fin Tu Nu C: 11% a . ___::_j , .,E_:__:__ ,, : 8 'T‘:’ l \|:‘ “'1 US; ; :‘J Em ”at“ h- l- 1.1 357 ! HZGAN ST F\ M:- U 3 1293 10199 38 “ 1 11 m 1 1 111 1 1 11111118111 71:1] 133 \ i1? H. 1 - ABSTRACT AN ECONOMIC.ANAIXSIS OF CHRISTMAS TREE FERTILIZATION by David N. Larsen This report was undertaken to determine the economic returns to fertilization of Christmas trees. The economic model used for the analysis is based on a survey of growers and secondary information sources. The questionnaire, sent to growers who had used fertilizers, was used to gather information about species most commonly fertilized, situations where fertilization is needed, fertilizer application pro- cedures, fertilizers used, and situations where fertilizing has been successful. On the basis of this background information, financial returns to fertilization of white spruce, balsam fir, Douglas fir and eastern white pine were determined. The species most likely to benefit from fertilization are Doug- las fir, the spruces, the true firs and eastern white pine. The most marked improvement in trees should result on coarse textured soils. The successful use of fertilizers depends on a combination of factors: the species planted; soil fertility and the use of cultural practices, such as, weed control in conjunction with fertilizer ap- plications. When the nutrients required are not known, a complete fertilizer (RqP-K) is recommended. Nitrogen is the next most impor- David N. Larsen tant fertilizer. Christmas tree plantations which are intensively managed to produce quality trees will earn the best return on fertilizer in- puts when nutrient deficiencies exist. Fertilizing may increase the quality of Christmas trees produced'by improving color, increasing needle retention, helping to provide for stronger branches and stimp ulating growth. Fertilization may also allow growers to shorten rotations. The analysis shows that an increase in tree quality'brought about'by fertilization that results in an increase in market price of 25 cents per tree will increase returns to investment by 2-h per- cent. Returns may be increased 10 percent or more if the rotations are shortened one or more years as a result of fertilization. AN ECONOMIC ANALXSIS OF CHRISTMAS TREE FERTILIZATION BY David N. Larsen A THESIS submitted to {Michigan State university in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Forestry 1967 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My sincere gratitude is given to Dr. Lee M; James and.Dr. Donald P. White, Department of Forestry, Michigan State university, who were instrumental in making this study possible. Financial assistance from.Allied Chemical Corporation is acknowledged with humblest appre- ciation. Thanks are also extended to the many Christmas tree growers throughout the nation and Canada who gave of their time to reply to the questionnaires. Their information was most valuable in gaining an understanding of current fertilizer practices in the Christmas tree industry. This writer is particularly indebted to Dr. Rdbert S. Manthy for the encouragement, advice and guidance given during the prepar- ation of this manuscript. The writer also wishes to thank his wife, Leilani, for her help in the preparation of this report and for her seemingly endless patience. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . Procedure . . . . . . . . . . Production and Consumption of Christmas Trees. . . . . . The Role of Plantations . . . The Marketing Trend . . . . . II FACTORS CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING RETURNS TO FERTILIZER INPUTS. Reasons for USing Fertilizers Fertilizers and Related Costs Plantation Specifications . . Marketing Assumptions . . . . The Economic Model. . . . . . III {ANALESIS OF RETURNS TO FERTILIZER APPLICATIONS. . . . . . . . . IV SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . REFERENCES CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX A: PRELIMINARY CHRISTMAS TREE FERTILIZATION QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX B: CHRISTMAS TREE FERTILIZATION SURVEY APPENDIX C: SOIL EXPECTATION VALUES FOR ALL ALTER- NATIVES USING 10 PERCENT COMPOUND INTEREST AND A PERPETUAL SERIES OF ROTATIONS . . . . iii Page ll 16 21 23 36 1+0 112 M1 I+5 l+9 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Origin of growers surveyed with the comprehen- sive questionnaire, the methods used and the number of questionnaires used to compile the results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2. Desirable characteristics of Christmas trees and those characteristics which fertilization may improve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. The ten most important Christmas tree species produced in the United States, 19611 . . . . . . . 12 h. Ounces of fertilizer needed to Obtain alterna- tive rates of nitrogen application per tree . . . 1h 5. Approximate cost of fertilizer materials at various rates of nitrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . 1h 6. Fertilizer prices in Michigan, Spring, 1967 . . . . 15 7. Christmas tree plantation establishment costs per acre. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8. Species recommended for plantation grown, cultured trees, in the regions designated . . . . l9 9. Species specifications for the fertilizer analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 10. Fertilizer applications used for the four species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 iv Table 11. 12. 13. 1h. 15. Page Total cost per acre per year for white spruce fertilizer alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Total cost per acre per year for Douglas fir fertilizer alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Total cost per acre per year for balsam.fir fertilizer alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Total cost per acre per year for eastern white pine fertilizer alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . 35 Rates of return to investments using compound interest and a perpetual series of rotations. . . 37 Figure LIST OF FIGURES Page Flow chart of alternative fertilized rotations of white spruce Christmas trees. . . . 28 Flow chart of alternative fertilized rotations of Douglas fir Christmas trees . . . . 30 Flow chart of alternative fertilized rotations of balsam.fir Christmas trees. . . . . 