• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 The model
 Information used in the model
 Results
 Conclusion
 Annexes






Title: Economic feasibility of expanding permanent tree crops on hillsides
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00071959/00001
 Material Information
Title: Economic feasibility of expanding permanent tree crops on hillsides
Physical Description: 9 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Mulleady, Tomas
Inter-American Institute of Agricultural Sciences
Publisher: Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture
Place of Publication: Kingston Jamaica
Publication Date: 1991
 Subjects
Subject: Tree crops -- Economic aspects -- Jamaica   ( lcsh )
Hill farming -- Jamaica   ( lcsh )
Genre: conference publication   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Spatial Coverage: Jamaica
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: Tomas Mulleady.
General Note: "December 10, 1991."
General Note: Spiral bound.
Funding: Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00071959
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 74336637

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    Introduction
        Page 1
    The model
        Page 2
    Information used in the model
        Page 2
        Production activities
            Page 3
        The production coefficients
            Page 4
        Product and input prices
            Page 4
        Resources
            Page 4
    Results
        Page 5
        Analysis of production alternatives
            Page 6
            First alternative
                Page 7
            Second alternative
                Page 7
            Third alternative
                Page 8
    Conclusion
        Page 8
        Page 9
    Annexes
        Page 10
        Figure 1: Land use - Riversdale-Troja-Golden Grove districts
            Page 11
        Figure 2: Land tenure - Riversdale-Troja-Golden Grove districts
            Page 12
        Figure 3: Farm size - Riversdale-Troja-Golden Grove districts
            Page 13
        Figure 4: Number of parcels per farm - Riversdale-Troja-Golden Grove districts
            Page 14
        Figure 5: Crop mix for 3-5 acres farm - Riversdale-Troja-Golden Grove districts
            Page 15
        Figure 6: Farm model crop mix - Riversdale-Troja-Golden Grove districts
            Page 16
Full Text
0/, 7 0
5 5205


ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF EXPANDING

PERMANENT TREE CROPS ON HILLSIDES



Tomas Mulleady


IICA OFFICE IN JAMAICA


I I I I _



























ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF EXPANDING

PERMANENT TREE CROPS ON HILLSIDES



Tomas Mulleady







Kingston

December 10, 1991





The views expressed in signed articles are those of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of the Inter-American
Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture












INDEX



Page



I. Introduction ............................ 1

II. The Model ................................. 2

III. Information used in the Model .............. 2

1. Production Activities

2. The Production Coefficients

3. Product and Input Prices

4. Resources

IV. Results...................................... 5

Analysis of production alternatives 6

First alternative

Second alternative

Third alternative

V. Conclusion .................................. 8


Annex











ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF EXPANDING PERMANENT
TREE CROPS ON HILLSIDES




I. Introduction

The typical farm operation has labour, capital and land that
can be allocated in many ways to the production of different
crops and livestock activities. How farmers decide what to
plant and how much is a complicated process, but in general,
farmers are rational in their decision making process and
efficient in the allocation of their resources.

Usually, farmers do not have a written farm plan. However,
they do have a plan in their minds. For the most part, the
farmer is guided by what has worked in the past and makes
small continuous adjustments in the plan from one season to
the other. With this process, farmers allocate their
resources -labour, land and capital- given the available
technology, their goals and risk considerations.

To understand better the farmers' decision making process a
farm model was developed. The model is a simplified
representation of a typical farm in a region. In the
development of the farm model, one attempts to capture the
relationships that prevail among production, investment,
borrowing, hiring, buying and selling activities.

In a small family farm operation, household consumption needs
and decisions affect the allocation of resources and
production activities. These relationships need to be
represented in the model if one tries to analyze the
rationale small farmers use in resource allocations.

The first step in developing the farm model was to attempt to
reproduce what the farmers do. The model tries to represent
the complex manner in which prices, yields and farmers'
resources interact to find the best combination of production
activities.

The reliability of the model fdr projecting different farm
scenarios, rests upon how well represents reality.
Reasonable correspondence of the simulated outcome to what
occurs in real life provides an excellent foundation for
structuring a model that looks into the future. The model
can then be used to analyze different production, price,
technology and resource availability situations to provide
insight into a variety of relationships.







