Table 3.A Estimated resource use and costs per acre for field operations, Beans (Snap), fresh market, one-row equipment, average yield
Louisiana, 1997.
OPERATION/ OPERATING INPUT |
SIZE/ |
TRACTOR |
PERF |
TIMES |
MT H |
TRACTOR COST |
EQUIP COST |
ALLOC LABOR |
OPERATING INPUT |
TOTAL | |||||
-D-I-R-E-C-T-- |
------ FIXED |
-------- DIRECT |
------ FIXED |
-H-OU-R-S-- |
----C-O-S-T |
-A-M-O-U-N-T-- |
--P-RI-C-E-- |
----CO--ST- | |||||||
__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- |
_-_-_-_-d__ol__l |
_a_r_s_--__--__- |
_-_-_--_-_-__ |
__d_o_l_l_a_r_s_ |
_-_-_--_-_-__- |
_d_o_l_la__rs__- |
_-_-_--_-_-__- | ||||||||
DDLiiissmkke 22(RsRpread) |
cwt |
1.00 |
Feb |
6.6000 |
1.60 |
10.56 |
10.56 | ||||||||
6 ft |
4 3 |
0.570 |
1.00 |
Feb |
2.8 9 |
1.4 6 |
0.3 8 |
0.54 |
0.627 |
4.7 0 |
9.97 | ||||
6 ft |
43 |
0.570 |
2.00 |
Mar |
5.79 |
2.92 |
0.75 |
1.07 |
1.254 |
9.40 |
19.94 | ||||
Boom sprayer |
12 ft |
23 |
0.190 |
1.00 |
Mar |
0.70 |
0.31 |
0.26 |
0.28 |
0.209 |
1.57 |
3.12 | |||
pt |
1.250 0 |
3.75 |
4.69 |
4.69 | |||||||||||
Dual |
pt |
1.5000 |
7.85 |
11.78 |
11.78 | ||||||||||
Disk 2R |
6 ft |
4 3 |
0.570 |
1.0 0 |
Mar |
2.8 9 |
1.4 6 |
0.3 8 |
0.54 |
0.627 |
4.7 0 |
9.97 | |||
Hipper-fert 1R |
3 ft |
23 |
1.550 |
1.00 |
Mar |
5.71 |
2.56 |
0.91 |
1.29 |
1.705 |
12.79 |
23.26 | |||
8-24-24 |
lb |
400.000 0 |
0.13 |
52.00 |
52.00 | ||||||||||
Hipper 1R |
3 ft |
2 3 |
1.53 0 |
2.0 0 |
Mar |
11.2 6 |
5.0 6 |
1.0 1 |
1.44 |
3.366 |
25.2 5 |
44.01 | |||
Row conditioner 1R |
6 ft |
23 |
0.410 |
1.00 |
Mar |
1.51 |
0.68 |
0.08 |
0.12 |
0.451 |
3.38 |
5.77 | |||
Planter 1R |
3 ft |
23 |
1.500 |
1.00 |
Mar |
5.52 |
2.48 |
0.35 |
0.56 |
1.650 |
12.38 |
21.29 | |||
Snap bean seeds |
lb |
40.000 0 |
1.70 |
68.00 |
68.00 | ||||||||||
Boom sprayer |
12 ft |
2 3 |
0.190 |
1.0 0 |
Apr |
0.7 0 |
0.31 |
0.2 6 |
0.28 |
0.209 |
1.5 7 |
3.12 | |||
Orthene |
lb |
0.500 0 |
11.80 |
5.90 |
5.90 | ||||||||||
Bravo Other labor |
pt |
1.5000 |
6.38 |
9.57 |
9.57 | ||||||||||
hour |
1.0 0 |
Apr |
6.0000 |
7.50 |
45.00 |
45.00 | |||||||||
Boom sprayer |
12 ft |
2 3 |
0.190 |
1.00 |
Apr |
0.7 0 |
0.3 1 |
0.2 6 |
0.28 |
0.209 |
1.5 7 |
3.12 | |||
Basagran |
3 pftt |
1.000 0 |
8.29 |
8.29 |
8.29 | ||||||||||
Cultivator 1R |
2 3 |
1.530 |
1.0 0 |
Apr |