32 Flow chart of alternative fertilized rotations of eastern white pine Christmas trees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3h vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The trend in the Christmas tree business is toward the produc- tion of high quality trees. Production of quality trees often calls for intensive management. The use of fertilizers can often contri- bute to improved quality in Christmas trees, and in many instances, may also shorten the time required to produce quality trees. How- ever, fertilizer use remains limited at present because many growers are uncertain about the effects and.profitability. Growers are un- sure about which Species may need to be fertilized, which textured soils are most likely to be nutrient deficient, which fertilizers should be used, when the fertilizers should.be applied and what quan- tity of fertilizer is needed. This economic analysis of Christmas tree fertilization was un- dertaken to indicate the probable economic consequences of fertili- zation. The specific objectives of this study are twofold: (1) to determine the extent and nature of the use of fertilizers in Christ- mas tree production; and (2) to determine the economics of fertilizer use in the Christmas tree industry. PROCEDURE Data on the use of fertilizers for Christmas tree production was obtained from.a questionnaire survey of progressive Christmas tree growers and from secondary sources of information. .A prelim- l 2 inary survey of 105 Christmas tree growers throughout the United States and Canada was made in July, 1966 (Appendix A). In August, a more extensive questionnaire (Appendix B) was submitted to growers who had used fertilizers. The data from this second questionnaire was used to identify the extent of usage of fertilizers, the types of fertilizers applied, the species fertilized, and the timing of fertilization. Data Obtained from the sample of growers was used in conjunction with secondary data sources to develop a theoretical.model to analyze the economics of fertilization. This model assumes that growers are progressive, use intensive management and have sizeable plantation operations. PRODUCTION.AND CONSUMPTION OF CHRISTMAS TREES All 50 states presently produce some Christmas trees, with the major production in the Lake States region and the Pacific Coast and Nerthwest region. In 196h the Lake States of Michigan, Visconsin and.Minnesota had 32 percent of the production. The second most imp portant region, the Pacific Coast and.Dorthwest--which is comprised of Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon and California--had 26 percent of the production. The ten.most important species produced for the year 196A were the following: Scotch pine (22222.8y1vestris), 27 percent; Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii),22 percent; balsam.fir (A2132 balsamea), 12 percent; black spruce (£2232 mariana), 7 percent; Eastern redcedar (Junipgrus Virginians , 7 percent; red pine (Pigg§_resinosa), 6 per- cent; white spruce (Picea glauca , 3 percent; white fir (Abies 3 concolor), 2 percent; white pine (£2225 monticola and P, strdbus), 2 percent; and Norway spruce (Piggg_abig§), 2 percent (Sowder, 1966). The first five species accounted for 75 percent of the market in 196h; the top ten for 90 percent of the market. In all there were at least 32 different Species included in the national figures for 196h. Consumption of natural Christmas trees has shown some fluctua- tion due to natural and economic changes. Consumption rose from 38 million trees in 1955 to hh million trees in 1962. There was a decline to #1 million trees in l96h which reflected some inroads'by artificial Christmas trees. However, domestic production for the years 1962-6h remained fairly stable at about 33 million trees, while the decline was mainly in trees imported from Canada. THE ROLE OF PLANTATIONS The earliest known Christmas tree plantation in the United States was begun in the year 1901. Since then, especially since the later years of the 1950's, the use of plantations for growing Christmas trees has expanded rapidly. .As late as 1955, 87 percent of the nation's Christmas trees came from unmanaged natural stands (Sowder, 1957). In 1961+, wild trees had 56 percent of the market (Sowder, 1966). By 1980 the number of plantation grown trees is ex- pected to double and the demand for Christmas trees will be met pri- marily with cultured trees. These cultured trees will be grown in managed plantations or in managed natural stands. Michigan provides an excellent example of the development of Christmas tree plantations. In 1952 production was about l.million 11 trees, but only 120,000 were plantation grown. In 1962 production was 3.2 million trees with 3.1 million trees from plantations (James, 1966). Suitable wild trees are becoming scarce and the management of Christmas tree lands is becoming increasingly important. In 196A, 6 percent of the natural stands received management, 70 percent of the farm plantations received.management and 8h percent of the non- farm plantations were managed (Sowder, 1965). These figures indicate the increasing importance of managed plantations and.managed natural stands where cultural practices are used to produce high quality trees. The cultural.practices which.may be used in producing quality trees include weed control, insect and disease control, pruning and shearing, and fertilizing. Improvements in harvesting and.marketing techniques can also contribute to the quality trend. THE MARKETING TREND Quality of trees is one of the key factors in successful compe- tition by producers. Characteristics such as needle retention, color, fragrance, shape, appearance and the ability of the limbs to support decorations all contribute to the quality of the trees. It is also desirable for the trees to have springy branches which will allow placing them in small diameter packages for shipment. Yet, the trees should return to their natural shape when used by consumers. The marketing phase of the Christmas tree industry reflects the importance of high quality trees. Federal grading was initiated in 1958 to help standardize grade Specifications. As more nation-wide 5 marketing agreements are made, uniform quality standards should'be- come more prevalent. Marketing areas are undergoing changes as a result of recent innovations in the packaging and transportation of trees. It is now feasible to ship trees from the major production areas to any of the #8 contiguous states for a reasonable freight cost. Thus industrial- ized areas in such states as Texas and California can now attract high quality trees from distant production areas. CHAPTER II FACTORS CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING RETURNS TO FERTILIZER INPUTS The harvest of any crop removes some of the available soil nu- trients and may limit those available for following crOps. For Christmas trees the nutrient drain can‘be substantial. The purpose of this study is to analyze possible returns which a grower may receive if he uses fertilizers in growing Christmas trees. The procedure will be to develop a model and to analyze vari- ous fertilizer timings and variations to estimate the returns which may be received. In order to keep the alternatives on a comparable basis they are analyzed using a perpetual_series of rotations to de- termdne the rates of return earned on invested funds. By this method the alternatives which give growers the best long run return on their investment can be determined. The information available on the use of fertilizers by Christ- mas tree growers is very limited. In a survey of Michigan Christmas tree growers (James, 1959), it was found that only 2.11 percent of the growers of Spruce and 1-2 percent of the growers of all other species had used fertilizers in their plantations. USually only a single application was made on a portion of the plantation. Current information on the use of fertilizers was obtained from two questionnaires distributed during the summer of 1966. The pre- liminary questionnaire (Appendix.A) was sent to 105 growers through- out the Uhited States and Canada. These growers were selected be- 6 7 cause they were believed to have progressive Christmas tree Opera- tions. Over 75 percent of the questionnaires were returned and over 60 percent of the respondents indicated they had used fertilizers in their plantations. Eighty percent of those who used fertilizers re- ported they had harvested fertilized trees; nearly three-fourths who used fertilizers reported they had Observed positive effects from fertilizing. A second, more comprehensive questionnaire (Appendix B), was submitted to 56 growers who had used fertilizers. 