Renaisance Education: Values and Purposes :: European Europe History

Renaisance Education: Values and Purposes The Renaissance was a time of change. It began in Italy during the 14th century, and spread throughout the North. People all over Europe were affected, for the better and for the worse. Some people finally had a chance to control their own fate. Others, like upper class women, lost their social status. The values and purposes of Renaissance education were to improve the society, increase the economy, and restore the religious beliefs. The social lives of people were greatly influenced by advancements in education during the Renaissance. More people then ever before were send to schools and educated. Schools for girls were built, and they were taught sewing, reading, writing, and dancing. Some of these schools even had teachers for singing and playing instruments. Upper class women were taught language, philosophy, theology and mathematics. But their education only prepared them for social life at home. Women lost political power, access to property and their role in shaping society. People were taught to understand and judge the writings of others. Courtiers, aristocrats and nobles were able to write poetry and text. By being well educated, having good penmanship, knowing how to ride, play, dance, sing, and dress well, men of high status gained respect and reputation. These skills also helped attain preference and support among princes. Nevertheless, the school system did not teach youth how to behave in daily life situations. They spent too much time on Grammar, Rhetoric, and Logic. Those studies that were realistic, enlightened men's minds, and prepared them for life, were reserved for the Universities. Therefore, students had a slight understanding of the meaning and the true use of knowledge. They were only able to write Latin, which no one of judgement would want to read, and when they went to universities, they wasted their friends' money and their own time. Afterwards, they would return home again, as unsophisticated and uneducated as they were before. In addition, many individuals thought that having to many schools was a terrible thing. They believed that only a minority of men should study literature, because more farmers were needed than judges, more soldiers than priests, more merchants than philosophers, and more hard working groups than dreamy and thoughtful individuals. Italian humanist Piccolomini, who himself was educated, believed that philosophy and literature, should be taught to every individual, because these studies reveal the truths about the past, the reality of the present, and the prediction of the future. Renaisance Education: Values and Purposes :: European Europe History Renaisance Education: Values and Purposes The Renaissance was a time of change. It began in Italy during the 14th century, and spread throughout the North. People all over Europe were affected, for the better and for the worse. Some people finally had a chance to control their own fate. Others, like upper class women, lost their social status. The values and purposes of Renaissance education were to improve the society, increase the economy, and restore the religious beliefs. The social lives of people were greatly influenced by advancements in education during the Renaissance. More people then ever before were send to schools and educated. Schools for girls were built, and they were taught sewing, reading, writing, and dancing. Some of these schools even had teachers for singing and playing instruments. Upper class women were taught language, philosophy, theology and mathematics. But their education only prepared them for social life at home. Women lost political power, access to property and their role in shaping society. People were taught to understand and judge the writings of others. Courtiers, aristocrats and nobles were able to write poetry and text. By being well educated, having good penmanship, knowing how to ride, play, dance, sing, and dress well, men of high status gained respect and reputation. These skills also helped attain preference and support among princes. Nevertheless, the school system did not teach youth how to behave in daily life situations. They spent too much time on Grammar, Rhetoric, and Logic. Those studies that were realistic, enlightened men's minds, and prepared them for life, were reserved for the Universities. Therefore, students had a slight understanding of the meaning and the true use of knowledge. They were only able to write Latin, which no one of judgement would want to read, and when they went to universities, they wasted their friends' money and their own time. Afterwards, they would return home again, as unsophisticated and uneducated as they were before. In addition, many individuals thought that having to many schools was a terrible thing. They believed that only a minority of men should study literature, because more farmers were needed than judges, more soldiers than priests, more merchants than philosophers, and more hard working groups than dreamy and thoughtful individuals. Italian humanist Piccolomini, who himself was educated, believed that philosophy and literature, should be taught to every individual, because these studies reveal the truths about the past, the reality of the present, and the prediction of the future.

Themes of Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure Revealed in Angelo’s Solilo

Themes of Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure Revealed in Angelo’s Soliloquies Angelo’s soliloquies (2.2.161-186; 2.4.1-30) express themes of the tragicomic form, grace and nature, development of self-knowledge, justice and mercy, and creation and death as aspects of Angelo’s character. By the theme of the tragicomic form I mean that which â€Å"qualified extremes and promoted a balanced condition of mind [†¦] It employed a ‘mixed’ style, ‘mixed’ action, and ‘mixed’ characters—‘passing from side to side, it works amongst contraries, sweetly tempering their composition’.† (Guarini’s Compendio della Poesia Tragicomica (1601) cited in Lever lxi-lxii). I take Measure for Measure’s tragicomic form as its major theme, or perhaps meta-theme, because it reinforces the value of the via media, of moderation over zealotry. Angelo swings from one extreme to the other before, by the play’s conclusion, prompted by the orchestrations of the duke, he adopts a middle way. In Angelo’s first two soliloquies we see him transition from believing himself immune to earthly love (2.3.185-186) to believing he is ruled by his blood (2.4.15). This transition suggests a theme of development of self-knowledge. In the first soliloquy Angelo refers to himself as a saint (2.2.179) and speaks of physical love in a condemning tone (2.2.173). In the second soliloquy Angelo has adjusted his self-image (2.4.16) to be consistent with his experience, and he describes his experience of love without spending equal time condemning it. He realizes he took sinful pride in his severity (2.4.9-10), and now compares that quality with an idle plume in a cap—an aspect of appearance, not being. Development of self-knowledge does not show up clearly in other characters however... ...ing between them, was virtue. This signified a beneficent use of natural function which merited the gift of grace as a concomitant; correspondingly, it implied a ‘going forth’ of grace which might comprehend the conscientious payment of nature’s debt. [†¦] Throughout the main action, however, the properties of grace and nature are dissociated and juxtaposed. ‘Strict restraint’ and ‘immoderate use’, the distorted attitudes of convent and brothel, of precisian and libertine, are presented as jarring disparates inducing a process of psychic disruption. In the absence of virtue as a moderator, sexual function turns into the abuse of lechery [†¦] At the spiritual level, excessive zeal is corrupted to pride [†¦] Most alarming of all, there are the sudden slips from level to level, landslides of the soul which transform zealot into lecher and saint into sadist. (lxxii-lxxiii)

Tennessee Williams :: Essays Papers

Tennessee Williams Thomas (Tennessee) Lanier Williams born March 26, 1911 in Columbus, Mississippi. The second of three kids. His father a shoe salesman and his mother the daughter of a preacher. Williams lived a family life of turmoil. His family often engaged in violent arguments during his youth. Williams got his first taste of fame in 1929 when he took third place in a national essay contest. Williams started college at the University of Missouri until his father forced him to quit and go to work for his father’s shoe factory. Later Williams returned to college in 1937 and where he resumed the writing of plays. Williams had two of his plays, Candles to the Sun and The Fugitive Kind, produced by Mummers of St. Louis, and in 1938. Williams graduated from the University of Iowa. Williams then went to Chicago in search of work, failing, he then moved to New Orleans and changed his name from Tom to Tennessee which was the state of his father's birth. In 1939, the young playwright received a $1,000 Rockefeller Grant. In 1944, what many consider to be his best play, The Glass Menagerie, had a very successful run in Chicago, and a year later worked its way onto Broadway. People think that Williams used his own family relationships as plots for the play. The Glass Menagerie won the New York Drama Critics Circle Award for best play of the season. Williams followed up his first major critical success with several other Broadway hits including such plays as A Streetcar Named Desire, Summer and Smoke, A Rose Tattoo, and Camino Real. He received his first Pulitzer Prize in 1948 for A Streetcar Named Desire, and reached an even larger world-wide audience in 1950 and 1951 when The Glass Menagerie and A Streetcar Named Desire were made into major motion pictures. Later plays which were also made into motion pictures include Cat on a Hot Tin Roof , which he earned a second Pulitzer Prize in 1955. Williams struggled with depression throughout most of his life. For much of his life, he battled addictions to prescription drugs and alcohol. February 24, 1983, Tennessee Williams choked to death on a bottle cap at his New York City residence at the Hotel Elysee. He is buried in St. Louis, Missouri. Williams play, The Glass Menagerie, is about the Wingfeild family, the mother Amanda and here two children Tom and Laura. Amanda has a life that is centered around finding a gentleman friend for her daughter Laura, a husband.