-2-


II. The model

A multi-period 4 year farm model was developed to simulate
the path to be followed to move a farming operation from its
present situation to a desired one of expanding the area
planted with permanent tree crops.

The model represents production activities that supply cash
at harvest time and demand cash for purchase of inputs, and
activities that represent home consumption cash requirements.
Production activities and family consumption expenditures
compete for available cash.

The model includes a constraint which requires that the cash
generated by the farm operation should satisfy the basic
family cash expenditures first. This is a safe assumption to
make.

The multi-period model includes activities that transfer cash
between periods to represent cash flows closer to the real
farm situation. Any surplus of cash in one year is
transferred to the next year.

A multi-period model requires that the different production
alternatives and constraints considered in the model ought to
be entered for every period considered in the analysis. This
quickly increases the size of the model. So the analysis was
restricted to four years due to the limitation imposed by the
available computer software.

The model was developed and processed using linear
programming. This is a mathematical optimization technique
that computers have made practical to simulate farm
operations under different assumptions. The solution gives
the best combination of activities that can be obtained given
the limitations of the resources available.

In a short period, the method makes it poss-iblec to dpt:irrmine
the best crop combination and test several production
alternatives under different assumptions with respect to: a)
technology; b) prices; c) yields; and d) production
constraints.


III. Information used in the model

The model delineates a representative farm for the Districts
of Golden Grove, Troja and Riversdale in the Rio Cobre
watershed in Saint Catherine. Baseline survey information on
190 farms was used to select the representative farm size and
production activities to include in the model.

Figure 1 in the Annex, illustrates the typical land use for
the three Districts. Tree crops occupy about 50 percent of







-2-


II. The model

A multi-period 4 year farm model was developed to simulate
the path to be followed to move a farming operation from its
present situation to a desired one of expanding the area
planted with permanent tree crops.

The model represents production activities that supply cash
at harvest time and demand cash for purchase of inputs, and
activities that represent home consumption cash requirements.
Production activities and family consumption expenditures
compete for available cash.

The model includes a constraint which requires that the cash
generated by the farm operation should satisfy the basic
family cash expenditures first. This is a safe assumption to
make.

The multi-period model includes activities that transfer cash
between periods to represent cash flows closer to the real
farm situation. Any surplus of cash in one year is
transferred to the next year.

A multi-period model requires that the different production
alternatives and constraints considered in the model ought to
be entered for every period considered in the analysis. This
quickly increases the size of the model. So the analysis was
restricted to four years due to the limitation imposed by the
available computer software.

The model was developed and processed using linear
programming. This is a mathematical optimization technique
that computers have made practical to simulate farm
operations under different assumptions. The solution gives
the best combination of activities that can be obtained given
the limitations of the resources available.

In a short period, the method makes it poss-iblec to dpt:irrmine
the best crop combination and test several production
alternatives under different assumptions with respect to: a)
technology; b) prices; c) yields; and d) production
constraints.


III. Information used in the model

The model delineates a representative farm for the Districts
of Golden Grove, Troja and Riversdale in the Rio Cobre
watershed in Saint Catherine. Baseline survey information on
190 farms was used to select the representative farm size and
production activities to include in the model.

Figure 1 in the Annex, illustrates the typical land use for
the three Districts. Tree crops occupy about 50 percent of







-3-


the land. Figure 2, shows land tenure in the region, 06
percent of the land is family and owned land. Rented land is
about 14 percent. Figure 3, presents information on farm
size, 47 percent of the farms have 3 acres of land or less.
Figure 4, shows the proportion of farmers farming one parcel
or more. Forty three percent of the farmers farm more than
one parcel.

The information and assumptions used in the preparation of
the model are presented below.


1. Production activities

The activities considered in the analysis are:

a) maintenance and selling of production
activities of permanent tree crops; and

b) production and marketing of annual crops
common in the region.

There are major distinctions in terms of resource use
and income between the two groups (permanent and
annual). Maintenance of permanent trees demands less of
the farmer's management time (supervision), labour and
working capital and is not so demanding in terms of
proper timing of cultural practices.

Income, although not as high as with annual crops, is
more stable. Yield and short run price variability is
lower than in annual crops and, therefore, the income
from tree crops provides a more regular source of cash
flow.

