Profitability of

Different Apple
Systems in
Eastern Un.i

Dep~ of Hortkulture
{, 'V'Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center
~Ohio
This page intentionally blank.
Table of Contents

Preface ........................................................ i
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Orchard and Farm Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Return Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Internal Rate of Return . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Influence of Farm Size on Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Returns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Internal Rate of Return . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Sensitivity Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Conclusions ................................................... 13
Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix B .................................................. 27
Appendix C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Preface
Predicting the costs and returns of apples over a long period of time requires a huge amount of data. Without
the dedicated researcher, who has taken data over a 10 to 15 year period of time, an analysis of this type could
not be completed. Furthermore, apple growers can not make proper decisions without sound advice. Therefore,
the authors gratefully acknowledge the following researchers for their dedication: Drs. David C. Ferree, Donald
C. Elfving, Stephen S. Miller, and Loren D. Tukey.
Special appreciation is extended to Marilyn Baehr, who provided assistance in the analysis, to Mary Jo Weaver
who typed the report, and to Ron Slonaker and Dave Davis who provided valuable information on costs. We
also extend thanks to the review committee at the Pennsylvania State University consisting of Dr. Jay Harper,
Dr. George Greene and Mr. Roland Freund and to the review committee at West Virginia University consisting
of Professor Kendall Elliott and Dr. Alan Collins.
It is because of our sincere commitment to the concern for the eastern apple grower that we initiated this
study. Apple growers and taxpayers, alike, have provided private, federal, and state dollars to produce this report.
We estimate that the data represents approximately 4.7 scientific man-years and 1.3 years of support or about
$800,000 dollars from public funds and approximately another $80,000 from grower support in three states and
Canada. Research is a wise investment for apple growers who need to be competitive in a global market.

Richard C. Funt
March 1992

All publications of the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center are available to all potential clientele on a nondiscriminatory
basis without regard to race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, sex, age, handicap, or Vietnam-era veteran status.
3/92-1.25M
 for preparing the soil for planting. risk. Therefore, growers should use
Foreword The costs in this analysis do not this information as a guide only. If
Using This Information on include fumigation, irrigation, frost a grower requires a higher level of
Your Farm protection, or tile drainage. A land analysis for cultivars and systems or
charge of $2,000 per acre is used in an analysis that differs from those
The information in this bulletin the cost of year zero and as a return used in this study, additional infor-
reflects a whole-farm analysis of in year 15 in the IRR analysis. An mation is necessary.
costs and returns. Costs of materials annual land rental or interest charge Farm size (total acres per farm)
and products are listed in Appendix is not included. All equipment, can make a difference in costs. In
A. Yields and packout for the labor, material, and overhead costs this study, farm size was a factor in
analysis of each cultivar and system are included. The price received for returns on investment. Therefore
were estimated, based on records apples is based on the 1985 through select the tables in Appendix C
from the results of university 1989 seasons for fresh and processing which show the farm size that is
research (Appendix B). Annual markets. nearest to your present tree fruit
summations of costs and returns per Growers can use this information acreage. There were no differences
year were calculated (Appendix C) to consider which orchard system in yield or packout for different farm
and an internal rate of return (IRR) may provide the highest rate of sizes.
analysis was used to determine a rate return over the first 15 years of or- Personal computers and specific
of return on investment over the first chard life. Growers, who have software packages can be helpful to
15 of apple production. The several years of data can compare individual growers or groups of
appendices (A, B, and C) show the their records to the appendix tables. growers to find answers to more
values used to derive the costs and However, each grower has a unique specific questions. This software
returns that are estimated over a set of resources, a unique manage- should be available by early 1993.
15-year period, with year zero used ment style, and a different level of

ii
Profitability of Different Apple Orchard Systems
in the Eastern United States
Richard C. Funt Tara A. Baugher and Henry W. Hogmire William C. Kleiner
The Ohio State University West Virginia University The Pennsylvania State University

regarding the selection of orchard 2) modified slender spindle, in-

Introduction systems. Decisions made at planting dividually staked, having 340
Apple growers produce and are critical to the overall profitability TIA
market a crop that requires a large of a long-term investment such as 3) palmette four wire trellis, hav-
investment in labor, equipment, and apples. ing either 605 or 726 T/A
chemicals. Success in the orchard is Comparisons of the profitability of 4) modified slender spindle, in-
a combination of good management new technological innovations re- dividually staked with one wire
and sound business practices. quire economic analyses of entire support, having either 605 or
Eastern apple growers are faced with systems. When the life of an orchard 726 T/A.
domestic and foreign competition for extends over many years, the timing Farm sizes of 40, 80, and 160 acres
a larger share of fresh and processing of costs and returns becomes crucial (A) were chosen to demonstrate the
markets. To reduce the risk of to the analysis. Annual accounting effect of cost. These farms had 30,
making mistakes in planting new or- for enterprise costs and returns must 60, and 120 A producing fruit, such
chard systems, considerable infor- be calculated over a period of time as apples, peaches, or cherries,
mation is required. and discounting procedures are where the same equipment is used.
High density systems using necessary. Production of apples for both the
dwarfing rootstocks have been fresh and processing markets was
planted because of reported higher evaluated for each density. York Im-
yields early in the life of an orchard, Objectives perial and Golden Delicious were
improved fruit size and color, easier selected for the processing analyses.
The objectives of this study were to:
pruning and harvesting and lower Golden Delicious and Red Delicious
1) examine alternative orchard were selected for fresh market
costs per unit. Intensive modern systems suitable for eastern
orchards require a large initial invest- analyses. Growers should select the
growers for the 1990's. best rootstock for a given site and the
ment, increased management skills, 2) develop annual costs and
good soil and site selection and high spacing/system that gives the highest
returns for the initial 15 years return based on excellent manage-
quality trees to obtain high early of orchard production which
returns. Making a positive return ment skills. Suggested rootstocks and
reflect "typical" orchard spacings are listed in Table 1.
with standard rootstocks was difficult management and cultural
in the late 1980's because fruit was conditions.
generally smaller and poorly 3) demonstrate the relative pro-
colored. Yields were frequently Cost estimates
fitability of several cultivars,
lower. (Ricks, 1991). systems, and farm sizes. Total annual costs were calculated
In recent years, horticulturists over a 16 year period of time for each
from Europe have explained new cultivar and system. The year of
technologies and different orchard Orchard and Farm preparation was considered as year
systems, which have demonstrated 'zero' and the first year was the year
Descriptions
the potential for high yields, but of planting. Annual costs included
appear to have high material and Four different orchard systems were labor for both supervisory (owner,
labor costs. If apple growers in the chosen for an economic analysis: operator) and field workers plus a
eastern US are to remain competitive 1) free standing central leader management charge of 10 percent
and efficient, they need information system having 141 trees per (%) based upon the number of total
that will guide their decisions acre (T/A) hours of labor. Harvesting costs
 (Appendix A, Table 1). Nutrients and
Table 1. Description of Different Orchard Systems. pesticides were applied annually
Trees/acre System Rootstock Spacing1 (Appendix A, Table 4). The cost of
wind machines, irrigation, and
141 Free Standing Central Leader M.7 or Spur 16'x24' storage for processed apples were not
type/MM111
included. The cost of storage for
340 Modified Slender Spindle MARK or M.26 8'x16'
fresh market apples was subtracted
605 Palmette Trellis MARK or M.9 6'x12'
605 Modified Slender Spindle MARK or M.9 6'x12'
from the price received (Appendix A,
726 Palmette Trellis MARK or M.9 5'x12' Table 16, 19 and 20). It was assumed
726 Modified Slender Spindle MARK or M.9 5'x12' that fifty percent of all apples, after
the first two years of production,
1Treesare spaced in the row at 16' and 24' between rows, etc. Mature trees are were held in long term storage with
approximately the same height as in the row spacing. half of the stored apples (25% of
total) in controlled atmosphere
storage. All apples produced during
the first two years were sold
Table 2. Harvesting Cost Per Bushel For Different Farm Sizes, 19901. immediately at harvest.
Farm Size Equipment costs were obtained
from dealers and were based on the
Market 4QA2 8QA3 160A4 estimated number of hours of use per
Processed $.86 $.91 $1.05 year by farm size (Appendix A,
Fresh $.92 $.97 $1.11 Tables 5, 7 and 8). Straight line
depreciation was used at 15, 12, and
,Derived from Appendix A, Tables 15 and 21. 10 years for a 40, 80 and 160 A farm,
2 Does not include housing or crew leader charge.
31ncludes housing charge but no crew leader charge. respectively. Interest was assumed to
4lncludes housing and crew leader charge. be 11% annually. Insurance and
shelter costs were included. Fuel,
lubrication and repairs were based on
and transportation of fruit to a pro- equations as described in the
Table 3. Labor and Benefits cessor, packing plant or refrigerated Agricultural Engineers Handbook,
for late 19901.
storage. 1985. Equipment was matched to tree
Supervisory: $9.52/hour The estimates of labor required for size and orchard system. Smaller and
Hourly: 6.15/hour establishing the orchard and install- less expensive tractors, sprayers, and
Pruning/Grading: 5.06/hour ing a support system were based on mowers were used in the 605 and 726
Piece rate2: previous reports and included the use T/A systems than in the 141 and 340
Processed $ .50/bushel of a tree planter capable of planting T/A systems (Table 4). A hydraulic
Fresh .56/bushel at the rate of 200 trees per hour ladder was used for pruning from
(Funt, 1979). Labor requirements for year 8 to year 15 for trees in the 141
llncludes benefits at 20%, 16% winter and summer pruning and T/A system. In the preparation and
and 15% for supervisory, hourly training were developed from records establishment years all farms used
and pruning/grading labor,
respectively. at the Ohio Agricultural Research and (rented) the same size equipment for
2Total cost per bushel for harvest- Development Center (Ferree, 1990; cultivation and planting (Appendix
ing apples includes benefits as
shown in Appendix A, Table 15. Appendix A, Tables 9 to 14). A, Table 8).
Material costs for each year in- A land cost value of $2,000 per
cluded fertilizer, lime, pesticides, and acre was used. The same value was
increased on a per bushel basis with rodent control. In all systems, the soil used as a salvage (return) value at the
farm size (Table 2). Labor rates were was prepared before planting (year 0) end of the different production
determined from national wages paid by incorporating lime and fertilizer periods of 5, 10, and 15 years.
in late 1990 (Ohio Ag. Statistics, by cultivation. Fumigation and tile Overhead costs, based on a farm
1990) and are shown in Table 3. All drainage were not included. size of 40, 80, or 160 A were
apples were hand harvested. Labor The trees and the support system estimated. These costs are those that
was also included for bin distribution were established in the first year are applied across the farm and can

2
not be specifically charged to a moving average will increase yields as tray packs (72 to 125 size) in a
particular enterprise (Appendix A, mathematically. It will also 42-pound box as U.S. Combination
Tables 2 and 3). underestimate yields in the last two Extra Fancy/Fancy grade. The re-
years; therfore, these were also maining fruit were packed into
adjusted. 12-3-pound film bags as U.S. Fancy
Return estimates Apple prices, received by growers, or better grade. All fruit in the 2 1,4
Yield and fruit size estimates for were obtained from reports of the to 2 3/4 inch diameter range were
the different systems and cultivars Federal State News Service 1985 sold as U.S. Fancy in film bags.
were based on long term records through 1989 for both fresh market
from Dr. Loren Tukey, The Penn- and processing apples. Any
Internal Rate of Return
sylvania State University, Dr. David blemished or russeted fruit were
Ferree, The Ohio State University, considered juice apples. A Golden The internal rate of return (IRR)
Dr. Stephen Miller, USDA-AFRS at Delicious strain having a low amount analysis is a discounted cash flow
Kearneysville, WV; and Dr. Don of russeting was considered for both method used to compare the cost and
Elfving, Simcoe Station, Canada. markets. Fruit, left in the field or return streams over the expected life
Modifications were made to estimate unfit after storage, were considered of fruit crops (Funt, 1986). It is par-
dropped and culled fruit and to be culls/shrink and received no ticularly useful where annual costs
shrinkage of fruit in storage (Appen- returns. Since fruit from the first two and returns occur at different
dix B, Tables 1 to 12). A five-year years of production were considered volumes in different years. Decisions
moving average was used to provide to be harvested and sold immedi- made at planting, regarding tree den-
a more conservative yield curve and ately, they had the lowest percentage sity, interest rates, markets, and
to make the data from various loca- of drops or culls/shrink. As yields system of culture, can affect the
tions more comparable. Adjustments increased, a higher number of drops return over the life of the crop. It is
were made to lower the estimated or culls/shrink fruit would occur, understood that all monies received
yields for the first one or two years regardless of the system or farm size. for a system are reinvested in the
of production since a five-year Fifty percent of the fruit were sold same system.

Table 4. Tractor and Sprayer Size for 40, 80, or 160 Acre Orchard, 1990.

Tree Density FARM1

(Trees/Acre) 40A BOA 160A Other

55D/2 w. cab 650/2 w. cab 850/2 w. cab One Hydraulic Ladder (8th yr)-
141 450/42 450/4 550/2 40 & 80 A
450/4 Two Hydraulic Ladders-160A
300 Gal. 400 Gal. 500 Gal. Two Forklifts-160A
55D/2 w. cab 65D/2 w. cab 850/2 w. cab
340 450/4 450/4 550/2 Two Forklifts-160A
450/4
300 Gal. 400 Gal. 500 Gal.
605, Trellis, Spindle 45D/2 w. cab 55D/2 w. cab 65D/2 w. cab
28D/4 28D/4 450/2 Two Forklifts-160A
280/4
100 Gal. 300 Gal. 400 Gal.
726, Trellis, Spindle 45D/2 w. cab 55D/2 w. cab 650/2 w. cab
280/4 28D/4 450/2 Two Forklifts-160A
280/4
100 Gal. 300 Gal. 400 Gal.

1AII equipment depreciated at 15, 12 or 10 yr. life on 40, 80 and 160 A farm, respectively.
2 450 tractor needed for forklift and bin removal. A 450/4 is a 45 horsepower diesel tractor with power to all four wheels.