How Time is expressed in Bill Viola’s ‘Room for St John of the Cross Essay

This video and sound installation by Bill Viola, ‘Room for St John of the Cross’, speaks of the concept of time in a number of different ways. It consists of a black cubicle in the centre of a darkened space. A small window reveals the interior of the cell which is a softly lit space containing only a table with a pitcher, a water glass and a video monitor. Projected behind the cell is a moving image of mountains with storm clouds accompanied by the sounds of a storm. A voice whispers in Spanish some of St John’s poetry. St John, a poet and mystic was imprisoned for 9 months in 1577 in a cell so small he could not stand within it. During his imprisonment he wrote mystical poetry concerned with transcending events and barriers in search of the Son of God, poetry that has been handed down to us in the modern day, so his poetry could be said to transcend time. The cell a three dimensional object, represents the fourth dimension, that of time, 9 months of his life. This is the period a child spends in the womb, curled and unable to stand, before birth. The mountains would perhaps represent eternity as they are so unchanging. The moving clouds show that time is passing, but the storm may signify chaos of the earliest period of creation. The clouds could also represent an ability to rise above the events of each day – which included regular beatings. The water and the light within the cell could represent the eternal life giving power of God, which St John found each day. God moved upon the face of the waters freshly each day, creating order out of the chaos in which he found his life to be. In ‘The Dark Night’ which may be one of the poems composed during this period he wrote ’all things ceased; I went out from myself, leaving my cares. ’ (as translated by Kieran Kavanaugh and Otilio Rodriguez,) Despite severe oppression, deprivations and physical difficulties, he was in ecstasy and time was forgotten. Works Cited Electronic Sources Kavanaugh K, an d Rodriguez, O. ( translators) Carmelite. com Our Saints, The Collected Works of St John of the Cross http://www. carmelite. com/saints/john/works/cn_6. q` 6th February 2008 Room for St John of the Cross 1983 http://www. sfmoma. org/espace/viola/BV05. html 6th February 2008

Burger Machine SWOT Analysis Essay

As said in the paragraph above, Burger Machine’s brand name is its main â€Å"trump card† in the burger stall market nowadays. When Filipinos think of affordable burgers from burger stalls, they would most likely think of Burger Machine. This increases their chances for repeat and impulse buyers, which sets them apart from their competitors. Taste Aside from the company’s strong brand power, the unforgettable taste of its burgers should be considered as one of its strengths. The company prides itself in creating special sauces as well as having its own special coleslaw. This allows the company to separate itself from its competitors and also helps in attracting more customers in the process. Weaknesses: Cleanliness: A stall’s cleanliness is one of the most important determining factors of a company’s business. Stalls should always be kept as clean as possible and it seems that Burger Machine does not exactly adhere to this kind of thinking. Burger machine stalls are usually old and rusty, for the company has not yet changed the way their stalls have been presented and constructed all throughout these years. Location: Location also plays a vital part of in the overall cleanliness of a stall. Burger Machine stalls are usually located in dark, filthy, and dirty streets. This adds up to the overall unsatisfactory cleanliness of the food stall. Management/ Service: Lack of proper stall management should also be considered as one of the weaknesses that are present in the company. Usually, one employee would be given the task of managing a Burger Machine stall. With all the foot traffic that the company can attract in one day, the quality of service that the stall can provide to its customers usually takes a hit, due to the lack of personnel. Opportunities: High Demand for Western food in the Philippines: Filipinos nowadays have adapted a westernized kind of mentality when it comes to eating food. The rise of burgers and other western types of food in the Philippine market are now starting to translate in a higher demand for burgers in the country. Threats Emergence of Jolly Jeep: Jolly Jeeps are ‘mobile’ stalls that are seen mostly around call center agencies and other offices. They basically offer wide variants of food, from rice meals to finger foods. This poses a threat to the company because of the fact that it can serve as an alternative for people with low budgets, who like to have a wide selection of food to choose from. Wide Expansion of Minute Burger: Minute Burger, one of Burger Machine’s biggest competitors now operates in major cities and provinces in the country. Burger Machine prides itself in being the 4th overall in total number of stalls in the Philippine Market today. If competitors such as Minute Burger continue to expand to other regions in the Philippines, it can pose as a threat to Burger machine as well. Competition: Minute Burger: Minute Burger has been the Burger Machine’s greatest rival ever since the 90’s. The company operates in major cities and locations around the Philippines and basically follows the same business concept that Burger Machine has been using all of this time. As of March 2012, the company has more than 130 franchisees, which operates in more than 350 stores nationwide. Minute Burger, just like Burger Machine, sells its products through the use of ‘mobile’ cart. They also have a wide variant of burgers to offer to their market and also other food offerings here and there. Angel’s Burger: The emergence of Angel’s Burger in the burger industry started in the late 2000’s. The company is one of the pioneering brands in starting the â€Å"buy-one-take-one† burger trend, which has been booming as of late. With their prices positioned lower than brands such as Burger Machine, Angel’s Burger focuses on providing its customers a quantity of burgers, instead of its actual quality. Although there is no immediate information, that is available to consumers about the exact number of stalls that the company has, one cannot deny that numerous stalls of this franchise can be seen all around the Metro Manila region and is continuing to expand to other areas in the Philippines. Market Needs: Quick Food Service: We are living in a fast-paced world and everybody seeks for a food source which can provide them with a quick, but substantial meal. Cheap Food Alternatives Prices are going up each year; from gas prices to other necessities. People nowadays are thriftier when it comes to buying food. They often times have daily budgets, in order for them to go about their business without a fuss. Thus, it leads to the market to prefer food stalls, which are heavy in the stomach, but light in the pocket as well. Market Trends: Buy-one-take-one: Like it is said in the aforementioned part of this paper, people nowadays seek to find the most bang-for-the-buck food alternative, and promos just like buy-one-take-one have been a necessity, most especially for lower market segments.

Company Law Question Solution Essay

QUESTION Ramrajee Baboo is a young attorney with a Master’s Degree in Corporate Law, specialising in project financing documentation. Ramrajee has been appointed to the Board of UDECOTT as it moves forward in a new program based on project financing for its new proposed constructions. UDECOTT is a state enterprise and Ramrajee is paid a stipend of $3,000.00 per month. UDECOTT had previously engaged the services of a general commercial law practitioner, Buji Bamee, to provide legal advice at a cost of $50,000.00 per month. Unknown to Ramrajee, the Chairman of the Board in an informal meeting with the Chief Executive Officer of UDECOTT agreed to terminate the contract of the consultant and have Ramrajee vet the project financing documents in her capacity as a director. Ramrajee was never informed of this decision. Two weeks prior to a board meeting, Ramrajee received board papers including certain project financing contracts for discussion at the next board meeting (scheduled to take place two weeks later). Ramrajee perused the papers cursorily and made certain brief notes. At the board meeting the documents were discussed and Ramrajee made certain general observations. The agreements were subsequently executed. It later transpired that the documents were not properly vetted and UDECOTT suffered a 10 million dollar loss. The agreements were not examined by any attorney other than Ramrajee. The government minister responsible for UDECOTT is quite annoyed and would like someone to be held liable. The Chairman said he relied on Ramrajee to vet the documents but Ramrajee has stated that her duty is that of a general review and would have needed detailed legal analysis beyond what is contemplated by her role as a director to uncover the deficiencies in the documents that occurred. Advise the Minister as to the conduct of Ramrajee. ANSWER ISSUE: Did Ramrajee exercise the level of skill required of her as director? LAW: Directors’ behaviour in office is governed by statutory and common law. Directors hold a fiduciary responsibility to the company for which they work which requires them to properly manage the assets of the company within the powers conferred on them. Under statute, according to section 60(b) of the Companies Act of Trinidad and Tobago, a director shall â€Å"direct the management of the business and the affairs of the company†. In effecting this management, he must do so in accordance with section 99(1) of the said Act which states that a director and officer of a company shall in exercising his powers and discharging his duties: a) Act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interest of the company; and b) Exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances. These are all to be done in the best interest of the company. Where directors act in accordance with section 99, they may be indemnified against any liabilities incurred as a result of holding such a position pursuant to section 101. Under common law, the director owes a fiduciary duty to the company, as found in Pardy v Dobbin NFCA 11 (CanII), which â€Å"exacts from directors a strict ethic to act honestly and in good faith in the corporation’s best interest†. ANALYSIS: As a director of the board, Ramrajee owed a very specific duty of care towards the company. In particular, she was expected to exercise diligence and a level of skill that reflected her qualifications, as found in section 99(1)(b). While Ramrajee was unaware of the informal decision to terminate the consultant who was hired to perform general commercial law activities, the mere fact that Ramrajee was a member of the Board and had specialized skills in project financing documentation means that it would be expected that she use these skills. Moreover, the highly-paid consultant was a general practitioner and did not have this specialized skill. In addition, she was given two weeks to review the documents during which time she could have scrutinized them, but she did not. Her duties under statutory and common law required her to review the documents carefully. She did not exercise the level of care and skill required by her fiduciary position which was not in the best interest of the Company. As she breached section 99 of the Companies Act, as well as her common law fiduciary duties, she should be held liable and will not be indemnified by the company under section 101 for the loss sustained. RECOMMENDATION: Minister, she is in breach of her statutory and common law duties and should be held liable.

