Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A study of mechanization alternatives in fruit harvesting Yomchinda, Vitawas 1970

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1970_A6_7 Y64.pdf [ 7.7MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0059177.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0059177-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0059177-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0059177-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0059177-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0059177-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0059177-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0059177-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0059177.ris

Full Text

A STUDY OF MECHANIZATION ALTERNATIVES IN FRUIT HARVESTING . BY VITAWAS YOMCHINDA B.Sc. (Agric.) Kasetsart University, 1964 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF . MASTER OF SCIENCE in the Department of Agricultural Mechanics We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1970. In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e Head o f my Depar tment o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Depa r tment The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a V a n c o u v e r 8, Canada ABSTRACT Fruit-growers in the lower mainland of Bri t i sh Columbia are facing a potential labor shortage for hand harvesting of f ru i t . Prices paid to hand picking labor have increased by more than 100 percent in the last three years. These factors have prompted interest in mechanical harvesting methods. The purpose of this research was to investigate the f eas ib i l i ty of introducing mechanical harvesting methods in raspberry production and to determine optimum machine parameters. A review of methods used for determining the optimum size of agricultural equipment was conducted and the methods were summarized. Due to the nature of small fru i t production some commonly used methods were not applicable and modifica-tions were necessary. A fru i t y ie ld function and a timeliness function were developed for Willamette raspberries. The f ru i t y ie ld function based on actual yie ld data, was used for determining the potential income from a raspberry plantation. The t imel i -ness function, based on the reduction of frui t quality due to variations in the length of the interval between subsequent harvests, was used to determine a suitable charge for untimeliness at any part of the harvest season. An optimum frui t removal efficiency for mechanical harvesting of Willamette raspberries was determined by assessing the loss in potential income due to the removal of green fru i t and the production of over mature f r u i t . This was based on published results of mechanical harvesting t r i a l s . Results indicated that the mechanical harvesting of raspberries could be potentially much more profitable than hand harvesting. A machine with a frui t removal efficiency of 80 percent and with an operating speed of 1.5 miles per hour, or greater, appeared to be optimum. At operating speeds above 1.5 miles per hour, the cost of mechanical harvesting was not s ignif icantly influenced by the purchase price of the harvester. The cost of untimely operation was large. Extending the interval between subsequent harve.sts by one day resulted in an annual prof i t reduction of approximately 200 dollars per acre. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST. OF TABLES - iv LIST OF FIGURES v NOMENCLATURE v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xi INTRODUCTION 1 Small Fruit Growing in Brit ish Columbia Lower Mainland - 1 Scope and Purpose of this Research 1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . 3 Development of Mechanical Raspberry Harvesting Systems 3 Field Machinery Selection • 3 Cost Analysis 4 Fixed Costs 4 Depreciation 4 Method of Estimating Depreciation 5 Service Life 8 Interest on Investment 10 Taxes 10 Insurance 10 Shelter 11 Fixed Cost Percentage 11 Purchase Price of Tractors and Equipment 13 Variable Costs 13 Repair and Maintenance Costs 13 Fuel Costs 16 Oi l Costs 19 Power and Energy Considerations 20 Force Factor . 2 0 Fie ld Efficiency 21 Timeliness Charges for Field Operations 23 Timeliness Factor 23 Determination of the Minimum Cost of a Machinery System 25 i i . TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) PAGE Implement Selection 25' Tractor Selection 27 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF RASPBERRY HARVESTING 31 Introductory Remarks 31 Marketing Conditions ' 31 Cultural Practices for Raspberry Growing 32 Scope of the Analysis 35 Determination of a Timeliness Function for Raspberry Harvesting 35 Timeliness Factor for Once-over Operations 35 Raspberry Yield 35 The Dependence of Fruit Quality on Time of Picking 42 The Timeliness Function 4 3 The Effect of Picking Efficiency on Gross Income 4 8 Cost Analysis of Hand Harvesting of Raspberries 54 Cost of Hand Labor 54 Additional Costs incurred in Hand Harvesting 54 Income, Cost and Profit 56 Cost Analysis of Mechanical Raspberry Harvesting 58 Fixed Costs 59 Operating Costs 60 Machine Capacity 60 Method of Calculation 61 Machine Cost and Gross Profit Variation Over the Harvest Season 62 Machine capacity and purchase price 65 Effect of Picking Interval on Gross Profit 71 Comparison of Hand Picking to Machine Picking 75 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 7 6 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY 7 9 LITERATURE CITED 80 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) APPENDIX A Computer Program for the Effect of Picking Interval on Income APPENDIX B Computer Program for the Effect of Picking Interval and Picking Efficiency on Income from Raspberries APPENDIX C Computer Program for the Cost Analysis of Mechanical Harvesting APPENDIX D Cost Analysis of Mechanical Harvesting iv . LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I Service l i f e of farm machines 9 II Annual fixed cost percentages for farm machines . 1 2 III Specific price of new implements 14 IV Specific price of new tractors 15 V Repair and maintenance cost, percent of purchase price 17 VI Traction and transmission coefficients for wheel tractors 19 VII O i l consumption of tractors 20 VIII Typical farm implement force factors 21 IX Typical f i e ld efficiencies 22 X Timeliness factors 24 XI Raspberry yie ld data 36 XII The effect of picking interval and picking efficiency on income from raspberries 52 XIII Comparison of hand harvesting cost and income from a raspberry plantation 58 XIV Cost and prof i t (dollars per acre per year) of raspberry machine picking per acre, 8 hours per day 6 3 XV Cost and profit (dollars per acre per year) of raspberry machine picking per acre, 10 hours per day 6H V . LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1 Graph for estimating tractor fuel consumption 18 la Total cost of timeliness 24 2 ' 3 4 3 34 4 34 5 Daily frui t y ie ld for Willamette raspberries 41 6 Cumulative yie ld for Willamette raspberries 42 7 The effect of picking interval on the gross income from raspberries 44 8 Gross income reduction due to delayed picking intervals 4 5 9 The effect of frui t removal efficiency on gross annual income for various picking intervals 51 10 Cost analysis of hand harvesting of raspberries 57 11 Graph of cost, income, profit and yie ld reduction of raspberry machine picking operating 3 hours per day, purchase price $5,000, speed: 1.5 mph, with 3 day picking interval .66 12 Graph of cost, income, profit and y ie ld reduction of raspberry machine picking operating 8 hours per day, purchase price $5,000, speed: 1.5 mph, with 4 day picking interval 6 7 13 Graph of cost, income, profit and yield reduction of raspberry machine picking operating 8 hours per day, purchase price $5,000, speed: 1.5 mph, with 5 day picking interval 68 V I . LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) FIGURE PAGE .14 Graph of cost, income, profit and yie ld reduction of raspberry machine picking operating 8 hours per day, purchase price $5,0 00, speed: 1.5 mph, with 7 day picking interval 69 15 The effect of machine purchase price and machine speed on gross annual profit 70 16 The effect of machine purchase price and machine speed on gross annual profit 71 17 Gross annual profit of raspberry machine picking versus picking interval for different speeds of operation 72 18 Gross annual profit of raspberry machine picking versus picking interval for different speeds of operation 73 19 Gross annual profit of raspberry machine picking versus picking interval for different.speeds of operation 74 v i i . NOMENCLATURE A area over which the operation is done annually, acres. B annual implement costs, dollars per year. C effective f i e ld capacity, acres per hour. C cost for a specific harvest, dollars per acre, a C ^ hand picking cost, dollars per acre, for a specific three day period. C^ . annual tractor cost for f i e ld operation, dollars per year. C^ machine operating cost, dollars per hour. C annual tractor cost for processing operation, ? dollars per year. C annual tractor cost for transport operation, dollars per year. Cy seasonal capacity of a machine, acres. D annual depreciation charge, dollars per year. D Q machine output, acres per hour. E f i e ld eff iciency, percent. F fixed cost percentage. G energy requirement for processing operation, horsepower per ton H fuel cost, dollars per hour. hour of operation, hours. I annual interest charge ,• dollars per year. I . gross income, dollars per acre, for a specific three day period. J gross income, dollars per acre. K timeliness factor per hour. the estimated l i f e of machine, years, percent frui t loss, percent, cost of labor, dollars per hour, sample size. cost of engine o i l , dollars per hour. purchase price of machine, dol lars . tractor fixed cost charge, dollars per hour. repair cost, dollars per hour. fraction of grade number 1 f r u i t . fraction of grade number 2 f ru i t . coefficient of multiple determination, salvage price of machine, dol lars , sum of years, digits (1 + 2 + 3 . . . . L ) sinking 'fund, dollars, standard error of the estimate, harvest date, days. the remaining value at anytime of machine, dol lars. value of the machine at the end of year n. weight of material annually transported or processed tons per year. the ratio of the depreciation rate used to that of straight l ine method. picking eff iciency, percent. raspberry frui t y i e l d , grams per plant for a specif i harvest day. frui t yie ld at present day of picking, pounds per acre. frui t y ie ld at previous closest picking date, pounds per acre. frui t y ie ld at previous second closest picking date, pounds per acre. frui t y ie ld at previous third closest picking date, pounds per acre. cumulative y ie ld of raspberry, grams per plant. cumulative income reduction, dollars per acre. cumulative income reduction, dollars per acre, evaluated at date a. income reduction, dollars per acre for a specific harvest period. cumulative income reduction, dollars per acre, evaluated at date b. gross income for specific harvest in terva l , dollars per acre. gross income reduction, dollars per acre per hour. the gross income reduction in dollars per acre per day for a four day picking interval as opposed to a three day interval . the gross income reduction in dollars per acre per day for a five day picking interval as opposed to a three day interval . the gross income reduction in dollars per acre per day for a six day picking interval as opposed to a three day interval . picking interva l , days. hauling distance, miles. implement force factor, pound per foot of width. tractor s ize, power take-off horsepower. interest rate, percent. a specific number of operations. total number of annual transport operations. total number of f i e ld operations of implement. X. n the age of the machine, years. p purchase price of implement, dollars per foot width. q tota l number of annual processing operation s speed, miles per hour. t timeliness charge, dollars per hour. t^ date of last picking. date of present picking. u specific new tractor price per horsepower, dollars per horsepower. v crop value, dollars per bushel, ton, etc. w ° effective width, feet. price per pound of number 1 raspberry f r u i t , dol lars . x price per pound of number 2 raspberry f r u i t , dol lars . v x i . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his grateful appreciation to Dr. E.O. Nyborg for his assistance and guidance in the preparation of this thesis. Professor L.M. Staley for his supervision and chairmanship of the research committee. Dr. G.W. Eaton, Dr. G.R. Winter and Dr. N.R. Bulley who served on the research committee and reviewed this paper. This research was financed by the Canadian Inter-national Development Agency. INTRODUCTION Small Fruit Growing in the Brit i sh Columbia Lower Mainland The trend toward increased mechanization on frui t farms in Brit i sh Columbia is the result of two quite dist inct conditions. One is the economic drive for greater productivity which is expressed by a greater acreage of land per farm unit , while the other is a reduced farm labor supply. Since hand harvesting is one of the most costly act iv i t ies of frui t production and since the act iv i ty of hand labor is often acute during harvesting, the survival of some types of f ru i t production w i l l depend upon the development of a mechanical harvester. This is especially true for the small f ru i t growing industry in the Brit ish Columbia lower mainland. In recent years, both the acreage and volume of raspberry production in the lower mainland has shown a steady increase. The raspberry acreage in the lower mainland increased from 1,300 acres in 1962 to over 2,100 acres in 1967 (8)*. Due to improved cultural practices, yields have steadily increased u n t i l , at present, average production is about 10,000 pounds per acre. As many as 10,000 hand pickers are needed for the month-long raspberry harvest season in the lower mainland. The need for improved harvesting techniques is urgent i f small f r u i t growers are to remain in production. Scope and Purpose of this Research The topography of raspberry farms in the lower •: Numbers in parentheses refer to the appended references. 