MASTER 
 NEGATIVE 
 
 NO. 95-82459- 14 
 
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT 
 
 The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) 
 governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted 
 materials including foreign works under certain conditions. In addition, 
 the United States extends protection to foreign works by means of 
 various International conventions, bilateral agreements, and 
 proclamations. 
 
 Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are 
 authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these 
 specified conditions Is that the photocopy or reproduction Is not to be 
 "used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research." 
 If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction 
 for purposes In excess of "fair use," that user may be liable for copyright 
 infringement. 
 
 The Columbia University Libraries reserve the right to refuse to accept a 
 copying order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order would Involve 
 violation of the copyright law. 
 
Author: 
 
 U.S. Federal Trade 
 Commission 
 
 Title: 
 
 Report on the beet sugar 
 industry in the... 
 
 Place: 
 
 Washington, D.C. 
 
 Date: 
 
 1917 
 
MASTER NEGATIVE # 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 PRESERVATION DIVISION 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARGET 
 
 ORIGINAL MATERIAL AS FILMED - EXISTING BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD 
 
 RESTRICTIONS ON USE: 
 
 fS38,l 
 Un334 
 
 1 
 
 U. S. Federal trade commission. 
 
 ... Repor t on the beet suga r indust ry in the United 
 States. Alay 24, 19177 Washington, Govt, print, off., 
 1917. 
 
 xii, 164 p. inch tables. 25''"'. 
 
 At head of title : Federal trade commission. 
 
 Anotlior copy in BuninosG Library* 
 
 1. Sugar trade— U. S. 2. Beet and beet sugar— U. S. i. Title. 
 
 17-26429 
 
 ' mSiL 
 
 Congress 
 opy2. 
 
 O 
 
 HD9105AS 1917 
 
 FILM 
 
 SIZE: ^^"^^ 
 
 TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA 
 
 REDUCTION RATIO: 
 
 ax 
 
 IMAGE PLACEMENT: lA 
 
 ® 
 
 IB IIB 
 
 DATE FILMED: H'^^'^S 
 
 INITIALS 
 
 ■.Mr 
 
 TRACKING # : 
 
 M^a OGOWQ 
 
 FILMED BY PRESERVATION RESOURCES. BETHLEHEM. PA. 
 
> 
 
 J^/ 
 
 J^- 
 
 
 ^2^^ 
 
 ^^^y^ 
 
 'V? 
 
 CO 
 
 3 
 3 
 
 0) 
 
 o > 
 
 Is 
 
 o 
 
 i 
 
 </) 
 
 
 C 
 X 
 
 OPQ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 N 
 
 CO 
 
 r\3 
 cx> 
 ->. 
 en 
 
 ^-< 
 
 OOM 
 O 
 
 ^^. 
 
 
 CJl 
 
 3 
 3 
 
 > 
 
 CD 
 0,0 
 
 o m 
 
 CD O 
 
 CJ|3 ^ 
 ^ O O 
 
 CO 
 
 < 
 
 N 
 
 M 
 
 A^' 
 
 .-v^' 
 
 A/ 
 
 ^. 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^. 
 
 .'^'^ 
 
 ^, 
 
 ^. 
 
 
 ^.. 
 
 ^,. 
 
 
 e' 
 
 >P.? 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 v^ 
 
 'S^ 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 3 
 i 
 
 (/I 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 3 
 3 
 
 
 o 
 
 E^'^BEEEi^i; 
 
 IS II 
 
 isj 
 
 Os 
 
 00 
 
 K) 
 
 o 
 
 
 N3 
 00 
 
 cn 
 
 1.0 mm 
 
 1.5 mm 
 
 2.0 mm 
 
 ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 
 atxdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 1234567890 
 
 ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 
 abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzl234567890 
 
 ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 
 
 abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 
 
 1234567890 
 
 2.5 mm 
 
 ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 
 
 abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 
 
 1234567890 
 
 V 
 
 <<^ 
 
 
 ^o 
 
 << 
 
 f<r 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ^O 
 
 ?* 
 
 ^fp 
 
 ^f-s- 
 
 A, 
 
 ^. 
 
 4> 
 
 
 
 &■ 
 
 c 
 
 'S- 
 
 '^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 .^^ 
 
 r.<^^ 
 
 V 
 
 
 & 
 
 ^o 
 
 fo 
 
 ^:P 
 
 fp 
 
 ^ 
 
 m 
 
 o 
 ■D m "o 
 
 OLl"0 
 > C cd 
 
 I ^ ^ 
 m 
 
 O 
 
 m 
 
 
 ^J^. 
 
 /^. 
 
 <^ 
 
 »— ro 
 
 Of 
 
 3 
 3 
 
 3 
 3 
 
 IS 
 
 3 — 
 
 ll 
 
 Is 
 
 li 
 
 
 ''•V 
 
 *_ "^i 
 
 «^ 
 
 4 
 
 
f. 
 t 
 
 ^ 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 h.' 
 
 m 
 
 '■m 
 
 'ii\ 
 
 u 
 
 £. 
 
 >. 
 
 -» •-•^^-..-Liv.np"*' 
 
#-/ 
 
 
 f "-■'!■'./' 
 
 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 
 
 REPORT 
 
 ON 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY 
 IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 MAY 24, 1917 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
 
 1917 
 
 A 
 
vj . 
 
 ADDITIONAL COPIES 
 
 OF THIS PUBUCATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM 
 
 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
 
 ■WASHINGTON, D. C. 
 
 AT 
 
 20 CENTS PER COPY 
 
 I** 
 
 rAjT 
 
 K»^ 
 
 V^' 
 
 xtuUxvtii-iKO 
 
 < ^ 
 
 1* 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 Page. 
 
 Letter of submittal ix 
 
 Chapter I.— Introduction. 
 
 Section 1. Purpose and scope of the investigation 1 
 
 Section 2. Some peculiar characteristics of the beet-sugar industry. 2 
 
 Short operating period 2 
 
 Effort required to secure beets 6 
 
 Section 3. Development and progress of the beet-sugar industry in the United 
 
 States ^ 6 
 
 Building of beet-sugar factories in the United States since 1889 7 
 
 Location of beet-sugar factories in 1914 11 
 
 Growth of production 11 
 
 Section 4. Governmental encouragement of the industry 13 
 
 Encouragement through Federal tariff legislation 13 
 
 Encouragement through State legislation 14 
 
 Idaho ^ 14 
 
 Kansas 14 
 
 Iowa 14 
 
 'Minnesota • 15 
 
 Michigan 15 
 
 Nebraska 15 
 
 New York 15 
 
 The effect of tariffs and bounties on the industry 16 
 
 Section 5. Consumption of sugar in continental United States 16 
 
 Percentage of consumption supplied by domestic beet-sugar factories 18 
 
 Chapter II. — Beet Growing. 
 
 1. YIELD and quality OF BEETS IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Section 1. Introduction 20 
 
 Section 2, ' Yield of sugar beets per acre 21 
 
 Section 3. Quality of beets 22 " 
 
 Percentage of sugar in beets 22 
 
 Purity of beets 23 
 
 Sugar extraction 24 
 
 Summary of yield and quality of beets 25 
 
 Section 4. Experimental results in beet growing 28 
 
 11. COST AND PROFITS OP BEET GROWING. 
 
 Section 5. Methods employed in securing data 28 
 
 Difficulties due to lack of records 29 
 
 Section 6. Representativeness and reliability of data 30 
 
 Representativeness of the information secured ! 30 
 
 Reliability of data 31 
 
 m 
 
 
 1 
 
p^ 
 
 Ik 
 
 IV 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Section 7, Classifying and tabulating data 32 
 
 Section 8. Cost and profits of individual growers in 1913 34 
 
 Section 9. Average cost and profits of individual growers for three years 47 
 
 Relation of profits to yield « 55 
 
 Average results by districts 57 
 
 Section 10. Profits from beets compared with profits from other crops 58 
 
 Chapter III. — Cost op Producing Beet Sugar. 
 
 Section 1. Introduction qi 
 
 Costs cover only the sugar manufacturing business 62 
 
 Bases of cost computations 62 
 
 Identity of factory concealed 62 
 
 Section 2. Proportion of total production covered by cost tables 62 
 
 Section 3. Details of elements of cost 63 
 
 Details of certain cost items 64 
 
 Interest excluded from cost 65 
 
 Section 4. Depreciation 65 
 
 Method of arriving at a depreciation charge 66 
 
 Cost of plant investment 67 
 
 Rate of depreciation 68 
 
 Section 5. Average cost of production for five years, by factories 69 
 
 Relation of various cost items to the total factory cost 75 
 
 Relation of cost of beets to cost of sugar 76 
 
 Cost, including depreciation 79 
 
 Section 6. Average cost of production for five years, by States 79 
 
 Effect of by-products on net cost 81 
 
 Pulp *.. 82 
 
 Molasses 83 
 
 Unusually high costs for some factories in 1911-12 83 
 
 Section 7. Average costs by groups of factories 85 
 
 Section 8. Comparative cost of production for all factories, by years 86 
 
 Section 9. Cost of sugar manufactured per ton of beets 87 
 
 Chapter IV. — Distribution op Sugar. 
 
 Section 1. Introduction 92 
 
 Section 2. Where beet sugar is consumed 92 
 
 Section 3. Cost of distribution 94 
 
 Freight charges ." 100 
 
 Other expenses lOO 
 
 Net prices received 102 
 
 When beet sugar is sold 103 
 
 Chapter V. — Investment, Capitalization, and Earnings of Beet- 
 Sugar Companies. 
 
 Section 1. Investment and capitalization 123 
 
 Comparison of cost of investment with capital liabilities 123 
 
 Section 2. Relations of earnings to capital employed 127 
 
 Earnings in the sugar business 128 
 
 Section 3. Rates of earnings on capital employed 129 
 
 Rates of earnings by groups of companies 132 
 
 Section 4. Rates of earnings on net investment 133 
 
 
 CONTENTS. V 
 
 Chapter VI.— Eppiciency in the Beet-Sugar Industry. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Section 1. Principal elements to consider in studying efficiency 135 
 
 Mechanical elements ^^^ 
 
 Economic elements to be considered 136 
 
 Difficulties in a comparative study of efficiency in beet-sugar[factories 136 
 
 Section 2. Comparisons based on scale of operations 137 
 
 Section 3. Important economic advantage of favorable location 141 
 
 Location with respect to the supply of beets 141 
 
 Advantage of proximity to markets 145 
 
 Section 4. Comparisons based on factory equipment 146 
 
 Steffens process 1^^ 
 
 Pulp driers 1^^ 
 
 Section 5. Conclusions 151 
 
 Chapter VII. — Relations Between Sugar Manufacturers and 
 
 Beet Growers. 
 
 Section 1. Interdependence of the two interests 152 
 
 Section 2. Contract prices for beets 153 
 
 Contracts in 1913 and 1914 154 
 
 Contracts in 1915 160 
 
 Apparent inconsistencies in contracts 161 
 
 Section 3. The test of a fair price for beets 163 
 
 The reasonableness of basing the price of beets upon the price of sugar 164 
 
 1 
 
 ; I 
 
r* 
 
 m 
 
 LIST OF TABLES. 
 
 1.— Days of operation, by factories and by States, campaigns of 1909-10 to 
 
 1913-14, inclusive « 
 
 2.— Annual production of beet sugar in the United States from 1889-90 to 
 
 1914-15, inclusive -.n 
 
 3.— Consumption of sugar in continental United States, 1865-1914 ....... 17 
 
 4.— Percentage of the total consumption of sugar in the United States pro- 
 duced from domestic cane and beets, 1899 to 1914, inclusive 18 
 
 5.— Average yield of sugar beets per acre in the United States, by States, 1904 
 
 to 1914, inclusive oi 
 
 6.-Average sugar in beets used in the United Statesyby' States, 1904* to 
 
 ' 1914 23 
 
 7.-^Average purity coefficient of beets used in the United States, by States 
 
 1904tol914 _ ' 24 
 
 8.— Average extraction of sugar per ton of beets used in the United States' 
 
 by States, 1904 to 1914. 25 
 
 9.— Acreage harvested, average yield per acre, average sugar content and 
 
 purity of beets, and average extraction, by States, 1904-1914 26 
 
 10.— Acreage harvested, average yield per acre, average sugar content and 
 punty of beets, and average extraction, for the United States, 1904- 
 1914 27 
 
 11.— Costs and profits of growing beets in the United States, by farms 
 
 grouped by districts, 1913 34 
 
 12.— Costs and profits of beet growing, by farms and by districts; averages for 
 
 the three years 1911, 1912, and 1913 49 
 
 13.— Average costs and profits, by districts, for the three years 1911 1912 
 
 and 1913 ' g^ 
 
 14.— Cost of producing 100 pounds of granulated sugar, by factories; aver- 
 ages for the five years 1909-10 to 1913-14, inclusive 72 
 
 15.— Relation of certain cost items to net factory cost, for the five-year period 
 
 1909-1913, by factories 76 
 
 16.— Comparison of cost of beets with gross cost of sugar, not including depre- 
 ciation; averages for the five years 1909-10 to 1913-14, inclusive 77 
 
 17.— Comparison of cost of beets with net cost of sugar, not including depre'- 
 
 ciation; average for the five years 1909-10 to 1913-14, inclusive 78 
 
 18.— Average cost of producing 100 pounds of granulated sugar, by States, for 
 
 the five years 1909-10 to 1913-14 30 
 
 19.— Average net value of by-products per 100 pounds of sugar produced, by 
 
 States, for five years ending 1913-14 \ 32 
 
 20.— Comparison of average net cost, not including depreciation, of producing 
 100 pounds of sugar in Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin for the five years 
 ending with 1913-14, the year 1911-12, and for four years excluding 
 
 I 
 
 LIST OF TABLES. 
 
 vn 
 
 Pag«^ 
 
 21, — ^Average net cost per 100 pounds of sugar, and the percentage of the total 
 sugar produced during the five years ending with the campaign of 1913- 
 14, for 64 factories, grouped according to the net cost of production 86 
 
 22. — ^Average sugar extraction per ton of beets and average cost of the manu- 
 facture of sugar per ton of beets sliced by factories, for the five years 
 1909-1913 88 
 
 23.— Beet sugar sold by 24 companies in the various States for the year 1912 
 
 and 29 companies in 1913 92 
 
 24. — Gross receipts per 100 pounds of beet sugar, selling expense, and net 
 price at factory per 100 pounds, by companies, for the years 1909-10 to 
 1913-14, inclusive 95 
 
 25. — Percentage of total sales of beet sugar made in each month, by years 
 
 and by States of production, 1910-11 to 1913-14 103 
 
 26.— Excess of Detroit, Denver, and San Francisao quotations for granulated 
 
 sugar (beet) over New York quotations (cane), weekly, 1913 and 1914. . 106 
 
 27. — Quotations of raw sugar and refined granulated sugar at New York, and 
 
 margin between raw and refined, by weeks, 1890 to 1914 108 
 
 28. — Percentage of overcapitalization or undercapitalization of beet-sugar com- 
 panies at the end of the years 1909-10 and 1913-14 124 
 
 29. — Rates of earnings on capital employed, taking account of depreciation, 
 in the manufacture of beet sugar, allowing one-half of the total cost of 
 production for working capital, by years, and averages for five years, 
 1909-10 to 1913-14, inclusive 130 
 
 30. — ^Annual rates of earnings from sugar on net investment in the sugar busi- 
 ness, by companies, 1909-10 to 1913-14, and the average annual rate of 
 earnings for the five years 133 
 
 31. — ^Average cost per 100 pounds of sugar produced by groups, for the year 
 
 1913-14 139 
 
 32. — Comparison of the average cost of beets and the net cost of production, 
 not including depreciation, during the five-year period 1909-1913, by 
 factories, grouped according to the amount of sugar extracted per ton of 
 beets sliced 142 
 
 33. — Comparison of the average prices received for beet sugar, the cost of selling 
 and the net price received at the factory per 100 pounds, for the 
 five-year period 1909-1913, by States. 145 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 ^< 
 
 J, 
 
ACKNOWLEDGMENT. 
 
 The Commission desires to mention as especially contributing to 
 the preparation of this report Mr. T. M. Kobertson and Mr. H. L. 
 Anderson, who assisted Mr. Eobertson. 
 
 vm 
 
 I,-* 
 
 fe 
 
 LEHER OF SUBMITTAL 
 
 The Federal Trade Commission, 
 
 WasMngton, May 2i, 1917. 
 
 To the Congress: 
 
 There is submitted herewith a report on conditions in the beet- 
 sugar industr}^ in the United States. The investigation was begun 
 by the Commissioner of Corporations at the direction of the Secre- 
 tary of Commerce because of complaints on the part of farmers that 
 they were not receiving a fair price for beets. 
 
 The report deals chiefly with the costs and profits of growing sugar 
 beets, the cost of manufacturing and marketing beet sugar, the profits 
 in the manufacture and sale of beet sugar, and the relations between 
 sugar-beet growers and beet-sugar manufacturers. It covers in de- 
 tail the operations o£ all the beet-sugar factories in the United States, 
 except two small ones, during the five-year period ending with the 
 business year of 1913-14. 
 
 Because of the lack of funds to prosecute work other than- that spe- 
 cifically directed by Congress, this report has been delayed, much to 
 the regret of the Commission. It would have been desirable to bring 
 the information down to a later date, but such a course was not 
 possible because of the lack of an available force. 
 
 A discussion of the economic position of the industry is not 
 included in the report because it involves the consideration of mat- 
 ters strictly within the province of another governmental agency. 
 A chapter dealing with this subject has been prepared and it, 
 together with all the data collected during this investigation, has 
 been turned over to the United States Tariff Commission. 
 
 In 1914, 700,000 tons of beet sugar was produced in the United 
 States in 78 factories. The four principal centers of production were 
 Michigan and northern Ohio, Colorado, northern Utah and southern 
 Idaho, and California, but 12 other States contributed to the total 
 production. Michigan and Colorado each had 16 factories in 1914, 
 California had 13, Utah 7, Idaho and Ohio 5 each, and Wisconsin 4. 
 There were 10 States that had only 1 factory each. California and 
 Colorado produced more than 50 per cent of the total production of 
 the country during the five years covered by the report. The annual 
 
 IX 
 
 ^< 
 
 4 
 
 trm — : — :t — r- 
 
 ii'-^-._ *. 
 
 ^}^!^^ 
 
if! 
 
 lii 
 
 Iff 
 
 ^ LETTER OF SUBMITTAL. 
 
 consiimptii,/! of sugar in the United States is approximately 4,300,000 
 tons, and about 16 per cent of this was produced in domestic beet- 
 sugar factories in 1913-14. 
 
 GROWTH OF THE INDUSTRY. 
 
 There were only 3 beet-sugar factories in operation in the United 
 States in 1870, and this number had increased to only 9 by 1897, but 
 in 1914, as already stated, there were 78. The production has in- 
 creased from less than 45,000 tons in 1897 to more than 700,000 tons 
 in 1914. 
 
 The rapid development of the industry after 1897 has been largely 
 due to direct encouragement by the Federal and State Governments, 
 particularly the former. While customs tariffs have afforded a large 
 measure of protection to the industry since 1883, it was not until 
 after the tariff act of 1897 that the rapid development of the industry 
 began. In 1897 Michigan enacted a State bounty law which greatly 
 stimulated the building of factories in that State. Soon afterwards 
 other States enacted similar laws, but they were all, including those 
 of Michigan, soon repealed or declared unconstitutional. 
 
 CX)ST OF PRODUCING BEET SUGAR. 
 
 The average cost for 64 factories producing 96 per cent of all the 
 beet sugar in the United States during the five years ending with the 
 season 1913-14 was $3.74 per 100 pounds, including depreciation, 
 which for these factories averaged 25 cents. The average cost of 36 
 factories producing 74 per cent of the sugar was $3.46 ; the average 
 for 26 factories producing 57 per cent of the sugar was $3.36. On the 
 other hand, 21 factories producing 15 per cent of the sugar had an 
 average cost of $4.84. There was a wide range of cost in different 
 factories. The lowest average cost, for any factory for the five-year 
 period, including depiecxation, was $2.94 and the highest was $6.45 
 per 100 pounds. Speaking broadly, this wide variation was due 
 mainly to differences in the cost of beets per 100 pounds of sugar, but 
 there were also wide differences in the cost of manufacture. The 
 average cost of beets per 100 pounds of sugar for these 64 factories 
 during the five-year period ranged from $1.64 to $4.48, while the 
 additional cost of production, including overhead expenses but not 
 including depreciation, ranged from 44 cents to $2.44. In general, 
 high cost of beets is accompanied by high cost of sugar. 
 
 There was also a notably wide variation in average costs in differ- 
 ent States. The lowest average cost for the five-year period, in- 
 cluding depreciation, was $3.27 per 100 pounds in California, and 
 omitting the States that had only one factory each the highest average 
 
 LETTER OF SUBMITTAL. 
 
 XI 
 
 cost was $4.88 in Wisconsin. The average cost of beets in California 
 for the five-year period was only $2.05 per 100 pounds of sugar, while 
 in Wisconsin it was $3.50. 
 
 EARNINGS IN TMF: BF.ET-SUGAR BUSINESS. 
 
 With respect to earnings the report coa ers 37 companies, operating 
 77 factories, that produced nearly 99 per cent of all the beet sugar 
 manufactured in the United States during the five years ending with 
 the season 1913-14. During this period these companies earned in 
 the sugar manufacturing business an average of 11 per cent on the 
 capital employed therein. The average earnings of all the companies 
 by years ranged from 16 per cent in 1909-10 to 3 per cent in 1913-14. 
 In no other year, except 1913-14, were the average earnings as low as 
 8^ per cent. The extremely low earnings in the year 1913-14 were 
 due to the unusually low prices of sugar. 
 
 Some companies operated at a loss during most of the period, while 
 others made very large profits. Thus, the operations of 29 companies 
 producing 95 per cent of all the beet sugar manufactured in the 
 United States during the five-year period showed average results 
 varying from a loss of nearly 18 per cent to gains of nearly 45 per 
 cent. Thirteen companies producing 75 per cent of all the beet sugar 
 in the United States had average earnings of more than 9 per cent on 
 the capital employed in the business, and 7 companies producing 53 
 per cent of the sugar earned on the average over 16 per cent. On 
 the other hand, 16 companies that earned an average of less than 5 
 per cent produced 13^ per cent of the sugar, and 9 companies operat- 
 ing at an average loss produced only 9| per cent of the sugar. 
 
 Upon the whole, capital employed in the beet-sugar business earned 
 very fair returns during the period. 
 
 BEET GROWING. 
 
 The cost of growing and selling sugar beets and the gross return 
 from their sale were secured from a number of representative growers 
 in every locality where beet sugar is manufactured. There was 
 found a wide range of results varying from actual losses to large 
 profits. The expense of growing and marketing beets is very high. 
 It was found to range from a little less than $35 to more than $50 
 per acre. The gross returns, however, were correspondingly high. 
 The average annual returns in the various beet-sugar districts for 
 a period of three years ending with 1913 ranged from about $60 to 
 more than $75 per acre, and the average net profit per acre ranged 
 from less than $20 to about $40. The highest net profits per acre 
 were found in California, Colorado, and Utah. The lowest net 
 profits in any district of considerable size were in Michigan. In 
 
 M 
 
 ^< 
 
 » . 
 
 ^ 
 
 » 
 
r 
 
 
 xn 
 
 LETTEB OF SUBMITTAL. 
 
 three California districts the net profits ranged from $38 to $45 per 
 acre ; in Colorado the range was from $27 to $37 ; in Utah the range 
 was from $25 to $37, while in Michigan it was only $17 per acre. 
 
 Comparing the net profits of beet growing with those from other 
 branches of agriculture, it appears probable that no other important 
 standard crop would year after year yield better net returns per 
 acre than beets. Many farmers, however, insist with apparent reason 
 that they are entitled to a better return on beets than on most other 
 crops. This is because of the unusual care and diligence required to 
 grow them as compared with general field crops, and because of the 
 usually large outlay of cash for labor. 
 
 With respect to the complaint of the farmer that he does not 
 receive a fair price for his beets, it is generally, though not uni- 
 versally, admitted that beets are more profitable than most other 
 crops. The beet grower contends, however, that the prices he re- 
 ceives should depend upon the prices of sugar; in other words, 
 that he should receive a price as high as the profits of the beet-sugar 
 manufacturer will enable him to pay. The manufacturer, it should 
 be noted, guarantees a price for beets before the seed are planted, thus 
 assuring the grower a market at a fixed price. It is therefore argued, 
 on the other hand, that as the manufacturer always assumes the risk 
 of a decline in the price of sugar, while the farmer assumes no risk 
 whatever in the price of beets, the latter should be content with the 
 prices he has been receiving unless he is willing to assume the risk 
 m a fluctuating sugar market. It is pointed out that it would be 
 a shortsighted policy on the part of the manufacturer to force down 
 the price of beets to a point unprofitable to the farmer, because in 
 so doing he would force him to abandon that crop for others afford- 
 ing a profit. 
 
 The principle of basing the general price of beets upon the price 
 of sugar seems to be an equitable one, but whether it can be made 
 practical in its application can be determined only by experience. 
 
 The late Commissioner Will H. Parry manifested a special in- 
 terest in this investigation. The intelligent judgment which he 
 brought to bear upon all matters claiming his attention was espe- 
 cially valuable in this connection because of his intimate knowledge 
 of the industry. The manuscript for the report had his approval 
 and It was sent to the printer before his death. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 William J. Harris, OTvairman. 
 Joseph E. Da vies. 
 William B. Colver. 
 John F. Fort. 
 
 1 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Section 1. Purpose and scope of the investigation. 
 
 This investigation was undertaken by the Bureau of Corporations 
 because of complaints made by beet growers that the prices that they 
 received for beets were not commensurate with the price of sugar 
 and the consequent profits realized by beet sugar manufacturers. 
 The work was not completed until after the Bureau of Corpora- 
 tions was merged into the Federal Trade Commission. The scope 
 of the inquiry was broadened to cover not only the matter com- 
 plained of by the farmers but also to include a careful study of the 
 principal phases of the beet sugar industry in the United States, 
 from the growing of the beets to the selling of the refined sugar. 
 It is intended to show the condition of the industry as a whole. 
 
 The period covered by the report is the five years ending with 
 the season of 1913-14. Every locality producing beet sugar in 1913 
 was visited and the books of every beet sugar manufacturing com- 
 pany operating in that year except one were examined. With this 
 one exception all of the beet sugar manufacturers in the United 
 States willingly gave access to their books and afforded every oppor- 
 tunity for the examination and compilation of all data desired. 
 From the books of the companies there were obtained details of the 
 cost of production, investment, capitalization, and earnings, and 
 many other facts relating to their business. 
 
 The sales of sugar by months were obtained from all companies 
 and also the quantity sold in each State wherever such data were 
 available. These statistics show the average gross receipts per pound 
 of sugar, the average freight rate and selling expenses, and the net 
 price realized at the factory. Freight rates from all the beet sugar 
 producing and the cane sugar refining districts have been compiled 
 from published freight tariffs. A comparison of these rates from 
 various beet sugar producing sections with the rates from the cane- 
 sugar refineries to the principal centers of consumption marks in 
 
 some measure the lines of competition between beet and cane sugars. 
 
 1 
 
 • >i 
 
 I 
 
 ^< 
 
 j» ^i 
 
 . M^AM 
 
 MM^JWl^ 
 
 •'PjWPJf^-^^^^sgygiiwgf^^s^-^^ - 
 
MK 
 
 UA 
 
 ■^■rr^^^lk 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 m 
 
 2 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. ■ 
 
 Hundreds of beet growers were visited in the vicinity of the beet- 
 sugar factories and data regarding the costs and profits of beet grow- 
 ing were obtained from them. The reliability of this informatL is 
 supported by a mass of statistical data secured from the beet-sugar 
 factories and from the United States Department of Agriculture 
 and various State agricultural experiment stations. 
 
 It was intended to collect and compile information covering the 
 industry in the principal beet sugar producing countries of Europe ' 
 Agents were sent to France, Germany, and elsewhere in Europe, but 
 before the work had progressed far beyond the preliminary stages 
 It was abruptly terminated by the outbreak of war. The only re- 
 source left was such information relating to beet growing and the 
 manufacture of beet sugar in Europe as was avaSble il variou 
 publications Many such publications have been carefully examined 
 but the publ^hed statistics covering these matters are generally in- 
 complete m details and the statements of facts necessary for proper 
 interpretation are madequate. Under these circumstances it is im- 
 possible to make satisfactory comparisons with data collected in this 
 country^ For these reasons conditions in foreign countries are not 
 discussed m the report. 
 
 Section 2. Some pecnliar characteristics of the beet sugar industry. 
 
 In some important aspects the beet sugar industry is peculiar. Its' 
 principal raw material (beets) must be produced mainly in the 
 vicmity of the factory and in sufficient quantity to assure a reasonable 
 period of annual operation. Beets deteriorate in quality if kept for 
 any considerable length of time, and consequently the annual operat- 
 ing period > of a factory is at most short, rarely exceeding 100 days, 
 and often considerably below this. Except in the case of some 
 branches of the canning industry these peculiar circumstances place 
 the beet sugar mdustry practically in a class by itself among indus- 
 trial activities. A beet sugar factory and the farmers supplying it 
 with beets depend on each other in an unusual degree. The factory 
 can not go to a remote district to secure its beets nor can the beet 
 growers m one district find a profitable market for their product at 
 any great distance from their farms. There are instances indeed 
 where beets are shipped 100 to 200 miles, but such cases are rare and 
 the quantity of beets shipped long distances forms an inconsiderable 
 proportion of the total. 
 
 Short operating PERioD.-Sugar beets, as already stated, can not 
 be kept a very long time without deterioration. They will keep in 
 a frozen state, but they must be worked before they thaw. The 
 
 ' The yearly transactions of a beet sugar factory Is -ailed a " cammt™ " if in,„i, 
 T "»""V° r-"""'"" """ *■>' •=»-t™ctlng for'and manufLturtngof^a crop of beets' 
 
 S^, brs": rtrard'm'an,"" "™^'°^ " ™'"™^'^ ">' " ^"-'^ »' beets and^nds w en 
 ine Deets contracted m any one year have been converted into sugar. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 3 
 
 harvest begins in the late summer or early fall, and they must there- 
 fore be worked before the first warm days of spring. For this reason 
 the operating period of a factory is comparatively short, and the 
 plants usually lie idle for at least two-thirds of the year and often 
 longer. During the idle period the investment in the plant is not 
 earning anything. Probably few if any other industries with such a 
 large investment in plant equipment have such a short period of 
 operation. Furthermore, when the plant ceases to operate the or- 
 ganization of employees is broken up and most of the employees are 
 discharged. As a consequence, a considerable proportion of the em- 
 ployees in most factories are new and sometimes wholly inexperi- 
 enced at the commencement of each working season. 
 
 The number of days each factory covered by this report operated 
 in each year during the 5 years ending with 1913-14 is shown in 
 Table 1, below. The table also shows the annual average niynber of 
 days each factory operated in the 5 years and the average for all the 
 factories in each State for each year and for the 5 years. 
 
 Table 1.— DAYS OF OPEKATION, BY FACTORIES AND BY STATES, CAMPAIGNS OF 
 
 1909-10 TO 1913-14, INCLUSIVE. 
 
 State and company. 
 
 1909-10 
 
 1910-11 
 
 1911-12 
 
 1912-13 
 
 1913-14 
 
 Average. 
 
 Michigan. 
 Continental Sugar Co. (Blissfleld) 
 
 Days. 
 75 
 90 
 53 
 69 
 38 
 77 
 99 
 
 100 
 72 
 6S 
 
 107 
 
 104 
 45 
 70 
 
 104 
 
 Days. 
 
 106 
 
 118 
 
 63 
 
 110 
 
 39 
 
 109 
 
 127 
 
 123 
 
 104 
 
 129 
 
 117 
 
 93 
 
 97 
 
 94 
 
 131 
 
 Days. 
 126 
 114 
 128 
 138 
 77 
 137 
 143 
 133 
 136 
 131 
 135 
 159 
 124 
 126 
 117 
 49 
 
 Days. 
 124 
 72 
 75 
 74 
 73 
 79 
 84 
 68 
 51 
 
 Days. 
 
 105 
 71 
 80 
 
 103 
 56 
 
 117 
 
 119 
 96 
 78 
 
 Days. 
 
 German-American Sugar Co. (Bay City) . . 
 
 HoUand-St. Louis Sugar Co. (Holland) 
 
 HoUand-St. Louis Sugar Co. (St. Louis) . .. 
 MflnnTTiinftft Rivnr Siipar Cn , 
 
 107 
 93 
 80 
 99 
 
 Michigan Sugar Co. (Alma) 
 
 57 
 
 Michigan Sugar Co. (Bay City) 
 
 104 
 
 Michigan Sugar Co. (Caro) 
 
 114 
 
 Michigan Sugar Co. (Croswell) 
 
 104 
 
 Michigan Sugar Co. (Saginaw) 
 
 88 
 
 Michigan Sugar Co. (Sebewaing) 
 
 to lyk 
 78 80 
 
 1 AO 1 /^O 
 
 98 
 
 Mount Clemens Sugai- Co. . . . 
 
 103 
 
 Owosso Sugar Co. (Lansing) 
 
 106 
 88 
 46 
 61 
 
 79 
 58 
 60 
 
 113 
 
 Owosso Sugar Co. (Owosso) . . . .*. 
 
 87 
 
 West Bay City Sugar Co 
 
 79 
 
 Western Sugar Refining Co :. 
 
 95 
 49 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Average 
 
 78 
 
 104 
 
 123 
 
 77 
 
 86 
 
 
 
 94 
 
 Ohio and Indiana. 
 Continental Sugar Co. (Findlav) .. 
 
 
 
 114 
 127 
 100 
 
 104 
 105 
 76 
 56 
 66 
 91 
 
 88 
 76 
 65 
 47 
 75 
 91 
 
 in? 
 
 Continental Sugar Co. (Fremont). 
 
 86 
 
 80 
 89 
 
 95 
 83 
 
 German-American Sugar Co. (Paulding). . 
 
 Holland-St. Louis Sugar Co. (Decatur) 
 
 
 Ottawa Sugar Co 
 
 
 
 
 71 
 
 91 
 
 Toledo Sugar Co 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Average 
 
 86 
 
 85 
 
 114 
 
 83 
 
 74 
 
 85 
 
 
 1 
 
 I- 
 
 SI 
 
 I 
 
 li 
 
 ■ "* ^. W)^'- 
 
:le^-;^:. 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 
 i'3 
 
 
 ■'1 
 
 )• 
 
 ■ i 
 
 I! 
 
 V 
 
 I'-t 
 
 !•. 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 4 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Table 1.— DAYS OF OPERATION, BY FACTORIES AND BY STATES, CAMPAIGNS OF * 
 
 1909-10 TO 1913-14, INCLUSIVE—Continued. 
 
 state and company. 
 
 1909-10 
 
 1910-11 
 
 1911-12 
 
 1912-13 
 
 1913-14 
 
 Average. 
 
 Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa. 
 
 Days. 
 
 Days. 
 
 Days. 
 
 Days. 
 
 Days. 
 
 Days. 
 
 ChiDoewa Sugar Co. (Wisconsin) 
 
 55 
 
 50 
 
 104 
 
 69 
 
 49 
 
 65 
 
 Rock County Sugar Co. (Wisconsin) 
 
 64 
 
 75 
 
 119 
 
 87 
 
 50 
 
 79 
 
 Unitei States Sugar Co. (Wisconsin) 
 
 50 
 
 63 
 
 122 
 
 88 
 
 40 
 
 73 
 
 Wisconsin Sugar Co. ( Wisconsin) 
 
 106 
 
 87 
 
 115 
 
 98 
 
 51 
 
 91 
 
 Iowa Sugar Co. (Iowa) 
 
 45 
 
 89 
 
 117 
 
 101 
 
 66 
 
 ■ 84 
 
 Minnesota Supar Co, (Afinnft'^ota) , . 
 
 50 
 
 32 
 
 57 
 
 86 
 
 71 
 
 59 
 
 
 
 Average 
 
 62 
 
 66 
 
 1 
 
 106 
 
 1 88 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 i 55 
 
 1 
 
 75 
 
 
 
 Northern Colorado, Montana, and Nebraska. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 American Beet Sugar Co. (Grand Island).. 
 
 48 
 
 65 
 
 69 
 
 84 
 
 77 
 
 69 
 
 Great Western Sugar Co. (Eaton) 
 
 97 
 
 59 
 
 60 
 
 95 
 
 122 
 
 87 
 
 Great Western Sugar Co. (Greeley) 
 
 79 
 
 58 
 
 59 
 
 99 
 
 114 
 
 82 
 
 Great Western Sugar Co. (Windsor) 
 
 85 
 
 56 
 
 61 
 
 97 
 
 72 
 
 74 
 
 Great Western Sugar Co. (Fort Collins) . . . 
 
 101 
 
 57 
 
 61 
 
 105 
 
 122 
 
 89 
 
 Great Western Sugar Co. (Loveland) 
 
 101 
 
 67 
 
 67 
 
 105 
 
 119 
 
 92 
 
 Great Western Sugar Co. (Longmont) 
 
 95 
 
 51 
 
 55 
 
 104 
 
 118 
 
 85 
 
 Great Western Sugar Co. (Sterling) 
 
 109 
 
 88 
 
 73 
 
 97 
 
 107 
 
 95 
 
 Great Western Sugar Co. ( Brush) 
 
 82 
 
 63 
 
 60 
 
 87 
 
 87 
 
 76 
 
 Groat Western Sugar Co. (Fort Morgan)... 
 Great Western Sugar Co. (Billings) 
 
 85 
 
 
 64 
 
 87 
 
 78 
 
 79 
 
 87 
 
 83 
 
 107 
 
 96 
 
 114 
 
 97 
 
 Great Western Suear Co (Scottsblufl) 
 
 
 48 
 
 93 
 
 112 
 
 125 
 
 95 
 
 
 
 
 Average 
 
 88 
 
 63 
 
 69 
 
 97 
 
 105 
 
 85 
 
 
 
 Southern Colorado and Kansas. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 American Beet Sugar Co. (Rocky Ford)... 
 
 94 
 
 78 
 
 78 
 
 95 
 
 129 
 
 95 
 
 American Beet Sugar Co. (Las Animas). . . 
 
 American Beet Sugar Co. (Lamar) 
 
 Hollv Sugar Co. (Holly) 
 
 46 
 
 
 
 51 
 
 
 49 
 
 5;i 
 
 
 
 64 
 
 
 59 
 
 6o 
 
 44 
 
 
 46 
 
 
 52 
 
 Hollv Sugar Co. (Swink) 
 
 89 
 
 56 
 
 58 
 
 70 
 
 91 
 
 73 
 
 National Sugar Manufacturing Co 
 
 90 
 
 53 
 
 52 
 
 81 
 
 58 
 
 67 
 
 San Luis Vallev Beet Sugar Co 
 
 
 
 52 
 
 32 
 
 18 
 
 34 
 
 Western Sugar & Land Co 
 
 102 
 
 88 
 
 98 
 
 107 
 
 96 
 
 98 
 
 Garden Citv Suo'ar & Land Co 
 
 
 
 28 
 
 71 
 
 37 
 
 45 
 
 
 
 
 
 Average 
 
 77 
 
 64 
 
 61 
 
 69 1 
 
 72 
 
 69 
 
 
 
 Arizona and Nevada. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Nevada Sugar Co 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 35 
 
 34 
 
 35 
 
 Southwestern Sugar & Land Co 
 
 
 40 
 
 55 
 
 44 
 
 51 
 
 48 
 
 
 
 
 Average 
 
 
 40 
 
 55 
 
 40 
 
 43 
 
 43 
 
 
 
 
 Idaho and Oregon. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Amalgamated Sugar Co. ( Burlev) 
 
 
 
 
 59 
 
 71 
 
 65 
 
 Amalgamated Sugar Co. (La Grande) 
 
 Utah-Idaho Sugar Co. (Idaho Palls) 
 
 50 
 
 34 
 
 32 
 
 
 
 39 
 
 93 
 
 70 
 
 86 
 
 61 
 
 70 
 
 76 
 
 Utah-Idaho Sugar Co. (Sugar City) 
 
 100 
 
 62 
 
 109 
 
 92 
 
 81 
 
 89 
 
 Utah-Idaho Sugar Co. ( Blat^k/oot) 
 
 51 
 
 
 77 
 
 56 
 
 77 
 
 65 
 
 Utah- Idaho Sugar Co. (Namoa) 
 
 
 11 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Average 
 
 74 
 
 44 
 
 1- 
 
 76 
 
 67 
 
 75 
 
 
 
 67 
 
 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 9 
 
 Table l.-DAYS OF OPERATION, BY FACTORIES AND BY STATES, CAMPAIGNS OF 
 
 1909-10 TO 1913-14, INCLUSIVE—Continued. 
 
 State and company. 
 
 Utah. 
 
 Amalgamated Sugar Co. (Ogden). 
 Amalgamated Sugar Co. (Logan). 
 
 Lewiston Sugar Co 
 
 Utah-Idaho Sugar Co. (Lehi) 
 
 Utah-Idaho Sugar Co. (Garland). 
 Utah-Idaho Sugar Co. (Sevier). . . 
 Utah-Idaho Sugar Co. ( Payson). . 
 
 Average. 
 
 California. 
 
 Alameda Sugar Co 
 
 American Beet Sugar Co. (Oxnard) . . 
 
 American Beet Sugar Co. (Chine) 
 
 Anaheim Sugar Co 
 
 Holly Sugar Co. (Huntington Beach). 
 
 Los Alamitos Sugar Co 
 
 Sacramento Valley Sugar Co 
 
 San Joaquin Valley Sugar Co 
 
 Santa Ana Cooperative Sugar Co 
 
 Southern California Sugar Co 
 
 Spreckels Sugar Co 
 
 Union Sugar Co 
 
 Average. 
 
 190&-10 
 
 Days. 
 138 
 122 
 123 
 138 
 114 
 
 1910-11 
 
 127 
 
 113 
 112 
 109 
 
 139 
 
 78 
 
 Q) 
 
 113 
 
 0) 
 
 147 
 
 116 
 
 Days. 
 
 87 
 74 
 66 
 99 
 76 
 
 80 
 
 93 
 113 
 109 
 
 143 
 79 
 
 0) 
 
 125 
 
 {') 
 
 126 
 
 1911-12 
 
 Days. 
 
 119 
 94 
 96 
 96 
 90 
 88 
 
 97 
 
 116 
 
 107 
 
 107 
 
 88 
 
 93 
 
 140 
 
 91 
 
 0) 
 
 105 
 
 0) 
 
 113 
 
 121 
 
 1912-13 
 
 Days. 
 114 
 
 99 
 
 99 
 
 105 
 
 82 
 82 
 
 97 
 
 95 
 88 
 90 
 95 
 
 107 
 97 
 
 124 
 
 0) 
 
 98 
 112 
 
 0) 
 
 117 
 
 1913-14 
 
 Days. 
 
 108 
 
 100 
 
 111 
 
 78 
 
 101 
 
 73 
 
 59 
 
 Average. 
 
 Days. 
 
 113 
 98 
 99 
 
 103 
 93 
 81 
 59 
 
 90 
 
 98 
 
 72 
 112 
 
 96 
 110 
 110 
 111 
 
 97 
 
 0) 
 
 105 
 124 
 
 0) 
 
 139 
 
 108 
 
 102 
 
 0) 
 
 0) 
 
 98 
 106 
 102 
 
 98 
 103 
 136 
 
 94 
 
 102 
 116 
 
 130 
 
 108 
 
 108 
 
 1 Not reported. 
 
 « 
 
 Two factories in California could not give the number of days in 
 operation. The 10 factories reporting in that State had an average 
 operating period of 109 days during the 5 years covered. It is not 
 probable that the 2 factories omitted would materially change this 
 average if they were included. One of these factories apparently 
 had very long operating periods, while for the other they were com- 
 paratively short. Utah and Michigan operated an average of 98 and 
 94 days, respectively. In Ohio and Indiana and northern Colorado 
 the average operating period for the 5 years was 85 days. The fac- 
 tories in southern Colorado and in Idaho and Oregon operated an 
 average of less than 70 days. 
 
 The longest period of operation for any factory in any year was 
 159 days by the Mount Clemens Sugar Co. in Michigan in 1911-12. The 
 average for all the factories of Michigan for that year was 123 days. 
 The long operating period in that State in that year was due to an 
 unusually large supply of beets. 
 
 87731—17 2 
 
 A 
 
 \ 
 
THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 
 Effort required to secure beets. — It is the experience of most 
 factories that they can not make sure of a supply of beets without con- 
 siderable effort. Thus it is the custom for a representative of the 
 factory to visit the farmers in the vicinity and induce them to enter 
 into contracts to grow beets. These are formal written contracts stip- 
 ulating the number of acres the farmer will plant and the prices the 
 factory will pay. The factories usually agree to supply the seed at 
 a fixed price. The contracts provide that the factory shall supervise 
 the cultivation and the farmer agrees to cultivate in the manner pre- 
 scribed by the factory. A condition that sometimes causes farmers to 
 hesitate to enter into contracts is the difficulty encountered in securing 
 labor. Since a very large proportion of the cost of growing beets is 
 due to the expense of hand labor, farmers must have an assurance of 
 such' labor before they can safely plan for a crop. The factories, 
 therefore, generally agree to supply this labor. When the factory 
 engages to supply hand labor it is so stated in the contract and the 
 price per acre is stipulated. 
 
 These efforts necessary to guarantee a supply of beets entail con- 
 siderable expense. This expense varies from a cent or two per 100 
 pounds of sugar produced to sometimes more than 25 cents. A cost 
 exceeding 5 cents per 100 pounds is quite common. These expenses 
 per ton of beets vary from 5 cents or 6 cents to 50 cents or 60 cents. 
 There are instances where the cost per ton of beets to the factory 
 for these expenses has been as much as $1, but this is not usual. 
 
 Section 3. Development and progress of the beet sugar industry in the 
 United States. 
 
 From a review of the beet sugar industry, issued by the United 
 States Department of Agriculture in 1869, it appears that the first 
 attempt to produce beet sugar in the United States was an experi- 
 mental one made near Philadelphia in 1830, but no factory was 
 built. A bulletin issued by the department in 1872 states that prob- 
 ably the earliest recorded experiments in beet sugar made in this 
 country were in Massachusetts in 1838.^ It appears that the manu- 
 facturer interested in the Massachusetts enterprise was awarded a 
 silver medal for the production of a small quantity of sugar in that 
 year. The secretary of the United States Beet Sugar Industry in a 
 publication issued in 1913 stated that in 1852 Bishop Tyler of the 
 Mormon Church purchased in France machinery for a sugar fac- 
 tory and shipped it to Salt Lake City.^ In 1863 a factory was estab- 
 
 1 U. S. Dept. A., Special Report on Beet Sugar Industry, 1897. 
 
 2 Beet Sugar Industry of the United States, p. 6. 
 
 lished in Chatsworth, 111. After struggling for several years it was 
 removed to Freeport, 111., and later to Blackhawk, Wis.^ 
 
 Bulletin 210, issued by the United States Department of Agri- 
 culture in 1870, reported three factories in operation, one at Chats- 
 worth, III, one at Alvarado, Cal., and one in Sauk County, Wis. 
 Prior to this, however, namely, in 1867, there appears to have been 
 a factory at Fond du Lac, Wis. About 1878 a factory was built in 
 Maine, and other factories had been built in California and possibly 
 elsewhere. Nearly all of these earlier factories were failures mainly 
 on account of the unwillingness or the inability of farmers to pro- 
 duce beets in sufficient quantities and quality to supply the factories. 
 By 1892 there appears to have been only six factories in operation.^ 
 In 1893 investigations relating to the beet-sugar industry by the De- 
 partment of Agriculture were suspended and no statistics are again 
 available until 1897. 
 
 In 1897 there were nine factories in operation, four in California, 
 two in Nebraska, one in New York, one in New Mexico and one in 
 
 Utah.« 
 
 Building of beet-sugar factories in the United States since 
 1889. — ^A chronological list of the beet-sugar factories in the United 
 States has been prepared from various sources of information but 
 mainly from bulletins issued by the United States Department of 
 Agriculture. In 1909 the Secretary of Agriculture in response to a 
 resolution adopted by the Senate furnished a statement showing the 
 number of beet-sugar factories then in operation in the United States 
 and the number erected each year since 1896.* This document has 
 been taken as the basis for the information relative to the erection 
 of factories. The factories built or beginning operation in each year 
 since 1889 are shown in the following statement: 
 
 1890. 
 American Beet Sugar Co., Grand Island, Nebr. 
 
 1891. 
 
 Chino Valley Beet Sugar Co., Chino, Cal. 
 Utah Sugar Co., Lehi, Utah. 
 
 American Beet §ugar Co., Norfolk, Nebr. (Removed to Lamar, Colo., in 
 1905.) 
 
 1 University of Wisconsin Bulletin No. 55. 
 
 2 Beet Sugar Industry of the United States, Department of Agriculture, 1897. 
 
 »Beet Sugar Industry in the United States, U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1897, 
 p. 160. 
 
 * S. Doc. 22, 61st Cong., 1st sess. 
 
 ^' 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^^»^ 
 
I 
 
 8 TH^ BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 1897. 
 
 Los Alamitos Sugar Co., Los Alamitos, Cal. 
 
 Pecos Valley Beet Sugar Co., Carlsbad, N. Mex. (Operated unsuccess- 
 fully for two years. It was closed and later destroyed by fire.) 
 
 First Beet Sugar Co., Rome, N. Y. (On account of bad management and 
 lack of beets died after two years.) 
 
 . 1898. 
 
 California Beet Sugar & Refining Co., Crockett, Cal. (Removed to Corco- 
 ran, Cal., in 1909.) 
 
 Oregon Sugar Co., La Grande, Ore.u^ (Removed to Burlev. Idaho, in 
 
 1911.) 
 Ogden Sugar Co., Ogden, Utah. 
 Michigan Sugnr Co. (oUl), Bay City. Mich. (Removed to Waverlv, Iowa 
 
 in 1907.) 
 Minnesota Sugar Co.. St. Louis Park. Minn. (Burned in 1905.) 
 Binghamton Sugar Co., Binghamton, N. Y. (Removed to Blackfoot, 
 
 Idaho, in 1904.) 
 American Beet Sugar Co., Oxnard. Cal. 
 
 . 1899. 
 
 Spreckels Sugar Co., Salines, Cal. 
 
 Union Sugar Co., Santa Maria, Cal. ( Betteravia. ) 
 
 Illinois Sugar Refining Co.. Pekin. 111. (Produced a little sugar only 
 
 one year. Part of machinery moved to \'isnlia, Cal.) 
 Colorado Sugar Manufacturing Co., Grand .Junction, Colo. (Now Western 
 
 Sugar & Land Co. ) 
 
 Standard Beet Sugar Co., Ames, Xebr. (Removed machinerv to Scotts- 
 
 bluff, Nebr., in 1910.) • 
 Bay City Sugar Co., Bay City, Mich. 
 Detroit Sugar Co., Rochester, Mich. (Removed to Madison, Wis., in 
 
 1906.) 
 
 Wolverine Sugar Co., Benton Harbor, Mich. (Moved to Canada in 1901.) 
 
 Peninsular Sugar Co., Caro, Mich. 
 
 West Bay City Sugar Co.. West Bay City, Mich. 
 
 Alma Sugar Co., Alma, Mich. 
 
 Holland Sugar Co., Holland Mich. 
 
 Kalamazoo Sugar Co., Kalamazoo. Mich. (Moved to Chippewa Wis in 
 
 1903.) 
 D. C. Corbin, Waverly, Wash. 
 
 1900. 
 
 American Beet Sugar Co., Rocky Ford, Colo. 
 
 National Sugar Co., Sugar City, Colo. 
 
 Continental Sugar Co,, Fremont, Ohio. 
 
 Empire State Sugar Co., Lyons, N. Y. (Moved to Anaheim, Cal., in 1911., 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 1901. 
 
 Marine City Sugar Co., Marine City, Mich. 
 
 Lansing Sugar Co., Lansing, Mich. 
 
 Saginaw Sugar Co., Saginaw, Mich. (Moved to Sterling, Colo., in 1905.) 
 
 Western Construction Co., Loveland, Colo. 
 
 Wisconsin Suga'r Co., Menominee Falls, Wis. 
 
 Logan Sugar Co., Logan, Utah. 
 
 1902. 
 
 German- American Cooperative Beet Sugar Co., Salzburg, Mich. 
 
 Sebewaing Sugar Co., Sebewaing, Mich. 
 
 Valley Sugar Co., Carrollton, Mich. 
 
 Macomb Sugar Co., Mount Clemens, Mich. 
 
 Sanilac Sugar Refining Co., Croswell, Mich. 
 
 Eaton Sugar Co. Eaton Colo. 
 
 Greeley Sugar ^o., Greeley, Colo. . 
 
 1903. 
 
 Menominee River Sugar Co., Menominee, Mich. 
 
 Tawas Sugar Co., East Tawas, INIich. (Moved to Chaska, Minn., in 1905.) 
 
 Owosso Sugar Co., Owosso, Mich. 
 
 Windsor Sugar Co., Windsor, Colo. 
 
 Idaho Sugar Co., Idaho Falls, Idaho. 
 
 Utah Sugar Co., Garland, Utah. 
 
 St. Louis Sugar Co., St. Louis, Mich. 
 
 Longmont Sugar Co., Longmont, Colo. 
 
 1904. 
 
 Fort Collins Sugar Manufacturing Co. Fort Collins Colo. 
 
 Fremont Sugar Co., Sugar City, Idaho. 
 
 Rock County Sugar Co., Janesville, Wis. (Old Dresden, Ontario, plant.) 
 
 Chippewa Sugar Co., Chippewa Falls, Wis. 
 
 Snake Valley Sugar Co., Blackfoot, Idaho. 
 
 1905. 
 
 American Beet Sugar Co., Lamar, Colo. 
 
 Holly Construction Co., Holly, Colo. (Now Holly Sugar Co.) 
 
 Charles Pope, Chicago, Riverdale, 111. 
 
 Sterling Sugar Co., Sterling, Colo. 
 
 Continental Sugar Co., Blissfield, Mich. 
 
 Amalgamated Sugar Co., Lewiston, Utah. 
 
 1906. 
 
 Charlevoix Sugar Co., Charlevoix, Mich. (Moved to Ottawa, Ohio, in 
 
 1911.) 
 Pacific Sugar Co., Visalia, Cal. 
 
 I- 
 
 i 
 
I .f 
 
 10 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Alta, Cal., Beet Sugar Co., Hamilton City, Cal. 
 
 Utah-Idaho Sugar Co., Nampa, Idaho. 
 
 United States Sugar & Land Co., Garden City, Kans. 
 
 United States Sugar Co., Madison, Wis. 
 
 Holly Construction Co., Swink, Colo. 
 
 Carver County Sugar Co., Chaska, Minn. 
 
 Billings Sugar Co., Billings, Mont. 
 
 Great Western Sugar Co., Brush, Colo. . 
 
 Great Western Sugar Co., Fort Morgan, Colo. 
 
 Southwestern Sugar & Land Co., Glendale, Ariz. 
 
 1907. 
 
 Iowa Sugar Co., Waverly, Iowa. 
 
 American Beet Sugar Co., Las Animas, Colo. • 
 
 1909. 
 
 Pacific Sugar Co., Corcoran, Cal. (Moved machinery from Crockett, 
 Cal.) 
 
 Southern California Sugar Co., Santa Ana, Cal. (Moved from Wiarton, 
 Ontario.) 
 
 1910. 
 
 Scottsbluff Sugar Co.. Scottsbluff. Nebr. 
 German- American Sugar Co., Paulding, Ohio. 
 
 1911. 
 
 Anaheim Sugar Co., Anaheim, Cal. 
 Holly Sugar Co., Huntington Beach, Cal. 
 San Louis Valley Sugar Co., Monte Vista, Colo. 
 Continental Sugar Co., Findlay, Ohio. 
 Utah-Idaho Sugar Co., Elsinore, Utah. 
 
 1912. 
 
 Holland-St. Louis Sugar Co., Decatur, Ind. 
 
 Amalgamated Sugar Co., Burley, Idaho. 
 
 Toledo Sugar Co., Toledo, Ohio. 
 
 Ottawa Sugar Co., Ottawa, Ohio. 
 
 Santa Ana Cooperative Sugar Co., Dyer, Cal. 
 
