Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T23:13:13.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relative Profitability of Vine-Ripe Tomatoes in North Carolina and Tennessee

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Gene A. Mathia  and
John R. Brooker
Gene A. Mathia
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University at Raleigh
John R. Brooker
Affiliation:
University of Tennessee at Knoxville
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The ability of a farmer or group of farmers in a region to produce a specific product profitably depends on the structure of costs of production and marketing and demands of all competing crops. The final decision to grow a particular product is made on the basis of its profitability relative to profitabilities of other alternatives. Relative profitability of a product changes as technological innovations affect yields, resource requirements and production efficiency. Factors affecting demand for resource inputs and products cause changes in profitabilities. Institutional factors can also necessitate adjustments in farm plans by influencing price and/or production of specific products and thereby affecting the profitability of one product relative to other product alternatives.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , December 1977 , pp. 121 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1[ Allgood, J. G. et al. “Planning for Profit, Field Crops,” North Carolina Extension Circular 519, Revised, North Carolina State University, 1975.Google Scholar
[2[ Allgood, J. G. et al. “Planning for Profit, Grains and Soybeans,” North Carolina Extension Circular 522, Revised, North Carolina State University, 1975.Google Scholar
[3[ Buchholz, H. E., Judge, G. G. and West, V. I.. “A Summary of Selected Estimated Behavior Relationships for Agricultural Products,” Department of Agricultural Economics Research Report No. 57, University of Illinois, Urbana, October 1962.Google Scholar
[4[ Duloy, J. H. and Norton, R. D.. “CHAC: A Programming Model for Mexican Agriculture,” Multi-level Planning: Case Studies in Mexico, Goreux, L. and Manne, A. Eds., North Holland Publishing Company, 1973, pp. 1–59.Google Scholar
[5[ George, P. S. and King, G. A.. “Consumer Demand for Food Commodities in the United States with Projections for 1980,” Giannini Foundation Monograph No. 26, University of California, Berkeley, March 1971.Google Scholar
[6[ Hazell, P. B. R. “A Linear Alternative to Quadratic and Semi-variance Programming for Farm Planning Under Uncertainty,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 53, 1971, pp. 53–62.Google Scholar
[7[ Hazell, P. B. R. and Scandizzo, P. L.. “Competitive Demand Structures Under Risk in Agricultural Linear Programming Models,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 56, 1974, pp. 235–244.Google Scholar
[8[ Liner, H. and Hughes, George. “Planning for Profit, Vegetables,” North Carolina Extension Circular 520, Revised, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, 1975.Google Scholar
[9[ Mathia, G. A. and Schrimper, R. A.. “Analysis of Shifts in Demand and Supply Affecting U.S. and N.C. Vegetable Production and Price Patterns,” Department of Economics Information Report No. 35, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, January 1974.Google Scholar
[10[ Mathia, G. A. “Measurement of Price, Yield and Sales Variability Indexes for Selected North Carolina Crops,” Department of Economics Research Report No. 36, North Carolina State University, October 1975.Google Scholar
[11[ Nieuwoudt, W. L., Bullock, J. B. and Mathia, G. A.. “Alternative Peanut Programs: An Economic Analysis,” Technical Bulletin No. 242, North Carolina State University, May 1976.Google Scholar
[12[ North Carolina Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Statistics, 1975-76 Annual, NCDA-Division of Statistics, Raleigh, July 1976.Google Scholar
[13[ Simmons, R. L. and Pomareda, C.. “Equilibrium Quantities and Timing of Mexican Vegetables Exports,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 57, 1975, pp. 472–479.Google Scholar
[14[ Tennessee Department of Agriculture. “Agricultural Statistics, 1975” and other annual reports, Tennessee Crop Reporting Service, Nashville, Tennessee.Google Scholar
[15[ U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Statistics, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
[16[ U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Unloads,” various issues of 1976 series, Washington, D.C.: Agricultural Marketing Service.Google Scholar
[17[ U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Crop Production,” Statistical Bulletins 108, 290, 384 and other annual series, Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Agricultural Economics.Google Scholar
[18[ U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Vegetables for Fresh Market,” Statistical Bulletins 126, 212, 300, 412, 495 and other annual reports, Washington, D.C.: Statistical Reporting Service.Google Scholar
[19[ U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Vegetables for Processing,” Statistical Bulletins 132, 210, 411 and selected annual reports, Washington, D.C.: Statistical Reporting Service.Google Scholar