I 



24 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 



^ CHAPTER III 



CITRUS FRUITS 



Costs of Production. 



The citrus area of the San Joaquin Valley, srenerally referred to as 

 the interior citrus area or the Tulare citrus belt, extends south along 

 the eastern plains and foothills from the vicinity of Kinfrs River 

 t]irou«rh Fresno, Tulare, and Kern counties to Edison, a few miles east 

 of lUdvcrsfield. and out onto the vallev floor in Fresno County near 

 I Dinuba and Reedley. The citrus belt is not continuous, excepting most 



f of the Avay along the belt in Tulare County. The present study covered 



groves near Orange Cove and Reedley in Fresno County; near Exeter, 

 Lindsay, Stratlmiore, }*orterville. Terra Bella, and Ducor in Tulare 

 County, and at Edison in Kern County. 

 f Including fourteen cost-of-production records prepared by the 



assistant farm advisor of Tulare County, data Avere obtained directly 

 fi-om 22 individual groves and one group of groves containing 129 acres. 

 The total area rei)resented by these 23 records was 504 acres, of which 

 250 acres were in Washington Navel oranges. 125 acres in Valencias, 

 and 129 in Xavels and Valencias. unsegregated. This is. of course, 

 oidy a small percentage of tlie total citrus area in the San Joaquin 

 Valley. In addition, a four-year record was supplied by the California 

 Citrus League, this covering the co.st of production for Xavels on 

 approximately 100 groves, representing an area of frnm 2500 to 8000 

 acres each year. 



Of the 39,000 acres now in citrus plantings in the Fresno-Tulare- 

 Kern area, more than 60 per cent is in Xavels and about 30 per cent 

 in Valencias. P>ecause of tliis ])re]>onderance of X'avels. and further 

 because, for the })ur])Oses of this report, differences between production 

 costs of the two varieties do not a])pear to be significant, X'avels have 

 been chiefly considered in this study and the conclusions reached are 

 based largely on that crop. Valencias entail an additional cost for 

 frost protection which, although considered desirable for Xavels to an 

 extent that will i)ermit prolonging the harvest into the frost season, 

 is not usually practiced with this variety. However, as will a])pear 

 later, the tt-ndeney towai-d jiartial frost i)roteetion in the Xavel areas 

 bas inlluenced the deeision as to what may projHU'ly be assumed to be 

 the i)re-harve.st production cost. 



Table 2 has been made up from the cost-of-production data furnished 

 by tlie assistant farm advisor of Ttilat'c County or obtained by the 

 writers during the fieUl en(|uiry. 



it will be noted that, omitting the i-ecords for the three largest acre- 

 ages, the average ])re-harvest co.st shown in the above table is $171.91 

 an aere. Including the three lar'j'cst acreages reduces this to .$l(i7.16 

 an aci'c. There are five records showing pre-harvest costs less than 

 .$150 and one of more than $200. Eliminating these, which are unusual, 

 leaves sevetiteen l)etween $1()() and $200. A\t'i-aging these seventeen 

 records gives $17<).S5. 



The CitiMis Ijcague lecoi-ds for .\a\f| oranges, referred to above, are 

 available for the years 1925, 1!>26. 1927 and 1928. Omitting from the.se 