 Nevada Sugar Co., Fallon, Nev. 
 
 1913. 
 
 Utah-Idaho Sugar Co., Payson, Utah. 
 
 From the foregoing statement it is seen that there was a marked 
 impetus in factory building in the late nineties. Seven new factories 
 were completed in 1898 and 14 in 1899. This expansion was marked 
 and steady down to and including 1906. Only two factories were 
 built in each of the years 1907, 1909, and 1910. None was built in 
 
 INTBODUCTTON. 
 
 11 
 
 1908. In 1911 and 1912 there was renewed activity in building, 11 
 factories being completed in those two years. 
 
 It is worthy of note that of the 14 factories built in 1899 eight of 
 them were in Michigan. This extraordinary expansion of the indus- 
 try in Michigan was no doubt due to the enactment of a law by the 
 legislature in 1897 providing for a State sugar bounty (see p. 15). 
 
 An increase in production naturally followed the increased num- 
 ber of factories. Prior to 1891 there had not been produced as much 
 as 3,000 tons of sugar in any one year. In 1891 the production was 
 5,400 tons. By 1897 this had increased to about 40,000 tons, and by 
 3900 the production reached nearly 83,000 tons. The increase in 
 production and its relation to consumption are shown in Table 3 
 
 (see p. 17).^ 
 
 Location of beet-sugar factories in 1914. — There were 78 beet- 
 sugar factories in the United States in 1914, located in 17 States, as 
 follows : 
 
 Arizona 1 Montanal 
 
 California 13 
 
 Colorado 16 
 
 Idaho 5 
 
 Illinois 1 
 
 Indiana 1 
 
 Iowa 1 
 
 Kansas 1 
 
 Michigan ^ 16 
 
 Minnesota 1 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 7 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 Wyoming 1 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 Nevada 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Utah 
 
 Washington. 
 Wisconsin 
 
 Total 78 
 
 Ten of the above States have only 1 factory each, and one State 
 has only 2. The four principal centers of production are Michigan 
 and northern Ohio, Colorado, northern Utah and southern Idaho, 
 and southern California. In comparatively recent years there were 
 factories in New York and Oregon, but these have all been aban- 
 doned or removed to other States. The factory in Washington has 
 not been in operation for several years. One at Holly, Colo., was 
 removed to Sheridan, Wyo., in 1915. The i)lant at Glendale, Ariz., 
 has never been able to secure a sufficient quantity of beets, and in the 
 season of 1914-15 some experiments were made with sugar cane. 
 
 Growth of production. — Naturally the growth of production has 
 kept pace with the increased number of factories. The annual pro- 
 
 * Tonnage figures taken from Final Report, Industrial Commission, p. 84. 
 
 
 f 
 •^1 
 
 iit i 
 
 i 
 
 ft 
 
%r:kl 
 
 m 
 
 •I ■ 
 
 ■:i I 
 
 12 THE BEET SUGAE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 auction of beet sugar in the United States from 1889-90 to 1914-15 
 inclusive, is shown in Table 2 below : ' 
 
 Table 2.-ANNUAL PRODUCTION OF BEET SUGAR IN THE UNITED STATES FROM 
 
 1889-flO TO 1914-15. INCLUSIVE. 
 
 INTEODUOTION. 
 
 13 
 
 Year. 
 
 Produc- 
 tion. 
 
 Year. 
 
 1889-90.. 
 
 1890-91.. 
 
 1891-92.. 
 
 1892-93. . 
 
 1893-94. . . 
 
 1894-95... 
 
 1895-96... 
 
 1896-97... 
 
 1897-98... 
 
 1898-99... 
 
 1899-1900. 
 
 1900-1901. 
 
 1901-2.... 
 
 S?iort tons. 
 2,467 
 3,874 
 5,999 
 13,460 
 22, UA 
 22, .503 
 32,726 
 42,040 
 45,246 
 36,368 
 81,729 
 68,082 
 184,606 
 
 1902-3. 
 
 1903-4.. 
 
 1904-5. . 
 
 1905-6. . 
 
 1906-7.. 
 
 1907-8. . 
 1908-9.. 
 1909-10- 
 1910-11. 
 1911-12. 
 191^13. 
 1913-14. 
 1914-15. 
 
 Produc- 
 tion. 
 
 Short tons. 
 218,406 
 240,604 
 242,113 
 312,921 
 483,612 
 463,628 
 425,884 
 1509,655 
 1510,821 
 » 585, 385 
 » 688, 174 
 ' 726, 764 
 722,054 
 
 in process at the end of the year becomes pSTof the prodSn for thTn?x? vP^^^^Th.^rr,' ''^^ ^1^^ 
 figures of the Commission include first those taken dirPPtl v frnm tin >P« i '^f^l' ^^® *°*^^ production 
 either an estimate or returns Scured 7rora oTher so^^^^ fnrinr. nlr?® company and, second, 
 
 the latter representing only a few small faetoriP<f For Inf f holoo?o i?^^'^^^®^ nearly all the suear produced, 
 mission covered morl than 99 per^nt o/S^^^^ secure(f by the Com ' 
 
 
 Federal Trade Commission. 
 
 Total 
 production 
 as stated 
 by De- 
 partment 
 of Agri- 
 culture. 
 
 
 Year. 
 
 Secured 
 from books 
 
 of* 
 companies 
 or reported 
 to the Com- 
 mission. 
 
 Returns 
 from other 
 
 sources 
 
 ' or 
 estimated. 
 
 Total pro- 
 duction. 
 
 Difference. 
 
 1909-10 
 
 Tons. 
 
 496,690 
 
 498,820 
 
 580.553 
 
 684,674 
 
 723,264 
 
 Tons. \ Tons. 
 
 Tons. 
 
 512,469 
 
 510, 172 
 
 599,500 
 
 692,556 
 
 733,401 
 
 722,054 
 
 Tons. 
 
 1910-11 
 
 12, 9oo 
 
 12,001 
 
 4,832 
 
 3,500 
 
 3,500 
 
 510,821 1 
 5.85,385 
 aS.S, 174 
 72G, 764 
 
 2,814 
 
 1911-12 
 
 649 
 
 1912-13 
 
 14,115 
 
 1913-14 
 
 4,382 
 
 1914-15 
 
 6,637 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 Prior to 1889 the production of beet sugar exceeded 1,000 tons 
 m only two years. From the foregoing table it is seen that in 26 
 years the production has increased from less than 2,500 ton« to 
 
 
 
 .i 
 
 more than 700,000 tons. The production in 1892 more than doubled 
 that of the preceding year. There was a considerable increase 
 until in 1901 the production was more than twice as much as it 
 had been in any year prior to that time. From 1902 to 1908 the 
 production more than doubled. The remarkable increase beginning 
 in the late nineties was due to various causes. The United States 
 Department of Agriculture and various State experiment stations 
 had conducted campaigns of education among the farmers and 
 favorable legislation by the United States and by some of the 
 States had greatly encouraged the building of factories. 
 
 Section 4. Governmental encouragement of the industry. 
 
 The development of the beet-sugar industry in the United States 
 has resulted largely from direct encouragement by the Federal and 
 State Governments. The successful results in France and Germany 
 no doubt first suggested an effort to develop beet-sugar manufac- 
 ture in this country. According to the final report of the Industrial 
 Commission (p. 84), the beginning of the beet-sugar industry in 
 this country dates from 1862, though soihe experiments were made 
 as early as 1835. The principal difficulties to overcome were agri- 
 cultural. The American farmer did not understand the cultivation 
 of the beet and it was not definitely known in what particular sec- 
 tions of the country the best results might be obtained. The United 
 States Department of Agriculture and various State agricultural 
 colleges and experiment stations began to supply seed to farmers 
 and to give them instructions as to planting and cultivation. These 
 experiments were conducted in many of the States and covered a 
 period of several years. In fact, experimental work is still being 
 done through governmental agencies. 
 
 Encouragement through federal tariff legislation. — Since 
 1883 various Federal tariff acts have afforded a large measure of pro- 
 tection to the sugar industry. The act of 1883 provided for a rate 
 of $1.40 per 100 pounds on sugars not above No. 13 Dutch stand- 
 ard in color and not above 75° polariscope test.^ Under this law 
 sugar testing 96° was subject to a duty of $2.24 per 100 pounds. 
 These rates were in effect until 1891. By the tariff act of 1890 
 (effective Apr. 1, 1891) sugar not above 16 Dutch standard in color 
 
 was admitted free of duty. By the same act, however, there was 
 
 ■ — t — 
 
 1 The Dutch standard consists of a series of crystallized sugar samples of approxi- 
 mately equal j?radations of color ranging from No. 7, which is very dark, to No. 25, which 
 is almost white. The color grade of any given sample Is determined by a comparison 
 with the standard series prepared by an establishment in Holland for the sugar trade. 
 * * * No. 16 Dutch standard is technically the color distinction in the United States 
 between refined and raw sugar. (The Department of Commerce, Circular of Bureau of 
 Standards No. 44, p. 50.) 
 
 The degree of polarization means the per cent of sucrose. Thus, by 96° sugar is 
 nieant that 96 per cent of the weight of tlie mass tested is sucrose. 
 
 ^' 
 
 ^' 
 
 ,^,«SF?^?^raF* ^'©» ■ 
 
 » •: 
 
14 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 15 
 
 |tl| 
 
 :!.i ^ t 
 
 provided a bounty of 2 cents per pound on domestic sugar testing not 
 less than 90° polariscope test and a bounty of IJ cents per pound on 
 sugar testing less than 90°, but not less than 80°. Thus the bounty 
 provision of 1890 afforded almost as much protection to the domestic 
 sugar grower as was secured under the previous tariff. 
 
 In 1894 the bounty law was repealed and an ad valorem duty of 
 40 per cent was levied on all sugars above 16 Dutch standard in 
 color and one-tenth of a cent per pound additional on sugar from 
 boimty-paying countries. The 40 per cent ad valorem was equiva- 
 lent to 1 cent per pound on sugar selling for 2^ cents per pound in 
 the foreign market. 
 
 By the act of 1897 the duty was fixed at 0.95 of a cent per pound 
 on sugar not above 16 Dutch Standard and not above 75° polariscope 
 test. The additions for the higher tests made the rate on 96° sugar 
 1.685 cents per pound. These rates remained until March, 1914, ex- 
 cept as to sugar from the Philippines and Cuba. ' 
 
 By the act of March 8, 1902, the rate on Philippine sugar was made 
 25 per cent less than the general rate. The reciprocity treaty with 
 Cuba, ratified December 27, 1903, provided that the duty on Cuban 
 sugar should be 20 per cent less than the general rate. 
 
 The tariff act of 1913 fixed a rate of 0.71 of a cent per pound on 
 sugar not above 75° polariscope test and twenty-six one-thousandths 
 of a cent for each additional degree. This made the duty on 96° 
 sugar 1.256 cents per pound. These rates became effective March 1, 
 1914. This act repeals that portion of the Cuban reciprocity treaty 
 relating to sugar. Under the Cuban reciprocity treaty the duty on 
 Cuban sugar testing, not more than 96° was at the time of its ratifi- 
 cation 1.348 cents per pound. Since March 1, 1914, the rate on Cuban 
 sugar has been 1.005 cents per pound. 
 
 Encouragement through State legislation. — Several States 
 have enacted laws to encourage the sugar industry, some by exempt- 
 ing property employed in its manufacture from taxation for a period 
 of years, and some by bounties. There are now no State bounty laws 
 in effect. They either originally covered a stated period or they have 
 been repealed or declared unconstitutional. 
 
 Idaho. — In 1903 the Legislature of Idaho passed an act providing 
 for a bounty of one-half cent per pound for sugar manufactured dur- 
 ing the year 1904. There has been no further legislation on the 
 subject. 
 
 Kansas. — In 1905 a law was enacted providing for a bounty of $1 
 per ton for all sugar beets grown within the State and actually used 
 in the manufacture of sugar. An appropriation of $10,000 was made 
 for the payment of bounties during the year 1906-7. 
 
 Iowa.—\TL 1889 the property of sugar manufacturers, including the 
 capital invested and the personal property used in connection with 
 
 the business, was exempted from taxation until January 1, 1910. The 
 act was amended in 1907 extending the period, of exemption to Janu- 
 ary 1, 1917. 
 
 Minnesota.— In 1895 the State of Minnesota provided a bounty of 
 1 cent per pound on sugar manufactured in that State. In 1899 
 this act was amended so as to limit the amount of money that could 
 be paid out in any one year to not exceeding. $40,000. The act also 
 provided that it should remain in effect only until the 1st day of 
 January, 1901. The State auditor refused to issue warrants for the 
 sugar bounty provided for in the law of 1895 and as amended in 1899 
 for the year 1900. The action of the auditor was reviewed by the 
 supreme court of the State and in 1903 the law was declared uncon- 
 stitutional.^ 
 
 Michigan. — In 1897 the Legislature of Michigan enacted a law pro- 
 viding for a bounty of 2 cents per pound on all sugar produced within 
 the State. The validity of this law was questioned by the attorney 
 general of the State and no bounties were paid except for one or two 
 years. In Michigan Sugar Co. v. Auditor General, ^ it was held that 
 that section of the law providing for the payment of a bounty for 
 the encouragement of the beet-sug:ar industry was unconstitutional. 
 
 Nebraska. — A law of Nebraska enacted in 1895 offered a bounty 
 for the manufacture of sugar. It appears that the legislature failed 
 to make appropriations to pay these bounties. In Oxnard Beet Sugar 
 Co. V. Nebraska,^ it was held in 1905 that the fact that the manufac- 
 turers paid producers high prices for beets (presumably because they 
 expected a bounty) did not create in favor of such manufacturers an 
 obligation against the State. 
 
 Ne2v York. — In May. 1897, the Legislature of New York passed an 
 act providing for the payment of 1 cent per pound to sugar manu- 
 facturers who paid the grower not less than $5 per ton for beets, and 
 appropriated $25,000 for making the act effective. In 1898 $50,000 
 was appropriated for this purpose. Again, in 1900, there was an 
 appropriation of $50,000, and one of $100,000 in 1901. In 1902 an 
 act was passed appropriating $50,000 to pay bounties to beet-sugar 
 manufacturers of one-half cent per pound, and provided that the 
 bounties in 1903 and 1904 should also be one-half cent per pound. 
 In 1904, $60,000 were appropriated for beet-sugar bounties. No ap- 
 propriations have been made since that time. In June, 1905, another 
 bounty act was passed which provided that appropriations thereafter 
 made to encourage beet culture should be distributed to the manu- 
 facturers and beet growers, the latter to receive $1 per ton for beets. 
 It appears that no appropriation was ever made under this act and 
 in 1908 the act of 1905 was repealed. 
 
 191 Minn., 30. 
 
 2 124 Mich., 674. 
 
 8 79 Nebr., 57-66. 
 

 16 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 17 
 
 I 
 
 -1 '■ >■ 
 
 The effect of tariffs and bounties on the industry. — There is 
 no question that Federal tariffs and in some cases State bounties 
 have greatly stimulated the beet-sugar industry. The beginning of 
 the construction of several factories in 1898 and their completion in 
 1899 (see p. 8) was no doubt largely due to the enactment of the 
 Michigan bounty law. This State bounty law in connection with the 
 Federal tariff law of 1897 afforded a large measure of encourage- 
 ment in that State. Following the enactment of the bounty law 
 in the State of New York a factory was built in 1897, another in 
 1898, and another in 1900. It is said that the last of these factories 
 was remove^ from the State because of the failure of the State to 
 pay bounties. ' , 
 
 For several years following the tariff act of 1897 there was a 
 remarkable expansion of the industry in what are now the principal 
 beet sugar producing sections of the country. Down to the time of 
 the reciprocity treaty with Cuba in 1903 the duty of $1.68J per 100 
 pounds on raw sugar testing 96° afforded great advantage to this 
 industry, and even after the Cuban reciprocity treaty when the duty 
 was reduced to about $1.35 per 100 pounds the advantage was still 
 very great. 
 
 To what extent the large measure of protection to the industry 
 encouraged careless selection of localities for factories can not be 
 stated. It is probable that the expectation of a wide margin of 
 profit provided for in the tariff had such a tendency to foster care- 
 lessness in the selection of factory locations. A number of factories 
 have been built without particular regard to the quantity and qual- 
 ity of beets available, apparently with the expectation that the busi- 
 ness would be so profitable that extraordinary inducements could be 
 offered to farmers. Naturallv an undue, artificial stimulus also re- 
 suits in a lack of thorough care in equipping and operating fac- 
 tories. 
 
 Section 5. Consumption of sugar in continental United States. 
 
 The per capita consumption of sugar in continental United States 
 is greater than that of any other country except Great Britain. 
 Figures for consumption include sugar used in any form. There are 
 no figures indicating the amount of sugar per capita used as such for 
 strictly domestic purposes. It is well known that a large percentage 
 of the sugar consumption is in the form of candies and other confec- 
 tions, preserves, jams, etc. Furthermore, there is considerable sugar 
 used in the manufacture of tobacco and in various other wavs. The 
 total consumption of sugar in continental United States, the source 
 of supply, the per capita consumption in the United States, and the 
 per cent of the world's production consumed in the United States, 
 from 1865 to 1914, are shown in Table 3 below : 
 
 TABLE 3 -consumption OF SUGAR IN CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES, 1865-1914. 
 [Statistical Abstract: Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce.] 
 
 Year. 
 
 1876. 
 1877- 
 1878- 
 1879- 
 1880. 
 1881- 
 1882. 
 1883. 
 1884- 
 188.5- 
 1886. 
 1887. 
 1888. 
 1889- 
 1890. 
 1891. 
 1892. 
 1893. 
 1894. 
 1895. 
 1896. 
 1897. 
 1898. 
 1899- 
 1900. 
 1901- 
 1902. 
 1903. 
 1904. 
 1905. 
 1906. 
 1907. 
 1908. 
 1909. 
 1910. 
 1911. 
 1912. 
 1913. 
 1914. 
 
 Total consump- 
 tion in United 
 States (conti- 
 nental).! 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 631,397,214 
 1,008,603,114 
 
 880,009,330 
 1,155,275,475 
 1,328,534,744 
 1,261,941,665 
 1,442,470,531 
 1,649,834,977 
 1,670,246,701 
 1,782,063,238 
 1,904,621,896 
 1,598,951,344 
 1,811,268,726 
 1,645,604,810 
 2,002,953,025 
 1,970,221,478 
 2,201,187,313 
 2,142,904,249 
 2,426,981,787 
 2,975,026,610 
 2.687,818,446 
 2,818,144,031 
 3,125,276,345 
 3,016,360,183 
 3,091,376,231 
 3,192,735,098 
 3,875,344,121 
 3,919,671,292 
 4,262,589,311 
 4,936,382,960 
 4,321,674,363 
 4,494,681,898 
 5,598,391,028 
 3,468,736,934 
 4,604,811,191 
 4,477,175,236 
 5,585,008,783 
 5,018,972,657 
 6,380,165,502 
 5,661,900,411 
 6,025,772,362 
 6,491,294,803 
 7,089,668,935 
 6,590,822,991 
 7,283,363,552 
 7,360,130,811 
 7, 235, 972, 746 
 7,862,155,291 
 8,234,477,135 
 8, 793, 794, 928 
 
 Percentage of consumption sup- 
 plied by- 
 
 Domestic. 
 
 1.9 
 
 2.1 
 
 5.8 
 
 4.5 
 
 7.7 
 
 7.0 
 
 12.4 
 
 9.5 
 
 8.1 
 
 6.2 
 
 7.5 
 
 10.8 
 
 11.0 
 
 9.7 
 
 12.5 
 
 9.2 
 
 13.0 
 
 8.0 
 
 13.2 
 
 10.2 
 
 8.5 
 
 10.8 
 
 6.2 
 
 12.5 
 
 11.3 
 
 9.6 
 
 13.0 
 
 9.8 
 
 12.3 
 
 13.3 
 
 17.9 
 
 13.6 
 
 13.0 
 
 23.0 
 
 13.9 
 
 10.9 
 
 14.3 
 
 21.9 
 
 18.5 
 
 17.8 
 
 21.0 
 
 21.4 
 
 21.3 
 
 26.0 
 
 21.8 
 
 19.0 
 
 23.0 
 
 23.2 
 
 20.8 
 
 22.7 
 
 Noncon- 
 tiguous 
 territory. 
 
 Foreign 
 countries. 
 
 11.1 
 
 15.0 
 14.7 
 12.7 
 12.3 
 16.2 
 14.9 
 16.4 
 12.3 
 10.6 
 13.2 
 12.6 
 14.2 
 14.8 
 11.9 
 14.1 
 14.4 
 16.3 
 15.9 
 18.8 
 18.9 
 20.5 
 19.1 
 20.5 
 16.5 
 17.6 
 
 9.0 
 11.2 
 12.0 
 10.7 
 
 9.2 
 12.9 
 10.5 
 18.1 
 13.5 
 14.0 
 14.9 
 18.2 
 16.0 
 18.7 
 19.6 
 18.9 
 17.7 
 24.0 
 21.9 
 25.2 
 26.0 
 30.2 
 24.7 
 21.3 
 
 87.0 
 82.9 
 79.5 
 82.8 
 80.0 
 76.8 
 72.7 
 74.1 
 79.6 
 83.2 
 79.3 
 76.6 
 74.8 
 75.5 
 75.6 
 76.7 
 72.6 
 75.7 
 70.9 
 71.0 
 72.6 
 68.7 
 74.7 
 67.0 
 72.2 
 72.8 
 78.0 
 79.0 
 75.7 
 76.0 
 72.9 
 73.5 
 76.5 
 58.9 
 72.6 
 75.1 
 70.8 
 59.9 
 65.5 
 63.5 
 59.4 
 59.7 
 61.0 
 50.0 
 56.3 
 55.8 
 51.0 
 46.6 
 54.5 
 56.0 
 
 Per capita 
 consump- 
 tion in 
 United 
 States.i 
 
 Pounds. 
 18.17 
 28.45 
 24.30 
 31.24 
 35.19 
 32.73 
 36.47 
 40.64 
 40.08 
 41.64 
 43.33 
 35.42 
 39.07 
 34.59 
 40.99 
 39.46 
 42.89 
 40.82 
 45.20 
 54.18 
 47.87 
 49.09 
 53.26 
 50.29 
 50.44 
 50.72 
 60.70 
 60.22 
 64.24 
 72.99 
 62.69 
 63.98 
 78.20 
 47.55 
 61.98 
 58.91 
 71.96 
 63.35 
 78.92 
 68.66 
 71.66 
 75.74 
 81.19 
 74.11 
 80.43 
 79.90 
 77.15 
 82.43 
 85.04 
 89.14 
 
 Per cent of 
 
 world's 
 
 product 
 
 consumed 
 
 in United 
 
 States. 
 
 14.3 
 
 22.0 
 
 17.4 
 
 24.5 
 
 24.9 
 
 23.3 
 
 24.4 
 
 28.1 
 
 24.8 
 
 25.4 
 
 29.0 
 
 24.3 
 
 29.8 
 
 22.7 
 
 25.0 
 
 27.1 
 
 26.9 
 
 24.9 
 
 25.5 
 
 28.4 
 
 24.5 
 
 27.6 
 
 27.5 
 
 27.4 
 
 27.7 
 
 25.0 
 
 27.6 
 
 27.5 
 
 29.4 
 
 29.9 
 
 24.3 
 
 27.1 
 
 31.4 
 
 20.0 
 
 25.7 
 
 23.1 
 
 25.7 
 
 20.4 
 
 28.7 
 
 24.5 
 
 28.3 
 
 20.8 
 
 21.9 
 
 21.1 
 
 22.3 
 
 22.0 
 
 19.0 
 
 22.1 
 
 20.2 
 
 21.1 
 
 ^' 
 
 
 1 Expressed mainly in terms of raw sugar. 
 
 .d^ 
 
-*^^vt. 
 
 ta^im 
 
 18 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 19 
 
 ff 
 
 i 
 
 ire 
 
 The per capita consumption has increased from 18 pounds in 1865 
 to 89 pounds, or nearly 400 per cent, in 1914. Fifty years ago 87 
 per cent of the sugar consumed in this country was imported. This 
 proportion has gradually fallen until it is now less than 60 per cgnt. 
 Parallel with this relative decrease in the proportion of the total 
 consumption imported there has been of course a corresponding in- 
 crease in domestic production. The sugar supplied to the United 
 States by its noncontiguous territory, the Hawaiian Islands, the 
 Philippines, and Porto Rico, is now about 21 per cent of the total con- 
 sumption, and the percentage supplied by continental United States, 
 including both beet and cane, is somewhat greater. 
 
 At the present time practically all the sugar consumed in this 
 country is produced in the United States, including its possessions, 
 and in Cuba. The imports from other foreign countries than Cuba 
 are comparatively insignificant. 
 
 It is a remarkable fact that approximately one-fifth of all the 
 commercial sugar of the world is consumed in the United States. 
 
 Percentage of consumption supplied by domestic beet-sugar 
 FACTORIES.— Practically all the beet sugar made in this country is 
 consumed here. From 50 to 55 per cent of the sugar consumed in 
 the United States is importecl ; the remainder comes in about equal 
 proportions from beets and Louisiana cane, and from Hawaii, the 
 Philippines, and Porto Rico. The percentage of the total consump- 
 tion produced in domestic beet factories and from Louisiana cane for 
 the last 16 years is shown in Table 4 below : 
 
 Table 4.— PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL CONSUMPTION OF SUGAR IN THE UNITED 
 STATES PRODUCED FROM DOMESTIC CANE AND BEETS, 1899 TO 1914, INCLUSIVE. 
 [Computed from the Statistical Abstract, 1914, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce.] 
 
 Year. 
 
 Louisi- 
 ana cane. 
 
 Beet. 
 
 1899 
 1900 
 1001 
 1902 
 1903 
 1904 
 1905. 
 1906. 
 
 12.3 
 
 7.2 
 
 11.2 
 
 14.5 
 
 11.7 
 
 9.3 
 
 13.0 
 
 11.8 
 
 L6 
 3.7 
 3.1 
 7.4 
 6.8 
 8.5 
 8.0 
 9.6 
 
 Total. 
 
 13.9 
 10.9 
 14.3 
 21.9 
 18.5 
 17.8 
 21.0 
 21.4 
 
 Year. 
 
 1907 
 1908 
 190^ 
 1910 
 1911. 
 1912. 
 1913. 
 1914 
 
 Louisi- 
 ana cane. 
 
 Beet. 
 
 7.7 
 
 13.6 
 
 11.9 
 
 14.1 
 
 n.4 
 
 11.7 
 
 10.2 
 
 13.9 
 
 9.8 
 
 14.1 
 
 9.2 
 
 15.3 
 
 3.9 
 
 17.6 
 
 6.7 
 
 16.7 
 
 Total. 
 
 21.3 
 26.0 
 23.1 
 24.1 
 23.9 
 24.5 
 21.6 
 23.4 
 
 It should be pointed out that the totals in the above table do not 
 exactly agree with the percentage of consumption supplied from 
 domestic sources as shown in Table 3. This is due to the fact that in 
 the latter table the exports of domestic sugar have been deducted, 
 while in Table 4 they have not. The purpose of Table 4 is to show 
 what percentage of the total consumption is produced in beet-sugar 
 factories. 
 
 It appears from the table that in recent years domestic beet-sugar 
 factories have produced enough to meet about 15 per cent of the 
 domestic demand. In fact, the proportion is somewhat greater than 
 this. About half of the domestic consumption is reported in terms 
 of raw sugar, while all of the beet-sugar production is reported in 
 terms of refined sugar. The proportion of the consumption pro- 
 duced in the beet factories is therefore a little greater than the figures 
 in the foregoing table would indicate. It is worthy of note that dur- 
 ing the past eight years the increase in the production of beet sugar 
 has just about kept pace with the increased total consmnption. 
 
 •f 
 
 » 
 
 1^" 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 Y. 
 
 i 
 
■-^^^^ 
 
 BEET GROWING. 
 
 21 
 
 flfi'i ! 
 
 \^ 
 
 If 
 
 
 ■| ■:!■ 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 BEET GROWING. 
 
 I. YIELD AND QUALITY OF BEETS IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Section 1. Introduction. 
 
 The widely extended area in which the sugar beet can be grown in 
 this country, the methods of cultivation, and the particular problems 
 that may confront the grower are not discussed in this report. All 
 these matters have been thoroughly studied by the United States De- 
 partment of Agriculture, and a vast amount of information relating 
 to every phase of beet culture is available to anyone interested. The 
 discussion of beet culture in this report is confined to the concrete 
 results and the economic aspects of this branch of farming. 
 
 The farmer is the most important factor in the beet-sugar industry. 
 He must supply beets in sufficient quantity and quality or else the 
 beet-sugar manufacturer can not exist. Sugar-beet culture demands 
 closer vigilance on the part of the farmer than is necessary to grow 
 the ordinary farm crops, such as grain, hay, etc. In a revised edition 
 of Farmers' Bulletin 52, issued by the United States Department of 
 Agriculture in 1910, the high class of farming necessary to grow 
 sugar beets successfully was pointed out in the following language: 
 
 The successful growing of sugar beets is an art that one 
 acquires by practice. The farmer who has made a success of 
 raising other crops wull quite often fail at first in this one, as 
 the methods of cultivating ordinary crops do not apply in the 
 case of sugar beets. Certain directions for the preparation of 
 the soil, the planting, thinning, and harvesting must be followed 
 in beet culture. Although it is possible to raise sugar beets 
 with little regard to these directions, such a crop will usually 
 fail to pay for itself, either because the yield is too small or the 
 sugar content of the beets too low to meet factory requirements. 
 In commercial beet growing, therefore, carelessness leads quickly 
 to failure, while careful regard for details spells success. Suc- 
 cess comes at first from following the advice of successful grow- 
 ers, and later it may be augmented by practical experience. 
 
 From the foregoing and from numerous other statements embody- 
 ing the experience of experts and of practical farmers, it appears 
 that beets are one of the most exacting crops grown. The land must 
 20 
 
 be adapted not only to produce beets in reasonably large quantities 
 but of such quality as to insure a high sugar content. Furthermore, 
 the sugar content must be of a degree of purity high enough to guar- 
 antee its profitable conversion into edible sugar. Probably no other 
 crop reflects more fully improper or careless methods of culture or 
 the neglect of doing everything at the proper time. 
 Section 2. Yield of sugar beets per acre. 
 
 The quantity of beets grown per acre varies according to the 
 variety of beets, quality of seed, quality of land, methods of culti- 
 vation and moisture conditions. There is a wide variation of pro- 
 duction in different sections of the country and even among different 
 growers in the same section. Thus production frequently ranges 
 from 6 or T tons to 15 tons per acre, and in extreme cases the range 
 is much wider. In some localities a yield of 20 tons per acre is not 
 uncommon. The average for the United States has been as much 
 as 11 tons per acre but once in 11 years. Table 5 below shows the 
 average yield per acre in the principal beet-growing States and for 
 the United States from 1904 to 1914 inclusive : 
 
 Table 6.-AVERAGE YIELD OF SUGAR BEETS PER ACRE IN THE UNITED STATES, BY 
 
 STATES, 1904 TO 1914, INCLUSIVE. 
 
 • [Compiled from bulletins of the U. S. Department of Agrlculture.l 
 
 Year. 
 
 Califor- 
 nia. 
 
 Colorado. Michigan. 
 
 Utah and 
 Idaho. 
 
 Wiscon- 
 sin. 
 
 Other 
 States. 
 
 United 
 States. 
 
 I 
 
 1 Included with "Other States." 
 
 The statistics for Utah and Idaho have been combined in this table 
 and in all other similar tables because of their proximity and the 
 interrelation of factory interests. From the above table it is seen 
 that the highest average yields are in Colorado and Utah and Idaho. 
 In these States taken together the average is above the average for 
 the United States for every year during the period covered except 
 one. In California the average for the State was above the average 
 for the United States for 6 years in 11. In Wisconsin the aver- 
 age was above that for the United States for 7 years out of 10. 
 
 87731—17 3 
 
 % 
 
 N 
 
 ill i" 
 
 |U 
 
saa 
 
 22 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR IHTDUSTBY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 The average in Michigan is very low. In only one year during the 
 period covered was the average in that State equal to the average 
 for the United States. 
 
 Section 3. Quality of beets. 
 
 Special emphasis should be placed on the importance of the quality 
 of beets. Unless the quality is of a fair degree it does not pay to 
 extract the sugar. There are two elements of quality, namely, the 
 sugar content and the degree of purity. A considerable percentage 
 of the total weight of the beets consists of soluble solids and most 
 of these solids consists of pure sugar. The per cent of the total 
 weight of the beets that is pure sugar is called the sugar content. 
 The per cent of the total soluble solids that is pure sugar is called 
 the degree or percentage of purity. This is discussed on the follow- 
 ing page. 
 
 Under existing conditions it does not pay to work beets testing 
 below 10 or 12 per cent of sugar. Indeed, an average content as 
 low as this probably could not be profitably worked. Some factories 
 reserve the right to reject beets testing below 11 or 12 per cent. The 
 average should be well above 12 per cent. Likewise, the percentage 
 of purity must not be too low because the lower the per cent of 
 pure sugar in the soluble solids the higher is the relative cost of 
 extraction. Some factories reserve the right to reject beets show- 
 ing a purity below 80 per cent, and probably no factory would care 
 to run on beets having an average below that percentage. 
 
 Percentage of sugar in beets. — The sugar content of the beets 
 worked by the sugar factories of the United States for 11 years 
 ending with 1913-14 ranged from 14.90 in 1906 to 16.38 in 1914. 
 It was above 16 per cent but 4 years of the 11. It should be under- 
 stood that the entire sugar content of beets can not be extracted. A 
 ton of beets testing 15 per cent contains 300 pounds of pure sugar at 
 the time of delivery to the factory, but that amount can not be 
 extracted. Some of it is lost between the time of purchase of the 
 beets and their manufacture, some of it is left in the beet pulp, some 
 remains in the molasses, and some is lost — ^that is, it can not be 
 accounted for at all. The percentage of sugar in the beet is therefore 
 always greater than the percentage extracted (see p. 25). 
 
 The average sugar content of the beets worked in the United 
 States from 1904 to 1914, inclusive, is shown in Table 6 following. 
 
 BEET growing. 
 
 23 
 
 Table 6.-AVERAGE SUGAR IN BEETS USED IN THE UNITED STATES, BY STATES, 
 
 1904 TO 1914. 
 
 [Compiled from bulletins of the U. S. Department of Agriculture.] 
 
 Year. 
 
 1904. 
 1905. 
 1906. 
 1907. 
 1908. 
 1909. 
 1910. 
 1911. 
 1912. 
 1913. 
 19141 
 
 Califor- 
 nia. 
 
 Colora- 
 do. 
 
 Per cent. ' Per cent. 
 
 15.74 
 17.27 
 16.70 
 17.90 
 17.66 
 17.61 
 18.20 
 18.95 
 18.79 
 18.04 
 18.46 
 
 15.64 
 14.71 
 14.70 
 15.30 
 13.85 
 14.24 
 15.19 
 15.44 
 16.19 
 14.92 
 15.35 
 
 Michi- 
 gan. 
 
 Per cent. 
 15.13 
 15.65 
 14.50 
 15.10 
 17.11 
 17.00 
 16.08 
 14.59 
 14.72 
 15.82 
 15.78 
 
 Utah 
 
 and 
 
 Idaho. 
 
 Per cent. 
 14.82 
 14.25 
 15.70 
 
 " 17.00 
 14.97 
 15.51 
 16.31 
 16.20 
 16.65 
 15.44 
 17.27 
 
 Wiscon- 
 sin. 
 
 Per cent. 
 14.54 
 15.00 
 13.60 
 15.10 
 16.72 
 15.88 
 16.75 
 14.23 
 15.10 
 14.10 
 (») 
 
 Other 
 States. 
 
 Per cent. 
 15.36 
 14.04 
 14.00 
 15.10 
 15.22 
 15.09 
 15.66 
 15.16 
 15.70 
 14.85 
 15.51 
 
 United 
 
 States. 
 
 Per cent. 
 15.3a 
 15. 3S 
 14.90 
 15.80 
 15.74 
 16.10 
 16.35 
 15.89 
 16.31 
 15. 7g 
 16.38 
 
 Figures for 1914 subject to slight revision. 
 Included with "Other States." 
 
 During the 11 years covered by the table the beets in California 
 
 tested above 17 per cent for 9 years. In Colorado they tested above 
 
 16 per cent only one year and above 15 per cent for 6 out of 11 years. 
 
 In Utah and Idaho the sugar content reached 17 per cent for 2 years; 
 
 f it was above 15 per cent for 8 years out of 11. In Michigan the per- 
 
 j| centage reached 17 for 2 years and above 15 for 8 years out of 11. In 
 
 ^ Wisconsin a content of 16 per cent was reached for only 2 years and 
 
 ^ it was above 15 per cent for 6 years out of 10. 
 
 Purity of beets. — There is a considerable proportion of the weight 
 of beets that consists of soluble solids, mostly sucrose, the chemical 
 term for crystallizable sugar. If a ton of beets contains say -iOO 
 pounds of soluble solids and of these solids 360 pounds consist of 
 sucrose then these beets are considered 90 per cent pure. Or, to put 
 it another way, if the beets test 18 per cent sucrose and 20 per cent 
 soluble solids, the per cent of purity, or as technically expressed the 
 coefficient of purity, is equal to eighteen-twentieths, or 90 per cent. 
 The relation of the sugar content to the soluble solids is very impor- 
 tant because it is the measure of the purity of the beets. While it is 
 thus important, it is not by itself a true test of the value of beets. 
 Beets testing a very high per cent of sucrose with a moderately low 
 per centage of purity will yield more sugar than beets testing a very 
 < low per cent of sucrose and a high percentage of purity. This fact 
 is brought out strikingly in Table 7 (see p. 24), in which it is seen 
 that the beets worked in Utah and Idaho average higher in purity 
 than those in California, but the sugar extraction in California, as 
 shown in Table 8 (see p. 25), is considerably higher than in Utah 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
24 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 BEET GROWING. 
 
 25 
 
 I 
 
 and Idaho. This is because the beets in California have a much 
 higher percentage of sucrose than those in Utah and Idaho. 
 
 The average purity of beets worked in the United States for each 
 year from 1904 to 1914, inclusive, is shown in Table T below. In each 
 of the 11 years shown in the table the purity showed an average above 
 82 per cent; for 9 years the average was above 83 per cent, and 3 
 years it was above 84 per cent. 
 
 Table 7— AVERAGE PURITY COEFFICIENT OF BEETS USED IN THE UNITED STATES, 
 
 BY STATES, 1904 TO 1914. 
 
 [Compilel from bulletins of the U. S. Department of Agriculture.] ^ 
 
 Year. 
 
 im. 
 
 1905. 
 1906. 
 1907 
 1908 
 1909 
 1910 
 1911 
 1912 
 1913 
 1914 
 
 Califor- 
 nia. 
 
 Per cent. 
 81.13 
 
 ' 81.33 
 82.70 
 85.10 
 83.20 
 83.62 
 82.78 
 82.04 
 83.99 
 86.26 
 82. 70 
 
 Colora- 
 do. 
 
 Per cent. 
 82.46 
 81.79 
 80.30 
 81.50 
 81.80 
 80.51 
 83.40 
 81.22 
 84.81 
 84.01 
 84.22 
 
 Michi- 
 gan. 
 
 Per cent. 
 85.47 
 84.67 
 83.20 
 84.70 
 84.80 
 86. 2L 
 86.15 
 80.00 
 83.75 
 82.61 
 82.85 
 
 Utah 
 
 and 
 
 Idaho. 
 
 P^r cent. 
 83.24 
 82.58 
 84.30 
 87.20 
 85.50 
 85.20 
 86.54 
 86.79 
 86.83 
 84.65 
 86.28 
 
 Wiscon- 
 sin. 
 
 Per cent. 
 83.51 
 83.00 
 83.00 
 85.60 
 84.50 
 85.17 
 84.14 
 81.00 
 84.31 
 
 (») 
 
 Other 
 States. 
 
 Per cent. 
 83.12 
 81.10 
 80.90 
 82.30 
 82.00 
 83.21 
 82.69 
 84.51 
 83.18 
 82.17 
 83.46 
 
 United 
 States. 
 
 Per cent. 
 83.10 
 83.00 
 82.20 
 83.60 
 83.50 
 84.11 
 84.35 
 82.21 
 84.49 
 83.22 
 83.89 
 
 1 Included with " Other States." 
 
 The percentage of purity in Utah and Idaho exceeded the average 
 for the United States 10 years out of 11. In Michigan the percentage 
 exceeded the average for the United States 6 years out of 11 and 
 was equal to the average in one other year. In Wisconsin the 
 average exceeded that for the United States 5 years out of 9 and 
 was equal to the average in one other year. In California and 
 Colorado the average fell below the average for the United States 
 
 8 years out of 11. 
 
 The purity of the beets in California was above 83 per cent for 
 5 years out of 11. In Utah and Idaho it was above 84 per cent for 
 
 9 years, and it was above 85 per cent for 7 years during the period 
 covered. In Michigan it was above 82 per cent 10 years out of an 
 11-year period. In Wisconsin it was above 82 per cent for 8 years 
 out of 9. In the group including the other States the percentage 
 of purity was above 82 per cent for 9 years out of 11. The per- 
 centage was below 81 per cent for 2 years in Colorado and 1 year 
 in Michigan. 
 
 Sugar extraction. — The real measure of the value of beets is the 
 quantity of sugar that can be extracted in a reasonably efficient fac- 
 tory, and this should determine the price to be paid the farmer. 
 
 The beet grower, therefore, should be specially concerned in the 
 quality of beets he produces, because this governs the amount of 
 •sugar that can be extracted and therefore the price he should receive. 
 The average extraction of sugar per ton of beets in the United 
 States by States from 1904 to 1914, inclusive, is shown in Table 8 
 below : 
 
 Table 8 -AVERAGE EXTRACTION OF SUGAR PER TON OF BEETS USED IN THE UNITED 
 
 STATES, BY STATES, 1904 TO 1914. 
 
 [Compiled from bulletins of the U. S. Department of Agriculture.] 
 
 Year. 
 
 1904 
 1905 
 1906 
 1907 
 1908 
 1909 
 I 1910 
 t 1911 
 { 1912 
 ' 1913 
 1914 
 
 4 
 
 y. 
 
 t 
 
 Califor- 
 nia. 
 
 Per cent. 
 11.80 
 14.37 
 13.81 
 15.06 
 13.89 
 14.43 
 15.15 
 15.55 
 15.82 
 15.05 
 15.62 
 
 Colora- 
 do. 
 
 Per cent. 
 11.32 
 10.47 
 11.24 
 11.11 
 11.03 
 11.89 
 11.93 
 13.04 
 13.16 
 12.46 
 12.94 
 
 Michi- 
 gan. 
 
 Per cent. 
 11.98 
 12.50 
 11.00 
 12.16 
 13.95 
 12.93 
 11.53 
 8.69 
 11.33 
 12 82 
 1291 
 
 Utah 
 
 and 
 
 Idaho. 
 
 Per cent. 
 11.67 
 10.80 
 11.25 
 13.81 
 12.04 
 11.13 
 12.67 
 12.95 
 13.70 
 1233 
 14.26 
 
 Wiscon- 
 sin. 
 
 Per cent. 
 10.90 
 11.49 
 11.10 
 12.35 
 13.30 
 12.01 
 11.82 
 9.23 
 11.23 
 11.01 
 (0 
 
 Other 
 States. 
 
 Per cent. 
 12.15 
 10.66 
 9.70 
 11.37 
 12.22 
 12.10 
 11.83 
 11.16 
 12.55 
 12.25 
 12 70 
 
 United 
 States. 
 
 Per cent. 
 11.69 
 11.74 
 11.42 
 12.30 
 1247 
 12.56 
 12.61 
 11.84 
 13.26 
 12.96 
 13.65 
 
 1 Included with "Other States." 
 
 From the foregoing table it is seen that the average extraction for 
 the United States fell below 12 per cent, or below 240 pounds per 
 ton, for 4 years during the period covered. The highest percentage of 
 extraction was 13.65 per cent in 1914-15. The extraction per ton in 
 California is far above the average for the United States and consid- 
 erably above the average for any other State. As already stated, 
 this is due more to the high percentage of sugar in the beets 
 grown in California than to the high percentage of purity. In 
 Colorado the average exceeded the average for the United States but 
 1 year in 11. In Michigan it exceeded the average for the United 
 States 4 years. In Utah and Idaho the average for the United States 
 was exceeded 5 years. In Wisconsin the average exceeded that for 
 the United States but 2 years out of 10. 
 
 Summary of yield anp quality of beets. — The data in Tables 5 
 to 8 have been brought together and shown in Table 9 below. This 
 table also shows the acreage of beets harvested each year from 1904 
 to 1914, inclusive. The significant facts disclosed by this table have 
 already been pointed out and they are brought together here merely 
 for convenience in comparing the various elements affecting the 
 quality of beets. 
 
 ■^f- ^T*-' 
 
26 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Table 9.— ACREAGE HARVESTED, AVERAGE YIELD PER ACRE, AVERAGE SUGAR 
 CONTENT AND PURITY OF BEETS AND AVERAGE EXTRACTION, BY STATES, 1904- 
 1914. 
 
 
 state and year. 
 
 Cahfom^: Acres. 
 
 19(M 32,801 
 
 1905 51,857 
 
 1906 60, 141 
 
 1907 47,387 
 
 190S 62, 302 
 
 1909 1 83, 000 
 
 1910 1 90,500 
 
 Area 
 har- 
 vested. 
 
 ii 
 
 ;» 
 
 1911- 
 
 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 1914 
 
 Colorado: . 
 
 1904 
 
 1905 
 
 1906 
 
 1907 
 
 1908 
 
 1909 
 
 1910 
 
 1911 
 
 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 1914 
 
 Michigan: 
 
 1904 
 
 1905 
 
 1906 
 
 1907 
 
 1908 
 
 1909 
 
 1910 
 
 1911 
 
 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 1914 
 
 Utah and Idaho 
 
 1904 
 
 1905 
 
 1906 
 
 1907 
 
 1908 
 
 1909 
 
 1910 
 
 1911 
 
 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 1914 
 
 27,760 
 44,550 
 44,058 
 54,601 
 52,141 
 46,727 
 39,945 
 51,002 
 56,dSi2 
 61,909 
 66,600 
 
 I Percentage of sucroee (pure sugar) in the total 
 
 99,545 
 111,416 
 127,610 
 104,000 
 
 44,456 
 
 85,916 
 
 110,943 
 
 127,678 
 
 119,475 
 
 121,698 
 
 81,412 
 
 86,437 
 
 144,999 
 
 168,410 
 
 135,400 
 
 53,777 
 
 77,823 
 
 93,984 
 
 88,334 
 
 81,073 
 
 112,232 
 
 117,500 
 
 145,837 
 
 124,241 
 
 107,965 
 
 101,300 
 
 Average 
 
 yield per 
 
 acre. 
 
 Average 
 sugar m 
 
 Average 
 purity 
 coeffi- 
 cient of 
 beets.i 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 15.74 
 
 81.13 
 
 17.27 
 
 81.33 
 
 16.70 
 
 82.70 
 
 17.90 
 
 85.10 
 
 17.66 
 
 83.20 
 
 17.61 
 
 83.62 
 
 18.20 
 
 82.78 
 
 18.95 
 
 82.04 
 
 18.79 
 
 83.99 
 
 18.04 
 
 86.26 
 
 18.46 
 
 82.70 
 
 15.64 
 
 82.46 
 
 14.71 
 
 81.79 
 
 14.70 
 
 80.30 
 
 15.30 
 
 81.50 
 
 13.85 
 
 81.80 
 
 14.24 
 
 80.51 
 
 15.19 
 
 83.40 
 
 15.44 
 
 81.22 
 
 16.19 
 
 84.81 
 
 14.92 
 
 84.01 
 
 15.35 
 
 84.22 
 
 15.13 
 
 85.47 
 
 15.66 
 
 84.67 
 
 14.60 
 
 83.20 
 
 15.10 
 
 84.70 
 
 17.11 
 
 - 84.80 
 
 17.00 
 
 86.21 
 
 16.08 
 
 86.15 
 
 14.59 
 
 80.00 
 
 14.72 
 
 83.75 
 
 15.82 
 
 82.61 
 
 15.78 
 
 82.85 
 
 14.82 
 
 83.24 
 
 14.25 
 
 82.68 
 
 15.70 
 
 84.30 
 
 17.00 
 
 87.20 
 
 14.97 
 
 85.50 
 
 15.51 
 
 85.20 
 
 16.31 
 
 86.54 
 
 16.20 
 
 86.79 
 
 16.65 
 
 86.83 
 
 15.44 
 
 84.65 
 
 17.37 
 
 86.28 
 
 Short tons. 
 12.06 
 
 9.92 
 11.17 
 10.23 
 10.39 
 10.63 
 10.20 
 10.42 
 
 9.01 
 
 8.92 
 10.40 
 
 12.38 
 10.19 
 13.41 
 11.93 
 9.28 
 10.33 
 10.62 
 11.07 
 11.32 
 10.93 
 12.60 
 
 8.06 
 6.83 
 8.67 
 7.89 
 7.54 
 7.31 
 10.28 
 9.90 
 6.75 
 8.86 
 8.50 
 
 11.48 
 8.25 
 13.89 
 10.94 
 11.60 
 13.24 
 10.42 
 12.72 
 10.81 
 11.37 
 12.45 
 
 soluble solids of the beets. 
 
 Average 
 extrac- 
 tion of 
 sugar 
 
 based on 
 weight , 
 of beets 
 sliced. 
 
 Per cent. 
 11.80 
 14.37 
 13.81 
 15.06 
 13.89 
 14.43 
 15.15 
 15.55 
 15.82 
 15.05 
 15.62 
 
 11.32 
 10.47 
 11.24 
 11.11 
 11.03 
 11.89 
 11.93 
 13.04 
 13.16 
 12.46 
 12.94 
 
 11.98 
 12.60 
 11.00 
 12.16 
 13.96 
 12.93 
 11.63 
 8.69 
 11.33 
 12.82 
 12.91 
 
 11.67 
 10.80 
 11.25 
 13.81 
 12.04 
 11.13 
 12.67 
 12.95 
 13.70 
 12.33 
 14.26 
 
 BEET GROWING. 
 
 27 
 
 Table 9 -ACREAGE HARVESTED, AVERAGE YIELD PER ACRE, AVERAGE SUGAR 
 CONTENT AND PURITY OF BEETS AND AVERAGE EXTRACTION, BY STATES, 1904- 
 1914— Continued. . 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 State and year. 
 
 Area 
 har- 
 vested. 
 
 Average 
 
 yield per 
 
 acre. 
 
 Average 
 
 sugar in 
 
 beets. 
 
 Average 
 purity 
 coeffi- 
 cient of 
 beets. 
 
 Average 
 extrac- 
 tion of 
 sugar 
 
 based on 
 weight 
 
 of beets 
 sliced. 
 
 Wisconsin: 
 
 1904 
 
 Acres. 
 9,500 
 14,000 
 15,660 
 11,837 
 14,700 
 14,000 
 16,772 
 23,241 
 20,172 
 11,800 
 
 Short tons. 
 11.37 
 
 8.86 
 10.19 
 10.37 
 
 9.37 
 10.21 
 
 9.14 
 11.02 
 10.27 
 
 9.66 
 
 Per cent. 
 14.64 
 15.00 
 13.60 
 16.10 
 16.72 
 16.88 
 16.75 
 14.23 
 15.10 
 14.10 
 
 Per cent. 
 83.51 
 83.00 
 83.00 
 85.60 
 84.60 
 85.17 
 84.14 
 81.00 
 84.31 
 
 Per cent. 
 10.90 
 
 1905 
 
 11.49 
 
 1906 
 
 11.10 
 
 1907 . 
 
 12.35 
 
 1908 
 
 13.30 
 
 1909 
 
 12.01 
 
 1910 
 
 11.82 
 
 1911 . 
 
 9.28 
 
 1912 
 
 11.23 
 
 1913 
 
 11.01 
 
 1Q141 
 
 
 
 Other States: • 
 
 1904 
 
 29,500 
 33,218 
 61,388 
 41,147 
 35,222 
 42,605 
 61,900 
 67,815 
 97,520 
 102,252 
 76,100 
 
 9.01 
 7.62 
 9.76 
 8.33 
 8.66 
 8.47 
 9.29 
 
 10.61 
 9.40 
 8.87 
 
 10.70 
 
 16.36 
 14.04 
 14.00 
 15.10 
 15.22 
 16.09 
 16.66 
 16.16 
 16.70 
 14.85 
 16.51 
 
 83.12 
 81.10 
 80.90 
 82.30 
 82.00 
 83.21 
 82.69 
 84.51 
 83.18 
 82.17 
 83.46 
 
 12.15 
 
 1905 
 
 10.60 
 
 1906 
 
 9.70 
 
 1907 
 
 11.37 
 
 1908 
 
 12.22 
 
 1909 
 
 12.10 
 
 1910 
 
 11.83 
 
 1911 
 
 11.16 
 
 1912 
 
 12.55 
 
 1913 
 
 12.25 
 
 1914 
 
 12.70 
 
 
 
 •'<! 
 
 » Induded with " Other States." 
 
 Table 10.— ACREAGE HARVESTED, AVERAGE YIELD PER ACRE, AVERAGE SUGAR 
 CONTENT AND PURITY OF BEETS AND AVERAGE EXTRACTION, FOR THE UNITED 
 STATES, 1904-1914, 
 
 Year. 
 
 1904 
 1906 
 1906 
 1907 
 1908 
 1909 
 1910 
 1911 
 1912 
 1913 
 1914 
 
 Area 
 har- 
 vested. 
 
 Average 
 
 yield per 
 
 acre. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Short tons. 
 
 197,784 
 
 10.47 
 
 307,364 
 
 8.67 
 
 376,074 
 
 11.26 
 
 370*984 
 
 10.16 
 
 364,913 
 
 9.36 
 
 420,262 
 
 9.71 
 
 398,029 
 
 10.17 
 
 473,877 
 
 10.68 
 
 655.300 
 
 9.41 
 
 580,006 
 
 9.76 
 
 483,400 
 
 10.90 
 
 Average 
 
 sugar in 
 
 beets. 
 
 Average 
 purity 
 coeffi- 
 cient of 
 beets.1 
 
 Percent. 
 15.33 
 15.33 
 14.90 
 15.80 
 16.74 
 16.10 
 16.35 
 15.89 
 16.31 
 16.78 
 16.38 
 
 PereeiU. 
 83.10 
 83.00 
 82.20 
 83.60 
 83.60 
 84.11 
 84.35 
 82.21 
 84.40 
 83.22 
 83.89 
 
 Avera ge 
 extrac- 
 tion of 
 sugar 
 based on 
 weight of 
 beets. 
 
 PercenL 
 11.60 
 11.74 
 11.42 
 12.^ 
 lfi.47 
 12.56 
 12.61 
 11.84 
 13.20 
 12.96 
 13.65 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 \ 
 
 ^. 
 
 1 Percentage of sucrose (pure sugar) in the total soluble solids of the beets. 
 
 ^.^"-KfT 
 
^•-^t 
 
 r 
 
 QS 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 BEET GROWING. 
 
 29 
 
 t 
 
 
 If 
 
 
 « 
 
 Section 4. Experimental resnlts in beet growing. 
 
 As already stated the Federal Government and several of the 
 States have devoted a great deal of time to experimenting in beet 
 growing and in combating beet diseases and pests. The Federal 
 Government through the Department of Agriculture has been par- 
 ticularly active in this respect. It has brought to this work the com- 
 bined knowledge and skill of a corps of the very best scientific and 
 practical agriculturists. The Government has conducted experiments 
 under a great variety of conditions and has put to the test every 
 factor affecting successful beet raising. It has experimented with 
 different varieties of beets in various soils. It has tested fertilizers 
 and methods of cultivation in numerous sections of the country and 
 over a long period of years. By these experiments has been deter- 
 mined in what sections and under what conditions and by what 
 methods the sugar beet can be most profitably grown. In the labora- 
 tories of the department these beets have been tested as to their value 
 in the sugar factory. Furthermore, accounts have been kept as to 
 the cost of production, and the profits per acre or per ton of beets 
 have been determined. Many of these experiments have shown ex- 
 traordinary results both as to yield and to quality. The results of 
 this experimental work have been published in bulletins which are 
 available to farmers interested in the subject. 
 
