• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Center information
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures
 Abstract
 Highlights
 Main














Title: Economic outlook for lime production in Florida
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00047747/00001
 Material Information
Title: Economic outlook for lime production in Florida
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Degner, Robert L.
Shonkwiler, J. Scott
Cubenas, Gervasio J.
Publisher: Food and Resource Economics Dept., IFAS, University of Florida
Publication Date: 1979
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States -- Florida
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00047747
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front cover
    Title Page
        Page i
    Center information
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
    List of Tables
        Page iv
        Page v
    List of Figures
        Page vi
    Abstract
        Page vii
    Highlights
        Page viii
        Page ix
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
Full Text









A~


"3 K (e-A.I:A


. ECONOMIC OUTLOOK FOR LIME F'.Jr.tlCTICN

IN FLORIDA



By

Robert L. Degner, J. Scott Shonlkwiler
and Gervasio J. Cubenas


Staff Report 8


I,.

LL' --


Iirn


UN::
* .~~
'I


December 1.979


I,
'9 '1


- I


* F
* p -


-. L


.*9 1.' --


"

* 'I-


9-- -.f' '. i .


I


, ._; "


- -. ,.t


ialo -

r





















A l':M'.I IC OUTLOOK FOR LIME PRODUCTION


IN FLORIDA


Robert L. Degner,
and.Gervasio


Staff Report 8


J. Scott Shonkwiler
J; Cubenas


December 1979


Staff papers are circulated without formal review
by'the Food and Resource Economics Department.
.Content is the sole responsibility of the author.


Food and Resource Economics Department
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611














The Florida Agricultural Market Research Center is.
a service of
the Food and Rescoulce Ecno~mics Department
of the
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences


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

on current and emerging marketing problems affecting Florida's agri-

cultural and marine industries. The Center seeks to provide research

and information to production, marketing, and processing firms, groups

and organizations concerned with improving and expanding markets for

'Florida agricultural and marine products.

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

agriculture and marketing. In addition, cooperating personnel from.

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

as determined by the requirements of individual projects.

















TABLE OF CONTENTS

age


LIST OF TABLES....................... ....... ....................... iv

LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES.................................... ... ... .. .

LIST OF FIGURES ........................ .................. ........ vi

ABSTRACT...................... ... .. .......................... .... .. vii

HIGHLIGHTS ................ ..... ..... ....... ................. .......... viii

INTRODUCTION............. ........ ... .............................

The Florida Lime Industry in Perspective......................

Supply Projections............................ ...................

California ................ .. .................
Mexico and Cuba......... .... ............ ................... 8
Florida............... ................. ............... 9

Florida lime acreage..... .......................... 9

Florida Lime Yields.......................... ..... ..... 11
Florida Lime Production................... ................. 13
On-tree Lime Prices ......................................... 15

Historical perspective .... ........... .... .... ........ 15
Price projections... ................ ......... ... .. 16

LITERATURE CITED................................. ...... ........... 21

APPENDIX....... ... ... .. .................. .22













i i'















LIST OF TABLES


Table .


1 Estimated bearing acreage, average yield per acre, and total
production of Florida limes, 1979-80 through 1981-82............ 15

2- Projections on-tree lime prices and other key economic-variables,
1979-80 through 1981-82.......................................... 19













LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES
Table ace

1 Nominal and deflated season average on-tree prices and .:al
crcp values, 1957-53 through 1978-79............................. 3

2 Quantities of fresh limes obtained by the U.S. from various
sources, 1972-73 through 1977-78................. ........ 24

3 Proportions of U.S. fresh lime supplies obtained from variouss
sources, 1972-73 through 1977-78.............................. 25

4 California lime acreage, 1957 through 1977...................... 2

5 Mexican lime.acreage, yield, and total production for. major grow-
ing areas, 1976 .............................. ........ ...... 27

6 Bearing acreage, average annual yields and total production of
Florida limes, 1957-.58 through 1978-79........................ 28

-7 .Acreage of-Florida limes by age of trees ......................... 29

8 Yields and yield index of Florida lime trees, by age of tree.... 30

9 Alternative models for estimating lime production................ -31

10 Variables used for production analysis.......................... 32

11 Evaluation of the yield-by-age production estimate technique..... 33

2 Estimated bearing acreage, average yield per acre, and total
production of Florida limes, 1979-80 through 1981-82............. 34

3 Alternative models for estimating on-tree lime prices............ 35

14 Variables used for price analysis ................. ...... ...... 37

15 Projections on-tree lime prices and other key economic variables,
1979-80 through 1981-82 ............... ................. ... 38

16 Data used in production estimates and price analyses............. 39














LIST OF FIGURES


F -7*'"

1 On-tree value of Florida lime production'in constant 'i
dollars, 1957-58 through 1978-.79........................... .--- 2

2 On-tree lime prices in constant 1967 dollars, 1957-58 through
1978-79 ....................... ............................

3 Quantities of U.S. fresh lime supplies by source, 1972-73
through 1977-783........... .. ............. ..... ........... 5

4 Proportions of U.S. fresh lime supplies by source.............. 6

5 Bearing lime acreage, 1957-58 through 1977-78, with projections
to 1981-82 .................. ....... .. ................. .... *... 10

6 Average yield per acre of Florida 'Persian' limes, 1957-58 through
1978-79 with projections through 1981-82 ........................ 12

7 .Florida lime production, 1957-58 through 1978-79 with projections
through 1981-82... ..... ........ ............................. 14

8 Florida lime on-tree prices 1957-58 through 1978-79, with pro-
jections through 1981-82......... ....... ...... ............... 17














ABSTRACT


Prices received by Florida lime growers have increased to rec-or
levels in recent seasons. As a result, about.700 acres.(284 ha.) of
limes have been planted each year for the past several years, three to
ten times the annual planting rate experienced in the early 1970's.
Bearing acreage will increase from 12 to 15 percent per year for the next
few seasons. By 1981-82, about 6,000 acres will be in production, an
increase of approximately 36 percent over the stable period prior -o the
freeze which occurred in January of 1977. Total lime production will
increase to about 2 million bushels in 1981-82. Regression analysis is
used to forecast the effects of increasing production on growers' on-tree
prices for the 1979-80 through 1981-82 season. It appears that on-tree
prices will increase slightly during the next several seasons but if the
present rate of inflation persists, real on-tree prices wiii change very
little.