Sample Costs to Produce Processing Tomatoes

TM-SV-08-1 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA – COOPERATIVE EXTENSION 2008 SAMPLE COSTS TO PRODUCE PROCESSING TOMATOES TRANSPLANTED IN THE SACRAMENTO VALLEY Prepared by: Gene Miyao Karen M. Klonsky Pete Livingston UC Cooperative Extension Farm Advisor, Yolo, Solano, & Sacramento Counties UC Cooperative Extension Specialist, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, UC Davis UC Cooperative Extension Staff Research Associate, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, UC DavisUC COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SAMPLE COSTS TO PRODUCE PROCESSING TOMATOES TRANSPLANTED In the Sacramento Valley – 2008 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 2 ASSUMPTIONS †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ CULTURAL PRACTICES AND MATERIAL INPUTS †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. 3 CASH OVERHEAD †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. 5 NON-CASH OVERHEAD †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ REFERENCES †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢ € ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 8 TABLE 1. COSTS PER ACRE TO PRODUCE PROCESSING TOMATOES †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 10 TABLE 2. COSTS AND RETURNS PER ACRE TO PRODUCE PROCESSING TOMATOES †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 12 TABLE 3.MONTHLY CASH COSTS PER ACRE TO PRODUCE PROCESSING TOMATOES †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. 14 TABLE 4. WHOLE FARM ANNUAL EQUIPMENT, INVESTMENT, AND BUSINESS OVERHEAD COSTS †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 15 TABLE 5. HOURLY EQUIPMENT COSTS †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. 17 TABLE 6. RANGING ANALYSIS †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 8 TABLE 7. COSTS AND RETURNS/ BREAKEVEN ANALYSIS †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã ¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 19 TABLE 8. DETAILS OF O PERATIONS †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 20 INTRODUCTION The sample costs to produce transplanted processing tomatoes in the Sacramento Valley is based on the 2007 cost and returns study practices using 2008 prices and are presented in this study.The price adjustments are for fuel, fertilizers, pesticides, water, labor rates, interest rates, and some cash overhead costs. This study is intended as a guide only, and can be used to make production decisions, determine potential returns, prepare budgets and evaluate production loans. Pr actices described are based on production practices considered typical for the crop and area, but may not apply to every situation. Sample costs for labor, materials, equipment, and custom services are based on current figures.Blank columns, â€Å"Your Costs†, in Tables 1 and 2 are provided to enter actual costs of an individual farm operation. The hypothetical farm operations, production practices, overhead, and calculations are described under the assumptions. For additional information or an explanation of the calculations used in the study, call the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis, (530) 752-2414 or the local UC Cooperative Extension office.Two additional cost of production study for processing tomatoes grown in this region are also available: â€Å"Sample Costs To Produce Processing Tomatoes, Direct Seeded, In the Sacramento Valley – 2007†, and â€Å"Sample Costs To Produce Processing Tomatoes, Transplante d, In the Sacramento Valley – 2007†. Sample Cost of Production Studies for many commodities are available and can be requested through the Department of Agricultural Economics, UC Davis, (530) 752-2414. Current studies can be downloaded from the department website http://coststudies. ucdavis. edu/ or obtained from selected county UC Cooperative Extension offices.The University of California prohibits discrimination or harassment of any person on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity , pregnancy (including childbirth, and medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth), physical or mental disability , medical condition (cancer-related or genetic characteristics), ancestry, marital status, age, sexual orientation, citizenship, or service in the uniformed services (as defined by the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994: service in the uniformed services includes membership, application for membership, performance of service, application for service, or obligation for service in the uniformed services) in any of its programs or activities. University policy also prohibits reprisal or retaliation against any person in any of its programs or activities for making a complaint of discrimination or sexual harassment or for using or participating in the investigation or resolution process of any such complaint. University policy is intended to be consistent with the provisions of applicable State and Federal laws.Inquiries regarding the University’s nondiscrimination policies may be directed to the Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Director, University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, 1111 Franklin Street, 6th Floor, Oakland, CA 94607, (510) 987-0096. 2008 Transplanted Processing Tomato Cost and Returns Study Sacramento Valley UC Cooperative Extension 2 ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions refer to tables 1 to 8 and pertain to sample costs and returns to prod uce transplanted processing tomatoes in the Sacramento Valley. Input prices and interest rates are based on 2008 values. However, production practices were not updated from the 2007 study. Practices described are not recommendations by the University of California, but represent production practices considered typical of a well-managed farm for this crop and area.Some of the costs and practices listed may not be applicable to all situations nor used during every production year and/or additional ones not indicated may be needed. Processing tomato cultural practices and material input costs will vary by grower and region, and can be significant. The practices and inputs used in the cost study serve as a guide only. The costs are shown on an annual, per acre basis. The use of trade names in this report does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation by the University of California nor is any criticism implied by omission of other similar products. Farm. The hypothetical field and row-crop farm consists of 2,900 non-contiguous acres of rented land.Tomatoes are transplanted on 630 acres (70% of the tomato acreage) and direct seeded on 270 acres (30% of the tomato acreage) for a total of 900 acres. Two thousand acres are planted to other rotational crops including alfalfa hay, field corn, safflower, sunflower, dry beans and/or wheat. For direct seeded tomato operations, please refer to the study titled, â€Å"Sample Costs to Produce Processing Tomatoes, Directed Seeded, in the Sacramento Valley – 2007†. The grower also owns various investments such as a shop and an equipment yard. In this report, practices completed on less than 100% of the acres are denoted as a percentage of the total tomato crop acreage.CULTURAL PRACTICES AND MATERIAL INPUTS Land Preparation. Primary tillage which includes laser leveling, discing, rolling, subsoiling, land planing, and listing beds is done from August through early November in the year preceding transplanting. To maintain surface grade, 4% of the acres are laser leveled each year. Fields are stubbledisced and rolled (using a rice roller). Fields are subsoiled in two passes to a 30-inch depth and rolled. A medium-duty disk with a flat roller following is used. Ground is smoothed in two passes with a triplane. Beds on five-foot centers are made with a six-bed lister, and then shaped with a bed-shaper cultivator.Transplanting. Planting is spread over a three-month period (late March through early June) to meet contracted weekly delivery schedules at harvest. The transplants are planted in a single line per bed. Direct seed is for the early season and precedes transplanting. All of the 630 acres are custom planted with greenhouse-grown transplants. Costs for extra seed (15%) purchased to allow for less than 100% germination and for non-plantable transplants are included in the respective categories in Table 2. Fertilization. In the fall, ahead of listing beds, a soil amendment, gypsum at 3. 