![]() |
|
||||||||||||
|
March 21, 2003 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Dear Grower: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Morning Star
Offer |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| U.C. Ag
Extension Releases New Cost Studies The University of California Agricultural Extension has released two new Cost to Produce Processing Tomatoes for the San Joaquin Valley - South, Fresno County for 2002. One study was conducted for Direct Seed and another for Transplanted fields. The bottom line shows that the total cost to produce processing tomatoes in Fresno County is $1,777 per acre for Direct Seed and $1,894 for Transplanted fields. Both studies were based on 40 tons per acre. The problem, of course, is that the three-year average yield for Fresno County is 37.25 tons per acre. Everyone talks about forty-ton yields, but the fact is that raising processing tomatoes is a risky business. Growers should not expect high yields every year. A three-year average takes into consideration the highs & lows and, therefore substantially addresses the RISK FACTOR in determining a fair price. Of course a lower yield
reduces your total cost, by the tons not harvested @ $9.50 per, but the
reduced yields increase the break-even price and reduces any returns. For
example, the 3 year average yield of 37.25 reduces the total cost of
directed seeded fields in Fresno County to $1,750.88, increases the
breakeven to $47.00 and reduces the net to $93 per acre. For the
Transplanted operation the total cost is reduced to $1,867.88, the
break-even increases to $50.00 and the returns are turned upside down at
($24.00) per acre at a $49.50 price. And this does not take into
consideration the recent increased costs over and above those used in the
2002 UC study, please read on… |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GROWERS’
COSTS TO INCREASE Tomato growers in California cannot overstate the impact that the rising price of fuel & fertilizer will have on their operations. CTGA has laid out a simple analysis to show the impact of rising fuel & fertilizer prices on the cost of growing processing tomatoes. We used the University of California Cooperative Extension 2002 Sample Costs to Produce Processing Tomatoes – San Joaquin Valley – South (Fresno County) to determine the amount of fuel & fertilizer to produce an acre of processing tomatoes and then compared costs from the study with today’s costs. Applying the three-year average yield of 37.25 tons per acre the analysis shows that it will cost growers $.86 per ton more for fuel and $.51 per ton more for fertilizer to produce one ton of processing tomatoes in 2003 than in 2002. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| In
addition, as reported by the Growers Harvesting Committee recently, the
California Insurance Commissioner Harry Low approved a 10.5 percent
increase in the Pure Premium rates for workers’ compensation effective in
March 2003. This increase is on top of a July 2002 mid-year increase of
10.1 percent. The combined effect of the two increases is 22.7 percent
compounded rise in the Pure Premium rates since Jan 1, 2002. In one year
the workers’ compensation Pure Premium rate for 0171 Field Crops has
increased from a rate of 14.09 to 17.15. According to the same Sample Cost
Studies noted above the blended (60/40) Labor Cost to grow an acre of
processing tomatoes is $197.80. The increased Workers’ Compensation Pure
Premium rates will add an additional 16¢ per net ton to grow processing
tomatoes in 2003. The combination of these price increases will add $1.53 per net ton to the cost of growing tomatoes in 2003. U.C. Ag
Extension Cost Studies may be found at http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Canner's Intention Confusion?! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There has been some
confusion with the California Agricultural Statistics Service, Canners’
Intentions announcement of January 31st that stated, “California’s tomato processors indicated they
intend to contract approximately 1 percent more processing tomatoes than in
2002 or 10,900,000 tons.” What they
are trying say is that the Canners’ Intentions for 2003 of 10.9 million tons is
1 percent more than contracted tons that were harvested in 2002
(10,806,000). First, is this a
meaningful comparison? And second, does this mean in 2002 that 300,000 more
tons were contracted for after January or that the 300,000 tons were paid the
contract price? I believe that the industry would be better served if we compared apples to apples and stated, for example, “The Canners’ Intentions for 2003 of 10.9 million tons is 3.8% greater that the intentions of 2002.” |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
John C.
Welty |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | Tomato Bulletins | Press Releases | Editorials | Archives | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John C. Welty