HIGHLIGHTS


* On-tree value of the Florida lime crop has increased from S D 0
to nearly $9,000,000 in 20 years.
Real value has increased almost 5-fold.

Total production increased from about 500,000 bushels in the
late 1?:3's to over 1,750,000 butsh.ls prior to the freeze of I?77.

Florida is the major source of fresh limes for the U.S., accounting
for 90 percent of the acreage and roughly 75-80 p Er t of The
total supply.
* California produces about 10-15 percent of total U.S. supplies~.and
little change is expected in the- foreseeable future.

Mexico is the major foreign source of limes and has the potential for
increased competition. Little is presently known about the Mexican
fresh lime industry.

On-tree prices received by Florida producers, both nominal and
real, have increased to record levels in recent seasons.

New plantings of limes have been about 700 acres per year for the
past several years, three to ten times the rate experienced in the
early 1970's.
Bearing acreage will increase 12-15 percent per year during the next
several seasons.
In 1979-80, bearing acreage will be approximately 4,700 acres, and
by 1981-82, almost 6,000 acres, a 36 percent increase over pre-freeze
levels.

.Total production in 1979-80 is estimated at almost 1.7 million bushels,
about 96 percent of the record 1974-75 production.

Production in 1980-81 is expected to increase to 1.8 million bushels,
a 6 percent increase over 1979-80.
By 1981-82, production will approach 2 million bushels.

On-tree prices are expected to be about S5.68, $7.2a, and S7.73 per
bushel for 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82, respectively.


viii












* If production exceeds estimates or if adverse economic conditions
prevail, prices could be in the $5.00 per bushel range over the next
three seasons.

* Lower than estimated production and favorable economic conditions
could result in prices in the $8.50 $10.25 Y.ang.

* Given present rates of inflation, real on-tree prices are expected
to be relatively unchanged.















Economic Outlook for Lime Production in Fiorida


Robert L. Degner, J. Scott Shonkwiler
and Gervasio J..Cubenas

INTRODUCTION


Limes are one of Florida's most important and fastest growing sub-

tropical crops from the standpoint of economic value. Twenty years ago

the total on-tree value of the Florida lime crop was only about S800,000,

but by the 1978-79 season it was valued at nearly $9,000,000 (Appendix

Table 1). .Although part of the increase in dollar value has been caused

by inflation, there have been substantial increases in the real value of

total production (Figure 1). Further, when the effects of inflation are

removed, on-tree'prices of limes of recent seasons show substantial

improvement over prices of the 1960's and early 1970's as well (Figure

2, Appendix Table 1). These favorable prices have caused limes to be

viewed as a viable agricultural alternative for south Florida, resulting

in record plantings. As with any tree crop, the full effects of current

planting decisions will not be felt for several seasons.

The primary objective of this report is to provide the lime industry

with.information for production and marketing decisions during the next

few years. Specifically, acreage and yield trends are examined and pro-

jections made through the 1981-82 season. The impact of projected

charges on on-tree prices is then estimated. Most analyses were made


ROBERT L. DEGVER and J. SCOTT Sr; lLER are assistant professors
and GERVASIC J. CUBENAS is 3 research assistant in the Food and Resource
economics Department, University of Florida.


























6 -


i957-58 1962-63 19S7-G6 1972-73 19181- 7



Figure l.--On-tree value of Florida line production in constant 1967 dollar;, 1957-58 through 1918-79.

































































Sj II I i 9 1 i *


1957-58


19195-7(l


Figriie 2.--On-tree lime prices in constant 1957 dollars, 1957-50 through 1978-79.


1!1Ji8- ')


~----~----~---r--- -- e i r r a i r


;-----











using secondary data obtained from the Florida .Cropand Livestock

Reporting Service and The Federal-State Market News Service !4, 6, 7,

8, 91. Information was also obtained frcm lime growers and shippers and

others closely associated with the lime industry.


T ..he Florida Lime Industry in Perspective


Florida and California are the only two states producing limes

commercially, and Florida is by far the more important.' Since the early

1970's, Florida has accounted for about 90.percent of the domestic

acreage and California the remaining 10 percent.

The total annual U.S. supply of fresh limes has exceeded one mil ii~n

bushelsa during recent years. Prior to the freeze of January 1977 which

severely affected.Florida production in subsequent seasons, Florida

accounted for about 800,000 bushels per season, California about 141,000

and imports 138,000 bushels (Figure 3, Appendix Table 2).

On a proportionate basis, Florida accounted for a high of approxi-
mately 83 percent of fresh lime supplies in 1972-73 to a .low of about 50

percent in the freeze affected 1977-78 season. California's share of

the total U.S. supply has ranged from about 10 to -15 percent, and the

remainder of the U.S. supply of fresh limes-has been imported. Most

fresh lime imports are received from Mexico. Mexico supplied slightly

over 6 percent of the U.S. supplies in 1972-73 and these imports steadily

increased to about 17 percent.in 1976--.77. During the '1977-.78 season,

Hexico accounted for nearly one-third of the U.S. supplies of fresh

limes (Figure 4, Appendix Table 3).



a
The term "bushel" refers to 50 pounds (22.68 kg.) throughout the
report.















Florida


an-
1,00-

900-




800-


800-


.,exican Imports


California


e-
P
s^
P"*


SAl other imports

- _


72-7
72-73


73-74 74-75


75-76


7G-77


77-78


Figure 3.--Quantities of U.S. fresh line supplies by
source. 1572-73 through 177-73.


7S


600-





500-


tJ:



0


C-.


400-




300-




200.-





100-

-












S"LOURC'iF


Figure 4 .--Proportions of U.S. fresh lime
supplies by source.


100


OtIer













Imports from all other countries in recent years have amounted zo a

very small fraction of the total, approximately 0.5 percent. However,

reports of substantial plantings of 'Persian' iinmes in Cuba are caw:s

for concern to Florida producers.


Supply Projections


Long-run.projections for the U.S. lime industry were made after

examining historical data from Florida and California. Mexico and Cuba

were also examined. However, greater attention was given to Fiorica

projections because California's production is stable and relatively

small and because of data limitations and trade uncertainties with

respect to Mexican and Cuban production.


