Table 12.A Estimated resource use and costs per acre for field operations, Greens (Mustard), fresh market, one-row equipment, average
yield, Louisiana, 1997.
TRACTOR COST |
EQU |
IP COST |
ALLOC LABOR |
OPERATING |
INPUT | ||||||||||
O P E R A T I O N/ |
S I Z E / |
T R A C T O R |
P E R F |
T I M E S |
TOTAL | ||||||||||
-------- |
------ |
-------- |
------ |
------ |
------- |
-------- |
------- | ||||||||
OPERATING INPUT |
UNIT |
SIZE |
RATE |
OVER |
M T H |
DIRECT |
FIXED |
DIRECT |
FIXED |
HOURS |
COST |
AMOUNT |
- -P-RI-C-E-- |
COST |
COST |
_ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- |
_-_-_-_-d__ol__l |
_a_r_s_--__--__- |
_-_-_--_-_-__ |
__d_o_l_l_a_r_s_ |
_-_-_--_-_-__- |
_d_o_l_la__rs__- |
_-_-_--_-_-__- | ||||||||
Disk 2R |
6 ft |
43 |
0.570 |
2.00 |
Jul |
5.79 |
20..9928 |
0.75 |
1.07 |
1.254 |
9.40 |
19.94 | |||
Disk-pre-1-2R |
6 ft |
23 |
0.590 |
1.00 |
Aug |
2.17 |
0.49 |
0.70 |
4.87 |
9.21 | |||||
pt |
1 2 5 0 0 |
3. 7 5 |
4 69 |
4.69 | |||||||||||
H i p8p-e2r4--f2e4r t 1 R |
3 ft |
2 3 |
1 5 5 0 |
1. 0 0 |
Aug |
5 7 1 |
2 5 6 |
0 9 1 |
1. 2 9 |
1 7 0 5 |
1 2 7 9 |
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
0. 1 3 |
3 9 00 |
23.26 39.00 |
Hipper 1R |
3 ft |
2 3 |
1 5 3 0 |
2. 0 0 |
Aug |
1 1 2 6 |
5 0 6 |
1 0 1 |
1. 4 4 |
3 3 66 |
2 5 2 5 |
44.01 | |||
Row conditioner 1R Planter 1R |
6 ft |
23 |
01..540100 |
1.00 |
Aug |
1.51 |
0.68 |
0.08 |
0.12 |
01..645501 |
132..3388 |
5.77 | |||
3 ft |
23 |
1.00 |
Aug |
5.52 |
2.48 |
0.35 |
0.56 |
21.29 | |||||||
Mustard seed |
lb |
2 5 0 0 0 |
5. 0 0 |
1 2 50 |
12.50 | ||||||||||
Cultivator 1R |
3 ft 12 ft |
2 233 |
10 1 5 93 00 |
1. 0 0 1.00 |
SS eepp |
5 6 3 |
2 5 3 |
0 4 0 |
0. 5 7 0.28 |
1 6 8 3 |
1 12 56 27 |
21.76 3.12 | |||
pt |
1 0 0 0 0 |
2. 8 8 |
2 88 |
2.88 | |||||||||||
Buffer |
3 pftt 3% lb |
1.0000 |
2.00 |
2.00 |
2.00 | ||||||||||
Cult-fert 1R |
2 3 |
1 6 1 0 |
1. 0 0 |
S e p |
5 9 3 |
2 6 6 |
0 5 7 |
0. 8 1 |
1 7 7 1 |
1 3 2 8 |
23.24 | ||||
Ammonium Nitrate 3 |
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
0. 1 3 |
1 3 00 |
13.00 | |||||||||||
Boom sprayer |
12 ft |
2 3 |
0 1 9 0 |
1. 0 0 |
Sep |
0 7 0 |
0 3 1 |
0 2 6 |
0. 2 8 |
0 2 0 9 |
1 5 7 |
3.12 | |||
pt |
11 00 00 00 00 |
2. 8 8 2.00 |
2 88 |
2.88 2.00 | |||||||||||
Cultivator 1R Poast |
3 ft 12 ft |
2 233 |
10 1 539 00 |
1. 0 0 1.00 |
SS ee pp |
5.63 |
02 35 13 |
0 4 0 |
00 52 87 |
10 2 680 93 |
1 12 56 27 |
21.76 3.12 | |||
pt |
1 0 0 0 0 |
1 2. 5 6 |
1 2 56 |
12.56 | |||||||||||
Crop oil |
pt |
2.0000 |
0.78 |
1.56 |
1.56 | ||||||||||
B o oMma lsaptrhaiyoenr |
12 ft |
2 3 |
0 1 9 0 |
1. 0 0 |
S e p |
0 7 0 |
0 3 1 |
0 2 6 |
0. 2 8 |
0 2 0 9 |
1 5 7 |
1 0 0 0 0 |
2. 8 8 |
2 88 |
3.12 2.88 |
Buffer |
pt |
1.0000 |
2.00 |
2.00 |
2.00 | ||||||||||
Boom sprayer |
12 ft |
2 3 |
0 1 9 0 |
1. 0 0 |
O c t |
0 7 0 |
0 3 1 |
0 2 6 |
0. 2 8 |
0 2 0 9 |
1 5 7 |
3.12 | |||
pptt |
11 00 0000 00 |
22 80 80 |
22 0808 |
2.88 2.00 | |||||||||||
Harvest labor |
doz |
1. 0 0 |
Oct |
600.0000 |
1.20 |
720.00 |
720.00 | ||||||||
harvest container Packing crates |
each |
8.0000 |
3.00 |
24.00 |
24.00 | ||||||||||
each |
1. 0 0 |
O c t |
300.0000 |
1.08 |
324.00 |
324.00 | |||||||||
String Pickup truck |
lb |
6.0000 |
2.00 |
12.00 |
12.00 | ||||||||||
½6 ft to n |
1 0 0 0 |
1 0. 0 0 |
O c t |
410 35 86 |
3 3. 6 3 |
1 0 0 0 0 |
7 5 0 0 |
150.19 | |||||||
Disk 2R |
4 3 |
0.570 |
1.00 |
Oct |
2 8 9 |
1 4 6 |
0.54 |
0.627 |
4.70 |
9.97 | |||||
T O T A L S |
------- - 55.54 |
------ - |
------ - |
- -4-2-7-0- |
-2-5-8-8-4- |
- -1-9-4--1-3 |
-1-1-8-2--83- |
-1-5-48--8--4 | |||||||
INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL | |||||||||||||||
T_UON_TA_AL_LL_O_CS_PAET_CE_DI_F_LI_EA_BD_ORC_O_S_T |
0.00 1564.89 |
H-26
More intriguing information
1. The name is absent2. EU Preferential Partners in Search of New Policy Strategies for Agriculture: The Case of Citrus Sector in Trinidad and Tobago
3. Restructuring of industrial economies in countries in transition: Experience of Ukraine
4. Improvements in medical care and technology and reductions in traffic-related fatalities in Great Britain
5. Economic Evaluation of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) in Non Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC), CHERE Working Paper 2007/6
6. Insecure Property Rights and Growth: The Roles of Appropriation Costs, Wealth Effects, and Heterogeneity
7. The name is absent
8. On the Relation between Robust and Bayesian Decision Making
9. Change in firm population and spatial variations: The case of Turkey
10. An Efficient Secure Multimodal Biometric Fusion Using Palmprint and Face Image