1. mainland is ideal for mechanical harvesting. Since the land is generally f lat and has enough large raspberry plantations mechanical harvesting is feasible (2). Recent attempts at developing a mechanical raspberry harvester (2, 4, 6, 17) have indicated that although the topography is ideal for mechanical harvesting, raspberries are not especially suitable for mechanical handling and a mechanical harvesting system must be a compromise among several factors. Although the actual cost of mechanical harvesting may be less than that of hand harvesting, machine harvested fru i t is* of reduced quality (17). The purpose of this research is to compare mechanica harvesting techniques, with hand harvesting methods in order to determine the economic l imits for machine cost, machine capacity and the quality of machine harvested f r u i t . Although raspberry production is used, the methods developed should be applicable to the selection of minimum cost harvesting equipment for any fru i t growing enterprise. REVIEW OF LITERATURE D e Y ^ } - 9 j ? m e H ^ 9 ^ iiL^h a n - L c r l l „ „ ^ ? s P ^ ) e r ' . r ' y Harvesting Systems Many recent attempts have been made at developing mechanical raspberry harvesting systems for the west coast region of Canada and the United States (2, 4, 6). Although the Willamette variety is very suitable for this region and has replaced most other var i t ies , i t is not especially suited to mechanical harvesting methods (17). Due to the high ratio of f ru i t retention force to stem strength, frui t must be more mature than for hand picking, before mechanical harvesting is possible. Similarly, frui t removal efficiency must be l imited to prevent excessive plant damage. Although the requirements of mechanical harvesting systems to enable competition with hand harvesting methods have been suggested? (17) several factors were not considered and a more complete economic analysis appears to be necessary. Field Machinery Selection Since the introduction of high speed computers, several methods have been used for selecting machinery systems to suit specific farming enterprises (5, 10, 14). Simons (20) developed stored computer programs for solving problems of f i e ld machinery selection and cost analysis. Hunt (9) developed a Fortran program to select farm equipment on a least cost basis. This program, which is suited for large grain farming operations , is used to calculate the annual machinery cost for operations where the number and types of machines are known. It is arranged to calculate annual depreciation charges, trade-in value, interest on investment, fixed annual rates for repairs and lubrication charges and fuel consumption. In order to use this program, raw data on farm operations, machine data including the price and function of a l l machines and tractors, as well as specific horsepower requirements and fuel consumption must f i r s t be obtained. For f i e ld machinery selections by size and capacit of a l l implements, the effective width of implements and the equivalent horsepower requirement of tractors is used. Implement size selection on a least cost basis (5,20) must be adjusted to meet timeliness and requirements for maximum prof i t . Power requirements'must be equal to the maximum amount of power required by any single implement in order to complete'its operations within an al lotted time. Cost Analysis Depreciation may logical ly be divided into two elements, variable and fixed (18). The variable element may be termed wear-depreciation and the fixed element may be considered as time-depreciation. The latter relates to the maximum number of years or hours over which a machine may be profitably used before i t becomes obsolete. The former relates to the maximum use in hours or acres that can be expected before the machine wears out in an economic sense. Fixed Costs Depreciation Depreciation is defined as the reduction in value a machine caused by natural wear while in use, obsolescence, weathering, accidental damage, rust and corrosion. An estimate of depreciation is necessary for the calculation of cost of operation and in determining the service, l i f e of the machine. Naturally the parts of the machine become worn out with use and depend on the operator's s k i l l , maintenance practices, operating conditions and. the quality of the machine i t s e l f . A l l this w i l l affect the performance of the machine. The development of more up-to-date machines, designed to give higher efficiency and to suit new cultural practices, results in a rapid rate of obsolescence of machines now on hand. Methods of Estimating Depreciation Four methods of estimating depreciation costs (13) are widely used. These are the straight- l ine method, the declining balance method, the sum of digits method and the sinking fund method. The widely used straight- l ine method reduces the value of a machine by an equal amount each year during i ts useful l i f e . A machine depreciates less by this method for the f i r s t few years than i ts resale value would indicate, while the machine depreciation cost of performing a farm operation remains constant at a l l ages of the machine. It is generally assumed when using this method that the value of the machine at the end of i ts service l i f e w i l l be about ten percent of i t s original cost. The annual depreciation charge by the straight- l ine method is where D = annual depreciation charge P = purchase price S = salvage value L = the estimated economic . l i f e in years. The declining balance method is a constant percentage method. A uniform rate is applied each year to the remaining value (including salvage value) of the machine at the beginning of the year. The depreciation amount is different for each year of the machine's l i f e . Depreciation by this method is ° D = V - V [2] n n+1 where V = P (1 - £ ) n n L V = P (1 - * ) n + 1 n+1 L and D = the amount of depreciation charged for year n+1 n = the age of the machine, in years, at the beginning of the year in question P = purchase price V = the remaining value at any time L = estimated service l i f e in years X = the rat io of the depreciation rate used to that of the straight- l ine method The sum of the digits method permits a higher rate of depreciation during the early l i f e of a machine. The digits of the estimated number of years of machine l i f e are added together and this sum is divided into the number of years of l i f e remaining for the machine including the year in question. 7. The fractional part of the difference between purchase price and the salvage value is the amount of depreciation charged each year. This method depreciates the value of a machine to zero at the end of i ts useful l i f e . Using this method, annual depreciation is D = (P - S) [3] Sd where D = annual depreciation for year n Sd = sum of years-digits (1 + 2 + 3 + . . . -+ L) n = the age of the machine in years at the beginning L = estimated machine l i f e , years P = purchase price S = salvage value The sinking fund method considers depreciation cost as an investment which w i l l draw compound interest. The accumulation of the fund by the time that a machine is ful ly depreciated, plus interest , is used to purchase another equivalent machine. The i n i t i a l value of such a sinking fund is SF = (P - S) ~ — [4] (1 + i) - - 1 where SF = sinking fund P = purchase price S = salvage value i = interest rate percent L = estimated machine l i f e , years Its value at the end of year n is v = (P - S) [ I L J L i l L ^ J L i ^ ] + s n ( i + i ) L - 1 where V = value at the end of year n n -S = salvage value P = purchase price i = interest rate, percent L = estimated machine l i f e , year Service Life In determining the depreciation cost of a machine i ts service l i f e must be estimated. The economic l i f e (11) of a machine is a more pertinent measure of the period of time for which depreciation should be estimated because in actual practice machine l i f e may be extended as long as the owner wishes to repair or replace the worn parts to keep the machine operational. Unfortunately, the service l i f e of an implement sometimes is terminated instantly due to an irreplaceable or irrepairable part fa i lure . Economic l i f e is defined as the length of time from purchase of the machine to that point where i t is more economic to replace i t with a new machine rather than to continue with the old machine. A machinery schedule for the remaining value, the wear out l i f e and accumulated repairs, for various farm machines is l i s ted on page 282 of reference (1). The reporte values are based on the actual performance records of numerou 9. TABLE I SERVICE LIFE OF FARM MACHINES Time to Obsolescence (Years) Wear-out Life (Hours) Yearly Usage for Wear-out Life to Equal Obsoles-cence Life (Hours) Til lage Cultivator 12 Disk harrow 15 One-way disk 15 Disk plow 15 Moldboard plow 15 Spike-tooth harrow . 2 0 Spring-tooth harrow 2 0 Planting Grain d r i l l 20 Row-crop planter 15 Harvesting Pull-type combine 10 Self-propelled combine 10 Cornpicker 10 Cotton picker 8 Cotton stripper 10 Forage harvester 10 Hay conditioner 12 Mower 12 Side-delivery rake 12 Beet harvester 10 Self-propelled windrower 8 Tractor and Miscellaneous Track tractor 15 Wheel tractor 15 Wagon 15 2,500 2 ,500 2,500 2,500 2 ,500 2 ,500 2,500 1,200 1,200 2,000 2,000 2 ,000 2 ,000 2 ,000 2,000 2,500 2,000 2 ,500 2,500 2 ,500 12,000 12 ,000 5 ,000 208 167 167 167 167 125 100 60 80 200 200 200 250 200 200 250 208 250 313 800 500 333 10 . agricultural implements and power units and are widely used for machinery cost calculations. Table I is a summary of some of the service l i f e data included in this reference. Interest on Investment In estimating the cost of machine operation, interest on the investment in the farm machine must be included since money used in purchasing the machine cannot be used for another productive enterprise. An interest rate of six percent per year has been commonly used (1) and is included as one of the ownership costs. When the straight l ine me,thod of depreciation is used, i t is more convenient to allocate similar interest charges for each year of machine l i f e . On this basis, the annual interest charge is calculated on one-half the sum of the f i r s t cost of the machine and the trade-in value. i = (Lfi, i where I = annual interest , P = purchase price S = trade-in value i = annual interest rate, percent. Taxes The rate of tax charges on the overhead cost of operating farm machinery varies widely in different locations A rate of two percent is commonly used (1). Insurance It is just i f ied'to charge one percent of i n i t i a l 11. cost of machine (1) for insurance against loss of the machine. Annual insurance rates for. farm equipment vary from $0.60 to $1.20 per $100 coverage. Most insurance companies w i l l insure equipment to up to two-thirds of i t s replacement value. Shelter While the average total expected l i f e is consistently greater for sheltered machines (11), the average annual estimated repair expenses are also consistently smaller with the observation that sheltering goes along with better care and management. Sheltering also aids in making repairs during idle periods. An average shelter charge of one percent of the i n i t i a l cost of the machine is recommended (1). Fixed Cost Percentage Since a l l the items included in the annual fixed cost of a machine are constant with use, i t is more convenient to combine them into one single constant that is related to the. purchase price of the machine. This constant, called the fixed cost percentage, has been used by many researchers (10, 13, 14). Hunt (10) calculated the fixed cost percentage by using the straight l ine method of depreciation as follows: Using equation [1] and let t ing S = 0.IP, then for L = 10 years, the annual depreciation charge i s , D = 0.09P. Using equation [6] with i = 0.06, the annual interest charge i s , I = 0. 033P. Considering annual tax charges as 0.020P, insurance charges as 0.01P and annual shelter costs as 0.01P 12. TABLE II. ANNUAL FIXED COST PERCENTAGES FOR FARM MACHINES , . Fixed cost Machine . percentage Til lage Cultivator 15% P-Disk harrow 1.3% P One-way disk 13% P Disk plow 13% P Molaboard plow 13% P Spike-tooth harrow 12% P Spring-tooth harrow 12% P Planting Grain d r i l l 12% P Row crop planter 13% P Harvesting Pull-type combine 16% P Self-propelled combine 16% P Corn picker 16% P Cotton picker 18% P Cotton stripper 16% P Forage harvester 16% P Hay conditioner 15% P Mower 15% P Rake side delivery 15% P Beet harvester 16% P Self-propelled windrower 18% P Tractor and Miscellaneous Track tractor 13% P Wheel tractor 13% P Wagon 13% P sV P • = The purchase price of a machine and summing these five fixed costs , the annual fixed cost is 0.163P and the annual fixed cost percentage is 16 percent. Using this method, the annual fixed cost percentage for a i l the machines shown in Table I has been calculated, based on the estimated l i f e of the machines. These values are given in Table II . Purchase Price_of Tractors and Equipment Specific price information for a particular machine often is not available. A reasonable estimate of the purchase price of machines may be made by using Table III . This table which is a compilation of data presented by Hunt (11) is based on 1964 se l l ing prices of implements and expresses purchase price on a foot of width basis. The specific price of tractors has been tabulated by Southwell (21). Some of this data, which is based on 1966 prices , is presented in Table IV and expresses the purchase price of tractors on a per-pound-basis and on a per-horsepower basis. The lat ter figure is based on Nebraska Test data. Variable Costs  Repair and Maintenance Costs The costs of repairs, maintenance and lubrication are proportional to the amount of time a machine is operated. They are f a i r l y low in the early l i f e of a machine but increase as a machine gets older. Maintenance costs, the cost of maintenance labor and the cost of replacement parts a l l must be included in repair cost. Information about the exact rate of repair costs throughout the l i f e of a machine 14 TABLE III. SPECIFIC PRICE OF NEW. IMPLEMENTS Implement • Price Range Til lage Cultivator Disk harrow One-way disk Disk plow Moldboard plow Spike-tooth harrow Spring-tooth harrow Planting Grain d r i l l Row-crop planter Harvesting Pull-type combine Self-propelled combine Corn picker Cotton picker Cotton stripper Forage harvester Hay conditioner Mower Side-delivery rake Beet harvester Self-propelled windrower 38 60 4 4 160 - 54 do l lars / f t - 9 0 - 55 -250 dol lars/disk 100 -250 dollars/bottom 18 15 do l lars / f t t i 25 55 - 65 • 11 100 -180 dollars/row 300 -400 500 -650 1500-1700 7300-10000 1000 350 -625 900 75 - 90 400 -500 3000 300 -450 do l lars / f t I! dollars/row u i i dol lars / f t dollars do l lars / f t dollars dollars/row do l lars / f t 15 . TABLE IV SPECIFIC PRICE OF NEW TRACTORS Effect of Engine Type Effect of Tractor Size Specific Cost Gasoline Diesel Tractor Tractor Tractor Tractor over under 5 0 PTO hp 5 0 PTO hp Cost per pound average 90.0 95.0 92.0 95.0 range 72 - 123 74 - 136 72 - 136 72 - 120 Dollars per PTO horsepower average 91.4 99.8 ' 94.9 98.1 range 75 - 108 79 - 134 75 - 120 82 - 134 Dollars per drawbar horse-power average 109.6 116.7 111.0 117.6 range 91 - 133 96 - 153 91 - 144 96 - 153 16. usually are not available. Curves of the accumulated repair cost of tractors and implements, as a function of r e t a i l price and hours of use, are given in. the Agricultural Engineers Yearbook (1). Hunt (11) reports repair cost as an average constant percentage per hour of use over the l i f e of the machine. Some of the data given by Hunt is included in Table The second column in Table V is the percentage of the purchase price of a machine which can be expected as repair cost per hour of machine usage. The third column is the total percenta of the purchase price of a machine which can be expected as repair cost i f a machine is used unt i l obsolete. Fuel Costs In determining the fuel consumption of a machine for a specific operation, the power consumption for that operation must be considered. An equivalent power take-off horsepower may be obtained by dividing the required drawbar horsepower by a traction-and-transmission coefficient. This • equivalent power take-off horsepower may then be used to select the proper fuel consumption from Nebraska Tractor Test data for the particular tractor under consideration. A more convenient method of estimating fuel consumption is by the use of Figure 1. Figure 1 is taken from the Agricultural Engineers Yearbook (1) and is based on the averages of a l l Nebraska Tests from 1961 to 1965. In order to use Figure 1, the equivalent power take-off horsepower must f i r s t be estimated, as was described 17. TABLE V REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE COST, PERCENT OF PURCHASE PRICE Average Total During Machine per Hour of Use Wear-out Life (percent of (percent of r e t a i l price) r e t a i l price) Til lage Cultivator - 0.060 150 Disk harrow 0.065 16 8 One-way disk 0.050 125 Disk plow 0.045 113 Moldboard plow 0.070 175 Spike-tooth harrow 0.04 0 10 0 Spring-tooth harrow 0.060 • 120 Planting Grain d r i l l 0.080 96 Row-crop planter 0.070. 84 Harvesting Pull-type combine 0.045 90 Self-propelled combine 0.027 54 Corn picker 0.0 32 64 Cotton picker 0.026 52 Cotton stripper 0.020 40 Forage harvester 0.024 58 Hay conditioner 0.040 100 Mower 0.12 0 2 40 Side delivery rake 0.070 175 Beet harvester 0.025 63 Self-propelled windrower 0.040 100 Tractor and Miscellaneous Track tractor 0.008 78 Wheel tractor 0.012 120 Wagon 0.018 90 18. 1 5 r 0 20 40 60 80 Percent Maximum Power Take-off Horsepower 100 "Figure 1. Graph for Estimating Tractor Fuel Consumption above. A traction and transmission coefficient may be used to express the rat io between draw bar horsepower and power take-off horsepower. Table VI shows the traction and transmission coefficient calculated from the effects of tractor ro l l ing resistance, drive wheel or track slippage, and losses in the power train between the engine and the axle, under various operating conditions. This table is taken from the Agricultural Engineers Yearbook (1) TABLE VI. TRACTION AND TRANSMISSION COEFFICIENTS FOR WHEEL TRACTORS Traction and Transmission Coefficient „ „ j • . • Light load "Medium Surface Condition , -,r,n •, , •, ^ -, (pull = 10-6 drawbar Moderately heavy of weight) load drawbar load Concrete 0.75 0.85 0.9 Firm, unfi l led f i e ld 0.6 0.75 0.8 T i l l e d , reasonably firm so i l 0.4 0.6 0.65 Freshlv plowed soil" 0.25 0.4 0.45 O i l Costs O i l consumption includes both the amount of o i l consumed by an engine and the amount of o i l required for regular o i l changes. Consumption is defined as the total volume of new o i l placed in an engine in a given time period. The recommendation of o i l change period varies among manu-facturers. Hunt (11) has determined average o i l consumption figures based on Nebraska Tractor Test.data and manufacturer recommendations on o i l change periods. Some of this data is included in Table VII. Another method of estimating the cost of o i l consumption is by considering i t as fifteen percent of the cost of fuel (1). 