COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS
LIMITATIONS TO EXTENSION OF SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY
The following data were obtained by asking the farmers how many
acres of their farm land was good or fair sugar-beet land and could
be planted to sugar beets without changing greatly their type or
method of farming:

52

TABLE 62.— Polenlial sugar-beet land on farms investigated, Idaho. 1922

Al

Idaho 1...

Twin Falls. ___._____________.
Blackfoot_....

Sugarbeet

acreage
‘nvestigated


Acres
planted
1, 226
522
704

Sugar-beet land capable of
being planted to beets on
the farms investigated without
 changing greatly the
type of farming

Total
eres pos-!
sible to
plant

Possible increase
in present acreage

Acres Acres Per cent
4, 380 | 3, 154 257
2,040 | 1, 518 | 291
2, 340 1, 636 232

1 Combination of the two Idaho areas investigated.

TABLE 63.— Tabulation of farmers’ replies to the question, “What are the most importani
 factors limiting the acreage of sugar beets you grow?’ Idaho. 1922

Number of farmers reporting limiting factor as—

Tdaho 2.

Twin Falls.
Blackfoot. coe.

Crop
rotation

1%

Amount
of labor

\mount
hat can
ve manured


Soil
fertility

Land

Effect
on land

Other
factors 1

17
3
14

1 Miscellaneous factors were reported by 17 farmers as follows: 8, amount of land in good condition;
3, capital; 2, need of feed; 1 distance from factory; 1, labor distribution; 1, eradication of weeds: 1, risk.
» 8 Combination of the two Idaho areas investicated.

TABLE 64.—Experienice of farmers as lo effect of crop of sugar beets on yields of
subsequent crops. Idaho. 1922

Number of farmers reporting effect of crop o sugar beets on yield of subsequent
crop of—

A ren

Idaho 1____.

Twin A
Blackfoot _ .._..

Small grain | Hay !
Good Bad | Good Bad

Potatoes | Beans

Corn

Good Bad | Good | Bad

Good | Bad

88 1 43 4 13 28 4 0 1 2
32 | 1] 1n .| 2 3] 2 | 0] | 1
56 0 32 2 1 25 | 2 0 0 1

"Combination of the 2 Idaho areas investigated.