See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265006297

Greenhouse Economics

Article · January 1990

CITATIONS READS
9 196

1 author:

Chito Sace
Central Luzon State University
4 PUBLICATIONS   38 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Global tilapia markets and development View project

Indoor vertical farming systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chito Sace on 20 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 GREENHOUSE ECONOMICS

Chito F. Sace

(Agricultural Engineer and faculty member, Department of Agricultural and Biosystem Engineering,
College of Engineering, Central Luzon State University
Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines)
(Email:[email protected])

ABSTRACT

Using various economic criteria, this paper discusses greenhouse economics

using five common indicators. It describes how, by shifting from traditional extensive
open field farming to intensive greenhouse production of high value crops, improved
productivity and income from a small piece of land can be sustained. Experiences in the
operation and management of the CLSU-ISRAEL-DA-SCP Demonstration Farm in
Central Luzon State University, Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines using
Negev model greenhouses is also presented and used as basis of the financial
analysis.
Results revealed that it has a payback period of 3.34 years, a break-even point of
3,465 kg per annum, a benefit-cost ratio of 1.53, an enormous net present worth and
30% internal rate of return. These proved that greenhouses are profitable to operate
with in the locality especially in growing high value crops.

INTRODUCTION:

Increased agricultural productivity is a primordial concern in many developing

countries like the Philippines. As the challenge to produce more food for the ever-
increasing population under a decreasing land resource base continues to mount, many
agri-businessmen still believe that agriculture is the only way to recover the country’s
economy and pay its foreign debt. For a strong foundation of the country’s economy,
agriculture needs a more scientific approach to be developed and to be able to attain
food security in the country. A particular concern on the development of advanced
farming systems and the efficient use of resources, such as modern technologies, prove
to be indispensable.
Agricultural productivity demands a revolutionary change in attitude to adopt
advanced technologies to sustain, and greenhouse technology promises a solution.
High yield of quality vegetables, flowers and fruits can be grown intensively out of
season at year-round excellence that cannot be achieved in the open field. Climate,
though sometimes hostile, will not interrupt and limit production. Space and water are
efficiently utilized in its fullest resulting to the cutting cost of electricity, labor, time and
water.
If appropriate attention is only given to high-technology farming and to the
services required for the major phases of production, agriculture can assume that food
problems and unemployment in the Philippines are manageable. Indeed, the need for
adoption of modern technology to improve productivity cannot be overemphasized. The
higher yield benefits from new technologies will only be realized if improved farming
system is made available.
At this stage, it is indispensable to set up pilot demonstration farms where
entrepreneurs, engineers and farmers can come and see the potential productivity and
income that could be derived from this technology. In Silang, Cavite, Philippines,
Netafim Phils had installed a demonstration farm for fruit and vegetable production.
Sophisticated as it is, the farm has been an attraction in the area. In Central Luzon
State University, Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines, the same company
built two units of tropical greenhouse in a one-hectare demonstration farm. Successful
in producing hybrid muskmelon, the farm is frequented by visitors who are curious of
this Israeli technology.
The curiosity on the wonders of this high-technology farming draws interest and
attention. Sooner or later, there is no doubt that more Filipinos will be aware of its
adoption. Hence, a financial feasibility study of this venture is presented.

FEATURES OF THE GREENHOUSE MODEL

The Negev model greenhouse by Netafim of Israel is suitable to grow fruits,
flowers and vegetables for tropical and warm climates. This model is structured in a
2
way that balance of temperature and humidity will be possible. Table 1 illustrates the
description of the greenhouses installed at CLSU, Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines.

Table 1. Description of the Israeli Greenhouse Structures at CLSU.

