INFORMATION TO USERS
This re p ro d u c tio n was made fro m a copy o f a d o cum ent sent to us fo r m ic ro film in g .
While the m ost advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce
this docu m en t, the q u a lity o f the re p ro d u c tio n is heavily dependent upon the
q u a lity o f the m aterial subm itted.
The fo llo w in g e xplanation o f techniques is provided to help c la rify m arkings or
notations w hich may appear on this re p ro d u ctio n .
1.T h e sign or “ ta rg e t” fo r pages apparently lacking fro m the docum ent
photographed is “ Missing Page(s)” . I f it was possible to o b ta in the missing
page(s) o r section, they are spliced in to the film along w ith adjacent pages. This
may have necessitated c u ttin g through an image and d u p lic a tin g adjacent pages
to assure com plete c o n tin u ity .
2. When an image on the film is o b lite ra te d w ith a round black m ark, it is an
in d ic a tio n o f e ith e r blurre d copy because o f m ovem ent d u rin g exposure,
duplicate copy, o r co p yrig hte d m aterials th a t should n o t have been film e d . For
blurred pages, a good image o f the page can be fo u n d in the adjacent fram e. I f
copyrigh ted materials were deleted, a target note w ill appear listin g the pages in
the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, draw ing o r cha rt, etc., is p a rt o f the m aterial being photographed,
a d e fin ite m ethod o f “ sectioning” the m aterial has been fo llo w e d . I t is
, custom ary to begin film in g at the upper le ft hand corner o f a large sheet and to
con tinu e fro m le ft to rig h t in equal sections w ith small overlaps. I f necessary,
sectioning is continue d again -b e g in n in g below the firs t ro w and c o n tin u in g on
u n til com plete.
4. F o r illu s tra tio n s that cannot be s a tisfa cto rily reproduced by xerographic
means, photo g ra p h ic p rin ts can be purchased at a d d itio n a l cost and inserted
in to y o u r xerographic copy. These p rin ts are available upon request fro m the
D issertations C ustom er Services D epartm ent.
5. Some pages in any docum ent may have in d is tin c t p rin t. In all cases the best
available copy has been film e d .

Uni
International
300 N. Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

8513951

W e lc h , D e n n is P a u l

S T R A W B E R R Y P R O D U C T IO N S Y S T E M M O D E L T O E V A L U A T E T H E
E C O N O M IC F E A S IB IL IT Y O F M E C H A N IC A L H A R V E S T IN G A N D P R O C E S S IN G
O F S O L ID -S E T C U L T U R E S T R A W B E R R Y P R O D U C T IO N S Y S T E M S IN
M IC H IG A N

M ic h ig a n S ta te University

University
Microfilms
International

300 N. Z eeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

P h.D.

1985

PLEASE NOTE:

In all cases this m a te ria l has b een film e d in th e best possible w a y from th e a v a ila b le co py.
P ro blem s e n c o u n te re d w ith this d o c u m e n t h a v e been id e n tifie d h ere with a c h e c k m ark
V

1.

G lossy p h o to g ra p h s or p a g e s ______

2.

C o lo red illu stratio n s, p a p e r o r p r in t________

3.

P h o to g rap h s w ith d a rk b a c k g r o u n d ______

4.

Illustrations a re p o o r c o p y _______

5.

P ag es with b la c k m arks, not o rig in a l c o p y _______

6.

Print show s th ro u g h as th e re is te x t on both sides of p a g e ________

7.

Indistinct, b ro k e n o r small p rin t on several pages

8.

P rint exceed s m a rg in re q u ire m e n ts

9.

T ig h tly bound c o p y with print lost in s p in e ________

■

10.

C o m p u te r p rin to u t p ages with in d is tin c t p rin t_______

11.

P a g e ( s )______________ lacking w h e n m ate ria l received, a n d not a v a ila b le from sch o o l o r
au th or.

12.

P a g e ( s )______________ seem to b e m issing in num berin g o nly as text fo llo w s .

13.

T w o pages n u m b e r e d ________ . T e x t follow s.

14.

C urling and w rin k le d p a g e s _______

15.

Dissertation c o n ta in s pages w ith print at a slant, film ed a s re c e iv e d ____________

16.

O th e r

______

.

______

University
Microfilms
International

S TRAWB E R R Y P RODUCTION SYSTEM MODEL
TO EVALUATE THE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
OF MECHANICAL HARVESTING AND PROCESSING
OF S O L I D - S E T CULTURE STRAWBERRY PRODUCTION
SYSTEMS IN MICHIGAN

By
Denni s Paul Wei ch

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y
i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f the requirements
f o r the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Engineering
1984

ABSTRACT
STRAWBERRY PRODUCTION SYSTEM MODEL
TO EVALUATE THE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
OF MECHANICAL HARVESTING AND PROCESSING
OF SOLID-SET CULTURE STRAWBERRY PRODUCTION
SYSTEMS IN MICHIGAN
By
Dennis Paul Welch

The Michigan
past 20 years.

strawberry

i n d u s tr y has been on the d e cl in e

In an e f f o r t to r e v i t a l i z e

the i n d u s t r y ,

for

the

the Michigan

researchers and growers used the systems approach technique to mechanize
the strawberry harvest and processing in d u s tr y in Michigan.
The c u l t u r a l , mechanical,

and economic fa c t o r s

have been examined

as they r e l a t e to the s o l i d - s e t strawberry production system in Michigan.
The c u r r e n t c u l t u r a l
crucial

p r a c ti c e s are discussed w ith emphasis placed on the

f a c t o r s which r e s u l t in the high recovery r a te by the h a r v es te r .

The operational

performances f o r the mechanical

harv este r and processing

equipment are examined.
A strawberry

production

economic f e a s i b i l i t y

model

o f mechanical

se t c u l t u r e strawberry p r odu cti on .

has been developed

to

examine the

harvesting and processing o f s o l i d The model uses the t r a d i t i o n a l

fi x e d

and v a r i a b l e co st a n a ly si s method to e s t a b l i s h the ownership and oper at­
ing co sts.

A l l costs in the model are charged e x c l u s i v e l y to the straw­

berry e n t e r p r i s e .

The model was v a li d a te d w it h grower documentation to

estimate the strawberry production costs and net r e t u r n s .
the model i n d i c a t e s a p o t e n t i a l

f o r mechanical

As a r e s u l t ,

harvesting and processing

o f s o l i d - s e t c u l t u r e strawberry production in Michigan.

The model

shows

t h a t when processing the complete raw f r u i t product as 100 percent puree

Dennis Paul Welch
w it h a puree value

of

30 cents per pound, t h a t the net cash r e tu r n per

acre to the strawberry e n t e r p r i s e would increase from $31.32 per acre at
6 acres to $2189.57 per acre a t 40 acres.
acreage, machine values, f i n a l
the f i n a l

product p r ic e

The
and

model

is

s e n s i t i v e to

d istrib u tio n

product.

APPROVED:

Major Professor

Major Professor

APPROVED:

Department Chairman

of

the

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My sincere a p p r e c i a ti o n to a l l
agement, ass ista nce , and
I

wish

to

give

cre d it

of

those people who provided encour­

s t i m u l a t i o n throughout
and

extend a special

To Dr. Thomas Burkhardt,

co-chairman and

my

graduate

program.

thanks to the f o l lo w i n g

i ndi vi duals:
•

academic

a d v is o r, f o r

his advice and guidance during the course of my academic

program

and f o r his w i l l i n g n e s s to help c l a r i f y and e d i t t h i s manuscript.
•

To Dr. Gary Van Ee, co-chairman and research su p e r v is o r,
frie n dsh ip , in s ig h ts ,

and

f o r his

guidance during the planning, execut­

in g , and w r i t i n g o f t h i s study.
•

To Dr. Robert Wilkinson and

Dr.

Harrison Gardner f o r serving on

my guidance committee and f o r t h e i r advice in the development and
completion o f my academic program.
•

To Mr. Richard L. Ledebuhr a very

special

able f r i e n d s h i p and his w i l l i n g n e s s

thanks f o r his i n v a l u ­

to share

his e x p e r t is e w ith

me during the course o f t h i s study.
•

To

Mr.

Ke ith

Pr ic e f o r his dedicated assistances in c o l l e c t i n g

and analyzing the research data.
0

To the Michigan growers,
fa m i l i e s

of

Robert

Buskirk

f a m i ly and

the

Grant

W i l li a m , Jim, and Joe Grant, f o r t h e i r i n t e r e s t and

cooperation in the completion o f t h i s research p r o j e c t .

La s t,

but

pa rents,

ce rta inly

not

Tony and Joyce,

least,

a

special

and to my b r o th e r s ,

thanks

qoes

to

my

Rick and Michael.

Thank you f o r your encouragement and support throughout my educa­
tional

endeavor.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS......................................................................................................

ii

LIST OF TABLES......................................' .................................................................

v ii

LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................

ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS..........................................................................................

xi

Chapter
1.

I n t r o d u c t i o n and Problem Statement................................................

1

1.1

Background.......................................................................................
A d d it io n a l Note.........................................................................
Problem Statement.....................................................................
Research O b j e c t i v e s ....................................................................

1
5
6
6

2.

Review o f L i t e r a t u r e .............................................................................
2.1
Systems Research..........................................................................
D e f i n i t i o n and Approach........................................................
System Model...............................................................................
Model S t r u c t u r e
...........................................................
Testing and Implementation..................................................
A p p l i c a t i o n o f Systems Research........................................
2.2
Previous Strawberry S tu d i e s ...................................................
2.3
Summary.............................................................................................

8
8
8
9
9
10
11
14
16

3.

Current S o l i d - S e t Production Pr a cti ce s
and C ul tu re O p e ra ti on s .........................................................................
3.1
I n t r o d u c t i o n ...................................................................................
3.2
D e s c ri p ti o n o f Current C u l tu r a l P r a c t i c e s ......................
S i t e S e l e c t i o n ...........................................................................
Pr e - P la n t Soil P r e p a r a t i o n ..................................................
PI a n t i n g - S p r i ng F i r s t Year..................................................
Post - P la n t Care, F i r s t Year............................................
Post - P la n t Care, Spring of Harvest Year...................
Post - Harvest C u l tu r a l P r a c t i c e s ....................................
3.3
Advantages o f S o l i d Set C u l t u r e ...........................................
3.4
Strawberry P l a n t V a r i e t y ..........................................................
3.5
P la n t Density Study....................................................................
Method of Data C o l l e c t i o n ....................................................
A n a l y s i s ........................................................................................
3.6
Summary.............................................................................................

17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
22
22
23
24
26
26
29

1.2

iv

Page

Chapter
4. Current State Of The A r t Ha rv e st er .................................................
4.1 Harvester D e s c r i p t i o n .................................................................
4.2 Harvester Recovery Rate.............................................................
Method o f Data C o l l e c t i o n ....................................................
R e s u l t s .........................................................................................
4.3 Factors A f f e c t i n g the Harvester Recovery Rate................
4.4 F i e l d C a p a c it y ................................................................................
4.5 Summary...............................................................................................

30
30
33
33
34
35
37
39

Chapter
5. Current Processing Equipment and Op e ra ti on s ..............................
5.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n
..........................................................................
Processing Equipment and Ope ration s..................................
5.2 D e s c r i p ti o n of the Processing Procedures..........................
5.3 Processing Equipment E v a l u a t i o n ............................................
Decapper Trash ...........................................................................
5.4 Summary...............................................................................................

40
40
41
41
, 47
52
52

Chapter
6. Model D e s c r i p ti o n and V e r i f i c a t i o n .................................................
6.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n ....................................................................................
6.2 Subroutine D e s c r i p t i o n ................................
BERRY..............................................................................................
FILLTAB.........................................................................................
FIELDPD
.............................................................................
CHECKIT and CHEKANS.................................................................
MENUCHG.........................................................................................
CUSTRAT..........................................................................................
PRINTAB.........................................................................................
CHGTAB............................................................................................
SPECEQP.........................................................................................
IRRIEQP.........................................................................................
PROCEQP..........................................................................................
FPCOST. .....................................................................................
SPECOST..........................................................................................
Repair and Maintenance......................................................
Fuel C os t .................................................................................
Labor Cos t...............................................................................
IRRCOST..................... j ..................................................................
PROCOST........................................................................
PVCOS..............................................................................................
ECONAN............................................................................................
6.3 Model V e r i f i c a t i o n andV a l i d a t i o n ...........................................
Model V e r f i c a t i o n .....................................................................
Model V a l i d a t i o n .......................................................................
6.4 S e n s i t i v i t y A n a l y s i s ..................................................................
E f f e c t o f the Crop Y i e l d .......................................................
E f f e c t o f Harvest Rate..........................................................
E f f e c t of I n t e r e s t Rates.......................................................
E f f e c t o f a Change in the Production Costs on
the Break-even Acreage......................................................
6.5 Summary
.........................................................................................

v

53
53
54
54
58
58
61
62
62
64
64
65
68
70
73
73
76
76
77
77
80
82
84
86
86
86
87
88
89
90
91
93

Chapter
7. Results and D is c u s s i o n ..........................................................................
7.1 Economic Eva lu a tio n o f the Production System.................
7.2 Determining the Break-Even Acreage......................................
7.3 E f f e c t of P r ic e and Y i e ld Levels on the Average
Annual Net Cash Returns.........................................................
7.4 Break-Even D i s t r i b u t i o n of the Final Pr o d u c t.................
Product D i s t r i b u t i o n R a t i o . . ; ...........................
Variance in Processing Equipment Ownership C o s t s . . .
7.5 Summary..............................................................................................
8.

Summary and Conc lus ions ........................................................................
8.1 Summary...............................................
8.2 Conclusions......................................................................................
Harvester and Processing Equipment..................................
Model..............................................................................................
8.3 Recommendations f o r Fu rth er Research..................................

Page
94
94
94
95
97
99
100
101
102
102
103
103
104
107

APPENDICES
1.

Pl a nt Crown Density Count Used f o r the S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis

2.

F i e ld Data Summary...................................................................................

113

3.

Fo il age Height and P la nt Density vs Percent Harvester
Recovery..................................................................................................

120

4.

Harvesting Speeds and Rate..................................................................

122

5.

Estimated Maximum Acreage per Harvester per P la n t V a r i e t y .

6.

Strawberry Production Model User Guide.........................................

127

7.

Strawberry Production Computer Model.............................................

137

LIST OF REFERENCES................................................................................................

166

vi

108

125

LIST OF TABLES

Ta bl e

1-1

Page

Trends of area harvested, p r odu cti on , and crop values
i n the United S t a t e s ...............................................................................

2

Trends of area harvested, y i e l d , p r odu cti on , and percent
o f U.S. production o f str aw ber ri es in Michigan.........................

3

One Way Analysis o f Variance Output from the Mini tab
Subprogram AOVONEWAY...............................................................................

28

M u l t i p l e Regression Analysis Summary Table on the Variables
F o il age Height and Crown D e n s i t y ......................................................

38

5-1

S in g u l a to r Eva lua tio n Summary............................................................

49

5-2

Decapper Eva lua tio n Summary................................................................

50

6-1

F i e l d Production Data Ta b le ................................................................

61

6-2

1983 Custom H ire Rates f o r the State of Michigan....................

64

6-3

S p e c ia l ty Equipment Data Ta b le ..........................................................

67

6-4

Processing Equipment Data Table, Processing Option Number
One...................................................................................................................

72

Processing Equipment Data Table, Processing Option Number
Two...................................................................................................................

73

E f f e c t of Crop Y i e l d on the E n te r p r is e Cost and Final
Product Q u a n t i t y ........................................................................................

88

6-7

E f f e c t of Harvest Rate on the System C os t...................................

89

6-8

E f f e c t of an I n t e r e s t Rate Change f o r the I r r i g a t i o n System
Upon the Total System's Cost...............................................................

90

Estimated Average Annual Gross Returns Per Acre, Fixed and
V a ria b le Cost Per Acre and Net Returns Per Acre at
Designated L e v e l s ......................................................................................

95

1-2
3-1
4-1

6-5
6-6

7-1

vi i

Page

Tabl e

7-2
7-3

7-4

7-5

Estimated Net Cash Returns Per Acre f o r Four Y i e l d Levels
and Four Final Product P r i c e s .............................................................

96

D i s t r i b u t i o n o f the Final Product and Net Returns Per Acre
(Fi n al product p r i c e s t r u c t u r e o f $.40 per pound f o r fr ee ze r
pack and $.20 per pound f o r p u r e e . ) ................................................

98

D i s t r i b u t i o n of the Final Product and Net Returns per Acre
(F in al product p r ic e s t r u c t u r e of $.45 per pound f o r fr e e z e r
pack and $.30 per pound f o r p u r e e . ) ................................................

99

Comparison o f the Annual Processing Equipment Fixed Cost
f o r the Two Processing Equipment S e ts ............................................

vi i i

100

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

Page

3-1

I d e a li z e d Strawberry Truss o f Mechanical H a r ve st in g ....................

25

4-1

Schematic o f the H a r v e s t e r ....................................................................

31

5-1

Processing Pl a nt Flow C ha r t..................................................................

42

5-2

Schematic of the S e p e r a t o r ....................................................................

43

5-3

Schematic o f the Decapper......................................................................

44

5-4

Schematic o f the F r u i t Showing Location of Cut..........................

45

5-5

Schematic o f the S i z e r ............................................................................

48

6-1

Conceptual Flowchart o f the Model.....................................................

55

6-2

Subroutine Flowchart as I n i t i a t e d

byBERRY....................................

56

6-3

Flowchart f o r the Program BERRY..........................................................

57

6-4

Flowchart f o r the Subroutine FILLTAB..............................................

59

6-5

Flowchart f o r the Subroutine FIELDPD..............................................

60

6-6

Flowchart f o r the Subroutine CUSTRAT..............................................

63

6-7

Flowchart f o r the Subroutine SPECEQP..............................................

66

6-8

Flowchart f o r the Subroutine IRRIEQP..............................................

69

6-9

Flowchart f o r the Subroutine PROCEQP..............................................

71

6-10

Flowchart f o r the Subroutine FPCOST................................................

74

6-11

Flowchart f o r the Subroutine SPECOST.....................................

75

6-12

Flowchart f o r the Subroutine IRRCOST..............................................

78

6-13

Flowchart f o r the Subroutine PROCOST..............................................

81

6-14

Flowchart f o r the Subroutine PVCOST................................................

83

ix

Figure

Page

6-15

Flowchart f o r the Subroutine ECONAN.................................................

85

6-16

Break-even Acreage Expressed By Changes in
the Production Costs .............................................................................

92

x

L i s t o f Abbreviations
ac

acre

bu

-

bushel

cm

-

ce nti m ete r

CRNDSTY

-

Crown Densi ty

cwt

-

hundredwei ght

EFC

-

E f f e c t i v e F i e l d Capacity

FE

-

Field E fficie n cy

FOLHGT

-

Foil age Height

ft

-

feet

ha

-

hectare

hr

-

hour

in

-

i nch

kg

-

kilogram

lb

-

pound

m

-

meter

m^

-

square meter

PCRALL

-

Percent Recovery a l l

PMHR

-

Projected M a te ria l Handling Rate

t

-

tonne

TFC

-

The or etic al F i e l d Capacity

T.I.S.

-

Tax, Insurance, and Sh e lt e r

USDA

-

United States Department o f Agrii

yr

-

year

fru it

xi

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM STATEMENT

1.1

Background
Even though commercial

strawberry hectares i n the United States has

been d e c li n in g f o r more than two decades (46% decrease),
t i o n has increased by 41 percent.
$310,267,000

an

total

produc­

The n a t i o n ' s crop value f o r 1981 was

increase of 71 percent over the 1961 crop value (Table

1- 1 ) .
The United States produced 335,658 t (370,000 tons) o f str awberries
in

1981

on 14,812 hectares (36,600 a c ).

Over 72 percent or 241,674 t

(266,400 tons) were sol d on the fre sh market.

The remainder of the pro­

d u c t i o n , 92,533 t (102,000 tons) went f o r processing (USDA,1981).
P r e s e n t ly , only 13 o f the 50 s ta te s are commercially a c t i v e in the
production o f s tr a w b e r r i e s .
ta re s (acres)
Florida

--

The f i v e sta tes leading in strawberry hec­

are; C a l i f o r n i a - - 4 ,411 (10 ,90 0) ; Oregon - -

1,295

(3,2 0 0) ;

Washington

--

1,133

2,226 (5,5 00) ;

(2 ,8 0 0 );

and Michigan

--1 ,093 (2,700) { USDA,1981).
Michigan i s ranked second in the n a t i o n ' s production of the spring
fr e s h

strawberry market

and

fourth

in

the

nation's

processing market

(USDA, 1982). In the years from 1961 to 1981, Michigan was producing be­
tween 2.4 and 7.8 percent of the n a t i o n ' s

1

total

commercial

str awberries

2

Table 1-1

Trends of area harvested, production, and crop values in the
United S t a t e s . 1

Year

Harvested
Hectares
Acres

1961

.35,770

88,390

2,301

5,073

88,757

1962

35,576

87,910

2,360

5,204

93,728

1963

32,403

80,070

2,313

5,099

95,529

1964

30,291

74,850

2,490

5,490

109,979

1965

27,494

67,940

1,963

4,328

95,836

1966

26,782

66,180

2,106

4,644

103,068

1967

25,779

63,700

2,150

4,740

97,029

1968

23,755

58,700

2,384

5,256

112,010

1969

21,651

53,500

2,205

4,862

109,771

1970

20,639

51,000

2,251

4,963

106,583

1971

19,660

48,580

2,363

5,209

117,005

1972

17,729

43,810

2,079

4,583

109,765

1973

16,536

40,860

2,165

4,773

131,592

1974

16,042

39,640

2,419

5,332

152,759

1975

15,977

39,480

2,458

5,420

165,046

1976

13,941

34,450

2,634

5,807

191,022

1977

14,427

35,650

3,002

6,619

219,958

1978

15,216

37,600

2,990

6,592

209,257

1979

14,690

36,300

2,895

6,383

246,850

1980

14,427

35,650

3,183

7,017

288,776

1981

14,812

36,600

3,356

7,397

310,267

Total Production
(100 t ) (1000 cwt)

-

lUSDA 1977 and 1982
2Fresh market price and value on f . o . b . basis.

Crop Value?
1000 d o l l a r s

3

(Table 1 - 2 ) .

In 1981, Michigan produced 2.4

percent

of

the n a t i o n ' s

s tr a w b e r r i e s , 78 percent o f which were sold in the fresh market.
Table 1-2

Trends o f area harvested, y i e l d , p r odu cti on , and percent of
U.S. produ ctio n o f stra w b er ri e s in Michigan*.

Harvested
Year Hectares (acres)

Yi el d/area
kg/ha l b s / a c

Total
t

1961

3,399

8,400

4,034

3,600

13,712

30,240

5.9

1962

3,278

8,100

4,707

4,200

15,429

34,020

6.5

1963

3,116

7,700

5,043

4,500

15,714

34,650

6.7

1964

2,954

7,300

5,491

4,900

16,220

35,770

6.5

1965

2,995

7,400

5,155

4,600

15,439

34,040

7.8

1966

2,954

7,300

4,146

3,700

12,247

27,010

5.8

1967

2,752

6,800

4,819

4,300

13,262

29,240

6.1

1968

2,631

6,500

4,595

4,100

12,089

26,650

5.1

1969

2,550

6,300

6,190

5,524

15,784

34,800

7.1

1970

2,347

5,800

4,927

4,397

11 ,564

25,500

5.1

1971

2,104'

5,200

5,388

4,808

11 ,336

25,000

4.8

1972

1 ,619

4,000

5,939

5,300

9,615

21 ,200

4.6

1973

1 ,376

3,400

4,944

4,412

6,803

15,000

3.1

1974

1 ,255

3,100

6,399

5,710

8,031

17,700

3.3

1975

1 ,214

3,000

6,163

5,500

7,482

16,500

3.0

1976

1 ,174

2,900

6,724

6,000

7.894

17,400

3.0

1977

1 ,133

2,800

7,844

7,000

8,887

19,600

2.9

1978

1 ,133

2,800

8,405

7,500

9,523

21 ,000

3.2

1979

1 ,133

2,800

7,844

7,000

8,887

19,600

3.0

1980

1 ,093

2,700

7,305

6,519

7,984

17,600

2.5

1981

1 ,093

2,700

7,305

6,519

7,984

17,600

2.4

iuSDA, 1963 -1982

production
(1000 l b s )

Percent of
U.S. Production

4

The

commercial

steady de c lin e f o r
the y i e l d
is

strawberry
two decades.

a re su lt

1978,

in

Michigan

of

improved

the

To

technologies

pesticides,

average y i e l d

(7,500 l b s / a c r e ) ,
hec tare.

crop

have

in

Michigan

has

experienced

such

and c u l t u r a l

per harvested

hectares

and

only

a

a period
a

on

a

This increase in y i e l d
as new and improved

practices.

68

45 percent

of

twenty-one

percent

For example,

hectare was 8,405 kilograms

which was almost twice the 1968 y i e l d

sum up,

been

Although hectares have beeh reduced,

per harvested hectare has increased.

strawberry v a r i e t i e s ,
in

hectares

years,

decrease

decrease

per harvested

in

(1961-1981)

its

in i t s t o t a l

strawberry

production of

strawberries.
Several

f a c t o r s have c o n t r i b u t e d to the de cl in e of strawberry hec­

ta re s i n the United S ta te s .

However, the two fa c t o r s which are the most

p r e v a l e n t are 1) lack o f s u f f i c i e n t , r e l i a b l e harvest l a b o r forc e and 2)
increased

harvest

costs

(Booster, D. E.,

1969;

Brown, G. K . ,

1980;

A s h c r a f t , E., 1980; and Duyck, L . , 1980).
The migr an t la b o r fo rc e i s not as stable as i t once was; t h e r e f o r e ,
growers are never sure o f the amount o f help they w i l l
day and y e a r - t o - y e a r .
to

reduce

their

This i n s t a b i l i t y o f l a b o r has caused some growers

hectares

The decrease in the

have from day-to-

by o n e - h a l f

to

tw o-thirds

(Ashcraft,

1980).

ha rvest l a b o r supply was due to the te r m in a t io n of

the Pu blic Law (PL)78, commonly c a ll e d the "bracero program", and due to
the c o n s t r a i n t s placed upon c h i l d l ab o r by c h i l d l a b o r laws.
T r a d i t i o n a l l y , st r a w b e r ri e s have been harvested by hand and f o r a l l
practical

purposes they are s t i l l

h a r v e s t in g .
v e s ti n g

Brown (1980)

i s f r e q u e n t l y well

h ig h l y dependent upon hand l ab o r f o r

reported the amount of l ab o r needed f o r har­
over 50 percent of the t o t a l

ment f o r a s p e c i f i c h o r t i c u l t u r a l

crop.

l ab o r r e q u i r e ­

5

F r i d l e y (1973) re p or te d the two operations which r e q u ir e con side r­
able l ab o r are 1) t r a n s p l a n t i n g

and 2) h a r v e s t in g .

l a b o r hours also are r e qui re d f o r i r r i g a t i o n ,
runners.

Harvesting

alone,

A l ar g e number of

weeding, and c u l t i v a t i n g

required more l ab o r

hours than

all

other

operations combined.
Dennis and Sammet (1961)

reported ha rvesting costs from 14 straw­

b erry producing areas in 10 d i f f e r e n t states and found harvest costs to
range from 47 to 76 percent o f the production c o s t.
(1962), Gobel

(1961),

and Heater (1967)

percent of the t o t a l

Alderman et al .

reported t h a t approximately 50

expenditure required f o r the crop production goes

f o r harvesting costs ( re p o r t e d by Booster e t al . , 1969).
The f u t u r e

of

the Michigan

strawberry

the development of a successful mechanical
reduce

the

through
turned
c os t

la b o r

reduced

requirements
co s ts .

to mechanical
increase

strawberry

ra te

har ves ting
(Grant,

for

dependent upon

the

grower's

Michigan

growers

net

income

have already

as a means to slow down the production

1980,

system

freezing

the

is

harvesting system, which w i l l

increase

A few of

production

s tr a w b er ri e s

and

industry

and

has

and f o r

Ledebuhr,

progressed

1982).
to

jams and j u i c e

the

Michigan's
e x te n t

that

can be mechanically

harvested in a once-over o p e r a ti o n .

1.1.1

Ad d iti o n a l Note
Martin,

w ritin g

in

the October, 1982, S c i e n t i f i c American, stated

the need f o r mechanization in the f r u i t
wide

if

market.

the United
Martin

said

States
that

is
the

to

and vegetable i n d u s t r y

be c o m p et it iv e

fru it

in

and vegetable

dependence on the undocumented worker slows

the

its

own domestic

industry's

pace

of

nation

growing

labo r saving

6

tech no log ica l

changes needed by the i n d u s t r y

if

it

This inexpensive a l i e n l a b o r b e n e f i t s a g r i c u l t u r e
b li n d s the growers to the needed tech nological

i s to stay v i a b l e .

in the short run but

changes which have made

the r e s t of the n a t i o n ' s a g r i c u l t u r e a paradigm o f e f f i c i e n c y .
Mechanization

is

one answer to the problems t h r e a te n in g the F r u i t

and Vegetable i n d u s t r y i n the United Stat es.
U.S. must accept an a l i e n

Without mechanization, the

dominated l ab o r fo rc e f o r

seasonal

handwork

and e r e c t trade b a r r i e r s to keep out produce grown abroad at even lower
wages.

1.1 .2

Problem Statement
To recommend mechanical

strawberry production in Michigan, research

must demonstrate t h a t :
1.

mechanical

ha rvesting and processing o f s tr a w b e r r i e s can

compensate f o r the de cl in e in the migrant ha rvest l a b o r fo r c e .
2.

t h a t the p o t e n t i a l

revenues w i l l

3.

income from mechanical

strawberry production systems must be

s u f f i c i e n t to s ti m u la t e p o t e n t i a l

1.2

be g r e a t e r than c o s ts , and

growers'

interest.

Objectives
The purpose o f t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n i s to examine the economic f e a s i ­

b ility

of mechanical

ha rvesting

and processing

of

so lid -se t

(Section

3.1) c u l t u r e s tr a w b er ri e s in Michigan.
The s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i v e s are:
1) to

ex p la in

pro duction.

the

current

cultural

p r a c ti c e s

u t i l i z e d in s o l i d - s e t

2) to describe the h a rv est er used in t h i s study and i t s performance.
3) to describe the c u r r e n t

processing

equipment used in t h i s study and

i t s performance.
4) to develop a computer model to simulate the crop p r odu cti on , harvest,
and

processing

costs

f o r mechanical ha rvesting and processing o f a

s o l i d - s e t strawberry production system.
5) to

provide

bases

for

recommending

strawberry production in Michigan.

or not recommending mechanical

CHAPTER I I

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1

Systems Research

2.1.1

D e f i n i t i o n and Approach
Systems research i s an a n a l y t i c a l

a

whole by understanding

approach to studying a system as

i t s subsystems and how

th e ir

interaction

to

and/or upon each oth er has an e f f e c t upon the outcome o f the complete
system.

Therefore, systems research deals s y s t e m a t i c a l l y and r a t i o n a l l y

w it h the parameters of the system.
In a systems study the re are two major areas o f a c t i v i t i e s :
1)

system a n a l y s i s ,

and 2)

system synth es is.

separation of the complete system i n t o

its

System a n a ly si s

fundamental

elements.

is

the
This'

i n vo lv e s a thorough examination of the system s t r u c t u r e to b e t t e r under­
stand i t s

nature and to determine i t s esse ntial

thesis u t i l i z e s
original

f e a tu r e s .

Systems syn­

the i n f o r m a t io n gained from the a n a l y s i s to modify the

system or to design an e n t i r e l y new system.

Wright

(1970)

lis ts

the usual

sequence

of

events

in

a systems

research to be:
1) problem s p e c i f i c i a t i o n - - w h i c h leads to a q u a l i t a t i v e
o f the r e le v a n t system

definitio n

9

2) systems a n a l y s i s - - which

attempts

to

provide

a quantitative

s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f the system, and
3) systems s y n th e si s- -w h ic h attempts to
o rig in al

2 . 1 .2

give

a

solution

to

the

problem.

System Model

Systems research r e l i e s
the real

system.

h e a v il y on the use of models to r e p l i c a t e

The models are s u b s t i t u t e s f o r the real

system and are

used as t o o l s to gain f u r t h e r knowledge about the system through analy­
sis

and

synthesis

as

the

means

of

conveying i n f o rm a t io n about the

system.
Models are used in l i e u
follow ing

reasons

(M iles,

o f the real

1973):

system f o r any or a l l

Economy--it may cost less

of the

to derive

knowledge from the model, a v a i l a b i l i t y - - t h e model may represent a system
which does not y e t e x i s t , and i n f o r m a t i o n — the model may be a convenient
way to c o l l e c t or t r a n s m i t i n f o r m a t i o n .

Models form an important p a r t

of

a v a ila b ility ,

the

systems concept because economy,

are a l l

2 . 1 .3

and in fo rm a tio n

impo rtan t f a c t o r s in the design and a n a ly s is of a system.

Model S t r u c tu r e

The three main types of models are; i c o n i c , analogue, and symbolic
( D a l to n , 1982).
system.

rep res en tat ion s o f the real

Analogue models are based on the use of one property to repre­

sent another.
tical

Ic on ic models are physical

symbols.

Symbolic models are represented by q u a n t i t a t i v e mathema­
The usual

symbols f o r these models are mathematical ones

using a lg e b r a ic symbols and numbers.

Symbolic models are the ea si e st to

10

manipulate and they
the o b je c t i v e s

fo rc e

the a n a l y s t to

of the model.

Once

be systematic and e x p l i c i t in

b u i l t they can be used f o r

several

purposes i n c l u d in g plann ing, c o n tr o l and f o r e c a s t i n g .
Models are also c l a s s i f i e d by behavioral c h a r a c t e r ! s t i e s and degree
o f co mp lexi ty.

A system may be e i t h e r d e t e r m i n i s t i c or p r o b a b i l i s t i c in

nature.

Each

type

simple,

complex,

or

is

then

classified

exceedingly

by

complex

its

(Awad,

degree o f
1979).

co mp lexity ;

Deterministic

models are p r e d i c ta b l e in t h a t t h e i r outcome i s due to the model design
and q u a l i t y and accuracy o f the i n f o r m a t io n fed i n t o the system.
b ilis tic

Proba­

models are s to c h a s ti c in nature f o r they have varying degrees

o f outcome and are described in terms o f chance.
pro ba b ilistic

would be the

tossing

of

a coin

For example, a simple
(50 percent chances

of

heads, and 50 percent chances of t a i l s ) whereas in a very complex proba­
b ilis tic

system a wide v a r i e t y of behavior outcomes may e x i s t ,

i n a weather p r e d i c t i o n model.

such as

Therefore, i t

i s extremely d i f f i c u l t to

p r e d i c t w it h any accuracy the actual outcome or

re-occurance of any such

outcome w it h t h i s type o f a system.

2 .1 .4

Testing and Implementation

Before conclusions can be drawn from the r e s u l t s o f the model, i t
is

necessary

to

prove t h a t

what degree the model
model

to

be v e r i f i e d

the model

represents
(th is

the

ensures

is

fu n c t i o n in g

real

system.

that

the model

co rrectly

and to

This re q ui re s
is

the

mathematically

sound and fu n c t i o n i n g as i t was designed to) and v a li d a te d (comparing of
the model's outcome w it h
model) .

t h a t of r e a l i t y

to check the v a l i d i t y

o f the

11

Ultim ately

the

model

outcome

should

be

compared

w it h

r e a l i t y to t e s t the a l t e r n a t i v e s in d ic a te d by the

model.

times

because:

it

may not be p o ss ibl e to v a l i d a t e a model

system may not y e t e x i s t ,
i n f o r m a t io n

available

or 2)

there may be too l i t t l e

about the real

that

of

However,

at

1) the new
q u antitative

system to be used as a basis f o r

the comparison.
Should e i t h e r
the

model

must

of these events e x i s t ,

incorporate

the element

then the decision
of

to accept

s u b je c ti v e judgement

to

balance the o b je c t i v e s o f the study agai ns t the realism and complexity
o f the model

2 .1 .5

(Wr ig ht, 1970).

A p p l i c a t i o n o f Systems

Research

The systems approach technique in c o nju nc tio n w it h the computer has
become an impo rta nt aid in making economic decisions w i t h i n the farming
sector,

for

it

a lterna tive s
based on real

is

to

a f a s t and e f f e c t i v e method to evaluate a number of

a given

situation.

world o b s e r va ti o n s,

And since the systems models are
the circumstance in which the system

must operate can be adjusted to determine the "best"

or optimum a l t e r ­

n a ti v e f o r t h a t p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n .
In
occurs

any

managerial

when the

maximized.
impo rtan t

d e c is io n

economic

For example,
optim ization

making

performance of
in

areas

the area
is

the

process,

the complete

thus i t

is

vita l

the farm manager knows how to :

management

system has been

of farm management,

one of

area

management.

Machinery costs are one of the few v a r ia b l e s
influence,

optimum

of

machinery

the

t h a t good management can

to the success of the farming system t h a t
1) Evaluate machine performance
2) Estimate machine cost
3) Select machine systems.

12

Based

on

this

ph ilos oph y,

machinery

s e le c t io n

models

have

been

developed to a s s i s t in maximizing the economic performance of the machi­
nery set.

These models are o f te n based on a l e a s t cost method.

Singh (1978)
systems
based

for

upon

developed a computer model

m ulti-crop

farms.

fie ld

sp e cifica tio n s,

constraints,

work

machinery

The model

ca p a c i ty

to design f i e l d machinery

designed

fie ld

rela tio n s,

the machinery

operation

and f i e l d

calendar

set
date

work c o n d i t i o n s .

I t s p e c if ie d the size and number o f each machinery component, prepared a
weekly schedule of f i e l d

opera tion s and l a b o r requirements, and ca lcu ­

l a t e d a complete c o s t a n a l y s i s o f the machinery set selected.
Wolak

(1981)

engineering

u tiliz e d

techniques

to

a determ inistic

model

match

productivity

machine

a v a i l a b l e to complete the sequence o f o p er a tio n s .

which

uses
to

standard
the

time

The sm alle st machin­

ery compliment which produced a s a t i s f a c t o r y work schedule was selected
as the required machinery se t.

The machinery sets are ranked on a per

hectare

annual

basis

and

the

average

costs

(depreciation,

interest,

r e p a i r s , s h e l t e r , insurance, and fuel cost) f o r each machine were de termi ned.
Muhtar
machinery

(1982)

developed

requirements

for

a machinery

d iffe re n t

s e le c t io n

tilla g e

model

systems.

to

analyze

The model

was

used to determine the optimum size machinery f o r conservation and con­
ventional

tilla g e

based

upon

performance

and economic c r i t e r i a .

r e s u l t s f o r the d i f f e r e n t crop sequence on d i f f e r e n t
that

conservation

tilla g e

farm

The

sizes showed

could provide a lower cost in producing the

same crop sequence.
Burrows and Siemens (1974) developed a computer model
the l e a s t c o s t,

to determine

number and size o f machines f o r corn-soybean farme-s in

13

the

corn

be lt.

The model

was

designed

as

an

educational

tool

for

a s s i s t i n g farmers w it h t h e i r machinery purchasing de cis io ns .

The model

selected

c o s t,

the machinery

set

resulting

in

the minimum t o t a l

and

l i s t e d the schedule of f i e l d o p er a ti o n s , annual machine use and itemized
the machine co sts.
Frisb y and Bockhop (1968)
system based on e f f e c t i v e
The model

determined

system and to
increased.

developed a model

f i e l d cap acit y

and annual cost

the acreage y i e l d i n g

decide

when the

They found

that

it

to se le c t a machinery
o f ownership.

maximum income f o r

a given

system should be abandoned as acreage
is

possible

to determine the acreage,

based on ha rv est-com pletion p r o b a b i l i t y which y i e l d s maximum income and
to r e vi s e the machinery system to increase the l i m i t i n g acreage based on
the

fa ll

plowing

completion

p ro ba b ility

to

A gricultural

economists

have u t i l i z e d

that

required

f o r maximum

i ncome.
the

systems research

tech­

nique as a means to b e t t e r estimate the machine ownership’ costs due to
i n f l a t i o n and changes i n the federal

tax p o l i c i e s .

Rotz and Black (1981) developed a cash flow model f o r cost anal ys is
of

agricultural

T h e ir model
co s t

machinery

provides

method,

but

which

sim ila r

provides

includes

the

effects

r e s u l t s as the t r a d i t i o n a l
better

results

Smith and O l i v e r
f o r eva lu a ti n g
in itia l
c o s ts .

(1974)

of

the

a ca p ita l-

to a less c a p i t a l -

operating costs.

developed a model

farm machinery costs.

investment

in fla tio n .

fixed-variable

when comparing

intense machine or system w ith low operating costs
intense a l t e r n a t i v e w i t h higher

of

machine

using an annuity method

The annuity approach breaks
down to

a series

They compared the popular s t r a i g h t - l i n e

of

equal

d e pr e ci a tio n

the

annual

and found

14

that th e ir

annuity approach a c c u ra te ly described the annual

the

actually

owner

occurs

w it h

l ar g e

investments

and

costs t h a t

high

interest

rates.
Bloome,

Nelson,

and Roush (1975)

modeled a cash flo w and present

value an al ys is method f o r farm investments.
the

fixed-variable

fl o w

a n a ly si s

c os t

provided

a n a l y s i s method.
a clearer

view

of

-Comparisons were made with
They found

that

th e ir

cash

fin a n c in g

and

income

tax

e s ti m a ti n g

the

prospective

e f f e c t s on machinery c o s ts .

2.2

Previous Strawberry Studies

Growers

need

economic

g u id e li n e s

co s t and income to t h e i r e n t e r p r i s e .
better

evaluate

regarding
tion

their

the p o t e n t i a l

farm

situation

for

With t h i s in f o r m a t io n growers can
and

can make

better

r e tu r n s and establishment c o sts .

i n f o r m a t io n o f t h i s

decisions

Cost evalua­

type has been developed by Kelsey and Johnson

(1979) and Kelsey and B e l t e r (1974).
Kelsey and B e l t e r (1974) o u t l i n e d a method o f analyzing strawberry
production costs in southwestern Michigan.

The in f o r m a t io n was or gan iz­

ed to a s s i s t the growers in e st im a ti n g t h e i r production costs and a pro­
j e c t e d income.
d iv i d u a l

The budgeting i n f o r m a t io n was organized so t h a t the i n ­

growers could a d ju s t the i n f o r m a t io n to be more r e p re s e n ta ti v e

to t h e i r farming s i t u a t i o n .

This i n f o r m a t io n i s useful

a basis f o r f u t u r e d e ci si o n making.
the

budgeting

(1974).

in f o r m a t io n

and

ta b le s

to the grower as

Kelsey and Johnson (1979) updated
developed

by Kelsey

and B e l t e r

15

Hussen (1979) reported the e f f o r t s to mechanize the strawberry har­
ve s t in Oregon.
mechanical

He examined the c o n d i ti o n s and circumstances in which

har ves ting

of

st r a w b e r r ie s

would be economically

feasible.