3
 Investment appraisal of future profitability. A personal computer
costs and returns must take into using Lotus 1-2-3 software (2:2) was
Results
account the timing by the process of used to calculate the IRR (Appendix
Costs
discounting. Simple interest would C, Tables 1 to 18). Apple growers,
make $110 next year from $100 who have data similar to that used Apples require a large initial in-
invested at 10% rate of return. The in this study, can make decisions vestment in land preparation, trees,
same process can be done in reverse about future plantings. However, support systems, labor, and equip-
(discount) in order to bring some many growers will need additional ment. These costs occur several
future amount back to the present. assistance from their own records of years before the trees bear fruit. In
The process of discounting for time past performance and data from their the early bearing years, the trees are
is based on the concept that the same local research station about different small and immature and the number
amount of money received today is cultivars and systems. Software such of fruit per tree is much less than in
worth more than it would be tomor- as Market Model, may be helpful to later years. Planting more and
row. A ten percent return received growers (Funt, 1989). smaller trees per acre can increase
early on an investment is better than A sensitivity analysis was total yields. However, more trees per
10% return received on the same conducted to answer some specific acre require a higher investment in
investment at a later time. Receiving questions such as 1) what if apple both trees and support systems.
$1,000 five years from now would be prices increase as they did in 1989 The unsupported free standing
worth $621 today at 10%. Investments and 1990? 2) what if my costs can system with 141 T/A had the lowest
grow based on the compounding be reduced? 3) what if prices for establishment cost and the lowest
effect (interest on interest). When trees and support systems can be average cost per tree (Table 5). This
investments are returned early they reduced? Such an analysis over the system had the lowest equipment
can be reinvested in the enterprise life of the planting can assist growers labor requirement, but it also had the
or at a new higher performing in establishing economic priorities lowest yield (Figures 1 and 2). It had
investment. This is better than con- and in deciding where to place their lower yields than other systems
tinuing to pay interest on borrowed efforts in management. The sen- during the first five years.
money for a later return. sitivity analysis indicates those areas The 340 T/A, modified spindle
No one can predict a specific year that are more highly susceptible to system had a higher average cost per
when crop yields might be reduced greater reductions or increases in the tree than the 141 T/A system because
severely. However, yields and relative profitability over the life of of a single stake used for initial train-
packout estimates from a region over the orchard. ing. It had the fewest average number
a period of 5 to 15 years provide the
best long term expectations.
Certainly, if hail affects an orchard Table 5. Establishment Cost for Different Apple Orchard Systems,
investment of $1,500 as compared to 1990.
$5,000 there is a lower amount of Trees/Acre and Orchard Systems,
loss. Again, judgments made at
Item 141 3405 2 605T 6055 726T 7265
planting as to soil, site, and risk of
hail should be considered in the long Trees $663 $1598 $3116 $3116 $3739 $3739
term risk of large investments. Support
In this study, total annual costs and Material 442 1205 1008 1213 1075
total annual returns for each system Labor 52 301 230 308 249
and farm size for each year were Equipment 71 14 71 14
Labor3 22 44 65 65 76 76
computed. One year of preparation
Equipment 28 56 84 84 99 99
prior to planting was included.
Rodent Control 56 136 242 242 290 290
Yields and packout, based on the Total Cost/Acre4 $769 $2328 $5084 $4759 $5796 $5542
best available data, were estimated. Avg. CostfTree $5.45 $6.85 $8.40 $7.87 $7.98 $7.63
A five-year moving average was used
to account for sharp upward or 1AII costs are rounded to nearest dollar and are not discounted.
2T= 4 wire palmette; S=staked slender spindle.
downward yield fluctuations. An 3AII systems planted with tree planter at 200 trees/hour.
internal rate of return analysis was 4 Does not include overhead, land charge or interest on operating expenses.

conducted as a measure of relative

4
of hours of pruning (Figure 3). As a increased the cost per hour (Figure decreased. As tree size decreased
measure of efficiency this equals 30 5). However, the 40 A farm was (density increased), smaller tractors
bushels produced per hour of prun- compensated somewhat by having a and sprayers could be used at a lower
ing for Golden Delicious, while other 15-year straight line depreciation cost per hour than in low density
systems ranged from 25 bushels in schedule as compared to 12 and systems.
141 T/A, to 23 bushels in 605 T/A and 10-year depreciation schedules for The 160 A farm had a 53 percent
21 bushels in 726 T/A. Yields and fruit the 80 and 160 A farms, respectively. lower total annual overhead cost than
size were higher in the 340 T/A system As farm size increased, the per the 40 A farm (Figure 6). Certain
during the first five years of produc- acre cost of a tractor and sprayer costs, such as taxes and toilet rental,
tion than the 141 T/A system.
Palmette trellis systems, consisting
of 605 and 726 T/A, had a higher 8
cost per tree than the spindle 7
systems. The 605 T/A trellis had a 6
....:

--
higher cost per tree than the 726 T/A
trellis because it had the same trellis >- 5
system, but fewer trees. In the early <( 4
years the 726 TIA trellis system had 3
~
the greatest number of hours of prun- :r:
ing and training of all systems. The 2
trellis and spindle systems had 1
similar yields and fruit size and had
0
the highest production of all systems 141 340 605 726
in the first five years.
Of the higher density systems, the
726 T/A spindle system had the
Trees I Acre
lowest average cost per tree. In the Figure 1. Average number of equipment labor hours
early years the 726 and 605 T/A to apply pesticides per acre per year for different
spindle systems had fewer average orchard densities. (Source: Appendix A, Table 6)
hours of pruning than the same tree
density on trellis. However, after the
eighth year, the spindle systems had
more hours of pruning per year than
500
the trellis system. The Spur Red
Delicious cultivar had 35 to 40% 400
fewer hours of pruning than either
York Imperial or Golden Delicious, ..._
Q)
(.) 300
regardless of the system.
As the number of trees and rows
increased per acre, the hours of
-
<(

::J
a:l 200
equipment usage for pesticide
applications increased. As tree size 100
decreased, smaller sized and less
expensive equipment was used. The
net effect of total cost for a tractor 0
141 340 605 726
and sprayer is shown in Figure 4.

Trees I Acre
Influence of Farm Size Figure 2. Average yield per acre for the first five years
on Costs of production of three cultivars for different densities.
The 40 A farm had fewer hours of (Source: Appendix B)
equipment use per year which

5
did not vary greatly from farm to The harvest labor cost was lower would provide housing. Since the
farm. However, the expense of a for the 40 A farm (Table 2). Local 160 A farm would require additional
pickup truck was approximately $24 labor could be hired to harvest the management during harvest an
per acre for the 160 A farm and $75 crop and there would be no housing additional management fee was
per acre for the 40 A farm. cost. Both the 80 and 160 A farms charged. The total harvest costs per
bushel are derived from Appendix
A, Tables 15 and 21.

50 Returns
45
40 The value of an apple crop is
dependent upon the yield, grade,
35
size, and price received which differs
e:? 30
(.) among cultivars and markets. The
-
<(

I
~
25
20
15
average fresh and processing market
prices used in this study were some
of the lowest obtained by eastern
10 growers in many years. Fresh market
5 prices per pound were higher than
0 those for processing.
141 340 605T 726T 605S 726S The 141 T/A unsupported free
standing system had the lowest total
Trees I Acre returns (Appendix C, Tables 1 to 18).
The high density supported systems
Figure 3. Average hours per year to prune 'Golden
with 605 and 726 T/A had the
Delicious' apple trees for the first eight years and
highest total returns. The higher
for years nine to 15. (Source: Appendix A, Tables
density spindle systems had the
9-14)
highest percentage of large fruit and
yields in the first five years of
production. The high density
systems were only slightly higher in
yield as compared to the other
140 systems in the last several years of
production. These higher and earlier
120
returns are essential to long term
100 profitability.
--
EA-
80
The lowest net return over a 15
year period was with York Imperial
1i5
0 60 on the high density trellis system.
(..)
The modified slender spindle system
40 with 340 T/A had the highest net
20 return per bushel for York Imperial
and Red Delicious, and for Golden
0 Delicious on a 40 A farm for pro-
141 340 605 726
cessing. The 605 T/A spindle system
had the highest net return per bushel
Trees I Acre for Golden Delicious, excluding the
Figure 4. Estimated average annual total cost per 40 A system for processing (Tables
acre for tractor and sprayer, 80 acre farm, 1990. 6 and 7). Processing cultivars had
(Source: Appendix A, Tables 6 and 7) lower net returns than fresh market
cultivars.

6
Internal rate of return cultivar. The 40 A farm had a lower higher priced cultivars and earlier
rate of return than either the 80 or producing systems, annual returns
Annual summations of costs and 160 A farm because it had a higher exceeded annual costs much earlier
returns over many years do not take total cost, particularly for equipment (second or third year of production)
into consideration the effect that time and overhead. and to a greater extent than in lower
has on investments. To provide a Higher inte"rnal rates of return priced cultivars and later producing
measure for differences among were obtained with 15 years of pro- systems (Figure 7). Furthermore
systems or cultivars, a one percent duction than with 10 years of produc- higher internal rates of return were
or greater difference in the rate of tion because the initial, non bearing ~btained over 15 years when all
return is considered to be significant. costs, had been paid and annual costs returns were increased by 10% . In
If a difference is less than one were lower than annual returns in the 1989 and 1990, prices for process-
percent, the system or cultivar later years (Tables 10 and 11). In the ing apples increased by 17% . While
comparison would be considered to
be the same. This consideration is
especially true when long term 30
economic studies are conducted F.J141 & 340 T/A
because of the many biological 25 .605 & 726 T/A
variables that cannot be totally and --.
~ 20
accurately predicted. ......
~

--
0
The highest internal rate of return I 15
was for the 340 T/A modified
spindle system for 10 years of orchard 0
(f) 10
(..)
life (Tables 8 and 9). The 141 T/A free
5
standing system had the lowest rate
of return except for Red Delicious 0
with the 726 T/A trellis system. 40 80 160
Generally, the 605 and 726 T/A
systems had rates of return inter- Acres I Farm
mediate to those of 141 and 340 T/A. Figure 5. Cost per hour for tractor and sprayer for
Apples for fresh market had a different farm sizes and different orchard densities.
higher internal rate of return than (Source: Appendix A, Table 7)
processing fruit 10 years after
planting. The highest rate of return
was for fresh marketed cultivars in
250
the 340 T/A system. Generally, in
the first 10 years Golden Delicious
200
had a higher rate of return for fresh
marketed apples than Red Delicious
except for the 141 T/A system.
Golden Delicious had a higher rate
--
--.
f:fl-
( f)
0
150
(..)
of return than York Imperial for pro- 100
cessing. This can be attributed to the
fact that Golden Delicious come in- 50
to bearing earlier and with higher
yields than either cultivar. When 0
Golden Delicious is compared to 40 80 160
either cultivar at 15 years of produc-
tion the rates of return are nearly Acres I Farm
equal in most cases. Figure 6. Estimated overhead costs per acre for 40, 80,
There were no significant dif- or 160 acre farms, Eastern U.S. (Source: Appendix A,
ferences between an 80 and a 160 A Table 2)
farm within the same system and

7
 no one can predict the future, a 10%
Table 6. Net Returns1 per Bushel of Apples for Processing for or greater increase for processing
Different Orchard Systems and Farm Sizes2 , 1990. apple prices will increase the rate of
Trees/A York Imperial Golden Delicious return by 2.2 to 2.9% over 15 years.
System Processed Processed However, the gap between fresh and
40A BOA 160A 40A BOA 160A
processing prices, assuming no in-
crease in price for fresh and a 10%
141 $ .03 $.2B $.26 $-.04 $.25 $.22 rise in processing apples, is still about
340 .16 .41 .3B .21 .34 .32 5.5 to 11.8% .
605 trellis -.OB .21 .1B .01 .29 .23
605 spindle .03 .27 .22 .07 .36 .2B
726 trellis .07 .33 .26 .03 .26 .19 Discussion
726 spindle .11 .37 .23 .02 .27 .19
The costs and returns in this study
1Net returns per bushel (42 lbs.) over 16 year period including one year of reflect the eastern apple region which
preparation before planting.
2A 40, 80, or 160 A farm has 30, 60 or 120 A of fruit crops, respectively. has a unique climate for production
as well as a major portion of the U.S.
population for markets. Eastern
growers face strong domestic and
Table 7. Net Returns1 per Bushel of Apples for Fresh Market for foreign competition. Supplies of fresh
Different Orchard Systems and Farm Sizes2 , 1990. market apples are high and are ex-
Trees/A Golden Delicious Red Delicious pected to remain so during the 1990's.
System Fresh Fresh Current production costs are about
30% of total costs and are com-
40A BOA 160A 40A BOA 160A
parable to another earlier report
141 $0.6B $0.95 $0.91 $1.63 $1.B2 $1.B4 (Table 12). The other major cost is
340 1.63 1.96 1.91 1.BB 2.13 2.09 packing, which accounts for about
605 trellis 1.69 1.91 1.B5 1.65 1.93 1.90 35% of the cost of a 42 pound box
605 spindle 1.64 1.97 1.B9 1.6B 1.B1 1.75
of fruit. Harvesting, storage, and
726 trellis 1.55 1.92 1.B4 1.67 1.95 1.BB
marketing make up the remaining
726 spindle 1.65 1.93 1.B6 1.70 1.97 1.90
costs. During the 1980's, labor,
1 Net returns per bushel (421bs) over 16 year period including one year of prepa- packaging, transportation, and mar-
ration before planting. keting costs grew faster than farm
2A 40, 80, or 160 A farm has 30, 60 or 120 A of fruit crops, respectively. prices for raw commodities. The dif-
ferences between the percentage of
total costs allocated to packing bet-
ween 1984 and 1990 are a result of
Table 8. Internal Rate of Return for Processed Apples 10 Years after rising packing costs. At 340 T/A on
Planting1, for Different Orchard Systems and Farm Sizes,
1990.
an 80 A farm producing Spur Red
Delicious based on 15 years of pro-
Trees/A York Imperial Golden Delicious duction, a 42 pound box will cost
System Processed Processed
about $7.18 at the farm. In Washing-
40A BOA 160A 40A BOA 160A ton, using a 60 to 80% packout, costs
% % % % % % are $7.88 to $9.17 per packed box
141 -9.9 -6.3 -6.0 -B.B -5.1 -5.0 (Nordahl 1990). Because of the large
340 -6.4 -3.6 -3.6 -2.6 -0.1 -0.5 amount of fixed costs involved with
605 trellis -9.4 -6.6 -6.5 -6.4 -3.5 -3.B production, packing and storage,
605 spindle -B.3 -5.4 -5.4 -5.1 -1.B -4.7 growers will need to reduce costs per
726 trellis -B.6 -6.2 -6.3 -7.9 -4.B -5.2 unit by increasing yields per acre and
726 spindle -7.9 -5.2 -5.4 -7.0 -3.9 -4.5 packout. Their present manage-
1A land cost of $2,000 per acre was added in year zero and a land salvage (return) ment/operational skills and less
value of $2,000 per acre was added in year 10. intensive orchard systems will need
to be improved to be competitive.

8
 Many studies have shown the
advantages of increasing tree density Table 9. Internal Rate of Return for Fresh Market Apples 10 Years
on early yields of apple orchards After Plantingt, for Different Orchard Systems and Farm
Sizes, 1990.
(Ferree et al., 1989). Few studies
have shown yield and packout data Trees/A Golden Delicious Red Delicious
over an extended period of time. Each System Fresh Fresh
system has its own rootstock, spacing, 40A BOA 160A 40A BOA 160A
and training and pruning practices
% % % % % %
designed to optimize returns, and it
141 2.2 4.9 5.4 4.4 6.1 7.4
is the management system as a whole 11.6 10.1 10.2
340 9.1 11.5 7.7
that must be considered when 605 trellis 6.2 B.5 B.5 5.9 B.O B.2
economic comparisons are made. As 605 spindle 7.5 9.9 9.7 6.B B.2 9.0
yields in this study increased in all 726 trellis 5.3 7.6 7.5 3.B 6.0 6.0
systems and cultivars, the percentage 726 spindle 6.1 B.5 B.4 4.6 6.7 6.7
of large sized apples decreased. Fruit
1A land cost of $2,000 per acre was added in year zero and a land salvage (return)
size dropped from between 77 and 'if1 value of $2,000 per acre was added in year 10.
percent large fruit in the early years
to between 61 and 71 percent in the
later years. Low yield potential can Table 10. Internal Rate of Return for Processed Apples 10 and 15
be due to small fruit size, faulty Years after Planting, Plus a 10 Percent Increase in Returns
pruning and training, and old, weak For Different Orchard Systemst, 1990.
or missing trees. Tree loss due to Trees/A York Imperial Golden Delicious
collar rot and/or fireblight can be a System Processed Processed
problem with certain scion/rootstock
10Yrs 15Yrs 10% 10 Yrs 15Yrs 10%
combinations. The greatest reduction
in revenue is due to tree loss (Funt % % % % % %
et al., 1987). In this study, five per- 141 -6.3 2.B 5.5 -5.1 2.7 5.5
cent of the trees in each system were 340 -3.6 3.9 6.4 -0.1 3.B 6.7
replaced in the second year. In Ohio, 605 trellis -6.6 1.6 3.9 -3.5 2.6 5.2
605 spindle -5.4 2.2 4.5 -1.B 3.5 6.2
on six rootstocks grown for a 13 year
726 trellis -6.2 2.5 4.7 -4.B 2.3 4.B
period, tree loss was 7, 19, 16, 37 and
726 spindle -5.2 2.9 5.2 -3.9 2.5 5.1
53% on seedling, MMlll, M7,
MM106, M9, and M26, respectively. 1lnternal rates of return for 80 acre farm, 10 years and 15 years of orchard life,
plus 10 percent increase in returns over 15 years.
Each planting differs in yield, grade
and size due to tree age, cultivar, site
and temperature. Size and grade will
vary from year to year. Table 11. Internal Rate of Return for Fresh Market Apples 10 and 15
Most packers desire fruit no Years After Planting, Plus a 10 Percent Increase in Returns
for Different Orchard Systems', 1990.
smaller than 125s and no larger than
72s (2% to 3 '14 inches). The major Trees/A Golden Delicious Red Delicious
factor in grade is fruit color. In System Fresh Fresh
Washington, a desired average yield 10Yrs 15Yrs 10% 10Yrs 15Yrs 10%
is 833 to 1250 bushels (42 lbs) per
% % % % % %
acre for red color sports of 141 4.9 12.2 14.6 6.1 13.1 15.4
Delicious, with 76% extra fancy 340 11.5 15.7 1B.3 10.1 15.3 17.6
grade, 5% culls and 62% extra fancy 605 trellis B.5 13.4 15.B B.O 12.7 15.0
and 5% culls for Golden Delicious 605 spindle 9.9 14.4 16.9 B.2 12.7 15.0
(Tukey and Schotzko, 1988). 726 trellis 7.6 13.1 15.5 6.0 12.2 14.2
However, 470 to 480 packed boxes 726 spindle B.5 13.7 16.1 6.7 12.6 14.6
per acre at 60% packout is 11nternal rates of return for 80 acre farm, 10 years and 15 years of orchard life,
considered average in Washington plus 10 percent increase in returns over 15 years.
(Nordahl, 1990).