20. TABLE VII OIL CONSUMPTION OF TRACTORS Tractor Size O i l Consumption (gallons per hour) (Maximum PTO Gasoline L-P Gas Diesel Horsepower) Engine Engine Engine 30 . 009 . 010 .008 40 .010 .010 .014 5.0 . 012 '.011 .016 60 . 013 . 012 . 019 70 . 014 .014 . 019 80 .015 .014 . 025 90 .016 . 015 .023 over 9 0 . 016 . 015 ,023 Power and Energy Considerations ^Force Factor A force factor is commonly used to determine the gross energy requirements of f i e ld operations (1, 11). Force factors usually are expressed as pounds of force per foot of effective width of a f i e ld machine,.and are based on published draft and power requirements with the auxil iary ro l l ing resistance, i f any, included. Since the capacity, of a f i e ld implement may be designated by i t s effective width, the power requirement of a machine may be determined from its force factor and i ts effective width. This also fac i l i tates the determination of the necessary tractor horsepower capacity to 21. operate a f i e ld machine. Table VIII is taken from data presented by Hunt (11) and in the Agricultural Engineers Yearbook (1) and may be used to estimate the power requirements of f i e ld machines-. Since much variation in power requirements may be expected due to f i e ld and crop conditions, the resulting power requirements are only rough estimates. TABLE VIII TYPICAL FARM IMPLEMENT FORCE FACTORS Machine Force Factors, lbs per ft width Til lage Cultivator 240 Disk harrow 250 - 280 One-way disk 400 Moldboard plow 850 Spike-tooth harrow 105 Spring-tooth harrow 180 Planting Grain d r i l l 115 Row-crop planter 110 Harvesting Combine 375 Corn picker 650 Forage harvester 400 Hay conditioner 140 Mower 130 Side delivery rake 80 Field Efficiencv The efficiency of performing a f ie ld operation must also be considered in estimating the cost of operation. Field efficiency may be defined as the ratio of the useful time used in performing a f i e ld operation to the total 22 . time (useful time plus lost time) used in performing the operation. Useful time includes only the productive time spent in actually performing the operation while lost time includes the time spent in turning at rov; ends, travel l ing to and from the f i e l d , f i l l i n g seed and f e r t i l i z e r etc. (14). Typical f i e ld eff ic iencies , taken from the Agricultural Engineers Yearbook (1) are presented in Table IX. TABLE IX. TYPICAL FIELD EFFICIENCIES „ , . Field Efficiency Operation 5. Til lage Harrowing 7 0 - 8 5 Most other t i l lage operations (plowing, disking, cul t ivat ing , etc.) 7 5 - 9 0 Planting D r i l l i n g or f e r t i l i z i n g row crops or grain V 6 0 - 8 0 Check-row planting of corn 5 0 - 6 5 Harvesting Combine harvesting 65 - 80 Picking corn 55 - 70 Picking cotton (spindle-type picker) 60 - 75 Mowing 7 5 - 8 5 Raking 7 5 - 9 0 Direct windrowing of hay or grain (self-propelled windrower) In f i e ld with irr igat ion levees 65 - 80 In f i e l d with no levees 7 5 - 8 5 Baling hay Bales discharged onto ground 65 - 80 With bale wagon tra i led behind 5 5 - 7 0 Field chopping 50 - 75 Timeliness Charge s for Fi e l_d__0joe rations Timeliness factor -Hunt and Patterson (12) defined timeliness as the state of being opportune or optimum in f i e ld operations. They evaluated the economic benefit of timeliness by considering the cost of being untimely, that i s , the cost experienced as a result of reductions in crop value due to y ie ld losses or quality reduction. Figure la shows one of the patterns of curves which may occur in operations where an optimum time exists and where a penalty occurs i f an operation is premature or delayed, in accordance with the allowable number of working days. The slope of such a curve may be expressed as a decimal reduction in income per unit of time. For example, i f the slope is known to be 0.5 bushels per acre per day of delay (or prematurity) of operation and the potential income is 100 bushels per acre the slope would be 0.0002 dollars per acre per hour, when considering a value of one dol lar per bushel. The slope of the timeliness curve allows a charge •to be made for untimely operations. A further correction (12)' must, however, be made. It has been shown (11) that there is a 95 percent probability that only forty percent of the total available time is actually used for an operation. Adjusting the value of the slope, on this basis, the timeliness charge in the previous example becomes 0.0005 dollars per acre per hour, 2 4 100 E £ 'x o % c o o a. Figure la , TABLE X. Total Cost of Timeliness TIMELINESS FACTORS Operation Timeliness Factor Ti l lage Seeding Cultivation Small grain harvest Soybean harvest Corn harvest Hay harvest Green forage harvest 0.00005 to .0003 . 0003 . 0002 .0002 . 0005 . 0003 .0010 . 0001 25. Values of timeliness factors for various f i e ld operations as determined by Hunt (11) are presented in Table X. Determination of the Minimum Cost  of a Machinery System Hunt (9) in developing a Fortran program for determining a suitable system of machines for a farm enterprise, used a minimization procedure to select the economic size of implements and tractors. This was done by writing an expression for the total annual cost of using an implement or tractor, differentiating i t with respect to • the pertinent variable (the width of the implement or the horsepower of the tractor) equating i t to zero and solving for the variable. Implement Selection The effective f i e ld capacity of an implement may be written as C = (swE)/8.2 5 [7] where C = effective f i e ld capacity, acres per hour s = forward speed, miles per hour w. = effective width, feet E = f i e ld efficiency, percent (Table IX) Using equation [7], the annual cost of a specific implement may be expressed as m 8.25 A. B = F p w + Z ( ?J- (R. +M. +0 . + -H. + Q. + t . ) ) [8] j = 1 s. w t . ] 3 3 D -<D 3 where B = annual implement cost, dollars per year F - implement fixed-cost percentage (Table II) p = purchase price of implement, dollars per foot width (Table III) w = effective width, feet A = number of acres over which a specific operation is performed annually, acres s = forward speed, miles per hour E = f i e ld efficiency, percent (Table IX) -R = repair costs, dollars per hour (Table V) M = cost of labor, dollars per hour 0 = cost of engine o i l , dollars per hour (Table VII) H = fuel cost, dollars per hour (interpreted from Table VI and VIII and Figure 1) 0 = tractor fixed cost charge, dollars per hour (interpreted from Table I I , purchase price and annual use) t = timeliness charge (equation [3]) j = the specific implement operation m = the total number of implement operations in one year The timeliness charge, t , in equation [8] may i expressed as follows t . = K. A. y. v. D 1 3 J 3 ere t = timeliness charge, dollars per hour K = timeliness factor (hour) 1 (from Table XI) A = number of acres- over which a specific operation is annually performed, acres y = potential crop y i e l d , bushel,, ton, etc. per acre v = crop value, dollars per bushel, ton, etc. To determine the optimum size of an implement, equation [8] may be differentiated with respect to the effective implement width. It should be noted that R, 0, and H may be considered as proportional to the annual area of a f i e ld operation and w i l l be constant, regardless of the size of f i e ld machine. Differentiating, equating to zero and solving for w, the optimum size of f i e ld machine is m A 1 / 2 w = [r11* (^ET <Mj + Qj + V>] [10] where w = implement effective width for minimum cost and other symbols are as previously defined. Tractor Selection In selecting an optimum size tractor for a certain farm enterprise, Hunt (9) considered three specific tractor operations, f i e ld work (when the tractor is used to pul l a f i e ld implement), transport work (when the tractor is used for transporting products such as grain, hay, etc.) and processing work (when the tractor is used for stationary operations such as feed grinding). The annual fixed cost charge for a tractor is C a = F u h [11] where C = annual fixed cost charge, dollars per year F = fixed cost percentage (Table II) u = specific price of new tractor, dollars per horsepower (Table IV) h = tractor s ize, power take-off horsepower As was previously discussed, the costs of repair , maintenance, fuel and o i l are a direct function of acreage for f ie ld operations or of quantities handled for trans-port and processing operations. Hence, only timeliness costs and labor costs need be considered in selection of an optimum sized power unit. The annual cost for tractor power used in f i e ld operations, when neglecting repair costs, fuel costs and o i l costs is C f = I [-0 - 022 A . f . < M > + t ) ; | [ 1 2 ] j=l E. h J 1 where C,. = annual tractor cost for f i e ld operations, • dollars per year f = implement force factor, pounds per foot of width (Table VIII) and other symbols are as previously defined The annual cost for tractor power used for transport operations, when neglecting costs of repair , fuel and o i l , may be written as k M. C. = Z [r-1 (1.1 d. W. )] [13] t j=i h 3 3 where =• annual tractor cost for transportation, dollars per year M = labor cost, dollars per hour h = tractor s ize, power take-off horsepower d = hauling distance, miles 29. VI - weight of material annually transported, tons per year 1.1 = a constant'(considering average r o l l i n g resistance as five percent of weight), horsepower-hour per ton-mile j = a specific transport operation k = the total number of annual transport operations F ina l ly , the annual tractor cost for stationary processing operations when neglecting repair , fuel and o i l costs, is q C = E [G. W.] [14] P j = 1 3 1 where = annual tractor cost for processing G = energy requirement for processing, horsepower-hour per ton (Reference (1)) W = weight of material annually processed, tons per year j = a specific processing operation q = the total number of annual processing operations Adding [11], [12], [13] and [14], differentiating the sum with respect to tractor size (h) and solving for tractor s ize, the minimum cost size of tractor for a specific farm is r m 0.022 A . f . k 1.1 M.d.W. h = Z. — - _ J L J L ( M . + t . ) + Z P—3-2-1 Lj = i ^ 3 j = 1 Fu , / 9 [15] q M.G.W. -i ^ 30. where h = optimum tractor size for a specific farm, power take-off horsepower and other symbols are as previously defined. By the method outlined above, i t is possible to select implement sizes and tractor sizes to obtain a'minimum cost machinery system for a specific farm. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF RASPBERRY HARVESTING Introductory Remarks As i t was previously mentioned raspberry harvesting w i l l be used as an example of a frui t growing enterprise for studying mechanization alternatives. In the previous pages a minimum cost method, for the selection of implements and power units was considered. This method was orig inal ly developed for selecting machinery systems for large•grain farming enterprises. The method needs modification before i t can be adapted to a small fru i t growing enterprise. For example, the method assumes that machinery width (equation [10]) is limited only by economic considerations whereas, in the case of raspberry growing, machinery width is determined by cultural practices since raspberries are grown in rows of a fixed spacing. The method also uses specific price data (Table III); however, since most frui t harvesting equipment is s t i l l in an experimental stage, such data does not exist. F i n a l l y , the method uses timeliness cost factors (Table X) based on once-over harvesting methods. Since raspberries must be harvested a number of times during a harvest season, this type of timeliness factor is not appropriate. Marketing Conditions The end product of the harvested frui t depends upon the available market for different grades of f r u i t . High quality fru i t may be marketed fresh or frozen or may be pro-cessed prior to marketing. Fruit of lower quality must be 0 processed as jam, canned fru i t or frozen frui t to prevent 32. deterioration. During the past decade, from 95 to 98 percent of the raspberry production in the lower mainland (8) has been sold for processing rather than for direct consumption. This indicates that even i f a machine is incapable of harvesting f r u i t suitable for the fresh market, i t can s t i l l serve 95 percent of the industry. The income to the producer w i l l , however, be reduced as processing f ru i t demands a lower market price. Market prices in 1970 (19) ranged from 33 to 35 cents per pound for number 1 fru i t (suitable for fresh f r u i t market) while prices for number 2 frui t (suitable for processing) ranged from 19 to 22 cents per pound. Cultural Practices for Raspberry Growing The most popular raspberry variety grown in the lower mainland is the Willamette variety. (Figure 4). Most of the experimental work on raspberry harvesting (2, 4, 17) has, therefore, been, conducted on this variety. The following description of cultural practices is a consolidation of that presented by Nyborg (17). Figures 3 to 5 were also obtained from this source. The raspberry plant (Figure 2) has a perennial root system with biennial stalks. The plants begin to bear fru i t in the second year after planting and are productive in the succeeding years, for twelve or more years, when i t is riecessary to destroy them and plant new root stock. Raspberries are planted in para l le l rows spaced at ten feet. Individual plants are spaced in the rows at a distance of two and one half feet, resulting in hedge rows (Figure 4) once the plants mature. A supporting system is necessary to prevent the plants from lodging due to rank growth, weak and flexible canes, weak root systems and a heavy load imposed on the canes by frui t and leaves. Most growers use a t r e l l i s i n g system composed of wooden posts and steel support wires placed within the rows. Raspberry frui t is an aggregate fruit composed of loosely bound drupelets attached to a central core (Figure 3). Raspberries mature unevenly over a thirty day period, with peak production occurring approximately midway in the harvest season. Picking is required at least once every three days throughout the harvest season to avoid overmature f r u i t . As the length of the picking interval is increased beyond three days, the quality of the resulting frui t is reduced. If the picking interval is extended beyond approximately six days, fruit loss occurs .due to natural abscission. Hand picking represents one of the largest costs associated with raspberry production. The price paid to hand pickers has increased from five cents per pound in 1967 to ten cents per pound, or more, in 197 0. Additional expenses are also incurred. In recent years, to ensure the ava i lab i l i ty of picking labor, many growers have invested in buses for the transporation of pickers to and from the picking f i e l d . In addition, some growers supply l i v ing quarters on the farm for the pickers. The r i s ing costs, associated with enticing picking labor and the d i f f i cu l ty in procuring suitable labor have directed efforts towards the use of mechanical harvesting methods. Figure 4 Scope of the Analysis_ The machinery system required for establishing a raspberry plantation and for operating associated enterprises on a raspberry farm can be selected by the previously outlined minimization techniques. The costs involved for these enter-prises should be similar for farms using hand picking methods and for farms using mechanical harvesting methods. The only difference in production costs should occur in the harvesting operation. For this reason, in the following analyses, only harvesting is considered Determination of a Timeliness Function for  Raspberry Harvesting Timeliness Factor for once-over Operations The values of the timeliness factors (Table X) were determined from the adjusted slopes of yield-timeliness curves (Figure la) for specific operations. On this basis, K represents a decimal reduction in income per acre for every hour of actual machine operation. This method of determining a timeliness factor is suitable for once-over operations such as grain harvesting, hay harvesting and t i l lage but i t is not suitable for multiple operations such as small fru i t harvesting. For a crop such as raspberries, the f i e ld must be harvested a number of times during the season and timeliness becomes a function of several variables, as is described below. Raspberry Yield As a f i r s t step in determining a timeliness function, 36. TABLE XI. RASPBERRY YIELD DATA Date Row Plant Fruit Yield Cumulative (July, 1970) (gms/day) Fruit Yield (gms) 3 A 1 29.2 87.5 3 A 2 62.0 185.2 3 A 3 29.2 87.5 3 A 4 31.5 94.5 3 B 1 36.2 108.5 3 B 2 54.8 164.5 3 . ' B 3 56.0 168.5 3 B 4 35.0 . 