 It should be pointed out that those conducting the experiments for 
 the Government have had everj^ facility for obtaining the best re- 
 sults. Therefore the high yields and superior quality of beets pro- 
 duced under these circumstances can not be taken as results that the 
 average farmer may reasonably expect. With these experimental 
 results as examples of what may be done farmers in some sections of 
 the country have been induced to engage in this branch of agricul- 
 ture. Of course, very few, if any, have ever realized as good results 
 as are shown by the best examples of the experimental work, but 
 some of them have been very successful. This experimental work 
 has been of great value to the beet growler and consequently to the 
 beet-sugar industry. 
 
 II. COST AND PROFITS OF BEET GROWING. 
 
 Section 5. Methods employed in securing data. 
 
 In this investigation special agents visited farmers in the vicinity 
 of every beet-sugar factory in the country with two or three excep- 
 tions. They had personal interviews with hundreds of farmers and 
 secured data from about 500. In order to insure uniformity in the 
 classification of items of expense the information was secured in 
 schedule form. Thus data obtained from any farmer are com- 
 parable in most of the details with those secured from all others. 
 
 The various items of expense were classified and secured under the 
 following heads: 
 
 Plowing. 
 
 Harrowing, rolling, and dragging. 
 
 Cost of seed. 
 
 Fertilizer. 
 
 Planting. 
 
 Cultivation (excluding hoeing) . 
 
 Thinning, hoeing, weeding, and topping. 
 
 Plowing out, loading, and hauling. 
 
 Depreciation.^ 
 
 Irrigation. 
 
 Miscellaneous. 
 
 The charge under the head "Miscellaneous" was pruicipally for 
 fighting pests, but it includes other items that could not well be 
 assigned to any particular operation. In a majority of cases there 
 was no expense under this head, and wherever it occurs at all it was 
 very small. Some farmers charged repairs of implements under 
 miscellaneous expense, but this item has been transferred to the par- 
 ticular operations in which the implements were used. In addition 
 to the details of cost, the schedule called for the yield of beets per 
 acre, the price received for beets, whether at the factory or at a re- 
 ceiving station on the railroad, and also for the value of the leaves or 
 tops used for feeding cattle and sheep. 
 
 Difficulties due to lack of records. — There were found very few 
 growers who kept books of account from which could be obtained 
 detailed information concerning the cost of growing beets. In order 
 to arrive at a fair statement of costs it was necessary to ascertain the 
 prevailing wages in the locality for men and the rate of pay for men 
 and teams. Inquiry was made as to the rate of pay for a man and 
 2, 3, 4 or more horses and also as to the number of acres that a man 
 and such a team could plow, harrow, plant, or cultivate in a day. 
 From these statements it was comparatively easy to compute with 
 reasonable accuracy the cost per acre for the several processes. In 
 practically all the districts there were established prices per acre for 
 the handwork done by contract. In some cases all or part of this 
 handwork of blocking, thinning, hoeing, topping, and loading was 
 done by special contracts or by the day. When done by the grower 
 or members of his own family an allowance was made to correspond 
 with the prevailing price for such work in the locality. Several of 
 the beet-sugar companies grow beets on a large scale and keep com- 
 plete records of the cost. It was generally found, however, that the 
 
 1 The charge for depreciation has not been included in the tabulations for reasons stated 
 elsewhere (seep. 32). 
 
 y ' :},l 
 
 7ff 
 
■a 
 
 yUMWH 
 
 I 
 
 '■■'ii 
 ,11 
 
 30 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 cost per acre for growing beets on a large scale by the sugar com- 
 panies was considerably greater than when grown by small farmers. 
 While two or three of the beet-sugar companies have been able to 
 grow some beets at a cost as low or lower than they could be bought 
 from farmers, a number of others have had an opposite experience. 
 Thus, for instance, it cost one company $6.50 per ton to grow beets, 
 and another $7.50, but both these companies were able to buy beets 
 in the vicinity of their factories at $5.50. The beet-growing opera- 
 tions of still another company covering several years resulted in a 
 cost ranging from $6.35 to about $12 per ton, while the company was 
 able to buy beets during that time at $5 per ton. This high cost to 
 the beet-sugar companies for growing beets is due partly to the fact 
 that they use all of a large tract of land regardless of its adaptability 
 to beets, while the small farmer generally uses only that portion of 
 his farm that is best adapted to the growing of beets. Furthermore, 
 the personal attention that the small farmer is able to give to beet 
 growing gives him an advantage over the large grower who is de- 
 pendent upon hired supervision and help exclusively. 
 
 Section 6. Representativeness and reliability of data. 
 
 Every effort was made to secure information that was both repre- 
 sentative and reliable. Difficulties in the way of securing reliable 
 data and the method employed to overcome these difficulties have 
 already been pointed out. It was not possible to secure data that 
 would show the average results of all the beet growers in any locality. 
 While such results would represent conditions a« they actually exist, 
 they would not in fact represent fairly the reasonable probabilities 
 of beet farming among ordinarily careful farmers planting land 
 fairly well adapted to this crop. The figures presented are repre- 
 sentative of the actual range of costs, and they show the results 
 obtained under the various conditions prevailing in each locality. 
 
 Eepresentativeness of the ixfor^iatiox SECURED.— The special 
 agents were instructed to secure information from both large and 
 small farmers in each locality. These instructions had in view the 
 interviewing of a number of farmers in each locality representative 
 of those cultivating more or less than the average acreage and those 
 producing more or less than the average tonnage of beets per acre. 
 Among those supplying information there was a number whose oper- 
 ations showed a loss. Wherever the data appeared to be reliable they 
 were used regardless of whether they showed a profit or not. The 
 results fall between the exceptionally good ones obtained by experi- 
 ments made under the most favorable conditions and the exception- 
 ally poor ones due to slovenly methods or to the use of soils not 
 adapted to the crop. 
 
 BEET GROWING. 
 
 31 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 Both large and small farmers are included, but the tables show 
 no significant difference between their results. Speaking generally, 
 the profitableness of beet growing does not appear to depend upon 
 the acreage cultivated, but upon the adaptability of the land, the 
 climatic conditions, upon the methods employed in cultivation, and 
 upon irrigation in arid or semiarid regions. 
 
 An effort was made to secure information covering the three con- 
 secutive years 1911, 1912, and 1913. For various reasons many 
 farmers could not supply information for all of the three years. 
 No schedule was rejected, however, for this reason. If it seemed that 
 a fairly accurate statement could be secured for only one year it 
 was taken. Naturally more farmers were able to give figures for the 
 latest year than for any other. 
 
 Eeliability of data. — Excluding lifting and hauling, approxi- 
 mately 70 per cent of the labor expense in beet growing is on account 
 of work done by hand. In practically every locality some farmers, 
 and in many localities most of them, get this labor done at a contract 
 price of so much per acre. A fair or customary rate of cost per acre 
 for various operations with teams and implements was ascertained 
 in the manner already explained. The cost of harvesting and mar- 
 keting (lifting and hauling) can be determined with almost absolute 
 accuracy. Thus the cost of labor, the principal element in beet 
 growing, can be arrived at with reasonable exactness. The other 
 elements of cost, such as seed, irrigation, fertilization, etc.. con- 
 stitute only from 10 to 15 per cent of the total cost, and most of them 
 are easily ascertainable. 
 
 It is thus seen that the difficulties of determining agricultural 
 costs in general are greatly reduced in the case of beets. Further- 
 more, the great expense incident to beet culture makes the farmer 
 more careful to keep in touch with this part of his farming opera- 
 tions. Under these circumstances, and in view of the care exercised 
 by the special agents in securing information, it is believed that the 
 statistics of costs shown in this report are very reliable. Confidence 
 in the accuracy of the figures is further strengthened by the fact that 
 they are supported by many results obtained in the experimental 
 work of the United States Department of Agriculture and by various 
 State experiment stations. 
 
 After ascertaining the cost of growing it is easy to determine the 
 profits. All farmers receive statements from the factories showing 
 the prices paid for beets as they are delivered. In most cases these 
 statements were available. In some cases where records of the price 
 received had not been kept the agents had access to the records of the 
 factories where the beets were sold, since manv of the factories, in 
 fact most of them, keep records of their purchases from each indi- 
 vidual farmer. 
 
32 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Section 7. Classifying and tabulating data. 
 
 All schedules were carefully examined to correct clerical errors 
 and to harmonize inconsistencies. There was sometimes a lack of 
 uniformity in reporting such items of cost as fertilization, irrigation, 
 freight on beets, planting and replanting, rent of machines, etc., but 
 these were harmonized in the light of explanations made by the 
 special agents. There was then made an almost literal transcription 
 of the schedules in tabular form and defective schedules disclosed by 
 this preliminary tabulation were rejected. 
 
 There were notations on a number of schedules from each district 
 indicating the rental value of land. Since a charge for rent would 
 be practically an estimated profit on the investment in land, this item 
 was eliminated from the tabulation. Furthermore, there was such a 
 wide variation in the estimated rental values due to differences in 
 judgment and to location and quality of land as to make a presenta- 
 tion of the data of little value, and it would probably result in mis- 
 leading deductions. In order to make all schedules comparable as to 
 costs, cash and crop rentals paid by tenants have been disregarded. 
 In some localities a large proportion of the crop is grown by tenants. 
 The share rentals range from one-sixth to one-fourth of the amount 
 received for the beets and part or all the tops. Cash rentals range 
 from as low as $10 to sometimes as high as $40 per acre. The latter 
 is exceptional, but $20 is not uncommon. 
 
 Depreciation involves questions so intricate as to make it impos 
 sible to arrive at a fair charge for this item. For example, many of 
 the implements used in the cultivation of beets were also used in the 
 cultivation of other crops. It was manifestly impossible to deter- 
 mine with any degree of accuracy what proportion of the value of 
 these implements should be assigned to beets. Furthermore, in the 
 West there was involved depreciation of irrigation plants, ditches, etc. 
 
 In some districts the farmer pays a portion of the freight on the 
 beets from the loading station to the factory. For example, if the 
 freight from a given point to the factory is 80 cents per ton the 
 farmer may agree to pay 40 cents freight and the factory pays 40 
 cents. This amount of freight was charged in the schedule as an 
 expense. This matter was adjusted by eliminating the freight charge 
 from the cost statement and reducing the price received for beets 
 by the same amount. Thus, if a farmer paid 30 cents per ton for 
 freight and received $6.50 per ton for beets, the price was reduced 
 by 30 cents per ton and the beets were credited at $6.20. 
 
 In the final tabulation certain items of cost were combined and 
 the nomenclature was somewhat changed. Thus "plowing" and 
 " harrowing, rolling, and dragging " were combined and these opera- 
 tions were tabulated under the head of "preparation of soil." 
 
 f 
 
 BEET GROWING. 
 
 33 
 
 " Planting " and " cultivating " were also combined. The term " con- 
 tract labor " was changed to read " hand labor " because hand labor 
 was not contracted for in all cases, often being done by the farmer's 
 own family. " Harvesting " was changed to read " lifting and haul- 
 ing" because the topping and the loading are a part of the hand 
 labor and in the case of contract labor is often included in the con- 
 tract. Wherever the loading had been itemized separately it was 
 deducted from the amount charged for " lifting and hauling " and 
 added to "hand labor." The charges for fertilizing and irrigation 
 were very carefully scrutinized in the light of the notations made 
 by the special agents and these items were carefully adjusted so as to 
 render the schedules comparable. 
 
 Beet tops have considerable money value as forage, but this varies 
 in different localities and in different j^ears for the same locality. 
 It depends to some extent upon the volume or scarcity of forage 
 crops in the community. In some sections, where there is consider- 
 able cattle and sheep feeding, there is always a demand for tops 
 because of their fattening qualities. If there is little stock raising 
 in the community the demand for tops is lighter. In the far 
 northern districts frost and snow sometimes destroy tops or prevent 
 their use for feeding purposes, but they always have a value as a 
 fertilizer for the soil. In fact it is contended by some that their 
 highest value is as a fertilizer, and such a use is recommended. Be- 
 cause of the widely varying value of tops, both actual and estimated, 
 this item is a source of so much uncertainty that it was thought best 
 to eliminate it. 
 
 Pulp was at one time an important item of profit to the farmer. 
 Many factories allowed farmers free pulp up to a fixed percentage 
 of his beet tonnage. All factories did not do this nor did all farmers, 
 use the pulp allowed them. The custom has grown less and less 
 common until it is not now a generally important factor. For these 
 reasons pulp has been disregarded as an element affecting the profits 
 of the farmer. 
 
 Two tables are shown. Tl^e first includes all of the accepted 
 
 schedules for those farmers reporting the results of their operations 
 
 for the year 1913, while the second shows the results of those farms 
 
 for which schedules were secured for the three years 1911, 1912, and 
 
 1913. The table for the year 1913 represents 453 farms and shows 
 
 the cost in detail, the total expense and yield per acre, the amount 
 
 ^ of money received for the beets grown on each acre, and the profit 
 
 per ton. The second table embraces the results of 214 farms and 
 
 , shows the average number of acres cultivated by each farmer for 
 
 i the three years, the average yield, the average expense per acre and 
 
 per ton, and the average profit per acre and per ton. This table also 
 
 1 
 
 ^. 
 
 \ 
 
 'I'.j. 
 
34 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 BEET GROWING. 
 
 35 
 
 I 
 
 i< 
 
 shows the average for all the farms in particular distVicts for the 
 three years. 
 
 Section 8. Cost and profits of individual growers in 1913. 
 
 The costs and profits (or in some eases, losses) of 453 beet growers 
 in the year 1913 are shown by Table 11 below. Of course the 
 profits in any agricultural crop vary from year to year according to 
 conditions. In some years the yield is greater than in others, and 
 the quality is better in some years than others. Both these factors 
 may affect the same crop. In fact, it is often the case that a poor 
 yield is accompanied by a poor quality, but this is not always so. 
 The result of a single year therefore will seldom if ever represent 
 average results. It should be noted in this connection, however, that 
 the year 1913 was generally considered in most districts, particularly 
 in the West, as being about an average year. While the figures in 
 Table 11 should not be taken as absolutely representative of general 
 results in beet growing, they may be considered as fairly indicating 
 what may be reasonably expected from year to year. Their most 
 significant value, however, is in showing the general distribution of 
 costs and the variation in the several items. 
 
 Table 11.— COSTS AND PROFITS OF GROWING BEETS IN THE UNITED STATES, BY 
 
 FARMS GROUPED BY DISTRICTS, 1913. 
 
 OHIO-INDIANA DISTRICT. 
 
 Farm' 
 num- 
 ber. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Cost per acre. 
 
 Prep- 
 ara- ' 
 tion 
 of 
 soil. 
 
 Hand 
 labor. 
 
 PIan^ 
 ing 
 and 
 cul- 
 
 tivat 
 tng. 
 
 1 i 7.00 
 
 2 ! 20.50 
 
 3... 
 
 4... 
 
 6... 
 
 6... 
 
 7... 
 
 8..., 
 
 9.... 
 
 10... 
 
 11... 
 
 12... 
 
 13... 
 
 14... 
 
 15... 
 
 16... 
 
 17... 
 
 18... 
 
 6.50 
 35.00 
 
 1.75 
 40.31 
 18.00 
 27.50 
 17.65 
 28.39 
 19.40 
 27.90 
 14.00 
 16.88 
 20.00 
 25.00 
 4.00 
 10.00 
 
 $3.00 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.50 
 
 3.50 
 
 4.50 
 
 5.00 
 
 4.00 
 
 5.25 
 
 4.00 
 
 4.00 
 
 4.00 
 
 3.50 
 
 4.50 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.00 
 
 4.26 I 
 
 4.50 I 
 
 3.60 I 
 
 $18.00 
 18.00 
 18.00 
 18.00 
 18.00 
 18.00 
 18.00 
 18.00 
 18.00 
 19.50 
 18.00 
 19.00 
 18.00 
 18.00 
 16.00 
 17.50 
 18.00 
 18.00 
 
 $2.50 
 .50 
 3.00 
 3.50 
 3.85 
 2.50 
 3.00 
 4.50 
 2.15 
 3.40 
 1.40 
 2.40 
 2.40 
 2.90 
 2.50 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.50 
 
 Lift- 
 ing 
 and 
 haul- 
 
 Irri- 
 
 ga- 
 
 tion. 
 
 $9.20 
 
 10.00 
 
 13.50 
 
 8.60 
 
 5.50 
 
 5.62 
 
 6.45 
 
 7.00 
 
 6.15 
 
 6.00 
 
 4.00 
 
 8.00 
 
 7.50 
 
 8.60 
 
 7.50 
 
 7.60 
 
 9.70 
 
 6.90 
 
 Fertil- 
 izer. 
 
 Seed 
 
 $3.00 
 2.60 
 2.40 
 3.00 
 1.80 
 2.40 
 
 Mis- 
 
 cel- 
 
 lane- 
 
 ous. 
 
 Total 
 ex- 
 penses. 
 
 Value 
 
 per 
 
 acre. 
 
 1.93 
 6.45 
 2.35 
 3.89 
 
 1.80 
 
 1.20 
 2.40 
 1 Loss. 
 
 $L50 
 2.30 
 L60 
 1.50 
 1.50. 
 L70 
 1.45 
 2.30 
 1.80 
 1.73 
 L50 
 1.60 
 1.50 
 1.50 
 1.20 
 L50 
 1.50 
 L80 
 
 $0.45 
 .50 
 
 Profit 
 
 per 
 
 acre. 
 
 .30 
 
 .15 
 .15 
 .45 
 .46 
 
 $37.20 
 38.10 
 43.40 
 38.10 
 35.15 
 35.52 
 32.90 
 38.98 
 38.55 
 36.98 
 32.79 
 34.40 
 33.90 
 34.50 
 32.15 
 34.00 
 38.35 
 36.56 
 
 $60.00 
 67.16 
 70.00 
 55.00 
 35.36 
 38.65 
 31.69 
 46. 70 
 50.95 
 47.90 
 37.67 
 43.50 
 66.50 
 43.07 
 70.20 
 6L60 
 51.25 
 45.00 
 
 $22.80 
 29.06 
 26.60 
 16.90 
 .21 
 3.13 
 U.21 
 7.72 
 12.40 
 10.92 
 4.78 
 9.10 
 22.60 
 8.57 
 38.05 
 27.60 
 12.90 
 8.45 
 
 Yield 
 
 per 
 
 acre. 
 
 Profit 
 per 
 ton. 
 
 Tom. 
 12.00 
 12.10 
 14.00 
 11.00 
 6.43 
 7.73 
 6.34 
 9.25 
 10.19 
 9.58 
 7.50 
 8.70 
 11.30 
 8.60 
 13.00 
 11.00 
 10.25 
 9.00 
 
 SI. 90 
 2.40 
 1.90 
 1.54 
 
 .03 
 
 .40 
 1.19 
 
 .83 
 1.22 
 1.14 
 
 .64 
 1.05 
 2.00 
 1.00 
 2.93 
 2.51 
 L26 
 .94 
 
 Table 11.— COSTS AND PROFITS OF GROWING BEETS IN THE UNITED STATES, BY 
 
 FARMS GROUPED BY DISTRICTS, 1913— Continued. 
 
 OHIO-INDIANA DISTRICT-Continued. 
 
 Farm 
 num- 
 ber. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Cost per acre. 
 
 Value 
 
 per 
 
 acre. 
 
 Profit 
 
 per 
 
 acre. 
 
 1 
 
 Yield 
 
 per 
 
 acre. 
 
 
 Prep- 
 ara- 
 tion 
 of 
 soil. 
 
 Hand 
 labor. 
 
 Plant- 
 ing 
 and 
 cul- 
 tivat- 
 ing. 
 
 Lift- 
 ing 
 and 
 haul- 
 ing. 
 
 Irri- 
 ga- 
 tion. 
 
 Fertil- 
 izer. 
 
 Seed. 
 
 Mis- 
 
 cel- 
 
 lane- 
 
 ous. 
 
 Total 
 ex- 
 penses. 
 
 Profit 
 per 
 ton. 
 
 19.... 
 20.... 
 21.... 
 22.-.. 
 23-... 
 24.... 
 25-... 
 26.... 
 27.... 
 28.... 
 29-... 
 30.J.- 
 
 13.00 
 
 12.00 
 
 6.50 
 
 8.00 
 
 32.00 
 
 22.00 
 
 12.00 
 
 12.00 
 
 20.00 
 
 13.00 
 
 4.00 
 
 14.00 
 
 $4.50 
 5.00 
 4.00 
 4.00 
 3.50 
 4.25 
 4.50 
 4.60 
 4.00 
 3.60 
 4.25 
 4.50 
 
 $18. 00 
 18.00 
 18.00 
 18.00 
 18.00 
 18.00 
 16.00 
 18.00 
 18.00 
 18.00 
 18.00 
 18.00 
 
 $3.60 
 3.00 
 2.60 
 3.00 
 2.50 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.50 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 
 $10. 75 
 
 12.30 
 5.50 
 6.00 
 
 10.30 
 7.00 
 9.80 
 
 11.80 
 7.50 
 5.70 
 
 11.60 
 9.80 
 
 
 
 $L50 
 1.50 
 2.25 
 1.50 
 L60 
 1.50 
 1.50 
 L50 
 1.50 
 L80 
 1.50 
 1.50 
 1 
 
 $0.16 
 .15 
 .45 
 .40 
 .30 
 .10 
 .15 
 .45 
 .30 
 .15 
 .30 
 .25 
 1 
 
 $38.40 
 41.10 
 35.70 
 35.70 
 36.20 
 35.28 
 36.75 
 40.96 
 36.70 
 35.15 
 40.45 
 39.46 
 
 $66.25 
 67.50 
 49.50 
 56.64 
 70.00 
 34.16 
 66.30 
 73.20 
 50.00 
 38.60 1 
 76. 87 1 
 
 57.75 ; 
 
 1 
 
 $27.86 
 26.40 
 13.80 
 20.84 
 33.80 
 11.12 
 29.65 
 32.25 
 13.30 
 3.35 
 36.42 
 18.30 
 
 Tons. 
 13.25 
 13.50 
 
 9.00 
 11.00 
 14.00 
 
 6.45 
 13.00 
 12.00 
 10.00 
 
 7.00 
 13.90 ' 
 
 n.oo 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 S2.10 
 1.96 
 1.53 
 1.89 
 2.41 
 ».17 
 2.27 
 2.69 
 1.33 
 .48 
 2.62 
 1.66 
 
 
 $L15 
 3.00 
 2.80 
 
 
 
 1.43 
 1.80 
 1.20 
 2.40 
 3.00 
 L80 
 2.40 
 
 31.. 
 
 32.. 
 
 33.. 
 
 34.. 
 
 35.. 
 
 36.. 
 
 37.- 
 
 38-. 
 
 39-. 
 
 40.- 
 
 41.. 
 
 42-. 
 
 43-- 
 •44.- 
 
 45-- 
 
 46-. 
 
 47.. 
 ,48.. 
 ^49.. 
 
 50.. 
 
 51.. 
 
 62.. 
 
 63.. 
 •54.. 
 .55.- 
 
 56... 
 
 57.. 
 
 58. .. 
 '59--. 
 
 60-.. 
 
 MICHIGAN, LOWER PENINSULA. 
 
 9.50 
 
 4.94 
 
 18.75 
 
 38.60 
 
 4.00 
 
 21.60 
 
 26.50 
 
 4.50 
 
 8.00 
 
 2.00 
 
 24.00 
 
 7.50 
 
 6.70 
 
 2.31 
 
 3.47 
 
 4.60 
 
 8.84 
 
 8.12 
 
 9.36 
 
 37.00 
 
 49.76 
 
 8.79 
 
 33.00 
 
 18.00 
 
 9.08 
 
 4.59 
 
 19.84 
 
 100.00 
 
 18.00 
 
 6.00 
 
 $7.00 
 5.75 
 7.00 
 6.00 
 7.00 
 4.25 
 4.25 
 4.55 
 7.50 
 4.25 
 4.25 
 5.05 
 3.50 
 4.00 
 4.00 
 3.00 
 4.00 
 2.75 
 6.00 
 4.10 
 4.50 
 6.25 
 4.75 
 5.00 
 5.00 
 9.00 
 3.75 
 5.55 
 4.00 
 5.00 
 
 $18. 00 
 
 18.00 
 
 18.00 
 
 18.00 
 
 16.00 
 
 18.00 
 
 20.00 
 
 20.00 
 
 20.00 
 
 16.00 
 
 20.00 
 
 16.00 
 
 18.00 
 
 16.00 
 
 15.00 
 
 15.00 
 
 16.50 
 
 15.00 
 
 16.00 
 
 18.00 
 
 18.00 
 
 16.00 
 
 18.00 
 
 16.00 
 
 16.00 
 
 16.00 
 
 16.00 
 
 18.00 
 
 18.00 
 
 18.00 
 
 $2.40 
 4.00 
 4.50 
 3.75 
 4.00 
 3.50 
 3.00 
 4.05 
 2.55 
 3.00 
 2.25 
 4.60 
 4.40 
 3.95 
 3.50 
 2.60 
 5.50 
 3.90 
 10.50 
 3.60 
 4.65 
 6.40 
 6.01 
 7.50 
 5.50 
 5.00 
 5.80 
 2.50 
 4.40 
 4.50 
 
 $5.75 
 
 10.00 
 
 18.00 
 
 7.50 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 $2.00 
 
 ! 8.25 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 5.00 
 
 10.25 
 
 ] 
 
 
 3.50 
 
 9.75 
 
 
 2.00 
 
 n.75 
 
 
 1.75 
 
 13.50 
 
 1 
 
 1.80 
 
 10.00 
 
 1 
 
 2.50 
 
 7.25 
 
 1 
 
 2.80 
 
 9.65 
 
 
 1.75 
 
 11.00 
 
 
 
 3.00 
 
 13.25 
 
 
 3.00 
 
 9.50 
 7.00 
 
 
 
 
 2.20 
 
 12.00 
 
 
 2.00 
 
 4.75 
 
 
 L65 
 
 12.00 
 7.75 
 
 
 
 
 5.00 
 
 8.20 
 
 
 .70 
 
 14.50 
 
 
 1.50 
 
 9.30 
 
 
 2.20 
 
 13.63 
 
 
 2.25 
 
 8.00 
 
 
 3.00 
 
 6.50 
 7.50 
 
 
 
 
 3.00 
 
 6.50 
 
 
 2.50 
 
 7.25 
 6.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 $2.25 
 2.70 
 2.25 
 3.00 
 2.70 
 2.70 
 2.25 
 2.70 
 2.55 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 3.00 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 L80 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.44 
 2.50 
 2.68 
 2.87 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 1.80 
 2.25 
 
 •SO. 50 
 
 .50 
 
 .25 
 
 .50 
 
 .25 
 
 1.00 
 
 .25 
 .50 
 .50 
 .25 
 
 2.00 
 .60 
 
 1.00 
 
 $35.40 
 
 40.45 
 
 50.25 
 
 39.25 
 
 42.95 
 
 42.20 
 
 41.25 
 
 44.80 
 
 47.90 
 
 38.00 
 
 38.80 
 
 39.30 
 
 43.40 
 
 42.45 
 
 34.25 
 
 31.60 
 
 42.50 
 
 30.30 
 
 47.25 
 
 40.95 
 
 39.49 
 
 47.15 
 
 42.94 
 
 47.50 
 
 40.25 
 
 39.25 I 
 
 38.55 I 
 
 39.30 I 
 
 35.95 
 
 36.75 
 
 $57. 18 
 83.69 
 56.64 
 62.90 
 65.33 
 56.90 
 63.28 
 81.17 
 65.45 
 70.26 
 71.40 
 68.24 
 60.46 
 80.01 
 59.68 
 57.66 
 42.20 
 13.48 
 53.81 
 51.32 
 31.89 
 65.16 
 66.08 
 62.06 
 57.69 
 48.78 
 65.05 
 44.73 
 53.68 
 50.00 
 
 $21.78 
 43.24 
 
 6.39 
 23.65 
 23.38 
 14.70 
 22.03 
 36.37 
 17.55 
 32.26 
 32.60 
 28.94 
 17.06 
 37.56 
 25.43 
 26.06 
 1.30 
 116. 82 
 
 6.56 
 10.37 
 17.60 
 18.01 
 23.14 
 14.56 
 17.44 
 9.53 
 26.50 
 5.43 
 17.73 
 13.25 
 
 $10.00 
 
 14.70 
 
 10.00 
 
 11.43 
 
 12.65 
 
 10.50 
 
 11.50 
 
 14.10 
 
 11.50 
 
 13.30 
 
 14.00 
 
 13.00 
 
 10.10 
 
 13.43 
 
 12.11 
 
 10.70 
 
 8.26 
 
 2.69 
 
 10.69 
 
 11.22 
 
 7.33 
 
 11.88 
 
 11.79 
 
 11.43 
 
 10.40 
 
 9.31 
 
 11.56 
 
 8.06 
 
 9.50 
 
 9.60 
 
 $2.14 
 24.4 
 .69 
 2.07 
 1.70 
 1.42 
 1.98 
 2.53 
 1.53 
 2.43 
 2.33 
 2.29 
 1.60 
 2.80 
 2..1 
 j 2.04 
 I 1 .25 
 j 16.67 
 I .92 
 I 184 
 I 11.01 
 I 1.52 
 1.96 
 I 1.27 
 I 1.68 
 1 1.02 
 i 2.29 
 j .67 
 1.87 
 1.3» 
 
 1 Loss. 
 
 4. 
 
/ 
 
 wm 
 
 36 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 i 
 
 
 Table 11.— COSTS AND PROFITS OF GROWING BEETS IN THE UNITED STATES, BY 
 
 FARMS GROUPED BY DISTRICTS, 1913— Continued. 
 
 MICHIGAN, LOWER PENINSULA-Continued. 
 
 Farm 
 num- 
 ber. 
 
 61.. 
 62.. 
 63.. 
 64.. 
 65-. 
 66.. 
 67.. 
 68.. 
 69.. 
 70.. 
 71.. 
 72.. 
 73.. 
 74.. 
 75.. 
 76.. 
 77.. 
 78.. 
 79.. 
 80.. 
 81.. 
 82.. 
 83.. 
 84.. 
 8S.. 
 86.. 
 87.. 
 88.. 
 89.. 
 90.. 
 91.. 
 92.. 
 93.. 
 94.. 
 95.. 
 96.. 
 97.. 
 98.. 
 99.. 
 100. 
 101. 
 102. 
 103. 
 104. 
 105. 
 06. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 12.00 
 
 14.50 
 
 12.00 
 
 30.00 
 
 22.00 
 
 7.80 
 
 24.00 
 
 44.00 
 
 19.25 
 
 7.00 
 
 2.00 
 
 10.00 
 
 35.00 
 
 2.50 
 
 24.00 
 
 6.50 
 
 4.50 
 
 14.00 
 
 5.50 
 
 13.00 
 
 11.75 
 
 4.50 
 
 30.00 
 
 21.25 
 
 26.50 
 
 28.00 
 
 10.00 
 
 13.00 
 
 4.00 
 
 31.00 
 
 11.00 
 
 1.00 
 
 8.25 
 
 23.60 
 
 6.87 
 
 14.68 
 
 15.15 
 
 6.85 
 
 6.45 
 
 7.00 
 
 15.31 
 
 49.00 
 
 45.00 
 
 8.00 
 
 7.00 
 
 3.50 
 
 Cost per acre. 
 
 Prep- 
 ara- 
 tion 
 of 
 soil. 
 
 2.75 
 6.50 
 4.00 
 2.00 
 4.50 
 3.50 
 3.50 
 5.00 
 3.00 
 3.25 
 6.50 
 7.00 
 4.40 
 5.50 
 6.50 
 3.75 
 5.10 
 5.00 
 5.50 
 5.00 
 5.50 
 9.00 
 5.00 
 5.00 
 4.50 
 8.00 
 4.50 
 4.50 
 5.00 
 
 Hand 
 labor. 
 
 818.00 
 18.00 
 17.17 
 18.00 
 18.00 
 16.00 
 19.00 
 18.00 
 20.00 
 16.00 
 18.00 
 20.00 
 18.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 19.00 
 20.00 
 18.00 
 17.00 
 20.00 
 18.00 
 18.00 
 20.00 
 22.00 
 22.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 18.00 
 
 4.25 i 22.00 
 
 4.50 
 4.50 
 5.00 
 4.75 
 4.50 
 2.60 
 4.00 
 4.50 
 4.50 
 3.75 
 4.50 
 4.60 
 6.80 
 6.00 
 5.50 
 4.75 
 
 20.00 
 18.00 
 20.00 
 18.00 
 18.00 
 20.00 
 18.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 18.00 
 18.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 22.00 
 18.00 
 
 Fhntr 
 tag 
 and 
 cul- 
 
 tivat 
 tag. 
 
 13.50 
 3.50 
 2.50 
 4.00 
 3.60 
 2.90 
 3.00 
 3.50 
 3.10 
 4.50 
 3.40 
 3.50 
 3.25 
 4.00 
 5.00 
 5.25 
 3.00 
 3.25 
 4.50 
 2.90 
 4.50 
 2.65 
 4.50 
 4.25 
 4.25 
 3.00 
 5.50 
 3.50 
 3.50 
 5.50 
 2.25 
 5.75 
 2.00 
 3.50 
 3.50 
 3.50 
 2.90 
 3.50 
 3.50 
 3.20 
 3.15 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.50 
 
 3.eo 
 
 7.50 
 
 Lift- 
 tag 
 and 
 haul- 
 tag. 
 
 Irri- 
 ga- 
 tion. 
 
 $8.50 
 
 10.00 
 
 5.00 
 
 9.75 
 
 9.00 
 
 6.50 
 
 8.00 
 
 7.00 
 
 4.00 
 
 7.00 
 
 6.50 
 
 7.50 
 
 8.00 
 
 6.60 
 
 11.00 
 
 10.00 
 
 5.90 
 
 8.00 
 
 9.50 
 
 11.50 
 
 13.00 
 
 11.25 
 
 12.25 
 
 13.00 
 
 15.00 
 
 15.00 
 
 11.50 
 
 6.50 
 
 12.75 
 
 16.00 
 
 10.75 
 
 8.00 
 
 8.50 
 
 6.80 
 
 8.25 
 
 8.75 
 
 6.00 
 
 9.50 
 
 9.50 
 
 3.75 
 
 7.05 
 
 8.50 
 
 10.50 
 
 13.50 
 
 14.00 
 
 9.75 
 
 Fertil- 
 izer. 
 
 $2.10 
 2.10 
 
 1.65 
 
 1.20 
 1.20 
 1.20 
 1.50 
 2.90 
 1.75 
 
 1.50 
 
 2.80 
 
 1.00 
 3.00 
 4.50 
 6.00 
 2.80 
 1.00 
 2.25 
 1.50 
 3.00 
 7.50 
 3.00 
 5.00 
 6.00 
 5.00 
 2.25 
 1.35 
 6.00 
 8.10 
 1.95 
 1 95 
 1.35 
 5.85 
 1.50 
 4.80 
 5.90 
 6.00 
 8.00 
 
 » Loss. 
 
 Seed 
 
 $2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 1.80 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 4.00 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 1.80 
 2.25 
 3.00 
 2.25 
 1.50 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.53 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.70 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.70 
 1.80 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.40 
 2.40 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 2.25 
 2.40 
 3.00 
 2.70 
 2.25 
 2.70 
 1.70 
 
 Mis- 
 
 cel- 
 
 lane- 
 
 ous. 
 
 80.50 
 
 1.00 
 
 .50 
 
 .50 
 
 1.00 
 .30 
 
 .50 
 .50 
 
 .50 
 .50 
 .50 
 
 .70 
 1.00 
 
 1.50 
 
 .25 
 .50 
 .25 
 .50 
 
 .50 
 .50 
 .25 
 
 .50 
 .25 
 
 1.00 
 
 Total 
 ex- 
 penses, 
 
 $37.60 
 43.35 
 31.42 
 37.70 
 37.35 
 31.15 
 38.50 
 27.25 
 33.55 
 34.25 
 38.15 
 44.40 
 37.65 
 38.10 
 45.25 
 42.25 
 36.53 
 40.00 
 39.75 
 42.65 
 47.75 
 47.65 
 50.70 
 49.80 
 49.25 
 51.45 
 44.80 
 40.25 
 49.50 
 53.25 
 44.75 
 44.50 
 43.25 
 37.95 
 38.00 
 43.10 
 41.25 
 42.45 
 42.45 
 32.30 
 40.95 
 40.60 
 48.80 
 5L15 
 53.80 
 49.70 
 
 Value 
 
 per 
 
 acre. 
 
 $52. 25 
 77.18 
 39.74 
 58.75 
 68.94 
 50.08 
 38.00 
 53.00 
 27.60 
 54.08 
 23.55 
 20.71 
 74.67 
 47.60 
 53.62 
 57.92 
 70.81 
 83.20 
 55.65 
 51.65 
 51.60 
 66.00 
 59.65 
 63.30 
 76.83 
 66.59 
 60.33 
 37.20 
 75.45 
 84.86 
 55.76 
 88.82 
 77.50 
 59.64 
 66.73 
 76.40 
 2L94 
 56.79 
 49.50 
 42.32 
 55.84 
 75.30 
 67.00 
 76.37 
 70.00 
 56.55 
 
 Profit Yield 
 
 per ! per 
 
 acre. acre. 
 
 $14.65 
 33.83 
 
 8.32 
 21.05 
 31.59 
 18.93 
 
 1 .50 
 15.75 
 15.95 
 19.83 
 114.60 
 •23.69 
 37.02 
 
 9.50 
 
 8.37 
 15.67 
 34.28 
 43.20 
 15.90 
 
 9.00 
 
 3.85 
 18.35 
 
 8.95 
 13.50 
 27.58 
 15.14 
 15.53 
 13.05 
 25.95 
 3L61 
 ILOl 
 44.32 
 34.25 
 
 21. eo 
 
 28.73 
 
 33.30 
 
 »19.31 
 
 14.34 
 
 7.05 
 10.02 
 14.89 
 34.70 
 18.20 
 25.22 
 16.20 
 
 6.85 
 
 Tons. 
 9.50 
 
 13.00 
 
 7.50 
 
 10.25 
 
 11.92 
 
 9.45 
 
 7.30 
 
 10.00 
 
 5.02 
 
 10.30 
 
 4.66 
 
 3.82 
 
 14.50 
 
 7.32 
 
 9.00 
 
 9.36 
 
 13.00 
 
 14.44 
 
 8.78 
 
 9.73 
 
 10.00 
 
 11.00 
 
 10.00 
 
 10.05 
 
 12.12 
 
 10.82 
 
 11.00 
 
 6.00 
 
 13.20 
 
 14.00 
 
 8.50 
 
 17.86 
 
 13.35 
 
 11.76 
 
 12.37 
 
 12.95 
 
 4.07 
 
 9.13 
 
 8.25 
 
 7.16 
 
 10.26 
 
 14.00 
 
 10.54 
 
 11.83 
 
 12.00 
 
 8.93 
 
 Profit 
 per 
 ton. 
 
 $1.54 
 
 2.60 
 
 1.11 
 
 2.05 
 
 2.65 
 
 2.00 
 
 I .07 
 
 1.58 
 
 11.19 
 
 1.93 
 
 13.13 
 
 16.20 
 
 2.55 
 
 1.30 
 
 .93 
 1.67 
 2.64 
 2.99 
 1.81 
 
 .92 
 
 .39 
 1.67 
 
 .90 
 1.34 
 2.28 
 1.40 
 1.41 
 1.51 
 1.97 
 2.26 
 1.30 
 2.48 
 2.57 
 1.84 
 2.32 
 2.57 
 14.74 
 1.57 
 
 .85 
 1.40 
 1.45 
 2.48 
 1.73 
 2.13 
 1.35 
 
 .77 
 
 r\ 
 
 i 
 
 IIEET GROWING. 
 
 37 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 *> 
 
 :> 
 
 ^ 
 
 I 
 
 / 
 
 I 
 
 r 
 
 / 
 
 A 
 
 » > 
 
 / 
 
 A 4 
 
 TABLE ll.-COSTS AND PROFITS OF GROWING BEETS IN THE UNITED STATES BY 
 
 FARMS GROUPED BY DISTRICTS, 1913-Continued. 
 MICHIGAN, LOWER PENINSULA-Continued. 
 
 WISCONSIN, NORTHERN DISTRICT. 
 
 128.. 
 
 129.. 
 
 130.. 
 
 131.. 
 
 132... 
 
 133... 
 
 134... 
 
 135... 
 
 136... 
 
 137... 
 
 138. . . 
 
 139... 
 
 140... 
 141... 
 142... 
 143... 
 144... 
 145... 
 146... I 
 
 2.00 
 1.50 
 2.00 
 1.75 
 2.00 
 3.50 
 5.75 
 2.00 
 3.00 
 13.25 
 6.50 
 18.50 
 7.00 
 2.00 
 10.00 
 22.50 
 70.00 
 19.50 
 14.50 
 
 $6.25 
 5.00 
 4.00 
 3.00 
 5.00 
 6.00 
 3.50 
 3.00 
 5.20 
 4.60 
 6.25 
 3.50 
 5.00 
 2.50 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.50 
 5.00 
 3.00 
 
 $20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 21.00 
 21.00 
 8.50 
 21.00 
 21.00 
 21.00 
 21.00 
 21.00 
 21.00 
 21.00 
 12.50 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 
 $10.00 
 7.00 
 5.00 
 4.00 
 5.75 
 4.00 
 6.00 
 3.60 
 5.00 
 4.50 
 7.00 
 2.50 
 2.75 
 3.75 
 2.90 
 5.50 
 2.00 
 4.00 
 3.00 
 
 
 $7.50 
 8.17 
 10.75 
 7.00 
 14.85 
 16.70 
 11.50 
 10.38 
 11.50 
 6.00 
 9.45 
 11.50 
 10.25 
 7.75 
 7.50 
 7.00 
 6.76 
 6.00 
 6.00 
 
 $2.00 
 3.75 
 4.50 
 
 2.50 
 
 13.25 
 
 3.50 
 
 .50 
 4.00 
 
 2.00 
 
 $2.25 
 2.70 
 2.70 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 2.25 
 2.40 
 1.80 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 1.80 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.55 
 2.70 
 2.70 
 2.70 
 
 $0.25 
 
 .50 
 
 .25 
 .60 
 .25 
 .40 
 
 50 
 
 $48.00 
 46.62 
 46.95 
 38.25 
 52.10 
 5L45 
 47.75 
 40.88 
 44.50 
 38.50 
 46.55 
 40.55 
 41.65 
 29.25 
 39.65 
 38.05 
 36.95 
 37.70 
 35.20 
 
 $78.00 
 80.00 
 78.00 
 72.00 
 54.00 
 102.00 
 57.00 
 77.00 
 60.00 
 42.00 
 64.50 
 72.00 
 66.00 ' 
 54.00 
 40.00 
 56.65 
 54.08 
 46.35 
 40.00 
 
 $30.00 
 33.38 
 31.05 
 33.75 
 1.90 
 50.55 
 9.25 
 36.12 
 15.50 
 3.50 
 17.95 
 31.45 
 24.35 
 24.75 
 .35 
 18.60 
 17.13 
 8.65 
 4.80 
 
 13.00 
 13.33 
 13.00 
 12.00 
 9.00 
 17.00 
 9.50 
 12.83 
 10.00 
 7.00 
 10.75 
 12.00 
 11.00 
 9.00 
 8.00 
 11.00 
 10.50 
 9.00 
 8.00 
 
 $2.31 
 2.50 
 2.39 
 2.81 
 .21 
 2.97 
 .97 
 2.82 
 1.55 
 .50 
 1.67 
 2.62 
 2.21 
 2.75 
 .04 
 1.69 
 L63 
 .96 
 .60 
 
 iLoss. 
 
 87731—17- 
 
 ^ 
 
 a 
 
 I 
 
 -- ' «i 
 
 ^ 
 
38 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 Table ll.— COSTS .VND PROFITS OF GROWING BEETS IN THE UNITED STATES, BY 
 
 FARMS GROUPED BY DISTRICTS, 1913-Continued. 
 
 WISCONSIN, SOUTHERN DISTRICT. 
 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Cost per acre. 
 
 Value 
 
 per 
 
 acre. 
 
 Profit 
 
 per 
 
 acre. 
 
 
 
 Farm 
 num- 
 ber. 
 
 Prep- 
 ara- 
 tion 
 of 
 soil. 
 
 Hand 
 labor. 
 
 Plant- 
 ing 
 and 
 cul- 
 tivat- 
 ing. 
 
 Lift- 
 ing 
 and 
 haul- 
 ing. 
 
 Irri- 
 ga- 
 tion. 
 
 Fertil- 
 izer. 
 
 Seed. 
 
 Mis- 
 
 cel- 
 
 lane- 
 
 ous. 
 
 Total 
 ex- 
 penses. 
 
 Yield 
 
 per 
 
 acre. 
 
 Profit 
 per 
 ton. 
 
 147... 
 
 2.50 
 2.50 
 6.00 
 15.00 
 2.00 
 3.00 
 5.00 
 2.00 
 
 $6.50 
 3.50 
 6.00 
 5.75 
 3.75 
 4.50 
 3.00 
 6.00 
 
 $21.00 
 21.00 
 21.00 
 21.00 
 21.00 
 21.00 
 19.00 
 21.00 
 
 13.50 
 3.90 
 3.50 
 3.00 
 3.50 
 7.00 
 3.00 
 5.00 
 
 $12.25 
 
 10.26 
 
 13.50 
 
 8.50 
 
 16.00 
 
 10.35 
 
 8.00 
 
 8.50 
 
 
 
 $2.70 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 
 $0.30 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 $46.25 
 40.90 
 46.25 
 40.50 
 46.50 
 45.10 
 37.75 
 42.75 
 
 $84.50 
 107. 25 
 91.00 
 66.00 
 110.00 
 51.75 
 66.00 
 71.50 
 
 $38. 25 
 66.35 
 44.75 
 25.50 
 63.50 
 6.65 
 28.25 
 28.75 
 
 Tom. 
 1^ no 
 
 ••y oi 
 
 148... 
 
 
 
 16.50 4.02 
 14.00 3.20 
 12. 00 2. 13 
 20. 00 3. 18 
 9.00 .74 
 12.00 2.35 
 1^ nn 'i oi 
 
 149... 
 
 
 
 150... 
 
 
 
 151... 
 
 
 
 162... 
 
 
 
 153... 
 154... 
 
 
 $2.50 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 MINNESOTA. 
 
 155... 
 
 1.25 
 
 $2.60 
 
 156... 
 
 5.00 
 
 4.00 
 
 157... 
 
 3.00 
 
 3.00 
 
 158... 
 
 1.75 
 
 2.00 
 
 159... 
 
 3.00 
 
 6.00 
 
 160... 
 
 13.00 
 
 3.00 
 
 161... 
 
 3.00 
 
 3.00 
 
 162... 
 
 9.50 
 
 4.00 
 
 163... 
 
 6.00 
 
 3.00 
 
 164... 
 
 11.00 
 
 2.00 
 
 165... 
 
 5.00 
 
 3.50 
 
 $20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 
 $6.25 
 3.00 
 5.25 
 5.75 
 2.90 
 3.40 
 4.00 
 5.20 
 2.00 
 4.30 
 3.25 
 
 $7.00 
 
 |l3.00 
 
 10. 25 
 
 16.00 
 
 6.60 
 
 5.40 
 
 7.32 
 
 8.75 
 
 3.79 
 
 9.40 
 
 14.00 
 
 $2.00 
 3.00 
 3.50 
 
 10.00 
 5.00 
 3.75 
 4.00 
 
 10.00 
 3.20 
 
 $1.80 
 1.80 
 2.50 
 2.30 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 1.00 
 1.20 
 2.00 
 1.60 
 1.80 
 
 $0.75 
 
 ,25 
 
 $39.55 
 44.80 
 44.50 
 56.05 
 42.50 
 38.30 
 39.32 
 39.15 
 40.79 
 40.65 
 42.55 
 
 $44.00 
 88.00 
 49.50 
 82.50 
 38.50 
 91.25 
 38.75 
 35.00 
 48.75 
 60.00 
 60.00 
 
 $4.45 
 43.20 
 
 5.00 
 26.45 
 U.OO 
 52.95 
 
 1.57 
 14.15 
 
 7.96 
 19.35 
 17.45 
 
 8.00 
 
 16.00 
 
 9.00 
 
 15.00 
 
 7.00 
 
 18.25 
 
 7.75 
 
 7.00 
 
 9.75 
 
 12.00 
 
 12.00 
 
 $0.56 
 2.70 
 
 .56 
 1.76-. 
 1.57 
 2.90 
 1.07 
 1.69 
 
 .82 
 1.61 
 1.45 
 
 IOWA. 
 
 166. 
 
 167. 
 
 168. 
 
 160. 
 
 170.. 
 
 171.. 
 
 172.. 
 
 173.. 
 
 174.. 
 
 21.00 $2. 
 
 175.00 2. 
 
 24.00 
 
 11.00 
 
 4.75 
 
 7.00 
 
 15.00 
 
 100.00 
 
 19.00 
 
 00 
 00 
 50 
 00 
 25 
 25 
 00 
 80 
 00 
 
 $20.00 
 20.00 
 19.50 
 18.00 
 19.00 
 19.00 
 17.50 
 15.50 
 16.00 
 
 $1.75 
 4.00 
 3.40 
 4.87 
 3.50 
 7.75 
 3.40 
 3.75 
 3.15 
 
 $6.35 
 6.50 
 4.25 
 7.35 
 
 10.69 
 5.05 
 3.90 
 4.65 
 3.50 
 
 $2.10 
 1.40 
 1.25 
 
 1.25 
 1.25 
 .63 
 1.25 
 1.40 
 
 $1.50 
 1.20 
 1.80 
 1.50 
 1.50 
 1.50 
 1.50 
 1.60 
 1.30 
 
 $33.70 
 
 35.10 
 
 32.70 
 
 33.72 
 
 j 38.19 
 
 I 36.80 
 
 ! 28.93 
 
 29.55 
 
 27.35 
 
 $62.50 
 
 $28.80 
 
 55.00 
 
 19.90 
 
 37.50 
 
 4.80 
 
 48.60 
 
 14.88 
 
 71.55 
 
 33.36 
 
 29.70 
 
 17.10 
 
 35.00 
 
 6.07 
 
 32.50 
 
 2.95 
 
 30.00 
 
 2.65 
 
 12.50 
 11.00 
 7.50 
 9.00 
 13.25 
 5.50 
 7.00 
 6.50 
 6.00 
 
 $2.30 
 
 1.81 
 
 .64 
 
 1.65 
 
 2.52 
 
 11.29 
 
 .87 
 
 .45 
 
 .44 
 
 NEBRASKA, GRAND ISLAND DISTRICT. 
 
 175. 
 
 176.. 
 
 177.. 
 
 178.. 
 
 179.. 
 
 180.. 
 
 181.. 
 
 3.00 
 5.00 
 7.50 
 5.00 
 8.00 
 14.00 
 5.00 
 
 $2.24 
 
 $7.75 
 
 $5.00 
 
 2.18 
 
 10.00 
 
 3.44 
 
 2.13 
 
 15.33 
 
 1.99 
 
 2.45 
 
 13.00 
 
 2.93 
 
 3.40 
 
 22.00 
 
 2.25 
 
 3.36 
 
 10.30 
 
 3.85 
 
 3.33 
 
 16.70 
 
 2.35 
 
 $3.25 
 5.10 
 7.02 
 2.51 
 6.20 
 5.81 
 4.95 
 
 $8.00 
 
 2.33 
 
 .75 
 
 v4* aU 
 
 .75 
 3.33 
 
 1 Loss. 
 
 $2.55 
 1.20 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 
 $20.79 
 29.92 
 30.80 
 23.64 
 35.85 
 29.20 
 32.66 
 
 $15.00 
 30.00 
 45.00 
 30.00 
 40.00 
 40.00 
 20.00 
 
 i$5.79 
 
 .08 
 
 14.20 
 
 6.36 
 
 4.15 
 
 10.80 
 
 112.66 
 
 3.00 
 6.00 
 9.00 
 6.00 
 8.00 
 8.00 
 4.00 
 
 i$1.9a 
 
 .01 
 
 1.68 
 
 1.06 
 
 .52 
 
 1.35 
 
 13.17 
 
 I i ^. 
 
 I • 
 
 / 
 
 I 
 / 
 
 I 
 
 V V 
 
 / 
 
 i 
 
 BEET GROWING. 
 
 39 
 
 Table 11.— COSTS AND PROFITS OF GROWING BEETS IN THE UNITED ST.\TES, BY 
 
 FARMS GROUPED BY DISTRICTS, 1913— Continued. 
 
 NEBRASKA, GRAND ISLAND DISTRICT— Continued. 
 
 Farm 
 
 num 
 
 ber. 
 
 182. . . 
 183... 
 184... 
 185... 
 186... 
 187... 
 188... 
 
 Cost per acre. 
 
 Acres. Pj|?-| 
 
 tiSi I Hand 
 of 
 soil. 
 
 labor. 
 
 I 
 
 5.60 $3.02 
 5.00 i 1.98 
 
 189.. 
 190.. 
 191.. 
 192.. 
 193.. 
 
 15.00 
 6.00 
 28.75 
 15.00 
 15.00 
 
 3.30 
 4.82 
 2.25 
 4.80 
 2.70 
 
 $9.10 
 16.00 
 11.60 
 10.52 
 20.00 
 17.65 
 10.28 
 
 Plant- 
 ing 
 and 
 cul- 
 tivat- 
 ing 
 
 $3.45 
 4.28 
 2.40 
 3.33 
 2.00 
 2.20 
 1.67 
 
 Lift- 
 ing 
 and 
 haul- 
 ing. 
 
 $5.10 
 8.25 
 5.33 
 7.43 
 3.21 
 8.20 
 5.82 
 
 Irri- 
 ga- i 
 tion. 
 
 Fertil- 
 izer. 
 
 $3.00 
 
 $3.00 
 3.01 1.80 
 1.00 
 2.99 1 3.11 
 4.15 I 2.75 
 
 Seed. 
 
 $2.00 
 1.30 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 1.75 
 1.70 
 1.80 
 
 Mis- 
 
 cel- 
 
 lane- 
 
 ous. 
 
 Total 
 ex- 
 penses. 1 
 
 Value ProGt Yield Profit 
 
 per per per per 
 
 acre. acre. acre. ton. 
 
 $4.33 
 13.19 
 63 
 
 I 
 
 $25.67 $30.00 
 
 31.81 ! 45.00 
 
 27.63 I 20.00 
 I 32.91 i 61.00 
 
 30.21 i 17.50 112.71 
 I 40.65 i 70.00 29.35 
 48.33 
 
 Ton9. 
 6.00 
 
 9.00 
 4.00 
 
 29. 17 I 77. 50 
 
 28.09 ' 12.20 
 
 3.50 
 
 14.00 
 
 15.50 
 
 I $0.72 
 
 ; 1.47 
 
 ji 1.91 
 j 2.30 
 l«3.63 
 i 2.10 
 I 3.12 
 
 KANSAS. 
 
 41.50 
 45.00 
 8.00 
 28.00 
 36.00 
 
 $4.91 
 4.05 
 3.02 
 4.96 
 
 $15.25 
 
 15.00 
 
 6.88 
 
 16.00 
 
 4.27 15.00 
 
 $2.62 
 3.90 
 1.98 
 2.59 
 1.63 
 
 $5.11 $0.72 
 3.95 2.40 
 1.79 .22 
 5.60 1.60 
 3.54 2.08 
 
 $2.00 
 1.70 
 1.60 
 1.80 
 2.00 
 
 $0.18 
 .75 
 
 $30.79 $46.20 '$15.41 
 31.00 I 19.25 |ill.75 
 16.24 I 13.75 '2.49 
 32.55 ' 52.80 20.25 
 
 28.52 
 
 39.60 I 11.08 
 
 8.40 
 
 3.50 
 
 2. .50 
 
 9.60 
 
 7.20 
 
 $1.83 
 
 13.36 
 
 11.00 
 
 2.11 
 
 1.54 
 
 COLORADA, NORTHERN DISTRICT. 
 
 194... 
 
 31.00 
 
 $4.50 
 
 $20.00 
 
 $2.40 
 
 $9.15 
 
 $2.60 
 
 $6.50 
 
 $2.00 
 
 
 $47.15 
 
 1 
 $97.38 $50.23 
 
 19.00 
 
 1 
 
 ! $2.ft4 
 
 195. . . 
 
