• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Title Page
 Foreword
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Citrus yield response to irrig...
 Irrigation investment and...
 Estimated per acre annual net returns...
 Added returns per dollar of added...
 Summary and conclusions






Group Title: Mimeo report - Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Florida - EC 69-10
Title: Yield response and economic feasibility of sprinkler irrigation of citrus, Central Florida
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00071985/00001
 Material Information
Title: Yield response and economic feasibility of sprinkler irrigation of citrus, Central Florida
Series Title: Economics mimeo report
Physical Description: 14 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Reuss, L. A ( Lawrence Adkins ), 1907-
University of Florida -- Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Publisher: Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Experiment Stations, University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Place of Publication: Gainesville FL
Publication Date: 1969
 Subjects
Subject: Citrus -- Water requirements -- Statistics -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
statistics   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: by L.A. Reuss.
General Note: Cover title.
Funding: Agricultural economics mimeo report ;
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00071985
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Marston Science Library, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Holding Location: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station; Institute for Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS), University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 50806381

Table of Contents
    Copyright
        Copyright
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Foreword
        Foreword
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    Introduction
        Page 1
    Citrus yield response to irrigation
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
    Irrigation investment and costs
        Page 6
    Estimated per acre annual net returns from irrigation
        Page 6
        Page 7
    Added returns per dollar of added cost
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
    Summary and conclusions
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE


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

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida







2"


Economics Mimeo Report EC 69-10


YIELD RESPONSE AND ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF
SPRINKLER IRRIGATION OF CITRUS, CENTRAL FLORIDA




By


L. A. Reuss


r .i 2 9 iS



S, ES.- Ur.V-. cfTior !


Department of Agricultural Economics
Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida

in cooperation with

Natural Resources Economics Division
Economic Research Service
U. S. Department of Agriculture


June 1969












FOREWORD


This report summarizes results of six years of irrigation

experiments with oranges and grapefruit completed between 1960-62

and 1965-67 at the Citrus Experiment Station, Lake Alfred, Florida.

Three levels of irrigation were considered in the experiments. The

specific objective in the work was to estimate the costs of developing

and continuing irrigation for citrus production, as a preliminary

phase of a broader objective for assessing the potential role of irri-

gation in the agricultural economy of Florida.

This particular study reviews the economic analysis and inter-

pretation of irrigation response relationships. Some underlying

engineering-economic evaluations of applying water through different

types of sprinkler systems are reviewed in the companion report

"Inputs and Costs of Selected Sprinkler Irrigation Systems for Citrus

in Central Florida," (Economic Mimeo Report EC 69-8). The two

studies were supported both by State funds and by assistance from

the Economic Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture.























CONTENTS


Page


I. INTRODUCTION . . . . 1

II. CITRUS YIELD RESPONSE TO IRRIGATION. . 2

III. IRRIGATION INVESTMENT AND COSTS. . . 6

IV. ESTIMATED PER ACRE ANNUAL NET RETURNS

FROM IRRIGATION. . . . 6

V. ADDED RETURNS PER DOLLAR OF ADDED COST . 8

VI. CONCLUSIONS. . . . . ... 12












I. INTRODUCTION


Citrus producers in Florida have been investing large sums of

money in sprinkler irrigation systems. Perhaps 500,000 acres of groves

can be served now by existing works including seepage and flood

systems. The initial capital value of these systems would equal $125

million, assuming a per acre average investment cost of $250. Invest-

ment decisions continue to be made by growers for the purchase of

irrigation systems for new plantings, for blocks of trees reaching

bearing age, and for mature groves not previously under irrigation.

The yield response of citrus to irrigation, the investment and

recurring costs of irrigation and, of course, the price of fruit, are

key considerations in the required decisions. Years of experience

provide the grower with some basis of judgment concerning projected

prices of fruit. However, definitive information concerning yield

responses and irrigation costs has not been readily available until

recently.

The yield response of citrus to irrigation has been brought

increasingly under study by IFAS scientists. Early research by Drs.

Louis W. Zeigler, John W. Sites, R. C. J. Koo and others often was

based on a limited number of irrigations during the January--June

period and generally gave modest increases in yield. The economic

feasibility of such irrigation practices was under legitimate

question. Since the Fall of 1959 the yield response of citrus to









frequency and timing of irrigation has been under intensive study at

the Citrus Experiment Station, Lake Alfred, Florida. The range in

number and timing of irrigations was substantially expanded from that

prevailing in earlier research.