105.0 3 C I 25.7 77.0 3 C 2 42.0 126.0 3 C 3 38 .4 112 .0 3 C 4 36.2 108.5 6 A 1 42.4 254.0 6 A 2 42.3 253.0 6 A 3 45.6 273.0 6 A 4 67.5 404.0 6 B 1 94.0 563.0 6 B 2 67.0 402.0 6 B 3 104.2 625.0 6 B 4 80.3 481.0 6 C 1 87.5 525.0 6 C 2 141.0 847.0 6 C 3 113.2 681.0 6 C 4 87.8 526.0 1 These values were obtained by dividing the actual f ru i t y ie ld ' by the number of days between picking intervals . June 30 was considered as day zero. 3 7 . TABLE XI (Continued) Date (July, 1970) Row Plant Fruit Yield (gms/day) Cumulative Fruit Yield (gms) 9 9 9 9 A A A A 1 2 3 4 160.0 101. 0 101.0 139.0 736 .0 556 .0 576.0 821.0 9 9 9 9 B B B B 1 2 3 4 177.0 199.0 213. 0 187.5 1095.0 998.0 1262.0 1044.0 9 9 9 9 C C C C 1 2 3 4 134. 8 159.1 19 7.5 155. 8 929 . 0 1325.0 1273.0 993.0 14 14 14 14 A A A A 1 2 3 4 133.0 81.5 90.5 123.0 1401.0 963.0 1028.0 1436.0 14 14 14 14 B B B B 1 2 3 4 138.2 123. 8 164.5 111.2 1786.0 1617.0 2085.0 1601.0 14 14 14 14 C C C C 1 2 3 4 123.5 111.0 166. 5 115.0 1546.0 1880.0 2105.0 1567.0 38. TABLE XI (Continued) Date (July, 1970) Row Plant Fruit Yield (gms/day) Cumulative Fruit Yield (gms) 17 17 17 17 A A A A 1 2 3 4 126.1 121. 0 107.6 164.5 1780.0 1326.0 1451.0 1927.0 17 17 17 17 B B B B 1 2 3 4 117.2 91.1 145.5 105.0 2138.0 1890.0 2522 . 0 1917 .0 17 17 17 17 C C C C 1 2 3 4 131.2 99.0 132.1 143. 6 1942.0 2177.0 2502.0 1998.0 22 22 22 22 A A A A 1 2 3 4 72.0 51.0 62. 8 94.1 2140.0 1611.0 1764.0 2397.0 22 22 22 22 B B B B 1 2 3 4 79.7 8 3.3 10.9.6 68.7 2536.0 2307.0 3081.0 2260.0 22 22 22 22 C C C C 1 2 3 4 139. 0 70.6 135.0 127.9 2637.0 2530.0 3176.0 2638.0 39. TABLE XI (Continued) Date (July, 1970) Row Plant Fruit Yield (gms/day) Cumulative Fruit Yield (gms) 27 27 27 27 A A A A 1 2 3 4 49.2 36.2 63.1 66.4 2386.0 1792.0 2080.0 2729.0 27 27 27 27 B B B B 1 2 3 4 47.4 44.0 72 .5 32 . 0 2809.0 2527.0 3443.0 2420. 0 27 27 27 27 C C C C 1 2 3 4 120.0 59.0 86.0 104.2 3237.0 2827.0 3606.0 3160.0 40. for raspberry harvesting, a yie ld distribution function was determined by analyzing raspberry yie ld data for the 1970 harvest season. Table XI presents the y ie ld data for twelve raspberry plants of the Willamette variety grown in three different rows at the Canada Department of Agriculture Small Fruit Substation, Abbotsford, Bri t i sh Columbia. (These data were obtained from P.A. J o l l i f f e , Plant Science Department, and E.O. Nyborg, Agricultural Engineering Department, U.B.C. and is data for the check plots in a f i e ld experiment). Using the method of least squares and a stepwise regression procedure, the best f i t polynomial of daily fruit y ie ld versus harvest time was determined. The selected level of significance for inclusion or exclusion of independent variables was 0.01. The polynomial describing frui t y ie ld was Y = -8.54 + 20.16T - 0.07T 3 + 0.13 x 10~3 T 5 - 0.24 x 10~5 T 6 [16] R2 = 0.79, N = 108, Sy = 27.18 for the range 0 < T-< 33 where Y = frui t y i e l d , grams per plant, for a specific harvest day T = harvest time with July 1 considered as the f i r s t day. Figure 5 is a plot of the raw data given in column 4 of Table XI and of equation [16]. By integrating the equation [16] with respect to time a cumulative yie ld function was obtained 41. O lO D ~o -*— c _0 Q . O - P E O V-CO I ; - O 0 10 15 Time (days) Figure 5. Daily frui t y ie ld for Willamette raspberries r t „ Yc (Y) [-8.54 T + 10.08 T 2 - 0.17 T 4 + 0.21 x 10 4 T D - 0. 35 x 10~D T'] J-T l Where Yc = cumulative y i e l d , grams per plant T = harvest date, with July 1 considered as the f i r s t day. By evaluating equation [17] between suitable l imits of integration, the total y ie ld for any harvest interval may be obtained. Figure 6 shows the cumulative y ie ld function for the complete harvest season. M 2 . Time (days) Figure 6. Cumulative yie ld for Willamette raspberries The Dependence of Fruit Quality on Time of Picking The quality of raspberries depends upon the stage of maturity at which the f ru i t is harvested. It has been shown (17) that in order to obtain top quality f r u i t , suitable for the fresh market, raspberry plants must be harvested at least once every three days. If the harvest interval is more than three days, a portion of the frui t becomes over-mature and is suitable only for processing. If the harvest interval is greater than six days frui t loss occurs due to natural abscission. Since the gross income received from a raspberry acreage during a certain harvest interval depends upon both the y ie ld and the quality of harvested f r u i t , a timeliness function 43. must be based on both these factors. The effect of picking interval on gross income is large since, at present, number 1 fru i t has a se l l ing price of 33 to 35 cents per pound (19) while number 2 frui t has a se l l ing price of only 19 to 2 2 cents per pound. The Timeliness Function In determining a timeliness function for raspberry harvesting, i t was assumed that i f the picking interval were three days, only number 1 fru i t would be obtained. If the picking interval were more than three days, i t was assumed that the frui t y ie ld obtained in the f i r s t three days of the picking interval would be number 1 frui t while the frui t y ie ld obtained from the portion of the interval greater than three days would be number 2 f r u i t . In making this assumption, i t was assumed that the processor has the capability of mechanically sorting frui t according to quality (17). On this basis, using equation [17], the gross income of a specific harvest operation becomes Yi tl+3 (Y) (x x) + t ( Y ) ( X 2 } 1 ^ T O Cl8] t. 1 1+3 where Yi = gross income for a specific harvest interval , dollars per acre t^ = date of last picking = date of present picking x^  = price per lb . of number 1 frui t = price per lb . of number 2 frui t and 3 < - t ± ) < 6 174 2 (The factor ( • ^^ ^ ) converts grams per plant to pounds per acre). -Figure 7 shows the cumulative gross income obtained from equation [18] for four different picking intervals using x^  = 34 and x^  = 22. The computer program used in determining figure 7 is shown in Appendix A. Time (days) Figure 7. The effect of picking interval on the gross income from raspberries. 4 5 . Time (days) Figure 8. Gross income reduction due to delayed picking intervals. As a further step in determining the timeliness function, the reduction in gross income due to the length of the picking interval was obtained by subtracting the ordinates of the 4-day, 5-day and 6-day gross income curves (Figure 7) from the ordinates of the 3-day curve and dividing each result by the harvest date. These data were then f i t ted using the method of least squares and a stepwise regression analysis procedure. The selected level of significance for inclusion or exclusion of an independent variable was 0.01. The resulting regression equation representing' gross income reduction per day for a specific harvest date were: Y 4 = 0.20 + 1.65 T - 0.66 x 1 0 _ 1 T 2 + 0.76 x 10~2 T 3 [19] R 2 = 0.95 N = 33 Sy = 0.7 2 . (for the interval 0 < T < 33) Y 5 = 4. 06 + 1.95 T - 0-.58 x 10 _ 1 T 2 + 0.98 x 10~8 T 6 [20] R2 .= 0.83 N = 3 3 Sy = 1.89 (for the interval 0 < T < 33) Y 6 = 3.97 + 3.24 T - 0.15 T 2 + 0.21 x 1 0 - 2 T 3 • [21] R 2 = 0.87 . N = 3 3 Sy = 1.9 9 (for the interval 0 < T < 33) where Y^ = the gross income reduction in dollars per acre per day for a four day picking interval as opposed to a three day interval Yj. = the gross income reduction in dollars per acre per day for a five day picking interval as opposed to a three day interval Yg = the gross income reduction in dollars • per acre per day for a six day picking interval as opposed to a three day interval T = harvest date with July 1 considered as the f i r s t day. As a f inal step in determining a timeliness function, the harvest time and picking interval were used as independent variables with gross income reduction as the dependent variable and the above data were analyzed using a stepwise multiple regression analysis procedure. The f ina l expression for gross '4 7 . income reduction as a function of harvest time and picking interval was Y = - 1.47 + 0.11 T - 0.49 x 10"2 T 2 + 0.66 x 10~ 4 T 3 r + 0.32 Z - 0.42 x 10~5 Z 6 [22] R 2 = 0.97 N = 9 3 Sy = 0.0 5 (for the interval 0 < T < 30 3 < Z < 6) where * Y = gross income reduction, dollars per acre per hour T = harvest date with July 1 considered as the f i r s t day Z. = picking interva l , days. Y, = f- 35.19 T + 1.31 T 2 - 0.04 T 3 + 0.40 x 10~3 T U d + 7.79 T (Z) - 0.10 x 10 3 T (Z 6 ) ] 2 [23] J t . where Y, = cumulative income reduction, dollars d per acre T = harvest time Z = picking interval t^ = date of last picking t£ = date of present picking Equation [23] is a timeliness function for raspberry harvesting. The reduction in income due to extended picking intervals (intervals greater than three days) at any time during the harvest season, may be approximated with this 48. equation. The Effect of Picking Efficiency on Gross Income The ultimate goal in design of a harvesting machine is achieving a design with the maximum possible picking efficiency. It has however been shown, that for Willamette raspberries, due to a high.ratio of frui t retention force to fru i t stem strength, high picking efficiency may not be feasible. In mechanical harvesting t r i a l s (17), stem fai lure and green frui t removal occurred at picking ef f ic ien-cies above f i f ty percent. This removal of green frui t would reduce y ie ld in subsequent harvests, resulting in reduced income. In tests using a mechanical harvester (17) no green frui t was removed when only f i f ty percent of the mature fru i t was removed but ten percent of the harvested frui t sample was composed of green frui t when fru i t removal efficiency was eighty percent. In order to estimate yie ld reduction due to green frui t removal, i t was assumed that the relationship between green frui t removal and picking efficiency was l inear. Considering a l inear relationship and using the results reported in reference (17), green frui t removal is L = (- 16.7 + 33.3 X )/100 [24 s e (for the range 0.5 < X < 1.0) - e -where L = the percentage of green frui t in a S sample of mechanically harvested frui t X = picking efficiency of the mechanical e harvester, decimal quantity of the mature fru i t on the plant at time of harvest. 49. In order to estimate the effect of frui t removal efficiency on gross income, for various lengths of picking intervals , equations [17] and [24] were combined in the following form J = (X e) (X ] L) CH,) C(YA - Y B ) - (X e) (L s ) (YB - Y c ) ] + (X e) (x 2) (R 2) [(Y A - Y B ) - (X e) (L s ) (YB - Y c ) ] [ 2 5 ] + (1 - X ) (x 0) [(Y p - Y„) - (X ) (L ) (Y„ - Y n ) ] e z B L e s C D where J = gross income, dollars per acre X = picking efficiency of the mechanical harvester, percent of y ie ld ; x^  = price per lb. of number 1 f r u i t , dollars x 2 = price per lb . of number 2 f r u i t , dollars R-^  = fraction of grade number 1 frui t ( i . e . when picking interval = 5, R^  = 3/5) R2 = fraction of grade number 2 frui t ( i . e . when picking interval = 5, R2 = 2/5) L = percent of green frui t in a sample of machine harvested frui t (from equation [24]) Y^ = cumulative fru i t y ie ld at present day of picking, pounds per acre (from equation [17]) Yg = cumulative frui t y ie ld at previous closest picking date, pounds per acre (from equation [17]) Y^ = f ru i t yie ld at previous secpnd closest picking date, pounds per acre (from equation [17]) Yp = fru i t y ie ld at previous third closest picking date, pounds per acre (from equation [17] ). 50. Several assumptions were made in formulating equation [25]. It was assumed that for a three day interval between picking, only number 1 frui t would be removed. For a picking interval of n days, for 3 < n < 6, i t was assumed that the fraction of number one fru i t would be 3/n and the fraction of number 2 frui t would be (n-3)/n. This assumption appears to be reasonably val id on the basis of observations during the 1970 harvest. It was further assumed that for a frui t removal efficiency of x percent (1 - x) percent of the frui t would remain on the plants and would a l l be removed as number 2 f ru i t on the following harvest date. The percent of green frui t loss at one harvest date was subtracted from the gross y ie ld on the following harvest date to account for the effect of green fru i t removed on subsequent yields. Results of this analysis, based on x^  = 34 cents per pound and x^  = 22 cents per pound, are presented in Table XII. The computer program used for calculating the values is given in Appendix B. The effect of frui t removal efficiency on gross annual income is i l lus trated in Figure 9. It is seen that when frui t removal efficiency is one hundred percent of the mature frui t on the plants, gross income is not maximum due to the fact that the removal of immature frui t results in an overall y ie ld reduction. Curves for 3-day, 4-day, 5-day and 6-day picking intervals a l l are maximum at approximately 80 percent picking efficiency. This indicates that for 51. Willamette raspberries, the frui t removal efficiency of a mechanical harvester should be^approximately 80 percent i order to maximize gross income. Figure 9. The effect of f ru i t removal efficiency on gross annual income for various picking intervals. 52. TABLE XII.THE EFFECT OF PICKING INTERVAL AND PICKING EFFICIENCY ON INCOME FROM RASPBERRIES. Picking Cumulative Income (dollars/acre) Interval Picking Efficiency (percent) 50 60 70 80 90 100 July 3 3 days 41. 60 49. 93 58. 25 66. 57 74. 89 83. 21 6 216. 64 248 . 20 279 . 04 309. 00 337 . 90 365 . 5 8 9 " 539. 50 593. 32 643. 96 690. 77 733. 10 770. 31 " 12 954. 70 1025. 82 1090. 22 1146. 72 1194 . 14 1231. 31 15 1399. 79 1481. 70 1552 . 83 1611. 52 1656. 11 1684. 93 11 18 1280. 77 1907 . 33 1979. 10 2034 . 03 2070. 07 2085 . 16 11 21 2184. 43 2271. 55 2340. 32 2388. 43 2413. 55 2413. 33 24 2483. 50 2569 . 93 2635 . 11 2676 . 53 2691. 67 2678. 01 2 7 2730. 36 2816. 98 2879 . 99 2916 . 74 2924. 59 2900. 89 30 2935 . 48 3022 . 05 30'83. 02 3115. 64 3117. 13 3084 . 71 Aug. 2 " 3066. 09 3144 . 79 3196. 27 3217. 67 3206 . 09 3158 . 68 July 4 4 days 73. 13 87. 75 10 2. 38 117. 00 131. 63 146. 25 8 356 . 70 405 . 77 453. 37 499 . 41 543. 60 585. 65 12 841. 05 914. 54 982. 95 1045 . 28 1100. 51 1147. 63 16 139 3. 55 1476. 52 1549. 5 4 1610. 98 1659 . 20 1692. 59 20 1899 . 02 1979 . 19 2044 . 68 2093. 46 2123. 51 2132. 79 24 2303. 50 2376. 43 2430 . 84 2464 . 55 2475 . 35 2461. 04 28 2617. 21 2685 . 18 2731.78 2754. 76 2751. 85 2720 . 81 Aug. 1 2845. 79 2906. 36 2943. 30 2954. 30 2937 . 03 2889 . 16 July 5 5 days 111.58 133. 90 156 . 22 178. 53 200 . 85 223. 17 10 " .516. 54 583. 54 648 . 61 711. 30 771. 18 827. 78 15 1147. 31 1234. 73 1315. 00 1386 . 72 1448. 50 1498 . 96 20 1772 . 44 1854. 45 1923. 54 1977. 73 2015. 03 2033. 47 25 2262 . 18 2329 . 44 2379 . 19 2409 . 30 2417. 6 5 2402 . 08 30 2619. 07 2675 . 75 2711. 78 2725. 07 2713. 52 2675 . 04 53. TABLE XII (Continued) Picking Cumulative Income (dollars/acre)  Interval Picking Efficiency (percent)  50 60 70 80 90 100 6 days 156.24 187.49 218.74 249.98 281.23 312.48 " 686.91 771.45 853.27 931.77 1066.31 1076.28 11 1433.01 1526 . 82 1611. 35 1684.84 1745 . 53 1791.64 " 2073.26 2146.04 2203.44 2243.30 2263.42 2261.62 11 2522. 95 2576.85 2611.43 2624. 61 2614. 33 2578.51 • July 6 12 18 24 30 54. Cost Analysis of Hand Harvesting of Raspberries  Cost of Hand Labor The price paid to hand pickers in 1970 varied from . 