9
 In this study, all systems were compared for ten years. Both Em- and processing cultivars were similar
averaging 61 to 71% 2 to 3 1A fruit * pire and Spur Red Delicious had the
highest cumulative yields on a 389
to those in this study (Punt, et al.
1979). Processing cultivars had no
size, but it was assumed that the
combination grade of extra fancy- T/A Y-trellis system using an M26 return over 9 years and 2 to 11% for
fancy was only 50 percent due to rootstock. This was 35% greater 18 years of production. Fresh
eastern growing conditions. Culls yield than the 605 TIA slender cultivars had a 12 to 13% rate of
and shrink ranged from 2.0 to 3.4% spindle system using M9 rootstock. return for the first nine years and 12
in the first five years of production (Robinson, et al., 1991). to 23% for 18 years of production.
and 4.2 to 4.8% for 15 years of pro- In a Washington study, cost and These were based on a typical Penn-
duction for all systems and cultivars. return estimates were made with dif- sylvania fruit farm having 67 A of
Yields in the first five years ranged ferent systems and trees per acre. fruit.
from 257 bushels per acre per year The slender spindle system with 808 In this study, with an 80 A farm
in the 141 T/A system to 407 bushels T/A had a positive gross margin and a 10-year investment, the top five
per acre in the 726 T/A. Over 15 (returns greater than costs) in the cultivars and systems were fresh
years of production the average third year and a payback period of marketed Golden Delicious at 340,
yields of all systems and cultivars 6.8 years at a return of 0.12 cents per 605 or 726 T/A or Red Delicious at
ranged from 634 to 731 bushels per pound. In this study the trellis and 340 T/A (Figure 8). These ranged
acre per year, in the 141 T/A to 726 spindle systems with 605 and 726 from an 8.5 to an 11.5% rate of return
T/A systems, respectively. All T/A for fresh market had a positive which is higher than a current rate
systems and cultivars were able to return in year four. However, the first of a certificate of deposit at local
reach 1,000 to 1,400 actual bushels yield was expected in the third year banks. The bottom five were York
per acre at least one year over the in the east rather than in year two Imperial on trellis at 605 T/A or 726
15 year period. In a 1985 New York in Washington. This study and the T/A, spindle at 726 T/A or free stan-
survey, average yields for trees on Washington study had a similar six ding at 141 T/A or Golden Delicious
seedling rootstocks vs those on size- to seven year pay back period on trellis at 726 T/A for processing.
control-ling rootstocks were 417 and (Geldart, 1989). These ranged from -4.8 to -6.6%.
796 bushels per acre, respectively In previous studies using an For an 80 A farm and a 15-year
(Stiles, 1991). Also in New York, internal rate of return analysis, investment, the top five cultivars and
several orchard systems were returns on investment between fresh systems were fresh marketed Golden
Delicious on spindle at 340, 605 or
726 T/A or on trellis at 726 T/A and
Red Delicious on spindle at 340 T/A
16 (Figure 9). These ranged from 13.1
fa Processing to 15.7% rate of return. The bottom
14 five cultivars and systems were
• Fresh
12 processed Golden Delicious on
...... 10 trellis at 605 or 726 T/A and on spin-
r::::::
dle at 726 T/A or York Imperial at
....~ 8 726 T/A on spindle or 605 T/A on
~ 6 trellis. They ranged from a negative
1.6 to a positive 2.5% rate of return.
4
The small farm of 40 A had higher
2 equipment and overhead costs than
0 ,__...J...L...:J. 80 or 160 A farms. Generally, the
40 80 160 smaller farm had a 2.3 to 2.8% less
rate of return than the 80 A farm.
Acres I Farm The 40 A farmer would need a 10%
greater return to receive a similar
Figure 7. Rate of return for 'Golden Delicious' at
rate of return as an 80 or 160 A
340 trees/acre, both fresh and processing markets,
farmer. The grower should be aware
15 years of production for different farm sizes, 1990.
of costs and try to develop market
niches where higher prices can com-

10
pensate for higher costs. Orchardists
with larger farms may wish to Table 12. Comparisons of Production, Harvesting, Packing, Storage,
decrease their current acreage to and Marketing Costs for Fresh Wholesale Markets, 1990.
compensate for increased acreages %Total Cost2
of high labor requirement systems Item NY1 PA, WV, Ohio
just to maintain the same labor force.
Maintaining a quality, well trained % %
labor source is important with high Production 32 30
investments where early returns are Harvesting 18 14
essential. Storage 19 13
Yield and price differences among Packing 25 35
cultivars may change over time or Marketing 7 8
may go up and down, depending 1Source. Gerling, 1984.
upon supply. A poor choice of 28ased on Spur Red Delicious, costs over 15 years, film bags, and average
cost of regular and controlled atmosphere storage.
cultivar limits the potential success Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number.
of an operation. The size of the plan-
ting is also a factor. In Oregon, a 30
A planting was more efficient than
either a 12 A or a 50 A farm. The Fresh Golden 340 T/A Spindle
cost per box was lowest for the Fresh Red 340 T/A Spindle
Fresh Golden 605 T/A Spindle
medium-sized operation over a
Fresh Golden 605 T/A Trellis
10-year study of apple and pear Fresh Golden 726 T/A Spindle
orchards. The small sized farm had
higher yields but also had higher •: Proc. Golden 726 T/A Trellis
Proc. York 726 T/A Spindle
costs per acre. The large farm had Proc. York 726 T/A Trellis
lower yields than the other farms but Proc. York 141 T/A Free Standing
had the lowest cost per acre Proc. York 605 T/A Trellis
I I I I
(Westwood, 1978). Some of the same
-12 -10 -6 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 6 10 12
principles have been illustrated in
this study; however, without farm Rate of Return(%)
yield data to prove different produc- Figure 8. Top five and bottom five orchard systems, 10
tion rates on different farm sizes, we years after planting, using an internal rate of return for
assumed that all farms would have an 80 acre farm, 1990. (Source: Tables 10 and 11)
similar yields and packout.

Sensitivity analyses Golden340

Fresh Golden T/ASpindle~§§§§§§§§§§55F:::-
Fresh Red 340 T/A Spindle
605 T/A Spindle
Fresh Golden 726 T/A Spindle
Apple growers want to know the Fresh Golden 726 T/A Trellis
best strategies to maximize returns
Proc. Golden 726 T/A Spindle
and minimize costs. When using IIIIEll Proc. York 726 T/A Trellis
today's personal computers and soft- Proc. Golden 726 T/A Trellis
ware, analysts ask 'what if' Proc. York 605 T/A Spindle
questions. The first question in this Proc. York 605 T/A Trellis
study was, "what if a grower could -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 6 10 12 14 16
reduce all costs over the life of the
Rate of Return (%)
orchard by 10 %"? If all costs are
decreased by 10% then a 2.2 to 2.3% Figure 9. Top five and bottom five orchard systems,
increase in the rate of return would 15 years after planting, using an internal rate of return
occur for fresh marketed Golden for an 80 acre farm, 1990. (Source: Tables 10 and 11)
Delicious and a 2.6 to 3.0% increase

11
for Golden Delicious for processing fresh marketed Golden Delicious greater positive return than the 141
(Tables 13 and 14). However, if costs would range from -0.3 to -0.5% T/A free-standing system since the
are 10% higher, a similar response and for processing would be -0.1 to higher densities have higher total
occurs but the rate of return -0.2%. This reflects the cost/return costs for trees and support systems.
decreases. The difference between ratio. Thus, fresh marketed Golden It appears that this is a significant
fresh and processing rates of return Delicious are more sensitive to a 10% factor and it should be a consider-
is due to the ratio of costs and returns. reduction in both costs and returns ation for growers.
With fresh apples having a higher than those for processing. "What if a frost occurs early in the
return, the influence of costs "What if a grower could reduce the life of the orchard?" A frost (no crop)
increasing or decreasing is smaller. cost of trees and support systems by in year four would cause no loss over
Therefore, lowering costs on a low 10% ?" Then, there would be a range 15 years of production fur the 141 T/A
priced cultivar/marketing system has of +0.1 to +0.5% increase in returns system since there is very little
a greater influence on returns than for among systems for processing and a revenue generated at this time (Table
a higher priced cultivar. range of +0.1 to +0.7% among 15). However, since the 340, 605 and
Another question that may be systems for fresh marketed Golden 726 T/A system would be bearing
asked is, "what if both costs and Delicious. The 340 T/A modified earlier than the 141 T/A system a
returns are 10% less than those in this spindle system, the 605 T/A systems reduction in the rate of return would
study?" Reductions in returns for and 726 T/A systems have a range from 0.7 to 1.6% for fresh
marketed apples and 0.4 to 0.8% for
processing apples. Again fresh
Table 13. Sensitivity Analysis for a 10 Percent Increase or Decrease marketed Golden Delicious are more
in Costs and Returns for Fresh Marketed Golden Delicious sensitive than those for processing
Apples, 80 Acre Farm, 1990.
because of the higher price received.
TREES/ACRE The 726 T/A trellis system would be
Factor 141 340 605T1 726T affected more than other systems.
"What if a frost occurs in a mature
Change in Internal Rate of Return planting?" A frost or no yield in year
% % % %
eight would result in a large reduction
+10% Costs -2.2 -2.2 -2.3 -2.2 in the rate of return for all systems
-10% Costs +2.2 +2.3 +2.2 +2.3
(ranging from 1.8 to 2.7%). Orchards
+10% Returns +2.4 +2.6 +2.6 +2.5
-10% Costs and -10% Returns -0.4 -0.5 -0.3 -0.3 with larger and early production,
-10% Trees and Support Costs +0.1 +0.4 +0.7 +0.7 such as the 726 T/A trellis system,
are less affected than the other
1Analyzed for trellis system, which would be similar to spindle system at same
density.
systems, either when fruit is marketed
fresh or for processing. Golden
Delicious for processing are less af-
fected than fresh marketed apples. If
Table 14. Sensitivity Analysis for a 10 Percent Increase or Decrease a frost occurs in both years four and
in Costs and Returns for Processed Golden Delicious eight, the reduction is additive and
Apples, 80 Acre Farm, 1990.
a 2.0 to 3.4% reduction occurs for
TREES/ACRE fresh marketed apples while a 1.6 to
Factor 141 340 605T1 726T 2.2% reduction occurs for processed
apples.
Change in Internal Rate of Return
The sensitivity analyses were
% % % %
+10% Costs -3.1 -3.1 -2.7 -2.6 conducted using the 141 T/A free
-10% Costs +2.9 +3.0 +2.7 +2.6 standing system, 340 T/A spindle
+10% Returns +2.8 +2.9 +2.7 +2.6 system and the 605 and 726 T/A
-10% Costs and -10% Returns -0.1 -0.2 -0.1 -0.1 trellis systems. The high density 605
-10% Trees and Support Costs +0.1 +0.5 +0.5 +0.5 and 726 T/A spindle systems would
be very similar in the sensitivity
,Analyzed for trellis system, which would be similar to spindle system at same
density. analyses to the trellis system because
costs and returns are similar. For

12
example, the cost of trees for a 605 Apples for fresh market had reduce farm size to 80 A and receive
TIA trellis system and a 605 T/A higher internal rates of return than a similar rate of return. However,
spindle system are exactly the same. for processing. Prices received per total revenue may decrease.
The cost of the support system is pound ranged from $.12 to .16 for When all costs are decreased, the
$197 per acre less for a spindle fresh apples and $.077 to $.088 for increase in returns is higher for pro-
system than for the trellis. When this processing for large sized fruit. The cessing cultivars than fresh marketed
is put into the investment for 15 years highest rate of return was for fresh cultivars. If costs increase 10% the
of production ($197 of $31,000), marketed Golden Delicious in the relationship is reversed. Reducing
there is essentially no difference. 340 T/A system particularly in the the cost of trees and support systems
When comparing the 605 TIA trellis first 10 years of production. Golden in high density systems by 10% can
system to the 726 T/A trellis system, Delicious produced earlier and increase returns by 0.5 to 0.7%. If
the difference in the rate of return higher yields than Spur Red there is no crop due to frost in year
would be approximately the same as Delicious or York Imperial. When four, high density fresh marketed
comparing the 605 T/A spindle Golden Delicious is compared to apples have a higher reduction in rate
system to the 726 T/A spindle either cultivar at 15 years of of return than those for processing.
system. production the rates of return are However, if there is a frost in year
nearly equal in most cases. eight, the 726 T/A system has a
The 40 A farm had a lower rate smaller reduction in returns than the
Conclusions of return than either the 80 or 160 141 T/A system.
A farm. It had higher overhead and A system with the potential for an
Long term yield and packout higher per hour equipment costs. earlier return in the life of the
records of several researchers in the There were no significant differences orchard, such as the 340, 605, or 726
eastern U.S. and Canada were used in rates of return between an 80 or T/A system, is preferred to one
to compare the profitability of new 160 A farm. The 40 A farm requires which has a higher return later in
orchard systems. Yields were earlier a 10% greater return to receive a life. The earlier return system allows
and higher for the 605 and 726 T/A similar return as on an 80 or 160 A a grower to take advantage of a
system than other systems. Cumu- farm. If a manager of a 160 A farm change in consumer demand or
lative yield is positively related to wants to decrease farm size due to technological change if it occurs
tree density in the first 10 years. The an increase in hours of labor for high many years after establishment. A
605 and 726 T/A spindle systems had density systems, he or she could grower also has greater flexibility
annual returns exceeding annual
costs in year four. They had a pay
back period between years six and Table 15. Internal Rate of Return for a Complete Crop Loss in Year 4,
seven. However, these systems had Year 8 or Both Years 4 and 8 for Different Orchard Systems
higher establishment costs and the for Fresh Marketed and Processed Golden Delicious Apples,
highest number of hours of pruning 80 Acre Farm, 1990.
and equipment use over the 15 years TREES/ACRE
of production. It is the management
Year of Crop 141 340 605T1 726T
of the system as a whole (soil, site,
spacing, pruning, etc.) that is Change in Internal Rate of Return
important in achieving early returns. Fresh
The free standing central leader % % % %
system having 141 T/A had the lowest Yr 4 0.0 -0.7 -1.3 -1.6
rate of return over 15 years of pro- Yr 8 -2.0 -2.7 -2.1 -1.8
duction as compared to the other Yr 4 & 8 -2.0 -3.4 -3.4 -3.4
systems. It had the lowest yields Processed
early in the life of the orchard. The Yr 4 -0.0 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8
340 T/A modified spindle system Yr 8 -1.6 -2.3 -1.7 -1.4
had the highest rate of return. Yr 4 & 8 -1.6 -2.7 -2.3 -2.2
Gene rail y, the 605 and 726 TIA
1Analyzed for trellis system, which would be similar to spindle system at same
systems had rates of return inter- density.
mediate to those of 141 and 340 T/A.

