. EE A Li nA 4 a SS NEES UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS PART VI—IDAHO REPORT ON THE FARMERS’ COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS IN IDAHO : 1921. 1922. AND 1923 [ REVISED EDITION } UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS PART VI—IDAHO REPORT ON THE FARMERS’ COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS IN IDAHO 1921, 1922, AND 1923 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON | G9 5 4, Lit A128 © 3 Bibliothe © = X~ \2 HUM Nw “ Kio) UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION Office: Old Land Office Building, Eighth and E Streets NW., Washington, D. C. COMMISSIONERS TroMAs O. Marvin, Chairman. ALFrED P. DENNIS, Vice Chairman. Epwarp P. CoSTIiGAN. Henry H. GLASSIE. A. H. BaLpwin. Epcar B. BROSSARD. Joan F. BETHUNE, Secretary. ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D. C. AT 15 CENTS PER COPY NOTE The data obtained by the commission on the costs of production of sugar beets are published in 10 sections as follows: Part I. Michigan. Part II. Ohio. Part III. Nebraska. Part IV. Colorado. Part V. Utah. Part VI. Idaho. PART VII. Wyoming. Part VIII. Montana. Part IX. California. PART X. Summary of costs of production of sugar beets in the United States and an economic analysis of the sugar- beet industry. EC —— In this investigation the Tariff Commission had the services of Dr. E. B. Brossard, Dr. P. W. Bidwell, L. B. Zapoleon, W. C. Funk, S. B. Nuckols, O. A. Juve, G. A. Billings, and F. H. Shelledy, of the agricultural division of the commission’s staff, and of others. Ty CONTENTS - History of the investigation. ______. Lo ie. Description of sugar-beet crop and the cultural operations in its produc- bon. _ o_o. Relation of sugar-beet crop to beet-sugai in. Method of investigation______________ Representativeness of the investigation. . Explanation of terms used in tables and elsewhere . Reservations by Commissioner Costigan. _ __. Appendix—Schedule used in the investigation a 7 8 67 71 TABLES AND CHARTS [. Scope and representativeness of the investigation: L. Scope of the investigation, 1922_____________. ne 2. Comparison of farms investigated in 1922 with the country as a whole in 1919 as regards the acreage of sugar beets harvested per farm________ _________________________ 3. Relation of acreage of sugar beets harvested per farm to costs per acre and per ton___________________________ Comparison of farms investigated in the various States with the country as a whole as regards— i. Yields of sugar beets per acre.. - 5. Sugar content of sugar beets_ _. 6. Sugar extracted per ton of beet: - 7. Sugar content not extracted. ____ ______ - II. Costs of production and returns to growers, United States, by States: 8. Per acre of sugar beets harvested _ _ - 9. Per ton of sugar beets harvested. __ —- 10. Per pound of sugar extracted from the sugar beets___ __._ [II. Costs of production and returns to growers, Idaho, by areas: 11. Per acre and per ton of sugar beets harvested___________ IV. Analysis of the average costs of production of sugar beets—Sum- mary for the nine States investigated and for Idaho, by areas: 12. Per acre of sugar beets harvested _ +2, Per ton of sugar beets harvested. _ l«. Percentage distribution of costs____. 15. Relation of yield to costs of production______.. ___.____ V. Cumulation, at increasing costs of production per ton of sugar beets, iid producing farms, and of acres and tons of sugar beets harvested, 22: Combination of the data for the 22 areas investigated in the United States— 16. Exclusive of capital charges. _. 17. Inclusive of capital charges Combination of the data for the {[daho— 18. Exclusive of capital charges. ______ 19. Inclusive of capital charges________. Data for each of the two areas investigated in 1daho— 20. Twin Falls, exclusive of capital charges 21. Twin Falls, inclusive of capital charges 22. 3lackfoot, exclusive of capital charges 23. 3lackfoot, inclusive of capital charges_ VI. Labor costs, daho, by areas: 24. Tabor cost rates per hour-__________. 25. ours of direct labor per acre________________ 26. Hours of direct and indirect labor per acre 16 18 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 av 28 30 31 20 34 26 38 38 40 40 42 42 40 13 [2] VI VI. Labor costs, Idaho, by areas—Continued. 27. Hours of labor per acre to perform once the various ma- chine operations_ _____.__. _ ._.__. __ oa --__ 28. Percentage of hand labor done by (1) contract labor, (2) family help, (3) hired help and grower’s labor. - VII. Horse labor costs, Idaho, by areas: 29. Horse cost rates per hour_. - 30. Horse time per acre. ______ mee 31. Horse time per acre to perform once the various machine operations. __. o_o oo... VIII. Capital and capital charges, Idaho, by areas: 32. Market value of sugar-beet land. _ 33. Average value of other capital ._____ 34. Value of land and other capital used ____ _________ 35. Comparison of land charges as determined by three different methods. _ i —eeeam Comparison of total capital charges as determined by three methods— 36. Peracre________. 37. Perton.__________ cen 38. Comparison of cash rental paid for land with estimated cash rentals. _________.__ _ ee 39. Interest rates paid on farm mortgages_____. - 40. Returns for capital, management, and labor. ____._______ IX. Farm practice in sugar-beet production: Kinds of operations and percentage of total number of farms on which each was performed a given number of times— 41. On tractor and nontractor farms_____ 42. On nontractor farms only _ oo Kinds and amounts of tractor work performed in sugar-beet production __ em 44. Manuring practice in sugar-beet production. _. 45, Hauling sugar beets. oo -- 46. Pounds of beet seed planted per acre__.__.___.__. X. Types of farming on farms investigated, Idaho, by areas: 47. Use made of farm area operated. oo __ 48. Size of farms and relative importance of sugar-beet acreage - 49. Sugar-beet yields per acre, by areas_.-_. .-.-._ - .---- 50. Acreage of the principal crops grown_ _.__-________. 51. Percentages of cultivated land devoted to various crops... 52, Yields per acre of the principal crops grown.________..... 52, Number per farm of head of various kinds of livestock .___ 5%. Tenureoffarms._____________-._ - 55. Tenure of sugar-beet land. _________. mm 56. Abandoned beet acreage. oo. I XI. Miscellaneous tables giving the replies of the farmers to some general questions concerning the sugar-beet industry: Farmers’ replies to questions concerning— Effect of existence of the local sugar factory upon the value of— 57. Farm land in general _____ -— 58. Sugar-beet land___ ___ ooo 59. Land used for crops that compete with sugar beets. oc eee 60. Comparison of the estimated value of land used for the production of sugar beets with the estimated value of . land used for crops that compete with sugar beets____ 81. Effect upon land values if beet-sugar factories were removed from the locality. em Farmers’ replies to questions concerning the extension and limitation of the sugar-beet acreage on the farms investigated in Idaho— 62. Potential sugar-beet land_ _ ______-___ ---- 53. Factors limiting the extension of sugar-beet acreage. - 84 Affect of crop of sugar beets on other subsequent crops. 85. Crops that compete most with sugar beets. _-__-- AR Farmers’ estimates of the profitableness of sugar beets as compared with other erons._ CONTENTS Page 44 44 45 45 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 49 49 50 51 53 54 54 55 56 57 57 57 58 58 £3 bd 59 59 50 60 60 60 61 61 62 62 62 63 aq CONTENTS a [LLUSTRATIONS Fig. 1. Map of the United States, showing location of areas in which the farm costs of producing sugar beets were investigated. .__ c——- 2. Effect of yields upon costs, Idaho. 1922_ Page 17 33 CUMULATION OF PRODUCTION AT INCREASING COSTS PER TON OF SUGAR BEETS, UNITED STATES, 1922 Combination of the 22 areas investigated in the 9 States 3. United 1. United States, exclusive of capital charges_ _ States, inclusive of capital charges. 35 35 Combination of the two Idaho areas investicated 5. Idaho, exclusive of capital charges_______. 6. Idaho, inclusive of capital charges. 37 37 Two charts for each area investigated in Idaho /. Twin Falls, exclusive of capital charges . ? Twin Falls, inclusive of capital charges @ Blackfoot, exclusive of capital charges. ' Blackfoot, inclusive of capital charges 39 39 41 41 COSTS OF PRODUCTION OF SUGAR BEETS Part VI.—IpDAHO REPORT ON THE FARMERS’ COSTS OF PRODUCTION OF SUGAR BEETS IN IDAHO FOR THE YEARS OF 1921, 1922, AND 1923 HISTORY OF THE INVESTIGATION On December 19, 1922, two months after the tariff act of 1922 became effective, the Mountain States Beet Growers’ Association, representing the sugar-beet producers of Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, and Wyoming, made formal request to the Tariff Com- mission for an investigation of the costs, returns, and economic con- ditions in the sugar-beet industry. Their request was vigorously supported by the sugar-beet producers of other States. Because of the significance of sugar-beet production in the sugar industry of the United States, the commission, on August 7, 1923, voted: * that an investigation under the general powers of the commission is hereby instituted on the cost of production of sugar beets; that the cooperation Of the Department of Agriculture in such investigation is invited; and that the advisory board be directed to draft a plan for the conduct of the investigation, if practicable, in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture. In accordance with this action the advisory board submitted plans for the investigation which were approved by the commission on August 14, 1923, and this report represents in part the results of that Investigation. The direct field investigation of farm costs was begun on September $, 1923, at Owosso, Mich., and was completed at Santa Ana, Calif., four months later, January 4, 1924. The investigation has required about 4,200 days of man labor, 1,270 days of field work in collecting the data from the farmers, and 2,930 days devoted to calculations and tabulations. In all, 78 persons, excluding the farmers who gave information on their costs and returns, have taken part in the inves- sigation—20 in the field and 58 in the office. The 20 field agents traveled a total of about 86,000 miles by train and in the course of the investigation covered thoroughly by automobile the sugar-beet producing districts in the nine States investicated. aks DESCRIPTION OF THE SUGAR-BEET CROP AND THE CULTURAL OPERA- TIONS EMPLOYED IN ITS PRODUCTION The sugar-beet plant (Beta vulgaris or B. vulgaris) by its remark- able organizing capacity takes from nature substances that would otherwise be unused and by combining them creates the useful prod- uct sugar. Producing and storing this valuable food, the sugar-beet plant is the foundation upon which rests the whole beet-sugar indus- try. The manufacturing processes—extracting, purifying, crystal- izing, and refining—necessary in the preparation of sugar for the use of man are carried on in the beet-sugar factories. Because of the al COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS significance in the beet-sugar industry of the processes carried on by the sugar-beet plant it is important that conditions of climate, soil, and water be favorable and that the necessary cultural practices be followed if the best results are to be attained. Sugar-beet culture is therefore an intensive farming operation. Sugar beets are grown for the beet root, which is the raw material of beet sugar. The beet seeds are planted in the spring and the beets are harvested in the fall of the same year, making it an annual crop. Though grown under a great variety of soil and climatic con~ ditions, the crop thrives best in regions where the soil is rich, the temperature moderate, and the moisture ample. Where precipita~ tion is insufficient, it is necessary to resort to irrigation. On the beet farms in this country sugar beets are not the sole crop, but usually one of several grown on the same farm. In the older agricultural regions where beets are grown they are an important crop in the rotation system. In the newer sections, however, less attention is given to the rotation of crops, and oftentimes beets are planted on the same ground for a succession of years. A good seed bed is the first essential to a successful crop, and conse- quently the farmers take great care in the preparation for planting. The land is usually manured, then plowed and worked down to a fine, smooth seed bed by disking, harrowing, leveling, dragging, and rolling. In Michigan and the Rocky Mountain sections the beet seeds are planted in April and May, and in California in February and March. Planting is done with a drill and in rows 16 to 24 inches apart. A few weeks after planting, when the plants appear above ground and show about four leaves, horse-drawn cultivators are run between the rows. The beets are then bunched or blocked and thereafter thinned. The bunching or blocking is done with 4 hoe by chopping out some of the beets in the row so that small bunches of two, three, or more plants are left about 10 or 12 inches apart. Thinning, the next operation, consists of singling the beets left in the bunches so that only one plant, usually the strongest, from each bunch remains in the ground. Sometimes two rows are thinned at a time, the thinner going on his knees between the rows; but as a rule only one row is thinned at a time, the thinner straddling the row. In irrigated sections the beets are watered from two to five times during the season. The water is run down in furrows made between the rows by horse-drawn cultivators. As the beet field must be kept free from weeds, one or several hoe- ings are required, the number depending upon the condition of the land and the prevalence of weed infestation of the particular ground where the beets are grown. The crop is harvested when the beets are ripe; that is, when they have practically their full growth and a sugar content of not less than 12 per cent, as shown by samples tested by the sugar company. The harvest season is July, August, and September in California, and Oc- tober, November, and December elsewhere. The soil around the beets is loosened, and the beets are lifted slightly from the ground by means of horse-drawn or tractor-drawn beet plows or lifters especially constructed for the purpose. Hand laborers follow the lifters, take the beets by the tops, pull them completely out of the ground, knock them together to remove adhering soil, and throw them into windrows for topping, which is done by hand with beet knives. The person doing the topping takes hold of the beet roots with one hand. cuts off COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 3 the leaves and the crown, and throws the beets to piles between the two windrows. From the piles the beets are loaded on wagons or autotrucks and delivered to the factory or beet dump. RELATION OF THE SUGAR-BEET CROP TO THE BEET-SUGAR INDUSTRY The average annual production of sugar beets in the United States for the three years 1921, 1922, and 1923, as shown in the 1923 Year- book of the United States Department of Agriculture, was 6,657,000 tons, harvested from an average of 667,000 acres. The average production of refined beet sugar therefrom was 858,600 short tons, forming 78 per cent of the total production of refined sugar in con. ‘inental United States in those years. Imports of sugar beets are relatively unimportant and originate entirely in Canada. The small quantities coming in are produced near the boundary and are manufactured into sugar in near-by factories, mainly in Michigan. In the last quarter of 1922, following the enact- ment of the present tariff act, sugar-beet imports amounted to only 11,755 tons, and in 1923 to only 11,722 tons. The revenue collected at 80 cents per ton (par. 764, sec. 7 of the tariff act of 1922) is com- paratively insignificant, amounting to but $9,404 in 1922 and $9,378 in 1923. In contrast to these small amounts from sugar beets the three-year (1921-1923) average annual revenue collected from imports of sugar was $115,277,828, or 26.3 ! per cent of the customs revenue obtained by the United States from all imports. A peculiarity of the beet-sugar industry is that manufacture must take place near the source of the raw material. Sugar beets, being bulky and perishable, are not adapted to distant shipment or to inter- national trade. Their production depends upon the existence of a near-by factory, and in turn no factory can be located far from the sources of the raw material. The industry as a whole is a closely integrated one, factories being entirely dependent upon an ample and regular supply of sugar beets. The future of the domestic refined beet-sugar industry rests upon the maintenance or expansion of the production of sugar beets. The culture of sugar beets and the manufacture of sugar from them are so closely allied as to constitute virtually a single industry, even though the two operations may not be carried on by the same persons or organizations. Beet-sugar production, considered as a whole, is primarily an agricultural industry, more than 80 per cent of its per- sonnel and about 50 per cent of its total capital being employed in agricultural processes. Costs of producing sugar beets are about 50 per cent * of the total costs of producing refined beet sugar. Practically all of the beets grown in the United States are con- cracted for each season by the factories before a single acre is planted by the growers; and the factories also assist the grower to secure seed, hand laborers, and sometimes beet drills and other equipment. 1 Average for 1921, 1922, and 1923 from Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States. 3 Data in the files of the commission show, on the average for the country as a whole for the two crop years of 1921-22 and 1922-23: _a. That the grower’s cost of production of sugar beets was 47.4 per cent of the total cost of produe- tion of refined beet sugar if the grower’s cost of production of sugar beets is used in determining the zost of sugar production; and, . b. That the grower’s cost of production of sugar beets was 49.6 per cent of the total sugar cost if the price paid by the factory for sugar beets is considered the cost of the beets in the production of sugar. If the expenses incurred by the sugar manufacturer for marketing the refined beet sugar are included as part of the total cost of sugar production, then the grower’s cost of production of sugar beets was 41.7 and 13.3 per cent of the sugar costs under the respective conditions indicated ‘COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS Sugar beets are now almost universally purchased upon a sliding price scale based upon the market price of refined sugar. Thus all factors affecting the price of sugar are reflected in the farmer’s price of sugar beets and in turn in his profits from the crop. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION The survey method was used in this investigation, that being a generally accepted and appropriate method of obtaining the produc- tion costs of an agricultural product. Trained agriculturists and cost accountants familiar with agricultural costs and farm practice in producing sugar beets and supplied with cost schedules? visited the growers on their farms and there obtained the necessary data for determining costs. Detailed data for 1922.