The crops included in the model are the following:

Permanent

a) coffee and cocoa inter-planted with bananas and
plantain

b) citrus

c) sugar cane

Annuals

d) root crops

e) vegetables

The production activities represent the technology used
by the farmers. No pattern of crop rotation seems to












exist in the region, therefore activities showing crop
rotation were not included in the model.


2. The production coefficients

Production coefficients correspond to the crop yields,
labour and working capital requirements per acre.
Differences in demand for labour and working capital
between permanent and annual crops are reflected in the
magnitude of the coefficients.

The model assumes a production per acre of 8 boxes each
for inter-planted cocoa and coffee, as well as a
production of 100 stems for bananas and 50 for plantain.


3. Product and input prices

The farm model developed represents early 1991 prices.
The level of prices has increased since then, but the
assumption is that relative prices remained the same.

Having all prices too high or too low distorts the
income estimate of the optimum plan, but if relative
prices do not change the optimum crop plan and the
analysis conducted is still valid.


4. Resources and other constraints

Resources include land, labour and working capital. It
is assumed that cocoa and coffee do not compete for the
same type of land with citrus, sugar cane and annual
crops. The model represents a farm with 4 acres of land
and assumes that 1 acre is suitable for citrus, sugar
cane and annual crops and 3 acres for tree crops,
bananas and plantains.

The total labour contemplated in the model is farmer's
labour, no hired labour activities are included in the
model. This assumption will be released later during
the analysis of different production alternatives.

The model assumes that annual and permanent crops
compete for farmer's labour during the year. Some
cultural practices need to be performed at a specific
period of time and annual and permanent crops compete
for the available labour during that critical period.

Successful planting of annual crops is highly dn'rpnde(nt
on the availability of moisture for land preparation arid
planting. The model reflects the constraint on the
supply of farmer's labour during the two main rainy












exist in the region, therefore activities showing crop
rotation were not included in the model.


2. The production coefficients

Production coefficients correspond to the crop yields,
labour and working capital requirements per acre.
Differences in demand for labour and working capital
between permanent and annual crops are reflected in the
magnitude of the coefficients.

The model assumes a production per acre of 8 boxes each
for inter-planted cocoa and coffee, as well as a
production of 100 stems for bananas and 50 for plantain.


3. Product and input prices

The farm model developed represents early 1991 prices.
The level of prices has increased since then, but the
assumption is that relative prices remained the same.

Having all prices too high or too low distorts the
income estimate of the optimum plan, but if relative
prices do not change the optimum crop plan and the
analysis conducted is still valid.


4. Resources and other constraints

Resources include land, labour and working capital. It
is assumed that cocoa and coffee do not compete for the
same type of land with citrus, sugar cane and annual
crops. The model represents a farm with 4 acres of land
and assumes that 1 acre is suitable for citrus, sugar
cane and annual crops and 3 acres for tree crops,
bananas and plantains.

The total labour contemplated in the model is farmer's
labour, no hired labour activities are included in the
model. This assumption will be released later during
the analysis of different production alternatives.

The model assumes that annual and permanent crops
compete for farmer's labour during the year. Some
cultural practices need to be performed at a specific
period of time and annual and permanent crops compete
for the available labour during that critical period.

Successful planting of annual crops is highly dn'rpnde(nt
on the availability of moisture for land preparation arid
planting. The model reflects the constraint on the
supply of farmer's labour during the two main rainy












exist in the region, therefore activities showing crop
rotation were not included in the model.


2. The production coefficients

Production coefficients correspond to the crop yields,
labour and working capital requirements per acre.
Differences in demand for labour and working capital
between permanent and annual crops are reflected in the
magnitude of the coefficients.

The model assumes a production per acre of 8 boxes each
for inter-planted cocoa and coffee, as well as a
production of 100 stems for bananas and 50 for plantain.


3. Product and input prices

The farm model developed represents early 1991 prices.
The level of prices has increased since then, but the
assumption is that relative prices remained the same.

Having all prices too high or too low distorts the
income estimate of the optimum plan, but if relative
prices do not change the optimum crop plan and the
analysis conducted is still valid.


4. Resources and other constraints

Resources include land, labour and working capital. It
is assumed that cocoa and coffee do not compete for the
same type of land with citrus, sugar cane and annual
crops. The model represents a farm with 4 acres of land
and assumes that 1 acre is suitable for citrus, sugar
cane and annual crops and 3 acres for tree crops,
bananas and plantains.