Assumptions about the machine's cost and performance were based on actual
observations
Machinery

as

well

Limi ted

as

(CML)

potential
strawberry

Oregon on an experimental ba si s .

the

which

was

1977

Canners

operated

in

Depending on the assumptions regarding

and q u a l i t y

harvester,

Hussen estimated the net savings to the grower f o r mechani­

harvested

per acre.
d itio n s,

the

harv este r

of

the y i e l d

c a lly

of

performance

st r a w b e r ri e s

strawberries,

and the e f f i c i e n c y

of

the

to range from $523 to a net loss of $187

Even though net losses were possible under unfavorable condiin most cases

positive

r etu rn s

to

the grower were estimated

from mechanical har ves ting o f s tr a w b e r r i e s .
Kim e t a l . (1979)
hand-picked

compared production costs and net revenues f o r

versus mechanically

harvested

s tr a w b e r r i e s .

were computed on the assumption of no d i f f i c u l t y
hand p ic k i n g .

in procuring l ab o r f o r

Results i n d i c a te d t h a t in some cases mechanical

ing may be p r o f i t a b l e

to growers,

ap pr o p ria te

Even

mechanical

Net revenues

dates.

w it h

pr ov idi ng
re la tiv e ly

harvest­

harvesting occurred on the
lower

strawberry

p r ic e s ,

harvesting was more favo ra bl e than hand har ves ti ng .

Holtman e t a l . (1977) teste d a complete system f o r mechanical
v e st in g and processing of s tr a w b e r r i e s .
analyze the economic v i a b i l i t y

The t e s t r e s u l t s were used to

of the system.

Some of the r e s u l t s were

promising but i t was apparent t h a t changes in the c u l t u r a l
harvesting system would be needed i f
t i v e w it h the conventional

har­

p r a c ti c e s and

the new system was to be competi­

hand-pick system.

F r i d l e y and Adrian (1968) described a method f o r studying the eco­
nomic f e a s i b i l i t y

o f developing a mechanical

ha rvesting system.

A set

o f nomograms was developed to a s s i s t in analyzing the f e a s i b i l i t y
system.
crops

The f a c t o r s i n d i c a t i n g
using

typical

economic

soundness o f a mechanical
f r u i t l o s t (unrecovered)
o f mechanization,

of a

f e a s i b i l i t y were evaluated f o r several
values

f o r hand h ar ves t.

The economic

harvesting system depends upon the amount of
i n excess o f normal

and r a te of harvest.

hand harvest l o s s ,

degree

The nomograms can be used f o r

modifying the assumptions o f f r u i t l o s s , equipment c o s t , equipment use,
and crew si ze .

They can also be used to evaluate the e f f e c t o f having a

m u l t i p l e row harvester as well as ev alu a tin g a complete harvest system.

2.3

Summary

Systems research i s a technique which i nc or po rat es the b e n e f i t s of
the computer to

thoroughly

examine a complete

p i n p o i n t the problem areas w i t h i n

t h a t system, w it h

redesigning the system or a d ju s ti n g
more

e fficie n t

researchers

have

and have proven
agricultural

and

profitable

s u c c e s s f u ll y
it

systems.

to

the i n t e n t i o n s

to
of

the system components to cr eate a

system.

A gricultural

employed the

be a useful

system in an e f f o r t

tool

systems

for

engineers

research

s e le c t in g

and

technique

and ev alua tin g

CHAPTER I I I

CURRENT SOLID-SET PRODUCTION PRACTICES
AND CULTURE OPERATIONS

3.1

Introduction
Mechanical

harvesting

of

problem;

a problem which

growers,

horticul tural i s t s ,

Since

the

strawberry

str aw ber ri es

req uir es

breeders,

is

and

The s o l i d - s e t c u l t u r a l

growers has provided the c u l t u r a l

inte rdisciplin ary

food

a low growing

p r a c ti c e s had to be modified to b e t t e r f a c i l i t a t e
vester.

an

the combined e f f o r t s

plant
plant

is

of

engineers,

technologists.

plant

the

cultural

the needs of the har­

technique as modified

by the Michigan

changes needed by the h a rv es te r and at

the same time other fa vo ra bl e a t t r i b u t e s were achieved such as increased
crop y i e l d s and uniform ri p e n i n g of the f r u i t c l u s t e r s .
M ic hi g a n' s

concept

of

solid-set

culture

R icke tso n's research a t the H o r t i c u l t u r a l
Canada.

is

based

on Dr.

C.

L.

Research I n s t i t u t e o f O n ta r io ,

In s o l i d - s e t c u l t u r e , the strawberry p la n ts are not r e s t r i c t e d

or confined to rows but are permitted to develop runners to cover the
e n t i r e f i e l d surface.
inceased y i e l d s
1968).

However,

With t h i s technique, Ricketson was able to ob tain

over t h a t of the t r a d i t i o n a l
in order

row p la n t i n g s

(R icketson,

to e s t a b l i s h and ob tain the b e n e f i t s o f the

s o l i d - s e t c u l t u r e , i t re q u ir e s approximatley a 40 to 50 percent increase

17

18

in

the stawberry p l a n t d e n si ty

The

benefits

achieved

from

per acre at

this

the time of t r a n s p l a n t i n g .

technique

are:

1)

increased

y i e l d s , 2) more uniform ri p e n i n g of the f r u i t c l u s t e r s ,
in the weed management program by l i m i t i n g the so il
available

f o r weed growth.

and 3) a s s i s t s

surface and s u n l i g h t

The Michigan growers r e fi n e d

grow the b e r r i e s on a smoother f i e l d

surface.

crop

the system to

This i s accomplished by

r o l l i n g the f i e l d s in the spring o f the year to smooth the f i e l d surface
and when needed, p r i o r to t r a n s p l a n t i n g , l e v e l i n g the f i e l d w it h a land
plane. The s o l i d - s e t pr odu cti on costs due to the increased p la n t de nsity
and r o l l i n g
tional

o f the f i e l d s

are o f f - s e t by the e l i m i n a t i o n of the t r a d i ­

f i e l d opera tion s o f f i e l d c u l t i v a t i o n , mulching, mowing and r o to -

t i l l i ng.

3.2

D e s c r i p ti o n o f Current C u lt u r a l Pr a cti ce s
The f o l l o w i n g

by

James

Grant

i n f o r m a t io n i s a summary o f various a r t i c l e s w r i t t e n

(1980,

Hansen (1983).

1982),

Richard

Ledebuhr

(1982),

and

Clarence

This se c tio n describes Michigan's c u r r e n t c u l t u r a l

prac­

t i c e s f o r r a i s i n g s o l i d - s e t c u l t u r e s tr a w b e r r i e s .

3.2.1

S i t e S e le c tio n
A p re fe r r e d s i t e c o n s i s t s o f a uniform topography on a w e l l - d r a i n e d

sandy loam s o i l .

The topography character!- s t i e s

to promote uniform r i p e n i n g
s e le c t a level
ideal.

f i e l d w it h a sunny s i t e .

This slope w i l l

t o prevent s o il

throughout the f i e l d .

e r o s io n .

need to be c o n s is t e n t
It

i s important to

A slope of 2 to 3 percent is

a llo w excess water to r u n o f f , y e t is mild enough
F i e l d s w it h h i l l s

and dips should be avoided,

19

f o r the b e r r i e s on the h i l l

c r e s ts w i l l

be ov e rri p e before the b e r r i e s

i n the dips r i p e n .

3 .2 .2

P re -P la n t Soil Preparation
It

is

beneficial

p rio r

to p l a n t i n g .

liz e r

application

s o il

to begin
This

r a te s

the s o il

includes
and s o il

preparation

s o il

samples f o r

fumi gation

for

a t l e a s t one year
determining

fe rti­

nematode c o n t r o l .

A

b u i l d i n g program o f a green manure plow down crop p r i o r to p la n ti n g
I

s tr a w b e r ri e s

adds

organic

weeds and grubs.

It

is

matter

to

the

s o il

important t h a t the soil

and helps
is f e r t i l e

rocks, weeds, he rb ic id e b u i l d up, and s o il borne diseases.
problems w i l l
which

in

to

e li m i n a t e

and fre e of
Any of these

reduce the new p l a n t i n g ' s a b i l i t y to grow u n if o r m l y s o l i d ,

tur n

w ill

reduce the

potential

yield

and harvester

recovery

e f f i c i ency.
Correct
vita l

and

proper

fie ld

surface

pr eparatio n

f o r an e f f i c i e n t harvest recovery.

smooth and fre e of i r r e g u l a r i t i e s
severe

s o il

surface

3 .2 .3

such as soil

irre g u la ritie s ,

smoothing and grading the s o il

The f i e l d

a

land

and maintenance

surface needs to be

washes and stones.
plane

is

is

e ffe ctive

For
for

surface.

Pl a n ti n g - Spring F i r s t Year
I f a perennial cover crop i s used, one which i s r e s i s t a n t to w in te r

k ill,

then a con tact h e r b i c i d e i s used to e l i m i n a t e the f a l l cover crop.

For in t h i s
tilla g e
planter.

technology,

o p er a ti o n .
The

the strawberry plants are tr a ns pla nte d as a no

Plants

are

set with

a modified mechanical

trans­

m o d i f i c a t i o n c o n s is t s o f a 50 cm (20 i n ) r i p p l e d c o u l t e r

20

which i s mounted in f r o n t o f the furrow opener. The c o u l t e r cuts through
the roo ts o f the cover crop a ll o w in g the furrow opener to penetrate the
u n tille d

soil

w it h a minimum o f s o il

by a c u l t i p a c k e r to l e v e l

distu rba nc e.

Pl a nt in g i s followed

the f i e l d and to f i r m the pla nts in the s o i l .

Immediately a f t e r c u l t i p a c k i n g , the f i e l d i s i r r i g a t e d .

Irrig a tio n

i s necessary in e s t a b l i s h i n g the new p l a n t growth, since each p la n t has
to

produce a number o f daughter p la n ts

if

the f i e l d

is

to be s o l i d l y

covered by fal 1.

3 . 2 .4

Post - P l a n t Care, F i r s t Year
He rb ic id e s ,

insecticides

and

fe rtiliz e r

are

Hand hoeing and weed p u l l i n g

are necessary u n t i l

qu ately

shade

fille d

strawberry

in

enough

to

out f u t u r e

applied

as

needed.

the new crop has ade­
weed development.

The

p l a n t l e a f canopy along w it h the a p p l i c a t i o n of h e r b ic id e s ,

c o n t r o l s the weeds s u f f i c i e n t l y

to make hand hoeing of those remaining

p ra ctical.
In s o l i d - s e t c u l t u r e ,

a c u ltiv a to r

is

not used to con tro l

weeds.

C u l t i v a t i o n causes ridge s and prevents a s o l i d uniform f i e l d coverage of
new runner p l a n t s .
the f i e l d

These new runner plants (daughter plan ts)

p l a n t p o p u l a ti o n .

increase

The canopy of these new strawberry p la n t

leaves i n h i b i t s new weed growth and provides a natural mulch to minimize
the cold damage during the w i n t e r season.

3 .2 .5

Post - P la n t Care, Spring o f Harvest Year
In the s p ri n g ,

vest.

p la n ts

are given

th e ir

final

preparation

for

This c o n s is t s o f r o l l i n g the f i e l d s , and applying f e r t i l i z e r s

har­
and

21

herbicides.
s till

These op era tio ns must be completed while

the

p la n ts

are

dormant.
Rolling

i s one o f the most important operations in

system of growing s t r a w b e r r i e s .

this

cultural

R o l l in g pushes the f r o s t heaved crowns

and stones back i n t o the s o il w it h o u t causing damage to the crowns, pro­
viding

it

is

done w h il e the so il

is

s till

moist and p l a s t i c .

R o l l in g

improves the harvester recovery by allo win g the c u t t e r bar to be accura­
tely

pos it ion ed

to

the

s o il

surface w ith o u t concern of jamming the

c u t t e r bar w it h crown tops or stones.

The operating zone f o r the c u t t e r

bar i s 1.3 to 1.6 cm (1 /2 to 5/8 i n ) above the so il
Rolling

is

pipes 2.1 m (7.0

accomplished
ft)

by

p ulling

two,

50 cm (20 i n )

long behind a l i g h t t r a c t o r .

w it h water and p ulle d i n tandom, so t h a t
by each pass across the

fie ld .

surface.
diameter

The pipes are f i l l e d

the p la n ti n g s are r o l l e d twice

Generally one pass i s s u f f i c i e n t pro­

v i d i n g the f i e l d was p r o p e r l y groomed the previous year.
Hand hoeing

and weed

pulling

are necessary u n t i l

the

strawberry

p l a n t canopy has adequately f i l l e d

in to prevent f u t u r e weed develop­

ment.

f o r i t must be completed before the

This i s a p r i o r i t y

p la n ts form f r u i t buds.

a c tiv ity

Once the f r u i t buds are formed, no oth er f o o t

a c t i v i t y i s permitted w i t h i n the f i e l d .
A well-planned
heights of
fu n g ic id e s
systems.

fe rtiliz e r

program

30 to 45 cm (12 to 18 i n )
havebeen
In s e c t i c i d e s

s u c c e s s f u ll y
and

a i r b l a s t sprayer t r a v e l i n g
ap art or by a i r c r a f t .

is

necessary

to

a t harvest time.
applied

fun g ic id e s

have

through
also

been

ob tain

p la n t

F e r t i l i z e r and
the

irrig a tio n

applied

by

an

in sprayer lanes spaced at 18 meters (59 f t )

22

3.2 .6

Post - Harvest C u l tu r a l P ra c tic e s
For

the

past

three

years

the

p la n t

leaves

and debris

have been

raked from the f i e l d a f t e r ha rvest by a side d e l i v e r y hay rake.
a lly ,

raking

was

f o r pathogens.

thought to be b e n e f i c i a l

O rigin­

in the removal of a h a b i t a t

However, during the 1983 season some of the f o i l age was

l e f t in the f i e l d to shade the crowns from the sun, thus all ow ing f o r a
more vigorous regrowth.

With t h i s

in mind, a method of shredding the

f o i l age as i t i s discharged from the harv este r should be considered.
Regardless of the method o f handling the leaves from the ha rv es te r,
it

is important to i r r i g a t e the strawberry crowns immediately a f t e r the

harvest o p er a ti o n . The crowns need to be i r r i g a t e d f r e q u e n t l y to promote
regrowth.

Approximately one week a f t e r ha rves t,

fe rtiliz e r

cides

appl ied

until

are

arrives.

and

irrig a tio n

is

continued

and h e r b i ­

c o o le r

weather

Hand weeding may be necessary during t h i s period.

At the present time growers and researchers do not know the number
o f years these f i e l d

can be machine harvested.

So f a r the f i e l d s have

been machine harvested f o r fo u r years and the f i e l d s are s t i l l

in very

good c o n d i t i o n .

3.3

Advantages of S o l id - S e t Cultu re

S o l i d - s e t c u l t u r e has c o n tr i b u te d some very p o s i t i v e f a c t o r s to the
present success o f mechanical
of th is cultural

ha rvesting (Ledebuhr, 1982).

technique are:

The b e n e f i t s

1) increased crop y i e l d s , 2) more u n i ­

form r ip e n in g o f berry c l u s t e r s , and 3) high harvester f i e l d recovery.
An increase in the crop y i e l d allows f o r a g re a t e r p o t e n t i a l
per hectare.

Since

ha rvest

costs

r etu rn

are a fi x e d cost per hectare f o r a

23

given

size

farm,

a high

y i e l d i n g crop

reduces the co st o f mechanical

ha rvesting per kilogram o f b e r r i e s .
The strawberry p la n ts grown in t h i s technique have no exposed edges,
consequently the berry c l u s t e r s are u n if o r m l y shaded and suspended w i t h i n
the p la n t canopy by the

surrounding

f o i l age.

This shaded p l a n t canopy

tends to delay r ip e n in g of the primary fl o w e r thus a llo w in g the secondary
and t e r t i a r y

b e r ri e s

to

develop

and ri pen more u n if o r m l y .

The more

uniform ripen ing of the berry c l u s t e r s allows f o r a maximum q u a n t i t y of
usable f r u i t

and less loss due to green no n-rip e or to o v e rr i p e and de­

cayed b e r r i e s .
The higher

fie ld

recovery

results

from the

increased

fie ld

p la n t

f o i l age which supports the f r u i t c l u s t e r s w i t h i n the p l a n t canopy and the
smooth f i e l d

surface which enables the c u t t e r bar of the harv este r to be

a c cu ra te ly

po sit ioned

recovery.

The increase in f o i l a g e he ight decreases the s o il

decay by supporting
surface.

re la tive

to

the c l u s t e r s

the

s o il

up w i t h i n

for

a higher

soil

surface.

3.4

Strawberry P la n t V a r i e t y

borne f r u i t

the canopy and o f f the soil

strawberry

plant

variety

must

severs the p l a n t vine from the

r ip e n

u n if o r m l y

w it h o u t

o v e r r i p e , y i e l d w e l l , and

possess abe rry w it h a convex be rry

a pedicel

cm.

i mportant

fie ld

This also f a c i l i t a t e s harvesting by a llo w in g the c u t t e r bar to

s l i d e under the berry c l u s t e r s before i t

The

surface

length

of

f o r machine

and c l u s t e r

4-6

h a r v e s t in g ,

characteristics

machine processing

Theberry

system.

shape

handling,

calyx with

and c l u s t e r

leng th are

and processing.

The berry

complement the working
The berry

being

e fficiencies

of the

stems must be long enough on the

24

cluster

so the berry

node (Figure 3 - 1 ) .
necessary

for

and be rry

stem can be separated from the c l u s t e r

A minimum b e r ry

the Michigan

stem length of 2.5 cm (1

State University-Canners

(MSU-CML) decapper used at the processing p l a n t .
firm ly

attached

in)

is

Machinery Limited

The be rry stem must be

to the berry so t h a t the stem does not e a s i l y p u ll

separate from the be rry as i t i s picked up by the MSU-CML decapper.

or
At

the present time the re i s only one strawberry p la n t v a r i e t y , the v a r i e t y
'Midway' which possesses the necessary t r a i t s needed f o r t h i s processing
technology.

However, should the grower-processor choose to process the

complete raw f r u i t

product as 100 percent puree, then the shape of the

be rry c a ly x , c l u s t e r l e n g t h , and the str e n g th of the b e rry attachment to
the stem i s not as i m po r ta n t.
Plant
necesary

breeders
tra its

for

need

to

mechanical

develop more v a r i e t i e s which possess the
ha rvesting

and

processing

which

are

capable of growing in the same area w it h concentrated r ip e n in g a t d i f ­
f e r e n t times during the harvest season.

This would extend the ha rvest­

ing season, th e r e f o r e a llo w in g the grower to increase the size of t h e i r
e n t e r p r i s e thus reducing the machine's f i x e d cost per hectare.

3.5

P la n t Density Study
As

pa rt

of

this

research,

a study was conducted

to

examine the

e f f e c t s of t r a n s p l a n t spacing upon the number of v i a b l e pla nts (mother
and daughter) present a t harvest time.

The o b j e c t i v e was to determine

if

a better

one of

the

p la n t

crowns than another.
parison.

spacings

provided

establishment of

new

Three p la n t spacings were a v a il a b l e f o r t h i s com­

These p l a n t spacings were:

1) 91 x 61 cm (36 x 24 i n ) , 2) 61

x 61 cm (24 x 24 i n ) and 3) 46 x 61 cm (18 x 24 i n ) .

25

Peduncle- 1 2 - 1 5 cm. long

Long pedicel, 4 - 6 cm., firm ly attached to calyx

slightly reflexed calyx

slight shoulders

T E R T IA R Y
BUDS

SECONDARY
Inconspicuous

BUDS

achenes
P R IM A R Y
BUD
Roundish or conical
shape of medium size
3 - 5 even sized berries per truss

Fruit with even truss ripening

Figure 3-1.

Idealized St ra w be rr y Truss for Mechanical H ar v es ti n g

26

3.5 .1

Method o f Data C o l l e c t i o n

At ha rvest

time

randomly placed in

a 0.19

square meter (2.0 square fe e t)

the f i e l d .

All of

frame were counted and recorded
fo r all

the strawberry pla nts

(Appendix 1 ) .

frame was
w i t h i n the

This procedure was used

three p l a n t spacings as the method o f data c o l l e c t i o n .

A total

of

104 p l a n t

crown

de ns ity

samples were recorded.

The

number of samples in each o f the three p l a n t spacings varied due to the
size o f the t e s t p l o t and to the time
tio n .

Forty-eight

samples in the 61

available

f o r the sample c o l l e c ­

samples were recorded in the 91
x

x

61 cm spacing, 44

61 cm spacing, and 12samples in the 46

x

61 cm

spaci ng.

3 .5 .2

Analysi s
An aly si s o f

onthe Michigan

data was done by using the Minitab S t a t i s t i c a l
State U n i v e r s i t y ' s

Control Data

Package

Corporation Cyber 750

Computer.
The null

hypothesis tested using the one way an alysis o f variance

technique ( M i n i t a b , Subprogram A0V0NIEWAY) was:
H0 :
There are no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in the number of
straw berry p la n ts per u n i t area among the three p la n t
spacing d e n s i t i e s .
This hypothesis was r e je c t e d at the .05 level
ca nt d i f f e r e n c e

was

found

among the three p l a n t

showed a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e
the 95 percent l e v e l .

{

95% C . I . ) .

spacings.

S ig n ifi­
The F - t e s t

among the p l a n t spacings ( d e n s i t i e s ) at

Examination of the confidence i n t e r v a l

i nd ic ate d

27

t h a t Cl

and C3 ( p l a n t

spacing of 91 x 61 cm and 46 x 61 cm) do not

d i f f e r appreciably but t h a t the mean p la n t density o f C2 ( p l a n t spacing
of

61

x 61

(Table 3 - 1 ) .

cm)

is

co nsiderably

Consequently,

g re a t e r

C2 provides

than

the means o f

a g re a t e r

Cl

and C3

p l a n t d e n s it y

than

e i t h e r of the oth er two t r a n s p l a n t spacings and a t less co s t than t h a t
o f C3 which i s the high d e n si ty t r a n s p l a n t spacing.

28
T

T ab le 3-1.

C2 =
C3=

COLUMN
COLUMN

ANALYSIS

OF

1 DATA=
2 DATA=
3 DATA=

i n d i v i

(B A S E D

ST.

91
61
46

X 61
X 61
X 61

MS=SS/DF
7 2 5 .5
25.7

1451.1
2598.9
4050.0

N
48
44
12

POOLED

OF
OF
OF

SPACING
SPACING
SPACING

ss

DF
2
101
103

LEVEL
Cl
C2
C3

PLANT
PLANT
PLANT

CM
CM
CM

(36
(24
(18

MEAN
18.85
25.75

ST .

16.33

DEV.

=

IN. )
IN. )
IN. )

F-RATIO
23 . 20

DEV.
5.33
5.24
2.74

5.07

:D U A L 95 P E R C E N T C. I. F O R L E V E L
ON POOLED. S T A N D A R D DEVI A TION)
J

★★★★T

★

MEANS

★*★T
J

1 * * * *

----

24
X 24
X 24

X

VARIANCE

D U E TO
FACTOR
ERROR
^ C T AL

Cl
C2
C3

One Way A n a ly si s of V a r ia nc e O u t p u t from the
Mini tab S u b p r o g r a m AOVONEWAY.

** ★*

T

****-********* I

■i

12.0

15.0

1 3 .0

21 . 0

24 . 0

3 0.0

29

3.6

Summary
The s o l i d - s e t strawberry produc tion technique has c o n t r i b u t e d g r e a t­

ly

to the present success o f the mechanical

ha rv est er.

This c ultu ral-

technique provides f o r an increased crop y i e l d and a more uniform r i p e n ­
ing o f the f r u i t c l u s t e r s .
duction

The Michigan growers r e fi n e d the f i e l d pro­

system to accommodate the c u t t i n g

and pickup mechanism of the

h arvester by growing the crop on a smooth f i e l d surface.
The r e s u l t s o f the p r e l i m i n a r y t r a n s p l a n t density study shows t h a t
there i s
viable

an optimum t r a n s p l a n t de ns it y

strawberry p la n ts

The r e s u l t s

of

this

to achieve a maximum number of

(mother and daughter)

prelim inary

a t the time of harvest.

study shows t h a t there i s

a need f o r

f u r t h e r research in t h i s area to determine the optimum t r a n s p l a n t densi­
ty

which w i l l

provide

the

grower w it h

pla nts a t harvest w it h the l e a s t i n i t i a l

the l a r g e s t q u a n t it y
investment.

of v i ab le

CHAPTER IV

CURRENT STATE OF THE ART HARVESTER

4.1

Harvester D e s c r i p t i o n
The 1983 harv este r model

Michigan

and

included

the

was

b u ilt

e a rlie r

harvester

Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y a g r i c u l t u r a l
te ch n ica lly
and

at

Michigan

State

concepts

developed by

engineers and oth e rs .

complex machine components o f

fabricated

by Robert Buskirk o f Paw Paw,

the

University

The more

harvester were designed
and

Canners

Machinery

Limi te d (CML) of O n ta r i o , Canada (Hansen, 1983).
The harvester was b u i l t on a 4-wheel d r iv e tru ck chasis and i s pro­
p e ll e d by h yd r au lic motors.

The harvester i s powered by a 75 kW (100

hp) engine which d r iv e s h y d r a u l ic pumps and a l i n e sh a ft f o r mechanical
d r i v e to the fans (F i g u re 4 - 1 ) .
The 122 cm (48 i n )

long c u t t e r bar i s of a double s i c k l e

w it h sections on 3.8 cm (1.5 i n ) ce nte rs .
a b e ll

crank by a cam f o l l o w e r

powered by a h yd r au lic motor.
and l i f t i n g

Each s i c k l e i s driven through

in an e c c e n t r ic

groove of a f l y

An 8 - b ar pick-up reel

the crop over the c u t t e r bar.

design

wheel

a s s i s t s in moving

Crop l i f t e r s are f i t t e d below

the c u t t e r bar which a llo w the pla nts to be cut close to the crown and
to a s s i s t in l i f t i n g

the crop onto the f i r s t draper.

The e n t i r e c u t t e r

head i n c l u d in g the f i r s t conveyor i s designed to " f l o a t "
to insure uniform c u t t i n g of the crop.

30

on the ground

Wire Mesh Sides

Belt Conveyer

Double Sickle Hedgers
Operator Seat
V

Open Mesh Conveyers
HUMETYPE
R EEL

Conveyer Belt
with Flights

Cross Conveyer I *

^ [= 1
Cross Flow Fans
(all same shape and size)
_

Four Wheel Drive

Figure 4-1.

Schematic of the H ar vester

v 2 -C ro p Lifters

r
Cutter Bar

Double Sickle

OJ

32

The f i r s t

conveyor l i f t s

the crop onto a f l i g h t e d

elevates the f r u i t and f o i l age i n t o
vester.

conveyor which

the separating chamber of the har­

The separating chamber c o n s is t s o f a t h i r d

inclined

conveyor

and two s p e c i a l l y designed cross fl o w fans, each fan p ro vid ing a v e lo ­
c ity

o f 1800 meters

fans

are located below the

d irecting

th e ir

per minute

a ir

streams

(5,900 f t

inclined

per minute).

conveyors

parallel

w it h

The two f r o n t

(one fan

the undersides

per conveyor)
of

the con­

veyors and towards the rea r of the ha rv est er.
As the crop f a l l s

from the

second conveyor to the t h i r d conveyor

and from the t h i r d conveyor to the open g r i d conveyor, the f r u i t passes
through the two a i r streams created by the fans.

The l i g h t e r m a t e r i a l ,

being mostly p l a n t f o i l age i s blown fr e e from the f r u i t and to the rear
o f the harvester where i t

lands on a b e l t conveyor and discharged from

the har ves ter .
The f r u i t ,
the t h i r d

being heavier than the p la n t f o i l age, g e n t ly f a l l s

co nv eyo r, onto the open g r i d conveyor.

made from 0.635
r o l l e r chain.
loca ted

below the open g r id
fa ll

ve rtic a lly

singulate

round

rods

attached

The g r id conveyor i s
to

1.58 cm (0.62

in)

The upward a i r streams created by the two cross flow fans

eases the f r u i t s
cluster

cm (0.25)

from

conveyor

serves

three

purposes,

firs t

it

to the g r i d conveyor, second i t o r i e n t s the berry

as they

pass through

the two sets of hedges which

the f r u i t lea v in g 2-3 cm ( 3/4 to 1 in )

stem, a n d . t h i r d the

a i r streams continue the process o f removing the leaves, stems and other
debris.
A cross conveyor a t the rea r of the harvester receives the f r u i t
from the g r id
where

the

conveyor

fru it

and c a r r i e s

the

i s placed in boxes.

fru it

to the workers platform

During the 1983 season the f r u i t

33

was caught in p l a s t i c stackable boxes which hold approximately 14 k i l o ­
grams (30 l b s ) .

The stackable boxes were placed on p a l l e t s and lowered

to the ground p r e f e r a b l y a t the end of the f i e l d . This reduces the wheel
tra ffic

on the p la n t crowns w i t h i n the f i e l d .

The f r u i t f i l l e d

pallets

were loaded on tr u ck s and tran sp orte d to the processing p l a n t .
For the 1984 season t h i s

harvester w i l l

boxes in place o f the p l a s t i c stackable boxes.

be equipped w it h

p a lle t

The p a l l e t boxes measure

100 x 100 x 75 cm (40 x 40 x 30 i n ) and hold approximately 136 kg (300
lbs).

When f i l l e d ,

the p a l l e t boxes w i l l

be r o l l e d

p la tf o rm on a r o l l e r conveyor to the ground.

from the loading

This system o f bulk handl­

ing has been s u c c e s s f u ll y used by two Michigan growers.

4.2

Harvester Recovery Rate

As p a r t of t h i s
recovery ra te of

research,

a study was conducted to determine the

the h a rv es te r .

This recovery r a te was taken f o r a l l

the b e r r i e s present at harvest time.

This includes primary,

secondary,

and t e r t i a r y b e r r i e s .

4 .2 .1

Method of Data C o l l e c t i o n
The recovery r a te of the harvester and c r o p - r e l a t e d fa c t o r s which

a f f e c t the recovery r a te of the harvester were obtained by random f i e l d
samples.

These samples were taken

the har ves ter .

in p a i r s ,

one before and one a f t e r

The f i r s t sample, sample A was taken before h a rv es ti n g .

Three items of i n f o r m a t io n were c o l l e c t e d at t h i s sample:
b e r r i e s w i t h i n a 0.19 m2 (2.0 f t 2 )
plant

de nsity

1) A l l

square frame were hand picked.

count w i t h i n the frame was taken.

of the
2) A

3) The f o i l age height

34

a t t h i s l o c a t i o n was recorded.
the

same general

location

The second sample, sample B was made in

after

the

harvester

had passed.

included two items o f i n f o r m a t i o n : 1) the c o l l e c t i o n of a l l
b erry f l e s h missed by the harvester w i t h i n the 0.19 m2
frame and,

2)

a second p l a n t

(crown)

Sample B
b e r r i e s and

(2.0 f t 2 ) square

de nsi ty count was taken at t h i s

1o c a ti o n .
A total

o f 31

harvest period.
color,

paired

samples were c o l l e c t e d w i t h i n

the f i v e

day

The b e r r i e s in both samples (A and B) were sorted by

weighed,

and

c l a s s i f i e d by visual

recorded

by calendar

date.

The f r u i t

was c o lo r

in s p e c ti o n and placed in one of three c a te g o rie s :

1) n o n - r i p e , 2) r i p e and, 3) o v e r r i p e .

The f r u i t in the non-ripe ca te­

gory consisted o f the immature b e r r i e s which were i d e n t i f i e d

by ex hi ­

b itin g

The r i p e

one of

the

follow ing

colors;

green,

white or

pink..

b erry category consisted o f only the f r u i t which were 100 percent red in
color

whereas

the

berries

signs of f r u i t decay.

in

the

o v e r ri p e

category

e x h ib i te d

visual

The percent recovery was recorded f o r each c o lo r

category (Appendix 2 ) .
4.2.2

Results

The 1983 r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t the f i e l d

recovery

efficiency

for

the harvester described in Section 4.1 ranged from 59 to 95 percent of
a ll

available

berries

recovery average f o r

(non-ripe,
a ll

ripe,

b e r r i e s was 87 percent.

r i p e f r u i t was g re at er than t h a t of a l l
fru it

and o v e r r i p e ) .

The

season's

The recovery o f red

( t o t a l ) berry recovery. Red r ip e

recovery ranged from 81 to 99 percent w it h the season's average

being 93 percent.

35

The lower recovery r a te

in

the

a ll

l i g h t weight of the green non-ripe b e r r y .
green non-ripe be rry
ripe

be rry
The

category i s due to the
average mass o f a small

i s 0.5 gram, whereas the average mass of the red

berry i s 8 grams.

Since the small

green non-ripe be rry mass is

le s s than t h a t of most p la n t f o i l age pieces,

the small

green be rry is

expelled from the h a rv est er along w it h the p l a n t f o i l age.
In
fie ld

the case o f

data records

the sample w it h the recovery r a t e of 59 pe rcent,
show t h a t

this

sample averaged 221

grams o f

b e r r i e s less than the other samples recorded f o r t h a t day.
cates a g re at er q u a n t i t y of green no n-rip e f r u i t .
of

the f i e l d

data records

total

This i n d i ­

Furth er i n v e s t i g a t i o n

shows t h a t 39 percent o f the f r u i t

in

this

sample was c l a s s i f i e d as green no n-ripe w it h an average mass o f 0.3 gram
per green b e r ry .

The refore,

w it h

t h i s l i g h t e r mass per be rry more of

t h i s sample's green no n-ripe f r u i t was expel led from the harv este r with
the p l a n t f o i l age.
The extremely o v e r r i p e b e r r i e s tend to s h a t t e r from t h e i r stems and
fa ll

to the ground as the pick-up reel

f o i l age.
ripeness

The f i e l d

o f the harv ester enters the crop

l os s o f these b e r r i e s due to t h e i r degree o f over­

i s o f no harvest value to the grower f o r

they would only be

sorted out and discarded a t the processing p l a n t .

4.3

Factors A f f e c t i n g the Harvester Recovery Rate
The f i e l d recovery rates o f the h ar ves ter are a ff e c t e d by a

nation o f f a c t o r s .

combi­

These f a c t o r s are: 1) opera tor s k i l l s , 2) f i e l d sur­

face c o n d i t i o n s , and 3) crop c o n d i t i o n s .

36

The s k i l l

of the op era tor

is

important in making and ma intaining

the necessary machine adjustments so t h a t the machine i s compatible with
the f i e l d and crop c o n d i t i o n s .
is

free o f s o il

The f i e l d surface when pr o pe rl y prepared

surface i r r e g u l a r i t i e s .

This enables the operator to

ac cu ra te ly p o s i t i o n the c u t t e r bar r e l a t i v e to the so il
Data from Appendix 2 i m p l i e s

recovery

r a te s

to

d ens ity per u n i t area and f o i l age h e ig h t increase.
crop and the he ight o f

surface.
increase

as crop

The de nsit y o f the

the f o i l age a s s i s t s recovery by suspending and

supporting the berry c l u s t e r s in the f o i l age.
To t e s t the e f f e c t o f p l a n t de nsi ty and f o i l age he ight on the per­
cent recovery by the mechanical

h a rv est er a stepwise regression anal ysi s

was performed on the data in Appendix 2, Table A2.
completed by using the SPSS S t a t i s t i c a l

This a n a ly si s was

Package on the Michigan State

U n i v e r s i t y ' s Control Data Corporation Cyber 750 Computer.
H0 :
P la nt de nsit y and p l a n t f o i l age he ight do not have an
e f f e c t upon the f r u i t recovery r a te by the mechanical
h a r ve s te r .
The F - t e s t of the model

for

the two v a r i a b l e s FOLHGT and CRNDSTY

when tested independently a t the .05 confidence l e v e l , both r e f l e c t e d to
have a n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t
ha rv es te r.

prediction

for

the

fru it

recovery

r a te

by the

In oth er words, the f r u i t recovery ra te by the harvester was

not s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d soley to e i t h e r FOLHGT or CRNDSTY.
f F0LHGT

= 2 -734 < f 0.05 = 4 -28

f CRNDSTY = 2.472 < F0<05 = 4.28
However, a stepwise regression a n a ly si s o f the model which included
both

v a r ia b l e s

c o e fficien t

of

simultaneously

was

sign ifica nt

correlation.

As a r e s u l t ,

and

a model

reflected
u tiliz in g

a higher
the

two

37

independent v a r i a b l e s FOLHGT and CRNDSTY would more a c c u r a t e ly ex plai n
the change in the dependent v a r i a b l e PCRALL.

Moreover,

the

r2

change

value shows t h a t the percent of ex pla na tio n by the p l a n t f o i l a g e height
to be g re at er than t h a t of the p la n t de ns it y (Table 4 - 1 ) .
R2F0LHGT + CRNDSTY= 0 - 1 5 1 > r 2F0LHGT=0-106 > r 2 CRNDSTY= 0 - 0 9 7
Appendix 3 g r a p h i c a l l y

illu s tra te s

the s t a t i s t i c a l

r e s u l t s o f the

p l a n t f o i l a g e he ight and p l a n t d e n s i t y .

4.4

F i e l d Capacity
In 1983, the season's average e f f e c t i v e f i e l d c a p ac it y (EFC) o f the

har ves ter was 0.12 hectare per hour (0.30 acre per hour).
actual

ra te

of

harv este r

performance,

expressed

in

EFC i s the

hectares

per

hour

(acres per hour) [Appendix 4 ] .
The t h e o r e t i c a l

fie ld

cap acit y

(TFC)

of the harvester was ca lcu ­

l a t e d to be 0.24 hectare per hour (0.60 acre per hour).
of

fie ld

coverage

performing i t s

that

would be obtained by the harvester

fu n c t i o n

speed and always

TFC i s the ra te
if

it

were

100 percent o f the time a t the rated operating

u tilize d

100 percent o f

its

rated c u t t e r bar

w idth.

This maximum cap acit y i s used as a basis f o r ev alu a tin g the performance
o f the harvester and i t s o p e r a to r .
h arvesting

speed

by

the

co nstant of 10 ( 8 . 2 5 ) .

cutter

bar

width

and

dividing

by

a

This constant o f 10 (8.25) enables the c a l c u l a ­

t i o n to be expressed in
jfc

rated

TFC i s c a lc u l a te d by m u l t i p l y i n g the

=

hectares per hour (acres per hour).
speed
x
width
constant

The average f i e l d e f f i c i e n c y (FE) o f the harvester f o r t h i s season
was 50 percent.

However, next year w it h a bulk handling system f o r the

Table 4-1.

Mu lt i pl e Regression Analysis Summary Table on the Va r iables Foilage
H eight and Crown Density.
I O N

DEPENDENT

VARIABI E

. .

PCRALL

PERCENT

RE C O V E R Y

FOR

AIL

S U M M A R Y
SIEP
1

F

VARIABI£
ENTERED
RE MOV ED

ENTER

TO
OR REMOVE
2

CRNDSTY

SIGNIFICANCE

47200

VAR IABIE.

PCRALL

PERCENT

.130

RECOVERY

FOR

R

R

S QUARE

3 1153

ALL

R

SQUARE
CHANGE
.09705

09705

t

VARIABLE
ENURED
RE MOV ED

F
ENTER

VARIABLE. .

SIGNIFICANCE

2.73375

f O t 1Hi I

DF P F MDFNT

TO
OR REMOVE

PCRALL

PERCENT

FOR

STEP
1
2

VARIABLE
ENTERED
REMOVED
F 01 HOT
CRNDSTY

ENTER

TO
OR REMOVE
2 73375
4.46714

SIGNIFICANCE
. I 12
.046

- . 3 1 153

OVERALL

F

2.47200

SIGNIFICANCE
. 130

•

R

SQUARE

R SQUARE
CHANGE

10623

. 10623

SIMPLE

H

-.32593

OVERALL

F

2.73375

SIGNIFICANCE
. 1 12

BF PRY

S U M M A R Y
F

R

32593

At ; .

R

T A B L E

MULTIPLE

.112

RECOVERY

•

SIMPLE

BERRY

S U M M A R Y
SIEP

*

T A B L E

MULTIPLE

O N
DEPENDENT

•

B E R RY

T A B L E

MUITIPIE

R

32593
50701

R

SQUARE
. 10623
.25706

R

SQUARE
CHANGE
.10623
15005

simple

r

32593
- . 3 1 1 51

OVERALL

F

2.73375
3.80649

SIGNIFICANCE
.112
.038

39

harvested f r u i t , the FE i s expected to increase to approximately 80 per­
ce nt.

F i e l d e f f i c i e n c y i s the r a t i o o f the h a r v e s t e r 's EFC to i t s TFC.

F i e l d e f f i c i e n c y i s ca lc u l a te d by d i v i d i n g the h a r v e s t e r 's EFC by i t s
TFC and expressed as a percent.
FE =

EFC
TFC

x

100

Once the operator can i d e n t i f y the production system's i n e f f i c i e n ­
cies and c o r r e c t f o r them, then the f i e l d e f f i c i e n c y and f i e l d capacity
o f the harvester can be increased. The f a c t o r s which a f f e c t the harvest­
e r ' s f i e l d e f f i c i e n c y and f i e l d c a p ac ity are:
1) S k i l l , and experience of the Operator.
2) Crop and f i e l d c o n d i t i o n s .
3) Proper operating speeds and adjustments o f harvester components.
4)

Ground speed

of the machine.

5)

Actual width

of the header used.

6) Material
4.5

handling system's c a p a c i ty .

Summary
The mechanical

harvester can a l l e v i a t e

which fr e q u e n t ly c o n fro nt s the grower during
mechanical

the l a b o r shortage dilemma
the harvest season.

harvester in c o n ju n c tio n w it h the proper c u l t u r a l

The

p r a c ti c e s

has been proven to s u c c e s s fu ll y ha rvest the f r u i t w it h an average f r u i t
recovery r a te of approximately 93 percent.
The mechanical
the

total

industry.

systems

harvester i s one of the subsystems c o n t r i b u t i n g
approach

for

the

mechanization

of

to

the - strawberry

A f t e r the f r u i t i s harvested i t i s tra nsported to the process­

ing p la n t where the f r u i t i s mechanically handled and processed i n t o i t s
final

product.

CHAPTER V

CURRENT PROCESSING EQUIPMENT AND OPERATIONS

5.1

Introduction
Handling

only

a part of

industry.
ical

mechanically
the

harvested

total

fru it

in

the

processing

plant

is

systems approach to mechanize the strawberry

In other words, the success o f the crop production and mechan­

ha rvesting

system i s

dependent upon the a b i l i t y

o f the processing

p l a n t to handle the mechanically harvested f r u i t .

Therefore,

the f i n a l

step

processing

equipment

in

which i s
the

capable of

processing

fru it
to

mechanizing

plant

product.

be considered

harvested f r u i t ,

the

industry

to

develop

handling machine harvested f r u i t .
has a v i t a l

However, i f
the

was

role

in

Each machine at

the completion

of

the

final

any one machine i n the processing p l a n t was

"key machine"

in

the success o f handling machine

i t would be the decapper.

Hansen, (1972) s ta te d :

" I t i s q u it e apparent t h a t i f we are to l i f t
the sagging strawberry i n d u s t r y in Michigan
i t w i l l be necessary to concentrate e f f o r t s
on a machine to remove the caps".
At the present tim e, a mechanical

decapper has been developed which

s u c c e s s f u ll y completes t h i s o p e r a ti o n .

The e f f i c i e n c y o f the decapper as

well as the other processing equipment are discussed w i t h i n t h i s chapter.

