-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.

	Front Cover
	Abstract
	Table of Contents
	Main
	Bibliography