5.6 3 |
2.5 3 |
0.4 0 |
0.57 |
1.683 |
12.6 2 |
21.76 | ||||
Boom sprayer |
12 ft |
23 |
0.190 |
1.00 |
Apr |
0.70 |
0.31 |
0.26 |
0.28 |
0.209 |
1.57 |
3.12 | |||
Orthene |
lb |
0.500 0 |
11.80 |
5.90 |
5.90 | ||||||||||
Boom sprayer |
12 ft |
2 3 |
0.190 |
1.0 0 |
Apr |
0.7 0 |
0.3 1 |
0.2 6 |
0.28 |
0.209 |
1.5 7 |
3.12 | |||
pt |
1.000 0 |
12.56 |
12.56 |
12.56 | |||||||||||
Crop oil |
pt |
2.0000 |
0.78 |
1.56 |
1.56 | ||||||||||
Boom sprayer |
12 ft |
2 3 |
0.190 |
1.0 0 |
Ma y |
0.7 0 |
0.3 1 |
0.2 6 |
0.28 |
0.20 9 |
1.5 7 |
3.12 | |||
Sevin |
lb |
1.000 0 |
4.40 |
4.40 |
4.40 | ||||||||||
lb |
1.0000 |
15.80 |
15.80 |
15.80 | |||||||||||
Boom sprayer |
12 ft |
2 3 |
0.190 |
1.0 0 |
May |
0.7 0 |
0.3 1 |
0.2 6 |
0.28 |
0.209 |
1.5 7 |
3.12 | |||
Sevin |
lb |
1.000 0 |
4.40 |
4.40 |
4.40 | ||||||||||
Benlate |
lb |
1.0000 |
15.80 |
15.80 |
15.80 | ||||||||||
Trailer utility |
10 ft |
2 3 |
1.000 |
1.0 0 |
Jun |
3.6 8 |
1.6 5 |
0.4 0 |
1.43 |
1.100 |
8.2 5 |
15.41 | |||
Harvest labor |
bu |
1.00 |
Jun |
150.000 0 10.0000 |
3.00 |
450.00 |
450.00 | ||||||||
harvest container |
each |
3.00 |
30.00 |
30.00 | |||||||||||
Bushel hampers |
each |
50.0000 |
2.16 |
108.00 |
108.00 | ||||||||||
Pickup truck |
½ ton |
1.000 |
5.0 0 |
Jun |
20.7 8 |
16.81 |
5.000 |
37.5 0 |
75.09 | ||||||
Disk 2R |
6 ft |
4 3 |
0.570 |
1.00 |
Jun |
2.8 9 |
1.4 6 |
0.38 |
0.54 |
0.627 |
4.70 |
9.97 | |||
TOTALS |
---5-2-.-6-8 - |
--2-4-.4--6 - |
--2-7-.6--4 - |
--2-6.-8-7- |
-1-9-.5-5-3- |
--1-4-6-.-6-5 |
--8-6-4.--20- |
-1-1-42-.-5--0 | |||||||
INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL |
18.13 | ||||||||||||||
UNALLOCATED LABOR |
0.00 | ||||||||||||||
1160.63 |
H-8
More intriguing information
1. The duration of fixed exchange rate regimes2. The Economic Value of Basin Protection to Improve the Quality and Reliability of Potable Water Supply: Some Evidence from Ecuador
3. Does Competition Increase Economic Efficiency in Swedish County Councils?
4. The name is absent
5. A Bayesian approach to analyze regional elasticities
6. Experimental Evidence of Risk Aversion in Consumer Markets: The Case of Beef Tenderness
7. Evaluation of the Development Potential of Russian Cities
8. The name is absent
9. The name is absent
10. Solidaristic Wage Bargaining