this study.





IMech a ica He ryesti Operat ions


Four separate operations were identified in the mechanical harvesting
of oranges: (1) preharvest practices, (2) fruit removal, (3) fruit collec-
tion and in-grove transportation, and (4) postharvest operations. These
operations and the mechanical systems are described in detail in Appendix A.
The preharvest practices prepared the grove for mechanical harvesting.'
They included trimming tree skirts, raking the grove and incorporating
trash into the soil, and spraying the abscission chemical. The fruit re-
movel operation involved dropping the fruit to the ground. There were
four fruit removal methods: (1) limb shaking, (2) trunk shaking, (3) air-
blast, and (4) waterblast. The fruit collection and in-grove transportation
operation consisted of raking the fruit, loading it into "goat trucks,"
and hauling it to groveside, Postharvest operations included raking the
grove again and incorporating discarded fruit and leaves into the soil.
Hauling fruit from groveside to the processing plant was not treated as
a harvesting operation.

Types of Costs


Budgets were developed from data and information obtained from pub-
lished sources, harvester operators, equipment manufacturers, and other
knowledgeable citrus industry personnel. Five types of costs were esti-
mated: fix.d, variable (excluding labor), overhead, labor, and lost-fruit.

fixed Costa

Fixed costs included depreciation, InLerbst, taxes, shelter, insurance,
and llcense6. Depreciation was calculated by the straight line method.
Interest, computed at 8 percent of the average value of investment, was the
f;harge for capital Invos.lnent Property taxes were computed at 1 percent
of the average value of investment. Ilnsurance was charged at 0.5 percent
of average InvesLment. 'Fixed costs are Itemized in Appendix B (see Tables
15 through' 24, pages 55 through 64).






Variable Costs


Variable costs included those for fuel, lubrication and repair, and
the abscission chemical. Lubrication and repairs include grease, oil,
tires, batteries, and parts and labor for repairs. Repairs and lubrica-
tion costs for the rake and mulcher tractors were estimated at 10 percent
of the original purchase price per year [2] Repairs and lubrication for
other machinery were estimated at 15 percent of the purchase price per
1,000 hours of use [4] Fuel costs were estimated as 0.1 gallons times
the maximum power-take-off horsepower times $0.26 per gallon per hour.l
An abscission chemical loosens the fruit from its stem, enabling the
mechanical harvesters to remove a high percentage of the oranges. This
abscission chemical cost $35.00 per unit, a unit consisting of one quart
of 4.2 percent water soluble cycloheximide and 1-1/2 quarts of a water
dispersible surface active agent [1, p. 5]. One and one-half units per
acre of the abscission chemical were charged to mechanical harvesting.


Overhead Costs


Overhead costs included items such as secretarial help, advertising,
dues, subscriptions, certain travel, and donations associated with oper-
ating a firm. Overhead also included minor items used in the grove such
as drinking water containers and any other items not contained in the
budgets. The overhead costs were estimated at 15 percent of the total
machinery costs and the labor costs other than for hand picking.2 Over-
head was charged at only 10 percent of hand picking labor cost [12, p. 3].
No overhead was charged on the cost of the abscission chemical.




Estimated average fuel use and cost for all equipment. Includes both
diesel and gasoline engines. Based on disucssions with industry personnel
operating mechanical harvesters.
2
Based on unpublished data from Charles L. Anderson, Extension
Economist, Agricultural Research and Education Center, Lake Alfred,
Florida [3].






Labor Costs


Labor costs consisted of w..e.s paid plus empl. .,, payroll taxes and
labor overhead. Payroll taxes included 5.85 percent for Social Security
and 5.59 percent for workman's compensation,
Manual labor requirements were set about 50 percent higher than the
hours of machinery operation. In addition to time for machinery operation,
labor requirements included time for machinery breakdowns, rest periods,
travel between groves, start-up time, and shutdown time.
All grove labor requirements were converted to a common skilled labor
equivalent to simplify the computing of harvesting costs at different wage
levels. Unskilled labor was converted to skilled labor equivalents by
multiplying hours of unskilled labor by 6,8.8 percent. The conversion fac-
tor was the estimated percentage of skilled labor cost represented by un-
skilled labor cost.
A $2.50 hourly wage for skilled labor (equipment operators) represented
current wage rates [3]. This hourly wage was multiplied by 126.44 percent
for employer payroll taxes (11.44 percent) and labor overhead (15 percent)
to derive hourly labor costs. ii-e $2.50 wage translated into hourly labor
cost to the employer of $3.16. Wages were increased by 25 percent incre-
ments in the analysis up to $5.00 per hour to determine the effects of
labor wage increases on harvesting costs (Table 1).


Table 1.--Estimated hourly labor costs with selected grove wage rates for
harvesting oranges in Florida, 1973-74 season

Percent increase over $2.50 wage level,
Item -------_--_- -,
0 25 50 75 100

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

Wage rate 2.50 3.13 3.75 4.38 5.00

Labor costa 3.16 3.96 4.74 5.54 6.32

aLabor cost equals wage rate plus 26.44 percent for labor overhead
and employer payroll taxes.





Piece-rate picking rates varied with grove production levels. The
picking piece-rate for early and midseason oranges during the 1973-74 sea-
son was estimated to range from $0.46 per box for prime picking at 455
boxes per acre to $0.86 for groves yielding only 175 boxes per acre (Table
2). Picking piece-rates for production levels between 175 and 455 boxes
per acre were estimated by raising the picking piece-rate by progressively
larger increments as the production levels declined. The increase in
picking piece-rates at lower production levels primarily reflects higher
labor overhead for moving ladders. Total labor cost for hand picking
equals the picking piece-rate plus 11.44 percent for Social Security and
workman's compensation and 10 percent for labor overhead (Table 3).


Lost-Fruit Cost


The lost-fruit cost charged against mechanical harvesting was for
additional fruit loss. It equaled the amount of additional lost-fruit
times the "on-tree" price of oranges. The on-tree price equaled the
delivered-in price minus the hand picking and hauling cost. The following
delivered-in prices were used: $4.10, $3.63, $2.71, $1.78, and $1.29 per
box.5 Estimated hauling costs per box were $0.136, $0.146, $0.157, $0.167,
and $0.177 for respective hourly grove labor wage levels of $2.50, $3.13,
$3.75, $4.38, and $5.00. Hand harvesting costs vary with changes in the
grove wage levels and production levels (see section on Harvesting Costs).
Fruit loss and recovery rates are given in Table 4.
Excessive fruit splitting is another possible source of lost-fruit
cost for mechanical harvesting. Quality regulations prevent processors
from accepting oranges that have more than 10 percent unwholesome fruit,


Other grove conditions such as tree height and the amount of weeds in
the grove also contribute to setting picking rates per box. The piece-rates
used in this study were selected to represent average or typical grove
conditions.

Labor overhead was charged at only 10 percent of wages for hand pick-
ing because of the large portion of hand picking costs which is labor cost.
Other labor overhead was chr-,e *i! at 15 percent of wages.

5Based 'on a price forecast model developedl by the Econo.mic Research
int'in.u.lt of the Florida Department of Citrus [ 10 These prices corre-
spond to projected crop sizes of 129, 139, 159, 179, and 189 million
boxes, respectively.






Table 2.--Estimated piece-rates and amount of oranges harvested per day for
selected production levels by a crew of 18 pickers in Florida,
1973-74 season

na Picking Harvesting rate
a Picking __
Production
-_ ipiece- Trees per Trees per Acres per
Per tree Per acre rate b hour per day per day per
per box pickerC crew crew

-----------Boxes-----------Dollars----------------- Number----------------


2-1/2

3-1/2

4-1/2

5-1/2

6-1/2


175

245

315

385

455


1.47

1.23

1.13

1.08

1.05


211.68

177.12

162.72

155.52

151.20


3.02

2.53

2.32

2.22

2.16


aProduction is hand-pick equivalent, equal to the amount of fruit which
normally would be recovered by hand picking.
picking piece-rates for production levels between 175 and 455 boxes
per acre were estimated by raising the picking piece-rate by progressively
larger increments as the production levels decline.

c(Average wage of $3.15 per hour) + (boxes per tree times picking cost
per box). The average hourly earnings for January 1973 were $3.15 [13].
d(Trees per hour per picker) x (18 pickers per crew) x (eight hours
per day).
e(Trees per day per crew) L (70 trees per acre).


Table 3.--Estimated labor costs for hand picking oranges for selected pro-
duction levels and grove labor wage levels in Florida, 1973-74
season

Production Grove labor hourly wage

Boxes per $2.50a $3.13b $3.75C $4.38d $5.00e
tree

----------------------Dolars per_ box----------------------

2-1/2 1.045 1.306 1.567 1.828 2.090
3-1/2 .887 1.109 1.330 1.552 1.774


See footnotes on page 11.


Continued






Table 3.--Estimated labor costs for hand picking oranges for selected
production levels and grove labor wage levels in Florida,
1973-74 season--Continued

Production Grove labor hourly wage

Boxes per $2.50a $3.13b $3.75c $4.38d .$5.00e
tree

-------------------- Dollars per box------------------------

4-1/2 .753 .942 1.130 .1.318 1.506

5-1/2 .644 .805 .966 1.127 1.288

6-1/2 .559 .699 .838 .978 1.118

aBased on picking piece-rate from Table 2 times 121.49 percent for
payroll taxes and overhead for hand picking labor.
bCst at $2.50 level plus 25 percent.
CCost at $2.50 level plus 50 percent.

Cost at $2.50 level plus 75 percent.

cost at $2.50 level plus 100 percent.



Table 4.--Estimated average fruit recovery and loss rates for selected
methods of harvesting oranges in Florida, 1973-74:season

System

Item Air Limb Trunk Water- Shaker- Hand
harvest shaker shaker blast catching harvest
frame
---------- Percent of hand harvesting recovery rate -----------

Fruit loss 8 6 7 7 5 0

Fruit
recovered 92 94 93 93 95 100

aEstimates based on observing harvesters in operation and on com-
munications with equipment operators and other citrus industry personnel.
Represents typical recovery for hand harvesting. Includes normal
fruit loss with hand picking.






including split fruit. Experience to date indicates that, if the mechan-
ical systems are operated properly, there should be very few loads exceed-
ing the 10 percent limit. Hence, lost-fruit cost from this latter source
was estimated at zero.


Total Harvesting Costs


Harvesting costs per box for each harvesting method were estimated
from the budgets in Appendix B using the following steps:
I. Estimated labor costs per day = [(unskilled hours labor x 0.688) +
(skilled hours labor)] x (labor cost per hour for skilled labor)
II. Estimated total labor and machinery cost per box =
labor cost per day, from step 1) + ("Total Costs"
(production per acre) x (acres harvested per day) x

from Appendix B)__
(percentage fruit recovery)
III. Estimated lost-fruit cost per box =
(on-tree fruit price) x (1 percentage fruit recovery).
(percentage fruit recovery)

IV. Estimated total harvesting cost per box =
(Total labor and machinery cost, from step 2) +
(lost-fruit cost from step 3).
To illustrate the above procedure, consider the following example.
Estimate total harvesting cost for the trunk shaker system using the as-
sumptions that (1) the hourly grove labor wage is $2.50 (equivalent to a
$3.16 hourly labor cost), (2) the fruit recovery rate is 93 percent of
hand picking recovery, (3) production is 315 boxes per acre, (4) the system
can harvest eight acres per day, and (5) the on-tree fruit price is $1.687
per box. The budget for the trunk shaker system is in Table 16.
I. Daily labor costs for the trunk shaker system
(9 hours unskilled labor x 0.688) + (117 hours skilled labor)
x ($3.16 per hour) = $389.29.
II. Total labor and machinery costs per box =
($389.29 from step 1) + ($1,062.81 "Total cost" from Table 16)a
(315 boxes per acre) x (8 acres per day) x (93 percent fruit recovery)
$0.620 (see Table 5, subtotal for machine and labor).






Iii. Lost-fruit cost per box =
($1.687 on-tree fruit price) x (1 93 percent fruit recovery)
(93 percent fruit recovery)
$0.127
IV. Total harvesting costs per box =
($0.620 labor and machinery cost, from step 2) + ($0.127 lost-
fruit cost, from step 3) = $0.747.
Total harvesting costs for other systems, and for other combinations
of wage levels, fruit prices, fruit recovery rates, and production levels
can be estimated in the same manner.


ESTIMATED HARVESTING COSTS, 1973-74 SEASON


Orange harvesting costs for each system were derived using grove
labor wages, fruit prices, and production levels selected as typical for
the study area during the 1973-74 season. These typical levels were $2.50
hourly grove labor wage (equivalent to a $3.16 hourly cost), $2.71 per box
delivered-in fruit price, and 315 boxes per acre production. Machinery
and labor expenses for each harvesting operation were Itemized separately.
"Other costs" included ones not assigned to a particular operation such
as the costs for the fuel truck and crew truck. Lost-fruit cost also was
itemized separately.


Hand Picking


Hand picking oranges would cost an estimated $0.89 for the 1973-74
season (Table 5, p. 15 and Figure 1, p. 16). Labor costs at $0.80 per
box were the major Item. Machinery costs were $0.09 per box. No cost
for lost-fruit was charged against hand harvesting.


