40 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 



It now becomes necessary to determine the amount of the farm 

 income, above cost of production and harvesting, out of which costs 

 for irrifjation water are to be taken. To do this it is necessary to 

 assume a yield and a price for peaches which can be taken as a safe 

 estimate for the future. 



The averajre yield of peaches durinfr the past four years for the 

 S4 records obtained throuj^h the Ajjricultural Extension Service for 

 Tularo County was 7.72 tons an acre. Aecordino; to Afrricultural 

 Extension Service Circular 1, the average * price received by the 

 growers for clingstones during the period 1901-1925 was $39 a ton, 

 and for freestones during the same period, $30 a ton. The same pub- 

 lication gives the average for the period 1921-1925 as the same. In the 

 case of clingstones the range was from $12 to $100, with the price below 

 the average in 15 years out of the 25. In the case of freestones, the 

 range Avas from $10 to $64, with the price again below the average in 

 1 5 out of 25 years. 



On the assumption that growers may, on the average, obtain a yield 

 of 7 tons an acre and that on the average they will receive a price of 

 $30 a ton. Plate II indicates that the return an acre to the growers 

 would be $210. This is $68.50 an acre in excess of the cost of pro- 

 ducing seven tons an acre. If this yield and this price were to be 

 obtained as an average over a period of years, growers could pay as high 

 as $20 an acre for irrigation water and st.ill show a profit of $24.80 an 

 acre over all costs, including depreciation, interest, and water. With a 

 price of $25 a ton.f which seems a maximum figure to assume, the 

 margin above cost of production and harvesting, together with interest 

 on the average investment, would be reduced to $9.80 an acre. The 

 situation is presented graphically in Plate II. 



In addition to the cost data relating to peaches obtained from the 

 Farm IManagement Section of the College of Agriculture, and already 

 given in Tables 13 and 14, similar information has been obtained from 

 that section relating to apricots. Their total pre-harvest cost per acre, 

 including interest and depreciation on equipment and work stock, an 

 irrigation water charge of $5.62, county taxes, and depreciation on 

 trees, is $166.25 for a six-ton yield of canning fruit, and $149.35 for a 

 four-Ion yield. 



Because interest on the entire investment, as well as the cost of irri- 

 gatif)n water, is included in the cost data reported in Agricultural 

 Extension Circular 24, the data available from that source for decidu- 

 ous fruits are not entirely comparable Avith figures supplied by the 

 Farm Management Section, and they are, of course, not comparable 

 with tlie costs for ]-)eaehes as presented in tlie discussion of that crop. 

 However, the figures show relative costs and tliey ihcrefore are included 

 in Table 17. P>y way of reconciling the higher costs for peaches in 

 Sutter and Stanislaus counties it might be stated that the yields in 

 the l.'itter eonnlies for the records given are ap|)r(>ci;il)ly higlier than 

 tlie average of 7.72 tons for th(> Tulare Countv records. 



• TTnwplKhtPfl .TVoraKo. 



t ThI.s flKure lian bfcn .Trbltraril.v chosen a.s the hiKhest it seems reasonable to 

 assume, In vk-w of the iinccrtalntles of the peach industry. There is a general feeling 

 that thi' historical average ff>r this crop, rlnc jiartly to wide (luctuations, Is not a safe 

 guide for the future. If It could be ns.stmied that the price will be fixed by the cost 

 of produrfjon where peaches can be grown most cheaply, even $25 would probably be 

 too high. 