10 to 12 cents per pound of harvested frui t (19). As was previously discussed, the price paid to picking labor has increased by more than 100 percent in the last three years. An additional cost due to frui t loss must also be charged against hand picking as i t has been shown (17) that the overall frui t removal efficiency for hand pickers is approxi-mately 80 percent. In order to obtain frui t of the optimum maturity, each f ie ld must be picked at least once every three days. If the picking interval is greater than three days, income w i l l be lowered due to reduced frui t quality. Appropriate corrections for income reduction over the harvest season, due to varying lengths between pickings, may be made by applying equation [23]. In the following cost analysis of hand picking, i t was assumed that frui t removal efficiency was 80 percent; the price paid to hand pickers was 12 cents per pound; fields were picked once every three days, resulting in only number 1 f r u i t ; the se l l ing price of number 1 frui t was 34 cents per pound -and the potential y ie ld of a raspberry f ie ld was as given by equation [17]. Additional Costs Incurre.d in Hand Harvesting As an incentive in maintaining hand picking labor, growers may provide daily transportation to the farm from the 55. nearest town. Used buses are often purchased for this purpose. For lower mainland growers, daily one-way trans-portation distance could be up to 50 miles. In addition, a second vehicle, usually a pickup truck, is required to collect fru i t in the f i e ld and transport i t to a central location. Assuming that the combined purchase price of both these vehicles is 7000 dollars and assuming a fixed cost percentage (Table II) of 15 percent, the annual fixed cost is 1050 dol lars . Assuming a 30 day harvest season and an average farm size of 15 acres, the fixed cost is 2.34 dollars per acre per day. The variable costs associated with these two vehicles may be determined as follows: Assuming that the bus is used 100 miles each day and that the truck is used 50 miles each day, that each averages 10 miles per gallon of fuel and that fuel costs 40 cents per gallon, daily fuel cost is 6 dol lars . Assuming that a driver is- employed 8 hours per day and is paid 2 dollars per hour, daily labor cost is 16 dol lars . Assuming an hourly repair and maintenance cost of 0.012 percent of purchase price (Table V), daily repair and maintenance cost is 6.72 dol lars . F ina l ly , assuming an o i l consumption of 0.016 gallons per hour (Table VI) and a cost of 2.50 dollars per gallon, daily o i l cost is 0.32 dollars. Adding these daily costs and considering a farm size of 15 acres, the variable cost is 1.94 dollars per acre per day. 56. Adding fixed and variable costs, the total operating cost of these vehicles is.4.28 dollars per acre per day. Income, Cost and Profit Using equation [17] for cumulative yield ajid applying the previously mentioned assumptions, the gross income for a specific harvest is X a b = ( Y b " Y a } ( 0 * 3 4 ) ( 0 * 8 0 } ( 1 7 4 2 / 4 5 4 > t 2 6 ] where "'"a^ b = S 1'' 0 5 3 income, dollars per acre, for a specific three day period = equation [17] evaluated at date b > Y^ = equation [17] evaluated at date a and (b-a) = 3. The cost associated with this harvesting is C _^  , = (Y. - Y )(0.12 )(0. 80X1742/454) + ( 3)(4 . 28) [27] a -> b b a where a^-*-b = n a n c * picking cost, dollars per acre, .... for a specific three day period and a l l other symbols are as defined in equation [26]. The gross profit for a specific three day period from date a to date b is determined by subtracting C _ , J a -*• b from 1^  ^ ^ ,p^e c o m p U - f - e r program, used in evaluating the cost of hand picking over the whole harvest season, is given in Appendix C. Table XIII and Figure 10 give the results of this analysis for -a 30 day harvest season with specific harvests spaced at 3 days. 58. TABLE XIII. COMPARISON OF HAND HARVESTING COST AND INCOME FROM A RASPBERRY PLANTATION Harvesting Income' Profit" Harvest Date Cost (dollars/acre). (dollars/acre) (dollars/acre) July 3 36. 33 66.57. 30. 2 3 July 6 96.48 236.98 140. 50 July 9 141.04 363.24 22 2.2 0 July 12 164.35 429.28 2 64.9 3 July 15 166.15 434.37 268 . 22 July 18 151.37 392.51 241.14 July 21 128.57 327.89 199.33 July 24 ' 106.84 266.33 159.49 July 27 91. 42 222.65 131.23 July 30 77.83 - 184.12 106.30 TOTAL: 1,160.38 2,9 2 3.94 1,763.57 " The values in this column are the differences between income and hand harvesting costs. They do not include the other costs involved in maintaining a raspberry plantation. Since the other costs are assumed to be constant for both mechanical harvesting methods and hand harvesting methods, these values may be used comparing harvesting methods. Similar values for mechanical harvesting are presented later . Cost Analysis of Mechanical Raspberry Harvesting Since mechanical harvesters are s t i l l in an experi-mental stage, the .purchase price and capacity of such machines is not known. In order to compare the costs of mechanical harvesting and hand harvesting, ranges of purchase prices and 59 . capacities were investigated in an attempt to determine a suitable machine and machine capacity. Fixed Costs Using a fixed cost percentage (Table II) of 16 percent, the annual fixed cost is 0.16P, where P is the machine purchase price. Considering a 30 day harvest season, the daily fixed cost is 0.00533P dollars per day. Operating Costs Hourly operating costs may be estimated as follows: Repair and maintenance (Table V) = .00025P dollars/hour Labor (assume 2 men at 2.0 0 dollars/hour) = 4 . 0 0 " Fuel (assume 3 gallons/hour at 30 cents per gallon) = 0 . 9 0 " O i l (assume 0.01 gallons/hour (Table VII) at 2.00 dol lars / gallon)) = 0 . 0 2 In analyzing the cost of hand harvesting, i t was assumed that a truck was necessary to transport frui t picked by hand pickers to a central location. A similar charge is not applied against the mechanical harvester, since i t is assumed that i t has sufficient storage capacity to "eliminate this handling problem. Loss of operating time due to unloading frui t w i l l be included in the f i e ld efficiency factor for the harvester. Summing the above costs , the total hourly operating cost of a mechanical harvester is 60. C, = 0.00533P/H + 0.00025P + 4.92 [28] h r where = machine operating cost, dollars per hour P = machine purchase price , dollars H = daily operating time, hours. Machine Capacity Since raspberry rows are spaced at 10 feet, the output for a single row machine is 1.21s acres per hour, where s is the forward speed in miles per hour. Assuming 75 percent f i e ld efficiency (Table IX), the' output of a machine is D = 0.907 s [29] o where D q = machine output, acres per hour s = forward speed, miles per hour. Similarly , the seasonal capacity of a mechanical harvester is C y = 0.907 (s) (H r) (Z) [30] where C y = seasonal capacity of a machine, acres s = forward speed, miles per hour = operating time, hours per day Z = picking interval between subsequent harvests, days. Combining equations [28] and [29], the cost of mechanical picking, for each specific harvest, is C = (0.00533P/H + 0.00025P + 4.92)/0.907s [31] a r where C = cost for a specific harvest, dollars per cl acre and a l l other symbols are as previously defined. 61 Method of Calculation A computer program (Appendix C) was developed to calculate the cost of mechanical harvesting gross income and the resulting gross pro f i t , in order that mechanical harvesting could be compared to hand harvesting. Machine purchase price was varied from 1000 to 15 ,000 dollars while machine speed was varied from 0.5 to 3.miles per hour to determine the effect of machine cost and machine capacity on operating costs. Fruit removal efficiency was assumed to be 80 percent, while picking interval length was varied from 3 to 6- days and the daily length of operation was varied from 8 to 10 hours. Gross income for a specific harvest date was determined using equation [26] with the modification that 3 < (b - a) < 6, to account for varying lengths of picking intervals. Operating cost for each picking was determined using equation [31]. The length of picking interval does not affect the cost for each specific harvest but does affect the cumulative cost for the whole harvest season as with a larger picking interval , a machine w i l l be used a.fewer number of times on each acre. For picking intervals of length greater than three days the timeliness factor (equation [23]) was used to determine the cost of reduced frui t quality. This equation was evaluated between the same l imits as used for the gross income equation in order that timeliness costs applied to the same interval . ( Yd }a+b = (Y , ) K - ( Y J [32] a b d a where ^d^a+b = income reduction, dollars per acre for a specific harvest period (Y^)^ = equation [23] evaluated at date b (Y,) = eauation [23] evaluated at date a d a and 3 < (b - a) < 6. Gross profit for a specific harvest was determined by subtracting the operating cost and timeliness cost for that harvest from the gross income. Cumulative gross profit for the whole harvest season was determined by summing the profits for each specific harvest. Machine Cost and Gross Profit Variation over the Harvest Season Figures '11, 12, 13 and 14 show the variations in gross income, operating cost, timeliness cost and gross profit over the harvest season for 3, 4, 5 and 6 day harvest intervals respectively. These figures are based on a machine purchase price of 5,000 dol lars , a machine speed of 1.5 miles per hour and an 8 hour working day. Since the gross profit curves are based on only operating costs, and do not consider the costs of establishing and maintaining a raspberry plantation, these profit curves may be direct ly compared to the gross profit curves for hand picking (Figure 10). Comparison to Figure 10 TABLE XIV. COST AND PROFIT (DOLLARS PER ACRE PER YEAR) OF RASPBERRY MACHINE PICKING PER ACRE 8 HOURS PER DAY. Speed p o ^ e Capacity mph. hour (acres) PURCHASE PRICE (dol larsT 1,000 Cost 5,000 9 ,000 13,000 Profit Cost Profit Cost Profit Cost Profit 3 DAY PICKING INTERVAL 0.5 0.45 1.5 1.36 3.0 2.72 10.88 128.69 2795.25 209.51 2714.44 290.32 2633.62 371.14 2552.80 32.65 42.90 2881.05 69.84 2854.11 96.78 2827.17 123.71 2800.23 65.30 21.45 2902.50 34.92 2889.03 48.39 2875.56 61.86 2862.09 4 DAY PICKING INTERVAL 0.5 0.45 1.5 1.36 3.0 2.72 10. 88 32 . 65 65 . 30 96.52 32.17 16.09 2517.10 2581.45 2597.54 157.13 52. 38 26 .19 2456.49 217.74 2395.88 278.36 2335.27 2561.25 108.87 2541.04 92.79 2520.84 2587.44 26.29 2577.33 46.39 2567.23 5 DAY PICKING INTERVAL 0.5 0.45 1.5 1.36 3.0 2.72 10.88 77.22 2337.72 125.71 2289.23 174.19 2240.74 222.68 2192.25 32.65 25.74 2389.20 41.90 2373.03 58.07 2356.87 74.23 2340.71 65.30 • 12.87 2402.07 20.95 2393.98 29.03- 2385.90 37.11 2377.82 6 DAY PICKING INTERVAL 0.5. 0.45 1.5 1.36 3.0 2.72 10.88 64.35 2211.27 104.75 2170.86 145.16 2130.45 185.57 2090.04 32.65 21.45 2254.17 34.92 2240.70 48.39 2227.23 . 61.86 2213.76 65.30 10.72 2264.89 17.46 2258.16 24.19 2251.42 30.93 2244.69 TABLE XV. COST AND PROFIT (DOLLARS PER ACRE PER YEAR) OF RASPBERRY MACHINE PICKING PER ACRE 10 HOURS PER DAY „ Acre r • _• PURCHASE PRICE (dollars)  b p e e d per opac i ty l,QQQ 5 ,000 9 ,000 13,000 mph. hour (acres) Cost Profit Cost Profit Cost Prof i t Cost Profit 0.5 0.45 13.60 125.76 2798.19 194.82 2729.13 263.88 2660.07 332.94 1.5 1.36 40.81 41.92 2882.03 64.94 2859.01 87.96 2835.99 110.98 3.0 2.72 81.63 20.96 2902.99 32.47 2891.48 43.98 2879.97 55.49 2591.00 2812.97 2868.46 4 DAY PICKING INTERVAL 0.5 0.45 1.5 1.36 3.0 2.72 13.60 40.81 81.6 3 94.32 31.44 15. 72 2519.31 2582.18 2597 . 90 146.11 48 . 70 24.35 2467.51 2564.92 2589.27 197.91 65.97 32.99 2415.71 2547.65 2580.64 249.71 83.24 41. 62 2363.91 2530.39 2572.01 5 DAY PICKING INTERVAL 0.5 0.45 1.5 1.36 3.0 2.72 13. 60 40. 81 81.63 75.45 25.15 12. 58 2339.48 2389.79 2402.36 116.89 38. 96 19.48 2298.04 2375.97 2 39 5.45 158.33 52 . 78 26 . 39 2256.61 2362.16 2388.55 199.77 66.59 33.29 2215.17 2348.35 2381.64 6 DAY PICKING INTERVAL 0.5 0.45 1.5 1.36 3.0 2.72 13.60 40. 81 81. 63 62.88 20.96 10.48 2212.79 2254.66 2265.14 97.41 32.47 16.23 2178.21 2243.15 2259.38 131.94 4 3.98 21.99 2143.67 2231.63 2253.62 166.47 55. 49 27.75 2109.14 2220.12 2247.87 indicates that for 3, 4 and 5 day picking intervals , the profit curves for machine harvesting are higher than for hand harvesting, at a l l stages of the harvest season. Comparison of Figures 10 and 14 indicate that the.gross profit from hand picking and machine picking, for a 5 day picking interva l , are similar at the f i r s t and last of the harvest season but at the peak of the harvest season, gross profit from hand harvesting is only 80 percent of that from machine harvesting. The above comparisons indicate, that for a l l the combinations considered, machine harvesting is more profitable than hand harvesting. Machine Capacity and Purchase Price In order to determine the effects of machine purchase price and machine'speed on harvesting costs and subsequent prof i t s , the total costs and profits for each season were calculated by summing the costs and profits of the. individual harvest operations. The results of the complete analysis are tabulated in Appendix D, while results are summarized in Table XIV and Table XV.. Results are reported for machine purchase price variations from 1,000 to 15,000 dol lars , for machine speed variations from 0.5 to 3 miles per hour, for picking interval variations from 3 to 6 days and for daily operating times of'8 hours (TableXIV ) and 10 hours (Table XV). 66. 5 0 0 M A C H I N E P I C K I N G Income 4 0 0 H Profit 300 o -o 200 1 0 0 Cost - i i ~ 10 15 Time, days 2 0 i 2 5 i 3 0 Figure 11. Graph of cost, income, profit and yie ld reduction of raspberry machine picking operating 8 hours per day purchase price $5,000, speed: 1.5 mph; with 3 day V picking interval . G7 M A C H I N E P I C K I N G 15 20 T i m e , days Figure 1.2. Graph of cost, income, profit and yie ld reduction of raspberry machine picking operating 8- hours per day purchase price $ 5,000, speed: 1.5 mph, with 4 day picking interval . 68. 500 400b o> 300b o -g 200 100b 0 M A C H I N E P I C K I N G Income 10 15 Time . days Figure 13. Graph of cost, income, profit and yield reduction of raspberry machine picking operating 8 hours per day purchase price $5,0 00, speed: 1.5 mph, with 5 day picking interval . 69 . 5 0 0 h 4 0 0 b o> V D 3 0 0 b o 2 0 Q b 1 0 0 b M A C H I N E P I C K I N G I n come Figure 14. Graph of cost, income, profit and yie ld reduction of raspberry machine picking operating 8 hours per day purchase price $5,000, speed: 1.5 mph, with 6 day picking interval . 70. Figure 15 shows the effect of machine purchase price and machine speed on annual profit for a three day picking interval while Figure 16 shows the effect of machine purchase price and machine speed on annual profit for a five day picking interval . From the figures i t is apparent that-gross annual profit is not greatly influenced by machine purchase pr ice , i f operating speed is 1.5 miles per hour, or greater. On this basis an optimum machine speed for mechanical raspberry harvesting should be at least 1.5 miles per hour. This indicates that machine capacity w i l l be 1.36 acres per hour and daily output w i l l be 10 .9 acres. The annual capacity of such a machine would be 32.7, 4 3.5, 54.4 and 65.3 acres per year for 3 , 4 , 5 and 6 day picking intervals respectively. 2 9 0 0 O -2 2 7 0 0 o . o O- 2500 8 H O U R S PER DAY 3 DAY P I C K I N G INTERVAL 3 .0 mph 0 . 5 mph j 2000 4000 6 0 0 0 8000 10000 12000 Purchase Pr ice , d o l l a r s Figure 15. The effect of machine purchase price and machine speed on gross' annual prof i t . 71. 2 4 0 0 2 3 0 0 2 2 0 0 8 H O U R S PER DAY 5 DAY P ICK ING INTERVAL 3 . 0 mph 0 - 5 mph 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 10000 12000 Purchase Price, dollars Figure 16. The effect of machine purchase price and machine speed on gross annual prof i t . Effect of Picking Interval on Gross Profit Figures 17, 18 and 19 show the effect of picking interval and machine speed on gross annual profit for machine purchase prices of 5,000, 9,000 and 13,000 dollars respectively. As is seen, in a l l cases, the effect of machine purchase price is not significant at machine speeds of 1.5 miles per hour, or greater. At this operating speed the relationship between gross annual profit and picking interval is nearly l inear and the gross annual profit decreases by approximately 200 dollars per acre each time the picking interval is lengthened by one day. This, of course, is not necessarily applicable i f the picking interval is extended beyond 6 days. 7 2 . Figure 17. Gross annual prof i t of raspberry machine picking versus picking interval for different speeds of operation. 73. Figure 18. Gross annual profit of raspberry machine picking versus picking interval for different speeds of operation. 74 . 