PBRMI1S8IIU.K IKKIOATIUN CIIAKUES 55 



I'stinintea of liarvpst costs \vi»rt* made, jrivrs nn avcrajfff of $19.52. This 

 ■ n hIIowmuci' fur tlt'pnfiation on «'<|uipm('nt. tax«'.s, insurHMCf, 



.;.... n not othtTwi.so itu*lmlt'<|. for jmuTHl ••.xiH'ii.sf.s, p.stiniat<'«l at 



I flat rate of 50 cents an acre. Nothing is included for interest on the 

 invt»stment or for irri^ration water. Adding irrijration water at an 

 NmI cost of $7.r)() HM acre, which is npprtixiiiiatcly the nuiiHTical 

 .. „'(' of the timjrcs .shown in Tabic 'V2, and interest at G per ct-nt on 

 land at $1(M) an acre and on farming e(piipiiiciit at $7 an acre, makes 

 ;i total of $.'U an acre to cover all costs. This is on a basis of 20 sacks 

 of wheat an acre, a yield which a number of the >;rowt'rs stated is a 

 fair avcraj;e. This sliows a total cost of producin^r and harvesting; 

 wiieat of aJ)out $1 2() per hundred with the wheat wi'i^'hinjj "i'l'i pounds 

 .1 sack. 



This is low«T than timires supplied by s<«veral of tin- la^^re jjrowers 

 .»nd probably indicates, ainone other things, that the s-njrirested average 

 of 2n sacks an acre is too hi<^'h. On f>ne larjre h«>Idintr in 11>29, for which 

 .1 complete cost record is available, the cast was $1.56 per hundred, and 

 on 'another. $1.79. In peneral. prowers' estimates rantre from $1 to $2 



• ^ hundred, and one lar^e operator estimated an average of $17'). 



Ken to};ether. the data indicate that the usual cost is somethinj; less 

 than $1.75 per hundred. 



The question now ari.ses as to whether the irrijration water charge 

 of .$7.50 an acre referre«l to In the previous parajrraph is justified. That 

 will, of course, depend upon the price received. A prominent prain 

 irrower in the Tulare T.,ake area suL'jrested that a price ranpe of $1.^5 

 to $2.50 per hun<lred can be assumed. Computations made by the Farm 

 Section of the r'nlleire of Agriculture for the period 

 . _ • . _ • -iiow a ranjre of $1.70 to $2.50. f . o. b. shipping point, with 

 the conchision that $1.90 is a safe fitrure to u.se in makinjr computations 

 <»overinp a period of years. On the basis of an averape cost of $1.75 per 

 hnndred. the margin of prf)tit would b«* 15 cents per hundred above all 

 ..^.t. ... 1 inti^rest at per cent on the average investment. On this 

 at prowinp in the Tulare T..ake basin probably wotdd not be 

 considered attractive to the averape prower. In other words, with irri- 



ion water costinp $7 50 p«>r acre per year, the indtistry probably 

 -■'Uld be left to thoH«' \vf :M prfMhice at a lower fipure and those 



who are in a position to vj r,. on a hipher price. 



fable 50 on present irripntion posts shows a ranpe in cost of water of 



$7.90 to $19.60 an acre to irripators on weven fanns usinp pumpinp 



to stipfdement the supply ftr " 1 by Corcoran Irr ' 



• •' — w.t't. In the caso of three puJnp "'s under which ;i: 



50 per cent of the area was in prain. tli is from $s 70 to $1.') ' ' ' 



In the di.sou.ssion preeedinp Table 50 the irnpation water cost per acre 

 on 33.53 acres of wheat and barley is piven an $.S.10 an acre. 



Th»' ' . • • t the • ' ' .'tion and yield flpiires 



used !. '• for ; >.. It mipht l>e st«tc<l 



further that one larpe prain prower reporte<I costji of irripation water 

 varyinp from $.1 to $H an acre. Another pave a peneral flptire of $4 75. 

 ^' " •• crop wa«« more than two-thirds barley, reported an 



- not seem feasible to reach a final conclusion as to permi*tible 

 irripation water eo«tts for prain in the Tulare Lake Basin on any other 



