The Idaho Republican., 1915-09-17

and central California; that SO per
cent is In the ground in the upper
Mississippi valley in the middle OF
April; 80 per cent remains in the
ground in the wettest spots of the
+; United States; and the last column
of the tables shows the amount of
water nature has provided for its
plants, and the maximum amount
the plants have been trained by ma
ture to produce the best results
from. Look at it.
The arid regions are receiving
from $50 to 1890 inches for crop
purposes now. An addition of lit
tie over half an inch carries out of
the arid region-into North Dakota;
2.60 inches puts us into middle Cali
fornia with supply of 1850 inches.
Our best agricultural country re-
ceives from "a to 26 inches of water
| for its crops. When you increase to
| 27 and 80 inches the crops are not
as good.
The editor here interjected the
reply to these tables by stating that
irrigation produces better crops than
the best agricultural part of the
United States, and was confronted
by the reports from the Agricultural
College at Logan, Utah, showing that
irrigation did this thing, but that
they produced the best results by APP
plication of less than "a inches to
the acre, and that this was due to
the fact that man applies for that
very reason and not more; and that
actually from elevn to eighteen in
'ches applied partly by man and part
ly being in the ground at the COM
mencement of the irrigation season,
produces better results than 26
Iinches applied irregularly as nature
generally does it. In fact, that the
plants have to strike an average from
this irregular supply made by ma
ture, but man can cut off the excess
and by making the supply regular
produce the best results with a less
amount than nature does.
A second point that Mr.. Mcclellan
brought out is this: In this country
of large areas of agricultural land
needing small quantity of water to
be applied to create proper crop pro-
duction results and limited water
supply the point we should strive to
attain is not the amount that can be
produced per acre, regardless of the
water supplied to it, but the amount
that can be produced per acre inch
or acre foot of water. The agricul-
tural college at Logan, Utah, has
taken 80 inches of water, and ap-
piled the full amount to three. four
five and six acres-or ten, seven and
pne-half, six and five inches per acre
and proved that while the amount
per acre was less when the water
was spread over more than one acre
the yield per acre inch was far more
for each acre cultivated.
For illustration, take the Twin
Falls tract of say 100000 acres OF
land and given three acre feet per
acre. The precipitation of IL inches,
makes a yearly supply of 4S inches
per acre. This is nearly twice what
nature gives for the best part of the
United States, and when properly ap-
piled by man the "a inches is more
than sufficient. Nine inches is ample
with the nine inches nature supplies,
and that amount can be properly ap-
piled with not too great an expense
for ordinary crops. There would
then be 100000 acres of land that
can be irrigated with the same
amount of water as is now guaran-
teed the Twin Falls settlers for their
200, 900.
Now, Mr.. Mcclellan says this is no
lpipe dream, but he proved it on his
fathers ranch for eight years; agri-
cultural experiment stations in diff
ferent states of the arid region are
|proving that it is the limited amount
|of water supplied to the plants that
produce the best results in food val
,,ues in the plant by practical demon
Istration, and are showing that there
Ms very small margin Of water sup
ply between crop, failure and crop
success. A study Of these two tables
proves the same thing. And there
lis not one proof thot can be brought
forward that will show that the
water supply furnished by nature
iand added to by man should exceed
I26 inches for the best results when
there is an ample supply of water;
and when water is any way scorce,
as it is in this country, the less water
man applies up to the point where