Mechanical-Harvesting, "Full Systems"


Mechanical harvesting would cost the least, $0.75 per box, with the
trunk shaker system, followed by $0.77 per box for the limb shaker system.
Machinery costs amounted to about $0.46 per box for both of these systems.
Lost-fruit for the trunk shaker system cost $0.13 per box, while for the
limb shaker it cost only $0.11 per box. Different recovery rates for the






two systems caused the difference. The limb shaker system recovered an
estimated 94 percent of hand picking recovery; the trunk shaker system re-
covered 93 percent. Harvesting cost for the waterblast system ($0.80 per
box) and the airharvest system ($0.82 per box) were slightly higher than
for the trunk shaker and limb shaker systems. The shaker-catching fiirirm
system had the highest cost of all those studied ($1.15 per box or about
$0.26 per box more than for hand harvesting).


Mechanical Harvesting, "Partial Systems"


Costs for the partial trunk shaker, half limb shaker, and partial
waterblast systems were lower than hand picking costs, but higher than
for the comparable "full" systems. Total costs for the partial limb
shaker system were $0.98 per box. This was substantially higher than costs
for the other partial systems. The partial limb shaker system consisted
of only one removal unit resulting in a low daily capacity. The low daily
capacity resulted in high fixed costs per box for the machinery in this
system.

Cost by Operation


Preharvest practices were usually the most costly operation--about
$0.30 per box--for all the mechanical systems. The abscission chemical
accounted for $0.18 of this total. Lost fruit cost between $0.09 and $0.15
per box.
The costs for fruit removal ranged between 14 and 18 pfrce.iii. of total
harvesting costs for most mechanical systems. Fruit removal for the shaker-
catching frame system cost $0.51 or 45 percent of the total. Removal costs
for hand picking were $0.76 per box, or 85 percent of the total.
The cost for fruit collection and in-grove transportation ranged from
$0.09 per box for the hand picking system to $0.23 per box for the partial
limb shaker. This cost averaged about $0.15 per box for the mechanical
systems.
Postharvest operations were a relatively small cost item for all
systems.





Table 5.--Estimated machinery and labor costs, by operation, and lost-fruit cost for harvesting oranges in
Florida with selected harvesting systems, 1973-74 season

Preharvest Removalc Collection- d Postharveste Other Subtotal Total
transportation
System
Lost
Mach. Labor Mach. Labor Mach. Labor Mach. Labor Mach. Labor fruit Mach. Labor

---------------------------------------Dollars per box---------------------------------------
Hand harvest N/A N/A .008 .754 .060 .035 N/A N/A .019 .013 N/A .086 .801 .888
Trunk shaker .235 .063 .084 .024 .083 .065 .029 .014 .021 N/A .127 .453 .166 .746
Limb shaker .233 .062 .105 .048 .082 .064 .029 .014 .021 N/A .108 .470 .188 .766
Waterblast .235 .063 .110 .048 .083 .065 .029 .014 .021 N/A .127 .478 .190 .796
Airharvest .238 .064 .140 .012 .084 .066 .030 .014 .021 N/A .147 .513 .156 .816

Shaker-catching
frame .207 .050 .420 .093 .091 .113 N/A N/A .082 N/A .089 .799 .258 1.146
Partial trunk
shaker .241 .061 .084 .024 .108 .064 .035 .010 .042 N/A .127 .510 .159 .797
Half limb
shaker .239 .061 .105 .048 .106 .063 .035 .010 .041 N/A .108 .526 .182 .816
Partial water
blast .241 .061 .110 .048 .108 .064 .035 .010 .042 N/A .127 .536 .184 .846
Partial limb
shaker .271 .061 .105 .048 .167 .063 .062 .010 .083 N/A .108 .688 .182 .977


aBased on
production and
b
includes
1/2 mulcher.


a $2.50 hourly grove labor wage, $2.71 per
fruit losses typical for each system.


box delivered-in fruit price, 315 boxes per acre


cost of abscission chemical, tank truck, spray rig, 1/3 rake, survey and trim equipment, and


C includes equipment for fruit removal.

Footnotes continued on p-ce 17.






Cost per box
in dollars


1.14



1.06



.98



.90


.82


.74


Hand Trunk
harvest shaker


Limb Water-
shaker blast


I


0//


7



/


7









/


Air- Shaker- Partial Half Partial Partial
harvest catching trunk limb water- limb
frame shaker shaker blast shaker


Figure 1.--Estimated costs per box recovered for selected orange harvesting systems at the typical
labor cost, fruit price, and production level in Florida, 1973-74 season


7-


7777"


`-~ U -"*~-t--"-r 11 11 1---


"'


"' c~


"'"


II


1 / /I


77






Lost fruit accounted for between 13 to 18 percent of the total har-
vesting cost for the mechanical systems. Labor accounted for 19 to 25
percent, and machinery and abscission chemical accounted for 60 to 70 per-
cent of the total.
Labor made up about 90 percent of total hand harvest cost, and mach-
inery the remaining 10 percent. There was no lost-fruit cost for hand
picking.


Net Returns Per Acre


Costs were estimated on a per box basis. This is typically the cost
figure used in the Florida citrus industry. The per box cost can be con-
verted to a per acre basis, and differences in net returns can be deter-
mined by the reader needing such a comparison.
Costs and returns for the hand harvesting and limb shaker systems are
compared in Table 6. Production was assumed to be 315 boxes per acre, the
grove wage rate $2.50 per hour, the fruit price $2.71 per box, and the
fruit recovery rate for the limb shaker system 94 percent of hand picking
recovery.
The mechanical harvesting system resulted in $33.35 per acre higher
net returns. The mechanical system recovered 18.9 boxes less fruit per
acre than hand picking. The additional fruit recovery resulted in higher
receipts for hand picking, but reduced harvesting costs for mechanical
harvesting more than offset these increased receipts. Production costs
were assumed to be the same for both systems.








Footnotes to Table 5 (Continued).
Includes 1/3 rake, goat trucks, pickup machine.

eIncludes 1/3 rake, and 1/2 mulcher.

Includes cost of fuel truck and crew truck.






Table 6.--Comparlson of costs, revenue, and net returns per acre from
oranges for the hand harvesting and the limb shaker systems
in Florida, 1973-74 season

System
Item Unit Hand
Hand Limb
pick shaker


Production Boxes/acre 315a 296.1
Fruit price Dollars/box 2.71 2.71
Total receipts Dollars/acre 853.65 802.43

r' duction cste Dollars/acre 295.61 295.61
Harvest cost :
Labor Dollars/acre 252.32? 55.67.
Machinery Dollars/acre 27.09' 139.171
Total cost Dollars/acre 575.02 490.45

Net returns Dollars/acre 278.63 311.98

The production selected as typical in this study was 315 boxes per
acre.


bNinety-four percent of the amount of fruit recovered


by hand picking.


Typical delivered-in price. Use appropriate price for other situ-
ations.
d(Boxes per acre) x (fruit price).

fBased on Brooke [5, p. 8]. If production costs per acre were dif-
.i. nt for the two systems due to different cultural practices or for
other reasons, the difference would be reflected in this item.

Does not include lost-fruit cost because the additional fruit loss
for the mechanical system shows up as reduced total receipts.

9($0.801 labor subtotal for hand harvest, Table 5) x (315 boxes per
acre). If the hourly labor wage is different than $2.50, estimate the per
acre labor cost by multiplying the labor cost at the $2.50 wage by the
ratio of the desired wage to $2.50.
h($0.188 labor subtotal for limb shaker, Table 5) x (296.1 boxes per
acre) .

'($0.086 machinery subtotal for hand harvest, Table 5) x (315 boxes
r acre) .

J($0.470 machinery subtotal for limb shaker, Table 5) x (296.1 boxes
per acre).






FACTORS AFFECTING HARVESTING COST


The above estimates were based on cost, price, and grove conditions
chosen as typical for the 1973-74 season. In this section the effects of
changes in grove labor wages, fruit prices, production levels, and fruit
losses on the cost of harvesting oranges are examined.


Effect of Wages on Harvesting Cost


Costs for picking oranges have been increasing rapidly since the
1966-67 season [12, p. 10]. Labor costs have been increasing faster than
others. Estimates of harvesting costs were derived for different hourly
grove labor wages to determine the effects of such changes on total costs.
An increase in labor cost resulted in an almost proportional increase
in the total cost for hand harvesting. Each 25 percent increase in the
grove labor wage caused about a $0.20 per box increase in hand harvesting
cost. Increasing the grove labor wage from $2.50 per hour to $3.13 re-
sults in a 22 percent increase in the total hand picking costs from
$0.89 to $1.09 per box (Table 7).


Table 7.--Estimated total harvesting costs per box recovered for oranges "'n
Florida with selected harvesting systems and alternative grove
labor wages, 1973-74 season

Hourly labor wage
System ----- -- -------
$2.50 $3.13 $3.75 $4.38 $5.00

------------------Dollars per box---------------.----

Hand harvest .888 1.087 1.288 1.488 1.688
Trunk shaker .746 .789 .830 .872 .913
Limb shaker .766 .814 .860 .908 .954
Waterblast .796 .844 .891 .940 .986
Airharvest .816 .855 .894 .933 .972

Shaker-catching frame 1.146 1.211 1.274 1.340 1.404
Partial trunk shaker .797 .837 .877 .898 .960
Half limb shaker .816 .862 .907 .953 .998
Partial waterblast .846 .893 .938 .985 1.030
Partial limb shaker .977 1.023 1.068 1.114 1.159

Based on a $2.71 per box fruit price, 315 boxes per acre
production, and fruit losses typical for each system.






Higher grove labor wages also would raise harvesting cost for the
mechanical systems, but the increase would be smaller than for hand picking.
Raising grove labor wages 25 percent from the $2.50 hourly rate results in
a $0.04 per box increase from $0.74 to $0.78 in total harvesting cost for
the trunk shaker system. This contrasts with the $0.20 per box increase
for hand harvesting due to the same wage increase.
The effects of higher grove labor wages on harvesting costs are
illustrated in Figure 2. Mechanical harvesting cost less than hand pick-
ing at grove labor wages between $2.50 and $5.00 per hour for all but two
of the mechanical systems. The two exceptions were the shaker-catching
frame and the partial limb shaker systems. But, as wages increased, total
harvesting cost for these two systems also dropped below hand picking costs.
The "break-even point" (that wage at which harvesting costs for a mechan-
ical system and hand picking were the same) for the shaker-catching frame
system was at a grove labor wage of about $3.55 per hour. For the partial
limb shaker, the break-even labor cost was about $2.80 per hour. At grove
labor wages above the break-even point, hand picking cost more than mech-
anical harvesting.
Harvesting costs for the trunk shaker, limb shaker, waterblast, air-
harvest, partial trunk shaker, half limb shaker, and partial waterblast
systems were within a narrow range over all wage levels. At the $2.50
hourly wage, harvesting costs for these seven systems were all between
$0.75 and $0.85 per box. At the highest wage, $5.00 per hour, harvesting
costs for these systems were still within a $0.12 per box range--$0.91 to
$1.03 per box.
Increasing wages affected costs for some of the mechanical harvesting
systems differently than others. Those harvesting systems having the
highest labor requirements per box became relatively more costly at higher
wage rates than harvesting systems with lower per box labor requirements.
For example, the half limb shaker system had a per box labor requirement
of 0.0575 hours while the airharvest system had a 0.0493 hour per box


6
Different vertical scales are used in the two parts of Figure 2
to enhance legibility.








Cost per box in dollars
1.02


.98








.86


.82


.78


.74 .

2.50 3.13 3.75 4.38 5.00

Hourly wage in dollars

Figure 2.--Estimated costs per box recovered for harvesting oranges in Florida with
selected harvesting systems at alternative grove labor wages, 1973-74 season

Continued











Cost per box in dollars
1.78


1.62



1.46

Scratching frame
1.30






.98


.82


2.50 3.13 3.75 4.38 5.00
Hourly wage in dollars

Figure 2.--Estimated costs per box recovered for harvesting oranges in Florida
with selected harvesting systems at alternative grove labor wages,
1973-74 season (Continued)






requirement. As wages increased from $2.50 to $5.00 per hour, harvesting
cost for the half limb shaker increased $0.18 per box from $0.82 to $1.00
while the harvesting cost for the airharvest system increased $0.16 per
box from $0.82 to $0.98 per box. Costs for the airharvest system were
about $0.02 per box higher than the waterblast system at the $2.50 hourly
labor cost. But due to the above reason, costs for the airharvest system
fell below the waterblast system costs at a $3.95 hourly wage.


