UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE 
 
 AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 
 
 BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 
 
 COST OF PRODUCING ALMONDS 
 IN CALIFORNIA 
 
 A PROGRESS REPORT 
 
 R. L. ADAMS 
 
 OFFICE * 31004 
 
 taxe.s * xa&s 
 
 TR£EeARE 
 
 Composite cost per pound of producing almonds 
 during 1925, in the areas surveyed 
 
 BULLETIN 422 
 
 April, 1927 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRINTING OFFICE 
 
 BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 
 
 1927 
 
COST OF PRODUCING ALMONDS IN CALIFORNIA 
 A PROGRESS REPORT 
 
 B. L. ADAMSi 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 Almond production in California, though generally centering in a 
 number of well-defined localities, is sufficiently extensive so that 41 
 of the 58 counties of the state are credited with acreage. In 1925 
 twenty-two counties each contained bearing almond orchards totaling 
 250 acres or more. Extensive plantings are located in the vicinity of 
 San Francisco Bay — Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara coun- 
 ties; in Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties; in the Sacramento 
 Valley, from Solano to Te hama, counties, inclusive ; in the San Joaquin 
 Valley, especially in San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, and Tulare 
 counties; and in Los Angeles and Riverside counties, of southern 
 California. 
 
 The amount of bearing acreages and estimated production for each 
 year since 1918 is set forth in the following table : 
 
 TABLE 1 
 
 Acreages of Bearing Orchards and Production of Almonds,* 1919-1926 
 
 
 Production 
 
 Bearing acreage 
 
 1919 
 
 Tons 
 7,250 
 5,500 
 6,000 
 8,500 
 
 11,000 
 8,000 
 7,500 
 
 14,000 
 
 Acres 
 30,100 
 
 1920 
 
 35,044 
 
 1921 
 
 42,564 
 
 1922 
 
 52,876 
 
 1923 
 
 58,472 
 
 1924 
 
 62,313 
 
 1925 
 
 1926 
 
 69,371 
 75,311 
 
 * California Crop Reporting Service, California crop report 1925, California State Dept. Agr. Special 
 Publication 63; 27, 1926. 
 
 Conversion of these gross yields and acreages into yield per acre 
 in pounds illustrates the variation in production from year to year — 
 from a low of 216 pounds per acre in 1925 to a high of 482 pounds 
 
 i Professor of Farm Management and Agricultural Economist in the Experi- 
 ment Station. 
 
4 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 
 
 per acre in 1919. The proportion of acreage newly brought into bear- 
 ing each year (amount not known) has its influence, and is a variable 
 which affects the average. 
 
 
 Pounds per 
 
 acre 
 
 
 Pounds per acre 
 
 1919 
 
 482 
 
 
 1923 
 
 376 
 
 1920 
 
 314 
 
 
 1924 
 
 257 
 
 1921 
 
 282 
 
 
 1925 
 
 216 
 
 1922 
 
 322 
 
 
 1926 
 
 372 
 
 In order to find out the facts having to do with the financial side 
 of the almond industry, a study was undertaken during the season 
 of 1925 for the purpose of collecting, assembling, and analyzing basic 
 data concerning the cost of producing California almonds. Such a 
 study has a two-fold value. The data can be of help in connection 
 with matters of state and federal policy, such as determining feasible 
 expansion of plantings, framing tariff schedules, and settling market- 
 ing matters. The data can be of greatest help, however, in guiding 
 the individual grower in better organizing or administering his own 
 farm business. Cost data are of little direct assistance in setting 
 market prices. Demand and supply determine market price, and not 
 cost of production, except in that continued high costs tend to force 
 out marginal growers and as a result ultimately reduce supplies. Cost 
 data are especially valuable for use in determining whether or not 
 there is need for greater economy, for increased yields, for better 
 quality. The data stress the need of suitable environment, of efficient 
 size of holding, of proper equipment. Costs of production, taken in 
 connection with yields and selling prices, indicate possible net income, 
 and thereby provide a basis for an ultimate decision as to whether 
 a given orchard should be continued, or else replaced with a crop giv- 
 ing promise of better returns. An average cost for any given season 
 is not likely to be a true criterion of costs for some other season. This 
 is especially true with products subject to wide fluctuations from one 
 year to the next in amount of production, quality of output, market 
 price, and expenditures. One should bear in mind, however, that 
 average yields as indicated in table 1 are uneconomically low for every 
 one of the eight years. Hence, the findings of 1925 carry a lesson well 
 worth passing on to growers. They show, for one thing, that the 
 almond industry cannot independently survive in its present entirety 
 unless yields are obtained which are greater than the averages indi- 
 cated in the preceding table, or unless prices are obtained for almonds 
 higher than has been the case during the past eight or ten years. The 
 proof of this statement is set forth in the following pages. 
 
Bul. 422] 
 
 COST OF PRODUCING ALMONDS IN CALIFORNIA 
 
 The 1925 season was a year of low total and low average produc- 
 tion of almonds in California, as shown in table 1 and its accompany- 
 ing discussion. This low output influenced costs. In some cases the 
 small amount of the crop resulted in unusually high costs, not par- 
 ticularly applicable to a series of years. This fact should be borne 
 in mind in connection with our findings as to costs, because in a year 
 of larger production, costs would be reduced accordingly, and the 
 industry would then appear in a more favorable light. 
 
 LOCALITIES WHERE STUDIES WERE CONDUCTED 
 
 Orchards selected for study as representative of typical com- 
 mercially producing sections were located in thirteen areas. The 
 names and locations of these districts, together with the number of 
 completed records obtained in each locality are set forth below : 
 
 Districts 
 
 Counties 
 
 Number of usable 
 records 
 
 Banning 
 
 Paso Robles 
 
 Riverside 
 
 15 
 
 12 
 
 
 
 14 
 
 Oakdale 
 
 San Joaquin and Stanislaus 
 
 14 
 
 
 12 
 
 Winters-Esparto-Rumsey 
 
 
 17 
 
 Arbuckle-College City 
 
 
 15 
 
 Orland 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 14 
 
 Fair Oaks-Antelope-Rio Linda 
 
 Sacramento 
 
 San Joaquin 
 
 Tulare 
 
 6 
 
 
 3 
 
 Terra Bella 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 Total— 13 areas. 
 
 149 
 
 BANNING DISTKICT 
 
 The principal commercial almond-producing section of southern California 
 lies between San Gorgonio Pass and the desert in the northwestern part of 
 Eiverside County. The bulk of the plantings occupy a rectangular area about 
 three miles by four miles in size, entirely surrounding the town of Banning. 
 Many of the orchards are within the town limits. A small secondary planting 
 (about half a dozen orchards) occurs near the settlement of Cabazon, about six 
 miles east of Banning. Almonds, peaches, apricots, and prunes make up a com- 
 pact deciduous fruit belt, hemmed in by mountains on three sides and by the 
 desert on the fourth. The plantings are located on a gently sloping valley 
 floor, at an elevation of from 1800 to 2500 feet, with a generally southern 
 exposure. 
 
6 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION 
 
 The almond plantings occupy sandy loam soil types of the Placentia, Hanford, 
 and Ramona series. 2 
 
 Weather data are scanty, but rainfall for the years 1920 to 1925, inclusive, 
 averaged 17.67 inches, and ranged from 13.03 inches to 29.64 inches. Because 
 of the proximity of the desert, the winter season is short and mild, and the 
 summers warm, so that early blooming and early ripening of almonds is the 
 rule. | J 
 
 Many of the orchards are owned by men who have other interests in town, 
 such as banking, or storekeeping, or who are practicing medicine or dentistry. 
 
 wm&mp^'*~-~^^^~~ 
 
 
 
 
 
 Fig. 1. — General view of deciduous fruit plantings in the Banning district, 
 including orchards covered in a study of the cost of producing almonds in 
 this area. 
 
 All the almond orchards are under irrigation. The owners, with a few minor 
 exceptions, hold stock in a local mutual water company, which collects water 
 from canyons by gravity flow and pumping, and runs the water thus obtained 
 several miles into a series of reservoirs. From these it is distributed to the 
 various users. 
 
 PASO EOBLES DISTRICT 
 
 The Paso Robles almond district is made up of a number of non-contiguous 
 orchard plantings, mostly situated within a fifteen-mile radius of the town of 
 Paso Robles, in San Luis Obispo County. The Salinas River, flowing near the 
 town, divides the district into two general parts. Orchards in the area east 
 of the river are on rolling hills; those to the west of the river are in several 
 small valleys and on cultivable hill land. None of the orchards studied were 
 irrigated. 
 
 2 Fully described in: Dunn, J. E., L. C. Holmes, A. T. Strahorn, and J. E. 
 Guernsey. Reconnoissance soil survey of the central southern area, California. 
 U. S. D. A. Field Operations of the Bureau of Soils 1917:2405-2534. 1923. 
 
Bul. 422] 
 
 COST OF PRODUCING ALMONDS IN CALIFORNIA 
 
 Orchards studied along the Adelaida Boad and Peachey Canyon districts are 
 largely on soils of the Kettleman series — loan, stony loam, and clay loam, with 
 areas of Altamont clay loam, and of Santa Lucia series (gravelly clay loam) in 
 the Adelaida Eoad District. The orchards of the El Pomar Koad District are 
 on soils of the Docas series — loam and gravelly loam, with a small area of 
 Montezuma clay loam.3 
 
 Orchards studied in the area east of Paso Kobles range in elevation from 
 740 to 1040 feet; orchards west of Paso Kobles are on land ranging from 933 to 
 1500 feet. The topography, as already indicated, varies from rolling hills to 
 rugged mountains. 
 
 r 
 
 Fig. 2, 
 
 -Typical almond orchards on the rolling lands of the 
 Paso Robles district. 
 
 The amounjb. of rainfall varies within the district, being apparently heavier 
 on the west side. Reports of th.e Weather Bureau of the United States Depart- 
 ment of Agriculture indicate an average annual rainfall at Paso Robles, for 
 the years 1914-1923, inclusive, of 17.40 inches, ranging from 29.89 inches in 
 1916 to 7.99 inches in 1923. 
 
 Killing frosts may be expected until the last of May. The first killing frost 
 in fall, measured at Paso Robles, usually occurs in October. A period of from 
 4 to 5 months ' duration is thus free from frost. Occasional temperatures as 
 high as 107° to 115° F are recorded for July and August, and as low as 11° 
 to 22° F for winter months. 
 
 OAKLEY DISTRICT 
 
 The almond orchards of the Oakley district lie in an elliptical area, about 
 5% miles long by 3 miles wide, lying generally southeast, south, and west of 
 the town of Oakley, in eastern Contra Costa County. The district is roughly 
 
 3 A special study and classification of the soils on the dozen orchards for 
 which cost data were collected was made in June, 1926, by C. F. Shaw, Pro- 
 fessor of Soil Technology, University of California, since no published or 
 reference material was available. 
 
8 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 
 
 bounded by the towns of Antioch on the west, Brentwood on the south, Knightsen 
 on the southeast, and the San Joaquin Eiver on the north. 
 
 The majority of the almond plantings are on soil classified as Oakley sand. 
 There is a small area of Antioch loam and clay loam near Antioch.* 
 
 The orchards lie at elevations ranging from 25 to 100 feet above sea level. 
 The topography is gently rolling, with a general northern exposure, and a 
 4-per-cent slope. 
 
 Forty-five years of government records taken at Antioch (fairly applicable 
 to the Oakley district) indicate an average annual rainfall of 12.74 inches, 
 ranging, during the past ten years, from 16.32 inches in 1922 to 5.46 inches in 
 1917. The district has a long growing season, the last killing frost in spring 
 usually occurring before the middle of February, and the first in fall about 
 the middle of November. The climate of the district is a blending of the 
 climates of the warm interior valley and the cool coast. The proximity of the 
 San Joaquin Eiver — a route for ocean breezes — has its influence on the tem- 
 perature. Summer-temperature maximums range from 104° to 109° F, and 
 winter-temperature minimums from 24° to 30° F. 
 
 Irrigation of orchards is gradually gaining headway, and installation of 
 pumping plants during the past three or four years is bringing about a change 
 from the strictly dry farming methods generally practiced previously. 
 
 OAKDALE DISTEICT 
 
 The Oakdale district comprises two distinct almond-growing areas in San 
 Joaquin and Stanislaus counties: one a long, narrow strip contiguous to the 
 town of Oakdale, extending for a distance of about 2 miles up and about 1^ 
 miles down the Stanislaus Eiver; the other, a triangular area lying between 
 the towns of Escalon, Manteca, and Eipon, in San Joaquin County. 
 
 The plantings in the vicinity of Oakdale are on Oakdale sandy loam and 
 on Hanford loam. Most of the orchards in the vicinity of Escalon, Manteca, 
 and Eipon are found on soils classified as Oakley and Fresno sands. 5 
 
 Orchards located above Oakdale are on rolling land; orchards below Oakdale, 
 and in the Manteca-Eipon-Escalon triangle, are on level land. The elevation of 
 orchards near Oakdale varies from 138 to 243 feet. Orchards in the vicinity of 
 Escalon are at elevations of from 113 to 120 feet, and those near Manteca and 
 Eipon at from 45 to 52 feet. No United States Department of Agriculture 
 climatic records are available for this district, the nearest station being at 
 Merced, data of which is given in the description of the Modesto-Atwater- 
 Livingston district. 
 
 Most of the almond orchards in . this district are located in either the 
 Oakdale Irrigation District or in the South San Joaquin Irrigation District. 
 Though water was available, many orchardists did not irrigate in 1925, in 
 some instances because of crop failure, and occasionally because of a high 
 water table. 
 
 4 Fully described in: Nelson, J. W., J. E. Guernsey, L. C. Holmes, and E. C. 
 Eckmann. Eeconnoissance soil survey of the lower San Joaquin Valley, Cali- 
 fornia. U. S. D. A. Field Operations of the Bureau of Soils 1915:2583-2733. 
 1918. 
 
 s See footnote 4. 
 
BuL. 422] C0ST 0F PRODUCING ALMONDS IN CALIFORNIA 
 
 MODESTO-ATWATER-LIVINGSTON DISTRICT 
 
 The principal almond growing section in the San Joaquin Valley, other 
 than the Oakdale district, is located on the valley floor, in a rough triangle 
 formed by the towns of Atwater, Livingston, and Winton, plus a few scattering 
 orchards near Modesto. 
 
 Almond orchards in this district are planted on three soil types, classified 
 as (1) Oakley and Fresno sands, (2) Oakley and Madera sands, and (3) Fresno 
 and Madera sandy loams. 6 
 
 Measured at Merced, the average yearly rainfall for the period between 
 1916 and 1925 was 11.86 inches, ranging from 18.42 inches to 5.33 inches. The 
 first fall frost usually occurs after November 1st, and the last in spring about 
 March 20th. Summer temperatures recorded for the past ten years ranged 
 from 105° to 110° F (usually in July), and winter temperatures from 19° to 
 25° F (usually in January). 
 
 All orchards studied could be irrigated either from an irrigation district or 
 from private pumping plants. 
 
 WINTEES-ESPARTO-RUMSEY DISTRICT 
 
 The Winters-Esparto-Rumsey almond district, one of the oldest in the 
 state, is made up of two areas. One area comprises almond orchards located 
 on an alluvial fan spreading out from the foothills at elevations of from 125 
 to 133 feet, contiguous to and along both sides of Putah Creek, below the town 
 of Winters. This area is about 4 miles long and about 2 miles wide. The 
 second area is located along Cache Creek, between the towns of Esparto and 
 Rumsey, in a narrow valley from 2 to 5 miles wide and about 22 miles long. 
 Orchards in this area are at elevations of from 180 to 220 feet. The Winters 
 area and the Esparto-Rumsey area are about 10 miles apart. The topography 
 of all orchards is level and unbroken, except when cut by creek channels and 
 a few old washes. Most of these orchards are on Yolo loam soils, 7 laid down 
 by Putah or Cache Creeks. 
 
 Climatological records of the Weather Bureau of the United States Depart- 
 ment of Agriculture are not available for this district, but records taken at 
 Davis, nine miles away, indicate an average annual rainfall of 14.94 inches 
 for the years 1916 to 1925, inclusive. The annual amount of rainfall is variable, 
 and in ten years ranged from a high 22.63 inches to a low of but 7.8 inches. 
 The Davis records indicate a growing season generally free from killing frosts 
 extending from March until November (although killing frosts do occasionally 
 occur in April). Winter-minimum temperatures for Davis are reported as low 
 as 19° or 20° F and summer-maximum temperatures as high as 100° to 112° F. 
 
 Because of its geographical location, it is probable that the rainfall in the 
 Winters-Esparto-Rumsey district is greater than in Davis, and there is evidence 
 to show that the district is somewhat freer from killing frosts. 
 
 Reliance upon rainfall for sufficient moisture is the rule, most orchards not 
 being equipped to irrigate. Irrigation, when given, is usually limited to a 
 single application. 
 
 e See footnote 4. 
 
 7 Fully described in: Holmes, L. C, J. W. Nelson, and Party. Reconnois- 
 sance soil survey of the Sacramento Valley, California. U. S. D. A. Field 
 Operations of the Bureau of Soils 1913:2297-2439. 1915. 
 
10 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 
 
 ARBUCKLE-COLLEGE CITY DISTRICT 
 
 The Arbuckle-College City district is situated in Colusa County, on a broad 
 sloping plain which rises in a westerly direction from the Sacramento River 
 to the foothills. The almond plantings are in two areas. One compact area 
 lies chiefly to the west and south of the town of Arbuckle. The other, well 
 developed though less extensive, is located near College City. 
 
 The orchards range in elevation from 50 to 75 feet at College City, and from 
 100 to 200 feet at Arbuckle. Some of the orchards near Arbuckle are planted 
 on slightly rolling land, but the majority of the plantings are on land which 
 is practically level, as are those in the vicinity of College City. 
 
 The soil is classified as Tehama loam soil. 8 
 
 Fig. 3. — Typical almond orchards of Sacramento Valley showing 
 topography, spacing, and soil care. 
 
 Consecutive climatological data of the United States Department of Agri- 
 culture are available for this area for only the six years from 1920 to 1925. 
 Previous records are scattering. During these six years, the annual rainfall 
 averaged 13.96 inches. The highest yearly average occurred in 1918, and 
 amounted to 18.09 inches; the lowest was 7.68 inches, in 1923. United States 
 Department of Agriculture weather records of killing frosts indicate a grow- 
 ing season usually from March (and occasionally from January or February) 
 until early in November. Temperatures are typical of the central Sacramento 
 Valley. Summer maximums range from 106° to 112° F and winter minimums 
 from 19° to 25° F. 
 
 THE ORLAND DISTRICT 
 
 The almond-growing section designated as the Orland district is in Glenn 
 County, on the west side of the Sacramento Valley near the town of Orland. 
 Plantings are rather widely scattered and are found in conjunction with citrus, 
 
 s See footnote 7. 
 
BUK 422] C0ST 0F PRODUCING ALMONDS IN CALIFORNIA 11 
 
 olives, apricots, peaches, grapes, alfalfa, and grain. The principal almond 
 plantings lie in an area east and south of Orland, from two to nine miles 
 of the town. 
 
 Almond orchards in this district are on soils of both Tehama and Elder 
 series. 9 They are situated on the level valley floor at elevations of from 
 225 to 275 feet. 
 
 Eainfall records for Orland for the ten-year period from 1916 to 1925 (as 
 compiled by the Weather Bureau of the United States Department of Agri- 
 culture) indicate an average annual rainfall of 14.91 inches, ranging from 19.67 
 inches to 8.28 inches. The growing season, as measured by killing frosts, 
 extends from about the middle of April until well into November. Summer- 
 maximum temperatures range from 110° to 114° F and winter minimums from 
 19° to 25° F. 
 
 CHICO-DURHAM-HAMTLTON CITY DISTRICT 
 
 The Chico-Durham-Hamilton City almond-growing district is situated in 
 Butte County, in the vicinity of the towns of Chico and Durham, and in Glenn 
 County near Hamilton City. The orchard belt between Chico and Durham is 
 approximately 9 miles long by 5 miles wide; at Hamilton City almond plantings 
 total only about 500 acres. In both areas almonds are grown in conjunction 
 with prunes, peaches, and other fruits. 
 
 Orchards in the vicinity of Chico and Durham are chiefly on soils of the 
 Vina series, 10 orchards to the north and west of Chico being on Vina fine 
 sandy loam, and orchards near Durham being on Vina clay loam. Orchards at 
 Hamilton City are on Elder silt loam.n 
 
 Orchards of this district are on level land of the Sacramento Valley floor, 
 at elevations of from 150 feet at Durham and Hamilton City to 225 feet 
 near Chico. 
 
 Data compiled by the Weather Bureau of the United States Department of 
 Agriculture for the years 1916 to 1925, inclusive, show that the average annual 
 rainfall was 23.23 inches, measured at Chico. The yearly rainfall during this 
 period varied from 31.47 inches to 15.08. The growing season extends from 
 the last of April or earlier until first killing frosts in October or November. 
 Temperatures range from summer maximums of from 109° to 113° F to winter 
 minimums of from 18° to 25° F (in December or January). 
 
