i'KKMISSItil.K IKKKiATION ClIAKUt^ 



35 



CHAPTKi: I\ 



DECIDUOUS FRUITS 



Cottt of Production. 



^lost of the data usnl in lU'teriniiiin^ ronsoiiubU' irrifjntion charges 

 for dtM.Mduotis fruits relate to peaches, f(ir which there were 84 records 

 made in Tulare County by the Ajrrieultural Extension Service. Addi- 

 tional nH'onls were ohtain<'«l from two ' idantinps and access was 

 had to the t»stinuites of the Farm Man.:, .. at Section of the College 

 of Ajrrioidture and to the bud^'ct of a bank operating a larpe number 

 of farms in the San Joaquin Valley. 



Penohes are one of the very impdn 'idimus oreliard crops of 



the San .Jo;Tquin Valley, as well as of ( ....; ; uia generally. They con- 

 stitute one of the crops always likely to be on a highly competitive basis, 

 so that growers in the long run will be ]>rosperous oidy when their 

 gross income is relatively hiyh and their eosts relatively low. While it 

 is only in the fresh peach market that there is aj)preciable competition 

 with other states, the fact has been brought out in the publications 

 of the California Agricultural Kxperiment Station and other agencies 

 that goo<l cultural pr. as well as good land are necessary if 



growers are to be succe ,.,., 



Of the four upper San Joa<|uin Valley counties chiefly considered 

 in this inquiry, Tulare County ranks second only to Fresno County in 

 acreage devoted to ; - These two counties, in fact, lead the state 



if '' -"duction «.; ;,,,- erop when the principal varieties grown are 



t The acreages in peaches in the upper San .loaquin Valley 



in iMl'n. as reported by the California Cooperative Crop Ileporting 

 S ' o ('ounty. l.').JTJ: Tulare County. 11,7;VJ; Kings 



( .M,, 



1 , i\ ' 1 M fV" 



1 I lIlO 



The M records of pro > obtained through the Agricidtural 



Extension Service included Phillip. Tu'.ean, Peak. Orange. liibbie, 



I'elnra. Elberta, and Lr)vell 



Phillip. Tt: ' !• 



for 112. let 

 acres. 



Table 10 gives the a^ 

 preharvi^t lalwir and 

 for this re|M)rt. The ir 

 per annum. bas<'d on an 

 depreciation from the ^ 



equiplinnf d- • " 



peneral <\]i'-. 

 > costs. 



The total preharvest < 

 t* -e. ranired from 5^ i 



I t;. were: 



Exeter, fourteen nTords. $l.'n 7fi 

 ifhmore. soven records. * 



The larger number of records were for 



" ' • ' ' '' record was 



from *J t(^ 'JO 



for the M ri'conls. omitting the detail for 



I ..1.1 ,...1.1. 1 _„4l.. 



irately 



. :_ , r acre 



nt ftf ♦2.'*0 an acre and 



l>epr»f iation of 



\" for 



.! 



to th- 



*i-!.' 



S of which i« 



\verageil by i«H:.UiunH, 



Enrlimnrt. one record. $107.42; 

 . nine records. |!l0:i92: 



i iulare. three r rd- ^'M IG, t ■.jii.!. uirv- 



Tille. fourteen records, $7.{.25 ; Ivanhoe. six n\ . 



*0; Farmers- 