Effect of Fruit Price on Harvesting Cost


Fruit price affects the mechanical harvesting cost through its effect
on the lost-fruit cost. Harvesting costs were estimated using five dif-
ferent fruit prices to determine the effects on the cost of mechanical
harvesting. The prices were $1.29, $1.78, $2.71, $3.63, and $4.10 per
box on a "delivered-in" basis. These delivered-in prices were converted
to "on-tree" prices by subtracting $1.02 per box ($0.888 hand picking
cost + $0.136 hauling cost). The resulting on-tree prices were $0.27,
$0.76, $1.69, $2.61, and $3.08 per box.
Lost-fruit cost was not charged against hand picking because that
system was the standard by which fruit losses for the mechanical systems
were estimated. Consequently, fruit price did not affect hand picking
costs (Table 8 and Figure 3). Harvesting costs for the trunk shaker sys-
tem increased $0.21 per box from $0.64 at a $1.29 fruit price to $0.85 at
a $4.10 price. Costs for other mechanical harvesting systems showed
similar changes.
Higher fruit prices changed the relative costs of some systems.
At the $2.71 price, hand picking cost less than harvesting with the partial
limb shaker and the shaker-catching frame systems, but more than all the
other mechanical systems. When the fruit price increased to $4.10 per
box, only the limb shaker and the trunk shaker systems cost less than hand
picking. The critical fruit prices, at which mechanical harvesting be-
comes more costly than hand harvesting, were $3.20 per box for the partial
waterblast system, $3.50 per box for the airharvest system, $4.00 per box
for the partial trunk shaker system, $3.80 per box for the half limb shaker
system, and $3.90 per box for the waterblast system.






Table 8.--Estimated total costs per box recovered for harvesting oranges in
Florida with selected harvesting systems and alternative fruit
prices, 1973-74 season

Delivered-in fruit price per box
System
$1.29 $1.78 $2.71 $3.63 $4.10

_------------------ Dollars per box ----------------

Hand harvest .88 .888 .888 .888 .888
Trunk shaker .640 .677 .746 .816 .851
Limb shaker .675 .706 / .825 .855
Waterblast .6b8 .726 .796 .865 .901
Airharvest .692 .735 .816 .896 .937

Shaker-catching frame 1.071 1.096 1.146 1.194 1.219
Partial trunk shaker .690 .727 .7.7 .866 .902
Half limb shaker .725 .756 .816 .875 .904
Partial waterblast .740 .777 .4 .916 .951
Partial limb shaker .886 .918 .977 1.036 1.066

Based on a $2.50 hourly .ir.'e wage, 315 boxes per acre production,
and fruit losses typical for each system.


The fruit price changes in this study aff-cLed the level of mechan-
ical harvesting costs, but there were no critical prices at which one
mechanical system changed from a higher cost system to a lower cost system
than another mechanical system, Fruit price ch~ldia s had their greatest
effect on the costs for the airharvest system because it had the highest
average fruit loss of any system. Costs increased from $0.69 per box at
the $1.29 fruit price to $0.94 at the $4.10 price.


Effect of Production Level on Harveting Cost


The amount of fruit on the trees affects the amount of fruit that can
be harvested annually. Higher production per acre results in greater har-
vester output and lower cost per box for the mechanical harvesting systems.7
Harvesting costs were estimated for five different production levels to



Rate of harvesting, in acres per day, for the mechanical systems was
assumed to remain about constant over a -range of on-tree production levels.
It was felt that removal units could operate about as rapidly through trees
heavily laden with fruit as through those with less fruit on them.







Cost per box in dollars


3





i

I



i
I
i
r






i.

!;


1. 1.30 1.80 2.i0 2.40 2.70 3.CO 3.30 3,60 3.90 4,

Price in dollars per box

Figure 3.-Estimated costs per box recovered for harvesting oranges in Florida with
selected harvesting systems at alternative delivered-in fruit prices,
1973-74 season

Continued


''
,
,-
~- --
''

-sr;" -~J"'


:' harvest


,~,rc
.-
r~3


g~c
sr~"'
~9-" ,-"~'












Cost per box in dollars


pr. bs


I I_ _l ~ _~ I~ _


1.20 1.50


1.80 2.10 2.40 2.70 3.00 3.30 3.60 3.90 4.20


Price in dollars per box

Figure 3.--Estimated costs per box recov'/-ed for harvesting o-.srgs in Florida with
selected harvesting systems at alternative delivered-in prices, 1973-74
season (Continued)


1.17





1.01






.85


ShaerC achngfr'ame






to determine the effects on costs of mechanical harvesting (Table 9 and
Fi .^ 4).
Harvesting costs for all methods decreased as the production level
increased. Hand picking costs decreased $0.57 per box from $1.23 at the
175 box per acre production level to $0.66 at the 455 box per acre level.
Costs for the mechanical systems decreased even more than hand picking
costs. Harvesting costs for the trunk shaker system decreased $0.65 per
box from $1.22 at the 175 box per acre production level to $0.57 at the
'rr box per acre level. Costs for the other mechanical systems showed
similar declines.


Table 9.--Estimated total costs per box recovered for harvesting oranges
in Florida with selected harvesting systems at alternative
production levels, 1973-74 season

Production (boxes per acre)b
System ---
175 245 315 385 455

---... -----------Dollars per box------------------

Hand harvest 1.230 1.045 .888 .758 .658
Trunk shaker 1.216 .912 .746 .644 .573
Limb shaker 1.271 .944 .766 .654 .578
Waterblast 1.306 .976 .796 .684 .608
Airharvest 1.321 .993 .816 .705 .630

S.*.<:r-catching frame 1.973 1.439 1.146 .960 .832
Partial trunk shaker 1,307 .977 .797 .685 .608
Half limb shaker 1.360 1.008 .816 .695 .612
Partial waterblast 1.396 1.040 .846 .725 .642
Partial limb shaker 1.651 1.216 .977 .827 .724

I-jed on a delivered-in fruit price of $2.71 per box, a grove labor
I.. of $2.50 per hour, and fruit losses typical for each system.

Production is hand-pick equivalent, equal to the amount of fruit
which normally would be recovered by hand picking. The mechanical systems,
due to additional fruit loss, recover less than the hand-pick equivalent.


There were no critical production levels at which one mechanical
.-" .i became less costly than another. However, there were critical pro-
duction levels where hand harvesting costs changed from being less ex-
. .,ive to being more xpcn.-ive than a mechanical system. Hand picking
was the least costly system at production levels below 170 boxes per acre.







Cost per box in dollars



1.55


2 Hand harvest
2 Partial waterblast
1.35 3 Airharvest
4 Waterblast
5 Trunk shaker

1.15




.95



S75 5




.55


175 210 245 280 315 350 385 420
Hand-pick equivalent production--boxes per acre

Figure 4.--Estimated costs per box recovered for harvesting oranges in Florida with selected
harvesting systems at alternative production levels, 1973-74 season
Continued















I -
2.




1.80 _




1.50




1.20




.90




.60


385


Hand-pick equivalent production--boxes per acre

Fi *..-e 4.--Estimated costs per box recovered for harvesting oranges in Florida with selected
harvesting .-=stema at alternative production levels, 1973-74 season (Continued


1 Hand harvest
6 Shaker-catching frame
7 Partial limb shaker
8 Half limb shaker
9 Partial trunk shaker
10 Limb shaker


245


d_ I 1 1 .I I I i _I






At production levels above 170 boxes per acre the trunk shaker system be-
came less costly than hand picking. Other critical production levels were:
180 boxes per acre for the limb shaker system, 200 boxes per acre for the
airharvest, partial trunk shaker, and waterblast systems, and 240 boxes per
acre for the partial waterblast and half limb shaker systems.
Harvesting cost per box decreased faster for mechanical systems than
for hand harvesting as the production level per tree increased. The mech-
anical systems had relatively high fixed costs, while the hand picking sys-
tem had relatively low fixed costs. All the harvesting methods harvested
more fruit per day when per acre production rates were high than when they
were low. These higher daily harvesting rates resulted in lowered average
fixed cost per box. Since fixed costs were a larger part of total harvest-
ing cost for the mechanical systems, the reduction in total harvesting costs
were larger than for hand harvesting.

Effect of Grove Size on the Cost
of Mechanical Harvesting


With some of the mechanical systems it is necessary to harvest at
least 700 acres annually to realize costs as low as those estimated in
this study. Many groves do not have such acreages available for mechan-
ical harvest. Harvesting cost estimates were derived for several differ-
ent annual usage levels to determine the effect on harvesting costs.
Hand harvesting costs were assumed to remain constant at $0.888 per
box for all acreages (Table 10). At least 260 acres of mechanically har-
vested oranges per season would be required for mechanical harvesting.to
be less costly than hand harvesting. Harvesting with the partial trunk
shaker system cost less than hand picking at acreages above 260. The step-
type partition in Table 14 indicates the critical acreages for the re-
spective mechanical systems where mechanical harvesting costs are at least
as low as hand harvesting costs.
When mechanical harvesting is adopted, large producers, harvesting
firms, and cooperatives will tend to have a cost advantage over small- and
medium-sized producers. The size requirement for making ownership of a
mechanical harvesting system profitable is relatively large compared with
the acreages of fruit owned by most Florida citrus producers. Only the
relatively large producers will find it feasible to own mechanical harvest-
ing equipment.




Table ..--Estimate costs per box recovered for harvesting .-: with selected ard -. n ora,
1973- season

;tem "R.S used per season

30 35 40 45 50 55 i 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

---- ----------..-.- -- ------.------------ Acres per season----------------------------.--------
240 280 320 360 400 440 480 520 560 600 640 680 720
---------------------------------------Dollars er box-------------------------------------

Hand harvest .' .888 .888 .888 .888 .888 .888 .838 .888 .888 .888 .888 .888

Trunk shaker 1.043 .980 .932 .895 .865 .841 .821 .:- .789 .776 .765 .755 .746

Linb shaker 1.090 1.021 .969 .928 .896 .869 .847 .828 .812 .798 .;.6 .776 .766

Waterblast 1o 08 1.041 .991 .952 .921 .896 i .874 .856 .827 .816 .: 5 .796

Airharvest 1.181 1.103 1.044 .998 .962 .932 .907 1 .886 .868 .852 .839 .826 .816
------------------.-----------------.----- Acres per season ----------------------------------
120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
..------------------------------------------Dollarper box --------- -------.--------------------

Partial trunk shaker 1.199 1.113 1.048 .998 .958 .925 .898 .874 .855 .837 .822 .809 .797

Half limt shaker 1.244 1.153 1.084 1.030 .988 .952 .923 .898 .877 .859 .843 .828 .816

Partial waterblast 1.264 1.175 1.108 1.056 1.014 .980 .951 .927 .906 .888 .873 .859 .846
------------------------------------------ ---Acres per season-------------------------------------
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
-------------------------------------------Dollars per box--------------------- --------------

Partial limb shaker 1.701 1.546 1.430 1.339 1.267 1.208 1.158 1.116 1.081 1.050 1.022 .998 .977






Effect of Recovery Rate on Harvestin Costs


A higher percentage fruit recovery results in a lower fruit loss and
lower harvesting costs than a lower percentage fruit recovery. Harvesting
costs were estimated using several fruit recovery rates to illustrate the
effects on costs for mechanical harvesting, for the airharvest system.
Harvesting costs decreased as the recovery rate increased (Table 11
and Figure 5). Harvesting costs at the $2.71 fruit price decreased $0.44
per box from $1.05 with 84 percent fruit recovery rate to $0.61 when the
fruit recovery rate was 100 percent of the hand harvest recovery.
The fruit recovery rate affected costs more when fruit prices were high
than when they were low. For example, at the $4.10 per box delivered-in
fruit price, a 4 percent change in the recovery rate from 84 to 88 percent
resulted in a $0.20 per box decrease in harvesting cost. But with the
delivered-in fruit price at only $1.29 per box, the same 4 percent change
in recovery rate resulted in only a $0.05 per box decrease in harvesting
costs. At the 100 percent fruit recovery rate, or the same recovery as
with hand picking, the harvesting cost with the airharvest system would
have been about $0.61 per box.


Table 11.--Estimated costs per box recovered for harvesting oranges with
the airharvest system at selected fruitaprices and fruit re-
covery rates in Florida, 1973-74 season

Delivered-in Recovery rates percentt)
price per box 84 88 92 96 100

--.---.--.---------- Dollars -er box. -----------------

1.29 .784 .736 .692 .652 .615
1.78 .877 .803 .735 .673 .615
2.71 1.054 .930 .816 .712 .615
3.63 1.229 1.055 .896 .750 .615
4.10 1.319 1.119 .937 .769 .615

aBased on a $2.50 hourly grove labor wage and 315 boxes per acre
production.

percent of hand picking recovery rate.




Cost --=- box in dollars


1.34



1 .22



1.10



.98



.86 $1.78

$1. 29

.74



.62

1 1 I I 1 !
84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98
Percent recovery

Figure 5.--Estimated costs per box recovered for harvesting oranges in Florida with the airharvest
system at selected recovery rates and fruit prices, 1973-74 season






Ef fi1-c. of V aI.' iiOb ReC v'E"y P 1.'



