楊姓水耕蔬菜農家之農場經營分析

Analysis of the Management for an Individual Hydropomc Vegetable Farm

林月金(Y. J. LW)

《臺中區農業改良場研究彙報》 24期 (1989/09) Pp. 31-44

https://doi.org/10.6956/BTDAIS.198909.0031

摘要

本文為個案研究，係對個別水耕葉菜農場之經營狀況、經營成果、投資經濟性做整體性分析。研究結果摘述如下：1.楊姓水耕葉菜栽培農場，設施面積2,000m^2（栽培床面積1,700m^2）時，平均每公斤第1次生產費用39.2元，第2次生產費用42.9元；設施面積4,850m^2（栽培床面積亦等於4,850m^2）時，平均每公斤第1次生產費用32.7元，第2次生產費用35.9元。生產費用中以折舊費及人工費最多，其次為運銷資材費及資本利息。2.農場經營成果，就所得的觀點而言，不論設施擴大前後均尚可，但就利潤的觀點而言，設施擴大前利潤率僅4.6%，擴大後提高為20.3%。3.該水耕農場不論設施擴大前、後，損益平衡點均低於實際銷售量、銷售額，此表示均可確保利潤。但是，當市場售價降低10%，則設施面積2,000m^2時即呈虧損現象。4.設施面積2,000m^2時，若設定年利率12%，投資財耐用年限5年之悲觀條件下，實際投資額高於投資邊際，為不合理之投資；若設定年利率5%，投資財耐用年限8年之樂觀條件下，實際投資額低於投資邊際，為合理之投資。設施面積4,850m^2時，不論樂觀或悲觀條件下，實際投資額均低於投資邊際，均屬合理投資。5.依資本基準法的投資判定，楊姓水耕蔬菜農家之農場設施面積擴大前、後之投資均屬合理化，投資計畫均可採行，而且以擴大投資後的資本效率較高，資本回收年限較短。

並列摘要

This report is a case study. It is aimed to the overall analysis of the management situation, achievement and the economy of investment for an individual hydroponic vegetable farm. The results can be summarized as following:(1) For this hydroponic vegetable farm, when the structure area was 2,000m^2, the first production cost was NT$ 39.2 per Kg and the second cost was NT$ 42.9 per Kg. However, when the structure area was scaled up to 4,850m^2, the first production cost was NT$32.7 per Kg while the second cost was NT$35.9 per Kg. Depreciation and labor counted the most cost and. then followed by the cost of marketing and interest.(2) For the achievement of farm management, the income was allright no matter before or after scale-up of the farm. However, on the viewpoint of profit gained, before scale-up of the farm, the profit was 4.6% of the gross return while after the sca.le-up, the rate of profit raised to 20.3%.(3) No matter before or after scale-up of the farm, the break-even point was lower than the actual amount and value of sale. This means that the profit is guaranteed. However, when the market price was reduced 10%, loss was observed if the structure area was 2,000m^2.(4) For the 2,000m^2 structure area farm, if the annual interest rate was 12% and the life of invested facilities was 5 years, the actual investment was higher than the investment margin and thus was an unreasonable investment. On the other hand, if the annual interest rate was 5% and the life of invested facilities was 8 years, the actual investment could be lower than the investment margin and such investment was reasonable. However, when the structure area was 4,850m^2, no matter what conditions described above, the actual investment was lower than the investment margin and then, the investment was reasonable.(5) Judging from the economy of investment, the achievement was reasonable no matter before or after scale-up of the structure area and thus, the plan of investment could be adopted. In addition, after scale-up of the farm the efficiency of investment was higher and the payback period of facilites was shorter.