EI + SST UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS PART X—UNITED STATES SUMMARY OF COSTS OF PRODUCTION OF SUGAR BEETS IN THE UNITED STATES AND AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE SUGAR BEET INDUSTRY .621, 1922, AND 1923 UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS PART X— UNITED STATES SUMMARY OF COSTS OF PRODUCTION OF SUGAR BEETS IN THE UNITED STATES AND AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE SUGAR BEET INDUSTRY 1921, 1922, AND 1923 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1098 UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION Dffice: Eighth and E Streets NW,, Washington, D. C. COMMISSIONERS Troms O. MARVIN, Chairman. ALFRED P. DENNIS, Vice Chairman. Epwarp P. CosTiGAN, EpgaAr B. BROSSARD. SHERMAN J. LowELL. LincoLN DixoN. JorN F. BETHUNE, Secretary "; L ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D. C. AT 20 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. Parr VI. Idaho. Parr VII. Wyoming. Part VIII. Montana. Part IX. California. Parr X. Summary of costs of production of sugar beets in the United States and an economic analysis of the sugar- beet industry. In this investigation the Tarif 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, F. H. Shelledy, and C. K. Lewis, of the agricultural division of the commission’s staff, and of pthers. STATEMENT BY TARIFF COMMISSION In the preparation for publication of Part X, the Summary for the United States of the costs of producing sugar beets, a number of arrors were discovered in the various State reports as printed. The persons mentioned in the reports as having assisted the commission in the sugar-beet investigation are not responsible for these errors which ocourred after the manuscripts had been completed and approved. Because of these errors the Montana, Nebraska, and Idaho reports have been withdrawn from circulation and corrected reports are being printed and issued. For the Ohio, Colorado, Utah, California, and Wyoming reports, errata sheets have been issued to correct minor errors. CONTENTS FR — TEXT Economic significance of the sugar-beet industry in the United States___._ Historical development of the sugar-beet industry in the United States._. Description of the growing of sugar beets and of the manufacture of beet 11:4: ) J em mmmmmmmmmn ee mmm Economic considerations concerning the maintenance and growth of the industry_.___________ ______..__ . The tariff in its relation to the sugar-t=~ - Report on the farmers’ costs of pre- States for the years 1921, 1922, ana .. History of the investigation. Method of investigation___. Scope and representativeness of the investigation____ Explanation of terms__.____. Results of the cost investigation. Reservations by Commissioner Costigan______________ _ _— Appendix—Facsimile of schedules used in the investigation______. __ rage 1 6 9 12 19 21 21 24 33 38 101 103 TABLES Description of the sugar-beet industry in the United States: 1. Sugar beets: Production in the United States, 1921-1926__ 2. Sugar beets: Acreage, production, and yield per acre in principal producing countries, 1909-1926______________ 3. Acreage and production of sugar beets and quantity of beet sugar made in the United States, 1909-1926_______ 4, Sugar beets: Character of labor employed in hand work on beets, 1926 and 1922_____ __________________________ 5. Sugar: Production in the United States and ..a possessions, 1866-1926 ______ meen 6. Rates of duty on sugar beets and sugar, 1900-1925_______ 6A. Imports of sugar beets for consumption in the United States, 1910-1926____.. = .______ I1. Scope and representativeness of the investigation: 7. Scope of the investigation, 1922________ _. RE om 8. 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 in that year. 9. Relation of acreage of sugar beets harvested per farm fo net costs per acre and per ton, summary, 1922_ ___________ Comparison of farms investigated in the various States with the country as 8 whole as regards— 10. Yields of sugar beets per acre..______ 11. Sugar content of sugar beets.________ 12. Sugar extracted per ton of beets. ____. - 13. Sugar content not extracted. . ________ - aa III. Costs of production and returns to growers, United States. by States: 14. Per acre of sugar beets harvested, 1921-1923 ———— 15. Per ton of sugar beets harvested, 1921-1923__._ _________ 16. oor pound of sugar extracted from the sugar beets. 1921— IV. Analysis of the average cost: 2. production ot sugar beets—Summary for the United States and comparison by States: 17. Per acre of sugar beets harvested, 1921-1923 18. Per ton of sugar beets harvested, 1921-192¢ 19. Percentage distribution of costs, 1921-1923. _. - eA 20. Rosin yield to costs of production per acre and per on, - ee 3 17 19 20 20 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 40 41 49 44 46 48 BO CONTENTS Page V. Cumulation, at increasing costs of production per ton of sugar beets, of, producing farms, and of acres and tons of sugar beets harvested, 1922 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26, 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 24 “5. 4, For the United States, excluding capital charges___..__.__._ For the United States, including capital charges_.________ Michigan, excluding capital charges. - Michigan, including capital charges._.. -- Ohio, excluding capital charges_ .. i Dhio, including capital charges___._ Nebraska, excluding capital charges. _ Nebraska, including capital charges Jolorado, excluding capital charges Colorado, including capital charges. Utah, excluding capital charges. Jtah, including capital charges. - ‘daho, excluding capital charges __ “daho, including capital charges. __ Wyoming, excluding capital charges. Wyoming, including capital charges Montana, excluding capital charges .8. Montana, including capital charges. 39. California, excluding capital charges 40. California, including capital charges VI1.& Labor costs, by States: 41. Labor cost rates per hour. _____ 492. Hours of direct labor per acre. _.__. a 43. Hours of direct and indirect labor per acre. __ __________ 44. Hours of labor per acre to perform once the various ma- chine operations. eo 45. Percentage of hand labor done by (1) contract labor, (2) family help, (3) hired help and grower’s labor... VII, Horse labor costs, by States: 46. Horse cost rates per hour_ _______ . 47. Horse time peraere_ .____.________. em 48. Horse time per acre to perform once the various machine operations... ________..-.. VIII. Capital and capital charges, by States: 49. Market value of sugar-beet land_______ _._. .__- 50. Average value of other capital... ____ _ 51. Value of land and other capital. ___._ cco ---- 52. Comparison of land charges as determined by three differ- ent methods. _ _ omc mmm mmm mmm Comparison of total capital charges as determined by three- different methods— 53. Peracre_.____-_..- 54. Per ton. - oo oe meee m— mmm mmm mm = 55. Comparison of rental charges for sugar-beet land-__-____ 56. Interest rates paid on farm mortgages --- cco eoo--o-- 57. Returns for capital, management, and labor. _._______.-- IX. Farm practice in sugar-beet production: Summary for the United States by areas, 1922: Kinds of operations and percentage of total number of farms on which each was performed a given number of times— 58. On tractor and nontractor farms. _.__. _ 59. On nontractor farms only. come Kinds and amounts of tractor work performed in sugar- beet production. __ ooo comme om 61. Manuring practice in sugar-beet production_____. .._____ 62. Use of commercial fertilizer - «coo ooocmemee eo 63. Pounds of beet seed planted per acre. _—--r----- X. Types of farming on farms investigated, by States, 1922: 64. Use made of farm area operated. - «oc ccccaeaoooaonn 85. Size of farms and relative importance of sugar-beet acreage... 86. Percentage of cultivated land devoted to various crops. -- 87 Yields per acre of the principal crops grown... 51 52 54 55 57 9 59 f 62 gA f= 656 656 63 68 74) 70 72 73 75 75 76 76 77 78 78 79 80 80 81 “81 82 83 83 84 [4 86 88 90 92 92 92 93 93 94 04 CONTENTS Types of farming on farms investigated, by States—Continued. 58. Number per farm of various kinds of livestoek____._______ 69. Tenure of farms__ ________ - 70. Tenure of sugar-beet land__. 71. Abandoned beet acreage___.______. Cl. liscellaneous tables giving the replies of the farmers to some gen- aral questions concerning the sugar-beet industry: Farmers’ replies to questions concerning— Effect of existence of local sugar factory upon the value of — 72. Farm land in general._. 73. Sugar-beet land___ __ _________________________ 74. Land used for crops that compete with sugar beets ______ . _____ Lo e____ 75. 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______ 76. Effect upon land values if beet-sugar factories were removed from the locality __ __ ___ _ _________ o_o ____.. Farmers’ replies to questions concerning the extension and limitation of the sugar-beet acreage on the farms investi- zgated— 77. Potential sugar-beet land_________. mee 78. Factors limiting the extension of sugar-beet land____._ 79. Effect of crop of sugar beets on other subsequent CTOPS oo oe. 80. Crops that compete most with sugar beet __ _______ 81. Farmers’ estimates of the profitableness of sugar beets as compared with other crops _ 711 Page 94 95 95 95 96 96 06 Q7 7 98 98 99 99 100 ILLUSTRATIONS Fig. I. Map of the United States, showing the location of the beet-sugar fac- tories in relation to mean summer temperatures. _ .______________ 2. Map of the United States, showing location of areas in which the farm costs of producing sugar beets were investigated. ________________ Cumulation of production at increasing costs per ton of sugar beets, United States, 1922; combination of 22 areas investigated- 3. Exclusive of capital charges. __ t. Inclusive of capital charges. 12 25 53 33 TWO CHARTS FOR EACH STATE 5. Michigan, exclusive of capital charges 6. Michigan, inclusive of capital charges. 7. Ohio, exclusive of capital charges__ 8. Ohio, inclusive of capital charges_____ 9. Nebraska, exclusive of capital charges. 10. Nebraska, inclusive of capital charges L1. Colorado, exclusive of capital charges 12. Colorado, inclusive of capital charges (3. Utah, exclusive of capital charges. ___ 14. Utah, inclusive of capital charges. . 15. Idaho, exclusive of capital charges. _ 16. Idaho, inclusive of capital charges. _. 17. Wyoming, exclusive of capital charges. 18. Wyoming, inclusive of capital charges 19. Montana, exclusive of capital charges 20. Montana, inclusive of capital charges. 21. California, exclusive of capital charges 22. California, inclusive of capital charges. 26 56 58 58 RO "0 LS 5 QR 7 7 “9 69 71 +1 v4 74 SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES In 1926, sugar beets were harvested from 687,000 acres in the United States. The leading States in the production of sugar beets are Colorado, Michigan, Utah, Nebraska, California, Idaho, and Ohio. The beet-growing territory of the country is naturally divided by somewhat distinct cultural conditions into three sections—the Central State region, containing approximately 30 per cent of the total acreage; the Mountain State region, containing about 60 per cent; and the California area, containing 10 per cent. The Central State region is almost entirely dependent upon rainfall for moisture, while the larger part of the crop that is grown in the western region is provided with irrigation. The total acreage of sugar beets har- vested in the United States has increased from 530,000 acres in 1922 to 687,000 acres in 1926. During the same period exceptionally bad weather and the spread of diseases, were influential in causing a decrease in the acreage planted to sugar cane in continental United States from 241,000 acres to 160,000 acres, so that the acreage in sugar cane is now less than one-fourth that in sugar beets. A more definite idea of the extent of the crop may be ubtained by comparing it with other crops that are similar in acreage and in value. Sugar beets occupy about the same acreage as buckwheat, rice, sweet potatoes, or peanuts. A simple comparison of acreage, however, loes not afford an adequate measure of the relative importance of the crop. Because of its high value per acre ($72 per acre harvested in 1925) the farm value of the sugar-beet crop, amounting to $47,- 000,000 in 1925, approximated that of the flaxseed crop, although over 3,000,000 acres were devoted to the latter. Sugar-beet acreage equaled in 1925 about 114 per cent of the wheat acreage but the farm value of the crop equaled about 5 per cent of that of the wheat crop. In Table 1 there is shown the acreage of sugar beets planted and harvested in the principal producing States and in the United States as a whole during the period 1921-1926. Throughout this period the largest acreage in any of the Western States was harvested in Colorado and the largest acreage in the eastern producing region in Michigan. Although there was considerable fluctuation annually in the quantity of sugar beets harvested in the individual States, with the exception of one year the quantity harvested in the United States was remarkably uniform, varying from 7,400,000 to 7,800,000 short tons. The total farm value of the United States sugar-beet crop during these six years varied from $41,000,000 to $63,000,000 annually, COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TaBLE 1.—Sugar-beet production in the United States, 1921-1926 State and vear United States: To et cccccacececeeecer ccc ecerceac eee aan. To Cali “ia: Average Acreage Quantity) Yield | price per harvested |harvested| per acre | ton to grower {,000 acres 815 530 BL 3. 1,000 short tons 7,782 5,183 "006 39 t Short | tons Dollars 9.6 6.35 9.8 7.91 10.7 RIC ¢2 I 1.4 6. ¢ . A 7. 61 y 7 51 10. 14 13 99 6.14 Rl 9.25 i ir 488 30 Farm value 1,000 dollars 49,392 41,017 62, 965 59, 524 47, 059 54, 964 7,851 4,306 3,129 7.175 4,005 3) 411 Nol J 12¢ 2, 279 466 ne 11 “10 919 “4 C #o Q a9 11, 521 11, 426 16,276 19, 058 9, 815 23. 050 [dal Mic. Neb. a Jomewo- ‘al Ln mw men i. TO ™ as 4 l 1 I 10 8d 2 & go CE 152 { 3 3 o 10. 7 2.8 1,0 Ho 3 0 2 7 al 6.10 7.22 £8 ¥ 7.90 7 00 5. 59 7.79 8.10 7.582 5.97 7 0Q 2,279 2,262 4,269 1,977 2,846 na4 7,041 4, 994 8, 282 8, 443 6, 833 5 552 5,093 5,477 5,181 5, 678 5, 574 7 974 Dh 6.05 6. 88 0 26 9.48 6. 90 = 00 1,596 1,512 3, 624 3, 574 2, 945 9 2)3 Ota Oth lee ‘ates: Ny (E Js f oc 47 © 96 £28 6. ©? 8. 05 8.97 10. 49 7 72 oa 7.08 6,300 8, 519 8, 901 3,875 6, 416 9. 894 7,711 4, 521 8, 303 9, 744 8, 625 9 656 SoURCE.—Yearbook of U. 8. Department of Agriculture, 1926, p. 1003, and records of the Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates, June and December, 1927 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS Of the 78 sugar-beet factories operating in the United States in 1926, 17 were situated in Colorado, 15 in Michigan, 10 in Utah, 6 in Nebraska, 5 each in Ohio and California, 3 in Idaho, and 17 scattered over the States of Wisconsin, Montana, Wyoming, Iowa, Illinois, [ndiana, Kansas, Minnesota, and Washington. The most recent detailed statistics of beet-sugar manufacture are those of the Census for 1925. In that year the 89 factories reported by the Census in October, the month of heaviest production, employed 22,522 wage sarners and paid out over $12,000,000 in wages during the year. The total cost of the raw materials for the industry was $87,038,000, and the total value of the products, $132,339,000, of which sugar constituted 94 per cent; and pulp, molasses, and other minor prod- ucts the rest. The production of beet sugar in the United States in 1925-26 in terms of raw sugar, amounted to 962,000 short tons, as compared with an estimated world production of beet sugar of 9,028,300 tons. In the same year the production of cane sugar in continental United States was 197,528 tons; in Hawaii, 723,000 tons; and in Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands, 604,000 tons; making a total cane and beet sugar production in the United States and its possessions of 2,486,528 tons. The estimated world production of cane sugar was 18,628,000 tons, and the total world production of both beet sugar and cane sugar was 27,656,000 tons. Thus the beet sugar in the United States constituted 39 per cent of the total pro- duction of sugar in the United States and its possessions, or 314 per cent of the total world production.! Among important producing countries, the United States in 1926 was surpassed in tons of sugar beets grown only by Germany, and in acres planted to beets, only by Germany and the Soviet Republic. Central and Western Europe are the world’s most important sugar- beet region. (See Table 2.) The yields in the countries in this re- zion are generally heavier than in the United States because of their more intense cultivation. For example, in 1924, with an average yield of 11.6 tons per acre, Germany produced 11,317,000 tons of beets on 975,000 acres, while, with an average yield of 9.2 tons per acre, the United States produced 7,489,000 tons on 815.000 acres. "Yearbook of U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1925, n “rc [anLE 2.—Sugar beets— Acreage, yield per acre, and production, in specified countries, average 1909-1918, 1921-1925, annual 1924-1926 [Countries arranged in order of importance of production in 1926] Acreage Jountrv North America: United States 2. _.ocoooimeomaaamaacoaans] CADAAR «eee eemcamccn ccm mere mamman] Total, North America.....occconaoo- nrope: FOIMBRY eric mmm momma es RUSSIB memo ceemccccacmmmr mmm naanens Jzechoslovakia ooo iiomeaaias PRBYIOB, oii vw iis sco to sim mm POMANM cuspunns sh vgmpe mmm om TEI ne: im SR RR B= i HE Netherlands. ooo oaoo oceans 3elgiUmM occ ecccmemmmcmme mmo ammmmaeen FATE Pe wisn wm wom mami ms mm mm TIM iw wm sms mio mam mm wim pms DEITMTE ina ios mimi is wm mim mses mmr angland and Wales... ....coeooooiolol! RUBIA. ce mmmmrom emsmema mas wanes nas ste) 3ULgATIB. cece ccmcmccccemcmmmenecaaanan IWOARI. vw nrmmm mmm mm mm ms map mm SWIZArIIDA. caw mans mem mmm mm wm E10) 1 1x, | CAP FDIBIIL. er somone A HH ERR RE SRR Rgosiavia LL. IIIT Total, European countries ......_....._.| reeania—Australia o.oo icici Potal, all countries reporting for all periods USEOA o-oo moon] Estimated world fotale. ool Average,|Average, 1909- 1921- 1924 1913 © 1925 1925 \verage,| Average, Average, Average, | 1909~ | 1921- 1924 1925 © 1926 1809- | 1921- 1924 1925 1926 19131 1925 19131 + 1925 1626 } 1000 |. 1,000 1,000 , 1,000 1,000 1,000 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 1,000 1,000 Short i Short | Short . Short | Short . Short : Short short = short short acres | acres acres | acres acres ' tons tons | toms | tons tons | tons tons | fons | fons tons 485 | 693 | 815 647 | 687 10.0 10.1 9.2. 11.4 10.5 4,860 6,965 | 7,480 | 7,366 | 7,223 170 30 36 43 | 47 | 9.4 9.8 | 9.3 | 10.7 i 11.3 160 253 334 458 529 502 geo ser" gon 724" 1a0' 100° 09! tial ane A ao 258 | 7,823 | 7,824 7.752 1, 075 "484 716 312 31 30 ax r Bis 626 412 3c” ¥ 368 74¢ 3 104 6 996 , 160 760 537 425 4! ui v 229 586 51? rr 13.7 7.9 11. 0.’ 0 10 4." ir or 8 37 2.2 nn 11.4 6.4 13.2 11 n 11. f nr 14,679 110,836 3, 238 © Rid +11 ng (0, 595 ? 171 i. 229 * 472 926 646 402 3 11, 3.7 3,213 9, 231 5, 369 3, 539 L102 4, 675 2). 744 ie 11,084 7.618 0,003 5,921 4, 064 1,735 2,451 2,389 Po Nn 1,569 8,930 “221 889 106 532 2% “55 wy g 9 371 157 56 42 2.009 652 v9 ' 50,640 i Lt ' uae -" w td F # 0.6 170] 412.5! ft 27 |.-- 5,818 5, 820 Le bud 5,078 | 6.297 5,086 | 6,079 10.6 9.8 ik 10.61 v6! 61,673] 49,084 | 60,119 | 02,73 5.087 | 6,153 | = oolocmieeaicsmmaanatenancaa]acnnanaa, 61,576 49,718 | 60, 146 | 62,770 | 58, 392 58, 403 Figures for European countries are estimates for present boundaries. ' Principal producing States. 2 One year only, 1912-13. According to statistics of the German Sugar Association the 1012-13 sugar-beet acreage and production was greater than any other year with the sception of production in 1913-14. + Four-year average. } Two-year average. . * No sugar was produced in Bulgaria in 1925. The beets produced were probshly shipped to neighboring countries for sugar manufacture or used for other purposes. * No sugar beets grown in Finland prior to 1918. t Three-year average. ' Exclusive of acreage and production in minor producing countries for which no data are available 30URCE: Statistics, U. S. Dept. of Agr. Division of Statistics and Historical Research. Dfficial sources and International Institute of Agriculture except as otherwise stated. A 2 2 3 5 3 2 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES? - EARLY HISTORY OF SUGAR INDUSTRY Sugar did not become an important item of diet until modern times. Formerly it was used only as a medicine and was sold in small quantities by apothecaries. In ancient times honey was the principal sweet food, and early Greek and Roman writers mention sugar as a rare product and refer to it as the ‘honey which comes from bam- boos.” Sugar cane became an important commercial source of sugar several centuries before the discovery of sugar in beets. Early in the sixteenth century sugar cane was introduced into the West Indies and into Central and South America from Mediterranean countries. The first cane-sugar mill was erected in Cuba in 1547. With increased production in. the American colonies, sugar came into more general use in Europe. The price in London, which had been as high as $275 per hundred pounds as late as 1482, had by the close of the fifteenth century fallen to $53. For many years it remained a luxury, and not until after the middle of the seventeenth century did it really become a part of the diet of European peoples. In 1747 sugar was for the first time obtained from beets by Andrew Marggraf, a member of the Berlin Academy of Sciences. Under the encouragement of Frederick the Great, of Prussia, and Frederick William III, the first commercial extraction of sugar from beets was developed by Carl Franz Achard. In 1799-1801, the first beet-sugar factory in the world was built near Steinan in Silesia, Germany. The development of factory methods from laboratory practice was a slow and tedious process and even after the erection of the first factory the difficulty of purifying sugar and the low sugar content of the beets were factors that discouraged the enterprise. However, the growth of the industry in Europe was greatly stimu- lated by the blockades established during the Napoleonic wars. As a result of embargoes the average price of sugar on the Continent from 1807 to 1815 was 30 cents per pound. Napoleon strove to supply the shortage by encouraging the growing of sugar ‘beets, the build- ing of sugar factories, and the study of the technical problems of sugar-beet growing and sugar manufacture. His policy was so successful that, by 1812, 40 factories were in operation in France. This period really marked the beginning of the modern commercial sugar-beet industry. Later development in Europe was somewhat spasmodic, being affected by the competition of cane sugar, by the irregular progress of the science of growing and manufacture, and by adverse legislation. The most rapid progress was made in Germany. There agricultural conditions were favorable to the industry, the sugar content of beets was increased by means of seed selection, and advances were made » For a history of the sugar-beet industry see Harris, F. S., The Sugar Beet in America, 1919. COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS in manufacturing processes through the research of German scientists. Moreover, legislation in Germany was consistently encouraging to the industry. By 1878 Germany surpassed France as a beet-sugar pro- ducing country’ and since then it has led the world in its production. HISTORY OF THE SUGAR~-BEET INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES The first effort to grow sugar beets in the United States was made about 1830 at Ensfield near Philadelphia. Beets were grown from seed imported from France by the Beet Sugar Society of Philadelphia but there is no record of the building of a factory. The first factory on record was erected at Northampton, Mass., in 1838, where beets were grown from seed imported from France. The beet yield was satisfactory, but the sugar content was so poor and production was on such a small scale that the enterprise was unsuccessful and the factory was closed after 1840. After the settlement of Utah in 1847 the Mormon pioneers endeavored to establish beet-sugar manufac- ture as well as other home industries. Heavy freight charges played an important part in the early history of the sugar-beet industry in the West and have continued to retard its development. In the forties it was necessary to haul all manufactured goods from the Missouri River to Salt Lake City by team. Sugar ranged in price from 40 cents to a dollar per pound. To remedy this situation sugar- factory machinery was brought by boat from England to New Orleans and then up the river to Fort Leavenworth, Kans. From that point 52 ox teams were required for two months in hauling the machinery to Utah. Difficulty was encountered in getting the sugar to crys- tallize, and only sirup was made. This early Utah project was finally abandoned in 1855. It was not until nearly 1890 that sugar-beet production became venerally successful in the United States. Attempts by various people in different parts of the country had failed either because of unfavorable economic conditions, poor quality of beets, or defective machinery. Finallyin 187032 a successful factory was established at Alvaredo, Calif. [n 1888, a factory was built at Watsonville, Calif., which, during the first year, manufactured 1,000 tons of sugar; in 1890, a factory was built at Grand Island, Nebr., and in 1891, one at Norfolk, Nebr., and another at Chino, Calif. From this time on the growth of the industry has been constant and at times rapid. During the period 1906-1910, the production of domestic beet sugar for the first time surpassed that of continental cane-sugar production in the United States. At that time the average crop was 3,900,000 tons of beets, harvested from 386,000 acres, and the average production of beet sugar was 480,000 tons. Since then, while the cane-sugar industry has been declining the beet-sugar industry has been expanding so that during the period, 1921-1925, the average crop was 6,600,000 tons of beets harvested from about 700,000 acres. During each of two years, 1921 and 1924, >f this period, production of beet sugar exceeded 1,000,000 tons. The development of the industry since 1909 is shown in Table 3. {n the pefiod 1909-1925 the number of factories in operation increased [rom 65 to 88 and the annual output of beet sugar increased from something over 500,000 short tons to about twice that quantity. Departinent of Agriculture Rept., 1870, p. 211 os COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS Through improvement in machinery and processes, much gain accrued in the average extraction of sugar from beets. The average extraction for the five-year period 1909-1913 was 12.6 per cent, and the average for the five-year period 1921-1925 was 13.8. On the other hand, the average sugar content of the beets during that period slightly declined. TABLE 3.