IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ifma11/345558.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

PR - Quicken® Vs. Quickbooks® For Farm/Ranch Financial Records (p418-426)

Author

Listed:
  • Doye, Damona

Abstract

Farm records are the foundation from which many on-farm decisions are made and offer invaluable insights into business strengths and weaknesses. Recordkeeping software enables users to quickly record, then sort and summarize records in a variety of ways. This paper briefly discusses U.S. farmer’s adoption and use of computers, then compares and contrasts the applicability of two popular commercial software packages for use in farm/ranch financial records. The features of Quicken® and QuickBooks® are highlighted and their advantages and disadvantages in supporting farm management functions are discussed. Both tools are relatively easy to use and flexible. For many U.S. farmers, Quicken® is an inexpensive alternative with advantages for producers who want to track both family and farm income and expenses and/or have off-farm investments. For larger producers with multiple employees and/or the need to invoice and track accounts payable/receivable, QuickBooks® is clearly superior. Teaching materials available for each are discussed. Mention of a specific product does not imply endorsement.

Suggested Citation

  • Doye, Damona, 2011. "PR - Quicken® Vs. Quickbooks® For Farm/Ranch Financial Records (p418-426)," 18th Congress, Methven, New Zealand, 2011 345558, International Farm Management Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ifma11:345558
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.345558
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/345558/files/11_Doye_P418-426.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.345558?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. H. M. Dixon, 1928. "The Contribution of Farm Management in the Development of Agricultural Extension Programs," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 10(3), pages 375-383.
    2. Jean-Paul Chavas & Robert G. Chambers & Rulon D. Pope, 2010. "Production Economics and Farm Management: a Century of Contributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(2), pages 356-375.
    3. Damona Doye, 2004. "The Use of Electronic Technology in Teaching Farm Record Keeping," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(3), pages 762-766.
    4. C. R. Arnold, 1931. "The Place of Farm Accounting in Extension," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 13(1), pages 57-64.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Scheierling, Susanne M. & Treguer, David O. & Booker, James F. & Decker, Elisabeth, 2014. "How to assess agricultural water productivity ? looking for water in the agricultural productivity and efficiency literature," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6982, The World Bank.
    2. CARPENTIER, Alain & GOHIN, Alexandre & SCKOKAI, Paolo & THOMAS, Alban, 2015. "Economic modelling of agricultural production: past advances and new challenges," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 96(01), March.
    3. Drogué, Sophie & Jacquet, Florence & Subervie, Julie, 2014. "Introduction: Farmer’s adaptation to environmental changes," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 95(1).
    4. Gómez-Limón, José A. & Gutiérrez-Martín, Carlos & Riesgo, Laura, 2016. "Modeling at farm level: Positive Multi-Attribute Utility Programming," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 17-27.
    5. Douadia Bougherara & Laurent Piet, 2018. "On the role of probability weighting on WTP for crop insurance with and without yield skewness," Working Papers hal-02790605, HAL.
    6. Komarek, Adam M. & De Pinto, Alessandro & Smith, Vincent H., 2020. "A review of types of risks in agriculture: What we know and what we need to know," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    7. Subhasis Mandal & B. Maji & S. K. Sarangi & K. K. Mahanta & U. K. Mandal & D. Burman & S. Digar & M. Mainuddin & P. C. Sharma, 2020. "Economics of cropping system intensification for small-holder farmers in coastal salt-affected areas in West Bengal: options, challenges and determinants," DECISION: Official Journal of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Springer;Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, vol. 47(1), pages 19-33, March.
    8. Ohe, Yasuo & Kurihara, Shinichi, 2013. "Evaluating the complementary relationship between local brand farm products and rural tourism: Evidence from Japan," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 278-283.
    9. Duquette, Eric & Higgins, Nathaniel & Horowitz, John, 2013. "Time Preference and Technology Adoption: A Single-Choice Experiment with U.S. Farmers," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150719, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Md. Jahangir Kabir & Mohammad Alauddin & Steven Crimp, 2016. "Farm-level Adaptation to Climate Change in Western Bangladesh: An Analysis of Adaptation Dynamics, Profitability and Risks," Discussion Papers Series 576, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    11. Deniz GÜVERCİN, 2018. "Scale and Elasticity Properties of Turkish Agricultural Production Function: Political Economy Approach," Sosyoekonomi Journal, Sosyoekonomi Society, issue 26(37).
    12. Swetlana Renner & Thomas Glauben & Heinrich Hockmann, 2014. "Measurement and decomposition of flexibility of multi-output firms," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(5), pages 745-773.
    13. Huiyue Diao & Majid Ghorbani, 2018. "Production risk caused by human factors: a multiple case study of thermal power plants," Frontiers of Business Research in China, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27, December.
    14. Gallic, Ewen & Vermandel, Gauthier, 2020. "Weather shocks," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    15. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb & Arnaud Reynaud & Stéphane Couture, 2012. "A methodological way of evaluating innovative cropping systems integrating risk beliefs and risk preferences," Post-Print hal-01133976, HAL.
    16. Sauer, J., 2012. "Natural disasters and agriculture: individual risk preferences towards flooding," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 47, March.
    17. Noonan, John & Gow, Hamish, 2019. "Npr - Square Pegs And Round Holes: Can Business Schools Do Agribusiness And Farm Management?," 22nd Congress, Tasmania, Australia, March 3-8, 2019 345944, International Farm Management Association.
    18. Boehlje, Michael & Roucan-Kane, Maud & Broring, Stefanie, 2011. "Future Agribusiness Challenges: Strategic Uncertainty, Innovation and Structural Change," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 14(5), pages 1-29, December.
    19. Lin Li & Hongdong Guo & Jos Bijman & Nico Heerink, 2018. "The influence of uncertainty on the choice of business relationships: The case of vegetable farmers in China," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(3), pages 597-615, June.
    20. Ihli, Hanna Julia & Chiputwa, Brian & Musshoff, Oliver, 2016. "Do Changing Probabilities or Payoffs in Lottery-Choice Experiments Affect Risk Preference Outcomes? Evidence from Rural Uganda," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(2), May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural Finance;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ifma11:345558. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifmaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.