Although broad guidelines to initial investment, labor input

and costs of irrigation have been available for several years, detailed

cost data have been assembled only recently by the IFAS Department of

Agricultural Economics in cooperation with the Department of Agri-

cultural Engineering.

The purpose in preparing this report was to consolidate data

now available relating the effects of irrigation upon yields and upon

economic returns. Precise measurements are not possible at this

time, but existing data do permit reasonable evaluations concerning

general relationships between irrigation, yields and net returns.

It is hoped that these evaluations will be of assistance to people

interested in sprinkler irrigation for citrus in Central Florida.


II. CITRUS YIELD RESPONSE TO IRRIGATION

An experiment was initiated in the Fall of 1959 at the Citrus

Experiment Station at Lake Alfred, Florida to obtain information

on the effects of frequency and timing of irrigation on yields of

oranges and grapefruit. The trees had been grafted on rough lemon

stock and planted on Lakeland fine sand. Marsh grapefruit and

Hamlin, Valencia and Pineapple oranges were included. The size of
1/
plots ranged from 6 to 14 trees.- Treatments, designations and


/ See Koo, R. C. J., "Effects of Frequency of Irrigations on
Yield of Oranges and Grapefruit," Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Journal Series No. 1731, November, 1963 for more details concerning the
experimental design and results.








descriptions include: Treatment I, no irrigation; Treatment II, irri-

gation at depletion of two-thirds of the readily available moisture in

the surface five feet of soil; Treatment III, irrigation at depletion

of one-third of the readily available moisture from January through

June, but two-thirds for the remainder of the year; and, Treatment IV,

irrigation at depletion of one-third the readily available moisture

throughout the years. Two inches of water, pumped from deep wells,

were applied with each irrigation.

Because the treatments described above involved maintenance

of prescribed soil moisture levels, the number and the timing of

required applications of water varied from crop season to crop season

depending upon precipitation and other conditions. For this report,

averages of annual yields in boxes of fruit per acre were associated

with averages of the number of irrigations required for each treatment.

Yields from the replicated plots are presented in Table 1 and Figure

1. Yields for one and two irrigations per crop season used in subse-

quent calculations in the report are interpolations between the

yields for no irrigation and for three irrigations shown on the curves

in Figure 1.

The average yield response was greatest for Marsh grapefruit

(up to 374 boxes per acre) followed by Hamlin, Valencia and Pineapple

oranges (up to 80 boxes per acre). The rate of yield response

decreased with added numbers of irrigations. Yield responses, of

course, included the interaction of irrigation water with fertilizers

and other inputs.






Table 1. Yield response of citrus to irrigation, six years of
experimental results, 1960-62 and 1965-67, Citrus
Experiment Station, Lake Alfred, Florida.-


Crop Treat- Number Marsh
Oranges
year ment of grapefruit
irrigation Hamlin Valencia Pineapple


Boxes per acre


1960-61


I
II
III
IV


1961-62 I
II
III
IV


1962-63


1965-66


I
II
III
IV

I
II
III
IV


1966-67 I
II
III
IV


1967-68




2A
Averages-


I
II
III
IV


I
II
III
IV


1/
- Published and unpublished data from Dr. R. C. J. Koo, Citrus Experi-
mental Station, Lake Alfred, Florida. Experimental results for crop
years 1963-64 and 1964-65 were omitted because of freeze damage.
/Six years averages of yields of oranges. Five years averages for
Marsh grapefruit, with 1967-68 omitted due to trees having been
topped in 1967, abnormally reducing yields.


507
680
835
850


672
1015
1055
1053

885
1009
1180
1224


513
1033
976
1016

1085
1232
1316
1386


749
801
845
806


0
3
6
9

0
5
9
14

0
2
5
9


0
2
6
8

0
2
4
6

0
3
5
7


0
2 5/6
5 5/6
8 5/6


463
519
581
574


537
742
860
834

720
795
932
978

400
511
630
637

875
952
1050
1071


645
815
857
869


347
408
442
433

395
557
603
692

391
428
490
454

300
355
301
344

465
586
587
680


316
376
400
355


369
452
470
493


414
470
451
480

432
500
484
534

536
583
644
648

143
139
155
199

461
476
526
498


210
241
251
317


366
402
418
446


732
994
1072
1106






5








1200


1io00 lnrbh grapefruit


1000


900

80/ Hamlin oranges
800 / ^ ^ ^


700


600 -


500 Valon-ia oranges --


400 -
Pineappie oranges

300


200


100


0 -
T rea tmeiit
I II III IV
Number of irrigations

0 1 2 3 6 9


Figure I.--Yield response of citrus to irrigation based on
six years of experimentation:, Citrus Experiment
Station, Lake Alfred, F!oriia, 1960-1967.