-—Acreage and production of sugar beets and quantity of beet sugar made in ) the United States 1909—1926 Beets worked in factories 3 Calendar year LW oe crmcrcreeeer cannes IR co cre mi SH Meee eee em———- I rmemoea——— Factories in | nperation Number 6 ( ll me Sugar made Average extrac- tion | 1,000 short tons| Per cent 512 12. 5¢ 510 17 RY 599 I & 693 W 20 723 12. 8¢ a 1& 6: +4 5 8 761 726 1, 089 1,020 675 881 1,090 913 897 Average |— sugar content 2? | Quantity 1,000 Per cent | short tonsi 16. 10 4,081 16.35 1, 047 LE. 89 "a2 ¢ 31 4 TOR - 04 «v3 6, 782 Average price for beets per ton Ares upon which roduced 1,000 acres 120 Dollars 5. 50 6.82 5. 69 5.45 5. 67 6. 12 . 7.39 3 10. 00 5¢7 11.74 37 11.63 815 6.38 530 7.21 657 8.99 817 7.95 653 . 6.39 687 . Percentage of sucrose actually extracted by factories. Based upon weight of beets. Beets used by the factories. SOURCE: Reports of U. S. Department of Agriculture, DESCRIPTION OF THE GROWING OF SUGAR BEETS AND OF THE MANUFACTURE OF BEET SUGAR The sugar beet is one of the most important of the sugar-producing plants. Although many plants store up starch in the seed which, during the period of germination, is converted into sugars, only sugar cane, sorghum, sugar beet, and sugar maple are commercially of im- portance in sugar production. The term “sugar” technically includes a number of carbohydrates having the general formula C. (H,0),. Household sugar, sucrose, may be either cane or beet sugar, and 1s designated by the formula (C,;H,0). The sugar beet, second in importance to sugar cane in sugar. production, is one of the varieties of Beta vulgaris which is grown for the beet root, the raw material used in the production of beet sugar. The roots are medium in size as compared with other root crops and are nearly always whitish in color. The sugar beet is one of the most intensively cultivated of the Ameri- ran field crops, requiring much more than the average amount of labor to the acre. On the sugar-beet farms in this country the crop is usually one of several on the same farm. In the older agricultural regions where beets are grown, it has an important place in the rotation system. In the newer sections, however, less attention is ziven to the rotation of crops and oftentimes beets are planted on the same ground for a number of years. Though grown under a wide variety of soil and climatic conditions, the crop thrives best in regions where the soil is rich, the temperature moderate, and the moisture adequate, either in the form of precipitation or irrigation. Sugar beet seed is produced the second season, the root being grown the first year and planted out the following spring for seed oo The production of sugar-beet seed is adapted to European methods of gg and practically all of the seed used in this country comes fm the large beet-seed companies in Europe. Imports of sugar- beet seed, mostly from Germany and Denmark, amounted, in 1926 to 10,790,000 pounds, with a value of over $1,000,000. In so far as physical conditions are concerned, it is quite possible to produce good sugar-beet seed in the United States. In fact, during the World War, when it was impossible to obtain an adequate supply of imported seed; a considerable amount was produced here, but since the war most of it has again been imported. A good seed bed is the first essential to a successful sugar-beet crop, and consequently the farmers take great care in the preparation for planting. The available manure is usually spread on the beet land, which is then worked down to a fine, smooth seed bed by disking, harrowing, leveling, dragging, and rolling. The farm practice in sugar-beet culture on the farms studied is shown in Tables 58-63. Detailed information is given there concerning the kinds of operations. In Michigan and in the Rocky Mountain sections the beet seed is planted in April and May, and in California in February and March. The seed is drilled in rows 16 to 24 inches apart. 54071—28——2 10 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS A few weeks after planting, when the plants appear above the ground, and show about four leaves, horse-drawn cultivators are run between the rows. The plants are then bunched or blocked and thereafter thinned. The bunching is done with a hoe by chopping out some of the plants in the row so that small bunches of two or more beets are left about 10 to 12 inches apart. Thinning, the next operation, consists in singling the plants left in the bunches so that only the strongest remain 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 between the rows made by horse-drawn cultivators, to which a furrowing shovel has been attached. Because it is not practicable to cross cultivate, weeds in the row must be removed by hand hoeing. As the beet field must be kept free from weeds, one or several hoeings are required, the number depending on the condition of the land, the prevalence of weed infestation, and the effectiveness of horse cultivation. The crop is harvested when the beets have reached their full growth and have a sugar content of not less than 12 per cent. Samples are tested by the sugar companies, in order to determine the best time for harvesting. The harvest season is July, August, and September in California and October and November in the other beet regions. In harvesting, the dirt around the beets is loosened and the beets are slightly lifted from the ground by means of horse-drawn or tractor-drawn beet plows or lifters especially designed for the pur- pose. Hand workers follow the lifting machines, take the beets by the tops, pull them completely out of the ground, knock them to- gether to remove adhering soil, and throw them into windrows with the tops all pointing one way. The beets are then ready for topping which is done by hand with beet knives. The person doing the top- ping takes hold of the beet root with one hand, cuts off the leaves and the crown, and throws the beets into piles between the tao windrows. From the piles the beets are loaded on wagons or trucks and delivered to the factory or beet dump. The beet tops are a valuable by-product of the crop, making good feed for all kinds of livestock, including cattle, sheep, hogs, chickens, and, to some extent, horses. The tops may be left scattered as feed for livestock turned into the field or they may be gathered and fed in racks or used for ensilage with straw, cornstalks, or other roughage. The first method may involve loss of feed through trampling, but the second method requires greater expenditure of labor. BEET-SUGAR MANUFACTURE Beet sugar is manufactured from beets in large factories centrally located to the beet fields. The most efficient of these factories are so well arranged and so thoroughly equipped with modern labor- saving machinery that the use of manual labor is reduced to a mini- mum. The beets, which are either hauled by the farmer directly from the fields to the factory or are shipped to it by rail from the local beet dumps, are emptied into V-shaped bins at the bottom of which is a COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 11 Aume covered with removable boards. As needed, the beets are carried into the factory from the bins by the swift current of the water in the flume. The process of manufacture consists of cleaning and slicing the beets, placing the slices in large cylinders and extracting the sugar by diffusion. This is 2ccomplished by successive treatments with hot water. The extract is clarified by treatment with suitable chemicals, the sludge-like precipitated material removed by filter- ing, and the clean juice evaporated under reduced pressure until a mass of sugar crystals has been formed. The sugar is finally sepa- rated from the molasses by centrifugals. After several strikes of sugar have been obtained, the molasses is further desugarized by other processes. From the centrifugal machine the sugar is sent to the driers, where excess moisture is removed by a current of warm air. The sugar is then ready to be sacked and sent to market. In Europe, where raw beet sugar is produced in many factories, the product is sent to a refinery for manufacture into the final product in much the same manner as raw cane sugar is refined in the United States, where (and to some extent in Germany) the beet-sugar fac- tories themselves turn out the final product. The principal by-products of beet-sugar manufacture are beet pulp, which may be fed to stock wet or may be dried for stock feed, and molasses, which is highly valued as a stock feed and for manu- facture into such products as alcohol, fusel oil, and vinegar. ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING THE MAINTENANCE AND GROWTH OF THE INDUSTRY AGRICULTURAL LIMITATIONS In considering the tariff problem, an important inquiry concerns the physical possibilities of expansion of the sugar-beet industry—to what degree is its development limited by the crop requirements of climate, soil, irrigation, and drainage, and by the prevalence of par- ticular crop.diseases and pests? Successful growing of sugar beets in all countries has been confined almost entirely to temperate regions. This has been found true generally in the United States, although some exceptions have |.;CATION OF BEET SUGAR FACTORIES - “= DERATURES a- 5 OPERATING 1922-23 IDLE 1922-23 &) 1G. 1.—Sugar beets thrive best in localities where the temperature during the summer, (average of June, July, and August) does not vary greatly from 70° F. Nearly all of the beet-sugar factories in the United States lie between the isotherms of 67° and 72° F., summer temperature. Owing to great variations in altitude in the Western States, the shaded area includes a wide range of climatic conditions in these States Source: Yearbook of U. 8. Department of Agriculture for 1923, p. 185. occurred in southern -California, Arizona, and New Mexico, where beets are grown during the winter months. Heavy yields may often be obtained in warmer regions, but the beets are usually low in sugar content. High temperatures also cause greater spoilage. In the future, varieties better adapted to warmer climates may be devel- oped and methods of handling may be perfected so that it may be possible to expand sugar-beet acreage into the South. Short grow- ing seasons are not a limiting factor in the United States, some of the most productive areas being in the Northern States. A number of factories are also located in Canada. The most successful sugar- beet regions in the United States are in a belt in which the mean summer temperature varies from 67° to 72° F. Figure 1 shows that this belt embraces a territory containing crop land many times as extensive as the present sugar-beet acreage. COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 13 The expansion of the sugar-beet crop may be limited in some areas by the character of its soil requirements. Regions of extremely sandy or gravelly soils are not adapted to the crop nor are regions having hardpan or very porous subsoils. However, these limitations are not important; for almost any type of soil that will produce good vields of other crops will yield beets, if properly cultivated and sufficiently supplied with moisture. An adequate supply of moisture is particularly requisite for the development of this crop. In the humid region of the United States a season in which the rainfall during the growing season is just suffi cient to maintain a healthy growth until near harvesting time, followed by a period of bright sunshiny days and cool nights 1s ideal. A marked difference between day and night temperatures at the end of the growing season is desirable for the proper production and stor- age of the sugar in the beet. Such conditions generally prevail in the sugar-beet section of the Central States. In the irrigated regions of the West the application of moisture is completely controlled, pro- viding the supply of water is sufficient. From two to four applica- ions of water are necessary for the production of a good crop. Unfavorable topography, particularly in the West, frequently limits profitable sugar-beet production. Many valleys could be utilized for growing beets were not the irrigable area available too small to support a factory and were not the expense of shipment for any considerable distance prohibitive. Hilly country is not usually satisfactory for growing beets, particularly if the hills are composed of soil that is likely to wash. The difficulty of drawing the heavy loads of beets over hills may also be a limiting factor. In irrigated sec- tions the land should have an even surface and be sufficiently sloping for the irrigation water to spread easily. The sugar beet, like other plants, during its period of growth, is subject to a number of plant diseases and pests. In some sections, particularly where crop rotation is not generally practiced, and in some seasons, diseases and pests have constituted an important limi- tation to production. Among the most destructive sugar-beet dis- sases are curly top, root rot, leaf spot, and “damping off.”” Curly top has so far been confined to the western beet area. This disease is carried from diseased to healthy plants by the so-called leaf hopper, which may appear in a given area destroying or stunting to a worthless size practically all beets for one season, and may be entirely absent from that area in the following season. Since the establishment of the sugar-beet industry, the damage to the crop from this disease has amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The sugar-beet nematode, a minute worm-like organism attacking the beet root, is one of the most difficult pests to combat. In some seasons and In some areas other insects also are destructive to the crop. The United States Department of Agriculture and the State agricultural colleges have conducted extensive research in the cause and control of these pests with the result that some are well known and easily controlled, while others are still obscure. Despite such physical limitations, the possibility of greatly expand- ing the crop acreage undoubtedly remains. ~ The economic limitations to the expansion of the crop are more important than the physical limitations. Chief among these is the competition of other crops. 14 © COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS Table 77 (p. 98) presents information obtained by asking the sugar- beet farmers whose costs were studied how many acres they could plant to sugar beets without great change in the type or method of farming. These estimates of possible increase in the present acre- age range from 59 per cent in Nebraska to 271 per cent in Ohio. The figures indicate the possible increase in acreage in the sugar-beet sections. The commission’s study showed that in areas where sugar beets are now grown, the most strongly competing crops are alfalfa and other hay, beans, small grains, potatoes, and corn. In Colorado and Utah alfalfa is the strongest competitor with beets. However, alfalfa fits in well in a rotation system with sugar beets, particularly where it is turned under and followed by a grain crop and then by one or two crops of beets. In the Michigan sugar-beet area, the bean crop is the strongest competitor with sugar beets. The particular advantage of beans over beets is the smaller labor requirement of the bean crop. Because of the encouragement of diseases, continuous cropping of beans is bad cultural practice in much the same way as following beets with beets. Beans are well suited for rotation with beets either preceding or following the beet crop. In the western areas, in addition to alfalfa, potatoes and small grains are strongly competing crops. Certain diseases, notably the scab, affects both potatoes and sugar beets and for this reason it is bad cultural practice to follow one with the other in the rotation. Outside of the present sugar-beet areas, the potential competition of other crops is much stronger than within such areas. So far as merely the physical and biological conditions of plant growth are con- cerned, sugar beets could be sucessfully produced over a large portion of the Corn Belt. However, returns from corn and corn products have been high enough as compared with returns from sugar beets to virtually exclude this latter crop from the Corn Belt. Much the same thing has been true of the areas primarily devoted to spring wheat. In the competition between sugar beets and other corps the most important factor is the large labor requirements of the sugar- beet crop. Studies in the Corn Belt of corn harvested from the stand- ing stalk have shown that the man labor requirements varied from 14.5 to 25.6 hours per acre; * and the commission’s study of sugar- beet labor requirements showed an average expenditure of 46 hours of direct labor per acre on machine operations in addition to an out- lay of $23 per acre for contract labor. Wheat presents an even greater contrast to sugar beets in this respect. Studies in the spring wheat and winter wheat belts show a total man labor requirement varying from 5.8 to 17.5 hours per acre. More than half of the heavy labor requirements on beets is hand labor performed either by contract labor or by the labor of the farmer and his family. The relatively small amount of such labor available in the United States constitutes one of the most important limitations to the expansion of sugar-beet acreage. A further limitation to the expansion of the industry exists in the ne- cessity for additional capital investment forspecial farm equipment and for heavy investment for factories. Sugar beets are grown in rows 16 to 22 inches apart and a special drill is used for planting the seed. The € U. 8. Department of Agriculture, Bull. 1000, 1921, p. 6. COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 15 cultivator, also, is especially adapted to sugar-beet work, being con- structed to cultivate four rows corresponding to the drill. In harvest- ing, the beet lifter, a special implement not required for other crops, is used. For hauling the beets to the factory, more than the ordinary number of wagons and specially constructed wagon boxes are needed and in some places trucks are used. Because of the bulki- ness of sugar beets, it is uneconomical to transport them any great distance to the factory; so that before the sugar-beet industry can be established in a community, a local factory must be built and aquipped with machinery, beet dumps, railroad sidings, and feed yards. The necessary capital investment in an efficient beet-sugar factory varies from about $500,000 to $3,000,000, according to the ~apacity. The average per factory is somewhat over $1,000,000. CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING THE EXPANSION OF THE INDUSTRY The economic importance in the United States of the sugar-beet industry has already been considered. In addition to the general advantages of the maintenance of the industry a number of inciden- tal benefits are derived: The farmer’s income from the sugar-beet crop is relatively depend- able. He knows when he plants his seed what basic price he will receive per ton of beets delivered to the factory. The usual contract between the beet grower and the factory provides for a basic price with a bonus varying according to the price of sugar. Comparison may be made between the average income from sugar beets in the United States and such competitive cash crops as beans, potatoes, and wheat. The average percentage of variation from normal in the five-year period 1921-1925 for sugar beets was about the same as that for beans but the income from wheat varied considerably more and potatoes much more. The introduction into a community of an additional cash crop adapted to local conditions has a tendency to improve the economic status of the farmer. The possibility of choice between several cash crops enables him to distribute his acreage and to reduce his risk factor. The addition of a suitable cash crop thus has a stabilizing effect upon the agriculture of a community. The beet-sugar factory with its heavy capital investment is abso- lutely dependent for its success upon the successful growing of sugar beets in its immediate vicinity. The sugar companies, therefore, have endeavored by various methods to promote clean cultivation, the sowing of selected seed, the economical use of manure and com- mercial fertilizers, and the intelligent handling of the crop. They conduct schools, employ agricultural experts and field agents to advise the farmers, and distribute educational literature. The sugar-beet enterprise readily lends itself to combination with the production of livestock. The crop furnishes considerable quantities of animal feeds in the form of the beet tops and beet pulp. The farmers are encouraged to keep more livestock than they other- wise might and this results in larger quantities of manure becoming available for fertilizing the land. The thorough and deep cultivation necessary for beets reduces weed infestation and constitutes an ideal preparation for a succeeding small grain crop. Experience both in 16 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS the United States and in Germany indicates that the introduction of sugar beets into the rotation results in considerably increased yields of small grain and hay. In the commission’s investigation, 1,699 farmers in the United States replied to the question concerning their experience as to the effect of preceding a small grain crop with a crop of sugar beets. Of these, 1,482 replied that the yield of the small grain crop was increased by this practice. Of the 745 farmers reporting concerning hay, 541 replied that the yield of hay was thus increased. (See Table 79, p. 99.) SOCIOLOGICAL "ASPECTS OF THE SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY Studies by the United States Department of Agriculture in the leading sugar-beet States have shown that more than two-thirds of the work required in producing sugar beets is done by hand labor.? The commission ’s study of the sugar-beet industry shows that about 72 per cent of the total hand labor on beets, including the harvesting, is performed by contract labor. A contract, made between the beet orower and contract laborer, specifies the terms of payment and the time and manner of doing the hand work (blocking, thinning, weed- ing, hoeing, pulling, and topping) on the beet crop. The remaining 28 per cent of the hand labor is done largely by the families of the farmers, and, to only a small extent, by the farmers themselves or by wage labor. The supply of contract labor is usually arranged for by the sugar-beet companies, although the contracts are made between beet growers and the laborers. The sugar companies usually have no control over such contract laborers, but simply assist the growers in finding and bringing them to the beet-growing districts and dis- tributing them among the growers according to their needs. This supply is derived either from families resident near the sugar-beet farms or from families or men brought in from a distance. Formerly it was possible for agents of the companies to obtain a sufficient supply of contract labor from the cities and towns of the Middle West for the beet fields in that area; and to obtain from the western cities and mining districts sufficient for the western fields. This labor was largely recruited from Russian-German families, among whom it has long been customary for the women and children to work in the fields with the men. More recently it has been neces- sary to bring in considerable numbers of Mexicans. According to estimates of the sugar-beet companies, approximately 100,000 adult laborers, or a working force of adults and children equivalent to that number, were required for the 1926 crop. Of the force of about 78,000 contract laborers employed about 30 per cent were Mexicans, 19 per cent were foreign-born northern Europeans, and about 1 per cent were Japanese. In 1922, when the commis- sion’s cost study was made, about 22 per cent of the contract workers were Mexicans. 7. 8. Department of Agriculture, Bulletins Nos. 735, 760, and 963. TABLE 4.—Sugar beets—Character of labor employed, in hand work on beets, 1926 and 1922 Percentage of hand Fox done Yo (a) Farmer, hired labor, and ‘armer’s family (b) Con- tract labor jumber of con- tract laborers 1926—Proportion of contract laborers who were— (a) Foreign-born northern Europeans (0) Tapanese Mexican Number of con- tract 1aborers 1922—Proportion of contract laborers who were— a) Foreign-born Northern Europeans (0) Japanese {L) Mexicans - ’ 1 o x Central area: Michigan, Ohio, Iowa, Kansas, and Minnesota... Mountain area: Nebraska, Colorado, 1daho, Utah, and Montana... .. cocceemncen-. Coast area: California... 3. oo or 29, 43¢ Per cent' Number: Per cent| Number: Per cent Number 15 10, 199 | 50 | 11,100 | 20, 920 5 Per el Fer cent| Number| Per ug B58 | 12,125 |- LT Bal 7,140 *, 759 47 0, 146 Total. - = 4 : 3 2 18 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS A part of the hand work, which is performed largely by contract labor, is done by children. It has been estimated that in Colorado over 6,000 children are annually employed in the beet fields.! The first hand operation—the blocking—is usually done by adults, and the thinning to some extent by children. The several hand hoe- ings following cultivation are mostly the work of adults or of older children. In some places older children also help in pulling and top- ping. The hand-labor contract is made between the farmer and the head of the family or an adult labor contractor and does not require that any part of the work be done by children. The kind and amount of work done by the children in the beet fields is a matter which rests entirely with their parents. The use of migratory hand labor, which often has no more to do with the regular work of the farm than have fruit pickers or harvest hands, may lead to undesirable conditions unless it is carefully reg- ulated. A report was issued by the Children’s Bureau of the United States Department of Labor covering the conditions of child labor in the Michigan and Colorado beet regions in 1920.6 Investigators for the bureau found some unsatisfactory conditions of housing among these temporary workers. Many were housed in unsanitary and crowded shacks built of flimsy material and a considerable amount of ill health and disease and retardation in schooling was found among the children of these workers. With greater attention to these matters by local and State authorities, sugar-beet companies, farmers, and others interested, child-labor and housing conditions may be made satisfactory among these workers, sanitary and ade- quate housing may be provided, and additional school terms may be furnished for children who are required to work in the fields and who thus lose time from the regular school work. The out-of-door work in the fields with their parents is not necessarily in itself harmful to proper development of the child, but may be both wholesome and profitable. Whether the work is wholesome or harmful depends upon the age and size of the child and the kind and amount of work required of him. In many localities attention already has been given these matters by local and State authorities with the result that better sanitary and housing conditions have been established. Also school periods have been especially adapted by the school authorities so that beet workers may attend school for a full nine-month period. There appears to be every prospect that the production of sugar beets will continue to be in large part a hand-labor industry. Although some progress has been made in the development of machines for pulling and topping, these have not proved generally practicable and no machines have as yet been invented for blocking and thinning or hoeing between plants—work for which children have been used. Consequently the conditions, if unsatisfactory, should be made satis- factory for the beet workers. 