The total labour contemplated in the model is farmer's
labour, no hired labour activities are included in the
model. This assumption will be released later during
the analysis of different production alternatives.

The model assumes that annual and permanent crops
compete for farmer's labour during the year. Some
cultural practices need to be performed at a specific
period of time and annual and permanent crops compete
for the available labour during that critical period.

Successful planting of annual crops is highly dn'rpnde(nt
on the availability of moisture for land preparation arid
planting. The model reflects the constraint on the
supply of farmer's labour during the two main rainy






-5-


seasons and the demand for labour of each unit of
activity for land preparation and planting during those
critical periods. The model reflects more flexibility in
terms of timing of other cultural practices.
It is assumed that a total farmer's labour supply of
253 person-days per year is available in 4 periods
(April, 23 man-days; May-July, 63; August-November, 83;
and December-March, 84). The rest of the farmer's and
family labour is used in livestock and other activities
of the farm operation.

In the construction of the model it is assumed that
farmers have an initial working capital at the beginning
of the first year. This represents cash generated by the
production activities of the previous year. Working
capital for the other periods is generated within the
model by the production and selling activities of annual
and permanent crops.


IV. Results

A first step in developing the model was to attempt to
reproduce what the farmers do in the region. Once the model
was processed, the results were checked to see how close the
model reflects reality.

Figure 5 in the Annex, presents survey data showing actual
land use and main production activities for owned farms. The
crop mix corresponds to farms with 3 to 5 acres of land in
one parcel.

Figure 6 shows farm model results. The crop combination that
maximizes income subject to farm resources constraints
includes 50 percent of the land (2 acres) with a combination
of cocoa and coffee inter-planted with banana and plantain,
20 percent with vegetables (8 squares) and 5 percent of root
crops (2 squares). The results of the analysis show that
farmers allocate resources efficiently given the constraints
they face and the opportunities open to them.

The optimum solution shows that approximately 25 percent of
the land is not used. Farmers use part of this land in
livestock activities. These activities were not included in
the analysis to keep the model at a manageable size.

Labour supply was a limiting factor during land preparation
for annual crops in April and during the period August-
November. The model shows that reductions in labour supply
in April and during the August-November period will result in
reductions of income of $180 and $260 per person-day. There
is a surplus of labour in the other periods.

This has important implications for the introduction of new












production activities that demand labour during the periods
that labour is limited. The farmers will expect higher
returns for their labour before they decide to allocate their
time to the new production activities.

Working capital is not a limiting factor in the
implementation of the farm plan. Given the actual crop mix
and technology, the farm generates enough cash to satisfy
basic household and farm operational needs without external
financing. The actual production mix and the levels of
technology used may be one factor that explains the low
demand for credit by small farmers.

The optimization method also provides information on the
reduction in income that will occur if one unit of production
activity not in the optimum farm plan is included in the farm
plan. Citrus and sugar are not included in the optimum plan.
This means, that if resources allocated to the production of
vegetables, root. crops and other permanent crops are
allocated to the. production of citrus and sugar cane, this
will result in a loss of income of about $ 6,000. The
decrease in production will result mainly in the production
of annual crops.

For the analysis on hand, it is considered that the model is
a good representation of the farms in the region. The next
step is to simulate what could be the reaction of farmers to
the introduction of new production alternatives. Will the
new alternatives be attractive enough for the small farmer to
adopt them?


Analysis of production alternatives

If production conditions remain the same in the future,' no
adjustments in relative price relationships are necessary to
analyze the impact of new production alternatives.

Two permanent crop activities are included in the analysis:

a) establishment of cocoa inter-planted with
coconut and banana

b) establishment of low land-coffee under natural
shade

The model assumes that banana production starts during the
second year, cocoa in the third year and coconuts during the
fourth year. Production during the fourth year is 12 boxes
for cocoa, 400 nuts for coconuts and 240 stems for banana.
Coffee production during the fourth year is 70 boxen per
acre.







-7-


First alternative

The model assumes that the permanent trees will be planted on
the unused land. Labour requirements and working capital
required for the establishment and maintenance of the tree
crops are included in the model.


