Abstract
Abstract Cost budgeting methods were used to determine harvesting costs and net returns under hand, combination, and mechanized harvest operations. Mechanized harvest methods generated the highest net return potentials for growers. Gross receipts per unit area, required to break even, were significantly lower under mechanized harvest operations. Net returns per unit of area for hand harvest and combination harvest were similar.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 3
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanized harvest produced the highest net return potential.
- Taxon
- Processing Tomatoest0
- Treatment
- Mechanized harvest methodse0
- Outcome
- net return potentialse0
- Direction
- higheste0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Mechanized harvest methods generated the highest net return potentials for growers.”
t0“Processing Tomatoes”
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanized harvest required significantly lower break-even receipts.
- Taxon
- Processing Tomatoest0
- Treatment
- mechanized harvest operationse0
- Outcome
- Gross receipts per unit area, required to break evene0
- Direction
- lowere0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Gross receipts per unit area, required to break even, were significantly lower under mechanized harvest operations.”
t0“Processing Tomatoes”
Claim · model-written summary
Hand and combination harvest had similar area-based net returns.
Verbatim
e0“Net returns per unit of area for hand harvest and combination harvest were similar.”
t0“Processing Tomatoes”