8 “Child Labor and the Work of Mothers in the Beet Fields of Colorado and Michigan,’ U. 8. Dept. of Labor, Chiidren’s Bureau, Publ. No. 113. THE TARIFF IN ITS RELATION TO THE SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY HISTORY OF THE TARIFF RATES ON SUGAR AND SUGAR BEETS The tariff on sugar beets has never compared in importance with the tariff on sugar. Because of their bulkiness the shipment of beets for long distances is not economical, and the only imports have consisted of a small movement of Canadian beets across the border to domestic factories, a movement insignificant in comparison with sugar imports. During the period 1921-1925, the average annual value of imports of sugar beets approximated $136,000 and the aver- age annual value of imports of sugar was about $267,000,000. The duty on sugar beets under the various tariff acts since 1894 has ranged from the equivalent of 5 to 25 per cent ad valorem. Under the present duty of 80 cents per ton, imports have continued to be small, even though the ad valorem equivalent of the duty in the period 1922-1925 was only 1314 per cent, and the ad valorem equivalent of the duty on sugar was much higher; the duty on Cuban 05° and 96° centrifugals during the same period equalled 45 and 46 per cent ad valorem, respectively. Imports of these two grades during that time constituted 95 per cent of the total imports of sugar, so that these rates may be considered as representative. Table 6 shows the rates of duty on sugar beets and on sugar in effect since 1909, together with the ad valorem equivalents. The duty on 95° and 96° centrifugals from Cuba is given. In 1925, because of the low prices of sugar, the ad valorem equivalents of these duties rose from 41 per cent in 1924 to 68 and 69 per cent. TaBLE 5.—Sugar production in the United States and its possessions, 1866-1926 [In short tons) Cane sugar Period 0-vear average: ‘866-1875. 876-1885. RRO6-1805, 896-190... 906-191. 1918-19025 AX. 014... 3m 1916 __._. ... HN 7 iin mnens o 97, lo. 926. Beet sugar ‘chiefly re- fined) 126 531 10, 698 149, 012 501, 750 T2378 22,054 74, 220 20, 657 65, 207 '60, 950 26, 451 189, 021 20. 48¢ gd. United States 59, 131 19, 747 23, 164 325, 466 297, 679 21. 365 46, 620 3R 620 aco 840 #4 Aq ~ nL Porto Rico 91, 860 32,010 66, 696 101, 385 336, 150 {82 585 346, 490 183, 590 103, 081 153, 794 06, 002 <= 071 pe 1p 2 Hawaii * 25, 577 51, 558 143, 989 342, 946 557,253 322.498 48, 000 592, 763 544, 663 576, 700 300, 312 155, 727 21, 579 192, 000 337, 000 591, 000 769, 000 187, 246 R10. 000 Philippine Islands 100, 521 179,172 236, 379 121, 850 252, 109 518 628 121, 192 112, 274 25, 266 174, 745 153, 346 a6, 912 “8, 499 2189 75,325 29, 091 779, 510 607, 356 Total 277, 615 433, 068 680, 926 1,040, 650 2 044, 941 2 717 454 2, 382, 356 2, 501, 467 Y, 704, 567 516, 2868 2, 505, 010 »’ 356, 286 885, 031 881, 704 ~, 362, 232 2,713, 410 * 3, 387, 404 43.050, 222 Compiled from statistics of the U. S. Department of Agriculture. Average for 1874 and 1875 only. - Does not include cane sugar in States other than Louisiana. "Unofficial. 20 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TABLE 6.—Rates of duty on sugar beets and sugar, 1909-1925 Sugar i Act of— 1009. eee em emcee ees 1909 mam 1913__.... a OM eae mcccmee ae——- Ee Ye deemmeacpmmeesancomm——————— Ipec.fi” years under the act of 1922: 33 “TEEEEAna ; 195 Sugar beets On 95° centrifugals On 96° centrifugals Full Cuban Full Cuban Per cent ad valorem 10 b— 5 . Cents per | Cents per pound | pound Th "1.348 2 1. 005 3 1.600 1.765 AD VALOREM EQUIVALENTS—WEIGHTED AVERAGES Cents Pe ‘mis per Per cent 10.3C agp mand i Per " or cent 7¢ 59 0 Per cent 56. 14 17.45 64.11 46. 31 50.78 36.48 41.12 69. 11 * Imports of 95° and 96° sugar during the period 1909-1925, constituted annually from 83 to 97 per cent of the total imports. 1 Eighty cents per ton. ) 3 For the period Sept. 22, 1922-Dec. 31, 1925. § Sept. 22 to Dee. 31, 1922. TABLE 6A.—Imports of sugar beets for consumption in the United States, 1910- 1926 Fiscal year: ICU ee en. femme eee ar year: TT ls peemmeme seo eee eca——— —— W920 LIT 1 July 1 to Oct. 8, 1913. 2 Oct. 4, 1913, to June 30, 1914, 4 Jan. 1 to Sept. 21, 1922. Rate of duty Per cen 7 vy (5) Quantity Tons ty 3 61, 061 Value "Duty collected Actual Value :. {and com- por nit and o ad quantity ! valujen 5138, 135 265, 29€ arc $13, 81¢ 26, 53% 14, €€ 9 8". Per cent 10. 00 10. 00 10. 00 10. 00 10. 00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5. 00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5. 00 5.00 14.20 13.46 13.36 13.37 13. 14 ne 18, 848 .. 98 6. 09 4 Sept. 22 to Dec. 31, 1922. $ Eightv cents per ton. REPORT ON THE FARMERS’ COSTS OF PRODUCTION OF SUGAR BEETS IN THE UNITED STATES FOR THE YEARS 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 Commission for an investigation of the costs, returns, and economic conditions 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, f 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 Sep- tember 4, 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 farm- ers who gave information on their costs and returns, have taken part in the investigation—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 sourse of the investigation covered thoroughly by automobile the sugar-beet producing districts in the nine States investigated. be METHOD OF INVESTIGATION The survey method was used in this investigation, that being a renerally accepted and appropriate method of obtaining the produc- bon 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 srowers 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. See appendix for form of schedule used. COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 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 irrigation 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 community as estimated by prominent and well-informed local men other than farmers—i. e., bankers, realtors, land appraisers for the Federal land banks, economists, farm-management experts and agronomists of the State agricultural colleges, the local county agri- cultural 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 reason- ableness 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 costs per unit of each quantity. This method has been used by the United States Depart- ment of Agriculture and by a large number of agricultural cost accountants, and is based upon the fact that the acre is the unit employed by farmers in their calculations, and that the hours of labor peracre, pounds of seed planted per acre, manure applied per acre, and 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 (with- out board) paid farm laborers. According to the available wage 29 ._® Comparison of the commission’s data with similar data obtained by the Department of Agriculture in investications made for other vears shows a close agreement in these basic units of cost. COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 23 data the average monthly farm wages in Michigan (without board) were approximately 6 per cent higher in 1921 than in 1922. Adding 5 per cent to the 1922 wage rate, therefore, established the 1921 wage rate. This same method was followed in all calculations 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 item 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 per acre were the same in all five areas in Michigan—$23 in 1921, $18 in 1922, and $23 in 1923. These are the amounts provided in the contracts with the laborers for the com- sined handwork of blocking, thinning, hoeing, pulling, and topping an acre of sugar beets under standard conditions. To obtain the total costs of contract labor, as shown in the tables, the costs of the regular work under standard conditions were increased by: (1) [Extra wages for harvesting an unusually good crop and for extra hoeings, and (2) the perquisites furnished by the growers to the con- tract laborers. The latter item averaged in the five areas $1.05 per acre in 1922. As no additional wages were paid in Michigan either in 1921 or in 1923 for extra labor in harvesting the beets, the yields in those vears being lower on the average than in 1922, the contract- labor costs per acre in Michigan for both 1921 and 1923 were estimated at $24.05. 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 Agriculture 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. For the remaining items the 1922 ata were used. 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. [n Alma, Mich., for example, the price per pound paid by farmers for seed in 1922 was 15 cents, while in 1921 it was 25 cents. The 1921 seed cost per acre was therefore 1.66 times the 1922 cost. Prices per pound of seed were obtained from the farmers in the areas investi- gated and were checked against the factory-grower contracts. Commercial fertilizer costs for 1921 oo 1923 were obtained by adjusting the 1922 fertilizer costs per acre by the percentage of varia- tion in the market prices of fertilizer for those years. In Michigan she prices of fertilizer in 1921 and 1923 were, respectively, 15.7 per ent 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 plowlands,” as shown in the 1922 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture. For example, } For details see p. 34. 24 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS the value of good plowlands in Michigan was reported to be 7.8 per eent greater in 1921 than in 1922 and 3.9 per cent less in 1923 than in 1922. Consequently to obtain the land charges for 1921 and 1923 the 1922 land charges as obtained in the field investigation were in- creased 7.8 per cent for 1921 and reduced 3.9 per cent for 1923. 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 deviated from the 1922 yields. If the average yield for all farms in a given locality 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 produc- tion, 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 Agri- culture, 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 area 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 management, 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. SCOPE AND 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, Idaho, 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 percent- age of the production investigated in the 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. AMEAS IN WHICH U.S. TARIFF COMMISSION INVESTIGATZD THI ~~ OF PRODUCING SUGAR- BEETS 1921,1922 & 1823 % 2 2 ry < - Ls." x o ES $ é Fig. 2.—Location of the 22 areas in the 9 States in which the costs of producing sugar beets were investigated. The heets, of which costs were Staion, ge manufactured into sugar in 58 different factories. which is about 72 per cent of all beet-sugar factories operating in the United tates in 192 aud 26 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TABLE 7.—Scope of the investigation of the costs of production of sugar beets, by the United States Tariff Commission, 1922 Number of farms pro- ducing sugar beets for sugar Acres of sugar beets har- vested Tons of sugar beets har- vested Num- ber for | Per- Per- which [centage rentage a hs, Total (ATE ores in this [gated is farms) ? gated | oe of investi-| of total total zation, in 1919 acreage State and area Per- centage that produc- tion in- vesti- zated is of total produc- tion Total ini9191 Total orme onsen | investi- all farms ? gated United States._......__.. Michigan_____. ....__._.1 14,812 Alma-St. Louis... Bay City. eae aa] (6: Jo JPN OWOSSO. comment cman Sebewaing... __... _..____. 2, 242 4.7 530, 000 | 54, 875 84.000 | 5, 68% 10.4 5,183,000 1 626, 807 6.81 692,000 54,837 12.1 7.9 87 10.7 13.0 478 3.2 1¢ { 1C 16. ]f lo. x 1, 186 5, 067 9, 78¢ 9, 639 9, 157 ly <n |, 056 934 DOIG: convnmmummmmpmmmmmn? Nebraska eo. _____i Colorado. acooeemao.= Fort Collins._.__.... ___ Fort Morgan —____. ._____. Greeley. .c.p-arns=c==! vane 7] Rocky Ford_________ ..__._. Sterling moomoo 3,684 | 145 1,531 200 7,604 3%° 3.9 26,0001 2,023 13.11 55000 | 9,482 7.7 | 148,000 17,063 7.8 © 220,000 - 17.21 703,000 11.5 |1, 466, 000 19, 162 190. 992 10.7 34 532 jnmiumman 3C, 000 jmrrumme- 23. 256 [mm---m== "7 Te.5 C213 14.6 15.4 of [000 a sof nm mw 1 Data are not available for other than census years, therefore the best comparsion that can be made is with hese data taken from the reports of the Fourteenth U. S. Census. 1 These data were taken from the Year Book 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 Depart- ment of Agriculture that were furnished with permission of the companies concerned. 2 ’ 1C 12 7 4, 00. >’ 83; 40( _, 840 3 983 Idaho oceee oo COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 27 As shown in Table 7 (p. 26) the areas investigated were 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 representa- tive of the industry as a whole. Table 8, below, indicates that the farms investigated grew more acres of sugar beets per farm than did the average farm for the respec- tive States in which the investigations were made; and consequently were perhaps operated more efficiently. (See Table 9, p. 28.) 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 crowing less than three acres of beets per farm, although on some farms in each area, especially near the cities, less than three acres of beets per farm were grown. TABLE 8.—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 in that year United States: All States..._.. States investigated tate Acres of sugar Acres of sugar beets per beets per ‘arm growing arm on farms beetsin 19197 DVestigated in 1022 Acres per farm 13 Acres per | farm : EY 14 Amount by xhich the av- arage sugar- Jeet acreage per farm in .922 on farms investigated exceeds the verage sugar beet acreage per farm on all farms rowing beets for sugar in 1910 1 Acres per farm Michigan_. _ Ohio._____.. Nebraska. cocoa cece Colorado......._. RRR mn mR Utah eee . daho__...... a -. WYOMING. ooo eee Montana....... a me tcccccmcecmman——. aa. California ooo... J 1 U. 8S. Census reports. » The average sugar-beet acreage per farm in 1919 for Idaho as shown in the U. S. Census reports was greater by two acres than the average sugar-beet acreage per farm in 1922 on the farms included in this investigation. 28 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TasLE_9.— Relation of acreage of sugar beets harvested per farm to the net costs per acre and per ton SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES, 1922 [Data for 2,240 1 farms investigated] Range of hoet acreage harvested per farm 1) 3-59. aan 58.9, ooo. 011.0. 19-14 9 eet ~e ~ nn : LOTT 9. 2 Sen 36-38 9... 3941.9... 12-4402 1547). 18-509... X1-53 9 oo. “4 BRO_._.... 57-599-0m on. 30-62.9..... 53-659... 66-68.9.. 69-71.9 79-749. 75-7790. 78-809..." 8183.9. | 34-869... 87-899... 90-92.9..... 93-959... 96-98.9....... 99-1019... 102-1049... 105-1079... 108-1109. 71 111-1139... (14-546... Num- ber of farms (2) 287 3-- > 1. 173 i 1 ; 10 1 2% Acres harvested Tons harvested Total Average per farm Total Average per acre 3) 4 4 ' & |! (6) 1, 209. 9 2,127.5 2,878.0 2,438.9 "737.0 104.9 ., 542.6 552. ¢ 1,832.1 -,733.¢ © 409.4 ., 699. 4 2,079.8 1,454.2 1,140.0 1,818.1 934.0 | 1,101.5 868.0 1,694.7 707.1 1,002. (, 467.6 801. € 758. ¢ 1,036. 572.1 fra f 4.2 7.0 10. 0 13.0 15.8 19.3 2.0 LRN Sl + 13, 826.4 24,278. 0 33, 879.7 57,963. 7 "2 396.7 36.316. 2 "7.55.2 "0,314.4 22, 436.7 21,194. 8 ~~ 825.8 +. 206.9 584. F {+ 201. ( 13, 218.3 21, 067. 1 "1,175.5 15, 052. 4 9,647.6 2,834.0 £193.90 “.e Lo 79.€ oA 1} 4 11.4 11.8 11.5 12.% 1% 0.4 Le 12.0 12.0 19.4 11. & 11.¢ { ( 0 tT 9,0 7,8 5.6 ‘9.1 1.9 a1 nL 9 T 5, vou. 0 do Cr AT {i Inds Net costs Per ton Per acre Inclusive of stated land Ex- rental clusive jand inter »f capital | estat 6 charges | per cent on capital other than land (8) Inclusive of stated land Ex- rental elusive {and inter- f capital | est at 6 charges | per cent on capital i other than land (10) @ | $83. 97 75.67 73.77 72.35 73. 53 59. 02 37.72 *a 00 36.7 37.L¢ 36. 46 35.¢2 Nn, 06 57. 04 56.27 5 76 85. &° RA, 25 2t “04 "0.04 5 81 At 91 $99.78 90. 28 87.77 86. 80 22 71 = 42 37. 35 6.63 6.7 8. ® 07 0) RTH : $8.78 7.91 7.46 7.57 7.27 7.22 7.22 714 6.98 7.21 6.82 6.58 7.27 7.36 7.04 6.90 6.52 5.99 7.43 3.61 4 38 8.81 5.87 3, 54 5 86 7.08 7.28 1.01 5.84 7.16 5.78 7.80 7.82 5.10 10.17 8.01 4.44 8.78 44 7. 9€ 31. €. EY ZL "2.47 31. 60 79. 97 79.99 31. 86 ~ Rb 5. 64 5. 92 5. 7? 5. © 5. - 3.79 "4 - LJ. boyi 76. U9 NMG 1 Data for two farms investigated where the crop was a total failure are excluded from this tabulation. NoTE.—Although some farms in the United States produced less than 3 acres of beets in 1922, cost data were not obtained for these small acreages because they were usually incidental and of only minor impor- tance on diversified farms. COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 29 In like manner Table 10, below, showing higher average 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 hetter or are operated by more efficient farmers. TABLE 10.— Comparison of ytelds of sugar beets per acre for the farms tnvestigated with the average vields of sugar beets for all farms Btate and yield United States: All States— 3-vear average. 1921. ___.... 1922____.... 1923 __._._. Rtates investi- gated— 3-year average. _| 1921... __. 102 cine 1923. ___. Michigan: 3-year average. . 51 a NE 1922________ 1923_______. Ohio: 3-vear average... 202) cdi ms 1922___.___. 923 Nebraska: 3-year average._.| | LA S. 1922 ____._. 1923... Average yields of sugar beets For all (Arms as epasen For the 1923 farms in- “earbook tHided in of the vestiga- Depart- tion nent of \gricul- ture fons per cre En Tons per nere 0.12 o 67 6.91 a QR 11. 46 11. 01 11. 32 12 16 1 9.39 9.18 9.65 Q. 47 on 9. 60 9.03 9.47 0. 15 Excess of vield for farms nvesti- zated over yields for all farms growing heets Tons per nlere 1.34 1.34 1 41 1. 28 1.38 1.38 1.42 1 26 84 ng 4 State and yield Colorado: 3-year average... 1921...._... 1922 ___.__. TOR. cis Utah: 3-vear average. . 1921__.___.. 1922... 1923. cn cin Idaho: 3-year average... 1921... 1922... 10923, cuit Wyoming: 3-year average. . 1921 __..__ 1922 _._.._. 1923...___.. Montana: 3-year average... 1921 __.____ 1922 _.._... 1923___.__.. “alifornia: 3-vear average.__ 1921 _._.._. 1922... .... 1923... __ Average yields of sugar beets For all farms as reported in the 1923 Y earbook of the Depart- ment of Agricul- ture For the farms in luded in this in- vestiga- tion Tons per sere 12.21 11.39 fo? Tons per acre 12. 51 12. 97 11.19 13. 15 15 11. 36 10. 26 1% 26 12. 91 13.37 12. 31 13. 08 14 ]RK 10. 70 9.18 11. 59 11.68 10. 15 8 Ae 14.17 11.06 13. 84 11.72 14. 63 15. 43 11. 61 10. 73 12. 19 11 82 In °C Oo 12.40 11.87 1.68 13. 22 % 64 © 55 85 R44 Excess of yield for farms investi- gated over yields for all farms growing 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 3.78 1.46 2.07 -1. 98 .78 1.71 2.68 . 66 2.10 .04 -. 12 .45 -—.058 Nore.—A minus sign (—) preceding a figure indicates that the average yields on all farms exceed the average vields on the farms investicated bv that smount. Table 11 (p. 30) 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 greater 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 producing States. 30 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TasLE 11.—Comparison of the average sugar content of the sugar beets included in the tnvestigation with the average sugar content of all beets grown in the country SUMMARY FOR UNITED STATES AND ANALYSIS BY STATES, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 State and year United States: All States— 3-year average.. 1921... _. 1922... __. 1923... States investi- gated— 3-year average... 1921. ___. 1922... 1923... Michigan: 3-year average. 1921___.___. 1922... _. 1923... Ohio: 3-year average.. 192) ...onnus 1922 ___._. 1923... ... Nebraska: 3-year average._. 1021. nn 1022, niin 1923 ____.__. Sugar content of a ton of sugar beets Average of all beets pro- duced Average of those included in the investi- gation Pounds per ton 310. 315. - 308." 3086. & Pounds per ton 311.6 318.0 | 308. 9 306. 4 312.1 318.9 308.3 307.2 284. 2 265. 6 287. 6 305. 8 284.7 264.3 283.6 312.2 274.3 268. 2 293.0 267. 8 277. 8 272 « 2C0 2v 307.1 332.0 295.8 289. 6 306. 4 330.9 205.0 290.0 Amount Hy which “he sugar sontent of the sugar beets neluded in the investi- zation ex ceeds the sugar content of all sugar beets pro- duced Pounds per ton 0.5 ol —.6 .8 State and year Colorado: 3-year average.__ 1921... .__. 1922... . 1923. _._... Utah: 3-year average._. 1921... .._ 1922. _______ 1923......onu {daho:1? 3-year average.. 1921. ____. 1922________ 1923... Wyoming: 3-year average.__ 192L...cunus 1922. _____.. 1923__._._. Montana: 3-year average._. 1921... 1922... _... 1923. .ounua California: 3-year average. 1921... 1922... 1923. cae. Sugar content of a ton of sugar beets A Verage of all 2eets pro- duced A Verage of those ncluded in the mvesti- zation rounds per ton 390.7 3.2 “3.4 MLR Pounds per ton 299. 2 314.1 291.6 287.7 319.0 324.2 320.1 312.5 299.1 ), 4 co s 335.7 "3.0 21.6 “re 340.7 355.6 335.3 332.2 329.1 F 339. & 11 398. 2 352. 6 340. 2 307. 5 320.6 350. 2 335.6 313.8 370.8 365.3 375.0 377.6 367. 0 Amount 0y which he sugar sontent of the sugar beets neluded in the investi- zation ex- reeds the sugar zontent of all sugar beets pro- duced Pounds per ton —~1.5 .9 ~1.6 —4.1 —-3.1 —6.2 -2.1 —-.7 5.0 6.6 3.7 4.4 -.9 1.9 .9 —3.0 0 0 0 0 8.9 9.3 5.4 10.6 + The pounds of sugar extracted per ton of sugar beets harvested on the farms included in the investi- gation is unusually high in Idaho because a large percentage of the beets were manufactured into sugar at the Twin Falls plant, which employs the Steffens 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 farms investigated were obtained in the field and supplemented by data furnished by the Bureau of Agricultural Economies. } All the three-year averages are weighted. 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 indiates that the average sugar content per ton of beets harvested on all farms was creater than the average sugar content per ton of beets harvested on the farms investigated. Table 12 (p. 31) shows that the three-year average of sugar ex- tracted from a ton of beets for the country as a whole was 258 pounds, while for the nine States covered by the investigation it 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 investi- ration was made. It may therefore be deduced that 5.9 pounds, COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 31] 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 makes the cost of producing sugar beets per pound of sugar extracted, as shown in this report, probably a little less than it would have been if all sugar- beet farms in the country had been included in the investigation. TABLE 12.—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 heels produced on all farms SUMMARY WOR UNITED STATES AND ANALYSIS BY STATES, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 State and vear Tnited States: All States and all farms— 3-year average. _; 1921... 1922 nnn 1923........ Farms investi- gated— 3-year average..| 1921... ___._ 1922. cco cu 1923. __ Michigan: 3-year average._.! 1921 _______.i 1! 1923 ________ Ohio: 3-vear average. _, 1921... _. 1922__._____. 1923 ______. Nebraska: 3-year average..’ 1921. ___.._ 1922. __._.. 1923 ____..__% Pounds of sugar stracted! per ton of sugar »eets har-| rested on 111 farms Dounds ver ton 258.0 262.3 260.6 251.4 260. 5 265. § 262. 1 253. 7 229. 9 212.1 234.9 249. 4 204. 0 196. 5 223.9 197. 8 251. 2 279 2 emg 229. 7 Pounds of sugar axtracted per ton of sugar veets har- vested on he farms ncluded nthe in- restiga- Hon Pounds per ton 263. 9 268. 1 263. 2 259. 6 229.7 215. 5 20.4 48. R 10, Pa OULU Amount py which he num- ber of pounds of sugar ixtracted per ton of sugar peets har- vested on the farms included in the in- 7estiga- tion ex- eeds the pounds of sugar axtracted by all nills per ton of sugar deets har- vested on 31] farms Pounds per ton 3.4 2.6 1.1 59 State and vear Colorado: 3-year average.. 1921... .... 1922_....... 1988. nn Utah: 3-year average... 1921... .._. 1922... ..... 11923... [daho: 3-year average... 1921... _.._. 1922... _._. 1923 _....... Wyoming: 3-year average.. 1921. ....... 1922 ___._.. 1923_..._... Montana: 3-year average.. 192). con. 1922... _.. 1923... _. California: 2-year average.. 1921... ¢ 1922... 1923. .... Amount by which the num- ber of pounds of sugar pxtracted per ton aly of sugar Pounds extracted beets yi of sugar per ton the farms axtracted of sugar included per ton beets har: in the in- of sugar | vested on voitign. oeets har-| the farms tion ga vested on included seeds the all farms 'inthein- ~ und vestiga- po 3 Ion of sugar extracted by all mills per ton of sugar beets har- vested on all farms Pounds per ton 250. 3 258.7 250. 2 240 9 Pounds per ton 256. 0 261.0 253.9 252.0 Pounds per lon 5.7 2.3 3.7 11.1 264.3 270. 5 268.1 254 Q 258. 2 262. 8 259.0 252.6 —6.1 -7.7 —9.1 -2.3 NAG ry, 3 i. 308. 2 318.2 315.7 206 4 21.6 19.6 24.3 21.7 265. 5 274.7 272. 4 255. 8 -2.2 —3.7 -8.¢ 2 4 TRY 281 € 0; 281.6 300. 7 206. 9 261.1 0 0 0 0 z 6 1 344. @ 235.2 563. C 356. 6 8.7 7.6 8.0 11.3 tu. 5 1 The amount of sugar extracted per ton of sugar beets harvested on the farms included in the investi gation is unusually high for Idaho because a large percentage of the beets were manufactured into sugat at the Twin Falls plant, which employs the Steffens process. NOTE.—A minus (—) sign indicates that the average pounds of sugar extracted per ton of beets harvested on 2ll tapes was greater than the average pounds extracted per ton of beets harvested on the farms nvestigated. 32 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS Table 13 compares the sugar beets produced in the reépre- 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 to beets in the 9 States investigated or in the 17 sugar-beet producing States. TasLB 13.—Comparison of the sugar beets investigated with all sugar beets pro- duced in the various States and in the country as & whole, as regards sugar con- tent not extracted SUMMARY FOR UNITED STATES AND ANALYSIS BY STATES, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 Ares and year United States: All States and all beets— © ovReT Average... Averages for States investi- gated— 3-year average. .___...__.. I i ciimnnnmmmmmin ns 10, Pe seem 1923. Michigan: 3-year average. .....-.--.. AE Nm nmmmmmm rw 3922. nnmmmmmn ms 1923._. ee Ohio: 3-vear AVerage....cce-- 1¢ «.. 1922... 