 YUBA CITY-LIVE OAK-PENNINGTON DISTRICT 
 
 Almond orchards of the Yuba City-Live Oak-Pennington district are scattered 
 rather widely over an irregular area, extending from Yuba City northward 
 through Live Oak to Gridley, thence southwest to Pennington and around the 
 east side of the Marysville Buttes to Yuba City, the area being about 12 miles 
 long and from 2 miles to 6 miles wide, almond orchards being found in con- 
 junction with peaches, grapes, and other fruits. 
 
 9 See footnote 7. 
 
 i° Some of the soils classed with the Vina series in the reconnoissance soil 
 survey were classed as the Farwell series in the detailed soil survey made 
 later. Watson, E. B., and R. E. Storey. Soil survey of the Chico area. 
 (Unpublished.) 
 
 ii See footnote 7. 
 
12 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 
 
 Almond orchards in the vicinity of Yuba City, Live Oak, and Gridley, are 
 on soils of the Madera and Gridley loams. Almond orchards in the vicinity 
 of Pennington are on soil of the Sutter loam soils. 12 
 
 Orchards in this area are on the level valley floor and range in elevation 
 from 58 feet (at Yuba City) to 75 feet (at Live Oak and Pennington) to 92 
 feet (at Gridley). 
 
 Data compiled by the Weather Bureau of the United States Department of 
 Agriculture at Marysville for the years 1916-1925, inclusive, and fairly appli- 
 cable to this district, indicate an average annual rainfall of 18.75 inches. The 
 highest yearly rainfall during the decade was 25.99 inches, the lowest 10.85 
 inches. The length of the growing season, as measured by killing frosts, 
 extends from March or April until November. Temperatures range from 
 occasional maximums of from 106° to 115° F in July, to occasional minimums 
 of from 24° to 29° F in December or January. 
 
 Some irrigation was practiced, although a majority of the orchardists 
 depended entirely on rainfall. 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS GKOUP 
 
 The miscellaneous group contains data concerning 10 scattering orchards, 
 two of these being near Fair Oaks, three near Antelope, and one near Eio Linda 
 (all these six being in Sacramento County); three near Lodi, in San Joaquin 
 County; and one near Terra Bella, in Tulare County. 
 
 Sacramento County. — The half-dozen orchards studied in Sacramento County 
 are from the eastern and northeastern parts of the county where almonds are 
 grown rather extensively, although production and acreage both appear to be 
 declining. In the vicinity of Fair Oaks almonds are grown in a rather compact 
 belt. At Antelope, the orchards are in conjunction with plantings of other 
 fruits, vineyards and grain fields. 
 
 These almond orchards are planted on San Joaquin and Arnold loams. 13 
 They are situated on low rolling hills, at elevations of from 125 to 200 feet. 
 
 Weather records taken at Sacramento, but fairly applicable to this area, 
 indicate an average annual rainfall of 13.77 inches for the ten-year period, 
 1916 to 1925. The highest yearly precipitation during this period was 18.33 
 inches, the lowest 8.46 inches. The growing season extends from the end of 
 March to November. The climate is typical of that found throughout the 
 Sacramento Valley, summer-maximum temperatures being as high as from 105° 
 to 114° F (in July or August), and winter minimums from 21° to 30° F 
 (in December or January). 
 
 San Joaquin County. — Three almond orchards from the vicinity of Lodi 
 were studied. All were situated on light sandy soil. The rainfall, according 
 to Lodi records, averaged 13.8 inches annually for the years 1916 to 1925, 
 ranging from a high of 19.74 inches to a low of 7.0 inches. The last killing 
 frost in spring usually occurs in February or during the first few days of 
 March. The first in the fall usually occurs in November or December. Tem- 
 perature records for the past ten years show occasional summer maximums of 
 from 102° to 108° F and occasional winter minimums of from 22° to 28° F. 
 
 12 See footnote 7. 13 See footnote 7. 
 
BlTL. 422] C osT OF PRODUCING ALMONDS IN CALIFORNIA 13 
 
 Tulare County. — Although a number of orchards were scheduled for study in 
 the Terra Bella district, crop failure or lack of basic data finally narrowed the 
 number to a single usable record! There is a considerable acreage planted to 
 almonds in this district, but most of the trees are young and not as yet in full 
 bearing. The orchard studied is on gently rolling topography, on heavy Porter- 
 ville clay adobe, 14 in a district having an average rainfall (for 1916-1925) 
 of 9.86 inches, with a range of from 5.06 inches to 16.51 inches, and a growing 
 season free from frosts usually from March or early April to October or early 
 November, with occasional summer-maximum temperatures of from 107° to 
 114° F and occasional winter temperatures of from 22° to 27° F. 
 
 HOW ORCHARDS FOR STUDY WERE SELECTED 
 
 Orchards chosen for study were sufficiently numerous and typical 
 so that the resulting group represents a cross-section of the almond 
 industry in each area. The size of the majority of almond orchards in 
 California ranges from 10 to 40 acres in area, and averages less than 
 20 acres in extent. Most California almond orchards contain several 
 varieties of almonds, the more common varieties being Nonpareil, 
 Drake, I.X.L., Ne Plus Ultra, and Texas. The majority of bearing 
 orchards are from 7 to 20 years of age, the percentages, according to 
 the records of the California Almond Growers Exchange, being: 
 
 Orchards under 7 years, 12 per cent. 
 
 Orchards 7 to 12 years, 42 per cent. 
 
 Orchards 12 to 20 years, 3.1 per cent. 
 
 Orchards 20 years or over, 15 per cent. 
 
 These facts were borne in mind when selecting orchards for study. 
 The orchards selected were of bearing age, standard varieties, and 
 usual size, and only orchards were included which had received 
 ordinary care, and had been grown and handled as commercial 
 enterprises. 
 
 STUDY CONFINED TO ALMONDS 
 
 Since this was a study of the cost of producing almonds, no attempt 
 was made to collect data for other phases of the farm business. If the 
 orchard consisted of fruits other than almonds, such were ignored, as 
 were other farm activities such as field crops, dairying, hog raising, or 
 similar departments not necessarily a part of the almond business, 
 although often well worth while as a means of properly organizing 
 the farm business, or as a means of augmenting farm incomes. When 
 a farm under study possessed additional activities requiring expendi- 
 tures, care was used to prorate charges in order to present all facts 
 pertinent to the almond oi chard only. 
 
 14 Fully described in: Nelson, J. W., W. C. Dean, and E. C. Eckmann. 
 Reconnoissance soil survey of the upper San Joaquin Valley, California. 
 U. S. D. A. Field Operations of the Bureau of Soils 1917:2535-2644. 1923. 
 
14 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 
 
 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 
 
 From a study of the cost of producing almonds on the 4,577.39 
 acres of bearing orchards in these 149 orchards, producing a total 
 crop in 1925 of 1,911,488 pounds of almonds, the average cost was 
 found to be 11.15 cents a pound. This was based on an average pro- 
 duction for these orchards in 1925 of 418 pounds of almonds per acre. 
 
 ITEMS COMPRISING COSTS 
 
 A complete record of costs of producing almonds from fully 
 developed orchards is made up of a number of items, each of which 
 must be accurately determined, and all of which for convenience may 
 be grouped into several classes, thus : 
 
 Soil work 
 
 Tree care 
 
 Harvesting, hulling, delivering 
 
 Office expense 
 
 Taxes 
 
 Use of equipment 
 
 Management 
 
 Depreciation of trees 
 
 Interest upon operating funds. 
 
 Materials were not carried as separate items. Spray materials 
 were included under tree care, while harvest materials, such as sacks, 
 were included under harvesting costs. 
 
 Insurance was carried only in connection with buildings, auto- 
 mobiles, and in a few instances on farm implements. The charge was 
 carried to the respective accounts. 
 
 SOIL WORK 
 
 Expenditures for soil work consist of those for (1) man labor, 
 (2) use of horses, (3) use of tractors, (4) use of implements, (5) 
 irrigation. 
 
 Soil work on 63 orchards was handled exclusively by horses, on 
 11 orchards exclusively by tractors, and on 62 orchards by a com- 
 bination of tractors and horses. The other orchards were left uncul- 
 tivated. Horses were hired to work 17 orchards, tractors for 3, and 
 both tractors and horses for 16 orchards — a total of 36 orchards. 
 
BuLu 422] C0ST 0P PRODUCING ALMONDS IN CALIFORNIA 15 
 
 Man Labor. — Man-labor costs were found by determining the num- 
 ber of hours of actual work spent in plowing, disking, cultivating, 
 harrowing, and similar operations, in irrigating, hoeing, and weeding, 
 multiplied by the current rate of wages generally paid for these 
 different tasks, including the value of board, lodging, or other 
 perquisites. 
 
 In this study no distinction was made as to whether the various 
 tasks were performed by the operator, his family, or by paid labor. 
 All labor was charged for at rates commensurate with the kind of 
 work done. 15 
 
 Use of Horses. — When horses were utilized in connection with the 
 handling of the almond orchard, a careful estimate of the cost of 
 maintaining work horses was made a part of the study. If horses 
 were hired, actual expenditures were included. If the horses were 
 owned by the almond producer, a careful calculation of the cost of 
 horse labor was made, taking into account total use of horses ; amount 
 used for almonds ; cost of feed, chores, taxes, insurance, shoeing, 
 veterinary; depreciation; mortality; charge for shelter (made up of 
 interest, depreciation, upkeep, taxes, and insurance) for the portion 
 used in protecting horses, harness, and feed ; charge for barn equip- 
 ment, such as brooms, forks, curry combs, brushes, and halters, the 
 charge being made up of interest, depreciation, upkeep, taxes and 
 insurance. Any credits for net value of colts raised and for manure 
 produced were deducted. 10 The annual charge for work horses was 
 first determined, then the daily rate for all work done by the teams, 
 and finally the proper proportion was allocated to the almond orchard 
 in accordance with the number of days that the horses were used. 
 
 This study covered the use of 161 horses employed for a total of 
 68,240 hours in these almond orchards, at an average cost per horse of 
 $1.18 for each workday. Costs varied from 45 cents to $2.82 a horse 
 for each workday, the cost being largely determined by the amount 
 of profitable use of work horses during the year. The majority of 
 
 is Manual-labor costs prevailing during the 1925 season were, without board, 
 as follows: 
 
 Cents per 
 hour 
 
 Teamsters 35-55 
 
 Tree work 30-50 
 
 Irrigating 30-35 
 
 Harvest — 
 
 Men 30-45 
 
 Women 25-40 
 
 16 For a full discussion of the method of calculating costs of horse labor, 
 see Adams, E. L. Cost of work horses on California farms. California Agr. 
 Exp. Sta. Bui. 401:1-20. 1926. 
 
16 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 
 
 horses (nearly 70 per cent) cost from 45 cents to $1.25 for each work- 
 day. Horses employed but a few days a year resulted in a high cost 
 per workday; horses used generally throughout the year were main- 
 tained at a low cost per workday. The total yearly cost per head 
 did not vary very much. 
 
 The following data indicate the amount of horse labor used in soil 
 care when horses alone were used. 
 
 Number of records - 17 
 
 Acres worked 612 
 
 Number of horse-days 2,622 
 
 Average number of horse-days per acre 4.3 
 
 Use of Tractors. — When motive power was supplied by tractors, 
 detailed cost calculation was made in a way similar to that described 
 under "Use of Horses," taking into account interest upon average 
 investment during the total life of the tractor, depreciation, fuel, oil, 
 waste, grease, repairs — including parts and labor, taxes, and a charge 
 for shelter. 
 
 The amount chargeable to the almond orchards was determined by 
 calculating the annual cost of running each tractor, the total number 
 of hours in use, and the cost per hour of use; the number of hours 
 used for the almond orchards was then multiplied by the rate thus 
 obtained. 
 
 Forty-eight tractors of various sizes and makes, used a total of 
 15,891 hours in these almond orchards, cost on an average, for all 
 makes, 69.5 cents (simple average) per hour of running time. 
 
 The following data indicate the amount of use made of tractors 
 when tractors were used exclusively for soil work : 
 
 Number of records 9 
 
 Acreage 393.5 
 
 Total tractor-horsepower hours (engine rating X hours) 66,320 
 
 Average number tractor-horsepower hours 161 
 
 Use of Implements. — The charge for use of farm implements 
 (plows, harrows, disks, wagons, and similar farm equipment) is made 
 up of interest on average investment, depreciation, taxes, insurance, 
 upkeep, and a charge to cover the use of shelter. These items were 
 figured individually and a proper charge, based on amount of use, 
 was carried against the almond orchard. 
 
 A charge was likewise determined for the use of special equipment 
 required for the almond orchard, such as buildings, hullers, lug boxes, 
 canvas sheets, trays, spray rigs, harvesting sleds. Whenever a build- 
 
BUL. 422] C oST OF PRODUCING ALMONDS IN CALIFORNIA 17 
 
 ing was utilized in part by other departments of the farm business, 
 proper credit was given and the just proportion only charged to 
 almonds. The total charge appears in the various tables as a single 
 item — "use of equipment." 
 
 Irrigation. — If water was purchased, the actual sums paid were 
 recorded, including irrigation district and drainage taxes. 17 
 
 In the Banning District, the cost of irrigation water purchased 
 from a mutual water company amounted to $10.50 per acre in 1925, 
 this rate including an extra $2 for the year 1925 to cover expenditures 
 made to improve the system. 
 
 In addition to county taxes, 13 of the 14 orchards located in the 
 Oakdale and South San Joaquin Irrigation Districts paid an irriga- 
 tion tax. Reduced to an acre basis, the charge in the Oakdale Irriga- 
 tion District ranged from $2.50 to $3.60, and averaged $3.25 per acre ; 
 and in the South San Joaquin Irrigation District the charge ranged 
 from $5.40 to $7.20, and averaged $6.25. These taxes were collectable 
 regardless of whether or not the water was used. The cost of irrigat- 
 ing orchards in the Orland Irrigation District and in the Loam Ridge 
 Mutual Water Company contained a district tax of $5.25 per acre. 
 
 When water was obtained from a pumping plant on the property, 
 the cost was calculated on the yearly use of the plant with proper 
 proportion charged to the almond orchard on the basis of use. The 
 cost was figured separately for motors, engines, pumps, wells, shelters, 
 and irrigating equipment (such as slip joint pipe), to include fuel or 
 power ; oil, waste, grease, and other supplies ; attendance ; upkeep ; 
 taxes ; insurance ; depreciation ; and interest. 
 
 In order to have a complete record of the cost of applying water, 
 for use in determining the economy and feasibility of farm-pumped 
 versus purchased water, and to note the crop increase necessary to 
 justify the installing and operating of pumps, labor required in the 
 field for handling and applying the irrigation water was included 
 with the cost of irrigation water, this cost including the value of the 
 operator's time, the use of horses or tractors, and any charges which 
 rightly belong with the application of water. 
 
 Orchards studied in the Modesto-Livingston-Atwater district were 
 all in the Modesto Irrigation District, and paid for water at the rate 
 of from $1.25 to $11.87 per acre ; the average cost being $5.85. 
 
 No irrigation was practiced in the Antelope section, although one 
 orchard (No. 4) paid a $10 per acre tax on account of being in an 
 irrigation district. 
 
 17 Irrigation district taxes, in one instance, included drainage costs also. 
 
18 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 
 
 Complete cost data covering a total of 19 pumping plants were 
 collected. A summary of selected details shows : 
 
 TABLE 2 
 Cost Data : 19 Pumping Plants, 1925 
 
 Number of pumping plants 
 
 Investment 
 
 Total annual cost of operating 
 
 Amount chargeable to almonds 
 
 Number of acres of almonds covered 
 
 Average cost per acre 
 
 Annual charge for labor applying water ... 
 Average cost of labor per acre (533 acres). 
 Total per acre (water and labor) 
 
 Summary of all 
 
 141,460.40 
 
 $8,541.62 
 
 $5,126.95 
 
 533 
 
 $3,281.75 
 
 Average of each 
 
 $2,182.12 
 
 $449.56 
 
 $269.83 
 
 28.05 
 
 $9.62 
 
 $172.72 
 
 $6.16 
 
 $15.78 
 
 TREE CAEE 
 
 Expenditure for tree care is made up of man labor employed in 
 pruning, disposing of brush, and spraying ; spray materials and 
 charges for use of pruning shears, sprayers, and other items used in 
 caring for the trees. 
 
 All labor expended in tree care was charged at the going rate paid 
 when men were hired to do the work. 
 
 Horse labor used in tree care was included under soil care and 
 not carried as a separate item. 
 
 Spray materials were figured at actual cost delivered at the ranch. 
 
 Man-labor requirements for pruning amounted to a total of 17,032.8 
 man-hours on 2460.5 acres of 79 orchards where the work was done 
 with day labor. The cost amounted to a total of $8,563.47. The rates 
 per acre averaged, therefore, 6.92 man-hours of labor at the rate of 
 50.3 cents per hour. 
 
 Forty-three of these 149 orchards, involving 1,340 acres, were 
 sprayed at a total cost for material of $3,594.36, or at the rate of $2.68 
 per acre for those sprayed. This gives 78.5 cents per acre as a weighted 
 average for the total acreage (4577.39 acres) covered by this study. 
 
 Contract Soil and Tree Care. — In the Banning orchard district, it 
 is common to contract for much of the work. One grower contracted 
 his plowing, cultivating, and irrigating at $20 an acre. Another 
 grower contracted all tree care at $5.25 an acre ; another at $6 an 
 acre ; two others at $10 an acre. One grower contracted his spraying 
 at $15 an acre. 
 
BUL. 422] C0ST OF PRODUCING ALMONDS IN CALIFORNIA 19 
 
 Contract prices paid for soil care (horses, tractor, men) cost $7, 
 $10, and $21.82 an acre for each of the three orchards in the Paso 
 Robles District for which this work was contracted. 
 
 In the Arbuckle-College City District, contract work of handling 
 the soil was done at various figures, depending upon the amount of 
 work done— $3.50, $6, $8.50, $9, $9.50, $10, and $12.50 an acre, 
 respectively, on different orchards. 
 
 HARVESTING 
 
 Harvesting consists of knocking the nuts from the trees and 
 delivering them to the huller. Costs were figured either on a day basis 
 (this figure including the cost of horse or tractor labor when used in 
 harvest) or at orchard-contract prices. Sleds and horses were used 
 by a majority of growers to move the sheets; in a few cases men 
 dragged the sheets from tree to tree by hand. 
 
 An average of IV2 horse-days per acre was utilized on 15 orchards, 
 the records of which were in sufficient detail to permit averaging. 
 This amounted to 1 horse-day for each 280 pounds of nuts harvested. 
 Thirty of the 149 records could be analyzed to show the rate of work 
 per man-day. The range in amount of nuts gathered per man-day 
 varied from 14 to 218 pounds, with an average of 91 pounds. Size of 
 knocking crews in these 30 cases varied from 1 to 6 men ; 11 had 3 men 
 each ; 9 had 2 men each ; 4 had 4 men each ; and 2 each had 1,5, and 
 6 men. The cost of knocking and delivering to the huller ranged from 
 2 to 4.9 cents per pound, and averaged 2.6 cents. In seven orchards, 
 knocking was contracted on a tree basis, the rates varying from 15 to 
 35 cents a tree, and averaging 22 cents. 
 
 HULLING 
 
 Hulling when done by day labor was figured on the number of 
 hours of man or woman labor at the going hourly wage. When hulling 
 was done by contract, the actual cost of the work was used. 
 
 The cost of hulling ranged from 1 cent to 4 cents a pound, and 
 averaged close to 2 cents a pound. 
 
 A number of growers (especially near Banning and Orland) had 
 the almonds hulled by hand. The cost per pound rate about equalled 
 that of machine work. 
 
20 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 
 
 DBYING, SACKING, AND DELIVEEING 
 
 Charges for drying, sacking, and delivering were figured from the 
 actual time spent at the going wage. The cost varied from 0.6 to 8.5 
 cents 18 a pound, and averaged 1.5 cents. 
 
 Delivery charges varied according to distance which the almonds 
 had to be hauled. The cost per ton varied from $1 to $16 18 and 
 averaged $2.50. 
 
 OFFICE EXPENSE 
 
 Expenditures for telephone, record books, stationery, stamps, and 
 similar items of office costs were determined and the proper proportion 
 charged to the almond orchard. 
 
 Of the 149 operators, 54 reported a figure for office expense, the 
 total amounting to $830.50 or an average for the entire almond acreage 
 studied of 18 cents an acre. 
 
 TAXES 
 
 The amount paid for taxes assessed against each almond orchard 
 was in every instance taken from county tax records. Taxes for 
 horses, tractors, automobiles, buildings, pumping plants, and other 
 equipment were carried to these respective accounts. The item of 
 " taxes" in each of the various tables refers only to taxes paid on 
 orchard land and trees. 
 
 Taxes paid on these 4577.39 acres of bearing orchard (land and 
 trees) amounted, in 1925, to $16,235.65 or an average of $3.55 per acre. 
 The tax rates per $100 of assessed value for orchards studied were 
 as follows : 
 
 District Tax rate 
 
 Banning $5.80 
 
 Paso Kobles 2.35-4.40 
 
 Oakley 3.31 
 
 Oakdale 3.34-4.90 
 
 Modesto-Atwater-Livingston 3.44-3.55 
 
 Winters-Esparto-B-umsey 4.98-5.22 
 
 Arbuckle-College City 2.67-3.20 
 
 Orland 2.54-3.36 
 
 Chico-Durham-Hamilton City 4.37 
 
 Yuba City-Live Oak-Pennington 5.07-6.17 
 
 Variable rates in a given district depended on the amount of 
 special district taxes over and above the fixed county rate. 
 
 s The latter figure included delivering from Terra Bella to Oakdale, 190 miles. 
 