0 tons per acre is custom broadcast spread on 20% of the acres.After listing, as part of the bed shaping operation, 11-52-0 is shanked into the beds at 100 pounds per acre. Prior to planting, liquid starter fertilizer, 8-24-6 plus zinc, is banded below the seed line at 15 gallons of material per acre. Nitrogen fertilizer, UN-32 at 150 pounds of N per acre is sidedress-banded at layby. Additional N is applied under special needs on 20% of acres as CAN 17 at 100 pounds of product per acre as a sidedress. Irrigation. In this study, water is calculated to cost $31. 92 per acre-foot or $2. 66 per acre-inch and is a combination of 1/2 well water ($47. 67 per acre-foot) and 1/2 canal delivered surface water ($16. 17 per acre-foot).The irrigation costs shown in Tables 1 and 3 include water, pumping, and labor charges. The transplants receive a single sprinkler irrigation after planting. Prior to initial furrow irrigation, fields are all chiseled to 12 inches deep in the furrow. Eight furrow irrigations are applied during the season. In 2008 Transplanted Processing Tomato Cost and Returns Study Sacramento Valley UC Cooperative Extension 3 this study 3. 5 acre-feet (42 acre-inches) is applied to the crop – 2. 0 acre-inches by sprinkler and 40 acreinches by furrow. Although sub-surface drip irrigation is gaining in popularity, it is not used in this study. Pest Management. The pesticides and rates mentioned in this cost study are listed n Integrated Pest Management for Tomatoes and UC Pest Management Guidelines, Tomato. For more information on other pesticides available, pest identification, monitoring, and management visit the UC IPM website at www. ipm. ucdavis. edu. Written recommendations are required for many pesticides and are made by licensed pest control advisors. For information and pesticide use permits, contact the local county agricultural commissioner's office. Weeds. Beginning in January, Roundup plus Goal is sprayed on the fallow beds to control eme rged weeds and repeated later with Roundup only. Before planting, the beds are cultivated twice to control weeds and to prepare the seedbed.Wilcox Performer conditions bed and applies starter fertilizer. Trifluralin is broadcast sprayed at 1. 0 pint per acre and incorporated with a power mulcher. To control nutsedge, Dual Magnum at 1. 5 pints of product per acre is added to trifluralin as a tank-mix and applied to 30% or 189 acres. Matrix is applied to 80% or 504 acres in an 18-inch band at a rate of 2. 0 ounces of material per acre to control a range of weeds. A combination of hand weeding and mechanical cultivation is also used for weed control. The crop is mechanically cultivated with sled-mounted cultivators three times during the season. A contract labor crew hand removes weeds.Insects and Diseases. The primary insect pests of seedlings included in this study are flea beetle, darkling ground beetle, and cutworm. Foliage and fruit feeders included are tomato fruitworm, various a rmyworm species, russet mite, stinkbug, and potato aphid. Diseases are primarily bacterial speck, late blight, and blackmold fruit rot. A Kocide and Dithane tank mix for bacterial speck is applied to 30% of the acres. All of the above applications are made by ground. The following applications are made by aircraft. Sulfur dust for russet mite control is applied to 70% of the acres. Asana for general insect control is applied to 40% of the acres.Confirm for worm control is applied to 100% of the acres. Bravo is applied in June to 5% of the acres for late blight control and again in September as a fruit protectant fungicide on 15% of the acres. Fruit Ripener. Ethrel, a fruit ripening agent, is applied by ground before harvest to 5% of the acres at 4. 0 pints per acre. Harvest. The fruit is mechanically harvested using one primary harvester for 90% of the acres and one older harvester for special harvest situations and as a backup to the primary harvester. Typically growers with this a creage of processing tomatoes own tractors, trailer dollies, generator-light machines, and harvest support equipment.Four manual sorters, a harvester driver, and two bulk-trailer tractor operators are used per harvester. A seasonal average of 1. 5 loads per hour at 25 tons per load are harvested with two (one day and one night) shifts of 10 hours each. Harvest efficiency includes down time, scheduled daily breaks, and transportation between fields. The processor pays the transportation cost of the tomatoes from the field to the processing plant. Costs for harvest operations are shown in Tables 1, 3 and 7; the equipment used is listed in Tables 4 and 5. If tomatoes are custom harvested, harvest expenses are subtracted from harvest costs in Tables 1 and 3, and the custom harvest charges added.The equipment for harvest operations is then subtracted from investment costs in Table 4. Growers may choose to own harvesting equipment, purchased either new or 2008 Transplanted Processing Toma to Cost and Returns Study Sacramento Valley UC Cooperative Extension 4 used, or hire a custom harvester. Many factors are important in deciding which harvesting option a grower uses. The options are discussed in â€Å"Acquiring Alfalfa Hay Harvest Equipment: A Financial Analysis of Alternatives†. Yields. County average annual tomato crop yields in the Sacramento Valley over the past ten years ranged from 26. 34 to 43. 00 tons per acre. The reporting counties are Colusa, Sacramento, Solano, Sutter, Yolo, and sometimes Glenn counties.Butte and Tehama are the only two Sacramento Valley counties that do not report processing tomatoes. The weighted average yields for the Sacramento Valley from 1997 to 2006 are shown in Table A. In this study, a yield of 35 tons per acre is used. Table A. Sacramento Valley Yield and Price †  Tons $ Year per acre per ton 2006 35. 44 59. 28 2005 34. 30 49. 81 2004 40. 51 48. 06 2003 33. 74 48. 82 2002 37. 64 48. 37 2001 35. 23 48. 49 2000 34. 44 49. 54 1999 34. 58 58. 68 1998 29. 90 53. 68 1997 33. 24 50. 85 Average 34. 90 51. 56 Returns. Customarily, growers produce tomatoes under contract with various food processing companies. County †  Source: California Agricultural Commissioner Crop Reports. verage prices in the Sacramento Valley ranged from $45. 66 to $62. 00 per ton over the last 10 years and the Valley-wide weighted averages are shown in Table A. A price of $70. 00 per ton is used in this study to reflect the return price growers are currently receiving. Assessments. Under a state marketing order a mandatory assessment fee is collected and administered by the Processing Tomato Advisory Board (PTAB). The assessment pays for inspecting and grading fruit, and varies between inspection stations. In Yolo County, inspection fees range from $6. 36 to $8. 90 per load with an average of $6. 75. Growers and processors share equally in the fee; growers pay $3. 38 per load in this study.A truckload is assumed to be 25 to ns. Tomato growers are also assessed a fee for the Curly Top Virus Control Program (CTVCP) administered by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). Growers in Yolo County (District 111) are charged $0. 019 per ton. Additionally, several voluntary organizations assess member growers. California Tomato Growers Association (CTGA) represents growers’ interest in negotiating contract prices with processors. CTGA membership charges are $0. 17 per ton. The California Tomato Research Institute funds projects for crop improvement. CTRI membership charges are $0. 07 per ton. Labor. Basic hourly wages for workers are $11. 56 and $8. 0 per hour for machine operators and nonmachine (irrigators and manual laborers) workers, respectively. Adding 36% for the employer’s share of federal and state payroll taxes, insurance and other benefits raises the total labor costs to $15. 72 per hour for machine operators and $10. 88 per hour for non-machine labor. The labor for op erations involving machinery is 20% higher than the field operation time, to account for equipment set up, moving, maintenance, and repair. The current minimum wage is $8. 00 per hour. CASH OVERHEAD Cash overhead consists of various cash expenses paid out during the year that are assigned to the whole farm and not to a particular operation.These costs include property taxes, interest on operating capital, office expense, liability and property insurance, share rent, supervisors’ salaries, field sanitation, crop insurance, and investment repairs. Employee benefits, insurance, and payroll taxes are included in labor costs and not in overhead. Cash overhead costs are shown in Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4. Property Taxes. Counties charge a base property tax rate of 1% on the assessed value of the property. In some counties special assessment districts exist and charge additional taxes on property including equipment, buildings, and improvements. For this study, county taxes are calculat ed as 1% of the average value of the property. Average value equals new cost plus salvage value divided by 2 on a per acre basis. 