 62.00 
 
 5.00 
 
 20.00 
 
 3.40 
 
 10.90 
 
 4.85 
 
 4.50 
 
 2.00 
 
 
 50.65 
 
 108.-00 57.35 
 
 18.00 
 
 j 3.19 
 
 196... 
 
 28.00 
 
 6.00 
 
 20.00 
 
 1.58 
 
 8.11 
 
 2.60 
 
 4.30 
 
 2.00 
 
 $0.18 
 
 44.77 
 
 104.28 
 
 59.51 
 
 19.40 
 
 3.07 
 
 197... 
 
 30.00 
 
 5.00 
 
 20.00 
 
 3.20 
 
 13.30 
 
 4.69 
 
 5.00 
 
 2.00 
 
 
 53.19 
 
 105.30 
 
 52.11 
 
 18.00 
 
 2.90 
 
 198... 
 
 20.00 
 
 4.50 
 
 20.00 
 
 2.35 
 
 12.56 
 
 1.50 
 
 1.60 
 
 1.50 
 
 
 44.01 
 
 75. 77 31. 76 
 
 13.41 
 
 2.37 
 
 199... 
 
 65.00 
 
 3.26 
 
 20.00 
 
 3.35 
 
 10.00 
 
 5.93 
 
 15.82 
 
 2.00 
 
 
 60.36 
 
 84.00 23.64 
 
 16.00 
 
 1.48 
 
 200... 
 
 35.00 
 
 3.50 
 
 20.00 
 
 2.65 
 
 13.48 
 
 1.50 
 
 13.00 
 
 1.60 
 
 
 55.73 
 
 107.97 
 
 1 52.24 
 
 18.30 
 
 2.85 
 
 201... 
 
 76.00 
 
 4.00 
 
 20.00 
 
 2.92 
 
 9.66 
 
 4.75 
 
 11.58 
 
 1.50 
 
 
 54.41 
 
 71.90 
 
 ' 17.49 
 
 13.32 
 
 1.31 
 
 202... 
 
 22.00 
 
 2.70 
 
 16.50 
 
 2.90 
 
 13.47 
 
 1.80 
 
 
 2.00 
 
 
 39.37 
 
 81.00 
 
 41.63 
 
 12.00 
 
 3.47 
 
 203... 
 
 69.00 
 
 3.75 
 
 20.00 
 
 3.40 
 
 11.33 
 
 2.50 
 
 2.32 
 
 1.50 
 
 .14 
 
 44.94 
 
 84.38 
 
 39.44 
 
 15.00 
 
 2.63 
 
 204... 
 
 30.00 
 
 4.25 
 
 20.00 
 
 2.90 
 
 16.50 
 
 1.05 
 
 13.00 
 
 1.50 
 
 
 59.20 
 
 75. 00 15. 80 
 
 15.00 
 
 1.05 
 
 205... 
 
 56.00 
 
 3.30 
 
 20.00 
 
 1.85 
 
 9.20 
 
 .50 
 
 5.00 
 
 2.00 
 
 .58 
 
 42.43 
 
 104.40 ; 61.97 
 
 18.00 
 
 3.44 
 
 206... 
 
 16.50 
 
 6.72 
 
 20.00 
 
 5.20 
 
 19.50 
 
 3.74 
 
 12.25 
 
 2.00 
 
 
 69.41 
 
 90.75 
 
 21.34 
 
 16.50 
 
 1.29 
 
 207... 
 
 33.00 
 
 4.08 
 
 23.00 
 
 2.40 
 
 12.50 
 
 3.40 
 
 11.00 
 
 2.00 
 
 
 58.38 
 
 124.00 65.62 
 
 23.33 
 
 2.81 
 
 208... 
 
 13.00 
 
 5.10 
 
 20.00 
 
 2.50 
 
 9.30 
 
 3.10 
 
 7.67 2.00 
 
 
 49.67 
 
 78.00 28.33 
 
 13.00 
 
 2.18 
 
 209... 
 
 20.00 
 
 3.50 
 
 20.00 
 
 3.50 
 
 6.50 
 
 4.75 
 
 7.00 
 
 2.00 
 
 
 47.25 
 
 60.00 
 
 12.75 
 
 10.00 
 
 1.28 
 
 210... 
 
 12. .50 
 
 4.00 
 
 20.00 
 
 2.50 
 
 12.32 
 
 1.75 
 
 11.50 1 2.00 
 
 
 54.07 
 
 80.96 
 
 26.89 
 
 16.00 
 
 1.68 
 
 211... 
 
 27.00 
 
 3.00 
 
 20.00 
 
 2.50 
 
 9.50 
 
 3.00 
 
 4.00 ; 2.00 
 
 
 44.00 
 
 84.00 
 
 40.00 
 
 1.5.00 
 
 2.67 
 
 212... 
 
 40.00 
 
 4.00 
 
 20.00 
 
 2.90 
 
 7.00 
 
 2.00 
 
 2.00 ; 
 
 2.00 
 
 .80 
 
 40.70 
 
 45.00 
 
 4.30 
 
 9.00 
 
 .48 
 
 213... 
 
 65.00 
 
 4.50 
 
 20.00 
 
 2.00 
 
 7.40 
 
 1.30 
 
 1.00 
 
 2.00 
 
 
 38.20 
 
 50.00 
 
 11.80 
 
 10.00 
 
 1.18 
 
 214... 
 
 58.50 
 
 '4.00 
 
 20.00 
 
 1.50 
 
 8.25 
 
 1.25 
 
 1.30 
 
 2.00 
 
 
 38.30 
 
 62.50 i 
 
 24.20 
 
 12.50 
 
 1.94 
 
 215... 
 
 40.00 
 
 8.89 
 
 20.00 
 
 3.50 
 
 8.80 
 
 1.90 
 
 1.50 ; 
 
 2.00 
 
 
 46.59 
 
 75.60 ! 
 
 29.01 
 
 14.00 
 
 2.07 
 
 216... 
 
 42.00 
 
 5.25 
 
 20.00 
 
 3.95 
 
 7.80 
 
 6.85 
 
 1.30 
 
 2.00 
 
 
 47.15 
 
 •61.50 j 
 
 14.35 
 
 12.00 
 
 1.20 
 
 217... 
 
 60.00 
 
 6.00 
 
 20.00 
 
 3.50 
 
 8.50 
 
 5.75 
 
 2.00 
 
 2.00 
 
 
 47. 75 
 
 60.00 ' 
 
 12.25 
 
 12.00 
 
 1.02 
 
 218... 
 
 39.61 
 
 4.80 
 
 20.00 
 
 2.90 
 
 16.10 
 
 5.12 
 
 3.00 ; 
 
 2.00 
 
 .20 
 
 54.12 
 
 80.00 
 
 25.88 
 
 16.00 
 
 1.62 
 
 219. . . 
 
 12.00 
 
 4.00 
 
 4.83 
 
 3.50 
 
 14.02 
 
 6.53 
 
 4.40 ; 
 
 2.00 
 
 .40 
 
 39.68 
 
 98.04 
 
 58.36 
 
 19.00 
 
 3.07 
 
 »Loss. 
 
 > 
 
f 
 
 40 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 
 BEET GROWING. 
 
 41 
 
 J 
 
 i 
 
 
 i 
 
 Table 11.— COSTS .VND PROFITS OF GROWING BEETS IN THE UNITED STATES, BY 
 
 FARMS GROUPED BY DISTRICTS, 1913— Continued. 
 
 COLORADO, NORTHERN DISTRICT— Continued. 
 
 Farm 
 
 num 
 
 ber. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 220.. 
 
 221.. 
 
 222.. 
 
 223.. 
 
 224.. 
 
 225.. 
 
 226.. 
 
 227.. 
 
 228.. 
 
 229-. 
 
 230.. 
 
 231.. 
 
 232.. 
 
 233.. 
 
 234.. 
 
 235.. 
 
 236-. 
 
 237.. 
 
 238.. 
 
 239.. 
 
 240.. 
 
 241.. 
 
 242.. 
 
 243.. 
 
 244.. 
 
 245-. 
 
 246.. 
 
 247. . 
 
 248.. 
 
 249.. 
 
 250.. 
 
 251... 
 
 252... 
 
 253... 
 
 254... 
 
 50.00 
 33.00 
 65.50 
 
 5.50 
 60.00 
 122.00 
 45.00 
 20.00 
 36.00 
 60.00 
 40.00 
 13.00 
 38.90 
 76.00 
 41.00 
 
 8.00 
 35.00 
 22.00 
 39.50 
 13.00 
 34.00 
 22.00 
 20.00 
 50.00 
 25.00 
 100.00 
 60.00 
 17.50 
 48.00 
 33.00 
 55.00 
 53.00 
 38.80 
 60.00 
 21.00 
 
 Cost per acre. 
 
 Prep- 
 ara- 
 tion 
 of 
 soil.. 
 
 $7.20 
 4.00 
 3.40 
 5.25 
 8.80 
 3.40 
 5.00 
 4.10 
 6.50 
 3.80 
 4.60 
 16.55 
 4.60 
 5.75 
 6.67 
 3.50 
 3.30 
 4.00 
 4.59 
 3.85 
 4.35 
 5.10 
 3.90 
 6.33 
 3.90 
 6.00 
 3.96 
 4.40 
 3.55 
 6.00 
 4.50 
 4.15 
 4.98 
 3.09 
 6.00 
 
 Hand 
 labor. 
 
 $20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 16.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 9.60 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 17.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.75 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 23.19 
 20.00 
 10.10 
 
 Plant- 
 ing 
 and 
 cul- 
 
 tivat 
 ine. 
 
 $3.30 
 2.35 
 3.00 
 2.80 
 3.33 
 1.70 
 2.50 
 2.10 
 4.50 
 2.50 
 3.00 
 3.90 
 2.33 
 4.35 
 3.95 
 4.50 
 .90 
 3.15 
 3.00 ' 
 2.00 I 
 1.80 j 
 3.00 i 
 5.50 I 
 2.80 
 3.40 
 4.75 
 1.93 
 3.35 
 2.05 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.83 
 2.44 
 5.70 
 
 Lift- 
 ing 
 and 
 haul- 
 ing. 
 
 $6.70 
 9.65 
 6.80 
 7.50 
 9.00 
 9.70 
 9.60 
 11.13 
 14.94 
 7.00 
 9.75 
 12.85 
 8.10 
 8.80 
 8.63 
 5.50 
 8.00 
 11.00 
 11.57 
 10.00 
 9.02 
 8.90 
 12.00 
 12.70 
 6.50 
 13.00 
 7.90 
 8.40 
 6.90 
 14.88 
 10.33 
 10.75 
 9. Off 
 5.64 
 8.30 
 
 Irri- 
 ga- 
 tion. 
 
 $6.00 
 
 1.60 
 4.60 
 4.57 
 1.60 
 5.90 
 5.50 
 3.10 
 2.39 
 
 .80 
 1.85 
 4.00 
 7.44 
 
 .60 
 4.18 
 2.08 
 2.88 
 2.10 
 2.25 
 
 .90 
 3.00 
 2.36 
 1.50 
 1.20 
 1.50 
 6.25 
 4.70 
 3.18 
 1.50 
 1.50 
 2.75 
 1.20 
 3.18 
 2.30 
 4.80 
 
 Fertil- 
 izer. 
 
 Seed. 
 
 Mis- 
 
 cel- 
 
 lane- 
 
 ous. 
 
 $1.75 
 
 1.50 
 
 .90 
 
 5.00 
 
 .90 
 .45 
 
 .50 
 2.30 
 
 1.19 
 2.44 
 
 5.00 
 4.00 
 
 5.00 
 
 5.60 
 1.60 
 2.00 
 1.66 
 1.30 
 .80 
 1.40 
 4.00 
 2.36 
 5.00 
 3.00 
 16.00 
 
 $2.00 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 1.50 
 2.50 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 2.65 
 1.00 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 2.51 
 2.00 
 1.70 
 2.00 
 1.30 
 1.70 
 1.50 
 1.50 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 1.70 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 1.00 
 1.80 
 2.00 
 1.80 
 2.00 
 1.60 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 
 Total 
 ex- 
 penses. 
 
 Value 
 
 per 
 
 acre. 
 
 $1.00 
 
 1.25 
 
 ,50 
 
 20 
 
 $46.95 
 41.10 
 40.70 
 42.62 
 45.23 
 43.60 
 45.05 
 42.43 
 50.33 
 36.10 
 42.35 
 50.20 
 44.47 
 42.69 
 48.38 
 34.58 
 36.78 
 48.25 
 46.71 
 38.45 
 40.42 
 45.86 
 46.15 
 50.63 
 38.60 
 54.50 
 42.15 
 41.63 
 36.60 
 48.68 
 46.28 
 43.36 
 50.04 
 38.47 
 52.90 
 
 $60.00 
 62.43 
 61.50 
 55.00 
 56.38 
 61.50 
 60.50 
 66.13 
 82.35 
 52.50 
 74.25 
 75.00 
 70.00 
 50.40 
 73.50 
 38.50 
 63.00 
 88.00 
 94.07 
 110.00 
 71.02 
 84.00 
 64.50 
 89.25 
 38.50 
 70.20 
 84.00 
 84.00 
 56.65 
 87.78 
 74.90 
 60.50 
 123.26 
 80.35 
 74.90 
 
 Profit 
 
 per 
 
 acre. 
 
 $13.05 
 21.33 
 20.80 
 12.38 
 11.15 
 17.90 
 15.45 
 23.70 
 32.02 
 16.40 
 31.90 
 24.80 
 25.53 
 
 7.71 
 25.12 
 
 3.92 
 26.22 
 39.75 
 47.36 
 71.55 
 30.60 
 38.14 
 18.35 
 38.62 
 
 1.10 
 15.70 
 41.85 
 42.37 
 20.05 
 39.10 
 28.62 
 17.14 
 73.22 
 41.88 
 22.00 
 
 COLORADO, SOUTHERN DISTRICT. 
 
 Yield 
 
 per 
 
 acre. 
 
 Profit 
 
 per 
 
 ton. 
 
 Tons. 
 
 
 12.00 
 
 $1.09 
 
 11.00 
 
 1.94 
 
 12.00 
 
 1.73 
 
 10.00 
 
 1.24 
 
 11.00 
 
 1.01 
 
 12.00 
 
 1.49 
 
 11.00 
 
 1.40 
 
 11.50 
 
 2.06 
 
 15.25 
 
 2.10 
 
 10.00 
 
 1.64 
 
 13.50 
 
 2.36 
 
 15.00 
 
 1.65 
 
 14.00 
 
 1.82 
 
 9.00 
 
 .86 
 
 14.00 
 
 1.79 
 
 7.00 
 
 .56 
 
 12.00 
 
 2.19 
 
 16.00 
 
 2.48 
 
 16.65 
 
 2.84 
 
 20.00 
 
 3.58 
 
 13.25 
 
 2.31 
 
 16.00 
 
 2.38 
 
 12.00 
 
 1.53 
 
 17.00 
 
 2.27 
 
 7.00 
 
 1.01 
 
 13.00 
 
 1.21 
 
 16.00 
 
 2.62 
 
 16.00 
 
 2.65 
 
 11.00 
 
 1.82 
 
 16.50 
 
 2.37 
 
 14.00 
 
 2.04 
 
 11.00 
 
 1.56 
 
 21.40 
 
 3.42 
 
 14.40 
 
 2.91 
 
 14.00 
 
 1.57 
 
 255... 
 256... 
 257... 
 258... 
 259... 
 260... 
 261... 
 262... 
 
 30.00 
 23.00 
 60.00 
 10.00 
 38.00 
 18.00 
 25.00 
 40.00 
 
 $5.03 
 6.32 
 2.50 
 2.55 
 5.60 
 5.32 
 6.40 
 5.00 
 
 $18.00 
 13.76 
 12.50 
 20.00 
 15.50 
 15.50 
 13.00 
 21.00 
 
 $3.40 
 3.40 
 2.40 
 2.09 
 2.40 
 2.71 
 3.60 
 3.75 
 
 $6.10 
 10.55 
 9.01 
 5.75 
 8.00 
 8.75 
 5.31 
 4.25 
 
 $6.33 
 
 $2.20 
 
 $5.71 
 2.25 
 .63 
 .75 
 4.10 
 .99 
 .40 
 
 1.50 J j 2.00 ;$0.50 
 
 1 Loss. 
 
 2.78 
 
 2.30 
 
 1.75 
 
 2.00 
 
 
 2.50 
 
 10.50 
 
 2.50 
 
 15.00 
 
 4.00 
 
 5.10 
 
 2.00 
 
 $46.77 
 41.36 
 30.79 
 33.64 
 48.60 
 52.27 
 35.81 
 38.00 
 
 $78.00 
 84.50 
 65.34 
 63.18 
 62.50 
 63.25 
 20.63 
 18.00 |i20.00 
 
 $31.23 
 43. 14 
 34.55 
 29.54 
 13.90 
 10.98 
 
 1 15. 18 
 
 12.00 
 
 13.00 
 
 12.10 
 
 9.00 
 
 10.00 
 
 11.50 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.00 
 
 $2.60 
 
 3.32 
 
 2.86 
 
 3.28 
 
 1.39 
 
 .95 
 
 14.05 
 
 '6.67 
 
 \ 
 
 r 
 
 « V 
 
 / 
 
 TABLE ll.-COSTS AND PROFITS OF GROWING BEETS IN THE UNITED STATES, BY 
 
 FARMS GROUPED BY DISTRICTS— Continued. 
 
 COLORADO, SOUTHERN DISTRICT— Continued. 
 
 Farm 
 num- 
 ber. 
 
 263.- 
 
 264.. 
 
 265.- 
 
 266.. 
 
 267.. 
 
 268.. 
 
 269-. 
 
 270.. 
 
 271.. 
 
 272-. 
 
 273-. 
 
 274.- 
 
 275.. 
 
 276.. 
 
 277.- 
 
 278.. 
 
 279.- 
 
 280... 
 
 281 -- 
 
 282.. 
 
 2m... 
 
 284... 
 285-.. 
 286--. 
 287... 
 
 288-.. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 289... 
 290... 
 291... 
 
 292. 
 293. 
 294. 
 295. 
 296. 
 297. 
 298. 
 299. 
 300. 
 301. 
 
 7.00 
 
 163.00 
 
 12.00 
 
 3.00 
 10.00 
 21.56 
 
 4.50 
 15.00 
 15.00 
 125.00 
 14.00 
 14.00 
 
 4.00 
 
 6.00 
 13.00 
 31.00 
 
 8.00 
 45.00 
 49.00 
 34.00 
 13.00 
 16.00 
 10.00 
 
 3.25 
 21.00 
 53.00 
 
 Cost per acre. 
 
 Prep- 
 ara- 
 tion 
 of 
 soil. 
 
 $2.76 
 4.55 
 4.84 
 3.80 
 3.00 
 6.44 
 2.50 
 3.30 
 5.57 
 4.86 
 4.90 
 5.62 
 3.30 
 3.68 
 7.21 
 3.50 
 4.65 
 4.11 
 3.20 
 5.05 
 5.13 
 4.05 
 5.90 
 9.80 
 
 10.27 
 3.96 
 
 Hand 
 labor. 
 
 $16.00 
 17.00 
 15.00 
 11.00 
 7.25 
 17.75 
 14.00 
 14.00 
 18.00 
 14.00 
 14.99 
 20.00 
 19.00 
 18.79 
 18.00 
 16.50 
 20.00 
 15.25 
 15.50 
 14.00 
 14.15 
 14.25 
 16.00 
 16.75 
 16.00 
 14.50 
 
 Plant- 
 ing 
 and 
 cul- 
 
 tivat 
 ing. 
 
 $3.53 
 1.27 
 2.20 
 2.90 
 1.75 
 4.97 
 2.10 
 2.10 
 2.50 
 2.88 
 1.90 
 3.50 
 4.00 
 1.75 
 4.30 
 1.30 
 3.00 
 2.40 
 2.30 
 4.80 
 3.35 
 1.80 
 2.80 
 5.00 
 3.13 
 3.40 
 
 Lift- 
 ing 
 and 
 haul- 
 ing. 
 
 $7.50 
 8.25 
 8.91 
 4.80 
 
 12.60 
 
 12.00 
 9.50 
 
 10.50 
 7.66 
 
 10.55 
 7.98 
 
 13.50 
 6.50 
 8.00 
 
 10.50 
 7.25 
 
 10.75 
 4.66 
 6.70 
 7.40 
 8.75 
 4.25 
 
 11.00 
 
 10.00 
 
 10.29 
 
 Irri- 
 ga- 
 tion. 
 
 $1.70 
 2.25 
 1.30 
 .90 
 .20 
 3.82 
 3.50 
 1.50 
 2.75 
 2.28 
 2.50 
 3.40 
 4.12 
 1.43 
 3.52 
 4.00 
 2.00 
 .39 
 1.50 
 1.50 
 3.50 
 2.75 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 1.48 
 3.62 
 
 Fertil- 
 izer. 
 
 Seed. 
 
 Mis- 
 
 cel- 
 
 lane- 
 
 ous. 
 
 
 $4.00 
 3.00 
 
 .48 
 
 12.55 
 9.00 
 
 7.33 
 1.36 
 4.25 
 1.25 
 16.50 
 2.75 
 1.00 
 2.90 
 4.00 
 
 3.26 
 
 5.25 
 2.20 
 
 17.00 
 5.00 
 6.86 
 
 13.20 
 
 $2.00 
 2.50 
 2.00 
 1.50 
 1.70 
 2.10 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 1.20 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 1.50 
 1.80 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 1.70 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 1.70 
 
 $0.07 
 
 .10 
 
 .25 
 
 .20 
 .50 
 
 Total 
 
 e-x- 
 
 penses, 
 
 $37.49 
 38.89 
 34.73 
 24.90 
 14.00 
 60.23 
 45.10 
 32.40 
 48.65 
 35.04 
 40.54 
 43.75 
 62.42 
 36.90 
 43.73 
 40.50 
 43.40 
 34.90 
 32.42 
 34.05 
 40.48 
 35.80 
 50.95 
 52.55 
 49.74 
 50.67 
 
 Value 
 per 
 
 acre. 
 
 $72.00 
 83.38 
 42.00 
 14.30 
 10.00 
 94.40 
 
 125.00 
 93.75 
 
 100.00 
 60.00 
 95. .58 
 60.38 
 
 116.55 
 65.00 
 69.00 
 74.75 
 87.00 
 69.30 
 82.15 
 91.00 
 
 112.50 
 75.00 
 27.00 
 91.36 
 82.50 
 88.58 
 
 
 
 Profit 
 
 per 
 
 acre. 
 
 Yield 
 
 per 
 
 acre. 
 
 $34.51 
 
 Tons. 
 12.00 
 
 44.49 
 
 14.50 
 
 7.27 
 
 7.00 
 
 110.60 
 
 2.60 
 
 14.00 
 
 2.00 
 
 34.17 
 
 16.00 
 
 79.90 
 
 20.00 
 
 61.35 
 
 15.00 
 
 51.35 
 
 16.00 
 
 24.96 
 
 10.00 
 
 55. W 
 
 15.10 
 
 16.63 
 
 10.50 
 
 54.13 
 
 21.00 
 
 28.10 
 
 10.00 
 
 25.27 
 
 12.00 
 
 34.25 
 
 13.00 
 
 43.60 
 
 15.00 
 
 34.40 
 
 11.00 
 
 49.73 
 
 13.25 
 
 56.95 
 
 14.00 
 
 72.02 
 
 18.00 
 
 39.20 
 
 12.50 
 
 123.95 
 
 4.50 
 
 38.81 
 
 16.00 
 
 32.76 
 
 15.00 
 
 37.91 
 
 17.30 
 
 Profit 
 per 
 ton. 
 
 COLORADO, MONTE VISTA DISTRICT. 
 
 12.00 
 10.00 
 42.00 
 
 $3.00 
 3.75 
 2.25 
 
 $18.00 
 18.00 
 16.50 
 
 $1.65 
 2.00 
 3.10 
 
 COLORADO, GRAND JUNCTION DISTRICT. 
 
 12.00 
 14.33 
 35.00 
 40.00 
 18.00 
 7.00 
 14.00 
 16.00 
 20.00 
 65.00 
 
 $4.64 
 4.64 
 4.36 
 3.79 
 7.64 
 4.63 
 6.87 
 6.00 
 7.30 
 8.01 
 
 $20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 21.50 
 20.00 
 21.50 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 
 $3.25 
 2.75 
 2.77 
 2.50 
 3.36 
 3.48 
 3.10 
 3.90 
 4.80 
 7.72 
 
 $10. 17 
 
 10.77 
 
 8.67 
 
 7.97 
 
 9.87 
 
 18.39 
 
 10.12 
 
 4.33 
 
 5.62 
 
 12.75 
 
 $5.80 
 5.80 
 3.95 
 2.00 
 4.20 
 2.83 
 2.90 
 3.39 
 4.75 
 6.10 
 
 $5.38 
 3.50 
 1.25 
 4.33 
 6.17 
 
 11.96 
 4.53 
 1.09 
 L57 
 
 $2.70 
 2.70 
 2.70 
 2.40 
 2.70 
 2.25 
 2.40 
 2.25 
 2.85 
 2.63 
 
 $3.13 
 
 .65 
 .49 
 .35 
 .23 
 .25 
 .38 
 
 $46.56 
 52.04 
 49.08 
 39.91 
 54.25 
 58.24 
 59.20 
 44.63 
 46.66 
 59.16 
 
 $69.55 
 76.68 
 60.00 
 70.00 
 75.00 
 
 129.09 
 52.50 
 16.50 
 30.30 
 49.34 
 
 $22.99 
 
 24.64 
 
 10.92 
 
 30.09 
 
 20.75 
 
 70.85 
 
 16.70 
 
 1 28. 13 
 
 1 16. 30 
 
 19.82 
 
 13.00 
 
 14.33 
 
 12.00 
 
 14.00 
 
 15.00 
 
 22.14 
 
 10.00 
 
 3.00 
 
 6.00 
 
 9.75 
 
 $2.88 
 3.07 
 1.01 
 
 14.08 
 
 12.00 
 2.14 
 4.00 
 4.09 
 3.21 
 2.50 
 3.65 
 1.58 
 2.58 
 2. SI 
 2.11 
 2.63 
 2.91 
 3.13 
 3.75 
 4.07 
 4.00 
 3.14 
 
 15.32 
 2.43 
 2.18 
 2.19 
 
 $7.25 
 
 $0.75 
 
 $3.00 $2.25 
 
 1 
 $8.33 $14.23 
 
 $61.42 
 
 $17. 19 
 
 10.50 
 
 $1.64 
 
 7.25 
 
 .75 
 
 3.00 
 
 3.00 
 
 
 37.75 
 
 38.15 
 
 .40 
 
 7.00 
 
 .06 
 
 2.25 
 
 1.00 
 
 
 2.77 
 
 
 27.87 
 
 42.42 
 
 14.55 
 
 7.00 
 
 2. OS 
 
 $1.77 
 
 1.72 
 
 .91 
 
 2.15 
 
 1.38 
 
 3.20 
 
 1.67 
 
 19.38 
 
 12.73 
 
 11.01 
 
 > 
 
 1 Loss. 
 
 V- 
 
i 
 
 42 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Table 11— COSTS AND PROFITS OF GROWING BEETS IN THE UNITED STATES, BY 
 
 FARMS GROUPED BY DISTRICTS, 1913— Continued. 
 
 MONTANA. 
 
 
 Acres 
 
 Cost per acre. 
 
 Value 
 
 per 
 
 acre. 
 
 Profit 
 
 per 
 
 acre. 
 
 Yield 
 
 per 
 
 acre. 
 
 
 Farm 
 num- 
 ber. 
 
 Prep- 
 ara- 
 tion 
 of 
 soil. 
 
 Hand 
 labor. 
 
 Plant- 
 ing 
 and 
 cul- 
 tivat- 
 ing. 
 
 Lift- 
 ing 
 and 
 haul- 
 ing. 
 
 Irri- 
 ga- 
 
 tlOTl. 
 
 Fertil- 
 izer. 
 
 Seed. 
 
 Mis- 
 
 cel- 
 
 lane- 
 
 ous. 
 
 Total 
 ex- 
 penses. 
 
 Profit 
 per 
 ton. 
 
 302... 
 303... 
 304... 
 305... 
 306... 
 307... 
 308... 
 309... 
 310... 
 311... 
 312. . . 
 313. . . 
 314... 
 315... 
 316... 
 317... 
 318... 
 319... 
 320... 
 
 22.00 
 47.00 
 95.00 
 15.00 
 24.00 
 32.00 
 26.00 
 12.00 
 20.00 
 25.00 
 39.50 
 27.15 
 12.00 
 28.00 
 3.25 
 25.00 
 53.00 
 56.00 
 30.00 
 
 $9.50 
 6.00 
 5.50 
 7.00 
 7.00 
 7.00 
 4.00 
 4.25 
 6.00 
 5.00 
 4.00 
 5.92 
 8.00 
 6.06 
 5.19 
 4.50 
 8.66 
 3.50 
 5.00 
 
 $20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.50 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 25.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 
 $2.35 
 3.60 
 3.10 
 2.55 
 4.70 
 4.70 
 1.90 
 3.50 
 2.00 
 2.30 
 2.25 
 2.52 
 4.78 
 3.85 
 3.00 
 3.40 
 6.75 
 2.10 
 3.33 
 
 $13.75 
 10.30 
 
 9.50 
 15.50 
 
 9.00 
 15.85 
 14.62 
 10.50 
 11.50 
 10.50 
 12.25 
 10.59 
 
 6.88 
 13.74 
 
 8.63 
 21.00 
 17.00 
 11.25 
 17.66 
 
 $3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 4.50 
 2.00 
 2.50 
 4.00 
 2.50 
 1.60 
 2.28 
 4.00 
 3.10 
 4.40 
 2.33 
 6.^25 
 2.50 
 3.80 
 
 $2.00 
 12.44 
 7.00 
 6.00 
 10.00 
 10.00 
 
 10.00 
 
 .90 
 
 .84 
 1.25 
 
 2.42 
 5.00 
 6.66 
 
 $1.50 
 2.00 
 1.80 
 1.50 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 1.50 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 1.50 
 1.60 
 1.70 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 
 $0.10 
 
 1.00 
 1.00 
 
 1.00 
 .20 
 .10 
 
 1.30 
 .91 
 
 1.00 
 
 $52.50 
 57.34 
 49.90 
 55.55 
 55.70 
 64.05 
 44.52 
 42.75 
 56.50 
 43.30 
 42.10 
 43.71 
 46.16 
 50.59 
 44.17 
 57.93 
 64.08 
 47.26 
 59.45 
 
 $74.75 
 87.60 
 76.70 
 72.87 
 52.80 
 94.87 
 93.00 
 46.25 
 69.00 
 90.00 
 80.16 
 92.29 
 31.85 
 57.05 
 31.87 
 
 106.25 
 78.40 
 67.44 
 86.95 
 
 $22.55 
 30.26 
 26.80 
 17.32 
 12.90 
 30.82 
 48.48 
 3.50 
 12.50 
 46.70 
 38.06 
 48.58 
 
 »14.31 
 6.46 
 
 112.30 
 48.32 
 14.32 
 20.18 
 27.50 
 
 Tom. 
 
 13.00 
 
 14.60 
 
 13.00 
 
 12.50 
 
 9.60 
 
 16.50 
 
 15.50 
 
 9.25 
 
 12.00 
 
 15.00 
 
 13.36 
 
 15.18 
 
 5.18 
 
 9.04 
 
 5.10 
 
 17.00 
 
 14.00 
 
 12.00 
 
 14.42 
 
 $1.73 
 2.07 
 2.06 
 1.39 
 1.30 
 1.87 
 3.13 
 .38 
 1.04 
 3.11 
 2.85 
 3.20 
 
 12.76 
 .71 
 
 12.41 
 2.84 
 1.02 
 1.68 
 1.91 
 
 321. 
 322. 
 323. 
 334. 
 335. 
 326. 
 327. 
 328. 
 329. 
 330. 
 331. 
 
 333. 
 334. 
 335. 
 
 337. 
 
 340. 
 341. 
 
 IDAHO. 
 
 35.00 
 
 6.00 
 
 23.00 
 
 60.00 
 
 40.00 
 
 110.00 
 
 9.00 
 
 65.00 
 
 9.00 
 
 50.00 
 
 30.00 
 
 19.00 
 
 34.00 
 
 8.00 
 
 7.00 
 
 3.00 
 
 10.00 
 
 80.00 
 
 30.00 
 
 ,6.50 
 
 7.00 
 
 $3.06 
 3.55 
 6.80 
 5.75 
 4.08 
 5.10 
 5.23 
 5.36 
 6.67 
 4.90 
 5.19 
 5.20 
 4.00 
 5.71 
 4.67 
 4.81 
 6.00 
 3.62 
 3.15 
 6.52 
 6.52 
 
 $30.00 
 13.60 
 25.00 
 31.83 
 17.25 
 36.71 
 20.00 
 22.70 
 21.20 
 21.50 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 22.25 
 21.50 
 23.00 
 21.00 
 19.00 
 19.50 
 18.60 
 20.50 
 18.50 
 
 $1.93 
 4.00 
 1.92 
 2.40 
 2.30 
 2.17 
 2.14 
 2.63 
 3.40 
 2.40 
 1.90 
 2.40 
 2.10 
 3.42 
 2.80 
 2.27 
 5.75 
 2.22 
 1.49 
 3.61 
 3.61 
 
 $6.80 
 
 $0.05 
 
 $5.47 
 
 $2.25 
 
 
 $49.56 
 
 $60.00 
 
 $10.44 
 
 12.00 
 
 $0.87 
 
 6.50 
 
 .77 
 
 3.70 
 
 2.25 
 
 
 34.37 
 
 50.00 
 
 15.63 
 
 10.00 
 
 1.56 
 
 6.76 
 
 1.35 
 
 12.83 
 
 2.40 
 
 
 57.05 
 
 85.00 
 
 27.95 
 
 17.00 
 
 1.64 
 
 6.85 
 
 2.18 
 
 6.00 
 
 2.25 
 
 $0.10 
 
 57.36 
 
 72.50 
 
 15.14 
 
 14.60 
 
 1.04 
 
 10.00 
 
 .25 
 
 
 2.55 
 
 
 36.43 
 
 75.00 
 
 38.57 
 
 16.00 
 
 2.57 
 
 7.96 
 
 .10 
 
 4.29 
 
 1.95 
 
 
 68.28 
 
 78.00 
 
 19.72 
 
 15.60 
 
 1.26 
 
 11.28 
 
 2.40 
 
 3.55 
 
 2.25 
 
 
 46.85 
 
 58.50 
 
 11.65 
 
 11.70 
 
 1.00 
 
 16.66 
 
 3.72 
 
 2.77 
 
 2.70 
 
 
 56.54 
 
 82.50 
 
 25.96 
 
 16.50 
 
 1.57 
 
 11.60 
 
 2.55 
 
 2.22 
 
 2.25 
 
 
 49.89 
 
 70.00 
 
 20.11 
 
 14.00 
 
 1.44 
 
 11.93 
 
 3.60 
 
 1.40 
 
 2.25 
 
 
 47.98 
 
 72.50 
 
 24.52 
 
 14.50 
 
 1.69 
 
 8.40 
 
 2.70 
 
 3.25 
 
 2.25 
 
 
 43.69 
 
 60.00 
 
 16.31 
 
 12.00 
 
 1.36 
 
 13.20 
 
 2.70 
 
 
 2.25 
 
 
 45.75 
 
 56.00 
 
 10.25 
 
 11.20 
 
 .92 
 
 6.25 
 
 3.20 
 
 10.00 
 
 2.25 
 
 
 50.05 
 
 75.00 
 
 24.95 
 
 15.00 
 
 1.66 
 
 9.75 
 
 1.70 
 
 5.85 
 
 2.25 
 
 
 50.18 
 
 77.65 
 
 27.37 
 
 15.51 
 
 1.76 
 
 16.00 
 
 3.73 
 
 6.65 
 
 2.10 
 
 .16 
 
 59.11 
 
 90.00 
 
 30.89 
 
 18.00 
 
 1.72 
 
 6.10 
 
 2.20 
 
 9.10 
 
 1.80 
 
 .40 
 
 47.68 
 
 71.55 
 
 23.87 
 
 14.31 
 
 1.67 
 
 12.50 
 
 2.70 
 
 3.03 
 
 1.60 
 
 .20 
 
 50.68 
 
 49.65 
 
 11.03 
 
 9.93 
 
 1.10 
 
 6.22 
 
 1.78 
 
 2.76 
 
 2.25 
 
 .12 
 
 38.47 
 
 57.50 
 
 19.03 
 
 11.50 
 
 1.65 
 
 5.90 
 
 3.56 
 
 .70 
 
 2.25 
 
 .67 
 
 36.22 
 
 42.75 
 
 6.53 
 
 9.00 
 
 .73 
 
 12.24 
 
 2.85 
 
 
 2.25 
 
 
 47.97 
 
 61.75 
 
 13.78 
 
 13.00 
 
 1.06 
 
 9.44 
 
 2.85 
 
 
 2.25 
 
 
 43.17 
 
 42.75 
 
 1.42 
 
 9.00 
 
 1.05 
 
 1 Loss. 
 
 4 
 
 4 * 
 
 h. 
 
 < 
 
 
 / 
 
 • > 
 
 < 
 
 BEET GROWING, 
 
 43 
 
 TABLE U.-COSTS AND PROFITS OF GROWING BEETS IN THE UNITED STATES, BY 
 
 FARMS GROUPED BY DISTRICTS, 1913— Continued. 
 
 UTAH, NORTHERN DISTRICT. 
 
 Farm 
 num- 
 ber. 
 
 342... 
 343... 
 344... 
 345... 
 346... 
 347.... 
 348... 
 349... 
 350... 
 351... 
 352... 
 353... 
 
 356... 
 
 366... 
 
 367... 
 
 358... 
 
 359... 
 
 360... 
 
 361... 
 
 362. . . 
 
 363... 
 
 364... 
 
 365... 
 
 366.. 
 
 367. . 
 
 368... 
 
 369.. 
 
 Cost per acre. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 370... 
 371... 
 372. . . 
 373... 
 374... 
 375... 
 376... 
 377... 
 378... 
 379... 
 380... 
 381... 
 382... 
 
 15.00 
 
 6.00 
 
 4.50 
 
 10.00 
 
 4.50 
 
 3.60 
 
 3.00 
 
 13.00 
 
 11.00 
 
 5.00 
 
 7.00 
 
 9.00 
 
 27.00 
 
 50.00 
 
 60.00 
 
 10.00 
 
 32.00 
 
 loaoo 
 
 12.00 
 
 35.00 
 
 4.00 
 
 10.00 
 
 150.00 
 
 10.00 
 
 14.00 
 
 16.00 
 
 21.00 
 
 9.00 
 
 Prep- 
 ara- 
 tion 
 of 
 soil. 
 
 $3.13 
 9.41 
 3.80 
 4.50 
 4.56 
 4.65 
 6.11 
 3.80 
 2.65 
 3.35 
 4.60 
 4.05 
 6.31 
 2.98 
 4.25 
 3.75 
 3.65 
 4.00 
 3.10 
 2.15 
 2.80 
 2.50 
 2.34 
 3.63 
 3.85 
 4.38 
 3.38 
 4.60 
 
 Hand 
 labor. 
 
 $13. 74 
 18.00 
 15.50 
 17.05 
 18.70 
 13.60 
 12.00 
 37.25 
 14.00 
 20.10 
 29.38 
 25.81 
 35.66 
 20.00 
 24.34 
 13.93 
 19.62 
 18.50 
 14.00 
 22.40 
 18.80 
 9.20 
 18.00 
 30.03 
 14.89 
 15.50 
 31.46 
 21.00 
 
 Plant- 
 ing 
 and 
 cul- 
 tivat- 
 ing. 
 
 $5.00 
 3.90 
 3.03 
 3.40 
 2.98 
 2.98 
 3.10 
 3.00 
 2.50 
 3.00 
 2.50 
 2.50 
 1.95 
 2.05 
 1.90 
 2.10 
 2.30 
 1.32 
 2.40 
 L88 
 2.00 
 1.20 
 2.30 
 3.38 
 1.85 
 1.55 
 1.25 
 2.39 
 
 Lift- 
 ing 
 and 
 haul- 
 ing. 
 
 $6.60 
 
 18.50 
 
 17.50 
 
 11.30 
 
 10.70 
 
 13.50 
 
 6.63 
 
 U.25 
 
 11.33 
 
 n.95 
 
 9.95 
 
 22.78 
 
 n.62 
 
 5.00 
 
 9.16 
 
 9.60 
 
 7.88 
 
 13.90 
 
 15.05 
 
 10.55 
 
 13.05 
 
 8.65 
 
 2.40 
 
 11.25 
 
 5.17 
 
 9.38 
 
 10.50 
 
 16.50 
 
 Irri- 
 
 ga- 
 
 tion. 
 
 $3.06 
 1.64 
 2.40 
 2.50 
 2.08 
 2.28 
 8.75 
 2.50 
 L50 
 4.85 
 2.00 
 2.50 
 3.00 
 2.80 
 4.60 
 2.80 
 .50 
 2.50 
 .75 
 .60 
 1.20 
 
 Fertil- 
 izer. 
 
 $14.00 
 
 12.98 
 
 6.38 
 
 3.00 
 
 5.61 
 
 .59 
 .33 
 
 1.40 
 .28 
 
 2.31 
 
 6.00 
 
 9.63. 
 11.30 
 4.44 
 2.96 
 2.62 
 3.25 
 4.00 
 2.00 
 2.50 
 2.25 
 3.50 
 4.50 
 4.50 
 
 .40 
 14.80 
 
 .40 
 6.67 
 
 9.00 
 
 Seed. 
 
 $2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 1.80 
 2.91 
 L80 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 1.95 
 L80 
 2.25 
 L25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 L65 
 1.95 
 1.80 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.10 
 1.80 
 
 Mis- 
 
 cel- 
 
 lane- 
 
 ous. 
 
 $0.10 
 
 Total 
 ex- 
 penses. 
 
 $47.78 
 66.58 
 49.86 
 43.55 
 47.54 
 38.71 
 44.74 
 60.05 
 34.13 
 55.23 
 61.98 
 64.33 
 62.65 
 37.70 
 49.75 
 38.13 
 37.75 
 44.97 
 38.80 
 43.23 
 44.60 
 27.70 
 27.39 
 65.38 
 28.74 
 41.13 
 48.97 
 57.50 
 
 Value 
 
 I)er 
 
 acre. 
 
 $95.33 
 
 100.00 
 
 100.00 
 
 88.35 
 
 83.70 
 
 50.00 
 
 46.00 
 
 82.50 
 
 90.00 
 
 99.75 
 
 125.88 
 
 98.75 
 
 101.60 
 
 70.00 
 
 77.00 
 
 58.18 
 
 66.50 
 
 80.75 
 
 9a25 
 
 76.00 
 
 81.00 
 
 76.00 
 
 76.00 
 
 83.12 
 
 74.99 
 
 71.25 
 
 80.75 
 
 85.50 
 
 Profit Yield 
 
 per 
 acre. 
 
 $47.55 
 33.42 
 50.14 
 44.80 
 36.16 
 1L29 
 1.26 
 22.45 
 55.87 
 44.52 
 63.90 
 34.42 
 38.85 
 32.30 
 27.25 
 20.05 
 28.75 
 35.78 
 51.45 
 32.77 
 36.40 
 48.30 
 48.61 
 17.74 
 46.25 
 30.12 
 3L78 
 28.00 
 
 per 
 acre. 
 
 Tons. 
 20.50 
 
 20.00 
 
 20.00 
 
 19.00 
 
 18.00 
 
 10.00 
 
 laoo 
 
 16.50 
 
 18.00 
 
 21.00 
 
 26.50 
 
 19.75 
 
 20.30 
 
 14.00 
 
 15.40 
 
 12.25 
 
 14.00 
 
 17.00 
 
 19.00 
 
 16.00 
 
 18.00 
 
 16.00 
 
 16.00 
 
 17.50 
 
 15.79 
 
 15.00 
 
 17.00 
 
 18.00 
 
 Profit 
 per 
 ton. 
 
 $2.32 
 
 1.67 
 
 2.51 
 
 2.36 
 
 2.01 
 
 1.13 
 
 .13 
 
 L36 
 
 3.10 
 
 2.12 
 
 2.41 
 
 1.74 
 
 1.91 
 
 2.31 
 
 L77 
 
 1.64 
 
 2.05 
 
 2.10 
 
 2.71 
 
 2.05 
 
 2.02 
 
 3.02 
 
 3.04 
 
 LOl 
 
 2.93 
 
 2.01 
 
 1.87 
 
 1.56 
 
 UTAH, CENTRAL DISTRICT* 
 
 5.00 
 23.00 
 
 8.00 
 25.00 
 15.00 
 
 6.50 
 12.00 
 
 6.50 
 
 5.00 
 10.00 
 14.00 
 60.00 
 
 7.00 
 
 $9.20 
 
 3.89 
 
 8.20 
 
 7.84 
 
 3.60 
 
 5.75 
 
 4.15 
 
 6: 00 
 
 4.08 
 
 5.53 
 5.28 
 3.40 
 4.50 
 
 $21.06 
 18.80 
 16.90 
 14.45 
 12.60 
 19.55 
 13.25 
 11.22 
 15.80 
 15.00 
 15.00 
 11.00 
 15.00 
 
 $2.50 
 2.62 
 4.50 
 7.20 
 2.70 
 3.00 
 2.00 
 1.70 
 3.00 
 3.70 
 3.00 
 1.75 
 2.90 
 
 $10.90 
 
 9.34 
 11.80 
 
 9.40 
 14.20 
 12.60 
 
 7.50 
 10.15 
 
 7.50 
 13.75 
 14.25 
 
 7.13 
 14.75 
 
 $2.80 
 1.85 
 2.00 
 5.50 
 1.60 
 3.55 
 2.50 
 2.10 
 1.95 
 1.52- 
 1.75 
 1.35 
 3.50 
 
 $9.30 
 
 9.67 
 
 16.68 
 
 12.00 
 
 6.50 
 
 17.50 
 
 24.00 
 
 4.00 
 
 4.00 
 
 7.50 
 
 7.19 
 
 .62 
 
 1 Loss. 
 
 $2. 
 2. 
 2. 
 2. 
 2. 
 2. 
 2. 
 2. 
 2. 
 2. 
 2. 
 2. 
 2. 
 
 25 
 25 
 25 
 25 
 25 
 25 
 25 
 25 
 25 
 25 
 25 
 25 
 25 
 
 $58.01 
 48.42 
 62.33 
 58.64 
 43.45 
 64.20 
 55.65 
 .! 37.42 
 .| 38.58 
 . 49.25 
 .1 48.72 
 .i 27.50 
 .! 42.90 
 
 $79.00 
 70.00 
 65.00 
 70.00 
 85.00 
 70.00 
 75.00 
 7L50 
 75.00 
 75.00 
 100.00 
 40.00 
 90.00 
 
 $20.99 
 21.58 
 
 2.67 
 11.36 
 41.55 
 
 5.80 
 19.35 
 34.08 
 36.42 
 25.75 
 51.28 
 12.50 
 47.10 
 
 15.80 
 14.00 
 13.00 
 14.00 
 17.00 
 14.00 
 15.00 
 14.30 
 15.00 
 15.00 
 20.00 
 8.00 
 18.00 
 
 $L33 
 
 L54 
 
 .21 
 
 .81 
 
 2.44 
 
 .41 
 
 1.29 
 
 2.38 
 
 2.43 
 
 1.72 
 
 2.56 
 
 1.56 
 
 2.63 
 
■/ 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 44 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTBY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Table 11.— COSTS AND PROFITS OF GROWING BEETS IN THE UNITED STATES, BY 
 
 FARMS GROUPED BY DISTRICTS, 1913— Continued. 
 
 UTAH, CENTRAL DISTRICT— Continued. 
 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Cost per acre. 
 
 Value 
 
 per 
 
 acre. 
 
 Profit 
 
 per 
 
 acre. 
 
 Yield 
 
 per 
 
 acre. 
 
 
 Farm 
 num- 
 ber. 
 
 Prep- 
 ara- 
 tion 
 of 
 soil. 
 
 Hand 
 labor. 
 
 Plant- 
 ing 
 and 
 cul- 
 tivat- 
 ing. 
 
 Lift- 
 ing 
 and 
 haul- 
 ing. 
 
 Irri- 
 ga- 
 tion. 
 
 Fertil- 
 iser. 
 
 Seed. 
 
 Mis- 
 
 cel- 
 
 lane- 
 
 ous. 
 
 Total 
 ex- 
 penses. 
 
 Profit 
 ficr 
 ton. 
 
 383... 
 384... 
 385... 
 386... 
 387... 
 388... 
 389... 
 390. 
 
 5.00 
 14.00 
 13.00 
 8.00 
 5.00 
 4.00 
 9.00 
 2.00 
 5.00 
 
 $4.83 
 5.70 
 5.63 
 4.85 
 5.43 
 4.60 
 6.25 
 4.50. 
 6.40 
 
 S15.00 
 18.20 
 18.80 
 13.13 
 14.40 
 21.36 
 20.05 
 16.00 
 18.20 ' 
 
 13.50 
 2.90 
 1.95 
 3.20 
 3.93 
 4.50 
 4.25 
 2.00 
 4.30 
 
 S12.50 
 11.69 
 11.25 
 12.69 
 14.27 
 12.60 
 9.35 
 6.00 
 11.04 
 
 f2.48 
 1.15 
 6.80 
 2.75 
 6.65 
 2.75 
 5.65 
 
 ?8.00 
 5.57 
 8.80 
 5.40 
 
 24.80 
 2.25 
 7.13 
 
 $2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 
 SO. 10 
 .10 
 
 $48.56 
 47.46 
 55.48 
 44.27 
 71.73 
 50.31 
 55.03 
 30.75 
 52.29 
 
 JIOO.OO 
 74.50 
 90.00 
 61.25 
 
 105.00 
 80.00 
 85. 00 
 80.00 
 92.00 
 
 $51.44 
 27.04 
 34.52 
 16.98 
 33.27 
 29.69 
 29.97 
 49.25 
 39.71 
 
 Tons. 
 20.00 
 
 14.90 
 
 18.00 
 
 12.25 
 
 21.00 
 
 16.00 
 
 17.00 
 
 16.00 
 
 18.40 
 
 $2.57 
 1.81 
 1.92 
 1.39 
 1.58 
 1.86 
 1.76 
 3 08 
 
 391... 
 
 10.00 
 
 
 2.16 
 
 ARIZONA. 
 
 392.. 
 
 10.00 I$5.69 i$17.00 $3.93 
 
 $10.12 $3.15 
 
 $2.25 $0.05 $42.19 
 
 S50.00 
 
 $7.81 
 
 10.00 
 
 $0.78 
 
 CALIFORNIA, ALVARADO DISTRICT. 
 
 393... 
 394... 
 
 18.00 
 12.00 
 
 $4.28 
 4.00 
 
 $16.20 
 14.50 
 
 $1.10 
 .80 
 
 $6.21 
 5.26 
 
 $6.25 
 
 $0.25 
 
 $1.30 
 2.00 
 
 $35.59 
 26.56 
 
 $60.00 
 40.00 
 
 $24.41 
 13.44 
 
 12.00 
 8.00 
 
 $2.03 
 1.68 
 
 CALIFORNFA, SPRECKELS DISTRICT. 
 
 395... 
 396... 
 397... 
 398. . . 
 399... 
 400... 
 401... 
 402... 
 
 210.00 
 97.00 
 
 110.00 
 40.00 
 
 165.00 
 96.00 
 10.00 
 55.00 
 
 $5.46 
 
 $14. 70 
 
 $0.38 
 
 7.82 
 
 11.10 
 
 .98 
 
 6.21 
 
 12.00 
 
 1.00 
 
 9.78 
 
 22.43 
 
 .70 
 
 8.11 
 
 17.24 
 
 1.18 
 
 4.63 
 
 21.09 
 
 1.00 
 
 5.77 
 
 12.83 
 
 .98 
 
 6.07 
 
 7.50 
 
 2.00 
 
 $5.57 
 7.36 
 7.60 
 13.75 
 11.00 
 7.41 
 5.10 
 5.34 
 
 $3.75 
 4.19 
 2.20 
 3.10 
 3.75 
 
 $1.32 
 2.20 
 1.87 
 1.76 
 2.26 
 1.43 
 .83 
 1.32 
 
 $27. 43 
 33.21 
 32.87 
 50.62 
 42.89 
 39.31 
 25.51 
 22.23 
 
 $86.24 $58.81 
 49.95 16.74 
 
 54.00 
 122. 85 
 90.30 
 90.38 
 47.50 
 39.48 
 
 21.13 
 72.23 
 47.41 
 51.07 
 21.99 
 17.25 
 
 14.00 
 11.10 
 12.00 
 19.50 
 14.00 
 20.08 
 9.50 
 6.00 
 
 $4.20 
 1.51 
 1.76 
 3.70 
 3.39 
 2.54 
 2.31 
 2.88 
 
 CALIFORNIA, BETTERAVIA DISTRICT. 
 
 403... 
 
 24.00 
 
 $3.94 
 
 $25.30 
 
 $1.36 
 
 $14.00 
 
 $5.00 
 
 
 $2.16 
 
 
 $51.76 $112.20 
 
 $60.44 
 
 22.00 
 
 $2.75 
 
 404... 
 
 170.00 
 
 5.45 
 
 18.00 
 
 1.96 
 
 4.05 
 
 8.00 
 
 
 2.50 
 
 
 
 39.96 
 
 46.80 
 
 6.84 
 
 9.00 
 
 .76 
 
 405... 
 
 95.00 
 
 4.78 
 
 20.06 
 
 1.19 
 
 9.64 
 
 5.10 
 
 
 2.40 
 
 
 43.17 
 
 75.23 
 
 32.06 
 
 14.75 
 
 2.17 
 
 CALIFORNIA, OXNARD DISTRICT. 
 
 406. . . 
 
 124.00 
 
 $4.54 
 
 i 
 $14.94 $1.44 
 
 $7.85 
 
 
 1 
 ....... 
 
 $2.75 
 
 
 $31.52 
 
 $76.22 
 
 * 
 
 .$44. 70 
 
 10.30 
 
 $4.34 
 
 407... 
 
 40.00 
 
 3.73 
 
 17.92 1.76 
 
 9.65 
 
 
 10.75 
 
 2.50 
 
 
 36.81 
 
 75.53 
 
 39.22 
 
 13.00 
 
 3.02 
 
 408. . . 
 
 95.00 
 
 4.53 
 
 16.31 
 
 1.39 
 
 6.92 
 
 $7.58 
 
 
 
 2.25 
 
 $0.53 
 
 39.51 
 
 65.45 
 
 25.94 
 
 10.80 
 
 2.40 
 
 409... 
 
 63.00 
 
 7.96 
 
 15.08 
 
 3.20 
 
 7.64 
 
 
 5.60 
 
 2.40 
 
 
 41.88 
 
 71.40 
 
 29.52 
 
 10.10 
 
 2.92 
 
 410. . . 
 
 40.00 
 
 4.84 
 
 16.15 
 
 1.53 
 
 8.68 
 
 .90 
 
 .25 
 
 1.92 
 
 
 34.27 
 
 74.90 
 
 40.63 
 
 14.00 
 
 2.90 
 
 411... 
 
 450.00 
 1,857.00 
 
 4.89 
 10.15 
 
 17.25 I 1.70 
 17.00 1.9.S 
 
 3.75 
 6.06 
 
 
 
 2.20 
 2.50 
 
 
 
 29.79 
 37.64 
 
 90.00 
 78.00 
 
 60.21 
 40.36 
 
 15.00 
 11.42 
 
 4.01 
 
 412... 
 
 
 
 3.53 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^ 4 
 
 t 9 
 
 * t 
 
 I 
 
 / 
 
 I 
 
 ■\ 
 
 
 < 
 
 * ♦ 
 
 •• f 
 
 BEET GROWING. 
 
 45 
 
 T.\BLE 11.— COSTS AND PROFITS OF GROWING BEETS IN THE UNITED STATES, BY 
 
 FARMS GROUPED BY DISTRICTS, 1913- Continued. 
 
 CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES DISTRICT. 
 
 Farm 
 num- 
 ber. 
 
 413.. 
 
 414.. 
 
 415.. 
 
 416.. 
 
 417.. 
 
 418.. 
 
 419.. 
 
 420.. 
 
 421.. 
 