—At the time the investigation was ordered the greater part of the 1923 crop of sugar beets had not been har- vested. Since the commission desired data for the most recently harvested crop, detailed costs were obtained for the 1922 production. These data were carefully checked and wherever possible were verified by the agents of the commission. Wages were checked against the going rates for the locality. Contract labor rates per acre and the prices of beet seed per pound were the actual figures stated in the contracts made by growers with the laborers and the factories. All of the data obtained from the growers on the amounts and value of perquisites supplied to contract laborers and the extra wages paid to them were checked against the local community rates for such items, and some of them were confirmed by the laborers themselves. Prices of horse feeds were checked against quoted market prices and prices of local dealers; taxes paid, against the tax records in the county courthouse; irrigation costs against the books of the irriga- tion company and the assessment records in the county courthouse. Land values and annual land rentals and the values of implements and work horses were compared with the averages for the commu- nity as estimated by prominent and well-informed local men other than farmers—such as bankers, realtors, land appraisers for the Federal land banks, economists, farm-management experts and agron- omists of the State agricultural colleges, the local county agricul- tural agents, and the farm-implement dealers. Interest rates were checked against rates given by the local bankers; the prices received for sugar beets against the prices paid the individual farmer as taken from the books of the sugar-manufacturing companies; the acreage and yield of beets per acre against the records of the factory with which the farmer contracted. Every schedule was carefully scruti- nized by a competent agricultural cost accountant other than the one taking the record from the farmer, both for the general reasonable- ness of the record and for accuracy as to quantity and value of the specific cost items. Calculations of costs for 1921 and 1923.—The details of the 1921 and 1923 costs were not obtained directly from growers but were determined by applying to the quantities of labor, horse-hours, seed, and other material employed in the production of an acre of sugar beets in 1922, the respective 1921 and 1923 cost per unit of each quantity. This method has been used by the United States Depart- 4 See appendix for form of schedule used. COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 5 ment of Agriculture and by a large number of agricultural cost ac- countants, and is based upon the fact that the acre is the unit em- ployed by farmers in their calculations and that the hours of labor per acre, pounds of seed planted per acre, manure applied per acre, ind other basic unit requirements in cost vary but little from year to year * unless there is a radical change in farm practice. For factors exhibiting variations from year to year, such as yields per acre, wages, contract labor rates, prices of horse feeds, prices of seed, prices of commercial fertilizer, and land charges, due allowance was made. Illustrations of individual calculations may help to make the method clear to the reader. Wages for 1923 had been obtained on the schedules by the agents of the commission while they were collecting the 1922 data. Wages for 1921 were derived by adjusting the 1922 wages, as found in the investigation, by the percentage of change in monthly wages (without board) paid farm laborers. According to available wage data the average monthly farm wages in Idaho (without board) were 2 per cent higher in 1921 than in 1922. Adding 2 per cent to the 19292 wage rate, therefore, established the 1921 wage rate. An adjustment was also made in the hours of labor for loading and hauling the higher yield of beets in 1923. This same method was followed in all calcula- tions for 1921. Contract labor rates for 1921 and 1923 were obtained directly from the farmers visited in the investigation and were checked against the printed beet contracts for those years, furnished to the commission by the sugar manufacturers. To these rates were added the 1922 costs of the minor items of perquisites furnished by the growers to the contract laborers, and also the extra wages, if any, paid to contract laborers at the rates specified in the 1921 and 1923 contracts for harvesting unusually large crops. For example, the contract labor rates in the Twin Falls area, Idaho, were $21.50 in 1921, $18 in 1922, and $19.50 in 1923. These are the amounts provided in the contracts with the laborers for the combined handwork of block- ing, thinning, hoeing, pulling, and topping an acre of sugar beets under standard conditions. To obtain the total cost of contract labor as shown in the tables the cost of the regular work under standard conditions was increased by (1) extra wages for harvesting an unusually good crop and for extra hoeings; and (2) the value of the perquisites furnished by the growers to the contract laborers. These two items averaged $7.55 per acre for 1921, $8.78 for 1922, and $10.35 for 1923. Hence the regular cost of contract labor when increased by these amounts equaled $29.05 Der acre in 1921, $26.78 in 1922, and $29.85 in 1923. Horse costs for 1921 and 1923 were obtained by adjusting the feed costs, as found in the investigation for 1922, to changes in prices as shown by the Yearbooks of the United States Department of Agri- culture for these years. Chores and other labor involved in the care of horses were charged at the new cost rates determined by the method described above. An adjustment was made in the hours of horse labor in hauling the higher yield of beets in 1923. For the remaining items the 1922 data were used. 4 Comparison of the commission’s data with similar data obtained by the Department of Agriculture (n investigations made for other vears shows a close agreement in these basic units of cost. COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS. Seed costs per acre for 1921 and 1923 were determined by adjusting the 1922 seed costs per acre by the percentage of change in price of seed for each of these years, as compared with the price of seed in 1922. In Idaho, however, the price per pound paid by farmers for beet seed was 20 cents for each of the three years. Prices per pound of seed were obtained from the farmers in the areas investigated and were checked against the factory-grower contracts. Commercial fertilizer costs for 1921 and 1923 were obtained by adjusting the 1922 fertilizer costs per acre by the percentage of variation in the market prices of fertilizer in those years. In Michi- gan and Chio, the two States in which beet growers used commercial fertilizer, the prices ® of fertilizer in 1921 and 1923 were, respectively, 15.7 per cent and 31 per cent higher than in 1922. Consequently the factors used in multiplying to obtain the 1921 and 1923 costs were 1.157 and 1.31, respectively. In like manner land charges for 1921 and 1923 were determined by applying to the 1922 land charges a factor of change based upon the percentage change in the “value of good plow lands,” as shown in the Yearbooks of the Department of Agriculture. For example, the value of good plow lands in Idaho was reported to be 16.4 per cent greater in 1921 and 15.5 per cent less in 1923 than in 1922. Conse- quently, to obtain the respective land charges for 1921 and 1923, the 1922 land charges as obtained in the field investigation were increased 16.4 per cent in the one case and decreased 15.5 per cent in the other. Yields for the three years.—The yields per acre for 1921, 1922, and 1923, were obtained from the farmers themselves and were checked against the factory records except in Michigan and Ohio, where the 1923 crop had not been harvested when the investigators were in the field. For these two States the 1923 yields were determined from data furnished by the United States Department of Agriculture. The 1922 yields for the farms investigated were increased or decreased for 1923 in proportion as the yields for that year in the respective States deviated from the 1922 yields. If the average yield for all farms was 10 per cent lower in 1923 than in 1922, the average 1923 yields for the farms investigated were determined by reducing the 1922 yields for these farms by 10 per cent. Method of weighting.—The annual averages for each State for 1921 and 1923 were arrived at by weighting on the basis of the 1922 production; the three-year average by weighting the commission’s data for each year by the total production of the State as reported by the Yearbooks of the United States Department of Agriculture. The averages for the United States were obtained by weighting the State costs by the total production of the State in each of the three years, respectively, as shown in the Yearbooks of the Department of Agriculture, and are combinations of data for the nine States only. Additional data.—In addition to the data on the costs of production and returns to the growers, the commission obtained, for the areas investigated, much supplemental information on the economic status of the sugar-beet industry—its present limitations, the possible in- crease in beet acreage under existing conditions of farm manage- ment, the effect of the sugar-beet crop upon yields of other crops planted subsequently on the same ground, the effect of the beet- sugar factories upon land values, and other valuable data. $ The prices of fertilizer were furnished by the soil improvement committee of the National Fertilizer Association 5 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE INVESTIGATION The commission desired to obtain data which would show the costs of producing sugar beets in the various regions and for the country as a whole. As it was of course impracticable to obtain costs from all growers, representative areas in the chief producing regions were selected. The records obtained for the 22 selected areas cover 2,242 farms in the nine States—Michigan, Ohio, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, [daho, Wyoming, Montana, and California. These nine States produced 94 per cent of the total beet tonnage and included 92 per cent of the acreage of sugar beets harvested in the United States in 1922. The area investigated produced 12.1 per cent of the total tonnage and was 10.4 per cent of the total acreage planted in sugar beets in the United States that year. The per- centage of the production investigated in tbe individual States ranged from 6.5 in Idaho to 27.3 in Wyoming. For the individual areas so visited the commission’s figures cover from one-fifth to one- half of the beets produced. The beets for which cost data were obtained were manufactured into sugar in 58 of the 81 beet-sugar factories operating in the United States in 1922, In Idaho data were obtained for 106 farms, or 3.8 per cent of the total number in the State that reported the production of sugar beets in the 1919 census. These farms produced 6.5 per cent of the total beet tonnage and had 5 per cent of the total acreage of sugar beets harvested in the State in 1922. As shown in Table 1, page 16, the areas investigated were located in regions of dense production, where sugar beets are an important farm crop. A sufficiently large number of localities and farms were visited by the agents of the commission to make the data obtained representative of the industry as a whole. Table 2, page 18, indicates that the farms investigated grew more acres of sugar beets per farm than did the average farm for the respective States in which the investigations were made, and conse- quently were perhaps operated more efficiently. (See Table 3, p. 18.) The larger acreage of sugar beets on the farms investigated may be partly accounted for by the fact that cost data were not obtained for farms having less than 3 acres of beets per farm, although beets were grown on some smaller farms in each area, especially near the cities. In like manner Table 4, page 19, showing considerably higher aver- age yields per acre of sugar beets on the farms investigated than on all farms in any State, may mean that the farms for which cost data were obtained are better or are operated by better farmers. Table 5, page 20, shows that for the three years 1921 to 1923 the average sugar content of the beets grown in the representative areas of the States investigated was higher by one-half a pound per ton of beets harvested than the average sugar content for all beets grown in the nine States visited, and higher by 1.4 pounds per ton than the average for all beets grown in the 17 sugar-beet States. Table 6, page 21, shows that the three-year average of sugar extracted from a ton of beets for the country as a whole was 258 pounds, while for the nine States covered by the investigation it 3 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS was 260.5 pounds, or 2.5 pounds per ton in favor of the specified nine States. The table further shows that there were on the average 3.4 more pounds of sugar extracted per ton of sugar beets grown in the area investigated than on all farms in the nine States in which the investigation was made. It may therefore be deduced that 5.9 pounds, or 2.3 per cent, more sugar was extracted per ton of sugar beets in the area covered by the investigation than was extracted, on the average, from all beets grown in the country. This probably makes the cost of producing sugar beets per pound of sugar extracted, as shown in this report, slightly less than it would have been if all sugar-beet farms in the country had been included in the investigation. Table 7, page 22, compares the sugar beets produced in the repre- sentative areas in the various States and in the country as a whole as regards sugar content not extracted. The averages indicate that for the three years the sugar content not extracted was smaller in the representative areas than in the total area planted in beets in the 9 States investigated or in the 17 sugar-beet States. These conditions indicate on the one hand that the costs per ton obtained in this investigation are lower than the average for all farms in the country as a whole because of the greater sugar-beet acreage per farm and the higher yields per acre obtained on the farms included in the investigation. On the other hand it is probable that some of this higher yield is due to more thorough cultivation, to the application of greater quantities of commercial fertilizer and manure, to the use of better-grade land, or to more efficient farm manage- ment; and though the averages for the areas investigated are not identical with the averages reported by the United States Depart- ment of Agriculture for all farms growing sugar beets, the farms investigated and the data obtained are representative of the sugar- beet industry of the country. EXPLANATION OF TERMS Direct costs. Direct costs are costs incurred specifically for the crop of sugar beets and directly chargeable thereto. The major items are man labor and horse labor. Of lesser importance are tractor costs and costs of materials such as commercial fertilizer, manure, seed, spray material, water rented or purchased specifically for irrigating the beets, and insurance on the crop. Labor costs include the wages paid for hired labor, wages at the going rates in the community for the farmer and members of his family doing farm work on sugar beets, and the farm market value of the perquisites actually furnished hired labor. The perquisites con- sidered are house, land for garden, coal, wood, vegetables, fruit, milk, butter, eggs, feed for horse or cow, and transportation of laborers and their supplies. Where the hired help was given board and lodging by the farmer, the farmer’s estimate of the value of such accommodation was added as a part of the labor cost. These esti- mates were checked carefully by the agents of the commission and where they were evidently out of line, adjustments were made. The wages allowed the farmer or operator do not include remunera- tion for management or supervision, but merely the equivalent of what would have been paid the laborer had the grower hired the manual labor done. COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 9 In ascertaining the cost of labor per hour, 10 hours were consid- ered a working day, 25 working days considered a month, and 3,000 working hours a year, per man. The hours per day as ascer- tained by the commission’s agents in the field are confirmed by figures published by the United States Department of Agriculture and investigations made by a number of State agricultural experi- ment stations.® The investigations made by these agencies show this to be about the number of hours and days actually worked on farms of such character. On every farm there are certain indirect labor items which can not be charged to any particular farm crop or livestock enterprise and which therefore must be prorated. These include repairing machin- ory, harness, machine sheds, fences, barns, and drainage systems, time spent in purchasing material with which to make repairs, in working on public and farm roads, in looking for labor, and in farm office work. The proper basis for prorating the costs of such items is that which most equitably distributes them according to the bene- fits derived. The amount of indirect labor varies with the individual farm and farmer. Investigations of detailed cost accounts kept on repre- sentative farms in Minnesota, Kansas, and New York show that the total indirect labor on such farms amounts to from 10.8 to 23.4 per cent of the total labor.” The variation in rates is due in part to differences in cost accounting methods and in part to differences in the types of farms considered. Analysis of these data shows that indi- rect labor, such as is chargeable to sugar beets, ranges from 614 to 10 per cent of the total direct labor. As 614 per cent of total direct labor on sugar beets amounts to approximately 15 per cent of the labor on machine operations on beets, indirect labor is calculated by adding 15 per cent of labor on machine operations to the total direct charges. The hours of direct labor have been used as the basis of prorating the indirect labor. Contract or hand labor costs include blocking, thinning, hoeing, pulling, topping, and in some cases the loading of the beets onto wagons. All such work is “hand” labor, as distinguished from “ma- chine” labor, such as plowing and harrowing, which are usually per- formed by the farmer and operator or by his regular hired help. Because such hand labor is largely done under contract and because the contracts are uniformly drawn to include the same items it is grouped under “contract labor.” Hand labor, whether performed by laborers under contract for so much an acre, by the farm operator and his family, or by the regular farm hired help, is charged at the contract rates. To the amount charged at the regular contract rate are added extra wages where actually paid for harvesting a crop yielding more than a specified tonnage or for extra hoeing, and also the estimated value of perquisites actually furnished the contract laborers by the grower of the beets. + See Tables 585 and 586 in the 1922 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture. ' Minnesota Exp. Sta. Bul. 205, p. 92, shows that on 21 farms in 1920, 16.3 per cent of total labor was indirect labor; on 22 farms in 1921, 10.8 per cent of total labor was indirect labor; and on the average for the \Wo years 1920, 1921, the indirect labor was 15.7 per cent of the direct labor. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bul. 1271, p. 68, shows a rate of 13.5 per cent on Minnesota farms. U. S. Dept. Agr. manuscript, in press, shows a rate of 16 per cent on Kansas farms. New York Exp. Sta. Bul. 414, p. 44,shows a rate of 23.4 per cent, on New York farms. I2A04— 9 10 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS The contract rates were charged for these labor items because on the average for all the areas investigated in the nine States 82.4 per cent of the blocking and thinning, 77.3 per cent of the hoeing, and 82.1 per cent of the pulling and topping were actually done under contract by laborers hired specifically for this work at so much an acre; while 13.5 per cent of the blocking and thinning, 16.2 per cent of the hoeing, and 13.1 per cent of the pulling and topping were done by members of the growers’ families, other than the growers them- selves, and 4.1 per cent of the blocking and thinning, 6.5 per cent of the hoeing, and 4.8 per cent of the pulling and topping by the FESS and their regular hired help other than the contract beet aborers. In Idaho the contract laborers did 79.7 per cent of the blocking and thinning, 67.8 per cent of the hoeing, and 81.7 per cent of the pulling and topping; members of the growers’ families, other than the growers themselves, did 15.1 per cent of the blocking and thinning, 21.8 per cent of the hoeing, and 15 per cent of the pulling and top- ping; and the growers with their regular hired help, other than the contract beet laborers, did the remainder. The interest on the advances made by the sugar companies to the farmers for the payment of contract labor is treated separately as a capital charge, and is therefore not included as part of contract labor costs. Horse costs, often referred to as horse-labor costs, were determined by separate inquiries carried on concurrently with the farm study of sugar-beet costs. These inquiries were conducted on a number of the same farms for which beet costs were ascertained. Feeds were charged at farm values, and the man labor required in caring for the horses was calculated at the same labor-cost rates charged against the other farm enterprises. Depreciation was calculated on the basis of the working life of the animal. In determining the horse-labor cost rate per hour, the total cost of depreciation and of keeping the horse was prorated on the basis of the total hours of horse labor chargeable directly to the several farm enterprises. The rates thus obtained include the costs of both the direct and the indirect horse labor. Tractor costs are on the customs or job rate basis for men and machines and thus include wages for tractor operators. As there were relatively few farms on which tractors were used in sugar-beet culture, no separate study was made of the comparative economy of horses and tractors. The tractor farms are therefore included with the nontractor farms in all the tabulations. Seed costs consist of the cost of seed only, the costs of hauling and planting the seed appearing under labor and horse or tractor costs. Commercial fertiluzer cost consists of the cost of the fertilizer only, the cost of applying it being charged elsewhere. Manure costs include only the farmer's estimate of the farm value of manure, not the cost of hauling or applying it. The residual value of manure is taken into account by charging only 50 per cent of its cost to the first crop, 30 per cent to the second crop, and 20 per cent to the third crop. Minor direct costs include those incurred specifically for sugar beets as follows: Spraying material, extra water purchased or rented for irrigation, crop insurance, and any hired machine work, such as planting beet seed and hauling beets to loading station. COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 11 General costs. General costs are those incurred as a part of the entire farm busi- ness and must therefore be allocated to the several farm enterprises, of which the production of sugar beets is one. They include costs for equipment, irrigation, taxes, and minor items. Equipment costs include repairs, depreciation, and costs of housing beet implements. Taxes on implements used in beet production are allocated to “Taxes,” insurance to “Minor general costs,” and labor of repairing machinery to “Labor on machine operations,” as indi- rect labor. The cost of each implement is prorated to beets on the basis of use as estimated by the farmers and checked by the agents of the commission. Irrigation costs include only the amounts paid by the farmers for the maintenance of irrigating canals and ditches, cost of canvas dams, etc. The labor costs of irrigating are charged to “Labor on machine operations.” These costs are prorated on the basis of the amount of Irrigation water used for sugar beets and for other pur- poses. Taxes include those paid on real estate and on persenal property, whether paid by tenant or landlord, but do not include income taxes. They are allocated to sugar beets on the basis of relative investment. Minor general costs include the proportionate part chargeable to sugar beets of the cost of fuel (gas) and oil for farm pumps and auto- trucks, beet growers’ and other association dues, fencing repairs (cash), telephones, maintaining drains, and running the farm auto- mobiles. The allocation of these costs was made by the farmer and checked by the agents of the commission. Credits. Credits or deductions from costs include the cash sale value of beet, tops and the saving, if any, to the grower in purchasing from the factory pulp, molasses, and sugar at wholesale prices. In the ab- sence of exact information concerning the increase or decrease in yields of crops rotating with beets this factor was disregarded in the cost calculations. Capital charges. Capital charges are the costs, in the form of either rent or interest, involved in the use of property. In sugar-beet production capital consists of (1) land; (2) equipment,® such as machinery and tools and horses used in the industry; and (3) working capital, whether in the form of money or credit, used by farmers in the production of sugar beets. In order to place the data on a comparable basis, all of the 2,242 farms investigated in the United States were treated as if owned by the operators, even though cash rental was paid on 5.4 per cent and share rental on 41.7 per cent of the harvested beet acreage. In all tables of this report capital charges for the use of land and for other $ As provided in the schedule (see p. 71) adopted for obtaining cost data from the growers, the capital charge for the use of the houses which the contract and regular farm laborers occupied was classed as a perquisite furnished laborers, and appears, therefore, as a part of the labor cost, rather than as a sepa- rate charge. Similarly, the capital charge for that part of the horse barn allocated to sugar beets was included in the horse-labor cost. and the canital charge for shelter for machinery and tools was included In the cost of equipment. 12 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS forms of capital, whether actually paid by the operator or not, were segregated from the other costs. With respect to such capital charges per acre as relate to use of land on which sugar beets are grown, Table 37, page 48, presents three sets of data: (1) The first column is on the basis of interest at 6 per cent on the market value of the land used. (2) The second column is on the basis of interest at the local bony mortgage rates on the market value of the land used. (3) The third column is on the basis of the annual net cash rental of the land used. Lt will be observed from this table that in Idaho interest at 6 per cent on the market value of the land used shows the lowest land charge per acre, while interest at the average farm mortgage rate shows the highest land charge per acre. For the United States as a whole, however, the cash-rental method gives a result approximately equal to 6 per cent on the estimated market value of the land The capital charges as shown in Tables 8 to 12, inclusive, pages 23 to 28, and elsewhere in this report, are based on the net cash-rental value of the land per acre, either actual or as stated by the owners or growers and checked by the agents of the commission, and on 6 per cent interest on the other capital employed in the production of sugar beets. The cash-rental method of calculating capital charges on land is considered preferable to that of basing them on the market value of the land at 5.5 or 6 per cent interest or at the prevailing mortgage rate. The cash rental appears to be a nearer approximation to a fair charge for the use of the land than is obtained by the other methods because it includes little, if any, of the speculative or home- site value and represents more nearly than any other charge the present economic rent of land for agricultural purposes.? On farms actually rented for cash the cash rental charge per acre is the actual rental paid the landlord less the taxes and the actual cost of maintaining fences and drains, where these costs were paid by the landlord. On farms that were owned or share rented the growers stated the net annual cash rental per acre that owners would be willing to take and that tenants would be willing to pay for the sugar-beet land. For the three years 1921 to 1923 the average cash rental per acre for all farms investigated in the United States was $13.43. Oa the other hand, a 6 per cent charge on $222, the three-year average market value of land, is $13.32, or only 11 cents less per acre than the annual cash rental. This may be viewed in another way; if the annual net cash rental is capitalized at 6 per cent, the resulting value of the land is $224 as compared with the farmer's stated value of $222. For the United States as a whole, therefore, it makes practi- cally no difference whether the charge for the use of land is on the basis of the net cash rental or a 6 per cent interest charge on the market value of the land. Wheat and Wheat Products, Report of the U. 8, Tarif Commission to the President of the United States, 1924, pp. 7 to 10. COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 13 A second method of calculating the capital charge is based on the prevailing mortgage rate of interest on the market value of land. The average rate paid in 1922 on mortgages on the sugar-beet farms investigated by the Tariff Commission was 7.14 per cent. If the annual net cash rental is capitalized at this rate, 7.14 per cent, the resulting value of the land is $188 per acre; if it is capitalized at 5.5 per cent, the present rate charged on farm mortgages by the Federal land banks, the resulting capitalized land value 1s $244 per acre, slightly more than the farmer’s stated value of $222. The market values of land and the cash rental data obtained from the farmers on the cost schedules were carefully checked by the agents of the commission while in the field. Stated land values were checked against actual sales prices, and both land rentals and values against those given by such competent local men as county tax officials, bankers, real-estate dealers, county agricultural agents, and officials of the agricultural colleges, particularly professors .of agricultural sconomics and farm management. Where the values given by farmers were clearly out of line with data from these sources, adjust- ments were made. In 1922 the capital employed in sugar-beet production for farm equipment—implements, tools, and work horses—amounted in even numbers to $26 per acre of beets harvested for all farms investigated, and to $33 per acre for the farms investigated in Idaho. At 6 per cent the capital charge for equipment, based on the total value of equipment rather than on the average value, amounted to $1.56 an acre, or 13.8 cents per ton of sugar beets for all farms investigated, and to $1.99 an acre, or 13.6 cents per ton of sugar beets for the farms investigated in Idaho. The values of the implements and work horses were obtained on the schedules from the farmers themselves by the agents of the com- mission and were carefully checked against actual sales values in the localities, as well as against the estimates of such local men as farm- implement dealers, the local farm-implement auctioneer, horse dealers, bankers, county agricultural agents, and officials of the agri- cultural colleges. Where the farmers’ valuations were clearly out of line with sales values and estimates by these local men, adjustments were made. The values given by the farmers were those obtaining in the fall of 1922 and served as a basis for determining 1921 and 1923 values. It is important to note that the value of farm equipment—machin- ery and tools and work horses—shown in this report includes only that part of the total value of the equipment allocated to the sugar- beet crop and, therefore, does not represent the full value of all machin- ery and work horses used in sugar-beet production. Two examples may make this point clear. A wagon worth $100 was used in hauling hay and grain, as well as sugar beets. The farmer estimated that one-half the depreciation and repairs on the wagon was chargeable to sugar beets; therefore only this one-half of the value, or $50, was considered the capital involved in sugar-beet production. Similarly the cost of maintenance and operation and the value of each imple- ment were allocated to beets on the basis of use, allowance being made for the varying wear and tear due to different uses. In the application of this method of analysis to work horses the cost and value were allocated to sugar beets on the basis of the relative number of hours of direct horse labor emploved on the sugar- 14 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS beet crop. If two teams, valued at $400, were used in the produc- tion of sugar beets for only one-half of the total time that they were employed on the farm during the year, the remainder of the time being used on other farm crops, only one-half of the total cost of maintaining the horses was charged to sugar beets, and consequently only $200, or one-half of the total value of the two teams, was allo~ cated to sugar-beet production. Preliminary tabulations of cost data in the possession of the com- mission show that the advances made by the beet-sugar manufactur- ing companies to the sugar-beet growers for the payment of con- tract labor averaged $10 an acre and ran on the average for a period of four months. This is equal in capital value to $3.33 an acre for a year, which at 6 per cent interest amounts to 20 cents per acre, or 1.8 cents per ton, of sugar beets. Since over 80 per cent of the handwork of blocking, thinning, and hoeing required in the cultivation of the sugar-beet crop is done by contract laborers paid by the acre, and a large percentage of the growers of sugar beets pay to the beet-sugar companies interest on these advances from the time each operation is completed until the beets are harvested in the fall (when the amount of the loan plus the interest is deducted from the farmers’ beet checks), and since this is an actual out-of-pocket expense to a large percentage of the growers, this $3.33 per acre is shown as a part of the capital employed in the production of beets. Prices. Prices of sugar beets are the weighted average prices received by farmers for their beets, whether unloaded at the sugar factory or at the railroad spur or loading station. The returns per acre were ob- tained by multiplying the price per ton of beets by the number of tons harvested and dividing the product by the number of acres of sugar beets harvested. TABLES AND CHARTS SCOPE AND REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE INVESTIGATION TasLe 1.—Scope of the investigation of the costs of production of sugar beets by the United States Tariff Commission. 1922 Farms producing sugar beets for sugar Acres of sugar beets | harvested Tons of sugar beets harvested Num- Per ber for cent- which age cost that data |number vereob-|of farms tained | investi- in this | gated ‘nvesti-| is of gation, | total 1922 lin 1919 Per cent age that acres investi- gated is of total acres Per cent- age that produc- tion in- 7estiga- ted is of total produc- tion 12.1 7.9 8.7 19.7 13.0 State and area Total num- ber, 19191 Total acre- age, all farms 2 Acre- age of farms nvesti-, gated Total ons, all farms 2 Tons on farms invest. gated United States ......__...| 47,211 Michigan...... .__.....] 14,812 Alma-St. ls Bay City ooo. i BHO mss mmm mms - OWO0SS0. cco = # Sebewaing.._........ OhiO. eee! 3,174 Nebraska ..._..__..._..| 1,531! Colorado...ooeeocno..l 7,604 Fort Collins. ooceeees|caa Fort Morgan_- 2.212]. 7200 areeley. coool. Rocky Ford........|-- Ca Sterling. oeoeeoee ....l 8398 2,242 1 4.7 “476 ' 530,000 ' 54,875 | 10.4 5, 183, 000 '426, 807 3.2 84, 000 5, 685 ‘G2 O0Nn £4 837 01 8 1, .: lb. Leo? , 05¢ 34 | 18¢ 6, 23 157 26. 000 2 022 NNN) 19. 162 of, 55, 000 9 TIE 703.000 1138, 456 1. 4R6. 000 1190. 992 Fo" 148, 000 17 0A: 10.7 6.5 27.3 14.6 15.4 1 Data are not available for other than census years; therefore the best comparison that can be made is with these data taken from the reports of the Fourteenth United States Census. 2 These data were taken from the Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture, 1923, Table 356 (p. 842), supplemented by unpublished statistics in the files of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the Department of Agriculture that were furnished with permission of the companies concerned. = “SEAS IN WHICH U.S. TARIFF COMMISSION INVESTIGATED THE COSTS : OF PRODUCING SUGAR- BEETS 1921,1922 & 192% < n = »0 Q x ~ bo GC. mn (] Q 5 = = i & of 1G. 1.—Location of the 22 areas in the 9 States in which the costs of production of sugar beets were investigated. The sugar beets for which costs of Drodcion Joe obtained were manufactured into sugar in 58 factories, or 72 per cent of the 81 beet-sugar factories in the United States that pperated in 1922 p— 18 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TaBLE 2.—Comparison of the 1922 average acreage of sugar beets per farm on the farms investigated with the 1919 average acreage per farm for all farms growing beets tn that year as reported by the census State United States: All States. o-oo cee —- States investigated - Mihi gan. ooo ce cadence ceca Ohio. .... Ce emm——s - cama Nebraska... ocacccecaiccmcecccmcccccccccacccccacmccc————— Colorado. SR SS RS Rim SSR RRR § Utah...... BR wm RR NE ARR WEAR RRRE + BAS E00, ces i iE ER no SH Em YOM eee cmc emcam memo mma —m— mmm —— RY 10) 01 723 1 FU EOE California - - ecco ———m Acres of ugar beets per farm | growing beets in 19191 Acres of ugar beets per farm on farms investi- rated, 1922 Amount by which he average sugar-beet acreage per ‘arm in 1922 _ on farms investigated axceeds the . average sugar-beet acreage per farm on all farms growing oeets for sugar in 19191 y 24 1 See United States census reports. ) 3 The average sugar-beet acreage per farm in 1919 for Idaho as shown in the United States census reports was greater by 2 acres than the average sugar-beet acreage per farm in 1922 on the farms included in this vestigation. TABLE 3.—Relation of acreage of sugar beets harvested per farm to the net cost per acre and per ton SUMMARY FOR IDAHO, 1922 [Data are for 106 farms investigated] Range of beet acreage harvested per farm . 6 i. 9 10.9 *™C 2 " i 7. A: Number of farms Acres harvested | Tons harvested Total Average per farm Total Average yield per acre 106. 2 ci 187.2 6.9 184.1 | 10.2 90.0 12.9 126.0 15.8 152.° ie 1,450.6 2,716.8 2,731.0 1412.4 1,879.1 gan r 0 14.5 14.8 ALi - « bth oe a "xclusive »f capital charges ,— ge *n ar ’ Net costs Per acre Per ton Inclusive Inclusive of stated of stated land land ental and ““xclusive|rental and interest at - of capital |interest at 8 per cent charges |6 per cent on capital ; on capital other ' | other “han land than land ~ $7.55 7.17 6.54 6.31 7.05 6.00 8.76 5.23 A.492 Nore.—Although some farms in Idaho produced less than 3 acres of beets in 1922, cost data were not Obtained for these small acreages because they were usnallv incidental and of only minor importance on iversified farme COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 19 TABLE 4.—Comparison of yields of sugar beets per acre for the farms investigated with the average yields of sugar beets for all farms as reported in the 1923 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture State and year United States: All States— 3-year grersge- 1921... __.. 1922______ 1023. nuns States investi- gated— 3-year average.. 1921... 1922... ._. 9s ene Michigan: 3-year average.. 1921.__. . 1922... 9923 Ohio: 3-year avers 19% 195° x Nebraske: REY: WR > Average yields of sugar beets For all [arms as -eported in the 1923 {earbook of the | Depart- ment of Agri- ulture For the farms ncluded in this nvesti- gation Tons per cre 9.97 9. 55 9.77 0. 66 Pons per | acre 0.12 1! 46 xcess of yields or farms nvesti- gated over yields for all farms rowing heels Tons per acre 1.34 1.34 1.41 08 State and year Colorado: 3-year average...’ 102) cencinm 1922. cee. 1923... Jtah: 3-year average... YOR. owncwmns 1922. covannn 1923... [daho: 3-year average.. 1921 ______. 1928. cnunans 1023... Wyoming: 3-year average.. 1921 ___.... 1922. conus 1923._.. Montana: 3-year averr 1921... 