Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and ...

25
Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and White Fir Plantation ChristmasTrees in New Mexico· experiment Sialion. Bulletin 74S z m College of Agriculture and Home Economics C. .<,..J.. ""'VERS'

Transcript of Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and ...

Page 1: Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and ...

Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and White Fir

Plantation ChristmasTrees in New Mexicomiddot

i~At~ Agrlcu~ur1 experiment Sialion Bulletin 74S z ~ m College of Agriculture and Home Economics

C ltJ

VERS

New Mexico State University is an equal opportunity employer All programs are available to everyone regardless of race color religion sex age handicep or national origin

September 1989 Las Cruces New Mexico

1M

SUMMARY

Many species of Christmas trees can be grown in New Mexico because of the diverse climate For this report however only those species that generally grow well at elevations above 5000 feet and are desirable for Christmas trees in New Mexico were considered This includes such species as Scots pine and White fir This does not include elderica pine (Afghan pine) which is more suited to growing conditions at lower elevations

Full-cost budgets and cash flow projections for a 160-acre (147 planted acres) farm are presented Full-cost budgets provide a planning tool while cash flow projections identify cash needs and evaluate project feasibility Because the prices received by growers can fluctuate from year to year a series of prices ranging from $1040 per tree to $1440 per tree were used in the cash flow ~lOalysis Additionally revenues and costs are also sensitive to changes in yield of saleable trees per acre The impact of saleable yields ranging from 60 to 90 of the original number of trees planted was also evaluated Also because costs can vary greatly by area in the state or from one grower to another costs were allowed to vary 10 in either direction in the evaluation Finally because income tax considerations can greatly affect after-tax income an investor analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of tax considerations

Christmas trees differ in the time required to grow them to harvest size as a result of tree species climate soils and management practices For this report trees were assumed to have attained a marketable size of 5 to 7 feet in 6 to 7 years with 13 attaining marketable size in year 6 and the balance in year 7 Because most growers prefer to avoid a gap in revenue a planting rotation was assumed This rotation involved planting only 1nth of the total 147 acres (21 acres) in anyone year hence by year 7 a constant volume of trees is available for market each year All harvested trees were assumed sold in the wholesale market although other market alternatives exist and are discussed in the text

The total pre-production costs to growmiddot Christmas trees to harvestable size was estimated at $5736 per acre This cost

~

incorporates all production costs including land rent management and supervision and interest expenses incurred in the 5 preproductive years

The cash flow budgets were based on total acreage rather than on a per-acre basis Cash requirements for first year of the initial 21 acres planted was estimated at $116411 This figure includes the cash necessary to buy equipment and buildings that have useful economic lives ranging from 10 to more than 30 years The farm was projected to have a negative cash flow until year 7 when the first 21-acre block of trees is fully harvested and the second 21-acre block is paltially harvested

The pre-tax Internal Rate of Return (IRR) ranged from -14 to 248 when yield price and costs were varied The -14 return was incurred assuming a price of $1040 per tree a yield of 60 of the original planting and production expenses 10 over budget The 248 IRR was obtained assuming a price of $1440 per tree a yield of 90 saleable trees and production expenses 10 under basic budget estimates The pre-tax IRR for the basic scenario of $1240 price per tree 80 saleable trees and expenses as budgeted was 146 The after-tax IRR was 125 based on a tax rate of 40 and following the Internal Revenue Service tax guidelines for Christmas tree growers revised 1987

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the members of the New Mexico Christmas Tree Growers Association and the National Christmas Tree Association in preparing this report Without the willing participation of these organizations much of the information in this report would have been difficult to obtain Additional acknowledgments are also extended to Greg Fancher Mora research facility and Rich Phillips Fabian Garcia Agricultural Science Center who provided much of the cultural data used in this report

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Introduction 1 Prices and markets 2 Full-cost budgets bull 6

Assumptions and specifications 6 Farm characteristics 6

Equipment 6 Pre-harvest operations 8

Land preparation 8 Planting 8 Planting and harvest schedule 8 Tree population 9 Seedling sources 9 Tree species 9 Irrigation 10 Cover crop 12 Chemicals 12 Shearing and training 12 Harvest operations 14 Post-harvest operations 15 Overhead expense 15 Interest 17 amptablishment expenses 17 Total cost per acre 18

Price sensitivity of full-cost budgets 18 Tax implications 26 Cash-flow budgets 26 Analysis 29 Price 29 Yield 29 COst 30 Feasibility assessment 31

Investor analysis 34 Literature cited 39

III

_~_ _~__~_lt$IiM1_ 8 ~-_~ii~S~f-tt~3~ltilrC-j -~

LIST OF TABLES

Table No Page

1 Selected characteristics by type of marketing method for cut Christmas trees 4

2 Prices received by Christmas tree growers for Scots pine White fir and Douglas fir 5-7 foot tree when sold in quantities of 600 trees or more 1986 5

3 Equipment summary for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm in New Mexico 1988 7

4 Acre-inches of applied water by year 11

5 Well characteristics for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm 11

6 Chemicals applied per acre by year for Christmas tree farms 1988 13

7 Annual overhead expenses on a 160-acre Christmas tree farm 16

8 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White fir and Scots pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 1 establishment) NM 1988 19

9 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White fir and Scots pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 2 establishment) NM 1988 20

10 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White fir and Scots pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 3 establishment) NM 1988 21

iv

11 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White fir and Scots pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 4 establishment) NM 1988 22

12 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White fir and Scots pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 5 establishment) NM 1988 23

13 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White fir and Scots pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 6) NM 1988 24

14 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White fir and Scots pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 7) NM 1988 25

15 Cash flow for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm (147 net planted acres) 27

16 Equipment replacement schedule for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm in New Mexico 1988 30

17 Internal Rates of Return (IRR) estimates for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost changes 33

18 Net Present Value (NPV) estimates for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost changes using a discount rate of 12 35

19 Investor cash flow analysis for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm (per planted acre basis) 37

Appendix Table No

A-I United States Department of Agriculture grade standards for Christmas trees 40

v

Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and White Fir Plantation Christmas

Trees in New Mexico

William D Gorman Robert E Grassberger Jr James T Fisher John G Mexal Gall A Welsh

Tom Clevenger and Robert R Lansford

This report evaluates the cost and fInancial feasibility of growing Scots pine and White fIr plantation Christmas trees These varieties are suitable for growing at elevations of 5000 feet or higher in New Mexico Warmer growing areas primarily areas below 5000 feet in elevation are suitable for production of elderica pine (Pinus brutia subsp elderica) a conifer that grows rapidly but is not suitable for higher elevations The most popular Christmas tree species grown at elevations above 5000 feet in elevation in New Mexico are Scots pine (Pinus aylvestris) White fIr (Abies concolor) and Douglas fIr (Pseudotsuga menziesii)

Although Christmas trees of various sizes can be marketed this report is limited to the evaluation of 5 to 7-foot trees grown with irrigation for a period of 6 to 7 years

middotProfessor Depanment of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Business Coordinator of Economic Development Cooperative Extension Service Professor and Associate Professor Agronomy and Honiculture Research Specialist Professor and Professor Depanment of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Business respectively

1 vi

~higm1SfMSj 7 ~ij~~t-~rt~~S~middotmiddotjmiddotmiddot

PRICES AND MARKETS

Prices for Christmas trees are not quoted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Statistical Reporting Service on a regular basis from organized markets as is the case for most agricultural commodities Therefore it is considerably more difficult to arrive at an average or typical grower price to use in crop budgets and cash flow projections Price information contained in this report was obtained from telephone interviews with 10 Christmas tree producing and marketing firms One of these firms was acknowledged by several of the others as the industry price leader The firms interviewed were selected because they had marketed Christmas trees in New Mexico Texas or Oklahoma and had been active in the business for several years The firms were not selected at random They were either recommended by the National Association of Christmas Tree Growers or by other growers

The firms were first interviewed in February 1987 and again in February 1988 Information on prices by species was obtained for the 1986 season in the 1987 interviews Information on price changes over the 1982 through 1986 period was obtained during the 1988 interviews

Prices to growers depend upon tree quality species tree size number of trees sold supply and demand for trees and the type of market outlets used Quality is important The USDA has established grade standards for Christmas trees (Appendix table 1) Christmas tree growers and wholesalers interviewed stressed how important it is to produce excellent quality uniform trees to receive top market prices The reputation of the grower is important in pricing because buyers do not inspect all trees before the sale

Marketable trees range in size from 2-foot table top trees to those more than 20 feet tall used primarily by commercial civic and church groups Prices per foot for shorter trees tend to be less than for taller trees Large volume growers frequently give price discounts for larger orders Typical price discounts ranged from $025 to $1 per tree on orders of more than 350 trees and sometimes an additional discount of up to $1 per tree on orders for more than 700 trees

The type of market outlets selected by growers will influence the prices received Market outlets available to growers included (1) choose-and-cut (2) retail tree lots (3) supermarkets (4) other retail establishments (5) wholesalers (6) groups and organizations and (7) cut trees direct to individual retail customers There is also a comparatively small market for live Christmas trees Depending on the number of Christmas trees ready for harvest and the proximity to metropolitan areas anyone or a combination of the above may be possible outlets for New Mexico growers According to the NCTA of the total Christmas trees sold by US growers in 198644 were sold directly to retail lots operated by others 7 at commercial retail lots operated by the grower 38 to wholesalers and 11 on a choose-and-cut basis on the farm Table 1 lists selected characteristics of these different markets

Market contacts should be made early in the year Sales arrangements to wholesalers and large retailers are usually made in June and July The question of who pays the transportation costs is sometimes negotiated however most trees are sold fob farm with the buyer responsible for transportation charges and arrangements

Species is also important in determining price (table 2) According to the survey wholesale buyers will pay about $1 per tree more for 5-7 foot White fir than for Scots pine and $3 to $5 more than for Douglas fir

According to the firms interviewed the average farm-level wholesale price has been gradually increasing since 1982 The firms were asked to provide price information for the years 1982 through 1986 for Scots pine and Blue Spruce because they were the most popular varieties The average price by year by species was determined from the information received using the following procedure For each species the highest and lowest reported prices were eliminated and the remaining three prices averaged Then simple average price for the two species was taken resulting in the following prices per 5 to 7-foot tree

1982 $1249 1985 $1365 1983 $1299 1986 $1403 1984 $1337

32

gtBl~igtul_Wg_~$jl1 iil T tilb 1~~~5~gt4~-

Table 1 Selected characteristics by type of marketing method for Table 2 Prices received by Christmas tree growers for Scots pine cut Christmas trees

Characteristics Choose-and-cut

Marketing Methods Retail sale Sale to ~ ~roducer retailer

Sale to wholesaler

Percent of national market

11 7 44 38

Sales labor yes yes no no

Location of farm

Important To be near population center

Important Ooseto population center

Accessible to bulk transport

Accessible to bulk transport

Additional etpenses

Tools toilets insurance parking road maintenance advertising

Lot rental license fees transshyportation advertising

Delivery to

destinashytion

May have to deliver

to destinashytion

of sales price to grower

100 100 50-60 30-50

Volume oftrees Umitedby location and local population

Umitedby location and local population

Regional national distribushylion channels

May have regional distribushylion

channels

Other advantages Cashdonot have to cut Secondary sales-shywreaths garlands

Cash secondary sales-wreaths garlands quality control

Do not have to deal with public

Do not have to deal with public

Disadvantages Then Theft Contract necessary

Contract necessary

White fir and Douglas fir 5middot foot tree when sold in quantities of 600 trees or more 1986

Species Price Range Average Pricea

Scots pine $1175 - $1290 $1187

White fir $1150 - $1375 $1290

Douglas fir $870 - $945 $908

middotSimple average of prices quoted by respondents The prices reported were not weighted by volume sold

Source Telephone interviews with 10 Christmas tree growers and wholesalers in selected states February 1987

The Blue Spruce trees of comparable size and quality sold typically from $4 to $6 more than Scots pine

The survey results indicate growers could have produced Douglas fir and sold 5 to 7 -foot trees in the $9 per tree price range At the other extreme growers could have planted Blue Spruce seIling for about $16 per tree However the Blue Spruce grows slower and is not expected to attain an average size of 6 feet when grown from a seedling in a period of 6 to 7 years For purposes of this economic assessment it was assumed growers would elect to produce Scots pine and White fir seIling at prices higher than Douglas fir but lower than Blue Spruce It was also assumed growers would sell nearly all their trees on a cut basis to wholesalers with the buyer being responsible for freight However growers with fewer trees to market than as assumed in this report might want to consider some direct-to-consumer marketing alternative to increase revenues

Additional market information for Christmas trees in the AlbuquerqueSanta Fe area is available in a report by Clevenger et al (1985)

4 5

~t1~~lr lamp In 7 nl_lhkii ~~t~~~~e

j gt -gt ~ VI D -gt o C ~ FULL-COST BUDGETS III o o o o o o o o o g o o

0

-Full-cost budgets were developed to illustrate the costs o o o incurred over the 7-year production cycle Full-cost budgets ill ~ 5o o oas the name implies include all costs including such possibly o o o g 8 c on o

2i N VI onon-cash items as depreciation and opportunity costs for n VI to ltXl N ~ VI N 0gt ~ VI ~ orgt -owner capital management and land rent 4 ltII

C

~ gt o ltXl -gt N - -gt -gt N N

Assumptions and Specifications -i tl-il CI bull v

-4Farm Characteristics o QI

o U o g o co N o o co8 D i -i g v8 co o It was assumed the farm was devoted entirely to the a D -gtbull Q

N ~

V

Christmas tree enterprise The farm consists of 160 acres of n ltII which 147 were planted to Christmas trees The additional 13

I~ ~ Eo o o -gt o N co N co VI shyacres were allotted for roads firebreaks ditches fences and co S N 6 gi -gt VI ibuildings The land was assumed to have been previously ~ VI ~ I e bull Cplanted therefore clear of rocks and other debris When in full production the farms would be planting and haIVesting 21 acres of trees each year J N N -gt o

i i f

8 -gt ~ 4 W gt o ~ 0 gt 0 C vI 0 ~

gt I Equipment middotc E

g 8 g g g VI VI

a o 8 o on N N ltIi ~ 0 ~ -gt ~ I~

o

g

I o ~ -gt N A farm completely devoted to producing Christmas trees H ~~ 0

tJ o 0under drip irrigation does not require a wide array of OJ

l -4 equipment The major items needed include a small tractor ~t l chain saws power pruners tree baler sprayer trailer for lIS

ltII 0 ltII gt hauling grass mower and a liquid fertilizer injector pump e 0OJ

I toLarger tractors and disks are needed for initial land

W

0 shyC

l ltII

VIpreparation but because only 21 acres are planted each year ~ QI u it is cost effective to hire these services on a custom basis ltII ltIl QI QIgt gt shys 0~ ~ lt3 lt3 Some farms may buy a Christmas tree planter but these o

v53 co budgets were prepared assuming hand planting oThe farm will not need border disks disks for weed control i ii7

3 v or land leveling equipment because of the drip irrigation r ~

~ ~system and the grass ground cover cultural practice sect s I shy

1gt ~

I shy

~ The annual fixed and variable costs for the equipment were ti ltII e n ltII ~ I- ~

~ shy~ ~ weestimated using the New Mexico State University crop budget ~ l 1 ~ o ~ H u ~ t a ~ To ~ ~

76

generator (table 3) In addition to the equipment discusSed above a 1000 gallon-per-minute well was included in the equipment table The farm will also require the part-time use of a pickup truck This cost was included in the supervision expense category The total cost of equipment including the irrigation well was estimated to be $39250 or $267 per planted acre

Pre-Harvest Operations

Land Preparation

Because the land was assumed to have been previously planted it was unnecessary to clear the land The major operations in land preparation were plowing disking and harrowing All of these operations were assumed to have been hired on a custom basis

Planting

Hand planting was assumed Planting-labor requirements are based on a rate of 100 trees per hour per individual The total time required to plant 1 acre is estimated at 1210 hours based on planting 1210 trees per acre

The cost of plastic tree netting was budgeted to protect seedlings from rodent damage The plastic netting cost is $3750 per acreand is included in the purchased input section of the budgets A total of 9 hours per acre is required to apply the netting

All trees planted do not survive the first year Some growers will replant the blanks but others often will not replant because this practice results in an uneven harvest The budgets assume no replanting would be done

Planting and Harvest Schedule

For the purpose of this report trees were assumed to be of a 5 to 7-foot marketable size 7 years after planting To maintain a consistent quantity of harvestable trees only 1nth

8

of the total acreage (21 acres) would be planted in any calendar year Hence in years 1 through 6 21 acres would be planted each year In year 7 21 acres would be planted and the 21 acres planted in year 1 would be harvested This staggered planting schedule assures a continuous marketable supply and income to the grower starting in the seventh year

Obviously acreage not planted during the first 6 years could be planted to some other crop For simplicity however this acreage was assumed to have gone unplanted and to have generated no revenue or to have incurred any costs

Tree Population

For marketable trees of 5 to 7 feet a minimum spacing of 5 by 5 feet is recommended (Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture 1980) For the purpose of this study a 5 by 6 foot spacing was used This spacing allows planting 1452 trees per acre

Seedling Sources

There are many sources where trees can be bought as seedlings The source assumed was the Forestry Division of the New Mexico Natural Resources Department At the time of writing this division offered containerized seedlings to New Mexico growers who have more than 1 acre and can meet certain other conditions1 The price was $58 per 98 seedlings or $59 per seedling A price of $63 per tree was used in the budgets to incorporate the cost of the seedlings and transportation

Tree Species

It was assumed that Scots pine and White flf would be the species of choice to expand market opportunities and to avoid risks associated with crop monocultures (Proebsting et

I For infonmltion COntact Divison of Forestry POBox 2167 Santa Fe NM 87504-2167

9

llt_SWic-yenfoWtfte- ffgIUij_~1i~~~iVjWri~

aI 1981 Risks such as species-specific diseases increase with monoculture Most foresters suggest reducing this risk by planting more than one species

Irrigation

Most areas of New Mexico require supplemental irrigation to maintain the necessary soil moisture to keep the trees growing near their potential It was assumed that all plantations were irrigated with a drip system fed with pumped well water The drip system including all filters laterals and emitters was estimated at $1500 per acre2 The cost of installing the drip line was estimated at $11 per acre and is included as a line item under preharvest operations The cost of the well was included in equipment costs

Water needs per acre vary with the tree size and annual rainfall An annual rainfall of 15 inches was assumed Table 4 shows the additional acre-inches of water required per acre by year

The electric well was assumed to be pumping from a depth of 200 feet at 1000 GPM Table 5 shows the well characteristics and operation costs Based on these assumptions the cost per-acre inch was determined to be $352

~ Based upon estimates provided by Mr Ron Bliesner of Keller-Bliesner Engineering Logan Uf

10

Table 4 Acre-inches of applied water by year

Year AEElied Acre-Inches

1 6

2 8

3 12

4 14

5 16

6 18

7 18

Source Ke1ler-Bliesner Engineering Company Logan UT

Table S Well characterlsdcs for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm

Well Characteristics

Static water level (feet) 200 Draw down (feet) 40 Delivery PSI 8 Gallons per minute 1000 Electric efficiency factor 470

Energy use per hour (KWH) 10367 Fuel cost per hour $778 Cost per acre-inch $352

11

t_hltiirll~9~amp6ii11jjltfllU J[BIl1IiHitilut~~W~~tlaquo+middot -~---

Cover Crop

Many Christmas tree farmers plant a cover crop of native grass between rows A cover crop reduces soil erosion and is a positive step toward vegetation management Irrigation water was not applied to the cover crop

The budget assumes that a native grass was sown before the trees were planted After the cover crop is established a non-selective herbicide such as Round-up was assumed to have been sprayed in 24-inch swathes to create grass-free rows to be planted with trees The native grass seed was estimated to cost $15 per acre Drilling the seed was included under the preharvest operations in the budget as a custom operation at $850 per acre

Mowing was included under preharvest operations as well The number of times the inter-row area needs to be mowed was decreased as the tree cover increased therefore mowing costs vary by year

Chemicals

Crop chemicals such as fertilizer herbicides insecticides and fungicides were included in the budget under purchased inputs Table 6 shows in detail the chemical name the prescribed use unit of measurement application rate number of times applied per year per unit prices and total cost per acre The costs of applying these chemicals were included in the budget under preharvest operations

Shearing and Training

Shearing is the cutting of leader and lateral branches to improve the trees shape and density (Proebsting et al 1981) Shearing produces a more saleable tree than would normally be produced otherwise Shearing may be done either by hand with shearing knives machetes or hand pruners or mechanically with light-weight sickle bar clippers or rotary pruners Rotary pruners were assumed to have been used for shearing in this report

Table 6 Chemicals applied per acre by year ror Christmas tree rarms 1988

Per Unit Total acre price cost

Year Chemical Use Unit rate Times $ $

1 Roundup Atrazine 80W

Herbicide Herbicide

gal Ills

05 50

10 10

8000 170

4000 850

2 Roundup Atrazine 80W Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate

Herbicide Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer

gal Ills Ills qt

Ills

02 50 20 10

2350

10 10 10 30

10

8000 170

2100 600

010

1600 850

4200 1800

2233

3 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer

gal Ills qt

Ills

02 20 10

3520

10 10 30

10

8000 2100 600

10

1600 4200 1800

3168

4 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 20 10

4690 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 4200 1800

4456 1725

5 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 10 10

4690 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 2100 1800

4456 1725

6 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 10 10

9830 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 2100 1800

4456 1725

7 Roundup SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal qt

Ills Ills

02 10

5400 15

10 30

10 20

8000 600

010 575

1600 1800

5130 1725

12 13

AA~1~rmiddot~i~I~~~iiltfi~)~~1i~~~4~iamp_1 2U~ampJl2lJMlIIINIiI1m~~S1lt~h

Shearing generally begins when the tree height is about 5 feet For the budgets some shearing was assumed to begin in year 3 however labor in year 3 mainly reflects training of the trees Training helps develop a straight marketable tree The greatest number of hours were needed in years 6 and 7 to prepare trees for market

Estimated chemical needs were obtained from Drs John Mexal and James Fisher Professors of Horticulture New Mexico State University Many of the above chemicals are unnecessary because many pest and disease problems found elsewhere do not currently occur in New Mexico however it was felt as acreage of the crop increases the need for chemical use would also be necessary

Harvest Operations

The harvest generally consists of 4 to 5 weeks and is the most labor intensive activity in Christmas tree growing HalVest operations consist of selecting the trees for halVesting cutting baling and transporting to the market Timing is imperative and weather can be difficult during this period

Because some trees grow faster than others it is usually possible to harvest about 13 of the crop in the sixth year The remaining 213 of the total crop would be cut the seventh year Experienced growers generally halVest about 80 of the trees they plant as a result of death loss and cullage3 This means each acre yielded 1162 marketable trees if 1452 trees per acre were originally plantedOfthe 1162 trees halVested 13 or 387 trees are halVested in year 6 and 775 trees were cut in year 7 Trees not accounted for in the projected halVest either died or were not acceptable as Christmas trees

The trees selected for halVest are often marked before cutting to prevent halVest crews from having to make decisions about tree grades while cutting After cutting trees are carried to the access road and hauled to a central area where they are baled The trees are then loaded on trucks and shipped to the wholesaler or other market outlets

gtCulled trees may be made into wnaths or sold as boughs This was not assumed as a SOurce of revenue in this report

14

HalVest arrangements with wholesalers vary In some cases wholesalers perform all halVest operations in others the wholesaler will mark the trees they want to buy Some agreements call for the wholesaler to transport the trees from field side others place the responsibility for shipping on the producer

This paper assumed the responsibility of selection and harvest was with the producer and that transportation to the market place was paid for by the wholesaler

Post-Harvest Operations

After the field has been completely halVested in the seventh year it is generally replanted to trees the following spring Some growers remove the remaining stumps Stump removal however is an expensive and time consuming process The preferred method appears to be to replant new seedlings half the distance between the remaining stumps within the row The remaining stumps are then allowed to decay naturally This method of replanting between stumps was assumed for this paper

Overhead Expense

Table 7 shows the overhead expenses assumed for the 160 acres with 147 net planted acres

Downtime is the additional labor time allowed because of time lost for such things as machine repairs moving to and from fields and waiting for deliveries A downtime rate of 20 of the total labor hours was applied in the budgets

Employee benefits include any programs that full-time or part-time employees may obtain such as social security workmens compensation insurance group life and health insurance and paid vacations Although this cost can be negligible on most small farms an 18 rate on the coSt of labor was applied here

Insurance was estimated at $850 per planted acre This includes coverage of equipment and farm liability

15

~_~ ~ -h n~middotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot _ middotmiddotbullm-middot middottlt1Gmiddotmiddotgtmiddotti~q~~middot~middot)Gv~--e~~~~~i4iM5tll L MIbullbull Jtpoundi8)l] II ha bullUMtflIf~~~Hjl~kllI~1cent

Table 7 Annual overhead expenses on a 160-acre Christmas tree fanna

Downtime 20 ofdirect labor hours

Employer benefits 18 of direct labor hours

Insurance $850 per planted acre

Farm facilities $386 per planted acre

Land rent $8163 per planted acreb

General and administrative $50 per planted acre

Supervision $75 per planted acre

Other $30 per planted acre

Brokerage 5 of gross revenue

88sed 003tOUtTof 147 pl8nted acres 1Is7s per acre on the total of 160 acres

It was assumed farm facilities were required to protect equipment from weather and to provide office space A simple pole building was used for protecting equipment and was estimated to cost $8000 An additional $9000 was allotted for an office structure The cost of these facilities was spread over a service life of 35 years The cost per planted acre was approximately $4 per acre

Land rent was assumed to be $82 per planted acre or $75 per acre on the gross farm acreage If the land is already owned outright this would represent the opportunity cost of having planted the land to Christmas trees

General and administrative expenses include management salaries secretarial expenses and costs associated with running and maintaining the office such as telephone copying

16

and bookkeeping The amount associated with general and administrative expenses was $50 per planted acre

Supervision expenses were incurred to oversee field operations A $75 per planted acre expense was used for supervision This figure is arbitrary but includes funds for possibly hiring a foreman It also includes funds for pickup truck expenses The 147 net planted acres provides an annual supervision expense fund of $11025

Other expenses is a catch-all category for irregular or unexpected items such as fence or road repair additional hand tools or added administrative expenses The other expenses assumed here were $30 per acre per year

A brokerage fee was included in the budgets as a marketing expense The producer often serves as his own broker and in this case the fee included in the budgets would be viewed as an opportunity cost of the producers time A fee of 5 of gross revenue was used as a brokerage expense

Interest

An interest expense was included for opemting capital and equipment investment Rates of 12 and 10 respectively were used 4

For the full-cost budgets the interest expense on operating capital needed each year from the time of planting was compounded through the seventh year and charged off as an expense in the harvest year If the capital used was all equity capital rather than borrowed this could again be construed as an opportunity cost of the use of the producers money

Establishment Expenses

The establishment expense is the actual cost of growing the trees to harvestable size (tables 8 through 13) To show the total return and the total costs incurred during the harvest

IbeSeinterest rates imply an average annual inflation rate or at least 3to 4 per year A realistic analysis could increase the annual cash expenses and revenues by a 3 to 4 compounded rate over the 35middotyear investment period This approach would result in higher estimated returns Future expenses and revenues were not adjusted ror inflation in this report hence the results may be underestimated

17

MtiS 4ampIi- iJi4MliIllITftif ~2k+Csectlgt--~Smiddot-f

year the full-cost budget for years 6 and 7 include an establishment expense under the purchased input category (tables 13 and 14) This expense is based on cost estimates from the first five years of production and is prorated to the appropriate year based upon the harvest yield ratio S Because there is a time value associated with the capital used to grow the trees a compounding factor was also included The rate used to compound was 10 The total establishment expense per planted acre was estimated to be $2782 allocated in year 6 and $6840 in year 7 The $6840 allocated in year 7 includes $616 of interest expenses associated with having to wait another year (year 6 to 7) before these expenses are recovered The establishment expenses amounted to $719 and $883 per harvested tree respectively for trees harvested in the sixth and seventh years Net returns would increase significantly if all trees would reach harvestable size by year 6

Total Cost Per Acre

Based on the budget estimates made for years 6 and 7 a total cost of $12895 per acre planted or $1110 per tree harvested was required to grow Christmas trees through harvest This cost includes all equipment expenses chemicals land rent labor overhead and interest

Price Sensitivity of Full-Cost Budgets

To determine the return to risk when all costs are accounted for the gross revenue must also be estimated The gross revenue is a function of number of trees harvested and the price per tree The yield of 80of the total planting or 1162 trees was assumed as fIXed in this part of the analysis and only the price was varied A per tree price of $1240 was used as the base with a $1 change in either direction Using the $1240 per tree price a net return of $158372 per acre harvested was derived At $1140 per tree $1 less a net return

gtc)f the total yield 13 was harvested in year 6 and 23 in year 7

q

i g

I middoto~ ~ ~8

~i ~ ~

_z1~ ~s -~

~g

~

~ ~3

z ~ ~i r cu

m~zIi ~ ~=gt

~s ~-

5 oS ~

~J t ~It ~c= ~c lI-Q

i l- ~~ fI) = I iI~ = CIt

f 8 ~ a

(I III laquoIC 5 ~cI iIoU ~

ltI ~ CllioS~ Ol fo- ~ ~ j$ S ~ ~In~

~~~ggg

oi~oo -o-4-C~ ~

0000 0utqno 0

ritO 0 ~-4tltl- N

w ~w

tJtDWU C-amptoe(

oot)o ~~~lt= _Ot) -0

Ie

8glg~~~~i~~g~ t o~-eOaiNOQN 0 N-4N S

11 N ~ill -- 0

~ ~ ~~

1tc ~ ~~ -4 _

I

~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~_OO~N shy 1_ ~

gg 8~ st i~ tOtO i

~ ~~~ ~ X x=~

~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~Q~~N N~

~ g~ E

~ ~ ~ 0 Q i1lJ~W

lto(c- aa~aai5~ ttlZW

~ tQ __ -I iffi Z ~wtll~ow=i~~~~ ~e=~~~5~~tUQCI =VIE a C-lI-

g~~~~g8g~ ~NeOQarQ a) ~

~~~q ~~ laquo)~ ~S

o o~~ UN ~

~ ~

0

~(fIii

~

i

o N

bull ~ l

i

~

~

~ ~

S ~

18 19

Table 9 Per acre tun cost budgets ror growiDg White Fir and Scots Pine

~-~~-~~~~-~-~~~-~-~~-~-~~-~~-~-~~~~~~~~--~~-~~-----------------------_------YIELD

HARVEST DATES PLANTING DATES

PlIlCE -- ~-- - - - bull - - - bullbull - bull - - - ~ - - bull - bull QUANTITY PUR~~~ LABOR ~~iJ~~ REPAIRS Fgi~ TOTAl

TEM UNIT __ bullbull ________ bull __ _ _ ___ ___ bull ___ ___ bull __ _ __________ bullbullbullbull _________ bullbullbullbullbullbullbull _ bull ------_ bullbullbullbullbullbull - -- bull bull - - - - bull (DOLLARS) bullbullbull - - bullbullbull

PURCHASED INPUTS 6650100 ACRE 66501lER8ICIOE 1800100 ACRE 1800INSECTICIDE 211523500 LB 2115MOIII~ SULFATE 750100 ACRE 750MISCELLANECIlS TOOLS 1131511315SUBTOTAL

PREHARVEST OPERATIONS 21751309 319 209 338PTO SPRAYER (X) ampAS IS P 238 HR 27491738 423 275 313MOWER (410 GAS 15 HP 316 HR 4200

Mise 1000 HR 4200LABOR 3226~ 360 IR 2812 238 176WELL (ex) ELE

123501914 7247 3554 722 827SUBTOTAL

OVERfAD EXPENSES 1709311 1709OOWIITIME EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

13041304 850 850

INSURANCE 386 386 FARM FACILITIES 8163 8163 LAND RENT 5000 5000GENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION 75007500suPERVISION 3D00 3000 OTHER

17399 2791210513SUBTOTAL 311 HR

3554 722 18226 515_7711315 17760TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 2225 IR

-51577NET OPERATING PROFIT

2678INTEREST ON OPERATI~G CAPITAL 831INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT

-55086 ~~~~-~~~~- _- _- -_ -_ ----- --_ ---- -- -- ----_ --_ --___ _ - _------ __

Table 10 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 3 estabUshment) NM 1988 PLANTING DATES YIELDHARVEST OATES PRICE

POWER PURCHASED FUEL OIL FIXEDITEM UNIT QUANTITY INPUTS lABOR LUBRICANT REPAIRS COST TOTAL --_ - - _- ---- - -_ -- --_ - - - -(DOlLARS)

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE 5800 5800MOIII~ SULFATE 35200 LB 3168 3168INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800MISCELLANECIlS TOOLS 100 ACRE 750 750

SIJIITOTAL 11518 11518

PRE HARVEST OPERATIONS ROTARY PRUIINERS GAS 900 HR 3780 234 108 495 4617PTO SPRAYER (5X) GAS 15 HP 1 70 R 935 228 150 241 1554MOWER (4X) ampAS 15 HP 316 HR 1738 423 275 313 2149LABOR Mise 1000 IR 4200 4200ELL (12X) ELE 540 HR 4217 356 265 4838

N SUBTOTAL 2926 10653 5102 889 1314 17958 - (MRNfAl) EXPENSES OOWIITiME 477 2625 2625EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1918 1918INSURANCE 850 850FARM FACILITIES 386 386LAIIO RENT 8163 8163GENERAL _rNISTRATlON 5000 5000SUPERViSiON 7500 7500OTHER 3000 3000

SUBTOTAL 477 HR 2043 17399 29442

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 3403 HR 11518 22696 5102 889 18713 58918

NET OPERATI KG PROF IT middot58918

I NTEREST ON OPERAT I NG CAP ITAL 2930 INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT INVESTMENT 964

RETURN TO RISK 62812 ~ -~- -_ ~ ~~ ~ _ - -

Table 11 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas ~~~~~~~~~~~_~~~t~~~~~ ___ _ ~i~~middotDAEmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot YIELD

HARVEST OATES PRICE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull PURCHASED FUEL Oil FIXED

PMR INPUTS LA~ LUBRICANT REPAIRS COST TOTAL ~~~~~~- middotmiddotDOt~~middot PURCHASED INPUTS

HERBICIDE 100 ACRE 5800 5800 INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 fUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 AMONIUM SULFATE 46900 LB 4221 4221 MlsCElLANEClJS TOOLS 100 ACRE 750 750

SUBTOTAL 14296 14296

PRE HARVEST OPERA liONS ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) CAS 1500 HR 6300 390 180 825 7695 PTO SPRAYER (ax) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 364 239 386 2485 MOIlER (2X) CAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374~ FERT INJECTOR ElE 030 HR 011 061 096 168 LABOR MISC 1000 HR 4200 4200 lElL (14X) [L 630 HR 49bull 20 416 309 5645

SUBTOTAL 3590 12865 5897 1033 1772 21567

OVERHEAD EXPENSES DOIINTIM 586 3223 3223 EMPLOYEE BENEF ITS 2316 2316 INSURANCE 850 850 FARM FACILITIES 386 386 LAND RENT 8163 8163 CENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION 5000 5000 SUPERVI SION 7500 7500 OTHER 3000 3000

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039 17399 30438

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 4176 HR 14296 25904 5897 1033 19171 66301

NET OPERATl NG PROF IT 66301

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL 3247 INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 1102

70650~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~--

Table 12 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas trees (year 5 establishment) NM 1988 PLANTING OATES HARVEST OATES YIELD

PRICE

lIEM PMR

IJHlT QUANT lTy PURCHASED

INPUTS

~~~~~

FUEL OlL LA80R LUBRICANT

REPAIRS FIXED COST TOTAL

PURCHASED INPUTS - shy ~ ~ bull bull bull (DOLLARS) bull - bull HER81CIOE INSECTICIDE FUNCICIOE AMOHIUM SULFATE MI SCELLANEOUS TOOLS

SU8TOTAL

PREHARVEST oPERATIONS

100 ACRE 100 ACRE 100 ACRE

46900 L8 100 ACRE

3700 1800 1725 4221 750

12196

3700 1800 1725 4221

750

12196

ROTARY PRUHNERS (2X) PTO SPRAYER (8X) MOIlER aX) FERT INJECTOR LABOR WELL (16X)

SUBTOTAL

OVERHEAD EXPENSES

CAS CAS 15 HP CAS 15 HP ELE MISC ELE

1500 H 272 HR 158 HR 030 HR

1000 HR 720 HR

3680

6300 1496 869

4200

12865

390 364 212 011

5623

6600

180 239 137 061

475

1092

825 386 156 096

353

1816

7695 2485 1374 168

4200 6451

22373

OOIHIME EMPLOYEE BENEFf TS INSURANCE FARM FACILITIES LANI RENT GENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION SUPERVISION OTHER

586 3223 2316

7500

850 386

8163 5000

3223 2316 850 386

8163 5000 7500

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039

3000

17399

3000

30438

TOTAL OPERAJINC EXPENSES 4266 HR 12196 25904 6600 1092 19215 65007 NET oPERA T I HG PROf I T

65007 INTEREST ON OPERATINC CAPITAL INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 3142

1153 RETURN TO bull I SK bull ~ bullbullbull - _ - - ~ - _ - - _ bullbullbullbull - - ~ _ bullbull - _ bullbullbullbull bullbull - bullbullbull

~ - - -_ _-_ __--_ _---__- 69302

Table 13 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine

~~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J~~~~~~ Table 14 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine PL~NTIMG DATES YIELD 387 TREES GROSS RETURNSS4198 80 HARVEST DATES NOVEMBER 15 bull DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0TREE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbull bullbull

bull - bullbull - bullbullbull - bull bull bull bull ~C~A~E~ - FUEL OIL FIXED ~middot~middot~7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~U~~~~~ PLANT INC DATES YIelD 775 TREESQUANT ITY INPUTS LABOR LUBRICANT REPAIU COST TOTAL

~ ___ w~ ___ ____ _ ____ ____ _ _ _ ___ HARVEST OATES NOVEM8ER 15 DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0IREE ~ CROSS RETURNS$9iIOOO - bullbullbullbull (DOLLARS) bullbullbullbullbullbull - bull shy

pOlin PURCHASEDPURCHASED INPUTS ITEM fUEl OIL FIXEDUNIT OUANT IlY INPUTSHERBltlDE 100 ACRE 3700 3700 bull lABOR LUBRICANT RePAIRS-_ _---- _--- _---_ _---- - _--_ - _- __ __ -- COST TOTAL INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 bull FUNGICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 bull bull (DOLLARS) bull A_IUM SULFATE 93800 LB 8~~2 8442 bull

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE T6OOTWINE 38700 EACH 19-35 1935 1600INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800MISCELLANEros TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000 bull 1800

ESTABLISHMENT 113 2781 72 278172 FUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725AMON I UN SULFATE 5~000 lB 4860 4860

SUBTOTAL 18602 2781 72 2967 7~ TWINE 17500 EACH 3875 ~8 7~MISCELLANEOUS TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000

PREHARVEST OPERATIOIIS ESTABLISHMENT 23 ~050 ~050

ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) GAS 3800 HR 15960 988 ~56 2090 1~9~ bull SUBTOIAL 14860PTO SPRAYER (ex) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 360 239 386 2~ 85 bull ~050 698910 MOWER (2X) GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 137~ bull PREHARVEST OPERATIONSfERT INJECTOR ELE 035 oR 012 071 112 195 bull ROTARY PRUNNERS (2)) GAS 3000 HRLABOR Mise 1000 HR ~200 ~2 00 bull 12600 780 360 1650 I5~90PTO SPRAYER (xl GAS 15 HP 238 HRIlELL lt18X) ElE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258 bull MOIlER (ZX) 1309 319 209 338 21 75GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374fEAT INJECTOR ELE 060 HSUBTOTAL 6075 22525 7902 1~38 31~1 35006 021 122 191 334LABOR MIse 1000 HR ~200 4200

HARVEST OPERATIONS WELL (18X) ELE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258

CHAIN SAW GAS 968 HR 4066 252 136 590 50~~ SUBTOTAL 5266DRAG amp lOAD HAND 3225 HR 13545 135~5 18978 7658 1363 2732 J0731 TREE BALER GAS 230 HR 966 177 278 952 2373 HARVEST OPERATIONSTRAILER GAS 15 HP 300 HR 1650 ~11 360 560 2985 CHAIN SAW GAS 1938 HRLABOR Mise 1650 HR 6930 6930 81~0 504 271 1182 10097DRAG amp LOAD HAND 6058 HR 27124 27124

SUBTOIAL 6373 HR 27157 8~0 7 7~ 2106 30877 TREE BALER GAS I 46D HR 1932 354 5~7 1904 4747TRAILER GAS 15 HP 600 HR 3300 822 720 1128 5970LABOR MISC ~OOO NROVERHEAD EXPENSES 16800 16800 OOHlE 2321 12763 12763 bull SUBTOTAL 13~56 HREMPLOYEE SENEF lIS 89~3 89~3 bull 57296 1680 1548 4214 6~7 38

INSURANCE 850 850 bull OVERHEAD EXPEHSESFARM fACILITIES 386 366 bull OCltJNTJME 3~70LAND RENT 8163 8163 bull 19637 19637EMPLOYEE BENet liSGENERAL amp ADMINISTRATlOil 5000 5000 bull 13729 13729 SUPERVISION 7500 7500 bull INSURANCE

850 850FARM FACILITIESOTHER 3000 3000 bull 386 386LAND RENTMARXETING 2399~ 2399~ 8163 8163

SUPERVISION GeNERAL 8 ADMINISTRATION

5000 5000 SUBTOTAL 2321 HR 23994 29206 17399 70599 7500 7500

MARKETING OTHER

3000 300048050 48050

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 14769 HR 29550 ~~401 347~ 1250 287125 367738 bullbull SUBTOTAL 3570 HR ~8050 ~0866 17399 106315 IIpoundT OPERATING PROfIT 1121~2

TOIAl OPERATING EXPENSES 22292 HRINTEREST (JIj OPERATTNG CAPlTAL 6545 62910 117140 9338 2911 708395 900694 INTEREST (JIj EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 2473 NET OPERATING PROFIT

60306 10312~

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT IHVESlMENT 8659

3361 RETURN TO R I so

TIoCmiddotTHIRDS OF THESE COSTS IlERE ALLOCATED AS PROOUCTl(Jlj COSTS fORIREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 7 48286iI ~--~-- ----- ~ --~--- -~------ -----~-- yen - bullbullbullbull -- ~ -- ----_ _w ___ ________ 0 _______ _w __ IHIS TOTAL INCCltPORATES ONLY THE EXPENSE ASSOCATEO WITH THE TREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 6 BECAUSE OF THIS THE COLUMN

WILL NOT SUM TO THIS VALUE

24 25

~ i C -i Q

= foil

Table 15 Cash flow for a 160-aere Cbristmas tree rann (147 net planted aeres lIIII====_=====IIIlIII======S=II==2=II=___1I3_III========s_bullbullbullbull=z=a==a============bullbull==~=bullbullbull==11======aSS==lIIlII======================================================

Year 1 fear 2 Year J tear 4 Year 5 Year 6 fear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 fear 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 lllttows _=====

Sale of Trees so so so so so $101035 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 S302585 S302585 $302585 $302585 OUtflows

Purchased Input 5 Tree stock 1921019m 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210Cover ~rass seed 315 9sect1~ 19m 315 315 315 19m 19m 315 19m 19m 19m 19m315 315 315 315erbicuSe 1019 2415 3633 4851 5628 6405 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741Insecticide o 378 756 1~ 1890 22611 22611 22611 22611 2268 2268 2268 22611 22611Ftrlgicide o o o H~ 1087 U~ 1449 U~ 1449 1449 449 ~~~ 1449 1449 t449 1449Amonhn Sui tate o 444 1109 1~ 5676 5676 5676 ~~~X 5676 5676Tree guards 788 788 788 2~ 4~~ 788 53 53 53 788 788 5~ 5~ 53788 788 788Miscellaneous tools 420 578 735 893 105g 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365Twine o o o o i~ 1220 l~~ l~~ij 1220 1220 1220 1220 1220 lm lnOIrrigatlon system 31500 3150031 508 31500 31500 31500 31500 3150g 31500 31500 31~~g 31500 31500 31500 31 gtog 31~~g 31500 31500Eqult 33750 o o o 1045g o o o 266j0 o o a 10450 o oFarm facilities 17000 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oPre-harvest Operations o CustQll1 1_ preparation 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651Spray 204 578 844 1271 1698 2124 2498 2498 2~g 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498Harrow 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 168 1611 1611 Mark rows 309 309 309 Seed 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 Haul plants 42 42 42 42 42 309309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309

42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42Pl t (hand) 1861 2 ~Iy Netting 1~ 1~

794 1~ ~2 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ ~2 1~ 1 1861 1861 1861 861 li~ Orlp installaton 221 221 221 211

~l 794 794 794 794 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 2lt1495 990 1485 1733 1980 2228 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475Shear amp train 2415a o 864 2303 3743 7398- 1~~~ 1~~~ 10283 10283 10283 10283

i seel taneous 1amp1raquor 882 76 2646 Appt ter t it i zer o o o 10~g~ 10m 10m 10~g~ 10~g~ 10283

35 71 141 182 182 182 182 182 182 lr2 Purping costs 480 1121 617435l8 5292 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 Ot 174 6174 6174 6174

Harvest operations 2081 3l02 i~~g 5923 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 73k4

Cut tr~s o Drag amp load trees o 2807o o 935 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 Wrap trees o o 2374 7115 ~~~~ ~~~ 1115 7115 7115 7115 7115 7~ 7115o o o 298 895 895 895 7J~ 895 7~~~ 895 895 895 895 895Haul trees o o o 508 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525MisceHaneous labOr o 1525o o 1455 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366Overheed Oowotime 648 1007 IS58 2235 2911 5522 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346E1lloy benefits 4611 742 1145 1631 3933 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581Insurance 179 357 536 114 2~~

1071 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250Land r~t 1575 3150 4725 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025G amp A 1050 lloo 3150 4lOO 5250 6300 tgro 7350 7350 7350 7350 1~m k~~~ 7350 ~m 7350 7350 735a~~~Vision 472S 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11021575 3150

11m 11~~~ 025 11~~630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 63mMarketng II o o o o 5052 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 lSI29

1 Based on total of 147 planted acres by Year 7 A total of 21 (Jeres are planted each year year 1 consists ot 21 planted acres year 2 a total of 42 etC

-- --~ -~-~ r IJampamp $ ~H ~M LgtH~-~Lw~

110 0 middot W It 110 OO~~~~o~~OOO OampooooooosectOii S~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~H~ = - 11 11=L = 110 _ N N 0 M

bull c _~_

bullbullbull 2 _ M~

cash needs of the operation The farm will produce a positivei 0goooo00020poundN t-~~~~ t-~Fg~ORi ~ UNHIt U to OOE~l2~O~ft~oOI L 110 lS -lIi iIl~lI)t i1 ---a~ - 3

N annual cash flow starting in the seventh year However a total N bullbull u _N N~ - - ~N ~ $E~3

bullbull It 0 t N of $540819 in cash is expended through the first 6 years Ao~ooooooo~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~V~~ ~=~==~C ~ OOi~~~~O$~OOO ~ laquoS_~_ i i6~ ~gIIt_~o~ -=~ I total of 11 years are needed (five positive cash producingbullM Ii IfII 110 II n N -~ ~ _ N t- _ _ ~ ~~~= N III H 0 years) before the cash outflows incurred during the first 6 ~

~ = =a OOsect~~~O~OOO o~ooooooo~~~i 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ =~= years are covered This is based on selling trees at $1240L= V ~ ~N ~~ ~~ ~4 N~ ~~~ i i~e s -- N S The budgets were developed for a 35-year period because=gt- tt n this was thought to be a reasonable economic life5~~ ~ OO~~~roO~~O~O degmoooooooi~~ ~=~~~ ~mi5~5~~ ~=~= amp0 - ~ - III middot

__ ~ ~ _ 0 Nt- _ Ntn ~~~ ~ -~~- ~ pound Additionally a 35-year life allows for five 7-year

planting-through-harvest rotations Based on the rotationbull C) MM C OO~~~~degri~OOO OampOOOOOOO~~~~m 2E~~~ ~~~sect~~~~ ~u~= i c L ~ ~

N~v N N~ ~~ N~ ~4 ~~~~~~ ~ iii schedule only Inth of the total acreage would be planted ini = i

-SfIJ n= ~ - -I anyone year The cash costs in year 1 therefore include onlyRi = ~ ~~~~~i~~5me~~ i~sect~~ ~~~~~~~~ E~ lias amp0 ~~~~~~J~~~~OO H II n ~ 0- ~~w- ~ = ~~ Nt- - ~~_~t- ~ ~ct N planting expense for Inth of the total acreage or 21 acresW - - -= ~ Year 2 would again include planting expenses for Inth of theCtI 110- -~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~o~~~g~ ~G~ liN Q) $ ___ cOP ___~ i_IiInJX lIlCoo~_ flt nc II II tn ~~i~~~~~~~~00 =~ N ~ 0_11 - N w (1= Ot- N~ Oo~t-- i Ef~~ acreage and the second year growing expenses for the 21=- =tt ~ - acres planted originally The total expenses of a fullymiddot =S 1II ~~~_~~~~~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~sect~~ l~~~~~~~ Ec~ _ tl_-= ~u ~ operating facility are first incurred in the seventh year The

~ ~NII -~_ 1I1f N ~o~ N~ - ~o~=~~ ~ eg~R- 1111 0 - t first year of full revenue is also obtained in year 7 (21 acres of Cite ~ ~~~~~~~N~~~~~ ~~~~~ I~~~~~g~ ~r~i

~ _ ~ cOPNN __~ ~_m~~ ~1nO~O~~ Nfl~M

= or ~~~~~~~~~~O tt l 387 trees in their sixth year and 21 acres of 775 trees in their0- ~N_~ _ _0 N ~o~ N~ - ~~_=t--= ~ ~gGbull N= iI - - - ~i 1 seventh year ofgrowth)III

4iiii i~ ~ As the farm approaches the end of its economic life it was~~~_~~~~~~~~OO i~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~pound~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~i~E i

I middotL= 0- -oN_tI- - ~ N _ N~ot-- Nt-- ~ ~o_~t-= ~ ~U~ ii= = ~ assumed that the operator would stop planting Therefore as 11 - a l ~ 13 ~~~~g~i~N~~~~~ i~~~~ ~~a~~IC~~ E=~= of year 29 no more planting expenses are incurred It wasltV bull V ~~~~~~~~~~OO 0- N - -= ~N0ftIo - Ieo ~ t= -oN 1I _0- - N~ ~~ Nt- - ~o-~= ~ ~ft~c =a ~ - t assumed the land would be either left idle or used for otherIIIJ - -

= ~ purposes In year 35 the final year of operation only 21 acresa~= tQ ~~~~~~~re~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~ E~a N 0- -0 ___ _III u N _ N~o~ N~ _~ ~o-=~= ~ ~~~III ~ ~ of seventh-year trees would remain to be harvested At thisgt- - - -I point the entire operation would be closed down No salvagesect ii~ 1II ~~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~$~9~~ i~~~~ ~~~~sect~~ E~I II

II Ltf __ ~ ~N-II N ~ Ni ~~ N~ ~~ ~~~i~ i ~=in value was assumed because the land used was either leased or ~ -11~ 1= shy

I ~ rented and all equipment or buildings had no remainingc 15 ~ ft ~~~rd~~J~~~~~O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~E~iIII 0- QN-V 0 N _ N~o~ N ~~_~~~ ~ ~~~ i useful life H= ~ - ltgt ~ 15 Over the project life it would be necessary to replace some to tQ ~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~S~~~ 2Ei~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~5~i t ~ equipment For the purpose of this study it was assumed that~ I ~ -oN_~ _ - N _ N~ ~~ _ ~o_=~~ ~ ~~ I -= I= ~ - i all equipment would be used until it was no longer-=1 ~lt~S~-~N~~~~1 t-~~~~ ~co~~~o~ ~ft i011 V-- ~ o~- ~~NN__~ i_~V~ ~II~OO~_ ~~ ~~~~~_~i~~~OO a salvageable at which point it would be replaced new Table 16

r bullbull tv () -ON _ - N N~o~ ~ _ ~o-== ~ ~I~ I middot ~ - - - ~ shows the replacement schedule assumed in the cash flow i ~ Note that this table reflects the assumed useful life of the~ -=bull gi

i

iii s equipment rather than its depreciable life Also two itemsCgt I 1 u lJi~ ~ t- I ~ - ~ i the chain saws and the tree balers are not necessary until year -111) l -E I ~ l~~ _E ==Ilbull- ~ 1 ~j c ~ ~ ~ -5 -_ bull s

~~~ ~ ~~ _ ~ ~ L~ OL ~ 0 6 II 6 and were not purchased until that time Based on the highc _~~~~~WL ~-=] ii1t~ ~~ ulpoundlzl ~~ ~ = 1 i~uZul ~~I S Lo-- 2 L ~It~~ -i ~ ~

J L~_ ~m LOCmiddot gt- ampogt-~-~~ ~tc -lt 0 011 CIt -= = 2 ~~~t~5middotFi~f~~i~iitli-~fi~fifiiiI f Ii ~ilaquoI - ~ =~U=_~~~~~_W~U0Z~EZ~CQE~CEAL3QZEQW_~000 ~middot - ~ 8 Ii ~ I ~ middotmiddot -

29

111

f ~middot~middot~LC -- - ~i~

n ~ illII I~ II

Ii II

~~ Table 16 Equipment replacement schedule for a 160-acre ~ Christmas tree farm in New Mexico 1988 ~

usage during a short time period and the relatively short life of these items they were replaced every 5 years

Analysis

Because there are many unknowns encountered when projecting cost and returns and because different locations may be faced with different situations a series of scenarios were provided to evaluate the financial feasibility of the project Three major variables were altered concurrently to create the different scenarios These variables were

1 Prices 2 Yields 3 Costs

Price

A base price of $1240 was assumed The sensitivity of the return to a change of $1 increments over a range of $2 was measured

Yield

Changes in teld were based on altering the number of saleable trees This was done as a percentage of the total trees planted For example a 90 rate would mean that 90 of the 1452 trees originally planted or 1307 trees were available for sale This variable not only affect~ gross revenue but also alters any costs associated with the number of trees harvested Costs such as cutting field hauling baling and brokering are all altered by changes in the number of trees harvested and were assumed to be linear

Yield might also be altered by decreasing the space between trees For example a 5 by 5 spacing yields 1742 planted trees If 80 were saleable this would be 1394 trees

30

Item

Facilities

Well

Tractor

PTO sprayer

Trailer

Mower

Injector

Rotary pruners

Chain saw

Tree baler

iIIii Year ~

L 6 lL 16 2L 26 JL II~ Cost ~

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -(dollars) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- If 17000 ~

~ 10200 i

~

1bull1 113000 13000 13000 13000 1

~I 1200 1200 1200 1200 ~

bull p

~Ii ~

2400 II

800 800 800 800 ~ -I

I1200 1200 1200 1200 ~ 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 t

IiiIii 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 J

~ ~ ~ JOW JOW ~ ~ JOW

50750 10450 26650 10450 26650 10450 26650 I~ISource Table 3 IiIJ

f ~ J ~Cost ~

11I~ Because costs vary by farm and by location it was felt that a sensitivity should be performed on this variable Rather than bull

talter a specific cost or a specific category of costs the total bullIIj

cost was increased or decreased by a percentage and the Ji results evaluated Costs were altered in 10 increments in ~

Iijeither direction The 0 column uses those costs shown in the cash flow

t ~II

1

~I~ 31 ~

Feasibility Assessment

The internal rate of return (IRR) is a technique used to evaluate investment opportunities that incorporates the time value of money concept The internal rate of return for an investment project (in this case a Christmas tree planting) is the discount rate that equates the present value of the annual net cash revenue flows with the projects acquisition cost The net cash revenue is the difference between the cash receipts and cash expenses generated by an investment project over its economic life The time value of money is based on the economic fact that $1 today is worth more than a promise of $1 at some future date because of its current earnings potential

An investment can be accepted or rejected based on its internal rate of return (IRR) Acceptability of the investment depends on a comparison of the IRR with the investors required rate of return (RRR) Acceptability can be based on the following decision rules if IRR exceeds RRR accept the investment if IRR = RRR be indifferent and if IRR is less than RRR reject the investment

While IRR is a useful technique in project evaluation there are some problems with its use The major concern when using IRR is it assumes all cash inflows can be reinvested at the same rate as the resulting IRR percentage Should the IRR percentage be in the vicinity of the current rates of return of other investment instruments IRR is a reasonably accurate measure of return on investment However should the rate of return be much higher than current returns available elsewhere the resulting return on investment may be overstated The inverse is true at lower rates of return

The Net Present Value (NPV) is another way of evaluating projects that involve capital outlays over a period of years The NPV method discounts all future cash outlays and inflows back to a present-year basis using a specified interest (discount rate) The discount rate chosen is usually the opportunity cost of using equity funds in an alternative use or the cost of borrowed capital increased by an appropriate premium for risk or a combination of these The NPV

32

method is preferred over the IRR method when evaluating one investment against alternative similar type investments

Based on the sensitivity analysis discussed above a table was developed to show the IRR under the various scenarios Table 17 shows the internal rates by the per-unit price The analyses is based on pre-tax returns At $1040 per tree the IRR ranges from -14 when costs were increased by 10 and saleable yields were reduced to 60 to 160 when costs were decreased by 10 and 90 of the trees planted were sold At $1140 the IRR range is from 14 to 185 under the same conditions as above At $1240 per tree the IRR ranges from 38 when costs were increased 10 and 60 of the trees are saleable to 207 when costs were decreased 10 and saleable yields were at 90 At $1340 per tree the IRR ranges from 60 to 228 At $1440 per tree a grower could expect an IRR from 80 to 248 under the scenarios presented

A pre-tax analysis using Net Present Value (NPV) was also completed for the various scenarios The results of this analysis are shown in table 18

If an IRR of 12 is chosen as a minimum rate desired for investment growers must receive at least $1140 per tree and attain a level of 80 saleable trees and good cost control to have a successful investment At prices greater than $1140 per tree and 80 saleable product the investment appears to have possibility

33

Table 17 Internal Rates of Return (lRR) estimates for a 160-acre Table 18 Net Present Value (NPV) estimates for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost cbanges cha~es Ising a discount rate of 12

Percentage Percentageof saleable Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount

of saleabletrees 10 lower No chan~ 10 bilber trees --percent-shy

_______ - - - - - - - - - - - (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - shy

$1040 Tree Price 900 130 102900 160 BOO

SOO 128 97 69 700 60 31700 91 600

-14600 48 16

$1140 Tree Price( 900 127185 155

123 95900 800 SOO 153 700 700 116 86 58 600

14600 74 43

$1240 Tree Price 900 lJJ7 178 150900 BOO

118SOO 176 146 700 139 109 81700 600

38600 97 66

$1340 Tree Price 900 900 228 198 171 BOO

167 139SOO 197 700103700 161 130 600

600 119 88 60

$1440 Tree Price 900 BOO

248 218 191900 700159SOO 216 186 600

180 150 123700 80

Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount _ 10 lOwer No change 10 higher

-middot----middotmiddot---middot--bull-----dollars------bullbullbullbull -bullbullbull shy

$1040 Tree Price 175195 32602

(110936) (253415)

44502 (97269)

(2399BO) (381637)

(86191) (227140) (369023) (509859)

$1140 Tree Price 299293 167950 36607 142927

(14476) (170717)

12478 (144024) (299372)

(117971) (273573) (428028)

$1240 Tree Price 423391 291398 159406 253252 81984

(88019)

122225 (48069)

(217107)

(8BOl) (178123) (346196)

$1340 Tree Price 547489 414847 282204 363576 231972 100368 178445 (5321)

47886 (134842)

(82673) (264364)

$1440 Tree Price 671587 538295 405003 473901 341719 209538 274905 143841 12777 77377 (52578) (182532)

138 108 N01E Parentheses mean negative number

34 35

600

Investor Analysis

The following analysis considers the impact of the US tax laws (revised October 1987) on investing in Christmas trees The approach is identical to the previous IRR and NPV analysis except the impact of federal and state income taxes is considered in the annual stream of cash flow

The basis assumptions used are as follows

1 The taxpayer investor is in a 40 tax bracket on marginal income when combining both state and federal income taxes

2 The investor is actively engaged in managing the Christmas tree farm so that revenues and losses can be counted as active income or the investor has other passive investment income to offset any passive losses from growing Christmas trees

3 The Section 179 one-time deduction of $10000 per year is used in other businesses operated by the investor

4 Depreciation was calculated using the modified ACRS rules published by the IRS in 1987 Publication 225

5 The Christmas tree enterprise falls under the IRS rules for Christmas tree cultivation requiring capitalization of planting and stump culture for trees more than 6 years of age Because one-third of the trees are sold within the 6-year time limit one-third of planting expenses were deducted in the year incurred and the remaining two-thirds were capitalized and written off when the trees were sold in the seventh year

6 The investor uses a cash accounting system for tax purposes

36

The pre-tax IRR for the scenario with trees selling for $1240 each 80 harvestable yield and standard costs was 146 The IRR after-tax considerations fell to 125 (table 19) One might compare the after-tax return of 125 to other after-tax investments of comparable risks The after-tax NPV for the above scenario is $18069 compared to the pre-tax NPV of $122225 using a 12 discount rate

37

0

Table 19 Investor cash now analysis lor a l6O-acre Christmas tree larm (per planted acre basis) S=~=bullbull=I==~==~=bullbull====iI=bullbull2a==IIiIII bullbullbullbull===========n====ZIUSS=====bullbull===lllJ=====$~nUIlt1=llIIlta====s=a====II===============bullbullbull==II=~====lltz===-===U===========1II==X=======_==li=

Year 1 rHr 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year S Ye8l 6 tear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 1Q Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Tear 18

Net Cash Flow BelMe T8)( ConeiderattOlS (116411) (75439) (86658) (99354)(111768) (51189) 119810 119810 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810

Tax ONKtiona

Oeprec i at i on Irrigation syat far Foelli amp Equip

7875 1440

14625 7440

19446 7440

22890 7440

25378 7440

27156 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

Planting E_ 8209 10585 13004 16006 18568 22423 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031

~~~- ~t~t 1~~~r 1~ n~~ ~~m i~m ~M ~U~~ ~~M ~M ~~~ ~m ~M ~~~ ~~~ ~~M ~~M ~~M Total TalC DeOoctlons 33265 49193 65833 81973 96875 130860 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189341 189341 189311 189341 189341 189311

~rI~ (3326~) (4979~) (6583g) (819~) (968~) l~m) m~ ~~~~f~ mJ~ ~H~ m~~ mm ~~H~~ ~~B~ ~~im mm mJ~ ~~B2~ Inc_ ra Saings 13306 19917 26333 32189 38750 11930 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc_ TalC Oue 0 0 0 0 0 0 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297

let Cash flow (1037) (5522) (60325) (66) (737018) (397259) 74512 7Z2 74512 74512 7862 7512 74~12 rZSt2 142 M=062 1512 14512 =s===========s=_====sbullbullc=======-===================_======-=-==========I====S======-===========================e===s====================s==============r=================

Net Cash Flow Before Tax Considerations 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810 119810 190654 179442 217765 230460 242421 165733

T81 OlaquoiJcti ons

Depreciation

~ili~r Equip 2g~~ 2U~~ 2~~~ 2~~ 2~~~~ 2~g~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ 2~~ 2~~~ 2~n~ 1~~J ~~8 ~~~ f2zS 2~

~i~-OVerhoad

zg8M62335

zg8M62335

Z~~~ 62335

zg8M62335

ig8M62335

zg~~62335

i8M62335

i8M62335

t8M62335

i~8M 62335

Zg~~62335

~~~~~53665

~~~~ 46402

~tg~~40943

~~ ~~~35402 29986

ll~8~~

Total TaJ( Deduct_ 189341 189341 187121 187121 187121 187121 181121 181121 187121 187121 187121 156112 133925 117431 101291 86842 60718

I Froll Sales 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 201550 ~~~es~~= 1132~ m24~ 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154~ 1154~ 14647~ 16866g 1855~ 20129t 21574~ 1408~

Income la~ Due ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ Met Cash FloW =-2========SCI========

74512=I=====

74512 46974 73624 73624 73624 73624 63174 73624 __===_=_=============bullbullbullSamp====1II_1I31amp=II================_=II==__ == 73624_===__==

73624=======

132065 _=-=bullbull

111978======S=====

143703 ======_==

149943=======1I

156124 ========laquo

109400 ======_

~

Appendix Table Amiddotl United States Department ofAgriculture grade standards for Christmas trees

Christmas Tree Grades Factor US Premium US No1 US No2

Density Not less than Not less than Light or better medium medium

Tapera Normal- Normal- May be less than 40 to 90 40 to 90 40 or more

than 90

Damage-free faceb 4 3 2

Foliage Fresh clean Fresh clean Fresh clean and healthy and healthy and healthy

Shapec Well-shaped Well-shaped Well-shaped crown crown crown

Handle not Handle not Handle not less less than 6 less than 6 less than 6 or more than or more than or more than 134 per foot 1 34 per foot 1 34 per foot of tree height of tree height of tree height

aTaper of a tree is defined as the width of a tree expressed as a percentage of its height

Face means the visible surface area of a tree as viewed from 8 to 10 feet from the tree A tree is considered to have four faces each face constituting 14 of the tree

cHeight of a tree is defined in terms of foot or half-foot steps and is measured from the base of the handle to a point on the leader not more than 4 feet above the apex of the cone of the taper

Source Proebsting Buhaly and Wanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest 1981

40

4iUJiMMiFeuro iampi~t~Ityen)--

Literature Cited

Clevenger Tom et at The Wholesale and Processing Market for Locally Grown High Value Crops Research Report 572 New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station July 1985

Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture (Mora Research Center) New Mexico State University Guidelines for Growing and Marketing Christmas Trees in New Mexico New Mexico Department of Natural Resources October 1980

Huntley Wallace Marketing Christmas Trees-Turning a Problem into an Opportunity American Christmas Tree Journal August 1984 pp 41-43

Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury Fanners Tax Guide Publication 225

Proebsting William M Joseph Buhaly and Donald Hanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest Pacific Northwest Extension Publication PNW6 January 1981

41

Page 2: Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and ...

New Mexico State University is an equal opportunity employer All programs are available to everyone regardless of race color religion sex age handicep or national origin

September 1989 Las Cruces New Mexico

1M

SUMMARY

Many species of Christmas trees can be grown in New Mexico because of the diverse climate For this report however only those species that generally grow well at elevations above 5000 feet and are desirable for Christmas trees in New Mexico were considered This includes such species as Scots pine and White fir This does not include elderica pine (Afghan pine) which is more suited to growing conditions at lower elevations

Full-cost budgets and cash flow projections for a 160-acre (147 planted acres) farm are presented Full-cost budgets provide a planning tool while cash flow projections identify cash needs and evaluate project feasibility Because the prices received by growers can fluctuate from year to year a series of prices ranging from $1040 per tree to $1440 per tree were used in the cash flow ~lOalysis Additionally revenues and costs are also sensitive to changes in yield of saleable trees per acre The impact of saleable yields ranging from 60 to 90 of the original number of trees planted was also evaluated Also because costs can vary greatly by area in the state or from one grower to another costs were allowed to vary 10 in either direction in the evaluation Finally because income tax considerations can greatly affect after-tax income an investor analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of tax considerations

Christmas trees differ in the time required to grow them to harvest size as a result of tree species climate soils and management practices For this report trees were assumed to have attained a marketable size of 5 to 7 feet in 6 to 7 years with 13 attaining marketable size in year 6 and the balance in year 7 Because most growers prefer to avoid a gap in revenue a planting rotation was assumed This rotation involved planting only 1nth of the total 147 acres (21 acres) in anyone year hence by year 7 a constant volume of trees is available for market each year All harvested trees were assumed sold in the wholesale market although other market alternatives exist and are discussed in the text

The total pre-production costs to growmiddot Christmas trees to harvestable size was estimated at $5736 per acre This cost

~

incorporates all production costs including land rent management and supervision and interest expenses incurred in the 5 preproductive years

The cash flow budgets were based on total acreage rather than on a per-acre basis Cash requirements for first year of the initial 21 acres planted was estimated at $116411 This figure includes the cash necessary to buy equipment and buildings that have useful economic lives ranging from 10 to more than 30 years The farm was projected to have a negative cash flow until year 7 when the first 21-acre block of trees is fully harvested and the second 21-acre block is paltially harvested

The pre-tax Internal Rate of Return (IRR) ranged from -14 to 248 when yield price and costs were varied The -14 return was incurred assuming a price of $1040 per tree a yield of 60 of the original planting and production expenses 10 over budget The 248 IRR was obtained assuming a price of $1440 per tree a yield of 90 saleable trees and production expenses 10 under basic budget estimates The pre-tax IRR for the basic scenario of $1240 price per tree 80 saleable trees and expenses as budgeted was 146 The after-tax IRR was 125 based on a tax rate of 40 and following the Internal Revenue Service tax guidelines for Christmas tree growers revised 1987

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the members of the New Mexico Christmas Tree Growers Association and the National Christmas Tree Association in preparing this report Without the willing participation of these organizations much of the information in this report would have been difficult to obtain Additional acknowledgments are also extended to Greg Fancher Mora research facility and Rich Phillips Fabian Garcia Agricultural Science Center who provided much of the cultural data used in this report

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Introduction 1 Prices and markets 2 Full-cost budgets bull 6

Assumptions and specifications 6 Farm characteristics 6

Equipment 6 Pre-harvest operations 8

Land preparation 8 Planting 8 Planting and harvest schedule 8 Tree population 9 Seedling sources 9 Tree species 9 Irrigation 10 Cover crop 12 Chemicals 12 Shearing and training 12 Harvest operations 14 Post-harvest operations 15 Overhead expense 15 Interest 17 amptablishment expenses 17 Total cost per acre 18

Price sensitivity of full-cost budgets 18 Tax implications 26 Cash-flow budgets 26 Analysis 29 Price 29 Yield 29 COst 30 Feasibility assessment 31

Investor analysis 34 Literature cited 39

III

_~_ _~__~_lt$IiM1_ 8 ~-_~ii~S~f-tt~3~ltilrC-j -~

LIST OF TABLES

Table No Page

1 Selected characteristics by type of marketing method for cut Christmas trees 4

2 Prices received by Christmas tree growers for Scots pine White fir and Douglas fir 5-7 foot tree when sold in quantities of 600 trees or more 1986 5

3 Equipment summary for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm in New Mexico 1988 7

4 Acre-inches of applied water by year 11

5 Well characteristics for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm 11

6 Chemicals applied per acre by year for Christmas tree farms 1988 13

7 Annual overhead expenses on a 160-acre Christmas tree farm 16

8 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White fir and Scots pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 1 establishment) NM 1988 19

9 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White fir and Scots pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 2 establishment) NM 1988 20

10 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White fir and Scots pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 3 establishment) NM 1988 21

iv

11 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White fir and Scots pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 4 establishment) NM 1988 22

12 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White fir and Scots pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 5 establishment) NM 1988 23

13 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White fir and Scots pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 6) NM 1988 24

14 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White fir and Scots pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 7) NM 1988 25

15 Cash flow for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm (147 net planted acres) 27

16 Equipment replacement schedule for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm in New Mexico 1988 30

17 Internal Rates of Return (IRR) estimates for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost changes 33

18 Net Present Value (NPV) estimates for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost changes using a discount rate of 12 35

19 Investor cash flow analysis for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm (per planted acre basis) 37

Appendix Table No

A-I United States Department of Agriculture grade standards for Christmas trees 40

v

Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and White Fir Plantation Christmas

Trees in New Mexico

William D Gorman Robert E Grassberger Jr James T Fisher John G Mexal Gall A Welsh

Tom Clevenger and Robert R Lansford

This report evaluates the cost and fInancial feasibility of growing Scots pine and White fIr plantation Christmas trees These varieties are suitable for growing at elevations of 5000 feet or higher in New Mexico Warmer growing areas primarily areas below 5000 feet in elevation are suitable for production of elderica pine (Pinus brutia subsp elderica) a conifer that grows rapidly but is not suitable for higher elevations The most popular Christmas tree species grown at elevations above 5000 feet in elevation in New Mexico are Scots pine (Pinus aylvestris) White fIr (Abies concolor) and Douglas fIr (Pseudotsuga menziesii)

Although Christmas trees of various sizes can be marketed this report is limited to the evaluation of 5 to 7-foot trees grown with irrigation for a period of 6 to 7 years

middotProfessor Depanment of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Business Coordinator of Economic Development Cooperative Extension Service Professor and Associate Professor Agronomy and Honiculture Research Specialist Professor and Professor Depanment of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Business respectively

1 vi

~higm1SfMSj 7 ~ij~~t-~rt~~S~middotmiddotjmiddotmiddot

PRICES AND MARKETS

Prices for Christmas trees are not quoted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Statistical Reporting Service on a regular basis from organized markets as is the case for most agricultural commodities Therefore it is considerably more difficult to arrive at an average or typical grower price to use in crop budgets and cash flow projections Price information contained in this report was obtained from telephone interviews with 10 Christmas tree producing and marketing firms One of these firms was acknowledged by several of the others as the industry price leader The firms interviewed were selected because they had marketed Christmas trees in New Mexico Texas or Oklahoma and had been active in the business for several years The firms were not selected at random They were either recommended by the National Association of Christmas Tree Growers or by other growers

The firms were first interviewed in February 1987 and again in February 1988 Information on prices by species was obtained for the 1986 season in the 1987 interviews Information on price changes over the 1982 through 1986 period was obtained during the 1988 interviews

Prices to growers depend upon tree quality species tree size number of trees sold supply and demand for trees and the type of market outlets used Quality is important The USDA has established grade standards for Christmas trees (Appendix table 1) Christmas tree growers and wholesalers interviewed stressed how important it is to produce excellent quality uniform trees to receive top market prices The reputation of the grower is important in pricing because buyers do not inspect all trees before the sale

Marketable trees range in size from 2-foot table top trees to those more than 20 feet tall used primarily by commercial civic and church groups Prices per foot for shorter trees tend to be less than for taller trees Large volume growers frequently give price discounts for larger orders Typical price discounts ranged from $025 to $1 per tree on orders of more than 350 trees and sometimes an additional discount of up to $1 per tree on orders for more than 700 trees

The type of market outlets selected by growers will influence the prices received Market outlets available to growers included (1) choose-and-cut (2) retail tree lots (3) supermarkets (4) other retail establishments (5) wholesalers (6) groups and organizations and (7) cut trees direct to individual retail customers There is also a comparatively small market for live Christmas trees Depending on the number of Christmas trees ready for harvest and the proximity to metropolitan areas anyone or a combination of the above may be possible outlets for New Mexico growers According to the NCTA of the total Christmas trees sold by US growers in 198644 were sold directly to retail lots operated by others 7 at commercial retail lots operated by the grower 38 to wholesalers and 11 on a choose-and-cut basis on the farm Table 1 lists selected characteristics of these different markets

Market contacts should be made early in the year Sales arrangements to wholesalers and large retailers are usually made in June and July The question of who pays the transportation costs is sometimes negotiated however most trees are sold fob farm with the buyer responsible for transportation charges and arrangements

Species is also important in determining price (table 2) According to the survey wholesale buyers will pay about $1 per tree more for 5-7 foot White fir than for Scots pine and $3 to $5 more than for Douglas fir

According to the firms interviewed the average farm-level wholesale price has been gradually increasing since 1982 The firms were asked to provide price information for the years 1982 through 1986 for Scots pine and Blue Spruce because they were the most popular varieties The average price by year by species was determined from the information received using the following procedure For each species the highest and lowest reported prices were eliminated and the remaining three prices averaged Then simple average price for the two species was taken resulting in the following prices per 5 to 7-foot tree

1982 $1249 1985 $1365 1983 $1299 1986 $1403 1984 $1337

32

gtBl~igtul_Wg_~$jl1 iil T tilb 1~~~5~gt4~-

Table 1 Selected characteristics by type of marketing method for Table 2 Prices received by Christmas tree growers for Scots pine cut Christmas trees

Characteristics Choose-and-cut

Marketing Methods Retail sale Sale to ~ ~roducer retailer

Sale to wholesaler

Percent of national market

11 7 44 38

Sales labor yes yes no no

Location of farm

Important To be near population center

Important Ooseto population center

Accessible to bulk transport

Accessible to bulk transport

Additional etpenses

Tools toilets insurance parking road maintenance advertising

Lot rental license fees transshyportation advertising

Delivery to

destinashytion

May have to deliver

to destinashytion

of sales price to grower

100 100 50-60 30-50

Volume oftrees Umitedby location and local population

Umitedby location and local population

Regional national distribushylion channels

May have regional distribushylion

channels

Other advantages Cashdonot have to cut Secondary sales-shywreaths garlands

Cash secondary sales-wreaths garlands quality control

Do not have to deal with public

Do not have to deal with public

Disadvantages Then Theft Contract necessary

Contract necessary

White fir and Douglas fir 5middot foot tree when sold in quantities of 600 trees or more 1986

Species Price Range Average Pricea

Scots pine $1175 - $1290 $1187

White fir $1150 - $1375 $1290

Douglas fir $870 - $945 $908

middotSimple average of prices quoted by respondents The prices reported were not weighted by volume sold

Source Telephone interviews with 10 Christmas tree growers and wholesalers in selected states February 1987

The Blue Spruce trees of comparable size and quality sold typically from $4 to $6 more than Scots pine

The survey results indicate growers could have produced Douglas fir and sold 5 to 7 -foot trees in the $9 per tree price range At the other extreme growers could have planted Blue Spruce seIling for about $16 per tree However the Blue Spruce grows slower and is not expected to attain an average size of 6 feet when grown from a seedling in a period of 6 to 7 years For purposes of this economic assessment it was assumed growers would elect to produce Scots pine and White fir seIling at prices higher than Douglas fir but lower than Blue Spruce It was also assumed growers would sell nearly all their trees on a cut basis to wholesalers with the buyer being responsible for freight However growers with fewer trees to market than as assumed in this report might want to consider some direct-to-consumer marketing alternative to increase revenues

Additional market information for Christmas trees in the AlbuquerqueSanta Fe area is available in a report by Clevenger et al (1985)

4 5

~t1~~lr lamp In 7 nl_lhkii ~~t~~~~e

j gt -gt ~ VI D -gt o C ~ FULL-COST BUDGETS III o o o o o o o o o g o o

0

-Full-cost budgets were developed to illustrate the costs o o o incurred over the 7-year production cycle Full-cost budgets ill ~ 5o o oas the name implies include all costs including such possibly o o o g 8 c on o

2i N VI onon-cash items as depreciation and opportunity costs for n VI to ltXl N ~ VI N 0gt ~ VI ~ orgt -owner capital management and land rent 4 ltII

C

~ gt o ltXl -gt N - -gt -gt N N

Assumptions and Specifications -i tl-il CI bull v

-4Farm Characteristics o QI

o U o g o co N o o co8 D i -i g v8 co o It was assumed the farm was devoted entirely to the a D -gtbull Q

N ~

V

Christmas tree enterprise The farm consists of 160 acres of n ltII which 147 were planted to Christmas trees The additional 13

I~ ~ Eo o o -gt o N co N co VI shyacres were allotted for roads firebreaks ditches fences and co S N 6 gi -gt VI ibuildings The land was assumed to have been previously ~ VI ~ I e bull Cplanted therefore clear of rocks and other debris When in full production the farms would be planting and haIVesting 21 acres of trees each year J N N -gt o

i i f

8 -gt ~ 4 W gt o ~ 0 gt 0 C vI 0 ~

gt I Equipment middotc E

g 8 g g g VI VI

a o 8 o on N N ltIi ~ 0 ~ -gt ~ I~

o

g

I o ~ -gt N A farm completely devoted to producing Christmas trees H ~~ 0

tJ o 0under drip irrigation does not require a wide array of OJ

l -4 equipment The major items needed include a small tractor ~t l chain saws power pruners tree baler sprayer trailer for lIS

ltII 0 ltII gt hauling grass mower and a liquid fertilizer injector pump e 0OJ

I toLarger tractors and disks are needed for initial land

W

0 shyC

l ltII

VIpreparation but because only 21 acres are planted each year ~ QI u it is cost effective to hire these services on a custom basis ltII ltIl QI QIgt gt shys 0~ ~ lt3 lt3 Some farms may buy a Christmas tree planter but these o

v53 co budgets were prepared assuming hand planting oThe farm will not need border disks disks for weed control i ii7

3 v or land leveling equipment because of the drip irrigation r ~

~ ~system and the grass ground cover cultural practice sect s I shy

1gt ~

I shy

~ The annual fixed and variable costs for the equipment were ti ltII e n ltII ~ I- ~

~ shy~ ~ weestimated using the New Mexico State University crop budget ~ l 1 ~ o ~ H u ~ t a ~ To ~ ~

76

generator (table 3) In addition to the equipment discusSed above a 1000 gallon-per-minute well was included in the equipment table The farm will also require the part-time use of a pickup truck This cost was included in the supervision expense category The total cost of equipment including the irrigation well was estimated to be $39250 or $267 per planted acre

Pre-Harvest Operations

Land Preparation

Because the land was assumed to have been previously planted it was unnecessary to clear the land The major operations in land preparation were plowing disking and harrowing All of these operations were assumed to have been hired on a custom basis

Planting

Hand planting was assumed Planting-labor requirements are based on a rate of 100 trees per hour per individual The total time required to plant 1 acre is estimated at 1210 hours based on planting 1210 trees per acre

The cost of plastic tree netting was budgeted to protect seedlings from rodent damage The plastic netting cost is $3750 per acreand is included in the purchased input section of the budgets A total of 9 hours per acre is required to apply the netting

All trees planted do not survive the first year Some growers will replant the blanks but others often will not replant because this practice results in an uneven harvest The budgets assume no replanting would be done

Planting and Harvest Schedule

For the purpose of this report trees were assumed to be of a 5 to 7-foot marketable size 7 years after planting To maintain a consistent quantity of harvestable trees only 1nth

8

of the total acreage (21 acres) would be planted in any calendar year Hence in years 1 through 6 21 acres would be planted each year In year 7 21 acres would be planted and the 21 acres planted in year 1 would be harvested This staggered planting schedule assures a continuous marketable supply and income to the grower starting in the seventh year

Obviously acreage not planted during the first 6 years could be planted to some other crop For simplicity however this acreage was assumed to have gone unplanted and to have generated no revenue or to have incurred any costs

Tree Population

For marketable trees of 5 to 7 feet a minimum spacing of 5 by 5 feet is recommended (Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture 1980) For the purpose of this study a 5 by 6 foot spacing was used This spacing allows planting 1452 trees per acre

Seedling Sources

There are many sources where trees can be bought as seedlings The source assumed was the Forestry Division of the New Mexico Natural Resources Department At the time of writing this division offered containerized seedlings to New Mexico growers who have more than 1 acre and can meet certain other conditions1 The price was $58 per 98 seedlings or $59 per seedling A price of $63 per tree was used in the budgets to incorporate the cost of the seedlings and transportation

Tree Species

It was assumed that Scots pine and White flf would be the species of choice to expand market opportunities and to avoid risks associated with crop monocultures (Proebsting et

I For infonmltion COntact Divison of Forestry POBox 2167 Santa Fe NM 87504-2167

9

llt_SWic-yenfoWtfte- ffgIUij_~1i~~~iVjWri~

aI 1981 Risks such as species-specific diseases increase with monoculture Most foresters suggest reducing this risk by planting more than one species

Irrigation

Most areas of New Mexico require supplemental irrigation to maintain the necessary soil moisture to keep the trees growing near their potential It was assumed that all plantations were irrigated with a drip system fed with pumped well water The drip system including all filters laterals and emitters was estimated at $1500 per acre2 The cost of installing the drip line was estimated at $11 per acre and is included as a line item under preharvest operations The cost of the well was included in equipment costs

Water needs per acre vary with the tree size and annual rainfall An annual rainfall of 15 inches was assumed Table 4 shows the additional acre-inches of water required per acre by year

The electric well was assumed to be pumping from a depth of 200 feet at 1000 GPM Table 5 shows the well characteristics and operation costs Based on these assumptions the cost per-acre inch was determined to be $352

~ Based upon estimates provided by Mr Ron Bliesner of Keller-Bliesner Engineering Logan Uf

10

Table 4 Acre-inches of applied water by year

Year AEElied Acre-Inches

1 6

2 8

3 12

4 14

5 16

6 18

7 18

Source Ke1ler-Bliesner Engineering Company Logan UT

Table S Well characterlsdcs for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm

Well Characteristics

Static water level (feet) 200 Draw down (feet) 40 Delivery PSI 8 Gallons per minute 1000 Electric efficiency factor 470

Energy use per hour (KWH) 10367 Fuel cost per hour $778 Cost per acre-inch $352

11

t_hltiirll~9~amp6ii11jjltfllU J[BIl1IiHitilut~~W~~tlaquo+middot -~---

Cover Crop

Many Christmas tree farmers plant a cover crop of native grass between rows A cover crop reduces soil erosion and is a positive step toward vegetation management Irrigation water was not applied to the cover crop

The budget assumes that a native grass was sown before the trees were planted After the cover crop is established a non-selective herbicide such as Round-up was assumed to have been sprayed in 24-inch swathes to create grass-free rows to be planted with trees The native grass seed was estimated to cost $15 per acre Drilling the seed was included under the preharvest operations in the budget as a custom operation at $850 per acre

Mowing was included under preharvest operations as well The number of times the inter-row area needs to be mowed was decreased as the tree cover increased therefore mowing costs vary by year

Chemicals

Crop chemicals such as fertilizer herbicides insecticides and fungicides were included in the budget under purchased inputs Table 6 shows in detail the chemical name the prescribed use unit of measurement application rate number of times applied per year per unit prices and total cost per acre The costs of applying these chemicals were included in the budget under preharvest operations

Shearing and Training

Shearing is the cutting of leader and lateral branches to improve the trees shape and density (Proebsting et al 1981) Shearing produces a more saleable tree than would normally be produced otherwise Shearing may be done either by hand with shearing knives machetes or hand pruners or mechanically with light-weight sickle bar clippers or rotary pruners Rotary pruners were assumed to have been used for shearing in this report

Table 6 Chemicals applied per acre by year ror Christmas tree rarms 1988

Per Unit Total acre price cost

Year Chemical Use Unit rate Times $ $

1 Roundup Atrazine 80W

Herbicide Herbicide

gal Ills

05 50

10 10

8000 170

4000 850

2 Roundup Atrazine 80W Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate

Herbicide Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer

gal Ills Ills qt

Ills

02 50 20 10

2350

10 10 10 30

10

8000 170

2100 600

010

1600 850

4200 1800

2233

3 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer

gal Ills qt

Ills

02 20 10

3520

10 10 30

10

8000 2100 600

10

1600 4200 1800

3168

4 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 20 10

4690 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 4200 1800

4456 1725

5 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 10 10

4690 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 2100 1800

4456 1725

6 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 10 10

9830 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 2100 1800

4456 1725

7 Roundup SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal qt

Ills Ills

02 10

5400 15

10 30

10 20

8000 600

010 575

1600 1800

5130 1725

12 13

AA~1~rmiddot~i~I~~~iiltfi~)~~1i~~~4~iamp_1 2U~ampJl2lJMlIIINIiI1m~~S1lt~h

Shearing generally begins when the tree height is about 5 feet For the budgets some shearing was assumed to begin in year 3 however labor in year 3 mainly reflects training of the trees Training helps develop a straight marketable tree The greatest number of hours were needed in years 6 and 7 to prepare trees for market

Estimated chemical needs were obtained from Drs John Mexal and James Fisher Professors of Horticulture New Mexico State University Many of the above chemicals are unnecessary because many pest and disease problems found elsewhere do not currently occur in New Mexico however it was felt as acreage of the crop increases the need for chemical use would also be necessary

Harvest Operations

The harvest generally consists of 4 to 5 weeks and is the most labor intensive activity in Christmas tree growing HalVest operations consist of selecting the trees for halVesting cutting baling and transporting to the market Timing is imperative and weather can be difficult during this period

Because some trees grow faster than others it is usually possible to harvest about 13 of the crop in the sixth year The remaining 213 of the total crop would be cut the seventh year Experienced growers generally halVest about 80 of the trees they plant as a result of death loss and cullage3 This means each acre yielded 1162 marketable trees if 1452 trees per acre were originally plantedOfthe 1162 trees halVested 13 or 387 trees are halVested in year 6 and 775 trees were cut in year 7 Trees not accounted for in the projected halVest either died or were not acceptable as Christmas trees

The trees selected for halVest are often marked before cutting to prevent halVest crews from having to make decisions about tree grades while cutting After cutting trees are carried to the access road and hauled to a central area where they are baled The trees are then loaded on trucks and shipped to the wholesaler or other market outlets

gtCulled trees may be made into wnaths or sold as boughs This was not assumed as a SOurce of revenue in this report

14

HalVest arrangements with wholesalers vary In some cases wholesalers perform all halVest operations in others the wholesaler will mark the trees they want to buy Some agreements call for the wholesaler to transport the trees from field side others place the responsibility for shipping on the producer

This paper assumed the responsibility of selection and harvest was with the producer and that transportation to the market place was paid for by the wholesaler

Post-Harvest Operations

After the field has been completely halVested in the seventh year it is generally replanted to trees the following spring Some growers remove the remaining stumps Stump removal however is an expensive and time consuming process The preferred method appears to be to replant new seedlings half the distance between the remaining stumps within the row The remaining stumps are then allowed to decay naturally This method of replanting between stumps was assumed for this paper

Overhead Expense

Table 7 shows the overhead expenses assumed for the 160 acres with 147 net planted acres

Downtime is the additional labor time allowed because of time lost for such things as machine repairs moving to and from fields and waiting for deliveries A downtime rate of 20 of the total labor hours was applied in the budgets

Employee benefits include any programs that full-time or part-time employees may obtain such as social security workmens compensation insurance group life and health insurance and paid vacations Although this cost can be negligible on most small farms an 18 rate on the coSt of labor was applied here

Insurance was estimated at $850 per planted acre This includes coverage of equipment and farm liability

15

~_~ ~ -h n~middotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot _ middotmiddotbullm-middot middottlt1Gmiddotmiddotgtmiddotti~q~~middot~middot)Gv~--e~~~~~i4iM5tll L MIbullbull Jtpoundi8)l] II ha bullUMtflIf~~~Hjl~kllI~1cent

Table 7 Annual overhead expenses on a 160-acre Christmas tree fanna

Downtime 20 ofdirect labor hours

Employer benefits 18 of direct labor hours

Insurance $850 per planted acre

Farm facilities $386 per planted acre

Land rent $8163 per planted acreb

General and administrative $50 per planted acre

Supervision $75 per planted acre

Other $30 per planted acre

Brokerage 5 of gross revenue

88sed 003tOUtTof 147 pl8nted acres 1Is7s per acre on the total of 160 acres

It was assumed farm facilities were required to protect equipment from weather and to provide office space A simple pole building was used for protecting equipment and was estimated to cost $8000 An additional $9000 was allotted for an office structure The cost of these facilities was spread over a service life of 35 years The cost per planted acre was approximately $4 per acre

Land rent was assumed to be $82 per planted acre or $75 per acre on the gross farm acreage If the land is already owned outright this would represent the opportunity cost of having planted the land to Christmas trees

General and administrative expenses include management salaries secretarial expenses and costs associated with running and maintaining the office such as telephone copying

16

and bookkeeping The amount associated with general and administrative expenses was $50 per planted acre

Supervision expenses were incurred to oversee field operations A $75 per planted acre expense was used for supervision This figure is arbitrary but includes funds for possibly hiring a foreman It also includes funds for pickup truck expenses The 147 net planted acres provides an annual supervision expense fund of $11025

Other expenses is a catch-all category for irregular or unexpected items such as fence or road repair additional hand tools or added administrative expenses The other expenses assumed here were $30 per acre per year

A brokerage fee was included in the budgets as a marketing expense The producer often serves as his own broker and in this case the fee included in the budgets would be viewed as an opportunity cost of the producers time A fee of 5 of gross revenue was used as a brokerage expense

Interest

An interest expense was included for opemting capital and equipment investment Rates of 12 and 10 respectively were used 4

For the full-cost budgets the interest expense on operating capital needed each year from the time of planting was compounded through the seventh year and charged off as an expense in the harvest year If the capital used was all equity capital rather than borrowed this could again be construed as an opportunity cost of the use of the producers money

Establishment Expenses

The establishment expense is the actual cost of growing the trees to harvestable size (tables 8 through 13) To show the total return and the total costs incurred during the harvest

IbeSeinterest rates imply an average annual inflation rate or at least 3to 4 per year A realistic analysis could increase the annual cash expenses and revenues by a 3 to 4 compounded rate over the 35middotyear investment period This approach would result in higher estimated returns Future expenses and revenues were not adjusted ror inflation in this report hence the results may be underestimated

17

MtiS 4ampIi- iJi4MliIllITftif ~2k+Csectlgt--~Smiddot-f

year the full-cost budget for years 6 and 7 include an establishment expense under the purchased input category (tables 13 and 14) This expense is based on cost estimates from the first five years of production and is prorated to the appropriate year based upon the harvest yield ratio S Because there is a time value associated with the capital used to grow the trees a compounding factor was also included The rate used to compound was 10 The total establishment expense per planted acre was estimated to be $2782 allocated in year 6 and $6840 in year 7 The $6840 allocated in year 7 includes $616 of interest expenses associated with having to wait another year (year 6 to 7) before these expenses are recovered The establishment expenses amounted to $719 and $883 per harvested tree respectively for trees harvested in the sixth and seventh years Net returns would increase significantly if all trees would reach harvestable size by year 6

Total Cost Per Acre

Based on the budget estimates made for years 6 and 7 a total cost of $12895 per acre planted or $1110 per tree harvested was required to grow Christmas trees through harvest This cost includes all equipment expenses chemicals land rent labor overhead and interest

Price Sensitivity of Full-Cost Budgets

To determine the return to risk when all costs are accounted for the gross revenue must also be estimated The gross revenue is a function of number of trees harvested and the price per tree The yield of 80of the total planting or 1162 trees was assumed as fIXed in this part of the analysis and only the price was varied A per tree price of $1240 was used as the base with a $1 change in either direction Using the $1240 per tree price a net return of $158372 per acre harvested was derived At $1140 per tree $1 less a net return

gtc)f the total yield 13 was harvested in year 6 and 23 in year 7

q

i g

I middoto~ ~ ~8

~i ~ ~

_z1~ ~s -~

~g

~

~ ~3

z ~ ~i r cu

m~zIi ~ ~=gt

~s ~-

5 oS ~

~J t ~It ~c= ~c lI-Q

i l- ~~ fI) = I iI~ = CIt

f 8 ~ a

(I III laquoIC 5 ~cI iIoU ~

ltI ~ CllioS~ Ol fo- ~ ~ j$ S ~ ~In~

~~~ggg

oi~oo -o-4-C~ ~

0000 0utqno 0

ritO 0 ~-4tltl- N

w ~w

tJtDWU C-amptoe(

oot)o ~~~lt= _Ot) -0

Ie

8glg~~~~i~~g~ t o~-eOaiNOQN 0 N-4N S

11 N ~ill -- 0

~ ~ ~~

1tc ~ ~~ -4 _

I

~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~_OO~N shy 1_ ~

gg 8~ st i~ tOtO i

~ ~~~ ~ X x=~

~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~Q~~N N~

~ g~ E

~ ~ ~ 0 Q i1lJ~W

lto(c- aa~aai5~ ttlZW

~ tQ __ -I iffi Z ~wtll~ow=i~~~~ ~e=~~~5~~tUQCI =VIE a C-lI-

g~~~~g8g~ ~NeOQarQ a) ~

~~~q ~~ laquo)~ ~S

o o~~ UN ~

~ ~

0

~(fIii

~

i

o N

bull ~ l

i

~

~

~ ~

S ~

18 19

Table 9 Per acre tun cost budgets ror growiDg White Fir and Scots Pine

~-~~-~~~~-~-~~~-~-~~-~-~~-~~-~-~~~~~~~~--~~-~~-----------------------_------YIELD

HARVEST DATES PLANTING DATES

PlIlCE -- ~-- - - - bull - - - bullbull - bull - - - ~ - - bull - bull QUANTITY PUR~~~ LABOR ~~iJ~~ REPAIRS Fgi~ TOTAl

TEM UNIT __ bullbull ________ bull __ _ _ ___ ___ bull ___ ___ bull __ _ __________ bullbullbullbull _________ bullbullbullbullbullbullbull _ bull ------_ bullbullbullbullbullbull - -- bull bull - - - - bull (DOLLARS) bullbullbull - - bullbullbull

PURCHASED INPUTS 6650100 ACRE 66501lER8ICIOE 1800100 ACRE 1800INSECTICIDE 211523500 LB 2115MOIII~ SULFATE 750100 ACRE 750MISCELLANECIlS TOOLS 1131511315SUBTOTAL

PREHARVEST OPERATIONS 21751309 319 209 338PTO SPRAYER (X) ampAS IS P 238 HR 27491738 423 275 313MOWER (410 GAS 15 HP 316 HR 4200

Mise 1000 HR 4200LABOR 3226~ 360 IR 2812 238 176WELL (ex) ELE

123501914 7247 3554 722 827SUBTOTAL

OVERfAD EXPENSES 1709311 1709OOWIITIME EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

13041304 850 850

INSURANCE 386 386 FARM FACILITIES 8163 8163 LAND RENT 5000 5000GENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION 75007500suPERVISION 3D00 3000 OTHER

17399 2791210513SUBTOTAL 311 HR

3554 722 18226 515_7711315 17760TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 2225 IR

-51577NET OPERATING PROFIT

2678INTEREST ON OPERATI~G CAPITAL 831INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT

-55086 ~~~~-~~~~- _- _- -_ -_ ----- --_ ---- -- -- ----_ --_ --___ _ - _------ __

Table 10 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 3 estabUshment) NM 1988 PLANTING DATES YIELDHARVEST OATES PRICE

POWER PURCHASED FUEL OIL FIXEDITEM UNIT QUANTITY INPUTS lABOR LUBRICANT REPAIRS COST TOTAL --_ - - _- ---- - -_ -- --_ - - - -(DOlLARS)

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE 5800 5800MOIII~ SULFATE 35200 LB 3168 3168INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800MISCELLANECIlS TOOLS 100 ACRE 750 750

SIJIITOTAL 11518 11518

PRE HARVEST OPERATIONS ROTARY PRUIINERS GAS 900 HR 3780 234 108 495 4617PTO SPRAYER (5X) GAS 15 HP 1 70 R 935 228 150 241 1554MOWER (4X) ampAS 15 HP 316 HR 1738 423 275 313 2149LABOR Mise 1000 IR 4200 4200ELL (12X) ELE 540 HR 4217 356 265 4838

N SUBTOTAL 2926 10653 5102 889 1314 17958 - (MRNfAl) EXPENSES OOWIITiME 477 2625 2625EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1918 1918INSURANCE 850 850FARM FACILITIES 386 386LAIIO RENT 8163 8163GENERAL _rNISTRATlON 5000 5000SUPERViSiON 7500 7500OTHER 3000 3000

SUBTOTAL 477 HR 2043 17399 29442

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 3403 HR 11518 22696 5102 889 18713 58918

NET OPERATI KG PROF IT middot58918

I NTEREST ON OPERAT I NG CAP ITAL 2930 INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT INVESTMENT 964

RETURN TO RISK 62812 ~ -~- -_ ~ ~~ ~ _ - -

Table 11 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas ~~~~~~~~~~~_~~~t~~~~~ ___ _ ~i~~middotDAEmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot YIELD

HARVEST OATES PRICE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull PURCHASED FUEL Oil FIXED

PMR INPUTS LA~ LUBRICANT REPAIRS COST TOTAL ~~~~~~- middotmiddotDOt~~middot PURCHASED INPUTS

HERBICIDE 100 ACRE 5800 5800 INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 fUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 AMONIUM SULFATE 46900 LB 4221 4221 MlsCElLANEClJS TOOLS 100 ACRE 750 750

SUBTOTAL 14296 14296

PRE HARVEST OPERA liONS ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) CAS 1500 HR 6300 390 180 825 7695 PTO SPRAYER (ax) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 364 239 386 2485 MOIlER (2X) CAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374~ FERT INJECTOR ElE 030 HR 011 061 096 168 LABOR MISC 1000 HR 4200 4200 lElL (14X) [L 630 HR 49bull 20 416 309 5645

SUBTOTAL 3590 12865 5897 1033 1772 21567

OVERHEAD EXPENSES DOIINTIM 586 3223 3223 EMPLOYEE BENEF ITS 2316 2316 INSURANCE 850 850 FARM FACILITIES 386 386 LAND RENT 8163 8163 CENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION 5000 5000 SUPERVI SION 7500 7500 OTHER 3000 3000

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039 17399 30438

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 4176 HR 14296 25904 5897 1033 19171 66301

NET OPERATl NG PROF IT 66301

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL 3247 INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 1102

70650~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~--

Table 12 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas trees (year 5 establishment) NM 1988 PLANTING OATES HARVEST OATES YIELD

PRICE

lIEM PMR

IJHlT QUANT lTy PURCHASED

INPUTS

~~~~~

FUEL OlL LA80R LUBRICANT

REPAIRS FIXED COST TOTAL

PURCHASED INPUTS - shy ~ ~ bull bull bull (DOLLARS) bull - bull HER81CIOE INSECTICIDE FUNCICIOE AMOHIUM SULFATE MI SCELLANEOUS TOOLS

SU8TOTAL

PREHARVEST oPERATIONS

100 ACRE 100 ACRE 100 ACRE

46900 L8 100 ACRE

3700 1800 1725 4221 750

12196

3700 1800 1725 4221

750

12196

ROTARY PRUHNERS (2X) PTO SPRAYER (8X) MOIlER aX) FERT INJECTOR LABOR WELL (16X)

SUBTOTAL

OVERHEAD EXPENSES

CAS CAS 15 HP CAS 15 HP ELE MISC ELE

1500 H 272 HR 158 HR 030 HR

1000 HR 720 HR

3680

6300 1496 869

4200

12865

390 364 212 011

5623

6600

180 239 137 061

475

1092

825 386 156 096

353

1816

7695 2485 1374 168

4200 6451

22373

OOIHIME EMPLOYEE BENEFf TS INSURANCE FARM FACILITIES LANI RENT GENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION SUPERVISION OTHER

586 3223 2316

7500

850 386

8163 5000

3223 2316 850 386

8163 5000 7500

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039

3000

17399

3000

30438

TOTAL OPERAJINC EXPENSES 4266 HR 12196 25904 6600 1092 19215 65007 NET oPERA T I HG PROf I T

65007 INTEREST ON OPERATINC CAPITAL INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 3142

1153 RETURN TO bull I SK bull ~ bullbullbull - _ - - ~ - _ - - _ bullbullbullbull - - ~ _ bullbull - _ bullbullbullbull bullbull - bullbullbull

~ - - -_ _-_ __--_ _---__- 69302

Table 13 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine

~~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J~~~~~~ Table 14 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine PL~NTIMG DATES YIELD 387 TREES GROSS RETURNSS4198 80 HARVEST DATES NOVEMBER 15 bull DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0TREE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbull bullbull

bull - bullbull - bullbullbull - bull bull bull bull ~C~A~E~ - FUEL OIL FIXED ~middot~middot~7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~U~~~~~ PLANT INC DATES YIelD 775 TREESQUANT ITY INPUTS LABOR LUBRICANT REPAIU COST TOTAL

~ ___ w~ ___ ____ _ ____ ____ _ _ _ ___ HARVEST OATES NOVEM8ER 15 DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0IREE ~ CROSS RETURNS$9iIOOO - bullbullbullbull (DOLLARS) bullbullbullbullbullbull - bull shy

pOlin PURCHASEDPURCHASED INPUTS ITEM fUEl OIL FIXEDUNIT OUANT IlY INPUTSHERBltlDE 100 ACRE 3700 3700 bull lABOR LUBRICANT RePAIRS-_ _---- _--- _---_ _---- - _--_ - _- __ __ -- COST TOTAL INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 bull FUNGICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 bull bull (DOLLARS) bull A_IUM SULFATE 93800 LB 8~~2 8442 bull

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE T6OOTWINE 38700 EACH 19-35 1935 1600INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800MISCELLANEros TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000 bull 1800

ESTABLISHMENT 113 2781 72 278172 FUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725AMON I UN SULFATE 5~000 lB 4860 4860

SUBTOTAL 18602 2781 72 2967 7~ TWINE 17500 EACH 3875 ~8 7~MISCELLANEOUS TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000

PREHARVEST OPERATIOIIS ESTABLISHMENT 23 ~050 ~050

ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) GAS 3800 HR 15960 988 ~56 2090 1~9~ bull SUBTOIAL 14860PTO SPRAYER (ex) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 360 239 386 2~ 85 bull ~050 698910 MOWER (2X) GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 137~ bull PREHARVEST OPERATIONSfERT INJECTOR ELE 035 oR 012 071 112 195 bull ROTARY PRUNNERS (2)) GAS 3000 HRLABOR Mise 1000 HR ~200 ~2 00 bull 12600 780 360 1650 I5~90PTO SPRAYER (xl GAS 15 HP 238 HRIlELL lt18X) ElE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258 bull MOIlER (ZX) 1309 319 209 338 21 75GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374fEAT INJECTOR ELE 060 HSUBTOTAL 6075 22525 7902 1~38 31~1 35006 021 122 191 334LABOR MIse 1000 HR ~200 4200

HARVEST OPERATIONS WELL (18X) ELE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258

CHAIN SAW GAS 968 HR 4066 252 136 590 50~~ SUBTOTAL 5266DRAG amp lOAD HAND 3225 HR 13545 135~5 18978 7658 1363 2732 J0731 TREE BALER GAS 230 HR 966 177 278 952 2373 HARVEST OPERATIONSTRAILER GAS 15 HP 300 HR 1650 ~11 360 560 2985 CHAIN SAW GAS 1938 HRLABOR Mise 1650 HR 6930 6930 81~0 504 271 1182 10097DRAG amp LOAD HAND 6058 HR 27124 27124

SUBTOIAL 6373 HR 27157 8~0 7 7~ 2106 30877 TREE BALER GAS I 46D HR 1932 354 5~7 1904 4747TRAILER GAS 15 HP 600 HR 3300 822 720 1128 5970LABOR MISC ~OOO NROVERHEAD EXPENSES 16800 16800 OOHlE 2321 12763 12763 bull SUBTOTAL 13~56 HREMPLOYEE SENEF lIS 89~3 89~3 bull 57296 1680 1548 4214 6~7 38

INSURANCE 850 850 bull OVERHEAD EXPEHSESFARM fACILITIES 386 366 bull OCltJNTJME 3~70LAND RENT 8163 8163 bull 19637 19637EMPLOYEE BENet liSGENERAL amp ADMINISTRATlOil 5000 5000 bull 13729 13729 SUPERVISION 7500 7500 bull INSURANCE

850 850FARM FACILITIESOTHER 3000 3000 bull 386 386LAND RENTMARXETING 2399~ 2399~ 8163 8163

SUPERVISION GeNERAL 8 ADMINISTRATION

5000 5000 SUBTOTAL 2321 HR 23994 29206 17399 70599 7500 7500

MARKETING OTHER

3000 300048050 48050

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 14769 HR 29550 ~~401 347~ 1250 287125 367738 bullbull SUBTOTAL 3570 HR ~8050 ~0866 17399 106315 IIpoundT OPERATING PROfIT 1121~2

TOIAl OPERATING EXPENSES 22292 HRINTEREST (JIj OPERATTNG CAPlTAL 6545 62910 117140 9338 2911 708395 900694 INTEREST (JIj EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 2473 NET OPERATING PROFIT

60306 10312~

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT IHVESlMENT 8659

3361 RETURN TO R I so

TIoCmiddotTHIRDS OF THESE COSTS IlERE ALLOCATED AS PROOUCTl(Jlj COSTS fORIREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 7 48286iI ~--~-- ----- ~ --~--- -~------ -----~-- yen - bullbullbullbull -- ~ -- ----_ _w ___ ________ 0 _______ _w __ IHIS TOTAL INCCltPORATES ONLY THE EXPENSE ASSOCATEO WITH THE TREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 6 BECAUSE OF THIS THE COLUMN

WILL NOT SUM TO THIS VALUE

24 25

~ i C -i Q

= foil

Table 15 Cash flow for a 160-aere Cbristmas tree rann (147 net planted aeres lIIII====_=====IIIlIII======S=II==2=II=___1I3_III========s_bullbullbullbull=z=a==a============bullbull==~=bullbullbull==11======aSS==lIIlII======================================================

Year 1 fear 2 Year J tear 4 Year 5 Year 6 fear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 fear 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 lllttows _=====

Sale of Trees so so so so so $101035 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 S302585 S302585 $302585 $302585 OUtflows

Purchased Input 5 Tree stock 1921019m 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210Cover ~rass seed 315 9sect1~ 19m 315 315 315 19m 19m 315 19m 19m 19m 19m315 315 315 315erbicuSe 1019 2415 3633 4851 5628 6405 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741Insecticide o 378 756 1~ 1890 22611 22611 22611 22611 2268 2268 2268 22611 22611Ftrlgicide o o o H~ 1087 U~ 1449 U~ 1449 1449 449 ~~~ 1449 1449 t449 1449Amonhn Sui tate o 444 1109 1~ 5676 5676 5676 ~~~X 5676 5676Tree guards 788 788 788 2~ 4~~ 788 53 53 53 788 788 5~ 5~ 53788 788 788Miscellaneous tools 420 578 735 893 105g 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365Twine o o o o i~ 1220 l~~ l~~ij 1220 1220 1220 1220 1220 lm lnOIrrigatlon system 31500 3150031 508 31500 31500 31500 31500 3150g 31500 31500 31~~g 31500 31500 31500 31 gtog 31~~g 31500 31500Eqult 33750 o o o 1045g o o o 266j0 o o a 10450 o oFarm facilities 17000 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oPre-harvest Operations o CustQll1 1_ preparation 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651Spray 204 578 844 1271 1698 2124 2498 2498 2~g 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498Harrow 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 168 1611 1611 Mark rows 309 309 309 Seed 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 Haul plants 42 42 42 42 42 309309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309

42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42Pl t (hand) 1861 2 ~Iy Netting 1~ 1~

794 1~ ~2 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ ~2 1~ 1 1861 1861 1861 861 li~ Orlp installaton 221 221 221 211

~l 794 794 794 794 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 2lt1495 990 1485 1733 1980 2228 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475Shear amp train 2415a o 864 2303 3743 7398- 1~~~ 1~~~ 10283 10283 10283 10283

i seel taneous 1amp1raquor 882 76 2646 Appt ter t it i zer o o o 10~g~ 10m 10m 10~g~ 10~g~ 10283

35 71 141 182 182 182 182 182 182 lr2 Purping costs 480 1121 617435l8 5292 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 Ot 174 6174 6174 6174

Harvest operations 2081 3l02 i~~g 5923 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 73k4

Cut tr~s o Drag amp load trees o 2807o o 935 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 Wrap trees o o 2374 7115 ~~~~ ~~~ 1115 7115 7115 7115 7115 7~ 7115o o o 298 895 895 895 7J~ 895 7~~~ 895 895 895 895 895Haul trees o o o 508 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525MisceHaneous labOr o 1525o o 1455 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366Overheed Oowotime 648 1007 IS58 2235 2911 5522 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346E1lloy benefits 4611 742 1145 1631 3933 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581Insurance 179 357 536 114 2~~

1071 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250Land r~t 1575 3150 4725 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025G amp A 1050 lloo 3150 4lOO 5250 6300 tgro 7350 7350 7350 7350 1~m k~~~ 7350 ~m 7350 7350 735a~~~Vision 472S 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11021575 3150

11m 11~~~ 025 11~~630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 63mMarketng II o o o o 5052 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 lSI29

1 Based on total of 147 planted acres by Year 7 A total of 21 (Jeres are planted each year year 1 consists ot 21 planted acres year 2 a total of 42 etC

-- --~ -~-~ r IJampamp $ ~H ~M LgtH~-~Lw~

110 0 middot W It 110 OO~~~~o~~OOO OampooooooosectOii S~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~H~ = - 11 11=L = 110 _ N N 0 M

bull c _~_

bullbullbull 2 _ M~

cash needs of the operation The farm will produce a positivei 0goooo00020poundN t-~~~~ t-~Fg~ORi ~ UNHIt U to OOE~l2~O~ft~oOI L 110 lS -lIi iIl~lI)t i1 ---a~ - 3

N annual cash flow starting in the seventh year However a total N bullbull u _N N~ - - ~N ~ $E~3

bullbull It 0 t N of $540819 in cash is expended through the first 6 years Ao~ooooooo~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~V~~ ~=~==~C ~ OOi~~~~O$~OOO ~ laquoS_~_ i i6~ ~gIIt_~o~ -=~ I total of 11 years are needed (five positive cash producingbullM Ii IfII 110 II n N -~ ~ _ N t- _ _ ~ ~~~= N III H 0 years) before the cash outflows incurred during the first 6 ~

~ = =a OOsect~~~O~OOO o~ooooooo~~~i 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ =~= years are covered This is based on selling trees at $1240L= V ~ ~N ~~ ~~ ~4 N~ ~~~ i i~e s -- N S The budgets were developed for a 35-year period because=gt- tt n this was thought to be a reasonable economic life5~~ ~ OO~~~roO~~O~O degmoooooooi~~ ~=~~~ ~mi5~5~~ ~=~= amp0 - ~ - III middot

__ ~ ~ _ 0 Nt- _ Ntn ~~~ ~ -~~- ~ pound Additionally a 35-year life allows for five 7-year

planting-through-harvest rotations Based on the rotationbull C) MM C OO~~~~degri~OOO OampOOOOOOO~~~~m 2E~~~ ~~~sect~~~~ ~u~= i c L ~ ~

N~v N N~ ~~ N~ ~4 ~~~~~~ ~ iii schedule only Inth of the total acreage would be planted ini = i

-SfIJ n= ~ - -I anyone year The cash costs in year 1 therefore include onlyRi = ~ ~~~~~i~~5me~~ i~sect~~ ~~~~~~~~ E~ lias amp0 ~~~~~~J~~~~OO H II n ~ 0- ~~w- ~ = ~~ Nt- - ~~_~t- ~ ~ct N planting expense for Inth of the total acreage or 21 acresW - - -= ~ Year 2 would again include planting expenses for Inth of theCtI 110- -~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~o~~~g~ ~G~ liN Q) $ ___ cOP ___~ i_IiInJX lIlCoo~_ flt nc II II tn ~~i~~~~~~~~00 =~ N ~ 0_11 - N w (1= Ot- N~ Oo~t-- i Ef~~ acreage and the second year growing expenses for the 21=- =tt ~ - acres planted originally The total expenses of a fullymiddot =S 1II ~~~_~~~~~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~sect~~ l~~~~~~~ Ec~ _ tl_-= ~u ~ operating facility are first incurred in the seventh year The

~ ~NII -~_ 1I1f N ~o~ N~ - ~o~=~~ ~ eg~R- 1111 0 - t first year of full revenue is also obtained in year 7 (21 acres of Cite ~ ~~~~~~~N~~~~~ ~~~~~ I~~~~~g~ ~r~i

~ _ ~ cOPNN __~ ~_m~~ ~1nO~O~~ Nfl~M

= or ~~~~~~~~~~O tt l 387 trees in their sixth year and 21 acres of 775 trees in their0- ~N_~ _ _0 N ~o~ N~ - ~~_=t--= ~ ~gGbull N= iI - - - ~i 1 seventh year ofgrowth)III

4iiii i~ ~ As the farm approaches the end of its economic life it was~~~_~~~~~~~~OO i~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~pound~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~i~E i

I middotL= 0- -oN_tI- - ~ N _ N~ot-- Nt-- ~ ~o_~t-= ~ ~U~ ii= = ~ assumed that the operator would stop planting Therefore as 11 - a l ~ 13 ~~~~g~i~N~~~~~ i~~~~ ~~a~~IC~~ E=~= of year 29 no more planting expenses are incurred It wasltV bull V ~~~~~~~~~~OO 0- N - -= ~N0ftIo - Ieo ~ t= -oN 1I _0- - N~ ~~ Nt- - ~o-~= ~ ~ft~c =a ~ - t assumed the land would be either left idle or used for otherIIIJ - -

= ~ purposes In year 35 the final year of operation only 21 acresa~= tQ ~~~~~~~re~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~ E~a N 0- -0 ___ _III u N _ N~o~ N~ _~ ~o-=~= ~ ~~~III ~ ~ of seventh-year trees would remain to be harvested At thisgt- - - -I point the entire operation would be closed down No salvagesect ii~ 1II ~~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~$~9~~ i~~~~ ~~~~sect~~ E~I II

II Ltf __ ~ ~N-II N ~ Ni ~~ N~ ~~ ~~~i~ i ~=in value was assumed because the land used was either leased or ~ -11~ 1= shy

