Search
Search Results
-
A comparative analysis of the profitability of pineapple-mango blend and pineapple fruit juice processing in Ghana
33-42Views:391This study analyzes the profitability of fruit juice processing using data from Kudors Fruit Juice Limited at Kasoa in Ghana. The cost involved in fruit juice processing (which includes the capital cost and the operating cost) was obtained from the Company. This study compares the profitability of blend (i.e. fruit juice made up of pineapple and mango blend) with that of pineapple juice alone. The viability of the project was determined using the discounted measures of project worth: Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR), Net Present Value (NPV) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR). The empirical results reveal that pineapple juice processing had a BCR of 1.03 which means that going into the pineapple juice processing is profitable. The value of the NPV (GHS11,728.00) and IRR (23%) further confirms that pineapple juice processing is profitable because the NPV is positive and the IRR is greater than the discounted factor (21%). The results also showed that it is more profitable to invest in the blend (pineapple and mango blend) than the pineapple juice alone as it yields a BCR of 1.36 which was greater than the BCR of 1.03 for the pineapple juice only. Furthermore, the value of the NPV (GHS176,831.00) which is greater than the pineapple juice only, suggests that the blend is more profitable even though the IRR for both are the same. Moreover, it is also more likely to recover capital investment earlier in the processing of the blend than when one goes into pineapple juice processing only, because the net cash flow in year 2 (GHS 58,146.00) for the blend is more than triple that of the pineapple juice only (GHS17,826.00).These results have policy implications for the development of Agribusinesses in Ghana.
-
Investment analysis of a piglet producer farm – a Hungarian case study
141-152Views:288The pig population in Hungary was about 8 million in 1990, while this number dropped to only 2.8 million by 2018. The previously so successful integrated domestic pig farming has almost completely disappeared and most of the smaller farms still operating in the 1990s are no longer functioning. At present, a process of concentration can be observed, which was accompanied by the further specialization of pig farming. The main profile of most pig farms is fattening, but there is a smaller number of farms in Hungary today specialized for piglet production, the successful operation of which requires significantly more expertise and more complex technology.
The main aim of this study is to present the production and economic indicators of a pig farm specialized in piglet production in Hungary as a result of a greenfield investment in the current economic environment, on a case study basis. For this purpose, an economic simulation was prepared based on primary data collection, operating on a deterministic basis, modelling the production and economic processes of the farm. The performed calculation does not derive the economic indicators of the activity from accounting records, but assigns the prices of natural inputs used on the basis of technological data. Primary data and information collection (e.g. technological data, input and output prices, unit cost items, etc.) took place between 2018-2019.
At the purchase prices of pigs in the last two years, which have increased significantly due to the African Swine Fever (ASF), the majority of pig farms in Hungary have an outstanding profit-making capacity. The physical efficiency indicators of the analysed pig farm are almost identical to the average data of such farms in the Netherlands, which has one of the most developed pig industry. The income of the examined pig farm at farm level is about 734 thousand EUR, i.e. 232 EUR per sow. Moreover, this activity is profitable even without subsidies. As a result, the greenfield investment pays off in the 8th year by default (average scenario). The investment has a Net Present Value (NPVr=3%) of EUR 2,609 thousand for 10 years, an Internal Rate of Return of 8.5%, and a Profitability Index (PIr=3%) of 1.3. At the same time, risk factors such as sales prices, output and capacity utilization, and feed costs should be taken into consideration as in extreme cases the return on investment may be unfavourable (pessimistic scenario).
JEL code: D24, M11, Q12
-
The economic efficiency of apple production in terms of post‑harvest technology
99-106Views:143This study analyses how the level of postharvest technology’s development influences the economic efficiency of apple production with the help of a deterministic simulation model based on primary data gathering in producer undertakings. To accomplish our objectives and to support our hypotheses three processing plant types are included in the model: firstly apple production with no postharvest and prompt sale after the harvest, secondly parallel production and storage combined with an extended selling period and thirdly production and entire postharvest infrastructure (storage, sorting-ranking, packing) with the highest level of goods production and continuous sales. Based on our results it can be stated that the parallel production (plantation) and cold storage, so the second case is proved to be totally inefficient, considering that the establishment of a cold storage carries enormously high costs with resulting a relative low plus profit compared to the first type of processing plant. The reason for this is that this type is selling bulk goods without sorting-grading or packaging; storage itself – as a means of continuously servicing the market – is not covered properly by the consumers. Absolute efficiency ranking cannot be established regarding the other two processing plants: plantation without post-harvest infrastructure resulting lower NPV, but a more favourable IRR, DPP and PI as developing a plantation and a whole post-harvest infrastructure.
Keywords