1922. op \ verage yields of sugar beets For all ‘arms as ~eported in the 1923 Yearbook of the | Depart- ment of Agri- culture For the farms ncluded in this investi- gation Tons per cre "2.21 ’ 39 Tons per acre *2.51 2.97 TQ 5 4 7% Z 0.43 , 161 t73 19 82 Excess of yields or farms investi- gated over yields for all farms rowing beets Tons per acre 0.30 1.58 1.26 1.00 2.01 2. 05 1.79 1. 97 3.14 2. 54 3. 04 3.75 1.46 2.07 -1.98 .76 1.71 2. 68 . 66 2.10 wd ll a > NoTE.—A minus sign (—) preceding a figure indicates that the average Average yield on the farms investigated by the amount shown. viald on all farms exceeds the 20 | "COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TasLe 5.—Comparison of the average sugar content of the sugar beets included in the investigation with the average sugar content of all beets grown in the couniry SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND ANALYSIS BY 8TATES, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 J ————————— Sugar content of a ton of sugar beets Amount by which the sugar ontent of the sugar heets in- cluded in the investi- gation exceeds he sugar content of all sugar beets nroduced Sugar content of a ton of sugar beets Amount by which the sugar ontent of the sugar beets in- 2luded in the investi- gation exceeds he sugar «ontent of all sugar beets sroduced Area and year Average Average ; of those of all |included beets in the sroduced! investi- gation Area and vear Average of all beets | sroduced Average of those (ncluded in the investi- gation United States: All States— 3-year average... 1921... 1922. ceo 1928. eee States investi- gated— 3-year average.. 1921. coos 1922. u_-- 1923. _..__. Pounds per ton 310. 7 215. 4 308. & 2086. & Pounds per ton Pounds Der ton Colorado: 3-year average...) - 1821..nue-l 1922. oo 1923. cca Utah: 3-year average__- 1921. ceo 1022.00 mmmm 1928. cumin Idaho: 1 3-year average. .: 1921... 1922 ae 1923. ooo Wyoming: 3-year average. .| 1921... mucnne 1922... 1923 _.-- Montana: 3-year average... TOL nmmmn 1928. isms 1523... -lifcrnia: Pounds Pounds per ton per ton 300. 7 299. 2 313.2 314.1 293.2 291. 6 291.8 287.7 319.0 224, 2 320. 1 312. 5 Pounds per ton ~15 .9 -16 —4.1 —3.1 —6.2 -2.1 -.7 311, 6 318.0 308. 9 306. 4 312.1 318.9 308. 3 307. 2 0.5 .9 -. 6 R Michigan: 3-year average.. 1921... 1922... 1923. .o... Ohio: 3-year average... 192. vu annsn 1022 uinan 1923 ____... Nebraska: 3-year average... 1921. oo. 1922... 1922. 335.7 349.0 331. € 327.8 329.1 50 Dah " 211 | 40. 7 pre 5.0 6.6 3.7 4 4 284. 2 265, 6 287. 6 305. 8 284. 7 264.3 283. 6 12. 2 - 1.9 .9 -2 5 274.2 77.¢ ok oy na 0 0 0 a 8.9 9.3 5.4 10. 6 la. "1 The amount of sugar extracted per ton of sugar beets harvested on the farms included in the inves- tigation is unusually high for Idaho, because a large percentage of the beets were manufactured into sugar at the Twin Falls plant. which emplovs the Steffents process. NoTE —The data for all farms and all beets produced were taken from the 1923 Yearbook of the Depart- ment of Agriculture and supplementary data furnished by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, with permission of the companies concerned. The data for the farins investigated were obtained in the field and suppleinented by data furnished by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. The 3-year averages in all cases are weighted averages. The sugar content for each year and each State was weighted by the total tons of sugar beets produced in that State, A minus (—) sign indicates that the average sugar content per ton of beets harvested on all farms was greater than the average sugar content per ton of beats harvested on the farms investigated. COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 21 TaBLE 6.—Comparison of the pounds of sugar extracted per ton of sugar beets included in the investigation with the pounds of sugar extracted per ton of sugar beets produced on all farms SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND ANALYSIS BY STATES, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 State and year United States: All States and all farms— 3-year average..| 1921... 1922... 1923__..._.. Farmsinvesti- gated— 3-year average.._ 1921... 1922... 1923. cca Michigan: 3-year average.. 1921... __ 1922. 923._. Dhio: 3- ¢ Tebras Pounds f sugar xtracted per ton of sugar | eets har- vested on all ‘arms 258. 0 62. 3 260. 6 351 4 260. 5 265. 5 262. 1 253 7 229.9 212.1 234. 9 “19. 4 Amount »y which :he num- ber of pounds of sugar «xtracted per ton ” of sugar be i seets har: ‘xtracted) vesigd ner ton arms in of sugar sluded eets har- in the vested 3 on the uyosti- aims gation pa xOteds in the nvesti. Bounds gation ,yiracted by all mills per ton of sugar 'eets har- vested on all farms - 263. 9 268. 1 263. 2 250 8 3.4 2.6 229. 7 215. 5 229. 4 “40 6 State and year Colorado: 3-year average... 1921... 1922. .... 1923... Ttah: 3-year average.. 1921... 1922... 1923... [daho:! 3-year average..]| 192... ssn 1922. _.____| 1923. a... ¥voming: > ear average._. 192) conoman 1922... 192... mtena: ear cversge. 021. ii 925 _ Pounds of sugar ixtracted per ton of sugar | eets har vested on all farms 250. 3 258. 7 250. 2 240. @ 264.3 270.5 268. 1 254.9 286.6 208.6 201.4 274.7 267. 7 278.4 3 < Pounds of sugar sxtracted! per ton of sugar Yeets har-| vested on the farms ncluded in the nvesti- ration 256. 0 261.0 253.9 2592 0 258. 2 262. 8 259. 0 252. 6 308. 2 318.2 315.7 206.4 265. 5 274.7 n2.¢ Tot of 5% Amount by which she num- ber of pounds of sugar sxtracted per ton of sugar »eets har- vested on the farms in- cluded in the :nvesti- gation 2xceeds the pounds of sugar axtracted by all mills per ton of sugar eets hare vested on all farms 5.7 2.3 3.7 11.1 —6.1 —~7.7 —9.1 -2.3 21.6 19.6 24.3 21.7 ~2.2 -3.7 -8.9 9 4 uv 0 0 0 8.7 7.6 8.0 1.3 1 The number of pounds of sugar extracted per ton of sugar beets harvested on the farms included in rhe investigation is unusually high for Idaho, because a high percentage of the beets were manufactured nto sugar at the Twin Falls plant. which employs the Stetfens process. NoTE.—A minus (—) sign indicates that the average pounds of sugar extracted per ton of beets harvested yn all farms was greater than the average pounds extracted per ton of beets harvested on the farms vesticated 22 ' COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TABLE 7.—Comparison of the sugar beets investigated with all sugar beets pro- duced in the various States and in the country as a whole as regards sugar content not extracted SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND ANALYSIS BY STATES, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 Area and year United States: All States and all beets— 3-year average. ...o--_.__.. 192) eel 1922__.. 1928 on Averages for the States in- vestigated— 3-year average... _...___ 1921 eee 1922 eo. 1923 ee Michigan: 3-year average... o._._. 192] mm mR ym 1922_._. rr ——— 1922 ‘e-- Ohio: 3-year average... .._._...._._ FR 3 1 ee. 1923_... Nebraska: 3-vear average o.oo. Baim a me I eee. 10 Sugar content not extracted Averages for all arms and all beets (taken from the 1923 Year- book of the De- | partment of Agri- culture and sup- blemental data in she files of that depart- ment) Averages for the farms nd beets investi- ated Pounds per ton 52." 53 i 48, ¢ 55. 4 Pounds per ton er cme mew 51.1 62.5 16.8 52. 7 | 48.2 50.8 45.1 47.6 4.2 3.8 52.7% 6. 4 55.0 18.8 54.2 63.6 3 *B Area and year Colorado: 3-year average... ooo... 1921 ee. 1999 __. mmm 19% rmm———- Utah: 3-yeal average... ....._. 10 eee 02 mR we 1622 Idaho: } 3-Vear average. .ceo.ceeeoo 19-1. .._. ce——— Ya emma Les memes Wyoming: 3-yea. 1Verage.. ...cano--. UN. wie won a 18.2... 10a Montans. 3-vear average _ 1091.. ? Taliep: 3c verage U2 Sugar content not extracted Averages, for all farms and’ all beets (taken rom the 923 Year: book of the De- partment of Agri- | culture . and sup- nlemental data in ‘he files of that iepart- ment) \ verages for the farms ind beets investi- gated Pounds per ton 50. 4 54.5 43.0 50. 9 Pounds per ton 43.2 53.1 37.7 35.7 60.8 61.4 61.1 59.9 7. , & 19.1 n, 4 iC 32.5 37.4 19.6 35.8 62.7 77.9 67.8 5L.7 48.0 49. 5 38.7 52.7 25.9 30.1 22.0 21.0 Nore.—The sugar extraction from beet roots depends upon the sugar content, the coefficient of purity, the degree of ripeness of the beets when harvested, the general condition of the beets when sliced, the ex- braction and refining processes used, and the efficiency of the mills. Averages were all obtained by weighting with the total tons of beets produced in each State, respectively. These data were obtained from Tables 5 and 6 and are the differences between the sugar content and the sugar extracted per ton of sugar beets. COSTS OF PRODUCTION AND RETURNS TO GROWERS— UNITED STATES, BY STATES TABLE 8.—Weighted average costs of production and returns to growers from the sale of sugar beets SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND ANALYSIS BY STATES, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 [Per acre of sugar beets harvested] Amount by which the returns to growers rom the sale of sugar beets exceed ! the 2osts of production of sugar beets 3 Average costs 1 Average ‘aturns to growers rom the sale of sugar beets State and year No allow- ince made for land rental and nterest on other rapital ¢ Allowance made for and rental nd interest at 6 per cent on other capital § No allow- ance made for land ental and nterest on other raDital ¢ illowance made for land rental and interest at 6 per sent on other 2apital § United States: BYLAT AVELAED. cur wc nmamms mm smi Ween A —— 192°... PRP 1922 Michigan: 3-Vear Average. ececcccacccrcnccnrcanan-n. 192] cnn nm EES 192° .. - 192 70. 79 70.78 67. 22 73.74 b85. 98 87.26 B82. 52 87.20 $87. 88 68. 81 90. 42 109. 91 $17.09 -1.97 23.20 36.17 $1.90 18.45 7.90 22.71 57. 01- 37.04 31.77 71. 00 78.01 78. 55 72.58 81.45 69. 99 55. 45 69. 67 89. 96 2.98 -11. 59 7.90 18. 96 —8.02 —23. 10 -2.91 8.51 Ohio: 3-vear Average. ceoccecccccccccccecaca. 1921... _— 1922 im 1923__. - Nebraska: 3-year average. cccucemcccaccnccacccana- 1921__. mm 192 om 192%... Colorado: 3-year average . cocoa aa. 1921... 1922. _.. 1923. 38.71 38. 52 33. 43 32 21 70. 14 70. 59 64. 55 73 33 73.45 54. 18 65. 06 04 20 14.74 -4. 34 11.63 29 OR 3.31 —16.41 .81 20. 96 66. 44 57. 13 54. 54 57. 39 30. 98 32.94 78. 63 RO. 77 95.87 77.88 116. 95 08. 20 29.43 10.735 52. 41 30. 81 14.89 ~5. 06 38.32 17.43 72.44 72. 67 38. 88 15 34 88. 44 89. 39 B85. 25 00. 15 91.19 82.49 86. 27 106. 25 18.75 9.82 17.39 30. 01 2.75 -6. 90 1.02 16.10 —-2.42 —-32.77 12.71 25.21 Jtah: 3-Vear average. ooo cocceecceccec—e—e- 921... r- 1922__. mH TS 1923__ oe 30. 18 30. 39 76. 10 3 48 97.97 100. 47 94.28 97. 85 95. 55 67.70 106. 99 123. 06 15.37 -12. 69 30.89 39. 58 [daho: 1-vear average. . 1921... - LE eevee mmenen. 1923. __ “ Wyoming: 3-vear average aoe ooo ooo. 1921... 1922... 1923. Montana: 3-vear average._._ 1921___. 1922. 197° California: RT OAT AVEraZe. ceececcmccmcccccmcemen 92] meme. CT ccm. RR 18932 31.73 79. 08 79. 57 5. 47 97.90 97. 54 95.73 09 46 106. 00 70.26 122.70 130. 76 24.27 —8. 82 43.13 45. 29 8.10 -27.28 26. 97 31. 30 12.20 72. 10 39. 52 4 17 "31 83.22 37.38 c7 * 02 272 nh a 0.91 -15.88 .22 13. 24 5 92 20.91 —4.25 28. 32 35. 33 2.09 26.11 -1.11 61.01 1 When composite figures appear as in the 3-year average for each State and in the figures for the United States, where the data for the States investigated are combined, the total acres of sugar beets harvested ire used as weights. ' A minus sign (—) before a figure indicates that costs exceed returns by the amount indicated. 3 See pp. 8 to 14 for explanation of methods of determining costs. + Land rental and other capital charges, paid and unpaid, are excluded from this cost. For the United tates as a whole cash rental was actually paid on 5.4 per cent of the acreage harvested and share rental on 41.7 per cent. On a large percentage of the farms interest, amounting to 20 cents per acre, or about 1.8 cents per ton, was actually paid on cash advances made by the factories to the farmers for the pay- ment of contract labor. Many of these farms are mortgaged, and interest is actually paid on the farm mortgages at rates varying from 5 to 9 per cent and averaging 7.14 per cent. In order to put the data for ill farms on a comparable basis and simplify tabulations, however, all farms were treated as owned by lhe operators, and taxes and overhead costs on this rented acreage were included as general costs, and all *apital charges, whether paid or unpaid, were segregated. 8 The capital charges included here are for all capital employed in sugar-beet production 24 " COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TABLE 9.—Wetghted average costs of production and returns to growers from the sale of sugar beets SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND ANALYSIS BY STATES, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 [Per ton of sugar beets harvested] Amount by which the returns to grower {rom the sale of sugar beets exceed? the cost of production of sugar beets? Average costs! Average ~eturns to growers rom the sale of sugar beets State and year No allow- + Allowance ance made | Rade for for land | land rental | rental and and interest! nterest on at 6 per other eent on capital | other capital § No allow- Allowance mce made made for for lana land rental ental and and interest nterest on | at 6 per other cent on capital 4 other capital § United States: 3-year average... eee cncancnccencacan 1921, cane —— 199° mmemmmmcececwmem————ia 1¢° emma c—n- Michigan: 3-year average. oo e-cooocceeccccaeea- 1! 7.1 SO, 1020. smi mmm ——————— 1922 $6. 21 6. 45 5. 96 6.07 7, 52 7.9¢ 7.32 7.18 $7.70 6. 27 8.01 9.09 $1.49 -. 18 2.05 3.02 $0.17 —1.68 .69 1.91 —. 84 -2.51 —.30 .90 .39 -1.82 . 05 2.07 1.15 —. 43 2.62 1.46 7.13 7.30 6. 40 7. 49 8. 30 8. 55 7.52 60 7.46 6. 04 7.22 9. 50 .33 -1.26 .82 2.01 Ohio: 3-year average. .. ccm mma 1921... m——— 1922 Ci mee. 1923... Nebraska: 8-year average. occa. 1921 eee 1922... .. . 1923._.. -. Colorado: 3-yearaverage... oon. Niecy SS i wR OZ. commer nm —————— 1923 cee ececac——a 5. 11 5. 48 5. 64 B. 13 7.30 7.82 "82 29 7.69 6. 00 6. 87 9. 20 1.58 -. 48 1.23 3.16 5. 25 5. 69 1 42 R. 62 6. 40 7. 03 5. 39 B. 73 7.55 6. 60 8. 01 Q. 10 2.30 .91 3.59 2. 57 5.79 5. 60 3. 156 h.73 7.06 6. 89 7.62 6. 85 7.30 6. 36 7.71 8. 08 1.51 .76 1. 56 2.35 .24 —. 53 .09 1. 23 Utah: 3-year average. o-oo 1921 ae cdma 1922__. : i 1923. =% Idaho: 3-vear average... .cco-—- acmcacccca-. 1921 eee 1922 aa 1923 co emma. Wyoming: 3-year average... ooeoooooeocacoocoooo- 221 COR YG cc os BRR Bm 1923 Montana: 3-year average. .-ccueicoceoomccccaan 1921___.. - 1922. __. . 1923... California: 3-year average _...._._.._.__.__. L021... cmon mmm mass Sm 19. mr Sm 1922 5. 01 5.53 5.82 5.61 7.34 8.16 7.21 6. 58 7.20 5.50 8.18 8. 27 1.19 1.03 2.36 2.66 —. 14 —2. 66 L97 1. 69 5.91 3.74 7.08 R 31 3. 53 8. 45 7.64 6. 00 8.37 8.48 1.73 —. 74 2.93 9 04 . 56 —2.31 1.84 2 03 s L12 —1.48 .02 1.13 1.76 -.36 2.42 2.67 .23 -3.06 -.11 6. 40 t When composite figures appear as in the 3-year average for each State and in the figures for the United States, whos fhe data for the States investigated are combined. the total tons of sugar beets harvested are used as weights. 3 A minus sign (—) before a figure indicates that costs exceed returns by the amount indicated. 3 See pp. 8 to 14 for explanation of method of determining costs. + Land rental and other capital charges, paid and unpaid, are excluded from this cost. For the United States as a whole cash rental was actually paid on 5.4 per cent of the acreage harvested and share rental on 41.7 per cent. On a large percentage of the farms, interest, amounting to 20 cents per acre, or about 1.8 cents per ton, was actually paid on cash advances made by the factories to the farmers for the payment of contract labor. Many of these farms are mortgaged, and interest is actually paid on the farm mortgages at rates varying from 5 to9 per cent and averaging 7.14 per cent. In order to put the data for all farms on 4 comparable basis and simplify tabulations, however, all farms were treated as owned by the operators, and taxes and overhead cost on this rented acreage were included as general costs, and all eapital charges, whether paid or unpaid, were segregated. i The capital charges included here are for all capital emploved in sugar-beet production. COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 25 TABLE 10.—Weighted average costs of production and returns to growers from the sale of sugar beets SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND ANALYSIS BY STATES, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 [Per pound of sugar extracted from the sugar beets] Amount by which the returns to growers rom the sale of sugar beets exceed? the costs of production of sugar beets ? Average costs! Sugar sxtracted yer ton of eets paid or by the ‘actories ¢ Average ‘eturns to growers from the sale of wear beets State and year No allow- ance made for land ‘ental and interest on other rapital 8 Allowance made for and rental and inter- estat 6 per cent on other ~apital ¢ No allow- ance made for land ‘ental and interest on other capital & Allowance made for and rental ind inter- est at 6 per cent on other capital ¢ United States: 3-year average. ........ 1921... 19% 192 Michigan: 3-Vear average. om ceeeen. .._ 921... i 1922 eevee 1923_. _. Pounds 263. 9 268.1 263. 2 259. 6 Cents 2.35 2.41 2.26 2.34 Cents 2.85 2.97 2.78 2.77 Cents 2.92 2.34 3.04 3. 50 Cents 0. 57 ~.07 .78 1. 16 Cenis 0.07 -. 63 .26 .73 29.7 215. 5 229. 4 48 6 3. 10 3. 39 2.79 3.01 3. 61 3. 97 3. 28 3. 46 3.25 2.80 3.15 3.82 . 15 -, 59 . 36 .81 —.36 -1.17 ~.13 . 38 Ohio: 3-year average. ..oceceeen-- 1921... 197... 1925. Nebraska: 3-vear average...... 1921. aaa 1922... 1923. Colorado: 3-vear average. _...... 1921. Loo 1927. _. 1923. 210. 1 205.1 232.1 01. 2 2.91 3.16 2. 43 3. 05 3.47 3.81 2. 94 3. 59 3.66 2.92 2.96 4.62 . {3 -.24 .83 1.57 .19 -.89 .02 L.03 152.2 274. 5 248.0 230. 0 2.08 2.07 1.78 44 [a y -- i 2.99 2.40 3.23 3. 56 91 .33 1.45 1.12 .45 -. 18 1.06 .63 1 Wn 256.0 261. C > 85 ‘4 59 29 32 4 .09 -. 19 .04 .49 Utah: 3-vear average_.. 1921... 1922___ 19% -—.05 -1.01 .38 67 .19 -.72 . 58 -68 1 When composite figures appear as in the 3-year average for each State and in the figures for the United States, where the data for the States investigated are combined, the acres of sugar beets harvested are 1sed as weights, ' A minus sign (—) before a figure indicates that costs exceeded returns by the amount indicated. } See pp. 8 to 14 for explanation of methods of determining costs. } ! The basic data from which the pounds of sugar extracted from a ton of beets were obtained were fur- nished by the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Sugar extraction from beet roots depends upon the sugar content, the coefficient of purity, the general condition of the beet roots when sliced, the extraction and refining processes used, and the efficiency of the mills, These data are restricted to those beets for which costs were obtained in this investigation, and therefore are not necessarily the same as the data published by the Department of Agriculture or those published in ‘‘ Concerning Sugar,” which are aver- ages for all beets sliced by all the factories located in the respective States. . * Land rental and other capital charges, paid and unpaid, are excluded from this cost. For the United States as a whole cash rental was actually paid on 5.4 per cent of the acreage harvested and share rental on 41.7 per cent. On a large percentage of farms, interest, amounting to 20 cents per acre, or about 1.8 cents per ton, was actually paid on cash advances made by the factories to the farmers for the payment of contract labor. Many of these farms are mortgaged, and interest is actually paid on these farm mort- gages at rates varying from 5 to 9 per cent and averaging 7.14 per cent. In order to put the data for all farms on a comparable basis and simplify tabulations, however, all farms were treated as owned by the operators, and taxes and overhead costs on this rented acreage were included as general costs. and all capital charges, whether paid or unpaid, were segregated. . 