California


The California lime industry has experienced little growth in the

last decade, and examination of recent tree inventories reveals no

impending significant change (Appendix Table 4). California lime acreage

has remained around 400. bearing acres (162 ha.) for approximately 10

years. Further, much of this acreage consists of the seeded 'Mexican'

lime. Many wholesalers and retailers view the 'Mexican' lime as inferior

to the 'Persian' lime produced by Florida because of its tendency to

quickly turn yellow, resulting.in reduced marketability [3]. It is

unlikely that changes in the California lime industry will occur which

will appreciably affect the Florida lime industry in the next few years.
7 .. ndsrintenxf;.yes










Mexico and Cuba

Although a number of Caribbean countries have shipped fresh limes

to the U.S. in recent years, Cuba and Mexico probably pose the greate.s

competititve threat to the Florida lire industry. nfortunt u-

reliable or non-existent data and/or, uncertainties with respect to tr..e

barriers make it virtually impossible to accurately estimate the potential

of either country.

Cuba reportedly had 15,000 acres (6,073 ha.) of 'Persian' limes in

1977,.with plans to plant an additional 10,000 acres (4,049 ha.) by 1985

[1]. Although Cuban government planners indicated that all 'Persian'
limes were intended for local consumption, lifting the U.S. trade embargo

could result in exports to the U.S.

Mexico has demonstrated the potential to be a major lime supplier

to the U.S. Recent statistics indicate that Mexico has almost 112,000

*acres (45,344 ha.) of limes [10, 11]. Even though the average yield is

only 130 bushels per acre, annual production approaches 14.5 million

bushels. (Appendix Table 5). A very high proportion of the Mexican

acreage probably consists of the seeded 'Mexican' lime used for pro-

duction. of essential oil, although there is increasing interest in

'Persian' limes [10, 12].

Accurate statistical estimates of the effects of imports on Florida

lime prices cannot be-made with existing data. The analyses disc-ssed

below implicitly assume that the import levels associated with domestic

production in recent years will not be altered drastically.













Florida

Florida fresh lime supply estimates for the seasons 1979-8C thre.,

1981-82 were based on two basic factors: acreage nd yied ie by trees of

various ages.. A yield index was also calculated and used in attempts to

estimate production.

Florida lime acreage Bearing lime acreage, that is plantings two

years of age and older, was only 3,000 acres (1,215 ha.) in the 1962763

season. Gradual increases throughout the 1960's and early 1970's re-

sulted in a recent high of 4,500 acres (1,822 ha.) in the 1976-77 season.

The freeze of January 1977 resulted in. a 14 percent deciine'in bearing

acreage in 1977-78, to only 3,800 acres (1,539 ha.). .The brief decline

in bearing acreage has been reversed and will soon increase rapidly

(Figure 5, Appendix Table 6).

Recent tree inventories show that sizeable new acreages of limes

were planted after the freeze of 1977 [6]. Plantings during 1978 are

estimated at 700 acres, and expected plantings.during 1979 may reach a

record 750 acres. Many of the recent plantings are replacing older,

marginal trees that were severely damaged by the 1977 freeze, but plant-

ings considerably exceed attrition.

Bearing acreage is expected to increase 12 to 15 percent per year

during the next several seasons. During the 1979-80 season, bearing

acreage will jump to slightly over 4,700 acres (1.,903 ha.). -y tie

1980-81 season, the figure will be approximately 5,300 acres (2,152 ha.)

and by 1981-82, bearing acreage may approach 6,000 acres (2,430 ha.) if

present industry planting rates continue. The figure for 1981-82 reflects




















r2Fi',i, LI!E ACREAGE


6.0
/
5.3 /

4.7
/
'p


2,000- -- r- Reported bearing acreage

--- Projections based on in-ground plantIngs'

1,000-
I, OO-




1957-53 1959-60 1961-62 1963-64 1956-66 1967-68 1969-70 1971-72 1973-74 1975-76 1977-78t i7--n0 19;!1-82

Figurn 5.--Bearing liiic iicreage, 1957-58 through 1977-70, with projections to 1981-82.


7,000 -







5,000-



4 ,C00-



3,000-











a 36 percent increase in bearing acreage over the 1978-79 season (ADpendix

Table 7).

The estimates take into account aa average attrition rate of 2.

percent of total lime acreage for the.1978-79 through .1901-22 scascrs.

It was not necessary to estimate attrition for previous years because it

is reflected in published tree inventories. This attrition rate was

determined from tree inventories of 1965 and 1976, and was found to be

similar to that experienced by a major grower.


Florida Lime Yields


Yields have substantially improved since the eErly '19Q's when the

industry average was approximately 150 bushels per acre. Yields steadily

escalated through the 1960's, reaching approximately 300 bushels per

.acre in the 1969-70 season. By the early and mid 1970's the industry

average approached 400 bushels (Figure 6).

During periods of time when lime acreage was relatively stable,

total lime production could be estimated by examining the.total bearing

acreage and the industry average yield per bearing acre. 'At present,

however, relatively large'acreages of young trees.are coming into pro-

duction. Although they are classified as "bearing acreage" their yields

will be substantially lower than mature tree acreages, thus, the overall

industry average yield per acre is expected to decline in the next

several season. For this reason estimates of industry average yields

for trees of various ages were obtained for projecting total production

(Appendix Table 8).

Several statistical models were tested which examined the realtion-

ship between total lime production and yield by age of tree. A yield




















400 -


-nr I
o6 I
S300/








' 200

(00

















57-53 59-60 ~ 61 62 63-64 6 5-66 67-68 G9-70 .71-72 73-7,1 75-76 7-i 79-80 81-82)


17 i vet geL-~aS yifL per acre of Florida 'Persian' lilr.es 1957-58 throughil 1913-79 with projertloii s Ihrnwl!h 1981-812.










index was also constructed which attempted to predict total lime pro-

duction (Appendix Table 9, 10). The results of these models were found

to be less satisfactory than simply taking the industry average yields

for specific tree ages and multiplying them by the nuImbr of ars c

trees of the respective ages. This latter method is termed the 'yield-

by-age" technique. This technique results in estimates of total production-

that appear reasonable when compared to historical data from 1967-63

through 1975-76. -These seasons, by and large, were free of major weather

catastrophes. During this period, the yield-by-age method over-estimated.

production six times and underestimated production three times; the degree

of error ranged from 2 to 15 percent (Appendix Table 11).


