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