8 The capital charges included here are for all capital embloved in surar-beet production. DR 04—O 26 "COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TasLe 10.—Weighted average costs of production and returns to growers from the sale of sugar beets—Continued SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND ANALYSIS BY STATES, 1921, 1922, AND 1923—Continued [Per pound of sugar extracted from the sugar beets] State and year Wyoming: 3-year average. ccceeocaaea- 1921 om ccceceem 1922. ce ceeemeeeeee 1923... Montana: 3-year average. ccacacceana- 1921... Hd oe 1922_.. 1923... Californias: 3-year average. cocceeo---. [O21 cic wmnmmnn mas 1977, irene nna 1 RT No1E.—For references, see sugar sxtracted per ton of yeets paid lor by the factories 4 Pounds 265. 5 274.7 272.4 255.8 281. 6 300. 7 206. 9 261. 1 344.9 335.2 3563. 0 356. 6 Zn Average costs 1 No allow- nce made for land ‘ental and interest on other capital ? Allowance made for and rental and inter- est at 6 per cent on other capital 6 Cenis 2.34 2.45 2.09 2.45 Cents 2.67 aon .. 4C 2. 76 €e ah 7 +3 Average eturns to growers from the sale of sucar beets Cents £7 ‘ 1 +L bone nl. 4,28 Amount by which the returns to growers ‘rom the sale of sugar beets exceed 2 the costs of production of sugar beets 3 No allow. | S0TERC ance made and rental for land 3 and inter- rental and est at 6 interest | or 2 t oR other > 5 capital capital 8 Cents 0.22 -. 17 ul 75 Cents 0.05 —. 54 .01 .44 . 62 —.12 .82 1.03 .07 —. 92 —. 03 1.79 ng Le. Aa 73 +19 . 69 2.30 COSTS OF PRODUCTION AND RETURNS TO GROWERS IDAHO, BY AREAS TABLE 11.—Weighted average costs of production and returns to growers from the sale of sugar beets SUMMARY FOR IDAHO AND ANALYSIS BY AREAS, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 Area and year Average costs 1 No allow- ince made for land rental and ‘nterest on other capital smployed in sugar- beet nroduction Allowance made for ash rental on land wud inter- estat6 Jer cent on other capital mployed in sugar- beet production Average eturns to growers rom the sale of sugar beets Amount by which the feturns to growers irom the sale of sugar beets exceed the costs of production of sugar beets No alow- ance made for land rental wind inter- est on other capital ‘mployed in sugar- beet production Allowance made for and rental and inter- est at 6 per cent »n other capital mployed in sugar- beet croduction PER ACRE OF SUGAR BEETS HARVESTED [daho:? 3-Vear average . owe ocean. 1921. 192". F923... cue Twin Falls— 3-Vear average ...ooo ooo... 1921... ERE 1922. 1923 Blackfoot: 3-year average.... _..____._... 0 im meee. i ae BD ER ere mem on or 381. 73 7¢ 08 19, 57 cr 47 31. 20 '8 44 0. 21 “7 Q4 31. 51 9.77 79. .1 $5. 86 $97 0 97 95. 09 bh JE. 96 IE LS 98. I Ie 95. 100) 1% $106. 00 70.26 122.70 130. 76 16. 52 72.06 137. 93 29.69 01. 58 69. 06 112.19 192 48 b24. 27 -8.£2 43.13 45. 29 35 32 -6 38 57.72 54.75 20.07 10. 51 33.08 37.62 $8.10 -27. 28 26. 97 31.30 19.65 ~24. 22 42.00 41, 21 3.48 —29. 42 16. 53 23. 30 "ER TON OF SUGAR RERTS HARVESTED [daho: 3-year average... _..._._..__.._. 1921. ___. 1922 _ ..___. 1923 ____. Twin Falls— 3-year average._. 1921. 922. __. 1923. _. Blackfoot— °-= agar average rm. J. 91 ne Top 31. 72 93 4 # $0. 56 —2.31 1.84 2.03 1.32 -2.02 2.51 2.59 27 . 55 1.23 1 AR 1 See pp. 8 to 14 for a discussion of methods of determining costs ' Average of the two Idaho areas investigated. NOTE.—A minus sign(—) preceding a fizure indicates that costs exceed returns by the amount shown ANALYSIS OF THE AVERAGE COSTS OF PRODUCTION OF SUGAR BEETS—SUMMARY FOR THE NINE £3 STATES INVESTIGATED AND FOR IDAHO BY AREAS TaBLE 12.—Analysis of the weighted average costs of production of sugar beets’ SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND IDAHO, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 [Per acre of sugar beets harvested] ADO) rae Equip- Gross od Io Mi i [Minor , S05t5, ap net - |Irriga- i exclud- | Cred labor | Seed cial | Li | ry depreci- ig | Taxes general sxglug | in of forth: gdb ation, | costs i Ma- opera-| | lizer an chine To | | shelter charges | opera- ~ tions | Day | Horse ind in- direct labor | Ares and year Tnited States: 3-year average. [$17.37 1$23.02 1$12.58 |31. 43 1$3.39 $0.51 $3.94 [$1.11 1921. .......| 17.05] 24.08 | 11.07 | 1.62 | 4.03 | .52 3.84 | 1.10 1922 coo i652 | 27 1.32 13.19 | .41 (4.01; 111 1925 18.49 123971 14.17 {1.28 | 274 | .59 | 4.03 | 1.12 idaho: 3.year-average..| 22.01 | 28.34 { 11.24 |... | 8.23 [..._..| 495 2.69 1921. oem. 20.66 1 28.74 | 9.54 io. 3.230.495! 2.60 1922." lo1.28 | 2580 | 12.35 |... 3.23 |......| 4.95 2.€ 1923. 230721 29.37 112.24 | 1 8.28 j.....1 4.95] 2.60 . B4. 4€ 4.97 4.4 4, 50 51.69 ($3. 14 1.67 |? 1.74310 1.66 | 3.07 pt 7 p2. 97 7c 1.2% 7.73 3.70 76.73 2.99 | IE 6.64 1.5813.76 6.64 1.58] 3.76 6.64 1.58 13.76 6.641 1.58) 3.78. 1.65 1.5% 1.55 1.55 2 , 89." 3 4 4. 4 { “win Falls— 4-year average 1921... 1002, cnn 923... Lickfoot— T-year average 1921... 1922... 1923 ea] 2 amount by which the average re- turns to growers from the sale of sugar beets ex- ceed the average costs of produc- tion of sugar beets Capital cherges Net Costs, 'exclud- ing capital .charges Aver- Net 2p r= costs, turns to includ: ne No allow- Allow ing Tom ance for Vmter capital [the sale | made for ngs iy ‘est at {charges of sugar land rent- al and in. 6 per beets? | aland | crot's Land | cent interest per cent charge | on on other | 0% Sy ar other capital capital -capi- employed|,;; 15veq ow ‘tal 8 SUSAI- | in sugar- beet pro- beet pro- = Quetion |'gycii0n 83 0h 70.79 70.78 pg 73 74 313. 43 131. 76 14. - $85. 98 R7.7” $87. 88 68.7" 90. 4. so My | 109, 91 $17.09 —1.97 23.20 36.17 $1.90 -18.45 7.90 22.71 11.69 1,0 3.73 14.01 2.16 97.90 | 106.00 mong 16.30 2.16 97.54] 70.26 : AER 95.73 | 122.70 7, 11.83 12.161 99.46 | 130.76 24.27 8,10 —8.82 -27.28 43.13 26.79 45.29 31.30 35. 32 19.65 2 —24.22 JZ 42.09 8 41.21 7 3.48 Rp —29.42 "08 16. 53 JT. 62 23.30 an c a Ji 2 I~] : These data are weighted on the basis of the acreage harvested. in ascertaining the State aver: 7... sac; the. years tne averages for the individual areas were weighted on the basis of the harvested acreage investigated in these areas. To obtain the 3-year average for Idaho th: data for Idaho for each of the years 1921 to 1923 were weighted on the basis of the total acreage harvested in the State in each year, respectively. In obtaining the average for the United States the State data for the 9 States investigated were weighted on the basis of the total acreage harvested in each State, respectively. h ? The Shores, returns to growers per acre of sugar beets harvested shown in this table were obtained by multiplying the prices per ton shown in able 9 by the yields per acre shown in Table 53. Nore.—A minus sign (—) preceding a figure means that costs exceed returns by the amount indicated. See pp. 8-14 for explanation of cost items. ,» = 14 5 oR irea and vear United States: 3-year average... 1921. Nien 1922 iii 02” TIT [daho: 3-year average. 1921.0 cceeaeee J 90 rm mire) 1923. _... “win Falls— 3-year average) 1921 oo... 1922. ___.. 1923. cuca. Blackfoot— 3-year average 102) ci 822 enmunns 1928. caine NOTE.—A m' TABLE 13.—Analysis of the weighted average costs of production of sugar beets SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND IDAHO, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 [Per ton of sugar beets harvested] [$\ c Amount by which the average re- turns to growers from the sale of sugar beets ex- ceed the average costs of produc- tion of sugar beets Labor Capital charges Trac- tor and abor | Seed of )pera- | tion 3 Equip- Mi. @ent— repairs, ' Ma- 1 nor depreci- nure | ation, | ts 1 Cos and shelter Aver- 2 Net 20 0 z costs, turns to _ includ- | growers|No allow- Allow 7 ing from ance | ode for oO |Inter-| capital |the sale | made for land rent- + est at ‘charges |of sugarjland rent- al and in- 6 per beets | al and terest at 6 rg Land ! cent interest |"J. 7 ant = charge | on on other La other other capital capital capi- smployed|,1oved tal in sugar- | in sugar- beet pro- beet pro- duction duction Com- mer- cial J‘erti- lizer Gross Lo . Minor costs, EAR | Paxeslgeneral exclud- ion "costs ing capital charges Net costs, Cred-| exclud- its ing capital charges Ma- =hine pera- ~ sions Don. | oso nd in- direct labor + E Ca 31. 52 I, 52 .46 _ 52 52. 01 2.20 1.78 1. 98 $1.11 $0.13 |$0. 30 rot | 16 | .37 1151 .13| .28 nisl L121 23 24 $0.04 $0.34 $0.10 04.34.11 04 | 35] 110 041 133! log .20 "90 $0.39 $0.15 $0.28 .30 .15| .30 .39 .16 | .28 236 L131 .26 $0.10 | $6.47 (30.26 $6.21 11 6.71 | .26 6.45 -10 | 6.22 | 20 5.96 .09 6.31"' .24 6.07 $1.17 1$0.15 1.34 | .16 1.20 1€ .96 cf $7. 53 $7.70 "27 1 09 $1.49 —.18 2.05 3.02 $0.17 —1.68 -. 69 1.91 C Ca 5 = RG 2.08 nar Hf A I-- .3€ 45 .48 Fi > I .11 fy 27 22 .26 924 Al .1? £3. 8.22 7.10 2.72 5. 82 .31 .3¢ Wb .28 5.91 6.74 5.44 5.54 1.02 1.38 G5 7 i? = . 56 = —2.31 = 1.84 + 2.03 2 1 1 1 0 .. 04 5. ef 1.32 -2.02 2.51 2.59 7 [4 a Jo wre fo s. 40 < 56 Lo UO ‘npai=) TC Lryiv- wr-n- “hat pant - the amennt indicat TABLE 14.—Percentage distribution of average costs of production of sugar beets SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND IDAHO, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 Ares and year United States: 3-year average..__._ 921 meee. 192° . 10° daho: 3-year average... ._. 1921... .. 1922__... . 1923 Twin Falls— 3-year average. . _. 1921............ 1922___, 1923 Blackfoot— 3 Thar averag 9%. Vlachine opera- ions and ndirect labor 9.5 18. 9 19.3 20. 5 21.6 20. 3 21.3 22. 9 20. 29 Labor Con- ract 25.9 26.7 23.7 26. 6 27.8 28. . 25 27. ¢ 28. » Horse 14.1 12.2 15. 2 15.7 | 1.0 1. Cractor and ibor j Seed opera- tion ' Com- mer- cial erti- lizer 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.4 3.8, 0.6 £51 .6 3.7, .5 3.11 71 3. 2 tz en] — 3. Manure 4.4 4.2 4.7 4.5 4.8 4.9 4.c 4 Lquip- ment~ Re- pairs, epre- cia- tion, and shelter Minor lirect costs (rriga-, tion 1.3 50 19 1.2 49 19 13) 53 2.0 | 121 50! 18 2.6 6.5 2.6 6.5 2.7. 6.6 2.61 6.4 15 bE a 1 0 1 57 La s Taxes 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.7 3.7 2§ 3.6 Mi- nor gen- eral costs 1.3 1.7? 1. 1.2 Lb Tt LL Gross costs, sxclud- ing | capital charges Cred- its 82.9 3.3 81.7 3.2 82.2 3 F 85.11 33 84.2 81.9 83.8 86.5 5 Net costs, exclud- ing capital | charges 79.6 78.5 78.7 81.8 80.0 71.7 79.5 82.4 79. ¢ Fa an wn rE 3 32 Capital charges Land charge Interest at 6 per cent on other capital 15.1 16.3 15.7 12.9 | 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.0 13.7 16.0 14.0 11.4 ‘ ‘ - 13. 2 5.4 1.0 ¢ ‘ dab Net costs, includ- ing capital charges 068.7 96. 8 96.5 06.7 95. 8 95. ¢ 95.7 95.¢ 94.7 94.” 04 Y¢ Gross costs, nclud- ing capital charges = 2 100 100 100 160 C + = E ( t ¢ C. hy z oo 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 2 Cc Q P bm 100 100 100 100 x tz E = i. 'eTE.—These percente~as were derived from Table 12, analyzing costs of production per ac a“ 32 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TasLE 15.— Relation of yield of sugar beets per acre to costs of production per acre and per ton [DAHO—SUMMARY FOR THE TWO AREAS INVESTIGATED, 1922 Net costs Acreage of sugar beets harvested Yield per acre (tons) 8B NQ- 9..0- 9. 10, v0-10.! 1. 00-11.6 00-12. ¢ 00-13. ¢ 00-14.° ., 00-15." .8. 00-186. 7-00-17. $018. 19. 0-19. 20. 22 a 24. a n SE — Number of farms & ls 14 7 i h Average Total | Average 10. ( T 89.. 89. ( 127. 91.” ie ( ee.” 115.4 Jz 1 LC 11.1 9.0 12.7 ‘1 wot { Total tons of sugar beets narvested! 84.6 827.9 940. 4 9908. 5 | I, 580. 5 [~5.1 9 / - 15. i 171.0 Per acre Per ton mxclusive|Inclusive Exclusive of capital | of capital ' of capital charges | charges charges Inclusive of capital charges $77. 36 7". 24 7: $90. 80 81.41 88. 81 84.67 102. 22 neg $9. 14 Tb 6." 6. 6. $10.73 8.70 8.45 7.55 8.25 7.03 8.62 6. 45 £87 r 89 E. 42 4.86 5. 26 4.69 8. 60 rz se 64. 0. 102. 98 100. 89 210. 09 "2% 8) 2 84 LJ de 48 JoLLens ren CRE | a COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS uy, Ur YIELDS PER 8CRE OF SUGAR BEETS UPN £2515 OF PRODUCTION PER BCRE AND PER TON CAPITOL CHARGES INCLUDED IN COSTS IDAHO- 1922. 3 pot bout CO} 6 4 120 | 00 BC . TONS J OVER 3.00 a AND OVER’ 16. 2.—Effect of yields of sugar beets Ber Sane upon costs of production per acre and per ton, aho, 192 CUMULATION, AT INCREASING COSTS OF PRODUCTION PER TON OF SUGAR BEETS, OF PRODUCING FARMS, AND OF ACRES AND TONS OF SUGAR BEETS HARVESTED, 1922 TaBLE 16.—Cumulation, al increasing costs of production per ton of sugar beets, of producing farms, and of acres and tons of sugar beets harvested IJNITED STATES, 1922—COMBINATION OF THE DATA FOR THE 22 AREAS INVESTIGATED [Excluding capital charges] Cost per ton - - Number | Per cent Farms Acres Tons Number Per cent Number | Per cent Less than— BBO iia RRR I ee ce SG 0 BR Bm RES Deeee ame mmm —————— Vemma = erm ———— Vo eee 1 FO - ees CITT ’ TT $10.0 .. $10. oo... $11.0. caer r— $11.59 _.... me IR 2 $12.0 ccemaae —— ie $12.50 ecommerce meee $13.00 coal emma m—————— $13. _.. e mmmmmmmmme————— M14 eam mm em m————————— b14, cw mmm m——— BE... RRR A5 LL. rs mm mm SS 36... mmm mmm mm ———- M7 nes [ES 30 128 298 553 803 , 082 ., 297 , 491 655 L797 °° , 801 ., 966 019 065 100 11¢ "we £1 i351 171 183 190 198 205 210 218 219 223 226 28 “30 31 hed 0.2 1.3 5.7 13.3 24.7 35.8 18.3 57.9 66. 6 73.9 80.2 R4. 4 %7.8 0.1 72.2 2.8 ‘6 956. £ I | 26. 94. ¢ ot 269.6 1,418. 5 1,494. 2 9,765. 6 17,140. 1 23, 476. 8 30,118. & 35,195. € 30, 111. ! 42,243. 7 45, 064. 1 46, 999. 7 48,424, © 49, 544. { 50, 144. § ’ 095. ¢ 1,679.9 2,066. 9 351.9 52, 849, 9 =~ 069. 9 53, 186. 6 R19, OLE 7.1 5,1 0.6 2.6 8.2 17.8 31.2 12° 4,664. & 24,194. 1 72,107. 2 149, 532. 5 247, 646. 7 328, 257. 2 405, £71. € 30, 254. € 31, 039. 4 32,127. ¢ 57,692. ¢ 74, 255. & *36, 582. 1 Eo0p ¢ 0,733.1 4,440.1 ‘N741.4 “92. i218 ..7,784. 5 7:2 935. EF “19,745. 9 246.0 ig oy} 70. ¢ 37.% OL 7 916.7 277 496. ¢ 652. ! =.0.- Te 0.7 3.8 1L5 23.8 39.5 52.4 64.6 73.4 79.9 84.9 20.0 9.6 *.6 on - = A - ¢ : y b 30 Te 8% 4 gg 4 99, 99, © 99.2 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 100. 0 c 00 ¢ 236 99, . » 240 | 100.0 at sy, al 9c R071 Nor total; .1v he data for 2 farms were excl: ~°d from thie table because the sugar-’ ‘et crop on hoth was a COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS I" lost eet I an : 1A ~L.CENTAGE OF SUGAR § T PRODUCTION AT VARYING COSTS PER To CAPITAL CHARGES EXCLUDED FROM COSS-1922. sara — ITED Peir- Fa'r- WERAGE cokET [7 96 i 1 J I a a 5: PERCENTAGE OF PRODUCTION 1G. 3.—Percentage of sugar-beet tonnage produced at costs less and greater than the average price ver tou that growers received from the 1922 crop. Capital charges excluded from costs Cosv Per ten 253 Than 470 Pro: “dome NTAGE OF SUGAR BEET PRODUCTION AT VARYING CCSTI PER TGN CAPITAL CHARGES INCLUDED In Cc. .. 1z2 ‘TED ’ “~ =~ IcosT 313 i PERCENTAGE OF PRODUCTION F1a 4.—Percentage of sugar-bect tonnage produced at costs less and greater than the average price per ton that growers received for the 1922 crop. Capital charges included in costs 36 © COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TABLE 17.—Cumulation, at increasing costs of production per ton of sugar beets, of producing farms, and of acres and tons of sugar beets harvested UNITED STATES, 1922—-COMBINATION OF THE DATA FOR THE 22 AREAS INVESTIGATED [Including capital charges] 3 Cost per ton Less than— 10.8000 enum mmm we 30... Tom-- " Pa LL LT] IIIT i I ei Vol LITT Ym mr eeeceereseae= ee. mm (smmmmmemmeseeeenenicenes on EO “4 $25.6. . $25.00 and ov Number! Per cent Farms 21 59 15% 200 502 717 953 . 168 350 520 672 779 £65 033 £96 044 o7¢ 08¢ 110 127 ‘44 i ( A I! 16 10 10K 0.1 2.6 6.8 120 24 n 4 J. rn eds ? So n ’ % 2% 32 ae Be 3 C 160. JE . 240 Acres Number | Per cent 114.0 846.6 2,449.3 4,034.7 9,453.5 "380. 2 514.1 Tr 720. 992.1 237. 4 ., 612.0 617.5 116.1 L019. i8 C14. b 19 214. (9, 643. 1 0,144.6 0,773. 6 1 49.4 2,071. 4 “959.9 667.6 "13.1 29.6 7.1 “04.1 16.1 5. WH. JT8, 2g." 703.” "42 "76.1 AY 0.2 LE 4.f 9.0 17.2 28.¢ i7.€ ‘7.7 a 0. A 3! dt 01.¢ 22. 3. & 24.9 75.2 16.0 (3.0 5. ¢ 3.8 2 f 1.875 T 100. 0 Tons Number 1,902.0 14, 062. 9 40, 298.3 80, 376.9 144, 496.7 224, 699. 6 205, 247. 7 362, 704. 4 113, 453. 4 1-2, 041. % 174, 032. ° 7 512. 545, 835. 4 559, 566. ¢ 576, 178. 586, 845. ¢ 594, 209. 1 507, 406. 8.0, 502. 634, 995. 6 € 749.3 €3 E71. ¢ 6:4 14.5 6 ‘57.4 € M9 € 7 E51 ib 789.¢ 370, 186. § “1,034.4 391 493.” 309 098, 529 359. ¢ 729, 419. % 299, 587.9 522 752.1 ene 151. 6 04.8 16.8 © 8 Te ¢ 208 807. 1 Per cent 0.3 2.2 6.4 12.8 23.0 35.8 17.1 37.9 3€ 9 4 78.8 34 “ 37. 29. a. 4 93.€ M 95 95 96 ol { Ot ~ ( b 9 _y po gf 5. 9( 99 9¢ 2¢ 99 { 99.6 99.9 99.9 100. 0 NoTte.—The data for 2 farms were excluded from this table because the sugar-beet crop on both was 3 total failure. COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 37 1 vxmitesrmtiins] idm eeeeeesmter ctamr , | CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF SUGAR BEET PRODUCTION Al VARYING COSTS PER TON | a EXCLUDED FROM CO5T5~1 922. 2 = Tn on n a a nw CEIVED FOR BEETS-"8._ - 5 0 > Treat GOS- 5.44 [is PERCENTAGE OF PRODUCTION F16. 5.—Percentage of sugar-beet tonnage produced at costs less and greater than the average price per ton that growers received for the 1922 crop. Capital charges excluded from costs i _ oo \ CUMULATIVE PCICENTAGE OF SUGAR BEET PRODUGTION AT “ARYING COSTS PER TON FAPITAL-GHARGES INCLUDED IN GOSTS- “©*> IDAHO _— 4 b n 7 L - 4] QD &] b AVF! COST ¥en ». 7 | 'ERCENTAGE OF PRODUCTION F1G. 6.—Percentage of sugar-beet tonnage produced at costs less and greater than the average price per ton that growers received for the 1922 crop. Capital charges included in costs 38 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TABLE 18.—Cumulation, at increasing costs of production per ton of sugar beets, of producing farms, and of acres and tons of sugar beets harvested IDAHO, 1922—COMBINATION OF THE DATA FOR THE TWO AREAS INVESTIGATED [Excluding capital charges] Cost per ton Less than— Me ece———— Na. Farms Number | Per cent 0.9 10.4 15.1 it 421 Acres Number | Per cent 20.8 134.3 202.9 488. 4 661. 6 R71.( 228. 4, 11.1 16.8 40. 5 54.8 Number | 000. U 2, 5562. 1 3,831.1 8,285.9 10, 931. 6 Cc. I81.¢ 921.4 350. 699.” 048. . 209. 4 28. i. . Tons Per cent 21 14.4 21.7 46.9 61.9 76.9 78.8 ag 9 Q 06. 5 97.4 98.1 99.1 99. 6 99.9 100.0 TaBLE 19.—Cumulation, at increasing costs of production per ton of sugar beets, of producing farms, and of acres and tons of sugar beets harvested IDAHO, 1922—~COMBINATION OF THE DATA FOR THE TWO AREAS INVESTIGATED [Including capital charges] [Land charge on net cash rental basis with interest on other capital at 6 per cent} Cost per ton Less than— 34,00. ce ieemecem—ee meee * TTY co te re em re 0 10 “n Farms Number | Per cent | ? 1 1¢ 33 0.¢ 1 11.* 17.9 31.1 A 3 0 nN 105 106 Gy 99. 100. 0 Acres Number | Per cent 20.8 24.8 146. 3 242, 9 134. 9 6.8.6 nee 36.0. 1 970. & : L 2.1 12.1 20.1 36.0 51.2 Number 366. 0 442.0 2,808. 1 4,476. 7,593. 1 0, 349, i ~08. ¢ 46. & “0. 3.1 ).¢ 6 x Tons Per cent 2.1 2.5 15.9 25.3 43.0 58. 6 65. 7 78.4 84.7 86. 7 91.7 94.7 97.6 08.1 08.3 98.8 99.1 99.4 99.9 100 0 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 39 ree ET. er rrr ope. rege zeae ens CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF SUGAR LZET PRODUCTION AT VARYING GOSTS PER TON CAPITAL GHARGES EXCLUDED FROM COSTS-1922 we =o ” a al Cc iL. ne cv i ~-4.92 | TS) J “ERCENTAGE OF PRODUCTION ¥16. 7.—Cumaulative percentages or tons of sugar beets produced at various costs, Twin Falls, Idaho, 1922. Capital charges excluded from costs CUMULATIVE P + ... OF SUGAR BEET PRODUCTION ¢ VAL GHARGES INCLUDED IN COST: MMF ALLS, IDAHN - a VARYING GOSTS PER TON a3 - 12 3 Ri 3 ‘9 £ AVE L=rFIVFD Fit - ars il cosT¥5.68 wl PERCENTACE OF PRODIICTION #16. 8. —Cumulative percentages of tons of sugar beets produced at various costs, Twin Falls, Idaho, 1922, Capital charges included in costs. Land charge on net cash rental basis and interest on other capital at 6 per cent 40 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TaBLE 20.