III. IRRIGATION INVESTMENT AND COSTS

Estimated per acre initial investments and annual irrigation

costs varied with type of system, size of grove, and number of irri-

gations per crop season. In a recent study comparisons were made of

per acre costs for four types of sprinkler systems (permanent over-

tree, self-propelled high-pressure gun, portable high-pressure gun

and perforated pipe).for three sizes of grove (40, 60 and 80 acres)

under specified conditions concerning source of water, type of power,

etc.2/

Investment and cost data presented here are those budgeted for

a rectangular 60 acre grove under prescribed conditions (Table 2).

Per acre initial investments ranged from $247 for the perforated pipe

system to $519 for the permanent overhead system.. The range in per

acre annual costs of irrigation by system and by number of irrigations

per season was from $37.09 to $92.26. Annual costs include depre-

ciation and amortization of investment.

In the present report it was assumed that the yield response

to irrigation would be the same for all four irrigation systems.


IV. ESTIMATED PER ACRE ANNUAL NET RETURNS FROM IRRIGATION

Per acre annual net returns from irrigation varied more between

the varieties of fruit than between the systems of irrigation studied


2/
Reuss, L. A. and D. S. Harrison, "Inputs and Costs of Selected
Sprinkler Irrigation Systems for Citrus in Central Florida," Economics
Mimeo Report EC 69-8, Gainesville, University of Florida,Institute of
Food and Agricultural Sciences, March 1969.










III. IRRIGATION INVESTMENT AND COSTS

Estimated per acre initial investments and annual irrigation

costs varied with type of system, size of grove, and number of irri-

gations per crop season. In a recent study comparisons were made of

per acre costs for four types of sprinkler systems (permanent over-

tree, self-propelled high-pressure gun, portable high-pressure gun

and perforated pipe).for three sizes of grove (40, 60 and 80 acres)

under specified conditions concerning source of water, type of power,

etc.2/

Investment and cost data presented here are those budgeted for

a rectangular 60 acre grove under prescribed conditions (Table 2).

Per acre initial investments ranged from $247 for the perforated pipe

system to $519 for the permanent overhead system.. The range in per

acre annual costs of irrigation by system and by number of irrigations

per season was from $37.09 to $92.26. Annual costs include depre-

ciation and amortization of investment.

In the present report it was assumed that the yield response

to irrigation would be the same for all four irrigation systems.


IV. ESTIMATED PER ACRE ANNUAL NET RETURNS FROM IRRIGATION

Per acre annual net returns from irrigation varied more between

the varieties of fruit than between the systems of irrigation studied


2/
Reuss, L. A. and D. S. Harrison, "Inputs and Costs of Selected
Sprinkler Irrigation Systems for Citrus in Central Florida," Economics
Mimeo Report EC 69-8, Gainesville, University of Florida,Institute of
Food and Agricultural Sciences, March 1969.














Table 2. Per acre initial investment, fixed and total costs of
irrigation by systems and by number of irrigations,
Central Florida. /


Permanent Self-propelled Portable Perforated
Item over-tree high-pressure high-pressure pipe
system gun-system gun-system system

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

Initial investment 519 265 276 247

Annual fixed costs 48.65 32.73 32.37 26.32

Annual total costs

One irrigation per
season 54.97 37.22 38.70 37.09

Two irrigations per
season 36.30 41.71 45.03 43.86

Three irrigations per
season 57.62 46.21 51.36 50.63

Six irrigations per
season 61.59 59.68 70.35 70.95

Nine irrigations per
season 66.81 73.16 89.34 92.26



Reuss, L. A. and D. S. Harrison, "Inputs and Costs of Selected
Sprinkler Irrigation Systems for Citrus in Central Florida,"
Economics Mimeo Report EC 69-8, Gainesville, University of
Florida,Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, March 1969.








and were generally higher with higher frequency of irrigation during

the season. In 14 of the 16 variety-system combinations studied, net

returns were higher at Treatment IV (averaging 9 irrigations per season)

than with a smaller number of irrigations whereas in only two cases were

net returns highest at Treatment III (averaging six irrigations per sea-

son) (Table 3). However, it should be noted that Treatment IV is not

recommended now by some Horticulturists because of possible excessive

adverse effects upon internal and external quality of fruit and for

other horticultural considerations.

