79# 



Table 75. - Number and value of power sprayers that were purchased new 



in thf: 



Year 

 purchased 1/ 



Prior to 1922 

 1922 

 1923 

 1924 

 1925 

 1926 

 1927 

 1928 



New 

 sprayers 

 purchased 



m ill » n i i ■ ■ I H i l l. .Il l 1 1 I 



Number 



21 



24 

 28 

 29 

 23 

 9 

 9- 



year indicated, sprayers for all areas combined, 



1928 



•t. tm ii M > III . I *i ii n I 



Initial 



cost 



per 

 jprayer 



Dollars 



372 



451 

 504 

 469 

 463 



576 

 641 



Inventory value per 

 sprayer in 1928 



m mt i^ mm-' i i " n » i i«i» iil i i>p iHJ» i i i iii i W iilii m il n ■« 



Beginning 

 of year 



u lillWi n l i liil milt *iill I 



DolJ.ars 



170 

 125 

 292 

 274 

 259 

 355 

 451 

 641 



End of 

 year 



2/ 



Dollars 



152 

 156 

 255 

 238 

 212 

 313 

 376 

 565 



Depreciation 

 in 1928 



Dollars 



18 



39 

 37 

 36 

 47 

 42 

 75 

 76 



1/ The Arkansas data were for 1929 and the other data were for 1928, and the 

 Arkansas sprayers purchased in 1929 were included v/ith the s-pTBYevs purchased 

 in the other areas in 1928, etc# 

 2/ Average cost of sprayers purchased during the year* 



•wMtaM 



The average price paid for nev; sprayers bought before 1922 was $372 • 



Prices paid for sprayers tended to increase fi-*om 1922 to 1928, the average for 



1928 being ^641. (table 75.) The sprayers bought in 1928 were genexally of 

 larger size than those bought prior to 1922 • 



Not taking into account the quality of spraying, the old sprayers were 

 operated more economically than the new ones. The average cost per hour of 

 use for the sprayer's purclaased new in 1927 and 1928 v/as $1*15 compared with 

 % .77 per hour for sprayers that were purchased new during 1924, 1925, and 1926* 

 The older sprayers were operated more economically in 1928 because the depre- 

 ciation,, interest and repair costs amounted to only $68 per machine compared 

 with fl06 for the newer machines. 



More was spent for repairs on the oldest machines than on the newest 

 machines but depreication and interest were less on the oldest sprayers^ 

 On the average, the oldest machines were used more hours during the season 

 than the newest machines viero used, and the cost par hour for the oldest ma- 

 chines averaged but 62 cents, as compared v/ith a cost of $1.15 per hour for 

 the nev/est machines, (table 7S. ) 



Arkansas grape grov:ers more frequently bought used pprayers than did 

 growers in the other States. Dealers probabl^^ traded with the apple grov/ers, 

 aev/ sprayers for old ones, and sold the old sprayers to gis^pe growers. On 

 Arkansas farms where dprayers were used less than 130 hours during the season, 

 only about one half of the sprayers had been p^orchased when new. (table 77.) 

 The price paid for the used machines was about one third of the price paid for 

 the new sprayers. The taaichine cost per hour of use to those vrho purchased 

 used sprciyers was about one hMf as much as the cost to those who had purchased 

 new machines. Most of the growers who had more than- 100 hours of work ^o^^a 

 sprayer during the year purchased their machines when they were new. 