13
in management decisions. The Ferree, D.C., R.C. Funt, B. L. Ohio Farm Report. 1990. Farm
medium density of 340 T/A would Bishop. 1989. Yield and produc- Employment and Wage Rates,
appear well suited to growers who tion efficiency of four apple United States. OH. Ag. Statistics
have large acreages (probably 80 cultivars in selected orchard Ser. 90(16) :2.
acres or more). The spindle or trellis management systems. J. Amer. Marketing Appalachian District
system would be suitable for growers Soc. Hort. Sci. 114(6): 863-868. Apples. 1985-1989. Federal-State
located where land is limited, such Funt, R.C., E.J. Partenheimer and News Service USDA Ag.
as metropolitan areas. Growers who L.D. Tukey. 1979. Internal rates Marketing Service, Fruit and
have limited farm size (40 acres) and of return for different Golden Vegetable Division.
are located near metropolitan areas Delicious apple orchard systems Nordahl, J.D. 1990. Letter to the
can provide high quality select fruit in Pennsylvania. J. Amer. Soc. Editor. Good Fruit Grower
for niche markets. Establishing a Hort. Sci. 104(2):154-159. 41(19):41-42.
reputation for quality, understanding Funt, R.C. 1986. Economic analyses Ricks, D. And P. Schwallier. 1991.
costs, and responding to market of different cost and return Apple orchard removal decisions
demands will provide long-term streams in fruit crops. Acta Hort- under various economic condi-
benefits. iculture 184:179-182. tions. Great Lakes Fruit Grower
Funt R. C., D. C. Ferree and M.A. News 30(2):18-21.
Ellis. 1987. Influence of tree loss Stiles, W.C. 1991. Apple cultivars-
on rate of return of different apple current situation and trends in
production systems. Acta Hort- New York State. Fruit Var. J. 45
References iculturae 203:101-106. (2): 101-106.
Funt, R.C., J.R. Lemon, H. Willson Tukey, R.B. and R.T. Schotzko. 1988
American Society of Agricultural and F.R. Hall. 1989. Management Evaluating orchard performance
Engineers. 1978. Agricultural decision making software, market and practices from packout
Machinery Management. Pages model. Acta Horticulturae records. North West Extension
271-280: In Agricultural Engineer 237:51-56. Pub. PNW 332. pp 1-12.
Handbook, Am. Soc. of Ag. Geldart, H.G. 1989. Effect of tree Westwood, M. N. 1978. Limiting
Engineers, St. Joseph, MI. density on profitability. In Inten- Factors, In: Temperate Zone
Robinson, T.L., A. N. Lakso, and sive Orcharding. A. B. Peterson Pomology. W. H. Freeman and
S. G. Carpenter. 1991. Canopy editor. Good Fruit Grower, Co. San Francisco, pp. 361-367.
development, yield, and fruit Yakima, WA pp. 148-164.
quality of 'Empire' and Gerling, W.D. 1984. A survey of the
'Delicious' apple trees grown in cost of storing packing and selling
four orchard production systems apples in Eastern New York 1983-
for ten years. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. 84. Coop. Extension memo Hud-
Sci. 116(2):179-187. son Valley Lab. Highland, NY.

14
 Appendix A
Overhead, Material Costs
and Product Prices
This page intentionally blank.
Table 1. Cost of Trees and Materials for Different Orchard Systems
in the First Establishment Year.
System Trees/Acre System Cost
Free Standing 141
trees- $4.70 each
Modified Slender Spindle 340
Trees- $4.70 each
Conduit- $1.30 each
T/A-Trellis 605 or 726
Trees- $5.15 each
Posts-a' 4"-(32) $5.00 each
-8' 3" -(112) $3.80 each
Wire-(14,600) $ .02/ft.
Anchors-(32) $6.00 each
Ties-(1815) $35.00/1000
Wire vise-(16) $3.00 each
Modified Slender Spindle 605 or 726
Trees $5.15 each
Post-8' 4"-(32) $5.00 each
-8' 3"-(32) $3.80 each
Bamboo-6'- $ .45 each
Wire-(7200 ft.) $ .02/ft.
Wire vise-(16) $3.00 each
Ties-(2178) $35.00/1000
For all Systems1
Lime- $16.00/ton
Nitrogen- $ .33/lb actual
Phosphorus- $ .25/lb actual
Potassium- $ .15/lb actual
Grass seed $ .65/lb actual
1 1nyear zero, 3 tons of lime and 0-50-100 pounds actual phosphorus and
potassium per acre are worked into the soil. A fescue is sown at the rate of
25 lb. per acre.

Table 2. Estimated Overhead Costs per Acre for Different Farm

Sizes1, 1990.
Costs Per Acre
Item 40A BOA 160A
Electricity $17.00 $12.00 $10.12
Telephone, postage 21.25 13.12 9.06
Accounting 8.75 5.62 4.06
Pickup 75.18 42.69 23.9
Building & Shop 43.12 25.62 23.75
Roads & Signs 18.75 11.87 7.81
Toilet Rental 3.00 3.00 2.25
Taxes 37.50 37.50 37.50
Education 17.50 13.75 9.38
Total/Acre/Year $242.05 $165.17 $127.84
1 1ndicates a farm having 40, 80, or 160 A with 30, 60 and 120 A of fruit crops.

17
 Table 3. Estimated Overhead Costs per Acre for Different Farm
Sizes1, 1990.
Costs Per Acre
Item 40A BOA 160A
Electricity $680 $960 $1620
Telephone, postage 850 1060 1450
Accounting 225 450 900
Pickup 3007 3415 3825
Building & Shop 1725 2050 3800
Roads & Signs 750 950 1250
Toilet Rental 120 240 360
Taxes 1500 3000 6000
Education 700 1100 1500
Total/Farm/Year $9,557 $13,215 $20,705
1lndicates a farm having 40, 80 or 160 A, with 30, 60 and 120 A of fruit crops.

Table 4. Cost of Spray Program for Standard and Intensive Plantings of Fresh and Processing Apples, 1990.
Standard Planting2 Intensive Plantings
Quantity/Acre/Season Quantity /Acre/Season
Pesticide1 Price/unit Fresh Processing Fresh Processing
(60% of full (60% of full (25% of full (35% of full
rates) 3 rates)3 rates)4 rates) 5
Asana XL (gal) $96.72 3.6 oz 3.6 oz 1.5 oz 2.1 oz
Benlate 50DF (lb) 14.02 1.5 lb 10.0 oz
Captan 50 W (lb) 1.58 19.5 lb 9.8 lb 8.1 lb 5.7 lb
Carzol 92SP (lb) 22.37 9.6 oz 9.6 oz 4.0 oz 5.6 oz
Copper Sulfate (lb) 0.79 7.3 lb 11.0 lb
Dimethoate 400 (Cygon) 27.00 14.4 oz 14.4 oz 6.0 oz 8.4 oz
Dodine 65W (lb) 5.41 14.4 oz 14.4 oz 6.0 oz 8.4 oz
Guthion 35W (lb) 3.52 4.8 lb 2.0 lb
Lannate 1.8L (gal) 33.85 6.0 pt 2.5 pt
Lime (lb) .02 7.3 lb 11.0 lb
NAA (Stik) (oz) 5.68 4.8 oz 4.8 oz 2.0 oz 2.8 oz
Nova 40W (oz) 14.07 15.0 oz 15.0 oz 6.3 oz 8.8 oz
Oil (gal) 2.26 4.8 gal 4.8 gal 2.0 gal 2.8 gal
Omite SEC (gal) 68.52 28.8 oz 4.4 oz 12.0 oz 8.4 oz
Parathion 15W (lb) 1.08 10.8 lb 6.3 lb
Penncap-M (gal) 18.84 6.0 pt 5.4 pt 2.5 pt 3.2 pt
Streptomycin 17W (lb) 7.60 3.6 lb 3.6 lb 1.5 lb 2.1 lb
Sulfur 92W (lb) 0.22 21.0 lb 12.3 lb
Calcium Chloride (lb) 0.15 18.0 lb 24.0 lb 8.0 lb 14.0 lb
Solubor (lb) 0.60 4.0 lb 4.0 lb 4.0 lb 4.0 lb
Total Cost/Yr $284.91 $230.14 $132.77 $144.37
1Where trade names are used, no discrimination toward similar products is implied nor intended.
2Assume lime ($8/A), potassium ($7.50/A), herbicide ($46.46/A), nitrogen and other nutrients ($11.00/A) would give a total of
$358/A and $303/A per season for standard fresh and processing blocks, respectively and $206/A and $218/A for intensive
fresh and processing blocks, respectively.
38ased on tree-row-volume calculations for trees 12 ft high, 16 ft wide and spaced 16 ft x 24ft.
48ased on tree-row-volume calculations for trees 6 ft high, 6 ft wide and spaced 6ft X 12 ft.
ssased on tree-row-volume calculations for trees 9 ft high, 8 ft wide and spaced 8 ft X 16 ft.

18
Table 5. Estimated Hours of Equipment Use for Different Farm
Sizes1, Having Fruit Crops, 1990.
Equipment Use (Hours)
Equipment Type 40A BOA 160A
Tractor 8502 0 0 700
Tractor 650 (550)3 250 500 400
Tractor 450 (280)3 150 250 300
Airblast Sprayer 140 275 530
HydraLadder 0 0 400
Herbicide Sprayer 40 80 160
Mower 90 160 250
Front Rear Fork Lift 150 260 480
Fertilizer Spreader 15 30 60
Subsoiler 5 10 20
,A 40 A farm has 30 A, an 80 A farm has 60 A, and a 160 A farm has 120 A of
fruit.
2A 650 is a tractor with a diesel motor with a capacity of 65 horse power.
3A 650 and 550 are used the same number of hours/farm, but the smaller
tractor is used in intensive systems.

Table 6. Equipment Hours1 Required for Pesticide and Growth

Regulator Application per Year in Different Orchard
Densities, 1990.
Equipment Hours for Spray Applications
Years 141 T/A 340 T/A 605 T/A 726 T/A2
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1 2.0 2.3 3.1 3.1
2 2.8 3.4 4.2 4.2
3 4.9 5.7 7.1 7.1
4 5.3 6.3 7.8 7.8
5 5.6 6.6 8.2 8.2
6 5.9 7.0 8.7 8.7
7 6.2 7.3 9.1 9.1
8 6.3 7.4 9.2 9.2
9 5.3 6.4 8.2 8.2
10 5.1 6.2 8.0 8.0
11 5.6 6.6 8.2 8.2
12 6.3 7.4 9.2 9.2
13 5.1 6.2 8.0 8.0
14 5.3 6.4 8.2 8.2
15 6.3 7.4 9.2 9.2
1 Based on records from D. C. Ferree, Wooster, Ohio. 15 to 18 sprays on bearing
trees and two herbicide applications (1 hr/A). Mowing averaged 2.2 hours (not
included) at 5 to 9 mowings per A per year. Hydra ladder use in year 8 thru
15 for 141 trees/A only (not included).
2726 T/A had same number of rows/A as 605 trees/A, but trees planted closer.

19
 Table 7. Equipment Cost per Hour for Different Farm Sizes, 1990.
Total Cost/Hr2
ltem1 Initial Cost Salvage Value 40A BOA 160A
Tractor 8502 w/cab $ 39,000 $9,750 $15.24
Tractor 6502 w/cab 31,308 7,827 $14.03 12.02
Tractor 5502 w/cab 28,322 7,080 $16.17 11.41
Tractor 5502 20,490 5,122 12.49
Tractor 4502 w/cab 25,640 6,410 17.08
Tractor 4504 23,640 5,910 24.58 17.58 16.41
Tractor 4502 17,640 4,410 13.14
Tractor 2804 13,472 3,368 14.26 10.20 9.56
Sprayer SOOPTO 14,775 3,694 5.36
Sprayer 400PTO 11,352 2,838 7.10 4.32
Sprayer 300PTO 9,143 2,286 9.97 5.63
Sprayer 100PTO 6,076 1,519 6.72
Sprayer Herbicide 100 2,285 571 9.15 5.19 3.00
Mower 9ft 5,100 510 7.19 5.06 3.90
Mower 6ft 3,587 359 6.00 3.88 2.82
Hydraladder 7,000 1,750 5.36
Front & Rear Forklifts 4,225 423 4.33 2.88 1.81
Fertilizer Spreader 1,050 105 12.20 6.20 3.20
Well, Pump, Tanks3 9,000 900 26.69 13.42 6.78
1Qescribes a tractor having 85, 65, 55, 45 or 28 horsepower, diesel, 2 or 4 wheel drive with cab or without cab.
21ncludes straight line depreciation, interest at 11%, shelter and insurance, fuel at $1.20/gal with 30% added for oil, filters
and lubricant, and repair. A 40, 80 or 160 A farm has 15, 12, or 10 year life, respectively and different hours of use per
year. See Table 5.
3Cost per acre per year.

Table 8. Equipment Rental Rates Used on All Farm Sizes, 1990.

ltem1 Initial Cost Salvage Value Total Cost/Hr2

Tree Planter $2050 $205 $14.75

Plow-316 2610 261 19.91
Disk-8FT 4200 420 30.26
Post Driver3 850 51 4.68
1AII have a 15 year life, straight line depreciation, with 20 hours per year except
for post driver which has 30 hours per year.
2Costs include depreciation, interest at 11%, shelter, insurance and repair.
3Post driver is used to establish posts for support systems.

20
Table 9. Estimated Hours, per Acre of Pruning and Training for
Different Cultivars, 141 Trees/Acre, Freestanding.
Pruning and Training {Hours/Acre)
Tree York Spur Golden
Age Imperial Delicious Delicious

1.8 1.7 1.7

2 0.6 0.6 0.6
3 1.6 1.6 1.6
4 6.5 4.2 6.4
5 19.4 8.1 19.3
6 12.4 11.5 12.6
7 30.4 23.1 31.7
8 24.6 15.4 20.3
9 38.6 23.2 36.8
10 27.9 19.1 29.6
11 30.1 24.4 38.9
12 26.4 11.8 32.1
13 38.2 26.1 27.4
14 29.2 12.4 38.5
15 26.8 23.6 26.8
Total 324.5 196.8 324.3
1Jncludes summer and winter pruning and training. 36.8 hrs/A=15.6 min./tree.
Based on records from D. C. Ferree, Wooster.

Table 10. Estimated Hours1 per Acre of Pruning and Training for
Different Cultivars, 340 Trees/Acre, Trained to Slender
Spindle.
Pruning and Training {Hours/Acre)
Tree York Spur Golden
Age Imperial Delicious Delicious

1 2.8 2.8 2.8

2 1.0 0.6 1.0
3 1.0 0.6 1.0
4 6.7 4.2 6.7
5 8.8 4.7 9.4
6 13.8 9.5 13.4
7 23.6 18.7 22.8
8 24.2 19.1 23.6
9 22.8 21.0 29.8
10 25.0 18.6 24.0
11 35.0 18.5 34.7
12 29.2 20.7 28.2
13 31.2 19.4 33.0
14 36.4 19.1 36.1
15 30.2 11.2 31.6
Total 291.1 198.7 298.1
11ncludes summer and winter pruning and training. 34.7 hrs/A=8.6 min./tree.
Based on records from D. C. Ferree, Wooster.

21
 Table 11. Estimated Hours1 per Acre of Pruning and Training for
Different Cultivars, 605 Trees/Acre, Trellised.
Pruning and Training (Hours/Acre)
Tree York Spur Golden
Age Imperial Delicious Delicious

2.3 2.3 2.3

2 6.7 5.6 6.9
3 11.4 5.8 12.9
4 21.8 12.0 24.1
5 31.2 21.4 32.0
6 34.8 27.4 36.8
7 35.8 20.7 38.6
8 44.5 18.1 44.5
9 34.5 22.1 33.6
10 30.2 11.3 34.5
11 31.8 19.2 30.2
12 34.2 24.1 35.2
13 33.1 23.6 32.4
14 32.5 20.4 36.4
15 32.4 21.3 30.5
Total 417.2 255.3 430.9
1 1ncludes
summer and winter pruning and training. 38.6 hrs/A=3.8 min./tree.
Based on records from D. C. Ferree, Wooster.

Table 12. Estimated Hours1 per Acre of Pruning and Training for
Different Cultivars, 605 Trees/Acre, Trained to Slender
Spindle.
Pruning and Training (Hours/Acre)
Tree York Spur Golden
Age Imperial Delicious Delicious

1 5.3 5.3 5.3

2 1.6 1.2 1.6
3 3.4 2.5 3.6
4 5.1 4.8 4.6
5 5.6 5.9 5.8
6 12.9 7.0 12.6
7 22.9 17.9 24.2
8 33.9 20.3 38.7
9 38.9 22.4 40.3
10 42.2 24.2 45.2
11 43.0 26.7 43.0
12 49.4 32.6 45.9
13 45.9 29.4 49.1
14 42.2 29.0 43.0
15 46.0 32.4 39.1
Total 398.5 261.6 402.0
1 1ncludes
summer and winter pruning and training. 38.7 hrs/A=3.8 min./tree.
Based on records from D.C. Ferree, Wooster.