—Cumulation, at increasing costs of production per ton of sugar beets, of producing farms, and of acres and tons of sugar beets harvested TWIN FALLS AREA, IDAHO, 1922 [Excluding capital charges] Cost per ton Less than— $5.00... comuninn mmm ty Vecaaee meer aeeaea Farms Number | Per cent d eres Number 20. § Per vent 29 £ 2 Number J.0 172.6 120.0 €63. @ TERR ¢ Tons Per cent 4.4 26.2 37.6 68.3 86.3 87.3 87.8 90.9 97.3 98.7 99.4 100.0 TABLE 21.—Cumulation, at increasing costs of production per ton of sugar beets, of producing farms. and of acres and tons of sugar beets harvested TWIN FALLS AREA, IDAHO, 1922 [Including capital charges] [Land charges on net cash rental basis and interest on other capital at 6 per cent] Cost per ton Less than— BU Va iim mm mi Bd te mcccecmeeceeenea——. TY dr emmmesmemcemeeammaun. Farms " Number | Per cent 2.5 5.0 27.¢ 42. § 47. F RQ, + —y vo 39 40 95. : 97.5 | 100.0 A cre- Number | Per cent 20. ¢ 24.8 136. 3 224.9 R.9 2%1 4.1 4. 26. & 44.7 ARE ®1 508. £3. 100. 0 Tons Number | Per cent 366. ( 442.0 2, 593. 0 1,116.0 ’ 049.0 A34. ( 11.( “3. ¢ 53. € 920. 4 065. 4 184. 4 239.4 2 901. 4 4.4 5.3 31.3 49.6 59.6 80.0 87.2 87.8 90.9 96.7 97.3 98.7 99.4 100. 0 & COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 11 hr CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF SUGAR BEET PRODUGTION AT VARYING COSTS PER TON CAPITAL GHARGES EXCLUDED FROM GoSr5-1922. _ IBLAGKFOOT, IDAHO: A > = s — - " Le x Nn S¢ D ds eer 890 8 PERCENTAGE OF PRODUCTION FIG. 9.—Cumulative percentages of tons of sugar beets produced at varfous costs, Blackfoot, Idaho, 1922. Capital charges excluded from costs 20 GUMULATIVE PERGENTAGE OF SUGAR BEET PRODUGTION AT VARYING GOSTS PER TON ee CHARGES INCLUDED IN COS515°1972 BLAGKFOOT. IDAHO _SHTED AVERAGE COST 7.13 PERCENTAGE OF PRODUCTION #16. 10.—Cumulative percentages of tons of sugar beets produced at various costs, Blackfoot, Idaho, 1922. Capital charges included in costs. Land charge on net cash rental basis and interest on sther capital at 6 per cent 03604 —92R——— 42 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TaBLE 22.—Cumulation, at increasing costs of production per ton of sugar beets, of producing farms, and of acres and lons of sugar beets harvested BLACKFOOT AREA, IDAHO, 1922 [Excluding capital charges] Farms Acres Tons Cost per ton Less than— PAC eecemseacmcaee Number | Per cent | Number 3.0 4.! 21. & 4 & 19.0 38.0 165.0 243. 0 147 F od LU [i © Per cont 2.7 5.4 23.6 34.8 €« 1 r- -w Number | Per cent 380. 1 711.1 2,622.9 3,773. 1 6,340.0 6. 637.9 £16. 5 33.5 4.1 7.8 28.0 40.2 67.6 70.8 83.4 87.1 95.8 97.5 99.4 99.9 100. 0 ) r i EY gy Of %. ~ TABLE 23.—Cumulation, at increasing costs of production per ton of sugar beets, of producing farms, and of acres and tons of sugar beets harvested BLACKFOOT AREA, IDAHO, 1922 [Including capital charges] [Land charge on net cash rental basis and interest on other capital at 6 per cent] Cost per ton Less than— re n - Farms Acres Number | Per cent ' Number | 1.5 3.0 21.2 31.8 10.9 3 & 10. ( 18. ( 166. ( 236. 284. 162, 65. F 97.0 98.5 | 100. 0 6. 66 £3. 67. 698. & Per cent 1.4 2.6 23.8 33.9 40.7 ge \ 1. 98.{ 99. 2 99.9 100.0 - Number 215.1 360. 2 2,651. 1 3,715.1 4 367.6 8, 562.7 428.7 789.8 170. + 660. : ., 061. ¢ 144.0 179.7 264. 1 322.7 ,361. 6 y 274 4 Tons Per cent 2.3 3.8 28.3 39.6 46.6 70.0 79.2 83.1 £7.2 n2.4 96." 87. 97. 98. ¢ 09.4 99. { 100. (- LABOR COSTS: IDAHO, BY AREAS TABLE 24.— Labor cost rates per hour SUMMARY FOR IDAHO AND ANALYSIS BY AREAS, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 Labor cost rates per hour A re 1921 ar" 1923 3-year average Cents 34.7 34.2 34.5 NoTE.—The labor cost rates for 1922 and 1923 are those paid hired labor or allowed for unpaid labor as determined by field investigation. The wages for 1921 were determined by adjusting the 1922 rates on the basis of the percentage change in monthly wages (without board) paid farm laborers. For example, the average monthly farm wages (with- out board) in Idaho were 2 per cent higher in 1921 than in 1922: the 1921 labor cost was obtained by adding 2 per cent to the 1922 cost established in this investigation. Tents a TaBLE 25.—Hours of direct labor on machine operations employed in the production of an acre of sugar beets SUMMARY FOR IDAHO AND ANALYSIS BY AREAS, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 Exclusive of contract labor, labor operating tractors, all machine labor hired at custom or piece rates (drilling beet seed, etc.), labor supervising and managing, and indirect labor] ! Hours of direct labor on machine operations 3-year average daha Twin Falls. Blackfoot Per acre 55.1 53.5 56.7 ! Indirect labor time was obtained by taking a flat 15 per cent of the hours of direct labor on machine yperations. The hours of indirect labor per acre are therefore 15 per cent of the hours shown in this table. TABLE 26.— Hours of direct and indirect labor employed in the production of an acre of sugar beets SUMMARY FOR IDAHO AND ANALYSIS BY AREAS, 1021, 1922. AND 1923 Exclusive of contract labor, labor operating tractors, all machine labor hired at custom or piece rates (drilling beet seed, ete.), and labor of supervising and managing] Hours of direct and indirect labor em- ployed in the production of an acre nf sugar beets .daho Twin Falls._.__._________ Blackfoot 1091 Yer ccre 58. 6 32 y 199292 r acre 64.3 62.9 B5. 4 093 or acre 65.2 62.8 B66. 9 3-year Average Per acre 63.4 61.5 A 9 14 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TaBLE 27.—Man labor—Average hours of labor required to perform once the various machine operations employed in the production of sugar beets 1 SUMMARY FOR IDAHO, 1922 Operation MOBUIING. owen winmmanmmmios Cleaning ditches... . coco. Removing trash... ._.__ Disking before plowing... ...__ Crowning alfalfa__._. rw Plowing... oc... o_o. Disking after plowing _....___. Leveling and floating_..__ “een Spike-tooth harrowing ________ Spring-tooth harrowing_______ Rolling, cultipacking, and corrugating_ oo iocneann Hauling fertilizer... co... ._. Man hours per acre in— United States | 1daho Per acre IB] l Per acre 15.¢ 1./ 1. 1 2 4, 1. 1.¢ .8 Dperation Fauling seeG.ce.canee ...... Planting. eee reparations for replanting___ teplanting. ...oooocoaoao._. .arrowing beets... ......... Rolling beets. ooo. Praying. ce cececammeeeee oultivating ooo. Plowing ditches. mea coooooo_. [rrigating.. RE TAT. cow pmemeamanse somos Loading and haulinge.ooene_. Man hours per acre in— United States Idaho Per ¢ Per acre 0.2 1.1 2.4 1. 1. 1° 2.3 5.0 8.8 1 2.0 4.4 11.0 t All farms on which tractors were used were excluded from these tabulations. The above figures were obtained by dividing the hours spent on each operation by the number of acres for which the operation was performed. As not all of these operations were performed on all farms, the sum of the hours spent on pach operation may be greater than the average hours of man labor required in the production of an acre of sugar beets shown elsewhere in this report. TABLE 28.—Percentage of acreage of sugar beets worked by the various kinds of hand or (contract, family, hired help, and grower’s labor) on sugar-beet farms investigate SUMMARY FOR IDAHO AND ANALYSIS BY AREAS, 1922 Various kinds of hand-labor operations by the different kinds of labor Contract labor 1 | Family labor 3 | Hired help and grower’s labor 3 Area [daho_ occa. Twin Falls__._. Biackfoot_______ Block- ing and shin- ning Hoeing Pulling and topping Der cent Per cent | Per cent 9.7. 61.81 8.7 89.2 81.9 01.7 72.4 57.8 | 74.¢ 3lock- ng nd shin- ning Hoeing Pulling and “opping Block- ing and thin- ning Hoeing Pulling and topping Per cent | Per cent Per cent, Per cent Per cent | Per cent 15.1 21.8 15.0 5.2 10.4 3.3 6.8 | 6.1, 5.4 4.0 120] 3.4 21.4 32.8 21.8 6.2 9.4 3.3 1 Hired on an acre basis. ! Performed by members of the grower’s family (other than the grower). } Performed by the regular hired labor or by the grower. HORSE-LABOR COSTS: IDAHO, BY AREAS TABLE 29.—Horse cost rates per hour SUMMARY FOR IDAHO AND ANALYSIS BY AREAS, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 Horse cost rates per hour (cents) [daho Twin Falls.__.. Blackfoot... nat 1922 10.6 10.7 10. 6 1923 10.3 10.3 | 10.3 3-year average 9.8 10.0 9.9 Notr.—The indirect horse costs are included in the rates and are thereby prorated to sugar beets on the basis of the hours of direct horse labor. The rates are therefore somewhat higher than they would be if ndirect horse costs were shown in the number of hours of horse labor rather than in the cost rate per hour. TABLE 30.—Hours' of direct horse labor employed in the production of an acre of sugar beets SUMMARY FOR IDAHO AND ANALYSIS BY AREAS, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 [No attempt was made to obtain the hours of indirect horse labor on sugar beets] Hours of direct horse labor employed in the production of an acre of sugar beets [daho_ Twin Falls........ Blackfoot 1921 A 1923 118.8 109.9 124.7 3-year AVerage 114.2 106. 2 119.9 TaBLE 31.—Horse labor— Average hours of horse labor required to perform once the various machine operations employed in the production of sugar beeis! SUMMARY FOR IDAHO, 1922 Operation Manuring_..___. _ Cleaning ditches....__. Removing trash. ..._..__ Disking before plowing... Crowning alfalfa. Plowing____..._... Disking after plowing... Leveling and floating. __ Spike-tooth harrowing. _____ Spring-tooth harrowing. ___._. Rolling, cultipacking, and cor- rugating. ..___ Horse hours per acre 1n— Tnited States Idaho vr Ff Operation auling fertilizer..... suling seed..... Anting. oo eeeeeem ean. reparations for replanting. _. splanting.._.. arrowing beets Rolling beets... Spraying beets. _. Cultivating beets... J ?’lowing ditches...._... _.... ACIDE eee. Loading and hauling... ___._ Horse hours per acre in— United States Tdaho 3 2 0.: 2, 8.4 2.2 Ie I$ 1.4 Lf 12.¢ 20% x 7 !t All farms on which tractors were used were excluded from these tabulations. The above figures were obtained by dividing the hours spent on each operation by the number of acres for which the operation was performed. As not all these operations were performed on all farms, the sum of the hours spent on ach operation may be greater than the average hours of horse labor required in the production of an acre af sugar beets shown elsewhere in this report. CAPITAL AND CAPITAL CHARGES: IDAHO, BY AREAS TABLE 32.— Average market value of the land upon which sugar beets were grown SUMMARY FOR IDAHO AND ANALYSIS BY AREAS, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 [Per acrel Area Idabo...... ...___... Twin Falls. cee omaamecae. Blackfoot... 1921 $228 256 206 | 3-year 1922 wn $196 220 177 $1RF $196 221 178 +0 50 Note.—The values of sugar-beet land shown here for 1922 are the estimates of the farmers of the market values of the land upon which were grown their 1922 crops of beets. While in the field, the agents of the Tariff Commission checked these farmers’ estimates against actual sale values in the respective localities, and against the values given by prominent local men other than the farmers themselves, such as the county tax officials, bankers, real-estate dealers, county agricultural agents, and officials of the various agricultural colleges, particularly professors of agricultural economics and farm management, and adjustments were made where the values were evidently out of line. The 1921 and 1923 values were obtained by adjusting the 1922 values of sugar-beet land, as shown in the table, on the basis of the variation in values of ‘good plow lands,” as shown in the Yearbooks of the U. S. Department of Agriculture. For example: The values of “good plow lands” in Idaho were reported as 16.4 per cent greater in 1921 than in 1922 and 15.5 per cent less in 1923 than in 1922. Consequently, to obtain the 1921 and 1923 values, the 1922 values as obtained in the field investigation were increased in the one case by 16.4 per cent and reduced in the other by 15.5 per cent. The same method and percentages were used in determining the 1921 and 1923 values for the individual areas investicated in Idaho. TaBLE 33.—Average value of other capital used in sugar-beet production SUMMARY FOR IDAHO AND ANALYSIS BY AREAS. 1922 Average value of capital, other than land, used in sugar- beet pro- luction in 1922 [daho....__.__. Twin Falls. cao cmcccmmmem mm o- Blackfoot =. = __. Per acre $36 36 36 Nore.—Other capital includes only that part of the total value of work horses and equipment allocated to the sugar-beet crop, plus $3.33 an acre ($10 an acre for four months’ time) for the advances of the sugar companies for the payment of contract labor. Therefore the full value of all work horses and equipment ased in sugar-beet production is not included in ‘“‘other capital.” The following examples make this point clear: If two teams worth $400 were used in the production of sugar beets for but one-half of the total time they worked on the farm during the year, the other one-half time being used in the production of corn, hay, beans, potatoes, etc., only one-half of the costs of these horses was charged to beets, and only $200 shown as capital employed in sugar-beet production. Likewise, if only 50 per cent of the annual cost of repairs and depreciation on a wagon valued at $100 is chargeable to sugar-beet production, then onlv $50 is included as “other capital’’ employed in sugar-beet production. Over 80 per cent of the handwork of blocking, thinning, and hoeing required in the production of the sugar- beet crop is done by contract laborers, who are paid so much an acre for doing the work. In a large per- centage of cases the sugar companies advance the money for the payment of these laborers as each operation is completed, In practically all cases where such advances are made the farmers pay the beet-sugar com- panies interest on such loans from the time they are made until the beets are harvested, when the amount of the loan plus the interest is deducted from the farmer’s beet check. Preliminary tabulations of the sugar-beet cost data in the possession of the commission showed that these advances, where made, averaged $10 an acre and ran on an average for a period of about four months, which is equal in capital value to $3.33 an acre for a year. Consequently $3.33 an acre is shown as a part of the capital used in the production of sugar beets. The same value of other capital was used for 1921 and 1923 as for 1922, COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 47 TaBLE 34.— Average value of land and other capital used in sugar-beet production SUMMARY FOR IDAHO AND ANALYSIS BY AREAS, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 [Per acre) Average value of land and other capital used in sugar-beet production in the respective vears— [daho.__._ Twin Falls o.oo. ___ Blackfoot._ _ “Aen 3-year AVerage 5232 257 214 Nore.—These data are the sum of the values of land shown in Table 32 and the values of other capital shown in Table 33. The State averages for each year, respectively, were arrived at by weighting the data on the basis of the acreage investigated by the commission. The 3-year average for each State was arrived at by weighting he same data for each year by the total acres of sugar beets harvested in that State for each of the three years, respectively. Tar mrericon Of capital charges for sugar-beet land, obtained by three different methods .0 AND COMPARISON BY AREAS, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 [Per acre of sugar beets harvested] Interest on market value of land 1} Area and year [daho: 3-VeAr AVEIRO . ecco mmm 92] ee cme mec eecm————m ema Kim 92/7. fmm ecmesaececceccaaaan Qo" LL “win Falls— © ‘mar ~veragea or _ 192 At 6 per rant rate B11. 76 13.68 11.76 9.90 13. 26 15. 36 13. 20 11 16 At aver- ige rates paid on farm Nortgages on the farms investi- gated $15. 29 17.78 15.29 12. 87 16. 80 19. 46 16. 72 14. 14 Stated cash rental nf land $14.01 16.30 14.00 11.83 13. 54 15.71 13.50 11.41 Blackf~- 10.68 12.36 10. 62 9 00 14.20 16. 44 14.12 11.97 14.41 16.73 14.37 12. 14 | Sea footne* 48 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TaBLE 36.—Comparison of capital charges for sugar-beet land and other capital obtained by three different methods SUMMARY FOR IDAHO AND COMPARISON BY AREAS, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 [Per acre of sugar beets harvested] Area and year Idaho: BB TOIT BIBER... coos i 0 te 8 5000 nk 1921 eee aed a meme J RA SE mmm mmm——————————— 107 __. TTT Twin Falls— VEIL AVRIIID . se wun mmnm mmm mam WS ERR BR 1921... 0 BE S025 we 0 om hm om 0 9 0-308 0 1923 — Blackfoot— 3-VOAr AVerag0. cereveeccccncacancecccacnmeanaaeseaaceaanna-- 01... oo - wm Rm A LL2oo © 1022 i Interest on all capital, including market value of land ! At aver- age rates paid on | farm mortgages on-the farms nvesti- oated At 6 per nant rate 513. 92 15.84 13.92 12. 08 $18. 10 20. 59 18.10 15. 68 15. 42 17. 52 15. 36 13. 32 19. 53 22. 19 19. 46 16. 87 12. 84 14, 52 12. 7¢ 11. 16 08 ‘1 Stated cash rental of and and interest at 6 per =ent on rapital other than land $16.17 18.46 16.16 13.99 15.67 17.84 15. 63 13. 54 18. 59 18.91 16. 55 14. 32 1 See footnotes to Tables 32 and 33. TasLe 87.—Comparison of capital charges for sugar-beet land and other capital obtained by three different methods SUMMARY FOR IDAHO AND COMPARISON BY AREAS, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 [Per ton of sugar beets harvested] Area and year [daho: Vea AVeIAE0. como ooo icccccccccccmcoas csacececcce—m—e- 1921... r-— ; rims: 1922___. rem——— 1093. ..... roma Twin Talls— TAL AVeIAE0. ecccemamamnn mene . Ce emmaea aloo. meee o—-- 1923 Blackfoot— BVA ATOIALO. «eine cmceccececcecemecomaccmcecmnanne I 1 tecoccecnenaa: ——— mee eescesecemene Lv em is oo [nterest on all capital, including market value of land 1 At aver- age rates paid on farm mortgages on the farms nvesti- ated At 6 per rent rate $1.01 1.35 .95 .78 ‘. 03 .46 .93 R2 51. 31 1.76 L24 1.02 1.31 1.85 1.18 1.03 97 L. 26 .95 .76 -29 .. 68 1.27 1 01 Stated cash rental of and and interest at 6 per cent on napital other than land $1.17 1.57 1.09 91 1.05 1.49 .96 ,82 1.25 1.64 1.23 .08 1 See footnotes to Tables 32 and 33. COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TaBrLe 38.—Comparison of rental charges for sugar-beet land SUMMARY FOR IDAHO AND ANALYSIS BY AREAS, 1922 [Per acre of sugar beets harvested] 19 Per cent of sugar- aeet area investi- gated for vhich cash rental was actually paid Net cash rental actually paid for eet land rented for cash Stated ash rental for beet 'and share- rented Stated ash rental for beet land operated by the owners Stated rash rental for beet land operated )y owners and land share- rented Average paid and unpaid ash rental for all beet land included in this in- restigation State and area [daho......___ Twin Falls..... Blackfoot Per acre $14.00 13.50 14. 37 TABLE 39.— Interest rates paid in 1922 on the mortgages of the sugar-beet farms investigated in Idaho Average interest rates paid on farm mortgages Idaho Twin Fells ____ Blackfoo._. YX rs Tg verar~ for all the sugar-be~* farms =ep~— inr Per cent 17.80 7.60 7.98 50 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TABLE 40.— Returns for capital, management, and labor other than contract and tractor operation SUMMARY FOR IDAHO AND ANALYSIS BY AREAS, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 Amount by which the returns from sugar he oxteel , the cost 0 Gross bp Train, returns for | of capital |. ibang dq sharges, the|C2Pital an | - costs of all manage: direct labor, mm machine operation, and all | indirect abhor costs Gross returns for capital and manage- ment as expressed in per- centage of total capital em- ployed in sugar-beet produc- tion 2 Area and year Value of and and other capital Hours of abor other than con- tract and tractor nperation Gross returns for labor ! and manage- ment 2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Cents per | Cents per wour of labor hour of labor on machine | on machine operations | operations and indirect | and indirect labor labor 373.0 447.5 1m —-10 & [daho: 3-year average. oo... 1921 ee. 1922 eo. 1923___. —mmeem Per acre 3232 264 Per acre 63.4 61 Per acre e4Q 28 Per cent 510. 46 ~3.34 18. 59 22. 53 [fT Twin Falls— 3-year average. .o..... 192)... inion 1972... 1023___. 13.74 ~2.18 22. 55 22.66 9.38 —4,34 15.53 20. 