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.