Table 13.A Estimated resource use and costs per acre for field operations, Okra, irrigated, 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__- |
_-_-_--_-_-__- | ||||||||
|
Lime (spread) |
cwt |
1.00 |
Mar |
6.6000 |
1.60 |
10.56 |
10.56 | ||||||||
|
Disk 2R |
6 ft |
4 3 |
0.570 |
1.00 |
Mar |
22..8899 |
11..4466 |
00..3388 |
0.54 |
0.627 0.627 |
4.7 0 |
9.97 | |||
|
Disk 2R |
6 ft |
43 |
0.570 |
1.00 |
Apr |
0.54 |
4.70 |
9.97 | |||||||
|
Disk-pre-1-2R |
6 ft |
23 |
0.590 |
1.00 |
Apr |
2.17 |
0.98 |
0.49 |
0.70 |
0.649 |
4.87 |
9.21 | |||
|
3 pftt |
1.500 0 |
3.75 |
5.63 |
5.63 | |||||||||||
|
Hipper-fert 1R |
2 3 |
1.550 |
1.0 0 |
Ap r |
5.7 1 |
2.5 6 |
0.9 1 |
1.29 |
1.705 |
12.7 9 |
23.26 | ||||
|
lb |
300.000 0 |
0.13 |
39.00 |
3229..0001 | |||||||||||
|
Hipper 1R Row conditioner 1R |
3 ft 6 ft |
2233 |
10..4531 00 |
1.0 0 1.00 |
Ap r |
15..6513 |
20..6583 |
00..0580 |
0.72 |
1.683 |
132..6382 | ||||
|
Planter 1R |
3 ft |
23 |
1.500 |
1.00 |
Apr |
5.52 |
2.48 |
0.35 |
0.56 |
1.650 |
12.38 |
21.29 | |||
|
Okra seed Other labor |
lb |
1.0 0 |
Ap r |
65..000000 00 |
2.55 7.50 |
1375..5300 |
15.30 37.50 | ||||||||
|
Boom sprayer |
12 ft |
2 3 |
0.190 |
1.00 |
May |
0.7 0 |
0.3 1 |
0.2 6 |
0.28 |
0.209 |
1.5 7 |
3.12 | |||
|
Sevin |
lb |
1.250 0 |
4.40 |
5.50 |
5.50 | ||||||||||
|
Cultivator 1R |
3 ft |
2 3 |
1.530 |
1.0 0 |
Ma y |
5.6 3 |
2.5 3 |
0.4 0 |
0.57 |
1.683 |
12.6 2 |
21.76 | |||
|
Other labor |
hour |
1.00 |
May |
24.000 0 |
7.50 |
180.00 |
180.00 | ||||||||
|
BooSmevsipnrayer |
12 ft |
2 3 |
0.190 |
1.00 |
Jun |
0.7 0 |
0.3 1 |
0.2 6 |
0.28 |
0.209 |
1.5 7 |
3.12 | |||
|
lb |
1.250 0 |
4.40 |
5.50 |
5.50 | |||||||||||
|
Cult-fert 1R |
3 ft |
2 3 |
1.610 |
1.0 0 |
Jun |
5.9 3 |
2.6 6 |
0.5 7 |
0.81 |
1.771 |
13.2 8 |
23.24 | |||
|
Ammonium Nitrate Harvest labor |
33% lb |
60.000 0 |
0.13 |
7.80 |
7.80 | ||||||||||
|
bu |
1.0 0 |
Ju l |
120.0000 |
5.00 |
600.00 |
600.00 | |||||||||
|
Packing labor |
hour |
1.00 |
Jul |
7.0000 |
7.50 |
52.50 |
52.50 | ||||||||
|
½ ton 12 ft |
2 3 |
10 ..1009 00 |
3.00 1.00 |
Jul |
0.7 0 |
0.3 1 |
12.4 7 |
1 00..02 89 |
30 ..2000 90 |
2 12 ..55 07 |
45.06 3.12 | ||||
|
Sevin |
lb |
1.250 0 |
54..40 00 |
5.50 |
5.50 | ||||||||||
|
Harvest labor Harvest sacks Packing labor |
bu |
1.0 0 |
Aug |
120.0000 |
600.00 |
600.00 | |||||||||
|
each |
1.00 |
Aug |
94.0000 |
0.55 |
51.70 |
51.70 | |||||||||
|
hour |
1.00 |
Aug |
7.0000 |
7.50 |
52.50 |
52.50 | |||||||||
|
Packing boxes |
each |
240.0000 |
1.10 |
264.00 |
264.00 | ||||||||||
|
½ ton |
1.000 |
3.0 0 |
Aug |
12.4 7 |
10.09 |
30..8001 04 |
22.5 0 |
45.06 | |||||||
|
5 ft |
2 3 |
0.740 |
1.00 |
Sep |
2.7 2 |
1.2 2 |
0.28 |
0.74 |
6.11 |
11.08 | |||||
|
MDiidsdkle2Rbuster 1R |
3 ft 6 ft |
42 33 |
1.530 |
1.00 1.00 |
Sep Sep |
52..6839 |
21..4536 |
00..3228 |
0.31 |
1.683 |
12.62 4.70 |
291..9317 | |||
|
TOTALS |
-------- 51.23 |
--2-3-.4--9 - |
--3-0-.6--6 - |
--2-8.-4-5- |
-2-0-.5-9-7- |
------- 154.48 |
-1-9-3-2.--99- |
-2-2-21-.-3--0 | |||||||
|
INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL |
54.00 | ||||||||||||||
|
TOTAL SPECIFIED COST |
2275.30 | ||||||||||||||
H-28
More intriguing information
1. The name is absent2. The Prohibition of the Proposed Springer-ProSiebenSat.1-Merger: How much Economics in German Merger Control?
3. The Impact of Individual Investment Behavior for Retirement Welfare: Evidence from the United States and Germany
4. XML PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS FOR A COMPANY
5. Comparison of Optimal Control Solutions in a Labor Market Model
6. The Institutional Determinants of Bilateral Trade Patterns
7. WP 1 - The first part-time economy in the world. Does it work?
8. Reconsidering the value of pupil attitudes to studying post-16: a caution for Paul Croll
9. Measuring Semantic Similarity by Latent Relational Analysis
10. The name is absent