In the above section, the percentage fruit recovery rates were assumed
constant over all production levels. More fruit would be left on a high
producing tree, with a given recovery rate, than on a low producing tree.
But, if the harvester operator tended to continue the removal op ra:ion
until a certain number of fruit remained on the tree rather than a certain
perCF-nt.ge- of the tree's production, the fruit recov.i-ey rate would tend to
vary with the production level. A greater po-c:,-.~l e of the fruit would
be recovered from high r.,-!r'.uccing trees than from low producing trees. Har-
vesting costs for seven of the mechanical systems were developed at fruit
recovery rates 4 p-rccniage points higher and 4 percentage points lower
than the typical rates specified in Table 4.
A variable percentage fruit recovery rate results in the production
level having a more pronounced effect on mechanical harvesting costs than
a constant percentluc., recovery rate. Harvesting cost for the trunk shaker
system decreased $0.86 per box from $1.33 at the 175 box per acre production
level to $0.47 at the 455 box production level when the fruit recovery rate
was variable (Table 12). This was a larger reduction in harvesting cost
than the $0.65 decline when the pe-;.'-niacie recovery rate was assumed con-
stant at all production levels (Table 9). The decline in harvesting cost
was most pronounced with the half limb shaker and partial waterblast sys-
tems. Costs for both systems were about $0.98 per box lower for the 455
box production level than for the 175 box level. Reductions were about
$0.76 when the recovery rate was assumed constant.

ii rii s wit.h Oi.h'-r Si'il e,


Cost estimates derived in this study were compared .q;th results of
other studies in which mechanical harvesting costs for 'iIIres, were esti-
mated. Cost data collected on the airharvest system during the early and
midseason harvest of the :'>7-"73 season indicated an average cost of $0.834





Table 12.--Estimated total costs per box recovered for harvesting oranges
in Florida with selected harvesting systems at bhree production
levels and three recovery rates, 1973-74 season

Hand-pick equivalent production
(boxes per acre)
System 175 315 455

Low Median b High
removal rate removal rate removal rate

-----------------Dollars per box------------------

Hand harvest 1.230 .888 .658
Trunk shaker 1.332 .746 .470
Limb shaker 1.387 .766 .476
Waterblast 1.425 .796 .503
Airharvest 1.442 .816 .524

Partial trunk shaker 1.426 .797 .504
Half limb shaker 1.481 .816 .509
Partial waterblast 1.520 .846 .537

Based on a fruit price of $2.71 per box and a grove labor wage of
$2.50 per hour.
The median removal rates were 92 percent for the airharvest system,
94 percent for the limb shaker systems, and 93 percent for the trunk
shaker and waterblast systems. Low removal rates were 4 percent below
these median levels and the high removal rates were 4 percent higher than
the medians.

8
to harvest and haul the fruit to the processing plant. This i)92-73
season harvesting cost did not include a chri.-j for lost fruit due to
mechanical harvesting, while harvesting costs developed in this study did
not include the cost for hauling to the processing plant. If the $0.136
per box hauling cost (Table 5) is subtracted from the 1972-73 season esti-
mate, a cost of $0.698 remains. The estimate of harvesting cost for the
airharvest *,-tem derived in this study was ''..816 per box (based on a
.-50 hourly wage, a 71 per box fruit price, and 315 box ;.:' acre E...:'
duction level). This included a $0.147 per box lost-fruit cost (Table 5).



Based on unpublished results from Charles L. Anderson, Extension
. mrij st, Agricultural Research and Education Center, Lake Alfred,
' ori, .. : [33.






Subtracting the lost-fruit cost gives an estimated cost of $0.669 per box.
This is very comparable to the $0,698 per box cost for the 1972-73 season.
Average orange harvesting costs for the 1971-72 season were $0.709
per box [12, p. 3]. Hand picking costs have increased since the 1971-72
season. During the previous five years harvesting costs increased about
9 percent annually [5]. Labor shortages were experienced during the 1972-
73 season, resulting in additional harvest cost increases. If the 1971-72
season costs of $0.709 per box is projected two seasons at 9 percent annual
increases, the projected 1973-74 season cost would be $0.842 per box. This
compares to the hand picking cost estimated for the 1973-74 season in this
study of $0.888 per box. Due to the labor shortage during the 1972-73
season, the increase in harvesting costs for the 1972-73 and 1973-74 sea-
sons may have been even greater than 9 percent. This would raise the pro-
jected hand harvesting cost closer to the estimate derived in this study.
The above comparisons provide one method of evaluating the estimates
developed in this study. Both comparisons indicate that estimates derived
herein are comparable with similar estimates derived from actual cost data.

EFFECTS OF HARVEST MECHANIZATION
ON THE FLORIDA CITRUS INDUSTRY


Adoption of harvest mechanization affects the labor and capital
investment requirements and could change the competitive nature of smaller
firms in the Florida citrus industry. Hand harvesting requires a capital
investment in harvesting equipment of $5,140 per 100,000 boxes of fruit
harvested. The airharvest system requires nearly $14,190 per 100,000
boxes. Labor requirements show the opposite relationship, being relatively
high for hand picking and relatively low for mechanical harvesting. Some
effects of adopting harvest mechanization are examined below.

Effects of Mechanization on Labor


Changes in Use per Acre


Labor requirements per acre decrease with adoption of harvest mechan-
ization. Average labor needs for the mechanical harvesting systems range
from 14.63 to 18.00 hours per acre (Table 13). Hand picking requires an
average of 66.81 hours per acre.






Table 13.--Estimated capital and labor use for selected orange harvesting
systems in Florida, 1973-74 season

Capital Value of Labor
equipment
System investment easume n used
assumed on
a b
per system hand per acre

-------Dollars------------ ---Hours-----

Hand harvest 16,900 N/A 66.81
Trunk shaker 123,000 30,000 15.75
Limb shaker 135,000 30,000 18.00
Waterblast 129,000 47,800 18.00
Airharvest 148,000 47,800 18.00

Shaker-catching frame 78,000 29,000 27.25
Partial trunk shaker 83,500 30,000 15.25
Half limb shaker 89,500 30,000 17.50
Partial waterblast 86,500 38,900 17.50
Partial limb shaker 76,500 30,000 17.50


alncludes items such as tank truck, sprayer and tractor,
trim equipment, and tractor for pulling the pickup machine.


survey and


b
Based on 315 boxes per acre.

Change in Total Use

Potential changes in total labor use due to adoption of harvest mech-
anization for early and midseason processing oranges were estimated at
48,600 worker months. This is the difference in labor needs between har-
vesting the early and midseason processing orange crop by hand and with
the limb shaker harvesting system. The average total production of or-
anges in Florida during the 1970-71 and 1971-72 seasons was 144,800,000
boxes, of which 130,023,000 boxes or 89.8 percent were processed (Table 14).


Table 14.--Utilization of Florida orange crop, 1970-71 and 1971-72 seasons

Early and midseason Valencia
Season
easoProduction Production
Processed Total Processed Total

-------------------------Boxes --------------------------
1970-71 76,604,000 87,100,000 54,294,000 60,200,000
1971-72 66,222,000 75,100,000 62,926,000 68,200,000
Average 71,413,000 80,600,000 58,610,000 64,200,000

Source: [8].







F ine r' cent-- 413,. 1 e idFs ot

processing, It wns assumed thai one : thre i.S

for ., market s sold as t, other t wao ..

graded out and sold as I. it. V 6K
i the total I could be harvesteni rec.f *

simi lar : r acre '. "tion all v Sinf'i .6

acr could be harvested mechanical '

ac' is acres n h. ica' i ;

i 1 mb shaker tem, usi a crow r

acres per c t, ou ld harvest the a 2AI

the itmatey .' early and mnIdsescmi hr tve.:.,

vest:i ,tem, a crew of workers hvt; V !,:, p

method would re 21,' workers 0- to harvest t :h-

;is is a di in labor use about, 16, & 0 4 s t

season, or .,''* worker months',


t ion harvest mechanization eI ; a 4 lai

Each equi it ., -aor it creates

icaN harvest L are ..i C' e


." 4 '
44dF."Shj


so id a
duct'Son) ( *
mechanical' .
boxes total

10
0Harv ;t
iienn it was


. boxes I. 1) x i boee na
., .1iO:O boxes hand p iked, ;
*1, ** boxes han- d pi ,
('. r0 ', boxes harvs:te; d mechan : :.
* tion) 0, "' 6 .:


For the
' two


:ed
6 ,,a


AVW


acres) (8 acr
) (16 workers per


I- '


S i, 4' ) \)
ii '! 3 ew3 .


At en 1 + 4
Sir S


:ns 6,;


. n eked

asu nled


* workers






the labor requirement for the trunk shaker harvesting system is for
i, i.r-. .fi:..ration, For hand harvesting, only about 7 percent of the
labor requirement is for equipment operation. Some retraining of workers
*.- be necessary with adoption of mechanical harvesting.


EI: ':; of Harvest Mechanization onCapital Use


New investment in a "full" mechanical harvesting system would ex-
ceed $120,000 (Table 13). In addition, about $30,000 of equipment al-
ready on hand would be used. Hand picking requires about $58,000 in capital
investment for an equivalent amount of fruit.1
Harvesting the early and midseason processing oranges mechanically
would require a total new investment of $44,280,000. The estimate was de-
rived following the same procedures used in the previous section. The
limb shaker system was assumed to be operated on 236,200 acres of early
and midseason processing oranges. The estimated new investment for pur-
chasing the 328 full limb shaker systems needed to harvest this acreage
is $44,280,000.14


'.i.tial Mechanization of Valencies


The Valencia or late season oranges present a special problem for
harvest mechanization. The following year's crop of fruit has set and
started to grow before the Valencia oranges are harvested. The mechanical
In,;' in this study tend to remove part of the immature crop along with
the mature *'..rqri' thereby reducing next year's production. Hand pick-
';*. and dropping fruit for mechanical collection might be one harvesting
method suitable for the Valencia variety.




138 acres .. day) (2. acres .day) = 3.45 crews. (3.45
crews) x ($16,900 u crew) = $',:.,300 to harvest eight acres ptr day.

14( )r,.. 29,'.'. system days. (29,525 :'em days) t (90 day season) = 328 systems.
( :.:'' s-r-m) x ($135,000 new investment per system) = $44,280,000.






Data were not available on the .cki,. rate with a ",.ck and .Eir.,'
.,. However, the costs '.... ''...,. cleani',., ,tuit collection, and in-
.. ,...i..~ci; at ion were estimated to be $0.;r. per box [11, p. .:'
to $0.56 per box could be p.-.r to pick and drop !r- it and still maintain a
total harvesting cost equal to or less than the .,i. .W' hand harvestin"- cost
estimated for the ,'/. '-74 season.
Such a system would reduce the picking labor requirement '.:: Valencia
oranges, in addition, it would permit using some of the same ~.aruipment ',
harvesting both early and midseason varieties and the Valencia varic:-i.


FrU i 'l;s A .Fl-.Li 'ING ADOPTION OF Mf.L-lii ICAL i:: .:.i iji;


Considerations other than direct costs are i ,:'t.~ant- when considering
.,'ion of mechanical harvesting. Some of these considerations are exam-
ined in this section.


Fresh Market Fruit


The mechanical systems do not harvest .-i .market ',it -. "ly.
..,i,. bruises occurs during .-,it removal and mechanical handli,-. This
reduces keeping quality and .. -sli,-.:1 -.' c i.i; unit, In addition, the
abscission chemical causes pitting and discoloration the --..1 which
makes the fruit undesirable for the ; .- market.





Two rn-;,.-, are on the tree when the Valencia variety Is harvested; one
is the mature 'itit which is to be harvested, the other is the immature
fruit -.-e-senting the next season's I s -l. .ical harvesti, tends to
if~'ove ~ portion the i~nmature :.it, redueci production on the ofollow-
I s F.. -., ii an i'i,,-oved method t harvesting Valencias is
devi eloped, this *,..t .. the -.. .w ill continue to be hand picked.
uc i. labor use harvest. the ear" and midseason varieties
cause a lem in recruiting .*.. client labor harvest ': the Valencia
,Lt .*, -. may find it is to ide work duri. i the
ear':' and midseason orange harvest to retain x cki.:-. crew :ii the Valencia






harvest. Adoption of a pick and drop method such as discussed earlier
would help reduce the labor recruitment problem for Valencias.5


Grove Damage


Adoption of harvest mechanization may be retarded if mechanical fruit
removal affects the health of the tree. Current indications are that mech-
anical fruit removal does not affect future production. If further ex-
perience indicates there is a delayed effect, resulting in lower pro-
duction in future crops, adoption would be slowed.


Added Risks


The possibility of a mechanical harvesting system becoming obsolete
is a risk to the person investing in a new system. Improved systems or a
system suitable for harvesting both early and midseason and Valencia var-
ieties may be developed, making the present type harvesters obsolete.
Harvesting firms and growers might adopt mechanical harvesting faster if
risk from obsolescence were shifted to someone else through leasing arrange-
ments.
In addition to obsolescence, there is an added risk for mechanical
harvesting because a larger part of total harvesting costs are fixed for
the mechanical systems than for hand picking. Consequently, if a freeze
or other disaster occurs and little or no crop is harvested, the firm
still incurs the high fixed costs with the mechanical systems. In con-
trast, the large variable costs for the hand picking system are not in-
curred in such a situation.




1Florida citrus specialists indicate that recent mechanical harvest-
ing efforts with Valencia oranges using experimental abscission chemicals
are "encouraging." If a satisfactory method is developed for harvesting
Valencia oranges mechanically, it would represent a major stride toward
widespread adoption of mechanical citrus harvesting.




42

Labor Availabi1lty


A .iurLta e of picker labor occurred during the 1972-73 season. A
potential shIi !raqt of up to 4,500 pickers was predicted for -ib-.: ~17 j-.
season with even yieat.er shortages anticipated in tuLur.. seasons (7, p. 31.
Continuation of the present labor -.-lu.-r;, in the Florida citrus industry
will tend to increase the rapidity at which mechanical harvesting is
adopted.
