Florida Lime Production


Total lime production has risen from approximately 500,000 bushels

in the late 1950's to more than 1.7 million bushels in the early and mid

1970's (Figure 7). In the 1977-78 season, total production dropped to

736,000 bushels, then increased slightly to approximately 1.2 million

bushels during the 1978-79 season (Appendix Table 6). These low pro-

duction levels were a result of the freeze in January 1977.

Total lime production projections are dependent on two factors:

bearing acreage projections and yield projections which were discussed.

above and summarized in Table 1.

Total lime production for the 1979-80 season is estimated at nearly

1.7 million bushels, which is approximately 96 percent of the-record

1974-75 high production of 1..76 million bushels.- Production for the

1980-81 season is expected zo reach a high of almost 1.8 million bushels,

a 6 percent increase over the 1979-80 level. By 1981-82 season, total





















FLORIDA LIME PRODUCTION


- Actual

Projected

---- Confidence interval


I I I~ I I


S "----..1977-78 1.... 31-32
1977-78 9;31-32


Figure 7.--florida iire production, 1957-58 through 1978-79 with projections through 1981-,2.


2,000










1,500-


1,000 -










500 -


1957-5a











Table l.--Estimated bearing acreage, average yield per acre, and total
production of Florida limes, 1979-80 through 1.931-82.



Esti-mted bearing Estimated yield Esti r.ated tc:.l
Season acreage per acre prc..c-i:


--.1,000 ----- ------------- Bushels ------------

1979-80 4,711 359 1,692,075

1980-81 5,309 .338 1,793,405

1981-82. 5,962 328 1,955,925


lime production is projected at almost 2.0 million bushels. This is

more than a 10 percent increase over the record 1974-75 season, and more

than two and a half times the 1977-78 low production of 736,000 bushels.

On-tree Lime Prices


The.term "on-tree price" refers to the average price received by

growers, net of picking and hauling charges. It is the season average

price, weighted by volume sold from April 1 of any given year through

March 31 of the following year. This season average price is reported

annually by the Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service [6].

Historical perspective.--During the late 1950's and early 1960's;

on-tree'prices remained about $2.00 per bushel. However,-prices began to

increase steadily during th early 1970's. In the 1973-74 season. prices

rose.Dast the $3.00 mark, and by 1976-77 on-tree prices had increased to

$5.38 per bushel. Severe freezes in January 1977-78 substantially re-

duced lime supplies. As a result, the average on-tree price jumped to










S9.82 per bushel in the 1977-78 season. Increased production in 978-79

reduced the average price received by growers to about S7.75 per bushel

(Figure 8).

Price projecticns.--Estimates of on-tree lime prices were made fc

the 1979-80 through 1981-82 season by using ordinary least scares

regression analysis to examine historical price-quantity relationships

for Florida limes in conjunction with other economic variables.. The

data series consisted of annual observations of selected variables for

the period 1957-58 through 1977-78. A number of statistical models were

formulated and tested which attempted to explain on-tree price vari-

ablity (Appendix Tables 13, 14). Essentially, the model which was

selected as most reasonably stipulates that lime prices decend on the

quantity produced, consumers'.incomes, and the prices of competing goods

and services. The model was specified as follows:a

P = 1.32 0.010-76 Xl + 2.278 X2 0.0246 X3

(8.31)** (2.62)* (0.68)

lere,

P = Season average on-tree price.

X = U.S. per capital production of Florida limes (total Florida

production divided by U.S. population, 48 contiguous states).

X2 = U.S. per capital disposal personal income.
X3 = Consumer.price index.


a ,
This model, which has 18 degrees of freedom, resulted in a R' nof
0.96 and a Dirbin-lWatson statistic of 2.20. The t-statistics are shown
in parentheses below the respective coefficients, and statisTical signi-
ficance is indicated at the 95 and 99 percent probability levels y one
and two asterisks, respectively.
















10.00- I



i8.00- I
A

9.-, /




I .7.73


SI \. / 7.24




3.00-
I
!



--- Actual

S5.0 -- Projected
---- .Confidence interval / ''


4.00- '
3.








2.00








-- -- {--1 --..... -g--i- 1 .... -- r--- FT...--1 1 -- .-F"-l---F--I--
57-58 52-63 65-56 3-530 71-72 74-75 78-79 : 79-83 1-82
Season

fiUe 8.--Flmorid' lire ou-trc 'jriei, 195/-5 i U ur oi 1978-W/9, with projcctiLons throu'iih 9 *11-82.


' -'----~.-----' -.-.-.l~-.--UE..6n-CXICI~YI-~.1~*~X_ --
I










As expected, an increase in per capital production results in lower

prices. The model indicates that on the average, a change- in total

production of 100,000 bushels with no change in U.S. population results

in an opposite change in the on-tree price of 29 cents per bu-hel

population increase of one million persons with no change in production

results in a price increase of 2 cents per bushel.

Changes in per capital disposal personal income (PCDPI) were aiso

found to be associated with changes in on-tree lime prices. On the

average, as PCDPI increased by O100,-on-tree lime prices increased by

approximately 23 cents per bushel.

The consumer price index (CPI) was included in the model as a

proxy for the prices of all other consumer goods and services. Whie

this variable was not statistically significant, its negative effect

on lime prices is logical.

The price projections for the 1979-80 through 1981-82 season were

made with this model, using estimates for Florida lime production deve-

loped above and estimates of the other variables contained in the model.
PCDPI and the CPI were assumed to increase at 9 and 8 percent per year,

respectively. Population has been icnreasing at a stable rate, thus,

estimates made by the Bureau of the Census for the next three years are

presumed accurate. In the 1979-80 season, Florida lime production is

expected to be approximately 1.7 million bushels, PCDPI about $1,443,

.U.S. population 219.1 million persons, and the CPI about 211.0. The

resulting predicted on-tree price is $6.68 per bushel (Table 2, Figure 8).

The forecasting reliability of all independent variables (except

for population which was assumed to be accurate) was determined by using

subjective variances [5]. Confidence limits were then calculated for












Table 2.--Projections on-tree lime prices
1979-80 through 1981-82.


and other key economic variables,


Season, Predicted Confidence iner'va
Variable, units value Lc., ..