'A total of 39 valid questionnaires were returned (Table l). Eighty percent report- ed that the use of fertilizers was economic, but usually only under certain conditions. will'be cited extensively in the discussion that follows. Additional data gathered from this questionnaire Table 1. Origin of growers surveyed with the comprehensive question- naire, the method used and the number of questionnaires used to compile the results Origin of Number of Methods used to survey growers Valid Growers Growers 'PérsonaII’ ’Questionnaires Question- Surveyed Surveyed Interviews Mailed naires Preliminary l/ Questionnaire 52 12 ho 35 Volunteered at the National Christmas Tree A h --- h Growers ' Con- vention Total 56 16 110 39 .1/ These growers reported using fertilizers in the preliminary questionnaire. REASONS FOR USING FERTILIZERS Objectives--Basically there are three reasons for using ferti- lizers: (1) getting the trees growing after they are planted (par- ticularly for Douglas fir, the spruces and true firs); (2) keeping the trees growing at the optimum rate during the rotation (as a rule of thumb, 12 inches per year); and (3) improving the quality of the trees. The first two essentially shorten the rotation, i.e., get the trees to the merchantable size in the shortest time possible, consistent with quality Objectives. Growers are primarily concerned with the third Objective-- improved quality. Quality characteristics which may be improved by fertilization are included in Table 2. The questionnaire indicated that a darker foliage (improved color) was the primary reason for fertilizing. Other important rea- sons were: to increase the rate of growth, improve needle retention, increase the number of buds and increase the size of the needles. Additional reasons included'better survival, increased vigor, great- er density, a better root system.and stimulation of cone production. Mbst of these reasons reflect an improvement in quality. Recognizing the need-AVisual.symptomS are normally used to de- termine fertilizer needs. Soil tests are not regarded as precise enough to determine tree nutrient needs, and foliar analysis is still regarded as a research tool. Fertilizer needs may be shown by the widespread presence of any of the following: poor foliage color dur- ing the growing season, needles shorter than are characteristic of the species, general chlorosis followed.by browning and finally dying Table 2. Desirable characteristics of Christmas trees and those characteristics which fertilization may improve Character- istics which fertilizers may improve Desirable characteristics for Christmas trees X Good needle retention indoors for several weeks X Dark green or blue-green color X Idmbs flexible enough.for packaging X Improved shipping quality X Whorls of limbs spaced lZ-lh inches X Luxuriant foliage X Dense foliage X Profuse budding so there are many lateral'branches Idmbs strong enough to support ornaments Trees symmetrical in shape Pleasant fragrance Straight stem No evidence of insect attack Good.branching angle Taper varying from.6O to 80 percent 10 of the needles, decrease in the number of years the needles persist, short terminal growth, sparse natural weed cover, presence of mosses and patches of bare soil. Species which may benefit--The species most likely to benefit from fertilization are eastern white pine, Douglas fir, the spruces and the true firs. These are the species and Species groups which research indicates will likely respond to fertilizer applications (Bell and White, 1966). Douglas fir, the spruces and true firs grow slowly during the 2 or 3 years following planting. White (1965) in- dicates that the three or four years of stagnation which the spruces may suffer is partially a combination of limited fertility and water availability, and weed competition. Growers reported that the species most commonly fertilized were Douglas fir, white Spruce, eastern white pine, Norway spruce, balsam fir and Scotch pine. Nearly all the growers of Douglas fir (911 per- cent) had used fertilizers. The percentages of growers who used fertilizers with the other major Species were: white spruce, 79 per- cent; eastern white pine, 69 percent; Norway spruce, 68 percent; balsam fir, 61 percent; and Scotch pine, 53 percent. The Species which will be used in this economic evaluation are eastern white pine, Douglas fir, white spruce and balsam fir. East- ern white pine and Douglas fir will be used in the context of appli- cation to those specific species. For white spruce and balsam fir the results should apply to other species of their respective genuS. White spruce and balsam fir were chosen to represent their respec- tive Species group because cost information is available for these species, both of which are in the list of the ten most important 11 Christmas tree species (Table 3). Soils most likely_to need fertilization--Coarse textured soils will generally benefit most from fertilization. White (1967) indi- cates that most of the Christmas tree plantations in the nation are located on medium to poor soils. These poorer soils are generally coarse textured. Growers most frequently listed sandy, loamy sand and clay loam soil textures. Seventy percent indicated they had some trees grow- ing on sandy or loamy sand soils. For this study the assumption is made that the coarse textured soils are being fertilized, although it is recognized that other soils may need to be fertilized, depending on local conditions. FERTILIZERS AND RELATED COSTS Fertilizer alternatives and costs--The fertilizers which are most likely to improve the growth of Christmas trees are either comp plete fertilizers or one of the three major nutrients. The use of complete fertilizers (N-P-K) is recommended'by Bell and White (1966) if information of a specific deficiency is lacking. In the Pacific Northwest, Turner and Buhaly (1966) have found that nitrogen ferti- lizers may be sufficient to improve quality and growth of Douglas fir Christmas trees. Fertilizers used by growers sampled range from.micro-nutrients to complete and organic fertilizers. Eighty-four different ferti- lizers were listed by the respondents. Over 90 percent listed at least one complete fertilizer (NeP-K). Only 5 percent of the growers said they had used slow release fertilizers. Natural organic matter 12 Table 3. The ten most important Christmas tree Species produced in the United States, l96h E7 Millions of trees Percent of total Species harvested production Scotch pine 9.0 27 Douglas fir 7.3 22 Balsam fir 9.1 12 Black Spruce 2.5 7 Eastern red cedar 2.3 7 Red pine 2.0 6 White Spruce .9 3 White fir .7 2 Eastern and western white pines .7 2 Norway Spruce .5 2 30.0 90 .1./ Includes natural and plantation grown trees. Source: Sowder, 1966 13 such as chicken manure was also used by only 5 percent. For this study two fertilizers are considered: one common ni- trogen source and one complete fertilizer. They are urea (h5-O-0) and 16-8-8. Two other common fertilizers are listed in Tables h, 5, and 6, but they are not analyzed because they are more expensive per unit of nutrient supplied than those chosen for analysis. Although slow release fertilizers may be of some value with the spruces and firs (Bell and White, 1966), they will not be included because of the limited cost information presently available. White (1965) does say that the metal ammonium phosphates cost 2. 