40

41

5.1 .1

Processing Equipment and Operations
Figure

5-1 shows

a fl o w

diagram o f the 1983 strawberry processing

l i n e a t Underwood's Farm Market in Traverse C i t y , Michigan. This process­
ing p l a n t u t i l i z e d the c u r r e n t Michigan State University-Canners Machinery
L im it e d (MSU-CML) str aw ber ry processing equipment.

The

f r u i t product at

t h i s processing c en ter was processed as f r e e z e r pack and puree.

5.2

D e s c r i p t i o n o f the Processing Procedures
At

the processing

f i l l e d w it h water.
g rit

to

s i x bar

settle
reel

plant,

the f r u i t

i s dumped i n t o

a re c e iv in g

tank

This tank prewashes the f r u i t by a l l owing.the sand and

out befo re the

f r u i t enters the processing equipment.

meters the f r u i t to a f l i g h t e d conveyor which elevates

A
the

f r u i t to the r e c e iv i n g pan o f the s i n g u l a t o r .
The

singulator

separates the be rry c l u s t e r s i n t o i n d i v i d u a l

berries

w it h stems (F ig ur e 5 - 2 ) . The s i n g u l a t o r c o n s is t s of three staggered layers
o f small

diameter rods w it h 6.35 cm ( 2- 1/2 i n . )

rod and set a t a downward angle of 20 degrees.

clearance

between

each

The s i n g l e ( si ngul a t e d )

f r u i t f a l l s between the rods and the f r u i t c l u s t e r s s l i d e down the rods to
the shear bar which cuts the be rry stems from the c l u s t e r node.

The catch

pan below the s i n g u l a t o r d i r e c t s the f r u i t onto the decapper.
The
ro lle rs

MSU-CML
that

decapper

tr a v e l

c o n s is t s

up an i n c l i n e

caught between the c o u n t e r - r o t a t i n g

of

rubber

(Fi gur e 5 - 3 ) .
ro lle rs

covered

counter-rotating

The berry

stems

are

and c a r r i e d to a band k n if e

where the usable f r u i t f l e s h i s c u t from the calyx and stem (Figure 5 - 4 ) .

42

IN P L A N T FLOW C H A R T

Receiving Water Tanks
from Harvester

Feed Metering System

Singulator

Trash

Decapper

Roll back

Roll over

Cut Fruit
Puree

Broker
and/or U ltim ate
User

Sizer

Small
Fruit

Frozen
Pack

Inspection

(W ith or W ithout Sugar)

Figure 5-1.

Proces si ng Plant F l ow Chart

Broker
and/or U ltim ate
User

W ATER
M A N IF O L D

S T A IN L E S S S T E E L R O D S
r 6 .3 5 cm A P A R T

F E E D E R PA N

F R U IT
FROM
HARVESTER

W ATER
M A N IF O L D

3 R O T A R Y SHEARS

2 cm M O V E M E N T

3 SH EAR BARS

77777

777777
TO DECAPPER

Figure 5-2.

Schematic of the Seperator

C O U N T E R R E V O L V IN G
R U B B E R -C O V E R E D
ROLLERS
ROLLOVER

F R U IT

y~ (N O T C A U G H T B Y
r R U B B E R -C O V E R E D
RO LLERS)

F R U IT G O E S O N
DECAPPER H ER E

B A N D K N FE

BAFFLES

R O L L -B A C K S
( F R U IT W IT H O U T S TE M S )

O R B IT IN
H O R IZ O N T A L
PLANE

F R U IT
CUT
BY
K N IF E

I
I
D IS C H A R G E P A N ­
PR O C ESS F R U IT

F R A M E BASE
TRASH R EM O VA L
PA N

Figure 5-3.

Schematic of the D ecapper

CUT
-p »

Rubber—covered

• LTl

rollers

►

Figure 5-4.

Schematic of the F ruit Showing Location of Cut

46

The

entire

inclined

through a 2cm ( 0 .7 5 in )

ro lle r

conveyor

diameter c i r c l e

bed

of

the

decapper

in a h o riz on tal

orbits

plane to enhance

the p o s s i b i l i t y f o r the rubber covered r o l l e r s to catch the stems of the
f r u i t . The b a f f l e s which are locat ed a t the lower end o f the i n c l i n e d bed
prevent

the

berries

counter-rotating

from

ro llin g

ro lle rs

the

rea r

of

have a chance to l o c a t e

stems between the r o l l e r s
kn ife .

o ff

the

bed before

and secure

the

the berry

so t h a t the b e r ri e s can be c a r r i e d to the band

The band k n i f e which i s mounted below the upper end of the rubber

covered r o l l e r conveyor, s l i c e s the usable f r u i t fl e s h from the stem and
calyx.

This

cut

fru it

fa lls

into

a water

flume and i s

c a r r ie d

to

a

sizer.
A rev ers ing
rubber

covered

conveyor.

rack

ro lle rs

which
is

changes

the

rotational

mounted below the r e tu rn

d irection

of

the

side of the r o l l e r

This rack reverses the r o t a t i o n of the rubber covered r o l l e r s

to discharge stems, leav es ,

calyxe s,

p u lle d through the r o l l e r s .

This f u n c t i o n permits a continuous operation

o f the r o l l e r b e l t .

and any be rry fl e s h which has been

The debr is i s elevated i n t o a bin f o r d is p o s a l.

The f r u i t i s discharged from the decapper by one o f three discharge
p o in ts i d e n t i f i e d as: 1) c u t f r u i t ,
cut

fru it

are

the b e r r i e s

2) r o l l

back, and 3) r o l l

over.

The

which were caught and held by the counter-

r o t a t i n g rubber covered r o l l s so t h a t the calyxes (caps) could be removed
by the band k n i f e .

This f r u i t i s then conveyed to the s i z e r and inspec­

t i o n l i n e before i t

i s s l i c e d and packaged.

The f r u i t not caught by the

c o u n t e r - r o t a t i n g r o l l s are i d e n t i f i e d as e i t h e r r o l l - b a c k s or r o l l - o v e r s .
Roll-backs are the b e r r i e s which were encouraged by the o r b i t i n g motion
o f the decapper to r o l l

back down o f f the i n c l i n e d bed of the decapper.

These b e r r i e s have very s h o rt stems ( l e s s than

2.5

cm

[ lin ])

or

no

47

stems a t a l l .

R o ll -o v e r s

are the b e r r i e s which were trapped or c a r r ie d

over the top o f the i n c l i n e d bed by oth er b e r r i e s whose stems were f i r m l y
lodged between the rubber covered r o l l e r s .

These b e r r i e s can be e i t h e r

stemmed or stem!ess.
To avoid hand s o r t i n g
berries,
the

and decapping of the r o l l - b a c k

and r o l l - o v e r

the p la n t management may choose to puree these b e r r i e s .

berries

from

the

roll-back

and

ro ll-o v e r

discharge

p o in ts

If

so,

of

the

decapper are conveyed to an in sp e c tio n ta b l e where the undesirable (decay­
ed and r o t t e n ) b e r r i e s are removed. The t o t a l
b e lt

i n c l u d in g

fru it

stems

are

fed

into

product from t h i s ins p e c tio n

a fin ish e r

which

removes

the

leaves and stems.
The usable cut f r u i t
pan of
sizer

a tapered
is

finger

(decapped f r u i t )
sizer

down the tapered f i n g e r s .

green non-ripe b e r r i e s f a l l
the f i n i s h e r f o r puree.
or

off

(Fi gure 5 - 5 ) .

flooded w it h water and v i b r a t e s

the f r u i t

the end of

the

i s conveyed

The

to the r e c e iv in g

The r e c e iv i n g

c o n s ta n tl y

pan of the

to a s s i s t in

small f r u i t , most of

moving

which are

through the f i n g e r s f i r s t and are conveyed to

The remaining f r u i t w i l l
fi n g e r s

eventually f a l l

and onto the i n s p e ct io n

b e lt.

through
The hand

s o r t e r s a t the in sp e c tio n b e l t s o r t out the less d e s ir a b le f r u i t all owing
only the r i p e

f r u i t to enter the s l i c e r

where i t

is

sugared and

placed

i n t o 14 kg (30 l b . ) t i n s to be frozen.

5.3

Processing Equipment Eval uation
Data were c o l l e c t e d at the processing p l a n t f o r each machine to exam­

ine machine capacity

and e f f i c i e n c y .

Tables 5-1 and 5-2 show the 1983

average d a i l y and season's values f o r the s i n g u l a t o r and decapper.

Overhead View of SIZER

Slots through which
berries drop into
Catching Troughs
below

>

Sorting B eit

TAPER

^

-F»

Vibrating Pan

co

0

\

0
o

Sizer

0

O

)

0

> o '*

O

0^ 0

O

o

Small berries

Medium berries

Large berries

3 /8 "

5 /8 "

7 /8 "

-

5/8"

Figure 5-

-

7/8"

Schematic of the Sizer

-

1-1/8"

0

Jumbo Berries
Q

> 1-1/8"

T ab le 5 - 1 .

Dally

Number Single

Average

Mass

1983

Kg

S i n g u la t o r E v a lu a t io n

Number Single

Weight

Stems Before

Stems After

lbs

Singulator

Singulator

Percent

Before

Singulator

After Singulator

Improvement

Number

of Clusters

Number of Clusters

Improvement

Percent

July 3

1236

2725

12

28

57

12

4

67

4

2092

4613

27

40

32

6

2

67

5

2858

6300

24

39

38

7

2

71

6

3406

7509

21

36

42

6

3

50

7

2647

583 5

47

44

6 .8

2

50

8

2290

5049

36

46

21

5

80

11

3096

6826

31

49

37

8

00

2021

4455

17

34

50

11

64

2456

5414

-

Season
Average

33.5*

6 8 .6*

-P>

Tabl e 5 - 2 .

Decapper E v a l u a t i o n

Mass and Percent a t Discharge Points
Expressed on a Per Hour Basis

Dai ly
Average
1983

Quantity to
Decapper

Roll Back

Roll Over

Lbs

Kg

Lbs

%

July 3

556

1225

141

311

25

J u ly 4

1085

2393

231

509

July 5

1245

2745

289

J u ly 6

1283

2829

J u ly 7

1648

J u ly 8

Trash

Lbs

%

Kg

Lbs

%

Kg

Lbs

%

82

181

15

206

453

37

127

281

23

21

212

467

20

393

866

36

250

551

23

636

23

258

568

21

470

1035

38

230

506

18

210

462

16

252

555

20

531

1170

41

291

642

23

3634

283

623

17

374

825

23

677

1493

41

315

694

19

1179

2600

254

560

22

245

539

21

451 - 995

38

230

507

19

J u ly 11

1470

3240

272

599

18

327

720

22

515

1134

35

357

00
00
r-~

Kg

Cut F r u i t

25

J u ly 12

1255

2768

276

608

22

194

428

15

378

833

30

408

900

33

Season
Average

1215

2679

20

Kg

20

37

23

51

The s i n g u l a t o r averaged 2456 kg

per hour (5414 l b s / h r ) f o r the season

w ith a 38.3 percent improvement in the separation o f s in g le b e r r i e s and a
68.6 percent improvement in the separation o f c l u s t e r s .

In t h i s study a

c l u s t e r i s defined as 3 or more b e r r i e s connected at a node. For example,
on J u l y

3,

1983

p rio r

to

singulation,

there

were

an

average

of

12

c l u s t e r s per sample e n te r in g the s i n g u l a t o r and a f t e r passing through the
s i n g u l a t o r there were only 4 c l u s t e r s remaining i n t a c t (Table 5 - 1 ) .
represents
berries.

a 67
In

percent

other

improvement

words,

there

in

the

number

were 67 percent

of

fewer

This

non-clustered
clusters

after

si n g u l a ti o n .
The fu n c t i o n o f the s i n g u l a t o r
clusters

p r i o r to decapping.

decapper

reduces

the

be rry

is

to decrease the number of berry

A flow of s i n g l e stemmed b e r r i e s onto the
flesh

l os s

and assures a more uniform

and

complete removal of the e n t i r e c a ly x .
Table 5-2

lis ts

the

daily

and season's

average

The decapper averaged 1215 kg per hour (2679 l b s / h r )

for

the

decapper.

f o r the season w it h

a discharge ra te of 20% r o l l - b a c k , 20% r o l l - o v e r , 37% c u t f r u i t ,

and 231-

t ra s h material .
The ta b l e shows t h a t an e xce ss ive ly high fl o w ra te of m ate ria l
the decapper increases the percent o f r o l l - o v e r s .
than

2500 pounds

per

hour

tends

to

increase

the

A flow r a t e g re at er
percent of

above t h a t of the seasons average which was 20 percent.
over f i l l i n g
by

the

carried

onto

rollovers

This i s due to

of the i n c l i n e d bed t h e r e f o r e the excess f r u i t i s not caught

ro lle rs

but

lodged

between or

on top

of

the

oth er

over the top o f the decapper and not allowed to r o l l

o f f the i n c l i n e d bed.

fru it

and

back down

52

5.3.1

Decapper Trash
The decapper tras h i s a combination o f p la n t stems, leaves, calyxe s,

fie ld

debris,

and be rry f l e s h .

t h a t 46 to 60 percent of
flesh.
the

the

An a n a l y s i s of the decapper tr a sh found
tr a sh

removed by the decapper was berry

With t h i s evidence, the processing management may choose to route

decapped berry

caps

to

the

fin is h e r

band-k nife blade c l o s e r to the r o l l e r s

for

puree,

and/or

adjust

the

to decrease the be rry f l e s h loss

to the tra sh b i n .

5.4

Summary
Mechanically handling and processing the machine harvested f r u i t at

the processing p l a n t i s the f i n a l

phase to the t o t a l

systems approach f o r

the mechanization o f the strawberry i n d u s t r y .
The three phases or primary subsystems to the t o t a l

systems approach

f o r the mechanization o f the strawberry i n d u s t r y have been discussed in
t h i s and the two previous chapters.

The f o l l o w i n g chapter describes the

computer model which was developed to examine the economic f e a s i b i l i t y of
th is cultural

and machine harvested, handling and processing system.

CHAPTER VI

MODEL DESCRIPTION AND VERIFICATION

6.1

Introduction
The strawberry production computer model

i n t e r a c t i v e l y w it h the user.

was designed to fu n c t i o n

A f t e r the user types a command to the com­

puter to s t a r t the program, the program begins immediately, and prompts
the user with
w it h

no

model.

questions.

previous

This i n t e r a c t i v e

computer

Since the model

experience

to

technique enables the user
easily

use

this

production

was designed to f u n c t i o n i n t e r a c t i v e l y w it h the

user, and f o r the u s e r 's convenience, the i n p u t and ou tput data f o r t h i s
model

are

expresed

in

th e ir

common English

units,

e .g .

acres,

tons,

pounds.
The model

was designed w it h s p e c i f i c

purposes in mind:

examine the economic f e a s i b i l i t y of mechanical
f o r sol i d - s e t s tr a w b e r r i e s ;
for

production

costs

and second,

should

the

firs t,

to

ha rvesting and processing

to be used as a budgeting tool

sol i d - s e t

strawberry

production

and

mechanical harvesting technique prove to be economically f e a s i b l e .
The model

was also

designed

to

be f l e x i b l e

in

t h a t the values could be e a s i l y changed by the user.
the model
who are

to b e n e f i t researchers, extension agents,
interested

in

examining

this

system.

model to change any of the preprogrammed

53

values

its

parameters

so

This would allow
and growers a l i k e ,

The f l e x i b i l i t y
enables

the

o f the
user

to

54

better

simulate

th e ir

present

or

pro je cte d

future

enterprise

w it h o u t

having to r e w r i t e the computer program.
The o u tp u t o f the
observations

can

presented

three

in

be

model

is

itemized

by

operation

made regarding the system.

parts:

1)

fie ld

The model's output is

production costs,

equipment c o s ts , and, 3) economic a n a l y s i s .

Figure 6-1 shows a conceptual

of

the model

product d i s t r i b u t i o n ,

co st to the strawberry e n t e r p r i s e .
f l o w c h a r t o f the model and Figure 6-2

shows the subroutine f l o w c h a r t t h a t i s
description

2) machine and

The economic an al ys is seg­

ment i s a summary o f the complete system's c o s t ,
and product revenue minus the t o t a l

so t h a t cost

initia te d

and the i n d i v i d u a l

by BERRY.

An indepth

subroutines are

explained

i n the f o l l o w i n g subsections.

6.2

Subroutine D e s c r i p t i o n
The strawberry pro duc ti on model

ed of a se ries o f c a l l

statements to

(BERRY) i s a l i n e a r program compos­
summon

the

required

subroutines

which are necessary to complete the economic a n a l y s i s .
The model

begins

by

prompting

the

user w ith

general

in f o r m a t io n

questions needed by the model to complete the economic an al ys is f o r the
strawberry produ ctio n system.
are

d ir e c t e d

rates,

fuel

the f i n a l

towards

the

size

The questions asked by BERRY (F ig ur e 6-3)
of

the

strawberry

enterprise,

interest

p r i c e , pro je cte d y i e l d , d i s t r i b u t i o n , and s e l l i n g p r ic e f o r

product. A f t e r the user has completed the questions, the model

r e - d i s p l a y s the questions w it h the u s e r 's

response

to

This allows the user to checkt h e i r in p u tt e d values w ith
change any one o f the values.

each
an

question.
op tion

The i n f o r m a t io n in t h i s segment

of

to
the

55

START

INPUTS:
Size of Enterprise
Wage Rates
Interest Rates
Projected Field Yield
Harvest Recovery Percent
Harvest Rate
Irrigation Rate

COMPUTE:
Field Production Costs
Machine Ownership Costs
Machine Operational Costs

SUMMARY:
Economic Analysis

yes

PERFORM
ANOTHER
ANALYSIS

no
END

Figure 6-1.

Conceptual F l o w c h a r t of the Model

56

START

BERRY

FILLTA B

FIELD PD

CUSTRAT

SPECEQP

IRRIEQ P

PROCEQP

FPCOST

SPECOST

IRRCOST

PROCOST

PVCOS

ECONAN

yes

PERFORM
ANOTHER
ANALYSIS

END

F igure 6-2.

Su b ro ut i ne F l o w c h a r t as Initiated by BERRY

57

CHECKIT
BERRY
CHEKANS

yes

CHANGES

no

Fi gure 6-2.

F l o w c ha r t for the S ub ro u ti ne BERRY

58

model i s then passed to the remaining subroutines where the
i s u t i l i z e d by the model
5 .2 .1

i n f o r m a t io n

in completing the a n a l y s i s .

Subroutine FILLTAB

FIL-LTAB (Figure 6-4)
file ,

DATAFL1

model.

into

a ll

reads the preprogrammed values from the data
the

data

ta b le s

in

the

strawberry

production

The values in FILLTAB are used by the f i v e subroutines FIELDPD,

CUSTRAT, SPECEQP, PROCEQP and IRRIEQP i n f i l l i n g

out t h e i r data ta b l e s .

A f t e r the values have been passed to the s ub rou tin es , FILLTAB r etu rn s to
the main program.

6 .2 .2

Subroutine FIELDPD
FIELDPD (Fi gur e

ma te ria l

p r ic e

6-5)

values

contains

and

the

f i e l d production o p e r a ti o n s .
table.

Following

the

the

preprogrammed

application

rates

data t a b l e ,

response i s yes,

model.

production

associated

w ith

the

FIELDPD c a l l s PRINTAB to d is p la y the data
FIELDPD prompts the user to

they wish to change any o f the values w i t h i n
u s e r 's

fie ld

the data t a b l e .

see i f
If

the

then CHECKIT and CHGTAB are c a ll e d f o r by the

Between the two subroutines CHECKIT and CHGTAB, they a s s i s t the

user in making the desired changes.

Once the changes have been complet­

ed, MENUCHG i s c a l l e d to replace the preprogrammed values w ith the new
values entered by the user.
ca lls

PRINTAB to d is p l a y

values.

Again,

the

However,

if

u s e r 's

the

MENUCHG r e tu r n s

the f i e l d

user

is

given

response

is

to FIELDPD where FIELDPD

production data ta b le w it h the new
the

op tion

to

the

values.

no,

then FIELDPD re tu r n s

and the

program continues w it h the next segment of the model.

change

DATAFL1

FIELDPD

SPECEQP

FILLTAB

CUSTRAT

Figure 6-4.

IRRIEQP

PROCEQP

F l o w ch a rt for the Subrou ti n e FILLTAB

PRINTAB
F IE L D P D

CHEKANS

MENUCHG

yes

CHANGES

CHGTAB
CHECKIT

no

Figure 6-5.

Flowchart for the Subroutine FIELDPD

61

Table 6-1 l i s t s the f i e l d production m a t e r i a l s and values contained
w ithin

this

s u b ro u tin e .

If

no changes are made by the user, then the

values in t h i s ta b l e are used by the model in c a l c u l a t i n g the f i e l d pro­
du cti on co st s .

Table 6-1.

F i e l d Production Data Table.

Materi al s

C o s t / U n i t ($)

Qua ntity/Acre

2.00/bu

2.00 bu/acre

F e r t i l i zer
12-12-12
Nitrogen

174.00/ton
136.00/ton

0.25 ton /a cr e
50.00 l b s / a c r e

Fumi ga ti on

400.00/acre

Custom A p p l i c a t i o n

Strawberry Plants

61.00/1000

10890 p l a n t s / a c r e

P e s t i c i des
Captan
Beni ate
Ronali n
Si nbar
Thiodan

1.10/lb
1 1 .0 0 /l b
1 6 .8 0 /l b
1 6 .9 0 /l b
3.85/lb

Cover-crop (oats)

6.2.3

5.0
1.0
1.5
0.5
2.0

lb/acre
lb/acre
lb/acre
lb/acre
lb/acre

Subroutines CHECKIT and CHEKANS
These

changes
device

subroutines

any o f
which

are

u tiliz e d

the values w i t h i n

gives

the

by

the

the model.

model

whenever

CHECKIT i s

the

user

an insurance

user a chance to double check the items which

they have selected to e n te r i n t o the model.

CHECKIT c a l l s CHEKANS which

i n t e r a c t s w it h the user to ensure t h a t the value entered by the user is
the value they wish to

use.

Between the two su broutines, CHECKIT and

CHEKANS, they prevent the user from completing the model execution with
the wrong in p u tt e d value.

62

6 .2 . 4

Subroutine MENUCHG

The s u br out in e,

MENUCHG, changes

data tab les f o r the model.

new e n t r i e s

w ill

preprogrammed values

in the

MENUCHG i s c a l l e d by CHGTAB to replace the

model's preprogrammed values w ith
The

the

then

be

the new values entered by the user.

used

by

the

model

in

completing

the

economic a n a l y s i s .

6 .2 .5

Subroutine CUSTRAT
This subroutine contains the custom h i r e rates f o r the custom h ir e

operations a v a i l a b l e to the strawberry e n t e r p r i s e .

CUSTRAT (Fi gure 6-6)

c a l l s PRINTAB to d is p l a y the preprogrammed custom r a te data ta b le to the
user and then CUSTRAT prompts the user to see i f they wish to change any
o f the values w i t h i n the data t a b l e .
model
the

calls
desired

completed,

CHECKIT and CHGTAB which
changes

in

MENUCHG i s

the

data

c a ll e d

I f the response i s yes, then the
i n t e r a c t w it h the user in making

table.

Once the

changes

have been

to replace the preprogrammed values with

the new values entered by the user.

MENUCHG re tu r n s to CUSTRAT where

CUSTRAT c a l l s PRINTAB to d is p la y the custom r a te data table w ith the new
va lues .

Again, the user i s given the o p p o r tu n i ty to change the values.

However, i f the u se r's response would have been no, then CUSTRAT re tur ns
and the program continues with the next segment of the model.
Custom h ir e rates are used by the model as a means f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g
a fa ir
ra tes

machine cost
for

University

this

value

subroutine

Cooperative

The rates in Table 6-2

to

the

were

Extension

strawberry
obtained

enterprise.
from

the

The custom

Michigan

State

Service and are l i s t e d in Table 6-2.

are the averages f o r the State o f Michigan as of

August 1983 (Schwab, G.D., 1983).

PRINTAB
CUSTRAT
CHEKANS

MENUCHG

yes

CHANGES

CHGTAB
CHECKIT

no

Figure 6-6.

Flowchart for the Subroutine CUSTRAT

64

Table 6-2.

6 .2 .6

1983 Custom Hire Rates f o r the State o f Michigan.

Operation

Rate ($ /a cr e )

PI ow
Di sk
Cultimulch
D rillin g
Spraying:
Ground , r i g
Aeri al

11.55
7.85
5.60
5.90
4.00
4.90

Subroutine PRINTAB
This subroutine formats a l l

is called

f o r by the i n d i v i d u a l

to the user f o r

examination

the o utp ut f o r the i n d i v i d u a l

6.2.7

PRINTAB

subroutines to d is p la y the data tab les

p rio r

to the cost c a l c u l a t i o n s as well

as

subroutine.

Subroutine CHGTAB
This

user

the data tab les f o r the model.

in

s u b ro u tin e ,
making

values w i t h i n

the

in

c o nju nc tio n

desired

changes

the data menu t a b l e s .

w ith
in

CHECKIT,

the models

interacts

with the

preprogrammed

data

CHGTAB prompts the user to enter

the new value f o r the item they wish to change and then c a l l s CHECKIT to
confirm the new i n p u tt e d

value w it h the user.

Upon completion o f the

u s e r 's i n t e r a c t i o n w it h CHECKIT, CHGTAB then asks the user i f

there are

any more changes to be made w i t h i n t h a t p a r t i c u l a r menu t a b l e .
the u s e r 's

repsonse be yes,

then the i n t e r a c t i o n

Should

between the user and

CHGTAB co nti nu e s, otherwise CHGTAB re tu r n s to the subroutine which sum­
moned i t to d is p l a y the new menu ta b le values to

the user.

Again

the

65

user i s given the o p p o r t u n i t y to change the values w i t h i n the menu tab le
should they wish.

6.2.8

Subroutine SPECEQP

The subroutine SPECEQP (Fi gur e 6-7)

contains the s p e c i a l t y equip­

ment items l i s t e d by machine value, machine q u a n t i t y ,
values.
th e ir

SPECEQP c a l l s
values

to

the

PRINTAB to d is p l a y

user.

Following

equipment values.

If

the

MENUCHG and CHECKIT.

u se r 's

the s p e c ia l t y

the d is p la y

SPECEQP prompts the user to determine i f

of

equipment and

the data t a b l e ,

they wish to change any of the

response

CHGTAB i n t e r a c t s

and machine cost

is

with

yes,
the

desired changes and then r e tu r n s to SPECEQP where

then CHGTAB c a l l s
user

in making

PRINTAB

i s c a ll e d to

r e - d i s p l a y the s p e c i a l t y equipment data ta b le w it h the new values.
ever,

if

the

How­

the u se r 's response was no, then SPECEQP r e tu rn s and the pro­

gram continues w it h the next segment o f the model.
Table 6-3 l i s t s
w i t h i n the model.

the

specialty

equipment machine values contained

The machine costs were obtained from the U n i v e r s i t y

o f Minnesota, A g r i c u l t u r a l
Economic Cost Estimates

Extension Service, "Minnesota Farm Machinery

for

1984."

The machine l i f e

and r e p a i r cost

values were obtained from Kepner, Bainer, and Barger (1978), P r i n c i p l e s
o f Farm Machinery, 3rd E d i t i o n , Page 34 (Table 2 . 1 ) .
not l i s t e d

in Kepner,

Bainer,

comparable machines were used.
the s e l f - p r o p e l l e d

and Barger,

the r e p a i r cost values

for

For example, the r e p a i r cost value f o r

combine was used f o r

strawberry ha rv ester.

For the machines

the r e p a i r cost value f o r the

PRINTAB
SPECEQP
CHEKANS

MENUCHG

yes

CHANGES

CHGTAB
CHECKIT

no

Figure 6-7.

Flowchart for the Subroutine SPECEQP

67

Table 6- 3 .

S p e c ia l ty Equipment Data Table

ITEM

' In ita l
Cost

Tractor

15,000.00 •

1

15

.01

.00010

Fork! i f t Attachment

1,300.00

1

15

.01

.00020

T ra n s p la n te r (2 Row)

1,150.00

1

15

.01

.00075

Fi el d Rol l e r

1,000.00

1

10

.01

.00040

70,000.00

1

10

.01

.00025

20.00

80

10

.01

.01000

Harvester
P a l l e t Boxes

Quanti ty

Machine
Life (yr)

T .I.S .l

1

T . I . S . = Tax, Insurance, and S h e lt e r expressed as a percent of
i n i t i a l c o s t.

2

R + M o f I . C . = Repair and Maintenance expressed as a percent of
i n i t i a l c o st .

R+ M
of I.C .2

68

6 .2 .9

Subroutine IRRIEQP

IRRIEQP contains the i r r i g a t i o n equipment cost values f o r the model
(Figure 6 - 8 ) .

Prior

IRRIEQP c a l c u l a t e s

to p r i n t i n g

the i r r i g a t i o n

the estimated i n i t i a l

equipment data t a b l e ,

cost f o r the complete i r r i g a ­

t i o n system based on a cost per acre basis f o r the equipment.

The e s t i ­

mated c o s t per acre f o r the pump set and the pipes and s p r i n k l e r equip­
ment were obtained from the S p r i n k l e r I r r i g a t i o n Supply Company, Royal
Oak, Michigan and Eugene As h c r a ft o f A s h c r a ft Farms, Copemish, Michigan.
They

determined

that

on

a per

acre

approximately $450 per acre and t h a t

ba sis,
the

the

pipe

pump

set

cost

(main and l a t e r a l )

s p r i n k l e r system would be approximately $1,760 per acre.

and

In t h i s model,

based on

the above i n f o r m a t i o n , the pump set cost per acre

$450 and

the pipe and s p r i n k l e r cost

complete

irrig a tio n

system

would

wasset at

per acre was set at $1,760.

The

cost i s c a lc u la te d by m u l t i p l y i n g the cost

per acre f o r each item by the size of the strawberry e n t e r p r i s e acreage.
The value ACRES i s passed from BERRY to IRRIEQP f o r t h i s c a l c u l a t i o n .
Pump Set i n i t i a l

cost

=

Pipe & S p r i n k l e r i n i t i a l cost

450 * Acres

= 1,760 * Acres

During the re -e st a bl is hm e n t period f o r the strawberry acreage, the
model

increases the co st of the pipe and s p r i n k l e r set by 20 percent.

The model assumes an annual 20 percent re -e s t a b li s h m e n t acreage to begin
the f a l l

o f year 4, however, the e x tra i r r i g a t i o n system cap acit y i s not

u tiliz e d until

year 5.

In otherwords, the land area f o r the strawberry

e n t e r p r i s e i s held constant f o r the f i r s t fou r years and increases only
once by 20 percent during the f a l l

o f the f o u r t h yea r.

This allows 20

percent o f the starwberry acreage to be r e - e s t a b l i s h e d each yea r, there-

PRINTAB
IRRIEQP
DETERMINES INITIAL COST

CHEKANS

yes
CHANGES

CHECKIT

no

Figure 6-8.

Flowchart for the Subroutine IRRIEQP

70

fo r e

keeping

the

producing

strawberry

acreage

the

same as the grower

o r i g i n a l l y began w i t h .
This

increased equipment cost to the e n t e r p r i s e i s included in the

annual

cost to

the

e n t e r p r i s e s t a r t i n g in the f i f t h year.

assumes

t h a t the o r i g i n a l

The model

pump set was adequately sized to handle the 20

percent increase in the acreage.
A f t e r the
system,

model

IRRIEQP c a l l s

IRRIEQP

the

PRINTAB to

in itia l

display

then prompts the user to see i f

values.

I f the

CHECKIT

fu n c t i o n

changes.
entered

c a lc u l a t e s

response is yes,
inte ractive ly

MENUCHG replaces
by the

PRINTAB to

user.

d is p l a y

the

irrig a tio n

original

irrig a tio n

irrig a tio n
data

user

to

values

make

w it h

MENUCHG and
the

the

the

u se r 's

response

is

no,

then

desired

new values

to IRRIEQP where IRRIEQP c a l l s

data

ta b l e

w it h

the

new values.

Again, the user i s given the option to change the new values.
if

table.

they wish to change any of the

the

MENUCHG r e tu r n s
the

the

for

IRRIEQP c a l l s MENUCHG.

w it h

the

cost

IRRIEQP r e tu rn s

However,

and the computer

program continues with the next segment o f the model.

6 .2.10

Subroutine PROCEQP

This

subroutine contains

machine value and

quantity

of

product d i s t r i b u t i o n

selected

PROCEQP (Fi gure 6-9)

ca lls

the processing equipment items l i s t e d

each machine as determined by the f i n a l
by the

user

in

PRINTAB to d i s p l a y ,

machine costs and q u a n t i t i e s .

by

the main program BERRY.
in a ta b le format,

the

PROCEQP then prompts the user to see i f

the user wishes to change any of the values.

If

the response i s yes,

CHECKIT and CHGTAB are c a ll e d to a s s i s t the user in making the desired
changes.

Once

the

changes

have been completed, MENUCHG i s c a l l e d - t o

PRINTAB
PROCEQP
CHEKANS

MENUCHG

yes
CHGTAB

CHECKIT

Figure 6-9.

Flowchart for the Subroutine PROCEQP

72

replace the preprogrammed values w it h the new values entered by the user.
MENUCHG r e tu r n s to PROCEQP, there PROCEQP c a l l s PR'INTAB to d is p la y the
processing equipment data ta b l e w it h the new values.
given the op ti on to change the values.

However, i f

Again, the user is
the u s e r' s response

i s no, then PROCEQP r e t u r n s and the program continues w it h the next seg­
ment o f the model.
Tables 6-4

and 6-5

lis t

contained w i t h i n the model.

the

processing

equipment machine values

The machine values are based on the 1983-84

prices.

Table 6- 4.

Processing Equipment Data Table,
Processing Option Number One.

Item

In itia l

Cost

Quantity

Dump Tank

1,000.00

1

Fi ni sher

3,500.00

1

Conveyors

1,300.00

6

Si ngul a t o r

8,000.00

1

20,000.00

2

S izer

3,200.00

1

SI i c e r

2,500.00

1

Decapper

73

Table 6-5.

Processing Equipment Data Table,
Processing Option Number Two.

Item

6.2.11

In itia l

Cost

Dump Tank

1,000.00

1

F i n is h e r

3,500.00

1

Conveyors

1,300.00

3

Subroutine FPCOST

The subroutine FPCOST (F ig ur e 6-10)
from the subroutines
compute

Quanti ty

the

fie ld

FPCOST c a l c u l a t e s

BERRY,

the data i nfo rm at ion

FIELDPD, CUSTRAT, SPECEQP, and IRRIEQP to

produ ctio n
and d is p l a y s

y e a r l y basis f o r 10 years

u tiliz e s

costs

for

the

strawberry

an itemized crop production

enterprise.
cost

on a

followed by an average cost f o r the 10-year

pe rio d .

6.2.12

Subroutine SPECOST

The subroutine SPECOST c a l c u l a t e s the annual
s p e c i a l t y equipment.
from SPECEQP

and

SPECOST (Figure 6-11) receives i t s machine values

c a l c u l a t e s the machine cost by using the conventional

f i x e d - v a r i a b l e cost a n a l y s i s method u t i l i z i n g the
c i a t i o n method.

cost per year f o r the

s tra ig h t-lin e

depre­

The f i x e d - v a r i a b l e cost an alysis method r e s u l t s in the

annual cost associated

w it h an investment based on i t s period of owner-

BERRY
SPECEQP
FIELDPD

FPCOST
IRRIEQP

CUSTRAT

Figure 6-10.

Flowchart for the Subroutine FPCOST

SPECEQP
SPECOST
m
PRINTAB

r- ■ '

Figure 6-11.

Flo w ch ar t for the Subroutine SPECOST

76

ship.

The f i x e d costs (the costs which are independent o f the machine

use) include d e p r e c i a t i o n , i n t e r e s t on the investment, the property ta x ,
insurance, and s h e l t e r .
d ire c tly
repair

r e la t e d

to

V ar iab le costs are the machine costs which are

the

and maintenance,

amount
fuel

machine cost i s the sum of a l l
The
method i s
Yearbook

procedure
described
of

for

machine use.

and l u b r i c a t i o n ,

These costs
and la b o r .

include

The t o t a l

the f i x e d and v a r i a b l e costs.

calculating

the

fixed-variable

cost

i n the American Society o f A g r i c u l t u r a l

Standards

Management, as well

of

1983-84,

Section

EP391

A gricultural

an aly si s
Engineers
Machinery

as in many o f the c u r r e n t farm machinery management

books, such as Hunt, 1978; Bowers, 1975; and Kepner, Bainer and Barger,
1978.
Upon completion

of

the

co st

analysis,

SPECOST c a l l s

d is p l a y the s p e c i a l t y equipment f i x e d and op eration al

PRINTAB to

cost t a b l e .

The

co st anal ysi s f o r each machine i s l i s t e d as a f i x e d cost per y e a r , ’ fi x e d
co st per acre, op eration al cost per acre, and t o t a l

6.2 .12 .1

c os t per acre.

Repair and Maintenance

The r e p a i r and maintenance co st f o r the s p e c i a l t y equipment are ex­
pressed as a percent o f the machines' i n i t i a l
obtained from Kepner, e t a l . , 1978.
Kepner, e t a l . , a comparable machine', s

For

cost.

the

These

machine

repair

and

average

annual

not

values were
lis te d

in

maintenance percent

was l i s t e d in SPECEQP.

6 .2 .1 2 .2

Fuel Cost

The fuel

cost

estimate as o u t l i n e d

was based
in

on the

fuel

consumption

the 1983-84 A g r i c u l t u r a l Engineers Yearbook of

Standards.

The average annual

fuel

consumption was estimated

by the

f o l l o w i n g formula:
Average Diesel Consumption ( g a l / h r ) = 0.043 * max. PTO hp

6 .2 .1 2 .3

Labor Cost

The model

considers two l a b o r wage rates

ra tes are passed by the model
labor

cost c a l c u l a t i o n s .

( $ / h r ).

The l ab o r wage

from the subroutine BERRY to SPECOST f o r

One wage r a te

is

used by the model

machine opera tor and another f o r the l a b o r e r s .

Gen erall y,

receives a higher wage r a te due to the technical

s k ills

the

the operator

required by the

o p e r a to r , and a lower r a te f o r the la b o re rs who provide manual

6.2.13

for

serv ices .

Subroutine IRRCOST

IRRCOST (F ig ur e

6-12)

calculates

the annual

irrig a tio n

equipment

co s t by using the i r r i g a t i o n equipment values from IRRIEQP and the con­
ve nti ona l
inc lud e

fixed

and

depreciation,

insurance,

and

variable

cost

interest

shelter.

on

a n a ly si s
the

method.

investment,

The v a r i a b l e

The
and

fixed

costs

property

ta x ,

costs c o n s is t s of

repair

and

maintenance and e l e c t r i c i t y f o r the pumping system.
The i r r i g a t i o n costs were derived from engineering data and
l a s f o r an e l e c t r i c motor pump set w it h a s p r i n k l e r
(Turner and Anderson, 1980).

calculation

irrig a tio n
is

based

formu­
system.

The

cost

on

the

set

i s 15 years w ith a 10 percent salvage

f o l l o w i n g assumptions:
1.

The l i f e
value.

of

the

pump

2.

E l e c t r i c motor i s used as the power u n i t .

IRRIEQP
IRRCOST
PRINTAB

Figure 6-12.

Flowchart for the Subroutine IRRCOST

~~j

oo

79

3.

The

life

o f the pipes and s p r i n k l e r s i s 30 years with a 10 percent

salvage value.
4.

The e l e c t r i c i t y value i s set a t $.10 per KWHR.

5.

The tax , insurance and s h e l t e r
in itia l

6.

( T . i . S . ) are set a t

1 percent o f the

co st.

I n t e r e s t ra te i s a user i n p u t value

obtained

fromthe

subroutine

BERRY.
7.

The r e p a i r and maintenance costs are estimated
in itia l

Since

pump set c o s t .

the

model

by a percent

of

the

Seven percent was used f o r t h i s value.

assumes

a

20 percent increase in the strawberry

e n t e r p r i s e acreage to begin the f a l l

of

year

4, the value of the pipe

and s p r i n k l e r set i s increased by 20 percent during year 5.

Consequent­

l y , the re i s a 20 percent increase in the co st of the pipe and s p r i n k l e r
system.

The

pump set i s not

t h a t the o r i g i n a l
i ncr ea se .

increased

since the assumption was made

pump set was adequately sized to handle the 20 percent

Therefore, the average annual

and s p r i n k l e r system i s

based

on

for

the

irrig a tio n

cost

f o r the pipe

a ten year cost average f o r the pipe

and s p r i n k l e r system.
The

e le c tric ity

cost

irrig a tio n

system

is

based

on

the

amount of water applied per year from an adjacent surface water supply.
The q u a n t i t y of water appl ied per year i s dependent upon the so il
ra in fa ll
control

type,

during the p a r t i c u l a r growing season, and the number of f r o s t
applications

r eq uir ed during the growing season.

The q u a n t it y

o f water applied per year i s an i n p u t value required by the user in the
subrou tine BERRY.
Upon completion o f the cost a n a l y s i s , IRRCOST c a l l s PRINTAB to d i s ­
play the i r r i g a t i o n equipment f i x e d and operational cost t a b l e . The cost

80

a n a l y s i s f o r i r r i g a t i o n system i s l i s t e d as a f i x e d cost per year, fi x e d
co st per acre, o p era ti on al cost per acre, and t o t a l

6.2 .14

cost per acre.

Subroutine PR0C0ST

This subroutine c a l c u l a t e s the annual
processing equipment.

fi x e d cost per year f o r the

PR0C0ST (F ig ur e 6-13) receive s i t s machine values

from PROCEQP and c a l c u l a t e s

the machine co st by using

the f i x e d

a n a l y s i s method w it h the s t r a i g h t - l i n e d e p re c i a ti o n method.
co st inc lu des :

depreciation,

insurance, and s h e l t e r .

cost

The fix e d

i n t e r e s t on the investment, property ta x ,

Upon completion o f the co st a n a l y s i s ,

PROCOST

c a l l s PRINTAB to d is p l a y the processing fi x e d cost t a b l e . The cost anal­
ysis

f o r each machine i s l i s t e d on a co st per year and a cost per acre

b a s is .

PROCEQP
PROCOST
PRINTAB

Figure 6-13.

F lo w ch ar t for the Subroutine PROCOST

82

6.2.15

Subroutine PVCOS

This subroutine c a l c u l a t e s the operating costs associated
processing
equipment

opera tion
repair

expense f o r the

and

(Figure

6-14).

maintenance,

The v a r i a b l e
labor,

and

the

costs

w it h the

incl ud e

general

the

operating

e l e c t r i c i t y , and the b u i l d i n g and fr e e ze r r e n t .

The r e p a i r and maintenance costs are estimated as a percent of the
in itia l

equipment investment.

The r e p a i r and maintenance cost estimate

ranges from 3 percent of the i n i t i a l

investment f o r simple equipment to

13 percent f o r more complex and c o r r o s i v e systems (Humphreys and K a t e l l ,
1981).

Based upon t h i s

maintenance costs
in itia l
tional

equipment

for

i n f o r m a t io n ,

the model

assumes the r e p a i r and

the processing equipment to be 3 percent o f the

investment.

The remainder o f the processing opera­

costs are dependent upon the q u a n t it y of the raw product received

a t the processing p l a n t and the general operating cost of the processing
plant.