1979-80

On-tree price (dollars) 6.68 4.81 3.5
Fla. production (1.000 bus.) 1,692 1,439 ,945
Per capital income (dollars) 1,443 1,355 1,531
U.S. population (millions) 219.1 219.1 219.1
Consumer Price Index.('67 = 100) 211.0 205.1 215.9

1980-81

On-tree price (dollars) 7.24 5.08 9.40
Fla. production (1,000 bu.) 1,793 1,511 2,076
Per capital income (dollars) 1.,573 1,474 1,672
U.S. population (millions) 221.0 221.0 221.0
Consumer Price Index ('67 = 100) 227.9 220.9 234.8

1981-82

On-tree price (dollars) 7.73 5.25 10.20
Fla. production (1,000 bu.) 1,956 1,646 2,266
Per capita income (dollars) 1,715 1,606 1,824
U.S. population (millions) 223.0 223.0 223.0
Consumer Price Index ('67 = 100) 246.1 237.6 254.6



z
Confidence limits for prices are calculated at the 90 percent prob-
ability level. Other variables except for population were estimated at the
95 percent probability level using subjective variances. Population has
been increasing at a stable rate, therefore, estimates are assumed accurate.
For predicted values, per capital income and the Consumer Price Index were
assumed to increase at 9 and 8 percent per year respectively.










projected on-tree prices at the 90 percent probability level. For

1979-80, the resulting confidence interval for on-tree lime prices is

$4.81 to $8.54 per bushel (Table 2). The average price for the 19S0-01

season is expected to be about'$7.24 per bishel w ith a p ar-c.n.t .;r.-

ability that it will be between $5.08 and $9.40.

The 1981-82 season on-tree price is projected at $7.73 per bushel,

with a confidence interval of $5.25 to $10.20 per bushel.

In conclusion, it appears that on-tree prices will increase during

the next several years. However, if the present rate of inflation

persists, real on-tree prices may.change very little.















Literature Cited


1. Brooks, Powell. 1977. "Citrus in General and Limes" travel ntes
taken on Cuban Agricultural Tour, November, 1977.

2. Degner, Robert L., J. Scott Shonkwiler, and Gervasio J. Cubenas.
1979. Economic Outlook for Lime Production in Florida. Staff
Report No. 8., Florida Agricultural Market Reserach Center, Food
and Resource Economics Department, IFAS, Gainesville, Florida.

3. Degner, R. L. and Kary Mathis. 1976. Marketing Florida Limes: A
Wholesale and Retail Analysis, Industry Report 76-3, Florida Agri-
cultural Market Research Center, Food and Resource Economics, IFAS,
Gainesville, FLorida.

4. Federal-State Market News Service (USDA-AMS and Florida Department
of Agriculture and Consumer Services). Marketing Florida Sub-
Tropical Fruits and Vegetables, Summaries, 1973-74 through 1977-78.

5. Feldstein, Martin S. January 1971. "The Error of Forecast in
Econometric Models when the Forecast-Period Exogenous Variables are
Stochastic', Econometrica, p.p. 55-80.

6. Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. 1967-1978. Citrus
Summary.

7.. 1965. Florida Speciality Crops, Dade County Fruit
Acreage. October.22.

8. .1976. Florida Speciality Crops: Tropical Fruit
Acreage, October 20.

9. .1978. Florida Speciality Crops: Troical Fruit
Acreage, September 1.

10. "Lemon or Lime and by Products". Banco Nacional De Comercio Exterio,
S.A., Department of Economic Studies, Vol. 22, No. 4, April, 1976.

11. Mendoza, Rafael Mendoza, et. al. El Mercado del Limon en Mexico,
General de Economica Agricola, SAG, DGEA, 1978.

12. Nelson, Don. 1978. Agricultural Attache, The American Embancy,
Mexico City, to Charles W-alker, Executive Vice President, Florida
Lime Administrative Committee, Personal Correspondence conveying
information on Mexican lime products supplies by Fiedicomiso Del
Limon (The Mexican Lime Trust), on January 20, 1978.





































APPENDIX








Appendix Table 1.--Nominal and deflated season average on-tree lime prices and
total crop values, 1957-58 through 1978-79.



Nominal Deflateda
"Year Price per bushel Total value Price per bushel Total value


1,000 dollars


---- Dollars ---


1,000 doifhrs-


1957-58
1958-59
1959-60
1960-61
1961-62
1962-63
1963-64
1964-65
1965-66
1966-67
1967-68
1968-69
1969-70
1970-71
1971-72
1972-73
1973-74
1974-75
1975-76
1976-77
1977-78b
1978-79


1.43
2.29
1.73
1.59
1.84
1.93
2.24
1.78
2.53
3.01
1.79
1.81
2.56
1.94
2.43
2.66
3.19
3.34
4.1.9
5.38
9.82
7.75


800.8.
731.0
886.0
789.0
1,000.7
1,228.6
1,608.5
1,603.8
1,683.2
2,043.9
2,085.1
2,036.1
2,982.8
2,736.2
4,269.0
.4,673.1
5,367.4
5,878.4
7,226.9
8,599.4
7,228.0
8,928.0


1.69
2.64
1.98
1.79
2.05
2.13
2.44
1.92
2.58
3.12
1.81
1.75
2.34
1.67
2.00
2.12
2.40
2.26
2.60
3.16
5.41
3.97


Prices were deflated by the Consumer Price Index (1967 = 100).


b
Preliminary.


Source:
1972, 1978.


Citrus Summary, Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service,


---- Dollars ---


946.4
842.7
1,014.1
E 3.4
1,114.9
1,356.0
1,752.1
1.720.3
1,783.0
2,104,6
2,085.1
1,951.8
2,715.9
2,355.4
3,513.6
3,724.4
4,038.1
3,977.6
4,484.5
5,050.1
3,982.4
4,569.1








Appendix Table 2.--Quantities of fresh limes obtained by the U.S. from
various sources, 1972-73 through 1977-78.



Fresh shipments Imports Total
Season" Florida California Mexico Other U.S. supply

------------------------- Bushels -----------------------

1972-73 856,900 107,800 65,874 5,248 1,036,822

1973-74 721,000. 117,000 92,880 4,732 935,612

1974-75 756,000 169,000 135,841 4,408. 1,065,249

1975-76 905,000 138,000 169,446 4,942 1,217,388

1976-77 790,000 172,000 199,022 5,585 1,166,607

1977-78- 534,000 166,000 347,153 17,006 1,064,159-


a
Imports.are reported for the calendar year which coincides most
nearly with the Florida lime season, i.e., imports for-1972 correspond
with Florida's 19.72-73 season,-etc.

