ta 
26 BULLETIN 339, U. 8S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
used. Where 2.8 feet per acre were applied each acre-foot gave a 
return of 584 pounds of grain, while an application of but 0.4 foot per 
acre yielded at the rate of 3,474 pounds per acre-foot, or very nearly 
six times as much grain per unit of water as was secured where the 
larger application was made. It must be noted, however, that the 
yield per acre with the ae of but 0.4 foot per acre was rather 
\ Sy 
“QQ 
S 
se a as 
PE eT ellis Tesi as a 
RPE PRRs ERAReASASeS se 
Pt Nee Se ee ae ae 
eae NSN BL TS STINE IES] Sis Ls Se 
SUT Te EEN (EE Te Hef la a 
sreafeis tearerestataresfaraciess 
Mla of Grati2 172 Fowrds., 
472 <a 2.2 2s 2.6 
“Dent? Le Le (2et. 
Fig. 5.—Yield per acre and per acrc-foot of water applied from 96 plots of spring wheat at Gooding 
experiment station during five years, 1910 to 1914. 
low and would not be profitable in many cases, because the returns ~ 
would not equal the cost of production. While these two curves 
indicate the results which will be obtained by applying different 
volumes of water to spring wheat on this type of soil for the condi- 
tions obtained in southern Idaho, the economic quantity to allot for 
grain is a distinct problem. Whether it is more profitable to use 
little water per acre and get a large return per acre-foot of water and 
a low yield from the land, or to use more water and get a large return 
ERE Ae. 
tae tii 