BuL. 422] C osT OF PRODUCING ALMONDS IN CALIFORNIA 21 
 
 Various ways of assessing were in use. In the Paso Robles district, 
 no assessment was made on fruit trees until they were five years of 
 age, they then being classed as improvements and assessed as such. 
 In the Oakley district, land was assessed at from $48 to $70 per acre, 
 depending on location, soil, and improvements. There was an added 
 assessment of from $10 to $15 per acre made for trees. In the Oakdale 
 district, trees and vines were classed as improvements, and $60 per 
 acre was added to the usual per acre assessment of the land to cover 
 the orchard. In the Modesto-Livingston-Atwater district, land was 
 assessed at rates varying from $60 to $125 per acre, according to pro- 
 ductivity and location. Orchards were classed as improvements, and 
 bearing orchards were assessed at from $40 to $60 per acre additional. 
 In the Winters-Esparto~Rumsey district, assessments were made on a 
 basis of 50 per cent of sale value, no assessments being made on fruit 
 trees until five years old. Orchard land of the Arbuckle-College City 
 district was assessed at rates varying from $40 to $50 per acre, 
 according to location and selling value. Bearing trees were assessed at 
 from $35 to $40 per acre. Orchards which had not reached bearing 
 age were not assessed. Orland-district orchards were assessed at from 
 $50 to $75, with an additional $25 to $35 for the trees thereon. 
 Orchard lands in the vicinity of Durham were assessed at from $100 to 
 $120 per acre, and in the vicinity of Chico at from $125 to $200 per 
 acre, a $25 assessment being added to cover trees in both of these 
 localities. In the Yuba City-Live Oak-Pennington district, almond 
 lands were assessed at figures ranging from $60 to $125 according to 
 location and sales value, a majority of the orchard assessments being 
 below $100. Trees were assessed at rates varying from $25 to $55 
 per acre. 
 
 USE OF EQUIPMENT 
 
 "Equipment" covers special buildings, implements, plows, disks, 
 harrows, etc., pruning shears, spray machinery, ladders, wagons, 
 canvas sheets, knocking poles, drying trays, lug boxes, harvesting 
 sleds, hullers, huller motors or engines, and drying bins. One hun- 
 dred ten of the 149 orchards, involving a total farm acreage of 18,981 
 acres, were handled with equipment owned by the operators. Of this 
 total acreage, 3650.5 acres were in bearing almond orchards. Equip- 
 ment was hired for the other orchards. The purchase price of the 
 equipment amounted to $140,085.61, or an average of $7.38 per acre 
 for the total acreage (18,981) thus equipped. 
 
 Seventy-eight per cent of the total charge for use of equipment 
 went against almonds on these 110 farms. 
 
22 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 
 
 The annual charge for total use of this equipment was as follows : 
 
 Interest charge on average investment at 6 per cent $4,202.56 
 
 Depreciation 11,644.44 
 
 Upkeep, including taxes and insurance 4,481.69 
 
 $20,328.69 
 
 Of this total annual charge ($20,328.69), the sum of $15,856.35 
 (78 per cent) is chargeable against 3650.5 acres of almonds. This 
 amounts to a charge for orchards thus equipped of $4.36 per acre. 
 
 A considerable range was found to exist in the amounts expended 
 to equip different holdings, because of such factors as (a) current 
 prices when purchased, (&) available capital, (c) equipment hired, 
 (d) developing of orchard under non-resident conditions, (e) size of 
 holdings, (/) age of trees, (g) operator's ideas of what constitutes 
 suitable equipment, (h) equipment on hand at time of acquiring 
 orchard. 
 
 Taxes. — Equipment such as implements, hullers, tractors, and 
 horses were assessed in various ways. In the Paso Robles and Winters- 
 Esparto-Rumsey districts, equipment such as hullers and implements 
 were classed and assessed as improvements, the basis being 40 per cent 
 of list price, with deductions to offset age and condition. In the 
 Arbuckle-College City, Orland, Chico-Durham-Hamilton City, and 
 Yuba City-Live Oak-Pennington districts, hullers and implements 
 were classed as improvements and assessed in accordance with list 
 price, age, and condition. In the Oakley district, there was no tax on 
 such property. No increase in assessment was made for irrigation 
 equipment or irrigated lands. In the Oakdale district implements and 
 machinery were assessed at one-half their list price, with adjustments 
 for age and condition. 
 
 Tractors in most districts were assessed on a basis of 40 per cent 
 of list price for the first year, 30 per cent the second, and 20 per cent 
 the third year, with no set rate thereafter. 
 
 Horses were assessed individually, the practice varying. Few 
 horses in the Oakley district were deemed to be of sufficient value to 
 warrant assessing. In the Paso Robles and Oakdale districts, their 
 assessed value was taken at one-half of the market value. Work 
 horses in the Modesto-Atwater-Livingston district were assessed at 
 $50 a head, and at $40 in the Winters-Esparto-Rumsey district. 
 
 Determining Interest Charges. — In figuring interest in calculating 
 charges for use of horses, tractors, buildings, and implements, a uni- 
 form rate of 6 per cent per annum was used. Interest was figured on 
 the life of the item rather than for the given year under study. Invest- 
 ments in farm equipment are made for a period of years, and difficulty 
 
Bul, 422] 
 
 COST OF PRODUCING ALMONDS IN CALIFORNIA 
 
 23 
 
 is encountered in attempting to fix an arbitrary valuation for any 
 given single year. 
 
 Insurance. — Insurance premiums, when actually paid, were in- 
 cluded, although it was evident that a good many farmers personally 
 assumed risks of fire and theft and did not make cash investments for 
 such protection. It is possible that in studies of this kind one should 
 ignore insurance on the grounds that sufficient premiums are not car- 
 ried to indicate the cost of carrying this risk, and instead put in the 
 value of any items actually destroyed or lost during the year under 
 study as a charge against the business. This latter method is satis- 
 factory in compiling and assembling several records into a single 
 group, but if used for a single business, a loss in any one year would 
 place a disproportionate burden upon the business for that year. In 
 this study risks have been ignored when carried by the farmers them- 
 selves, but have been included whenever premiums were paid. 
 
 Depreciation. — For purposes of record, rates of depreciation are 
 shown below: 
 
 TABLE 3 
 
 Kates of Depreciation for Selected Items of Equipment 
 
 Items 
 
 Range in 
 depreciation 
 
 Average 
 depreciation 
 
 Mode 
 
 Plows 
 
 Disks 
 
 Harrows (spike) 
 Harrows (spring) 
 
 Hullers 
 
 Sheets 
 
 Trays 
 
 Spray rigs 
 
 Per cent 
 
 5-20 
 3M-20 
 3M-10 
 5-20 
 5-20 
 10-33 H 
 5-20 
 
 8H-10 
 
 Per cent 
 
 4*A 
 8V5 
 
 10 
 
 18 
 
 11 
 9»A 
 
 Per cent 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 20 
 
 10 
 
 Automobile Costs. — Costs, carefully determined, resulted in find- 
 ings for the automobiles used in connection with these orchards as 
 follows : 
 
 Mileage: average per car, 886 miles. Average cost per mile 
 
 Interest .44 cents 
 
 Depreciation 2.12 
 
 Fuel 1.37 
 
 Oil 36 
 
 Tires 1.16 
 
 Taxes 17 
 
 Insurance .10 
 
 Eepairs ' 76 
 
 Shelter 25 
 
 6.73 cents per mile 
 
24 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION 
 
 MANAGEMENT 
 
 The charge for management is usually an estimated and not an 
 actual expenditure. Wide variation existed in estimates, by growers, 
 of time spent in management and of values placed upon such service. 
 Some growers modestly stated that no charge should be made to cover 
 their management ; others indicated a figure that appeared to be out of 
 proportion with the justifiable amount of time that they should logic- 
 ally spend in purely business details on the basis of the amount of 
 acreage under their charge. 
 
 Nearly 40 per cent of those who were asked to figure a fair charge 
 for management stated that in their opinion no management charge 
 was justified so far as they individually were concerned. Of those 
 who estimated the value of time given over to management, the charge 
 per acre for the acreage controlled by them averaged $7.84. If the 
 total of these estimates for management be prorated over the total 
 acreage handled by all operators, including those who did not supply 
 a figure for this charge, the average per acre amounts to $5.51. This 
 figure of $5.51 per acre to cover management, based on the total 
 acreage, appears to reflect growers' judgment as to the amount which 
 should be charged to cover management. This figure varies widely, 
 however, with holdings. 
 
 In our various tables management has been omitted because of 
 the wide range in estimates and the difficulty of securing data. If a 
 charge for management be desired, the average cost amounts to 1.3 
 cents per pound of almonds produced, since the average production of 
 almonds in 1925 from these 149 orchards was 418 pounds per acre. 
 
 DEPEECIATION OF TEEES 
 
 Although depreciation of trees is an item of expense, a proper 
 charge is difficult to determine. It can at best only be an estimate, 
 since basic data are generally lacking. Because of the lack of basic 
 cost data covering the planting and bringing into bearing of the 
 orchards studied, lack of adequate records of trends of market prices 
 for lands, and lack of knowledge concerning the productive life of 
 trees, depreciation could not be calculated for these orchards. The 
 charge is a cost item, however. Some idea of a depreciation charge 
 can be gathered from a study of table 4. 
 
Bul. 422] 
 
 COST OF PRODUCING ALMONDS IN CALIFORNIA 
 
 25 
 
 TABLE 4 
 Examples of Orchard Depreciation, by Districts 
 
 Market price of fully matured 
 orchards— Average for all orchards 
 in district, 1925 
 
 Market price of open land ready and 
 suitable for almonds 
 
 Value of trees 
 
 Estimated life of orchard, years 
 
 Annual depreciation per acre in 
 dollars 
 
 Annual depreciation per acre in per 
 cent 
 
 <s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >, 
 
 
 
 ^o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 >> 
 3 
 
 a 
 
 '3 
 a 
 
 -2 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 u 
 
 "5 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 n 
 T3 
 
 
 sS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J3 
 
 
 Ph 
 
 o 
 
 w 
 
 O 
 
 < 
 
 & 
 
 >H 
 
 O 
 
 a 
 
 $400 
 
 $450 
 
 $500 
 
 $500 
 
 $300 
 
 $550 
 
 $525 
 
 $750 
 
 $550 
 
 $150 
 
 $175 
 
 $200 
 
 $200 
 
 $125 
 
 $250 
 
 $225 
 
 $400 
 
 $225 
 
 $250 
 
 $275 
 
 $300 
 
 $300 
 
 $175 
 
 $300 
 
 $300 
 
 $350 
 
 $325 
 
 30 
 
 30 
 
 30 
 
 30 
 
 30 
 
 30 
 
 35 
 
 35 
 
 30 
 
 $8.33 
 
 $9.02 
 
 $10.00 
 
 $10.00 
 
 $5.66 
 
 $10 00 
 
 $8.57 
 
 $10 00 
 
 $10 00 
 
 3.3% 
 
 3.3% 
 
 33% 
 
 3.3% 
 
 3.3% 
 
 3.3% 
 
 2.9% 
 
 2.9% 
 
 3.3% 
 
 $350 
 
 $150, 
 
 $200 
 
 30 
 
 $10 00 
 
 33% 
 
 Cost of cleaning trees ignored. 
 
 Land values on all orchards included in the district were averaged to get the value of orchard lands 
 used in this study. 
 
 INTEREST UPON OPERATING FUNDS 
 
 An interest charge to cover use of funds for current operating 
 expenses is an item entering into cost of production. Usually, a check- 
 ing account kept in a local bank for such current expenses indicates 
 the amount of money upon which interest should be allowed. In this 
 study, however, growers were almost unanimous in stating that they 
 did not consider funds thus held of sufficient importance to justify 
 a charge to cover their use, and hence no provision has been made 
 to cover this item in our various tables. 
 
 INTEREST UPON INVESTMENT IN ORCHARD 
 
 No attempt has been made to include interest upon investment in 
 orchard — land or trees — as a cost item, because, first, there is a ques- 
 tion as to the propriety of such a charge. Some economists tend to 
 view interest earnings as profits rather than as costs. In rebuttal, 
 growers point out that moneys invested in orchards could be put in 
 stocks, bonds, or savings banks, and earn a fairly well-established rate 
 of interest. Even if an attempt were made to include interest upon 
 the investment as a cost item, great difficulty surrounds the finding 
 of a proper basis. Market price is not a criterion, because it involves 
 not only productive value, but home value, and possible increases in 
 yalue — the speculative, or potential, feature. 
 
26 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 
 
 An idea of the sum resulting from charging interest upon the 
 investment in orchard and trees can be gathered from a study of table 
 5, which sets forth local estimates of market prices of bearing almond 
 orchards exclusive of buildings and other equipment. 
 
 TABLE 5 
 
 Local Estimates of Maeket Prices of Bearing Almond Orchards 
 
 (Land and Trees Only) 
 
 District 
 
 Number of 
 acres 
 
 Average value 
 per acre 
 
 Value of land- 
 orchards studied 
 
 
 497.85 
 202.00 
 582.71 
 388.48 
 640.60 
 361.00 
 288.75 
 380.50 
 477.00 
 372.50 
 386.00 
 
 $400.00 
 500.00 
 450 00 
 500 00 
 550.00 
 300.00 
 350.00 
 750.00 
 525.00 
 550.00 
 300.00 
 
 $199,220 00 
 
 
 101,000 00 
 
 
 262,291.50 
 
 
 194,240.00 
 
 
 352,000.00 
 
 
 108,300.00 
 
 
 101,062.50 
 
 Chico : 
 
 285,375.00 
 
 Yuba City 
 
 250,420.00 
 
 
 204,875.00 
 
 
 115,800.00 
 
 
 
 
 $2,174,665.00 
 
 If interest be figured at 5 per cent, the land charge, based on 
 average values, as set forth in table 5, amounts to 5.7 cents per pound 
 of almonds produced in 1925. If the interest rate be taken at 6 
 per cent, the land charge amounts to 6.8 cents per pound. 
 
 CULTURAL PRACTICES 
 
 COSTS ON AN ACREAGE OR POUNDAGE BASIS 
 
 In general, annual costs for soil and tree care are best measured 
 on an acre basis, rather than on the pound basis. On the other hand, 
 the cost of harvesting and marketing, within certain fairly well-defined 
 limits, varies with the size of the crop. The cost per pound of yield is, 
 therefore, a better measure of harvesting cost than the cost per acre. 
 In our tables both measures are used, but the reader will do well to 
 keep in mind the distinctions as here outlined. The costs for soil and 
 tree care are governed by local practice. These costs must be met no 
 matter what the yield may be. Harvest costs fluctuate with the size of 
 the crop. By taking into account the returns per pound of nuts, after 
 deducting harvest costs, it is possible to determine the number of 
 pounds which must be produced to cover charges at current costs for 
 tree and soil care as ordinarily given. 
 
BUL. 422] C osT OF PRODUCING ALMONDS IN CALIFORNIA 27 
 
 These costs are based on actual orchard practices. That practices 
 are by no means uniform or standardized is traceable not only to a 
 lack of understanding, but to difference of opinion as to what is best, 
 to influences of insufficient income or working capital, and to non- 
 resident ownership. There is a tendency to cut down expenditures 
 after seasons of low returns. Such reduction, particularly when 
 directed toward pruning, spraying, irrigating, and cultivating, is 
 liable to be costly and to contribute to some extent to a low average 
 yield for the state. Usually both soil and tree care must be provided 
 each year, irrespective of the quantity and quality of the crop. It 
 was evident, though, that regularly or semi-regularly producing 
 orchards actually did receive better care than orchards known to be 
 irregular or shy bearers. The reason may be lack of available funds 
 in proportion to the degree of crop failure, or loss of interest in the 
 orchard, or discouragement. Sometimes inadequate care is traceable 
 to ignorance concerning proper procedure in handling soil or trees. 
 
 It is not necessary herein to set forth in detail the various opera- 
 tions practiced in handling each of the 149 orchards comprising this 
 study of costs. A brief review of the more generally accepted prac- 
 tices will, however, show the usual method followed in handling Cali- 
 fornia almond orchards, and also provide an explanation of the 
 various expenditures for operations which make up a large proportion 
 of the cost of producing almonds. 
 
 TREE CAKE 
 
 Pruning. — Tree care consisted of pruning and pest control. Prun- 
 ing, as practiced in these 149 orchards, usually consisted of a light 
 cutting designed to remove water sprouts, dead wood, open up centers, 
 and to shape the new growth. Occasionally a heavy pruning was given 
 for the purpose of removing cross limbs and dead limbs, reshaping 
 trees, thinning thick growths, and shortening branches. Though 
 annual pruning is the rule, 10 per cent of the growers confined their 
 pruning operations to once in two or even three years. The frequency 
 and extent of pruning depended on the amount of growth made, being 
 relatively light in all orchards except those situated in an unusual 
 growing environment. 
 
 Pruning was mostly done during the months of November, Decem- 
 ber, January, and February, although one grower confined his prun- 
 ing to the removal of water sprouts during April and May. 
 
28 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 
 
 Pest Control. — Only 61 of these 149 orchards were sprayed. Spray- 
 ing and dusting practices for the control of red spider or brown mite 
 varied. The tendency was to give either one or more of (1) a winter 
 or early spring spraying with lime-sulphur, (2) a dusting with sulphur 
 during the spring months, or (3) a spraying with lime-sulphur during 
 the summer months. One or two sprayings was the rule. Exceptions 
 noted consisted of one orchard sprayed with a crude oil emulsion in 
 connection with lime-sulphur, one orchard where sulphur was placed 
 in the crotches of the trees, and nine orchards which were sprayed in 
 November or in February with Bordeaux mixture for control of fungi. 
 
 Pests reported during the season of 192,5 consisted of red spider, 
 brown mite, crown gall, shot hole fungus, and peach borer. Morning 
 glory, puncture vine, Johnson grass, Bermuda grass, and Russian 
 thistle were reported as serious pests in a number of orchards. Some 
 damage by linnets and sparrows to blossoms, and by crows to ripening 
 nuts was recorded. Gophers and ground squirrels were reported as 
 pests in some orchards. 
 
 CULTIVATION 
 
 Generally the plan of cultivation provided for a planted or natural 
 green-manure crop, to be turned under, usually in March, with the 
 plow or disk harrow, or both, to be then followed with generous use 
 of the disk harrow, sometimes supplemented with the spring-tooth or 
 spike-tooth harrows, and finally a floating or harrowing to firm the 
 land in advance of the harvest. Subsoilers and chisel-tooth cultivators 
 were occasionally, although not generally, used. Relatively shallow 
 working, to a depth of 4 or 5 inches, appeared to be the rule, supple- 
 mented on a few orchards by a 12 to 16-inch subsoiling. Growers in 
 different districts, however, deviated from the general plan. 
 
 In the Banning district, a common plan was either to grow a green- 
 manure crop by seeding to one or more of Meliotus indica, bur clover, 
 and vetch, or else to raise a volunteer crop of natural growth. Some 
 growers plowed before seeding. All concentrated on spring plowing 
 to a depth of from 3 to 5 inches, for the purpose of turning under the 
 green growth. The plow and harrow — disk, spring, and spike — were 
 the principal implements. Summer handling consisted of opening 
 furrows for irrigation, and of disking, cultivating, or spike-tooth 
 harrowing after each irrigation. 
 
 In the Paso Robles district, cultivation was maintained mostly 
 with disk and spring-tooth harrows, supplemented occasionally with 
 plowing or subsoiling. The steepness of many of the orchard lands 
 
Bul. 422] C oST OF PRODUCING ALMONDS IN CALIFORNIA 29 
 
 renders plowing difficult, and hence the disk has been substituted for 
 the plow as more efficient and economical. The orchards were usually 
 disked in spring, and later during the season given from one to four 
 additional workings, the disking being repeated often enough to insure 
 adequate weed control and conservation of moisture. The spring-tooth 
 harrow was also used occasionally after spring rains to break surface 
 crusts and to assist in weed control. Chisel-tooth cultivators and 
 weeders were used in a few orchards. Orchards were gone over with 
 these various tools from three to twelve times during the year, although 
 the usual number was five or six times. Hoeing around trees in 
 summer to take out the weeds missed during cultivation was practiced 
 in some orchards. 
 
 In the Oakley district, soil care was relatively simple because of 
 the sandy nature of the soil. The principal working of the land 
 occurred in February or March, the land being either plowed or disked 
 to a depth of from 2% to 4 inches. The orchards were then harrowed 
 both ways, again disked or spring-toothed in May or June, and har- 
 rowed or floated just before harvest. Some hoeing of weeds from 
 around the trees was done during the summer. Cover crops were 
 grown on three orchards under irrigation, the resulting crop being 
 turned under during March by means of several thorough diskings. 
 
 Orchards studied in the Oakdale district were given at least one 
 plowing, usually in March, though occasionally in January, February, 
 or April. In some cases a second and even a third plowing was added. 
 The depth of plowing varied from 4 to 10 inches, although the shallow 
 plowing (4 or 5 inches in depth) appeared to be the rule. After 
 plowing, the orchards were gone over both ways with a spring-tooth 
 harrow. Cultivation varied during the summer, most orchards being 
 gone over several times with a disk, spring-tooth harrow, or weeder, 
 the amount of work depending on weed growth or crusting from late 
 rains. 
 