 422.. 
 
 423.. 
 
 424.. 
 
 425.. 
 
 420.. 
 
 427.. 
 
 428.. 
 
 429.. 
 
 430.. 
 
 431.. 
 
 432.. 
 
 433.. 
 
 434.. 
 
 435. ! 
 
 436. . 
 
 437. . 
 
 438. . , 
 
 439.. 
 
 440. . . 
 
 441... 
 
 442... 
 
 443... 
 
 444... 
 
 445. . . 
 
 446. . . 
 
 447... 
 
 448... 
 
 449. . . 
 
 450... 
 
 451... 
 
 452. . . 
 
 463... 
 
 Acres. 
 
 85.00 
 
 15.00 
 
 6.00 
 
 38.00 
 
 25.00 
 
 50.00 
 
 28.00 
 
 250.00 
 
 85.00 
 
 8.00 
 
 52.00 
 
 65.00 
 
 137.00 
 
 19.00 
 
 35.00 
 
 55.00 
 
 ICO. 00 
 
 60.00 
 
 130.00 
 
 10.00 
 
 115.00 
 
 75.00 
 
 370.00 
 
 250.00 
 
 10.00 
 
 200.00 
 
 135.00 
 
 44.00 
 
 185.00 
 
 110.00 
 
 136.00 
 
 110.00 
 
 20.00 
 
 40.00 
 
 35.00 
 
 20.00 
 
 49.00 
 
 253.00 
 
 310.00 
 
 17.00 
 
 33.00 
 
 Cost per acre. 
 
 Prep- 
 ara- 
 tion 
 of 
 soil. 
 
 $8.04 
 7.34 
 4.54 
 8.49 
 7.60 
 8.20 
 8.75 
 5.84 
 8.71 
 4.60 
 5.85 
 7.75 
 4.78 
 6.71 
 7.60 
 5.40 
 10.37 
 4.28 
 4,41 
 5.06 
 6.50 
 9.16 
 5.50 
 10.60 
 8.25 
 8.59 
 5.51 
 5.80 
 9.20 
 4.73 
 4.57 
 6.04 
 9.76 
 4.16 
 6.40 
 5.12 
 5.95 
 5.85 
 10.42 
 5.50 
 S.83 
 
 Hand 
 labor. 
 
 $19.63 
 18.25 
 12.20 
 18.75 
 14.65 
 16.70 
 13.70 
 9.36 
 14.95 
 13.00 
 14.35 
 13.00 
 11.25 
 14.21 
 18. 25 
 10.80 
 15.80 
 13.00 
 13.50 
 11.30 
 12.27 
 11.52 
 12.23 
 13.74 
 23.60 
 17.25 
 17.95 
 15.50 
 16.30 
 13.50 
 16.96 
 15.30 
 15.95 
 10.85 
 16.85 
 16.85 
 16.35 
 14.25 
 14.25 
 15.42 
 16.00 
 
 Plant- 
 ing 
 and 
 cul- 
 
 tivat- 
 int^. 
 
 $2.50 
 2.80 
 2.00 
 3.50 
 2.95 
 2.38 
 1.52 
 2.29 
 2.50 
 1.54 
 3.00 
 2.50 
 3.15 
 3.20 
 2.80 
 3.00 
 2.33 
 2.25 
 1.32 
 2.10 
 1.74 
 2.53 
 2.50 
 4.50 
 2.68 
 3.30 
 2.00 
 2.80 
 2.60 
 2.70 
 1.00 
 2.39 
 2.50 
 2.50 
 3.60 
 2.50 
 2.25 
 2.37 
 3.28 
 2.05 
 1.60 
 
 Lift- 
 ing 
 and 
 haul- 
 ing. 
 
 $8.32 
 
 13.75 
 
 9.70 
 
 1L50 
 
 n.oo 
 
 13.20 
 
 5.45 
 
 4.84 
 
 9.85 
 
 5.00 
 
 5.99 
 
 7.80 
 
 6.25 
 
 9.55 
 
 9.55 
 
 7.00 
 
 8.10 
 
 9.00 
 
 10.04 
 
 5..80 
 
 8.72 
 
 4.11 
 
 6.20 
 
 9.24 
 
 13.40 
 
 13.25 
 
 n.90 
 
 4.75 
 
 9.95 
 
 5.40 
 
 3.72 
 
 7.44 
 
 7.65 
 
 5.15 
 
 10.00 
 
 11.50 
 
 n.50 
 
 15.50 
 
 7.45 
 
 8.23 
 
 10.50 
 
 Irri- 
 ga- 
 tion. 
 
 $1.23 
 1.33 
 3.00 
 
 7.32 
 3.50 
 8.00 
 2.49 
 .74 
 L18 
 2.00 
 4.28 
 3.77 
 
 2.00 
 
 L50 
 
 2.00 
 
 .30 
 
 2.08 
 2.72 
 10.50 
 2.44 
 1.42 
 2.14 
 7.00 
 4.40 
 6.00 
 4.00 
 2.33 
 2.43 
 
 4.84 
 .34 
 .50 
 3.96 
 6.58 
 LIO 
 2.00 
 2.50 
 
 Fertil- 
 izer. 
 
 $3.96 
 8.00 
 
 5.88 
 
 Seed 
 
 6.75 
 
 9.20 
 
 2.39 
 
 5.55 
 LOO 
 
 $2.16 
 2.40 
 L92 
 2.16 
 2.40 
 2.40 
 2.40 
 6.00 
 2.40 
 L50 
 2.40 
 2.40 
 2.40 
 2.40 
 2.50 
 1.80 
 2.25 
 L68 
 2.40 
 2.40 
 2.64 
 2.40 
 2.40 
 2.16 
 2.40 
 2.16 
 2.40 
 2.40 
 
 .73 I 2.40 
 .30 i 2.40 
 2.40 
 2.40 
 2.40 
 2.40 
 2.40 
 2.40 
 2.40 
 2.16 
 2.16 
 L92 
 2.30 
 
 21 
 
 Mis- 
 
 cel- 
 
 lane- 
 
 ous. 
 
 $0.10 
 
 1 Loss. 
 
 Total 
 ex- 
 penses 
 
 Value j Profit 
 per per 
 
 $41.88 
 49.83 
 4L36 
 44.50 
 38.60 
 50.20 
 35.32 
 36.33 
 46.78 
 26.38 
 32.77 
 35.45 
 32.11 
 39.84 
 40.70 
 30.00 
 47.10 
 32.21 
 3L97 
 35.86 
 33.95 
 34.83 
 39.33 
 42.68 
 5L75 
 46.69 
 52.31 
 36.65 
 47.18 
 33.03 
 30.98 
 36.00 
 38.26 
 29.90 
 39.59 
 38.87 
 42.41 
 46.71 
 38.87 
 35.12 
 38.73 
 
 acre. 
 
 $69. 75 
 
 131. 15 
 72.00 
 
 101. 15 
 78.00 
 
 107.64 
 40.00 
 30.80 
 73.01 
 62.50 
 8L00 
 65.00 
 40.25 
 73.36 
 
 159.80 
 52.00 
 98.40 
 6L33 
 76.05 
 49.35 
 69.60 
 39.20 
 42.00 
 57.60 
 
 159.90 
 82.50 
 99.75 
 90.95 
 93.60 
 63.00 
 
 100.62 
 48.00 
 89.05 
 35.00 
 89.60 
 
 113.90 
 
 105. 40 
 8L00 
 54.00 
 86.72 
 82.50 
 
 acre. 
 
 $27.87 
 8L32 
 30.64 
 56.65 
 39.40 
 57.44 
 4.68 
 15.53 
 26.23 
 36.12 
 48.23 
 29.55 
 8.14 
 33.52 
 
 119.10 
 22.00 
 51.30 
 29.12 
 44.08 
 13.49 
 35.65 
 4.37 
 2.67 
 14.92 
 
 108. 15 
 35.81 
 47. 44 
 54.30 
 46.42 
 29.97 
 69.64 
 12.00 
 50.79 
 5.10 
 50.01 
 75.03 
 62.99 
 34.29 
 15.13 
 5L60 
 43.77 
 
 Yield 
 
 per 
 
 acre. 
 
 Profit 
 per 
 ton. 
 
 Tons. 
 
 15.50 
 
 2L50 
 
 12.00 
 
 17.00 
 
 13.00 
 
 18.40 
 
 8.00 
 
 4.40 
 
 14.90 
 
 10.00 
 
 13.50 
 
 10.00 
 
 7.00 
 
 13.10 
 
 23.50 
 
 8.00 
 
 16.00 
 
 12.00 
 
 13.00 
 
 7.00 
 
 9.60 
 
 6.70 
 
 8.00 
 
 9.60 
 
 26.00 
 
 15.00 
 
 19.00 
 
 17.00 
 
 16.00 
 
 12.00 
 
 17.20 
 
 12.00 
 
 13.00 
 
 5.00 
 
 16.00 
 
 17.00 
 
 17.00 
 
 13.50 
 
 9.00 
 
 14.10 
 
 15.00 
 
 SLSO 
 3.78 
 2.55 
 3.33 
 3.(» 
 3.12 
 ' .59 
 ! » L26 
 I L76 
 3.61 
 I 3.57 
 2.96 
 1.16 
 2.56 
 5.07 
 2.75 
 3.21 
 2.43 
 3.39 
 L93 
 3.71 
 .65 
 .33 
 1.55 
 4.16 
 2.39 
 2.50 
 3.19 
 2.90 
 2.50 
 4.05 
 LOO 
 3.91 
 L02 
 3.13 
 4.41 
 3.71 
 2.54 
 L68 
 3.66 
 2.92 
 
 I ,■ 
 
A^lt 
 
 _.*, ,- >- ■■ 1" 
 
 -^■. •FB-/T8i| 
 
 M 
 
 t 
 
 46 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 The wide differences in some of the elements of cost as shown in 
 the foregoing table are due to various causes. The more important 
 of the differences shown for different farms are due to differences 
 in the character of soils, the condition of the land before it was 
 prepared for the crop, the cost of labor and distances of the fields 
 from the factories, the cost of seed and fertilizer, climatic conditions, 
 and, in the West, differences in the cost of irrigation. A cause of 
 minor importance, because it applies only to a relatively few com- 
 parisons, is the fact that in some cases the various elements could not 
 be segregated. Thus the column showing the cost of planting and 
 cultivating in a few instances has only the cost of planting, the 
 farmer not being able to separate the cost of cultivating from other 
 operations requiring the use of teams and implements. 
 
 The variation in the cost of seed is due to a difference in price, 
 which is sometimes as much as 5 cents a pound, and also to a differ- 
 ence in the quantity used by the different planters, the prescribed 
 quantity ranging from about 15 to 20 pounds per acre. 
 
 There is a wide variation in the cost of fertilizer materials. In 
 some districts none is used, in others only a barnyard manure is 
 used, and in still others there is some use of commercial fertilizers. 
 Usually no cost has been allowed for barnyard manure except that 
 for hauling and spreading. This is because generally there was no 
 market value for such manure. 
 
 There is considerable variation in the cost of the preparation of 
 the soil, due to its character or condition. Variations in cost of 
 cultivation (excluding hoeing) are due to differences in condition of 
 the soil, to seasons, and to the cost of labor. On some farms, under 
 exceptionally favorable conditions, the cultivator is used only once or 
 twice during the season, while in other cases, on account of excessive 
 rains or for other reasons, the crop is cultivated seven or eight and 
 in a few instances more times. The cost of a single cultivation ranges 
 from 30 to 50 cents per acre. The wages of a man and team varies 
 from about $2.50 to $5 per day, depending upon the rate of pay for 
 the man and also upon the number of horses employed. 
 
 The hand labor when done by contract is practically uniform in a 
 particular district. This charge ranged in various districts from $16 
 or $17 to $22 per acre. 
 
 The cost of plowing out the beets differs on account of the charac- 
 ter of the soil and the cost of labor, but in a general way it is deter- 
 mined bv the rate allowed for a man and team. 
 
 In soils that are easily Avorked a gi'eater area can be covered in a 
 day, both in the preparation of the soil, in the cultivation and in plow- 
 ing out, thereby lessening the cost i)er acre. In some sections, par- 
 ticularly in the Lake States and Montana and northern Colorado 
 
 ) 
 
 Y 
 
 / » 
 
 / 
 
 > 
 
 i 
 
 BEET GROWING. 
 
 47 
 
 where the fall rains and snow set in before the beets are harvested, 
 the cost of plowing out is increased. 
 
 There are great differences in the cost of irrigation. No irrigation 
 is required in the region of the Great Lakes, but in all the western 
 districts beets can not usually be grown successfulh' without irriga- 
 tion. When subirrigation can be employed the cost is lower, but when 
 water must be run between the rows, the cost amounts usually to from 
 $3 to $5 per acre for the water and the labor of putting it on the land. 
 There is also an expense for maintenance of main and lateral ditches. 
 Furthermore, in some districts, water is put on the land only once or 
 twice during a season, while in other districts it is applied as many 
 as five or six times. 
 
 The cost of " lifting and hauling " varies according to the produc- 
 tion, and also according to the distance of the fields from the factory 
 or weigh station. The cost of lifting or plowing out is substantially 
 the same whether the production, is 5 tons or 15 tons per acre. It is 
 obvious, however, that the greater the yield the greater must be the 
 expense of hauling, and also that the expense of hauling increases 
 with the distance to be hauled. 
 
 It is thus seen that there is a reasonable explanation for practically 
 all differences appearing in the table. These explanations are obvi- 
 ous to the practical farmer familiar with the cultivation of beets. 
 
 Section 9. Average costs and profits of individual growers for three years. 
 The actual results from the cultivation of beets in any locality 
 can be determined only by securing accurate data from every farmer 
 growing beets in the community. This is obviously impracticable, if 
 not impossible. In the course of this investigation an effort was 
 made to secure from each farmer visited data for three consecutive 
 years. This was not possible. Many of the farmers visited did not 
 have sufficient data from which to construct a reasonably accurate 
 statement for 3 years, and in some sections factories had operated 
 only 2 years. Some had not grown beets in the same locality for 3 
 years. Of the 453 farms represented in Table 11 there were 244 for 
 which complete 3-year statements could be made. 
 
 ♦ 
 
 y- 
 
Mi 
 
 l< 
 
 i 
 
 48 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 The distribution of these 244 farms among the States visited and 
 the percentage of the total shown in Table 11 are given in the state- 
 ment below by States: 
 
 Ohio and Indiana 
 
 Michigan, lower peninsula 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 Kansas 
 
 Colorado 
 
 Montana. 
 
 Idaho 
 
 Utah 
 
 California 
 
 Total 
 
 Number 
 
 reporting 
 
 for 
 
 1913. 
 
 30 
 97 
 27 
 11 
 
 9 
 14 
 
 5 
 108 
 19 
 21 
 50 
 61 
 
 1452 
 
 Number 
 reporting 
 
 for 
 3 years. 
 
 15 
 
 18 
 
 23 
 
 8 
 
 5 
 
 9 
 
 4 
 
 66 
 
 4 
 
 10 
 
 41 
 
 41 
 
 244 
 
 Per cent 
 of total 
 
 for 
 3 years. 
 
 50.0 
 18.6 
 85.2 
 72.5 
 55.6 
 64.3 
 80.0 
 61.1 
 21.1 
 47.6 
 80.2 
 67.5 
 
 53.9 
 
 1 One farm in Arizona shown in Table 11 is not included here. 
 
 It is seen that more than half of the farms represented in Table 11 
 furnished reports for 3 years. It will be noted, however, that cost 
 statements were secured from comparatively few farmers in some of 
 the States. Those States for which the smallest number of 3-year 
 statements were secured, namely, Iowa, Kansas, and Montana, have 
 only one factory each, so the data for those States are as representative 
 as for others. It is particularly noticeable that a very small percent- 
 age of the farmers visited in Michigan could supply data for 3 years. 
 On the other hand, taking into account the number of farmers visited 
 in Colorado, California, and Utah, the high percentage of those who 
 were able to supply costs for 3 years is rather remarkable. 
 
 The total costs and profits per acre by districts and by States are 
 shown in Table 12 below. This table includes all those farms rep- 
 resented in Table 12 already discussed, for which were secured com- 
 plete statements for 3 years. The true averages of expense and profit 
 are shown. 
 
 BEET GROWING. 
 
 49 
 
 Table 12.-C0STS AND PROFITS OF BEET GROWING, BY FARMS AND BY DISTRICTS; 
 AVERAGES FOR THE THREE YEARS, 1911, 1912, AND 1913. 
 
 OHIO— INDIANA. 
 
 MICHIGAN, LOWER PENINSULA. 
 
 9) 
 
 
 Farm 
 No. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Yield 
 per acre. 
 
 Expense 
 per acre. 
 
 Expense 
 per ton. 
 
 Profit 
 per acre. 
 
 Profit 
 per ton. 
 
 3*vfiar avera&r63 
 
 6 
 4 
 
 31.07 
 48.33 
 
 Tons. 
 9.03 
 
 12.38 
 
 $37.08 
 38.93 
 
 $4.11 
 3.14 
 
 $8.08 
 23.65 
 
 $0.S9 
 
 
 1.91 
 
 
 15 
 
 12.67 
 
 14.58 
 
 31.59 
 
 2.17 
 
 44.04 
 
 3.02 
 
 
 18 
 
 7.28 
 
 10.13 
 
 37.12 
 
 3.66 
 
 13.53 
 
 1.34 
 
 
 19 
 
 13.17 
 
 12.42 
 
 38.39 
 
 3.09 
 
 23.73 
 
 1.91 
 
 • 
 
 20 
 
 11.33 
 
 12.06 
 
 39.04 
 
 3.24 
 
 21.26 
 
 1.76 
 
 
 21 
 
 5.25 
 
 9.00 
 
 32.83 
 
 3.65 
 
 16.67 
 
 1.85 
 
 
 23 
 
 15.67 
 
 13.13 
 
 35.88 
 
 2.73 
 
 29.75 
 
 2.27 
 
 
 24 
 
 12.00 
 
 8.44 
 
 34.63 
 
 4.10 
 
 10.12 
 
 1.20 
 
 
 25 
 
 8.67 
 
 14.62 
 
 37.72 
 
 2.58 
 
 35.96 
 
 2.46 
 
 
 28 
 
 9.67 
 
 12.22 
 
 41.00 
 
 3.35 
 
 25.81 
 
 2.11 
 
 
 27 
 
 15.00 
 
 13.22 
 
 38.67 
 
 2.92 
 
 27.44 
 
 2.08 
 
 
 28 
 
 15.67 
 
 11.89 
 
 38.45 
 
 3.23 
 
 33.86 
 
 2,85 
 
 
 29. 
 
 6.00 
 
 14.76 
 
 41.93 
 
 2.84 
 
 33.60 
 
 2.28 
 
 
 30' 
 
 10.08 
 
 11.91 
 
 40.22 
 
 3.38 
 
 24.84 
 
 2.09 
 
 Average f 15 farms) 
 
 
 14.79 
 
 11.86 
 
 37.70 
 
 3.18 
 
 23.59 
 
 1.99 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 3-vear averages ................... 
 
 47 
 
 15.57 
 
 9.38 
 
 $44.86 
 
 $4.78 
 
 $4.68 
 
 $0.50 
 
 
 50 
 
 43.74 
 
 9.77 
 
 42.16 
 
 4.31 
 
 5.51 
 
 .56 
 
 
 108 
 
 1.83 
 
 9.58 
 
 47.20 
 
 4.93 
 
 12.87 
 
 1.34 
 
 
 109 
 
 2.25 
 
 6.67 
 
 40.57 
 
 6.08 
 
 1.27 
 
 .19 
 
 
 110 
 
 2.33 
 
 9.01 
 
 48.41 
 
 5.38 
 
 10.90 
 
 1.21 
 
 
 65 
 
 25.25 
 
 11.15 
 
 38.77 
 
 3.48 
 
 24.96 
 
 2.24 
 
 
 eo 
 
 23.50 
 
 7.18 
 
 33.96 
 
 4.73 
 
 4.84 
 
 .67 
 
 
 96 
 
 20.53 
 
 8.55 
 
 40.93 
 
 4.79 
 
 3.89 
 
 .46 
 
 
 37 
 
 12.17 
 
 11.64 
 
 41.15 
 
 3.54 
 
 23.19 
 
 1.99 
 
 
 38 
 
 5.20 
 
 11.41 
 
 42.92 
 
 3.76 
 
 22.34 
 
 1.96 
 
 1 
 
 39 
 
 7.17 
 
 12.38 
 
 47.80 
 
 3.86 
 
 20.24 
 
 1.63 
 
 
 41 
 
 16.67 
 
 14.28 
 
 38.29 
 
 2.68 
 
 37.12 
 
 2.60 
 
 
 42 
 
 7.50 
 
 11.33 
 
 37.38 
 
 3.30 
 
 21.43 
 
 1.89 
 
 
 55 
 
 9.97 
 
 9.23 
 
 39.05 
 
 4.23 
 
 10.82 
 
 LIT 
 
 , 
 
 57 
 
 20.49 
 
 10.79 
 
 38.65 
 
 3.58 
 
 17.72 
 
 1.64 
 
 
 73 
 
 28.33 
 
 13 34 
 
 37.65 
 
 2.82 
 
 31.02 
 
 2.33 
 
 
 102 
 
 38.00 
 
 13.01 
 
 41.00 
 
 3.15 
 
 25.66 
 
 1.97 
 
 
 103 
 
 41.67 
 
 11.19 
 
 48.34 
 
 4.32 
 
 2L55 
 
 1.93 
 
 Averaee f 18 farms) 
 
 
 17.90 
 
 10.92 
 
 41.15 
 
 3.77 
 
 17.80 
 
 1.63 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 < 
 
1*^ 
 
 50 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR IXDUSTBY IX THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Table 12.— COSTS AND PROFITS OF BEET GROWING, BY FARMS AND BY DISTRICTS; 
 AVERAGES FOR THE THREE YEARS, 1911, 1912, AND 1913— Continued. 
 
 WISCONSIN, NORTHERN DISTRICT. 
 
 
 Farm 
 No. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Yield 
 per acre. 
 
 Expense 
 per acre. 
 
 Expense 
 per ton. 
 
 Profit 
 per acre. 
 
 Profit 
 per ton. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Tom. 
 
 
 
 
 
 3-year averages 
 
 
 129 
 
 1 83 
 
 l.** 82 
 
 $47.08 
 37.54 
 
 $3.41 
 3.55 
 
 $35.83 
 25.93 
 
 $2.59 
 2.45 
 
 
 
 131 
 
 1.58 
 
 10.58 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 132 
 
 2.00 
 
 10.17 
 
 53.40 
 
 5.25 
 
 7.60 
 
 .75 
 
 
 
 133 
 
 5.33 
 
 20.05 
 
 54.20 
 
 2.70 
 
 66.12 
 
 3.30 
 
 
 
 135 
 
 1.67 
 
 12.63 
 
 41.73 
 
 3.30 
 
 34.07 
 
 2.70 
 
 
 
 136 
 
 2.00 
 
 10.08 
 
 44.58 
 
 4.42 
 
 15.92 
 
 1.5S 
 
 
 
 137 
 
 11.83 
 
 11.00 
 
 40.50 
 
 3.68 
 
 25.50 
 
 2.32 
 
 
 
 138 
 
 4.50 
 
 10.44 
 
 46.59 
 
 4.47 
 
 16.02 
 
 1.53 
 
 
 
 139 
 
 13.17 
 
 12.20 
 
 40.86 
 
 3.35 
 
 32.35 
 
 2.65 
 
 
 
 140 
 
 4.67 
 
 9.43 
 
 40.47 
 
 4.29 
 
 16.10 
 
 1.71 
 
 
 
 141 
 
 3.00 
 
 11.00 
 
 30.76 
 
 2.80 
 
 30.74 
 
 2.79 
 
 
 
 142 
 
 24.00 
 
 8.47 
 
 40.00 
 
 4.72 
 
 2.36 
 
 .28 
 
 
 
 143 
 
 18.83 
 
 11.46 
 
 38.43 
 
 3.35 
 
 20.59 
 
 1.80 
 
 
 
 144 
 
 68.33 
 
 13.23 
 
 38.14 
 
 2.88 
 
 29.95 
 
 2.26 
 
 
 
 145 
 
 17.00 
 
 10.41 
 
 38.19 
 
 3.67 
 
 15.43 
 
 1.48 
 
 Averse (15 farms) . . 
 
 
 11.98 
 
 11.83 
 
 39.77 
 
 3.36 
 
 23.83 
 
 2.02 
 
 
 
 
 WISCONSI 
 
 N, SOUTHERN DISTRICT. 
 
 
 
 3-year averages 
 
 152 
 
 3 67 
 
 12 82 
 
 $48.54 
 40.42 
 
 $3.79 
 2.60 
 
 $32.05 
 40.67 
 
 $2. .50 
 2.01 
 
 
 
 153 
 
 15.00 
 
 15.56 
 
 
 
 154 
 
 8.67 
 
 13.92 
 
 43.67 
 
 3.14 
 
 26.44 
 
 1.90 
 
 
 
 147 
 
 2.17 
 
 14.54 
 
 47.40 
 
 3.26 
 
 36.30 
 
 2.50 
 
 
 
 148 
 
 2.92 
 
 16.20 
 
 40.75 
 
 2.52 
 
 52.59 
 
 3.25 
 
 
 
 149 
 
 7.33 
 
 14.00 
 
 46.25 
 
 3.30 
 
 35.90 
 
 2.56 
 
 
 
 150 
 
 14.67 
 
 12.00 
 
 40.50 
 
 3.38 
 
 21.55 
 
 1.80 
 
 
 
 151 
 
 3.00 
 
 18.00 
 
 45.20 
 
 2.51 
 
 55.22 
 
 3.07 
 
 Average (8 farms) . . . 
 
 
 7.18 
 
 14.15 
 
 42.72 
 
 3.02 
 
 33.68 
 
 2.38 
 
 
 
 MINNESOTA. 
 
 3-year averages 
 
 155 
 
 1 08 
 
 10 15 
 
 $41.23 
 
 44.78 
 
 i 
 $4.06 
 
 2.83 
 
 $14.62 
 42.26 
 
 $1.44 
 2.67 
 
 
 
 156 
 
 3.83 
 
 15.83 
 
 # 
 
 
 157 
 
 3.33 
 
 9.70 
 
 45.20 
 
 4.66 
 
 8.15 
 
 .84 
 
 
 
 160 
 
 15.67 
 
 14.27 
 
 37.16 
 
 2.60 
 
 34.20 
 
 2.40 
 
 
 t 
 
 162 
 
 12.50 
 
 12.65 i 
 
 45.20 
 
 3.57 
 
 18.07 
 
 1.43 
 
 
 
 163 
 
 7.67 
 
 10.37 
 
 40.94 
 
 3.95 
 
 10.91 
 
 i.a> 
 
 
 
 164 
 
 14.33 
 
 12.19 
 
 38.36 
 
 3.15 
 
 22.57 
 
 1.85 
 
 
 
 165 
 
 4.33 
 
 11.08 
 
 41.63 
 
 3.76 
 
 13.76 
 
 • 
 
 1.24 
 
 Average (8 farms) 
 
 
 t 1 
 
 7 84 to PiA \ 
 
 40.77 
 
 i 
 
 \ 1 
 
 3.25 ! 
 
 1 
 
 22.84 
 
 1.82 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 BEET GROWING. 
 
 IOWA. 
 
 51 
 
 Table 12.— COSTS AND PROFITS OF BEET GROWING. BY FARMS AND BY DISTRICTS; 
 AVERAGES FOR THE THREE YEARS, 1911, 1912, AND 1913— Continued. 
 
 / 
 
 
 Farm 
 No. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Yield 
 per acre. 
 
 Expense ' Expense Profit Profit 
 per acre, per ton. per acre, per ton. 
 
 3-vear average 
 
 166 
 14>7 
 169 
 172 
 
 173 
 
 29.00 
 125.67 
 11.00 
 16.17 
 61.67 
 
 Tons. 
 13.98 
 
 13.39 
 
 13.67 
 
 10 91 
 
 7.89 
 
 $34.29 
 36.44 
 39.40 
 32.93 
 31.01 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 $2.45 j $35.62 $2.55 
 
 ■ 
 
 2.72 ' 30.51 ' 2.28 
 2.88 ! 34.40 2.52 
 3.02 : 21.61 1.98 
 3.93 ' 8.45 1.07 
 
 I 
 
 Average (5 farms) 
 
 48.70 
 
 11.92 
 
 34.71 
 
 2.91 ! 25.12 ; 2.11 
 
 
 
 
 f Y 
 
 NEBRASKA, GRAND ISLAND DISTRICT. 
 
 3-year average 
 
 177 
 
 8.00 
 
 18.00 
 
 137. 15 
 
 $2.06 
 
 $52.85 
 
 $2.94 
 
 
 178 
 
 4.33 
 
 8.85 
 
 24.35 
 
 2.75 
 
 19.88 
 
 2.25 
 
 
 179 
 
 10.00 
 
 8.93 
 
 35.66 
 
 3.99 
 
 9.01 
 
 1.01 
 
 
 181 
 
 6.67 
 
 8.50 
 
 36.26 
 
 4.27 
 
 0.24 
 
 .73 
 
 
 182 
 
 .3.83 
 
 9.13 
 
 28.33 
 
 3.10 
 
 17.32 
 
 1.90 
 
 
 184 
 
 18.33 
 
 10.18 
 
 32.12 
 
 3.15 
 
 18.79 
 
 1.85 
 
 
 185 
 
 11.67 
 
 13.00 
 
 33.05 
 
 2.54 
 
 31.98 
 
 2.46 
 
 • 
 
 187 
 
 15.00 
 
 14.00 
 
 41.08 
 
 2.93 
 
 28.92 
 
 2.07 
 
 • 
 
 188 
 
 12.33 
 
 16.66 
 
 30.47 
 
 1.83 
 
 52.84 
 
 3.17 
 
 Average (9 farms) 
 
 10.02 
 
 12.39 
 
 34.12 
 
 2.75 
 
 27.84 
 
 2.25 
 
 
 
 
 KANSAS. 
 
 3-year average 
 
 189 
 
 37.17 
 
 7.06 
 
 $32. 34 
 
 $4.58 
 
 $4.54 
 
 $0.&4 
 
 
 190 
 
 48.33 
 
 8.05 
 
 34.05 
 
 4.23 
 
 6.75 
 
 .84 
 
 
 191 
 
 41.00 
 
 5.10 
 
 21.38 
 
 4.19 
 
 4.21 
 
 .83 
 
 
 192 
 
 39.00 
 
 9.83 
 
 32.65 
 
 3.32 
 
 17.65 
 
 l.SO 
 
 Average (A farms) 
 
 41.38 
 
 7.52 
 
 30.20 
 
 4.02 
 
 8.20 
 
 1.09 
 
 
 
 
 COLORADO, NORTHERN DISTRICT. 
 
 
 f 
 
 3-vear average 
 
 212 
 213 
 
 36.67 
 65.00 
 
 10.77 
 12.00 
 
 $41.59 
 39.00 
 
 $3.86 
 3.25 
 
 $17.87 
 21 00 
 
 $1.66 
 
 
 1.75 
 
 
 214 
 
 62.17 
 
 14.37 
 
 39.63 
 
 2.76 
 
 32.24 
 
 2.24 
 
 
 215 
 
 40.00 
 
 12.00 
 
 43.53 
 
 3.64 
 
 21.27 
 
 1.77 
 
 ■ 
 
 216 
 
 39.00 
 
 11.36 
 
 44. V9 
 
 3.94 
 
 14.30 
 
 1.26 
 
 
 217 
 
 61.67 
 
 12.88 
 
 46.84 
 
 3.64 
 
 20.35 
 
 1.58 
 
 • 
 
 218 
 
 30.45 
 
 17.18 
 
 53.92 
 
 3.14 
 
 35.97 
 
 2.09 
 
 
 219 
 
 9.67 
 
 18.19 
 
 40.45 
 
 2.22 
 
 58.82 
 
 3.23 
 
 
 220 
 
 50.00 
 
 14.00 
 
 46.37 
 
 3.31 
 
 31.13 
 
 2.22 
 
 
 221 
 
 37.00 
 
 12.53 
 
 42.09 
 
 3.36 
 
 26.83 
 
 2.14 
 
 
 225 
 
 90.67 
 
 14.57 
 
 44.63 
 
 3.06 
 
 32.31 
 
 2.22 
 
 
 226 
 
 39.00 
 
 12.56 
 
 45.07 
 
 3.59 
 
 26.06 
 
 2.08 
 
 
 227 
 
 20.00 
 
 11.50 
 
 41.76 
 
 3.63 
 
 22.45 
 
 1.95 
 
 
 228 
 
 35.33 
 
 13.29 
 
 49.33 
 
 3.71 
 
 22.82 
 
 1.72 
 
 
 231 
 
 11.00 
 
 15.00 
 
 48.65 
 
 3.24 
 
 26.35 
 
 1.76 
 
 
 232 
 
 46.30 
 
 15.44 
 
 43.77 
 
 2.83 
 
 39.19 
 
 2.54 
 
 
 233 
 
 45.67 
 
 10.14 
 
 44.27 
 
 4.37 
 
 11.79 
 
 1.16 
 
 
 234 
 
 44.00 
 
 13.52 
 
 47.01 
 
 3.48 
 
 22.86 
 
 1.69 
 
52 
 
 XHE BEET SUGAR INDUSTEY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 .> 
 
 COLOBADO, NORTHERN DISTBICT-Continued. 
 
 3-year average (continued). 
 
 Farm 
 No. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Yield Expense 
 per acre, per acre. 
 
 237 
 
 31.00 
 
 238 
 
 37.50 
 
 239 
 
 13.67 
 
 240 
 
 31.33 
 
 243 
 
 50.00 
 
 244 
 
 21.67 
 
 246 
 
 52.00 
 
 247 
 
 14.33 
 
 249 
 
 54.33 
 
 250 
 
 41.67 
 
 254 
 
 25.67 
 
 194 
 
 26.33 
 
 195 
 
 54.33 
 
 197 
 
 26.67 
 
 199 
 
 48.33 
 
 202 
 
 19.67 
 
 204 
 
 30.00 
 
 205 
 
 42.00 
 
 207 
 
 22.50 
 
 209 
 
 20.00 
 
 211 
 
 17.67 
 
 Average (39 farms). 
 
 37.19 
 
 COLORADO, SOUTHERN DISTRICT. 
 
 3-year average . 
 
 Average (21 farms) . 
 
 268 
 
 271 
 
 272 
 
 273 
 
 274 
 
 275 
 
 276 
 
 277 
 
 278 
 
 279 
 
 281 
 
 282 
 
 283 
 
 .284 
 
 287 
 
 288 
 
 255 
 
 257 
 
 259 
 
 260 
 
 264 
 
 13.35 
 15.00 
 93.67 
 9.67 
 14.00 
 4.67 
 6.00 
 13.33 
 20.33 
 8.00 
 33.67 
 41. a3 
 13.00 
 19.00 
 21.00 
 70.00 
 23. 33 
 36.00 
 40.33 
 15.33 
 116.00 
 
 13.72 
 16.00 
 12.82 
 17.43 
 11.17 
 20.82 
 13.00 
 11.20 
 11.49 
 12.67 
 12.86 
 11.10 
 17.33 
 13.23 
 16.33 
 15.34 
 11.49 
 11.25 
 9.69 
 10.96 
 13.80 
 
 29.86 
 
 13.12 
 
 $57. 57 
 48.65 
 37.29 
 44.80 
 44.11 
 62.62 
 40.05 
 40.97 
 39.07 
 40.95 
 33.55 
 33.76 
 40.28 
 35.82 
 46.67 
 39.79 
 43.61 
 30.18 
 50.02 
 50.23 
 38.96 
 
 $4.20 
 3.04 
 2.91 
 2.57 
 3.95 
 3.01 
 3.08 
 3.66 
 3.40 
 3.23 
 2.61 
 3.04 
 2.32 
 2.71 
 2.86 
 
 2.59 
 
 3.80 
 
 2.68 
 
 5.16 
 
 4.58 
 
 2.82 
 
 $29.08 
 51.35 
 46.65 
 63.58 
 19.18 
 52.94 
 32.79 
 20.05 
 27.00 
 29.45 
 45.78 
 31.11 
 65.22 
 43.55 
 43.16 
 49.31 
 27.19 
 32.68 
 8.14 
 6.51 
 38.62 
 
 40.11 
 
 3.06 
 
 37.46 
 
 $2.12 
 3.21 
 3.64 
 3.65 
 1.72 
 2.54 
 2.52 
 1.79 
 2.35 
 2.33 
 3.56 
 2.80 
 3.76 
 3.29 
 2.64 
 3.21 
 2.37 
 2.90 
 .84 
 .59 
 2.80 
 
 2.86 
 
 BEET GROWING. 
 
 53 
 
 Table 12.— COSTS AND PROFITS OF BEET GROWING, BY FARMS AND BY DISTRICTS; 
 AVERAGES FOR THE THREE YEARS, 1911, 1912, AND 1913— Continued. 
 
 COLORADO, GRAND JUNCTION DISTRICT. 
 
 1 r 
 
 :3-year average . 
 
 Average (6 farms) . 
 
 3-year average. 
 
 Average (4 farms) . 
 
 ^ > 
 
 / 
 
 A 
 
 ■• 
 
 > 
 
 ( 
 
 Farm 
 No. 
 
 292 
 294 
 295 
 296 
 298 
 301 
 
 Acres. 
 
 18.67 
 48.33 
 58.33 
 20.00 
 13.33 
 46. 67 
 
 34.22 
 
 Yield 
 per acre. 
 
 Tons. 
 15.36 
 15.10 
 16.51 
 13.63 
 14.15 
 13.67 
 
 Expense 
 per acre. 
 
 $51.08 
 47.45 
 41.70 
 53.36 
 62.34 
 64.02 
 
 Expense Profit Profit 
 per ton. per acre, per ton. 
 
 $3.33 
 3.14 
 2.53 
 3.91 
 4.41 
 4.68 
 
 $31.08 . 
 34.24 \ 
 44.87 i 
 15.90 
 11.95 : 
 5.21 i 
 
 14.99 
 
 51.45 
 
 3.43 
 
 27.14 
 
 MONTANA. 
 
 311 
 312 
 313 
 314 
 
 30.00 
 35.00 
 26.44 
 14.83 
 
 26.57 
 
 14.40 
 13.60 
 13.11 
 
 7.82 
 
 12.90 
 
 $43.92 
 42.18 
 42.58 
 
 47.84 
 
 43.56 
 
 $3.05 
 3.10 
 3.25 
 6.12 
 
 3.38 
 
 $46.61 
 40.01 
 38.36 j 
 1.11 ! 
 
 36.03 
 
 IDAHO. 
 
 UTAH, NORTHERN DISTRICT. 
 
 $2.02 
 
 2.27 
 
 2.72 
 
 1.17 
 
 .84 
 
 .38 
 
 1.81 
 
 .$3.24 
 
 2.94 
 
 2.93 
 
 .14 
 
 2.79 
 
 3-vear average 
 
 334 
 
 5 33 
 
 13 85 
 
 $48.60 
 56.10 
 
 $.3.51 
 3.31 
 
 $20.63 
 28.68 
 
 $1.49 
 1.69 
 
 
 335 
 
 7.67 
 
 16.96 
 
 
 337 
 
 10.67 
 
 10.78 
 
 50.01 
 
 4.64 
 
 3.89 
 
 .36 
 
 
 322 
 
 9.33 
 
 12.64 
 
 36.26 
 
 2.87 
 
 26.95 
 
 2.13 
 
 ' • 
 
 323 
 
 21.67 
 
 17.78 
 
 53.58 
 
 3.01 
 
 35.30 
 
 1.99 
 
 
 324 
 
 60.00 
 
 15.17 
 
 58.67 
 
 3.87 
 
 17.16 
 
 1.13 
 
 
 326 
 
 93.33 
 
 16.24 
 
 60.15 
 
 3.70 
 
 21.04 
 
 1.30 
 
 
 329 
 
 6.67 
 
 13.25 
 
 49.37 
 
 3.73 
 
 16.88 
 
 1.27 
 
 
 330 
 
 58.33 
 
 14.43 
 
 48.10 
 
 3.33 
 
 24.04 
 
 1.67 
 
 
 333 
 
 30.67 
 
 15.32 
 
 50.37 
 
 3.29 
 
 2«5.21 
 
 1.71 
 
 Average ( 10 farms) 
 
 30.37 
 
 15.30 
 
 54.45 
 
 3.56 
 
 22.06 
 
 1.44 
 
 
 
 r- 
 
 .3-year average 
 
 342 
 
 15.00 
 
 20 17 
 
 $47. 69 
 6(>.60 
 
 $2. 36 
 3.33 
 
 $46.09 
 30.70 
 
 $2.29 
 1.54 
 
 
 343 
 
 4.33 
 
 20.00 
 
 
 344 
 
 4.17 
 
 20.00 
 
 49.86 
 
 2.49 
 
 43.74 
 
 2.19 
 
 
 345 
 
 25.00 
 
 19.87 
 
 41.77 
 
 2.10 
 
 50.61 
 
 2.55 
 
 
 346 
 
 4.50 
 
 19.33 
 
 50.39 
 
 2.61 
 
 39.51 
 
 2.04 
 
 
 347 
 
 3.50 
 
 13.33 
 
 43.38 
 
 3.25 
 
 23.29 
 
 1.75 
 
 
 349 
 
 15.33 
 
 16.62 
 
 63.64 
 
 3.83 
 
 19.46 
 
 1.17 
 
 
 350 
 
 12.67 
 
 16.97 
 
 33.46 
 
 1.97 
 
 51.41 
 
 3.03 
 
 ' 
 
 351 
 
 4.00 
 
 19.25 
 
 53.22 
 
 2.76 
 
 37.05 
 
 1.92 
 
 
 352 
 
 6.33 
 
 23.34 
 
 58.66 
 
 2.51 
 
 50.64 
 
 2.17 
 
 
 353 
 
 10.33 
 
 18.44 
 
 61.44 
 
 3.33 
 
 30.78 
 
 1.67 
 
 
 354 
 
 27.67 
 
 18.31 
 
 57.91 
 
 3.16 
 
 33.66 
 
 1.84 
 
 
 355 
 
 41.67 
 
 11.70 
 
 37.12 
 
 3.17 
 
 21.38 
 
 1.83 
 
 877ai— 17 5 
 
 / V 
 
54 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 UTAH, NORTHERN DJSTRICT-Continued. 
 
 3-year average (continued). 
 
 Farm 
 No. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Average (26 farms). 
 
 356 
 
 358 
 
 359 
 
 360 
 
 361 
 
 362 
 
 363 
 
 364 
 
 365 
 
 366 
 
 367 
 
 368 
 
 369 
 
 Yield 
 per acre. 
 
 Expense 
 per acre. 
 
 50.00 
 22.33 
 86.67 
 12.00 
 35.00 
 
 4.00 
 10.00 
 125.00 
 10.00 
 12.00 
 18.33 
 20.33 
 
 7.00 
 
 22.58 
 
 Tons. 
 15.61 
 
 14.37 
 
 17.00 
 
 17.67 
 
 16.00 
 
 16.00 
 
 17.33 
 
 16.96 
 
 16.67 
 
 16.53 
 
 14.09 
 
 19.05 
 
 18.00 
 
 150.92 
 38.04 
 44.97 
 37.03 
 43.30 
 42.20 
 28.57 
 27. 47 
 56.98 
 29.26 
 39.85 
 53.27 
 57.56 
 
 Expense 
 per ton. 
 
 16.73 42.04 
 
 $3.26 
 2.65 
 2.65 
 2.10 
 2.71 
 2.64 
 1.65 
 1.62 
 3.42 
 1.77 
 2.83 
 2.80 
 3.20 
 
 Profit 
 per acre. 
 
 $27.13 
 29.51 
 34.47 
 45.38 
 31.37 
 29.80 
 52.18 
 51.98 
 20.94 
 48.03 
 25.60 
 35.66 
 26.65 
 
 2.51 
 
 37.54 
 
 UTAH, CENTRAL DISTRICT. 
 
 3-year average . 
 
 :1 
 
 Average (15 farms). 
 
 3-year average 
 
 371 
 
 372 
 
 373 
 
 374 
 
 375 
 
 376 
 
 377 
 
 378 
 
 379 
 
 380 
 
 3S3 
 
 384 
 
 387 
 
 389 
 
 391 
 
 23.00 
 12.67 
 23.00 
 13.00 
 6.50 
 12.00 
 6.50 
 5.00 
 10.00 
 15.67 
 8.33 
 12. 67 
 7.00 
 7.33 
 5.00 I 
 
 13.50 
 
 $47.82 
 
 $3.54 
 
 $19.68 
 
 
 9.46 
 
 58.42 
 
 6.18 
 
 » 12. 86 
 
 
 15.91 
 
 60.01 
 
 3.77 
 
 16.84 
 
 
 17.15 
 
 43.54 
 
 2.54 
 
 39.57 
 
 
 14.33 
 
 64.73 
 
 4.52 
 
 4.52 
 
 
 13.00 
 
 56.65 
 
 4.36 
 
 6.35 
 
 
 12.87 
 
 36.13 
 
 2.81 
 
 26.18 
 
 
 1.5.00 
 
 38.58 
 
 2.57 
 
 36.42 
 
 
 18.00 
 
 53.00 
 
 2.94 
 
 37.00 
 
 
 20.00 
 
 48.72 
 
 2.44 
 
 51.28 
 
 
 20.00 
 
 45.36 
 
 2.27 
 
 54.64 
 
 
 14.05 
 
 46.25 
 
 3.29 
 
 21.85 
 
 
 24.81 
 
 76.54 
 
 3.09 
 
 42.56 
 
 
 17.32 
 
 55.41 
 
 3.20 
 
 31.18 
 
 
 18.87 
 
 55.43 
 
 2.94 
 
 38.90 
 
 
 11.18 
 
 15.86 
 
 52.43 
 
 3.30 
 
 25.50 
 
 CALIFORNIA, SPRECKELS DISTRICT. 
 
 Average (6 farms) 
 
 * Loss. 
 
 Profit 
 per ton. 
 
 $1.74 
 2.05 
 2.03 
 2.57 
 1.96 
 1.86 
 3.01 
 3.06 
 1.26 
 2.91 
 1.82 
 1.87 
 1.48 
 
 2.24 
 
 $1.46 
 U.36 
 1.06 
 2.31 
 .32 
 .49 
 2.03 
 2.43 
 2.06 
 2.56 
 2.73. 
 1.56 
 1.72 
 l.SO 
 2.06 
 
 1.61 
 
 ■ft 
 
 BEET GROWING. 
 
 55 
 
 V 
 
 / 
 
 Taale 12.— costs and profits of beet growing, by FARMS AND BY DISTRICTS; 
 AVERAGES FOR THE THREE YEARS, 1911, 1912, AND 1913— Continued. 
 
 CALIFORNIA, OXNARD DISTRICT. 
 
 3-year average. 
 
 Average (5 farms) . 
 
 Farm 
 No. 
 
 406 
 407 
 410 
 411 
 412 
 
 Acres. 
 
 115.33 
 
 74.00 
 
 50.00 
 
 416.67 
 
 1,640.00 
 
 'Yield 
 per acre. 
 
 Toru. 
 11.00 
 
 9.51 
 
 15.27 
 
 14.36 
 
 10.57 
 
 459.20 
 
 11.34 
 
 Expense 
 per acre. 
 
 $31.48 
 30.92 
 34.72 
 29.31 
 36.58 
 
 Expense 
 per ton. 
 
 $2.86 
 3.25 
 2.27 
 2.04 
 3.46 
 
 34.78 
 
 3.07 
 
 Profit 
 per acre. 
 
 Profit 
 per ton. 
 
 $45.80 I 
 31.00 I 
 
 48.03 ! 
 56.85 i 
 
 34.04 ! 
 
 38.97 
 
 -i 
 
 CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES DISTRICT. 
 
 2.90 
 
 ■ 3-year average. 
 
 ** ■ 4 
 
 $3.84 
 
 
 1.83 
 2.98 
 
 
 2.77 
 
 
 2.61 
 
 
 2.18 
 
 
 • r 
 
 Average (30 farms) . 
 
 i 
 
 413 
 414 
 415 
 
 418 
 
 421 
 
 423 
 
 424 
 
 425 
 
 427 
 
 428 
 
 429 
 
 430 
 
 431 
 
 433 
 
 434 
 
 435 
 
 436 
 
 437 
 
 43S 
 
 439 
 
 440 
 
 441 
 
 442 
 
 443 
 
 444 
 
 448 
 
 449 
 
 450 
 
 451 
 
 452 
 
 66.50 
 27.67 
 12.67 
 45.00 
 76.33 
 129.00 \ 
 150.00 
 124.33 
 35.00 
 55.00 
 146.67 
 83.67 
 126.67 
 81.67 
 75.00 
 436.67 
 250.00 
 30.00 
 161.67 
 135.00 
 34.67 
 156.67 
 110.00 
 124.00 
 90.00 
 18.67 
 49.67 
 253.00 
 213.33 
 13.67 
 
 110. 41 
 
 16.91 
 17.43 
 14.53 
 16.01 
 13.30 
 10.29 
 
 6.74 
 
 9.57 
 21.17 
 
 9.33 
 16.91 
 10.97 
 14.32 
 
 9.28 
 10.90 
 14.82 
 10.40 
 13.56 
 13.30 
 18.50 
 20.46 
 17.82 
 15.83 
 17.01 
 
 9.63 
 17.48 
 17.42 
 15.00 
 9.52 
 14.63 
 
 13.48 
 
 $43.61 
 41.29 
 38.13 
 45.73 
 43.15 
 31.25 
 30.16 
 3262 
 38.17 
 31.47 
 47.58 
 31.91 
 36.23 
 34.77 
 36.37 
 3&84 
 43.78 
 39.11 
 46.17 
 49.65 
 40.18 
 46.98 
 34.41 
 30.86 
 33.67 
 38.58 
 41.56 
 46.40 
 39.67 
 35.13 
 
 39.69 
 
 $258 
 2 37 
 2.62 
 2.86 
 3.25 
 3.04 
 4.47 
 3.41 
 1.80 
 3.37 
 2 81 
 291 
 2.53 
 3.75 
 3.34 
 2.62 
 4.21 
 2 89 
 3.47 
 2.68 
 1.96 
 2.64 
 2.17 
 1.81 
 3.50 
 2.21 
 2.38 
 3.09 
 4.17 
 2.40 
 
 294 
 
 $40.20 
 65.70 
 49.03 
 45.16 
 30.82 
 32 29 
 11.03 
 21.22 
 99.43 
 27.53 
 53.01 
 25.29 
 46.78 
 30.50 
 26.96 
 50.88 
 15.92 
 44.26 
 31.06 
 45.01 
 69.29 
 59.11 
 53.49 
 66.49 
 7.22 
 71.83 
 64.90 
 35.60 
 20.71 
 48.90 
 
 38.34 
 
 $4.16 
 3.26 
 3.15 
 3.96 
 3.22 
 
 3.44 
 
 $23S 
 
 3.77 
 
 3.38 
 
 2.82 
 
 2.32 
 
 3.14 
 
 1.M 
 
 2.22 
 
 4.70 
 
 2.85 
 
 3.13 
 
 2.31 
 
 3.27 
 
 3.29 
 
 2.47 
 
 3.43 
 
 1.53 
 
 3.26 
 
 2.34 
 
 2.43 
 
 3.39 
 
 3.32 
 
 3.38 
 
 3.91 
 
 .75 
 
 4.11 
 
 3.72 
 
 2.37 
 
 2. IS 
 
 3.34 
 
 2S4 
 
^*" ■*■-■ 
 
 '"'^""' <'--'-'''-^'-' 
 
 56 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR IXDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 BEET GROWING. 
 
 57 
 
 rA- 1 
 
 I 
 
 No details of cost are shown in the foregoing table for the reason 
 that the variations in the several items of cost are sufficiently indi- 
 cated in Table 11. The size of farms ranges from less than two acres 
 to several hundred and the average yield per acre shows a very wide 
 range. These facts indicate the general representative character of 
 the farms included. The farms represented in this table probably 
 show results considerably above the average of all farms in the 
 respective districts because more accurate information could gen- 
 erally be obtained for them. No effort, however, was made to secure 
 statements from the best farmers only, and as a matter of fact the 
 results of a number of rather indifferent farmers are included in the 
 table. It is believed that these figures show in general what fairly 
 good farmers have done. 
 
 In arriving at profits it should be borne in mind that every item 
 of actual expense has been considered. Nothing, however, has been 
 allowed for depreciation of equipment or rental value of land, nor 
 has anything been allowed for superintendence by the farmer. On 
 the other hand, where the farmer or any member of his family did 
 any part of the work he was allowed the customary rate of hire for 
 men with teams, which would include repairs of tools. It may be 
 noted that if beets were not grown some members of the family, 
 particularly children, would earn nothing at all. The profits shown 
 by these farms, therefore,' is what is left after a fair allowance has 
 been made for the work of the farmer and the members of his family 
 and also for the hire of his teams. 
 
 For reasons already stated nothing has been allowed for the value 
 of tops or pulp. If this had been done many of these farms would 
 show considerably larger profits. It is probable that in most cases 
 the tops are worth enough to more than pay the taxes on the land. 
 It is known that in some cases they would much more than do this. 
 
 Relation of profits to yifxd.— The importance of a large yield is 
 brought out in the table with striking emphasis. As a rule a yield 
 of less than from 7 to 10 tons per acre shows a small profit and 12 
 tons or above show good net returns. There are some exceptions 
 but not enough to disprove the rule. The cost of growing an acre of 
 beets, except the expense of harvesting, does not differ materially in a 
 given locality, whether the yield is 10 tons or 20 tons. It is appa- 
 rent, therefore, that every ton above a yield necessary to meet ex- 
 penses is nearly all profit. For example farm No. 142 in the north- 
 ern Wisconsin district showed an average profit of only $2.36 an 
 acre. It cost this farmer $40 to grow about 8J tons of beets. He 
 received an average price of $5 per ton. If his' yield had been 12^ 
 tons per acre he would have received as additional profit the value 
 of 4 tons less the expense of hauling, which was about 60 cents per 
 
 ;» 
 
 V 
 
 /•, 
 
 
 / 
 
 ton. Therefore his net profits with 12^ tons would have been about 
 $20 per acre instead of $2.36. 
 
 A comparison of the yield per acre with the expense per ton 
 clearly reveals the importance of a high yield. In many cases of low 
 yield shown in the table the farmer received barely enough to meet 
 liis expenses. This was rarely ever the case where the yield was 
 high. In Kansas where the yield of the 4 farms involved was 
 uniformly low the net profits per acre were correspondingly low, and 
 in northern Colorado where the yield was generally high the profits 
 were correspondingly high. 
 
 Average results by districts. — The average results of a district 
 is a better standard by which to measure profits than are the results 
 of any single farm. A summary by the districts represented in 
 Table 12 is shown in Table 13 below : 
 
 Table 13.— AVERAGE COSTS AND PROFITS, BY DISTRICTS, 
 
 1912, AND 1913. 
 
 FOR THE 3 YEARS 1911, 
 
 District. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Yield per 
 
 acre 
 
 (tons). 
 
 Expense 
 per acre. 
 
 Expense 
 per ton. 
 
 Profit per 
 per acre. 
 
 Profit per 
 per ton. 
 