5 to 3.5 cents per 2 ounce application. The soluble complete fertilizers in perforated plastic sacks are more expensive. Fertilizer prices will vary from area to area depending on the transportation cost and demand, For this analysis the prices used are those which were derived from.price quotations in Michigan (urea, 0.72 cents per ounce of nitrogen and 16-8-8, 1.65 cents per ounce of nitrogen). Table 5 and Table 6 Show the costs for various quantities of each fertilizer. Fertilizer application rates and costs--The time required to apply fertilizers will vary with the amount of fertilizer placed around a tree. Estimates range from 100 trees per hour to 360 trees per hour. For this study it is assumed that 150 trees may be fertilized per hour when less than 6.5 ounces of fertilizer is applied per tree, and that 100 trees may be fertilized per hour when 6.5 to 16 ounces are applied per tree. This time includes moving between trees. Us- ing a labor cost of $1.75 per hour the costs are 1.16 cents per tree 111 Table A. Ounces of fertilizer needed to Obtain alternative rates of nitrogen application per tree Fertilizer Ounces of nitrogen applied per tree materials used .5 1 1.5 2 3 h (Ounces of fertilizer per tree) 12-12-12 1.17 8.33 12.50 16.67 25.00 33.33 16-8-8 3.12 6.25 9.37 12.50 18.75 25.00 NHhNO3 (33% N) 1.52 3.03 h.55 6.06 9.09 12.12 urea (L53 n) 1.11 2.22 3.33 h.hh 6.67 8.89 Table 5. Approximate cost of fertilizer materials at various rates 1/ of nitrogen Fertilizer Ounces of nitrogen applied per tree materials used .5 1 1.5 2 3 h (Cents per tree) 12-12-12 1.07 2.13 3.20 h.27 6.h0 8.63 16-8-8 0.82 1.65 2.h7 3.29 1.91 6.59 NHhNO3 (33% u) 0.38 0.76 1.11 1.51 2.27 3.02 Urea (hst n) 0.36 0.72 1.08 1.h3 2.15 2.86 1/ Based on fertilizer prices as of January, 1967. See Table 6 for prices per ton. 15 y Table 6. Fertilizer prices in Michigan, Spring, 1967 Average Price per Fertilizer retail 2/ pound materials price/ton of nitrogen (Dollars) (Cents) 12-12-12 35 81.90 31.1.13 16 .8-8 811 . 90 26 . 311 111113103 (33% N) 79.82 12.09 Urea (115% 11) 102.96 11.1111 1/ Prices based on price quotations from two major fertilizer companies in.Michigan (includes h percent sales tax). 3/ Fertilizers in 80 or 100 pound bags. Each price based on a 1-ton purchase. 16 for the lower application rate and 1.75 cents per tree for the larger applications. The method of application is hand application around each tree. The quantities applied to individual trees will vary with their sizes and with respect to year of harvest. The application of these granular fertilizers will be assumed to be in.April or early May, as this is the Optimum.time to stimulate growth. In this analysis it will be assumed that when an application is made in the second or third year following planting it is 16-8-8 (0.5 ounce of nitrogen), in the fourth year, 16-8-8 (1.0 ounce of nitrogen), in the fifth year, 16-8-8 (1.5 ounces of nitrogen, and in the sixth year (balsam.fir and.Douglas fir only), 16-8-8 (1.5 ounces of nitrogen). A 2-ounce application of urea is assumed to be applied two growing seasons prior to harvest for each alternative fertilizer routine considered. Quantities and timing of fertilizer applications for the alternatives considered are shown diagrammatically in Figures l-h. Frequency of fertilizer applications--Christmas trees should on- 1y require a few applications of fertilizer during the rotation. With an application in the first couple of years, another one is prObably not necessary until a year prior to harvest. The assumed application schedules are shown in Figures l-h. PLANTATION SPECIFICATIONS Plantation establishment costS--The assumed costs for the estab- lishment of the plantations are Shown in Table 7. The costs for eastern white pine, white spruce, and Douglas fir were taken from Bell and White (1966). Balsam.fir establishment costs were based on 17 Table 7. Christmas tree plantation establishment costs per acre Machine plant- Species ing in herbicideé/ Total cost and treated rows using recom- spacing without furrows Remarks mended stock Eastern $38.ll-$57.36 Add $10 per acre $ 58.h6 white pinei/ - if 2-1 trans- Average $h8.h6 plants are used. 6 x 6 y White spruce $59.01-$106.70 Add $A0 per acre $116.37 . if 3-1 or 2-2 5 x 5 Average $76.37 transplants are used. y Douglas fir $65.97-$132.83 Add $17 per acre $110.hh - if 2-1 or 2-2 5 x 5 Average $93.hh transplants are used.- 2 Balsam fir $157.95 Price of 2-2 $157.95 transplants are 5 x 5 included in the planting price. 1/ Bell and White, 1966 2 Estimate based on the following costs: planting stock, $75/M; herbicide, $8.95/Acre; and cost of planting, $25/M. 2/ Includes cost of herbicide and application to 2-foot wide rows. l8 estimates by growers. Tree spacing in the plantations--The Spacing of the trees used are those recommended.by Bell and White (1966) and are included in Table 8. Eastern white pine spacing is 6 x 6. For white spruce, balsam.fir and.Douglas fir the spacing is 5 x 5. Six by six spacing gives 1210 trees per acre and 5 x 5 spacing gives 17h0 trees. Rotation lengths--The rotation lengths to be used in this eco- nomic analysis are taken from the following figures reported by Bell and White (1966): eastern white pine, 5-8 years; white Spruce, 8-11 years;‘balsam.fir, 12-16 years; and.Douglas fir, 12-16 years. Bell and White also state that a 2-3 year fallow period will be necessary for sanitary purposes to prepare the fields for the next rotation. For this analysis, the rotation lengths for the control rota- tions will'be assumed as follows: white pine, 8 years; white spruce, 11 years; balsam fir, 12 years; and Douglas fir, 12 years. To these will be added 2 years for the sanitation-fallow period. This is nec- essary because a perpetual series of rotations are used to place the various alternatives in comparable terms. This analysis will Show the effects of shortening the rotations up to 3 years, depending on the Species. Hacskaylo (196%) found that rotations for the spruces and firs could be Shortened from.lO-1h years to 6 or 7 years as a result of fertilization. Shearing costs-éDambach (1961) estimates the shearing cost for .1/ five shearings during the rotation at 16 cents per tree. Hilliker y Personal correspondence with Richard L. Hilliker, University of Wisconsin, Madison, February 28, 1967. 