Source: Federal State Market News Service.







Appendix Table 3.--Proportions of U.S. fresh lime supplies obtained from
various sources, 1972-73 through 1977-78.


Fresh shipments
Florida California


82.6

77.1

71.0

74.4

67.7

50.2


10.4

12.5

15.9

11.3

14.8

15.6


Imports Total
Mexico Other U.S. supply


Percent -----------------------

6.4 0.5 100.0

9.9 0.5. 100.0

12.8 0.1 100.O

13.9 0.4 100.0

17.1. 0.5 100.0

32.6 1.6 100.0


a
Imports are reported for the calendar year which coincides most
nearly with the Florida lime season, i.e., imports for 1972 correspond
with Florida's 1972-73 season, etc.

Source: Federal State Market News Service.


Season


1972-73a

1973-74

1974-75

1975-76

1976-77

1977-78







Appendix Table 4.--Caiifornia lime acreage, 1957 through 1977.



Year Bearing Non-bearing Total


1957

1958

1959

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977


240

257

277

346

334

372

429

445

355

380

390

450

400

370

386

403

431

445

418

430

447


Acres

213

235

-217

175

155

115

54

24

136

120

120

70

110

110

90

83

65

.74

131

108

101


453

492

494

521

489

487

483

469

491

500

510

520

510

480

476

.486

496

519

549

538

548


Crop and Livestock Reporting Service.


Source: California





27



Appendix Table 5 .--Mexican lime acreage, yield, and total production
for major growing areas, 1976.


State Acres


Average
yield per acre


Total a~mc-nt
producti:-


Calima

Michoan

Guerro

Oaxaca

Veracruz

Tamaulipas

Total


50,005

25,397

12,439

7,610

6,479

2,919

111,849


50 lb. bushels

139

97

131

139

197

49

130


Mi 1ion busr, as

7.9

2.5

1.6

1.1

1.3

0.1

14.5


Source: Mexican Lime


I-----` --~-"--^--------- --I-


Trust E121.








Appendix


Table 6.--Bearing.acreage, average annual yields and total production
of Florida limes, 1957-58 through 1978-79.


Bearing Yield per Total
Season acreage acre p production


1,000 acres ---.----. Bushels ----------


1957-58 3.5 112.0 560,000
1958-59 3.5 .91.2 319,200
1959-60 3.3 155.2 512,160
1960-61 3.3 150.4 45,320
1961-62 3.3 164.8 543,840
1962-63 3.0 212.2 635,600
1963-64 3.4 211.2 718,080
1964-65- 3.5 256.0 896,000
1965-66 3.3 201.6 665,280
1966-67 3.4 198.4 674,560
1967-68 3.6 320.0 1,152,000
1968-69 3.8 294.4 1,118,720
1969-70 3.9 297.6 1,160,640
1970-71 4.3 328.0 1,410,400
1971-72 4.5 390.4. 1,756,800
1972-73 4.5 390.4 1,756,800
1973-74 4.4 382.4 1,682,560
1974-75 4.4 400.0 .1,760,000
1975-76 4.4 392.0 1,724,800
1976-77 4.5 355.2 1,598,520
1977-78 3.8 194.0 736,000
1978-79a 4.1 281.0 1,152,000


a
Preliminary.

Source: Citrus Summary, Florida Crop and
Service, 1972, 1978.


Livestock Reporting








Fppendix Table 7.--Acreage of Florida limes by age of trees.


New Age of trees, years Bearinga
Source plantings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 + Total acreage

---------------- -------- Acres ----------------- --------

1965-66 347 280 290 150 80 150 50 110 60 2,110 3,527 3,000
1966-67 170 .347 280 290 150 .80 150 50 110 1,962 3,589 3,072
1967-68 324 170 347 307 287 144 81 156 47 1,880 3,743 3,249
1968-69 '405 324 170 347. 307 287 144 81 156 1,767 3,988 3,259
1969-70 477 405' 324 246 355 358 274 144 82 1,756 4,421 3,539
1970-71 98 477 405 324 246 355 358 274 144 1,800 ,481 3,906
1971-72 65 98 477 405 324 246 355 358 274 1,350 4,452 4,289
1972-73 75 65 98 447 399 328 253 356 358 1,984 4,363 4,223
1973-74 150 75 65 98 447 399 328 253 356 2,282 4,453 4,238
1974-75 204 150 75 65 99 422 399 332 251 2,557 4,554 4,200
1975-76 207 .204 165 75 65 99 397 399 332 2,730 4,573 4.262
1976-77 425 207 204 175 92 100 91 373 418 3,032 5,117 4,485
.1977-78 707 425 207 204 175 92 100 91 373 2,800 5,174 4,042
1978-79b 700 707 425 197 230 150 65 82 91 2,897 5,544 4,137
1979-80 750 700 707 425 197 230 150 65 82 2,855 6,161 4,71!
1980-81b 500 750 700 707 425 197 230 150 65 2,835 6,559 5,309
1981-82 500 500 750' 700 707 425 197 230 150 2,804 6,962 5,962


Bearing acreage is defined as trees entering their third season.


For


example, planting made during the 1975-76 season would be classified as bearing
acreage in 1977-78.

b
Unofficial industry estimates.

Source: Derived from the inventories conducted by Florida Crop and
Livestock Reporting Service and reported in various issues of Tropical Fruit
Acreage.











Appendix Table 8.--Yields
tree.


and yield index of Florida lime trees, by age of


Age of tree Industry average yield Yield index


------- Bushels ------


-- years --



2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 and over


80


325


40

52

65

Ou

95

100


475

500


a
Under ideal conditions, some trees may reach full productivity by
the eighth year with top yields of approximately 800 bushels per acre..
However, these figures in this table reflect more typical yeilds.

b.
Mature tree yield = 100.






31


Appendix Table 9.--Alternative models for estimating lime production.



Durbin de trees of
Modela Data R2 Watson fre~ do


FLPROD = 25A2 + 80A3 + 200A4


N.A.


N.A. N.A.


