14 University of New Hampshire [Sta. Bull. 323 



12.4 cents respootivoly on llie aliovo nicntionod land i-ciitals. But because 

 the returns from the oi-chard are delayed tlie waiting period is an im- 

 portant factor. 



The sum of annual rental charges of ^\A0 compounded annually at five 

 per cent for 60 years would be balanced by the sum of the annual yields 

 in boxes of apples at 2.1 cents per box com})ountled at five per cent over 

 the same period. For the higher rental charges the rate per box would 

 be 4.1 cents, 8.3 cents, and 20.7 cents respectively. 



The purpose of these estimates is not to indicate costs but to point 

 out the relative influence or importance of varying land rental on the 

 orchard economy. It should be evident from a study of these estimates 

 that good apple land available at $20 an acre represents a relatively in- 

 significant cost, but that the use of $200 land would result in an impor- 

 tant cost item. 



The planting of additional trees as semi-permanents or fillers resulting 

 in more trees per acre does not involve additional land or additional ex- 

 pense for land. In a few instances w^here good tillage land is used for 

 an apple site the operator may choose to intercrop for a few years be- 

 tween the perraanents. There the planting of semi-permanent and filler 

 trees would be considered in the light of the other possible intercropping 

 uses of land. But much of the land which may be considered potential 

 apple land is nuirginal for agricultural purposes and i1s use for applo 

 production involves little loss in altei'iiative income. 



Comparison of types of planting 



Until recently the usual planting of trees in New Hampshire orchards 

 w^as 20x20 feet or 108 trees per aci'c This was done with the inten- 

 tioji of culling out 54 fillers at the end of the eighteenth year and 27 

 semi-permanents at the end of 25 years, leaving 27 pernuments. This 

 practice is still followed by some fi-uit men although most recent plant- 

 ings have contained only jxM-inaiH'iils and semi-pei-manents or 54 trees 

 1o llie acre. 



Till! usual procedure has been to compare these methods on the per 

 acre basis, and of cou7"se if apples are figured on a liigh value basis the 

 plantings with 108 ti-ees to the acre may show the largest profits. But 

 such a nu'lhod ignores the real problems. Where the orchard site is 

 definitely limited and family labor is available, it may be sound procedure 

 for th(^ opei'atoi- 1o set out the additional ti-ees. l>ut under the condi- 

 tions obtained on most farms, operating capital i-eciuircd to carry trees 

 is a limiting factor and the operator's chief problem is to use his avail- 

 able resources in land, laboi-. and capital to tlie best advantage. 



As stated on i)age 5 the main costs, whether stated in terms of (juan- 

 tity data or estimated in terms of money, are per tree costs. There is 

 sliglit difference in the lal)oi- and material cost of gi-owing 1<H)() tt-ces to 

 tlie eighteenth yeai- wh(Mhei- set as |)ei-inanen1s on :?7 aeres oi- as perma- 

 nents, semi-pernuments and fillers on !M o acres. The chief dilVerence is 

 the use of 271/2 aeres of additional land and some additional travel in 

 carrying out orchard practices. Materials would lie about the same in 

 either case. The costs associated with tlie use of 27Vo additiomil acres 

 of $40 land woidd amount to about >^~7 a year or a total of $1386 for the 

 first 18 years (not compounded). 