19 Table 8. Species recommended for plantation grown, cultured trees, in the regions designated Normal Geographic section of the rotation United States where species Common name in years}/ are recommended for planting Scotch pine 5-7 New England, Southeastern states, Central states, Northeastern states, Lake states, Plains states Eastern white pine 5-7 Central states, New England, lake states, Northeastern states, Southeastern states Norway Spruce 8-11 Central states, Plains states, Lake states, Northeastern states, New England, South- eastern states White spruce 8-11 Lake states, New England, Northeastern states Balsam.fir 12-16 Lake states, New England Douglas fir 12-16 West Coast, Rocky Mountains, lake states Fraser fir 12-16 Southeast, NSW'England, Lake states Red fir 12-16 West Coast, Southwest White fir 12-16 West Coast, Southwest y These rotations do not include the 2-year fallow-sanitation period which will be included in the economic analysis. See Figures l-h for diagrams of the rotations used. - Source: Bell and White, 1966 20 reports using a shearing rate for balsam.fir which varies from #5 to 175 trees per hour, depending on the Size of the trees. The cost was estimated to vary from l-h cents per tree per shearing depending on size. For this economic analysis it will be assumed that the shearing cost will be 1 cent per tree for the first two shearings, 2 cents per tree for the second two shearings and 3 cents per tree for the re- mainder of the rotation, including the year of harvest. This will mean shearing rates which are approximately 175, 90 and 60 trees per hour, reapectively. It is recognized that there may be variations in the number of trees sheared each year as well as variations be- tween species. To compensate for this, the 3 cents per tree rate will be used for the 1253 trees harvested for'balsam.fir, white spruce and Douglas fir. For eastern white pine the 3 cent rate will be used for all 1089 trees assumed to survive the first year. Chemical weed control--Weed control costs can vary a great deal depending on the fertility of the soil and the use of fertilizers. White (1965) indicates that a hand application in 2-foot wide bands costs: 0.9 cents per tree for 5 x 5 spacing, and 1.00 cents per tree for 6 x 6 spacing. For simplicity of analysis it will be assumed that chemical weed control will cost $9.00 per acre when needed. .Applications assumed for this analysis are shown in.Figures l-h. Harvesting costs--The harvesting costs in this analysis are assumed to include marking, cutting, dragging, trimming, tying, and transporting the trees to a wholesale location. Dambach (1961) es- timated these costs to total 23 cents per tree harvested for his 21 Norway spruce and Scotch.pine plantations. The time and costs for these various operations can vary greatly depending on species and other factors. Fox (1961) found in a time study using white, red, jack and Scotch pine that cutting, dragging, loading, hauling, un- loading and grading took 207, 299, 233 and 82 minutes per 100 trees, respectively. Determining a precise cost is difficult and there is only lim- ited information available. For this study the harvesting operation as described above will be assumed to cost 25 cents per tree.1 This will also include any cost involved in removing limbs from stumps following the harvest. Annual costs-éFor the economic analysis an annual cost of $25.00 per acre is assumed. The annual cost is substantial because of the specialty nature of the Christmas tree crOp. Taxes of $3.00 per acre per year are not uncommon. Management costs valued at $4.00 per hour also add a substantial amount to the annual cost. Other expenses, such as bookkeeping, insurance, fire protection, hired equipment, fencing, small tools and many miscellaneous items may increase the annual cost. .Also, the size of the enterprise will affect the econ- omies of scale attained. The $25.00 cost per acre each year is arbi- trary, but appears reasonable. MARKETING ASSUMPTIONS Survival and.marketing percentages--There is limited information 1 -4he 25 cents assumed will include tying the trees with twine, but will not cover the additional cost involved if Vexar is used. Vexar would prObably cost 10-15 cents per tree additional. 22 available on the percentages of planted trees that survive and are harvested. Fox (1961) at the University of Illinois found 8 year survival as follows: white pine, 85, 83 and 79 percent for plant- ings made in 1950, 1951 and 1952, respectively. He also found that 138 trees on the average were required to produce 100 salable trees. The assumptions made are: (1) 90 percent of the trees survive the first year; and (2) 80 percent of the surviving trees are mer- chantable. This means approximately 139 trees must be planted to yield 100 salable Christmas trees. Merchantable product specifications-éMarket indications as noted by James (1959) and Trocke (1966) indicate that 5- to 7-foot trees are the most in demand. Therefore, for this analysis 6-foot trees are assumed to be the management Objective. It is also assumed that the desired growth is 1-foot per year. This will place the whorls of branches close enough together to give adequate density. Grades and.wholesale4prices for trees--There is little empiri- cal data available on the distribution of various grades and the prices received for each species by grade. Trocke (1966) reported that the average price paid wholesale for all species varied from $2.03 in the North Central and New England states to a high of $2.93 in the western states. Fox (1961) had a price list for Illinois for 1959 which showed the prices for red, white and Scotch pine 6-foot tall as follows: UkS. No. 2, $l.h0; U;S. No. 1, $1.90 and U.S. Pre- l mium, $2.1h. The market report for 1966-/stated that wholesale prices y Market reports from.member areas emphasize demands for quality trees. American Christmas Tree Journal. 11(1):35-hh. 23 for balsam fir in Maine ranged from $3.50 to $h.00 per tree in 1966. In the state of Washington, Douglas fir wholesaled for $0.35 to $O.h0 per foot ($2.10 to $2.h0 for 6-foot trees). Information on the percentage of harvestable trees per grade is not available. Since a reasonable estimate of marketing percentages is available, it is assumed that: (l) 90 percent of the trees sur- vive the first year of the rotation; and (2) 80 percent of those that survive the first year are marketable. This means that 72 percent of the trees planted will be salable. The grade breakdown assumes that 50 percent of the tOtal trees are U.S. No. l or U.S. Premium, and 22 percent are UtS. No. 2. The price assumptions are as follows: 1) eastern white pine -- U38. No. l or better, $2.50, U.S. No. 2, $1.50 2) balsam fir -- U.S. No. l or better, $3.50, U.S. No. 2, $1.75 3) white spruce -- UKS. No. l or better, $2.50, U.S. No. 2, $1.50 A) Douglas fir -- U;S. No. 1 or better, $2.50, uus. no. 2, $1.50 THE ECONOMIC MODEL This section will briefly explain the specifications of the eco- nomic model and how the flow diagrams, Figures l-h, can be used. The assumptions underlying the alternative rotations and management sys- tems may be broken down into two classes, one of which is constant for all four species and one which varies by species (Table 9). The 2h assumed Specifications that are constant are: 1) chemical weed control cost (as Shown in Figures 1-h)-- $9.00 per acre 2) annual cost--$25.00 3) fertilizer application method--hand application around each tree A) fertilizer costs--16-8-8, 1.65 cents per ounce of nitrogen; urea, 0.72 cents per ounce of nitrogen 5) cost to apply the fertilizers--150 trees per hour, 1.16 cents per tree; 100 trees per hour, 1.75 cents per tree 6) tree size marketed--6-foot trees 7) time of year fertilizers are applied--April or early May 8) harvesting and baling cost--$O.25 per tree 9) shearing cost--see Table 9 The costs which are used in the economic analysis are shown in Figures 1-h. To show how the costs may be calculated, alternative 1 for white spruce (Figure 1) will be explained. Starting at the top of the diagram the first cost incurred is for establishing the plan- tation (year 1). In year 2, applications of fertilizer (16-8-8) and chemical weed control are applied. In year 3 additional chemical weed control is applied. In year A fertilization, weed control and shearing occur. Continuing down alternative 1, there is an applica- tion of urea in year 7 and harvest at the end of year 8, followed by a 2-year sanitation-fallow'period. The total costs incurred each year for the white Spruce alternatives are shown in Table 11. 