008 Transplanted Processing Tomato Cost and Returns Study Sacramento Valley UC Cooperative Extension 5 Interest o n Operating Capital. Interest on operating capital is based on cash operating costs and is calculated monthly until harvest at a nominal rate of 6. 75% per year. A nominal interest rate is the typical market cost of borrowed funds. Insurance. Insurance for farm investments varies depending on the assets included and the amount of coverage. Property insurance provides coverage for property loss and is charged at 0. 740% of the average value of the assets over their useful life. Liability insurance covers accidents on the farm and costs $1,438 for the entire farm or $0. 50 per acre. Office Expense.Office and business expenses are estimated to be $50,489 for the entire farm or $17. 41 per acre. These expenses include office supplies, telephones, bookkeeping, accounting, legal fees, road maintenance, office and shop utilities, and miscellaneous administrative expenses. Share Rent. Rent arrangements will vary. The tomato land in this study is leased on a share-rent basis with the landowner receiving 12% of the gross returns. The land rented includes developed wells and irrigation system. Field Supervisors’ Salary. Supervisor salaries for tomatoes, including insurance, payroll taxes, and benefits, and are $94,500 per year for two supervisors.Two thirds of the supervisors’ time is allocated to tomatoes. The costs are $70. 00 per acre. Any returns above total costs are considered returns on risk and investment to management (or owners). Field Sanitation. Sanitation services provide portable toilet and washing facilities for the ranch during the crop season. The cost includes delivery and weekly service. Costs will vary depending upon the crops and number of portable units required. Crop Insurance. The insurance pro tects the grower from crop losses due to adverse weather conditions, fire, unusual diseases and/or insects, wildlife, earthquake, volcanic eruption, and failure of the irrigation system.The grower can choose the protection level at 50% to 75% of production history or county yields. In this study, no level is chosen. The cost shown in the study is the average of the costs paid by the growers who reviewed this study. NON-CASH OVERHEAD Non-cash overhead is calculated as the capital recovery cost for equipment and other farm investments. Although farm equipment used for processing tomatoes may be purchased new or used, this study shows the current purchase price for new equipment. The new purchase price is adjusted to 60% to reflect a mix of new and used equipment. Annual ownership costs (equipment and investments) are shown in Tables 1, 2, and 5.They represent the capital recovery cost for investments on an annual per acre basis. Capital Recovery Costs. Capital recovery cost is the ann ual depreciation and interest costs for a capital investment. It is the amount of money required each year to recover the difference between the purchase price and salvage value (unrecovered capital). It is equivalent to the annual payment on a loan for the investment with the down payment equal to the discounted salvage value. This is a more complex method of calculating ownership costs than straight-line depreciation and opportunity costs, but more accurately represents the annual costs of ownership because it takes the time value of money into account (Boehlje and Eidman).The formula for the calculation of the annual capital recovery costs is; Capital *# && # * ,% Purchase † Salvage( ) %Recovery(/ + ,Salvage ) Interest/ % ( Pr ice Value Value Rate + . ‘ $ , / ‘. Factor +$ 2008 Transplanted Processing Tomato Cost and Returns Study ! Sacramento Valley UC Cooperative Extension 6 Salvage Value. Salvage value is an estimate of the remaining value of an investment at the end of its useful life. For farm machinery the remaining value is a percentage of the new cost of the investment (Boehlje and Eidman). The percent remaining value is calculated from equations developed by the American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE) based on equipment type and years of life. The life in years is estimated by dividing the wear out life, as given by ASAE by the annual hours of use in this operation.For other investments including irrigation systems, buildings, and miscellaneous equipment, the value at the end of its useful life is zero. The salvage value for land is equal to the purchase price because land does not depreciate. The purchase price and salvage value for certain equipment and investments are shown in Table 5. Capital Recovery Factor. Capital recovery factor is the amortization factor or annual payment whose present value at compound interest is 1. The amortization factor is a table value that corresponds to the interest rate and the life of t he equipment. Interest Rate. The interest rate of 4. 25% used to calculate capital recovery cost is the effective long-term interest rate in January 2008.The interest rate is used to reflect the long-term realized rate of return to these specialized resources that can only be used effectively in the agricultural sector. Equipment Costs. Equipment costs are composed of three parts: non-cash overhead, cash overhead, and operating costs. Some of the cost factors have been discussed in previous sections. The operating costs consist of repairs, fuel, and lubrication. The fuel, lube, and repair cost per acre for each operation in Table 1 is determined by multiplying the total hourly operating cost in Table 5 for each piece of equipment used for the selected operation by the hours per acre. Tractor time is 10% higher than implement time for a given operation to account for setup, travel and down time. Repairs, Fuel and Lube.Repair costs are based on purchase price, annual hours of use, tot al hours of life, and repair coefficients formulated by the ASAE. Fuel and lubrication costs are also determined by ASAE equations based on maximum Power-Take-Off horsepower, and fuel type. Prices for on-farm delivery of diesel and unleaded gasoline are $3. 54 and $3. 57 per gallon, respectively. Irrigation System. Irrigation equipment owned by the grower consists of main lines, hand moved sprinklers, portable pumps, V-ditchers, and siphon tubes. Risk. Risks associated with processing tomato production are not assigned a production cost. All acres are contracted prior to harvest and all tonnage-time delivery contracts are assumed to have been met. No excess acres are grown to fulfill contracts.While this study makes an effort to model a production system based on typical, real world practices, it cannot fully represent financial, agronomic and market risks which affect the profitability and economic viability of processing tomato production. Table Values. Due to rounding the totals may be slightly different from the sum of the components. 2008 Transplanted Processing Tomato Cost and Returns Study Sacramento Valley UC Cooperative Extension 7 REFERENCES American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 2003. American Society of Agricultural Engineers Standards Yearbook. Russell H. Hahn and Evelyn E. Rosentreter (ed. ) St. Joseph, Missouri. 41st edition. Barker, Doug.California Workers’ Compensation Rating Data for Selected Agricultural Classifications as of January 2008. California Department of Insurance, Rate Regulation Branch. Boehlje, Michael D. , and Vernon R. Eidman. 1984. Farm Management. John Wiley and Sons. New York, NY. Blank, Steve, Karen Klonsky, Kim Norris, and Steve Orloff. 1992. Acquiring Alfalfa Hay Harvest Equipment: A Financial Analysis of Alternatives. University of California. Oakland, CA. Giannini Information Series No. 92-1. http://giannini. ucop. edu/InfoSeries/921-HayEquip. pdf. Internet accessed May, 2008. California State Automobile As sociation. 2008. Gas Price Averages 2007 – 2008.AAA Press Room, San Francisco, CA. http://www. csaa. com/portal/site/CSAA/menuitem. 5313747aa611bd4e320cfad592278a0c/? vgnextoid= 8d642ce6cda97010VgnVCM1000002872a8c0RCRD. Internet accessed April, 2008. California State Board of equalization. Fuel Tax Division Tax Rates. http://www. boe. ca. gov/sptaxprog/spftdrates. htm. Internet accessed April, 2008. CDFA-California County Agricultural Commissioners, California Annual Agricultural Crop Reports. 