rKKMl.N>UU.K IKKK.ATIO.N ( UAlC'il-S 



41 



TAItt-t \7 



DATA RF(.ARniS(. ( c%sr C1| PROIH C I U>N IM R \t Rl Mm AI'RK Ors. PRirSI S AND 

 PFM MIS. AS RLTDRTKD IN Al.RICLl-TURAL LXTl NSIDN SI RVICI ( IWm VH U 



T\g<UT» iarKidr chaff* fcv im|Bboa vairr aixl inlmvt on fana lnT«tlll•^t 

 I Iw I9M oaly m* civm 



rral 



CMDtir 



Aprieato 



Aphrata 

 \pnto4j 



r«iH«. 



4 



9 

 M 



31 

 IS 

 17 

 74 

 3S 

 3« 

 S 



as 



The (lata in the jihnvc table, exeept l"<>r peaehos in Stanislaus and 

 Sutter counties,* show that pro»luetion costs for the three deciduous 

 fruits included are of the same general order. Table 18, which gives the 

 net profits from the same fruits over a period of years, shows a much 

 ■• ■ ' - ' riation and makes a v;-'" •* -tory comparison of the various 

 - fruits impovsililc. Hi. Table \^ does j;ive some evidence 



in support of an assumption, (juite penerally aceepted. that the data pre- 

 »• rit. d in the <li.scussion of peaches can fairly be taken to be applicable 

 to otiicr deciduous fruits. 



TAntL !•» 



AVl R\(,F NtT PROMT OR LOSS PI R A(Jll FROM PROIM.t:TIl>N OF t.l.RTAIN 1)1 C ll>- 



KH s FRUITS AS REPORT! O IN At.RICirLTLHAL F.XTFNSION SFRVICF C IRCUI.AR 



24, OOLLECI RULT-TIRF. LrNIVFRSITV (»F !\ 



They were maiie up on 



■-- ' ' VtanlaUua Covr'r 

 I In TuUr* Co'i 