I ~ rented and all equipment or buildings had no remainingc 15 ~ ft ~~~rd~~J~~~~~O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~E~iIII 0- QN-V 0 N _ N~o~ N ~~_~~~ ~ ~~~ i useful life H= ~ - ltgt ~ 15 Over the project life it would be necessary to replace some to tQ ~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~S~~~ 2Ei~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~5~i t ~ equipment For the purpose of this study it was assumed that~ I ~ -oN_~ _ - N _ N~ ~~ _ ~o_=~~ ~ ~~ I -= I= ~ - i all equipment would be used until it was no longer-=1 ~lt~S~-~N~~~~1 t-~~~~ ~co~~~o~ ~ft i011 V-- ~ o~- ~~NN__~ i_~V~ ~II~OO~_ ~~ ~~~~~_~i~~~OO a salvageable at which point it would be replaced new Table 16

r bullbull tv () -ON _ - N N~o~ ~ _ ~o-== ~ ~I~ I middot ~ - - - ~ shows the replacement schedule assumed in the cash flow i ~ Note that this table reflects the assumed useful life of the~ -=bull gi

i

iii s equipment rather than its depreciable life Also two itemsCgt I 1 u lJi~ ~ t- I ~ - ~ i the chain saws and the tree balers are not necessary until year -111) l -E I ~ l~~ _E ==Ilbull- ~ 1 ~j c ~ ~ ~ -5 -_ bull s

~~~ ~ ~~ _ ~ ~ L~ OL ~ 0 6 II 6 and were not purchased until that time Based on the highc _~~~~~WL ~-=] ii1t~ ~~ ulpoundlzl ~~ ~ = 1 i~uZul ~~I S Lo-- 2 L ~It~~ -i ~ ~

J L~_ ~m LOCmiddot gt- ampogt-~-~~ ~tc -lt 0 011 CIt -= = 2 ~~~t~5middotFi~f~~i~iitli-~fi~fifiiiI f Ii ~ilaquoI - ~ =~U=_~~~~~_W~U0Z~EZ~CQE~CEAL3QZEQW_~000 ~middot - ~ 8 Ii ~ I ~ middotmiddot -

29

111

f ~middot~middot~LC -- - ~i~

n ~ illII I~ II

Ii II

~~ Table 16 Equipment replacement schedule for a 160-acre ~ Christmas tree farm in New Mexico 1988 ~

usage during a short time period and the relatively short life of these items they were replaced every 5 years

Analysis

Because there are many unknowns encountered when projecting cost and returns and because different locations may be faced with different situations a series of scenarios were provided to evaluate the financial feasibility of the project Three major variables were altered concurrently to create the different scenarios These variables were

1 Prices 2 Yields 3 Costs

Price

A base price of $1240 was assumed The sensitivity of the return to a change of $1 increments over a range of $2 was measured

Yield

Changes in teld were based on altering the number of saleable trees This was done as a percentage of the total trees planted For example a 90 rate would mean that 90 of the 1452 trees originally planted or 1307 trees were available for sale This variable not only affect~ gross revenue but also alters any costs associated with the number of trees harvested Costs such as cutting field hauling baling and brokering are all altered by changes in the number of trees harvested and were assumed to be linear

Yield might also be altered by decreasing the space between trees For example a 5 by 5 spacing yields 1742 planted trees If 80 were saleable this would be 1394 trees

30

Item

Facilities

Well

Tractor

PTO sprayer

Trailer

Mower

Injector

Rotary pruners

Chain saw

Tree baler

iIIii Year ~

L 6 lL 16 2L 26 JL II~ Cost ~

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -(dollars) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- If 17000 ~

~ 10200 i

~

1bull1 113000 13000 13000 13000 1

~I 1200 1200 1200 1200 ~

bull p

~Ii ~

2400 II

800 800 800 800 ~ -I

I1200 1200 1200 1200 ~ 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 t

IiiIii 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 J

~ ~ ~ JOW JOW ~ ~ JOW

50750 10450 26650 10450 26650 10450 26650 I~ISource Table 3 IiIJ

f ~ J ~Cost ~

11I~ Because costs vary by farm and by location it was felt that a sensitivity should be performed on this variable Rather than bull

talter a specific cost or a specific category of costs the total bullIIj

cost was increased or decreased by a percentage and the Ji results evaluated Costs were altered in 10 increments in ~

Iijeither direction The 0 column uses those costs shown in the cash flow

t ~II

1

~I~ 31 ~

Feasibility Assessment

The internal rate of return (IRR) is a technique used to evaluate investment opportunities that incorporates the time value of money concept The internal rate of return for an investment project (in this case a Christmas tree planting) is the discount rate that equates the present value of the annual net cash revenue flows with the projects acquisition cost The net cash revenue is the difference between the cash receipts and cash expenses generated by an investment project over its economic life The time value of money is based on the economic fact that $1 today is worth more than a promise of $1 at some future date because of its current earnings potential

An investment can be accepted or rejected based on its internal rate of return (IRR) Acceptability of the investment depends on a comparison of the IRR with the investors required rate of return (RRR) Acceptability can be based on the following decision rules if IRR exceeds RRR accept the investment if IRR = RRR be indifferent and if IRR is less than RRR reject the investment

While IRR is a useful technique in project evaluation there are some problems with its use The major concern when using IRR is it assumes all cash inflows can be reinvested at the same rate as the resulting IRR percentage Should the IRR percentage be in the vicinity of the current rates of return of other investment instruments IRR is a reasonably accurate measure of return on investment However should the rate of return be much higher than current returns available elsewhere the resulting return on investment may be overstated The inverse is true at lower rates of return

The Net Present Value (NPV) is another way of evaluating projects that involve capital outlays over a period of years The NPV method discounts all future cash outlays and inflows back to a present-year basis using a specified interest (discount rate) The discount rate chosen is usually the opportunity cost of using equity funds in an alternative use or the cost of borrowed capital increased by an appropriate premium for risk or a combination of these The NPV

32

method is preferred over the IRR method when evaluating one investment against alternative similar type investments

Based on the sensitivity analysis discussed above a table was developed to show the IRR under the various scenarios Table 17 shows the internal rates by the per-unit price The analyses is based on pre-tax returns At $1040 per tree the IRR ranges from -14 when costs were increased by 10 and saleable yields were reduced to 60 to 160 when costs were decreased by 10 and 90 of the trees planted were sold At $1140 the IRR range is from 14 to 185 under the same conditions as above At $1240 per tree the IRR ranges from 38 when costs were increased 10 and 60 of the trees are saleable to 207 when costs were decreased 10 and saleable yields were at 90 At $1340 per tree the IRR ranges from 60 to 228 At $1440 per tree a grower could expect an IRR from 80 to 248 under the scenarios presented

A pre-tax analysis using Net Present Value (NPV) was also completed for the various scenarios The results of this analysis are shown in table 18

If an IRR of 12 is chosen as a minimum rate desired for investment growers must receive at least $1140 per tree and attain a level of 80 saleable trees and good cost control to have a successful investment At prices greater than $1140 per tree and 80 saleable product the investment appears to have possibility

33

Table 17 Internal Rates of Return (lRR) estimates for a 160-acre Table 18 Net Present Value (NPV) estimates for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost cbanges cha~es Ising a discount rate of 12

Percentage Percentageof saleable Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount

of saleabletrees 10 lower No chan~ 10 bilber trees --percent-shy

_______ - - - - - - - - - - - (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - shy

$1040 Tree Price 900 130 102900 160 BOO

SOO 128 97 69 700 60 31700 91 600

-14600 48 16

$1140 Tree Price( 900 127185 155

123 95900 800 SOO 153 700 700 116 86 58 600

14600 74 43

$1240 Tree Price 900 lJJ7 178 150900 BOO

118SOO 176 146 700 139 109 81700 600

38600 97 66

$1340 Tree Price 900 900 228 198 171 BOO

167 139SOO 197 700103700 161 130 600

600 119 88 60

$1440 Tree Price 900 BOO

248 218 191900 700159SOO 216 186 600

180 150 123700 80

Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount _ 10 lOwer No change 10 higher

-middot----middotmiddot---middot--bull-----dollars------bullbullbullbull -bullbullbull shy

$1040 Tree Price 175195 32602

(110936) (253415)

44502 (97269)

(2399BO) (381637)

(86191) (227140) (369023) (509859)

$1140 Tree Price 299293 167950 36607 142927

(14476) (170717)

12478 (144024) (299372)

(117971) (273573) (428028)

$1240 Tree Price 423391 291398 159406 253252 81984

(88019)

122225 (48069)

(217107)

(8BOl) (178123) (346196)

$1340 Tree Price 547489 414847 282204 363576 231972 100368 178445 (5321)

47886 (134842)

(82673) (264364)

$1440 Tree Price 671587 538295 405003 473901 341719 209538 274905 143841 12777 77377 (52578) (182532)

138 108 N01E Parentheses mean negative number

34 35

600

Investor Analysis

The following analysis considers the impact of the US tax laws (revised October 1987) on investing in Christmas trees The approach is identical to the previous IRR and NPV analysis except the impact of federal and state income taxes is considered in the annual stream of cash flow

The basis assumptions used are as follows

1 The taxpayer investor is in a 40 tax bracket on marginal income when combining both state and federal income taxes

2 The investor is actively engaged in managing the Christmas tree farm so that revenues and losses can be counted as active income or the investor has other passive investment income to offset any passive losses from growing Christmas trees

3 The Section 179 one-time deduction of $10000 per year is used in other businesses operated by the investor

4 Depreciation was calculated using the modified ACRS rules published by the IRS in 1987 Publication 225

5 The Christmas tree enterprise falls under the IRS rules for Christmas tree cultivation requiring capitalization of planting and stump culture for trees more than 6 years of age Because one-third of the trees are sold within the 6-year time limit one-third of planting expenses were deducted in the year incurred and the remaining two-thirds were capitalized and written off when the trees were sold in the seventh year

6 The investor uses a cash accounting system for tax purposes

36

The pre-tax IRR for the scenario with trees selling for $1240 each 80 harvestable yield and standard costs was 146 The IRR after-tax considerations fell to 125 (table 19) One might compare the after-tax return of 125 to other after-tax investments of comparable risks The after-tax NPV for the above scenario is $18069 compared to the pre-tax NPV of $122225 using a 12 discount rate

37

0

Table 19 Investor cash now analysis lor a l6O-acre Christmas tree larm (per planted acre basis) S=~=bullbull=I==~==~=bullbull====iI=bullbull2a==IIiIII bullbullbullbull===========n====ZIUSS=====bullbull===lllJ=====$~nUIlt1=llIIlta====s=a====II===============bullbullbull==II=~====lltz===-===U===========1II==X=======_==li=

Year 1 rHr 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year S Ye8l 6 tear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 1Q Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Tear 18

Net Cash Flow BelMe T8)( ConeiderattOlS (116411) (75439) (86658) (99354)(111768) (51189) 119810 119810 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810

Tax ONKtiona

Oeprec i at i on Irrigation syat far Foelli amp Equip

7875 1440

14625 7440

19446 7440

22890 7440

25378 7440

27156 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

Planting E_ 8209 10585 13004 16006 18568 22423 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031

~~~- ~t~t 1~~~r 1~ n~~ ~~m i~m ~M ~U~~ ~~M ~M ~~~ ~m ~M ~~~ ~~~ ~~M ~~M ~~M Total TalC DeOoctlons 33265 49193 65833 81973 96875 130860 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189341 189341 189311 189341 189341 189311

~rI~ (3326~) (4979~) (6583g) (819~) (968~) l~m) m~ ~~~~f~ mJ~ ~H~ m~~ mm ~~H~~ ~~B~ ~~im mm mJ~ ~~B2~ Inc_ ra Saings 13306 19917 26333 32189 38750 11930 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc_ TalC Oue 0 0 0 0 0 0 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297

let Cash flow (1037) (5522) (60325) (66) (737018) (397259) 74512 7Z2 74512 74512 7862 7512 74~12 rZSt2 142 M=062 1512 14512 =s===========s=_====sbullbullc=======-===================_======-=-==========I====S======-===========================e===s====================s==============r=================

Net Cash Flow Before Tax Considerations 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810 119810 190654 179442 217765 230460 242421 165733

T81 OlaquoiJcti ons

Depreciation

~ili~r Equip 2g~~ 2U~~ 2~~~ 2~~ 2~~~~ 2~g~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ 2~~ 2~~~ 2~n~ 1~~J ~~8 ~~~ f2zS 2~

~i~-OVerhoad

zg8M62335

zg8M62335

Z~~~ 62335

zg8M62335

ig8M62335

zg~~62335

i8M62335

i8M62335

t8M62335

i~8M 62335

Zg~~62335

~~~~~53665

~~~~ 46402

~tg~~40943

~~ ~~~35402 29986

ll~8~~

Total TaJ( Deduct_ 189341 189341 187121 187121 187121 187121 181121 181121 187121 187121 187121 156112 133925 117431 101291 86842 60718

I Froll Sales 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 201550 ~~~es~~= 1132~ m24~ 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154~ 1154~ 14647~ 16866g 1855~ 20129t 21574~ 1408~

Income la~ Due ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ Met Cash FloW =-2========SCI========

74512=I=====

74512 46974 73624 73624 73624 73624 63174 73624 __===_=_=============bullbullbullSamp====1II_1I31amp=II================_=II==__ == 73624_===__==

73624=======

132065 _=-=bullbull

111978======S=====

143703 ======_==

149943=======1I

156124 ========laquo

109400 ======_

~

Appendix Table Amiddotl United States Department ofAgriculture grade standards for Christmas trees

Christmas Tree Grades Factor US Premium US No1 US No2

Density Not less than Not less than Light or better medium medium

Tapera Normal- Normal- May be less than 40 to 90 40 to 90 40 or more

than 90

Damage-free faceb 4 3 2

Foliage Fresh clean Fresh clean Fresh clean and healthy and healthy and healthy

Shapec Well-shaped Well-shaped Well-shaped crown crown crown

Handle not Handle not Handle not less less than 6 less than 6 less than 6 or more than or more than or more than 134 per foot 1 34 per foot 1 34 per foot of tree height of tree height of tree height

aTaper of a tree is defined as the width of a tree expressed as a percentage of its height

Face means the visible surface area of a tree as viewed from 8 to 10 feet from the tree A tree is considered to have four faces each face constituting 14 of the tree

cHeight of a tree is defined in terms of foot or half-foot steps and is measured from the base of the handle to a point on the leader not more than 4 feet above the apex of the cone of the taper

Source Proebsting Buhaly and Wanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest 1981

40

4iUJiMMiFeuro iampi~t~Ityen)--

Literature Cited

Clevenger Tom et at The Wholesale and Processing Market for Locally Grown High Value Crops Research Report 572 New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station July 1985

Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture (Mora Research Center) New Mexico State University Guidelines for Growing and Marketing Christmas Trees in New Mexico New Mexico Department of Natural Resources October 1980

Huntley Wallace Marketing Christmas Trees-Turning a Problem into an Opportunity American Christmas Tree Journal August 1984 pp 41-43

Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury Fanners Tax Guide Publication 225

Proebsting William M Joseph Buhaly and Donald Hanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest Pacific Northwest Extension Publication PNW6 January 1981

41

Page 3: Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and ...

incorporates all production costs including land rent management and supervision and interest expenses incurred in the 5 preproductive years

The cash flow budgets were based on total acreage rather than on a per-acre basis Cash requirements for first year of the initial 21 acres planted was estimated at $116411 This figure includes the cash necessary to buy equipment and buildings that have useful economic lives ranging from 10 to more than 30 years The farm was projected to have a negative cash flow until year 7 when the first 21-acre block of trees is fully harvested and the second 21-acre block is paltially harvested

The pre-tax Internal Rate of Return (IRR) ranged from -14 to 248 when yield price and costs were varied The -14 return was incurred assuming a price of $1040 per tree a yield of 60 of the original planting and production expenses 10 over budget The 248 IRR was obtained assuming a price of $1440 per tree a yield of 90 saleable trees and production expenses 10 under basic budget estimates The pre-tax IRR for the basic scenario of $1240 price per tree 80 saleable trees and expenses as budgeted was 146 The after-tax IRR was 125 based on a tax rate of 40 and following the Internal Revenue Service tax guidelines for Christmas tree growers revised 1987

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the members of the New Mexico Christmas Tree Growers Association and the National Christmas Tree Association in preparing this report Without the willing participation of these organizations much of the information in this report would have been difficult to obtain Additional acknowledgments are also extended to Greg Fancher Mora research facility and Rich Phillips Fabian Garcia Agricultural Science Center who provided much of the cultural data used in this report

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Introduction 1 Prices and markets 2 Full-cost budgets bull 6

Assumptions and specifications 6 Farm characteristics 6

Equipment 6 Pre-harvest operations 8

Land preparation 8 Planting 8 Planting and harvest schedule 8 Tree population 9 Seedling sources 9 Tree species 9 Irrigation 10 Cover crop 12 Chemicals 12 Shearing and training 12 Harvest operations 14 Post-harvest operations 15 Overhead expense 15 Interest 17 amptablishment expenses 17 Total cost per acre 18

Price sensitivity of full-cost budgets 18 Tax implications 26 Cash-flow budgets 26 Analysis 29 Price 29 Yield 29 COst 30 Feasibility assessment 31

Investor analysis 34 Literature cited 39

III

_~_ _~__~_lt$IiM1_ 8 ~-_~ii~S~f-tt~3~ltilrC-j -~

LIST OF TABLES

Table No Page

1 Selected characteristics by type of marketing method for cut Christmas trees 4

2 Prices received by Christmas tree growers for Scots pine White fir and Douglas fir 5-7 foot tree when sold in quantities of 600 trees or more 1986 5

3 Equipment summary for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm in New Mexico 1988 7

4 Acre-inches of applied water by year 11

5 Well characteristics for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm 11

6 Chemicals applied per acre by year for Christmas tree farms 1988 13

7 Annual overhead expenses on a 160-acre Christmas tree farm 16

8 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White fir and Scots pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 1 establishment) NM 1988 19

9 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White fir and Scots pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 2 establishment) NM 1988 20

10 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White fir and Scots pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 3 establishment) NM 1988 21

iv

11 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White fir and Scots pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 4 establishment) NM 1988 22

12 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White fir and Scots pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 5 establishment) NM 1988 23

13 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White fir and Scots pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 6) NM 1988 24

14 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White fir and Scots pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 7) NM 1988 25

15 Cash flow for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm (147 net planted acres) 27

16 Equipment replacement schedule for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm in New Mexico 1988 30

17 Internal Rates of Return (IRR) estimates for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost changes 33

18 Net Present Value (NPV) estimates for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost changes using a discount rate of 12 35

19 Investor cash flow analysis for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm (per planted acre basis) 37

Appendix Table No

A-I United States Department of Agriculture grade standards for Christmas trees 40

v

Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and White Fir Plantation Christmas

Trees in New Mexico

William D Gorman Robert E Grassberger Jr James T Fisher John G Mexal Gall A Welsh

Tom Clevenger and Robert R Lansford

This report evaluates the cost and fInancial feasibility of growing Scots pine and White fIr plantation Christmas trees These varieties are suitable for growing at elevations of 5000 feet or higher in New Mexico Warmer growing areas primarily areas below 5000 feet in elevation are suitable for production of elderica pine (Pinus brutia subsp elderica) a conifer that grows rapidly but is not suitable for higher elevations The most popular Christmas tree species grown at elevations above 5000 feet in elevation in New Mexico are Scots pine (Pinus aylvestris) White fIr (Abies concolor) and Douglas fIr (Pseudotsuga menziesii)

Although Christmas trees of various sizes can be marketed this report is limited to the evaluation of 5 to 7-foot trees grown with irrigation for a period of 6 to 7 years

middotProfessor Depanment of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Business Coordinator of Economic Development Cooperative Extension Service Professor and Associate Professor Agronomy and Honiculture Research Specialist Professor and Professor Depanment of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Business respectively

1 vi

~higm1SfMSj 7 ~ij~~t-~rt~~S~middotmiddotjmiddotmiddot

PRICES AND MARKETS

Prices for Christmas trees are not quoted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Statistical Reporting Service on a regular basis from organized markets as is the case for most agricultural commodities Therefore it is considerably more difficult to arrive at an average or typical grower price to use in crop budgets and cash flow projections Price information contained in this report was obtained from telephone interviews with 10 Christmas tree producing and marketing firms One of these firms was acknowledged by several of the others as the industry price leader The firms interviewed were selected because they had marketed Christmas trees in New Mexico Texas or Oklahoma and had been active in the business for several years The firms were not selected at random They were either recommended by the National Association of Christmas Tree Growers or by other growers

The firms were first interviewed in February 1987 and again in February 1988 Information on prices by species was obtained for the 1986 season in the 1987 interviews Information on price changes over the 1982 through 1986 period was obtained during the 1988 interviews

Prices to growers depend upon tree quality species tree size number of trees sold supply and demand for trees and the type of market outlets used Quality is important The USDA has established grade standards for Christmas trees (Appendix table 1) Christmas tree growers and wholesalers interviewed stressed how important it is to produce excellent quality uniform trees to receive top market prices The reputation of the grower is important in pricing because buyers do not inspect all trees before the sale

Marketable trees range in size from 2-foot table top trees to those more than 20 feet tall used primarily by commercial civic and church groups Prices per foot for shorter trees tend to be less than for taller trees Large volume growers frequently give price discounts for larger orders Typical price discounts ranged from $025 to $1 per tree on orders of more than 350 trees and sometimes an additional discount of up to $1 per tree on orders for more than 700 trees

The type of market outlets selected by growers will influence the prices received Market outlets available to growers included (1) choose-and-cut (2) retail tree lots (3) supermarkets (4) other retail establishments (5) wholesalers (6) groups and organizations and (7) cut trees direct to individual retail customers There is also a comparatively small market for live Christmas trees Depending on the number of Christmas trees ready for harvest and the proximity to metropolitan areas anyone or a combination of the above may be possible outlets for New Mexico growers According to the NCTA of the total Christmas trees sold by US growers in 198644 were sold directly to retail lots operated by others 7 at commercial retail lots operated by the grower 38 to wholesalers and 11 on a choose-and-cut basis on the farm Table 1 lists selected characteristics of these different markets

Market contacts should be made early in the year Sales arrangements to wholesalers and large retailers are usually made in June and July The question of who pays the transportation costs is sometimes negotiated however most trees are sold fob farm with the buyer responsible for transportation charges and arrangements

Species is also important in determining price (table 2) According to the survey wholesale buyers will pay about $1 per tree more for 5-7 foot White fir than for Scots pine and $3 to $5 more than for Douglas fir

According to the firms interviewed the average farm-level wholesale price has been gradually increasing since 1982 The firms were asked to provide price information for the years 1982 through 1986 for Scots pine and Blue Spruce because they were the most popular varieties The average price by year by species was determined from the information received using the following procedure For each species the highest and lowest reported prices were eliminated and the remaining three prices averaged Then simple average price for the two species was taken resulting in the following prices per 5 to 7-foot tree

1982 $1249 1985 $1365 1983 $1299 1986 $1403 1984 $1337

32

gtBl~igtul_Wg_~$jl1 iil T tilb 1~~~5~gt4~-

Table 1 Selected characteristics by type of marketing method for Table 2 Prices received by Christmas tree growers for Scots pine cut Christmas trees

Characteristics Choose-and-cut

Marketing Methods Retail sale Sale to ~ ~roducer retailer

Sale to wholesaler

Percent of national market

11 7 44 38

Sales labor yes yes no no

Location of farm

Important To be near population center

Important Ooseto population center

Accessible to bulk transport

Accessible to bulk transport

Additional etpenses

Tools toilets insurance parking road maintenance advertising

Lot rental license fees transshyportation advertising

Delivery to

destinashytion

May have to deliver

to destinashytion

of sales price to grower

100 100 50-60 30-50

Volume oftrees Umitedby location and local population

Umitedby location and local population

Regional national distribushylion channels

May have regional distribushylion

channels

Other advantages Cashdonot have to cut Secondary sales-shywreaths garlands

Cash secondary sales-wreaths garlands quality control

Do not have to deal with public

Do not have to deal with public

Disadvantages Then Theft Contract necessary

Contract necessary

White fir and Douglas fir 5middot foot tree when sold in quantities of 600 trees or more 1986

Species Price Range Average Pricea

Scots pine $1175 - $1290 $1187

White fir $1150 - $1375 $1290

Douglas fir $870 - $945 $908

middotSimple average of prices quoted by respondents The prices reported were not weighted by volume sold

Source Telephone interviews with 10 Christmas tree growers and wholesalers in selected states February 1987

The Blue Spruce trees of comparable size and quality sold typically from $4 to $6 more than Scots pine

The survey results indicate growers could have produced Douglas fir and sold 5 to 7 -foot trees in the $9 per tree price range At the other extreme growers could have planted Blue Spruce seIling for about $16 per tree However the Blue Spruce grows slower and is not expected to attain an average size of 6 feet when grown from a seedling in a period of 6 to 7 years For purposes of this economic assessment it was assumed growers would elect to produce Scots pine and White fir seIling at prices higher than Douglas fir but lower than Blue Spruce It was also assumed growers would sell nearly all their trees on a cut basis to wholesalers with the buyer being responsible for freight However growers with fewer trees to market than as assumed in this report might want to consider some direct-to-consumer marketing alternative to increase revenues

Additional market information for Christmas trees in the AlbuquerqueSanta Fe area is available in a report by Clevenger et al (1985)

4 5

~t1~~lr lamp In 7 nl_lhkii ~~t~~~~e

j gt -gt ~ VI D -gt o C ~ FULL-COST BUDGETS III o o o o o o o o o g o o

0

-Full-cost budgets were developed to illustrate the costs o o o incurred over the 7-year production cycle Full-cost budgets ill ~ 5o o oas the name implies include all costs including such possibly o o o g 8 c on o

2i N VI onon-cash items as depreciation and opportunity costs for n VI to ltXl N ~ VI N 0gt ~ VI ~ orgt -owner capital management and land rent 4 ltII

C

~ gt o ltXl -gt N - -gt -gt N N

Assumptions and Specifications -i tl-il CI bull v

-4Farm Characteristics o QI

o U o g o co N o o co8 D i -i g v8 co o It was assumed the farm was devoted entirely to the a D -gtbull Q

N ~

V

Christmas tree enterprise The farm consists of 160 acres of n ltII which 147 were planted to Christmas trees The additional 13

I~ ~ Eo o o -gt o N co N co VI shyacres were allotted for roads firebreaks ditches fences and co S N 6 gi -gt VI ibuildings The land was assumed to have been previously ~ VI ~ I e bull Cplanted therefore clear of rocks and other debris When in full production the farms would be planting and haIVesting 21 acres of trees each year J N N -gt o

i i f

8 -gt ~ 4 W gt o ~ 0 gt 0 C vI 0 ~

gt I Equipment middotc E

g 8 g g g VI VI

a o 8 o on N N ltIi ~ 0 ~ -gt ~ I~

o

g

I o ~ -gt N A farm completely devoted to producing Christmas trees H ~~ 0

tJ o 0under drip irrigation does not require a wide array of OJ

l -4 equipment The major items needed include a small tractor ~t l chain saws power pruners tree baler sprayer trailer for lIS

ltII 0 ltII gt hauling grass mower and a liquid fertilizer injector pump e 0OJ

I toLarger tractors and disks are needed for initial land

W

0 shyC

l ltII

VIpreparation but because only 21 acres are planted each year ~ QI u it is cost effective to hire these services on a custom basis ltII ltIl QI QIgt gt shys 0~ ~ lt3 lt3 Some farms may buy a Christmas tree planter but these o

v53 co budgets were prepared assuming hand planting oThe farm will not need border disks disks for weed control i ii7

3 v or land leveling equipment because of the drip irrigation r ~

~ ~system and the grass ground cover cultural practice sect s I shy

1gt ~

I shy

~ The annual fixed and variable costs for the equipment were ti ltII e n ltII ~ I- ~

~ shy~ ~ weestimated using the New Mexico State University crop budget ~ l 1 ~ o ~ H u ~ t a ~ To ~ ~

76

generator (table 3) In addition to the equipment discusSed above a 1000 gallon-per-minute well was included in the equipment table The farm will also require the part-time use of a pickup truck This cost was included in the supervision expense category The total cost of equipment including the irrigation well was estimated to be $39250 or $267 per planted acre

Pre-Harvest Operations

Land Preparation

Because the land was assumed to have been previously planted it was unnecessary to clear the land The major operations in land preparation were plowing disking and harrowing All of these operations were assumed to have been hired on a custom basis

Planting

Hand planting was assumed Planting-labor requirements are based on a rate of 100 trees per hour per individual The total time required to plant 1 acre is estimated at 1210 hours based on planting 1210 trees per acre

The cost of plastic tree netting was budgeted to protect seedlings from rodent damage The plastic netting cost is $3750 per acreand is included in the purchased input section of the budgets A total of 9 hours per acre is required to apply the netting

All trees planted do not survive the first year Some growers will replant the blanks but others often will not replant because this practice results in an uneven harvest The budgets assume no replanting would be done

Planting and Harvest Schedule

For the purpose of this report trees were assumed to be of a 5 to 7-foot marketable size 7 years after planting To maintain a consistent quantity of harvestable trees only 1nth

8

of the total acreage (21 acres) would be planted in any calendar year Hence in years 1 through 6 21 acres would be planted each year In year 7 21 acres would be planted and the 21 acres planted in year 1 would be harvested This staggered planting schedule assures a continuous marketable supply and income to the grower starting in the seventh year

Obviously acreage not planted during the first 6 years could be planted to some other crop For simplicity however this acreage was assumed to have gone unplanted and to have generated no revenue or to have incurred any costs

Tree Population

For marketable trees of 5 to 7 feet a minimum spacing of 5 by 5 feet is recommended (Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture 1980) For the purpose of this study a 5 by 6 foot spacing was used This spacing allows planting 1452 trees per acre

Seedling Sources

There are many sources where trees can be bought as seedlings The source assumed was the Forestry Division of the New Mexico Natural Resources Department At the time of writing this division offered containerized seedlings to New Mexico growers who have more than 1 acre and can meet certain other conditions1 The price was $58 per 98 seedlings or $59 per seedling A price of $63 per tree was used in the budgets to incorporate the cost of the seedlings and transportation

Tree Species

It was assumed that Scots pine and White flf would be the species of choice to expand market opportunities and to avoid risks associated with crop monocultures (Proebsting et

I For infonmltion COntact Divison of Forestry POBox 2167 Santa Fe NM 87504-2167

9

llt_SWic-yenfoWtfte- ffgIUij_~1i~~~iVjWri~

aI 1981 Risks such as species-specific diseases increase with monoculture Most foresters suggest reducing this risk by planting more than one species

Irrigation

Most areas of New Mexico require supplemental irrigation to maintain the necessary soil moisture to keep the trees growing near their potential It was assumed that all plantations were irrigated with a drip system fed with pumped well water The drip system including all filters laterals and emitters was estimated at $1500 per acre2 The cost of installing the drip line was estimated at $11 per acre and is included as a line item under preharvest operations The cost of the well was included in equipment costs

Water needs per acre vary with the tree size and annual rainfall An annual rainfall of 15 inches was assumed Table 4 shows the additional acre-inches of water required per acre by year

The electric well was assumed to be pumping from a depth of 200 feet at 1000 GPM Table 5 shows the well characteristics and operation costs Based on these assumptions the cost per-acre inch was determined to be $352

~ Based upon estimates provided by Mr Ron Bliesner of Keller-Bliesner Engineering Logan Uf

10

Table 4 Acre-inches of applied water by year

Year AEElied Acre-Inches

1 6

2 8

3 12

4 14

5 16

6 18

7 18

Source Ke1ler-Bliesner Engineering Company Logan UT

Table S Well characterlsdcs for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm

Well Characteristics

Static water level (feet) 200 Draw down (feet) 40 Delivery PSI 8 Gallons per minute 1000 Electric efficiency factor 470

Energy use per hour (KWH) 10367 Fuel cost per hour $778 Cost per acre-inch $352

11

t_hltiirll~9~amp6ii11jjltfllU J[BIl1IiHitilut~~W~~tlaquo+middot -~---

Cover Crop

Many Christmas tree farmers plant a cover crop of native grass between rows A cover crop reduces soil erosion and is a positive step toward vegetation management Irrigation water was not applied to the cover crop

The budget assumes that a native grass was sown before the trees were planted After the cover crop is established a non-selective herbicide such as Round-up was assumed to have been sprayed in 24-inch swathes to create grass-free rows to be planted with trees The native grass seed was estimated to cost $15 per acre Drilling the seed was included under the preharvest operations in the budget as a custom operation at $850 per acre

Mowing was included under preharvest operations as well The number of times the inter-row area needs to be mowed was decreased as the tree cover increased therefore mowing costs vary by year

Chemicals

Crop chemicals such as fertilizer herbicides insecticides and fungicides were included in the budget under purchased inputs Table 6 shows in detail the chemical name the prescribed use unit of measurement application rate number of times applied per year per unit prices and total cost per acre The costs of applying these chemicals were included in the budget under preharvest operations

Shearing and Training

Shearing is the cutting of leader and lateral branches to improve the trees shape and density (Proebsting et al 1981) Shearing produces a more saleable tree than would normally be produced otherwise Shearing may be done either by hand with shearing knives machetes or hand pruners or mechanically with light-weight sickle bar clippers or rotary pruners Rotary pruners were assumed to have been used for shearing in this report

Table 6 Chemicals applied per acre by year ror Christmas tree rarms 1988

Per Unit Total acre price cost

Year Chemical Use Unit rate Times $ $

1 Roundup Atrazine 80W

Herbicide Herbicide

gal Ills

05 50

10 10

8000 170

4000 850

2 Roundup Atrazine 80W Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate

Herbicide Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer

gal Ills Ills qt

Ills

02 50 20 10

2350

10 10 10 30

10

8000 170

2100 600

010

1600 850

4200 1800

2233

3 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer

gal Ills qt

Ills

02 20 10

3520

10 10 30

10

8000 2100 600

10

1600 4200 1800

3168

4 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 20 10

4690 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 4200 1800

4456 1725

5 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 10 10

4690 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 2100 1800

4456 1725

6 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 10 10

9830 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 2100 1800

4456 1725

7 Roundup SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal qt

Ills Ills

02 10

5400 15

10 30

10 20

8000 600

010 575

1600 1800

5130 1725

12 13

AA~1~rmiddot~i~I~~~iiltfi~)~~1i~~~4~iamp_1 2U~ampJl2lJMlIIINIiI1m~~S1lt~h

Shearing generally begins when the tree height is about 5 feet For the budgets some shearing was assumed to begin in year 3 however labor in year 3 mainly reflects training of the trees Training helps develop a straight marketable tree The greatest number of hours were needed in years 6 and 7 to prepare trees for market

Estimated chemical needs were obtained from Drs John Mexal and James Fisher Professors of Horticulture New Mexico State University Many of the above chemicals are unnecessary because many pest and disease problems found elsewhere do not currently occur in New Mexico however it was felt as acreage of the crop increases the need for chemical use would also be necessary

Harvest Operations

The harvest generally consists of 4 to 5 weeks and is the most labor intensive activity in Christmas tree growing HalVest operations consist of selecting the trees for halVesting cutting baling and transporting to the market Timing is imperative and weather can be difficult during this period

Because some trees grow faster than others it is usually possible to harvest about 13 of the crop in the sixth year The remaining 213 of the total crop would be cut the seventh year Experienced growers generally halVest about 80 of the trees they plant as a result of death loss and cullage3 This means each acre yielded 1162 marketable trees if 1452 trees per acre were originally plantedOfthe 1162 trees halVested 13 or 387 trees are halVested in year 6 and 775 trees were cut in year 7 Trees not accounted for in the projected halVest either died or were not acceptable as Christmas trees

The trees selected for halVest are often marked before cutting to prevent halVest crews from having to make decisions about tree grades while cutting After cutting trees are carried to the access road and hauled to a central area where they are baled The trees are then loaded on trucks and shipped to the wholesaler or other market outlets

gtCulled trees may be made into wnaths or sold as boughs This was not assumed as a SOurce of revenue in this report

14

HalVest arrangements with wholesalers vary In some cases wholesalers perform all halVest operations in others the wholesaler will mark the trees they want to buy Some agreements call for the wholesaler to transport the trees from field side others place the responsibility for shipping on the producer

This paper assumed the responsibility of selection and harvest was with the producer and that transportation to the market place was paid for by the wholesaler

Post-Harvest Operations

After the field has been completely halVested in the seventh year it is generally replanted to trees the following spring Some growers remove the remaining stumps Stump removal however is an expensive and time consuming process The preferred method appears to be to replant new seedlings half the distance between the remaining stumps within the row The remaining stumps are then allowed to decay naturally This method of replanting between stumps was assumed for this paper

Overhead Expense

Table 7 shows the overhead expenses assumed for the 160 acres with 147 net planted acres

Downtime is the additional labor time allowed because of time lost for such things as machine repairs moving to and from fields and waiting for deliveries A downtime rate of 20 of the total labor hours was applied in the budgets

Employee benefits include any programs that full-time or part-time employees may obtain such as social security workmens compensation insurance group life and health insurance and paid vacations Although this cost can be negligible on most small farms an 18 rate on the coSt of labor was applied here

Insurance was estimated at $850 per planted acre This includes coverage of equipment and farm liability

15

~_~ ~ -h n~middotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot _ middotmiddotbullm-middot middottlt1Gmiddotmiddotgtmiddotti~q~~middot~middot)Gv~--e~~~~~i4iM5tll L MIbullbull Jtpoundi8)l] II ha bullUMtflIf~~~Hjl~kllI~1cent

Table 7 Annual overhead expenses on a 160-acre Christmas tree fanna

Downtime 20 ofdirect labor hours

Employer benefits 18 of direct labor hours

Insurance $850 per planted acre

Farm facilities $386 per planted acre

Land rent $8163 per planted acreb

General and administrative $50 per planted acre

Supervision $75 per planted acre

Other $30 per planted acre

Brokerage 5 of gross revenue

88sed 003tOUtTof 147 pl8nted acres 1Is7s per acre on the total of 160 acres

It was assumed farm facilities were required to protect equipment from weather and to provide office space A simple pole building was used for protecting equipment and was estimated to cost $8000 An additional $9000 was allotted for an office structure The cost of these facilities was spread over a service life of 35 years The cost per planted acre was approximately $4 per acre

Land rent was assumed to be $82 per planted acre or $75 per acre on the gross farm acreage If the land is already owned outright this would represent the opportunity cost of having planted the land to Christmas trees

General and administrative expenses include management salaries secretarial expenses and costs associated with running and maintaining the office such as telephone copying

16

and bookkeeping The amount associated with general and administrative expenses was $50 per planted acre

Supervision expenses were incurred to oversee field operations A $75 per planted acre expense was used for supervision This figure is arbitrary but includes funds for possibly hiring a foreman It also includes funds for pickup truck expenses The 147 net planted acres provides an annual supervision expense fund of $11025

Other expenses is a catch-all category for irregular or unexpected items such as fence or road repair additional hand tools or added administrative expenses The other expenses assumed here were $30 per acre per year

A brokerage fee was included in the budgets as a marketing expense The producer often serves as his own broker and in this case the fee included in the budgets would be viewed as an opportunity cost of the producers time A fee of 5 of gross revenue was used as a brokerage expense

Interest

An interest expense was included for opemting capital and equipment investment Rates of 12 and 10 respectively were used 4

For the full-cost budgets the interest expense on operating capital needed each year from the time of planting was compounded through the seventh year and charged off as an expense in the harvest year If the capital used was all equity capital rather than borrowed this could again be construed as an opportunity cost of the use of the producers money

Establishment Expenses

The establishment expense is the actual cost of growing the trees to harvestable size (tables 8 through 13) To show the total return and the total costs incurred during the harvest

IbeSeinterest rates imply an average annual inflation rate or at least 3to 4 per year A realistic analysis could increase the annual cash expenses and revenues by a 3 to 4 compounded rate over the 35middotyear investment period This approach would result in higher estimated returns Future expenses and revenues were not adjusted ror inflation in this report hence the results may be underestimated

17

MtiS 4ampIi- iJi4MliIllITftif ~2k+Csectlgt--~Smiddot-f

year the full-cost budget for years 6 and 7 include an establishment expense under the purchased input category (tables 13 and 14) This expense is based on cost estimates from the first five years of production and is prorated to the appropriate year based upon the harvest yield ratio S Because there is a time value associated with the capital used to grow the trees a compounding factor was also included The rate used to compound was 10 The total establishment expense per planted acre was estimated to be $2782 allocated in year 6 and $6840 in year 7 The $6840 allocated in year 7 includes $616 of interest expenses associated with having to wait another year (year 6 to 7) before these expenses are recovered The establishment expenses amounted to $719 and $883 per harvested tree respectively for trees harvested in the sixth and seventh years Net returns would increase significantly if all trees would reach harvestable size by year 6

Total Cost Per Acre

Based on the budget estimates made for years 6 and 7 a total cost of $12895 per acre planted or $1110 per tree harvested was required to grow Christmas trees through harvest This cost includes all equipment expenses chemicals land rent labor overhead and interest

Price Sensitivity of Full-Cost Budgets

To determine the return to risk when all costs are accounted for the gross revenue must also be estimated The gross revenue is a function of number of trees harvested and the price per tree The yield of 80of the total planting or 1162 trees was assumed as fIXed in this part of the analysis and only the price was varied A per tree price of $1240 was used as the base with a $1 change in either direction Using the $1240 per tree price a net return of $158372 per acre harvested was derived At $1140 per tree $1 less a net return

gtc)f the total yield 13 was harvested in year 6 and 23 in year 7

q

i g

I middoto~ ~ ~8

~i ~ ~

_z1~ ~s -~

~g

~

~ ~3

z ~ ~i r cu

m~zIi ~ ~=gt

~s ~-

5 oS ~

~J t ~It ~c= ~c lI-Q

i l- ~~ fI) = I iI~ = CIt

f 8 ~ a

(I III laquoIC 5 ~cI iIoU ~

ltI ~ CllioS~ Ol fo- ~ ~ j$ S ~ ~In~

~~~ggg

oi~oo -o-4-C~ ~

0000 0utqno 0

ritO 0 ~-4tltl- N

w ~w

tJtDWU C-amptoe(

oot)o ~~~lt= _Ot) -0

Ie

8glg~~~~i~~g~ t o~-eOaiNOQN 0 N-4N S

11 N ~ill -- 0

~ ~ ~~

1tc ~ ~~ -4 _

I

~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~_OO~N shy 1_ ~

gg 8~ st i~ tOtO i

~ ~~~ ~ X x=~

~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~Q~~N N~

~ g~ E

~ ~ ~ 0 Q i1lJ~W

lto(c- aa~aai5~ ttlZW

~ tQ __ -I iffi Z ~wtll~ow=i~~~~ ~e=~~~5~~tUQCI =VIE a C-lI-

g~~~~g8g~ ~NeOQarQ a) ~

~~~q ~~ laquo)~ ~S

o o~~ UN ~

~ ~

0

~(fIii

~

i

o N

bull ~ l

i

~

~

~ ~

S ~

18 19

Table 9 Per acre tun cost budgets ror growiDg White Fir and Scots Pine

~-~~-~~~~-~-~~~-~-~~-~-~~-~~-~-~~~~~~~~--~~-~~-----------------------_------YIELD

HARVEST DATES PLANTING DATES

PlIlCE -- ~-- - - - bull - - - bullbull - bull - - - ~ - - bull - bull QUANTITY PUR~~~ LABOR ~~iJ~~ REPAIRS Fgi~ TOTAl

TEM UNIT __ bullbull ________ bull __ _ _ ___ ___ bull ___ ___ bull __ _ __________ bullbullbullbull _________ bullbullbullbullbullbullbull _ bull ------_ bullbullbullbullbullbull - -- bull bull - - - - bull (DOLLARS) bullbullbull - - bullbullbull

PURCHASED INPUTS 6650100 ACRE 66501lER8ICIOE 1800100 ACRE 1800INSECTICIDE 211523500 LB 2115MOIII~ SULFATE 750100 ACRE 750MISCELLANECIlS TOOLS 1131511315SUBTOTAL

PREHARVEST OPERATIONS 21751309 319 209 338PTO SPRAYER (X) ampAS IS P 238 HR 27491738 423 275 313MOWER (410 GAS 15 HP 316 HR 4200

Mise 1000 HR 4200LABOR 3226~ 360 IR 2812 238 176WELL (ex) ELE

123501914 7247 3554 722 827SUBTOTAL

OVERfAD EXPENSES 1709311 1709OOWIITIME EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

13041304 850 850

INSURANCE 386 386 FARM FACILITIES 8163 8163 LAND RENT 5000 5000GENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION 75007500suPERVISION 3D00 3000 OTHER

17399 2791210513SUBTOTAL 311 HR

3554 722 18226 515_7711315 17760TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 2225 IR

-51577NET OPERATING PROFIT

2678INTEREST ON OPERATI~G CAPITAL 831INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT

-55086 ~~~~-~~~~- _- _- -_ -_ ----- --_ ---- -- -- ----_ --_ --___ _ - _------ __

Table 10 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 3 estabUshment) NM 1988 PLANTING DATES YIELDHARVEST OATES PRICE

POWER PURCHASED FUEL OIL FIXEDITEM UNIT QUANTITY INPUTS lABOR LUBRICANT REPAIRS COST TOTAL --_ - - _- ---- - -_ -- --_ - - - -(DOlLARS)

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE 5800 5800MOIII~ SULFATE 35200 LB 3168 3168INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800MISCELLANECIlS TOOLS 100 ACRE 750 750

SIJIITOTAL 11518 11518

PRE HARVEST OPERATIONS ROTARY PRUIINERS GAS 900 HR 3780 234 108 495 4617PTO SPRAYER (5X) GAS 15 HP 1 70 R 935 228 150 241 1554MOWER (4X) ampAS 15 HP 316 HR 1738 423 275 313 2149LABOR Mise 1000 IR 4200 4200ELL (12X) ELE 540 HR 4217 356 265 4838

N SUBTOTAL 2926 10653 5102 889 1314 17958 - (MRNfAl) EXPENSES OOWIITiME 477 2625 2625EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1918 1918INSURANCE 850 850FARM FACILITIES 386 386LAIIO RENT 8163 8163GENERAL _rNISTRATlON 5000 5000SUPERViSiON 7500 7500OTHER 3000 3000

SUBTOTAL 477 HR 2043 17399 29442

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 3403 HR 11518 22696 5102 889 18713 58918

NET OPERATI KG PROF IT middot58918

I NTEREST ON OPERAT I NG CAP ITAL 2930 INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT INVESTMENT 964

RETURN TO RISK 62812 ~ -~- -_ ~ ~~ ~ _ - -

Table 11 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas ~~~~~~~~~~~_~~~t~~~~~ ___ _ ~i~~middotDAEmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot YIELD

HARVEST OATES PRICE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull PURCHASED FUEL Oil FIXED

PMR INPUTS LA~ LUBRICANT REPAIRS COST TOTAL ~~~~~~- middotmiddotDOt~~middot PURCHASED INPUTS

HERBICIDE 100 ACRE 5800 5800 INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 fUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 AMONIUM SULFATE 46900 LB 4221 4221 MlsCElLANEClJS TOOLS 100 ACRE 750 750

SUBTOTAL 14296 14296

PRE HARVEST OPERA liONS ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) CAS 1500 HR 6300 390 180 825 7695 PTO SPRAYER (ax) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 364 239 386 2485 MOIlER (2X) CAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374~ FERT INJECTOR ElE 030 HR 011 061 096 168 LABOR MISC 1000 HR 4200 4200 lElL (14X) [L 630 HR 49bull 20 416 309 5645

SUBTOTAL 3590 12865 5897 1033 1772 21567

OVERHEAD EXPENSES DOIINTIM 586 3223 3223 EMPLOYEE BENEF ITS 2316 2316 INSURANCE 850 850 FARM FACILITIES 386 386 LAND RENT 8163 8163 CENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION 5000 5000 SUPERVI SION 7500 7500 OTHER 3000 3000

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039 17399 30438

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 4176 HR 14296 25904 5897 1033 19171 66301

NET OPERATl NG PROF IT 66301

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL 3247 INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 1102

70650~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~--

Table 12 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas trees (year 5 establishment) NM 1988 PLANTING OATES HARVEST OATES YIELD

PRICE

lIEM PMR

IJHlT QUANT lTy PURCHASED

INPUTS

~~~~~

FUEL OlL LA80R LUBRICANT

REPAIRS FIXED COST TOTAL

PURCHASED INPUTS - shy ~ ~ bull bull bull (DOLLARS) bull - bull HER81CIOE INSECTICIDE FUNCICIOE AMOHIUM SULFATE MI SCELLANEOUS TOOLS

SU8TOTAL

PREHARVEST oPERATIONS

100 ACRE 100 ACRE 100 ACRE

46900 L8 100 ACRE

3700 1800 1725 4221 750

12196

3700 1800 1725 4221

750

12196

ROTARY PRUHNERS (2X) PTO SPRAYER (8X) MOIlER aX) FERT INJECTOR LABOR WELL (16X)

SUBTOTAL

OVERHEAD EXPENSES

CAS CAS 15 HP CAS 15 HP ELE MISC ELE

1500 H 272 HR 158 HR 030 HR

1000 HR 720 HR

3680

6300 1496 869

4200

12865

390 364 212 011

5623

6600

180 239 137 061

475

1092

825 386 156 096

353

1816

7695 2485 1374 168

4200 6451

22373

OOIHIME EMPLOYEE BENEFf TS INSURANCE FARM FACILITIES LANI RENT GENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION SUPERVISION OTHER

586 3223 2316

7500

850 386

8163 5000

3223 2316 850 386

8163 5000 7500

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039

3000

17399

3000

30438

TOTAL OPERAJINC EXPENSES 4266 HR 12196 25904 6600 1092 19215 65007 NET oPERA T I HG PROf I T

65007 INTEREST ON OPERATINC CAPITAL INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 3142

1153 RETURN TO bull I SK bull ~ bullbullbull - _ - - ~ - _ - - _ bullbullbullbull - - ~ _ bullbull - _ bullbullbullbull bullbull - bullbullbull

~ - - -_ _-_ __--_ _---__- 69302

Table 13 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine

~~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J~~~~~~ Table 14 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine PL~NTIMG DATES YIELD 387 TREES GROSS RETURNSS4198 80 HARVEST DATES NOVEMBER 15 bull DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0TREE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbull bullbull

bull - bullbull - bullbullbull - bull bull bull bull ~C~A~E~ - FUEL OIL FIXED ~middot~middot~7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~U~~~~~ PLANT INC DATES YIelD 775 TREESQUANT ITY INPUTS LABOR LUBRICANT REPAIU COST TOTAL

~ ___ w~ ___ ____ _ ____ ____ _ _ _ ___ HARVEST OATES NOVEM8ER 15 DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0IREE ~ CROSS RETURNS$9iIOOO - bullbullbullbull (DOLLARS) bullbullbullbullbullbull - bull shy

pOlin PURCHASEDPURCHASED INPUTS ITEM fUEl OIL FIXEDUNIT OUANT IlY INPUTSHERBltlDE 100 ACRE 3700 3700 bull lABOR LUBRICANT RePAIRS-_ _---- _--- _---_ _---- - _--_ - _- __ __ -- COST TOTAL INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 bull FUNGICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 bull bull (DOLLARS) bull A_IUM SULFATE 93800 LB 8~~2 8442 bull

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE T6OOTWINE 38700 EACH 19-35 1935 1600INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800MISCELLANEros TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000 bull 1800

ESTABLISHMENT 113 2781 72 278172 FUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725AMON I UN SULFATE 5~000 lB 4860 4860

SUBTOTAL 18602 2781 72 2967 7~ TWINE 17500 EACH 3875 ~8 7~MISCELLANEOUS TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000

PREHARVEST OPERATIOIIS ESTABLISHMENT 23 ~050 ~050

ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) GAS 3800 HR 15960 988 ~56 2090 1~9~ bull SUBTOIAL 14860PTO SPRAYER (ex) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 360 239 386 2~ 85 bull ~050 698910 MOWER (2X) GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 137~ bull PREHARVEST OPERATIONSfERT INJECTOR ELE 035 oR 012 071 112 195 bull ROTARY PRUNNERS (2)) GAS 3000 HRLABOR Mise 1000 HR ~200 ~2 00 bull 12600 780 360 1650 I5~90PTO SPRAYER (xl GAS 15 HP 238 HRIlELL lt18X) ElE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258 bull MOIlER (ZX) 1309 319 209 338 21 75GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374fEAT INJECTOR ELE 060 HSUBTOTAL 6075 22525 7902 1~38 31~1 35006 021 122 191 334LABOR MIse 1000 HR ~200 4200

HARVEST OPERATIONS WELL (18X) ELE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258

CHAIN SAW GAS 968 HR 4066 252 136 590 50~~ SUBTOTAL 5266DRAG amp lOAD HAND 3225 HR 13545 135~5 18978 7658 1363 2732 J0731 TREE BALER GAS 230 HR 966 177 278 952 2373 HARVEST OPERATIONSTRAILER GAS 15 HP 300 HR 1650 ~11 360 560 2985 CHAIN SAW GAS 1938 HRLABOR Mise 1650 HR 6930 6930 81~0 504 271 1182 10097DRAG amp LOAD HAND 6058 HR 27124 27124

SUBTOIAL 6373 HR 27157 8~0 7 7~ 2106 30877 TREE BALER GAS I 46D HR 1932 354 5~7 1904 4747TRAILER GAS 15 HP 600 HR 3300 822 720 1128 5970LABOR MISC ~OOO NROVERHEAD EXPENSES 16800 16800 OOHlE 2321 12763 12763 bull SUBTOTAL 13~56 HREMPLOYEE SENEF lIS 89~3 89~3 bull 57296 1680 1548 4214 6~7 38

INSURANCE 850 850 bull OVERHEAD EXPEHSESFARM fACILITIES 386 366 bull OCltJNTJME 3~70LAND RENT 8163 8163 bull 19637 19637EMPLOYEE BENet liSGENERAL amp ADMINISTRATlOil 5000 5000 bull 13729 13729 SUPERVISION 7500 7500 bull INSURANCE

850 850FARM FACILITIESOTHER 3000 3000 bull 386 386LAND RENTMARXETING 2399~ 2399~ 8163 8163

SUPERVISION GeNERAL 8 ADMINISTRATION

5000 5000 SUBTOTAL 2321 HR 23994 29206 17399 70599 7500 7500

MARKETING OTHER

3000 300048050 48050

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 14769 HR 29550 ~~401 347~ 1250 287125 367738 bullbull SUBTOTAL 3570 HR ~8050 ~0866 17399 106315 IIpoundT OPERATING PROfIT 1121~2

TOIAl OPERATING EXPENSES 22292 HRINTEREST (JIj OPERATTNG CAPlTAL 6545 62910 117140 9338 2911 708395 900694 INTEREST (JIj EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 2473 NET OPERATING PROFIT

60306 10312~

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT IHVESlMENT 8659

3361 RETURN TO R I so

TIoCmiddotTHIRDS OF THESE COSTS IlERE ALLOCATED AS PROOUCTl(Jlj COSTS fORIREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 7 48286iI ~--~-- ----- ~ --~--- -~------ -----~-- yen - bullbullbullbull -- ~ -- ----_ _w ___ ________ 0 _______ _w __ IHIS TOTAL INCCltPORATES ONLY THE EXPENSE ASSOCATEO WITH THE TREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 6 BECAUSE OF THIS THE COLUMN

WILL NOT SUM TO THIS VALUE

24 25

~ i C -i Q

= foil

Table 15 Cash flow for a 160-aere Cbristmas tree rann (147 net planted aeres lIIII====_=====IIIlIII======S=II==2=II=___1I3_III========s_bullbullbullbull=z=a==a============bullbull==~=bullbullbull==11======aSS==lIIlII======================================================

Year 1 fear 2 Year J tear 4 Year 5 Year 6 fear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 fear 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 lllttows _=====

Sale of Trees so so so so so $101035 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 S302585 S302585 $302585 $302585 OUtflows

Purchased Input 5 Tree stock 1921019m 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210Cover ~rass seed 315 9sect1~ 19m 315 315 315 19m 19m 315 19m 19m 19m 19m315 315 315 315erbicuSe 1019 2415 3633 4851 5628 6405 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741Insecticide o 378 756 1~ 1890 22611 22611 22611 22611 2268 2268 2268 22611 22611Ftrlgicide o o o H~ 1087 U~ 1449 U~ 1449 1449 449 ~~~ 1449 1449 t449 1449Amonhn Sui tate o 444 1109 1~ 5676 5676 5676 ~~~X 5676 5676Tree guards 788 788 788 2~ 4~~ 788 53 53 53 788 788 5~ 5~ 53788 788 788Miscellaneous tools 420 578 735 893 105g 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365Twine o o o o i~ 1220 l~~ l~~ij 1220 1220 1220 1220 1220 lm lnOIrrigatlon system 31500 3150031 508 31500 31500 31500 31500 3150g 31500 31500 31~~g 31500 31500 31500 31 gtog 31~~g 31500 31500Eqult 33750 o o o 1045g o o o 266j0 o o a 10450 o oFarm facilities 17000 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oPre-harvest Operations o CustQll1 1_ preparation 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651Spray 204 578 844 1271 1698 2124 2498 2498 2~g 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498Harrow 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 168 1611 1611 Mark rows 309 309 309 Seed 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 Haul plants 42 42 42 42 42 309309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309

42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42Pl t (hand) 1861 2 ~Iy Netting 1~ 1~

794 1~ ~2 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ ~2 1~ 1 1861 1861 1861 861 li~ Orlp installaton 221 221 221 211

~l 794 794 794 794 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 2lt1495 990 1485 1733 1980 2228 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475Shear amp train 2415a o 864 2303 3743 7398- 1~~~ 1~~~ 10283 10283 10283 10283

i seel taneous 1amp1raquor 882 76 2646 Appt ter t it i zer o o o 10~g~ 10m 10m 10~g~ 10~g~ 10283

35 71 141 182 182 182 182 182 182 lr2 Purping costs 480 1121 617435l8 5292 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 Ot 174 6174 6174 6174

Harvest operations 2081 3l02 i~~g 5923 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 73k4

Cut tr~s o Drag amp load trees o 2807o o 935 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 Wrap trees o o 2374 7115 ~~~~ ~~~ 1115 7115 7115 7115 7115 7~ 7115o o o 298 895 895 895 7J~ 895 7~~~ 895 895 895 895 895Haul trees o o o 508 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525MisceHaneous labOr o 1525o o 1455 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366Overheed Oowotime 648 1007 IS58 2235 2911 5522 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346E1lloy benefits 4611 742 1145 1631 3933 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581Insurance 179 357 536 114 2~~

1071 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250Land r~t 1575 3150 4725 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025G amp A 1050 lloo 3150 4lOO 5250 6300 tgro 7350 7350 7350 7350 1~m k~~~ 7350 ~m 7350 7350 735a~~~Vision 472S 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11021575 3150

11m 11~~~ 025 11~~630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 63mMarketng II o o o o 5052 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 lSI29

1 Based on total of 147 planted acres by Year 7 A total of 21 (Jeres are planted each year year 1 consists ot 21 planted acres year 2 a total of 42 etC

-- --~ -~-~ r IJampamp $ ~H ~M LgtH~-~Lw~

110 0 middot W It 110 OO~~~~o~~OOO OampooooooosectOii S~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~H~ = - 11 11=L = 110 _ N N 0 M

bull c _~_

bullbullbull 2 _ M~

cash needs of the operation The farm will produce a positivei 0goooo00020poundN t-~~~~ t-~Fg~ORi ~ UNHIt U to OOE~l2~O~ft~oOI L 110 lS -lIi iIl~lI)t i1 ---a~ - 3

N annual cash flow starting in the seventh year However a total N bullbull u _N N~ - - ~N ~ $E~3

bullbull It 0 t N of $540819 in cash is expended through the first 6 years Ao~ooooooo~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~V~~ ~=~==~C ~ OOi~~~~O$~OOO ~ laquoS_~_ i i6~ ~gIIt_~o~ -=~ I total of 11 years are needed (five positive cash producingbullM Ii IfII 110 II n N -~ ~ _ N t- _ _ ~ ~~~= N III H 0 years) before the cash outflows incurred during the first 6 ~

~ = =a OOsect~~~O~OOO o~ooooooo~~~i 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ =~= years are covered This is based on selling trees at $1240L= V ~ ~N ~~ ~~ ~4 N~ ~~~ i i~e s -- N S The budgets were developed for a 35-year period because=gt- tt n this was thought to be a reasonable economic life5~~ ~ OO~~~roO~~O~O degmoooooooi~~ ~=~~~ ~mi5~5~~ ~=~= amp0 - ~ - III middot

__ ~ ~ _ 0 Nt- _ Ntn ~~~ ~ -~~- ~ pound Additionally a 35-year life allows for five 7-year

planting-through-harvest rotations Based on the rotationbull C) MM C OO~~~~degri~OOO OampOOOOOOO~~~~m 2E~~~ ~~~sect~~~~ ~u~= i c L ~ ~

N~v N N~ ~~ N~ ~4 ~~~~~~ ~ iii schedule only Inth of the total acreage would be planted ini = i

-SfIJ n= ~ - -I anyone year The cash costs in year 1 therefore include onlyRi = ~ ~~~~~i~~5me~~ i~sect~~ ~~~~~~~~ E~ lias amp0 ~~~~~~J~~~~OO H II n ~ 0- ~~w- ~ = ~~ Nt- - ~~_~t- ~ ~ct N planting expense for Inth of the total acreage or 21 acresW - - -= ~ Year 2 would again include planting expenses for Inth of theCtI 110- -~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~o~~~g~ ~G~ liN Q) $ ___ cOP ___~ i_IiInJX lIlCoo~_ flt nc II II tn ~~i~~~~~~~~00 =~ N ~ 0_11 - N w (1= Ot- N~ Oo~t-- i Ef~~ acreage and the second year growing expenses for the 21=- =tt ~ - acres planted originally The total expenses of a fullymiddot =S 1II ~~~_~~~~~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~sect~~ l~~~~~~~ Ec~ _ tl_-= ~u ~ operating facility are first incurred in the seventh year The

~ ~NII -~_ 1I1f N ~o~ N~ - ~o~=~~ ~ eg~R- 1111 0 - t first year of full revenue is also obtained in year 7 (21 acres of Cite ~ ~~~~~~~N~~~~~ ~~~~~ I~~~~~g~ ~r~i

~ _ ~ cOPNN __~ ~_m~~ ~1nO~O~~ Nfl~M

= or ~~~~~~~~~~O tt l 387 trees in their sixth year and 21 acres of 775 trees in their0- ~N_~ _ _0 N ~o~ N~ - ~~_=t--= ~ ~gGbull N= iI - - - ~i 1 seventh year ofgrowth)III

4iiii i~ ~ As the farm approaches the end of its economic life it was~~~_~~~~~~~~OO i~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~pound~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~i~E i

I middotL= 0- -oN_tI- - ~ N _ N~ot-- Nt-- ~ ~o_~t-= ~ ~U~ ii= = ~ assumed that the operator would stop planting Therefore as 11 - a l ~ 13 ~~~~g~i~N~~~~~ i~~~~ ~~a~~IC~~ E=~= of year 29 no more planting expenses are incurred It wasltV bull V ~~~~~~~~~~OO 0- N - -= ~N0ftIo - Ieo ~ t= -oN 1I _0- - N~ ~~ Nt- - ~o-~= ~ ~ft~c =a ~ - t assumed the land would be either left idle or used for otherIIIJ - -

= ~ purposes In year 35 the final year of operation only 21 acresa~= tQ ~~~~~~~re~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~ E~a N 0- -0 ___ _III u N _ N~o~ N~ _~ ~o-=~= ~ ~~~III ~ ~ of seventh-year trees would remain to be harvested At thisgt- - - -I point the entire operation would be closed down No salvagesect ii~ 1II ~~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~$~9~~ i~~~~ ~~~~sect~~ E~I II

II Ltf __ ~ ~N-II N ~ Ni ~~ N~ ~~ ~~~i~ i ~=in value was assumed because the land used was either leased or ~ -11~ 1= shy

I ~ rented and all equipment or buildings had no remainingc 15 ~ ft ~~~rd~~J~~~~~O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~E~iIII 0- QN-V 0 N _ N~o~ N ~~_~~~ ~ ~~~ i useful life H= ~ - ltgt ~ 15 Over the project life it would be necessary to replace some to tQ ~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~S~~~ 2Ei~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~5~i t ~ equipment For the purpose of this study it was assumed that~ I ~ -oN_~ _ - N _ N~ ~~ _ ~o_=~~ ~ ~~ I -= I= ~ - i all equipment would be used until it was no longer-=1 ~lt~S~-~N~~~~1 t-~~~~ ~co~~~o~ ~ft i011 V-- ~ o~- ~~NN__~ i_~V~ ~II~OO~_ ~~ ~~~~~_~i~~~OO a salvageable at which point it would be replaced new Table 16

r bullbull tv () -ON _ - N N~o~ ~ _ ~o-== ~ ~I~ I middot ~ - - - ~ shows the replacement schedule assumed in the cash flow i ~ Note that this table reflects the assumed useful life of the~ -=bull gi

i

iii s equipment rather than its depreciable life Also two itemsCgt I 1 u lJi~ ~ t- I ~ - ~ i the chain saws and the tree balers are not necessary until year -111) l -E I ~ l~~ _E ==Ilbull- ~ 1 ~j c ~ ~ ~ -5 -_ bull s

~~~ ~ ~~ _ ~ ~ L~ OL ~ 0 6 II 6 and were not purchased until that time Based on the highc _~~~~~WL ~-=] ii1t~ ~~ ulpoundlzl ~~ ~ = 1 i~uZul ~~I S Lo-- 2 L ~It~~ -i ~ ~

J L~_ ~m LOCmiddot gt- ampogt-~-~~ ~tc -lt 0 011 CIt -= = 2 ~~~t~5middotFi~f~~i~iitli-~fi~fifiiiI f Ii ~ilaquoI - ~ =~U=_~~~~~_W~U0Z~EZ~CQE~CEAL3QZEQW_~000 ~middot - ~ 8 Ii ~ I ~ middotmiddot -

29

111

f ~middot~middot~LC -- - ~i~

n ~ illII I~ II

Ii II

~~ Table 16 Equipment replacement schedule for a 160-acre ~ Christmas tree farm in New Mexico 1988 ~

usage during a short time period and the relatively short life of these items they were replaced every 5 years

Analysis

Because there are many unknowns encountered when projecting cost and returns and because different locations may be faced with different situations a series of scenarios were provided to evaluate the financial feasibility of the project Three major variables were altered concurrently to create the different scenarios These variables were

1 Prices 2 Yields 3 Costs

Price

A base price of $1240 was assumed The sensitivity of the return to a change of $1 increments over a range of $2 was measured

Yield

Changes in teld were based on altering the number of saleable trees This was done as a percentage of the total trees planted For example a 90 rate would mean that 90 of the 1452 trees originally planted or 1307 trees were available for sale This variable not only affect~ gross revenue but also alters any costs associated with the number of trees harvested Costs such as cutting field hauling baling and brokering are all altered by changes in the number of trees harvested and were assumed to be linear

Yield might also be altered by decreasing the space between trees For example a 5 by 5 spacing yields 1742 planted trees If 80 were saleable this would be 1394 trees

30

Item

Facilities

Well

Tractor

PTO sprayer

Trailer

Mower

Injector

Rotary pruners

Chain saw

Tree baler

iIIii Year ~

L 6 lL 16 2L 26 JL II~ Cost ~

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -(dollars) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- If 17000 ~

~ 10200 i

~

1bull1 113000 13000 13000 13000 1

~I 1200 1200 1200 1200 ~

bull p

~Ii ~

2400 II

800 800 800 800 ~ -I

I1200 1200 1200 1200 ~ 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 t

IiiIii 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 J

~ ~ ~ JOW JOW ~ ~ JOW

50750 10450 26650 10450 26650 10450 26650 I~ISource Table 3 IiIJ

f ~ J ~Cost ~

11I~ Because costs vary by farm and by location it was felt that a sensitivity should be performed on this variable Rather than bull

talter a specific cost or a specific category of costs the total bullIIj

cost was increased or decreased by a percentage and the Ji results evaluated Costs were altered in 10 increments in ~

Iijeither direction The 0 column uses those costs shown in the cash flow

t ~II

1

~I~ 31 ~

Feasibility Assessment

The internal rate of return (IRR) is a technique used to evaluate investment opportunities that incorporates the time value of money concept The internal rate of return for an investment project (in this case a Christmas tree planting) is the discount rate that equates the present value of the annual net cash revenue flows with the projects acquisition cost The net cash revenue is the difference between the cash receipts and cash expenses generated by an investment project over its economic life The time value of money is based on the economic fact that $1 today is worth more than a promise of $1 at some future date because of its current earnings potential

An investment can be accepted or rejected based on its internal rate of return (IRR) Acceptability of the investment depends on a comparison of the IRR with the investors required rate of return (RRR) Acceptability can be based on the following decision rules if IRR exceeds RRR accept the investment if IRR = RRR be indifferent and if IRR is less than RRR reject the investment

While IRR is a useful technique in project evaluation there are some problems with its use The major concern when using IRR is it assumes all cash inflows can be reinvested at the same rate as the resulting IRR percentage Should the IRR percentage be in the vicinity of the current rates of return of other investment instruments IRR is a reasonably accurate measure of return on investment However should the rate of return be much higher than current returns available elsewhere the resulting return on investment may be overstated The inverse is true at lower rates of return

The Net Present Value (NPV) is another way of evaluating projects that involve capital outlays over a period of years The NPV method discounts all future cash outlays and inflows back to a present-year basis using a specified interest (discount rate) The discount rate chosen is usually the opportunity cost of using equity funds in an alternative use or the cost of borrowed capital increased by an appropriate premium for risk or a combination of these The NPV

32

method is preferred over the IRR method when evaluating one investment against alternative similar type investments

Based on the sensitivity analysis discussed above a table was developed to show the IRR under the various scenarios Table 17 shows the internal rates by the per-unit price The analyses is based on pre-tax returns At $1040 per tree the IRR ranges from -14 when costs were increased by 10 and saleable yields were reduced to 60 to 160 when costs were decreased by 10 and 90 of the trees planted were sold At $1140 the IRR range is from 14 to 185 under the same conditions as above At $1240 per tree the IRR ranges from 38 when costs were increased 10 and 60 of the trees are saleable to 207 when costs were decreased 10 and saleable yields were at 90 At $1340 per tree the IRR ranges from 60 to 228 At $1440 per tree a grower could expect an IRR from 80 to 248 under the scenarios presented

A pre-tax analysis using Net Present Value (NPV) was also completed for the various scenarios The results of this analysis are shown in table 18

If an IRR of 12 is chosen as a minimum rate desired for investment growers must receive at least $1140 per tree and attain a level of 80 saleable trees and good cost control to have a successful investment At prices greater than $1140 per tree and 80 saleable product the investment appears to have possibility

33

Table 17 Internal Rates of Return (lRR) estimates for a 160-acre Table 18 Net Present Value (NPV) estimates for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost cbanges cha~es Ising a discount rate of 12

Percentage Percentageof saleable Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount

of saleabletrees 10 lower No chan~ 10 bilber trees --percent-shy

_______ - - - - - - - - - - - (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - shy

$1040 Tree Price 900 130 102900 160 BOO

SOO 128 97 69 700 60 31700 91 600

-14600 48 16

$1140 Tree Price( 900 127185 155

123 95900 800 SOO 153 700 700 116 86 58 600

14600 74 43

$1240 Tree Price 900 lJJ7 178 150900 BOO

118SOO 176 146 700 139 109 81700 600

38600 97 66

$1340 Tree Price 900 900 228 198 171 BOO

167 139SOO 197 700103700 161 130 600

600 119 88 60

$1440 Tree Price 900 BOO

248 218 191900 700159SOO 216 186 600

180 150 123700 80

Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount _ 10 lOwer No change 10 higher

-middot----middotmiddot---middot--bull-----dollars------bullbullbullbull -bullbullbull shy

$1040 Tree Price 175195 32602

(110936) (253415)

44502 (97269)

(2399BO) (381637)

(86191) (227140) (369023) (509859)

$1140 Tree Price 299293 167950 36607 142927

(14476) (170717)

12478 (144024) (299372)

(117971) (273573) (428028)

$1240 Tree Price 423391 291398 159406 253252 81984

(88019)

122225 (48069)

(217107)

(8BOl) (178123) (346196)

$1340 Tree Price 547489 414847 282204 363576 231972 100368 178445 (5321)

47886 (134842)

(82673) (264364)

$1440 Tree Price 671587 538295 405003 473901 341719 209538 274905 143841 12777 77377 (52578) (182532)

138 108 N01E Parentheses mean negative number

34 35

600

Investor Analysis

The following analysis considers the impact of the US tax laws (revised October 1987) on investing in Christmas trees The approach is identical to the previous IRR and NPV analysis except the impact of federal and state income taxes is considered in the annual stream of cash flow

The basis assumptions used are as follows

1 The taxpayer investor is in a 40 tax bracket on marginal income when combining both state and federal income taxes

2 The investor is actively engaged in managing the Christmas tree farm so that revenues and losses can be counted as active income or the investor has other passive investment income to offset any passive losses from growing Christmas trees

3 The Section 179 one-time deduction of $10000 per year is used in other businesses operated by the investor

4 Depreciation was calculated using the modified ACRS rules published by the IRS in 1987 Publication 225

5 The Christmas tree enterprise falls under the IRS rules for Christmas tree cultivation requiring capitalization of planting and stump culture for trees more than 6 years of age Because one-third of the trees are sold within the 6-year time limit one-third of planting expenses were deducted in the year incurred and the remaining two-thirds were capitalized and written off when the trees were sold in the seventh year

6 The investor uses a cash accounting system for tax purposes

36

The pre-tax IRR for the scenario with trees selling for $1240 each 80 harvestable yield and standard costs was 146 The IRR after-tax considerations fell to 125 (table 19) One might compare the after-tax return of 125 to other after-tax investments of comparable risks The after-tax NPV for the above scenario is $18069 compared to the pre-tax NPV of $122225 using a 12 discount rate

37

0

Table 19 Investor cash now analysis lor a l6O-acre Christmas tree larm (per planted acre basis) S=~=bullbull=I==~==~=bullbull====iI=bullbull2a==IIiIII bullbullbullbull===========n====ZIUSS=====bullbull===lllJ=====$~nUIlt1=llIIlta====s=a====II===============bullbullbull==II=~====lltz===-===U===========1II==X=======_==li=

Year 1 rHr 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year S Ye8l 6 tear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 1Q Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Tear 18

Net Cash Flow BelMe T8)( ConeiderattOlS (116411) (75439) (86658) (99354)(111768) (51189) 119810 119810 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810

Tax ONKtiona

Oeprec i at i on Irrigation syat far Foelli amp Equip

7875 1440

14625 7440

19446 7440

22890 7440

25378 7440

27156 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

Planting E_ 8209 10585 13004 16006 18568 22423 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031

~~~- ~t~t 1~~~r 1~ n~~ ~~m i~m ~M ~U~~ ~~M ~M ~~~ ~m ~M ~~~ ~~~ ~~M ~~M ~~M Total TalC DeOoctlons 33265 49193 65833 81973 96875 130860 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189341 189341 189311 189341 189341 189311

~rI~ (3326~) (4979~) (6583g) (819~) (968~) l~m) m~ ~~~~f~ mJ~ ~H~ m~~ mm ~~H~~ ~~B~ ~~im mm mJ~ ~~B2~ Inc_ ra Saings 13306 19917 26333 32189 38750 11930 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc_ TalC Oue 0 0 0 0 0 0 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297

let Cash flow (1037) (5522) (60325) (66) (737018) (397259) 74512 7Z2 74512 74512 7862 7512 74~12 rZSt2 142 M=062 1512 14512 =s===========s=_====sbullbullc=======-===================_======-=-==========I====S======-===========================e===s====================s==============r=================

Net Cash Flow Before Tax Considerations 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810 119810 190654 179442 217765 230460 242421 165733

T81 OlaquoiJcti ons

Depreciation

~ili~r Equip 2g~~ 2U~~ 2~~~ 2~~ 2~~~~ 2~g~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ 2~~ 2~~~ 2~n~ 1~~J ~~8 ~~~ f2zS 2~

~i~-OVerhoad

zg8M62335

zg8M62335

Z~~~ 62335

zg8M62335

ig8M62335

zg~~62335

i8M62335

i8M62335

t8M62335

i~8M 62335

Zg~~62335

~~~~~53665

~~~~ 46402

~tg~~40943

~~ ~~~35402 29986

ll~8~~

Total TaJ( Deduct_ 189341 189341 187121 187121 187121 187121 181121 181121 187121 187121 187121 156112 133925 117431 101291 86842 60718

I Froll Sales 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 201550 ~~~es~~= 1132~ m24~ 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154~ 1154~ 14647~ 16866g 1855~ 20129t 21574~ 1408~

Income la~ Due ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ Met Cash FloW =-2========SCI========

74512=I=====

74512 46974 73624 73624 73624 73624 63174 73624 __===_=_=============bullbullbullSamp====1II_1I31amp=II================_=II==__ == 73624_===__==

73624=======

132065 _=-=bullbull

111978======S=====

143703 ======_==

149943=======1I

156124 ========laquo

109400 ======_

~

Appendix Table Amiddotl United States Department ofAgriculture grade standards for Christmas trees

Christmas Tree Grades Factor US Premium US No1 US No2

Density Not less than Not less than Light or better medium medium

Tapera Normal- Normal- May be less than 40 to 90 40 to 90 40 or more

than 90

Damage-free faceb 4 3 2

Foliage Fresh clean Fresh clean Fresh clean and healthy and healthy and healthy

Shapec Well-shaped Well-shaped Well-shaped crown crown crown

Handle not Handle not Handle not less less than 6 less than 6 less than 6 or more than or more than or more than 134 per foot 1 34 per foot 1 34 per foot of tree height of tree height of tree height

aTaper of a tree is defined as the width of a tree expressed as a percentage of its height

Face means the visible surface area of a tree as viewed from 8 to 10 feet from the tree A tree is considered to have four faces each face constituting 14 of the tree

cHeight of a tree is defined in terms of foot or half-foot steps and is measured from the base of the handle to a point on the leader not more than 4 feet above the apex of the cone of the taper

Source Proebsting Buhaly and Wanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest 1981

40

4iUJiMMiFeuro iampi~t~Ityen)--

Literature Cited

Clevenger Tom et at The Wholesale and Processing Market for Locally Grown High Value Crops Research Report 572 New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station July 1985

Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture (Mora Research Center) New Mexico State University Guidelines for Growing and Marketing Christmas Trees in New Mexico New Mexico Department of Natural Resources October 1980

Huntley Wallace Marketing Christmas Trees-Turning a Problem into an Opportunity American Christmas Tree Journal August 1984 pp 41-43

Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury Fanners Tax Guide Publication 225

Proebsting William M Joseph Buhaly and Donald Hanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest Pacific Northwest Extension Publication PNW6 January 1981

41

Page 4: Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and ...

_~_ _~__~_lt$IiM1_ 8 ~-_~ii~S~f-tt~3~ltilrC-j -~

LIST OF TABLES

Table No Page

1 Selected characteristics by type of marketing method for cut Christmas trees 4

2 Prices received by Christmas tree growers for Scots pine White fir and Douglas fir 5-7 foot tree when sold in quantities of 600 trees or more 1986 5

3 Equipment summary for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm in New Mexico 1988 7

4 Acre-inches of applied water by year 11

5 Well characteristics for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm 11

6 Chemicals applied per acre by year for Christmas tree farms 1988 13

7 Annual overhead expenses on a 160-acre Christmas tree farm 16

8 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White fir and Scots pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 1 establishment) NM 1988 19

9 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White fir and Scots pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 2 establishment) NM 1988 20

10 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White fir and Scots pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 3 establishment) NM 1988 21

iv

11 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White fir and Scots pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 4 establishment) NM 1988 22

12 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White fir and Scots pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 5 establishment) NM 1988 23

13 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White fir and Scots pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 6) NM 1988 24

14 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White fir and Scots pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 7) NM 1988 25

15 Cash flow for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm (147 net planted acres) 27

16 Equipment replacement schedule for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm in New Mexico 1988 30

17 Internal Rates of Return (IRR) estimates for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost changes 33

18 Net Present Value (NPV) estimates for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost changes using a discount rate of 12 35

19 Investor cash flow analysis for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm (per planted acre basis) 37

Appendix Table No

A-I United States Department of Agriculture grade standards for Christmas trees 40

v

Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and White Fir Plantation Christmas

Trees in New Mexico

William D Gorman Robert E Grassberger Jr James T Fisher John G Mexal Gall A Welsh

Tom Clevenger and Robert R Lansford

This report evaluates the cost and fInancial feasibility of growing Scots pine and White fIr plantation Christmas trees These varieties are suitable for growing at elevations of 5000 feet or higher in New Mexico Warmer growing areas primarily areas below 5000 feet in elevation are suitable for production of elderica pine (Pinus brutia subsp elderica) a conifer that grows rapidly but is not suitable for higher elevations The most popular Christmas tree species grown at elevations above 5000 feet in elevation in New Mexico are Scots pine (Pinus aylvestris) White fIr (Abies concolor) and Douglas fIr (Pseudotsuga menziesii)

Although Christmas trees of various sizes can be marketed this report is limited to the evaluation of 5 to 7-foot trees grown with irrigation for a period of 6 to 7 years

middotProfessor Depanment of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Business Coordinator of Economic Development Cooperative Extension Service Professor and Associate Professor Agronomy and Honiculture Research Specialist Professor and Professor Depanment of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Business respectively

1 vi

~higm1SfMSj 7 ~ij~~t-~rt~~S~middotmiddotjmiddotmiddot

PRICES AND MARKETS

Prices for Christmas trees are not quoted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Statistical Reporting Service on a regular basis from organized markets as is the case for most agricultural commodities Therefore it is considerably more difficult to arrive at an average or typical grower price to use in crop budgets and cash flow projections Price information contained in this report was obtained from telephone interviews with 10 Christmas tree producing and marketing firms One of these firms was acknowledged by several of the others as the industry price leader The firms interviewed were selected because they had marketed Christmas trees in New Mexico Texas or Oklahoma and had been active in the business for several years The firms were not selected at random They were either recommended by the National Association of Christmas Tree Growers or by other growers

The firms were first interviewed in February 1987 and again in February 1988 Information on prices by species was obtained for the 1986 season in the 1987 interviews Information on price changes over the 1982 through 1986 period was obtained during the 1988 interviews

Prices to growers depend upon tree quality species tree size number of trees sold supply and demand for trees and the type of market outlets used Quality is important The USDA has established grade standards for Christmas trees (Appendix table 1) Christmas tree growers and wholesalers interviewed stressed how important it is to produce excellent quality uniform trees to receive top market prices The reputation of the grower is important in pricing because buyers do not inspect all trees before the sale

Marketable trees range in size from 2-foot table top trees to those more than 20 feet tall used primarily by commercial civic and church groups Prices per foot for shorter trees tend to be less than for taller trees Large volume growers frequently give price discounts for larger orders Typical price discounts ranged from $025 to $1 per tree on orders of more than 350 trees and sometimes an additional discount of up to $1 per tree on orders for more than 700 trees

The type of market outlets selected by growers will influence the prices received Market outlets available to growers included (1) choose-and-cut (2) retail tree lots (3) supermarkets (4) other retail establishments (5) wholesalers (6) groups and organizations and (7) cut trees direct to individual retail customers There is also a comparatively small market for live Christmas trees Depending on the number of Christmas trees ready for harvest and the proximity to metropolitan areas anyone or a combination of the above may be possible outlets for New Mexico growers According to the NCTA of the total Christmas trees sold by US growers in 198644 were sold directly to retail lots operated by others 7 at commercial retail lots operated by the grower 38 to wholesalers and 11 on a choose-and-cut basis on the farm Table 1 lists selected characteristics of these different markets

Market contacts should be made early in the year Sales arrangements to wholesalers and large retailers are usually made in June and July The question of who pays the transportation costs is sometimes negotiated however most trees are sold fob farm with the buyer responsible for transportation charges and arrangements

Species is also important in determining price (table 2) According to the survey wholesale buyers will pay about $1 per tree more for 5-7 foot White fir than for Scots pine and $3 to $5 more than for Douglas fir

According to the firms interviewed the average farm-level wholesale price has been gradually increasing since 1982 The firms were asked to provide price information for the years 1982 through 1986 for Scots pine and Blue Spruce because they were the most popular varieties The average price by year by species was determined from the information received using the following procedure For each species the highest and lowest reported prices were eliminated and the remaining three prices averaged Then simple average price for the two species was taken resulting in the following prices per 5 to 7-foot tree

1982 $1249 1985 $1365 1983 $1299 1986 $1403 1984 $1337

32

gtBl~igtul_Wg_~$jl1 iil T tilb 1~~~5~gt4~-

Table 1 Selected characteristics by type of marketing method for Table 2 Prices received by Christmas tree growers for Scots pine cut Christmas trees

Characteristics Choose-and-cut

Marketing Methods Retail sale Sale to ~ ~roducer retailer

Sale to wholesaler

Percent of national market

11 7 44 38

Sales labor yes yes no no

Location of farm

Important To be near population center

Important Ooseto population center

Accessible to bulk transport

Accessible to bulk transport

Additional etpenses

Tools toilets insurance parking road maintenance advertising

Lot rental license fees transshyportation advertising

Delivery to

destinashytion

May have to deliver

to destinashytion

of sales price to grower

100 100 50-60 30-50

Volume oftrees Umitedby location and local population

Umitedby location and local population

Regional national distribushylion channels

May have regional distribushylion

channels

Other advantages Cashdonot have to cut Secondary sales-shywreaths garlands

Cash secondary sales-wreaths garlands quality control

Do not have to deal with public

Do not have to deal with public

Disadvantages Then Theft Contract necessary

Contract necessary

White fir and Douglas fir 5middot foot tree when sold in quantities of 600 trees or more 1986

Species Price Range Average Pricea

Scots pine $1175 - $1290 $1187

White fir $1150 - $1375 $1290

Douglas fir $870 - $945 $908

middotSimple average of prices quoted by respondents The prices reported were not weighted by volume sold

Source Telephone interviews with 10 Christmas tree growers and wholesalers in selected states February 1987

The Blue Spruce trees of comparable size and quality sold typically from $4 to $6 more than Scots pine

The survey results indicate growers could have produced Douglas fir and sold 5 to 7 -foot trees in the $9 per tree price range At the other extreme growers could have planted Blue Spruce seIling for about $16 per tree However the Blue Spruce grows slower and is not expected to attain an average size of 6 feet when grown from a seedling in a period of 6 to 7 years For purposes of this economic assessment it was assumed growers would elect to produce Scots pine and White fir seIling at prices higher than Douglas fir but lower than Blue Spruce It was also assumed growers would sell nearly all their trees on a cut basis to wholesalers with the buyer being responsible for freight However growers with fewer trees to market than as assumed in this report might want to consider some direct-to-consumer marketing alternative to increase revenues

Additional market information for Christmas trees in the AlbuquerqueSanta Fe area is available in a report by Clevenger et al (1985)

4 5

~t1~~lr lamp In 7 nl_lhkii ~~t~~~~e

j gt -gt ~ VI D -gt o C ~ FULL-COST BUDGETS III o o o o o o o o o g o o

0

-Full-cost budgets were developed to illustrate the costs o o o incurred over the 7-year production cycle Full-cost budgets ill ~ 5o o oas the name implies include all costs including such possibly o o o g 8 c on o

2i N VI onon-cash items as depreciation and opportunity costs for n VI to ltXl N ~ VI N 0gt ~ VI ~ orgt -owner capital management and land rent 4 ltII

C

~ gt o ltXl -gt N - -gt -gt N N

Assumptions and Specifications -i tl-il CI bull v

-4Farm Characteristics o QI

o U o g o co N o o co8 D i -i g v8 co o It was assumed the farm was devoted entirely to the a D -gtbull Q

N ~

V

Christmas tree enterprise The farm consists of 160 acres of n ltII which 147 were planted to Christmas trees The additional 13

I~ ~ Eo o o -gt o N co N co VI shyacres were allotted for roads firebreaks ditches fences and co S N 6 gi -gt VI ibuildings The land was assumed to have been previously ~ VI ~ I e bull Cplanted therefore clear of rocks and other debris When in full production the farms would be planting and haIVesting 21 acres of trees each year J N N -gt o

i i f

8 -gt ~ 4 W gt o ~ 0 gt 0 C vI 0 ~

gt I Equipment middotc E

g 8 g g g VI VI

a o 8 o on N N ltIi ~ 0 ~ -gt ~ I~

o

g

I o ~ -gt N A farm completely devoted to producing Christmas trees H ~~ 0

tJ o 0under drip irrigation does not require a wide array of OJ

l -4 equipment The major items needed include a small tractor ~t l chain saws power pruners tree baler sprayer trailer for lIS

ltII 0 ltII gt hauling grass mower and a liquid fertilizer injector pump e 0OJ

I toLarger tractors and disks are needed for initial land

W

0 shyC

l ltII

VIpreparation but because only 21 acres are planted each year ~ QI u it is cost effective to hire these services on a custom basis ltII ltIl QI QIgt gt shys 0~ ~ lt3 lt3 Some farms may buy a Christmas tree planter but these o

v53 co budgets were prepared assuming hand planting oThe farm will not need border disks disks for weed control i ii7

3 v or land leveling equipment because of the drip irrigation r ~

~ ~system and the grass ground cover cultural practice sect s I shy

1gt ~

I shy

~ The annual fixed and variable costs for the equipment were ti ltII e n ltII ~ I- ~

~ shy~ ~ weestimated using the New Mexico State University crop budget ~ l 1 ~ o ~ H u ~ t a ~ To ~ ~

76

generator (table 3) In addition to the equipment discusSed above a 1000 gallon-per-minute well was included in the equipment table The farm will also require the part-time use of a pickup truck This cost was included in the supervision expense category The total cost of equipment including the irrigation well was estimated to be $39250 or $267 per planted acre

Pre-Harvest Operations

Land Preparation

Because the land was assumed to have been previously planted it was unnecessary to clear the land The major operations in land preparation were plowing disking and harrowing All of these operations were assumed to have been hired on a custom basis

Planting

Hand planting was assumed Planting-labor requirements are based on a rate of 100 trees per hour per individual The total time required to plant 1 acre is estimated at 1210 hours based on planting 1210 trees per acre

The cost of plastic tree netting was budgeted to protect seedlings from rodent damage The plastic netting cost is $3750 per acreand is included in the purchased input section of the budgets A total of 9 hours per acre is required to apply the netting

All trees planted do not survive the first year Some growers will replant the blanks but others often will not replant because this practice results in an uneven harvest The budgets assume no replanting would be done

Planting and Harvest Schedule

For the purpose of this report trees were assumed to be of a 5 to 7-foot marketable size 7 years after planting To maintain a consistent quantity of harvestable trees only 1nth

8

of the total acreage (21 acres) would be planted in any calendar year Hence in years 1 through 6 21 acres would be planted each year In year 7 21 acres would be planted and the 21 acres planted in year 1 would be harvested This staggered planting schedule assures a continuous marketable supply and income to the grower starting in the seventh year

Obviously acreage not planted during the first 6 years could be planted to some other crop For simplicity however this acreage was assumed to have gone unplanted and to have generated no revenue or to have incurred any costs

Tree Population

For marketable trees of 5 to 7 feet a minimum spacing of 5 by 5 feet is recommended (Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture 1980) For the purpose of this study a 5 by 6 foot spacing was used This spacing allows planting 1452 trees per acre

Seedling Sources

There are many sources where trees can be bought as seedlings The source assumed was the Forestry Division of the New Mexico Natural Resources Department At the time of writing this division offered containerized seedlings to New Mexico growers who have more than 1 acre and can meet certain other conditions1 The price was $58 per 98 seedlings or $59 per seedling A price of $63 per tree was used in the budgets to incorporate the cost of the seedlings and transportation

Tree Species

It was assumed that Scots pine and White flf would be the species of choice to expand market opportunities and to avoid risks associated with crop monocultures (Proebsting et

I For infonmltion COntact Divison of Forestry POBox 2167 Santa Fe NM 87504-2167

9

llt_SWic-yenfoWtfte- ffgIUij_~1i~~~iVjWri~

aI 1981 Risks such as species-specific diseases increase with monoculture Most foresters suggest reducing this risk by planting more than one species

Irrigation

Most areas of New Mexico require supplemental irrigation to maintain the necessary soil moisture to keep the trees growing near their potential It was assumed that all plantations were irrigated with a drip system fed with pumped well water The drip system including all filters laterals and emitters was estimated at $1500 per acre2 The cost of installing the drip line was estimated at $11 per acre and is included as a line item under preharvest operations The cost of the well was included in equipment costs

Water needs per acre vary with the tree size and annual rainfall An annual rainfall of 15 inches was assumed Table 4 shows the additional acre-inches of water required per acre by year

The electric well was assumed to be pumping from a depth of 200 feet at 1000 GPM Table 5 shows the well characteristics and operation costs Based on these assumptions the cost per-acre inch was determined to be $352

~ Based upon estimates provided by Mr Ron Bliesner of Keller-Bliesner Engineering Logan Uf

10

Table 4 Acre-inches of applied water by year

Year AEElied Acre-Inches

1 6

2 8

3 12

4 14

5 16

6 18

7 18

Source Ke1ler-Bliesner Engineering Company Logan UT

Table S Well characterlsdcs for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm

Well Characteristics

Static water level (feet) 200 Draw down (feet) 40 Delivery PSI 8 Gallons per minute 1000 Electric efficiency factor 470

Energy use per hour (KWH) 10367 Fuel cost per hour $778 Cost per acre-inch $352

11

t_hltiirll~9~amp6ii11jjltfllU J[BIl1IiHitilut~~W~~tlaquo+middot -~---

Cover Crop

Many Christmas tree farmers plant a cover crop of native grass between rows A cover crop reduces soil erosion and is a positive step toward vegetation management Irrigation water was not applied to the cover crop

The budget assumes that a native grass was sown before the trees were planted After the cover crop is established a non-selective herbicide such as Round-up was assumed to have been sprayed in 24-inch swathes to create grass-free rows to be planted with trees The native grass seed was estimated to cost $15 per acre Drilling the seed was included under the preharvest operations in the budget as a custom operation at $850 per acre

Mowing was included under preharvest operations as well The number of times the inter-row area needs to be mowed was decreased as the tree cover increased therefore mowing costs vary by year

Chemicals

Crop chemicals such as fertilizer herbicides insecticides and fungicides were included in the budget under purchased inputs Table 6 shows in detail the chemical name the prescribed use unit of measurement application rate number of times applied per year per unit prices and total cost per acre The costs of applying these chemicals were included in the budget under preharvest operations

Shearing and Training

Shearing is the cutting of leader and lateral branches to improve the trees shape and density (Proebsting et al 1981) Shearing produces a more saleable tree than would normally be produced otherwise Shearing may be done either by hand with shearing knives machetes or hand pruners or mechanically with light-weight sickle bar clippers or rotary pruners Rotary pruners were assumed to have been used for shearing in this report

Table 6 Chemicals applied per acre by year ror Christmas tree rarms 1988

Per Unit Total acre price cost

Year Chemical Use Unit rate Times $ $

1 Roundup Atrazine 80W

Herbicide Herbicide

gal Ills

05 50

10 10

8000 170

4000 850

2 Roundup Atrazine 80W Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate

Herbicide Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer

gal Ills Ills qt

Ills

02 50 20 10

2350

10 10 10 30

10

8000 170

2100 600

010

1600 850

4200 1800

2233

3 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer

gal Ills qt

Ills

02 20 10

3520

10 10 30

10

8000 2100 600

10

1600 4200 1800

3168

4 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 20 10

4690 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 4200 1800

4456 1725

5 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 10 10

4690 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 2100 1800

4456 1725

6 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 10 10

9830 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 2100 1800

4456 1725

7 Roundup SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal qt

Ills Ills

02 10

5400 15

10 30

10 20

8000 600

010 575

1600 1800

5130 1725

12 13

AA~1~rmiddot~i~I~~~iiltfi~)~~1i~~~4~iamp_1 2U~ampJl2lJMlIIINIiI1m~~S1lt~h

Shearing generally begins when the tree height is about 5 feet For the budgets some shearing was assumed to begin in year 3 however labor in year 3 mainly reflects training of the trees Training helps develop a straight marketable tree The greatest number of hours were needed in years 6 and 7 to prepare trees for market

Estimated chemical needs were obtained from Drs John Mexal and James Fisher Professors of Horticulture New Mexico State University Many of the above chemicals are unnecessary because many pest and disease problems found elsewhere do not currently occur in New Mexico however it was felt as acreage of the crop increases the need for chemical use would also be necessary

Harvest Operations

The harvest generally consists of 4 to 5 weeks and is the most labor intensive activity in Christmas tree growing HalVest operations consist of selecting the trees for halVesting cutting baling and transporting to the market Timing is imperative and weather can be difficult during this period

Because some trees grow faster than others it is usually possible to harvest about 13 of the crop in the sixth year The remaining 213 of the total crop would be cut the seventh year Experienced growers generally halVest about 80 of the trees they plant as a result of death loss and cullage3 This means each acre yielded 1162 marketable trees if 1452 trees per acre were originally plantedOfthe 1162 trees halVested 13 or 387 trees are halVested in year 6 and 775 trees were cut in year 7 Trees not accounted for in the projected halVest either died or were not acceptable as Christmas trees

The trees selected for halVest are often marked before cutting to prevent halVest crews from having to make decisions about tree grades while cutting After cutting trees are carried to the access road and hauled to a central area where they are baled The trees are then loaded on trucks and shipped to the wholesaler or other market outlets

gtCulled trees may be made into wnaths or sold as boughs This was not assumed as a SOurce of revenue in this report

14

HalVest arrangements with wholesalers vary In some cases wholesalers perform all halVest operations in others the wholesaler will mark the trees they want to buy Some agreements call for the wholesaler to transport the trees from field side others place the responsibility for shipping on the producer

This paper assumed the responsibility of selection and harvest was with the producer and that transportation to the market place was paid for by the wholesaler

Post-Harvest Operations

After the field has been completely halVested in the seventh year it is generally replanted to trees the following spring Some growers remove the remaining stumps Stump removal however is an expensive and time consuming process The preferred method appears to be to replant new seedlings half the distance between the remaining stumps within the row The remaining stumps are then allowed to decay naturally This method of replanting between stumps was assumed for this paper

Overhead Expense

Table 7 shows the overhead expenses assumed for the 160 acres with 147 net planted acres

Downtime is the additional labor time allowed because of time lost for such things as machine repairs moving to and from fields and waiting for deliveries A downtime rate of 20 of the total labor hours was applied in the budgets

Employee benefits include any programs that full-time or part-time employees may obtain such as social security workmens compensation insurance group life and health insurance and paid vacations Although this cost can be negligible on most small farms an 18 rate on the coSt of labor was applied here

Insurance was estimated at $850 per planted acre This includes coverage of equipment and farm liability

15

~_~ ~ -h n~middotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot _ middotmiddotbullm-middot middottlt1Gmiddotmiddotgtmiddotti~q~~middot~middot)Gv~--e~~~~~i4iM5tll L MIbullbull Jtpoundi8)l] II ha bullUMtflIf~~~Hjl~kllI~1cent

Table 7 Annual overhead expenses on a 160-acre Christmas tree fanna

Downtime 20 ofdirect labor hours

Employer benefits 18 of direct labor hours

Insurance $850 per planted acre

Farm facilities $386 per planted acre

Land rent $8163 per planted acreb

General and administrative $50 per planted acre

Supervision $75 per planted acre

Other $30 per planted acre

Brokerage 5 of gross revenue

88sed 003tOUtTof 147 pl8nted acres 1Is7s per acre on the total of 160 acres

It was assumed farm facilities were required to protect equipment from weather and to provide office space A simple pole building was used for protecting equipment and was estimated to cost $8000 An additional $9000 was allotted for an office structure The cost of these facilities was spread over a service life of 35 years The cost per planted acre was approximately $4 per acre

Land rent was assumed to be $82 per planted acre or $75 per acre on the gross farm acreage If the land is already owned outright this would represent the opportunity cost of having planted the land to Christmas trees

General and administrative expenses include management salaries secretarial expenses and costs associated with running and maintaining the office such as telephone copying

16

and bookkeeping The amount associated with general and administrative expenses was $50 per planted acre

Supervision expenses were incurred to oversee field operations A $75 per planted acre expense was used for supervision This figure is arbitrary but includes funds for possibly hiring a foreman It also includes funds for pickup truck expenses The 147 net planted acres provides an annual supervision expense fund of $11025

Other expenses is a catch-all category for irregular or unexpected items such as fence or road repair additional hand tools or added administrative expenses The other expenses assumed here were $30 per acre per year

A brokerage fee was included in the budgets as a marketing expense The producer often serves as his own broker and in this case the fee included in the budgets would be viewed as an opportunity cost of the producers time A fee of 5 of gross revenue was used as a brokerage expense

Interest

An interest expense was included for opemting capital and equipment investment Rates of 12 and 10 respectively were used 4

For the full-cost budgets the interest expense on operating capital needed each year from the time of planting was compounded through the seventh year and charged off as an expense in the harvest year If the capital used was all equity capital rather than borrowed this could again be construed as an opportunity cost of the use of the producers money

Establishment Expenses

The establishment expense is the actual cost of growing the trees to harvestable size (tables 8 through 13) To show the total return and the total costs incurred during the harvest

IbeSeinterest rates imply an average annual inflation rate or at least 3to 4 per year A realistic analysis could increase the annual cash expenses and revenues by a 3 to 4 compounded rate over the 35middotyear investment period This approach would result in higher estimated returns Future expenses and revenues were not adjusted ror inflation in this report hence the results may be underestimated

17

MtiS 4ampIi- iJi4MliIllITftif ~2k+Csectlgt--~Smiddot-f

year the full-cost budget for years 6 and 7 include an establishment expense under the purchased input category (tables 13 and 14) This expense is based on cost estimates from the first five years of production and is prorated to the appropriate year based upon the harvest yield ratio S Because there is a time value associated with the capital used to grow the trees a compounding factor was also included The rate used to compound was 10 The total establishment expense per planted acre was estimated to be $2782 allocated in year 6 and $6840 in year 7 The $6840 allocated in year 7 includes $616 of interest expenses associated with having to wait another year (year 6 to 7) before these expenses are recovered The establishment expenses amounted to $719 and $883 per harvested tree respectively for trees harvested in the sixth and seventh years Net returns would increase significantly if all trees would reach harvestable size by year 6

Total Cost Per Acre

Based on the budget estimates made for years 6 and 7 a total cost of $12895 per acre planted or $1110 per tree harvested was required to grow Christmas trees through harvest This cost includes all equipment expenses chemicals land rent labor overhead and interest

Price Sensitivity of Full-Cost Budgets

To determine the return to risk when all costs are accounted for the gross revenue must also be estimated The gross revenue is a function of number of trees harvested and the price per tree The yield of 80of the total planting or 1162 trees was assumed as fIXed in this part of the analysis and only the price was varied A per tree price of $1240 was used as the base with a $1 change in either direction Using the $1240 per tree price a net return of $158372 per acre harvested was derived At $1140 per tree $1 less a net return

gtc)f the total yield 13 was harvested in year 6 and 23 in year 7

q

i g

I middoto~ ~ ~8

~i ~ ~

_z1~ ~s -~

~g

~

~ ~3

z ~ ~i r cu

m~zIi ~ ~=gt

~s ~-

5 oS ~

~J t ~It ~c= ~c lI-Q

i l- ~~ fI) = I iI~ = CIt

f 8 ~ a

(I III laquoIC 5 ~cI iIoU ~

ltI ~ CllioS~ Ol fo- ~ ~ j$ S ~ ~In~

~~~ggg

oi~oo -o-4-C~ ~

0000 0utqno 0

ritO 0 ~-4tltl- N

w ~w

tJtDWU C-amptoe(

oot)o ~~~lt= _Ot) -0

Ie

8glg~~~~i~~g~ t o~-eOaiNOQN 0 N-4N S

11 N ~ill -- 0

~ ~ ~~

1tc ~ ~~ -4 _

I

~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~_OO~N shy 1_ ~

gg 8~ st i~ tOtO i

~ ~~~ ~ X x=~

~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~Q~~N N~

~ g~ E

~ ~ ~ 0 Q i1lJ~W

lto(c- aa~aai5~ ttlZW

~ tQ __ -I iffi Z ~wtll~ow=i~~~~ ~e=~~~5~~tUQCI =VIE a C-lI-

g~~~~g8g~ ~NeOQarQ a) ~

~~~q ~~ laquo)~ ~S

o o~~ UN ~

~ ~

0

~(fIii

~

i

o N

bull ~ l

i

~

~

~ ~

S ~

18 19

Table 9 Per acre tun cost budgets ror growiDg White Fir and Scots Pine

~-~~-~~~~-~-~~~-~-~~-~-~~-~~-~-~~~~~~~~--~~-~~-----------------------_------YIELD

HARVEST DATES PLANTING DATES

PlIlCE -- ~-- - - - bull - - - bullbull - bull - - - ~ - - bull - bull QUANTITY PUR~~~ LABOR ~~iJ~~ REPAIRS Fgi~ TOTAl

TEM UNIT __ bullbull ________ bull __ _ _ ___ ___ bull ___ ___ bull __ _ __________ bullbullbullbull _________ bullbullbullbullbullbullbull _ bull ------_ bullbullbullbullbullbull - -- bull bull - - - - bull (DOLLARS) bullbullbull - - bullbullbull

PURCHASED INPUTS 6650100 ACRE 66501lER8ICIOE 1800100 ACRE 1800INSECTICIDE 211523500 LB 2115MOIII~ SULFATE 750100 ACRE 750MISCELLANECIlS TOOLS 1131511315SUBTOTAL

PREHARVEST OPERATIONS 21751309 319 209 338PTO SPRAYER (X) ampAS IS P 238 HR 27491738 423 275 313MOWER (410 GAS 15 HP 316 HR 4200

Mise 1000 HR 4200LABOR 3226~ 360 IR 2812 238 176WELL (ex) ELE

123501914 7247 3554 722 827SUBTOTAL

OVERfAD EXPENSES 1709311 1709OOWIITIME EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

13041304 850 850

INSURANCE 386 386 FARM FACILITIES 8163 8163 LAND RENT 5000 5000GENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION 75007500suPERVISION 3D00 3000 OTHER

17399 2791210513SUBTOTAL 311 HR

3554 722 18226 515_7711315 17760TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 2225 IR

-51577NET OPERATING PROFIT

2678INTEREST ON OPERATI~G CAPITAL 831INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT

-55086 ~~~~-~~~~- _- _- -_ -_ ----- --_ ---- -- -- ----_ --_ --___ _ - _------ __

Table 10 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 3 estabUshment) NM 1988 PLANTING DATES YIELDHARVEST OATES PRICE

POWER PURCHASED FUEL OIL FIXEDITEM UNIT QUANTITY INPUTS lABOR LUBRICANT REPAIRS COST TOTAL --_ - - _- ---- - -_ -- --_ - - - -(DOlLARS)

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE 5800 5800MOIII~ SULFATE 35200 LB 3168 3168INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800MISCELLANECIlS TOOLS 100 ACRE 750 750

SIJIITOTAL 11518 11518

PRE HARVEST OPERATIONS ROTARY PRUIINERS GAS 900 HR 3780 234 108 495 4617PTO SPRAYER (5X) GAS 15 HP 1 70 R 935 228 150 241 1554MOWER (4X) ampAS 15 HP 316 HR 1738 423 275 313 2149LABOR Mise 1000 IR 4200 4200ELL (12X) ELE 540 HR 4217 356 265 4838

N SUBTOTAL 2926 10653 5102 889 1314 17958 - (MRNfAl) EXPENSES OOWIITiME 477 2625 2625EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1918 1918INSURANCE 850 850FARM FACILITIES 386 386LAIIO RENT 8163 8163GENERAL _rNISTRATlON 5000 5000SUPERViSiON 7500 7500OTHER 3000 3000

SUBTOTAL 477 HR 2043 17399 29442

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 3403 HR 11518 22696 5102 889 18713 58918

NET OPERATI KG PROF IT middot58918

I NTEREST ON OPERAT I NG CAP ITAL 2930 INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT INVESTMENT 964

RETURN TO RISK 62812 ~ -~- -_ ~ ~~ ~ _ - -

Table 11 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas ~~~~~~~~~~~_~~~t~~~~~ ___ _ ~i~~middotDAEmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot YIELD

HARVEST OATES PRICE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull PURCHASED FUEL Oil FIXED

PMR INPUTS LA~ LUBRICANT REPAIRS COST TOTAL ~~~~~~- middotmiddotDOt~~middot PURCHASED INPUTS

HERBICIDE 100 ACRE 5800 5800 INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 fUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 AMONIUM SULFATE 46900 LB 4221 4221 MlsCElLANEClJS TOOLS 100 ACRE 750 750

SUBTOTAL 14296 14296

PRE HARVEST OPERA liONS ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) CAS 1500 HR 6300 390 180 825 7695 PTO SPRAYER (ax) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 364 239 386 2485 MOIlER (2X) CAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374~ FERT INJECTOR ElE 030 HR 011 061 096 168 LABOR MISC 1000 HR 4200 4200 lElL (14X) [L 630 HR 49bull 20 416 309 5645

SUBTOTAL 3590 12865 5897 1033 1772 21567

OVERHEAD EXPENSES DOIINTIM 586 3223 3223 EMPLOYEE BENEF ITS 2316 2316 INSURANCE 850 850 FARM FACILITIES 386 386 LAND RENT 8163 8163 CENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION 5000 5000 SUPERVI SION 7500 7500 OTHER 3000 3000

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039 17399 30438

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 4176 HR 14296 25904 5897 1033 19171 66301

NET OPERATl NG PROF IT 66301

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL 3247 INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 1102

70650~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~--

Table 12 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas trees (year 5 establishment) NM 1988 PLANTING OATES HARVEST OATES YIELD

PRICE

lIEM PMR

IJHlT QUANT lTy PURCHASED

INPUTS

~~~~~

FUEL OlL LA80R LUBRICANT

REPAIRS FIXED COST TOTAL

PURCHASED INPUTS - shy ~ ~ bull bull bull (DOLLARS) bull - bull HER81CIOE INSECTICIDE FUNCICIOE AMOHIUM SULFATE MI SCELLANEOUS TOOLS

SU8TOTAL

PREHARVEST oPERATIONS

100 ACRE 100 ACRE 100 ACRE

46900 L8 100 ACRE

3700 1800 1725 4221 750

12196

3700 1800 1725 4221

750

12196

ROTARY PRUHNERS (2X) PTO SPRAYER (8X) MOIlER aX) FERT INJECTOR LABOR WELL (16X)

SUBTOTAL

OVERHEAD EXPENSES

CAS CAS 15 HP CAS 15 HP ELE MISC ELE

1500 H 272 HR 158 HR 030 HR

1000 HR 720 HR

3680

6300 1496 869

4200

12865

390 364 212 011

5623

6600

180 239 137 061

475

1092

825 386 156 096

353

1816

7695 2485 1374 168

4200 6451

22373

OOIHIME EMPLOYEE BENEFf TS INSURANCE FARM FACILITIES LANI RENT GENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION SUPERVISION OTHER

586 3223 2316

7500

850 386

8163 5000

3223 2316 850 386

8163 5000 7500

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039

3000

17399

3000

30438

TOTAL OPERAJINC EXPENSES 4266 HR 12196 25904 6600 1092 19215 65007 NET oPERA T I HG PROf I T

65007 INTEREST ON OPERATINC CAPITAL INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 3142

1153 RETURN TO bull I SK bull ~ bullbullbull - _ - - ~ - _ - - _ bullbullbullbull - - ~ _ bullbull - _ bullbullbullbull bullbull - bullbullbull

~ - - -_ _-_ __--_ _---__- 69302

Table 13 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine

~~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J~~~~~~ Table 14 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine PL~NTIMG DATES YIELD 387 TREES GROSS RETURNSS4198 80 HARVEST DATES NOVEMBER 15 bull DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0TREE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbull bullbull

bull - bullbull - bullbullbull - bull bull bull bull ~C~A~E~ - FUEL OIL FIXED ~middot~middot~7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~U~~~~~ PLANT INC DATES YIelD 775 TREESQUANT ITY INPUTS LABOR LUBRICANT REPAIU COST TOTAL

~ ___ w~ ___ ____ _ ____ ____ _ _ _ ___ HARVEST OATES NOVEM8ER 15 DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0IREE ~ CROSS RETURNS$9iIOOO - bullbullbullbull (DOLLARS) bullbullbullbullbullbull - bull shy

pOlin PURCHASEDPURCHASED INPUTS ITEM fUEl OIL FIXEDUNIT OUANT IlY INPUTSHERBltlDE 100 ACRE 3700 3700 bull lABOR LUBRICANT RePAIRS-_ _---- _--- _---_ _---- - _--_ - _- __ __ -- COST TOTAL INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 bull FUNGICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 bull bull (DOLLARS) bull A_IUM SULFATE 93800 LB 8~~2 8442 bull

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE T6OOTWINE 38700 EACH 19-35 1935 1600INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800MISCELLANEros TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000 bull 1800

ESTABLISHMENT 113 2781 72 278172 FUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725AMON I UN SULFATE 5~000 lB 4860 4860

SUBTOTAL 18602 2781 72 2967 7~ TWINE 17500 EACH 3875 ~8 7~MISCELLANEOUS TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000

PREHARVEST OPERATIOIIS ESTABLISHMENT 23 ~050 ~050

ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) GAS 3800 HR 15960 988 ~56 2090 1~9~ bull SUBTOIAL 14860PTO SPRAYER (ex) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 360 239 386 2~ 85 bull ~050 698910 MOWER (2X) GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 137~ bull PREHARVEST OPERATIONSfERT INJECTOR ELE 035 oR 012 071 112 195 bull ROTARY PRUNNERS (2)) GAS 3000 HRLABOR Mise 1000 HR ~200 ~2 00 bull 12600 780 360 1650 I5~90PTO SPRAYER (xl GAS 15 HP 238 HRIlELL lt18X) ElE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258 bull MOIlER (ZX) 1309 319 209 338 21 75GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374fEAT INJECTOR ELE 060 HSUBTOTAL 6075 22525 7902 1~38 31~1 35006 021 122 191 334LABOR MIse 1000 HR ~200 4200

HARVEST OPERATIONS WELL (18X) ELE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258

CHAIN SAW GAS 968 HR 4066 252 136 590 50~~ SUBTOTAL 5266DRAG amp lOAD HAND 3225 HR 13545 135~5 18978 7658 1363 2732 J0731 TREE BALER GAS 230 HR 966 177 278 952 2373 HARVEST OPERATIONSTRAILER GAS 15 HP 300 HR 1650 ~11 360 560 2985 CHAIN SAW GAS 1938 HRLABOR Mise 1650 HR 6930 6930 81~0 504 271 1182 10097DRAG amp LOAD HAND 6058 HR 27124 27124

SUBTOIAL 6373 HR 27157 8~0 7 7~ 2106 30877 TREE BALER GAS I 46D HR 1932 354 5~7 1904 4747TRAILER GAS 15 HP 600 HR 3300 822 720 1128 5970LABOR MISC ~OOO NROVERHEAD EXPENSES 16800 16800 OOHlE 2321 12763 12763 bull SUBTOTAL 13~56 HREMPLOYEE SENEF lIS 89~3 89~3 bull 57296 1680 1548 4214 6~7 38

INSURANCE 850 850 bull OVERHEAD EXPEHSESFARM fACILITIES 386 366 bull OCltJNTJME 3~70LAND RENT 8163 8163 bull 19637 19637EMPLOYEE BENet liSGENERAL amp ADMINISTRATlOil 5000 5000 bull 13729 13729 SUPERVISION 7500 7500 bull INSURANCE

850 850FARM FACILITIESOTHER 3000 3000 bull 386 386LAND RENTMARXETING 2399~ 2399~ 8163 8163

SUPERVISION GeNERAL 8 ADMINISTRATION

5000 5000 SUBTOTAL 2321 HR 23994 29206 17399 70599 7500 7500

MARKETING OTHER

3000 300048050 48050

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 14769 HR 29550 ~~401 347~ 1250 287125 367738 bullbull SUBTOTAL 3570 HR ~8050 ~0866 17399 106315 IIpoundT OPERATING PROfIT 1121~2

TOIAl OPERATING EXPENSES 22292 HRINTEREST (JIj OPERATTNG CAPlTAL 6545 62910 117140 9338 2911 708395 900694 INTEREST (JIj EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 2473 NET OPERATING PROFIT

60306 10312~

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT IHVESlMENT 8659

3361 RETURN TO R I so

TIoCmiddotTHIRDS OF THESE COSTS IlERE ALLOCATED AS PROOUCTl(Jlj COSTS fORIREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 7 48286iI ~--~-- ----- ~ --~--- -~------ -----~-- yen - bullbullbullbull -- ~ -- ----_ _w ___ ________ 0 _______ _w __ IHIS TOTAL INCCltPORATES ONLY THE EXPENSE ASSOCATEO WITH THE TREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 6 BECAUSE OF THIS THE COLUMN

WILL NOT SUM TO THIS VALUE

24 25

~ i C -i Q

= foil

Table 15 Cash flow for a 160-aere Cbristmas tree rann (147 net planted aeres lIIII====_=====IIIlIII======S=II==2=II=___1I3_III========s_bullbullbullbull=z=a==a============bullbull==~=bullbullbull==11======aSS==lIIlII======================================================

Year 1 fear 2 Year J tear 4 Year 5 Year 6 fear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 fear 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 lllttows _=====

Sale of Trees so so so so so $101035 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 S302585 S302585 $302585 $302585 OUtflows

Purchased Input 5 Tree stock 1921019m 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210Cover ~rass seed 315 9sect1~ 19m 315 315 315 19m 19m 315 19m 19m 19m 19m315 315 315 315erbicuSe 1019 2415 3633 4851 5628 6405 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741Insecticide o 378 756 1~ 1890 22611 22611 22611 22611 2268 2268 2268 22611 22611Ftrlgicide o o o H~ 1087 U~ 1449 U~ 1449 1449 449 ~~~ 1449 1449 t449 1449Amonhn Sui tate o 444 1109 1~ 5676 5676 5676 ~~~X 5676 5676Tree guards 788 788 788 2~ 4~~ 788 53 53 53 788 788 5~ 5~ 53788 788 788Miscellaneous tools 420 578 735 893 105g 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365Twine o o o o i~ 1220 l~~ l~~ij 1220 1220 1220 1220 1220 lm lnOIrrigatlon system 31500 3150031 508 31500 31500 31500 31500 3150g 31500 31500 31~~g 31500 31500 31500 31 gtog 31~~g 31500 31500Eqult 33750 o o o 1045g o o o 266j0 o o a 10450 o oFarm facilities 17000 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oPre-harvest Operations o CustQll1 1_ preparation 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651Spray 204 578 844 1271 1698 2124 2498 2498 2~g 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498Harrow 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 168 1611 1611 Mark rows 309 309 309 Seed 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 Haul plants 42 42 42 42 42 309309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309

42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42Pl t (hand) 1861 2 ~Iy Netting 1~ 1~

794 1~ ~2 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ ~2 1~ 1 1861 1861 1861 861 li~ Orlp installaton 221 221 221 211

~l 794 794 794 794 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 2lt1495 990 1485 1733 1980 2228 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475Shear amp train 2415a o 864 2303 3743 7398- 1~~~ 1~~~ 10283 10283 10283 10283

i seel taneous 1amp1raquor 882 76 2646 Appt ter t it i zer o o o 10~g~ 10m 10m 10~g~ 10~g~ 10283

35 71 141 182 182 182 182 182 182 lr2 Purping costs 480 1121 617435l8 5292 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 Ot 174 6174 6174 6174