 Ohio-Indiana 
 
 14.79 
 17.90 
 
 11.98 
 
 7.18 
 
 7.84 
 
 48.70 
 
 10.02 
 
 41.38 
 
 37.19 
 29.85 
 34.22 
 26.57 
 30.37 
 
 22.58 
 11. 18 
 
 134. 33 
 459.20 
 110.41 
 
 11.85 
 10.92 
 
 11.83 
 14.15 
 12.56 
 11.92 
 12.39 
 7.52 
 
 14.77 
 13.12 
 14.99 
 12.90 
 15.30 
 
 16.73 
 
 15.86 
 
 15.50 
 11.. 34 
 13.48 
 
 $37. 70 
 41.15 
 
 39.77 
 42.72 
 40.77 
 34.71 
 34.12 
 30.20 
 
 46.29 
 40.11 
 51.45 
 43.56 
 54.45 
 
 42.04 
 52.43 
 
 36.79 
 34.78 
 39.69 
 
 $3.18 
 3.77 
 
 3.36 
 3.02 
 3.25 
 2.91 
 2.75 
 4.02 
 
 3.13 
 3.06 
 3.43 
 3.38 
 3.56 
 
 2.51 
 3.30 
 
 2.37 
 3.07 
 2.94 
 
 $23.59 
 17.80 
 
 23.83 
 33.68 
 22.84 
 25.12 
 27.84 
 8.20 
 
 34.48 
 37.46 
 27.14 
 36.03 
 22.06 
 
 37.54 
 25.50 
 
 44.95 
 38.97 
 38.34 
 
 $1.99 
 
 Michigan, lower oeninsula 
 
 1.63 
 
 Wisconsin: 
 
 Northern district 
 
 2.02 
 
 Southern district 
 
 2.38 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 1.82 
 
 Iowa 
 
 2.11 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 2.25 
 
 Kansas 
 
 1.09 
 
 Colorado: « 
 
 Northern district 
 
 2.33 
 
 Southern district 
 
 2.86 
 
 Grand Junction district 
 
 1.81 
 
 Montana 
 
 2.79 
 
 Idaho 
 
 1.44 
 
 Utah: 
 
 Northern district 
 
 2.24 
 
 Central district 
 
 1.61 
 
 California; 
 
 Snreckels district 
 
 2.90 
 
 Oxnard district 
 
 3.44 
 
 Los Angeles district 
 
 2.84 
 
 
 
 The return per acre is a better test of profitableness than the net 
 return per ton. By this test it would appear that beet growing is 
 most profitable in California, though Utah has the higher yield. By 
 reference to the tables it Avill be noticed that the expense per acre in 
 Utah is considerably greater than in California. This is mainh^ due 
 to considerable cost for fertilizing materials in the former State. It 
 
58 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 should be noted also that the price per ton paid the farmer in Utah 
 is lower than in California. Among the most important beet-growing 
 States Michigan has the lowest yield and the smallest net return per 
 acre. This State has comparatively high costs due to the high cost 
 of fertilizer. The average net returns do not fall below $22 per acre 
 in any district except Kansas and the lower peninsula of Michigan. 
 Whether or not the profits in beet growing are sufficient to encourage 
 cultivation depends in a measure upon how they compare with those 
 that can be realized from growing other crops. 
 
 Section 10. Profits from beets compared with profits from other crops. 
 
 While the absolute profits from growing beets may be high, this 
 does not of itself indicate that they are the best crops to grow, because 
 some other crops may yield better returns. Of course there must 
 always be taken into consideration the quantity of ptoduct thut can 
 be marketed at a profit. Thus an acre of cabbage may yield twice as 
 great a return as an acre of beets, but if upon planting as many acres 
 in cabbage as he does in beets the farmer finds that he has oversup- 
 plied the market his profit may disappear. 
 
 There are no definite figures showing the profits in crops generally 
 to indicate precisely how the profits from beet growing compare with 
 profits from other crops. The average annual gross returns and the 
 average annual profit per acre of beets in the various districts hereto- 
 fore discussed are shown in the statement below. These are averages 
 for three years and are summarized in round figures as follows : 
 
 Ohio-Indiana 
 
 Michigan, lower peninsula 
 
 Wisconsin: 
 
 Northern district 
 
 Southern district 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 Kansas 
 
 Colorado: 
 
 Northern district 
 
 Southern district 
 
 Grand Junction district... 
 
 Average 
 
 annual 
 
 gross 
 
 returns 
 
 per acre. 
 
 Average 
 annual 
 
 net 
 profits 
 
 per acre. 
 
 $81.00 
 
 $23.00 
 
 59.00 
 
 17.00 
 
 63.00 
 
 23.00 
 
 76.00 
 
 33.00 
 
 63.00 
 
 22.00 
 
 59.00 
 
 25.00 
 
 61.00 
 
 27.00 
 
 38.00 
 
 8.00 
 
 80.00 
 
 34.00 
 
 77.00 
 
 37.00 
 
 78.00 
 
 27.00 
 
 Montana 
 
 Idaho 
 
 Utah: 
 
 Northern district . . . 
 
 Central district 
 
 California: 
 
 Spreckels district . . . 
 
 Oxnard district 
 
 Los Angeles district 
 
 Average 
 
 annual 
 
 gross 
 
 returns 
 
 per acre. 
 
 $79.00 
 76.00 
 
 79.00 
 77.00 
 
 81.00 
 73.00 
 78.00 
 
 Average 
 annual 
 
 net 
 profits 
 
 per acre. 
 
 $36.00 
 22.00 
 
 37.00 
 25.00 
 
 45.00 
 39.00 
 38.00 
 
 Assuming that wheat is ordinarily worth $1 per bushel delivered at 
 the railroad station, the lowest yield in any of the districts in question 
 that would give a gross return equivalent to the gross return on beets 
 
 r . 
 
 r 
 
 ti 
 
 i " 
 
 / 
 
 't 
 
 i 
 
 BEET GROWING. 
 
 59 
 
 would be 38 bushels per acre. While the average cost of growing 
 an acre of wheat has not been investigated, it is undoubtedly very 
 much less than the cost of growing an acre of beets. A comparison 
 of Avheat with beets upon the basis of net profits on beets would indi- 
 cate that, with the exception of Kansas, the farms in these districts 
 would have to show from 17 to 45 bushels of wheat per acre above 
 the quantity, needed to pay all expenses before the results would 
 be equal to the results from beets. Thus the beet farmers in 
 Nebraska, after paying in wheat at $1 per bushed for all expenses 
 incident to growing, harvesting, and marketing an acre of wheat, 
 should have 27 bushels left in order to equal the results from beets. 
 On the same basis those in Ohio, Indiana, and the northern district of 
 Wisconsin should have 23 bushels, those in northern Colorado 34 
 bushels, those in Montana 36, those in Utah from 25 to 37, and those 
 in California from 38 to 45. It is certain that such results in wheat 
 could not be realized. Corn, on the basis of 50 cents a bushel, would 
 require twice the quantity of surplus bushels as in the case of wheat. 
 
 In some of the States, particularly in the West, alfalfa is a very 
 important crop and is considered profitable. On the basis of $10 
 per ton net the beet growers in those States would require a crop 
 that would pay all expenses and leave from 2 to 4 tons per acre 
 remaining as profit. Similar comparisons might be made with other 
 staple crops. 
 
 It is not probable that any important standard crop would vear^ 
 after year yield better net returns per acre than beets. Many farmers 3 
 insist, however, that they are entitled to a better return on beets 
 than on most other crops. There is some reason for this contention 
 because of the care and diligence necessary to cultivate beets as com- 
 pared with general field crops and the unusually large outlay of cash 
 for labor. The ordinary farmer can not care for as many acres of 
 beets as he can of general field crops. It is probable that a givenl 
 number of laborers can plant, cultivate, and harvest three times as' 
 many acres of corn as of beets and from five to six times as manv acres 
 of such small grains as wheat. Thus the smaller return per acre for 
 these crops might be as profitable to the farmer who owns a large 
 or fairly large farm as the larger returns per acre from the much 
 smaller acreage of beets. This is an important factor to take into 
 account when considering the profit on beets. On the other handT! 
 it should be lioted that the beet groweri sells his crop at a fixed, 
 price before it is planted. He is thus assured that if he has a good 
 crop he will receive a definite return. In other words, he assumes nol 
 risk as to conditions in the market. This is a very important advan-J 
 tage and is an offset to some of the disadvantages noted. 
 
 An important consideration in this connection is the peculiar 
 adaptation of beets to the conditions existing in certain districts. 
 
^^ - 
 
 60 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 iy 
 
 Some beet regions of the West are long distances from markets for 
 other crops. Grain and hay, for example, are so bulky that the 
 freight rates do not permit their reaching profitable markets. BeetSy 
 on the other hand, can be sold near by, with a consequent low 
 carrying charge. Furthermore, practically all the lands in the beet- 
 growing sections of the West must be irrigated. When this is prop- 
 erly done it is usually quite expensive. This makes it desirable to 
 grow crops that yield large net returns per acre. In many sections 
 beets meet this requirement, perhaps, more satisfactorily than any 
 other crop. 
 
 After taking into account all of the above considerations it does- 
 not seem probable that intelligent beet growers can reasonably hope 
 for more satisfactory returns from other crops than from beets. It 
 is evident that this feeling prevails to a wide extent among those 
 farmers who have engaged in this branch of farming. There are 
 some who have abandoned this crop for various reasons, in part, no 
 doubt, because of the exacting nature of the crop, and also because of 
 a lack of water and difficulties in securing labor. But, on the other 
 hand, a very large proportion of the beet growers desire to continue 
 and sometimes express deep concern over the possibility of the 
 closing of factories. It is not reasonable to suppose that the farmers 
 would manifest such keen interest in the beet-sugar industry if they 
 did not find it profitable. Their protest against any reduction in 
 the price of beets is natural, but taken alone affords no indication 
 that this branch of farming has not been profitable. 
 
 r 
 
 Y 
 
 > *•• 
 
 / 
 
 * 
 
 'Y 
 
 i 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 COST OF PEODUCING BEET SUGAR. 
 
 Section 1. Introduction. 
 
 The cost tables shown in this report cover the average results of 
 the five campaigns or seasons beginning with the year 1909-10 and 
 ending with the year 1913-14. During this time 78 different fac- 
 tories made sugar, but not all of them were operated in any one year. 
 Three of these factories were moved during this period, so sugar 
 was made in 81 different places. The greatest number producing 
 sugar in any campaign during the period was 73 in 1912-13. There 
 were some idle factories and some new ones were built durinor the 
 period covered. Cost statements were secured for 76 different es- 
 tablishments. The greatest number covered for any one year was 
 73, for 1912-13. On account of losses on beets due to weather con- 
 ditions the data for one factory show such abnormal results that 
 they are not included in any of the cost tables. 
 
 In this investigation access was had to all the records and books 
 of account of all the active factories in the United States except one 
 unimportant concern. The data were taken in such detail as to show 
 separately each important item of cost. The accounts of all the com- 
 panies were not kept in precisely the same form, but there was gen- 
 erally little difficulty in making such adjustments as to place them 
 all on an exactly comparable basis. In order to insure absolute 
 accuracy the cost statements were in every case made up from the 
 books of the companies and checked with their balance sheets, profit 
 and loss accounts, and income statements. 
 
 Costs cover only the sugar manufacturing business. — Several 
 beet-sugar companies are also engaged in other business than manu- 
 facturing sugar, such as farming and cattle feeding. Some of them 
 own or control irrigation projects and other outside interests. In all 
 such cases these outside operations have been separated from the 
 sugar business and only the latter is included in the cost tables. 
 Likewise the cost of marketing sugar has been kept distinct from 
 manufacturing costs except in two unimportant particulars. First, 
 the proportion of general administrative expense properly chargeable 
 to selling could not be separated from the total administrative ex- 
 pense with any degree of accuracy. For this reason all of this ex- 
 pense has been charged into the cost of manufacture. The amount 
 
 61 
 
li- 
 
 ri^' 
 
 62 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 of this item chargeable to selling is so small per 100 pounds of sugar 
 produced as not appreciably to affect the total cost. Second, amounts 
 paid for insurance on sugar in warehouses at the point of manufac- 
 ture could not be separated from insurance on plant and it has been 
 charged in the cost of production. Insurance on sugar in transit or 
 in storage at distribution points away from the place of production 
 has been charged to selling expense. 
 
 In analyzing certain miscellaneous expenses it was sought to elimi- 
 nate every item not properly chargeable to sugar. In a few instances 
 there was some doubt as to certain charges. For example, there were 
 sometimes small miscellaneous gains and losses that could not be 
 identified. These were included in the cost statements, but the 
 amounts involved were always extremely small and the average costs 
 are not materially affected thereby. 
 
 Bases of cost computations. — The cost of production is shown 
 on two bases. In one case the unit is 100 pounds of sugar, and in 
 the other case the unit is a ton of beets. Practicallv all the discussion 
 of the cost of producing sugar is based upon the sugar produced. 
 For this reason the tables computed upon this basis are much more 
 detailed and elaborate than those based upon the tonnage of b^ets 
 worked. The computations on the latter basis, however, are of con- 
 siderable interest and value, particularly in connection with any 
 study of the efficiency of plants. 
 
 The tables based upon the cost of 100 pounds of sugar show 
 the details for the entire period for all factories operating not less 
 than 3 years during the period 1909-10 to 1913-14. They also 
 show the cost by States for the 5 years and a summary for groups 
 of factories arranged according to a certain range of cost. The 
 average cost of working a ton of beets is shown for the 5-year period. 
 Identity of factory concealed.— The identity of no factory is 
 disclosed in any of the cost tables. Each factory is given a number 
 and this number is different from the same factory in different 
 tables. It is thus impossible from these tables for one manufacturer 
 to ascertain the costs of another. In many cases beet sugar manu- 
 facturers have furnished their costs in considerable detail to various 
 committees of Congress and such companies doubtless would not 
 object to identifying their figures. Others, however, who have not 
 thus freely disclosed their costs might reasonably object to having 
 their factories identified. Since no useful purpose would be served 
 by revealing the costs of individual factories or companies, they are 
 not disclosed in this report. 
 
 Section 2. Proportion of total production covered by cost tables. 
 
 The total production of beet sugar in the United States during the 
 5 years covered by the cost tables in this report was 3,020,800 short 
 
 — »^i^i>. 
 
 / 
 
 Y 
 
 ^ 
 
 / 
 
 
 / 
 
 i 
 
 COST OF PRODUCING BEET SUGAR. 
 
 63 
 
 tons. Of this 2,904,626 tons, or more than 96 per cent of it, are cov- 
 ered by the principal table, which shows the average cost of produc- 
 tion for 5 years by factories. The table showing the cost by States 
 covers 2,981,112 tons, or nearly 99 per cent of the total quantity pro- 
 duced during the 5-year period. The table by States includes more 
 «ugar than the one by factories, because some factories operating less 
 than 3 years were excluded from the latter to avoid disclosing their 
 identity. The table by factories includes the operations of 64 fac- 
 tories, while that for States includes the operations of 75. 
 
 Section 3. Details of elements of cost. 
 
 The books of most of the companies made it necessary to make two 
 general groups of items for the cost statement. The first group in- 
 cludes the cost of beets and the cost of factory operation. The second 
 ^roup includes the charges for general administrative expense, taxes, 
 interest, rentals, results from farming in those cases where farms 
 ivere operated, and a number of miscellaneous gains and losses. A 
 statement of the form in which these data were obtained is shown 
 below : 
 
 Group 1. 
 
 1. Procuring and supervising beet 
 acreage. 
 
 "2. Purchased beets and company- 
 grown beets. 
 
 3. Freight paid on beets. 
 
 4. Other expenses, handling and re- 
 
 ceiving beets. 
 
 5. Col^e. 
 «. Coal. 
 
 7. Fuel oil. 
 
 8. Lime rock and burnt lime. 
 
 9. Sugar bags, barrels, and twine. 
 10. Filter bags and cloths. 
 
 11. Oil, waste, etc. 
 
 12. Operating labor. < 
 
 13. Factory salaries, officers, clerks, 
 
 storemen, and watchmen. 
 
 14. Repairs and maintenance. 
 
 15. Insurance. 
 
 16. General and miscellaneous factory 
 
 expense. 
 
 17. Stock in process from preceding 
 
 year. 
 
 18. Stock in process at end of year. 
 
 19. Pulp produced. 
 
 20. Molasses sold. 
 
 Group 2. 
 
 1. General administration expense. 
 
 2. Taxes. 
 
 S. Miscellaneous gains and losses. 
 
 4. Depreciation. 
 
 5. Interest. 
 
 6. Rentals. 
 
 7. Farming and land operations. 
 
 All the items in group 1, from 1 to 17, inclusive, are debit items in 
 the cost account. Items 18, 19, and 20 are credit items, and their sum 
 is deducted from the total of the other items. Thus the stock in proc- 
 ess at the end of the year was credited because it appeared in the next 
 year's operations. The pulp and molasses produced and sold were 
 credited to the sugar account and thus the cost was reduced to that 
 extent. The items in this group make up the net manufacturing cost. 
 
 • r 
 
•_<_ 
 
 64 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Some of the items in group 2 are not properly chargeable to the 
 sugar account. General administrative expense, taxes on the beet- 
 sugar plant and equipment and depreciation are properly chargeable 
 to cost. Interest was not included in the cost tables for reasons stated 
 elsewhere (see p. 65). Miscellaneous gains and losses when pertain- 
 ing to sugar manufactures were credited or charged to the cost ac- 
 count, as the case may be, but such it^ms if arising from transactions 
 that did not pertain to the manufacture of sugar were disregarded. 
 For instance, any gain or loss on account of the feeding of cattle or 
 the operation of a farm was not charged to the cost of sugar. Rentals 
 refer to rent paid for offices and have been included in cost. 
 
 The explanation of variations in the cost of some items, such as 
 insurance and taxes and office expenses, are generally obvious. 
 Speaking broadly these expenses are practically fixed, and if a fac- 
 tory for any reason has a small production as compared with its ca- 
 pacity they are of course unduly high per unit of production. On 
 the other hand, variations in the cost of fuel, supplies, and labor can 
 not be so accounted for. 
 
 Details of certain cost ite3is.— A number of the separate cost 
 charges are made up from numerous small items. The details of some 
 of the charges in group 1 above are here shown. 
 
 The charge in item 1 for beet acreage consists of salary and expense 
 of superintendent and automobile expense. 
 
 Other expense for beets which is covered by item 4 includes 11 sep- 
 arate charges as follows : 
 
 Travel iniET expenses of 
 
 Receiving labor in beet 
 
 sheds. 
 Receiving material in 
 
 beet sheds. 
 Unloading beets. 
 Maintenance of receiving 
 
 stations. 
 Piping or siloing beets. 
 Depreciation (beet 
 
 dumps). 
 
 expenses 
 supervision. 
 
 Beet implements (ex- 
 pense or earnings). 
 
 Agricultural stable. 
 
 Transportation of labor- 
 ers. 
 
 Procuring of laborers. 
 
 The charge for oil, waste, etc., item 11, includes the following 16 
 separate items: 
 
 Sulphur. 
 Knives, files. 
 Hardware. 
 
 Pipe, A-alves, and fittings. 
 Lubricants and waste. 
 Rubber goods and pack- 
 ing. 
 Factory chemicals. 
 Laboratory supplies. 
 Electrical supplies. 
 
 Water and drainage. 
 Belting and laces. 
 Machinery parts and 
 
 castings. 
 Rubber boots and oiled 
 
 suits. 
 Centrifugal supplies. 
 Tubes. 
 Kieselguhr. 
 
 ' )' 
 
 COST OF PRODUCING BEET SUGAR. 
 
 65 
 
 Y 
 
 ■ t 
 
 A 
 
 / 
 
 t 
 
 
 i 
 
 Factory salaries of officers, etc., included in item 13, embrace sal- 
 aries of managers, superintendents, main office, and superintendents' 
 clerks, and watchman and storeroom employees. 
 
 Item 16, which covers general and miscellaneous factory expense, 
 includes the following: 
 
 Telegrams and telei^hones. 
 
 Main office supplies. 
 
 Managers' traveling ex- 
 penses. 
 
 Superintendent's office ex- 
 penses. 
 
 Superintendent's travel- 
 ing expenses. 
 
 Special supervision ex- 
 penses. 
 
 Sr)ecial engineering ex- 
 penses. 
 
 Stable. 
 
 Item 12, which covers operating labor, includes expenditures under 
 18 heads, as follows: 
 
 Supervision. 
 Main house. 
 Boiler house. 
 StelTens house. 
 Limekilns. 
 Laboratory. 
 Sugar warehouse. 
 
 Machine shop. 
 Water drainage. 
 Yards. 
 
 Securing labor. 
 B<aius. 
 Miscellaneous. 
 
 Interest excluded from cost. — Interest is charged for the use 
 of money and obviously can form no part of the cost of production. 
 Money borrowed will buy as much material or hire as much labor as 
 money owned. Interest on borrowed money, therefore, has no effect 
 upon the cost of production. It does have, however, a material effect 
 upon the financial results of a business, and this is taken into account 
 in the discussion of profits on investment. 
 
 Section 4. Depreciation. 
 
 None of the beet-sugar companies charged any depreciation on 
 plant and factory equipment in their cost accounts, but some of 
 them deducted depreciation from their earnings. , Such deductions, 
 however, were not based on any consistent plan. Some years this 
 charge was very much more than in others, and in some 3'ears there 
 was no charge at all. If the business was prosperous, the charge for 
 depreciation was very high, and when business was poor and profits 
 not large, the depreciation charge was small if made at all. Very 
 few, if any, of the companies have taken account of depreciation 
 for as many as five consecutive years. For these reasons, the actual 
 charges for depreciation made by the companies have been disre- 
 garded, and instead a reasonable allowance has been made and 
 included in the cost of manufacture. It is obvious that some allow- 
 ance should be made for depreciation. It is impossible indefinitely 
 
 ^^ 
 
66 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTEY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 to maintain a beet-sugar factory in a high state of efficiency by ordi- 
 nary repairs. , -^ -^ "' 
 
 foi" ^^t beet-sugar industry, the depreciable property consists of 
 factory buildings and equipment, beet sheds, office furniture and fe 
 ures, and beet stations. In this di«,ussion beet sheds are condde Jd 
 
 tLinV '^'^''''''y ''""<ii"g- Many of the companies haJe 
 ncluded depreciation on stations and office furniture and fixtures in 
 
 lesnem '"''""?«*»^«'/n'i therefore in the computations with 
 respect to depreciation made by the Commission those comparatively 
 insignificant items have not been considered parativeiy 
 
 thJ^^TT!- •*"P''^'^'**'°° <i«Pends upon a number of conditions, and 
 these conditions vary in different plants. All property does not 
 
 thaTbut ''' T' ''''■ '^'"''^''^ deteriorates more "piSly 
 than buildings, and some machines more rapidly than others and 
 
 of rn\r;oS'""^ "^ "^" '"^^^^^ ^'^^^ °*^-^' eitsr^ut 
 
 used in hir. ? "!'' ^^ "'"'"^ "* *^' "^^^'^'^'^ "f the materials 
 .rccou^tof dff. "r' "*"'. "" ''^*^^^" '"^^'•^"t localities, on 
 
 account of differences m climatic conditions. The life of a bJiildin^ 
 or machine depends not only upon the factors just mentLned buf 
 also upon the extent to which the property is kept up by reZirs If 
 
 ZTZZml:T7''' 1 ""^^ ^-^^ concLeUsSTame 
 worfe, they will endure for a long time with comparativelv slight 
 
 Shorter than that of buildings. Some machines, however if keot in 
 repair will give efficient service for many years. On the ir hand 
 there are some machines whose life is comparativ^ Irf uSer the 
 most favorable circumstances. The actual denrpm.t; J 7 T 
 the life of the property. depreciation depends upon 
 
 The rate of depreciation for cost-accounting purposes must hp 
 fixed in advance according to previous experieL^nTtherX t 
 necessarily somewhat theoretical and arbitrary. The method em 
 ployed m arriving at the charge for depreciation used in thTs rep^ 
 IS here described m detail. It is believed that this method is Sf 
 but It IS no claimed to be absolutely accurate. It shouldTnoted n 
 this connection that in the cost accounts of the beet-sugar companies 
 hberal charges are made for maintenance and repairs, and thfsfoct 
 tends to support the conclusion that the allowances for depJecTatfoa 
 made by the Commission are liberal aepreciation 
 
 Method of arriving at a depreciation CHARGE.-In order to deter 
 mine a proper charge for depreciation, the first step is to determhi; 
 the actual mvestment in depreciable property: the second stenT?! 
 determine a proper rate of depreciation"^ It ^as poSSe to a^er 
 tam the actual cost of investment in the buildings aVrquipLnTof 
 
 r 
 
 • * 
 
 i 
 
 COST OF PRODUCING BEET SUGAR. 
 
 67 
 
 a factory with accuracy in many cases, and with approximate 
 accuracy in others. A proper rate of depreciation is estimated on 
 the basis of the anticipated life of the depreciable property. The 
 estimates adopted were based upon certain concrete facts coupled 
 with the judgment of men familiar with the business. 
 
 Cost of plant investment. — The factory buildings and equipment^ 
 T including beet sheds and other outbuildings of the factory, have been 
 considered in connection with plant investment. The cost of invest- 
 • ment in buildings and machinery and other factory equipment was 
 
 ascertained by an analysis of the property account in connection 
 with construction accounts wherever the latter were available. When 
 construction accounts were not available there was usually a record 
 Y of some transaction in connection with the capitalization of the com- 
 pany that shed some light on the cost of property. The books 
 always showed the cost of additions to buildings and equipment, and 
 if any reductions had been made for depreciation they were also 
 shown in the books. The approximate cost of the buildings and 
 equipment for a beet-sugar factory of a given capacity is fairly well 
 established. This figure also assisted in determining the real value 
 or cost of a plant where definite information was not available. 
 With these various facts known it was usually possible to make such 
 '<. adjustments of accounts as to show practically accurate cost of 
 investment in plant and other property. 
 
 The methods will be better understood by illustrative examples. 
 If, for instance, the construction of a plant shows a cost of, say, 
 $350,000 and additions have cost $50,000, the total investment is 
 $400,000. In a case of this sort the cost of investment is absolutelv 
 accurate. In a case where no construction account was available, of 
 course, a different method had to be followed. Suppose in another 
 case the buildings and equipment were carried on the books at 
 ^ $500,000. The books also showed that at various times depreciation 
 to the amount of $60,000 had been charged off. The sum of these 
 two items, or $560,000, would indicate the actual cost of the property 
 provided the actual cost of construction was $500,000. This,^ how- 
 ever, was not always the case. An examination of all the books of 
 account would generally show the amount of working capital and 
 any other assets sepa:rately. If in this case those items amounted to, 
 say, $140,000, the actual cost of all the property of the concern would 
 appear to be $700,000, and this amount was covered by the issued 
 capital stock of the company. It was found, however, that $100,000 
 of this stock was given as a bonus or that the stock was issued at 
 -( such a price as to make the discount equivalent to $100,000. It would 
 
 be apparent, therefore, that the property cost $100,000 less than the 
 books showed, or in this case $600,000. This excess would generally 
 
 ' I 
 
-•-#. 
 
 68 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 be found to be carried in the book value of buildings and equipment, 
 which in this case would leave the actual cost of that item to be 
 $460,000. This amount also included the value of the factory site. 
 It was assumed that an ordinary factory site consists of not exceed- 
 ing 40 acres and that generally this land was worth in the neighbor- 
 hood of $250 per acre at the time the factory was built, thus fixing 
 the site value at $10,000. Deducting this from the $460,000 leaves 
 $450,000 as the cost of the factory buildings and equipment. Such 
 figures can be checked by comparing them with the cost of a f actorv 
 . based on its rated capacity. Suppose that this was a 400-ton factory. 
 The cost of buildings and equipment varies from $800 to about 
 $1,200 per ton capacity. Thus, $450,000 for a 400-ton plant would 
 not be considered excessive. On the other hand, if it were a 500-ton 
 plant it would show a cost of $900 per ton capacity, and this would 
 not be considered too small. 
 
 It should be stated that in most cases, and particularly in the case 
 of the more important companies, it was not necessary to resort to 
 the rather intricate method just described. There were generallv 
 found partial or complete construction accounts that enabled a 
 practically exact determination of the cost. 
 
 Bate of depreciation.— There is a wide divergence of opinion 
 among beet-sugar manufacturers as to what is a proper charge for 
 depreciation. The general manager of the Great Western Sugar Co. 
 in a letter filed with the Hardwick committee ^ stated that the amount 
 of depreciation that should be charged for each year for the factories of 
 that company would be from 28 to 43 cents per 100 pounds, and that 
 a fair average for all the Colorado factories would be 35 cents per 
 100 pounds. On the other hand, the American Beet Sugar Co., in its 
 annual report for the year ending March 31. 1915, set aside an ap- 
 propriation of 10 cents per bag of 100 pounds for depreciation and 
 additions. Other estimates have been made as to depreciation, the 
 most common rate suggested being 5 per cent or 6 per cent of the 
 value of the property. 
 
 It was found that approximately 30 per cent of the cost of de- 
 preciable property consisted of buildings and TO per cent of machin- 
 ery and other factory equipment. Allowing a depreciation rate of 
 3 per cent on buildings and 6 per cent on equipment, an average rate 
 of 5.1 per cent was arrived at. and 5 per cent was adopted for com- 
 puting the depreciation in the cost tables of this report. It is believed 
 that this rate is very liberal, and while it is used in this report it 
 should not be understood that the Commission sets it up as a standard. 
 
 1 Hearings on Investigation of the American Sugar Refining Co. and Others, vol. ?>, 
 
 p. 2o94a 
 
 f> 
 
 COST OF PRODUCING BEET SUGAR. 
 
 69 
 
 tC. 
 
 i; 
 
 There was computed, in the manner already explained, for each 
 company, and in most cases for each factory where a company owned 
 more than one factory, the average annual cost of investment for 
 •factory buildings and equipment and the depreciation thereon for 
 each of the five years. The depreciation for a bag (100 pounds) of 
 sugar for each factory was found by dividing the aggregate produc- 
 tion for five years into the aggregate depreciation thus computed. 
 
 It should be borne in mind that the amount of depreciation for a 
 given plant is generally uniform from year to year unless there 
 have been important changes in the plant investment ; that is to say, 
 if a plant costs $1,000,000, and no important additions were made and 
 5 per cent is a proper rate for depreciation, then the amount charged 
 against cost for each year would be $50,000. The rate per bag of 
 sugar, however, would necessarily vary as the production varies. 
 Thus, if a factory produced twice as much sugar one year as it did 
 in another, the depreciation per bag would be half as much for the 
 year of large production as for the year of small production. It 
 will be seen by reference to Table 14 (see p. 72) that the depreciation 
 ranged from 12 cents to $1.13 per 100 pounds of sugar. This varia- 
 tion in the rate of depreciation per bag of sugar is partly if not 
 mostly due to the variation in the relation of production to cost of 
 plant. 
 
 Section 5. Average cost of production for 5 years, by factories. 
 
 Obviously, the average costs for several years are more representa- 
 tive than the costs of a single year. Such averages are shown in 
 Table 14 (see p. 72), which includes the results of 64 factories, each of 
 which operated at least 3 years during the 5 years from 1909-10 to 
 1913-14, inclusive. Of this number 53 operated 5 years, 4 operated 4 
 years, and 7 operated 3 years. The factories operating less than 3 
 years have been excluded from the table. These 64 factories pro- 
 duced 5,809,253,650 pounds of granulated sugar during the period 
 covered. This was more than 96 per cent of all the beet sugar pro- 
 duced in the United States during that period. 
 
 There are some factors in connection with the cost computations 
 that slightly affect their exactness and these should be pointed out 
 before discussing the results shown. This will be better understood 
 by showing the cost per 100 pounds for a factory in the form of an 
 account. Factory No. 30 in Table 14 will serve as an illustration. 
 87731—17 6 
 
•4. 
 
 '<i.\i 
 
 70 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 ^^^^«- Credits. 
 
 ^„ -'^ $2. 3528 Stock in process and by-prod- 
 
 Lime rock and lime .0436 Miscellaneous gains"" ^^31 
 
 Sugar bags and barrels . 1210 * 
 
 Other supplies .0473 
 
 Maintenance and repairs . 1726 
 
 Operating labor .2706 
 
 Administration and office ex- 
 pense 1907 
 
 Insurance and taxes .0637 
 
 / Total cash expenditures. 3. 3999 
 Stock in process from pre- 
 ceding year ,0375 
 
 Gross cost not includ- 
 ing depreciation 3. 4374 
 
 Depreciation .1500 
 
 Gross cost, including " 
 
 depreciation 3.5874 Total eredits_._ 1464 
 
 .^et cost, including depreciation, $3.5874-$0.14e4=$3.44l0. 
 
 Stock in process from preceding year represents every item' of 
 expense preceding it in the statement except that for s.fgar bai 
 but ,t was an expense incurred during the previous vear. The 
 stock in process at the end of the year which is credited 'to the cost 
 account likewise includes every item of expense in the cost st2 
 men except bags, but it was an expense incurred in the vear beml 
 considered. Thus a part of the total cash expenditur of $3 39! 
 nclndes a part of the value of the stock in process at the end of L 
 
 of The ^'T'^'"'*''''^ ''"^•"g «n a'^count of the difference in the value 
 of the stocks in process at the beginning and at the end of the vea 
 particularly m the average operations for five years, would be too 
 small materially to affect the total average cost 
 
 For convenience the net value of by-products has been included 
 ^Mth the value of stock ,n process at the end of the year. These by 
 products are pulp and molasses, with occasionally a verv TnvS 
 
 are the net profits from these sources; all costs have been deducted 
 from gross receipts, hence there is no complication as to expenditures 
 as m the case of stock in process. The miscellaneous gains and loses 
 are practically always small items. They usuallv grol out of tr^ns 
 actions in beet seed, adjustments of inventories, of supplies etc" 
 AVhere there is a net lo.s from these sources, it is of course added 
 to the amount in the column of gross costs. In the example above 
 there was a gain, and i t was deducted. ^ 
 
 7 
 
 »v, 
 
 i 
 
 / 
 
 
 { 
 
 COST OF PRODUCING BEET SUGAR. 
 
 71 
 
 It is thus seen that details of some of the elements entering into 
 an adjustment of costs are indeterminate and consequently no such 
 adjustment can be made. However, this does not materially affect 
 the value of the tables. The most important item in the tables is the 
 net factory cost, and that is accurate. The other items would be 
 changed but slightly by any adjustment. 
 
 Each factory has been given a number to prevent its identification. 
 The reason that the serial numbers do not always run consecutively 
 is that each factory was given a number regardless of the number 
 of years it operated, and the omission of a serial nimiber is due to 
 the omission of the factory represented. While there are only 64 
 factories represented in Table 14, the highest serial number is 74. 
 The net cost is shown both excluding-and including depreciation. 
 
 \ 
 
72 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 COST OF PRODUCING BEET SUGAR. 
 
 7a 
 
 > 
 
 
 » •* 
 
 Cj »« r- 
 
 «« o o 
 
 §§ » «5 ^ 
 
 "" OS CO »o 
 
 M 
 
 "^ « •♦ -^ ^ "^ eo eo «♦ ^' 
 
 w «o •* ^' eo 
 
 O OS (N C*l 
 
 ^ lO ® -^ OS 
 
 SS 2^ CO o Si 
 
 o o o o o 
 
 S S * S <^ 
 
 w S =: S ^ 
 
 |S5S2. 22 fS 
 
 O O 
 
 •^i = i?^ f2?§gS2 S"^^- 
 --^-H^ .^53c553g5 USISS 
 
 iiS ^e5Sj§?S !iSS^«^ «»xr^cM 
 
 iis iss^lk ssiii iiili 
 
 W(Ncocoeo coc6(Nesieo 
 
 ^ _ 
 eo CO eo 
 
 « r^ Qo o J 2 2 S' 2 2 »-' «■ »■ ff -■ 
 
 6366 
 4628 
 
 o 
 
 i 
 
 eo 
 
 " © 
 
 1-4 
 
 00 
 
 i 
 
 t^ 
 
 00 
 
 t-H 
 
 ■«»< »o 
 
 »c 
 
 •^ 
 
 »c 
 
 CO 
 
 If 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 00 OS 
 
 CO CO 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 ^ 
 
 "5 
 
 5 
 
 
 ?J 
 
 s 
 
 5? -^ s « s 
 
 ob «o -H oo 1-1 
 
 tc e«9 t^ © •* 
 
 CO CO CO CO CO 
 
 «0 CO «C lO tC 
 
 © ■•t «^ CO 00 
 
 t-, ob »o sc OS 
 
 u: tc <o 9 1-1 
 
 CO CO CO ^ ^ 
 
 « 15 OS CO © 
 
 Stp T}< OC O 
 
 ^ 1^ t^ CO 
 
 ^ <« 1-1 o« M 
 
 ^ CO *c CO CO 
 
 -^ t-» CO CO 00 
 c» 1-1 CO es ^ 
 
 00 OS P4 © 
 
 rH R 00 CO 
 
 •^ CO CO 00 t>- 
 
 ^ <-4 cp •-< 1^ 
 
 / 
 
 00 CD 
 
 O 
 
 § 2 
 
 -< CO X 
 
 l» •* o 
 
 '* »c •^ ■^ »c 
 
 o 00 © o 00 
 
 •^ —4 (P to I— I 
 
 S 38 i S? S? 
 
 CO CO CO CO CO 
 
 CO ^ CO -H © 
 
 ■^ ■>* CO N io 
 
 (-- OS 00 »C CO 
 
 CO ^ CO •* c5 
 
 CO CO CO CO CO 
 
 CO CO iC tC CO 
 
 g"<f< r>- CO 00 
 
 © CO TJ< » 
 
 Tf ^ CO 1—1 00 
 
 €0 CO CO ^ CO 
 
 N 15 OS CO o 
 
 SCO ■»»< 00 © 
 
 ^H ■«»• OS © 
 
 r- CO to © © 
 
 CO to ^ CO CO 
 
 d CO N ■»*< 
 
 ^ CO to »o 
 
 OS CO 1-1 eo 
 
 CO CO CO cO 
 
 f t>. CO ■^ •* 
 
 CO to Q 00 o 
 
 f O OT CO CO 
 
 1— I 1-1 O 1-H CO 
 
 ■^ ■^ •»»' I^ c» 
 
 00 CO oo S to 
 e5i ^ e< CM ^ 
 
 00 CO 00 OS CO 
 
 § S © t>. § 
 
 —4 1— I CO 1^ 1— ' 
 
 © t>. -4 OS © 
 
 to r- CM CO to 
 
 CO W"* 00 OS 
 
 CO CO 1^ »-< 
 
 00 i*< CM 
 
 CO CO -H 
 
 CO to CO 
 
 © © © 
 
 1-1 o © cp t>- 
 CO CM S <N ~ 
 
 CM CO -H CO r^ 
 
 -H lO CM 00 to 
 
 isSSS S88Sg SSS8i 
 
 OS CO l>- 
 
 CO to Tf 
 
 - oc © -^ 
 
 CO -H © o 
 
 r 
 
 I I I 
 
 I 
 
 I I 
 
 S CO TO 06 »o 
 I-" OS •^ 00 t>. 
 •Kf CO CO CO t>. 
 
 © 1-1 
 
 CO CO © rH ^H 
 
 ■^ © © to CO 
 1^ 1-1 © 1^ CO 
 
 CO t^ CO i-H OS 
 « to 1-1 1-1 © 
 
 8 2^82 
 
 oc 
 
 CM 
 
 © 
 
 CM CO 
 Q t^ 
 
 © © 
 
 OS © o to CO 
 
 ^ ^ ^ s s 
 
 CO ^ »o »-• -H 
 
 00 If 
 
 © 
 
 t-i CO «^ S f^ 
 
 ^ i § is « 
 
 s 
 
 00 
 
 t>- to oc CM 
 
 to -^ 1-1 
 
 gtO t- CM * 
 
 CO CO i>- CO 
 
 ^ © CO 
 
 -^ CM 
 
 1-1 •<»< © 00 © 
 
 OS © l>- 11 -^ 
 
 to to CO CO © 
 
 ^ 
 
 CM CM © CM © 
 
 00 ■* r^ CM to 
 
 00 -4 00 oc ~ 
 
 O ■>*« 00 CM 
 
 eS 
 
 »o 10 »o »c 
 
 CO CD CO 00 CO 
 
 CO CO CO CO CO 
 
 CO CO CO ^ ^ 
 
 ^ lO ^ CO CO 
 
 *■• 
 
 © 00 to 00 
 
 •^ 1-1 O 1-1 
 
 -< © t^ CO 
 
 1-« © © © 
 
 CM 
 
 to r- 
 
 © o 
 
 § 
 
 CM CM 
 
 © OS 
 
 CO 00 
 
 © © 
 
 -^ to CO CM -H 
 
 •»»« CD OS "*" 00 
 
 CO © 5 CO 1-1 
 
 O 1-1 © © ^4 
 
 -H t>. CM to CM 
 
 .1 ^H to 1-1 CO 
 
 "*• CM to to to 
 
 —4 1-4 O 1-1 © 
 
 gto •^ 00 © 
 
 CO © CO © 
 
 © Tf CO t^ 00 
 
 »H ^ CO © © 
 
 
 © t^ OS 10 
 
 00 1-1 CO CO 
 
 to -H 00 CO 
 
 o © © © 
 
 8 8 S S 
 
 "'is 
 
 © 
 
 00 ^H to CO CO 
 
 i>. to CO 1— • tO 
 
 to •'f CD CO ■* 
 
 © © © o © 
 
 CM 00 to »H o 
 
 OS ■^ © O to 
 
 ■^ to to CO t>- 
 
 © © © ^ © 
 
 t^ © "1 CO 1—1 
 
 © CO -^f CO CM 
 
 ^ -H OS tO CO 
 
 -H -N -H O 
 
 CO a CO r- 
 
 {i CM lO OS 
 
 © -H 65 r>. 
 
 1-1 CM CM Tf 
 
 r> © eo t>. 00 
 
 O ai .-I r^ 00 
 
 © 00 -H © Tf 
 
 ^ CM CM « « 
 
 r^ CO 00 CO 00 
 
 00 © OS t'. © 
 
 ^H t- ?) to 00 
 
 CM iH CM CM .-» 
 
 CO t— CM © 
 
 •^ CM CO 
 
 00 N CO f 
 
 1-1 CM CM CO 
 
 i 
 
 © t^ O CM to 
 
 ^ CO © © OS 
 
 © CM OS I^ to 
 
 •<«1 to N ^H 1-1 
 
 CO ■^ 
 
 1-1 00 to 
 
 t- to to M< 
 
 t^ 1^ 00 CM 
 
 ^, CO CO to 
 
 §23 
 
 r» 00 t>- 
 CM CM CM 
 
 © 
 
 CM 
 
 Tf 
 
 to 
 
 Tf 
 
 Tf 
 
 —4 
 
 CM 
 
 SS 
 
 ?J 
 
 ■* © © OC 00 
 
 © © cl r^ « 
 
 CM « CM CO C* 
 
 CO to © to CO 
 
 CO CO 1-H CM 1-1 
 
 " t- 00 00 
 
 to CM CM 
 
 S 
 
 s 
 
 OS If CO 
 
 ^ © I*" 1^ 
 
 to eg 00 O X 
 
 ^ « CM -4 CO 
 
 CD © © © © 
 
 N © © CO If 
 
 t>- 00 © 1-1 CO 
 
 1-t CO — H t-4 1I 
 
 O 1— I 1-^ '^ © 
 © -^ CM oc ^ 
 
 CO eo to to 
 
 §^ 
 
 •f X © © CM 
 
 © CO I^ © l^ 
 
 00 ® -"f X 1-H 
 
 ,-( ^ 1-1 CM CM 
 
 CO -^ to to X 
 
 1J1 50 © "H »^ 
 
 S S !^ S g^ 
 
 / 
 
 © to r- X 'f 
 
 ■>. CO 1-1 1^ CM 
 
 2 fc: 2£ S "5 
 
 o © o © ^ 
 
 CO to to © CO 
 
 1^ •^ t^ t^ o 
 
 ■«f I^ 10 Tf Tf 
 
 o o © © o 
 
 1-1 1^ OS 1-1 CO 
 
 1-1 -^ 1^ CM CO 
 o © © © © 
 
 CO X -H to to 
 
 I-* © © to to 
 
 to CO to to "!f 
 
 © c5 o © © 
 
 eo CO © © CM 
 
 © CM © © CO 
 
 •^ O X ■^ -"f 
 
 1-t ^^ © © c 
 
 1-1 11 00 -H CM 
 I- CM I- OS 1^ 
 
 CO CO CO CO © 
 
 © CO CO CO © 
 
 -H OS CO ■^ CM 
 
 C>1 O -H 1-H »-( 
 
 eo CO CO I** © 
 
 ■* lO CO CO to 
 
 -4 CO © CO I-- 
 CM ^ CO 00 CO 
 
 O to 1^ X OS 
 
 CO -"f r^ © to 
 
 -H -H O -H -H 
 
 *> ' 
 
 • f 
 
 -H 
 
 CO CM 
 
 X 
 
 _, 
 
 -^ 
 
 10 
 
 C 'O CO 
 
 i i 
 
 © X 
 
 r- ^ 
 
 X 
 
 1-1 
 
 t>. 
 
 © 
 
 ^ 
 
 eo 
 
 X 
 
 rt) 
 
 © X 
 
 © 
 
 CO 
 
 to eo 
 
 ■Kf 
 
 s 
 
 eo 
 »f 
 
 © 
 eo 
 
 
 X 1- 
 
 tO to 
 
 s 
 
 ^ 
 
 S8 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 -M 
 
 s 
 
 to 
 
 ? s 
 
 1- 
 
 eo 
 
 © 
 
 • 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 • 
 
 © 
 
 
 © © 
 
 © © 
 
 • 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 • 
 
 1-1 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 1-1 
 
 © © 
 
 © 
 
 s 
 
 © X r>- CO 
 
 _ to -^ CD 00 
 
 CO to © X X 
 
 eo Tf ^ 1-4 CO 
 
 ■!•••• 
 
 © -H CM © OS 
 
 I- CO 1^ 1^ o 
 
 CO © © CO r» 
 
 1-1 C4 1-t CM r-t 
 
 CM 
 
 © CO to 
 
 -H TT to 
 CO 10 CM 
 
 CO to t>- CO 1-1 
 
 I^ I^ CM to —I 
 
 © © •* Tf .X 
 
 -4 CM -H e^ •,-( 
 
 © -H »i CO X 
 eo CM i^ i-( CO 
 
 S S S 2 2 
 
 i 
 
 CO X © X © 
 
 00 -H »i OS «!f 
 
 l>. !>. to CO 
 
 ^ © to X 
 
 CO CO CO CO eo 
 
 © 
 
 •<f 
 
 Ml 
 
 CM 
 
 to 
 
 CO 
 
 X 
 
 CO 
 
 s 
 s 
 
 X 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 eo 
 
 -H 
 © 
 
 © 
 © 
 
 X 
 CM 
 
 1-H 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 CM CO © © to 
 
 CO iji 3 CO © 
 
 Tf CM X X CO 
 
 eo CO to ■^ © 
 
 CM CM CM CM CM 
 
 © ■^ ■^ »-i CO 
 
 © X -H OS to 
 
 O ti to -H 1^ 
 
 eo X •<»< -H o 
 
 CM CM CM CM CM 
 
 S^ ^ ^ ^ s 
 
 O -H Tf to CO 
 
 CO eo CO eo co 
 
 t^ X © © »H 
 
 CO CO CO ^ ^ 
 
 CM eo 
 
 •^ to CO 
 
 
 X 
 
 O 1-H r«.1 
 
 to to ua 
 
 S 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 o. 
 
 I 
 
 n 
 to 
 
 8 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 9 
 
 3 
 
 "3 
 
 >• 
 
 3 
 
 ■<-> 
 en 
 
 O 
 
 (h 
 
 o 
 t> 
 
 SS 
 
 w^ 
 
 X 
 
 V) 
 
 o 
 
 IH 
 
 o 
 
 s: 
 
 •3 
 08 
 
 S3 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 09 li 
 
 ^ j: '■^ 
 So 
 
 S S ® 
 
 08 Q, 
 
 ^•S „ 
 
 3 »i 55 
 3 § § 
 
 s 
 
 
 o 
 
 Ih 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 cc 
 
 O 03 
 
 ^^ O 
 
 ^ *- 3 
 
 3 *J "3 
 
 i g § 
 
 i-H . 03 
 
 ^ "3 *i 
 
 T "O 3 
 
 •S § >» 
 
>-. -J,,, 
 
 •j2i^S!E: 
 
 *^- 
 
 74 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 i 
 
 m 
 
 i 
 
 o 
 
 i 
 
 OQ 
 
 A 
 
 « 
 O 
 
 » 
 
 Pi 
 
 > 
 
 i 
 
 t— t 
 « 
 p 
 
 Si 
 
 SI 
 «^ 
 
 o 
 
 OQ 
 
 Q 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 Pi 
 
 p 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 l-H 
 
 o 
 
 Q 
 O 
 
 03 
 
 o 
 
 OQ 
 
 O 
 
 
 '6 
 
 •S -0-3 
 
 as 
 
 &0 
 
 ■8 
 
 !z t? *^ 5 9<^ 
 -Pi* 
 
 1 
 
 e 
 6^ 
 
 1 
 
 ^^ pS< Bifl 
 
 o c a o 
 
 
 — • er a .• 
 
 §22* 
 
 T3 
 
 fa Js 2 
 
 3 w ® 
 
 SO X 
 O 03 
 
 a 
 
 •2 * w «^ 
 
 03 
 
 M 
 
 o 
 
 9 
 
 O 03 
 
 d 3 es ft 
 
 OS* 
 
 35 
 
 
 05 
 
 «3 
 
 « ji fl s 
 
 1—1 •- " — 
 
 I 
 
 
 "O ■* o 
 
 8 f2 i 
 
 •* QO eo 
 
 
 •c 
 
 ^ i-< O CO OS o> 
 
 j2«eo«co e6 n -^ ci ci 
 
 .i-ieoA Q0W-4F. 
 
 ^^s ri#\ i»^^ . ^E xK St ^^ 
 
 CO O) 00 O ^4 
 
 eo CO eo « CO 
 
 •«i« f5 56 ^ 
 
 CO CO CO CO 
 
 2 ^ ?5 ^ ^ g§ S§ S S 8 ?5 S S g5 2 U: £2 §§ 2 
 
 o«8SS 2SS2S 22^2222; t;.oo«?a. 
 
 -Hc»5?.o^ SSS5nS SSSSSSP* ooe5-«i^ 
 
 -;^o:Sc, ss§,tg ^§s5?s ?5is?s 
 
 cgcococoeo C4co^(N(N eoMeoeo<?i eoeoeo«c 
 
 ^ssgs S2^sf3 S5BSSS iiui 
 
 ^'^'1*1'^ 'H^c^eoo ^St22o §i?JSco 
 
 o '* ••... .... 
 
 M 
 
 isiis 2|ggg iiSgs ii-i2 
 
 ooo§S 0S008 §S8§o SoS2 
 
 o *' .... 
 
 ' I I III 
 
 "ipis l2|ii ii§ii giss 
 
 o •.... .... 
 
 iliiS iSSii ggsifs sssi? 
 «ss5^^ ssssss t^^sis ^;3§i 
 
 cjeoeoeoco eoeOTj-'eoc^ ec-^^coeo eococo«c 
 
 iiili iiiii iiiii iiii 
 
 o .... 
 
 iiiii iiiii iiiii ifii 
 
 Si 
 
 Isil"^^ ^§5J?iS !^2fe!i5S S^28 
 
 2:2S2-2 22sis s^l§2 isSi 
 
 o • . . 
 
 «» 
 
 SxcJooSc tS{2^SS S^Sa^S^ csi ^ o 00 
 
 ^^^Si 2§|o| i|g|§ S|ig 
 
 s 
 
 s S5 s 2 ^ 2 2S 2 :: s sis^s sill 
 s 
 
 s§§§§ §ii§i ii^sl ligi 
 ^ 
 
 2S2|i §§||S §§^§2 |E|.| 
 
 S^ 
 
 §§§§s si!58;: isifeg sill 
 
 o *' .... 
 
 CO 
 
 8 
 
 CO to 
 en 'T 
 
 (N (N 
 
 •* CO -^ o OS -H 
 i5 o •* o i~ c^ 
 
 o 
 CI 
 
 — ■* so 
 
 ?5 
 
 g^ OS 
 n c^ fi 
 
 CO o 
 I- w^ 
 
 8 ?3 
 
 o r- 
 
 (N eo 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 CO i.~ 
 
 »0 rf 
 
 2i <N C>< « N 
 
 0> Tj< 
 
 -H ?0 
 
 8 8 
 
 CJ CI CO rt ^H 
 
 CO 1^ 1^ 
 
 as o "C 
 
 s ^ s 
 
 OS 
 
 00 
 
 o 
 
 '»• o »o 
 -< 1^ r- 
 
 t^ O o 
 
 00 '-'? o eo 
 •gi <N CO S 
 
 3 S 8 
 
 e<i C4 es e^ es 
 
 OS 
 
 eo 
 
 C^ C>» .-( CO 
 
 S-^ «o O 1^ 
 «0 ifl iC »c 
 
 50 to 
 
 s 
 
 o 
 
 "5 » r^ oc OS 
 
 o eo <c c o 
 
 p -H CO -^f. 
 
 t>. t>. !» t» 
 
 S/ 
 
 ■ s 
 
 T 
 
 • •» 
 
 Y 
 
 A. 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 COST OF PRODUCING BEET SUGAR. 
 
 75 
 
 One of the most conspicuous facts brought out in the table is the 
 wide variation in net factory costs. As a rule the highest cost is 
 found in those factories where the cost of beets per 100 pounds of 
 sugar was highest. The lowest cost per 100 pounds of sugar, how- 
 ever, is not so often accompanied by the lowest cost of beets. When 
 the abnormally high net cost is not due to an extremely high cost of 
 beets it can usually be explained by some peculiar condition or un- 
 usual circumstance. For example, factory No. 48, excluding depre- 
 ciation, had a net cost of $5.3165, while the cost of beets was only 
 $2.8784, which was much lower than several other factories paid for 
 beets. The cost of fuel, operating labor, and administration expense 
 were unusually high. This factory had also unusually heavy mis- 
 cellaneous losses, which could not be assigned to any particular cause 
 and were therefore charged against sugar. The extremely high cost 
 for factory Xo. 74 was largely due to very high costs for maintenance 
 and repairs and to very high administrative and office expense. 
 
 It should be noted that when depreciation is taken into account the 
 high cost in both factories No. 48 and No. 74 is still more conspicuous. 
 Because of the short period of operation the production of these fac- 
 tories was very small, and therefore the depreciation per 100 pounds 
 of sugar was correspondingly high, being $1.13 in No. 48 and $1.12 
 in No. 74. These high charges for depreciation made the cost in each 
 of these factories exceed $6.40 per 100 pounds. 
 
 Relation of various cost items to the total factory cost. — 
 The margin between the total cost of producing sugar, not including 
 depreciation, and the cost of beets (see p. 77) indicates the extent 
 to which strictly manufacturing costs influence the final cost of 
 sugar. For example, it cost factory No. 48, $2.5358 gross per 100 
 pounds to manufacture sugar from its beets. Its credits for stock 
 in process and by-products reduced this to $2.4381 as the net cost 
 of manufacture. Its cost for fuel, operating labor and administra- 
 tive expense were extremely high, amounting to $1.8193. In factory 
 No. 18, the total net cost was almost exactly the same although the 
 beet cost was much greater. It cost the latter factory only $1.4389 
 gross per 100 pounds to manufacture and the credits for stock in 
 process and by-products reduced this to $0.8364 net. The difference 
 in the net cost of manufacture between factorv No. 18 and f actor v 
 No. 48 offset the difference in cost of beets and equalized their net 
 factory costs. While, broadly speaking, the cost of beets is the most 
 important factor in the total cost of sugar this comparison empha- 
 sizes the importance of low manufacturing cost. 
 
 By reference to Table 14, it will be seen that the value of stock in 
 process and by-products is very large for a number of those factories 
 that show a low net manufacturing cost. The influence of by-prod- 
 ucts upon the net cost of sugar is discussed elsewhere. The relative 
 
:»._m-:-TUi 
 
 mi. 
 
 76 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 importance of the cost of beets and the other cost items is clearly 
 brought out in Table 15 below. In this comparison only items re- 
 quiring an actual cash expenditure are included and depreciation is 
 not considered. 
 
 Table 15.-RELATI0N OF CERTAIN COST ITEMS TO NET FACTORY COST FOR THE 
 
 5- YEAR PERIOD 1909-1913, BY FACTORIES. 
 [Expressed in percentages of total net factory cost, not including depreciation.] 
 
 COST OF PRODUCING BEET SUGAK^ 
 
 77 
 
 V 
 
 ■ \ 
 
 Factory 
 No. 
 
 Beets. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 «5. . . I . . 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 10 
 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 13 
 
 14 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 17 
 
 18 
 
 19 
 
 ,20 
 
 21 
 
 23 
 
 24 
 
 25 
 
 26 
 
 29 
 
 30 
 
 31 
 
 34 
 
 35 
 
 36 
 
 37 
 
 38 
 
 78.3 
 
 75.7 
 
 84.3 
 
 74.6 
 
 75.8 
 
 81,7 
 
 79.6 
 
 77.6 
 
 81.9 
 
 83.4 
 
 79.9 
 
 84.6 
 
 79.1 
 
 74.2. 
 