APPENDICES












APPENDIX A


HARVESTING METHODS


Four operations were identified for mechanical harvesting: (1) pre-
harvest practices, (2) fruit removal, (3) fruit collection and in-grove
transportation, and (4) postharvest operations. Each of the mechanical
harvesting systems includes a method for performing these operations.
The systems are identified by the method used for removing the fruit from
the tree.


Preharvest Practices


Mechanical harvesting requires several preharvest practices not
needed for hand picking. A small crew, usually two men, trims tree skirts
to a height of at least 12 inches. This allows the sweep rake to operate
under the trees. The crew is equipped with a small tractor, a trailer,
and a chain saw. Most firms were assumed to own this equipment already,
so no fixed cost was charged for its use. A two-man crew was assumed to
prepare one acre (about 70 trees) per hour. The trimming operation might
be performed during periods of low labor requirements to distribute labor
and equipment use. Soil types and grove topography also are checked for
unique characteristics at this time. Areas within the grove, such as
fence rows, ditches, or embankments, which present special problems for
mechanical harvesting are identified. This allows the foreman to plan
in advance for problems he may encounter in the grove.
Five days prior to the scheduled fruit removal, the trees to be
harvested are sprayed with an abscission chemical which loosens the fruit
from the stems. The abscission chemical causes some pitting and discolor-
ation of the peel, making the fruit undesirable for the fresh market.
This pitting and discoloration does not hinder processing the fruit.
An air-blast sprayer and a supply tank truck were assumed to be used
in the spraying operation. Fixed costs were not charged because firms
45






using a mechanical harvesting system were assumed to own this equipment
already. Coverage of all the fruit is essential to obtain the desired
loosening effect of thp abscission chemical. To insure thorough coverage
one row was assumed to be sprayed at a time. The sprayer was operated at
one mile per hour or about 1-1/2 acres per hour.
The grove is cleaned of rubbish such as cans, bottles, sticks, and
rotten fruit by raking it to the middle of the rows several days prior to
fruit removal. A "cultimulcher" incorporates the rubbish into the soil.
The rake, a "sweep type,"consists of numerous horizontal flexible
bristles. The unit sweeps under trees and retracts around trunks. The
rake mounts to a 65 horsepower tractor. It can rake about 3.75 acres per
hour. The cultimulcher mounts to a 96 horsepower tractor and can prepare
about 2-2/3 acres of grove per hour.
The shaker-catching frame system did not include raking and mulching
because the fruit was not dropped to the ground but was dropped into the
catching frame. Two workers were employed for this system to pick up
fruit which may have missed the catching frame and fallen to the ground.


Fruit Removal


Airharvest System


The afrharvest machine consists of a heavy duty tandem trailer with
two 120 horsepower vertically mounted engines that power three large fans.
The fans produce a high velocity air-blast directed into the trees to
knock the fruit to the ground.
A 96 horsepower tractor pulls the airharvest machine at a ground speed
of one mile per hour. The tractor driver is the only worker involved in
the operation. Each tree is air-blasted from both sides to obtain thorough
removal. Harvesting capacity is about 1-1/3 acres per hour of operation.
The abscission chemical must be effective for the airhprvest system
to operate efficiently. Almost all fruit can be removed if the abscission



The sw'ecp type rake was used in this stud..". itheri type rakes are
available and are being used to harvest co-'iii'-L mechanically in Florida.






chemical is effective. Only 80 to 90 percent removal can be expected if
the chemical has had less than its full effect. Extending the period of
airblast does not substantially increase fruit removal. The average fruit
recovery rate over a season with the airharvest system was estimated at
92 percent of the hand picking recovery rate. Some leaf removal occurs
with this system, but users have indicated they do not think it is serious
enough to reduce future production.


Trunk Shaker System


The trunk shaker harvester is a self-propelled vehicle powered by a
96 horsepower engine. The operator is the only worker required for the
fruit removal operation. A remotely controlled shaker boom clamps around
the tree trunk. Tree trunks need to be at least two feet long for the
shaker to perform effectively. If trees do not meet this requirement, the
shaker boom may be fastened to the main limbs. This latter practice is
time consuming and may result in broken limbs.
The trunk shaker machine will remove fruit at a rate of about 52
trees per hour or about four acres of trees per day. Average fruit removal
for the season was estimated at 93 percent of the hand picking removal
rate. Effectiveness of the abscission chemical may be less critical for
the trunk shaker than for the airharvest system. Trees can be shaken
more vigorously, if necessary, to remove additional fruit. Increasing
shaking time will also increase fruit removal if the abscission chemical
has not been fully effective. Fruit hanging on very long, thin branches
is difficult to remove with this system.
The trunk shaker removes some leaves and dead wood from the trees.
Since dead wood may be a disease harboring area, its removal is a desir-
able side effect. The effect of shaking the trees on future production
is unknown. Users of this system indicate they do not think shaking causes
serious injury to tree health. In this study shaking was assumed to have
no effect on future production.


Limb Shaker System


The limb shaker machine is a self-propelled vehicle powered by a 50
horsepower engine. Its operation is similar to the trunk shaker, except




48

that the shaker boom clamps to major limbs instead of to the trunk. The
operator is the only labor requirement for this operation, No minimum
trunk length is required. Some shaping or cutting of limbs may be needed,
but this was assumed to have no effect on production.
Since the shaker boom Is clamped to major limbs, several hook-ups are
required. Consequently, the rate of fruit removal is less than for the
trunk shaker. One limb shaker machine removes the fruit from a tree every
two or three minutes, or about two acres per machine per day.
The limb shaker system recovers, on the average, about 94 percent
of the fruit recovered by hand picking. Some leaves and some dead wood
are shaken from the tree by this system.


Shaker-Catchingn Frame System


The shaker-catching frame system removes and gathers fruit in one
operation. Two units operate in parallel on either side of a row of
trees. Each unit is powered by a 42 horsepower engine. One operator on
each unit remotely controls the machine. The machines permit either for-
ward movement parallel to the row or lateral movement peiFendicular to
the row. This enables the catching frame to fit snugly around the tree
trunk.
A limb shaker fitted on each machine removes the fruit and a cushioned
platform or catching frame catches it. D, h,:ihadin conveyers move the fruit
*i', the catching frame to a bulk container on the rear of the machine.
A tractor with a three-point-hitch forklift -il-is~orts the filled con-
tainers from the harvester to groveside where a "lightning lcodeai empties
the containers into the roadside trailer.
The system has several limitations. Tree skirts must be trimmed to
a height of about five feet to allow the catching fiiine to operate under
the trees. Trimming trees to this height would reduce production in many
groves. Daily harvesting capacity of on.- about two acres is a second
limitation of this system.
ai,. shaker-catching .... .. eliminates the need for the rake,
pickup i; t.- t, or trucks since fruit is collected by the catching
'f';-0,. Two workers pick up marketable ~'..it missed by the harvesters.
Fruit recovery was estimated at ''. percent ,.: hand picking recovery.






Waterblast System


The waterblast system consists of a 120 horsepower engine, a water
pump, and a water gun mounted on a trailer towed by a 65 horsepower tractor.
The system also included 1,300 feet of irrigation pipe, 660 feet of ir-
rigation hose, and a reel for the hose.
This system depends upon a nearby, abundant source of water. The
water source could be a lake, a well, the main line of an irrigation sys-
tem, or any other source that would supply at least 500 gallons of water
per minute. Various industry personnel estimate that 50 to 70 percent of
Florida's groves have a water supply adequate for this system. Wells
could be drilled to enable use of the waterblast system in most groves,
but the costs of drilling a well were not included in this study. Most
groves require a booster engine and pump. This equipment was assumed to
be an irrigation pump already owned by the firm; consequently, only the
variable operating costs for its use were charged against the waterblast
system.
The fruit removal operation with the waterblast system requires at
least two workers. One drives the tractor. The other operates the water
gun directing the stream of water under high pressure into the trees
knocking the fruit to the ground. Trees are waterblasted from both sides
requiring two passes between rows. After each two passes, the workers
move the pipe and hose to the next "middle." It may be desirable to have
an extra set of pipe, hose, and workers to keep the equipment operating
continuously. Only the two-man system was considered in this study. One
waterblast machine can remove fruit from about four acres of trees per day.
Nearly all the fruit could be removed with the waterblast harvester
if enough time and care were used in directing the stream of water. Av-
erage fruit recovery was estimated at 93 percent of the hand picking re-
covery.
This system tends to remove more leaves than the other systems and
shreds many of the remaining leaves, giving the trees a ragged appearance
following harvesting. After the trees put out new growth, the grove ap-
p-ers' normal again. The waterblast sft.em also removes some dead wood
from the trees and washes some fungus, bacteria, and other undesirable
material off the trunk and limbs.






Fruit Collectin and In-Grove Tran ortation


All the mechanical systems, except the shaker-catching frame, employ
the same method of fruit collection. It consists of raking the fruit into
a window with the sweep rake, collecting the fruit with a pick-up machine,
loading it into "goat trucks," and transporting it to highway trailers at
rqi a-ves ide.
A tractor equipped with wheel sweeps to reduce fruit damage pulls the
pick-up machine. A pick-up chain lifts the fruit from the window into a
slotted elevator where it is conveyed by a drag chain to a horizontal con-
veyer belt. Most of the sand and other trash falls through the slotted
elevator floor to the ground. One worker removes remaining trash, and
some of the cull fruit as it moves over the conveyer. The conveyer car-
ries the fruit to the goat truck. The pick-up unit covers about eight
acres per day. Three goat trucks are needed to haul the fruit. A dual
hydraulic system on the goat trucks permits lifting and dumping fruit into
highway trailers.


Postharvest Operations


The grove is raked again following fruit collection and remaining
rubbish incorporated Into the soil. This operation leaves the grove clean
and attractive following harvesting. There were no post harvest operations
for the hand harvest and shaker-catching frame systems.


System Comprnents


The above mechanical harvesting systems are referred to as "full"
'.,stn., The equipment components for these systems were selected to ob-
2
tain the lowest total harvesting cost per box.2 These full mechanical
systems include .:nouiuTh removal units to provide h.' stingig capacities of
about eight acres per day, except for the shaker-catching frame. This



2This is only an ."pproximation of minimum cost. In some cases costs
might have been lowered by different combinations of equipment.






system harvests only about two acres per day. Budgets in Appendix B In-
clude a complete equipment list for each system.


Partial Systems


Some growers may not have enough acreage to utilize fully qne of the
full systems. Using one of these full systems on a small acreage would
result in higher fixed cost per box. Partial systems were designed to
reduce the fixed cost for harvesting a smaller acreage. The partial
systems consist of the same equipment as the comparable full systems ex-
cept they have only one rake, two goat trucks, and fewer removal units.
The partial limb shaker system has one limb shaker machine, whereas the
half limb shaker system has two shakers, The partial limb shaker system
harvests about two acres per day. The partial trunk shaker, half limb
shaker, and the partial waterblast systems harvest about four acres per
day. Such systems may be desirable for growers harvesting only a limited
acreage each year.


Hand Harvesting System


The hand harvesting system consists of 18 pickers, a foreman, 20
ladders, 20 ten-box containers, a lightning loader, a crew bus, and a
trailer to carry the ladders. Fruit is picked into picking bags. The
picking bags are emptied into the ten-box containers. Lightning loaders
haul the bulk containers to groveside and empty them into highway trailers.












APPENDIX B


BUDGET DATA


Budget data for each component of a system are itemized separately.
This enables the reader to estimate the effects changes in a system would
have on harvesting costs. The following is an explanation of "items" in
the budgets.