Harvest operations 2081 3l02 i~~g 5923 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 73k4

Cut tr~s o Drag amp load trees o 2807o o 935 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 Wrap trees o o 2374 7115 ~~~~ ~~~ 1115 7115 7115 7115 7115 7~ 7115o o o 298 895 895 895 7J~ 895 7~~~ 895 895 895 895 895Haul trees o o o 508 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525MisceHaneous labOr o 1525o o 1455 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366Overheed Oowotime 648 1007 IS58 2235 2911 5522 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346E1lloy benefits 4611 742 1145 1631 3933 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581Insurance 179 357 536 114 2~~

1071 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250Land r~t 1575 3150 4725 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025G amp A 1050 lloo 3150 4lOO 5250 6300 tgro 7350 7350 7350 7350 1~m k~~~ 7350 ~m 7350 7350 735a~~~Vision 472S 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11021575 3150

11m 11~~~ 025 11~~630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 63mMarketng II o o o o 5052 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 lSI29

1 Based on total of 147 planted acres by Year 7 A total of 21 (Jeres are planted each year year 1 consists ot 21 planted acres year 2 a total of 42 etC

-- --~ -~-~ r IJampamp $ ~H ~M LgtH~-~Lw~

110 0 middot W It 110 OO~~~~o~~OOO OampooooooosectOii S~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~H~ = - 11 11=L = 110 _ N N 0 M

bull c _~_

bullbullbull 2 _ M~

cash needs of the operation The farm will produce a positivei 0goooo00020poundN t-~~~~ t-~Fg~ORi ~ UNHIt U to OOE~l2~O~ft~oOI L 110 lS -lIi iIl~lI)t i1 ---a~ - 3

N annual cash flow starting in the seventh year However a total N bullbull u _N N~ - - ~N ~ $E~3

bullbull It 0 t N of $540819 in cash is expended through the first 6 years Ao~ooooooo~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~V~~ ~=~==~C ~ OOi~~~~O$~OOO ~ laquoS_~_ i i6~ ~gIIt_~o~ -=~ I total of 11 years are needed (five positive cash producingbullM Ii IfII 110 II n N -~ ~ _ N t- _ _ ~ ~~~= N III H 0 years) before the cash outflows incurred during the first 6 ~

~ = =a OOsect~~~O~OOO o~ooooooo~~~i 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ =~= years are covered This is based on selling trees at $1240L= V ~ ~N ~~ ~~ ~4 N~ ~~~ i i~e s -- N S The budgets were developed for a 35-year period because=gt- tt n this was thought to be a reasonable economic life5~~ ~ OO~~~roO~~O~O degmoooooooi~~ ~=~~~ ~mi5~5~~ ~=~= amp0 - ~ - III middot

__ ~ ~ _ 0 Nt- _ Ntn ~~~ ~ -~~- ~ pound Additionally a 35-year life allows for five 7-year

planting-through-harvest rotations Based on the rotationbull C) MM C OO~~~~degri~OOO OampOOOOOOO~~~~m 2E~~~ ~~~sect~~~~ ~u~= i c L ~ ~

N~v N N~ ~~ N~ ~4 ~~~~~~ ~ iii schedule only Inth of the total acreage would be planted ini = i

-SfIJ n= ~ - -I anyone year The cash costs in year 1 therefore include onlyRi = ~ ~~~~~i~~5me~~ i~sect~~ ~~~~~~~~ E~ lias amp0 ~~~~~~J~~~~OO H II n ~ 0- ~~w- ~ = ~~ Nt- - ~~_~t- ~ ~ct N planting expense for Inth of the total acreage or 21 acresW - - -= ~ Year 2 would again include planting expenses for Inth of theCtI 110- -~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~o~~~g~ ~G~ liN Q) $ ___ cOP ___~ i_IiInJX lIlCoo~_ flt nc II II tn ~~i~~~~~~~~00 =~ N ~ 0_11 - N w (1= Ot- N~ Oo~t-- i Ef~~ acreage and the second year growing expenses for the 21=- =tt ~ - acres planted originally The total expenses of a fullymiddot =S 1II ~~~_~~~~~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~sect~~ l~~~~~~~ Ec~ _ tl_-= ~u ~ operating facility are first incurred in the seventh year The

~ ~NII -~_ 1I1f N ~o~ N~ - ~o~=~~ ~ eg~R- 1111 0 - t first year of full revenue is also obtained in year 7 (21 acres of Cite ~ ~~~~~~~N~~~~~ ~~~~~ I~~~~~g~ ~r~i

~ _ ~ cOPNN __~ ~_m~~ ~1nO~O~~ Nfl~M

= or ~~~~~~~~~~O tt l 387 trees in their sixth year and 21 acres of 775 trees in their0- ~N_~ _ _0 N ~o~ N~ - ~~_=t--= ~ ~gGbull N= iI - - - ~i 1 seventh year ofgrowth)III

4iiii i~ ~ As the farm approaches the end of its economic life it was~~~_~~~~~~~~OO i~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~pound~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~i~E i

I middotL= 0- -oN_tI- - ~ N _ N~ot-- Nt-- ~ ~o_~t-= ~ ~U~ ii= = ~ assumed that the operator would stop planting Therefore as 11 - a l ~ 13 ~~~~g~i~N~~~~~ i~~~~ ~~a~~IC~~ E=~= of year 29 no more planting expenses are incurred It wasltV bull V ~~~~~~~~~~OO 0- N - -= ~N0ftIo - Ieo ~ t= -oN 1I _0- - N~ ~~ Nt- - ~o-~= ~ ~ft~c =a ~ - t assumed the land would be either left idle or used for otherIIIJ - -

= ~ purposes In year 35 the final year of operation only 21 acresa~= tQ ~~~~~~~re~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~ E~a N 0- -0 ___ _III u N _ N~o~ N~ _~ ~o-=~= ~ ~~~III ~ ~ of seventh-year trees would remain to be harvested At thisgt- - - -I point the entire operation would be closed down No salvagesect ii~ 1II ~~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~$~9~~ i~~~~ ~~~~sect~~ E~I II

II Ltf __ ~ ~N-II N ~ Ni ~~ N~ ~~ ~~~i~ i ~=in value was assumed because the land used was either leased or ~ -11~ 1= shy

I ~ rented and all equipment or buildings had no remainingc 15 ~ ft ~~~rd~~J~~~~~O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~E~iIII 0- QN-V 0 N _ N~o~ N ~~_~~~ ~ ~~~ i useful life H= ~ - ltgt ~ 15 Over the project life it would be necessary to replace some to tQ ~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~S~~~ 2Ei~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~5~i t ~ equipment For the purpose of this study it was assumed that~ I ~ -oN_~ _ - N _ N~ ~~ _ ~o_=~~ ~ ~~ I -= I= ~ - i all equipment would be used until it was no longer-=1 ~lt~S~-~N~~~~1 t-~~~~ ~co~~~o~ ~ft i011 V-- ~ o~- ~~NN__~ i_~V~ ~II~OO~_ ~~ ~~~~~_~i~~~OO a salvageable at which point it would be replaced new Table 16

r bullbull tv () -ON _ - N N~o~ ~ _ ~o-== ~ ~I~ I middot ~ - - - ~ shows the replacement schedule assumed in the cash flow i ~ Note that this table reflects the assumed useful life of the~ -=bull gi

i

iii s equipment rather than its depreciable life Also two itemsCgt I 1 u lJi~ ~ t- I ~ - ~ i the chain saws and the tree balers are not necessary until year -111) l -E I ~ l~~ _E ==Ilbull- ~ 1 ~j c ~ ~ ~ -5 -_ bull s

~~~ ~ ~~ _ ~ ~ L~ OL ~ 0 6 II 6 and were not purchased until that time Based on the highc _~~~~~WL ~-=] ii1t~ ~~ ulpoundlzl ~~ ~ = 1 i~uZul ~~I S Lo-- 2 L ~It~~ -i ~ ~

J L~_ ~m LOCmiddot gt- ampogt-~-~~ ~tc -lt 0 011 CIt -= = 2 ~~~t~5middotFi~f~~i~iitli-~fi~fifiiiI f Ii ~ilaquoI - ~ =~U=_~~~~~_W~U0Z~EZ~CQE~CEAL3QZEQW_~000 ~middot - ~ 8 Ii ~ I ~ middotmiddot -

29

111

f ~middot~middot~LC -- - ~i~

n ~ illII I~ II

Ii II

~~ Table 16 Equipment replacement schedule for a 160-acre ~ Christmas tree farm in New Mexico 1988 ~

usage during a short time period and the relatively short life of these items they were replaced every 5 years

Analysis

Because there are many unknowns encountered when projecting cost and returns and because different locations may be faced with different situations a series of scenarios were provided to evaluate the financial feasibility of the project Three major variables were altered concurrently to create the different scenarios These variables were

1 Prices 2 Yields 3 Costs

Price

A base price of $1240 was assumed The sensitivity of the return to a change of $1 increments over a range of $2 was measured

Yield

Changes in teld were based on altering the number of saleable trees This was done as a percentage of the total trees planted For example a 90 rate would mean that 90 of the 1452 trees originally planted or 1307 trees were available for sale This variable not only affect~ gross revenue but also alters any costs associated with the number of trees harvested Costs such as cutting field hauling baling and brokering are all altered by changes in the number of trees harvested and were assumed to be linear

Yield might also be altered by decreasing the space between trees For example a 5 by 5 spacing yields 1742 planted trees If 80 were saleable this would be 1394 trees

30

Item

Facilities

Well

Tractor

PTO sprayer

Trailer

Mower

Injector

Rotary pruners

Chain saw

Tree baler

iIIii Year ~

L 6 lL 16 2L 26 JL II~ Cost ~

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -(dollars) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- If 17000 ~

~ 10200 i

~

1bull1 113000 13000 13000 13000 1

~I 1200 1200 1200 1200 ~

bull p

~Ii ~

2400 II

800 800 800 800 ~ -I

I1200 1200 1200 1200 ~ 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 t

IiiIii 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 J

~ ~ ~ JOW JOW ~ ~ JOW

50750 10450 26650 10450 26650 10450 26650 I~ISource Table 3 IiIJ

f ~ J ~Cost ~

11I~ Because costs vary by farm and by location it was felt that a sensitivity should be performed on this variable Rather than bull

talter a specific cost or a specific category of costs the total bullIIj

cost was increased or decreased by a percentage and the Ji results evaluated Costs were altered in 10 increments in ~

Iijeither direction The 0 column uses those costs shown in the cash flow

t ~II

1

~I~ 31 ~

Feasibility Assessment

The internal rate of return (IRR) is a technique used to evaluate investment opportunities that incorporates the time value of money concept The internal rate of return for an investment project (in this case a Christmas tree planting) is the discount rate that equates the present value of the annual net cash revenue flows with the projects acquisition cost The net cash revenue is the difference between the cash receipts and cash expenses generated by an investment project over its economic life The time value of money is based on the economic fact that $1 today is worth more than a promise of $1 at some future date because of its current earnings potential

An investment can be accepted or rejected based on its internal rate of return (IRR) Acceptability of the investment depends on a comparison of the IRR with the investors required rate of return (RRR) Acceptability can be based on the following decision rules if IRR exceeds RRR accept the investment if IRR = RRR be indifferent and if IRR is less than RRR reject the investment

While IRR is a useful technique in project evaluation there are some problems with its use The major concern when using IRR is it assumes all cash inflows can be reinvested at the same rate as the resulting IRR percentage Should the IRR percentage be in the vicinity of the current rates of return of other investment instruments IRR is a reasonably accurate measure of return on investment However should the rate of return be much higher than current returns available elsewhere the resulting return on investment may be overstated The inverse is true at lower rates of return

The Net Present Value (NPV) is another way of evaluating projects that involve capital outlays over a period of years The NPV method discounts all future cash outlays and inflows back to a present-year basis using a specified interest (discount rate) The discount rate chosen is usually the opportunity cost of using equity funds in an alternative use or the cost of borrowed capital increased by an appropriate premium for risk or a combination of these The NPV

32

method is preferred over the IRR method when evaluating one investment against alternative similar type investments

Based on the sensitivity analysis discussed above a table was developed to show the IRR under the various scenarios Table 17 shows the internal rates by the per-unit price The analyses is based on pre-tax returns At $1040 per tree the IRR ranges from -14 when costs were increased by 10 and saleable yields were reduced to 60 to 160 when costs were decreased by 10 and 90 of the trees planted were sold At $1140 the IRR range is from 14 to 185 under the same conditions as above At $1240 per tree the IRR ranges from 38 when costs were increased 10 and 60 of the trees are saleable to 207 when costs were decreased 10 and saleable yields were at 90 At $1340 per tree the IRR ranges from 60 to 228 At $1440 per tree a grower could expect an IRR from 80 to 248 under the scenarios presented

A pre-tax analysis using Net Present Value (NPV) was also completed for the various scenarios The results of this analysis are shown in table 18

If an IRR of 12 is chosen as a minimum rate desired for investment growers must receive at least $1140 per tree and attain a level of 80 saleable trees and good cost control to have a successful investment At prices greater than $1140 per tree and 80 saleable product the investment appears to have possibility

33

Table 17 Internal Rates of Return (lRR) estimates for a 160-acre Table 18 Net Present Value (NPV) estimates for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost cbanges cha~es Ising a discount rate of 12

Percentage Percentageof saleable Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount

of saleabletrees 10 lower No chan~ 10 bilber trees --percent-shy

_______ - - - - - - - - - - - (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - shy

$1040 Tree Price 900 130 102900 160 BOO

SOO 128 97 69 700 60 31700 91 600

-14600 48 16

$1140 Tree Price( 900 127185 155

123 95900 800 SOO 153 700 700 116 86 58 600

14600 74 43

$1240 Tree Price 900 lJJ7 178 150900 BOO

118SOO 176 146 700 139 109 81700 600

38600 97 66

$1340 Tree Price 900 900 228 198 171 BOO

167 139SOO 197 700103700 161 130 600

600 119 88 60

$1440 Tree Price 900 BOO

248 218 191900 700159SOO 216 186 600

180 150 123700 80

Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount _ 10 lOwer No change 10 higher

-middot----middotmiddot---middot--bull-----dollars------bullbullbullbull -bullbullbull shy

$1040 Tree Price 175195 32602

(110936) (253415)

44502 (97269)

(2399BO) (381637)

(86191) (227140) (369023) (509859)

$1140 Tree Price 299293 167950 36607 142927

(14476) (170717)

12478 (144024) (299372)

(117971) (273573) (428028)

$1240 Tree Price 423391 291398 159406 253252 81984

(88019)

122225 (48069)

(217107)

(8BOl) (178123) (346196)

$1340 Tree Price 547489 414847 282204 363576 231972 100368 178445 (5321)

47886 (134842)

(82673) (264364)

$1440 Tree Price 671587 538295 405003 473901 341719 209538 274905 143841 12777 77377 (52578) (182532)

138 108 N01E Parentheses mean negative number

34 35

600

Investor Analysis

The following analysis considers the impact of the US tax laws (revised October 1987) on investing in Christmas trees The approach is identical to the previous IRR and NPV analysis except the impact of federal and state income taxes is considered in the annual stream of cash flow

The basis assumptions used are as follows

1 The taxpayer investor is in a 40 tax bracket on marginal income when combining both state and federal income taxes

2 The investor is actively engaged in managing the Christmas tree farm so that revenues and losses can be counted as active income or the investor has other passive investment income to offset any passive losses from growing Christmas trees

3 The Section 179 one-time deduction of $10000 per year is used in other businesses operated by the investor

4 Depreciation was calculated using the modified ACRS rules published by the IRS in 1987 Publication 225

5 The Christmas tree enterprise falls under the IRS rules for Christmas tree cultivation requiring capitalization of planting and stump culture for trees more than 6 years of age Because one-third of the trees are sold within the 6-year time limit one-third of planting expenses were deducted in the year incurred and the remaining two-thirds were capitalized and written off when the trees were sold in the seventh year

6 The investor uses a cash accounting system for tax purposes

36

The pre-tax IRR for the scenario with trees selling for $1240 each 80 harvestable yield and standard costs was 146 The IRR after-tax considerations fell to 125 (table 19) One might compare the after-tax return of 125 to other after-tax investments of comparable risks The after-tax NPV for the above scenario is $18069 compared to the pre-tax NPV of $122225 using a 12 discount rate

37

0

Table 19 Investor cash now analysis lor a l6O-acre Christmas tree larm (per planted acre basis) S=~=bullbull=I==~==~=bullbull====iI=bullbull2a==IIiIII bullbullbullbull===========n====ZIUSS=====bullbull===lllJ=====$~nUIlt1=llIIlta====s=a====II===============bullbullbull==II=~====lltz===-===U===========1II==X=======_==li=

Year 1 rHr 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year S Ye8l 6 tear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 1Q Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Tear 18

Net Cash Flow BelMe T8)( ConeiderattOlS (116411) (75439) (86658) (99354)(111768) (51189) 119810 119810 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810

Tax ONKtiona

Oeprec i at i on Irrigation syat far Foelli amp Equip

7875 1440

14625 7440

19446 7440

22890 7440

25378 7440

27156 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

Planting E_ 8209 10585 13004 16006 18568 22423 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031

~~~- ~t~t 1~~~r 1~ n~~ ~~m i~m ~M ~U~~ ~~M ~M ~~~ ~m ~M ~~~ ~~~ ~~M ~~M ~~M Total TalC DeOoctlons 33265 49193 65833 81973 96875 130860 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189341 189341 189311 189341 189341 189311

~rI~ (3326~) (4979~) (6583g) (819~) (968~) l~m) m~ ~~~~f~ mJ~ ~H~ m~~ mm ~~H~~ ~~B~ ~~im mm mJ~ ~~B2~ Inc_ ra Saings 13306 19917 26333 32189 38750 11930 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc_ TalC Oue 0 0 0 0 0 0 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297

let Cash flow (1037) (5522) (60325) (66) (737018) (397259) 74512 7Z2 74512 74512 7862 7512 74~12 rZSt2 142 M=062 1512 14512 =s===========s=_====sbullbullc=======-===================_======-=-==========I====S======-===========================e===s====================s==============r=================

Net Cash Flow Before Tax Considerations 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810 119810 190654 179442 217765 230460 242421 165733

T81 OlaquoiJcti ons

Depreciation

~ili~r Equip 2g~~ 2U~~ 2~~~ 2~~ 2~~~~ 2~g~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ 2~~ 2~~~ 2~n~ 1~~J ~~8 ~~~ f2zS 2~

~i~-OVerhoad

zg8M62335

zg8M62335

Z~~~ 62335

zg8M62335

ig8M62335

zg~~62335

i8M62335

i8M62335

t8M62335

i~8M 62335

Zg~~62335

~~~~~53665

~~~~ 46402

~tg~~40943

~~ ~~~35402 29986

ll~8~~

Total TaJ( Deduct_ 189341 189341 187121 187121 187121 187121 181121 181121 187121 187121 187121 156112 133925 117431 101291 86842 60718

I Froll Sales 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 201550 ~~~es~~= 1132~ m24~ 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154~ 1154~ 14647~ 16866g 1855~ 20129t 21574~ 1408~

Income la~ Due ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ Met Cash FloW =-2========SCI========

74512=I=====

74512 46974 73624 73624 73624 73624 63174 73624 __===_=_=============bullbullbullSamp====1II_1I31amp=II================_=II==__ == 73624_===__==

73624=======

132065 _=-=bullbull

111978======S=====

143703 ======_==

149943=======1I

156124 ========laquo

109400 ======_

~

Appendix Table Amiddotl United States Department ofAgriculture grade standards for Christmas trees

Christmas Tree Grades Factor US Premium US No1 US No2

Density Not less than Not less than Light or better medium medium

Tapera Normal- Normal- May be less than 40 to 90 40 to 90 40 or more

than 90

Damage-free faceb 4 3 2

Foliage Fresh clean Fresh clean Fresh clean and healthy and healthy and healthy

Shapec Well-shaped Well-shaped Well-shaped crown crown crown

Handle not Handle not Handle not less less than 6 less than 6 less than 6 or more than or more than or more than 134 per foot 1 34 per foot 1 34 per foot of tree height of tree height of tree height

aTaper of a tree is defined as the width of a tree expressed as a percentage of its height

Face means the visible surface area of a tree as viewed from 8 to 10 feet from the tree A tree is considered to have four faces each face constituting 14 of the tree

cHeight of a tree is defined in terms of foot or half-foot steps and is measured from the base of the handle to a point on the leader not more than 4 feet above the apex of the cone of the taper

Source Proebsting Buhaly and Wanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest 1981

40

4iUJiMMiFeuro iampi~t~Ityen)--

Literature Cited

Clevenger Tom et at The Wholesale and Processing Market for Locally Grown High Value Crops Research Report 572 New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station July 1985

Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture (Mora Research Center) New Mexico State University Guidelines for Growing and Marketing Christmas Trees in New Mexico New Mexico Department of Natural Resources October 1980

Huntley Wallace Marketing Christmas Trees-Turning a Problem into an Opportunity American Christmas Tree Journal August 1984 pp 41-43

Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury Fanners Tax Guide Publication 225

Proebsting William M Joseph Buhaly and Donald Hanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest Pacific Northwest Extension Publication PNW6 January 1981

41

Page 5: Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and ...

Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and White Fir Plantation Christmas

Trees in New Mexico

William D Gorman Robert E Grassberger Jr James T Fisher John G Mexal Gall A Welsh

Tom Clevenger and Robert R Lansford

This report evaluates the cost and fInancial feasibility of growing Scots pine and White fIr plantation Christmas trees These varieties are suitable for growing at elevations of 5000 feet or higher in New Mexico Warmer growing areas primarily areas below 5000 feet in elevation are suitable for production of elderica pine (Pinus brutia subsp elderica) a conifer that grows rapidly but is not suitable for higher elevations The most popular Christmas tree species grown at elevations above 5000 feet in elevation in New Mexico are Scots pine (Pinus aylvestris) White fIr (Abies concolor) and Douglas fIr (Pseudotsuga menziesii)

Although Christmas trees of various sizes can be marketed this report is limited to the evaluation of 5 to 7-foot trees grown with irrigation for a period of 6 to 7 years

middotProfessor Depanment of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Business Coordinator of Economic Development Cooperative Extension Service Professor and Associate Professor Agronomy and Honiculture Research Specialist Professor and Professor Depanment of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Business respectively

1 vi

~higm1SfMSj 7 ~ij~~t-~rt~~S~middotmiddotjmiddotmiddot

PRICES AND MARKETS

Prices for Christmas trees are not quoted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Statistical Reporting Service on a regular basis from organized markets as is the case for most agricultural commodities Therefore it is considerably more difficult to arrive at an average or typical grower price to use in crop budgets and cash flow projections Price information contained in this report was obtained from telephone interviews with 10 Christmas tree producing and marketing firms One of these firms was acknowledged by several of the others as the industry price leader The firms interviewed were selected because they had marketed Christmas trees in New Mexico Texas or Oklahoma and had been active in the business for several years The firms were not selected at random They were either recommended by the National Association of Christmas Tree Growers or by other growers

The firms were first interviewed in February 1987 and again in February 1988 Information on prices by species was obtained for the 1986 season in the 1987 interviews Information on price changes over the 1982 through 1986 period was obtained during the 1988 interviews

Prices to growers depend upon tree quality species tree size number of trees sold supply and demand for trees and the type of market outlets used Quality is important The USDA has established grade standards for Christmas trees (Appendix table 1) Christmas tree growers and wholesalers interviewed stressed how important it is to produce excellent quality uniform trees to receive top market prices The reputation of the grower is important in pricing because buyers do not inspect all trees before the sale

Marketable trees range in size from 2-foot table top trees to those more than 20 feet tall used primarily by commercial civic and church groups Prices per foot for shorter trees tend to be less than for taller trees Large volume growers frequently give price discounts for larger orders Typical price discounts ranged from $025 to $1 per tree on orders of more than 350 trees and sometimes an additional discount of up to $1 per tree on orders for more than 700 trees

The type of market outlets selected by growers will influence the prices received Market outlets available to growers included (1) choose-and-cut (2) retail tree lots (3) supermarkets (4) other retail establishments (5) wholesalers (6) groups and organizations and (7) cut trees direct to individual retail customers There is also a comparatively small market for live Christmas trees Depending on the number of Christmas trees ready for harvest and the proximity to metropolitan areas anyone or a combination of the above may be possible outlets for New Mexico growers According to the NCTA of the total Christmas trees sold by US growers in 198644 were sold directly to retail lots operated by others 7 at commercial retail lots operated by the grower 38 to wholesalers and 11 on a choose-and-cut basis on the farm Table 1 lists selected characteristics of these different markets

Market contacts should be made early in the year Sales arrangements to wholesalers and large retailers are usually made in June and July The question of who pays the transportation costs is sometimes negotiated however most trees are sold fob farm with the buyer responsible for transportation charges and arrangements

Species is also important in determining price (table 2) According to the survey wholesale buyers will pay about $1 per tree more for 5-7 foot White fir than for Scots pine and $3 to $5 more than for Douglas fir

According to the firms interviewed the average farm-level wholesale price has been gradually increasing since 1982 The firms were asked to provide price information for the years 1982 through 1986 for Scots pine and Blue Spruce because they were the most popular varieties The average price by year by species was determined from the information received using the following procedure For each species the highest and lowest reported prices were eliminated and the remaining three prices averaged Then simple average price for the two species was taken resulting in the following prices per 5 to 7-foot tree

1982 $1249 1985 $1365 1983 $1299 1986 $1403 1984 $1337

32

gtBl~igtul_Wg_~$jl1 iil T tilb 1~~~5~gt4~-

Table 1 Selected characteristics by type of marketing method for Table 2 Prices received by Christmas tree growers for Scots pine cut Christmas trees

Characteristics Choose-and-cut

Marketing Methods Retail sale Sale to ~ ~roducer retailer

Sale to wholesaler

Percent of national market

11 7 44 38

Sales labor yes yes no no

Location of farm

Important To be near population center

Important Ooseto population center

Accessible to bulk transport

Accessible to bulk transport

Additional etpenses

Tools toilets insurance parking road maintenance advertising

Lot rental license fees transshyportation advertising

Delivery to

destinashytion

May have to deliver

to destinashytion

of sales price to grower

100 100 50-60 30-50

Volume oftrees Umitedby location and local population

Umitedby location and local population

Regional national distribushylion channels

May have regional distribushylion

channels

Other advantages Cashdonot have to cut Secondary sales-shywreaths garlands

Cash secondary sales-wreaths garlands quality control

Do not have to deal with public

Do not have to deal with public

Disadvantages Then Theft Contract necessary

Contract necessary

White fir and Douglas fir 5middot foot tree when sold in quantities of 600 trees or more 1986

Species Price Range Average Pricea

Scots pine $1175 - $1290 $1187

White fir $1150 - $1375 $1290

Douglas fir $870 - $945 $908

middotSimple average of prices quoted by respondents The prices reported were not weighted by volume sold

Source Telephone interviews with 10 Christmas tree growers and wholesalers in selected states February 1987

The Blue Spruce trees of comparable size and quality sold typically from $4 to $6 more than Scots pine

The survey results indicate growers could have produced Douglas fir and sold 5 to 7 -foot trees in the $9 per tree price range At the other extreme growers could have planted Blue Spruce seIling for about $16 per tree However the Blue Spruce grows slower and is not expected to attain an average size of 6 feet when grown from a seedling in a period of 6 to 7 years For purposes of this economic assessment it was assumed growers would elect to produce Scots pine and White fir seIling at prices higher than Douglas fir but lower than Blue Spruce It was also assumed growers would sell nearly all their trees on a cut basis to wholesalers with the buyer being responsible for freight However growers with fewer trees to market than as assumed in this report might want to consider some direct-to-consumer marketing alternative to increase revenues

Additional market information for Christmas trees in the AlbuquerqueSanta Fe area is available in a report by Clevenger et al (1985)

4 5

~t1~~lr lamp In 7 nl_lhkii ~~t~~~~e

j gt -gt ~ VI D -gt o C ~ FULL-COST BUDGETS III o o o o o o o o o g o o

0

-Full-cost budgets were developed to illustrate the costs o o o incurred over the 7-year production cycle Full-cost budgets ill ~ 5o o oas the name implies include all costs including such possibly o o o g 8 c on o

2i N VI onon-cash items as depreciation and opportunity costs for n VI to ltXl N ~ VI N 0gt ~ VI ~ orgt -owner capital management and land rent 4 ltII

C

~ gt o ltXl -gt N - -gt -gt N N

Assumptions and Specifications -i tl-il CI bull v

-4Farm Characteristics o QI

o U o g o co N o o co8 D i -i g v8 co o It was assumed the farm was devoted entirely to the a D -gtbull Q

N ~

V

Christmas tree enterprise The farm consists of 160 acres of n ltII which 147 were planted to Christmas trees The additional 13

I~ ~ Eo o o -gt o N co N co VI shyacres were allotted for roads firebreaks ditches fences and co S N 6 gi -gt VI ibuildings The land was assumed to have been previously ~ VI ~ I e bull Cplanted therefore clear of rocks and other debris When in full production the farms would be planting and haIVesting 21 acres of trees each year J N N -gt o

i i f

8 -gt ~ 4 W gt o ~ 0 gt 0 C vI 0 ~

gt I Equipment middotc E

g 8 g g g VI VI

a o 8 o on N N ltIi ~ 0 ~ -gt ~ I~

o

g

I o ~ -gt N A farm completely devoted to producing Christmas trees H ~~ 0

tJ o 0under drip irrigation does not require a wide array of OJ

l -4 equipment The major items needed include a small tractor ~t l chain saws power pruners tree baler sprayer trailer for lIS

ltII 0 ltII gt hauling grass mower and a liquid fertilizer injector pump e 0OJ

I toLarger tractors and disks are needed for initial land

W

0 shyC

l ltII

VIpreparation but because only 21 acres are planted each year ~ QI u it is cost effective to hire these services on a custom basis ltII ltIl QI QIgt gt shys 0~ ~ lt3 lt3 Some farms may buy a Christmas tree planter but these o

v53 co budgets were prepared assuming hand planting oThe farm will not need border disks disks for weed control i ii7

3 v or land leveling equipment because of the drip irrigation r ~

~ ~system and the grass ground cover cultural practice sect s I shy

1gt ~

I shy

~ The annual fixed and variable costs for the equipment were ti ltII e n ltII ~ I- ~

~ shy~ ~ weestimated using the New Mexico State University crop budget ~ l 1 ~ o ~ H u ~ t a ~ To ~ ~

76

generator (table 3) In addition to the equipment discusSed above a 1000 gallon-per-minute well was included in the equipment table The farm will also require the part-time use of a pickup truck This cost was included in the supervision expense category The total cost of equipment including the irrigation well was estimated to be $39250 or $267 per planted acre

Pre-Harvest Operations

Land Preparation

Because the land was assumed to have been previously planted it was unnecessary to clear the land The major operations in land preparation were plowing disking and harrowing All of these operations were assumed to have been hired on a custom basis

Planting

Hand planting was assumed Planting-labor requirements are based on a rate of 100 trees per hour per individual The total time required to plant 1 acre is estimated at 1210 hours based on planting 1210 trees per acre

The cost of plastic tree netting was budgeted to protect seedlings from rodent damage The plastic netting cost is $3750 per acreand is included in the purchased input section of the budgets A total of 9 hours per acre is required to apply the netting

All trees planted do not survive the first year Some growers will replant the blanks but others often will not replant because this practice results in an uneven harvest The budgets assume no replanting would be done

Planting and Harvest Schedule

For the purpose of this report trees were assumed to be of a 5 to 7-foot marketable size 7 years after planting To maintain a consistent quantity of harvestable trees only 1nth

8

of the total acreage (21 acres) would be planted in any calendar year Hence in years 1 through 6 21 acres would be planted each year In year 7 21 acres would be planted and the 21 acres planted in year 1 would be harvested This staggered planting schedule assures a continuous marketable supply and income to the grower starting in the seventh year

Obviously acreage not planted during the first 6 years could be planted to some other crop For simplicity however this acreage was assumed to have gone unplanted and to have generated no revenue or to have incurred any costs

Tree Population

For marketable trees of 5 to 7 feet a minimum spacing of 5 by 5 feet is recommended (Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture 1980) For the purpose of this study a 5 by 6 foot spacing was used This spacing allows planting 1452 trees per acre

Seedling Sources

There are many sources where trees can be bought as seedlings The source assumed was the Forestry Division of the New Mexico Natural Resources Department At the time of writing this division offered containerized seedlings to New Mexico growers who have more than 1 acre and can meet certain other conditions1 The price was $58 per 98 seedlings or $59 per seedling A price of $63 per tree was used in the budgets to incorporate the cost of the seedlings and transportation

Tree Species

It was assumed that Scots pine and White flf would be the species of choice to expand market opportunities and to avoid risks associated with crop monocultures (Proebsting et

I For infonmltion COntact Divison of Forestry POBox 2167 Santa Fe NM 87504-2167

9

llt_SWic-yenfoWtfte- ffgIUij_~1i~~~iVjWri~

aI 1981 Risks such as species-specific diseases increase with monoculture Most foresters suggest reducing this risk by planting more than one species

Irrigation

Most areas of New Mexico require supplemental irrigation to maintain the necessary soil moisture to keep the trees growing near their potential It was assumed that all plantations were irrigated with a drip system fed with pumped well water The drip system including all filters laterals and emitters was estimated at $1500 per acre2 The cost of installing the drip line was estimated at $11 per acre and is included as a line item under preharvest operations The cost of the well was included in equipment costs

Water needs per acre vary with the tree size and annual rainfall An annual rainfall of 15 inches was assumed Table 4 shows the additional acre-inches of water required per acre by year

The electric well was assumed to be pumping from a depth of 200 feet at 1000 GPM Table 5 shows the well characteristics and operation costs Based on these assumptions the cost per-acre inch was determined to be $352

~ Based upon estimates provided by Mr Ron Bliesner of Keller-Bliesner Engineering Logan Uf

10

Table 4 Acre-inches of applied water by year

Year AEElied Acre-Inches

1 6

2 8

3 12

4 14

5 16

6 18

7 18

Source Ke1ler-Bliesner Engineering Company Logan UT

Table S Well characterlsdcs for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm

Well Characteristics

Static water level (feet) 200 Draw down (feet) 40 Delivery PSI 8 Gallons per minute 1000 Electric efficiency factor 470

Energy use per hour (KWH) 10367 Fuel cost per hour $778 Cost per acre-inch $352

11

t_hltiirll~9~amp6ii11jjltfllU J[BIl1IiHitilut~~W~~tlaquo+middot -~---

Cover Crop

Many Christmas tree farmers plant a cover crop of native grass between rows A cover crop reduces soil erosion and is a positive step toward vegetation management Irrigation water was not applied to the cover crop

The budget assumes that a native grass was sown before the trees were planted After the cover crop is established a non-selective herbicide such as Round-up was assumed to have been sprayed in 24-inch swathes to create grass-free rows to be planted with trees The native grass seed was estimated to cost $15 per acre Drilling the seed was included under the preharvest operations in the budget as a custom operation at $850 per acre

Mowing was included under preharvest operations as well The number of times the inter-row area needs to be mowed was decreased as the tree cover increased therefore mowing costs vary by year

Chemicals

Crop chemicals such as fertilizer herbicides insecticides and fungicides were included in the budget under purchased inputs Table 6 shows in detail the chemical name the prescribed use unit of measurement application rate number of times applied per year per unit prices and total cost per acre The costs of applying these chemicals were included in the budget under preharvest operations

Shearing and Training

Shearing is the cutting of leader and lateral branches to improve the trees shape and density (Proebsting et al 1981) Shearing produces a more saleable tree than would normally be produced otherwise Shearing may be done either by hand with shearing knives machetes or hand pruners or mechanically with light-weight sickle bar clippers or rotary pruners Rotary pruners were assumed to have been used for shearing in this report

Table 6 Chemicals applied per acre by year ror Christmas tree rarms 1988

Per Unit Total acre price cost

Year Chemical Use Unit rate Times $ $

1 Roundup Atrazine 80W

Herbicide Herbicide

gal Ills

05 50

10 10

8000 170

4000 850

2 Roundup Atrazine 80W Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate

Herbicide Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer

gal Ills Ills qt

Ills

02 50 20 10

2350

10 10 10 30

10

8000 170

2100 600

010

1600 850

4200 1800

2233

3 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer

gal Ills qt

Ills

02 20 10

3520

10 10 30

10

8000 2100 600

10

1600 4200 1800

3168

4 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 20 10

4690 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 4200 1800

4456 1725

5 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 10 10

4690 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 2100 1800

4456 1725

6 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 10 10

9830 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 2100 1800

4456 1725

7 Roundup SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal qt

Ills Ills

02 10

5400 15

10 30

10 20

8000 600

010 575

1600 1800

5130 1725

12 13

AA~1~rmiddot~i~I~~~iiltfi~)~~1i~~~4~iamp_1 2U~ampJl2lJMlIIINIiI1m~~S1lt~h

Shearing generally begins when the tree height is about 5 feet For the budgets some shearing was assumed to begin in year 3 however labor in year 3 mainly reflects training of the trees Training helps develop a straight marketable tree The greatest number of hours were needed in years 6 and 7 to prepare trees for market

Estimated chemical needs were obtained from Drs John Mexal and James Fisher Professors of Horticulture New Mexico State University Many of the above chemicals are unnecessary because many pest and disease problems found elsewhere do not currently occur in New Mexico however it was felt as acreage of the crop increases the need for chemical use would also be necessary

Harvest Operations

The harvest generally consists of 4 to 5 weeks and is the most labor intensive activity in Christmas tree growing HalVest operations consist of selecting the trees for halVesting cutting baling and transporting to the market Timing is imperative and weather can be difficult during this period

Because some trees grow faster than others it is usually possible to harvest about 13 of the crop in the sixth year The remaining 213 of the total crop would be cut the seventh year Experienced growers generally halVest about 80 of the trees they plant as a result of death loss and cullage3 This means each acre yielded 1162 marketable trees if 1452 trees per acre were originally plantedOfthe 1162 trees halVested 13 or 387 trees are halVested in year 6 and 775 trees were cut in year 7 Trees not accounted for in the projected halVest either died or were not acceptable as Christmas trees

The trees selected for halVest are often marked before cutting to prevent halVest crews from having to make decisions about tree grades while cutting After cutting trees are carried to the access road and hauled to a central area where they are baled The trees are then loaded on trucks and shipped to the wholesaler or other market outlets

gtCulled trees may be made into wnaths or sold as boughs This was not assumed as a SOurce of revenue in this report

14

HalVest arrangements with wholesalers vary In some cases wholesalers perform all halVest operations in others the wholesaler will mark the trees they want to buy Some agreements call for the wholesaler to transport the trees from field side others place the responsibility for shipping on the producer

This paper assumed the responsibility of selection and harvest was with the producer and that transportation to the market place was paid for by the wholesaler

Post-Harvest Operations

After the field has been completely halVested in the seventh year it is generally replanted to trees the following spring Some growers remove the remaining stumps Stump removal however is an expensive and time consuming process The preferred method appears to be to replant new seedlings half the distance between the remaining stumps within the row The remaining stumps are then allowed to decay naturally This method of replanting between stumps was assumed for this paper

Overhead Expense

Table 7 shows the overhead expenses assumed for the 160 acres with 147 net planted acres

Downtime is the additional labor time allowed because of time lost for such things as machine repairs moving to and from fields and waiting for deliveries A downtime rate of 20 of the total labor hours was applied in the budgets

Employee benefits include any programs that full-time or part-time employees may obtain such as social security workmens compensation insurance group life and health insurance and paid vacations Although this cost can be negligible on most small farms an 18 rate on the coSt of labor was applied here

Insurance was estimated at $850 per planted acre This includes coverage of equipment and farm liability

15

~_~ ~ -h n~middotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot _ middotmiddotbullm-middot middottlt1Gmiddotmiddotgtmiddotti~q~~middot~middot)Gv~--e~~~~~i4iM5tll L MIbullbull Jtpoundi8)l] II ha bullUMtflIf~~~Hjl~kllI~1cent

Table 7 Annual overhead expenses on a 160-acre Christmas tree fanna

Downtime 20 ofdirect labor hours

Employer benefits 18 of direct labor hours

Insurance $850 per planted acre

Farm facilities $386 per planted acre

Land rent $8163 per planted acreb

General and administrative $50 per planted acre

Supervision $75 per planted acre

Other $30 per planted acre

Brokerage 5 of gross revenue

88sed 003tOUtTof 147 pl8nted acres 1Is7s per acre on the total of 160 acres

It was assumed farm facilities were required to protect equipment from weather and to provide office space A simple pole building was used for protecting equipment and was estimated to cost $8000 An additional $9000 was allotted for an office structure The cost of these facilities was spread over a service life of 35 years The cost per planted acre was approximately $4 per acre

Land rent was assumed to be $82 per planted acre or $75 per acre on the gross farm acreage If the land is already owned outright this would represent the opportunity cost of having planted the land to Christmas trees

General and administrative expenses include management salaries secretarial expenses and costs associated with running and maintaining the office such as telephone copying

16

and bookkeeping The amount associated with general and administrative expenses was $50 per planted acre

Supervision expenses were incurred to oversee field operations A $75 per planted acre expense was used for supervision This figure is arbitrary but includes funds for possibly hiring a foreman It also includes funds for pickup truck expenses The 147 net planted acres provides an annual supervision expense fund of $11025

Other expenses is a catch-all category for irregular or unexpected items such as fence or road repair additional hand tools or added administrative expenses The other expenses assumed here were $30 per acre per year

A brokerage fee was included in the budgets as a marketing expense The producer often serves as his own broker and in this case the fee included in the budgets would be viewed as an opportunity cost of the producers time A fee of 5 of gross revenue was used as a brokerage expense

Interest

An interest expense was included for opemting capital and equipment investment Rates of 12 and 10 respectively were used 4

For the full-cost budgets the interest expense on operating capital needed each year from the time of planting was compounded through the seventh year and charged off as an expense in the harvest year If the capital used was all equity capital rather than borrowed this could again be construed as an opportunity cost of the use of the producers money

Establishment Expenses

The establishment expense is the actual cost of growing the trees to harvestable size (tables 8 through 13) To show the total return and the total costs incurred during the harvest

IbeSeinterest rates imply an average annual inflation rate or at least 3to 4 per year A realistic analysis could increase the annual cash expenses and revenues by a 3 to 4 compounded rate over the 35middotyear investment period This approach would result in higher estimated returns Future expenses and revenues were not adjusted ror inflation in this report hence the results may be underestimated

17

MtiS 4ampIi- iJi4MliIllITftif ~2k+Csectlgt--~Smiddot-f

year the full-cost budget for years 6 and 7 include an establishment expense under the purchased input category (tables 13 and 14) This expense is based on cost estimates from the first five years of production and is prorated to the appropriate year based upon the harvest yield ratio S Because there is a time value associated with the capital used to grow the trees a compounding factor was also included The rate used to compound was 10 The total establishment expense per planted acre was estimated to be $2782 allocated in year 6 and $6840 in year 7 The $6840 allocated in year 7 includes $616 of interest expenses associated with having to wait another year (year 6 to 7) before these expenses are recovered The establishment expenses amounted to $719 and $883 per harvested tree respectively for trees harvested in the sixth and seventh years Net returns would increase significantly if all trees would reach harvestable size by year 6

Total Cost Per Acre

Based on the budget estimates made for years 6 and 7 a total cost of $12895 per acre planted or $1110 per tree harvested was required to grow Christmas trees through harvest This cost includes all equipment expenses chemicals land rent labor overhead and interest

Price Sensitivity of Full-Cost Budgets

To determine the return to risk when all costs are accounted for the gross revenue must also be estimated The gross revenue is a function of number of trees harvested and the price per tree The yield of 80of the total planting or 1162 trees was assumed as fIXed in this part of the analysis and only the price was varied A per tree price of $1240 was used as the base with a $1 change in either direction Using the $1240 per tree price a net return of $158372 per acre harvested was derived At $1140 per tree $1 less a net return

gtc)f the total yield 13 was harvested in year 6 and 23 in year 7

q

i g

I middoto~ ~ ~8

~i ~ ~

_z1~ ~s -~

~g

~

~ ~3

z ~ ~i r cu

m~zIi ~ ~=gt

~s ~-

5 oS ~

~J t ~It ~c= ~c lI-Q

i l- ~~ fI) = I iI~ = CIt

f 8 ~ a

(I III laquoIC 5 ~cI iIoU ~

ltI ~ CllioS~ Ol fo- ~ ~ j$ S ~ ~In~

~~~ggg

oi~oo -o-4-C~ ~

0000 0utqno 0

ritO 0 ~-4tltl- N

w ~w

tJtDWU C-amptoe(

oot)o ~~~lt= _Ot) -0

Ie

8glg~~~~i~~g~ t o~-eOaiNOQN 0 N-4N S

11 N ~ill -- 0

~ ~ ~~

1tc ~ ~~ -4 _

I

~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~_OO~N shy 1_ ~

gg 8~ st i~ tOtO i

~ ~~~ ~ X x=~

~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~Q~~N N~

~ g~ E

~ ~ ~ 0 Q i1lJ~W

lto(c- aa~aai5~ ttlZW

~ tQ __ -I iffi Z ~wtll~ow=i~~~~ ~e=~~~5~~tUQCI =VIE a C-lI-

g~~~~g8g~ ~NeOQarQ a) ~

~~~q ~~ laquo)~ ~S

o o~~ UN ~

~ ~

0

~(fIii

~

i

o N

bull ~ l

i

~

~

~ ~

S ~

18 19

Table 9 Per acre tun cost budgets ror growiDg White Fir and Scots Pine

~-~~-~~~~-~-~~~-~-~~-~-~~-~~-~-~~~~~~~~--~~-~~-----------------------_------YIELD

HARVEST DATES PLANTING DATES

PlIlCE -- ~-- - - - bull - - - bullbull - bull - - - ~ - - bull - bull QUANTITY PUR~~~ LABOR ~~iJ~~ REPAIRS Fgi~ TOTAl

TEM UNIT __ bullbull ________ bull __ _ _ ___ ___ bull ___ ___ bull __ _ __________ bullbullbullbull _________ bullbullbullbullbullbullbull _ bull ------_ bullbullbullbullbullbull - -- bull bull - - - - bull (DOLLARS) bullbullbull - - bullbullbull

PURCHASED INPUTS 6650100 ACRE 66501lER8ICIOE 1800100 ACRE 1800INSECTICIDE 211523500 LB 2115MOIII~ SULFATE 750100 ACRE 750MISCELLANECIlS TOOLS 1131511315SUBTOTAL

PREHARVEST OPERATIONS 21751309 319 209 338PTO SPRAYER (X) ampAS IS P 238 HR 27491738 423 275 313MOWER (410 GAS 15 HP 316 HR 4200

Mise 1000 HR 4200LABOR 3226~ 360 IR 2812 238 176WELL (ex) ELE

123501914 7247 3554 722 827SUBTOTAL

OVERfAD EXPENSES 1709311 1709OOWIITIME EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

13041304 850 850

INSURANCE 386 386 FARM FACILITIES 8163 8163 LAND RENT 5000 5000GENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION 75007500suPERVISION 3D00 3000 OTHER

17399 2791210513SUBTOTAL 311 HR

3554 722 18226 515_7711315 17760TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 2225 IR

-51577NET OPERATING PROFIT

2678INTEREST ON OPERATI~G CAPITAL 831INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT

-55086 ~~~~-~~~~- _- _- -_ -_ ----- --_ ---- -- -- ----_ --_ --___ _ - _------ __

Table 10 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 3 estabUshment) NM 1988 PLANTING DATES YIELDHARVEST OATES PRICE

POWER PURCHASED FUEL OIL FIXEDITEM UNIT QUANTITY INPUTS lABOR LUBRICANT REPAIRS COST TOTAL --_ - - _- ---- - -_ -- --_ - - - -(DOlLARS)

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE 5800 5800MOIII~ SULFATE 35200 LB 3168 3168INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800MISCELLANECIlS TOOLS 100 ACRE 750 750

SIJIITOTAL 11518 11518

PRE HARVEST OPERATIONS ROTARY PRUIINERS GAS 900 HR 3780 234 108 495 4617PTO SPRAYER (5X) GAS 15 HP 1 70 R 935 228 150 241 1554MOWER (4X) ampAS 15 HP 316 HR 1738 423 275 313 2149LABOR Mise 1000 IR 4200 4200ELL (12X) ELE 540 HR 4217 356 265 4838

N SUBTOTAL 2926 10653 5102 889 1314 17958 - (MRNfAl) EXPENSES OOWIITiME 477 2625 2625EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1918 1918INSURANCE 850 850FARM FACILITIES 386 386LAIIO RENT 8163 8163GENERAL _rNISTRATlON 5000 5000SUPERViSiON 7500 7500OTHER 3000 3000

SUBTOTAL 477 HR 2043 17399 29442

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 3403 HR 11518 22696 5102 889 18713 58918

NET OPERATI KG PROF IT middot58918

I NTEREST ON OPERAT I NG CAP ITAL 2930 INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT INVESTMENT 964

RETURN TO RISK 62812 ~ -~- -_ ~ ~~ ~ _ - -

Table 11 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas ~~~~~~~~~~~_~~~t~~~~~ ___ _ ~i~~middotDAEmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot YIELD

HARVEST OATES PRICE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull PURCHASED FUEL Oil FIXED

PMR INPUTS LA~ LUBRICANT REPAIRS COST TOTAL ~~~~~~- middotmiddotDOt~~middot PURCHASED INPUTS

HERBICIDE 100 ACRE 5800 5800 INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 fUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 AMONIUM SULFATE 46900 LB 4221 4221 MlsCElLANEClJS TOOLS 100 ACRE 750 750

SUBTOTAL 14296 14296

PRE HARVEST OPERA liONS ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) CAS 1500 HR 6300 390 180 825 7695 PTO SPRAYER (ax) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 364 239 386 2485 MOIlER (2X) CAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374~ FERT INJECTOR ElE 030 HR 011 061 096 168 LABOR MISC 1000 HR 4200 4200 lElL (14X) [L 630 HR 49bull 20 416 309 5645

SUBTOTAL 3590 12865 5897 1033 1772 21567

OVERHEAD EXPENSES DOIINTIM 586 3223 3223 EMPLOYEE BENEF ITS 2316 2316 INSURANCE 850 850 FARM FACILITIES 386 386 LAND RENT 8163 8163 CENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION 5000 5000 SUPERVI SION 7500 7500 OTHER 3000 3000

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039 17399 30438

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 4176 HR 14296 25904 5897 1033 19171 66301

NET OPERATl NG PROF IT 66301

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL 3247 INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 1102

70650~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~--

Table 12 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas trees (year 5 establishment) NM 1988 PLANTING OATES HARVEST OATES YIELD

PRICE

lIEM PMR

IJHlT QUANT lTy PURCHASED

INPUTS

~~~~~

FUEL OlL LA80R LUBRICANT

REPAIRS FIXED COST TOTAL

PURCHASED INPUTS - shy ~ ~ bull bull bull (DOLLARS) bull - bull HER81CIOE INSECTICIDE FUNCICIOE AMOHIUM SULFATE MI SCELLANEOUS TOOLS

SU8TOTAL

PREHARVEST oPERATIONS

100 ACRE 100 ACRE 100 ACRE

46900 L8 100 ACRE

3700 1800 1725 4221 750

12196

3700 1800 1725 4221

750

12196

ROTARY PRUHNERS (2X) PTO SPRAYER (8X) MOIlER aX) FERT INJECTOR LABOR WELL (16X)

SUBTOTAL

OVERHEAD EXPENSES

CAS CAS 15 HP CAS 15 HP ELE MISC ELE

1500 H 272 HR 158 HR 030 HR

1000 HR 720 HR

3680

6300 1496 869

4200

12865

390 364 212 011

5623

6600

180 239 137 061

475

1092

825 386 156 096

353

1816

7695 2485 1374 168

4200 6451

22373

OOIHIME EMPLOYEE BENEFf TS INSURANCE FARM FACILITIES LANI RENT GENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION SUPERVISION OTHER

586 3223 2316

7500

850 386

8163 5000

3223 2316 850 386

8163 5000 7500

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039

3000

17399

3000

30438

TOTAL OPERAJINC EXPENSES 4266 HR 12196 25904 6600 1092 19215 65007 NET oPERA T I HG PROf I T

65007 INTEREST ON OPERATINC CAPITAL INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 3142

1153 RETURN TO bull I SK bull ~ bullbullbull - _ - - ~ - _ - - _ bullbullbullbull - - ~ _ bullbull - _ bullbullbullbull bullbull - bullbullbull

~ - - -_ _-_ __--_ _---__- 69302

Table 13 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine

~~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J~~~~~~ Table 14 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine PL~NTIMG DATES YIELD 387 TREES GROSS RETURNSS4198 80 HARVEST DATES NOVEMBER 15 bull DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0TREE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbull bullbull

bull - bullbull - bullbullbull - bull bull bull bull ~C~A~E~ - FUEL OIL FIXED ~middot~middot~7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~U~~~~~ PLANT INC DATES YIelD 775 TREESQUANT ITY INPUTS LABOR LUBRICANT REPAIU COST TOTAL

~ ___ w~ ___ ____ _ ____ ____ _ _ _ ___ HARVEST OATES NOVEM8ER 15 DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0IREE ~ CROSS RETURNS$9iIOOO - bullbullbullbull (DOLLARS) bullbullbullbullbullbull - bull shy

pOlin PURCHASEDPURCHASED INPUTS ITEM fUEl OIL FIXEDUNIT OUANT IlY INPUTSHERBltlDE 100 ACRE 3700 3700 bull lABOR LUBRICANT RePAIRS-_ _---- _--- _---_ _---- - _--_ - _- __ __ -- COST TOTAL INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 bull FUNGICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 bull bull (DOLLARS) bull A_IUM SULFATE 93800 LB 8~~2 8442 bull

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE T6OOTWINE 38700 EACH 19-35 1935 1600INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800MISCELLANEros TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000 bull 1800

ESTABLISHMENT 113 2781 72 278172 FUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725AMON I UN SULFATE 5~000 lB 4860 4860

SUBTOTAL 18602 2781 72 2967 7~ TWINE 17500 EACH 3875 ~8 7~MISCELLANEOUS TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000

PREHARVEST OPERATIOIIS ESTABLISHMENT 23 ~050 ~050

ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) GAS 3800 HR 15960 988 ~56 2090 1~9~ bull SUBTOIAL 14860PTO SPRAYER (ex) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 360 239 386 2~ 85 bull ~050 698910 MOWER (2X) GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 137~ bull PREHARVEST OPERATIONSfERT INJECTOR ELE 035 oR 012 071 112 195 bull ROTARY PRUNNERS (2)) GAS 3000 HRLABOR Mise 1000 HR ~200 ~2 00 bull 12600 780 360 1650 I5~90PTO SPRAYER (xl GAS 15 HP 238 HRIlELL lt18X) ElE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258 bull MOIlER (ZX) 1309 319 209 338 21 75GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374fEAT INJECTOR ELE 060 HSUBTOTAL 6075 22525 7902 1~38 31~1 35006 021 122 191 334LABOR MIse 1000 HR ~200 4200

HARVEST OPERATIONS WELL (18X) ELE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258

CHAIN SAW GAS 968 HR 4066 252 136 590 50~~ SUBTOTAL 5266DRAG amp lOAD HAND 3225 HR 13545 135~5 18978 7658 1363 2732 J0731 TREE BALER GAS 230 HR 966 177 278 952 2373 HARVEST OPERATIONSTRAILER GAS 15 HP 300 HR 1650 ~11 360 560 2985 CHAIN SAW GAS 1938 HRLABOR Mise 1650 HR 6930 6930 81~0 504 271 1182 10097DRAG amp LOAD HAND 6058 HR 27124 27124

SUBTOIAL 6373 HR 27157 8~0 7 7~ 2106 30877 TREE BALER GAS I 46D HR 1932 354 5~7 1904 4747TRAILER GAS 15 HP 600 HR 3300 822 720 1128 5970LABOR MISC ~OOO NROVERHEAD EXPENSES 16800 16800 OOHlE 2321 12763 12763 bull SUBTOTAL 13~56 HREMPLOYEE SENEF lIS 89~3 89~3 bull 57296 1680 1548 4214 6~7 38

INSURANCE 850 850 bull OVERHEAD EXPEHSESFARM fACILITIES 386 366 bull OCltJNTJME 3~70LAND RENT 8163 8163 bull 19637 19637EMPLOYEE BENet liSGENERAL amp ADMINISTRATlOil 5000 5000 bull 13729 13729 SUPERVISION 7500 7500 bull INSURANCE

850 850FARM FACILITIESOTHER 3000 3000 bull 386 386LAND RENTMARXETING 2399~ 2399~ 8163 8163

SUPERVISION GeNERAL 8 ADMINISTRATION

5000 5000 SUBTOTAL 2321 HR 23994 29206 17399 70599 7500 7500

MARKETING OTHER

3000 300048050 48050

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 14769 HR 29550 ~~401 347~ 1250 287125 367738 bullbull SUBTOTAL 3570 HR ~8050 ~0866 17399 106315 IIpoundT OPERATING PROfIT 1121~2

TOIAl OPERATING EXPENSES 22292 HRINTEREST (JIj OPERATTNG CAPlTAL 6545 62910 117140 9338 2911 708395 900694 INTEREST (JIj EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 2473 NET OPERATING PROFIT

60306 10312~

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT IHVESlMENT 8659

3361 RETURN TO R I so

TIoCmiddotTHIRDS OF THESE COSTS IlERE ALLOCATED AS PROOUCTl(Jlj COSTS fORIREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 7 48286iI ~--~-- ----- ~ --~--- -~------ -----~-- yen - bullbullbullbull -- ~ -- ----_ _w ___ ________ 0 _______ _w __ IHIS TOTAL INCCltPORATES ONLY THE EXPENSE ASSOCATEO WITH THE TREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 6 BECAUSE OF THIS THE COLUMN

WILL NOT SUM TO THIS VALUE

24 25

~ i C -i Q

= foil

Table 15 Cash flow for a 160-aere Cbristmas tree rann (147 net planted aeres lIIII====_=====IIIlIII======S=II==2=II=___1I3_III========s_bullbullbullbull=z=a==a============bullbull==~=bullbullbull==11======aSS==lIIlII======================================================

Year 1 fear 2 Year J tear 4 Year 5 Year 6 fear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 fear 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 lllttows _=====

Sale of Trees so so so so so $101035 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 S302585 S302585 $302585 $302585 OUtflows

Purchased Input 5 Tree stock 1921019m 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210Cover ~rass seed 315 9sect1~ 19m 315 315 315 19m 19m 315 19m 19m 19m 19m315 315 315 315erbicuSe 1019 2415 3633 4851 5628 6405 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741Insecticide o 378 756 1~ 1890 22611 22611 22611 22611 2268 2268 2268 22611 22611Ftrlgicide o o o H~ 1087 U~ 1449 U~ 1449 1449 449 ~~~ 1449 1449 t449 1449Amonhn Sui tate o 444 1109 1~ 5676 5676 5676 ~~~X 5676 5676Tree guards 788 788 788 2~ 4~~ 788 53 53 53 788 788 5~ 5~ 53788 788 788Miscellaneous tools 420 578 735 893 105g 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365Twine o o o o i~ 1220 l~~ l~~ij 1220 1220 1220 1220 1220 lm lnOIrrigatlon system 31500 3150031 508 31500 31500 31500 31500 3150g 31500 31500 31~~g 31500 31500 31500 31 gtog 31~~g 31500 31500Eqult 33750 o o o 1045g o o o 266j0 o o a 10450 o oFarm facilities 17000 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oPre-harvest Operations o CustQll1 1_ preparation 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651Spray 204 578 844 1271 1698 2124 2498 2498 2~g 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498Harrow 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 168 1611 1611 Mark rows 309 309 309 Seed 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 Haul plants 42 42 42 42 42 309309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309

42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42Pl t (hand) 1861 2 ~Iy Netting 1~ 1~

794 1~ ~2 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ ~2 1~ 1 1861 1861 1861 861 li~ Orlp installaton 221 221 221 211

~l 794 794 794 794 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 2lt1495 990 1485 1733 1980 2228 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475Shear amp train 2415a o 864 2303 3743 7398- 1~~~ 1~~~ 10283 10283 10283 10283

i seel taneous 1amp1raquor 882 76 2646 Appt ter t it i zer o o o 10~g~ 10m 10m 10~g~ 10~g~ 10283

35 71 141 182 182 182 182 182 182 lr2 Purping costs 480 1121 617435l8 5292 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 Ot 174 6174 6174 6174

Harvest operations 2081 3l02 i~~g 5923 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 73k4

Cut tr~s o Drag amp load trees o 2807o o 935 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 Wrap trees o o 2374 7115 ~~~~ ~~~ 1115 7115 7115 7115 7115 7~ 7115o o o 298 895 895 895 7J~ 895 7~~~ 895 895 895 895 895Haul trees o o o 508 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525MisceHaneous labOr o 1525o o 1455 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366Overheed Oowotime 648 1007 IS58 2235 2911 5522 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346E1lloy benefits 4611 742 1145 1631 3933 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581Insurance 179 357 536 114 2~~

1071 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250Land r~t 1575 3150 4725 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025G amp A 1050 lloo 3150 4lOO 5250 6300 tgro 7350 7350 7350 7350 1~m k~~~ 7350 ~m 7350 7350 735a~~~Vision 472S 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11021575 3150

11m 11~~~ 025 11~~630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 63mMarketng II o o o o 5052 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 lSI29

1 Based on total of 147 planted acres by Year 7 A total of 21 (Jeres are planted each year year 1 consists ot 21 planted acres year 2 a total of 42 etC

-- --~ -~-~ r IJampamp $ ~H ~M LgtH~-~Lw~

110 0 middot W It 110 OO~~~~o~~OOO OampooooooosectOii S~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~H~ = - 11 11=L = 110 _ N N 0 M

bull c _~_

bullbullbull 2 _ M~

cash needs of the operation The farm will produce a positivei 0goooo00020poundN t-~~~~ t-~Fg~ORi ~ UNHIt U to OOE~l2~O~ft~oOI L 110 lS -lIi iIl~lI)t i1 ---a~ - 3

N annual cash flow starting in the seventh year However a total N bullbull u _N N~ - - ~N ~ $E~3

bullbull It 0 t N of $540819 in cash is expended through the first 6 years Ao~ooooooo~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~V~~ ~=~==~C ~ OOi~~~~O$~OOO ~ laquoS_~_ i i6~ ~gIIt_~o~ -=~ I total of 11 years are needed (five positive cash producingbullM Ii IfII 110 II n N -~ ~ _ N t- _ _ ~ ~~~= N III H 0 years) before the cash outflows incurred during the first 6 ~

~ = =a OOsect~~~O~OOO o~ooooooo~~~i 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ =~= years are covered This is based on selling trees at $1240L= V ~ ~N ~~ ~~ ~4 N~ ~~~ i i~e s -- N S The budgets were developed for a 35-year period because=gt- tt n this was thought to be a reasonable economic life5~~ ~ OO~~~roO~~O~O degmoooooooi~~ ~=~~~ ~mi5~5~~ ~=~= amp0 - ~ - III middot

__ ~ ~ _ 0 Nt- _ Ntn ~~~ ~ -~~- ~ pound Additionally a 35-year life allows for five 7-year

planting-through-harvest rotations Based on the rotationbull C) MM C OO~~~~degri~OOO OampOOOOOOO~~~~m 2E~~~ ~~~sect~~~~ ~u~= i c L ~ ~

N~v N N~ ~~ N~ ~4 ~~~~~~ ~ iii schedule only Inth of the total acreage would be planted ini = i

-SfIJ n= ~ - -I anyone year The cash costs in year 1 therefore include onlyRi = ~ ~~~~~i~~5me~~ i~sect~~ ~~~~~~~~ E~ lias amp0 ~~~~~~J~~~~OO H II n ~ 0- ~~w- ~ = ~~ Nt- - ~~_~t- ~ ~ct N planting expense for Inth of the total acreage or 21 acresW - - -= ~ Year 2 would again include planting expenses for Inth of theCtI 110- -~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~o~~~g~ ~G~ liN Q) $ ___ cOP ___~ i_IiInJX lIlCoo~_ flt nc II II tn ~~i~~~~~~~~00 =~ N ~ 0_11 - N w (1= Ot- N~ Oo~t-- i Ef~~ acreage and the second year growing expenses for the 21=- =tt ~ - acres planted originally The total expenses of a fullymiddot =S 1II ~~~_~~~~~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~sect~~ l~~~~~~~ Ec~ _ tl_-= ~u ~ operating facility are first incurred in the seventh year The

~ ~NII -~_ 1I1f N ~o~ N~ - ~o~=~~ ~ eg~R- 1111 0 - t first year of full revenue is also obtained in year 7 (21 acres of Cite ~ ~~~~~~~N~~~~~ ~~~~~ I~~~~~g~ ~r~i

~ _ ~ cOPNN __~ ~_m~~ ~1nO~O~~ Nfl~M

= or ~~~~~~~~~~O tt l 387 trees in their sixth year and 21 acres of 775 trees in their0- ~N_~ _ _0 N ~o~ N~ - ~~_=t--= ~ ~gGbull N= iI - - - ~i 1 seventh year ofgrowth)III

4iiii i~ ~ As the farm approaches the end of its economic life it was~~~_~~~~~~~~OO i~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~pound~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~i~E i

I middotL= 0- -oN_tI- - ~ N _ N~ot-- Nt-- ~ ~o_~t-= ~ ~U~ ii= = ~ assumed that the operator would stop planting Therefore as 11 - a l ~ 13 ~~~~g~i~N~~~~~ i~~~~ ~~a~~IC~~ E=~= of year 29 no more planting expenses are incurred It wasltV bull V ~~~~~~~~~~OO 0- N - -= ~N0ftIo - Ieo ~ t= -oN 1I _0- - N~ ~~ Nt- - ~o-~= ~ ~ft~c =a ~ - t assumed the land would be either left idle or used for otherIIIJ - -

= ~ purposes In year 35 the final year of operation only 21 acresa~= tQ ~~~~~~~re~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~ E~a N 0- -0 ___ _III u N _ N~o~ N~ _~ ~o-=~= ~ ~~~III ~ ~ of seventh-year trees would remain to be harvested At thisgt- - - -I point the entire operation would be closed down No salvagesect ii~ 1II ~~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~$~9~~ i~~~~ ~~~~sect~~ E~I II

II Ltf __ ~ ~N-II N ~ Ni ~~ N~ ~~ ~~~i~ i ~=in value was assumed because the land used was either leased or ~ -11~ 1= shy

I ~ rented and all equipment or buildings had no remainingc 15 ~ ft ~~~rd~~J~~~~~O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~E~iIII 0- QN-V 0 N _ N~o~ N ~~_~~~ ~ ~~~ i useful life H= ~ - ltgt ~ 15 Over the project life it would be necessary to replace some to tQ ~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~S~~~ 2Ei~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~5~i t ~ equipment For the purpose of this study it was assumed that~ I ~ -oN_~ _ - N _ N~ ~~ _ ~o_=~~ ~ ~~ I -= I= ~ - i all equipment would be used until it was no longer-=1 ~lt~S~-~N~~~~1 t-~~~~ ~co~~~o~ ~ft i011 V-- ~ o~- ~~NN__~ i_~V~ ~II~OO~_ ~~ ~~~~~_~i~~~OO a salvageable at which point it would be replaced new Table 16

r bullbull tv () -ON _ - N N~o~ ~ _ ~o-== ~ ~I~ I middot ~ - - - ~ shows the replacement schedule assumed in the cash flow i ~ Note that this table reflects the assumed useful life of the~ -=bull gi

i

iii s equipment rather than its depreciable life Also two itemsCgt I 1 u lJi~ ~ t- I ~ - ~ i the chain saws and the tree balers are not necessary until year -111) l -E I ~ l~~ _E ==Ilbull- ~ 1 ~j c ~ ~ ~ -5 -_ bull s

~~~ ~ ~~ _ ~ ~ L~ OL ~ 0 6 II 6 and were not purchased until that time Based on the highc _~~~~~WL ~-=] ii1t~ ~~ ulpoundlzl ~~ ~ = 1 i~uZul ~~I S Lo-- 2 L ~It~~ -i ~ ~

J L~_ ~m LOCmiddot gt- ampogt-~-~~ ~tc -lt 0 011 CIt -= = 2 ~~~t~5middotFi~f~~i~iitli-~fi~fifiiiI f Ii ~ilaquoI - ~ =~U=_~~~~~_W~U0Z~EZ~CQE~CEAL3QZEQW_~000 ~middot - ~ 8 Ii ~ I ~ middotmiddot -

29

111

f ~middot~middot~LC -- - ~i~

n ~ illII I~ II

Ii II

~~ Table 16 Equipment replacement schedule for a 160-acre ~ Christmas tree farm in New Mexico 1988 ~

usage during a short time period and the relatively short life of these items they were replaced every 5 years

Analysis

Because there are many unknowns encountered when projecting cost and returns and because different locations may be faced with different situations a series of scenarios were provided to evaluate the financial feasibility of the project Three major variables were altered concurrently to create the different scenarios These variables were

1 Prices 2 Yields 3 Costs

Price

A base price of $1240 was assumed The sensitivity of the return to a change of $1 increments over a range of $2 was measured

Yield

Changes in teld were based on altering the number of saleable trees This was done as a percentage of the total trees planted For example a 90 rate would mean that 90 of the 1452 trees originally planted or 1307 trees were available for sale This variable not only affect~ gross revenue but also alters any costs associated with the number of trees harvested Costs such as cutting field hauling baling and brokering are all altered by changes in the number of trees harvested and were assumed to be linear

Yield might also be altered by decreasing the space between trees For example a 5 by 5 spacing yields 1742 planted trees If 80 were saleable this would be 1394 trees

30

Item

Facilities

Well

Tractor

PTO sprayer

Trailer

Mower

Injector

Rotary pruners

Chain saw

Tree baler

iIIii Year ~

L 6 lL 16 2L 26 JL II~ Cost ~

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -(dollars) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- If 17000 ~

~ 10200 i

~

1bull1 113000 13000 13000 13000 1

~I 1200 1200 1200 1200 ~

bull p

~Ii ~

2400 II

800 800 800 800 ~ -I

I1200 1200 1200 1200 ~ 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 t

IiiIii 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 J

~ ~ ~ JOW JOW ~ ~ JOW

50750 10450 26650 10450 26650 10450 26650 I~ISource Table 3 IiIJ

f ~ J ~Cost ~

11I~ Because costs vary by farm and by location it was felt that a sensitivity should be performed on this variable Rather than bull

talter a specific cost or a specific category of costs the total bullIIj

cost was increased or decreased by a percentage and the Ji results evaluated Costs were altered in 10 increments in ~

Iijeither direction The 0 column uses those costs shown in the cash flow

t ~II

1

~I~ 31 ~

Feasibility Assessment

The internal rate of return (IRR) is a technique used to evaluate investment opportunities that incorporates the time value of money concept The internal rate of return for an investment project (in this case a Christmas tree planting) is the discount rate that equates the present value of the annual net cash revenue flows with the projects acquisition cost The net cash revenue is the difference between the cash receipts and cash expenses generated by an investment project over its economic life The time value of money is based on the economic fact that $1 today is worth more than a promise of $1 at some future date because of its current earnings potential

An investment can be accepted or rejected based on its internal rate of return (IRR) Acceptability of the investment depends on a comparison of the IRR with the investors required rate of return (RRR) Acceptability can be based on the following decision rules if IRR exceeds RRR accept the investment if IRR = RRR be indifferent and if IRR is less than RRR reject the investment

While IRR is a useful technique in project evaluation there are some problems with its use The major concern when using IRR is it assumes all cash inflows can be reinvested at the same rate as the resulting IRR percentage Should the IRR percentage be in the vicinity of the current rates of return of other investment instruments IRR is a reasonably accurate measure of return on investment However should the rate of return be much higher than current returns available elsewhere the resulting return on investment may be overstated The inverse is true at lower rates of return

The Net Present Value (NPV) is another way of evaluating projects that involve capital outlays over a period of years The NPV method discounts all future cash outlays and inflows back to a present-year basis using a specified interest (discount rate) The discount rate chosen is usually the opportunity cost of using equity funds in an alternative use or the cost of borrowed capital increased by an appropriate premium for risk or a combination of these The NPV

32

method is preferred over the IRR method when evaluating one investment against alternative similar type investments

Based on the sensitivity analysis discussed above a table was developed to show the IRR under the various scenarios Table 17 shows the internal rates by the per-unit price The analyses is based on pre-tax returns At $1040 per tree the IRR ranges from -14 when costs were increased by 10 and saleable yields were reduced to 60 to 160 when costs were decreased by 10 and 90 of the trees planted were sold At $1140 the IRR range is from 14 to 185 under the same conditions as above At $1240 per tree the IRR ranges from 38 when costs were increased 10 and 60 of the trees are saleable to 207 when costs were decreased 10 and saleable yields were at 90 At $1340 per tree the IRR ranges from 60 to 228 At $1440 per tree a grower could expect an IRR from 80 to 248 under the scenarios presented

A pre-tax analysis using Net Present Value (NPV) was also completed for the various scenarios The results of this analysis are shown in table 18

If an IRR of 12 is chosen as a minimum rate desired for investment growers must receive at least $1140 per tree and attain a level of 80 saleable trees and good cost control to have a successful investment At prices greater than $1140 per tree and 80 saleable product the investment appears to have possibility

33

Table 17 Internal Rates of Return (lRR) estimates for a 160-acre Table 18 Net Present Value (NPV) estimates for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost cbanges cha~es Ising a discount rate of 12

Percentage Percentageof saleable Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount

of saleabletrees 10 lower No chan~ 10 bilber trees --percent-shy

_______ - - - - - - - - - - - (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - shy

$1040 Tree Price 900 130 102900 160 BOO

SOO 128 97 69 700 60 31700 91 600

-14600 48 16

$1140 Tree Price( 900 127185 155

123 95900 800 SOO 153 700 700 116 86 58 600

14600 74 43

$1240 Tree Price 900 lJJ7 178 150900 BOO

118SOO 176 146 700 139 109 81700 600

38600 97 66

$1340 Tree Price 900 900 228 198 171 BOO

167 139SOO 197 700103700 161 130 600

600 119 88 60

$1440 Tree Price 900 BOO

248 218 191900 700159SOO 216 186 600

180 150 123700 80

Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount _ 10 lOwer No change 10 higher

-middot----middotmiddot---middot--bull-----dollars------bullbullbullbull -bullbullbull shy

$1040 Tree Price 175195 32602

(110936) (253415)

44502 (97269)

(2399BO) (381637)

(86191) (227140) (369023) (509859)

$1140 Tree Price 299293 167950 36607 142927

(14476) (170717)

12478 (144024) (299372)

(117971) (273573) (428028)

$1240 Tree Price 423391 291398 159406 253252 81984

(88019)

122225 (48069)

(217107)

(8BOl) (178123) (346196)

$1340 Tree Price 547489 414847 282204 363576 231972 100368 178445 (5321)

47886 (134842)

(82673) (264364)

$1440 Tree Price 671587 538295 405003 473901 341719 209538 274905 143841 12777 77377 (52578) (182532)

138 108 N01E Parentheses mean negative number

34 35

600

Investor Analysis

The following analysis considers the impact of the US tax laws (revised October 1987) on investing in Christmas trees The approach is identical to the previous IRR and NPV analysis except the impact of federal and state income taxes is considered in the annual stream of cash flow

The basis assumptions used are as follows

1 The taxpayer investor is in a 40 tax bracket on marginal income when combining both state and federal income taxes

2 The investor is actively engaged in managing the Christmas tree farm so that revenues and losses can be counted as active income or the investor has other passive investment income to offset any passive losses from growing Christmas trees

3 The Section 179 one-time deduction of $10000 per year is used in other businesses operated by the investor

4 Depreciation was calculated using the modified ACRS rules published by the IRS in 1987 Publication 225

5 The Christmas tree enterprise falls under the IRS rules for Christmas tree cultivation requiring capitalization of planting and stump culture for trees more than 6 years of age Because one-third of the trees are sold within the 6-year time limit one-third of planting expenses were deducted in the year incurred and the remaining two-thirds were capitalized and written off when the trees were sold in the seventh year

6 The investor uses a cash accounting system for tax purposes

36

The pre-tax IRR for the scenario with trees selling for $1240 each 80 harvestable yield and standard costs was 146 The IRR after-tax considerations fell to 125 (table 19) One might compare the after-tax return of 125 to other after-tax investments of comparable risks The after-tax NPV for the above scenario is $18069 compared to the pre-tax NPV of $122225 using a 12 discount rate

37

0

Table 19 Investor cash now analysis lor a l6O-acre Christmas tree larm (per planted acre basis) S=~=bullbull=I==~==~=bullbull====iI=bullbull2a==IIiIII bullbullbullbull===========n====ZIUSS=====bullbull===lllJ=====$~nUIlt1=llIIlta====s=a====II===============bullbullbull==II=~====lltz===-===U===========1II==X=======_==li=

Year 1 rHr 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year S Ye8l 6 tear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 1Q Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Tear 18

Net Cash Flow BelMe T8)( ConeiderattOlS (116411) (75439) (86658) (99354)(111768) (51189) 119810 119810 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810

Tax ONKtiona

Oeprec i at i on Irrigation syat far Foelli amp Equip

7875 1440

14625 7440

19446 7440

22890 7440

25378 7440

27156 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

Planting E_ 8209 10585 13004 16006 18568 22423 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031

~~~- ~t~t 1~~~r 1~ n~~ ~~m i~m ~M ~U~~ ~~M ~M ~~~ ~m ~M ~~~ ~~~ ~~M ~~M ~~M Total TalC DeOoctlons 33265 49193 65833 81973 96875 130860 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189341 189341 189311 189341 189341 189311

~rI~ (3326~) (4979~) (6583g) (819~) (968~) l~m) m~ ~~~~f~ mJ~ ~H~ m~~ mm ~~H~~ ~~B~ ~~im mm mJ~ ~~B2~ Inc_ ra Saings 13306 19917 26333 32189 38750 11930 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc_ TalC Oue 0 0 0 0 0 0 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297

let Cash flow (1037) (5522) (60325) (66) (737018) (397259) 74512 7Z2 74512 74512 7862 7512 74~12 rZSt2 142 M=062 1512 14512 =s===========s=_====sbullbullc=======-===================_======-=-==========I====S======-===========================e===s====================s==============r=================

Net Cash Flow Before Tax Considerations 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810 119810 190654 179442 217765 230460 242421 165733

T81 OlaquoiJcti ons

Depreciation

~ili~r Equip 2g~~ 2U~~ 2~~~ 2~~ 2~~~~ 2~g~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ 2~~ 2~~~ 2~n~ 1~~J ~~8 ~~~ f2zS 2~

~i~-OVerhoad

zg8M62335

zg8M62335

Z~~~ 62335

zg8M62335

ig8M62335

zg~~62335

i8M62335

i8M62335

t8M62335

i~8M 62335

Zg~~62335

~~~~~53665

~~~~ 46402

~tg~~40943

~~ ~~~35402 29986

ll~8~~

Total TaJ( Deduct_ 189341 189341 187121 187121 187121 187121 181121 181121 187121 187121 187121 156112 133925 117431 101291 86842 60718

I Froll Sales 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 201550 ~~~es~~= 1132~ m24~ 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154~ 1154~ 14647~ 16866g 1855~ 20129t 21574~ 1408~

Income la~ Due ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ Met Cash FloW =-2========SCI========

74512=I=====

74512 46974 73624 73624 73624 73624 63174 73624 __===_=_=============bullbullbullSamp====1II_1I31amp=II================_=II==__ == 73624_===__==

73624=======

132065 _=-=bullbull

111978======S=====

143703 ======_==

149943=======1I

156124 ========laquo

109400 ======_

~

Appendix Table Amiddotl United States Department ofAgriculture grade standards for Christmas trees

Christmas Tree Grades Factor US Premium US No1 US No2

Density Not less than Not less than Light or better medium medium

Tapera Normal- Normal- May be less than 40 to 90 40 to 90 40 or more

than 90

Damage-free faceb 4 3 2

Foliage Fresh clean Fresh clean Fresh clean and healthy and healthy and healthy

Shapec Well-shaped Well-shaped Well-shaped crown crown crown

Handle not Handle not Handle not less less than 6 less than 6 less than 6 or more than or more than or more than 134 per foot 1 34 per foot 1 34 per foot of tree height of tree height of tree height

aTaper of a tree is defined as the width of a tree expressed as a percentage of its height

Face means the visible surface area of a tree as viewed from 8 to 10 feet from the tree A tree is considered to have four faces each face constituting 14 of the tree

cHeight of a tree is defined in terms of foot or half-foot steps and is measured from the base of the handle to a point on the leader not more than 4 feet above the apex of the cone of the taper

Source Proebsting Buhaly and Wanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest 1981

40

4iUJiMMiFeuro iampi~t~Ityen)--

Literature Cited

Clevenger Tom et at The Wholesale and Processing Market for Locally Grown High Value Crops Research Report 572 New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station July 1985

Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture (Mora Research Center) New Mexico State University Guidelines for Growing and Marketing Christmas Trees in New Mexico New Mexico Department of Natural Resources October 1980

Huntley Wallace Marketing Christmas Trees-Turning a Problem into an Opportunity American Christmas Tree Journal August 1984 pp 41-43

Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury Fanners Tax Guide Publication 225

Proebsting William M Joseph Buhaly and Donald Hanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest Pacific Northwest Extension Publication PNW6 January 1981

41

Page 6: Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and ...

~higm1SfMSj 7 ~ij~~t-~rt~~S~middotmiddotjmiddotmiddot

PRICES AND MARKETS

Prices for Christmas trees are not quoted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Statistical Reporting Service on a regular basis from organized markets as is the case for most agricultural commodities Therefore it is considerably more difficult to arrive at an average or typical grower price to use in crop budgets and cash flow projections Price information contained in this report was obtained from telephone interviews with 10 Christmas tree producing and marketing firms One of these firms was acknowledged by several of the others as the industry price leader The firms interviewed were selected because they had marketed Christmas trees in New Mexico Texas or Oklahoma and had been active in the business for several years The firms were not selected at random They were either recommended by the National Association of Christmas Tree Growers or by other growers

The firms were first interviewed in February 1987 and again in February 1988 Information on prices by species was obtained for the 1986 season in the 1987 interviews Information on price changes over the 1982 through 1986 period was obtained during the 1988 interviews

Prices to growers depend upon tree quality species tree size number of trees sold supply and demand for trees and the type of market outlets used Quality is important The USDA has established grade standards for Christmas trees (Appendix table 1) Christmas tree growers and wholesalers interviewed stressed how important it is to produce excellent quality uniform trees to receive top market prices The reputation of the grower is important in pricing because buyers do not inspect all trees before the sale

Marketable trees range in size from 2-foot table top trees to those more than 20 feet tall used primarily by commercial civic and church groups Prices per foot for shorter trees tend to be less than for taller trees Large volume growers frequently give price discounts for larger orders Typical price discounts ranged from $025 to $1 per tree on orders of more than 350 trees and sometimes an additional discount of up to $1 per tree on orders for more than 700 trees

The type of market outlets selected by growers will influence the prices received Market outlets available to growers included (1) choose-and-cut (2) retail tree lots (3) supermarkets (4) other retail establishments (5) wholesalers (6) groups and organizations and (7) cut trees direct to individual retail customers There is also a comparatively small market for live Christmas trees Depending on the number of Christmas trees ready for harvest and the proximity to metropolitan areas anyone or a combination of the above may be possible outlets for New Mexico growers According to the NCTA of the total Christmas trees sold by US growers in 198644 were sold directly to retail lots operated by others 7 at commercial retail lots operated by the grower 38 to wholesalers and 11 on a choose-and-cut basis on the farm Table 1 lists selected characteristics of these different markets

Market contacts should be made early in the year Sales arrangements to wholesalers and large retailers are usually made in June and July The question of who pays the transportation costs is sometimes negotiated however most trees are sold fob farm with the buyer responsible for transportation charges and arrangements

Species is also important in determining price (table 2) According to the survey wholesale buyers will pay about $1 per tree more for 5-7 foot White fir than for Scots pine and $3 to $5 more than for Douglas fir

According to the firms interviewed the average farm-level wholesale price has been gradually increasing since 1982 The firms were asked to provide price information for the years 1982 through 1986 for Scots pine and Blue Spruce because they were the most popular varieties The average price by year by species was determined from the information received using the following procedure For each species the highest and lowest reported prices were eliminated and the remaining three prices averaged Then simple average price for the two species was taken resulting in the following prices per 5 to 7-foot tree

1982 $1249 1985 $1365 1983 $1299 1986 $1403 1984 $1337

32

gtBl~igtul_Wg_~$jl1 iil T tilb 1~~~5~gt4~-

Table 1 Selected characteristics by type of marketing method for Table 2 Prices received by Christmas tree growers for Scots pine cut Christmas trees

Characteristics Choose-and-cut

Marketing Methods Retail sale Sale to ~ ~roducer retailer

Sale to wholesaler

Percent of national market

11 7 44 38

Sales labor yes yes no no

Location of farm

Important To be near population center

Important Ooseto population center

Accessible to bulk transport

Accessible to bulk transport

Additional etpenses

Tools toilets insurance parking road maintenance advertising

Lot rental license fees transshyportation advertising

Delivery to

destinashytion

May have to deliver

to destinashytion

of sales price to grower

100 100 50-60 30-50

Volume oftrees Umitedby location and local population

Umitedby location and local population

Regional national distribushylion channels

May have regional distribushylion

channels

Other advantages Cashdonot have to cut Secondary sales-shywreaths garlands

Cash secondary sales-wreaths garlands quality control

Do not have to deal with public

Do not have to deal with public

Disadvantages Then Theft Contract necessary

Contract necessary

White fir and Douglas fir 5middot foot tree when sold in quantities of 600 trees or more 1986

Species Price Range Average Pricea

Scots pine $1175 - $1290 $1187

White fir $1150 - $1375 $1290

Douglas fir $870 - $945 $908

middotSimple average of prices quoted by respondents The prices reported were not weighted by volume sold

Source Telephone interviews with 10 Christmas tree growers and wholesalers in selected states February 1987

The Blue Spruce trees of comparable size and quality sold typically from $4 to $6 more than Scots pine

The survey results indicate growers could have produced Douglas fir and sold 5 to 7 -foot trees in the $9 per tree price range At the other extreme growers could have planted Blue Spruce seIling for about $16 per tree However the Blue Spruce grows slower and is not expected to attain an average size of 6 feet when grown from a seedling in a period of 6 to 7 years For purposes of this economic assessment it was assumed growers would elect to produce Scots pine and White fir seIling at prices higher than Douglas fir but lower than Blue Spruce It was also assumed growers would sell nearly all their trees on a cut basis to wholesalers with the buyer being responsible for freight However growers with fewer trees to market than as assumed in this report might want to consider some direct-to-consumer marketing alternative to increase revenues

Additional market information for Christmas trees in the AlbuquerqueSanta Fe area is available in a report by Clevenger et al (1985)

4 5

~t1~~lr lamp In 7 nl_lhkii ~~t~~~~e

j gt -gt ~ VI D -gt o C ~ FULL-COST BUDGETS III o o o o o o o o o g o o

0

-Full-cost budgets were developed to illustrate the costs o o o incurred over the 7-year production cycle Full-cost budgets ill ~ 5o o oas the name implies include all costs including such possibly o o o g 8 c on o

2i N VI onon-cash items as depreciation and opportunity costs for n VI to ltXl N ~ VI N 0gt ~ VI ~ orgt -owner capital management and land rent 4 ltII

C

~ gt o ltXl -gt N - -gt -gt N N

Assumptions and Specifications -i tl-il CI bull v

-4Farm Characteristics o QI

o U o g o co N o o co8 D i -i g v8 co o It was assumed the farm was devoted entirely to the a D -gtbull Q

N ~

V

Christmas tree enterprise The farm consists of 160 acres of n ltII which 147 were planted to Christmas trees The additional 13

I~ ~ Eo o o -gt o N co N co VI shyacres were allotted for roads firebreaks ditches fences and co S N 6 gi -gt VI ibuildings The land was assumed to have been previously ~ VI ~ I e bull Cplanted therefore clear of rocks and other debris When in full production the farms would be planting and haIVesting 21 acres of trees each year J N N -gt o

i i f

8 -gt ~ 4 W gt o ~ 0 gt 0 C vI 0 ~

gt I Equipment middotc E

g 8 g g g VI VI

a o 8 o on N N ltIi ~ 0 ~ -gt ~ I~

o

g

I o ~ -gt N A farm completely devoted to producing Christmas trees H ~~ 0

tJ o 0under drip irrigation does not require a wide array of OJ

l -4 equipment The major items needed include a small tractor ~t l chain saws power pruners tree baler sprayer trailer for lIS

ltII 0 ltII gt hauling grass mower and a liquid fertilizer injector pump e 0OJ

I toLarger tractors and disks are needed for initial land

W

0 shyC

l ltII

VIpreparation but because only 21 acres are planted each year ~ QI u it is cost effective to hire these services on a custom basis ltII ltIl QI QIgt gt shys 0~ ~ lt3 lt3 Some farms may buy a Christmas tree planter but these o

v53 co budgets were prepared assuming hand planting oThe farm will not need border disks disks for weed control i ii7

3 v or land leveling equipment because of the drip irrigation r ~

~ ~system and the grass ground cover cultural practice sect s I shy

1gt ~

I shy

~ The annual fixed and variable costs for the equipment were ti ltII e n ltII ~ I- ~

~ shy~ ~ weestimated using the New Mexico State University crop budget ~ l 1 ~ o ~ H u ~ t a ~ To ~ ~

76

generator (table 3) In addition to the equipment discusSed above a 1000 gallon-per-minute well was included in the equipment table The farm will also require the part-time use of a pickup truck This cost was included in the supervision expense category The total cost of equipment including the irrigation well was estimated to be $39250 or $267 per planted acre

Pre-Harvest Operations

Land Preparation

Because the land was assumed to have been previously planted it was unnecessary to clear the land The major operations in land preparation were plowing disking and harrowing All of these operations were assumed to have been hired on a custom basis

Planting

Hand planting was assumed Planting-labor requirements are based on a rate of 100 trees per hour per individual The total time required to plant 1 acre is estimated at 1210 hours based on planting 1210 trees per acre

The cost of plastic tree netting was budgeted to protect seedlings from rodent damage The plastic netting cost is $3750 per acreand is included in the purchased input section of the budgets A total of 9 hours per acre is required to apply the netting

All trees planted do not survive the first year Some growers will replant the blanks but others often will not replant because this practice results in an uneven harvest The budgets assume no replanting would be done

Planting and Harvest Schedule

For the purpose of this report trees were assumed to be of a 5 to 7-foot marketable size 7 years after planting To maintain a consistent quantity of harvestable trees only 1nth

8

of the total acreage (21 acres) would be planted in any calendar year Hence in years 1 through 6 21 acres would be planted each year In year 7 21 acres would be planted and the 21 acres planted in year 1 would be harvested This staggered planting schedule assures a continuous marketable supply and income to the grower starting in the seventh year

Obviously acreage not planted during the first 6 years could be planted to some other crop For simplicity however this acreage was assumed to have gone unplanted and to have generated no revenue or to have incurred any costs

Tree Population

For marketable trees of 5 to 7 feet a minimum spacing of 5 by 5 feet is recommended (Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture 1980) For the purpose of this study a 5 by 6 foot spacing was used This spacing allows planting 1452 trees per acre

Seedling Sources

There are many sources where trees can be bought as seedlings The source assumed was the Forestry Division of the New Mexico Natural Resources Department At the time of writing this division offered containerized seedlings to New Mexico growers who have more than 1 acre and can meet certain other conditions1 The price was $58 per 98 seedlings or $59 per seedling A price of $63 per tree was used in the budgets to incorporate the cost of the seedlings and transportation

Tree Species

It was assumed that Scots pine and White flf would be the species of choice to expand market opportunities and to avoid risks associated with crop monocultures (Proebsting et

I For infonmltion COntact Divison of Forestry POBox 2167 Santa Fe NM 87504-2167

9

llt_SWic-yenfoWtfte- ffgIUij_~1i~~~iVjWri~

aI 1981 Risks such as species-specific diseases increase with monoculture Most foresters suggest reducing this risk by planting more than one species

Irrigation

Most areas of New Mexico require supplemental irrigation to maintain the necessary soil moisture to keep the trees growing near their potential It was assumed that all plantations were irrigated with a drip system fed with pumped well water The drip system including all filters laterals and emitters was estimated at $1500 per acre2 The cost of installing the drip line was estimated at $11 per acre and is included as a line item under preharvest operations The cost of the well was included in equipment costs

Water needs per acre vary with the tree size and annual rainfall An annual rainfall of 15 inches was assumed Table 4 shows the additional acre-inches of water required per acre by year

The electric well was assumed to be pumping from a depth of 200 feet at 1000 GPM Table 5 shows the well characteristics and operation costs Based on these assumptions the cost per-acre inch was determined to be $352

~ Based upon estimates provided by Mr Ron Bliesner of Keller-Bliesner Engineering Logan Uf

10

Table 4 Acre-inches of applied water by year

Year AEElied Acre-Inches

1 6

2 8

3 12

4 14

5 16

6 18

7 18

Source Ke1ler-Bliesner Engineering Company Logan UT

Table S Well characterlsdcs for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm

Well Characteristics

Static water level (feet) 200 Draw down (feet) 40 Delivery PSI 8 Gallons per minute 1000 Electric efficiency factor 470

Energy use per hour (KWH) 10367 Fuel cost per hour $778 Cost per acre-inch $352

11

t_hltiirll~9~amp6ii11jjltfllU J[BIl1IiHitilut~~W~~tlaquo+middot -~---

Cover Crop

Many Christmas tree farmers plant a cover crop of native grass between rows A cover crop reduces soil erosion and is a positive step toward vegetation management Irrigation water was not applied to the cover crop

The budget assumes that a native grass was sown before the trees were planted After the cover crop is established a non-selective herbicide such as Round-up was assumed to have been sprayed in 24-inch swathes to create grass-free rows to be planted with trees The native grass seed was estimated to cost $15 per acre Drilling the seed was included under the preharvest operations in the budget as a custom operation at $850 per acre

Mowing was included under preharvest operations as well The number of times the inter-row area needs to be mowed was decreased as the tree cover increased therefore mowing costs vary by year

Chemicals

Crop chemicals such as fertilizer herbicides insecticides and fungicides were included in the budget under purchased inputs Table 6 shows in detail the chemical name the prescribed use unit of measurement application rate number of times applied per year per unit prices and total cost per acre The costs of applying these chemicals were included in the budget under preharvest operations

Shearing and Training

Shearing is the cutting of leader and lateral branches to improve the trees shape and density (Proebsting et al 1981) Shearing produces a more saleable tree than would normally be produced otherwise Shearing may be done either by hand with shearing knives machetes or hand pruners or mechanically with light-weight sickle bar clippers or rotary pruners Rotary pruners were assumed to have been used for shearing in this report

Table 6 Chemicals applied per acre by year ror Christmas tree rarms 1988

Per Unit Total acre price cost

Year Chemical Use Unit rate Times $ $

1 Roundup Atrazine 80W

Herbicide Herbicide

gal Ills

05 50

10 10

8000 170

4000 850

2 Roundup Atrazine 80W Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate

Herbicide Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer

gal Ills Ills qt

Ills

02 50 20 10

2350

10 10 10 30

10

8000 170

2100 600

010

1600 850

4200 1800

2233

3 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer

gal Ills qt

Ills

02 20 10

3520

10 10 30

10

8000 2100 600

10

1600 4200 1800

3168

4 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 20 10

4690 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 4200 1800

4456 1725

5 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 10 10

4690 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 2100 1800

4456 1725

6 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 10 10

9830 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 2100 1800

4456 1725

7 Roundup SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal qt

Ills Ills

02 10

5400 15

10 30

10 20

8000 600

010 575

1600 1800

5130 1725

12 13

AA~1~rmiddot~i~I~~~iiltfi~)~~1i~~~4~iamp_1 2U~ampJl2lJMlIIINIiI1m~~S1lt~h

Shearing generally begins when the tree height is about 5 feet For the budgets some shearing was assumed to begin in year 3 however labor in year 3 mainly reflects training of the trees Training helps develop a straight marketable tree The greatest number of hours were needed in years 6 and 7 to prepare trees for market

Estimated chemical needs were obtained from Drs John Mexal and James Fisher Professors of Horticulture New Mexico State University Many of the above chemicals are unnecessary because many pest and disease problems found elsewhere do not currently occur in New Mexico however it was felt as acreage of the crop increases the need for chemical use would also be necessary

Harvest Operations

The harvest generally consists of 4 to 5 weeks and is the most labor intensive activity in Christmas tree growing HalVest operations consist of selecting the trees for halVesting cutting baling and transporting to the market Timing is imperative and weather can be difficult during this period

Because some trees grow faster than others it is usually possible to harvest about 13 of the crop in the sixth year The remaining 213 of the total crop would be cut the seventh year Experienced growers generally halVest about 80 of the trees they plant as a result of death loss and cullage3 This means each acre yielded 1162 marketable trees if 1452 trees per acre were originally plantedOfthe 1162 trees halVested 13 or 387 trees are halVested in year 6 and 775 trees were cut in year 7 Trees not accounted for in the projected halVest either died or were not acceptable as Christmas trees

The trees selected for halVest are often marked before cutting to prevent halVest crews from having to make decisions about tree grades while cutting After cutting trees are carried to the access road and hauled to a central area where they are baled The trees are then loaded on trucks and shipped to the wholesaler or other market outlets

gtCulled trees may be made into wnaths or sold as boughs This was not assumed as a SOurce of revenue in this report

14

HalVest arrangements with wholesalers vary In some cases wholesalers perform all halVest operations in others the wholesaler will mark the trees they want to buy Some agreements call for the wholesaler to transport the trees from field side others place the responsibility for shipping on the producer

This paper assumed the responsibility of selection and harvest was with the producer and that transportation to the market place was paid for by the wholesaler

Post-Harvest Operations

After the field has been completely halVested in the seventh year it is generally replanted to trees the following spring Some growers remove the remaining stumps Stump removal however is an expensive and time consuming process The preferred method appears to be to replant new seedlings half the distance between the remaining stumps within the row The remaining stumps are then allowed to decay naturally This method of replanting between stumps was assumed for this paper

Overhead Expense

Table 7 shows the overhead expenses assumed for the 160 acres with 147 net planted acres

Downtime is the additional labor time allowed because of time lost for such things as machine repairs moving to and from fields and waiting for deliveries A downtime rate of 20 of the total labor hours was applied in the budgets

Employee benefits include any programs that full-time or part-time employees may obtain such as social security workmens compensation insurance group life and health insurance and paid vacations Although this cost can be negligible on most small farms an 18 rate on the coSt of labor was applied here

Insurance was estimated at $850 per planted acre This includes coverage of equipment and farm liability

15

~_~ ~ -h n~middotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot _ middotmiddotbullm-middot middottlt1Gmiddotmiddotgtmiddotti~q~~middot~middot)Gv~--e~~~~~i4iM5tll L MIbullbull Jtpoundi8)l] II ha bullUMtflIf~~~Hjl~kllI~1cent

Table 7 Annual overhead expenses on a 160-acre Christmas tree fanna

Downtime 20 ofdirect labor hours

Employer benefits 18 of direct labor hours

Insurance $850 per planted acre

Farm facilities $386 per planted acre

Land rent $8163 per planted acreb

General and administrative $50 per planted acre

Supervision $75 per planted acre

Other $30 per planted acre

Brokerage 5 of gross revenue

88sed 003tOUtTof 147 pl8nted acres 1Is7s per acre on the total of 160 acres

It was assumed farm facilities were required to protect equipment from weather and to provide office space A simple pole building was used for protecting equipment and was estimated to cost $8000 An additional $9000 was allotted for an office structure The cost of these facilities was spread over a service life of 35 years The cost per planted acre was approximately $4 per acre

Land rent was assumed to be $82 per planted acre or $75 per acre on the gross farm acreage If the land is already owned outright this would represent the opportunity cost of having planted the land to Christmas trees

General and administrative expenses include management salaries secretarial expenses and costs associated with running and maintaining the office such as telephone copying

16

and bookkeeping The amount associated with general and administrative expenses was $50 per planted acre

Supervision expenses were incurred to oversee field operations A $75 per planted acre expense was used for supervision This figure is arbitrary but includes funds for possibly hiring a foreman It also includes funds for pickup truck expenses The 147 net planted acres provides an annual supervision expense fund of $11025

Other expenses is a catch-all category for irregular or unexpected items such as fence or road repair additional hand tools or added administrative expenses The other expenses assumed here were $30 per acre per year

A brokerage fee was included in the budgets as a marketing expense The producer often serves as his own broker and in this case the fee included in the budgets would be viewed as an opportunity cost of the producers time A fee of 5 of gross revenue was used as a brokerage expense

Interest

An interest expense was included for opemting capital and equipment investment Rates of 12 and 10 respectively were used 4

For the full-cost budgets the interest expense on operating capital needed each year from the time of planting was compounded through the seventh year and charged off as an expense in the harvest year If the capital used was all equity capital rather than borrowed this could again be construed as an opportunity cost of the use of the producers money

Establishment Expenses

The establishment expense is the actual cost of growing the trees to harvestable size (tables 8 through 13) To show the total return and the total costs incurred during the harvest

IbeSeinterest rates imply an average annual inflation rate or at least 3to 4 per year A realistic analysis could increase the annual cash expenses and revenues by a 3 to 4 compounded rate over the 35middotyear investment period This approach would result in higher estimated returns Future expenses and revenues were not adjusted ror inflation in this report hence the results may be underestimated

17

MtiS 4ampIi- iJi4MliIllITftif ~2k+Csectlgt--~Smiddot-f

year the full-cost budget for years 6 and 7 include an establishment expense under the purchased input category (tables 13 and 14) This expense is based on cost estimates from the first five years of production and is prorated to the appropriate year based upon the harvest yield ratio S Because there is a time value associated with the capital used to grow the trees a compounding factor was also included The rate used to compound was 10 The total establishment expense per planted acre was estimated to be $2782 allocated in year 6 and $6840 in year 7 The $6840 allocated in year 7 includes $616 of interest expenses associated with having to wait another year (year 6 to 7) before these expenses are recovered The establishment expenses amounted to $719 and $883 per harvested tree respectively for trees harvested in the sixth and seventh years Net returns would increase significantly if all trees would reach harvestable size by year 6

Total Cost Per Acre

Based on the budget estimates made for years 6 and 7 a total cost of $12895 per acre planted or $1110 per tree harvested was required to grow Christmas trees through harvest This cost includes all equipment expenses chemicals land rent labor overhead and interest

Price Sensitivity of Full-Cost Budgets

To determine the return to risk when all costs are accounted for the gross revenue must also be estimated The gross revenue is a function of number of trees harvested and the price per tree The yield of 80of the total planting or 1162 trees was assumed as fIXed in this part of the analysis and only the price was varied A per tree price of $1240 was used as the base with a $1 change in either direction Using the $1240 per tree price a net return of $158372 per acre harvested was derived At $1140 per tree $1 less a net return

gtc)f the total yield 13 was harvested in year 6 and 23 in year 7

q

i g

I middoto~ ~ ~8

~i ~ ~

_z1~ ~s -~

~g

~

~ ~3

z ~ ~i r cu

m~zIi ~ ~=gt

~s ~-

5 oS ~

~J t ~It ~c= ~c lI-Q

i l- ~~ fI) = I iI~ = CIt

f 8 ~ a

(I III laquoIC 5 ~cI iIoU ~

ltI ~ CllioS~ Ol fo- ~ ~ j$ S ~ ~In~

~~~ggg

oi~oo -o-4-C~ ~

0000 0utqno 0

ritO 0 ~-4tltl- N

w ~w

tJtDWU C-amptoe(

oot)o ~~~lt= _Ot) -0

Ie

8glg~~~~i~~g~ t o~-eOaiNOQN 0 N-4N S

11 N ~ill -- 0

~ ~ ~~

1tc ~ ~~ -4 _

I

~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~_OO~N shy 1_ ~

gg 8~ st i~ tOtO i

~ ~~~ ~ X x=~

~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~Q~~N N~

~ g~ E

~ ~ ~ 0 Q i1lJ~W

lto(c- aa~aai5~ ttlZW

~ tQ __ -I iffi Z ~wtll~ow=i~~~~ ~e=~~~5~~tUQCI =VIE a C-lI-

g~~~~g8g~ ~NeOQarQ a) ~

~~~q ~~ laquo)~ ~S

o o~~ UN ~

~ ~

0

~(fIii

~

i

o N

bull ~ l

i

~

~

~ ~

S ~

18 19

Table 9 Per acre tun cost budgets ror growiDg White Fir and Scots Pine

~-~~-~~~~-~-~~~-~-~~-~-~~-~~-~-~~~~~~~~--~~-~~-----------------------_------YIELD

HARVEST DATES PLANTING DATES

PlIlCE -- ~-- - - - bull - - - bullbull - bull - - - ~ - - bull - bull QUANTITY PUR~~~ LABOR ~~iJ~~ REPAIRS Fgi~ TOTAl

TEM UNIT __ bullbull ________ bull __ _ _ ___ ___ bull ___ ___ bull __ _ __________ bullbullbullbull _________ bullbullbullbullbullbullbull _ bull ------_ bullbullbullbullbullbull - -- bull bull - - - - bull (DOLLARS) bullbullbull - - bullbullbull

PURCHASED INPUTS 6650100 ACRE 66501lER8ICIOE 1800100 ACRE 1800INSECTICIDE 211523500 LB 2115MOIII~ SULFATE 750100 ACRE 750MISCELLANECIlS TOOLS 1131511315SUBTOTAL

PREHARVEST OPERATIONS 21751309 319 209 338PTO SPRAYER (X) ampAS IS P 238 HR 27491738 423 275 313MOWER (410 GAS 15 HP 316 HR 4200

Mise 1000 HR 4200LABOR 3226~ 360 IR 2812 238 176WELL (ex) ELE

123501914 7247 3554 722 827SUBTOTAL

OVERfAD EXPENSES 1709311 1709OOWIITIME EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

13041304 850 850

INSURANCE 386 386 FARM FACILITIES 8163 8163 LAND RENT 5000 5000GENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION 75007500suPERVISION 3D00 3000 OTHER

17399 2791210513SUBTOTAL 311 HR

3554 722 18226 515_7711315 17760TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 2225 IR

-51577NET OPERATING PROFIT

2678INTEREST ON OPERATI~G CAPITAL 831INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT

-55086 ~~~~-~~~~- _- _- -_ -_ ----- --_ ---- -- -- ----_ --_ --___ _ - _------ __

Table 10 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 3 estabUshment) NM 1988 PLANTING DATES YIELDHARVEST OATES PRICE

POWER PURCHASED FUEL OIL FIXEDITEM UNIT QUANTITY INPUTS lABOR LUBRICANT REPAIRS COST TOTAL --_ - - _- ---- - -_ -- --_ - - - -(DOlLARS)

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE 5800 5800MOIII~ SULFATE 35200 LB 3168 3168INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800MISCELLANECIlS TOOLS 100 ACRE 750 750

SIJIITOTAL 11518 11518

PRE HARVEST OPERATIONS ROTARY PRUIINERS GAS 900 HR 3780 234 108 495 4617PTO SPRAYER (5X) GAS 15 HP 1 70 R 935 228 150 241 1554MOWER (4X) ampAS 15 HP 316 HR 1738 423 275 313 2149LABOR Mise 1000 IR 4200 4200ELL (12X) ELE 540 HR 4217 356 265 4838

N SUBTOTAL 2926 10653 5102 889 1314 17958 - (MRNfAl) EXPENSES OOWIITiME 477 2625 2625EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1918 1918INSURANCE 850 850FARM FACILITIES 386 386LAIIO RENT 8163 8163GENERAL _rNISTRATlON 5000 5000SUPERViSiON 7500 7500OTHER 3000 3000

SUBTOTAL 477 HR 2043 17399 29442

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 3403 HR 11518 22696 5102 889 18713 58918

NET OPERATI KG PROF IT middot58918

I NTEREST ON OPERAT I NG CAP ITAL 2930 INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT INVESTMENT 964

RETURN TO RISK 62812 ~ -~- -_ ~ ~~ ~ _ - -

Table 11 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas ~~~~~~~~~~~_~~~t~~~~~ ___ _ ~i~~middotDAEmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot YIELD

HARVEST OATES PRICE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull PURCHASED FUEL Oil FIXED

PMR INPUTS LA~ LUBRICANT REPAIRS COST TOTAL ~~~~~~- middotmiddotDOt~~middot PURCHASED INPUTS

HERBICIDE 100 ACRE 5800 5800 INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 fUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 AMONIUM SULFATE 46900 LB 4221 4221 MlsCElLANEClJS TOOLS 100 ACRE 750 750

SUBTOTAL 14296 14296

PRE HARVEST OPERA liONS ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) CAS 1500 HR 6300 390 180 825 7695 PTO SPRAYER (ax) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 364 239 386 2485 MOIlER (2X) CAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374~ FERT INJECTOR ElE 030 HR 011 061 096 168 LABOR MISC 1000 HR 4200 4200 lElL (14X) [L 630 HR 49bull 20 416 309 5645

SUBTOTAL 3590 12865 5897 1033 1772 21567

OVERHEAD EXPENSES DOIINTIM 586 3223 3223 EMPLOYEE BENEF ITS 2316 2316 INSURANCE 850 850 FARM FACILITIES 386 386 LAND RENT 8163 8163 CENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION 5000 5000 SUPERVI SION 7500 7500 OTHER 3000 3000

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039 17399 30438

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 4176 HR 14296 25904 5897 1033 19171 66301

NET OPERATl NG PROF IT 66301

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL 3247 INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 1102

70650~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~--

Table 12 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas trees (year 5 establishment) NM 1988 PLANTING OATES HARVEST OATES YIELD

PRICE

lIEM PMR

IJHlT QUANT lTy PURCHASED

INPUTS

~~~~~

FUEL OlL LA80R LUBRICANT

REPAIRS FIXED COST TOTAL

PURCHASED INPUTS - shy ~ ~ bull bull bull (DOLLARS) bull - bull HER81CIOE INSECTICIDE FUNCICIOE AMOHIUM SULFATE MI SCELLANEOUS TOOLS

SU8TOTAL

PREHARVEST oPERATIONS

100 ACRE 100 ACRE 100 ACRE

46900 L8 100 ACRE

3700 1800 1725 4221 750

12196

3700 1800 1725 4221

750

12196

ROTARY PRUHNERS (2X) PTO SPRAYER (8X) MOIlER aX) FERT INJECTOR LABOR WELL (16X)

SUBTOTAL

OVERHEAD EXPENSES

CAS CAS 15 HP CAS 15 HP ELE MISC ELE

1500 H 272 HR 158 HR 030 HR

1000 HR 720 HR

3680

6300 1496 869

4200

12865

390 364 212 011

5623

6600

180 239 137 061

475

1092

825 386 156 096

353

1816

7695 2485 1374 168

4200 6451

22373

OOIHIME EMPLOYEE BENEFf TS INSURANCE FARM FACILITIES LANI RENT GENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION SUPERVISION OTHER

586 3223 2316

7500

850 386

8163 5000

3223 2316 850 386

8163 5000 7500

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039

3000

17399

3000

30438

TOTAL OPERAJINC EXPENSES 4266 HR 12196 25904 6600 1092 19215 65007 NET oPERA T I HG PROf I T

65007 INTEREST ON OPERATINC CAPITAL INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 3142

1153 RETURN TO bull I SK bull ~ bullbullbull - _ - - ~ - _ - - _ bullbullbullbull - - ~ _ bullbull - _ bullbullbullbull bullbull - bullbullbull

~ - - -_ _-_ __--_ _---__- 69302

Table 13 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine

~~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J~~~~~~ Table 14 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine PL~NTIMG DATES YIELD 387 TREES GROSS RETURNSS4198 80 HARVEST DATES NOVEMBER 15 bull DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0TREE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbull bullbull

bull - bullbull - bullbullbull - bull bull bull bull ~C~A~E~ - FUEL OIL FIXED ~middot~middot~7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~U~~~~~ PLANT INC DATES YIelD 775 TREESQUANT ITY INPUTS LABOR LUBRICANT REPAIU COST TOTAL

~ ___ w~ ___ ____ _ ____ ____ _ _ _ ___ HARVEST OATES NOVEM8ER 15 DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0IREE ~ CROSS RETURNS$9iIOOO - bullbullbullbull (DOLLARS) bullbullbullbullbullbull - bull shy

pOlin PURCHASEDPURCHASED INPUTS ITEM fUEl OIL FIXEDUNIT OUANT IlY INPUTSHERBltlDE 100 ACRE 3700 3700 bull lABOR LUBRICANT RePAIRS-_ _---- _--- _---_ _---- - _--_ - _- __ __ -- COST TOTAL INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 bull FUNGICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 bull bull (DOLLARS) bull A_IUM SULFATE 93800 LB 8~~2 8442 bull

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE T6OOTWINE 38700 EACH 19-35 1935 1600INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800MISCELLANEros TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000 bull 1800

ESTABLISHMENT 113 2781 72 278172 FUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725AMON I UN SULFATE 5~000 lB 4860 4860

SUBTOTAL 18602 2781 72 2967 7~ TWINE 17500 EACH 3875 ~8 7~MISCELLANEOUS TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000

PREHARVEST OPERATIOIIS ESTABLISHMENT 23 ~050 ~050

ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) GAS 3800 HR 15960 988 ~56 2090 1~9~ bull SUBTOIAL 14860PTO SPRAYER (ex) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 360 239 386 2~ 85 bull ~050 698910 MOWER (2X) GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 137~ bull PREHARVEST OPERATIONSfERT INJECTOR ELE 035 oR 012 071 112 195 bull ROTARY PRUNNERS (2)) GAS 3000 HRLABOR Mise 1000 HR ~200 ~2 00 bull 12600 780 360 1650 I5~90PTO SPRAYER (xl GAS 15 HP 238 HRIlELL lt18X) ElE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258 bull MOIlER (ZX) 1309 319 209 338 21 75GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374fEAT INJECTOR ELE 060 HSUBTOTAL 6075 22525 7902 1~38 31~1 35006 021 122 191 334LABOR MIse 1000 HR ~200 4200

HARVEST OPERATIONS WELL (18X) ELE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258

CHAIN SAW GAS 968 HR 4066 252 136 590 50~~ SUBTOTAL 5266DRAG amp lOAD HAND 3225 HR 13545 135~5 18978 7658 1363 2732 J0731 TREE BALER GAS 230 HR 966 177 278 952 2373 HARVEST OPERATIONSTRAILER GAS 15 HP 300 HR 1650 ~11 360 560 2985 CHAIN SAW GAS 1938 HRLABOR Mise 1650 HR 6930 6930 81~0 504 271 1182 10097DRAG amp LOAD HAND 6058 HR 27124 27124

SUBTOIAL 6373 HR 27157 8~0 7 7~ 2106 30877 TREE BALER GAS I 46D HR 1932 354 5~7 1904 4747TRAILER GAS 15 HP 600 HR 3300 822 720 1128 5970LABOR MISC ~OOO NROVERHEAD EXPENSES 16800 16800 OOHlE 2321 12763 12763 bull SUBTOTAL 13~56 HREMPLOYEE SENEF lIS 89~3 89~3 bull 57296 1680 1548 4214 6~7 38

INSURANCE 850 850 bull OVERHEAD EXPEHSESFARM fACILITIES 386 366 bull OCltJNTJME 3~70LAND RENT 8163 8163 bull 19637 19637EMPLOYEE BENet liSGENERAL amp ADMINISTRATlOil 5000 5000 bull 13729 13729 SUPERVISION 7500 7500 bull INSURANCE

850 850FARM FACILITIESOTHER 3000 3000 bull 386 386LAND RENTMARXETING 2399~ 2399~ 8163 8163

SUPERVISION GeNERAL 8 ADMINISTRATION

5000 5000 SUBTOTAL 2321 HR 23994 29206 17399 70599 7500 7500

MARKETING OTHER

3000 300048050 48050

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 14769 HR 29550 ~~401 347~ 1250 287125 367738 bullbull SUBTOTAL 3570 HR ~8050 ~0866 17399 106315 IIpoundT OPERATING PROfIT 1121~2

TOIAl OPERATING EXPENSES 22292 HRINTEREST (JIj OPERATTNG CAPlTAL 6545 62910 117140 9338 2911 708395 900694 INTEREST (JIj EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 2473 NET OPERATING PROFIT

60306 10312~

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT IHVESlMENT 8659

3361 RETURN TO R I so

TIoCmiddotTHIRDS OF THESE COSTS IlERE ALLOCATED AS PROOUCTl(Jlj COSTS fORIREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 7 48286iI ~--~-- ----- ~ --~--- -~------ -----~-- yen - bullbullbullbull -- ~ -- ----_ _w ___ ________ 0 _______ _w __ IHIS TOTAL INCCltPORATES ONLY THE EXPENSE ASSOCATEO WITH THE TREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 6 BECAUSE OF THIS THE COLUMN

WILL NOT SUM TO THIS VALUE

24 25

~ i C -i Q

= foil

Table 15 Cash flow for a 160-aere Cbristmas tree rann (147 net planted aeres lIIII====_=====IIIlIII======S=II==2=II=___1I3_III========s_bullbullbullbull=z=a==a============bullbull==~=bullbullbull==11======aSS==lIIlII======================================================

Year 1 fear 2 Year J tear 4 Year 5 Year 6 fear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 fear 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 lllttows _=====

Sale of Trees so so so so so $101035 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 S302585 S302585 $302585 $302585 OUtflows

Purchased Input 5 Tree stock 1921019m 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210Cover ~rass seed 315 9sect1~ 19m 315 315 315 19m 19m 315 19m 19m 19m 19m315 315 315 315erbicuSe 1019 2415 3633 4851 5628 6405 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741Insecticide o 378 756 1~ 1890 22611 22611 22611 22611 2268 2268 2268 22611 22611Ftrlgicide o o o H~ 1087 U~ 1449 U~ 1449 1449 449 ~~~ 1449 1449 t449 1449Amonhn Sui tate o 444 1109 1~ 5676 5676 5676 ~~~X 5676 5676Tree guards 788 788 788 2~ 4~~ 788 53 53 53 788 788 5~ 5~ 53788 788 788Miscellaneous tools 420 578 735 893 105g 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365Twine o o o o i~ 1220 l~~ l~~ij 1220 1220 1220 1220 1220 lm lnOIrrigatlon system 31500 3150031 508 31500 31500 31500 31500 3150g 31500 31500 31~~g 31500 31500 31500 31 gtog 31~~g 31500 31500Eqult 33750 o o o 1045g o o o 266j0 o o a 10450 o oFarm facilities 17000 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oPre-harvest Operations o CustQll1 1_ preparation 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651Spray 204 578 844 1271 1698 2124 2498 2498 2~g 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498Harrow 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 168 1611 1611 Mark rows 309 309 309 Seed 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 Haul plants 42 42 42 42 42 309309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309

