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_.... 
Sugar- 
beet 
acreage 
‘nvesti- 
gated 
Acres 
planted 
1, 226 
522 
704 
Sugar-beet land capable of 
being planted to beets on 
the farms investigated with- 
out 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 im- 
portani 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 ma- 
nured 
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.