22
Table 13. Estimated Hours1 per Acre of Pruning and Training for
Different Cultivars, 726 Trees/Acre, Trellised.
Pruning and Training (Hours/Acre}
Tree York Spur Golden
Age Imperial Delicious Delicious

2.8 2.8 2.8

2 8.0 6.7 8.3
3 13.7 7.0 15.5
4 26.2 14.4 28.9
5 37.4 25.7 38.4
6 41.8 30.9 42.2
7 44.2 26.8 44.2
8 43.4 23.7 49.0
9 33.7 14.5 36.3
10 32.2 25.6 33.4
11 34.2 21.0 32.2
12 43.0 16.9 34.2
13 35.7 24.3 36.1
14 35.0 24.5 35.7
15 40.9 27.6 35.0
Total 470.2 292.4 472.2
11ncludes summer and winter pruning and training. 49.0 hrs/A=4.0 min./tree.
Based on records from D. C. Ferree, Wooster.

Table 14. Estimated Hours1 per Acre of Pruning and Training for
Different Cultivars, 726 Trees/Acre, Trained to Slender
Spindle.
Pruning and Training (Hours/Acre}
Tree York Spur Golden
Age Imperial Delicious Delicious

1 6.6 6.6 6.6

2 2.0 1.5 2.0
3 4.8 3.3 4.0
4 6.4 3.5 5.8
5 7.0 6.6 7.2
6 16.1 10.8 15.8
7 28.6 16.1 30.3
8 37.4 22.6 48.6
9 43.6 25.2 50.4
10 50.7 28.4 48.2
11 50.1 32.4 44.5
12 49.2 37.6 52.4
13 48.6 34.2 48.9
14 47.8 27.5 41.3
15 46.2 32.8 46.4
Total 445.1 289.1 452.7
11ncludes summer and winter pruning and training. 48.2 hrs/A=4.0 min./tree.
Based on records from D.C. Ferree, Wooster.

23
 Table 15. Total Cost Per Bushel For Harvesting Apples, 1990.
Market Piece Rate1 Housing Social Security2 Bin3 Labor4 Transports Supervisions Total
Processed $ .50 $ .05 $ .04 $ .09 $ .05 $ .12 $ .06 $ .91
Fresh $.56 $.05 $. 04 $ .09 $ .05 $ .12 $ .06 $ .97
1 For 25 bushel bin, piece rate is $12.50 for processed and $14.00 for fresh fruit.
2Social Security is $.0765/$1.00.
30riginal cost is $35.00, repair is 25% original value and life is 10 yr. Used twice per season.
4Assumes labor to move bins in and out of orchard at 40 bins/8 hours.
sAssumes all apples are transported to processor or packinghouse or to storage and returned to packinghouse by truck.
&Assumes one person for 12 people/day. Does not refer to crew leader.

Table 16. Cost Per Packed, Stored and Unstored Box, Fresh Marketed Apples, 1990.
Cost/Box
Labor Commission/ Unstored Storage3 Total Cost
Type Box Package Equipment1 Handling Promotion Total Reg. CA Reg. CA
12/3 Bags (36 Lb) $1.25 $1.00 $0.30 $0.55 $3.10 $0.70 $1.15 $3.80 $4.25
Trays (42 lb.) $1.95 $1.00 $0.30 $0.55 $3.80 $0.70 $1.15 $4.50 $4.95
1 Laborat $5.06/hr for grading and $6.90/hr stacking and moving, and $9.52/hr for supervision. Equipment includes grader, waxer,
and forklift, moving an average of 150 boxes or more per hour.
2Handling is moving bins/boxes to and from grader to short term storage (10 to 14 days) and onto truck.
3Rental cost per box for 2 to 4 months of regular (Reg.) or 4 to 6 months controlled atmosphere (CA) storage.

Table 17. Average Price (Sept.-May) Received Per lb. for Fresh Marketed Golden Delicious Apples,
1985-1989.
Price/lb.3
Package/Storage 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Avg/5 yrs Avg Range
Bags1:
Regular $0.185 $0.257 $0.187 $0.213 $0.229 $ 0.211 $.185-.257
Controlled Atmosphere $ 0.222 $ 0.278 $ 0.215 $ 0.239 $0.243 $0.239 $.222-.278
Trays 2:
Regular $0.286 $0.300 $0.214 $0.300 $0.245 $0.270 $.214-.300
Controlled Atmosphere $ 0.262 $ 0.268 $0.226 $0.274 $0.274 $ 0.261 $.226-.274
112-3 lb film bags, U.S. Fancy or better, 2V4 inch minimum, FOB.
242 lb box, U.S. Combination Extra Fancy & Fancy, mostly 72 to 125 size (3 3/8 inch- 2 13/16 inch), FOB.
3Average range of prices received 1985-1989.
Source: Marketing Appalachian District Apples, Federal/State Market News Service.

24
Table 18. Average Price (Sept.-May) Received Per lb. for Fresh Marketed Red Delicious Apples, 1985-1989.
Price/lb. a
Package/Storage 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Avg/5 yrs Avg Range
Bags1:
Regular $0.199 $0.270 $0.199 $0.241 $0.214 $0.225 $.199-.270
Controlled Atmosphere $ 0.236 $0.306 $0.227 $0.222 $0.212 $0.241 $.222-.306
Trays 2:
Regular $0.251 $0.319 $0.224 $0.292 $0.245 $0.266 $.224-.319
Controlled Atmosphere $ 0.286 $0.285 $0.196 $0.256 $0.223 $0.249 $.196-.286
112-3 lb film bags, U.S. Fancy or better, 2Y4 inch minimum, FOB.
242 lb box, U.S. Combination Extra Fancy & Fancy, mostly 72 to 125 size (3 318 inch - 2 13/16 inch), FOB.
JAverage range of prices received 1985-1989.
Source: Marketing Appalachian District Apples, Federal/State Market News Service.

Table 19. Net Price1 Received Per Box For Fresh Marketed Red and Golden Delicious Apples, 2% Inch,
Extra Fancy/Fancy Grade, 1990.
Packing/Storage Avg
Costllb Packing Avg Net Return Net Return2
Cultivar/Box Reg CA Avg Only Return Stored Not Stored All Apples
Red Delicious
12/3 lb $.106 $.118 $.112 $.086 $.233 $.121 $.147 $.134
Trays $.107 $.118 $.112 $.090 $.257 $.145 $.167 $.156
Golden Delicious
12/3 lb $.106 $.118 $.112 $.086 $.225 $.113 $.139 $.126
Trays $.107 $.118 $.112 $.090 $.266 $.154 $.176 $.165
11n this study, 25% of all apples are stored in regular storage, 25% are stored inCA storage, and 50% are sold without long
term storage (packing only).
28ased on average price received for 12/3s and trays, 1985-1989. See Tables 17 and 18. Avg net return for all apples, 2314 inch,
12/3 lb box for both Red and Golden Delicious was $.104 and for juice was $.0447.

Table 20. Prices Paid for York Imperial and Golden Delicious for Processing, 1985-1989.
Size Price/lb
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Average
23fil inch and up $ 0.0838 $0.0788 $0.0875 $ 0.0925 $ 0.1000 $ 0.0885
2112 inch- 2% inch $ 0.0638 $ 0.0712 $ 0.0875 $ 0.0850 $ 0.0950 $ 0.0772
Other $ 0.0325 $ 0.0550 $0.0362 $0.0450 $ 0.0550 $0.0447
Juice $ 0.0350 $ 0.0425 $0.0462 $ 0.0500 $ 0.0500 $ 0.0447
Source: Marketing Appalachian District Apples, Federal/State Market News Service.

25
 Table 21. Charge for Labor Housing for Different Farm Sizes, 1990.
Farm Size Housing Charge
40A:
No Housing Provided but Transportation Provided.

BOA:
8 People for July 1 to November 1. 2 Trailers (used)
12ft x 60 ft, $5,000 Each Plus $8000 Sewage.
Total Value=$20,000.
Depreciation 12 years; $5000 Salvage Value.
Depreciation = $1 ,250.00/yr.
Repair = 321.50/yr.
Tax, Insurance = 240.00/yr.
Interest (10%) = 525.00/yr.
Utilities 600.00/yr.
Total $2,927.50/yr.
$365.94/person/year or
$.046/busheP

160A:
35 People for July 1 to November 1.
1 Block Building, $80,000 plus $10,000 Sewage.
Depreciation 20 years; $22,500 Salvage Value

Depreciation = $3,375.00/yr.
Repair = 1,125.00/yr.
Tax, Insurance = 1,600.00/yr.
Utilities = 5,625.00/yr.
Interest (10%) = 2,1 00.00/yr.
Total $13,825.00/yr.
$395.00/person/year or
$.049/bushel2
12 months/yr., 40 days labor=4000 bu./person/season.
$182.97 divided by 4000 bushels harvested=$.046/bushel.
2$197.59 divided by 4000 bushels harvested=$.049/bushel.
Source: Ron Slonaker, Personal Communications, 1990.

26
 Appendix B
Estimated Yield,
Fruit Size, and Culls
This page intentionally blank.
Table 1. Estimated Yield, Five Year Moving Average, Fruit Size and Grade for York Imperial, 141 Trees/Acre.
Size/Grade Ofo2
Tree Actual 5 Yr. Moving Avg. 2 3/4" -3 1/4" 2 1/4"-2 3/4" Cull
Age Bu/Acre1 Bu/Acre & up Juice 3 Shrink4

1 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 36.9 35.4 0.85 0.09 0.04 0.02
5 87.2 84.8 0.84 0.10 0.04 0.02
6 225.3 263.0 0.80 0.12 0.05 0.03
7 426.7 404.7 0.75 0.15 0.07 0.03
8 539.0 561.6 0.73 0.16 0.07 0.04
9 745.4 726.5 0.61 0.26 0.08 0.05
10 871.4 830.4 0.65 0.21 0.09 0.05
11 1050.1 942.9 0.45 0.35 0.14 0.06
12 946.2 955.4 0.42 0.38 0.14 0.06
13 1101.4 965.8 0.55 0.27 0.12 0.06
14 807.8 1026.3 0.48 0.34 0.11 0.07
15 1102.1 954.9 0.56 0.29 0.09 0.06
Total 7939.5 7751.8 (-2.4%)
1Based on records from S. S. Miller, USDA, Kearneysville, W.V.
2Fruit size was modified from research data to reflect field and storage conditions. Fifty percent of 2 3/4 to 31/4 inch or larger are US
Extra Fancy/Fancy (tray pack) and fifty percent US Fancy (film bags). The 21!4 to 23;4 inch apples were US Fancy (film Bag).
3Juice apples include fruit less than 2114 inch in diameter, drops, and fruit with defects in excess of amounts permitted in utility grade.
4Culls and shrink include unharvested fruit, storage water loss, and diseased or rotted fruit having no value.

Table 2. Estimated Yield, Five Year Moving Average, Fruit Size and Grade for Golden Delicious, 141
Trees/Acre.
Size/Grade Ofo2
Tree Actual 5 Yr. Moving Avg. 2 3/4"-3 1/4" 2 1/4" -2 3/4" Cull
Age Bu/Acre1 Bu/Acre & up JuiceJ Shrink4

1 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 12.6 10.4 0.75 0.18 0.05 0.02
4 35.8 39.1 0.74 0.19 0.05 0.02
5 186.9 156.4 0.70 0.23 0.05 0.02
6 167.5 303.7 0.65 0.25 0.08 0.02
7 378.1 439.1 0.63 0.26 0.08 0.03
8 749.1 604.1 0.51 0.34 0.11 0.04
9 713.8 834.5 0.55 0.31 0.10 0.04
10 1011.8 898.9 0.35 0.45 0.14 0.06
11 1319.6 964.4 0.32 0.48 0.12 0.08
12 700.2 1053.8 0.45 0.37 0.14 0.04
13 1076.5 965.1 0.38 0.46 0.08 0.08
14 1161.1 909.6 0.32 0.48 0.12 0.08
15 658.2 752.6 0.44 0.39 0.11 0.06
Total 8172.1 7931.7 (-2.9%)
1Based on records from D. C. Elfving, Simcoe, Ontario, and D.C. Ferree, Wooster, Ohio.
2Fruit size was modified from research data to reflect field and storage conditions. Fifty percent of 2 3/4 to 31!4 inch or larger are
US Extra Fancy/Fancy (tray pack) and fifty percent US Fancy (film bags). The 2114 to 2 3/4 inch apples were US Fancy (film Bag).
3Juice apples include fruit less than 21!4 inch in diameter, drops, and fruit with defects in excess of amounts permitted in utility grade.
4Culls and shrink include unharvested fruit, storage water loss, and diseased or rotted fruit having no value.

29
 Table 3. Estimated Yield, Five Year Moving Average, Fruit Size and Grade for Spur Red Delicious, 141
Trees/Acre.
Size/Grade Ofo2
Tree Actual 5 Yr. Moving Avg. 2 3/4" -3 1/4" 2 1/4" -2 3/4" Cull
Age Bu/Acre1 Bu/Acre & up Juice 3 Shrink4

1 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 44.2 30.4 0.90 0.06 0.02 0.02
5 101.2 94.9 0.90 0.06 0.02 0.02
6 286.0 292.0 0.82 0.11 0.04 0.03
7 479.9 479.1 0.79 0.10 0.08 0.03
8 548.5 660.1 0.75 0.12 0.09 0.04
9 980.1 805.1 0.69 0.16 0.11 0.04
10 1006.2 885.1 0.57 0.26 0.12 0.05
11 1010.9 894.4 0.52 0.28 0.14 0.06
12 883.0 972.0 0.46 0.36 0.12 0.06
13 1023.2 920.8 0.49 0.34 0.11 0.06
14 936.8 903.6 0.44 0.37 0.14 0.05
15 750.3 825.4 0.56 0.31 0.08 0.05
Total 8050.3 7763.2 (-3.6%)
1Based on records from D.C. Elfving, Simcoe, Ontario and L.D. Tukey, Penn State.
2Fruit size was modified from research data to reflect field and storage conditions. Fifty percent of 23A to 3114 inch or larger are
US Extra Fancy/Fancy (tray pack) and fifty percent US Fancy (film bags). The 2Y4 to 2 3/4 inch apples were US Fancy (film Bag).
3Juice apples include fruit less than 2114 inch in diameter, drops, and fruit with defects in excess of amounts permitted in utility grade.
4Culls and shrink include unharvested fruit, storage water loss, and diseased or rotted fruit having no value.

Table 4. Estimated Yield, Five Year Moving Average, Fruit Size and Grade for York Imperial, 340 Trees/Acre.
Size/Grade Ofo2
Tree Actual 5 Yr. Moving Avg. 2 3/4" -3 1/4" 2 1/4" -2 3/4" Cull
Age Bu/Acre1 Bu/Acre & up Juice3 Shrink4

1 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 102.0 85.6 0.84 0.10 0.04 0.02
5 200.6 251.3 0.82 0.11 0.05 0.02
6 408.0 455.1 0.79 0.11 0.07 0.03
7 612.0 536.7 0.75 0.13 0.08 0.04
8 952.8 700.7 0.74 0.14 0.08 0.04
9 510.0 798.4 0.64 0.21 0.09 0.06
10 1020.6 913.9 0.62 0.23 0.09 0.06
11 896.4 925.5 0.56 0.28 0.10 0.06
12 1189.9 1020.7 0.57 0.26 0.11 0.06
13 1010.4 978.3 0.50 0.36 0.08 0.06
14 986.2 937.8 0.59 0.26 0.09 0.06
15 808.7 897.4 0.60 0.26 0.08 0.06
Total 8697.6 8501.4 (-2.2%)
1Based on records from S.S. Miller, USDA, Kearneysville, WV.
2Fruit size was modified from research data to reflect field and storage conditions. Fifty percent of 2 3.4 to 31!4 inch or larger are
US Extra Fancy/Fancy (tray pack) and fifty percent US Fancy (film bags). The 2114 to 23.4 inch apples were US Fancy (film Bag).
3Juice apples include fruit less than 2114 inch in diameter, drops, and fruit with defects in excess of amounts permitted in utility grade.
4Culls and shrink include unharvested fruit, storage water loss, and diseased or rotted fruit having no value.