1998 – 2007. California Department of Food and Agricultural, Sacramento, CA. http://www. nass. usda. gov/ca/bul/agcom/indexcac. htm. Internet accessed May, 2008. Energy Information Administration. 2008.Weekly Retail on Highway http://tonto. eia. doe. gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel. asp. Internet accessed April, 2008. Diesel Prices. Integrated Pest Management Education and Publications. 2008. â€Å"UC Pest Management Guidelines, Tomatoes. † In M. L. Flint (ed. ) UC IPM Pest Man agement Guidelines. University of California. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Oakland, CA. Publication 3339. http://www. ipm. ucdavis. edu/PMG/selectnewpest. tomatoes. html. Internet accessed May, 2008. Miyao, Gene, Karen M. Klonsky, and Pete Livingston. 2007. â€Å"Sample Costs To Produce Processing Tomatoes, Transplanted, In the Sacramento Valley – 2007†. University of California, Cooperative Extension.Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Davis, CA. http://coststudies. ucdavis. edu/. Internet accessed April, 2008. Miyao, Gene, Karen M. Klonsky, and Pete Livingston. 2007. Sample Costs to Produce Processing Tomatoes, Direct Seeded, in the Sacramento Valley – 2007. University of California, Cooperative Extension. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Davis, CA. http://coststudies. ucdavis. edu/. Internet accessed, April, 2008. 2008 Transplanted Processing Tomato Cost and Returns Study Sacramento Valley UC Cooperative Exte nsion 8 Statewide Integrated Pest Management Project. 1998. Integrated Pest Management for Tomatoes. Fourth Edition. University of California.Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Oakland, CA. Publication 3274. http://www. ipm. ucdavis. edu/PMG/selectnewpest. tomatoes. html. Internet accessed April, 2008. USDA-ERS. 2008. Farm Sector: Farm Financial Ratios. Agriculture and Rural Economics Division, ERS. USDA. Washington, DC. http://usda. mannlib. cornell. edu/reports/nassr/price/zapbb/agpran04. txt; Internet accessed January, 2008. ________________________ For information concerning the above or other University of California publications, contact UC DANR Communications Services at 800994-8849, online at http://anrcatalog. ucdavis. edu/InOrder/Shop/Shop. asp, or your local county UC Cooperative Extension office. 008 Transplanted Processing Tomato Cost and Returns Study Sacramento Valley UC Cooperative Extension 9 Table 1. UC COOPERATIVE EXTENSION COSTS PER ACRE TO PRODUCE TO MATOES SACRAMENTO VALLEY – 2008 TRANSPLANTED Labor Rate: $15. 72/hr. machine labor $10. 88/hr. non-machine labor Interest Rate: 6. 75% Yield per Acre: 35. 0 Ton Operation —————— Cash and Labor Costs per Acre —————–Time Labor Fuel, Lube Material Custom/ Total (Hrs/A) Cost & Repairs Cost Rent Cost 0. 00 0. 14 0. 42 0. 15 0. 36 0. 00 0. 10 0. 25 0. 08 0. 08 0. 26 1. 83 0. 17 0. 33 0. 00 0. 16 3. 00 0. 61 0. 33 0. 25 0. 25 0. 03 0. 04 10. 00 0. 00 0. 04 0. 00 0. 07 0. 00 0. 50 0. 00 0. 00 0. 0 0. 00 0. 32 0. 32 16. 42 0. 10 0. 93 0. 46 1. 49 0. 00 0. 00 0 3 8 3 7 0 2 5 1 1 10 39 3 6 0 3 33 12 6 5 5 1 1 109 0 1 0 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 12 6 212 2 58 32 92 0 0 344 0 18 53 10 22 0 6 12 3 3 19 145 7 13 0 6 0 21 13 15 12 1 2 0 0 2 0 3 0 17 0 0 0 0 8 0 122 4 177 34 215 0 0 482 0 0 0 0 0 79 0 42 12 13 0 146 36 13 354 9 18 0 112 0 0 5 0 107 1 0 15 20 0 0 5 4 27 2 0 0 727 0 0 0 0 14 14 887 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 50 0 3 1 6 0 0 0 231 0 0 0 0 0 0 239 7 20 61 13 29 81 8 59 16 17 28 338 46 33 519 19 51 32 131 20 17 6 3 216 1 3 21 24 50 27 7 4 33 2 20 6 1,292 6 235 66 308 14 14 66 2,017 1 17 0 25 70 294 6 4 6 423 2,440Operation Preplant: Land Preparation – Laser Level – 4% of Acreage Land Preparation – Stubble Disc & Roll Land Preparation – Subsoil & Roll 2X Land Preparation – Disc & Roll Land Preparation – Triplane 2X Land Preparation – Apply Gypsum on 20% of Acreage Land Preparation – List Beds Land Preparation – Shape & Fertilize (11-52-0) Weed Control – Roundup & Goal Weed Control – Roundup Weed Control – Cultivate 2X TOTAL PREPLANT COSTS Cultural: Condition Bed & Starter Fertilizer Mulch Beds & Apply Treflan (& Dual on 30% of Acreage) Transplant Tomatoes Weed Control – Apply Matrix on 80% of Acreage Irrigate – Sprinklers 1X Weed Control – Cultivate 3X Fer tilize – 150 Lbs N Sidedress Chisel Furrows Mulch Beds Disease Control – Bacterial Speck on 30% of Acreage Open Ditches Irrigate – Furrow 8X Disease Control – Late Blight on 5% of Acreage Close Ditches Mite Control – Sulfur on 70% of Acreage Fertilize – 20 Lbs N on 20% of Acreage Weed Control – Hand Hoe – Contract Train Vines Insect Control – Aphid on 40% of Acreage Disease Control – Fruit Rot on 15% of Acreage Insect Control – Worms Fruit Ripener – Ethrel on 5% of Acreage Pickup Truck Use (2 pickups) ATV Use TOTAL CULTURAL COSTS Harvest: Open Harvest Lane on 8% of Acreage Harvest In Field Hauling TOTAL HARVEST COSTS Assessment: Assessments/Fees TOTAL ASSESSMENT COSTS Interest on Operating Capital @ 6. 75% TOTAL OPERATING COSTS/ACRE CASH OVERHEAD: Liability Insurance Office Expense Field Sanitation Crop Insurance Field Supervisors' Salary (2) Land Rent @ 12% of Gross Returns Property Taxes Property I nsurance Investment Repairs TOTAL CASH OVERHEAD COSTS TOTAL CASH COSTS/ACRE Your Cost 008 Transplanted Processing Tomato Cost and Returns Study Sacramento Valley UC Cooperative Extension 10 UC COOPERATIVE EXTENSION Table 1 continued NON-CASH OVERHEAD: Investment Shop Building Storage Building Fuel Tanks & Pumps Shop Tools Booster Pumps Sprinkler Pipe Main Line Pipe – 10†³ Semi Truck & Lowbed Trailer Pipe Trailers Truck-Service – 2 Ton Generators & Light Fuel Wagons Closed Mix System Siphon Tubes Implement Carrier Equipment TOTAL NON-CASH OVERHEAD COSTS TOTAL COSTS/ACRE Per producing Acre 25 10 8 5 21 52 28 12 12 13 3 1 2 4 3 755 953 — Annual Cost -Capital Recovery 2 1 1 0 2 6 3 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 94 116 2 1 1 0 2 6 3 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 94 116 2,555 008 Transplanted Processing Tomato Cost and Returns Study Sacramento Valley UC Cooperative Extension 11 Table 2. UC COOPERATIVE EXTENSION COSTS and RETURNS PER ACRE to PRODUCE TOMATOES SACRAMENTO VALLEY – 2008 T RANSPLANTED Labor Rate: $15. 72/hr. machine labor $10. 88/hr. non-machine labor Interest Rate: 6. 75% Yield per Acre: 35. 0 Ton Price or Value or Cost/Unit Cost/Acre 70. 00 2,450 2,450 Your Cost Quantity/Acre Unit GROSS RETURNS Processing Tomatoes 35. 00 TOTAL GROSS RETURNS FOR PROCESSING TOMATOES OPERATING COSTS Custom: Laser Level 0. 04 Gypsum Application 0. 20 Transplanting 8. 70 Air Application – Spray 10 Gal/Acre 1. 60 Air Application – Dust 28. 0 Fertilizer: Gypsum 0. 60 11-52-0 100. 00 8-24-6 15. 00 Zinc Chelate 6% 2. 00 UN-32 150. 00 CAN 17 118. 00 Herbicide: Roundup Ultra 2. 50 Goal 2XL 3. 00 Dual Magnum 0. 45 Treflan HFP 1. 00 Matrix DF 0. 48 Seed: Tomato Seed 10. 01 Transplant: Transplants – Growing 8. 70 Irrigation: Water 42. 00 Pump – Fuel, Lube, & Repairs 1. 00 Fungicide: Kocide 101 0. 60 Dithane DF 0. 60 Sulfur, Dust 98% 28. 00 Insecticide: Bravo Weatherstik 0. 60 Warrior T 1. 54 Confirm 12. 00 Contract: Contract Labor 5. 00 Growth Regulato r: Ethrel 0. 03 Assessment: CDFA-CTVP 35. 00 CTGA 35. 00 CTRI 35. 00 PTAB 35. 00 Labor (machine) 9. 34 Labor (non-machine) 18. 08 Fuel – Gas 1. 5 Fuel – Diesel 77. 61 Lube Machinery repair Interest on Operating Capital @ 6. 75% TOTAL OPERATING COSTS/ACRE NET RETURNS ABOVE OPERATING COSTS/ACRE Ton Acre Ton Thou Acre Lb Ton Lb Lb Pint Lb N Lb Pint FlOz Pint Pint Oz Thou Thou AcIn Acre Lb Lb Lb Pint FlOz FlOz Hour Gal Ton Ton Ton Ton Hrs Hrs Gal Gal 165. 00 7. 00 19. 00 6. 25 0. 20 132. 00 0. 419 2. 28 0. 913 0. 745 0. 171 8. 59 1. 03 18. 63 4. 84 19. 25 11. 00 28. 00 2. 67 13. 00 3. 62 3. 89 0. 55 7. 85 3. 05 2. 23 9. 99 63. 00 0. 019 0. 17 0. 07 0. 135 15. 72 10. 88 3. 57 3. 