i'l^lKMISSIHI.K IRKKUTION rilAK<il->S *J.') 



ret'ords iti'ins for irri>rHtinn wjitrr hiuI supfrintt'iMlpncp,* nrithrr of 

 wliirli is itu'ludttl in tin* costs listed in Tnblt* 2, but juldin^r the Hnnio 

 Hinount for (l«'pn*rijiti<tn of tr«*«'s that is allow(><l in ThI)U' 2. jjiv«'s a 

 ranj.'«' in avi»rajr»' prt-liarvrst costs, not in»'luilinir interest or irrifratioii 

 water, of from $lsr).(;;; to $'J()4.S."» an aere. with a mean of $ l!>2.."{l).f 



The ilitTereiu-*' between tlic cost of production, as shown in Table 2. 

 and the costs obtained by the Citrus Loajruc is not sipnifieant in view 

 of the birj;c number of variabU- items enterin^r into records of this kind. 

 The h»wer avera^re costs obtained from the enterjjrise efticieney studies 

 of the Agricultural Kxtension Service and from the records obtained in 

 the field, while probably sid)stantially correct for the particular growers 

 involved, presiunably are not nearly as representative of the whole 

 citrus industry of tin* Tulare Fresno-Kern belt as is the averntre of the 

 records obtained by the Citrus Lea^'ue. This is perhaps maiidy due to 

 the larger ninnber of the latter and to the further fact that an attempt 

 was made by the Citrus League to incbide the different grades of groves 

 in approxiniately the same jiroportion as they o<'eur in the field. Vari- 

 ous other suggestions have been advancecl as to the reason for the 

 differenci's in the two sets of figures, but. as a matter of fact, the figures 

 obtained from the several difT«'rent sources are of the same general 

 order or class and the eli(»iee of which to accept becomes maiidy a matter 

 of the degree of conservatism that is to govern conclusions. 



There is a general tendeiu'y in the Ttdare citrus ind>i.stry toward 

 b«»tter cultural metlinds. and the use of additional fertilizers is beintr 

 strongly reconunenrled. Furthermore, there is a feeling in the industry 

 in this area that in ord'*r to pernnt more orderly marketitig of the 

 Navel crop, frost protection must be pr<»vided for at least a portion 

 of the Navel area instead of harvesting it all before the frost period of 

 early winter. The tendency is thus toward increasing instea<l of 

 decreasing the cost of pro4luefion. Hearing these facts in mind it has 

 b«>en thought proper, on the bjisis of cost-of-pnxliu'tion figures 

 presente«l. to a.ssume a preharvest cost for Navel oranges in the 

 Tulare citru.s belt of ^^IIK) an acre. ex«dusivc of interest and the cost 

 of irrigation water, and hereafter, in this report, that figtire will be 

 us«m1. 



In (»r<ler to determine the difTeren<*<' iM'tweeu the income to the 

 gr«»wers and their total cost, it is n«res.sary to a<ld to the pre-harvest 

 coKt the cost of picking anti haulint; to the packing hou.ses. Harvest 

 cc».ts of citrtis fruits obvifuisly iiu-rease with increase in yields. There 

 was a general agre<Mnent in the field that, for the purpo»«>s of this 

 stu<ly. these costs, including picking and delivering to the packing 

 house, may l>e taken to be 24 cents a packe<l l>ox.§ I'sing this figure 



• Mr K II WnUwhUlviT, ■M'raiarv of iha falirornUi ('lirtin l<oa«uo. mtmtim thin 



' ■ ' ' r work In iiu|>rrvliUnc rnnrh 



' Tl ■ 



WM 14 r 



'" ' .i\ .T'^i •i«'i'»iii«ii'rti»'wri»-wifrtnr«niiir', tT 



I" « r» '>. 



the avrnic*. l^la w«r* not aTattjibl* for comTting for hich and 