30
Table 5. Estimated Yield, Five Year Moving Average, Fruit Size and Grade for Golden Delicious, 340
Trees/Acre.
Size/Grade %2
Tree Actual 5 Yr. Moving Avg. 2 3/4"-3 1/4" 2 1/4" -2 3/4" Cull
Age Bu/Acre, Bu/Acre & up Juice 3 Shrink4

1 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 87.5 70.5 0.80 0.14 0.04 0.02
4 135.2 140.8 0.78 0.16 0.04 0.02
5 224.4 340.5 0.75 0.18 0.05 0.02
6 401.9 542.5 0.75 0.18 0.05 0.02
7 853.5 737.8 0.70 0.20 0.07 0.03
8 1097.6 923.2 0.60 0.23 0.11 0.06
9 1111.7 973.4 0.58 0.24 0.12 0.06
10 1151.5 998.7 0.52 0.28 0.14 0.06
11 652.5 989.4 0.53 0.29 0.12 0.06
12 980.0 887.1 0.46 0.31 0.15 0.08
13 1051.2 821.1 0.54 0.26 0.13 0.07
14 600.4 786.2 0.55 0.24 0.16 0.05
15 821.6 711.0 0.58 0.27 0.10 0.05
Total 9169.0 8922.2 (-2.7%)
, Based on records from D. C. Ferree, Wooster, Ohio.
2Fruit size was modified from research data to reflect field and storage conditions. Fifty percent of 23/4 to 3V4 inch or larger are
US Extra Fancy/Fancy (tray pack) and fifty percent US Fancy (film bags). The 2114 to 23/4 inch apples were US Fancy (film Bag).
3Juice apples include fruit less than 2V4 inch in diameter, drops, and fruit with defects in excess of amounts permitted in utility grade.
4Culls and shrink include unharvested fruit, storage water loss, and diseased or rotted fruit having no value.

Table 6. Estimated Yield, Five Year Moving Average, Fruit Size and Grade for Spur Red Delicious, 340
Trees/Acre.
Size/Grade %2
Tree Actual 5 Yr. Moving Avg. 2 3/4"-3 1/4" 2 1/4" -2 3/4" Cull
Age Bu/Acre, Bu/Acre & up JuiceJ Shrink4

1 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 24.8 18.2 0.92 0.05 0.02 O.D1
4 136.8 80.8 0.92 0.05 0.02 0.01
5 271.3 268.3 0.90 0.04 0.04 0.02
6 489.9 552.0 0.88 0.04 0.05 0.03
7 859.1 658.2 0.84 0.08 0.05 0.03
8 1003.1 814.5 0.74 0.12 0.10 0.04
9 667.5 886.9 0.71 0.12 0.12 0.05
10 1052.8 801.5 0.72 0.11 0.12 0.05
11 851.9 813.1 0.68 0.14 0.12 0.06
12 432.4 930.0 0.59 0.21 0.14 0.06
13 1061.3 866.4 0.57 0.23 0.14 0.06
14 1252.0 993.2 0.49 0.31 0.14 0.06
15 734.5 886.7 0.58 0.24 0.12 0.06
Total 8837.4 8569.8 (-3.0%)
1Based on records from L.D. Tukey, Penn State and D.C. Elfving, Simcoe, Ontario.
2 Fruit size was modified from research data to reflect field and storage conditions. Fifty percent of 23/4 to 3114 inch or larger are
US Extra Fancy/Fancy (tray pack) and fifty percent US Fancy (film bags). The 2114 to 23/4 inch apples were US Fancy (film Bag).
3Juice apples include fruit less than 2114 inch in diameter, drops, and fruit with defects in excess of amounts permitted in utility grade.
4Culls and shrink include unharvested fruit, storage water loss, and diseased or rotted fruit having no value.

31
 Table 7. Estimated Yield, Five Year Moving Average, Fruit Size and Grade for York Imperial, 605 Trees/Acre.
Size/Grade Ofo2
Tree Actual 5 Yr. Moving Avg. 2 3/4" -3 1/4" 2 1/4" -2 3/4" Cull
Age Bu/Acre1 Bu/Acre & up Juice 3 Shrink4

1 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 57.4 51.2 0.89 0.07 0.02 0.02
4 172.1 128.2 0.86 0.10 0.02 0.02
5 297.1 256.4 0.87 0.08 0.03 0.02
6 835.7 453.9 0.85 0.09 0.03 0.03
7 456.9 606.1 0.80 0.09 0.08 0.03
8 507.6 800.6 0.70 0.18 0.08 0.04
9 933.4 851.5 0.51 0.36 0.09 0.04
10 1269.6 919.4 0.42 0.41 0.12 0.05
11 1089.9 1010.9 0.40 0.43 0.11 0.06
12 796.4 1030.9 0.54 0.30 0.10 0.06
13 965.3 931.4 0.50 0.35 0.09 0.06
14 1033.4 974.5 0.57 0.28 0.09 0.06
15 774.7 953.6 0.58 0.28 0.08 0.06
Total 9189.5 8969.8 (-2.4%)
1Based on records from L.D. Tukey, Penn State.
2Fruit size was modified from research data to reflect field and storage conditions. Fifty percent of 2 34 to 3V4 inch or larger are
US Extra Fancy/Fancy (tray pack) and fifty percent US Fancy (film bags). The 2V4 to 2 34 inch apples were US Fancy (film Bag).
3Juice apples include fruit less than 2V4 inch in diameter, drops, and fruit with defects in excess of amounts permitted in utility grade.
4Culls and shrink include unharvested fruit, storage water loss, and diseased or rotted fruit having no value.

Table 8. Estimated Yield, Five Year Moving Average, Fruit Size and Grade for Golden Delicious, 605
Trees/Acre.
Size/Grade Ofo2
Tree Actual 5 Yr. Moving Avg. 2 3/4" -3 1/4" 2 1/4" -2 3/4" Cull
Age Bu/Acre1 Bu/Acre & up Juicea Shrink4

1 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 225.9 143.5 0.92 0.05 0.02 0.01
4 348.1 287.0 0.88 0.06 0.04 0.02
5 461.6 587.8 0.83 0.08 0.06 0.03
6 736.1 695.7 0.70 0.20 0.06 0.04
7 1167.4 812.2 0.60 0.26 0.09 0.05
8 765.2 893.7 0.55 0.28 0.11 0.06
9 930.7 841.5 0.52 0.31 0.11 0.06
10 869.1 767.5 0.57 0.26 0.12 0.05
11 475.1 865.9 0.57 0.26 0.12 0.05
12 797.5 824.9 0.60 0.22 0.13 0.05
13 1257.3 813.8 0.50 0.31 0.14 0.05
14 725.4 965.4 0.49 0.30 0.15 0.06
15 813.6 869.5 0.50 0.31 0.13 0.06
Total 9573.0 9348.4 (-2.1%)
Based on records from L. D. Tukey, Penn State and D. C. Ferree, Ohio State, Wooster.
2Fruit size was modified from research data to reflect field and storage conditions. Fifty percent of 2 3/4 to 3V4 inch or larger are
US Extra Fancy/Fancy (tray pack) and fifty percent US Fancy (film bags). The 2V4 to 23/4 inch apples were US Fancy (film Bag).
3Juice apples include fruit less than 2V4 inch in diameter, drops, and fruit with defects in excess of amounts permitted in utility grade.
4Culls and shrink include unharvested fruit, storage water loss, and diseased or rotted fruit having no value.

32
Table 9. Estimated Yield, Five Year Moving Average, Fruit Size and Grade for Spur Red Delicious, 605
Trees/Acre.
Size/Grade %2
Tree Actual 5 Yr. Moving Avg. 2 3/4" -3 1/4" 2 1/4"-2 3/4" Cull
Age Bu/Acre1 Bu/Acre & up Juice 3 Shrink4

1 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 95.1 86.5 0.95 0.02 0.02 O.D1
4 310.3 211.8 0.95 0.02 0.02 0.01
5 379.4 418.6 0.94 O.D1 0.02 0.02
6 600.2 637.6 0.87 0.05 0.05 0.03
7 707.9 672.1 0.88 0.04 0.05 0.03
8 1190.2 854.9 0.56 0.30 0.10 0.04
9 482.7 974.6 0.43 0.40 0.11 0.06
10 1293.5 941.8 0.45 0.36 0.13 0.06
11 1198.5 860.4 0.50 0.30 0.14 0.06
12 543.9 987.7 0.41 0.40 0.13 0.06
13 783.6 825.6 0.51 0.30 0.13 0.06
14 1119.1 800.9 0.56 0.24 0.14 0.06
15 482.7 667.5 0.64 0.20 0.11 0.05
Total 9187.1 8940.0 (-2.7%)
Based on records from L. D. Tukey, Penn State and D. C. Elfving, Simcoe, Ontario.
2Fruit size was modified from research data to reflect field and storage conditions. Fifty percent of 23.4 to 3V4 inch or larger are
US Extra Fancy/Fancy (tray pack) and fifty percent US Fancy (film bags). The 2V4 to 23.4 inch apples were US Fancy (film Bag).
3Juice apples include fruit less than 2V4 inch in diameter, drops, and fruit with defects in excess of amounts permitted in utility grade.
4Culls and shrink include unharvested fruit, storage water loss, and diseased or rotted fruit having no value.

Table 10. Estimated Yield, Five Year Moving Average, Fruit Size and Grade for York Imperial, 726 Trees/Acre.

Size/Grade Ofo2
Tree Actual 5 Yr. Moving Avg. 2 3/4" -3 1/4" 2 1/4" -2 3/4" Cull
Age Bu/Acre1 Bu/Acre & up Juice3 Shrink4

1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 86.8 83.8 0.89 0.07 0.02 0.02
4 173.7 153.8 0.89 0.07 0.02 0.02
5 293.9 263.9 0.89 0.07 0.02 0.02
6 1057.3 526.1 0.86 0.07 0.04 0.03
7 380.0 637.8 0.85 0.06 0.05 0.04
8 725.7 731.2 0.86 0.06 0.05 0.03
9 732.3 799.6 0.83 0.03 0.09 0.05
10 760.6 886.7 0.82 0.02 0.10 0.06
11 1399.6 1039.3 0.67 0.17 0.10 0.06
12 815.3 1047.7 0.67 0.17 0.10 0.06
13 1488.8 1127.3 0.36 0.46 0.12 0.06
14 774.2 1192.0 0.62 0.18 0.14 0.06
15 1158.4 1115.7 0.63 0.19 0.12 0.06
Total 9846.6 9604.9 (-2.4%)
1Based on records from L. D. Tukey, Penn State.
2Fruit size was modified from research data to reflect field and storage conditions. Fifty percent of 2 3.4 to 3V4 inch or larger are
US Extra Fancy/Fancy (tray pack) and fifty percent US Fancy (film bags). The 2% to 23/4 inch apples were US Fancy (film Bag).
3Juice apples include fruit less than 2% inch in diameter, drops, and fruit with defects in excess of amounts permitted in utility grade.
4Culls and shrink include unharvested fruit, storage water loss, and diseased or rotted fruit having no value.

33
 Table 11. Estimated Yield, Five Year Moving Average, Fruit Size and Grade for Golden Delicious, 726
Trees/Acre.
Size/Grade Ofo2
Tree Actual 5 Yr. Moving Avg. 2 3/4" -3 1/4" 2 1/4"-2 3/4" Cull
Age Bu/Acre1 Bu/Acre & up Juicea Shrink4

1 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 249.1 186.8 0.94 0.02 0.02 0.02
4 498.2 373.2 0.87 0.09 0.02 0.02
5 632.7 577.6 0.79 0.10 0.08 0.03
6 863.7 719.5 0.68 0.15 0.12 0.05
7 644.5 707.1 0.71 0.13 0.11 0.05
8 958.6 723.1 0.72 0.13 0.10 0.05
9 435.8 747.3 0.76 0.10 0.09 0.05
10 713.1 806.3 0.81 0.03 0.11 0.05
11 984.7 903.5 0.52 0.30 0.12 0.06
12 939.5 960.5 0.59 0.21 0.14 0.06
13 1444.5 1179.8 0.61 0.18 0.15 0.06
14 720.8 897.2 0.41 0.40 0.13 0.06
15 809.0 803.0 0.46 0.34 0.14 0.06
Total 9894.2 9584.9 (-3.1%)
1Based on records from L.D. Tukey, Penn State.
2Fruit size was modified from research data to reflect field and storage conditions.Fifty percent of 23/4 to 3% inch or larger are
US Extra Fancy/Fancy (tray pack) and fifty percent US Fancy (film bags). The 2% to 2 3/4 inch apples were US Fancy (film Bag).
3Juice apples include fruit less than 21f4 inch in diameter, drops, and fruit with defects in excess of amounts permitted in utility grade.
4Culls and shrink include unharvested fruit, storage water loss, and diseased or rotted fruit having no value.

Table 12. Estimated Yield, Five Year Moving Average, Fruit Size and Grade for Spur Red Delicious, 726
Trees/Acre.
Size/Grade Ofo2
Tree Actual 5 Yr. Moving Avg. 2 3/4"-3 1/4" 2 1/4" -2 3/4" Cull
Age Bu/Acre1 Bu/Acre & up Juicea Shrink4

1 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 167.2 152.3 0.96 0.00 0.02 0.02
4 217.6 188.1 0.96 0.00 0.02 0.02
5 335.3 439.7 0.96 0.00 0.02 0.02
6 570.6 435.3 0.93 0.02 0.03 0.02
7 907.8 657.9 0.85 0.07 0.05 0.03
8 145.1 660.6 0.80 0.10 0.06 0.04
9 1331.0 806.7 0.44 0.40 0.12 0.04
10 348.3 993.5 0.61 0.20 0.13 0.06
11 1301.1 1086.0 0.35 0.40 0.19 0.06
12 1107.4 995.3 0.63 0.20 0.11 0.06
13 1342.2 1094.4 0.41 0.40 0.13 0.06
14 877.6 957.4 0.56 0.23 0.15 0.06
15 843.9 854.6 0.51 0.29 0.15 0.05
Total 9495.1 9321.8 (-1.8%)
,Based on records from L. D. Tukey, Penn State.
2Fruit size was modified from research data to reflect field and storage conditions. Fifty percent of 2 3/.1 to 3% inch or larger are
US Extra Fancy/Fancy (tray pack) and fifty percent US Fancy (film bags). The 21f4 to 2 3.4 inch apples were US Fancy (film Bag).
3Juice apples include fruit less than 21f4 inch in diameter, drops, and fruit with defects in excess of amounts permitted in utility grade.
4Culls and shrink include unharvested fruit, storage water loss, and diseased or rotted fruit having no value.

34
 Appendix C
Annual Costs, Returns
and
Internal Rates of Return
This page intentionally blank.
Table 1. Total Cost and Total Return per Year, 40 A Farm, Free Standing or Trained to Modified Slender
Spindle, for York Imperial and Golden Delicious Apples for Processing, 1990.
Golden Delicious, York lmperiaP
141 T/A 340 T/A 141 T/A 340 T/A
Year Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return
0 $ 477 $ 0 $ 477 $ 0 $ 477 $ 0 $ 477 $ 0
1 1462 0 2861 0 1462 0 2861 0
2 660 0 717 0 660 0 721 0
3 694 36 782 247 684 0 704 0
4 921 135 1062 492 919 125 1005 301
5 1135 538 1302 1180 1053 299 1205 879
6 1268 1026 1554 1880 1189 909 1467 1567
7 1531 1464 1824 2495 1480 1378 1619 1768
8 1760 1936 2034 2938 1730 1889 1749 2351
9 2079 2701 2043 3075 1968 2369 1778 2604
10 2104 2717 2097 3100 2010 2712 2011 2942
11 2241 2865 2142 3102 2159 2895 2000 2940
12 2321 3304 2018 2658 2171 2920 2182 3234
13 2211 2948 1939 2541 2215 3038 2116 3107
14 2171 2702 1871 2455 2136 3174 2049 3006
15 2010 2338 1843 2289 2176 3047 2054 2893
-- -- - -
TOTAL $25045 $24710 $26556 $28452 $24487 $24755 $26146 $27592

IRR 2 5 Yr -36.9% -31.5% -40.0% -36.0%

10 Yr -8.8 -2.6 -9.9 -6.4
15 Yr -0.4 +2.3 -0.3 +1.7
IRR3
10%1ncrease 15 Yr +2.6 +5.3 +3.1 +4.4
,Annual costs and returns based on 1990 input prices and 1986-1990 average product prices.
2IAR=Internal rate of return analysis using a land cost of $2,000 and $2,000 salvage value.
31AR using a 10% increase in annual returns over 15 yrs.