+ 260A5 + 325A6 +400A7

+ 475A8 + 500AM


(2) FLPROD = 143.15 4.02YEAR
(0.27)


1965-6/
1978-9


+ 0.82INDEX
(4.47)**


- 738.42DW
(6.08)**


(3) FLPROD = 10676.40 + 298.99YEAR
(0.58)

0.74INDEX 2.09YEAR2
(3.34)** (0.59)

692.99(DW)
.4.7**

(4) FLPROD= -534.40 0.19A2 + 0.69A3
0.51 1.52


+ 0.88(A4)
2.13


+ 0.23CA5)
.56


+ 0.83(A6) + 1.61(A7)
1.99 2.33

- 0.43CA8) + 0.49 (AM)
.78 3.47

- 435.32(DW)
2.23


Definitions of variable names appear in Appendix Table 15. Actual data
appear in Appendix Table 16. Numbers in parentheses are t values. Two
asterisks indicate statistical significance at 0.01 probability level and one
indicates significance at the 0.05 level.
.b
Model 1 was not estimated statistically, but results in production
estimates that appear reasonable.


0.96


1.5


1965-6/
1978-9


1965-6/
1978-9


0.98


i.49









Appendix TablelQ--Variables used for production analysis.


Variables Description/source



A2-A8 Florida lime acreage two years old through eight years old,
respectively. Source: Calculated from lime acreage
inventories, 1965-1978, Florida Crop and Livestock Report-
ing Service.

AM Florida lime acres nine years and older. Source: Lime
acreage inventories, 1965-1978, .Florida Crop.and Livestock
Reporting Service.

DW Dummy variable to account for weather disturbances.
Source: Created.

FLPROD Florida'lime production in bushels. Source: Florida
Crop and Livestock Reporting Service.

INDEX Variable created to account for different levels of
production for different ages of trees. Created as follows:
INDEX = .2*A2 + .3*A3 + .4*A4 + .52*A5 S .65*A6 + .8*A7
+ .8*A8 + .5*AM.

YEAR Time variable, where 1965-66 season = 1, 1978-79 = 14.


Time variable squared, see YEAR.


YEAR 2










Appendix Table li.--Evaluation of the yield-by-age production estimate
technique.



Estimated with Percent
Season Actual yield index Difference error


- -----------------------

665': 1,218

675 1,183

1,152 1,179

1,119 1,205

1,161 1,255

1,410 1,372

1,757 1,469

1,757 1,590

1,682 1,720

1,760 1,797

1,725 1,860

1,598 1,957

736 1,726


1965-66

1966-67

1967-68

1968-69

1969-70

1970-71

1971-72

1972-73

1973-74

1974-75

1975-76

1976-77.

1977-78

1978-79


1,557


1,000 bu.-----------------------

S ,-.553 -- --83a

-508 75"

27 2

86 .- .8

95 8

+ 38 + 3

-+270 *+ 15.

+166 + 9

38 2

37 2

-135 8

S-358 22a

-990 -35a


-505


a
Indicates production affected by
hurricane or freeze.


severe weather effects, i.e.,


1,152


- 44a






34

Appendix Table 12.--Estimated bearing acreage, average yield per acre,
and total production of Florida limes, 1979-80 through
1981-82.



Estimated bearing Estimated -yield Estimated total
Season acreage per acre production

-- 1,00 -------------------- Bushels ------ ----


1979-80 .4,711 359 ,692,075



1980-81 5,309 338 1,793,405



1981-82 5,962 328 ,955,925








Appendix Table 13.--Alternative models for estimating on-tree limTe prices.


Durbin decrees of
Model Data R2 Watson freedom


(1) PRICE = 1.32 0.000576PECAP
(8.31)**

+ 2.278PCTDI 0.0246CPI
(2.62)* (0.68)


C2) PRICE ='334.368 +


1.978T2
C25.32)**


1957-8/
1977-8


1957-8/
1977-8


0.96


0.97


1.6O


- 0.000347(FLPROD)
16.02**


PRICE = 224.975 0.00305FLPROD
12.36**


1957-8/
1977-8


0.97


1.71


+ 1.165TDI 0.326CPI
(4.54)* (1.31)


(4) PRICE = 266.466 0.000299FLPROD
(10.37)**


+ 1.232TDI -
(3.87)*'


1958-9/
19.77-8


0.97


1.72


0.394CPI
(1.26)


- 0.083LEMONP
(0.39)


(5) PRICE = 189.03 0.6265PECAP
(9.26)**


1958-9/
1977-8


0.97


1.66


- 0.53LEMONP + 0.27PCTDI
(0.24) .(0.35)*

- 0.402(CPI)
1.14


2.20








Appendix.Table "13.-Continued


M la 2 Durbin De0rees of
Model Data WR Watson freedom


(6) PRICE.= 246.89 0.647PECAP
(09.65)**


1970-1/
1977-8


0.97


1.691


-5.43LEMONPCC + 0.204PCTOI
(9.52) (1.44).

- 0.13CPI
(0.25)


(7) DFLPR =- 0.055 0.0000002FLPROD
(.8.17)**


1958-9/
1977-8


0:89


1.85


- 0.42CDFLLE) + O.01(DFIDI)
3.02* .10'.27**


(8) DFLPR = 0.12 0.00000023FLPROD
(8.52)**


1957-8/ 0.84' 1.24


+ 0.O111DFTDI
(9.79)**


(9) DFLPR = -


0.258 0.000478PECAP
-(j0.04)**


+ 0.000222DFTDI
(11.51)**


(10) DFLPR = -


0.197 0.00043PECAP
(8.58)**


- 0.291.DFLLE + 0.00021DFTDI
(2.11)* (10.77)**


(11) DFLPR = -


0.271 0.00047PECAP
(8.7)**


+ 0.0011LEMONPCC
(0.01)

+ 0.00022DFTDI
(4.07)**


a
Definitions of variable names appear in Appendix Table 9. Actual data-
appear in Appendix Table 16. Numbers in parentheses are t values. Two
asterisks indicate statistical significance at 0.01 probability level and one
indicates significance at the 0.05 level.


1957-8/
1977-8


0.88


1..58


1958-9/
1977-8


0.90


1..73


1960-1/
1977-8


0.88


1.50








Appendix Table 14.--Variables used for price analysis.


Variable name Description/source



CPI Consumer price index, all items.. Source: Working data for
demand analysis, U.S.D.A., March, i979.

DLE U.S. on-tree prices for lemons deflated by consumer price
index .

DFLPR Florida on-tree prices for limes, per 50 lb. bu. deflated
by consumer price index. Source: Created from PRICE and
DPI.

