Show Farm Lead leaders rs Hope for or Rural urn l Plan Substitute Agri Agriculturists Receive 5 More 1 for Crops in 35 Utah farmers were praying for more Dore sno snow show as the e. e year e r 1936 rolled I toward spring arid planting g time Although ih farmers in the state re received received re- re o more more f for r their 1935 crops crop than than io for 1934 r a continued Increase 1 In in r revenue v nue from c ops will depend in a D. large part on wat wa- wa t er r. r sup supply Jy stored up by winter snowfall snow- snow fa fall all Figures In the office of Frank An Andrews senior agricultural statistician stati of the d department of a agriculture agriculture agri agri- culture sho showed shod d that 1935 was wu a lightly below average year in farm production for tor farmers f were vere fighting fighting fight- fight ing ng th their lr way Y back ba from t the 1 worst ye year r o on record e rd 1934 Gain Reported Although 1934 w was i a disastrous s year year for tor Utah farmers rs Mr r. r Andrews Andrews An An- n- n drews s said ld we still had enough eat tb-eat Crops Crops' id this state were no not wiped out ut as a's s in man many pla places s ant an and 1935 did m much ch to put agriculture its feet Ev Even if here back on n we wi more snow things thing dont don't get m much h more snow could be be bea a a lot worse There were Vere were 10 weeks of t exceptionally exceptionally exceptionally dry weather last St summer summer but despite it the total eStI t d value o of Utah's Utah 8 crop vas 2170 or 33 per cent better than 1934 Estimated Estimated Estimated Esti Esti- mated value of 1934 crops was 16 16 Increased production better mois moisture is- is ture tore conditions in th the early ealy spring I Increased d prices es an and benefit payments payments pay pay pay- I ments to farmers were factors factors' In Influencing Influencing In- In g the 1935 Improvement Farmers were gloomily contemplating contemplating contemplating plating the steady year year by year decrease deer de de- crease creaso er aSo In water levels lev ls of ot Utah Ut h an and Bear e r lake and reservoirs s throughout through through- out but tho the state Officials were of th the opinion J January nuary was too loo early t to tomake tomake make estimates con concerning the tho 1936 crop rop however Beet et Production r Sugar b beet et prod production in Utah Uta during 1935 totaled tal d tons compared compared com com com- pared with n 1934 and In 1933 What production figures subject sub sub- to revision after aUer United States State c census census census' data has b been en examined examinee w were we're re estimated at bushels bushel r in 1935 at a v value lue of compared compared compared com com- pared t to bushels in 1934 and bushels in 1933 Mr Mfr Andrews Andrews' winter wheat wheat t sh showed acres acres acres' sown for 1936 prod production as as compared with acres acres sown sO in the f 1934 S Some me individual farmers were re re- re ported t to have u cleaned l up in 1935 I because of f exceptionally high grac grade I crops crops crops' method ot cu cul- cul ul- ul W W. V. V W. W v Witcher it her ma master ter farmer mer o ot of Centerville solves the water situation situa situa- tl tion n with a private reservoir of h hown hIs own into which he turns water vater o ohis on his turn for tor use sc when it is mos most ne needed heeded ded instead of turning the water wate directly into his p peach ach orchard a a s 's s most farmers do Good tomato tomato- strawberry and ami raspberry crops crop's were also said t to have brought better than average profit to other farmers during th the past year 1 |