The general operating cost i s set a t $.05 per pound and includes

the items:

e le c tric ity ,

water,

one foreman, containers

for

the f i n a l

f r u i t product, and the r e n t f o r the b u i l d i n g and fr e e z e r .

is

The pr ojected ma terial

handling ra te (PMHR) a t the processing p l a n t

determined by the f i n a l

product op tion selected by the user in the

subroutine BERRY.

The PMHR i s necessary f o r c a l c u l a t i n g the t o t a l

essing labo r cost and the general processing expense.

If

the

selected

processing op ti on was number one (Product processed as fr e e z e r pack
puree), then the PMHR i s

determined

the processing system w i t h a
decapper.
essing

and

by the number of decappers used in

rated capacity of 3000 pounds per hour per

With op tion number one, the model assumes the number o f proc­

p la n t employees to be 15.

number two

proc­

However, i f

the selected op tio n was

(100% o f the product processed as puree)

then

the

PMHR i s

BERRY

PVCOS

00
CO

r

Figure 6-14.

Flowchart for the Subroutine PVCOS

84

determined by the number o f f i n i s h e r s used in the processing system w it h
the

rated

ca p ac it y o f 6,000 pounds per hour per f i n i s h e r .

number two, the model

With option

assumes the number of processing p l a n t employees

t o be 9.
The output f o r PVCOS d is p l a y s the season's r e p a i r and maintenance
c o s t , general expense, t o t a l
the t o t a l

6.2.16

number o f processing hours, l a b o r c o s t , and

processing co st expressed on a per year and per acre ba sis.

Subroutine ECONAN

This subroutine completes and summarizes the economic a n a ly si s f o r
the strawberry e n t e r p r i s e (Fi gur e 6 - 1 5 ) .

ECONAN c a l c u l a t e s the economic

a n a l y s i s by combining the cost estimates from FPCOST (Based on the 10year crop production average), SPECOST, IRRCOST,

PROCOST and PVCOS with

the estimated product revenue.

The f i n a l product

revenue minus the pro­

duction

costs

are based upon the production costs

final

product

for

the model

values

entered

by

complete production system by l i s t i n g
average,

the user.

and

ECONAN summarizes the

the 10 year f i e l d production cost

the annual machine f i x e d co sts, har ves ting and processing cost

f o r the e n t e r p r i s e , followed by the estimated f i n a l
and revenue f o r the e n t e r p r i s e .

product d i s t r i b u t i o n

FPCOST
PROCOST
SPECOST

ECONAN
PVCOS

IRRCOST

Figure 6-15.

Flowchart for the Subroutine ECONAN

86

6.3

Model

6 .3 .1

V erification

and V a l i d a t i o n

Model V e r i f i c a t i o n

The model was v e r i f i e d by comparing the model output w it h t h a t of
hand c a l c u l a t i o n s to ensure t h a t the model was mathematically sound and
f u n c t i o n i n g as i t was designed.

6 . 3 .2

Model V a l i d a t i o n
The model was v a l i d a t e d by performing an economic anal ys is f o r the

Michigan growers, based on the 1984 harvest season cost p r ic e s t r u c t u r e .
The v a l i d a t i o n f o r the model was performed in the areas:

1) f i e l d pro­

d u ct io n co st s , 2) machine c os t a n a l y s i s , and, 3) ha rvest and processing
c o s ts .

The f i e l d

lished l i t e r a t u r e

production v a l i d a t i o n was based l a r g e l y on the pub­
f o r the production m a t e r ia l s and chemical

application

r a te s along w it h the known i n f o r m a t io n from the researchers and growers
o f the present technology.
the

fie ld

production

Custom h i r e rate s were used by the model

operations

machine cost to the e n t e r p r i s e .

as

a

means

for

of e s t a b l i s h i n g a f a i r

This provided an actual

cost per acre

to the strawberry e n t e r p r i s e and avoided the c o n f l i c t of e s t a b l i s h i n g a
co s t

per acre f o r

the f i e l d

machinery based on the size of the t o t a l

farm acreage.
The

ownership

irrig a tio n
for

cost

equipment

estimates

should

they are based on physical

for

the

specialty,

processing

and

be the most accurate segment of the model
co st an al y si s

p rin cip als.

Whereas the

v a r i a b l e machine co st estimates f o r the harvesting and processing opera­
tions
season.

were

based

on

the

co s t

estimates

e st ab lis he d

during

the

1983

87

The v a l i d a t i o n
the actual
fie ld

f o r the harvest and processing costs were based on

costs i n c u r r e d by the growers w ith the exception of the raw

product t r a n s p o r t c o s t.

The raw product t r a n s p o r t cost

($/cwt)

was based on the custom h i r e t r a n s p o r t ra te published f o r the State of
Michigan (Schwab, G.D., 1983).
In the case of the processing v a r i a b l e c o s t,
the processing c os t f o r the 1984 season to range
pound f o r

from

predicted

6 to 7 cents per

the raw product to be processed as 100 percent puree.

processing
received

the model

at

d is trib u tio n

co st
the

per

pound

is

processing

o f the f i n a l

based

plant,
product.

on

the

quantity

the method o f
The p r e d i c t i o n

of ,the

processing,

The

product
and

by the model

the

c o in ­

cided w it h the actual c os t encountered by the growers.
In c o n c lu s io n , the f i n a l

segment o f the model

v i r t u a l l y c a lc u l a te s

and summarizes the,economic a n a l y s i s f o r the strawberry e n t e r p r i s e pro­
du cti on

system.

The model

calculates

the net cash re tu r n per acre to

the strawberry e n t e r p r i s e but t h i s does not include the land value.
land cost v a lu e ,
from the model

e i t h e r land ownership or land r e n t costs were omitted
due to

the g re at f l u c t u a t i o n

the s ta te o f Michigan.

Th e rfo re ,

the model

in land values throughout
was designed to show only

the estimated net cash r e t u r n per acre to the e n t e r p r i s e .
the

user must

The

s u b tr a c t

th e ir

land

Consequently,

ownership costs or land

r e n t costs

from the model'.s estimated net cash r e t u r n to o b ta in t h e i r pr edicted net
cash r e t u r n .

6.4

S e n s i t i v i t y An alysis
A se n s itiv ity

a n a l y s i s was completed to study the response of the

model due to a parameter change w i t h i n the system model.

In conducting

88

the s e n s i t i v i t y a n a l y s i s , only one parameter was changed per t e s t .

This

permitted easy r e c o g n i t i o n o f what happened to the system as a r e s u l t of
t h a t p a r t i c u l a r parameter change.

6 .4 .1

E f f e c t of the Crop Y i el d

In t h i s t e s t ,

the pr ojected f i e l d y i e l d (YPA) was changed to exam­

ine the e f f e c t o f the raw product y i e l d upon the costs and net r e tu r n
per acre to the e n t e r p r i s e .

The cost a n a ly si s f o r t h i s t e s t was based

on the e n t e r p r i s e size of 20 acres w it h a harvest ra te o f 0.29 acres per
hour (3.5 h r s /a c r e )
tons per acre.

f o r the f o l l o w i n g y i e l d l e v e l s of 7 .5 , 10, and

The raw product was processed as puree w ith a f i n a l

12.5
pro­

duct value of $.30 per pound.
As expected, the model
c o s t due to the change
processing c os t

Table 6-6.

r e f l e c t e d a change in the harvest v a r ia b l e

in the t r a n s p o r t cost as well as a change in the

and the q u a n t it y of the f i n a l product (Table 6 - 6 ) .

E f f e c t of Crop Y i e ld on the E n te r p r is e Cost and Final
Product Q u a n ti ty .

Yi el d Level
Per Acre

7.5 Tons

10.0 Tons

12.5 Tons

Harvest cost

268.34

293.34

318.34

Processing cost

875.10

1,162.60

1,450.10

6.75

9.00

11.25

Final product
q u a n t i t y (tons)

89

6 .4 .2

E f f e c t of Harvest Rate
In t h i s t e s t ,

thre e

o f the harvest ra te on the

ha rvest rates were used to examine the e f f e c t
system c o st .

As expected,

a change in the

harvest ra te was r e f l e c t e d only in the harvest c o s t , s p e c i f i c a l l y in the
har ves ter and f o r k l i f t v a r i a b l e costs (Table 6 - 7 ) .

Table 6-7.

E f f e c t o f Harvest Rate on the System Cost.

3.0

Harvest Rate ( h r s /a c r e )
3.5
4.0

V a r ia b le Cost per Acre
Harvester
Forkli f t
Total Harvest Cost

119.59

140.21

162.64

34.78

40.77

47.30

154.37

180.98

209.94

Table 6-7 shows t h a t an increase in the harvest r a t e o r , in other
words, an increase in the e f f e c t i v e f i e l d ca pac ity (EFC) of the harvest­
er,

results

in a decrease in

harves ter and the f o r k l i f t .

the v a r i a b l e

cost per acre f o r both the

The f l u c t u a t i o n in the harvest cost i s due

to the change in the fuel and l a b o r expense.
As mentioned e a r l i e r ,
to equal

the EFC f o r the f o r k l i f t i s set by the model

t h a t of the h a r v e s t e r .

This i s because the f o r k l i f t operation

cannot be completed any sooner than t h a t of the h a rv est er f o r the f o r k lift

i s needed to load and unload the t r a n s p o r t v e h i c l e .

90

6 . 4 .3

E f f e c t of I n t e r e s t Rates on the System
A s e n s itiv ity

t e s t was done to study the e f f e c t o f an increase in

the i n t e r e s t r a te on one o f the three equipment subsystems w i t h i n the
strawberry
rate s

production

system.

held a t 14 pe rce nt,

With the remaining equipment's i n t e r e s t

the i n t e r e s t r a te

f o r the i r r i g a t i o n

was increased by 2 percent from 14 to 16 perc ent.

system

Table 6-8 was con­

s t r u c te d to show the e f f e c t o f the 2 percent i n t e r e s t r a te change on the
annual f i x e d cost f o r a 20 acre i r r i g a t i o n system.
Table 6-8.

E f f e c t of an I n t e r e s t Rate Change f o r the I r r i g a t i o n System
Upon the Total System's Cost.

I r r i g a t i o n equipment f i x e d cost based on a loan i n t e r e s t r a te of
14 percent.
Item

Fixed Cost Per Year

Pump Set

1,323.00

Pipe and S p r i n k l e r

4,612.61

Total Fixed Cost

5,935.61

I r r i g a t i o n equipment f i x e d co s t based on a loan i n t e r e s t ra te of
16 percent.
Item

Fixed Cost Per Year

Pump Set

1,422.00

Pipe and S p r i n k l e r

5,046.27

Total Fixed Cost

6,468.27

91

6 .4 .4

E f f e c t of a Change in the Production Costs
on the Break-even Acreage

In t h i s

test,

the production costs ( cr op,

ha rves t,

and processing)

f o r the strawberry e n t e r p r i s e were increased and decreased by 10 and 20
percent above and below the 1983-84 costs
this

would have upon the break-even

prise.

The only v a r i a b l e s

harvest ra te

and the f i n a l

to examine the e f f e c t

acreage to

the

strawberry

that

e n te r ­

held constant during these t e s t s were the
product puree value.

set at 0.29 acres per hour (3.5 hours per acre)

The harvest ra te was
and the f i n a l

product

was processed as 100 percent puree w it h a puree value o f $.30 per pound.
Figure 6-16

shows t h a t based on the 1983-84 pro duc tio n co s ts ,

the

break-even acreage f o r the strawberry e n te r p r i s e would be approximately
s i x acres.

A 10 percent decrease in the system's cost would reduce the

break-even acreage to approximately f i v e acres and to fou r acres should
the costs f a l l 20 percent below t h a t o f the 1983-84 c o s ts .

Whereas a 10

and 20 percent increase in the 1983-84 product co st would increase the
break-even acreage to approximately 7.25 and 8.75 acres, r e s p e c t i v e l y .
A potential

r e d u c t io n i n the system's production co s ts , s p e c i f i c a l l y

the harvester c os t i s not an u n r e a l i s t i c p o s s i b i l i t y f o r the a g r i c u l t u r ­
al

engineers

at

t r a c t o r mounted
w ill

Michigan
strawberry

State

University

h a rv e s t e r .

are

This

cu rrently

designing

a

t r a c t o r mounted harvester

reduce the co st o f the ha rv es te r.
The red uc tio n in the cost o f the harvester i s only one of the poten­

tia l

areas inwhich the system's costs can be reduced.

tic a lly

new

strawberry

plant

v a rie tie s ,

pesticides,

With time, gene­
and

fe rtiliz e rs

could be developed which could reduce the crop production costs to the
e n t e r p r i se.

BREAK EVEN ACREAGE
EXPRESSED BY CHANGES IN PRODUCTION COSTS

•ZhJbQTLUI— 3 < r Z

2000

_

1000

_

0
0.1

UQZ

ro

CCUQCUJ

(
♦
)

-1000 _
A— A 207.
BELOH 1 9 8 3 - 8 4 PRODUCTION
B — B I O y. BELOH 1 9 8 3 - 8 4 PRODUCTION
1 9 8 3 - 8 4 PRODUCTION COSTS
® ® 10*/.
ABOVE 1 9 8 3 - 8 4 PRODUCTION
* " * 20*/.
ABOVE 1 9 8 3 - 8 4 PRODUCTION

-2000 J

COSTS
COSTS
COSTS
COSTS

/
-3 0 00

j

L

T
5

T
6

T

8

_ r

10

~ T

11

ACRES

Figure 6-16.

Break Even Acrea ge Expressed by Changes 1n Production Costs

12

93

6.5

Summary

A computer model

was designed, b u i l t ,

the outcome o f the model
tio ned in Chapter I I ,

and implemented to examine

to t h a t o f the real world s i t u a t i o n .

Section 2 . 1 . 4 ,

it

As men­

i s not always possible to com­

p l e t e l y v a l i d a t e a model due to a lack o f s u f f i c i e n t in f o rm a t io n or per­
haps the new system may not y e t e x i s t in which to ob ta in t h i s informa­
t i o n . However, in the case o f the strawberry production model, the model
was v a l i d a t e d
actual

by comparing

c os t i n f o r m a t io n

t h i s technology.

the r e s u l t s

available

of the model

w it h t h a t of the

from the growers p r e se n tl y u t i l i z i n g

As a r e s u l t , the model was proven to be mathematically

sound and r e a l i s t i c a l l y pre di cte d the production costs and the p o te n ti a l
net cash r e t u r n to the strawberry e n t e r p r i s e .

CHAPTER V II
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

7.1

Economic Eva lua ti on o f the Production System
The focus o f t h i s chapter i s on the e va lu a ti o n o f p r o f i t a b i l i t y of

mechanical

harvesting

du ction system.
the f i n a l

and processing f o r the s o l i d

set strawberry pro­

The a n a l y s i s was conducted based on the d i s t r i b u t i o n of

product to determine the break-even acreage and the break-even

y i e l d f o r the production system.

7.2

Determining the Break-Even Acreage

Ana lysis was performed
would

result

from

using

to

the

determine
required

the break-even acreage which

fie ld

equipment set deemed necessary f o r the s o l i d
system.

The c u l t u r a l

practices,

machinery

and processing

set strawberry production

such as the strawberry p l a n t d e n s i ty ,

and the f e r t i l i z e r and p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n r a te s were pr ojected to be
r e p re s e n ta ti v e of a t y p i c a l
Table 7-1 l i s t s

s o l i d set production system.

the t o t a l ' annual

fi x e d and v a r i a b l e costs on a per

acre basis f o r a strawberry production equipment set f o r processing the
final

product as 100 percent puree.

The ta b l e

shows the annual

fi xe d

costs per acre to d e c li n e from $3,881.47 a t 6.0 acres to $1,761.19 a t 40
acres. The ta b l e also shows t h a t , assuming a constant average gross cash
r e t u r n per acre, the net cash r e t u r n per acre would increase from $31.32
a t 6.0 acres to $2,189.57 at 40 acres.

94

95

Table 7-1.

Estimated Average Annual Gross Returns Per Acre, Fixed and
V a r ia b l e Cost Per Acre and Net Returns Per Acre at
Designated Acreage Levels

Fixed Cost
Per Acre

V a r ia b le
Cost Per
Acre

Met Return
Per Acre

Acreage

Gross Return
Per Acre

6

$5,400.00

$3,881.47

$1,487.21

10

5,400.00

2,782.98

1,469.34

1,147.68

20

5,400.00

2,017.86

1,455.94

1,926.20

30

5,400.00

1,818.77

1,451.48

2,129.75

40

5,400.00

1,761.19

1,449.24

2,189.57

$

31.32

Based on a harvest y i e l d o f 10 tons per acre w it h a harvest r a te of 3.5
hours per acre and the f i n a l
product (100 percent puree) p r i c e o f 30
cents per pound.

The f l u c t u a t i o n

i n the v a r i a b l e co st per acre i s due to expressing

the annual r e p a i r and maintenance cost f o r the processing equipment on a
per acre ba sis.

7.3

E f f e c t of Pri ce and Y i e ld Levels on the Average Annual
Net Cash Returns
The e f f e c t of fo u r y i e l d l e v e l s and fo u r f i n a l

product p r ic e values

were used to show the approximated break-even y i e l d lev e l
age annual

and the aver­

net r e tu rn s to the e n t e r p r i s e . For t h i s a n a l y s i s , the harvest

r a te was set at 3.5 hours per acre and the e n t e r p r i s e acreage was
a t 20 acres.

This would hold constant the f i x e d costs

v a r i a b l e costs per acre would vary to compensate f o r
harvest and processing c o s t.

per

acre.

fix e d
The

the changes in the

Therefore, changes in the crop y i e l d s and

the sale p r ic e f o r the the f i n a l

product processed as 100 percent puree

96

would show var ianc e

in the r e tu rn s to the e n t e r p r i s e .

o f i l l u s t r a t i o n , the f o u r harvest recovery y i e l d s
12.5 tons per acre were chosen

and

the

final

the puree were 15, 20, 25, and 30 cents

per

r e t u r n f o r the above crop y i e l d and f i n a l

For the purpose

o f 5,

7.5,

10,

and

product p r ic e values f o r

pound.

product

The estimated cash

p ric es

are

shown in

Table 7-2.
Table 7-2.

Estimated Net Cash Returns Per Acre f o r Four Y i e l d Levels
and Four Final Product P ri c e s *

Price Per Pound

Average Y i e ld
( to n s /a cr e )
$0.15

$0.20

$0.30

$0.25

5.0

-1,498.80

-1,048.80

7.5

-1,136.30

-

-

598.80

461.30

213.70

-

148.80
888.70

10.0

-

773.80

126.20

1,026.20

1,926.20

12.5

-

411.30

713.70

1,838.70

2,963.70

*0wnership costs are based on a 20-acre e n t e r p r i s e .

The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e a negative cash r e tu rn would occur a t a l l
y i e l d l e v e l s a t $.15 per pound as well
low y i e l d lev e l
tive

of 5 tons per acre a t a l l

as a negative cash r e t u r n f o r the
p r ic e l e v e l s i n c l u d in g

a nega­

r e t u r n f o r the y i e l d lev e l o f 7.5 tons per acre f o r the f i n a l

duct value of $.20

per

a t $.20 per pound f o r the
tons per acre.

pound.

designated crop y i e l d s of 10 and 12.5

r e tu rn s were also r e a li z e d f o r the y i e l d s

o f 7 .5 , 10, and 12.5 tons per acre f o r
and $.30 per pound.

pro­

P o s i t i v e cash r e tu rn s would be achieved

larger

P o s i t i v e cash

four

the f i n a l

product values of $.25

97

The f o l l o w i n g formula can be used
even y i e l d lev el

to

determine

f o r ' a known e n t e r p r i s e system cost and

the actual break­
a final

product

p r ic e value.

Net Y i e l d =

Total Fixed and V a r ia b le Cost per Acre
Pr ic e Per Found o f Final Product

For example, based on the p r i o r assumptions f o r
system cost w it h a f i n a l

a

20

acre

enterprise

product value o f $.20 per pound, the break-even

net y i e l d would be 8.68 tons per acre.

7.4

Break-Even

D i s t r i b u t i o n of the Final Product

Table

gives the costs and r e tu rn s of the f i n a l

7-3

various d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f the f i n a l

product

p r o po rti o n s of f r e e z e r pack and puree.

when

product

processed

as

f o r the
varying

The costs per acre in t h i s ta bl e

are based on an e n t e r p r i s e size o f 20 acres w it h a harvest r a te
hours per acre
acre.

w it h

an

actual harvest

recovery y i e l d o f 10 tons

The p r i c e s t r u c t u r e es ta b lis h e d f o r the

a n a ly si s was $.40 per pound f o r fr e e z e r pack
puree.

of 3.5

final
and

$.20

product
per

per

for this
pound

for

98

Table 7 -3 .

D i s t r i b u t i o n o f the Final Product and Net Return Per Acre

Final Product D i s t r i b u t i o n
Freezer Pack
Puree
%

Net Return Per Acre

%

80

20

2,267.02

70

30

1,907.02

60

40

1,547.02

50

50

1,187.02

40

60

827.02

30

70

467.02

20

80

107.02

10

90

-252.98

0

100

126.20

P ric e s tr u c tu r e based on $0.40 per pound f o r fre e z e r pack and $0.20 per
pound f o r puree. System costs are based on a 20-acre e n te r p r is e , harvest
r a te o f 3.5 hours per acre w ith a harvest y i e l d o f 10 tons per acre.
*The ownership c o s t is l i m i t e d to only the processing
to process the f r u i t product in t o puree

Based

on

equipment

needed

t h i s p r ic e s t r u c t u r e , Table 7-3 shows t h a t to o b ta in the

economic advantage o f purchasing the re q u ire d processing equipment need­
ed to process the f i n a l

product as fre e z e r pack

and

product d i s t r i b u t i o n would need to be

a t l e a s t 21

and 79 percent puree when compared to

th a t

of

puree,

the

fin a l

percent fre e z e r pack

processing

the

e n t ir e

f i e l d product as 100 percen t puree w ith a puree value o f $.20 per pound.
However, when the p r ic e s tr u c tu r e f o r the f i n a l
ed to $.45 per pound f o r fre e z e r pack and

product is in c re a s ­

$.30 per pound f o r puree, the

break-even r a t i o between processing the f i n a l

product

as

100

percent

99

puree
fin a l

w ith

a

puree value o f $.30 per pound to th a t o f processing

the

product as fre e z e r pack and puree, would be increased to 27.5 per­

ce n t fre e z e r pack and 72.5 percent puree (Table 7 - 4 ) .
Table 7-4.

D i s t r i b u t i o n o f the Final Product and Net Return per Acre

Final Product D i s t r i b u t i o n
Freezer Pack
Puree
X
%

Net Return Per Acre

80

20

3,347.02

70

30

3,077.02

60

40

2,807.02

50

50

2,537.02

40

60

2,267.02

30

70

1,997.02

20

80

1,727.02

10

90

1,457.02

0

100

1,926.20*

P ric e s tr u c tu r e is based on $.45 per pound f o r fre e z e r pack and $.30 per
pound f o r puree
System costs are based on a 20 acre e n te r p r is e , harv e s t r a te o f 3.5 hours per acre w ith a harvest y i e l d of 10 tons per
acre.
*The ownership co st is l im i t e d to on ly the
to process the f r u i t product in t o puree.

7 .4 .1

processing

equipment needed

Product D i s t r i b u t i o n Ratio
The l i m i t i n g f a c t o r in determ ining the percent

product

to

be

processed

rip e n in g o f the f i e l d crop.

as

of

the

raw

fru it

fre e z e r pack is dependent on the uniform
R e a l i s t i c a l l y , based on the present straw­

100

b e rry p la n t v a r ie t y used in t h i s c u lt u r a l

te chnique, the maximum percent

o f the f i e l d product acceptable f o r processing as fre e z e r

pack

is

not

l i k e l y to be g re a te r than 50 percent f o r the season's average.

7 .4 .2

Variance in Processing Equipment Ownership Costs

Table 7-5 was co n stru cte d to compare the annual fix e d costs f o r the
two

processing equipment sets re q u ire d to process the raw f r u i t product

i n t o the desired f i n a l
ment

cost

to

product as puree

p ro d u c t.

The ta b le shows the annual

fix e d equip­

be $1,565.55 f o r the equipment needed to process the raw
and

$12,621.00

per

year f o r the equipment needed to

process the raw product as fre e z e r pack and puree. The annual fix e d cost
d iffe r e n c e between the two processing methods is $11,055.45.
Table 7-5.

Comparison o f the Annual Processing Equipment Fixed Cost f o r
the Two Processing Equipment Sets.

Item

100% Puree

Dump Tank

$

177.00

S p l i t Final Product
$

177.00

Fi ni shers

698.25

698.25

A ll Conveyors

690.30

1,380.60

Si n g u la to r

1,416.00

Decappers

7,980.00

Si zer

470.40

SI ic e r

498.75

Total Annual
Fixed Cost

$1,565.55

$12,621.00

101

T h e re fo re,

i t is

f o r t h i s reason t h a t f o r the f i n a l

p ro du ct, when

processing the raw p roduct as fre e z e r pack and puree, the percent o f raw
product processed as fre e z e r pack be la rg e enough to o f f s e t the in c re a s ­
ed equipment ownership co sts .
7.5

Summary
The s e n s i t i v i t y

be used as a f a s t
manager to

and e f f e c t i v e

examine the e f f i c i e n c y

p ro d u c tio n system.
equipment

a n a ly s is f o r the model

costs

under which

and

showed t h a t the model

means f o r

the

straw berry

could

e n te r p ris e

and c o m p a t ib i li t y

o f the straw berry

The manager can change the f i e l d

produ ctio n co s ts ,

the

circumstances

fin a l

product

d is trib u tio n

the

e n te r p r is e

is

ra tio

capable o f

g r e a te s t cash re tu r n to the straw berry p ro d u ctio n system.

to

observe

p ro v id in g

the

CHAPTER V I I I

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

8.1

Summary
A computer model

b ility

of

has been developed to examine the economic f e a s i ­

mechanical

h a rv e s tin g

s tra w b e rry p ro d u ctio n
the

in Michigan.

s o l i d - s e t stra w b erry

placed on the c r u c ia l

and

p ro d u c tio n

f a c to r s

A physical

which

processing

of

s o lid -s e t

The c u r r e n t c u lt u r a l

c u lt u r e

p ra c tic e s f o r

have been discussed w ith emphasis
r e s u l t in a high- recovery ra te by

the

h a rv e s te r.

d e s c r ip tio n and the o p e ra tio n a l

performances

fo r

the mechanical h a rv e s te r and the processing equipment were also d is ­

cussed.
The model

uses

the

tra d itio n a l

fix e d

and v a r ia b le

method to e s ta b lis h the equipment ownership and o p era tin g
e ve r,

whenever p o s s ib le

custom h ir e

means

fo r

a fa ir

e s ta b lis h in g

ra te s

machine

co st a n a ly sis
c o s ts .

are used by the model

c o st

value

to

the

How­
as a

straw berry

e n t e r p r is e . A ll costs in the model are charged e x c lu s iv e ly to the straw­
b e rry

e n te r p r is e

and not

spread out over the

complete

farming

system

which may in c o rp o ra te o th e r farm e n te r p ris e s .
The model c a lc u la te s the net cash r e tu r n per acre to the straw berry
e n te r p r is e
va lu e ,

but

e it h e r

th is
land

does

not

in c lu d e the land valu e .

The land cost

ownership or land re n t costs were om itted from the

102

103

model due to the g re a t f l u c t u a t i o n in land values throughout
o f Michigan.

T herefore the model was designed to

show

on ly

the

s ta te

the e s t i ­

mated net cash r e tu r n per acre to the e n te r p r is e . Consequently, the user
must

s u b tr a c t

m odel's

th e ir

estimated

land

net

ownership

cash

co s t

or land r e n t c o st from the

r e tu r n to o b ta in t h e i r p re d ic te d net cash

r e tu r n .
The model can be used as a budgeting to o l to e stim ate the e s t a b lis h ­
ment and produ ctio n costs f o r a s o l i d - s e t c u lt u r e
system.

Even though the model has

g u id e lin e s f o r the use r.

been

stra w b erry produ ctio n

v a lid a te d ,

it

the

model

provides

The users may need to a d ju s t the values w it h in

the model to more a c c u ra te ly sim ula te t h e i r in d iv id u a l
Since

on ly

was

e n te r p r is e .

designed to fu n c tio n i n t e r a c t i v e l y w ith the

u s e r, and f o r the u s e r 's convenience, the in p u t and o u tp u t data f o r t h i s
model are expressed in t h e i r

common

E nglish

u n it s , i . e . , a cres, to n s,

pounds.

8.2

Cone!usions

8 .2 .1 .

H arvester and Processing

H arvester

and processing

equipment data were c o lle c te d d uring the

1983 h a rvest season f o r the purpose
and e f f i c i e n c i e s .

o f examining the machine c a p a c itie s

Based on t h a t season'.s data the fo llo w in g conclusions

were made:
1.

Results showed the

mechanical

recovery range from

h a rve ste r

to

have

a harvest

85 to 98 percent w ith the season's average

recovery ra te being 92 p ercent.
2.

The e f f e c t i v e f i e l d
hours

per

acre

c a p a city (EFC)
(8.65 hours

f o r the h a rv e s te r was

per ha)

3.5

w ith a p ro je c te d harvest

104

r a te

p o te n tia l

o f 3 hours

per acre

(7 .4

hours

per ha) when

equipped w it h the bulk m a te ria l handling system.
3.

The s in g u la t o r

averaged 5414 lb s

per hour (2456 kg per hour)

f o r the season w ith a 35 percent improvement in the separation
o f s in g le b e r r ie s and a 68 percent improvement in the separa­
t io n o f b e rry c l u s t e r s .
4.

The

MSU-CML

s tra w b e rry

decapper

averaged

2679

lb s

per

(1215 kg per hour) f o r the season w ith a discharge ra te o f
ro ll

backs,

r o l l overs,

20%

37% c u t

fru it,

and

hour
20%

23% tra s h

m a te r ia l.
5.

A n a ly s is
tra s h

decapper tra s h

showed t h a t 46 to 60% o f the

m a te ria l was b e rry f l e s h .

To decrease t h i s b e rry fle s h

waste,
caps

of

the

the management may choose to ro u te the decapped b e rry
to

the

the k n if e

fin is h e r

blade c lo s e r

fo r
to

processing
the

r o lle rs

as
to

puree

and/or

decrease

a d ju s t

the b e rry

f le s h lo s s to the tra s h b in .

8 .2 .2

Model

A systems approach was used to evaluate the economic f e a s i b i l i t y o f
mechanical

h a rv e s tin g

p ro d u c tio n .

and

processing

o f s o l i d - s e t c u lt u r e straw berry

The computer model was v a lid a te d w ith grower documentation

to e stim ate the s tra w b e rry produ ctio n system costs and net r e tu r n s .
a

r e s u l t , the model

processing o f

in d ic a te s ap o te n tia l

f o r mechanical h a rvestin g

s o l i d - s e t c u lt u r e straw berry p roduction in Michigan.

As
and
The

f o llo w in g co n clusions were made:
1.

Using the re q u ire d f i e l d machinery and processing equipment set
necessary f o r processing the complete f r u i t product

as

puree,

105

valued a t 30 cents per pound, the break even acreage was e s t i ­
mated

to

annual

be approxim ately

6.0

acres

(2 .4

ha ).

The average

net p r o f i t s would increase from $31.32 per acre a t 6.0

acres (2 .4 ha) to $2189.57 per acre a t 40 acres (16.2 ha).
2.

Y ie ld s

and the

p ric e

s tr u c tu r e

d i r e c t e f f e c t on the equal
v e s tin g

fo r

the

fin a l

product

has

c o s t acres f o r the mechanical

and processing system.

a

har­

Based on the p roduction costs

f o r a 20 acre (8.1 ha) stra w b erry e n te r p r is e , the r e s u lt s show
a negative cash re tu rn would occur a t y i e l d
12.5 tons per

acre

(11.3

le v e ls

le s s

tonne per ha) f o r the f i n a l

than

product

puree value o f 15 cents per pound (0.454 kg) as well as a nega­
tiv e

cash r e tu r n

fo r

the y i e l d

le v e l

o f 5 tons per acre (4.5

tonne per ha) up to 30 cents per pound (kg) f o r the f i n a l

pro­

duct puree va lu e .
3.

Y ie ld changes have a d i r e c t e f f e c t on the equal
(h e c ta re )

f o r the mechanical

The approximate equal

c o s t acreage

h a rvestin g and processing system.

c o s t acreage f o r a y i e l d o f 7 tons (6 .3

tonne) was 19 acres (7.7 ha), which increases to 27 acres (10.9
ha) when the y i e l d s
acres (2 .4 ha) i f

are 5 tons (4 .5 tonne) but d e c lin e s to 6

the y ie ld s go to 10 tons (9.1 to n n e ), and to

4.7 acres (1 .9 ha) i f y ie ld s are 12 tons (10.9 to n n e ).
4.

To o b ta in

the

processing

economic

equipment

advantage

needed

to

fre e z e r pack and puree, the f i n a l

of

purchasing

process

the

the

fin a l

required

product

as

product d i s t r i b u t i o n would be

21 percent fre e z e r pack and 79 percent puree when compared to
th a t

of

processing

puree f o r a f i n a l

the

e n tire

fie ld

product

as 100 p ercent

product p ric e s tr u c tu r e o f 40 cents per pound

106

(0.454 kg)
fo r

f o r fre e z e r pack and 20 cents per pound (0.454 kg)

puree.

However,

when the

fin a l

product

p ric e

s tr u c tu r e

increases to 45 cents and 30 cents per pound (kg) f o r fre e z e r
pack

and

puree

r e s p e c t iv e ly ,

the

break

even

ra tio

would

be

increased to 27.5 percent fre e z e r pack and 72.5 percent puree.
5.

E lim in a tio n

of

the s p e c ia lty

equipment ownership c o s t to

the

growers.
The

g re a te s t

annual

c o st

to

th is

p ro du ctio n

system

is

the

ownership , c o st f o r the h a rve s te r and the processing equipment.
However, should the grower be able to lease h is machine out to
o th e r

growers

increased

as

a custom

revenue

to

the

h ir e

s e r v ic e ,

machine

owner

ownership co s t per u n i t o f land area.

th is
and

would

provide

decrease

the

The custom s e rv ic e would

b e n e f it both the machine owner-operator as well

as the grower

employing the custom h ir e s e rv ic e .

Another p o s s i b i l i t y to e lim in a te the s p e c ia lty equipment owner­
ship co st to the growers would be t h a t since the h a rve ste r and
the processing equipment are s p e c ia lty
tia l

inve stm en t,

p o s s ib ly

purchasers o f the f i n a l
v e s te r

and

the

equipment o f g re a t i n i ­

the equipment manufacturers

or

the

product could own and operate the har­

processing

equipment

growers to grow the stra w b erry crop.

and

c o n tr a c t

w ith

the

This would decrease the

equipment ownership costs f o r the growers and a t the same time
decrease the equipment ownership co st per ton (tonne) o f prod­
u c t harvested and processed as w ell
the d esired

q u a n t it y

q u a lity

the

of

(d is trib u tio n

fin a l

as in s u rin g themselves o f
of

f r u i t p roduct.

the

fin a l

product)

and

This would decrease the

107

storage co st o f unneeded f r u i t product and in s u re a smooth and
even flo w o f the straw berry product onto the market thus avoid­
ing

a la rg e

surge

(g lu t)

of

the

stra w b erry

product onto

the

market.

8.3

Recommendations f o r F u rth e r Research
1.

There is a need to determine
d e n s ity f o r t h i s c u lt u r a l

2.

F u rth e r development in

the optimum stra w b erry tr a n s p la n t

p r a c tic e .

stra w b erry

p la n t

v a rie tie s

which are

fa v o ra b le f o r mechanical h a rv e s tin g and processing w ith

empha­

s is in the f o llo w in g areas:
a) v a r i e t i e s w ith d i f f e r e n t crop rip e n in g dates (degree days)
b) u niform rip e n in g o f the b e rry c l u s t e r s .
3.

Design a p la n t growth model to p r e d ic t the harvest date.

4.

To develop a mechanical - e le c t r o n ic f r u i t c o lo r s o r te r to com­
pensate f o r the la b o r

shortage

and to

a lle v ia te

the tedious

hand s o r tin g o f the le s s d e s ira b le b e r r ie s .
5.

To in c o rp o ra te in t o the model the o p tio n o f using the cash flo w
cost

a n a ly s is

sequence.

method

to

examine

the

system's

cash

flo w

A P P E N D I C E S

APPENDIX

1

The data in t h i s Appendix were used f o r the s t a t i s t i c a l
the

p la n t

crown

d e n s ity

co u nt.

The

method

o f data

a n a ly s is o f

c o lle c tio n

is

described in s e c tio n 3 .5 .1 and the data a n a ly s is is discussed in Section
3 .5 .2 .

Columns

C l,

C2 and C3 re p re se n t the tra n s p la n t spacing o f the

t e s t p l o t in which the data were c o lle c te d from , 91 x 51 cm, 61 x 61 cm,
and 46

x

c o lle c te d

61

cm r e s p e c t iv e l y .

d uring t h i s

A to ta l

of

104 f i e l d

samples

were

h a rv e s t season, 48 samples in C l, 44 samples in

C2, and 12 samples in C3.

Also included

in

th is

appendix i s

each o f the t r a n s p la n t spacings.

a histogram o f the samples f o r

The histogram g r a p h ic a lly i l l u s t r a t e s

the range and the number o f stra w b erry p la n ts counted per each u n i t area
sample.

108

109

Table 1.

F ie ld data recorded by sample number f o r each o f the three
t r a n s p la n t spacings. Each number represents the number o f
p la n ts found in 0.19 m2 (2 .0 f t 2 ) .

Cl= COLUMN
C2= COLUMN
C3= COLUMN

1DATA= PLANT SPACING OF 91 x 61 CM (36 x 24 IN ).
2 DATA= PLANT SPACING OF 61 x 61 CM (24 x 24 IN ).
3 DATA= PLANT SPACING OF 46 x 61 CM (18 x 24 IN ).
>LE NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

Cl

C2

C3

13.
18.
24.
25.
17.
20.
26.
25.
16.
25.
18.
11.
24.
14.
24.
25.
21.
23.
25.
19.
18.
23.
29.
21.
29.
24.
23.
24.
16.
23.
18.
16.
13.
13.
14.
15.
14.
20.
17.
18.

25.
31 .
28.
24.
24.
21.
19.
21.
21.
22.
31.
22.
22.
20.
34.
26.
37.
35.
30.
23.
33.
18.
28.
29.
23.
25.
26.
27.
24.
22.
29.
18.
20.
25.
23.
26.
31.
32.
32.
27.

15.
15.
15.
19.
20.
19.
18.
12.
17.
15.
12.
19.

110

T a b le 1.

SAMPLE NUMBER
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48

(c o n tin u e d )

Cl

C2

20.
9.
16.
7.
14.
11.
13.
14.

25
30
32
12

C3

Ill

Table 2.

Number o f crown d e n s ity observations in each o f the
tr a n s p la n t spacings.

P la n t spacing o f 91 x 61 cm (36 x 24 i n ) .

MIDDLE OF
INTERVAL!
6.
8.
10.
12.
14.
16.
18.
20.
22.
24.
26.
28.
30.

NUMBER OF
OBSERVATIONS
0
1
1
2
9
5
7
4
2
9
6
0
2

*
★
**
*********
*****
*******
****
**
*********
******
**

P la n t spacing o f 61 x 61 cm (36 x 24 i n ) .
MIDDLE OF
INTERVAL!
12.
14.
16.
18.
20.
22.
24.
26.
28.
30.
32.
34.
36.
38.

NUMBER OF
OBSERVATIONS
1
0
0
2
3
7
6
7
4
4
6
2
1
1

*

.

**
***
*******
******
*******
****
****
******
**
*
*

112

T a b le 2 .

(c o n tin u e d )

P la n t spacing o f 46 x 61 cm (18 x 24 i n ) .
MIDDLE OF
INTERVAL!
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

NUMBER OF
OBSERVATIONS
2
0
0
4
0
1
1
3
1

**
****
*
*
***
*

1 I s the m id p o in t f o r each i n t e r v a l
o b serva tio n s! f a l l .

range in which the '.number o f

A P P E N D I X

2

FIELD DATA SUMMARY

This appendix is a summary o f the f i e l d

data samples.

This i n f o r ­

mation was used f o r de te rm in ing the h a rv e s te r recovery r a te and f o r the
p la n t

d e n s ity

count.

The

in fo rm a tio n

sample number, and by the o r ig i n a l
Table Al

lis ts

is

recorded

by calendar

date,

tr a n s p la n t spacing.

the h arvest data f o r

the h a rve ste r described in Chapter IV .

the harvester which preceded

Tables A2 and A3 l i s t the har­

v e s t data f o r the h a rv e s te r described in Chapter IV.
These
h a rv e s te r.

samples were taken
The f i r s t

in

p a ir s ,

sample c o l l e c t i o n

one before and one a f t e r

the

was taken p r i o r to h a rv e s tin g .

Three items o f in fo r m a tio n were c o lle c te d by t h i s sample and recorded in
columns A, B, and C.
o f a ll

Column A c o n ta in s the mass per u n i t area in grams

the b e r r ie s hand picked w it h in the 0.19 m^ (2 f t ^ ) square frame.

The number on the l e f t

in

th is

column i s

the mass o f a l l

the b e rrie s

(green n o n -rip e , r i p e , and o v e rrip e ) in the sample and the number on the
rig h t

is

the

mass

of

o nly

the

red

r ip e

b e r rie s

w it h in

the

sample.

Column B c o n ta in s the p la n t d e n s ity count per u n it area f o r each o f the
samples.

Column C c o n ta in s the p la n t f o i l age h e ig h t a t the lo c a t io n of

the sample c o l l e c t i o n .
The
passed.

second

sample

c o lle c tio n

was

taken

a fte r

the

h a rvester

had

This sample was taken in approxim ately the same lo c a t io n as the

113

114

f i r s t sample but not the exact same lo c a t io n .

Two items o f in fo rm a tio n

were c o lle c te d a t t h i s sample and recorded in columns D and E.

Column

D co n ta in s the mass per u n i t area in grams o f a l l

the b e r r ie s and berry

fle s h missed by the h a rv e s te r w it h in the 0.19 m2

(2 f t 2 ) square frame.

The number on the l e f t

in t h i s column i s the mass o f a l l

the b e r r ie s

b e rry fle s h missed by

the h a rve ste r and the number on the

and

r i g h t is the

mass of on ly the red b e r r ie s and red b e rry fle s h missed by the h a rv e s t­
e r.

Column E c o n ta in s a second p la n t d e n s ity count.
The l a s t column, Column F, l i s t s

v e s te r

fo r

each o f

the

samples.

the percent recovery by the har­

Once

ag ain ,

the numberon the l e f t

corresponds to the a l l f r u i t category and the number
red r ip e f r u i t ca te g o ry.

on the

r i g h t to the

Table A1. F i e l d Data Summary
P l a n t Spacing 91 x 61 cm (36 x 24 inches)

D
Hand Picked
Mass/Area (g)

Machine Loss
Mass/Area (g)

A ll

Red

Crown
Density

101

757

324

18

22.9

102

699

280

13

103

623

338

104

624

105

Foilage H t.
cm
in .