 76.1 
 
 86.0 
 
 84.3 
 
 79.0 
 
 77.0 
 
 82.5 
 
 74.7 
 
 72.4 
 
 75.4 
 
 87.2 
 
 63.9 
 
 71.5 
 
 58.9 
 
 68.3 
 
 72.0 
 
 76.1 
 
 77.2 
 
 72.2 
 
 Mainte 
 
 nance 
 
 and 
 
 repairs, 
 
 3.6 
 4.6 
 7.3 
 5.8 
 4.5 
 3.9 
 3.5 
 2.9 
 1.6 
 2.0 
 
 5:8 j 
 
 4.7 I 
 
 4.1 
 
 5.9 
 
 5.6 
 
 4.6 
 
 3.1 
 
 4.0 
 
 4.5 
 
 4.5 
 
 3.7 
 
 5.2 
 
 6.1 
 
 2.4 
 
 7.6 
 
 5.2 
 
 10.0 
 
 5.4 
 
 3.2 
 
 4.7 
 
 4.0 
 
 4.1 
 
 Oper- 
 ating 
 labor. 
 
 6.0 
 8.4 
 5.0 
 10.1 
 9.2 
 6.8 
 10.0 
 12.4 
 6.8 
 7.6 
 6.7 
 6.2 
 7.5 
 7.7 
 8.5 
 6.1 
 7.0 
 7.8 
 6.4 
 8.5 
 6.9 
 9.4 
 8.0 
 8.7 
 10.3 
 8.2 
 7.2 
 7.8 
 8.1 
 6.1 
 6.9 
 6.7 
 
 Admin 
 istra- 
 tive 
 and 
 office 
 ex- 
 pense. 
 
 Other 
 ex- 
 penses. 
 
 5.4 
 4.3 
 4.3 
 3.8 
 4.8 
 4.7 
 3.5 
 3.9 
 5.1 
 5.4 
 *4.6 
 4.3 
 4.1 
 4.6 
 4.5 
 4.6 
 3.7 
 3.0 
 5.4 
 2.2 
 4.7 
 3.9 
 4.5 
 5.1 
 9.4 
 5.8 
 7.3 
 5.9 
 5.9 
 7.0 
 6.5 
 5.6 
 
 6.7 
 7.0 
 1.9 
 5.7 
 5.7 
 2.9 
 3.4 
 3.2 
 4.6 
 1.6 
 3.0 
 .2 
 5.2 
 7.6 
 5.3 
 U.3 
 1.9 
 6.2 
 6.7 
 2.3 
 10.0 
 9.1 
 6.0 
 »3.4 
 8.8 
 9.3 
 16.6 
 12.6 
 10.8 
 6.1 
 5.4 
 11.4 
 
 Factory 
 No. 
 
 Beets. 
 
 39 
 
 40 , 
 
 41 
 
 42 
 
 43 
 
 44 
 
 45 
 
 46 
 
 47 
 
 48 
 
 50 
 
 51 
 
 52 
 
 53 
 
 54 
 
 55 
 
 56 
 
 57 
 
 60 
 
 61 
 
 62 
 
 63 
 
 64....... 
 
 65 
 
 66 
 
 67 
 
 68 
 
 69 
 
 70 
 
 71 
 
 73 
 
 74 
 
 77.2 
 
 75.8 
 
 71.5 
 
 69.0 
 
 68.3 
 
 76.7 
 
 60.0 
 
 67.6 
 
 61.4 
 
 54.1 
 
 53.9 
 
 68.4 
 
 67.8 
 
 69.5 
 
 65.7 
 
 67.9 
 
 68.2 
 
 66.7 
 
 72.3 
 
 64.4 
 
 74.4 
 
 65.3 
 
 60.4 
 
 74.6 
 
 62.7 
 
 75.8 
 
 60.7 
 
 69.7 
 
 73.9 
 
 69.5 
 
 56.6 
 
 58.5 
 
 Mainte 
 
 nance 
 
 and 
 
 repairs. 
 
 4.5 
 4.6 
 4.0 
 5.3 
 4.8 
 4.4 
 7.0 
 5.6 
 5.4 
 1.8 
 10.4 
 6.5 
 7.2 
 6.7 
 8.0 
 4.6 
 6.2 
 8.2 
 4.7 
 5.7 
 4.7 
 5.3 
 10.7 
 1.5 
 6.8 
 h.O 
 10.0 
 5.1 
 4.1 
 5.3 
 9.1 
 7.3 
 
 Oper- 
 ating 
 labor. 
 
 5.9 
 6.6 
 7.1 
 7.8 
 7.8 
 6.7 
 9.0 
 7.3 
 8.9 
 12.9 
 12.6 
 9.1 
 9.2 
 9.3 
 7.8 
 7.6 
 6.9 
 8.0 
 6.9 
 7.9 
 8.7 
 7.6 
 6.3 
 9.1 
 9.2 
 14.9 
 9.9 
 6.8 
 6.0 
 12.5 
 13.3 
 10.5 
 
 Admin 
 istra- 
 tive 
 and 
 office 
 ex- 
 pense. 
 
 6.8 
 7.5 
 5.8 
 5.4 
 6.5 
 6.9 
 8.3 
 7.4 
 10.7 
 9.9 
 6.6 
 5.5 
 5.0 
 4.7 
 5.4 
 6.4 
 5.6 
 5.0 
 6.8 
 5.9 
 5.4 
 7.4 
 7.7 
 7.2 
 8.8 
 6.1 
 6.8 
 5.0 
 7.0 
 3.4 
 5.2 
 12.3 
 
 Other 
 ex- 
 penses. 
 
 5.6 
 5.5 
 11.6 
 12.5 
 12.6 
 5.3 
 15.7 
 12.1 
 13.6 
 21.3 
 16.5 
 10.5 
 10.8 
 9.S 
 13.1 
 13.5 
 13.1 
 12.1 
 9.S 
 16.1 
 6.» 
 14.4 
 14. » 
 7.6 
 12.5 
 1.2 
 12. & 
 13.4 
 9.0 
 9.3 
 15. & 
 11.4 
 
 1 Other expenses exceeded by miscellaneous gains. 
 
 Relation of cost of beets to cost or sugar.— The cost of beets 
 indicated m Table 15 represents from less than 54 per cent to about' 
 8^ per cent of the net cost of sugar. The average for the 64 fac> 
 tones was about 72 per cent. Speaking broadly, those factories that 
 paid the least for beets had the lowest costs of production. It should 
 be kept m mmd that the cost of beets used in all these cost tables is 
 the expenditure for the beets necessary to make 100 pounds of sugar. 
 The cost of beets per 100 pounds of sugar does not necessarily mean 
 
 T 
 
 Y 
 
 \ 
 
 / 
 
 
 < 
 
 a high cost per ton of beets, but a high cost for each per cent of sugar 
 extracted. Thus $5.50 per ton for beets showing an extraction of 12 
 per cent is a higher price to the factory than $6 for beets showing an 
 extraction of 14 per cent. 
 
 The relation of sugar cost to beet cost is brought out in Tables 16- 
 and 17 below. In Table 16 the net factory cost is arranged in 
 descending order, and in Table 17 the gross factory cost is arranged 
 in the same way. The difference between the net factory cost shown 
 in Table 16 and the gross cost shown in Table 17 represents the 
 amount credited for by-products and miscellaneous gains or the 
 amount added for miscellaneous losses. It should be noted that the 
 value of by-products varies greatly. This is explained hereafter. 
 (See p. 81.) The cost of beets in each factory is shown parallel to 
 the- net factory cost not including depreciation. 
 
 TABLE 16.— COMPARISON OF COST OF BEETS WITH GROSS COST OF SUGAR, NOT INCLUIV 
 ING DEPRECIATION; AVERAGES FOR THE 5 YEARS 1909-10 TO 1913-14, INCLUSIVE. 
 
 [Computed on basis of 100 pounds of sugar produced.] 
 
 Factory No. 
 
 Gross 
 cost of 
 sugar. 
 
 Cost of 
 beets. 
 
 Margin. 
 
 Factory No. 
 
 Gross 
 cost of 
 sugar. 
 
 Cost of 
 beets. 
 
 Margin. 
 
 ifl 
 
 $5.9215 
 5.8879 
 5.6818 
 5.6735 
 5.4575 
 5.4142 
 5.4064 
 5. 1218 
 5.0720 
 5.0278 
 4. 8870 
 4.8294 
 4. 7970 
 4.6478 
 4.6286 
 4.6224 
 4.4522 
 4.4465 
 4.4366 
 4.4249 
 4.4148 
 4.3524 
 4.3184 
 4.3168 
 4.3135 
 4.2572 
 4. 1770 
 4.1505 
 4.0882 
 4.0829 
 4.0192 
 3.9875 
 
 $4.4826 
 3.2449 
 3.8068 
 3.0913 
 4.0992 
 2.8784 
 3.6718 
 3. 4896 
 3. 8698- 
 3.5510 
 
 '2.4514 
 3.4657 
 3.2680 
 3.1783 
 3.4178 
 3.2775 
 3.3248 
 3.3326 
 3.0932 
 3.2678 
 3.1247 
 2. 7514^ 
 2.4860 
 3.0183 
 3.0896 
 3. 1562 
 2.2996 
 2.8779 
 2.3060 
 3.0602 
 2.6365 
 2.2858 
 
 $1.4389 
 2.6430 
 1.8750 
 2.5822 
 1.3583 
 2.5358 
 1.7346 
 1.6322 
 1.2022 
 1.4768 
 2.4356 
 1.3637 
 1.5290 
 1.4695 
 1.2108 
 1.3449 
 1.1274 
 1.1139 
 1.3434 
 1.1571 
 1.2901 
 1.6010 
 1.8324 
 1.2985 
 1.2239 
 1.1010 
 1.8774 
 1.2726 
 1.7822 
 1.0227 
 1.3827 
 1.7017 
 
 14 
 
 $3.9171 
 3. 8718 
 3.8622 
 3. 7912 
 3.7218 
 3.6734 
 3.6703 
 3.6700 
 3.6615 
 3.6563 
 3.6557 
 3.6541 
 3.6046 
 3.5949 
 3.5914 
 3.5685 
 3.4753 
 3.4374 
 3.3940 
 3.3902 
 3.3746 
 3.3623 
 3.3545 
 3.3481 
 3.^170 
 3.2822 
 3.2550 
 3.23.T3 
 3.0632 
 3.0442 
 3.0355 
 2.7830 
 
 $2.8280 
 2.8327 
 2.6878 
 2.5089 
 2.6164 
 2.5465 
 2.5840 
 2.6129 
 2.2541 
 2.4360 
 2.6055 
 2.7293 
 2.0770 
 2.3243 
 2.3462 
 1.9930 
 2.3948 
 2.3528 
 2.1535 
 2.3128 
 2.0964 
 2.1630 
 2.3056 
 2.1457 
 2. 1425 
 2.1191 
 2.0756 
 2.0835 
 1.7907 
 2.0619 
 2. 0775 
 1.6357 
 
 $1.0891 
 
 OQ 
 
 7 
 
 1.0391 
 
 4 ... 
 
 36 
 
 1.1 44 
 
 74 . .. 
 
 65 
 
 1.2823. 
 
 3 
 
 40 
 
 1.1054 
 
 AH ... 
 
 35 
 
 1.1269 
 
 24 
 
 44 
 
 1.0863- 
 
 2 
 
 39 
 
 1.0571 
 
 26 . 
 
 54 
 
 1.4074 
 
 25 
 
 34 
 
 1.2203. 
 
 50 . . .. 
 
 37 
 
 1.0502 
 
 20 
 
 17 
 
 0.9248- 
 
 5 
 
 68 
 
 1.5276 
 
 23 
 
 43 
 
 1.2706 
 
 19 
 
 42 
 
 1.2452 
 
 8 .'.... 
 
 73 
 
 1.5755 
 
 6 
 
 70 
 
 1.0805 
 
 10 
 
 30 
 
 1.0846< 
 
 16 
 
 11 
 
 56 
 
 1.2405 
 
 41 
 
 1.0774 
 
 12 
 
 61 
 
 1.2782 
 
 67 
 
 45 
 
 53 
 
 1.1993 
 
 38 
 
 1.0489- 
 
 62 
 
 57 
 
 1.2024 
 
 1 
 
 • 
 
 71 
 
 1.1745 
 
 13 ... 
 
 51 * 
 
 1.1631 
 
 66 ... 
 
 52 
 
 1.1794 
 
 15 
 
 55 
 
 1.1518 
 
 47 • .. 
 
 63 
 
 1.2725 
 
 21 
 
 60....: 
 
 0.9823 
 
 46 
 
 69 
 
 0.9580 
 
 31. 
 
 64 
 
 1.1473; 
 
 
 
 
<4i!3lfc. l^ltfSlfT^^A'^y 
 
 %l^ 
 
 78 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Table 17.-C0MPARIS0N OF COST OF BEETS WITH NET COST OF SUGAR, NOT INCLUDING 
 DEPRECIATION; AVERAGE FOR THE 5 YEARS 19(»-10 TO 1913-14, INCLUSIVE. 
 
 [Computed on basis of 100 pounds of sugar produced.] 
 
 Factory No. 
 
 18. 
 
 48. 
 
 74. 
 
 4.. 
 
 29. 
 
 24. 
 
 3.. 
 
 25. 
 
 2.. 
 
 50. 
 
 20. 
 
 26. 
 
 19. 
 
 5.. 
 
 23. 
 
 8.. 
 
 45. 
 
 10. 
 
 6.. 
 
 16.. 
 
 62.. 
 
 1... 
 
 11.. 
 
 12.. 
 
 46.. 
 
 31.. 
 
 15.. 
 
 47.. 
 
 13.. 
 
 21.. 
 
 66.. 
 
 67-. 
 
 Net 
 factwy 
 cost of 
 sugar. 
 
 S5.3190 
 5.3165 
 5.2879 
 5.1005 
 5.0813 
 5.0728 
 4.8652 
 4.7126 
 4.6074 
 4.5449 
 4.5037 
 4.4366 
 4.3255 
 4.3107 
 4.2566 
 4.2233 
 4.1435 
 4.0712 
 4.0686 
 4.0615 
 4.0589 
 3.9439 
 3.9180 
 3.9091 
 3.8986 
 3.8818 
 3.8795 
 3. 7532 
 3. 7319 
 3.7088 
 3.6696 
 3.6310 
 
 Cost of 
 beets. 
 
 Margin. 
 
 $4.4826 
 2.8784 
 3.0913 
 3.8068 
 3.2449 
 3. 6718 
 4.0992 
 3.5510 
 3.4896 
 2.4514 
 3.4657 
 3.8698 
 3. 4178 
 3.2680 
 3.1783 
 3.2775 
 2.4860 
 3.3326 
 3.3248 
 3.0932 
 3.0183 
 3.0896 
 3.2678 
 3. 1247 
 2.6365 
 2.2858 
 2.8779 
 2.3060 
 3.1562 
 3.0602 
 2.29% 
 2. 7514 
 
 $0.8364 
 2.4381 
 2.1966 
 L2937 
 L8364 
 1.4010 
 .7660 
 1. 1616 
 1. 1178 
 2.0935 
 1.0380 
 .5668 
 .9077 
 1.0427 
 1.0783 
 .9458 
 1.6575 
 .7386 
 .7438 
 .9713 
 1.0406 
 .8543 
 .6502 
 .7844 
 1.2621 
 1.5960 
 1.0016 
 1.4472 
 .5757 
 .6486 
 1.3700 
 .8796 
 
 Factory No. 
 
 14. 
 
 34. 
 
 7.. 
 
 35. 
 
 36. 
 
 73. 
 
 40. 
 
 54. 
 
 68. 
 
 43. 
 
 42. 
 
 39. 
 
 37. 
 
 44. 
 
 65. 
 
 30. 
 
 61. 
 
 70. 
 41., 
 57.. 
 38.. 
 
 17.. 
 56.. 
 53.. 
 51.. 
 71.. 
 55.. 
 52.. 
 69.. 
 60.. 
 63.. 
 64.. 
 
 Net 
 factory 
 cost of 
 sugar. 
 
 Cost of 
 beets. 
 
 Margin. 
 
 $3. 5744 
 3.5660 
 3.5589 
 3.5350 
 3.5318 
 3. 5215 
 3.4521 
 3.4334 
 3. 42.38 
 3.4046 
 3.4006 
 3.38<J6 
 3.3743 
 3.3675 
 3.36.38 
 3.2910 
 3.2551 
 3. 2.387 
 3. 2350 
 3.2188 
 3. 1941 
 3. 1735 
 3. 1584 
 3. Iia5 
 3.0983 
 3.0838 
 3.0700 
 3.0600 
 2. 9794 
 2. 8510 
 2. 7413 
 2.7094 
 
 $2. 8280 
 2.4360 
 2.8327 
 2.5465 
 2.6878 
 1.9930 
 2.6164 
 2.2541 
 2. 0770 
 2. 3243 
 2.3462 
 2.6129 
 2.6055 
 2.5840 
 2.5089 
 2.8528 
 2.0964 
 2.-3948 
 2.3128 
 2. 14.57 
 2.3056 
 2.7293 
 2. 1.535 
 2.1630 
 2. 1191 
 2.1425 
 2.0835 
 2.0756 
 2. 0775 
 2.0619 
 1.7907 
 1.6.357 
 
 $0.7464 
 1.1300 
 .7262 
 .9885 
 .8440 
 1.5285 
 .8357 
 1. 1793 
 1.3468 
 1.0803 
 1.0544 
 .7737 
 .7688 
 .7835 
 .8549 
 .9382 
 1. 1587 
 .8439 
 .9222 
 1. 0731 
 .8885 
 .4442 
 1.0049 
 .9475 
 .9792 
 .9413 
 .9865 
 .9844 
 .9019 
 .7891 
 .9506 
 1. 0737 
 
 The striking relation between beet cost and sugar cost is shown by 
 these tables, although this relation is by no means uniform. . Some- 
 times other items of expense overcome a comparatively low cost of 
 beets, while, on the other hand, a low price for beets may partially 
 or entirely counterbalance the high cost for other items. In general, 
 liowever, high cost of sugar is accompanied by high cost of beets. 
 It is seen that o£ the 24 factories having a net cost per 100 pounds of 
 sugar above $3.90 only three secured their beets at a cost below $3 
 for each 100 pounds of sugar produced, and of the 40 factories having 
 a net cost of sugar below $3.90 only two paid as much as $3 for 
 beets. 
 
 While the cost of beets is by far the largest item in the cost of 
 sugar and to a great extent the controlling element, it does not by any 
 
 r 
 
 V 
 
 • y 
 
 ( 
 
 
 COST OF PRODUCING BEET SUGAR. 
 
 79 
 
 means determine the factory cost. This is clearly brought out in 
 the margin between the net factory cost of sugar and the cost of 
 beets in Table 16. The margin in the table includes the net expense 
 per 100 pounds of sugar except for beets. 
 
 These margins represent the cost of extracting 100 pounds of sugar 
 from beets, not including depreciation, or, in other words, the strictly 
 manufacturing costs. The manufacturing cost ranges from 44 cents 
 per 100 pounds to $2.44. 
 
 Of course when the cost of beets is relatively high other cost items 
 must be relatively low and vice versa. By reference to Table 16 it 
 will be seen that of the 10 factories showing the lowest net cost in 
 Table 14 only one had a cost of beets exceeding TO per cent of the 
 total net cost of sugar. Hence approximately 30 per cent of the cost 
 of production in the best equipped and best located factories con- 
 sists of net manufacturing costs. In other words, the relation of the 
 cost of beets and other costs is about 7 to 3. 
 
 Cost including depreciation. — As already pointed out, the cost of 
 depreciation is affected by the relation of output to the value of 
 investment in depreciable property. Where a factory operates for 
 an unusually short period, and consequently has a small production, 
 the depreciation per 100 pounds of sugar is necessarily high. Most 
 of the higher charges for depreciation appearing in the table ar^due 
 to this fact. The short period of operation is usually due to the fact 
 that they did not have an ample supply of beets. 
 
 The cost for depreciation, as shown in Table 14 (see p. 72). ranges 
 from 12 cents per 100 pounds in factory Xo. 71 to $1.13 in factory 
 No. 48. The average charge for all the 64 factories included in the 
 table was 26 cents per 100 pounds. The range of the total cost of 
 production, including depreciation, was, f ix)m $2.94 in factory Xo. 63 
 to $6.45 in factory No. 48. Of the 36 factories that had an average 
 net cost of production of less than $4 per 100 pounds 20 had a depre- 
 ciation charge of not exceeding 22 cents, and only 3 had a charge 
 exceeding 30 cents. 
 
 Section 6. Average cost of production for 5 years, by States. 
 
 As already stated, some factories operating only one or two years 
 were omitted from Table 14 in order to avoid disclosing their iden- 
 tity. The average cost of all factories operating during the 5-year 
 period can be shown by States, however, without making such a dis- 
 closure. These costs are shown in Table 18. 
 
80 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 O 
 
 QQ 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 < 
 
 QQ 
 
 « 
 tJ 
 
 GQ 
 
 Q 
 
 . < 
 o 
 
 Em 
 O 
 
 Q 
 
 2; 
 
 D 
 O 
 
 o, 
 S 
 
 CJ 
 S5 
 
 O 
 
 aj 
 a, 
 
 O 
 
 Ci 
 !» 
 
 o 
 > 
 
 t 
 
 00 
 
 H 
 
 >J 
 CQ 
 
 -< 
 
 E- 
 
 c2 .S •c-c 
 
 i 
 
 
 ^ «■.£ s £ 5 
 
 ■^ S. S C r © as 
 •— c tl '-' o 
 
 £ 
 
 5J y C 
 
 SI a 
 
 ^ g — '2 
 5dC3 
 
 
 M =« U • 
 
 « ce J? *a 
 
 o C X Q 2 « 
 CO ^•- >» 
 
 - ^^ » 
 
 j£ s= 5 ^ 
 
 C 03 «8 eS 
 
 05 en 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 © t- o 
 
 O 08^ 
 
 to ' 
 
 '»m _^ .^^ © 
 
 O flS C8 cs 
 
 O J, OS 
 
 
 •^/o ® 
 
 
 J 
 
 CD 
 
 
 
 t^ CO t^ of 
 
 c«» 1^ X -; 
 
 S 3C 
 
 fr* oc CI — 
 
 « «C -"l" o 
 
 •■c ^^ 
 'j5 05 
 
 
 f^ ■^ -^ ■^ n n »c 
 
 
 ce 
 
 i ^ I 3 ^ i^ ? i 
 
 2 S S g? s 
 
 8 g 8 g i g §' 
 
 ^ 05 
 
 g - 
 
 2» £2 ^ OJ •x> CO ?o eo 
 I: S £ 2 2 2ft t- M 
 
 1^ evj © »H 
 
 x 06 
 
 X 
 
 CO 
 
 f3 
 
 
 C<5 X 
 
 
 iisiiiii 
 
 -< CJ >— 
 
 W OS tC 
 
 •O 13 ;£ 
 
 o S S 
 
 CJ A o •^ X 
 »C » ?o 10 N. 
 
 g s i fe s 
 
 g 
 
 n 1^ 
 
 2 ?^ 
 
 X Sf !>. CC -H 
 
 a S «c ;* 05 
 
 !C X i-< t>. !>. 
 
 o 
 
 r; =c >fl 
 
 M 
 
 g I I I a i i § 
 
 e«» 
 
 "3 
 
 S 
 
 CM n 
 
 o 
 
 S3 J? -* '^2 OC -- 
 
 50 h» « ;C t>. X 
 
 05 !0 £0 2 <*« S C5 
 
 -4 -* (N »^ ,-. S ?» 
 
 X U5 
 
 IP 
 
 CM 
 
 O 
 
 i § g s 
 
 X X « Q :C 
 
 ® jc t © it 
 
 J2 "O ^ !>. 
 
 0000 
 
 o 
 
 £J »C X .0 
 X -^ 50 ~ 
 
 -K £S 3C 
 
 o cc r- 
 
 co ■* ^ 
 
 g*^ 
 
 o 
 
 X 
 
 2? 
 
 X « M ^ t>. ^ 
 
 3; ?c ;* q ■* c^ 
 
 d 
 
 o e»» i>. ,— I c>j ar ^ jg 
 d 
 
 
 I r2 2 ^ g CJ jr^ ^ 
 
 
 e«5 
 
 S 
 
 CO 
 
 ?5« 
 
 s 
 ^ 
 
 I 
 
 Em 
 
 s. 
 
 CO 
 
 8 
 
 S 
 
 OJ 
 
 X 
 
 CM 
 
 §5 
 
 X 
 
 8 
 
 CM 
 
 es 
 
 44 
 
 3 
 xs 
 
 o 
 
 15 
 
 » < a> 
 3 "^ > 
 
 J2 .2 ® 
 
 I ^ ~ 
 
 « = qT 
 M en .Q 
 
 ill 
 
 © as 
 
 ■*^ .0 ^^ 
 
 SO O <^ 
 is *^ ^ 
 
 •2 o ® 
 
 S S T 
 
 3 q" 3 
 •0 •§ M 
 
 •o § o 
 £ > 5j 
 
 *s •« 73 
 
 111 
 
 55 O 3 
 
 fes g 
 
 o -- «• 
 
 « 
 
 •O 
 09 
 
 © q 
 
 B 
 "5 C "m B 
 
 i 1 §.i 
 
 •S E 
 
 C3 
 
 m 
 g 
 
 © A 
 
 ' "5 S3 
 
 E 2 02 
 '^ A >- 
 
 
 o o 
 
 ©I S 
 
 ^ S t? 
 
 O -w ^ 
 •w e8 
 
 >> ©• 
 
 CO 
 
 III 
 
 <:.■ 
 
 ■e E 
 
 as 
 
 2 l^-S 
 
 CJ JE 
 
 c8 C:i.;-:x:o«j:^ 
 
 > 
 
 .■« 
 
 .t 
 
 A 
 
 / 
 
 •' •/ 
 
 < 
 
 » 
 
 COST OF PRODUCING BEET SUGAR. 
 
 81 
 
 The above table shows the cost of production for all 74 factories 
 for 5 years. The average net factory cost per 100 pounds of sugar in 
 the entire United States during the 5 years ending with the campaign 
 of 1913-14, not including depreciation, was $3.5011 per 100. pounds, 
 and $3.7641 including depreciation. The lowest average cost, includ- 
 ing depreciation, of any State was $3.27-26 in California. This was 
 followed by $3.4256 in Utah and Idaho. The highest average cost ih 
 any State, not including depreciation, w as $4.4860 in Wisconsin, and 
 the highest cost, including depreciation, was $5.0193 for the group 
 in scattering States. The table indicates that the factories in Cali- 
 fornia, Colorado, Montana and Nebraska, Utah and Idaho are the 
 most favorably situated for a low cost of production. These States 
 contain 43 of the 74 factories included in the table, and they pro- 
 duced about 73 per cent of the total beet sugar production in the 
 United States during 5 years. More than half of the beet sugar in 
 the United States during these 5 years was produced in California 
 and Colorado at an average cost of $3.28 per 100 pounds, not includ- 
 ing depreciation. 
 
 The lowest cost of beets per 100 pounds of sugar in any State 
 was $2.0461 in California and the highest $3.5033 in Wisconsin. The 
 States having the lowest cost of production also had the lowest cost 
 of beets per 100 pounds of sugar, except the States embraced in the 
 group of " other States." The highest cost of fuel was in the group 
 of States covering scattered fnctories and the lowest was in Colo- 
 rado. The cost of operating labor was highest in Ohio and lowest 
 in Colorado. 
 
 A significant fact brought out in the above table is the high value 
 of by-products in the Lake States. The amounts in the column 
 showing credits for stock in process and by-products are mainly for 
 by-products consisting of. pulp and molasses. This is true of Ohio, 
 Michigan, and Wisconsin, and it is also true of the group of States 
 including the factories in Indiana, Iowa, and Minnesota. This large 
 credit for by-products in these States is due to the great value of 
 ^lulp. The factories in the Western States are so situated that they 
 must dispose of their pulp in the green state at the factory, since 
 freight rates as a rule do not permit the shipping of dried pulp to 
 the chief consuming centers. The factories in the Lake States, how- 
 ever, have accessible markets for dried pulp, and this is quite a 
 profitable feature of their business. 
 
 Effect of by-products on net cost. — The by-products of a beet- 
 sugar factory are very important. The extent to which they can be 
 utilized materially affects net costs and consequently profits. The 
 principal by-products, as already stated, are pulp and molasses. In 
 fact, there is no other by-product worth considering. The circum- 
 
 /•.' 
 
•-<.iit..-s- 
 
 ..n^rr-f/ v > > . / 
 
 82 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 stances affecting the value of these by-products are so different that 
 they are here considered separately. The extent to which pulp and 
 molasses affect the net cost of sugar in the various States is shown in 
 the following table : 
 
 Table 19.— AVERAGE NET VALUE OF BY-PRODUCTS PER 100 POUNDS OF SUGAR PRO- 
 DUCED, BY STATES, FOR 5 YEARS ENDING 1913-14. 
 
 state. 
 
 Pulp. 
 
 Molasses. 
 
 Total. 
 
 California 
 
 $0.0623 
 .0543 
 .1355 
 .1939 
 .2487 
 .0612 
 .0461 
 .0795 
 
 $0.0479 
 .1097 
 .2143 
 .1558 
 .1701 
 .0745 
 .0706 
 .1781 
 
 SO. 1102 
 .1640 
 .3498 
 .3497 
 
 .4188 
 
 11S7 
 
 Colorado 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 Michigan . ; 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Montana-Nebraska 
 
 Utah-Idaho 
 
 .1167 
 .2576 
 
 Other states 
 
 
 Average, United States 
 
 .0904 
 
 .1025 
 
 .1929 
 
 
 
 From the foregoing table it is seen that the average net value of 
 by-products per 100 pounds of sugar for the United States during 
 the 5 years ending with 1913-14 was more than 19 cents. The high- 
 est net value was nearly 42 cents in Ohio while the lowest was 11 
 cents in California. The net value of by-products in the three Lake 
 States averaged more than 35 cents per 100 pounds of sugar pro- 
 duced, whereas the average in the States from Colorado west was 
 very much less than one-half as much. The reason for this differ- 
 ence in the value of by-products will appear in the discussion imme- 
 diately following. 
 
 Pulp. — Some factories realize much more for pulp than others. 
 This is not because they produce relatively more pulp than others 
 but it is due to conditions in the region where the factories are 
 located. This product is used mainly for feeding stock. If other 
 feeds are plentiful and cheap in the vicinity of the factory, pulp 
 brings a correspondingly lower price unless a market can be found in 
 other localities. There are ample markets to take all the pulp made, 
 but they are sometimes so far from factories, particularly those in 
 the West, that high freight rates prohibit its profitable shipment. 
 
 From the foregoing table it is seen that the value of pulp per 
 100 pounds of sugar produced is very much higher in the Lake 
 States than elsewhere. In those States the value ranges from about 
 14 cents in Wisconsin to nearly 25 cents in Ohio. Pulp when dried 
 yields a better return to the factory than when green. This is due 
 mainly to the fact that dried pulp can be kept and put upon the 
 market gradually as the demand seems to assure the best price, 
 whereas green pulp can not be kept indefinitely and can not be 
 
 A) 
 
 < 
 
 \ 
 
 / 
 
 • y 
 
 ( 
 
 COST OF PRODUCING BEET SUGAR. 
 
 83 
 
 shipped any considerable distance. To some extent the difference in 
 the value of dried and green pulp is that the former is suitable for a 
 greater variety of purposes than the latter. For instance, the green 
 article is not considered a satisfactory feed for dairy cattle, but 
 is useful mainly for fattening purposes. 
 
 Molasses. — The value of molasses as a by-product depends mainly 
 upon the same conditions that affect the value of pulp — that is, the 
 demand for feed for stock. Like pulp, it is a valuable food for stock ; 
 but, unlike pulp, it can be otherwise utilized. Many factories put 
 their molasses through a process that results in the extraction of a 
 considerable quantity of sugar. When this process is employed the 
 quantity of molasses left as a by-product is very much reduced, but 
 this is compensated for by the additional quantity of sugar extracted 
 from the molasses. If the value of molasses is considered greater 
 than the value of the extra sugar that can be extracted from it, the 
 factory would not go to the expense of extracting the sugar. Whether 
 all the molasses produced is sold, or whether it is run through the 
 factory for the purpose of extracting more sugar, depends upon the 
 relative prices of sugar and molasses. In cases where the sugar is 
 extracted from the molasses the credit for this item is much less 
 than in factories which dispose of the entire molasses output. 
 
 It will be seen from the foregoing table that, taking the country 
 as a whole, the average value of molasses per 100 pounds of sugar 
 slightly exceeds the average value of pulp. As in the case of pulp, 
 the credits from molasses are highest in the Lake States. The chief 
 reason for this difference is that the proportion of molasses put 
 through the process for extracting additional sugar is much greater 
 in the West than in the Lake States. This difference in the treatment 
 of molasses is reflected in the gross factory cost of sugar. The reason 
 for the selling of the greater proportion of the molasses as such in 
 the Lake States than elsewhere is due to a better market. There is a 
 greater demand for molasses as a stock food and for the production 
 of alcohol in the Lake States than in the West. 
 
 Unusually high costs for some factories in 1911-12. — About 25 
 of the 64 factories shown in Table 14 had costs very much higher in 
 1911-12 than in any other year under consideration. Most of the 
 factories having these high costs are located in the Lake States. 
 During that season these companies incurred heavy losses on their 
 beets due to unfavorable weather conditions. This is indicated by 
 the unusually high cost of beets for those factories in that year. One 
 of these factories lost more than a third of a million dollars on beet? 
 during that season. The beets were purchased and paid for, but 
 spoiled before they could be converted into sugar. 
 
 The effect of this abnormal year upon the average cost of produc- 
 tion in Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin for the five years is especially 
 
 » 
 
 9 
 
r^i-^- 
 
 - »"*r J-^^"-^^*^g3 
 
 [*K^> 
 
 a - 
 
 S4 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Striking. This is brought out in Table 20 below. This table shows 
 the average net cost in these States for the 5-vear period ending 
 with 1913-14, the average cost for 1911-12, and the average for four 
 years omitting the abnormal year. There is also shown the excess 
 of the cost in 1911-12 over the average for four years. 
 
 TABLE 20.-COMPARISON OF AVERAGE NET COST, NOT INCLUDING DFPRFrTArrTnv 
 THE 5 YEARS ENDING WITH 1913-14, THE YEAR 1911-12, AND FOR 4 YEARS EXCLUDING 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Excess 
 
 
 Average 
 
 Average 
 
 Average 
 
 Excess of 
 
 cost of 
 
 State. 
 
 net cost 
 
 net cost 
 
 net cost 
 
 1911-12 
 
 beets in 
 
 
 for 
 
 for 
 
 for 
 
 over av- 
 
 1911-12 
 
 
 5 years. 
 
 4 years. 
 
 1911-12. 
 
 erage for 
 4 years. 
 
 over av- 
 erage for 
 4 years. 
 
 Michigan 
 
 $3.9334 
 4.3030 
 
 $3.6203 
 3.9629 
 
 $5.1123 
 5.9823 
 
 $1.4920 
 2.0194 
 
 
 Ohio 
 
 $1.2741 
 
 -.-...--..,..,,.,,, 
 
 1.9142 
 
 w isconsin 
 
 4.4860 
 
 4.0700 
 
 5.8239 
 
 1.7539 
 
 
 
 1.6475 
 
 United States 
 
 3.5041 
 
 3.4299 
 
 3.8149 
 
 .3850 
 
 
 
 .3010 
 
 Excluding 1911-12 from the five-year period, the average net cost, 
 not including depreciation for the other four years, was below the 
 average net cost for 1911-12 $1.49, $2.02, and $1.75. respectively, for 
 Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The average for the four vears was 
 ^8J cents per 100 pounds less than the average for 1911-12. "^ The last 
 column of the above table shows the excess of the cost of beets per 
 100 pounds of sugar in 1911-12 over the average for four years. It 
 is seen that the excess cost in these States during this abnormal year 
 Tvas due almost entirely to the extraordinarily high cost of beets. 
 The factories in these States contracted for their beets as usual. 
 There was a very large crop, accompanied by exceptionally unfavor- 
 able weather during the operating season. Many of the beets spoiled, 
 and some factories, finding they would be unable to work their beets, 
 permitted them to remain in the field. However, they had contracted 
 for the entire yield and had to pay for them, even though they did 
 not use them. All the expense for beets was properly charged against 
 sugar whether the beets were worked or not. 
 
 The abnormally high cost of production in 1911-12 is reflected in 
 the 5-year averages. This is clearly indicated by a comparison of 
 the averages in these States for the 5-year period and for the 4 vears 
 excluding 1911-12. The difference in the averages was from 30 to 40 
 cents per 100 pounds. Of course, the high costs in these three States 
 are reflected m the average for the United States. Thus the costs 
 for the whole United States for the 4 years was about 7 cents per 
 100 pounds less than the average for the 5 years, including the ab- 
 normal year. This difference is also seen to have been due to a dif- 
 ference in the cost of beets per 100 pounds of sugar. 
 
 1 
 
 I] 
 
 
 COST OF PBODUCIN^a BBBT BUGAB. 
 
 86 
 
 Section 7. Average costs by groups of factories. 
 
 Grouping the 64 factories covered by Table 14 according to their 
 net cost of production brings out the percentage of the total produc- 
 tion in the United States during the 5 years ending with the cam- 
 paign of 1913-14 that was produced within certain cost limits. For 
 this purpose 6 groups have been made, 4 of them according to the net 
 cost per 100 pounds, not including depreciation, and 2 of them 
 according to the net cost including depreciation. Table 21 below 
 shows the number of factories included in each group, the percentage 
 of the total production manufactured by each group, the average net 
 cost per 100 pounds, excluding depreciation, the depreciation per 
 100 pounds, and the average net cost per 100 pounds, including de- 
 preciation. There is also shown the total for the 64 factories in- 
 cluded in Table 14. 
 
 Table 21.— AVERAGE NET COST PER 100 POUNDS OF SUGAR, AND THE PERCENT- 
 AGE OF THE TOTAL SUGAR PRODUCED DURING THE FIVE YEARS ENDING WITH 
 THE CAMPAIGN OF 19ia-14, FOR 64 FACTORIES GROUPED ACCORDING TO THE NET 
 COST OF PRODUCTION. 
 
 Groups. 
 
 Number 
 
 of 
 foetorles. 
 
 Percent 
 
 Average 
 net oost 
 
 I 
 
 Average 
 
 1 Cost not exceeding $3.25, not including depreoiation. 
 
 2. Cost over $3.25, but less than $3.50, not including 
 
 depreciation 
 
 3. Cost over $3.50, but le« than $4, not ineluding de» 
 
 preciation 
 
 4. Cost over $4, not including depreciation 
 
 5. Cost over $4, including depreciation 
 
 6. Cost less than $4, including depreciation 
 
 Total ^!:i':ii ..... 
 
 15 
 
 11 
 11 
 
 21 
 28 
 36 
 
 64 
 
 rer u«uv per 100 I DepTBCl- ^r lf« 
 
 **i.!Sif* I W? jationper PJ^ 
 
 sugar I not In- i 100 indud- 
 
 produced.1 eluding | pounds i^gdepre- 
 
 tlon. 
 
 37 
 
 20 
 
 24 
 15 
 22 
 
 74 1 
 
 13.03 
 
 3.37 
 
 3.60 
 4.49 
 4.29 
 $.26 
 
 96 
 
 3.49 
 
 SO. 20 
 .2S 
 
 .35 
 .35 
 
 .n 
 
 13.23 
 
 3.60 
 
 3.96 
 4.g4 
 4.64 
 3. It 
 
 .25 
 
 S.74 
 
 Particular attention is directed to the fact that the foregoing table 
 includes 96 per cent of all the beet sugar produced in the United 
 States during the 5 years covered by this report. Of the 15 factories 
 included in the first group, 4 had an average cost of less than $3 per 
 100 pounds, excluding depreciation, and only 3 had an average cost 
 of over $3.20 per 100 pounds. These 15 factories produced 37 per cent 
 of the total sugar produced in the United States. The second group 
 produced 20 per cent of the total production. It is thus seen that 57 
 per cent of all the sugar produced in the United States was made at 
 a cost of not exceeding $3.50 per 100 pounds, excluding depreciation. 
 The average cost, not including depreciation, for these two gi'Qups 
 was slightly above $3.15 per 100 pounds. 
 87731—17 7 
 
 I 
 
[I 
 
 86 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 A particularly interesting fact brought out in the above table is 
 the comparatively small percentage of the total sugar produced by the 
 21 factories having a cost of over $4, not including depreciation. 
 These 21 factories made only 15 per cent of the total sugar produced 
 in the United States. 
 
 The 36 factories having a cost of less than $4 per 100 pounds, in- 
 cluding depreciation, produced 74 per cent of the total production in 
 the United States at an average cost of $3.25, not including depre- 
 ciation, and $3.46 including it. The 28 factories having a cost of 
 over $4 per 100 pounds, including depreciation, produced only 22 
 per cent of the sugar at an average cost of $4.64. It is interesting to 
 note that of the 28 factories having a cost of over $4 per 100 pounds, 
 including depreciation, 10 are in Michigan, 5 in Colorado, 4 in Wis- 
 consin, 3 in Ohio, and one each in Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas, Ne- 
 braska, Arizona, and Oregon. The factory operating in Oregon has 
 been removed to Idaho. 
 
 By comparing the figures in the table, it will be observed that the 
 groups of factories having the lowest cost, not including depreciation, 
 also have the lowest depreciation per 100 pounds. Group 4, which has 
 the highest cost, has nearly twice as great a charge for depreciation 
 as group 1, which has the lowest cost. 
 
 Section 8. Comparative cost of production for all factories, by years. 
 
 Details of cost of production by factories, by years, are not shown 
 in this report for reasons already stated (see p. 62), arid for the 
 further reason that it was not possible to arrive at a satisfactory 
 basis to compute depreciation for some factories for individual years, 
 though this could be done by companies. It is of some interest, 
 however, to show the cost of producing 100 pounds of sugar, not 
 including depreciation, for all factories by years to compare these 
 results with the average cost for 5 years. Such a comparison is made 
 in the statement below : 
 
 Year. 
 
 1909-10 
 
 1910-11... 
 
 1911-12 
 
 1912-13 
 
 19ia-14 
 
 Average for 5 years 
 
 Average for 4 years, omitting 1911 
 
 Number 
 of 
 
 factories 
 operating, 
 
 59 
 58 
 63 
 71 
 69 
 
 Cost of 
 beets. 
 
 $2.3432 
 2. 4215 
 2. 7671 
 2.5257 
 2.5243 
 
 Net cost 
 of manu- 
 facture, 
 
 not in- 
 cluding 
 
 depre- 
 ciation. 
 
 $0.9368 
 
 .9916 
 
 1.0478 
 
 1.0231 
 
 .9039 
 
 Total. 
 
 $3.2800 
 3.4131 
 3. 8149 
 3.5488 
 3.4282 
 
 74 
 74 
 
 2.5247 
 2. 4661 
 
 .9794 
 .9629 
 
 3.5041 
 3.4290 
 
 / 
 
 ^\ 
 
 / 
 
 COST OF PRODUCING BEET SUGAR. 
 
 87 
 
 From the foregoing statement it is seen that the lowest average 
 cost, not including depreciation, was $3.28 in the campaign of 
 1909-10 and the highest was $3.81 in the campaign of 1911-12. As 
 already stated (see p. 83) the unusually high cost in the latter cam- 
 paign was due to the fact that in the Lake States a great many beets 
 bought and paid for by the beet-sugar companies spoiled before they 
 could be used. Consequently, the average cost of beets per 100 pounds 
 of sugar in the United States for that year Avas considerably higher 
 than usual and the net cost of manufacture, partially due to the same 
 cause, was also higher. The average net cost for all factories for the 
 hye years, excluding depreciation, was $3.50, while the average for 
 the four years, omitting 1911, was $3.43. 
 
 Section 9. Cost of sugar manufactured per ton of beets. 
 
 Costs in the beet-sugar business as well as in most other industries 
 are usually determined on the basis of a unit of product. In the case 
 of sugar the basis is 100 pounds. In European countries, however, a 
 ton of beets worked is frequently considered the unit and costs are 
 discussed in that relation. For the technique of sugar manufacture 
 there is considerable interest in the study of costs on this basis. A 
 general statement of the costs of extracting the sugar from a ton of 
 beets has but little real value in a comparati^ e study of costs. If 
 all beets were of the same quality such a comparison in different fac- 
 tories would afford a valuable guide in the determination of factory 
 efficiency. It rarely ever occurs, however, that anv two factori^ 
 have beets of exactly the same quality. The average cost of manu- 
 facture per ton of beets, therefore, does not add much, if anything, to 
 the knowledge derived from a study of costs per 100 pounds of suo^ar 
 produced. *^ 
 
 Notwithstanding the foregoing facts, a statement of costs based 
 on a ton of beets sliced is here given as a matter of interest and 
 because it may be of some use to the sugar manufacturer. The cost 
 data of the 64 factories covered by Table 14 have been compiled on 
 the basis of 1 ton of beets sliced and the results are shown in Table 
 22. The elements of cost are classified as in the cost table based on 
 100 pounds of sugar, except that depreciation is not considered. The 
 results are usually the average-for 5 years, though a few factories 
 operating only 3 or 4 years have been included. The column show- 
 ing the average number of pounds of sugar extracted from a ton of 
 beets by each factory is inserted in the table. By dividing the aver- 
 age net factory cost per ton of beets by the average extraction, the 
 net cost per 100 pounds of sugar can be found. This result will 
 agree with the net costs shown in Table 14 (see p. 72). Multiplying 
 the depreciation per 100 pounds of sugar shown in Table 14 by the 
 extraction per ton of beets shown in Table 22 will give the amount 
 of depreciation per ton of beets. 
 
 
88 
 
 o 
 
 OQ 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 OQ 
 
 o 
 
 m 
 
 s8 
 
 W -H 
 
 W OQ 
 
 t^« 
 
 N <; 
 
 o ^ 
 
 H>< 
 
 CQ 
 
 o w 
 
 o > 
 
 «s 
 
 o 
 
 ^H 
 
 « tt 
 
 w f^ 
 
 2§ 
 
 Q Ph 
 
 ^2; . 
 
 -< to 
 
 w s 
 
 
 w o 
 
 fe <J 
 
 o f«* 
 
 Jz;{H 
 
 o « 
 
 E-« 
 
 « 
 
 H 
 
 PL| 
 
 o 
 
 1-1 
 
 O 
 
 Eh 
 
 Pi 
 ■< 
 O 
 
 QQ 
 
 H 
 
 O 
 
 > 
 
 t 
 
 •J 
 
 PQ 
 
 ■< 
 
 E^ 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 
 MOW 
 ?4 Q to 
 
 •H 55 SO 
 
 00 0» 'tft pi 
 t- O lA ^ 
 
 <-" <-! rt 05 
 
 S2«^- <^oio<»;^ :2:^iil ill!! 
 
 ^3KS§5 S;3J52S r;-oo^oo 
 
 «^^^£3 SoSS^i i2^§SS Sl5gf2g 
 
 S "' ^ ^ -: 
 
 Oi-lOOi-l ooo 
 
 I I I I 
 
 ;s 
 
 S S S g 
 
 OOO 
 
 S I § s s ^ 
 
 05 OS 1^ tH OS C» 
 
 00 N 
 
 o o 
 
 
 Ilia 
 
 
 bS- 
 
 (55^3 
 
 
 i2 
 
 $ 
 
 C 
 
 T3'-^ 
 
 »« «iS 
 
 ft+J-O 
 
 c35+3 S 
 
 ge 
 
 > o 
 
 H2i!n 111^^ iiS^S ii§S§ 
 
 ^ ^ S ::i ^ osoooo. oosooo oS^Joooi 
 
 = § § ^ 
 
 •"• to CO r-t 
 
 i^ fe 2 S S 
 
 »o 
 
 to 1-1 
 
 W — 3 OOl-1-Hi.H 
 
 S'^il §§iii mi 
 
 i i i ^ s 
 
 CO CO cvi lo 1-^ 
 
 I 
 
 S S M ^ -^ 
 
 ! ^ 3 i i i 2 § i i i i ,S § I g g g 3 
 
 *"" f-H 
 
 pil§ iiis§ 5im|g|.. 
 
 §Si2i §S2fe8 isg^B iiis^ 
 
 00 Ol 
 
 SKSg§j: S:3Sgi5 ooo»o»c 
 «s^§3oo S;3g^5; ssssgis 
 
 « O •*• OS 1-1 -♦< 
 
 s 
 
 ^ ^^pi^?i s?a^gs 
 
 s » S3 - 
 
 si^Si i§SBi §5S2g ssisg 
 
 s 
 
 3 
 
 r>- CO N 
 
 $ S !S: 
 
 CO 'v lo 
 
 «o 
 
 SO eo OS 
 _„ l^ b- t^ 
 
 ^ O US iC 
 
 S S S 8 
 
 lO M5 ■?!< U5 
 
 iisi^ Sf2^5.5 asgQoo W-.N 
 
 *52^:] '^'^^^^ 3j;p|;*3 ggg 
 
 J^t^oot^,^ t^t^t^t^O r>:r>:t^t^r^ r^^^ 
 
 t^ t>. t^ t^ 00 1^: 
 
 r>. h- 
 
 li Jl* 00 UJ C^» M 
 
 •5 ?i cs 55 CO Si 
 c^ CM 1-1 R 54 5i 
 
 sg^ §iigi iiagg 
 
 Y 
 
 \ 
 
 / 
 
 • \ 
 
 i .f-^k 
 
 
 «-• C« CO ^ lO 
 
 r r* , ■• / ' . • • • . , ', 
 
 ' ! ' . * ' 
 
 friH 
 
 • , • • > ' 
 
 • • I , "■ 
 
 > o r«: 00 2 n s^':;? 2: s g si-s. ;?i,s S.w(^.^f, ^^.^ 
 
 < 
 
 COST OF PRODUCING BEET SUGAB. 
 
 sssss sssss^; gsssa ^^5«| sSssI SSSii 
 
 oO'^P-oJh wosi-HOCt i-ioo»o»-i c»eo««ooo t*rHcot>.oo e«5>-ii-<«oec 
 osoosooi^ osddosoo oo^ooooos ososoodos os«^dr^t» t^»oooooo 
 
 iH i-l r-l i-l rt »H 1-1 
 
 <©•■<# Qt>- ost^t^coa £2^19522 SSJErlfSS! 
 
 SSif: ^SSJSS i:§feS^ SSS^^ 
 
 e^ o « csi r^ uo o 
 r^ o OS o OS » -H 
 00 N r^ ^ ^ lO o 
 
 T»t CO 
 
 o e«5 
 
 to eo o "^sPi 
 
 8 2 & S S 
 
 t^e«^ eo«o»o»H?o cpoor-'-! wt-os'^it^ tf)i-ioepN 
 
 S88 isiss iisss 8S^SS ssssb 
 
 I I I I 
 
 I I 
 
 I I I I 
 
 OS 
 
 ^ ^ PO O 1^ ^ 
 
 s i i ss s 51 
 
 o 
 
 li o 
 S ?o 
 
 <© 5P0PtrC^eS ■*eOOO;CO CiOSOO*-*"} 
 
 u5 ^osooo t>-osesr^«p n tfi oi c<* <o 
 Tp «c'*t>->oco ooooe^i'^^ »co-^oc< 
 
 »H o»t*'*'*e5 oeOF-(-*N aspirissx CsSi-i-Ptr XCOCjeo 
 t^ asOfHtnco towS^OM a9c6^t>.ko cooqi-^9os ^o>ooqi-i 
 S SS^WOT ao^^-i-teo F.5o»osi-i «5w5-<!f(NS ost^»oe5t^ 
 
 8 2 
 
 r» 1-1 
 
 oi-iooscM o<-ioasoo ooosooosos ososoooo o^^i-ioooo r^oooosoo 
 
 o t- o c« 
 
 ^ 2 3 g 
 
 ei OS 00 t* 
 1-1 »o r- |5 
 
 1-1 i-( r^ O 
 
 CO 
 
 CO eoMi-ieoi-t •<<»«t»'-i 
 
 CO O OS o 
 -- t- IQ <0 
 M M C» CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 s 
 
 00 f-i eo «o 
 1-1 OS CM t^ 
 CM i-l CM r-l 
 
 CM 
 
 ^ 
 
 O 
 
 t^ r-l 00 C* 
 
 St» OS Q 
 lO t^ o »o »c 
 
 s 
 
 OS 1-1 
 
 
 O £j 
 
 So 
 
 •* CO 
 
 t>. CO 
 00 t- 
 
 •r!S0ooos cot^eoioao 
 
 OSCMOO '^fl»C4o5i-< 
 
 «-i«5-^co co^ic-^'* 
 
 t^-MOOeOCO t-Hi-iOOOCM 
 
 t^oor^>c>o t-iososCMO 
 ?oo5i~-t^i-i oot>.i>»t>.»o 
 
 
 ujooo ^oft'^i^CM 
 
 CO'<t«OSQu; tHOO'^OOOO CQ 
 C01OU3N00 lOOiOCMcO CO 
 
 a S iS S § ^ * 
 
 CO CO ^ ^ 
 
 t>» »o 
 
 o o CM r^ 1-1 CO o 
 „_-oS «eot»e>55 
 
 i-IO«0»0 ■^t— C0»0!0 
 
 ^ 
 
 5JsS2^ ggsss ssssg SSgss ^i§§S ^ii 
 
 i-ii-(i-IOeO i-lc5r^i-lO ,M-^^4^^i^ i-i»*<iM»-<^H WCMW^Hi-i 1-IOO 
 
 CO ^ 
 
 CO ^ 
 
 CM«o ea^sSSr^y '•JSP 
 
 £m^ i.^isi s?^^ 
 
 ©•Oi-ico '*i-ieM'«J«»o ■^couocc 
 eo Si ^ eo SSwSS CMcoSeo 
 
 t^^oo$ eoSi-iS«o uSeo^^S aSSs 
 »-"i-<ooi-i .-leocMi-ii-t i-icM'Hi-teM e«e*«-» 
 
 CO O <D CM ^H ^H 
 ^ CO 3 CM 00 « 
 
 e« c5 •-• CO CM N 
 
 UJOOCO'^IO CMT»«0^t>. 
 ^e900»0 i-HCMt^QOS 
 
 00 
 
 ^ 
 
 eo 00 ^ 00 ^ w eo 
 
 c<it>.i_i'^oo o> to a -^ r-{ sofc-rtcovs t-oyjO'^ ^icf'^i-t cot-oo'** 
 
 CO^COiO^ ^pSg^ui (§o$9«^co ^S^^^ fiS*4^S ^CM^SoO 
 
 eotccou5i-< o^a5<9c4 ra^CM^us to ^ ci eo tS oor-eo^ i-ioioooio 
 
 t>^t^i>ti^t>^ i>cd<d<od eo«d«Dcod «d«o«doo <o<oioto>o los^tototo 
 
 CM««i-ICi eOCMC4CM 
 
 55 
 
 eo «o ;« ^ CO go 
 55 R cS el cJ 8 m 
 
 O CO I-l U3 SO t5 
 
 CO 
 
 Hi ui eo so sp t- 
 
 C4 CM CM C« (K CM 
 
 ■ t t*«ii «•••• •*•! 
 
 • • ••••» ••••« fill 
 
 II ••••1 ••••• ••II 
 
 Ilk IIIVV lllll llll 
 
 I k ■•'• I I 1 11 I ^ I I • I • 
 
 iii'i'iia* lllll III! 
 
 I'ah'i'^lll ••••• llll 
 
 ^N^SS Sweoroco feeoW§5 rr5?5«5'* ^?pS"3«o «ou5»cS«o 
 
 •s 
 
 o 
 e 
 
 s 
 
 C3 
 
 
 a 
 
 00 Qt^^i-(OS •^'-•W'^a "^QcSt-ioo 2J-^i©so^ S 
 
 "3 ^cM«OkocM eouaeccooo'rfS'a"*''^ «£SSrJ* P 
 
 T-l T_|r-ii-ii-iiH -^iHi-ieOi-l COC^^rHi-< ^CMNCMt-f J- 
 
 a ••«•• •»••• ■••■• ••••• 
 
 gi S83SS I 
 
 CO 
 
 c 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 cc 
 
 00 
 
 1 
 
 £ 
 
 m 
 
 O 
 
 OS 
 
 s 
 
 el 
 
 •5 
 
 cMco 52'~'SS'^°S 35'^SS* ^"^iSSS^ 3 
 coco 58S«3^ SSso^'* »c«»ososo "o 
 
 i 
 
 CQ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 c 
 S 
 < 
 
 89 
 
 \ 
 
90 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 COST OF PRODUCING BEET SUGAB. 
 