37
 Table 2. Total Cost and Total Return per Year, 80 A Farm, Free Standing or Trained to Modified Slender
Spindle, for York Imperial and Golden Delicious Apples for Processing, 1990.
Golden Delicious, York lmperiaP
141 T/A 340 T/A 141 T/A 340 T/A
Year Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return
0 $ 400 $ 0 $ 400 $ 0 $ 400 $ 0 $ 400 $ 0
1 1315 0 2781 0 1315 0 2781 0
2 509 0 583 0 509 0 563 0
3 533 36 656 247 522 0 538 0
4 764 135 968 492 761 125 840 301
5 976 538 1229 1180 895 299 1047 879
6 1131 1026 1502 1880 1085 909 1316 1567
7 1377 1464 1776 2495 1334 1378 1470 1768
8 1608 1936 1973 2938 1594 1889 1607 2351
9 1963 2701 1991 3075 1838 2369 1744 2604
10 1972 2717 2041 3100 1893 2712 1885 2942
11 2126 2865 2097 3102 2044 2895 1963 2940
12 2189 3304 1955 2658 2053 2920 2056 3234
13 2037 2948 1876 2541 2105 3038 1992 3107
14 2039 2702 1801 2455 2127 3174 1924 3006
15 1819 2338 1770 2289 2055 3047 1921 2893
-- -- -- --
TOTAL $22758 $24710 $25399 $28452 $22531 $24755 $24047 $27592

IRR 2 5 Yr -30.2% -28.4% -33.0% -30.8%

10 Yr -5.1 -0.1 -6.3 -3.6
15 Yr +2.7 +3.8 +2.8 +3.9

IRR3
10%1ncrease 15 Yr +5.5 +6.7 +5.5 +6.4
1Annual costs and returns based on 1990 input prices and 1986-1990 average product prices.
2IAR=Internal rate of return analysis using a land cost of $2,000 and $2,000 salvage value.
3IAR using a 10% increase in annual returns over 15 yrs.

38
Table 3. Total Cost and Total Return per Year, 160 A Farm, Free Standing or Trained to Modified Slender
Spindle, for Golden Delicious and York Imperial Apples for Processing, 1990.
Golden Delicious, York lmperiaP
141 T/A 340 T/A 141 T/A 340 T/A
Year Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return
0 $ 363 $ 0 $ 363 $ 0 $ 363 $ 0 $363 $ 0
1 1278 0 2747 0 1278 0 2747 0
2 472 0 518 0 463 0 518 0
3 489 36 580 247 475 0 491 0
4 723 135 994 492 718 125 804 301
5 949 538 1173 1180 859 299 1031 879
6 1121 1026 1274 1880 1051 909 1325 1567
7 1386 1464 1795 2495 1337 1378 1488 1768
8 1642 1936 2033 2938 1613 1889 1645 2351
9 2001 2701 2075 3075 1879 2369 1795 2604
10 2049 2717 2128 3100 1946 2712 1950 2942
11 2183 2865 2184 3102 2111 2895 2029 2940
12 2273 3304 2028 2658 2120 2920 2133 3234
13 2109 2948 1941 2541 2174 3038 2066 3107
14 2105 2702 1860 2455 2205 3174 1992 3006
15 1875 2338 1881 2289 2122 3047 1983 2893
-- -- --
Total $23019 $24710 $25510 $28452 $22715 $24755 $24359 $27592

IRR 2 5 Yr -28.6% -27.0% -31.1% -29.7%

10 Yr -5.0 -0.5 -6.0 -3.6
15 Yr +2.4 +3.8 +2.7 +3.7

IRRJ
10%1ncrease 15 Yr +5.4 +6.8 +5.5 +6.3
,Annual costs and returns based on 1990 input prices and 1986-1990 average product prices.
2IRR=Internal rate of return analysis using a land cost of $2,000 and $2,000 salvage value.
31RR using a 10% increase in annual returns over 15 yrs.

39
 Table 4. Total Cost and Total Return per Year, 40 A Farm, Free Standing or Trained to Modified Slender
Spindle, for Golden and Red Delicious Apples for Fresh Market, 1990.
Golden Delicious, Red Delicious1
141 T/A 340 T/A 141 T/A 340 T/A
Year Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return
0 $ 477 $ 0 $ 477 $ 0 $ 477 $ 0 $ 477 $ 0
1 1462 0 2861 0 1462 0 2861 0
2 660 0 725 0 660 0 725 0
3 695 57 788 392 694 0 724 107
4 979 212 1131 778 961 176 1047 473
5 1201 838 1388 1855 1066 549 1277 1538
6 1344 1579 1657 2955 1324 1620 1647 3106
7 1617 2249 1946 3887 1615 2586 1827 3659
8 1857 2898 2171 4492 1894 4372 2018 4250
9 2193 4082 2183 4678 2082 4112 2032 4500
10 2222 3919 2230 4647 2091 4277 1969 4080
11 2364 4119 2289 4670 2200 4161 1992 4048
12 2450 4868 2154 3936 2239 4470 2163 4439
13 2233 4318 2072 3833 2229 4305 2049 4106
14 2290 3885 1998 3694 2140 4119 2202 4570
15 2067 3454 1967 3483 2101 4056 2057 4261
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
TOTAL $26211 $31543 $28037 $43300 $25235 $37903 $27067 $43137

IRR 2 5 Yr -32.9% -23.4% -35.8% -27.9%

10 Yr +2.2 +9.1 +4.4 +7.7
15 Yr +10.2 +13.6 +11.6 +13.2

IRR3
10%1ncrease 15 Yr +12.5 +16.3 +13.9 +15.6
,Annual costs and returns based on 1990 input prices and 1986-1990 average product prices.
2IRR=Internal rate of return analysis using a land cost of $2,000 and $2,000 salvage value.
3IRR using a 10% increase in annual returns over 15 yrs.

40
Table 5. Total Cost and Total Return per Year, 80 A Farm, Free Standing or Trained to Modified Slender
Spindle, for Golden and Red Delicious Apples for Fresh Market, 1990.
Golden Delicious1 Red Delicious1
141 T/A 340 T/A 141 T/A 340 T/A
Year Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return
0 $ 400 $ 0 $ 400 $ 0 $ 400 $ 0 $ 400 $ 0
1 1315 0 2781 0 1315 0 2781 0
2 509 0 571 0 509 0 546 0
3 534 57 625 392 573 0 560 107
4 822 212 967 778 890 176 881 473
5 1042 838 1230 1855 1136 549 1117 1538
6 1208 1579 1504 2955 1400 1620 1494 3106
7 1464 2249 1799 3887 1475 2586 1676 3659
8 1772 2898 2029 4492 1766 3472 1873 4250
9 2061 4082 2047 4678 1966 4112 1894 4500
10 2093 3919 2096 4647 1982 4277 1829 4080
11 2252 4119 2153 4670 2089 4161 1851 4048
12 2322 4868 2011 3936 2128 4470 2021 4439
13 2136 4318 1932 3833 2120 4305 1912 4106
14 2161 3885 1857 3694 2027 4119 2068 4570
15 1928 3454 1826 3483 2015 4056 1916 4261
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
TOTAL $24019 $31543 $25828 $43300 $23791 $37903 $24819 $43137

IRR 2 5 Yr -26.8% -19.1% -34.1% -23.3%

10 Yr +4.9 +11.5 +6.1 +10.1
15 Yr +12.2 +15.7 +13.1 +15.3

IRR3
10%1ncrease 15 Yr +14.6 +18.3 +15.4 +17.6
1Annual costs and returns based on 1990 input prices and 1986-1990 average product prices.
2 1RR=Internal rate of return analysis using a land cost of $2,000 and $2,000 salvage value.
31RR using a 10% increase in annual returns over 15 yrs.

41
 Table 6. Total Cost and Total Return per Year, 160 A Farm, Free Standing or Trained to Modified Slender
Spindle, for Golden and Red Delicious Apples, for Fresh Market, 1990.
Golden Delicious1 Red Delicious1
141 T/A 340 T/A 141 T/A 340 T/A
Year Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return
0 $ 363 $ 0 $ 363 $ 0 $ 363 $ 0 $ 363 $ 0
1 1278 0 2747 0 1278 0 2747 0
2 493 0 526 0 463 0 524 0
3 495 57 588 392 485 0 515 107
4 781 212 939 778 758 176 845 473
5 1017 838 1229 1855 874 549 1105 1538
6 1202 1579 1529 2955 1172 1620 1520 3106
7 1478 2249 1850 3887 1501 2586 1717 3659
8 1748 2898 2105 4492 1817 3472 1934 4250
9 2127 4082 2130 4678 2041 4112 1966 4500
10 2170 3919 2184 4647 2069 4277 1890 4080
11 2320 4119 2239 4670 2176 4161 1912 4048
12 2417 4868 2083 3936 2228 4470 2098 4439
13 2246 4318 1996 3833 2212 4305 1980 4106
14 2237 3885 1915 3694 2117 4119 2154 4570
15 1984 3454 1866 3483 2092 4056 1988 4261
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Total $24356 $31543 $26209 $43300 $23647 $37903 $25178 $43137

IRR 2 5 Yr -25.3% -18.3% -27.5% -22.4%

10 Yr +5.4 +11.6 +7.4 +10.2
15 Yr +12.5 +15.7 +13.9 +15.3

IRR3
10%1ncrease 15 Yr +14.9 +18.3 +15.6 +17.7
1Annual costs and returns based on 1990 input prices and 1986-1990 average product prices.
2IRR=Internal rate of return analysis using a land cost of $2,000 and $2,000 salvage value.
3IRR using a 10% increase in annual returns over 15 yrs.

42
Table 7. Total Cost and Total Return per Year, 40 A Farm, Trained to Palmette Trellis, for Golden Delicious
and York Imperial Apples for Processing, 1990.
Golden Delicious1 York lmperial1
605 T/A 726 T/A 605 T/A 726 T/A
Year Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return
0 $ 477 $ 0 $ 477 $ 0 $ 477 $ 0 $ 477 $ 0
1 5714 0 6202 0 5714 0 6202 0
2 826 0 872 0 826 0 854 0
3 990 519 999 672 880 183 893 299
4 1228 1016 1370 1330 1040 456 1078 549
5 1613 2032 1638 1970 1243 910 1286 940
6 1772 2340 1828 2331 1493 1592 1612 1841
7 1920 2633 1835 2173 1656 2070 1758 2199
8 2045 2823 1882 2376 1980 2671 1859 2548
9 1902 2646 1813 2480 1948 2752 1855 2680
10 1821 2446 1859 2673 2023 2865 1939 3124
11 1911 2816 1960 2829 2122 3121 2125 3356
12 1916 2629 2116 3013 2154 3266 2206 3383
13 1861 2544 2285 3686 2031 2945 2225 3444
14 2056 2969 1976 2750 2073 3145 2298 3756
15 1940 2702 1892 2469 2076 3064 2297 3551
Total $29992 $30115 $31004 $30752 $29736 $29040 $30964 31670

IRR 2 5 Yr -30.2% -30.4% -40.5% -40.6%

10 Yr -6.4 -7.9 -9.4 -8.6
15 Yr 0.2 -0.2 -0.6 +0.5

IRR 3
10%1ncrease 15 Yr +2.9 +2.5 +1.8 +2.9
1Annual costs and returns based on 1990 input prices and 1986-1990 average product prices.
21RR=Internal rate of return analysis using a land cost of $2,000 and $2,000 salvage value.
JIRR using a 10% increase in annual returns over 15 yrs.

43
 Table 8. Total Cost and Total Return per Year, 80 A Farm, Trained to Palmette Trellis, for Golden Delicious
and York Imperial Apples for Processing, 1990.
Golden Delicious1 York lmperiaP
605 T/A 726 T/A 605 T/A 726 T/A
Year Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return
0 $ 400 $ 0 $ 400 $ 0 $ 400 $ 0 $ 400 $ 0
1 5602 0 6069 0 5602 0 6069 0
2 686 0 715 0 686 0 715 0
3 829 519 805 672 720 183 770 299
4 1061 1016 1171 1330 876 456 918 549
5 1470 2032 1466 1970 1110 910 1120 940
6 1595 2340 1651 2331 1331 1592 1444 1841
7 1714 2633 1655 2173 1513 2070 1590 2199
8 1863 2823 1701 2376 1787 2671 1689 2548
9 1728 2646 1640 2680 1766 2752 1692 2640
10 1648 2446 1685 2673 1815 2865 1800 3124
11 1736 2816 1787 2829 1930 3121 1964 3356
12 1735 2629 1934 3013 1983 3266 2039 3383
13 1687 2544 2108 3686 1844 2946 2067 3444
14 1879 2969 1801 2750 1893 3145 2137 3756
15 1759 2702 1711 2469 1886 3064 2104 3551
-- -- -- -- --
Total $27392 $30115 $28299 $30752 $27142 $29040 $28518 $31670

IRR2 5 Yr -26.9% -26.6% -36.6% -36.7%

10 Yr -3.5 -4.8 -6.6 -6.2
15 Yr +2.6 +2.3 +1.6 +2.5

IRR 3
10%1ncrease 15 Yr +5.2 +4.8 +3.9 +4.7
1Annual costs and returns based on 1990 input prices and 1986-1990 average product prices.
21RR=Internal rate of return analysis using a land cost of $2,000 and $2,000 salvage value.
3IRR using a 10% increase in annual returns over 15 yrs.

44
Table 9. Total Cost and Total Return per Year, 160 A Farm, Trained to Palmette Trellis, for Golden Delicious
and York Imperial Apples for Processing, 1990.
Golden Delicious, York lmperia11
605 T/A 726 T/A 605 T/A 726 T/A
Year Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return
0 $ 363 $ 0 $ 363 $ 0 $ 363 $ 0 $ 363 $ 0
1 5475 0 6020 0 5475 0 6020 0
2 644 0 650 0 635 0 664 0
3 798 519 867 672 676 183 730 299
4 1052 1016 1175 1330 842 456 889 549
5 1477 2032 1500 1970 1063 910 1107 940
6 1648 2340 1706 2331 1341 1592 1472 1841
7 1809 2633 1676 2173 1545 2070 1633 2199
8 1945 2823 1715 2376 1823 2671 1747 2548
9 1803 2646 1700 2480 1827 2752 1761 2680
10 1712 2446 1754 2673 1884 2865 1863 3124
11 1814 2816 1871 2829 2009 3121 2068 3356
12 1807 2629 1994 3013 2075 3266 2145 3383
13 1758 2544 2236 3686 1932 2945 2185 3444
14 1973 2967 1884 2750 1987 3145 2267 3756
15 1837 2702 1779 2469 1981 3064 2220 3551
-- -- -- -- -- -- - - --
Total $27915 $30115 $28890 $30752 $27458 $29040 $29134 $31670

IRR 2 5 Yr -26.3% -26.8% -35.3% -35.9%

10 Yr -3.8 -5.2 -6.5 -6.3
15 Yr +2.2 +1.8 +1.4 +2.1
IRRJ
10%1ncrease 15 Yr +4.9 +4.4 +3.8 +4.4
,Annual costs and returns based on 1990 input prices and 1986-1990 average product prices.
21RR=Internal rate of return analysis using a land cost of $2,000 and $2,000 salvage value.
3IRR using a 10% increase in annual returns over 15 yrs.

45
 Table 10. Total Cost and Total Return per Year, 40 A Farm, Trained to Palmette Trellis, for Fresh Market
Golden Delicious and Red Delicious Apples, 1990.
Golden Delicious1 Red Delicious1
605 T/A 726 T/A 605 T/A 726 T/A
Year Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return
0 $ 477 $ 0 $ 477 $ 0 $ 477 $ 0 $ 477 $ 0
1 5714 0 6202 0 5714 0 6202 0
2 826 0 871 0 826 0 871 0
3 990 841 1087 1093 881 511 967 896
4 1238 1635 1387 2138 1082 1252 1053 1107
5 1646 3243 1670 3118 1414 2430 1438 2587
6 1814 3652 1871 3613 1693 3577 1471 2528
7 1970 4027 1877 3419 1705 3782 1722 3669
8 2101 4271 1925 3717 1909 4196 1710 3581
9 1955 3978 1859 3911 2049 4456 1808 3753
10 1928 3709 1909 4250 1949 4292 2085 4782
11 1966 4260 2018 4249 1898 3974 2173 4600
12 1968 4008 2178 4584 2100 4433 2068 4894
13 1912 3794 2364 5643 1873 3848 2198 4932
14 2118 4417 2034 4027 1835 3781 2042 4497
15 1995 4037 1942 3653 1705 3323 1961 3978
-- -- -- -- -- --
Total $30618 $45872 $31671 $47415 $29110 $43855 $30246 $45804

IRR 2 5 Yr -18.6% -18.6% -23.7% -23.5%

10 Yr +6.2 +5.3 +5.9 +3.8
15 Yr +11.5 +11.2 +10.9 +10.4

IRR3
10%1ncrease 15 Yr +14.0 +13.7 +13.2 +12.7
1Annual costsand returns based on 1990 input prices and 1986-1990 average product prices.
2 1RR=Internalrate of return analysis using a land cost of $2,000 and $2,000 salvage value.
31RR using a 10% increase in annual returns over 15 yrs.