1923 Nebraska: 3-year AVOragO. occocee-. i i 1&7 Sugar content that was not extracted Average for all arms and all beets (taken rom the 1923 Yearbook of the Depart- ment of Agricul- ure and supple- mental data in he files of that iepart- ment) Average for the farms and beets in- vestigated Pounds per ton 32.7% a2 12 55. 4 Pounds ner ton 51.1 52.5 46. 8 52.7 48, 2 50.8 45.1 47.6 54.3 563. 5 52.7 56. 4 55.0 48.8 54.2 63.6 ar J 50.9 60.0 Ares and year Colorado: 3-year average. ._..._.._... 1920... 1922 ieee 1922 dmemeceaa Utah: 3-year average... oc cc... Een I. IED mn © = i na 1¢ .- Idaho: 3-year AVerage._......---_- 17. rmmemac———- : 3 _. emma Wyoming: 3-year IVErage. conunrnnnnn 17 Montane T.yes vyeraee. Ca | 223... Sugar content that was not extracted Average for all arms and! all beets (taken rom the 1923 Yearbook| Average of the for the Depart- farms and ment of beets in- Agricul- | vesti- Jare and | gated supple- mental data in he files of that depart- ment) 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 32.5 37.4 19.6 35.8 62.7 77.9 67.8 51.7 57.8 59.9 54.1 58.3 49.1 50. 4 40. 2 R3.1 vi. 4 72.3 58.0 57 6 48.0 48.0 49. 5 38.7 52.7 25.9 30.1 22.0 21.0 21. % NOTE.—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 extrac- tion and refining processes used, and the effifency 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 12 and 13 and are the differences between the sugar content and the sugar extracted per ton of sugar beets. COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 33 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 prob- able that some of this higher yield is due to more thorough cultiva- tion, to the application of greater quantities of commercial fertilizer and manure, to the use of better grade land or to more efficient farm management; and that though the averages for the areas investigated are not identical with the averages reported by the United States Department of Agriculture for all farms growing sugar beets, the farms investigated and the data obtained are representative of the sucar-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 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 considered are house, land for garden, coal, wood, vegetables, fruit, milk, butter, eggs, feed for horse or cow, and transportation of labor- ers 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 remu- neration for management or supervision, but merely the equivalent of what would have been paid the laborer had the grower hired the manual labor done. In ascertaining the cost of labor per hour, 10 hours were considered a working day, and 25 working days were considered a month, or 3,000 working hours a year per man. The hours per day as ascertained 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 experiment stations.!® The investigations made by these agencies show this to be about the number of hours and davs actually worked on farms of such char- acter. 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- ery, 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. 10 See T'ables 685 and 586 in the 1922 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture. 34 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS The proper basis for prorating the costs of such items is that which most equitably distributes them according to the benefits derived. The amount of indirect labor varies with the individual farm and farmer. Investigations of detailed cost accounts kept on represent- ative 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 indirect 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 labor 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 sometimes the loading of the beets onto wagons. All such work is “hand” labor, as distinguished from ‘machine’ labor, such as plowing and harrowing, which are usually performed by the farmer and operator or by his regular hired help. Because such hand labor is largely done under contract and because the con- tracts are uniformly drawn to include the same items it is grouped under “contract labor.” Hand labor, whether performed by labor- ers 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. 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 growers and their regular hired help other than the contract beet laborers. 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 11 Minnesota Experiment Station Bull. 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 two years 1920, 1921, the indirect labor was 15.7 per cent of the direct labor. U. S. Depart- ment of Agriculture Bull. 1271, p. 68, shows a rate of 13.5 per cent on Minnesota farms. U. S. Department of Agriculture manuscript, in press, shows a rate of 16 per cent on Kansas farms. New York Experiment Station Bull. 414, p. 44, shows a rate of 23.4 per cent on Mew York farms. COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 35 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 abor. 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 cost tabulations. Seed costs include the cost of seed only, the costs of hauling and olanting the seed appearing under labor and horse or tractor costs. Commercial fertilizer 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 rrigation, crop Insurance, and any hired-machine work, such as planting beet seed and hauling beets to loading station. 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 heet 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 indirect 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, costs 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 purposes. Taxes include those paid on real estate and on personal 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. 36 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 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 absence of exact information concerning the increase or decrease in yields of crops rotating with beets this factor was not considered 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, 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 forms of capital, whether actually paid by the operator or not, were segregated from the other costs. With respect to such capital charges as relate to use of land on which sugar beets are grown, Table 52 (p. 81) 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 farm mortgage rates on the market value of the land used. 5 The third column is on the basis of the annual net cash rental of the land seq. For the United States as a whole, 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 49 to 57, inclusive, (pp. 80-84) 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 pro- duction 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 eco- nomic rent of land for agricultural purposes.’ 12 As provided in the schedules (see p. 106) 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 separ rate charge. Similarly, the capital charge for that part of the horse barn allocated to sugar beets was in- cluded in the horse-labor cost, and the capital charge for shelter for machinery and tools was included im the cost of equipment. 13 Wheat and Wheat Products. . Report of the U. 8. Tariff Commission to the- President of the: United States, pp. 7 to 10, 1924. COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 37 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 grow- ers 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 1921-1923 the average cash rental per acre for all farms investigated in the United States was $13.43. On the other hand, a 6 per cent charge on $222, the three-year average mar- ket 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. A second method of calculating capital charge is based on the pre- vailing 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 1s $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 is $244 per acre, slightly more than the farmer’s stated value of $222 per acre. 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 economics 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. At 6 per cent the capital charge for equipment, based on the total value of equipment rather than the average value, amounted to $1.56 an acre, or 13.8 cents per ton, of sugar beets for all farms investigated. 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 in the locali- ties, as well as against the estimates of such local men as farm-imple- ment dealers, the local farm-implement auctioneer, horse dealers, »ankers, county agricultural agents, and officials of the agricultural 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 ll of 1922 and served as a basis for determining 1921 and 1923 values. 38 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 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 employed on the sugar-beet crop. If two teams, valued at $400, were used in the production 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 allocated to sugar- beet production. Tabulations of cost data in the possession of the commission show that the advances made by the beet-sugar manufacturing companies to the sugar-beet growers for the payment of contract 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 70 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 obtained by multiplying the price per ton of beets by the number of tons harvested and dividing the product by thé number of acres of sugar beets harvested. RESULTS OF THE COST INVESTIGATION The results of the investigation of the cost of production of sugar beets are summarized in Tables 14, 15, and 16. The tables give these COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 39 results on the basis of ‘“‘per acre of sugar beets harvested,” ‘per ton of sugar beets harvested,” and “per pound of sugar extracted,” respec- tively. The costs shown, both inclusive and exclusive of interest charges, are given for the years 1921, 1922, and 1923 and a weighted average is constructed for the three-year period 1921-1923. On each of the three bases, a comparison is made of average costs with the average returns to growers. Costs per acre of sugar beets harvested. —For the United States, the average three-year cost of producing an acre of sugar beets was found to be $70.79 without allowance for land rental and interest on other capital, and $85.98 including an allowance for interest. The three- year average return to growers for the sale of sugar beets from an acre was found to be $87.88, so that the average indicated excess of returns over costs was $17.09 per acre when an interest allowance was not included in costs and $1.90 per acre when an interest allow- ance was included. As between the costs in the several States where the investigation was made, there was a variation in the three-year averages inclusive of an allowance for interest of from $70 per acre (for Ohio) to $98 (for Utah and Idaho). For the three-year period, the difference between the average cost per acre to the growers (including an allowance for interest) and the average returns ranged from an excess of cost of 38.02 (for Michigan) to an excess of returns of $20.91 (for Montana). Costs per ton of sugar beets harvested.—The average three-year cost per ton of sugar beets harvested for the United States was found to be $6.21 exclusive of interest charges, and $7.53 inclusive of interest. Because of the important differences in yield in the several States, the order of States is quite different when arranged in accordance with costs per ton of sugar beets harvested than when arranged in the order of costs per acre. The three-year average costs per ton of sugar beets harvested were lowest in Nebraska ($6.40 per ton) and highest in California ($9.87 per ton). On this basis the order of the States was Nebraska, Montana, Colorado, Idaho, Wyoming, Ohio, Utah, Michigan, and California. For the United States, the three- year average returns to the growers exceeded the average costs without interest allowance by $1.49 per ton and the cost with interest by $0.17 per ton. Costs per pound of sugar extracted from sugar beets.—Perhaps most significant from the point of view of the consumer are the average costs of producing sugar beets on the basis of ‘per pound of sugar extracted from the sugar beets.” On the average, in the United States during the three years, 263.9 pounds of sugar were extracted per ton of beets paid for by the factories. Therefore, the average cost of the sugar beets per pound of sugar extracted was 2.35 cents with- out allowance for interest and 2.85 cents with interest, resulting in an average excess of returns over costs of 0.57 cent and 0.07 cent per pound, respectively, by the two methods of calculation. 40 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TABLE 14.—Weighted average costs of production, and returns to growers from the sale of sugar beets SUMMARY FOR UNITED STATES AND ANALYSIS BY STATES, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 [Per acre of sugar beets harvested] Average costs ! Amount by which the returns to growers from the sale of sugar beets exceed 2 the cost of production of sugar beets 8 No allow- ance made for land rental and .nterest on nother capi- tal4 Allowance made for land rental and inter- ast at 6 per cent on nother capi tal Average returns 0 growers from the ale of sug ar beets State and year No allow- ance made for land rental and interest on other gpk talt Allowance made for and rental and inter- est at 6 per cent on other capi- tal Per acre $1.90 —18.45 7.90 22,71 United States: B-VRAL AVEIAZRe. cv nnv nme mmm TOD re erm HE Ei HE 1922... ———. mit 1923 _____ .. Per acre $70.79 70.78 67.22 73.74 Per acre $85. 98 87.26 82. 52 87.20 Per acre $87.88 68.81 90. 42 109.91 Per acre $17.09 —1.97 23.20 36.17 Michigan: BFOOL BYCPBER. oc vmcmmme ns ssn mm mmm it 1 J N00. ec cr me EAE Rm 0 mw 1923. _.._. J . Dhio: 3-year average. cocoon IGM mms En 1922. __ mmm ———————— 1923 _ SE Tem Nebraska: 3-year average... cirammeean 1921 eee ere meee 1922 eee 1923 occa Colorado: 3-year average... eeeeeoccmcmmmea- | E72) 1922... come emma 1923... —- Utsh: 3-year average.._._. Rr VO2), ci summits SRR SWS 1022. cen. 0 i 1923 __._. I —_— 67. 01 67. 04 61.77 71.00 78.01 78. 55 72.58 81.45 69. 99 55.45 69.67 39. 96 2.98 ~11. 59 7.90 18.96 —8.02 —23. 10 —2.91 8.51 38.71 58. 52 53. 43 39 921 70.14 70. 59 64. 55 78.33 80.98 82.94 78.63 80.77 88.44 89.39 85.25 90. 15 73.45 54.18 65. 06 04.29 14.74 —4.34 11.63 492.08 3.31 —16.41 . 51 20. 96 14.89 -5. 06 38.32 17.43 2.75 -6.90 1.02 16.10 66. 44 67.13 64. 54 57.39 95.87 77.88 116. 95 98. 20 29.43 10.75 52.41 20.81 72.44 72.67 88. 88 75. 34 91.19 82.49 86. 27 106. 25 18.75 9.82 17.39 30.91 —2.42 -32.77 12.71 25.21 8.10 ~27.28 26.97 31.30 .91 -15.88 .22 13.24 32.55 20.91 9.02 —4,25 39.90 28.32 $5.78 36.33 21.76 2.09 —5.43 I —26.11 18. 89 ~1.11 78.38 61. 02 1 When composite figures appear as in the three-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 are used as weights. 2 A minus sign (—) before a figure indicates that costs exceed returns by that amount. 3 See pp. 33-38 for explanation of methods 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 planted, and share rental on 41.7 per cent. On a large percentaze 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 to 9 per cent and averaging 7.14 per cent. In order to put the data for all farms on a camparable basis and simplify tabulations, however, all far:ns 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 Idaho: 3-year average... cceemmemcramana 1921. .___. JE 1922 cee meine 1923... RR Wyoming: 3-year average..__.. mm ml ee wm 1921... mpm mas 1922. ___ emem——————— ae 1923. Cos Montana: © 3-year average... .. 1921... 1922 oe ieee ee 1923 eal California: 3-year average o-oo cece. 191 ecm 19S a ee emcee me 197 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 41 TABLE 15.—Weighted average costs of production, @nd returns to growers from the sale of sugar beets SUMMARY FOR UNITED STATES AND ANALYSIS BY STATES, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 [Per ton of sugar-beets harvested] Amount by which the returns to growers rom the sale of sugar heets exceed 2 the costs of production of sugar heats 3 Average costs 1 Average -eturns to growers from the sale of sugar beets Jtate and year No allow- Allowance ance made | made for for land land rental ental and and interes nterest on at 6 per other ' cent on capitals | other capital No allow- ance made for land rental and interest on ! other capital ¢ Allowance made for iand rental ind interest at 6 per cent on other capital Per ton $0.17 —1.68 . 69 1.91 ‘Jnited States: B-VOAr AVOLARE.. cou armsnsmppamumns wwe 1921... PT 1922_. as 1923 Per ton %6. 21 6.45 5.96 6.07 Per ton $7.53 7.95 7.32 7.18 Per ton $7.70 6. 27 8.01 9.09 Per ton $1.49 —-. 18 2.05 3.02 Michigan: 3-VRAT BVOTARR.. covnranr mre as ss nnn mann 1921. _...- owe mi rom HR RA 1922....... [ES 1923... Ohio: 3-VOAT SVETAED. ou vnm un sms ms in mi wie 1921... Hm RG Sm AH 1922... ee memaman 1923.__. - Nebraska: B3-Y0AT BYBIBED. . oodiv wows wspmnibmws vse JOE. oc oi mi i im si RR 1922. ee eee emeeceaeae 1923... —- Colorado: 3-vear average... oc. occea-- a VRID. «cece SR 0 m0 0 0 1922 ie cccccceacas 192° eee 7.13 7.30 b. 40 7 49 8. 30 B. 56 7.52 3.60 7.46 6.04 7.22 9.50 .33 -1. 26 . 82 2 01 —. 84 2. 51 -.30 . 90 6. 11 5. 48 5. 64 2.13 7.30 1.82 6. 82 1.22 7.69 6. 00 6. 87 9 20 1.58 —.48 1.23 3.16 | .39 ~1.82 .05 2.07 5. 25 5. 69 . 42 5. 62 5. 40 7.03 3.39 8.73 1.55 6. 60 B. 01 R.19 2.30 .91 3.59 2 57 1.18 —. 43 2.632 1. 46 3.79 5. 60 5.15 R73 7.06 5. 89 7.62 B. 85 | 1.30 6.36 7.71 R OR 1.51 .76 1. 56 2.35 HA —. 53 .09 1.2% Utah: B-venr average. ... ..--cecssnenememume. 1921...... RR 1922_..... mcm iwi HP msn 1923 __.... meena 8. 01 B. 53 B. 82 5.61 7.34 B.16 | 7.21 [ 8. 58 7.20 | 5. 50 8.18 | R 27 1.19 ~-1.03 2.36 2 66 -—. 14 —~2 60 .97 1. 60 [daho: 3-year average... __.__.______. _.. 1921... 1922...... 1923... #yoming: FYCHL AVOIARD., « ne mens pens sm mms mmm 02 cecum A RR 922... fms 1923... Montana: 3-year average... .cccccaccmcacan- 92 cannes A 922... 1923... California: -vear average... ceo coceca.. 02 nmr ER RRR ST in em i 1923 5. 91 5. 74 3. 44 R4 7.08 8.31 L583 345 7.64 5.00 3.37 R48 1.73 ~. 74 2.93 2.904 { ol 131 1. 84 2 08 { 3. 22 3. 72 5.70 X27 7.09 “76 4 05 7.21 r 90 99 44 86 91 0 .1% =1.48 .03 1.13 1.76 -. 30 1.41 3. 67 Ls) na 11 A 40 | When composite figures appear as in the 3-year average for each State and in the figures for the United tates, where the data for the States investigated are combined, the total tons of sugar beets harvested are 1sed as weights. 3 A minus sign (—) before a figure indicates that costs exceed returns by that amount. i See pp. 33-38 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 planted and share rental on 11.7 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 these farm mortgages 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 compar- able basis and simplify tabluations, 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 and treated separately. "ANTI 9C _ 42 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TABLE 16.—~Weighted average costs of production and returns to growers from the sale of sugar beets SUMMARY FOR 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 from the sale of sugar peets exceed? the costs of production of sugar beets? Average costs ! Pounds of sugar ex- yracted per bon of beets paid for by the factories ¢ Average ~eturns to growers from the sale of sugar beets State and year No allow- ance made for land rental and nterest on other capi- | tal 8 Allowance made for land rental and in- terest at 5 per cent on other capital No allow- ance made for land rental and nterest on other capi- tal § Allowance made for and rental and in- terest at 8 per cent on other capital United States: 3-year average ......_.._-. 1921 eae 11 1923 eee Pounds 263.9 268.1 263. 2 259, 6 Cents 2.35 2.41 2.26 2.34 Cents Cents 2.85 | 2.92 2.97 2.34 2.78 3.04 2.77 3.50 Cents 0. 57 —.07 .78 1.18 Cents 0.07 —. 63 .26 .73 Michigan: 3-year average... ---..-. 1921... mma 1922... ————— 1923... Ohio: 3-year average. ..-------... 1921 cee 1922 ee 1923 cee Nebraska: 3-year average... .-- 1921... i 1922... J. 19°" — Colorado: 3-year average... 192). 1922... 1923. Utah: 3-year average. 1921. __. 1922... 19023__ 229. 7 215. 5 229, 4 248. 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 . 18 ~. 59 .36 81 —. 36 —-1.17 —. 13 . 36 210. 1 205. 1 232.1 201. 2 2. 91 316 43 05 3.47 3.81 7: 2 ng 3. 66 2.92 2.96 4, 62 75 —. 24 . 53 1. 57 .19 -. 89 .02 1.03 252.2 274. 5 248.0 220 ( > NR 2.99 2.40 3.23 3. 56 91 .33 1.45 1.12 .45 —. 16 1.06 .63 ant 2f} 28" 2.85 7. 44 a . oY 29 . 62 94 .09 —-. 19 .04 .49 —. 05 -1.01 .38 . 67 .19 —-.72 . 58 .68 t When composite figures appear as in the 3-year average for each State and in the figures for the United Btates, Phare the data for the States investigated are combined, the acres of sugar beets harvested are used AS weights. . ! A minus sign (—) before a figure indicates that costs exceed returns by that amount. 3 See pp. 33-38 for explaination of methods of determining costs. . 4 The basic data from which the pounds of sugar extracted from a ton of beets were obtained were fur- nished by the U. 8. 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 averages for all beets sliced by all the factories located in the respective States. . 8 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 planted 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 these farm mortgages 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 com- parable 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. COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TABLE 16.—Weighted average costs of production and returns to sale of sugar beets—Continued 4a rowers .from the SUMMARY FOR UNITED STATES AND ANALYSIS BY STATES. 1921, 1922, AND 1923——continued State and year Wyoming: * -har overage. du. ¥ontana: “-vear averar ‘921. 223. 1923 nr; Tar everag: 921... QT __. 925 ___ Pounds of sugar ex- acted per ‘on of beets paid for by the 'actories Pounds 265. 5 274.7 272. 4 IRE § £1. f ry REN “ 456. & A verage costs No allow- ance made for land rental and nterest on other capi- tal Allowance made for and rental and in- terest at 3 per cent on other capital Cents 2.34 2.45 2.09 . 45 Cents 2.67 2 82 aQ Average ‘eturns to growers from the sale of 11gar beets Cents 2.72 2. 28 « 41 20 Amount by which the returns to growers rom the sale of sugar beets exceed the costs of production of sugar beets No allow- ance made for land rental and interest on other capi tal Allowance made for land rental and in- terest at 5 per cent on other capital Cents 0.38 -. 17 , 32 ii Cents 0.08 -, 54 .01 44 96 7% = .62 -. 12 .82 1.03 .07 -.92 —-.03 1.79 3 ANALYSIS OF THE AVERAGE COSTS OF PRODUCTION OF SUGAR BEETS SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND FOR THE NINE STATES INVESTIGATED TABLE 17.—Analysis of the weighted average costs of production of sugar beets SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND COMPARISON BY STATES, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 [Per acre of sugar beets harvested] Amount by which the average re- turns to growers exceed the aver- age costs of pro- duction of sugar beets Capital charges! Aver- La Equip- Gross Net Net | ige re- tor Com ment, i costs, Allow- BSE oem (Ol eos Te fh Noatew| Al stor! Seed | cial | direct] depre- | ga- | Taxes | B07 OX0/ indie clud- (Bes or | made for of | ferti- P° [costs ciation, tion | oats | copiial capital Inter-| 1D |ihosale land land sper-| lizar and ost: 20D a oot at [capital dO 708 Star | rental ation | shelter charges charges | or Ichargesi °) 2088 land inter- (0d inter: Land 0 est on | est at 6 charges| “oo | ther cap Per cent. othe ital em- | 08 Other A ital loved | capital cap] Fore, employed boot pro. | 11 Sugar- duction | beet pro- duction State and year ia- shine pera- c ious on- ind | tract | Horse in- irect | ahor | Tnited States: 3-year average... 37 [$23.02 [$12.58 11.43 3.39 19° ooeen) 0.05 24.08 | 11.07 | 1.62 | 4.03, 1 emceee-n-| 16.51 | 20.25 | 12.97 | 1.32 ' 3.19 I areconmed] 1049 | 23.971 14.17: 1.8 1 2° lichigan: | year average... 14.04 1 22.82 | 13.25 | 2.20 [3.00 | 2." | 4.2 1921 ooooeeeo| 13.92 124.05 | 11.32 1 2.20 [3.071 2.72 | 420] opp 1922 oeeuveon.| 13.41 | 10.05 | 13.41 2.20 12.33 | 1.17 422 oul =°3 pon; 1923 TTT 114.68 | 24.051 15.76 1 2220 | 2.33 | 2.58 | 4.32 | .521 2.96 |...___ 17.09 | 21.97 | a0 - $1.90 —18. 45 7.90 22.7 —8.02 23.10 -2.91 B. 51 t ~ HR 79 fa & BH ho year average. . 10 inn ms unas 17 im 45 i4. [4 ,34 "3 3.31 18.41 "51 20.98 14.89 “5.08 38.32 7.43 2.78 890 a 102 © 16.10 @ = 2 * 32.77 Bn 2 wa 2 1. Tn 8.10 -27.28 26.97 31.30 01 -15.88 "2 ~4 J gre - 1 4. 8 =2 : & ng 5 FE -] 1 B= ‘nu 8 ool H 9%. NOTES {a) See pages 33 to 38 for explanation of cost items. (b) These data are weighted on the basis of the acreage harvested. In ascertaining the State average for each of the three years, the averages for the individual areas were veighted on the basis of the harvested acreage investigated in these areas. To obtain the three-year average for each State, the State data for each of the years 1921-23 were weighted n 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 nine States investigated were weighted on the basis of the total acreage harvested in each State, respectively. 3 @Q The Wk Seiums to growers per acre of sugar beets harvested shown in this table were obtained by multiplying the prices per ton shown in Table 15 hv the yields per were shown in Table 10. (d) A minus sign (—) preceding a figure indicates that costs exceed returns by that amount. a oY State and year nited States: T-year average. . 172, cvcimmmnn 1) a 23 cvenmannny Ma- -hine pera- ions and in- lirect abor TABLE 18.—Analysis of the weighted average costs of production of sugar beets SUMMARY FOR UNITED STATES AND COMPARISON BY STATES, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 [Per ton of sugar beets harvested] Amount by which the average re turns to growers exceed the aver- age costs of pro- duction of sugar beets ah Capital charges -Tac- Com tor | mer- and cia -abor | Seed | of til- oper- | izer - jen i Con | morse | | iract (H | {quip- Other] repaics _ :Other| repairs, Ma direct; depre- | costs | ciation and shelter | Net Aver- Gross Net r0sts, | 28 I A y 10ther; costs, | , costs, | in- itorns to . ow rr | ves | gen |exclud-{ Cred exclud- clud- growers ull | iT ga- | eral ing its | ing ing from made for made for ton. costs | capital ! capital Inter- |capital| the sale| "jy land ~harges | charges a at ave a5 wt rental and Jong 5 Land | pr = interest (gro att charges! ent on other | SPeIEE on capital on other other |- smploy od eoreenl capital] in sugar- yh beet PIO peat pro- duction | ‘gyction . 1.11 50.17 $0.” = i $0.10 SA .10 09 $0.30 50.7 $0.28 $0. 1° : Ea L131 or 36. $1.49 | —18 $0.17 —1.68 a9 1 > ~~ it & = Lil i Lys averare._, 1007... 02... “yy -year aver: +... £272 SUR ADT misc 1923... Jebraska: 3-year average. ..| 102) sv vvensenns 19220000 003 i cam ‘olorado: R.year average. .._ 1921. aaeaall B22, cvweamunen Becwpsnsans Hal, "year average... 021. Lo CR ccicaas A taho: * vear average. __| 02], Gin Benn winners] ‘ng: | SY «ae ve Bad al ad] ab eaanan] i 923 el 1.20 Tks = I 7 = a A i wl Att vu | vo 81... 82 i ___. 8 9 ime EB een] ; hey Ee aio.01! 