Type: Tropical greenhouse for vegetable production

Model: Negev
Dimension: 32 m x 36 m
Gutter height: 4m
Side and roof covering: Polyethylene plastic, 200 micron thick
Side ventilation: Insect proof netting, mesh #17
Metal frame: “Hot dip,” aluminum locking profiles
Anteroom dimension: 3.0 m x 2.5 m
Fertigation unit: Complete set of automatic control
fertigation system with Venturi injector and
chemical tank
Cooling system: 5 sets of circulating fans and mist system

(Left), the Negev model greenhouses at the demonstration farm; (right), honeydew melons produced
inside the greenhouses.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Five basic methods were used to assess the financial feasibility of a unit of P1.7
M-greenhouse based on the experiences of the CLSU-ISRAEL-DA-SCP Demonstration
Farm on muskmelon production. These methods are payback period, break-even
analysis, benefit/cost ratio, net present worth and internal rate of return. Data were
taken from the average of five harvest seasons from 2000-2001.

3
 Though several crops can be planted, Sweet World variety of honeydew type
muskmelon acquired from a reputed seed distributor in the country was selected and
planted in a two-row plot with 150 hills. In this 32 m x 36 m greenhouse with an effective
area of 1,110 square meters, 22 plots were laid out and planted that amounted to about
3,300 hills. One fruit is allowed to mature for every plant in order to maintain the quality
of fruits. Harvesting was done after about 85 days of sowing the seeds. Conservatively,
90% of harvestable fruits of good quality were considered. This accounts for 2,970
pieces of fruits with an average weight of 1.6 kg each giving a total weight of 4,752 kg
per cropping. From Table 2, a potential gross income of P285,120.00 is attained when
fruits were sold at P60.00 per kg.

Table 2. Production Cycle Data

CROP GROWN: Muskmelon

HARVESTING: 85 DAS

POTENTIAL PRODUCTION:
Total area (32m x 36m): 1,154 sq. meters
Effective area cultivated: 1, 110 sq. meters
Total number of row: 22 rows
Total number of hills per row: 150 hills
Total number of hills: 3,300 pcs
Total potential number of fruits: 3,300 pcs a

POTENTIAL GROSS INCOME:

Total potential number of fruits: 3,300 fruits
“Class A” (90%) 2,970 fruits b
Weight of fruit: 1.6 kg/fruit
Total weight: 4,752 kg
Cost /kg: P 60.00/kg
Total Potential Gross Income: P 285,120.00
a
To maintain good quality fruits, one fruit is allowed to mature from each plant
b
Some plants are not successful to produce good quality fruits

Depreciation and average interest on investment were considered as fixed costs

amounting to P54,400.00 per cropping. The cost of materials and labor for replacement

4
of some roof and side plastic covers is assumed by the repair and maintenance of
P11,333.00, which are expected to wear and be replaced after three years. This cost
plus the costs of inputs (seeds, labor, fertilizers, chemicals, electricity and other
miscellaneous expenses) of P50,000.00 composed the variable cost that totaled to
P61,333.00 per cropping. Adding these costs will give the total operating costs that is
equal to P115,733.00 as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Total Costs per Cropping Season

A. Fixed Costs

A.1 Average interest in investment (AII) P 37,400.00

A.2 Depreciation (Dep’n) 17,000.00
Sub-total P 54,400.00

B. Variable Costs

B.1 Repair and Maintenance (R & M) P 11,333.00

B.2 Seeds 17,600.00
B.3 Labor 20,000.00
B.4 Electricity 2,000.00
B.5 Chemicals 4,400.00
B.6 Fertilizers 4,000.00
B.7 Miscellaneous 2,000.00
Sub-total P 61,333.00

C. Total Costs P 115,733.00

A.1 AII = 12% [(Initial cost + salvage value)] / 2

= 12% [(P 1,700,000.00 + P 170,000.00)] / 2
= P 112,200.00 / year
= P 37,400.00 / cropping

A.2 Dep’n = (Initial Cost – Salvage value) / Life span

= (P 1,700,000.00 – P 170,000.00) / 30 years
= P 51,000.00 / year
= P 17,000.00/cropping

B.1 R & M = 2% / year (Initial cost)

= 0.02 (P 1,700,000.00) / year
= P 34,000.00 / year
= P11,333.00 / cropping

5
 From these values, it is interesting to note that there are about 2.67 fruits per sq

m of the greenhouse effective area or about 4.3 kg of fruits. This is equal to a gross

income per sq m of about P257.00. Net return, computed when total costs are

subtracted from the gross return, is equal to P169,387.00 while gross margin is about

P223,787.00 when the total variable costs are deducted from the gross return. Unit

price, which is computed by dividing total variable cost by the total weight of fruits per

year, is only about P12.90.

