36 BULLETIN 582, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
system, the expense up to the time of marketing the product is less. 
In the present condition of the range industry in Utah such a plan 
as the above seems the only way out if more operators are to engage 
in that enterprise as a side line. Such an enterprise forms a valu- 
able addition to the farm business in the hands of a capable opera- 
tor who can make use of the range. 
UNCERTAIN MARKETS AND HIGH TRANSPORTATION CHARGES. 
The outstanding fact in irrigated agriculture in Utah is the de- 
pendence of a large proportion of the farmers on a distant and ex- 
tremely uncertain market for the disposal of a bulky and perishable 
product. This has been especially true in the past 10 years, when the 
orchard area, particularly the peach area, has been greatly increased. 
A considerable percentage of the peach orchards are on small farms, 
less than 27 acres in size and averaging less than 18 acres. Under 
the existing market conditions dependence primarily on fruit by 
the operators of small farms in this region (and other sections sim- 
ilarly situated) is not safe. This statement applies with added force 
to the small peach grower. The great weakness with the peach crop 
lies in the fact that it reaches the market usually in the same week 
as does that from southern Michigan. The Michigan growers have 
a big advantage in their lower freight charges. Their crop must be 
poor or a failure before the Utah growers are able to make much 
profit. An uncertain market, imcertain crops, and high shipping 
costs are a severe handicap to the Utah orchardist. 
The uncertainty of the market for Utah fruit is characteristic of 
that for all perishables. The Office of Markets of the United States 
Department of Agriculture is making rapid progress in its work on 
the markets for perishable products, but however great its success 
the other weak points in the system of the Utah orchardist will per- 
sist. Although the small-fruit grower who does not depend on 
peaches is less precariously situated than his neighbor, all the small 
orchardists are operating with a factor of safety which is entirely too 
low. In case of crop or market failure they have little else to depend 
on. Owing to a late freeze the fruit crop in Utah Lake Valley in 
1915 was almost a total failure. The small operator suffered ac- 
cordingly. 
Because of the high transportation charges, 1 the operators in the 
Intermountain country who ship to distant markets should rely so 
1 The freight charges on Utah fruit sent from the Provo area to the Eastern mar- 
kets and the charges for refrigeration are typical for the State. From Provo the 
grower pays 90 cents per hundred pounds to get his fruit to Kansas City. Omaha, or 
Missouri River common points and $15 per car for refrigeration. To Mississippi River 
common points the freight is 95 cents per hundred and §50 per car for refrigeration. 
To Chicago these charges are $1 and $55. To Texas common points the freight charge 
is $1.06 and the refrigeration $60 per car. To the Atlantic seaboard the freight 
charge is $1,558 per hundred and the refrigeration charge $65 per car. (Freight rates 
supplied by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Refrigeration charges from Provo 
were obtained from a large shipper of Utah fruits.) 
The average gross weight per packed bushel of apples from Utah County is 52 pounds, 
the container weighing 6 pounds. The average gross weight per box of pears is 51 
