IRRIGATION 
75 
other vegetables in the test three times, about an inch 
of water being applied each time, while the same vege- 
tables were grown under natural conditions. “The cab- 
bage crop suffered most of all, perhaps, as where water 
was not used less than half formed heads of marketable 
size, and these were small. Of the Early Jersey Wake- 
field there were 5,000 more marketable heads to the acre 
obtained by the use of water and the weight was 11,325 
pounds greater. Early Summer showed a gain of 4,826 
heads and 21,959 pounds in weight. At 2 cents a head 
the gain to the acre would average nearly $100. A gain 
of 200 bushels an acre was obtained with the irrigated 
tomatoes, which at 50 cents a bushel would amount to 
$100, or ten times the expense of applying the water. 
Snap beans showed a gain of 300 bushels and early peas 
of 100 bushels an acre. Four applications of water to 
potatoes gave a gain of 129 bushels an acre. Marked 
improvement in quality was also noticeable with peas, 
beans and cabbage.” Such gains, of course, could not 
be expected in normal seasons. 
The New Jersey Station (N. J. Sta. Bui. 115) reports 
the following interesting results: “For beans, in terms 
of good-sized pods, the average yield of the nine non- 
irrigated belts was 17 pounds and 1 ounce, while the 
yield from the irrigated belt was 45 pounds, or nearly 
three times as many, besides being much larger sized 
and of finer color and quality. 
“For peppers the average yield upon the II nonirri- 
gatecl belts was 717 fruits, while the number upon the 
irrigated belt reached 1,277. This does not show the 
whole difference, for by measure an un irrigated belt gave 
6 JJ peach basketfuls, with a total weight of 80 pounds, 
and the irrigated belt 11 / baskets, weighing 147 pounds. 
The difference is still more than these figures show, 
for the irrigated ground gave much better looking pep' 
pers in plumpness and color than the nonirrigated land, 