Results

The optimum solution shows that it is not economically
feasible to increase the area with permanent tree crops under
the conditions presented in the model. Farmers' income will
be higher if they continue with the same crop mix and level
of activities.

Changes in the actual crop mix will require the re-allocation
of working capital and labour to the establishment and
rehabilitation of permanent tree crops, thus reducing the
area planted with annual crops.

The model estimates the reduction of income in the first year
to be $12,000 per acre of land planted with these tree crop
alternatives. This value decreases in year two as bananas
start producing, but continues at a negative value in years
three and four.


Second alternative

In this alternative it is assumed that inputs and labour
required for the establishment and maintenance of the tree
crops during the first two years were financed by outside
sources. The model assumes that the farmer only provides
unused land in years 1 and 2 and labour and working capital
in years 3 and 4.

Results

Again, the optimum solution shows that the optimum farm plan
remains the same as before. Even with outside financing
during the first two years it is not economically feasible to
increase the area with permanent tree crops. The use of
farmer's labour to maintain the additional acreage with cocoa
and coffee in year three and four results in a reduction of
income for the farmer. Certain cultural practices will not be
carried out, not because the farmers do not know of the
benefits, but because they cannot afford the time to do it.

It will not be irrational behavior on the part of the farmers
if they do not carry out weed control and cultural practices
in three year old or older cocoa and coffee plantations.
Labour is the most limiting factor and the farmers cannot
afford to behave differently.







-7-


First alternative

The model assumes that the permanent trees will be planted on
the unused land. Labour requirements and working capital
required for the establishment and maintenance of the tree
crops are included in the model.


Results

The optimum solution shows that it is not economically
feasible to increase the area with permanent tree crops under
the conditions presented in the model. Farmers' income will
be higher if they continue with the same crop mix and level
of activities.

Changes in the actual crop mix will require the re-allocation
of working capital and labour to the establishment and
rehabilitation of permanent tree crops, thus reducing the
area planted with annual crops.

The model estimates the reduction of income in the first year
to be $12,000 per acre of land planted with these tree crop
alternatives. This value decreases in year two as bananas
start producing, but continues at a negative value in years
three and four.


Second alternative

In this alternative it is assumed that inputs and labour
required for the establishment and maintenance of the tree
crops during the first two years were financed by outside
sources. The model assumes that the farmer only provides
unused land in years 1 and 2 and labour and working capital
in years 3 and 4.

Results

Again, the optimum solution shows that the optimum farm plan
remains the same as before. Even with outside financing
during the first two years it is not economically feasible to
increase the area with permanent tree crops. The use of
farmer's labour to maintain the additional acreage with cocoa
and coffee in year three and four results in a reduction of
income for the farmer. Certain cultural practices will not be
carried out, not because the farmers do not know of the
benefits, but because they cannot afford the time to do it.

It will not be irrational behavior on the part of the farmers
if they do not carry out weed control and cultural practices
in three year old or older cocoa and coffee plantations.
Labour is the most limiting factor and the farmers cannot
afford to behave differently.







-8-


Third alternative

Labour hiring activities were introduced in the model to
release the labour constraint for the August-November period
and explore changes in the optimum farm plan. Labour was
hired at $50 per man-day.


Results

The optimum solution shows that labour is hired until labour
productivity is equal to the salary paid. The additional
labour was allocated to the production of vegetables. The
area under vegetables was expanded from 0.8 to 1 acre during
the August-November period and root crops were dropped from
the optimum plan.

It is interesting to note that it took no more than 15
additional man-days to decrease to $50 the value added by the
last unit of labour. This needs further analysis but it may
suggest a low demand for labour given the actual production
alternatives available to the farmer. This may help to
understand why farmers complain about the high cost of
labour.


V. Conclusion

The main conclusion of this preliminary analysis is that
farm size, technology and production alternatives have a very
important impact on the feasibility of small farmers
expanding the area planted with tree crops. Simulation
results indicate that expansion of the area with tree crops
on the hillsides by small farmers is not economically
feasible.

In the short term, outside financing for rehabilitation and
establishment of permanent tree crops appears as a feasible
alternative. The period requiring outside financing must not
be less than two years.

Outside financing should include hired labour during critical
periods. The opportunity cost of farmers' labour is higher
than current wage rates.