42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42Pl t (hand) 1861 2 ~Iy Netting 1~ 1~

794 1~ ~2 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ ~2 1~ 1 1861 1861 1861 861 li~ Orlp installaton 221 221 221 211

~l 794 794 794 794 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 2lt1495 990 1485 1733 1980 2228 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475Shear amp train 2415a o 864 2303 3743 7398- 1~~~ 1~~~ 10283 10283 10283 10283

i seel taneous 1amp1raquor 882 76 2646 Appt ter t it i zer o o o 10~g~ 10m 10m 10~g~ 10~g~ 10283

35 71 141 182 182 182 182 182 182 lr2 Purping costs 480 1121 617435l8 5292 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 Ot 174 6174 6174 6174

Harvest operations 2081 3l02 i~~g 5923 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 73k4

Cut tr~s o Drag amp load trees o 2807o o 935 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 Wrap trees o o 2374 7115 ~~~~ ~~~ 1115 7115 7115 7115 7115 7~ 7115o o o 298 895 895 895 7J~ 895 7~~~ 895 895 895 895 895Haul trees o o o 508 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525MisceHaneous labOr o 1525o o 1455 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366Overheed Oowotime 648 1007 IS58 2235 2911 5522 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346E1lloy benefits 4611 742 1145 1631 3933 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581Insurance 179 357 536 114 2~~

1071 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250Land r~t 1575 3150 4725 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025G amp A 1050 lloo 3150 4lOO 5250 6300 tgro 7350 7350 7350 7350 1~m k~~~ 7350 ~m 7350 7350 735a~~~Vision 472S 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11021575 3150

11m 11~~~ 025 11~~630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 63mMarketng II o o o o 5052 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 lSI29

1 Based on total of 147 planted acres by Year 7 A total of 21 (Jeres are planted each year year 1 consists ot 21 planted acres year 2 a total of 42 etC

-- --~ -~-~ r IJampamp $ ~H ~M LgtH~-~Lw~

110 0 middot W It 110 OO~~~~o~~OOO OampooooooosectOii S~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~H~ = - 11 11=L = 110 _ N N 0 M

bull c _~_

bullbullbull 2 _ M~

cash needs of the operation The farm will produce a positivei 0goooo00020poundN t-~~~~ t-~Fg~ORi ~ UNHIt U to OOE~l2~O~ft~oOI L 110 lS -lIi iIl~lI)t i1 ---a~ - 3

N annual cash flow starting in the seventh year However a total N bullbull u _N N~ - - ~N ~ $E~3

bullbull It 0 t N of $540819 in cash is expended through the first 6 years Ao~ooooooo~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~V~~ ~=~==~C ~ OOi~~~~O$~OOO ~ laquoS_~_ i i6~ ~gIIt_~o~ -=~ I total of 11 years are needed (five positive cash producingbullM Ii IfII 110 II n N -~ ~ _ N t- _ _ ~ ~~~= N III H 0 years) before the cash outflows incurred during the first 6 ~

~ = =a OOsect~~~O~OOO o~ooooooo~~~i 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ =~= years are covered This is based on selling trees at $1240L= V ~ ~N ~~ ~~ ~4 N~ ~~~ i i~e s -- N S The budgets were developed for a 35-year period because=gt- tt n this was thought to be a reasonable economic life5~~ ~ OO~~~roO~~O~O degmoooooooi~~ ~=~~~ ~mi5~5~~ ~=~= amp0 - ~ - III middot

__ ~ ~ _ 0 Nt- _ Ntn ~~~ ~ -~~- ~ pound Additionally a 35-year life allows for five 7-year

planting-through-harvest rotations Based on the rotationbull C) MM C OO~~~~degri~OOO OampOOOOOOO~~~~m 2E~~~ ~~~sect~~~~ ~u~= i c L ~ ~

N~v N N~ ~~ N~ ~4 ~~~~~~ ~ iii schedule only Inth of the total acreage would be planted ini = i

-SfIJ n= ~ - -I anyone year The cash costs in year 1 therefore include onlyRi = ~ ~~~~~i~~5me~~ i~sect~~ ~~~~~~~~ E~ lias amp0 ~~~~~~J~~~~OO H II n ~ 0- ~~w- ~ = ~~ Nt- - ~~_~t- ~ ~ct N planting expense for Inth of the total acreage or 21 acresW - - -= ~ Year 2 would again include planting expenses for Inth of theCtI 110- -~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~o~~~g~ ~G~ liN Q) $ ___ cOP ___~ i_IiInJX lIlCoo~_ flt nc II II tn ~~i~~~~~~~~00 =~ N ~ 0_11 - N w (1= Ot- N~ Oo~t-- i Ef~~ acreage and the second year growing expenses for the 21=- =tt ~ - acres planted originally The total expenses of a fullymiddot =S 1II ~~~_~~~~~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~sect~~ l~~~~~~~ Ec~ _ tl_-= ~u ~ operating facility are first incurred in the seventh year The

~ ~NII -~_ 1I1f N ~o~ N~ - ~o~=~~ ~ eg~R- 1111 0 - t first year of full revenue is also obtained in year 7 (21 acres of Cite ~ ~~~~~~~N~~~~~ ~~~~~ I~~~~~g~ ~r~i

~ _ ~ cOPNN __~ ~_m~~ ~1nO~O~~ Nfl~M

= or ~~~~~~~~~~O tt l 387 trees in their sixth year and 21 acres of 775 trees in their0- ~N_~ _ _0 N ~o~ N~ - ~~_=t--= ~ ~gGbull N= iI - - - ~i 1 seventh year ofgrowth)III

4iiii i~ ~ As the farm approaches the end of its economic life it was~~~_~~~~~~~~OO i~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~pound~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~i~E i

I middotL= 0- -oN_tI- - ~ N _ N~ot-- Nt-- ~ ~o_~t-= ~ ~U~ ii= = ~ assumed that the operator would stop planting Therefore as 11 - a l ~ 13 ~~~~g~i~N~~~~~ i~~~~ ~~a~~IC~~ E=~= of year 29 no more planting expenses are incurred It wasltV bull V ~~~~~~~~~~OO 0- N - -= ~N0ftIo - Ieo ~ t= -oN 1I _0- - N~ ~~ Nt- - ~o-~= ~ ~ft~c =a ~ - t assumed the land would be either left idle or used for otherIIIJ - -

= ~ purposes In year 35 the final year of operation only 21 acresa~= tQ ~~~~~~~re~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~ E~a N 0- -0 ___ _III u N _ N~o~ N~ _~ ~o-=~= ~ ~~~III ~ ~ of seventh-year trees would remain to be harvested At thisgt- - - -I point the entire operation would be closed down No salvagesect ii~ 1II ~~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~$~9~~ i~~~~ ~~~~sect~~ E~I II

II Ltf __ ~ ~N-II N ~ Ni ~~ N~ ~~ ~~~i~ i ~=in value was assumed because the land used was either leased or ~ -11~ 1= shy

I ~ rented and all equipment or buildings had no remainingc 15 ~ ft ~~~rd~~J~~~~~O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~E~iIII 0- QN-V 0 N _ N~o~ N ~~_~~~ ~ ~~~ i useful life H= ~ - ltgt ~ 15 Over the project life it would be necessary to replace some to tQ ~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~S~~~ 2Ei~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~5~i t ~ equipment For the purpose of this study it was assumed that~ I ~ -oN_~ _ - N _ N~ ~~ _ ~o_=~~ ~ ~~ I -= I= ~ - i all equipment would be used until it was no longer-=1 ~lt~S~-~N~~~~1 t-~~~~ ~co~~~o~ ~ft i011 V-- ~ o~- ~~NN__~ i_~V~ ~II~OO~_ ~~ ~~~~~_~i~~~OO a salvageable at which point it would be replaced new Table 16

r bullbull tv () -ON _ - N N~o~ ~ _ ~o-== ~ ~I~ I middot ~ - - - ~ shows the replacement schedule assumed in the cash flow i ~ Note that this table reflects the assumed useful life of the~ -=bull gi

i

iii s equipment rather than its depreciable life Also two itemsCgt I 1 u lJi~ ~ t- I ~ - ~ i the chain saws and the tree balers are not necessary until year -111) l -E I ~ l~~ _E ==Ilbull- ~ 1 ~j c ~ ~ ~ -5 -_ bull s

~~~ ~ ~~ _ ~ ~ L~ OL ~ 0 6 II 6 and were not purchased until that time Based on the highc _~~~~~WL ~-=] ii1t~ ~~ ulpoundlzl ~~ ~ = 1 i~uZul ~~I S Lo-- 2 L ~It~~ -i ~ ~

J L~_ ~m LOCmiddot gt- ampogt-~-~~ ~tc -lt 0 011 CIt -= = 2 ~~~t~5middotFi~f~~i~iitli-~fi~fifiiiI f Ii ~ilaquoI - ~ =~U=_~~~~~_W~U0Z~EZ~CQE~CEAL3QZEQW_~000 ~middot - ~ 8 Ii ~ I ~ middotmiddot -

29

111

f ~middot~middot~LC -- - ~i~

n ~ illII I~ II

Ii II

~~ Table 16 Equipment replacement schedule for a 160-acre ~ Christmas tree farm in New Mexico 1988 ~

usage during a short time period and the relatively short life of these items they were replaced every 5 years

Analysis

Because there are many unknowns encountered when projecting cost and returns and because different locations may be faced with different situations a series of scenarios were provided to evaluate the financial feasibility of the project Three major variables were altered concurrently to create the different scenarios These variables were

1 Prices 2 Yields 3 Costs

Price

A base price of $1240 was assumed The sensitivity of the return to a change of $1 increments over a range of $2 was measured

Yield

Changes in teld were based on altering the number of saleable trees This was done as a percentage of the total trees planted For example a 90 rate would mean that 90 of the 1452 trees originally planted or 1307 trees were available for sale This variable not only affect~ gross revenue but also alters any costs associated with the number of trees harvested Costs such as cutting field hauling baling and brokering are all altered by changes in the number of trees harvested and were assumed to be linear

Yield might also be altered by decreasing the space between trees For example a 5 by 5 spacing yields 1742 planted trees If 80 were saleable this would be 1394 trees

30

Item

Facilities

Well

Tractor

PTO sprayer

Trailer

Mower

Injector

Rotary pruners

Chain saw

Tree baler

iIIii Year ~

L 6 lL 16 2L 26 JL II~ Cost ~

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -(dollars) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- If 17000 ~

~ 10200 i

~

1bull1 113000 13000 13000 13000 1

~I 1200 1200 1200 1200 ~

bull p

~Ii ~

2400 II

800 800 800 800 ~ -I

I1200 1200 1200 1200 ~ 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 t

IiiIii 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 J

~ ~ ~ JOW JOW ~ ~ JOW

50750 10450 26650 10450 26650 10450 26650 I~ISource Table 3 IiIJ

f ~ J ~Cost ~

11I~ Because costs vary by farm and by location it was felt that a sensitivity should be performed on this variable Rather than bull

talter a specific cost or a specific category of costs the total bullIIj

cost was increased or decreased by a percentage and the Ji results evaluated Costs were altered in 10 increments in ~

Iijeither direction The 0 column uses those costs shown in the cash flow

t ~II

1

~I~ 31 ~

Feasibility Assessment

The internal rate of return (IRR) is a technique used to evaluate investment opportunities that incorporates the time value of money concept The internal rate of return for an investment project (in this case a Christmas tree planting) is the discount rate that equates the present value of the annual net cash revenue flows with the projects acquisition cost The net cash revenue is the difference between the cash receipts and cash expenses generated by an investment project over its economic life The time value of money is based on the economic fact that $1 today is worth more than a promise of $1 at some future date because of its current earnings potential

An investment can be accepted or rejected based on its internal rate of return (IRR) Acceptability of the investment depends on a comparison of the IRR with the investors required rate of return (RRR) Acceptability can be based on the following decision rules if IRR exceeds RRR accept the investment if IRR = RRR be indifferent and if IRR is less than RRR reject the investment

While IRR is a useful technique in project evaluation there are some problems with its use The major concern when using IRR is it assumes all cash inflows can be reinvested at the same rate as the resulting IRR percentage Should the IRR percentage be in the vicinity of the current rates of return of other investment instruments IRR is a reasonably accurate measure of return on investment However should the rate of return be much higher than current returns available elsewhere the resulting return on investment may be overstated The inverse is true at lower rates of return

The Net Present Value (NPV) is another way of evaluating projects that involve capital outlays over a period of years The NPV method discounts all future cash outlays and inflows back to a present-year basis using a specified interest (discount rate) The discount rate chosen is usually the opportunity cost of using equity funds in an alternative use or the cost of borrowed capital increased by an appropriate premium for risk or a combination of these The NPV

32

method is preferred over the IRR method when evaluating one investment against alternative similar type investments

Based on the sensitivity analysis discussed above a table was developed to show the IRR under the various scenarios Table 17 shows the internal rates by the per-unit price The analyses is based on pre-tax returns At $1040 per tree the IRR ranges from -14 when costs were increased by 10 and saleable yields were reduced to 60 to 160 when costs were decreased by 10 and 90 of the trees planted were sold At $1140 the IRR range is from 14 to 185 under the same conditions as above At $1240 per tree the IRR ranges from 38 when costs were increased 10 and 60 of the trees are saleable to 207 when costs were decreased 10 and saleable yields were at 90 At $1340 per tree the IRR ranges from 60 to 228 At $1440 per tree a grower could expect an IRR from 80 to 248 under the scenarios presented

A pre-tax analysis using Net Present Value (NPV) was also completed for the various scenarios The results of this analysis are shown in table 18

If an IRR of 12 is chosen as a minimum rate desired for investment growers must receive at least $1140 per tree and attain a level of 80 saleable trees and good cost control to have a successful investment At prices greater than $1140 per tree and 80 saleable product the investment appears to have possibility

33

Table 17 Internal Rates of Return (lRR) estimates for a 160-acre Table 18 Net Present Value (NPV) estimates for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost cbanges cha~es Ising a discount rate of 12

Percentage Percentageof saleable Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount

of saleabletrees 10 lower No chan~ 10 bilber trees --percent-shy

_______ - - - - - - - - - - - (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - shy

$1040 Tree Price 900 130 102900 160 BOO

SOO 128 97 69 700 60 31700 91 600

-14600 48 16

$1140 Tree Price( 900 127185 155

123 95900 800 SOO 153 700 700 116 86 58 600

14600 74 43

$1240 Tree Price 900 lJJ7 178 150900 BOO

118SOO 176 146 700 139 109 81700 600

38600 97 66

$1340 Tree Price 900 900 228 198 171 BOO

167 139SOO 197 700103700 161 130 600

600 119 88 60

$1440 Tree Price 900 BOO

248 218 191900 700159SOO 216 186 600

180 150 123700 80

Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount _ 10 lOwer No change 10 higher

-middot----middotmiddot---middot--bull-----dollars------bullbullbullbull -bullbullbull shy

$1040 Tree Price 175195 32602

(110936) (253415)

44502 (97269)

(2399BO) (381637)

(86191) (227140) (369023) (509859)

$1140 Tree Price 299293 167950 36607 142927

(14476) (170717)

12478 (144024) (299372)

(117971) (273573) (428028)

$1240 Tree Price 423391 291398 159406 253252 81984

(88019)

122225 (48069)

(217107)

(8BOl) (178123) (346196)

$1340 Tree Price 547489 414847 282204 363576 231972 100368 178445 (5321)

47886 (134842)

(82673) (264364)

$1440 Tree Price 671587 538295 405003 473901 341719 209538 274905 143841 12777 77377 (52578) (182532)

138 108 N01E Parentheses mean negative number

34 35

600

Investor Analysis

The following analysis considers the impact of the US tax laws (revised October 1987) on investing in Christmas trees The approach is identical to the previous IRR and NPV analysis except the impact of federal and state income taxes is considered in the annual stream of cash flow

The basis assumptions used are as follows

1 The taxpayer investor is in a 40 tax bracket on marginal income when combining both state and federal income taxes

2 The investor is actively engaged in managing the Christmas tree farm so that revenues and losses can be counted as active income or the investor has other passive investment income to offset any passive losses from growing Christmas trees

3 The Section 179 one-time deduction of $10000 per year is used in other businesses operated by the investor

4 Depreciation was calculated using the modified ACRS rules published by the IRS in 1987 Publication 225

5 The Christmas tree enterprise falls under the IRS rules for Christmas tree cultivation requiring capitalization of planting and stump culture for trees more than 6 years of age Because one-third of the trees are sold within the 6-year time limit one-third of planting expenses were deducted in the year incurred and the remaining two-thirds were capitalized and written off when the trees were sold in the seventh year

6 The investor uses a cash accounting system for tax purposes

36

The pre-tax IRR for the scenario with trees selling for $1240 each 80 harvestable yield and standard costs was 146 The IRR after-tax considerations fell to 125 (table 19) One might compare the after-tax return of 125 to other after-tax investments of comparable risks The after-tax NPV for the above scenario is $18069 compared to the pre-tax NPV of $122225 using a 12 discount rate

37

0

Table 19 Investor cash now analysis lor a l6O-acre Christmas tree larm (per planted acre basis) S=~=bullbull=I==~==~=bullbull====iI=bullbull2a==IIiIII bullbullbullbull===========n====ZIUSS=====bullbull===lllJ=====$~nUIlt1=llIIlta====s=a====II===============bullbullbull==II=~====lltz===-===U===========1II==X=======_==li=

Year 1 rHr 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year S Ye8l 6 tear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 1Q Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Tear 18

Net Cash Flow BelMe T8)( ConeiderattOlS (116411) (75439) (86658) (99354)(111768) (51189) 119810 119810 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810

Tax ONKtiona

Oeprec i at i on Irrigation syat far Foelli amp Equip

7875 1440

14625 7440

19446 7440

22890 7440

25378 7440

27156 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

Planting E_ 8209 10585 13004 16006 18568 22423 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031

~~~- ~t~t 1~~~r 1~ n~~ ~~m i~m ~M ~U~~ ~~M ~M ~~~ ~m ~M ~~~ ~~~ ~~M ~~M ~~M Total TalC DeOoctlons 33265 49193 65833 81973 96875 130860 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189341 189341 189311 189341 189341 189311

~rI~ (3326~) (4979~) (6583g) (819~) (968~) l~m) m~ ~~~~f~ mJ~ ~H~ m~~ mm ~~H~~ ~~B~ ~~im mm mJ~ ~~B2~ Inc_ ra Saings 13306 19917 26333 32189 38750 11930 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc_ TalC Oue 0 0 0 0 0 0 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297

let Cash flow (1037) (5522) (60325) (66) (737018) (397259) 74512 7Z2 74512 74512 7862 7512 74~12 rZSt2 142 M=062 1512 14512 =s===========s=_====sbullbullc=======-===================_======-=-==========I====S======-===========================e===s====================s==============r=================

Net Cash Flow Before Tax Considerations 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810 119810 190654 179442 217765 230460 242421 165733

T81 OlaquoiJcti ons

Depreciation

~ili~r Equip 2g~~ 2U~~ 2~~~ 2~~ 2~~~~ 2~g~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ 2~~ 2~~~ 2~n~ 1~~J ~~8 ~~~ f2zS 2~

~i~-OVerhoad

zg8M62335

zg8M62335

Z~~~ 62335

zg8M62335

ig8M62335

zg~~62335

i8M62335

i8M62335

t8M62335

i~8M 62335

Zg~~62335

~~~~~53665

~~~~ 46402

~tg~~40943

~~ ~~~35402 29986

ll~8~~

Total TaJ( Deduct_ 189341 189341 187121 187121 187121 187121 181121 181121 187121 187121 187121 156112 133925 117431 101291 86842 60718

I Froll Sales 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 201550 ~~~es~~= 1132~ m24~ 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154~ 1154~ 14647~ 16866g 1855~ 20129t 21574~ 1408~

Income la~ Due ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ Met Cash FloW =-2========SCI========

74512=I=====

74512 46974 73624 73624 73624 73624 63174 73624 __===_=_=============bullbullbullSamp====1II_1I31amp=II================_=II==__ == 73624_===__==

73624=======

132065 _=-=bullbull

111978======S=====

143703 ======_==

149943=======1I

156124 ========laquo

109400 ======_

~

Appendix Table Amiddotl United States Department ofAgriculture grade standards for Christmas trees

Christmas Tree Grades Factor US Premium US No1 US No2

Density Not less than Not less than Light or better medium medium

Tapera Normal- Normal- May be less than 40 to 90 40 to 90 40 or more

than 90

Damage-free faceb 4 3 2

Foliage Fresh clean Fresh clean Fresh clean and healthy and healthy and healthy

Shapec Well-shaped Well-shaped Well-shaped crown crown crown

Handle not Handle not Handle not less less than 6 less than 6 less than 6 or more than or more than or more than 134 per foot 1 34 per foot 1 34 per foot of tree height of tree height of tree height

aTaper of a tree is defined as the width of a tree expressed as a percentage of its height

Face means the visible surface area of a tree as viewed from 8 to 10 feet from the tree A tree is considered to have four faces each face constituting 14 of the tree

cHeight of a tree is defined in terms of foot or half-foot steps and is measured from the base of the handle to a point on the leader not more than 4 feet above the apex of the cone of the taper

Source Proebsting Buhaly and Wanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest 1981

40

4iUJiMMiFeuro iampi~t~Ityen)--

Literature Cited

Clevenger Tom et at The Wholesale and Processing Market for Locally Grown High Value Crops Research Report 572 New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station July 1985

Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture (Mora Research Center) New Mexico State University Guidelines for Growing and Marketing Christmas Trees in New Mexico New Mexico Department of Natural Resources October 1980

Huntley Wallace Marketing Christmas Trees-Turning a Problem into an Opportunity American Christmas Tree Journal August 1984 pp 41-43

Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury Fanners Tax Guide Publication 225

Proebsting William M Joseph Buhaly and Donald Hanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest Pacific Northwest Extension Publication PNW6 January 1981

41

Page 7: Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and ...

gtBl~igtul_Wg_~$jl1 iil T tilb 1~~~5~gt4~-

Table 1 Selected characteristics by type of marketing method for Table 2 Prices received by Christmas tree growers for Scots pine cut Christmas trees

Characteristics Choose-and-cut

Marketing Methods Retail sale Sale to ~ ~roducer retailer

Sale to wholesaler

Percent of national market

11 7 44 38

Sales labor yes yes no no

Location of farm

Important To be near population center

Important Ooseto population center

Accessible to bulk transport

Accessible to bulk transport

Additional etpenses

Tools toilets insurance parking road maintenance advertising

Lot rental license fees transshyportation advertising

Delivery to

destinashytion

May have to deliver

to destinashytion

of sales price to grower

100 100 50-60 30-50

Volume oftrees Umitedby location and local population

Umitedby location and local population

Regional national distribushylion channels

May have regional distribushylion

channels

Other advantages Cashdonot have to cut Secondary sales-shywreaths garlands

Cash secondary sales-wreaths garlands quality control

Do not have to deal with public

Do not have to deal with public

Disadvantages Then Theft Contract necessary

Contract necessary

White fir and Douglas fir 5middot foot tree when sold in quantities of 600 trees or more 1986

Species Price Range Average Pricea

Scots pine $1175 - $1290 $1187

White fir $1150 - $1375 $1290

Douglas fir $870 - $945 $908

middotSimple average of prices quoted by respondents The prices reported were not weighted by volume sold

Source Telephone interviews with 10 Christmas tree growers and wholesalers in selected states February 1987

The Blue Spruce trees of comparable size and quality sold typically from $4 to $6 more than Scots pine

The survey results indicate growers could have produced Douglas fir and sold 5 to 7 -foot trees in the $9 per tree price range At the other extreme growers could have planted Blue Spruce seIling for about $16 per tree However the Blue Spruce grows slower and is not expected to attain an average size of 6 feet when grown from a seedling in a period of 6 to 7 years For purposes of this economic assessment it was assumed growers would elect to produce Scots pine and White fir seIling at prices higher than Douglas fir but lower than Blue Spruce It was also assumed growers would sell nearly all their trees on a cut basis to wholesalers with the buyer being responsible for freight However growers with fewer trees to market than as assumed in this report might want to consider some direct-to-consumer marketing alternative to increase revenues

Additional market information for Christmas trees in the AlbuquerqueSanta Fe area is available in a report by Clevenger et al (1985)

4 5

~t1~~lr lamp In 7 nl_lhkii ~~t~~~~e

j gt -gt ~ VI D -gt o C ~ FULL-COST BUDGETS III o o o o o o o o o g o o

0

-Full-cost budgets were developed to illustrate the costs o o o incurred over the 7-year production cycle Full-cost budgets ill ~ 5o o oas the name implies include all costs including such possibly o o o g 8 c on o

2i N VI onon-cash items as depreciation and opportunity costs for n VI to ltXl N ~ VI N 0gt ~ VI ~ orgt -owner capital management and land rent 4 ltII

C

~ gt o ltXl -gt N - -gt -gt N N

Assumptions and Specifications -i tl-il CI bull v

-4Farm Characteristics o QI

o U o g o co N o o co8 D i -i g v8 co o It was assumed the farm was devoted entirely to the a D -gtbull Q

N ~

V

Christmas tree enterprise The farm consists of 160 acres of n ltII which 147 were planted to Christmas trees The additional 13

I~ ~ Eo o o -gt o N co N co VI shyacres were allotted for roads firebreaks ditches fences and co S N 6 gi -gt VI ibuildings The land was assumed to have been previously ~ VI ~ I e bull Cplanted therefore clear of rocks and other debris When in full production the farms would be planting and haIVesting 21 acres of trees each year J N N -gt o

i i f

8 -gt ~ 4 W gt o ~ 0 gt 0 C vI 0 ~

gt I Equipment middotc E

g 8 g g g VI VI

a o 8 o on N N ltIi ~ 0 ~ -gt ~ I~

o

g

I o ~ -gt N A farm completely devoted to producing Christmas trees H ~~ 0

tJ o 0under drip irrigation does not require a wide array of OJ

l -4 equipment The major items needed include a small tractor ~t l chain saws power pruners tree baler sprayer trailer for lIS

ltII 0 ltII gt hauling grass mower and a liquid fertilizer injector pump e 0OJ

I toLarger tractors and disks are needed for initial land

W

0 shyC

l ltII

VIpreparation but because only 21 acres are planted each year ~ QI u it is cost effective to hire these services on a custom basis ltII ltIl QI QIgt gt shys 0~ ~ lt3 lt3 Some farms may buy a Christmas tree planter but these o

v53 co budgets were prepared assuming hand planting oThe farm will not need border disks disks for weed control i ii7

3 v or land leveling equipment because of the drip irrigation r ~

~ ~system and the grass ground cover cultural practice sect s I shy

1gt ~

I shy

~ The annual fixed and variable costs for the equipment were ti ltII e n ltII ~ I- ~

~ shy~ ~ weestimated using the New Mexico State University crop budget ~ l 1 ~ o ~ H u ~ t a ~ To ~ ~

76

generator (table 3) In addition to the equipment discusSed above a 1000 gallon-per-minute well was included in the equipment table The farm will also require the part-time use of a pickup truck This cost was included in the supervision expense category The total cost of equipment including the irrigation well was estimated to be $39250 or $267 per planted acre

Pre-Harvest Operations

Land Preparation

Because the land was assumed to have been previously planted it was unnecessary to clear the land The major operations in land preparation were plowing disking and harrowing All of these operations were assumed to have been hired on a custom basis

Planting

Hand planting was assumed Planting-labor requirements are based on a rate of 100 trees per hour per individual The total time required to plant 1 acre is estimated at 1210 hours based on planting 1210 trees per acre

The cost of plastic tree netting was budgeted to protect seedlings from rodent damage The plastic netting cost is $3750 per acreand is included in the purchased input section of the budgets A total of 9 hours per acre is required to apply the netting

All trees planted do not survive the first year Some growers will replant the blanks but others often will not replant because this practice results in an uneven harvest The budgets assume no replanting would be done

Planting and Harvest Schedule

For the purpose of this report trees were assumed to be of a 5 to 7-foot marketable size 7 years after planting To maintain a consistent quantity of harvestable trees only 1nth

8

of the total acreage (21 acres) would be planted in any calendar year Hence in years 1 through 6 21 acres would be planted each year In year 7 21 acres would be planted and the 21 acres planted in year 1 would be harvested This staggered planting schedule assures a continuous marketable supply and income to the grower starting in the seventh year

Obviously acreage not planted during the first 6 years could be planted to some other crop For simplicity however this acreage was assumed to have gone unplanted and to have generated no revenue or to have incurred any costs

Tree Population

For marketable trees of 5 to 7 feet a minimum spacing of 5 by 5 feet is recommended (Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture 1980) For the purpose of this study a 5 by 6 foot spacing was used This spacing allows planting 1452 trees per acre

Seedling Sources

There are many sources where trees can be bought as seedlings The source assumed was the Forestry Division of the New Mexico Natural Resources Department At the time of writing this division offered containerized seedlings to New Mexico growers who have more than 1 acre and can meet certain other conditions1 The price was $58 per 98 seedlings or $59 per seedling A price of $63 per tree was used in the budgets to incorporate the cost of the seedlings and transportation

Tree Species

It was assumed that Scots pine and White flf would be the species of choice to expand market opportunities and to avoid risks associated with crop monocultures (Proebsting et

I For infonmltion COntact Divison of Forestry POBox 2167 Santa Fe NM 87504-2167

9

llt_SWic-yenfoWtfte- ffgIUij_~1i~~~iVjWri~

aI 1981 Risks such as species-specific diseases increase with monoculture Most foresters suggest reducing this risk by planting more than one species

Irrigation

Most areas of New Mexico require supplemental irrigation to maintain the necessary soil moisture to keep the trees growing near their potential It was assumed that all plantations were irrigated with a drip system fed with pumped well water The drip system including all filters laterals and emitters was estimated at $1500 per acre2 The cost of installing the drip line was estimated at $11 per acre and is included as a line item under preharvest operations The cost of the well was included in equipment costs

Water needs per acre vary with the tree size and annual rainfall An annual rainfall of 15 inches was assumed Table 4 shows the additional acre-inches of water required per acre by year

The electric well was assumed to be pumping from a depth of 200 feet at 1000 GPM Table 5 shows the well characteristics and operation costs Based on these assumptions the cost per-acre inch was determined to be $352

~ Based upon estimates provided by Mr Ron Bliesner of Keller-Bliesner Engineering Logan Uf

10

Table 4 Acre-inches of applied water by year

Year AEElied Acre-Inches

1 6

2 8

3 12

4 14

5 16

6 18

7 18

Source Ke1ler-Bliesner Engineering Company Logan UT

Table S Well characterlsdcs for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm

Well Characteristics

Static water level (feet) 200 Draw down (feet) 40 Delivery PSI 8 Gallons per minute 1000 Electric efficiency factor 470

Energy use per hour (KWH) 10367 Fuel cost per hour $778 Cost per acre-inch $352

11

t_hltiirll~9~amp6ii11jjltfllU J[BIl1IiHitilut~~W~~tlaquo+middot -~---

Cover Crop

Many Christmas tree farmers plant a cover crop of native grass between rows A cover crop reduces soil erosion and is a positive step toward vegetation management Irrigation water was not applied to the cover crop

The budget assumes that a native grass was sown before the trees were planted After the cover crop is established a non-selective herbicide such as Round-up was assumed to have been sprayed in 24-inch swathes to create grass-free rows to be planted with trees The native grass seed was estimated to cost $15 per acre Drilling the seed was included under the preharvest operations in the budget as a custom operation at $850 per acre

Mowing was included under preharvest operations as well The number of times the inter-row area needs to be mowed was decreased as the tree cover increased therefore mowing costs vary by year

Chemicals

Crop chemicals such as fertilizer herbicides insecticides and fungicides were included in the budget under purchased inputs Table 6 shows in detail the chemical name the prescribed use unit of measurement application rate number of times applied per year per unit prices and total cost per acre The costs of applying these chemicals were included in the budget under preharvest operations

Shearing and Training

Shearing is the cutting of leader and lateral branches to improve the trees shape and density (Proebsting et al 1981) Shearing produces a more saleable tree than would normally be produced otherwise Shearing may be done either by hand with shearing knives machetes or hand pruners or mechanically with light-weight sickle bar clippers or rotary pruners Rotary pruners were assumed to have been used for shearing in this report

Table 6 Chemicals applied per acre by year ror Christmas tree rarms 1988

Per Unit Total acre price cost

Year Chemical Use Unit rate Times $ $

1 Roundup Atrazine 80W

Herbicide Herbicide

gal Ills

05 50

10 10

8000 170

4000 850

2 Roundup Atrazine 80W Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate

Herbicide Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer

gal Ills Ills qt

Ills

02 50 20 10

2350

10 10 10 30

10

8000 170

2100 600

010

1600 850

4200 1800

2233

3 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer

gal Ills qt

Ills

02 20 10

3520

10 10 30

10

8000 2100 600

10

1600 4200 1800

3168

4 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 20 10

4690 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 4200 1800

4456 1725

5 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 10 10

4690 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 2100 1800

4456 1725

6 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 10 10

9830 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 2100 1800

4456 1725

7 Roundup SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal qt

Ills Ills

02 10

5400 15

10 30

10 20

8000 600

010 575

1600 1800

5130 1725

12 13

AA~1~rmiddot~i~I~~~iiltfi~)~~1i~~~4~iamp_1 2U~ampJl2lJMlIIINIiI1m~~S1lt~h

Shearing generally begins when the tree height is about 5 feet For the budgets some shearing was assumed to begin in year 3 however labor in year 3 mainly reflects training of the trees Training helps develop a straight marketable tree The greatest number of hours were needed in years 6 and 7 to prepare trees for market

Estimated chemical needs were obtained from Drs John Mexal and James Fisher Professors of Horticulture New Mexico State University Many of the above chemicals are unnecessary because many pest and disease problems found elsewhere do not currently occur in New Mexico however it was felt as acreage of the crop increases the need for chemical use would also be necessary

Harvest Operations

The harvest generally consists of 4 to 5 weeks and is the most labor intensive activity in Christmas tree growing HalVest operations consist of selecting the trees for halVesting cutting baling and transporting to the market Timing is imperative and weather can be difficult during this period

Because some trees grow faster than others it is usually possible to harvest about 13 of the crop in the sixth year The remaining 213 of the total crop would be cut the seventh year Experienced growers generally halVest about 80 of the trees they plant as a result of death loss and cullage3 This means each acre yielded 1162 marketable trees if 1452 trees per acre were originally plantedOfthe 1162 trees halVested 13 or 387 trees are halVested in year 6 and 775 trees were cut in year 7 Trees not accounted for in the projected halVest either died or were not acceptable as Christmas trees

The trees selected for halVest are often marked before cutting to prevent halVest crews from having to make decisions about tree grades while cutting After cutting trees are carried to the access road and hauled to a central area where they are baled The trees are then loaded on trucks and shipped to the wholesaler or other market outlets

gtCulled trees may be made into wnaths or sold as boughs This was not assumed as a SOurce of revenue in this report

14

HalVest arrangements with wholesalers vary In some cases wholesalers perform all halVest operations in others the wholesaler will mark the trees they want to buy Some agreements call for the wholesaler to transport the trees from field side others place the responsibility for shipping on the producer

This paper assumed the responsibility of selection and harvest was with the producer and that transportation to the market place was paid for by the wholesaler

Post-Harvest Operations

After the field has been completely halVested in the seventh year it is generally replanted to trees the following spring Some growers remove the remaining stumps Stump removal however is an expensive and time consuming process The preferred method appears to be to replant new seedlings half the distance between the remaining stumps within the row The remaining stumps are then allowed to decay naturally This method of replanting between stumps was assumed for this paper

Overhead Expense

Table 7 shows the overhead expenses assumed for the 160 acres with 147 net planted acres

Downtime is the additional labor time allowed because of time lost for such things as machine repairs moving to and from fields and waiting for deliveries A downtime rate of 20 of the total labor hours was applied in the budgets

Employee benefits include any programs that full-time or part-time employees may obtain such as social security workmens compensation insurance group life and health insurance and paid vacations Although this cost can be negligible on most small farms an 18 rate on the coSt of labor was applied here

Insurance was estimated at $850 per planted acre This includes coverage of equipment and farm liability

15

~_~ ~ -h n~middotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot _ middotmiddotbullm-middot middottlt1Gmiddotmiddotgtmiddotti~q~~middot~middot)Gv~--e~~~~~i4iM5tll L MIbullbull Jtpoundi8)l] II ha bullUMtflIf~~~Hjl~kllI~1cent

Table 7 Annual overhead expenses on a 160-acre Christmas tree fanna

Downtime 20 ofdirect labor hours

Employer benefits 18 of direct labor hours

Insurance $850 per planted acre

Farm facilities $386 per planted acre

Land rent $8163 per planted acreb

General and administrative $50 per planted acre

Supervision $75 per planted acre

Other $30 per planted acre

Brokerage 5 of gross revenue

88sed 003tOUtTof 147 pl8nted acres 1Is7s per acre on the total of 160 acres

It was assumed farm facilities were required to protect equipment from weather and to provide office space A simple pole building was used for protecting equipment and was estimated to cost $8000 An additional $9000 was allotted for an office structure The cost of these facilities was spread over a service life of 35 years The cost per planted acre was approximately $4 per acre

Land rent was assumed to be $82 per planted acre or $75 per acre on the gross farm acreage If the land is already owned outright this would represent the opportunity cost of having planted the land to Christmas trees

General and administrative expenses include management salaries secretarial expenses and costs associated with running and maintaining the office such as telephone copying

16

and bookkeeping The amount associated with general and administrative expenses was $50 per planted acre

Supervision expenses were incurred to oversee field operations A $75 per planted acre expense was used for supervision This figure is arbitrary but includes funds for possibly hiring a foreman It also includes funds for pickup truck expenses The 147 net planted acres provides an annual supervision expense fund of $11025

Other expenses is a catch-all category for irregular or unexpected items such as fence or road repair additional hand tools or added administrative expenses The other expenses assumed here were $30 per acre per year

A brokerage fee was included in the budgets as a marketing expense The producer often serves as his own broker and in this case the fee included in the budgets would be viewed as an opportunity cost of the producers time A fee of 5 of gross revenue was used as a brokerage expense

Interest

An interest expense was included for opemting capital and equipment investment Rates of 12 and 10 respectively were used 4

For the full-cost budgets the interest expense on operating capital needed each year from the time of planting was compounded through the seventh year and charged off as an expense in the harvest year If the capital used was all equity capital rather than borrowed this could again be construed as an opportunity cost of the use of the producers money

Establishment Expenses

The establishment expense is the actual cost of growing the trees to harvestable size (tables 8 through 13) To show the total return and the total costs incurred during the harvest

IbeSeinterest rates imply an average annual inflation rate or at least 3to 4 per year A realistic analysis could increase the annual cash expenses and revenues by a 3 to 4 compounded rate over the 35middotyear investment period This approach would result in higher estimated returns Future expenses and revenues were not adjusted ror inflation in this report hence the results may be underestimated

17

MtiS 4ampIi- iJi4MliIllITftif ~2k+Csectlgt--~Smiddot-f

year the full-cost budget for years 6 and 7 include an establishment expense under the purchased input category (tables 13 and 14) This expense is based on cost estimates from the first five years of production and is prorated to the appropriate year based upon the harvest yield ratio S Because there is a time value associated with the capital used to grow the trees a compounding factor was also included The rate used to compound was 10 The total establishment expense per planted acre was estimated to be $2782 allocated in year 6 and $6840 in year 7 The $6840 allocated in year 7 includes $616 of interest expenses associated with having to wait another year (year 6 to 7) before these expenses are recovered The establishment expenses amounted to $719 and $883 per harvested tree respectively for trees harvested in the sixth and seventh years Net returns would increase significantly if all trees would reach harvestable size by year 6

Total Cost Per Acre

Based on the budget estimates made for years 6 and 7 a total cost of $12895 per acre planted or $1110 per tree harvested was required to grow Christmas trees through harvest This cost includes all equipment expenses chemicals land rent labor overhead and interest

Price Sensitivity of Full-Cost Budgets

To determine the return to risk when all costs are accounted for the gross revenue must also be estimated The gross revenue is a function of number of trees harvested and the price per tree The yield of 80of the total planting or 1162 trees was assumed as fIXed in this part of the analysis and only the price was varied A per tree price of $1240 was used as the base with a $1 change in either direction Using the $1240 per tree price a net return of $158372 per acre harvested was derived At $1140 per tree $1 less a net return

gtc)f the total yield 13 was harvested in year 6 and 23 in year 7

q

i g

I middoto~ ~ ~8

~i ~ ~

_z1~ ~s -~

~g

~

~ ~3

z ~ ~i r cu

m~zIi ~ ~=gt

~s ~-

5 oS ~

~J t ~It ~c= ~c lI-Q

i l- ~~ fI) = I iI~ = CIt

f 8 ~ a

(I III laquoIC 5 ~cI iIoU ~

ltI ~ CllioS~ Ol fo- ~ ~ j$ S ~ ~In~

~~~ggg

oi~oo -o-4-C~ ~

0000 0utqno 0

ritO 0 ~-4tltl- N

w ~w

tJtDWU C-amptoe(

oot)o ~~~lt= _Ot) -0

Ie

8glg~~~~i~~g~ t o~-eOaiNOQN 0 N-4N S

11 N ~ill -- 0

~ ~ ~~

1tc ~ ~~ -4 _

I

~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~_OO~N shy 1_ ~

gg 8~ st i~ tOtO i

~ ~~~ ~ X x=~

~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~Q~~N N~

~ g~ E

~ ~ ~ 0 Q i1lJ~W

lto(c- aa~aai5~ ttlZW

~ tQ __ -I iffi Z ~wtll~ow=i~~~~ ~e=~~~5~~tUQCI =VIE a C-lI-

g~~~~g8g~ ~NeOQarQ a) ~

~~~q ~~ laquo)~ ~S

o o~~ UN ~

~ ~

0

~(fIii

~

i

o N

bull ~ l

i

~

~

~ ~

S ~

18 19

Table 9 Per acre tun cost budgets ror growiDg White Fir and Scots Pine

~-~~-~~~~-~-~~~-~-~~-~-~~-~~-~-~~~~~~~~--~~-~~-----------------------_------YIELD

HARVEST DATES PLANTING DATES

PlIlCE -- ~-- - - - bull - - - bullbull - bull - - - ~ - - bull - bull QUANTITY PUR~~~ LABOR ~~iJ~~ REPAIRS Fgi~ TOTAl

TEM UNIT __ bullbull ________ bull __ _ _ ___ ___ bull ___ ___ bull __ _ __________ bullbullbullbull _________ bullbullbullbullbullbullbull _ bull ------_ bullbullbullbullbullbull - -- bull bull - - - - bull (DOLLARS) bullbullbull - - bullbullbull

PURCHASED INPUTS 6650100 ACRE 66501lER8ICIOE 1800100 ACRE 1800INSECTICIDE 211523500 LB 2115MOIII~ SULFATE 750100 ACRE 750MISCELLANECIlS TOOLS 1131511315SUBTOTAL

PREHARVEST OPERATIONS 21751309 319 209 338PTO SPRAYER (X) ampAS IS P 238 HR 27491738 423 275 313MOWER (410 GAS 15 HP 316 HR 4200

Mise 1000 HR 4200LABOR 3226~ 360 IR 2812 238 176WELL (ex) ELE

123501914 7247 3554 722 827SUBTOTAL

OVERfAD EXPENSES 1709311 1709OOWIITIME EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

13041304 850 850

INSURANCE 386 386 FARM FACILITIES 8163 8163 LAND RENT 5000 5000GENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION 75007500suPERVISION 3D00 3000 OTHER

17399 2791210513SUBTOTAL 311 HR

3554 722 18226 515_7711315 17760TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 2225 IR

-51577NET OPERATING PROFIT

2678INTEREST ON OPERATI~G CAPITAL 831INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT

-55086 ~~~~-~~~~- _- _- -_ -_ ----- --_ ---- -- -- ----_ --_ --___ _ - _------ __

Table 10 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 3 estabUshment) NM 1988 PLANTING DATES YIELDHARVEST OATES PRICE

POWER PURCHASED FUEL OIL FIXEDITEM UNIT QUANTITY INPUTS lABOR LUBRICANT REPAIRS COST TOTAL --_ - - _- ---- - -_ -- --_ - - - -(DOlLARS)

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE 5800 5800MOIII~ SULFATE 35200 LB 3168 3168INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800MISCELLANECIlS TOOLS 100 ACRE 750 750

SIJIITOTAL 11518 11518

PRE HARVEST OPERATIONS ROTARY PRUIINERS GAS 900 HR 3780 234 108 495 4617PTO SPRAYER (5X) GAS 15 HP 1 70 R 935 228 150 241 1554MOWER (4X) ampAS 15 HP 316 HR 1738 423 275 313 2149LABOR Mise 1000 IR 4200 4200ELL (12X) ELE 540 HR 4217 356 265 4838

N SUBTOTAL 2926 10653 5102 889 1314 17958 - (MRNfAl) EXPENSES OOWIITiME 477 2625 2625EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1918 1918INSURANCE 850 850FARM FACILITIES 386 386LAIIO RENT 8163 8163GENERAL _rNISTRATlON 5000 5000SUPERViSiON 7500 7500OTHER 3000 3000

SUBTOTAL 477 HR 2043 17399 29442

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 3403 HR 11518 22696 5102 889 18713 58918

NET OPERATI KG PROF IT middot58918

I NTEREST ON OPERAT I NG CAP ITAL 2930 INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT INVESTMENT 964

RETURN TO RISK 62812 ~ -~- -_ ~ ~~ ~ _ - -

Table 11 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas ~~~~~~~~~~~_~~~t~~~~~ ___ _ ~i~~middotDAEmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot YIELD

HARVEST OATES PRICE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull PURCHASED FUEL Oil FIXED

PMR INPUTS LA~ LUBRICANT REPAIRS COST TOTAL ~~~~~~- middotmiddotDOt~~middot PURCHASED INPUTS

HERBICIDE 100 ACRE 5800 5800 INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 fUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 AMONIUM SULFATE 46900 LB 4221 4221 MlsCElLANEClJS TOOLS 100 ACRE 750 750

SUBTOTAL 14296 14296

PRE HARVEST OPERA liONS ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) CAS 1500 HR 6300 390 180 825 7695 PTO SPRAYER (ax) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 364 239 386 2485 MOIlER (2X) CAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374~ FERT INJECTOR ElE 030 HR 011 061 096 168 LABOR MISC 1000 HR 4200 4200 lElL (14X) [L 630 HR 49bull 20 416 309 5645

SUBTOTAL 3590 12865 5897 1033 1772 21567

OVERHEAD EXPENSES DOIINTIM 586 3223 3223 EMPLOYEE BENEF ITS 2316 2316 INSURANCE 850 850 FARM FACILITIES 386 386 LAND RENT 8163 8163 CENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION 5000 5000 SUPERVI SION 7500 7500 OTHER 3000 3000

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039 17399 30438

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 4176 HR 14296 25904 5897 1033 19171 66301

NET OPERATl NG PROF IT 66301

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL 3247 INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 1102

70650~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~--

Table 12 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas trees (year 5 establishment) NM 1988 PLANTING OATES HARVEST OATES YIELD

PRICE

lIEM PMR

IJHlT QUANT lTy PURCHASED

INPUTS

~~~~~

FUEL OlL LA80R LUBRICANT

REPAIRS FIXED COST TOTAL

PURCHASED INPUTS - shy ~ ~ bull bull bull (DOLLARS) bull - bull HER81CIOE INSECTICIDE FUNCICIOE AMOHIUM SULFATE MI SCELLANEOUS TOOLS

SU8TOTAL

PREHARVEST oPERATIONS

100 ACRE 100 ACRE 100 ACRE

46900 L8 100 ACRE

3700 1800 1725 4221 750

12196

3700 1800 1725 4221

750

12196

ROTARY PRUHNERS (2X) PTO SPRAYER (8X) MOIlER aX) FERT INJECTOR LABOR WELL (16X)

SUBTOTAL

OVERHEAD EXPENSES

CAS CAS 15 HP CAS 15 HP ELE MISC ELE

1500 H 272 HR 158 HR 030 HR

1000 HR 720 HR

3680

6300 1496 869

4200

12865

390 364 212 011

5623

6600

180 239 137 061

475

1092

825 386 156 096

353

1816

7695 2485 1374 168

4200 6451

22373

OOIHIME EMPLOYEE BENEFf TS INSURANCE FARM FACILITIES LANI RENT GENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION SUPERVISION OTHER

586 3223 2316

7500

850 386

8163 5000

3223 2316 850 386

8163 5000 7500

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039

3000

17399

3000

30438

TOTAL OPERAJINC EXPENSES 4266 HR 12196 25904 6600 1092 19215 65007 NET oPERA T I HG PROf I T

65007 INTEREST ON OPERATINC CAPITAL INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 3142

1153 RETURN TO bull I SK bull ~ bullbullbull - _ - - ~ - _ - - _ bullbullbullbull - - ~ _ bullbull - _ bullbullbullbull bullbull - bullbullbull

~ - - -_ _-_ __--_ _---__- 69302

Table 13 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine

~~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J~~~~~~ Table 14 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine PL~NTIMG DATES YIELD 387 TREES GROSS RETURNSS4198 80 HARVEST DATES NOVEMBER 15 bull DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0TREE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbull bullbull

bull - bullbull - bullbullbull - bull bull bull bull ~C~A~E~ - FUEL OIL FIXED ~middot~middot~7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~U~~~~~ PLANT INC DATES YIelD 775 TREESQUANT ITY INPUTS LABOR LUBRICANT REPAIU COST TOTAL

~ ___ w~ ___ ____ _ ____ ____ _ _ _ ___ HARVEST OATES NOVEM8ER 15 DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0IREE ~ CROSS RETURNS$9iIOOO - bullbullbullbull (DOLLARS) bullbullbullbullbullbull - bull shy

pOlin PURCHASEDPURCHASED INPUTS ITEM fUEl OIL FIXEDUNIT OUANT IlY INPUTSHERBltlDE 100 ACRE 3700 3700 bull lABOR LUBRICANT RePAIRS-_ _---- _--- _---_ _---- - _--_ - _- __ __ -- COST TOTAL INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 bull FUNGICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 bull bull (DOLLARS) bull A_IUM SULFATE 93800 LB 8~~2 8442 bull

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE T6OOTWINE 38700 EACH 19-35 1935 1600INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800MISCELLANEros TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000 bull 1800

ESTABLISHMENT 113 2781 72 278172 FUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725AMON I UN SULFATE 5~000 lB 4860 4860

SUBTOTAL 18602 2781 72 2967 7~ TWINE 17500 EACH 3875 ~8 7~MISCELLANEOUS TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000

PREHARVEST OPERATIOIIS ESTABLISHMENT 23 ~050 ~050

ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) GAS 3800 HR 15960 988 ~56 2090 1~9~ bull SUBTOIAL 14860PTO SPRAYER (ex) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 360 239 386 2~ 85 bull ~050 698910 MOWER (2X) GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 137~ bull PREHARVEST OPERATIONSfERT INJECTOR ELE 035 oR 012 071 112 195 bull ROTARY PRUNNERS (2)) GAS 3000 HRLABOR Mise 1000 HR ~200 ~2 00 bull 12600 780 360 1650 I5~90PTO SPRAYER (xl GAS 15 HP 238 HRIlELL lt18X) ElE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258 bull MOIlER (ZX) 1309 319 209 338 21 75GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374fEAT INJECTOR ELE 060 HSUBTOTAL 6075 22525 7902 1~38 31~1 35006 021 122 191 334LABOR MIse 1000 HR ~200 4200

HARVEST OPERATIONS WELL (18X) ELE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258

CHAIN SAW GAS 968 HR 4066 252 136 590 50~~ SUBTOTAL 5266DRAG amp lOAD HAND 3225 HR 13545 135~5 18978 7658 1363 2732 J0731 TREE BALER GAS 230 HR 966 177 278 952 2373 HARVEST OPERATIONSTRAILER GAS 15 HP 300 HR 1650 ~11 360 560 2985 CHAIN SAW GAS 1938 HRLABOR Mise 1650 HR 6930 6930 81~0 504 271 1182 10097DRAG amp LOAD HAND 6058 HR 27124 27124

SUBTOIAL 6373 HR 27157 8~0 7 7~ 2106 30877 TREE BALER GAS I 46D HR 1932 354 5~7 1904 4747TRAILER GAS 15 HP 600 HR 3300 822 720 1128 5970LABOR MISC ~OOO NROVERHEAD EXPENSES 16800 16800 OOHlE 2321 12763 12763 bull SUBTOTAL 13~56 HREMPLOYEE SENEF lIS 89~3 89~3 bull 57296 1680 1548 4214 6~7 38

INSURANCE 850 850 bull OVERHEAD EXPEHSESFARM fACILITIES 386 366 bull OCltJNTJME 3~70LAND RENT 8163 8163 bull 19637 19637EMPLOYEE BENet liSGENERAL amp ADMINISTRATlOil 5000 5000 bull 13729 13729 SUPERVISION 7500 7500 bull INSURANCE

850 850FARM FACILITIESOTHER 3000 3000 bull 386 386LAND RENTMARXETING 2399~ 2399~ 8163 8163

SUPERVISION GeNERAL 8 ADMINISTRATION

5000 5000 SUBTOTAL 2321 HR 23994 29206 17399 70599 7500 7500

MARKETING OTHER

3000 300048050 48050

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 14769 HR 29550 ~~401 347~ 1250 287125 367738 bullbull SUBTOTAL 3570 HR ~8050 ~0866 17399 106315 IIpoundT OPERATING PROfIT 1121~2

TOIAl OPERATING EXPENSES 22292 HRINTEREST (JIj OPERATTNG CAPlTAL 6545 62910 117140 9338 2911 708395 900694 INTEREST (JIj EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 2473 NET OPERATING PROFIT

60306 10312~

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT IHVESlMENT 8659

3361 RETURN TO R I so

TIoCmiddotTHIRDS OF THESE COSTS IlERE ALLOCATED AS PROOUCTl(Jlj COSTS fORIREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 7 48286iI ~--~-- ----- ~ --~--- -~------ -----~-- yen - bullbullbullbull -- ~ -- ----_ _w ___ ________ 0 _______ _w __ IHIS TOTAL INCCltPORATES ONLY THE EXPENSE ASSOCATEO WITH THE TREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 6 BECAUSE OF THIS THE COLUMN

WILL NOT SUM TO THIS VALUE

24 25

~ i C -i Q

= foil

Table 15 Cash flow for a 160-aere Cbristmas tree rann (147 net planted aeres lIIII====_=====IIIlIII======S=II==2=II=___1I3_III========s_bullbullbullbull=z=a==a============bullbull==~=bullbullbull==11======aSS==lIIlII======================================================

Year 1 fear 2 Year J tear 4 Year 5 Year 6 fear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 fear 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 lllttows _=====

Sale of Trees so so so so so $101035 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 S302585 S302585 $302585 $302585 OUtflows

Purchased Input 5 Tree stock 1921019m 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210Cover ~rass seed 315 9sect1~ 19m 315 315 315 19m 19m 315 19m 19m 19m 19m315 315 315 315erbicuSe 1019 2415 3633 4851 5628 6405 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741Insecticide o 378 756 1~ 1890 22611 22611 22611 22611 2268 2268 2268 22611 22611Ftrlgicide o o o H~ 1087 U~ 1449 U~ 1449 1449 449 ~~~ 1449 1449 t449 1449Amonhn Sui tate o 444 1109 1~ 5676 5676 5676 ~~~X 5676 5676Tree guards 788 788 788 2~ 4~~ 788 53 53 53 788 788 5~ 5~ 53788 788 788Miscellaneous tools 420 578 735 893 105g 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365Twine o o o o i~ 1220 l~~ l~~ij 1220 1220 1220 1220 1220 lm lnOIrrigatlon system 31500 3150031 508 31500 31500 31500 31500 3150g 31500 31500 31~~g 31500 31500 31500 31 gtog 31~~g 31500 31500Eqult 33750 o o o 1045g o o o 266j0 o o a 10450 o oFarm facilities 17000 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oPre-harvest Operations o CustQll1 1_ preparation 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651Spray 204 578 844 1271 1698 2124 2498 2498 2~g 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498Harrow 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 168 1611 1611 Mark rows 309 309 309 Seed 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 Haul plants 42 42 42 42 42 309309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309

42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42Pl t (hand) 1861 2 ~Iy Netting 1~ 1~

794 1~ ~2 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ ~2 1~ 1 1861 1861 1861 861 li~ Orlp installaton 221 221 221 211

~l 794 794 794 794 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 2lt1495 990 1485 1733 1980 2228 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475Shear amp train 2415a o 864 2303 3743 7398- 1~~~ 1~~~ 10283 10283 10283 10283

i seel taneous 1amp1raquor 882 76 2646 Appt ter t it i zer o o o 10~g~ 10m 10m 10~g~ 10~g~ 10283

35 71 141 182 182 182 182 182 182 lr2 Purping costs 480 1121 617435l8 5292 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 Ot 174 6174 6174 6174

Harvest operations 2081 3l02 i~~g 5923 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 73k4

Cut tr~s o Drag amp load trees o 2807o o 935 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 Wrap trees o o 2374 7115 ~~~~ ~~~ 1115 7115 7115 7115 7115 7~ 7115o o o 298 895 895 895 7J~ 895 7~~~ 895 895 895 895 895Haul trees o o o 508 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525MisceHaneous labOr o 1525o o 1455 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366Overheed Oowotime 648 1007 IS58 2235 2911 5522 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346E1lloy benefits 4611 742 1145 1631 3933 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581Insurance 179 357 536 114 2~~

1071 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250Land r~t 1575 3150 4725 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025G amp A 1050 lloo 3150 4lOO 5250 6300 tgro 7350 7350 7350 7350 1~m k~~~ 7350 ~m 7350 7350 735a~~~Vision 472S 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11021575 3150

11m 11~~~ 025 11~~630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 63mMarketng II o o o o 5052 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 lSI29

1 Based on total of 147 planted acres by Year 7 A total of 21 (Jeres are planted each year year 1 consists ot 21 planted acres year 2 a total of 42 etC

-- --~ -~-~ r IJampamp $ ~H ~M LgtH~-~Lw~

110 0 middot W It 110 OO~~~~o~~OOO OampooooooosectOii S~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~H~ = - 11 11=L = 110 _ N N 0 M

bull c _~_

bullbullbull 2 _ M~

cash needs of the operation The farm will produce a positivei 0goooo00020poundN t-~~~~ t-~Fg~ORi ~ UNHIt U to OOE~l2~O~ft~oOI L 110 lS -lIi iIl~lI)t i1 ---a~ - 3

N annual cash flow starting in the seventh year However a total N bullbull u _N N~ - - ~N ~ $E~3

bullbull It 0 t N of $540819 in cash is expended through the first 6 years Ao~ooooooo~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~V~~ ~=~==~C ~ OOi~~~~O$~OOO ~ laquoS_~_ i i6~ ~gIIt_~o~ -=~ I total of 11 years are needed (five positive cash producingbullM Ii IfII 110 II n N -~ ~ _ N t- _ _ ~ ~~~= N III H 0 years) before the cash outflows incurred during the first 6 ~

~ = =a OOsect~~~O~OOO o~ooooooo~~~i 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ =~= years are covered This is based on selling trees at $1240L= V ~ ~N ~~ ~~ ~4 N~ ~~~ i i~e s -- N S The budgets were developed for a 35-year period because=gt- tt n this was thought to be a reasonable economic life5~~ ~ OO~~~roO~~O~O degmoooooooi~~ ~=~~~ ~mi5~5~~ ~=~= amp0 - ~ - III middot

__ ~ ~ _ 0 Nt- _ Ntn ~~~ ~ -~~- ~ pound Additionally a 35-year life allows for five 7-year

planting-through-harvest rotations Based on the rotationbull C) MM C OO~~~~degri~OOO OampOOOOOOO~~~~m 2E~~~ ~~~sect~~~~ ~u~= i c L ~ ~

N~v N N~ ~~ N~ ~4 ~~~~~~ ~ iii schedule only Inth of the total acreage would be planted ini = i

-SfIJ n= ~ - -I anyone year The cash costs in year 1 therefore include onlyRi = ~ ~~~~~i~~5me~~ i~sect~~ ~~~~~~~~ E~ lias amp0 ~~~~~~J~~~~OO H II n ~ 0- ~~w- ~ = ~~ Nt- - ~~_~t- ~ ~ct N planting expense for Inth of the total acreage or 21 acresW - - -= ~ Year 2 would again include planting expenses for Inth of theCtI 110- -~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~o~~~g~ ~G~ liN Q) $ ___ cOP ___~ i_IiInJX lIlCoo~_ flt nc II II tn ~~i~~~~~~~~00 =~ N ~ 0_11 - N w (1= Ot- N~ Oo~t-- i Ef~~ acreage and the second year growing expenses for the 21=- =tt ~ - acres planted originally The total expenses of a fullymiddot =S 1II ~~~_~~~~~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~sect~~ l~~~~~~~ Ec~ _ tl_-= ~u ~ operating facility are first incurred in the seventh year The

~ ~NII -~_ 1I1f N ~o~ N~ - ~o~=~~ ~ eg~R- 1111 0 - t first year of full revenue is also obtained in year 7 (21 acres of Cite ~ ~~~~~~~N~~~~~ ~~~~~ I~~~~~g~ ~r~i

~ _ ~ cOPNN __~ ~_m~~ ~1nO~O~~ Nfl~M

= or ~~~~~~~~~~O tt l 387 trees in their sixth year and 21 acres of 775 trees in their0- ~N_~ _ _0 N ~o~ N~ - ~~_=t--= ~ ~gGbull N= iI - - - ~i 1 seventh year ofgrowth)III

4iiii i~ ~ As the farm approaches the end of its economic life it was~~~_~~~~~~~~OO i~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~pound~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~i~E i

I middotL= 0- -oN_tI- - ~ N _ N~ot-- Nt-- ~ ~o_~t-= ~ ~U~ ii= = ~ assumed that the operator would stop planting Therefore as 11 - a l ~ 13 ~~~~g~i~N~~~~~ i~~~~ ~~a~~IC~~ E=~= of year 29 no more planting expenses are incurred It wasltV bull V ~~~~~~~~~~OO 0- N - -= ~N0ftIo - Ieo ~ t= -oN 1I _0- - N~ ~~ Nt- - ~o-~= ~ ~ft~c =a ~ - t assumed the land would be either left idle or used for otherIIIJ - -

= ~ purposes In year 35 the final year of operation only 21 acresa~= tQ ~~~~~~~re~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~ E~a N 0- -0 ___ _III u N _ N~o~ N~ _~ ~o-=~= ~ ~~~III ~ ~ of seventh-year trees would remain to be harvested At thisgt- - - -I point the entire operation would be closed down No salvagesect ii~ 1II ~~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~$~9~~ i~~~~ ~~~~sect~~ E~I II

II Ltf __ ~ ~N-II N ~ Ni ~~ N~ ~~ ~~~i~ i ~=in value was assumed because the land used was either leased or ~ -11~ 1= shy

I ~ rented and all equipment or buildings had no remainingc 15 ~ ft ~~~rd~~J~~~~~O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~E~iIII 0- QN-V 0 N _ N~o~ N ~~_~~~ ~ ~~~ i useful life H= ~ - ltgt ~ 15 Over the project life it would be necessary to replace some to tQ ~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~S~~~ 2Ei~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~5~i t ~ equipment For the purpose of this study it was assumed that~ I ~ -oN_~ _ - N _ N~ ~~ _ ~o_=~~ ~ ~~ I -= I= ~ - i all equipment would be used until it was no longer-=1 ~lt~S~-~N~~~~1 t-~~~~ ~co~~~o~ ~ft i011 V-- ~ o~- ~~NN__~ i_~V~ ~II~OO~_ ~~ ~~~~~_~i~~~OO a salvageable at which point it would be replaced new Table 16

r bullbull tv () -ON _ - N N~o~ ~ _ ~o-== ~ ~I~ I middot ~ - - - ~ shows the replacement schedule assumed in the cash flow i ~ Note that this table reflects the assumed useful life of the~ -=bull gi

i

iii s equipment rather than its depreciable life Also two itemsCgt I 1 u lJi~ ~ t- I ~ - ~ i the chain saws and the tree balers are not necessary until year -111) l -E I ~ l~~ _E ==Ilbull- ~ 1 ~j c ~ ~ ~ -5 -_ bull s

~~~ ~ ~~ _ ~ ~ L~ OL ~ 0 6 II 6 and were not purchased until that time Based on the highc _~~~~~WL ~-=] ii1t~ ~~ ulpoundlzl ~~ ~ = 1 i~uZul ~~I S Lo-- 2 L ~It~~ -i ~ ~

J L~_ ~m LOCmiddot gt- ampogt-~-~~ ~tc -lt 0 011 CIt -= = 2 ~~~t~5middotFi~f~~i~iitli-~fi~fifiiiI f Ii ~ilaquoI - ~ =~U=_~~~~~_W~U0Z~EZ~CQE~CEAL3QZEQW_~000 ~middot - ~ 8 Ii ~ I ~ middotmiddot -

29

111

f ~middot~middot~LC -- - ~i~

n ~ illII I~ II

Ii II

~~ Table 16 Equipment replacement schedule for a 160-acre ~ Christmas tree farm in New Mexico 1988 ~

usage during a short time period and the relatively short life of these items they were replaced every 5 years

Analysis

Because there are many unknowns encountered when projecting cost and returns and because different locations may be faced with different situations a series of scenarios were provided to evaluate the financial feasibility of the project Three major variables were altered concurrently to create the different scenarios These variables were

1 Prices 2 Yields 3 Costs

Price

A base price of $1240 was assumed The sensitivity of the return to a change of $1 increments over a range of $2 was measured

Yield

Changes in teld were based on altering the number of saleable trees This was done as a percentage of the total trees planted For example a 90 rate would mean that 90 of the 1452 trees originally planted or 1307 trees were available for sale This variable not only affect~ gross revenue but also alters any costs associated with the number of trees harvested Costs such as cutting field hauling baling and brokering are all altered by changes in the number of trees harvested and were assumed to be linear

Yield might also be altered by decreasing the space between trees For example a 5 by 5 spacing yields 1742 planted trees If 80 were saleable this would be 1394 trees

30

Item

Facilities

Well

Tractor

PTO sprayer

Trailer

Mower

Injector

Rotary pruners

Chain saw

Tree baler

iIIii Year ~

L 6 lL 16 2L 26 JL II~ Cost ~

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -(dollars) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- If 17000 ~

~ 10200 i

~

1bull1 113000 13000 13000 13000 1

~I 1200 1200 1200 1200 ~

bull p

~Ii ~

2400 II

800 800 800 800 ~ -I

I1200 1200 1200 1200 ~ 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 t

IiiIii 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 J

~ ~ ~ JOW JOW ~ ~ JOW

50750 10450 26650 10450 26650 10450 26650 I~ISource Table 3 IiIJ

f ~ J ~Cost ~

11I~ Because costs vary by farm and by location it was felt that a sensitivity should be performed on this variable Rather than bull

talter a specific cost or a specific category of costs the total bullIIj

cost was increased or decreased by a percentage and the Ji results evaluated Costs were altered in 10 increments in ~

Iijeither direction The 0 column uses those costs shown in the cash flow

t ~II

1

~I~ 31 ~

Feasibility Assessment

The internal rate of return (IRR) is a technique used to evaluate investment opportunities that incorporates the time value of money concept The internal rate of return for an investment project (in this case a Christmas tree planting) is the discount rate that equates the present value of the annual net cash revenue flows with the projects acquisition cost The net cash revenue is the difference between the cash receipts and cash expenses generated by an investment project over its economic life The time value of money is based on the economic fact that $1 today is worth more than a promise of $1 at some future date because of its current earnings potential

An investment can be accepted or rejected based on its internal rate of return (IRR) Acceptability of the investment depends on a comparison of the IRR with the investors required rate of return (RRR) Acceptability can be based on the following decision rules if IRR exceeds RRR accept the investment if IRR = RRR be indifferent and if IRR is less than RRR reject the investment

While IRR is a useful technique in project evaluation there are some problems with its use The major concern when using IRR is it assumes all cash inflows can be reinvested at the same rate as the resulting IRR percentage Should the IRR percentage be in the vicinity of the current rates of return of other investment instruments IRR is a reasonably accurate measure of return on investment However should the rate of return be much higher than current returns available elsewhere the resulting return on investment may be overstated The inverse is true at lower rates of return

The Net Present Value (NPV) is another way of evaluating projects that involve capital outlays over a period of years The NPV method discounts all future cash outlays and inflows back to a present-year basis using a specified interest (discount rate) The discount rate chosen is usually the opportunity cost of using equity funds in an alternative use or the cost of borrowed capital increased by an appropriate premium for risk or a combination of these The NPV

32

method is preferred over the IRR method when evaluating one investment against alternative similar type investments

Based on the sensitivity analysis discussed above a table was developed to show the IRR under the various scenarios Table 17 shows the internal rates by the per-unit price The analyses is based on pre-tax returns At $1040 per tree the IRR ranges from -14 when costs were increased by 10 and saleable yields were reduced to 60 to 160 when costs were decreased by 10 and 90 of the trees planted were sold At $1140 the IRR range is from 14 to 185 under the same conditions as above At $1240 per tree the IRR ranges from 38 when costs were increased 10 and 60 of the trees are saleable to 207 when costs were decreased 10 and saleable yields were at 90 At $1340 per tree the IRR ranges from 60 to 228 At $1440 per tree a grower could expect an IRR from 80 to 248 under the scenarios presented

A pre-tax analysis using Net Present Value (NPV) was also completed for the various scenarios The results of this analysis are shown in table 18

If an IRR of 12 is chosen as a minimum rate desired for investment growers must receive at least $1140 per tree and attain a level of 80 saleable trees and good cost control to have a successful investment At prices greater than $1140 per tree and 80 saleable product the investment appears to have possibility

33

Table 17 Internal Rates of Return (lRR) estimates for a 160-acre Table 18 Net Present Value (NPV) estimates for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost cbanges cha~es Ising a discount rate of 12

Percentage Percentageof saleable Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount

of saleabletrees 10 lower No chan~ 10 bilber trees --percent-shy

_______ - - - - - - - - - - - (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - shy

$1040 Tree Price 900 130 102900 160 BOO

SOO 128 97 69 700 60 31700 91 600

-14600 48 16

$1140 Tree Price( 900 127185 155

123 95900 800 SOO 153 700 700 116 86 58 600

14600 74 43

$1240 Tree Price 900 lJJ7 178 150900 BOO

118SOO 176 146 700 139 109 81700 600

38600 97 66

$1340 Tree Price 900 900 228 198 171 BOO

167 139SOO 197 700103700 161 130 600

600 119 88 60

$1440 Tree Price 900 BOO

248 218 191900 700159SOO 216 186 600

180 150 123700 80

Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount _ 10 lOwer No change 10 higher

-middot----middotmiddot---middot--bull-----dollars------bullbullbullbull -bullbullbull shy

$1040 Tree Price 175195 32602

(110936) (253415)

44502 (97269)

(2399BO) (381637)

(86191) (227140) (369023) (509859)

$1140 Tree Price 299293 167950 36607 142927

(14476) (170717)

12478 (144024) (299372)

(117971) (273573) (428028)

$1240 Tree Price 423391 291398 159406 253252 81984

(88019)

122225 (48069)

(217107)

(8BOl) (178123) (346196)

$1340 Tree Price 547489 414847 282204 363576 231972 100368 178445 (5321)

47886 (134842)

(82673) (264364)

$1440 Tree Price 671587 538295 405003 473901 341719 209538 274905 143841 12777 77377 (52578) (182532)

138 108 N01E Parentheses mean negative number

34 35

600

Investor Analysis

The following analysis considers the impact of the US tax laws (revised October 1987) on investing in Christmas trees The approach is identical to the previous IRR and NPV analysis except the impact of federal and state income taxes is considered in the annual stream of cash flow

The basis assumptions used are as follows

1 The taxpayer investor is in a 40 tax bracket on marginal income when combining both state and federal income taxes

2 The investor is actively engaged in managing the Christmas tree farm so that revenues and losses can be counted as active income or the investor has other passive investment income to offset any passive losses from growing Christmas trees

3 The Section 179 one-time deduction of $10000 per year is used in other businesses operated by the investor

4 Depreciation was calculated using the modified ACRS rules published by the IRS in 1987 Publication 225

5 The Christmas tree enterprise falls under the IRS rules for Christmas tree cultivation requiring capitalization of planting and stump culture for trees more than 6 years of age Because one-third of the trees are sold within the 6-year time limit one-third of planting expenses were deducted in the year incurred and the remaining two-thirds were capitalized and written off when the trees were sold in the seventh year

6 The investor uses a cash accounting system for tax purposes

36

The pre-tax IRR for the scenario with trees selling for $1240 each 80 harvestable yield and standard costs was 146 The IRR after-tax considerations fell to 125 (table 19) One might compare the after-tax return of 125 to other after-tax investments of comparable risks The after-tax NPV for the above scenario is $18069 compared to the pre-tax NPV of $122225 using a 12 discount rate

37

0

Table 19 Investor cash now analysis lor a l6O-acre Christmas tree larm (per planted acre basis) S=~=bullbull=I==~==~=bullbull====iI=bullbull2a==IIiIII bullbullbullbull===========n====ZIUSS=====bullbull===lllJ=====$~nUIlt1=llIIlta====s=a====II===============bullbullbull==II=~====lltz===-===U===========1II==X=======_==li=

Year 1 rHr 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year S Ye8l 6 tear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 1Q Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Tear 18

Net Cash Flow BelMe T8)( ConeiderattOlS (116411) (75439) (86658) (99354)(111768) (51189) 119810 119810 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810

Tax ONKtiona

Oeprec i at i on Irrigation syat far Foelli amp Equip

7875 1440

14625 7440

19446 7440

22890 7440

25378 7440

27156 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

Planting E_ 8209 10585 13004 16006 18568 22423 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031

~~~- ~t~t 1~~~r 1~ n~~ ~~m i~m ~M ~U~~ ~~M ~M ~~~ ~m ~M ~~~ ~~~ ~~M ~~M ~~M Total TalC DeOoctlons 33265 49193 65833 81973 96875 130860 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189341 189341 189311 189341 189341 189311

~rI~ (3326~) (4979~) (6583g) (819~) (968~) l~m) m~ ~~~~f~ mJ~ ~H~ m~~ mm ~~H~~ ~~B~ ~~im mm mJ~ ~~B2~ Inc_ ra Saings 13306 19917 26333 32189 38750 11930 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc_ TalC Oue 0 0 0 0 0 0 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297

let Cash flow (1037) (5522) (60325) (66) (737018) (397259) 74512 7Z2 74512 74512 7862 7512 74~12 rZSt2 142 M=062 1512 14512 =s===========s=_====sbullbullc=======-===================_======-=-==========I====S======-===========================e===s====================s==============r=================

Net Cash Flow Before Tax Considerations 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810 119810 190654 179442 217765 230460 242421 165733

T81 OlaquoiJcti ons

Depreciation

~ili~r Equip 2g~~ 2U~~ 2~~~ 2~~ 2~~~~ 2~g~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ 2~~ 2~~~ 2~n~ 1~~J ~~8 ~~~ f2zS 2~

~i~-OVerhoad

zg8M62335

zg8M62335

Z~~~ 62335

zg8M62335

ig8M62335

zg~~62335

i8M62335

i8M62335

t8M62335

i~8M 62335

Zg~~62335

~~~~~53665

~~~~ 46402

~tg~~40943

~~ ~~~35402 29986

ll~8~~

Total TaJ( Deduct_ 189341 189341 187121 187121 187121 187121 181121 181121 187121 187121 187121 156112 133925 117431 101291 86842 60718

I Froll Sales 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 201550 ~~~es~~= 1132~ m24~ 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154~ 1154~ 14647~ 16866g 1855~ 20129t 21574~ 1408~

Income la~ Due ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ Met Cash FloW =-2========SCI========

74512=I=====

74512 46974 73624 73624 73624 73624 63174 73624 __===_=_=============bullbullbullSamp====1II_1I31amp=II================_=II==__ == 73624_===__==

73624=======

132065 _=-=bullbull

111978======S=====

143703 ======_==

149943=======1I

156124 ========laquo

109400 ======_

~

Appendix Table Amiddotl United States Department ofAgriculture grade standards for Christmas trees

Christmas Tree Grades Factor US Premium US No1 US No2

Density Not less than Not less than Light or better medium medium

Tapera Normal- Normal- May be less than 40 to 90 40 to 90 40 or more

than 90

Damage-free faceb 4 3 2

Foliage Fresh clean Fresh clean Fresh clean and healthy and healthy and healthy

Shapec Well-shaped Well-shaped Well-shaped crown crown crown

Handle not Handle not Handle not less less than 6 less than 6 less than 6 or more than or more than or more than 134 per foot 1 34 per foot 1 34 per foot of tree height of tree height of tree height

aTaper of a tree is defined as the width of a tree expressed as a percentage of its height

Face means the visible surface area of a tree as viewed from 8 to 10 feet from the tree A tree is considered to have four faces each face constituting 14 of the tree

cHeight of a tree is defined in terms of foot or half-foot steps and is measured from the base of the handle to a point on the leader not more than 4 feet above the apex of the cone of the taper

Source Proebsting Buhaly and Wanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest 1981

40

4iUJiMMiFeuro iampi~t~Ityen)--

Literature Cited

Clevenger Tom et at The Wholesale and Processing Market for Locally Grown High Value Crops Research Report 572 New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station July 1985

Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture (Mora Research Center) New Mexico State University Guidelines for Growing and Marketing Christmas Trees in New Mexico New Mexico Department of Natural Resources October 1980

Huntley Wallace Marketing Christmas Trees-Turning a Problem into an Opportunity American Christmas Tree Journal August 1984 pp 41-43

Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury Fanners Tax Guide Publication 225

Proebsting William M Joseph Buhaly and Donald Hanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest Pacific Northwest Extension Publication PNW6 January 1981

41

Page 8: Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and ...

~t1~~lr lamp In 7 nl_lhkii ~~t~~~~e

j gt -gt ~ VI D -gt o C ~ FULL-COST BUDGETS III o o o o o o o o o g o o

0

-Full-cost budgets were developed to illustrate the costs o o o incurred over the 7-year production cycle Full-cost budgets ill ~ 5o o oas the name implies include all costs including such possibly o o o g 8 c on o

2i N VI onon-cash items as depreciation and opportunity costs for n VI to ltXl N ~ VI N 0gt ~ VI ~ orgt -owner capital management and land rent 4 ltII

C

~ gt o ltXl -gt N - -gt -gt N N

Assumptions and Specifications -i tl-il CI bull v

-4Farm Characteristics o QI

o U o g o co N o o co8 D i -i g v8 co o It was assumed the farm was devoted entirely to the a D -gtbull Q

N ~

V

Christmas tree enterprise The farm consists of 160 acres of n ltII which 147 were planted to Christmas trees The additional 13

I~ ~ Eo o o -gt o N co N co VI shyacres were allotted for roads firebreaks ditches fences and co S N 6 gi -gt VI ibuildings The land was assumed to have been previously ~ VI ~ I e bull Cplanted therefore clear of rocks and other debris When in full production the farms would be planting and haIVesting 21 acres of trees each year J N N -gt o

i i f

8 -gt ~ 4 W gt o ~ 0 gt 0 C vI 0 ~

gt I Equipment middotc E

g 8 g g g VI VI

a o 8 o on N N ltIi ~ 0 ~ -gt ~ I~

o

g

I o ~ -gt N A farm completely devoted to producing Christmas trees H ~~ 0

tJ o 0under drip irrigation does not require a wide array of OJ

l -4 equipment The major items needed include a small tractor ~t l chain saws power pruners tree baler sprayer trailer for lIS

ltII 0 ltII gt hauling grass mower and a liquid fertilizer injector pump e 0OJ

I toLarger tractors and disks are needed for initial land

W

0 shyC

l ltII

VIpreparation but because only 21 acres are planted each year ~ QI u it is cost effective to hire these services on a custom basis ltII ltIl QI QIgt gt shys 0~ ~ lt3 lt3 Some farms may buy a Christmas tree planter but these o

v53 co budgets were prepared assuming hand planting oThe farm will not need border disks disks for weed control i ii7

3 v or land leveling equipment because of the drip irrigation r ~

~ ~system and the grass ground cover cultural practice sect s I shy

1gt ~

I shy

~ The annual fixed and variable costs for the equipment were ti ltII e n ltII ~ I- ~

~ shy~ ~ weestimated using the New Mexico State University crop budget ~ l 1 ~ o ~ H u ~ t a ~ To ~ ~

76

generator (table 3) In addition to the equipment discusSed above a 1000 gallon-per-minute well was included in the equipment table The farm will also require the part-time use of a pickup truck This cost was included in the supervision expense category The total cost of equipment including the irrigation well was estimated to be $39250 or $267 per planted acre

Pre-Harvest Operations

Land Preparation

Because the land was assumed to have been previously planted it was unnecessary to clear the land The major operations in land preparation were plowing disking and harrowing All of these operations were assumed to have been hired on a custom basis

Planting

Hand planting was assumed Planting-labor requirements are based on a rate of 100 trees per hour per individual The total time required to plant 1 acre is estimated at 1210 hours based on planting 1210 trees per acre

The cost of plastic tree netting was budgeted to protect seedlings from rodent damage The plastic netting cost is $3750 per acreand is included in the purchased input section of the budgets A total of 9 hours per acre is required to apply the netting

All trees planted do not survive the first year Some growers will replant the blanks but others often will not replant because this practice results in an uneven harvest The budgets assume no replanting would be done

Planting and Harvest Schedule

For the purpose of this report trees were assumed to be of a 5 to 7-foot marketable size 7 years after planting To maintain a consistent quantity of harvestable trees only 1nth

8

of the total acreage (21 acres) would be planted in any calendar year Hence in years 1 through 6 21 acres would be planted each year In year 7 21 acres would be planted and the 21 acres planted in year 1 would be harvested This staggered planting schedule assures a continuous marketable supply and income to the grower starting in the seventh year

Obviously acreage not planted during the first 6 years could be planted to some other crop For simplicity however this acreage was assumed to have gone unplanted and to have generated no revenue or to have incurred any costs

Tree Population

For marketable trees of 5 to 7 feet a minimum spacing of 5 by 5 feet is recommended (Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture 1980) For the purpose of this study a 5 by 6 foot spacing was used This spacing allows planting 1452 trees per acre

Seedling Sources

There are many sources where trees can be bought as seedlings The source assumed was the Forestry Division of the New Mexico Natural Resources Department At the time of writing this division offered containerized seedlings to New Mexico growers who have more than 1 acre and can meet certain other conditions1 The price was $58 per 98 seedlings or $59 per seedling A price of $63 per tree was used in the budgets to incorporate the cost of the seedlings and transportation

Tree Species

It was assumed that Scots pine and White flf would be the species of choice to expand market opportunities and to avoid risks associated with crop monocultures (Proebsting et

I For infonmltion COntact Divison of Forestry POBox 2167 Santa Fe NM 87504-2167

9

llt_SWic-yenfoWtfte- ffgIUij_~1i~~~iVjWri~

aI 1981 Risks such as species-specific diseases increase with monoculture Most foresters suggest reducing this risk by planting more than one species

Irrigation

Most areas of New Mexico require supplemental irrigation to maintain the necessary soil moisture to keep the trees growing near their potential It was assumed that all plantations were irrigated with a drip system fed with pumped well water The drip system including all filters laterals and emitters was estimated at $1500 per acre2 The cost of installing the drip line was estimated at $11 per acre and is included as a line item under preharvest operations The cost of the well was included in equipment costs

Water needs per acre vary with the tree size and annual rainfall An annual rainfall of 15 inches was assumed Table 4 shows the additional acre-inches of water required per acre by year

The electric well was assumed to be pumping from a depth of 200 feet at 1000 GPM Table 5 shows the well characteristics and operation costs Based on these assumptions the cost per-acre inch was determined to be $352

~ Based upon estimates provided by Mr Ron Bliesner of Keller-Bliesner Engineering Logan Uf

10

Table 4 Acre-inches of applied water by year

Year AEElied Acre-Inches

1 6

2 8

3 12

4 14

5 16

6 18

7 18

Source Ke1ler-Bliesner Engineering Company Logan UT

Table S Well characterlsdcs for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm

Well Characteristics

Static water level (feet) 200 Draw down (feet) 40 Delivery PSI 8 Gallons per minute 1000 Electric efficiency factor 470

Energy use per hour (KWH) 10367 Fuel cost per hour $778 Cost per acre-inch $352

11

t_hltiirll~9~amp6ii11jjltfllU J[BIl1IiHitilut~~W~~tlaquo+middot -~---

Cover Crop

Many Christmas tree farmers plant a cover crop of native grass between rows A cover crop reduces soil erosion and is a positive step toward vegetation management Irrigation water was not applied to the cover crop

The budget assumes that a native grass was sown before the trees were planted After the cover crop is established a non-selective herbicide such as Round-up was assumed to have been sprayed in 24-inch swathes to create grass-free rows to be planted with trees The native grass seed was estimated to cost $15 per acre Drilling the seed was included under the preharvest operations in the budget as a custom operation at $850 per acre

Mowing was included under preharvest operations as well The number of times the inter-row area needs to be mowed was decreased as the tree cover increased therefore mowing costs vary by year

Chemicals

Crop chemicals such as fertilizer herbicides insecticides and fungicides were included in the budget under purchased inputs Table 6 shows in detail the chemical name the prescribed use unit of measurement application rate number of times applied per year per unit prices and total cost per acre The costs of applying these chemicals were included in the budget under preharvest operations

Shearing and Training

Shearing is the cutting of leader and lateral branches to improve the trees shape and density (Proebsting et al 1981) Shearing produces a more saleable tree than would normally be produced otherwise Shearing may be done either by hand with shearing knives machetes or hand pruners or mechanically with light-weight sickle bar clippers or rotary pruners Rotary pruners were assumed to have been used for shearing in this report

Table 6 Chemicals applied per acre by year ror Christmas tree rarms 1988

Per Unit Total acre price cost

Year Chemical Use Unit rate Times $ $

1 Roundup Atrazine 80W

Herbicide Herbicide

gal Ills

05 50

10 10

8000 170

4000 850

2 Roundup Atrazine 80W Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate

Herbicide Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer

gal Ills Ills qt

Ills

02 50 20 10

2350

10 10 10 30

10

8000 170

2100 600

010

1600 850

4200 1800

2233

3 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer

gal Ills qt

Ills

02 20 10

3520

10 10 30

10

8000 2100 600

10

1600 4200 1800

3168

4 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 20 10

4690 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 4200 1800

4456 1725

5 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 10 10

4690 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 2100 1800

4456 1725

6 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 10 10

9830 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 2100 1800

4456 1725

7 Roundup SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal qt

Ills Ills

02 10

5400 15

10 30

10 20

8000 600

010 575

1600 1800

5130 1725

12 13

AA~1~rmiddot~i~I~~~iiltfi~)~~1i~~~4~iamp_1 2U~ampJl2lJMlIIINIiI1m~~S1lt~h

Shearing generally begins when the tree height is about 5 feet For the budgets some shearing was assumed to begin in year 3 however labor in year 3 mainly reflects training of the trees Training helps develop a straight marketable tree The greatest number of hours were needed in years 6 and 7 to prepare trees for market

Estimated chemical needs were obtained from Drs John Mexal and James Fisher Professors of Horticulture New Mexico State University Many of the above chemicals are unnecessary because many pest and disease problems found elsewhere do not currently occur in New Mexico however it was felt as acreage of the crop increases the need for chemical use would also be necessary

Harvest Operations

The harvest generally consists of 4 to 5 weeks and is the most labor intensive activity in Christmas tree growing HalVest operations consist of selecting the trees for halVesting cutting baling and transporting to the market Timing is imperative and weather can be difficult during this period

Because some trees grow faster than others it is usually possible to harvest about 13 of the crop in the sixth year The remaining 213 of the total crop would be cut the seventh year Experienced growers generally halVest about 80 of the trees they plant as a result of death loss and cullage3 This means each acre yielded 1162 marketable trees if 1452 trees per acre were originally plantedOfthe 1162 trees halVested 13 or 387 trees are halVested in year 6 and 775 trees were cut in year 7 Trees not accounted for in the projected halVest either died or were not acceptable as Christmas trees

The trees selected for halVest are often marked before cutting to prevent halVest crews from having to make decisions about tree grades while cutting After cutting trees are carried to the access road and hauled to a central area where they are baled The trees are then loaded on trucks and shipped to the wholesaler or other market outlets

gtCulled trees may be made into wnaths or sold as boughs This was not assumed as a SOurce of revenue in this report

14

HalVest arrangements with wholesalers vary In some cases wholesalers perform all halVest operations in others the wholesaler will mark the trees they want to buy Some agreements call for the wholesaler to transport the trees from field side others place the responsibility for shipping on the producer

This paper assumed the responsibility of selection and harvest was with the producer and that transportation to the market place was paid for by the wholesaler

Post-Harvest Operations

After the field has been completely halVested in the seventh year it is generally replanted to trees the following spring Some growers remove the remaining stumps Stump removal however is an expensive and time consuming process The preferred method appears to be to replant new seedlings half the distance between the remaining stumps within the row The remaining stumps are then allowed to decay naturally This method of replanting between stumps was assumed for this paper

Overhead Expense

Table 7 shows the overhead expenses assumed for the 160 acres with 147 net planted acres

Downtime is the additional labor time allowed because of time lost for such things as machine repairs moving to and from fields and waiting for deliveries A downtime rate of 20 of the total labor hours was applied in the budgets

Employee benefits include any programs that full-time or part-time employees may obtain such as social security workmens compensation insurance group life and health insurance and paid vacations Although this cost can be negligible on most small farms an 18 rate on the coSt of labor was applied here

Insurance was estimated at $850 per planted acre This includes coverage of equipment and farm liability

15

~_~ ~ -h n~middotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot _ middotmiddotbullm-middot middottlt1Gmiddotmiddotgtmiddotti~q~~middot~middot)Gv~--e~~~~~i4iM5tll L MIbullbull Jtpoundi8)l] II ha bullUMtflIf~~~Hjl~kllI~1cent

Table 7 Annual overhead expenses on a 160-acre Christmas tree fanna

Downtime 20 ofdirect labor hours

Employer benefits 18 of direct labor hours

Insurance $850 per planted acre

Farm facilities $386 per planted acre

Land rent $8163 per planted acreb

General and administrative $50 per planted acre

Supervision $75 per planted acre

Other $30 per planted acre

Brokerage 5 of gross revenue

88sed 003tOUtTof 147 pl8nted acres 1Is7s per acre on the total of 160 acres

It was assumed farm facilities were required to protect equipment from weather and to provide office space A simple pole building was used for protecting equipment and was estimated to cost $8000 An additional $9000 was allotted for an office structure The cost of these facilities was spread over a service life of 35 years The cost per planted acre was approximately $4 per acre

Land rent was assumed to be $82 per planted acre or $75 per acre on the gross farm acreage If the land is already owned outright this would represent the opportunity cost of having planted the land to Christmas trees

General and administrative expenses include management salaries secretarial expenses and costs associated with running and maintaining the office such as telephone copying

16

and bookkeeping The amount associated with general and administrative expenses was $50 per planted acre

Supervision expenses were incurred to oversee field operations A $75 per planted acre expense was used for supervision This figure is arbitrary but includes funds for possibly hiring a foreman It also includes funds for pickup truck expenses The 147 net planted acres provides an annual supervision expense fund of $11025

Other expenses is a catch-all category for irregular or unexpected items such as fence or road repair additional hand tools or added administrative expenses The other expenses assumed here were $30 per acre per year

A brokerage fee was included in the budgets as a marketing expense The producer often serves as his own broker and in this case the fee included in the budgets would be viewed as an opportunity cost of the producers time A fee of 5 of gross revenue was used as a brokerage expense

Interest

An interest expense was included for opemting capital and equipment investment Rates of 12 and 10 respectively were used 4

For the full-cost budgets the interest expense on operating capital needed each year from the time of planting was compounded through the seventh year and charged off as an expense in the harvest year If the capital used was all equity capital rather than borrowed this could again be construed as an opportunity cost of the use of the producers money

Establishment Expenses

The establishment expense is the actual cost of growing the trees to harvestable size (tables 8 through 13) To show the total return and the total costs incurred during the harvest

IbeSeinterest rates imply an average annual inflation rate or at least 3to 4 per year A realistic analysis could increase the annual cash expenses and revenues by a 3 to 4 compounded rate over the 35middotyear investment period This approach would result in higher estimated returns Future expenses and revenues were not adjusted ror inflation in this report hence the results may be underestimated

17

MtiS 4ampIi- iJi4MliIllITftif ~2k+Csectlgt--~Smiddot-f

year the full-cost budget for years 6 and 7 include an establishment expense under the purchased input category (tables 13 and 14) This expense is based on cost estimates from the first five years of production and is prorated to the appropriate year based upon the harvest yield ratio S Because there is a time value associated with the capital used to grow the trees a compounding factor was also included The rate used to compound was 10 The total establishment expense per planted acre was estimated to be $2782 allocated in year 6 and $6840 in year 7 The $6840 allocated in year 7 includes $616 of interest expenses associated with having to wait another year (year 6 to 7) before these expenses are recovered The establishment expenses amounted to $719 and $883 per harvested tree respectively for trees harvested in the sixth and seventh years Net returns would increase significantly if all trees would reach harvestable size by year 6

Total Cost Per Acre

Based on the budget estimates made for years 6 and 7 a total cost of $12895 per acre planted or $1110 per tree harvested was required to grow Christmas trees through harvest This cost includes all equipment expenses chemicals land rent labor overhead and interest

Price Sensitivity of Full-Cost Budgets

To determine the return to risk when all costs are accounted for the gross revenue must also be estimated The gross revenue is a function of number of trees harvested and the price per tree The yield of 80of the total planting or 1162 trees was assumed as fIXed in this part of the analysis and only the price was varied A per tree price of $1240 was used as the base with a $1 change in either direction Using the $1240 per tree price a net return of $158372 per acre harvested was derived At $1140 per tree $1 less a net return

gtc)f the total yield 13 was harvested in year 6 and 23 in year 7

q

i g

I middoto~ ~ ~8

~i ~ ~

_z1~ ~s -~

~g

~

~ ~3

z ~ ~i r cu

m~zIi ~ ~=gt

~s ~-

5 oS ~

~J t ~It ~c= ~c lI-Q

i l- ~~ fI) = I iI~ = CIt

f 8 ~ a

(I III laquoIC 5 ~cI iIoU ~

ltI ~ CllioS~ Ol fo- ~ ~ j$ S ~ ~In~

~~~ggg

oi~oo -o-4-C~ ~

0000 0utqno 0

ritO 0 ~-4tltl- N

w ~w

tJtDWU C-amptoe(

oot)o ~~~lt= _Ot) -0

Ie

8glg~~~~i~~g~ t o~-eOaiNOQN 0 N-4N S

11 N ~ill -- 0

~ ~ ~~

1tc ~ ~~ -4 _

I

~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~_OO~N shy 1_ ~

gg 8~ st i~ tOtO i

~ ~~~ ~ X x=~

~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~Q~~N N~

~ g~ E

~ ~ ~ 0 Q i1lJ~W

lto(c- aa~aai5~ ttlZW

~ tQ __ -I iffi Z ~wtll~ow=i~~~~ ~e=~~~5~~tUQCI =VIE a C-lI-

g~~~~g8g~ ~NeOQarQ a) ~

~~~q ~~ laquo)~ ~S

o o~~ UN ~

~ ~

0

~(fIii

~

i

o N

bull ~ l

i

~

~

~ ~

S ~

18 19

Table 9 Per acre tun cost budgets ror growiDg White Fir and Scots Pine

~-~~-~~~~-~-~~~-~-~~-~-~~-~~-~-~~~~~~~~--~~-~~-----------------------_------YIELD

HARVEST DATES PLANTING DATES

PlIlCE -- ~-- - - - bull - - - bullbull - bull - - - ~ - - bull - bull QUANTITY PUR~~~ LABOR ~~iJ~~ REPAIRS Fgi~ TOTAl

TEM UNIT __ bullbull ________ bull __ _ _ ___ ___ bull ___ ___ bull __ _ __________ bullbullbullbull _________ bullbullbullbullbullbullbull _ bull ------_ bullbullbullbullbullbull - -- bull bull - - - - bull (DOLLARS) bullbullbull - - bullbullbull

PURCHASED INPUTS 6650100 ACRE 66501lER8ICIOE 1800100 ACRE 1800INSECTICIDE 211523500 LB 2115MOIII~ SULFATE 750100 ACRE 750MISCELLANECIlS TOOLS 1131511315SUBTOTAL

PREHARVEST OPERATIONS 21751309 319 209 338PTO SPRAYER (X) ampAS IS P 238 HR 27491738 423 275 313MOWER (410 GAS 15 HP 316 HR 4200

Mise 1000 HR 4200LABOR 3226~ 360 IR 2812 238 176WELL (ex) ELE

123501914 7247 3554 722 827SUBTOTAL

OVERfAD EXPENSES 1709311 1709OOWIITIME EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

13041304 850 850

INSURANCE 386 386 FARM FACILITIES 8163 8163 LAND RENT 5000 5000GENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION 75007500suPERVISION 3D00 3000 OTHER

17399 2791210513SUBTOTAL 311 HR

3554 722 18226 515_7711315 17760TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 2225 IR

-51577NET OPERATING PROFIT

2678INTEREST ON OPERATI~G CAPITAL 831INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT

-55086 ~~~~-~~~~- _- _- -_ -_ ----- --_ ---- -- -- ----_ --_ --___ _ - _------ __

Table 10 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 3 estabUshment) NM 1988 PLANTING DATES YIELDHARVEST OATES PRICE

POWER PURCHASED FUEL OIL FIXEDITEM UNIT QUANTITY INPUTS lABOR LUBRICANT REPAIRS COST TOTAL --_ - - _- ---- - -_ -- --_ - - - -(DOlLARS)

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE 5800 5800MOIII~ SULFATE 35200 LB 3168 3168INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800MISCELLANECIlS TOOLS 100 ACRE 750 750

SIJIITOTAL 11518 11518

PRE HARVEST OPERATIONS ROTARY PRUIINERS GAS 900 HR 3780 234 108 495 4617PTO SPRAYER (5X) GAS 15 HP 1 70 R 935 228 150 241 1554MOWER (4X) ampAS 15 HP 316 HR 1738 423 275 313 2149LABOR Mise 1000 IR 4200 4200ELL (12X) ELE 540 HR 4217 356 265 4838

N SUBTOTAL 2926 10653 5102 889 1314 17958 - (MRNfAl) EXPENSES OOWIITiME 477 2625 2625EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1918 1918INSURANCE 850 850FARM FACILITIES 386 386LAIIO RENT 8163 8163GENERAL _rNISTRATlON 5000 5000SUPERViSiON 7500 7500OTHER 3000 3000

SUBTOTAL 477 HR 2043 17399 29442

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 3403 HR 11518 22696 5102 889 18713 58918

NET OPERATI KG PROF IT middot58918

I NTEREST ON OPERAT I NG CAP ITAL 2930 INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT INVESTMENT 964

RETURN TO RISK 62812 ~ -~- -_ ~ ~~ ~ _ - -

Table 11 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas ~~~~~~~~~~~_~~~t~~~~~ ___ _ ~i~~middotDAEmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot YIELD

HARVEST OATES PRICE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull PURCHASED FUEL Oil FIXED

PMR INPUTS LA~ LUBRICANT REPAIRS COST TOTAL ~~~~~~- middotmiddotDOt~~middot PURCHASED INPUTS

HERBICIDE 100 ACRE 5800 5800 INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 fUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 AMONIUM SULFATE 46900 LB 4221 4221 MlsCElLANEClJS TOOLS 100 ACRE 750 750

SUBTOTAL 14296 14296

PRE HARVEST OPERA liONS ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) CAS 1500 HR 6300 390 180 825 7695 PTO SPRAYER (ax) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 364 239 386 2485 MOIlER (2X) CAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374~ FERT INJECTOR ElE 030 HR 011 061 096 168 LABOR MISC 1000 HR 4200 4200 lElL (14X) [L 630 HR 49bull 20 416 309 5645

SUBTOTAL 3590 12865 5897 1033 1772 21567

OVERHEAD EXPENSES DOIINTIM 586 3223 3223 EMPLOYEE BENEF ITS 2316 2316 INSURANCE 850 850 FARM FACILITIES 386 386 LAND RENT 8163 8163 CENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION 5000 5000 SUPERVI SION 7500 7500 OTHER 3000 3000

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039 17399 30438

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 4176 HR 14296 25904 5897 1033 19171 66301

NET OPERATl NG PROF IT 66301

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL 3247 INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 1102

70650~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~--

Table 12 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas trees (year 5 establishment) NM 1988 PLANTING OATES HARVEST OATES YIELD

PRICE

lIEM PMR

IJHlT QUANT lTy PURCHASED

INPUTS

~~~~~

FUEL OlL LA80R LUBRICANT

REPAIRS FIXED COST TOTAL

PURCHASED INPUTS - shy ~ ~ bull bull bull (DOLLARS) bull - bull HER81CIOE INSECTICIDE FUNCICIOE AMOHIUM SULFATE MI SCELLANEOUS TOOLS

SU8TOTAL

PREHARVEST oPERATIONS

100 ACRE 100 ACRE 100 ACRE

46900 L8 100 ACRE

3700 1800 1725 4221 750

12196

3700 1800 1725 4221

750

12196

ROTARY PRUHNERS (2X) PTO SPRAYER (8X) MOIlER aX) FERT INJECTOR LABOR WELL (16X)

SUBTOTAL

OVERHEAD EXPENSES

CAS CAS 15 HP CAS 15 HP ELE MISC ELE

1500 H 272 HR 158 HR 030 HR

1000 HR 720 HR

3680

6300 1496 869

4200

12865

390 364 212 011

5623

6600

180 239 137 061

475

1092

825 386 156 096

353

1816

7695 2485 1374 168

4200 6451

22373

OOIHIME EMPLOYEE BENEFf TS INSURANCE FARM FACILITIES LANI RENT GENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION SUPERVISION OTHER

586 3223 2316

7500

850 386

8163 5000

3223 2316 850 386

8163 5000 7500

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039

3000

17399

3000

30438

TOTAL OPERAJINC EXPENSES 4266 HR 12196 25904 6600 1092 19215 65007 NET oPERA T I HG PROf I T

65007 INTEREST ON OPERATINC CAPITAL INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 3142

1153 RETURN TO bull I SK bull ~ bullbullbull - _ - - ~ - _ - - _ bullbullbullbull - - ~ _ bullbull - _ bullbullbullbull bullbull - bullbullbull

~ - - -_ _-_ __--_ _---__- 69302

Table 13 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine

~~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J~~~~~~ Table 14 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine PL~NTIMG DATES YIELD 387 TREES GROSS RETURNSS4198 80 HARVEST DATES NOVEMBER 15 bull DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0TREE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbull bullbull

bull - bullbull - bullbullbull - bull bull bull bull ~C~A~E~ - FUEL OIL FIXED ~middot~middot~7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~U~~~~~ PLANT INC DATES YIelD 775 TREESQUANT ITY INPUTS LABOR LUBRICANT REPAIU COST TOTAL

~ ___ w~ ___ ____ _ ____ ____ _ _ _ ___ HARVEST OATES NOVEM8ER 15 DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0IREE ~ CROSS RETURNS$9iIOOO - bullbullbullbull (DOLLARS) bullbullbullbullbullbull - bull shy

pOlin PURCHASEDPURCHASED INPUTS ITEM fUEl OIL FIXEDUNIT OUANT IlY INPUTSHERBltlDE 100 ACRE 3700 3700 bull lABOR LUBRICANT RePAIRS-_ _---- _--- _---_ _---- - _--_ - _- __ __ -- COST TOTAL INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 bull FUNGICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 bull bull (DOLLARS) bull A_IUM SULFATE 93800 LB 8~~2 8442 bull

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE T6OOTWINE 38700 EACH 19-35 1935 1600INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800MISCELLANEros TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000 bull 1800

ESTABLISHMENT 113 2781 72 278172 FUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725AMON I UN SULFATE 5~000 lB 4860 4860

SUBTOTAL 18602 2781 72 2967 7~ TWINE 17500 EACH 3875 ~8 7~MISCELLANEOUS TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000

PREHARVEST OPERATIOIIS ESTABLISHMENT 23 ~050 ~050

ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) GAS 3800 HR 15960 988 ~56 2090 1~9~ bull SUBTOIAL 14860PTO SPRAYER (ex) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 360 239 386 2~ 85 bull ~050 698910 MOWER (2X) GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 137~ bull PREHARVEST OPERATIONSfERT INJECTOR ELE 035 oR 012 071 112 195 bull ROTARY PRUNNERS (2)) GAS 3000 HRLABOR Mise 1000 HR ~200 ~2 00 bull 12600 780 360 1650 I5~90PTO SPRAYER (xl GAS 15 HP 238 HRIlELL lt18X) ElE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258 bull MOIlER (ZX) 1309 319 209 338 21 75GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374fEAT INJECTOR ELE 060 HSUBTOTAL 6075 22525 7902 1~38 31~1 35006 021 122 191 334LABOR MIse 1000 HR ~200 4200

HARVEST OPERATIONS WELL (18X) ELE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258

CHAIN SAW GAS 968 HR 4066 252 136 590 50~~ SUBTOTAL 5266DRAG amp lOAD HAND 3225 HR 13545 135~5 18978 7658 1363 2732 J0731 TREE BALER GAS 230 HR 966 177 278 952 2373 HARVEST OPERATIONSTRAILER GAS 15 HP 300 HR 1650 ~11 360 560 2985 CHAIN SAW GAS 1938 HRLABOR Mise 1650 HR 6930 6930 81~0 504 271 1182 10097DRAG amp LOAD HAND 6058 HR 27124 27124

SUBTOIAL 6373 HR 27157 8~0 7 7~ 2106 30877 TREE BALER GAS I 46D HR 1932 354 5~7 1904 4747TRAILER GAS 15 HP 600 HR 3300 822 720 1128 5970LABOR MISC ~OOO NROVERHEAD EXPENSES 16800 16800 OOHlE 2321 12763 12763 bull SUBTOTAL 13~56 HREMPLOYEE SENEF lIS 89~3 89~3 bull 57296 1680 1548 4214 6~7 38

INSURANCE 850 850 bull OVERHEAD EXPEHSESFARM fACILITIES 386 366 bull OCltJNTJME 3~70LAND RENT 8163 8163 bull 19637 19637EMPLOYEE BENet liSGENERAL amp ADMINISTRATlOil 5000 5000 bull 13729 13729 SUPERVISION 7500 7500 bull INSURANCE

850 850FARM FACILITIESOTHER 3000 3000 bull 386 386LAND RENTMARXETING 2399~ 2399~ 8163 8163

SUPERVISION GeNERAL 8 ADMINISTRATION

5000 5000 SUBTOTAL 2321 HR 23994 29206 17399 70599 7500 7500

MARKETING OTHER

3000 300048050 48050

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 14769 HR 29550 ~~401 347~ 1250 287125 367738 bullbull SUBTOTAL 3570 HR ~8050 ~0866 17399 106315 IIpoundT OPERATING PROfIT 1121~2

TOIAl OPERATING EXPENSES 22292 HRINTEREST (JIj OPERATTNG CAPlTAL 6545 62910 117140 9338 2911 708395 900694 INTEREST (JIj EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 2473 NET OPERATING PROFIT

60306 10312~

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT IHVESlMENT 8659

3361 RETURN TO R I so

TIoCmiddotTHIRDS OF THESE COSTS IlERE ALLOCATED AS PROOUCTl(Jlj COSTS fORIREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 7 48286iI ~--~-- ----- ~ --~--- -~------ -----~-- yen - bullbullbullbull -- ~ -- ----_ _w ___ ________ 0 _______ _w __ IHIS TOTAL INCCltPORATES ONLY THE EXPENSE ASSOCATEO WITH THE TREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 6 BECAUSE OF THIS THE COLUMN

WILL NOT SUM TO THIS VALUE

24 25

~ i C -i Q

= foil

Table 15 Cash flow for a 160-aere Cbristmas tree rann (147 net planted aeres lIIII====_=====IIIlIII======S=II==2=II=___1I3_III========s_bullbullbullbull=z=a==a============bullbull==~=bullbullbull==11======aSS==lIIlII======================================================

Year 1 fear 2 Year J tear 4 Year 5 Year 6 fear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 fear 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 lllttows _=====

Sale of Trees so so so so so $101035 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 S302585 S302585 $302585 $302585 OUtflows

Purchased Input 5 Tree stock 1921019m 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210Cover ~rass seed 315 9sect1~ 19m 315 315 315 19m 19m 315 19m 19m 19m 19m315 315 315 315erbicuSe 1019 2415 3633 4851 5628 6405 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741Insecticide o 378 756 1~ 1890 22611 22611 22611 22611 2268 2268 2268 22611 22611Ftrlgicide o o o H~ 1087 U~ 1449 U~ 1449 1449 449 ~~~ 1449 1449 t449 1449Amonhn Sui tate o 444 1109 1~ 5676 5676 5676 ~~~X 5676 5676Tree guards 788 788 788 2~ 4~~ 788 53 53 53 788 788 5~ 5~ 53788 788 788Miscellaneous tools 420 578 735 893 105g 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365Twine o o o o i~ 1220 l~~ l~~ij 1220 1220 1220 1220 1220 lm lnOIrrigatlon system 31500 3150031 508 31500 31500 31500 31500 3150g 31500 31500 31~~g 31500 31500 31500 31 gtog 31~~g 31500 31500Eqult 33750 o o o 1045g o o o 266j0 o o a 10450 o oFarm facilities 17000 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oPre-harvest Operations o CustQll1 1_ preparation 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651Spray 204 578 844 1271 1698 2124 2498 2498 2~g 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498Harrow 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 168 1611 1611 Mark rows 309 309 309 Seed 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 Haul plants 42 42 42 42 42 309309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309

42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42Pl t (hand) 1861 2 ~Iy Netting 1~ 1~

794 1~ ~2 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ ~2 1~ 1 1861 1861 1861 861 li~ Orlp installaton 221 221 221 211

~l 794 794 794 794 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 2lt1495 990 1485 1733 1980 2228 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475Shear amp train 2415a o 864 2303 3743 7398- 1~~~ 1~~~ 10283 10283 10283 10283

i seel taneous 1amp1raquor 882 76 2646 Appt ter t it i zer o o o 10~g~ 10m 10m 10~g~ 10~g~ 10283

35 71 141 182 182 182 182 182 182 lr2 Purping costs 480 1121 617435l8 5292 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 Ot 174 6174 6174 6174

Harvest operations 2081 3l02 i~~g 5923 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 73k4

Cut tr~s o Drag amp load trees o 2807o o 935 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 Wrap trees o o 2374 7115 ~~~~ ~~~ 1115 7115 7115 7115 7115 7~ 7115o o o 298 895 895 895 7J~ 895 7~~~ 895 895 895 895 895Haul trees o o o 508 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525MisceHaneous labOr o 1525o o 1455 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366Overheed Oowotime 648 1007 IS58 2235 2911 5522 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346E1lloy benefits 4611 742 1145 1631 3933 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581Insurance 179 357 536 114 2~~

1071 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250Land r~t 1575 3150 4725 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025G amp A 1050 lloo 3150 4lOO 5250 6300 tgro 7350 7350 7350 7350 1~m k~~~ 7350 ~m 7350 7350 735a~~~Vision 472S 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11021575 3150

11m 11~~~ 025 11~~630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 63mMarketng II o o o o 5052 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 lSI29

1 Based on total of 147 planted acres by Year 7 A total of 21 (Jeres are planted each year year 1 consists ot 21 planted acres year 2 a total of 42 etC

-- --~ -~-~ r IJampamp $ ~H ~M LgtH~-~Lw~

110 0 middot W It 110 OO~~~~o~~OOO OampooooooosectOii S~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~H~ = - 11 11=L = 110 _ N N 0 M

bull c _~_

bullbullbull 2 _ M~

cash needs of the operation The farm will produce a positivei 0goooo00020poundN t-~~~~ t-~Fg~ORi ~ UNHIt U to OOE~l2~O~ft~oOI L 110 lS -lIi iIl~lI)t i1 ---a~ - 3

N annual cash flow starting in the seventh year However a total N bullbull u _N N~ - - ~N ~ $E~3

bullbull It 0 t N of $540819 in cash is expended through the first 6 years Ao~ooooooo~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~V~~ ~=~==~C ~ OOi~~~~O$~OOO ~ laquoS_~_ i i6~ ~gIIt_~o~ -=~ I total of 11 years are needed (five positive cash producingbullM Ii IfII 110 II n N -~ ~ _ N t- _ _ ~ ~~~= N III H 0 years) before the cash outflows incurred during the first 6 ~

~ = =a OOsect~~~O~OOO o~ooooooo~~~i 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ =~= years are covered This is based on selling trees at $1240L= V ~ ~N ~~ ~~ ~4 N~ ~~~ i i~e s -- N S The budgets were developed for a 35-year period because=gt- tt n this was thought to be a reasonable economic life5~~ ~ OO~~~roO~~O~O degmoooooooi~~ ~=~~~ ~mi5~5~~ ~=~= amp0 - ~ - III middot

__ ~ ~ _ 0 Nt- _ Ntn ~~~ ~ -~~- ~ pound Additionally a 35-year life allows for five 7-year

planting-through-harvest rotations Based on the rotationbull C) MM C OO~~~~degri~OOO OampOOOOOOO~~~~m 2E~~~ ~~~sect~~~~ ~u~= i c L ~ ~

N~v N N~ ~~ N~ ~4 ~~~~~~ ~ iii schedule only Inth of the total acreage would be planted ini = i

-SfIJ n= ~ - -I anyone year The cash costs in year 1 therefore include onlyRi = ~ ~~~~~i~~5me~~ i~sect~~ ~~~~~~~~ E~ lias amp0 ~~~~~~J~~~~OO H II n ~ 0- ~~w- ~ = ~~ Nt- - ~~_~t- ~ ~ct N planting expense for Inth of the total acreage or 21 acresW - - -= ~ Year 2 would again include planting expenses for Inth of theCtI 110- -~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~o~~~g~ ~G~ liN Q) $ ___ cOP ___~ i_IiInJX lIlCoo~_ flt nc II II tn ~~i~~~~~~~~00 =~ N ~ 0_11 - N w (1= Ot- N~ Oo~t-- i Ef~~ acreage and the second year growing expenses for the 21=- =tt ~ - acres planted originally The total expenses of a fullymiddot =S 1II ~~~_~~~~~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~sect~~ l~~~~~~~ Ec~ _ tl_-= ~u ~ operating facility are first incurred in the seventh year The

~ ~NII -~_ 1I1f N ~o~ N~ - ~o~=~~ ~ eg~R- 1111 0 - t first year of full revenue is also obtained in year 7 (21 acres of Cite ~ ~~~~~~~N~~~~~ ~~~~~ I~~~~~g~ ~r~i

~ _ ~ cOPNN __~ ~_m~~ ~1nO~O~~ Nfl~M

= or ~~~~~~~~~~O tt l 387 trees in their sixth year and 21 acres of 775 trees in their0- ~N_~ _ _0 N ~o~ N~ - ~~_=t--= ~ ~gGbull N= iI - - - ~i 1 seventh year ofgrowth)III

4iiii i~ ~ As the farm approaches the end of its economic life it was~~~_~~~~~~~~OO i~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~pound~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~i~E i

I middotL= 0- -oN_tI- - ~ N _ N~ot-- Nt-- ~ ~o_~t-= ~ ~U~ ii= = ~ assumed that the operator would stop planting Therefore as 11 - a l ~ 13 ~~~~g~i~N~~~~~ i~~~~ ~~a~~IC~~ E=~= of year 29 no more planting expenses are incurred It wasltV bull V ~~~~~~~~~~OO 0- N - -= ~N0ftIo - Ieo ~ t= -oN 1I _0- - N~ ~~ Nt- - ~o-~= ~ ~ft~c =a ~ - t assumed the land would be either left idle or used for otherIIIJ - -

= ~ purposes In year 35 the final year of operation only 21 acresa~= tQ ~~~~~~~re~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~ E~a N 0- -0 ___ _III u N _ N~o~ N~ _~ ~o-=~= ~ ~~~III ~ ~ of seventh-year trees would remain to be harvested At thisgt- - - -I point the entire operation would be closed down No salvagesect ii~ 1II ~~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~$~9~~ i~~~~ ~~~~sect~~ E~I II

II Ltf __ ~ ~N-II N ~ Ni ~~ N~ ~~ ~~~i~ i ~=in value was assumed because the land used was either leased or ~ -11~ 1= shy

