SOME RESERVATIONS MADE BY COMMISSIONER
COSTIGAN RESPECTING THE COMMISSION’S RE-
PORT ON THE COSTS OF PRODUCTION OF SUGAR
BEETS
The accompanying report on sugar beets fails to make note of cer-
.ain limitations which affect the commission’s findings. Care should
be exercised in considering the data presented and particularly in
oasing conclusions on such data. So far as the undersigned is con-
cerned, such data are submitted subject to the following qualifications
and reservations:
Practically no statistical or accounting data can be pronounced
absolutely accurate. However, the information which is available
in industrial accounting is especially dependable because of the
great care and the large sums of money devoted to such accounting
in the regular course of efficient modern business. Farm accounting
is at present more liable than industrial accounting to uncertainties
and inaccuracies, partly for the reason that the data secured rest
largely upon memory rather than upon reliable records. Nor does
it suffice to suggest that error must always be expected, since it is
unfair to conclude that some margin of error in industrial accounting
may be used to excuse any margin of error, however wide, in farm
accounting. Moreover, with particular reference to the present
investigation, the business of the average sugar-beet farm consists
in effect of a number of farm enterprises. It 1s a task of extraordi-
nary difficulty to determine accurately costs of and returns from a
single one of these enterprises. This is so because of the comple-
mentary character of the various farm costs and farm returns, be-
cause they represent a combination of business and family affairs,
and finally, because so large a part of the total consists of imputed
costs necessitating a large number of appraisements.
As stated, the commission in the sugar-beet investigation adopted
the ‘““enterprise survey.” This method of accounting has been gen-
erally accepted by farm-management experts in the United States,
and the details of its application have been described. For farm-
management studies and for comparing conditions in different areas
such surveys have value. It is to be borne in mind, however, that
their use in determining profits, losses, and absolute costs is open to
serious objections, not merely because of the inaccuracies referred to,
but also because of the principles of accounting implied in such
surveys.
The farm accountant either does not accept, or is unable to insist
upon, certain principles developed in industrial accounting. This
becomes evident when the differences in methods of treating land
values and interenterprise profits are considered. For example, the
industrial cost accountant ordinarily questions the use in computing
capital charges of data which reflect the present estimated values of
farm lands in place of the costs of such lands