25 Weed control is assumed to be used in the last two growing sea- sons because of the application of urea. Many growers may consider the weed control unnecessary. If this eXpenditure is not made it will mean a savings of about 1 cent per tree. This will not change the rates of return calculated and Shown in Table 15. 26 ism 0mg so down: one nonhuman do so.“ pgmooo who cogs «83333on \m \H. in one m x m mom mom em.aa em.mm Ham ca .m mo.om mo.om Ho.om mwoa ma.mm a seam oases gopmom SH can . . m x m mam oar ms.am Om.mm mmma NH .HH mo.om mo.om Ho.om more mm.smae nae Edmflwm in one m x m mwm oar 0m.am cm.mm mama ma .HH mo.om mo.om Ho.om mama as.oaam ham maawson ma one m a m mam cam cm.am on.me mums Ha .oa mo.om mo.oa Ho.om mama mm.eaaa cosmos mass; m m M m m mu ones mom coax-upon WM WM. nuus. fl. when mom when mom wofioomm .W m. w .n m. s occasion one 5 m t. m. m a dosage amoo peas one mo .4 mo me n w. momma undo.» m. m. u. m. u. m. use.» nonaanopmo mofioomm a m I a n I as soafiz s w m .1 we the 83353 cos“ we. oofikoofium I moons 0.3m madden 093 new lagoons: 33395 pnoo wanes—um manaaoos noufiaaphom cop mom maouaoo«mwoomm mofioomm .m «Home 27 y Table 10. Fertilizer applications used for the four Species Quantity of Cost Year of nitrogen per tree in Species application (ounces) cents Fertilizer 2 .5 .82 16-8-8 Douglas fir 3 .5 .82 16-8-8 A 1.0 1.65 16-8-8 and 5 1.5 2.h7 16-8-8 6 1.5 2.h7 16-8-8 Balsam fir 8 2.0 1.h3 Urea 9 2.0 l.h3 Urea 11 2.0 1.h3 Urea 2 .5 .82 16-8-8 3 .5 .82 16-8-8 h 1.0 1.65 16-8-8 White spruce 5 1.5 2.h7 16-8-8 6 1.5 2.17 16-8—8 7 2.0 1.A3 Urea 8 2.0 l.h3 Urea 2 .5 .82 16-8-8 3 .5 .82 16-8-8 A 1.0 1.65 16-8-8 Eastern 5 1.5 2.h7 16-8-8 white pine 6 2.0 1.A3 Urea 7 2.0 1.h3 urea 8 2.0 l.h3 Urea 1/ No Single alternative will use all of the applications shown. The timing of fertilizer applications for the alternative fertilizer routines considered are given in Figures 1-h. 7 6 14 . 8338 as an . A83 hon noon..- 3 mmmd pong . . 2 3588 w . . 1 Hoax-sou coon .H, E 83 non noon». oi..." . m ocean- 333 I 000.5. 3.20 03h- 3.3? no 08.3388 woman-hon 0.?vaqu no ago .3”.— ..n a: 29 r Announces escapasv mm.omoa mm.mooa mm.omoa mm.ssoa ms.waoa mm.mam mm.mmm mmmwwmmmmammw Ammo Hmpoa -- -- -- oo.mm -- -- -- ma -- -- -- mm.oa -- -- -- ma oo.mm oo.mm oo.mm aw.amm -- -- -- Ha no.0: no.6: no.0: ma.maa oo.mm oo.mm oo.mm om am.amm aw.swm sm.smm mm.mm no.0: mm.oa no.0: m ma.maa ma.maa ma.maa mm.mm sw.amm ew.smm am.amm m mm.em mm.mm mm.mm mm.mm mm.moa mm.moa ww.moa a mm.mw mm.mm ms.ama we.os mm.mm mm.wm mm.mm m wo.maa mm.os mm.os mm.os mo.maa mm.ma mm.ma m mw.ms mw.ma mm.ma oo.mm mm.oa mm.oa mm.mm a Ho.mm Ho.mm Ho.mm oo.mm oo.am oo.am oo.am m oo.am oo.sm oo.am oo.am Ho.mm Ho.mw Ho.me m sm.aaa am.aaa sm.aaa am.aaa am.asa am.asa sm.asa H mamaaoe am new» Mom pnoo Hapoa v w m 4 m m H meow moofipooa aONHHHpHOh o>Hpssaoudm m0>wpooaopas somfiawpaom Sesame open: you new» son Show you soon Hopoa .HH manna @ @ .fifinm 1h 8 910111213 ......w...u...fiaaa----.e--- -......-----......o».....m.. ----- 311567 1 as 8338 we can . . A33 .89 noon..- h-hum. I mmNHV gab-nan 2 3.33m @ llllllllll 1 H9380 coo: ® gangs «$3.3 god you nowh- oi...” E m ad 39.8 n noose ultras an .338 so 333-8 sonar-8w .535»? we «so and .m 9:5» 31 Apmonmpqa psonpflsv 40.5:HH #m.mwoa :o.~:aa mm.aoaa m:.m~oa mo.amm mo.mmoa wmmwwwwmmammw ammo proa nu- nu- u-- oo.mm -u- u-- uu- :H uuu -u- nu- no.0: an- u.. u.. ma oo.mm oo.mm oo.mm :w.:mm u-- nu- --- ma mm.o: no.0: no.0: ma.maa oo.mm oo.mm oo.mm Ha :m.:wm :w.:mm :m.:mm mm.mm no.0: no.0: no.0: oa ma.maa ma.maa ma.maa mm.mm :m.:mm :w.:mm :w.:mm m mm.mw mm.mm mm.mm mm.mm ma.maa ma.maa ma.maa m mm.mm mm.mm mm.mm mm.mm mm.mm mm.mm mm.mm N m~.HmH mm.mm mm.mw 00.0: mm.mm mm.mm mm.wm w mm.o: wm.0# wo.maa mm.o: wo.mHH wm.o: wm.m; m wm.m: mm.m: mm.m: oo.mm mm.o: mm.o: mm.mm 4 Ho.mm Ho.mm Ho.mm oo.mm oo.:m oo.:m oo.4m m oo.:m oo.:m oo.:m oo.:m Ho.mm Ho.mm Ho.mm m ::.mma ::.mma ::.mma ::.mma ::.mma ::.mma ::.mma H mnmaaoc ma Mama awn meo proa P m m : m m H nmmw mmafipson umNfiHthmm o>fipmqnmpad mm>fipmqnmpda hmuwdapnmh ufim mmamson Mom Adm» gum whom pom pmoo ampoa .NH manwa ® ® @ ufiupgd “Rafi... n IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 3 1.. g... u . """ I II. I 509 «9.5 n sac .9 0 m. I I G u, I I I . . . 9,.IIAI. Molwvdwhpl @IIIM 9 a Ago “.6 8 7 v.4 6 5 8332 no can . .4 0.30 hon 30.5 3 mmmd p.23 2 0 1 H.580 coo: ® E 930 you 393 3.5 m a Ian—Um 000.3. EEO a long «a 080.3890." cougars“ 0533.3de no go :35 .m 93w: 33 Apmmnmqu psoansv nowdeOH map mm.:mHH mH.OHHH mm.HmHH m~.mHHH mm.mmHH mm.mmOH mm.OOHH qunsc hmeso Anna H6909 III III III oo.mm III III III 4H III III III mm.o: III III III mH oo.mm oo.mm oo.mm Hm.me III III III NH mm.o: mw.o: mm.0H mH.mHH oo.mm oo.mm oo.mm HH Hm.:wm Hm.4wm H®.me mm.mm no.0: no.0: mw.OH 0H mH.mHH mH.mHH mH.mHH mm.mm Hw.:wm H®.me Hm.me m mm.mm mm.mm mm.mm mm.mm mH.mHH mH.mHH mH.mHH m mm.mm mm.mm mm.mm mm.mm mm.wm mm.mm mm.mm p m~.HmH mm.mm mm.mw mo.o: mm.mm mm.mm mm.mm m mm.oz mm.o: mo.mHH mm.o: mo.mHH mm.o: mw.mH m mm.m: mm.m: mm.mH oo.mm mm.o: mm.o: mw.mm H Ho.mm Ho.mo Ho.mm oo.mm oo.:m oo.:m oo.Hm m oo.Hm oo.:m oo.Hm oo.Hm Ho.mm Ho.mm Ho.mm m mm.mmH mm.mmH mm.mmH mm.mmH mm.mmH mm.mmH mm.me H mHmHHOd nH mama umm pmoo Haves N w m : m N H know mmqapzon nmNHHHpnma m>prnhmpH< mm>Hpmqhprw nouwflfipnmh Ham admamp How yum» yum whoa Mom pmoo Hdpoa .mH manwa Ina 93¢ hon noon». mmmd acorn-n 3 H258 coo: 6 E 2 Years 1 asag 0009.... 3950 an 33? g H0 38.3803 cacao-non tags: we go 5 I: g ,3. 3.3 "-. I\ I ‘. L . ’ 1 94:“ I - L, I . r'v ‘ \ ;. In- ( I .’ ' ‘ A ' avg? ‘fli’fiv‘a; ~>--z - «H I \ ) 7 . k I ‘ 3 I I 1 . I”) I . . , #3:} __.«§kl . - ‘. I- __.I I}- - - .- K‘JI'K‘ I. a} / I} f...“ f -‘ I' >~H 1\) té}. -fl-‘Qrfi‘fi ~ I I I ' , ‘ ' ' . ,JK, ' 67"? o _' | ‘ - I ) . . , . J “E”: W fifi?‘ "% v"- “ "" "-1 II-w *. \ .. _ . , A, k- «13" <— 9V \.. . 