2900 2700 D "5 2500 o 2300 2100 PURCHASE PRICE 1 3 0 0 0 DOLLARS 8 HOURS PER DAY 4 5 Picking Interval , days Figure 19. Gross annual profit of raspberry machine picking versus picking interval for different speeds of operation. Comparison of Hand_ Picking to Machine Picking Summing the profit column in Table XIII, the gross annual profit for hand harvesting is 1764 dollars per acre. Similar gross annual profits for mechanical harvesting .(Appendix D) varied from maximum of 290 3 to a minimum of 2 069 dollars per acre. This indicates that any of the combinations of machine purchase price, machine speed and picking interval used in the mechanical harvesting analysis are more profitable than hand picking methods. Considering a machine purchase price of 5,000 dollars as•a reasonable price , and using a forward speed of 1.5 miles per hour, as discussed previously, and an 8 hour working day, the gross annual profit for machine harvesting was 2 854, 2561, 2373 and 2241 dollars for 3, 4, 5 and 6 day picking intervals , respectively. On this basis, the annual increased profits due to mechanical harvesting are 1090, 798, 609 and 477 dollars per acre for 3 , 4 , 5 and 6 day picking intervals , respectively. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Methods for analyzing the costs of agricultural machinery systems and methods for determining optimum sizes of implements and power units were reviewed and summarized. As commonly used methods for determining least cost machinery systems for agricultural enterprises were not direct ly applicable to frui t growing, procedures were modified. The mechanization'of raspberry harvesting was used as an example for a cost analysis study and the modified procedures were used to determine suitable l imits for machine size and capacity and were used to compare present harvesting practices with a proposed mechanical harvesting system. Methods and results may be summarized as follows: (1) A description of frui t y ie ld through the harvest season was obtained by analyzing actual yie ld data based on hand picking of several test plots of Willamette raspberries. The resulting frui t yie ld function was used as a basis for analyzing both hand harvesting and mechanical harvesting. (2) A timeliness function, expressing the reduction in fru i t value as a function of the length of time between subsequent harvests and as a function of specific harvest date, was obtained for Willamette raspberries. The timeliness function was used to determine a suitable timeliness charge against mechanical harvesting. (3) • An optimum frui t removal efficiency for mechanical raspberry harvesting was determined by investigating both timeliness costs and frui t yie ld reduction due to the 77. removal of immature f r u i t . Results indicated that a fruit removal efficiency of 80 percent is optimum for picking intervals ranging from 3 to 6 days. (4) The costs of hand harvesting were investigated over the harvest season, based on current prices. Gross annual prof i t , defined as the difference between the income from the sale of f ru i t and the costs of harvesting, was used as a parameter for comparing hand harvesting costs to machine harvesting costs. The gross annual profit for hand harvesting was 1764 dollars per acre. (5) . Cost analysis of mechanical harvesting was conducted by considering fixed costs, variable costs and timeliness charges for a range of machine prices and machine speeds. Results indicated that for operating speeds of 1.5 miles per hour, or greater, gross annual profit was not s ignif icantly influenced by machine speed. A machine speed of 1.5 miles per hour was therefore considered as an optimum machine speed. On this basis, a single row machine w i l l have a capacity of 1.36 acres per hour and w i l l have a daily output of 10.9 acres. The annual capacity of such, a machine would vary from •32.7 to 65.3 acres per year for picking intervals from 3 to 6 days, respectively. (6) The effect of the length between subsequent harvests on gross annual profit from machine picking indicated the the gross annual profit decreased by approximately 200 dollars 78. per acre each time the interval between subsequent harvests was increased by one day.. This applies for a range of picking intervals from 3 to 6 days. (7) Comparison of gross annual profits from both methods of harvesting indicated that profits from hand picking were substantially less than those from machine picking. Using a machine with a purchase price of 5,000 dol lars , with a frui t removal efficiency of 80 percent, with a forward speed of 1.5 miles per hour and an 8 hour working day, gross annual profits varied from 2854 to 2241 dollars per acre for picking intervals from 3 to 6 days, respectively. Comparing these values to the gross annual profit of 1764 dollars per acre for hand picking, i t is seen that increased annual profits due to mechanical picking varied from 1090 to 477 dollars per acre. 79. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY The methods used should be applicable to other types of frui t harvesting enterprises. Since y ie ld data, the variation of y ie ld over the harvest season and the effect of untimeliness on reduced quality are not known, such data are required for other crops before analysis may be conducted. LITERATURE CITED 1. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan: Agricultural Engineer Yearbook, pp. 2 7 9-284 (1970 ) and pp. 227-2 33TT963 ) . 2. Baehr, B . E . , An Experiment in Mechanical Raspberry Harvesting. Vancouver: University of Bri t i sh Columbia Department of Agricultural Engineering, pp. 2, (1966) (Mimeographed). 3. Carne, I . C . Observations on Raspberry Varieties as Grown in the Fraser Valley. Vic tor ia , Bri t i sh Columbia: Br i t i sh Columbia Department of Agriculture, Horticultural Branch, (19 65). 4. Challenger, B . , 19 6 7 Report Mechanical Raspberry Harvester T r i a l s . Victoria"! Agricultural Engineering Divis ion, Brit ish Columbia Department of Agriculture (1967) (Mimeographed). 5. Chancellor, W . J . , Selecting the- Optimum-Sized Tractor. St. Joseph, Michigan: Transactions of ASAE 12: (4), pp. 411-414, (1969). 6. Crandall , P . C . , George, J . E . J r . , Roberts, J . , Chamberlain, J .D. and Wolf, G.D. A Red Raspberry Harvester Circular 1 457 , Washington Agricultural Experiment Station, Washington State University, December (1965). 7. Dawson, G.R. , Cost of Owning and Operating Farm Machines. Bulletin No. 49 3 , 'Agricul tural Experimental Station, New Mexico State University, March (1965). 8. Dorling, M . J . , Raspberry Growing in the Abbotsford Area  of Br i t i sh Columbia. Vancouver: University of Bri t i sh Columbia, Department of Agricultural Economics, (1967). 9. 'Hunt, D.R., A Fortran Program for Selecting Farm Equip-ment. Paper No. 66-154 presented at the 59th Annual Meeting, American Society of Agricultural_ Engineers , Amherst, Massachusetts, (June 2 6-29, 1966). 10. Hunt, D.R., Eff ic ient Machinery Selection, Implement and Tractor, St. Joseph, Michigan: Transactions of  ASAE. 16: (13) pp. 78-80 (1963). 11. Hunt, D.R., Farm Power and Machinery Management, Iowa: Iowa State University Press (5th Edition) {1968). 80. 81. 12. Hunt, D.R. and Patterson, R . E . , Evaluating Timeliness in Field Operations. American Society of "Agricultural Engineers Publication Proc-468 presented at Sherman House, Chicago, I l l i n o i s , pp. 18-21 (December 1968). 13. Larson, G . H . , Fairbanks, G.E. and Fenton, F . C . , What It Costs to Use Farm Machinery, Kansas Agriculture Experimental"Station Bulletin No. 417 (April 1960). 14. Link, D .A . , Farm Machinery Selection from System Economics , Iowa State University Library Ames, Iowa. TFTS. Thesis) (1966). 15. Macllardy, F . V . , The Mechanization and Control of Farm-stead Operation, Canadian Agricultural Engineering 4: (1), pp. 18, 19, 2 9 "(January, 19 6 2T: McLeod, C D . , Progress Report on Mechanical Harvesting  of Raspberries^. Vancouver: University of BrrtTsh Columbia, Department of Agricultural Engineering (19 67) (Mimeographed). Nyborg, E . O . , Mechanical Raspberry Harvesting, University of Bri t i sh Columbia, Mechanical Engineering Department (Ph.D. Thesis) (1970). 18. Parson, M.S . , Robinson, F.H. and Str ick ler , P . E . , Farm - Machinery-Use ,_ Depreciation , Replacement. U. S . D. A. S ta t i s t i ca l Bullet in No." 269 "TOctober I9 6 0). 19. Quan, T . , B.C. Coast Vegetable Co-operative Association, Richmond, Bri t i sh Columbia (Personal information). 20. Simons, M.D., Field Machinery Selection Using Stored Programs, Oklahoma'State University "Library, St i l lwater, Oklahoma. (M.S. Thesis) (19 62). 21. Southwell, P . H . , An Analysis of Tractor Purchase Costs' and Eff ic iencies , Canadian Agricultural Engineering 10: (1), pp. 3 3-37~TJTay T9TT8T. 16. 17. 82 . APPENDIX A C O M P U T E R P R O G R A M FOR. T H E E F F E C T O F P I C K I N G I N T E R V A L O N I N C O M E YI_D(T)= ( - 3 . 5 4 I4*T+10 . 07 76 5*T**2-C. 0 1 6 S 5 * T * * 4 + 0. C000209l6*T*--*6-1 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 8 1 4 * T * * 7 > * ( 1 7 4 2 . 0 / 4 5 3 . 5 9 ) P 1 = 0 . 3 4 P 2 = 0 . 2 2 0 = 0 .0  4 A = 3 . 0 • SUM=0.0 5 R = A - 3 . 0 C = A + D G 1 = ( VL.0 ( A ) - Y I _ D ( 0 ) ) - P 1 + ( Y L D ( C ) - Y L D ( A } ) * P 2 S U M = S U M - 4 G I ; WR I T E ( 6 f 3 ) A , B , C , 0 , G 1, S U M 3- F O R M A T ( 1 0 X , 4 F 7 , 2., 2 F 1 2 . 2 ) A = C + 3 .0 I F ( A . L E . 3 3 . 0 ) G O T O 5 0 = 0 + 1 . 0 I F ( P . I E . 3 . 0 ) OQ T O 4  " 9 9 S T O P ~~ ~ • E N D 83. APPENDIX B COMPUTER P R O G R A M FOR THE EFFECT OF PICKING I N T E R V A L AN 0 P I C K I N G E F F I C I E N C Y O N I N C O M E F R CM' RASPBERRIES. YLD(T)=(-8.541 AvT +10.07765^T**2-0. 01685*T**4+0.000020916*T**6-0.0 10f;0C34814*T**7)'*{ 1742.0/453 .59 ) x L ( A ) = ( - 16. 6 5 0 + 3 3 .3 * A ) / 10 0. 0 RtA)=3.0/(3.0+A ) S ( A ) = A / { 3 « 0 + A ) . S U M - 0 . 0 PI=0.34 P 2 = 0 . 2 2 D=0.0 4 X=0.50 3 y=i.c-.x . .  A=3.0+0 2 • B = A - 3 . 0 - D C=A-2.0*(3.0+0) I F ( C . L T . O . O ) C = O.C>" ' '' " E=A-3.0=M 3 .0 + D ) I F ( E . IT.0 . 0 ) E = 0 . 0  G I = X P1 * R ( 0 ) - • ( ( Y L 0 ( A ) - Y L 0 ( R ) ) - X L ( X ) { Y L D { 3 ) - Y L D ( C ) ) ) 1+ X * P 2 * 5 ( D) 5'; ( ( Y L O ( A ) -YL0(3) )-X * X L ( X ) « ( Y L D { B ) -Y L 0 ( C ) ) ) 2+Y*P?* ( ( Y L O ( B ) - Y L O ( C ) } - X * X L ( X ) * ( Y L 0 ( C ) - YLO.I E > ) ) S U M = S U M + G [ P = X L ( X ) Q = R ( D I  R A = S ( D ) W R I T E ( 6 , 5 ) A , B , C f E ,D , X , Y , P , Q , R A , G I , S U M 5 F O R M A T ( 5 X , 1 2 F 1 0 . 3 ) A = A+3-. 0 + D ' ' •"' I F ( A . L E . 3 3 . 0 ) GO TO 2 ' SU>'=0.0  X=X+.10 I F ( X . L E . l . O ) GO T O 3 0 = 0 + 1 .0 . . . . .„ _ _ IF(;0.I..E.3.0) G O T O 4 ' 9 9 S T C C > E N D 84. APPENDIX C. Computer Program for Cost Analysis of Mechanical Harvesting DIN ENSJ CN C ( 10 ) , T (10 ) ,F( 1C ) YL ( T )={-8.54 14&7+lC.C7 765*-T**2-C.01685*T**4 4 0 . 0 0 0 0 2 0 9 1 6 * T * ' ' - - 6 -10.0000 00 3 4 814 *T'*7)*(17 4 2.0/453.59) YF(T,F)=-35. 1 c-3 6 * 7 4 1. .3104* T** 2-0.0391 12*T**3+G .00039522*7**4 1 4 7 . 7 9 2 r* T * P - C . C G 0 10 14 7 2 * T * P * * 6 ~~ CST (P,h,S)=(0 .0O5 33*P/K + 4.9 2 + C.O0O2 5*P-)/( C.90 7*S ) T(S ) = C.^C7*S " " " C M S , >)=0.9C7*S*H " " ' CP(S,H,F )=C.SG7*S*H*P I=J •  A = 0 .n B=3 .C 1 C( 1 )=(Yt. ( 8 1-YU A) )r-0. 12*0.8C 4-2.0*4.28 D( I )='(YL I E)-YL( n )*0. 34*0.80 E( n=c( i ) - c (11 1=14 1 ______ • B=P .4?.0 IE (R.LE.30.C) GC TO 1. ' ""WRITE (6 ,2) " """ " 2 FOR FAT( 20X, 'HAND PICK INC'///10X,'COST 1 ,10X, »I NOCME' ,10X,'FROFIT ' ) DO 3 1 = 1,10  ~~~3~ WRITE <-f4) I ,C( I I ,D( t) ,E( I ) 4 FORMAT{5X, I 2,2X,3(F9 . 3 t 6X ) ) WRITE(6 , 5) 5" FORMAT ( POX, * M A 0 F IN F P I C K I N G ' , / / / ) " " " " 0 0 10 1=3,6 KR I TE ( 6 ,6 ) I 6 FORMAT ( 20 X7~T_ , ? X , 'DAY Fit KING INTERVAL • , / ) X = I 00 10 I I = I 0 CG,150 CO ,2000 P = I I " " " " ~ Vs P I T E (6 ,8 ) F 8 FORMATt 20X, ' PURCHASE PRICE =',F9.2,/)  DO 10 J=8,10,2 H= J WRITE(6,9) J "9 ' FCFMAT(40X, 12 , 2X, 'HOURS PER DAY' / 1 2 X , ' SPEED', 2X » 'ACRE/HOUR * » 3X , l«ACRE/CAY',4X,'C^PA0ITY',6X,«CCST«,6X,«INOCNE ,,4X,«YLr R E C',4 X, 2.' PROFIT ' ) ____________ XX=C.C YY=C .0 2/= 0.0 ' ' ' " " ' W W= C. C . R- K . . s _ R / 2 .o : — ' ; A=C.C B=3.C 85. APPENDIX C (Continued) 15" C £ = ( Y L ( F )" -YL~( ) *0~. 34 *C . 8 0 DE = C-ST{ P,H,S)*(3.C/X> IF (X.IE.3.0) GO TO 12  b A = Y R(B ,X )-YP ( fl ,X ) : GO TO 12 12 _ EA=O.C ' _ ] 3 G = T ( ?.') HE = (S ,H) R=CP(S»H.X) F = C ^-CE-E/i  XX-XX+C A ~~~~~ YY=YY+DE ZZ=ZZ+EA VV.-l 'A + F " . ' " ~ " " ~ " . i A = A + 3 . C __ B=B + 3 .0 • ' • : IF(P.LE.30.0) CC TC 15 WRITE(£,14) SiGtHE,RfVY,XX,ZZ,WW j 14 _ FGFVAT( 10X,F6.?,3X,F6.2,5X,F8.2,5X,F8.2,M2X,F9.2) ) I 1C CCMI ME ' . " : ' ' 99 STOP ' i EN C APPENDIX D - COST ANALYSIS OF MECHANICAL HARVESTING 3 C A Y P I C K I N G I N T E R V A L i P U R C H A S E P R I C E = 1 C C C . CO " I 8 H C U R S P E R D A Y S P E E D A C R E / H O U R ACRE/!.: A Y C A P A C I T Y C U S T I N C L M E Y L C P E C P R O K I T ! 0 . 5 0 0 . 4 5 3 .6 3 1 0 . 8 8 1 2 8 . 6 9 2 5 2 3 . 9 5 0 . 0 2 7 9 5 . 2 5 1 l . O C C . "9 1 7 . 2 6 2 1 . 7 7 6 4 . 3 5 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 0 . 0 2 8 5 9 . 6 0 ! 1 . 5 0 1 . 3 6 1 C . 8 8 2 2 . 6 5 4 2 . 9 C 2 5 2 . 3 . 9 5 0 . 0 ' 2 8 8 1 . 0 5 ! 2 . 0 0 1 . 8 1 1 4 . 5 1 4 3 . 5 4 . 3 2 . 1 7 2 5 2 2 . 9 5 0 . 0 2 8 9 1. 7 7 | 2 . 5 0 2 . 2 7 1 8 . 1 4 5 4 . 4 2 2 5 . 7 4 2.9 2 3 .9 5 0 .0 2 0 9 8 . 2 1 ! 3 . 0 i J 2 . 7 2 2 1 . 7 7 6 5 . 3 0 2 1 . 4 5 2 5 2 3 . 9 5 0 . 0 2 9 0 2 . bo 1 0 H C U R S P E R D A Y ! S P E E D A C R E / H O U R A C R E / D A Y C A P A C I T Y C O S T I N C O M E Y L C R E D P R O F I T 1 0 . 5 0 . 0 . 4 5 ' 4 . 5 3 1 3 . 6 0 1 2 5 . 7 6 " 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 "" 0 . 0 2 7 9 8 . 1 9 ' j •. 1 . 0 0 0 . 9 1 9 . 0 7 2 7 . 2 1 6 2 . 8 8 29 23 . 9 5 0 . 0 2 8 6 1. C 7 I 1 . 5 0 1 . 3 6 1 3 . 6 C 4 0 . 3 1 4 1 . 9 2 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 0 . 0 2 8 8 2 . 0 3 j 2 - 0 0 1 . 8 1 1 8 . 1 4 S 4 . 4 2 3 1 . 4 4 2 5 2 3 . 9 5 0 . 0 2 8 9 2 , 5 1 I 2 . 5 C 2 . 2 7 2 2 . 6 7 6 8 . 0 2 2 5 . 1 5 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 0 . 0 2 8 5 8 . s c j 3 . 0 0 2 . 7 2 2 7 . 2 1 8 1 . 6 3 2 0 . c , 6 2 5 2 3 . 9 5 0 . 0 2 9 0 2 . 9 9 s ' P U R C H A S E " P R I C E = 3 0 0 0 . 0 0 i 8 H C U R S P E R D A Y j S P E E D A C R E / E C U R AC.R E / C A Y C A P A C I T Y CUS 1 1 NC'JMt Y L L H t U HKUH 1 1 1 0 . 5 0 0 . 4 5 3 . 6 3 1 0 . 8 8 1 6 9 . 1 0 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 0 . 0 2 7 5 4 . 8 5 ! 1 . 0 0 0 . 9 1 7 . 2 6 2 1 . 7 1 8 4 . 5 5 2 c 2 3 . 9 5 0 . 0 2 3 3 9 . 4 0 j 1 . 5 0 L . 3 6 1 0 . 9 8' " 3 2 . 6 5 " " 5 6'. 3 7 "' 2 ^ 2 3 , 9 5 0 . 0 ~ 2 8 6 7 . 5 3 ! . 2 . C O 1 . 8 1 1 4 . 5 1 4 3 . 5 4 4 2 . 2 3 2 9 2 3 . 0 5 0 .0 2 8 8 1 . 6 7 1 2 . 5 0 2 . 2 7 1 8 . 1 4 5 4 . 4 2 3 3 . 8 2 2 5 2 3 . 9 5 0 . 0 2 8 9 0 . 1 3 j 3 . 0 0 2 • 7 2 2 1 . 7 7 6 b . 3() 2 8 . 1 8 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 0 . 0 2 8 9 5 . 7 6 1 C H O U R S P E R 0 A Y S P E E D A C R E / H O U R A C R E / C A Y C A P A C I T Y C O S T I N C C M E Y L C R E C F R C F I T ] 0 . 5 0 0 . 4 5 4 . 5 3 1 3 . 6 0 1 6 0 . 2 9 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 0 . 0 " 2 7 6 3 . 6 6 i 1 . 0 0 C . 9 1 9 . C 7 2 7 . 2 1 8 0 . 1 4 2 9 2 3 . 5 5 \-- » 0 2 8 4 3 . 8 0 ' 1 . 5 0 1 . 3 6 1 3 . 6 0 4 0 .8 1 5 3 . 4 3 2 5 2 3 . 5 5 0 . 0 2 8 7 0 . 5 2 " " 2 . 0 0 T.'ei 1 8 . 1 4 ' 5 4 . 4 2 4 0 . 0 7 2 9 2 . 3 . 9 5 0 .0 2 8 8 3 . 8 7 • 2 . 5 0 2 • 2 7 2 2 . 6 7 6 E . 0 2 3 2 . 0 6 2 5 2 3 . 9 5 0 . 0 2 8 9 1 . 8 9 . _ 2 . 7 2 2.7.2 1 .8.1 . 6 3 ' - 2 6 . 7 1 2 9.2 3.?.9 5.... 0... 0 ... 2 8 9 7 . 2 3 APPENDIX D (Continued) PURCHASE PRICE 5CCC.CC 8 HOURS PER DAY SPEED AC RE/HOUR ACRE/DAY CAPACITY C 0 S T .1 NO OWE YLC REC PROFIT 0.50 0.45 3.6 3 10.88 209.51 2 9 2 3. 9 5 0. C 2714.44 1.00 C. 5 1 7.26 2 1 .77 104.7 5 29 2 3.95 ,0.0 28 19.19 1 • 50 1.3 6 1C .88 3 2.65 6 9.84 2923.95 0.0 2 8 5 4.11 2.00 1.81 14.5 1' 43.54 5 2 .3 6 2 9 2 3.95 0.0 2871.57 2.50 2.27 18.14 •' 5 4. 42" 41 .90 29 2 3.95 0 .0 2882.05 3 .00 2.72 21.77 6 5. 30 3 4.92 2 9 2 3. 9 5 0. 0 2 6 8 9.0 3 10 HOURS PER DAY SPEED ACRE/HOUR ACRE/DAY CAFAC I TY COST . INCOME YLC RED PROFIT 0.5 0 0.45 4.53 13.60 194.8 2 2923.95 0.0 2 7.2 9. 13 1 • 00 0.91 9.07 27.21 97 .41 2923 .95 0.0 2 8 2 6.54 1 .50 1.26 1 3 . 6 C 4 0.81 64 .94 2 9 2 3.95 0.0 2859.01 2 .00 1.8 1 18.14 ^ 4 . 4 2 4 8.7 C 2 9 2 3.95 0. 0 2 8 75.24 2.5 0 2.27 2 2.67 68.02 • 38.96 2 G 2 3 . 9 5 0.0 2 8 8 4.98 3.00 2.72- 2 7.21 8 1.63 3 2.47 2923.95 0.0 289 I .48 PURCHASE PRICF = .7000 .00 8 HOURS PER DAY SPEED ACPE/HCUR ACRE/CAY CAPAC ITY COST INCOME YL- R-13 PROHIT 0. 50 0.4 5 3.6 3 1 0 . 8 8 249.92 2923.95 0.0 2674. C3 1 .00 0.91 7 . 