28 wenn] 24 01 22... 3 ween! 25 een 26.05 cath feeeead| 29 |oololl 27H LOB 7 pa 29 |......l 281 .05 30 ens 19 posers) 51 .051 i . wud! L420) 70 56)... oa] 18] © 2.521 180] .7L{ .75 | 1 04] .15 3% 261| 16 78 .41 earn 04! 18] .34 246) 140) 64) 341277777) Co3l 13] [28 je "1g | 5 3 .§ 3.59 2.57 1.51 .76 1. 56 0 28 S58 .98 1.13 1.15 .3L .99 IE "3 7.06 "89 62 5.01 8.19 7.30 6.36 7.71 208 i" 7.20 5.50 | 8.18 8.27 7.64 6.00 8.37 8.48 7.7 6.78 6.56 8.18 8.9% . 6.¢ Eo 9," 3.42 8.8" 3.46 9.87 10.10 2.51 10.14 7.08 ~~ —.Ct —_— or 10.60 0.49) 2.4 160! 13) s87! 1597 8.92 1.19 1.03 2.36 | 2.66 1.73 - 74 2.93 2.94 ¢ 4° . 86 i. 1.15 —-.43 2.62 1.46 24 --.53 .09 12% Tv AX -2.66 .97 1.69 . 56 -2.31 1.84 mbna 1. .02 1.13 1.76 -.36 2.42 2.67 23 3.06 -. 11 rR A0 Q Q 2 ] - r PaBLE 19.— Percentage distribution of average costs of production of sugar beets SUMMARY FOR UNITED STATES AND COMPARISON BY STATES, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 State and year ITnited States: 3-year average. _....-. AO Luis wwim sme 1022, ccamenennniimn 19TB. spss mm penne aienigan: J-year Average. .uee-a 102]. carr mmmi PRsscwsssammunwmens OT iim N10: i-year average. ..__.... 192leccneecmacccmnnns OO mmo m———— Bic sunmupmmmnnsni tebraska: tyear average... ..... TI sr cmmmmsmmmmmmmmn HOY smn wm MW masa ;olorado: 3-year average....-... 1921 meee D022 ivan IB cin sini tah! 3-year average... ....... 1021 aes HD. ccc mmm sown 1993. idaho: 3-year average... ac... TO ican ons 1092. cen mmy np 1923. cena ee Nyoming: 3-year aver®oe. ........ 100) cing wcimemenmase P22 rman 1. rimrivninae sven vontana: 3-year average. . 1971. 1992. 1B mdi salifornia: 3-year average... 2 cciiomvmnnn 10922. ccs win 192% inane Labor Crac- oT tor Machine | 28 opera: gon. . ions and Horse | of oper: ndirect | tract ation labor i. —n .- LU 1.4 PL v 16. 17.7 pl 1 18. “3.6 £ Seed 4.0 27! oD o% Com- mer- cial fertil- izer Q Equip- Other ent, Man- 3 repairs, | Irri- | ure | i | fepates, gation Taxes tion, and shelter 4 4. 4 1 I-. 1. 7. 5.0 1.9 4.9 19 5.3 2.0 EO 18 3.7 wr 27 hres £1 of Capital charges! Gross Net ___ Ny Cross Other | costs costs costs, | costs, 2 exclud- pd exclu me na. eral ing its ing ! t costs | capital capital lonsand, cent on | capital | capital charges charges Se charges | charges ~ LA 96.7 100 Pox 06.8 100 15.” | 21 96.5 | 100 2.91 2.0 97.7 1 100 ™ 11.” | 2.1) 9.9 = 21] 9° 1.7 2.3] 9o7.% 1 crt 980 100 100 100 100 08." 98," 98.5 a8. 7 100 100 100 100 45.6 “5.7 95.5 qr R 100 100 100 100 7 100 100 100 100 9.5 100 97.¢ 100 | 97.4) 100 a! 9rBl 100 00 L00 100 100 3 ny nF ng 9 100 100 100 100 5 0 <Q 0 £ I A 100 HI 100 wm - .L D4 96.8 Ca 1 96.8 21. 8 1.4 96.7 | 18.51 1.4 98. 8 100 no 106 100 | doo 76.9 Nore —These percentages were derived from the table showing the analysis of the costs of production per acre - De Bo 50 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS Table 20 summarizes the findings of the cost investigation con- cerning the relation between the yield of sugar beets per acre and the costs of production per acre and per ton in 1922. With an increase in the yield per acre, the general trend of acre costs is up- ward as would be expected, but the trend of net costs per ton inclu- sive of capital charges is downward. This holds true until an aver- age yield per farm of from 21 to 22 tons per acre is reached. TABLE 20.—Relation of yield of sugar beets to costs of production per acre and per ton UNITED STATES—SUMMARY FOR THE NINE STATES INVESTIGATED, 1922 Net costs Yield per acre (tons) 2-7 nr 5-5, BR ¥ r 1 Number of farms 10 2 A Acreage of sugar beets harvested Average Total per fren 148.0 970. 0 754.6 1,464.2 2, 515. 6 2,785.0 1699.7 858.7 929. 8. 9.4 ry 4d 49. & 97.0 31. & 26, ¢ fo I'otal sons of sugar beets arvested’ 426.7 3,417.1 3,324.8 7,962.7 16, 318. § ™ 575. 1 SH ny pr Per acre | Per ton txclusive! Inclusive | Exclusive Inclusive of capital of capital; of capital| of capital charges | charges charges | charges $73.18 59.97 64. 89 61.29 57.57 ¢0. 08 63.99 63.31 "4 48 Tt 14 92 “16 “30 77 ng $91.12 72.86 80. 51 76. 7¢ 73.8% 72.02 30.70 78.13 79.5. 30. 8&7 32.6 24.9% 22 BC ', 98 . 16 TT 9 ¢ $25. 38 17.02 14.73 11.27 8.87 8.13 7- 2 $31. 60 22.39 18.27 14.10 11.39 9.88 9, 52 3.22 To 7.08 6.71 1 6.01 5. 67 5.39 5.67 5.44 5.01 5.06 4.97 3.90 5.40 8.60 4,81 7.15 IR 4a 5. 13 ‘0 o - aw a 168. 24 . OL NoTE.~Data for 2 farms investigated where the crop was a total failure are excluded from this tabulation. COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 51 CUMULATION, AT INCREASING COSTS OF PRODUCTION PER TON OF SUGAR BEETS, OF PRODUCING FARMS, AND OF ACRES AND TONS OF SUGAR BEETS HARVESTED, 1922 Tables 21 and 22 summarize for all of the areas investigated in the United States the distribution of producing farms, of acres, and of tons of beets harvested at varying costs of production. Table 21 gives this summary on the basis of costs exclusive of capital charges and Table 22 on the basis of costs inclusive of capital charges. These tables are illustrated by the accompanying charts which show the percentage of tonnage produced at or below the varying costs. The charts graphically picture the difference between costs and returns to the farmers in 1922. The average price received by the farmers for beets was $8.01 per ton as compared with a weighted average cost, exclusive of capital charges, of $5.96 and a cost inclusive of capital charges of $7.32. 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 UNITED STATES, 192-COMBINATION OF THE DATA FOR THE 22 AREAS INVESTIGATED [Excluding capital charges} [Farm Acre Tons Cost per ton [ess than— 33.00 - - ooo eee 33.50 eo een 8 0 35.50 36.070 eee emmmcma——- 86.50 oe me——————mmmmee B70 as 88.00 an 8.5. ll $9.00... memen- $9.50 - ome mmm $10.00 — ool $10.50 - oon Bono ll. $11.50 i $127... — B13.5 oo bla... i 150... en ol SU BIG ooo BIT $17.5 lz NR $18.0 oo B18. ll $19.C _... em $20.00 - meee $20.50 oT 822.50. oo $23.00 Te $524.00. | 524.50 ____.. 324.50 and over... Number | Per cent 5 30 128 298 353 303 082 297 491 655 797 891 966 019 065 100 119 137 151 161 171 183 190 198 205 L210 214 "18 19 22 0.2 1.3 5.7 13.3 %U.7 35.8 2.3 7.9 46.6 73.9 30.2 4.4 7.8 0.1 2.2 "3.8 %4.6 95. 4 96.0 96. 5 96.9 97.5 17.8 '8.1 9,4 Te 2.8 0 0.1 Number 269. 6 1,418. ¢ 1,404.2 9,765.6 17, 140. 1 23, 476. 8 '0, 118. 8 25,195. 6 9111. 4 12, 243.2 45, 064. 0 16, 999. 7 48, 424.1 19, 544.9 "0, 144. 8 1,095.0 i1,679.9 ~ 066.9 ~ 351.9 “2, 849.9 i3, 069. 9 32, 186. 6 3,319.1 3. 501. 6 ‘3,617.1 1, 656. 1 3,756.1 801. *, 806." 1951." 3 #837. Per cent 0.5 2.6 8.2 17.8 21.2 2.8 4.90 ‘4.1 r 1. 3 77.0 22.7 85. € 38. ¢ 0.5% 91.4 83.1 4. 7 "4, ns, ¢ 76. 3 16.7 06. ¢ 7. % MF 7 7.1 RC Number | Per cent 4,664,3 24,194. 1 72,107.3 149, 532. 5 “47, 646.7 198, 257.3 105, 271. 6 160, 254. 6 501, 039. 4 532,127.0 557, 692. 3 574, 355. 8 586, 582. 1 595, 885. 6 600, 733. 1 607, 440.1 610, 741. 4 613, 292.5 615, 221.3 617, 784.5 618. 885. 5 619, 745.9 620, 446.0 621,312. 2 621, 982.5 622.170. 6 622, 637. 8 622, 891. 7 622, 916. 7 523, 426. 2 623, 652. 5 625, 670. 4 3926, 158. 2%, 190. © 2%, 983. 6, 248, 0.7 3.8 11.8 23.8 39.6 52.4 64.6 73.4 79.9 84.9 89.0 91.6 3.6 "5.1 15.8 5.0 7.4 97.8 "8.2 8.6 18.7 "8.9 9.0 21 9.2 3.3 9.3 NK 24 9.5 0.5 "9.8 99.9 99. 9 0.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 100. 0 0. 407. Note.—The data for 2 farms were excluded from this table because the sugar-beet crop on both farms was a total failure. b2 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 tons of sugar beets harvested UNITED STATES, 1922—-COMBINATION OF THE DATA FOR THE 23 AREAS INVESTIGATED [Including capital charges] Cost per ton Less than— $3.50. eee mice] fe.00___. mer mmm) TEE RAM TAS me RETR dA SRR SRR ae Cann yeas] mI ee B28. 00 eco e mee ae $25. 00 and over........ ——- Number | Per cent Farms 3 21 59 152 290 502 7% 1A 0.1 .6 2.6 6.5 1“ les 450 5520 J 67% 779 aps 932 996 “44 070 08¢ “10 127 44 56 70 75 20 189 192 19¢ 2 il o, 240 iJUe % Acres Number 114.0 846. 6 2,449.3 4,934.7 D 458.5 15, 380. 2 10, 814. 1 "222.2 * 720.3 222.1 ,237.4 1,612.0 13,617. 2 15, 116.0 17,019. 1 18,314. 5 19,214. 6 £9, 643.1 50, 144. 6 <0, 773.6 51, 449. 4 52,071. 4 52,252. 9 52, 667. 6 52,713. 1 %2, 929. 6 3,037.1 2104.1 “R,216.1 "395.1 494.1 678. : 695. 703. . “42, 76. 3 ARTE * Per cent | 0.7 1.¢ 4.1 9. 17. 28.0 ?7.€ 7.€ 4.0 54.¢ 29.0% 6. 79. ¢ wy c 0. 4 "S. @ 23.4 30. { 3.4 [3 LoL “ee Ml 0 0 og oF »7.0 7.3 20 (ef KR :] 7.9 7.9 To 00. 0 Tons Number | Per cent 1,902. C 14, 062. ¢ 40, 298. { 80, 376. ¢ 144, 496.7 224, 699. € 295, 247. 762, 704. 4 113,453. 4 462, 041. 2 404,032. 2 527, 512.2 "45, 835.4 <9, 566. 2 576, 178.5 6, 845. 3 A 209. 1 ,97, 406. 2 00, 502. 0 _)4, 995.6 799, 749. 3 613, 571. § 614, 814. 3 (16, 967. 4 17,324. 9 “507.7 ¢°9,205.1 619, 589. & 520, 186. 1 °21,034. 4 “21,493. 1 399, 228.9 822, 359. 2 392, 419. % 322, 587.9 322, 752. 1 02 851.6 2,684.8 "3, 716. 8 =o’ a4. 8 8.8 aC 0.3 2.2 6.4 12.8 23.0 35.8 17.1 57.9 66.0 73.7 7¢ 8 4.2 R7.1 89. 91.9 926 “6. 7. 7 ‘ 8 5&8 ~ 98. 98. 98. 08.” 99." 03 99. 99. 99. 99. 99.4 99.4 99, 89, 99." 09.5 99.6 99.9 99.9 100.0 ) Jeo, 3 626. 807. 1 N OTE.—The data for 2 farms were excluded from this table because the sugar-beet crop on both farms was a total failure. Tables 23 to 40, inclusive, together with the accompanying charts, give the information concerning the distribution of costs in the various States where the cost study was made. tel x 4 5 2 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS CE -ENTAGE OF SUGAR BEET PROOUCTION AT VARVING COSTS PERT CAPITAL CH” TLUDED FROM COSTS 1922. UNITED STATES FEY 105.06 © F1a. 3.— 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 Last Per tom rss Than tao n . . _.TASL OF SUGAR BEET PRODUCTION AT VARYINQ_COSTS PER TON CAPITAL CHARGES INCLUDED IN COST® - UNITED STATES Prire Tagdwmars Wa - I Tiwi zos7¥33L — WH , Peveen Tage 'sed aeTion F16. 4.—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 b4 COSTS, OF PRODUCING SUGAR. BEETS TasBLE 23.—Cumulation, at increasing costs of production per ton of sugar beets, of producing farms, and of acres and tons of sugar beets harvested MICHIGAN, 1922—COMBINATION OF THE DATA FOR 476 FARMS IN THE FIVE AREAS INVESTIGATED [Excluding capital charges] Cost per ton [ess than— $3.52 _____ el I i Tr emt m— i SR ER Farms Number | Per cent 1 10 26 6. 112 1 a 0.2 2.1 6.1 14.7 Acres Number | Per cent 10.5 131.1 106. 6 975.3 ,914.9 ~40.7 59.2 od © 0.2 2.3 71 oe Fra avve J Tons Number | Per cent 141.0 1,797.6 5,298.1 11,358.9 20 898.6 7 554.6 599.4 “644.5 "2 603.9 4€, 571.7 18,414.3 "0, 150. 4 .1, 845.2 "937.4 .220.0 ,608.0 696.5 779.9 870.6 009.6 , 177.9 271.9 "14.6 WM. 9 87.9 52.6 794.6 , 818.9 54, 837.3 0.3 3.3 9.5 20.7 38.1 50.2 61.3 72.3 78.4 84.9 88.3 91. 5 94.5 96. b 97.0 97.8 97.9 08. 1 98.2 98.5 98.8 99.2 99.5 99.6 99.8. 99.9 99.9 99.9 100. 0 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 55 'aBLE 24.—Cumulation, at increasing costs of production per ton of sugar beets, of producing farms, and of acres and tons of sugar beets harvested MICHIGAN, 1¢7°2—COMBINATION OF THE DATA FOR 476 FARMS IN THE FIVE AREAS INVESTIGATED "Land charges on net cash rental basis and interest on other capital at 6 per centl [Including capital charges} farms A eres Tons Jost per ton [,ess than— $4.00. - ce eee eeeeecceec—————— $4.50 oa. emcem—a- £5.00. _ I $5.50. _ SR $6.00. . .. 36.50... Br .00. ee eee Br.80. «means Bs.00____ em BR.50. ee B00. «cee eae FSO. eee. cmc ra ma. $10.00. Coe. Lmao. BU. 00 cnmmmnmenns mopveememmes P1100. oo. _._ Hm mm mn b11.50. —- $12.00. ...... a-- $12.50. ... a $13.00. cece $13.50, wun - . $14.00... 315.00... $15.50. .... B16.00. - comune. M650... p17.00... 518.00. _. 518.50... $22.50. «scenes MB. meng = 339.00... Number i 5 17 31 67 .08 47 Je 42 82 320 134 11] t1¢ ee 45 0 150 53 156 161 LR™ Po i= 175 176 Per cent 0.2 1.0 3.6 6.5 £1 36 ‘ tl Wu. U Number 10.5 55.5 234.3 483.3 nM. 1 1 n- a J, LOS. Per cent 0.2 1.0 1.1 8.5 7.6 2 : 4 "9 192 ® OC ¢ 1.8 4. 6 0 5 6.7 7.0 Te 9.8 3.0 100.0 Number : Per cent 141.0 788.1 3,167.5 6, 000. 4 1,614.7 19, 606. 1 “4,132.9 31, 500. 5 7 844.7 225. 416.4 2,973.5 267.7 ,890.0 1,791.2 =, 909.1 2,410.3 2,609. 7 13,731. 2 <3, 847.5 "1934.9 4,177.9 4,248. § 363.9 569.9 64.0 737.¢ +, 762.9 54, 794. 9 <4, 818.9 54 837.3 0.3 1.4 5.8 10.9 21.2 35.8 ‘4.0 Ww. 4 "9.0 . a hn RB 20. R 92, ¥ "4 4 a 7.4 7.1 LO eg "A 8. CY MY § "0. a." 9a ~ 99. 99.0 100.0 of I) Yi COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS titel miimsmmbim———— se st ————————— —_ CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF SUGAR BEET PRODUCTION AT VARYING COSTS PER TON CAPITAL CHARGES EXCLUDED FROM COSTS -1922 MICHIGAN L* i ; 2] : 0 lol s 0a ¢ 2 Vv) Averoge Price Fc rmers F<. -— mT — bi «do. ~ vw am “ED AVERAGE COST-$6.40 LL YY — ———————————rearesrer tr — ee—— eer Vp 30 40 50 60 70 Percentoqge of Production 80 teem <0 100 1a. 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 : 2C 8 € e—————— —— een SR C5 . crm eri] —— rei. S————re] eres serge m— CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF SUGAR BEET PRODUCTION AT VARYING COSTS PER TON CAPITAL CHARGES INCLUDED IN COSTS - 1922 MICHIGAN & £ 7 : 12] w p10] A... ’'y J} iin —— ". P--=ived for Beets! = —_ WEIGHTED AVERAGE COST~-. 752 —_— o_o) 50 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage of Production 1a. 8.—~Percentage of sugar-beet tonnage produced at costs Jess and greater than the average price per ton that growers received for the 1922 crop. Capital charges included in costs COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 57 TABLE 25.—Cumulation, at increasing costs of production per ton of sugar beets, of producing farms, and of acres and tons of sugar beets harvested OHIO, 1922—SUMMARY FOR 145 FARMS IN THE AREA INVESTIGATED [Excluding capital charges] Farm « Acres Tons Cost per ton Less than— £3.50. ...... b4.00._._.__. M.AO____.__... 85.1. _. $5. een 86.0 eo. 36. eee YAR | ( f8.- 88... [3 FO. bu. rt B10. Fees B11: ._ 31. is Number | Per cent i 10 i8 tr 0.7 6.9 12. 4 2R, 2 An ~ Number 8.7 99.3 219.1 679.7 006. & “1.7 ‘8.4 an Per cent 0.4 4.9 10.8 o Number | Per cent 144.0 , 266. 0 ’, 653.0 490.6 "23.0 13.9 Le 0.8 6.6 13.8 39.1 51.3 13.2 9,9 7, » 1 . fr R. Nn "6." St 8.2 8.7 9.1 100. Q TABLE 26.—Cumulation, at increasing costs of production per ton of sugar beets, of producing farms, and of acres and tons of sugar beets harvested DHIO, 1922-——3UMMARY FOR 145 FARMS IN THE AREA INVESTIGATED [Land charge on net cash rental basis and interest on other capital at 6 per cent] [Including capital charges] Ma TIT A eres Tons ost per ton Less than— $4.00____ - nS mn Mb I 85.0 _____. mec mm—m—— 85.8 ___.. mes B6.0u_ oo... $6.50 BT. Or oo. 8.5... eee. BY ee. $8.50 eee $9.00. ....__... __.____._. $9.50 $10.00.____. ______ $10.50 ____ $11.7. $11.7 .__ 2.0... $12. .___. $13. . Number ! Per cent iv 8 (9 i. 0.7 2.1 5.5 13.1 25. 5 5 17 ae ny 1} { ’1. 4 "8.2 29,7 13.F 15. ¢ 8 nF 7.0 3.6 00 0 45 Number 8.7 26.3 78.8 242.1 551.8 B02. 7 165.7 0718." 577.1 686. ¢ 787.¢ 887. ¢ 946. 961." 166. 1 70. ¢ ,981.1 ¢, 001. 2 023.1 Per cent 0.4 1.3 3.9 2.0 Tn b Td 1.¢ 8.9 100. 0 Number | Per cent 144.0 374.0 1,017.0 2, 872. 0 "188. 3 0.0 0.8 2.0 5.3 15.0 32.3 46. 2 54.1 3.7 82.2 87.0 "0,9 75.0 77.3 7.0 2G 8 98. » 99.3 100. 0 § 4] "(40.1 , 1583." © 778.% C4, 18, B73. 19, 029. 2 19. 162. 2 —- = COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS GUMULATIVE PERGENTAGE OF SUGAR BEET PRODUGTION 6T VARYING COSTS PER TON GOPITAL CHARGES EXCLUDED FROM COSTS5-1922 OHIO & J 2 3 10t— 2h AVERAGE PRICE FARMERS RECEIVED FOR BEETS 0.81 N WEIGHTED AVERAGE COST- “5.64 - 40 50 “ea 7 PERCENTAGE OF PRODUCTION 8 0 B | Fic. 7.—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 exclude from costs un J UN RE SE CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF SUGAR BELT PRODUCTION AT VARYING COSTS PER TON CAPITAL GHARGES INCLUDED IN COSTS-1922 OHIO r 6 3. a - F PRICE FARMERS RECFIYFN Fi] BEETS-"0 amy = AVF — | —r——————————re ae Str Nts. J 40 50 60 10 PERCENTAGE OF PRODUCTION — = - XY. ,. NTE. ¢ 5) o0 100 Fic. 8.—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 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TaBLE 27.—Cumulation, at increasing costs of production per ton of sugar beets, of producing farms, and of acres and tons of sugar beets harvested NEBRASKA. 1922—SUMMARY FOR 200 FARMS IN THE AREA INVESTIGATED [Excluding capital charges] farms: A eres Tons {ost Der ton Less than— $3.00... 83.50... WM.00.____. Man. 5. f 25. pe. i b7. AR. B12. 313 Aa Number 2 20 55 02 an 0 Per cent 1.0 10.0 "7.5 nD Number 178.5 1,084. 9 3,058.1 , 519.3 08.0 10 r. 481. 6 Per cent | Number 1.9 11.4 32.3 2 2,047.2 18,776. 7 19, 784.6 87, 695. 7 09, 754. "4, 587. ‘R,476. § 2? M7. 185. § 5,146.4 38, 270, @ 38, 336. € 138. 456.0 9 100. Per cent 2.1 13.6 36.0 63.3 79.3 "0.0 2.7 5.1 7.6 "9.8 99.9 99.9 00.0 TABLE 28. —Cumulation, at increasing costs of production per ton of sugar beets, of producing farms. and of acres and tons of sugar beets harvested NEBRASKA, 1922—SUMMARY FOR 200 FARMS IN THE AREA INVESTIGATED {Land charges on net cash rental basis and interest on other capital at 6 per centl [Including capital charges] Farms Ac, Tons Cost Der ton {.ess than— £3.50. ._.. M.00. M50... 36.00. £5.50. _____. $6.00... CA 7.8. EX A 38.50. ___ PO.00_ EL 15 = Number | Per cent 3 16 39 72 ng q 15 8.0 19.5 36.0 ~: IL 1 98 (99 X00 dn v9." 99. » 100.0 Number 114.0 704. 3 4, 9965. 1 3,831. 5 594. 2 179. 3 ial “6.2 55.6 266. 6 by 481. 6 Per cent 1.2 7.4 21.0 37.2 59.0 4.7 4.1 ns LX 28.0 98.6 99.7 99.8 100.0 Number 1,902.0 11, 658.9 33,117.3 57,301. 1 88, 141. 7 109, 102. 2 121, 172.¢ 29, 265. : 23, 049. ¢ 26,421. 7 37,159. ¢ 138,270. 6 138, 336.0 138. 456.0 Per cent 1.4 8.4 23.9 41. 4 63.7 8.8 7.5 2.4 6.1 "8.5 99. 1 99.9 99. 9 100.0 70 I © COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS Vr oN yey yd CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF SUGAR BEET PRODUCTION AT VARYING COSTS PER TON CAPITAL CHARGES EXCLUDED FROM C0SY5-1922 1 ‘NEBRASKA f= ol— =F AVERAGE |PRICE FARMERS RECEIVED FOR BEETS 8.00, — Ig] 2 « <9 By WEIGHTED AVERAGE COST- wr .- «0 PERGENTAGE OF PRODUCTION HRT a. Fic. 9.—Percentage of sugar-beet tonnage preduced at costs less and greater than the average price ner ton that growers received for the 1922 crop. Capital charges excluded from costs 17 A A EE CUMULATIVE PERGENTAGE OF SUGAR BEET PRODUCTION AT VARYING GOSTS PER TON CAPITAL CHARGES INCLUDED IN C0ST5-1922., _ y- x “ iz} 3 LJ 1D AVERAGE PRICE FARMERS RECEIVED FOR BEETS- 8.01 mm a— —— —— — ov WAS GN SER SEN FU SA SEN NEN SOR_SSH SEN FEL GELS = Cw r= ~rv-e BYERAGE COST 5.39 a0 40 ~~ so 2 eo = Tm PERCENTAGE OF PRODUCTION 3 80 Qo 106 Fic. 10.— Percentage of sugar-beet tonnage produced at costs less and greater than the average price ser ton that growers received for the 1922 crop. Capital charges included in costs COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 61 TaBLE 29.—Cumulation, at increasing costs of production per ton of sugar beets, of producing farms, and acres and tons of sugar beets harvested COLORADO, 1922—COMBINATION OF THE DATA FOR 583 FARMS IN THE FIVE AREAS INVESTIGATED [Excluding capital charges) Farme Aer. Tons Cost per ton Less than— B3.00..... .. Rm —— B30 cm ecemcecmmccece——ana LOO Co ecm cce———e 54.50... Ce eran Cas 5.00... Sn HH 55.50. om 6.000 cca. J MSO... oe meemecem——e mae R7.00. ao. _. maaan $7.50. __.. mena mamma $8.00... RR PRA wwicnsi wim mean. 89.00 - + ce ees eee BY.00 - ceca B10.00 cc sme eee Bl10.50 coer ees $11.00....- ———- B11.50.... .... J, $12.00. ooo... a $12.50 cece ——— $13.00. cece. aeee-. Pr D130 + comms mio mi aS mr erm $1.00... cous - $14.50... _.__ . 315.00 cme eae oe B15.50 cee cee. BB.00 niin unsnimamons _ $17.00... $18.00... 518.50... 319.00 .... $22.50. ce. © ieee. $2300. ccs cnnisemss— $24.50... ———— b24.50 and over. _ Number | Per cent 1 4 i8 55 .09 74 28 14 }60 03 iq 74 ‘04 a1 126 “ 0. 2 40 Number 70.3 220.3 636.1 , 681.8 -100. 6 760. 8 15. & 1 § I. 0.¢ al 20 10 Ln 3 “J. 22. “2 \ Per cent 0.4 1.3 3.7 9.9 LL * ~ \ Lr 5.1 Rf ~ o =e I! 4 ~ p - Number 1,351.0 3,628. 5 9,972.6 2, 581. 3 56, 201. 0 31, 282.2 12, 416.8 31,1787 45,152.) 156, 439. 5 167, 298. 9 73, 042. 4 76,856. 181,393. 4 84, 057. 4 (86, 256. 7 86, 490. 6 \87, 222. % 1R7,842.C “R996, § a8, 499, ° "8, 882, 9,288, , 39, 534. ¢ ‘29, 864, 9,892. f "0,103. ~0, 263. 4 0,433.0 1,611.0 7,739.7 ~'a(8, 7 "71.7 20. 5 SO. 991 § Per cent 0.7 1.9 5.2 12.9 20. 4 12.6 58.9 58. 7 6.0 19 37.6 0.6 2.6 5.0 3. 4 Ea Is Fa n Vo 7, 9,4 3.6 \g, 4 NKR 9, a 99. 99.9 99, 1 100. 0 Nore ~The data fore? farms were excluded from this table because the sugar-beet crop on both was a otal failure. 62 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TaBLE 30.—Cumulation, at increasing costs of production per ton of sugar beets, of producing farms, and of acres and tons of sugar beets harvested COLORADO, 1922—COMBINATION OF THE DATA FOR 583 FARMS IN THE FIVE AREAS INVESTIGATED [Land charges on net cash rental basis and interest on other capital at 6 per cent] [Including capital charges] Cost per ton [Less than— $4.00 occ $4.50 Cem eee PEM, cums mmm mm mmm mm BE 00 ei im is wm es mm $6.00. commen mmm mmm mem $6.50 cca memm mame nemmeea lemma amen mmm m mm ———— CAD mame NO meee mmm mes gr TOLI00 ce rere ee fi i i ms sm BOL ce arises mmm mm mim HIN os rm Rd 0m serene on mm RE E50 ecm memmmmamm mmm 200. eee mma CRO eee TBE V... om SO it Sg Risin in 3 comers mesma] AT ee ee eB [SL 3:11 SS B15.00. co cocoa emmemeee mem BLE B0Y. incom msm mmm simmons 0 $16.00... eee $16.50. --- em mmmmmm—mm en "M700... J 0a oon mmm RECN). ee 0... — fi Sm Jaw oo $25.0v--. $25.00 and over... Number Farms 1 ¢ 13 ag Ls 140 201 339 14 8 ne rg Tl Per cent 0.° Acres Number | Per cent | 70.3 221.3 465.8 (,020.1 1.140. 2 2 004.0 30, ¢ £92. 4 10.8 “6.6 i7.8 592. 4 161.1 ., 604. & 339. 4 T14.€ 18.0 115.C “14. TT, ‘45. - +19. "59, "37. 35 652 709 Coq 0.4 1.3 2.7 6.0 18 4 °9. 2 al 16 56 2.9 2.1 2) 1 4A = 0 El! "oo Tons Number | Per cent 1,351.0 3,572.5 7,420.9 15,974. 7 44,153. 6 68, 659. 1 01,432. 5 11,115.0 {22,767. 9 “3,877.6 .55,035. 6 163, 236. ¢ 168, 743. { 12,622.0 =, 987. ¢ "2,283.1 °3, 728.4 85,247. 5 186, 032. 2 19,426. 7 7,509.1 7,981. ” 222. 3,338. '°8,421.( "8,827.¢ 39,117.2 39,393. 4 29,924, 9, 967. > 054. 088. 146." ran 0.7 1.9 3.9 8.4 23.1 35.9 47.9 58.2 69. 5 75." 3L.¢ 5. ov 24 ).4 3.7 5.4 6. 97.0 7.4 74 2 J "8.6 98.6 28.7 98.9 99.0 99 2 99 4 99 5 99, & 29. ¢ 99. 6 99.6 99. 6 99.7 99.8 99.9 100.0 ols NoTE.—The data for 2 farms were excluded from this table because the sugar-beet crop on both was a Lotal failure. COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS inl Cg CUMULATIVE PERGENTAGE OF SUGAR BEET PRODUCTION AT VARYING GOSTS PER TON CAPITAL CHARGES EXCLUDED FROM COSTS-1922 COLORADO | z wl dA o x o 3 al _ AVERAGE COST-"6.15 NS) 3 ; ao "So eo PERCENTAGE OF PRODUCTION F1a. 11.—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 CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF SUGAR BEET PRODUGTIONAT VARYING GOSTS PER TOM CAPITAL CHARGES INCLUDED IN COSTS —1022 n a 4 4 on LC Te TU =. WEIGHTED AVERAGE COST- 7.62 oH SERCeNTAGE OF PRODUCT:u.. F1G. 12.—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 64 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TABLE 31.—Cumulation, at increasing costs of production per ton of sugar beets, of producing farms, and of acres and tons of sugar beets harvested UTAH, 1922—COMBINATION OF THE DATA FOR 478 FARMS IN THE THREE AREAS INVESTIGATED [Excluding capital charges] Cost per ton aeg than— B00. ice cm mm me Bm AO eee 1 ee mm ccmmmm—en oe. r ¢ vo ll bee 290.01 Farms Number | Per cent | 2 19 59 1: 0.4 4.0 12.3 23.6 | 35.4 50.8 52.1 I 2%" - Acres Number Per cent 20.0 282.0 1,004. 5 1,948.1 2,853. 6 », 799. 4 545.4 06. 4 08.4 0.4 4.2 16.3 29.0 42.5 | RR, 6 7.7 ~.0 3.8 “3.1 1.3 4 9 0.7 7 dav Tons Number | Per cent 466.0 4, 577.8 16,393. 4 29,740. 6 42,112. 2 55,393. 5 23,002. 7 1,713.2 77,921.4 10,908. 1 "7 875. 4, 711. £ 5, 657. & 4,072.4 ’, 705. 2 850. 2 010.1 247. § 348. F 425.4 614.8 714. 1 764. } "90. € 6.1 R7. 848. 1 0.5 5.2 18.7 33.8 47.9 63.1 74.0 81.6 88.7 22.1 04.3 96.4 97.5 £0 “8.% "9 9.1 0a. 2 09.4 99.5 99." $9. . 99.9 99.9 99.9 100. © TasLE 32.—Cumulation, at increasing costs of production per ton of sugar beets, of producing farms, and of acres and tons of sugar beets harvested UTAH, 1922—COMBINATION OF THE DATA FOR 478 FARMS IN THE THREE AREAS INVESTIGATED {Land charges on net cash rental basis and interest on other capital at 6 per cent] [Including capital charges] Cost per ton Less tr>n— A. Yemen mmmremmmmnn mmm oo. i Ee ee re ef. ro. ms 6 oe I Number ' Per cent 1 ¢ 20 4¢ ~ 14° 201 250 +3 0.2 .6 4.2 10.0 I> coy ge. 90 99.4 09. 6 99. § 100. ¢ 47 4 478 Acres Number Per cent | 32.0 54.0 212.0 333.5 £98. 5 AT 0.8 .& R.2 12.4 ee 30.5 5 "05.3 6,708.3 6.716. 3 5. 59. ¢ 09, ¢ 100. f Tons Number Per cent 384.0 717.0 3,704.4 i2, 803.0 "4, 651. § 3, 671.1 12,163. ( 408.7 30.6 76.4 09, ¢ 929. ¢ . 458.4 357. ,699. = 770." "289. 254. 487." £44 14 0.4 .8 4.2 14.6 28.1 41.7 54.8 64. 2 73 1 82.8 87.9 91.0 93.0 04.9 96 4 97.6 rc dA 08. 08.9 99.1 99, 2 or 7 £7 ¢. 9g. 99.9 100.0 100. 0 J2. 5. L532. 764. 37,790. 1 37, 812. 4 37 848. 1 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 65 a ————————— CUMULATIVE PERCL.+TAGE OF SUGAR BEET PRODUGTION AT VARYING COSTS PER TON CAPITAL GHARGES EXCLUDED FROM C05Ts-1922 ok Z = 1h ee 0 2 ror 1 AVERAGE PRIGE FARMERS REGEIVED FOR BEETS 8.! o bu — n _—_— x ERAGE COST- 3.62 15) “RCENTAGE OF PRODUGTION DL 1G. 13.—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 JE BE —_ ey CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF SUGAR BEET PE DICTION AT VARYING COSTS PER TON CAPITAL CHARGES INCLUDED IN COoSs15-/022 fii = n Arr ad 1 - oo a} oJ D AVERAGE PRICE Fapss== gr - PERCENTAGE OF PRODUCTION “~GHTED AVERAGE COST 7.21 0, FIG. 14.—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 656 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TaBLE 33.—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 106 FARMS IN THE TWO AREAS INVESTIGATED [Excluding capital charges] Cost per ton Less than— BE Mone mune ~marrmesecwnonsy Ce. I ) ee emcee aan Domeaeen meme Fripmngmmmns mee i 8 BL $1. 3: $15.0 $18.50 Farms Number | Per cent | 4 Lu 16 0.9 10.4 15.1 24.9 48,1 FL ; 1. Acres Number | Per cent 20. 8 134.3 202.9 488.4 661. 6 871.6 796.1 1604.8 1.7 11.1 16.8 40.5 54.8 2.2 Cd i, {,207.3 Number | Per cent 366.0 9, 552. 1 3,831.1 8 285. 9 0,931.6 I F81.0 © 021.4 750.7 699. « “48.4 ab 2.1 14.4 21.7 46. 9 61. 9 76.9 78.8 °5,9 88.9 96. 5 97.4 98.1 99.1 99.6 99.9 100. 0 Li, 66D. 0 TABLE 34.—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 106 FARMS IN THE TWO AREAS INVESTIGATED [Land charges on net cash rental basis and interest on other capital at 6 per cent] [Including capital charges] Cost per ton Less than— $4.09. $M.) oo $d. $5.7). Foy Lemmons LI “n . 4. 816. "90. arms Number | Pereoat | 1 2 12 19 33 ie 0.9 L9 11.3 17.9 Ti, ! 13. 0 L 7, go! ’: 4 C Nn 1 2 03 05 {068 ¢ “ 97.2 99.1 100. G Number 20.8 24.8 146.3 242.9 134.9 518. 6 708. 6 "9,1 370. 8 (3.8 “74,8 192.8 87. 4 4 ig hl ,195. 5 1, 206. 2 1,207.2 Acres Per cent 1.7 2.1 12.1 20.7 *G.f 3. So. 99.0 99.9 100. 0 Tons Number | Per cent 366.0 442.0 2,808.1 4,476.2 7,593.1 .0,349.1 "1, 608. € > 846. ° 962. ¢ 793.1 1190.9 if 125.6 "45.9 1,928.4 1.2641 1,448, 34,507. 