Machines
Machine operation
Size
Purchase price (PP)
Salvage value (SV)


Average value (AV)
Service life
Fixed costs:
Depreciation (D)
Interest (I)
Taxes (T)
Shelter (S)
Insurance (Ih)
License (L)

Total fixed cost (TFC)

Operating costs:
Repair and
lubrication (R & 1)

Fuel (F)


Number of units of each component
Number of hours of machine use per day
Engine size of equipment in horsepower
Estimated new cost of the equipment
Estimated value at end of useful
service life=O.1 PP
(PP + SV) + 2 = (0.55 PP)
Expected years useful life of equipment


(PP SV) + (SL) = cost per year
(0.08 AV) = 0.044 PP = cost per year
(0.01 AV) = 0.0055 PP = cost per year
(0.01 AV) = 0.0055 PP = cost per year
(0.005 AV) = 0.0028 PP = cost per year
License cost per year for highway
vehicles
(D + I + T + S + In + L) ` (days used
per year) = cost per day



(0.15 PP) + (1,000) x (hours used per
day) = cost per day
(0.1) x (maximum pto horsepower) x
($0.26 per gallon) x (hours used per
day) = cost per day






Abscission
chemical (AB)


Variable cost (VC)
Total fixed plus
variable cost
Total cost (TC)



Skilled labor (SK)

Unskilled labor (UL)


($35.00 per unit) x (1-1/2 units
per acre) x (acres per day) =
cost per day
(R & L + F + AB) = cost per day

(TFC + VC) cost per day
(TFC + R & L + F) x (1.15 tor
overhead) + (AB) = cost per day
excluding labor cost and lost-
fruit cost
Hours of labor for equipment
operators per day
Hours of other labor per day
(convert to a skilled labor
equivalent by multiplying by 0.688)







Table 15.--Budget for operating a hand harvest system with 18 pickers in Florida, 1973-74 season



Crew Lightning Ladder
Item Units rew ghning Ladders Tubs Total
bus loader trailer

Machines No. 1 1 20 20 1 N/A
b b
Machine operation per day x no. Hr./day 2 8 160 160 1 N/A
Size Hp. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Purchase price Dol. 5,000,00 10,500.00 700.00 400.00 300.00 16,900.00
Salvage value Dol. 500.00 1,050.00 70.00 40.00 30,00 1,690.00
Average value Dol. 2,750.00 5,755.00 385.00 220.00 165.00 9,295.00
Service life Yrs. 5 5 3 3 3 N/A
Depreciation Dol./yr. 900,00 1,890.00 210.00 120.00 90.00 3,210.00
Interest on investment Dol./yr. 220.00 462.00 30.80 17.60 13.20 743.60
Taxes Dol./yr. 27.50 57.75 3.85 2.20 1.65 92.95
Shelter Dol./yr. 27.50 57.75 3,85 2.20 1.65 92.95
Insurance Dol./yr. 13.75 28.88 1.93 1.10 0,83 46.49
License Dol./yr. 75.00 75.00 N/A N/A N/A 150.00
Total fixed cost per year Dol./yr. 1,263.75 2,571.38 250.43 143,10 107.33 4,335.90
Total fixed cost per dayW Dol./day 8.43 17.14 1.67 0.95 0.72 28.91
Lubrication and repair Dol./day 1.50 12.64 0,84 0.48 0.05 15.51
Fuel Dol./day 2.08 8.32 N/A N/A N/A 10,40
Abscission chemical Dol./day N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Variable cost Dol./day 3.58 20.96 0.84 0.48 0.05 25.91
Total fixed and variable cost Dol./day 12.01 38,10 2,51 1.43 0.77 54.82
Total costd Dol./day 13.81 43.82 2,89 1,65 0.89 63.06
Skilled labor Hr./day 3 8 N/A N/A N/A 11
Unskilled labor r./day N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

See p. 65 for footnotes. "n

















Table 16.-Budget for operating a trunk shaker system in Florida, 1973-74 season

STan] ror Sweep Rak Tractor and C Survey Truk
Item Units an pickup Goa and tru u Mulchr Fuel I Truk
Itemtruck rake tractor tr.k t k Total
rato c t r.Moractcr truck shaker
sprayer machine am
a.hines No. 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 N/A
mchinAe operation per day ar./day 6 6 6 18 2 8 6 6 2 12 N/A
Size Bp. N/A 55 N/A 1301 50 N/A N/A 40 N/A 96 N/A 198j 467
?Prchase price Dol. 7,500.007 11,O00.0O 8,000.00 16,00.00 14,000.002 22,500.00 5,000.00 5,500.00y 5,000,30 11,000.00 7,50000 40i000.00 153,000.00
Salvage value Dol. N/A N/A 800.00 1,600.00 800.00 2,250 00 500,00 N/A 500.00 1,100.00 750.00 4,000.00 12,300.00
Average value Dol. N/A N/A 4,400.00 8,800.00 4,400.00 12.375.00 2,750.00 N/A 2,750.00 6,050.00 4,125.00 22,000.00 67,650.00
Service life Yrs. N/A N/A 5 10 5 5 5 N/A 5 10 5 5 N/A
Depreciaton Do/yr. N/A N/A 1,40.00 1,440.00 1,440,00 4,050.00 900.00 N/A 900,00 990.00 1,350.00 7,200.00 19,710.00
Interest on investment Dol.yr. A N/A 352.00 704.00 352.00 990.00 220.00 N/A 220,00 484.00 330,00 1,750.00 5,412.00
Taxes Dol.lyr. N/A N/A 44.00 88.00 44.00 123,75 27 50 N/A 27.50 60 50 41,25 220,00 676.50
Shelter DoI.!yr. N/A N/A 44.00 88.00 44.00 123.75 27.50 N/A 27.50 60.50 41.25 220.00 676.50
Insurance Dol.yr. N/A N/A 22.00 44.00 22.00 61.88 13.75 N/A 13.75 30.25 20.63 110.00 338.26
Liceuae Dol./yr. R /A N/AA N A N/A 225,00 75.00 N/A N/A N/A 75.00 N/A 375.00
Total fixed cost per year Dol./yr. N/A N/A 1,902.00 2,364.00 1,902.00 5,574.38 1,263.75 N/A 1,188.75 1,625.25 1,858.00 9,510.00 27,188.26
Total fixed cost per dayx Dol./day N/A N/A 21.13 26,26 21.13 61.94 14.04 N/A 13.21 18.06 20.65 105.67 302.09
1ibrication and repair o./day 6.78 9.90 7.20 14.24 12.60 20.28 1.50 6.64 4.50 14.64 2.26 36.00 136.54
Feol Dol.i/ay 6.24 8.58 N/A 13.52 7.80 18.72 2.08 16.32 N/A 15.00 2,08 30.00 120.34
Absclesion chemical Dol./day N/A 420.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 420.00
Variable costc Dol/day 1302 438.48 7.20 27,76 20,40 39.00 3.58 22.96 4.50 29.64 4.34 66.00 676.88
Total fixed and variable cost -ol./day 13,02 438.48 28.33 54.02 41.53 100.94 17.62 22.96 17.71 47.70 24,99 171.67 978.97
Total costd Dol./day 14.97 441.25 32.58 62.12 47.76 116.03 20.26 26.40 0,37 54.86 28,74 197.42 1,032.81
Skilled labor Hr./day 9 9 NIA 18 9 27 N/A 18 NA 9 N/A 18 117
Unskilled labor r //ay N/A N/A N!A N/A 9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NA 9
See p. 65 for footnotes.
See p. 65 for footnotes.














Table '7.--idgeat for operating a 11,76 shaker system in Florida, 1973-74 season


T2nk and sap Aake Tractor and "~Goat Crew Survej .ulcher iab 1051

Machines No. 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 4 N/A
Machine operation -er day Hr./day 6 6 f8 8 6 138 2 8 6 6 2 24k i
Size Hp. N/A 55 N/A 130 50 N/A N/A 40 N/A 96 N/A 2001 571
Purchase price Dol. 7,500.00Y 11,O00000 8,000.00 16,000.00 14,000.00z 22,500.00 5,000.00 5,300.00O 5,000.00 11,000.00 7,500.00 32,000.00 165,000.00
Salvage value Dol. N/A N/A 800.00 1,600.00 800.00 2,250.00 500.00 N/A 500.00 1,100.00 750.00 5,200.00 13,500.00
Average value Dol. N/A N/A 4,400.00 3,800.00 4,400.00 12,375.00 2,750.00 N/A 2,730.00 6,050.00 4.125.00 28,600.00 74,250.00
Service life Yrs. N/A N/A 5 10 5 5 5 N/A 5 10 5 5 N/A
Depreciation Dol./yr. N/A N/A 1,440.00 1,440.00 1,440.00 4,050.00 900.00 N/A 900.00 990.00 1,350.00 9,360.00 21,870.00
Interest on investment Dol./yr. N/A N/A 352.00 704.00 352,00 990.00 220.00 N/A 220.00 484.00 330.00 2,288.00 5,940.00
Taxes Dol./yr. N/A N/A 44.00 88.00 44.00 123,75 27.50 N/A 27,50 60.50 41.25 286.00 742.50
Shelter Dol./yr. N/A N/A 44.00 88.00 44.00 123.75 27.50 N/A 27.50 60.50 41.25 286.00 742.50
Insurance Dol./yr. N/A N/A 22.00 44.00 22.00 61.88 13.75 N/A 13.75 30.25 20.63 143.00 371.26
License Dol./yr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 225.00 75.00 N/A N/A N/A 75.00 N/A 375.00
Total fixed cost per year Dol./yr N/A N/A 1,902.00 2,364.00 1,902.00 5,574.38 1,263.75 N/A 1,188.75 1,625.25 1,858.00 12,363.00 30,041.00
Total fixed cost per dayx Dol./day N/A N/A 21.13 26.26 21.13 61.94 14.04 N/A 13.21 18.06 20.65 137.36 333.78
Lubrication and repair Dol./day 6.78 9.90 7.20 14.24 12.60 20.28 1.50 6.64 4.50 14.64 2.26 46.80 147.34
Fuel Dol./day 6.24 8.58 N/A 13.52 7.80 18.72 2.08 16.32 N/A 15.00 2.08 31.20 121.54
Abscission chemical Dol./day N/A 420.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NA /A N/A A N/A 420.00
Variable cost Dol./day 13.02 438.48 7.20 27.76 20.40 39,00 3.58 22.96 4.50 29.64 4.34 78.00 688.88
Total fixed and variable cost Dol./day 13.02 438.48 28.33 54.02 41.53 100.94 17.62 22.96 17.71 47.70 24,99 215.36 1,022.66
Total cost Dol./day 14.97 441.25 32.58 62.12 47.76 116.08 20.26 26.40 20.37 34.86 28.74 247.66 1,113.05
Skilled labor ar./day 9 9 N/A 18 9 27 N/A 18 N/A 9 A N 36 135
Unskilled labor Hr./day N/A N/A N/A N/A 9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A/ A A 9

See p. 65 for footnotes.















Table 18.--Budget for operating a waterblast system in Florida, 1973-74 season


Item Units rat or raup d and trim kMnulcher Waterbast
truck chnerake tractor trucks truck e tractor truck Total

Machines No. 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 N/A
Machine operation per day x .io. Hr./day 6 6 8f 8f 6 18i 2 8 6 6 2 8f N/A
Size g. p N/A 55 N/A 130 50 N/A N/A 40 N/A 96 N/A 510n 981
Purchase price Dol. 7,500.00y 11,000.O00 8,000.00 16,000.00 14,000.00' 22,500.00 5,000.00 5,500.00 5,000.00 11,000.00 7,500 00 63,800.00aa 176,800.00
Salvage value Dol. N/A N/A 800.00 1,600.00 800.00 2,250.00 500.00 N/A 500.00 1,100.00 750.00 4,600.00 12,900.00
Average value Dol. N/A N/A 4,400.00 8,800.00 4,400.00 12,375.00 2,750.00 N/A 2,750.00 6,050.00 4,125.00 25,300.00 70,950.00
Service life Yra. N/A N/A 5 10 5 5 5 N/A 5 10 5 5 N/A
Depreciation Dol./yr. N/A N/A 1,440.00 1,440.00 1,440.00 4,050.00 900.00 N/A 900.00 990.00 1,350.00 8,280.00 20,790.00
Interest on investment Dol./yr. N/A N/A 352,00 704.00 352.00 990.00 220.00 N/A 220.00 484.00 330.00 2,024.00 5,676.00
Taxes Dol./yr. N/A N/A 44,00 88.00 44.00 123.75 27.50 N/A 27.50 60.50 41.25 253.00 709.50
Shelter Dol./yr. N/A N/A 44.00 88.00 44.00 123.75 27.50 N/A 27.50 60.50 41.25 253.00 709.50
insurance Dol./yr. N/A N/A 22.00 44.00 22.00 61.88 13.75 N/A 13.75 30.25 20.63 126.50 354.76
License Dol./yr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 225.00 75.00 N/A N/A N/A 75.00 N/A 375.00
Total fixed cost per year Dol./yr. N/A N/A 1,902,00 2,364.00 1,902.00 5,574.38 1,263.75 N/A 1,188.75 1,625.25 1,858.00 10,936.50 28,614.76
Total fixed cost per dayx Dol./day N/A N/A 21.13 26.26 21.13 61.94 14.04 N/A 13.21 18.06 20.65 121.52 317.94
Lubrication and repair Dol./day 6.78 9.90 7.20 14.24 12.60 20.28 1.50 6.64 4.50 14.64 2.26 38.28 138.82
Fuel Dol./day 6.24 8.58 N/A 13.52 7.80 18.72 2.08 16.32 N/A 15.00 2.08 63.44 153.78
Abscission chemical Dol./day N/A 420.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1/A 420.00
Variable costc Dol./day 13.02 438.48 7.20 27.76 20.40 39.00 3.58 22.96 A.50 29.64 4.34 101.72 712.60
Total fixed and variable cost Dol./day 13.02 438.48 28.33 54,02 41.53 100.34 17.62 22.96 17.71 47.70 24.99 223.24 1,030.54
Total cost Dol./day 14.97 441.25 32.58 62.12 47.76 116.08 20.26 26.40 20.37 54.86 28.74 256.73 1,122.12
Skilled labor Br./day 9 9 N/A 18 9 27 N/A 18 N/A 9 N!A 36 135
Unskilled labor Br./day N/A N/A N/A N/A 9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 9

See p. 65 for footnotes.