35 Apmmhmuafi psonpwsv noapmpOH map mm.mm~ mm.mm~ -- mm.map n- Ha.:pm H~.mm~ mafiaso swapso Ammo kuoa -- -- -n oo.mm -n- n- -u Ha oo.mm oo.mm -- om.mm n- -n n- oa om.mm om.mm -n m:.:wm n- oo.mm oo.mm m m:.:wm m:.:mm -- mm.mm -n- om.mm om.mm m mm.mw mm.mw -- w».w: -un m:.:mm «4.:wm w w>.mm w».w: -n- mm.mm n- mm.mw mm.mm m mw.om mm.mm -- mm.mm -n- mm.mm mm.:: m mm.:: mm.:: -n- oo.mm -- m®.mm m:.m> : mm.mm mm.mm -- oo.mm -- oo.:m oo.:m m oo.:m oo.:m -- oo.:m -- mm.mm mm.mm m w:.mw m:.mm -- o:.mw n- m4.mm m:.mm a mHMHHOd ma Ham» me pmoo proa N m m J m m H ham» mmafipSOH HmNHafipan o>flpwnnmpa< mm>fipwnumpaa Amufiawpnog mafia mafia: nhmpmwm no“ Haw» hum whom awn meo Hopes .da magma CHAPTER III .ANALESIS 0F RETURNS T0 FERTILIZER.APPLICATIONS The Objective of this study was to analyze possible economic re- turns as a result of fertilization. To explore this Objective, the impact of quality improvements and alternative rotation lengths were analyzed, Findings indicated that the quality of trees may be Lm- V proved and rotations shortened where nutrition is limited. The greatest impact will be with marginal operations, since the use of fertilizers may make the difference between loss or profit. Two tables have been constructed from the economic model devel- oped in Chapter II. The internal rates of interest are shown in Table 15 and an example of soil eXpectation values using 10 percent compound interest is shown in Appendix C. The computation of rates of return (compounded annual interest) and soil eXpectation values were computed at Michigan State Univer- sity using a modified version of the computer program.developed‘by Row (1963). The method included the use of a perpetual series of rotations to place all alternatives in the same terms. Lundgren (1966) discusses this concept: ...the present net value for one rotation can be used to compare investments, but only if the rotation ages (investment periods) are the same. If rotation ages are not the same, the present net values must be adjusted to put them on a common basis be- fore a valid comparison can be made. Since many large growers are in'business for twenty years or more, the perpetual series of rotations should approximate their long range 36 37 m: s: - mm n- mm mm mm.ma a mm.mw m x m mm Mm - NM nu mm cm oo.mw a oo.mw made «was: 0 d m: N: mb H* d mh Na "€59de mm mm -- mm - m: m: om.aa a om.mw mm mm mm mm mm mm mm cm.mw s mm.:w m x m Hm mm om mm mm am mm mm.ma s oo.:w as“ mm cm mm am am mm em oo.mw a m>.ma _aumaam pm mm am mm mm :m mm ma.aa a cm.mw om Hm mm mw mm am mm mm.m» a mm.mw m x m mm mm mm em mm mm mm oo.ma e oo.ma use mm am mm mm Hm mm Hm ms.a» s m~.m» m m on mm mm mm om mm om mm cm.Ha a cm.ma mm am mm mm m: m: a: mm.ma a mm.mw m x m mm mm mm am 0: m: mm oo.mw a oo.mw cashew om mm Hm mm am 0: mm ms.aa a ms.m» muse: mm om mm mm :m mm mm cm.aa s cm.mw pnoonom a m m m a , uoppmn no museums m 35.30.” ASH—Magnum.“ mfipogopae. N .mwmmé H .mwwmé can mofioomm mm>pronopHa madam macapupon no mowaom Huspomnom a can pmonmpqa unsomsoo mafia: manusvuo>nfi on canvas no «ovum .mH «Hews 38 planning. Data given in Table 15 may be used to analyze three results of fertilization: (1) an improvement in quality as reflected in an in- grade improvement in price; (2) a shorter rotation; and (3) a shorter rotation as well as an improvement in price. White spruce was analyzed using four price increments, and three different rotation lengths, as follows: (1) a 10 year period, with the harvest in the eighth year; (2) an 11 year period with the har- vest in the ninth year; and (3) a 13 year period with the harvest in the eleventh year (the rotation length expected without fertili- zation). By observing Table 15 it can be seen that using alternative h (13 year rotation), the return may be increased as much as 6 percent. If the rotation is 10 years, the return could be increased as much! as 9 percent. The greatest impact occurs when the rotation is short- ened, consistent with quality requirements. By comparing alterna- tives 2 and h it can be seen that returns could be increased 13 per- cent by shortening the rotation 3 years. The increase could be as much.as 22 percent if quality improvements accompany a shorter ro- tation. The results for Douglas fir and balsam fir are similar to those of white spruce. The greatest increases result from a combination of a shorter rotation and an improvement in quality. Eastern white pine shows the highest rate of return. It differs from the other species in that the trees are spaced 6 x 6. Returns can range from 2 to 11 percent with quality improvements. If the rotation is shortened 2 years and the price received per tree is 39 increased 75 cents, the return could.be increased as much as 2h per- cent. One word of caution when comparing the returns from these four species: It is not the author‘s intent to imply that white pine is the best species to be grown. There are many factors to be con- sidered, e.g., the market situation and soils. The economic returns as shown in Table 15 are based on a theo- retical model. .As many factors as possible were considered, but some were not included, e.g., insect and fire losses. Labor and machinery requirements were assumed to be hired. Undoubtedly other items were inadvertently overlooked in the model situation. How- ever, the high interest rates do indicate there are possibilities to increase profits. CHAPTER IV SUMMARY.AND CONCLUSIONS The fertilization of Christmas trees is receiving serious con- sideration among growers, since it is a means of improving trees growing on coarse textured soils. Combined with the other cultural techniques now used on plantations, it can contribute substantially to quality; The quality factors which.may be improved include color, needle retention, density, growth and overall appearance. In a 1966 survey the author found that over 80 percent of the growers who have used fertilizers believe they have economic poten- tial if used prOperly. The survey also indicated that growers gen- erally do not have a well-conceived plan when using fertilizers. Quality is essential in the Christmas tree industry, eSpecially since consumers have become quality conscious and are willing to pay higher prices. Those marginal producers who are not willing to in- vest additional.money to improve quality may find that their trees are no longer marketable. Christmas tree growers who have coarse textured soils should consider using fertilizers if their Douglas fir, balsam fir, spruces or true firs lack the quality characteristics expected for the species, and/or are growing too slowly. For Scotch.pine there is no evidence to indicate that fertilization will improve Christmas tree quality, and fertilization is not recommended. Fall color prdblems with Scotch pine are usually a result of the genetic characteristics ho #1 of the variety planted and cannot be corrected by fertilizer appli- cations. The fertilizers which current research indicates will be of the most importance in Christmas tree production are complete (N-P-K) and nitrogen fertilizers. In this study 16-8-8 and urea (hS-O-O) were used. The model was developed using all factors which could be easily quantified. The author wishes to point out that such factors as insect and disease control were not included. These are real costs, but items which cannot be included with accuracy. Oversights such as these have contributed to the high interest rates calculated. Nevertheless, the large interest rates do indicate that there is potential for sizeable profits in the Christmas tree industry. This study indicates that the fertilization of Christmas trees has considerable potential, especially on the coarse textured soils. The next desirable step appears to be an intensive and well-docu- mented study of fertilizer use on plantations. REFERENCES CITED Bell, Lester E. and Donald P. White. 1966. Technical manual for Christmas tree farmers. Allied Chem. Corp. New York. 128 pp., illus. Dambach, W. W. 1961. Cost of Christmas tree production at Lake For- est Gardens. Amer. Christmas Tree Growers' Jour. 5(2):9. Fox, Howard W. 1961. Christmas tree farming costs at Sinnissippi Forest. Amer. Christmas Tree Growers' Jour. 5(2):5-8. Hacskaylo, John. 196k. Research in Christmas tree-production; the present, past and future. Amer. Christmas Tree Growers‘ Jour. 8(a):2o-2h, 52. James, Lee M; 1959. Production and marketing of plantation grown Christmas trees in Michigan. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Special.Bu11. #23. 31 pp. . 1966. Michigan timber production and industry--now and in 1980. Part I--Timber production. Mich..Agr. EXp. Sta. Res. Rep. 38, Natural Resources. pp. 1-16. Lundgren,.A11en L. 1966. Estimating investment returns from growing red pine. ULS.F.S. Res. Paper NC-2. #8 pp. Row, Clark. 1963. Determining forest investment rates-of-return by electronic computer. U.S.F.S. Res. Paper 30-6. 13 pp. Sowder,.Arthur M. 1957. Many trees grow for Christmas. Amer. Christmas Tree Growers' Jour. 1(3):5. . 1965. Statistics for the U.S. Christmas tree indus- try. Jour. Forest. 63:876. . 1966. Christmas trees, the tradition and the trade. U.S. Dep. Agr. .Agr. Inf. Bull. No. 9h, Rev. 31 pp. Trocke, John K. 1966. Marketing Christmas trees. Mich. Ext. Bull. 535, Bus. Series. 13 pp. Turner, Darrell 0. and.Joseph Buhaly. 1966. Fertilizing natural stand Douglas fir Christmas trees. Wash. Ext. Bull. 585. 1h pp. #2 #3 White, Donald P. 1965. Fertilization and weed control on Christmas tree farms. Mich. Ext. Bull. 505, Farm Sci. Series. 8 pp. . 1967. Progress and needs in tree nutrition research in the Lake States and.Northeast. Paper presented at a sym- posium on forest fertilization, Uhiv. of Florida, Gainesville. April 19, 1967. 19 pp. APPENDIX A CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL PRELIMINARY CHRISTMAS TREE FERTILIZATION QUESTIONNAIRE Michigan State university July, 1966 Have you used fertilizers on any of your Christmas trees? Yes ( ) N0 ( ) Have you harvested any Christmas trees that have been fertilized? Yes ( ) No ( ) What types and analyses of fertilizer have you used? Have you Observed any effects on quality, grade, or selling price as a result of fertilization? Yes ( ) No ( ) Will you be available for a personal interview at the National Christmas Tree Growers' Convention at Stevens Point, Wisconsin, in August? Yes ( ) No ( ) A stamped addressed envelope is enclosed for your convenience. hh APPENDIX B CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL CHRISTMAS TREE FERTILIZATION SURVEY Michigan State University August, 1966 Name Address Occupation Do you grow Christmas trees as your: a. occupation ( ), b. part-time Job( ), c. hobby( ), d. other 2 How many years have you been in the Christmas tree plantation business? years.' Your total acreage in Christmas tree plantations (including access lanes)? acres. What size planting stock do you use? (e.g. 2-0, 2-2) Species Nursery age What texture (particle size) soil do you have? a. sandy ( ), b. loamy sand ( ), c. loam ( ), d. gravelly loam ( ), e. silt loam ( ), f. clay lOam ( ), g. clay ( ). 1+5~ «mammpfiwoam one oasocooo on on humans meanwafipnom moon woo>oamaa odmhw on» no: 30m weo>oumsa hpfiHmsw no: 30m .n mafia spas: .m .fi nae moawsoc .e HHM somaom .m moshmm momam .% madame opfinz .m oodhmm hashoz .o mafia smfinpms< .o seam com .e mafia nopoom .m monp\omwo90 dommmmsH owsmno co>oummw owmdno om>ommsH oquno co>mmmmw,ownmno A: eons com oz oz oz oz mOHmm QZHQHHm [ mdqoo madmo wBHHflsd .msasaafiehoe no panama u as momma mundane no oconw .noaoo ahpfiamsw no meowpm>homno has choosy canoe wnfi>OHHOH map mH .N “7 new somamm oodhmm spas: Ham mmawsom whom comma human A: ommoaon demands soap whom no whom no momhamnm moaoomm mom ndafipm a0H0: qfi Am nsoam Am ma nopon soap non soap Hem nomad oopmo> ma awqfimmmad aofisoaa Am HONHH OH pooapmoup cowammm nfipnom name spaosw seam Am assasswnw AH nfipnom snow Mom unapomSG mommy when» apmwoomonn AH "Show some mason-om: mo .02 90 .oz "psoamomam aoNHHfipnoh open mo oomph: .onom hon dopmo>hmn mossy ho nomads an» end enpsonm mopmasaapm noufiaflphom one mamOh mo Homes: on» apnoaoomam yo cospoa map and ma Houuauphow one snow on» «oo«pmowammo mo oped aoowpmpou amp aw nowpoOHHmms no Hash «show so cone non pouapaonp pom mason-nos we» amass Hem no comp Mom defiammo hpfipqmsw one emofioomm some no“ down mamhasom nouHHfiphom any on Adam oHnmp wqfisoaaom on» OH .m IO. 12. A8 What is your fertilization routine? What are your objectives in using fertilizers? (Place in numerical order): a. better survival ( ), b. longer needles ( ), c. darker foliage ( ), d. faster growth ( ), e. better needle retention ( ), f. more buds set ( ), g. other (specify) ( ). What adverse effects have you Observed from fertilizing? Which fertilizers were these? Do you have any detailed records, i.e. case histories for any fertilized blocks of trees? Would you be willing to make this information available to us? .mofioomm cooavon o>apmnnmpam pump on» OOHEHOpoe on com: on posses vH .moaoomm some now o>fipwohopam poop asp mafianoku on com: apnoea wand» mass ‘9 \m sm.omaa mm.smma -- mo.maoa -- mm.msma mo.mama mm.mm s mm.mm w x m mm.mmoa mo.mwoa -u- m®.mmm -- mo.owma mm.mmma oo.me e oo.m seam mm.mmm s>.mmm -n- H~.Hm~ -- mw.mwaa om.mmaa ms.ae s ms.m opens Hm.smm ma.mma u-u mm.msm -- Hw.mmm sm.mmm cm.He s om.me ascents m>.mmma mo.wmsa mw.meH mm.wsma mm.mmom mw.maam mm.mmom cm.me s mm.sm m x m sm.amsa m>.omma Hm.swsa ms.aaaa as.mmma mm.mama mm.sswa mm.me s oo.:m use mm.sama mm.mwma sm.aoma Ho.m>m ww.amma ms.sosa as.msma oo.me s m~.mm .ssoasm so.~maa mm.moma ma.omaa mm.oaw sm.mmsa sm.moma om.wmsa m~.Hm s em.mm ms.mwaa mm.smma ma.w~aa om.~mm mw.mmsa ms.mmma me.mwsa mm.mm s mm.mm m x m ss.wooa Hm.ssoa mm.aooa as.mma mm.mmma mm.msma mm.mmma oo.mm e oo.mm has mm.amm ms.oom om.smw mm.mam wa.mmoa mm.msaa mm.msoa ma.am s m>.me moawsoc sm.mmm mm.mms mo.ssw ms.ams mm.mmw ma.mmm Hm.ssw 0m.am s em.mm wo.mmsa mm.mmma mm.mmea om.amoa mm.mawa as.ooma mm.mssa mm.mm s mm.mm m x m ma.smma mo.smma as.HmmH ss.mmm ma.msma mm.mmma H>.Hsma oo.mm s oo.mm sesame Hm.msoa Hm.mmaa am.wmoa ma.ws~ om.osma ms.smsa ms.oama ms.am s ms.mm seas: so.msm mm.smm mm.mmw Hm.mmw as.moaa sm.mwaa mm.m>oa cm.am s cm.mm Hoppon.Ho mawoomm b w m s m N H N .oz.mnD H .oz.m.b one mosHp50h Houwafivhom nH mo>fipmsnopa<. RNN 1 flow mowommm mo>HwonumpHm mowhm AMmooHpmpoa mo weapon Hmspomhom a com pmosopofi endomeoa unmoumm 0H momma mo>HpmosopHm as now mosam> sowpopoomxm Haom o xHszmmd VITA DAVID N. IARSEN Candidate for the degree of Master of Science Guidance Committee: D. P. White, L. M. James, R. S. Manthy (Major Professor) Dissertation: An economic analysis of Christmas tree fertilization Outline of studies: Major: Forestry Washington State University, BS, 196k Michigan State University, MS, 1967 Biography: Born Nevember h, 1938, in Waukesha, Wisconsin Experience: Forestry Aide, U.S. Forest Service, Lake Wenatchee, Washington, summers of 1959 and 1960. Forest Inventory Aide, Department of Natural Resources, State of Washington, summers of 1961, 1962, and 1963. Inventory Forester, Department of Natural Resources, State of washington, 196k to 1965. Graduate Research.Assistant, Department of Forestry, Michigan State University, 1965 to 1967. Organizations: Society of American.Foresters Xi Sigma Pi 1 fl Illllii. 7 i - 'Idl .t has. . . .1. wan-It'll. ullln. .i .Ilillllr ll nnll\[‘|') ICHIGRN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIE ||9|||1| 2||9|||9|l ||||||9l|1 ||| 9|||9|||||| ||| ||||| 9388