 In the Modesto-Atwater-Livingston, the Arbuckle-College City, 
 the Orland, and the Chico-Durham-Hamilton City districts, spring 
 plowing to a depth of 4 to 5 inches was the rule, although a tendency 
 was noted in some orchards to replace plowing with disking as the 
 latter was believed to give satisfactory results at less expense. A 
 disking or spring-tooth harrowing usually followed the plowing. 
 Summer cultivation consisted of disking or spring-tooth harrowing. 
 In some instances a harrowing or floating to level the land for spread- 
 ing sheets preceded harvest time. In the Arbuckle-College City 
 district, some fall subsoiling was practiced. 
 
30 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 
 
 In the Winters-Esparto-Rumsey district, soil handling usually 
 consisted of plowing, or double disking and chisel-tooth cultivating, 
 in February or March, to a depth varying from 4 to 10 inches, though 
 usually 4 to 6 inches in depth. Occasionally an orchard was sub- 
 soiled during the fall. After plowing or disking, the land was again 
 disked, and later in the summer was usually gone over with a spring- 
 tooth harrow and a weed cutter to preserve a surface mulch and to 
 control weed growth. One orchard (Yuba City, No. 7) was planted to 
 alfalfa between the tree rows and hence not plowed, disked, or 
 cultivated. 
 
 IRRIGATION 
 
 In the Banning district all orchards were irrigated, the number of 
 irrigations varying from four to eight, at 30-day intervals, beginning 
 about May 1st. Most growers applied water six times, running the 
 water in furrows for 48 hours (in one orchard for 72 hours), until 
 an estimated 4 to 5-acre inches had been applied. 
 
 In the Oakley district, where irrigation was introduced only within 
 the preceding three or four years, four orchards were irrigated three 
 times, two orchards twice, and one orchard once. Six of the seven 
 irrigated orchards were flooded — the seventh being irrigated by a 
 combination of furrows and basins. 
 
 In the Oakdale district, one orchard each was irrigated once or 
 twice, two orchards three times, and part of one orchard once. The 
 others were not irrigated yet the cost data include an irrigation 
 district tax which was paid. 
 
 In the Modesto-Atwater-Livingston district, four orchards were 
 irrigated once, four twice, and one six times. The cost data table of 
 the others, though not irrigated, include an irrigation district tax. 
 Either furrows or checks were used. 
 
 In the Orland district all orchards were irrigated by either the 
 furrow or check system — two orchards being irrigated once, five twice, 
 and two three times. 
 
 In the Yuba City district two orchards were irrigated once, and 
 one twice. In the Lodi district two orchards were irrigated once, and 
 a third two times. The Terra Bella orchard was irrigated six times, 
 by means of furrows. 
 
 A total of 81 of the 149 orchards were not irrigated. No facilities 
 for irrigating were available in an} T of the orchards studied in the 
 Paso Robles and Arbuckle-College City districts. In other districts a 
 number of orchards did not possess facilities for irrigating, or else 
 though equipped did not irrigate to any extent during the 1925 season, 
 
Bul. 422] 
 
 COST OF PRODUCING ALMONDS IN CALIFORNIA 
 
 31 
 
 because of a high water table, or because the crop prospect did not, in 
 the opinion of the growers, justify the expense. The distribution of 
 irrigated and non-irrigated orchards during the season of 1925 was 
 as follows: 
 
 TABLE 6 
 Distribution of Irrigated and Non-irrigated Orchards 
 
 District 
 
 Irrigated 
 
 Not irrigated 
 
 
 15 
 
 7 
 
 13 
 12 
 2 
 
 9 
 2 
 3 
 1 
 3 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 1 
 
 Modesto-Atwater- Livingston '. 
 
 Winters-Esparto-Rumsey 
 
 
 15 
 15 
 
 Orland 
 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 Yuba City-Live Oak-Pennington 
 
 11 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 Terra Bella 
 
 
 
 
 
 Totals 
 
 68 
 
 81 
 
 HARVESTING 
 
 The harvesting of almonds began about the middle of July (in 
 Banning), though most districts did not start until August. The 
 harvesting period extended into October, with the bulk of the harvest- 
 ing taking place in August and September. The usual practice was 
 to knock off the nuts with either long poles or clubs, and catch them 
 on large canvas sheets, usually 12 by 24 feet in size, spread in pairs 
 under the trees. When a load was gathered it was dumped into a long 
 box (20 to 24 feet long and 3 to 4 feet wide), built on wheels or 
 runners, and then either sacked or boxed, or else dragged directly to 
 the hullers. An exception to the usual rule consisted in the use by one 
 grower of a pair of wagons having specially constructed beds which 
 were drawn alongside a tree, in place of canvas sheets. Uusually hull- 
 ing was done by machine. In the Banning district, hulling by hand 
 was sometimes followed, local Indians and Mexicans contracting to 
 do the job at an agreed price about equal to the cost of hulling with 
 machines. After hulling, the nuts were dried and then sacked, and 
 delivered to a local warehouse or to the buyer. Each variety was 
 handled separately. 
 
 One hundred one of these 149 growers owned hulling machines' — 
 the others relied upon neighbors who did custom hulling for a pre- 
 arranged charge. 
 
32 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 
 
 After hulling and drying, the almonds were hauled for delivery 
 either to some receiving warehouse of the California Almond Growers 
 Exchange (a cooperative selling organization made up of California 
 almond producers), or to a private buyer. Usually delivery required 
 a haul of but a few miles. Members of the exchange in the San 
 Joaquin Valley south of the Stanislaus River, however, had to deliver 
 to the Oakdale warehouse, thus entailing a haul in some cases of almost 
 200 miles. Members north of the Stanislaus River, though close to 
 the Oakdale warehouse, were required to deliver to Lodi, thus increas- 
 ing the hauling radius. 
 
 In all districts pollination was well cared for by the use of inter- 
 fertile varieties and frequently by the keeping of bees during blossom- 
 ing time, some growers renting hives of bees for this specific purpose. 
 
 SUMS RETURNED TO GROWERS 
 
 Although this publication is a presentation of the cost of producing 
 almonds during a given season (1925), a comparison of costs and 
 selling price is instructive. 
 
 For purposes of such comparison, sums returned to growers for the 
 years 1920-1925, inclusive, as taken off the books of the California 
 Almond Growers Exchange are indicated for selected varieties in 
 table 7. 
 
 TABLE 7 
 
 Prices, in Cents Per Pound, Beturned to Growers by the California Almond 
 
 Growers Exchange for Selected Varieties of Almonds 
 
 1920-1925 
 
 Variety 
 
 1. Nonpareil 
 
 2. I. X. L 
 
 3. Ne Plus Ultra 
 
 4. Drake 
 
 5. Texas 
 
 6. Peerless 
 
 7. Llewellyn 
 
 8. Languedoe 
 
 1925 
 
 Cents 
 2b% 
 23 
 
 21K 
 
 143^ 
 18 
 15 
 15M 
 
 1924 
 
 Cents 
 18M 
 16M 
 WA 
 10M 
 
 9^ 
 14 
 11 
 
 1923 
 
 Cents 
 15 
 13 
 13 
 
 8 
 
 7 
 10 
 
 1922 
 
 Cents 
 20 
 18 
 16 
 11 
 9 
 11 
 
 1921 
 
 Cents 
 18 
 17 
 16 
 
 1920 
 
 Cents 
 18K 
 
 Almonds are sold through other channels than the exchange, but 
 the data of such sales and prices were not available. Exchange prices 
 are standardized so that nuts of a given variety command the same 
 price irrespective of the locality. Thus, Nonpareils bring the same 
 returns, pound for pound, in Banning as they do in Oakley or in 
 Chico. 
 
BUL. 422] C osT OF PRODUCING ALMONDS IN CALIFORNIA 33 
 
 Market price is determined by the figure at which the crop can be 
 moved, and this price is affected by supply, elasticity of demand, 
 quality, shifts in consumption, competition with other crops, and 
 purchasing power of the consumer's dollar. 
 
 COSTS BY INDIVIDUAL ORCHARDS 
 
 An average cost, such as given on page — above, is made up (1) of 
 low costs resulting from some combination of (a) small outlays, (&) 
 large yields, (c) economical handling, and (d) small investments in 
 land, trees, equipment; (2) of high costs, reflecting some combination 
 of (a) excessive outlays, (&) low yields, (c) uneconomical handling, 
 and (d) large investments productive of heavy overhead charges; and 
 (3) of medium costs reflecting conditions intermediate in position 
 between the two extremes of high and low costs. This means that some 
 growers are producing at a figure below the average cost ; others are 
 producing at costs above the average ; and still others are fairly close 
 to the average. 
 
 As a means of indicating the importance of combining economy of 
 justifiable outlays with methods which make for large yields, the indi- 
 vidual records for each of the 149 orchards covered by this study are 
 given in tables 8 to 18. 
 
 A separate table is given for each district, each table showing the 
 number of acres in almonds, total yield and yield per acre for the 
 1925 season, expenditures per acre of orchard segregated into soil care, 
 tree care, harvest costs, irrigation, taxes, use of equipment, and office 
 expense, total cost per pound of nuts produced, combined cost per 
 pound for soil and tree care, and harvest cost per pound. The district 
 summary is given at the foot of each table. 
 
 It is to be noted that the yields of certain orchards are very low. 
 Though low, these records have been included because we desired to 
 show the 1925 situation as it was, including all orchards the crops of 
 which were harvested, and also to indicate the importance of the 
 relation of yield to costs. 
 
 In all these tables no charge has been included to cover manage- 
 ment, interest upon operating capital, interest upon investment in 
 orchard — land and trees — or depreciation of trees. 
 
 Sizes of trees are given in the itemized tables of details in order to 
 present an idea of the growing conditions of the locality as reflected 
 in the growth of the trees. The varieties are placed in order of 
 greatest acreage of each variety in every case where a difference 
 existed. 
 
34 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 
 
 
 pu^s JO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 oS^uaoaad 
 
 >OlOlf5iOOOOOO«n 
 
 m co 
 
 
 
 
 
 OS OS OS OS OS Oi Os Oi 
 
 OS OS 
 
 OS 
 
 
 
 
 gjTSunxojddy 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 BO0 
 
 CfltMCNOOOtMr^OCM 
 
 £N <M 
 
 CM 
 
 CM O O CM 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 P 
 
 g N ffl O OS O 
 
 V T 
 
 ■T 1 
 
 T 1 T 1 T T 1 
 
 
 
 
 ffl 
 
 00 00 
 
 OO 
 
 O OO 00 o 
 
 
 
 ^OOlOOCOlOOOOO 
 
 CO <M 
 
 CNI 
 
 CM CO 00 O 
 
 
 
 S3 <D 
 
 
 
 
 
 CM •-< ^H CNI 
 
 
 
 as 
 
 CO 
 
 Ct, ■* io ujoo 
 
 -* CO 
 
 
 O lO CO CO 
 
 
 
 CO 
 0) 
 N 
 
 
 i-H —1 
 
 
 CM -H ^H ^H 
 
 
 
 -^OOCNIOOkOCMiO^ 
 
 00 o 
 
 t*< 
 
 OO CO u~i oo 
 
 
 
 
 CBCMcNI.-1-H.-l-H^HCM 
 
 
 
 
 
 03 
 
 W 
 
 Cl lO CO o o oo 
 
 lO m 
 
 OO 
 
 «5 ■>*< l« 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ►J 
 
 
 
 
 
 -a 
 8 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 .2 
 
 CD 
 
 1 o 
 
 Ph 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 Ph" 
 
 o 
 
 fc Q Q 
 
 
 
 1 
 > 
 
 55 S5 55 Q * "I £ ~ 
 
 2-0 
 
 Ph" 
 
 Q Ph" Ph" 
 
 
 
 
 . . . & . £ _r £ 
 
 Pk ^ 
 
 S5 
 
 H „-hH-KH- 
 
 
 
 
 fL, Ph Ph .Ph ... 
 
 
 . Ph - . 
 
 
 
 
 ££££££££ 
 
 £ M* 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ ^ 55 ^ 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 3S 2 o « o 
 
 
 
 
 O jo £ 
 
 lO 
 
 .CM .0 
 
 
 »o 
 
 
 
 03 £ & 
 
 
 < 2 ^' ^ -< <! 
 
 7 °f co ^ 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 a at., 
 
 *- CO S 
 
 SuuaAipp 
 
 •co©coco»oiraoscNi 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 pui3 guiunq 
 
 ft©N^toe*co<o 
 
 cb co 
 
 
 to n e N 
 
 CO 
 
 'Sui^S8ajbjj 
 
 
 
 
 
 (UOt^BSlJJI SUI 
 
 
 
 OS 
 
 t^ t^ <— 1 CNI 
 
 
 -pnpui) 9XBD 
 
 ^N^^^COSNN 
 
 CN CO 
 
 CO 
 
 ■* H N CO 
 
 
 Qfl on 
 
 99.1^ puB JlOg 
 
 
 
 1-1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 punod 
 J9d ^soo l^oj. 
 
 ^'TtlHNlOlOUlMlO 
 
 t- O 
 
 00 
 
 OS iC OS OS 
 
 <M 
 
 
 Jh ~ 
 
 >o 
 
 w n h n 
 
 i-H CM CM ^H 
 
 lO 
 
 
 
 
 t^ -H 
 
 
 
 lO 
 
 
 9job jad ppt^ 
 
 
 CO CM 
 OS lO 
 
 CO 
 
 O ^H CM ■* 
 OS CO CO 00 
 
 OS 
 
 
 
 fflrtCOHlOOOOON 
 
 00 OS 
 
 CJ 
 
 s oo to n 
 
 "* 
 
 
 
 CO C^ OS CO »— I OS i— llC 
 
 IC «*< 
 
 CM 
 
 t— OS OS OS 
 
 
 
 ^soo pnoj, 
 
 
 
 
 UJ * Ol N 
 
 
 
 OOOOCOHMNOON 
 
 
 
 CM OS CO r-l 
 
 OS 
 
 
 
 ^ H rt 
 
 
 
 1-1 "^ 
 
 «^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 9SU9dX9 901JJO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,_; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 43 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 est 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^U9UI 
 
 co 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 : O 
 
 
 S 
 
 -dmb9 jo 9S£[ 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 I °° 
 
 o 
 
 
 ©OOOOCNIOIOO 
 ©i-hioOCOOOO© 
 
 CO CM 
 
 CJ 
 
 O -h O t^ 
 O 00 CM ^H 
 
 ■* 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 S9X13J, 
 
 NMOOOONOO 
 
 OS t-- 
 
 t^ 
 
 O •* -H OS 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1-1 ^ 
 
 
 
 OOCNOOCOt^OO'* 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 oo 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 0) 
 
 uoi^bSijjj 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 «^ 
 
 to 
 
 Suu9Aqgp 
 
 COtOOOmHOONN 
 
 m oo 
 
 OS 
 
 t^ CO ^H O 
 
 CM 
 
 o 
 
 puB Su]|pq 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'SUI?S9AJBJJ 
 
 MMMiONTllH* 
 
 CO CO 
 
 CM 
 
 "O IN H to 
 
 £2 
 
 
 icoiorot^ooOTti 
 
 ■«* «H 
 
 lO 
 
 
 
 
 
 CMOt^COCMlOOOi-i 
 
 CO CM 
 
 OS 
 
 t|I IN OO h 
 
 CM 
 
 
 9JB0 99JJ, 
 
 inilJNOOOCNOllO 
 
 CO CO 
 
 CM 
 
 OS 00 OO 00 
 
 _; 
 
 
 
 
 ""' 
 
 ' H 
 
 
 s» 
 
 
 lOOOlOCONniOM 
 
 CO «3 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 NrtlOMOJOOINW 
 
 —l CO 
 
 r- -h o co 
 
 
 
 9XB0 pOg 
 
 OMNOOMOMXI 
 
 CO »o 
 
 «5 
 
 CM CM ^ OS 
 
 »o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO CO H H 
 
 c* 
 
 
 
 W-itlW*®ONN 
 
 OS o 
 
 rH 
 
 OO t^ -H -^ 
 
 -*l 
 
 
 
 .OMi*HOl^01!0 
 
 
 
 
 
 epuoui 
 
 IB JO PI9IA" IB-JOX 
 
 10 ■*. 1 ffi . ■*. °. °l N . ". 
 
 Jj c<f «o *"- e<T co co cm ~h 
 
 CO_ lO 
 Os" CO 
 
 lO 
 
 q ^ n h 
 
 CM_ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 spuouiiB 
 
 O'-iO'OOCOOOt^- 
 
 O CM 
 
 o 
 
 
 CM 
 
 Ul 
 
 sgjoB jo J9qum^[ 
 
 
 * H rt 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 
 v% 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ CD <U 
 
 
 o-° 
 
 
 
 
 
 co +s M 
 
 
 
 Hwn^ifliONa 
 
 OS o 
 
 
 
 -2 M fe ~ 
 
 
 Qj « 
 
 
 1-1 
 
 •- 1 
 
 
 
 «G 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O CJ > 
 
 43 M OJ 
 
 r5 o -r> «h 
 
Bul, 4: 
 
 COST OF PRODUCING ALMONDS IN CALIFORNIA 
 
 35 
 
 
 pu^s JO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 8§'B^U90J8d 
 
 O 113 O 113 OS 
 
 OO to IO CO OO U) to 
 
 
 
 a^Bunxoaddy 
 
 * H 
 
 
 
 
 
 g O CM <N CM IN 
 
 CM O O O O O 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 Q 
 PQ 
 
 " 00 O O O O 
 
 O0 00 OS 00 O0 00 00 
 
 
 
 >> 
 
 ►5 
 
 
 
 
 "C 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'c? 0; 
 
 
 M N U5 N N 
 
 CM -«f H5 -*l Tt< U5 ^f 
 
 
 to *"" ' "" 
 
 1 1 1 1 1 1 
 <M •*! CM CM Tt< CM 
 
 
 "o 
 
 03 
 
 0) 
 
 «2 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 e «5 « io u) 
 
 ^ IO to IO to to tO 
 
 
 c3 
 T3 
 
 cS 
 
 W 
 
 £ 
 
 IN IO N K! ■* ■* 
 
 
 T3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ca 
 
 
 
 
 
 J3 
 
 
 
 § 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 ^H ^ 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 p q 2- * 7- h 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 Q £ p H £ 
 . Pl, Ph .1-1 - . 
 