46
Table 11. Total Cost and Total Return per Year, 80 A Farm, Trained to Palmette Trellis, for Fresh Market
Golden Delicious and Red Delicious Apples, 1990.
Golden Delicious1 Red Delicious1
605 T/A 726 T/A 605 T/A 726 T/A
Year Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return
0 $ 400 $ 0 $ 400 $ 0 $ 400 $ 0 $ 400 $ 0
1 5602 0 6069 0 5602 0 6069 0
2 686 0 715 0 686 0 715 0
3 828 841 894 093 722 511 806 896
4 1072 1635 1190 2138 916 1252 891 1107
5 1506 3243 1501 3118 1248 2430 1268 2587
6 1639 3652 1697 3613 1519 3577 1299 2528
7 1768 4027 1700 3419 1529 3782 1546 3669
8 1924 4271 1748 3717 1730 4196 1534 3581
9 1784 3978 1689 3911 1895 4456 1637 3753
0 1698 3709 1738 4250 1840 4292 1915 4782
11 1794 4268 1848 4249 1726 3974 2012 4600
12 1790 4008 2001 4584 1921 4433 1890 4894
13 1742 3794 2193 5643 1707 3848 2027 4932
14 1945 4417 1862 4027 1663 3781 1869 4497
15 1816 4037 1764 3653 1528 3323 1784 3978
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Total $27994 $45872 $29009 $47415 $26632 $43855 $27662 $45804

IRR2 5 Yr -15.9% -15.4% -20.6% -20.4%

10 Yr +8.5 +7.6 +8.0 +6.0
15 Yr +13.4 +13.1 +12.7 +12.2

IRR 3
10%1ncrease 15 Yr +15.8 +15.5 +15.0 +14.2
1Annual costs and returns based on 1990 input prices and 1986-1990 average product prices.
21RR=Internal rate of return analysis using a land cost of $2,000 and $2,000 salvage value.
3 1RR using a 10% increase in annual returns over 15 yrs.

47
 Table 12. Total Cost and Total Return per Year, 160 A Farm, Trained to Palmette Trellis, for Fresh Market
Golden Delicious and Red Delicious Apples, 1990.
Golden Delicious1 Red Delicious,
605 T/A 726 T/A 605 T/A 726 T/A
Year Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return
0 $ 363 $ 0 $ 363 $ 0 $ 363 $ 0 $ 363 $ 0
1 5475 0 6020 0 5475 0 6020 0
2 644 0 650 0 636 0 650 0
3 800 841 872 1093 667 511 778 896
4 1066 1635 1198 2138 898 1252 869 1107
5 1519 3243 1541 3118 1234 2430 1285 2587
6 1700 3652 1761 3613 1570 3577 1317 2528
7 1872 4027 1763 3419 1584 3782 1600 3669
8 1973 4271 1811 3717 1817 4196 1588 3581
9 1869 3978 1758 3911 1934 4456 1716 3753
10 1771 3709 1811 4250 1876 4292 2024 4782
11 1883 4260 1943 4249 1814 3974 2125 4600
12 1871 4008 2104 4584 1901 4433 1999 4894
13 1822 3794 2334 5643 1789 3848 2153 4932
14 2051 4417 1955 4027 1741 3781 1974 4497
15 1906 4037 1841 3653 1567 3323 1869 3978
-- -- -- -- --
Total $28585 $45872 $29731 $47415 $26866 $43855 $28330 $45804

IRR 2 5 Yr -15.3% -15.2% -19.7% -20.01%

10 Yr +8.5 +7.5 +8.2 +6.0
15 Yr +13.3 +12.9 +12.8 +12.1

IRR 3
10%1ncrease 15 Yr +15.8 +15.4 +15.1 +14.1
,Annual costs and returns based on 1990 input prices and 1986-1990 average product prices.
2IRR=Internal rate of return analysis using a land cost of $2,000 and $2,000 salvage value.
JIRR using a 10% increase in annual returns over 15 yrs.

48
Table 13. Total Cost and Total Return per Year, 40 A Farm, Trained to Modified Slender Spindle, for Golden
Delicious and York Imperial Apples for Processing, 1990.
Golden Delicious, York lmperiaP
605 T/A 726 T/A 605 T/A 726 T/A
Year Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return
0 $ 477 $ 0 $ 477 $ 0 $ 477 $ 0 $ 477 $ 0
1 5403 0 6023 0 5403 0 6023 0
2 773 0 845 0 773 0 826 0
3 939 519 1020 672 835 183 879 299
4 1120 1016 1242 1330 947 456 967 549
5 1467 2032 1464 1970 1097 910 1116 940
6 1601 2340 1680 2331 1371 1592 1469 1841
7 1840 2633 1757 2173 1584 2070 1671 2199
8 2013 2823 1879 2376 1916 2671 1825 2548
9 1940 2646 1892 2480 1973 2752 1912 2680
10 1881 2446 1860 2673 2091 2865 2043 3124
11 1982 2816 2057 2829 2184 3121 2211 3356
12 2020 2629 2025 3013 2240 3266 2241 3383
13 1954 2544 2387 3686 2103 2945 2296 3444
14 2093 2969 2037 2750 2128 3145 2369 3756
15 1989 2702 1938 2469 2152 3064 2300 3551
--
Total $29492 $30115 $30575 $30752 $29274 $29040 $30620 $31670

IRR 2 5 Yr -27.6% -28.2% -37.4% -37.7%

10 Yr -5.1 -7.0 -8.3 -7.9
15 Yr +0.6 +0.2 -0.2 +0.9

IRR 3
10%1ncrease 15 Yr +3. +2.9 +2.3 +3.3
1Annual costs and returns based on 1990 input prices and 1986-1990 average product prices.
21RR=Internal rate of return analysis using a land cost of $2,000 and $2,000 salvage value.
3 1RR using a 10% increase in annual returns over 15 yrs.

49
 Table 14. Total Cost and Total Return per Year, 80 A Farm, Trained to Modified Slender Spindle, for Golden
Delicious and York Imperial Apples for Processing, 1990.
Golden Delicious1 York lmperial1
605 T/A 726 T/A 605 T/A 726 T/A
Year Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return
0 $ 400 $ 0 $ 400 $ 0 $ 400 $ 0 $ 400 $ 0
1 5270 0 5860 0 5270 0 5860 0
2 633 0 688 0 633 0 715 0
3 755 519 827 672 676 183 720 299
4 923 1016 1043 1330 783 456 808 549
5 1276 2032 1292 1970 964 910 951 940
6 1421 2340 1504 2331 1209 1592 1301 1841
7 1624 2633 1608 2173 1441 2070 1502 2199
8 1808 2823 1730 2376 1722 2671 1656 2548
9 1754 2646 1749 2480 1791 2752 1749 2680
10 1713 2446 1657 673 1881 2865 1882 3124
11 1811 2816 1911 2829 1993 3121 2051 3356
12 1852 2629 1982 3013 2068 3266 2073 3383
13 1782 2544 2238 3686 1916 2945 2139 3444
14 1906 2969 1890 2750 1948 3145 2209 3756
15 1804 2702 1776 2469 1962 3064 2133 3551
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Total $26732 $30115 $28155 $30752 $26657 $29040 $28149 $31670

IRR 2 5 Yr -23.4% -24.3% -33.6% -33.8%

10 Yr -1.8 -3.9 -5.4 -5.2
15 Yr +3.5 +2.5 +2.2 +2.9

IRR3
10%1ncrease 15 Yr +6.2 +5.1 +4.5 +5.2
,Annual costs and returns based on 1990 input prices and 1986-1990 average product prices.
2IRR=Internal rate of return analysis using a land cost of $2,000 and $2,000 salvage value.
3IRR using a 10% increase in annual returns over 15 yrs.

50
Table 15. Total Cost and Total Return per Year, 160 A Farm, Trained to Modified Slender Spindle, for Golden
Delicious and York Imperial Apples for Processing, 1990.
Golden Delicious1 York lmperial1
605 T/A 726 T/A 605 T/A 726 T/A
Year Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return
0 $ 363 $ 0 $ 363 $ 0 $ 363 $ 0 $ 363 $ 0
1 5221 0 5840 0 5221 0 5840 0
2 591 0 623 0 582 0 637 0
3 746 519 802 672 631 183 680 299
4 943 1016 1047 1330 750 456 779 549
5 1331 2032 1327 1970 918 910 938 940
6 1513 2340 1560 2331 1220 1592 1329 1841
7 1729 2633 1661 2173 1473 2070 1546 2199
8 1913 2823 1784 2376 1759 2671 1714 2548
9 1840 2646 1808 2480 1852 2752 1819 2680
10 1772 2446 1837 2673 1951 2865 1966 3124
11 1886 2816 2061 2829 2072 3121 2156 3356
12 1872 2629 2072 3013 2160 3266 2180 3383
13 1851 2544 2363 3686 2003 2945 2257 3444
14 2010 2969 1971 2750 2042 3145 2338 3756
15 1885 2702 1842 2469 2057 3064 2250 3551
-- -- -- --
Total $27466 $30115 $28961 $30752 $27054 $29040 $28792 $31670

IRR 2 5 Yr -23.8% -24.2% -32.5% -33.0%

10 Yr -4.7 -4.5 -5.4 -5.4
15 Yr +1.8 +1.8 +1.9 +2.5

IRR3
10%1ncrease 15 Yr +4.6 +4.6 +4.3 +4.8
1Annual costs and returns based on 1990 input prices and 1986-1990 average product prices.
2 1RR=Internal rate of return analysis using a land cost of $2,000 and $2,000 salvage value.
3 IRR using a 10% increase in annual returns over 15 yrs.

51
 Table 16. Total Cost and Total Return per Year, 40 A Farm, Trained to Modified Slender Spindle, for Fresh
Market Golden Delicious and Red Delicious Apples, 1990.
Golden Delicious, Red Delicious,
605 T/A 726 T/A 605 T/A 726 T/A
Year Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return
0 $ 477 $ 0 $ 477 $ 0 $ 477 $ 0 $ 477 $ 0
1 5403 0 6023 0 5403 0 6023 0
2 773 0 845 0 771 0 844 0
3 938 841 1018 1093 863 511 946 896
4 1130 1635 1258 2138 1042 1252 992 1107
5 1501 3243 1496 3118 1328 2430 1331 2587
6 1679 3652 1724 3613 1579 3577 1360 2528
7 1890 4028 1843 3419 1689 3782 1663 3669
8 2069 4271 1966 3717 1922 4196 1674 3581
9 1992 3978 1980 3911 2051 4456 1870 3753
10 1928 3709 1990 4250 2021 4292 2101 4782
11 2037 4260 2145 4249 1939 3974 2239 4600
12 2033 4008 2224 4584 2146 4433 2182 894
13 2004 3794 2492 5643 1906 3848 2254 4932
14 2155 4418 2120 4027 1883 3781 2058 4497
15 2042 4037 2006 3653 1768 3323 1991
--
3978
--
-- -- --
Total $30051 $45874 $31607 $47415 $28788 $43855 $30005 $45804

IRR 2 5 Yr -16.4% -16.5% -22.1% -22.1%

10 Yr +7.5 +6.1 +6.8 +4.6
15 Yr +12.4 +11.7 +11.5 +10.9

IRR 3
10%1ncrease 15 Yr +14.9 +14.2 +13.9 +13.1
1Annual costs and returns based on 1990 input prices and 1986-1990 average product prices.
2IRR=Internal rate of return analysis using a land cost of $2,000 and $2,000 salvage value.
3IRR using a 10% increase in annual returns over 15 yrs.

52
Table 17. Total Cost and Total Return per Year, 80 A Farm, Trained to Modified Slender Spindle, for Fresh
Market Golden Delicious and Red Delicious Apples, 1990.
Golden Delicious, Red Delicious,
605 T/A 726 T/A 605 T/A 726 T/A
Year Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return
0 $ 400 $ 0 $ 400 $ 0 $ 400 $ 0 $ 400 $ 0
1 5270 0 5890 0 5270 0 5890 0
2 633 0 688 0 631 0 688 0
3 767 841 830 1093 717 511 785 896
4 946 1635 1061 2138 909 1252 831 1107
5 1324 3243 1327 3118 1226 2430 1161 2587
6 1478 3652 1551 3613 1503 3577 1187 2528
7 1690 4028 1654 3419 1617 3782 1486 3669
8 1881 4271 1777 3717 1874 4196 1528 3581
9 1823 3978 1797 3911 2045 4456 1697 3753
10 1775 3709 1822 4250 2057 4292 1931 4782
11 1882 4260 1972 4249 1901 3974 2076 4600
12 1878 4008 2048 4584 2120 4433 2005 4894
13 1848 3794 2322 5643 1856 3848 2082 4932
14 1983 4418 1951 4027 1834 3781 1886 4497
15 1874 4037 1829 3653 1693 3323 1807 3978
-- -- -- -- --
Total $27452 $45874 $28919 $47415 $27653 $43855 $27440 $45804

IRR 2 5 Yr -13.2% -13.4% -19.5% -19.0%

10 Yr +9.9 +8.5 +8.2 +6.7
15 Yr +14.4 +13.7 +12.7 +12.6

IRRJ
10%1ncrease 15 Yr +16.9 +16.1 +15.0 +14.6
1Annual costs and returns based on 1990 input prices and 1986-1990 average product prices.
21RR=Internal rate of return analysis using a land cost of $2,000 and $2,000 salvage value.
31RR using a 10% increase in annual returns over 15 yrs.

53
 Table 18. Total Cost and Total Return Per Year, 160 A Farm, Trained to Modified Slender Spindle, for Fresh
Market Golden Delicious and Red Delicious Apples, 1990.
Golden Delicious1 Red Delicious1
605 T/A 726 T/A 605 T/A 26 T/A
Year Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return Cost Return
0 $ 363 $ 0 $ 363 $ 0 $ 363 $ 0 $ 363 $
1 5221 0 5840 0 5221 0 5840 0
2 591 0 623 0 581 0 623 0
3 748 841 808 1093 649 511 747 896
4 958 1635 1069 2138 858 1252 809 1107
5 1374 3243 1369 3118 1147 2430 1179 2587
6 1565 3652 1614 3613 1456 3577 1206 2528
7 1792 4028 1715 3419 1569 3782 1540 3669
8 1984 4271 1839 3717 1829 4196 1581 3581
9 1906 3978 1865 3911 1985 4456 1775 3753
10 1831 3709 1900 4250 1948 4292 2040 4782
11 1954 4260 2068 4249 1856 3974 2190 4600
12 1937 4008 2150 4584 2060 4433 2113 4894
13 1915 3794 2460 5643 1822 3848 2207 4932
14 2110 4418 2042 4027 1789 3781 1991 4497
15 1954
--
4037 1905
--
3653 1629
--
3323
--
1890
--
3978
--
Total $28203 $45874 $29630 $47415 $26762 $42775 $28094 $45804

IRR 2 5 Yr -13.1% -13.1% -18.2% -18.5%

10 Yr +9.7 +8.4 +9.0 +6.7
15 Yr +14.2 +13.5 +13.4 +12.5
IRR3
10%1ncrease 15 Yr +16.7 +16.0 +15.7 +14.6
,Annual costs and returns based on 1990 input prices and 1986-1990 average product prices.
21RR=Internal rate of return analysis using a land cost of $2,000 and $2,000 salvage value.
31RR using a 10% increase in annual returns over 15 yrs.

54
This page intentionally blank.
 I
I

I
I

I
I

This page intentionally blank.

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I