Crown
Densi ty

A ll

Red

9

69

16

16

95

25.4

10

142

38

13

86

14

27.9

11

191

109

15

68

131

14

22.9

9

154

73

20

44

720

282

17

25.4

10

254

115

18

59

106

512

198

20

25.4

10

69

29

9

85

107

828

404

16

20.3

8

84

36

7

91

108

742

524

14

15.2

6

103

59

11

89

109

652

440

13

17.9

7

331

185

14

58

110

810

493

13

17.9

7

95

50

18

90

111

833

488

24

35.6

14

109

21

25

95

112

999

658

17

25.4

10

143

63

20

90

113

861

592

26

25.4

10

71

61

25

89

Red

Table A1 (c o n tin u e d )

C

D

E

Machine Loss
Mass/Area (g)

Hand Picked
Mass/Area (g)
F o il age H t.
cm
in .

A ll

Red

16

27.9

11

174

102

515

18

25.4

10

125

1147

451

24

30.5

12

117

1164

622

24

30.5

J u ly 10

118

888

567

21

J u ly 10

119

816

653

J u ly 10

120

698

J u ly 10

121

J u ly 10

Date
1983

Sample
Number

A ll

Red

Crown
Density

J u ly 7

114

971

537

J u ly 7

115

1072

J u ly 7

116

J u ly 7

F
Percent
Recovery

Crown
Density

A ll

Red

25

82

81

63

11

88

88

115

110

14

90

75

12

162

81

25

86

87

30.5

12

74

39

23

91

93

25

20.3

8

96

77

19

88

88

607

18

20.3

8

150

138

23

78

77

982

702

29

33.0

13

134

92

21

86

87

122

885

718

29

30.5

12

237

98

24

73

86

J u ly 10

123

727

543

23

25.4

10

116

71

24

84

87

J u ly 12

124

790

602

16

30.5

12

137

113

23

83

81

Table A2. F i e l d Data Summary
P la n t Spacing 61 x 61 cm (24 x 24 inches)

C

D

Hand Picked
Mass/Area (g)
Date
1933

E

Machine Loss
Mass/Area (g)
Foilage H t.
cm
in .

Sample
Number

A ll

Red

Crown
Density

June 24

1

613

402

25

20.3

June 24

2

863

690

31

June 25

3

809

629

June 25

4

585

June 25

5

June 26

A11

Red

8

94

42

20.3

8

102

28

35.6

14

373

24

38.1

875

553

24

6

834

685

June 26

7

754

June 26

8

June 26

F
Percent
Recovery

Crown
Density

A11

Red

28

85

90

47

29

88

93

159

51

23

80

92

15

83

10

25

86

97

35.6

14

177

83

26

80

85

21

38.1

15

73

41

27

91

94

520

19

35.6

14

39

15

24

95

97

635

468

21

15.2

6

44

25

22

93

95

9

671

535

21

17.9

7

96

39

29

86

93

June 27

10

756

642

22

15.2

6

52

36

18

93

94

June 27

17

1230

1051

31

15.2

6

127

68

20

88

93

June 27

13

333

140

22

35.6

14

35

11

25

89

92

T able A2 (c o n tin u e d )

A

B

C

D

Hand Picked
Mass/Area (g)
Date
1983

Sample.
Number

E

Machine Loss
Mass/Area (g)

A11

Red

Crown
Density

F o il age Ht.
cm
in .

A11

Red

F
Percent
Recovery

Crown
Density

A11

Red

June 27

19

894

563

22

35.6

14

137

19

23

85

96

June 27

20

702

320

20

35.6

14

103

11

26

85

96

June 27

21

1142

993

34

22.9

9

142

28

31

88

97

June 27

22

1133

890

26

22.9

9

67

9

32

94

99

June 29

23

1054

490

37

33.0

13

254

60

32

76

88

June 29

24

1019

496

35

30.5

12

86

25

27

92

95

June 29

25

838

535

30

35.6

14

346

101

25

59

81

June 29

26

1202

521

23

38.1

15

160

41

30

87

92

June 29

27

968

453

33

33.0

13

185

52

32

81

88

June 29

28

1043

486

18

38.1

15

191

41

12

82

92

June 30

29

1134

672

21

38.1

15

206

61

20

82

91

June 30

30

1311

660

21

38.1

15

103

27

18

92

96

J u ly 1

31

1130

469

24

27.9

11

61

14

29

95

97

Table A3.
F i e l d Data Summary
P l a n t Spacing 46 x 61 cm (18 x 24 inches)

B

A

C

D

Hand Picked
Mass/Area (g)
Date
1983

E

Machine Loss
Mass/Area (g)

Sample
Number

A11

Red

Crown
Density

June 26

11

860

580

June 26

12

983

June 26

13

June 26

F o il age H t.
cm
in .

A11

Red

15

30.5

12

123

57

664

15

25.4

10

101

910

641

15

35.6

14

14

790

551

19

35.6

June 26

15

680

408

20

June 26

16

539

329

19

F
Percent
Recovery

Crown
Density

A11

Red

18

86

90

55

12

90

92

240

96

17

74

85

14

155

46

15

80

92

43.2

17

150

40

12

78

90

43.2

17

132

50

19

76

‘ 85

A P P E N D I X

3

The fo llo w in g f i g u r e shows the negative r e la t io n s h ip between p la n t
d e n s ity

and p la n t

h a rv e s te r.

In

f o i l age h e ig h t to

o th e r

words,

as

the

p la n t

percent recovery ra te by the
d e n s ity

increases

the

f o i l age

h e ig h t tends to decrease.

This is a normal

a dense p la n t p o p u la tio n .

This i s due to the p la n t co m p e titio n f o r the

s o il

n u t r i e n t s , water and a v a ila b le

environment.
to g e th e r ,

the

fu n c tio n o f p la n t growth in

sun l i g h t to each p la n t in a dense

However, as the p la n t d e n s ity and f o i l age h e ig h t increase
percent

recovery

r a te

by

the

h a rv e s te r

also

increases

because the d e n s ity o f the crop and the h e ig h t o f the f o i l age a s s is ts
the h a rv e s te r recovery by suspending and supporting the f r u i t c lu s t e r s
up w it h in the p la n t canopy.
the c u t t e r bar to

s lid e

p la n t vine from the s o il

This f a c i l i t a t e s

the h a rv e s te r by a llo w in g

under the b e rry c lu s t e r s before i t
su rfa c e .

120

severs the

FOILAGE HEIGHT 4 PLANT DENSITY VS PERCENT RECOVERY
PLANT SPACING 61 X 61 CM (2 4 X 24 INCH)
40

30 nr

25

60

65

70

FOILAGE HEIGHT (INCH)
PLANT DENSITY / U N I T AREA

75

80

PERCENT RECOVERY

05

90

95

A P P E N D I X

4

This appendix l i s t s

the recorded

h a rv e s tin g speeds d uring the 1983

season f o r the h a rv e s te r described in S ection 4 .1 .
used to determine

the

t h e o r e t ic a l

fie ld

This in fo rm a tio n was

c a p a c ity (TFC) and the f i e l d

e f f i c i e n c y (FE) o f the h a rv e s te r.
The h a rve stin g

speeds

increased

as

the

o p e ra to r

became b e tte r

acquainted w ith the machine and i t s c o n t r o ls .

General Comment
1 m ile per hour = 88 f e e t per minute
88 f e e t per minute = 1.46 f e e t per second

H arvesting Speed
; t Number

D istance ( f t )

Time (sec)

M iles per

1

372

360

0.71

2

30

15

1.37

3

30

18

1.14

4

30

16

1.28

5

372

345

0.74

6

60

30

1.37

7

60

31

1.32

8

60

29

1.42

9

60

28

1.47

10

30

13

1 .58

122

123

T h e o re tic a l F ie ld Capacity
The

t h e o r e t ic a l

f i e l d ca p a c ity i s the r a te o f f i e l d coverage th a t

would be obtained by the

h a rve ste r

if

i t were performing i t s fu n c tio n

100 percent o f the time a t the rated o p e ra tin g

speed and always u t i l i z ­

ing 100 percent o f the time a t the rated o p e ra tin g speed and always u t i ­
l i z i n g 100 p ercent o f i t s rated c u t t e r bar w id th .

This maximum c a p a c ity

i s used as a basis f o r e v a lu a tin g the performance

of

i t s o p e ra to r.

the h a rve s te r and

TFC i s c a lc u la te d by m u lt ip l y in g the h a rvesting

speed by

the rated c u t t e r bar w id th and d iv id in g by a co n sta n t o f 10 ( 8 .2 5 ) . This
co n s ta n t o f 10(8.25) enables the c a lc u la t io n to be expressed in hectares
per hour (acres per h o u r).

TFC = Speed x Width
Constant
Based

on

the

season

hour, the t h e o r e t ic a l

average

h a rv e s tin g speed o f 1.24 m ile s per

f i e l d c a p a c ity (TFC)

was

c a lc u la te d

acre per hour (0.24 hectares per h o ur).
TFC =

Speed (mph) x w id th ( f t )
Constant

so,

0.60 acre per hour =

1.24 mph x 4 f t
8.25

to

be

0.6

124

E f f e c t iv e F ie ld Capacity
In 1983, the season's average e f f e c t i v e f i e l d c a p a c ity (EFC) o f the
h a rvester was 0.30 acre per hour (0.12 hectare per h o u r).
actual

ra te

of

h a rve ste r

performance,

expressed

in

EFC

is

the

acres per hour

( hectares per h o u r ) .

F ie ld E f f ic ie n c y
The average f i e l d e f f i c i e n c y (FE) o f the h a rve ste r f o r t h i s
was 50 p ercent.

season

However, next year w ith a bulk handling system f o r the

harvested

fru it,

FE

is

expected to increase to approxim ately 80

p e rcen t.

F ie ld e f f i c i e n c y

is

the r a t i o o f the h a r v e s te r 's EFC to i t s

TFC.

the

F ie ld e f f i c i e n c y i s c a lc u la te d by d iv id in g the h a r v e s te r 's EFC by

i t s TFC and expressed as a p ercent.

FE =

_ _ E.FiL - TFC

x 100

Once the o p e ra to r can i d e n t i f y the p ro du ctio n system's i n e f f i c i e n ­
c ie s and c o r r e c t f o r them, then the f i e l d e f f i c i e n c y and f i e l d c a p a city
o f the h a rv e s te r can be increased. The fa c to r s which a f f e c t the h a rve s t­
e r 's f i e l d e f f i c i e n c y and f i e l d c a p a c ity are:
1) S k i l l

and experience o f the o p e ra to r.

2) Crop and f i e l d c o n d itio n s .
3) Proper o p e ra tin g speeds and adjustments o f h a rve ste r components.
4) Ground speed o f the machine.
5) Actual w id th o f the header used.
6) M a te ria l

handling system's c a p a c ity .

A P P E N D I X

5

ESTIMATED MAXIMUM ACREAGE PER HARVESTER PER
PLANT VARIETY PER HARVEST SEASON

The maximum size o f the stra w b erry e n te rp r is e in acreage

is

e s ti­

mated by d eterm ining the e f f e c t i v e f i e l d c a p a c ity (EFC) o f the h a rv e s te r,
the le n g th
day.

of

the

h a rvest season and the number of harvest hours per

Based on the 1983 f i e l d data (Appendix 4) the season's average EFC

f o r the h a rvester described in Section 4 .1 , th e EFC was determined to be
0.30 acres per hour or in o th e r words 3.5 hours per acre.
fo r

the purpose o f i l l u s t r a t i o n

T h e re fo re ,

th re e EFC's were used to estim ate the

maximum acreage ( 0 .2 5 , 0 .3 0 , and 0.34) w ith the assumption t h a t the har­
v e s te r would operate 12 hours per day and t h a t w ith a moderate growing
season the harvest season would l a s t approxim ately e ig h t days.
The assumption t h a t the h a rve ste r would operate 12 hours per day is
a r e a lis tic
b e r r ie s .

value

fo r

a s h o rt term time v a r ia n t crop

such as straw­

Also from the experience o f the 1983 season the ambient fo lia g e

m oisture did not h in d e r the c u t t i n g and clea n ing process o f the raw f r u i t
product by the h a rv e s te r.
T h e re fo re , based on the above assumptions the maximum size o f the
straw berry e n te rp r is e based on the three EFC's o f 0 .2 5 , 0 .3 0 , and 0.34
acres per hour i s

estim ated to be 2 4 .0 , 2 8 .8 , and 32.6 acres per year

per harvester per s tra w b e rry p la n t v a r i e t y , r e s p e c t iv e ly .

125

These acreage values are on ly estim ates which can be used to a s s is t
the p o t e n t i a l l y

new and in te r e s te d

grower in e s tim a tin g

the size o f a

stra w b erry e n te r p r is e based on the 1983 h a rvest season date f o r the har­
v e s te r described in S ection 4 .1 .

A P P E N D I X

6

STRAWBERRY PRODUCTION MODEL
User Guide
I N T R O D U C T I O N
The

s tra w b e rry

rese arch e rs,

p ro d u c tio n

extension

computer model

is

designed

to

a s s is t

agents, and growers a l i k e who are in te r e s te d

examining the s o li d se t c u lt u r e s tra w b erry p ro du ctio n system.
was designed to be f l e x i b l e

in i t s

be e a s ily changed by the user.

in

The model

parameters so t h a t the values could

The f l e x i b i l i t y

o f the model

to change

any o f the preprogrammed values enables users to b e t t e r sim ula te t h e i r
present or p ro je c te d f u tu r e e n te r p r is e system w ith o u t having to r e w r ite
the computer program.
The

o u tp u t

of

the

model

is

item ized

by o p e ra tio n

o bserva tio n s can be made regarding the system.
i s presented in three p a r ts :

1) f i e l d

so t h a t

cost

The o u tp u t o f the model

produ ctio n c o s ts , 2) machine and

equipment c o s ts , and 3) economic a n a ly s is . The economic a n a ly s is segment
is

a summary o f the complete system's c o s t,

product d i s t r i b u t i o n ,

and

product revenue minus the t o t a l c o s t to the stra w b erry e n te r p r is e .
How to Use the Model
The s tra w b erry p ro d u c tio n model
t i v e l y w ith the user.
computer to s t a r t the

That i s ,
program,

was designed to fu n c tio n in t e r a c ­

the user simply types a command to the
immediately

127

the

program

begins,

and

128

prompts the user w ith q u e stio n s.

This i n t e r a c t i v e technique enables the

user w ith no previous computer experience to e a s ily use t h i s p roduction
model.
user,
th is

Since the model was designed to fu n c tio n i n t e r a c t i v e l y w ith the
and f o r

model

the

u s e r's

are expressed

convenience,
in

th e ir

the

in p u t and o u tp u t u n it s

common E n g lis h

u n it s ,

e .g .,

fo r

acres,

to n s , pounds.
Once the program b e gin s, i t w i l l
d u ctory

q u e stio n s.

F o llo w in g

questions the model
d u c tio n m a te ria l
ta b le

w ill

the u s e r's response to

the in t r o d u c to r y

d is p la y in a menu ta b le form at the f i e l d

pro­

p ric e s and the a p p lic a t io n ra te s fo llo w e d by the menu

f o r the s p e c ia lty equipment,

essing equipment.
change any o f

ask the user a t o t a l o f 12 i n t r o ­

ir r ig a tio n

equipment, and the proc­

A f t e r each menu ta b le the user i s given the chance to

the values

in

the menu ta b le

to

b e tte r

sim ulate

th e ir

in d iv id u a l e n te r p r is e .
To f a m i l i a r i z e
menu ta b le s

the

user

w ith

the

d isp la yed by the model,

in t r o d u c to r y

questions

a sample copy o f the model

has been a ttached.

I n i t i a l Commands Needed to S t a r t the Program
( lo g in )
ATTACH, TAPE7, DATAFL1.

( r e tu r n )

ATTACH, EWFILE, BERRY1.

( r e tu r n )

HAL, L IB , UNSUP.

( r e tu r n )

XFTN5.

( r e tu r n )

LGO.

( r e tu r n )

and the
o u tp u t

129

FOR THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS - ENTER THE NUMERICALVALUE ONLY.
WHAT IS
WHAT IS
WHAT IS

THESIZE OF THE STRAWBERRY ENTERPRISE INACRES ?10
THEWAGE RATE FOR THE OPERATOR ($/HR) ?8
THEWAGE RATE FOR THE LABORERS ($/HR) ?5

WHAT IS THE INTEREST RATE AS A PERCENT FOR THE:
FIELD MACHINERY 714
PROCESSING EQUIPMENT 714
IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT 71H

WHAT IS THE DIESEL FUEL PRICE ($/GAL) 71.20
WHAT IS THE PROJECTED FIELD YIELD PER ACRE (LBS/ACRE) 720000
WHAT IS THE PROJECTED HARVESTER RECOVERY RATE (ENTER AS
A PERCENT)792
WHAT IS THE PROJECTED HARVEST RATE (ACRES/HR) 7.29
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED IRRIGATION RATE, EXPRESSED AS ACRE
INCHESPERYEAR 76
WHICH VERSION OF THE MODEL OUTPUT DO YOU WISH TO RECEIVE 7
1
FOR THE CONDENSED VERSION
2
FOR THE COMPLFTE VERSION
ENTER THE SELECTION NUMBER :1

THE FOLLOWING VALUES HAVE BEEN ENTERED. IF ANY OF
THE VALUES ARE INCORRECT ENTER THE CORRESPONDING
SELECTION NUMBER.
IF THEY ARE ALL CORRECT, ENTER
SELECTION NUMBER 13.
1. ACRE S I Z E OF STRAWBERRY ENTERPRISE:
2.
3.
U.
5.

6.
7.
8.
9.

10.
11.
12.
13.

OPERATOR WAGE RATE:
LABORER WAGE RATE:
SPE C IA L T Y EQUIPMENT INT EREST RATE:
PROCESSING E Q U IP . INTEREST RATE:
IR R IG A T IO N E Q U IP . INTEREST RATE:

10.
8.00
5.00
m .o o

1H.00
1U.00
1.20
20000.00
92.00
.29
6.00

D IE S E L FUEL PRICE PER GALLON:
PROJECTED YIELD PER ACRE:
PROJECTED HARVEST RECOVERY:
PROJECTED HARVEST RATE:
ACRE INCHES APPLIED PER YEAR:
MODEL OUTPUT:
THE CONDENSED VERSION
ALL VALUES CORRECT - NO CHANGES

ENTER THE SELECTION NUMBER : 13
THE VALUE YOU HAVE ENTERED IS :
13.
IS IT CORRECT ? (Y OR N)y

THIS FOLLOWING QUESTION CONCERNS THE DISTRIBUTION OF
THE FINAL PRODUCT - ENTER THE NUMERICAL VALUES ONLY.
CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS.
1. DIVIDE THE PRODUCT BETWEEN FREEZER PACK AND PUREE
2. SELL ALL (100) OF THE FINAL PRODUCT AS PUREE
ENTER THE NUMBER OF YOUR SELECTION :2
THE VALUE YOU HAVE ENTERED IS :
2.
IS IT CORRECT ? (Y OR N)y
ENTER THE SELLING PRICE FOR PUREE ( $ /L B ) : .3 0
THE VALUE YOU HAVE ENTERED IS :
.3
IS IT CORRECT ? (Y OR N)y

FIELD' PRODUCTION
MATERIAL DATA TABLE

MATERIALS
COST/UNIT
QUANTITY/ACRE
• f t f t V l l l l l l l f t l f t l l l l l l l • » • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••••ftftftftft
OATS
2 .0 0 / BU
2.00
BU/ACR
*#«*«*««««««*«#«««»*«
• ftftftftftftftftftftttftftftftftftffftftftftftftft • • • • • • • • •
FERTILIZER(1 2 -1 2 -1 2 )

7M.OO / TON
.25
«• ftftftftftftftftttfttftftftftftftftftftftftftftftft
NITROGEN
36.00 / TON
50.00
*• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
FUMIGATION
MOO.00 / CUSAPP
.00
«»««« «•«#««***«««««*• • a ••ftftffftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftft
61.00 / 1000
10890.00
STRAWBERRY PLANTS
• • • • • • • • • • • • • § • « • • • • • • ft •••ftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftft

DO

YOU W IS H

TO CHANGE

ANY OF

THESE

VALUES

?

(Y

TON/AC
fttftftftftftftft
LBS/AC

ftftftttftftftftft

PUNTS
•••••••••

OR N )n

131

FIELD PRODUCTION
CHEMICAL DATA TABLE

CHEMICALS
COST/UNIT
QUANTITY/ACRE
l l t f l f l l t t t l l t t f f t l f t f t t f t i f t f t f t i i k i i f t i i i f t c i i i t i i i t i i f t i f t * !««•••«««
LBS/AC
•
1.10 / LB
5,00
CAPTAN
ik t if t f t f t ik iiiiik iik it c k k iiiiiiii ftlfttlk lli
LBS/AC
•
11,00 / LB
1.00
BENLATE
f t * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ! * f tiiifk k v ik f f iik f t k H iif f ik ik t f t k k f k k
*
16.80 / LB
1.50
LBS/AC
RCNALIN
k f i i i k v i i i k i k k i i i i i i i i k i i f t k k k i v #«**«*«««
«
16.90 / LB
.50
LBS/AC
SINBAR
ik if t i f t i f t ii t k f t f t it t if t i i i f t k t i f t k i i k i k i i i k i k i k i k k i i i t f l k i «««»««»«»
LBS/AC
THIODAN
*
3.85 / LB
2.00

DO YOU WISH TO CHANGE ANY OF THESE VALUES ? (Y OR N)n

CUSTOM RATES
DATA TABLE
IlitttllittlK tttttfltK lilltflllillll*
OPERATION

RATE ($/ACRE)

PLOW

•

11.55

DISK

•

7.85

CULTIMULCH
•
5.60
•K tllllitlttlllK M IitlflK lltlll
DRILLING
•
5.90
SPRAYING
GROUND RIG
AERIAL

DO YOU W IS H

*

H.00

*

A*. 90

TO CHANGE ANY OF THESE

VALUES

?

( Y OR N )n

SPECIALTY EQUIPMENT
DATA TABLE

ITEM

• IN IT IA L
COST

QUANTITY MACHINE
LIFE

INTEREST
RATE

T .I.S .

RAM
OF I.C

15000.00

1.00

15.00

in . 00

. 01

.00010

FORKLIFT ATTACHMENT

1300.00

1.00

15.00

1A. 0 0

. 01

.00020

TRANSPLANTER (2 ROW)

1150.00

1.00

15.00

m.oo

.01

.00075

FIELD ROLLER

1000.00

1.00

10.00

1n. oo

.01

. ooono

70000.00

1.00

10.00

in . 00

.01

.00025

20.00

80.00

10.00

m.oo

. 01

.01000

TRACTOR

HARVESTER
PALLET.BOXES

DO YOU WISH TO CHANGE ANY OF THESE VALUES ? (Y OR N)n

IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT
DATA TABLE

ITEM

IN ITIA L
COST
n5 0 0 . 0 0

PUMP
PIPES & SPRINKLER
•••••••*••••••••••••

DO YOU W IS H

17600.00
•••••••••#

TO CHANGE ANY OF THESE

VALUES

?

( Y OR N )n

133

PROCESSING EQUIPMENT
DATA TABLE

IN ITIA L
COST

ITEM

DUMP TANK

iltilitiltK IIIIIX I
FINISHERS
ALL CONVEYORS
IttllttK tttltltltK

1000.00

QUANTITY

1.00

•••■ •••#•••••••••••

3500.00
1.00
(ItH tH ililtillK I

1300.00

3.00

•••••••••••••••••*•

DO YOU WISH TO CHANGE ANY OF THESE VALUES ? (Y OR N)n

SPECIALITY EQUIPMENT
FIXED AND OPERATIONAL COST TABLE

ITEM

TRACTOR
iitiim ititiiitittt
FORKLIFT ATTACHMENT

FIXED
COST/YEAR
2205.00

FIXED
OPERATING TOTAL
COST/ACR COST/ACRE CCST/ACRE

.

2 2 0 50

11 .56

« ••« •••••••••• •««•••••

232.06
«••••••

••*•••••••••*•« •••••

HO . 7 7
191.10
19 . 11
••••••••«••«•• • t lllt t l • m

TRANSPLANTER (2 ROW)
lltlllttltlttlltltK

•••••••••••••• •••••••• • I I I ! • • • • • • •

FIELD ROLLER
HARVESTER
lllliilttlltllliltll
PALLET BOXES

169.05
177.00

16. 91

6H .85

5 9 .8 8

i •••••••

81.76

17. 7 0
3 .6 3
2 1 .3 3
• ••• • • • • • •••« t l t t t l l
1H0 .21
1379.21
2390.00 1239. 00
m t i i i t t i i i i t i i i t i m m u •••••••
.60
283.20
29.92
28.32
•••••••••••••••••••••••• mu•i i i i i i

134

IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT
FIXED AND OPERATIONAL COST TABLE

FIXED
COST/YEAR

ITEM

PUMP

FIXED
OPERATING TOTAL
COST/ACR COST/ACRE COST/ACRE

661.50

66. 15

11 1 . 1 7 7 . 5 8

••••••••••••••••••it ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••a

2306.30

PIPES A SPRINKLER

205.92

.0 0

205.92

PROCESSING EQUIPMENT
FIXED COST TABLE

ITEM

*
•

FIXED
COST/YEAR

FIXED
COST/ACRE

« •••••••••••••••••« ••*••••••••••••••••••
DUMP TANK
*
177.00
17.70
Itllltlttttiitltlittlllltlttllllltlllltl
FINISHERS
•
698.25
69.83
tlllllH lliilliK IIIK tlK lllllitlllH II
ALL CONVEYORS
*
690.30
69.03
X illtlittd ltlttilltiltlK illltltH K II

PROCESSING PLANT VARIABLE COST
iim itH ittitiitiiiititiiiittiiK iiiiiiftitH iiia tfi

REPAIR AND
MAINTENANCE

252.00

GENERAL
EXPENSE

9200.00

PROCESS
HOURS

LABOR
COST

30.7

1380.00

PROCESSING VARIABLE COST PER ACRE

1083.20

COST PER
YEAR

10832.00

$ PER
LB

.06

135

SUMMARY TABLE
FIELD PRODUCTION COST

FALL
YEAR
YEAR
YEAR
YEAR
YEAR
YEAR
YEAR
YEAR
YEAR

1
2
3
*4
5
6
7
8
9

TEN YEAR AVERAGE

S/YEAR

$/ACRE

H7814.00
11199.72
3 888.5«
3888.514
48145. 3^
1601*5.06
160*45. 06
160H5.06
160*45.06
160*45.06

1*78. HO
1119.97
388.85
388.85
H03.78
1337.09
1337.09
1337.09
1337.09
1337.09

9278.6*4

812.82

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
— PRODUCTION, MACHINE HARVEST AND PROCESS —

FIELD PRODUCTION COST PER ACRE

FIXED FIELD & IRR. EQUIP. COST PER ACRE

812.82

1813.61

136

HARVEST COST PER ACRE

286.14

FIXED PROCESSING COST PER ACRE

156.56

TOTAL AVAILABLE RAW PRODUCT PER ACRE (#/ACRE)

HARVESTER RECOVERY EFFICIENCY

20000.0

92.

WOO. 0

QUANTITY DELIVERED TO PROCESSING PLANT, LB/ACRE

PROCESSING COST PER ACRE ( .059/LB)

1083.20

TOTAL COST PER ACRE

4152.32

REVENUE ($/ACRE) FOR MACHINE HARVEST AND PROCESS

TOTAL PRODUCT FOR PROCESSING

18400.

LB.

USABLE PRODUCT FOR PROCESSING

16560.

LB.

DISTRIBUTION OF PRODUCT

FREEZER PACK =

0.

FREEZER PACK REVENUE

PUREE =

$

100.

.00

4968.00

PUREE REVENUE

4968.00

TOTAL REVENUE ($/ACRE)

REVENUE MINUS COSTS ($/ACRE)

$

815.68

A P P E N D I X

7

ST AW BE R RY P RO DU CT I ON C O M P U T E R MODEL

This appendix co n ta in s the computer model
data

file

(DATAFL1) on page 165.

1983-84 produ ctio n c o s ts ,

(BERRY1)

The data f i l e

m a te ria l

fo llo w e d

by the

'DATAFLl' c o n ta in s the

a p p lic a t io n r a te s , and the number of

each machine and i t s purchase valu e .

137

138

BERRY 1

1
PROGRAM
-TAPE? )
INTEGER
REAL
REAL
r eal

BERRV1

( IN P U T , OUTPUT. TA PE 5=IN P U T, TAPE5«0UTPUT,

100
1 10
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
TH IS SECTION
190
200
C'C
N U M E R I C A L VA w 2 2 C
220
2 4Q

NSELECT.OPTION,OUTPUT

ACRES . A C R I N ,
FPPRICE.
FREEZE.
FUEL.
HRVREC
L AB WA GE , N E W V A L , Q PW AGE .
PPRICE,
P U R E E , YPA
i r r i n t . p r o c in t . s p e c in t

C H A R A C T E R * 1 ANS
MODEL

GENERAL

INFORMATION

WRITE ( 6 . ' ( / / / ) ' )
W R I T E ( 6 . - I ' F O R THE
UE O N L Y . '
(6 ,- )
WRITE
(6 . - )
C -)
>

QUESTIONS

FOLLOWING

A RE

ASKED

QUESTIONS

-

F OR

E N T ER

IN

T HE

WRITE

250
'WHAT

IS

The

SIZ E

OF

~h £

S T R A W B E R R ’-

ENTERPRISE

ACR
£:?x

READ ( 5
• ? ACRES
W R I T E ( 6 , - ) ' W H A T I S T H E WAGE R A T E F OR
R E A D ( 5 - ) OPWAGE
W R I T E < 6 . * ) ' W H A T I S T H E WAGE R A T E F OR
READ ( 5 , • )
L A B WA G E
WRITE(6 . ' f / > ' )
WR I TE < 6 . - ) 'WHAT I S THE I N T E R E S T RATE
W R I T E ( 6 , « ) ' c I ELD M A CH I NE R Y ?
REAC ( 5
- ) SPECINT
WRITE ( 6 . - ) 'PROCESSING
PROCINT
READ ( 5 . WRITE ( 6 . » ) 'I R R I G A T I O N
READ ( 5 . - ) I R R I N T

EQUIPMEN'

?

EQUIPMENT

?

THE

OPERATOR

($/HR)

THE

LABORERS

(

AS

A

PERCENT

$ / h R

F OR

W RITE( 6 , ' ( / >' >
W R I T E ( 6 . - ) ' WH AT I S THE O I E S E L F U E L P R I C E
(S/GAL)
?
READ ( 5 . ■ ) FUEL
WRITE( 6 . • )
' WH A T I S T H E P R O J E C T E D F I E L D Y I E L D PER ACRE
?

IN

7
)

?

THE:'

(LBS,ACRE)

'

2 eo
290
300
310
320
330
34C
350
36C
3~0
320
390
40C
4 10
420
430
440
450
460
470

R E A D ( 5 . - ) YPA
W R I T E ( 6 . - ) ' WH AT I S THE P RO J E C T E D H A R V E S T E R RECOVERY RATE ( E N T E R
AS A P E R C E N T ) ?
480
READ ( 5 . - )
HRVREC
490
W R I T E ( 6 , - ) ' WH AT I S THE P RO JE C TE D HA RV ES T RATE ( A C R E S / H R )
?
500
HRVRAT
REAO < 5 . - 1
5 10
W R I T E ( 6 . * ) 'WHAT I S THE EXP ECTE D I R R I G A T I O N R A T E .
E X P R E S S E D AS A C 5 2 C
RE I N C H E S P E R Y E A R •?
530
ACRIN
READ ( 5 , ■ )
540
W R I T E ( 6 , * ) ' W H I C H V E R S I O N OF T H E M O D E L O U T P U T DO Y OU W I S H T O R E C E I V 5 5 0
E ?
'
560
W RIT E ( 6 , - )
1
F OR
THE CONDENSED V E R S I O N '
5-0
W RITE( 6 , - )
2
F OR
THE C OMPL ET E V E R S I O N '
580
W RI T E ( 6 , • ) 'ENTER
THE S E L E C T I O N NUMBER :
590
R E A D ( 5 . • ) OUTPUT
600

I TE(6 , ' (
WRITE ( 6 . WRITE ( 6 , »
WRITE ( 6 . WRITE ( 6 . WR

/ /
)
)
)
)

) ' )
' T H E F O L L O W I N G V AL UE S HAVE B EE N
' T H E V A L U E S ARE I N C O R R E C T E N T E R
' S E L E C T I O N NUMBER.
I F T H E Y ARE
' S E L E C T I O N NUMBER 1 3 . '

ENTERED.
I F ANY O F '
THE C O R R E S P O N D I N G '
ALL CORRECT.
ENTER'

6 10
620
630
640
650
660
670

139

10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

120

130

WRITE
WRITE
FORMAT
WRITE
FORMAT

( 6 . - )
(6 .10 )
ACRES
('
1 . A C R E S I Z E OF S T R A W B E R R Y
( 6 , 2 0 ) OPWA GE
('
2 . O P E R A T O R WAGE R A T E ;

ENTERPRISE:

680
690
TOO
710
720

'.F 3 .0 )
' . F 5 .2 )

WRITE ( 6 . 3 0 )
L ABWAGE
FORMAT
('
3 . L A B O R E R WAGE R A T E :
'.F 5 .2 )
WRITE ( 6 . 4 0 )
SPECINT
FORMAT
('
4 . S P E C I A L T Y EQU IP ME NT I N T E R E S T R A T E :
' ,FT.2 )
WRITE ( 6 . 5 0 )
PROCINT
FORMAT
('
5 . PROCESSING E Q U IP .
INTEREST RATE:
' , F 7 .2 )
WRITE ( 6 , 6 0 )
IRRINT
FORMAT
('
6. IR R IG A T IO N EQUIP.
INTEREST RATE:
'. F 7 .2 )
WRITE ( 6 . 7 0 )
FUEL
FORMAT
('
7 . D I E S E L F U E L P R I C E PER G A L L O N :
'.F 5 .2 )
WRITE ( 6 , 8 0 )
YPA
FORMAT ( '
8.
P R O J E C T E D Y I E L D P ER A C R E .
'.F 9 .2 )
WR ITE ( 6 . 9 0 ) HRVREC
FORMAT ( '
9.
P R O JE C T E D H ARVEST RECOVERY
'.F 6 .2 )
WRITE ( 6 . 1 0 0 ) HRVRAT
FORMAT
('
1 0. P RO JEC TED HA RV EST R AT E:
'.F 5 .2 )
W R IT E '( 6 . 1 1 0 ) ACRIN
FORMAT
('
1 1 . ACRE I N C H E S A P P L I E D PER Y E A R :
'.F 5 .2 )
IF
( O U T P U T . E Q . 1 ) THEN
W RITE(6 .» ) '1 2 .
MODEL O U T P U T :
THE
CONDENSED VERS I O N . '
ELSE
W RITE(6 . • ) ' 1 2 .
MODEL O U T P U T THE
COMPLETE V E R S I O N . '
ENDIF
WRITE ( 6 . 1 2 0 )
FORMAT ( '
1 3 . A L L V A L U E S C O R R E C T - NO C H A N G E S ' )
WRITE ( 6 . * )
WRITE ( 6 . - )
WRITE ( 6 . * )
WRITE ( 6 . - )
' E N T E R THE S E L E C T I O N NUMBER
'
READ ( 5 . » ) N S E L E C T
VAL*REAL(NSELECT)
CALL C H E C K IT (V A L )
NSELECT*INT(VAL)
I F ( ( N S E L E C T . L T . 13 ) . A N D . ( N S E L E C T . G T . 0 ) ) T H E N
IF
(NSELECT
. L E . 6 ) THEN
IF
( N S E L E C T . E C . i ) THEN
W R I T E ( 6 . * ) ' I N P U T T H E NEW A C R E S I Z E OF T H E S T R A W B E R R Y
ELSE I F ( N S E L E C T . E C . 2 )
W R I T E ( 6 . » ) ' I N P U T THE
ELSE I F
{N SELEC T.EC.3)
W R I T E ( 6 , * ) ' I N P U T THE
ELSE I F
(N SELECT.EQ.4)
W R I T E ( 6 . ■ ) ' I N P U T THE
ELSEIF
(N SELECT.EQ.5)
W R I T E ( 6 . » ) ' I N P U T THE

THEN
NEW
THEN
NEW
THEN
NEW
THEN
NEW

OPERATOR
LABOR

WAGE

WAGE

SPECIALTY
PROCESSING

RATE:

RATE:

ENTERPRISE

'

'

EQUIPMENT
EQUIPMENT

INTEREST

RATE

INTE RE ST RATE:

ELSE
WRITE( 6 . * ) '
I N P U T T H E NEW I R R I G A T I O N E Q U I P M E N T I N T E R E S T R A T E :
ENDIF
ELSEIF (N S E L E C T .E Q .7 )
THEN
W R I T E ( 6 , » ) ' I N P U T THE
NEW D I E S E L F U E L P R I C E P E R G A L L O N :
'
ELSEIF
(N SELECT.EQ.8)
THEN
WR I T E ( 6 . ■ ) '
I N P U T THE
NEW P R O J E C T E D F I E L D Y I E L D P E R A C R E :
'

'
'
'

730
740
750
760
770
780
790
800
810
820
830
84CS EC
860
S~C
880
890
900
910
920
930
940
95C
960
970
980
990
1000
1010
1020
1030
1040
1050
1060
1070
1080
: 1090
MOO
M 10
M2C
1130
1140
1 15 0
M 60
1170
1180
1190
1200
1210
1220
1230
124C
1250

140

ELSEIF
( NSELECT. EC.9)
W R I T E ( 6 . ■ > ' I N P U T THE
W R I T E ( 6 . * ) ' ( E N T E R AS
ELSEIF (N S
W RITE( 6 . ■ )
ELSEIF
(NS
W RITE( 6 . * )
W RITE( 6 , ■ )
ELSE
W RITE( 6 . * )
W RITE( 6 , * )
ENDIF
READ ( 5 . - )

THEN
NEW P R O J E C T E D
A PERCENT)
'

HARVESTER

RECOVERY

E L E C T . E O . 1 0 . ) THEN
' I N P U T T H E NEW P R O J E C T E D H A R V E S T R A T E :
E L E C T . E O . 1 1 . ) THEN
' I N P U T THE E X P E C T E D I R R I G A T I O N R A T E '
' ( E X P R E S S E D AS A C R E I N C H E S P E R Y E A R )
:
'
'

ENTER:
ENTER:

1
2

-

FOR
F OR

THE
THE

RATE:

(ACRES/HR)

1260
1270

'

:

1280
1290
1300
1310
1320
1330
1340
1350
1360
1370

'

'

CONDENSED OUTPUT
'
COMPLETE OUTPUT '

NEWVAL

1380
1390
14C0
* 4 10

C A L L C HE C K I * " ( NE WV AL)
IF
(NSELECT
.LS.
6!
THEN
: c ( N S E L E C T . E C . 1) THEN
E-SEIF

ACRES«NEWVAL
( N S E u E C T . E Q .2 ) ThEN

ELSEIF

OPWAGE=NEWVAl
( N S E L E C T . E O . 3 ) THEN

ELSEIF

LABWAGE'NEWVAL
( N S E L E C T . E O . 4 ) THEN

ELSEIF

SPECINT«NEWVAL
( N S E L E C T . E C . 5 ) THEN

14 2 0
1430
14 4 Q
1450
1460
14T0
1480
1490
150C
15 1 0

PROCINT=NEWVAL
ELSE
I R R I N T * NEWVA L
ENDIF
ELSEIF

(NSELECT.EO.T )

ELSEIF

F U E l =NEWVAL
( N S E L E C T , E C . 8 ) THEN

ELSEIF
ELSEIF
ELSEIF

15 2 0
•'530
15 4 0
1550
1560
1570
1580
1590
1600
1 6 10

THEN

YPA*NEWVAL
( N S E L E C T . E O . 9 ) THEN
HRV RE C* NE WV AL
( N S E L E C T , E O . 1 0 . ) THEN
H RVRAT s NEWVAL
( N S E l E C T . E O . 1 1 . ) THEN
ACRIN*NEWVAL

E LSE
CUTPUT-INKNEWVAL
ENDIF

1620
1630
1640
1650
1660
1670
1680
1690
17 0 0

)

WRITE

( 6 . - )
' A R E THERE
CHEKANS(NFLAG )
IF
( N F L A G . E Q . 1 ) THEN
GOTO 1 3 0
ELSE
GOTO 5
ENDIF
ENDIF

A NY

OTHER

CHANGES

TO

BE

MA DE

(Y

OR

N )

? '

C A l L

U

WRITE
WRITE
WRITE

( 6 . - )
( 6 . » )
(6, • )

■

ljI

K 1 b U 11 UN

U r

r iN A f c .

rK U U U L I

» » » » i

17*0
i-*20
1730
1740
1750
1760
1770
1780
1790
1800
18 10
1820
1830

141

SERR> 1

4
( 6 . • ) ' T H I S F O L L O W I N G Q U E S T I O N CONCERNS THE D I S T R I B U T I O N O F ' 1 8 4 0
( 6 . • ) ' T H E F I N A L PRODUCT - ENTER THE N U M E R I C A L V AL UE S O N _ r . ' 1 8 5 0
18 6 0
W R I T E ( 6 . - ) ' C H O O S E ONE OF T H E F O L L O W I N G O P T I O N S . '
D I V I D E T H E P R O D U C T B E T W E E N F R E E Z E R P A C K A ND P U R E E ' 1 8 7 0
WRITE ( 6 . - ) ' 1 .
1880
'2 .
S E L L A L L ( 1 0 0 ) OF T H E F I N A L P R O D U C T A S P U R E E
WRITE ( 6 . * )
1890
WRITE ( 6 , • )
WRITE( 6 , ■ )
' E N T E R T H E N U M B E R OF Y OUR S E L E C T I O N
1900
READ ( 5 , - )
OPTION
1910
VAL*REAL (OPTION )
1920
CALL C H E C K IT (V A L )
1930
O P T I O N * I N T ( VA L )
1940

WRITE
WRITE

IF
IF

{ ( O P T I O N . L E . 2 ) . A N D . ( O P T I O N . G E . 1 ) ) THEN
( O P T I O N . E O . 1 ) THEN
WRITE
(6 .-)
' E N T E R T ME P E R C E N T OF T H E P R C D U C T ’ 0
♦ E E Z E R PACK
( T H E R E M A I N D E R W I L L GO TO P U R E E )
'
READ ( 5 . ■ ) F R E E Z E
,
C A _
CHECKIT(FREEZE'
PUREE *
100 - FREEZE
WR I T E ( 6 . * ) ' E N T E R T H E S E L L I N G P R I C E
F OR F R E E Z E R
♦
'
CALL
ELSE

*

FREEZE *
FPRICE*
ENDIF

PROCESS

THE
*

CALL

PACK ( $ , ' L S )

100
0
0

1950
49 6 0
FR«970
-980
19 9 C
2 C0C
IC 'C
: 2020
2C3C

2080
2090
2100

INFORMATION

A ND

PRICE

DISPLAY

FOR

PUREE

(S /LB ):

TABLES

I N I T I A L I Z E THE D A T A T A B L E S
CALL
FILLTAB
CALL
FIELDPD
CALL
CUSTRAT
CALL
SPECE0P1SPECINT)
CALL
IRRIEQP
(ACRES . I R R I N T )
CALL
PROCE QP ( OPT I O N . P R O C I N T )
CALL
SPE CO S T( ACRES.
O PWAGE. F U E L . H R V R A T . LA6WAGE )
CALL
IRRCOST ( A C R E S .A C R I N )
CALL
PROCOST ( A C R E S . O P T I O N )
CALL
PVCOS( ACRES. HRVREC. LABWAGE. Y P A . OPTION )
CALL
FPCOST ( A CR E S . LABWAGE. OUTPUT )
♦

AS

204C
2050
2060
20^0

WRITE ( 6 . - )
' E N T E R THE S E L L I N G
READ
( 5 .* ) P P R I C E
CALL CHE C K IT(P P R IC E )
ELSE
WRITE ( € . - )
'ERROR I N I N P U T '
GO T O
140
ENDIF

C

SC-D

READ ( 5 . • ) F P R I C E
CHECKIT(FPRICE)
PUREE

C
C
C
C

BE

'

2 4 iC
2 12C
2130
2 14 C
2i5C
2 160
2 17C
2180
2190
2200
2210
2220
2230
2240
2250
226C
227C
2280
2290
2300
2310
2320
2330

ECONAN(Y PA. HRVRAT. HRVREC.FREEZE. F P R I C E . PUREE.
2340
PPRICE,OPTION)
2350
WR I T E f 6 , ' ( / / / / ) ' )
2360
W R I T E ( 6 . ■ ) ' WOUL D Y OU L I K E T O C A L C U L A T E
A NOTHER E CONOMI CA N A L Y S I S ' 2 3 7 0
W R I T E ( 6 , * ) ' ( Y OR N ) ? '
2380
CALL
CHEKANS(NFLAG)
2390
IF
( N F L A G . E 0 . 1 ) GOTO 1
2400
STOP
2410

142

C

E ND
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2420
24 30

c
c

. . . . . . . . . . .
SUBROUTINE CHECKIT
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2440
2450

SUBROUTINE CHECKIT { INDA TA )
REAL IN DA TA
WRITE ( 6 . - )
' T H E V A L U E Y OU H A V E E N T E R E D I S :
WRITE ( 6 . - )
'IS
I T C O R R E C T 7 ( Y OR N )
'
C A L L C H E K A N S ( NF L A G )
IF
( N F L A G . E Q . O ) THEN
WRITE ( 6 . * )
' E N T E R THE CORRECT ’ V AL U E
: '
READ ( 5 , - )
INDATA
GO T O 1 0
ENDIF

2460
2470
2480
2490
2500
2510
2520
2530
2540
2550

10

C

'.IN D A TA

RETURN

2560

E ND

25~C

'

. . . . . . . . . . . .