I ~ rented and all equipment or buildings had no remainingc 15 ~ ft ~~~rd~~J~~~~~O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~E~iIII 0- QN-V 0 N _ N~o~ N ~~_~~~ ~ ~~~ i useful life H= ~ - ltgt ~ 15 Over the project life it would be necessary to replace some to tQ ~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~S~~~ 2Ei~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~5~i t ~ equipment For the purpose of this study it was assumed that~ I ~ -oN_~ _ - N _ N~ ~~ _ ~o_=~~ ~ ~~ I -= I= ~ - i all equipment would be used until it was no longer-=1 ~lt~S~-~N~~~~1 t-~~~~ ~co~~~o~ ~ft i011 V-- ~ o~- ~~NN__~ i_~V~ ~II~OO~_ ~~ ~~~~~_~i~~~OO a salvageable at which point it would be replaced new Table 16

r bullbull tv () -ON _ - N N~o~ ~ _ ~o-== ~ ~I~ I middot ~ - - - ~ shows the replacement schedule assumed in the cash flow i ~ Note that this table reflects the assumed useful life of the~ -=bull gi

i

iii s equipment rather than its depreciable life Also two itemsCgt I 1 u lJi~ ~ t- I ~ - ~ i the chain saws and the tree balers are not necessary until year -111) l -E I ~ l~~ _E ==Ilbull- ~ 1 ~j c ~ ~ ~ -5 -_ bull s

~~~ ~ ~~ _ ~ ~ L~ OL ~ 0 6 II 6 and were not purchased until that time Based on the highc _~~~~~WL ~-=] ii1t~ ~~ ulpoundlzl ~~ ~ = 1 i~uZul ~~I S Lo-- 2 L ~It~~ -i ~ ~

J L~_ ~m LOCmiddot gt- ampogt-~-~~ ~tc -lt 0 011 CIt -= = 2 ~~~t~5middotFi~f~~i~iitli-~fi~fifiiiI f Ii ~ilaquoI - ~ =~U=_~~~~~_W~U0Z~EZ~CQE~CEAL3QZEQW_~000 ~middot - ~ 8 Ii ~ I ~ middotmiddot -

29

111

f ~middot~middot~LC -- - ~i~

n ~ illII I~ II

Ii II

~~ Table 16 Equipment replacement schedule for a 160-acre ~ Christmas tree farm in New Mexico 1988 ~

usage during a short time period and the relatively short life of these items they were replaced every 5 years

Analysis

Because there are many unknowns encountered when projecting cost and returns and because different locations may be faced with different situations a series of scenarios were provided to evaluate the financial feasibility of the project Three major variables were altered concurrently to create the different scenarios These variables were

1 Prices 2 Yields 3 Costs

Price

A base price of $1240 was assumed The sensitivity of the return to a change of $1 increments over a range of $2 was measured

Yield

Changes in teld were based on altering the number of saleable trees This was done as a percentage of the total trees planted For example a 90 rate would mean that 90 of the 1452 trees originally planted or 1307 trees were available for sale This variable not only affect~ gross revenue but also alters any costs associated with the number of trees harvested Costs such as cutting field hauling baling and brokering are all altered by changes in the number of trees harvested and were assumed to be linear

Yield might also be altered by decreasing the space between trees For example a 5 by 5 spacing yields 1742 planted trees If 80 were saleable this would be 1394 trees

30

Item

Facilities

Well

Tractor

PTO sprayer

Trailer

Mower

Injector

Rotary pruners

Chain saw

Tree baler

iIIii Year ~

L 6 lL 16 2L 26 JL II~ Cost ~

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -(dollars) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- If 17000 ~

~ 10200 i

~

1bull1 113000 13000 13000 13000 1

~I 1200 1200 1200 1200 ~

bull p

~Ii ~

2400 II

800 800 800 800 ~ -I

I1200 1200 1200 1200 ~ 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 t

IiiIii 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 J

~ ~ ~ JOW JOW ~ ~ JOW

50750 10450 26650 10450 26650 10450 26650 I~ISource Table 3 IiIJ

f ~ J ~Cost ~

11I~ Because costs vary by farm and by location it was felt that a sensitivity should be performed on this variable Rather than bull

talter a specific cost or a specific category of costs the total bullIIj

cost was increased or decreased by a percentage and the Ji results evaluated Costs were altered in 10 increments in ~

Iijeither direction The 0 column uses those costs shown in the cash flow

t ~II

1

~I~ 31 ~

Feasibility Assessment

The internal rate of return (IRR) is a technique used to evaluate investment opportunities that incorporates the time value of money concept The internal rate of return for an investment project (in this case a Christmas tree planting) is the discount rate that equates the present value of the annual net cash revenue flows with the projects acquisition cost The net cash revenue is the difference between the cash receipts and cash expenses generated by an investment project over its economic life The time value of money is based on the economic fact that $1 today is worth more than a promise of $1 at some future date because of its current earnings potential

An investment can be accepted or rejected based on its internal rate of return (IRR) Acceptability of the investment depends on a comparison of the IRR with the investors required rate of return (RRR) Acceptability can be based on the following decision rules if IRR exceeds RRR accept the investment if IRR = RRR be indifferent and if IRR is less than RRR reject the investment

While IRR is a useful technique in project evaluation there are some problems with its use The major concern when using IRR is it assumes all cash inflows can be reinvested at the same rate as the resulting IRR percentage Should the IRR percentage be in the vicinity of the current rates of return of other investment instruments IRR is a reasonably accurate measure of return on investment However should the rate of return be much higher than current returns available elsewhere the resulting return on investment may be overstated The inverse is true at lower rates of return

The Net Present Value (NPV) is another way of evaluating projects that involve capital outlays over a period of years The NPV method discounts all future cash outlays and inflows back to a present-year basis using a specified interest (discount rate) The discount rate chosen is usually the opportunity cost of using equity funds in an alternative use or the cost of borrowed capital increased by an appropriate premium for risk or a combination of these The NPV

32

method is preferred over the IRR method when evaluating one investment against alternative similar type investments

Based on the sensitivity analysis discussed above a table was developed to show the IRR under the various scenarios Table 17 shows the internal rates by the per-unit price The analyses is based on pre-tax returns At $1040 per tree the IRR ranges from -14 when costs were increased by 10 and saleable yields were reduced to 60 to 160 when costs were decreased by 10 and 90 of the trees planted were sold At $1140 the IRR range is from 14 to 185 under the same conditions as above At $1240 per tree the IRR ranges from 38 when costs were increased 10 and 60 of the trees are saleable to 207 when costs were decreased 10 and saleable yields were at 90 At $1340 per tree the IRR ranges from 60 to 228 At $1440 per tree a grower could expect an IRR from 80 to 248 under the scenarios presented

A pre-tax analysis using Net Present Value (NPV) was also completed for the various scenarios The results of this analysis are shown in table 18

If an IRR of 12 is chosen as a minimum rate desired for investment growers must receive at least $1140 per tree and attain a level of 80 saleable trees and good cost control to have a successful investment At prices greater than $1140 per tree and 80 saleable product the investment appears to have possibility

33

Table 17 Internal Rates of Return (lRR) estimates for a 160-acre Table 18 Net Present Value (NPV) estimates for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost cbanges cha~es Ising a discount rate of 12

Percentage Percentageof saleable Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount

of saleabletrees 10 lower No chan~ 10 bilber trees --percent-shy

_______ - - - - - - - - - - - (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - shy

$1040 Tree Price 900 130 102900 160 BOO

SOO 128 97 69 700 60 31700 91 600

-14600 48 16

$1140 Tree Price( 900 127185 155

123 95900 800 SOO 153 700 700 116 86 58 600

14600 74 43

$1240 Tree Price 900 lJJ7 178 150900 BOO

118SOO 176 146 700 139 109 81700 600

38600 97 66

$1340 Tree Price 900 900 228 198 171 BOO

167 139SOO 197 700103700 161 130 600

600 119 88 60

$1440 Tree Price 900 BOO

248 218 191900 700159SOO 216 186 600

180 150 123700 80

Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount _ 10 lOwer No change 10 higher

-middot----middotmiddot---middot--bull-----dollars------bullbullbullbull -bullbullbull shy

$1040 Tree Price 175195 32602

(110936) (253415)

44502 (97269)

(2399BO) (381637)

(86191) (227140) (369023) (509859)

$1140 Tree Price 299293 167950 36607 142927

(14476) (170717)

12478 (144024) (299372)

(117971) (273573) (428028)

$1240 Tree Price 423391 291398 159406 253252 81984

(88019)

122225 (48069)

(217107)

(8BOl) (178123) (346196)

$1340 Tree Price 547489 414847 282204 363576 231972 100368 178445 (5321)

47886 (134842)

(82673) (264364)

$1440 Tree Price 671587 538295 405003 473901 341719 209538 274905 143841 12777 77377 (52578) (182532)

138 108 N01E Parentheses mean negative number

34 35

600

Investor Analysis

The following analysis considers the impact of the US tax laws (revised October 1987) on investing in Christmas trees The approach is identical to the previous IRR and NPV analysis except the impact of federal and state income taxes is considered in the annual stream of cash flow

The basis assumptions used are as follows

1 The taxpayer investor is in a 40 tax bracket on marginal income when combining both state and federal income taxes

2 The investor is actively engaged in managing the Christmas tree farm so that revenues and losses can be counted as active income or the investor has other passive investment income to offset any passive losses from growing Christmas trees

3 The Section 179 one-time deduction of $10000 per year is used in other businesses operated by the investor

4 Depreciation was calculated using the modified ACRS rules published by the IRS in 1987 Publication 225

5 The Christmas tree enterprise falls under the IRS rules for Christmas tree cultivation requiring capitalization of planting and stump culture for trees more than 6 years of age Because one-third of the trees are sold within the 6-year time limit one-third of planting expenses were deducted in the year incurred and the remaining two-thirds were capitalized and written off when the trees were sold in the seventh year

6 The investor uses a cash accounting system for tax purposes

36

The pre-tax IRR for the scenario with trees selling for $1240 each 80 harvestable yield and standard costs was 146 The IRR after-tax considerations fell to 125 (table 19) One might compare the after-tax return of 125 to other after-tax investments of comparable risks The after-tax NPV for the above scenario is $18069 compared to the pre-tax NPV of $122225 using a 12 discount rate

37

0

Table 19 Investor cash now analysis lor a l6O-acre Christmas tree larm (per planted acre basis) S=~=bullbull=I==~==~=bullbull====iI=bullbull2a==IIiIII bullbullbullbull===========n====ZIUSS=====bullbull===lllJ=====$~nUIlt1=llIIlta====s=a====II===============bullbullbull==II=~====lltz===-===U===========1II==X=======_==li=

Year 1 rHr 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year S Ye8l 6 tear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 1Q Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Tear 18

Net Cash Flow BelMe T8)( ConeiderattOlS (116411) (75439) (86658) (99354)(111768) (51189) 119810 119810 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810

Tax ONKtiona

Oeprec i at i on Irrigation syat far Foelli amp Equip

7875 1440

14625 7440

19446 7440

22890 7440

25378 7440

27156 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

Planting E_ 8209 10585 13004 16006 18568 22423 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031

~~~- ~t~t 1~~~r 1~ n~~ ~~m i~m ~M ~U~~ ~~M ~M ~~~ ~m ~M ~~~ ~~~ ~~M ~~M ~~M Total TalC DeOoctlons 33265 49193 65833 81973 96875 130860 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189341 189341 189311 189341 189341 189311

~rI~ (3326~) (4979~) (6583g) (819~) (968~) l~m) m~ ~~~~f~ mJ~ ~H~ m~~ mm ~~H~~ ~~B~ ~~im mm mJ~ ~~B2~ Inc_ ra Saings 13306 19917 26333 32189 38750 11930 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc_ TalC Oue 0 0 0 0 0 0 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297

let Cash flow (1037) (5522) (60325) (66) (737018) (397259) 74512 7Z2 74512 74512 7862 7512 74~12 rZSt2 142 M=062 1512 14512 =s===========s=_====sbullbullc=======-===================_======-=-==========I====S======-===========================e===s====================s==============r=================

Net Cash Flow Before Tax Considerations 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810 119810 190654 179442 217765 230460 242421 165733

T81 OlaquoiJcti ons

Depreciation

~ili~r Equip 2g~~ 2U~~ 2~~~ 2~~ 2~~~~ 2~g~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ 2~~ 2~~~ 2~n~ 1~~J ~~8 ~~~ f2zS 2~

~i~-OVerhoad

zg8M62335

zg8M62335

Z~~~ 62335

zg8M62335

ig8M62335

zg~~62335

i8M62335

i8M62335

t8M62335

i~8M 62335

Zg~~62335

~~~~~53665

~~~~ 46402

~tg~~40943

~~ ~~~35402 29986

ll~8~~

Total TaJ( Deduct_ 189341 189341 187121 187121 187121 187121 181121 181121 187121 187121 187121 156112 133925 117431 101291 86842 60718

I Froll Sales 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 201550 ~~~es~~= 1132~ m24~ 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154~ 1154~ 14647~ 16866g 1855~ 20129t 21574~ 1408~

Income la~ Due ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ Met Cash FloW =-2========SCI========

74512=I=====

74512 46974 73624 73624 73624 73624 63174 73624 __===_=_=============bullbullbullSamp====1II_1I31amp=II================_=II==__ == 73624_===__==

73624=======

132065 _=-=bullbull

111978======S=====

143703 ======_==

149943=======1I

156124 ========laquo

109400 ======_

~

Appendix Table Amiddotl United States Department ofAgriculture grade standards for Christmas trees

Christmas Tree Grades Factor US Premium US No1 US No2

Density Not less than Not less than Light or better medium medium

Tapera Normal- Normal- May be less than 40 to 90 40 to 90 40 or more

than 90

Damage-free faceb 4 3 2

Foliage Fresh clean Fresh clean Fresh clean and healthy and healthy and healthy

Shapec Well-shaped Well-shaped Well-shaped crown crown crown

Handle not Handle not Handle not less less than 6 less than 6 less than 6 or more than or more than or more than 134 per foot 1 34 per foot 1 34 per foot of tree height of tree height of tree height

aTaper of a tree is defined as the width of a tree expressed as a percentage of its height

Face means the visible surface area of a tree as viewed from 8 to 10 feet from the tree A tree is considered to have four faces each face constituting 14 of the tree

cHeight of a tree is defined in terms of foot or half-foot steps and is measured from the base of the handle to a point on the leader not more than 4 feet above the apex of the cone of the taper

Source Proebsting Buhaly and Wanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest 1981

40

4iUJiMMiFeuro iampi~t~Ityen)--

Literature Cited

Clevenger Tom et at The Wholesale and Processing Market for Locally Grown High Value Crops Research Report 572 New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station July 1985

Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture (Mora Research Center) New Mexico State University Guidelines for Growing and Marketing Christmas Trees in New Mexico New Mexico Department of Natural Resources October 1980

Huntley Wallace Marketing Christmas Trees-Turning a Problem into an Opportunity American Christmas Tree Journal August 1984 pp 41-43

Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury Fanners Tax Guide Publication 225

Proebsting William M Joseph Buhaly and Donald Hanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest Pacific Northwest Extension Publication PNW6 January 1981

41

Page 9: Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and ...

generator (table 3) In addition to the equipment discusSed above a 1000 gallon-per-minute well was included in the equipment table The farm will also require the part-time use of a pickup truck This cost was included in the supervision expense category The total cost of equipment including the irrigation well was estimated to be $39250 or $267 per planted acre

Pre-Harvest Operations

Land Preparation

Because the land was assumed to have been previously planted it was unnecessary to clear the land The major operations in land preparation were plowing disking and harrowing All of these operations were assumed to have been hired on a custom basis

Planting

Hand planting was assumed Planting-labor requirements are based on a rate of 100 trees per hour per individual The total time required to plant 1 acre is estimated at 1210 hours based on planting 1210 trees per acre

The cost of plastic tree netting was budgeted to protect seedlings from rodent damage The plastic netting cost is $3750 per acreand is included in the purchased input section of the budgets A total of 9 hours per acre is required to apply the netting

All trees planted do not survive the first year Some growers will replant the blanks but others often will not replant because this practice results in an uneven harvest The budgets assume no replanting would be done

Planting and Harvest Schedule

For the purpose of this report trees were assumed to be of a 5 to 7-foot marketable size 7 years after planting To maintain a consistent quantity of harvestable trees only 1nth

8

of the total acreage (21 acres) would be planted in any calendar year Hence in years 1 through 6 21 acres would be planted each year In year 7 21 acres would be planted and the 21 acres planted in year 1 would be harvested This staggered planting schedule assures a continuous marketable supply and income to the grower starting in the seventh year

Obviously acreage not planted during the first 6 years could be planted to some other crop For simplicity however this acreage was assumed to have gone unplanted and to have generated no revenue or to have incurred any costs

Tree Population

For marketable trees of 5 to 7 feet a minimum spacing of 5 by 5 feet is recommended (Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture 1980) For the purpose of this study a 5 by 6 foot spacing was used This spacing allows planting 1452 trees per acre

Seedling Sources

There are many sources where trees can be bought as seedlings The source assumed was the Forestry Division of the New Mexico Natural Resources Department At the time of writing this division offered containerized seedlings to New Mexico growers who have more than 1 acre and can meet certain other conditions1 The price was $58 per 98 seedlings or $59 per seedling A price of $63 per tree was used in the budgets to incorporate the cost of the seedlings and transportation

Tree Species

It was assumed that Scots pine and White flf would be the species of choice to expand market opportunities and to avoid risks associated with crop monocultures (Proebsting et

I For infonmltion COntact Divison of Forestry POBox 2167 Santa Fe NM 87504-2167

9

llt_SWic-yenfoWtfte- ffgIUij_~1i~~~iVjWri~

aI 1981 Risks such as species-specific diseases increase with monoculture Most foresters suggest reducing this risk by planting more than one species

Irrigation

Most areas of New Mexico require supplemental irrigation to maintain the necessary soil moisture to keep the trees growing near their potential It was assumed that all plantations were irrigated with a drip system fed with pumped well water The drip system including all filters laterals and emitters was estimated at $1500 per acre2 The cost of installing the drip line was estimated at $11 per acre and is included as a line item under preharvest operations The cost of the well was included in equipment costs

Water needs per acre vary with the tree size and annual rainfall An annual rainfall of 15 inches was assumed Table 4 shows the additional acre-inches of water required per acre by year

The electric well was assumed to be pumping from a depth of 200 feet at 1000 GPM Table 5 shows the well characteristics and operation costs Based on these assumptions the cost per-acre inch was determined to be $352

~ Based upon estimates provided by Mr Ron Bliesner of Keller-Bliesner Engineering Logan Uf

10

Table 4 Acre-inches of applied water by year

Year AEElied Acre-Inches

1 6

2 8

3 12

4 14

5 16

6 18

7 18

Source Ke1ler-Bliesner Engineering Company Logan UT

Table S Well characterlsdcs for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm

Well Characteristics

Static water level (feet) 200 Draw down (feet) 40 Delivery PSI 8 Gallons per minute 1000 Electric efficiency factor 470

Energy use per hour (KWH) 10367 Fuel cost per hour $778 Cost per acre-inch $352

11

t_hltiirll~9~amp6ii11jjltfllU J[BIl1IiHitilut~~W~~tlaquo+middot -~---

Cover Crop

Many Christmas tree farmers plant a cover crop of native grass between rows A cover crop reduces soil erosion and is a positive step toward vegetation management Irrigation water was not applied to the cover crop

The budget assumes that a native grass was sown before the trees were planted After the cover crop is established a non-selective herbicide such as Round-up was assumed to have been sprayed in 24-inch swathes to create grass-free rows to be planted with trees The native grass seed was estimated to cost $15 per acre Drilling the seed was included under the preharvest operations in the budget as a custom operation at $850 per acre

Mowing was included under preharvest operations as well The number of times the inter-row area needs to be mowed was decreased as the tree cover increased therefore mowing costs vary by year

Chemicals

Crop chemicals such as fertilizer herbicides insecticides and fungicides were included in the budget under purchased inputs Table 6 shows in detail the chemical name the prescribed use unit of measurement application rate number of times applied per year per unit prices and total cost per acre The costs of applying these chemicals were included in the budget under preharvest operations

Shearing and Training

Shearing is the cutting of leader and lateral branches to improve the trees shape and density (Proebsting et al 1981) Shearing produces a more saleable tree than would normally be produced otherwise Shearing may be done either by hand with shearing knives machetes or hand pruners or mechanically with light-weight sickle bar clippers or rotary pruners Rotary pruners were assumed to have been used for shearing in this report

Table 6 Chemicals applied per acre by year ror Christmas tree rarms 1988

Per Unit Total acre price cost

Year Chemical Use Unit rate Times $ $

1 Roundup Atrazine 80W

Herbicide Herbicide

gal Ills

05 50

10 10

8000 170

4000 850

2 Roundup Atrazine 80W Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate

Herbicide Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer

gal Ills Ills qt

Ills

02 50 20 10

2350

10 10 10 30

10

8000 170

2100 600

010

1600 850

4200 1800

2233

3 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer

gal Ills qt

Ills

02 20 10

3520

10 10 30

10

8000 2100 600

10

1600 4200 1800

3168

4 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 20 10

4690 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 4200 1800

4456 1725

5 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 10 10

4690 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 2100 1800

4456 1725

6 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 10 10

9830 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 2100 1800

4456 1725

7 Roundup SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal qt

Ills Ills

02 10

5400 15

10 30

10 20

8000 600

010 575

1600 1800

5130 1725

12 13

AA~1~rmiddot~i~I~~~iiltfi~)~~1i~~~4~iamp_1 2U~ampJl2lJMlIIINIiI1m~~S1lt~h

Shearing generally begins when the tree height is about 5 feet For the budgets some shearing was assumed to begin in year 3 however labor in year 3 mainly reflects training of the trees Training helps develop a straight marketable tree The greatest number of hours were needed in years 6 and 7 to prepare trees for market

Estimated chemical needs were obtained from Drs John Mexal and James Fisher Professors of Horticulture New Mexico State University Many of the above chemicals are unnecessary because many pest and disease problems found elsewhere do not currently occur in New Mexico however it was felt as acreage of the crop increases the need for chemical use would also be necessary

Harvest Operations

The harvest generally consists of 4 to 5 weeks and is the most labor intensive activity in Christmas tree growing HalVest operations consist of selecting the trees for halVesting cutting baling and transporting to the market Timing is imperative and weather can be difficult during this period

Because some trees grow faster than others it is usually possible to harvest about 13 of the crop in the sixth year The remaining 213 of the total crop would be cut the seventh year Experienced growers generally halVest about 80 of the trees they plant as a result of death loss and cullage3 This means each acre yielded 1162 marketable trees if 1452 trees per acre were originally plantedOfthe 1162 trees halVested 13 or 387 trees are halVested in year 6 and 775 trees were cut in year 7 Trees not accounted for in the projected halVest either died or were not acceptable as Christmas trees

The trees selected for halVest are often marked before cutting to prevent halVest crews from having to make decisions about tree grades while cutting After cutting trees are carried to the access road and hauled to a central area where they are baled The trees are then loaded on trucks and shipped to the wholesaler or other market outlets

gtCulled trees may be made into wnaths or sold as boughs This was not assumed as a SOurce of revenue in this report

14

HalVest arrangements with wholesalers vary In some cases wholesalers perform all halVest operations in others the wholesaler will mark the trees they want to buy Some agreements call for the wholesaler to transport the trees from field side others place the responsibility for shipping on the producer

This paper assumed the responsibility of selection and harvest was with the producer and that transportation to the market place was paid for by the wholesaler

Post-Harvest Operations

After the field has been completely halVested in the seventh year it is generally replanted to trees the following spring Some growers remove the remaining stumps Stump removal however is an expensive and time consuming process The preferred method appears to be to replant new seedlings half the distance between the remaining stumps within the row The remaining stumps are then allowed to decay naturally This method of replanting between stumps was assumed for this paper

Overhead Expense

Table 7 shows the overhead expenses assumed for the 160 acres with 147 net planted acres

Downtime is the additional labor time allowed because of time lost for such things as machine repairs moving to and from fields and waiting for deliveries A downtime rate of 20 of the total labor hours was applied in the budgets

Employee benefits include any programs that full-time or part-time employees may obtain such as social security workmens compensation insurance group life and health insurance and paid vacations Although this cost can be negligible on most small farms an 18 rate on the coSt of labor was applied here

Insurance was estimated at $850 per planted acre This includes coverage of equipment and farm liability

15

~_~ ~ -h n~middotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot _ middotmiddotbullm-middot middottlt1Gmiddotmiddotgtmiddotti~q~~middot~middot)Gv~--e~~~~~i4iM5tll L MIbullbull Jtpoundi8)l] II ha bullUMtflIf~~~Hjl~kllI~1cent

Table 7 Annual overhead expenses on a 160-acre Christmas tree fanna

Downtime 20 ofdirect labor hours

Employer benefits 18 of direct labor hours

Insurance $850 per planted acre

Farm facilities $386 per planted acre

Land rent $8163 per planted acreb

General and administrative $50 per planted acre

Supervision $75 per planted acre

Other $30 per planted acre

Brokerage 5 of gross revenue

88sed 003tOUtTof 147 pl8nted acres 1Is7s per acre on the total of 160 acres

It was assumed farm facilities were required to protect equipment from weather and to provide office space A simple pole building was used for protecting equipment and was estimated to cost $8000 An additional $9000 was allotted for an office structure The cost of these facilities was spread over a service life of 35 years The cost per planted acre was approximately $4 per acre

Land rent was assumed to be $82 per planted acre or $75 per acre on the gross farm acreage If the land is already owned outright this would represent the opportunity cost of having planted the land to Christmas trees

General and administrative expenses include management salaries secretarial expenses and costs associated with running and maintaining the office such as telephone copying

16

and bookkeeping The amount associated with general and administrative expenses was $50 per planted acre

Supervision expenses were incurred to oversee field operations A $75 per planted acre expense was used for supervision This figure is arbitrary but includes funds for possibly hiring a foreman It also includes funds for pickup truck expenses The 147 net planted acres provides an annual supervision expense fund of $11025

Other expenses is a catch-all category for irregular or unexpected items such as fence or road repair additional hand tools or added administrative expenses The other expenses assumed here were $30 per acre per year

A brokerage fee was included in the budgets as a marketing expense The producer often serves as his own broker and in this case the fee included in the budgets would be viewed as an opportunity cost of the producers time A fee of 5 of gross revenue was used as a brokerage expense

Interest

An interest expense was included for opemting capital and equipment investment Rates of 12 and 10 respectively were used 4

For the full-cost budgets the interest expense on operating capital needed each year from the time of planting was compounded through the seventh year and charged off as an expense in the harvest year If the capital used was all equity capital rather than borrowed this could again be construed as an opportunity cost of the use of the producers money

Establishment Expenses

The establishment expense is the actual cost of growing the trees to harvestable size (tables 8 through 13) To show the total return and the total costs incurred during the harvest

IbeSeinterest rates imply an average annual inflation rate or at least 3to 4 per year A realistic analysis could increase the annual cash expenses and revenues by a 3 to 4 compounded rate over the 35middotyear investment period This approach would result in higher estimated returns Future expenses and revenues were not adjusted ror inflation in this report hence the results may be underestimated

17

MtiS 4ampIi- iJi4MliIllITftif ~2k+Csectlgt--~Smiddot-f

year the full-cost budget for years 6 and 7 include an establishment expense under the purchased input category (tables 13 and 14) This expense is based on cost estimates from the first five years of production and is prorated to the appropriate year based upon the harvest yield ratio S Because there is a time value associated with the capital used to grow the trees a compounding factor was also included The rate used to compound was 10 The total establishment expense per planted acre was estimated to be $2782 allocated in year 6 and $6840 in year 7 The $6840 allocated in year 7 includes $616 of interest expenses associated with having to wait another year (year 6 to 7) before these expenses are recovered The establishment expenses amounted to $719 and $883 per harvested tree respectively for trees harvested in the sixth and seventh years Net returns would increase significantly if all trees would reach harvestable size by year 6

Total Cost Per Acre

Based on the budget estimates made for years 6 and 7 a total cost of $12895 per acre planted or $1110 per tree harvested was required to grow Christmas trees through harvest This cost includes all equipment expenses chemicals land rent labor overhead and interest

Price Sensitivity of Full-Cost Budgets

To determine the return to risk when all costs are accounted for the gross revenue must also be estimated The gross revenue is a function of number of trees harvested and the price per tree The yield of 80of the total planting or 1162 trees was assumed as fIXed in this part of the analysis and only the price was varied A per tree price of $1240 was used as the base with a $1 change in either direction Using the $1240 per tree price a net return of $158372 per acre harvested was derived At $1140 per tree $1 less a net return

gtc)f the total yield 13 was harvested in year 6 and 23 in year 7

q

i g

I middoto~ ~ ~8

~i ~ ~

_z1~ ~s -~

~g

~

~ ~3

z ~ ~i r cu

m~zIi ~ ~=gt

~s ~-

5 oS ~

~J t ~It ~c= ~c lI-Q

i l- ~~ fI) = I iI~ = CIt

f 8 ~ a

(I III laquoIC 5 ~cI iIoU ~

ltI ~ CllioS~ Ol fo- ~ ~ j$ S ~ ~In~

~~~ggg

oi~oo -o-4-C~ ~

0000 0utqno 0

ritO 0 ~-4tltl- N

w ~w

tJtDWU C-amptoe(

oot)o ~~~lt= _Ot) -0

Ie

8glg~~~~i~~g~ t o~-eOaiNOQN 0 N-4N S

11 N ~ill -- 0

~ ~ ~~

1tc ~ ~~ -4 _

I

~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~_OO~N shy 1_ ~

gg 8~ st i~ tOtO i

~ ~~~ ~ X x=~

~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~Q~~N N~

~ g~ E

~ ~ ~ 0 Q i1lJ~W

lto(c- aa~aai5~ ttlZW

~ tQ __ -I iffi Z ~wtll~ow=i~~~~ ~e=~~~5~~tUQCI =VIE a C-lI-

g~~~~g8g~ ~NeOQarQ a) ~

~~~q ~~ laquo)~ ~S

o o~~ UN ~

~ ~

0

~(fIii

~

i

o N

bull ~ l

i

~

~

~ ~

S ~

18 19

Table 9 Per acre tun cost budgets ror growiDg White Fir and Scots Pine

~-~~-~~~~-~-~~~-~-~~-~-~~-~~-~-~~~~~~~~--~~-~~-----------------------_------YIELD

HARVEST DATES PLANTING DATES

PlIlCE -- ~-- - - - bull - - - bullbull - bull - - - ~ - - bull - bull QUANTITY PUR~~~ LABOR ~~iJ~~ REPAIRS Fgi~ TOTAl

TEM UNIT __ bullbull ________ bull __ _ _ ___ ___ bull ___ ___ bull __ _ __________ bullbullbullbull _________ bullbullbullbullbullbullbull _ bull ------_ bullbullbullbullbullbull - -- bull bull - - - - bull (DOLLARS) bullbullbull - - bullbullbull

PURCHASED INPUTS 6650100 ACRE 66501lER8ICIOE 1800100 ACRE 1800INSECTICIDE 211523500 LB 2115MOIII~ SULFATE 750100 ACRE 750MISCELLANECIlS TOOLS 1131511315SUBTOTAL

PREHARVEST OPERATIONS 21751309 319 209 338PTO SPRAYER (X) ampAS IS P 238 HR 27491738 423 275 313MOWER (410 GAS 15 HP 316 HR 4200

Mise 1000 HR 4200LABOR 3226~ 360 IR 2812 238 176WELL (ex) ELE

123501914 7247 3554 722 827SUBTOTAL

OVERfAD EXPENSES 1709311 1709OOWIITIME EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

13041304 850 850

INSURANCE 386 386 FARM FACILITIES 8163 8163 LAND RENT 5000 5000GENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION 75007500suPERVISION 3D00 3000 OTHER

17399 2791210513SUBTOTAL 311 HR

3554 722 18226 515_7711315 17760TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 2225 IR

-51577NET OPERATING PROFIT

2678INTEREST ON OPERATI~G CAPITAL 831INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT

-55086 ~~~~-~~~~- _- _- -_ -_ ----- --_ ---- -- -- ----_ --_ --___ _ - _------ __

Table 10 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 3 estabUshment) NM 1988 PLANTING DATES YIELDHARVEST OATES PRICE

POWER PURCHASED FUEL OIL FIXEDITEM UNIT QUANTITY INPUTS lABOR LUBRICANT REPAIRS COST TOTAL --_ - - _- ---- - -_ -- --_ - - - -(DOlLARS)

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE 5800 5800MOIII~ SULFATE 35200 LB 3168 3168INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800MISCELLANECIlS TOOLS 100 ACRE 750 750

SIJIITOTAL 11518 11518

PRE HARVEST OPERATIONS ROTARY PRUIINERS GAS 900 HR 3780 234 108 495 4617PTO SPRAYER (5X) GAS 15 HP 1 70 R 935 228 150 241 1554MOWER (4X) ampAS 15 HP 316 HR 1738 423 275 313 2149LABOR Mise 1000 IR 4200 4200ELL (12X) ELE 540 HR 4217 356 265 4838

N SUBTOTAL 2926 10653 5102 889 1314 17958 - (MRNfAl) EXPENSES OOWIITiME 477 2625 2625EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1918 1918INSURANCE 850 850FARM FACILITIES 386 386LAIIO RENT 8163 8163GENERAL _rNISTRATlON 5000 5000SUPERViSiON 7500 7500OTHER 3000 3000

SUBTOTAL 477 HR 2043 17399 29442

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 3403 HR 11518 22696 5102 889 18713 58918

NET OPERATI KG PROF IT middot58918

I NTEREST ON OPERAT I NG CAP ITAL 2930 INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT INVESTMENT 964

RETURN TO RISK 62812 ~ -~- -_ ~ ~~ ~ _ - -

Table 11 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas ~~~~~~~~~~~_~~~t~~~~~ ___ _ ~i~~middotDAEmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot YIELD

HARVEST OATES PRICE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull PURCHASED FUEL Oil FIXED

PMR INPUTS LA~ LUBRICANT REPAIRS COST TOTAL ~~~~~~- middotmiddotDOt~~middot PURCHASED INPUTS

HERBICIDE 100 ACRE 5800 5800 INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 fUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 AMONIUM SULFATE 46900 LB 4221 4221 MlsCElLANEClJS TOOLS 100 ACRE 750 750

SUBTOTAL 14296 14296

PRE HARVEST OPERA liONS ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) CAS 1500 HR 6300 390 180 825 7695 PTO SPRAYER (ax) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 364 239 386 2485 MOIlER (2X) CAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374~ FERT INJECTOR ElE 030 HR 011 061 096 168 LABOR MISC 1000 HR 4200 4200 lElL (14X) [L 630 HR 49bull 20 416 309 5645

SUBTOTAL 3590 12865 5897 1033 1772 21567

OVERHEAD EXPENSES DOIINTIM 586 3223 3223 EMPLOYEE BENEF ITS 2316 2316 INSURANCE 850 850 FARM FACILITIES 386 386 LAND RENT 8163 8163 CENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION 5000 5000 SUPERVI SION 7500 7500 OTHER 3000 3000

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039 17399 30438

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 4176 HR 14296 25904 5897 1033 19171 66301

NET OPERATl NG PROF IT 66301

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL 3247 INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 1102

70650~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~--

Table 12 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas trees (year 5 establishment) NM 1988 PLANTING OATES HARVEST OATES YIELD

PRICE

lIEM PMR

IJHlT QUANT lTy PURCHASED

INPUTS

~~~~~

FUEL OlL LA80R LUBRICANT

REPAIRS FIXED COST TOTAL

PURCHASED INPUTS - shy ~ ~ bull bull bull (DOLLARS) bull - bull HER81CIOE INSECTICIDE FUNCICIOE AMOHIUM SULFATE MI SCELLANEOUS TOOLS

SU8TOTAL

PREHARVEST oPERATIONS

100 ACRE 100 ACRE 100 ACRE

46900 L8 100 ACRE

3700 1800 1725 4221 750

12196

3700 1800 1725 4221

750

12196

ROTARY PRUHNERS (2X) PTO SPRAYER (8X) MOIlER aX) FERT INJECTOR LABOR WELL (16X)

SUBTOTAL

OVERHEAD EXPENSES

CAS CAS 15 HP CAS 15 HP ELE MISC ELE

1500 H 272 HR 158 HR 030 HR

1000 HR 720 HR

3680

6300 1496 869

4200

12865

390 364 212 011

5623

6600

180 239 137 061

475

1092

825 386 156 096

353

1816

7695 2485 1374 168

4200 6451

22373

OOIHIME EMPLOYEE BENEFf TS INSURANCE FARM FACILITIES LANI RENT GENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION SUPERVISION OTHER

586 3223 2316

7500

850 386

8163 5000

3223 2316 850 386

8163 5000 7500

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039

3000

17399

3000

30438

TOTAL OPERAJINC EXPENSES 4266 HR 12196 25904 6600 1092 19215 65007 NET oPERA T I HG PROf I T

65007 INTEREST ON OPERATINC CAPITAL INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 3142

1153 RETURN TO bull I SK bull ~ bullbullbull - _ - - ~ - _ - - _ bullbullbullbull - - ~ _ bullbull - _ bullbullbullbull bullbull - bullbullbull

~ - - -_ _-_ __--_ _---__- 69302

Table 13 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine

~~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J~~~~~~ Table 14 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine PL~NTIMG DATES YIELD 387 TREES GROSS RETURNSS4198 80 HARVEST DATES NOVEMBER 15 bull DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0TREE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbull bullbull

bull - bullbull - bullbullbull - bull bull bull bull ~C~A~E~ - FUEL OIL FIXED ~middot~middot~7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~U~~~~~ PLANT INC DATES YIelD 775 TREESQUANT ITY INPUTS LABOR LUBRICANT REPAIU COST TOTAL

~ ___ w~ ___ ____ _ ____ ____ _ _ _ ___ HARVEST OATES NOVEM8ER 15 DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0IREE ~ CROSS RETURNS$9iIOOO - bullbullbullbull (DOLLARS) bullbullbullbullbullbull - bull shy

pOlin PURCHASEDPURCHASED INPUTS ITEM fUEl OIL FIXEDUNIT OUANT IlY INPUTSHERBltlDE 100 ACRE 3700 3700 bull lABOR LUBRICANT RePAIRS-_ _---- _--- _---_ _---- - _--_ - _- __ __ -- COST TOTAL INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 bull FUNGICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 bull bull (DOLLARS) bull A_IUM SULFATE 93800 LB 8~~2 8442 bull

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE T6OOTWINE 38700 EACH 19-35 1935 1600INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800MISCELLANEros TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000 bull 1800

ESTABLISHMENT 113 2781 72 278172 FUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725AMON I UN SULFATE 5~000 lB 4860 4860

SUBTOTAL 18602 2781 72 2967 7~ TWINE 17500 EACH 3875 ~8 7~MISCELLANEOUS TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000

PREHARVEST OPERATIOIIS ESTABLISHMENT 23 ~050 ~050

ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) GAS 3800 HR 15960 988 ~56 2090 1~9~ bull SUBTOIAL 14860PTO SPRAYER (ex) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 360 239 386 2~ 85 bull ~050 698910 MOWER (2X) GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 137~ bull PREHARVEST OPERATIONSfERT INJECTOR ELE 035 oR 012 071 112 195 bull ROTARY PRUNNERS (2)) GAS 3000 HRLABOR Mise 1000 HR ~200 ~2 00 bull 12600 780 360 1650 I5~90PTO SPRAYER (xl GAS 15 HP 238 HRIlELL lt18X) ElE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258 bull MOIlER (ZX) 1309 319 209 338 21 75GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374fEAT INJECTOR ELE 060 HSUBTOTAL 6075 22525 7902 1~38 31~1 35006 021 122 191 334LABOR MIse 1000 HR ~200 4200

HARVEST OPERATIONS WELL (18X) ELE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258

CHAIN SAW GAS 968 HR 4066 252 136 590 50~~ SUBTOTAL 5266DRAG amp lOAD HAND 3225 HR 13545 135~5 18978 7658 1363 2732 J0731 TREE BALER GAS 230 HR 966 177 278 952 2373 HARVEST OPERATIONSTRAILER GAS 15 HP 300 HR 1650 ~11 360 560 2985 CHAIN SAW GAS 1938 HRLABOR Mise 1650 HR 6930 6930 81~0 504 271 1182 10097DRAG amp LOAD HAND 6058 HR 27124 27124

SUBTOIAL 6373 HR 27157 8~0 7 7~ 2106 30877 TREE BALER GAS I 46D HR 1932 354 5~7 1904 4747TRAILER GAS 15 HP 600 HR 3300 822 720 1128 5970LABOR MISC ~OOO NROVERHEAD EXPENSES 16800 16800 OOHlE 2321 12763 12763 bull SUBTOTAL 13~56 HREMPLOYEE SENEF lIS 89~3 89~3 bull 57296 1680 1548 4214 6~7 38

INSURANCE 850 850 bull OVERHEAD EXPEHSESFARM fACILITIES 386 366 bull OCltJNTJME 3~70LAND RENT 8163 8163 bull 19637 19637EMPLOYEE BENet liSGENERAL amp ADMINISTRATlOil 5000 5000 bull 13729 13729 SUPERVISION 7500 7500 bull INSURANCE

850 850FARM FACILITIESOTHER 3000 3000 bull 386 386LAND RENTMARXETING 2399~ 2399~ 8163 8163

SUPERVISION GeNERAL 8 ADMINISTRATION

5000 5000 SUBTOTAL 2321 HR 23994 29206 17399 70599 7500 7500

MARKETING OTHER

3000 300048050 48050

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 14769 HR 29550 ~~401 347~ 1250 287125 367738 bullbull SUBTOTAL 3570 HR ~8050 ~0866 17399 106315 IIpoundT OPERATING PROfIT 1121~2

TOIAl OPERATING EXPENSES 22292 HRINTEREST (JIj OPERATTNG CAPlTAL 6545 62910 117140 9338 2911 708395 900694 INTEREST (JIj EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 2473 NET OPERATING PROFIT

60306 10312~

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT IHVESlMENT 8659

3361 RETURN TO R I so

TIoCmiddotTHIRDS OF THESE COSTS IlERE ALLOCATED AS PROOUCTl(Jlj COSTS fORIREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 7 48286iI ~--~-- ----- ~ --~--- -~------ -----~-- yen - bullbullbullbull -- ~ -- ----_ _w ___ ________ 0 _______ _w __ IHIS TOTAL INCCltPORATES ONLY THE EXPENSE ASSOCATEO WITH THE TREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 6 BECAUSE OF THIS THE COLUMN

WILL NOT SUM TO THIS VALUE

24 25

~ i C -i Q

= foil

Table 15 Cash flow for a 160-aere Cbristmas tree rann (147 net planted aeres lIIII====_=====IIIlIII======S=II==2=II=___1I3_III========s_bullbullbullbull=z=a==a============bullbull==~=bullbullbull==11======aSS==lIIlII======================================================

Year 1 fear 2 Year J tear 4 Year 5 Year 6 fear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 fear 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 lllttows _=====

Sale of Trees so so so so so $101035 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 S302585 S302585 $302585 $302585 OUtflows

Purchased Input 5 Tree stock 1921019m 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210Cover ~rass seed 315 9sect1~ 19m 315 315 315 19m 19m 315 19m 19m 19m 19m315 315 315 315erbicuSe 1019 2415 3633 4851 5628 6405 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741Insecticide o 378 756 1~ 1890 22611 22611 22611 22611 2268 2268 2268 22611 22611Ftrlgicide o o o H~ 1087 U~ 1449 U~ 1449 1449 449 ~~~ 1449 1449 t449 1449Amonhn Sui tate o 444 1109 1~ 5676 5676 5676 ~~~X 5676 5676Tree guards 788 788 788 2~ 4~~ 788 53 53 53 788 788 5~ 5~ 53788 788 788Miscellaneous tools 420 578 735 893 105g 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365Twine o o o o i~ 1220 l~~ l~~ij 1220 1220 1220 1220 1220 lm lnOIrrigatlon system 31500 3150031 508 31500 31500 31500 31500 3150g 31500 31500 31~~g 31500 31500 31500 31 gtog 31~~g 31500 31500Eqult 33750 o o o 1045g o o o 266j0 o o a 10450 o oFarm facilities 17000 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oPre-harvest Operations o CustQll1 1_ preparation 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651Spray 204 578 844 1271 1698 2124 2498 2498 2~g 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498Harrow 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 168 1611 1611 Mark rows 309 309 309 Seed 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 Haul plants 42 42 42 42 42 309309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309

42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42Pl t (hand) 1861 2 ~Iy Netting 1~ 1~

794 1~ ~2 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ ~2 1~ 1 1861 1861 1861 861 li~ Orlp installaton 221 221 221 211

~l 794 794 794 794 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 2lt1495 990 1485 1733 1980 2228 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475Shear amp train 2415a o 864 2303 3743 7398- 1~~~ 1~~~ 10283 10283 10283 10283

i seel taneous 1amp1raquor 882 76 2646 Appt ter t it i zer o o o 10~g~ 10m 10m 10~g~ 10~g~ 10283

35 71 141 182 182 182 182 182 182 lr2 Purping costs 480 1121 617435l8 5292 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 Ot 174 6174 6174 6174

Harvest operations 2081 3l02 i~~g 5923 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 73k4

Cut tr~s o Drag amp load trees o 2807o o 935 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 Wrap trees o o 2374 7115 ~~~~ ~~~ 1115 7115 7115 7115 7115 7~ 7115o o o 298 895 895 895 7J~ 895 7~~~ 895 895 895 895 895Haul trees o o o 508 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525MisceHaneous labOr o 1525o o 1455 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366Overheed Oowotime 648 1007 IS58 2235 2911 5522 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346E1lloy benefits 4611 742 1145 1631 3933 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581Insurance 179 357 536 114 2~~

1071 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250Land r~t 1575 3150 4725 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025G amp A 1050 lloo 3150 4lOO 5250 6300 tgro 7350 7350 7350 7350 1~m k~~~ 7350 ~m 7350 7350 735a~~~Vision 472S 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11021575 3150

11m 11~~~ 025 11~~630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 63mMarketng II o o o o 5052 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 lSI29

1 Based on total of 147 planted acres by Year 7 A total of 21 (Jeres are planted each year year 1 consists ot 21 planted acres year 2 a total of 42 etC

-- --~ -~-~ r IJampamp $ ~H ~M LgtH~-~Lw~

110 0 middot W It 110 OO~~~~o~~OOO OampooooooosectOii S~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~H~ = - 11 11=L = 110 _ N N 0 M

bull c _~_

bullbullbull 2 _ M~

cash needs of the operation The farm will produce a positivei 0goooo00020poundN t-~~~~ t-~Fg~ORi ~ UNHIt U to OOE~l2~O~ft~oOI L 110 lS -lIi iIl~lI)t i1 ---a~ - 3

N annual cash flow starting in the seventh year However a total N bullbull u _N N~ - - ~N ~ $E~3

bullbull It 0 t N of $540819 in cash is expended through the first 6 years Ao~ooooooo~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~V~~ ~=~==~C ~ OOi~~~~O$~OOO ~ laquoS_~_ i i6~ ~gIIt_~o~ -=~ I total of 11 years are needed (five positive cash producingbullM Ii IfII 110 II n N -~ ~ _ N t- _ _ ~ ~~~= N III H 0 years) before the cash outflows incurred during the first 6 ~

~ = =a OOsect~~~O~OOO o~ooooooo~~~i 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ =~= years are covered This is based on selling trees at $1240L= V ~ ~N ~~ ~~ ~4 N~ ~~~ i i~e s -- N S The budgets were developed for a 35-year period because=gt- tt n this was thought to be a reasonable economic life5~~ ~ OO~~~roO~~O~O degmoooooooi~~ ~=~~~ ~mi5~5~~ ~=~= amp0 - ~ - III middot

__ ~ ~ _ 0 Nt- _ Ntn ~~~ ~ -~~- ~ pound Additionally a 35-year life allows for five 7-year

planting-through-harvest rotations Based on the rotationbull C) MM C OO~~~~degri~OOO OampOOOOOOO~~~~m 2E~~~ ~~~sect~~~~ ~u~= i c L ~ ~

N~v N N~ ~~ N~ ~4 ~~~~~~ ~ iii schedule only Inth of the total acreage would be planted ini = i

-SfIJ n= ~ - -I anyone year The cash costs in year 1 therefore include onlyRi = ~ ~~~~~i~~5me~~ i~sect~~ ~~~~~~~~ E~ lias amp0 ~~~~~~J~~~~OO H II n ~ 0- ~~w- ~ = ~~ Nt- - ~~_~t- ~ ~ct N planting expense for Inth of the total acreage or 21 acresW - - -= ~ Year 2 would again include planting expenses for Inth of theCtI 110- -~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~o~~~g~ ~G~ liN Q) $ ___ cOP ___~ i_IiInJX lIlCoo~_ flt nc II II tn ~~i~~~~~~~~00 =~ N ~ 0_11 - N w (1= Ot- N~ Oo~t-- i Ef~~ acreage and the second year growing expenses for the 21=- =tt ~ - acres planted originally The total expenses of a fullymiddot =S 1II ~~~_~~~~~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~sect~~ l~~~~~~~ Ec~ _ tl_-= ~u ~ operating facility are first incurred in the seventh year The

~ ~NII -~_ 1I1f N ~o~ N~ - ~o~=~~ ~ eg~R- 1111 0 - t first year of full revenue is also obtained in year 7 (21 acres of Cite ~ ~~~~~~~N~~~~~ ~~~~~ I~~~~~g~ ~r~i

~ _ ~ cOPNN __~ ~_m~~ ~1nO~O~~ Nfl~M

= or ~~~~~~~~~~O tt l 387 trees in their sixth year and 21 acres of 775 trees in their0- ~N_~ _ _0 N ~o~ N~ - ~~_=t--= ~ ~gGbull N= iI - - - ~i 1 seventh year ofgrowth)III

4iiii i~ ~ As the farm approaches the end of its economic life it was~~~_~~~~~~~~OO i~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~pound~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~i~E i

I middotL= 0- -oN_tI- - ~ N _ N~ot-- Nt-- ~ ~o_~t-= ~ ~U~ ii= = ~ assumed that the operator would stop planting Therefore as 11 - a l ~ 13 ~~~~g~i~N~~~~~ i~~~~ ~~a~~IC~~ E=~= of year 29 no more planting expenses are incurred It wasltV bull V ~~~~~~~~~~OO 0- N - -= ~N0ftIo - Ieo ~ t= -oN 1I _0- - N~ ~~ Nt- - ~o-~= ~ ~ft~c =a ~ - t assumed the land would be either left idle or used for otherIIIJ - -

= ~ purposes In year 35 the final year of operation only 21 acresa~= tQ ~~~~~~~re~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~ E~a N 0- -0 ___ _III u N _ N~o~ N~ _~ ~o-=~= ~ ~~~III ~ ~ of seventh-year trees would remain to be harvested At thisgt- - - -I point the entire operation would be closed down No salvagesect ii~ 1II ~~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~$~9~~ i~~~~ ~~~~sect~~ E~I II

II Ltf __ ~ ~N-II N ~ Ni ~~ N~ ~~ ~~~i~ i ~=in value was assumed because the land used was either leased or ~ -11~ 1= shy

I ~ rented and all equipment or buildings had no remainingc 15 ~ ft ~~~rd~~J~~~~~O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~E~iIII 0- QN-V 0 N _ N~o~ N ~~_~~~ ~ ~~~ i useful life H= ~ - ltgt ~ 15 Over the project life it would be necessary to replace some to tQ ~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~S~~~ 2Ei~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~5~i t ~ equipment For the purpose of this study it was assumed that~ I ~ -oN_~ _ - N _ N~ ~~ _ ~o_=~~ ~ ~~ I -= I= ~ - i all equipment would be used until it was no longer-=1 ~lt~S~-~N~~~~1 t-~~~~ ~co~~~o~ ~ft i011 V-- ~ o~- ~~NN__~ i_~V~ ~II~OO~_ ~~ ~~~~~_~i~~~OO a salvageable at which point it would be replaced new Table 16

r bullbull tv () -ON _ - N N~o~ ~ _ ~o-== ~ ~I~ I middot ~ - - - ~ shows the replacement schedule assumed in the cash flow i ~ Note that this table reflects the assumed useful life of the~ -=bull gi

i

iii s equipment rather than its depreciable life Also two itemsCgt I 1 u lJi~ ~ t- I ~ - ~ i the chain saws and the tree balers are not necessary until year -111) l -E I ~ l~~ _E ==Ilbull- ~ 1 ~j c ~ ~ ~ -5 -_ bull s

~~~ ~ ~~ _ ~ ~ L~ OL ~ 0 6 II 6 and were not purchased until that time Based on the highc _~~~~~WL ~-=] ii1t~ ~~ ulpoundlzl ~~ ~ = 1 i~uZul ~~I S Lo-- 2 L ~It~~ -i ~ ~

J L~_ ~m LOCmiddot gt- ampogt-~-~~ ~tc -lt 0 011 CIt -= = 2 ~~~t~5middotFi~f~~i~iitli-~fi~fifiiiI f Ii ~ilaquoI - ~ =~U=_~~~~~_W~U0Z~EZ~CQE~CEAL3QZEQW_~000 ~middot - ~ 8 Ii ~ I ~ middotmiddot -

29

111

f ~middot~middot~LC -- - ~i~

n ~ illII I~ II

Ii II

~~ Table 16 Equipment replacement schedule for a 160-acre ~ Christmas tree farm in New Mexico 1988 ~

usage during a short time period and the relatively short life of these items they were replaced every 5 years

Analysis

Because there are many unknowns encountered when projecting cost and returns and because different locations may be faced with different situations a series of scenarios were provided to evaluate the financial feasibility of the project Three major variables were altered concurrently to create the different scenarios These variables were

1 Prices 2 Yields 3 Costs

Price

A base price of $1240 was assumed The sensitivity of the return to a change of $1 increments over a range of $2 was measured

Yield

Changes in teld were based on altering the number of saleable trees This was done as a percentage of the total trees planted For example a 90 rate would mean that 90 of the 1452 trees originally planted or 1307 trees were available for sale This variable not only affect~ gross revenue but also alters any costs associated with the number of trees harvested Costs such as cutting field hauling baling and brokering are all altered by changes in the number of trees harvested and were assumed to be linear

Yield might also be altered by decreasing the space between trees For example a 5 by 5 spacing yields 1742 planted trees If 80 were saleable this would be 1394 trees

30

Item

Facilities

Well

Tractor

PTO sprayer

Trailer

Mower

Injector

Rotary pruners

Chain saw

Tree baler

iIIii Year ~

L 6 lL 16 2L 26 JL II~ Cost ~

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -(dollars) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- If 17000 ~

~ 10200 i

~

1bull1 113000 13000 13000 13000 1

~I 1200 1200 1200 1200 ~

bull p

~Ii ~

2400 II

800 800 800 800 ~ -I

I1200 1200 1200 1200 ~ 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 t

IiiIii 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 J

~ ~ ~ JOW JOW ~ ~ JOW

50750 10450 26650 10450 26650 10450 26650 I~ISource Table 3 IiIJ

f ~ J ~Cost ~

11I~ Because costs vary by farm and by location it was felt that a sensitivity should be performed on this variable Rather than bull

talter a specific cost or a specific category of costs the total bullIIj

cost was increased or decreased by a percentage and the Ji results evaluated Costs were altered in 10 increments in ~

Iijeither direction The 0 column uses those costs shown in the cash flow

t ~II

1

~I~ 31 ~

Feasibility Assessment

The internal rate of return (IRR) is a technique used to evaluate investment opportunities that incorporates the time value of money concept The internal rate of return for an investment project (in this case a Christmas tree planting) is the discount rate that equates the present value of the annual net cash revenue flows with the projects acquisition cost The net cash revenue is the difference between the cash receipts and cash expenses generated by an investment project over its economic life The time value of money is based on the economic fact that $1 today is worth more than a promise of $1 at some future date because of its current earnings potential

An investment can be accepted or rejected based on its internal rate of return (IRR) Acceptability of the investment depends on a comparison of the IRR with the investors required rate of return (RRR) Acceptability can be based on the following decision rules if IRR exceeds RRR accept the investment if IRR = RRR be indifferent and if IRR is less than RRR reject the investment

While IRR is a useful technique in project evaluation there are some problems with its use The major concern when using IRR is it assumes all cash inflows can be reinvested at the same rate as the resulting IRR percentage Should the IRR percentage be in the vicinity of the current rates of return of other investment instruments IRR is a reasonably accurate measure of return on investment However should the rate of return be much higher than current returns available elsewhere the resulting return on investment may be overstated The inverse is true at lower rates of return

The Net Present Value (NPV) is another way of evaluating projects that involve capital outlays over a period of years The NPV method discounts all future cash outlays and inflows back to a present-year basis using a specified interest (discount rate) The discount rate chosen is usually the opportunity cost of using equity funds in an alternative use or the cost of borrowed capital increased by an appropriate premium for risk or a combination of these The NPV

32

method is preferred over the IRR method when evaluating one investment against alternative similar type investments

Based on the sensitivity analysis discussed above a table was developed to show the IRR under the various scenarios Table 17 shows the internal rates by the per-unit price The analyses is based on pre-tax returns At $1040 per tree the IRR ranges from -14 when costs were increased by 10 and saleable yields were reduced to 60 to 160 when costs were decreased by 10 and 90 of the trees planted were sold At $1140 the IRR range is from 14 to 185 under the same conditions as above At $1240 per tree the IRR ranges from 38 when costs were increased 10 and 60 of the trees are saleable to 207 when costs were decreased 10 and saleable yields were at 90 At $1340 per tree the IRR ranges from 60 to 228 At $1440 per tree a grower could expect an IRR from 80 to 248 under the scenarios presented

A pre-tax analysis using Net Present Value (NPV) was also completed for the various scenarios The results of this analysis are shown in table 18

If an IRR of 12 is chosen as a minimum rate desired for investment growers must receive at least $1140 per tree and attain a level of 80 saleable trees and good cost control to have a successful investment At prices greater than $1140 per tree and 80 saleable product the investment appears to have possibility

33

Table 17 Internal Rates of Return (lRR) estimates for a 160-acre Table 18 Net Present Value (NPV) estimates for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost cbanges cha~es Ising a discount rate of 12

Percentage Percentageof saleable Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount

of saleabletrees 10 lower No chan~ 10 bilber trees --percent-shy

_______ - - - - - - - - - - - (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - shy

$1040 Tree Price 900 130 102900 160 BOO

SOO 128 97 69 700 60 31700 91 600

-14600 48 16

$1140 Tree Price( 900 127185 155

123 95900 800 SOO 153 700 700 116 86 58 600

14600 74 43

$1240 Tree Price 900 lJJ7 178 150900 BOO

118SOO 176 146 700 139 109 81700 600

38600 97 66

$1340 Tree Price 900 900 228 198 171 BOO

167 139SOO 197 700103700 161 130 600

600 119 88 60

$1440 Tree Price 900 BOO

248 218 191900 700159SOO 216 186 600

180 150 123700 80

Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount _ 10 lOwer No change 10 higher

-middot----middotmiddot---middot--bull-----dollars------bullbullbullbull -bullbullbull shy

$1040 Tree Price 175195 32602

(110936) (253415)

44502 (97269)

(2399BO) (381637)

(86191) (227140) (369023) (509859)

$1140 Tree Price 299293 167950 36607 142927

(14476) (170717)

12478 (144024) (299372)

(117971) (273573) (428028)

$1240 Tree Price 423391 291398 159406 253252 81984

(88019)

122225 (48069)

(217107)

(8BOl) (178123) (346196)

$1340 Tree Price 547489 414847 282204 363576 231972 100368 178445 (5321)

47886 (134842)

(82673) (264364)

$1440 Tree Price 671587 538295 405003 473901 341719 209538 274905 143841 12777 77377 (52578) (182532)

138 108 N01E Parentheses mean negative number

34 35

600

Investor Analysis

The following analysis considers the impact of the US tax laws (revised October 1987) on investing in Christmas trees The approach is identical to the previous IRR and NPV analysis except the impact of federal and state income taxes is considered in the annual stream of cash flow

The basis assumptions used are as follows

1 The taxpayer investor is in a 40 tax bracket on marginal income when combining both state and federal income taxes

2 The investor is actively engaged in managing the Christmas tree farm so that revenues and losses can be counted as active income or the investor has other passive investment income to offset any passive losses from growing Christmas trees

3 The Section 179 one-time deduction of $10000 per year is used in other businesses operated by the investor

4 Depreciation was calculated using the modified ACRS rules published by the IRS in 1987 Publication 225

5 The Christmas tree enterprise falls under the IRS rules for Christmas tree cultivation requiring capitalization of planting and stump culture for trees more than 6 years of age Because one-third of the trees are sold within the 6-year time limit one-third of planting expenses were deducted in the year incurred and the remaining two-thirds were capitalized and written off when the trees were sold in the seventh year

6 The investor uses a cash accounting system for tax purposes

36

The pre-tax IRR for the scenario with trees selling for $1240 each 80 harvestable yield and standard costs was 146 The IRR after-tax considerations fell to 125 (table 19) One might compare the after-tax return of 125 to other after-tax investments of comparable risks The after-tax NPV for the above scenario is $18069 compared to the pre-tax NPV of $122225 using a 12 discount rate

37

0

Table 19 Investor cash now analysis lor a l6O-acre Christmas tree larm (per planted acre basis) S=~=bullbull=I==~==~=bullbull====iI=bullbull2a==IIiIII bullbullbullbull===========n====ZIUSS=====bullbull===lllJ=====$~nUIlt1=llIIlta====s=a====II===============bullbullbull==II=~====lltz===-===U===========1II==X=======_==li=

Year 1 rHr 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year S Ye8l 6 tear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 1Q Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Tear 18

Net Cash Flow BelMe T8)( ConeiderattOlS (116411) (75439) (86658) (99354)(111768) (51189) 119810 119810 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810

Tax ONKtiona

Oeprec i at i on Irrigation syat far Foelli amp Equip

7875 1440

14625 7440

19446 7440

22890 7440

25378 7440

27156 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

Planting E_ 8209 10585 13004 16006 18568 22423 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031

~~~- ~t~t 1~~~r 1~ n~~ ~~m i~m ~M ~U~~ ~~M ~M ~~~ ~m ~M ~~~ ~~~ ~~M ~~M ~~M Total TalC DeOoctlons 33265 49193 65833 81973 96875 130860 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189341 189341 189311 189341 189341 189311

~rI~ (3326~) (4979~) (6583g) (819~) (968~) l~m) m~ ~~~~f~ mJ~ ~H~ m~~ mm ~~H~~ ~~B~ ~~im mm mJ~ ~~B2~ Inc_ ra Saings 13306 19917 26333 32189 38750 11930 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc_ TalC Oue 0 0 0 0 0 0 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297

let Cash flow (1037) (5522) (60325) (66) (737018) (397259) 74512 7Z2 74512 74512 7862 7512 74~12 rZSt2 142 M=062 1512 14512 =s===========s=_====sbullbullc=======-===================_======-=-==========I====S======-===========================e===s====================s==============r=================

Net Cash Flow Before Tax Considerations 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810 119810 190654 179442 217765 230460 242421 165733

T81 OlaquoiJcti ons

Depreciation

~ili~r Equip 2g~~ 2U~~ 2~~~ 2~~ 2~~~~ 2~g~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ 2~~ 2~~~ 2~n~ 1~~J ~~8 ~~~ f2zS 2~

~i~-OVerhoad

zg8M62335

zg8M62335

Z~~~ 62335

zg8M62335

ig8M62335

zg~~62335

i8M62335

i8M62335

t8M62335

i~8M 62335

Zg~~62335

~~~~~53665

~~~~ 46402

~tg~~40943

~~ ~~~35402 29986

ll~8~~

Total TaJ( Deduct_ 189341 189341 187121 187121 187121 187121 181121 181121 187121 187121 187121 156112 133925 117431 101291 86842 60718

I Froll Sales 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 201550 ~~~es~~= 1132~ m24~ 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154~ 1154~ 14647~ 16866g 1855~ 20129t 21574~ 1408~

Income la~ Due ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ Met Cash FloW =-2========SCI========

74512=I=====

74512 46974 73624 73624 73624 73624 63174 73624 __===_=_=============bullbullbullSamp====1II_1I31amp=II================_=II==__ == 73624_===__==

73624=======

132065 _=-=bullbull

111978======S=====

143703 ======_==

149943=======1I

156124 ========laquo

109400 ======_

~

Appendix Table Amiddotl United States Department ofAgriculture grade standards for Christmas trees

Christmas Tree Grades Factor US Premium US No1 US No2

Density Not less than Not less than Light or better medium medium

Tapera Normal- Normal- May be less than 40 to 90 40 to 90 40 or more

than 90

Damage-free faceb 4 3 2

Foliage Fresh clean Fresh clean Fresh clean and healthy and healthy and healthy

Shapec Well-shaped Well-shaped Well-shaped crown crown crown

Handle not Handle not Handle not less less than 6 less than 6 less than 6 or more than or more than or more than 134 per foot 1 34 per foot 1 34 per foot of tree height of tree height of tree height

aTaper of a tree is defined as the width of a tree expressed as a percentage of its height

Face means the visible surface area of a tree as viewed from 8 to 10 feet from the tree A tree is considered to have four faces each face constituting 14 of the tree

cHeight of a tree is defined in terms of foot or half-foot steps and is measured from the base of the handle to a point on the leader not more than 4 feet above the apex of the cone of the taper

Source Proebsting Buhaly and Wanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest 1981

40

4iUJiMMiFeuro iampi~t~Ityen)--

Literature Cited

Clevenger Tom et at The Wholesale and Processing Market for Locally Grown High Value Crops Research Report 572 New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station July 1985

Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture (Mora Research Center) New Mexico State University Guidelines for Growing and Marketing Christmas Trees in New Mexico New Mexico Department of Natural Resources October 1980

Huntley Wallace Marketing Christmas Trees-Turning a Problem into an Opportunity American Christmas Tree Journal August 1984 pp 41-43

Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury Fanners Tax Guide Publication 225

Proebsting William M Joseph Buhaly and Donald Hanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest Pacific Northwest Extension Publication PNW6 January 1981

41

Page 10: Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and ...

llt_SWic-yenfoWtfte- ffgIUij_~1i~~~iVjWri~

aI 1981 Risks such as species-specific diseases increase with monoculture Most foresters suggest reducing this risk by planting more than one species

Irrigation

Most areas of New Mexico require supplemental irrigation to maintain the necessary soil moisture to keep the trees growing near their potential It was assumed that all plantations were irrigated with a drip system fed with pumped well water The drip system including all filters laterals and emitters was estimated at $1500 per acre2 The cost of installing the drip line was estimated at $11 per acre and is included as a line item under preharvest operations The cost of the well was included in equipment costs

Water needs per acre vary with the tree size and annual rainfall An annual rainfall of 15 inches was assumed Table 4 shows the additional acre-inches of water required per acre by year

The electric well was assumed to be pumping from a depth of 200 feet at 1000 GPM Table 5 shows the well characteristics and operation costs Based on these assumptions the cost per-acre inch was determined to be $352

~ Based upon estimates provided by Mr Ron Bliesner of Keller-Bliesner Engineering Logan Uf

10

Table 4 Acre-inches of applied water by year

Year AEElied Acre-Inches

1 6

2 8

3 12

4 14

5 16

6 18

7 18

Source Ke1ler-Bliesner Engineering Company Logan UT

Table S Well characterlsdcs for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm

Well Characteristics

Static water level (feet) 200 Draw down (feet) 40 Delivery PSI 8 Gallons per minute 1000 Electric efficiency factor 470

Energy use per hour (KWH) 10367 Fuel cost per hour $778 Cost per acre-inch $352

11

t_hltiirll~9~amp6ii11jjltfllU J[BIl1IiHitilut~~W~~tlaquo+middot -~---

Cover Crop

Many Christmas tree farmers plant a cover crop of native grass between rows A cover crop reduces soil erosion and is a positive step toward vegetation management Irrigation water was not applied to the cover crop

The budget assumes that a native grass was sown before the trees were planted After the cover crop is established a non-selective herbicide such as Round-up was assumed to have been sprayed in 24-inch swathes to create grass-free rows to be planted with trees The native grass seed was estimated to cost $15 per acre Drilling the seed was included under the preharvest operations in the budget as a custom operation at $850 per acre

Mowing was included under preharvest operations as well The number of times the inter-row area needs to be mowed was decreased as the tree cover increased therefore mowing costs vary by year

Chemicals

Crop chemicals such as fertilizer herbicides insecticides and fungicides were included in the budget under purchased inputs Table 6 shows in detail the chemical name the prescribed use unit of measurement application rate number of times applied per year per unit prices and total cost per acre The costs of applying these chemicals were included in the budget under preharvest operations

Shearing and Training

Shearing is the cutting of leader and lateral branches to improve the trees shape and density (Proebsting et al 1981) Shearing produces a more saleable tree than would normally be produced otherwise Shearing may be done either by hand with shearing knives machetes or hand pruners or mechanically with light-weight sickle bar clippers or rotary pruners Rotary pruners were assumed to have been used for shearing in this report

Table 6 Chemicals applied per acre by year ror Christmas tree rarms 1988

Per Unit Total acre price cost

Year Chemical Use Unit rate Times $ $

1 Roundup Atrazine 80W

Herbicide Herbicide

gal Ills

05 50

10 10

8000 170

4000 850

2 Roundup Atrazine 80W Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate

Herbicide Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer

gal Ills Ills qt

Ills

02 50 20 10

2350

10 10 10 30

10

8000 170

2100 600

010

1600 850

4200 1800

2233

3 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer

gal Ills qt

Ills

02 20 10

3520

10 10 30

10

8000 2100 600

10

1600 4200 1800

3168

4 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 20 10

4690 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 4200 1800

4456 1725

5 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 10 10

4690 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 2100 1800

4456 1725

6 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 10 10

9830 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 2100 1800

4456 1725

7 Roundup SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal qt

Ills Ills

02 10

5400 15

10 30

10 20

8000 600

010 575

1600 1800

5130 1725

12 13

AA~1~rmiddot~i~I~~~iiltfi~)~~1i~~~4~iamp_1 2U~ampJl2lJMlIIINIiI1m~~S1lt~h

Shearing generally begins when the tree height is about 5 feet For the budgets some shearing was assumed to begin in year 3 however labor in year 3 mainly reflects training of the trees Training helps develop a straight marketable tree The greatest number of hours were needed in years 6 and 7 to prepare trees for market

Estimated chemical needs were obtained from Drs John Mexal and James Fisher Professors of Horticulture New Mexico State University Many of the above chemicals are unnecessary because many pest and disease problems found elsewhere do not currently occur in New Mexico however it was felt as acreage of the crop increases the need for chemical use would also be necessary

Harvest Operations

The harvest generally consists of 4 to 5 weeks and is the most labor intensive activity in Christmas tree growing HalVest operations consist of selecting the trees for halVesting cutting baling and transporting to the market Timing is imperative and weather can be difficult during this period

Because some trees grow faster than others it is usually possible to harvest about 13 of the crop in the sixth year The remaining 213 of the total crop would be cut the seventh year Experienced growers generally halVest about 80 of the trees they plant as a result of death loss and cullage3 This means each acre yielded 1162 marketable trees if 1452 trees per acre were originally plantedOfthe 1162 trees halVested 13 or 387 trees are halVested in year 6 and 775 trees were cut in year 7 Trees not accounted for in the projected halVest either died or were not acceptable as Christmas trees

The trees selected for halVest are often marked before cutting to prevent halVest crews from having to make decisions about tree grades while cutting After cutting trees are carried to the access road and hauled to a central area where they are baled The trees are then loaded on trucks and shipped to the wholesaler or other market outlets

gtCulled trees may be made into wnaths or sold as boughs This was not assumed as a SOurce of revenue in this report

14

HalVest arrangements with wholesalers vary In some cases wholesalers perform all halVest operations in others the wholesaler will mark the trees they want to buy Some agreements call for the wholesaler to transport the trees from field side others place the responsibility for shipping on the producer

This paper assumed the responsibility of selection and harvest was with the producer and that transportation to the market place was paid for by the wholesaler

Post-Harvest Operations

After the field has been completely halVested in the seventh year it is generally replanted to trees the following spring Some growers remove the remaining stumps Stump removal however is an expensive and time consuming process The preferred method appears to be to replant new seedlings half the distance between the remaining stumps within the row The remaining stumps are then allowed to decay naturally This method of replanting between stumps was assumed for this paper

Overhead Expense

Table 7 shows the overhead expenses assumed for the 160 acres with 147 net planted acres

Downtime is the additional labor time allowed because of time lost for such things as machine repairs moving to and from fields and waiting for deliveries A downtime rate of 20 of the total labor hours was applied in the budgets

Employee benefits include any programs that full-time or part-time employees may obtain such as social security workmens compensation insurance group life and health insurance and paid vacations Although this cost can be negligible on most small farms an 18 rate on the coSt of labor was applied here

Insurance was estimated at $850 per planted acre This includes coverage of equipment and farm liability

15

~_~ ~ -h n~middotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot _ middotmiddotbullm-middot middottlt1Gmiddotmiddotgtmiddotti~q~~middot~middot)Gv~--e~~~~~i4iM5tll L MIbullbull Jtpoundi8)l] II ha bullUMtflIf~~~Hjl~kllI~1cent

Table 7 Annual overhead expenses on a 160-acre Christmas tree fanna

Downtime 20 ofdirect labor hours

Employer benefits 18 of direct labor hours

Insurance $850 per planted acre

Farm facilities $386 per planted acre

Land rent $8163 per planted acreb

General and administrative $50 per planted acre

Supervision $75 per planted acre

Other $30 per planted acre

Brokerage 5 of gross revenue

88sed 003tOUtTof 147 pl8nted acres 1Is7s per acre on the total of 160 acres

It was assumed farm facilities were required to protect equipment from weather and to provide office space A simple pole building was used for protecting equipment and was estimated to cost $8000 An additional $9000 was allotted for an office structure The cost of these facilities was spread over a service life of 35 years The cost per planted acre was approximately $4 per acre

Land rent was assumed to be $82 per planted acre or $75 per acre on the gross farm acreage If the land is already owned outright this would represent the opportunity cost of having planted the land to Christmas trees

General and administrative expenses include management salaries secretarial expenses and costs associated with running and maintaining the office such as telephone copying

16

and bookkeeping The amount associated with general and administrative expenses was $50 per planted acre

Supervision expenses were incurred to oversee field operations A $75 per planted acre expense was used for supervision This figure is arbitrary but includes funds for possibly hiring a foreman It also includes funds for pickup truck expenses The 147 net planted acres provides an annual supervision expense fund of $11025

Other expenses is a catch-all category for irregular or unexpected items such as fence or road repair additional hand tools or added administrative expenses The other expenses assumed here were $30 per acre per year

A brokerage fee was included in the budgets as a marketing expense The producer often serves as his own broker and in this case the fee included in the budgets would be viewed as an opportunity cost of the producers time A fee of 5 of gross revenue was used as a brokerage expense

Interest

An interest expense was included for opemting capital and equipment investment Rates of 12 and 10 respectively were used 4

For the full-cost budgets the interest expense on operating capital needed each year from the time of planting was compounded through the seventh year and charged off as an expense in the harvest year If the capital used was all equity capital rather than borrowed this could again be construed as an opportunity cost of the use of the producers money

Establishment Expenses

The establishment expense is the actual cost of growing the trees to harvestable size (tables 8 through 13) To show the total return and the total costs incurred during the harvest

IbeSeinterest rates imply an average annual inflation rate or at least 3to 4 per year A realistic analysis could increase the annual cash expenses and revenues by a 3 to 4 compounded rate over the 35middotyear investment period This approach would result in higher estimated returns Future expenses and revenues were not adjusted ror inflation in this report hence the results may be underestimated

17

MtiS 4ampIi- iJi4MliIllITftif ~2k+Csectlgt--~Smiddot-f

year the full-cost budget for years 6 and 7 include an establishment expense under the purchased input category (tables 13 and 14) This expense is based on cost estimates from the first five years of production and is prorated to the appropriate year based upon the harvest yield ratio S Because there is a time value associated with the capital used to grow the trees a compounding factor was also included The rate used to compound was 10 The total establishment expense per planted acre was estimated to be $2782 allocated in year 6 and $6840 in year 7 The $6840 allocated in year 7 includes $616 of interest expenses associated with having to wait another year (year 6 to 7) before these expenses are recovered The establishment expenses amounted to $719 and $883 per harvested tree respectively for trees harvested in the sixth and seventh years Net returns would increase significantly if all trees would reach harvestable size by year 6

Total Cost Per Acre

Based on the budget estimates made for years 6 and 7 a total cost of $12895 per acre planted or $1110 per tree harvested was required to grow Christmas trees through harvest This cost includes all equipment expenses chemicals land rent labor overhead and interest

Price Sensitivity of Full-Cost Budgets

To determine the return to risk when all costs are accounted for the gross revenue must also be estimated The gross revenue is a function of number of trees harvested and the price per tree The yield of 80of the total planting or 1162 trees was assumed as fIXed in this part of the analysis and only the price was varied A per tree price of $1240 was used as the base with a $1 change in either direction Using the $1240 per tree price a net return of $158372 per acre harvested was derived At $1140 per tree $1 less a net return

gtc)f the total yield 13 was harvested in year 6 and 23 in year 7

q

i g

I middoto~ ~ ~8

~i ~ ~

_z1~ ~s -~

~g

~

~ ~3

z ~ ~i r cu

m~zIi ~ ~=gt

~s ~-

5 oS ~

~J t ~It ~c= ~c lI-Q

i l- ~~ fI) = I iI~ = CIt

f 8 ~ a

(I III laquoIC 5 ~cI iIoU ~

ltI ~ CllioS~ Ol fo- ~ ~ j$ S ~ ~In~

~~~ggg

oi~oo -o-4-C~ ~

0000 0utqno 0

ritO 0 ~-4tltl- N

w ~w

tJtDWU C-amptoe(

oot)o ~~~lt= _Ot) -0

Ie

8glg~~~~i~~g~ t o~-eOaiNOQN 0 N-4N S

11 N ~ill -- 0

~ ~ ~~

1tc ~ ~~ -4 _

I

~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~_OO~N shy 1_ ~

gg 8~ st i~ tOtO i

~ ~~~ ~ X x=~

~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~Q~~N N~

~ g~ E

~ ~ ~ 0 Q i1lJ~W

lto(c- aa~aai5~ ttlZW

~ tQ __ -I iffi Z ~wtll~ow=i~~~~ ~e=~~~5~~tUQCI =VIE a C-lI-

g~~~~g8g~ ~NeOQarQ a) ~

~~~q ~~ laquo)~ ~S

o o~~ UN ~

~ ~

0

~(fIii

~

i

o N

bull ~ l

i

~

~

~ ~

S ~

18 19

Table 9 Per acre tun cost budgets ror growiDg White Fir and Scots Pine

~-~~-~~~~-~-~~~-~-~~-~-~~-~~-~-~~~~~~~~--~~-~~-----------------------_------YIELD

HARVEST DATES PLANTING DATES

PlIlCE -- ~-- - - - bull - - - bullbull - bull - - - ~ - - bull - bull QUANTITY PUR~~~ LABOR ~~iJ~~ REPAIRS Fgi~ TOTAl

TEM UNIT __ bullbull ________ bull __ _ _ ___ ___ bull ___ ___ bull __ _ __________ bullbullbullbull _________ bullbullbullbullbullbullbull _ bull ------_ bullbullbullbullbullbull - -- bull bull - - - - bull (DOLLARS) bullbullbull - - bullbullbull

PURCHASED INPUTS 6650100 ACRE 66501lER8ICIOE 1800100 ACRE 1800INSECTICIDE 211523500 LB 2115MOIII~ SULFATE 750100 ACRE 750MISCELLANECIlS TOOLS 1131511315SUBTOTAL

PREHARVEST OPERATIONS 21751309 319 209 338PTO SPRAYER (X) ampAS IS P 238 HR 27491738 423 275 313MOWER (410 GAS 15 HP 316 HR 4200

Mise 1000 HR 4200LABOR 3226~ 360 IR 2812 238 176WELL (ex) ELE

123501914 7247 3554 722 827SUBTOTAL

OVERfAD EXPENSES 1709311 1709OOWIITIME EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

13041304 850 850

INSURANCE 386 386 FARM FACILITIES 8163 8163 LAND RENT 5000 5000GENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION 75007500suPERVISION 3D00 3000 OTHER

17399 2791210513SUBTOTAL 311 HR

3554 722 18226 515_7711315 17760TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 2225 IR

-51577NET OPERATING PROFIT

2678INTEREST ON OPERATI~G CAPITAL 831INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT

-55086 ~~~~-~~~~- _- _- -_ -_ ----- --_ ---- -- -- ----_ --_ --___ _ - _------ __

Table 10 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 3 estabUshment) NM 1988 PLANTING DATES YIELDHARVEST OATES PRICE

POWER PURCHASED FUEL OIL FIXEDITEM UNIT QUANTITY INPUTS lABOR LUBRICANT REPAIRS COST TOTAL --_ - - _- ---- - -_ -- --_ - - - -(DOlLARS)

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE 5800 5800MOIII~ SULFATE 35200 LB 3168 3168INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800MISCELLANECIlS TOOLS 100 ACRE 750 750

SIJIITOTAL 11518 11518

PRE HARVEST OPERATIONS ROTARY PRUIINERS GAS 900 HR 3780 234 108 495 4617PTO SPRAYER (5X) GAS 15 HP 1 70 R 935 228 150 241 1554MOWER (4X) ampAS 15 HP 316 HR 1738 423 275 313 2149LABOR Mise 1000 IR 4200 4200ELL (12X) ELE 540 HR 4217 356 265 4838

N SUBTOTAL 2926 10653 5102 889 1314 17958 - (MRNfAl) EXPENSES OOWIITiME 477 2625 2625EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1918 1918INSURANCE 850 850FARM FACILITIES 386 386LAIIO RENT 8163 8163GENERAL _rNISTRATlON 5000 5000SUPERViSiON 7500 7500OTHER 3000 3000

SUBTOTAL 477 HR 2043 17399 29442

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 3403 HR 11518 22696 5102 889 18713 58918

NET OPERATI KG PROF IT middot58918

I NTEREST ON OPERAT I NG CAP ITAL 2930 INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT INVESTMENT 964

RETURN TO RISK 62812 ~ -~- -_ ~ ~~ ~ _ - -

Table 11 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas ~~~~~~~~~~~_~~~t~~~~~ ___ _ ~i~~middotDAEmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot YIELD

HARVEST OATES PRICE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull PURCHASED FUEL Oil FIXED

PMR INPUTS LA~ LUBRICANT REPAIRS COST TOTAL ~~~~~~- middotmiddotDOt~~middot PURCHASED INPUTS

HERBICIDE 100 ACRE 5800 5800 INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 fUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 AMONIUM SULFATE 46900 LB 4221 4221 MlsCElLANEClJS TOOLS 100 ACRE 750 750

SUBTOTAL 14296 14296

PRE HARVEST OPERA liONS ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) CAS 1500 HR 6300 390 180 825 7695 PTO SPRAYER (ax) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 364 239 386 2485 MOIlER (2X) CAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374~ FERT INJECTOR ElE 030 HR 011 061 096 168 LABOR MISC 1000 HR 4200 4200 lElL (14X) [L 630 HR 49bull 20 416 309 5645

SUBTOTAL 3590 12865 5897 1033 1772 21567

OVERHEAD EXPENSES DOIINTIM 586 3223 3223 EMPLOYEE BENEF ITS 2316 2316 INSURANCE 850 850 FARM FACILITIES 386 386 LAND RENT 8163 8163 CENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION 5000 5000 SUPERVI SION 7500 7500 OTHER 3000 3000

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039 17399 30438

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 4176 HR 14296 25904 5897 1033 19171 66301

NET OPERATl NG PROF IT 66301

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL 3247 INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 1102

70650~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~--

Table 12 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas trees (year 5 establishment) NM 1988 PLANTING OATES HARVEST OATES YIELD

PRICE

lIEM PMR

IJHlT QUANT lTy PURCHASED

INPUTS

~~~~~

FUEL OlL LA80R LUBRICANT

REPAIRS FIXED COST TOTAL

PURCHASED INPUTS - shy ~ ~ bull bull bull (DOLLARS) bull - bull HER81CIOE INSECTICIDE FUNCICIOE AMOHIUM SULFATE MI SCELLANEOUS TOOLS

SU8TOTAL

PREHARVEST oPERATIONS

100 ACRE 100 ACRE 100 ACRE

46900 L8 100 ACRE

3700 1800 1725 4221 750

12196

3700 1800 1725 4221

750

12196

ROTARY PRUHNERS (2X) PTO SPRAYER (8X) MOIlER aX) FERT INJECTOR LABOR WELL (16X)

SUBTOTAL

OVERHEAD EXPENSES

CAS CAS 15 HP CAS 15 HP ELE MISC ELE

1500 H 272 HR 158 HR 030 HR

1000 HR 720 HR

3680

6300 1496 869

4200

12865

390 364 212 011

5623

6600

180 239 137 061

475

1092

825 386 156 096

353

1816

7695 2485 1374 168

4200 6451

22373

OOIHIME EMPLOYEE BENEFf TS INSURANCE FARM FACILITIES LANI RENT GENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION SUPERVISION OTHER

586 3223 2316

7500

850 386

8163 5000

3223 2316 850 386

8163 5000 7500

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039

3000

17399

3000

30438

TOTAL OPERAJINC EXPENSES 4266 HR 12196 25904 6600 1092 19215 65007 NET oPERA T I HG PROf I T

65007 INTEREST ON OPERATINC CAPITAL INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 3142

1153 RETURN TO bull I SK bull ~ bullbullbull - _ - - ~ - _ - - _ bullbullbullbull - - ~ _ bullbull - _ bullbullbullbull bullbull - bullbullbull

~ - - -_ _-_ __--_ _---__- 69302

Table 13 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine

~~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J~~~~~~ Table 14 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine PL~NTIMG DATES YIELD 387 TREES GROSS RETURNSS4198 80 HARVEST DATES NOVEMBER 15 bull DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0TREE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbull bullbull

bull - bullbull - bullbullbull - bull bull bull bull ~C~A~E~ - FUEL OIL FIXED ~middot~middot~7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~U~~~~~ PLANT INC DATES YIelD 775 TREESQUANT ITY INPUTS LABOR LUBRICANT REPAIU COST TOTAL

~ ___ w~ ___ ____ _ ____ ____ _ _ _ ___ HARVEST OATES NOVEM8ER 15 DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0IREE ~ CROSS RETURNS$9iIOOO - bullbullbullbull (DOLLARS) bullbullbullbullbullbull - bull shy

pOlin PURCHASEDPURCHASED INPUTS ITEM fUEl OIL FIXEDUNIT OUANT IlY INPUTSHERBltlDE 100 ACRE 3700 3700 bull lABOR LUBRICANT RePAIRS-_ _---- _--- _---_ _---- - _--_ - _- __ __ -- COST TOTAL INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 bull FUNGICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 bull bull (DOLLARS) bull A_IUM SULFATE 93800 LB 8~~2 8442 bull

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE T6OOTWINE 38700 EACH 19-35 1935 1600INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800MISCELLANEros TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000 bull 1800

ESTABLISHMENT 113 2781 72 278172 FUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725AMON I UN SULFATE 5~000 lB 4860 4860

SUBTOTAL 18602 2781 72 2967 7~ TWINE 17500 EACH 3875 ~8 7~MISCELLANEOUS TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000

PREHARVEST OPERATIOIIS ESTABLISHMENT 23 ~050 ~050

ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) GAS 3800 HR 15960 988 ~56 2090 1~9~ bull SUBTOIAL 14860PTO SPRAYER (ex) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 360 239 386 2~ 85 bull ~050 698910 MOWER (2X) GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 137~ bull PREHARVEST OPERATIONSfERT INJECTOR ELE 035 oR 012 071 112 195 bull ROTARY PRUNNERS (2)) GAS 3000 HRLABOR Mise 1000 HR ~200 ~2 00 bull 12600 780 360 1650 I5~90PTO SPRAYER (xl GAS 15 HP 238 HRIlELL lt18X) ElE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258 bull MOIlER (ZX) 1309 319 209 338 21 75GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374fEAT INJECTOR ELE 060 HSUBTOTAL 6075 22525 7902 1~38 31~1 35006 021 122 191 334LABOR MIse 1000 HR ~200 4200

HARVEST OPERATIONS WELL (18X) ELE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258

CHAIN SAW GAS 968 HR 4066 252 136 590 50~~ SUBTOTAL 5266DRAG amp lOAD HAND 3225 HR 13545 135~5 18978 7658 1363 2732 J0731 TREE BALER GAS 230 HR 966 177 278 952 2373 HARVEST OPERATIONSTRAILER GAS 15 HP 300 HR 1650 ~11 360 560 2985 CHAIN SAW GAS 1938 HRLABOR Mise 1650 HR 6930 6930 81~0 504 271 1182 10097DRAG amp LOAD HAND 6058 HR 27124 27124

SUBTOIAL 6373 HR 27157 8~0 7 7~ 2106 30877 TREE BALER GAS I 46D HR 1932 354 5~7 1904 4747TRAILER GAS 15 HP 600 HR 3300 822 720 1128 5970LABOR MISC ~OOO NROVERHEAD EXPENSES 16800 16800 OOHlE 2321 12763 12763 bull SUBTOTAL 13~56 HREMPLOYEE SENEF lIS 89~3 89~3 bull 57296 1680 1548 4214 6~7 38

INSURANCE 850 850 bull OVERHEAD EXPEHSESFARM fACILITIES 386 366 bull OCltJNTJME 3~70LAND RENT 8163 8163 bull 19637 19637EMPLOYEE BENet liSGENERAL amp ADMINISTRATlOil 5000 5000 bull 13729 13729 SUPERVISION 7500 7500 bull INSURANCE

850 850FARM FACILITIESOTHER 3000 3000 bull 386 386LAND RENTMARXETING 2399~ 2399~ 8163 8163

SUPERVISION GeNERAL 8 ADMINISTRATION

5000 5000 SUBTOTAL 2321 HR 23994 29206 17399 70599 7500 7500

MARKETING OTHER

3000 300048050 48050

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 14769 HR 29550 ~~401 347~ 1250 287125 367738 bullbull SUBTOTAL 3570 HR ~8050 ~0866 17399 106315 IIpoundT OPERATING PROfIT 1121~2

TOIAl OPERATING EXPENSES 22292 HRINTEREST (JIj OPERATTNG CAPlTAL 6545 62910 117140 9338 2911 708395 900694 INTEREST (JIj EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 2473 NET OPERATING PROFIT

60306 10312~

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT IHVESlMENT 8659

3361 RETURN TO R I so

TIoCmiddotTHIRDS OF THESE COSTS IlERE ALLOCATED AS PROOUCTl(Jlj COSTS fORIREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 7 48286iI ~--~-- ----- ~ --~--- -~------ -----~-- yen - bullbullbullbull -- ~ -- ----_ _w ___ ________ 0 _______ _w __ IHIS TOTAL INCCltPORATES ONLY THE EXPENSE ASSOCATEO WITH THE TREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 6 BECAUSE OF THIS THE COLUMN

WILL NOT SUM TO THIS VALUE

24 25

~ i C -i Q

= foil

Table 15 Cash flow for a 160-aere Cbristmas tree rann (147 net planted aeres lIIII====_=====IIIlIII======S=II==2=II=___1I3_III========s_bullbullbullbull=z=a==a============bullbull==~=bullbullbull==11======aSS==lIIlII======================================================

Year 1 fear 2 Year J tear 4 Year 5 Year 6 fear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 fear 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 lllttows _=====

Sale of Trees so so so so so $101035 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 S302585 S302585 $302585 $302585 OUtflows

Purchased Input 5 Tree stock 1921019m 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210Cover ~rass seed 315 9sect1~ 19m 315 315 315 19m 19m 315 19m 19m 19m 19m315 315 315 315erbicuSe 1019 2415 3633 4851 5628 6405 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741Insecticide o 378 756 1~ 1890 22611 22611 22611 22611 2268 2268 2268 22611 22611Ftrlgicide o o o H~ 1087 U~ 1449 U~ 1449 1449 449 ~~~ 1449 1449 t449 1449Amonhn Sui tate o 444 1109 1~ 5676 5676 5676 ~~~X 5676 5676Tree guards 788 788 788 2~ 4~~ 788 53 53 53 788 788 5~ 5~ 53788 788 788Miscellaneous tools 420 578 735 893 105g 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365Twine o o o o i~ 1220 l~~ l~~ij 1220 1220 1220 1220 1220 lm lnOIrrigatlon system 31500 3150031 508 31500 31500 31500 31500 3150g 31500 31500 31~~g 31500 31500 31500 31 gtog 31~~g 31500 31500Eqult 33750 o o o 1045g o o o 266j0 o o a 10450 o oFarm facilities 17000 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oPre-harvest Operations o CustQll1 1_ preparation 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651Spray 204 578 844 1271 1698 2124 2498 2498 2~g 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498Harrow 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 168 1611 1611 Mark rows 309 309 309 Seed 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 Haul plants 42 42 42 42 42 309309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309

42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42Pl t (hand) 1861 2 ~Iy Netting 1~ 1~

794 1~ ~2 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ ~2 1~ 1 1861 1861 1861 861 li~ Orlp installaton 221 221 221 211

~l 794 794 794 794 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 2lt1495 990 1485 1733 1980 2228 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475Shear amp train 2415a o 864 2303 3743 7398- 1~~~ 1~~~ 10283 10283 10283 10283

i seel taneous 1amp1raquor 882 76 2646 Appt ter t it i zer o o o 10~g~ 10m 10m 10~g~ 10~g~ 10283

35 71 141 182 182 182 182 182 182 lr2 Purping costs 480 1121 617435l8 5292 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 Ot 174 6174 6174 6174

Harvest operations 2081 3l02 i~~g 5923 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 73k4

Cut tr~s o Drag amp load trees o 2807o o 935 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 Wrap trees o o 2374 7115 ~~~~ ~~~ 1115 7115 7115 7115 7115 7~ 7115o o o 298 895 895 895 7J~ 895 7~~~ 895 895 895 895 895Haul trees o o o 508 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525MisceHaneous labOr o 1525o o 1455 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366Overheed Oowotime 648 1007 IS58 2235 2911 5522 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346E1lloy benefits 4611 742 1145 1631 3933 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581Insurance 179 357 536 114 2~~

1071 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250Land r~t 1575 3150 4725 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025G amp A 1050 lloo 3150 4lOO 5250 6300 tgro 7350 7350 7350 7350 1~m k~~~ 7350 ~m 7350 7350 735a~~~Vision 472S 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11021575 3150

11m 11~~~ 025 11~~630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 63mMarketng II o o o o 5052 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 lSI29

1 Based on total of 147 planted acres by Year 7 A total of 21 (Jeres are planted each year year 1 consists ot 21 planted acres year 2 a total of 42 etC

-- --~ -~-~ r IJampamp $ ~H ~M LgtH~-~Lw~

110 0 middot W It 110 OO~~~~o~~OOO OampooooooosectOii S~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~H~ = - 11 11=L = 110 _ N N 0 M

bull c _~_

bullbullbull 2 _ M~

cash needs of the operation The farm will produce a positivei 0goooo00020poundN t-~~~~ t-~Fg~ORi ~ UNHIt U to OOE~l2~O~ft~oOI L 110 lS -lIi iIl~lI)t i1 ---a~ - 3

N annual cash flow starting in the seventh year However a total N bullbull u _N N~ - - ~N ~ $E~3

bullbull It 0 t N of $540819 in cash is expended through the first 6 years Ao~ooooooo~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~V~~ ~=~==~C ~ OOi~~~~O$~OOO ~ laquoS_~_ i i6~ ~gIIt_~o~ -=~ I total of 11 years are needed (five positive cash producingbullM Ii IfII 110 II n N -~ ~ _ N t- _ _ ~ ~~~= N III H 0 years) before the cash outflows incurred during the first 6 ~

~ = =a OOsect~~~O~OOO o~ooooooo~~~i 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ =~= years are covered This is based on selling trees at $1240L= V ~ ~N ~~ ~~ ~4 N~ ~~~ i i~e s -- N S The budgets were developed for a 35-year period because=gt- tt n this was thought to be a reasonable economic life5~~ ~ OO~~~roO~~O~O degmoooooooi~~ ~=~~~ ~mi5~5~~ ~=~= amp0 - ~ - III middot

__ ~ ~ _ 0 Nt- _ Ntn ~~~ ~ -~~- ~ pound Additionally a 35-year life allows for five 7-year

planting-through-harvest rotations Based on the rotationbull C) MM C OO~~~~degri~OOO OampOOOOOOO~~~~m 2E~~~ ~~~sect~~~~ ~u~= i c L ~ ~

N~v N N~ ~~ N~ ~4 ~~~~~~ ~ iii schedule only Inth of the total acreage would be planted ini = i

-SfIJ n= ~ - -I anyone year The cash costs in year 1 therefore include onlyRi = ~ ~~~~~i~~5me~~ i~sect~~ ~~~~~~~~ E~ lias amp0 ~~~~~~J~~~~OO H II n ~ 0- ~~w- ~ = ~~ Nt- - ~~_~t- ~ ~ct N planting expense for Inth of the total acreage or 21 acresW - - -= ~ Year 2 would again include planting expenses for Inth of theCtI 110- -~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~o~~~g~ ~G~ liN Q) $ ___ cOP ___~ i_IiInJX lIlCoo~_ flt nc II II tn ~~i~~~~~~~~00 =~ N ~ 0_11 - N w (1= Ot- N~ Oo~t-- i Ef~~ acreage and the second year growing expenses for the 21=- =tt ~ - acres planted originally The total expenses of a fullymiddot =S 1II ~~~_~~~~~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~sect~~ l~~~~~~~ Ec~ _ tl_-= ~u ~ operating facility are first incurred in the seventh year The

~ ~NII -~_ 1I1f N ~o~ N~ - ~o~=~~ ~ eg~R- 1111 0 - t first year of full revenue is also obtained in year 7 (21 acres of Cite ~ ~~~~~~~N~~~~~ ~~~~~ I~~~~~g~ ~r~i

~ _ ~ cOPNN __~ ~_m~~ ~1nO~O~~ Nfl~M

= or ~~~~~~~~~~O tt l 387 trees in their sixth year and 21 acres of 775 trees in their0- ~N_~ _ _0 N ~o~ N~ - ~~_=t--= ~ ~gGbull N= iI - - - ~i 1 seventh year ofgrowth)III

4iiii i~ ~ As the farm approaches the end of its economic life it was~~~_~~~~~~~~OO i~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~pound~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~i~E i

I middotL= 0- -oN_tI- - ~ N _ N~ot-- Nt-- ~ ~o_~t-= ~ ~U~ ii= = ~ assumed that the operator would stop planting Therefore as 11 - a l ~ 13 ~~~~g~i~N~~~~~ i~~~~ ~~a~~IC~~ E=~= of year 29 no more planting expenses are incurred It wasltV bull V ~~~~~~~~~~OO 0- N - -= ~N0ftIo - Ieo ~ t= -oN 1I _0- - N~ ~~ Nt- - ~o-~= ~ ~ft~c =a ~ - t assumed the land would be either left idle or used for otherIIIJ - -

= ~ purposes In year 35 the final year of operation only 21 acresa~= tQ ~~~~~~~re~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~ E~a N 0- -0 ___ _III u N _ N~o~ N~ _~ ~o-=~= ~ ~~~III ~ ~ of seventh-year trees would remain to be harvested At thisgt- - - -I point the entire operation would be closed down No salvagesect ii~ 1II ~~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~$~9~~ i~~~~ ~~~~sect~~ E~I II

II Ltf __ ~ ~N-II N ~ Ni ~~ N~ ~~ ~~~i~ i ~=in value was assumed because the land used was either leased or ~ -11~ 1= shy

I ~ rented and all equipment or buildings had no remainingc 15 ~ ft ~~~rd~~J~~~~~O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~E~iIII 0- QN-V 0 N _ N~o~ N ~~_~~~ ~ ~~~ i useful life H= ~ - ltgt ~ 15 Over the project life it would be necessary to replace some to tQ ~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~S~~~ 2Ei~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~5~i t ~ equipment For the purpose of this study it was assumed that~ I ~ -oN_~ _ - N _ N~ ~~ _ ~o_=~~ ~ ~~ I -= I= ~ - i all equipment would be used until it was no longer-=1 ~lt~S~-~N~~~~1 t-~~~~ ~co~~~o~ ~ft i011 V-- ~ o~- ~~NN__~ i_~V~ ~II~OO~_ ~~ ~~~~~_~i~~~OO a salvageable at which point it would be replaced new Table 16

r bullbull tv () -ON _ - N N~o~ ~ _ ~o-== ~ ~I~ I middot ~ - - - ~ shows the replacement schedule assumed in the cash flow i ~ Note that this table reflects the assumed useful life of the~ -=bull gi

i

iii s equipment rather than its depreciable life Also two itemsCgt I 1 u lJi~ ~ t- I ~ - ~ i the chain saws and the tree balers are not necessary until year -111) l -E I ~ l~~ _E ==Ilbull- ~ 1 ~j c ~ ~ ~ -5 -_ bull s

~~~ ~ ~~ _ ~ ~ L~ OL ~ 0 6 II 6 and were not purchased until that time Based on the highc _~~~~~WL ~-=] ii1t~ ~~ ulpoundlzl ~~ ~ = 1 i~uZul ~~I S Lo-- 2 L ~It~~ -i ~ ~

J L~_ ~m LOCmiddot gt- ampogt-~-~~ ~tc -lt 0 011 CIt -= = 2 ~~~t~5middotFi~f~~i~iitli-~fi~fifiiiI f Ii ~ilaquoI - ~ =~U=_~~~~~_W~U0Z~EZ~CQE~CEAL3QZEQW_~000 ~middot - ~ 8 Ii ~ I ~ middotmiddot -

29

111

f ~middot~middot~LC -- - ~i~

n ~ illII I~ II

Ii II

~~ Table 16 Equipment replacement schedule for a 160-acre ~ Christmas tree farm in New Mexico 1988 ~

usage during a short time period and the relatively short life of these items they were replaced every 5 years

Analysis

Because there are many unknowns encountered when projecting cost and returns and because different locations may be faced with different situations a series of scenarios were provided to evaluate the financial feasibility of the project Three major variables were altered concurrently to create the different scenarios These variables were

1 Prices 2 Yields 3 Costs

Price

A base price of $1240 was assumed The sensitivity of the return to a change of $1 increments over a range of $2 was measured

Yield

Changes in teld were based on altering the number of saleable trees This was done as a percentage of the total trees planted For example a 90 rate would mean that 90 of the 1452 trees originally planted or 1307 trees were available for sale This variable not only affect~ gross revenue but also alters any costs associated with the number of trees harvested Costs such as cutting field hauling baling and brokering are all altered by changes in the number of trees harvested and were assumed to be linear

Yield might also be altered by decreasing the space between trees For example a 5 by 5 spacing yields 1742 planted trees If 80 were saleable this would be 1394 trees

30

Item

Facilities

Well

Tractor

PTO sprayer

Trailer

Mower

Injector

Rotary pruners

Chain saw

Tree baler

iIIii Year ~

L 6 lL 16 2L 26 JL II~ Cost ~

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -(dollars) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- If 17000 ~

~ 10200 i

~

1bull1 113000 13000 13000 13000 1

~I 1200 1200 1200 1200 ~

bull p

~Ii ~

2400 II

800 800 800 800 ~ -I

I1200 1200 1200 1200 ~ 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 t

IiiIii 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 J

~ ~ ~ JOW JOW ~ ~ JOW

50750 10450 26650 10450 26650 10450 26650 I~ISource Table 3 IiIJ

f ~ J ~Cost ~

11I~ Because costs vary by farm and by location it was felt that a sensitivity should be performed on this variable Rather than bull

talter a specific cost or a specific category of costs the total bullIIj

cost was increased or decreased by a percentage and the Ji results evaluated Costs were altered in 10 increments in ~

Iijeither direction The 0 column uses those costs shown in the cash flow

t ~II

1

~I~ 31 ~

Feasibility Assessment

The internal rate of return (IRR) is a technique used to evaluate investment opportunities that incorporates the time value of money concept The internal rate of return for an investment project (in this case a Christmas tree planting) is the discount rate that equates the present value of the annual net cash revenue flows with the projects acquisition cost The net cash revenue is the difference between the cash receipts and cash expenses generated by an investment project over its economic life The time value of money is based on the economic fact that $1 today is worth more than a promise of $1 at some future date because of its current earnings potential

An investment can be accepted or rejected based on its internal rate of return (IRR) Acceptability of the investment depends on a comparison of the IRR with the investors required rate of return (RRR) Acceptability can be based on the following decision rules if IRR exceeds RRR accept the investment if IRR = RRR be indifferent and if IRR is less than RRR reject the investment

While IRR is a useful technique in project evaluation there are some problems with its use The major concern when using IRR is it assumes all cash inflows can be reinvested at the same rate as the resulting IRR percentage Should the IRR percentage be in the vicinity of the current rates of return of other investment instruments IRR is a reasonably accurate measure of return on investment However should the rate of return be much higher than current returns available elsewhere the resulting return on investment may be overstated The inverse is true at lower rates of return

The Net Present Value (NPV) is another way of evaluating projects that involve capital outlays over a period of years The NPV method discounts all future cash outlays and inflows back to a present-year basis using a specified interest (discount rate) The discount rate chosen is usually the opportunity cost of using equity funds in an alternative use or the cost of borrowed capital increased by an appropriate premium for risk or a combination of these The NPV

32

method is preferred over the IRR method when evaluating one investment against alternative similar type investments

Based on the sensitivity analysis discussed above a table was developed to show the IRR under the various scenarios Table 17 shows the internal rates by the per-unit price The analyses is based on pre-tax returns At $1040 per tree the IRR ranges from -14 when costs were increased by 10 and saleable yields were reduced to 60 to 160 when costs were decreased by 10 and 90 of the trees planted were sold At $1140 the IRR range is from 14 to 185 under the same conditions as above At $1240 per tree the IRR ranges from 38 when costs were increased 10 and 60 of the trees are saleable to 207 when costs were decreased 10 and saleable yields were at 90 At $1340 per tree the IRR ranges from 60 to 228 At $1440 per tree a grower could expect an IRR from 80 to 248 under the scenarios presented

A pre-tax analysis using Net Present Value (NPV) was also completed for the various scenarios The results of this analysis are shown in table 18

If an IRR of 12 is chosen as a minimum rate desired for investment growers must receive at least $1140 per tree and attain a level of 80 saleable trees and good cost control to have a successful investment At prices greater than $1140 per tree and 80 saleable product the investment appears to have possibility

33

Table 17 Internal Rates of Return (lRR) estimates for a 160-acre Table 18 Net Present Value (NPV) estimates for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost cbanges cha~es Ising a discount rate of 12

Percentage Percentageof saleable Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount

of saleabletrees 10 lower No chan~ 10 bilber trees --percent-shy

_______ - - - - - - - - - - - (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - shy

$1040 Tree Price 900 130 102900 160 BOO

SOO 128 97 69 700 60 31700 91 600

-14600 48 16

$1140 Tree Price( 900 127185 155

123 95900 800 SOO 153 700 700 116 86 58 600

14600 74 43

$1240 Tree Price 900 lJJ7 178 150900 BOO

118SOO 176 146 700 139 109 81700 600

38600 97 66

$1340 Tree Price 900 900 228 198 171 BOO

167 139SOO 197 700103700 161 130 600

600 119 88 60

$1440 Tree Price 900 BOO

248 218 191900 700159SOO 216 186 600

180 150 123700 80

Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount _ 10 lOwer No change 10 higher

-middot----middotmiddot---middot--bull-----dollars------bullbullbullbull -bullbullbull shy

$1040 Tree Price 175195 32602

(110936) (253415)

44502 (97269)

(2399BO) (381637)

(86191) (227140) (369023) (509859)

$1140 Tree Price 299293 167950 36607 142927

(14476) (170717)

12478 (144024) (299372)

(117971) (273573) (428028)

$1240 Tree Price 423391 291398 159406 253252 81984

(88019)

122225 (48069)

(217107)

(8BOl) (178123) (346196)

$1340 Tree Price 547489 414847 282204 363576 231972 100368 178445 (5321)

47886 (134842)

(82673) (264364)

$1440 Tree Price 671587 538295 405003 473901 341719 209538 274905 143841 12777 77377 (52578) (182532)

138 108 N01E Parentheses mean negative number

34 35

600

Investor Analysis

The following analysis considers the impact of the US tax laws (revised October 1987) on investing in Christmas trees The approach is identical to the previous IRR and NPV analysis except the impact of federal and state income taxes is considered in the annual stream of cash flow

The basis assumptions used are as follows

1 The taxpayer investor is in a 40 tax bracket on marginal income when combining both state and federal income taxes

2 The investor is actively engaged in managing the Christmas tree farm so that revenues and losses can be counted as active income or the investor has other passive investment income to offset any passive losses from growing Christmas trees

3 The Section 179 one-time deduction of $10000 per year is used in other businesses operated by the investor

4 Depreciation was calculated using the modified ACRS rules published by the IRS in 1987 Publication 225

5 The Christmas tree enterprise falls under the IRS rules for Christmas tree cultivation requiring capitalization of planting and stump culture for trees more than 6 years of age Because one-third of the trees are sold within the 6-year time limit one-third of planting expenses were deducted in the year incurred and the remaining two-thirds were capitalized and written off when the trees were sold in the seventh year

6 The investor uses a cash accounting system for tax purposes

36

The pre-tax IRR for the scenario with trees selling for $1240 each 80 harvestable yield and standard costs was 146 The IRR after-tax considerations fell to 125 (table 19) One might compare the after-tax return of 125 to other after-tax investments of comparable risks The after-tax NPV for the above scenario is $18069 compared to the pre-tax NPV of $122225 using a 12 discount rate

37

0

Table 19 Investor cash now analysis lor a l6O-acre Christmas tree larm (per planted acre basis) S=~=bullbull=I==~==~=bullbull====iI=bullbull2a==IIiIII bullbullbullbull===========n====ZIUSS=====bullbull===lllJ=====$~nUIlt1=llIIlta====s=a====II===============bullbullbull==II=~====lltz===-===U===========1II==X=======_==li=

Year 1 rHr 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year S Ye8l 6 tear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 1Q Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Tear 18

Net Cash Flow BelMe T8)( ConeiderattOlS (116411) (75439) (86658) (99354)(111768) (51189) 119810 119810 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810

Tax ONKtiona

Oeprec i at i on Irrigation syat far Foelli amp Equip

7875 1440

14625 7440

19446 7440

22890 7440

25378 7440

27156 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

Planting E_ 8209 10585 13004 16006 18568 22423 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031

~~~- ~t~t 1~~~r 1~ n~~ ~~m i~m ~M ~U~~ ~~M ~M ~~~ ~m ~M ~~~ ~~~ ~~M ~~M ~~M Total TalC DeOoctlons 33265 49193 65833 81973 96875 130860 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189341 189341 189311 189341 189341 189311

~rI~ (3326~) (4979~) (6583g) (819~) (968~) l~m) m~ ~~~~f~ mJ~ ~H~ m~~ mm ~~H~~ ~~B~ ~~im mm mJ~ ~~B2~ Inc_ ra Saings 13306 19917 26333 32189 38750 11930 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc_ TalC Oue 0 0 0 0 0 0 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297

let Cash flow (1037) (5522) (60325) (66) (737018) (397259) 74512 7Z2 74512 74512 7862 7512 74~12 rZSt2 142 M=062 1512 14512 =s===========s=_====sbullbullc=======-===================_======-=-==========I====S======-===========================e===s====================s==============r=================

Net Cash Flow Before Tax Considerations 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810 119810 190654 179442 217765 230460 242421 165733

T81 OlaquoiJcti ons

Depreciation

~ili~r Equip 2g~~ 2U~~ 2~~~ 2~~ 2~~~~ 2~g~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ 2~~ 2~~~ 2~n~ 1~~J ~~8 ~~~ f2zS 2~

~i~-OVerhoad

zg8M62335

zg8M62335

Z~~~ 62335

zg8M62335

ig8M62335

zg~~62335

i8M62335

i8M62335

t8M62335

i~8M 62335

Zg~~62335

~~~~~53665

~~~~ 46402

~tg~~40943

~~ ~~~35402 29986

ll~8~~

Total TaJ( Deduct_ 189341 189341 187121 187121 187121 187121 181121 181121 187121 187121 187121 156112 133925 117431 101291 86842 60718

I Froll Sales 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 201550 ~~~es~~= 1132~ m24~ 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154~ 1154~ 14647~ 16866g 1855~ 20129t 21574~ 1408~

Income la~ Due ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ Met Cash FloW =-2========SCI========

74512=I=====

74512 46974 73624 73624 73624 73624 63174 73624 __===_=_=============bullbullbullSamp====1II_1I31amp=II================_=II==__ == 73624_===__==

73624=======

132065 _=-=bullbull

111978======S=====

143703 ======_==

149943=======1I

156124 ========laquo

109400 ======_

~

Appendix Table Amiddotl United States Department ofAgriculture grade standards for Christmas trees

Christmas Tree Grades Factor US Premium US No1 US No2

Density Not less than Not less than Light or better medium medium

Tapera Normal- Normal- May be less than 40 to 90 40 to 90 40 or more

than 90

Damage-free faceb 4 3 2

Foliage Fresh clean Fresh clean Fresh clean and healthy and healthy and healthy

Shapec Well-shaped Well-shaped Well-shaped crown crown crown

Handle not Handle not Handle not less less than 6 less than 6 less than 6 or more than or more than or more than 134 per foot 1 34 per foot 1 34 per foot of tree height of tree height of tree height

aTaper of a tree is defined as the width of a tree expressed as a percentage of its height

Face means the visible surface area of a tree as viewed from 8 to 10 feet from the tree A tree is considered to have four faces each face constituting 14 of the tree

cHeight of a tree is defined in terms of foot or half-foot steps and is measured from the base of the handle to a point on the leader not more than 4 feet above the apex of the cone of the taper

Source Proebsting Buhaly and Wanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest 1981

40

4iUJiMMiFeuro iampi~t~Ityen)--

Literature Cited

Clevenger Tom et at The Wholesale and Processing Market for Locally Grown High Value Crops Research Report 572 New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station July 1985

Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture (Mora Research Center) New Mexico State University Guidelines for Growing and Marketing Christmas Trees in New Mexico New Mexico Department of Natural Resources October 1980

Huntley Wallace Marketing Christmas Trees-Turning a Problem into an Opportunity American Christmas Tree Journal August 1984 pp 41-43

Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury Fanners Tax Guide Publication 225

Proebsting William M Joseph Buhaly and Donald Hanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest Pacific Northwest Extension Publication PNW6 January 1981

41

Page 11: Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and ...

t_hltiirll~9~amp6ii11jjltfllU J[BIl1IiHitilut~~W~~tlaquo+middot -~---

Cover Crop

Many Christmas tree farmers plant a cover crop of native grass between rows A cover crop reduces soil erosion and is a positive step toward vegetation management Irrigation water was not applied to the cover crop

The budget assumes that a native grass was sown before the trees were planted After the cover crop is established a non-selective herbicide such as Round-up was assumed to have been sprayed in 24-inch swathes to create grass-free rows to be planted with trees The native grass seed was estimated to cost $15 per acre Drilling the seed was included under the preharvest operations in the budget as a custom operation at $850 per acre

Mowing was included under preharvest operations as well The number of times the inter-row area needs to be mowed was decreased as the tree cover increased therefore mowing costs vary by year

Chemicals

Crop chemicals such as fertilizer herbicides insecticides and fungicides were included in the budget under purchased inputs Table 6 shows in detail the chemical name the prescribed use unit of measurement application rate number of times applied per year per unit prices and total cost per acre The costs of applying these chemicals were included in the budget under preharvest operations

Shearing and Training

Shearing is the cutting of leader and lateral branches to improve the trees shape and density (Proebsting et al 1981) Shearing produces a more saleable tree than would normally be produced otherwise Shearing may be done either by hand with shearing knives machetes or hand pruners or mechanically with light-weight sickle bar clippers or rotary pruners Rotary pruners were assumed to have been used for shearing in this report

Table 6 Chemicals applied per acre by year ror Christmas tree rarms 1988

Per Unit Total acre price cost

Year Chemical Use Unit rate Times $ $

1 Roundup Atrazine 80W

Herbicide Herbicide

gal Ills

05 50

10 10

8000 170

4000 850

2 Roundup Atrazine 80W Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate

Herbicide Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer

gal Ills Ills qt

Ills

02 50 20 10

2350

10 10 10 30

10

8000 170

2100 600

010

1600 850

4200 1800

2233

3 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer

gal Ills qt

Ills

02 20 10

3520

10 10 30

10

8000 2100 600

10

1600 4200 1800

3168

4 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 20 10

4690 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 4200 1800

4456 1725

5 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 10 10

4690 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 2100 1800

4456 1725

6 Roundup Velpar SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal Ills qt

Ills Ills

02 10 10

9830 15

10 10 30

10 20

8000 2100 600

010 575

1600 2100 1800

4456 1725

7 Roundup SevinXLR Ammonium

sulfate Daconil

Herbicide Insecticide

Fertilizer Fungicide

gal qt

Ills Ills

02 10

5400 15

10 30

10 20

8000 600

010 575

1600 1800

5130 1725

12 13

AA~1~rmiddot~i~I~~~iiltfi~)~~1i~~~4~iamp_1 2U~ampJl2lJMlIIINIiI1m~~S1lt~h

Shearing generally begins when the tree height is about 5 feet For the budgets some shearing was assumed to begin in year 3 however labor in year 3 mainly reflects training of the trees Training helps develop a straight marketable tree The greatest number of hours were needed in years 6 and 7 to prepare trees for market

Estimated chemical needs were obtained from Drs John Mexal and James Fisher Professors of Horticulture New Mexico State University Many of the above chemicals are unnecessary because many pest and disease problems found elsewhere do not currently occur in New Mexico however it was felt as acreage of the crop increases the need for chemical use would also be necessary

Harvest Operations

The harvest generally consists of 4 to 5 weeks and is the most labor intensive activity in Christmas tree growing HalVest operations consist of selecting the trees for halVesting cutting baling and transporting to the market Timing is imperative and weather can be difficult during this period

Because some trees grow faster than others it is usually possible to harvest about 13 of the crop in the sixth year The remaining 213 of the total crop would be cut the seventh year Experienced growers generally halVest about 80 of the trees they plant as a result of death loss and cullage3 This means each acre yielded 1162 marketable trees if 1452 trees per acre were originally plantedOfthe 1162 trees halVested 13 or 387 trees are halVested in year 6 and 775 trees were cut in year 7 Trees not accounted for in the projected halVest either died or were not acceptable as Christmas trees

The trees selected for halVest are often marked before cutting to prevent halVest crews from having to make decisions about tree grades while cutting After cutting trees are carried to the access road and hauled to a central area where they are baled The trees are then loaded on trucks and shipped to the wholesaler or other market outlets

gtCulled trees may be made into wnaths or sold as boughs This was not assumed as a SOurce of revenue in this report

14

HalVest arrangements with wholesalers vary In some cases wholesalers perform all halVest operations in others the wholesaler will mark the trees they want to buy Some agreements call for the wholesaler to transport the trees from field side others place the responsibility for shipping on the producer

This paper assumed the responsibility of selection and harvest was with the producer and that transportation to the market place was paid for by the wholesaler

Post-Harvest Operations

After the field has been completely halVested in the seventh year it is generally replanted to trees the following spring Some growers remove the remaining stumps Stump removal however is an expensive and time consuming process The preferred method appears to be to replant new seedlings half the distance between the remaining stumps within the row The remaining stumps are then allowed to decay naturally This method of replanting between stumps was assumed for this paper