1 17, 562, 1 17,653.0 17. 665. 8 2.1 2.5 16.9 25.3 43.0 58. 6 65.7 8. ‘4 °f. * 1.7 94.7 07.6 98.1 98.3 98.8 99.1 99. 4 99. 9 100. 0 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS iY or a CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF SUGAR BEET PRODUCTION Al VARYING CASTS PER TON SALmLge EXCLUDED FROM COSTS -1 922. £ <L boll sr ’ yg “ETY n — 9) C oD “gp avewacg cosT-5.44 TW » 40 >0 60 PERCENTAGE OF PRODUCTION F1G. 15.—Percentage of sugar-beet tonnage produced at costs less and greater than the average price per ton that erowers received for the 1922 crop. Capital charges excluded from costs ol - y . 1 L CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF SUGAR BEET PRODUCTION AT VARYING GOSTS PER TON CAPITAL GHARGES INCLUDED IN GOSTS- 9272. 1DAHO [a's 2 — 2d C oo TEL AVERAGE COS. - i " Tile no "RCENTAGE OF PRODUCTION F16. 16.—Percentage of sugar-beet tonnage produced at costs less and greater than the average price pe! ton that growers received for the 1922 crop. Capital charges included in costs 68 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TABLE 35.—Cumulation, at increasing costs of production per ton of sugar beets, of producing farms, and of acres and tons of sugar beets harvested WYOMING, 1922—SUMMARY FOR 78 FARMS IN THE AREA INVESTIGATED [Excluding capital charges] Cost per ton L - Number ' Per cent Farms Less an Cu) ; yo -—-—-- $13.00. TT - c ¢ 1 1: 3.¢ 9.(¢ 21.5 a 100. Acres Number 19. ¢% 77.2 270. ¢ 162. ¢ 202. % "23.1 "1.1 nN ie 2, 679. ¢ Per cent 0.7 2.9 10.1 KX 4.9 TQ LOGO. Tons Number | Per cent 248.0 988.0 3,811.5 10, 256.3 16,156. 8 21, 366. 8 “714.5 S179 F “43. 4 0.8 3.0 11.7 31.4 49,4 65. 4 81.9 89.3 91.6 95.0 96.7 98.1 98. 5 99.2 99.8 100. 0 _ 4 198. t £23.¢ 54, 620.0 22, 674.0 TABLE 36.—Cumulation, at increasing costs of production per ton of sugar beets, of producing farms, and of acres and fons of sugar beets harvested WYOMING, 1922—SUMMARY FOR 78 FARMS IN THE AREA INVESTIGATED Land charges on net cash rental basis and interest on other capital at 6 per cent] [Including capital charges] Cost per ton Less than— BF. oie iirnvs BEE 1 Farms Number | Per cent 2 5 1A 2.6 6.4 19.2 2 97.4 100. G Number 47.3 149.8 693.3 ', 066.2 259.2 i 8 2, 660. 6 2 679. C Acres Per cent 1.8 5.6 25.9 39.8 47.0 R7.7 100. € Tons Number 588.0 1,951.5 9,358.3 i4,387.3 -6, 796.3 2471.8 249. 308. 121. 557. 1.267. . 1600. ( © 198.0 vg, 552.0 59 874 0 Per cent 1.8 6.0 28.6 44.0 51.4 71.8 81.6 88.2 92.2 93.5 95.7 96.7 98.5 99.6 100.0 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS Cy retetmismese mmm ——— i—i i ime—ies. wipeirmmrmesreesediepemmmemsieL mimi CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF SUGAR BEET PRODUCTION AT VARYING COSTS PER TON _ _CAPITAL CHARGES EXCLUDED FROM €0S™s-1922 hy ot x a A. 2 r pa? I = c0sT?5.70 hc 5 = ~ . 0 "ERCENTAGE OF PRODUCTION F1G. 17.—Percentage of sugar-beet tonnage produced at costs less and greater than the average price pes ton that growers received for the 1922 crop. Capital charges excluded from costs CUMULATIVE Pine MTSGE OF SUGAR BEET PRODUGTION £™°**RYING GOSTS PER TON rao1Tal CHARGES INCLUDED IN COSTS "~ 2. hf ——— jn | J : x FY a. n 4 ~ uy a LD PERCENTAGE OF PRODUCTION F1G. 18.—Percentage of sugar-beet tonnage produced at costs less and greater than the average price pes ton that growers received for the 1922 crop. Capital charges included in costs 70 : COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TasLE 37.—Cumulation, at increasing costs of production per ton of sugar beets, of producing farms, and of acres and tons of sugar beets harvested MONTANA, 1922—SUMMARY FOR 71 FARMS IN THE AREA INVESTIGATED [Excluding capital charges] Cost per ton Less than— $3.50. coe "4.00 coco oo. 4.50... mmm fem = OC mn . mammm PT it es Hp 00. ____. CR air Ye eeamm I — TN RG, Joo. 10.70. 11.89. S12.00_. 212.50 ____ Farms Number | Per cent 4 b 10 1.4 2.8 ns ‘8 A cres Number 25.0 76.0 202. 6 504. 1 711.1 109 © ry 43. Per cent 1.5 4.4 11.8 29.5 “6 Tons Number 424.4 1,169.2 2,952.9 6,766.0 9 359.4 4,027. 1 1, 691.9 1971.0 001. § “80. 385. 625. 753.4 .833.% 5,884.0 19. 987.3 Per cent 2.1 5.8 14.8 33.9 46.8 70.2 83.5 89.9 95.1 96.0 98.0 98.2 98.8 99.2 99.5 100. 0 TaBLE 38.—Cumulation, at increasing costs of production per ton of sugar beets, of producing farms, and of acres and tons of sugar beets harvested MONTANA, 1922—SUMMARY FOR 71 FARMS IN THE AREA INVESTIGATED (Land charges on net cash rental basis and interest on other capital at 6 per cent] [Including capital charges] {ess than— $4 Io... ol 4.0 Cost per ton Farms Co Acres Number | Per cent Number Per cent 4 5 12 L4 7.0 18; 25.0 116.2 328.11 493. 1 822. 1 9 1.¢ 6.8 1 2 J 95. 98.¢ 100. (- tol. ,678. +, 706. = 1.711. 3 190. \ Tons Number | Per cent 424.4 , 768.9 1 579.8 6,718.3 0.816. 5 840. 2 313.7 501.7 5% 2.1 8.9 22.9 33.6 54.1 69. 2 76.6 88.0 95. 1 96. 8 97.7 98.0 98.2 98 8 99.8 100. 0 5. OR7. . COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 7] ro I CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF SUGAR BEET PRODUGTION AT VARYING GOSTS PERTON CAPITAL CHARGES EXCLUDED FROM COSIS-1922 MONTANA - r he] 3 a) =} 2 Cy Avr a. JED GE ¥ x ad n 2 3 3 b ~ wpoazr COSTS 6.0 ls) PERCENTAGE OF PRODUCTION Bg J | Of F1G. 19.—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 ee _ I Soa " CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF SUGAR BEE) . ..c]UCTION AT VARYING COSTS PER TON CAPITAL CHARGES INCLUDED IN COSTS-1922. 4 A ad 12 rd wiot COST— 6.60 1 PERCENTAGE OF PRODUCTION a Fig. 20.—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 72 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TaBLE 39.—Cumulation, af increasing costs of production: per ton of sugar beets, of producing farms, and of acres and tons of sugar beets harvested CALIFORNIA, 1922—COMBINATION OF THE DATA FOR 103 FARMS IN THE THREE AREAS INVESTIGATED [Excluding capital charges] Farms Acres Tons Cost per ton Less than— BAF. om ceeccceccaecace cea ——————- Billed, awn m nn mmm a SR AR Bila) mamma wr BLN remem mn———— 1000, 10.3 we ITT fo i EN Number | Per cent 4 10 1 3.9 9.7 15.5 23.3 20.1 33. ¢ ‘4.% W0.¢ 51." 54 1 > ¢ § of 1c. 101 102 103 " 97.1 08.1 99.1 100. 0 Number 170.0 574.0 965. ( 1,699. £ 2,149.6 2 78LE "981. , 902. - 1, 634, + 135. 344. + 408. 932, 392. 565. | 875. N70, 2% =9 12 34. , 547. 3, 093. 8, 198. P 203." "308. F Per cent 2.0 8.9 11.6 20. 5 25.9 1 33.7 ey 7.0 55.8 81.8 64.3 8.0 | 14 76.9 | 79.0 30. 2 35, ¢ LE 97.4 98. % 98.7 100.0 Number ' Per cent 2,386.0 7,793.2 13,106.3 20,341. 1 4,777.2 30, 252. & 0527.0 +, 163.0 1“ £96, 2 259, 8 887. ¢ 1.2567. ¢ © 615.8 073.7 092. ¢ 748. ¢ £31.¢ 38. . 16. ¢ 073.1 167. : 2, 507. ¢ 54, 396. ¢ 64, 862. & 64, 884.3 65, 184. 9 3.7 12.0 20.1 31.2 38.0 46.4 53.0 an, 1 8 qQ 15.6 >" 1 78.6 £3.8 7.6 1 90.1 €3.0 cle (he 95.2 roa 95.9 08. ¢ 99. + 99.5 100. 0 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 73 TABLE 40.—Cumulation, at increasing costs of production per ton of sugar beets, of producing farms, and of acres and tons of sugar beets harvested CALIFORNIA, 1922—COMBINATION OF THE DATA FOR 103 FARMS IN THE THREE AREAS INVESTIGATED [Including capital charges] {Land charges on net cash rental basis and interest on other capital at 6 per cent] ~~ + OF Tons Cost per ton ess than— 38.50. eeccecccccocecmace————————- 6.5 — 7.0 wn Ai een comm mmm BB.00 ce eee B50. eee crccccacccceceamceanan BOON. on mmm $9.50... Ca $10. ... .- BlO.E oe cemeors eemcemmmemeaa- E38 0 SN BLL. 5 ee ccccmcecmm——————- BIN i: 1 5 ERR ~ E $12.57... eee $13.00... mea $13.50... fmmmmomm————- $14.00. . ec ieccccececmanan BIA BR). . cmon smi oni ds 0 $15.0"... RR $16.00... B17.50 cc eeeccccccce. ceeccemea—an $18.00..._.. ae ame $18.50... SRR nm Sm Hom Bo mr. Homi $19.00... CC evemcmena- 520.50... 321.00. __ 322.00... 524.00 .. R245 _.. $31.0C.. 335.50... Number x 0 6 rn 101 (02 103 Cer ven. 1.0 3.9 9.7 12. 6 A. 5 "4 nN 2. ¢ 7. ~ ig { ¢ < 1: “ on r 9.0 .00.0 Number 16.0 149.0 565.0 805.0 033.0 01.0 37.5 185.0 99. = 379.5 156, & WM. 30 ~q, 2 = 1. Tq ~ ry 198. 8,308. 5 Per cent 0.2 1.8 6.8 7 A J8.. 100. 0 Number 290. 6 2,317.6 8,512.2 1, 456. 6 ‘R,697.7 ’, 369.3 9,071.5 1,871.7 4,613.6 2, 582. 6 5,767.0 7,032. & 7.374. 5 ‘8, 939. 6 1,393.0 5, 221.4 7,705.1 37,951. 1 19, 284. 2 0, 269. 5 1, 539. 5 9,717. 4 1,107.7 “1,844.9 1,942. 5 ~,036. 4 2% 731.0 2.973. 1 4,862.3 ‘4,884. 8 65.184. 9 Per cent 0.4 3.6 13.1 17.6 21.0 8.2 ‘4. 6 8.9 3.1 3.9 0.2 %2 2.7 '5.1 8.8 4,7 88. 5 8.9 11.0 n2.5 3.0 43.2 93.7 94.9 95.0 95.2 96. 2 96. 6 99.5 99.6 100. 0 74 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS CUMULATIVE PERCENTHGE OF SUGAR BEET PRODUCTION AT VARYING COSTS PER TON — CAPITAL ~HARGE" ~¥ "L.UDED FROM COST<-1922, ’ ' CALIFORNIA | by | AVERAGE PRICE FARMERS REC wep FoR BEETS-1049 WEIGHTED AVERAGE COST-8.05 2 .0 “30 40 50 PERCENTAGE OF PRODUCTION F1G. 21.—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 & cm reed ieee = —_——— t % CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF SUGAR BEET PRODUGTION AT VARYING COSTS PER TON ’ CAPITAL CHARGES INCLUDED IN COSTS-1922% —— ‘ - 24 CALIFORNIA —|22 5 9 AVFRACGK Pi; FARMERS RECEIVED FOR BEETS f 10.49 ee SEES T3040 so PERCENTAGE OF PRODUCTION S00 VEIGHTED AVERAGT COST 10.60 F16. 22.—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 LABOR COSTS—UNITED STATES, BY STATES TaBLE 41.— Labor cost rates per hour SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND ANALYSIS BY STATES, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 Labor cost rates per hour United States :._._. Michigan... Ohio. _.._. Nebraska__ Colorado... __ Utah _____ l[daho______. Wyoming. __. Montana... Malifornis 1921 Cents 13. 2 8 20.6 1999 (ents 11. 2 1923 Cents 34.2 30. 1 0.7 6 ¢ { 3-year average Cents 33.0 28.8 29.7 32.7 32.6 34.9 34.7 34.9 33.5 41.4 * Weighted on the basis of the total acreage harvested in each of the 9 States investigated. NoTE.—The labor cost rates for 1922 and 1923 are those paid hired labor or allowed for unpaid labor as jetermined 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 to farm laborers. For example, according to available wage data the average monthly farm wages in Michigan (without board) were 6 per cent higher in 1921 than in 1922; the 1921 labor cost was therefore obtained by adding 6 per cent to the 1922 cost established in this investigation. TABLE 42.—Hours of direct labor, on machine operations, employed ir the pro- duction of an acre of sugar beets SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND ANALYSIS BY STATES, 1921, 1922. AND 1923 Exclusive of contract labor, labor operating tractors, all machine labor hired at custom or piece rates, i. e., drilling beet seed, etc., and labor supervising and managing, and indirect labor 1} Hours of direct labor per acre on ma- chine operations \ rea United States 2__. Michigan. _ Ohio.._.... Nebraska___________ Colorado_._...._ Utah ____. ABN0.cnis wen Wyoming._.__.. emer meena Montana___..._____. aes California 1921 er acre 44.5% Af 1922 pu ye 1923 Per.acre 47.0 2.4 © 3-year average Per acre 45.7 42.4 34.9 48.3 52.8 32.5 55.1 52.6 54.1 23.3 1 Indirect labor time was obtained by taking a fiat 15 per cent of the hours of direct labor on machine wperations. The hours of indirect labor per acre, are therefore, 15 per cent of the hours shown in this table. * Weighted on the basis of the total acreage harvested in each of the 9 States investigated. ye 76 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS. TaBLE 43.—Hours of direct labor on machine operations and indirect labor employed in the production of an acre of sugar beets SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND ANALYSIS BY STATES, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 [Exclusive of contract labor, labor operating tractors, all machine labor hired at custom or piece rates, i. e., drilling beet seed, etc., and labor of supervising and managing] Hours of direct labor on machine oper- ations and indirect labor employed in the production of an acre of sugar beets ran United StateSeeeeeeen-.. Michigan oom eaemen tm ODIO eee eee eee eee Sm — NODIASKA Co coe mem Colorado........ EG rt oT om 0 0 etre TIBI «ccc i mmm RR BE Ft, 0 eer me 8 ee mem error mre TABTIO cc cm tn bimini mt se i 0 re mr sme meme mmm ome em mem mem Wyoming o.oo. MoODNtANS oan eee eee eeu California... ocoeee___.. ee 1921 1922 Per acre 51.4 Per acre 52. 9 48.5 39.0 54.8 61.2 53! B1. 5¢. 31... 26. © Fil £ 1923 Per acre 8.1 48.8 41.2 53 2 82 1 wy ge 3-year average Per acre 52. 6. 48.8 40.1 55.6 60.7 60. 4. 63.4. 60.5 62.2: 26. 8. TABLE 44.—Man labor— Average hours of labor required to perform once the various machine operations employed in the production of sugar beets SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND ANALYSIS BY STATES, 1922 [Per acre] Man hours per acre in— Operation Manuring. co ceeceeeeccaeaae. Cleaning ditches. o.oo... Removing trash... occu ... Disking before plowing....__. Crowning alfalfa... ..... PlOWING anes ceeeeeeeemee Disking after plowing _.._.... Leveling and floating. ..c..... Spike-tooth harrowing_....... 3pring-tooth harrowing __.... Rolling, cultipacking and cor- rugating._..._.... —— Hauling fretilizer__...__._____ Hauling seed . RRR Planting... ooo] Preparations for replanting__. Replanting_.__ ._____________ Harrowing... occ. Rolling ...conocce meee Spraying__.__... A Cultivating... _..o____. Plowing ditches... [rrigating._ _.._...___. Lifting. __.______.__. Loading and hauling_________ United ' Mich-| | Ne- | Colo- Wyo- States ' igan ONO |yraskal rado | Utah | dsho ming 13.4 9.7 isl 1.4 .8 14 11 : 4.7 4.f ‘ 1. 87 .4 2.7 ssegep: 1.8 | 13.4 Lz 1 11 i? 4 AR 4 17 1 15. 2 12.9 ! 11.0 i 14. 5 12. 2 Ark 1U. . 1, hl “ae Mon- | Cali- tana 1 fornia 13.1 11.6 37 em oe . 1.4 .6 4.61 5.1 ? 3.2 .9 1.3. .6 +3 .7 1.0 2.2 .9 +7 .8 1.0 41 3.8 6.1 Note.—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 each operation may be greater than the average hours of man labor required on machine operations in the production of an acre of sugar beets shown elsewhere in this report. COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 77 TasLE 45.— Percentage of acreage of sugar beets that was worked by the various kinds of hand labor (contract, family, hired help and grower’s labor) on sugar-beet farms 1nvestigated SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND ANALYSIS BY STATES, 1922 Percentage of the various kinds of hand labor that was done by the different kinds of labor United States 4 Michigan... .__. Ohio ___.. Nebraska_. {"olorado. __ Ctah__._. [daho.____. Wyoming. . Montana__.. {"alifornia. ooo eee. Contract labor t 3lock- ng and Jhin- ning Hoe- ing Pull- ng and top- ping ‘er cent 9 4 Per cent. 77.3 Per cent a | 82. & 11 31. 9 ang Family labor ? Block- ng andl thin- ning Hoe- ing Pull- ing and top- ping Per ceni 13 5 er cent | Per cen 16. 2 “1 “0 Fad 12.0 &.5 Ek Hired help and erower’s labor 2 Block- ng and thin- ning Hoe- ing Pull- ng and top- ping Yor fe. 1 Per cent! Per cent 6.5 4.8 5.7 “4 y 6.5 4.3 2.0 2.5 4.5 v3 2 A } I Hired on an acre basis. ! Performed by members of the grower’s family (other than the grower) 3 Performed by labor hired by the day or month, or by the grower. . t Weighted on the basis of the total acreage harvested in each of the 9 States included in the investigation. HORSE-LABOR COSTS—UNITED STATES, BY STATES TaBLE 46.— Horse-labor cost rates per hour SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND ANALYSIS BY STATES, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 Horse-labor cost rates per Hour \red United States 1__._...._ Michigan... come eee Ohio. meee Nebraska. . ccmmmccccacac comcoaos 1971) [s] 2X0 Lo J I Utah ee cmmmceccccace emcee m——————— TE BII0 eee 8 0 EE RR ERA Wyoming. oc ecoeeccccmemcoeen Montana... ceeecccaaen- . California_._._ 1921 Cents 1922 Cir | 3-year 1923 average: Cents | Cents 12.4 12.4. 15.4: 14. 0+ 11.7 11. 6+ 11.6. 9.8 12.3. 11.8. 13.1. 1 Weighted on the basis of the total acreage harvested in each of the 9 States included in the investigation. NotE.—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 47.—Hours of direct horse labor employed in the production of an acre of sugar beets SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND ANALYSIS BY STATES, 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 United States! Michigan ._._._....__. 0) +1 {J Nebraska_.__..._.. Colorado...cae-...- Ttah_ o.com. laho._____.__.___.. Wyoming. ea... Montana... Californir 1921 Hours 100. 6 CF ’. 1922 Hours 101.3 £72 2 ad 3-year 1923 average Hours 104. 2 Hours 101. 5 86. 2: 69.5 94.6. 115.5 110.6 114.2 111.7 118.8 92.5 8¢. 719 0 1 Weighted on the basis of the total acreage harvested in each of the 9 States included in the investigation.. COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 79 TABLE 48.— Horse labor— Average hours of horse labor required to perform once the various machine operations employed in the production of sugar beets SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND ANALYSIS BY STATES, 1922 [Per acre: Horse hours per acre in- Operation Manuring___........___._______ Cleaning ditches. ___._._._._. Removing trash_.____._.___. Disking before plowing____._. “rowning alfalfa._. LL Plowing. __. __..._ ae ... Disking after plowing. __._.._ Leveling and floating______.__: ipike-tooth harrowing... ._. Rpring-tooth harrowing__._._. Rolling, cultipacking, and corrugating._.___.__.____.____. Hauling fertilizer_............ Hauling seed. _.. eee Planting. . .. o_o... Preparations for replanting_.. Replanting- - - oo oc oe Jarrowing. .ooeeeoooeooaa. Rolling_____._ mm—————— Spraying... memc———— Cultivating _. ee __ Plowing ditches... _____.___._ [rrigating... Lifting. ....___._____. Loading and hauling_._._..._. Inited' Mich- States | igan 27.2 1.1 .3 4.5 17. 5 18.5 1 Tir 7.7 a. 4 3 6 LA 11 13.0 LQ or 2.1 ’ Q ar t+ c a 3 al &F :. | Ne- | Colo- Ohio wy | rado 16.6 .Z 1.8 26.4 25.5 = ~ TTt+ah 32.8 Idaho 32.6 AJ. = Wyo- ming 98 1 o ry Mon- tana Cali- fornia 24.1 21.68 4 4.6 25.5 =~ 23.7 6.4 6.9 3.7 5.2 3 yy 4.2 swash swan 2.4 8.8 3.6 2.2 13.6 2.0 8 3 Tr 18 3.2 21.5 39.3 - 9 ¥ IO. & Nore.—All farms on which tractors were used were excluded from these tabulations. The above figures wers 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 each operation may be greater than the average hours of horse labor required in the production of an acre of sugar beets shown elsewhere in this report. CAPITAL AND CAPITAL CHARGES—UNITED STATES, BY STATES TABLE 49.— Market value of the land upon which sugar beets were grown SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND ANALYSIS BY STATES, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 [Per Acre] Area United States 1... eee ccccmccccmcmccacamaecaae——-- Michigan. . cca ccaaceee. meememmmeemm———— EVIE cs 0 ee re re le re ER Nebraska. cceeecececccececoen . - mmm mmm ————— CO01OTAA0. cece cece cee cc cece cemmenenn -omm———————— Ja eee eee eee meee mmm mmm VARIO. cae eee ieee cee caaeccmc ccc icmmeaceaemaa——— [1040 1611 o¥- SR -. A, w Montana. .eeea-e---. .- eee Oalifornia. 1921 ‘er acre $250 13L 21¢ Ah 1922 | 1923 A ~~ -r acre $188 120 196 16% 2 4 ~~ 4) 157 3-year average Per acre $222 2128 203 179 101 206 196 130 152 522 + Weighted on the basis of the total acreage harvested in the 9 States investigated. 1 Weighted on the basis of the total acreage harvested in the State in each year respectively. _ NotE.—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 on p. 998 of the 1922 Yearbook of the U. S. Department of Agriculture. For example, the values of “good plow lands” in Michigan were reported as 7.8 per cent greater in 1921 than in 1922 and 3.9 per cent less in 1923 than in 1922. Consequently to obtain the 1921 values the 1922 values, as obtained in the field investigation, were increased by 7.8 per cent and to obtain the 1923 values the 1922 values were reduced by 3.9 per cent. The values of sugar-beet land shown here for the year 1922 are the estimates of the farmers of the market value 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 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. TABLE 50.— Average value of other capital used in sugar-beet production SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND ANALYSIS BY STATES, 1922 [Per acrel Area United States 1... Michigan. occa 10.) 15 Co JR Nebraska . cooceomoaoaes ccvens Colorado. Average value of capital, other than land, used in sugar-beet pro- {etion in 1922 $20 0 ‘ ires Jtah___._. dah... Wyoming. ...ceeeeeo- Montana .c.------ Jalifornia_____. Average value of capital, other than land, used in sugar-beet pro- duction in 1922 $38 36 28 28 20 1 Weighted on the basis of the total acres harvested in each of the 9 States investigated in 1922. Note.—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 4 months’ time) for the advances of the sugar com- panies for the payment of contract labor. Therefore, the full value of all work horses and equipment used 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 bests 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 of a wagon valued at $100 is chargeable to sugar-beet production, then only $50 is included as “other capital’’ employed in sugar-beet production. _ About 82 per cent of the handwork of blocking, thinning, pulling, and topping, and 77 per cent of the hoe- ing required in the production of the sugar-beet crop is Gone by contract laborers who are paid so much an acre for doing the work. In a large percentage 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 companies interest on such loans from the time they are made until the beets are harvested, when the amount of the loar 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 4 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 81 TABLE 51.— Average value of land and other capital used in sugar-beet production SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND ANALYSIS BY STATES, 1921. 1922, AND 1923 [Per acre} United States _ Michigan... Ohio.._... Nebraska. .ooeoocaaaoaoo. - Colorado. oo ccamcn Utah.._._.. —— ‘daho...... WYOMING ocean = Montana. occa Californif. .ccoccmeao oo 1921 Per acre 2279 Liu 19992 er acr. 19923 eT ACT "917 3-year average Per acre $251 156 230 206 221 '44 32 158 180 342 Note.—These data are the sum of the values of land shown in Table 49. and the values of other capital shown in Table 50. TaBLE 52.—Comparison of capital charges for sugar-beet land, obtained by ihree different methods SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND COMPARISON BY STATES, 1921. 1922. AND 1923 [Per acre of sugar beets harvested] Area and vear United States: 3-vear average.. 1921... ... gS Michigan: 3-year average.. 1921... __. 1922... 1923_. Ohio: 3-year average.. 921... 22... “09 Nebraska. 3-year average._. 1921___. ._. 1922... .. 1925 .. Colorado: 2.vegr Vem ve. ” Vette ow. [nterest on market value of land! At aver- 1ge rates paid on farm morte zages on | he farms investi- erated At 6 per sant rate Per acre $13.32 1r no Per acre 215.85 17 85 71 ~~ 12 R7 94 62 nN 213 ne =} J. 0 vi. HH Stated cash rental vf land Per acre $13.43 14.74 13.54 11. 69 9.31 0,82 «12 R. 76 1 83 9 ¢ 4 “1 4 78 1.23 i, 95 4.60 13. 04 Area and vear Utah: 3-year average.. 1921. eines 1922... _. 1923... Idaho: 3-year average.. 1921... 922 oo... 1923.0 ccenen. Wyoming: 3-v--raverage.. “eet aes Rms ww Montana. “-vear cverage.. Yelifcnia "Ar Vel Le. 9... 2 venoms A923 [nterest on market value of land ? At aver- 1ge rates paid on farm mort- Zages on ‘he farms investi- gated At 6 per cent rate Per acre $12.36 14.16 12.66 9.60 Per acre $15.45 17.70 15. 82 12. 00 11.76 J. 42 15, 29 7 78 .29 9 RY Th a0 7.80 Nn, 09 1.41 0.24 3.08 4d v2 -2 1.29 ‘3.15 11, 22 9. 96 4 32 0 . 86 2.492 38. 94 41.03 39. 61 34.09 Stated cash rental of land Per acre $15.48 17.77 15. 87 12. 06 14.01 16. 30 14. 00 11.83 8.40 9.45 8.51 7.57 9.95 11. 58 9. 89 8.76 18.45 19. 46 18.78 16.15 I See footnotes to Table 49. 82 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TABLE 53.—Comparison of capital charges for sugar-beet land and other capital obtained by three different methods SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND COMPARISON BY STATES, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 [Per acre of sugar beets harvested] Area and year United States: 3-year average. 1921. _____. 92D 1023. .cnmmus Michigan: 3-year average.. 1921... 1922 _______ HE ne Ohio: ? vea~ average.. eee 2 A: Nekres: Je: Sole: On. {nterest on all cap- ital, including the market value of land 1 At aver- age rates paid on farm At 6 per cent rate Fone farms inves- tigated Per acre $15. 06 16.74 14,94 13.02 Per acre $17.92 19.92 17.78 15.49 P26 8 8 9.91 10. 35 9.72 0 40 ~ K( R$ a Stated cash rental of and and nterest at 6 per rent on rapital other than land Per acre $15.19 16.48 15.30 13. 46 11.00 11.51 10.81 10.45 "43 07 'g D1 Area and year Utah: 3-year average:. 1921 ______. 11 of 1 RN 1928. cena Tdaho: 3-year average... 1921... 1922. ___. 1923... __. Wyoming: 3-year average... M2. inns ’ ne2 RRR Montar-; 3-yee- P verage.. PR ,alif. nia: ’ ~ ~ear ~verage.. 1921 conan "522... 923... Interest on all cap- ital, including the market value of land! At aver- age rates paid on farm mortages on the farms inves- sigated At 6 per sent rate Per acre $14. 64 16.44 14.94 11,88 Per acre $18. 30 20. 55 18. €8 14. 865 TG2 ap 1¢ "0 06 of » 48 © 1% 5€ 8 .42 2.25 wd 2 %Q) 20 12.27 a 2.30 2 04 £2 420 06 i 40.43 42.52 41,10 35. 58 Stated cash rental of and and interest at 6 per cent on ~apital other than land Per acre $17.79 20.08 18.18 14.37 16.17 18.46 16.16 13.99 10.11 11.16 10. 22 9.28 11.64 13.27 11. 58 10. 45 19.67 20. 68 20.00 17.37 1 See footnotes to Tables 49 and 50 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TaBLE 54.—Comparison of capital charges for sugar-beet land and other capital, obtained by three different methods SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND COMPARISON BY STATES. 1921, 1922, AND 1923 [Per ton of sugar beets harvested] rea and vear United States: 3-year average. . 1921. ___. 1922_____._. 923. ___ Michigan: 3-year average... 192)... 1922 ___ 1923... Ohio: i-year average... 1921 -- ‘922... 1923. _. Nebraska: 3-year average... 1921... _ 1922___. 1923... Colorado: }-vear average. 1921... 1922... 1923 __. nterest on all cap- tal, including the market value of land } At aver- age rates paid on farm norgages on the farms inves- vigated At 6 per ont rate Per ton ‘1.31 R2 2 17 Per ton "1. 56 1.81 1.57 1.27 ~C ~7 £ 24 . 06 12 vl a0 44 ro Stated cash ental of and and nterest 1t 6 per ent on rapital sther than and Per ton $1.32 1.52 1. 36 1.11 Yi 25 12 11 19 Area and vear Utah: 3-year average.. 192 convons 1922... 1923... -. [daho: 3-year average.. 1921 ___.... 1922... comms 1923 _.____. AN yoming: ? vear average.. 1921. __.... 1922. cnn sms 1923. ic Jontana: Tove ge. N Co Interest on all cap- ital, including the market value of land ! At aver- age rates paid on farm mortag es on the | farms inves- tigated At 6 per rent rate Per ton $1.09 1.34 ".14 80 Per ton $1.37 1.67 1.43 1.00 LO! 35 95 Q 1.31 1.76 1.24 1.02 2 98 79 4 1.06 1.27 1.02 95 = ay 08 28 «4 91 TE 68 97 . 26 73 Stated cash rental of and and interest at 6 per cent on capital other than land Per ton $1.33 1.63 1.39 . 97 1.17 1.57 1.09 L901 .87 1.04 .84 .78 . 