The Idaho Republican., 1912-02-02

Az IN % Du
Alfalfa. 10 in 1928 lbs
20 in 9424 lbs
Is in 1868 lbs
SO in 12163 lbs
Potatoes 5 in 251 bu
10 in 273 bu
Is in 275 blu
20 in 2e2 bu
Sugar Beets 5 in 1876 tons
10 in 1852 tons
Is in 21.89 tons
20 in 1879 tons
The soil is a sandy loan with ex-
cellent under drainage.
Now, after studying this table for
a minute, if l were to ask, for ex-
ample. What would be the most
economical distribution of water un-
der these conditions for sugar beets?"
many of you would answer: "At the
rate of fifteen acre-inches per acre."
because the fifteen inch application
gave the greatest yield.
Let us look at it from a new point
of view. We inferred in the opening
of this talk that the value of the
land is dependent to very great ex-
tent upon the water supply. Let us
make this point little clearer.
Our land without irrigation is lin
tied practically to the growing of
wheat. In idaho the yield is about
25 bushels per acre, allowing an am
pie margin Taking the figures of
several leading dry farmers the av-
erage cost of producing crop is
$500 per acre. Example / is self
explanatory. -
EXAMPLE 1.
25 bu. wheat at Csc ...$16.25
Subtracting cost ........... $50
leaves as profit on land alone. $1O.65
Any additional profit, then, over
$10.65 per acre which a farmer may
obtain through irrigation, is due to
the irrigation and that alone. Com
pairing these values we have, taking
an average crop of sugar beets as
an example:
EXAMPLE 2.
20 tons at $3.50 $4,000
as the total return
IaKlng .......... ...... ol.OO
as cost of production
We have ............... $500
as the profit on land and
water.
After subtracting .......... 1866
the profit on land alone,
We have ................. .$48.35
as the profit on the water
per acre foot approxim-
mately, when applied to
one acre.
Thus the profit on the water is
over four times the profit on the
land alone. This being the case we
should figure our crop returns not
in terms of acres of land but acre
inches of water. We will not then
confine our fifteen acre inches of wa
ter to one acre of land in order that
We may reap the greatest possible
tonnage on that one acre, but will
spread it over larger area, SO that
we can get greater returns from our
water. For example, if we spread
the fifteen acre inches over three
acres of ground we will reap, accord
ing to table 3, 8 times 1876, or 51.28
tons as compared with 21.S9 tons if
the fifteen acre inches are confined
to the one acre Of land. Or using
oats as another example, we get a
yield of 62 bushels of oats with
5-inch application of water and 50
bushels with 20 inch application.
Now, If we were to spread the 20
inches over acres of ground, max
ing an application of S inches on
each acre, we would get a yield of
4 times 81, or 248 bushels of oats
on those four acres with the same
amount of water that it took to pro-
duce 81 bushels on one acre. Wheth-
er or not this is a paying proposition
can be determined by solving a sim
pie problem in arithmetic The aver
age cost of producing and harvesting
an acre OF irrigated oats is about IS.
PROBLEM 8.
20 inches of water over 1 acre pro-
duces 80 bushels of oats.
80 bu. oats at soc ......... .$41.OO |
Cost ............. ......... 500 |
Profit on land and water -. $4,000
Profit on land only ........ 1000
Profit on water alone ..... $4,000
20 acre inches of water over
acres produces 248 bushels oats.
248 bu. oats at soc .$124.OO
Cost on acres ........... 32.OO
Profit on land and water ....$92.OO
Profit on land alone ...... 1000
Profit on water alone $500
Thus the profit is more than dou-
oled. The maximum yield per acre of
land there, is much less important
han the maximum yield per acre
nch of water.
A COMING TREAT