![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
UFDC Home |
myUFDC Home | Help | ![]() |
Front Cover | |
Abstract | |
Table of Contents | |
Main | |
Bibliography |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Full Citation | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Table of Contents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Front Cover
Front cover Abstract Abstract Table of Contents Page i Main Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Bibliography Page 8 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Full Text | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
-T .: -'r F-tv,
R.wo R.R P.,,MMura ro j- , Ben Abbitt t F -- Ilk '-A g .'"' '!'_ I.- !V pr- AA 11r Ri t rr: uf:.L~; .,. 'V Economic inf urn YN. ucr ti nn N. 1A Y a -.;[]- 4? ". ' _- ',.. -Decembe -. 1 SFood and Resource Economics Department December l976 Agricultural Experiment Stations and ..; .. ,.' ' Cooperative Extension Service ..... .' '', i ? Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences X University, o Florida-, iI Gei6 uOF (,. ., t* zy tion P FF ;;4: ' i 'Ll V .' 4 7 .. -"" '" ~' 1,':...... .. .. ; 'i rur ;.r_. .,-- ..... --, ..L;7 .~l .P -. :~?:5... .: ; e -.$6, .t ' Aix> -~s v\ .-T," o . grapfrut intbeIndian River area of.Florida are presented for the' second cosute year' The format presented May-L # be used by individual growers to budget costs and returns. M t utilizing: individual data on .sec.ific groves. ,$ -V "'.r ,;- .. I, M -.-. ,., .. J,,. ._, . -nd ket>rns y4 ,. A. ,, I *IN. Am"' K 7 I'' I ir"' ~ -~-,. .r 'r, ,t W, R ~JJIf r *~ .4ia '4"v .X ~ ~~ r ..~ ....~j I. ; ".:__ .rT .*. "'w . -..." ,. > -.% .".. -. ..v w ;- t- *- t, tI1hijk44.i 'L .- z ." ..7 ,J L'HP :, :iv.' S~~*. .T, '-; ,' .?. :::p-~~:X : 'StmatecT -cCsts li~d"edzs q rowinE wnlte'i see(~ : /. .,.:.fruit in .the rndlan River area of.1orida are present: -, ,- -. .-. ,.. for the. second_ consedutive year; The format presentd may''. . .be used by individual growers to budget costs and returns ; :" ':. utilizing _indivi slca ,; ,.sc~~-aroc~es ~i c.. . ". '-' '3 '.',. .w'., f6 .- :.r:: .t : :' .hT:i;'" ~f '. ,; i : .' : :: i- 4. MY,, ,.._ ... ,1,.-:.. 'W' bA o o ... .; '. r;,- ,f '::: ":''. ~74 .. ..4. .. 116 '" .... 5- .. ..--~- .. '.- ~ ~~i ;~~! -". ,. r : ;.,, -.,, ri ,,. A' ," ,:, ,; ; ~- '"" : .,,' ,, .. .,...,, ". : ; j .;" ;,. o, :' ;, ,,. . ,., : ,,, T .' ,,l:' .. _ "~~~ ;,,.,_ ,... _.,: -' '" -: ". :, '- ~ ~ ~ ~~i '. ..yl; L:,-- ,F;-:.. ...... i-- ;"~~~, "'- "- '- ._ .,. ..,,.,...i. '- '~ .... =-i" '-i '< :'-'" ....... .. -;, .... .... .y~q .. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION. . . . . METHOD . . . . . THE GROVE SITUATION . . . Age and Production Per Tree . . Calculations of Production Per Acre . COSTS OF INPUTS . . . ... SPRAY PROGRAM . . . . COSTS AND RETURNS . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . Page . . . 4 . .. . . . .. .. 2 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Costs of inputs supplied on a custom basis used in calculating costs . . . . . 2 Costs of chemicals used in calculating costs. . . 3 Spray program used in budget based on custom rates and application of two 500-gallon tanks per acre. . . 4 Estimated annual per acre costs and returns for a mature White Seedless grapefruit on Sour Orange rootstock, Indian River area, Florida, 1975-76. . 5 Schedule of production practices in Indian River groves . . . . . . BUDGETING COSTS AND RETURNS: INDIAN RIVER CITRUS PRODUCTION, 1975-76 R. P. Muraro and Ben Abbitt INTRODUCTION Current data on costs and returns are needed by citrus growers in order to formulate realistic budgets for their operations. Budget analysis provides the basis for many grower decisions. For example, budget analysis can be used to calculate potential profits from an operation, to determine cash requirements for an operation, and to determine break-even prices. This paper presents a budget synthesized from current data and will serve as a format for growers to develop costs and returns from their individual records. METHOD The data presented here were developed by surveying custom operators, input suppliers, growers, and colleagues at the Agricultural Research and Education Center in Lake Alfred. The assumptions made as to a particular grove situation are thought to be typical of a healthy, mature, sour-orange-rooted, white seedless grapefruit grove in the Indian River area of the state. R. P. MURARO is a Farm Management Extension Agent stationed in Polk County. BEN ABBITT is an Extension Farm Management Economist stationed at the Agricultural Research and Education Center, Lake Alfred. 