23 "Labor other than contract labor and the labor of operating the tractors. It is therefore the labor on machine operations and the indirect labor. 2 See Table 34 and footnotes to Tables 32 and 33. 3 These figures were obtained by dividing those in column 4 by those in column 3. 4 These figures were obtained by subtracting from those in column 4 the capital charges per acre of beets harvested, as shown in Table 12, and dividing the result by the hours per acre, as shown in column 3. . 8 These figures were obtained by subtracting from those in column 4 the direct labor costs on machine operations and indirect labor costs per acre, as shown in Table 12, and dividing the result by the value of land and other capital per acre, as shown in column 2. Note.—The figures in column 2 were taken from Table 34, those in column 3 from Table 26, and those in column 4 from Table 12. b All minus signs (—) indicate that the costs. as calculated for use in this table, were greater than the returns by the amounts shown. Blackfoot— 3-yer™ average. FARM PRACTICE IN SUGAR-BEET PRODUCTION: SUMMARY FOR IDAHO, BY AREAS TABLE 41.—Farm practice in sugar-beet culture: Kinds of operations and percentage of the total number of farms on which each operation was performed a given number of times SUMMARY FOR IDAHO, BY AREAS, 192¢ [Data are for 106 ! farms investigated, tractor and nontractor] Area and times gone over Operations before plowing Other preparations for plantir Cultivation <4 = — - an =] ya Irrigation w A, < = 3 IY 3 CB i] = Ay fe oS 2 § “3 JH - - r w C bpd h + Percentage of the total number of farms on which each operation was performed a given number of times - {idaho (total). 84.0 1 92.5! 10.4 1 24.5 2.81 900.6 6.6 04 2 nce. .... I'wice._..._. Three times... .._. Four times... Five times...... Six times_ __.___.___ Seven times and more 4.0! 92. 5 10. 4 16.. 2.5 00.6 6.6 —ooorjioonen 9 9 lll CITI women fmmme mn |r 4.7 F a Twin Falls (total). 70.0 1 92.5 12.5 37. h MN 10 O an 0 Jnce..... Twice. ____. Three times... Four times__. _..._.. Five times.......... Six times. ___._._.____. 3even times and TOOT@ ooo sooo moon min soem ee eee ear | er—r— Te = 70.0 02.5 i These data are for 40 farms in the Twin Falls area and 66 farms in the Blackfoot area WC 24. 6 20.3 11.3 5.61 6.6 4.7 18.8 57.6 0.4 99.1. 24.51 99.1 24.5 .9 IT ar 3.41... 17.0 19.8 |... 34.9 3.2 1.00000 ant 42.5100 19.9 20.0 - 100.0 —e 2.5 IE CITT 1s 17.5 12222071 8000 32.5 |..... 2m.5 50.0 |... 30.0 4.7 6.6 +8 esas sp = 1. 6 07 40.0 1 20.0 | 30.0 7.5 7. 5 7.5 30.0 | 42.5 15. 0 22 22. i 0.( ci.o 50 7.5 7.5130.0]350, 150 26 2.5... 7.5 Je oT SASSO SOA oo 2.5 I sarin gras ag c La 5 = td = ed lo! 0h oY sd TABLE 41.—Farm practice in sugar-beet culture: Kinds of operations and percentage of the total number of farms on which each operation = * was performed a given number of times—Continued SUMMARY FOR IDAHO, BY AREAS, 1922—Continued [Data are for 106 farms investigated, tractor and nontractor] Area and times gone ever Operations before plowing 9 I &* g 7 2 1 shOE | wu CoE Eg, : c 5 | 3 a E - a Other preparations for planting w | 2 8 2 80 od gq. 2.5 0 = Hon a Mog Bal s gS | a i =f cE B EEE | — = ' | a8 | as 3 8 5 | 8 & wn 19) ~ 0 0 IN mo Harrowing f= Cultivation Irrigation = AL 1 | wo 2 5 z i=] dw lB | S| 0 w | H 2 g | © = Bs = = < ® 3 = B 80 2 lal 3|2&|% = CK mn 0 ~ i} on aa} Percentage of the tolal number of farms on which each operation was performed a given number of times—Continued [daho—Continued. Blackfoot (total) ueeecmccue © coemeeo. 92.41 92.4 INCL. veeee- emma 92.4] 92.4 i T'wice........ temcmemce memmceean== Three times. cccocemmccccececaes teal oan Four times. aceeer. - cocmeconan Cjeemeoclaaooas Five times...... ER IO MA PIX HIB, swum mmm memnnis: weels some eee Seven times and more._._.. the 9.1 9.1 16.6] 1.51 903.91 4.5 97.0 l100.0 | 15.11 34.9 N.f 1.5 0 _oeeee Bo cemes 03.9 __._.. oe iE ceme|ecacan -. aaj Loo wana fo aoe]ohamtn Nn 27. 7.¢ IRI J. Hy 4.51 6.1 +9 | 6.1 08.5' 27.31 98.5 3.0/10.6 66.7 61 15 27.3 .._.__. ee ITIL In TTTTTTTBRA [ITT 1 TTT 370 on casei 30.4 | 18.2 ITIL TT as TT 13s ) { 5. = 7 - oD TABLE 42.—Farm practice in sugar-beet culture: Kinds of operations and the percentage of the total number of farms on which each operation was performed a given number of times SUMMARY FOR IDAHO, 1922 [Data are for 104 1 nontractor farms] Operations before plowing Other preparations for planting Cultivation Irrigation “rowing Area and times gone over Jind L ) ro » = = = 5 “ Bo & be 5 C wn ~ n o rr Perceniage of the total number of farms on which each operation was performed a given number of times [daho (total)... 92.3 10.6 92.3 10.6 24.01 2.9 90.4 2.9 .90.4 aww] 6.7 1.9 4.8 94.2 Jnce..... Twice...__. Chree times. Tour times. . five times..._.. .. Six times. . o_o... Seven times and more. 8.6 1.0 Lo 34 C 18.1 8.¢ 2.9 Twin Falls (total)... 69.2 192.3 12.8 359: 51 84.610.2 89.7 69.2 | 92.3 , 12.8 23.1, 5.1 84.6 | 5.1 256 oes 51 462 I I 12.8 N— Cn mado eenaes JOC. ea. T'wice.... Three times... Four times... Five times.._ Six times... _........_ Seven times and more._. Blackfoot (total)... ne oy 2 33.81 92.31 9.2 Ly POO FL 1 938 1.51938... 748 lL i 96.9 Jnece.... Twice... ... Three times Four times. Five times... Six times... __._...... remm—n- Seven times and more... .._.... 10.0 19.2 6.2 15 These data are for 39 farms in the Twin Falls area and 65 farms in the Blackfoot area. 3. 16. = 21 © oR | 5 8 9.0! 24.0 17.3 5.7 1.0 5.8 1 6.7 val 6.7 Lol LO |... 4.8 4.8 97.4 7. 23.1 20.5 25.6 10. 2 1.4 28 38.4 28.2 10.2 20.5 28.2" 7.7| 7.7 71.7 17.9 25.6 51 7.71 7.7 261 2.6] 26 |. oo. acmec|eccean cmmeme| cream. e--—-- 1 JO I I Tn 00.0 Fs a 31 LT = on . A meena casonfrana acannon can 4.6 6.2 4.61 6.2 12 2] 36. 15.4 10.8 7.6 58.71 8.6 99.0 65.8 | 8.61 0 2.9 id 24.0 99.0 24.0 10 4. & 17.3 33. € 22.1 20. 2 KL 3. -.... 42.3 |. 30.8 43.61 12.8 100.0 | 17.9 | 100.0 30.8 135.9 12.8 = 17.9 «2.6 nen] TET ammmmwinm CIs RE w | Sn nd ? 7.6 7.7 28.2 28,2 30.7 67.7 6.2 67.71 6.2 levee rece=- Y 2° I 98.5 Pd limes 62 . 23.1 21. . .. 36.9 30.8 ...... 18.4 36.0 027777 139 G: ‘2 C ¢ ba E x = = = rf 7 = 54 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TABLE 43.—Farm practice in sugar-beet culture: Kinds of operations and perceni- age of the total number of farms on which each operation was performed a given number of times SUMMARY FOR IDAHO, 1922 [Data for 2 tractor farms investigated; tractor operations only] Other preparations for planting Number of times the ground was gone over Idaho (total) ec cccuaoaooo.. 10 4 Vo TIC... cnmmmmm mmm: J. Three times. .- Twin Falls (total)... Once.._.... JR Blackfoot ($0tal) ove oem emmm———————— CDTVORY cy 0 0 AL i 0 re HA Twice. amalcccaae. ooo me ‘ Three times... Plowing Leveling Harrow- ing— Spike tooth 100.0 | 50.0 50.0 100.0 |ooeeeee.. . 50.0 oe ooo. 50.0 100.0 "710000 | TT 100.0 1100.0 TABLE 44.— Farm practice respecting the use of manure in sugar-beet production SUMMARY FOR IDAHO, BY AREAS, 1922 [The data are for those farms only on which manure was applied to the sugar-beet land] Area Idaho: Average for farms investi- gated. ooo Twin Falls evo. Blackfoot ooo eee ' Percent- age of total sugar- beet acreage naniired Labor of hauling and spreading per load Loads of manure per acre Average tons per load Value of manure ser load Cost per load for manure and ma- nuring 1 Man hours Horse hours 63.7! 128! 132' n20! 256! $0.84 $150 48.7 12.2 1.47 1.24 | 2.37 .95 1.61 74.6 13.0 Las! 118 2.64 79 | 1.46 1 These figures include the value of manure and cost of man labor and horse labor, but do not include equipment cost. They, of course, are not at all comparable with the data shown in Tables 12 and 13 as the average cost of manure, because the data here refer to the acreage manured only, while there they refer to the entire beet acreage harvested; and also here the total value per load is considered, while there the cost has reference to only that part of the total valiie that is chargeable to the beet crop of a certain vear. TABLE 45.—Farm practice in hauling sugar beets SUMMARY FOR FARMS INVESTIGATED IN IDAHO AND ANALYSIS BY AREAS, 19% [Sugar beets hauled on contract or by trucks are excluded from these tabulations] Per cent of arms report: ing various ~oad condi- tions Average (oads per team 1 at Farmers reporting spike loading ! Hauling hours rarms nauling Beets hauled Per cent of farmers using teams of various sizes iy < £ 1auling costs, in cents ? Man Horsr abr dorse labor Total Range of miles beets were hauled q = 55 8 2 3a 3 a pr PQ = s wy + b= D A ef - Pt el, oN P— [daho: AVerage..ooeee-.. __. Total... Lo... .._. 4 961 100. 0 15, 330. 7! 100.01. __ 68.8 25.0! 6. 2| 3. 95| 3.80] 18.8 6.2 70. 8 3 Z Cis.) Cts 3.1/0. wi 412. 43(1. 4223.3 13. 6 teaoe]lacmalana, Cis. Cts 25.7115. ¢ Cts. Cis. 49. 0/28. 6 | mile or less... 1.01 to 2..__. 2.01 to 3... 3.01 to 4__. 2. 2 2 34.3 8. 6... 12. 46. 7) 33.31.__. x. Oi 3. 90 1k J. Of R. 6 no ol. t 14. 3| 12. 5 0, 11. ¢ 51. 74 75. 88. OI 81/2.082.81119.7 6. 22.0120. 8) 41.756. ¢ ; 3%2.29/1.42120.312.: "4.315.0' 44. 037 6. 2012.941.1025.8 9., 1.2[11.7 57.0l21.4 ceee212.30] .35|3.21] .87/42.911.6] 34 0| 9.21 76 920. § . 70! ., 48%. 3 45 .23. Ss 41 __. Ywin Falls— Average...... ... Total __. LO... oo 66.7) 21.2121) 23 100.0 6,923.4 100.0. __. 4.06] 4.24 12.1... 81. 8 Uv snes i +4312. 31]1. 41[22. 4 of 24.8/15.1] 47.7)20.1 freemen. meee melee free fem em era a eee ——— 51! . 76|1. 80/2. 69]16. 8 25. 1) 19. 3/28. 8| 36.1!53.9 50] . 3612. 35|1. 46(19. 6 12. 0| 25. 5/15. 6 45.1/27. 6 73 .3313.30/1.24]28. 910.9] 35.2133 64.2(24.2 1671 40]1. 63) 45 55.1/15.0| 17. 5| 4.81 72. 6/19. 8 | mile of less... .. {.01 to 2.... po 2.01 to 3... ro 3.01 to 4... HC Hf . TTY 2, 483. L466. 460. 0! Sf 30. i 6.50 oT 61. b 100. 0! 90. 0 100. 0 10. 0 ap 67! 1 a 50 0 00. 01. And “{} Blackfoot— Average... Total it 100. O .. 407. J L(V 5’ C 40]2. 52l1. 223 : 13, 3 26.715. 50. 3/28. 4 mre frces ccmalcrea]eaets - reel re mana. glen, 3 46.858. 6 44.7] 4427.6 Jo 62 8s 41.6011.2 79.121.3 | mile or les 1.01 to 2... _. 2.01 to3....._. 3.01to4...___. , L ber L142 i, 423. 1, 022. 0 og oo A 1... Ro 0 12.2] 71.4 23... # ) 671 .84(2.32'2.91(22. 227." 30/2. 2211. 3%|20. 8 1%. 25/2. 57]. 96[22. 6 8. - 2 30!3.92.:1. 06/37. 5/10. 1. a al 6 5 67) 't. a seu 1‘“Spike loading’’ i3 the term applied to the use of an extra man and team in loading beets on wagons and hauling off fields and to main highway ! Exclusive of equipment costs. C 0 | wn O = x [ad ! & on c C. B x = to = op Y J in COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TABLE 46.—Sugar-beet seed: Pounds planted by growers SUMMARY FOR IDAHO AND ANALYSIS BY AREAS, 1922 Average number of pounds of sugar-beet seed nlanted 1 TABhO. i wv wpapiassnsmm ens nnn Twin Falls_.... BlackfoObeaeaaae. on Per acre 15.56 16.8 14.7 1 The pounds given here are for the acres planted once and do not include the seed for acreage replanted. Consequently the product of the price paid by growers per pound of seed multiplied by the number of pounds of seed planted per acre may not equal the seed cost per acre as shown in the tables analyzing the costs of production. The costs per acre for seed shown in the analysis tables include the cost of seed planted on abandoned acreage as well as on the acres harvested. The prices paid by growers for seed was 20 cents per pound in 1921, 1922, and 1923. TYPES OF FARMING ON FARMS INVESTIGATED: IDAHO, BY AREAS TABLE 47.—Use made of farm area operated, sugar-beet farms investigated, Idaho, 1922 Per cent of operated area [daho 1___. Twin Falls. Blackfoot._. 1 Ccmbination c. vie TABLE [daho 1___. Twin Falls____._ Blackfoot _ 1g” Total acres erated Culti- var 1 Perma- nent pasture Wood- land Other land ~ sy 7.8 « & 41 7.3 8.1 .aho areas investigated. stze of sugar-beet farms investigated and relative importance )f the sugar-beet acreage on those farms ~OR IDAHO AND ANALYSIS BY AREAS, 1922 Per cent of cuiti- vated ACreage from which sugar beets were 1arvested iverage number acres yperated Yer farm Lverage culti- vated acreage nar farm Average acreage of sugar beets | aarvested| ner farm 92 102 el 4.7 96 £7 1° 11 13.3 15. 8 Average of the 2 Idaho areas investigated TABLE 49.— Average yield of sugar beets in tons per acre SUMMARY FOR IDAHO AND ANALYSIS BY AREAS, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 Average yield per acre of sugar beets [daha 3 Twin Falls... Blackfoot. o_o... = 1091 1 -g 1999 1} 16.7% 13 42 19923 © 15.43 16. 30 14 70 3-year average, 1G21-1923 413.84 14.92 13. 21 1 Average yield on the farms investigated. } ! The 1923 Idaho crop was being harvested when the investigators were in the field. The yield was herefore estimated by the growers based upon the yield of the acreage that had been harvested. 4 Weighted average of the 2 Idaho areas investigated. ! Weighted on the basis of production in Idaho for each vear respectivelv J2ARQ4 OQ 58 © COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TABLE 50.—Acreage of principal crops grown on the sugar-beet farms investigated, Idaho, 1922 [Only those farms reporting the yield per acre are used in this tabulation] Number of acres devoted to— Alta Idaho 2. oa... Pwim Falls ooo. Blackfoot. ooo. Soar | Alfalfa | Wheat | I Corn Pais: | Cats for aes grain Barley | Beans 1,207 5(2 698 2, 627 1, 066 1, 561 1,982 | 856 318 | 218, 152] 88 1,023 | 3i1| 75 | 161 | 139 | 88 ! 959 545 243 57 13 {meee Other hay! 151 148 3 U'Includés all hay except alfalfa. 2 Combination of the 2 Idaho areas investigated. TABLE 51.—Percentage of the crop land growing each of the various crops on the sugar-beet farms investigated, Idaho, 1922 Percentage of the crop land of the farms investigated that was devoted to— Area All 1 Sugar TOUS beat Alfalfa | Wheat Potatoes Dats Twin Falls. eee Blackfoot _ ee ee em mm, 100 14.9 32.4 24.4 | 10.5 3.9 100 | 13.4 28.0. 26.8 8.2 | 2.0 100 16.2 36.2 22.3 12.6 5.6 Percentage of the crop land of the farms investigated that was devoted to- [daho 1. ______ Corn for grain Barley Beans Other hay 2 Fruit and miscella- neots 3 Pasture [daho1_._._. ._ 15 3.1 1.9 | om 1.1 ~ 2.2 2.5 4.5 2.4 42] 3.0 47 90 Twin Falls__..... . .. Blackfoot. TABLE 52.— Yields per acre of the principal crops grown on the sugar-beet farms investigated. Idaho. 1922 1 Weighted average of the 2 Idaho areas investigated. 1 Includes timothy, clover, wild hay, and all other hay except alfalfa. ' Miscellaneous includes truck crops, clover seed, and 1.8 per cent of summer fallow land. Average vield per acre of— A "AQ Sugar heets daho 2____ Tons 14.6 16.3 13.4 Twin Falls. oo eoemao oo. Blackfoot... ____.__.... 1 Includes all hav except alfalfa. Alfalfa Wheat Pota- toes | Oats Corn for grain Barley ! Beans | iter Tons | Bushels, Bushels| Bushei.. 3.8] 39.3! 222.2 48.7 4.4 43.1 | 222.6 | 64.2 3.31 35.2! 22090! 43.5% Bushels Bushels| Bushels) 56. 1 36.9 32.0 55.7 36.1 32.0 | 60.01 46.9 |.__._.._._ Tons 2.3 2.3 3.7 2 Average of the 2 Idaho areas investigated. COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 59 TABLE 53.—Number per farm of various kinds of livestock on the sugar-beet farms tnvestigated, Idaho, 1922 Average number of head per farm of— A I'eA daho T___. Fwin Fall Blackfoot. Work Jther \orses Jalry QT oung stock Beef OWS Other cattle 13.1 2 6.4 2.61 17.2 Hogs 14.4 20.7 10.6 Brood SOWS i Poul- Sheep Lambs! try 2.1, 44 31.0. 53.6 31| 42 23 87 1.5! 4.6] 48.4 50.4 - Average of the 2 1daho areas investigated FABLE 54.—Tenure of farm area operated, sugar-beet farms investigated, Idaho, 1922 Per cent of operated area daho t_.__ Twin Falls...____.. Blackfoot... eg Owned by operator 76.5 65. 6 85.1 Share rented by perator 19.7 29.9 11.7 Cash rented by nperator 3.8 4.5 3.2 Average of the 2 Idaho areas investizated. TaBLE 55.— Tenure of sugar-beet land on farms investigated. Idaho. 1922 Per cent of acres harvested by operator [daho! Twin Falls Blackfoot Owned by yperator Share rented by nperator Cash rented by nperator 6.8 10.4 4.1 1 Average of the 2 Idaho areas investizated. TABLE 56.—Sugar-heet acreage planted, harvested, and per cent abandoned on farms 1nvestigated, Idaho. 1922 [daho! Twin Falls_.____ Blackfoot = Pr Acres Alanted 1.226 522 704 Acres har- rested 1,207 509 698 Per cent aban- doned 1.5 2.5 R ! Combination of the 2 Tdaho areas investigated MISCELLANEOUS TABLES GIVING THE REPLIES OF THE FARMERS TO SOME GENERAL QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE SUGAR-BEET INDUSTR™ Replies to all of the questions on pags 71 (sugar-beet cost schedule) were not obtained from all the farmers who gave data on their costs of production of sugar bests, but those that were obtained are pre- sented as the opinions and to some extent as the results of the experiences of the growers. ESTIMATED EFFECT OF THE SCGAR-BEET INDUSTRY ON LAND VALUE TABLE 57.— Farmers’ estimates of effect of existence of sugar factory upon the value of farm land, Idaho, 1922 Number of farmers reporting Idaho 1.._ Twin Falls_.__..___.___._. Blackfoot _ Ar Increase Decrease | No effect wf 6 6 JO 1 Combination of the 2 Idaho areas investigated. TABLE 58.—Farmers’ estimates of effect of existence of sugar factory upon the value of land devoted to sugar beets, Idaho, 1922 Number of farmers reporting 4 roa Idaho! ....... _. Twin Falls_.. Blackfoot Increase 26 8 IR Decrease | No effect 3 3 1 Combination of the 2 Idaho areas investigated. TABLE 59.— Farmers’ estimates of effect of existence of sugar factory upon the value of the farm land upon which is grown sugar beels’ chief competing crop. Idaho, 1922 Number of farmers reporting Idaho! Twin F-ll~ Blackfoot A vey Increase | Decrease | No effect 27 26 7 | 5 20 21 2 2 Combination of the 2 Idaho areas investigated 2 N COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 61 TABLE 60.—Comparison of farmers’ estimates of the value of beet land with their estimates of the value of land for the crop that competes most directly with beets, Idaho, 1022 Number of farmers who reported the value of beet land— The sam 7 as the ¢ | Higher than Lower than value of | the value | the value and upon | of land |of thatland which is [upon which upon which srown that | is grown is grown 'rop which that crop the crop sompetes which com-| which com. most petes most | petes most directly directly directly with sugar with sugar | with sugar beets beets beets ([daho 1__... Twin Falls. Blackfoot 1 Combination of the 2 Idaho areas investigated. TABLE 61.—Farmers’ estimates of the probable effect upon the values of their farms if the sugar factories were removed from their district, Idaho, 1922 Number of farmers reporting Ara [nerease de A = No effect [daho 1. I'win Falle Blackfoot... » ea“ | Combination of the 2 "faho areas in«w--+~ 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. COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 63 TABLE 65.—Tabulation of farmers’ replies to the question, “On your farm what 1s sugar beets’ chief competitive crop?’ Idaho, 1922 Number of farmers reporting 1— [daho §.__ Twin Falls... Blackfoot... yk Nove Other None ® 3 2 1 4 Tome farmers reported 2 crovs competing about equally with sugar beets, and others made no report at all. * These farmers reported that no crop competed with sugar beets. ' Combination of the 2 Idaho areas investigated. TABLE 66.— Tabulation of farmers’ replies to the question, ‘On an average, what crop yields you better net returns than sugar beets?’’ Idaho, 1922 -* - -* irmers reporting ° 'daho 3. Twin Falis Blackfoot__. qt None $ 73 21 52 - Some farmers reported more than 1 crop, and some made no report at all. ' These farmers reported that no crop yielded better net returns than sugar beets. ' Combination of the 2 Tdaho areas investigated RESERVATIONS BY COMMISSIONER COSTIGAN RESPECTING THE COMMISSION’S REPORT ON THE COSTS OF PRODUCTION OF SUGAR BEETS _& 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 h8 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS The evaluation of labor charges for the farmer and his family pre- sents great accounting difficulties. It is self-evident that farmers and their families are entitled to reasonable returns for their work. The enterprise survey is highly serviceable in judging the prices they ought in fairness to receive for their beets. Such a survey, however, is not equally useful in determining the farmers’ exact cost of pro- duction. Farming is in a sense a method of living not entirely” measurable by the standards of cost accounting developed for urban industries, where costs consist largely of actual disbursements. The farm home is part of the farm and the members of the family gen- erally perform a large part of the productive work. The farm also furnishes a large portion of the supplies consumed by the family. In addition to the immediate financial income from productive farm enterprises there are other forms -of return to the farmer and his family which it is almost impossible to evaluate—relative inde- pendence, the ability to carry on under conditions which would be fatal to an urban industry, and the expectation, frequently realized on western farms, of a substantial increase in the acreage value of farm land. For such or related reasons, or because of the immo- bility of farm capital, or because the standards of expenditure are lower on the farm than in the city, farmers generally accept a rela- tively low rate of immediate return. For the reasons mentioned it is not surprising to find that agricul- tural cost studies in the form of enterprise surveys have a tendency to show losses suffered rather than profits made by farmers. This was evidenced in investigations before the World War as.well as in those of more recent years, in which the level of farm prices has been admittedly low. The showing made by the sugar-beet industry, measured by such cost studies, is relatively favorable. Epwarp P. CosTiGAN, Commissioner. APPENDIX SCHEDULE USED IN THE INVESTIGATION APPENDIX Form oF ScHEDULE Usep IN THE INVESTIGATION Dump._____.__ Schedule No___. State Factory receiving beets__ _ Address __ Confidential UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION Washington, D. C. SUGAR BEETS—COST OF PRODUCTION, 1922 Name of grower. P. O. Address. Acreage Owned Cash rented Location____ Coup’ Share rented | Total farmed Nonirrigated..... Irrigated _ __ Total cultivated . Permanent pasture... .,. Voodland.._____. Jther land ___ Total... _____. Acreage rented out... Acreage Operated. ooofomeoee Sugar-best acreage. | TTT i Sugar Beets Acreage: Planted.__; harvested.__; per cent abandoned, 1922.__, normal_____ Yield (tons, clean beets): Total. _____; per acre, 1922___ __;: norma,. Summary of Costs Total cost 2D Cost per acre Cost per ton (a) 1922 vield (» Normal vield [. Direct costs on beets: A. Labor—1. Machine opera- tions. .._.._.___ 2. Hand labor. _____ Total .___._. ~se of horses. . . {ractor work__.___ D. Other direct costs. _ Total direct costs. - [I. General costs: A. Equipment charge...._.___ B. Other general costs_._.. _. Total general costs.______ IL. Capital charges: A. Charges for use of land. ____. B. Interest on equipment._.___.__. C. Interest on work stock... ... D. Interest on working capital Total interest. [V. Aggregate costs... V. Less credits... __________._ __ VI. Net cost of beets: With interest___. Without interest VII. Net cost per 100 Ibs. of sugar content: With interest_.___. ceemeee Without interest a 72 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS Manuring. 1922. ...- 121 ee 1920... Acres Crew Loads per acre Total loads Loads | No. per dav days Men | Horses ee Total hours Man | Horse 50% =-. 30% =.. 20% =. Hours to bests Man | Horse ho Total. coccecmeee Average weight per load LOAD, icc sve im mm po a res wee mes 1921. ooo eee UP 1920. came! mmm wn Total tons = Vo =_ Chargeable to : beets | Value per unit Total value chargeable to beets Total ._ Green manure crop for beets—Kind._ Acres seeded ~ oc occ mmnaa Cost of seed per acre....———--. -- Total cost. MO, =8. _.___. Hours of man labor per acre...._. " »tal. = rm Hours of horse labor per acre-_-.__ Total. - i 2 eso i: Be When part or all of the field was replanted, obtain all labor for the preparation of the land for the new seed bed. Irrigating “seed up” should be classed with irrigating before planting. Hauling beets: Miles hauled... . Loads per day—_-. . -- ; Weight per load__. Tons hauled ..__-__ Type of road: Gooa- Fair... Rg" J pe 1 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 73 l. Direct Costs on Beets. Al.—LABOR, NORMAL REQUIREMENTS. Crew Time required for once over Total hours Machine operations Actes] Times over Men | Horses 1 Hours Yer day — Acres ner day Num- ber of davs Man 'Horse| Tractog Manuring (see page 72). Charge against 1922 crop... rng. te ” ' cemmn cern n—. Preparation: Total. Cleaning ditches........ Removing trash....._... Disking ove eeeeceauee-. Crowning alfalfa_._____. Plowing.ooooo._... _ sf ini "rp SRR POS i = a mpm Chiseling . Disking_.... Floating... Leveling. eueenoo. _ larrowing (spike)... . Jarrowing (spring)..... E1010: SR Jorrugating..... TTT en ET SE Plantir Total. ,rrmee er—— Hauling fertilizer.. .. Planting. ..._._. Replanting.__....... .. reparation for replant- Ms svnmenanom eno mem cemcelrcccacleconcana No Nom SI mesm= —eccase a ——— Cultivatin Total. Harrowing + Rolling kal _ IPTaYing. ee ooo... Jultivating, one horse. . cultivating, two horses I cea! Tee me mdm ot remmnn «wl sme wmmE— FE mmm —— ramw! Came ccae. on om remceeee meeccene bmn erny ER BE ceresone i ———— rrigating /- Total. Farrowing.._.. rrigating before az Irigating after olanting fi recevmas recesses cece os A darvesting | Tetal. “-————e ei Badiar Loading and ha T_ Spike loading. ....._.... SLOring. ovum cciaecaan. [$3 | “xx a mh com——— m—— wy devcaonin - meee moe nS ——— Jrand total hours. .___._ LIf tractor is used instead of horses, so specify and indicate prevailing rate. Unpaid contract labor performed by members of operator’s family: Number.....___ 33A04—92Q______« 74 "COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 1. Direct Costs on Beets.—Continued. Al.—LaBoR, NorMAL REQUIREMENTS—Continued. Operations Blocking...annsnnnnnee-~ THINRIDE ov wumess snus Hoeing.. -—ccccacancaa Pulling and topping... Hours per acre | Total hours mC remacmmccccase Other hand labor ‘contract, hired, or operator), hours Total rammcsmstesveccl-covcosacsnccssnnana wi wp memes easesssvaaa Creecccsessn -— Totals. ___.. (hat proportion of this family labor would otherwise have been unem- ployed? -.... _ PERQUISITES OF CONTRACT LABORERS trea ASA WR— Shelter..eceaecccnan-- pommne w gdp) Domine Hommel SR HR REE Land for garden. _. cor ccccaamanaclogaaca nA IRR RAR Feed and pasture for cow and borse..... mem mt 9 0 RE Vegetables and fruit. -occococee-—- -o. LL Coal or wood..... ..~ - mmmmeeafee mse mee sameness tees Transportation: * > moving. _ . CC mmmmmamameeecmceesccAmessEsassesaesamam- farm, daily... ._... mmm americmcmemumeemenmcamammeesmannn—— 1 v obtaining supplies. emem———- emmmm—emaes=ae= Milk, butter, and egr- .. Co mmemmmmercememee—eec—cecea= Do these laborers assist in other farm work; if so, what proportion of the above perquisites should be charged to beets? _.._.._%. Charges for board include only the supplies furnished. Grower’s factory rights: Total value of perquisites...._.... ITnits bought Market price | Grower’s price | Saving per unit Total saving PUD ec ccecceaceean Molasses. cocccccmac ne SULAT esac cccc cmc wn cesses ancesmne| enced encnn aes C—aessesamemee rmemafan ND —— — Total. .____ A2.—CostT oF HanD LABOR ON BEETS. — Blocking. ee veucanee Chinning. .cecaaaa-. doeing...o.cecao ... Pulling and topping Total - cece. Contract work Unpaid family labor Acres ' Rate | Cost Acres | Rate Cost ) amc aman wan caanlce qume- IE, wae www amona— a a Ame promt: mls Wl WH mE cemmmmcleccccee mane damm rn mgama - cmc cr moeer -— alt aid —-— qm mmm ce nam. rtrmmmobeaeen ' mmam—- mm o- rm Wage and grower’s labor Acres | Rate | Cost comanse ceareenalcsenmen: mamaen wammnan)usme—.. ET ——————- cmmmmmafman eee LoL Total naste ream ew "eames oewgnue -u aw PP COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 1. Direct Costs on Beets—Continued. A3.—CosT oF ALL MAN LABOR oN FArM.? Type of worker Man- months Wages per month Cash |! Board Total Total vages Hired by year. «oueeeaecuao oo. Hired by month. eoceeeeo.. .. Jrower..___.. Qrower’s fam’ -a Total. __. { == "Yearly perqui- sites 75 Total labor cost ceceveces rec ecvcew cemcesnse roca races - cma rene mew mee irmm- - } Not including contract '<bor. (Set a Perguf<it~ ~* N=pw~ Totals Jse of house—(a) Normal repairs... (b) Depreciation_____. Wood on stump —---- Cords, at . food... Farden.. cece. ‘otatoes. ...... Timid 5 ‘ork... Qoaf mes ceccuan: recteccne nase enc a——— TEES cue. 20UNIY cent meee 2101175 JA Milk _________. Nuantity Value mesememere eee ceceeeaee es memeccemecoas CA AA Number in family: Adults ______ Children ._____ Hired labor A4.—CosT oF MAN LABOR IN MACHINE OPERATIONS: Total hours productive labor (p. 72) _.._ Cost of all man labor (A-3) $_._. Mashing operations on sugar beets: Hours _.__ Cost per hour, $_.. Total cost. $__ A5.—Cost oF HorSE LABOR IN MACHINE OPERATIONS: Total hours of productive horse labor (p. 72).. Cost of all horse labor, $__ Mating operations on sugar beets: Hours_.___ Cost per hour, $___ Total cost. $_ SUGAR-BEET CROP CREDITS Beet tops.— Disposition. Acres sold__._.___ Acres used on farm Abandoned acreage: Acres utilized.. Credits. ______________________________ . Value of grower’s factory rights: Pulp. molasses. sugar (see opposite page) _ : Receipts, Value. Total 76 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS IIL—Capital Charge. - . % * A. CHARGE FOR USE oF LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS: 1. Total value of farm (including value of all improve- ments) _.___o_._.. emma msi oi sor erie a. Tillable land_._... .....acres at. r——— Irrigated land.___._.acres at_. rE Nonirrigated land._...__acres at... ___. . b. Permanent pasture.._._._acres at. c. Woodland__.__.__.__.acres at._.__ -——---- A Bee cei imi Ee. Biron Chargeable to beets 2. Investment in land in beets: —------ acres, at $________ per acre___. Interest on S$... .__. at _.____.__%; 3. Fair cash rental for beet land: ..__acres,at $________Dperacre.._._ 4. Farm mortgage: Amount, $i: rate, - ay by rer JO 5. Cashrent_ ________________. Less taxes and fire insurance. $ SI J Reo J Net cash rent. _ oo. | ccmmmecccaaa 6. Share rent: _.__.____ tons of beets at *___. Less landlord's expenses. Net share rent.__._ B. INTEREST ON EQUIPMENT: Present value, $._..____. Rate _-..__._.. Annual charge___. .... C. INTEREST ON WORK ANIMALS: Average inventory: $__......,rate ._._____%, ANDUAL UNEIEE «vv siggp & mimi 59.8 Somme D. INTEREST ON WORKING CAPITAL: 1. Bank loans. Date Amount Months Rate of discount Rn 3_. 8. ___- mae po. 3 2 Advances bv sugar company: Total capital charges. . " ————- B___ nN * To be computed. COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS B.—Material and Other Direct Costs. "tame Acres Quan- lity or cost per acre Total uantitv Price per nit Total rost (or value) Commercial fertilizer. .... Seed. ocean. Water for irrigation. Spray material__. Trop insurance... 1 b Manure for beets ireen manure... Machine work hire. sd Croy.; 71 Amount paid by— Grower Landlord pmnar nwm—— Total ___. [I A. General Costs, Charges Against Implements (Exclusive of Interest). Fotal first rOSt Fu. lure life Total present value Depreciation Total Nor. repair mal | and 'ePairs | gore. niation Chargeable to sugar beets [tens NO. Years nsed Per sent | Amount P res | Amount Beet drills.......... Beet cultivators, 1 Hoo. Bas cultivators, Z Beot pullers. ....... Beet knives......... Beet forks. ceeeennn-. 3eet racks. cece... 3eet netS....oo-.... Wagons. «.eecuanan Manure spreaders. . lows Se El Ss mh Cn A S—— SIAL 8001S - one emeeteme mieten AULO trUCKS . cc cecefececmn]onoane Total repairs and depreciation... cece ooaaoamaeae.._ te ——_ Machines Dred. . «oo ee eee eee mm eee eee ee eee eee Building charges against implements__._... . - Ce ememe—ea= Total implements charge. .___. Senn Boceenna [I B. Other General Costs. [tame Amount paid by— OQrower ! Landlord Total paid Chargeable to beets Per cent Amount [rrigation and drainage (see page 78)..._...: Taxes (excluding income BERASY miami Automobile, farm use. ......c.cceeceoooao |. fuel and oil for pump or truck__ Association dues. ___.________ Fencing wire, posts. €tC.aeoceeaee Felephone. _. oc ueevoecae coe Fire insuirance__ Tota 78 ’ " COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS IV.—Factory Record—NoTE.—If grower delivered beets to more than one factory, the following record should be obtained from the grower: Y ear Factory "eceiving beets Acreage Har- Planted! veated Yield, tons cleaned, . weight Per acre Total Sugar con- ent %) Price § Tou | Bonus sntract for price ner ton of sugar Bonus Cr sugal sontent Returns Per " Total ld ~~ 1918. .... 1919. ..... $20. eo. 1921 coe... 922 ______ Total..... Average. ... 1023 cc eee a emma]. cmmca|cenm-- emma am—-- mwa ~. a revs cme as reemefeeneas remmalamaaes a J ¥ Delivered at farmer’s unloading point. Distance of beet field from the factory_._.. Were all beets sold in name of grower?.... IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE-MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION [tom PUMP. ccamcceean Janvas dams. ...... hovels. cceercaaen.. JUIMBS. om mms <eadgates........... DES cece Cost Kind Years used Total E a present | value Depreciation Total Nor- repairs nal re- and de: pairs | precia- tion Per sent Amount semen him sine ee os a ye? Total..... Amount | Price Total cost Chargeable to sugar beets Per cent Amount savnejunammrenn rnerrjeccmesean poms —— pee RRR EER eh ecccsicvsscccnn -F Pump fuel... ceo... Pump Oil... cee. Other pump power... © 0 a eestirisemscenas fran sees en ee nfm reece eee | eee A vemvmtmara{marirrrntir en. - sort ma bmw cm mmm cel rmccmaa Totaleeen! ccaccclaccaneena Name Number of shares Cost per acre River rights_..... mmmmmmmmm—m—r mmm mmm ——— Reservoir rights. «eejceecmacan cee = a. DIStrict rights. cco |oam cc ceecmccccmmccsecrcacemcccemeenn ~—r-emmae———- 2UnNing rentals. co |ocecrcitcacreconccomacmcecacavacacacsie —cmammmmmmnn= Laterals. ._._.cccue ep Drain ditches... coceoe. eccecmcccacaee m——— “ee Toba] cco cnuminsis fommmnmlanmmunass Grand rR Sa IP NE COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS V.—Farm Enterprises. A. Crops: Yield Man-labor ‘te 3 Teron "Acres J Per acre | Total Normal hours Yor 4Cre Total hours WHA ce emeeeeoeeeen DBS ceememnars meer beeen. Barley..... ve SUGAr DeetSeeunennnaannn.. COIR eee. 20t8t068. cceecnmannnnn Beans... CL — A o.loe rx xxx - ne. SE S—— mel sms ' Come a ame pe ww rm we nm -. a see mi nes - Alfalfa (CULtingS, .ommono neon. Clover (cuttings)... ocean... TES Pasture... Total PRES ARR XXX 79 Horse-labor Normal hours Yer Acre Total hours Xx. 1 B. LIVESTOCK® Kind of animals A verage num- bar Horses. ..canaeccenannn. Beef cows... DAITY COWS. oem cmeocceenen. Brood SOWS. oe uceceaan. Breeding ewes. .ocoeeeo =~ Poultry ime aa sea icmcesmd rma ae wr mm Beef Cattle. ...-ooooon an 2 (0+ JU " am he CF EE EWE EEE aa. Total. i] C. MiscELLANEOUS LABOR: Total 7alue vionths fed XXIx Total Aavs Anj- mal 1nits ‘Aen Norma! hours vrA.U. Total ours A X32X jeepaueca Crew Total hours Horsne Normal hours er A. U. Total hours econ: wecceme mee wml owonunmn reeececnen i a ceeean rmassa tre sme ~epecena — Ca XIX Total hotirs Dutside labor. ...._... Permanent improvement: Total. ______.__ Total productive labor on farm_ 80 - COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS VI.—Miscellaneous. A. Mosp. [uronsave SourcEs oF Farm Income (1922): irst_ Second... Third .. Fourth... GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Variation in costs for season 1923-24 from 1922-23. (a) Contract labor. _ oo _____ (b) Hired labor. (¢) Yield________. (d) Any new operations. ._ 2. Estimate effect, if any, of existence of sugar factory upon: Value of all tillable lands______ Value of lands devoted to beets_ __.. What is the chief competing crop?..___ Value of beet land for chief competing erop_.______ Change in land value if beet factory were removed _ 3. Chief reasons for growing beets (cash crop; certainty of yield; soil improve- ment; better distribution of production labor, ete.) _ On an average what Crops yield better net returns?_ 4. Without material changes in your present method of farming, how many more acres of your land can you devote to sugar beets? ___ ____; of good land? _..____.___; of fair land? .___.__.____. 5. Effect of beets on subsequent crops: mall grains. .eeecaaa. 1, (—, DIM nnmannnnnmnnviow: itatoes o-oo anr- Enumerator_... ..._. Checked bv Good | Bad Quantity of increase or decrease : Probable cause Cr eecescemccsreTresconaen Peet mmn -- eeemcmccsesss rmcmene ems sseman ee Date... COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 5 ment of Agriculture and by a large number of agricultural cost ac- countants, and is based upon the fact that the acre is the unit em- ployed by farmers in their calculations and that the hours of labor per acre, pounds of seed planted per acre, manure applied per acre, ind other basic unit requirements in cost vary but little from year to year * unless there is a radical change in farm practice. For factors exhibiting variations from year to year, such as yields per acre, wages, contract labor rates, prices of horse feeds, prices of seed, prices of commercial fertilizer, and land charges, due allowance was made. Illustrations of individual calculations may help to make the method clear to the reader. Wages for 1923 had been obtained on the schedules by the agents of the commission while they were collecting the 1922 data. Wages for 1921 were derived by adjusting the 1922 wages, as found in the investigation, by the percentage of change in monthly wages (without board) paid farm laborers. According to available wage data the average monthly farm wages in Idaho (without board) were 2 per cent higher in 1921 than in 1922. Adding 2 per cent to the 1992 wage rate, therefore, established the 1921 wage rate. An adjustment was also made in the hours of labor for loading and hauling the higher yield of beets in 1923. This same method was followed in all caleula- tions for 1921. Contract labor rates for 1921 and 1923 were obtained directly from the farmers visited in the investigation and were checked against the printed beet contracts for those years, furnished to the commission by the sugar manufacturers. To these rates were added the 1922 costs of the minor items of perquisites furnished by the growers to the contract laborers, and also the extra wages, if any, paid to contract laborers at the rates specified in the 1921 and 1923 contracts for harvesting unusually large crops. For example, the contract labor rates in the Twin Falls area, Idaho, were $21.50 in 1921, 18 in 1922, and $19.50 in 1923. These are the amounts provided in the contracts with the laborers for the combined handwork of block- ing, thinning, hoeing, pulling, and topping an acre of sugar beets under standard conditions. To obtain the total cost of contract labor as shown in the tables the cost of the regular work under standard conditions was increased by (1) extra wages for harvesting an unusually good crop and for extra hoeings; and (2) the value of the perquisites furnished by the growers to the contract laborers. These two items averaged $7.55 per acre for 1921, $8.78 for 1922, and $10.35 for 1923. Hence the regular cost of contract labor when increased by these amounts equaled $29.05 per acre in 1921, $26.78 in 1922, and $29.85 in 1923. Horse costs for 1921 and 1923 were obtained by adjusting the feed costs, as found in the investigation for 1922, to changes in prices as shown by the Yearbooks of the United States Department of Agri- culture for these years. Chores and other labor involved in the care of horses were charged at the new cost rates determined by the method described above. An adjustment was made in the hours of horse labor in hauling the higher yield of beets in 1923. For the remaining items the 1922 data were used. ND @ =] QO ll —t «© « Bs © w po b | @® Q i ~ Ld ~ [14] + ~ oO - (wo ] oN oO ™m oo ! oN o 2 £3 as ER — -— 0 A 1 ~~ | ge | © o oN 0 -L Tol (90) N N Mm oN QO _ * Comparison of the commission’s data with similar data obtained by the Department of Agricultura ‘Dn Investigations made for other years shows a close agreement in these basic units of cost Baie = of Nn