Net returns ranged up to $494 for Marsh grapefruit, $373 for

Hamlin oranges, $181 for Valencia oranges and $93 for Pineapple oranges

(Figure 2).

Losses were shown with a treatment involving one irrigation

for Pineapple oranges under all irrigation systems.

Net returns from Hamlin oranges were maximized with six irri-

gations instead of nine under portable high-pressure gun and perforated

pipe systems.

With treatments consisting of one, two and three irrigations,

net returns from irrigation tended to be higher for the portable systems

than for the permanent over-tree system. With treatments of six and

nine irrigation, net returns tended to be higher for the permanent

system and the self-propelled gun system than for the other two systems.


V. ADDED RETURNS PER DOLLAR OF ADDED COST

Returns per dollar of irrigation cost were very low with one

irrigation per season, yet positive for all varieties except Pineapple

oranges (Table 4). Returns were highest for Marsh grapefruit followed










Table 3. Estimated per acre annual net returns from sprinkler irri-
gation of citrus for selected varieties, systems and num-
bers of irrigations per season, Central Florida.


Irrigation System

Number of Permanent Self-propelled Portable Perforated
Variety irrigations over-tree high-pressure high-pressure pipe
per season system gun gun

----------------- Dollars per acre---------------------

Marsh grapefruit 1 76 94 92 94
2 206 220 217 218
3 335 347 342 342
6 448 450 440 439
92/ 494 488 472 469


Hamlin oranges 1 22 39 38 40
2 97 112 108 109
3 172 184 179 179
6 360 362 352 351
91/ 373 367 351 348

Valencia oranges 1 0 18 17 18
2 54 69 66 67
3 108 120 115 115
6 140 142 132 131
92/ 181 175 159 156

Pineapple oranges 1 -31 -13 -15 -13
2 -8 6 3 4
3 14 26 21 21
6 42 44 34 33
9./ 93 87 71 68


- Grapefruit were valued
per box. No allowance
than for irrigation.


at $1.50 per box on-the-tree and oranges at $2.00
was made for any additional growing costs other


2/Treatment IV, averaging 9 irrigations per crop season, is not recommended
now by some Horticulturists because of possible excessive adverse effect
on internal and external quality of fruit and for other horticultural
considerations.







Marsh
grapefruit

co
-r
-Zr


Hamiin
oranges


C-"


Valencia
oranges


-4-


Pineapple
oranges



C I


1 2 3 6 9 1 2 3 6 9 1 2 3 6 9 123 6 9


Irrigations per season


Figure 2.--Estimated per acre annual net returns from irrigations by varieties and numbers of
irrigations, assuming costs for a permanent over-tree irrigation system.













Table 4. Added irrigation returns per dollar of added irrigation
cost for selected systems, varieties and numbers of irri-
gation, Central Florida.



Irrigation per season
Variety and One Two Three Six Nine
over over over over over
system 2/
none one two three six-

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

Marsh grapefruit
Permanent over-tree 2.38 98.49 99.24 29.47 9.77
Self-propelled gun 3.52 29.18 29.11 8.69 3.78
Portable gun 3.38 20.69 20.69 6.16 2.69
Perforated pipe 3.53 19.35 19.35 5.76 2.39

Hamlin oranges
Permanent over-tree 1.39 57.65 58.08 43.36 3.45
Self-propelled gun 2.06 17.08 17.04 14.25 1.341
Portable gun 1.98 12.11 12.11 10.11 0.95-
Perforated pipe 2.07 11.32 11.32 9.45 0.841/

Valencia oranges
Permanent over-tree 1.01 41.60 41.92 9.07 8.81
Self-propelled gun 1.49 12.32 12.30 2.67 3.41
Portable gun 1.43 8.74 8.74 1.90 2.42
Perforated pipe 1.49 8.17 8.17 1.77 2.16

Pineapple oranges
Permanent over-tree 0.441/ 18.04 18.18 8.06 10.73
Self-propelled gun 0.641/ 5.35 5.33 2.38 4.15
Portable gun 0.621/ 3.79 3.79 1.69 2.95
Perforated pipe 0.651/ 3.55 3.55 1.57 2.63


-Added returns do not exceed one dollar per
irrigation. Not economically justified.


dollar of added cost of


2/
1Treatment IV, averaging 9 irrigations per crop season, is not recom-
mended now by some Horticulturists because of possible excessive ad-
verse effect on internal and external quality of fruit and for other
horticultural considerations.









in order by Hamlin, Valencia and Pineapple oranges. Returns were lower

for the permanent system than for the three portable systems studied,

due to the high fixed cost of permanent systems. At this low level of

irrigation, the highest return ($3.53) was shown for Marsh grapefruit

with the perforated pipe system.