SUBROUTINE

ME N U

CHANGE

. . . . . . . . . . . .

C

5
10

12
15

,

S U B R O U T I N E MENUCHG ( A R Y . S Z . C H G F L G , S E L )
INTEGER S E L .S Z .C H G F LG
CHARACTER-20 A R Y (-)
WRITE ( 6 . - )
' W H I C H I T E M DO Y OU W I S H TO C H A N G E ? '
LIM IT
*SZ-2
INDEX « 1
DC 1 0 I ■ 1 , L I M I T . 2
LEN1 * LNB( ARY( I ) )
WRITE
(6 ,5 )
I N D E X . A R Y ( I M ; LEN1 ) . ARY( I - < )
FORMAT ( 1 2 , ' .
'. A . '
'.A )
INDEX * INDEX
1
CONTINUE
‘
IF
I C H G F L G . E C . 1) THEN
WRITE ( 6 . - )
IN D E X ,'.
NO C H A N G E S
OR
DISPLAY T A B L E . '
ENDIF
CHGFLG-0
WRITE ( 6 . - )
WRITE ( 6 . - )
WRITE ( 6 . - )
' E N T E R THE S E L E C T I O N NUMBER
'
READ ( 5 . - ) SEL
IF
( ( S E L . LT . 1 ) . OR. ( S E L . G T . I N D E X )
)T H E N
WRITE
GC T O

( 6 , - )
12

'

INVALID

WRITE

(6 .- )

'

THE

* ' . SEL
WRITE

(6 .- )

'

IS

INPUT

'
•

ELSE

20

CALL
IF

30

IF
ENDIF
RETURN

S E L E C T I O N NUMBER
IT

CORRECT

? ( v OR

YOU
N)

HAVE
'

CHEKANS(NFLAG)
( N F L A G . E O . 1) THEN

GO T O 3 0
ELSE
GO T O 1 5
ENDIF
(SEL.LT.IN D EX )

IS

2820
2830
2840
285C
2860
2870
2880
289C
2900
2910
2920
2930
2940
2950
2960

CHGF L G» 1

E ND

2970
2980

C
c

ENTERED

259C
2600
2610
2620
2630
2640
2650
2660
2670
2680
2690
2” 00
2^10
2720
2 m3 Q
2^40
2T50
2"6C
2T” 0
2780
2^90
280C
2810

. . . . . . . . . .

SUBROUTINE

CHANGE

TAELE

299C

O
O
O

O O
*■ n
O O

O O O O O O O O O
n ^ u k o r ~ co c n O ^
O O O O O O O ”*

O

O
cn

n

O

O

o O O O O O O O O O O O O
( ii r m a> O
« n ' i in ip r - m
*• ’ '•
N IN M M P i n « N

ki

’

o r e o m o n n o o n c n m n r i n c M o r j c i o n n D n o n r i r o o

o
CT>
(N
r>

o O
o
n r>
o> n

o
IN
n
n

o O
r>
n m
n r>

O
in
0)
n

o o
10 r
oi n

CO n

o
00
CO
r>

o
0)
n
m

o O O
OJ
O
<3 <3
n o> CO

o
n

o O O O
*3 i n 10 t -

d

r> n

O O Q O
CD a» o
in in
n oi

o> m o i r j d

o
c*
in
01

o
r>
in
n

O
•j
in
01

o
in
in
r>

o
CO
in
01

o

t
in
O)

rz

a
UJ
u
in
z
<
a
1—

• _i
■ CD
• <
■ »*
•
•
■
i
•
■
•
■
•
■
■
l
1
*
■
*

ro

a
UJ
X
2
ID
h
in
h►-»
Z
3

5
<
Z
2
UJ

t~

-—•

3
O
o

O
IU
X
z
13
H

n

» 3
■ O
■ a

3
o
a
Q
3
O
I

—
4
3 4
«*
■ 3
>
<3
3
• O
• oc 3 UJ w
■ z U. Z z
■ •—• O
<
I
z
■ CD o o z
OJ UJ
• <
■ h- 3
H
■ a O 3
• i
o o
• u
or o
Cl
3
• UJ o
» Z a 3 a
CD UJ
■ H DC. < I - «
• 3 UJ f - o C9
• O 13
< 3
* a U l 3 oc U
■ m t - < < C3
■ 3 Z UJ r I
» i n *-* a u a

DC
DC
CD

a
UJ
>
UJ
3
O
I

z
o
H
O
3
Q
O

a
a a
Ul
h- a
< _i
u UJ
►-* 4—4
o u
z

OC

u

O
u
C3

Z
o

<
3
U_

in
Z in
UJ UJ
Z H
o

<
U

3 o
O z
OC
h*
in
3
3
O
<

o
3
o
a
Z

(3
Z 3
o
tn a
in z
UJ w
o w
a
OC u
a

<
z
ID
3

Ul
13
Z

<

-—
I )

I
u

z hUJ
X Ct
H UJ
1—- <
— 3
*a
o
UJ u
Z
UJ
3 3
O 3
a <1
z >
w
3
o O
z a
<
3
— <
3 z
o
oc (3
UJ a
z o

._

H
a
o

UJ
3
aj
<

o
z
<

DC

o
UJ
3
CD
<
H

u
K
o
z
•-I

(3
-j
u
a
X
<_>

(3
3
u
13
I
U

s

3
o
o

z
<3
z
5
Ul
H

CC
OC
O
O

UJ
I
h- 3
O
Ul a
> o
_
i
<
in o
i

X
O
z

o
a

1—
(J
UJ

a
o
u
3
O
a

<

iz
UJ
u
a
ID
a

UJ
O
<
z
a
U)
u
in
z
«t
a
h-

UJ
a)
o
h-

<

>
<
_l
a
in

3
O
a

l
I
«
1
■
1
■
a
■

a
o

in
Z
a

3
O
a
Z

iUJ
in
UJ 3
a o

u
»-4
a
Z
DC U l

a
T
U
3

z
X
p—
*o
UJ

13
_j
u. a
IU ( 3
z X 13
O 3
3
a
_1
<3
<
I
O
o

Q
UJ
I
Z
UJ
H

O
UJ
X
z
UJ
H

3
3
<
o

a
o
u

Z
ID
3

■—
—
a
H
z

<
13
I
U
D
Z
UJ
Z

<

z
1- y- UJ
H
CJ OJ »-4
__•
a u CD
X X z
o Q 3
z z
•-4 M
z
a o ID
*-* *-* 3

«—
/— ___
(N —
a
U 4-H
—■ X
.— Q z
O Z <
4—4 4—4 z
wz
o a ID
ID
4—4
X I
z z
UJ UJ -—
1- 1- o
1-4 4-4 T__ __
CD CD ID
Z Z
3 3
ID
<N n hz z
UJ UJ OC
3 3 3

in
<
a
UJ
>z

Ul 3
3 .—.
<
>
3
n
z Z
ID
3 ID
X
•_ 1 —Ct a
UJ
u hX Z
n
z

UJ
H
a
3

O
ID

U
X
a
Q
ID »- Z
I
<
s z
UJ a
a
*-* u »■*

tn
ID
13
z
<
I
U

a

■

3
in
Z
<

•
a
■
»

SC ■
IU
3
CD
<
»-

UJ
a
o
z
3 >
•4 z
> <
3
UJ
.— Z a
3
ID
<
I
1—
>
3 3 —<X UJ u UJ
> Z X a
3
Q <
ID
z
z »—•
a
u X
UJ o to
in I
Z
u
UJ
Q 3 3 1< 3 CD
UJ < < a
a o V- 3

*
l
l
«
■
1
a
a
a

a
o
u
UJ
3
3

<
>
Ul

»

I
o

■
*

id

Z

a
«

h3
O
a
CD
3
in

■
*
»
■
■
*
a

a
a
■
a
a
■
a
■
a
a
a

a
a
a
a
a
a
i
a
■
a
a

3
<
z

o
.—
(3 o
< o
-J
u.
Z

a
a
o
3
o O
»- a
Cl
3 3
O O
a I

in o
z UJ
13
UJ <
3
I
u LL
z
-J
3
< u.
U 4-4

o

U
4-4
Q
Z
ID

H
ID
in 3
UJ O
a a

z
a
3
H
a

i », •

3
o
a
a
z
ID

<i •
- O
iu
UJ
. ;
: h
in n
UJ O
—■Z
a <
<
i n a o ■—

: a '

»- i n
» Z
o <
< w

o
1

(3

<
j
_i
u. u . u.
Z •-* Z

<

Ul M

h Q h Q

IU J lL
o a •-«

-j a
UJ }

o
uj z
o U J f f UJ

<

z

144

BERRY 1
C
C
C

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- - - - - .......................
........................ ..........................................

SUBROUTINE

PRINT

TABLE

- - -

•

4
5

- S U B R O U T I N E P R I N T A B ( T A B L E . NROW. ROW. C O L . I T E M , HEAD I N G )
INT EG ER ROW.COL
r eal
t a b l e ( row .6 )
C H A R A C T E R - 2 0 I T E M ( 1 5 ) . HEAD I N G ( 1 2 )
L IM IT *COL"2
W RITE( 6 , 3 )
'
FORMAT( '
'. T 2 2 . '* ')
WRITE ( 6 . 4 )
(HEADINGtJ) . 1
. L I M I T .2 )
WRITE ( 6 . 5 )
(H E A D IN G (J ) . J * 2 . L I M I T .2 )
FORMAT ( '
ITEM' . T 2 2 , ' ' .A .7 3 5 .A .7 4 4 ,A , T 5 4 .A .T 6 4 .A .'71
FORMAT(
T 2 2 .'■
' . A . T 3 5 . A , T 4 4 . A , 7 5 4 . A . T 6 4 . A .7^1 . A )

10

WRITE
INDEX *
DC 2 0
WRITE
FORMAT

3

20

C
C
C

( 6 .* )
1
1 * 1 . NROW
(6 .1 0 )
ITE M! INOET ) . ( TABLE
(T 2 .A 2 C .T 2 2.'■
' . 5 l e8 .2 .'

.A )

j « 1 . CCL )

( I . ^ ) . J = * . COL )
't.F E -5 )

WRITE ( 6 . - )
'.J -1 .C C D
INDEX * INDEX + 2
CONTINUE
RETURN
END
.................................................................................................................................................................................. ...
. . . . . . . . . . . .
S U B R O U T I N E CUSTOM RA T E S
. . . . . . . . . .
.......................................................................................................... ................................ ...
SUB ROU TINE CUSTRAT
INT EGER FLAG.ROW
DIMENSION RA TE TAB 16.1)
COMMON ! C R D T / R A T E T A E
C H A R A C T E R - 2 0 I T E M ( 1 2 ) . HEAD I N G ( 4 )

5

100

7
50
8

75

W RITE( 6 . 7 5 )

3610
3620
3630
3640
3650
3660
3670
3680
3690
3700
3 7 ’0
3 “ 2C
3 "*30
3740
2"5C
3^60
37-0
3780
3790
3800
3810
3020
3830
304Q

3900
3910
3920
3930
3940
3950

ROW-2.2
'
'

W RITE( 6 . ' ( / / ) ' )
W R IT£(6,» ) '
W R IT£(6, - ) '
CUSTOM
RATES '
W RITE( 6 , - ) '
DATA
TABLE'
W R I7E(6.
-..........................
WRITE ( 6 , * )
' OPERATION
RATE ( $ , A C R E ) '
WRITE ( 6 . - )
DC 5 0
1 * 1 ,4
INDEX * 1 * 2
-1
W RITE( 6 , 7 ) JTEM(INDEX ) . RATETAB( 1 , 1 )
F 0R M A TfT2.A 2O .T22.''.F 8 .2 )
WRITE( 6 , 7 5 )
CONTINUE
W RITE(6 , 8 )
FORMAT( '
SPRAYING')
W R I T E ( 6 , 9 ) I T E M ( I N D E X + 2 ). R A T E T A B ( 5 . 1 )
WRIT E ( 6 , 7 5 )
F O R MA T (
4
1
3
WR I T E ( 6 , 9 ) I T E M ( I N D E X + 4 ) . R A T E T A B ( 6 . 1 )

3590
360o

3850
3860
3B"0
3880
3890

D A T A ( ! T E M ( I ) , 1 * 1 , 1 2 . 2 ) / ' P L O W ' . ' O I S K ' .' C U L T I M U l C H ' .
' ► ' D R I L L I N G ' . 'GROUND
R I G ' . ' AERIA L ' i
DATA
HEADING / 'O P E R A TIO N ' , '
RATE ( S / A C R E
R0W*6
DO 5 1 * 2 .
ITE M (I)
*

35Q0

3960
397 0
3980
3990
4000
4Q10
4020
4030
4C4Q
4050
4060
4070
4080
4090
41Q0
4110
4120

'

*
0

4140
4150

145

BERRY i

8
9

10

FORMAT( T 7 , A 2 0 , T 2 2 . ' *
'.F 8 .2 )
WRIT E ( 6 . ' ( / / ) ' )
W R I T E ( 6 . ■ ) ' DC YOU W I S H TO C H A N G E A N Y OF T H E S E
c a ll c h e k a n s ifla g )
IF
( F L A G . E C . 1 ) THEN
C A L L C H G T A B ( ROW. RO W. 1 . I T E M . H E A D I N G , R A T E T A B
)
GO TO 1 0 0
ENDIF
RETURN
ENO

VALUES

r

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................

C
C

....................... ...
SUBROUTINE f i e l d
PRODUCTION
........................................... ........................................................................................... ...

7

(v

OR

4160
4170
N )'
4 100
4190
4200
4210
4220
4230
4240
4250

426O
. . . . . . . . .

4 2 70
42 80

S U B R O U T I N E f j e l DP D
I N T E G E R F L A G . S E L C , S E L R . C H G F l G . M N C . CNG

4290
4200

REAL MATOO( 5 . 2 ) . CHEMCQ( 5 . 2 * , S E L E C T , V A W.NEWV A l
CHAR AC TE R■6 M J N I T ( 5 , 2 >. C U N I T ( 5 . 2 I
c h a ra c te r-20 m ite m m o ) . c : t e m u g j. h e a d : n g '4 )
COMMON /
F P D T / M A T C C , CHEMCC

4 3 ’C
4320
432c
4340

DATA M U N I T / ' B U ' . 'T O N ' . ' T O N ' , 'CUSA PP ' , ' 1 0 0 C ' . 'EU/'ACRE ' .
♦ 'TON/ACRE' . ' LBS/ACRE' , '
' , 'P LA N TS /A C R E ' /
DATA C U N I T / 5 - ' L B 5 - ' L B S / A C R E ' /
D A T A ( M I T E M ( I ) , I * 1 . 1 0 , 2 ) / ' O A T S ' . ' F E R T I L I 2 E R { 12 - 1 2 - 12 ) ' . ' N I T R O G E N '
♦ ' FUMIGATION'
STRAWBERRY P L A N T S ' /
D A T A ( C I T E M { I ) , I = 1, 1 0 . 2 ) / ' C A P T A N ' . ' B E N L A T E ' . ' R O N A L I N ' . ' S I N B A R ' .
■* ' T H I Q D A N ' /
DATA H E A D I N G / '
C O S T /U N IT '.'
QUANTITY/ A C R E ' ' /
CN0=5
MN0*5
C
C

FILL

ARRAY

WITH

BLANK

ENTERIES

C
DO
3

44^0
4480
4490
4500

3

1 * 2 , MNO* 2 . 2
MITEMf I ) ='
'
• C IT E M (Ils'
'

C
C

- .................. - ................

DISPLAY

PRODUCTION

TABLE

4510
4520

(

4530
454C
4550

C
WRITE
W

5
10

( 6 , ' ( / / ) ' )
R

4350
4 360
4370
,4380
4290
4400
4 4 10
4420
4430
4440
4 4 5C
4460

I

T

E

6

WRIT E f 6 . ■ ) '
FIELD
PRODUCTION'
WRIT E ( 6 . * ) '
M A T E R I A L DATA T A B L E '
W R ITE 16.• ) '
............................................................... ...
WRITE ( 6 . 1 0 )
F O R M A T ( ' 1M A T E R I A l S ' . T 2 9 .' C O S T / U N I T ' . T 4 4 . ' Q U A N T I T Y / A C R E '
)
................
WRITE ( 6 , • )

,

456C
457C
4 580
4590
4600
. . . . . 4

6

i o

4 6 2c

50

100
C
C

DO 1 0 0 1 * 1 . MNO
W R IT E ( 6 , 5 0 ) M I T E M { 2 * I - 1 ) . M A TCQ (1 . 1 ) . M U N I T ( 1 , 1 ) . MATCQ( 1 . 2 ) .
♦ M U N I T ( I .2 )
FORMAT ( '
'.A 2 0 .T 2 2 ,'
-' . F 7 . 2 . '
/
' . A ‘6 . '
'. F 8 .2 . '
'.A )
WRITE( 6 . - ) '
+ . . . . . . .
CONTINUE
. . . . . . . . . . . .

C
WRITE(6 . ' ( / /

) ' )

CHECK

F OR

CHANGES

- - - - ...............................

4630
4640
4650
4660
. . . . . . . . 4 6 7 0
4680
4690
4700
4 " 10
4-20
4-30

O O O O
CN cn
O
o o o o
in m in in

-N

( O O
CD 0»
o» o>
<?

0

O O Q U O
cn cn 'J i n i p t '
a> o> in cn cn o i cn
't N

O O
•<* i n ID r m t n O r o o o o o o *■- T~
i n t n tn i n i n i n i n i n

z

a
a
■

a
o

oc
o

a
a

>

>

-

z

rr
to
<»

i 'i/>
m
3
_J
<
>

e '­
■
a
■

bin
_i
<
u

in
I
b~
u
O

uj

<3
z

13
Z
<
I
U

a
<
UJ
X

z
o
1—«
»o
3
Q
a
oc
a

-—.
•-

bZ
<i

'
UJ
Z .J
5 ca
<
b~ j U
3 <
n y~
o <
a a
a
_j
«t
a o
_!
UJ 2
UJ
u X
o

2
UJ
I
o

o
o
b<
2

>
Z
<

VO

(J O

0

o o o o o o o o
O C) o o
a) in
i n ID f
CD o i o »- CN n
r~ r-- 00 CO co CD CO CD CO CO 00 CD
'J
n

a

o o O
i n ID h
r
r«» *■»

0

o
I'

O
'J

z
3
U

h*<
z

t-

3

o
o
2

O
»-

2
UJ
b*-•«
2

X
l/l
3

C-i

3
O
>

Z O
a UJ Z
< I
2
3 tu.

o
o

i/1
Z
<
*
llJ
10 I
o
Ul
h_i
oc <
3 o
»

UJ

'—■
'

X

\
w
m
U
>—•
O
o z
13 UJ
o
H

>

-

in
in

•»

ID —
ID ,10 10 (0 ID —
■
—
—
JUJ LU UJ UJ UJ UJ <
H »- b - b- h f - 2

ID
_
UJ
»

or
oc a
3 3

QC OC oc oc o
3 3 3 3 u

cr
3

2
LU
b~

in

Z
3
O

O
Z
to o
i n —.
T(N
.
10
»-« __. «
__ ID
o UJ O •___
o b - u UJ
CN ►i 2 h oc U l
O 3 I 0c
Q
U 3
+
+

o
<
UJ
X

o
1-

i
■
i
•
a
a
a
a
■
a
a
a

2 t—<
tu
1- b o

(3
Z

UJ
o
z
<
X
o

X

—CN

U
CD
O <
UJ » (3
a I
< (J
_l
U _l
•—- _J
u. <
*-• O

>
z

ll.
in
.j
<j
u
*• •
2
UJ

—
o
u
2
UJ
I
o

o

*
a
UJ
I
O

■
—■
*-

cCl
b

UJ
in
UJ
3
j—

a
o
u

I
u

Q

3
<
>

in
UJ
(3
Z
<
I
o

t-4

■*.
b
l/l
o
o

3

■
a
a
a
■
a

t—*
_
t-

3

en
tu

3
O
>
—
» o
.—. o

o

o

o
<
u

O
uj Z
X O
1*-

in
Z
ro
.__ — < o <
IU b (3
ID ID I
(3 X
-__ u < O
UJ
3
* - b- 3 U 3
3 ____ 3
OL oc < u <
3 3 U
O

1Z
o
o

cn

C'J
z

3

3
Z

O
O

O

u

cn
in
z
o u cc
»3
o JO Z Ul
( 3 UJ oc

a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
l
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
■
a
a
a
a
a
a
n
a
z
»
UJ a

o

a
a
a
a
a
a
a

S

I

I -J I
j
Z

H

<J »-i

U Q

I n .

< ' u o
I- • <

< tt ~

b- -

2 -

Ul
- '
K- b - '
5
U. in
m uj
tr
_j > '

b~
z
Ul
2
Q.

*a

3
O

a

<

'

o I

> '

U. -

H

»3
<

(3

z
—■

UJ
z
b3
o
a
ca
3
in
a
a
a
a
•
a
a

o
♦u
<
oc
b%

o
a

O
Ul
a
in

o

UJ
0.
in
—
Q.
O
UJ
U
UJ
a
in

3
o
u

(D
3
O

ID

OC _.
13 CP

< <
UJ 3 h z U. o

CO
o CN <
CN »- b a
o
UJ CD UJ
Z Z a
in
I o
o <
< UJ * 2 I o
UJ
a Z in

UJ UJ o

a
CD
3
in

h-

3 1/1
UJ O
CN — - t-t U
U
UJ
—
»
JLU CN
<
z »- •> > a
-— - 3
T
3 <
X
u a O »-«
a ♦<
2
— - CN z in
n UJ

\

_

UJ cc N .
UJ Z UJ 13
a »-< b - Z
in X Z H
o < o
\
< 3 <

a bu j in o in Z
(3
< z o
UJ 3 a UJ 2
H < < 2 2
Z UJ I
O
*-• a o Q o

IU
3
CD
<
b-

Z
b~

z
IN

2
Z

o
2

a
3
O

oc
v-

z

f-4
-

UJ *.
in I UJ
a

z

< < <
2 b - cc
O < b— <
u a •> a
♦

u_ (D

■

3

O
UJ
a
in

CN

O

b- a
3
O

in

-— •

o
<
UJ
I

Z
M

3 3
3 O
o ••
oc
a H

3
O

N. U
♦

3 ■
ft □
CC
O'
M
IN w V- 3
ft
ft
UJ 3 m
<
Z

m o « uih
N
3
O O

oc o

I
o
< o
2 O

U

UJ
a
in

UJ
1<

a
»-

cn
UJ
oc

UJ
bZ

3
3
M
a

o o o O O
oj m
L I 10
to
in in in tn in

Cl c i to n

O
O
n
in

O O O O O o O a O o o i ) o O
Oi n
CD
i n u> r
CD u> O
O
n tn
■<» M
**
'4 n i n i n
i n i n in i n i n i n i n U l U l U l u> m U l U l

O
Oi
U)
in

O o O O O
m
tn (0 ri n i n i n in U)
u> i n U) U ) U)

—
Z

ct
o

cl

UJ
>

o

a
<
UJ
I

10
in
Ui
I
H

z

1Z
UJ

Z

Q.
►-*
D
O
10

UJ
Z
*-•
X
U
<

UJ
_}
to
<
f-

z

>- <
1- H
<
< Q

p^ .

*3-

_J
o
o

U
UJ
a.
i/i

3
a
a
3
O
ct

\

-—•
-—V —’
»

10 10 i o
w
•—
U l UJ UJ
1- H
or t t a
3 3 3

10
w
UJ
hM
a
3

10
UJ
H
►-»
O'
3

o u
m
<0 to
in in

o
Ul
to
ui

o
10
10
Ul

o
r
«0
U)

o
z
►
i/i
m
tn
o
Q
a
a

id

z
*-•
Q
<
UJ
I

>-

z

<

UJ
O

z

Z
*-»
I
o
<

<
I
o
o
H

z

X
tn
►H
3

o
Cl

3
a
UJ c t
CD I
< h- 3
a
u •—• a
*in
CD X
< *■>>> *• Z o to
h - •— • —- < i i i <
¥
hZ UJ CD cd
a 10 to I
< I
a
a
o
u
UJ UJ
w •J
v- H
_i
_j
< ct a < u <
u 3 3 u
o

in
a
10
I
in

:_>
i: i
m

Ul
z
1
.)
o
Ct
CO
ID
in

z

O
(O
10
in

O
01
U)
in

O O O
oi
O
t- l • IU l U l Ul

o
n
f'
Ul

o
«*
I'
Ul

O
Ul
rU)

O
(0
r~
Ul

O o o
r - co o i
» i"- f '
in in U l

o O
O
00 CO
Ul Ul

UJ
Z

z
U CK «
>
U
«• •-4 *-♦
-J » ¥
Z in
—
—•
<
<
f■«»
lD
O
Z
ID
a a
UJ
u
Z
«-«
o
D rx a
iQ
O
a _» <
in in
--V. - o
Q UJ 10
Cl
z U I
n
ro
3
a
l - Q 1? <0
10
ya a
< UJ
a _
o
ta
»- < <
CJ UJ U
_• < Z o I
u *-<
a _i
UJ
a u
o u I a <
a
ui
*-«
CJ Z < '-v. N . H
i n --o o
ct
i - i n 10 a
a h- o a UJ
o ID
a Ci
o
i- Z
UJ o
a o X <
a
CL u _ i Q
UJ
a < D <
I - CL H
X
CD U l
n UJ O Z
Z I
>-«
o ID < o o
a IU CL
<a i n <
CD »- <
H
<
D Z I
o
<
i n *-* O u ( J Q '
Q

a
f-

z

z

UJ

z

H

z

Z
z
UJ
I
l-

Oi
n

O

—■
Ci

10

f J
O
UJ
z
O

z

Ia
Ci r- o
_l 3
O O
O a

u_

CD
o
a
a
a
—

Z

-J

z

z

10
_J
CD
<
J-

UJ
>
UJ

z

z
zz
zz
o

a
UJ
D _l
O CO
UJ <
VCD
Z <
1in <
in a
UJ
u
o
a
a

in
UJ

z

Z
O u a
»- M D
D 1- o
O Z U» Z
id UJ a t UJ

z

z
z

z

O
oi

1Z
UJ

I
U
<

z

z

a

» ■»
— -—• -—

o
Oi
to
Ul

-J
-I
<t

i
Z
UJ
Z
a

CO
<
»u
Ul
a
in

u
O

ca
<
i—
D
u
O
>
UJ
a -—■
i/i - o

Ci o
O
m to
in U l

o
u

o-

CD

O
17>
in
U)

z

>

l/l
UJ
D
_J
<
>

o
co
in
U)

U

tn

OI

CD
<
tO
O
a
a

Cl
cn
3
O
a
Z

10
in
_J
UJ

CO
<
H
U
o
a
a

i 3
o
a

z

u
►-*
o
Z
UJ

Oi
1
3
O
a
Z
.
Oi
a
•-*

.

'
N

»-i
<—
UJ
Z
o ~
*- X
o
o <*

oz

UJ
t—
<
a
itn
UJ
a
UJ
iZ
_i
_j
M
u

O
Oi
00
in

■
■
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
■
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
■
a
a
a
a
■
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
..
.—.
a

—
•»
—
__ X
CQ \
< _. —
T- fr- s.
a CJ
>-4 o 10 10 10 10 10
a ._
i n a UJ UJ 10 UJ 10
»H hf- l3
O
a
Z

o
o

a
3

a
3

a
3

a
3

CL
3

O o
n
00 00
in U l

O
Ul
00
Ul

O
<0
CO
Ul

o
r00
Ul

O
CO
00
Ul

o
CJI
co
in

zo
D - i u a
OO Xz
> < H- —'
_»

o u. — m

' O -w ■*- <
- '

( /)
- h O
Z O O (N
< li) I

a *

•o

- * UJ 13
O
) tO K
J h

148

C
C
C

ENDIF
RETURN
END
• * « » ...............• « ....................
. . . . . . .
SUBROUTINE
I R R I G A T I O N EQUIPMENT
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SUBROUTINE IR R IE O P (
ACRES
. IRRINT)
INTEGER FL AG ,CHG FLG ,R O W .CO L,INDX R
R E AL I R R T A B ( 2 . 6 ) , ACRES , N E W V A L , I R R I N T
COMMON /
IEDT /
IRRTAB
CHARACTER-20 IT E M (4 ) ,H EAD IN G(2)
OATA I T E M / ' P U M P ' . ’
', 'PIPES & S P R IN K L E R '.'
DATA H E A D I N G / ' I N I T I A L ' C O S T ' /

C
C
C

.....................
IRRTABt 1

CALCULATE

’ )=ACRES

•

I R R T A B ! 2 . 1 )j sACRES *
R OW* 2
COL* 1
C
C
C

FILL

INTEREST

COS“

5960
5970
5980
5990
6000
60-0
6020
5030
6040
6C5C
SCSO

.....................

450.
1T60.

RATES

IN

TABLE

.
1 * 1 . ROW
IRRTAB(
I ,4 )« IR R IN T
WRITE( 6 , ' ( / / ) ' )
w R I T E f 6 . ....................................................................................................................... ........................................................ ..
WRITE(6 . ■ ) '
IR R IG A T IO N EQUIPMENT'
WR I T E ( 6 . • ) '
DATA T A B L E '
.......................................................................................................................................
W R ITE!6 .
- ) '
DO

15
20

IN

IN ITIAL

15

CALL
PR I N T A B ( I R R T A B . R O W . R O W . C O L . I T E M , H E A C I N G >
W RITE(6 , ' ( / / ) ' )

30

W R I T E { 6 , ■ ) ' DO YOU W I S H T O C H A N G E A N Y OF
CALL CHEKANS!FLAG }
IF
( F L A G . EO. 1 ) T H E N
CHGFLG*1
CALL MENUCHG(ITEM.ROW,CHGFLG.INDXR )
IF
( C H G F L G . E Q . 1) THEN
WRITE ( 6 , 3 0 )
ITEM (INDXR-2- 1 )
FORMAT ( '
E N T E R T H E NEW I N I T I A L

C
C
C

TO

VALUES

VALUE

F OR

?

THE:

M

OR

N )

'.A )

^

20

. . . . . . . . .
S P E C I A L I T Y E Q U I PM E N T COST
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SUBROUTINE

SPECOST

6C7C
60SC
6090
6100
61 10
6120
6130
6140
6150
6 16 0
6 '"C
618C
6 19 0
6200
6210

THESE

READ
( 5 ,• )
NEWVAL
CALL
CHECKIT
(NEWVAL)
I RR T A 6 ( I NC X R. 1 )«NEWVAL
ENDIF
GO
ENDIF
RETURN
END

5900
5910
5920
5930
594O
5950

( A C R E S . OPWAGE. F U E L , H R V R A T , LAB WAGE)

CHARACTER-20 ITE M , HEADING( 8 )
INTEGER ROW.OPNO.COL
COMMON / S P E C / I T E M ( 1 2 )
COMMON/CSTHEAD/HEADING
REAL S V , S P E C T A B ( 6 . 6 ) .O PWAGE. L A B R . LABWAG E. C S T ( 6 . 4 ) . R M C S * ( 6 )
C OMMON /
SECT / CST

'6 22 0
6230
6240
6250
626C
62~0
6280
6290
6300 ,
631C
6320
6330
634C
6350
6360
6370
6380
639c
54Q0
6410
642C
6430
6440
64 50
64 60
6470

II)
m
XJ
X)

n

>
a
o a o
to
o
H n
*-< U)
X o
•—
o
o
-4

K>

-«
U ►
H
O
(3
t/i X)
-t o
c
I*
n
X)
m

4 -4
O
n
to o
-4 TJ
m
*-< XI
t*
CJ H
z
o
n
o
m
-4
>
o
XJ
m

n
>
r
n
c
t~
>
-4
m
H
O
H
>
r
o
O
t/i
-4
\
>
O
X)
m

o
tn
H
—
»-

o
o

u
—
N
o
(/)
-4
—

»-•
M

u

{/)
X)
m
n
-4
>
CD
-—•
to

u
O

*
XI
o
c

>
o
c_
c
(/)
-4
<
>
X)
v-«
>
03
Im
O
O
t/)
-4
—1
O
XI
m
-n
i—
m
n
H
H
I

m

n
t>
03
X3
n
O
13
C
N
>
•o
O m
X3 O
4
2
o
A
-4
M

o
t/>
-4
—
O)

o -n
to c
-4 fT)
—■r
ID n
1/1
CJ H

(J
—
XJ
z
o
to
0)
■
—.
\
>
o
X)
m
</)

o
~n
>
O
X
z
m
t/i

CJ
_.
—
XI
2
o
m
-4

in O
4

o
>
o
c
It>
H
m
<

Z
c
•Z
03
m
X)

o
CO
-4

o
T)
o
X)
13
>
x~
r*
rn
-4
CO
o
X
m

4
r~
>
ro
XI
4
-n
C
m
r*
o
t/i
-4

X
XI
<
XI
>
-4

r~
CJ >
03
C
>
T) CD
C m
m —
r"

fl)

o
>
iO
c
r
t>
-4
m
<

4
n
tn
-4

U
w
\
Ia>

CJ

CD

o
>
r
n
c
r~
t»
H
fti
<

O

O

■n
a
X)

D
o
X?

X
>
X)
<
m
CO
H
m
X)

C
/1

o rcn j>
—4 00
73
U ■
• ^
CJ
1
N
•— t~
>
x i cn
2 £
O >
m o
h m

n
m
-4
—
M

CJ

M

C.)
—
X)
2
n
m
-4

4
r~
t»
03
X)
♦
o
in
-4

u

•__.
w

\
O
ID

T)
t-»
rn
r~
V
XI
o
f~
r*.
m
XI

O
>
r
o
c
r~
-4
m

J o>

o io io io io io io ic n o io i

o
t/i
H
—>
—A
0)

o
>
r~
n
c
r*
>
-)

-n
C
m
r
n
m
-4

A-« ►A
_ ||
II in ■
U 33
in o
o *:
4
>
0)
•—

4
1“
>

.A
T)
c
m
r~

o

XJ o
2 O
o
IA to
4O

.4
CJ

M

O
>
io
c
r
>
-i

|
in
D
m
<)
-1
t»
DJ
—

1
1
1

o
>
ro
c:
-* r~
t»
—4
m
D
> <
r* t>
O XJ
c •-*
f- >
> ro
h r*
m m

I

rn

<

X3
<

<

O

t>

O

o

D
o
XI

■n
O
XI

n
O
XI

X)

H
73
>
Z
l/l
13
f~
l>
—I
rn
73

T)
o
73
X
r•
►«
-n
-4

-4
XI
>

2 •
r> i

o

Z

0)0)0)010)0)0)0)0)
J J I
U 1 X » . C J f J - » O ' O 0 0 ICJ1 U1 { i U M -* o ID ID I
o o o o o o o o o
OQOOOOOOOO o o o n o n o o o o
-i j - j ' ) « j - 4 0 i o i o i ( n

O O O O O O I O I D I D I O l Ol DUDl Oi Ot OCOCDCDOD 03 00 CD CD m 00

•n c~
C t>
m 03
r_ XJ
o u
t/i _A
(J —4
•
M
X3 o o
2 t. 13
O U) C
in
>
H
o
—.
m
-A
_ O
O
m
—i
—•

o

03
XI

<

-4
O
XJ

O)

XJ
in
u
>

O
O
m
-4

cn i

H
m

Z

•
i
i
i

>

i

Z

•

O 1
ID I

r> •

4
m
o
o m XJ o O
o
X)
o < a > O
m
z
£ t~ 2
_A
H
O
o 2
»-<
-4
c O
o o
r* z
z o o -4 > -4 a
c I/) i/i -4 03
XJ
a>
m -4 H *--4 —» z
-4 \
m m
m
H
M
m
m XJ
■n O
M
-4
XJ o
O
.__. __.
in m c
X
m
XJ O
o
O --o m
O m H
XJ
IA O
o o >
- i CD
-4 u
o rn
t * .—.
o O
t—
i 4 m
t-i
CO
l/l -4
.—.
-4 >
V
_A -4 m
_4.
CD
.____o
XJ
-A
X Z -4
m
XI
> .-4 >
to
O
03
4 XI
-<
XJ 4 .—.
I/) m
m
XJ n
m
m
IA H
*»
—4
o >
73
H _A
. _.
-4 00
cn
> —
w
CD

IA
XJ
m
o
-4
>
CD
»-<
Kl

a-<

_»

.___

in
<

1/1 o
< o
X
X
o in
o u
m
o

X H
K) >
CD

..
—

H

CJ

< 7 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 1 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) « n o ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 > 0 ) 0 ) 0) 010) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0)
- 1 4 I - I -I -1 ' J (J) fll O) O) O) o> o> 0) d ) O) i d o i i n u i i n u i c n u i u i u i t » n
O) ID t* (J I J
O <0 CD -J O) U1 f» (J W -• (J Ifl OD v) 0 ) U 1 t t ( J K > - * O < 0 C D
O O O O O O O O O O o f > o r> o o o o o o O O O O O O O O O

4

150

C

........................................

DISPLAY

SPECIALITY

EQUIPMENT

COST

- - - - - -

t a b l e

C
DATA H E A D I N G / '
+ ' OPER ATIN G '.'
RO W- 6
COL-4

F IX E D '.'
COST/YEAR ' . '
F I X E D ' . 'C O S T / A C R E ' .
CO ST/AC R E'.'
T O T A L '.' COST/ACRE'/

W R ITE (6,' ( / / ) ' )
W
R
I
T
E
1
WRIT E ( 6 . ■ ) '
S P E C IA L IT Y EQUIPMENT'
W R ITE 16.-)'
F I X E D AND O P E R A T I O N A L CO S T
W
R
I T
E
( 6
.
CALL P R IN T A B (C S T ,R O W .R O W .C O L .IT E M .H E A D IN G )
RETURN
END

6

,

TABLE'

C

C

7060
7070
7080
7090
7100
7110
7120
7 130
7140
7150
7160
7170
7 180
7 190
” 200

. . . . . . . . .

SUBROUTINE

IRRIGATION

COST

” 21C

SUBROUTINE IRRCCST ( A C R E S . A C R I N )
CHARACTER-20 IT E M t4 ) , HEADING (8 )
I N T E G E R ROW. COL
REAL S V . I R R T A B ( 2 . 6 ) . C S T ( 2 . 4 ) .KWHRACR.KWHR
COMMON /
I E C T / CST
COMMON / I E D T / I R R T A B
COMMON/CSTHEAD/HEADING
DATA I T E M / ' P U M P ' , '
'.'P IP E S

&

S P R IN KLE R '.'

7230
7240
7250
7260
7270
7280
7290
7300

' /

C
CC A L C U L A T E F I X E D C O S T P E R Y E A R A N D P E R A C R E
C
ROW-2
SV-10.
DO 1 0 1 * 1 . ROW
DP* f
IRRTAB( I .1 ) - IRRT A B ( I . 1 ) - S V / 100. ) / I R R T A 6 ( 1 . 3 )
T I N T - { I R R T A B ( I . 1 ) + I R R T A B ( I . 1 ) - S V / 1 0 0 . ) / 2 .» I R R T A B ( I . 4 ) / 1 0 0 .
Tt i s -0 .0 1
I R R T A B ( I .1 )
CS T( I . 1 I*DP
♦ TINT +
TTIS
CS T( I .2 ) - C S T ( I . 1 ) /ACRES

7310
7320
7330
7340
7350
"36C
7370
738C
7390
7400
7 4 10

10
C
C
C
C

7420
7430
7440
7450
7460
7470
7480
7490
*’ 5 0 0

CONTINUE
C A L C U L A T E S THE 1 0 Y E A R A V E R A G E F I X E D
THE I N C R E A S E I N THE P I P E & S P R I N K L E R
TEMP-CST( 2 , 1 )
TEMPi-TEMP •
10.
TE M P 2 * TEMP ■ . 2
C S T 1 2 . 1 >■ t T E M P 1

C
C
C
C

CALCULATE

C O S T F OR
SYSTEM.

* 6 .
*■T E M P 2 ) / 1 0 .

VARIABLE

COST

PER

ACRE

AND

APPRATE*.28
KWHRACR-0.0
KWHRACR*( 0 . 7 4 6
• 5)
• ACRES
KW H R -0.1
CST{ 1 . 3 ) * ( ACRIN/APPRATE"KWHRACR-KWHR
+ 1 R R T A B ( 1 . 1 ) / ACRES )
CST( 1 , 4 ) * C S T ( 1 , 2 ) + C S T ( 1 , 3 )
CST{ 2 . 3 ) - 0
CST(2 .4 )*C S T (2 .2 )

TOTAL

)

COST

PER

+ ( IRRTAB( 1 . 6 )

ACRE

•

7510
752C
7530
7540
7550
7560
75~0
7580
7590
7600
7610
7620
763C

in
c
CD
73
a
73 c
73 - I
o *-*
o z
-I m
>
CD TJ
— <
4 O
•
O
t n tn

m xj
Z m
O -4
c
73
Z

XJ
m
*>
r~

r
>
CD
£
t>
CD
m
73
<
O
u
>
o
13
■0
U
-4
TJ
XJ
2
O

>
n
X3
tn
tn

13
73
2
o
73
t*

O
73
-t

I
73
<
73
m
o
n
>
CD
c
>
c»
m
<
73
>

O
z

tn
c
CD
XJ
o
c
-t
z
m
XJ
X3
O
o
m
tn
in
z
o
<
J>
X3
>
CD
r
m

o £
> XJ
r - •~4
r
-4
m
TJ
XJ 0 )
»-t
Z
-4 -_t>
CD

£
XJ
•H
-4
m
—O)

£
XJ
•—i
-4
m
■
—•
0)

£
73
K-4
-4
m
—
01

._- ._- _
*• v v

£
XJ
n
H

O
a
r*
N
fO

0)
'
-—_.