54 7 1 165 10 6 79 42 34 2 112 20 21 3 8 5 9 110 244 112 13 2 2 15 5 5 27 50 2 1 6 2 5 147 197 7 275 42 159 66 2,017 406 008 Transplanted Processing Tomato Cost and Returns Study Sacramento Valley UC Cooperative Extension 12 UC COOPERATIVE EXTENSION Table 2 continued CASH OVERHEAD COSTS: Liability I nsurance Office Expense Field Sanitation Crop Insurance Field Supervisors' Salary (2) Land Rent @ 12% of Gross Returns Property Taxes Property Insurance Investment Repairs TOTAL CASH OVERHEAD COSTS/ACRE TOTAL CASH COSTS/ACRE NON-CASH OVERHEAD COSTS (CAPITAL RECOVERY): Shop Building Storage Building Fuel Tanks & Pumps Shop Tools Booster Pumps Sprinkler Pipe Main Line Pipe – 10†³ Semi Truck & Lowbed Trailer Pipe Trailers Truck-Service – 2 Ton Generators & Light Fuel Wagons Closed Mix SystemSiphon Tubes Implement Carrier Equipment TOTAL NON-CASH OVERHEAD COSTS/ACRE TOTAL COSTS/ACRE NET RETURNS ABOVE TOTAL COSTS/ACRE 1 17 0 25 70 294 6 4 6 423 2,440 2 1 1 0 2 6 3 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 94 116 2,555 -105 2008 Transplanted Processing Tomato Cost and Returns Study Sacramento Valley UC Cooperative Extension 13 Table 3. UC COOPERATIVE EXTENSION MONTHLY CASH COST PER ACRE TO PRODUCE TOMATOES SACRAMENTO VALLEY – 2008 TRANSPLANTED SEP 07 7 20 61 13 29 81 8 59 16 17 28 62 46 3 3 519 19 51 14 20 17 6 2 54 2 54 3 21 24 50 27 7 4 33 2 2 0 42 2 12 6 21 14 14 11 87 OCT 07 NOV 07 DEC 07 JAN 08 FEB MAR 08 08 APR MAY 08 08 JUN 08 JUL AUG 08 08 SEP 08 TOTALBeginning SEP 07 Ending SEP 08 Preplant: Laser Level – 4% of Acreage Land Prep – Stubble Disc & Roll Land Prep – Subsoil & Roll 2X Land Prep – Disc & Roll Land Prep – Triplane 2X Land Prep – Apply Gypsum on 20% of Acreage Land Prep – List Beds Land Prep – Shape Beds & Fertilize Weed Control – Roundup & Goal Weed Control – Roundup Weed Control – Cultivate 2X TOTAL PREPLANT COSTS Cultural: Condition Bed & Starter Fertilizer Mulch Beds & Apply Herbicide Transplant Tomatoes Weed Control – Apply Matrix on 80% of Acreage Irrigate – Sprinklers 1X Weed Control – Cultivate 2X Fertilize – 150 Lbs N – Sidedress Chisel Furrows Mulch Beds Disease Control – Bacterial Speck – 30% of Acreage Open Ditches Irrigate – Furrow 8X Disease Control – Late Blight 5% of Acreage Close Ditches Mite Control – Sulfur 70% of Acreage Fertilize – 20 Lb N 20% of Acreage Weed Control – Hand Hoe Train Vines Insect Control – Aphids 40% of Acreage Disease Control – Fruit Rot 15% of Acreage Insect Control – Worms – Confirm Fruit Ripener – Ethrel 5% of Acreage Pickup Truck Use (2 pickups) ATV Use TOTAL CULTURAL COSTS Harvest: Open Harvest Lane 8% of Acreage Harvest In Field Hauling TOTAL HARVEST COSTS Assessment: Assessments/Fees TOTAL ASSESSMENT COSTS Interest on Operating Capital @ 6. 5% TOTAL OPERATING COSTS/ACRE OVERHEAD: Liability Insurance Office Expense Field Sanitation Crop Insurance Field Supervisors' Salary (2) Land Rent @ 12% of Gross Returns Property Taxes Property Insurance Investment Repairs TOTAL CASH OVERHEAD COSTS TOTAL CASH COSTS/ACRE 210 67 7 20 61 13 29 81 8 59 16 17 28 338 46 33 519 19 51 32 131 20 17 6 3 216 1 3 21 24 50 27 7 4 33 2 20 6 1,292 6 235 66 308 14 14 66 2,017 1 17 0 25 70 294 6 4 6 423 2,440 7 131 10 54 54 1 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 48 2 0 2 2 0 35 2 0 686 2 0 211 2 0 57 2 0 200 2 111 31 144 2 0 2 2 111 29 143 1 213 2 70 2 4 2 4 2 112 1 1 0 25 5 2 4 2 37 6 693 7 219 8 65 10 354 11 155 1 0 5 1 0 5 1 0 5 1 0 5 1 0 5 3 2 0 12 16 1 0 5 1 0 5 1 0 5 1 0 5 1 0 5 3 2 0 12 367 1 0 5 1 0 5 294 0 7 220 0 7 78 0 7 11 0 7 11 0 33 145 0 7 44 0 7 700 0 7 226 0 7 72 0 7 162 301 388 2008 Transplanted Processing Tomato Cost and Returns Study Sacramento ValleyUC Cooperative Extension 14 Table 4. UC COOPERATIVE EXTENSION WHOLE FARM ANNUAL EQUIPMENT, INVESTMENT, AND BUSINESS OVERHEAD COSTS SACRAMENTO VALLEY – 2008 TRANSPLANTED ANNUAL EQUIPMENT COSTS – Cash Overhead Insurance Taxes 318 430 331 448 477 645 828 1,118 1,060 1,433 211 285 17 24 58 78 45 60 22 30 132 178 58 79 22 29 245 330 195 263 36 49 209 283 1,265 1,710 99 134 91 123 72 97 72 97 9 12 62 83 62 83 35 47 10 14 10 14 10 14 10 14 9 12 175 236 6 8 6 8 6 8 6 8 97 131 70 94 20 26 6,465 8,737 3,879 5,242 Description 110 HP 2WD Tractor 130 HP 2WD Tractor 155 HP 2WD Tractor 200 HP Crawler 425 HP Crawler 92 HP 2WD Tractor ATV Bed Shaper – 3 Row Cultivator –Alloway 3 Row Cultivator – Perfecta 3 Row Cultivator – Performer 3 Row Cultivator – 3 Row Cultivator – Sled 3 Row Disc – Stubble 18†² Disc – Finish 25†² Ditcher – V Harvester Tomato – Used Harvester -Tomato Lister – 3 Row Mulcher – 15†² Pickup Truck – 1/2 Ton Pickup Truck – 3/4 Ton Rear Blade – 8†² Rice Roller – 18†² Flat Roller – 18†² Ringroller – 30†² Saddle Tank – 300 Gallon Saddle Tank – 300 Gallon Saddle Tank – 300 Gallon Saddle Tank – 300 Gallon Spray Boom – 25†² Subsoiler – 16†² – 9 Shank Trailer Dolly Trailer Dolly Trailer Dolly Trai ler Dolly Triplane – 16†² Vine Diverter Vine Trainer TOTAL 60% of New Cost * * Used to reflect a mix of new and used equipment. Yr 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 Price 66,445 69,163 99,594 172,650 221,197 44,015 4,017 13,292 10,236 5,100 30,281 11,868 4,980 49,847 44,743 8,631 46,108 331,980 20,176 20,507 17,655 17,655 2,269 14,139 14,139 7,952 2,374 2,374 2,374 2,374 1,781 35,605 1,451 1,451 1,451 1,451 22,253 16,046 4,800 1,444,424 866,654 Yrs Life 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 10 5 10 12 8 8 5 9 7 7 15 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 5 15 15 15 15 10 10 10Salvage Value 19,627 20,430 29,418 50,998 65,338 13,001 710 2,351 1,810 902 5,355 3,866 881 16,237 7,912 1,195 10,411 10,000 6,572 4,098 1,766 1,766 218 2,500 2,500 1,406 420 420 420 420 580 11,598 139 139 139 139 3,935 2,838 480 302,935 181,761 Capital Recovery 6,678 6,952 10,010 17,353 22,233 4,424 443 1,466 1,129 562 3,339 1,974 549 8,293 4,934 855 5,799 48,743 3,357 2,406 2,747 2,747 197 1,559 1,559 877 262 262 262 262 296 5,923 126 126 126 126 2,454 1,769 560 173,739 104,243 Total 7,427 7,731 11,133 19,299 24,726 4,920 484 1,602 1,234 615 3,649 2,111 600 8,868 5,392 940 6,291 51,718 3,589 2,620 2,916 2,916 219 1,704 1,704 958 286 286 286 286 317 6,334 140 140 140 140 2,682 1,934 606 188,941 113,364 2008 Transplanted Processing Tomato Cost and Returns Study Sacramento Valley UC Cooperative Extension 15UC COOPERATIVE EXTENSION Table 4 continued ANNUAL INVESTMENT COSTS —— Cash Overhead —–Insurance Taxes Repairs 243 18 89 9 31 40 328 132 147 294 59 45 614 118 157 2,325 329 24 121 12 42 54 444 178 199 397 80 61 830 160 212 3,142 1,643 221 439 44 210 487 2,219 700 531 722 145 313 4,152 586 3,860 16,272 Description INVESTMENT Booster Pumps Closed Mix System Fuel Tanks & Pumps Fuel Wagons Generators & Light Implement Carrier Main Line Pipe – 10†³ Pipe Trailers Semi Truck & Lowb ed Trailer Shop Building Shop Tools Siphon Tubes Sprinkler Pipe Storage Building Truck-Service – 2 Ton TOTAL INVESTMENT Price 59,757 4,412 21,949 2,186 7,620 9,742 80,676 35,000 36,170 72,168 14,465 11,066 150,980 29,112 38,600 573,903Yrs Life 10 10 20 10 5 15 10 10 15 25 20 15 10 20 5 Salvage Value 5,976 441 2,195 219 762 974 8,068 700 3,617 7,217 1,447 1,107 15,098 2,911 3,860 54,592 Capital Recovery 6,967 514 1,579 255 1,584 844 9,407 4,311 3,133 4,575 1,041 958 17,604 2,095 8,022 62,889 Total 9,182 778 2,228 320 1,867 1,424 12,398 5,322 4,010 5,988 1,324 1,377 23,201 2,959 12,252 84,629 ANNUAL BUSINESS OVERHEAD Units/ Farm 900 2,900 900 900 2,900 2,900 Price/ Unit 25. 00 0. 48 70. 00 294. 00 0. 50 17. 41 Total Cost 22,500 1,392 63,000 264,600 1,450 50,489 Description Crop Insurance Field Sanitation Field Supervisors' Salary (2) Land Rent @ 12% of Gross Returns Liability Insurance Office ExpenseUnit Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre 2008 Transplanted Processing Tomato Cost and Returns Study Sacramento Valley UC Cooperative Extension 16 Table 5. UC COOPERATIVE EXTENSION HOURLY EQUIPMENT COSTS SACRAMENTO VALLEY – 2008 TRANSPLANTED ——————- COSTS PER HOUR —————————- Cash Overhead ——– Operating ——-InsurFuel & Total Total ance Taxes Repairs Lube Oper. Costs/Hr. 0. 13 0. 18 3. 12 25. 99 29. 11 32. 20 0. 17 0. 22 3. 25 30. 71 33. 96 37. 82 0. 24 0. 32 4. 67 36. 62 41. 29 46. 86 0. 31 0. 42 4. 63 47. 25 51. 88 59. 12 0. 40 0. 54 5. 93 100. 40 106. 33 115. 61 0. 11 0. 14 2. 06 30. 71 32. 77 35. 24 0. 05 0. 07 1. 09 0. 0 1. 09 2. 54 0. 17 0. 24 2. 87 0. 00 2. 87 7. 69 0. 13 0. 18 2. 21 0. 00 2. 21 5. 92 0. 07 0. 09 1. 05 0. 00 1. 05 2. 90 0. 35 0. 47 6. 25 0. 00 6. 25 15. 98 0. 07 0. 09 2. 68 0. 00 2. 68 5. 05 0. 03 0. 05 1. 08 0. 00 1. 08 2. 03 0. 37 0. 50 8. 52 0. 00 8. 52 21. 85 0. 59 0. 79 7. 43 0. 00 7. 43 23. 64 0. 13 0. 18 2. 42 0. 00 2. 42 5. 84 0. 63 0. 85 2. 08 61. 07 63. 15 82. 07 1. 09 1. 47 124. 44 61. 07 185. 51 229. 90 0. 15 0. 21 4. 24 0. 00 4. 24 9. 76 0. 15 0. 20 2. 36 0. 00 2. 36 6. 67 0. 16 0. 22 1. 27 11. 97 13. 24 19. 81 0. 16 0. 22 1. 27 11. 97 13. 24 19. 81 0. 04 0. 06 0. 31 0. 00 0. 31 1. 30 0. 19 0. 25 1. 63 0. 00 1. 63 6. 76 0. 14 0. 9 1. 63 0. 00 1. 63 5. 52 0. 10 0. 14 0. 91 0. 00 0. 91 3. 79 0. 03 0. 04 0. 64 0. 00 0. 64 1. 47 0. 13 0. 17 0. 64 0. 00 0. 64 4. 14 0. 05 0. 07 0. 64 0. 00 0. 64 2. 00 0. 02 0. 02 0. 64 0. 00 0. 64 1. 07 0. 02 0. 02 0. 49 0. 00 0. 49 1. 12 0. 26 0. 35 8. 32 0. 00 8. 32 17. 