 
 
 
 H £ Q fc hH" 
 
 H^ZQhPP 
 
 
 
 
 £ £ £ £ £ 
 
 £ £ £ h £ £ H 
 
 
 *0 (o^ 
 
 03 £ 5a 
 
 t-~ 
 
 co 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 c!> ^ < 
 
 "^ OS 
 
 **~ - ~ ri ~ 
 
 to 
 
 CO 
 
 
 "3 Si fl 
 
 SuiJSAipp 
 
 ^ oi ■* r^ i-h ■* 
 
 N 113 N 115 N ^ to 
 
 CO 
 
 pura Suiqnq 
 
 ^ ifl 1C * CO N 
 
 tO N ■* 115 ifl O ^ 
 
 115 
 
 o £ a 
 
 act, 
 
 'Sui^saAxejj 
 
 ■H 1-1 i-H 
 
 
 9JT30 
 
 ^ CN CN M O! t(( 
 
 CO CM IO to i— 1 to tO 
 
 ■* 
 
 a g co 
 
 aaj^ puB pog 
 
 o2rt rt 2S 
 
 CO to N to CD ■* IO 
 ^f Tt< (M 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 
 
 gaS 
 
 punod 
 
 ■ » <D N U5 CO 
 
 CO 0O O tO to 113 H 
 
 oo 
 
 jad ^soo p^o^ 
 
 ^ 00 O N O CI 
 
 V-> ,_, rt CM CO 
 
 O) 113 •* to CO Ol N 
 tO H H to H CO H 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 • rt rt O) (N lO 
 
 IN Ol OO N O) CO 113 
 
 CM 
 
 
 9ioi3 J9d piaijt 
 
 2 to OS oo io t~- 
 
 (O 113 rt 1(3 CO 00 OS 
 H IN ^H CM 
 
 to 
 
 CN 
 
 
 
 to IN 00 •<}< O 
 
 ■* it to lO lO 
 
 
 
 
 
 IN H (O N Ol CO N 
 
 CO 
 
 
 isoo ib^ox 
 
 OS t^ tO i-H OS 
 
 M «3 oq ■* 00 i* ■* 
 
 to 
 
 
 CM CO to lO CM 
 
 •* IN CO CO H CO CO 
 
 SI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O : : : Os 
 
 CM 
 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 rQ 
 
 9SU9dX9 99UJ0 
 
 e» 1 1 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 o 
 
 G 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■* CM "5 ■* O 
 
 IN 
 
 t^ 
 
 OS 
 
 r-l 
 
 00 
 
 (h 
 
 ^uaui 
 
 ■* O ■* H CO 
 
 
 
 *"" 
 
 1-1 
 
 
 OJ 
 
 a 
 
 -dinba jo asfi 
 
 IN CO t-- 115 IN 
 
 CO 
 
 co 
 
 
 CO 
 
 IN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H N CN to t* 
 
 ■* ■* oo •* h a oo 
 
 
 
 S9XBJ, 
 
 H CM H CO CM 
 
 
 
 
 6» 
 
 
 »& 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 3UU9AlJ9p 
 
 if) to OO N * 
 
 i< co a co io 
 
 N N N N 113 Oi 113 
 O OS O O CM i-H a> 
 
 OO 
 
 OS 
 
 g 
 
 puB 'Suiqnq 
 
 O! O H IO UJ 
 
 
 
 o 
 V 
 
 'Sui^saAJBjj 
 
 0» ,_, .+• ,-H 
 
 1-1 ^ ^ 
 
 o» 
 
 
 •>*< CM O 00 ■<*< 
 
 rt as oo cm o r^ o 
 
 IC N N ■* rt rj< O 
 
 t^ 
 
 
 
 to O rt to N 
 
 CO 
 
 
 9jbo 99.IJ, 
 
 to i~- us CO r— 
 
 
 
 
 
 «s> ^h 
 
 
 6% 
 
 
 l« IM W 00 » 
 
 i— l OS 00 CM CM "5 00 
 
 
 
 
 N << O to O 
 
 CO O) T|l 00 * h CO 
 
 IO 
 
 
 aj^o pog 
 
 os co o co i-i 
 
 CO tO t*< ^H tO O CO 
 
 ^H 
 
 
 
 m _, ,_, rH ,H 
 
 -' ^ ^ ^ rt 
 
 «« 
 
 
 
 >* N U3 to N 
 
 O CO IN CO N CO O 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 O CO m h CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 „; O CN CN ■* h 
 
 O CM 00 IO OS 00 113 
 
 
 spuoui 
 
 [B JO PJ91A- p^OJ, 
 
 •O to tN IN ID ■* 
 ►^ i-H tO 
 
 H ^1 O iH CO 115 
 
 O 
 CO 
 
 
 SpUOUl p3 
 
 ■o 
 
 113 
 
 115 00 
 
 113 
 0O 
 
 u ! 
 
 sajOB jo jaquin^ 
 
 O CM O i—i U5 
 O h N N ifl 
 
 t"- t^ 115 O O OS O 
 •-I CM -<*l CO IO tO 
 
 as 
 
 
 "O a) 
 
 
 
 '^'S I 
 
 
 fc!-Q 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 g 
 
 H N CO ■* "15 
 
 tO t^ 00 OS O —1 CM 
 
 
 
 II 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 22 
 
 F^ — 'O 
 
 fl o ° 
 
 ^ J CO 
 
 ■- cs C3 
 
 «« 
 
 S o o 
 
 cu a a 
 
 ^q a a 
 
 H <{ «< 
 
36 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 
 
 
 puu;s JO 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 aS^uaoaad 
 
 00 IO 
 
 00 cn 
 
 »o 
 
 Cn 
 
 ess a 
 
 O o o 
 en en en 
 
 O 
 cn 
 
 
 a^VBunxoiddy | 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 W» 
 
 So o 
 
 O 
 
 O CT 
 
 O CN 
 
 CM 
 
 
 o 
 
 Q 
 
 "« "~ 
 
 * T-l 
 
 ■""' 
 
 "T 1 
 
 ^H 00 ^H 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 >> 
 
 pq 
 
 e 
 
 
 
 OS 
 
 CO 
 
 O 
 
 
 •Is 
 
 
 ,o "5 OO 
 
 00 
 
 IO C£ 
 
 CO CO o 
 
 oo 
 
 
 03 CD 
 
 
 
 
 
 ~H .-H CM 
 
 
 
 as 
 
 OQ 
 
 <» 1 1 
 
 t(N »0 
 
 <i 
 
 ■^1 T| 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 cn 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ o oo 
 
 oo 
 
 CO CC 
 
 00 ■* O 
 
 "0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ i-H CM 
 
 
 s 
 
 CO 
 
 W 
 
 ^ t 
 
 1 CO 
 
 io 
 
 ■^ -^ 
 
 CO CM 
 
 
 03 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 73 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 X 
 
 - s s 
 
 
 u 
 
 o 
 u 
 
 O 
 
 * 
 03 
 
 m 
 Q 
 
 a p; 
 
 Ph 
 
 H 
 
 Phi 
 
 X* 
 CO 
 
 Ph a 
 
 i^P- 
 ^ 5? ^ 
 
 .4^3 EH 
 
 PhH§^. 
 
 H 
 
 Ph* 
 
 
 
 E- 
 
 I_^ 
 
 Q 
 
 M 1- 
 
 ■ -r m Q 
 
 ^ 
 
 a: <" b 
 
 c 
 c 
 
 c 
 (- 
 
 03 . . 03 . , — i M i>l ,. 
 
 o> 03 «- ! • o r OT • 03 
 
 >> g >>«! <j 2 « g 
 
 o 
 co 
 
 O "- 
 
 CO cr 
 
 o 
 
 •T 1 en o 
 o en ^ M 
 7 co r J J" O 
 4, co ^ <^ <J CM 
 CM ^ co rt |« 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 g £ 2 S ^"o §| 
 
 
 
 en <M 
 
 IO 
 
 cn 
 
 "o~£c? 
 
 SuU8Atpp 
 
 CO * 
 
 oo 
 
 . 
 
 CM CC 
 
 t-~ »o •>*< 
 
 CO 
 
 
 puB Suipnq 
 
 3 * 
 
 ^H 
 
 -*< 
 
 ■^ Tf 
 
 CO CS IO 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 'Sut^saAjBfj 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (uoi^bSuji 2ui 
 
 od cr 
 
 -H 
 
 ■* 
 
 co ir. 
 
 N 0O N 
 
 00 
 
 ^ m S 
 
 -p'npui) aarao 
 
 6 - 
 
 co 
 
 
 CO 1- 
 
 CO t^~ Ttl 
 
 co 
 
 ft|» 
 
 aaj; pUB JlOg 
 
 
 
 
 
 " H 
 
 « Si 
 
 S-9 8 
 
 punod 
 
 ■ oc 
 
 o 
 
 - 
 
 ■^< cr 
 
 as ih m 
 
 IO 
 
 jad ^soo r&jox 
 
 S* 
 
 ■* 
 
 23 
 
 ^h oc 
 
 C^ r- 
 
 00 O0 CM 
 CM CN »-H 
 
 ■«*< 
 
 
 
 Co' C 
 
 CN 
 
 03 
 
 C<l C 
 
 ■>* -H CO 
 
 »o 
 
 
 ajoi3 jad ppi^ 
 
 
 oo 
 
 IO 
 
 >o 
 
 © CC 
 "0 CM 
 
 CO CO "5 
 
 H H N 
 
 CN 
 
 
 
 oc 
 
 os 
 
 CO 
 
 rH CC 
 
 
 Tf< 
 
 
 
 cr 
 
 >o 
 
 CO 
 
 OO c 
 
 to » N 
 
 !>. 
 
 
 ^soo i«y>j, 
 
 
 oo 
 
 CO 
 
 t^ CN 
 
 00 CO .-i 
 
 co co co 
 
 <M 
 
 "0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CC 
 
 
 f^ 
 
 ^H 
 
 CN : co 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 cc 
 
 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 J3 
 O 
 
 asuadxa aoujo 
 
 d 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 ^uaui 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 CO iC 
 
 00 CC 
 
 00 CO o 
 co •* t~- 
 
 «0 
 
 
 
 c3 
 
 -dmba jo asj^ 
 
 
 d 
 
 >o 
 
 ■^J CC 
 
 IC »o CO 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 6»& 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C\ 
 
 CN 
 
 CO 
 
 o oc 
 
 CO CM CN 
 
 _, 
 
 a> 
 
 
 i^ 
 
 00 
 
 oo 
 
 as oc 
 
 O co co 
 
 CS1 
 
 ft 
 
 saxBx 
 
 CS 
 
 1-H 
 
 ^ 
 
 rt ,-H 
 
 CN CN CN 
 
 ^i 
 
 0) 
 
 o 
 
 03 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 co 
 
 co 
 
 oo 
 
 en oo 
 
 
 
 
 
 co 
 
 o 
 
 co 
 
 t^ CN 
 
 
 <u 
 
 UOl^BglJJJ 
 
 
 ,_; 
 
 ob 
 
 r- 
 
 co d 
 
 
 ft 
 
 
 
 >* 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 (0 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 S3 
 
 
 
 
 
 SuuaAqap 
 
 CC 
 
 OO 
 
 ■* 
 
 O CS 
 
 CM ^H -H 
 
 o m to 
 
 cn 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 puB Suqpiq 
 
 
 d 
 
 oo 
 
 ^H C 
 
 en oo co 
 
 cn 
 
 'Sui^saAjujj 
 
 & 
 
 
 rt 
 
 CM 
 
 1-1 
 
 
 
 
 
 OS 
 
 c^i oo 
 
 en t^ «o 
 
 >o 
 
 
 
 
 
 CT2 
 
 CM i-H 
 
 to IO IO 
 
 >o 
 
 
 ajBo aaaj. 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 CO CM 
 
 CM CO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 cc 
 
 00 
 
 »o 
 
 t^ 00 
 
 O O t^ 
 
 cn 
 
 
 
 cc 
 
 oo 
 
 
 O CO 
 
 CO N CO 
 
 
 
 aiBo pog 
 
 1C 
 
 t— 
 
 co 
 
 «5 ■>* 
 
 >* N OO 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 es 
 
 
 1-1 
 
 CM CN 
 
 
 CN 
 
 
 
 oc 
 
 IO 
 
 ,_, 
 
 r~ t^ 
 
 CO O CN 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 . cc 
 
 CO 
 
 
 ^ to 
 
 tO N N 
 
 
 spuoui 
 
 p3 jo ppiA i«}Ox 
 
 2 o^ 
 5- 
 
 oo" 
 
 io" 
 
 CM 
 
 iO o 
 
 o O ■* 
 co en co 
 
 00 
 
 
 SpUOUl p3 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 IO 
 
 
 UI 
 
 53J0B jo jaqum^ 
 
 if. 
 
 IO 
 
 CO 
 HO 
 
 en cn 
 
 o en cn 
 cn co en 
 
 oo 
 
 
 -d S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 CM 
 
 CO 
 
 -^c io 
 
 tO N 0O 
 
 cn 
 
 
 il 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Bul, 422] 
 
 COST OF PRODUCING ALMONDS IN CALIFORNIA 
 
 37 
 
 
 pu^s JO 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 aS^nsojad 
 
 § g § 
 
 C3i OS 
 
 
 
 a^Bunxoiddy 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 «» 
 
 05 e> 
 
 » CM O 
 
 00 iC CM 
 
 
 
 *3 
 
 P 
 
 ■< - 
 
 H 1-H ^H 
 
 ^h y 
 
 
 
 >> 
 
 pq 
 
 £ 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 _o w 
 
 
 ^ cm r^ cm 
 
 lO lO CO 
 
 . 
 
 
 'c? 03 
 
 
 
 ^H CM -H 
 
 
 
 g£ 
 
 co 
 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 cS 
 
 CO 
 
 
 « o >c >o 
 
 1(1 U5 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 «3 CM i-H 1-C 
 
 i-l CM CM 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 W 
 
 Et, m cm 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 ^ i ; ^ 
 
 
 a 
 
 6 
 
 CO 
 
 
 ^ 1 2 fc 
 
 
 
 .2 
 CP 
 
 
 ^;^ p 
 pa ^ 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 fc Q Q 
 
 
 
 
 P H fc 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 1 CO 
 
 i ,— x c 
 
 
 
 O OQ^ 
 
 O CD 
 73 CO CP 
 
 d S >> CO ^ 
 
 *H K H 1 +J O CO 
 
 
 
 co 03 H 
 v v $, 
 
 ■ ° T-t CO ° 
 P CO 2 - 1 <M 
 
 >>s O 
 
 00 2 u 
 
 bJ) <n co © «*- . cp 
 
 t, 1 ^H C3 (h cu 
 
 ■g ^ £ O M ^ -J3 
 S 3 ^ ^ S 
 
 a ~ cm — ■" '^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 M P>> 
 
 w CP O 
 
 
 
 §UIJ8Aipp 
 
 • en rt 00 
 
 ^ CM 
 
 ^ 
 
 pire'Suipnij 
 
 ft CM CM CO 
 
 © CM 
 
 ■* 
 
 o 2 a 
 
 'Sui^s'aAi'Bjj 
 
 
 
 
 
 (uoi^bSijji §ui 
 
 o, - CJ> CD 00 
 
 CM © 
 
 © 
 
 fta^ 
 
 -p'npiii) ajBo 
 
 ?t CD M N 
 
 OS l-i 
 
 00 
 
 S-3 a 
 a c m 
 
 98J^ pUB pog 
 
 
 
 
 
 punod 
 
 CO ^ 
 
 ■* CO 
 
 © © 
 
 lO 
 
 J8d ^SOD p^oj, 
 
 C « 
 
 US © 
 
 03 t^ 
 
 lf< 
 
 
 
 ~ t- CM t~ 
 
 CO 02 
 
 o 
 
 
 8J013 JOd ppi^ 
 
 Soo i- © 
 
 J2 "** ■* w 
 
 iH © 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 © CM 
 
 © © 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 CO CM 
 
 ^H CO 
 
 © 
 
 
 jsod [^oj. 
 
 CD 
 
 uo ci 
 
 CM "O 
 
 t^ CM 
 CM t^ 
 
 co 
 
 
 
 t& 
 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 © r~- 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 CO CM 
 
 
 
 co 
 
 
 asuadxa aoijjo 
 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 «■ 
 
 r- CO 
 
 »o 00 
 
 
 o 
 
 ^usui 
 
 c- 
 
 CO •** 
 
 CM CO 
 
 © 
 
 03 
 
 -dmba jo asfi 
 
 
 ^ --H 
 
 cm r^ 
 
 lO 
 
 (h 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 u: 
 
 05 i-l 
 
 CM © 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 
 CM 
 
 00 •* 
 
 © © 
 
 
 a 
 
 saxtfj. 
 
 CM 
 
 rt co 
 
 CM i-H 
 
 CM 
 
 cp 
 
 O 
 ccj 
 
 
 
 
 
 a% 
 
 
 
 : O 
 
 
 
 ■* 
 
 
 
 
 : ia 
 
 
 ■* 
 
 00 
 
 0) 
 
 Tioi^eSuij 
 
 
 
 
 ■*! 
 
 © 
 
 a 
 
 CO 
 
 1c 
 
 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 «*» 
 
 SuuaAijap 
 
 oe 
 
 © CO 
 © r— 
 
 CM i-H 
 
 CO 
 
 O 
 
 puB Suipnq 
 
 11 
 
 © O 
 
 0O -H 
 
 CM 
 
 'Sut^s9A.rep[ 
 
 e«i 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 c» 
 
 
 Q 
 
 Oi CD 
 
 «5 CO 
 
 ■f 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 O CM 
 
 CM CO 
 
 
 
 axeo aaaj. 
 
 r^ 
 
 CO CM 
 
 if OO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 <*t 
 
 
 
 «# 
 
 
 CO 
 
 >0 CM 
 
 © t^ 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 t^ » 
 
 © Tf 
 
 
 
 axso po^ 
 
 cc 
 
 00 i-H 
 
 00 © 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 co 
 
 1— © 
 
 00 CO 
 
 i-H i— 1 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 . CM 
 
 lO to 
 
 © 
 
 spuoui 
 
 [B jo ppiA" jt^oj. 
 
 co CX) 
 
 3- 
 
 IC CO 
 
 0O if" 
 
 OO 
 
 J* 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^H 
 
 rH 
 
 
 SpUOUipB 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 t^ 
 
 UI i 
 
 3iov jo jgqtun^j 
 
 ^ 
 
 CO CM 
 CO CM 
 
 ^H © 
 
 © CO 
 
 CM 
 
 00 
 
 iO 
 
 
 -c S 
 
 
 
 
 oW 73 cp 
 
 ^ cp « 
 
 
 fcJa 
 
 
 
 
 on +i. M 
 
 
 Ofi 
 
 o 
 
 i-H CM 
 
 CO Tf 
 
 - J g ^ 
 
 
 l§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O cp > 
 H ^ C3 
 
 c3 
 
 t3 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 CO 
 
 p 
 
 03 
 cp 
 
 •^ 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 cS 
 
 cp cp 
 
 CO 
 
 43 £ 
 
 a 
 
 o o 
 
 fl 
 
 -^ T3 
 
 3 
 
 -C c3 
 
 bB <U 
 
 o 
 
 
 S a 
 
 
 — h CO 
 
 
 
 -^ CO 
 
 bfi M 
 
 
 
 coH 
 
 03 03 
 > > 
 cS 03 
 
 CP ._ 
 
 03 03 
 
 S S 
 
 >>H-1 
 
 '£ 'S 
 
 -2 
 
 o o 
 
 |4 ^C 
 
 a a 
 
 J3-CI 
 
 a a 
 
 M 
 
 < < 
 
 -»— ■*-+ 
 
 CO 
 
 
 X! 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
38 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 
 
 T3 
 
 03 
 A 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 puB^s JO 
 a-j'Buiixojddy 
 
 *C O iO o *o iC o 
 
 05 00 OS 05 OS CT> Oi 
 
 m CO O CO O CO 
 
 0)0)03 0)00 01 
 
 O 
 OD 
 
 
 >> 
 
 _o 
 
 "o 
 
 CO 
 
 o> 
 
 N 
 
 02 
 
 UK 
 
 P 
 
 pq 
 
 Inches 
 
 10-12 
 
 12 
 
 10-12 
 
 12 
 
 10-12 
 
 12 
 
 4-6 
 
 6-8 
 
 O : O O O t- 
 
 CO : O0 CO oo 
 
 
 CG 
 
 ^,-^OOOUOOOCMOO 
 
 »TH(NrH(N^rHrHrH 
 
 18 
 12-18 
 
 14-15 
 40 
 
 12-14 
 18 
 
 
 S 
 
 ^tOOCMCMOOCMCMOO 
 fcl 
 
 16 
 15-20 
 
 16-18 
 
 25-30 
 
 12-16 
 
 14 
 
 
 CO 
 
 .2 
 
 I, NP, D, N, T 
 
 I, N, P 
 
 I, N, NP, D, G 
 
 D, NP, I, G, N, T 
 
 T, N, D 
 
 N, T, D, P, I 
 
 T, N, D, G, P 
 
 3 
 
 © £ Pm 
 
 H - Q Q H P" Q 
 m* fc H fc H fc fc 
 
 
 03 « is 
 
 cu « £ 
 
 18 
 
 40 
 
 16 
 12-16 
 
 18 
 
 14 
 12 A., 5 
 41 A., 20 
 
 >n 
 
 CM 
 
 ^lO O H O N H H 
 
 
 3^ ° 
 
 o £ a 
 1-3 a 
 
 m § « 
 
 0-33 
 
 SuiJ3AIJ9p 
 
 pu'B Suqpiq 
 'Sui^saAxejj 
 
 •OONOJNU51DOO 
 
 rt^HOCMio-^T-H-^i 
 
 CM OS CM -H >-l t^ t^ 
 
 o 
 
 CO ^ W ifl «) •* w 
 
 (uoi^Suji §UT 
 -pnpui) 9.rea 
 99J^ pu^ JlOg 
 
 Cts. 
 26.2 
 39.0 
 2.5 
 7.1 
 2.4 
 2.7 
 16 
 
 ■* H OO 00 115 IN IN 
 O CM CM CM »C CO CM 
 
 oo 
 
 punod 
 
 J9d ^SOO P3JOJL 
 
 v N X ^H 
 
 CO CO CO CO CO C^ Oi 
 
 2 
 
 O) O) N N N O) O) 
 -H -H CO 
 
 9J013 jad pjst^ 
 
 C .-OCMCOI^OCOOO 
 
 J?l003-<tic©»OCOCO 
 J2 l« IN N r|i ^ 
 
 CM m CD CO m 00 CO 
 OO CT> 00 CD CD O •<* 
 CM ^ O0 CM ■>* CO 
 
 CM 
 
 OS 
 
 CO 
 
 A 
 Q 
 
 3 
 
 03 
 t-, 
 
 <0 
 
 a 
 
 <B 
 
 (H 
 O 
 
 03 
 CD 
 
 a 
 
 CO 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 ^SOO IB^OX 
 
 $37.05 
 74.81 
 42.69 
 46.50 
 65.17 
 78.89 
 39.92 
 
 M ^ iO OO N N N 
 IN OO O) ^ IN ^1 rt 
 
 CO 
 
 io m oo cn ■* oi * 
 
 IO Tf CO CO CM CO CO 
 
 8SU9dX9 991JJO 
 
 $0.28 
 .13 
 
 .39 
 .42 
 
 1.00 
 
 .20 
 
 .67 
 .13 
 
 OS 
 
 o 
 
 ")U9UI 
 
 -dmb9 jo 9sq 
 
 $2.45 
 4.39 
 2 15 
 2.74 
 1.09 
 4.76 
 3.02 
 
 .63 
 6.51 
 
 .84 
 2.32 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 m 
 
 co 
 
 ssxbj. 
 
 o r- oo o t~- cm co 
 cm oo t— © o ir^ i-H 
 
 'Jl N tJI tJI o CD IN 
 
 •>*i t-- CM CD O O "-< 
 
 OS i-H CM IO CO T)H 00 
 
 •n 
 
 CO 
 CO 
 
 CO T)H CO CO CM CD CM 
 
 uoi^Sujj 
 
 O O rh O O m m 
 O OO CO ■* -^ CM CM 
 
 CO CO CO in CD CD CD 
 
 O O O ^ ^ 
 CO CM O ^H CM 
 
 » CO CO N CO 
 
 o 
 m 
 
 CM 
 
 o 
 m 
 
 SuiJ9AlJ9p 
 
 puBSui^nq 
 'Sui;s9ajbh 
 
 $10.99 
 9.87 
 15.57 
 15.35 
 33.57 
 21.57 
 21.23 
 
 O * N CO CO N o 
 ■* CN W C3 M N O) 
 
 CO 
 00 
 
 •n 
 
 r^ •<*< co co co o> cm 
 
 H CM CM -H _l ^H 
 
 9JB0 99JJ, 
 
 M NCO O N <l N 
 CO O Oi in CO IO Oi 
 
 1(3 CO CO Tt< CM CM 
 
 e© i-i cm 
 
 o o o cm oo co m 
 o m o o r~- co co 
 
 ^1 M ^ H rt tN H 
 
 CO 
 
 9JB0 J lOg 
 
 $7.78 
 17.81 
 12.82 
 15 51 
 13.37 
 16.66 
 3.93 
 
 25.24 
 7.07 
 
 20.85 
 6.36 
 8.29 
 
 10.80 
 6.42 
 
 CO 
 OS 
 
 epuoui 
 
 IB JO PI9IA" JBtJOJ, 
 
 Lbs. 
 