Overhead Expense

Table 7 shows the overhead expenses assumed for the 160 acres with 147 net planted acres

Downtime is the additional labor time allowed because of time lost for such things as machine repairs moving to and from fields and waiting for deliveries A downtime rate of 20 of the total labor hours was applied in the budgets

Employee benefits include any programs that full-time or part-time employees may obtain such as social security workmens compensation insurance group life and health insurance and paid vacations Although this cost can be negligible on most small farms an 18 rate on the coSt of labor was applied here

Insurance was estimated at $850 per planted acre This includes coverage of equipment and farm liability

15

~_~ ~ -h n~middotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot _ middotmiddotbullm-middot middottlt1Gmiddotmiddotgtmiddotti~q~~middot~middot)Gv~--e~~~~~i4iM5tll L MIbullbull Jtpoundi8)l] II ha bullUMtflIf~~~Hjl~kllI~1cent

Table 7 Annual overhead expenses on a 160-acre Christmas tree fanna

Downtime 20 ofdirect labor hours

Employer benefits 18 of direct labor hours

Insurance $850 per planted acre

Farm facilities $386 per planted acre

Land rent $8163 per planted acreb

General and administrative $50 per planted acre

Supervision $75 per planted acre

Other $30 per planted acre

Brokerage 5 of gross revenue

88sed 003tOUtTof 147 pl8nted acres 1Is7s per acre on the total of 160 acres

It was assumed farm facilities were required to protect equipment from weather and to provide office space A simple pole building was used for protecting equipment and was estimated to cost $8000 An additional $9000 was allotted for an office structure The cost of these facilities was spread over a service life of 35 years The cost per planted acre was approximately $4 per acre

Land rent was assumed to be $82 per planted acre or $75 per acre on the gross farm acreage If the land is already owned outright this would represent the opportunity cost of having planted the land to Christmas trees

General and administrative expenses include management salaries secretarial expenses and costs associated with running and maintaining the office such as telephone copying

16

and bookkeeping The amount associated with general and administrative expenses was $50 per planted acre

Supervision expenses were incurred to oversee field operations A $75 per planted acre expense was used for supervision This figure is arbitrary but includes funds for possibly hiring a foreman It also includes funds for pickup truck expenses The 147 net planted acres provides an annual supervision expense fund of $11025

Other expenses is a catch-all category for irregular or unexpected items such as fence or road repair additional hand tools or added administrative expenses The other expenses assumed here were $30 per acre per year

A brokerage fee was included in the budgets as a marketing expense The producer often serves as his own broker and in this case the fee included in the budgets would be viewed as an opportunity cost of the producers time A fee of 5 of gross revenue was used as a brokerage expense

Interest

An interest expense was included for opemting capital and equipment investment Rates of 12 and 10 respectively were used 4

For the full-cost budgets the interest expense on operating capital needed each year from the time of planting was compounded through the seventh year and charged off as an expense in the harvest year If the capital used was all equity capital rather than borrowed this could again be construed as an opportunity cost of the use of the producers money

Establishment Expenses

The establishment expense is the actual cost of growing the trees to harvestable size (tables 8 through 13) To show the total return and the total costs incurred during the harvest

IbeSeinterest rates imply an average annual inflation rate or at least 3to 4 per year A realistic analysis could increase the annual cash expenses and revenues by a 3 to 4 compounded rate over the 35middotyear investment period This approach would result in higher estimated returns Future expenses and revenues were not adjusted ror inflation in this report hence the results may be underestimated

17

MtiS 4ampIi- iJi4MliIllITftif ~2k+Csectlgt--~Smiddot-f

year the full-cost budget for years 6 and 7 include an establishment expense under the purchased input category (tables 13 and 14) This expense is based on cost estimates from the first five years of production and is prorated to the appropriate year based upon the harvest yield ratio S Because there is a time value associated with the capital used to grow the trees a compounding factor was also included The rate used to compound was 10 The total establishment expense per planted acre was estimated to be $2782 allocated in year 6 and $6840 in year 7 The $6840 allocated in year 7 includes $616 of interest expenses associated with having to wait another year (year 6 to 7) before these expenses are recovered The establishment expenses amounted to $719 and $883 per harvested tree respectively for trees harvested in the sixth and seventh years Net returns would increase significantly if all trees would reach harvestable size by year 6

Total Cost Per Acre

Based on the budget estimates made for years 6 and 7 a total cost of $12895 per acre planted or $1110 per tree harvested was required to grow Christmas trees through harvest This cost includes all equipment expenses chemicals land rent labor overhead and interest

Price Sensitivity of Full-Cost Budgets

To determine the return to risk when all costs are accounted for the gross revenue must also be estimated The gross revenue is a function of number of trees harvested and the price per tree The yield of 80of the total planting or 1162 trees was assumed as fIXed in this part of the analysis and only the price was varied A per tree price of $1240 was used as the base with a $1 change in either direction Using the $1240 per tree price a net return of $158372 per acre harvested was derived At $1140 per tree $1 less a net return

gtc)f the total yield 13 was harvested in year 6 and 23 in year 7

q

i g

I middoto~ ~ ~8

~i ~ ~

_z1~ ~s -~

~g

~

~ ~3

z ~ ~i r cu

m~zIi ~ ~=gt

~s ~-

5 oS ~

~J t ~It ~c= ~c lI-Q

i l- ~~ fI) = I iI~ = CIt

f 8 ~ a

(I III laquoIC 5 ~cI iIoU ~

ltI ~ CllioS~ Ol fo- ~ ~ j$ S ~ ~In~

~~~ggg

oi~oo -o-4-C~ ~

0000 0utqno 0

ritO 0 ~-4tltl- N

w ~w

tJtDWU C-amptoe(

oot)o ~~~lt= _Ot) -0

Ie

8glg~~~~i~~g~ t o~-eOaiNOQN 0 N-4N S

11 N ~ill -- 0

~ ~ ~~

1tc ~ ~~ -4 _

I

~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~_OO~N shy 1_ ~

gg 8~ st i~ tOtO i

~ ~~~ ~ X x=~

~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~Q~~N N~

~ g~ E

~ ~ ~ 0 Q i1lJ~W

lto(c- aa~aai5~ ttlZW

~ tQ __ -I iffi Z ~wtll~ow=i~~~~ ~e=~~~5~~tUQCI =VIE a C-lI-

g~~~~g8g~ ~NeOQarQ a) ~

~~~q ~~ laquo)~ ~S

o o~~ UN ~

~ ~

0

~(fIii

~

i

o N

bull ~ l

i

~

~

~ ~

S ~

18 19

Table 9 Per acre tun cost budgets ror growiDg White Fir and Scots Pine

~-~~-~~~~-~-~~~-~-~~-~-~~-~~-~-~~~~~~~~--~~-~~-----------------------_------YIELD

HARVEST DATES PLANTING DATES

PlIlCE -- ~-- - - - bull - - - bullbull - bull - - - ~ - - bull - bull QUANTITY PUR~~~ LABOR ~~iJ~~ REPAIRS Fgi~ TOTAl

TEM UNIT __ bullbull ________ bull __ _ _ ___ ___ bull ___ ___ bull __ _ __________ bullbullbullbull _________ bullbullbullbullbullbullbull _ bull ------_ bullbullbullbullbullbull - -- bull bull - - - - bull (DOLLARS) bullbullbull - - bullbullbull

PURCHASED INPUTS 6650100 ACRE 66501lER8ICIOE 1800100 ACRE 1800INSECTICIDE 211523500 LB 2115MOIII~ SULFATE 750100 ACRE 750MISCELLANECIlS TOOLS 1131511315SUBTOTAL

PREHARVEST OPERATIONS 21751309 319 209 338PTO SPRAYER (X) ampAS IS P 238 HR 27491738 423 275 313MOWER (410 GAS 15 HP 316 HR 4200

Mise 1000 HR 4200LABOR 3226~ 360 IR 2812 238 176WELL (ex) ELE

123501914 7247 3554 722 827SUBTOTAL

OVERfAD EXPENSES 1709311 1709OOWIITIME EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

13041304 850 850

INSURANCE 386 386 FARM FACILITIES 8163 8163 LAND RENT 5000 5000GENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION 75007500suPERVISION 3D00 3000 OTHER

17399 2791210513SUBTOTAL 311 HR

3554 722 18226 515_7711315 17760TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 2225 IR

-51577NET OPERATING PROFIT

2678INTEREST ON OPERATI~G CAPITAL 831INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT

-55086 ~~~~-~~~~- _- _- -_ -_ ----- --_ ---- -- -- ----_ --_ --___ _ - _------ __

Table 10 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 3 estabUshment) NM 1988 PLANTING DATES YIELDHARVEST OATES PRICE

POWER PURCHASED FUEL OIL FIXEDITEM UNIT QUANTITY INPUTS lABOR LUBRICANT REPAIRS COST TOTAL --_ - - _- ---- - -_ -- --_ - - - -(DOlLARS)

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE 5800 5800MOIII~ SULFATE 35200 LB 3168 3168INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800MISCELLANECIlS TOOLS 100 ACRE 750 750

SIJIITOTAL 11518 11518

PRE HARVEST OPERATIONS ROTARY PRUIINERS GAS 900 HR 3780 234 108 495 4617PTO SPRAYER (5X) GAS 15 HP 1 70 R 935 228 150 241 1554MOWER (4X) ampAS 15 HP 316 HR 1738 423 275 313 2149LABOR Mise 1000 IR 4200 4200ELL (12X) ELE 540 HR 4217 356 265 4838

N SUBTOTAL 2926 10653 5102 889 1314 17958 - (MRNfAl) EXPENSES OOWIITiME 477 2625 2625EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1918 1918INSURANCE 850 850FARM FACILITIES 386 386LAIIO RENT 8163 8163GENERAL _rNISTRATlON 5000 5000SUPERViSiON 7500 7500OTHER 3000 3000

SUBTOTAL 477 HR 2043 17399 29442

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 3403 HR 11518 22696 5102 889 18713 58918

NET OPERATI KG PROF IT middot58918

I NTEREST ON OPERAT I NG CAP ITAL 2930 INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT INVESTMENT 964

RETURN TO RISK 62812 ~ -~- -_ ~ ~~ ~ _ - -

Table 11 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas ~~~~~~~~~~~_~~~t~~~~~ ___ _ ~i~~middotDAEmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot YIELD

HARVEST OATES PRICE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull PURCHASED FUEL Oil FIXED

PMR INPUTS LA~ LUBRICANT REPAIRS COST TOTAL ~~~~~~- middotmiddotDOt~~middot PURCHASED INPUTS

HERBICIDE 100 ACRE 5800 5800 INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 fUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 AMONIUM SULFATE 46900 LB 4221 4221 MlsCElLANEClJS TOOLS 100 ACRE 750 750

SUBTOTAL 14296 14296

PRE HARVEST OPERA liONS ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) CAS 1500 HR 6300 390 180 825 7695 PTO SPRAYER (ax) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 364 239 386 2485 MOIlER (2X) CAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374~ FERT INJECTOR ElE 030 HR 011 061 096 168 LABOR MISC 1000 HR 4200 4200 lElL (14X) [L 630 HR 49bull 20 416 309 5645

SUBTOTAL 3590 12865 5897 1033 1772 21567

OVERHEAD EXPENSES DOIINTIM 586 3223 3223 EMPLOYEE BENEF ITS 2316 2316 INSURANCE 850 850 FARM FACILITIES 386 386 LAND RENT 8163 8163 CENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION 5000 5000 SUPERVI SION 7500 7500 OTHER 3000 3000

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039 17399 30438

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 4176 HR 14296 25904 5897 1033 19171 66301

NET OPERATl NG PROF IT 66301

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL 3247 INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 1102

70650~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~--

Table 12 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas trees (year 5 establishment) NM 1988 PLANTING OATES HARVEST OATES YIELD

PRICE

lIEM PMR

IJHlT QUANT lTy PURCHASED

INPUTS

~~~~~

FUEL OlL LA80R LUBRICANT

REPAIRS FIXED COST TOTAL

PURCHASED INPUTS - shy ~ ~ bull bull bull (DOLLARS) bull - bull HER81CIOE INSECTICIDE FUNCICIOE AMOHIUM SULFATE MI SCELLANEOUS TOOLS

SU8TOTAL

PREHARVEST oPERATIONS

100 ACRE 100 ACRE 100 ACRE

46900 L8 100 ACRE

3700 1800 1725 4221 750

12196

3700 1800 1725 4221

750

12196

ROTARY PRUHNERS (2X) PTO SPRAYER (8X) MOIlER aX) FERT INJECTOR LABOR WELL (16X)

SUBTOTAL

OVERHEAD EXPENSES

CAS CAS 15 HP CAS 15 HP ELE MISC ELE

1500 H 272 HR 158 HR 030 HR

1000 HR 720 HR

3680

6300 1496 869

4200

12865

390 364 212 011

5623

6600

180 239 137 061

475

1092

825 386 156 096

353

1816

7695 2485 1374 168

4200 6451

22373

OOIHIME EMPLOYEE BENEFf TS INSURANCE FARM FACILITIES LANI RENT GENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION SUPERVISION OTHER

586 3223 2316

7500

850 386

8163 5000

3223 2316 850 386

8163 5000 7500

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039

3000

17399

3000

30438

TOTAL OPERAJINC EXPENSES 4266 HR 12196 25904 6600 1092 19215 65007 NET oPERA T I HG PROf I T

65007 INTEREST ON OPERATINC CAPITAL INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 3142

1153 RETURN TO bull I SK bull ~ bullbullbull - _ - - ~ - _ - - _ bullbullbullbull - - ~ _ bullbull - _ bullbullbullbull bullbull - bullbullbull

~ - - -_ _-_ __--_ _---__- 69302

Table 13 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine

~~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J~~~~~~ Table 14 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine PL~NTIMG DATES YIELD 387 TREES GROSS RETURNSS4198 80 HARVEST DATES NOVEMBER 15 bull DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0TREE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbull bullbull

bull - bullbull - bullbullbull - bull bull bull bull ~C~A~E~ - FUEL OIL FIXED ~middot~middot~7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~U~~~~~ PLANT INC DATES YIelD 775 TREESQUANT ITY INPUTS LABOR LUBRICANT REPAIU COST TOTAL

~ ___ w~ ___ ____ _ ____ ____ _ _ _ ___ HARVEST OATES NOVEM8ER 15 DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0IREE ~ CROSS RETURNS$9iIOOO - bullbullbullbull (DOLLARS) bullbullbullbullbullbull - bull shy

pOlin PURCHASEDPURCHASED INPUTS ITEM fUEl OIL FIXEDUNIT OUANT IlY INPUTSHERBltlDE 100 ACRE 3700 3700 bull lABOR LUBRICANT RePAIRS-_ _---- _--- _---_ _---- - _--_ - _- __ __ -- COST TOTAL INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 bull FUNGICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 bull bull (DOLLARS) bull A_IUM SULFATE 93800 LB 8~~2 8442 bull

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE T6OOTWINE 38700 EACH 19-35 1935 1600INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800MISCELLANEros TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000 bull 1800

ESTABLISHMENT 113 2781 72 278172 FUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725AMON I UN SULFATE 5~000 lB 4860 4860

SUBTOTAL 18602 2781 72 2967 7~ TWINE 17500 EACH 3875 ~8 7~MISCELLANEOUS TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000

PREHARVEST OPERATIOIIS ESTABLISHMENT 23 ~050 ~050

ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) GAS 3800 HR 15960 988 ~56 2090 1~9~ bull SUBTOIAL 14860PTO SPRAYER (ex) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 360 239 386 2~ 85 bull ~050 698910 MOWER (2X) GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 137~ bull PREHARVEST OPERATIONSfERT INJECTOR ELE 035 oR 012 071 112 195 bull ROTARY PRUNNERS (2)) GAS 3000 HRLABOR Mise 1000 HR ~200 ~2 00 bull 12600 780 360 1650 I5~90PTO SPRAYER (xl GAS 15 HP 238 HRIlELL lt18X) ElE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258 bull MOIlER (ZX) 1309 319 209 338 21 75GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374fEAT INJECTOR ELE 060 HSUBTOTAL 6075 22525 7902 1~38 31~1 35006 021 122 191 334LABOR MIse 1000 HR ~200 4200

HARVEST OPERATIONS WELL (18X) ELE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258

CHAIN SAW GAS 968 HR 4066 252 136 590 50~~ SUBTOTAL 5266DRAG amp lOAD HAND 3225 HR 13545 135~5 18978 7658 1363 2732 J0731 TREE BALER GAS 230 HR 966 177 278 952 2373 HARVEST OPERATIONSTRAILER GAS 15 HP 300 HR 1650 ~11 360 560 2985 CHAIN SAW GAS 1938 HRLABOR Mise 1650 HR 6930 6930 81~0 504 271 1182 10097DRAG amp LOAD HAND 6058 HR 27124 27124

SUBTOIAL 6373 HR 27157 8~0 7 7~ 2106 30877 TREE BALER GAS I 46D HR 1932 354 5~7 1904 4747TRAILER GAS 15 HP 600 HR 3300 822 720 1128 5970LABOR MISC ~OOO NROVERHEAD EXPENSES 16800 16800 OOHlE 2321 12763 12763 bull SUBTOTAL 13~56 HREMPLOYEE SENEF lIS 89~3 89~3 bull 57296 1680 1548 4214 6~7 38

INSURANCE 850 850 bull OVERHEAD EXPEHSESFARM fACILITIES 386 366 bull OCltJNTJME 3~70LAND RENT 8163 8163 bull 19637 19637EMPLOYEE BENet liSGENERAL amp ADMINISTRATlOil 5000 5000 bull 13729 13729 SUPERVISION 7500 7500 bull INSURANCE

850 850FARM FACILITIESOTHER 3000 3000 bull 386 386LAND RENTMARXETING 2399~ 2399~ 8163 8163

SUPERVISION GeNERAL 8 ADMINISTRATION

5000 5000 SUBTOTAL 2321 HR 23994 29206 17399 70599 7500 7500

MARKETING OTHER

3000 300048050 48050

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 14769 HR 29550 ~~401 347~ 1250 287125 367738 bullbull SUBTOTAL 3570 HR ~8050 ~0866 17399 106315 IIpoundT OPERATING PROfIT 1121~2

TOIAl OPERATING EXPENSES 22292 HRINTEREST (JIj OPERATTNG CAPlTAL 6545 62910 117140 9338 2911 708395 900694 INTEREST (JIj EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 2473 NET OPERATING PROFIT

60306 10312~

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT IHVESlMENT 8659

3361 RETURN TO R I so

TIoCmiddotTHIRDS OF THESE COSTS IlERE ALLOCATED AS PROOUCTl(Jlj COSTS fORIREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 7 48286iI ~--~-- ----- ~ --~--- -~------ -----~-- yen - bullbullbullbull -- ~ -- ----_ _w ___ ________ 0 _______ _w __ IHIS TOTAL INCCltPORATES ONLY THE EXPENSE ASSOCATEO WITH THE TREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 6 BECAUSE OF THIS THE COLUMN

WILL NOT SUM TO THIS VALUE

24 25

~ i C -i Q

= foil

Table 15 Cash flow for a 160-aere Cbristmas tree rann (147 net planted aeres lIIII====_=====IIIlIII======S=II==2=II=___1I3_III========s_bullbullbullbull=z=a==a============bullbull==~=bullbullbull==11======aSS==lIIlII======================================================

Year 1 fear 2 Year J tear 4 Year 5 Year 6 fear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 fear 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 lllttows _=====

Sale of Trees so so so so so $101035 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 S302585 S302585 $302585 $302585 OUtflows

Purchased Input 5 Tree stock 1921019m 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210Cover ~rass seed 315 9sect1~ 19m 315 315 315 19m 19m 315 19m 19m 19m 19m315 315 315 315erbicuSe 1019 2415 3633 4851 5628 6405 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741Insecticide o 378 756 1~ 1890 22611 22611 22611 22611 2268 2268 2268 22611 22611Ftrlgicide o o o H~ 1087 U~ 1449 U~ 1449 1449 449 ~~~ 1449 1449 t449 1449Amonhn Sui tate o 444 1109 1~ 5676 5676 5676 ~~~X 5676 5676Tree guards 788 788 788 2~ 4~~ 788 53 53 53 788 788 5~ 5~ 53788 788 788Miscellaneous tools 420 578 735 893 105g 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365Twine o o o o i~ 1220 l~~ l~~ij 1220 1220 1220 1220 1220 lm lnOIrrigatlon system 31500 3150031 508 31500 31500 31500 31500 3150g 31500 31500 31~~g 31500 31500 31500 31 gtog 31~~g 31500 31500Eqult 33750 o o o 1045g o o o 266j0 o o a 10450 o oFarm facilities 17000 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oPre-harvest Operations o CustQll1 1_ preparation 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651Spray 204 578 844 1271 1698 2124 2498 2498 2~g 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498Harrow 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 168 1611 1611 Mark rows 309 309 309 Seed 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 Haul plants 42 42 42 42 42 309309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309

42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42Pl t (hand) 1861 2 ~Iy Netting 1~ 1~

794 1~ ~2 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ ~2 1~ 1 1861 1861 1861 861 li~ Orlp installaton 221 221 221 211

~l 794 794 794 794 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 2lt1495 990 1485 1733 1980 2228 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475Shear amp train 2415a o 864 2303 3743 7398- 1~~~ 1~~~ 10283 10283 10283 10283

i seel taneous 1amp1raquor 882 76 2646 Appt ter t it i zer o o o 10~g~ 10m 10m 10~g~ 10~g~ 10283

35 71 141 182 182 182 182 182 182 lr2 Purping costs 480 1121 617435l8 5292 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 Ot 174 6174 6174 6174

Harvest operations 2081 3l02 i~~g 5923 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 73k4

Cut tr~s o Drag amp load trees o 2807o o 935 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 Wrap trees o o 2374 7115 ~~~~ ~~~ 1115 7115 7115 7115 7115 7~ 7115o o o 298 895 895 895 7J~ 895 7~~~ 895 895 895 895 895Haul trees o o o 508 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525MisceHaneous labOr o 1525o o 1455 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366Overheed Oowotime 648 1007 IS58 2235 2911 5522 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346E1lloy benefits 4611 742 1145 1631 3933 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581Insurance 179 357 536 114 2~~

1071 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250Land r~t 1575 3150 4725 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025G amp A 1050 lloo 3150 4lOO 5250 6300 tgro 7350 7350 7350 7350 1~m k~~~ 7350 ~m 7350 7350 735a~~~Vision 472S 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11021575 3150

11m 11~~~ 025 11~~630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 63mMarketng II o o o o 5052 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 lSI29

1 Based on total of 147 planted acres by Year 7 A total of 21 (Jeres are planted each year year 1 consists ot 21 planted acres year 2 a total of 42 etC

-- --~ -~-~ r IJampamp $ ~H ~M LgtH~-~Lw~

110 0 middot W It 110 OO~~~~o~~OOO OampooooooosectOii S~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~H~ = - 11 11=L = 110 _ N N 0 M

bull c _~_

bullbullbull 2 _ M~

cash needs of the operation The farm will produce a positivei 0goooo00020poundN t-~~~~ t-~Fg~ORi ~ UNHIt U to OOE~l2~O~ft~oOI L 110 lS -lIi iIl~lI)t i1 ---a~ - 3

N annual cash flow starting in the seventh year However a total N bullbull u _N N~ - - ~N ~ $E~3

bullbull It 0 t N of $540819 in cash is expended through the first 6 years Ao~ooooooo~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~V~~ ~=~==~C ~ OOi~~~~O$~OOO ~ laquoS_~_ i i6~ ~gIIt_~o~ -=~ I total of 11 years are needed (five positive cash producingbullM Ii IfII 110 II n N -~ ~ _ N t- _ _ ~ ~~~= N III H 0 years) before the cash outflows incurred during the first 6 ~

~ = =a OOsect~~~O~OOO o~ooooooo~~~i 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ =~= years are covered This is based on selling trees at $1240L= V ~ ~N ~~ ~~ ~4 N~ ~~~ i i~e s -- N S The budgets were developed for a 35-year period because=gt- tt n this was thought to be a reasonable economic life5~~ ~ OO~~~roO~~O~O degmoooooooi~~ ~=~~~ ~mi5~5~~ ~=~= amp0 - ~ - III middot

__ ~ ~ _ 0 Nt- _ Ntn ~~~ ~ -~~- ~ pound Additionally a 35-year life allows for five 7-year

planting-through-harvest rotations Based on the rotationbull C) MM C OO~~~~degri~OOO OampOOOOOOO~~~~m 2E~~~ ~~~sect~~~~ ~u~= i c L ~ ~

N~v N N~ ~~ N~ ~4 ~~~~~~ ~ iii schedule only Inth of the total acreage would be planted ini = i

-SfIJ n= ~ - -I anyone year The cash costs in year 1 therefore include onlyRi = ~ ~~~~~i~~5me~~ i~sect~~ ~~~~~~~~ E~ lias amp0 ~~~~~~J~~~~OO H II n ~ 0- ~~w- ~ = ~~ Nt- - ~~_~t- ~ ~ct N planting expense for Inth of the total acreage or 21 acresW - - -= ~ Year 2 would again include planting expenses for Inth of theCtI 110- -~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~o~~~g~ ~G~ liN Q) $ ___ cOP ___~ i_IiInJX lIlCoo~_ flt nc II II tn ~~i~~~~~~~~00 =~ N ~ 0_11 - N w (1= Ot- N~ Oo~t-- i Ef~~ acreage and the second year growing expenses for the 21=- =tt ~ - acres planted originally The total expenses of a fullymiddot =S 1II ~~~_~~~~~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~sect~~ l~~~~~~~ Ec~ _ tl_-= ~u ~ operating facility are first incurred in the seventh year The

~ ~NII -~_ 1I1f N ~o~ N~ - ~o~=~~ ~ eg~R- 1111 0 - t first year of full revenue is also obtained in year 7 (21 acres of Cite ~ ~~~~~~~N~~~~~ ~~~~~ I~~~~~g~ ~r~i

~ _ ~ cOPNN __~ ~_m~~ ~1nO~O~~ Nfl~M

= or ~~~~~~~~~~O tt l 387 trees in their sixth year and 21 acres of 775 trees in their0- ~N_~ _ _0 N ~o~ N~ - ~~_=t--= ~ ~gGbull N= iI - - - ~i 1 seventh year ofgrowth)III

4iiii i~ ~ As the farm approaches the end of its economic life it was~~~_~~~~~~~~OO i~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~pound~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~i~E i

I middotL= 0- -oN_tI- - ~ N _ N~ot-- Nt-- ~ ~o_~t-= ~ ~U~ ii= = ~ assumed that the operator would stop planting Therefore as 11 - a l ~ 13 ~~~~g~i~N~~~~~ i~~~~ ~~a~~IC~~ E=~= of year 29 no more planting expenses are incurred It wasltV bull V ~~~~~~~~~~OO 0- N - -= ~N0ftIo - Ieo ~ t= -oN 1I _0- - N~ ~~ Nt- - ~o-~= ~ ~ft~c =a ~ - t assumed the land would be either left idle or used for otherIIIJ - -

= ~ purposes In year 35 the final year of operation only 21 acresa~= tQ ~~~~~~~re~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~ E~a N 0- -0 ___ _III u N _ N~o~ N~ _~ ~o-=~= ~ ~~~III ~ ~ of seventh-year trees would remain to be harvested At thisgt- - - -I point the entire operation would be closed down No salvagesect ii~ 1II ~~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~$~9~~ i~~~~ ~~~~sect~~ E~I II

II Ltf __ ~ ~N-II N ~ Ni ~~ N~ ~~ ~~~i~ i ~=in value was assumed because the land used was either leased or ~ -11~ 1= shy

I ~ rented and all equipment or buildings had no remainingc 15 ~ ft ~~~rd~~J~~~~~O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~E~iIII 0- QN-V 0 N _ N~o~ N ~~_~~~ ~ ~~~ i useful life H= ~ - ltgt ~ 15 Over the project life it would be necessary to replace some to tQ ~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~S~~~ 2Ei~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~5~i t ~ equipment For the purpose of this study it was assumed that~ I ~ -oN_~ _ - N _ N~ ~~ _ ~o_=~~ ~ ~~ I -= I= ~ - i all equipment would be used until it was no longer-=1 ~lt~S~-~N~~~~1 t-~~~~ ~co~~~o~ ~ft i011 V-- ~ o~- ~~NN__~ i_~V~ ~II~OO~_ ~~ ~~~~~_~i~~~OO a salvageable at which point it would be replaced new Table 16

r bullbull tv () -ON _ - N N~o~ ~ _ ~o-== ~ ~I~ I middot ~ - - - ~ shows the replacement schedule assumed in the cash flow i ~ Note that this table reflects the assumed useful life of the~ -=bull gi

i

iii s equipment rather than its depreciable life Also two itemsCgt I 1 u lJi~ ~ t- I ~ - ~ i the chain saws and the tree balers are not necessary until year -111) l -E I ~ l~~ _E ==Ilbull- ~ 1 ~j c ~ ~ ~ -5 -_ bull s

~~~ ~ ~~ _ ~ ~ L~ OL ~ 0 6 II 6 and were not purchased until that time Based on the highc _~~~~~WL ~-=] ii1t~ ~~ ulpoundlzl ~~ ~ = 1 i~uZul ~~I S Lo-- 2 L ~It~~ -i ~ ~

J L~_ ~m LOCmiddot gt- ampogt-~-~~ ~tc -lt 0 011 CIt -= = 2 ~~~t~5middotFi~f~~i~iitli-~fi~fifiiiI f Ii ~ilaquoI - ~ =~U=_~~~~~_W~U0Z~EZ~CQE~CEAL3QZEQW_~000 ~middot - ~ 8 Ii ~ I ~ middotmiddot -

29

111

f ~middot~middot~LC -- - ~i~

n ~ illII I~ II

Ii II

~~ Table 16 Equipment replacement schedule for a 160-acre ~ Christmas tree farm in New Mexico 1988 ~

usage during a short time period and the relatively short life of these items they were replaced every 5 years

Analysis

Because there are many unknowns encountered when projecting cost and returns and because different locations may be faced with different situations a series of scenarios were provided to evaluate the financial feasibility of the project Three major variables were altered concurrently to create the different scenarios These variables were

1 Prices 2 Yields 3 Costs

Price

A base price of $1240 was assumed The sensitivity of the return to a change of $1 increments over a range of $2 was measured

Yield

Changes in teld were based on altering the number of saleable trees This was done as a percentage of the total trees planted For example a 90 rate would mean that 90 of the 1452 trees originally planted or 1307 trees were available for sale This variable not only affect~ gross revenue but also alters any costs associated with the number of trees harvested Costs such as cutting field hauling baling and brokering are all altered by changes in the number of trees harvested and were assumed to be linear

Yield might also be altered by decreasing the space between trees For example a 5 by 5 spacing yields 1742 planted trees If 80 were saleable this would be 1394 trees

30

Item

Facilities

Well

Tractor

PTO sprayer

Trailer

Mower

Injector

Rotary pruners

Chain saw

Tree baler

iIIii Year ~

L 6 lL 16 2L 26 JL II~ Cost ~

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -(dollars) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- If 17000 ~

~ 10200 i

~

1bull1 113000 13000 13000 13000 1

~I 1200 1200 1200 1200 ~

bull p

~Ii ~

2400 II

800 800 800 800 ~ -I

I1200 1200 1200 1200 ~ 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 t

IiiIii 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 J

~ ~ ~ JOW JOW ~ ~ JOW

50750 10450 26650 10450 26650 10450 26650 I~ISource Table 3 IiIJ

f ~ J ~Cost ~

11I~ Because costs vary by farm and by location it was felt that a sensitivity should be performed on this variable Rather than bull

talter a specific cost or a specific category of costs the total bullIIj

cost was increased or decreased by a percentage and the Ji results evaluated Costs were altered in 10 increments in ~

Iijeither direction The 0 column uses those costs shown in the cash flow

t ~II

1

~I~ 31 ~

Feasibility Assessment

The internal rate of return (IRR) is a technique used to evaluate investment opportunities that incorporates the time value of money concept The internal rate of return for an investment project (in this case a Christmas tree planting) is the discount rate that equates the present value of the annual net cash revenue flows with the projects acquisition cost The net cash revenue is the difference between the cash receipts and cash expenses generated by an investment project over its economic life The time value of money is based on the economic fact that $1 today is worth more than a promise of $1 at some future date because of its current earnings potential

An investment can be accepted or rejected based on its internal rate of return (IRR) Acceptability of the investment depends on a comparison of the IRR with the investors required rate of return (RRR) Acceptability can be based on the following decision rules if IRR exceeds RRR accept the investment if IRR = RRR be indifferent and if IRR is less than RRR reject the investment

While IRR is a useful technique in project evaluation there are some problems with its use The major concern when using IRR is it assumes all cash inflows can be reinvested at the same rate as the resulting IRR percentage Should the IRR percentage be in the vicinity of the current rates of return of other investment instruments IRR is a reasonably accurate measure of return on investment However should the rate of return be much higher than current returns available elsewhere the resulting return on investment may be overstated The inverse is true at lower rates of return

The Net Present Value (NPV) is another way of evaluating projects that involve capital outlays over a period of years The NPV method discounts all future cash outlays and inflows back to a present-year basis using a specified interest (discount rate) The discount rate chosen is usually the opportunity cost of using equity funds in an alternative use or the cost of borrowed capital increased by an appropriate premium for risk or a combination of these The NPV

32

method is preferred over the IRR method when evaluating one investment against alternative similar type investments

Based on the sensitivity analysis discussed above a table was developed to show the IRR under the various scenarios Table 17 shows the internal rates by the per-unit price The analyses is based on pre-tax returns At $1040 per tree the IRR ranges from -14 when costs were increased by 10 and saleable yields were reduced to 60 to 160 when costs were decreased by 10 and 90 of the trees planted were sold At $1140 the IRR range is from 14 to 185 under the same conditions as above At $1240 per tree the IRR ranges from 38 when costs were increased 10 and 60 of the trees are saleable to 207 when costs were decreased 10 and saleable yields were at 90 At $1340 per tree the IRR ranges from 60 to 228 At $1440 per tree a grower could expect an IRR from 80 to 248 under the scenarios presented

A pre-tax analysis using Net Present Value (NPV) was also completed for the various scenarios The results of this analysis are shown in table 18

If an IRR of 12 is chosen as a minimum rate desired for investment growers must receive at least $1140 per tree and attain a level of 80 saleable trees and good cost control to have a successful investment At prices greater than $1140 per tree and 80 saleable product the investment appears to have possibility

33

Table 17 Internal Rates of Return (lRR) estimates for a 160-acre Table 18 Net Present Value (NPV) estimates for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost cbanges cha~es Ising a discount rate of 12

Percentage Percentageof saleable Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount

of saleabletrees 10 lower No chan~ 10 bilber trees --percent-shy

_______ - - - - - - - - - - - (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - shy

$1040 Tree Price 900 130 102900 160 BOO

SOO 128 97 69 700 60 31700 91 600

-14600 48 16

$1140 Tree Price( 900 127185 155

123 95900 800 SOO 153 700 700 116 86 58 600

14600 74 43

$1240 Tree Price 900 lJJ7 178 150900 BOO

118SOO 176 146 700 139 109 81700 600

38600 97 66

$1340 Tree Price 900 900 228 198 171 BOO

167 139SOO 197 700103700 161 130 600

600 119 88 60

$1440 Tree Price 900 BOO

248 218 191900 700159SOO 216 186 600

180 150 123700 80

Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount _ 10 lOwer No change 10 higher

-middot----middotmiddot---middot--bull-----dollars------bullbullbullbull -bullbullbull shy

$1040 Tree Price 175195 32602

(110936) (253415)

44502 (97269)

(2399BO) (381637)

(86191) (227140) (369023) (509859)

$1140 Tree Price 299293 167950 36607 142927

(14476) (170717)

12478 (144024) (299372)

(117971) (273573) (428028)

$1240 Tree Price 423391 291398 159406 253252 81984

(88019)

122225 (48069)

(217107)

(8BOl) (178123) (346196)

$1340 Tree Price 547489 414847 282204 363576 231972 100368 178445 (5321)

47886 (134842)

(82673) (264364)

$1440 Tree Price 671587 538295 405003 473901 341719 209538 274905 143841 12777 77377 (52578) (182532)

138 108 N01E Parentheses mean negative number

34 35

600

Investor Analysis

The following analysis considers the impact of the US tax laws (revised October 1987) on investing in Christmas trees The approach is identical to the previous IRR and NPV analysis except the impact of federal and state income taxes is considered in the annual stream of cash flow

The basis assumptions used are as follows

1 The taxpayer investor is in a 40 tax bracket on marginal income when combining both state and federal income taxes

2 The investor is actively engaged in managing the Christmas tree farm so that revenues and losses can be counted as active income or the investor has other passive investment income to offset any passive losses from growing Christmas trees

3 The Section 179 one-time deduction of $10000 per year is used in other businesses operated by the investor

4 Depreciation was calculated using the modified ACRS rules published by the IRS in 1987 Publication 225

5 The Christmas tree enterprise falls under the IRS rules for Christmas tree cultivation requiring capitalization of planting and stump culture for trees more than 6 years of age Because one-third of the trees are sold within the 6-year time limit one-third of planting expenses were deducted in the year incurred and the remaining two-thirds were capitalized and written off when the trees were sold in the seventh year

6 The investor uses a cash accounting system for tax purposes

36

The pre-tax IRR for the scenario with trees selling for $1240 each 80 harvestable yield and standard costs was 146 The IRR after-tax considerations fell to 125 (table 19) One might compare the after-tax return of 125 to other after-tax investments of comparable risks The after-tax NPV for the above scenario is $18069 compared to the pre-tax NPV of $122225 using a 12 discount rate

37

0

Table 19 Investor cash now analysis lor a l6O-acre Christmas tree larm (per planted acre basis) S=~=bullbull=I==~==~=bullbull====iI=bullbull2a==IIiIII bullbullbullbull===========n====ZIUSS=====bullbull===lllJ=====$~nUIlt1=llIIlta====s=a====II===============bullbullbull==II=~====lltz===-===U===========1II==X=======_==li=

Year 1 rHr 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year S Ye8l 6 tear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 1Q Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Tear 18

Net Cash Flow BelMe T8)( ConeiderattOlS (116411) (75439) (86658) (99354)(111768) (51189) 119810 119810 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810

Tax ONKtiona

Oeprec i at i on Irrigation syat far Foelli amp Equip

7875 1440

14625 7440

19446 7440

22890 7440

25378 7440

27156 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

Planting E_ 8209 10585 13004 16006 18568 22423 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031

~~~- ~t~t 1~~~r 1~ n~~ ~~m i~m ~M ~U~~ ~~M ~M ~~~ ~m ~M ~~~ ~~~ ~~M ~~M ~~M Total TalC DeOoctlons 33265 49193 65833 81973 96875 130860 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189341 189341 189311 189341 189341 189311

~rI~ (3326~) (4979~) (6583g) (819~) (968~) l~m) m~ ~~~~f~ mJ~ ~H~ m~~ mm ~~H~~ ~~B~ ~~im mm mJ~ ~~B2~ Inc_ ra Saings 13306 19917 26333 32189 38750 11930 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc_ TalC Oue 0 0 0 0 0 0 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297

let Cash flow (1037) (5522) (60325) (66) (737018) (397259) 74512 7Z2 74512 74512 7862 7512 74~12 rZSt2 142 M=062 1512 14512 =s===========s=_====sbullbullc=======-===================_======-=-==========I====S======-===========================e===s====================s==============r=================

Net Cash Flow Before Tax Considerations 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810 119810 190654 179442 217765 230460 242421 165733

T81 OlaquoiJcti ons

Depreciation

~ili~r Equip 2g~~ 2U~~ 2~~~ 2~~ 2~~~~ 2~g~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ 2~~ 2~~~ 2~n~ 1~~J ~~8 ~~~ f2zS 2~

~i~-OVerhoad

zg8M62335

zg8M62335

Z~~~ 62335

zg8M62335

ig8M62335

zg~~62335

i8M62335

i8M62335

t8M62335

i~8M 62335

Zg~~62335

~~~~~53665

~~~~ 46402

~tg~~40943

~~ ~~~35402 29986

ll~8~~

Total TaJ( Deduct_ 189341 189341 187121 187121 187121 187121 181121 181121 187121 187121 187121 156112 133925 117431 101291 86842 60718

I Froll Sales 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 201550 ~~~es~~= 1132~ m24~ 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154~ 1154~ 14647~ 16866g 1855~ 20129t 21574~ 1408~

Income la~ Due ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ Met Cash FloW =-2========SCI========

74512=I=====

74512 46974 73624 73624 73624 73624 63174 73624 __===_=_=============bullbullbullSamp====1II_1I31amp=II================_=II==__ == 73624_===__==

73624=======

132065 _=-=bullbull

111978======S=====

143703 ======_==

149943=======1I

156124 ========laquo

109400 ======_

~

Appendix Table Amiddotl United States Department ofAgriculture grade standards for Christmas trees

Christmas Tree Grades Factor US Premium US No1 US No2

Density Not less than Not less than Light or better medium medium

Tapera Normal- Normal- May be less than 40 to 90 40 to 90 40 or more

than 90

Damage-free faceb 4 3 2

Foliage Fresh clean Fresh clean Fresh clean and healthy and healthy and healthy

Shapec Well-shaped Well-shaped Well-shaped crown crown crown

Handle not Handle not Handle not less less than 6 less than 6 less than 6 or more than or more than or more than 134 per foot 1 34 per foot 1 34 per foot of tree height of tree height of tree height

aTaper of a tree is defined as the width of a tree expressed as a percentage of its height

Face means the visible surface area of a tree as viewed from 8 to 10 feet from the tree A tree is considered to have four faces each face constituting 14 of the tree

cHeight of a tree is defined in terms of foot or half-foot steps and is measured from the base of the handle to a point on the leader not more than 4 feet above the apex of the cone of the taper

Source Proebsting Buhaly and Wanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest 1981

40

4iUJiMMiFeuro iampi~t~Ityen)--

Literature Cited

Clevenger Tom et at The Wholesale and Processing Market for Locally Grown High Value Crops Research Report 572 New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station July 1985

Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture (Mora Research Center) New Mexico State University Guidelines for Growing and Marketing Christmas Trees in New Mexico New Mexico Department of Natural Resources October 1980

Huntley Wallace Marketing Christmas Trees-Turning a Problem into an Opportunity American Christmas Tree Journal August 1984 pp 41-43

Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury Fanners Tax Guide Publication 225

Proebsting William M Joseph Buhaly and Donald Hanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest Pacific Northwest Extension Publication PNW6 January 1981

41

Page 12: Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and ...

AA~1~rmiddot~i~I~~~iiltfi~)~~1i~~~4~iamp_1 2U~ampJl2lJMlIIINIiI1m~~S1lt~h

Shearing generally begins when the tree height is about 5 feet For the budgets some shearing was assumed to begin in year 3 however labor in year 3 mainly reflects training of the trees Training helps develop a straight marketable tree The greatest number of hours were needed in years 6 and 7 to prepare trees for market

Estimated chemical needs were obtained from Drs John Mexal and James Fisher Professors of Horticulture New Mexico State University Many of the above chemicals are unnecessary because many pest and disease problems found elsewhere do not currently occur in New Mexico however it was felt as acreage of the crop increases the need for chemical use would also be necessary

Harvest Operations

The harvest generally consists of 4 to 5 weeks and is the most labor intensive activity in Christmas tree growing HalVest operations consist of selecting the trees for halVesting cutting baling and transporting to the market Timing is imperative and weather can be difficult during this period

Because some trees grow faster than others it is usually possible to harvest about 13 of the crop in the sixth year The remaining 213 of the total crop would be cut the seventh year Experienced growers generally halVest about 80 of the trees they plant as a result of death loss and cullage3 This means each acre yielded 1162 marketable trees if 1452 trees per acre were originally plantedOfthe 1162 trees halVested 13 or 387 trees are halVested in year 6 and 775 trees were cut in year 7 Trees not accounted for in the projected halVest either died or were not acceptable as Christmas trees

The trees selected for halVest are often marked before cutting to prevent halVest crews from having to make decisions about tree grades while cutting After cutting trees are carried to the access road and hauled to a central area where they are baled The trees are then loaded on trucks and shipped to the wholesaler or other market outlets

gtCulled trees may be made into wnaths or sold as boughs This was not assumed as a SOurce of revenue in this report

14

HalVest arrangements with wholesalers vary In some cases wholesalers perform all halVest operations in others the wholesaler will mark the trees they want to buy Some agreements call for the wholesaler to transport the trees from field side others place the responsibility for shipping on the producer

This paper assumed the responsibility of selection and harvest was with the producer and that transportation to the market place was paid for by the wholesaler

Post-Harvest Operations

After the field has been completely halVested in the seventh year it is generally replanted to trees the following spring Some growers remove the remaining stumps Stump removal however is an expensive and time consuming process The preferred method appears to be to replant new seedlings half the distance between the remaining stumps within the row The remaining stumps are then allowed to decay naturally This method of replanting between stumps was assumed for this paper

Overhead Expense

Table 7 shows the overhead expenses assumed for the 160 acres with 147 net planted acres

Downtime is the additional labor time allowed because of time lost for such things as machine repairs moving to and from fields and waiting for deliveries A downtime rate of 20 of the total labor hours was applied in the budgets

Employee benefits include any programs that full-time or part-time employees may obtain such as social security workmens compensation insurance group life and health insurance and paid vacations Although this cost can be negligible on most small farms an 18 rate on the coSt of labor was applied here

Insurance was estimated at $850 per planted acre This includes coverage of equipment and farm liability

15

~_~ ~ -h n~middotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot _ middotmiddotbullm-middot middottlt1Gmiddotmiddotgtmiddotti~q~~middot~middot)Gv~--e~~~~~i4iM5tll L MIbullbull Jtpoundi8)l] II ha bullUMtflIf~~~Hjl~kllI~1cent

Table 7 Annual overhead expenses on a 160-acre Christmas tree fanna

Downtime 20 ofdirect labor hours

Employer benefits 18 of direct labor hours

Insurance $850 per planted acre

Farm facilities $386 per planted acre

Land rent $8163 per planted acreb

General and administrative $50 per planted acre

Supervision $75 per planted acre

Other $30 per planted acre

Brokerage 5 of gross revenue

88sed 003tOUtTof 147 pl8nted acres 1Is7s per acre on the total of 160 acres

It was assumed farm facilities were required to protect equipment from weather and to provide office space A simple pole building was used for protecting equipment and was estimated to cost $8000 An additional $9000 was allotted for an office structure The cost of these facilities was spread over a service life of 35 years The cost per planted acre was approximately $4 per acre

Land rent was assumed to be $82 per planted acre or $75 per acre on the gross farm acreage If the land is already owned outright this would represent the opportunity cost of having planted the land to Christmas trees

General and administrative expenses include management salaries secretarial expenses and costs associated with running and maintaining the office such as telephone copying

16

and bookkeeping The amount associated with general and administrative expenses was $50 per planted acre

Supervision expenses were incurred to oversee field operations A $75 per planted acre expense was used for supervision This figure is arbitrary but includes funds for possibly hiring a foreman It also includes funds for pickup truck expenses The 147 net planted acres provides an annual supervision expense fund of $11025

Other expenses is a catch-all category for irregular or unexpected items such as fence or road repair additional hand tools or added administrative expenses The other expenses assumed here were $30 per acre per year

A brokerage fee was included in the budgets as a marketing expense The producer often serves as his own broker and in this case the fee included in the budgets would be viewed as an opportunity cost of the producers time A fee of 5 of gross revenue was used as a brokerage expense

Interest

An interest expense was included for opemting capital and equipment investment Rates of 12 and 10 respectively were used 4

For the full-cost budgets the interest expense on operating capital needed each year from the time of planting was compounded through the seventh year and charged off as an expense in the harvest year If the capital used was all equity capital rather than borrowed this could again be construed as an opportunity cost of the use of the producers money

Establishment Expenses

The establishment expense is the actual cost of growing the trees to harvestable size (tables 8 through 13) To show the total return and the total costs incurred during the harvest

IbeSeinterest rates imply an average annual inflation rate or at least 3to 4 per year A realistic analysis could increase the annual cash expenses and revenues by a 3 to 4 compounded rate over the 35middotyear investment period This approach would result in higher estimated returns Future expenses and revenues were not adjusted ror inflation in this report hence the results may be underestimated

17

MtiS 4ampIi- iJi4MliIllITftif ~2k+Csectlgt--~Smiddot-f

year the full-cost budget for years 6 and 7 include an establishment expense under the purchased input category (tables 13 and 14) This expense is based on cost estimates from the first five years of production and is prorated to the appropriate year based upon the harvest yield ratio S Because there is a time value associated with the capital used to grow the trees a compounding factor was also included The rate used to compound was 10 The total establishment expense per planted acre was estimated to be $2782 allocated in year 6 and $6840 in year 7 The $6840 allocated in year 7 includes $616 of interest expenses associated with having to wait another year (year 6 to 7) before these expenses are recovered The establishment expenses amounted to $719 and $883 per harvested tree respectively for trees harvested in the sixth and seventh years Net returns would increase significantly if all trees would reach harvestable size by year 6

Total Cost Per Acre

Based on the budget estimates made for years 6 and 7 a total cost of $12895 per acre planted or $1110 per tree harvested was required to grow Christmas trees through harvest This cost includes all equipment expenses chemicals land rent labor overhead and interest

Price Sensitivity of Full-Cost Budgets

To determine the return to risk when all costs are accounted for the gross revenue must also be estimated The gross revenue is a function of number of trees harvested and the price per tree The yield of 80of the total planting or 1162 trees was assumed as fIXed in this part of the analysis and only the price was varied A per tree price of $1240 was used as the base with a $1 change in either direction Using the $1240 per tree price a net return of $158372 per acre harvested was derived At $1140 per tree $1 less a net return

gtc)f the total yield 13 was harvested in year 6 and 23 in year 7

q

i g

I middoto~ ~ ~8

~i ~ ~

_z1~ ~s -~

~g

~

~ ~3

z ~ ~i r cu

m~zIi ~ ~=gt

~s ~-

5 oS ~

~J t ~It ~c= ~c lI-Q

i l- ~~ fI) = I iI~ = CIt

f 8 ~ a

(I III laquoIC 5 ~cI iIoU ~

ltI ~ CllioS~ Ol fo- ~ ~ j$ S ~ ~In~

~~~ggg

oi~oo -o-4-C~ ~

0000 0utqno 0

ritO 0 ~-4tltl- N

w ~w

tJtDWU C-amptoe(

oot)o ~~~lt= _Ot) -0

Ie

8glg~~~~i~~g~ t o~-eOaiNOQN 0 N-4N S

11 N ~ill -- 0

~ ~ ~~

1tc ~ ~~ -4 _

I

~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~_OO~N shy 1_ ~

gg 8~ st i~ tOtO i

~ ~~~ ~ X x=~

~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~Q~~N N~

~ g~ E

~ ~ ~ 0 Q i1lJ~W

lto(c- aa~aai5~ ttlZW

~ tQ __ -I iffi Z ~wtll~ow=i~~~~ ~e=~~~5~~tUQCI =VIE a C-lI-

g~~~~g8g~ ~NeOQarQ a) ~

~~~q ~~ laquo)~ ~S

o o~~ UN ~

~ ~

0

~(fIii

~

i

o N

bull ~ l

i

~

~

~ ~

S ~

18 19

Table 9 Per acre tun cost budgets ror growiDg White Fir and Scots Pine

~-~~-~~~~-~-~~~-~-~~-~-~~-~~-~-~~~~~~~~--~~-~~-----------------------_------YIELD

HARVEST DATES PLANTING DATES

PlIlCE -- ~-- - - - bull - - - bullbull - bull - - - ~ - - bull - bull QUANTITY PUR~~~ LABOR ~~iJ~~ REPAIRS Fgi~ TOTAl

TEM UNIT __ bullbull ________ bull __ _ _ ___ ___ bull ___ ___ bull __ _ __________ bullbullbullbull _________ bullbullbullbullbullbullbull _ bull ------_ bullbullbullbullbullbull - -- bull bull - - - - bull (DOLLARS) bullbullbull - - bullbullbull

PURCHASED INPUTS 6650100 ACRE 66501lER8ICIOE 1800100 ACRE 1800INSECTICIDE 211523500 LB 2115MOIII~ SULFATE 750100 ACRE 750MISCELLANECIlS TOOLS 1131511315SUBTOTAL

PREHARVEST OPERATIONS 21751309 319 209 338PTO SPRAYER (X) ampAS IS P 238 HR 27491738 423 275 313MOWER (410 GAS 15 HP 316 HR 4200

Mise 1000 HR 4200LABOR 3226~ 360 IR 2812 238 176WELL (ex) ELE

123501914 7247 3554 722 827SUBTOTAL

OVERfAD EXPENSES 1709311 1709OOWIITIME EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

13041304 850 850

INSURANCE 386 386 FARM FACILITIES 8163 8163 LAND RENT 5000 5000GENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION 75007500suPERVISION 3D00 3000 OTHER

17399 2791210513SUBTOTAL 311 HR

3554 722 18226 515_7711315 17760TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 2225 IR

-51577NET OPERATING PROFIT

2678INTEREST ON OPERATI~G CAPITAL 831INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT

-55086 ~~~~-~~~~- _- _- -_ -_ ----- --_ ---- -- -- ----_ --_ --___ _ - _------ __

Table 10 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 3 estabUshment) NM 1988 PLANTING DATES YIELDHARVEST OATES PRICE

POWER PURCHASED FUEL OIL FIXEDITEM UNIT QUANTITY INPUTS lABOR LUBRICANT REPAIRS COST TOTAL --_ - - _- ---- - -_ -- --_ - - - -(DOlLARS)

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE 5800 5800MOIII~ SULFATE 35200 LB 3168 3168INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800MISCELLANECIlS TOOLS 100 ACRE 750 750

SIJIITOTAL 11518 11518

PRE HARVEST OPERATIONS ROTARY PRUIINERS GAS 900 HR 3780 234 108 495 4617PTO SPRAYER (5X) GAS 15 HP 1 70 R 935 228 150 241 1554MOWER (4X) ampAS 15 HP 316 HR 1738 423 275 313 2149LABOR Mise 1000 IR 4200 4200ELL (12X) ELE 540 HR 4217 356 265 4838

N SUBTOTAL 2926 10653 5102 889 1314 17958 - (MRNfAl) EXPENSES OOWIITiME 477 2625 2625EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1918 1918INSURANCE 850 850FARM FACILITIES 386 386LAIIO RENT 8163 8163GENERAL _rNISTRATlON 5000 5000SUPERViSiON 7500 7500OTHER 3000 3000

SUBTOTAL 477 HR 2043 17399 29442

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 3403 HR 11518 22696 5102 889 18713 58918

NET OPERATI KG PROF IT middot58918

I NTEREST ON OPERAT I NG CAP ITAL 2930 INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT INVESTMENT 964

RETURN TO RISK 62812 ~ -~- -_ ~ ~~ ~ _ - -

Table 11 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas ~~~~~~~~~~~_~~~t~~~~~ ___ _ ~i~~middotDAEmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot YIELD

HARVEST OATES PRICE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull PURCHASED FUEL Oil FIXED

PMR INPUTS LA~ LUBRICANT REPAIRS COST TOTAL ~~~~~~- middotmiddotDOt~~middot PURCHASED INPUTS

HERBICIDE 100 ACRE 5800 5800 INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 fUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 AMONIUM SULFATE 46900 LB 4221 4221 MlsCElLANEClJS TOOLS 100 ACRE 750 750

SUBTOTAL 14296 14296

PRE HARVEST OPERA liONS ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) CAS 1500 HR 6300 390 180 825 7695 PTO SPRAYER (ax) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 364 239 386 2485 MOIlER (2X) CAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374~ FERT INJECTOR ElE 030 HR 011 061 096 168 LABOR MISC 1000 HR 4200 4200 lElL (14X) [L 630 HR 49bull 20 416 309 5645

SUBTOTAL 3590 12865 5897 1033 1772 21567

OVERHEAD EXPENSES DOIINTIM 586 3223 3223 EMPLOYEE BENEF ITS 2316 2316 INSURANCE 850 850 FARM FACILITIES 386 386 LAND RENT 8163 8163 CENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION 5000 5000 SUPERVI SION 7500 7500 OTHER 3000 3000

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039 17399 30438

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 4176 HR 14296 25904 5897 1033 19171 66301

NET OPERATl NG PROF IT 66301

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL 3247 INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 1102

70650~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~--

Table 12 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas trees (year 5 establishment) NM 1988 PLANTING OATES HARVEST OATES YIELD

PRICE

lIEM PMR

IJHlT QUANT lTy PURCHASED

INPUTS

~~~~~

FUEL OlL LA80R LUBRICANT

REPAIRS FIXED COST TOTAL

PURCHASED INPUTS - shy ~ ~ bull bull bull (DOLLARS) bull - bull HER81CIOE INSECTICIDE FUNCICIOE AMOHIUM SULFATE MI SCELLANEOUS TOOLS

SU8TOTAL

PREHARVEST oPERATIONS

100 ACRE 100 ACRE 100 ACRE

46900 L8 100 ACRE

3700 1800 1725 4221 750

12196

3700 1800 1725 4221

750

12196

ROTARY PRUHNERS (2X) PTO SPRAYER (8X) MOIlER aX) FERT INJECTOR LABOR WELL (16X)

SUBTOTAL

OVERHEAD EXPENSES

CAS CAS 15 HP CAS 15 HP ELE MISC ELE

1500 H 272 HR 158 HR 030 HR

1000 HR 720 HR

3680

6300 1496 869

4200

12865

390 364 212 011

5623

6600

180 239 137 061

475

1092

825 386 156 096

353

1816

7695 2485 1374 168

4200 6451

22373

OOIHIME EMPLOYEE BENEFf TS INSURANCE FARM FACILITIES LANI RENT GENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION SUPERVISION OTHER

586 3223 2316

7500

850 386

8163 5000

3223 2316 850 386

8163 5000 7500

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039

3000

17399

3000

30438

TOTAL OPERAJINC EXPENSES 4266 HR 12196 25904 6600 1092 19215 65007 NET oPERA T I HG PROf I T

65007 INTEREST ON OPERATINC CAPITAL INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 3142

1153 RETURN TO bull I SK bull ~ bullbullbull - _ - - ~ - _ - - _ bullbullbullbull - - ~ _ bullbull - _ bullbullbullbull bullbull - bullbullbull

~ - - -_ _-_ __--_ _---__- 69302

Table 13 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine

~~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J~~~~~~ Table 14 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine PL~NTIMG DATES YIELD 387 TREES GROSS RETURNSS4198 80 HARVEST DATES NOVEMBER 15 bull DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0TREE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbull bullbull

bull - bullbull - bullbullbull - bull bull bull bull ~C~A~E~ - FUEL OIL FIXED ~middot~middot~7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~U~~~~~ PLANT INC DATES YIelD 775 TREESQUANT ITY INPUTS LABOR LUBRICANT REPAIU COST TOTAL

~ ___ w~ ___ ____ _ ____ ____ _ _ _ ___ HARVEST OATES NOVEM8ER 15 DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0IREE ~ CROSS RETURNS$9iIOOO - bullbullbullbull (DOLLARS) bullbullbullbullbullbull - bull shy

pOlin PURCHASEDPURCHASED INPUTS ITEM fUEl OIL FIXEDUNIT OUANT IlY INPUTSHERBltlDE 100 ACRE 3700 3700 bull lABOR LUBRICANT RePAIRS-_ _---- _--- _---_ _---- - _--_ - _- __ __ -- COST TOTAL INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 bull FUNGICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 bull bull (DOLLARS) bull A_IUM SULFATE 93800 LB 8~~2 8442 bull

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE T6OOTWINE 38700 EACH 19-35 1935 1600INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800MISCELLANEros TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000 bull 1800

ESTABLISHMENT 113 2781 72 278172 FUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725AMON I UN SULFATE 5~000 lB 4860 4860

SUBTOTAL 18602 2781 72 2967 7~ TWINE 17500 EACH 3875 ~8 7~MISCELLANEOUS TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000

PREHARVEST OPERATIOIIS ESTABLISHMENT 23 ~050 ~050

ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) GAS 3800 HR 15960 988 ~56 2090 1~9~ bull SUBTOIAL 14860PTO SPRAYER (ex) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 360 239 386 2~ 85 bull ~050 698910 MOWER (2X) GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 137~ bull PREHARVEST OPERATIONSfERT INJECTOR ELE 035 oR 012 071 112 195 bull ROTARY PRUNNERS (2)) GAS 3000 HRLABOR Mise 1000 HR ~200 ~2 00 bull 12600 780 360 1650 I5~90PTO SPRAYER (xl GAS 15 HP 238 HRIlELL lt18X) ElE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258 bull MOIlER (ZX) 1309 319 209 338 21 75GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374fEAT INJECTOR ELE 060 HSUBTOTAL 6075 22525 7902 1~38 31~1 35006 021 122 191 334LABOR MIse 1000 HR ~200 4200

HARVEST OPERATIONS WELL (18X) ELE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258

CHAIN SAW GAS 968 HR 4066 252 136 590 50~~ SUBTOTAL 5266DRAG amp lOAD HAND 3225 HR 13545 135~5 18978 7658 1363 2732 J0731 TREE BALER GAS 230 HR 966 177 278 952 2373 HARVEST OPERATIONSTRAILER GAS 15 HP 300 HR 1650 ~11 360 560 2985 CHAIN SAW GAS 1938 HRLABOR Mise 1650 HR 6930 6930 81~0 504 271 1182 10097DRAG amp LOAD HAND 6058 HR 27124 27124

SUBTOIAL 6373 HR 27157 8~0 7 7~ 2106 30877 TREE BALER GAS I 46D HR 1932 354 5~7 1904 4747TRAILER GAS 15 HP 600 HR 3300 822 720 1128 5970LABOR MISC ~OOO NROVERHEAD EXPENSES 16800 16800 OOHlE 2321 12763 12763 bull SUBTOTAL 13~56 HREMPLOYEE SENEF lIS 89~3 89~3 bull 57296 1680 1548 4214 6~7 38

INSURANCE 850 850 bull OVERHEAD EXPEHSESFARM fACILITIES 386 366 bull OCltJNTJME 3~70LAND RENT 8163 8163 bull 19637 19637EMPLOYEE BENet liSGENERAL amp ADMINISTRATlOil 5000 5000 bull 13729 13729 SUPERVISION 7500 7500 bull INSURANCE

850 850FARM FACILITIESOTHER 3000 3000 bull 386 386LAND RENTMARXETING 2399~ 2399~ 8163 8163

SUPERVISION GeNERAL 8 ADMINISTRATION

5000 5000 SUBTOTAL 2321 HR 23994 29206 17399 70599 7500 7500

MARKETING OTHER

3000 300048050 48050

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 14769 HR 29550 ~~401 347~ 1250 287125 367738 bullbull SUBTOTAL 3570 HR ~8050 ~0866 17399 106315 IIpoundT OPERATING PROfIT 1121~2

TOIAl OPERATING EXPENSES 22292 HRINTEREST (JIj OPERATTNG CAPlTAL 6545 62910 117140 9338 2911 708395 900694 INTEREST (JIj EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 2473 NET OPERATING PROFIT

60306 10312~

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT IHVESlMENT 8659

3361 RETURN TO R I so

TIoCmiddotTHIRDS OF THESE COSTS IlERE ALLOCATED AS PROOUCTl(Jlj COSTS fORIREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 7 48286iI ~--~-- ----- ~ --~--- -~------ -----~-- yen - bullbullbullbull -- ~ -- ----_ _w ___ ________ 0 _______ _w __ IHIS TOTAL INCCltPORATES ONLY THE EXPENSE ASSOCATEO WITH THE TREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 6 BECAUSE OF THIS THE COLUMN

WILL NOT SUM TO THIS VALUE

24 25

~ i C -i Q

= foil

Table 15 Cash flow for a 160-aere Cbristmas tree rann (147 net planted aeres lIIII====_=====IIIlIII======S=II==2=II=___1I3_III========s_bullbullbullbull=z=a==a============bullbull==~=bullbullbull==11======aSS==lIIlII======================================================

Year 1 fear 2 Year J tear 4 Year 5 Year 6 fear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 fear 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 lllttows _=====

Sale of Trees so so so so so $101035 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 S302585 S302585 $302585 $302585 OUtflows

Purchased Input 5 Tree stock 1921019m 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210Cover ~rass seed 315 9sect1~ 19m 315 315 315 19m 19m 315 19m 19m 19m 19m315 315 315 315erbicuSe 1019 2415 3633 4851 5628 6405 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741Insecticide o 378 756 1~ 1890 22611 22611 22611 22611 2268 2268 2268 22611 22611Ftrlgicide o o o H~ 1087 U~ 1449 U~ 1449 1449 449 ~~~ 1449 1449 t449 1449Amonhn Sui tate o 444 1109 1~ 5676 5676 5676 ~~~X 5676 5676Tree guards 788 788 788 2~ 4~~ 788 53 53 53 788 788 5~ 5~ 53788 788 788Miscellaneous tools 420 578 735 893 105g 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365Twine o o o o i~ 1220 l~~ l~~ij 1220 1220 1220 1220 1220 lm lnOIrrigatlon system 31500 3150031 508 31500 31500 31500 31500 3150g 31500 31500 31~~g 31500 31500 31500 31 gtog 31~~g 31500 31500Eqult 33750 o o o 1045g o o o 266j0 o o a 10450 o oFarm facilities 17000 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oPre-harvest Operations o CustQll1 1_ preparation 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651Spray 204 578 844 1271 1698 2124 2498 2498 2~g 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498Harrow 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 168 1611 1611 Mark rows 309 309 309 Seed 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 Haul plants 42 42 42 42 42 309309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309

42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42Pl t (hand) 1861 2 ~Iy Netting 1~ 1~

794 1~ ~2 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ ~2 1~ 1 1861 1861 1861 861 li~ Orlp installaton 221 221 221 211

~l 794 794 794 794 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 2lt1495 990 1485 1733 1980 2228 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475Shear amp train 2415a o 864 2303 3743 7398- 1~~~ 1~~~ 10283 10283 10283 10283

i seel taneous 1amp1raquor 882 76 2646 Appt ter t it i zer o o o 10~g~ 10m 10m 10~g~ 10~g~ 10283

35 71 141 182 182 182 182 182 182 lr2 Purping costs 480 1121 617435l8 5292 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 Ot 174 6174 6174 6174

Harvest operations 2081 3l02 i~~g 5923 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 73k4

Cut tr~s o Drag amp load trees o 2807o o 935 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 Wrap trees o o 2374 7115 ~~~~ ~~~ 1115 7115 7115 7115 7115 7~ 7115o o o 298 895 895 895 7J~ 895 7~~~ 895 895 895 895 895Haul trees o o o 508 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525MisceHaneous labOr o 1525o o 1455 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366Overheed Oowotime 648 1007 IS58 2235 2911 5522 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346E1lloy benefits 4611 742 1145 1631 3933 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581Insurance 179 357 536 114 2~~

1071 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250Land r~t 1575 3150 4725 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025G amp A 1050 lloo 3150 4lOO 5250 6300 tgro 7350 7350 7350 7350 1~m k~~~ 7350 ~m 7350 7350 735a~~~Vision 472S 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11021575 3150

11m 11~~~ 025 11~~630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 63mMarketng II o o o o 5052 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 lSI29

1 Based on total of 147 planted acres by Year 7 A total of 21 (Jeres are planted each year year 1 consists ot 21 planted acres year 2 a total of 42 etC

-- --~ -~-~ r IJampamp $ ~H ~M LgtH~-~Lw~

110 0 middot W It 110 OO~~~~o~~OOO OampooooooosectOii S~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~H~ = - 11 11=L = 110 _ N N 0 M

bull c _~_

bullbullbull 2 _ M~

cash needs of the operation The farm will produce a positivei 0goooo00020poundN t-~~~~ t-~Fg~ORi ~ UNHIt U to OOE~l2~O~ft~oOI L 110 lS -lIi iIl~lI)t i1 ---a~ - 3

N annual cash flow starting in the seventh year However a total N bullbull u _N N~ - - ~N ~ $E~3

bullbull It 0 t N of $540819 in cash is expended through the first 6 years Ao~ooooooo~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~V~~ ~=~==~C ~ OOi~~~~O$~OOO ~ laquoS_~_ i i6~ ~gIIt_~o~ -=~ I total of 11 years are needed (five positive cash producingbullM Ii IfII 110 II n N -~ ~ _ N t- _ _ ~ ~~~= N III H 0 years) before the cash outflows incurred during the first 6 ~

~ = =a OOsect~~~O~OOO o~ooooooo~~~i 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ =~= years are covered This is based on selling trees at $1240L= V ~ ~N ~~ ~~ ~4 N~ ~~~ i i~e s -- N S The budgets were developed for a 35-year period because=gt- tt n this was thought to be a reasonable economic life5~~ ~ OO~~~roO~~O~O degmoooooooi~~ ~=~~~ ~mi5~5~~ ~=~= amp0 - ~ - III middot

__ ~ ~ _ 0 Nt- _ Ntn ~~~ ~ -~~- ~ pound Additionally a 35-year life allows for five 7-year

planting-through-harvest rotations Based on the rotationbull C) MM C OO~~~~degri~OOO OampOOOOOOO~~~~m 2E~~~ ~~~sect~~~~ ~u~= i c L ~ ~

N~v N N~ ~~ N~ ~4 ~~~~~~ ~ iii schedule only Inth of the total acreage would be planted ini = i

-SfIJ n= ~ - -I anyone year The cash costs in year 1 therefore include onlyRi = ~ ~~~~~i~~5me~~ i~sect~~ ~~~~~~~~ E~ lias amp0 ~~~~~~J~~~~OO H II n ~ 0- ~~w- ~ = ~~ Nt- - ~~_~t- ~ ~ct N planting expense for Inth of the total acreage or 21 acresW - - -= ~ Year 2 would again include planting expenses for Inth of theCtI 110- -~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~o~~~g~ ~G~ liN Q) $ ___ cOP ___~ i_IiInJX lIlCoo~_ flt nc II II tn ~~i~~~~~~~~00 =~ N ~ 0_11 - N w (1= Ot- N~ Oo~t-- i Ef~~ acreage and the second year growing expenses for the 21=- =tt ~ - acres planted originally The total expenses of a fullymiddot =S 1II ~~~_~~~~~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~sect~~ l~~~~~~~ Ec~ _ tl_-= ~u ~ operating facility are first incurred in the seventh year The

~ ~NII -~_ 1I1f N ~o~ N~ - ~o~=~~ ~ eg~R- 1111 0 - t first year of full revenue is also obtained in year 7 (21 acres of Cite ~ ~~~~~~~N~~~~~ ~~~~~ I~~~~~g~ ~r~i

~ _ ~ cOPNN __~ ~_m~~ ~1nO~O~~ Nfl~M

= or ~~~~~~~~~~O tt l 387 trees in their sixth year and 21 acres of 775 trees in their0- ~N_~ _ _0 N ~o~ N~ - ~~_=t--= ~ ~gGbull N= iI - - - ~i 1 seventh year ofgrowth)III

4iiii i~ ~ As the farm approaches the end of its economic life it was~~~_~~~~~~~~OO i~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~pound~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~i~E i

I middotL= 0- -oN_tI- - ~ N _ N~ot-- Nt-- ~ ~o_~t-= ~ ~U~ ii= = ~ assumed that the operator would stop planting Therefore as 11 - a l ~ 13 ~~~~g~i~N~~~~~ i~~~~ ~~a~~IC~~ E=~= of year 29 no more planting expenses are incurred It wasltV bull V ~~~~~~~~~~OO 0- N - -= ~N0ftIo - Ieo ~ t= -oN 1I _0- - N~ ~~ Nt- - ~o-~= ~ ~ft~c =a ~ - t assumed the land would be either left idle or used for otherIIIJ - -

= ~ purposes In year 35 the final year of operation only 21 acresa~= tQ ~~~~~~~re~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~ E~a N 0- -0 ___ _III u N _ N~o~ N~ _~ ~o-=~= ~ ~~~III ~ ~ of seventh-year trees would remain to be harvested At thisgt- - - -I point the entire operation would be closed down No salvagesect ii~ 1II ~~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~$~9~~ i~~~~ ~~~~sect~~ E~I II

II Ltf __ ~ ~N-II N ~ Ni ~~ N~ ~~ ~~~i~ i ~=in value was assumed because the land used was either leased or ~ -11~ 1= shy

I ~ rented and all equipment or buildings had no remainingc 15 ~ ft ~~~rd~~J~~~~~O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~E~iIII 0- QN-V 0 N _ N~o~ N ~~_~~~ ~ ~~~ i useful life H= ~ - ltgt ~ 15 Over the project life it would be necessary to replace some to tQ ~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~S~~~ 2Ei~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~5~i t ~ equipment For the purpose of this study it was assumed that~ I ~ -oN_~ _ - N _ N~ ~~ _ ~o_=~~ ~ ~~ I -= I= ~ - i all equipment would be used until it was no longer-=1 ~lt~S~-~N~~~~1 t-~~~~ ~co~~~o~ ~ft i011 V-- ~ o~- ~~NN__~ i_~V~ ~II~OO~_ ~~ ~~~~~_~i~~~OO a salvageable at which point it would be replaced new Table 16

r bullbull tv () -ON _ - N N~o~ ~ _ ~o-== ~ ~I~ I middot ~ - - - ~ shows the replacement schedule assumed in the cash flow i ~ Note that this table reflects the assumed useful life of the~ -=bull gi

i

iii s equipment rather than its depreciable life Also two itemsCgt I 1 u lJi~ ~ t- I ~ - ~ i the chain saws and the tree balers are not necessary until year -111) l -E I ~ l~~ _E ==Ilbull- ~ 1 ~j c ~ ~ ~ -5 -_ bull s

~~~ ~ ~~ _ ~ ~ L~ OL ~ 0 6 II 6 and were not purchased until that time Based on the highc _~~~~~WL ~-=] ii1t~ ~~ ulpoundlzl ~~ ~ = 1 i~uZul ~~I S Lo-- 2 L ~It~~ -i ~ ~

J L~_ ~m LOCmiddot gt- ampogt-~-~~ ~tc -lt 0 011 CIt -= = 2 ~~~t~5middotFi~f~~i~iitli-~fi~fifiiiI f Ii ~ilaquoI - ~ =~U=_~~~~~_W~U0Z~EZ~CQE~CEAL3QZEQW_~000 ~middot - ~ 8 Ii ~ I ~ middotmiddot -

29

111

f ~middot~middot~LC -- - ~i~

n ~ illII I~ II

Ii II

~~ Table 16 Equipment replacement schedule for a 160-acre ~ Christmas tree farm in New Mexico 1988 ~

usage during a short time period and the relatively short life of these items they were replaced every 5 years

Analysis

Because there are many unknowns encountered when projecting cost and returns and because different locations may be faced with different situations a series of scenarios were provided to evaluate the financial feasibility of the project Three major variables were altered concurrently to create the different scenarios These variables were

1 Prices 2 Yields 3 Costs

Price

A base price of $1240 was assumed The sensitivity of the return to a change of $1 increments over a range of $2 was measured

Yield

Changes in teld were based on altering the number of saleable trees This was done as a percentage of the total trees planted For example a 90 rate would mean that 90 of the 1452 trees originally planted or 1307 trees were available for sale This variable not only affect~ gross revenue but also alters any costs associated with the number of trees harvested Costs such as cutting field hauling baling and brokering are all altered by changes in the number of trees harvested and were assumed to be linear

Yield might also be altered by decreasing the space between trees For example a 5 by 5 spacing yields 1742 planted trees If 80 were saleable this would be 1394 trees

30

Item

Facilities

Well

Tractor

PTO sprayer

Trailer

Mower

Injector

Rotary pruners

Chain saw

Tree baler

iIIii Year ~

L 6 lL 16 2L 26 JL II~ Cost ~

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -(dollars) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- If 17000 ~

~ 10200 i

~

1bull1 113000 13000 13000 13000 1

~I 1200 1200 1200 1200 ~

bull p

~Ii ~

2400 II

800 800 800 800 ~ -I

I1200 1200 1200 1200 ~ 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 t

IiiIii 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 J

~ ~ ~ JOW JOW ~ ~ JOW

50750 10450 26650 10450 26650 10450 26650 I~ISource Table 3 IiIJ

f ~ J ~Cost ~

11I~ Because costs vary by farm and by location it was felt that a sensitivity should be performed on this variable Rather than bull

talter a specific cost or a specific category of costs the total bullIIj

cost was increased or decreased by a percentage and the Ji results evaluated Costs were altered in 10 increments in ~

Iijeither direction The 0 column uses those costs shown in the cash flow

t ~II

1

~I~ 31 ~

Feasibility Assessment

The internal rate of return (IRR) is a technique used to evaluate investment opportunities that incorporates the time value of money concept The internal rate of return for an investment project (in this case a Christmas tree planting) is the discount rate that equates the present value of the annual net cash revenue flows with the projects acquisition cost The net cash revenue is the difference between the cash receipts and cash expenses generated by an investment project over its economic life The time value of money is based on the economic fact that $1 today is worth more than a promise of $1 at some future date because of its current earnings potential

An investment can be accepted or rejected based on its internal rate of return (IRR) Acceptability of the investment depends on a comparison of the IRR with the investors required rate of return (RRR) Acceptability can be based on the following decision rules if IRR exceeds RRR accept the investment if IRR = RRR be indifferent and if IRR is less than RRR reject the investment

While IRR is a useful technique in project evaluation there are some problems with its use The major concern when using IRR is it assumes all cash inflows can be reinvested at the same rate as the resulting IRR percentage Should the IRR percentage be in the vicinity of the current rates of return of other investment instruments IRR is a reasonably accurate measure of return on investment However should the rate of return be much higher than current returns available elsewhere the resulting return on investment may be overstated The inverse is true at lower rates of return

The Net Present Value (NPV) is another way of evaluating projects that involve capital outlays over a period of years The NPV method discounts all future cash outlays and inflows back to a present-year basis using a specified interest (discount rate) The discount rate chosen is usually the opportunity cost of using equity funds in an alternative use or the cost of borrowed capital increased by an appropriate premium for risk or a combination of these The NPV

32

method is preferred over the IRR method when evaluating one investment against alternative similar type investments

Based on the sensitivity analysis discussed above a table was developed to show the IRR under the various scenarios Table 17 shows the internal rates by the per-unit price The analyses is based on pre-tax returns At $1040 per tree the IRR ranges from -14 when costs were increased by 10 and saleable yields were reduced to 60 to 160 when costs were decreased by 10 and 90 of the trees planted were sold At $1140 the IRR range is from 14 to 185 under the same conditions as above At $1240 per tree the IRR ranges from 38 when costs were increased 10 and 60 of the trees are saleable to 207 when costs were decreased 10 and saleable yields were at 90 At $1340 per tree the IRR ranges from 60 to 228 At $1440 per tree a grower could expect an IRR from 80 to 248 under the scenarios presented

A pre-tax analysis using Net Present Value (NPV) was also completed for the various scenarios The results of this analysis are shown in table 18

If an IRR of 12 is chosen as a minimum rate desired for investment growers must receive at least $1140 per tree and attain a level of 80 saleable trees and good cost control to have a successful investment At prices greater than $1140 per tree and 80 saleable product the investment appears to have possibility

33

Table 17 Internal Rates of Return (lRR) estimates for a 160-acre Table 18 Net Present Value (NPV) estimates for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost cbanges cha~es Ising a discount rate of 12

Percentage Percentageof saleable Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount

of saleabletrees 10 lower No chan~ 10 bilber trees --percent-shy

_______ - - - - - - - - - - - (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - shy

$1040 Tree Price 900 130 102900 160 BOO

SOO 128 97 69 700 60 31700 91 600

-14600 48 16

$1140 Tree Price( 900 127185 155

123 95900 800 SOO 153 700 700 116 86 58 600

14600 74 43

$1240 Tree Price 900 lJJ7 178 150900 BOO

118SOO 176 146 700 139 109 81700 600

38600 97 66

$1340 Tree Price 900 900 228 198 171 BOO

167 139SOO 197 700103700 161 130 600

600 119 88 60

$1440 Tree Price 900 BOO

248 218 191900 700159SOO 216 186 600

180 150 123700 80

Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount _ 10 lOwer No change 10 higher

-middot----middotmiddot---middot--bull-----dollars------bullbullbullbull -bullbullbull shy

$1040 Tree Price 175195 32602

(110936) (253415)

44502 (97269)

(2399BO) (381637)

(86191) (227140) (369023) (509859)

$1140 Tree Price 299293 167950 36607 142927

(14476) (170717)

12478 (144024) (299372)

(117971) (273573) (428028)

$1240 Tree Price 423391 291398 159406 253252 81984

(88019)

122225 (48069)

(217107)

(8BOl) (178123) (346196)

$1340 Tree Price 547489 414847 282204 363576 231972 100368 178445 (5321)

47886 (134842)

(82673) (264364)

$1440 Tree Price 671587 538295 405003 473901 341719 209538 274905 143841 12777 77377 (52578) (182532)

138 108 N01E Parentheses mean negative number

34 35

600

Investor Analysis

The following analysis considers the impact of the US tax laws (revised October 1987) on investing in Christmas trees The approach is identical to the previous IRR and NPV analysis except the impact of federal and state income taxes is considered in the annual stream of cash flow

The basis assumptions used are as follows

1 The taxpayer investor is in a 40 tax bracket on marginal income when combining both state and federal income taxes

2 The investor is actively engaged in managing the Christmas tree farm so that revenues and losses can be counted as active income or the investor has other passive investment income to offset any passive losses from growing Christmas trees

3 The Section 179 one-time deduction of $10000 per year is used in other businesses operated by the investor

4 Depreciation was calculated using the modified ACRS rules published by the IRS in 1987 Publication 225

5 The Christmas tree enterprise falls under the IRS rules for Christmas tree cultivation requiring capitalization of planting and stump culture for trees more than 6 years of age Because one-third of the trees are sold within the 6-year time limit one-third of planting expenses were deducted in the year incurred and the remaining two-thirds were capitalized and written off when the trees were sold in the seventh year

6 The investor uses a cash accounting system for tax purposes

36

The pre-tax IRR for the scenario with trees selling for $1240 each 80 harvestable yield and standard costs was 146 The IRR after-tax considerations fell to 125 (table 19) One might compare the after-tax return of 125 to other after-tax investments of comparable risks The after-tax NPV for the above scenario is $18069 compared to the pre-tax NPV of $122225 using a 12 discount rate

37

0

Table 19 Investor cash now analysis lor a l6O-acre Christmas tree larm (per planted acre basis) S=~=bullbull=I==~==~=bullbull====iI=bullbull2a==IIiIII bullbullbullbull===========n====ZIUSS=====bullbull===lllJ=====$~nUIlt1=llIIlta====s=a====II===============bullbullbull==II=~====lltz===-===U===========1II==X=======_==li=

Year 1 rHr 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year S Ye8l 6 tear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 1Q Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Tear 18

Net Cash Flow BelMe T8)( ConeiderattOlS (116411) (75439) (86658) (99354)(111768) (51189) 119810 119810 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810

Tax ONKtiona

Oeprec i at i on Irrigation syat far Foelli amp Equip

7875 1440

14625 7440

19446 7440

22890 7440

25378 7440

27156 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

Planting E_ 8209 10585 13004 16006 18568 22423 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031

~~~- ~t~t 1~~~r 1~ n~~ ~~m i~m ~M ~U~~ ~~M ~M ~~~ ~m ~M ~~~ ~~~ ~~M ~~M ~~M Total TalC DeOoctlons 33265 49193 65833 81973 96875 130860 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189341 189341 189311 189341 189341 189311

~rI~ (3326~) (4979~) (6583g) (819~) (968~) l~m) m~ ~~~~f~ mJ~ ~H~ m~~ mm ~~H~~ ~~B~ ~~im mm mJ~ ~~B2~ Inc_ ra Saings 13306 19917 26333 32189 38750 11930 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc_ TalC Oue 0 0 0 0 0 0 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297

let Cash flow (1037) (5522) (60325) (66) (737018) (397259) 74512 7Z2 74512 74512 7862 7512 74~12 rZSt2 142 M=062 1512 14512 =s===========s=_====sbullbullc=======-===================_======-=-==========I====S======-===========================e===s====================s==============r=================

Net Cash Flow Before Tax Considerations 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810 119810 190654 179442 217765 230460 242421 165733

T81 OlaquoiJcti ons

Depreciation

~ili~r Equip 2g~~ 2U~~ 2~~~ 2~~ 2~~~~ 2~g~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ 2~~ 2~~~ 2~n~ 1~~J ~~8 ~~~ f2zS 2~

~i~-OVerhoad

zg8M62335

zg8M62335

Z~~~ 62335

zg8M62335

ig8M62335

zg~~62335

i8M62335

i8M62335

t8M62335

i~8M 62335

Zg~~62335

~~~~~53665

~~~~ 46402

~tg~~40943

~~ ~~~35402 29986

ll~8~~

Total TaJ( Deduct_ 189341 189341 187121 187121 187121 187121 181121 181121 187121 187121 187121 156112 133925 117431 101291 86842 60718

I Froll Sales 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 201550 ~~~es~~= 1132~ m24~ 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154~ 1154~ 14647~ 16866g 1855~ 20129t 21574~ 1408~

Income la~ Due ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ Met Cash FloW =-2========SCI========

74512=I=====

74512 46974 73624 73624 73624 73624 63174 73624 __===_=_=============bullbullbullSamp====1II_1I31amp=II================_=II==__ == 73624_===__==

73624=======

132065 _=-=bullbull

111978======S=====

143703 ======_==

149943=======1I

156124 ========laquo

109400 ======_

~

Appendix Table Amiddotl United States Department ofAgriculture grade standards for Christmas trees

Christmas Tree Grades Factor US Premium US No1 US No2

Density Not less than Not less than Light or better medium medium

Tapera Normal- Normal- May be less than 40 to 90 40 to 90 40 or more

than 90

Damage-free faceb 4 3 2

Foliage Fresh clean Fresh clean Fresh clean and healthy and healthy and healthy

Shapec Well-shaped Well-shaped Well-shaped crown crown crown

Handle not Handle not Handle not less less than 6 less than 6 less than 6 or more than or more than or more than 134 per foot 1 34 per foot 1 34 per foot of tree height of tree height of tree height

aTaper of a tree is defined as the width of a tree expressed as a percentage of its height

Face means the visible surface area of a tree as viewed from 8 to 10 feet from the tree A tree is considered to have four faces each face constituting 14 of the tree

cHeight of a tree is defined in terms of foot or half-foot steps and is measured from the base of the handle to a point on the leader not more than 4 feet above the apex of the cone of the taper

Source Proebsting Buhaly and Wanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest 1981

40

4iUJiMMiFeuro iampi~t~Ityen)--

Literature Cited

Clevenger Tom et at The Wholesale and Processing Market for Locally Grown High Value Crops Research Report 572 New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station July 1985

Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture (Mora Research Center) New Mexico State University Guidelines for Growing and Marketing Christmas Trees in New Mexico New Mexico Department of Natural Resources October 1980

Huntley Wallace Marketing Christmas Trees-Turning a Problem into an Opportunity American Christmas Tree Journal August 1984 pp 41-43

Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury Fanners Tax Guide Publication 225

Proebsting William M Joseph Buhaly and Donald Hanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest Pacific Northwest Extension Publication PNW6 January 1981

41

Page 13: Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and ...

~_~ ~ -h n~middotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot _ middotmiddotbullm-middot middottlt1Gmiddotmiddotgtmiddotti~q~~middot~middot)Gv~--e~~~~~i4iM5tll L MIbullbull Jtpoundi8)l] II ha bullUMtflIf~~~Hjl~kllI~1cent

Table 7 Annual overhead expenses on a 160-acre Christmas tree fanna

Downtime 20 ofdirect labor hours

Employer benefits 18 of direct labor hours

Insurance $850 per planted acre

Farm facilities $386 per planted acre

Land rent $8163 per planted acreb

General and administrative $50 per planted acre

Supervision $75 per planted acre

Other $30 per planted acre

Brokerage 5 of gross revenue

88sed 003tOUtTof 147 pl8nted acres 1Is7s per acre on the total of 160 acres

It was assumed farm facilities were required to protect equipment from weather and to provide office space A simple pole building was used for protecting equipment and was estimated to cost $8000 An additional $9000 was allotted for an office structure The cost of these facilities was spread over a service life of 35 years The cost per planted acre was approximately $4 per acre

Land rent was assumed to be $82 per planted acre or $75 per acre on the gross farm acreage If the land is already owned outright this would represent the opportunity cost of having planted the land to Christmas trees

General and administrative expenses include management salaries secretarial expenses and costs associated with running and maintaining the office such as telephone copying

16

and bookkeeping The amount associated with general and administrative expenses was $50 per planted acre

Supervision expenses were incurred to oversee field operations A $75 per planted acre expense was used for supervision This figure is arbitrary but includes funds for possibly hiring a foreman It also includes funds for pickup truck expenses The 147 net planted acres provides an annual supervision expense fund of $11025

Other expenses is a catch-all category for irregular or unexpected items such as fence or road repair additional hand tools or added administrative expenses The other expenses assumed here were $30 per acre per year

A brokerage fee was included in the budgets as a marketing expense The producer often serves as his own broker and in this case the fee included in the budgets would be viewed as an opportunity cost of the producers time A fee of 5 of gross revenue was used as a brokerage expense

Interest

An interest expense was included for opemting capital and equipment investment Rates of 12 and 10 respectively were used 4

For the full-cost budgets the interest expense on operating capital needed each year from the time of planting was compounded through the seventh year and charged off as an expense in the harvest year If the capital used was all equity capital rather than borrowed this could again be construed as an opportunity cost of the use of the producers money

Establishment Expenses

The establishment expense is the actual cost of growing the trees to harvestable size (tables 8 through 13) To show the total return and the total costs incurred during the harvest

IbeSeinterest rates imply an average annual inflation rate or at least 3to 4 per year A realistic analysis could increase the annual cash expenses and revenues by a 3 to 4 compounded rate over the 35middotyear investment period This approach would result in higher estimated returns Future expenses and revenues were not adjusted ror inflation in this report hence the results may be underestimated

17

MtiS 4ampIi- iJi4MliIllITftif ~2k+Csectlgt--~Smiddot-f

year the full-cost budget for years 6 and 7 include an establishment expense under the purchased input category (tables 13 and 14) This expense is based on cost estimates from the first five years of production and is prorated to the appropriate year based upon the harvest yield ratio S Because there is a time value associated with the capital used to grow the trees a compounding factor was also included The rate used to compound was 10 The total establishment expense per planted acre was estimated to be $2782 allocated in year 6 and $6840 in year 7 The $6840 allocated in year 7 includes $616 of interest expenses associated with having to wait another year (year 6 to 7) before these expenses are recovered The establishment expenses amounted to $719 and $883 per harvested tree respectively for trees harvested in the sixth and seventh years Net returns would increase significantly if all trees would reach harvestable size by year 6

Total Cost Per Acre

Based on the budget estimates made for years 6 and 7 a total cost of $12895 per acre planted or $1110 per tree harvested was required to grow Christmas trees through harvest This cost includes all equipment expenses chemicals land rent labor overhead and interest

Price Sensitivity of Full-Cost Budgets

To determine the return to risk when all costs are accounted for the gross revenue must also be estimated The gross revenue is a function of number of trees harvested and the price per tree The yield of 80of the total planting or 1162 trees was assumed as fIXed in this part of the analysis and only the price was varied A per tree price of $1240 was used as the base with a $1 change in either direction Using the $1240 per tree price a net return of $158372 per acre harvested was derived At $1140 per tree $1 less a net return

gtc)f the total yield 13 was harvested in year 6 and 23 in year 7

q

i g

I middoto~ ~ ~8

~i ~ ~

_z1~ ~s -~

~g

~

~ ~3

z ~ ~i r cu

m~zIi ~ ~=gt

~s ~-

5 oS ~

~J t ~It ~c= ~c lI-Q

i l- ~~ fI) = I iI~ = CIt

f 8 ~ a

(I III laquoIC 5 ~cI iIoU ~

ltI ~ CllioS~ Ol fo- ~ ~ j$ S ~ ~In~

~~~ggg

oi~oo -o-4-C~ ~

0000 0utqno 0

ritO 0 ~-4tltl- N

w ~w

tJtDWU C-amptoe(

oot)o ~~~lt= _Ot) -0

Ie

8glg~~~~i~~g~ t o~-eOaiNOQN 0 N-4N S

11 N ~ill -- 0

~ ~ ~~

1tc ~ ~~ -4 _

I

~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~_OO~N shy 1_ ~

gg 8~ st i~ tOtO i

~ ~~~ ~ X x=~

~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~Q~~N N~

~ g~ E

~ ~ ~ 0 Q i1lJ~W

lto(c- aa~aai5~ ttlZW

~ tQ __ -I iffi Z ~wtll~ow=i~~~~ ~e=~~~5~~tUQCI =VIE a C-lI-

g~~~~g8g~ ~NeOQarQ a) ~

~~~q ~~ laquo)~ ~S

o o~~ UN ~

~ ~

0

~(fIii

~

i

o N

bull ~ l

i

~

~

~ ~

S ~

18 19

Table 9 Per acre tun cost budgets ror growiDg White Fir and Scots Pine

~-~~-~~~~-~-~~~-~-~~-~-~~-~~-~-~~~~~~~~--~~-~~-----------------------_------YIELD

HARVEST DATES PLANTING DATES

PlIlCE -- ~-- - - - bull - - - bullbull - bull - - - ~ - - bull - bull QUANTITY PUR~~~ LABOR ~~iJ~~ REPAIRS Fgi~ TOTAl

TEM UNIT __ bullbull ________ bull __ _ _ ___ ___ bull ___ ___ bull __ _ __________ bullbullbullbull _________ bullbullbullbullbullbullbull _ bull ------_ bullbullbullbullbullbull - -- bull bull - - - - bull (DOLLARS) bullbullbull - - bullbullbull

PURCHASED INPUTS 6650100 ACRE 66501lER8ICIOE 1800100 ACRE 1800INSECTICIDE 211523500 LB 2115MOIII~ SULFATE 750100 ACRE 750MISCELLANECIlS TOOLS 1131511315SUBTOTAL

PREHARVEST OPERATIONS 21751309 319 209 338PTO SPRAYER (X) ampAS IS P 238 HR 27491738 423 275 313MOWER (410 GAS 15 HP 316 HR 4200

Mise 1000 HR 4200LABOR 3226~ 360 IR 2812 238 176WELL (ex) ELE

123501914 7247 3554 722 827SUBTOTAL

OVERfAD EXPENSES 1709311 1709OOWIITIME EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

13041304 850 850

INSURANCE 386 386 FARM FACILITIES 8163 8163 LAND RENT 5000 5000GENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION 75007500suPERVISION 3D00 3000 OTHER

17399 2791210513SUBTOTAL 311 HR

3554 722 18226 515_7711315 17760TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 2225 IR

-51577NET OPERATING PROFIT

2678INTEREST ON OPERATI~G CAPITAL 831INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT

-55086 ~~~~-~~~~- _- _- -_ -_ ----- --_ ---- -- -- ----_ --_ --___ _ - _------ __

Table 10 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 3 estabUshment) NM 1988 PLANTING DATES YIELDHARVEST OATES PRICE

POWER PURCHASED FUEL OIL FIXEDITEM UNIT QUANTITY INPUTS lABOR LUBRICANT REPAIRS COST TOTAL --_ - - _- ---- - -_ -- --_ - - - -(DOlLARS)

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE 5800 5800MOIII~ SULFATE 35200 LB 3168 3168INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800MISCELLANECIlS TOOLS 100 ACRE 750 750

SIJIITOTAL 11518 11518

PRE HARVEST OPERATIONS ROTARY PRUIINERS GAS 900 HR 3780 234 108 495 4617PTO SPRAYER (5X) GAS 15 HP 1 70 R 935 228 150 241 1554MOWER (4X) ampAS 15 HP 316 HR 1738 423 275 313 2149LABOR Mise 1000 IR 4200 4200ELL (12X) ELE 540 HR 4217 356 265 4838

N SUBTOTAL 2926 10653 5102 889 1314 17958 - (MRNfAl) EXPENSES OOWIITiME 477 2625 2625EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1918 1918INSURANCE 850 850FARM FACILITIES 386 386LAIIO RENT 8163 8163GENERAL _rNISTRATlON 5000 5000SUPERViSiON 7500 7500OTHER 3000 3000

SUBTOTAL 477 HR 2043 17399 29442

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 3403 HR 11518 22696 5102 889 18713 58918

NET OPERATI KG PROF IT middot58918

I NTEREST ON OPERAT I NG CAP ITAL 2930 INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT INVESTMENT 964

RETURN TO RISK 62812 ~ -~- -_ ~ ~~ ~ _ - -

Table 11 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas ~~~~~~~~~~~_~~~t~~~~~ ___ _ ~i~~middotDAEmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot YIELD

HARVEST OATES PRICE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull PURCHASED FUEL Oil FIXED

PMR INPUTS LA~ LUBRICANT REPAIRS COST TOTAL ~~~~~~- middotmiddotDOt~~middot PURCHASED INPUTS

HERBICIDE 100 ACRE 5800 5800 INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 fUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 AMONIUM SULFATE 46900 LB 4221 4221 MlsCElLANEClJS TOOLS 100 ACRE 750 750

SUBTOTAL 14296 14296

PRE HARVEST OPERA liONS ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) CAS 1500 HR 6300 390 180 825 7695 PTO SPRAYER (ax) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 364 239 386 2485 MOIlER (2X) CAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374~ FERT INJECTOR ElE 030 HR 011 061 096 168 LABOR MISC 1000 HR 4200 4200 lElL (14X) [L 630 HR 49bull 20 416 309 5645

SUBTOTAL 3590 12865 5897 1033 1772 21567

OVERHEAD EXPENSES DOIINTIM 586 3223 3223 EMPLOYEE BENEF ITS 2316 2316 INSURANCE 850 850 FARM FACILITIES 386 386 LAND RENT 8163 8163 CENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION 5000 5000 SUPERVI SION 7500 7500 OTHER 3000 3000

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039 17399 30438

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 4176 HR 14296 25904 5897 1033 19171 66301

NET OPERATl NG PROF IT 66301

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL 3247 INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 1102

70650~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~--

Table 12 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas trees (year 5 establishment) NM 1988 PLANTING OATES HARVEST OATES YIELD

PRICE

lIEM PMR

IJHlT QUANT lTy PURCHASED

INPUTS

~~~~~

FUEL OlL LA80R LUBRICANT

REPAIRS FIXED COST TOTAL

PURCHASED INPUTS - shy ~ ~ bull bull bull (DOLLARS) bull - bull HER81CIOE INSECTICIDE FUNCICIOE AMOHIUM SULFATE MI SCELLANEOUS TOOLS

SU8TOTAL

PREHARVEST oPERATIONS

100 ACRE 100 ACRE 100 ACRE

46900 L8 100 ACRE

3700 1800 1725 4221 750

12196

3700 1800 1725 4221

750

12196

ROTARY PRUHNERS (2X) PTO SPRAYER (8X) MOIlER aX) FERT INJECTOR LABOR WELL (16X)

SUBTOTAL

OVERHEAD EXPENSES

CAS CAS 15 HP CAS 15 HP ELE MISC ELE

1500 H 272 HR 158 HR 030 HR

1000 HR 720 HR

3680

6300 1496 869

4200

12865

390 364 212 011

5623

6600

180 239 137 061

475

1092

825 386 156 096

353

1816

7695 2485 1374 168

4200 6451

22373

OOIHIME EMPLOYEE BENEFf TS INSURANCE FARM FACILITIES LANI RENT GENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION SUPERVISION OTHER

586 3223 2316

7500

850 386

8163 5000

3223 2316 850 386

8163 5000 7500

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039

3000

17399

3000

30438

TOTAL OPERAJINC EXPENSES 4266 HR 12196 25904 6600 1092 19215 65007 NET oPERA T I HG PROf I T

65007 INTEREST ON OPERATINC CAPITAL INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 3142

1153 RETURN TO bull I SK bull ~ bullbullbull - _ - - ~ - _ - - _ bullbullbullbull - - ~ _ bullbull - _ bullbullbullbull bullbull - bullbullbull

~ - - -_ _-_ __--_ _---__- 69302

Table 13 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine

~~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J~~~~~~ Table 14 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine PL~NTIMG DATES YIELD 387 TREES GROSS RETURNSS4198 80 HARVEST DATES NOVEMBER 15 bull DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0TREE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbull bullbull

bull - bullbull - bullbullbull - bull bull bull bull ~C~A~E~ - FUEL OIL FIXED ~middot~middot~7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~U~~~~~ PLANT INC DATES YIelD 775 TREESQUANT ITY INPUTS LABOR LUBRICANT REPAIU COST TOTAL

~ ___ w~ ___ ____ _ ____ ____ _ _ _ ___ HARVEST OATES NOVEM8ER 15 DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0IREE ~ CROSS RETURNS$9iIOOO - bullbullbullbull (DOLLARS) bullbullbullbullbullbull - bull shy

pOlin PURCHASEDPURCHASED INPUTS ITEM fUEl OIL FIXEDUNIT OUANT IlY INPUTSHERBltlDE 100 ACRE 3700 3700 bull lABOR LUBRICANT RePAIRS-_ _---- _--- _---_ _---- - _--_ - _- __ __ -- COST TOTAL INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 bull FUNGICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 bull bull (DOLLARS) bull A_IUM SULFATE 93800 LB 8~~2 8442 bull

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE T6OOTWINE 38700 EACH 19-35 1935 1600INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800MISCELLANEros TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000 bull 1800

ESTABLISHMENT 113 2781 72 278172 FUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725AMON I UN SULFATE 5~000 lB 4860 4860

SUBTOTAL 18602 2781 72 2967 7~ TWINE 17500 EACH 3875 ~8 7~MISCELLANEOUS TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000

PREHARVEST OPERATIOIIS ESTABLISHMENT 23 ~050 ~050

ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) GAS 3800 HR 15960 988 ~56 2090 1~9~ bull SUBTOIAL 14860PTO SPRAYER (ex) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 360 239 386 2~ 85 bull ~050 698910 MOWER (2X) GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 137~ bull PREHARVEST OPERATIONSfERT INJECTOR ELE 035 oR 012 071 112 195 bull ROTARY PRUNNERS (2)) GAS 3000 HRLABOR Mise 1000 HR ~200 ~2 00 bull 12600 780 360 1650 I5~90PTO SPRAYER (xl GAS 15 HP 238 HRIlELL lt18X) ElE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258 bull MOIlER (ZX) 1309 319 209 338 21 75GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374fEAT INJECTOR ELE 060 HSUBTOTAL 6075 22525 7902 1~38 31~1 35006 021 122 191 334LABOR MIse 1000 HR ~200 4200

HARVEST OPERATIONS WELL (18X) ELE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258

CHAIN SAW GAS 968 HR 4066 252 136 590 50~~ SUBTOTAL 5266DRAG amp lOAD HAND 3225 HR 13545 135~5 18978 7658 1363 2732 J0731 TREE BALER GAS 230 HR 966 177 278 952 2373 HARVEST OPERATIONSTRAILER GAS 15 HP 300 HR 1650 ~11 360 560 2985 CHAIN SAW GAS 1938 HRLABOR Mise 1650 HR 6930 6930 81~0 504 271 1182 10097DRAG amp LOAD HAND 6058 HR 27124 27124

SUBTOIAL 6373 HR 27157 8~0 7 7~ 2106 30877 TREE BALER GAS I 46D HR 1932 354 5~7 1904 4747TRAILER GAS 15 HP 600 HR 3300 822 720 1128 5970LABOR MISC ~OOO NROVERHEAD EXPENSES 16800 16800 OOHlE 2321 12763 12763 bull SUBTOTAL 13~56 HREMPLOYEE SENEF lIS 89~3 89~3 bull 57296 1680 1548 4214 6~7 38

INSURANCE 850 850 bull OVERHEAD EXPEHSESFARM fACILITIES 386 366 bull OCltJNTJME 3~70LAND RENT 8163 8163 bull 19637 19637EMPLOYEE BENet liSGENERAL amp ADMINISTRATlOil 5000 5000 bull 13729 13729 SUPERVISION 7500 7500 bull INSURANCE

850 850FARM FACILITIESOTHER 3000 3000 bull 386 386LAND RENTMARXETING 2399~ 2399~ 8163 8163

SUPERVISION GeNERAL 8 ADMINISTRATION

5000 5000 SUBTOTAL 2321 HR 23994 29206 17399 70599 7500 7500

MARKETING OTHER

3000 300048050 48050

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 14769 HR 29550 ~~401 347~ 1250 287125 367738 bullbull SUBTOTAL 3570 HR ~8050 ~0866 17399 106315 IIpoundT OPERATING PROfIT 1121~2

TOIAl OPERATING EXPENSES 22292 HRINTEREST (JIj OPERATTNG CAPlTAL 6545 62910 117140 9338 2911 708395 900694 INTEREST (JIj EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 2473 NET OPERATING PROFIT

60306 10312~

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT IHVESlMENT 8659

3361 RETURN TO R I so

TIoCmiddotTHIRDS OF THESE COSTS IlERE ALLOCATED AS PROOUCTl(Jlj COSTS fORIREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 7 48286iI ~--~-- ----- ~ --~--- -~------ -----~-- yen - bullbullbullbull -- ~ -- ----_ _w ___ ________ 0 _______ _w __ IHIS TOTAL INCCltPORATES ONLY THE EXPENSE ASSOCATEO WITH THE TREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 6 BECAUSE OF THIS THE COLUMN

WILL NOT SUM TO THIS VALUE

24 25

~ i C -i Q

= foil

Table 15 Cash flow for a 160-aere Cbristmas tree rann (147 net planted aeres lIIII====_=====IIIlIII======S=II==2=II=___1I3_III========s_bullbullbullbull=z=a==a============bullbull==~=bullbullbull==11======aSS==lIIlII======================================================

Year 1 fear 2 Year J tear 4 Year 5 Year 6 fear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 fear 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 lllttows _=====

Sale of Trees so so so so so $101035 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 S302585 S302585 $302585 $302585 OUtflows

Purchased Input 5 Tree stock 1921019m 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210Cover ~rass seed 315 9sect1~ 19m 315 315 315 19m 19m 315 19m 19m 19m 19m315 315 315 315erbicuSe 1019 2415 3633 4851 5628 6405 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741Insecticide o 378 756 1~ 1890 22611 22611 22611 22611 2268 2268 2268 22611 22611Ftrlgicide o o o H~ 1087 U~ 1449 U~ 1449 1449 449 ~~~ 1449 1449 t449 1449Amonhn Sui tate o 444 1109 1~ 5676 5676 5676 ~~~X 5676 5676Tree guards 788 788 788 2~ 4~~ 788 53 53 53 788 788 5~ 5~ 53788 788 788Miscellaneous tools 420 578 735 893 105g 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365Twine o o o o i~ 1220 l~~ l~~ij 1220 1220 1220 1220 1220 lm lnOIrrigatlon system 31500 3150031 508 31500 31500 31500 31500 3150g 31500 31500 31~~g 31500 31500 31500 31 gtog 31~~g 31500 31500Eqult 33750 o o o 1045g o o o 266j0 o o a 10450 o oFarm facilities 17000 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oPre-harvest Operations o CustQll1 1_ preparation 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651Spray 204 578 844 1271 1698 2124 2498 2498 2~g 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498Harrow 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 168 1611 1611 Mark rows 309 309 309 Seed 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 Haul plants 42 42 42 42 42 309309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309

42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42Pl t (hand) 1861 2 ~Iy Netting 1~ 1~

794 1~ ~2 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ ~2 1~ 1 1861 1861 1861 861 li~ Orlp installaton 221 221 221 211

~l 794 794 794 794 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 2lt1495 990 1485 1733 1980 2228 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475Shear amp train 2415a o 864 2303 3743 7398- 1~~~ 1~~~ 10283 10283 10283 10283

i seel taneous 1amp1raquor 882 76 2646 Appt ter t it i zer o o o 10~g~ 10m 10m 10~g~ 10~g~ 10283

35 71 141 182 182 182 182 182 182 lr2 Purping costs 480 1121 617435l8 5292 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 Ot 174 6174 6174 6174

Harvest operations 2081 3l02 i~~g 5923 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 73k4

Cut tr~s o Drag amp load trees o 2807o o 935 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 Wrap trees o o 2374 7115 ~~~~ ~~~ 1115 7115 7115 7115 7115 7~ 7115o o o 298 895 895 895 7J~ 895 7~~~ 895 895 895 895 895Haul trees o o o 508 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525MisceHaneous labOr o 1525o o 1455 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366Overheed Oowotime 648 1007 IS58 2235 2911 5522 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346E1lloy benefits 4611 742 1145 1631 3933 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581Insurance 179 357 536 114 2~~

1071 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250Land r~t 1575 3150 4725 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025G amp A 1050 lloo 3150 4lOO 5250 6300 tgro 7350 7350 7350 7350 1~m k~~~ 7350 ~m 7350 7350 735a~~~Vision 472S 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11021575 3150

11m 11~~~ 025 11~~630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 63mMarketng II o o o o 5052 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 lSI29

1 Based on total of 147 planted acres by Year 7 A total of 21 (Jeres are planted each year year 1 consists ot 21 planted acres year 2 a total of 42 etC

-- --~ -~-~ r IJampamp $ ~H ~M LgtH~-~Lw~

110 0 middot W It 110 OO~~~~o~~OOO OampooooooosectOii S~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~H~ = - 11 11=L = 110 _ N N 0 M

bull c _~_

bullbullbull 2 _ M~

cash needs of the operation The farm will produce a positivei 0goooo00020poundN t-~~~~ t-~Fg~ORi ~ UNHIt U to OOE~l2~O~ft~oOI L 110 lS -lIi iIl~lI)t i1 ---a~ - 3

N annual cash flow starting in the seventh year However a total N bullbull u _N N~ - - ~N ~ $E~3

bullbull It 0 t N of $540819 in cash is expended through the first 6 years Ao~ooooooo~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~V~~ ~=~==~C ~ OOi~~~~O$~OOO ~ laquoS_~_ i i6~ ~gIIt_~o~ -=~ I total of 11 years are needed (five positive cash producingbullM Ii IfII 110 II n N -~ ~ _ N t- _ _ ~ ~~~= N III H 0 years) before the cash outflows incurred during the first 6 ~

~ = =a OOsect~~~O~OOO o~ooooooo~~~i 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ =~= years are covered This is based on selling trees at $1240L= V ~ ~N ~~ ~~ ~4 N~ ~~~ i i~e s -- N S The budgets were developed for a 35-year period because=gt- tt n this was thought to be a reasonable economic life5~~ ~ OO~~~roO~~O~O degmoooooooi~~ ~=~~~ ~mi5~5~~ ~=~= amp0 - ~ - III middot

__ ~ ~ _ 0 Nt- _ Ntn ~~~ ~ -~~- ~ pound Additionally a 35-year life allows for five 7-year

planting-through-harvest rotations Based on the rotationbull C) MM C OO~~~~degri~OOO OampOOOOOOO~~~~m 2E~~~ ~~~sect~~~~ ~u~= i c L ~ ~

N~v N N~ ~~ N~ ~4 ~~~~~~ ~ iii schedule only Inth of the total acreage would be planted ini = i

-SfIJ n= ~ - -I anyone year The cash costs in year 1 therefore include onlyRi = ~ ~~~~~i~~5me~~ i~sect~~ ~~~~~~~~ E~ lias amp0 ~~~~~~J~~~~OO H II n ~ 0- ~~w- ~ = ~~ Nt- - ~~_~t- ~ ~ct N planting expense for Inth of the total acreage or 21 acresW - - -= ~ Year 2 would again include planting expenses for Inth of theCtI 110- -~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~o~~~g~ ~G~ liN Q) $ ___ cOP ___~ i_IiInJX lIlCoo~_ flt nc II II tn ~~i~~~~~~~~00 =~ N ~ 0_11 - N w (1= Ot- N~ Oo~t-- i Ef~~ acreage and the second year growing expenses for the 21=- =tt ~ - acres planted originally The total expenses of a fullymiddot =S 1II ~~~_~~~~~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~sect~~ l~~~~~~~ Ec~ _ tl_-= ~u ~ operating facility are first incurred in the seventh year The

~ ~NII -~_ 1I1f N ~o~ N~ - ~o~=~~ ~ eg~R- 1111 0 - t first year of full revenue is also obtained in year 7 (21 acres of Cite ~ ~~~~~~~N~~~~~ ~~~~~ I~~~~~g~ ~r~i

~ _ ~ cOPNN __~ ~_m~~ ~1nO~O~~ Nfl~M

= or ~~~~~~~~~~O tt l 387 trees in their sixth year and 21 acres of 775 trees in their0- ~N_~ _ _0 N ~o~ N~ - ~~_=t--= ~ ~gGbull N= iI - - - ~i 1 seventh year ofgrowth)III

4iiii i~ ~ As the farm approaches the end of its economic life it was~~~_~~~~~~~~OO i~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~pound~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~i~E i

I middotL= 0- -oN_tI- - ~ N _ N~ot-- Nt-- ~ ~o_~t-= ~ ~U~ ii= = ~ assumed that the operator would stop planting Therefore as 11 - a l ~ 13 ~~~~g~i~N~~~~~ i~~~~ ~~a~~IC~~ E=~= of year 29 no more planting expenses are incurred It wasltV bull V ~~~~~~~~~~OO 0- N - -= ~N0ftIo - Ieo ~ t= -oN 1I _0- - N~ ~~ Nt- - ~o-~= ~ ~ft~c =a ~ - t assumed the land would be either left idle or used for otherIIIJ - -

= ~ purposes In year 35 the final year of operation only 21 acresa~= tQ ~~~~~~~re~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~ E~a N 0- -0 ___ _III u N _ N~o~ N~ _~ ~o-=~= ~ ~~~III ~ ~ of seventh-year trees would remain to be harvested At thisgt- - - -I point the entire operation would be closed down No salvagesect ii~ 1II ~~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~$~9~~ i~~~~ ~~~~sect~~ E~I II

II Ltf __ ~ ~N-II N ~ Ni ~~ N~ ~~ ~~~i~ i ~=in value was assumed because the land used was either leased or ~ -11~ 1= shy

I ~ rented and all equipment or buildings had no remainingc 15 ~ ft ~~~rd~~J~~~~~O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~E~iIII 0- QN-V 0 N _ N~o~ N ~~_~~~ ~ ~~~ i useful life H= ~ - ltgt ~ 15 Over the project life it would be necessary to replace some to tQ ~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~S~~~ 2Ei~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~5~i t ~ equipment For the purpose of this study it was assumed that~ I ~ -oN_~ _ - N _ N~ ~~ _ ~o_=~~ ~ ~~ I -= I= ~ - i all equipment would be used until it was no longer-=1 ~lt~S~-~N~~~~1 t-~~~~ ~co~~~o~ ~ft i011 V-- ~ o~- ~~NN__~ i_~V~ ~II~OO~_ ~~ ~~~~~_~i~~~OO a salvageable at which point it would be replaced new Table 16

r bullbull tv () -ON _ - N N~o~ ~ _ ~o-== ~ ~I~ I middot ~ - - - ~ shows the replacement schedule assumed in the cash flow i ~ Note that this table reflects the assumed useful life of the~ -=bull gi

i

iii s equipment rather than its depreciable life Also two itemsCgt I 1 u lJi~ ~ t- I ~ - ~ i the chain saws and the tree balers are not necessary until year -111) l -E I ~ l~~ _E ==Ilbull- ~ 1 ~j c ~ ~ ~ -5 -_ bull s

~~~ ~ ~~ _ ~ ~ L~ OL ~ 0 6 II 6 and were not purchased until that time Based on the highc _~~~~~WL ~-=] ii1t~ ~~ ulpoundlzl ~~ ~ = 1 i~uZul ~~I S Lo-- 2 L ~It~~ -i ~ ~

J L~_ ~m LOCmiddot gt- ampogt-~-~~ ~tc -lt 0 011 CIt -= = 2 ~~~t~5middotFi~f~~i~iitli-~fi~fifiiiI f Ii ~ilaquoI - ~ =~U=_~~~~~_W~U0Z~EZ~CQE~CEAL3QZEQW_~000 ~middot - ~ 8 Ii ~ I ~ middotmiddot -

29

111

f ~middot~middot~LC -- - ~i~

n ~ illII I~ II

Ii II

~~ Table 16 Equipment replacement schedule for a 160-acre ~ Christmas tree farm in New Mexico 1988 ~

usage during a short time period and the relatively short life of these items they were replaced every 5 years

Analysis

Because there are many unknowns encountered when projecting cost and returns and because different locations may be faced with different situations a series of scenarios were provided to evaluate the financial feasibility of the project Three major variables were altered concurrently to create the different scenarios These variables were

1 Prices 2 Yields 3 Costs

Price

A base price of $1240 was assumed The sensitivity of the return to a change of $1 increments over a range of $2 was measured

Yield

Changes in teld were based on altering the number of saleable trees This was done as a percentage of the total trees planted For example a 90 rate would mean that 90 of the 1452 trees originally planted or 1307 trees were available for sale This variable not only affect~ gross revenue but also alters any costs associated with the number of trees harvested Costs such as cutting field hauling baling and brokering are all altered by changes in the number of trees harvested and were assumed to be linear

Yield might also be altered by decreasing the space between trees For example a 5 by 5 spacing yields 1742 planted trees If 80 were saleable this would be 1394 trees

30

Item

Facilities

Well

Tractor

PTO sprayer

Trailer

Mower

Injector

Rotary pruners

Chain saw

Tree baler

iIIii Year ~

L 6 lL 16 2L 26 JL II~ Cost ~

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -(dollars) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- If 17000 ~

~ 10200 i

~

1bull1 113000 13000 13000 13000 1

~I 1200 1200 1200 1200 ~

bull p

~Ii ~

2400 II

800 800 800 800 ~ -I

I1200 1200 1200 1200 ~ 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 t

IiiIii 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 J

~ ~ ~ JOW JOW ~ ~ JOW

50750 10450 26650 10450 26650 10450 26650 I~ISource Table 3 IiIJ

f ~ J ~Cost ~

11I~ Because costs vary by farm and by location it was felt that a sensitivity should be performed on this variable Rather than bull

talter a specific cost or a specific category of costs the total bullIIj

cost was increased or decreased by a percentage and the Ji results evaluated Costs were altered in 10 increments in ~

