Portrayal of the Gods Essay Example for Free

Portrayal of the Gods Essay Gilgamesh was an historical king of Uruk in Babylonia, on the River Euphrates in modern Iraq. It revolves around the relationship between Gilgamesh, who has become distracted and disheartened by his rule, and a friend, Enkidu, who is half-wild and who undertakes dangerous quests with him. In the epic of Gilgamesh and in the lives of the Mesopotamian the gods where portrayed as self-serving arrogant beings. These beings created the human race as slaves for the gods and so a human in the view of an early Mesopotamian had better do what the gods said if they wanted to live a happy life. We see gods that that do not really care about the lives of the Mesopotamian. The Mesopotamian could not depend on the safety of a strong government. The lack of a strong government was caused by many different factors and one of the main factors that brought about a weak government in the land of the Mesopotamia, was the lack of a reliable food source. The unreliable food source was due to the lack of a reliable source of farmland. Moreover, this lack of farmland was due mostly to the ever-changing rivers that surrounded the early civilizations that believed in these harsh gods. These peoples could not depend on a predictable flood pattern from the Tigris or the Euphrates. This fact above all, is the reason that the view of mean uncaring gods came about for the lives of these early people. One year a village could be right next to the Tigris but in the next year, they’ll be a mile away from the river thus destroying the type of economy that the village had in the previous year. Living with this, the people of the early civilizations blamed this hardship on the gods. These people did not think that the gods were all bad though, but just thought that they did not care about human existence because, as they believed, humans were created by many gods and for the sole service of these gods that created them. We conclude that these gods are always out to get the humans in whatever endeavor they may take up. Gilgamesh and Enkidu learn all too well that the gods are dangerous for mortals. Gods live by their own laws and frequently behave as emotionally and irrationally as children. Piety is important to the gods, and they expect obedience and flattery whenever possible. They can often be helpful, but angering them is sheer madness, and a characters reverence for the gods is no guarantee of safety. He is rich in religious symbolism. Religious rituals in Mesopotamia involved sacrifices, festivals, sex, dream interpretation, and shamanic magic. The walls of Uruk symbolize the great accomplishments of which mortals are capable. The epic of Gilgamesh differs markedly from that of the Judeo-Christian tradition, in which God is both a partner in a covenant and a stern but loving parent to his people. The covenant promises that people will receive an earthly or heavenly inheritance if they behave well. The Judeo-Christian God represents not just what is most powerful but what is morally best, humans should aspire to imitate him. These differences are noteworthy because Gilgamesh also shares certain common elements with the Judeo-Christian Bible. The bible and Gilgamesh are written in both languages. In Oedipus Tyrannus, it talks about the Ancient Greece where a lot was not understood; science was merely an infant and everything that happened was explained as an act of the gods or fate. Gods were the pinnacle of power; existing since the dawn of time. They were immortal, omnipresent, and omnipotent. Different gods had different personalities. In this sense, the gods were anthropomorphic. Having such mastery of the world would enable them to control man’s behavior. Fate is the idea that people’s lives are predetermined and that no matter what is done, fate cannot be changed. With the gods it was used to explore events that seemed unexplainable. It is clear that a betrayal of the god’s dominance resulted in Laius and Jocasta’s education. Oedipus is the victim of both fate and circumstance. Apollo is the God behind the nebulous conspiration involving Oedipus. Oracular god hides what he reveals through his oracles. Here is evidence of the Greek theories, which contempt for the gods leads to pain and suffering. As a result he is punished in a way that is more severe than even death. There is also the fact of knowing that his mother is suffering terrible pain. In the embattle of Oedipus, fighting for his own life, the god is present as an old prediction, inescapable for sure, but acting as background for the development of facts, or better, for the discovery of what had already happened. Oedipus experiences great grief when he looks back and realizes how much he has fallen from his former perch of power. This end is not only ironic but also cruel. Arachne was so apt at weaving that she challenged the god Athene to a contest. Oedipus certainly is not one without flaws. His pride, ignorance, insolence and disbelief in the gods, and unrelenting quest for the truth ultimately contributed to his destruction. The tragedy brought this evolution in the way of analyzing the relationship between the Greek gods and man, giving the latter more freedom of action. When Oedipus was told that he was responsible for the murder of Laius, he became enraged and calls the old oracle a liar. He ran away from his home, Corinth, in hopes of outsmarting the gods divine will. Like his father, he also sought ways to escape the horrible destiny told by the oracle of Apollo. The chorus warns us of man’s need to have reverence for the gods, and the dangers of too much pride. If a man walks with haughtiness of hand or word and gives no heed to Justice and the shrines of Gods despises, may an evil doom smite him for his ill, starred pride of heart. If he reaps gains without justice and will not hold from impiety and his fingers itch for untouchable things. When such things are done, what man shall contrive to shield his soul from the shafts of the God? †(pp. 452). Finally, the Greeks are warned that the only way to happiness is through humility and respect towards the gods. In the book â€Å"Monkey† by Wu Cheng, Sun Wukong, realized that despite his power over the monkeys, he was just like them, and was not beyond mortality. His determination to find immortality made him to travel on a raft to civilized lands where he was made the disciple of a Buddhist. Through his travels, he was able to acquire human speech and manners. He established himself as one of the most powerful and influential demons in the world and traveled into the ocean where he got the weapons that suited him. Hoping that a promotion and a rank amongst the gods would make him more manageable, the Jade emperor invited Wukong to Heaven, where the monkey believed he would receive an honorable place as one of the gods. Instead, he was made the head of heavenly stables to watch over horses. He went against the gods when he discovered what he was doing, and proclaimed himself as the great sage, and teamed up with the most powerful demons on earth. Although the heavens recognized the title of the monkey, their attempt to subdue the monkey king was unsuccessful. Wukong’s indignation turned into open defiance when he realized that he was excluded from a royal meeting that included that god and the goddess. After stealing the empress Xi Wangmu’s peaches of immortality and the Jade Emperor’s royal wine, he escaped back to his kingdom in preparation for his rebellion. Finally he proved himself equal to the best of Heaven’s generals when he defeated the army of heavens. Conclusion In the three books, it’s evident that the gods were caring and if one goes against their will, there was a repercussion for that. The gods are the pinnacle of power who takes control of all the things in the world. Different gods have different personalities and deeds. Gilgamesh learns that the gods are dangerous for mortals. Gods live by their own laws and frequently behave as emotionally and irrationally as children. Piety is important to the gods, and they expect obedience and flattery whenever possible.