 905 
 
 832 
 
 20,340 
 
 8,018 
 
 8,995 
 
 18,626 
 
 26,298 
 
 2,816 
 9,909 
 
 12,397 
 6,573 
 2,907 
 6,116 
 
 27,702 
 
 CM 
 
 m 
 
 UI 
 
 SpUOUip3 
 
 39J01B jo jgqum^j; 
 
 oo 
 co o> r-- o cm co o 
 
 ^h M CC rt rt CO 
 
 o o ■"*< m m m o 
 
 rt N H IN T* H 00 
 
 oo 
 oo 
 
 00 
 CO 
 
 
 13 fe 
 
 W 3 
 
 H tN « ^ W IO N 
 
 00 O) O h N CO f 
 
 Totals & 
 
 weighted 
 
 averages 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 oo 17 
 
 c a> cp 
 
 -C 
 
 s 
 
 
 a 
 
 T3 
 
 •• 
 
 09 
 
 j 
 
 O 
 
 x 
 
 O 
 
 1— i 
 
 >, 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -ji 
 
 -c 
 
 3 
 
 
 ID 
 
 
 T3 
 
 
 
 
 
 -o 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 03 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 CD 
 
 44 
 
 O 
 
 
 Bt 
 
 
 
 
 
 T3 
 
 p 
 
 d 
 
 
 crt 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 T1 
 
 - 
 
 d 
 
 _r S 
 
 -d 
 
 "o 
 
 2P £ 
 
 a) 
 
 A « 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 is 03 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 > > 
 
 co 
 
 
 cS 03 
 
 •O 
 
 L 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <v 
 
 ^ 
 
 a a 
 
 rt 
 
 >i 
 
 x X 
 
 
 44 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 a a 
 
 A 
 
 a a 
 
 H 
 
 < < 
 
 525 
 
 * 
 
 -t— ++ 
 
Bul. 422] 
 
 COST OF 1 PRODUCING ALMONDS IN CALIFORNIA 
 
 39 
 
 1 
 
 pu«- T s JO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 92^u90J9d 
 
 ©cor^ooo«ooo>o oo»o 
 
 
 
 a^uiTxojddy 
 
 
 *" 
 
 
 *o 
 
 Q 
 
 SocMOOCNCNOCMOcMcMcM© 
 
 
 ■S77 H "7777" 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 
 >> 
 
 PQ 
 
 ;;00O O © OO OO 00 
 
 
 
 s. 
 11 
 
 !-l *"' rtH 
 
 rt 
 
 
 
 ,^-<*i©OOOOIOCM»0©>OOOOOCO-hh 
 
 
 
 02 
 
 V 1 1 1 1 
 
 ■* (M IN 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 03 
 CD 
 N 
 
 33 
 
 
 
 rt ^ rt 
 
 
 
 ^■«tlTt<COOOCOOOCO©CO©©OOcO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s3 
 
 T3 
 
 W 
 
 Et, cm oo in lOioom^toi'iN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ts 
 
 
 bi : 
 
 
 s3 
 
 
 C in 
 
 
 J3 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 03 
 
 03 
 
 NP, T, I, D, N 
 N, T, D 
 N, NP, T, D 
 N, NP, D, P, I 
 T, D, N 
 I, N, T 
 I, N, T, D 
 D, I 
 
 T, N, NP You 
 Old 
 N, T, I, NP 
 J, NP, N, D, T 
 N, D, G, T, NP 
 
 
 
 Id 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 £ £ 
 
 
 
 O (C CO 
 
 ■* ^ o 
 
 
 
 03 03 H 
 03 <D S 
 
 OCO' H ^ Hrt ' _l t^^ H -- t-H rH 
 
 
 
 << 
 
 
 
 
 JC ht. 
 
 
 o g ft 
 a a >-, 
 haS 
 
 «T3 ft 
 
 ft g 03 
 
 SuuaAijap 
 
 ^•CDCDN^NCDrtt-Oi CO CM rH 
 
 r^ 
 
 puB Suiqnq 
 
 rtN^^ONM^INlO -* lO CO 
 
 
 'Sui^S8ajbjj 
 
 
 
 
 (uoi^Suji Sui 
 
 •eot^o«oo«C'-it>-t- 
 
 rH o OS 
 
 t- 
 
 -pnpui) 9XB9 
 
 ^IOtJ<-^^COCOC«3CNI^ 
 
 
 •<*< 
 
 99J T pUB JLOg 
 
 1-1 
 
 
 punod 
 jad ^soo p3 T oj, 
 
 ,;<DNT»ON01H^a 
 
 (N Ol Cl 
 
 0O 
 
 NHCONnOlHONCO l^ .— I CO 
 
 Oi 
 
 
 
 ,; Ifl O U5 r- 1 rH CM i— 1 © CC 
 
 
 
 
 gjo'B jad PJ9JA 
 
 
 CO CM lO 
 T-l i-l O0 
 
 co 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 r~>ocot---Hior^iocc 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 
 
 ^eCONOllNtD'llr- 
 
 OO Cft IN 
 
 t- 
 
 
 ^soo p^oj. 
 
 ONOlNMlOOOtOif 
 O0T)lN©CDrtO00O« 
 
 M> ^H 
 
 co oi ai 
 
 00 CO "O 
 
 CM 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o i>- »o 
 
 U-J 
 
 
 
 
 O : «3 U3 
 
 
 
 ONrt 
 
 t^ 
 
 
 9SU9dX9 901JJO 
 
 
 CO : ra 15 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 J3 
 
 
 c* 
 
 
 
 
 
 *• 
 
 
 •"tfl © CO : m » ID oo a 
 
 Cft CO Oi 
 
 o> 
 
 ■JU9UI 
 
 N N N : U5 O) 11 00 c 
 
 «-i CM •* 
 
 o 
 
 C 
 S3 
 
 -dmbg jo 9sf) 
 
 O K) Tf : « W CO N ^ 
 
 S% T-l I- 
 
 CM CO CO 
 
 
 
 
 CO CO lO 
 
 
 03 
 ft 
 
 
 ooio-rf-H^ocoi^-ior^ 
 
 © © «5 
 
 
 sgx'Bx 
 
 
 CM CM CM 
 
 CO 
 
 a 
 
 
 «# rH 
 
 
 as 
 
 
 ©©»o-*ti©»oco©cc 
 
 rn lO -«f 
 
 ■>*< 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 uoi^Sujj 
 
 OmON^N'flOlIN 
 
 CO CO CO 
 
 oi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 CO 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 
 G% 
 
 
 
 SUU9AI]9p 
 
 MrtHc<3NWT(lOOM 
 
 0O U3 O) 
 
 io ■* co 
 
 CM 
 
 puB Suqjnq 
 
 ©coacof^-^cOrHu-j 
 
 en co co 
 
 co 
 
 'SUI^S9AJ'BJ[ 
 
 NrttOnHMMMIN 
 
 
 
 
 <— !0-*cMI^<00500t 
 
 CO O 00 
 
 119 
 
 
 
 co»o©a.>cococirHr>. 
 
 t» O CO 
 
 CM 
 
 
 9XB0 99JX 
 
 iDcoiOHioiomoos 
 
 CO © !>• 
 
 OJ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO iH U5 
 
 
 
 
 f~00©rHHiOCM©CM 
 
 O CO CO 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 H»HN*0)H^M 
 
 OHO 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 e» 
 
 
 4© 
 
 
 
 ©OSlOCOCOOOiOcN© 
 
 f- CO Tt< 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 spuoui 
 
 [B JO ppiA JBJOJ, 
 
 cc »0 lO ■* CM_ CM CO CO !>•__ O- 
 
 S ^" V © OO w" OO N H t(( 
 
 CO CO OO 
 rH oT IC 
 
 oo 
 
 CO" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1—1 
 
 
 
 SpUOUip3 
 
 rHCO©»«©a5©©rH 
 
 O "5 "J 
 
 CM 
 
 UI f 
 
 jgjDB jo jgqum^ 
 
 N H 1-1 M <N CM -H tH 
 
 h N CO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 T3fe 
 
 
 
 =3-g S 
 
 
 H-S 
 
 
 
 to -2 M 
 
 
 gTj 
 
 
 
 ■^ J5 03 m 
 
 
 43 § 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •ih .5? 03 '"' 
 
 O OJ > 
 
 5 Q 
 
 S3 - 
 
 73 S3 5 £ 
 3 A O © 
 
 O .2 03 « 
 
 O 03 (U CP 
 
 Pm H <j <j 
 
40 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 
 
 pu^s JO 
 a^unxoaddy 
 
 
 O Oi OS 03 O} 00 
 
 CM © 00 CM 
 
 CM CM CM CM © © -<*l 
 © © © OS © 
 
 <M rt 
 
 CM CM CM © CO 
 
 * * "O * 
 
 <N *-< t-i r-l CM CM 
 •>*< <M in 00 -<*< 
 
 CO co CO >C 
 
 co in Tf< ■>* 
 
 Ph 
 
 Ph* 
 
 H 
 Ph" 
 P 
 
 Ph* 
 
 pP 
 
 Ph : 
 
 Ph W 
 
 *5 p; 
 
 Ph_ q Q ^ Q £ fc 
 
 P* p^ Ph* Q Ph* ^ ^ 
 
 £ £ £ Ph* m" P H 
 
 m' £ m fc fc H 5 
 
 Ss 
 
 CO o 
 
 i4 
 
 r <*< - <j <1 
 
 6 .8 
 
 8 1 
 
 3-2 3 
 3^ ° 
 
 o £ a 
 a a J* 
 
 0^3 
 
 SuuaAijgp 
 put? 'Suipnq 
 
 'SUI^SSAI'BJJ 
 
 co co co 
 
 N lO CO 
 
 t- t^ © 
 
 r-l CO M 
 
 lO CO CT5 CO CM in m 
 
 (UOl^SUJI Sui 
 
 p'npui) axed 
 aaj^ puB pog 
 
 O co -h m co 
 
 N M d « H 
 
 CM CM 
 
 O0 O0 m O OO CO !>. 
 
 co to >* n n n in 
 
 punod 
 jad ^soo ps^o ,£ 
 
 N <D o n to 
 
 CO CM 
 CM m 
 
 m O i-H -^ ^H CM 
 CM ^H CO CO 00 OJ 
 
 ajoB jad piaiA 
 
 M <* CB !D M i-h 
 >* to to H< N m 
 CO m CO CO CO 
 
 -cH -h oo co co r- 
 cm -^ t*< t^ r^ o 
 
 lO CM »-l CO in CO 
 
 ^SOD Jl^OJ, 
 
 CO <— i CO i— l lO 
 
 » •* tO N S 
 H U5 ^ H m 
 
 asuadxa aoqjo 
 
 -dmba jo a$[\ 
 
 
 « 
 
 — 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i- 
 
 
 O 
 
 00 m 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 o m 
 
 o m 
 
 : m 
 
 
 ■* 
 
 oa 
 
 
 CO- 
 
 m c 
 
 -h r— 
 
 
 CM CM 
 
 IQ 
 
 T-I 
 
 CO 
 
 ON 
 
 -H CN 
 
 CM lO 
 
 : |>- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 sax'BjL 
 
 CM 33 CO CO CO 
 N tO N N N 
 
 CM CM CM CM CM 
 
 Ol CB O) IN ffl 115 OS CO 
 
 CMCM CMCMCMCOCMCM 
 
 uoi^Sujj 
 
 SU!J8Aipp 
 
 pins'Sinqriq 
 'Sut^sbAjBH 
 
 CM t^ 
 
 00 CT> 
 
 CM CM 
 
 ih 00 
 CO CO oo 
 
 CO CM 
 
 OO Oi 
 
 1— I t^- 
 
 CO TjH OS OS CO CO 
 
 o ai co cn i •**< cb 
 
 31130 88.1 J, 
 
 CO ■* 1^ -^ 
 
 th in -h CM 
 
 t^ CO to CM 
 
 to o ■* « 
 
 ' CO N 15 
 
 8J130 JIOg 
 
 m CM CO CM © 
 CM -cH 03 CM CM 
 
 Tf K5 U5 CO 
 N M N OO 
 
 CO CO CD OO in 
 
 SpiIOUipS JO PJ3TA" pJ^OJ, 
 
 cm i— i co io co oo t*- 
 
 co t-i co m co co r— 
 
 •* oo » ■* to q q 
 
 era ■** cm" i-^ OO CO tM 
 
 epuouipe 
 ui S9J0B jo jaquin^ 
 
 co co ooooomocM 
 
 i— I .-H i— I CM CM CM >— I >— l CM 
 
 
 co -*t< m co t^ 
 
 S§ 
 
Bui* 422] 
 
 COST OF PRODUCING ALMONDS IN CALIFORNIA 
 
 41 
 
 
 pu^s JO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 9§13}U90J9d 
 
 OaiOOOcOCOlOt^cOlOOOOOt^OO 
 
 
 
 g^uiixoaddy 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^CMC»CMCM©00©©OOOCM<NlcNI 
 
 
 
 *S 
 
 P 
 
 ■« T 7 T 7 1 t " H 7 T 7 
 
 ^ O © © CO 00 ooo 
 
 
 
 >> 
 
 PQ 
 
 KtH -i *H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 03 0) 
 
 03 
 
 © 
 
 cc 
 
 ~ .— 1 T-l .— < i— (,-1.— lr-<>-(i-<.— l.-lT-l.-ttM'-H 
 
 
 
 T*<COCOlOcOO»i5CO<OcOcOOO>CiOO© 
 
 
 oj 
 "9 
 
 Kj 
 
 w 
 
 «7T77 H 777TT'i T 7T 7 
 
 ^ CM "*l -<*l <M ■*'(lU3-*T(lll5O'>tl»00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o3 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 p 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 * Oh" H 
 
 
 
 .2 
 
 fc hh H P P P & H H £ 
 
 
 
 03 
 
 J * £ * fc" £ fc H £ ^ J £ £ - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 QZZZZZZZZZ'zz,*-;*^ 
 
 
 O 03 "g 
 
 -& CM CM 
 
 
 
 03 S 03 
 
 
 
 
 
 __^ Hrt __ rtoi _ ( _^ H ,_,, ?0rHr _ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Suu3Ai|ap 
 
 
 
 pire Suijjnq 
 
 gmiONONNOO^t-MHtDWNlO 
 
 »c 
 
 'SUI^S9AJ'BJJ 
 
 
 9XB0 
 
 ^NOO^*0)MI»lO00NM»N» 
 
 CO 
 
 £-3 a 
 a c « 
 
 99J^ pUB ]IOg 
 
 glBNHtOO^'tOlONOMW CM 
 
 ■* 
 
 
 
 
 
 punod 
 
 ^•CO^SOCOCOlOlOCDOOCOt^OSCOOiCO 
 
 05 
 
 J9d ^SOO J^JOJ, 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 •ooi^-iof^r^i-^asr^ioascocMioor-^ 
 
 
 
 9J013 J9d ppiA 
 
 2 N IN !D _ ^h _ _ lO CO © CO 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 COt~»OCMCOlO>OCOa}COr>-CO©CDCM 
 
 US 
 
 
 %SO0 p^OJ, 
 
 COCOCOCNli-l>-H-'*<<N(NICMCM»OCO-*llO 
 
 co 
 
 
 
 «/» 
 
 s# 
 
 
 Tt< 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,_, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 9SU9dX9 soyjo 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 «© 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 &* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 N O Ol 
 
 
 b 
 
 1U9UI 
 
 o 
 
 
 t- to 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 m »H 
 
 o 
 
 © 
 a 
 
 0) 
 
 -dmb9 jo 9s(i 
 
 6d> 
 
 
 ^~ 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ o> « 
 
 CM 
 
 
 ■»*lcO©->!*<T*<TMcO-*lcDcO-*<->*<^HrtcO 
 
 
 
 <M»0<MCMCMcNI*OCMIO»OCMCM©'>*<tH 
 
 co 
 
 03 
 (4 
 
 © 
 
 a 
 
 S9XBJ, 
 
 
 cm 
 
 
 ©S 
 
 s» 
 
 SuiJ9Aipp 
 
 o-H-Hico300 , >*ii^«r)05»coooco 
 
 >— ICOCOCCCO-H10COOOCN|COCO©COCO 
 
 s§ 
 
 03 
 
 puB 'Stnqnq 
 
 MNOON^tOWNr- 1 03 © CO CM © CO 
 
 
 g 
 
 o 
 
 'Sui'JS9AJ'BfJ 
 
 »-H i— C T- 1 CO i-H i— I CO <-l CM CO 
 
 ee 
 
 
 -HCOOOOlOCMI^ 
 
 
 
 00 M OO ■* 
 
 i^. 
 
 
 
 l005©-"*i©t^<M© 
 
 
 
 N tC 0O 0O 
 
 o 
 
 
 9J130 99J J, 
 
 <M r~ -* co t4 cm ^h 
 
 
 
 tS N lO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 COCOOOOOCOOt^.005000"5»0 
 «00»©0©iO»0©Tt<iOI^©rtOOr^ 
 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 
 9ai3o pog 
 
 HNfflfflOWlONOOMOlOHON 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6© 
 
 «0 
 
 
 
 05GOCMCOCOCMOOCT>-^lcOC<l02i-lI>-0 
 
 
 
 
 kOira©l^©CJ>©<OiOt^CM^-*ct^© 
 
 
 
 
 c ^r-icj20 - ^ , c^iocooa>^-iooo2t^-<tio 
 
 
 spuotu 
 
 p3 JO ppiA p3^0X 
 
 * tO N 115 HNH^NNHiOONO 
 l»3 1-H i-H ■»* 
 
 
 
 SpuOUip3 
 
 i— <iOOO©00-^aiOOOi©Oi©OOCM© 
 
 
 
 f^ CO H H (N (NrtNHrHrHHtO 
 
 CO 
 
 UI 
 
 39jo'B jo i9quin^ 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 •gs 
 
 . 
 
 oH T3 03 
 03 -2 bS 
 
 
 8 p 
 
 i-INM'(llO»N00010HNC<3'*lO 
 
 -3 J S >o 
 | .«* & - 
 
 o a> > 
 H ^ C3 
 
 
 £g 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •^ a 
 
 6 § 
 
 . pm 
 
 
 Si 
 
 -fix 
 
 CD 
 
 Q 
 
 
 on 
 
 cj 
 
 Q 
 
 
 03 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 t- 
 
 § 
 
 
 
 UJ 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 83 
 
 PI 
 
 V 
 
 DO 
 
 © 
 
 c-f 
 
 7i 
 
 +3 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 = 
 
 "o 
 
 O 
 
 
 H 
 
 +j 
 
 >d 
 
 
 
 j 
 
 C3 
 
 -d 
 
 
 =i 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 -c 1 
 
 
 X! 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 © 
 b£. 
 