2 e 2 1.77 124,9 6 2923.95 0.0 2 79 8.99 1.50 1.36 10.88 32.65 83.2 1 2923.95 0.0 2840. 64' 2.0 0 1 .81 14.51 A3. 54 62.4 8 2923.95 0 .0 2 8 6 1.47 2.50 '2.27 18.14 54.42 ^9.98 2 9 2 3.95 0.0 2873.96 6 5 . 30 1C HCURS PER CAPAC ITY 13.60 "" 2 7.21 40.8 1 3.00 SPEED 0.50 1.00 1 .50 2 .72 ACRE/HOUR 0.45 0.9 1 1.36 2.1.77 AC RE/DAY 4.5 3 9. C 7 13 .60 4 1 .6 5 DAY COST 2 29.3 5 1 14.6 7 7 6.45 7W. T 9 T " I NCCME 2923.95 2923.95 2 9 2 3.95 YLC REC 0.0 0.0 n. r _ 9 FRCF I T 2694.60 2809 .27 2 84 7.5 0 2.0 0 2.50 3 .00 1.81 2.27 2 .72 18.14 22.67 27 .2 1 54 .42 6 8.02 8 1.63 57.24 * 5. 8 7 38.22 2 r, 2 3 . 9 5 2 9 2 3.95 2 9 2 3.95 "OTTO 0.0 0.0 2 a 6 6 . 6 1 2878.03 2385,72 APPENDIX D (Continued) r " " '" " P O R C H A S E ' P R l"C E ~ = ~9C 00 ."oo""" j 8 F O U R S P E R D A Y } S P E E O A C R E / F O U R A C R E / f A Y C A P A C I T Y C O S T I N C O M E Y L C R E O P R G F I T j 0 .50 0 .45 3.6 3 10. 88 290.32 2923.95 0.0 2633.62 1.00 0.91 7.26 21-77 14 5.16 2923.95 . n. r 2 7 7 8.78 : I 1 • 5 0 1.26 '! r . o. « 3 2.65" ^6.78 2923.^5 "•' 0.0 2827. 17 ; 2 .00 1.8 1 14.5 1 43. 54 7 2.58 2 9 2 3.95 0.0 2851.36 2.50 2.27 18.14 ; 54.42 58 .07 2923.95 0.0 2 8 6 5.88 j ; 3.00 2.72 21.77 6 5 . 10 4 8.39 2 9 2 3 .9.5 0 . 0 28/5 .^6 ; I 10 F O U R S PER. D A Y 1 S P E E D A C R E / H O U R A C R E / C A Y C A P A C I T Y C O S T I N O O M E Y L C R E D P R O F I T . 0 • 50 0.45 4.^3 13. 60 2 63.88 2923.95 0 .0 2660.07 " . j '1.00 0 .9 1 9.0 7 27.21 121.94 2923.95 0. 0 2792.01 i 1.50 1.36 13.60 40.81 87 .96 2 9 2 3.95 . 0.0 2835.99 ! ; 2.00 1.81 18.14 54.42 65.97 2 9 2 3. 95 0 .0 2 8 5 7.98 ; 2.50 2.27 22 .67 .68.0 2 5 2-78 2 9 2 3.95 f. \ • w 2871.17 1 3.00 2.72 27.21 8 1.63 43 .98 2923.95 0.0 2 8 7 9.97 . P U R C H A S E P R I C E •= 11G0C .00 j 8 H O U R S P E R D A Y S P E E D A C R E / H O U R A C R F / O A Y C A P A C I T Y C O S T I N C O M E Y L 0 R E C P R O F I T j 0.50 0.45 3.6 3 10.88' 3 30 .7 3 2923.95 0.0 2592.21 1.0 0 C . 9 1 7.26 21.77 16 5.37 2 9 2 3.95 . 0.0 2 7 5 8.58 1.50 1.36 10.8 8 3 2.65 1 10.24 292 3.9 5 0. 0 2313.70 ; 2.00 1.8 1 14.51 4 3.54 8 2.63 2 923.95 0.0 2841.26 ! 2.50 2.27 18.14 5 4.42 66. 1 .5 2. 9 2 3 . 9 5 0.0 2857.80 3.00 2 . 02 21.7 7 6 5 . 30 5 5 . I 2 • 2 9^3,95 * ) r - 2 86 8 . tt_2 10 H C U P S P E R D A Y ; S P E E D A C R E / F O U R A C R E / C A Y C A P A C I T Y C O S T I N O O M E Y L C R E D P R O F I T 0.50 0.4-5 4.53 13.60 .298 .4 1 2923.95 n r> • 2625.53 ' 1.00 0.9 1 9. C 7 2 7.21 14 9.21 2 9 ? 3 . 9 5 0.0 2.774 ,74 1.50 1.36 13.60 4 0.31 .. 99.47 2 9 2 3.95 0. 0 2 82.4.4 7 2.00 1.8 1 18.14 54 .42 74 .60 292 3.95 u . 2 84 9.34 2 .50 2.27 22.67 68.02 = 9.68 2923.95 0 .0 2864 .26 3.00 2.72 27 .2 1. 8 1.63 49.74 2922.95 0.0 2 874. 2 i APPENDIX D (Continued) PURCHASE PRI.CE = 13 COO. 00 1 8 HOURS PER DAY SPEED AC RE/HOUR .1LR b/UAY CAPACITY COS ! INCOME YLC Rbi; PkiJHli 0.50 0.45 3.6 2 10.88 371. 14 2 523.95 0.0 2552.80 1.00 0.91 7.26 2 1 -77 185.57 2 9 2 3.95 O.C 2 7 3 8.38 1.50 1.36 1 C . 8 8 3 2.65 123.71 2 5 2 3.95 0.0 2 8 U 0 . 6 3 '. 2.00 1.8 1 14 .5 1 4 3. 54 52. 75 2923.95 0.0 2 8 31.16 ; 2 . 5 0 2-27 18.14 - 5 4.42 74 .23 29 23 .95 0.0 2 8 4 9.72 ; : 3.00 2.7 2 2 1.// 6 5. 30 61.86 29 2 3.95 0.0 28 t 2 „ c 9 10 HOURS PER DAY SPEED AC RE/HOUR ACRE/CAY CAPACITY COST I NCOME Yl.O RED PROFIT 0.50 C . 4 5 4.53 13.60 "332.94 2923.9 5 o o 2 59 1.00 | ' 1.00 0.91 9 .C 7 27.21 16 6.47 2 5 2 3.55 0.0 2 7 5 7.48 i ; 1.50 1.3 6 . 13.60 40 .81 1 10 .98 2 9 2 3.95 • 0.0 2812.97 I i 2.0 0 1.81 l a. 1 4 5 4.42 8 3.24 2523.95 0.0 28 40 . 11 ! 2.50 2.27 22 .67 68.02 6 6.59 .2523.95 0.0 2857.36 ; ! 3 * C G 2. 72 27.21 8 1.63 55.49 2 9 2 3.95 0.0 2868.46 ; PURCHASE PRICE = 15C0C. 00' i 8 HOURS PER DAY SPEED ACRE/HOUR ACRE/CAY CAPACITY OUST INCCME YLC RfcL PROF 1 1 1 0.50 0.45 3.63 10 .88 4 11.55 2923.95 0.0 2512.4G j | 1.00 C.5 1 7.2 6 2 1.77 2C5 .77 2 9 2 3.95 0 .0 2 7 18.17 ! 1 .50 1.36 ' K. .88 22.65 127.18 2923.55 0.0 2766.76 2.00 1.81 14.5 1 4 3.54 102 .89 2^23.95 0.0 2 8 2 1. C 6 j '• 2.50 2.27 1 P . 1 4 54.42 82 .3 1 2923.95 0 .0 28 41.64 ' 3 .0 0 2.72 2 1.77 6 5. . 3 0 6 8.59 2 5 2 3. 9 5 'J . w 2 8 5 5 . 3 b 1 0 HCUPS PER DAY SPEED ACRE/HOUR ACP E/CAY CAPACITY COST I N C C K E YLC RFC PROFIT : 0.50 0.4 5 4.5 3 1 3.60 " 3 6 7.47 " 2 5 2 3.95 0.0 2556.47 | l.OC 0.51 9. C ~? 27.21 183 .74 2923.95 0.0 2 7 40.21 1 .50 1 .3 6 13.60 4 c, a i 122.49 2523.95 0.0 2 80 1.45 . 2.00 1.81 18.14 54.42 5 1 . f< / 25 2 3.95 0.0 2 6 3 2.08 2.50 2.27. 22.67 6 8.02 73 .49 2^23.95 0 .0 2 8 50.45 3 .00 2.72 27.2 1 8 1, 6 3 61.25 2 5 2 3.55 . .0.0 .28.6 2 ..7 0. : APPENDIX D (Continued) 4 CAY PICKING INTERVAL PURCHASE' PR ICF = \( •GO .00 i i 8 HOURS PER OAV i j SPEED ACR E/HOUR ACR E/DAY CAPACITY COST INCOME YLC REC PROFIT i ; 0 . 5 0 0.45' 3.63' 14.51 9 6.52' 2 9 2 3 .95 ' " 310.3 2 2517.10 | ' 1.00 0.91 7.26- 29.02 4 8.26 2 9 2 3.95 2 10 .3 2 2 5 6 5.26 i : i . 5 o 1.36 10 .88 4 3. 54 22. 17 2 5 2.3. 9 5 310.3 2 2 581.45 j ! 2.00 1.81 14.51 .58.05 24 . 1 3 2 523.95 3 10.32 2589.49 1 i 2.50 2.27 18.14 7 2.56 19.30 2 923.95 310.32 2594,32 i j 3.00 2 .72 21 .77 B 7 . 0 7 16.09 2 9 2 3.95 310.3 2 2 5 9 7.54 ! i 10 HOURS PER DAY SPEED ACR E/HOUR ACR E/DAY CAPACITY COST INCCME Y L 0 REC PROFIT j !' 0.50 C45 4 . 5 3 18.14 G4.3 2 2 0 2 3 . 9 5 .310. 3 2 25 19.21. ; i . o o 0.0 1 9.0 7 3 6 . 2 8 4 7.16 2923,95 2 10.32 2566.4/ ; ! 1 .50 1.26 13 .6 0 5 4.42 31.44 2923.95 310.32 2582.18 1 i 2.00 1.81 18.14 7 2.56 23 .58 2 9 2 3.95 2 10 .32 2 590,04 • j •2.50 2.27 2 2.67 90.70 18.86 2q23.95 3 10.3 2 2594.76 i ! 3.00 2.72 27 .21 10 8.3 4 15.72 2 9 2 : J. 9 5 310.3 2 2557.90 I i PURCHASE PRICE =. 3000 .00 8 HOURS PER DAY SPEED ACRE/HOUR ACRE / DAY CAPACITY COST INCOME YLC REC PROFIT 0.50 0.45 3.6 3 14.51 12 6.83 2 5 2 3.95 310.32 24 8 6.80 " ) 1.00 0.91 7.26 29.02 6 3.41 2 9 2 3.95 3 10.32 2 5 5 0. 2 1 1 1.50 1.36 1C.88 43. 54 42 .2 3 2 5 2 3.95 3 10.3 2 2 5 7 1.25 j 2.00 1 .8 1 . 14.5 1 5 8.05 21.71 2 9 2 3.95 310.3 2 2 581.52 [ j 2,50 2 .27 18.14 72.56 . 2 5 .37 2 9 2 3.55 3 10,32 2 5 8 8.26 ! 1 '3.0 0 2.72 2 1 . 7 7 87.07 21.14 2923.95 .... 3 1C.3 2 2592 .49 j 10 HOURS PER DAY j SPEED ACRE/HOUR ACRE /CAY CAP AC ITY COST INCOME YLC REC PROFIT | ; C .50 0.45 4 . c 3 18. 14 120.21 2923.95 310.32 2493.41 ' 1.00 0.91 9.07 3 6.28 60. 1 1 2523.95 2 10.32 25__.52 1.50 1.2 6 13.60 54.4 2 40 .0 7 2923.9 5 3 10.32 2573.55 2 .00 1.8 1 18.14 72.56 20. 0 5 2 9 2 3.95 310.32 2 56 3.57 . j 2.50 2.27 22 .67 90.70 24 .04 2923.95 3 10.3 2 2 5 8 9.58 3.0 0 2.72 2 7.21 1C8.84 . 20.04 .29.23..9 5 .... . 3.10 .32 2 5.9 3 . 5.9 .... . .. ! APPENDIX D (Continued) P U R C H A S E " P R I . C E " = 5 0 0 0 .00 8 H C U R S P E R D A Y S P E E D A C R E / H O U R • A C R E / C A Y C A P A C I T Y C O S T I N C O F E Y L D P E C F R C P I T 0 . 5 0 0 . 4 5 3 . 6 3 1 4 . 5 1 ' "' 1 5 7 . 1 3 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 2 1 0 . 3 2 2 4 5 6 . 4 9 1 . 0 0 C . 5 1 7 . 2 6 2 9 . C 2 7 8 . 5 7 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 3 5 . 0 6 1 . 5 0 1 . 3 6 1 0 . 8 8 4 3 . 5 4 5 2 . 3 8 2 5 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 6 1 . 2 5 • • 2 . 0 0 1 . 8 1 1 4 . 5 1 5 8 . 0 5 3 9 . 2 8 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 7 4 . 3 4 2 . 5 0 2 . 2 7 1 8 . 1 4 '•• 7 2 . 5 6 3 1 . 4 3 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 8 2 . 2 0 3 . 0 0 2 . 7 2 2 1 . 7 7 8 7 . 0 7 2 6 . 1 9 2 5 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2.5 8 7 . 4 4 " i o ' " H C U P S P E R D A Y S P E E D A C R E / H O U R A C R E / C A Y C A P A C I T Y C 0 S T I N C C ^ E Y L C R E E P R O F I T 0 . 5 0 0 . 4 5 4 . 5 3 1 8 . 1 4 1 4 6 . 1 1 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 4 6 7 . 5 1 1 . 0 0 C . 5 1 9 . 5 7 3 6 . 2 8 7 3 . 0 6 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 4 0 . 5 7 1 . 5 0 1 . 3 6 1 3 . 6 0 5 4 . 4 2 4 8 . 7 0- 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 6 4 . 9 2 2 . 0 0 1 . 8 1 1 8 . 1 4 7 2 . 5 6 ' 3 6 . 5 3 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5.7 7 . 1 C ' 2 . 5 0 2 . 2 7 2 2 . 6 7 " 9 0 . 7 C ' 2 9 . 2 2 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 8 4 .4 0 3 . 0 0 2 . 7 2 2 7 .2 1 1 0 8 . 8 4 2 4 . 3 5 2 5 2 3 . 9 5 2 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 8 9 . 2 7 P U R C H A S E P R I C E = 7 0 0 0 .00 a H O U R S P E R D A Y S P F E D A C R E / H C U R A C R E / C A Y C A P A C I T Y C O S T I N C O M E Y L D R E 0 P R O F I T 0 . 5 0 0 . 4 5 3 . 6 3 1 4 . 5 1 1 8 7 . 4 4 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 4 2 6 . 1 9 1 . 0 0 0 .9 1 7 . 2 6 2 9 . 0 ? 9 3 . 7 2 2 5 2 ^ . 5 5 2 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 1 9 . 9 0 1 . 5 0 1 . 3 6 1 0 . 8 8 4 3 . 5 4 6 2 . 4 8 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 ? 2 5 5 1 . 1 4 2 . 0 0 1 . 8 1 1 4 . 5 1 5 8 . 0 5 4 6 . 8 6 2 9 2 8 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 6 6 . 7 6 2 . 5 0 2 . 2 7 1 8 . 1 4 7 2 . 5 6 3 7 . 4 9 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 7 6 . I'i , 3 . 0 0 2 . 7 2 2 1 . 7 7 8 7 . 0 7 3 1 . 2 . 4 2 9 2 3 . ^ 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 8 2 . 3 8 1 0 H O U R S P E R D A Y | S P E E D A C R E / H O U R A C R E / C A Y C A P A C I T Y C O S T I N C O M E Y L O R E D P R O F I T i 0 . 5 0 • 0 . 4 5 4 . C 3 1 8 . 1 4 1 7 2 . 0 1 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 4 4 1 . 6 1 l . O C 0 . 9 1 9 . 0 7 3 6 . 2 8 8 6 . 0 1 2 5 2 3 . 9 5- 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 2 7 . 6 2 1 . 5 0 1 . 3 6 1 3 . 6 0 5 4 . 4 2 5 7 . 3 4 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 5 6 . 2 9 • 2 .0 0 1 . 8 1 1 8 . 1 4 7 2 . 5 6 4 3 . 0 0 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 7 0 . 6 2 2 . 5 0 2 . 2 7 . 2 2 . 6 7 9 0 . 7 0 3 4 .4 0 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 2 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 7 5 . 2 2 3 . 0 0 2'. 7 2. 2 7 . 2 1 1 0 8 . 8 4 2 8 . 6 7 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 3 4 . 9 5 APPENDIX D (Continued) 1 P U R C H A S E P R I C E = 9 0 0 0 . 0 0 '; 8 H O U R S P E R D A Y l ! S P E E D A C R E / H C U R A C R E / D A Y C A P A C I T Y C O S T I N C C M E Y L 0 R E C P R O F I T 0 . 5 0 0 . 4 5 3 . 6 3 1 4 . 5 1 2 1 7 . 7 4 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 " 2 1 0 . 3 2 2 3 9 5 . 8 8 | 1 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 7 . 2 6 2 9 . 0 2 1 0 8 . 8 7 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 , 3 2 2 5 0 4 . 7 5 j 1 . 5 0 1 . 3 6 1 0 . 8 8 4 3 . 5 4 7 2 . 5 8 2 9 2 2 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 4 1 . 0 4 ! i 2 . 0 0 1 . 8 1 1 4 . 5 1 5 8 .05 54 . 4 4 29 2 3 . 9 5 3 10. 42 2 5 5^.15 ( j ' 2 . 5 0 2 . 2 7 1 8 . 1 4 := 7 2 . 5 6 4 3 . 5 5 2 5 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 7 0 . 0 7 1 1 3 . 0 0 2 . 7 2 2 1 . 7 7 8 7 . 0 7 . 3 6 . 2 9 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 • 2 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 7 7 . 2 3 1 0 H O U R S P E R ' D A Y j S P E E D A C R E / H O U R A C R E / C A Y C A P A C I T Y C O S T I N 0 0 K 5 Y L O R E C P R O F I T • 0 . 5 0 0 . 4 5 4 . 5 3 1 8 . 1 4 1.97 . 9 1 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 4 1 5 . 7 1 l.OU 0 . 9 1 9 . C 7 3 6 . 2 8 9 8 . 9 6 2 9 2.5 .9 5 3 10 . 3 / 2-i L 4 . 6 1 1 . 5 0 1 . 3 6 1 3 . 6 0 5 4 . 4 2 6 5 . 9 7 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 4 7 . 6 5 i 2 . 0 0 1 . 8 1 1 8 . 1 4 7 2 . 5 6 4 9 . 4 8 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 6 4 . 1 5 ! 2 . 5 0 2 . 2 7 2 2 . 6 7 9 0 . 7 0 " " 3 9 . 5 8 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 7 4 . 0 4 I 3 . 0 0 2 . 7 2 2 7 .2 1 1 0 8 . 8 4 3 2 . 9 9 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 8 0 . 6 4 . P U R C H A S E P R I C E = 1 1 C 0 C . 0 0 I 8 H O U R S P E R D A Y i S P E E D A C R E / H O U R A C R E / D A Y C A F A O I T Y C O S T I N C O M E Y L C R E D P R O F I T j 0 . 5 0 0 . 4 5 . 3 . 6 3 1 4 . 5 1 2 4 P . 0.5 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 ' 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 3 6 5 . 5 7 1 . 0 0 C . 9 1 7 . 2 6 2 9 . 0 2 1 2 4 . 0 2 2 9 2 2 . 9 5 2 1 0 . 3 2 2 4 6 9 . 6 0 j 1 . 5 0 1 . 3 6 K . 8 8 4 3 . 5 4 8 2 . 6 8 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 2 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 3 0 . 9 4 ! 2 .0 0 1 . 8 1 1 4 . 5 1 5 p » 0 5 6 2 . 0 1 2 5 2 3 . 5 5 i i (}. 1 2 25 i i . _ l j 2 - 5 0 2 . 2 7 1 8 . 1A 7 2 . 5 6 4 9 .6 1 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 6 4 . C I { 3 . 0 0 2 . 7 2 2 1 . 7 7 8 7 . 0 7 4 1 . 3 4 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 7 2 . 2 8 ! 1 0 H O U R S P E R D A Y S P E E D AO R E / H O U R A C R E ,/C A Y C A P A C I T Y C O S T I N C O M E Y L C R E C P R O F I T 0 . 5 0 0 . 4 5 4 . 5 3 1 8 . 1 4 2 2 3 . 8 1 2 5 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 3 8 9 . 8 1 1.0!.' . - 0 . 9 1 9 .0 f 3 6 . 2 8 1 1 1 . 9 0 2 9 2 2.95 3 1 0 . 3 2 _5(ji. <<L-1 . 5 0 1 . 3 6 1 3 . 6 0 5 4 . 4 2 7 4 . 6 0 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 3 9 . 0 2 2 . 0 0 1 . 8 1 1 8 . 1 4 • 7 2 . 5 6 5 5 . 9 5 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 5 7 . 6 7 2 . 5 0 2 . 2 7 2 2 . 6 7 9 0 . 7 0 4 4 . 7 6 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 , 2 5 6 8 . 8 6 • 3 . 0 0 2 . 7 2 2 7 . 2 1 1 0 8 . 8 4 3 7 . 3 0 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 _ 2 5 7 6 . 2 2 APPENDIX D (Continued) PL'ROE.AS E pp. I'CE' -" 13coo .co j s H O U R S P E R D A Y S P E E D A C R E / F C U R A C R E / D A Y C A P A C I T Y C O S T I N C G M E Y L C R E G P R O F I T \ ' ' 0 . 5 0 n.45 " 3 . 6 3 1 4 . 5 1 " 2 7 3 . 3 6 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 3 3 5 . 2 7 I 1 . 0 0 C . 9 1 7 . 2 6 2 9 . 0 2 1 3 9 . 1 8 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 4 7 4 . 4 4 ! 1 . 5 0 1 . 3 6 1 C . 8 8 4 3 . 5 4 5 2 . 7 9 2 5 2 2 . 5 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 2 0 . 8 4 2 . 0 0 1 . 8 1 1 4 . 5 1 5 8 .0 5 6 9 . 5 9 29 2 3 . 9 5 -•i 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 4 4 , C 3 j 2 . 5 0 2 . 2 7 1 8 . 1 $ 7 2 . 5 6 5 5 . 6 7 2 5 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 5 7 . 9 5 ? nr. 2 . 7 2 2 1 . 7 7 8 7 . 0 7 4 6 . .3 9 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 2 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 6 7 . 2 3 1 i o. H C U R S P E R D A Y i S P E E D A C R E / P O U R A C R E / C A Y C A P A C I T Y C O S T I N-COKE Y L C R E C P R O F I T I 0 . 5 0 0 . 4 5 4 . 5 3 1 8 . 1 4' ' 2 4 9 . 7 1 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 2 2 2 3 6 3 . 9 1 | • 1 . 0 0 C . 9 1 • 5 . C 7 3 6 . 2 8 1 2 4 . 8 5 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 4 8 8 . / / • 1 . 5 0 1 . 3 6 1 3 . 6 0 5 4 . 4 2 8 3 . 2 4 2 5 2 3 . 9 5 ' 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 3 0 . 3 9 i . 2 . 0 0 1 . 8 1 ' 1 8 . 1 4 7 2 . 5 6 6 2 . 4 3 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 5 1 . 2 0 2 . 5 0 2 . 2 7 2 2 . 6 7 9 0 . 7 0 " 4 9 . 9 4 2 Q 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2- 2 5 6 3 . 6 8 3 . 0 0 2 . 7 2 2 7 . 2 1 1 0 8 . 3 4 4 1 . 6 2 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 7 2 . 0 1 P U R C H A S E P R I C E = 1 5 0 0 0 • 0 0 8 H C U R S P E R D A Y S P E E D A C R E / H O U R A C R E / C A Y C A P A C I T Y • C C S T I N C O M E Y L C R E C P R O F I T 0 . 5 0 0 . 4 5 3 . 6 2 1 4 . 5 1 3 C 8 . 6 6 2 5 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 3 0 4 . 9 6 1 . 0 0 0 . 9 1 7 . 2 6 2 9 . 0 2 1 5 4 . 3 3 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 2 1 0 . 3 2 2 4 5 5 . 2 9 1 . 5 0 1 . 3 6 1C-. 8 8 4 3 . 5 4 1 0 2 . 8 9 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 ? 2 5 1 0 . 7 4 2 . 0 0 1 . 8 1 1 4 . 5 1 5 8 .0 5 7 7 . 1 7 2 5 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 3 6 . 4 6 2 . 5 0 2 . 2 7 1 8 . 1 4 7 2 . 5 6 6 1 . 7 3 2 9 2 3 . ^ 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5.5 1 . 8 5 . _ 3 . 0 0 2 . 7 2 2 1 . 7 7 8 7 . 0 7 5 1 . 4 4 2 5 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 6 2 . 1 8 1 0 ' H O U R S P E R D A Y S P E E D A C R E / H O U R A C R E / C A Y C A P A C I T Y C O S T I N C O M E Y L C R E C P R O F I T 0 . 5 0 0 . 4 5 4 . 5 3 1 3 . 1 4 2 7 5 . 6 1 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 3 3 8 . 0 2 1 . 0 0 0 . 9 ] 9 . 0 7 3 6 . 2 8 1 3 7 . 8 0 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 2 1 0 . 3 2 2 4 7 5. 8 2 1 . 5 0 1 . 3 6 1 3 . 6 0 5 4 . 4 2 9 1 . 8 7 2 ° 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 2 5 2 1 . 7 5 2 . 0 0 1 .8 1 1 8 . 1 4 7 2 . 5 6 6 8 . 9 C 2 9 2 3 . 