Tabl f3-3udgat for operating an airharvest system in Florida, 1973-74 seasone


t trk Sweep Rlake "Gat Crew 'er Fe
SZUait an I tcr t k. irars
sprayer Iachine I tea tco t,"Ck

Ma~fins No. 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 N/A
Mach-lie ration per iy Er./day 6 6 8 3f 6 13 2 3 5 6 2 6 N/A
3za 3p. N/A 55 N/A 130 50 N/A N/A 0 N/A 96 N/A 336m 707
Purcbsa tice DoI 500,005C 11,000,00 8,000.00 16,000,00 14,000.00' 22,300.00 5,000.30 5,500,00y 5,000.0 11,000.30 7,500.00 65,3000.0 173,000.00
Sel-vsge value D! N/A N/A 800.00 1,500,00 800.00 2,250,00 500.00 N/A '10,00 1,100.00 750.00 5,500.00 14,300.00
average *.,ue Dol. NA N/A 4,400.00 3,800.00 4.400.00 12,35,.00 2,750.00 N/A 2,753.00 6;050.00 4,125.00 35,750.00 31,400.00
Service life frs N /A 5 10 5 5 5 N/A 5 10 5 3 N/A
Depreciatona Dol./yr. NA N/A 1,440.00 1,44000 1,440.00 4,350.00 900.00 N/A 900,00 990.00 1,350.00 11,700.00 24,210.00
laerest on inve!meza Dol./yr. N/A N/A 352.00 104.00 352.00 990.00 220.00 N/A 220.30 484.00 330.00 2,350.00 6,512.00
Taxess ol./yr. N/A N/A 44.00 83.00 44.00 123.75 27.50 N/A 27.50 60.50 41.25 357.50 814.00
3heltar olyr. A N/A 44.00 38.00 44.00 123.75 27.50 N/A 27.50 60.50 41.25 357.50 914.00
Insuraane Do lyr. /A N/A 22.00 44.00 22.30 61.83 13.75 N/A 13.75 30.25 20.63 173.75 407.01
License Dol.iyr. N/A N/A /A N/A N/A 225.00 75.00 N/A N/A N/A 75.00 N/A 375.00
Toczl fixed cost ear year Dol./yr. N/A N/A 1,902.00 2,364.00 1,902.00 5,574.38 1,263.75 N/A 1,188.75 1,625.25 1,858.00 15,453.75 33,132.01
total field A ost per y Dol./yr. N/A N/A 21.13 26.26 21.13 61.94 14.04 3/A 13,21 18.06 20.65 171.71 368.13
brcation and repair Dol./yr. 678 9.90 7.20 14.24 12.50 20.28 1.50 5.64 4.50 14.54 2.26 58.50 159.04
Fuel Docl./r. 6.24 3.38 N/A 13.52 7.80 18.72 2.08 16.32 N/A 15.00 2.08 52.44 142.78
Acctieston chei81l Dol./yr. NVA 420.00 V/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3/A N/A N/A N/A 420.00
*13arle Coeat Doir. 3.02 438.48 7.20 27.76 20.40 39.30 3.58 22,96 4.50 29.64 4.34 110.94 721.82
oital :.ed avd va'able ost oL,/: 13;02 433.48 28.33 54.02 41.33 100,94 17.62 22.56 17 71 47.70 2499 282.65 1,079.95
Total cs s ol/yr 14.97 441.25 32.58 62.12 47.76 116 08 20,26 26.40 20.37 543.6 23.74 325.05 1,190.44
Skilaj labor r./;ay 9 9 N/A 18 9 27 3/A iS N/A 9 N/A 9 108
A.ilid labor i./ N/A N/A N/A / 9 NA /A N/A/A N/AA N/A N/A 9

See p. 65 for footnotes.









tO















Tabei 20.--Budget for operating a shaker-catching frame system in Florida, 1973-74 season
----------
Srator Lightning Tract Cr and trim cstchig Total
Ie U s truck loader truck T labor truck
tuc sprayer i tem frame

,hines No. 1 i 1 1 1 N/A 1 2 N/A
Machine operation per day x no. Hr./day 2 2 3 6 2 2 N/ 2 14 33
Size Hp. N/A 55 N/A 40 N/A 40 N/A N/A 84q 219
Pur-hase price DOl. 7,500.00Y 11,,00O 1050000 50100.03 5,000.00 5,500.00 N/A 7,500.00 55, 000.00 107,000.00
Salvage value Dol. NiA N/A 1,050.00 N/A 500,00 N/A N/A 750,00 5,500.00 7,800.00
Average value Dol. N/A N/A 5,775.00 N/A 2,750.00 N/A N/A 4,125.00 30,250.00 42,900.00
Service life rs. N/A N/A 5 N/A 5 N/A N/A 5 5 N/A
Depreciation Dol./yr. N/A N/A 1,890.00 N/A 900.00 N/A N/A 1,350.00 9.900.00 14,040.00
Interest on investment Dol./yr. N/A N/A 462.00 N/A 220.00 N/A N/A 330.00 2,420.00 3,432.00
Taxes Dol./yr. N/A N/A 57.75 N/A 27.50 N/A N/A 41.25 302.50 429.00
shelter Dol./yr. N/A N/A 57.75 N/A 27.50 N/A N/A 41.25 302.50 429.00
Insurance Dol.yr. N/A N/A 28.88 N/A 13.75 N/A N/A 20.63 151.25 214.51
License Dol/yr N/A NIA 75.00 N/A 75.00 N/A N/A 75.00 N/A 225.00
1otal fixed cost per year Dl/yr N/A N/A 2,571.38 N/A 1,263.75 N/A N/A 1,858.13 13,076.25 15,769.51
Total fixed cost per dayx D1./day N/A N/A 28.57 N/A 14,04 N/A N/A 20.65 145.29 208.55
Total fixed cost per day ol.fay S/A No/A 28.5
Lubrication and repair Dol./day 2.26 3.30 4.73 4.50 1.50 1.66 N/A 2.26 57.75 77.96
Fuel Dol.iday 2.08 2.86 3.12 6.24 2.08 4.08 N/A 2.08 15.26 37.80
Abscission chemical DOl. 4ay N/A 105.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 105.00
Variable costa Dol./day 4.34 111.16 7.85 10.74 3.58 5.74 N/A 4.34 73.01 220.76
Total fixed and variable cost Dol.fday 4.34 111.16 36.42 10,74 17.62 5.74 N/A 24.99 213.30 429.31
Total costd Dol./da 4.99 112.08 41.88 12.35 20.26 6,60 N/A 28.74 251.05 477.95
Skilled labor r.day 2.25 2.25 3 6 N/A 5 NA N/A 18 36.50
Uiaskilled labor Hr./d ay /A N/A A N/A N/A/A/ 18 N/A N/A 18

See p- 65 for footnotes.














Table 21.--Budget for operating a partial trunk shaker system in Florida, 1973-74 seasonr


S. actor Traccor .a t d -ra Survey
lruc rayer rIae tractor I aachnc i r trek raulk shakeruTara
sprae machine t l c a 7 t t k oa


Machines
l.achine operation per day x no.
Size
F.urhase prica
Salvage value
Average ialue
Service life
Deprcciation
Interest on investment
Taxes
Shelter
Insurance
License
Total fixed cost per year
Total Eixed cost per dayx
Lubrication and repair
Fuel
Abscission zhelmial
variable costc
Total fixed and variable cost
total costd
killed labor
Unskilled labor


No. 1
Br./day 3

Hp. N/A
Dol. 7,500.00y
Dol. N/A
Dol. NIA
Yrs. N/A
DOl./yr. N/A
Dol./yr. N/A
Dol./yr. N/A
Dol./yr. N/A
Dol./yr. N/A
Dol./yr. N/A
Dol./yr. N/A
ol./day 'N/A
Dol./day 3.39
Dol./day 3.12
Dol./day N/A
Dol./1.ay 6.51
Dol./day 5.51
Dol.!day 7.49
nr./day 4.5
Or. 1/ay N/A


1
3
55
11,000.00o
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.95
4.29
210.00
219.24
219.24
220.63
4.5
N/A


1
3
N/a.
4,000.00
400.00
2,200,00
5
720.00
176.00
22.00
22.00
11.00
N/A
951.00
10.57
1.30
N/A
N/A
1,80
12.37
14.23
N/A
N/A


1
3
65
8,000.00
800.00
4,400.00
10
720.00
352.00
44.00
44.00
22.00
N/A
1,182.00
13.13
5.34
5.07
N/A
10.41
23.54
27.07
4.5
N/A


1
4
50
14,000.00
800.00
4,400,00
5
1,440.00
352.00
44.00
44.00
22.00
N/A
1,902.00
21.13
8.40
5.20
N/A
13.60
34.73
39.94
6
6


2
10s
N/A
15,000.00
1,500.00
8,250.00
5
2,700.00
560.00
82.50
32.50
41.25
150.00
3,716.25
41.29
11.30
10.40
N/A
21.70
52.99
72.44
12
s/A


1
2
N/A
5,000.00
500.00
2,750.00
5
900.00
220.00
27.50
27.50
13.75
75.00
1,263.75
14.04
1.30
2.08
N/A
3.58
17.62
20,26
N/A
N/A


1
4
40
5,500.00y'
N/A
M/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

3.32
8.16
N/A
11.48
11.48
13.20
10
N/A


1
3
N/A
5,000.00
300.00
2,750.00
5
900.00
220.00
27,50
27.50
13.75
N/A
1,188.75
13.21
2.25
N/A
N/A
2.25
15.46
17.78
N/A
N/A


1
3
96
11,000.00
1,100.00
6,050.00
10
990.00
484.00
50.50
50.50
30.25
N/A
1,625.25
18.06
7,32
7.50
N/A
14.82
32.88
37,81
4.5
N/A


1
2
N/A
7,500.00
750,00
4,125.00
5
1,350.00
330.00
41.25
41.25
20.63
75.00
1,858.13
20.65
2,26
2.08
N/A
4.34
24.99
28.74
N/A
N/A


1 N/A
6 43
96 402
20,000.00 113,500.00
2,000.00 8,350.00
11,000.00 45,925.00
5 I/A
3,600.00 13,320.00
880.00 3,674.00
110.00 459.25
110.00 459.25
55.00 229.63
N/A 300.00
4,755.00 18,442.13
52.83 204.91
18.00 69.83
15.00 62.90
N/A 210.00
33.00 342.73
85.83 547.64
98.70 598.29
9 55
N/A 6


See p. 55 for footnotes.



















Table 22.-Budget for operating a half liHb shaker system in Florida, 1973-74 seasonr


Swee .c .or anCre S.rvey T tulcher Fuel Limb
Tank I Sweep ed triS r or-,ae rae I Total
Item Units truck rake tractor pa trk nd ther tractor truck shaker
sprayer machine team


ebaeoper oationopr day x no,
Size
Narseaa price
Salvage weane
Average value
Service 119a
Depreciation
Interest on iovestmant
Texas
Shelter
Insurance
Liacese
Total fixed cst per year
T.ta1 flad ce.t per d'ay
Lubric2ation and repair


scibeealon chemical
1'arlabla rcat
Total fixed aad aidbl, e.oat
Total cost


Uaski'lled labor

S'ee P. Vfor fo--''r es


0o. 1 1
Hr.iday 3 3
Ep. N/A 55
3Do. 7,500.007 11,000.00y
Dol. N/A N/A
Dol. X/A N/A
Trs. /jA N/A
Dol./yr. 1WA N/A
Dol./yr. N/A N/A
Dol./yr. N/A i/A
o01./yr. N/A N/A
301o./yr. N/A N/A
3o0./yr. /TIA N1/A
Dol./yr. N/A N/A
Dol./,Jay k1A /A
Dol./day 3.39 4.95
3ol/day 3.12 4.29
Dol./day N/A 210.00
Doli.day 6.51 219.24
Dol.i/da 6.51 219.24
Dol./dea 7,49 220.63
ar./day 4,5 4.5
pat./day /A aA A


1


N/A
4,000.00
403.00
2,200,00
5
720.00
176.00
22.00
22,00
11.00
I/A
951.00
10,57
1.80
B/A
N /A
1.80
12.37
14.23
NI/A
N/A


1
3
55
8,000.00
800.00
4,400.00
10
720.00
352,00
44.00
44.00
22.00
N/A
1,1S2.00
13 13
5.34
5.07
N/A
10.41
23.54


4.3
N/A


1
4
50
14,000.00"
o00. 00
4,400.00
5
1,440.00
352.00
44.00
44.00
22.00
',/A
1,302,30
21.13
8.40
5.20
N/A
13.60
34.73
39.94
6
6


2
10s
N/A
15,000.00
1,500.30
3,250.00
5
2,700,00
660.00
82,50
82.50
41.25
150.00
3,716,25
41,29
11.30
10,40
N/A
21.70
62.99
72,44
12
N/A


1
2
N/A
5,000.00
500.00
2,750.00
5
900,00
220.00
27,50
27.50
13.75
75,00
1,263.75
14,04
1.50
2.08
N/A
3.58
17.62
20.26.
a/A
W/A


1
4
40
5,500.00y
N/A
N/A


N'/A

Ni/A
N/A
N/A

1/A
N/A



N/A
li/A


8/A
3,32


N/A

11,48
11.48
13.20
10
N/A


1
3
N/A
5,000.00
500.00
2,750.00
5
900.00
220 00
27.50
27.50
13.75
'/A
1,188.75
13.21
2,25
N/A
N/A
2.23
15,46
17.73
SA
N/A


1
3
96
11,000.00
1,100.00
6,050.00
10
990.00
484.00
60.50
60.50
30.25
I/A
1,625.25
18.05
7.32
7.50
N/A
14.82
32.88
37,31
4.5
N/A


1
2
N/A
7,500.00
730.00
4,125.00
5
1,350.00
330.00
41.25
41.25
20.63
75,00
1,858.13
20.65
2.26
2.08
N/A
4.34
24.99
28.74
SJA
N/A


2
12h
100.