Iijeither direction The 0 column uses those costs shown in the cash flow

t ~II

1

~I~ 31 ~

Feasibility Assessment

The internal rate of return (IRR) is a technique used to evaluate investment opportunities that incorporates the time value of money concept The internal rate of return for an investment project (in this case a Christmas tree planting) is the discount rate that equates the present value of the annual net cash revenue flows with the projects acquisition cost The net cash revenue is the difference between the cash receipts and cash expenses generated by an investment project over its economic life The time value of money is based on the economic fact that $1 today is worth more than a promise of $1 at some future date because of its current earnings potential

An investment can be accepted or rejected based on its internal rate of return (IRR) Acceptability of the investment depends on a comparison of the IRR with the investors required rate of return (RRR) Acceptability can be based on the following decision rules if IRR exceeds RRR accept the investment if IRR = RRR be indifferent and if IRR is less than RRR reject the investment

While IRR is a useful technique in project evaluation there are some problems with its use The major concern when using IRR is it assumes all cash inflows can be reinvested at the same rate as the resulting IRR percentage Should the IRR percentage be in the vicinity of the current rates of return of other investment instruments IRR is a reasonably accurate measure of return on investment However should the rate of return be much higher than current returns available elsewhere the resulting return on investment may be overstated The inverse is true at lower rates of return

The Net Present Value (NPV) is another way of evaluating projects that involve capital outlays over a period of years The NPV method discounts all future cash outlays and inflows back to a present-year basis using a specified interest (discount rate) The discount rate chosen is usually the opportunity cost of using equity funds in an alternative use or the cost of borrowed capital increased by an appropriate premium for risk or a combination of these The NPV

32

method is preferred over the IRR method when evaluating one investment against alternative similar type investments

Based on the sensitivity analysis discussed above a table was developed to show the IRR under the various scenarios Table 17 shows the internal rates by the per-unit price The analyses is based on pre-tax returns At $1040 per tree the IRR ranges from -14 when costs were increased by 10 and saleable yields were reduced to 60 to 160 when costs were decreased by 10 and 90 of the trees planted were sold At $1140 the IRR range is from 14 to 185 under the same conditions as above At $1240 per tree the IRR ranges from 38 when costs were increased 10 and 60 of the trees are saleable to 207 when costs were decreased 10 and saleable yields were at 90 At $1340 per tree the IRR ranges from 60 to 228 At $1440 per tree a grower could expect an IRR from 80 to 248 under the scenarios presented

A pre-tax analysis using Net Present Value (NPV) was also completed for the various scenarios The results of this analysis are shown in table 18

If an IRR of 12 is chosen as a minimum rate desired for investment growers must receive at least $1140 per tree and attain a level of 80 saleable trees and good cost control to have a successful investment At prices greater than $1140 per tree and 80 saleable product the investment appears to have possibility

33

Table 17 Internal Rates of Return (lRR) estimates for a 160-acre Table 18 Net Present Value (NPV) estimates for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost cbanges cha~es Ising a discount rate of 12

Percentage Percentageof saleable Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount

of saleabletrees 10 lower No chan~ 10 bilber trees --percent-shy

_______ - - - - - - - - - - - (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - shy

$1040 Tree Price 900 130 102900 160 BOO

SOO 128 97 69 700 60 31700 91 600

-14600 48 16

$1140 Tree Price( 900 127185 155

123 95900 800 SOO 153 700 700 116 86 58 600

14600 74 43

$1240 Tree Price 900 lJJ7 178 150900 BOO

118SOO 176 146 700 139 109 81700 600

38600 97 66

$1340 Tree Price 900 900 228 198 171 BOO

167 139SOO 197 700103700 161 130 600

600 119 88 60

$1440 Tree Price 900 BOO

248 218 191900 700159SOO 216 186 600

180 150 123700 80

Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount _ 10 lOwer No change 10 higher

-middot----middotmiddot---middot--bull-----dollars------bullbullbullbull -bullbullbull shy

$1040 Tree Price 175195 32602

(110936) (253415)

44502 (97269)

(2399BO) (381637)

(86191) (227140) (369023) (509859)

$1140 Tree Price 299293 167950 36607 142927

(14476) (170717)

12478 (144024) (299372)

(117971) (273573) (428028)

$1240 Tree Price 423391 291398 159406 253252 81984

(88019)

122225 (48069)

(217107)

(8BOl) (178123) (346196)

$1340 Tree Price 547489 414847 282204 363576 231972 100368 178445 (5321)

47886 (134842)

(82673) (264364)

$1440 Tree Price 671587 538295 405003 473901 341719 209538 274905 143841 12777 77377 (52578) (182532)

138 108 N01E Parentheses mean negative number

34 35

600

Investor Analysis

The following analysis considers the impact of the US tax laws (revised October 1987) on investing in Christmas trees The approach is identical to the previous IRR and NPV analysis except the impact of federal and state income taxes is considered in the annual stream of cash flow

The basis assumptions used are as follows

1 The taxpayer investor is in a 40 tax bracket on marginal income when combining both state and federal income taxes

2 The investor is actively engaged in managing the Christmas tree farm so that revenues and losses can be counted as active income or the investor has other passive investment income to offset any passive losses from growing Christmas trees

3 The Section 179 one-time deduction of $10000 per year is used in other businesses operated by the investor

4 Depreciation was calculated using the modified ACRS rules published by the IRS in 1987 Publication 225

5 The Christmas tree enterprise falls under the IRS rules for Christmas tree cultivation requiring capitalization of planting and stump culture for trees more than 6 years of age Because one-third of the trees are sold within the 6-year time limit one-third of planting expenses were deducted in the year incurred and the remaining two-thirds were capitalized and written off when the trees were sold in the seventh year

6 The investor uses a cash accounting system for tax purposes

36

The pre-tax IRR for the scenario with trees selling for $1240 each 80 harvestable yield and standard costs was 146 The IRR after-tax considerations fell to 125 (table 19) One might compare the after-tax return of 125 to other after-tax investments of comparable risks The after-tax NPV for the above scenario is $18069 compared to the pre-tax NPV of $122225 using a 12 discount rate

37

0

Table 19 Investor cash now analysis lor a l6O-acre Christmas tree larm (per planted acre basis) S=~=bullbull=I==~==~=bullbull====iI=bullbull2a==IIiIII bullbullbullbull===========n====ZIUSS=====bullbull===lllJ=====$~nUIlt1=llIIlta====s=a====II===============bullbullbull==II=~====lltz===-===U===========1II==X=======_==li=

Year 1 rHr 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year S Ye8l 6 tear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 1Q Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Tear 18

Net Cash Flow BelMe T8)( ConeiderattOlS (116411) (75439) (86658) (99354)(111768) (51189) 119810 119810 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810

Tax ONKtiona

Oeprec i at i on Irrigation syat far Foelli amp Equip

7875 1440

14625 7440

19446 7440

22890 7440

25378 7440

27156 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

Planting E_ 8209 10585 13004 16006 18568 22423 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031

~~~- ~t~t 1~~~r 1~ n~~ ~~m i~m ~M ~U~~ ~~M ~M ~~~ ~m ~M ~~~ ~~~ ~~M ~~M ~~M Total TalC DeOoctlons 33265 49193 65833 81973 96875 130860 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189341 189341 189311 189341 189341 189311

~rI~ (3326~) (4979~) (6583g) (819~) (968~) l~m) m~ ~~~~f~ mJ~ ~H~ m~~ mm ~~H~~ ~~B~ ~~im mm mJ~ ~~B2~ Inc_ ra Saings 13306 19917 26333 32189 38750 11930 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc_ TalC Oue 0 0 0 0 0 0 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297

let Cash flow (1037) (5522) (60325) (66) (737018) (397259) 74512 7Z2 74512 74512 7862 7512 74~12 rZSt2 142 M=062 1512 14512 =s===========s=_====sbullbullc=======-===================_======-=-==========I====S======-===========================e===s====================s==============r=================

Net Cash Flow Before Tax Considerations 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810 119810 190654 179442 217765 230460 242421 165733

T81 OlaquoiJcti ons

Depreciation

~ili~r Equip 2g~~ 2U~~ 2~~~ 2~~ 2~~~~ 2~g~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ 2~~ 2~~~ 2~n~ 1~~J ~~8 ~~~ f2zS 2~

~i~-OVerhoad

zg8M62335

zg8M62335

Z~~~ 62335

zg8M62335

ig8M62335

zg~~62335

i8M62335

i8M62335

t8M62335

i~8M 62335

Zg~~62335

~~~~~53665

~~~~ 46402

~tg~~40943

~~ ~~~35402 29986

ll~8~~

Total TaJ( Deduct_ 189341 189341 187121 187121 187121 187121 181121 181121 187121 187121 187121 156112 133925 117431 101291 86842 60718

I Froll Sales 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 201550 ~~~es~~= 1132~ m24~ 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154~ 1154~ 14647~ 16866g 1855~ 20129t 21574~ 1408~

Income la~ Due ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ Met Cash FloW =-2========SCI========

74512=I=====

74512 46974 73624 73624 73624 73624 63174 73624 __===_=_=============bullbullbullSamp====1II_1I31amp=II================_=II==__ == 73624_===__==

73624=======

132065 _=-=bullbull

111978======S=====

143703 ======_==

149943=======1I

156124 ========laquo

109400 ======_

~

Appendix Table Amiddotl United States Department ofAgriculture grade standards for Christmas trees

Christmas Tree Grades Factor US Premium US No1 US No2

Density Not less than Not less than Light or better medium medium

Tapera Normal- Normal- May be less than 40 to 90 40 to 90 40 or more

than 90

Damage-free faceb 4 3 2

Foliage Fresh clean Fresh clean Fresh clean and healthy and healthy and healthy

Shapec Well-shaped Well-shaped Well-shaped crown crown crown

Handle not Handle not Handle not less less than 6 less than 6 less than 6 or more than or more than or more than 134 per foot 1 34 per foot 1 34 per foot of tree height of tree height of tree height

aTaper of a tree is defined as the width of a tree expressed as a percentage of its height

Face means the visible surface area of a tree as viewed from 8 to 10 feet from the tree A tree is considered to have four faces each face constituting 14 of the tree

cHeight of a tree is defined in terms of foot or half-foot steps and is measured from the base of the handle to a point on the leader not more than 4 feet above the apex of the cone of the taper

Source Proebsting Buhaly and Wanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest 1981

40

4iUJiMMiFeuro iampi~t~Ityen)--

Literature Cited

Clevenger Tom et at The Wholesale and Processing Market for Locally Grown High Value Crops Research Report 572 New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station July 1985

Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture (Mora Research Center) New Mexico State University Guidelines for Growing and Marketing Christmas Trees in New Mexico New Mexico Department of Natural Resources October 1980

Huntley Wallace Marketing Christmas Trees-Turning a Problem into an Opportunity American Christmas Tree Journal August 1984 pp 41-43

Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury Fanners Tax Guide Publication 225

Proebsting William M Joseph Buhaly and Donald Hanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest Pacific Northwest Extension Publication PNW6 January 1981

41

Page 14: Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and ...

MtiS 4ampIi- iJi4MliIllITftif ~2k+Csectlgt--~Smiddot-f

year the full-cost budget for years 6 and 7 include an establishment expense under the purchased input category (tables 13 and 14) This expense is based on cost estimates from the first five years of production and is prorated to the appropriate year based upon the harvest yield ratio S Because there is a time value associated with the capital used to grow the trees a compounding factor was also included The rate used to compound was 10 The total establishment expense per planted acre was estimated to be $2782 allocated in year 6 and $6840 in year 7 The $6840 allocated in year 7 includes $616 of interest expenses associated with having to wait another year (year 6 to 7) before these expenses are recovered The establishment expenses amounted to $719 and $883 per harvested tree respectively for trees harvested in the sixth and seventh years Net returns would increase significantly if all trees would reach harvestable size by year 6

Total Cost Per Acre

Based on the budget estimates made for years 6 and 7 a total cost of $12895 per acre planted or $1110 per tree harvested was required to grow Christmas trees through harvest This cost includes all equipment expenses chemicals land rent labor overhead and interest

Price Sensitivity of Full-Cost Budgets

To determine the return to risk when all costs are accounted for the gross revenue must also be estimated The gross revenue is a function of number of trees harvested and the price per tree The yield of 80of the total planting or 1162 trees was assumed as fIXed in this part of the analysis and only the price was varied A per tree price of $1240 was used as the base with a $1 change in either direction Using the $1240 per tree price a net return of $158372 per acre harvested was derived At $1140 per tree $1 less a net return

gtc)f the total yield 13 was harvested in year 6 and 23 in year 7

q

i g

I middoto~ ~ ~8

~i ~ ~

_z1~ ~s -~

~g

~

~ ~3

z ~ ~i r cu

m~zIi ~ ~=gt

~s ~-

5 oS ~

~J t ~It ~c= ~c lI-Q

i l- ~~ fI) = I iI~ = CIt

f 8 ~ a

(I III laquoIC 5 ~cI iIoU ~

ltI ~ CllioS~ Ol fo- ~ ~ j$ S ~ ~In~

~~~ggg

oi~oo -o-4-C~ ~

0000 0utqno 0

ritO 0 ~-4tltl- N

w ~w

tJtDWU C-amptoe(

oot)o ~~~lt= _Ot) -0

Ie

8glg~~~~i~~g~ t o~-eOaiNOQN 0 N-4N S

11 N ~ill -- 0

~ ~ ~~

1tc ~ ~~ -4 _

I

~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~_OO~N shy 1_ ~

gg 8~ st i~ tOtO i

~ ~~~ ~ X x=~

~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~Q~~N N~

~ g~ E

~ ~ ~ 0 Q i1lJ~W

lto(c- aa~aai5~ ttlZW

~ tQ __ -I iffi Z ~wtll~ow=i~~~~ ~e=~~~5~~tUQCI =VIE a C-lI-

g~~~~g8g~ ~NeOQarQ a) ~

~~~q ~~ laquo)~ ~S

o o~~ UN ~

~ ~

0

~(fIii

~

i

o N

bull ~ l

i

~

~

~ ~

S ~

18 19

Table 9 Per acre tun cost budgets ror growiDg White Fir and Scots Pine

~-~~-~~~~-~-~~~-~-~~-~-~~-~~-~-~~~~~~~~--~~-~~-----------------------_------YIELD

HARVEST DATES PLANTING DATES

PlIlCE -- ~-- - - - bull - - - bullbull - bull - - - ~ - - bull - bull QUANTITY PUR~~~ LABOR ~~iJ~~ REPAIRS Fgi~ TOTAl

TEM UNIT __ bullbull ________ bull __ _ _ ___ ___ bull ___ ___ bull __ _ __________ bullbullbullbull _________ bullbullbullbullbullbullbull _ bull ------_ bullbullbullbullbullbull - -- bull bull - - - - bull (DOLLARS) bullbullbull - - bullbullbull

PURCHASED INPUTS 6650100 ACRE 66501lER8ICIOE 1800100 ACRE 1800INSECTICIDE 211523500 LB 2115MOIII~ SULFATE 750100 ACRE 750MISCELLANECIlS TOOLS 1131511315SUBTOTAL

PREHARVEST OPERATIONS 21751309 319 209 338PTO SPRAYER (X) ampAS IS P 238 HR 27491738 423 275 313MOWER (410 GAS 15 HP 316 HR 4200

Mise 1000 HR 4200LABOR 3226~ 360 IR 2812 238 176WELL (ex) ELE

123501914 7247 3554 722 827SUBTOTAL

OVERfAD EXPENSES 1709311 1709OOWIITIME EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

13041304 850 850

INSURANCE 386 386 FARM FACILITIES 8163 8163 LAND RENT 5000 5000GENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION 75007500suPERVISION 3D00 3000 OTHER

17399 2791210513SUBTOTAL 311 HR

3554 722 18226 515_7711315 17760TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 2225 IR

-51577NET OPERATING PROFIT

2678INTEREST ON OPERATI~G CAPITAL 831INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT

-55086 ~~~~-~~~~- _- _- -_ -_ ----- --_ ---- -- -- ----_ --_ --___ _ - _------ __

Table 10 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 3 estabUshment) NM 1988 PLANTING DATES YIELDHARVEST OATES PRICE

POWER PURCHASED FUEL OIL FIXEDITEM UNIT QUANTITY INPUTS lABOR LUBRICANT REPAIRS COST TOTAL --_ - - _- ---- - -_ -- --_ - - - -(DOlLARS)

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE 5800 5800MOIII~ SULFATE 35200 LB 3168 3168INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800MISCELLANECIlS TOOLS 100 ACRE 750 750

SIJIITOTAL 11518 11518

PRE HARVEST OPERATIONS ROTARY PRUIINERS GAS 900 HR 3780 234 108 495 4617PTO SPRAYER (5X) GAS 15 HP 1 70 R 935 228 150 241 1554MOWER (4X) ampAS 15 HP 316 HR 1738 423 275 313 2149LABOR Mise 1000 IR 4200 4200ELL (12X) ELE 540 HR 4217 356 265 4838

N SUBTOTAL 2926 10653 5102 889 1314 17958 - (MRNfAl) EXPENSES OOWIITiME 477 2625 2625EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1918 1918INSURANCE 850 850FARM FACILITIES 386 386LAIIO RENT 8163 8163GENERAL _rNISTRATlON 5000 5000SUPERViSiON 7500 7500OTHER 3000 3000

SUBTOTAL 477 HR 2043 17399 29442

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 3403 HR 11518 22696 5102 889 18713 58918

NET OPERATI KG PROF IT middot58918

I NTEREST ON OPERAT I NG CAP ITAL 2930 INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT INVESTMENT 964

RETURN TO RISK 62812 ~ -~- -_ ~ ~~ ~ _ - -

Table 11 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas ~~~~~~~~~~~_~~~t~~~~~ ___ _ ~i~~middotDAEmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot YIELD

HARVEST OATES PRICE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull PURCHASED FUEL Oil FIXED

PMR INPUTS LA~ LUBRICANT REPAIRS COST TOTAL ~~~~~~- middotmiddotDOt~~middot PURCHASED INPUTS

HERBICIDE 100 ACRE 5800 5800 INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 fUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 AMONIUM SULFATE 46900 LB 4221 4221 MlsCElLANEClJS TOOLS 100 ACRE 750 750

SUBTOTAL 14296 14296

PRE HARVEST OPERA liONS ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) CAS 1500 HR 6300 390 180 825 7695 PTO SPRAYER (ax) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 364 239 386 2485 MOIlER (2X) CAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374~ FERT INJECTOR ElE 030 HR 011 061 096 168 LABOR MISC 1000 HR 4200 4200 lElL (14X) [L 630 HR 49bull 20 416 309 5645

SUBTOTAL 3590 12865 5897 1033 1772 21567

OVERHEAD EXPENSES DOIINTIM 586 3223 3223 EMPLOYEE BENEF ITS 2316 2316 INSURANCE 850 850 FARM FACILITIES 386 386 LAND RENT 8163 8163 CENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION 5000 5000 SUPERVI SION 7500 7500 OTHER 3000 3000

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039 17399 30438

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 4176 HR 14296 25904 5897 1033 19171 66301

NET OPERATl NG PROF IT 66301

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL 3247 INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 1102

70650~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~--

Table 12 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas trees (year 5 establishment) NM 1988 PLANTING OATES HARVEST OATES YIELD

PRICE

lIEM PMR

IJHlT QUANT lTy PURCHASED

INPUTS

~~~~~

FUEL OlL LA80R LUBRICANT

REPAIRS FIXED COST TOTAL

PURCHASED INPUTS - shy ~ ~ bull bull bull (DOLLARS) bull - bull HER81CIOE INSECTICIDE FUNCICIOE AMOHIUM SULFATE MI SCELLANEOUS TOOLS

SU8TOTAL

PREHARVEST oPERATIONS

100 ACRE 100 ACRE 100 ACRE

46900 L8 100 ACRE

3700 1800 1725 4221 750

12196

3700 1800 1725 4221

750

12196

ROTARY PRUHNERS (2X) PTO SPRAYER (8X) MOIlER aX) FERT INJECTOR LABOR WELL (16X)

SUBTOTAL

OVERHEAD EXPENSES

CAS CAS 15 HP CAS 15 HP ELE MISC ELE

1500 H 272 HR 158 HR 030 HR

1000 HR 720 HR

3680

6300 1496 869

4200

12865

390 364 212 011

5623

6600

180 239 137 061

475

1092

825 386 156 096

353

1816

7695 2485 1374 168

4200 6451

22373

OOIHIME EMPLOYEE BENEFf TS INSURANCE FARM FACILITIES LANI RENT GENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION SUPERVISION OTHER

586 3223 2316

7500

850 386

8163 5000

3223 2316 850 386

8163 5000 7500

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039

3000

17399

3000

30438

TOTAL OPERAJINC EXPENSES 4266 HR 12196 25904 6600 1092 19215 65007 NET oPERA T I HG PROf I T

65007 INTEREST ON OPERATINC CAPITAL INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 3142

1153 RETURN TO bull I SK bull ~ bullbullbull - _ - - ~ - _ - - _ bullbullbullbull - - ~ _ bullbull - _ bullbullbullbull bullbull - bullbullbull

~ - - -_ _-_ __--_ _---__- 69302

Table 13 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine

~~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J~~~~~~ Table 14 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine PL~NTIMG DATES YIELD 387 TREES GROSS RETURNSS4198 80 HARVEST DATES NOVEMBER 15 bull DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0TREE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbull bullbull

bull - bullbull - bullbullbull - bull bull bull bull ~C~A~E~ - FUEL OIL FIXED ~middot~middot~7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~U~~~~~ PLANT INC DATES YIelD 775 TREESQUANT ITY INPUTS LABOR LUBRICANT REPAIU COST TOTAL

~ ___ w~ ___ ____ _ ____ ____ _ _ _ ___ HARVEST OATES NOVEM8ER 15 DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0IREE ~ CROSS RETURNS$9iIOOO - bullbullbullbull (DOLLARS) bullbullbullbullbullbull - bull shy

pOlin PURCHASEDPURCHASED INPUTS ITEM fUEl OIL FIXEDUNIT OUANT IlY INPUTSHERBltlDE 100 ACRE 3700 3700 bull lABOR LUBRICANT RePAIRS-_ _---- _--- _---_ _---- - _--_ - _- __ __ -- COST TOTAL INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 bull FUNGICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 bull bull (DOLLARS) bull A_IUM SULFATE 93800 LB 8~~2 8442 bull

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE T6OOTWINE 38700 EACH 19-35 1935 1600INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800MISCELLANEros TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000 bull 1800

ESTABLISHMENT 113 2781 72 278172 FUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725AMON I UN SULFATE 5~000 lB 4860 4860

SUBTOTAL 18602 2781 72 2967 7~ TWINE 17500 EACH 3875 ~8 7~MISCELLANEOUS TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000

PREHARVEST OPERATIOIIS ESTABLISHMENT 23 ~050 ~050

ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) GAS 3800 HR 15960 988 ~56 2090 1~9~ bull SUBTOIAL 14860PTO SPRAYER (ex) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 360 239 386 2~ 85 bull ~050 698910 MOWER (2X) GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 137~ bull PREHARVEST OPERATIONSfERT INJECTOR ELE 035 oR 012 071 112 195 bull ROTARY PRUNNERS (2)) GAS 3000 HRLABOR Mise 1000 HR ~200 ~2 00 bull 12600 780 360 1650 I5~90PTO SPRAYER (xl GAS 15 HP 238 HRIlELL lt18X) ElE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258 bull MOIlER (ZX) 1309 319 209 338 21 75GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374fEAT INJECTOR ELE 060 HSUBTOTAL 6075 22525 7902 1~38 31~1 35006 021 122 191 334LABOR MIse 1000 HR ~200 4200

HARVEST OPERATIONS WELL (18X) ELE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258

CHAIN SAW GAS 968 HR 4066 252 136 590 50~~ SUBTOTAL 5266DRAG amp lOAD HAND 3225 HR 13545 135~5 18978 7658 1363 2732 J0731 TREE BALER GAS 230 HR 966 177 278 952 2373 HARVEST OPERATIONSTRAILER GAS 15 HP 300 HR 1650 ~11 360 560 2985 CHAIN SAW GAS 1938 HRLABOR Mise 1650 HR 6930 6930 81~0 504 271 1182 10097DRAG amp LOAD HAND 6058 HR 27124 27124

SUBTOIAL 6373 HR 27157 8~0 7 7~ 2106 30877 TREE BALER GAS I 46D HR 1932 354 5~7 1904 4747TRAILER GAS 15 HP 600 HR 3300 822 720 1128 5970LABOR MISC ~OOO NROVERHEAD EXPENSES 16800 16800 OOHlE 2321 12763 12763 bull SUBTOTAL 13~56 HREMPLOYEE SENEF lIS 89~3 89~3 bull 57296 1680 1548 4214 6~7 38

INSURANCE 850 850 bull OVERHEAD EXPEHSESFARM fACILITIES 386 366 bull OCltJNTJME 3~70LAND RENT 8163 8163 bull 19637 19637EMPLOYEE BENet liSGENERAL amp ADMINISTRATlOil 5000 5000 bull 13729 13729 SUPERVISION 7500 7500 bull INSURANCE

850 850FARM FACILITIESOTHER 3000 3000 bull 386 386LAND RENTMARXETING 2399~ 2399~ 8163 8163

SUPERVISION GeNERAL 8 ADMINISTRATION

5000 5000 SUBTOTAL 2321 HR 23994 29206 17399 70599 7500 7500

MARKETING OTHER

3000 300048050 48050

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 14769 HR 29550 ~~401 347~ 1250 287125 367738 bullbull SUBTOTAL 3570 HR ~8050 ~0866 17399 106315 IIpoundT OPERATING PROfIT 1121~2

TOIAl OPERATING EXPENSES 22292 HRINTEREST (JIj OPERATTNG CAPlTAL 6545 62910 117140 9338 2911 708395 900694 INTEREST (JIj EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 2473 NET OPERATING PROFIT

60306 10312~

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT IHVESlMENT 8659

3361 RETURN TO R I so

TIoCmiddotTHIRDS OF THESE COSTS IlERE ALLOCATED AS PROOUCTl(Jlj COSTS fORIREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 7 48286iI ~--~-- ----- ~ --~--- -~------ -----~-- yen - bullbullbullbull -- ~ -- ----_ _w ___ ________ 0 _______ _w __ IHIS TOTAL INCCltPORATES ONLY THE EXPENSE ASSOCATEO WITH THE TREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 6 BECAUSE OF THIS THE COLUMN

WILL NOT SUM TO THIS VALUE

24 25

~ i C -i Q

= foil

Table 15 Cash flow for a 160-aere Cbristmas tree rann (147 net planted aeres lIIII====_=====IIIlIII======S=II==2=II=___1I3_III========s_bullbullbullbull=z=a==a============bullbull==~=bullbullbull==11======aSS==lIIlII======================================================

Year 1 fear 2 Year J tear 4 Year 5 Year 6 fear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 fear 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 lllttows _=====

Sale of Trees so so so so so $101035 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 S302585 S302585 $302585 $302585 OUtflows

Purchased Input 5 Tree stock 1921019m 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210Cover ~rass seed 315 9sect1~ 19m 315 315 315 19m 19m 315 19m 19m 19m 19m315 315 315 315erbicuSe 1019 2415 3633 4851 5628 6405 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741Insecticide o 378 756 1~ 1890 22611 22611 22611 22611 2268 2268 2268 22611 22611Ftrlgicide o o o H~ 1087 U~ 1449 U~ 1449 1449 449 ~~~ 1449 1449 t449 1449Amonhn Sui tate o 444 1109 1~ 5676 5676 5676 ~~~X 5676 5676Tree guards 788 788 788 2~ 4~~ 788 53 53 53 788 788 5~ 5~ 53788 788 788Miscellaneous tools 420 578 735 893 105g 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365Twine o o o o i~ 1220 l~~ l~~ij 1220 1220 1220 1220 1220 lm lnOIrrigatlon system 31500 3150031 508 31500 31500 31500 31500 3150g 31500 31500 31~~g 31500 31500 31500 31 gtog 31~~g 31500 31500Eqult 33750 o o o 1045g o o o 266j0 o o a 10450 o oFarm facilities 17000 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oPre-harvest Operations o CustQll1 1_ preparation 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651Spray 204 578 844 1271 1698 2124 2498 2498 2~g 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498Harrow 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 168 1611 1611 Mark rows 309 309 309 Seed 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 Haul plants 42 42 42 42 42 309309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309

42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42Pl t (hand) 1861 2 ~Iy Netting 1~ 1~

794 1~ ~2 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ ~2 1~ 1 1861 1861 1861 861 li~ Orlp installaton 221 221 221 211

~l 794 794 794 794 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 2lt1495 990 1485 1733 1980 2228 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475Shear amp train 2415a o 864 2303 3743 7398- 1~~~ 1~~~ 10283 10283 10283 10283

i seel taneous 1amp1raquor 882 76 2646 Appt ter t it i zer o o o 10~g~ 10m 10m 10~g~ 10~g~ 10283

35 71 141 182 182 182 182 182 182 lr2 Purping costs 480 1121 617435l8 5292 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 Ot 174 6174 6174 6174

Harvest operations 2081 3l02 i~~g 5923 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 73k4

Cut tr~s o Drag amp load trees o 2807o o 935 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 Wrap trees o o 2374 7115 ~~~~ ~~~ 1115 7115 7115 7115 7115 7~ 7115o o o 298 895 895 895 7J~ 895 7~~~ 895 895 895 895 895Haul trees o o o 508 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525MisceHaneous labOr o 1525o o 1455 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366Overheed Oowotime 648 1007 IS58 2235 2911 5522 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346E1lloy benefits 4611 742 1145 1631 3933 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581Insurance 179 357 536 114 2~~

1071 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250Land r~t 1575 3150 4725 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025G amp A 1050 lloo 3150 4lOO 5250 6300 tgro 7350 7350 7350 7350 1~m k~~~ 7350 ~m 7350 7350 735a~~~Vision 472S 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11021575 3150

11m 11~~~ 025 11~~630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 63mMarketng II o o o o 5052 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 lSI29

1 Based on total of 147 planted acres by Year 7 A total of 21 (Jeres are planted each year year 1 consists ot 21 planted acres year 2 a total of 42 etC

-- --~ -~-~ r IJampamp $ ~H ~M LgtH~-~Lw~

110 0 middot W It 110 OO~~~~o~~OOO OampooooooosectOii S~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~H~ = - 11 11=L = 110 _ N N 0 M

bull c _~_

bullbullbull 2 _ M~

cash needs of the operation The farm will produce a positivei 0goooo00020poundN t-~~~~ t-~Fg~ORi ~ UNHIt U to OOE~l2~O~ft~oOI L 110 lS -lIi iIl~lI)t i1 ---a~ - 3

N annual cash flow starting in the seventh year However a total N bullbull u _N N~ - - ~N ~ $E~3

bullbull It 0 t N of $540819 in cash is expended through the first 6 years Ao~ooooooo~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~V~~ ~=~==~C ~ OOi~~~~O$~OOO ~ laquoS_~_ i i6~ ~gIIt_~o~ -=~ I total of 11 years are needed (five positive cash producingbullM Ii IfII 110 II n N -~ ~ _ N t- _ _ ~ ~~~= N III H 0 years) before the cash outflows incurred during the first 6 ~

~ = =a OOsect~~~O~OOO o~ooooooo~~~i 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ =~= years are covered This is based on selling trees at $1240L= V ~ ~N ~~ ~~ ~4 N~ ~~~ i i~e s -- N S The budgets were developed for a 35-year period because=gt- tt n this was thought to be a reasonable economic life5~~ ~ OO~~~roO~~O~O degmoooooooi~~ ~=~~~ ~mi5~5~~ ~=~= amp0 - ~ - III middot

__ ~ ~ _ 0 Nt- _ Ntn ~~~ ~ -~~- ~ pound Additionally a 35-year life allows for five 7-year

planting-through-harvest rotations Based on the rotationbull C) MM C OO~~~~degri~OOO OampOOOOOOO~~~~m 2E~~~ ~~~sect~~~~ ~u~= i c L ~ ~

N~v N N~ ~~ N~ ~4 ~~~~~~ ~ iii schedule only Inth of the total acreage would be planted ini = i

-SfIJ n= ~ - -I anyone year The cash costs in year 1 therefore include onlyRi = ~ ~~~~~i~~5me~~ i~sect~~ ~~~~~~~~ E~ lias amp0 ~~~~~~J~~~~OO H II n ~ 0- ~~w- ~ = ~~ Nt- - ~~_~t- ~ ~ct N planting expense for Inth of the total acreage or 21 acresW - - -= ~ Year 2 would again include planting expenses for Inth of theCtI 110- -~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~o~~~g~ ~G~ liN Q) $ ___ cOP ___~ i_IiInJX lIlCoo~_ flt nc II II tn ~~i~~~~~~~~00 =~ N ~ 0_11 - N w (1= Ot- N~ Oo~t-- i Ef~~ acreage and the second year growing expenses for the 21=- =tt ~ - acres planted originally The total expenses of a fullymiddot =S 1II ~~~_~~~~~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~sect~~ l~~~~~~~ Ec~ _ tl_-= ~u ~ operating facility are first incurred in the seventh year The

~ ~NII -~_ 1I1f N ~o~ N~ - ~o~=~~ ~ eg~R- 1111 0 - t first year of full revenue is also obtained in year 7 (21 acres of Cite ~ ~~~~~~~N~~~~~ ~~~~~ I~~~~~g~ ~r~i

~ _ ~ cOPNN __~ ~_m~~ ~1nO~O~~ Nfl~M

= or ~~~~~~~~~~O tt l 387 trees in their sixth year and 21 acres of 775 trees in their0- ~N_~ _ _0 N ~o~ N~ - ~~_=t--= ~ ~gGbull N= iI - - - ~i 1 seventh year ofgrowth)III

4iiii i~ ~ As the farm approaches the end of its economic life it was~~~_~~~~~~~~OO i~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~pound~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~i~E i

I middotL= 0- -oN_tI- - ~ N _ N~ot-- Nt-- ~ ~o_~t-= ~ ~U~ ii= = ~ assumed that the operator would stop planting Therefore as 11 - a l ~ 13 ~~~~g~i~N~~~~~ i~~~~ ~~a~~IC~~ E=~= of year 29 no more planting expenses are incurred It wasltV bull V ~~~~~~~~~~OO 0- N - -= ~N0ftIo - Ieo ~ t= -oN 1I _0- - N~ ~~ Nt- - ~o-~= ~ ~ft~c =a ~ - t assumed the land would be either left idle or used for otherIIIJ - -

= ~ purposes In year 35 the final year of operation only 21 acresa~= tQ ~~~~~~~re~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~ E~a N 0- -0 ___ _III u N _ N~o~ N~ _~ ~o-=~= ~ ~~~III ~ ~ of seventh-year trees would remain to be harvested At thisgt- - - -I point the entire operation would be closed down No salvagesect ii~ 1II ~~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~$~9~~ i~~~~ ~~~~sect~~ E~I II

II Ltf __ ~ ~N-II N ~ Ni ~~ N~ ~~ ~~~i~ i ~=in value was assumed because the land used was either leased or ~ -11~ 1= shy

I ~ rented and all equipment or buildings had no remainingc 15 ~ ft ~~~rd~~J~~~~~O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~E~iIII 0- QN-V 0 N _ N~o~ N ~~_~~~ ~ ~~~ i useful life H= ~ - ltgt ~ 15 Over the project life it would be necessary to replace some to tQ ~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~S~~~ 2Ei~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~5~i t ~ equipment For the purpose of this study it was assumed that~ I ~ -oN_~ _ - N _ N~ ~~ _ ~o_=~~ ~ ~~ I -= I= ~ - i all equipment would be used until it was no longer-=1 ~lt~S~-~N~~~~1 t-~~~~ ~co~~~o~ ~ft i011 V-- ~ o~- ~~NN__~ i_~V~ ~II~OO~_ ~~ ~~~~~_~i~~~OO a salvageable at which point it would be replaced new Table 16

r bullbull tv () -ON _ - N N~o~ ~ _ ~o-== ~ ~I~ I middot ~ - - - ~ shows the replacement schedule assumed in the cash flow i ~ Note that this table reflects the assumed useful life of the~ -=bull gi

i

iii s equipment rather than its depreciable life Also two itemsCgt I 1 u lJi~ ~ t- I ~ - ~ i the chain saws and the tree balers are not necessary until year -111) l -E I ~ l~~ _E ==Ilbull- ~ 1 ~j c ~ ~ ~ -5 -_ bull s

~~~ ~ ~~ _ ~ ~ L~ OL ~ 0 6 II 6 and were not purchased until that time Based on the highc _~~~~~WL ~-=] ii1t~ ~~ ulpoundlzl ~~ ~ = 1 i~uZul ~~I S Lo-- 2 L ~It~~ -i ~ ~

J L~_ ~m LOCmiddot gt- ampogt-~-~~ ~tc -lt 0 011 CIt -= = 2 ~~~t~5middotFi~f~~i~iitli-~fi~fifiiiI f Ii ~ilaquoI - ~ =~U=_~~~~~_W~U0Z~EZ~CQE~CEAL3QZEQW_~000 ~middot - ~ 8 Ii ~ I ~ middotmiddot -

29

111

f ~middot~middot~LC -- - ~i~

n ~ illII I~ II

Ii II

~~ Table 16 Equipment replacement schedule for a 160-acre ~ Christmas tree farm in New Mexico 1988 ~

usage during a short time period and the relatively short life of these items they were replaced every 5 years

Analysis

Because there are many unknowns encountered when projecting cost and returns and because different locations may be faced with different situations a series of scenarios were provided to evaluate the financial feasibility of the project Three major variables were altered concurrently to create the different scenarios These variables were

1 Prices 2 Yields 3 Costs

Price

A base price of $1240 was assumed The sensitivity of the return to a change of $1 increments over a range of $2 was measured

Yield

Changes in teld were based on altering the number of saleable trees This was done as a percentage of the total trees planted For example a 90 rate would mean that 90 of the 1452 trees originally planted or 1307 trees were available for sale This variable not only affect~ gross revenue but also alters any costs associated with the number of trees harvested Costs such as cutting field hauling baling and brokering are all altered by changes in the number of trees harvested and were assumed to be linear

Yield might also be altered by decreasing the space between trees For example a 5 by 5 spacing yields 1742 planted trees If 80 were saleable this would be 1394 trees

30

Item

Facilities

Well

Tractor

PTO sprayer

Trailer

Mower

Injector

Rotary pruners

Chain saw

Tree baler

iIIii Year ~

L 6 lL 16 2L 26 JL II~ Cost ~

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -(dollars) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- If 17000 ~

~ 10200 i

~

1bull1 113000 13000 13000 13000 1

~I 1200 1200 1200 1200 ~

bull p

~Ii ~

2400 II

800 800 800 800 ~ -I

I1200 1200 1200 1200 ~ 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 t

IiiIii 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 J

~ ~ ~ JOW JOW ~ ~ JOW

50750 10450 26650 10450 26650 10450 26650 I~ISource Table 3 IiIJ

f ~ J ~Cost ~

11I~ Because costs vary by farm and by location it was felt that a sensitivity should be performed on this variable Rather than bull

talter a specific cost or a specific category of costs the total bullIIj

cost was increased or decreased by a percentage and the Ji results evaluated Costs were altered in 10 increments in ~

Iijeither direction The 0 column uses those costs shown in the cash flow

t ~II

1

~I~ 31 ~

Feasibility Assessment

The internal rate of return (IRR) is a technique used to evaluate investment opportunities that incorporates the time value of money concept The internal rate of return for an investment project (in this case a Christmas tree planting) is the discount rate that equates the present value of the annual net cash revenue flows with the projects acquisition cost The net cash revenue is the difference between the cash receipts and cash expenses generated by an investment project over its economic life The time value of money is based on the economic fact that $1 today is worth more than a promise of $1 at some future date because of its current earnings potential

An investment can be accepted or rejected based on its internal rate of return (IRR) Acceptability of the investment depends on a comparison of the IRR with the investors required rate of return (RRR) Acceptability can be based on the following decision rules if IRR exceeds RRR accept the investment if IRR = RRR be indifferent and if IRR is less than RRR reject the investment

While IRR is a useful technique in project evaluation there are some problems with its use The major concern when using IRR is it assumes all cash inflows can be reinvested at the same rate as the resulting IRR percentage Should the IRR percentage be in the vicinity of the current rates of return of other investment instruments IRR is a reasonably accurate measure of return on investment However should the rate of return be much higher than current returns available elsewhere the resulting return on investment may be overstated The inverse is true at lower rates of return

The Net Present Value (NPV) is another way of evaluating projects that involve capital outlays over a period of years The NPV method discounts all future cash outlays and inflows back to a present-year basis using a specified interest (discount rate) The discount rate chosen is usually the opportunity cost of using equity funds in an alternative use or the cost of borrowed capital increased by an appropriate premium for risk or a combination of these The NPV

32

method is preferred over the IRR method when evaluating one investment against alternative similar type investments

Based on the sensitivity analysis discussed above a table was developed to show the IRR under the various scenarios Table 17 shows the internal rates by the per-unit price The analyses is based on pre-tax returns At $1040 per tree the IRR ranges from -14 when costs were increased by 10 and saleable yields were reduced to 60 to 160 when costs were decreased by 10 and 90 of the trees planted were sold At $1140 the IRR range is from 14 to 185 under the same conditions as above At $1240 per tree the IRR ranges from 38 when costs were increased 10 and 60 of the trees are saleable to 207 when costs were decreased 10 and saleable yields were at 90 At $1340 per tree the IRR ranges from 60 to 228 At $1440 per tree a grower could expect an IRR from 80 to 248 under the scenarios presented

A pre-tax analysis using Net Present Value (NPV) was also completed for the various scenarios The results of this analysis are shown in table 18

If an IRR of 12 is chosen as a minimum rate desired for investment growers must receive at least $1140 per tree and attain a level of 80 saleable trees and good cost control to have a successful investment At prices greater than $1140 per tree and 80 saleable product the investment appears to have possibility

33

Table 17 Internal Rates of Return (lRR) estimates for a 160-acre Table 18 Net Present Value (NPV) estimates for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost cbanges cha~es Ising a discount rate of 12

Percentage Percentageof saleable Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount

of saleabletrees 10 lower No chan~ 10 bilber trees --percent-shy

_______ - - - - - - - - - - - (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - shy

$1040 Tree Price 900 130 102900 160 BOO

SOO 128 97 69 700 60 31700 91 600

-14600 48 16

$1140 Tree Price( 900 127185 155

123 95900 800 SOO 153 700 700 116 86 58 600

14600 74 43

$1240 Tree Price 900 lJJ7 178 150900 BOO

118SOO 176 146 700 139 109 81700 600

38600 97 66

$1340 Tree Price 900 900 228 198 171 BOO

167 139SOO 197 700103700 161 130 600

600 119 88 60

$1440 Tree Price 900 BOO

248 218 191900 700159SOO 216 186 600

180 150 123700 80

Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount _ 10 lOwer No change 10 higher

-middot----middotmiddot---middot--bull-----dollars------bullbullbullbull -bullbullbull shy

$1040 Tree Price 175195 32602

(110936) (253415)

44502 (97269)

(2399BO) (381637)

(86191) (227140) (369023) (509859)

$1140 Tree Price 299293 167950 36607 142927

(14476) (170717)

12478 (144024) (299372)

(117971) (273573) (428028)

$1240 Tree Price 423391 291398 159406 253252 81984

(88019)

122225 (48069)

(217107)

(8BOl) (178123) (346196)

$1340 Tree Price 547489 414847 282204 363576 231972 100368 178445 (5321)

47886 (134842)

(82673) (264364)

$1440 Tree Price 671587 538295 405003 473901 341719 209538 274905 143841 12777 77377 (52578) (182532)

138 108 N01E Parentheses mean negative number

34 35

600

Investor Analysis

The following analysis considers the impact of the US tax laws (revised October 1987) on investing in Christmas trees The approach is identical to the previous IRR and NPV analysis except the impact of federal and state income taxes is considered in the annual stream of cash flow

The basis assumptions used are as follows

1 The taxpayer investor is in a 40 tax bracket on marginal income when combining both state and federal income taxes

2 The investor is actively engaged in managing the Christmas tree farm so that revenues and losses can be counted as active income or the investor has other passive investment income to offset any passive losses from growing Christmas trees

3 The Section 179 one-time deduction of $10000 per year is used in other businesses operated by the investor

4 Depreciation was calculated using the modified ACRS rules published by the IRS in 1987 Publication 225

5 The Christmas tree enterprise falls under the IRS rules for Christmas tree cultivation requiring capitalization of planting and stump culture for trees more than 6 years of age Because one-third of the trees are sold within the 6-year time limit one-third of planting expenses were deducted in the year incurred and the remaining two-thirds were capitalized and written off when the trees were sold in the seventh year

6 The investor uses a cash accounting system for tax purposes

36

The pre-tax IRR for the scenario with trees selling for $1240 each 80 harvestable yield and standard costs was 146 The IRR after-tax considerations fell to 125 (table 19) One might compare the after-tax return of 125 to other after-tax investments of comparable risks The after-tax NPV for the above scenario is $18069 compared to the pre-tax NPV of $122225 using a 12 discount rate

37

0

Table 19 Investor cash now analysis lor a l6O-acre Christmas tree larm (per planted acre basis) S=~=bullbull=I==~==~=bullbull====iI=bullbull2a==IIiIII bullbullbullbull===========n====ZIUSS=====bullbull===lllJ=====$~nUIlt1=llIIlta====s=a====II===============bullbullbull==II=~====lltz===-===U===========1II==X=======_==li=

Year 1 rHr 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year S Ye8l 6 tear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 1Q Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Tear 18

Net Cash Flow BelMe T8)( ConeiderattOlS (116411) (75439) (86658) (99354)(111768) (51189) 119810 119810 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810

Tax ONKtiona

Oeprec i at i on Irrigation syat far Foelli amp Equip

7875 1440

14625 7440

19446 7440

22890 7440

25378 7440

27156 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

Planting E_ 8209 10585 13004 16006 18568 22423 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031

~~~- ~t~t 1~~~r 1~ n~~ ~~m i~m ~M ~U~~ ~~M ~M ~~~ ~m ~M ~~~ ~~~ ~~M ~~M ~~M Total TalC DeOoctlons 33265 49193 65833 81973 96875 130860 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189341 189341 189311 189341 189341 189311

~rI~ (3326~) (4979~) (6583g) (819~) (968~) l~m) m~ ~~~~f~ mJ~ ~H~ m~~ mm ~~H~~ ~~B~ ~~im mm mJ~ ~~B2~ Inc_ ra Saings 13306 19917 26333 32189 38750 11930 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc_ TalC Oue 0 0 0 0 0 0 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297

let Cash flow (1037) (5522) (60325) (66) (737018) (397259) 74512 7Z2 74512 74512 7862 7512 74~12 rZSt2 142 M=062 1512 14512 =s===========s=_====sbullbullc=======-===================_======-=-==========I====S======-===========================e===s====================s==============r=================

Net Cash Flow Before Tax Considerations 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810 119810 190654 179442 217765 230460 242421 165733

T81 OlaquoiJcti ons

Depreciation

~ili~r Equip 2g~~ 2U~~ 2~~~ 2~~ 2~~~~ 2~g~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ 2~~ 2~~~ 2~n~ 1~~J ~~8 ~~~ f2zS 2~

~i~-OVerhoad

zg8M62335

zg8M62335

Z~~~ 62335

zg8M62335

ig8M62335

zg~~62335

i8M62335

i8M62335

t8M62335

i~8M 62335

Zg~~62335

~~~~~53665

~~~~ 46402

~tg~~40943

~~ ~~~35402 29986

ll~8~~

Total TaJ( Deduct_ 189341 189341 187121 187121 187121 187121 181121 181121 187121 187121 187121 156112 133925 117431 101291 86842 60718

I Froll Sales 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 201550 ~~~es~~= 1132~ m24~ 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154~ 1154~ 14647~ 16866g 1855~ 20129t 21574~ 1408~

Income la~ Due ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ Met Cash FloW =-2========SCI========

74512=I=====

74512 46974 73624 73624 73624 73624 63174 73624 __===_=_=============bullbullbullSamp====1II_1I31amp=II================_=II==__ == 73624_===__==

73624=======

132065 _=-=bullbull

111978======S=====

143703 ======_==

149943=======1I

156124 ========laquo

109400 ======_

~

Appendix Table Amiddotl United States Department ofAgriculture grade standards for Christmas trees

Christmas Tree Grades Factor US Premium US No1 US No2

Density Not less than Not less than Light or better medium medium

Tapera Normal- Normal- May be less than 40 to 90 40 to 90 40 or more

than 90

Damage-free faceb 4 3 2

Foliage Fresh clean Fresh clean Fresh clean and healthy and healthy and healthy

Shapec Well-shaped Well-shaped Well-shaped crown crown crown

Handle not Handle not Handle not less less than 6 less than 6 less than 6 or more than or more than or more than 134 per foot 1 34 per foot 1 34 per foot of tree height of tree height of tree height

aTaper of a tree is defined as the width of a tree expressed as a percentage of its height

Face means the visible surface area of a tree as viewed from 8 to 10 feet from the tree A tree is considered to have four faces each face constituting 14 of the tree

cHeight of a tree is defined in terms of foot or half-foot steps and is measured from the base of the handle to a point on the leader not more than 4 feet above the apex of the cone of the taper

Source Proebsting Buhaly and Wanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest 1981

40

4iUJiMMiFeuro iampi~t~Ityen)--

Literature Cited

Clevenger Tom et at The Wholesale and Processing Market for Locally Grown High Value Crops Research Report 572 New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station July 1985

Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture (Mora Research Center) New Mexico State University Guidelines for Growing and Marketing Christmas Trees in New Mexico New Mexico Department of Natural Resources October 1980

Huntley Wallace Marketing Christmas Trees-Turning a Problem into an Opportunity American Christmas Tree Journal August 1984 pp 41-43

Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury Fanners Tax Guide Publication 225

Proebsting William M Joseph Buhaly and Donald Hanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest Pacific Northwest Extension Publication PNW6 January 1981

41

Page 15: Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and ...

Table 9 Per acre tun cost budgets ror growiDg White Fir and Scots Pine

~-~~-~~~~-~-~~~-~-~~-~-~~-~~-~-~~~~~~~~--~~-~~-----------------------_------YIELD

HARVEST DATES PLANTING DATES

PlIlCE -- ~-- - - - bull - - - bullbull - bull - - - ~ - - bull - bull QUANTITY PUR~~~ LABOR ~~iJ~~ REPAIRS Fgi~ TOTAl

TEM UNIT __ bullbull ________ bull __ _ _ ___ ___ bull ___ ___ bull __ _ __________ bullbullbullbull _________ bullbullbullbullbullbullbull _ bull ------_ bullbullbullbullbullbull - -- bull bull - - - - bull (DOLLARS) bullbullbull - - bullbullbull

PURCHASED INPUTS 6650100 ACRE 66501lER8ICIOE 1800100 ACRE 1800INSECTICIDE 211523500 LB 2115MOIII~ SULFATE 750100 ACRE 750MISCELLANECIlS TOOLS 1131511315SUBTOTAL

PREHARVEST OPERATIONS 21751309 319 209 338PTO SPRAYER (X) ampAS IS P 238 HR 27491738 423 275 313MOWER (410 GAS 15 HP 316 HR 4200

Mise 1000 HR 4200LABOR 3226~ 360 IR 2812 238 176WELL (ex) ELE

123501914 7247 3554 722 827SUBTOTAL

OVERfAD EXPENSES 1709311 1709OOWIITIME EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

13041304 850 850

INSURANCE 386 386 FARM FACILITIES 8163 8163 LAND RENT 5000 5000GENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION 75007500suPERVISION 3D00 3000 OTHER

17399 2791210513SUBTOTAL 311 HR

3554 722 18226 515_7711315 17760TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 2225 IR

-51577NET OPERATING PROFIT

2678INTEREST ON OPERATI~G CAPITAL 831INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT

-55086 ~~~~-~~~~- _- _- -_ -_ ----- --_ ---- -- -- ----_ --_ --___ _ - _------ __

Table 10 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 foot Christmas trees (year 3 estabUshment) NM 1988 PLANTING DATES YIELDHARVEST OATES PRICE

POWER PURCHASED FUEL OIL FIXEDITEM UNIT QUANTITY INPUTS lABOR LUBRICANT REPAIRS COST TOTAL --_ - - _- ---- - -_ -- --_ - - - -(DOlLARS)

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE 5800 5800MOIII~ SULFATE 35200 LB 3168 3168INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800MISCELLANECIlS TOOLS 100 ACRE 750 750

SIJIITOTAL 11518 11518

PRE HARVEST OPERATIONS ROTARY PRUIINERS GAS 900 HR 3780 234 108 495 4617PTO SPRAYER (5X) GAS 15 HP 1 70 R 935 228 150 241 1554MOWER (4X) ampAS 15 HP 316 HR 1738 423 275 313 2149LABOR Mise 1000 IR 4200 4200ELL (12X) ELE 540 HR 4217 356 265 4838

N SUBTOTAL 2926 10653 5102 889 1314 17958 - (MRNfAl) EXPENSES OOWIITiME 477 2625 2625EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1918 1918INSURANCE 850 850FARM FACILITIES 386 386LAIIO RENT 8163 8163GENERAL _rNISTRATlON 5000 5000SUPERViSiON 7500 7500OTHER 3000 3000

SUBTOTAL 477 HR 2043 17399 29442

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 3403 HR 11518 22696 5102 889 18713 58918

NET OPERATI KG PROF IT middot58918

I NTEREST ON OPERAT I NG CAP ITAL 2930 INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT INVESTMENT 964

RETURN TO RISK 62812 ~ -~- -_ ~ ~~ ~ _ - -

Table 11 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas ~~~~~~~~~~~_~~~t~~~~~ ___ _ ~i~~middotDAEmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot YIELD

HARVEST OATES PRICE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull PURCHASED FUEL Oil FIXED

PMR INPUTS LA~ LUBRICANT REPAIRS COST TOTAL ~~~~~~- middotmiddotDOt~~middot PURCHASED INPUTS

HERBICIDE 100 ACRE 5800 5800 INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 fUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 AMONIUM SULFATE 46900 LB 4221 4221 MlsCElLANEClJS TOOLS 100 ACRE 750 750

SUBTOTAL 14296 14296

PRE HARVEST OPERA liONS ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) CAS 1500 HR 6300 390 180 825 7695 PTO SPRAYER (ax) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 364 239 386 2485 MOIlER (2X) CAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374~ FERT INJECTOR ElE 030 HR 011 061 096 168 LABOR MISC 1000 HR 4200 4200 lElL (14X) [L 630 HR 49bull 20 416 309 5645

SUBTOTAL 3590 12865 5897 1033 1772 21567

OVERHEAD EXPENSES DOIINTIM 586 3223 3223 EMPLOYEE BENEF ITS 2316 2316 INSURANCE 850 850 FARM FACILITIES 386 386 LAND RENT 8163 8163 CENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION 5000 5000 SUPERVI SION 7500 7500 OTHER 3000 3000

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039 17399 30438

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 4176 HR 14296 25904 5897 1033 19171 66301

NET OPERATl NG PROF IT 66301

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL 3247 INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 1102

70650~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~--

Table 12 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas trees (year 5 establishment) NM 1988 PLANTING OATES HARVEST OATES YIELD

PRICE

lIEM PMR

IJHlT QUANT lTy PURCHASED

INPUTS

~~~~~

FUEL OlL LA80R LUBRICANT

REPAIRS FIXED COST TOTAL

PURCHASED INPUTS - shy ~ ~ bull bull bull (DOLLARS) bull - bull HER81CIOE INSECTICIDE FUNCICIOE AMOHIUM SULFATE MI SCELLANEOUS TOOLS

SU8TOTAL

PREHARVEST oPERATIONS

100 ACRE 100 ACRE 100 ACRE

46900 L8 100 ACRE

3700 1800 1725 4221 750

12196

3700 1800 1725 4221

750

12196

ROTARY PRUHNERS (2X) PTO SPRAYER (8X) MOIlER aX) FERT INJECTOR LABOR WELL (16X)

SUBTOTAL

OVERHEAD EXPENSES

CAS CAS 15 HP CAS 15 HP ELE MISC ELE

1500 H 272 HR 158 HR 030 HR

1000 HR 720 HR

3680

6300 1496 869

4200

12865

390 364 212 011

5623

6600

180 239 137 061

475

1092

825 386 156 096

353

1816

7695 2485 1374 168

4200 6451

22373

OOIHIME EMPLOYEE BENEFf TS INSURANCE FARM FACILITIES LANI RENT GENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION SUPERVISION OTHER

586 3223 2316

7500

850 386

8163 5000

3223 2316 850 386

8163 5000 7500

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039

3000

17399

3000

30438

TOTAL OPERAJINC EXPENSES 4266 HR 12196 25904 6600 1092 19215 65007 NET oPERA T I HG PROf I T

65007 INTEREST ON OPERATINC CAPITAL INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 3142

1153 RETURN TO bull I SK bull ~ bullbullbull - _ - - ~ - _ - - _ bullbullbullbull - - ~ _ bullbull - _ bullbullbullbull bullbull - bullbullbull

~ - - -_ _-_ __--_ _---__- 69302

Table 13 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine

~~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J~~~~~~ Table 14 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine PL~NTIMG DATES YIELD 387 TREES GROSS RETURNSS4198 80 HARVEST DATES NOVEMBER 15 bull DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0TREE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbull bullbull

bull - bullbull - bullbullbull - bull bull bull bull ~C~A~E~ - FUEL OIL FIXED ~middot~middot~7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~U~~~~~ PLANT INC DATES YIelD 775 TREESQUANT ITY INPUTS LABOR LUBRICANT REPAIU COST TOTAL

~ ___ w~ ___ ____ _ ____ ____ _ _ _ ___ HARVEST OATES NOVEM8ER 15 DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0IREE ~ CROSS RETURNS$9iIOOO - bullbullbullbull (DOLLARS) bullbullbullbullbullbull - bull shy

pOlin PURCHASEDPURCHASED INPUTS ITEM fUEl OIL FIXEDUNIT OUANT IlY INPUTSHERBltlDE 100 ACRE 3700 3700 bull lABOR LUBRICANT RePAIRS-_ _---- _--- _---_ _---- - _--_ - _- __ __ -- COST TOTAL INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 bull FUNGICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 bull bull (DOLLARS) bull A_IUM SULFATE 93800 LB 8~~2 8442 bull

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE T6OOTWINE 38700 EACH 19-35 1935 1600INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800MISCELLANEros TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000 bull 1800

ESTABLISHMENT 113 2781 72 278172 FUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725AMON I UN SULFATE 5~000 lB 4860 4860

SUBTOTAL 18602 2781 72 2967 7~ TWINE 17500 EACH 3875 ~8 7~MISCELLANEOUS TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000

PREHARVEST OPERATIOIIS ESTABLISHMENT 23 ~050 ~050

ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) GAS 3800 HR 15960 988 ~56 2090 1~9~ bull SUBTOIAL 14860PTO SPRAYER (ex) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 360 239 386 2~ 85 bull ~050 698910 MOWER (2X) GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 137~ bull PREHARVEST OPERATIONSfERT INJECTOR ELE 035 oR 012 071 112 195 bull ROTARY PRUNNERS (2)) GAS 3000 HRLABOR Mise 1000 HR ~200 ~2 00 bull 12600 780 360 1650 I5~90PTO SPRAYER (xl GAS 15 HP 238 HRIlELL lt18X) ElE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258 bull MOIlER (ZX) 1309 319 209 338 21 75GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374fEAT INJECTOR ELE 060 HSUBTOTAL 6075 22525 7902 1~38 31~1 35006 021 122 191 334LABOR MIse 1000 HR ~200 4200

HARVEST OPERATIONS WELL (18X) ELE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258

CHAIN SAW GAS 968 HR 4066 252 136 590 50~~ SUBTOTAL 5266DRAG amp lOAD HAND 3225 HR 13545 135~5 18978 7658 1363 2732 J0731 TREE BALER GAS 230 HR 966 177 278 952 2373 HARVEST OPERATIONSTRAILER GAS 15 HP 300 HR 1650 ~11 360 560 2985 CHAIN SAW GAS 1938 HRLABOR Mise 1650 HR 6930 6930 81~0 504 271 1182 10097DRAG amp LOAD HAND 6058 HR 27124 27124

SUBTOIAL 6373 HR 27157 8~0 7 7~ 2106 30877 TREE BALER GAS I 46D HR 1932 354 5~7 1904 4747TRAILER GAS 15 HP 600 HR 3300 822 720 1128 5970LABOR MISC ~OOO NROVERHEAD EXPENSES 16800 16800 OOHlE 2321 12763 12763 bull SUBTOTAL 13~56 HREMPLOYEE SENEF lIS 89~3 89~3 bull 57296 1680 1548 4214 6~7 38

INSURANCE 850 850 bull OVERHEAD EXPEHSESFARM fACILITIES 386 366 bull OCltJNTJME 3~70LAND RENT 8163 8163 bull 19637 19637EMPLOYEE BENet liSGENERAL amp ADMINISTRATlOil 5000 5000 bull 13729 13729 SUPERVISION 7500 7500 bull INSURANCE

850 850FARM FACILITIESOTHER 3000 3000 bull 386 386LAND RENTMARXETING 2399~ 2399~ 8163 8163

SUPERVISION GeNERAL 8 ADMINISTRATION

5000 5000 SUBTOTAL 2321 HR 23994 29206 17399 70599 7500 7500

MARKETING OTHER

3000 300048050 48050

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 14769 HR 29550 ~~401 347~ 1250 287125 367738 bullbull SUBTOTAL 3570 HR ~8050 ~0866 17399 106315 IIpoundT OPERATING PROfIT 1121~2

TOIAl OPERATING EXPENSES 22292 HRINTEREST (JIj OPERATTNG CAPlTAL 6545 62910 117140 9338 2911 708395 900694 INTEREST (JIj EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 2473 NET OPERATING PROFIT

60306 10312~

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT IHVESlMENT 8659

3361 RETURN TO R I so

TIoCmiddotTHIRDS OF THESE COSTS IlERE ALLOCATED AS PROOUCTl(Jlj COSTS fORIREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 7 48286iI ~--~-- ----- ~ --~--- -~------ -----~-- yen - bullbullbullbull -- ~ -- ----_ _w ___ ________ 0 _______ _w __ IHIS TOTAL INCCltPORATES ONLY THE EXPENSE ASSOCATEO WITH THE TREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 6 BECAUSE OF THIS THE COLUMN

WILL NOT SUM TO THIS VALUE

24 25

~ i C -i Q

= foil

Table 15 Cash flow for a 160-aere Cbristmas tree rann (147 net planted aeres lIIII====_=====IIIlIII======S=II==2=II=___1I3_III========s_bullbullbullbull=z=a==a============bullbull==~=bullbullbull==11======aSS==lIIlII======================================================

Year 1 fear 2 Year J tear 4 Year 5 Year 6 fear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 fear 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 lllttows _=====

Sale of Trees so so so so so $101035 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 S302585 S302585 $302585 $302585 OUtflows

Purchased Input 5 Tree stock 1921019m 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210Cover ~rass seed 315 9sect1~ 19m 315 315 315 19m 19m 315 19m 19m 19m 19m315 315 315 315erbicuSe 1019 2415 3633 4851 5628 6405 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741Insecticide o 378 756 1~ 1890 22611 22611 22611 22611 2268 2268 2268 22611 22611Ftrlgicide o o o H~ 1087 U~ 1449 U~ 1449 1449 449 ~~~ 1449 1449 t449 1449Amonhn Sui tate o 444 1109 1~ 5676 5676 5676 ~~~X 5676 5676Tree guards 788 788 788 2~ 4~~ 788 53 53 53 788 788 5~ 5~ 53788 788 788Miscellaneous tools 420 578 735 893 105g 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365Twine o o o o i~ 1220 l~~ l~~ij 1220 1220 1220 1220 1220 lm lnOIrrigatlon system 31500 3150031 508 31500 31500 31500 31500 3150g 31500 31500 31~~g 31500 31500 31500 31 gtog 31~~g 31500 31500Eqult 33750 o o o 1045g o o o 266j0 o o a 10450 o oFarm facilities 17000 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oPre-harvest Operations o CustQll1 1_ preparation 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651Spray 204 578 844 1271 1698 2124 2498 2498 2~g 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498Harrow 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 168 1611 1611 Mark rows 309 309 309 Seed 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 Haul plants 42 42 42 42 42 309309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309

42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42Pl t (hand) 1861 2 ~Iy Netting 1~ 1~

794 1~ ~2 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ ~2 1~ 1 1861 1861 1861 861 li~ Orlp installaton 221 221 221 211

~l 794 794 794 794 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 2lt1495 990 1485 1733 1980 2228 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475Shear amp train 2415a o 864 2303 3743 7398- 1~~~ 1~~~ 10283 10283 10283 10283

i seel taneous 1amp1raquor 882 76 2646 Appt ter t it i zer o o o 10~g~ 10m 10m 10~g~ 10~g~ 10283

35 71 141 182 182 182 182 182 182 lr2 Purping costs 480 1121 617435l8 5292 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 Ot 174 6174 6174 6174

Harvest operations 2081 3l02 i~~g 5923 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 73k4

Cut tr~s o Drag amp load trees o 2807o o 935 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 Wrap trees o o 2374 7115 ~~~~ ~~~ 1115 7115 7115 7115 7115 7~ 7115o o o 298 895 895 895 7J~ 895 7~~~ 895 895 895 895 895Haul trees o o o 508 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525MisceHaneous labOr o 1525o o 1455 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366Overheed Oowotime 648 1007 IS58 2235 2911 5522 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346E1lloy benefits 4611 742 1145 1631 3933 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581Insurance 179 357 536 114 2~~

1071 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250Land r~t 1575 3150 4725 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025G amp A 1050 lloo 3150 4lOO 5250 6300 tgro 7350 7350 7350 7350 1~m k~~~ 7350 ~m 7350 7350 735a~~~Vision 472S 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11021575 3150

11m 11~~~ 025 11~~630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 63mMarketng II o o o o 5052 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 lSI29

1 Based on total of 147 planted acres by Year 7 A total of 21 (Jeres are planted each year year 1 consists ot 21 planted acres year 2 a total of 42 etC

-- --~ -~-~ r IJampamp $ ~H ~M LgtH~-~Lw~

110 0 middot W It 110 OO~~~~o~~OOO OampooooooosectOii S~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~H~ = - 11 11=L = 110 _ N N 0 M

bull c _~_

bullbullbull 2 _ M~

cash needs of the operation The farm will produce a positivei 0goooo00020poundN t-~~~~ t-~Fg~ORi ~ UNHIt U to OOE~l2~O~ft~oOI L 110 lS -lIi iIl~lI)t i1 ---a~ - 3

N annual cash flow starting in the seventh year However a total N bullbull u _N N~ - - ~N ~ $E~3

bullbull It 0 t N of $540819 in cash is expended through the first 6 years Ao~ooooooo~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~V~~ ~=~==~C ~ OOi~~~~O$~OOO ~ laquoS_~_ i i6~ ~gIIt_~o~ -=~ I total of 11 years are needed (five positive cash producingbullM Ii IfII 110 II n N -~ ~ _ N t- _ _ ~ ~~~= N III H 0 years) before the cash outflows incurred during the first 6 ~

~ = =a OOsect~~~O~OOO o~ooooooo~~~i 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ =~= years are covered This is based on selling trees at $1240L= V ~ ~N ~~ ~~ ~4 N~ ~~~ i i~e s -- N S The budgets were developed for a 35-year period because=gt- tt n this was thought to be a reasonable economic life5~~ ~ OO~~~roO~~O~O degmoooooooi~~ ~=~~~ ~mi5~5~~ ~=~= amp0 - ~ - III middot

__ ~ ~ _ 0 Nt- _ Ntn ~~~ ~ -~~- ~ pound Additionally a 35-year life allows for five 7-year

planting-through-harvest rotations Based on the rotationbull C) MM C OO~~~~degri~OOO OampOOOOOOO~~~~m 2E~~~ ~~~sect~~~~ ~u~= i c L ~ ~

N~v N N~ ~~ N~ ~4 ~~~~~~ ~ iii schedule only Inth of the total acreage would be planted ini = i

-SfIJ n= ~ - -I anyone year The cash costs in year 1 therefore include onlyRi = ~ ~~~~~i~~5me~~ i~sect~~ ~~~~~~~~ E~ lias amp0 ~~~~~~J~~~~OO H II n ~ 0- ~~w- ~ = ~~ Nt- - ~~_~t- ~ ~ct N planting expense for Inth of the total acreage or 21 acresW - - -= ~ Year 2 would again include planting expenses for Inth of theCtI 110- -~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~o~~~g~ ~G~ liN Q) $ ___ cOP ___~ i_IiInJX lIlCoo~_ flt nc II II tn ~~i~~~~~~~~00 =~ N ~ 0_11 - N w (1= Ot- N~ Oo~t-- i Ef~~ acreage and the second year growing expenses for the 21=- =tt ~ - acres planted originally The total expenses of a fullymiddot =S 1II ~~~_~~~~~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~sect~~ l~~~~~~~ Ec~ _ tl_-= ~u ~ operating facility are first incurred in the seventh year The

~ ~NII -~_ 1I1f N ~o~ N~ - ~o~=~~ ~ eg~R- 1111 0 - t first year of full revenue is also obtained in year 7 (21 acres of Cite ~ ~~~~~~~N~~~~~ ~~~~~ I~~~~~g~ ~r~i

~ _ ~ cOPNN __~ ~_m~~ ~1nO~O~~ Nfl~M

= or ~~~~~~~~~~O tt l 387 trees in their sixth year and 21 acres of 775 trees in their0- ~N_~ _ _0 N ~o~ N~ - ~~_=t--= ~ ~gGbull N= iI - - - ~i 1 seventh year ofgrowth)III

4iiii i~ ~ As the farm approaches the end of its economic life it was~~~_~~~~~~~~OO i~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~pound~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~i~E i

I middotL= 0- -oN_tI- - ~ N _ N~ot-- Nt-- ~ ~o_~t-= ~ ~U~ ii= = ~ assumed that the operator would stop planting Therefore as 11 - a l ~ 13 ~~~~g~i~N~~~~~ i~~~~ ~~a~~IC~~ E=~= of year 29 no more planting expenses are incurred It wasltV bull V ~~~~~~~~~~OO 0- N - -= ~N0ftIo - Ieo ~ t= -oN 1I _0- - N~ ~~ Nt- - ~o-~= ~ ~ft~c =a ~ - t assumed the land would be either left idle or used for otherIIIJ - -

= ~ purposes In year 35 the final year of operation only 21 acresa~= tQ ~~~~~~~re~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~ E~a N 0- -0 ___ _III u N _ N~o~ N~ _~ ~o-=~= ~ ~~~III ~ ~ of seventh-year trees would remain to be harvested At thisgt- - - -I point the entire operation would be closed down No salvagesect ii~ 1II ~~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~$~9~~ i~~~~ ~~~~sect~~ E~I II

II Ltf __ ~ ~N-II N ~ Ni ~~ N~ ~~ ~~~i~ i ~=in value was assumed because the land used was either leased or ~ -11~ 1= shy

I ~ rented and all equipment or buildings had no remainingc 15 ~ ft ~~~rd~~J~~~~~O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~E~iIII 0- QN-V 0 N _ N~o~ N ~~_~~~ ~ ~~~ i useful life H= ~ - ltgt ~ 15 Over the project life it would be necessary to replace some to tQ ~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~S~~~ 2Ei~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~5~i t ~ equipment For the purpose of this study it was assumed that~ I ~ -oN_~ _ - N _ N~ ~~ _ ~o_=~~ ~ ~~ I -= I= ~ - i all equipment would be used until it was no longer-=1 ~lt~S~-~N~~~~1 t-~~~~ ~co~~~o~ ~ft i011 V-- ~ o~- ~~NN__~ i_~V~ ~II~OO~_ ~~ ~~~~~_~i~~~OO a salvageable at which point it would be replaced new Table 16

r bullbull tv () -ON _ - N N~o~ ~ _ ~o-== ~ ~I~ I middot ~ - - - ~ shows the replacement schedule assumed in the cash flow i ~ Note that this table reflects the assumed useful life of the~ -=bull gi

i

iii s equipment rather than its depreciable life Also two itemsCgt I 1 u lJi~ ~ t- I ~ - ~ i the chain saws and the tree balers are not necessary until year -111) l -E I ~ l~~ _E ==Ilbull- ~ 1 ~j c ~ ~ ~ -5 -_ bull s

~~~ ~ ~~ _ ~ ~ L~ OL ~ 0 6 II 6 and were not purchased until that time Based on the highc _~~~~~WL ~-=] ii1t~ ~~ ulpoundlzl ~~ ~ = 1 i~uZul ~~I S Lo-- 2 L ~It~~ -i ~ ~

J L~_ ~m LOCmiddot gt- ampogt-~-~~ ~tc -lt 0 011 CIt -= = 2 ~~~t~5middotFi~f~~i~iitli-~fi~fifiiiI f Ii ~ilaquoI - ~ =~U=_~~~~~_W~U0Z~EZ~CQE~CEAL3QZEQW_~000 ~middot - ~ 8 Ii ~ I ~ middotmiddot -

29

111

f ~middot~middot~LC -- - ~i~

n ~ illII I~ II

Ii II

~~ Table 16 Equipment replacement schedule for a 160-acre ~ Christmas tree farm in New Mexico 1988 ~

usage during a short time period and the relatively short life of these items they were replaced every 5 years

Analysis

Because there are many unknowns encountered when projecting cost and returns and because different locations may be faced with different situations a series of scenarios were provided to evaluate the financial feasibility of the project Three major variables were altered concurrently to create the different scenarios These variables were

1 Prices 2 Yields 3 Costs

Price

A base price of $1240 was assumed The sensitivity of the return to a change of $1 increments over a range of $2 was measured

Yield

Changes in teld were based on altering the number of saleable trees This was done as a percentage of the total trees planted For example a 90 rate would mean that 90 of the 1452 trees originally planted or 1307 trees were available for sale This variable not only affect~ gross revenue but also alters any costs associated with the number of trees harvested Costs such as cutting field hauling baling and brokering are all altered by changes in the number of trees harvested and were assumed to be linear

Yield might also be altered by decreasing the space between trees For example a 5 by 5 spacing yields 1742 planted trees If 80 were saleable this would be 1394 trees

30

Item

Facilities

Well

Tractor

PTO sprayer

Trailer

Mower

Injector

Rotary pruners

Chain saw

Tree baler

iIIii Year ~

L 6 lL 16 2L 26 JL II~ Cost ~

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -(dollars) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- If 17000 ~

~ 10200 i

~

1bull1 113000 13000 13000 13000 1

~I 1200 1200 1200 1200 ~

bull p

~Ii ~

2400 II

800 800 800 800 ~ -I

I1200 1200 1200 1200 ~ 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 t

IiiIii 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 J

~ ~ ~ JOW JOW ~ ~ JOW

50750 10450 26650 10450 26650 10450 26650 I~ISource Table 3 IiIJ

f ~ J ~Cost ~

11I~ Because costs vary by farm and by location it was felt that a sensitivity should be performed on this variable Rather than bull

talter a specific cost or a specific category of costs the total bullIIj

cost was increased or decreased by a percentage and the Ji results evaluated Costs were altered in 10 increments in ~

Iijeither direction The 0 column uses those costs shown in the cash flow

t ~II

1

~I~ 31 ~

Feasibility Assessment

The internal rate of return (IRR) is a technique used to evaluate investment opportunities that incorporates the time value of money concept The internal rate of return for an investment project (in this case a Christmas tree planting) is the discount rate that equates the present value of the annual net cash revenue flows with the projects acquisition cost The net cash revenue is the difference between the cash receipts and cash expenses generated by an investment project over its economic life The time value of money is based on the economic fact that $1 today is worth more than a promise of $1 at some future date because of its current earnings potential

An investment can be accepted or rejected based on its internal rate of return (IRR) Acceptability of the investment depends on a comparison of the IRR with the investors required rate of return (RRR) Acceptability can be based on the following decision rules if IRR exceeds RRR accept the investment if IRR = RRR be indifferent and if IRR is less than RRR reject the investment

While IRR is a useful technique in project evaluation there are some problems with its use The major concern when using IRR is it assumes all cash inflows can be reinvested at the same rate as the resulting IRR percentage Should the IRR percentage be in the vicinity of the current rates of return of other investment instruments IRR is a reasonably accurate measure of return on investment However should the rate of return be much higher than current returns available elsewhere the resulting return on investment may be overstated The inverse is true at lower rates of return

The Net Present Value (NPV) is another way of evaluating projects that involve capital outlays over a period of years The NPV method discounts all future cash outlays and inflows back to a present-year basis using a specified interest (discount rate) The discount rate chosen is usually the opportunity cost of using equity funds in an alternative use or the cost of borrowed capital increased by an appropriate premium for risk or a combination of these The NPV

32

method is preferred over the IRR method when evaluating one investment against alternative similar type investments

Based on the sensitivity analysis discussed above a table was developed to show the IRR under the various scenarios Table 17 shows the internal rates by the per-unit price The analyses is based on pre-tax returns At $1040 per tree the IRR ranges from -14 when costs were increased by 10 and saleable yields were reduced to 60 to 160 when costs were decreased by 10 and 90 of the trees planted were sold At $1140 the IRR range is from 14 to 185 under the same conditions as above At $1240 per tree the IRR ranges from 38 when costs were increased 10 and 60 of the trees are saleable to 207 when costs were decreased 10 and saleable yields were at 90 At $1340 per tree the IRR ranges from 60 to 228 At $1440 per tree a grower could expect an IRR from 80 to 248 under the scenarios presented

A pre-tax analysis using Net Present Value (NPV) was also completed for the various scenarios The results of this analysis are shown in table 18

If an IRR of 12 is chosen as a minimum rate desired for investment growers must receive at least $1140 per tree and attain a level of 80 saleable trees and good cost control to have a successful investment At prices greater than $1140 per tree and 80 saleable product the investment appears to have possibility

33

Table 17 Internal Rates of Return (lRR) estimates for a 160-acre Table 18 Net Present Value (NPV) estimates for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost cbanges cha~es Ising a discount rate of 12

Percentage Percentageof saleable Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount

of saleabletrees 10 lower No chan~ 10 bilber trees --percent-shy

_______ - - - - - - - - - - - (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - shy

$1040 Tree Price 900 130 102900 160 BOO

SOO 128 97 69 700 60 31700 91 600

-14600 48 16

$1140 Tree Price( 900 127185 155

123 95900 800 SOO 153 700 700 116 86 58 600

14600 74 43

$1240 Tree Price 900 lJJ7 178 150900 BOO

118SOO 176 146 700 139 109 81700 600

38600 97 66

$1340 Tree Price 900 900 228 198 171 BOO

167 139SOO 197 700103700 161 130 600

600 119 88 60

$1440 Tree Price 900 BOO

248 218 191900 700159SOO 216 186 600

180 150 123700 80

Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount _ 10 lOwer No change 10 higher

-middot----middotmiddot---middot--bull-----dollars------bullbullbullbull -bullbullbull shy

$1040 Tree Price 175195 32602

(110936) (253415)

44502 (97269)

(2399BO) (381637)

(86191) (227140) (369023) (509859)

$1140 Tree Price 299293 167950 36607 142927

(14476) (170717)

12478 (144024) (299372)

(117971) (273573) (428028)

$1240 Tree Price 423391 291398 159406 253252 81984

(88019)

122225 (48069)

(217107)

(8BOl) (178123) (346196)

$1340 Tree Price 547489 414847 282204 363576 231972 100368 178445 (5321)

47886 (134842)

(82673) (264364)

$1440 Tree Price 671587 538295 405003 473901 341719 209538 274905 143841 12777 77377 (52578) (182532)

138 108 N01E Parentheses mean negative number

34 35

600

Investor Analysis

The following analysis considers the impact of the US tax laws (revised October 1987) on investing in Christmas trees The approach is identical to the previous IRR and NPV analysis except the impact of federal and state income taxes is considered in the annual stream of cash flow

The basis assumptions used are as follows

1 The taxpayer investor is in a 40 tax bracket on marginal income when combining both state and federal income taxes

2 The investor is actively engaged in managing the Christmas tree farm so that revenues and losses can be counted as active income or the investor has other passive investment income to offset any passive losses from growing Christmas trees

3 The Section 179 one-time deduction of $10000 per year is used in other businesses operated by the investor

4 Depreciation was calculated using the modified ACRS rules published by the IRS in 1987 Publication 225

5 The Christmas tree enterprise falls under the IRS rules for Christmas tree cultivation requiring capitalization of planting and stump culture for trees more than 6 years of age Because one-third of the trees are sold within the 6-year time limit one-third of planting expenses were deducted in the year incurred and the remaining two-thirds were capitalized and written off when the trees were sold in the seventh year

6 The investor uses a cash accounting system for tax purposes

36

The pre-tax IRR for the scenario with trees selling for $1240 each 80 harvestable yield and standard costs was 146 The IRR after-tax considerations fell to 125 (table 19) One might compare the after-tax return of 125 to other after-tax investments of comparable risks The after-tax NPV for the above scenario is $18069 compared to the pre-tax NPV of $122225 using a 12 discount rate

37

0

Table 19 Investor cash now analysis lor a l6O-acre Christmas tree larm (per planted acre basis) S=~=bullbull=I==~==~=bullbull====iI=bullbull2a==IIiIII bullbullbullbull===========n====ZIUSS=====bullbull===lllJ=====$~nUIlt1=llIIlta====s=a====II===============bullbullbull==II=~====lltz===-===U===========1II==X=======_==li=

Year 1 rHr 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year S Ye8l 6 tear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 1Q Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Tear 18

Net Cash Flow BelMe T8)( ConeiderattOlS (116411) (75439) (86658) (99354)(111768) (51189) 119810 119810 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810

Tax ONKtiona

Oeprec i at i on Irrigation syat far Foelli amp Equip

7875 1440

14625 7440

19446 7440

22890 7440

25378 7440

27156 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

Planting E_ 8209 10585 13004 16006 18568 22423 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031

~~~- ~t~t 1~~~r 1~ n~~ ~~m i~m ~M ~U~~ ~~M ~M ~~~ ~m ~M ~~~ ~~~ ~~M ~~M ~~M Total TalC DeOoctlons 33265 49193 65833 81973 96875 130860 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189341 189341 189311 189341 189341 189311

~rI~ (3326~) (4979~) (6583g) (819~) (968~) l~m) m~ ~~~~f~ mJ~ ~H~ m~~ mm ~~H~~ ~~B~ ~~im mm mJ~ ~~B2~ Inc_ ra Saings 13306 19917 26333 32189 38750 11930 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc_ TalC Oue 0 0 0 0 0 0 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297

let Cash flow (1037) (5522) (60325) (66) (737018) (397259) 74512 7Z2 74512 74512 7862 7512 74~12 rZSt2 142 M=062 1512 14512 =s===========s=_====sbullbullc=======-===================_======-=-==========I====S======-===========================e===s====================s==============r=================

Net Cash Flow Before Tax Considerations 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810 119810 190654 179442 217765 230460 242421 165733

T81 OlaquoiJcti ons

Depreciation

~ili~r Equip 2g~~ 2U~~ 2~~~ 2~~ 2~~~~ 2~g~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ 2~~ 2~~~ 2~n~ 1~~J ~~8 ~~~ f2zS 2~

~i~-OVerhoad

zg8M62335

zg8M62335

Z~~~ 62335

zg8M62335

ig8M62335

zg~~62335

i8M62335

i8M62335

t8M62335

i~8M 62335

Zg~~62335

~~~~~53665

~~~~ 46402

~tg~~40943

~~ ~~~35402 29986

ll~8~~

Total TaJ( Deduct_ 189341 189341 187121 187121 187121 187121 181121 181121 187121 187121 187121 156112 133925 117431 101291 86842 60718

I Froll Sales 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 201550 ~~~es~~= 1132~ m24~ 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154~ 1154~ 14647~ 16866g 1855~ 20129t 21574~ 1408~

Income la~ Due ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ Met Cash FloW =-2========SCI========

74512=I=====

74512 46974 73624 73624 73624 73624 63174 73624 __===_=_=============bullbullbullSamp====1II_1I31amp=II================_=II==__ == 73624_===__==

73624=======

132065 _=-=bullbull

111978======S=====

143703 ======_==

149943=======1I

156124 ========laquo

109400 ======_

~

Appendix Table Amiddotl United States Department ofAgriculture grade standards for Christmas trees

Christmas Tree Grades Factor US Premium US No1 US No2

Density Not less than Not less than Light or better medium medium

Tapera Normal- Normal- May be less than 40 to 90 40 to 90 40 or more

than 90

Damage-free faceb 4 3 2

Foliage Fresh clean Fresh clean Fresh clean and healthy and healthy and healthy

Shapec Well-shaped Well-shaped Well-shaped crown crown crown

Handle not Handle not Handle not less less than 6 less than 6 less than 6 or more than or more than or more than 134 per foot 1 34 per foot 1 34 per foot of tree height of tree height of tree height

aTaper of a tree is defined as the width of a tree expressed as a percentage of its height

Face means the visible surface area of a tree as viewed from 8 to 10 feet from the tree A tree is considered to have four faces each face constituting 14 of the tree

cHeight of a tree is defined in terms of foot or half-foot steps and is measured from the base of the handle to a point on the leader not more than 4 feet above the apex of the cone of the taper

Source Proebsting Buhaly and Wanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest 1981

40

4iUJiMMiFeuro iampi~t~Ityen)--

Literature Cited

Clevenger Tom et at The Wholesale and Processing Market for Locally Grown High Value Crops Research Report 572 New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station July 1985

Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture (Mora Research Center) New Mexico State University Guidelines for Growing and Marketing Christmas Trees in New Mexico New Mexico Department of Natural Resources October 1980

Huntley Wallace Marketing Christmas Trees-Turning a Problem into an Opportunity American Christmas Tree Journal August 1984 pp 41-43

Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury Fanners Tax Guide Publication 225

Proebsting William M Joseph Buhaly and Donald Hanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest Pacific Northwest Extension Publication PNW6 January 1981

41

Page 16: Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and ...

Table 11 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas ~~~~~~~~~~~_~~~t~~~~~ ___ _ ~i~~middotDAEmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot YIELD

HARVEST OATES PRICE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull PURCHASED FUEL Oil FIXED

PMR INPUTS LA~ LUBRICANT REPAIRS COST TOTAL ~~~~~~- middotmiddotDOt~~middot PURCHASED INPUTS

HERBICIDE 100 ACRE 5800 5800 INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 fUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 AMONIUM SULFATE 46900 LB 4221 4221 MlsCElLANEClJS TOOLS 100 ACRE 750 750

SUBTOTAL 14296 14296

PRE HARVEST OPERA liONS ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) CAS 1500 HR 6300 390 180 825 7695 PTO SPRAYER (ax) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 364 239 386 2485 MOIlER (2X) CAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374~ FERT INJECTOR ElE 030 HR 011 061 096 168 LABOR MISC 1000 HR 4200 4200 lElL (14X) [L 630 HR 49bull 20 416 309 5645

SUBTOTAL 3590 12865 5897 1033 1772 21567

OVERHEAD EXPENSES DOIINTIM 586 3223 3223 EMPLOYEE BENEF ITS 2316 2316 INSURANCE 850 850 FARM FACILITIES 386 386 LAND RENT 8163 8163 CENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION 5000 5000 SUPERVI SION 7500 7500 OTHER 3000 3000

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039 17399 30438

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 4176 HR 14296 25904 5897 1033 19171 66301

NET OPERATl NG PROF IT 66301

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL 3247 INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 1102

70650~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~--

Table 12 Per acre rull cost budgets ror growing White Fir and Scots Pine 5 to 7 root Christmas trees (year 5 establishment) NM 1988 PLANTING OATES HARVEST OATES YIELD

PRICE

lIEM PMR

IJHlT QUANT lTy PURCHASED

INPUTS

~~~~~

FUEL OlL LA80R LUBRICANT

REPAIRS FIXED COST TOTAL

PURCHASED INPUTS - shy ~ ~ bull bull bull (DOLLARS) bull - bull HER81CIOE INSECTICIDE FUNCICIOE AMOHIUM SULFATE MI SCELLANEOUS TOOLS

SU8TOTAL

PREHARVEST oPERATIONS

100 ACRE 100 ACRE 100 ACRE

46900 L8 100 ACRE

3700 1800 1725 4221 750

12196

3700 1800 1725 4221

750

12196

ROTARY PRUHNERS (2X) PTO SPRAYER (8X) MOIlER aX) FERT INJECTOR LABOR WELL (16X)

SUBTOTAL

OVERHEAD EXPENSES

CAS CAS 15 HP CAS 15 HP ELE MISC ELE

1500 H 272 HR 158 HR 030 HR

1000 HR 720 HR

3680

6300 1496 869

4200

12865

390 364 212 011

5623

6600

180 239 137 061

475

1092

825 386 156 096

353

1816

7695 2485 1374 168

4200 6451

22373

OOIHIME EMPLOYEE BENEFf TS INSURANCE FARM FACILITIES LANI RENT GENERAL amp ADMINISTRATION SUPERVISION OTHER

586 3223 2316

7500

850 386

8163 5000

3223 2316 850 386

8163 5000 7500

SUBTOTAL 586 HR 13039

3000

17399

3000

30438

TOTAL OPERAJINC EXPENSES 4266 HR 12196 25904 6600 1092 19215 65007 NET oPERA T I HG PROf I T

65007 INTEREST ON OPERATINC CAPITAL INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 3142

1153 RETURN TO bull I SK bull ~ bullbullbull - _ - - ~ - _ - - _ bullbullbullbull - - ~ _ bullbull - _ bullbullbullbull bullbull - bullbullbull

~ - - -_ _-_ __--_ _---__- 69302

Table 13 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine

~~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J~~~~~~ Table 14 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine PL~NTIMG DATES YIELD 387 TREES GROSS RETURNSS4198 80 HARVEST DATES NOVEMBER 15 bull DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0TREE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbull bullbull

bull - bullbull - bullbullbull - bull bull bull bull ~C~A~E~ - FUEL OIL FIXED ~middot~middot~7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~U~~~~~ PLANT INC DATES YIelD 775 TREESQUANT ITY INPUTS LABOR LUBRICANT REPAIU COST TOTAL

~ ___ w~ ___ ____ _ ____ ____ _ _ _ ___ HARVEST OATES NOVEM8ER 15 DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0IREE ~ CROSS RETURNS$9iIOOO - bullbullbullbull (DOLLARS) bullbullbullbullbullbull - bull shy

pOlin PURCHASEDPURCHASED INPUTS ITEM fUEl OIL FIXEDUNIT OUANT IlY INPUTSHERBltlDE 100 ACRE 3700 3700 bull lABOR LUBRICANT RePAIRS-_ _---- _--- _---_ _---- - _--_ - _- __ __ -- COST TOTAL INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 bull FUNGICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 bull bull (DOLLARS) bull A_IUM SULFATE 93800 LB 8~~2 8442 bull

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE T6OOTWINE 38700 EACH 19-35 1935 1600INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800MISCELLANEros TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000 bull 1800

ESTABLISHMENT 113 2781 72 278172 FUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725AMON I UN SULFATE 5~000 lB 4860 4860

SUBTOTAL 18602 2781 72 2967 7~ TWINE 17500 EACH 3875 ~8 7~MISCELLANEOUS TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000

PREHARVEST OPERATIOIIS ESTABLISHMENT 23 ~050 ~050

ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) GAS 3800 HR 15960 988 ~56 2090 1~9~ bull SUBTOIAL 14860PTO SPRAYER (ex) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 360 239 386 2~ 85 bull ~050 698910 MOWER (2X) GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 137~ bull PREHARVEST OPERATIONSfERT INJECTOR ELE 035 oR 012 071 112 195 bull ROTARY PRUNNERS (2)) GAS 3000 HRLABOR Mise 1000 HR ~200 ~2 00 bull 12600 780 360 1650 I5~90PTO SPRAYER (xl GAS 15 HP 238 HRIlELL lt18X) ElE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258 bull MOIlER (ZX) 1309 319 209 338 21 75GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374fEAT INJECTOR ELE 060 HSUBTOTAL 6075 22525 7902 1~38 31~1 35006 021 122 191 334LABOR MIse 1000 HR ~200 4200

HARVEST OPERATIONS WELL (18X) ELE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258

CHAIN SAW GAS 968 HR 4066 252 136 590 50~~ SUBTOTAL 5266DRAG amp lOAD HAND 3225 HR 13545 135~5 18978 7658 1363 2732 J0731 TREE BALER GAS 230 HR 966 177 278 952 2373 HARVEST OPERATIONSTRAILER GAS 15 HP 300 HR 1650 ~11 360 560 2985 CHAIN SAW GAS 1938 HRLABOR Mise 1650 HR 6930 6930 81~0 504 271 1182 10097DRAG amp LOAD HAND 6058 HR 27124 27124

SUBTOIAL 6373 HR 27157 8~0 7 7~ 2106 30877 TREE BALER GAS I 46D HR 1932 354 5~7 1904 4747TRAILER GAS 15 HP 600 HR 3300 822 720 1128 5970LABOR MISC ~OOO NROVERHEAD EXPENSES 16800 16800 OOHlE 2321 12763 12763 bull SUBTOTAL 13~56 HREMPLOYEE SENEF lIS 89~3 89~3 bull 57296 1680 1548 4214 6~7 38

INSURANCE 850 850 bull OVERHEAD EXPEHSESFARM fACILITIES 386 366 bull OCltJNTJME 3~70LAND RENT 8163 8163 bull 19637 19637EMPLOYEE BENet liSGENERAL amp ADMINISTRATlOil 5000 5000 bull 13729 13729 SUPERVISION 7500 7500 bull INSURANCE

850 850FARM FACILITIESOTHER 3000 3000 bull 386 386LAND RENTMARXETING 2399~ 2399~ 8163 8163

SUPERVISION GeNERAL 8 ADMINISTRATION

5000 5000 SUBTOTAL 2321 HR 23994 29206 17399 70599 7500 7500

MARKETING OTHER

3000 300048050 48050

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 14769 HR 29550 ~~401 347~ 1250 287125 367738 bullbull SUBTOTAL 3570 HR ~8050 ~0866 17399 106315 IIpoundT OPERATING PROfIT 1121~2

TOIAl OPERATING EXPENSES 22292 HRINTEREST (JIj OPERATTNG CAPlTAL 6545 62910 117140 9338 2911 708395 900694 INTEREST (JIj EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 2473 NET OPERATING PROFIT

60306 10312~

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT IHVESlMENT 8659

3361 RETURN TO R I so

TIoCmiddotTHIRDS OF THESE COSTS IlERE ALLOCATED AS PROOUCTl(Jlj COSTS fORIREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 7 48286iI ~--~-- ----- ~ --~--- -~------ -----~-- yen - bullbullbullbull -- ~ -- ----_ _w ___ ________ 0 _______ _w __ IHIS TOTAL INCCltPORATES ONLY THE EXPENSE ASSOCATEO WITH THE TREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 6 BECAUSE OF THIS THE COLUMN

WILL NOT SUM TO THIS VALUE

24 25

~ i C -i Q

= foil

Table 15 Cash flow for a 160-aere Cbristmas tree rann (147 net planted aeres lIIII====_=====IIIlIII======S=II==2=II=___1I3_III========s_bullbullbullbull=z=a==a============bullbull==~=bullbullbull==11======aSS==lIIlII======================================================

Year 1 fear 2 Year J tear 4 Year 5 Year 6 fear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 fear 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 lllttows _=====

Sale of Trees so so so so so $101035 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 S302585 S302585 $302585 $302585 OUtflows

Purchased Input 5 Tree stock 1921019m 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210Cover ~rass seed 315 9sect1~ 19m 315 315 315 19m 19m 315 19m 19m 19m 19m315 315 315 315erbicuSe 1019 2415 3633 4851 5628 6405 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741Insecticide o 378 756 1~ 1890 22611 22611 22611 22611 2268 2268 2268 22611 22611Ftrlgicide o o o H~ 1087 U~ 1449 U~ 1449 1449 449 ~~~ 1449 1449 t449 1449Amonhn Sui tate o 444 1109 1~ 5676 5676 5676 ~~~X 5676 5676Tree guards 788 788 788 2~ 4~~ 788 53 53 53 788 788 5~ 5~ 53788 788 788Miscellaneous tools 420 578 735 893 105g 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365Twine o o o o i~ 1220 l~~ l~~ij 1220 1220 1220 1220 1220 lm lnOIrrigatlon system 31500 3150031 508 31500 31500 31500 31500 3150g 31500 31500 31~~g 31500 31500 31500 31 gtog 31~~g 31500 31500Eqult 33750 o o o 1045g o o o 266j0 o o a 10450 o oFarm facilities 17000 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oPre-harvest Operations o CustQll1 1_ preparation 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651Spray 204 578 844 1271 1698 2124 2498 2498 2~g 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498Harrow 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 168 1611 1611 Mark rows 309 309 309 Seed 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 Haul plants 42 42 42 42 42 309309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309

42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42Pl t (hand) 1861 2 ~Iy Netting 1~ 1~

794 1~ ~2 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ ~2 1~ 1 1861 1861 1861 861 li~ Orlp installaton 221 221 221 211

~l 794 794 794 794 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 2lt1495 990 1485 1733 1980 2228 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475Shear amp train 2415a o 864 2303 3743 7398- 1~~~ 1~~~ 10283 10283 10283 10283

i seel taneous 1amp1raquor 882 76 2646 Appt ter t it i zer o o o 10~g~ 10m 10m 10~g~ 10~g~ 10283

35 71 141 182 182 182 182 182 182 lr2 Purping costs 480 1121 617435l8 5292 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 Ot 174 6174 6174 6174

Harvest operations 2081 3l02 i~~g 5923 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 73k4

Cut tr~s o Drag amp load trees o 2807o o 935 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 Wrap trees o o 2374 7115 ~~~~ ~~~ 1115 7115 7115 7115 7115 7~ 7115o o o 298 895 895 895 7J~ 895 7~~~ 895 895 895 895 895Haul trees o o o 508 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525MisceHaneous labOr o 1525o o 1455 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366Overheed Oowotime 648 1007 IS58 2235 2911 5522 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346E1lloy benefits 4611 742 1145 1631 3933 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581Insurance 179 357 536 114 2~~

1071 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250Land r~t 1575 3150 4725 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025G amp A 1050 lloo 3150 4lOO 5250 6300 tgro 7350 7350 7350 7350 1~m k~~~ 7350 ~m 7350 7350 735a~~~Vision 472S 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11021575 3150

11m 11~~~ 025 11~~630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 63mMarketng II o o o o 5052 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 lSI29

1 Based on total of 147 planted acres by Year 7 A total of 21 (Jeres are planted each year year 1 consists ot 21 planted acres year 2 a total of 42 etC

-- --~ -~-~ r IJampamp $ ~H ~M LgtH~-~Lw~

110 0 middot W It 110 OO~~~~o~~OOO OampooooooosectOii S~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~H~ = - 11 11=L = 110 _ N N 0 M

bull c _~_

bullbullbull 2 _ M~

cash needs of the operation The farm will produce a positivei 0goooo00020poundN t-~~~~ t-~Fg~ORi ~ UNHIt U to OOE~l2~O~ft~oOI L 110 lS -lIi iIl~lI)t i1 ---a~ - 3

N annual cash flow starting in the seventh year However a total N bullbull u _N N~ - - ~N ~ $E~3

bullbull It 0 t N of $540819 in cash is expended through the first 6 years Ao~ooooooo~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~V~~ ~=~==~C ~ OOi~~~~O$~OOO ~ laquoS_~_ i i6~ ~gIIt_~o~ -=~ I total of 11 years are needed (five positive cash producingbullM Ii IfII 110 II n N -~ ~ _ N t- _ _ ~ ~~~= N III H 0 years) before the cash outflows incurred during the first 6 ~

~ = =a OOsect~~~O~OOO o~ooooooo~~~i 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ =~= years are covered This is based on selling trees at $1240L= V ~ ~N ~~ ~~ ~4 N~ ~~~ i i~e s -- N S The budgets were developed for a 35-year period because=gt- tt n this was thought to be a reasonable economic life5~~ ~ OO~~~roO~~O~O degmoooooooi~~ ~=~~~ ~mi5~5~~ ~=~= amp0 - ~ - III middot

__ ~ ~ _ 0 Nt- _ Ntn ~~~ ~ -~~- ~ pound Additionally a 35-year life allows for five 7-year

planting-through-harvest rotations Based on the rotationbull C) MM C OO~~~~degri~OOO OampOOOOOOO~~~~m 2E~~~ ~~~sect~~~~ ~u~= i c L ~ ~

N~v N N~ ~~ N~ ~4 ~~~~~~ ~ iii schedule only Inth of the total acreage would be planted ini = i

-SfIJ n= ~ - -I anyone year The cash costs in year 1 therefore include onlyRi = ~ ~~~~~i~~5me~~ i~sect~~ ~~~~~~~~ E~ lias amp0 ~~~~~~J~~~~OO H II n ~ 0- ~~w- ~ = ~~ Nt- - ~~_~t- ~ ~ct N planting expense for Inth of the total acreage or 21 acresW - - -= ~ Year 2 would again include planting expenses for Inth of theCtI 110- -~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~o~~~g~ ~G~ liN Q) $ ___ cOP ___~ i_IiInJX lIlCoo~_ flt nc II II tn ~~i~~~~~~~~00 =~ N ~ 0_11 - N w (1= Ot- N~ Oo~t-- i Ef~~ acreage and the second year growing expenses for the 21=- =tt ~ - acres planted originally The total expenses of a fullymiddot =S 1II ~~~_~~~~~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~sect~~ l~~~~~~~ Ec~ _ tl_-= ~u ~ operating facility are first incurred in the seventh year The

~ ~NII -~_ 1I1f N ~o~ N~ - ~o~=~~ ~ eg~R- 1111 0 - t first year of full revenue is also obtained in year 7 (21 acres of Cite ~ ~~~~~~~N~~~~~ ~~~~~ I~~~~~g~ ~r~i

~ _ ~ cOPNN __~ ~_m~~ ~1nO~O~~ Nfl~M

= or ~~~~~~~~~~O tt l 387 trees in their sixth year and 21 acres of 775 trees in their0- ~N_~ _ _0 N ~o~ N~ - ~~_=t--= ~ ~gGbull N= iI - - - ~i 1 seventh year ofgrowth)III

4iiii i~ ~ As the farm approaches the end of its economic life it was~~~_~~~~~~~~OO i~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~pound~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~i~E i

I middotL= 0- -oN_tI- - ~ N _ N~ot-- Nt-- ~ ~o_~t-= ~ ~U~ ii= = ~ assumed that the operator would stop planting Therefore as 11 - a l ~ 13 ~~~~g~i~N~~~~~ i~~~~ ~~a~~IC~~ E=~= of year 29 no more planting expenses are incurred It wasltV bull V ~~~~~~~~~~OO 0- N - -= ~N0ftIo - Ieo ~ t= -oN 1I _0- - N~ ~~ Nt- - ~o-~= ~ ~ft~c =a ~ - t assumed the land would be either left idle or used for otherIIIJ - -

= ~ purposes In year 35 the final year of operation only 21 acresa~= tQ ~~~~~~~re~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~ E~a N 0- -0 ___ _III u N _ N~o~ N~ _~ ~o-=~= ~ ~~~III ~ ~ of seventh-year trees would remain to be harvested At thisgt- - - -I point the entire operation would be closed down No salvagesect ii~ 1II ~~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~$~9~~ i~~~~ ~~~~sect~~ E~I II

II Ltf __ ~ ~N-II N ~ Ni ~~ N~ ~~ ~~~i~ i ~=in value was assumed because the land used was either leased or ~ -11~ 1= shy

I ~ rented and all equipment or buildings had no remainingc 15 ~ ft ~~~rd~~J~~~~~O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~E~iIII 0- QN-V 0 N _ N~o~ N ~~_~~~ ~ ~~~ i useful life H= ~ - ltgt ~ 15 Over the project life it would be necessary to replace some to tQ ~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~S~~~ 2Ei~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~5~i t ~ equipment For the purpose of this study it was assumed that~ I ~ -oN_~ _ - N _ N~ ~~ _ ~o_=~~ ~ ~~ I -= I= ~ - i all equipment would be used until it was no longer-=1 ~lt~S~-~N~~~~1 t-~~~~ ~co~~~o~ ~ft i011 V-- ~ o~- ~~NN__~ i_~V~ ~II~OO~_ ~~ ~~~~~_~i~~~OO a salvageable at which point it would be replaced new Table 16

r bullbull tv () -ON _ - N N~o~ ~ _ ~o-== ~ ~I~ I middot ~ - - - ~ shows the replacement schedule assumed in the cash flow i ~ Note that this table reflects the assumed useful life of the~ -=bull gi

i

iii s equipment rather than its depreciable life Also two itemsCgt I 1 u lJi~ ~ t- I ~ - ~ i the chain saws and the tree balers are not necessary until year -111) l -E I ~ l~~ _E ==Ilbull- ~ 1 ~j c ~ ~ ~ -5 -_ bull s

~~~ ~ ~~ _ ~ ~ L~ OL ~ 0 6 II 6 and were not purchased until that time Based on the highc _~~~~~WL ~-=] ii1t~ ~~ ulpoundlzl ~~ ~ = 1 i~uZul ~~I S Lo-- 2 L ~It~~ -i ~ ~

J L~_ ~m LOCmiddot gt- ampogt-~-~~ ~tc -lt 0 011 CIt -= = 2 ~~~t~5middotFi~f~~i~iitli-~fi~fifiiiI f Ii ~ilaquoI - ~ =~U=_~~~~~_W~U0Z~EZ~CQE~CEAL3QZEQW_~000 ~middot - ~ 8 Ii ~ I ~ middotmiddot -

29

111

f ~middot~middot~LC -- - ~i~

n ~ illII I~ II

Ii II

~~ Table 16 Equipment replacement schedule for a 160-acre ~ Christmas tree farm in New Mexico 1988 ~

usage during a short time period and the relatively short life of these items they were replaced every 5 years

Analysis

Because there are many unknowns encountered when projecting cost and returns and because different locations may be faced with different situations a series of scenarios were provided to evaluate the financial feasibility of the project Three major variables were altered concurrently to create the different scenarios These variables were

1 Prices 2 Yields 3 Costs

Price

A base price of $1240 was assumed The sensitivity of the return to a change of $1 increments over a range of $2 was measured

Yield

Changes in teld were based on altering the number of saleable trees This was done as a percentage of the total trees planted For example a 90 rate would mean that 90 of the 1452 trees originally planted or 1307 trees were available for sale This variable not only affect~ gross revenue but also alters any costs associated with the number of trees harvested Costs such as cutting field hauling baling and brokering are all altered by changes in the number of trees harvested and were assumed to be linear

Yield might also be altered by decreasing the space between trees For example a 5 by 5 spacing yields 1742 planted trees If 80 were saleable this would be 1394 trees

30

Item

Facilities

Well

Tractor

PTO sprayer

Trailer

Mower

Injector

Rotary pruners

Chain saw

Tree baler

iIIii Year ~

L 6 lL 16 2L 26 JL II~ Cost ~

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -(dollars) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- If 17000 ~

~ 10200 i

~

1bull1 113000 13000 13000 13000 1

~I 1200 1200 1200 1200 ~

bull p

~Ii ~

2400 II

800 800 800 800 ~ -I

I1200 1200 1200 1200 ~ 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 t

IiiIii 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 J

~ ~ ~ JOW JOW ~ ~ JOW

50750 10450 26650 10450 26650 10450 26650 I~ISource Table 3 IiIJ

f ~ J ~Cost ~

11I~ Because costs vary by farm and by location it was felt that a sensitivity should be performed on this variable Rather than bull

talter a specific cost or a specific category of costs the total bullIIj

cost was increased or decreased by a percentage and the Ji results evaluated Costs were altered in 10 increments in ~

Iijeither direction The 0 column uses those costs shown in the cash flow

t ~II

1

~I~ 31 ~

Feasibility Assessment

The internal rate of return (IRR) is a technique used to evaluate investment opportunities that incorporates the time value of money concept The internal rate of return for an investment project (in this case a Christmas tree planting) is the discount rate that equates the present value of the annual net cash revenue flows with the projects acquisition cost The net cash revenue is the difference between the cash receipts and cash expenses generated by an investment project over its economic life The time value of money is based on the economic fact that $1 today is worth more than a promise of $1 at some future date because of its current earnings potential

An investment can be accepted or rejected based on its internal rate of return (IRR) Acceptability of the investment depends on a comparison of the IRR with the investors required rate of return (RRR) Acceptability can be based on the following decision rules if IRR exceeds RRR accept the investment if IRR = RRR be indifferent and if IRR is less than RRR reject the investment

While IRR is a useful technique in project evaluation there are some problems with its use The major concern when using IRR is it assumes all cash inflows can be reinvested at the same rate as the resulting IRR percentage Should the IRR percentage be in the vicinity of the current rates of return of other investment instruments IRR is a reasonably accurate measure of return on investment However should the rate of return be much higher than current returns available elsewhere the resulting return on investment may be overstated The inverse is true at lower rates of return

The Net Present Value (NPV) is another way of evaluating projects that involve capital outlays over a period of years The NPV method discounts all future cash outlays and inflows back to a present-year basis using a specified interest (discount rate) The discount rate chosen is usually the opportunity cost of using equity funds in an alternative use or the cost of borrowed capital increased by an appropriate premium for risk or a combination of these The NPV

32

method is preferred over the IRR method when evaluating one investment against alternative similar type investments

Based on the sensitivity analysis discussed above a table was developed to show the IRR under the various scenarios Table 17 shows the internal rates by the per-unit price The analyses is based on pre-tax returns At $1040 per tree the IRR ranges from -14 when costs were increased by 10 and saleable yields were reduced to 60 to 160 when costs were decreased by 10 and 90 of the trees planted were sold At $1140 the IRR range is from 14 to 185 under the same conditions as above At $1240 per tree the IRR ranges from 38 when costs were increased 10 and 60 of the trees are saleable to 207 when costs were decreased 10 and saleable yields were at 90 At $1340 per tree the IRR ranges from 60 to 228 At $1440 per tree a grower could expect an IRR from 80 to 248 under the scenarios presented

A pre-tax analysis using Net Present Value (NPV) was also completed for the various scenarios The results of this analysis are shown in table 18

If an IRR of 12 is chosen as a minimum rate desired for investment growers must receive at least $1140 per tree and attain a level of 80 saleable trees and good cost control to have a successful investment At prices greater than $1140 per tree and 80 saleable product the investment appears to have possibility

33

Table 17 Internal Rates of Return (lRR) estimates for a 160-acre Table 18 Net Present Value (NPV) estimates for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost cbanges cha~es Ising a discount rate of 12

Percentage Percentageof saleable Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount

of saleabletrees 10 lower No chan~ 10 bilber trees --percent-shy

_______ - - - - - - - - - - - (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - shy

$1040 Tree Price 900 130 102900 160 BOO

SOO 128 97 69 700 60 31700 91 600

-14600 48 16

$1140 Tree Price( 900 127185 155

123 95900 800 SOO 153 700 700 116 86 58 600

14600 74 43

$1240 Tree Price 900 lJJ7 178 150900 BOO

118SOO 176 146 700 139 109 81700 600

38600 97 66

$1340 Tree Price 900 900 228 198 171 BOO

167 139SOO 197 700103700 161 130 600

600 119 88 60

$1440 Tree Price 900 BOO

248 218 191900 700159SOO 216 186 600

180 150 123700 80

Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount _ 10 lOwer No change 10 higher

-middot----middotmiddot---middot--bull-----dollars------bullbullbullbull -bullbullbull shy

$1040 Tree Price 175195 32602

(110936) (253415)

44502 (97269)

(2399BO) (381637)

(86191) (227140) (369023) (509859)

$1140 Tree Price 299293 167950 36607 142927

(14476) (170717)

12478 (144024) (299372)

(117971) (273573) (428028)

$1240 Tree Price 423391 291398 159406 253252 81984

(88019)

122225 (48069)

(217107)

(8BOl) (178123) (346196)

$1340 Tree Price 547489 414847 282204 363576 231972 100368 178445 (5321)

47886 (134842)

(82673) (264364)

$1440 Tree Price 671587 538295 405003 473901 341719 209538 274905 143841 12777 77377 (52578) (182532)

138 108 N01E Parentheses mean negative number

34 35

600

Investor Analysis

The following analysis considers the impact of the US tax laws (revised October 1987) on investing in Christmas trees The approach is identical to the previous IRR and NPV analysis except the impact of federal and state income taxes is considered in the annual stream of cash flow

The basis assumptions used are as follows

1 The taxpayer investor is in a 40 tax bracket on marginal income when combining both state and federal income taxes

2 The investor is actively engaged in managing the Christmas tree farm so that revenues and losses can be counted as active income or the investor has other passive investment income to offset any passive losses from growing Christmas trees

3 The Section 179 one-time deduction of $10000 per year is used in other businesses operated by the investor

4 Depreciation was calculated using the modified ACRS rules published by the IRS in 1987 Publication 225

5 The Christmas tree enterprise falls under the IRS rules for Christmas tree cultivation requiring capitalization of planting and stump culture for trees more than 6 years of age Because one-third of the trees are sold within the 6-year time limit one-third of planting expenses were deducted in the year incurred and the remaining two-thirds were capitalized and written off when the trees were sold in the seventh year

6 The investor uses a cash accounting system for tax purposes

36

The pre-tax IRR for the scenario with trees selling for $1240 each 80 harvestable yield and standard costs was 146 The IRR after-tax considerations fell to 125 (table 19) One might compare the after-tax return of 125 to other after-tax investments of comparable risks The after-tax NPV for the above scenario is $18069 compared to the pre-tax NPV of $122225 using a 12 discount rate

37

0

Table 19 Investor cash now analysis lor a l6O-acre Christmas tree larm (per planted acre basis) S=~=bullbull=I==~==~=bullbull====iI=bullbull2a==IIiIII bullbullbullbull===========n====ZIUSS=====bullbull===lllJ=====$~nUIlt1=llIIlta====s=a====II===============bullbullbull==II=~====lltz===-===U===========1II==X=======_==li=

Year 1 rHr 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year S Ye8l 6 tear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 1Q Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Tear 18

Net Cash Flow BelMe T8)( ConeiderattOlS (116411) (75439) (86658) (99354)(111768) (51189) 119810 119810 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810

Tax ONKtiona

Oeprec i at i on Irrigation syat far Foelli amp Equip

7875 1440

14625 7440

19446 7440

22890 7440

25378 7440

27156 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

Planting E_ 8209 10585 13004 16006 18568 22423 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031

~~~- ~t~t 1~~~r 1~ n~~ ~~m i~m ~M ~U~~ ~~M ~M ~~~ ~m ~M ~~~ ~~~ ~~M ~~M ~~M Total TalC DeOoctlons 33265 49193 65833 81973 96875 130860 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189341 189341 189311 189341 189341 189311

~rI~ (3326~) (4979~) (6583g) (819~) (968~) l~m) m~ ~~~~f~ mJ~ ~H~ m~~ mm ~~H~~ ~~B~ ~~im mm mJ~ ~~B2~ Inc_ ra Saings 13306 19917 26333 32189 38750 11930 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc_ TalC Oue 0 0 0 0 0 0 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297

let Cash flow (1037) (5522) (60325) (66) (737018) (397259) 74512 7Z2 74512 74512 7862 7512 74~12 rZSt2 142 M=062 1512 14512 =s===========s=_====sbullbullc=======-===================_======-=-==========I====S======-===========================e===s====================s==============r=================

Net Cash Flow Before Tax Considerations 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810 119810 190654 179442 217765 230460 242421 165733

T81 OlaquoiJcti ons

Depreciation

~ili~r Equip 2g~~ 2U~~ 2~~~ 2~~ 2~~~~ 2~g~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ 2~~ 2~~~ 2~n~ 1~~J ~~8 ~~~ f2zS 2~

~i~-OVerhoad

zg8M62335

zg8M62335

Z~~~ 62335

zg8M62335

ig8M62335

zg~~62335

i8M62335

i8M62335

t8M62335

i~8M 62335

Zg~~62335

~~~~~53665

~~~~ 46402

~tg~~40943

~~ ~~~35402 29986

ll~8~~

Total TaJ( Deduct_ 189341 189341 187121 187121 187121 187121 181121 181121 187121 187121 187121 156112 133925 117431 101291 86842 60718

I Froll Sales 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 201550 ~~~es~~= 1132~ m24~ 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154~ 1154~ 14647~ 16866g 1855~ 20129t 21574~ 1408~

Income la~ Due ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ Met Cash FloW =-2========SCI========

74512=I=====

74512 46974 73624 73624 73624 73624 63174 73624 __===_=_=============bullbullbullSamp====1II_1I31amp=II================_=II==__ == 73624_===__==

73624=======

132065 _=-=bullbull

111978======S=====

143703 ======_==

149943=======1I

156124 ========laquo

109400 ======_

~

Appendix Table Amiddotl United States Department ofAgriculture grade standards for Christmas trees

Christmas Tree Grades Factor US Premium US No1 US No2

Density Not less than Not less than Light or better medium medium

Tapera Normal- Normal- May be less than 40 to 90 40 to 90 40 or more

than 90

Damage-free faceb 4 3 2

Foliage Fresh clean Fresh clean Fresh clean and healthy and healthy and healthy

Shapec Well-shaped Well-shaped Well-shaped crown crown crown

Handle not Handle not Handle not less less than 6 less than 6 less than 6 or more than or more than or more than 134 per foot 1 34 per foot 1 34 per foot of tree height of tree height of tree height

aTaper of a tree is defined as the width of a tree expressed as a percentage of its height

Face means the visible surface area of a tree as viewed from 8 to 10 feet from the tree A tree is considered to have four faces each face constituting 14 of the tree

cHeight of a tree is defined in terms of foot or half-foot steps and is measured from the base of the handle to a point on the leader not more than 4 feet above the apex of the cone of the taper

Source Proebsting Buhaly and Wanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest 1981

40

4iUJiMMiFeuro iampi~t~Ityen)--

Literature Cited

Clevenger Tom et at The Wholesale and Processing Market for Locally Grown High Value Crops Research Report 572 New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station July 1985

Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture (Mora Research Center) New Mexico State University Guidelines for Growing and Marketing Christmas Trees in New Mexico New Mexico Department of Natural Resources October 1980

Huntley Wallace Marketing Christmas Trees-Turning a Problem into an Opportunity American Christmas Tree Journal August 1984 pp 41-43

Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury Fanners Tax Guide Publication 225

Proebsting William M Joseph Buhaly and Donald Hanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest Pacific Northwest Extension Publication PNW6 January 1981

41

Page 17: Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and ...