Added returns per added dollar of cost were shown to be high

from the addition of the second and again the third irrigation per

season. The order of the varieties remained unchanged. Returns were

higher for the permanent than for the portable systems, a reversal of

situation at the level of one irrigation. Returns ranged from $3.55

for Pineapple oranges up to nearly $100 for Marsh grapefruit.

Added returns per dollar of added cost were all positive but at

a lower level in going from three to six irrigations per season. The

range was from $1.57 to $43.36. Added returns were higher for the per-

manent system than for the portable systems.

Added returns per dollar of added cost comparing six and nine

irrigations per season ranged from $0.84 to $10.73, being less than

$1.00 for Hamlin oranges with the portable high-pressure gun and the

perforated pipe systems. Added returns at this level of irrigation

were highest for Pineapple oranges followed in order by Marsh grape-

fruit, Valencia and Hamlin oranges, reflecting the shape of the curves

in Figure 1.


VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Six years of experimental results at the Citrus Experiment Sta-

tion, Lake Alfred, Florida, indicate that substantial yield increases

can result from irrigation treatments averaging about 3, 6 and 9 irri-









nations per season. The treatment with 6 irrigations increased yield

an estimated average of 340 boxes per acre for Marsh grapefruit, 211

for Hamlin oranges, 111 for Valencia oranges and 52 for Pineapple

oranges. Treatment IV, averaging 9 irrigations per crop season, is

not recommended now by some Horticulturists because of possible exces-

sive adverse effects upon internal and external quality of fruit and

for other horticultural considerations.

Increases in gross value of product up.to $510 per acre were

indicated for Treatment III when fruit was valued on-the-tree at $1.50

per box of grapefruit and $2.00 per box of oranges.

When the estimated costs of irrigation were deducted from the

value of product attributed to irrigation, (including the value of any

interaction of irrigation water with fertilizers and other inputs) per

acre net returns up to $448 for Marsh grapefruit, $360 for Hamlin

oranges, $140 for Valencia oranges and $42 for Pineapple oranges were

indicated from Treatment III. These returns were associated with a

treatment averaging 6 irrigations and with the estimated costs of a

permanent over-head sprinkler irrigation system. Lower net returns

were associated with other irrigation systems with the same or less

intensive irrigation treatments.

Interpolated yield responses for one irrigation per season indi-

cated relatively low added gross returns per dollar of added cost of

irrigation for all varieties and all systems studied. With one irri-

gation costs exceeded returns for all systems on Pineapple oranges,

indicating lack of economic justification for so few irrigations.

Added gross returns per added dollar of cost were substantial










for the second irrigation and again for the third irrigation. Added

returns per added dollar of cost declined from the third to the sixth

and from the sixth to the ninth irrigation. Added returns were below

added costs for Hamlin oranges with portable high-pressure gun and per-

forated pipe systems at the level of nine irrigations, indicating lack

of economic justification for more than six irrigations for this variety

using these two systems.

Based on per acre fet returns from irrigation, the choice between

systems, at levels of 2 and 3 irrigations per crop season, was between

the self-propelled high-pressure gun system and the portable high-

pressure gun,system. Net returns under either system were much higher

than for either the permanent over head or the perforated pipe systems.

At levels of six and nine irrigations per crop season the choice

was between the permanent over-tree system and the self-propelled high-

pressure gun system., Net returns under either system were much higher

than for the portable high-pressure gun system or the perforated pipe

system.

Assuming a permanent over-tree system or a self-propelled high-

pressure gun system, there was economic justification for the treatment

averaging 9 irrigations per season. However, the grower needs to

consider possible adverse effects on quality of fruit resulting from

Treatment IV compared to Treatment III.

With either the permanent or the self-propelled gun systems,

top priority for irrigation among the varieties studied was indicated

for Marsh grapefruit, followed in descending order by Hamlin, Valencia

and Pineapple oranges.




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