Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br />In <br />c" <br />CI <br />:-) <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />"_." <br /> <br />TABLE 12 <br /> <br />Yield Changes by Crop1/ <br /> <br />Crop Unit/AC Yield Before Yield After <br />Alfalfa ton 6.3 6.3 <br />Apples bu. 360 611 <br />Ba r ley bu. 120 156 <br />Beans cwt. 18 20 <br />Corn bu. 154 159 <br />Grass Hay ton 3.4 4.0 <br />F'eaches2/ bu. 183 256 <br />Wheat bu. 100 100 <br /> <br />% ChanQe <br /> 0 <br /> 70 <br /> 30 <br /> 11 <br /> 3 <br /> 19 <br /> 40 <br /> 0 <br /> <br />1/ Yield averages from 1985 to 1989 <br />2/ 1989 yield data for peaches not incorporated due to freeze damage <br /> <br />SUMM^RY <br /> <br />The on-farm beneficial impacts realized by applying GVSP salinity <br />practices vary greatly from site to site. Ranges for expected effects <br />on typical sites and weighted averages provide reasonable estimates of <br />the benefits however. Most benefits stem from irrigation labor <br />savings. Orchards realize substantial yield improvements as well. <br /> <br />At this stage of the monitoring effort it is possible to recognize the <br />direction the data IS leading. The tables suggest an overall positive <br />economic effect for the individual farmer. The direction of on-farm <br />effects is toward an improved revenue situation. Public investment in <br />on-farm improvements is also proving to be cost effective as shown by <br />seepage and salt reduction through installation of improved irrigation <br />practices (Refer to Appendix B). <br /> <br />35 <br />