94 1.12 1.00 79 2.28 2.42 2.55 1.82 1 See footnotes to Tables 49 and SUMMARY TABLE 55.- —Comparison of rental charges for sugar-beet land FOR THE UNITED STATES AND ANALYSIS, BY STATES, 1922 [Per acre of sugar beets harvested] % 30 United States .__.___ Michigan... ______.___.___. 10) 51 Uo J Nebraska... ooo. .___.__ Colorado... ooo eee. Utah .- idaho. ea. Wyoming... ... coe. Montana... .o.__._. California___._. Per cent of sugar-beet area inves- tigated for vhich cash rental was actually paid Per cent 5 4 12.7 4 () 7 “9 Net cash ental actu- ally paid for beet ind rented for cash Per acre | $11.31 9.04 8. 60 ? 91 RO el 7 5 0. 35 tated cash rental for yeot land share rented Per acre $13. 35 8.29 9. 68 12. 14 14. 41 A. 55 2,73 16 9.09 17. 09 Stated cash| rental for beet land yperated by ‘he owners and land share rented jtated cash rental for beet land perated by the owners Per acre Per acre $13. 76 213. 67 9.36 9. 67 13.09 15. 12 5.91 21 76 10. 61 21. 07 9.14 9.67 12. 43 -4, 67 15, 87 2? 90 51 .93 3.77 Average paid and inpaid cast rental for all beet land in- cluded in this inves- tigation Per acre $13. 54 9. 12 9. 52 2.49 4. 60 5. 87 00 51 39 78 84 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TaBLe 56.—Interest rates paid in 1922 on the mortgages on the sugar-beet farms wnvestigated +n the United States Aras United States. ... MACIEEIIL. cn mmm smn mmm mmm mm ww Ohio. ...... .. # Whew WE Nebraska. ......- Frm ies Colorado. ... Average in- terest rates paid on farm mort- gages Per cent 17.14 6. 3¢ 71 Areas Utah. eee [6 FY + Uo JSON wyoming. oo... JR Zontana. «ccececaco——nan Jalifornis Average in- terest rates paid on farm mort- gages Per cent 7. 501 7. 80 7.76 7.43 7. 46 1 Weighted on the basis of the total acreage of sugar beets harvested in the 9 States investigated. TABLE 57.—Returns for capital, management, and labor other than contract and tractor operations SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND ANALYSIS BY STATES, 1921, 1922, AND 1923 Amount by which the returns rom sugar beets ex- ceed the Josts of pro- Juction, ex: clusive of capital ‘harges, the costs of all direct labor sn machine operations, and all in- direct labor costs Gross re- turns for apital and manage- ment as ex- pressed in yercentages of total capital 1 smployed in sugar- beet pro- duction Value of and and other rgDital Hours of abor other than con- tract and tractor operation ArOSs re- turns for bor,} capi tal, and manage- ment TOSS re- surns for bor ! and manage- ment Area and year 2) (3) 4) (5) (8) 6) Cents per hour of la- hor OT ThE- shine oper- ations and indireet lar Cents per hour of la- hor ON Ma- thine oper- ations and indirect labor 4 36.€ -2.7 46.1 76.2 Per cent $6.81 —-. 7) 9.32 16.67 1.91 -7.11 5.16 12. 80: 37.9 6.41 5 =-13.1 —1,79 Ys 30.0 5.21 108.5 81.6 . 14.39 1 Labor other than contract labor and the labor of operating the tractors. It is therefore the labor on ma- shine operations and the indirect labor. 1 See Table 51 and footnotes to Tables 49 and 50. . 3 These figures were obtained by dividing those in column 4 by those in column 3. « These figures were obtained by subtracting from those in column 4 the capital charges per acre of beets harvested as shown in Table 53, and dividing the result by the hours per acre as shown in column 3. . § 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 17, and dividing the result by the walue of land and other capital per acre, as shown in column 2. Hours per acre COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 85 TABLE 57.— Returns for capital, management, and labor other than contract and tractor overations— Continued SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND ANALYSIS BY STATES, 1921, 1922. AND 1923——continued Area’and year Nebraska: 3-year average... —___.__. 1928 eee 1922 oo... 1923__ Colorado: 3-year average _.._____ ___ 921... mmr ome 1922____. em ————- 1923 __ Utah: 3-year average... . .__. 1921... J 1922 ee 1923 ee [daho: 3-vear average o.oo. I ie cmm———- 32 1923...- _— Wyoming: 3-year average_.__._. 1921... 1922. ___. 1923__. Montana: 3-year average 192) ce 1922 1923 California: 3-vear avera 21 __. Ie ° 092% Value of and and other *gnital Pl Per acre 5206 224 200 190 221 231 226 205 244 274 249 | OR 232 264 232 201 58 7F Hours of abor other ‘han con- Tact and tractor wperation « a); Hours per acre 55.6 54.8 59.1 53.2 30. 7 61.2 58. & 99 1 30. 4 59.2 60. 2 62.3 73. 4 61.1 64. 3 35.92 Amount by which the returns Tom sugar oeets ex- ceed the osts of pro-| {uction, ex- clusive of capital | ‘harges, the costs of all | direct Jabor on machine Jperations, and all in- | lirect labor! n0sts (4) Per acre 347.61 2% 22 72 5.74 2.51 ne 1c -. 97 6 AE 50. 76 51. 38 46. 28 11.84 A" A] io! Gross re- turns for abor, capi: tal, and nanage- ment (8) Cents per hour of la- hor on ma- chine oper- ations and indirect labor 85.6 51.5 19.7 Q3 + 63. 4 49. 1 en (J 60.3 la 6 84.4 QR & 73.0 19.4 100. 2 105 R 2.1 JT0SS re- turns for abor and manage- ment (6) Cents per hour of la- hor on ma- shine oper- ations and indirect labor 59.6 22.6 95.8 68.3 37.1 21.7 32.0 AQ 8 30.9 ~19.3 54.2 75.5 47.5 '0.8 5.0 4 4 A Gross re- turns for capital and manage- ment as exs pressed in Jercentages of total capital :mployed in sugar- beet pro- duction ™N Per cent 14.28 4.80 26.20 16.22 8.48 4.25 7.69 15.08 6.30 —4.03 12.41 19.99 10. 46 ~3.34 18.59 22.53 6.97 ~2.70 6.53 15. 53 18. 08 ~. 40 29.99 26 01 95 43 wv. 43 Nore.—The figures in column 2 were taken from Table 51, those in column 3 from Table 43, and those in column 4 are derived from Table 17. All minus signs (—) indicate that the costs, as caleu}ated for use in this table, were greater than the returns hv the amannts chown FARM PRACTICE IN SUGAR-BEET PRODUCTION: SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES, BY AREAS X TaBLE 58.—Farm practice in sugar-beet culture: Kinds of operations and the percentage of the total number of farms on which each opera- tion was performed a given number of times SUMMARY FOR EACH OF THE NINE STATES INVESTIGATED, 1922 [Data are for all farms investigated, tractor and nonfractor] Operations before plowing Other preparations for planting Cultivation pari x Fly 8 jo) =o uf £3 1 Po o & Nn Area and times over for each operation Z 0 2 = 3 =} =] Fr "a & = Michigan (total)._......... a CE. Once... pee eee B07 13.831 £6 TPR cmon si i it HOW ce mmm J o8.8 oe Three times oooooecaccmcoommccoae cee emmman]e oof LO loo POE HITT wna wm isis Jas aos sisi aa ss cee mmmmalee five times. TTT sae: # usaf dix times enema freee aaa al Seven times. ooo . —- BN thio (total) oie mL = _ DNB - o ceeememmme mmm mmmenac) 414 | 22.1 re ejeaoene| 83.4 A I so TE Three times Lo... I seanefnueelopeyes Tour tMeS «oem nome meee i) emma |omeme meee femme SIR BRIDE. a sma a S— mm eee Seven times... ooo opp wo ~ebraska (total) ...oooooeonn eens] 0 TOI 140995 we Le EL 97.0 | 10.5 66.5 | 14.0 | 99.0 5 67.0185, 20(8%5| .5| | 50] 9.0 TWICO- - ooo lB fee] BE 0130.0 4.01 10 | 1005 {oe | v Three HMes. ----oooooooooso eb TTIITT 20 |UD 5 TL | 225 sy LO Four times. - - - o-oo ee femme Te I - eee a Ime mmm em i nm es serene ein be cena! ob swranefonenne ences neces 4. Seven times and more... ----oooo |__| szmeelomscnefemeeenfion lor de enim bm me bpm md em meefomemopeooes _— ol Jolorado (COLI) me emoomoemooneeneen| BT. 91.0137 TE |198 196.2 6.2 0 L|969! folmal al te —g|pmaloslrr v5 he £3 fla aed = 2.8 Gur Boe Be? F J 3 0 1753.1 38L7 26.9 | 25.5 |-..._.| 12.4 [10.7 15.9 1.4 455] 2.1 cocoieiocn, wel rr 42.4 016.5 15.1 JT] TB |eomeee| Tse] «8 lfm. 62] 1 9.6 2.8 | 28 nee] BE bonontdonescolppipmil Bok PERT scones ams BT Loreth PE toed orenimmagts oF Lammmalerrbaay th | 2 mmm agen eel TT tee], rhe A —— maa) ——— mm met meme ale acmmlec——— J meme cana szzizmemms moos 0100.0 [ 305 5.5 .5 | 39.5 5.0 45 |... 15 | 27.5 {omen ~ oo lees ill [a wi 8] 24 2] - 1 ONCO. ce coe cmeeeeeeeenmenee--| BT.0 [94.9 {13.7 [ 42.2 {12.5 | 96.11 1 JY I WiC0a ea ececccmccceccmcmccmccmeee + ccmnfememea| 8.0 -3 .1 .9 18.¢ [hree times... covocoececocomacaccomcfocmoe femmcacfmcccac)ommmaa femme] ameaea] WB] TT Four imes.. ooo ocecancce omen fmmmem ef occeeef 08 |ecmaificeai eee] LG Five ios meemssommeormorooseeeapoceme fence me foamees emmdmee eel BX HMR. usps usanrR aail waes Bwss we coum » Seven times and more... -. seer mem tah (total)... 4 | ee® 2 [isn | 4.2 99.0 | 26.2 | 93.5 ORC. we ecomemomoo emcee 12.7 195.6 [11.2 | 14.2 | 4.2 | 98.3 | 14.2 | 41.0 DOB, ocr is so sss i so So wma) Bo Joann] oC L BB ART Three times. .. cv ievuinunnmnmsnusnnue wenwepraneai] wl [mean we 2] 4 four times oe Renee Tees ewan fess [ene san Five times. nian are bm rm btm mF mre ee | Six times. oa ceeaee mmr emer fees ‘even times and more... _ iy ei spp ype some oes Cen 30|925|104 245] 28 + 0] 68 340925 10.4 | 161] 2.8 90.6| 19 349 ceme|mmefeanaeaf 6.8 28 98 4.7 | 48.1 carne emcee 9 ecient 8.8 meee aeee | 9 Ss To ceeeee| 2.8 EE EE 3.4] 21.4 17.4 |ooen. 116 [ooo 8.40 7.4 |] 1 1. 7303 30.3 TP “8 | 1,3 fs oarin 9% oe nb mda dd awl, 4 9.1) 24. 5 17.9 | 23.6 04] Prix 47 17.9547 | 9.41 .9]| 2.5 ET) eT] Lol 9 9] 28 . ell eof 9 ll TIE ee CITE ae TD a0 |i I Te eT hee LD eg [I cjitenes erleiges an BY wm Bie gwen ey p00 ef BE wo “en FRE B.11100.0 12.9 [2.81 « +1 38115 | 2.8 |....[10.3 |[1L5 RIE ER 6 | 51.7 | 3.8] eel 90551 31 51 | 38 TTC us 29 3 jeemenn odo fe Ts ene 19.2 B03 Loco en TT I 9] FN oN CLT Ns ea UII TOTTI STIL 32 gl. bees Thee 0. ® Yann 718 8 © oe ard 3 FS 0 loam 4 26 198 9.8 | 19.8 484. eels AO fa <a Jal Reman 0. .9] L0]13.017.3|37.7 | 4.3 2 Bd [mmeiinnsfirnsrofirenel. 18 | 48 BLT ee JIT Le TT en CE TL we 5 ate eee 26.61 1 vom: TA Lan] Sd ere re —_— | a 21 LE Ve. u 50| 48] 53165 83 97 | 2 ©2) 9.0, 50| 3.3} 43] 5.2 142/41] °° 9.0 23 |-ee| 8 |eecofeooc| LB 35 3, Lz 2.0 — summa] # T Jewmmsnlmmmnsafoemans] +3 B fesunan Bea] 28 fi an ft 7° 4 Finns LN id] sevailianelimnen, nvwmmnias® 7] Q ~ MCB emeeee Twice. oom omoa [hree times. ooo... - OME E08. wos mi sam Plug Himes... ccccnccuniviamem ssn BX AUN... sucess RR Jdeven times and more... oon. vyoming (total). o.oo. _________. D0, conn wmmmvsmmimns * TWIBL vo ws spies Three tmos. cc vac cvascsmsessanianmnns Four times eueeenummemre meee, Five times. ce ooemocemaaon — LoL Six times... .oocoinooman . Jeven times and more... nantana (total) Jur mmm mm Dwiee_ Phree times. ooeoocaaao Tour Hes. coessnovsmmsnmmmimmes wie Five HInes, .ccoucarnomiannmsaranssns Sixtimes o_o ooceooiooiiiol Seven times and more. ...o.oocoaes saifernia (total)... ; ; OT Se sda mr TET 0 | 0 13.0 47.0 15.01 97.0 70 Tr a as 197 201 18.6 eee 87.7 40.2 | 8.8 | 1.4] 3.0 ea cece feof 14.0 30 |__| ce me meme eee TO eae eae kp ER 271720 eee 50] «oC me 39 te te iran pin prea) 0 elnnfemcanafommce femme alana — 1.0 od JO Tc. RS CIID osu samen wi wg gm Throg Himes. . «ccc sisssassidnsssmian Four times. cca ovoomiimmemecmamnae Five times. ccovoioom crore cccecnee Six times Lei ccacccmen Seven times and more. - ~ [ABLE 59.—Farm practice in sugar-beel culture: Kinds of operations and the percentage of the total number of farms on which each operation QO was performed a given number of times @® SUMMARY FOR THE NINE STATES INVESTIGATED, 1922 [Data are for areas investigated, nontractor farms only] Operations before plowing Other preparations for planting Harrowing Cultivation | Irrigation \rea and times over for sach operation ud fae . i E k 0 3 B € 4 i=] 2 a ua 3 ”- a } 1 ¥ : £. 5h iy | 28 4 = 3 et j= © o- Ed 3 = 9 = oy, to 0 a = | 3 © 8 k - RH = of ~ mh a, Michigan (total)... INCE. amen cic ccna DWI0B. ows a srs wis oo ws wos ws TRIBE LINE ris pms compa i is FOUr times. wc numeeme ee Five times. ooo. SIX HIMES oes ‘oven tines. cocoa. Cts 0. ws | 8 | o 5 | OLY .5| 85.3 ceman| 6.5 19,149.77] 00.6 74 40826, . 6.6 « | 6.0 Ll. ! Li] 7s 80s a Ned) 2.7 | 7.3 8.0 } 2.4 |-em-c-d | sont 1.6] 8. |... 63 Fos 3 t.3 ST —— fmmmem . JNCB-uccaanaan _~ —- & 9 laces .. 8L5| .L. Wie. occ [EP—— val? mes miele sem pees 30 DI20 LIOR ww cumnimmm mmm ms wn], wis: SO ws snofsamel Sre TONE LIEB. vc snvuunusererusanssumpwetitonnes apeelveseus “emma a Lb SIX BMS. meee ceria ceca mene nonoonnurslomsnes wrmbmmmiins? - Seven times... - ee at lleil eeeeee L ahraska (total) .....oomoacianon 97.4 96.9 | 8.9 72.4 121, DCB cee ceice em ccciieacee meen eee 97.4 | 96.9 8.966.565 14.1 i 2 SN: J JX: Ni A Three LImes. oo eens cet ememenfeeeeaep LO fl 200 LINER wasps mamma gin namin lain gaussian P1960 [IMOB. cc in cinnnnussyarssmeinesy: masenleereee]sssendicicnal ines we 3X HIMES. vee Bo — momma, Sm Seven times and more_. o.oo. cmeefammmmnfonacea]ommnen) ions a i — LY 0.9 1.1] 46.8 | 12.0 | 96.2] £~|¢ ~! Once... ---| 8.1 | 94.9 | 14.1 | 41.9 [12.6] 96.0 | 4.7 | ; Pwice amnealeana-ad 4.6 «3 2 .9 8.5 3C - I 7.4 CB ee 910. 19] 37 |mu- ooo) 2.8 Lf . I 1 420 TY He TTT wmemmel ma .9 3889; . wm fmm ns mm (om eee AB 2 amam—— smmens|-nanes «8 1 46.3 Luecntinsnns]oninmnn mt cnn 911 sneer] ema mb WRAL eee eH mn mA Jobo. | 49.3 3145 3s jf s2| a 8 ue ne ag CITT a8 I . po € ee ree et. - = =i] === Clrafuma oor] 7] 008 | 82.3 218] 9.7 | 11| 82TH) 1.8 43 1 25.8 21.8 3.3 ole dA el ae] trl ar to Chree times. - «woe eooee iris en eeesleemecfenees meee] 220 TTUB601 BY L8 ifeiiiiiecccedieeees 9] 4.2 | L2}.....| 4L9 Jur BMS. —ooooo ooo BLD 2 21k PT Thee. en Zee 16.7 4a 2.2 five times... oooooooo loll a cemeee O02 wererpronron 7.2 mseurs] 7.5 3X GmeS omen TIIIITTTII TTT TTTT mee LT enwewidapennn wrneelnuRR in ! Mn — 3.0 x even times and more....._._...____. SE mehr mor mm hrs t sea men CI PITT a Fa —_ =i. : J === = ww om Fo Siar 3 Utah (total)... ee TLL, nant 5) 4.31989 24.4 ob ; 2) 5.00 w2] 43] 541: #34 4. 3.8) = ODEO. eee. TLL 95.9 | 1L7 (13.6 43 98.5 1431413 9: ..3| 9.0] 5.0| 3.5 43| 5.4] 13.8 44¢, 1. 28 we | , BWI mms mnie kat amas el BT leony 24) 0.047.527.6930 22 (9... L3| a7 50 24nd] 2 [Bree UMS. eu eoeewmene ee ETT Tp TTL Tp se ae Ta LDS 6 former] 22 79 LI 0 SOUT BIOS. —oooo ooo sooner eens 4 | 17. 8 evenness 2 el dx times. o.oo... TTT _ SE ITT TTT RB reins) 4 leven times and wore. III i ee wn fini; wey 3 3 raho (total) on ooo... wo 4.6]923 106, “| 20 904] 6. 8106] 5.8] v7] 4.8[19.2] 88.7 SIX 8.6240 99.0 MEE iiels | 84.6192.3(10.6| 154 2.9 | 90.4] 1.0 346 2 | 9.6 4.8] 67] 48(18.2 | 55.8] Lol 86]240! 10 PWIE0, rca rms imm ms mins mmm mr mum ilmmmnireirrnmen] BoB [onmetereee) LE , $8.1 LS LO) LO oi eeen] LO] 29 |oeeunzalameeanfaenes Three times... TIT 10 CITT sie _- freee] rmeeen imine mn mama LO pa 4.8 Four times. aueooooooooeaooo_] wrmmpmmeems] LBL nnmnaliivean fuses BD = momen feel 38 17.3 Seven times and MOT .....____....__. ne —- Th subiaa wen 2 mes wan! Tomine ((0tal) 1: oiioiii el 26.0 113.3 .o, 227 | 98, 21 30.0227 )....] 8.0] 9.3 87.3 | 54.7/100.0/"¢ 78.0] Inee....._.... . ET 9.0 | 13.3 | 20.0 22.7 | 98.7 13.3 21.31 6.7] 2.7 | 10.727 {..__] 80| 9333.3 (41.3 ___..{38.7 id ] Lwice..._._... “een ernest needed 40 |] BLO | 54.7 (83.41 2.6] 4.0 elmmmenfeemnee|reeees] 40184 LC LB |e Chree times.....c.. acoooe oo... sees meet LB ee 20.0 | 25.3 | ere ener rend mmemefreeef epee hee] four IOS. cece .- am SL memeee| LB (24.0 LB mmoemnfrmm mee smmmafemeene] LB PIVe iNOS. ooo ooo ees I ee Py ns Six times_ ZIT IIIIIIIIIIITII ITT I on rr x : A dim BL viene) “even timesand more. .___._._.______ ! ant ns snemne| ooo! BOT re = ———— - = Esl FF Fo Montana (botal) oo... [86.0] 96.0]15.0]47.0 150 97.0) .0 100. seem] x ew alOL 4] 0) 1S scecaceooo-| 86.0 | 96.0 | 13.0 | 47.0 | 15.0 { 97.0 | 7.0 | 18.3 | - 02119.7 | 14 BOI50] 1.4] 14 jou.o. Dwice. oo ecient 67.7 | #0] 88 14 wilimmmatsnmesal Je Chree times. «a oeeocamemoeicmenccmmmn)on ond ode weno] WB = snus emis ime mmf mmc fee] Ta Tour times. o.oo... |. ov J_lTIIIIICIITIILIT nm fumes oi neon wrt] mhbe mean m——— A Jt an Five tines. «oo aeeemena cael DL LITT moe ream e] Co LITT TL wm wn anf | Six times. ooo tT ee aa YR memento 3.0 ol lL eben eae] jeven times and TOT oan oom rnfeammen LITT a _— wi goo nn mb in - - =n omg rhe &Z — mien Spm} ~~ eevee) 85.9 Si 67] 16057 5002 0 amma] al P20 T fareeen JBOO- cman eeiieaeieecee| 36.9 B10 | 5.1 1685.9 20.7 | 17.2} sl £] 15.6] 3.1 |... 281 281 _____|i88 PWies. ooo ileemeen) 31] 0417.2) 4737 ns] 31 wenn 34.3 | Three times. «ume cm cooeeoomeoemeennn]o oes a eee fmendd Bd feelf f DAT ee] 18.8 FOUL HOS. «+ oeemeeee a ITT CTOTEN ID IT I s Five times. cece eee = ot eagle ammafeones 6. femme meme emf 4.7 OS oar en leeTTTL I wma oreo enero »ven timesand more. .......___._.. 0 ____. Pt amie emma mem mm mmr m——— i RS A 2 = el Smit a 17181. 3.0 —_— 13.0 cI 3200 ly eamfeeees| 13.0 ca = = on C Oy IaBLE 60.—Farm practice in sugar-beet culture: Kinds of operations and percentage of the total number of farms on which each operation was © p " P ge = performed a given number of times SUMMARY FOR NINE STATES INVESTIGATED, 1922 [Data for tractor farms investigated, tractor operations only] Other preparations for planting . rep Cultivation _ — — | — Clean- | Plow- ; Harrowing ion 2 x Re- we: Ra i Sec- i | | for |plant-| i - i fe mov- | Flrst Hojo ng i [Leval- —————{ Roll- jon oy re ing | Roll- | Ba coe and | J0& ing alfalfa | disk- | ing | gpipe iSpring] IPE |EBUOE| Ting MECH ng ing | ti {ning | trash + 8 Cine | oot | tootl #-"m wg 1 mrp ti | mol soz! 9.2] 13.0 ©o4gl fF | a TUE we 4 i Plow- | ng, rriga- | tion ! Lift- and ing drain- age | ditches | CWI ev aennrcnmmnanann cnammmm A 98 tecmmmrmn fmm ce |e mlemmmema nro m anja mcm Phree tilMeS.cneamacceee menmane|=mamceevlioemrau 0 cafes) any sso TI — Serena Rea ERA swans worm wnnee] meen 178 BITES emo oomommalosmmmmmclommmmnfs mn wmmeamenees le le rat mira ecw mmm $x HIDES, ooosomo oes mmm aves |ammm rms a mmm een |e ee ee Leama frst 36VED LINO. oo memn meme nne nme: | a aa ercuns - = imme 1Bi0 (£081) mm mmcamoccnan remem ER ~ me lly 7 orem omer eee Bm mmm mor a i SE 5 colommmenalsm wr CD macmeen —remen]- sim ummm ome m————— LAR wie lw Three times. aeecocmanlocemaasi - mmm fa ome memme|eanaeme cmemmma] + + mmeamaclesesss ceeoes emer or mre E35 SET Nebraska (FOLA) «eee ween mmm cfrmmmneee] at -— Tr eoa|mmanms momen steam como reefer een — hl O08 eee ommeemcca|mmmnmcimmenoee kd | #44 eee 1 fe coronene epee oo oenleeern|emeen]mrmntoeanes OES mma bE ee em Ee 300070 (O1BL).enrcsemsne|zoanec|ooeonennioooneee| 830) 6.7) 93.3) 20.0) Z3 oases oemmeslmrnecs pecans rem ern SEE eemmesfremeencfeeeeeee] 80) 87 BS ——— TT OOo] 8.0] 67 88.3 BBB |e hinnuamenanna nme seneefencefene BO 8 enema emer 28 echelons essence ene JUN Mp Thre6 FIRES moomoo |omoonloome on jeemoeacisonramafrzsmransloozeeey 6.7 I fee ope —— mea rg re | eel er lel er rE p Tool (otal ccc sonnnesvnnlunnmnsntospmanmiimimuins] $00 losnsanss] HPL 4 6.7 eee ieneneee jenn, rrmmmmgimmmmmnn] Beale [emeae (total : pm 2 mre, | men Spree OBC. ooocoeommmccreecfrmcmcafomcmafincans| BBB fanaa] ep AT ccomvmmiommnonefmmcmnnt BT mvencmiccccnan] 607 fees eaee TRIO oom frome 67 eee © 7 Le Searels gsaseashimensestnnase fononeepeamdpnmnne Three times. ____Z| LIC TCT TI : wel: } Er = ——_— IT . STE : —_ = Sr TEE mpm = mess LE > mm —_— 5B otal). mn sevnmesnloumsosadimmmunme. nmnas 0 eeo 50.0. 50.0 fomememnfommmen common locooenn cece remiacmemne mee ns, pred BES ey gy, SNS 22 OBB een cmeleeecinc 000 femora meena DWIOB. ooo oo moommooe|ommmma femme CL B00 | EH tu HJ sts td IF NA NO MO HE — — TT Te ee ee me em me =e SE ee re er es Wyoming (total)... ree wv" tmmanaluessalsaras] 100.0 fences names cans ren re leer lorreeeeenen errr Tre—— One. cee emaee ll ts meas ensfonoenrefonneenn) 100.0 MO - momen! mney semmmsfmeeessfees nse hfe Viontanal.. ..._... treme) SRR, EE SY sgpnanlumesenn penssilsesialpiseelepmliapen ee mm aman EE jie EE re ro nS lm = California (total)..... eejeemeeeef BL] 27) 0LO 243) 216] 20.0] 20.7] 16.2 .___f...... b4 er forres 88.61 RI... — fe ee fee - —_— OOO eon) RQ ef) 54) 27) 80.20 10.8) 108 © 27 135) Bll feen Bd eeeeeeii loo. 8L1. BI| DWI. oeoeoomsioecaoeee cece dL 27 ey 27 10.8) 810 109) 15 81 IIIIIIITIIITIL CU PTTTITIITIIIIIOIIII Ted een ITI CATCE (IBS... concn fenmeelie memo omrmcmfec emoecefeeeeneo 27 £127 IN iti] i enemies anna Jivettmes. | jl i A TI eT 1 1 There were no tractors on the farms included in the investigation in Mentan® Le 3 3 RB - Ch 92 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TABLE 61.—Farm practice respecting the use of manure in sugar-beet production SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES BY STATES, 1922 | Data are for those farms only on which manure was applied to the sugar-beet land] —_—r Ares United States: Average for farms investi- gated cee car cece Michigan. Ohio. .... . Nebraska... i “olorado.-. am ‘tah. ...- ea daho. oo. reme———— Wyoming... .ccceccoeae.. MOANA. « cn wv nwr mrs California... _ Percent age of total sugar- beet acreage hat was manured Per cent i [.oads of manure per acre Loads 0 C Average tons per load Tons hee Us Labor of hauling and spreading per load Man nours Horse hours Herve Value of manure er load $1. 21 «23 2.10 .19 19 %. 54 ~ost per load for manure and ma- aguring ! $1.97 2.80 2.57 1.98 1.94 1.99 1.50 1.59 1.35 3.82 { These figures include the value of manure and cost of man labor and horse labor, but do not include aquipment cost. They, of course, are not at all comparable with the data shown in Tables 17 and 18, 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 value that is chargeable to the beet crop of a certain year. TABLE 62.—Farm practice respecting the use of commercial fertilizer SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES BY STATES, 1922 [Data are for only those farms on which commercial fertilizer was applied to the sugar-beet land] Farmsusingfertilizer| Acreage fertilized ' Fertilizer per acre Area United States..... Michigan. ae cece cece cccceccecemnan Ohio. ce ccmaeenn ——_—— Numb* Ar cent f total Numbe iy & er cent <f beet acreage nvesti- a Quantity applied 46 Cost ¥ $2.72 2. 67 2.86 1 Includes the cost of the fertilizer only, and not the cost of hauling and spreading. The data presented here are not comparable with those shown in Tables 17 and 18, because the former refer to the farms that used commercial fertilizer only, and the latter refer to all farms for which costs are obtained. NoTE.—Of the 9 States included in this investigation only the 2 listed above used commercial fertilizer on sugar-beet land. TABLE 63.—Sugar-beet seed: Pounds per acre, planted by growers SUMMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND ANALYSIS BY STATES, 1922 A Tes United States 2..__. MIChIZAM . «i med sie a sin SS DIO cw eee erm cg eee 6 er me GREE Nebraska... ...... meme. Colnrada Average number of pounds of sugar-beet seed planted 1 Pounds per acre i a1 {7 w Area Utah....... "ABD. loon cwmmmns yoming. . ooo. RY Ke) 1} 7: 4 1: VIII Californie. eee mea Average number of pounds of sugar-beet seed slanted Pounds per acre 14.7 15.5 16.6 16.8 18.1 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 shown in the tables analyzing the costs of production. The cost per acre of seed shown in the analysis tables includes the cost of seed planted on abandoned acreage as well as on the acreage harvested. . 1 The weighted average prices paid by growers for seed were 23 cents per pound in 1921, 18 cents per pound n 1922. and 16 cents per pound in 1923 TYPES OF FARMING ON FARMS INVESTIGATED: UNITED STATES, BY STATES CaBLE 64. — Use made of farm area operated, sugar-beet farms investigated, United Stales. 1922 Per cent of operated area— TInited States! _ Michigan.._._._.. Jhio____...__. Nebraska.._. _olorado... Jtah__.._. ‘daho.____._. A yvoming... Viontana.... ~alifornia Total acres ynerated 2992 040 57, 754 15, 912 ©, 418 $5,137 7, 387 7g 7 13265 Culti- vated 70 7 30. 1 37. 8 Er Perma- nent pasture 10.9 - Wood- land I EK; Other land 7.7 6.7 5.1 6.4 8.8 72 .8 5.6 10. 8 4.7 + Combination of the 9 States investigated. TABLE 65.—Average size of sugar-beet farms investigated and relative importance of the suqgar-beet acreage on those farms, United States. 1922 United States i MIChIgAN Looe eee ccm m oa Dhio_.__... eccoeo._.. i ceeeeceemeccee- Nebraska... cceceooooo.. RE Zolorado.... Jtah._.... Sm mmm mem TBBN0, coe nn sams mo 0 mem wm trom momen mm Wyoming «oo ee ccceaan Montana._.... California... Average number acres yperated per farm Average qultivated acreage per farm Average acreage of sugar beets harvested per farm Per cent of cultivated acreage from which sugar beets were har- vested 921 8 12.3 14.6 39.0 24.1 21.8 14.7 30.4 10.5 RI . Averages for the 22 areas in the 9 States investigatac 94 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TABLE 66.— Percentage of the crop land growing each of the various crops on the sugar-beet farms investigated, United States, 1922 Percentage of the crop land of the farms investigated in— Crops All Crops. cece cvaaen Sugar beets. cv mamcccemmeas SHO. wumms rman mm ER Wheat... I — VIB iwi ES Fim nH an Jther hay 8. ceva Jeans. ... Fivamem JOD eecccacaccame c—— ‘ummer fallow. .aceeeoeo_ a. Barley ccmeaee =~... POLOROOS nnn amss mamas amen 2OBEULD.. omni mam wm wim me fruit, truck, and garden._.... Silage COrMucceccacaaan.. -. Miscellaneous... ee United : Mich! | Ne- | colo- | I Wyo- jtates!| igan ONO |praskal rado | Utah | 1dato ming 00. C 4.1 20. 4 [3 100. ¢ 17 © 100.0 10. U 36. 100 c et a | 100. ( 14.6 32 4 2 ¢ 100. G 30.7 37.8 8.1 in ¢ Mon-' Cali- tana fornia 100. 0 18.9 25. € 30. ¢ 7 ' 100. @ 38.9 45 “720.9 2.8 3.9 3.9 Li ‘a lL Weighted average for the 9 States investigateu. ' Includes all hay except alfalfa. ! Includes 1,252 acres cantaloupes, 203 acres cantaloupe seed, and 439 acres cucumber seed. TABLE 67.—Yields per acre of the principal crops grown on the sugar-beet farms investigated, United States, 1922 Average yields per acre of— ATea United States! Michigan..._.. .... DhiOae cece Jebraska. .cceeea--. nlorado. .—ceeaa---. bal. eeeeccmaea BRO ame cee yoming. caeeeeea- MontaR8eaeenen---. California. -. .. Suga . | Other SUBAT | Alfalfa | Wheat | Oats | OfDS Beans | Corn | Barley Pota- toes Tons | Tons 11. 3 3.0 Bushels | Bushels | Tons |Bushels|Bushels | Bushels { Bushels 26.0 43.9 1.7 15.5: 34.8 40.2 150. 7 1° 15.3 0 A C ¢ & Id 19.8 22.8 ia iy 49. 4 34.9 44.7 © .3 33.4 32.2 46.5 32.0 47.4 88.0 32.4 145.3 131.8 2°" A S19 63 14. 55.5 Silage corn Tons 9.8 10.3 9.7 5.0 9.0 15.2 15.4 5.6 3.8 1 Averages for the 22 areas in the 9 States investigated. TABLE 68.— Number per farm of various kinds of livestock on the sugar-beet farm investigated, United States, 1922 Average number of head per farm of— A rea United Statesl Michigan. ......_... ODO. penn smomsins Nebraska. ..ceee---. Colorado. cae---. Ttah. eccrine “1aho. occa. Wyoming....... ... Montana....... .. California. ceucueao. Horses Beef Colts ' -itie 4 13. @ 29, if Dairy COWS 4.¢ Fe 4 Young stock 3.c TT Fa Brood | Other Brood | Other | gpeep | Lambs [Poultry 0 A 50 86. ] 75.4 83.8 101.7 84.7 63.0 80.9 35.6 4.4 71.6 Bl. 5 1 ¢ 13.” 1¢ 163. ( 04¢ = 1 7 21. 8 il4.€ 41.4 1 Averares for the farms investizated in the 9 States COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TABLE 69.—Tenure of farm area operated, sugar-beet farms investigated, United States. 1922 05 Per cent of operated area Per cent of operated area 4 2 PY Owned vy oper- ator Share rented 'y oper- ator Cash rented Vy oper- ator Area Owned by oper- ator Share rented by oper- ator Cash rented by oper ator United State Lali... daho..... _.. -. Yyoming. ........ \lontana. .