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

1. Payback Period
Payback period focuses on the length of time it will take for the investment to
return its original cost or the number of years required for cash inflows to just equal
cash outflows. It is often called simple payout method, which indicates the project
liquidity rather than profitability

PP = IC / ANI
= P1, 700, 000.00 / P508, 161.00
= 3.34 years

Where: PP = Payback Period

IC = Investment cost
ANI = Annual net income

NOTE: The project requires only 3.34 years or 3 years and 4 months to recover.

2. Break-even Analysis
Break-even analysis presents the point where there is just sufficient revenue to
cover the costs. It is the point at which the total cost and the total gross revenue
intersect. It is a method used more frequently to demonstrate the probable effects of
change than to determine what those changes should be.

6
 BEP = TFC / (sp – up) , kg/ year
= P163, 200.00 / (P60.00 - P12.90) / kg
= 3,465 kg / yr

Where:
BEP = Break-even point; the volume where TR=TC
TFC = Total fixed cost per year
sp = Selling price per kg
up = Cost per kg
= TVC / (Total wt / yr)
= P183, 999.00 / 14,256 kg
= P 12.90 / kg

NOTE: The project needs only 3,465 kg per annum to reach a no-profit-no-loss
situation.

AGI
10 -

9 -
Break-even point = 3,465 kg / yr x
8 -
Costs, (x P100.000.00 / yr)

}
7 -
Profit
6 -

4 -
x ATC
3 -

2 -
TFC
1 -

0 -
1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

. Production, (x1,000 kg/yr)

Figure 1. Break-even chart showing costs and volume of production.

3. Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR) Method

Benefit-cost ratio (BCR) is a ratio of discounted benefits to discounted costs.
It is an accepted procedure for making go/no-go decisions on projects as compared to
alternatives. If the value of BCR > 1.0 the project is feasible.

7
 BCR = PWB / (PWC + IC)

PWB = AGI (P/A, I%, N)

= P855, 360.00 (P/A, 12%, 30)
= P855, 360.00 (8.0552)
= P6, 890, 096.00

PWC = ATC (P/A, I%, N) – SV (P/F, I%, N)

= P347, 199.00 (P/A, 12%, 30) – P170, 000.00 (P/F, 12%, 30)
= P347, 199.00 (8.0552) – P170, 000.00 (0.0334)
= P2, 791, 079.00

Where:
BCR = Benefit/Cost Ratio
PWB = Present Worth Benefits
PWC = Present Worth Costs
IC = Investment Cost
ATC = Annual Total Costs
SV = Salvage Value of investment cost
I% = Interest rate in investment cost
N = Life Span of the project
AGI = Annual Gross Income
I2% = Interest rate in investment cost

BCR = PWB / (PWC + IC)

= P6, 890,096.00 / (P2, 791, 079.00 + P1, 700, 000.00)
= 1.53

NOTE: Since BCR = 1.53 > 1.0, then the project is feasible.

4. Net Present Worth (NPW) Method

Net present worth method is based on the concept of equivalent worth of all the
cash flows relative to some base or beginning point in time called the present. It is a
measure of how much money an individual or a firm could afford to pay for the
investment in excess of its costs. If the value of PW >1.0 then the project is feasible.

NPW = PW of Cash Inflows – PW of Cash Outflows

= PWB – (PWC + IC)
= P6, 890, 096.00 – P4, 491, 079.00
= P2, 399, 017.00

8
 Where:
Cash Inflows = PWB
Cash Outflows = PWC + IC

NOTE: Since the computed value of PW = P2, 398, 050.00 > 1.0; then the
project is feasible.