Table 13 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine

~~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J~~~~~~ Table 14 Per acre full cost budgets for growing White Fir and Scots Pine PL~NTIMG DATES YIELD 387 TREES GROSS RETURNSS4198 80 HARVEST DATES NOVEMBER 15 bull DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0TREE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbull bullbull

bull - bullbull - bullbullbull - bull bull bull bull ~C~A~E~ - FUEL OIL FIXED ~middot~middot~7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~U~~~~~ PLANT INC DATES YIelD 775 TREESQUANT ITY INPUTS LABOR LUBRICANT REPAIU COST TOTAL

~ ___ w~ ___ ____ _ ____ ____ _ _ _ ___ HARVEST OATES NOVEM8ER 15 DECEMBER 2PRICE S 12~0IREE ~ CROSS RETURNS$9iIOOO - bullbullbullbull (DOLLARS) bullbullbullbullbullbull - bull shy

pOlin PURCHASEDPURCHASED INPUTS ITEM fUEl OIL FIXEDUNIT OUANT IlY INPUTSHERBltlDE 100 ACRE 3700 3700 bull lABOR LUBRICANT RePAIRS-_ _---- _--- _---_ _---- - _--_ - _- __ __ -- COST TOTAL INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800 1800 bull FUNGICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725 bull bull (DOLLARS) bull A_IUM SULFATE 93800 LB 8~~2 8442 bull

PURCHASED INPUTS HERBICIDE 100 ACRE T6OOTWINE 38700 EACH 19-35 1935 1600INSECTICIDE 100 ACRE 1800MISCELLANEros TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000 bull 1800

ESTABLISHMENT 113 2781 72 278172 FUNCICIDE 100 ACRE 1725 1725AMON I UN SULFATE 5~000 lB 4860 4860

SUBTOTAL 18602 2781 72 2967 7~ TWINE 17500 EACH 3875 ~8 7~MISCELLANEOUS TOOLS 100 ACRE 1000 1000

PREHARVEST OPERATIOIIS ESTABLISHMENT 23 ~050 ~050

ROTARY PRUNNERS (2X) GAS 3800 HR 15960 988 ~56 2090 1~9~ bull SUBTOIAL 14860PTO SPRAYER (ex) GAS 15 HP 272 HR 1496 360 239 386 2~ 85 bull ~050 698910 MOWER (2X) GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 137~ bull PREHARVEST OPERATIONSfERT INJECTOR ELE 035 oR 012 071 112 195 bull ROTARY PRUNNERS (2)) GAS 3000 HRLABOR Mise 1000 HR ~200 ~2 00 bull 12600 780 360 1650 I5~90PTO SPRAYER (xl GAS 15 HP 238 HRIlELL lt18X) ElE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258 bull MOIlER (ZX) 1309 319 209 338 21 75GAS 15 HP 158 HR 869 212 137 156 1374fEAT INJECTOR ELE 060 HSUBTOTAL 6075 22525 7902 1~38 31~1 35006 021 122 191 334LABOR MIse 1000 HR ~200 4200

HARVEST OPERATIONS WELL (18X) ELE 810 HR 6326 535 397 7258

CHAIN SAW GAS 968 HR 4066 252 136 590 50~~ SUBTOTAL 5266DRAG amp lOAD HAND 3225 HR 13545 135~5 18978 7658 1363 2732 J0731 TREE BALER GAS 230 HR 966 177 278 952 2373 HARVEST OPERATIONSTRAILER GAS 15 HP 300 HR 1650 ~11 360 560 2985 CHAIN SAW GAS 1938 HRLABOR Mise 1650 HR 6930 6930 81~0 504 271 1182 10097DRAG amp LOAD HAND 6058 HR 27124 27124

SUBTOIAL 6373 HR 27157 8~0 7 7~ 2106 30877 TREE BALER GAS I 46D HR 1932 354 5~7 1904 4747TRAILER GAS 15 HP 600 HR 3300 822 720 1128 5970LABOR MISC ~OOO NROVERHEAD EXPENSES 16800 16800 OOHlE 2321 12763 12763 bull SUBTOTAL 13~56 HREMPLOYEE SENEF lIS 89~3 89~3 bull 57296 1680 1548 4214 6~7 38

INSURANCE 850 850 bull OVERHEAD EXPEHSESFARM fACILITIES 386 366 bull OCltJNTJME 3~70LAND RENT 8163 8163 bull 19637 19637EMPLOYEE BENet liSGENERAL amp ADMINISTRATlOil 5000 5000 bull 13729 13729 SUPERVISION 7500 7500 bull INSURANCE

850 850FARM FACILITIESOTHER 3000 3000 bull 386 386LAND RENTMARXETING 2399~ 2399~ 8163 8163

SUPERVISION GeNERAL 8 ADMINISTRATION

5000 5000 SUBTOTAL 2321 HR 23994 29206 17399 70599 7500 7500

MARKETING OTHER

3000 300048050 48050

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 14769 HR 29550 ~~401 347~ 1250 287125 367738 bullbull SUBTOTAL 3570 HR ~8050 ~0866 17399 106315 IIpoundT OPERATING PROfIT 1121~2

TOIAl OPERATING EXPENSES 22292 HRINTEREST (JIj OPERATTNG CAPlTAL 6545 62910 117140 9338 2911 708395 900694 INTEREST (JIj EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT 2473 NET OPERATING PROFIT

60306 10312~

INTEREST ON OPERATING CAPITAL INTEREST ON EOUIPMENT IHVESlMENT 8659

3361 RETURN TO R I so

TIoCmiddotTHIRDS OF THESE COSTS IlERE ALLOCATED AS PROOUCTl(Jlj COSTS fORIREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 7 48286iI ~--~-- ----- ~ --~--- -~------ -----~-- yen - bullbullbullbull -- ~ -- ----_ _w ___ ________ 0 _______ _w __ IHIS TOTAL INCCltPORATES ONLY THE EXPENSE ASSOCATEO WITH THE TREES HARVESTED IN YEAR 6 BECAUSE OF THIS THE COLUMN

WILL NOT SUM TO THIS VALUE

24 25

~ i C -i Q

= foil

Table 15 Cash flow for a 160-aere Cbristmas tree rann (147 net planted aeres lIIII====_=====IIIlIII======S=II==2=II=___1I3_III========s_bullbullbullbull=z=a==a============bullbull==~=bullbullbull==11======aSS==lIIlII======================================================

Year 1 fear 2 Year J tear 4 Year 5 Year 6 fear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 fear 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 lllttows _=====

Sale of Trees so so so so so $101035 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 S302585 S302585 $302585 $302585 OUtflows

Purchased Input 5 Tree stock 1921019m 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210Cover ~rass seed 315 9sect1~ 19m 315 315 315 19m 19m 315 19m 19m 19m 19m315 315 315 315erbicuSe 1019 2415 3633 4851 5628 6405 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741Insecticide o 378 756 1~ 1890 22611 22611 22611 22611 2268 2268 2268 22611 22611Ftrlgicide o o o H~ 1087 U~ 1449 U~ 1449 1449 449 ~~~ 1449 1449 t449 1449Amonhn Sui tate o 444 1109 1~ 5676 5676 5676 ~~~X 5676 5676Tree guards 788 788 788 2~ 4~~ 788 53 53 53 788 788 5~ 5~ 53788 788 788Miscellaneous tools 420 578 735 893 105g 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365Twine o o o o i~ 1220 l~~ l~~ij 1220 1220 1220 1220 1220 lm lnOIrrigatlon system 31500 3150031 508 31500 31500 31500 31500 3150g 31500 31500 31~~g 31500 31500 31500 31 gtog 31~~g 31500 31500Eqult 33750 o o o 1045g o o o 266j0 o o a 10450 o oFarm facilities 17000 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oPre-harvest Operations o CustQll1 1_ preparation 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651Spray 204 578 844 1271 1698 2124 2498 2498 2~g 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498Harrow 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 168 1611 1611 Mark rows 309 309 309 Seed 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 Haul plants 42 42 42 42 42 309309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309

42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42Pl t (hand) 1861 2 ~Iy Netting 1~ 1~

794 1~ ~2 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ ~2 1~ 1 1861 1861 1861 861 li~ Orlp installaton 221 221 221 211

~l 794 794 794 794 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 2lt1495 990 1485 1733 1980 2228 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475Shear amp train 2415a o 864 2303 3743 7398- 1~~~ 1~~~ 10283 10283 10283 10283

i seel taneous 1amp1raquor 882 76 2646 Appt ter t it i zer o o o 10~g~ 10m 10m 10~g~ 10~g~ 10283

35 71 141 182 182 182 182 182 182 lr2 Purping costs 480 1121 617435l8 5292 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 Ot 174 6174 6174 6174

Harvest operations 2081 3l02 i~~g 5923 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 73k4

Cut tr~s o Drag amp load trees o 2807o o 935 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 Wrap trees o o 2374 7115 ~~~~ ~~~ 1115 7115 7115 7115 7115 7~ 7115o o o 298 895 895 895 7J~ 895 7~~~ 895 895 895 895 895Haul trees o o o 508 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525MisceHaneous labOr o 1525o o 1455 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366Overheed Oowotime 648 1007 IS58 2235 2911 5522 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346E1lloy benefits 4611 742 1145 1631 3933 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581Insurance 179 357 536 114 2~~

1071 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250Land r~t 1575 3150 4725 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025G amp A 1050 lloo 3150 4lOO 5250 6300 tgro 7350 7350 7350 7350 1~m k~~~ 7350 ~m 7350 7350 735a~~~Vision 472S 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11021575 3150

11m 11~~~ 025 11~~630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 63mMarketng II o o o o 5052 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 lSI29

1 Based on total of 147 planted acres by Year 7 A total of 21 (Jeres are planted each year year 1 consists ot 21 planted acres year 2 a total of 42 etC

-- --~ -~-~ r IJampamp $ ~H ~M LgtH~-~Lw~

110 0 middot W It 110 OO~~~~o~~OOO OampooooooosectOii S~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~H~ = - 11 11=L = 110 _ N N 0 M

bull c _~_

bullbullbull 2 _ M~

cash needs of the operation The farm will produce a positivei 0goooo00020poundN t-~~~~ t-~Fg~ORi ~ UNHIt U to OOE~l2~O~ft~oOI L 110 lS -lIi iIl~lI)t i1 ---a~ - 3

N annual cash flow starting in the seventh year However a total N bullbull u _N N~ - - ~N ~ $E~3

bullbull It 0 t N of $540819 in cash is expended through the first 6 years Ao~ooooooo~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~V~~ ~=~==~C ~ OOi~~~~O$~OOO ~ laquoS_~_ i i6~ ~gIIt_~o~ -=~ I total of 11 years are needed (five positive cash producingbullM Ii IfII 110 II n N -~ ~ _ N t- _ _ ~ ~~~= N III H 0 years) before the cash outflows incurred during the first 6 ~

~ = =a OOsect~~~O~OOO o~ooooooo~~~i 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ =~= years are covered This is based on selling trees at $1240L= V ~ ~N ~~ ~~ ~4 N~ ~~~ i i~e s -- N S The budgets were developed for a 35-year period because=gt- tt n this was thought to be a reasonable economic life5~~ ~ OO~~~roO~~O~O degmoooooooi~~ ~=~~~ ~mi5~5~~ ~=~= amp0 - ~ - III middot

__ ~ ~ _ 0 Nt- _ Ntn ~~~ ~ -~~- ~ pound Additionally a 35-year life allows for five 7-year

planting-through-harvest rotations Based on the rotationbull C) MM C OO~~~~degri~OOO OampOOOOOOO~~~~m 2E~~~ ~~~sect~~~~ ~u~= i c L ~ ~

N~v N N~ ~~ N~ ~4 ~~~~~~ ~ iii schedule only Inth of the total acreage would be planted ini = i

-SfIJ n= ~ - -I anyone year The cash costs in year 1 therefore include onlyRi = ~ ~~~~~i~~5me~~ i~sect~~ ~~~~~~~~ E~ lias amp0 ~~~~~~J~~~~OO H II n ~ 0- ~~w- ~ = ~~ Nt- - ~~_~t- ~ ~ct N planting expense for Inth of the total acreage or 21 acresW - - -= ~ Year 2 would again include planting expenses for Inth of theCtI 110- -~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~o~~~g~ ~G~ liN Q) $ ___ cOP ___~ i_IiInJX lIlCoo~_ flt nc II II tn ~~i~~~~~~~~00 =~ N ~ 0_11 - N w (1= Ot- N~ Oo~t-- i Ef~~ acreage and the second year growing expenses for the 21=- =tt ~ - acres planted originally The total expenses of a fullymiddot =S 1II ~~~_~~~~~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~sect~~ l~~~~~~~ Ec~ _ tl_-= ~u ~ operating facility are first incurred in the seventh year The

~ ~NII -~_ 1I1f N ~o~ N~ - ~o~=~~ ~ eg~R- 1111 0 - t first year of full revenue is also obtained in year 7 (21 acres of Cite ~ ~~~~~~~N~~~~~ ~~~~~ I~~~~~g~ ~r~i

~ _ ~ cOPNN __~ ~_m~~ ~1nO~O~~ Nfl~M

= or ~~~~~~~~~~O tt l 387 trees in their sixth year and 21 acres of 775 trees in their0- ~N_~ _ _0 N ~o~ N~ - ~~_=t--= ~ ~gGbull N= iI - - - ~i 1 seventh year ofgrowth)III

4iiii i~ ~ As the farm approaches the end of its economic life it was~~~_~~~~~~~~OO i~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~pound~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~i~E i

I middotL= 0- -oN_tI- - ~ N _ N~ot-- Nt-- ~ ~o_~t-= ~ ~U~ ii= = ~ assumed that the operator would stop planting Therefore as 11 - a l ~ 13 ~~~~g~i~N~~~~~ i~~~~ ~~a~~IC~~ E=~= of year 29 no more planting expenses are incurred It wasltV bull V ~~~~~~~~~~OO 0- N - -= ~N0ftIo - Ieo ~ t= -oN 1I _0- - N~ ~~ Nt- - ~o-~= ~ ~ft~c =a ~ - t assumed the land would be either left idle or used for otherIIIJ - -

= ~ purposes In year 35 the final year of operation only 21 acresa~= tQ ~~~~~~~re~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~ E~a N 0- -0 ___ _III u N _ N~o~ N~ _~ ~o-=~= ~ ~~~III ~ ~ of seventh-year trees would remain to be harvested At thisgt- - - -I point the entire operation would be closed down No salvagesect ii~ 1II ~~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~$~9~~ i~~~~ ~~~~sect~~ E~I II

II Ltf __ ~ ~N-II N ~ Ni ~~ N~ ~~ ~~~i~ i ~=in value was assumed because the land used was either leased or ~ -11~ 1= shy

I ~ rented and all equipment or buildings had no remainingc 15 ~ ft ~~~rd~~J~~~~~O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~E~iIII 0- QN-V 0 N _ N~o~ N ~~_~~~ ~ ~~~ i useful life H= ~ - ltgt ~ 15 Over the project life it would be necessary to replace some to tQ ~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~S~~~ 2Ei~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~5~i t ~ equipment For the purpose of this study it was assumed that~ I ~ -oN_~ _ - N _ N~ ~~ _ ~o_=~~ ~ ~~ I -= I= ~ - i all equipment would be used until it was no longer-=1 ~lt~S~-~N~~~~1 t-~~~~ ~co~~~o~ ~ft i011 V-- ~ o~- ~~NN__~ i_~V~ ~II~OO~_ ~~ ~~~~~_~i~~~OO a salvageable at which point it would be replaced new Table 16

r bullbull tv () -ON _ - N N~o~ ~ _ ~o-== ~ ~I~ I middot ~ - - - ~ shows the replacement schedule assumed in the cash flow i ~ Note that this table reflects the assumed useful life of the~ -=bull gi

i

iii s equipment rather than its depreciable life Also two itemsCgt I 1 u lJi~ ~ t- I ~ - ~ i the chain saws and the tree balers are not necessary until year -111) l -E I ~ l~~ _E ==Ilbull- ~ 1 ~j c ~ ~ ~ -5 -_ bull s

~~~ ~ ~~ _ ~ ~ L~ OL ~ 0 6 II 6 and were not purchased until that time Based on the highc _~~~~~WL ~-=] ii1t~ ~~ ulpoundlzl ~~ ~ = 1 i~uZul ~~I S Lo-- 2 L ~It~~ -i ~ ~

J L~_ ~m LOCmiddot gt- ampogt-~-~~ ~tc -lt 0 011 CIt -= = 2 ~~~t~5middotFi~f~~i~iitli-~fi~fifiiiI f Ii ~ilaquoI - ~ =~U=_~~~~~_W~U0Z~EZ~CQE~CEAL3QZEQW_~000 ~middot - ~ 8 Ii ~ I ~ middotmiddot -

29

111

f ~middot~middot~LC -- - ~i~

n ~ illII I~ II

Ii II

~~ Table 16 Equipment replacement schedule for a 160-acre ~ Christmas tree farm in New Mexico 1988 ~

usage during a short time period and the relatively short life of these items they were replaced every 5 years

Analysis

Because there are many unknowns encountered when projecting cost and returns and because different locations may be faced with different situations a series of scenarios were provided to evaluate the financial feasibility of the project Three major variables were altered concurrently to create the different scenarios These variables were

1 Prices 2 Yields 3 Costs

Price

A base price of $1240 was assumed The sensitivity of the return to a change of $1 increments over a range of $2 was measured

Yield

Changes in teld were based on altering the number of saleable trees This was done as a percentage of the total trees planted For example a 90 rate would mean that 90 of the 1452 trees originally planted or 1307 trees were available for sale This variable not only affect~ gross revenue but also alters any costs associated with the number of trees harvested Costs such as cutting field hauling baling and brokering are all altered by changes in the number of trees harvested and were assumed to be linear

Yield might also be altered by decreasing the space between trees For example a 5 by 5 spacing yields 1742 planted trees If 80 were saleable this would be 1394 trees

30

Item

Facilities

Well

Tractor

PTO sprayer

Trailer

Mower

Injector

Rotary pruners

Chain saw

Tree baler

iIIii Year ~

L 6 lL 16 2L 26 JL II~ Cost ~

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -(dollars) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- If 17000 ~

~ 10200 i

~

1bull1 113000 13000 13000 13000 1

~I 1200 1200 1200 1200 ~

bull p

~Ii ~

2400 II

800 800 800 800 ~ -I

I1200 1200 1200 1200 ~ 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 t

IiiIii 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 J

~ ~ ~ JOW JOW ~ ~ JOW

50750 10450 26650 10450 26650 10450 26650 I~ISource Table 3 IiIJ

f ~ J ~Cost ~

11I~ Because costs vary by farm and by location it was felt that a sensitivity should be performed on this variable Rather than bull

talter a specific cost or a specific category of costs the total bullIIj

cost was increased or decreased by a percentage and the Ji results evaluated Costs were altered in 10 increments in ~

Iijeither direction The 0 column uses those costs shown in the cash flow

t ~II

1

~I~ 31 ~

Feasibility Assessment

The internal rate of return (IRR) is a technique used to evaluate investment opportunities that incorporates the time value of money concept The internal rate of return for an investment project (in this case a Christmas tree planting) is the discount rate that equates the present value of the annual net cash revenue flows with the projects acquisition cost The net cash revenue is the difference between the cash receipts and cash expenses generated by an investment project over its economic life The time value of money is based on the economic fact that $1 today is worth more than a promise of $1 at some future date because of its current earnings potential

An investment can be accepted or rejected based on its internal rate of return (IRR) Acceptability of the investment depends on a comparison of the IRR with the investors required rate of return (RRR) Acceptability can be based on the following decision rules if IRR exceeds RRR accept the investment if IRR = RRR be indifferent and if IRR is less than RRR reject the investment

While IRR is a useful technique in project evaluation there are some problems with its use The major concern when using IRR is it assumes all cash inflows can be reinvested at the same rate as the resulting IRR percentage Should the IRR percentage be in the vicinity of the current rates of return of other investment instruments IRR is a reasonably accurate measure of return on investment However should the rate of return be much higher than current returns available elsewhere the resulting return on investment may be overstated The inverse is true at lower rates of return

The Net Present Value (NPV) is another way of evaluating projects that involve capital outlays over a period of years The NPV method discounts all future cash outlays and inflows back to a present-year basis using a specified interest (discount rate) The discount rate chosen is usually the opportunity cost of using equity funds in an alternative use or the cost of borrowed capital increased by an appropriate premium for risk or a combination of these The NPV

32

method is preferred over the IRR method when evaluating one investment against alternative similar type investments

Based on the sensitivity analysis discussed above a table was developed to show the IRR under the various scenarios Table 17 shows the internal rates by the per-unit price The analyses is based on pre-tax returns At $1040 per tree the IRR ranges from -14 when costs were increased by 10 and saleable yields were reduced to 60 to 160 when costs were decreased by 10 and 90 of the trees planted were sold At $1140 the IRR range is from 14 to 185 under the same conditions as above At $1240 per tree the IRR ranges from 38 when costs were increased 10 and 60 of the trees are saleable to 207 when costs were decreased 10 and saleable yields were at 90 At $1340 per tree the IRR ranges from 60 to 228 At $1440 per tree a grower could expect an IRR from 80 to 248 under the scenarios presented

A pre-tax analysis using Net Present Value (NPV) was also completed for the various scenarios The results of this analysis are shown in table 18

If an IRR of 12 is chosen as a minimum rate desired for investment growers must receive at least $1140 per tree and attain a level of 80 saleable trees and good cost control to have a successful investment At prices greater than $1140 per tree and 80 saleable product the investment appears to have possibility

33

Table 17 Internal Rates of Return (lRR) estimates for a 160-acre Table 18 Net Present Value (NPV) estimates for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost cbanges cha~es Ising a discount rate of 12

Percentage Percentageof saleable Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount

of saleabletrees 10 lower No chan~ 10 bilber trees --percent-shy

_______ - - - - - - - - - - - (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - shy

$1040 Tree Price 900 130 102900 160 BOO

SOO 128 97 69 700 60 31700 91 600

-14600 48 16

$1140 Tree Price( 900 127185 155

123 95900 800 SOO 153 700 700 116 86 58 600

14600 74 43

$1240 Tree Price 900 lJJ7 178 150900 BOO

118SOO 176 146 700 139 109 81700 600

38600 97 66

$1340 Tree Price 900 900 228 198 171 BOO

167 139SOO 197 700103700 161 130 600

600 119 88 60

$1440 Tree Price 900 BOO

248 218 191900 700159SOO 216 186 600

180 150 123700 80

Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount _ 10 lOwer No change 10 higher

-middot----middotmiddot---middot--bull-----dollars------bullbullbullbull -bullbullbull shy

$1040 Tree Price 175195 32602

(110936) (253415)

44502 (97269)

(2399BO) (381637)

(86191) (227140) (369023) (509859)

$1140 Tree Price 299293 167950 36607 142927

(14476) (170717)

12478 (144024) (299372)

(117971) (273573) (428028)

$1240 Tree Price 423391 291398 159406 253252 81984

(88019)

122225 (48069)

(217107)

(8BOl) (178123) (346196)

$1340 Tree Price 547489 414847 282204 363576 231972 100368 178445 (5321)

47886 (134842)

(82673) (264364)

$1440 Tree Price 671587 538295 405003 473901 341719 209538 274905 143841 12777 77377 (52578) (182532)

138 108 N01E Parentheses mean negative number

34 35

600

Investor Analysis

The following analysis considers the impact of the US tax laws (revised October 1987) on investing in Christmas trees The approach is identical to the previous IRR and NPV analysis except the impact of federal and state income taxes is considered in the annual stream of cash flow

The basis assumptions used are as follows

1 The taxpayer investor is in a 40 tax bracket on marginal income when combining both state and federal income taxes

2 The investor is actively engaged in managing the Christmas tree farm so that revenues and losses can be counted as active income or the investor has other passive investment income to offset any passive losses from growing Christmas trees

3 The Section 179 one-time deduction of $10000 per year is used in other businesses operated by the investor

4 Depreciation was calculated using the modified ACRS rules published by the IRS in 1987 Publication 225

5 The Christmas tree enterprise falls under the IRS rules for Christmas tree cultivation requiring capitalization of planting and stump culture for trees more than 6 years of age Because one-third of the trees are sold within the 6-year time limit one-third of planting expenses were deducted in the year incurred and the remaining two-thirds were capitalized and written off when the trees were sold in the seventh year

6 The investor uses a cash accounting system for tax purposes

36

The pre-tax IRR for the scenario with trees selling for $1240 each 80 harvestable yield and standard costs was 146 The IRR after-tax considerations fell to 125 (table 19) One might compare the after-tax return of 125 to other after-tax investments of comparable risks The after-tax NPV for the above scenario is $18069 compared to the pre-tax NPV of $122225 using a 12 discount rate

37

0

Table 19 Investor cash now analysis lor a l6O-acre Christmas tree larm (per planted acre basis) S=~=bullbull=I==~==~=bullbull====iI=bullbull2a==IIiIII bullbullbullbull===========n====ZIUSS=====bullbull===lllJ=====$~nUIlt1=llIIlta====s=a====II===============bullbullbull==II=~====lltz===-===U===========1II==X=======_==li=

Year 1 rHr 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year S Ye8l 6 tear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 1Q Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Tear 18

Net Cash Flow BelMe T8)( ConeiderattOlS (116411) (75439) (86658) (99354)(111768) (51189) 119810 119810 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810

Tax ONKtiona

Oeprec i at i on Irrigation syat far Foelli amp Equip

7875 1440

14625 7440

19446 7440

22890 7440

25378 7440

27156 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

Planting E_ 8209 10585 13004 16006 18568 22423 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031

~~~- ~t~t 1~~~r 1~ n~~ ~~m i~m ~M ~U~~ ~~M ~M ~~~ ~m ~M ~~~ ~~~ ~~M ~~M ~~M Total TalC DeOoctlons 33265 49193 65833 81973 96875 130860 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189341 189341 189311 189341 189341 189311

~rI~ (3326~) (4979~) (6583g) (819~) (968~) l~m) m~ ~~~~f~ mJ~ ~H~ m~~ mm ~~H~~ ~~B~ ~~im mm mJ~ ~~B2~ Inc_ ra Saings 13306 19917 26333 32189 38750 11930 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc_ TalC Oue 0 0 0 0 0 0 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297

let Cash flow (1037) (5522) (60325) (66) (737018) (397259) 74512 7Z2 74512 74512 7862 7512 74~12 rZSt2 142 M=062 1512 14512 =s===========s=_====sbullbullc=======-===================_======-=-==========I====S======-===========================e===s====================s==============r=================

Net Cash Flow Before Tax Considerations 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810 119810 190654 179442 217765 230460 242421 165733

T81 OlaquoiJcti ons

Depreciation

~ili~r Equip 2g~~ 2U~~ 2~~~ 2~~ 2~~~~ 2~g~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ 2~~ 2~~~ 2~n~ 1~~J ~~8 ~~~ f2zS 2~

~i~-OVerhoad

zg8M62335

zg8M62335

Z~~~ 62335

zg8M62335

ig8M62335

zg~~62335

i8M62335

i8M62335

t8M62335

i~8M 62335

Zg~~62335

~~~~~53665

~~~~ 46402

~tg~~40943

~~ ~~~35402 29986

ll~8~~

Total TaJ( Deduct_ 189341 189341 187121 187121 187121 187121 181121 181121 187121 187121 187121 156112 133925 117431 101291 86842 60718

I Froll Sales 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 201550 ~~~es~~= 1132~ m24~ 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154~ 1154~ 14647~ 16866g 1855~ 20129t 21574~ 1408~

Income la~ Due ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ Met Cash FloW =-2========SCI========

74512=I=====

74512 46974 73624 73624 73624 73624 63174 73624 __===_=_=============bullbullbullSamp====1II_1I31amp=II================_=II==__ == 73624_===__==

73624=======

132065 _=-=bullbull

111978======S=====

143703 ======_==

149943=======1I

156124 ========laquo

109400 ======_

~

Appendix Table Amiddotl United States Department ofAgriculture grade standards for Christmas trees

Christmas Tree Grades Factor US Premium US No1 US No2

Density Not less than Not less than Light or better medium medium

Tapera Normal- Normal- May be less than 40 to 90 40 to 90 40 or more

than 90

Damage-free faceb 4 3 2

Foliage Fresh clean Fresh clean Fresh clean and healthy and healthy and healthy

Shapec Well-shaped Well-shaped Well-shaped crown crown crown

Handle not Handle not Handle not less less than 6 less than 6 less than 6 or more than or more than or more than 134 per foot 1 34 per foot 1 34 per foot of tree height of tree height of tree height

aTaper of a tree is defined as the width of a tree expressed as a percentage of its height

Face means the visible surface area of a tree as viewed from 8 to 10 feet from the tree A tree is considered to have four faces each face constituting 14 of the tree

cHeight of a tree is defined in terms of foot or half-foot steps and is measured from the base of the handle to a point on the leader not more than 4 feet above the apex of the cone of the taper

Source Proebsting Buhaly and Wanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest 1981

40

4iUJiMMiFeuro iampi~t~Ityen)--

Literature Cited

Clevenger Tom et at The Wholesale and Processing Market for Locally Grown High Value Crops Research Report 572 New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station July 1985

Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture (Mora Research Center) New Mexico State University Guidelines for Growing and Marketing Christmas Trees in New Mexico New Mexico Department of Natural Resources October 1980

Huntley Wallace Marketing Christmas Trees-Turning a Problem into an Opportunity American Christmas Tree Journal August 1984 pp 41-43

Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury Fanners Tax Guide Publication 225

Proebsting William M Joseph Buhaly and Donald Hanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest Pacific Northwest Extension Publication PNW6 January 1981

41

Page 18: Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and ...

~ i C -i Q

= foil

Table 15 Cash flow for a 160-aere Cbristmas tree rann (147 net planted aeres lIIII====_=====IIIlIII======S=II==2=II=___1I3_III========s_bullbullbullbull=z=a==a============bullbull==~=bullbullbull==11======aSS==lIIlII======================================================

Year 1 fear 2 Year J tear 4 Year 5 Year 6 fear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 fear 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 lllttows _=====

Sale of Trees so so so so so $101035 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 $302585 S302585 S302585 $302585 $302585 OUtflows

Purchased Input 5 Tree stock 1921019m 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210 19210Cover ~rass seed 315 9sect1~ 19m 315 315 315 19m 19m 315 19m 19m 19m 19m315 315 315 315erbicuSe 1019 2415 3633 4851 5628 6405 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741 6741Insecticide o 378 756 1~ 1890 22611 22611 22611 22611 2268 2268 2268 22611 22611Ftrlgicide o o o H~ 1087 U~ 1449 U~ 1449 1449 449 ~~~ 1449 1449 t449 1449Amonhn Sui tate o 444 1109 1~ 5676 5676 5676 ~~~X 5676 5676Tree guards 788 788 788 2~ 4~~ 788 53 53 53 788 788 5~ 5~ 53788 788 788Miscellaneous tools 420 578 735 893 105g 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365Twine o o o o i~ 1220 l~~ l~~ij 1220 1220 1220 1220 1220 lm lnOIrrigatlon system 31500 3150031 508 31500 31500 31500 31500 3150g 31500 31500 31~~g 31500 31500 31500 31 gtog 31~~g 31500 31500Eqult 33750 o o o 1045g o o o 266j0 o o a 10450 o oFarm facilities 17000 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oPre-harvest Operations o CustQll1 1_ preparation 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651Spray 204 578 844 1271 1698 2124 2498 2498 2~g 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498Harrow 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 1611 168 1611 1611 Mark rows 309 309 309 Seed 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 Haul plants 42 42 42 42 42 309309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309

42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42Pl t (hand) 1861 2 ~Iy Netting 1~ 1~

794 1~ ~2 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ ~2 1~ 1 1861 1861 1861 861 li~ Orlp installaton 221 221 221 211

~l 794 794 794 794 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 2lt1495 990 1485 1733 1980 2228 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475 2475Shear amp train 2415a o 864 2303 3743 7398- 1~~~ 1~~~ 10283 10283 10283 10283

i seel taneous 1amp1raquor 882 76 2646 Appt ter t it i zer o o o 10~g~ 10m 10m 10~g~ 10~g~ 10283

35 71 141 182 182 182 182 182 182 lr2 Purping costs 480 1121 617435l8 5292 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 Ot 174 6174 6174 6174

Harvest operations 2081 3l02 i~~g 5923 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 7364 73k4

Cut tr~s o Drag amp load trees o 2807o o 935 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 2807 Wrap trees o o 2374 7115 ~~~~ ~~~ 1115 7115 7115 7115 7115 7~ 7115o o o 298 895 895 895 7J~ 895 7~~~ 895 895 895 895 895Haul trees o o o 508 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525MisceHaneous labOr o 1525o o 1455 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366 4366Overheed Oowotime 648 1007 IS58 2235 2911 5522 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346 9346E1lloy benefits 4611 742 1145 1631 3933 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581 6581Insurance 179 357 536 114 2~~

1071 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250Land r~t 1575 3150 4725 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025G amp A 1050 lloo 3150 4lOO 5250 6300 tgro 7350 7350 7350 7350 1~m k~~~ 7350 ~m 7350 7350 735a~~~Vision 472S 6300 7875 9450 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11025 11021575 3150

11m 11~~~ 025 11~~630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 63mMarketng II o o o o 5052 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 15129 lSI29

1 Based on total of 147 planted acres by Year 7 A total of 21 (Jeres are planted each year year 1 consists ot 21 planted acres year 2 a total of 42 etC

-- --~ -~-~ r IJampamp $ ~H ~M LgtH~-~Lw~

110 0 middot W It 110 OO~~~~o~~OOO OampooooooosectOii S~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~H~ = - 11 11=L = 110 _ N N 0 M

bull c _~_

bullbullbull 2 _ M~

cash needs of the operation The farm will produce a positivei 0goooo00020poundN t-~~~~ t-~Fg~ORi ~ UNHIt U to OOE~l2~O~ft~oOI L 110 lS -lIi iIl~lI)t i1 ---a~ - 3

N annual cash flow starting in the seventh year However a total N bullbull u _N N~ - - ~N ~ $E~3

bullbull It 0 t N of $540819 in cash is expended through the first 6 years Ao~ooooooo~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~V~~ ~=~==~C ~ OOi~~~~O$~OOO ~ laquoS_~_ i i6~ ~gIIt_~o~ -=~ I total of 11 years are needed (five positive cash producingbullM Ii IfII 110 II n N -~ ~ _ N t- _ _ ~ ~~~= N III H 0 years) before the cash outflows incurred during the first 6 ~

~ = =a OOsect~~~O~OOO o~ooooooo~~~i 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ =~= years are covered This is based on selling trees at $1240L= V ~ ~N ~~ ~~ ~4 N~ ~~~ i i~e s -- N S The budgets were developed for a 35-year period because=gt- tt n this was thought to be a reasonable economic life5~~ ~ OO~~~roO~~O~O degmoooooooi~~ ~=~~~ ~mi5~5~~ ~=~= amp0 - ~ - III middot

__ ~ ~ _ 0 Nt- _ Ntn ~~~ ~ -~~- ~ pound Additionally a 35-year life allows for five 7-year

planting-through-harvest rotations Based on the rotationbull C) MM C OO~~~~degri~OOO OampOOOOOOO~~~~m 2E~~~ ~~~sect~~~~ ~u~= i c L ~ ~

N~v N N~ ~~ N~ ~4 ~~~~~~ ~ iii schedule only Inth of the total acreage would be planted ini = i

-SfIJ n= ~ - -I anyone year The cash costs in year 1 therefore include onlyRi = ~ ~~~~~i~~5me~~ i~sect~~ ~~~~~~~~ E~ lias amp0 ~~~~~~J~~~~OO H II n ~ 0- ~~w- ~ = ~~ Nt- - ~~_~t- ~ ~ct N planting expense for Inth of the total acreage or 21 acresW - - -= ~ Year 2 would again include planting expenses for Inth of theCtI 110- -~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~o~~~g~ ~G~ liN Q) $ ___ cOP ___~ i_IiInJX lIlCoo~_ flt nc II II tn ~~i~~~~~~~~00 =~ N ~ 0_11 - N w (1= Ot- N~ Oo~t-- i Ef~~ acreage and the second year growing expenses for the 21=- =tt ~ - acres planted originally The total expenses of a fullymiddot =S 1II ~~~_~~~~~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~sect~~ l~~~~~~~ Ec~ _ tl_-= ~u ~ operating facility are first incurred in the seventh year The

~ ~NII -~_ 1I1f N ~o~ N~ - ~o~=~~ ~ eg~R- 1111 0 - t first year of full revenue is also obtained in year 7 (21 acres of Cite ~ ~~~~~~~N~~~~~ ~~~~~ I~~~~~g~ ~r~i

~ _ ~ cOPNN __~ ~_m~~ ~1nO~O~~ Nfl~M

= or ~~~~~~~~~~O tt l 387 trees in their sixth year and 21 acres of 775 trees in their0- ~N_~ _ _0 N ~o~ N~ - ~~_=t--= ~ ~gGbull N= iI - - - ~i 1 seventh year ofgrowth)III

4iiii i~ ~ As the farm approaches the end of its economic life it was~~~_~~~~~~~~OO i~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~pound~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~i~E i

I middotL= 0- -oN_tI- - ~ N _ N~ot-- Nt-- ~ ~o_~t-= ~ ~U~ ii= = ~ assumed that the operator would stop planting Therefore as 11 - a l ~ 13 ~~~~g~i~N~~~~~ i~~~~ ~~a~~IC~~ E=~= of year 29 no more planting expenses are incurred It wasltV bull V ~~~~~~~~~~OO 0- N - -= ~N0ftIo - Ieo ~ t= -oN 1I _0- - N~ ~~ Nt- - ~o-~= ~ ~ft~c =a ~ - t assumed the land would be either left idle or used for otherIIIJ - -

= ~ purposes In year 35 the final year of operation only 21 acresa~= tQ ~~~~~~~re~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~ E~a N 0- -0 ___ _III u N _ N~o~ N~ _~ ~o-=~= ~ ~~~III ~ ~ of seventh-year trees would remain to be harvested At thisgt- - - -I point the entire operation would be closed down No salvagesect ii~ 1II ~~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~$~9~~ i~~~~ ~~~~sect~~ E~I II

II Ltf __ ~ ~N-II N ~ Ni ~~ N~ ~~ ~~~i~ i ~=in value was assumed because the land used was either leased or ~ -11~ 1= shy

I ~ rented and all equipment or buildings had no remainingc 15 ~ ft ~~~rd~~J~~~~~O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~E~iIII 0- QN-V 0 N _ N~o~ N ~~_~~~ ~ ~~~ i useful life H= ~ - ltgt ~ 15 Over the project life it would be necessary to replace some to tQ ~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~S~~~ 2Ei~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~5~i t ~ equipment For the purpose of this study it was assumed that~ I ~ -oN_~ _ - N _ N~ ~~ _ ~o_=~~ ~ ~~ I -= I= ~ - i all equipment would be used until it was no longer-=1 ~lt~S~-~N~~~~1 t-~~~~ ~co~~~o~ ~ft i011 V-- ~ o~- ~~NN__~ i_~V~ ~II~OO~_ ~~ ~~~~~_~i~~~OO a salvageable at which point it would be replaced new Table 16

r bullbull tv () -ON _ - N N~o~ ~ _ ~o-== ~ ~I~ I middot ~ - - - ~ shows the replacement schedule assumed in the cash flow i ~ Note that this table reflects the assumed useful life of the~ -=bull gi

i

iii s equipment rather than its depreciable life Also two itemsCgt I 1 u lJi~ ~ t- I ~ - ~ i the chain saws and the tree balers are not necessary until year -111) l -E I ~ l~~ _E ==Ilbull- ~ 1 ~j c ~ ~ ~ -5 -_ bull s

~~~ ~ ~~ _ ~ ~ L~ OL ~ 0 6 II 6 and were not purchased until that time Based on the highc _~~~~~WL ~-=] ii1t~ ~~ ulpoundlzl ~~ ~ = 1 i~uZul ~~I S Lo-- 2 L ~It~~ -i ~ ~

J L~_ ~m LOCmiddot gt- ampogt-~-~~ ~tc -lt 0 011 CIt -= = 2 ~~~t~5middotFi~f~~i~iitli-~fi~fifiiiI f Ii ~ilaquoI - ~ =~U=_~~~~~_W~U0Z~EZ~CQE~CEAL3QZEQW_~000 ~middot - ~ 8 Ii ~ I ~ middotmiddot -

29

111

f ~middot~middot~LC -- - ~i~

n ~ illII I~ II

Ii II

~~ Table 16 Equipment replacement schedule for a 160-acre ~ Christmas tree farm in New Mexico 1988 ~

usage during a short time period and the relatively short life of these items they were replaced every 5 years

Analysis

Because there are many unknowns encountered when projecting cost and returns and because different locations may be faced with different situations a series of scenarios were provided to evaluate the financial feasibility of the project Three major variables were altered concurrently to create the different scenarios These variables were

1 Prices 2 Yields 3 Costs

Price

A base price of $1240 was assumed The sensitivity of the return to a change of $1 increments over a range of $2 was measured

Yield

Changes in teld were based on altering the number of saleable trees This was done as a percentage of the total trees planted For example a 90 rate would mean that 90 of the 1452 trees originally planted or 1307 trees were available for sale This variable not only affect~ gross revenue but also alters any costs associated with the number of trees harvested Costs such as cutting field hauling baling and brokering are all altered by changes in the number of trees harvested and were assumed to be linear

Yield might also be altered by decreasing the space between trees For example a 5 by 5 spacing yields 1742 planted trees If 80 were saleable this would be 1394 trees

30

Item

Facilities

Well

Tractor

PTO sprayer

Trailer

Mower

Injector

Rotary pruners

Chain saw

Tree baler

iIIii Year ~

L 6 lL 16 2L 26 JL II~ Cost ~

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -(dollars) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- If 17000 ~

~ 10200 i

~

1bull1 113000 13000 13000 13000 1

~I 1200 1200 1200 1200 ~

bull p

~Ii ~

2400 II

800 800 800 800 ~ -I

I1200 1200 1200 1200 ~ 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 t

IiiIii 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 J

~ ~ ~ JOW JOW ~ ~ JOW

50750 10450 26650 10450 26650 10450 26650 I~ISource Table 3 IiIJ

f ~ J ~Cost ~

11I~ Because costs vary by farm and by location it was felt that a sensitivity should be performed on this variable Rather than bull

talter a specific cost or a specific category of costs the total bullIIj

cost was increased or decreased by a percentage and the Ji results evaluated Costs were altered in 10 increments in ~

Iijeither direction The 0 column uses those costs shown in the cash flow

t ~II

1

~I~ 31 ~

Feasibility Assessment

The internal rate of return (IRR) is a technique used to evaluate investment opportunities that incorporates the time value of money concept The internal rate of return for an investment project (in this case a Christmas tree planting) is the discount rate that equates the present value of the annual net cash revenue flows with the projects acquisition cost The net cash revenue is the difference between the cash receipts and cash expenses generated by an investment project over its economic life The time value of money is based on the economic fact that $1 today is worth more than a promise of $1 at some future date because of its current earnings potential

An investment can be accepted or rejected based on its internal rate of return (IRR) Acceptability of the investment depends on a comparison of the IRR with the investors required rate of return (RRR) Acceptability can be based on the following decision rules if IRR exceeds RRR accept the investment if IRR = RRR be indifferent and if IRR is less than RRR reject the investment

While IRR is a useful technique in project evaluation there are some problems with its use The major concern when using IRR is it assumes all cash inflows can be reinvested at the same rate as the resulting IRR percentage Should the IRR percentage be in the vicinity of the current rates of return of other investment instruments IRR is a reasonably accurate measure of return on investment However should the rate of return be much higher than current returns available elsewhere the resulting return on investment may be overstated The inverse is true at lower rates of return

The Net Present Value (NPV) is another way of evaluating projects that involve capital outlays over a period of years The NPV method discounts all future cash outlays and inflows back to a present-year basis using a specified interest (discount rate) The discount rate chosen is usually the opportunity cost of using equity funds in an alternative use or the cost of borrowed capital increased by an appropriate premium for risk or a combination of these The NPV

32

method is preferred over the IRR method when evaluating one investment against alternative similar type investments

Based on the sensitivity analysis discussed above a table was developed to show the IRR under the various scenarios Table 17 shows the internal rates by the per-unit price The analyses is based on pre-tax returns At $1040 per tree the IRR ranges from -14 when costs were increased by 10 and saleable yields were reduced to 60 to 160 when costs were decreased by 10 and 90 of the trees planted were sold At $1140 the IRR range is from 14 to 185 under the same conditions as above At $1240 per tree the IRR ranges from 38 when costs were increased 10 and 60 of the trees are saleable to 207 when costs were decreased 10 and saleable yields were at 90 At $1340 per tree the IRR ranges from 60 to 228 At $1440 per tree a grower could expect an IRR from 80 to 248 under the scenarios presented

A pre-tax analysis using Net Present Value (NPV) was also completed for the various scenarios The results of this analysis are shown in table 18

If an IRR of 12 is chosen as a minimum rate desired for investment growers must receive at least $1140 per tree and attain a level of 80 saleable trees and good cost control to have a successful investment At prices greater than $1140 per tree and 80 saleable product the investment appears to have possibility

33

Table 17 Internal Rates of Return (lRR) estimates for a 160-acre Table 18 Net Present Value (NPV) estimates for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost cbanges cha~es Ising a discount rate of 12

Percentage Percentageof saleable Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount

of saleabletrees 10 lower No chan~ 10 bilber trees --percent-shy

_______ - - - - - - - - - - - (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - shy

$1040 Tree Price 900 130 102900 160 BOO

SOO 128 97 69 700 60 31700 91 600

-14600 48 16

$1140 Tree Price( 900 127185 155

123 95900 800 SOO 153 700 700 116 86 58 600

14600 74 43

$1240 Tree Price 900 lJJ7 178 150900 BOO

118SOO 176 146 700 139 109 81700 600

38600 97 66

$1340 Tree Price 900 900 228 198 171 BOO

167 139SOO 197 700103700 161 130 600

600 119 88 60

$1440 Tree Price 900 BOO

248 218 191900 700159SOO 216 186 600

180 150 123700 80

Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount _ 10 lOwer No change 10 higher

-middot----middotmiddot---middot--bull-----dollars------bullbullbullbull -bullbullbull shy

$1040 Tree Price 175195 32602

(110936) (253415)

44502 (97269)

(2399BO) (381637)

(86191) (227140) (369023) (509859)

$1140 Tree Price 299293 167950 36607 142927

(14476) (170717)

12478 (144024) (299372)

(117971) (273573) (428028)

$1240 Tree Price 423391 291398 159406 253252 81984

(88019)

122225 (48069)

(217107)

(8BOl) (178123) (346196)

$1340 Tree Price 547489 414847 282204 363576 231972 100368 178445 (5321)

47886 (134842)

(82673) (264364)

$1440 Tree Price 671587 538295 405003 473901 341719 209538 274905 143841 12777 77377 (52578) (182532)

138 108 N01E Parentheses mean negative number

34 35

600

Investor Analysis

The following analysis considers the impact of the US tax laws (revised October 1987) on investing in Christmas trees The approach is identical to the previous IRR and NPV analysis except the impact of federal and state income taxes is considered in the annual stream of cash flow

The basis assumptions used are as follows

1 The taxpayer investor is in a 40 tax bracket on marginal income when combining both state and federal income taxes

2 The investor is actively engaged in managing the Christmas tree farm so that revenues and losses can be counted as active income or the investor has other passive investment income to offset any passive losses from growing Christmas trees

3 The Section 179 one-time deduction of $10000 per year is used in other businesses operated by the investor

4 Depreciation was calculated using the modified ACRS rules published by the IRS in 1987 Publication 225

5 The Christmas tree enterprise falls under the IRS rules for Christmas tree cultivation requiring capitalization of planting and stump culture for trees more than 6 years of age Because one-third of the trees are sold within the 6-year time limit one-third of planting expenses were deducted in the year incurred and the remaining two-thirds were capitalized and written off when the trees were sold in the seventh year

6 The investor uses a cash accounting system for tax purposes

36

The pre-tax IRR for the scenario with trees selling for $1240 each 80 harvestable yield and standard costs was 146 The IRR after-tax considerations fell to 125 (table 19) One might compare the after-tax return of 125 to other after-tax investments of comparable risks The after-tax NPV for the above scenario is $18069 compared to the pre-tax NPV of $122225 using a 12 discount rate

37

0

Table 19 Investor cash now analysis lor a l6O-acre Christmas tree larm (per planted acre basis) S=~=bullbull=I==~==~=bullbull====iI=bullbull2a==IIiIII bullbullbullbull===========n====ZIUSS=====bullbull===lllJ=====$~nUIlt1=llIIlta====s=a====II===============bullbullbull==II=~====lltz===-===U===========1II==X=======_==li=

Year 1 rHr 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year S Ye8l 6 tear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 1Q Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Tear 18

Net Cash Flow BelMe T8)( ConeiderattOlS (116411) (75439) (86658) (99354)(111768) (51189) 119810 119810 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810

Tax ONKtiona

Oeprec i at i on Irrigation syat far Foelli amp Equip

7875 1440

14625 7440

19446 7440

22890 7440

25378 7440

27156 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

Planting E_ 8209 10585 13004 16006 18568 22423 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031

~~~- ~t~t 1~~~r 1~ n~~ ~~m i~m ~M ~U~~ ~~M ~M ~~~ ~m ~M ~~~ ~~~ ~~M ~~M ~~M Total TalC DeOoctlons 33265 49193 65833 81973 96875 130860 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189341 189341 189311 189341 189341 189311

~rI~ (3326~) (4979~) (6583g) (819~) (968~) l~m) m~ ~~~~f~ mJ~ ~H~ m~~ mm ~~H~~ ~~B~ ~~im mm mJ~ ~~B2~ Inc_ ra Saings 13306 19917 26333 32189 38750 11930 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc_ TalC Oue 0 0 0 0 0 0 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297

let Cash flow (1037) (5522) (60325) (66) (737018) (397259) 74512 7Z2 74512 74512 7862 7512 74~12 rZSt2 142 M=062 1512 14512 =s===========s=_====sbullbullc=======-===================_======-=-==========I====S======-===========================e===s====================s==============r=================

Net Cash Flow Before Tax Considerations 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810 119810 190654 179442 217765 230460 242421 165733

T81 OlaquoiJcti ons

Depreciation

~ili~r Equip 2g~~ 2U~~ 2~~~ 2~~ 2~~~~ 2~g~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ 2~~ 2~~~ 2~n~ 1~~J ~~8 ~~~ f2zS 2~

~i~-OVerhoad

zg8M62335

zg8M62335

Z~~~ 62335

zg8M62335

ig8M62335

zg~~62335

i8M62335

i8M62335

t8M62335

i~8M 62335

Zg~~62335

~~~~~53665

~~~~ 46402

~tg~~40943

~~ ~~~35402 29986

ll~8~~

Total TaJ( Deduct_ 189341 189341 187121 187121 187121 187121 181121 181121 187121 187121 187121 156112 133925 117431 101291 86842 60718

I Froll Sales 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 201550 ~~~es~~= 1132~ m24~ 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154~ 1154~ 14647~ 16866g 1855~ 20129t 21574~ 1408~

Income la~ Due ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ Met Cash FloW =-2========SCI========

74512=I=====

74512 46974 73624 73624 73624 73624 63174 73624 __===_=_=============bullbullbullSamp====1II_1I31amp=II================_=II==__ == 73624_===__==

73624=======

132065 _=-=bullbull

111978======S=====

143703 ======_==

149943=======1I

156124 ========laquo

109400 ======_

~

Appendix Table Amiddotl United States Department ofAgriculture grade standards for Christmas trees

Christmas Tree Grades Factor US Premium US No1 US No2

Density Not less than Not less than Light or better medium medium

Tapera Normal- Normal- May be less than 40 to 90 40 to 90 40 or more

than 90

Damage-free faceb 4 3 2

Foliage Fresh clean Fresh clean Fresh clean and healthy and healthy and healthy

Shapec Well-shaped Well-shaped Well-shaped crown crown crown

Handle not Handle not Handle not less less than 6 less than 6 less than 6 or more than or more than or more than 134 per foot 1 34 per foot 1 34 per foot of tree height of tree height of tree height

aTaper of a tree is defined as the width of a tree expressed as a percentage of its height

Face means the visible surface area of a tree as viewed from 8 to 10 feet from the tree A tree is considered to have four faces each face constituting 14 of the tree

cHeight of a tree is defined in terms of foot or half-foot steps and is measured from the base of the handle to a point on the leader not more than 4 feet above the apex of the cone of the taper

Source Proebsting Buhaly and Wanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest 1981

40

4iUJiMMiFeuro iampi~t~Ityen)--

Literature Cited

Clevenger Tom et at The Wholesale and Processing Market for Locally Grown High Value Crops Research Report 572 New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station July 1985

Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture (Mora Research Center) New Mexico State University Guidelines for Growing and Marketing Christmas Trees in New Mexico New Mexico Department of Natural Resources October 1980

Huntley Wallace Marketing Christmas Trees-Turning a Problem into an Opportunity American Christmas Tree Journal August 1984 pp 41-43

Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury Fanners Tax Guide Publication 225

Proebsting William M Joseph Buhaly and Donald Hanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest Pacific Northwest Extension Publication PNW6 January 1981

41

Page 19: Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and ...

-- --~ -~-~ r IJampamp $ ~H ~M LgtH~-~Lw~

110 0 middot W It 110 OO~~~~o~~OOO OampooooooosectOii S~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~H~ = - 11 11=L = 110 _ N N 0 M

bull c _~_

bullbullbull 2 _ M~

cash needs of the operation The farm will produce a positivei 0goooo00020poundN t-~~~~ t-~Fg~ORi ~ UNHIt U to OOE~l2~O~ft~oOI L 110 lS -lIi iIl~lI)t i1 ---a~ - 3

N annual cash flow starting in the seventh year However a total N bullbull u _N N~ - - ~N ~ $E~3

bullbull It 0 t N of $540819 in cash is expended through the first 6 years Ao~ooooooo~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~V~~ ~=~==~C ~ OOi~~~~O$~OOO ~ laquoS_~_ i i6~ ~gIIt_~o~ -=~ I total of 11 years are needed (five positive cash producingbullM Ii IfII 110 II n N -~ ~ _ N t- _ _ ~ ~~~= N III H 0 years) before the cash outflows incurred during the first 6 ~

~ = =a OOsect~~~O~OOO o~ooooooo~~~i 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ =~= years are covered This is based on selling trees at $1240L= V ~ ~N ~~ ~~ ~4 N~ ~~~ i i~e s -- N S The budgets were developed for a 35-year period because=gt- tt n this was thought to be a reasonable economic life5~~ ~ OO~~~roO~~O~O degmoooooooi~~ ~=~~~ ~mi5~5~~ ~=~= amp0 - ~ - III middot

__ ~ ~ _ 0 Nt- _ Ntn ~~~ ~ -~~- ~ pound Additionally a 35-year life allows for five 7-year

planting-through-harvest rotations Based on the rotationbull C) MM C OO~~~~degri~OOO OampOOOOOOO~~~~m 2E~~~ ~~~sect~~~~ ~u~= i c L ~ ~

N~v N N~ ~~ N~ ~4 ~~~~~~ ~ iii schedule only Inth of the total acreage would be planted ini = i

-SfIJ n= ~ - -I anyone year The cash costs in year 1 therefore include onlyRi = ~ ~~~~~i~~5me~~ i~sect~~ ~~~~~~~~ E~ lias amp0 ~~~~~~J~~~~OO H II n ~ 0- ~~w- ~ = ~~ Nt- - ~~_~t- ~ ~ct N planting expense for Inth of the total acreage or 21 acresW - - -= ~ Year 2 would again include planting expenses for Inth of theCtI 110- -~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~o~~~g~ ~G~ liN Q) $ ___ cOP ___~ i_IiInJX lIlCoo~_ flt nc II II tn ~~i~~~~~~~~00 =~ N ~ 0_11 - N w (1= Ot- N~ Oo~t-- i Ef~~ acreage and the second year growing expenses for the 21=- =tt ~ - acres planted originally The total expenses of a fullymiddot =S 1II ~~~_~~~~~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~sect~~ l~~~~~~~ Ec~ _ tl_-= ~u ~ operating facility are first incurred in the seventh year The

~ ~NII -~_ 1I1f N ~o~ N~ - ~o~=~~ ~ eg~R- 1111 0 - t first year of full revenue is also obtained in year 7 (21 acres of Cite ~ ~~~~~~~N~~~~~ ~~~~~ I~~~~~g~ ~r~i

~ _ ~ cOPNN __~ ~_m~~ ~1nO~O~~ Nfl~M

= or ~~~~~~~~~~O tt l 387 trees in their sixth year and 21 acres of 775 trees in their0- ~N_~ _ _0 N ~o~ N~ - ~~_=t--= ~ ~gGbull N= iI - - - ~i 1 seventh year ofgrowth)III

4iiii i~ ~ As the farm approaches the end of its economic life it was~~~_~~~~~~~~OO i~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~pound~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~i~E i

I middotL= 0- -oN_tI- - ~ N _ N~ot-- Nt-- ~ ~o_~t-= ~ ~U~ ii= = ~ assumed that the operator would stop planting Therefore as 11 - a l ~ 13 ~~~~g~i~N~~~~~ i~~~~ ~~a~~IC~~ E=~= of year 29 no more planting expenses are incurred It wasltV bull V ~~~~~~~~~~OO 0- N - -= ~N0ftIo - Ieo ~ t= -oN 1I _0- - N~ ~~ Nt- - ~o-~= ~ ~ft~c =a ~ - t assumed the land would be either left idle or used for otherIIIJ - -

= ~ purposes In year 35 the final year of operation only 21 acresa~= tQ ~~~~~~~re~~~OO ~~~~~i~~5~~~~ 2~~~~ ~~~~~~~ E~a N 0- -0 ___ _III u N _ N~o~ N~ _~ ~o-=~= ~ ~~~III ~ ~ of seventh-year trees would remain to be harvested At thisgt- - - -I point the entire operation would be closed down No salvagesect ii~ 1II ~~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~$~9~~ i~~~~ ~~~~sect~~ E~I II

II Ltf __ ~ ~N-II N ~ Ni ~~ N~ ~~ ~~~i~ i ~=in value was assumed because the land used was either leased or ~ -11~ 1= shy

I ~ rented and all equipment or buildings had no remainingc 15 ~ ft ~~~rd~~J~~~~~O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~E~iIII 0- QN-V 0 N _ N~o~ N ~~_~~~ ~ ~~~ i useful life H= ~ - ltgt ~ 15 Over the project life it would be necessary to replace some to tQ ~~~~~~~~~OO ~~~~i~~S~~~ 2Ei~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~5~i t ~ equipment For the purpose of this study it was assumed that~ I ~ -oN_~ _ - N _ N~ ~~ _ ~o_=~~ ~ ~~ I -= I= ~ - i all equipment would be used until it was no longer-=1 ~lt~S~-~N~~~~1 t-~~~~ ~co~~~o~ ~ft i011 V-- ~ o~- ~~NN__~ i_~V~ ~II~OO~_ ~~ ~~~~~_~i~~~OO a salvageable at which point it would be replaced new Table 16

r bullbull tv () -ON _ - N N~o~ ~ _ ~o-== ~ ~I~ I middot ~ - - - ~ shows the replacement schedule assumed in the cash flow i ~ Note that this table reflects the assumed useful life of the~ -=bull gi

i

iii s equipment rather than its depreciable life Also two itemsCgt I 1 u lJi~ ~ t- I ~ - ~ i the chain saws and the tree balers are not necessary until year -111) l -E I ~ l~~ _E ==Ilbull- ~ 1 ~j c ~ ~ ~ -5 -_ bull s

~~~ ~ ~~ _ ~ ~ L~ OL ~ 0 6 II 6 and were not purchased until that time Based on the highc _~~~~~WL ~-=] ii1t~ ~~ ulpoundlzl ~~ ~ = 1 i~uZul ~~I S Lo-- 2 L ~It~~ -i ~ ~

J L~_ ~m LOCmiddot gt- ampogt-~-~~ ~tc -lt 0 011 CIt -= = 2 ~~~t~5middotFi~f~~i~iitli-~fi~fifiiiI f Ii ~ilaquoI - ~ =~U=_~~~~~_W~U0Z~EZ~CQE~CEAL3QZEQW_~000 ~middot - ~ 8 Ii ~ I ~ middotmiddot -

29

111

f ~middot~middot~LC -- - ~i~

n ~ illII I~ II

Ii II

~~ Table 16 Equipment replacement schedule for a 160-acre ~ Christmas tree farm in New Mexico 1988 ~

usage during a short time period and the relatively short life of these items they were replaced every 5 years

Analysis

Because there are many unknowns encountered when projecting cost and returns and because different locations may be faced with different situations a series of scenarios were provided to evaluate the financial feasibility of the project Three major variables were altered concurrently to create the different scenarios These variables were

1 Prices 2 Yields 3 Costs

Price

A base price of $1240 was assumed The sensitivity of the return to a change of $1 increments over a range of $2 was measured

Yield

Changes in teld were based on altering the number of saleable trees This was done as a percentage of the total trees planted For example a 90 rate would mean that 90 of the 1452 trees originally planted or 1307 trees were available for sale This variable not only affect~ gross revenue but also alters any costs associated with the number of trees harvested Costs such as cutting field hauling baling and brokering are all altered by changes in the number of trees harvested and were assumed to be linear

Yield might also be altered by decreasing the space between trees For example a 5 by 5 spacing yields 1742 planted trees If 80 were saleable this would be 1394 trees

30

Item

Facilities

Well

Tractor

PTO sprayer

Trailer

Mower

Injector

Rotary pruners

Chain saw

Tree baler

iIIii Year ~

L 6 lL 16 2L 26 JL II~ Cost ~

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -(dollars) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- If 17000 ~

~ 10200 i

~

1bull1 113000 13000 13000 13000 1

~I 1200 1200 1200 1200 ~

bull p

~Ii ~

2400 II

800 800 800 800 ~ -I

I1200 1200 1200 1200 ~ 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 t

IiiIii 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 J

~ ~ ~ JOW JOW ~ ~ JOW

50750 10450 26650 10450 26650 10450 26650 I~ISource Table 3 IiIJ

f ~ J ~Cost ~

11I~ Because costs vary by farm and by location it was felt that a sensitivity should be performed on this variable Rather than bull

talter a specific cost or a specific category of costs the total bullIIj

cost was increased or decreased by a percentage and the Ji results evaluated Costs were altered in 10 increments in ~

Iijeither direction The 0 column uses those costs shown in the cash flow

t ~II

1

~I~ 31 ~

Feasibility Assessment

The internal rate of return (IRR) is a technique used to evaluate investment opportunities that incorporates the time value of money concept The internal rate of return for an investment project (in this case a Christmas tree planting) is the discount rate that equates the present value of the annual net cash revenue flows with the projects acquisition cost The net cash revenue is the difference between the cash receipts and cash expenses generated by an investment project over its economic life The time value of money is based on the economic fact that $1 today is worth more than a promise of $1 at some future date because of its current earnings potential

An investment can be accepted or rejected based on its internal rate of return (IRR) Acceptability of the investment depends on a comparison of the IRR with the investors required rate of return (RRR) Acceptability can be based on the following decision rules if IRR exceeds RRR accept the investment if IRR = RRR be indifferent and if IRR is less than RRR reject the investment

While IRR is a useful technique in project evaluation there are some problems with its use The major concern when using IRR is it assumes all cash inflows can be reinvested at the same rate as the resulting IRR percentage Should the IRR percentage be in the vicinity of the current rates of return of other investment instruments IRR is a reasonably accurate measure of return on investment However should the rate of return be much higher than current returns available elsewhere the resulting return on investment may be overstated The inverse is true at lower rates of return

The Net Present Value (NPV) is another way of evaluating projects that involve capital outlays over a period of years The NPV method discounts all future cash outlays and inflows back to a present-year basis using a specified interest (discount rate) The discount rate chosen is usually the opportunity cost of using equity funds in an alternative use or the cost of borrowed capital increased by an appropriate premium for risk or a combination of these The NPV

32

method is preferred over the IRR method when evaluating one investment against alternative similar type investments

Based on the sensitivity analysis discussed above a table was developed to show the IRR under the various scenarios Table 17 shows the internal rates by the per-unit price The analyses is based on pre-tax returns At $1040 per tree the IRR ranges from -14 when costs were increased by 10 and saleable yields were reduced to 60 to 160 when costs were decreased by 10 and 90 of the trees planted were sold At $1140 the IRR range is from 14 to 185 under the same conditions as above At $1240 per tree the IRR ranges from 38 when costs were increased 10 and 60 of the trees are saleable to 207 when costs were decreased 10 and saleable yields were at 90 At $1340 per tree the IRR ranges from 60 to 228 At $1440 per tree a grower could expect an IRR from 80 to 248 under the scenarios presented

A pre-tax analysis using Net Present Value (NPV) was also completed for the various scenarios The results of this analysis are shown in table 18

If an IRR of 12 is chosen as a minimum rate desired for investment growers must receive at least $1140 per tree and attain a level of 80 saleable trees and good cost control to have a successful investment At prices greater than $1140 per tree and 80 saleable product the investment appears to have possibility

33

Table 17 Internal Rates of Return (lRR) estimates for a 160-acre Table 18 Net Present Value (NPV) estimates for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost cbanges cha~es Ising a discount rate of 12

Percentage Percentageof saleable Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount

of saleabletrees 10 lower No chan~ 10 bilber trees --percent-shy

_______ - - - - - - - - - - - (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - shy

$1040 Tree Price 900 130 102900 160 BOO

SOO 128 97 69 700 60 31700 91 600

-14600 48 16

$1140 Tree Price( 900 127185 155

123 95900 800 SOO 153 700 700 116 86 58 600

14600 74 43

$1240 Tree Price 900 lJJ7 178 150900 BOO

118SOO 176 146 700 139 109 81700 600

38600 97 66

$1340 Tree Price 900 900 228 198 171 BOO

167 139SOO 197 700103700 161 130 600

600 119 88 60

$1440 Tree Price 900 BOO

248 218 191900 700159SOO 216 186 600

180 150 123700 80

Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount _ 10 lOwer No change 10 higher

-middot----middotmiddot---middot--bull-----dollars------bullbullbullbull -bullbullbull shy

$1040 Tree Price 175195 32602

(110936) (253415)

44502 (97269)

(2399BO) (381637)

(86191) (227140) (369023) (509859)

$1140 Tree Price 299293 167950 36607 142927

(14476) (170717)

12478 (144024) (299372)

(117971) (273573) (428028)

$1240 Tree Price 423391 291398 159406 253252 81984

(88019)

122225 (48069)

(217107)

(8BOl) (178123) (346196)

$1340 Tree Price 547489 414847 282204 363576 231972 100368 178445 (5321)

47886 (134842)

(82673) (264364)

$1440 Tree Price 671587 538295 405003 473901 341719 209538 274905 143841 12777 77377 (52578) (182532)

138 108 N01E Parentheses mean negative number

34 35

600

Investor Analysis

The following analysis considers the impact of the US tax laws (revised October 1987) on investing in Christmas trees The approach is identical to the previous IRR and NPV analysis except the impact of federal and state income taxes is considered in the annual stream of cash flow

The basis assumptions used are as follows

1 The taxpayer investor is in a 40 tax bracket on marginal income when combining both state and federal income taxes

2 The investor is actively engaged in managing the Christmas tree farm so that revenues and losses can be counted as active income or the investor has other passive investment income to offset any passive losses from growing Christmas trees

3 The Section 179 one-time deduction of $10000 per year is used in other businesses operated by the investor

4 Depreciation was calculated using the modified ACRS rules published by the IRS in 1987 Publication 225

5 The Christmas tree enterprise falls under the IRS rules for Christmas tree cultivation requiring capitalization of planting and stump culture for trees more than 6 years of age Because one-third of the trees are sold within the 6-year time limit one-third of planting expenses were deducted in the year incurred and the remaining two-thirds were capitalized and written off when the trees were sold in the seventh year

6 The investor uses a cash accounting system for tax purposes

36

The pre-tax IRR for the scenario with trees selling for $1240 each 80 harvestable yield and standard costs was 146 The IRR after-tax considerations fell to 125 (table 19) One might compare the after-tax return of 125 to other after-tax investments of comparable risks The after-tax NPV for the above scenario is $18069 compared to the pre-tax NPV of $122225 using a 12 discount rate

37

0

Table 19 Investor cash now analysis lor a l6O-acre Christmas tree larm (per planted acre basis) S=~=bullbull=I==~==~=bullbull====iI=bullbull2a==IIiIII bullbullbullbull===========n====ZIUSS=====bullbull===lllJ=====$~nUIlt1=llIIlta====s=a====II===============bullbullbull==II=~====lltz===-===U===========1II==X=======_==li=

Year 1 rHr 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year S Ye8l 6 tear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 1Q Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Tear 18

Net Cash Flow BelMe T8)( ConeiderattOlS (116411) (75439) (86658) (99354)(111768) (51189) 119810 119810 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810

Tax ONKtiona

Oeprec i at i on Irrigation syat far Foelli amp Equip

7875 1440

14625 7440

19446 7440

22890 7440

25378 7440

27156 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

Planting E_ 8209 10585 13004 16006 18568 22423 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031

~~~- ~t~t 1~~~r 1~ n~~ ~~m i~m ~M ~U~~ ~~M ~M ~~~ ~m ~M ~~~ ~~~ ~~M ~~M ~~M Total TalC DeOoctlons 33265 49193 65833 81973 96875 130860 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189341 189341 189311 189341 189341 189311

~rI~ (3326~) (4979~) (6583g) (819~) (968~) l~m) m~ ~~~~f~ mJ~ ~H~ m~~ mm ~~H~~ ~~B~ ~~im mm mJ~ ~~B2~ Inc_ ra Saings 13306 19917 26333 32189 38750 11930 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc_ TalC Oue 0 0 0 0 0 0 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297

let Cash flow (1037) (5522) (60325) (66) (737018) (397259) 74512 7Z2 74512 74512 7862 7512 74~12 rZSt2 142 M=062 1512 14512 =s===========s=_====sbullbullc=======-===================_======-=-==========I====S======-===========================e===s====================s==============r=================

Net Cash Flow Before Tax Considerations 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810 119810 190654 179442 217765 230460 242421 165733

T81 OlaquoiJcti ons

Depreciation

~ili~r Equip 2g~~ 2U~~ 2~~~ 2~~ 2~~~~ 2~g~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ 2~~ 2~~~ 2~n~ 1~~J ~~8 ~~~ f2zS 2~

~i~-OVerhoad

zg8M62335

zg8M62335

Z~~~ 62335

zg8M62335

ig8M62335

zg~~62335

i8M62335

i8M62335

t8M62335

i~8M 62335

Zg~~62335

~~~~~53665

~~~~ 46402

~tg~~40943

~~ ~~~35402 29986

ll~8~~

Total TaJ( Deduct_ 189341 189341 187121 187121 187121 187121 181121 181121 187121 187121 187121 156112 133925 117431 101291 86842 60718

I Froll Sales 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 201550 ~~~es~~= 1132~ m24~ 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154~ 1154~ 14647~ 16866g 1855~ 20129t 21574~ 1408~

Income la~ Due ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ Met Cash FloW =-2========SCI========

74512=I=====

74512 46974 73624 73624 73624 73624 63174 73624 __===_=_=============bullbullbullSamp====1II_1I31amp=II================_=II==__ == 73624_===__==

73624=======

132065 _=-=bullbull

111978======S=====

143703 ======_==

149943=======1I

156124 ========laquo

109400 ======_

~

Appendix Table Amiddotl United States Department ofAgriculture grade standards for Christmas trees

Christmas Tree Grades Factor US Premium US No1 US No2

Density Not less than Not less than Light or better medium medium

Tapera Normal- Normal- May be less than 40 to 90 40 to 90 40 or more

than 90

Damage-free faceb 4 3 2

Foliage Fresh clean Fresh clean Fresh clean and healthy and healthy and healthy

Shapec Well-shaped Well-shaped Well-shaped crown crown crown

Handle not Handle not Handle not less less than 6 less than 6 less than 6 or more than or more than or more than 134 per foot 1 34 per foot 1 34 per foot of tree height of tree height of tree height

aTaper of a tree is defined as the width of a tree expressed as a percentage of its height

Face means the visible surface area of a tree as viewed from 8 to 10 feet from the tree A tree is considered to have four faces each face constituting 14 of the tree

cHeight of a tree is defined in terms of foot or half-foot steps and is measured from the base of the handle to a point on the leader not more than 4 feet above the apex of the cone of the taper

Source Proebsting Buhaly and Wanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest 1981

40

4iUJiMMiFeuro iampi~t~Ityen)--

Literature Cited

Clevenger Tom et at The Wholesale and Processing Market for Locally Grown High Value Crops Research Report 572 New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station July 1985

Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture (Mora Research Center) New Mexico State University Guidelines for Growing and Marketing Christmas Trees in New Mexico New Mexico Department of Natural Resources October 1980

Huntley Wallace Marketing Christmas Trees-Turning a Problem into an Opportunity American Christmas Tree Journal August 1984 pp 41-43

Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury Fanners Tax Guide Publication 225

Proebsting William M Joseph Buhaly and Donald Hanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest Pacific Northwest Extension Publication PNW6 January 1981

41

Page 20: Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and ...

111

f ~middot~middot~LC -- - ~i~

n ~ illII I~ II

Ii II

~~ Table 16 Equipment replacement schedule for a 160-acre ~ Christmas tree farm in New Mexico 1988 ~

usage during a short time period and the relatively short life of these items they were replaced every 5 years

Analysis

Because there are many unknowns encountered when projecting cost and returns and because different locations may be faced with different situations a series of scenarios were provided to evaluate the financial feasibility of the project Three major variables were altered concurrently to create the different scenarios These variables were

1 Prices 2 Yields 3 Costs

Price

A base price of $1240 was assumed The sensitivity of the return to a change of $1 increments over a range of $2 was measured

Yield

Changes in teld were based on altering the number of saleable trees This was done as a percentage of the total trees planted For example a 90 rate would mean that 90 of the 1452 trees originally planted or 1307 trees were available for sale This variable not only affect~ gross revenue but also alters any costs associated with the number of trees harvested Costs such as cutting field hauling baling and brokering are all altered by changes in the number of trees harvested and were assumed to be linear

Yield might also be altered by decreasing the space between trees For example a 5 by 5 spacing yields 1742 planted trees If 80 were saleable this would be 1394 trees

30

Item

Facilities

Well

Tractor

PTO sprayer

Trailer

Mower

Injector

Rotary pruners

Chain saw

Tree baler

iIIii Year ~

L 6 lL 16 2L 26 JL II~ Cost ~

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -(dollars) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- If 17000 ~

~ 10200 i

~

1bull1 113000 13000 13000 13000 1

~I 1200 1200 1200 1200 ~

bull p

~Ii ~

2400 II

800 800 800 800 ~ -I

I1200 1200 1200 1200 ~ 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 4950 t

IiiIii 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 J

~ ~ ~ JOW JOW ~ ~ JOW

50750 10450 26650 10450 26650 10450 26650 I~ISource Table 3 IiIJ

f ~ J ~Cost ~

11I~ Because costs vary by farm and by location it was felt that a sensitivity should be performed on this variable Rather than bull

talter a specific cost or a specific category of costs the total bullIIj

cost was increased or decreased by a percentage and the Ji results evaluated Costs were altered in 10 increments in ~

Iijeither direction The 0 column uses those costs shown in the cash flow

t ~II

1

~I~ 31 ~

Feasibility Assessment

The internal rate of return (IRR) is a technique used to evaluate investment opportunities that incorporates the time value of money concept The internal rate of return for an investment project (in this case a Christmas tree planting) is the discount rate that equates the present value of the annual net cash revenue flows with the projects acquisition cost The net cash revenue is the difference between the cash receipts and cash expenses generated by an investment project over its economic life The time value of money is based on the economic fact that $1 today is worth more than a promise of $1 at some future date because of its current earnings potential

An investment can be accepted or rejected based on its internal rate of return (IRR) Acceptability of the investment depends on a comparison of the IRR with the investors required rate of return (RRR) Acceptability can be based on the following decision rules if IRR exceeds RRR accept the investment if IRR = RRR be indifferent and if IRR is less than RRR reject the investment

While IRR is a useful technique in project evaluation there are some problems with its use The major concern when using IRR is it assumes all cash inflows can be reinvested at the same rate as the resulting IRR percentage Should the IRR percentage be in the vicinity of the current rates of return of other investment instruments IRR is a reasonably accurate measure of return on investment However should the rate of return be much higher than current returns available elsewhere the resulting return on investment may be overstated The inverse is true at lower rates of return

The Net Present Value (NPV) is another way of evaluating projects that involve capital outlays over a period of years The NPV method discounts all future cash outlays and inflows back to a present-year basis using a specified interest (discount rate) The discount rate chosen is usually the opportunity cost of using equity funds in an alternative use or the cost of borrowed capital increased by an appropriate premium for risk or a combination of these The NPV

32

method is preferred over the IRR method when evaluating one investment against alternative similar type investments

Based on the sensitivity analysis discussed above a table was developed to show the IRR under the various scenarios Table 17 shows the internal rates by the per-unit price The analyses is based on pre-tax returns At $1040 per tree the IRR ranges from -14 when costs were increased by 10 and saleable yields were reduced to 60 to 160 when costs were decreased by 10 and 90 of the trees planted were sold At $1140 the IRR range is from 14 to 185 under the same conditions as above At $1240 per tree the IRR ranges from 38 when costs were increased 10 and 60 of the trees are saleable to 207 when costs were decreased 10 and saleable yields were at 90 At $1340 per tree the IRR ranges from 60 to 228 At $1440 per tree a grower could expect an IRR from 80 to 248 under the scenarios presented

A pre-tax analysis using Net Present Value (NPV) was also completed for the various scenarios The results of this analysis are shown in table 18

If an IRR of 12 is chosen as a minimum rate desired for investment growers must receive at least $1140 per tree and attain a level of 80 saleable trees and good cost control to have a successful investment At prices greater than $1140 per tree and 80 saleable product the investment appears to have possibility

33

Table 17 Internal Rates of Return (lRR) estimates for a 160-acre Table 18 Net Present Value (NPV) estimates for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost cbanges cha~es Ising a discount rate of 12

Percentage Percentageof saleable Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount

of saleabletrees 10 lower No chan~ 10 bilber trees --percent-shy

_______ - - - - - - - - - - - (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - shy

$1040 Tree Price 900 130 102900 160 BOO

SOO 128 97 69 700 60 31700 91 600

-14600 48 16

$1140 Tree Price( 900 127185 155

123 95900 800 SOO 153 700 700 116 86 58 600

14600 74 43

$1240 Tree Price 900 lJJ7 178 150900 BOO

118SOO 176 146 700 139 109 81700 600

38600 97 66

$1340 Tree Price 900 900 228 198 171 BOO

167 139SOO 197 700103700 161 130 600

600 119 88 60

$1440 Tree Price 900 BOO

248 218 191900 700159SOO 216 186 600

180 150 123700 80

Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount _ 10 lOwer No change 10 higher

-middot----middotmiddot---middot--bull-----dollars------bullbullbullbull -bullbullbull shy

$1040 Tree Price 175195 32602

(110936) (253415)

44502 (97269)

(2399BO) (381637)

(86191) (227140) (369023) (509859)

$1140 Tree Price 299293 167950 36607 142927

(14476) (170717)

12478 (144024) (299372)

(117971) (273573) (428028)

$1240 Tree Price 423391 291398 159406 253252 81984

(88019)

122225 (48069)

(217107)

(8BOl) (178123) (346196)

$1340 Tree Price 547489 414847 282204 363576 231972 100368 178445 (5321)

47886 (134842)

(82673) (264364)

$1440 Tree Price 671587 538295 405003 473901 341719 209538 274905 143841 12777 77377 (52578) (182532)

138 108 N01E Parentheses mean negative number

34 35

600

Investor Analysis

The following analysis considers the impact of the US tax laws (revised October 1987) on investing in Christmas trees The approach is identical to the previous IRR and NPV analysis except the impact of federal and state income taxes is considered in the annual stream of cash flow

The basis assumptions used are as follows

1 The taxpayer investor is in a 40 tax bracket on marginal income when combining both state and federal income taxes

2 The investor is actively engaged in managing the Christmas tree farm so that revenues and losses can be counted as active income or the investor has other passive investment income to offset any passive losses from growing Christmas trees

3 The Section 179 one-time deduction of $10000 per year is used in other businesses operated by the investor

4 Depreciation was calculated using the modified ACRS rules published by the IRS in 1987 Publication 225

5 The Christmas tree enterprise falls under the IRS rules for Christmas tree cultivation requiring capitalization of planting and stump culture for trees more than 6 years of age Because one-third of the trees are sold within the 6-year time limit one-third of planting expenses were deducted in the year incurred and the remaining two-thirds were capitalized and written off when the trees were sold in the seventh year

6 The investor uses a cash accounting system for tax purposes

36

The pre-tax IRR for the scenario with trees selling for $1240 each 80 harvestable yield and standard costs was 146 The IRR after-tax considerations fell to 125 (table 19) One might compare the after-tax return of 125 to other after-tax investments of comparable risks The after-tax NPV for the above scenario is $18069 compared to the pre-tax NPV of $122225 using a 12 discount rate

37

0

Table 19 Investor cash now analysis lor a l6O-acre Christmas tree larm (per planted acre basis) S=~=bullbull=I==~==~=bullbull====iI=bullbull2a==IIiIII bullbullbullbull===========n====ZIUSS=====bullbull===lllJ=====$~nUIlt1=llIIlta====s=a====II===============bullbullbull==II=~====lltz===-===U===========1II==X=======_==li=

Year 1 rHr 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year S Ye8l 6 tear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 1Q Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Tear 18

Net Cash Flow BelMe T8)( ConeiderattOlS (116411) (75439) (86658) (99354)(111768) (51189) 119810 119810 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810

Tax ONKtiona

Oeprec i at i on Irrigation syat far Foelli amp Equip

7875 1440

14625 7440

19446 7440

22890 7440

25378 7440

27156 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

Planting E_ 8209 10585 13004 16006 18568 22423 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031

~~~- ~t~t 1~~~r 1~ n~~ ~~m i~m ~M ~U~~ ~~M ~M ~~~ ~m ~M ~~~ ~~~ ~~M ~~M ~~M Total TalC DeOoctlons 33265 49193 65833 81973 96875 130860 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189341 189341 189311 189341 189341 189311

~rI~ (3326~) (4979~) (6583g) (819~) (968~) l~m) m~ ~~~~f~ mJ~ ~H~ m~~ mm ~~H~~ ~~B~ ~~im mm mJ~ ~~B2~ Inc_ ra Saings 13306 19917 26333 32189 38750 11930 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc_ TalC Oue 0 0 0 0 0 0 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297

let Cash flow (1037) (5522) (60325) (66) (737018) (397259) 74512 7Z2 74512 74512 7862 7512 74~12 rZSt2 142 M=062 1512 14512 =s===========s=_====sbullbullc=======-===================_======-=-==========I====S======-===========================e===s====================s==============r=================

Net Cash Flow Before Tax Considerations 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810 119810 190654 179442 217765 230460 242421 165733

T81 OlaquoiJcti ons

Depreciation

~ili~r Equip 2g~~ 2U~~ 2~~~ 2~~ 2~~~~ 2~g~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ 2~~ 2~~~ 2~n~ 1~~J ~~8 ~~~ f2zS 2~

~i~-OVerhoad

zg8M62335

zg8M62335

Z~~~ 62335

zg8M62335

ig8M62335

zg~~62335

i8M62335

i8M62335

t8M62335

i~8M 62335

Zg~~62335

~~~~~53665

~~~~ 46402

~tg~~40943

~~ ~~~35402 29986

ll~8~~

Total TaJ( Deduct_ 189341 189341 187121 187121 187121 187121 181121 181121 187121 187121 187121 156112 133925 117431 101291 86842 60718

I Froll Sales 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 201550 ~~~es~~= 1132~ m24~ 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154~ 1154~ 14647~ 16866g 1855~ 20129t 21574~ 1408~

Income la~ Due ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ Met Cash FloW =-2========SCI========

74512=I=====

74512 46974 73624 73624 73624 73624 63174 73624 __===_=_=============bullbullbullSamp====1II_1I31amp=II================_=II==__ == 73624_===__==

73624=======

132065 _=-=bullbull

111978======S=====

143703 ======_==

149943=======1I

156124 ========laquo

109400 ======_

~

Appendix Table Amiddotl United States Department ofAgriculture grade standards for Christmas trees

Christmas Tree Grades Factor US Premium US No1 US No2

Density Not less than Not less than Light or better medium medium

Tapera Normal- Normal- May be less than 40 to 90 40 to 90 40 or more

than 90

Damage-free faceb 4 3 2

Foliage Fresh clean Fresh clean Fresh clean and healthy and healthy and healthy

Shapec Well-shaped Well-shaped Well-shaped crown crown crown

Handle not Handle not Handle not less less than 6 less than 6 less than 6 or more than or more than or more than 134 per foot 1 34 per foot 1 34 per foot of tree height of tree height of tree height

aTaper of a tree is defined as the width of a tree expressed as a percentage of its height

Face means the visible surface area of a tree as viewed from 8 to 10 feet from the tree A tree is considered to have four faces each face constituting 14 of the tree

cHeight of a tree is defined in terms of foot or half-foot steps and is measured from the base of the handle to a point on the leader not more than 4 feet above the apex of the cone of the taper

Source Proebsting Buhaly and Wanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest 1981

40

4iUJiMMiFeuro iampi~t~Ityen)--

Literature Cited

Clevenger Tom et at The Wholesale and Processing Market for Locally Grown High Value Crops Research Report 572 New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station July 1985

Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture (Mora Research Center) New Mexico State University Guidelines for Growing and Marketing Christmas Trees in New Mexico New Mexico Department of Natural Resources October 1980

Huntley Wallace Marketing Christmas Trees-Turning a Problem into an Opportunity American Christmas Tree Journal August 1984 pp 41-43

Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury Fanners Tax Guide Publication 225

Proebsting William M Joseph Buhaly and Donald Hanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest Pacific Northwest Extension Publication PNW6 January 1981

41

Page 21: Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and ...

Feasibility Assessment

The internal rate of return (IRR) is a technique used to evaluate investment opportunities that incorporates the time value of money concept The internal rate of return for an investment project (in this case a Christmas tree planting) is the discount rate that equates the present value of the annual net cash revenue flows with the projects acquisition cost The net cash revenue is the difference between the cash receipts and cash expenses generated by an investment project over its economic life The time value of money is based on the economic fact that $1 today is worth more than a promise of $1 at some future date because of its current earnings potential

An investment can be accepted or rejected based on its internal rate of return (IRR) Acceptability of the investment depends on a comparison of the IRR with the investors required rate of return (RRR) Acceptability can be based on the following decision rules if IRR exceeds RRR accept the investment if IRR = RRR be indifferent and if IRR is less than RRR reject the investment

While IRR is a useful technique in project evaluation there are some problems with its use The major concern when using IRR is it assumes all cash inflows can be reinvested at the same rate as the resulting IRR percentage Should the IRR percentage be in the vicinity of the current rates of return of other investment instruments IRR is a reasonably accurate measure of return on investment However should the rate of return be much higher than current returns available elsewhere the resulting return on investment may be overstated The inverse is true at lower rates of return

The Net Present Value (NPV) is another way of evaluating projects that involve capital outlays over a period of years The NPV method discounts all future cash outlays and inflows back to a present-year basis using a specified interest (discount rate) The discount rate chosen is usually the opportunity cost of using equity funds in an alternative use or the cost of borrowed capital increased by an appropriate premium for risk or a combination of these The NPV

32

method is preferred over the IRR method when evaluating one investment against alternative similar type investments

Based on the sensitivity analysis discussed above a table was developed to show the IRR under the various scenarios Table 17 shows the internal rates by the per-unit price The analyses is based on pre-tax returns At $1040 per tree the IRR ranges from -14 when costs were increased by 10 and saleable yields were reduced to 60 to 160 when costs were decreased by 10 and 90 of the trees planted were sold At $1140 the IRR range is from 14 to 185 under the same conditions as above At $1240 per tree the IRR ranges from 38 when costs were increased 10 and 60 of the trees are saleable to 207 when costs were decreased 10 and saleable yields were at 90 At $1340 per tree the IRR ranges from 60 to 228 At $1440 per tree a grower could expect an IRR from 80 to 248 under the scenarios presented

A pre-tax analysis using Net Present Value (NPV) was also completed for the various scenarios The results of this analysis are shown in table 18

If an IRR of 12 is chosen as a minimum rate desired for investment growers must receive at least $1140 per tree and attain a level of 80 saleable trees and good cost control to have a successful investment At prices greater than $1140 per tree and 80 saleable product the investment appears to have possibility

33

Table 17 Internal Rates of Return (lRR) estimates for a 160-acre Table 18 Net Present Value (NPV) estimates for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost cbanges cha~es Ising a discount rate of 12

Percentage Percentageof saleable Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount

of saleabletrees 10 lower No chan~ 10 bilber trees --percent-shy

_______ - - - - - - - - - - - (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - shy

$1040 Tree Price 900 130 102900 160 BOO

SOO 128 97 69 700 60 31700 91 600

-14600 48 16

$1140 Tree Price( 900 127185 155

123 95900 800 SOO 153 700 700 116 86 58 600

14600 74 43

$1240 Tree Price 900 lJJ7 178 150900 BOO

118SOO 176 146 700 139 109 81700 600

38600 97 66

$1340 Tree Price 900 900 228 198 171 BOO

167 139SOO 197 700103700 161 130 600

600 119 88 60

$1440 Tree Price 900 BOO

248 218 191900 700159SOO 216 186 600

180 150 123700 80

Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount _ 10 lOwer No change 10 higher

-middot----middotmiddot---middot--bull-----dollars------bullbullbullbull -bullbullbull shy

$1040 Tree Price 175195 32602

(110936) (253415)

44502 (97269)

(2399BO) (381637)

(86191) (227140) (369023) (509859)

$1140 Tree Price 299293 167950 36607 142927

(14476) (170717)

12478 (144024) (299372)

(117971) (273573) (428028)

$1240 Tree Price 423391 291398 159406 253252 81984

(88019)

122225 (48069)

(217107)

(8BOl) (178123) (346196)

$1340 Tree Price 547489 414847 282204 363576 231972 100368 178445 (5321)

47886 (134842)

(82673) (264364)

$1440 Tree Price 671587 538295 405003 473901 341719 209538 274905 143841 12777 77377 (52578) (182532)

138 108 N01E Parentheses mean negative number

34 35

600

Investor Analysis

The following analysis considers the impact of the US tax laws (revised October 1987) on investing in Christmas trees The approach is identical to the previous IRR and NPV analysis except the impact of federal and state income taxes is considered in the annual stream of cash flow

The basis assumptions used are as follows

1 The taxpayer investor is in a 40 tax bracket on marginal income when combining both state and federal income taxes

2 The investor is actively engaged in managing the Christmas tree farm so that revenues and losses can be counted as active income or the investor has other passive investment income to offset any passive losses from growing Christmas trees

3 The Section 179 one-time deduction of $10000 per year is used in other businesses operated by the investor

4 Depreciation was calculated using the modified ACRS rules published by the IRS in 1987 Publication 225

5 The Christmas tree enterprise falls under the IRS rules for Christmas tree cultivation requiring capitalization of planting and stump culture for trees more than 6 years of age Because one-third of the trees are sold within the 6-year time limit one-third of planting expenses were deducted in the year incurred and the remaining two-thirds were capitalized and written off when the trees were sold in the seventh year

6 The investor uses a cash accounting system for tax purposes

36

The pre-tax IRR for the scenario with trees selling for $1240 each 80 harvestable yield and standard costs was 146 The IRR after-tax considerations fell to 125 (table 19) One might compare the after-tax return of 125 to other after-tax investments of comparable risks The after-tax NPV for the above scenario is $18069 compared to the pre-tax NPV of $122225 using a 12 discount rate

37

0

Table 19 Investor cash now analysis lor a l6O-acre Christmas tree larm (per planted acre basis) S=~=bullbull=I==~==~=bullbull====iI=bullbull2a==IIiIII bullbullbullbull===========n====ZIUSS=====bullbull===lllJ=====$~nUIlt1=llIIlta====s=a====II===============bullbullbull==II=~====lltz===-===U===========1II==X=======_==li=

Year 1 rHr 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year S Ye8l 6 tear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 1Q Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Tear 18

Net Cash Flow BelMe T8)( ConeiderattOlS (116411) (75439) (86658) (99354)(111768) (51189) 119810 119810 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810

Tax ONKtiona

Oeprec i at i on Irrigation syat far Foelli amp Equip

7875 1440

14625 7440

19446 7440

22890 7440

25378 7440

27156 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

Planting E_ 8209 10585 13004 16006 18568 22423 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031

~~~- ~t~t 1~~~r 1~ n~~ ~~m i~m ~M ~U~~ ~~M ~M ~~~ ~m ~M ~~~ ~~~ ~~M ~~M ~~M Total TalC DeOoctlons 33265 49193 65833 81973 96875 130860 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189341 189341 189311 189341 189341 189311

~rI~ (3326~) (4979~) (6583g) (819~) (968~) l~m) m~ ~~~~f~ mJ~ ~H~ m~~ mm ~~H~~ ~~B~ ~~im mm mJ~ ~~B2~ Inc_ ra Saings 13306 19917 26333 32189 38750 11930 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc_ TalC Oue 0 0 0 0 0 0 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297

let Cash flow (1037) (5522) (60325) (66) (737018) (397259) 74512 7Z2 74512 74512 7862 7512 74~12 rZSt2 142 M=062 1512 14512 =s===========s=_====sbullbullc=======-===================_======-=-==========I====S======-===========================e===s====================s==============r=================

Net Cash Flow Before Tax Considerations 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810 119810 190654 179442 217765 230460 242421 165733

T81 OlaquoiJcti ons

Depreciation

~ili~r Equip 2g~~ 2U~~ 2~~~ 2~~ 2~~~~ 2~g~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ 2~~ 2~~~ 2~n~ 1~~J ~~8 ~~~ f2zS 2~

~i~-OVerhoad

zg8M62335

zg8M62335

Z~~~ 62335

zg8M62335

ig8M62335

zg~~62335

i8M62335

i8M62335

t8M62335

i~8M 62335

Zg~~62335

~~~~~53665

~~~~ 46402

~tg~~40943

~~ ~~~35402 29986

ll~8~~

Total TaJ( Deduct_ 189341 189341 187121 187121 187121 187121 181121 181121 187121 187121 187121 156112 133925 117431 101291 86842 60718

I Froll Sales 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 201550 ~~~es~~= 1132~ m24~ 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154~ 1154~ 14647~ 16866g 1855~ 20129t 21574~ 1408~

Income la~ Due ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ Met Cash FloW =-2========SCI========

74512=I=====

74512 46974 73624 73624 73624 73624 63174 73624 __===_=_=============bullbullbullSamp====1II_1I31amp=II================_=II==__ == 73624_===__==

73624=======

132065 _=-=bullbull

111978======S=====

143703 ======_==

149943=======1I

156124 ========laquo

109400 ======_

~

Appendix Table Amiddotl United States Department ofAgriculture grade standards for Christmas trees

Christmas Tree Grades Factor US Premium US No1 US No2

Density Not less than Not less than Light or better medium medium

Tapera Normal- Normal- May be less than 40 to 90 40 to 90 40 or more

than 90

Damage-free faceb 4 3 2

Foliage Fresh clean Fresh clean Fresh clean and healthy and healthy and healthy

Shapec Well-shaped Well-shaped Well-shaped crown crown crown

Handle not Handle not Handle not less less than 6 less than 6 less than 6 or more than or more than or more than 134 per foot 1 34 per foot 1 34 per foot of tree height of tree height of tree height

aTaper of a tree is defined as the width of a tree expressed as a percentage of its height

Face means the visible surface area of a tree as viewed from 8 to 10 feet from the tree A tree is considered to have four faces each face constituting 14 of the tree

cHeight of a tree is defined in terms of foot or half-foot steps and is measured from the base of the handle to a point on the leader not more than 4 feet above the apex of the cone of the taper

Source Proebsting Buhaly and Wanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest 1981

40

4iUJiMMiFeuro iampi~t~Ityen)--

Literature Cited

Clevenger Tom et at The Wholesale and Processing Market for Locally Grown High Value Crops Research Report 572 New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station July 1985

Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture (Mora Research Center) New Mexico State University Guidelines for Growing and Marketing Christmas Trees in New Mexico New Mexico Department of Natural Resources October 1980

Huntley Wallace Marketing Christmas Trees-Turning a Problem into an Opportunity American Christmas Tree Journal August 1984 pp 41-43

Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury Fanners Tax Guide Publication 225

Proebsting William M Joseph Buhaly and Donald Hanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest Pacific Northwest Extension Publication PNW6 January 1981

41

Page 22: Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and ...

Table 17 Internal Rates of Return (lRR) estimates for a 160-acre Table 18 Net Present Value (NPV) estimates for a 160-acre Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost Christmas tree farm for selected yields tree prices and cost cbanges cha~es Ising a discount rate of 12

Percentage Percentageof saleable Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount

of saleabletrees 10 lower No chan~ 10 bilber trees --percent-shy

_______ - - - - - - - - - - - (percent)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - shy

$1040 Tree Price 900 130 102900 160 BOO

SOO 128 97 69 700 60 31700 91 600

-14600 48 16

$1140 Tree Price( 900 127185 155

123 95900 800 SOO 153 700 700 116 86 58 600

14600 74 43

$1240 Tree Price 900 lJJ7 178 150900 BOO

118SOO 176 146 700 139 109 81700 600

38600 97 66

$1340 Tree Price 900 900 228 198 171 BOO

167 139SOO 197 700103700 161 130 600

600 119 88 60

$1440 Tree Price 900 BOO

248 218 191900 700159SOO 216 186 600

180 150 123700 80

Costs as a Percentage of Budgeted Amount _ 10 lOwer No change 10 higher

-middot----middotmiddot---middot--bull-----dollars------bullbullbullbull -bullbullbull shy

$1040 Tree Price 175195 32602

(110936) (253415)

44502 (97269)

(2399BO) (381637)

(86191) (227140) (369023) (509859)

$1140 Tree Price 299293 167950 36607 142927

(14476) (170717)

12478 (144024) (299372)

(117971) (273573) (428028)

$1240 Tree Price 423391 291398 159406 253252 81984

(88019)

122225 (48069)

(217107)

(8BOl) (178123) (346196)

$1340 Tree Price 547489 414847 282204 363576 231972 100368 178445 (5321)

47886 (134842)

(82673) (264364)

$1440 Tree Price 671587 538295 405003 473901 341719 209538 274905 143841 12777 77377 (52578) (182532)

138 108 N01E Parentheses mean negative number

34 35

600

Investor Analysis

The following analysis considers the impact of the US tax laws (revised October 1987) on investing in Christmas trees The approach is identical to the previous IRR and NPV analysis except the impact of federal and state income taxes is considered in the annual stream of cash flow

The basis assumptions used are as follows

1 The taxpayer investor is in a 40 tax bracket on marginal income when combining both state and federal income taxes

2 The investor is actively engaged in managing the Christmas tree farm so that revenues and losses can be counted as active income or the investor has other passive investment income to offset any passive losses from growing Christmas trees

3 The Section 179 one-time deduction of $10000 per year is used in other businesses operated by the investor

4 Depreciation was calculated using the modified ACRS rules published by the IRS in 1987 Publication 225

5 The Christmas tree enterprise falls under the IRS rules for Christmas tree cultivation requiring capitalization of planting and stump culture for trees more than 6 years of age Because one-third of the trees are sold within the 6-year time limit one-third of planting expenses were deducted in the year incurred and the remaining two-thirds were capitalized and written off when the trees were sold in the seventh year

6 The investor uses a cash accounting system for tax purposes

36

The pre-tax IRR for the scenario with trees selling for $1240 each 80 harvestable yield and standard costs was 146 The IRR after-tax considerations fell to 125 (table 19) One might compare the after-tax return of 125 to other after-tax investments of comparable risks The after-tax NPV for the above scenario is $18069 compared to the pre-tax NPV of $122225 using a 12 discount rate

37

0

Table 19 Investor cash now analysis lor a l6O-acre Christmas tree larm (per planted acre basis) S=~=bullbull=I==~==~=bullbull====iI=bullbull2a==IIiIII bullbullbullbull===========n====ZIUSS=====bullbull===lllJ=====$~nUIlt1=llIIlta====s=a====II===============bullbullbull==II=~====lltz===-===U===========1II==X=======_==li=

Year 1 rHr 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year S Ye8l 6 tear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 1Q Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Tear 18

Net Cash Flow BelMe T8)( ConeiderattOlS (116411) (75439) (86658) (99354)(111768) (51189) 119810 119810 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810

Tax ONKtiona

Oeprec i at i on Irrigation syat far Foelli amp Equip

7875 1440

14625 7440

19446 7440

22890 7440

25378 7440

27156 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

Planting E_ 8209 10585 13004 16006 18568 22423 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031

~~~- ~t~t 1~~~r 1~ n~~ ~~m i~m ~M ~U~~ ~~M ~M ~~~ ~m ~M ~~~ ~~~ ~~M ~~M ~~M Total TalC DeOoctlons 33265 49193 65833 81973 96875 130860 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189341 189341 189311 189341 189341 189311

~rI~ (3326~) (4979~) (6583g) (819~) (968~) l~m) m~ ~~~~f~ mJ~ ~H~ m~~ mm ~~H~~ ~~B~ ~~im mm mJ~ ~~B2~ Inc_ ra Saings 13306 19917 26333 32189 38750 11930 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc_ TalC Oue 0 0 0 0 0 0 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297

let Cash flow (1037) (5522) (60325) (66) (737018) (397259) 74512 7Z2 74512 74512 7862 7512 74~12 rZSt2 142 M=062 1512 14512 =s===========s=_====sbullbullc=======-===================_======-=-==========I====S======-===========================e===s====================s==============r=================

Net Cash Flow Before Tax Considerations 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810 119810 190654 179442 217765 230460 242421 165733

T81 OlaquoiJcti ons

Depreciation

~ili~r Equip 2g~~ 2U~~ 2~~~ 2~~ 2~~~~ 2~g~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ 2~~ 2~~~ 2~n~ 1~~J ~~8 ~~~ f2zS 2~

~i~-OVerhoad

zg8M62335

zg8M62335

Z~~~ 62335

zg8M62335

ig8M62335

zg~~62335

i8M62335

i8M62335

t8M62335

i~8M 62335

Zg~~62335

~~~~~53665

~~~~ 46402

~tg~~40943

~~ ~~~35402 29986

ll~8~~

Total TaJ( Deduct_ 189341 189341 187121 187121 187121 187121 181121 181121 187121 187121 187121 156112 133925 117431 101291 86842 60718

I Froll Sales 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 201550 ~~~es~~= 1132~ m24~ 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154~ 1154~ 14647~ 16866g 1855~ 20129t 21574~ 1408~

Income la~ Due ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ Met Cash FloW =-2========SCI========

74512=I=====

74512 46974 73624 73624 73624 73624 63174 73624 __===_=_=============bullbullbullSamp====1II_1I31amp=II================_=II==__ == 73624_===__==

73624=======

132065 _=-=bullbull

111978======S=====

143703 ======_==

149943=======1I

156124 ========laquo

109400 ======_

~

Appendix Table Amiddotl United States Department ofAgriculture grade standards for Christmas trees

Christmas Tree Grades Factor US Premium US No1 US No2

Density Not less than Not less than Light or better medium medium

Tapera Normal- Normal- May be less than 40 to 90 40 to 90 40 or more

than 90

Damage-free faceb 4 3 2

Foliage Fresh clean Fresh clean Fresh clean and healthy and healthy and healthy

Shapec Well-shaped Well-shaped Well-shaped crown crown crown

Handle not Handle not Handle not less less than 6 less than 6 less than 6 or more than or more than or more than 134 per foot 1 34 per foot 1 34 per foot of tree height of tree height of tree height

aTaper of a tree is defined as the width of a tree expressed as a percentage of its height

Face means the visible surface area of a tree as viewed from 8 to 10 feet from the tree A tree is considered to have four faces each face constituting 14 of the tree

cHeight of a tree is defined in terms of foot or half-foot steps and is measured from the base of the handle to a point on the leader not more than 4 feet above the apex of the cone of the taper

Source Proebsting Buhaly and Wanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest 1981

40

4iUJiMMiFeuro iampi~t~Ityen)--

Literature Cited

Clevenger Tom et at The Wholesale and Processing Market for Locally Grown High Value Crops Research Report 572 New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station July 1985

Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture (Mora Research Center) New Mexico State University Guidelines for Growing and Marketing Christmas Trees in New Mexico New Mexico Department of Natural Resources October 1980

Huntley Wallace Marketing Christmas Trees-Turning a Problem into an Opportunity American Christmas Tree Journal August 1984 pp 41-43

Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury Fanners Tax Guide Publication 225

Proebsting William M Joseph Buhaly and Donald Hanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest Pacific Northwest Extension Publication PNW6 January 1981

41

Page 23: Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and ...

Investor Analysis

The following analysis considers the impact of the US tax laws (revised October 1987) on investing in Christmas trees The approach is identical to the previous IRR and NPV analysis except the impact of federal and state income taxes is considered in the annual stream of cash flow

The basis assumptions used are as follows

1 The taxpayer investor is in a 40 tax bracket on marginal income when combining both state and federal income taxes

2 The investor is actively engaged in managing the Christmas tree farm so that revenues and losses can be counted as active income or the investor has other passive investment income to offset any passive losses from growing Christmas trees

3 The Section 179 one-time deduction of $10000 per year is used in other businesses operated by the investor

4 Depreciation was calculated using the modified ACRS rules published by the IRS in 1987 Publication 225

5 The Christmas tree enterprise falls under the IRS rules for Christmas tree cultivation requiring capitalization of planting and stump culture for trees more than 6 years of age Because one-third of the trees are sold within the 6-year time limit one-third of planting expenses were deducted in the year incurred and the remaining two-thirds were capitalized and written off when the trees were sold in the seventh year

6 The investor uses a cash accounting system for tax purposes

36

The pre-tax IRR for the scenario with trees selling for $1240 each 80 harvestable yield and standard costs was 146 The IRR after-tax considerations fell to 125 (table 19) One might compare the after-tax return of 125 to other after-tax investments of comparable risks The after-tax NPV for the above scenario is $18069 compared to the pre-tax NPV of $122225 using a 12 discount rate

37

0

Table 19 Investor cash now analysis lor a l6O-acre Christmas tree larm (per planted acre basis) S=~=bullbull=I==~==~=bullbull====iI=bullbull2a==IIiIII bullbullbullbull===========n====ZIUSS=====bullbull===lllJ=====$~nUIlt1=llIIlta====s=a====II===============bullbullbull==II=~====lltz===-===U===========1II==X=======_==li=

Year 1 rHr 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year S Ye8l 6 tear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 1Q Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Tear 18

Net Cash Flow BelMe T8)( ConeiderattOlS (116411) (75439) (86658) (99354)(111768) (51189) 119810 119810 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810

Tax ONKtiona

Oeprec i at i on Irrigation syat far Foelli amp Equip

7875 1440

14625 7440

19446 7440

22890 7440

25378 7440

27156 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

Planting E_ 8209 10585 13004 16006 18568 22423 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031

~~~- ~t~t 1~~~r 1~ n~~ ~~m i~m ~M ~U~~ ~~M ~M ~~~ ~m ~M ~~~ ~~~ ~~M ~~M ~~M Total TalC DeOoctlons 33265 49193 65833 81973 96875 130860 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189341 189341 189311 189341 189341 189311

~rI~ (3326~) (4979~) (6583g) (819~) (968~) l~m) m~ ~~~~f~ mJ~ ~H~ m~~ mm ~~H~~ ~~B~ ~~im mm mJ~ ~~B2~ Inc_ ra Saings 13306 19917 26333 32189 38750 11930 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc_ TalC Oue 0 0 0 0 0 0 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297

let Cash flow (1037) (5522) (60325) (66) (737018) (397259) 74512 7Z2 74512 74512 7862 7512 74~12 rZSt2 142 M=062 1512 14512 =s===========s=_====sbullbullc=======-===================_======-=-==========I====S======-===========================e===s====================s==============r=================

Net Cash Flow Before Tax Considerations 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810 119810 190654 179442 217765 230460 242421 165733

T81 OlaquoiJcti ons

Depreciation

~ili~r Equip 2g~~ 2U~~ 2~~~ 2~~ 2~~~~ 2~g~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ 2~~ 2~~~ 2~n~ 1~~J ~~8 ~~~ f2zS 2~

~i~-OVerhoad

zg8M62335

zg8M62335

Z~~~ 62335

zg8M62335

ig8M62335

zg~~62335

i8M62335

i8M62335

t8M62335

i~8M 62335

Zg~~62335

~~~~~53665

~~~~ 46402

~tg~~40943

~~ ~~~35402 29986

ll~8~~

Total TaJ( Deduct_ 189341 189341 187121 187121 187121 187121 181121 181121 187121 187121 187121 156112 133925 117431 101291 86842 60718

I Froll Sales 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 201550 ~~~es~~= 1132~ m24~ 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154~ 1154~ 14647~ 16866g 1855~ 20129t 21574~ 1408~

Income la~ Due ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ Met Cash FloW =-2========SCI========

74512=I=====

74512 46974 73624 73624 73624 73624 63174 73624 __===_=_=============bullbullbullSamp====1II_1I31amp=II================_=II==__ == 73624_===__==

73624=======

132065 _=-=bullbull

111978======S=====

143703 ======_==

149943=======1I

156124 ========laquo

109400 ======_

~

Appendix Table Amiddotl United States Department ofAgriculture grade standards for Christmas trees

Christmas Tree Grades Factor US Premium US No1 US No2

Density Not less than Not less than Light or better medium medium

Tapera Normal- Normal- May be less than 40 to 90 40 to 90 40 or more

than 90

Damage-free faceb 4 3 2

Foliage Fresh clean Fresh clean Fresh clean and healthy and healthy and healthy

Shapec Well-shaped Well-shaped Well-shaped crown crown crown

Handle not Handle not Handle not less less than 6 less than 6 less than 6 or more than or more than or more than 134 per foot 1 34 per foot 1 34 per foot of tree height of tree height of tree height

aTaper of a tree is defined as the width of a tree expressed as a percentage of its height

Face means the visible surface area of a tree as viewed from 8 to 10 feet from the tree A tree is considered to have four faces each face constituting 14 of the tree

cHeight of a tree is defined in terms of foot or half-foot steps and is measured from the base of the handle to a point on the leader not more than 4 feet above the apex of the cone of the taper

Source Proebsting Buhaly and Wanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest 1981

40

4iUJiMMiFeuro iampi~t~Ityen)--

Literature Cited

Clevenger Tom et at The Wholesale and Processing Market for Locally Grown High Value Crops Research Report 572 New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station July 1985

Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture (Mora Research Center) New Mexico State University Guidelines for Growing and Marketing Christmas Trees in New Mexico New Mexico Department of Natural Resources October 1980

Huntley Wallace Marketing Christmas Trees-Turning a Problem into an Opportunity American Christmas Tree Journal August 1984 pp 41-43

Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury Fanners Tax Guide Publication 225

Proebsting William M Joseph Buhaly and Donald Hanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest Pacific Northwest Extension Publication PNW6 January 1981

41

Page 24: Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and ...

0

Table 19 Investor cash now analysis lor a l6O-acre Christmas tree larm (per planted acre basis) S=~=bullbull=I==~==~=bullbull====iI=bullbull2a==IIiIII bullbullbullbull===========n====ZIUSS=====bullbull===lllJ=====$~nUIlt1=llIIlta====s=a====II===============bullbullbull==II=~====lltz===-===U===========1II==X=======_==li=

Year 1 rHr 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year S Ye8l 6 tear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 1Q Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Tear 18

Net Cash Flow BelMe T8)( ConeiderattOlS (116411) (75439) (86658) (99354)(111768) (51189) 119810 119810 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810

Tax ONKtiona

Oeprec i at i on Irrigation syat far Foelli amp Equip

7875 1440

14625 7440

19446 7440

22890 7440

25378 7440

27156 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

28426 9640

Planting E_ 8209 10585 13004 16006 18568 22423 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031 39031

~~~- ~t~t 1~~~r 1~ n~~ ~~m i~m ~M ~U~~ ~~M ~M ~~~ ~m ~M ~~~ ~~~ ~~M ~~M ~~M Total TalC DeOoctlons 33265 49193 65833 81973 96875 130860 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189311 189341 189341 189311 189341 189341 189311

~rI~ (3326~) (4979~) (6583g) (819~) (968~) l~m) m~ ~~~~f~ mJ~ ~H~ m~~ mm ~~H~~ ~~B~ ~~im mm mJ~ ~~B2~ Inc_ ra Saings 13306 19917 26333 32189 38750 11930 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc_ TalC Oue 0 0 0 0 0 0 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297 45297

let Cash flow (1037) (5522) (60325) (66) (737018) (397259) 74512 7Z2 74512 74512 7862 7512 74~12 rZSt2 142 M=062 1512 14512 =s===========s=_====sbullbullc=======-===================_======-=-==========I====S======-===========================e===s====================s==============r=================

Net Cash Flow Before Tax Considerations 119810 119810 93160 119810 119810 119810 119810 109360 119810 119810 119810 190654 179442 217765 230460 242421 165733

T81 OlaquoiJcti ons

Depreciation

~ili~r Equip 2g~~ 2U~~ 2~~~ 2~~ 2~~~~ 2~g~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ 2~~ 2~~~ 2~n~ 1~~J ~~8 ~~~ f2zS 2~

~i~-OVerhoad

zg8M62335

zg8M62335

Z~~~ 62335

zg8M62335

ig8M62335

zg~~62335

i8M62335

i8M62335

t8M62335

i~8M 62335

Zg~~62335

~~~~~53665

~~~~ 46402

~tg~~40943

~~ ~~~35402 29986

ll~8~~

Total TaJ( Deduct_ 189341 189341 187121 187121 187121 187121 181121 181121 187121 187121 187121 156112 133925 117431 101291 86842 60718

I Froll Sales 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 302585 201550 ~~~es~~= 1132~ m24~ 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154~ 1154~ 14647~ 16866g 1855~ 20129t 21574~ 1408~

Income la~ Due ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ Met Cash FloW =-2========SCI========

74512=I=====

74512 46974 73624 73624 73624 73624 63174 73624 __===_=_=============bullbullbullSamp====1II_1I31amp=II================_=II==__ == 73624_===__==

73624=======

132065 _=-=bullbull

111978======S=====

143703 ======_==

149943=======1I

156124 ========laquo

109400 ======_

~

Appendix Table Amiddotl United States Department ofAgriculture grade standards for Christmas trees

Christmas Tree Grades Factor US Premium US No1 US No2

Density Not less than Not less than Light or better medium medium

Tapera Normal- Normal- May be less than 40 to 90 40 to 90 40 or more

than 90

Damage-free faceb 4 3 2

Foliage Fresh clean Fresh clean Fresh clean and healthy and healthy and healthy

Shapec Well-shaped Well-shaped Well-shaped crown crown crown

Handle not Handle not Handle not less less than 6 less than 6 less than 6 or more than or more than or more than 134 per foot 1 34 per foot 1 34 per foot of tree height of tree height of tree height

aTaper of a tree is defined as the width of a tree expressed as a percentage of its height

Face means the visible surface area of a tree as viewed from 8 to 10 feet from the tree A tree is considered to have four faces each face constituting 14 of the tree

cHeight of a tree is defined in terms of foot or half-foot steps and is measured from the base of the handle to a point on the leader not more than 4 feet above the apex of the cone of the taper

Source Proebsting Buhaly and Wanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest 1981

40

4iUJiMMiFeuro iampi~t~Ityen)--

Literature Cited

Clevenger Tom et at The Wholesale and Processing Market for Locally Grown High Value Crops Research Report 572 New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station July 1985

Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture (Mora Research Center) New Mexico State University Guidelines for Growing and Marketing Christmas Trees in New Mexico New Mexico Department of Natural Resources October 1980

Huntley Wallace Marketing Christmas Trees-Turning a Problem into an Opportunity American Christmas Tree Journal August 1984 pp 41-43

Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury Fanners Tax Guide Publication 225

Proebsting William M Joseph Buhaly and Donald Hanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest Pacific Northwest Extension Publication PNW6 January 1981

41

Page 25: Economic Assessment of Growing 6-7 Year Scots Pine and ...

~

Appendix Table Amiddotl United States Department ofAgriculture grade standards for Christmas trees

Christmas Tree Grades Factor US Premium US No1 US No2

Density Not less than Not less than Light or better medium medium

Tapera Normal- Normal- May be less than 40 to 90 40 to 90 40 or more

than 90

Damage-free faceb 4 3 2

Foliage Fresh clean Fresh clean Fresh clean and healthy and healthy and healthy

Shapec Well-shaped Well-shaped Well-shaped crown crown crown

Handle not Handle not Handle not less less than 6 less than 6 less than 6 or more than or more than or more than 134 per foot 1 34 per foot 1 34 per foot of tree height of tree height of tree height

aTaper of a tree is defined as the width of a tree expressed as a percentage of its height

Face means the visible surface area of a tree as viewed from 8 to 10 feet from the tree A tree is considered to have four faces each face constituting 14 of the tree

cHeight of a tree is defined in terms of foot or half-foot steps and is measured from the base of the handle to a point on the leader not more than 4 feet above the apex of the cone of the taper

Source Proebsting Buhaly and Wanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest 1981

40

4iUJiMMiFeuro iampi~t~Ityen)--

Literature Cited

Clevenger Tom et at The Wholesale and Processing Market for Locally Grown High Value Crops Research Report 572 New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station July 1985

Forestry Division and Department of Horticulture (Mora Research Center) New Mexico State University Guidelines for Growing and Marketing Christmas Trees in New Mexico New Mexico Department of Natural Resources October 1980

Huntley Wallace Marketing Christmas Trees-Turning a Problem into an Opportunity American Christmas Tree Journal August 1984 pp 41-43

Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury Fanners Tax Guide Publication 225

Proebsting William M Joseph Buhaly and Donald Hanley Growing Christmas Trees in the Pacific Northwest Pacific Northwest Extension Publication PNW6 January 1981

41