+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Economic analysis of integrated crop management practices of 'Navel' oranges

Economic analysis of integrated crop management practices of 'Navel' oranges

Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 118(6): 910-915

The effect of various integrated crop management practices on productivity (fruit yield, grade, and size) and returns of 'Washington Navel' oranges [Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck] was determined in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Seventy-two combinations of treatments comprised of three irrigation levels [80%, 100%, and 120% evapotranspiration demand (ETc)], three N fertilizer levels (low, medium and high based on 2.3%, 2.5%, and 2.7% leaf N, respectively), gibberellic acid (+/-), miticide (+/-), and fungicide-nematicide (+/-) were induced in the analysis Using a partial budgeting procedure, returns after costs were calculated for each treatment combination. Costs of treatments, harvesting, packing, and processing were subtracted from the value of the crop. The value of the crop was calculated as the sum of returns of crop in each size and grade category. The overall result indicated that returns after costs were higher for the +fungicide-nematicide treatment and also were generally more with increased irrigation. The combination of 120% ETc, +fungicide-nematicide, medium or high N, -miticide, and -gibberellin showed the highest return of all treatment combinations. Second highest returns were obtained with high N or with miticide and gibberellin used together.

(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 002351579

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

Related references

Evaluating integrated crop management practices of navel oranges. Hortscience 29(7): 741, 1994

Economic analysis of selected insect pest management practices for almonds Navel orangeworm, California. Almond facts 47(1): 50-51, 1982

An economic analysis of alternative spray decision rules for citrus thrips managment on Central Valley navel oranges. Dissertation Abstracts International, A Humanities and Social Sciences 45(7): p.2202, 1985

Economic analysis of alfalfa integrated management practices. Southern journal of agricultural economics Southern Agricultural Economics Association 22(2): 109-115, 1990

The conservation compliance program and best management practices: an integrated approach for economic analysis. Review of agricultural economics 17(3): 244, 1995

The effect of cultural practices on the postharvest response of navel oranges. Proceedings of the International Citrus Symposium Guangzhou China Nov 5-8-1990 edited by Huang Bangyan Yang Qian: 714, 1991

Navel oranges utilization of the 1989 1990 crop. Citrograph 74(12): 297-300, 302, 1989

Factors affecting maturity, crop yields for navel oranges. Citrograph 71(2): 29-30, 1985

Economic Analysis of Insect Control Strategies Using an Integrated Crop Ecosystem Management Model. CIGR ejournal(8), 2006

Comparative economic analysis of crop plans in a sodic soil under integrated management of reclamation. Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agricola e Ambiental 2(2): 165-169, 1998

Cultural practices for yield improvement of navel oranges, Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck. 1997

Water spot of Navel Oranges in relation to the application of white oil sprays and various other orchard practices. J. Dep. Agric. W. Aust, 18: 4, 267-284, 1941

Integrated crop management practices for maximizing grain yield of double-season rice crop. Scientific Reports 7: 38982, 2017

Soil Properties, Crop Yield, and Economics Under Integrated Crop Management Practices in Karnataka, Southern India. World Development 93: 43-61, 2017

Economic analysis of integrated management of wild oats involving fallow, herbicide and crop rotational options. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 37(6): 683-691, 1997