1 The generation of costs and returns procedure is designed to be applicable to any grove situation. A grower, realtor, or land appraiser can substitute individual grove costs and expected returns into the budget format and develop a budget for a particular grove. THE GROVE SITUATION It is difficult to define a "typical" grove; therefore, it is necessary to state the assumptions under which a budget was constructed. Specific production practices vary from grove to grove. Many combinations of practices and various tree combi- nations seem to accomplish production of acceptable yields and returns. In the following budget, good management and cultural practices are assumed. Beyond this general assumption, the following specifics are assumed. 1. A 20-year-old irrigated grove; 2. Variety is white seedless on sour orange rootstock; 3. Tree loss is 3 percent annually; 4. Trees are pulled and replaced when production falls below 50 percent of expected yield; 5. Production is for fresh use; and 6. Tree-spacing is 70 trees per acre. Age and Production Per Tree Situation Boxes/tree 3% pulled and reset 0 3% 1 year old 0 3% 2 years old 0 3% 3 years old 0.5 3% 4 years old 1.1 57% 5-19 years old 4.4 3% producing 50% of expected yield 3.75 25% mature producing 7.5 Calculations of Production Per Acre 70 x 0.03 x 0.5 = 1.05 70 x 0.03 x 1.1 = 2.31 70 x 0.57 x 4.4 = 175.56 70 x 0.03 x 3.75 = 7.88 70 x 0.25 x 7.50 = 131.25 Boxes/acre = 318.05 COSTS OF INPUTS Costs for various production input items are the average of data reported by custom operators and suppliers of fertilizer, chemicals, and other inputs in a January, 1976 survey. These costs are shown in Tables 1 and 2. On-tree prices for all uses of white seedless grapefruit as reported by the Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service were used. Table 1.--Costs of inputs supplied on a custom basis used in calculating costs Item Labor Mowing (9'-10' rotary) Mowing (sickle) Herbiciding Topping Hedging (1-side) Hedging (2-side) Removing trees (plus driver) (front end loader) Power saw w/o operator Tractor and driver Truck and driver Water truck Mound builder Rotary ditcher Irrigation, flood Fertilize, bulk Spray, dilute Unit Hr. Hr. Hr. Hr. Hr. Hr. Hr. Hr. Hr. Hr. Hr. Hr. Hr. Hr. In. Acre Tank Cost Low High Avg. 2.80 $ 4.00 $ 3.44 8.75 12.50 10.05 8.00 11.50 9.70 8.00 13.50 10.14 120.00 22.50 26.00 24.25 120.00 14.80 16.55 .15.94 1.00 5.00 3.13 4.00 7.65 6.62 11.00 7.50 8.25 7.88 7.75 10.00 12.50 8.75 1.64 2.50 8.00 15.00 10.00 Your Cost $ _ _ $ $ 4 SPRAY PROGRAM The spray program presented here is believed to be of the type followed by a majority of growers. It is not the exact program outlined in the 1976 Spray and Dust Schedule, nor is it necessarily the most economical spray program. Most growers in the Indian River area produce grapefruit for the fresh market and their spray program is formulated to produce a fruit of this quality. Table 3 outlines the spray program which is used for calculations in the budget which follows. Table 2.--Costs of chemicals Item Copper, tri-basic Zinc, 36% zn Manganese-sulfate Chlorobenzilate Ethion Delnav Benlate Oil, 97% Sticker Sulphur dust Krovar II 16-0-16 fertilizer 16-0-16-4 MgO fertilizer 8-2-8 fertilizer used Unit Lb. Lb. Lb. Gal. Gal. Gal. Lb. Gal. Gal. Ton Lb. Ton Ton Ton in calculating Cost $ .86 .32 .10 17.91 12.29 23.91 8.30 .94 6.25 105.00 5.15 96.36 103.07 67.52 costs Your Cost $______ COSTS AND RETURNS Table 4 shows the estimated costs and returns based on data presented earlier and with a custom-caretaker providing grove management. This table, as do the others, has a column reserved for the individual grower to insert data from a particular grove. costs Your Cost $ 5 This will allow a comparison of the grower's costs and returns with those of the hypothetical case presented. Two items of cost which are not included in the budget are ad valorem taxes and interest on grove investment. These costs vary from grove to grove depending on age, location, soil and time of purchase or establishment. They should both be considered in arriving at a net return (total return minus costs). Table 3.--Spray program used in budget based on custom rates and application of two 500-gallon tanks per acre Item Amount/Acre Cost Your Cost Dormant Application Copper 3 pounds $ 2.58 $ Manganese 7 pounds .70 Zinc 7 pounds 2.24 Sticker 1 pint .78 Application 2 tanks 20.00 Total $26.30 Post Bloom Application Chlorobenzilate 2.5 pints $ 5.60 $ Application 2 tanks 20.00 Total $25.60 Summer Oil Application Oil 8 gals. $ 7.52 $ Copper 3 pounds 2.58 Application 2 tanks 20.00 Total $30.10 Miticide Application Delnav 5 pints $14.95 $ Sticker 1 pint .78 Application 2 tanks 20.00 Total $35.73 Shown in Table 5 are production practices for Indian River citrus and a range of times during the year when they would likely be performed. Table 4.