5. Internal Rate of Return

Internal rate of return (IRR) is another way of using discounted cash flow for
measuring economic worth of a project. It is to find out whether the discount rate will
make the net present worth of the cash flow equal to zero. The discount rate is termed
the internal rate of return that represents the average earning power of the investment
over the life of the project.
N N
IRR = R k (P/F, I%,k) = Ek (P/F, I%, k)
K+0 K+0

= 30%

Where: Rk = Net revenues or savings for the kth year

Ek = Net expenditures including any costs for the kth
year
N = Project life

Assuming that the minimum attractive rate of return (MARR) is 24%, then the
project is feasible.

DISCUSSION

From Table 4, the payback period of 3.34 years connotes ten cropping seasons
are needed to recover the costs. This means that greater net income can be realized
after this period. The 3,465 kg per year break-even point indicates that the project only
needs to produce this yield per year and sell them at P60.00 per kg to earn a revenue of
about P207,900.00 in order to cover the costs of production. This also suggests that as
the project produce more, the more will be the income.

9
 Benefit cost ratio, net present worth and the internal rate of return obviously
disclose that investing in this project is highly feasible.

Table 4. Summary of computations

Methods Values Remarks

1. Payback period 3.34 years The project will take only about 3
years and 4 months or 10 cropping to
recover the investment
2. Break-even point 3,465 kg / yr The project needs only 3,465 kg
weight of fruits to be sold in order to
cover the cost
3. Benefit-cost ratio 1.53 Feasible
4. Net present worth P2, 399, 017.00 Feasible
5. Internal rate of return 30% Feasible

CONCLUSION

By adopting greenhouses, there is no doubt that in the near future, there will be
more food and jobs for every Filipino. Sustained production of quality fruits, flowers and
vegetables will eventually cause lesser importation as local farmers can produce these
all season of the year. Farmer’s income will be then be improved and sustained
ultimately making our economy stable.
The need to adopt high-technology agriculture in the country is therefore not a
choice anymore but a necessity.

REFERENCES

ANONYMOUS. 1995. “Facts about Israel”. The Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia..

Grolier Electronic Publishing, Inc., Novato, CA, USA.

DE GARMO, E.P. et. al. 1997. Engineering Economy. 10TH Edition, Prentice-Hall Inc.
USA.

10
 CABATBAT, D.D and MANANGU, I.S. 1999. “Water Management for Combined Ginger
and Amargoso Crops under Micro-Sprinkler Irrigation”. CLSU.

DELAYAHU E. and E. HADASS. 1996. Agricultural Production Forecast for the Years.
General Planning Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Tel Aviv, Israel.

INTERNET HOMEPAGE. 2002. “Facets of the Israeli Economy”. Jerusalem, Israel.,

http://www.mfa.gov.il

SACE, C.F. and DURAN, D. D.1982 “Performance and Cost Analyses of Different
Harvesting and Threshing Practices in CLSU.” CLSU.

SACE, C. F. and R.B. GAVINO. “Design and Evaluation of a Low-cost Automatic

Control Device for Pressurized Irrigation Systems”. Proceedings of International
Commission on Irrigation and Drainage. 19th European Regional Conference.
Ministry of Agriculture, Prague, Czech Republic, 4-8 June 2001

SACE, C. F., “Year End Report 2001 CLSU-ISRAEL-DA-SCP Demonstration Farm”.

CLSU, Muñoz, Nueva Ecija. January 2001

SMALL L. E. 1992. “Evaluating Irrigation System Performance with Measures of

Irrigation Efficiencies”. Irrigation Management Network. ODI. Network Paper 22

UNDAN, R. C. AND C. F. SACE. “Pressurized Irrigation Systems for Improved Water

Management and Productivity”. Proceedings of the 52nd PSAE Annual
Convention, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, April 22-26, 2002.

11

View publication stats