The name is absent



Table 1. Gross Revenue Less Variable Costs in Dollars per Acre for Oranges in Three Harvest Periods,
Strawberries ,and Grapefruit, 1973 through 1987

Oranges

______Year_____

Decembera

February

________April________

Strawberries

Grapefruit

1973

259.90

468.21

387.25

2,868.30

1,269.54

1974

326.39

512.99

256.82

83.40

780.93

1975

192.46

235.57

250.74

2,913.20

627.76

1976

421.77

683.32

619.85

733.40

386.33

1977

-90.58

-149.62

222.32

-615.10

553.33

1978

1,198.82

1,518.40

1,317.43

2,809.90

397.25

1979

1,282.93

1,832.44

1,309.49

3,107.30

831.65

1980

1,354.17

1,562.99

1,092.69

4,457.80

1,350.73

1981

756.30

1,064.82

819.27

-279.80

1,185.12

1982

749.51

754.22

387.40

1,149.80

231.03

1983

791.69

814.40

1,099.59

-255.60

-155.55

1984

486.82

1,022.50

664.39

-3,079.70

146.70

1985

1,731.98

1,417.93

1,130.23

971.30

662.12

1986

711.21

841.22

668.53

-815.70

1,065.17

1987

708.64

1,124.19

902.59

2,441.10

1,577.37

Mean

725.47

913.57

741.91

1,099.31

727.30

Standard

494.60

535.04

388.33

1,990.17

491.01

Deviation

a December of the previous year.

Table 2. Correlation Coefficients of Returns for Oranges in Three Harvest Periods , Strawberries, and
Grapefruit, 1973thorugh 1987

Oranges

December

February

April

Strawberries

Grapefruit

Oranges

December

1.000

February

.903*

1.000

April

.861*

.902*

1.000

Strawberries

.356

.347

.299

1.000

Grapefruit________

,093________

.180

.029

________,464________

1.000

* Significantly different from zero at the 5 percent level of significance.

194

risk aversion coefficient were profit maximizers.
Farmers with a risk aversion coefficient of0.000005
were slightly risk averse. Producers with a risk aver-
sion coefficient of 0.00001 or 0.00002 were
moderately risk averse, while producers with a coef-
ficient of 0.00005 or 0.0001 were strongly risk
averse. The risk aversion levels were chosen based
on Raskin and Cochran and on the certainty
equivalent. When the certainty equivalent drops
below the lowest observed outcome, the risk aver-
sion coefficient is likely t∞ high. The most risk
averse coefficient examined (0.0001) was the only


one in which the certainty equivalent was less than
the lowest outcome, suggesting this as an upper limit
on risk aversion.

The base scenario results are presented in the top
block of Table 3. The base scenario provides the
orange producer with the optimal plan for the current
150 acres. For the producer with risk aversion coef-
ficients less than or equal to .00001, midseason
(February) maturing oranges should have been
raised on the 150 acres. Farmers with a risk aversion
coefficient of 0.00002 should have raised both mid-
season oranges and Valencia (April) oranges.




More intriguing information

1. The name is absent
2. The name is absent
3. IMPACTS OF EPA DAIRY WASTE REGULATIONS ON FARM PROFITABILITY
4. The name is absent
5. CHANGING PRICES, CHANGING CIGARETTE CONSUMPTION
6. THE EFFECT OF MARKETING COOPERATIVES ON COST-REDUCING PROCESS INNOVATION ACTIVITY
7. School Effectiveness in Developing Countries - A Summary of the Research Evidence
8. The name is absent
9. The name is absent
10. Towards a Mirror System for the Development of Socially-Mediated Skills
11. How we might be able to understand the brain
12. Stable Distributions
13. Technological progress, organizational change and the size of the Human Resources Department
14. Searching Threshold Inflation for India
15. The name is absent
16. For Whom is MAI? A theoretical Perspective on Multilateral Agreements on Investments
17. Income Mobility of Owners of Small Businesses when Boundaries between Occupations are Vague
18. Pass-through of external shocks along the pricing chain: A panel estimation approach for the euro area
19. THE UNCERTAIN FUTURE OF THE MEXICAN MARKET FOR U.S. COTTON: IMPACT OF THE ELIMINATION OF TEXTILE AND CLOTHING QUOTAS
20. Influence of Mucilage Viscosity On The Globule Structure And Stability Of Certain Starch Emulsions