Film Analysis of Bowling for Columbine by Michael Moore Essay -- Movie

Film Analysis of Bowling for Columbine by Michael Moore In the recent film â€Å"Bowling for Columbine,† Michael Moore claims that fear drives people to violence; a short animation clip is also used by Michael Moore to depict the history of the United States in the documentary. The animation brought out a number of issues that set people thinking. Issues on race, fear and violence are also discussed in the documentary (as well as the interview of Oprah Winfrey and Michael Moore.)It is shocking to realize how people have got involved in the culture of fear, and violence. The discrimination of the blacks in America is also discussed in the film. Having watched this documentary, I was totally appalled. Thoughts went through my head, and questions were left unanswered. Are people treated justly and equally? It seems to me that the answer is no. The world did not seem safe anymore, and an example of that being that bullets were made easily available in stores such as â€Å"K-mart†. â€Å"It’s an American tradition; it’s an American responsibility to be armed. If you’re not armed you’re not responsible.† is a quote given by a militia member. It seems to me that the Americans are caught up in their own world only worried about themselves. There is some form of self-obsession going on in the country, as people only care about their own well being, and another example is a quote given by a female militia member â€Å"Because, being a female, for one, I felt it was important to be able to protect myself with the best means possible. And one of those means is having a gun. When a criminal breaks in to your house, who is the first person you’re going to call? M... ... of guns, for example the killings of student in Columbine. In my opinion, â€Å"The biggest problem has been the gun possession by these adolescents in suburbia.† The six year old boy killing his classmate as the gun was of easy accessibility. All of these could have been avoided if fewer guns are involved. And with fewer guns, there would be less violence, more peace and security for the citizens of America. Thus in conclusion, I believe that more effort could be put in to stop all the issues of fear, killings and discrimination. Most of the issues could be avoided if people stopped being so paranoid and self-centred. I believe that the issues on killings and violence can be resolved peacefully without the involvement of guns. If people were to trust each other more, the world would be a much better place to live in.