5 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 . 2 5 4 4 . 7 2 2 . 5 0 2 . 2 7 2 2 . 6 7 9 0 . 7 0 5 5 . 1 2 " 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 3 1 0 . 3 2 ' 2 5 5 8 . 5 C . 3 . 0 0 2 . 7 2 2 7 . 2 1 1 C 8 . 8 4 4 5 . 9 3 ... 2 9 2 3 . .95. 3 1 . 0 . 3 2.. . .. 2.56 7 . 6 5 APPENDIX D (Continued) 5 CAY P ICk'lNG INT FRVAL PUPXP ASF PRICE = 1CCC .CO 8 HCURS P F R DAY : SPEED ACRE/FOUR ACRE/DAY CAPAC ITY COST I NCC^E YLC REC FRCF IT C. 5 0 0.45 3.63 13.14 77.22 2523.95 505.01 2337.72 1.00 C.51 7.26 3 6.28 33.61 2923 .95 509.0 1 2 2 7 6.32 1.50 1 .36 .10 .88 54.42 25.74 2 9 23.95 5 09.01 2 339.20 2.0 0 1 .81 14.51 72.56 19.30 2923.95 5 0 9.01 2395.63 ' 2 .50 2.27 1 E . 1 4 9C.7C 15.44 2 ° 2 3 . 9 5 5 0 ° . 01 2399.49 ? .00 2.72 .21.77 ICS. 84 12.87 2522.95 5C9.01 24 02.07 10 HOURS PEP' DAY SPEED ACRE/FOUR ACRE /CAY CAPAC ITY COST INCOME YLC REC P i-: (J F I T 0.50 0.4 5 4.53 22.67 75.45 2 9 2 3.95 5 0 9.01 23.39. 48 1.00 C.51 9 . C 7 4 5.35 37 .73 2923.95 509.0 1 237 7.21 1.50 1.36 13.60 6 8.02 •25.1 5 2923. 95 "'" 5 09.01 2339.79 2.00 1.81 18.14 90.70 18 . 86 2523.95 . 5C9.C1 2 39 6.. 0 7 • 2.5 0 2.27 22.67 112.37 15.09 2 9 2 3.95 5 09.0 1 2 399 . 94 3.00 2.72 27.2 1 13 6.05 12.58 2923.55 5 09.01 2402.36 PURCHASE PRICE = 3 0 00 .00 — - • • 8 HOURS PER DAY . . . . . . . .. SPEED ACRE/HOUR ACRE/PAY CAPACITY • COST INCOME YLC REC PROF IT 0.50 0 .4 5 3.63 18.14 1C1.46 2 5 2 3.95 5 09.01 2313.47 1 . 0 0 0.91 7.26 3 6.23 50.72 29 2 3.95 5(9.01 2 3 6 4.20 1. 50 1.36 1 C-. 8 8 54. 42 33 .82 2923 .95 509 .0 1 2 28 1. 12 2 .00 1.8 1 14.51 72. 56 25. 37 2 923.95 .509.01 238 9. 57 2.50 ' 2.27 18.14 90 . 70 20 .29 2923.95 50 9.01 2254.64 . 3.00 2.72 21.77 10 3. 84 16.91 2923.95 509.0 1 2298 .03 10 HOURS PER DAY SPEED AC RE/H CUR ACRE/CAY CAPACITY COST I N C 0''! E YLC R E D P R O F I T 0.50 0.45 4.5 3 2 2.67 96. 17 2923.95 5 09.0 1 2318.76 1 .0 0 0 .9 1 9.C7 45.35 4 K . 0 9 2 9 2 3.^5 5 C 9. 0 1 2366.85 1.50 1.36 '13.65 68.02 32.0 6 29 23.95 505.01 2 3 8 2.83 2 .0 0 1.8 1 18.14 . °0.7C 24.04 2 9 2 3.95 509.01 2 3 90.89 2.50 2.27 22 .67 113.37 19.22 2 5 2 3.95 5C9.0 1 c3^ 5.70 3. 00 2. 72 2 7.21 13 6.0S 16.03 2 9 2 3.95 5 0 9 .0 1 2 398.91 APPENDIX D (Continued) PURCHASE PRICE = 5COC.OO" "• S HCURS PER CAY SPEED ACRE/HOUR ACRE/CAY CAPACITY COST 1NCO^E YLC REC PROFIT D.50 0. A 5 3.6 3 13.14 12 5.71 2923.55 5 C 9 . 0 1 2289. 23 1.00 C . 5 1 7.26 36.28 62.85 29 23.9 5 5 09.01 2 3 5 2.08 ; 1.50 1 .36 10.88. 5 4.42 4 1.90 2523.95 5 C 5 . 0 1 2373.03 2. 0 0 1.8 1 14.51 72.56 31.43 2Q23 .95 509 .0 1 2 3 8 3.51 2 .50 2.27 18.14 : 9 0.7 0 25. 14 2923.95 . 5 09.01 2389.79 3.00 2.72 21.77 10 8.3 4 20 .95 2C23.55 5C9.0 1 2 3 9 3.58 1 0 HCURS PER DAY SPEED AC HE /HOUR AC RE/DAY CAPACITY COS I I NCOi-E YLU REC F « L H i 1 0. 5 0 0.4 5 4.53 2 2.67 1 16.89 29 23.9 5 5 0 9.01 2 29 8. 04 1 .00 0.51 5 . C 7 4 5.35 5 3.4 5 2923 .95. 5 09.01 2356.49 1.50 1 .36 13.60 68.02 3 3.96 '2523.55 5G9.01 2375.97 j 2.00 1.81 IR. 14 90 .70 29 .22 2923.95 5 C 9 . 0 1 2 3 8 5.71 2.50 2.27 22.67 1,13. 37 2 3.38 2 9 23.9 5 5 09.01 " • 2 39 1 . 55 3.00 2.72 27.21 13 6.05 19.48 2 9 2 3.95 5C9.01 2D ^ ,4 5 PURCHASE •PRICE = 7C00. 00 8 HOURS PER DAY -SPEED AC RE/HOUR ACRE/CAY CAPACITY COST I NCOME YLC REC •PROF IT 0.50 0.45 3.6 3 18.14 149.95 252.3. 95 5 09.01 22'64 .99 1.00 0.91 7.26 3 6.2 8 74.9 8 2922.95 23 25.St 1.50 1.36 1C . 8 8 54.42 4 9.9 8 2 9 23.95 5 09.01 2 3 6 4.55 " 2.00 1 .81 14 . 5 1 72. 56 2 7.-4 9 2 9 2 3.95 509.01 2377.45 2 . 5 0 2.27 13.14 90 .70 ?q .09 2923.95 509.0 1 2384.c5 -x r\ n . . ' • -.. 2.7 2 21.77 10 8.84 24 .99 2923.95 5 09.0 1 2 2 89.94 10 HOURS PER DAY SPEED AC RE/HOUR ACRE/CAY CAFAC ITY OUST INCOME 'YLU ft H U PKOE 1 1 0 . 50 0.4 5 4.53 22.67 137.61 2 9 2 3.95 509 .0 1 2277.33 1.00 0.91 9.C7 4 5.35 63. 80 2 923.95 5 0 9.01 2346.13 1.50' 1.36' 13.60 68.02 4 5.87 2923.95 5 59.01 2365.C7 2.00 1.81 18.14 90. 75 2 4.40 292.3. 9 5 5 09.01 2 3 30 . 53 2.50 2 .27 22.67 113.37 2 7.52 2 9 2 3.95 505.o r 2 33 7.4 1 3.0 G 2TT2 2 7.21 1 36.05 22 .93 2923.95 . 509 .0 1 2 2 9 2.uC APPENDIX D (Continued) PURCHASE PR-ICE •= 9C0C.CC 8 HOURS PER DAY SPEED ACRE/HOUR ACRE /DAY CAPACITY COS-T I N 0 0 M E YLC REC PROFIT ' 0.50 0.45 3 .6 3 18.14 174 .19 29 23 .95 509.0 1 2 2 4 0.74 1.00 0.91 7.2 6 3 6.28 8 7.10 2923 ,95 509.01 2227 . 84 1.50 1.36 10.88 54.42 5 8.07 2923.95 5 09.01 23 5 6.87 2 • 00 1.81 14.51 7 2.56 43.5 5 2923.95 509.01 2 3 7 1.35 2.50 2.27 18.14 ; 90.70 34.84 29 23.9 5 5 09.01 2330 . lC 3 .00 2.72 2 1.77 10 8.34 29.03 2923.95 509.01 2 3 8 5.90 10 HCURS P FR DAY SPEED ACRE/HOUR ACRE/CAY CAPAC ITY COS T I NCCME YLC REC PROFIT 0.50 0.4 5 4.53 22 .67 158.33 2923.95 ' 5 09.01 2 2 5 6.61 ' 1.00 C91 9. C 7 4 5.35 79 .16 2923 .95 509 .0 1 2235.77 1 .50 1.36 13.60 68. 02 52. 7 8 '." 2 9 23.95 '5 09.01 2 362.16 j 2 .0 0 1.81 18.14 =50 . 70 3 9.58 2923.95 5 09.01 2 2 7 5.35 ! 2.5 0 2. 27 2 2.67 113.37 31.67 2923.95 509 .0 1 . 238 3 . 2 7 ': 3 .0 0 2.72 27.2 1 136.05 2 6.39 2923.95 5C9. 01 2 3 8 8.55 PURCHASE PRICE = 11 COO .00 8 HOUR S PER DAY . . . SPEED ACRE/HCUR ACRE/CAY CAFAC ITY COST INCOME YL D RED PROFIT 0 .50 0.45 3. 6. 3 18.14 198 .44 292.3.95 5 09 .0 1 2216.50 1 .00 0.9 1 7.26 36.2H 99.22 2 5 2 3.95 509.C 1 2315.72 1.50 1.3 6 1 C . 8 8 54.42 66 .15 2923 .95 509.0 1 2348.75 2 .00 1.81 • 14.5 1 72. 56 49,6 1 2 923,95 5 09.01 2 365 . 3 2 2.50 2.27 18.14 90.70 39 . 69 2923.95 509.01 2 3 7 5.25 3.00 2.7 2 21.77 10 8.84 33.0 7 2 9 ? 3 .9 5 509 .0 1 238 1 . 86 10 HCURS PER DAY SPEED AC R E/HCUR ACRE/CAY CAFAC ITY COST INCOME YLC R F 0. PROFIT 0.50 n .45 4.53 2 2.67 179.0 5 2 ° 2 3 . 9 5 5 09 .01 2 2 3 5.89 , 1.00 0 , ° 1 9.07 4 5.35 8 9.52 2 5 2 3.95 5 C 9. C 1 2 3 2 5.41 1.50 1 . 3 6 13.60 6 8.02 59 .6 8 29 23.95 509.0 1 2355.2 5 2 .00 1 .81 18.14 90.70 44. 76 2 9 23.95 5 09.01 2370.17 2.50 2 .27 2 2.67 113.37 3 5.81 2 9 2 3.95 509.0 1 2 3 7 9.13 3.00 2.72 27.2 1 13 6.05 2. 9 . 8 4 2 9 2 3.95 509 .0 1 ! 385.0 5 APPENDIX D (Continued) PURCHASE PRICE - 13000. OC v . 8 HCURS PER DAY SPEED ACRE/HOUR ACRE/CAY CAPAC ITY COST I INCOME Yt_C REC PROFIT 0.50 0.4 5 3.63 ' 18.14 2 22.68 2923.95 509.01 2192.25 1.00 C. 5 1 7.2 6 36.28 1 11 .34 2923 .95 509 .0 1 230 3.59 1.50 1.36 10.8 8 54.42 74. 2 3 2923.95 5 09.01 2340.71 2.00 1. 8 1 14.51 72.56 55 .67 29 23.95 5 0 9.01 2 3 3 9.27 ; 2. 50 2.2 7 18,14 90.70 44. 54 2923.95 509.01 ' 2370.40 i 3.00 2.72 21.77 10 8 .84 37. 1 1 292 3.9 5 5 0 ° . 0 1 23 7 7.82 ! 10 HCURS PEP DAY SPEED ACRE/HOUR ACRE/DAY CAPACITY COST 11\ COME YLL RbL PROFIT 0.5 0' 0.4 5 4 . 5 3 2 2.67 . 199.7 7 2922.95 509.01 2215.17 1 .0 0 0.51 9 .C7 4 5. 35 9 9.83 2923.95 509 .0 1 2 3 15.05 1 .50 1.36 13.60 6 8. 0.2 66.59 2923.95 509.01 ' 2 343.35 2.00 1.81 18.14 90 .70 49 .94 2923.95 509.0 1 2364. .55 .', •2.50 2.27 22.67 113.37 39.95 2923.95 5 09.0 1 2374.93 j 3 . 0 0 2.7 2- 27 .21 • 13 6.0 5 3 3.29 2923.95 5 0 9.01 2381.64 PURCHASE PRICE = .15000. 00 8 HCURS PER DAY • -• SPFED AC RE/HOUR " ' ACRE/CAY CAPACITY COST INCOME YL D RED PROFIT ! 0.50 0 . 4 5 3.63 18.14 246.93 2923.95 509.0 1 216 3.01 r .oo 0.9 1 7.26 3 6.28 123.46 2 9 2 2.95 5C9.01 2291.47 1. 50 1.3 6 10.88 54 .42 82.31 2 9 2 3.95 5 0 9.0 1 2232.62 2.00 1.81. 14.51 7 2. 56 61.72 2923.95 509.01 2 3 5 3.20 2.50 ' 2.27 18.14 90.70 4 9 . 3 9 2923. 95 ' " '509.0 1 2365.55 3.00 2.72 21.77 108.84 41 .15 2 9 2 3.95 5 09.01 2373.78 10 HOURS PER DAY > SPEED ACRE/HCUR ACRE/CAY CAPAC ITY COS 1 INCOME YLD RED HKGF1T ! 0.50 0.4 5 4 . 5 3 2 2.67 2 2 0 . 4 8 2 92 3.95 509.0 1 2194.45 1.0 0 0.9 1 9 . 0 7 4 5.35 110.24 2 9 2 2.95 5 0 9.01 2304.69. 1.50" 1.36 ' 13.60 68.02 " " 73 .49 " 2923.95 ' 5 C 9 . 0 1 2 34 1.44 2.00 1.81 18.14 5 0.70 55. 12 2 9 2 3 . ° 5 5 09.01 235 9.81 2.50 2.27 22.67 113.37 4 4 . 10 2^22.95 509.01 23 7 0.84 3.00 2. 72 27.21 13 6.05 36.75 2 9 23 .95.. 509 .0 1 2 373.19 APPENDIX D (Continued) 6 CAY PICKING INTERVAL PURCHASE PRICE ="'1000.00 8 HOURS PER DAY SPEED AO RE/HOUR ACRE/DAY CAPAC ITY COST INCOME YLD RED PROFIT 0.50 0.45 3.6 3 21.77 64.35 2923.95 6 48.33 2211.27 1.00 0.9 1 7.26 43.5*; 3 2.17 2923.95 6 4 8.33 2243.44 1.50 1.36 10.38 65.30 21 .4 5 2923.95 64 8.33 2 2 54. 17 2 .00 1.81 14.51 87.07 16.09 2923.95 6 4 8.33 2259.52 2 . 50 2.27 13 .14 : 10 8.8 4 12.87 2 9 2 3.95 6 4 3.33 2262.74 2.00 2. 72 21.77 130.61 VZ,!Z 29 23.9 5 6 4 8.33 2 2 6 4.89 10 HOURS PER DAY . SPEED ACRE/HOUR ACRE/DAY CAPACITY COST INCOME YLD RED PROF I T 0 . 5 0 0.45 4.5? 27.21 62.8 8 2 9 23.95 '64 8 .3 3 2212.74 1 .00 0 .9 1 9.0 7 54.42 31.44 2923.95 6 48.33 2244.18 1 • 5 0 1.36 13.60 31.63 20 .96 29 23.9 5 6 4 8.33 2254.66 2.00 1.81 18.14 10 8.84 15.72 2 9 2 3.95 6 4 8.33 2 2 59.90 2.50 2.27 22 .67 13 6.05 12.58 2 5 2 3.95 6 4 8.33 . 2 2 6 3.04 3.00 2. 72 27. 21 16 3.26 10.48 2 9 23.95 6 48 . 33 2265-14 PURCFASE PRICE = 3000. 00 R HOURS PER PAY SPEED ACRE7 HOUR ACRE/OAY CAPACITY COS! I NO CM t. Y L L K c C FKUH 11 0. 5 0 0.45 3.63 2 1.77 84.55 2 9 2 3.95 6 A8.3 3 2191.06 1.00 . C.91 7. 26 4-3.54 42.28 29 23.9 5 648 . 33 2 2 3 3.34 1 .50 1.36 10.88 65. 30 ' '28,18 2 9 2 3.95 6 48.3 3 2247.43 , 2-00 • 1.8 1- 14.51 3 7 . O 7 21 .1.4 2923.95 6 4 8.32 2 2 5 4.48 2.50 2.27 18.14 10 8.84 16.91 2 9 2.3.9 5 6 48 .32 22.5 8 .70 3 .0 0 2.7 2 2 1.77 130.61 14.09 2 5 2 3.95 6 4 8.33 2 261.52 10 HOURS PER DAY SPEED ACRE/HOUR ACRE/DAY CAPACITY COST I NCCME YLC RFC PROFIT 0.50 0.4.5 4.53 27.21 30.14 2 9 2 3.95 '648.33 2195.47 1.00 0.91 9. C 7 54.4 2 40 .07 2923.95 ' 6 48 .33 223 5.54 1.50 1.36 12.60 8 1.63 26.71 2923.95 6 48.3 3 2 248 .90 c- o \J \.:.- 1.81 13.14 10 8.84 2 : t.' 4 2 9 2 3.93 6 4 P:. 3 3 _ _ b b. S fc 2.50 2. 27 ' 2 2.67 1.3 6 . 0 5 16.03 29 23.9 5 648 .3.3 2259 . 59 3 .0 0 2.7 2 2 7.21 16 3.26 13.36 29 2 2.95 6 4 8.33 2262.2 6 APPENDIX D (Continued) PURCHASE PRICE = 5CQ0.00' 8 H O U R S P E R D A Y , S P E E D A C R E / H O U R A C R E / P A Y CA F A C I T Y COST I N C O M E Y L D R E D P R O F I T ' 0 . 5 0 0 . 4 5 3 . 6 3 2 1 . 7 7 1 0 4 . 7 5 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 6 4 3 . 3 3 2 1 7 0 . 8 6 i 1 . 0 0 0 . 9 1 7 . 2 6 4 3 . 5 4 5 2 . 3 8 2 5 2 3 . 9 5 6 4 8 . 3 3 2 2 2 3 . 2 4 ! 1 . 5 0 1 . 3 6 1 0 . 8 8 6 5 . 3 0 3 4 . 9 2 2 Q 2 3 . 9 5 6 4 8 . 3 3 2 2 4 0 . 7 C 2 . 0 0 1 « 3 1 1 4 . 5 1 8 7 . 0 7 2 6 . 1 9 2 5 2 3 . 9 5 6 4 8 . 3 3 2 2 4 9 . 4 3 2 . 5 0 2 . 2 7 1 8 . 1 4 '= 1 0 8 . 8 4 2 0 . 9 5 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 6 4 8 . 3 3 2 2 5 4 . 6 6 3 . 0 0 2 . 7 2 2 1 . 7 7 1 3 0 . 6 1 U . 4 6 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 6 4 8 . 3 3 2 2 5 8 . 1 6 • ' 1 0 H C U R S P E R D A Y • S P E E D AC RE/I-CUR A C R E / D A Y C A P A C I T Y C O S T I N C O M E Y L D R E D P R O F I T : 0 . 5 0 " 0 . 4 5 4 . 5 3 2 7 . 2 1 5 7 . 4 1 2 9 2 3 .9 5 6 4 8 . 3 3 2 1 7 8 . 2 1 1 . 0 0 0 ,9 1 9 . 0 7 5 4 . 4 2 4 8 . 7 C 2 5 2 3 . * 9 5 6 4 8 . 3 3 2 2 2 6 . 9 1 1 . 5 0 1 . 3 6 1 3 . 6 0 8 1 . 6 3 3 2 . 4 7 . 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 ' 6 4 8 . 3 3 2 2 4 3 . 1 5 2 . 0 0 1 . 8 1 1 8 . 1 4 1 C 8 . 8 4 2 4 . 3 5 2 9 ? 3 . 9 5 6 4 8 . 3 3 2 2 5 1 . 2 6 2 . 5 0 2 . 2 7 2 2 . 6 7 1 3 6 . 0 5 1 9 . 4 3 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 6 4 8 . 3 3 . 2 2 5 6 . 1 3 3 . 0 0 2 . 7 2 2 7 . 2 1 1 6 3 . 2 6 1 6 . 2 3 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 6 4 3 . 3 3 2 2 5 9 . 3 8 P U R C H A S E P R I C E = 7 C C C . OC s H O U R S P E P D A Y . S P E E D A C R E / H O U R A O R E / D A Y C A P A C I T Y C 0 S T I N C C M E Y L C R E C P R O F I T 0 . 5 0 • 0 . 4 5 3 . 6 3 2 1 . 7 7 1 2 4 . 9 6 2 5 2 3 . 9 5 6 4 8 . 3 3 2 1 5 0 . 6 6 | 1 . 0 0 C . 9 1 7 . 2 6 4 3 . 5 4 6 2 . 4 8 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 6 4 8 . 3 3 2 2 1 3 . 1 4 • 1 . 5 0 1 . 3 6 1 C . 8 8 6 5 . 3 0 " 4 1 . 6 5 " 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 6 4 R . . 3 3 ' 2 2 3 3 . 9 6 2 . 0 0 1 . 8 1 1 4 . 5 1 8 7 . 0 7 3 1 - 2 4 2 5 2 3 . 9 5 6 4 8 . 3 3 2 2 4 4 . 3 8 ' 2 . 5 0 2 . 2 7 1 8 . 1 4 I O 8 . 8 4 2 4 . 9 9 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 6 4 8 . 3 3 2 2 5 0 . 6 2 3 . 0 0 2 . 7 2 2 1 . 7 7 1 3 0 . 6 1 2 0 . 8 3 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 6 4 8 . 3 3 2 2 6 4 . / 9 1 0 E C U P S P E R C A V S P F E D A C R E / H O U R A C R E / D A Y C A P A C I T Y C O S T I N C C M F Y L C R E G P R O F I T | 0 . 5 0 0 . 4 5 4 . 5 3 2 7 . 2 1 ' • 1 3 4 . 6 7 ' 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 6 4 8 . 3 3 " 2 1 6 C . 9 4 l . O C 0 . 9 1 9 . 0 7 5 4 . 4 2 5 7 . 3 4 . 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 6 4 8 . 3 3 2 2 1 8 . 2 8 ! 1 . 5 0 1 . 3 6 1 2 . 6 G 3 1 . 6 3 3 8 . 2 2 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 6 4 8 . 3 3 ' 2 2 3 7 . 3 9 2 . 0 0 1 . 8 1 1 8 . 1 4 1 0 8 . 3 4 2 3 . 6 7 2 5 2 3 . 9 5 6 4 8 . 3 3 2 2 4 6 . 9 5 2 . 5 0 2 . 2 7 2 2 . 6 7 1 3 6 . 0 5 2 2 . 9 3 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 6 4 8 . 3 3 2 2 5 2 . 6 8 3 . 0 0 2 . 7 2 2 7 . 2 1 1 6 2 . 2 6 1 9 . 1 1 2 5 2 3 . 9 5 _ 6 4 8 . 3 3 2 2 5 6 . 5 0 APPENDIX D (Continued) PURCHASE PRICE =" 9000.00 8 HOURS PER DAY r ~ " SPEED ACRE/HCUR ACRE/CAY CAPAC ITY COST INCOME YLD RED PROF IT 0.50 0.45 3.63 21.77 145 .16 29 23 .9 5 6 48 . 3 3 2130.45 1 .00 0.91 7.26 43.54 7 2.58 2522.95 6 4 8. 33 2 2 G 3 . C 3 1.50 1.36 10.38 65 .30 48 .39 2 9 2 3.95 6 4 8.32 2 227.23 2.00 1.81 14.51 37. 07 36.2 9 29 23.9 5 648 .33 2239.32 2.50 2.27 18.14 ; 10 8.34 2 ,^0 3 2523.95 6 4 8.33 2 24 6.5 8 3.0 0 2.7 2 21.77 130.61 24.1.9 2923,95 6 48 . 3 3 225 1 .4 2 10 HOURS PER DAY SPEED ACRE/HOUR ACRE/CAY CAPAC ITY COST INCOME YLD REC PROFIT 0.50 0.45 4.53 27.21 131 .94 29 23.9 5 648 .33' 2143.67 ' 1.00 0.91 9.0 7 5 4.42 65.57 2 5 2 3.95 648.33 2209 .64 1 .50 1.36 13.60 81 .63 43.98 2923.95 6 4 8 . 3 2 2231.63 2.00 1.81 18.14 1C 8. 84 32 .99 2 9 23.95 6 48.3 3 22'42 . 6 3 2.50 2 • 27 2 2.67 1 3 6 . C 5 26.39 2 5 2 3.95 648.33 2249.23 3.00 2. 72 27.21 163.26 21.99 2923.95 648.32 22 5 3.6 2 PURCHASE PRICE = 11CG0. ( C - o HCURS PER DAY SPEED ACRE/HOUR ACRE/DAY CAP A C ITY COST I ISCCNE YLC REC PROF IT . 0.50 0.45 3.63 21.77 • 16 5.37 2923.95 648.33 2110.25 1.0 0 C.51 7.26 43 . 54 82.68 2923.95 6 4 8.33 219 2.93 1.50 1.26 10.8 8. 6 5.30 5 5.12 2523.55 ' 643.33 2220.49 2.00 1.81 14.51 8 7 .0 7 41.34 2 9 2 2.95 6 4 8.33 2 2 3 4.27 2.50 2.27 1. 8 . 1 4 108.34 33 .07 2923.95 648 .33 2 242.54 3.00 2.72 21.77 120.6 1 2 7. 56 2 9 2 3 . 9 5 6 48 .3 3 2 2 4 3 . 0 5 10 ECU PS PER DAY SPEED ACRE/HCUR ACRE/CAY CAPAC ITY COST INCOME YLC REC PROF IT 0.50 0 .4 5 4.53 27.21 149.21 2 923.95 6 48. 33 212 6.41 1 . 0 0 0.91 9..C7 54.42 74 .60 2923.95 6 4 8.33 2201.01 1.50 1.36 13. AC 81.63 49.74 2 9 23.95 648 .33 2 2 2 5.38 2 .00 1.8 1 18.14 108.84 3 7 . 3 5 2923.95 6 4 8 . 3 3 2238.31 2.50 2.27. 2 2.67 13 6.05 29.84 2923.95 648.33 2 245.77 3 .00 2.72 27.2 1 16 2.26 24.8 7 2 9 23.95 648 .33 2250.75 APPENDIX D (Continued) "PURCHASE PRICE = 13000.00 g HOURS PER DAY i SPFFD ACRE/FOUR ACRE/FAY CAPAC ITY COST INCOME YLD RED PROFIT i 0.50 0.45 3.63 21 .77 185.5 7 2923.95 648.33 2 C 9 0 . 0 4 1.0 0 C .0 1 7.26 42. 54 5 2.79 2523.95 6 48.33 2182.83 1 .50 1 . 3 6 " 10.88 6 5 . 30 61.86 2923.95 " 6 4 8.33 2213.76 1 ?.oo 1.8 1 14.51 87.07 46 .39 2923 .9^ 648 .33 2229.22 2.50 2.27 13.1 4 = 10 8. 34- 37. 11 2 9 23.95 6 4 3.33 2 2 38.50 .3.00 2.72 21.77 130.61 30.9 3 29 23.9 5 6 4 8 . 3 3 2244.69 10 HOURS PER DAY SPEED ACRE/FOUR ACRE/CAY CAPAC ITY COST I NCOME YLC REC PROFIT C 9 5 C 0.45 4.53 27.21""" 166.4 7 ' 2 9 23.95 648.33 2109. 14 1.00 0.91 9.C7 54.42 8 3. 2 4 2923.95 643,33 2192.38 '\ 1.50 1.36 13 .60 8 1.63 5 5.49 2 5 2 3.95 6^3.3 3 2220.12 2.00 1.81 1«. 1 4 10 8.34 41.62 2 9 23.9 5 6 48 .3 3 2 2 3 4 . U 0 ' • 2.50 2.27 2 2.67 12 6.05 33. 2 9 2 9 2 3.95 6 43.3 3 2242.32 ; 3.00 2.72 . 27 .2 1 163.26 27 .75 2 9 2 3.95 6^8.33 2247.87 i PURCHASE PRICE = 1.50GC. CO i 3 HOURS PER DAY i SPEED ACRE/HOUR ACRE/DAY CAPACITY COST INCOME YLC RFC PROFIT i i 0.50 0.45 3.63 21. 77 2 0 5.77 2 9 23.95 6 43.33 2069.34 .j 1.0 0 0.91 7.26 43.54 102.89 2923.95 6 4 8.33 2172.73 i 1.50 1.3 6 1C.88 6 5.30 68.59 2923.95 6 48.33 2207 .02 2 .00 1.81- 14.5 1 8 7.07 51 .44 2 5 2 3.95 6 4 8.33 2 2 24.17 2.50 •2.27 1 2 . 1 4 108.34 . 41.15 2 9 2 3 . ° 5 6 48 . 3.3 2 2 3 4.46 3.0 0 2.72 2 1.77 130.6 1 3 4.3 0 2 5 2 3.95 6 4 8.33 2 241.32 j 10 HOURS PER DAY ! SPEED ACRE/HOUR ACRE /CAY CAPACITY COST INCOME YLC R E d PROFIT ; i 0.50 0.4 5 4.52 27. 21 183.74 2 9 23.95 6 4 8.33 ' 2091.88 1.00 0.91 9.07 54.42 91.87 N 2923.55 6 4 3.32 2 18 3.75 1.50 1.36 13.60 31.63 61 .25 2 9 23.95 6 48.33 2214.37 2.0 0 1.8 1 18.14 18.84, 4 5.9 3 2 9 2 3.95 6 4 8.33 2 2 2 9.bb 2.50 2. 27 22.67 13 6.05 36 .7 5 2923.95 648.33 2 2 3 8.37 3.00 2.72 27.21 16 3.26 3 0.62 2923.95 648 .33 2 2 4 4.99 ^ 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0059177/manifest

Comment

Related Items