 3 
 03 
 
 te 
 
 © 
 
 > 
 
 > 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 fl 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 _o 
 
 33 
 
 B3 
 
 « 
 
 >. 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 Q 
 (La 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 
 X3 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 H < <5 
 
 Z * h- 
 
42 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 
 
 
 pm^s JO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 aSi^uaojad 
 
 ©05COCT5CT>0001©0 
 
 
 
 apsunxoaddy 
 
 '■"' 
 
 
 
 ucn 
 
 Sn^inoooohoo 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 Q 
 
 gj O <M 00 O 00 
 
 
 
 >> 
 
 pq 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 ^■>*IO<MOOOOOOOCOO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *o 
 
 CO 
 N 
 
 S3 
 
 m 
 
 It 1 MtOOO!OtOO')iintD 
 
 
 
 .^lOOOOOOOCDOOiOOO 
 
 
 
 
 <»-HCNCNl^-(-H^H^H^H^H 
 
 
 c3 
 
 a 
 
 Et,(M0000»O-<*i»raira^-tff 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 T3 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 £ 
 
 
 J3 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 * 
 
 Ph 
 
 
 o 
 
 2 
 
 £ 
 
 
 
 
 ^ Plh Q Q - 0; Q 
 
 
 
 c3 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 . _? fc hhQ^HQ W 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 03 to 
 
 
 
 
 CO « £ 
 
 ^ioooo^V 00 © 
 
 
 
 (N- l <«- H '- | -'0 - 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 o co-d 
 
 3^ © 
 
 oga 
 
 SuuaAijap 
 
 ^KJNMNflO^I^OOO 
 
 
 puis Suipnq 
 
 N^eN^MMN^* 
 
 
 'Sui;s8ajbh 
 
 
 (uoi^eSuji Sui 
 
 ^•NMrt^lIJOioON 
 
 t^ 
 
 hfflS 
 
 -pnpin) axBO 
 
 fjNlOMH^n^O'* 
 
 _; 
 
 
 88J^ pUB {IOg 
 
 1-1 
 
 
 
 
 
 punod 
 jad ^soo i^ox 
 
 •isoiNinnHONoo 
 
 O ^Hrt _ _< ^ _ (^ 
 
 
 
 
 •NWlONINNINrHrt 
 
 
 
 ajOB aad pjaiA 
 
 5-^00l0l0i0-H0iO«0 
 
 <M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •>*<<?OCMOCO-'*<cOtOCD 
 
 -*l 
 
 
 ^SOD p;OX 
 
 
 
 
 
 6© 
 
 ft© 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 9su9dxa aoyjo 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 6© 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 ft© 
 
 
 r- cc 
 
 t-- io »-h oo r- 
 
 
 
 ^U8UI 
 
 <-l «5 
 
 i-H lO t~~ ■* CD 
 
 
 n 
 
 -dmba jo asfl 
 
 CM OO 
 
 6© 
 
 H N N U! N 
 
 6© 
 
 
 OiOlOCDO^O^HO 
 
 CD 
 
 
 
 OOtDnCOOONlONiC 
 
 
 a 
 
 saxuj^ 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 ft© 
 
 s© 
 
 
 ■*OilONN00lMINlO 
 
 
 
 
 COt^OJCOOSCDOilOt^ 
 
 CO 
 
 co 
 
 uot^guaj 
 
 lOOO»OCOt-r^cDCOO> 
 
 t^ 
 
 go 
 
 
 ft© 
 
 «© 
 
 Suu8Ai|ap 
 
 <MOOr^oOOCN»OOOiO 
 (M^HOOt^CMOiOiOCO 
 
 lO 
 
 o 
 
 puis Suipnij 
 
 ©CT>OiT*CO->tlCOOi© 
 
 co 
 
 'Sui^saAjBjj 
 
 ff) H rt ^1 H H M ^ 
 6© 
 
 6© 
 
 
 0000©->*<OC0Tt<r^© 
 
 t-iooco'-HO-^ascoo 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 8J130 88JJL 
 
 COrHHCONOlHlOO 
 
 "*< 
 
 
 
 
 ft© 
 
 
 t^r^-^COOOCMOOO 
 t^CNOCMOTtlCN^HO 
 
 CD 
 
 
 
 
 
 8ji30 pog 
 
 oococD-*-ct<»o©»oi-~ 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 e© 
 
 
 
 ofOOoiNcqNra 
 
 Tf< 
 
 
 
 .Tt<t^ioOOtOcOC3-«tl 
 
 
 spuoui 
 
 [B jo ppiA 1 p^ OJj 
 
 Jj 00 i-H t-T t~-" <M~ >o" ■*" U5 !D 
 
 oo 
 
 
 SpUOUI p3 
 
 ©cDt^t^cD-^cnoio 
 
 oo 
 
 UI s 
 
 8J013 jo jaquin|sj 
 
 
 CM 
 
 
 T3fe 
 
 
 ^ CO CO 
 
 
 feJS 
 
 
 
 
 §1 
 
 HNn<*iO»M»0> 
 
 | .3> 8 
 
 
 mi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o a> > 
 
 03 O 
 
 GO GO u 
 
 CO CO S 
 
 CO CO -2 
 
 J- t- CO 
 
 £ s 
 
 " o o « 
 
 T ■« T) -5 
 
 ^ o 
 
 5 .S 
 
 _JV £ CO CO CO 
 
 JPIII 
 
 cj Q '* '* "S 
 S o o o 
 -* t_, s_ t-. 
 
 CO — — — 
 
 -a a a a 
 H <<< 
 
Bui* 422] 
 
 COST OF PRODUCING ALMONDS IN CALIFORNIA 
 
 43 
 
 
 puu^s JO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 8S'B'}U80J9d 
 
 «50iC»lO»tO<*COlOC<)0)l»fflt<! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ayeunxojddv 
 
 
 
 
 «« 
 
 >oa 
 
 Snnonon^inooo^oon 
 
 o o c 
 
 
 
 o 
 >> 
 
 
 £ CM O OO CM OO O 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 "-" ^ ^ ^ ^H 
 
 
 
 
 ^>OOOlCOOCM«5Tf<OOCNOOOOO-* 
 
 O 00 oc 
 
 
 
 
 
 »N«rtNHeq«C<lHNNINHNN 
 
 « H T- 
 
 
 
 aj 
 
 o 
 en 
 
 CD 
 
 DQ 
 
 ^oooo^ntooooootoooo co co o 
 
 lO to IC 
 
 
 
 ^lOCNIOOiOCCCNlOCNlOOOOCMOO-* 
 
 OO OO CC 
 
 
 
 
 acNCM-HKIrtlMCONrtCNINCNIlNININ 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 W 
 
 w 
 
 Ee, oo io o >o co coiooocoooio© 
 
 lO *0 "* 
 
 
 
 „ s s »- i i 
 
 
 
 Xi 
 
 „ 
 
 **~- H- n|| 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 .£ 
 
 o3 
 
 > 
 
 _I Ok Ph Ph ^" M ^ Q M Q ^" Ph" 
 
 
 
 
 
 fc £ p- 
 
 
 
 
 fcfcfcfcfcfcfcfcw-hHfcfcfcfc 
 
 £ H fc 
 
 
 
 N N "5 O - 1 <» 
 
 
 
 
 O 03 g 
 
 
 
 
 CD « £ 
 
 •a^^HHHHjjHHHHrt^^ 
 CO CM ^ '""' — . ,-. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 co co 
 
 
 
 s ^ O 
 
 SuiJ3Aipp 
 
 •^NMCO^O^lONONtOH* 
 
 CO o <= 
 
 
 pu« Suinrnj 
 
 2"5CqC<l'*T)H^i3>COC<l'*^CO'*M 
 
 CO 115 (C 
 
 ■<* 
 
 'Sui^saAXBH 
 
 
 
 (uoip33u.ii §ui 
 
 ^^NN*NH^00<OOl(O*T(IN 
 
 t- CM C 
 
 
 h 09 n 
 
 cut; a 
 
 -pnpui) 9jbo 
 
 NNO«H(l3»Hf)H cq ■* ■* -H 
 
 CM t-h r- 
 
 CO 
 
 99X} pU'B pog 
 
 
 
 punod 
 
 ^aoONONOHOlOHilNcOMO 
 
 t^ t^ ■* 
 
 CO 
 
 oil 
 
 J9d ^SOO I&JOJ, 
 
 f!M(N<ONO)INnN<OWNart© 
 O CM i-H rt — 1 r^ 
 
 O CO t- 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 JNM^<HNtOOO'*(NT|IOCI^lO 
 
 
 
 
 9J013 J9d PI9T^ 
 
 ^(NHHOloONMrtNINOONlON 
 
 cq io r- 
 
 Cft CM C 
 
 Oi 
 
 
 
 rt >- 
 
 
 
 
 OHONOlNNNlOINlOMTJliO 
 
 CM CO C- 
 
 
 
 
 lOCOtOOOOOCOcOCMiOr-HCOO-tflt^ 
 
 o o o- 
 
 CO 
 
 
 isoo p^oj, 
 
 ©COOOI-^OOOOr^C©COCO©->*lOO© 
 
 00 ■* ^- 
 
 
 
 (0-*©<DNO)'*00'*0'*NC1U3 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 CO CO CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 9SU9dX9 99IJJO 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 t>- CM -^ 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 cpiaui 
 
 O :tCC»i01!0»hi>c<3 
 
 o o o 
 
 OS 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 -dmb9 jo 9Sf| 
 
 6% 
 
 •»* CO >c 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 
 
 MHiOMH>*T((lsafflMWOW 
 OOCM»C>©CMCOCOt*i©©cOCO-«*<CO 
 
 CO CO CC 
 
 
 <d 
 
 
 
 
 
 89XBX 
 
 ONO»NNNlOMWtO(OlOe 
 
 CO »0 »T 
 
 
 (II 
 i-, 
 o 
 
 OS 
 
 
 e© 
 
 
 e» 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 0) 
 
 UOH'BSu.IJ 
 
 
 ,_; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 69 
 
 
 §UU9Atpp 
 
 
 -* ^ li" 
 O cn cc 
 
 
 
 OOlOrt^O^NNMnUJOOCt* 
 
 
 
 
 puB Suipnq 
 
 COOlO-HOOWCNlOOiOOCOOOCOCO 
 
 OO CM CS 
 
 !>- 
 
 '3uns9Axejj 
 
 HCON^WMW^H^weqNN 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 lO O 00 Ol OO CO CC 
 
 
 ^t< 
 
 
 
 •^ t-< t^ ^H O CO 
 
 * O 00 ■* 113 O © 
 
 N CO « 
 
 CO 
 
 
 9.1139 99JX 
 
 O t"- *-H t^- i-H lO 
 
 * i( CO CO CO CS N 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 CM CO CM CM CM 
 
 CM CO CM ^H 
 
 
 
 
 
 &% 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO©COCMt-r^iO©lOCO©«5©T-< 
 COOCOCMt^COt^OCM->*OCMOCO 
 
 
 
 
 
 «o 00 C 
 
 00 
 
 
 9J139 pog 
 
 HaMOtDO^OONN^HOlO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6© 
 
 
 
 t© 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .t^-^CO-^iOOOOOOOCMCMCOOOi-c 
 
 
 
 spuoui 
 
 V 3 J° Pl 9 !^ T^°X 
 
 DOiHIDNOOOlCliCOlMiOOOJlO 
 5 N b-" N CO (N M lO TjT •*" O 115 rt ■* ffi 
 H r-t.-l rtCM COCM'^CM'-H TJH 
 
 o O t> 
 
 
 
 
 CM CM y- 
 
 CO 
 
 
 SpUOUl p3 
 
 i— llOC005iO©cOOlOCOTt<lOOO© 
 
 »o 00 c 
 
 
 UI 
 
 sgjo'e jo i9qum^ 
 
 CO rt H HMHCOWMHH CO 
 
 
 OO 
 
 co 
 
 
 •d-a 
 
 
 
 =8 "d ffi 
 
 
 fe-Q 
 
 
 
 co +j oil 
 
 
 a-l 
 
 
 
 CM C 
 
 >4 
 
 tf5 CO t> 
 
 oc 
 
 OS c 
 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 T* 
 
 
 « 
 
 CC 
 
 t- 
 
 o » > 
 
 H ^ 03 
 
 o ■- 
 
 0> oc 
 
 ^ I 
 
 H 
 
 s p; 
 I ^ 
 
 O S 
 
 ss 
 
 
 <l 
 
 
 
 
 I s 
 
 
 
 o3 T 
 
 
 
 w ^ 
 
 
 
 o « 
 
 
 
 >> ■_: 
 
 
 CD 
 
 
 
 
 .3 m 
 
 
 fl 
 
 ■p a 
 
 
 c3 
 
 -3 
 
 O o3 
 
 
 
 -3 i 1 
 
 
 
 ** « 
 
 
 a) 
 
 a - 
 
 
 cv! 
 
 2Q 
 
 
 U 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -fcS 
 
 S o 
 
 
 rt 
 
 CP *« 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CD 
 
 o g 
 
 CD 
 
 t-< 
 
 13 to 
 
 
 
 9 a 
 
 O 
 
 
 1 5 
 
 h 4J p -p 
 
44 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 
 
 
 piIB^S JO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 aSi^uaojad 
 
 Ol D 00 00 I--CO OOOOOCfcf^OkO 
 
 
 
 a^'Buiixojddv 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 •* 
 
 eos 
 
 S IN O (N 'S' (NO OCMOCNCMOOCM 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 Q 
 
 £ O O 00 oooo oooo 
 
 
 
 ■Is 
 
 
 
 ,-( ^ 
 
 
 
 « N M O Til OO O OOCOOOOOOO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "o 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 Et, OO -<*< CO OO ts OO COO^IOOOlOOOOO 
 
 
 
 « IN OO 00 ffl OO OOCMOOOOOOOOO 
 
 
 c3 
 "o3 
 
 T3 
 
 CO 
 
 W 
 
 <0 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 
 
 fe, oo to to CO 00 lO COCOOOCOCOCO»OCO 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 Ph" h c 
 
 Ph fc fH 
 
 
 o 
 
 .2 
 
 H - * *i ~ *■ 
 
 " Q P Ph % g £ 
 
 p: p a; q » 5 p » 
 
 
 
 .22 
 
 P P * P ~ p. 
 
 
 
 c3 
 > 
 
 eC h ^ <^ P * 
 
 
 
 
 **-« tf- 
 
 - fc m fc - « h _r « 
 
 - . . Ph - - - P-l 
 
 
 
 
 £ £ Q £ M - JZ 
 
 Jz;£:z;;z;QQ££ 
 
 
 
 O i-H C 
 
 >o 
 
 
 
 O (D g 
 
 
 
 1-1 o >c oo 
 
 
 
 02 S S 
 
 
 7 k, 
 
 * •?U)OMNW t ?V 
 
 
 
 m ^ a? 
 
 -h n<;<; 
 
 
 
 <j^£ 
 
 ON 
 
 CO ^J 
 
 CO ^ 
 
 
 O a, T3 
 
 SuuaAipp 
 
 
 
 NMNNOOIOON 
 
 
 puB Sninnq 
 
 ^ co co oo oc 
 
 
 OlOCMC003CO»Ot^ 
 
 
 
 'Sui^saAj-Bjj 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 (uoi^bSuji Sui 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 ^» 
 
 -pnpui) axeo 
 
 £^ i-i O •<* C 
 
 CM tr 
 
 <M<Mi-H^HCOi-IT*<»0 
 
 <M 
 
 a-d£ 
 
 adj% pu'B pog 
 
 
 
 
 0-33 
 
 punod 
 J8d ■jsoo jb^oj, 
 
 % - •"*! O O CN 
 
 CO 1- 
 
 OOOCOCOt--*U5Tt< 
 
 O 
 
 ft <o lO © h 
 
 o r^ 
 
 ■<*<00lOCOiOCOi-l>O 
 
 OS 
 
 
 
 
 
 lOOCOOlC'* 1 -*'^ 
 
 r^. 
 
 
 ajot? J9d ppij^ 
 
 ^ N N (D C\ 
 
 co o 
 
 OiOOO-*CMOOCO 
 TtllOlOtOCqNMM 
 
 co 
 
 
 
 CM ■<*< t— CC 
 
 
 
 t~» 
 
 
 
 CM t-h O OC 
 
 r- i> 
 
 W^^OOWMH^I 
 
 
 
 }SO0 I^OJ, 
 
 o> oi n a 
 
 lO ^t 
 
 OOOcDNOOCOiJIH 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 e« 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t— 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 asuadxa aotjjo 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s» 
 
 
 «/» 
 
 
 ^H i-H OS ■* 
 
 <M i- 
 
 coMoooHiose 
 
 CO 
 
 ^uaui 
 
 
 »o I> 
 
 iflijIMIONCONOO 
 
 -^* 
 
 rt 
 
 -dmba jo asj} 
 
 CO ■* CO CO 
 
 i-H 1C 
 
 NHNNN^NN 
 
 CO 
 
 H 
 
 
 e» 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO t~- 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 t-- i-h t-i ir: 
 
 >o »- 
 
 HNCOOOOOCOOOO 
 
 
 cu 
 o 
 
 
 » » ffl IC 
 
 rtl a- 
 
 COlOCOCOCMCOCOCO 
 
 
 
 OO N •* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a; 
 
 uoi^Sujj 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 ©& i-l H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 SuuaAipp 
 
 -h r- o tji 
 
 l^ CM 
 
 lCCOCMOCO-*lOf~ 
 
 CM 
 
 o 
 
 pu'B Sui^nq 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 'Sut^saAj'Bjj 
 
 CO 11) O H 
 
 CM ■**< 
 
 Tt<CM^HCMcMCMCMCM 
 
 •» 
 
 
 
 
 CO O 
 
 
 o> lO >o 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 t- CD O ON 
 
 <M -^ 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 8JB0 89J jl 
 
 CO CM O i-H 
 C» »H 
 
 ~H »C 
 
 CO i-l 
 
 CO 
 
 NT -" H 
 
 (M 
 
 
 
 
 
 OOCOt^t^-^1003 
 OOOlOi-HOiCOCMOi 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 O O lr^ ": 
 
 
 K 
 
 
 
 8jbo pog 
 
 CO O 00 !>■ 
 
 
 O 
 
 »-H^HCOCO00O5'^t~- 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 «© 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OCOOSOi-Ht^i— ICM 
 kOO-^C>l^i-HC<lt^ 
 
 OO 
 
 
 
 . o o o c 
 
 CM i- 
 
 
 spuoui 
 
 I« jo piaiA- p^oj. 
 
 oi « 0_ N O 
 
 5 c» to to" c» 
 
 H CM i-l 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 ■^ CO CO CM CM 
 
 CM 
 
 
 SpUOUIIB 
 
 t^ os o o 
 
 O O 
 
 O0"50t^-*»CO 
 
 t. 
 
 UI « 
 
 ajOB jo jaquin^; 
 
 i-H H T)l 
 
 i-H CO 
 
 
 ■* 
 
 
 •£& 
 
 
 
 
 «8 ^ S 
 
 
 %rG 
 
 
 
 
 m -g SJ 
 
 
 IS 
 
 
 i-l CM CO "# 
 
 tn 
 
 CO 
 
 t^ 
 
 CTj 
 
 a- 
 
 o 
 
 
 CM CO 
 
 •* 
 
 r2 J3 c3 •<*< 
 ■2 M cS rt 
 
 o « > 
 
 5 *« 5 
 
 ^ -5 .» 2 
 
Bul. 422] 
 
 COST OF PRODUCING ALMONDS IN CALIFORNIA 
 
 45 
 
 
 puu^s JO 
 
 ! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 sS^ueojad 
 
 CO 00 
 
 oo o us 
 
 C» O CTJ 
 
 
 
 a^Bunxoiddy 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5<» 
 
 So O <N CM CM i- 
 
 00 o 
 
 o o o 
 
 
 
 o 
 >> 
 
 Q 
 pq 
 
 e 
 
 00 o o c 
 
 00 
 
 7 7 7 
 
 00 CM 00 
 
 
 
 •1? 
 
 
 ^> oo co oo o oo oc 
 
 -* us 
 
 US US CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 45 1- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5^ 
 
 cc 
 
 fc, CO Tt< US Tf< T* CC 
 
 CM ■>* 
 
 ■»* o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 uX CO OO 00 o oc 
 
 us oo 
 
 CO o us 
 
 
 o3 
 
 .2 
 
 w 
 
 £ ^ 
 
 ■>*< co us rt< u- 
 
 US 
 
 "f Tt< 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 T3 
 
 u 
 03 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 § 
 
 bb i 
 
 
 6 
 
 * 
 
 CO 
 
 
 1— 
 
 p;ph 
 
 
 •2 
 
 e 
 
 MM H^ 
 
 PLh'O;" 
 
 
 
 
 
 .2 
 
 p. 
 
 - ^Hfl^ 
 
 ss 
 
 
 
 
 
 \z 
 
 0;* fc Q* PlT fL 
 
 
 pC 
 
 
 
 
 
 Q Q £ fc £ 
 
 HH 
 
 ft 
 
 
 
 
 |2 
 
 i? S5 £ 
 
 ft 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 CO CC 
 
 t^ CM 
 
 00 us 
 
 
 
 O co P 
 
 
 - 1 CO " 
 
 <M ^ -H 
 
 W P5 H 
 
 
 
 CO 03 is 
 ® g co 
 
 Mis £ 
 
 < 
 
 „ •* CO O *0 1 " *" O 1 • " ■ | 
 M ^ O OO '""' CO O US ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 P" 
 
 
 
 
 
 T3 S A 
 
 §UU9AIJ9p 
 
 
 
 02 CO O 
 
 
 
 puB Suiqnq 
 
 0"= 
 
 M ■* O O! ■* 
 
 CO CO 00 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 
 'Sut^saAj'Bji 
 
 CM 
 
 
 CM 
 
 
 (uoi^Suji §m 
 
 
 i-H O i* Cn C 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 aa fe 
 
 -pnpin) 9xeo 
 
 6 *■ 
 
 CO •»** CO OS CN 
 
 t^- OO CO 
 
 
 OS 
 
 M? 
 