Sample Costs to Produce Processing Tomatoes

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

My Speech On My Life - 1594 Words

Dragging myself home from school, I walked into my house with tearful eyes thinking my life stood unbearable. My entire family saw me enter the house without an ounce of glee, wondering what black cloud surrounded my thoughts. After years of fantasizing about the life I always desired, the breaking point came and swallowed me whole without warning. My patience began to diminish over time, consequently leading to the most important talk of my life. Walking into my room with a ball of frustration in my throat, my dad follows, like a shadow, with his concerned words. We sit down and he immediately understands my sorrow, as we spoke before about my undying impatience millions of times before. As we spoke, my dad said, â€Å"Good things come in time.† No other five words have ever touched my heart like those did at that very moment. In the blink of an eye, time flew by and my father and I spoke for three uninterrupted, godly hours that changed the course of my life. From that day f orward, I knew that exhibiting patience would determine my success in life. Throughout all of my middle school years, I dreamed about representing my school to the best of my ability on the basketball court. Making the basketball team stood as the holy grail at that time in my life, and I needed to do everything possible to achieve it. With sharpened basketball skills and a mind of a coach, I felt confident in my chances of making the team. When the day of tryouts came in my sixth-grade year, I foundShow MoreRelatedMy Speech On My Life1355 Words   |  6 Pagesevent has changed my life not for the better, but for the worst. My thought process is broken beyond repair. I have always hated everything about myself as long as I can remember. I started losing passions in the things that kept me sane. I have changed and will never be the same again. Over the years my hatred towards myself has became an unbearable pain to live with. In elementary school, I began to hate my skin color. I can not remember the exact reason why, but I know that my self-hatred had somethingRead MoreMy Speech On My Life1162 Words   |  5 PagesI just feel better with him by my side. I know I can t tell him that, I can t seem to tell him even the simplest of things. When I got home there was no one there, I called the hospital to see if my father was there. It turned out when I was at school he got up to go to the bathroom alone and fell and could not help himself up. I tired to talk to him on the phone but he hung up we he found out it was me and not my brother. I don t know what everyone sees in my brother. I understand that I amRead MoreMy Speech On My Life922 Words   |  4 Pages My mom always says everything happens for a reason, I use to never believe that because of everything happened to us. I was only 6 and 11 months old when my parents, Sumaya and Abraham, told me the news that changed my perfect life. We lived in Chicago at the moment, the house in front of the big park. My mother would take me to the park every day after she picked me up from school, which was only two blocks away from the house. We would go home and eat, do homework, shower, and then we would layRead MoreMy Speech On My Life1357 Words   |  6 Pagesmonths I have been going about my life. Working, exercising, giving value back to others but I felt a lack of spark. It was as if everything I was doing was simply for the sake of it and it seemed that everything I was doing was lacking the depth and significance that I loved. The clock ticked. November 1st came and something magical happened. november I simply stopped where I was, looked up at the sky and began to use my imagination. I shut out the world, closed my eyes and began to imagine allRead MoreA Speech On My Life1572 Words   |  7 Pagesmoment in my life I see myself as a young woman who wants to accomplish my goals in completing my career and becoming a mentor to kids around me. For instance, one of the values I have that my parents have instructed me was to be a part of an influence in someone else s live. My parents have always told me to have a goal to influence others to make a right decision or help them out. Therefore, my parents have grown in me a caring person to others and help others around me. Therefore, my interestRead MoreA Speech On My Life Essay921 Words   |  4 PagesWelcome to my life Education is â€Å"key† to succeed in today’s society as I see it. Individuals whom have been out of school for many years can feel their knowledge slowly fade away. Some individuals can possibly relate? I have experienced this feeling myself. I have began to seek motivation within myself by submitting an application to Suu. Right then and there I knew I was on the right track to build confidence within and quit doubting myself. Some subjects have been a struggle for me while growingRead MoreGraduation Speech : My Life977 Words   |  4 PagesUniversity. My parents were hosting a graduation brunch for me at the scenic Valley Green Inn in Philadelphia’s historic Fairmount Park. There were over a hundred guests present that day, a mix of family, friends, and others who made an impact on me over the course of my life. It was just a few short months away from the beginning of law school. I remember looking over at my parents shortly after the brunch began; my mother was looking at me and her eyes were filled with tears. Next to her, my dad wasRead MoreGraduation Speech : My Life1578 Words   |  7 Pages Looking back at all I’ve accomplished through out my K-12 years I’ve realized it’s taught me so much about life. In elementary I was taught my manners while incorporating basic subjects such as math, reading, writing, etc. I can remember how prestigious nap times were and the little snack breaks I used to have during class. Those days were the best days. My first academic success actually came in the third grade when I was on the honor roll all four quarters of the school year. I didn’t think beingRead MoreGraduation Speech : My Life1141 Words   |  5 Pages Friends that we make from our high school years are the ones that we will have for a lifetime. And I am glad I made some friends during the course of my high school years. Those fr iendships, hopefully, would travel with me until I enter college, the world of adulthood, and the very last stage of my life—death. One of those friendships, one of my treasures, is between Ryan and me. He and I first met in a math class back in freshman year. It was the first day of school, and everything—classmates,Read MoreGraduation Speech : My Life1317 Words   |  6 PagesIf someone were to ask me a couple years ago if graduate studies were in my plans, my reply would be â€Å"absolutely not!† Back then, there was not really a good reason that motivated me to continue my education after graduating with a degree in Public Health Education. The mere thought of more school exhausted me. Though my mentality seemingly changed, one thing that cannot be denied is my love for the game of basketball, which has been almost cruelly ignored until recently. The countless times