83 0. 01 0. 01 0. 11 0. 00 0. 11 0. 28 0. 01 0. 01 0. 11 0. 00 0. 11 0. 28 0. 01 0. 01 0. 11 0. 00 0. 11 0. 28 0. 01 0. 01 0. 11 0. 00 0. 11 0. 28 0. 16 0. 21 3. 43 0. 00 3. 43 7. 74 0. 17 0. 23 2. 78 0. 00 2. 78 7. 57 0. 04 0. 05 2. 88 0. 00 2. 88 4. 03 Yr 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 Description 110 HP 2WD Tractor 130 HP 2WD Tractor 155 HP 2WD Tractor 200 HP Crawler 425 HP Crawler 92 HP 2WD Tractor ATV Bed Shaper – 3 Row Cultivator – Alloway 3 Row Cultivator – Perfecta 3 Row Cultivator – Performer 3 Row Cultivator – 3 Row Cultivator – Sled 3 Row Disc – Stubble 18†² Disc – Finish 25†² Ditcher – V Harvester Tomato – Used Harvester -Tomato Lister – 9 Row Mulcher – 15†² Pickup Truck – 1/2 Ton Pickup Truck – 3/4 Ton Rear Blade – 8†² Rice Roller – 18†² Flat Roller – 18†² Ringroller – 30†² Saddle Tank – 300 Gallon Saddle Tank – 300 Gallon Saddle Tank – 300 Gallon Saddle Tank – 300 Gallon Spray Boom – 25†² Subsoiler – 16†² – 9 Shank Trailer Dolly Trailer Dolly Trailer Dolly Trailer Dolly Triplane – 16†² Vine Diverter Vine Trainer Actual Hours Capital Used Recovery 1,443. 2 2. 78 1,200. 0 3. 48 1,199. 3 5. 01 1,599. 4 6. 51 1,599. 8 8. 34 1,199. 2 2. 21 199. 5 1. 33 199. 5 4. 41 199. 8 3. 39 199. 8 1. 69 225. 1 8. 90 533. 0 2. 22 380. 0. 87 399. 2 12. 46 199. 5 14. 84 165. 2 3. 10 199. 4 17. 45 699. 0 41. 84 390. 0 5. 16 365. 4 3. 95 266. 5 6. 18 266. 5 6. 18 132. 2 0. 89 199. 2 4. 70 262. 5 3. 56 199. 5 2. 64 206. 6 0. 76 49. 1 3. 20 126. 0 1. 25 401. 9 0. 39 299. 4 0. 59 399. 5 8. 90 499. 6 0. 15 499. 7 0. 15 499. 3 0. 15 499. 7 0. 15 373. 8 3. 94 241. 9 4. 39 315. 0 1. 07 2008 Transplanted Processing Tomato Cost and Returns Study Sacramento Valley UC Cooperative Extension 17 Table 6. UC COOPERATIVE EXTENSION RANGING ANALYSIS SACRAMENTO VALLEY – 2008 TRANSPLANTED COSTS PER ACRE AT VARYING YIELDS FOR PROCESSING TOMATOES YIELD (TONS/ACRE) 26. 0 29. 0 32. 0 35. 0 38. 0 41. OPERATING COSTS/ACRE: Preplant Cost 338 338 338 338 338 338 Cultural Cost 1292 1,292 1,292 1,292 1,292 1,292 Harvest Cost 228 255 281 308 334 36 0 Assessment Cost 14 14 14 14 14 14 Interest on Operating Capital TOTAL OPERATING COSTS/ACRE TOTAL OPERATING COSTS/TON CASH OVERHEAD COSTS/ACRE TOTAL CASH COSTS/ACRE TOTAL CASH COSTS/TON NON-CASH OVERHEAD COSTS/ACRE TOTAL COSTS/ACRE TOTAL COSTS/TON 65 1937 74 422 2359 91 113 2472 95 65 1,964 68 422 2,386 82 114 2,500 86 65 1,990 62 423 2,413 75 115 2,528 79 66 2,017 58 423 2,440 70 116 2,555 73 66 2,044 54 423 2,466 65 117 2,583 68 66 2,071 51 423 2,493 61 117 2,611 64 44. 0 338 1,292 387 14 67 2,097 48 423 2,520 57 118 2,638 60NET RETURNS PER ACRE ABOVE OPERATING COSTS FOR PROCESSING TOMATOES PRICE YIELD (DOLLARS/TON) (TONS/ACRE) Processing Tomatoes 26. 0 29. 0 32. 0 35. 0 38. 0 41. 0 44. 0 55. 00 -507 -369 -230 -92 46 184 323 60. 00 -377 -224 -70 83 236 389 543 65. 00 -247 -79 90 258 426 594 763 70. 00 -117 66 250 433 616 799 983 75. 00 13 211 410 608 806 1,004 1,203 80. 00 143 356 570 783 996 1,209 1,423 85. 00 273 501 730 958 1,186 1,414 1,643 NET RETURNS PER ACRE ABOVE CASH COS TS FOR PROCESSING TOMATOES PRICE YIELD (DOLLARS/TON) (TONS/ACRE) Processing Tomatoes 26. 0 29. 0 32. 0 35. 0 38. 0 41. 0 44. 0 55. 00 -929 -791 -653 -515 -376 -238 -100 60. 00 -799 -646 -493 -340 -186 -33 120 65. 0 -669 -501 -333 -165 4 172 340 70. 00 -539 -356 -173 10 194 377 560 75. 00 -409 -211 -13 185 384 582 780 80. 00 -279 -66 147 360 574 787 1,000 85. 00 -149 79 307 535 764 992 1,220 NET RETURNS PER ACRE ABOVE TOTAL COSTS FOR PROCESSING TOMATOES PRICE YIELD (DOLLARS/TON) (TONS/ACRE) Processing Tomatoes 26. 0 29. 0 32. 0 35. 0 38. 0 41. 0 44. 0 55. 00 -1,042 -905 -768 -630 -493 -356 -218 60. 00 -912 -760 -608 -455 -303 -151 2 65. 00 -782 -615 -448 -280 -113 54 222 70. 00 -652 -470 -288 -105 77 259 442 75. 00 -522 -325 -128 70 267 464 662 80. 00 -392 -180 32 245 457 669 882 85. 00 -262 -35 192 420 647 874 1,102 2008 Transplanted Processing Tomato Cost and Returns StudySacramento Valley UC Cooperative Extension 18 Table 7. UC COOPERATIVE EXTENSION COSTS AND RETURNS/ BREAKEVEN AN ALYSIS SACRAMENTO VALLEY – 2008 TRANSPLANTED COSTS AND RETURNS – PER ACRE BASIS 1. Gross Returns Crop Processing Tomatoes 2,450 2,017 2. Operating Costs 3. Net Returns Above Oper. Costs (1-2) 433 4. Cash Costs 2,440 5. Net Returns Above Cash Costs (1-4) 10 6. Total Costs 2,555 7. Net Returns Above Total Costs (1-6) -105 COSTS AND RETURNS – TOTAL ACREAGE 1. Gross Returns Crop Processing Tomatoes 1,543,500 2. Operating Costs 1,270,748 3. Net Returns Above Oper. Costs (1-2) 272,752 4. Cash Costs 1,536,994 5. Net Returns Above Cash Costs (1-4) 6,506 6.Total Costs 1,609,965 7. Net Returns Above Total Costs (1-6) -66,465 BREAKEVEN PRICES PER YIELD UNIT Base Yield (Units/Acre) 35. 0 Yield Units Ton ——– Breakeven Price To Cover ——-Operating Cash Total Costs Costs Costs ———— $ per Yield Unit ———–57. 63 69. 70 73. 01 CROP Processing Tomatoes BREAKEVEN YIELDS PER ACRE Yield Units Ton Base Price ($/Unit) 70. 00 ——– Breakeven Yield To Cover ——-Operating Cash Total Costs Costs Costs ———– Yield Units / Acre ———-28. 8 34. 9 36. 5 CROP Processing Tomatoes 2008 Transplanted Processing Tomato Cost and Returns Study Sacramento Valley UC Cooperative Extension 19 Table 8.UC COOPERATIVE EXTENSION DETAILS OF OPERATIONS SACRAMENTO VALLEY – 2008 TRANSPLANTED Operation Laser Level – 4% Of Acreage Land Prep – Stubble Disc & Roll Land Prep – Subsoil & Roll 2X Land Prep – Disc & Roll Land Prep – Triplane 2X Land Prep – Apply Gypsum on 20% of Acreage Land Prep – List Beds Land Prep – Shape Beds & Fertilize Weed Control – Roundup & Goal Weed Control – Roundup Weed Control – Cultivate 2X Condition Beds & Apply Starter Fertilizer Power Mulch & Apply Herbicides – Treflan (& Dual on 30% of Acreage) Transplant Toma toes Operation Month September September Tractor/ Power Unit Custom 425 HP Crawler Implement Laser Level Disc – Stubble 18†² Rice Roller – 18†² Subsoiler – 16†² – 9 Shank Disc – Finish 25†² Ringroller – 30†² Triplane – 16†² Broadcast Material Material Rate/Acre Unit 0. 04 Acre September 425 HP Crawler 200 HP Crawler September 200 HP Crawler September Gypsum Application October October January January January 200 HP Crawler 155 HP 2WD Tractor 130 HP 2WD Tractor 130 HP 2WD Tractor 110 HP 2WD Tractor 92 HP 2WD Tractor 110 HP 2WD Tractor 130 HP 2WD Tractor CustomGypsum Lister – 9 Row Bed Shaper – 3 Row Saddle Tank – 300 Gallon Saddle Tank – 300 Gallon Spray Boom – 25†² Saddle Tank – 300 Gallon Spray Boom – 25†² Cultivator – Alloway 3 Row Cultivator – Perfecta 3 Row Cultivator – Performer 3 Row Mulcher – 15†² Saddle Tan k – 300 Gallon 0. 20 Ton 11-52-0 Zinc Chelate Roundup Ultra Goal 2 XL Roundup Ultra 100. 00 2. 00 1. 00 3. 00 1. 50 Lb Pint Pint FlOz Pint January March April Weed Control – Apply Matrix on 80% of Acreage Irrigate – Sprinklers 1X Weed Control – Cultivate 3X April April April April May May April May April April July April May June July June 130 HP 2WD Tractor Fertilize – 150 Lbs N Sidedress Chisel Furrows Mulch Beds Disease Control – Bacterial Speck – on 30% of Acreage Open Ditches Irrigate – Furrow 8X 10 HP 2WD Tractor 110 HP 2WD Tractor 110 HP 2WD Tractor 130 HP 2WD Tractor 200 HP Crawler 155 HP 2WD Tractor 130 HP 2WD Tractor 200 HP Crawler 200 HP Crawler Saddle Tank – 300 Gallon Cultivator – Sled 3 Row Labor Cultivator – Sled 3 Row Cultivator – Sled 3 Row Cultivator – 3 Row Cultivator – Sled 3 Row Saddle Tank – 300 Gallon Cultivator – 3 Row Cultivator – Sled 3 Row Saddle Tank – 300 Gallon Ditcher – V Ditcher – V Labor Labor Labor Labor 8-24-6 Treflan HFP Dual Magnum Tomato Seed Transplants – Growing Transplanting Matrix DF Water 15. 00 1. 00 0. 45 10. 44 8. 70 8. 70 0. 48 2. 00 Lb Pint Pint Thou Thou Thou Oz AcIn UN-32 150. 00 Lbs N Kocide 101 Dithane DF 0. 60 0. 60 Lb Lb Disease Control – Late Blight on 5% of Acreage Close DitchesAir Application Spray 200 HP Crawler 200 HP Crawler Air Application Dust 130 HP 2WD Tractor Contract Labor 110 HP 2WD Tractor Air Application Spray Rear Blade – 8†² Rear Blade – 8†² Cultivator – Sled 3 Row Saddle Tank – 300 Gallon Vine Trainer Water Water Water Water Bravo Weatherstik 10. 00 10. 00 10. 00 10. 00 0. 15 AcIn AcIn AcIn AcIn Pint July July Mite Control – Sulfur on 70% of Acreage July Fertilize – 20 Lbs N on 20% of Acreage July Weed Control – Hand Hoe Train Vines Insect Control – Aphids on 40% of Acreage Disease Control – Fruit Rot on 15% of Acreage Insect Control – Worms Fruit Ripener – Ethrel on 5% of Acreage Open Harvest Lane on 8% of Acreage July July July Sulfur, Dust 98% CAN 17 Labor Warrior T Bravo Weatherstik Confirm 28. 00 118. 00 5. 00 1. 54 0. 45 12. 00 0. 03