O
in
H

_.

Z
XJ
o
c
73
O
£
n
O
r~
-i
m
2
I
m
>
O
►H
z
o

O
»-t
in
TJ
r
>
-<

-o
XJ
-n o
o
X m
m tn
a in
n Z
o CD
in
-4 m
O
H c
>
CD TJ
r
2
m in
- Z
H

o
o
tn
-4

XJ
XJ
o
o
m
in
in
>-4
Z
CD
rn
O
c.
■D
z
m
Z
H
~n
►-4
X
rn
O
r>
o
tn
-4

n
o
z
-i o
in
z ■A
c
m »-<

o
o
-1
H

-4 o
O
in
TJ
-4
Z it
—V i n
-4 -—
►-»
H TJ
— XJ
O
KJ
TJ o
w •_ O
XJ o
O -4
—«
.
o
n >
t n O 13
-4 CD
H XJ XJ - * J»
4- O O 03
-4 n o —
-4
Z >
-4 CD
TJ
> H
4- 73
n -4
O O
4 _»
XJ 4—
X) n
m in _
o
4
in
o J>
-4 CO
13
> —
XJ
CD >-4
—•
o
M
o
_
-4
a
>
aj
tn
N
R <
4-4
tn
< _*
-- o
o
_» O
O
o —

ni
r in
H Z m
rt XJ
o
o
*-•
£
-*

z
XJ
o
£

m
Z

a

XJ
o
£

K4 i n
■n

XJ
O
o
□
£
4
Z —
2
O
XJ O O -4
o D
O z
> N
£
r o
c> o
o in
Z
c -4
i" X
m
> m
o
m U

<

O
o

O
o

O
O

M

XJ
m z
-4
m
O
in m
< XJ

o in
J C
t> i d
XJ XJ
t> o
o o
n cr.
z z
-1 4
m
13
T
J XJ XJ Z
m 13 XJ O
m
a m O £ M
-4 O 1‘1
O 73
-» C l
73
> o » a

zzzz>
zzZ r

H>

o
z
\
13
XJ
o
o
m
tn
tn

-4

«
i
«
•
*
»
■
i
•
■
*
»
*

• m xj
r z
rn
» O H
■
C
1
XJ
■
z
■
R
1
R
R
•
R
i

n £ £ £ £ £ o
> XJ XJ XJ XJ XJ o
«~4 t-4
r~
r~ -1
-4 -4 H N
mm m m m *
.—.
73
73 0) 01 01 0
10
1

1-4 4-4
H

z
H
>
03

w
»

V

.—.
X\
N.

O

1

1
1
1

o
tn
u

r*
j>

•X
>
—io n
j<
i n in •
:-m u )
i ? I O
I
01 XJ

I

a

> rn
CJ in

oo

Z *3

o >

73 - »

m m

TJ
XJ
o
o
-4
O >
XJ CD
a
o *“ *
M

4
*>
CD
f~
in

r> U
tn —

&

CD CD CO CD CD CD 00 CO CO CO CD CD CU CD CO tn

CD CD CD CD CD CO -J J -4 J -4 1 J
J -J -J -J ~4 ~4
4 j j
M t> - » - . O O O O O O O O O O l O
«D U ) l O l O U ) t O « D t D l O a i C D C O C O ( D C D < D ( D CO CD
• 0 ( p W ' J f f i o » f t U M - O i p f f l ' i f l i ( n f c W M - * o i u a j ' i a t q t b ( j u - * o i i ) c o -J
tn t. u m
* o »d c d

01

'J
-1

- 4 - 4 --I - 4 - 4 -J - g -v| - g
-4 - 1 --4 ~v! -4 -4 m CD O)

01 tn

u w

-.1 - j -q
cn 01 a>

o to oo~j 01 tn t»

O O O O O O O O O GOO CO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C J O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

152

INTEGER
OPTION
CO MM ON / P E D T /
PROCTAB
COMMON /
TPVCST / P V C P A . D P P P
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

8220
8230
824Q

R & M c o s t F OR T H E P R O C E S S I N G E Q U I P M E N T I S E S T I M A T E D
A P E R C E N T OF T H E I N I T I A L
C O S T OF
THE E Q U I P M E N T .
{ 3 P E R C E N T I S U S E D FOR T H I S V A L U E .
-PRMP )

the

G EN ER AL COST
FREEZER RENT
OF T H E T O T A L
($0.05

PER

-SUCH
A N D ONE
PRODUCT

LB

IS

8290
8300
8210
e32C

AS E L E C T R I C I T Y ,
W A T E R . B U I L D I N G AND
F O R E M A N A RE B A S E D ON A C O S T P E R L B
R E C E I V E D AT THE P R O C E S S I N G P L A N T .

USED

F OR

THIS

VALUE.)

--823C
83*30
S350
8360
83"C
8380
£ 3 9C
8*300

P R O J E C T E D M A T E R I A L H A N D L I N G R A T E ( P MH R ) A T T ^ E P R O C E S S I N G
P L A N T I S B A S E D ON T H E N U M B E R OF D E C A P P E R S .
MOOE. A SS JM C TION - 3 0 0 0 L E S P E R h C'JR P E R
OECAPPER.
6 0 0 0 - 5 S 3 E R -iR
PER S I N G U L A T C R ,
6 0 0 0 ^ 5 5 P E R HP P E R F I N I S H E R .

MODEL
(LESS

IF

ASSUMPTION - ONE F O R E M A N ) :

N U M E E R OF P R O C E S S I N G P L A N T E M P L O Y E E S
15 E M P L O Y E E S FOR O P T I O N * 1
9 E M P L O Y E E S F OR O P T I O N * 2

( O P T I O N . E C . 1) THEN
PMHR*PROCTAB(5 . 2 ) NPPE *
15

ELSE
PMHR*PROCTAB(2 , 2 )
NPPE * 9
E ND I F

-

8480
8490
85CO
35 " 0

6000

P E R M - P R O C E S S I N G E Q U I P M E N T R& M C O S T
T P R M C - T O T A L P R O C E S S I N G R& M C O S T
P R M C P A - P R C C E S S I N G R& M C O S T P E R A C R E

C
C
C
C

G E * G E N E R A L EXPENSE
P H * P R O C E S 5 1 NG H O U R S
P P L C * P R 0 C E S 3 I N G D L A N T L A B O R COS ' "
T O T P C P v * T O T A L P R O C E S S I N G COST P £R

C
C
C
C

D P P P * D O L L A R S PER L B P R O C E S S E D
G C - G E N E R A L COST
P Q * P R O J E C T E D Q U A N I T I Y PER YEAR
P R M P * P R O C E S S I N G R& M P E R C E N T

C
C

PVCPA»PROCESSING
PRMP*3
IF
( O P T I O N . E Q . 1)
LIM IT
* 7
ELSE
LIM IT
ENDIF

«

8*310
8*20
8*30
8440
8450
8460
84TQ

3000

C
C
C
C

7

8250
8260
8270
82B0

ON

VARIABLE

COST

8520
8530
8540
e=50

YEAR

*
PER

8560
8570
8590
8590

*
ACRE

THEN

3

PERM-0
DO 7 I - 1 . L I M I T
PERM-PERM + P R O C T A B d . 1 )
- P R 0C TAB(I.2)
TPRMC-PERM - ( P R M P / 1 0 0 . )
PRMCPA-TPRMC/ACRES
P Q * Y P A - ACRES * ( H R V R E C / 1 0 0 . )
GC * 0 . 0 5
GE a GC * P O

8600
8610
B620
8630
8640
865C
8660
96^0
8680
8690
8700
8-10
8720
8730
8740
S75C
S'SO
8— 0
8-90
8790

153

B ERRY1

16
PH-P Q/PMHR
PPLC*NPPE
• L ABWAGE • PH
T O T P C P Y * T P R M C + GE * P P L C
DPPPaTOTPCPY/PQ

8800
8810
8820
8830

PVCPA*TOTPCPY/ACRES

8840
8850
8860
8870
' 8880
8890
8900

C
C

10

W RITE( 6 . ' ( / ) ' )
W RITE(6 . - )
W RITE(6 , 10)
FORMAT(
12X.'PROCESSING

20

W RITE( 6 , 2 0 )
FORMAT (

30

40

50
60

C
c
C

C
C
C
C

PLANT

VARIABLE

CO ST')

........................................................................................ )

W RITE( 6 . ' ( / / ) ' >
WRIr E( 6 . 3 0 !
F O R M A T !' REPAIR AND' . 6 X G E N E R A L ' . 6 X . ' P R O C E S S 5 X .
- ' L A B O R ' . 5 * . 'COST® E R ' , 8 X . ' $
PER ')
W RITE( 6 . 4 0 )
FORMAT!' MAINTENANCE' , 5 X . ' EXPENSE' , 7 X , ' H O U R S 6 X .
♦ 'C O S T ',8 X , 'Y E A R '. 1 2 X . 'L E ')

8930
£940
8950
2960
89"3
89eC
8990

W R : T E ( 6 . 5 0 ) TPRMC, G E , P H .P P L C ,T O T P C P Y .D P P P
FORMAT! ' I ' . F l l ^ ^ X . F U . I . A X . F T . I . G X . F S ^ . S X . F ^ ^ . e X . F e ^ )
W R I T E ! 6 . 6 0 JPVCPA
FORMAT! ' 1 ' . '
P R O C E S S I N G V A R I A B L E COST PER ACRE ' . 3 X . F 12 . 2 )
RETURN
E ND
............................................................................................................................................................................................................. ...

90^0
9080

SUBROUTINE

9090
9100

E CONA N( Y P A , H R V R A T . H R V R E C . F R E E 2 E , F P R I C E ,
PUREE. P P R IC E , OPTION )

ECONOMIC A N A L Y S I S
AND P R O C E S S .

--

PRODUCTION,

MACHINE

9 110
9120
913C
9140
9 150
9 160
9170
9180

HA RV EST

T S I F C . T C . T H V C S T , R P T P , Y P A .HRV RE C.HRV RA T, FPC
T O T C P A . T Y A A . T P r - C , P V C P A . T R P , U S A E L E . RMC . P ®Q
TOTR. FP R ,F R E E Z E ,F P R IC E ,P R .P U R E E . PPRICE.DPPP
IR R C S T !2 .4 ) . PROCST!7 , 4 ) . SPECST!6 . 4 )

INTEGER
COMMON
COMMON
COMMON
COMMON
COMMON

/
/
/
/
/

ROW.OPTION
P ECT/ PROCST
S ECT/ S PECST
IECT/ IRRCST
TDVCST / P V C P A . D P P P
FPCST / TYAA

9190
3200
9 2 10
9220
9230
9240
9250
9260
9270
928C
9290
9300
9310

C
W RITE( 6 , ' ( / / / / ) ' )
IF
( O P T I O N . E O . 2 ) THEN
R0W*3
ELSE
R0W*7
ENDIF

3
C

9000
9010
9020
9030
9040
9050
9060

. . . . . . . . . .
S U B R O U T I N E ECONOMI C A N A L Y S I S
.................................. .............................................................................................................................................................

REAL
RE ' A L
REAL
REAL

C

*9 1 0
3920

TPFC-0
TSIFC*0
T S I F C * T O T A L S P E C I A L T Y AND
DO 3 1 * 1 , ROW
TDFC*T®FC - PROCST( 1 , 2 )

IRRIGATION

FIXED

COST

PER

•

ACRE

9320
9330
9340
9350
9360
9370

154

15

13
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

RO W- 6
DO 1 5 1 - 1 ' , ROW
TSIFC-TSIFC
ROW-2
DO 1 3 1 - 1 , ROW
TS IFO TSIFC

+

SPECST(I.2)

+

IRRCST ( 1 , 2 )

R P T P - R A W P R O D U C T TO P R O C E S S I N G
RPTP-YPA * { H R V R E C /1 0 0 . )

9380
9390
9400
9410
9420
9430
9440
9450
9460

PLANT

T C * ( 0 . 5 0 ' 1 00 . ) ■ RPTP
T H V C S T - T O T A L H A R V E S T V A R I A B L E COST PER ACRE
THVCST*SPECST( 1 .3 )-S P E C S T ( 2 . 3 ) - S P E C S T { 5 , 3 ) - S P E C S 7 ( G , 3 i - T C
T O T C P A « T O T A L COST PER ACRE
TOTCPA - TY AA - THVCST - T S I F C - TP FC - PVCPA

94 70
9480
9490
9500
9 5 40
9520
9E3C
954C
3550
956C1
9570
95B0
9590

C
C
C
C
C
C
C

REVENUE ( S / A C R E )
F OR M A C H I N E H A R V E S T A N D P R O C E S S
TOTAL SALES (S 'A C R E )
I S B A S E D ON T H E D I S T R I B U T I O N
OF T H E F I N A L P R O D U C T .
F I N A L P R O D U C T I S V A L U E D ON
T H E P E R C E N T D I S T R I B U T I O N OF P R O D U C T T O F R E E Z E R
PACK
OR
PUREE.

9600
9 6 10
9620
9630
9640
9650
9660

C
C

USABLE

9670
9680

C
C

C
C
C

T H E T O T A L H A R V E S T V A R I A B L E CO S T S PER A CRE AREA DDE D
T O G E T H E R H E R E FOR T H E E C O N O M I C - A N A L Y S I S
T C * T R A N S P O R T C O S T F OR T H E RAW P R O D U C T PROM T H E F I E L D
TO T H E P R O C E S S I N G
PLANT.
A CUSTOM RATE I S USED "OR
THIS CALCULATION.
(S O .50
P E R CWT - DISTANCE 75
M I L E S PER L O A D )

»

OUANTITy

OF

RAW

PROCESSING
TRP a TRA S H
TRP-10

PERCENT

PRODUCT

PLANT

( TRP

IS

DELIVERED

LESS
SET

THE
AT

C
USABLE
C
C
C
C

■

RPTP

-

(1-

( T R P /1001)

RMC « R E V E N U E M I N U S C O S T S
TOTR » T O T A L REVENUE
IF

( O P T I O N . E O . 1) THEN
FPO -USABLE«(FR EEZE/100. )
FPR-FPO-FPRICE
PPO-USABLE
- FPQ
PR-PPQ-PPRICE
T O T R - F PR - PR
ELSE
P R -U S A B LE • PPRICE
FPR-0
T O T R - F P R ♦ PR
ENDIF
RMC-TOTR-TOTCPA
C
C
W RITE( 6 . ' < / / ) ' )
WRITE( 6 . 2 7 )
WRIT E ( 6 . 2 0 )

*

’

TO T h E

TRASH.
10

TRASH)

969C
9700
9~10
9 "2 C
9730
9740
9750
9760
97-Q
9^B0
9790
9800
9810
9820
9830
9840
9850
9B6C
98"0
9880
9890
9900
9910
9920
9930
9940
9950

O
O O O O O
( O t - D O i
f l i O i O i o i

0

O O O O O O O O
’' M n < n n i
f
co
O O O O O O ' O
' O
“
O O O O O O
O O
*"

00

01

o o c
o> o •
O
~ t ’

*0
* n
' •
O O O O O

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OOC O O O O O O O
^ ui id rO' O
n
in m r - r n
O ••
■
r- r- ^ r ( ^ (< (( « ( j ri o r j n n n
O O O O O O O O O O O O U O O O O O

*'

*■ ’ ■

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
n n >: u i t o t ' a ) cri o
•- « n
i n ifl r ri n n n n n n n 1 n m v 1
1 'i
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O O O O O O
a ) o> O ’ • u n
^ ' i hi i/) ui in
O O O O O O

*“
II
II
H

—CJ

—
( il
nr
i)
<

X
O
CJ

ca
_»

CJ
11
X
-4
CJ

CJ

(I
—
UJ
ft
o
<

4
CJ
4a
X
n
n
»

LO

ID

UJ
a
u
<
a
t ii
Q

UJ
a
u
<

hiSi

a
UJ
a

(J

o
o

u
:j
a

o

it
a
5
<
Ct

z

o

tn
to
UJ
u

u

o

iin

a
UJ
a

a
a

.J
ca
<
1
vi
>

H
t/1
UJ
o
< .
> O UJ
a U_ X
h< a. K Q O
I h- u >• J-

'
'

ui >< f-'-

CJ CJ o

CJ

l - S
M a
a o
J u .

l - J
' H
M a o i M
a o
— a
j u . i i . 3

'

H
11
N
H
H
H
M
II
H
H
n
H
U
N
M
a
H
R
II
N
H
n
n
ii
u
ii

UJ
a
u
<

o
in
Li.
X
in
>■
u
z
UJ
•~i
O
1-4
u
U_
UJ
>DC
UJ
>
O
U
UJ
ct

n

a
z
t -1
tn
in
UJ
o

in
u

CJ

4
—

to
4—
u.

UJ
a
O
<

X
CJ
m

o
or
a

o

a
Ul
a

O
Ul
a
>
1-4
_J
UJ
O

a
U)
Q

o

u

a
a
a

o

'

in
in
O
O
O
T tr , — i n *- i n 4- —*- t o
f»4 4'
•>
— ID --- (D _
U) —• ID —to
H •—• L — » - CJ
1h- CJ
< UJ < UJ «1 4- UJ < UJ < 4“ UJ
S h S f - S u
h i f - s u f a n n r i < a
a ►* a
- n
u a o a o x a o a o x a o
u . 5 t i
3 u ' J 3 u . 3 u M 3 1

o
Z
1-4
in
in
UJ
CJ

o
a
a

C*
in

o
u
<
a
U
HD
h-

'
»-

in
tn
Ul
U
O
a
a

n
n
a
H
It
N
II
H
||
H
H
H
II
II .—
II v
H N
n N
H II

UJ
a
o
<

jin

<J
a
O
>
a

O
z

ii

i-

CL
>UJ
»h
1-4
{) tn
UJ UJ
♦a
> a z
> ft t - <
a <x a o
I X a o

'

-—
ca
_j

»z
<
_j
CL

_j
<
t-

to
L- —'
< CJ UJ
s
•
a n
^ - a
l u . 3 u

»u
D
O
o
a
a

H
»- t o

■

__

— to
.
<1 UJ <
5 I- 5
o a a
. 3 u .

M

R
*

t

S l-

a
O

v
a

z X
UJ o CJ
a 1-1
D H '
a o
CO
UJ
N a UJ
UJ H- UJ
tn a a
a 1-4 o a
a o a ll
'

X
O
n
4
a
D
Z
UJ
>
a
a
x
o
<
a
a
a
CJ
UJ
a
a a
a a
'

i n 4* O
00 4- i d
4
■
--- t o -- t o ---• O <o •---• t o
1- —J— w
h'
< UJ <3 UJ < <5 a < a
£ 1- £ J - £ a f - £ » a
a
a
a
o a o a o X a o a
a 3 a 3 a CJ 3 a 3
+
in
4- c-

N
N
• H
l|

1o
3
o
o
a •—
a o

a
o
a
I
o
o
o
o
a
o

O
r-

X
m

O
4- CO

U)
r-

CO

■
■
■
■

<

a
u
<t
s
tn

■
a
■
■
«
■
■
•
■
■
■
R
•
■
a
• —4
■ 4
a fl
•
■
a ■
■ • u
i
■ £
■ R a
H H
1
| Q

tn
»in
a
CJ

CJ
-

X
m

u
o
a
a

UJ UJ
-j
.J
< CD CO
t- < <
o in in
H u D
'

M R
H R
jj ■

o
t-

n
to

a
o
u

O
z
1-1
in
in

O
CO

a

03

to
»a
4
tn
X
hn
a
D
Z
a
>
a
a
UJ
a
a
D
a
'

3
Z
a
>
a
a

<
H
O
»a
io X
t- O
CJ

10
4“ O 4
4
--- t o ——- ►h- ■
< a <
£ 1- £
a
a
o a o
u. 3 a

o
cn

•
•

to —
— 1<

■ to

a
H
«-*
a
3

£
a
o
a

in
D
Z
£
a
o
z
a
>
a
a
4
X
O
CJ

o i4- '

h
1
«T» •

1 -— <

■ a £
■ 1- a
o
> a a
■ 3
♦

O
O

tn

OJ

tn

o>

4-

— Z
uj a
f - r>

H h Q
U Ml Z
3

DT u i

156

C

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SUBROUTINE

FPCOST

( ACRES, LA3WAGE, O UTPUT)

C
REAL
REAL
REAL
REAL
REAL
REAL
REAL
REAL

T C P , T C D , T C C . T F C . T D C . T F U M G . T F E C . T F A C . C H E M C H , CHEMCHE
C H E M C I.C H E M C IE . CHEMCF.CHEMCFE. TTRANC,IRROC
BFCE.N FCE.HW.TECY1.TACY1.TFRC
TEC Y2 . T A C Y 2 , R E T C P . R E T C D . R E T C C . R E T D C . RETFC
R E F U M G , R E A C , T R E C . T R E C A . T F P C Y . I RVC
LABWAGE.ACRES.TYAA
M A C H ( 6 . 1 ) . M A T ( 5 . 2 ) . CHEM(5 . 2 )
S PE C O S H 6 . 4 ) . IRRCOST(2 . 4 )

INTEGER

O UTPUT

10650
10660
10670
10680
1069C
’COC
1 0 " 10

C
COMMON
COMMON
COMMON
COMMON
COMMON
C
C
C

C

/
i
/
i
/

+

MA C H
MAT.CHEM
SPECCS"
IRRCCS7
/ TYAA

TCP-MACH( 1 , 1 )
* ACRES
TCO-MACH(2 . 1 )
- ACRES
TCC*MACH(3 . 1 )
- ACRES
TFC"MAT( 2 . 2 )
- M A T{ 2 . 1)
• ACRES
T D C * ( MACH( 4 . 1 ) f M A T ( 1 . 2 ) - M A T ( 1 , 1 ) ) - A C R E S
TFUMG-MAT( 4 . 1 )
» ACRES
TFEC-TCP+TCD+TCC+TDC+TFC+TFUMG

10720
10730
10740
10750
10760
10770
10780
10"90
10E0C
108

TFAC«TF£C/ACRES
C A L C U L A T E S THE F I R S T

10 8 2 C
10830

- - CALCULATES

--

C R D T •'
FP07 /
SECT
IECT
FPCST
THE

FALL

OPERATION

v

£A

r

COST

TRANSPLANT

COST

CHEMC H* CHE M( 1 . 1 ) »CHEM( 1 . 2 ) * Ch £ M ( 2 . 2 ) - C H E M ( 2 . 1 )
CHEM( 3 , 2 )
CHEMCHE*(CHEMCH + M A C H ( S . M ) ACRES - 2

♦

C H E M ( 3 . 1 ) - 1084C
10850
10860

T F R C * S P E C 0 S T ( 4 . 3 ) • ACRES
T E C Y 2 - T F R C + B F C E + N F C E + C H E M C H 6 + C H E MC I E + C H E M C F E - I R R O C + HW
TACY2-TECY2/'A CRES
C A L C U L A T I O N S F OR T H E R E - E S T A B L I S H M E N T P E R I O D - R E T C P - ( A C R E S - .2 )-MACH( 1 . 1 )
R E T C D -(A C R E S -.2 ) -MACH{2 . 1 )
RETCC-(ACRES-. 2 )*MACH(3 , 1 }
RETD C -(AC R ES-.2)-(M AT{1,2 )-M A T (1,1) ♦ M ACH(4.1))

10870
10880
1089C
10900
1C910
10920
10930
1094C
10950
1C 9 6 0
10970
10980
10990
11000
H01C
1 1020
11030
11040
1 1050
11060
11070
11080

RETFC-( ACRES-.2 ) -M AT( 2 . 2 ) -MAT(2 . 1 )
REp U M G - (A C R E S -. 2 ) - M A T ( 4 . 1 )

1 109C
11100

REA C-A CRE S -.2

1n

CHEMCI*CHEM(4 . 1 > -CHEM( 4 , 2 )
C H E MC I E a ( C H £ M C I «■ M A C H < 6 . 1 ) )
- ACRES • 2
. CHEMCF»CHEM(5 , 1 )
• CHEM(5,2)
CHE M CF E- C HE M CF - ACRES - 2
T T R A N C - ( SPECOST ( 3 . 3 )
(M AT(5.1)
* MA T { 5 , 2 ) / 1 0 0 0
) )
»A C R E S
IR V C -IR R C O S T ( 1 . 3 ) + 1RRCOST( 2 . 3 )
I R R O C * I R V C - ACRES
B F C E - M A T ( 2 . 1 ) - M A T ( 2 . 2 ) - ACRES
N F C E - ( MAT ( 3 . 1 ) / 2 0 C 0 • M A T O . 2 ) )
• ACRES • 2
HW- LAB WA GE 18 - A CRE S
TECY 1 » TTRANC-* -TCC^ IRROC+BFCE- *-NFCE* CHEMCHE + C H E M C I E * C H E M C F E ^ H W
T A C Y 1 - T E C Y 1 / ACRES
C

C

--

10540
10550
10 5 6 C
10570
10580
10590
10600
10610
10620
10630
10640

1C

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

Q

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

U U O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

Q

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

M n ^ c n u ) h < a < n O ’- r < n ^ i f t « ) r ( D < j » 0 ' C 4 n i i n u ) t ' C D { n o * - « n ' i i n i f l » - c o ^ O ' - r < n ^ u ) i f l r a ) ( j ) 0 - r i n ' i i n ( p h a a ( j t

>- a
o
u

a

in
o
o

rID

bz
UJ
z
X
in
_i
m
4
t—
i/i
lO
>
UJ
or
_j
4
*o
1■
4
UJ
or
h-

13
Z
3
u
UJ
or
♦
u
u.
IUJ
or
♦
o
n
tUJ
or
♦
u
u
1UJ
a.
+
o
u
H
UJ
or
♦
a
o
bUJ
or
•
o
UJ
or
fr­

03
4
b01
lU
1
UJ
ar
►z
<
_j
a
in
Z
4
at
j-

,
in
UJ
or
O
4

or
Q.
in
O O O
CJ CJ CJ

et

♦

o
cj

O
cj

«
cj

z

4
Or
frb*
m
Z
4
a
tN

O •
CJ
u
Q
fl or
oc
U —*
cj •
f— u
* o
o or
o Of
frM N

i
o o
CJ CJ UJ
I
O
# 1 Z
UJ
UJ UJ I
o u u
u. u. ■
03 Z u j
■ • I
UJ UJ s
u o UJ
u. u . I
03 Z CJ
N N N

■
UJ
l- l
CJ
Z
UJ
X
CJ
■
UJ
>->

•

UJ
U.
u
Z
u>
X
O
■
UJ
u
z
to UJ
I
I
o u
h i CJ

z

O
CJ
»
3
X
S

3

X
b4

CJ

a

or
or U l
4 a
UJ
i in
a C)
UJ o
a
z
fr- a
i/i
a yCJ 4
»
z o
o nr
»-f
fr- a .
<J o
fr- or
o u
or
UJ
a or
O ij
at 4
u
.j
4
4 hfr- a
O tb■
B
>> u
u or
or CJ
c>
i - »-

•—■
o
CJ

13
Z

Ul
I
CJ b U> >UJ U a
or
o
U fr- u_
4
-fr in
-V.
z
O o o
UJ UJ M
or or frb- i - 4
§ ■ _J
< >- 3
u o O
uj a
_l
or u . 4
►- fr- u

4

Qr
<i
UJ
>

i/i
UJ
or
u
4
w
\
>
o
a.
u
frB
*
u
a
u
<
b-

H

o

•—S
—
O
CJ

i
•

or
<
UJ UJ
O ><
ar or
UJ
> a
<

,
in
UJ
u ar
UJ u
or <4
b♦

fr
in
UJ
oc
(J
4

or
<
UJ
V

z
UJ
b- a
<
UJ UJ
>
I
»z
UJ UJ
H b<
B
3
CJ >
-J
< >
o b-

♦ \
T>U
UJ
fr■
>
U
a.
tj
b-

a
<
rx
UJ
>
<

>.
o
ar
o
b■
V
CJ
a
CJ
<
b-

UJ
a
u
4

CJ
O

-

or
4
UJ
>
Z
Ul
*-

o

w

<
<
b-

o

o

o

^

aH

O
t3

u

or z

— u

or

\

• cj
* in
X O X O

-

O
O

z

«

• O
'
*“

»- |f» •- 4 *- *» •-

* - cj
’
© lo ^ -io
«— w >
l L U J U J 4 l U

..............................' O r
n
- — ( £ ) -( O w (D ^ (o _ a « )
ft- _ i- _
— i - or —
J < I U < U I < l U < l l l J < U i U J

U

U

CJ o

—
i~
<

•~» » -» -z» -zt-s> ~ zi“ i h - z i - h - z

QHMaHaHa«ttHaMa2«a
Zcraoaroocooroaououiao
u

U

in
—
»- ■
4 rj
O
v O

X
o r » u
u n u
»j- CJ

UJ
O
<
or
UJ
>
4

B

u . b4
X z
n
n
CJ
CJ

>V u .
CJ
X
CJ CJ
c
u . 14
X Z u. 3
ra)
X •s
»- r * w•“ O
u.
I
CJ . r > o 4
X
_i
X
I
n I
3 I O
•- u z o Z cj
• 4
<
4
3 lO
Z » Z H
IL
»“
•
in
tn M o 3 m or <n a 4 O 4 o m
**
♦ »
UJ
<o
o w 10 —- o r
b~
b~ V
CJ
UJ < UJ 4 UJ 4 4
i - z j - Z 1- Z \
Of
or m
a
c r O o r o or o _ j
3 u . 3 U. 3 u. ♦
li.

or
UJ
a

) ) u

. 3

u

. 3

b

in
o

X
*"

CJ

CJ
V
o
UJ
fr-

4
U

. 3

i L

o

O -

) a

3

U

'

31 u . •

to
n

O
4

in
4

158

21

BERRY 1

150

W R I T E ! 6 . 1 5 0 ) M A T ( 2 , 1 ) . M A T ( 2 , 2 ) . T FC
FORMAT( ' F E R T I L I Z E R ' . 2 X . 'CUSTOM A P P L I C A T I O N

$ ',F 4 .0 .1 X .

155

+ ' /TON' . 2 X .F 5 .2 .1 X ,'T O N /A C R E '. 1X.F10.2)
W R I T E { 6 , 1 5 5 ) M A T ( 4 , 1 ) , TFUMG
FORMAT( '
FUM IG A TIO N '.2X .'C U S TO M APPLICATION

$ '.F 6 .2 .1 X ,

160

• ►' P E R A C R E ' . 1 1X . F 1 0 . 2 )
WRITE( 6 . 1 6 0 )
FORMAT(58X,

1 1700
1 1 7 10

W R I T E ( 6 , 1 6 5 ) TFEC
F O R M A T ( ' 1 ' . ' T O T A L C O S T TO T H E E N T E R P R I S E ' . 2 8 X . F 1 2 . 2 )
WRITE( 6 . 1 7 0 )
TFAC
F O R M A T ( ' T O T A L - C O S T PER A C R E ' . 3 7 X . F 1 2 . 2 )

165
n o

c
c -c

WRITES

AND

FORMATS

WRITE ( 6 . M / / ■ ' / ) '

)

200

WRITE( 6 . 2 0 0 '
FORMAT( ' SPRING

-

205

W R ITE!6 .2 0 5 )
FORMAT!'

THE

PRODUCTION

/EAR

1

--

COST

GROWI NG

FOR

THE

GROWI NG

v EA R ' , 3 1X . ' v £ A R

^ EA R

1')

♦
210

215
220

225

230

235

240

' )
W R ITE 16.210)
F O R M A T ( ' O P E R A T I O N ' . 7 X . ' $ / A C R E ' . 12 X . ' M A T E R I A L S ' . 16 X .
■ ►' T O T A L P E R ' ).
WR I T E ( 6 . 2 1 5 )
FORMAT( 6 0 X , 'E N T E R P R IS E ' )
WRITE( 6 , 2 2 0 )
FORMAT!'

4. '

' . 7X.'

' . 12X.'

■• 9 5 0
i n e o
• 19 7 0

' . 16X.

' }

►IX.
, F5 . 2 . V 1 0 0 0 ' . 6 X . F 1 0 . 2 )
W R I T E ( 6 . 2 3 0 ) M A C H ! 3 . 1 ) . TCC
FORMAT( '
P A C K E R ' , 5 X . 'CUSTOM H l R E ' , 2 X , ' $ ' t F 5 . 2 . ' / A C R E ' .

CCST

PER

ACRE' . 3 X . F 6 .2.

242

W RITE<6,242)
FORMAT( '

245

W R I T E ( 6 , 2 4 5 ) M A T ( 2 , 1 ) , M A T ! 2 . 2 ) , B p CE
F0RM AT(2X.'BRO ADCAST'. 1 X . ' 1X',2X.'C U STO M

' )
APPLICATION

$ '.F 4 .0 .

* 1X. ' /T O N '.1 X .F 5 .2 .1 X .'T O N /A C R E ' . F 10.2)
W R I T E ! 6 . 2 5 0 ) M A T ( 3 . 1 ) . M A T ( 3 . 2 ) , NFCE
250

255
257
260

265

FORMAT!2X. 'NITROGEN' . 2 X . ' 2 X ' , 1 4X . ' $ ' . F 5 .0 . ' /TON
+ 1 X ,F 4 .0 ,2 X ,'L B /A C '.4 X .F 1 0 .2 )
WRITE! 6 . 2 5 5 )
FORMAT!1X. 'CH EM IC ALS' )
WRITE( 6 . 2 5 7 )
FORMAT!'
')
W R I T E ! 6 . 2 6 0 ) M A C H ! 5 . 1 ) . C H E M C H . CHEMCHE
F 0 R M A T 1 2 X . 'H E R B I C I D E '. 3 X . '2 X '. 1X.'CUSTOM

HIRE

■►' / ACRE CHEM $ ' . F 5 . 2 . ' / A C ' . 5 X . F 1 0 . 2 )
W R I T E ! 6 . 2 6 5 ) MACH (6 . 1 ) . C H E M C I . CHEMCIE
F O R M A T ! 2 X . ' I N S E C T I C I D E ' . IX . ' 2 X 1 X . 'CUSTOM
+ ' / A C R E CHEM $ ' . F 5 . 2 , ' / A C ' . 5 X . F 1 0 . 2 )

RATE ' .

$ ' . F 5 .2.

HIRE

* ' 86C
*18 7 0
• '8 80
i 1890
1 i 900
1 1910
" 1920
1 1930
1" 940

W R I T E ( 6 . 2 2 5 ) S P E C O S T ! 3 . 3 ) . M A T < 5 . 2 ) . M A T ( 5 . i ) , TTRANC
FORMAT I ' 1 ' . ' T R A N S P L A N T ' . 5 X . F 5 . 2 . 2 X . ' P L A N T S ' A C R E ' . 1 X . F 6 . 0 .

+ 2 4 X . F 10.2 )
WRITE( 6 . 2 3 5 )
IRVC.IRROC
FORMAT!'
IR R IG A T IO N OPERATING
+ 16X. F 10.2 )
WRITE( 6 . 2 4 0 )
FORMAT! ' F E R T I L I Z E R ' )

1 1720
1 1730
1 1740
1 1750
1 1760
1 1770
1 1780
< 1790
1 180C
• 18 10
* 1S 2 C
* i£30
" i 84C
« * ESC

S '.F 5 .2 ,

1'980
' '990
i 2000
12010
12020
12030
i 204C
i 2050
1206C
12 0 7 0
12080
12090
1 2 ' OC
‘ «. ' i ^
12 ' 2 0
12130
12 140
1 2 ' SC
12160
1217 0
12180
12190
. 12200
12210
12220
12230
12 2 4 0
12250
12260
12 2' " 0

CJ
01
Ul

(J
0)
o
■f

■n
o
XJ
2
*»
-l

£
XJ o
I
H m
rn 2
■
—
cn V*

Ui
*-» O) T l
XJ U l U l
73
k>
Cl
> TJ -4 <
n ►
O
o
z M XJ
o X)
TJ o X
m o
*n
70
-A
>
H
o
z
Cl

43

n
a
Ul
-<

+
ti

c
70 N ,
>
-4 n
m XJ
— m
0)
n
CJ I
01 m
- o 2
T|
c
u»
z n
o I
»-« m -n
o 2 Ul
O
o *n k>
m
- o
I
C
Jm >
X 2 O
o
» *n
fO m <k
X
X
*n

a
XJ
2
t>
H
—
k>
X

X
o
I
m
2

T)
m
73
>
O
J3
m
-

O
O
m
•»
-A.
X
K>
X

O

-»
k> X
o
c
Ul

C
J
>

o

z

Tl c
o XJ
> XJ
O 2 H
XJ t>
m -4
cn
o M
X X CJ
m
CJ!
- o
2
I
U» m
* XJ 2
PJ r»
T l ►-» n
Ul o I

O l k> o u i
m
_ • •w
.X
s_
> C
J
o O X n
I
I
m
m
2 * k) 2
n X X n
I
Tl
_» n
o
i o X I
m
m
2 k>
2
O
o n
»-»
c X
m
Ul m
H

CJ
u
O

Tl C
O xj
XJ
2 H
t> m
H
.—■ 01
•»
CJ
ik
-1

2

I

I

XJ
m

Vi

-T1
cn

C
J
X

Ul
-

Tl

CJ
CJ
Ul

♦

CJ
CJ
K>

CJ
CJ
o

u
ID
O

cj

M
Ul

K)
CD
Ul

♦

Tl
X O
XJ
Tl 2
*k >
H
o »—
ro
CJ k> x
o
X
»
Ul
I
z
r2
CD H
O
XJ
>
> o
fn Cl
m
U1
Z
•»
—
X
o
Tl X
-j
o
fo
X
•__
n c
a XJ
XJ
2 H
ni
—
-4 ■
cn

c
XJ
-1
H a
rn z
.—
cn XJ
>
CJ - 4
Ck m
o

"Tl
o
XJ
2
>
H
-—.
M
X

c
XJ o
XJ
H 2
m 1>
H
01 —.
CJ
CJ
- Ul
CD
_» XJ
2 X o 2
>
> J>
-1 Tl o - I
tk n
CJ
> M
Ul
»
H _
•
w__
X
_» 2
2
>
X >
H H
H
—- a
M
CJ Z
X X
M>
M
n
tk
M
X Z
X
Tl
T)
Cl X
ci
m
n rn
Tl c
Ul
Tl
-A
Ul
O
K> 2
o
I

ro

£k

Tl
t
XJ o
XJ
H 2
m >
.—. -4
cn
-

l~
ro

c Tl
XJ o
XJ
2
T>

C
XJ

- *n £ - n £
- '
O D O X J H t
iD h n mo ;

—4
m

2 H
t> m

01 —. O)

— o>
' •

H

-C —

CJ
O)
i i CJ XJ w
u
W r n o n CP
XJ
r*
H
rUl
f~
T l TJ
t—A
»-« r n
m O
NI
CJ
XJ
CJ U1
~4
—
w
cn
X
Ul
-ti
a>
-4
K
J Tl
X
J
CJ o
cn
X
cj

o

2

XJ
m

<0

CJ
tk
Ul

o

-4

-

M k> M k> M
CD
ID t n t o
tk ( J f j _» < 1
U O o O O

CJ
tk

♦

43

><

M
(D
( II
<J

Tl £
o XJ
73
2 H
> m
- f •—»
■
—■ 0 )
k>
X CJ
tn
* Ul
»-<
z
Ul 2
ni >
O o
H I

t-i

o

CJ
Ul
o

(J
Ul
Ul

H

2 H -4 •
> m > )

----------c —■ r~ -

— Oi
Oi - u

u
Ou ft k) X -» XJ
O • Ul - •

2 -I - :
l> in < )
—4 — r n

<Xi > ' XJ
U t/i

O
U l k) t n

m

tj

o
O
-

c Tl £ Tl £
XJ o XJ o XJ
XJ
XJ
-4 2 H 2 H
m t> m > r n
—
• H
—
• H ■
—0
Oi ■
1 —• O!
»
k)
K)
-4 CO - CD
\
D
Ul
•
»
H
>
H
r~ H O - I
.
_
> -4 m
- n o > o
—
r * -<
U l -*
m
—i
Z
TJ
H
m
XJ
XJ
TJ
>
XJ
n
XJ
Ul
m
m

o

a <

k)
CD
O

k)
-J
Ul

ki
O

+
+
Tl £ C
J T| £
J Tl £ T
a XJ X O XJ U l O XJ
XJ
XJ
XJ
2 ~4 - 2 H k ) 2 -4
> m
m
> m
o
o
-4
4
H
•
—0
■
—
.0
.—
. cn
1
1
Ul
> kJ
I
CD K> XJ
n X hi
X CD \
X --J N
.
o > > Ul
o z
U l Tl
M
o
X c
«
r~
z n
N
U l £ > Tl o I
m
■
X m
■
rn £ O o 2
Tl D >
II
O
II
CD k> a Tl
H
o Z m _
«. o
R
o
II
k)
X
I
H
CO m
£
H
k)
X 2
*.
X
n
_
.
•
Tl
ro i n
(A
X

o

ro

- -m

Tl
_»
o

KJ

XJ
m
Ul

X
J

1

M M M M M
J J
■J
(0 CD
Ol Ul
o ( J ( J o CJ

M M n M
• 1 1 ■i
1
t> (.) M
( J o CJ f J

H
-I
o
o

M
cn
m
CJ

r»

Tl

M M
m ai
rn -j
O CJ

U W
o» u>

W W M U I J W I.) r o 43 M M K ) f J U K ) K ) M M h i M k> M H K) n M M M M WM M WM M M
cn o> o» <r» t n u i u i t n t n u i t n cn u i u i *»
*. ^ I* t • ( > t > b ( i ( J U U U ( J U U ( J U U M K )
- o id cd
0
1 (Ii I. Cl M -* O ID C
D'I 0
1 Ul b (J M -* O IDC
D
0O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

m t* u u

ifliuifcuu-*oiow-i

O O O O O O O O O O o o o o o o o o o

cn

co

CO
rn
X
J
XJ

ro
O

U
l

o
U
l

O

ro
c

r~
o

z
o
~
4
X

r~
*
-t
tk
X
X
J
>
-»
m

"1
X X
J
m
t>
X
Jn
rn

a

T
J
m
X
I
tk
H

m
i/i
-1
>
CD
n

O
U
l

z

X
Ul

>

■
u
m
X
J
-

XJ
m

UJ
X

c/i
I
2
m
Z
H

X

n
—

Tl
>
r

CJ
10
ro

O
o

+
♦
■
n£
-n £ -n £ T
>£
n£
£
£ ■
X
I mO X
J- i o X
J o xi a X
I OX
JO X
J
I
I
z X
o X
J0
X
J
X
J
X
J
H -1 2 -1 —
i 2 -4 2 H 2 H 2 H 2 - 4
m m > m > > m > m ►m > m x>
■
—
• X3 —
—
. -4
>H
i
r* - 4
-» v
-i —
.O
O
l 13 —01
0
1
O
l —cn .—
l
O
l
■
»
XI >
t
j tk *-*
m
tk
tk
tk
tk
tk
0X
( J cn cn 4
I -n ro
X O
O
O rn O U
l ' > O
U
l
Ul
o
o
l-