26,000,00
2,500,00
14,300,00
5
4,680.00
1,144.00
143.00
143.00
71.50
N/A
6,181.50
68.68
23.40
15.60
N/A
39.00
107.68
123.83
18
l/A


N/A
34
406
119,530.00
8,950.00
49,225.00
N/A
14,400.00
3,938.00
492.25
492.25
246.13
330.00
19,868.63
220.76
75.23
63.30
210.00
348.73
569.49
623.41
64
6


~`----.~"b~ll-~-s"------`~I~-----


~ _______lll-------XI----_--~i---------













Table 23.--3udget for operiatag a partial waterbiast system in Florida, '973-74r


lank Tactor
It Tank Sweep
t'i ruck and rake
Sprayer


Ha'hhile operation per day x no.
3izea
Porthase pr-ice
Salvage value
Average 7alue
SericAe life
Depreciation
Interest an investment
Taxes
Shelter
7nsuraace
Liceese
Total fi:'d acot per year
Total fixed zost per Iay1
ilaricatioa and repair


Al'.slss ion chanficial
^ariahis eostc
Total fimed rnd variable cost
Total oi-t
Skilled labor
Uns;zillad labor


No. 1 I
ir./day 3 3


Dol. 7,5003007 1l,00.0,00
Dol. N/A N/A
Dol. N/A N/A
Yrs. 3/A N/A
Do1l/yr, N/A N/A
Dol./yr. N/A N/A
Dol./yr. N/A N/A
Ool /yr, N/A N/A
Dol./yr. N/A N/A
Dol./yr. N/A N/A
Dol,/yr. N/A N/A
Dol./day N/A N/A
Dol./day 3.39 4.95
Dol./day 3.12 4.29
Dol/.iay N/A 210,00
Dol./day 6.51 219.24
'ol./day 6.51 219.24
Dol./day 7.49 220.63
H./ day 4.5 4,5
nr./day N/A N/A


1
3
N/A
I,00.00
400.00
2,200.00
5
720.00
176.00
22.00
22.00
11.00
N/A
951.00
10.57
1.80
N/A
N/A
1.80
12,37
14.23
N/A
N/A


3-Oc ?~ --l---~-_~_1_-1 0_ _C~-L__--__1^_ _- Ia. f-utoes


------------------L---i__~_;_clk___l___a


-----------


I Rake
tractor


1
3
55
3,000.00
800.00
4,400.00
10
720.00
352.00
44.00
44.00
22.00
N/A
1,182.00
13,13
5.34
5.07
N/A
10.41
23.54
27.07
4.5
N/ib


Coat Crzw Survey Mlher j FOIel
S icup rucks i truck and trim HMlcaher actor ruk arblast Total
machine team

S 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 N/A
4 10s 2 4 3 3 2 4 41
50 N/A N/A '0 N/A 96 N/A 305" 611
14, 00.00 15,000.00 5,000.00 3,500.500 5,300.00 11,000.00 7;500,00 31,900.00b" 125,400.00
800.00 1,500.00 500.00 N/A 500.00 1,100.00 750.00 2,300.00 8,650.00
4,400.00 3,250.00 2,750,00 N/A 2,750.00 6,050.00 4,125.00 12,650.00 47,375.00
5 5 5 N/A 5 10 5 5 N/A
1,440.00 2,700.00 900.00 N/A 300.00 990.00 1,350.00 4,140.00 13,860.00
352.00 660,00 220-00 N/A 220.00 484.00 330.00 1,012.00 3,806.00
44.00 82.50 27.50 N/A 27,50 50.50 41.25 126.50 475.75
44.00 82.50 27.50 N/A 27.50 60,50 41.25 126.50 475.75
22.00 41.25 13.75 N/A 13.75 30,25 20.63 63.25 237.88
N/A 150.00 75.00 N/A N/A N/A 75.00 N/A 300.00
1,902.00 3,716.25 1,263.75 N/A 1,188,75 1,625.25 1,858.13 5,458.25 19,155.38
21.13 41.29 14.04 N/A 13.21 18,06 20.65 60.76 212.34
8.40 11.30 1.50 3.32 2,25 7.32 2.26 19.14 70.97
5.20 10.40 2.08 3.16 N/A 7.50 2.08 31.72 79.62
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 210.00
13.60 21.70 3.58 1.1'8 2.25 14.32 4.34 50.36 360.59
34.73 62.99 17.62 11.48 15.46 32,88 24.99 111.62 573.43
39.94 72.44 20.26 13,20 17.78 37.81 28,74 128.36 527.95
6 12 N/A 10 N/A 4.5 N/A 18 64
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6









0'





Table 24.--8udget for operating a partial imb shaker system in Florida, 1973-74 season


,Tractor al. reactor and Su(rey
Tak Sweep Rae atoat Crew ulcher Fuel Limb
.k~ actor Gdat Crew ard trIm Nulcher .T
Ite U nits ruc a rake tractor pickup trucks truck t tractor truck shaker l
spray machine te
ahine o. 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 /A
cichine operation per day x no. /a 2 2 2 2 2 47 2 2 2 2 2 6 28
Size p. N/A 55 N/A 65 50 NfA NA 40 N/A 96 N/A 50 356
Purcteas price Dol. 7,500.0C7 11,000.00 4,000.00 8,000.00 14,000.00 15,000.00 5,000.00 5,500.00y 5,000.00 11,000.00 7,500.00 13,000.00 106.300.00
Salyase vaune Dol. /IA N/A 400.00 800.00 800.00 1,500.00 500.00 N/A 30000 0.00 1,0. 750.00 1,300.00 7,650.00
Serve life Dol. N/A N/A 2,200.00 4,400.00 4,400.00 8,250.00 2,730.00 N/A 2,750.00 6,050.00 4,125.00 7,150.00 42,075.00
Life expectancy Trs. N/A N/A 5 10 5 5 5 N/A 10 5 5 5 N/A
Depreciation Dol ./y7 N/A N/A 720.00 720.00 1,440.00 2,700.00 900.00 N/A 900.00 990.00 1,350.00 2,340.00 12,060.00
Interest on l estment Dol./yr. l A I/A 176.00 352.00 352.00 660.00 220.00 N/A 220.00 484.00 330.00 572.00 3,366.00
Taxes Do./yr. N/A N/A 22.00 44.00 44.00 32,50 27.50 N/A 27.50 60.50 41.25 71.50 420.75
Shelter Dol./yr. N/A N/A 22.00 44.00 44.00 82.50 27.50 N/A 27.50 60.50 41.25 71.50 420.75
Insurance Dol.!yr. N/A N/A 11.00 22.00 22.00 41.25 13.75 N/A 13.75 30.25 20.63 35.75 210.38
Licease Dol./y. I/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 150.00 75.00 N/A N/A N/A 75.00 N/A 300.00
Total fixed cost per year Dol./y. N/A N/A 951.00 1,182.00 1,902.00 3,716.25 1,263.75 N/A 1,188,75 1,625,25 1,858.13 3,090.75 16,777.88
Total fixed cost per days Dol./day N/A N/A 10.57 13.13 21.13 41.29 14.04 N/A 13.21 18.06 20.65 34.34 186.42
LAbrication and repIir Dol./day 2.26 .30 1.20 3.60 4.20 4.50 1.50 1,66 1.50 4.88 2.26 11.70 40.31
Fuel Dol.1day 2.08 2.86 V/A 3.38 2.60 4.16 2.08 4.08 N/A 3.00 2.)8 7.80 36.12
isacisaion chemical Dol./dy N/A 105.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A /A N//A 105.00
VarlabiSe estc Dol. hidy 4.34 111.16 1.20 6.98 6.80 8.66 3.58 5.74 1,50 9,88 4.34 19.50 181.43
Total fixed and variable cost Dol.-ay 4.34 111.16 11.77 20.11 27,93 49.95 17.62 5.74 14.71 27.94 24.99 53.84 367.85
Total cost Dol.!/y 4.99 112.08 13.54 23.13 32.12 57.44 20.26 5.60 16.92 32.13 28.74 51.92 407.29
Skilled labor Br./1ay 2.25 2.25 N/A 2.25 3 6 N/A 5 N/A 2.25 NA 9 32
Enakilled la5or rIday /A N/A N/A N/A 3 N/A N/A N/A I/A N/A N/A N/A 3

Sae p. 65 for footnotes.






The superscript definitions for the budget tables are presented in
the following section.

aBudget pr'rnAred for a crew of 18 pickers working eight hours per day
and harvesting approximately 2.3 acres per day (Table 15).
bIncludes 20 items used eight hours per day (Table 15).

CThe variable cost does not include labor or lost-fruit cost (Tables
15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24).
The total cost includes overhead at 15 percent of machinery cost,
but does not include the labor cost or lost-fruit cost (Tables 15, 16,
17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24).

eBudget prepared for harvesting eight acres per day (Tables 16, 17,
18, and 19),

Two machines used four hours each per day (Tables 16, 17, 18,
and 19).

gThree machines used six hours each per day (Tables 16, 17, 18,
and 19).
hTwo machines used six hours each per day (Tables 16 and 22).

iTwo machines with 65 horsepower engines each (Tables 16, 17, 18,
and 19).

Two machines with 96 horsepower engines each (Table 16).

kFour machines used six hours each per day (Table 17).

1Four machines with 50 horsepower engines each (Table 17).
mTwo 120 horsepower engines and one 96 hor-re-oover engine (Table 19).
nFour 120 horsepower engines and two 65 horsepower engines (Table 18).

0Budget prepared for harvesting two acres per day (Tables 20 and 2.1).

PTwo machines used seven hours each per day (Table 20).

Tw, machines with 42 horsepower engines each (Table 0).
r
Budget prepared for harvesting four acres per 'Ay (Tables 21, 22
and 23).






STwo machines operating five hours each per day (Tables 21, 22, and 23).

tTwo machines with 50 horsepower engines each ('al.le 22).

UT'.o 120 h-,t epow,,Ir fe-ngines and one 65 hoirseoower engine (Table '3).

Two machines used two hours each per day (Table 24).
WBased on 150 days of use per year (Table 15).

XBased on 90 devy, of use per year (Tables 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,
23, and 24).

YAll equipment assumed on hand, so no fixed cost charged for its use
(Tables 16, 17, '', ', 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24).
ZTractor e<:~,m. on hand with purc.has price of $6,000 so fixed cost
charged only on rP',00O (Tables 16, 17, 18, 1K, 21, 22, 23, and ?P).
aaTwo tractors assun~ed on hand with pr,-:h.as- price of $8,000 each so
fixed cost charged on only $47,000 (Table 1).
bTractor assumed on hand with nrm h-jse price of $',000 so fixed cost
charged on only "..2,900 (Table 23).











LIST OF CITATIONS


[1] Acti-Aid Citrus Abscission Agent. Leaflet. Kalamazoo, Mich.:
TUCO, Division of the Upjohn Company, 1972.

[2] AgricuLtural EnLineers Yearbook. St. Joseph, Mich.: American
Society of Agricultural Engineers, 1969.

[31 Anderson, Charles L. Unpublished data. Agr, Res. and Ed. Center.
Lake Alfred, Fla.

[4] Anderson, Charles L., D.L. Deason, J.G. Blair, S.L. Hedden, H.R.
Summer, G.E. Coppock, and W.C. Wilson. Shaker-Pickup Harvest
System for Early and Midseason Oranges. AREC Lake Alfred
AREC-LA 72-18. Lake Alfred, Fla.: July 1972.

(51 B,,','c, Donald L. Citrus Production Costs and Returns in Florida,
Season 1970-71 with Comparisons. Univ. of Fla. IFAS Econ.
Rpt. 39. Gainesville: October 1972.

[6] ii.,, Kamal J. Impact of Mechanical Harvesting on the Demand for
Labor in the Florida Citrus Industry. Univ. of Fla. IFAS
Econ. Rpt. 10. Gainesville: September 1970.

[7] Fairchild, Gary F. Estimated Supply and Demand of Harvesting Labor
and the Need for Mechanical Harvesting Systems in the Florida
Citrus Industry. Dept. of Citrus Econ. Res. Rept. Gainesville:
April I:' 7.

[V Florida. Department of Agriculture. Florida Agricultural Statistics-,
CitLrus Summay r Tallahassee: 1972.

['.; institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Farm Income: State
_.r, IFAS Supplement 22. Gainesville: August 1973.

[101 Myers, Lester H., and Ronald Ward. FCOJ-ERD Orange Products Forecast
Model. Mimeograph. Fla. Dept. of Citrus. Gainesville:
February 1973.

111] Roetheli, Joseph C. "Economic Analysis of Selected Orange Harvesting
Systems in Florida." Master's Thesis, University of Florida,
1973.

S11. Spurlock, Alvin H. .1.: :;... ng al la Citrus Frults
1972-73 Season. intivy. of Ft IFAS Econ. Rpt. 2. '.;ainesville:
1973.




68

[13] U.S. Statistical Reporting Service. Farm Wages. Orlando, Fla.:
January 1973.




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