__...._. “qlifornia. oo... 39, 4 16.5 56. 8 53.0 16 4 i3 19.7 43.1 42.3 51. 8 0. J 3.8 .1 4.7 1.8 Michigan. . Dhio...... Nebraska. “olorado__ Average of a acreage investigated in the 9 States. Taps. "_nure of the sugar-beet land on the farms investigated, United States, 1029 Per cent of acres harvested by operator Per cent of acres harvested by operator Owned Vv oper: tor Share rented Vv oper tor Cash rented ny oper: itor Owned hy Oper- ator Share rented by oper- ator Cash rented by oper- ator TInited Sts 5.2 a 10.1 19.6 41.4 7,8 7.7 \lichigan Ohio-... Nebraska Colorado. Gl — oming.... ontana. .... "alifornia_ 4.7 6. 8 TTTT2l m Average of the acreage investigated in the 9 States TABLE 71. —Sugar-beet acreage planted, farms investigated, A rea Acres ylanted Acres aarvested Per cent aban- ioned United States! TD «78 Michigan... _..... 0) +1 1 J Nebraska...... ... ~olorado.. A no 385 2 harvested, and per cent abandoned on the {United States. 1922 Area Acres planted Acres harvested] Per cent aban- doned she —_ “mip _ontana... Yifarnis 69 16 ¥ 2.3 1.5 4.1 3.7 4.0 J Combination of the 9 States investigate MISCELLANEOUS TABLES GIVING THE REPLIES OF THE FARMERS TO SOME GENERAL QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY Replies to all of the questions on page 112 (sugar-beet cost schedule) were not obtained from all the farmers who gave data on their costs of production of sugar beets, but those that were obtained are pre- sented as the opinions and to some extent as the results of the experi- ences of the growers. ESTIMATED EFFECT OF THE SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY ON LAND VALUES TABLE 72.—Farmers’ estimates of effect of existence of sugar factory on the value of farm land, United States, 1922 Area United States!_: Michigan .......... OhiO. veces Nebraska... ....._.. Colorado. oon... Number of farmers reporting [necrease | Decrease | No effect 1, 451 316 116 23 4¢ 99 370 Area Hon mmmnmmnse daho.._......_.. Yyoming. ......... Montang..._....... Nalifornia. Number of farmers reporting Increase | Decrease | No effect LE rece nmcans reese ne, 17 6 8 5 15 "1 Combination of the 9 States investigated. TABLE 73.—Farmers’ estimates of effect of existence of sugar factory on the value of land devoted to sugar beets, United States, 1922 Area United States! Michigan... ........ Ohio. eee. Nebraska.....____. Colorado....._..... Number of farmers reporting [ncrease | Decrease | No effect fer i f 29k Ir os _@ bl 147 Area ran... *ah0 cine -yoming._..__ “Tontana.... Salifornia.__.. Number of farmers reporting [ncrease Decrease No effect | 40 3 1 1 10 “ 1 Combination of the 9 States investigated. TABLE 74.—Farmers’ estimates of effect of existence of sugar factory on the value of the farm land upon which is grown sugar beets’ chief competing crop, United States. 1922 Area United States?_ Michigan... .._.... ORD... pocoiumnnsisn Nebraska. ._.... Colorado. .ceeeeon_. Number of farmers reporting [ncrease | Decrease | No effect 301 | C 140 54 TTTTTTIY TTT 4 Ares ‘fab... i MIO. mse ens ‘yoming. o.oo. .ontanNa cccaceca-. Jalifornif ooo meoo. Number of farmers reporting [ncrease | Decrease | No effect 127 27 27 15 49 32 26 10) 1 18 % ] ] 10 1 Combiration of the 9 States investigated . COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 97 TasLE 75.—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, ITnited States, 1922 Number of farmers who reported the value of beet land Fhe same as Higher than Lower than ‘he value of -he value of Lhe value of land upon land upon land upon which is which is which is zrown that grown that grown that arop which |, crop which | crop which competes competes | competes aost directly most directly most directly with sugar | with sugar | with sugar beets beets beets TInited States 1 Michigan.-. Jhi0.... cen. Nebraska... Zolorado..... Utah.._. daho....... WYOMINE. .cncmcccececcccccecccccccrccmcaaacanan-. Montana... ooo. rma California... ~or | Combination of the 9 States investigated. TABLE 76.—Farmers’ estimates of the probable effect on the values of their farms if the sugar factories were removed from their district, United States, 22 A rop United States Michigan._. Ohio..... Nebraska Colorado... Combir-* Number ¢f farmers reporting— Increases 1 eCcrease No effect 9% 0) Eo . A ran Number of farmers reporting— TOE No effect 10 cf COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TaBLe 77.—Potential sugar-beet land on farms investigated, United States, 1922 The following data were obtained by asking the farmer how many acres of their farm land was good or bar Suture land and could be planted to sugar beets without changing greatly their type or method of farming. 98 Sugar-beet land capable of being planted to beets on the farms investigated without changing greatly the type of farming Sugar-beet acreage in- vestigated United States 1... Michigan. . cae. meme O00. cans ims .- em Nebraska. .... rence Colorado..... emmeesmmamece ememmas ammemee. JB ee ee eee 6 E:T Wyoming ooo eee Montana. ..... -____.___ .. mmm————— California. __. Acres planted 56, 393 3, 79¢ 2,0% ) 50% i, 600 © 9% Total acres possible to plant Acres 131, 583 940 % 68 228 210 I u 1g A Possible increase in present acreage Acres 75, 190 Per cent 133 11,145 5,613 3,695 27,010 K 405 154 “38 "299 o. 808 192 271 59 153 79 257 148 238 102 1 Combination of the 9 States investigated. TABLE 78.—Tabulation of farmers’ replies to the question, “What are the most important factors limiting the acreage of sugar beets you grow?’ United States, 1922 Number of farmers reporting limiting factor as- Area United States Michigan. _._.___. Dhio_.__.....__ Nebraska. ..._.___... Jolorado..... “tah. __.... ‘aho__.._.. yoming. "ontans.. Salifornia 2 ~ lz 5 E : :- b> ° & 3 Bet £ - = © | ba 8 | jk! 88 Pes 5 Ke © ne log 3 50 - 17 fo -T Crop com- petition g g | . 2g! 52 2 — = £° 24a 2 = 8% abk| & 02 = sg 2° & wd |g & gly 12 zB 91 259 1 8: 17 5 ieee 1 —— 31 2 ea. 18 L 81 ____.| 133 9 vc memecleaeol| 08 eg 3 1 1 . il 6 A] oo 3 3 eee 3. 9 I Combination of the 9 States investigated COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS a9 TaBLE 79.— Experience of farmers as to effect of crop of sugar beets on yields of other subsequent crops. United Stales, 1922 Number of farmers reporting effect of an of sugar beets on yield of subsequent crop of— ITnited States: Michigan......... hio.._._.. Nebraska. . Colorado. (Ttah___... [daho...... Wyoming. - Montana. . Nalifornia. _ Small grain ood Fx Jorr Potatoes Beans Truck 3 3d Bad Good | Bad R TTR t Combination of the 9 States investigate CasLeE SO. Tabulation of farmers’ replies to the question, ‘On your farm what 1s sugar beets’ chief commnetitive crop?’ United States, 1922 Number of farmers reporting 1— Lye United States 3 Michigan. ..c..ssssnsmmeninans Dhio...... Nebraska. ..... Colorado... Jtah....... A800. ue ims + me Wyoming. ..cecceaccaeaar- Montana. «cecceaccoa--. Nalifornia. __. Alfalfa and ther hay Beans “ry Lav Small grain Pota- toes Corn NY Truck Other ' None! 0 315 | 83 1 Some farmers named 2 crops competing about equally with sugar ) These farmers reported that no crop competed with sugar beets i Combination of the 9 States investigated 100 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS TaBLe 81.—Tabulation of farmers’ replies to the question, “On an average, what crop yields you better net returns than sugar beets?” United States, 1922 Number of farmers reporting !— Areas United States ¥_._.__. Michigan. ._____..... Ohio_._.__. Nebraska._._. Colorado. “tah..__. ‘aho... “yomin; Montana Californis Beans Alfalfa and other hay 2ota toes 138 Wheat and ther small rain 135 Corn | Peas | Truck 107 29 26 2¢ ¢ 20 3 Other 185 | 13 10” 4 1 1 None 2 888 107 32 110 1:7 2.4 7 ! 1 Some farmers reported more than 1 crop, while some gave no report at sil. 3 These farmers reported that no crop yielded better net returns than suga rbeets 3 Combination of the 9 States investicated RESERVATIONS BY COMMISSIONER COSTIGAN RESPECTING THE COMMISSION’S REPORT ON THE COSTS OF PRODUCTION OF SUGAR BEETS The accompanying report on sugar beets fails to make note of cer- tain limitations which affect the commission’s findings. Care should be exercised in considering the data presented and particularly in basing conclusions on such data. So far as the undersigned is con- cerned, such data are submitted subject to the following qualifica- tions and reservations: Practically no statistical nor 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 account- ing. Moreover, with particular reference to the present investiga- tion, the business of the average sugar-beet farm consists in effect of a number of farm enterprises. It is a task of extraordinary difficulty bo determine accurately costs of and returns from a single one of these enterprises. This is so because of the complementary character of the various farm costs and farm returns, because 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 num- ber of appraisements. As stated, the commission in the sugar-beet investigation adopted the “enterprise survey.” This method of accounting has been gener- ally 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. The evaluation of labor charges for the farmer and his family presents great accounting difficulties. It is self-evident that farmers and their families are entitled to reasonable returns for their work. 101 102 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 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 generally perform a large part of the productive work. The farm also fur- nishes 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 independ- ence, 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 immobility of farm capital, or because the standards of expenditure are lower on the farm than in the city, farmers generally accept a relatively low rate of immediate return. For the reasons mentioned it is not surprising to find that agri- cultural 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 Form OF SCHEDULE USED IN THE INVESTIGATION Factory receiving beets. Address dump. --_.-- Schedule No_..... Atgto CONFIDENTIAL UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION Washington, D. C. SUGAR BEETS—COST OF PRODUCTION, 1922 Name of grower.. P. O. Address. Acreage Owned \ onirrigated...._. [rrigated .cccaee-.n. Total cultivated.) aceceecccaaanna-- Permanent pasture..... em 1 me Woodland.... .caaa-. Jtherland.... .ccca... Total. oo coecaeean Acreage rented out..... Acreage operated. ....... Susar-beet aoreage. .... _._.. Location. __ Count Cash rented Share rented Total farmed et Arse ces erect comm —nan mma mew c—weemcace~ Nee. -- em|emesmscccssc ono an memes te~cece|emccmraceecomseacecn|onrcesnrm-creerreoan. Sugar Beeta Acreage: Planted. ______; harvested.._____; per cent abandoned; 1922_.__.___; normal... ____. Yield (tons, clean beets: Total_. .; per acre, 1922 .., normal 103 104 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS Summary of Costs 1922 Cost per ton Total cost | Cost per acre (a) 1922 vield (b) Normal vield Nirant costs on beets: ‘abor— Machine operations......... Hand labor... occu. .... N17: B. Useof horses ._.._coooocoo.... C. Tractor work... ceeoooe___. D. Other direct costs -...._.__.. Total direct costs. _......._. II. General costs: A. Squipment charge _........... B. Other general costs. ........_.. Total general costs. ........ a1. Capital charges: A. Charges for use of land.._..... B. Interest on equipment__..____ C. Interest on work stock. ....... D. Interest on working capital... Total interest... ._._.____. IV. Aggregatecosts.. _ ._._.___...__ V. Less credits ___. -— VI. Net cost of beets: With interest ....._.. coo... ee. mee. Without interest ooo ome ee VII Net cost per 100 Ibs. of sugar content: With interest. ............. Without interest ooo... ee ——— mmedmseccmaccar .mmmeecmeasnssan meses ctmecccsssiemmmemam—aaacaas - ——— ri i a mm A WR cnmmmaa BAR imeem me soem: Ma-nuring. Crew Acres Loads per acre Men ! Horses 1922... _Loool ecioofemcocen 1921. 170 1 ITTT IIIT Bl amas Average weight per ! Potnl tons a 1921.....5.. I 1920_____. Lo Total loads Loads per dav 200= 30 = 2097, = No. days Total hours Man | Horse mmc oce ama remem amma. 50% = 30%= 209, = Chargeable to | value per unit ‘Hours to beets Man | Horse reeceaclaaccanca TR. . covesensoss Total value chargeable to heats od Total Green manure ¢rop for beets—Kind Acres seeded. _______________ Cost of seed per acre._._____.___.__ Total cost_. —_— Hours of man labor per acre..___ _. Total. - Hours of horse labor peraere_______. Total. _._________ — When part of 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 loa. Tons hauled. 'vpe of road J00d Fair Bad. COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 105 I. Direct Costs on Beets. Al.—LABOR, NORMAL REQUIREMENTS. Crew Machine operations [a Lor Times over Men | Horses! Manuring (see p. 104). Charge against 1922 croo. -_. Preparation: Cleaning ditches_..__. Removing trash. ..._.. Disking. cco ccecccmaae. Crowning alfalfa___... Plowing _ _ = == is oh pe se Chisel’ Disking.. - Floating. . - Leveling _ oceans Tarrowing (spike)... Harrow. ~2 (Spring) -. Rolling. - ccmcaancaea- Corrugating...oo-----. Planti~ Hauling fertilizer... Planting. ._.._.. Replanting. .. ._.... Preparation for re- nlanting « -oe eee an Cultivati Harrowing beets Rolling beets fw Spraying cceocceona--. Cultivating, one horse Sultivating, two horses oe {rrigating (see opposits Time required for once over Acres Num- per ber of day | davs Hours per dav “Total i SE SE mre mem i pe EA SLI Total. ho Total Total. Total hours "fan 'Horse| Tractor “we fn EEE emeclemcceafaccenn- wm bun mm——— as wunusalunny wo ret ewe eww ——— PE wenn mememee- cemeelommeaclocaaaans . . fFurrowing. __....... [rrigating before plant. Ing. oe ccccccaccens (rrigating after plant- ing _ ___. _.. Harvesting | “e OppOSi’ LAPIN cw wove mmm Lor 1ing and hauling. ike loading. ooo. LOrINg © eeeua- semefmeerens ee “Grand total hours... . Total wm Ve wm ———— nmi ————— - ky WERE amend emma) om ! Tf tractor is used instead of horses, so specify and indicate prevailing rate 54071 —28—— 106 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS Unpaid contract labor performed by members of operator’s family: Number. Ages_____. ee Operations | Other hand labor Hours per acre | Total hours (contract, hired, or operator). hours Blocking ooo © oe. Thinning... RRR m——— HoOIDg. cmeeocein emo Pulling and topping._._|_ dmcmmemann Sem ecmcmccenme—eeaa recvecrcmc mma rescence ge —-—- CC memeamssscrmece- Total A] 7) What proportion of this family labor would otherwise have been unem- ployed?._ Mir moms wo PERQUISITES OF CONTRACT LABORERS : Shelter-....._ ccm. —— Land for garden... _~_______.__.______ Feed and pasture for cow and horse... Vegetables and fruit..... SHE am Coal or wood. _._. Transportation: © Pe incase remaccvermen)acnmnie ana meceecncmemmneae: mar i CRAG Seed cm dec scm mcm rms —.an a ee Ee ee ere ee Geese ECE tm EE ————————-.——-— CE a he ee re Ee Sn ESE mmm EES ee—————-———---——- CC eessesercdccerem————— ferme mece—ar nwa ‘o moving. ______. 10 farm, daily. _____. To obtaining sup- re plies. Milk, butter, and eggs. oo. —.o._.._ Total value of perquisites. _.___. Do these laborers assist in other farm work; if so, what proportion of the above perquisites should be charged to beets?._______9,. Charges for board include only the supplies furnished. Grower's factory rights: Units bought Market price | Grower's price | Saving ver PID. cet eeee MOaS9S e-em foo o Sugar. «cecal —remvanmn! chrreers mreenlcsccconccncncaa “Total... Total saving oC A2.—CosT oF HAND LABOR oN BEETS (see p. 105). — Contract work Unpaid family labor | ‘Wages and grower’s labor Total costs Blocking. ceeeua.... Thinning. .......... Hoeing. ........____. Pulling and topping. Total. ........ rr Acres Rate | Cost ame recesses | cancnan mmmeaneloscacnnalccannen sere | eevee 1 Acres Rate ' Cost ron ews lscaccne sn Acres | Rate | Cost wemmene [emmneenfrenmann- cm mm. TrYTTY rumen ana meee ee COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS A3.—CosT oF ALL MAN LABOR ON Farm! Type of worker Man- months Wages per month Cash | Board ! Total Total wages Hired by year. .cccccececcace-- Hired bv month. ceccceececanea- fired DY AY. -ooonooemmeenn on cemmmsne fame cma: Semew. Saw ——- w——h Sf me .an erm rmeeme © - Grower.......- Qrower’s familv__ 107 * Yearly perqui- ites Total labor cost a - rem rm—- ~ea cuecon Cem cow mmececese Total... 1 Not including contract labor. (See A- ¢ Porauisites of Grower MTatals Use of house—(a) Normal repairs.... (b) Depreciation cece oveacaaceaeaoan- Wood on stump.._. co enlOTAR, Bh Bo vw mmm oS maw Food...ouo.. Quantity | Price Value Garden...._. Potatoes. cocoons Fruit. ..cececaaae Pork... Rao EES cena cacccccccanna- POU IY cece neem Butter. _._..- -- Milk __._. Number in family: Adults__. Children... _. Hired labor A4 —CosT oF MAN LABOR IN MACHINE OPERATIONS: Total hours productive labor (p. 35) _... Cost of all man labor (A-3), $.___. Machine 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. 35) ___. Cost of all horse labor, $___. Machine operations on sugar beets: Hours ___. Cost per hour, s____. Total cost. $___ SUGAR-BEET CROP CREDITS Beet tops.— Disposition. Acres sold__ Acres used on farm. ________ Abandoned acreage: Acres utilized. _. Credits __-________ . ee eee = Value of grower’s factory rights: Pulp. molasses, sugar (see p. 106). -— Receipts, oo Value. « Total_.__ 108 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS III, Capital Charges. A. CHARGE FOR USE OF LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS: 1. Total value of farm (including value of. all improve- ments) ._________. emma a. Tillable land_._ . =~ acres _———- —————— Irrigated land.._______ acres at ____ _— eee Nonirrigated land.____ acres at ____ mmm b. Permanent pasture____. acres at .__. _.....__ ¢. Woodland. _. _..acresat ____ Co Chargeable to beets 2. Investment in land in beets: ------ acres, at $________ per acre. __ bajorost on $_ comm TE i rem omen BG} 3. Fair cash rental for beet land: .~ acres, at $________ per acre____ 4. Farm mortgage: Amount, $________: rate, ________9,. 5. Cashrent___________.________ Less taxes and fire insurance Net cashrent______ __________ __ 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.______%; : Annual charge__________ D. INTEREST ON WORKING CAPITAL: 1. Bank loans— Date Amount Months Rate of discount $. -- J + HR 8 ____ - \ | § es ec $e h_ 2. Advances bv sugar companv: th Total capital charses * To be computed COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 109 JV.—Factory Record.—NoOTE.—If grower delivered beets to more than one factory the following record should be obtained from the grower: 018. 919. 220. 921... Q29 Total. ._. Average... 1923 Factory -eceiving beets Acreage ' Har- Planted vested Yield, tons cleaned, weight Per | acre Total anf Lo Sl iin rm Sugar con- tent per cent Mini- mum sontract per ton Price 1 Bonus for price of sugar Bonus for sugar content Returns “Total Per acre re a ee ' 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 Pump. ... Canvas dam« shovels. _... Flumes._... Headgates. . cceeccee enn. Pipes Cosi Depreciation Y ears used’ Future life Total present value Per cen XL: ETN! Se ae = Seema Nor- nal re- nairs Total repairs and de precia- tion Chargeable to sugar beets Per cent | Amount emeecemeymemees|ceen————- rete . AR, WS meee -- woe im wc a ————eweoe Total.. AMmoun: Price Total cost Pump fuel.. Pumpoil......_... Other pump power. Total... _. River rights. Reservoir rigt- District rights Running rental _ __.. [aterals.__....... Drain ditches_ _.____. “umber of shares Cost per acre Total. _..._...... Grand total_.___. - © hemlaaa cm. Col ——— 110 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS B.—Material and Other Direct Costs. Ttem | Acres Quantity or cost | — Der acre Commercial fertilizer Bend... pi ii mis gi sims Water for irrigation... Spray material. ... Crop ISUEBRC. .. oe sie To oe page — for i charge against ---{ 1922 crop.) | Machine work hired. ee lee dete eee Total... “-— Price per | oa unit value) XXX |, | mri lemmencenea Amount paid by— Grower | Landlord wy color nana SAE, SE 00 oT II A. General Costs. CHARGES AGaINsT IMPLEMENTS (Exclusive of Interest). Depreciation tem Total first cost Years used Fu- ture life Total presen value Tots Nor- 'repairs mal re- and de pairs ! precia- tion Chargeable to sugar beets No. Per cent Amoun’ Per | cent | Amount Beet drills. __._.___ Beet cultivators 1H... Beet cultivators, 2H. il. lel. Beet pullers. ..____.. .__._...__. Beet knives. ______. NY Beet forks... ..._.__ oo ieeoo_. Beetracks.._______. _____joo-_. 3eetnets_.._______ ~ ee Wagons. ._______.. ._... ..._.. Manure spreaders. ...._ ...._. Plows. ____I.. o_o. cel_.. Harrows________.__.. coieeo-. mm emma ee pmmem a Disks. ooo... een Rollers. ..____.__.._ a. Levelers____._.._.._ — Floats... _.______ v Smalltools_ _...___.._. _ ._ Auto I emma mere me ce. mmc |ramm ceca. I — remem concn. cen mmre— am —-—-——- comme |ema—————- Total repairs and depreciation. ___ ——— m—————- erm Bom Si Machines hired . ie. gece ecmemec acm cmem ccm Pramas Building charges against implements... oo oncom eccce ee —— meme em mmm Pecocemnan Total implement charge. oe eeeecememmemeee aan mmm meme $a SE II B. Other General Costs. Item Irrigation and drainage (see p. 111 )_.....-. Taxes (excluding income taxes)... -.... Automobile, farm use__.._ ea... fuel and oil for pump-or truck. ........_.. Association dues... eo... Fencing wire, posts, ete... ooo. Telephone.__.___ .. eee Fire insurer - _.. —— Amount paid by— Total paid Grower Landlord ES Chargeable to beets Per cent | Amount ee ——— L'otals __ COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 111 V, ~Farm Enterprises. A. Crops: ftom Sugar beets. ..ocoicccoaaans -- Corn..oovsnn - Potatoes...... .- BOa0S. «nr mmm ama mses v- Alfalfa (cuttings)_.. -. Clover (cuttings)oeccc-ocooooo- Preced- ing crop ‘Acres Yield Per acre [Total En 3 re Man labor Normal hours per acre Total hotirs -ef-w Horse labor Normal hours per acre Total hours Fruit Pastnre. . Total . _ wc 3 B. LivE STOCK: Kind of animals Horses. —cccaeoaoaon-- Beef cows_._.-- Dairy cows... Brood sows... Breeding ewes.___... Poultrv__.. Beef cattle. Hogs. .-.. Lambs.... Total. Average number Total value Ani- mal unit Months |... fed Normal hours per A. U Total hours Normal hours per A. U. Total hours os ee sha - YXx Iloo_. C. MISCELLANEOUS LABOR Total davs Nr ab Total O11] Total hours Outside labor....._.... Permanent improvements Total eee. Total productive labor on farm._. 112 © COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS VI.—Miscellaneous. A. Most IMPORTANT SOURCES oF Farm INCOME (1922): First___________ Second ___ o_o ________ Third______.____._ Fourth__ GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Variation in costs for season 1923-24 from 1922-23: (a) Contract labor.. (b° Hired labor_____ (¢) Yield._________.. (d) Any new operations____..________________ ____ 2. Estimate effect, if any, of existence of sugar factory upon: Value of all tillable lands________ ee mm mr co 0 Value of lands devoted to beets..__________ ce——- What is the chief competing crop?____. —-— Value of beet land for chief competing erop_...______ mmm 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 productive labor, ete.y_______ On an average what crops yield better net returnsy. 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. Good mall grains. «cu vee ome joecaeen. TAY cee memcemmmmc |e OMe ames |ecm cee ees JotatoeS..oo.... . www Beans._.. Enumerator._____. Checked by. Bad ret ' Quantity of increase or decrease Probable cause cmececdmr arma racer e-- Date_ __ « COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS 15 cultivator, also, is especially adapted to sugar-beet work, being con- structed to cultivate four rows corresponding to the drill. In harvest- ing, the beet lifter, a special implement not required for other crops, is used. For hauling the beets to the factory, more than the ordinary number of wagons and specially constructed wagon boxes are needed and in some places trucks are used. Because of the bulki- ness of sugar beets, 1t is uneconomical to transport them any great distance to the factory; so that before the sugar-beet industry can be established in a community, a local factory must be built and equipped with machinery, beet dumps, railroad sidings, and feed yards. The necessary capital investment in an efficient beet-sugar factory varies from about $500,000 to $3,000,000, according to the capacity. The average per factory is somewhat over $1,000,000. Ek = § < }2 J aN 3 Mm wu © ® eo © 2 - @ oo ZY < J wy o Mm + © QO N~ < ~ [09] ~~ oO J f—-t oOo CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING THE EXPANSION OF THE INDUSTRY / The economic importance in the United States of the sugar-beet industry has already been considered. In addition to the general advantages of the maintenance of the industry a number of inciden- tal benefits are derived: The farmer’s income from the sugar-beet crop is relatively depend- able. He knows when he plants his seed what basic price he will receive per ton of beets delivered to the factory. The usual contract between the beet grower and the factory provides for a basic price with a bonus varying according to the price of sugar. Comparison may be made between the average income from sugar beets in the United States and such competitive cash crops as beans, potatoes, and wheat. The average percentage of variation from normal in the five-year period 1921-1925 for sugar beets was about the same as that for beans but the income from wheat varied considerably more and potatoes much more. The introduction into a community of an additional cash crop adapted to local conditions has a tendency to improve the economic status of the farmer. The possibility of choice between several cash crops enables him to distribute his acreage and to reduce his risk factor. The addition of a suitable cash crop thus has a stabilizing effect upon the agriculture of a community. The beet-sugar factory with its heavy capital investment is abso- lutely dependent for its success upon the successful growing of sugar beets in its immediate vicinity. The sugar companies, therefore, have endeavored by various methods to promote clean cultivation, the sowing of selected seed, the economical use of manure and com- mercial fertilizers, and the intelligent handling of the crop. They conduct schools, employ agricultural experts and field agents to advise the farmers, and distribute educational literature. The sugar-beet enterprise readily lends itself to combination with the production of livestock. The crop furnishes considerable quantities of animal feeds in the form of the beet tops and beet pulp. The farmers are encouraged to keep more livestock than they other- wise might and this results in larger quantities of manure becoming available for fertilizing the land. The thorough and deep cultivation necessary for beets reduces weed infestation and constitutes an ideal preparation for a succeeding small grain crop. Experience both in ; E E . -c FE oN o a oO DN o o -— om 2} sf pl — I LS | EL LB - ~ © — ~ pan © — o ~ 0 « nH 0 2 NN mM ~ Z OO i Zs J A a = Ny €