The model's results infer that implementation of a program of
this type requires close monitoring in order to reach the
targets. Farmers will tend to use some additional resources
provided by outside sources for more profitable alternative
uses on the farm than planting tree crops.

In the medium term, the problem needs to be addressed by way
of exploring the feasibility of other high value tree crops;
establishment and rehabilitation of tree crops associated







-8-


Third alternative

Labour hiring activities were introduced in the model to
release the labour constraint for the August-November period
and explore changes in the optimum farm plan. Labour was
hired at $50 per man-day.


Results

The optimum solution shows that labour is hired until labour
productivity is equal to the salary paid. The additional
labour was allocated to the production of vegetables. The
area under vegetables was expanded from 0.8 to 1 acre during
the August-November period and root crops were dropped from
the optimum plan.

It is interesting to note that it took no more than 15
additional man-days to decrease to $50 the value added by the
last unit of labour. This needs further analysis but it may
suggest a low demand for labour given the actual production
alternatives available to the farmer. This may help to
understand why farmers complain about the high cost of
labour.


V. Conclusion

The main conclusion of this preliminary analysis is that
farm size, technology and production alternatives have a very
important impact on the feasibility of small farmers
expanding the area planted with tree crops. Simulation
results indicate that expansion of the area with tree crops
on the hillsides by small farmers is not economically
feasible.

In the short term, outside financing for rehabilitation and
establishment of permanent tree crops appears as a feasible
alternative. The period requiring outside financing must not
be less than two years.

Outside financing should include hired labour during critical
periods. The opportunity cost of farmers' labour is higher
than current wage rates.

The model's results infer that implementation of a program of
this type requires close monitoring in order to reach the
targets. Farmers will tend to use some additional resources
provided by outside sources for more profitable alternative
uses on the farm than planting tree crops.

In the medium term, the problem needs to be addressed by way
of exploring the feasibility of other high value tree crops;
establishment and rehabilitation of tree crops associated







-9-


with high value annual crops; and by increasing the
productivity of annual crops.

A strong research program to test sustainable, and
economically feasible production alternatives that address to
the limiting factors faced by the farmers is essential.
Also, there is a need to understand the inter-relationship
between household and farm operations to understand what kind
of incentives are needed to manage the natural environment in
a more sustainable manner.

Finally, an economic evaluation of the damage to the
watersheds' environment is necessary, so that appropriate
policies and projects can be devised. The costs to society
in terms of the deterioration of natural resources, damage to
the environment and infrastructure, merits to invest
resources in the analysis of these and other options for the
improvement of agriculture on the hillsides.

The problems are serious, the exploration of alternative
solutions challenging. It is hoped that this presentation
stirs some thoughts on these problems and promotes some
discussion for the benefit of small farmers and Jamaica's
society in general.





































ANNEXES










FIGURE 1.


LAND USE
Riversdale-Troja-Golden Grove Districts


Ruinate (22.2%)




Perm.Crops (13.5%)-i


Tree Crop (49.6%)


Annuals (14.7%)












FIGURE 2.


LAND TENURE
Riversdale-Troja-Golden Grove Districts


Family Land (20.4%)



Rented (13.6%)


Owned (66.0%)













FIGURE 3.


FARM SIZE
Riversdale-Troja-Golden Grove Districts


5 or more (29.6%)
acres


0.1-3 (46.6%)
acres


3.1-5 (23.8%)
acres











FIGURE 4.


Number of Parcels per Farm
Riversdale-Troja-Golden Grove Districts


Four or more


Three


(56.6%)


Two (21











FIGURE 5.


CROP MIX FOR 3-5 ACRES FARM
Riversdale-Troja-Golden Grove Districts

(Privately Owned)


Ruinate (11.0%)


Cane-
Pastures


(22.0%)


Pimento-
>) Mango-
Other trees




Cocoa-
-(42.9%) Banana-
Coconut-
Coffee


Annuals (11.0%)-












FIGURE 6.


FARM MODEL CROP MIX
Riversdale-Troja-Golden Grove Districts

(4 acres)


Unused land (25.0%)-\



Root crop (5.0%) 0


Vegetables (20.0%)


Cocoa-
Banana-
(50.0%)
Coconut.
Coffee




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