--Estimated annual per acre costs and returns for a mature White Seedless grapefruit on Sour Orange rootstock, Indian River area, Florida, 1975-76 Item Description Amount Your Cost I. Revenue II. Expenses Spray Program Fertilizer Material Application Weed Control Mow Middles Mow Under Trees Pull Vines Herbicide Pruning (Maintenance) Topping Hedging Removing Brush Irrigation (Flood) Tree Replacement and Care Remove Trees Prepare Site Plant Resets Water Fertilizer Management III. Total Specified Costs IV. Return to Land and Trees 318 boxes @ $1.41 From Table 3 16-0-16, 625 Ibs. 2 @ $2.50 5 times per year 4 times per year By hand 2 lbs. Krovar II, incl. appl. 6 appl., total 18 in./year 2.1 trees per acre Use of mound builders Including 2.1 trees per acre Including application 5% of gross sale $30.11 5.00 $25.13 19.40 5.26 14.23 $ 3.53 2.53 13.71 $16.08 6.25 11.70 11.90 4.81 $448.38 117.73 35.11 64.02 19.77 31.28 50.74 22.42 $341.07 $107.31 - -- ---- Grove practice Date performed Comments Mowing middles Mowing under trees Pull vines and general grove work Herbicide (vine control) Topping Hedging & remove brush Remove trees Irrigation Clean ditches Young trees Fertilize Dust (sulphur) Spray (dilute) Five times each year Four times each year Throughout year February thru June February thru June Winter months Throughout year Twice each year Throughout year Twice each year (February & August) September or October Dormant, Post bloom Summer oil, and Fall miticide ---- a This is a suggested schedule of practices. Actual practices would not necessarily be done on the exact schedule shown here. Table 5.--Schedule of production practices in Indian River grove Table 5.--Schedule of production practices in Indian River groves --- ------ -I---^--`---I-~' -- C- One-way mowing One-way mowing Primarily winter months After pulling vines After fruit is harvested After fruit is harvested When other grove practices are not being performed Average six irrigation applica- tions per year (18.0 inches/yr.) Fall and summer As needed At leadt 130 pounds of nitrogen applied per acre each year As needed Two tanks per acre; 500 gallons per tank There are two benefits to developing such a table for an individual grove. First, it shows what work is needed and when, so that operations can be planned well in advance. Second, it is a must if an annual cash flow analysis is to be developed to plan financing. The individual grower can achieve benefits by developing a plan for a particular grove. BIBLIOGRAPHY [1] DuCharme, E. P. "Tree Loss in Relation to Young Tree Decline and Sand Hill Decline of Citrus in Florida." Proceedings of the Fla. State Hort. Soc. 84:48-52 (Oct. 1970). [2] Florida Citrus Spray and Dust Schedule 1975. Univ. of Fla. Coop. Ext. Serv. Cir. 393A, Feb. 1975. [3] Muraro, Ronald P. "Comparative Citrus Budgets." Bartow: Polk County Ext. Serv., Mar. 1976. [4] Muraro, Ronald P. "Summary Custom Rate Survey for Nine Indian River Citrus Caretakers." Bartow: Polk Count Ext. Serv., Mar. 1976. [5] Muraro, Ronald P. "Cost of Resetting a Citrus Grove." Bartow: Polk County Ext. Serv., Sept. 1976. [6] Reitz, H. J., C. D. Leonard, et al. Recommended Fertilizers and Nutritional Sprays for Citrus. Univ. of Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 536C, Dec. 1972. There are two benefits to developing such a table for an individual grove. First, it shows what work is needed and when, so that operations can be planned well in advance. Second, it is a must if an annual cash flow analysis is to be developed to plan financing. The individual grower can achieve benefits by developing a plan for a particular grove. BIBLIOGRAPHY [1] DuCharme, E. P. "Tree Loss in Relation to Young Tree Decline and Sand Hill Decline of Citrus in Florida." Proceedings of the Fla. State Hort. Soc. 84:48-52 (Oct. 1970). [2] Florida Citrus Spray and Dust Schedule 1975. Univ. of Fla. Coop. Ext. Serv. Cir. 393A, Feb. 1975. [3] Muraro, Ronald P. "Comparative Citrus Budgets." Bartow: Polk County Ext. Serv., Mar. 1976. [4] Muraro, Ronald P. "Summary Custom Rate Survey for Nine Indian River Citrus Caretakers." Bartow: Polk Count Ext. Serv., Mar. 1976. [5] Muraro, Ronald P. "Cost of Resetting a Citrus Grove." Bartow: Polk County Ext. Serv., Sept. 1976. [6] Reitz, H. J., C. D. Leonard, et al. Recommended Fertilizers and Nutritional Sprays for Citrus. Univ. of Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 536C, Dec. 1972. |