Digitalisate EconBiz Logo Full screen
  • First image
  • Previous image
  • Next image
  • Last image
  • Show double pages
Use the mouse to select the image area you want to share.
Please select which information should be copied to the clipboard by clicking on the link:
  • Link to the viewer page with highlighted frame
  • Link to IIIF image fragment

United States

Access restriction


Copyright

The copyright and related rights status of this record has not been evaluated or is not clear. Please refer to the organization that has made the Item available for more information.

Bibliographic data

fullscreen: United States

Monograph

Identifikator:
1795102764
URN:
urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-179770
Document type:
Monograph
Title:
United States
Place of publication:
Washington
Publisher:
Gov. Pr. Off.
Year of publication:
1928
Scope:
VII, 112 S
Digitisation:
2022
Collection:
Economics Books
Usage license:
Get license information via the feedback formular.

Contents

Table of contents

  • United States
  • Title page
  • Contents
  • Econonomic 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 sugar
  • Economic considerations concerning the maintenance and growth of the industry
  • The tariff in its relation to the sugar-beet industry
  • Report on the farmers' costs of production of sugar beets in the Unitede States for the years 1921, 1922, and 1923
  • Reservations by commissioner costigan respecting the commission's report on the costs of production of sugar beets

Full text

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
	        

Download

Download

Here you will find download options and citation links to the record and current image.

Monograph

METS MARC XML Dublin Core RIS Mirador ALTO TEI Full text PDF EPUB DFG-Viewer Back to EconBiz
TOC

This page

PDF ALTO TEI Full text
Download

Image fragment

Link to the viewer page with highlighted frame Link to IIIF image fragment

Citation links

Citation links

Monograph

To quote this record the following variants are available:
URN:
Here you can copy a Goobi viewer own URL:

This page

To quote this image the following variants are available:
URN:
Here you can copy a Goobi viewer own URL:

Citation recommendation

United States. Gov. Pr. Off., 1928.
Please check the citation before using it.

Image manipulation tools

Tools not available

Share image region

Use the mouse to select the image area you want to share.
Please select which information should be copied to the clipboard by clicking on the link:
  • Link to the viewer page with highlighted frame
  • Link to IIIF image fragment

Contact

Have you found an error? Do you have any suggestions for making our service even better or any other questions about this page? Please write to us and we'll make sure we get back to you.

What color is the blue sky?:

I hereby confirm the use of my personal data within the context of the enquiry made.