C

c

U
l

t
1
•
•
I
1
1

f
-» T l
-k O
X XJ
2
-n
-k
►J ■—
»
40
H
O
H
>

XJ
rn
i
m
Ul
-i
>
0J
r~
Ul
I
2
m

’

z

T)
m
XJ

o
o
Ul
03
m
Ci
Z
Ul

cj

O

UU U
U li
m -■» o
fJ O O

U U U (J (J U
U U b) U (,) U
t£> cd -j m ui i i
O O O O O O

Cd
U
u
O

U U t J ( J I J (O I.) t o
U l.> U M M H f J U
u * O 10 to i oi i n
O O C) Q o o o o

+
£ Tl
X I wk
ro
H
m ro
•—•
Ol
CJ
U)
ro

—r
>
n n
o <
U l ro
-4
Tl
m
XJ
t>
o
XI
m

•n
a
XJ
2
t>
H
—
'
•»
H
O
-1
>
r
fi
O
Ul
-4
H
O
-4
I

H
O

Ul

-4

o

T)

X
Ul
TJ
O

U
t»

CJ
UJ
o

z
z

CJ
CD
CD

£ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ C £ £ £ £ £ £ £
■n £
XJ XI XI XJ XJ XJ XJ XJ XJ XJ XJ XJ XJ XJ XJ XJ XJ XJ
O XJ
> XJ XJ
4 -4 -4 H -4 -4 H - 4 H -4 H -4 H -4 H -4 H - « r n 2 -4
m
m m rn in m rn m m m m m m m in in
rn
•—■ —» —• —•
-—■ -—.—- ■
—.
—
—
—- ■
-4
01 O l Ol O l o> Ol O l Ol 01 01 01 O l O l Ol 01 01 O l Oi l / l — m
4
u ( J ( J CJ ( j CJ ( J CJ u CJ CJ CJ u u CJ CJ CJ CJ £>
CJ
10 -O -4 O) Ol U l U l tk tk tk CJ CJ CJ r o r o
O U l u i CO
O u i O u i O u i O - l U l O U I M O U l O U l O l D f ' O co
—•
XJ
Ul
H
r~
n 2 2
Ul
2 2
I z
tk *»
> XJ I
> t»
TJ
2 O
Cl
OJ < r n o O
m
—4 -4
m
<
—«
•
£ Cl 2 I
X
O
Z
ro
>
O
CJ r o
O
-4
O ►-4 ■n O l U l
Ul
<
m X
J
H
rn
XJ n
t>
tk
I a X
XJ
£ o m
2 2
t> >
tk
2 Cl o
(J
o I
-4 -4
I
■
— —.
*n r n r n
Ek
m 2 2
CO
-4
X)
C l Cl
■n
tk
XJ
I
ro ro
_ _o
1
_ >
o Cl
I
X
z CD
X
J
m m
■n *n
<
in
2 2
O n
Cl n
rn m
Ul
«-T X
4
rn rn

O

Cl o

£
XJ

XJ £
m XJ

-4
rn
—.
Ol

m
Ul
-4
>
CD
r~

—■

N
__
__

O

-4
rn
Ul
>
Z
a

Ul
I
2
rn
z

n
a
XJ
2
tk
—4
TJ U l
rn
XJ -4
I
O m

a

TJ
CD XJ
m a
Cl o

z
Ul

c

UJ
00
Ul

CJ
CO
O

CJ
~o
Ul

CJ
-4
O

T» £
O XJ
XJ
2 H
>
-4
Ol

■n
a
XJ
2
>
-4

£ •n £
X I o XI
XJ
H 2
m t» m
-4
Ol
01
Ul
( j *0 CJ
CD X - o
Ul
o

tk T l £
X O XJ
XJ
2 H
m
CD - 4 .—.
Ol
I
XI
CJ
X -0
t» > o
o z
o
r~
tk £ >
X m CD
m £
■n CJ >
o
o z m
CJ
K)
X
£
ro
X

+

CJ
-4 CD
a Ul
-4
>
-1
r~ -4 a H
> H m
tk
C) o
o
o < r~ < N
U l ro
ro
m
-4
Z
-4
TJ
a
m
m
XJ
XI
TJ
V
>
XJ
>_t
_•
n
73
Ul
m
m

m

Cl

-4

O

z
CJ
O
Ul
H

in

u (J (J t.) t.) U (•} U U (J IJ U (J I.J ( J U U U U U U U (J ( J (J M O l o U K)
M f.) f ; [ ) ► ) - ■ * • > - *
» -• -• * - ^ O O O O O O f H ) O O ( D H ) i 0 ( 0 l D t I ) l f l < 0
i . c j u ^ o (O « - i oi ui m o m -• o to (D - i oi m t . i.i u
. o i d od - j oi tn
o o o o o O O O O O O O O O OO O O O O O O () n o o o o o o

TJ
m
XJ
-c
m

>
XJ

n

o
Ul
—4

Tl
tk
rj

TJ
m
XJ

X

-<

-

K) M M
(0(0C
tk c j k>
o o o

f j M KJ IO |o (O
0(DC0(D
-* o UJ co - i cn
o o o o o o

cr*
o

a>
m
TJ
TJ

a>

at

tn

O

at
O
tn

n

at
o
o

o

ti o

£x
CD
tn

tx
CD
O

•

£c

£ccc

H H -«- 1
m m m rn

-4
-1
-4
m m m m ro m m m m

ccc

€ £
£
£
TJ T3 Tl TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ

HH

H

H

HH

cn ai at at at a> at a> at at cn 0) at

\

ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro
X _» O
Ul Ut tx *x |x ( 0 0 ) M ro —
t n O tn kj O tn O tn O O t O U 1 N
z
>
H

Z
>
H

(J

ro

_» _»
Z
>
H
—
U)

z
t>
-4
•—.
ro

ro ro

Z

TJ >

c/t

U
n m
X O
— O
h4 to on

Z

M
CD

■n
n o
m m
Tl

e n
TJ O
TJ
-H z
ro >
.— -4
at
ro
ro
O at o
X
X
in
(/!

w
-4
TJ _*
TJ «_ CO
O
n N CO
-4
n
n z
>
—t

M

z

+
£ £ ro n
TJ TJ X O
T>
V z
-4 H
m rn n >
•—• — t> H
a t a t t~
••
r
-»
at -» •—■ TJ
m
o
—«•
—
-

tn
TJ
TJ

Z
o

m
tn
-4
>
03
r

H
TJ
t»
Z
on
TJ

tn
I
Z
m
Z
-4

H
TJ
*»
Z
Ul
n
r~
>
z
-1

TJ

<

n

tn
N

w

Tl
a
TJ
z
>
H

>
z
-4
o
TJ
m
TJ
>
—4
O
z
tn
—•

z
o

TJ
TJ
m
X
>
TJ
<
Ul
-4
O
TJ
m
TJ
>
H

c:
T) O
X
H
ni
■
— <
Oi ni
>
a t TJ
O cn
tn
tn

■n
O
TJ
Z
t>
H

e £
TJ TJ
H
m
—
at

at O .—.
m O
>
TJ
H Ul
■
—•
CJ
N
tn

o

H
o

£
TJ
-«
-t
m
Ul

Xj
a
-1
>
-i
M
O
z

-n
o
TJ
z
>
H
Ul

>
z
o

-1
-n I
O rn
TJ
a
< TJ
m o
> o
TJ C
ui n
H
in ►
h
o
z
I
30 O
o o
C Ul
O H
X
n
_ o
O T)

O

o
o
Z
13
r*
tn
H
m

TJ
O
-i
>
H

-1
I
m

4
-J ■n £
X O TJ
TJ
Tl Z -♦
J> m
ro -1 .—.
at
ro
-_
tx
H CD
O Ul
-i
>
r~ H
>
Tl Tl
M TJ
m n
r
o

r
Tl T l
o
ro TJ
z
ro *>
H

TJ
TJ
O
O
C
O
H
»
-<
O
z
o
o
Ul
H
TJ
m
TJ
>
n
T3
m
Tl

t-t

O
O
Z
TJ

O

z

r*

tn
~t
nt

O

z

13

tx tx to to to
o o to to to
o to CD -0
a o o o o

H
m
—
at

TJ
TJ
O
O
C
O
-t
*-*
o
z

to to to CO to to to to (0 CO to to CO to CO to to to
t o C) to (O
<0 to <0 (0 UJ to (0 CD CD cn CD CD CD CD CD CD CD 4 'J 1 -1 •J i
at tn tx to ro
J ro
D -J a> tn tx
O to CD -j at cn tx C
o to C
o O o O o O o o o a o o o O O o o co o o O o o

V

>
H
a
H
>
r~
Tl
»-«
m
r
D
TJ
TJ
O
O
C
O
H
O
z
o
o
1/1
-t
-n
O
TJ
H
I
m

o
TJ
~i
X
m

-<
m
>
TJ

£
TJ
n
■H
m

tx
-o
tn

tx
-4
o

Tl
o
TJ
z
>
-4

£ Tl
TJ o
TJ
H z
m t>
H
at
«.
«x
"j N
tn
N
-4
H o
TJ H
rn >
n
>
T3
m

O)
tx
C
OH
O O
-4
>
—1 r *
Tl
tJ TJ
o m
-<
m
ut
H
>
03
r~
tn
I
z
m
z
H
O
a
ut
H
TJ
m
TJ

(■
J CO t o to
-4 J -1 ai
ro
O to
O o a o

_*

Ul
I
z
m
z
H
n
o
ut
H

£ Tl £
TJ o TJ
TJ
H z -i
ni > m
-4 —
Ol
at
tn
tx CD u
X cn
ui
O
-V

tx
Ol
O

n
u O
m TJ
TJ Z
>
J» H
n
TJ
«n
•n
C
2

£
TJ

• T it

H
m

I Z H ^ Z H Z H Z H Z H

H
TJ
m
n

ITJ^roJO ^TJ^X J^TJ

' * » i n t > t > m > m > m > m

• H — O HH
ai

— a iT J - 'U )

«x
at
O

X

a z
t- t>
-i

O

o
z

tx

44
M
X

__

••-n c -n C 'n C 'n t

• OTJI-OTJOTJOTJOT)

TJ
m
Tl
o c
c z
U l 171
-4
O
z

1 '

> -<

TJ O

C

1

*n j h
z ai r S »-*

r~
> •
t> i > - *» • >
• *-• - i t o z o Z n
o
o
: N - - , 0 I C
I
tx i
tx i
fT
l4
0 _• »—
' f—■ x —x —
i - to • -»
X - tx n
. .
- x ■ T) .
n .
-0 -» -4 -*
- - o >
\
X w K4 40 : co •
~-j TJ *
TJ
• c -n
x TJ •
m co m t o m
I '•-!> H T| H ( J - » u H
» K) KJ
"J n x n x o
X - •
n • o *•
KJ KJ
- ti X K).

z

-* ( O

>
TJ
TJ

1— H

— Ol — 0 > -~

i w o a i n i
h

~ CO
'*

to

I • o s x
I ro t» t» i --------1 - t -n

n
-4

>
n
TJ
m
•»

ro
to
X
•n

„

ro
O
X
Tl

ro

Tl
at

ro
<

m
ut
H
>
CO
r*

tx
at
tn

a
z

u»

ro
._.

ro
X

CO to CO CO CO CO t o t o to (O to ( 0 CO ( 0 CO t o CO t o to to ( 0 to U CO t o
CJI ai 0 ) o> a> (Tl 01 a> a> <n t n cn tn i n t n t n U l i n t n tx tx tx tx tx
CD -4 01 tn t . to r o
o >0 CD -0 01 i n tx t o r o
D-0 a> t n tx
o to C
o O o O o o tl o o O O o o O O o o o o o o o o o O

o o o o O O (J c»
o T- CN <o TJ U> (0 r
T”
TJ TJ Tj Tj TJ TJ TJ *j

ui
I
Z
UJ
X

uj

*-•
z
UJ
X

—
l/l
Z
O

O
U
IN fs|
CVJ

o O o o o o o o o o O o o o o
a) 0> o T- <I co Tj i n (0 r- 00 cn o
<i
a Cl CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CO CO n
*■
TJ TJ Tj Tj TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ Tj TJ TJ TJ

<
a
UJ
a.
o

(J U
5S U I
U
JU
J u.

X X 5
U U U I3

• -I I
- - ' U N

K
LO
*- M •
Ul
• - -U
J
>
i n ( 0 u . C3
a
<
— — u <
I I Z 3
> - i >- a
T
o o uj co
•
( X U U '
UJ *— <J
UJ
< <t I <
h Oh J a Z Z O —
I
a
•- N
i
r- o i n O i n O O • in o
i n u> i p i - t ~ 00 IN ' M t - —- co> X —
(N IN CN CN
- <0
- to1 o '
• CN
1 0 ( 0 ( 0 ( 0 1 0 ( 0 1 0 - 10 — (O (0
(0

tNcnto

- J - — • J—
J< U
l <

^O

f—

UJ
(_) U
u ll.
CO Z
(J
a
u.
hCO
N

CN CN
CN CO
— •—■
1- h< <
z z
«-

l(/>
o
a

CN CO
-—• —

CL
cn

Z 3

< t-<

UJ
I
u
3
UJ
I
o

UJ
*-*
u
z
Ul
X
(J

I
u
z
UJ
I
(J

o
z
Ul
I
u

IU
u
u
Z
UJ O 3
•— — I O X
T- »- o a
a UJ
-» O
tn (0 u ►
«_
u
<
I X Z u 3
o u UJ > m
<* X a <
_»
z z O

<

a o o O C)
CO TJ in (0 cCO CO CO CO 10
Tj Tj TJ N TJ

o o o
a) cn o
CO CO o
T| TJ Tj

o
TTJ
TJ

o
CN
TJ
TJ

o
co
•j
Tj

o
TJ
TJ
Tj

o
U)
TJ
Tj

o
(0
TJ
TJ

o
rTJ
Tj

O o
CO cn
TJ TJ
Tj Tj

UJ
a
o

CN CN
> >
CO O
UJ <
h- —

u
V- U< H
z UJ
a

Q.
O
bUJ
a
—.
TT__

a
.j
<
_j — UJ
<
a
u

i n O m O i n O c N i n O i n r - o i n O i n O uo O tn -- . O
Cl CN CO CO CO Tj TJ TJ in i n (0 (0 r- r-- GO cn ._- in X •_o
CO CO CO CO fo Co CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO co CO CO CO
(0 O
CN
10 (0 10 10 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 COcoco (0 (0 r n m 10 co (0 (0 —-10

o o o o o
i n (0 r- as cn
i n in in' in in
TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ

__

tz
UJ
z
I
in
_i
to
<
»in
UJ
1
UJ
a

o o o o o
CN CO Tj
o
i n in i n i n i n
TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ

X
u
<
z

CN
CN
U ♦O
o __ CN z
__ 3
H
UJ <J t - u.
a z < UJ
z a
.— —
w- .—,
trCN CO TJ
___ ___
CN TJ
I I I w w
O u o N- H
<f
< < <
z z z Z Z
a
u
H
UJ
a

<

»- b-

O m O i n o t n o i n o in o m o i n o in
CN CN CO CO TJ TJ i n in (0 u> r- cO O
TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ T* T
j TJ TJ T| Tj TJ TJ

>
O
a
o N
<
»- j - ' ^
>
O
a
o

U O
UJ UJ
a a

s
\
__ .

o i n -- ^
GO 00 __
T|

*- (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 co (0 (0 (0 (0 10 (0 (0 <010
t- < t~
t- t-

UJ UJ1< UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ Uf UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ Ul UJ liJ UJ
UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ Ul uj UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ
- h H l - 1- H H J— I— h- b-*-»- h-b- 1-K H Z
■ Z H Z H I— z »- H »
»-H 1- H b- b~ b-1- »~ »t- l- 1- h-h- H
• a n a
>a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
: o a o
o
a a a a a
aaa aaa a aaaao aaaaaaaaaaaa aa aaa aaaa
! U 3 U.
u 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 IL 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

t-

163

BERRY 1

26
C

--

WRITES

AND

FORMATS

THE

10

YEAR

F I E L D PROD.

COST

SUMMARY

TABLE

C
TOO
705
708

W RITE( 6 . 7 0 0 )
F O R M A T ! 2 5 X . ' S U MMA R Y
TA BLE ')
WRIT E ( 6 . 7 0 5 )
F 0 R M A T ( 2 1 X , ' F I E L D PRODUCTION C O S T ' )
WRIT E ( 6 . 7 0 8 )
F
O
R
M

A

T

!

* . . . a a . . . . . . . ••)

715
720
■’ 2 5
7 3C
"35
740
745

750
50
750

W R I T E ( 6 , 7 15 )
FORMAT! ' 1 ' . 2 7 X . ' $ / Y E A R ' , 1 0 X , ' S / A C R E ' )
WRITE( 6 . 7 2 0 )
F O R M A T ( 2 8 X . ' .................. ' . 1 0 X . ' .................... ' )
W R ITE(6.725)
TF£C,~FAC
FORMAT! 8 X . ' F A L L ' , 1 2 X . F 1 0 . 2 . 6 X , F 1 0 . 2 )
W R :T E ( 6 . 7 3 0 ) TECY1.TACY1
FORM AT!SXYEAR
1 ' . 1 O X , F 1Q . 2 . 6 X , p 1 0 . 2
W R IT E l6 ,"*3 5 ) TECY2.TACY2
F 0R M A T(8X . 'YEAR 2 ' . 1 0 X , F 1 0 . 2
W R ITE !6.740)
TECY2.TACY2
F 0 R M A T ( 8 X . ' Y E A R 3 ' . 10 X . F 1 0 . 2
W R IT E (6 ,7 4 5 ) TFPCY.TAFPC4
F 0 R M A T !8X . 'YEAR 4 ' , 1 0 X , F 1 0 . 2
DO 5 0 1 * 5 . 9
W RITE( 6 . 7 5 0 )
I . T C R C Y . TACRCY
F O R M A T ! 8 X . ' Y E A R ' , 1 X , I 1 . 10 X . F
CONTINUE
W R IT E 'S , 7 6 0 ) TYAY.TYAA
F O R M A T ! ' 1 ' , 2 X , ' T E N YEAR
W R ITE!6 . ' ( / ' / / ) ' )

. 6 X . F 10.2

14690
14 7 0 0
14710
14720
14~30
14-40
14"5C
14 ~ 5 C

)

14770
14760
14790
14800
14810
14820
14830
14840
14850
14860
148-0

i

.6 X . F 10.2)
.6X , F 10.2)

1 0 .2 .6X . F 10.2)

A V E R A G E ',3 X .F i2 .2 . 4 X . P12.2>

14880
14890
1<90C
14910
14920
14930

C

C
c
c

RETURN
.
END
................................................................................................................................ ...
. . . . . . . . SUBROUTINE F I L L ' A E
........................... 1 4 9 4 0
.............................................................................................................................................................................
SUBROUTINE

14 9 5 0

FILLTAB

14960
14970

C

C

REAL R A T E T A B ( 6 . 1 ) . M A T C 0 ( 5 . 2 ) . C H E M C 0 ( 5 . 2 )
REAL S P E C T A B ! 6 . 6 ) . O R O C T A B ! 7 , 6 ) . I R R T A B ! 2 , 6 )
CHARACTER-35 S KIP
'
COMMON / C R D T / R A T E T A B
COMMON /
FPDT / MA TCO. CHE MC O
CO MM ON / S E D T / S P E C T A B
CO MM ON / P E D T / P R O C T A B
CO MM ON /
IEDT /
IRRTAB

C
C
5
C
C
C
C

REWI NO 7
READ I N I T I A L CUSTOM RATE
DO 5 1 * 1 . 6
READ( 7 , - ) R A T E T A B ! I , 1 )
S K I P ONE S E P A R A T I N G R E C O R D
R E A D !7, ' (A1 ) ' ) S KIP

14600
14610
14620
14630
14640
14650
14660
- - - - 14670
14680

VALUES

INTOTABLE

READ I N I T I A L
F I E L D PRODUCTION M A T E R IA L S
COS TS AND Q U A N T I T I E S I N T O T A B L E
DO 1 0 1 * 1 . 5

.

14980
14990
15000
15010
15C2C
1503C
15040
15050
15060
15070
15080
15090
15100
15110
15120
15130
15140
15150
15160
15 1 - 0

164

3ERRY1

27
READ( 7 . » ) ( M A T C Q ( I , J ) . J * 1 . 2 )
10
C S K I P ONE S E P A R A T I N G R E C O R D
RE A D ( 7 . ' (, A 1 ) ' ) S K I P
C
c
READ I N I T I A L
F IE L D PRODUCTION CHEMICALS
c
COSTS AND Q U A N T I T I E S I N T O T A BL E
DO 2 0 1 * 1 , 5
20
READ{7 , • ) ( C H E M C O ( I . J ) , J « 1 ,2 )
C
S K I P ONE S E P A R A T I N G R E C O R D .
RE A D ( 7 , ' ( A1 ) ' ) S K I P

c
c
c
30
c

READ I N I T I A L S P E C I A L T Y E Q U I P M E N T
INTO TABLE
DO 3 0 1 * 1 . 6
R E A DC7 . - ) ’ ( SPECTAB( I . J ) . J * 1 . 6 )
S K I P ONE S E P A R A T I N G R E C O R D .
R E A D ( 7 . ' ( A i ) ' I SKId

VALUES

c

c
c
40

c

READ
INTO
DO 4 0
READ(
SKIP
READ

I N I T I A L PROCESSING EQUIPMENT
TABLE
1*1,7
7 .- ) (P R O C TA B (I,J).J*1,6)
ONE S E P A R A T I N G R E C O R D .
(7 , ' ( A 1 ) ' ) SKIP

VALUES

READ I N I T I A L
IR R IG A T IO N EQUIPMENT
INTO TABLE
DO 5 0 1 * 1 . 2
READ{ ?
) ( IRRTAB( I . J ) . J * 1 .6 )

VALUES

c
50

c
c
•

ecsoo

RETURN
RETURN
END

TO

BERRV

15 3 5 0
15 3 6 0
1537Q
15380
15390
15400
15410

c

c

15180
15190
15200
1 5 2 10
15220
15230
15240
15250
15260
15270
15280
15290
15300
15 3 10
15 3 2 C
15 3 3 C
15340

15420
15430
15440
15450
15460
154-C
1548C
1549C
15500

165

The following data f i l e
the model.

( DATAFL1 ) l i s t s the data f i l e values

The values in t h i s data f i l e

used by

are based on the 198 3 -8 4 produc­

t i o n cost values.

' OC

11 53
7

s

.

■iQ

86

1 20
1 30
■40
'50
'60

6C
5 90
4 ,00
4
90

2 . 00

.

174.00

136.00
4C0.00
6 1 . 00
1.1
' 1.0
16.3
16.9
3.85

0

170
18C

0 . 25
50.0
0.0
10890.0

'90
20C

2i0

220
230
24C
250
250

5.0
1.0
1.5
0.5
2.0

270

1500C.0
'300.0
1150.0
1000 0
70000.0
20.0

1,0
i .0
1.0
i.o
1.0
80.0

15.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
10.0
10.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

.01
. 01
.01
.01
.01
.01

.0001
.0002
.00075
. 0004
.00025
.Ol

1000.0
3500.0
13 0 C . 0
8000.0
20000.0
320C-. 0
2500.0

1.0
1.0
6.0
1 .0
2.0
1 .0
1.0

10.0
8.0
10.0
'0 .0
8.0
15.0
8.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1

.00
. 02
. 02
. 02
.05
.01
. 02

0.0
0.0

0. 0
0. 0

15 . 0
30 0

0, 0
0. 0

0 . 01
0 . 01

0 . 07
0..0

9

9 .9

9 9

9 9

9 9

9 9

9

230
290
3 CO
3 1C
320
3 30
340
350
360
370
38C
39C
4 C0
4 1C

420
430
44C
45C

46C
4 70

L IS T OF R EF E RE NC E S

LIS T OF REFERENCES

A g u i l a r , Rodolfo, J . , 1973.
Systems Analysis
H a l l , I n c . , Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey.

and

Design.

P r e n ti c e -

American Society of A g r i c u l t u r a l Engineers, 1983.
A g r i c u l t u r a l Machin­
ery Management Data. 1983-1984 Engineers Yearbook. American Society
o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Engineers. P.O. Box 410, St. Joseph, Michigan 49085.
A s h c r a f t , Eugene, 1984.
Communications.

A s h c r a f t Farms, Copemish, MI.

Athey, Thomas, H., 1982.
Systematic Systems Approach.
I n c . , Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey.
Awad, E l i a s , M., 1979.
Systems Analys is and Design.
I n c . , Homewood, I l l i n o i s .

49625.

Personal

P re n tice-H a ll,
Richard D. I r w i n ,

Benson, F. J . and M i t t e l s t a d t , Lona., 1984.
Minnesota farm machinery
economic cost estimates f o r 1984.
A gricultural
Extension Se rvice,
AG-F0-2308. U n i v e r s i t y o f Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Bloome, P.D., Nelson, T . R . , and Rousch, C.E., 1975. Engineering econom­
i c s i n c o n ti n u i n g education--cash flow and present value an aly si s
o f farm investments.
Transactions o f the ASAE.
American Society
o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Engineers, P.O. Box 410, St. Joseph, MI
49085,
pp. 770-776.
Booster, D. E ., K i r k , D. E ., Baker, E. B . , Varseveld, G.W., M a r ti n , L.W.,
and Lawrence, F . J . , 1983.
Strawberry mechanical
har ves ting and
processing (AES P r o j e c t 525) A g r i c .
Exp. S t a t i o n , Oregon State
U n i v e r s i t y , C o r v a l l i s , Oregon.
Booster, D.E ., K i r k , D .E ., and Nelson, G.S., 1969. State of the a r t and
f u t u r e outlook f o r mechanical strawberry h a rv e s t in g , p. 435-467. In:
B.F. C a r g i l l and G.E. Ros sm iller (e d .) F r u i t and Vegetable Harvest
Mechanization Technological
Im plications.
RMC Report Number 16.
Rural Manpower Center, Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y , East Lansing, MI.
Bowers, Wendell, 1975.
Fundamentals of Machine Operation - - Machinery
Management. John Deere Service P u b l i c a t i o n s , Moline, I l l i n o i s .

166

LIST OF REFERENCES

A g u i l a r , Rodolfo, J . , 1973.
Systems Analysis
H a l l , I n c . , Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey.

and

Design.

P re n ti c e -

American Society of A g r i c u l t u r a l Engineers, 1983.
A g r i c u l t u r a l Machin­
ery Management Data. 1983-1984 Engineers Yearbook. American Society
o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Engineers. P.O. Box 410, St. Joseph, Michigan 49085.
A s h c r a f t , Eugene, 1984.
Communications.

A s h c r a f t Farms, Copemish, MI.

Athey, Thomas, H., 1982.
Systematic Systems Approach.
I n c . , Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey.
Awad, E l i a s , M., 1979.
Systems An aly si s and Design.
I n c . , Homewood, I l l i n o i s .

49625.

Personal

P rentice-H all,
Richard D. I r w i n ,

Benson, F. J . and M i t t e l s t a d t , Lona., 1984.
Minnesota farm machinery
economic cost estimates f o r 1984.
Agricultural
Extension Service,
AG-F0-2308. U n i v e r s i t y o f Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Bloome, P.D., Nelson, T . R . , and Rousch, C.E., 1975. Engineering econom­
i c s in c o n ti n u i n g education--cash flow and present value an alysis
o f farm investments.
Transactions of the ASAE.
American Society
o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Engineers, P.O. Box 410, St. Joseph, MI
49085,
pp. 770-776.
Booster, D. E ., K i r k , D. E., Baker, E. B. , Varseveld, G.W., M a r ti n , L.W.,
and Lawrence, F . J . , 1983.
Strawberry mechanical
ha rvesting and
processing (AES P r o j e c t 525) A g r i c .
Exp. S t a t i o n , Oregon State
U n i v e r s i t y , C o r v a l l i s , Oregon.
Booster, D. E., K i r k , D .E ., and Nelson, G.S., 1969. State o f the a r t and
f u t u r e outlook f o r mechanical strawberry h a r v es ti n g , p. 435-467. In:
B.F. C a r g i l l and G.E. Ros smi ller (e d .) F r u i t and Vegetable Harvest
Mechanization Technological
Im plications.
RMC Report Number 16.
Rural Manpower Center, Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y , East Lansing, MI.
Bowers, Wendell, 1975.
Fundamentals of Machine Operation - - Machinery
Management. John Deere Service P u b l i c a t i o n s , Moline, I l l i n o i s .

166

167

Bradford, L a r r y , J . , 1979.
Status of mechanical berry harvest.
109th
Annual Report, State H o r t i c u l t u r a l Society o f Michigan, pp. 132-134.
Bradford, L . J . , Ledebuhr, R .L . , and Hansen, C.M., 1980. C ul tu ra l systems
f o r mechanical har ves ting in Michigan Strawberry Mechanization Sta­
t i o n B u l l e t i n 645, A g r ic . Exp. S t a t i o n , Oregon State U n i v e r s i t y ,
C o r v a l l i s , Oregon, pp. 1-3.
Brown, G.K., 1980. Harvest mechanization s ta tu s f o r h o r t i c u l t u r a l
ASAE Paper Number 80-1532, American Society of A g r i c u l t u r a l
neers, P.O. Box 410, St. Joseph, MI 49085.

crops.
Engi­

Burrows, W.C. and Siemens, J . C . , 1974. Determination o f optimum machin­
ery f o r corn-soybean farms. Transactions of the ASAE. American
Society of A g r i c u l t u r a l
Engineers, P.O. Box 410, St. Joseph, MI
49085.
Cooper, Charles, L . , 1978.
110th Annual Report,
pp. 128-130.

Successful
strawberry c u l t u r a l
practices.
State H o r t i c u l t u r a l
Society o f Michigan,

Dalton, G.E., 1982.
Managing A g r i c u l t u r a l
P u b lis h e rs , New York, N.Y.

Systems.

Applied Science

Denisen, E.L. and Buchele, W.F., 1967.
Mechanical Harvesting o f Straw­
b e r r i e s . American Society f o r H o r t i c u l t u r a l Science, Volume 91.
pp. 267-273.
Deutsch, Ralph, 1969. Systems Analys is Techniques.
Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey.

P r e n t i c e - H a l 1, Inc.

Duyck, L. A s h c r a f t , E., F u j i i , J . and Brooks, J . , 1980.
Grower evalua­
t i o n o f strawberry mechanization, S ta t io n B u l l e t i n 645, A g r i c u l t u r ­
al Experiment S t a t i o n , Oregon State U n i v e r s i t y , C o r v a l l i s , Oregon,
pp. 222-228, August.
F r i d l e y , R.B., 1973.
Simulation of strawberry production in C a l i f o r n i a
to evaluate socio - economic i m p l i c a t i o n s o f a l t e r n a t e harvest
systems. Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y , East Lansing, MI.
F r i d l e y , R.B., and Ad ria n , P . A . , 1968.
Evaluating the f e a s i b i l i t y of
mechanizing crop h ar ves t. ASAE Transaction Vol. 11, pp. 350-352.
American Society o f A g r i c u l t u r a l
Engineers, P.O. Box 410, St.
Joseph, MI 49085.
F r i d l e y , R.B., and Holtman, J . B . , 1973. Simulation of strawberry produc­
t i o n in C a l i f o r n i a to evaluate a l t e r n a t i v e harvest systems.
ASAE
Paper Number 73-5526. American Society of A g r i c u l t u r a l
Engineers,
P.O. Box 410, St. Joseph, MI 49085.

168

F r i s b y , J.C . and Backhop, C.W., 1968.
Weather and economics determine
c o r n -p r o d u ct io n machinery systems.
Transactions o f the ASAE.
American Society o f A g r i c u l t u r a l
Engineers, P.O. Box 410, St.
Joseph, MI 49085. pp. 61-64.
Grant, James, 1980. "Our experience w it h mechanical harvesting of straw­
berries."
110th Annual Report, State H o r t i c u l t u r a l
Society of
Michigan, pp. 128-132.
Grant, James, 1982."How we grow s tr a w b e r r ie s f o r mechanical h a r v e s t in g . "
112th Annual Report.
State H o r t i c u l t u r a l Society o f Michigan, pp.
110-116.
Grant, W i l li a m .

1984.

Lake Leelanau, MI.

Personal Communciations.

Gray, V . P . , Fries en, 0 . , Bannerman, B ., Posthumas, S., and Fedorkow, E.,
1982. Report of the processing se ctio n o f the Processing Straw­
be rry Research C or p o r a tio n , 1982 Processing Season. H o r t i c u l t u r a l
Research I n s t i t u t e o f O n ta r io .
Hansen, C.M., 1972. "Strawberry Mechanization--The Pieces Begin to F i t . "
American F r u i t Grower, Volume 92, p. 17.
Hansen, C.M. and Ledebuhr, R .L ., 1980.
Mechanical harvesting o f straw­
b e r r i e s in Michigan. Strawberry Mechanization S t a t io n B u l l e t i n 645.
A g r i c . Exp. S t a t i o n , Oregon State U n i v e r s i t y , C o r v a l l i s , Oregon,
pp. 54-62.
Hansen, C., Ledebuhr, R. L . , VanEe, G., Fri esen, 0 . , 1983.
Systems
approach to strawberry harvest mechaniztion. Department o f A g r i c u l ­
t u r a l Engineering, Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y , East Lansing, MI.
Holtman, J . B . , Hansen, C.M., Ledebuhr, R . L . , C la ry , C.D., and Pierson,
L . J . , 1977. Michigan mechanical
strawberry harvest f e a s i b i l i t y
s t u d i e s . ASAE Paper Number 77-1030.
American Society o f A g r i c u l ­
t u r a l Engineers, P.O. Box 410, St. Joseph, MI 49085.
Holtman, J . B„, P i c k e t t , L . K . , Armstrong, D.L. and Connor, L . J . , 1973.
A systematic approach to s i m u l a ti n g corn production systems. Trans­
a ctio ns of the ASAE. American Society of A g r i c u l t u r a l
Engineers,
P.O. Box 410, St. Joseph, MI 49085. pp. 19-23.
Humphreys, Kenneth, K. and K a t e l l , Si dney., 1981.
Basic Cost Engineer­
in g . Marcel D e k k e r . I n c . , 270 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10016.
Hunt, Donnell, R., 1963. E f f i c i e n t f i e l d machinery s e l e c t i o n .
A gricul­
t u r a l Engineering. American Society of A g r i c u l t u r a l
Engineers,
P.O. Box 410, St. Joseph, MI 49085. pp. 78-88.
Hunt,

Donnell, 1979.
Farm Power and Machinery Management, Seventh
Edition.
Iowa State U n i v e r s i t y Press, Ames, Iowa.

169

Hussen, Ahmed, H . , Brown, W.B., Booster, D. E., Lawrence, F . J . , M a r ti n ,
L.W., and Varseveld, G.W., 1979.
Estimated costs and re tur ns from
mechanical strawberry harvest in Oregon: A Progress Report, Special
Report 556. Oregon Experiment S t a t i o n , C o r v a l l i s , Oregon.
J e le n , F r e d e r ic , C. and Black, James, H., 1983.
Cost
Engineering. McGraw-Hill, I n c . , New York, N.Y.

and Op ti m iz a ti on

Kepner, R.A., Bainer, R., and Barger, E . L . , 1980.
P r i n c i p l e s of Farm
Machinery, Th ir d E d i t i o n . AVI Pu blishing Company, I n c . , Westport,
Connecticut.
Kelsey, M. and Johnson, A ., 1979. Costs o f strawberry production in
southwestern
Michigan. Extension B u l l e t i n E-1114,
Cooperative
Extension Se rv ic e , Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y , East Lansing, MI.
Kelsey, M. and B e l t e r , H., 1974.
Economics o f strawberry production in
southwestern Michigan.
Report Number 276. Department of A g r i c u l ­
t u r a l Economics, Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y , East Lansing, Michigan.
Kim, C.S., Brown, W.G., and Langmo, R.D., 1980. Economic f e a s i b i l i t y to
Oregon growers of mechanically harvested s t r a w b e r r i e s .
Strawberry
Mechanization
S ta t io n
B u l l e t i n 645, A g r i c u l t u r a l
Experiment
S t a t i o n , Oregon Stat e U n i v e r s i t y , C o r v a l l i s , Oregon, pp. 175-199.
Ledebuhr, R.L. and Hansen, C.M., 1980.
I n - p l a n t handling o f mechanical
harvested s tr a w b e r r i e s .
Strawberry Mechanization B u l l e t i n 645,
A gricultural
Experiment
S tation,
Oregon
State
University,
C o r v a l l i s , Oregon, pp. 54-62.
Ledebuhr, R. L . , 1981.
Status o f mechanical
strawberry ha rve s tin g .
Department o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Engineering, Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y ,
East Lansing, Michigan.
Ledebuhr, Richard,
L . , 1982. Mechanical strawberry ha rvesting o f s o l i d
set c u l t u r e . 112th Annual Report,
State H o r t i c u l t u r a l Society of
Michigan,
pp. 116-119.
M a r t i n , P h i l i p , M., 1983.
American, pp. 54-59.

"Labor - i n t e n s i v e A g r i c u l t u r e . " S c i e n t i f i c
October, 1983. Volume 249, Number T"!

Mechanical T ra n s p la n te r Company.
1984.
1150
Michigan 49423. Personal Communication.

South C e n t r a l , Holland,

M i l l e r , A u s t i n . , 1984.
S p r i n k l e r I r r i g a t i o n Supply Company. 1316 N.
Campbell Road, Royal Oak, Michigan 48067. Personal Communication.
Michigan Crop Reporting Service.
1960 - 1982.
Michigan A g r i c u l t u r a l
S ta tis tic s .
Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , State of Michigan, Lansing,
Michigan.
M i l e s , Ralph, F . , J r . , 1973.
York, NY.

Systems Concepts, John Wiley and Sons, New

170

M in ita b I n t e r a c t i v e S t a t i s t i c s on the CDC System.
1981.
From Penn.
State U n i v e r s i t y .
On the Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y Computer Labor­
a to ry System.
M o r r is , J . R., Ka tt an , A. A ., Nelson, G. S., and Cawthon, D. L . ,
1978.
Developing a mechanized system f o r p r odu cti on , harvesting and hand­
l i n g o f s tr a w b e r r i e s . H o r t i c u l t u r a l Science, Volume 1 3 ( 4 ) , pp. 413422.
Muhtar, H.A., 1982.
An economic comparison o f conventional and conser­
v a t i o n t i l l a g e systems i n the southeast Saginaw Bay coastal d r a i n ­
age basin. Ph.D. D i s s e r t a t i o n , Department o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Engineer­
in g , Michigan Stat e U n i v e r s i t y , East Lansing, Michigan.
Neter, J . and Wasserman, W., 1974.
Applied L ine ar S t a t i s t i c a l Models.
Richard D. I r w i n , I n c . , Homewood, I l l i n o i s .
Nie, N.H., H u l l , C.H., Je n k in s , J . G . , S te in br e n n e r , K ., and Bent, D.H.,
1975. S t a t i s t i c a l package f o r the social sciences. 2nd Ed. McGrawH i l l Book Company, New York, NY.
Peters, M. S. and Timmhaus K ., 1968.
Pl a nt Design and Economics f o r
Chemical Engineers. McGraw-Hill Book Company. New York, N.Y. 10016.
Ricketson, C .L ., 1968. P la n t spacing in so lid -b ed strawberry p l a n t i n g s .
Report H o r t i c u l t u r a l Research I n s t i t u t e of O n ta ri o ,
pp. 56-67.
R o t t h o f f , Walter, 1981.
Challenging strawberry production p r a c t i c e s .
111th Annual
Report, State H o r t i c u l t u r a l
Society of Michigan,
pp. 138-142.
Rotz, C.A., Black, J . R . , Savoie, P . , 1981. A machinery cost model which
deals with i n f l a t i o n .
ASAE Paper Number 81-1513. American Society
o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Engineers, P.O. Box 410, St. Joseph, MI 49085.
Rountree, J . H . , 1977. Systems thinking--Some fundamental Aspects. A g r i ­
cultural
Systems.
Applied Science Publishers L t d . ,
England,
pp. 247-254.
Ryan,

Thomas, A ., J r . , J o i n e r , B. L. and Ryan, B. F . , 1976, Minitab
Student Handbook. Duxbury Press, North S c i t u a t e , MA.

Sammet, L. L . , 1959.
Systems engineering in A g r i c u l t u r e . A g r i c u l t u r a l
Engineering, Volume 40, Number 11. American Society of A g r i c u l t u r ­
al Engineers.
P.O. Box 410, St. Jospeh, MI 49085. pp. 663-687.
Schwab, G.D., 1983.
sion Se rv ice ,
East Lansing,

Custom work rates in Michigan. Cooperative Exten­
Extension B u l l e t i n E-458. Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y ,
Michigan. (August).

171

Siemens, J . , 1980. Se lec t machinery
to complete job in optimum time
p er iod.
In: Farming w i t h Amoco, 1980, Number 4.
Products and
P r i c i n g Department, Amoco Oil Company, 200 East Randolph D r iv e ,
Chicago, I l l i n o i s 60601.
Singh, Devinder, 1978.
F i e l d machinery systems modeling and r e q u i r e ­
ments f o r selected Michigan cash crop production systems.
Ph.D.
D issertation, A gricu ltu ra l
Engineering Department, Michigan State
U n i v e r s i t y , East Lansing, Michigan.
Smith, E.S. and O l i v e r J . D . , 1974. Annuity approach to machinery costs.
Transactions of the ASAE.
American Society of A g r i c u l t u r a l
Engi­
neers, P.O. Box 410, St. Joseph, MI 49085. pp. 796-797.
Spence, J . T . , Cotton, J . W., Underwood, B. J . and Duncan, C. P ., 1976.
Elementary S t a t i s t i c s .
P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.
S t a t i s t i c a l Algorithums Package. (SPSS). 1975.
On the Michigan State
U n i v e r s i t y Computer Laboratory System. East Lansing, MI 48824.
Turner, J . H . , 1980.
Planning f o r an I r r i g a t i o n System. (2nd E d .) ,
American As s o c ia t io n f o r Vocational I n s t r u c t i o n a l M a t e r i a l s , AAVIM,
120 Engineering Center, Athens, Georgia 30602.
United States Department of A g r i c u l t u r e 1963-1982. A g r i c u l t u r a l S t a t i s ­
t i c s 1963-1982.
Superintendent o f Documents, Washington, D.C.
20402.
United States Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e .
1965. Termination o f the
Bracero Program.
A g r i c u l t u r a l Economic Report Number 77, Economic
Research Se rv ic e , Washington, D.C. 20250.
Wolak, F. J . , 1981. Development o f
a f i e l d machinery s e le c t io n model.
Ph. D.
D issertation,
Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l
Engineering,
Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y , East Lansing, Michigan.
Wri ght , A . , 1970.
"Farming Systems Models and S i m u l a t i o n . "
In : J . B.
Dent and J . R. Anderson, Systems Analys is in A g r i c u l t u r a l
Manage­
ment. John Wiley and Sons. Sydney.