DFTDI Total disposable personal income, actual, divided by consumer
price index. Source: Created from TDI and CPI.

FLPROD Total Florida lime production, 50 lb. bushels. Source: Florida
Crop and Livestock Reporting Service.

LEMONP California on-tree price for lemons, price per bu. Source:
Citrus Summary, Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service.

LEMONPCC U.S. per capital consumption of lemons, pounds per person.
Source: Food Consumption Prices., Expenditures, Ag. Econ.
Report No. 138, U.S.D.A., March 1978.

PECAP Per capital production of Florida limes, bu. per person.
Source: Created from FLPROD and POP.

PCTDI Total disposable personal income, actual, per capital.
Source: From TDI and POP.

POP U.S. population as of July 1, 1979, for 48 states. Source:
Working Data for Demand Analysis, U.S.D.A.

PRICE Florida on-tree price for limes in 50 lb. bu. Source:
Citurs Summary, Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service.

TDI Total disposable personal income, actual. Source: Working
Data for Demand Analysis, U.S.D.A., March 1979.

TIME The 1957-58 season = 1 1958-59 = 2, etc.


Time variable squared. Source: Created.


-- -1--~1----~--1------~------~------ 1~









Appendix Table 15.--Projections on-tree lime prices and other key economic
variables, 1979-80 through 1981-82.


Season, Predicted. Confidence interval
Variable, units value Low High


1979-80

On-tree price (dollars) 6.68 4.81 8.54
Fla. production (1,000 bus.) 1,692 1,439 1,945
Per capita income (dollars) 1,443 1,355 1,531
U.S. population (millions) 219.1 219.1 219.
Consumer Price Index ('67 = 100) 211.0 206.1 215.9

1980-81

On-tree price (dollars) 7.24 5.08 9.40
Fla. production (1,000 bu.) 1,793 1,511 2,076
Per capital income (dollars) 1.,573 1,474 1,672
U.S. population (millions) 221.0 221.0 221.0
Consumer Price Index ('67 = 100) 227.9 220.9 234.8

1981-82

On-tree price (dollars) 7.73 5.25 .10.20
Fla. production (1,000 bu.) 1,956 1,645 2,266
Per capital income (dollars) 1,715 1,605 1,824
U.S. population (millions) 223.0 223.0 223.0
Consumer Price Index ('67 = 100) 246.1 237.5 254.6


a
Confidence limits for prices are calculated at the 90 percent prob-
ability level. .Other variables except for population were estimated at the
95 percent probability level using subjective variances. Population has
been increasing at a stable rate, therefore, estimates are assumed accurate.
For'predicted values, per capital income and the'Consumer Price Index were
assumed to increase at 9 and 8 percent per year respectively..













Appendix Table 16.--Data used in production estimates and price analyses.


L
S-

I

Pc
C'
C"


4 .1' 1 71 1t .
t6.C t1740, i 73
i3l 13 77. 1- a 74
3.0,7 170.') 20 1 02
I0 6 1, 0',) 211 90
')f0. 1 5 7,? 2 1 97
<1 7 1tn.4 A;, S 1 11
92 101.o ,0 26 131
')4 6 103.4 24 1 4'
'7.,? 195i .7 23 1420
1 00o. 0 1~ f.a 23 1 V3
104,,2 19 O). ) 22 227
109.0 201 '1 2261
116,3 20.03. 21 .249'
121.2 206 ,?00 22 231
12" .3 207.8 i t 193
1.3.1 209.3 10 204m
147.7 210.8 20 1 '3.1
161 212 .4 20 249
171,0.q P'i .9 il 110
181 21 56 1 141
195.4 217.3 0 b


p

T A
2 1

I 3.?B9.12
4 18F3'% 43
9 .2 ao 1 '93
1 6 .2?53,37
26 2973 +"43
16 428.- 1 1
49 3W0 1. 46
64 4691. 0
'1 141 .0 0 :
1 0 3446.9 6
1 ? 824. 06
144 -iSO9, 20
1>9 17'-4, 29

22M' 4)i2.QL,16
2'6- 14 V ,211)!
.?O n q011,99
124 *)149, 15
361 } 120, 53
400 7472o6
441 .14 13, 73
4'4 iol.43


9e 01400


1 00446
A a 1-P4 19'
1 .








I .140]90
1 00 446
'.%1"4 19V





S2.a 1047
I 4 032
! .O'-,141")






1 j4 10 9

I 00140-,7
1*,4467
0 *6431 r,
0, 776r16
o


L
P
R


0, 0?144 34 42'
01 0199 167 J'
0,9179.25(. 'n;
0, *20'17 inn
OP ?V130 ?4 4"'
0 .~ 44:7'';. 40n'
0,01'17.04 44)"

01, 300671 5 t

O OTi ? i")7 04 '3+
09071 QtO '54'
0.02311 1 640
OI"0t 61to not.
010,00330 74"
0,1212291 Ain,
O ir 0 1' (0 f 9"
Oo'0, 0 .t I "h 4H
9 .69 "0.?6 10" '
0o0115541. I tnq
O 9 1 '/4 7 1 30
O3 n1 6")tl .?p 14i/


1 "5 7'7 '1

4 7 C i
6 t-,

7 63,4

'i 65Cf..

1I 67t,
12 f)fl O
11 6670i
14 7C71
19 7 172
Et 72713
17 7?274
( 747

20 Mt ? 7
21 ?7/A
22 7 y 7'


p

I
r


1.43
2.20
1.73



6I 24
2.24
1 .78
2.53.
1,01
1.79
S1.81

1 ') 1 *94
2.43
2+66
3, 19
3.34
4.10
5.38

7.76


3 1 .'0 GC
2160



3;1 800
1 76. 000
f -74 ( )00

14104 i 0


1 7.s/1f 00

1760000
1 7?4O00
I 9'h ,400
1 1 '; 00
1 1 500 0


r
I"







1. 9t r* 1Q

i. 1'o:"fi.


2 7 0'; 3
:. /lf



1o8107
2. 4 1 '1 ,I



51. 1 1

It. )'i^6"?
I. P' 140


f



1. son v4
i i + )'- I ',
5, Ow q.",



4 4 ( 4 0'

6. in.*


t3, P005 '
., 7 4 o P
.io rt;(',P ,r

C, ,(4 1 '/ i
*, 7;. ,I *c)
/. 4;1t ."':,


"--------~--- ---I---~I '' '--




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