 99j^ puB pog 
 
 2 
 
 rt rt 
 
 
 
 Cost ] 
 almor 
 (cents 
 
 punod 
 
 eo * 
 
 © O CO CM CN 
 
 KJ ■* o 
 
 en 
 
 co 
 
 jad ^sod l^^ox 
 
 o* 
 
 OS M CO lO N 
 t- i-H i-l CM 
 
 cm u3^ us 
 
 00 
 
 en 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 9J013 J9d PI9IA 
 
 
 H IN N N <» 
 rt IN CC 
 
 co t^ oo 
 
 CM 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 i— 1 t— ■** CO •<* 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 
 
 
 CC 
 
 Oi O © i-H "■* 
 
 O US 00 
 
 c» 
 
 CO 
 
 
 ^SOO p3}OJ, 
 
 a 
 
 CN 
 «5 
 
 co co ^h cn cc 
 
 N rt W rt ■< 
 
 M CO N 
 
 CO co ■** 
 
 c» 
 
 OS 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 o -* oo 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 9SU9dX9 901JJO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J3 
 
 
 
 
 
 S» 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 o m : t^ oc 
 
 us -^ ^ti 
 o oo t^ 
 
 US 
 
 ^H 
 
 ^U9UI 
 
 
 t^ us : CO CO 
 
 •~! 
 
 cn 
 
 u 
 u 
 
 -dmba jo 9SQ 
 
 CO 
 
 ^H CO 
 
 H CO ^ 
 
 CO 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 
 CM 00 CO 
 
 t^. 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 N N M CC « 
 
 t^. t^ CO 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 89XBJQ 
 
 "* 
 
 CM CO US CO <M 
 
 n n o 
 
 <N 
 
 
 03 
 
 
 
 
 * H 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 o o o 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 V 
 
 uoi^bSixij 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OS us Tji 
 
 00 
 
 
 CO 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 9& 
 
 
 1-1 
 
 
 &i 
 
 SuuaAqgp 
 
 o- 
 
 •>*( |-~ O O CN 
 
 io n oo ■* a 
 
 -H CM O 
 M N N 
 
 <N 
 
 OO 
 
 puis Suqpiq 
 
 r- 
 
 CC "O U5 N N 
 
 05 CM CO 
 
 i+l 
 
 
 
 'SUI^S9AJBJJ 
 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 ©& 
 
 
 a 
 
 co o o ->*i as 
 
 us CO o 
 CM CO O 
 
 OO 
 
 
 
 
 
 co us -<*< us t> 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 
 9JB0 99JX 
 
 S 
 
 o t-~ 
 
 * H Ttl 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 0» 
 
 
 
 o o o o c 
 co us o o u; 
 
 O us o 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 CO i-H •<*< 
 
 ■* 
 
 CM 
 
 
 8JB0 pog 
 
 c 
 
 o ni » n io 
 
 U5 IN t- 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 Si 
 
 
 1—1 
 
 CO 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 oc 
 
 . CM 
 
 CO -^ Cn co •<* 
 
 CO US 00 OO CC 
 
 ■* oo ■* 
 
 CO O O 
 
 en 
 
 CO 
 
 spaoui 
 
 JV JO pptit p^OJ, 
 
 a- 
 
 t-- co t>- co a- 
 
 ■<jT CM US CS 
 CO 
 
 e in" h 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 US 
 
 CO 
 
 
 SpUOUip3 
 
 <# 
 
 O us O US 00 
 
 O CO 00 
 
 
 
 UI 
 
 39JDB jo J9qtun^j 
 
 
 US CO i— l r~- -^ 
 
 US CO i-l 
 
 
 oo 
 co 
 
 
 t3 §3 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^1S 
 
 
 S-Q 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 IS 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 CO 
 
 -* u: 
 
 CC 
 
 N 00 O) 
 
 O 
 
 o 53 > 
 
 3 S 
 
 a - 
 
 >> « a a 
 
 w 3 
 
 H O 
 ft CD 
 
46 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 
 
 COMMENTS ON COSTS OF INDIVIDUAL OECHAEDS 
 
 A study of the tabulated figures for each of the 149 orchards shows 
 a wide range in the cost of caring for orchards. The average cost for 
 handling these almond orchards in 1925 amounted to $46.60 an acre, 
 being made up of : 
 
 Soil care 
 
 Tree care 
 
 Irrigation 
 
 Harvesting, hulling, and delivering 
 
 Taxes 
 
 Use of equipment 
 
 Office expense 
 
 $46.60 
 
 Average cost 
 per acre 
 
 Average cost per 
 pound of almonds 
 
 $10.27 
 
 $0.0246 
 
 6.01 
 
 .0143 
 
 4.17 
 
 .0100 
 
 18.94 
 
 .0454 
 
 3.55 
 
 .0085 
 
 3.48 
 
 .0083 
 
 .18 
 
 .0004 
 
 $0.1115 
 
 The detailed figures of each orchard also indicate a wide range in 
 yields, in costs of soil and tree care, in costs of harvesting and pre- 
 paring for market, and as a consequence in costs per pound of nuts 
 produced. Yields varied from 15 to 1824 pounds an acre, in contrast 
 with an average of 418 pounds. The cost of soil and tree care varied 
 from $2.87 to $76.13 an acre : harvesting, hulling, and delivering 
 varied from 1.7 cents to 65.2 cents per pound of nuts produced. 
 
 A certain amount of soil and tree care must be provided so long as 
 operations can be financed, whether or not there is a crop. The range 
 in these items is considerable. Low costs may reflect undue neglect; 
 high costs may indicate extravagance. From the records, the lowest 
 cost (nil per acre) for soil care falls to orchard No. 5 in the Yuba 
 City-Live Oak-Pennington district: the highest ($32.74 an acre) to 
 orchard No. 12 in the Banning district. For the 149 orchards the 
 average expended for soil care was $10.27. Eight orchards had less 
 than half this average expended upon them for soil care. 
 
 Similarly, the highest cost for tree care ($67.13 an acre) was 
 incurred for orchard No. 2 in the Chico-Durham district. The lowest 
 was nothing — reported for several orchards. The average for tree 
 care for all orchards amounted to $6.01 an acre. Fifty-two orchards 
 had less than half this average expended upon them. 
 
 Taxes varied from a high figure of $13.18 an acre (orchard No. 2 
 in the Banning district) to a low of $1.13 an acre (orchard No. 1 in 
 the Paso Robles district). 
 
Bull 422] C osT OF PRODUCING ALMONDS IN CALIFORNIA 47 
 
 Similarly, the range for use of equipment, when furnished by the 
 orchard operator, ranged from a high figure of $18.96 an acre 
 (orchard No. 6 in the Modesto district) to a low of 24 cents an acre 
 (orchard No. 1 in the Modesto district) ; for office expense, from a 
 high figure of $6 an acre (orchard No. 3 in the Modesto district) to 
 nothing reported for 95 orchards. 
 
 The average cost of hulling, harvesting, and delivering was 4.54 
 cents a pound for all nuts (1,911,488 pounds) produced on the 4577.39 
 acres of these 149 orchards, yet harvesting costs varied as follows : 
 
 One hundred thirty-seven orchards (92 per cent) had the crop 
 harvested for less than 10 cents a pound, and 70 of these orchards 
 for 5 cents or less a pound. Greater economy in harvesting on certain 
 orchards seems possible. Unless the work be done by unpaid family 
 labor, it is possible that the crop better go unharvested, especially if 
 the cost of such harvesting be greater than the selling price of the 
 almonds. This was true in connection with the harvesting of the crop 
 on at least 5 of these 149 orchards. 
 
 Studied by individual orchards, the lowest total cost per pound 
 (3.9 cents) was made by orchard No. 14, in the Arbuckle-College City 
 district, producing 1040 pounds per acre; the highest per-pound cost 
 ($1.79) by orchard No. 3, in the Fair Oaks district (producing but 
 15 pounds per acre) ; the highest per-acre yield (1824 pounds) was 
 made by orchard No. 11, in the Chico-Durham-Hamilton City district. 
 The lowest yield reported was nothing (on 38 orchards, cost records 
 for which, though taken, are not included in this report). 
 
 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS 
 
 NET INCOME 
 
 That amount of net income which growers desire, expect, or need 
 from their efforts to produce almonds constitutes a starting point in 
 discussing these cost findings. Net income is the sum remaining to 
 reimburse the operator after deducting from his gross receipts all his 
 actual expenditures for operating expenses for items such as labor, 
 seed, feed, materials, repairs, upkeep, taxes, insurance, and marketing 
 expenses. Net income is the sum from which are drawn such items as 
 (a) family living, (&) savings, (c) payment of interest due on loans, 
 (d) repayment of principal due on loans, (e) operator's services, 
 (/) profits. It is that sum, then, which if made available to a grower 
 will satisfy his needs (or his ideas of his needs) for farming opera- 
 tions, for meeting obligations in connection with loans, for recompense 
 
48 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 
 
 for time and effort, and for the use of money invested. Obviously, 
 ideas as to what is a suitable net income will vary. It is an individual 
 matter. Most growers, however, have a rather well-defined idea as to 
 what sums they require to care for their families properly and to 
 carry on their business. This sum may or may not be principally 
 obtained from their almond orchards. The almond orchard, though, 
 should be expected to contribute its proper proportion. 
 
 Factors Affecting Net Income. — Net income is affected by three 
 important factors: (a) yields, (b) prices obtained for the product as 
 it leaves the farm, (c) expenditures for production. 
 
 To some extent, although not entirely, all three factors are depend- 
 ent upon the ability of the operator. This constitutes the personal 
 element. Intelligent knowledge of crop needs properly coordinated 
 with practice can (1) increase yields, (2) enhance quality and thereby 
 affect price, and (3) introduce economy of production and so decrease 
 costs. Yet production to a considerable extent is fixed by the physical 
 environment of soil, moisture, and climate ; prices are largely deter- 
 mined by distance to and receptivity of market, as well as factors of 
 supply and demand beyond the control of the individual grower ; 
 costs of production are affected by going wages for help, and by 
 market prices of seed, fertilizer, sacks, box stock, spray materials, feed, 
 parts and repairs, and other items which the operator must purchase. 
 
 Net income (measured in dollars) results from yield multiplied 
 by market price less cost of production. If the operator's manual 
 labor is included in cost of production (and it has been in various 
 calculations in this report), the required net income can be reduced 
 proportionately. 
 
 Average 1925 Net Income. — The average net income for the season 
 of 1925 earned by these 149 orchards is low. Based upon an average 
 yield of 418 pounds, an average cost of production of $46.60, and an 
 average price of 18% cents a pound (returned to growers by the Cali- 
 fornia Almond Growers Exchange for the eight principal varieties), 
 the average net income amounted to $30.73. This sum ($30.73) does 
 not go very far in paying interest upon investment in orchard (or 
 rent), depreciation of orchard, use of operating capital, and manage- 
 ment. As a result of the 1925 season, 41 orchards, involving 28 per 
 cent of the acreage studied, did not have an income sufficient to pay 
 cost of production. There was no net income for these operators. On 
 the other hand, the best orchard in each district produced a net income 
 varying from $65.76 to $240.03 per acre, and averaging $134.95. The 
 basic data for these orchards (table 19) stress the importance of yield. 
 
Bul. 422] 
 
 COST OF PRODUCING ALMONDS IN CALIFORNIA 
 
 49 
 
 TABLE 19 
 
 Summary of Best Becord in Each Group 
 
 Record No. 
 
 Yield per 
 acre of nuts 
 
 Cost to 
 
 produce 
 
 per pound 
 
 Net income per acre 
 Basis: I85 cents 
 per pound of nuts 
 
 
 Pounds 
 
 967 
 
 889 
 
 949 
 
 1,433 
 
 1,163 
 
 833 
 
 1,040 
 
 1,057 
 
 1,824 
 
 1,778 
 
 648 
 
 Cents 
 11.7 
 7.7 
 7.6 
 5.5 
 7.2 
 5.2 
 3.9 
 6.2 
 7.7 
 5.0 
 7.2 
 
 $65.76 
 
 Paso Robles— No. 3 
 
 96.01 
 
 Oakley— No. 14 
 
 103.44 
 
 Oakdale— No. 6 
 
 186.29 
 
 
 131.42 
 
 
 110.79 
 
 
 151.84 
 
 Orland— No. 4 
 
 130.01 
 
 
 195.99 
 
 
 240 03 
 
 
 72.88 
 
 
 
 
 1,144 
 
 6.8 
 
 $134.95 
 
 
 
 IMPORTANCE OF YIELD 
 
 Yield is a first essential in obtaining net income, since without 
 yield there can be no returns, and, furthermore, the larger the yield 
 the less is the cost of production per pound. These facts are indicated 
 in the preceding table. As one studies the range in costs of produc- 
 tion, from both the per acre and the per pound bases, it is very evi- 
 dent that the men who are succeeding are those who manage to com- 
 bine good yields with economical expenditures. High operating costs 
 are liable to defeat good yields. High operating costs combined with 
 continuous low yields for any orchard doom that orchard. Since yield 
 is so important, attention is called to table 20. 
 
 TABLE 20 
 
 Classification of Orchards According to Yield 
 
 Average yields 1925 
 
 Number of 
 orchards 
 
 Average cost 
 per pound 
 
 Acreage 
 
 Per cent of 
 acreage 
 
 Less than 250 lbs 
 
 44 
 43 
 29 
 19 
 14 
 
 Cents 
 
 35.3 
 
 14.6 
 
 10.7 
 
 9.8 
 
 6.8 
 
 1,755.35 
 
 1,278.85 
 
 803.98 
 
 525.00 
 
 214.00 
 
 Per cent 
 38 
 
 250 lbs. to 500 lbs 
 
 28 
 
 500 lbs. to 750 lbs 
 
 18 
 
 750 lbs. to 1,000 lbs 
 
 11 
 
 1,000 lbs. and over 
 
 5 
 
 
 
50 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 
 
 SEASONAL VARIATION IN YIELDS 
 
 Almond yields vary from season to season. The findings of a 
 single year may not be the same as those taken over a term of years. 
 No orchard should be condemned on a single year's showing. But 
 mature orchards which are consistently shy bearers and for which no 
 hope of improvement may be expected (either by regrafting, better 
 management, manuring, or improved culture) may as well be 
 abandoned. 
 
 To show the range in yields over a period of years, table 21 cover- 
 ing production for several seasons from a number of orchards for 
 which yield data are available, has been prepared. 
 
 TABLE 21 
 
 Twenty-seven Records of Yields of Almonds Per Acre Over a Period 
 
 of Years 
 
 Record 
 
 Oakley 5 
 
 Oakley 8 
 
 Oakley 11 
 
 Banning 2 
 
 Banning 4 
 
 Banning 8 
 
 Banning 10 
 
 Banning 11 
 
 Paso Robles 5.. 
 Paso Robles 6.. 
 Paso Robles 13. 
 
 Oakdale 3 
 
 Oakdale 4 
 
 Oakdale 10 
 
 Oakdale 13 
 
 Modesto 1 
 
 Modesto 2 
 
 Modesto 3 
 
 Modesto 4 
 
 Winters 6 
 
 Orland 7 
 
 Yuba 10 
 
 Yuba 12 
 
 Chico 13 
 
 Lodi 8 
 
 Lodi 9 
 
 Averages 
 
 1925 
 
 Pounds 
 
 229 
 
 253 
 
 487 
 
 558 
 
 828 
 
 649 
 
 52 
 
 463 
 
 75 
 
 62 
 
 159 
 
 550 
 
 267 
 
 695 
 286 
 645 
 661 
 
 46 
 485 
 600 
 724 
 586 
 
 70 
 
 416 
 
 1924 
 
 Pounds 
 315 
 637 
 318 
 561 
 640 
 654 
 
 389 
 342 
 448 
 126 
 
 121 
 121 
 
 87 
 1,256 
 272 
 608 
 364 
 166 
 251 
 262 
 879 
 446 
 527 
 
 447 
 
 1923 
 
 Pounds 
 460 
 367 
 546 
 834 
 1,162 
 649 
 217 
 451 
 559 
 553 
 202 
 228 
 265 
 304 
 541 
 476 
 602 
 821 
 568 
 568 
 460 
 1,000 
 1,123 
 1,137 
 242 
 481 
 
 570 
 
 1922 
 
 Pounds 
 164 
 550 
 393 
 448 
 660 
 
 1,093 
 483 
 42 
 79 
 273 
 319 
 764 
 997 
 
 1,036 
 248 
 660 
 882 
 
 1,060 
 364 
 403 
 133 
 933 
 975 
 . 1,092 
 
 1,226 
 
 607 
 
 1921 
 
 Pounds 
 245 
 437 
 304 
 847 
 1,452 
 1,155 
 547 
 927 
 291 
 358 
 249 
 177 
 447 
 522 
 149 
 267 
 736 
 546 
 180 
 500 
 255 
 700 
 310 
 330 
 66 
 682 
 
 487 
 
 1920 
 
 Pounds 
 230 
 
 341 
 1,005 
 696 
 325 
 251 
 219 
 252 
 41 
 
 501 
 
 287 
 
 968 
 
 1,301 
 
 1919 
 
 Pounds 
 303 
 
 329 
 391 
 721 
 765 
 
 797 
 237 
 108 
 
 258 
 
 
 
 648 
 
 309 
 
 629 
 
 
 
 283 
 509 
 
 436 
 671 
 
 No crop 
 204 
 
 817 
 
 72 
 
 237 
 
 969 
 
 311 
 
 1,046 
 
 Not averaged on account of numerous missing data. 
 
Bui,. 422] C0 ST OF PRODUCING ALMONDS IN CALIFORNIA 51 
 
 SUGGESTIONS FOE INCREASING NET INCOMES 
 
 To obtain satisfactory net farm incomes from almond production 
 under California conditions, one mnst : 
 
 (1) Strive for large yields by use of proper cultural and tree-care 
 methods, including cover crops, spraying, pruning, and other practices 
 needed to grow and care for an almond orchard. 
 
 (2) Practice due economy in expenditures for soil and tree care, 
 harvesting, and similar expenditures. 
 
 (3) Hold investments in equipment, horses, tractors, automobiles, 
 buildings, implements, and machinery to a minimum. 
 
 (4) Test proposed expenditures for equipment to determine their 
 economic justification. 
 
 (5) Hold annual cost for use of equipment down to a minimum by 
 giving proper consideration to use, upkeep, and protection. 
 
 (6) Grow only the varieties best suited to market demands and 
 local environment. 
 
 (7) Strive to develop maximum quality in the finished product. 
 
 It may be feasible for California almond growers to concentrate on 
 fewer and better varieties. What should be raised rests, to a large 
 extent, in an answer to the question — what does the consumer demand ? 
 Is it size, or shape, or thinness of shell, or size of meat, or quality? 
 If the answer be found (and its determination should not be par- 
 ticularly difficult), growers will be better able to adjust production 
 and demand, or else the consumer should be educated to the merits of 
 what the grower has to offer. 
 
 Regrafting to better yielding varieties capable of bringing higher 
 market prices may be a means of increasing incomes. The California 
 Almond Growers Exchange lists prices for 50 varieties, yet the great 
 bulk of the output is of five varieties. Handling small quantities of 
 odd varieties is expensive to both producer and selling organization. 
 
 SUMMARY 
 
 The cost of producing 1,911,488 pounds of almonds from 4577.39 
 acres of orchard on 149 California farms, in 1925, amounted to 
 $213,119.17, or an average cost of 11.15 cents a pound. 
 
 Costs as figured do not include charges for management, use of 
 operating capital, depreciation of trees, or interest on investment in 
 orchard (land or trees). 
 
52 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 
 
 Data were collected from eleven groups of orchards, in thirteen 
 commercially producing districts. These districts, which represent the 
 principal almond areas of the state, were as follows : Banning, Paso 
 Robles, Oakley, Oakdale, Modesto-Atwater-Livingston, Winters- 
 Esparto-Rumsey, Arbuckle-College City, Orland, Chico-Durham- 
 Hamilton City, Yuba City-Live Oak-Pennington, Lodi, Fair Oaks- 
 Rio Linda, and Terra Bella. 
 
 Costs varied as between orchard and orchard. The lowest cost was 
 3.9 cents per pound of almonds produced ; the highest cost was $1.79 
 per pound. 
 
 The principal varieties represented in the orchards studied were : 
 I.X.L., Nonpareil, Drake, Ne Plus Ultra, Texas, and Peerless. 
 
 The trees ranged in age from 5 to 40 years, the majority of the 
 acreage studied being between 10 and 15 years old. 
 
 Yield appears to be the greatest single factor affecting net income 
 (and hence profits). Thirty-eight records had to be discarded because 
 no yield was obtained. Of the usable records, the average yield for 
 the total acreage was 418 pounds an acre, but ranged from 15 to 1824 
 pounds an acre. Sixty-two per cent of the acreage studied produced 
 (in 1925) 250 pounds an acre or more. 
 
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
 
 This study was made possible by the cooperation of the California 
 Almond Growers Exchange, whose officials incited the work, and 
 whose directors unanimously voted a substantial cash contribution to 
 assist in carrying on the field work. Records of the exchange mate- 
 rially assisted in the collecting and analyzing of data. Much credit 
 is personally due to T. C. Tucker, manager of the exchange, and to 
 R. H. Taylor, formerly a member of the agricultural department of 
 the exchange, who gave much personal assistance in formulating and 
 carrying out the plan of study. 
 
 The field work was largely entrusted to W. L. Jackson and to 
 Wm. W. Bedford. 
 
 Although the objectives of the work are primarily to help growers 
 of almonds to a better understanding of their business, and to present 
 data which can aid them in determining marketing policies, the 
 necessary basic data could not have been obtained had it not been 
 for the able and willing cooperation of the many growers, whose 
 patience, experience, and willingness to supply data made possible 
 the assembling of the necessary facts. 
 
 12m-5,'27