 91 
 
 A 
 
 QQ 
 CO 
 
 m 
 
 A 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 c 
 
 OD 
 fa 
 
 Si 
 
 O 
 &^ 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 > 
 
 > 
 
 Q 
 
 GO 
 » 
 
 m 
 o 
 
 Pi 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 « 
 
 o 
 
 Eh 
 
 O 
 
 P=4 
 
 o « 
 
 Jz: 
 
 o 
 t-t 
 
 Eh . 
 
 X 
 
 « 
 
 o 
 t) 
 
 > OQ 
 
 O 
 
 -< 
 
 > 
 
 S3 
 
 pa 
 
 -< 
 
 
 ' eo M (M OS N 
 
 
 r^ -tJ ^J~ 3 p. 
 ^ O ST! 
 
 O 
 
 ^ o axj — ' 
 ^5 '^ 
 
 
 O «0 00 W •H »^ 
 
 3_r zj: *^ "rf ^^ •• "^ ^r* "^ •*? '■'W c^ ^^ t^ 
 
 r^aooJoooJ ooosoJoo oioscSeo 
 
 09 
 
 O 
 
 r? t" "5 t^ '^ 
 
 O C^ t^ o -^ 
 
 >0 CC iC ^ (M 
 
 c5 ■ • • ■ 
 
 P »C 
 
 55 in 
 
 ^ (N ■<<< 
 t^ lO Oi 
 
 00 lO 1-t 
 
 00 o 
 CD t^ 
 
 00 lO 
 
 i-H OS 
 
 «; = ° S!!i 
 S o M gii- 
 
 .2 2 S M ® 
 
 TS 03— <0 
 
 ;^ 
 
 oococ ooo-^o 
 
 o 
 
 ■*^ O S L- 
 
 00 05 t^ 
 
 Ot>.00rftOt--.00C<l 
 
 ■2:3'2;:325 c^ecujoOfO ooc^ 
 
 00 >o 
 era o 
 
 w is *j 
 
 o 
 
 03 
 
 ■ "^ -. ^ 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 S =3 c3 
 
 C >j o « 
 
 
 be 
 
 o 
 
 03 2 =3 ^ 
 
 S« 2 
 
 CO 
 
 fc, q M 
 
 •-. en 2 
 
 03 
 
 9 
 S 
 
 
 fc< ® w 
 
 III 
 
 OQ- 
 
 O 
 
 h 
 
 
 OS OS OS O 
 
 OSi— ii— (1— (O OOSO'** 
 
 i5S?*:2;s;; S!2;s«^* os-^osi-h 
 
 O— lOOO i-hOSi-hOO O^S'^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 OS 
 
 2} OS 
 
 O (N 
 
 qsiMoesi eo-^eoM 
 
 lo N OS _ 
 
 rot^osoo»o osoor^ 
 ^owcir^ 050SO 
 
 OS -H t^ ■.!< (M 
 
 <5 O »C t^ 00 
 O U3 r-l ec CO 
 
 o 
 
 uj a UO 00 <M 00 
 
 3 o e^ CO h- (M 
 
 CO lo ^ "^ OS »■-» 
 
 s 
 
 (M 00 
 
 «0 CO 
 
 OS O) 
 
 CO CO 
 OS OS 
 
 ^ OS O t- 
 
 OS M X Cp lO «t5 
 M h- 00 OS U5 OS 
 
 op o o -^ 
 
 O-^Q0«f4 h-^06^u5Os ?i?5'->^ 
 
 1— II— iriO'-' •-''-ii-ieoci i-i— hc^cj 
 
 — J ^H Tf OS 00 
 
 O — < t-- O l-~ 
 
 CO CO <M 00 CO 
 
 OOOO'^COCJ OOCOOOCl 
 
 CO -H 00 (M 
 ■<4« O OS 00 
 1-1 <-l — I CO 
 
 M-HOCSkO Tft^osoO 
 »or-i— i»^>C ^pOst-co 
 
 s 
 
 CO r^ M ■»»« .^ 
 •-< o o o •* 
 •* 00 -^ to ■^ 
 
 5 ^ 
 
 . c^ 3 j§ 
 
 t^ O 00 CO 
 
 00 CO 00 
 
 OS CO " 
 "3 CO t^ 
 
 o 
 
 t^ 00 -< (M -^ 
 •^ »0 CO 00 o 
 00 t^ t^ CO »o 
 
 eo—iooc^oo CO'*'— <oo 
 
 ri'>*<0O'J"00 '^ so -^ ia 
 
 u 
 
 ■A CO O to 
 
 to — ' !-• eo <— I 
 o CO t>^ CO r-^ 
 
 J2 
 
 OS '^^ 00 
 CO CO to t>^ 
 
 OS Tj« e<5 ^ O 
 to r- c^ o 00 
 
 (N C« M 00 eo 
 
 CI t^ OS to CO OS o 
 
 S5 S iS 2 3J 00 o 
 N e^ N CO e<5 ot n 
 
 n 00 
 
 OS •* 
 
 sssss ^ssss 
 
 P .H 00 
 
 r^ t^ t- 
 
 o 
 <s 
 
 "3 
 
 -4-3 
 
 G 
 o 
 
 
 
 kl 
 
 1^ 
 
 o 
 
 CQ 
 
 s 
 
 o 
 
 e 
 
 u 
 
 3 
 
 -o 
 
 (» 
 
 -a 
 
 S3 
 
 3 
 O 
 o5 
 
 O 
 
 ■ 1 
 
 O 
 
 
 03 
 CO 
 
 « 
 
 -3 
 S 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 EC 
 
 be 
 
 
 T' 
 
 '4] 
 
 r 
 
 \ 
 
 
 / 
 
 I 
 
 \ 
 
 The results shown in the foregoing table run exactly parallel with 
 those already shown in Table 14 (see p. 72), and the discussion of 
 that table will apply here. It is of some interest, however, to con- 
 sider a few significant facts brought out in the above table. 
 
 The average extraction of sugar per ton of beets ranges from about 
 200 to more than 300 pounds. The average for the 64 factories 
 operating during the five-year period covered was 265 pounds. It 
 will be observed that there is no fixed relation between the quantity 
 of sugar extracted and the various elements of cost per ton of beets. 
 The lowest cost for operating labor was 48 cents in factories num- 
 bered 3 and 39, with a sugar extraction per ton of beets of 198 
 pounds and 238 pounds, respectively. The highest cost of labor 
 was $1.43 in factory No. 48, which had an extraction of 210 pounds 
 or 28 pounds less than factory No. 39. Factory No. 69, with an ex- 
 traction of 346 pounds, had a labor cost of approximately 70 cents 
 per ton of beets, while factory No. 71 with 46 pounds less extractioA 
 had a labor cost of nearly $1.16 per ton of beets. Similar compari- 
 sons can be made with other elements of cost. 
 
 Another notable fact brought out in the table is that among the 
 factories having the lowest sugar extraction is often found the high- 
 est cost of beets. The expenditures for beets shown in the table are 
 the actual cost per ton laid down at the factory. Only 2 factories 
 of the 64 paid as much as $8 per ton for beets, and with one exception 
 these 2 factories had the lowest extraction. The extremely high 
 cost of beets in these two instances was not due to a high price paid 
 the farmer for beets but to extraordinarily high expenses in procur- 
 ing beets and having them delivered at the factory, and to losses 
 from the spoiling of beets. 
 
? aw^TAit^Lstzaiegyasat^ ,« 
 
 
 Jllli 
 
 # t w 
 
 '!«' xaorj 
 
 II II wo I 
 
 '.• m; I 
 
 >■? 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 DISTEIBTTTiaN OF SUGAR. 
 
 J us 
 
 - . UJ UUl' 
 
 ■iM>; 'to 
 
 Section 1. Introduction. 
 
 The product of the beet-sugar factories is all granulated sugar 
 ready for table use. The factories located in the West pack their 
 product in bags containing 100 pounds each. Some of the sugar 
 produced in the eastern factories is packed in this manner, but most 
 of It is packed in barrels which contain about 340 pounds each. Some 
 is also sold in bales, a bale containing four 25-pound bags packed in 
 this manner for the convenience of the trade. Practically aU of the 
 product is sold through jobbers, a small quantity being sold directly 
 to the beet growers for their own use. One or two companies also 
 dispose of their product to near-by cane refineries. 
 
 Section 2. Where beet sn^r is consumed. 
 
 Data showing the quantity of sugar sold in each State by factories 
 were secured from the majority of the companies. In some cases this 
 information was not available, and in others, due to the amount of 
 work involved, it was not obtained. Such information was secured 
 from 29 of the 37 companies which in 1913 sold 1,006,884,238 pounds. 
 The great bulk of the total sales is thus accounted for, as the sales of 
 the largest companies are included. In 1912 information was secured 
 from only 24 companies, which sold 1,039,789,058 pounds. The fol- 
 lowing table shows the quantity and per cent sold in each State by 
 these companies for these two years: 
 
 Table 23— BEET SUGAR SOLD BY 24 COMPANIES IN THE VARIOUS STATES FOR 
 
 THE YEAR 1912 AND 29 COMPANIES IN 1913. 
 
 State. 
 
 1912 
 
 Alabama 
 
 Arizona 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 CalifomiaJ 
 
 Colorado 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 Delaware 
 
 District of Columbia, 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 1,855,500 
 
 6,671,000 
 
 14,670,900 
 
 80,788,000 
 
 39,680,300 
 
 440,936 
 
 161, 741 
 
 2,337,434 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 .18 
 
 .64 
 
 1.41 
 
 7.77 
 
 3.82 
 
 .04 
 
 .02 
 
 .22 
 
 1913 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 528,500 
 
 9,739,400 
 
 17,098,294 
 
 93,254,700 
 
 24,656,400 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 .05 
 
 .97 
 
 1.70 
 
 9.26 
 
 2.45 
 
 649,947 
 
 .06 
 
 92 
 
 » Includes the sugar sold by the Alameda Sugar Co. in Oregon and Washington, 
 
 T 
 
 
 / 
 
 « I « 
 
 > 
 
 \ 
 
 DISTBIBXJTION OF STJGAB, 
 
 ^8 
 
 T „, oo BEET SUGAR SOLD BY 24 COMPANIES IN THE VARIOUS STATES FOR 
 T.B.» 2S-BEET I^^B SOLD^^ ^^ COMPANIES IN 1913-Contln»ed. 
 
 State. 
 
 [1/ 
 
 Florida 
 
 Georgia 
 
 Idaho - 
 
 Illinois - - — ' 
 
 Indiana • 
 
 Iowa • 
 
 Kansas -' 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 Louisiana • — 
 
 Maryland 
 
 Massachusetts, .il 1 i JJ^J^ :i i ^ 
 
 1912 
 
 Pounds. I Per cent 
 
 ..Tt; 
 
 
 ■■•'V- 
 
 f »'« ' ' 
 
 't ; ' 1 
 
 r ...... . 
 
 ..iiiiU^i 
 
 Michigan — 
 Minnesota... 
 Mississippi . . 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Montana — 
 Nebraska . . . 
 
 Nevada 
 
 New Jersey . 
 New Mexico 
 
 New York 
 
 North Carolina. 
 North Dakota i 
 
 Ohio.... 
 
 Oklahoma 
 
 Oregon .IJ 
 
 Pennsylvania . 
 Rhode Island . . 
 South Carolina 
 
 South Dakota I 
 
 Tennessee. ... ^ .;. ^ . . -.v j u * :"4 ii'i^-f- - •fc*-- 
 
 Texas.... ...........^-.•.--•Tf^-^^fv^-* 
 
 Utah •.••.-•:"•» 
 
 Vertoont.li..'- J 
 
 Virginia 
 
 Washington.. . .,4^. .,j,r |.- • vr.-";i 
 West Virginia ■ 
 
 Wis6Wian..;....i....i- 
 
 ::i 
 
 .J ?.. 
 
 900.600 
 5,024,700 
 5,395,900 
 121,505,253 i 
 17,832.464 
 86,129,227 
 45,977,800 
 10,903,317 
 893,500 
 11,033,973 
 253,163 
 24,643,246 
 82,306,186 
 1,553,400 
 95,132,839 
 23,661,600 
 56,324,791 
 350,900 
 2,215,215 
 6,906,400 
 23,618.336 
 1,831,000 
 21,147,972 
 31,116,651 
 38,125,700 
 5,991,800 
 $6,682,927 
 300,239 
 1,743,S00 
 20,485.573 
 10,971,1^ 
 36,321,900 
 22,185,100 
 444,449 
 8,303,074 
 8,359,000 
 3,426,046 
 Ji ;;iikU . Wi. JJiUl^. -fP ^^ * ■ 19, 843, 92S 
 
 "fi',> •..: .7, Mi j ]':'••> -iflOJi 
 
 'iif^m.ML 
 
 - ) »i:j.H' 
 
 Wyoming.. .... i,...».KO^^•*♦^ki•■«^>4H•^•^4••^^^• 
 
 >i i < i >.• I «• > 
 
 :t I !•* > 
 
 3,760,100 
 
 .09 
 .48 
 .52 
 11.69 
 1.72 
 8.28 
 4.42 
 1.05 
 .09 
 1.06 
 .02 
 3.37 
 7.92 
 .15 
 9.15 
 2.27 
 5.42 
 .03 
 .11 
 .66 
 2.27 
 .18 
 2.03 
 2.99 
 3.67 
 .54 
 8.53 
 .03 
 .17 
 1.97 
 1.06 
 3.49 
 2.13 
 .04 
 .80 
 .80 
 .33 
 1.91 
 .36 
 
 1,099,789,058 
 
 100.00 
 
 1913 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 239,500 
 
 2,648,700 
 
 6,493,800 
 
 98,555,963 
 
 17,289,666 
 
 75,532,098 
 
 50,110,777 
 
 12,147,»18 
 
 701,000 
 
 3,112,454 
 
 Percent. 
 
 .02 
 
 .26 
 
 .64 
 
 9.79 
 
 1.72 
 
 7.60 
 
 4.98 
 
 1.21 
 
 .07 
 
 .81 
 
 50,481,976 
 89,864,364 
 501,200 
 96,635,911 
 11,079,700 
 56,466,300 
 510,000 
 65,000 
 6,668,900 
 13,675,932 
 363,900 
 7,936,549 
 57,066,671 
 51,904,000 
 4,089,300 
 19,310,482 
 
 300,000 
 
 17.377,918 
 
 6,l28,a'0 
 
 32,427,200 
 
 i4, 671, 500 
 
 113,000 
 
 5,536,093 
 
 6,502,300 
 
 2,063,234 
 
 29,998,166 
 
 2,704,700 
 
 5.01 
 
 8.92 
 .05 
 9.59 
 1.10 
 5.61 
 .05 
 .01 
 .66 
 1.36 
 .04 
 .79 
 ft. 66 
 5.15 
 .40 
 1.91 
 
 .03 
 
 1.73 
 
 .61 
 
 3.22 
 
 2.45 
 
 .01 
 
 .55 
 
 .65 
 
 .20 
 
 3.f7 
 
 .28 
 
 1,006,884,238 \ 100.00 
 
 1 Includes the sugar sold by the HoUy Sugar Co* in South Dakota. 
 
 From the above table it is seen that beet sugar is sold in nearly 
 every State in the Union. CaUfornia, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, 
 Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Oklahoma received the 
 largest quantities of beet sugar, 66 per cent of the amount shown 
 in the table, for 1913, being sold in these States. It is probable 
 that a larger proportion of the product was sold m California 
 
 i 
 
-M 
 
 .iTSTxri^ 
 
 ^7^ 
 
 94 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 DISTRIBUTION OF SUGAR. 
 
 95 
 
 than is shown above, as the table does not include the product of 
 a large company which sold its entire product to a cane refinery 
 which in turn disposes of a large part of its product in this State. 
 In 1912 more than 50,000,000 pounds was sold in each of the States 
 of California, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nebraska, 
 50 per cent of the quantity shown in the table being sold in these 
 six States. No doubt more than 50,000,000 pounds was sold also 
 in Michigan, as the table does not include the product of the 
 Michigan Sugar Co. Small companies can usually dispose of their 
 product either locally or in near-by States, but the largest com- 
 panies must of necessity find markets in various States. The com- 
 panies in Utah, Idaho, and Colorado are forced to invade the " 
 eastern markets, since their production far exceeds the home de- 
 mand and because California produces large quantities of both 
 beet and cane sugar and largely supplies the Pacific coast markets. 
 The Great Western Sugar Co. in 1*913, for example, sold sugar in 
 33 different States. Of course the bulk of their product was sold 
 in the central Western States, but small quantities were sold even 
 as far east as Vermont, New York, New Jersey, and Virginia. 
 Only small quantities are sold in the Southern States for the reason 
 that the Louisiana cane refineries have the advantage of lower 
 freight rates. 
 
 Section 3. Cost of distribution. 
 
 In this discussion all expense incident to selling except a small 
 amount for administration and for insurance of sugar in warehouses 
 at the factories has been charged to cost of distribution. As already 
 explained (see p. 61) the two latter items could not be separated from 
 other administrative expense and from insurance on plant and 
 equipment and therefore they have been charged against cost of pro- 
 duction. Since each company sells the product of all its factories as 
 one unit only averages for companies can be shown. The average 
 brokerage commission and freight per 100 pounds are shown sepa- 
 rately, and the other items of cost, such as insurance, storage allow- 
 ances, and cash discounts, are included under the head of other ex- 
 pense. The average price received per 100 pounds, the average net 
 price at the factory, and the principal items making up the selling 
 expense are shown in Table 24 below: 
 
 ^ 
 
 s 
 
 / 
 
 > 
 
 A 
 
 ~ o^ <-.ur>ao niT'Ti'TPTS PER 100 POCNDS OP BEET SUGAR, SELLING EX- 
 
 "^'lENs'ET^rNl/SfAT'^TcTOKY PER 100 POONDS, BY COMPANIES, FOR 
 THE YEARS 1909-10 TO 1913-14, INCLUSIVE. 
 
 1909-10. 
 
 
 Gross 
 receipts. 
 
 Selling expense. 
 
 
 Company. 
 
 Broker- 
 age and 
 commis- 
 sion. 
 
 Freight. 
 
 other 
 expense. , 
 
 . Total 
 
 selling 
 
 expense. 
 
 Net price 
 at fac- 
 tory. 
 
 1 
 
 $5.0866 
 4.9702 
 5.0431 
 5.0587 
 4.9632 
 
 4.7655 
 
 $0.0309 
 .0589 
 .0299 
 .0300 
 .0207 
 
 .0846 
 
 $0. 4424 
 .1410 
 .2946 
 .0919 
 .0872 
 
 .1249 
 
 $0.0818 
 .0543 
 .0599 
 .0790 
 .0582 
 
 .0476 
 
 $0.5551 
 .2542 
 .3844 
 .2009 
 .1661 
 
 .2571 
 
 $4. 5315 
 
 9 
 
 4.7160 
 
 o 
 
 4.65S7 
 
 4 
 
 4.857S 
 
 R 
 
 4.7971 
 
 6 
 
 4.5084 
 
 7 
 
 o 
 
 5. 7104 
 5.0393 
 4.9360 
 
 4.9959 
 
 .0808 
 .0288 
 .0173 
 
 .0959 
 
 .6784 
 .5576 
 .3542 
 
 .1437 
 
 .2334 
 .0432 
 .0585 
 
 .0549 
 
 .9926 
 .6296 
 .4300 
 
 .2945 
 
 4.7178 
 
 q 
 
 4.4097 
 
 1ft 
 
 4.5060 
 
 11 
 
 4.7014 
 
 12 
 
 4. 8787 
 
 
 .0062 
 
 .0865 
 
 .0927 
 
 4.7S60 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 14 
 
 ir^ ........•■••••• 
 
 4.8393 
 
 5. 0155 
 5.1906 
 5.0032 
 5.0864 
 4.9985 
 
 .0289 
 
 .0281 
 .0417 
 .0319 
 .0335 
 .0324 
 
 
 .0989 
 
 .1208 
 .0677 
 .0876 
 .0814 
 .0553 
 
 .1278 
 
 .2826 
 .5616 
 .2556 
 .3434 
 .2295 
 
 4.7115 
 
 10 
 
 ifi 
 
 .1337 
 .4522 
 .1361 
 .2285 
 .1418 
 
 4.7329 
 
 17 
 
 4.6290 
 
 1G 
 
 4.7476 
 
 1Q 
 
 4.7430 
 
 Oft ....; 
 
 4.7690 
 
 
 
 21 
 
 22 
 
 5.8809 
 
 .1342 
 
 .4273 
 
 .0253 
 
 .5868 
 
 5.2941 
 
 23 
 
 94 
 
 5. 1752 
 4.9740 
 
 5.2217 
 5.0550 
 4.9921 
 5. 1590 
 4.9344 
 
 . 5.0171 
 
 .0360 
 .0283 
 
 .0330 
 .0260 
 .0801 
 .0302 
 .0281 
 
 .0361 
 
 .4421 
 .0722 
 
 .4153 
 .0961 
 .1202 
 .2771 
 .0677 
 
 .0867 
 
 .0552 
 .1397 
 
 .1002 
 .0816 
 .1057 
 .0362 
 .0534 
 
 .0681 
 
 .5333 
 .2402 
 
 .5485 
 .2037 
 .3060 
 .3435 
 .1492 
 
 .1909 
 
 4.6419 
 
 or. 
 
 4.7338 
 
 Oft 
 
 4.6732 
 
 97 
 
 4.8513 
 
 9fl 
 
 4.68M 
 
 90 
 
 4.8155 
 
 OA 
 
 4.7852 
 
 31 
 
 4.S262 
 
 32 
 
 33 
 
 . 4.9652 
 
 .0245 
 
 .1317 
 
 .0521 
 
 .2083 
 
 4.7500 
 
 34 
 
 35 
 
 Oft 
 
 5.2221 
 
 . 4.9134 
 . 5.3229 
 
 .0298 
 
 .0321 
 .0311 
 
 .0683 
 
 .0960 
 . 4130 
 
 .0050 
 
 .0980 
 .0841 
 
 .1031 
 
 .2261 
 .5282 
 
 5.1190 
 
 4.6873 
 
 07 
 
 4.7947 
 
 
 
.'.^..•Mn-fifK .. 
 
 bl 
 
 96 
 
 THE BEET SUGAE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Tablb 24.— gross RECEIPTS PER 100 POUNDS OP BEET gUGAB, SELLING EX- 
 PENSE AND NET PRICE AT FACTORY PER 100 POUNDS, BY COMPANIES, FOR 
 THE YEARS 1909-10 TO 1913-14, INCLUSIVE — Continued. 
 
 1/i.i '■ 
 
 1910-11. 
 
 ■ •■- " - --^-----■v __ , ■! ■ » 
 
 Gross 
 receipts. 
 
 Selling expense. 
 
 
 Company. 
 
 Broker- 
 ftgeand 
 commis- 
 sion. 
 
 Freight. 
 
 Other 
 expense. 
 
 Total 
 
 selling 
 
 expense. 
 
 Netprioe 
 atfito- 
 tory. 
 
 1 
 
 $6.0609 
 4.6798 
 5.1366 
 4.7463 
 4.9414 
 
 4.3709 
 
 $0.0301 
 .0571 
 .0310 
 .0244 
 .0268 
 
 .0265 
 
 $0.4603 
 .1442 
 .2836 
 .1333 
 .0982 
 
 .1241 
 
 $0. 0881 
 .0989 
 .0657 
 .0736 
 .0614 
 
 .0391 
 
 $0.5785 
 .3002 
 .3803 
 .2313 
 .1864 
 
 .1897 
 
 $4.4824 
 
 2 ^ 
 
 4.3796 
 
 8 
 
 4.7563 
 
 4 
 
 4. 5150 
 
 5 
 
 4.7550 
 
 6 
 
 4. 1812 
 
 7 ... 
 
 
 8 
 
 5. 2407 
 4. 8116 
 5. 1102 
 
 4.6738 
 
 .0201 
 .0310 
 .0074 
 
 .0880 
 
 .2036 
 .0922 
 .1791 
 
 .1482 
 
 .1286 
 .1118 
 .0639 
 
 .0741 
 
 .3523 
 .2350 
 .2504 
 
 .3112 
 
 4.8884 
 
 9 
 
 4.5766 
 
 10 
 
 4.85(98 
 
 11 
 
 4.3626 
 
 12 
 
 
 13 
 
 4.6145 
 
 
 .0128 
 
 1.0009 
 
 .0119 
 
 4.6026 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 " 
 
 16 
 
 5.0019 
 
 4. 6174 
 5.2523 
 4.6453 
 5. 1818 
 4.6538 
 
 .0474 
 
 .0333 
 .0377 
 .0310 
 .0337 
 .0491 
 
 
 .1913 
 
 .0321 
 .0694 
 .0917 
 .1013 
 .0822 
 
 .2387 
 
 .1937 
 .5624 
 • .2621 
 .4143 
 .2762 
 
 4.7632 
 
 16 
 
 .1283 
 .4553 
 .1394 
 .2793 
 ,1449 
 
 4.4237 
 
 17 
 
 4.6899 
 
 18 
 
 4.3832 
 
 19 
 
 4. 7675 
 
 20 - 
 
 4. 3776 
 
 21 
 
 
 22 
 
 5.9262 
 
 .1342 
 
 .4273 
 
 .0253 
 
 .5868 
 
 5.3394 
 
 9a 
 
 
 24 
 
 5.1788 
 4.6891 
 
 5. 2713 
 4.7763 
 4.6506 
 5.1411 
 5.0409 
 
 4.7623 
 
 .0359 
 .0309 
 
 .0338 
 .0284 
 .0800 
 .0299 
 .0536 
 
 .0351 
 
 .4496 
 .0734 
 
 .4021 
 » .0865 
 .1207 
 .3525 
 .0916 
 
 .1075 
 
 .0509 
 .1971 
 
 .1005 
 .0946 
 .0967 
 .0509 
 .1339 
 
 .0693 
 
 .5364 
 .3014 
 
 .5364 
 .2095 
 .2974 
 .4333 
 .2790 
 
 .2119 
 
 4.6424 
 
 25 ... 
 
 4. 3877 
 
 20 
 
 4. 7349 
 
 27 
 
 4.5668 
 
 28 
 
 4.3532 
 
 29 
 
 4.7078 
 
 ao 
 
 4.7619 
 
 »1 
 
 4.5604 
 
 M 
 
 
 S8 
 
 4.7340 
 
 .0310 
 
 .0910 
 
 
 .0632 
 
 .1852 
 
 4.5488 
 
 34 
 
 
 35. . 4 
 
 5.0634 
 
 4.7182 
 5.3339 
 
 .0344 
 
 .0273 
 .0367 
 
 .2709 
 
 .0841 
 .4621 
 
 .0094 
 
 .0938 
 .1120 
 
 .3147 
 
 .2052 
 .6108 
 
 4.7487 
 
 36 
 
 4.5130 
 
 37. 
 
 4.7231 
 
 
 
 > Credit from insurance fund. 
 
 ) 
 
 T^ 
 
 1 
 
 V 
 
 '\ 
 
 ) 
 
 \ 
 
 DISTRIBUTION OP SUGAE. 
 
 97 
 
 TABLE 24.-GROSS RECEIPTS. PER 100 POUNDS ^^ BBOT SUGAA, SB^^^^^^ 
 
 PENSB AND NET PRICE AT FACTORY PER 100 POUNDS, BY COMPANIES, FOR 
 THE YEARS 1909-10 TO 1913-14, INCLUSIVE-^ontinued. 
 
 i9ii-ie. 
 
 Selling expense. 
 
 Company. 
 
 Gross 
 receipts. 
 
 1 1 $5.3859 
 
 2 j 5w6275 
 
 3 5.5033 
 
 4 "" /_ 5.6959 
 
 K 5.5840 
 
 6 ' 5.6246 
 
 Broker- 
 age and 
 commis- 
 sion. 
 
 Freight. 
 
 g ! 5.4358 
 
 9 : 4.8627 
 
 10 j 4.9181 
 
 11 5.7955 
 
 10.0298 
 .0483 
 .0805 
 .0255 
 .0252 
 
 .0411 
 
 12. 
 13. 
 14. 
 15. 
 
 16... 
 
 17... 
 
 18.. 
 
 19.. 
 
 20.. 
 
 21. 
 22. 
 23. 
 24. 
 25. 
 
 5.1211 
 5.6369 
 4.6912 
 
 5.7569 
 5.5045 
 5.7338 
 5.4817 
 5.8003 
 
 '6.7545 
 5.6984 
 
 .0710 
 .0293 
 .0152 
 
 .1104 
 
 $0.4471 
 .1862 
 .2884 
 .1454 
 .0944 
 
 .1386 
 
 Other 
 expense. 
 
 .8121 
 .1067 
 .2889 
 
 .1564 
 
 $0.1202 
 .1065 
 .1131 
 .1139 
 .0904 
 
 .1160 
 
 Total 
 
 selling 
 
 expense. 
 
 $0.5971 
 .3410 
 .4320 
 .2848 
 .2100 
 
 .2957 
 
 Net price 
 at fac- 
 tory. 
 
 $4.7888 
 5.2865 
 5.071S 
 5.4111 
 5.3740 
 
 5.3289 
 
 .0021 
 .0320 
 .0126 
 
 .0565 
 .0376 
 .0322 
 .0301 
 .0534 
 
 .0881 
 
 26. 
 27. 
 28. 
 29. 
 30. 
 
 31. 
 32. 
 33. 
 34. 
 35. 
 
 36. 
 37. 
 
 5.3815 
 5.6150 
 
 5.4163 
 5.7402 
 5.8096 
 5.5741 
 4.9979 
 
 5.8611 
 
 .0352 
 .0308 
 
 .0314 
 .0325 
 
 .0888 
 .0313 
 .0268 
 
 .0303 
 
 .0436 
 .3904 
 .0266 
 
 .1063 
 .5612 
 .1440 
 .2496 
 .1712 
 
 .2584 
 .1267 
 .1153 
 
 .1244 
 
 1.1415 
 .1727 
 .4194 
 
 .3912 
 
 .3694 
 
 .1130 
 .0679 
 .0910 
 
 .1851 
 .1186 
 .1408 
 .1022 
 .1198 
 
 .1958 
 
 5.2869 ' 
 4.5138 
 
 .0354 
 
 5.6542 
 5.9035 
 
 .0600 
 
 .0242 
 .0375 
 
 .4433 
 .1363 
 
 .3919 
 .0806 
 .1893 
 .4043 
 .1702 
 
 .0900 
 
 1257 
 
 .0569 
 
 .0975 
 .4782 
 
 .1085 
 .1751 
 
 .0928 
 .1480 
 .1378 
 .0997 
 .1324 
 
 .1368 
 
 ,1587 
 .4903 
 .1302 
 
 .3479 
 .7174 
 .3170 
 .3819 
 .3444 
 
 .9971 
 .6033 
 
 1073 
 
 .0125 
 
 .1711 
 .1782 
 
 .5870 
 .3422 
 
 .5161 
 .26U 
 .4150 
 .5353 
 .3294 
 
 .2571 
 
 .268i 
 
 .1294 
 
 .2928 
 .6939 
 
 4.294S 
 4.6900 
 4.4987 
 
 5.4013 
 
 4.9634 
 5.1466 
 4.5610 
 
 5.4090 
 4.7871 
 5.4168 
 5.0998 
 5.4559 
 
 5.7574 
 5.0051 
 
 4.7945 
 5.2728 
 
 4.9002 
 5.4791 
 5.3937 
 5.0388 
 4.6685 
 
 5.6040 
 
 5.0185 
 
 4.3844 
 
 5.3614 
 5.2096 
 
 1 
 
 !i 
 
98 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 DISTRIBUTION OF SUGAR, 
 
 99 
 
 Table 24.— GROSS RECEIPTS PER 100 POUNDS OF BEET SUGAR, SELLING EX- 
 PENSE AND NET PRICE AT FACTORY PER 100 POUNDS, BY COMPANIES, FOR 
 THE YEARS 1909-10 TO 1913-14, INCLUSIVE — Continued. 
 
 1912-13. 
 
 
 Gross 
 receipts. 
 
 Selling expense. 
 
 
 Company. 
 
 Broker- 
 age and 
 commis- 
 sion. 
 
 Freight. 
 
 Other 
 expense. 
 
 Total 
 
 selling 
 
 expense. 
 
 Net price 
 at fac- 
 tory. 
 
 1 
 
 $4.8953 
 4.7757 
 4.9695 
 4.7306 
 5.0347 
 
 4.5393 
 4.6682 
 5.1925 
 4.9923 
 5. 1708 
 
 4.6497 
 4.4901 
 4.5460 
 5.1434 
 5.1531 
 
 4.7784 
 5.2337 
 4.6225 
 5.3650 
 4.6582 
 
 5.7543 
 5.9856 
 4.7063 
 5.2835 
 4.7331 
 
 5.3196 
 4.8257 
 4.7148 
 4.8241 
 5.1864 
 
 4.7623 
 4.9411 
 4.7859 
 4.9747 
 4.4670 
 
 4.7501 
 5.1858 
 
 $0.0299 
 .0899 
 .0304 
 .0351 
 .0291 
 
 .0537 
 .0300 
 .0252 
 .0504 
 .0140 
 
 .0897 
 .0436 
 .0001 
 .0403 
 .0767 
 
 .0291 
 .0356 
 .0435 
 .0278 
 .0521 
 
 $0.4286 
 .1776 
 .3509 
 .1739 
 .0918 
 
 .1016 
 .1185 
 .1958 
 .7561 
 .2684 
 
 .1374 
 .1202 
 .0114 
 .3940 
 
 $0. 1526 
 .1171 
 .1410 
 .1129 
 .1265 
 
 .0895 
 .1093 
 .1280 
 .1331 
 .1065 
 
 .1120 
 .0446 
 .1039 
 .1528 
 .3371 
 
 .2854 
 .1353 
 .1159 
 .1496 
 .1187 
 
 $0.6111 
 .3846 
 .5223 
 .3219 
 .2474 
 
 .2448 
 .2578 
 .3490 
 .9396 
 .3889 
 
 .3391 
 .2083 
 .1154 
 .5871 
 .4138 
 
 .4331 
 .5996 
 .2911 
 .5709 
 .3434 
 
 .5181 
 .7396 
 .3132 
 .6260 
 .3350 
 
 .6166 
 .3065 
 .3689 
 .6455 
 .3540 
 
 .3218 
 .2708 
 .2620 
 .7971 
 .1582 
 
 .4386 
 .7037 
 
 $4.2842 
 
 2. 
 
 4.3911 
 
 3 
 
 4.4472 
 
 4. 
 
 4.4087 
 
 5. • 
 
 4.7873 
 
 6 
 
 4.2945 
 
 7. 
 
 4.4104 
 
 8 
 
 4.8435 
 
 9 
 
 4.0527 
 
 10 
 
 4.7819 
 
 11 
 
 4.3106 
 
 12 
 
 4.2818 
 
 13 
 
 4.4306 
 
 14 
 
 4.5563 
 
 15 
 
 4.7393 
 
 16. 
 
 1186 
 .4287 
 .1317 
 .3935 
 .1726 
 
 4.3453 
 
 17. 
 
 4.6341 
 
 18. 
 
 4.3314 
 
 19 
 
 4.7941 
 
 20 
 
 4.3148 
 
 21 
 
 5.2362 
 
 22. 
 
 .0358 
 .0943 
 .0363 
 .0291 
 
 .0350 
 .0081 
 .0825 
 .0300 
 .0333 
 
 .0262 
 
 .5049 
 .1175 
 .4607 
 .0926 
 
 .4467 
 .0827 
 .1737 
 .4996 
 
 .2278 
 
 .1129 
 .2241 
 .1052 
 .4919 
 .0673 
 
 .1019 
 .4924 
 
 .1989 
 .1014 
 .1290 
 .2133 
 
 .1349 
 .2157 
 .1127 
 .1159 
 .0929 
 
 .1827 
 .0467 
 .1281 
 .2805 
 .0099 
 
 .3097 
 .1821 
 
 5.2460 
 
 23. 
 
 4.3931 
 
 24 
 
 4.6575 
 
 25. 
 
 4.3981 
 
 26. 
 
 4.7030 
 
 27 
 
 4.5192 
 
 28 
 
 4.3459 
 
 29 
 
 4.1786 
 
 30 
 
 4.8324 
 
 31 
 
 4.4405 
 
 32 
 
 4.6703 
 
 33 
 
 .0287 
 .0247 
 .0810 
 
 .0270 
 .0292 
 
 4.5239 
 
 34 
 
 4.1776 
 
 35. 
 
 4.3088 
 
 36 '. 
 
 4.3115 
 
 37. 
 
 4.4821 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 <, 
 
 / 
 
 TABLB 24.— GROSS RECEIPTS PER 100 POUNDS OF BEET SUGAR, SELLING EX- 
 PENSE AND NET PRICE AT FACTORY PER 100 POUNDS, BY COMPANIES, FOR 
 THE YEARS 1909-10 TO 1913-14, INCLUSIVE— Continued. 
 
 1913-14. 
 
 
 Gross 
 receipts. 
 
 
 Selling expense. 
 
 
 
 Company. 
 
 Broker- 
 age and 
 commis- 
 sion. 
 
 Freight. 
 
 Other 
 expense. 
 
 Total 
 
 selling 
 
 expense. 
 
 Net price 
 atmc- 
 tory. 
 
 1 
 
 $4.4321 
 4.2492 
 4.4366 
 4.3212 
 4.4089 
 
 4.1616 
 4.0744 
 4.6257 
 4.2163 
 4.3180 
 
 4.2751 
 
 $0.0299 
 
 . 0798 
 
 .0335 
 
 .0295 
 
 .0295 
 
 .0256 
 .0800 
 .0387 
 .0149 
 .0141 
 
 .0822 
 
 $0.4321 
 .1842 
 .3077 
 .1253 
 .1087 
 
 .1222 
 .1248 
 .1812 
 .1342 
 .2565 
 
 .1444 
 
 $0.1345 
 .1309 
 .1335 
 .1017 
 .1214 
 
 .0768 
 .1204 
 .1834 
 .1747 
 .0939 
 
 .1647 
 
 $0.5965 
 .3949 
 .4747 
 .2565 
 .2596 
 
 .2246 
 .3252 
 .4033 
 .3238 
 .3645 
 
 .3913 
 
 $3.8356 
 
 2 
 
 3.8543 
 
 3 
 
 3.9619 
 
 4 
 
 4.0647 
 
 5 
 
 4.1493 
 
 6 
 
 3.9370 
 
 7 
 
 3.7492 
 
 8 
 
 4.2224 
 
 9 
 
 3.8925 
 
 10 .. 
 
 3.9535 
 
 11 
 
 3.8838 
 
 12 
 
 
 13 
 
 3.9568 
 4.5003 
 4.4057 
 
 4.2560 
 4.4180 
 4.1788 
 4. 5708 
 4.1273 
 
 5.1551 
 5.3347 
 4.3975 
 4.5087 
 4.5230 
 
 4.5617 
 4.2642 
 4.2314 
 4.4341 
 4.4572 
 
 4.3733 
 4.4454 
 4.2594 
 4.5864 
 4.6498 
 
 4.7786 
 4.5795 
 
 .0039 
 .0390 
 .0098 
 
 .0331 
 .0371 
 .0267 
 .0327 
 .0558 
 
 .0251 
 .0497 
 .0861 
 .0367 
 .0431 
 
 .0345 
 .0375 
 .0952 
 .0408 
 .0284 
 
 .0094 
 
 .0198 
 .2688 
 .1433 
 
 .1061 
 .4162 
 . 1382 
 .1895 
 .1475 
 
 .3259 
 .3865 
 .1628 
 .4512 
 .0728 
 
 .3842 
 .1205 
 .1763 
 .4160 
 .1396 
 
 .0764 
 .1517 
 .0872 
 .3981 
 .0888 
 
 .0911 
 .3736 
 
 .0810 
 .1399 
 
 .0648 
 
 .1754 
 .1101 
 .1107 
 .1303 
 .1056 
 
 .1351 
 .1999 
 .1590 
 .1194 
 .1645 
 
 .1578 
 .1812 
 .1261 
 .1017 
 .1890 
 
 .1029 
 .0278 
 .1243 
 .2452 
 .0103 
 
 .1609 
 .2052 
 
 .1047 
 .4477 
 .2179 
 
 .3146 
 .5634 
 .2756 
 .3525 
 .3089 
 
 .4861 
 .6361 
 .4079 
 .6073 
 .2804 
 
 .5765 
 .3392 
 .3976 
 .5585 
 .3570 
 
 .1887 
 .1795 
 .2423 
 .6707 
 .1904 
 
 .2924 
 .6138 
 
 3.8521 
 
 14 
 
 4.0526 
 
 15 
 
 4. 1878 
 
 16 
 
 3.9414 
 
 17 
 
 3.8546 
 
 18 
 
 3.9032 
 
 19. 
 
 4.2183 
 
 20 ^ 
 
 3.81S4 
 
 21 
 
 4.6690 
 
 22 
 
 4.6986 
 
 23 
 
 3.9896 
 
 24 
 
 3.9014 
 
 25 
 
 4.2426 
 
 26 
 
 3.9852 
 
 27 
 
 3.9250 
 
 28 
 
 3.8338 
 
 29 
 
 3.8756 
 
 30 
 
 4.1002 
 
 31. 
 
 4.1^46 
 
 32 
 
 4.2659 
 
 33 
 
 .0308 
 .0274 
 .0913 
 
 .0404 
 .0350 
 
 4.0171 
 
 34 
 
 3.9157 
 
 35 
 
 4.4594 
 
 36 
 
 4.4862 
 
 37 
 
 3.9657 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 • 
 
 j 
 
100 THE BEET SUGAB INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 In the foregoing table it is seen that the cost of selling in 1913-14 
 ranged from $0.1047 in company No. 13 to $0.6707 per 100 pounds in 
 company No. 34. The average for all companies was $0.4542. The 
 average for all companies in 1909-10, was $0.3865; in 1910-11, 
 $0.3782 ; in 1911-12, $0.4281 ; and in 1912-13, $0.4731. The differences 
 in selling expense for the various companies are due largely to the 
 differences in the amount of freight paid. i 
 
 Freight charges.— The freight on sugar, which is the largest item 
 of selling expense, is usually prepaid by the company. Freight is 
 also paid on the containers, the weight of a bag being considered as 
 one pound and that of a barrel as 16 pounds. Naturally, the average 
 freight per 100 pounds of sugar is higher for large companies, since 
 the larger proportion of their product is sold in more distant markets 
 and consequently on higher freight rates. Also, companies in the 
 East enjoy some advantage over companies whose factories are 
 located in the West, due to their nearness to the great consuming 
 centers. In 1913-14 the highest average freight charge for any east- 
 ern company was $0.1842 per bag. The average for the four largest 
 western companies was $0.3672 per bag. The highest average freight 
 in this year was $0.4512 for company No. 24 and the lowest was 
 $0.0198 for company No. 13. The latter company and company No. 
 35, however, dispose of most of their product on an f . o. b. factory 
 basis. For this reason selling costs are not strictly comparable with 
 those of other companies. Six companies in all had an average 
 freight cost of less than 10 cents per bag, while the cost exceeded iO 
 cents per bag in only four cases. 
 
 Usually the average freight in one year does not differ materially 
 from that paid in other years. Apparently such differences are 
 chiefly due to variations in points to which sugar is shipped. The 
 wide differences in 1909-10 and 1912-13 as compared with the other 
 years for company No. 9 can not be explained unless the amounts 
 for these two years include some freight paid in other years. In 
 1911 a larger per cent of the product was sold outside the State than 
 in 1912, and yet only about $2,700 freight was paid as compared 
 with $69,000 in the latter year on a slightly larger amount. It will 
 also be noticed that for company No. 8 the average freight in 1909 
 and 1911 was much higher than for other years. Some sugar was 
 returned to this company as being off color which necessitated the 
 paying of the freight three times, although it is not known what per 
 cent of the total amount sold is affected thereby. The freight cost is 
 shown for company No. 21 for only one year as the detailed cost of 
 selling was not secured for other years. 
 
 Other expenses.— The average brokerage paid is about 3 cents per 
 100 pounds. The usual charge paid brokers is 3 cents per bag, 5 
 
 I 
 
 
 DISTBIBUTION OP SUGAR. 
 
 101 
 
 cents per bale, or 10 cents per barrel. Companies Nos. 2, 6, 7, 11, 23, 
 and 28 paid an additional 5 per cent since the broker in these cases 
 assumed the responsibility to the customer and in some instances 
 advanced money to the company before the sugar was sold. Com- 
 pany No. 32 disposed of its product locally and paid no brokerage, 
 and company No. 13 paid no brokerage, all its sugar being taken by 
 one concern. The cost of selling for company No. 22 in 1909 was 
 charged in the accounts of 1910, and the amount has been prorated 
 on the basis of the quantity sold in each year. 
 
 In 1909 and 1910 the regular cash discount was 1 per cent. Since 
 then the usual discount has been 2 per cent for cash in seven days. 
 Company No. 35 sold its sugar net as did No. 13 in 1909 and 1910. 
 Practically all sugar is sold on a cash basis, and the losses from bad 
 debts are practically nothing. 
 
 Storage and insurance are charges on unsold sugar which has 
 been shipped to distributing points. A dealer, for example, at some 
 central point may buy less than a car load. The company ships a 
 car to him in order to save freight charges and some time may elapse 
 before the remainder of the car is sold. The dealer buying the 
 remainder of the car pays the freight from the distributing point. 
 Insurance on sugar in their own w^arehouses, hoAvever, is included 
 with the insurance of factory buildings, etc., and therefore included 
 in factory costs. 
 
 The charge for allowances arises from the fact that the price to 
 the wholesaler is guaranteed. That is to say, when the manufac- 
 turer makes a sale he guarantees the wholesaler or jobber against a 
 decline in price. When sugar was sold it was billed at the market 
 price on the day of sale, but the manufacturer guaranteed the whole- 
 saler or jobber that in final settlement the price should not exceed the 
 market at the time of delivery. Thus, if a quantity of sugar was 
 sold on a day when the price was, say, $5 per 100 pounds, but when 
 delivered, say, 10 or 20 days hence, the market was then $4.80 per 
 100 pounds, the wholesaler was allowed the difference. On the other 
 hand, if the market advanced to, say, $5.10 per 100 pounds, the 
 wholesaler still got his sugar at $5. In other words, the manufac- 
 turer guaranteed the wholesaler or jobber against loss on a declining 
 market, but did not receive the reciprocal advantage of an advanced 
 price upon a rising market. 
 
 While it was formerly the custom among cane-sugar refiners to 
 guarantee the price against decline, this has not been the case for 
 some years. A large refiner states that the cane-sugar refiners aban- 
 doned this custom because the margin between the price of raw and 
 refined sugars has been so reduced that there was nothing left as an 
 insurance against the risk' taken in guaranteeing against decline. 
 
 t 
 \ 
 
 t 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 87721— IT- 
 
 'S ■ 
 
 i 
 
102 THE BEET SUGAK INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 The argument in favor of the guarantee is that it enables the manu- 
 facturer or refiner to keep a considerable amount of business on his 
 books under contract. The beet factories operate but about three 
 months in the year and contract for their raw material a year ahead 
 at a fixed price. They thus know about what it will cost to produce 
 granulated sugar so that a rising market simply increases their 
 profits without affecting their cost of production. They are, there- 
 fore, in a better position to guarantee the price than cane refiners. 
 \ Probably the main reason, however, for maintaining this custom 
 / among beet sugar manufacturers is their desire to sell as much of 
 I their product as possible in territory near the point of manufacture. 
 By guaranteeing against a decline in price they are better able to 
 book their output in near-by territory where they have the most 
 favorable freight rates. Since their cost of production is practically 
 determined long in advance of the time of manufacture they are 
 placed at no greater competitive disadvantage because of guaran- 
 teeing the price than they would be at if they did not do so but met 
 competition from cane sugar as it comes. 
 
 Net prices received. — The delivered price for beet sugar is based 
 upon the price of granulated cane sugar at New York, New Orleans, 
 or San Francisco. This price is adjusted by the freight to the dis- 
 tributing point, and by the allowance of a differential against beet 
 sugar. Although beet and cane sugar are chemically the same, 
 there is a preference for cane sugar which compels beet sugar to 
 be sold at a lower price. The amount of this differential depends 
 largely on the strength of the preference for cane sugar in a par- 
 ticular territory but to some extent on market conditions. The usual 
 differential is 10 cents per 100 pounds though it is sometimes as low 
 as 5 cents and at others as high as 20 cents or more. Other condi- 
 tions which account for the difference in the selling price of the 
 various companies are the time of marketing the product, freight 
 rates, competitive conditions in the different markets, quality of 
 I the sugar produced, etc. 
 t-^^^In 1913-14 the average net price received at the factory ranged 
 from $3.7492 for company No. 7 to $4.6986 per 100 pounds for com- 
 pany *No. 22, the average for all companies being $3.9597. The dif- 
 ferences of course are due in many cases to the differences in the cost 
 of selling. For example, the selling price of companies Nos. 1, 17, 24, 
 29, and 34 was higher than the average for all companies, yet due to 
 the high freight charges the average net price received was less than 
 the average for all companies. In this year some differences may also 
 be accounted for by the fact that during the first half of 1914 the 
 price of sugar was low, so that the average price for the companies 
 which closed their books January 1 would be somewhat higher than 
 
 DISTBIBUnON OF SUGAR. 
 
 103 
 
 H 
 
 f 
 
 t 
 
 < 
 
 / 
 
 V 
 
 X 
 
 for those which did not close their books until the f olloAving April or 
 May. The averages for companies Nos. 21 and 22 are high in all 
 years since they are able to sell their product largely in noncom- 
 petitive territory. The average net price received for all companies 
 in 1909-10 was $5.0561 per 100 pounds, in 1910-11 $4.9674, in 
 1911-12 $5.4216, and in 1912-13 $4.9225. The range in prices re- 
 ceived by the various companies is widest in the year 1911-12. This 
 was due to the sudden rise in the price of sugar during the year 
 caused by the shortage of the beet crop in Europe. Companies whose 
 season began early no doubt sold large quantities in August or early 
 in September, while others sold a large part of their product in 
 October or November when the price was highest. For example, the 
 difference in the average net price received by company No. 5 and 
 company No. 30 was not more than 5 cents in other years, while in 
 this year the latter company received 71 cents per bag less than com- 
 pany No. 5. In 1911-12 company No. 30 sold more sugar in August 
 than in any other month, while company No. 5 did not begin making 
 sugar until the 1st of October. As will be seen, however, in Table 25 
 below, the bulk of the product is not sold during the short producing 
 period as might be supposed and as is sometimes claimed. 
 
 When beet sugar is sold.— Although practically all beet sugar is 
 made between August 1 and January 1 it is placed on the market h 
 throughout the greater part of the year. The quantity sold in each r 
 month was secured from 30 of the 37 companies which in 1913-14 
 sold 95 per cent of the total quantity sold by all companies. No in- ( 
 formation as to the time of selling was secured from any factory in 
 Wisconsin. In the table below the per cent of sales made in each ' 
 month is shown by States: 
 
 Table 25.-PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SALES OF BEET SUGAR MADE IN EACH MONTH 
 BY YEARS AND BY STATES OF PRODUCTION, 1910-11 TO 1913-14. 
 
 
 Mar. 
 
 Apr. 
 
 May. 
 
 June. 
 
 July. 
 
 Aug. 
 
 Sept. 
 
 Oct. 
 
 Nov. 
 
 6.6 
 
 7.4 
 
 9.2 
 
 30.2 
 
 10.8 
 
 15.6 
 
 5.7 
 
 16.6 
 
 33.2 
 
 7.1 
 
 Dec. 
 
 Jan. 
 
 Feb. 
 
 Total. 
 
 1910-11. 
 Arizona 
 
 3.7 
 10.4 
 10.5 
 
 5.0 
 2.4 
 3.8 
 
 9.2 
 2.9 
 7.6 
 
 16.5 
 2.8 
 6.3 
 
 5.9 
 5.7 
 
 7.8 
 
 7.7 
 
 20.1 
 
 8.3 
 
 12.3 
 
 17.6 
 
 5.6 
 
 9.4 
 
 10.1 
 
 6.0 
 
 11.7 
 
 3.5 
 
 7.3 
 
 5.4 
 
 10.0 
 
 6.2 
 
 3.3 
 
 7.5 
 7.0 
 13.4 
 31.6 
 15.7 
 23.6 
 10.6 
 22.7 i 
 33.3 
 8.6 ! 
 
 7.5 
 5.8 
 8.5 
 
 16.7 
 6.6 
 
 16.9 
 6.9 
 
 13.7 
 
 24.8 
 5.4 
 
 8.7 
 
 7.8 
 
 13.0 
 
 9.8 
 
 20.7 
 
 30.5 
 
 11.5 
 
 37.0 
 
 2.5 
 
 8.2 
 
 
 California 
 
 100.0 
 
 Colorado 
 
 100.0 
 
 Iowa..i 
 
 100.0 
 
 Kansas 
 
 Michigan 
 
 13.9 
 
 2.8 
 
 33.6 
 
 2.2 
 0.2 
 2.3 
 
 3.2. 
 0.2* 
 4.7 
 
 8.6 
 0.0 
 4.2 
 
 5.2 
 0.0 
 
 6.2 
 
 4.7 
 1.2 
 3.9 
 
 4.9 
 1.7 
 5.0 
 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 
 Montana 
 
 100.0 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 100.0 
 
 Ohio 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 100.0 
 
 Utah and Idaho... 
 
 16.7 
 
 14.6 
 
 10.5 
 
 7.0 
 
 5.7 
 
 4.9 
 
 8.0 
 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 
 Total 
 
 10.1 
 
 3.9 
 
 4.6 
 
 1 
 
 3.8 
 
 4.9 
 
 9.6 
 
 8.7 
 
 7.2 
 
 10.2 
 
 13.3 1 9.3 
 
 14.4 
 
 100.0 
 
 \t 
 
 II 
 
 ■.,A 
 
104 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 TABLE 25 -PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SALES OF BEET SUGAR MADE IN EACH MONTH. 
 BY YEARS AND BY STATES OF PRODUCTION. 1910-11 TO 1913-14-CoBtlnued. 
 
 DISTRIBUTION OF SUGAR. 
 
 Mar. 
 
 1911-12. 
 
 Arizona 
 
 California 
 
 Colorado 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Kansas 
 
 Michigan 
 
 Montana 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Utah and Idaho... 
 
 Total 
 
 4.9 
 
 7.3 
 
 12.0 
 
 39.1 
 19.2 
 16.4 
 10.6 
 0.6 
 5.9 
 
 Apr. 
 
 8.7 
 4.0 
 4.2 
 
 May. 
 
 June. 
 
 July. 
 
 11.2 
 
 16.5 
 3.0 
 2.8 
 4.0 
 
 5.3 
 
 7.2 
 3.5 
 7.1 
 
 9.0 
 0.3 
 5.7 
 
 3.8 
 
 8.6 
 5.0 
 5.8 
 
 14.9 
 0.0 
 7.9 
 3.3 
 
 Aug. Sept 
 
 8.8 
 3.9 
 6.5 
 
 11.6 12.0 
 
 6.5 
 O.D 
 6.1 
 7.1 
 
 14.4 
 
 17.3 
 
 1.9 
 
 0.1 
 0.0 
 1.8 
 5.9 
 
 10.1 
 
 4.5 
 
 17.5 
 
 21.4 
 
 1.4 
 
 Oct. 
 
 4.3 
 13.6 
 11.8 
 11.0 
 
 Nov. 
 
 0.0 
 1.7 
 0.4 
 
 2.7 
 
 15.4 
 14.4 
 23.3 
 17.4 
 17.9 
 
 5.5 
 
 3.0 
 10.8 
 41.6 
 
 0.0 
 20.0 
 
 5.4 
 11.5 
 26.1 
 
 3.0 
 
 Dec. 
 
 4.0 
 
 5.0 
 
 1912-13. 
 
 Arizona 
 
 California 
 
 Colorado — 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Elansas 
 
 Michigan' 
 
 Montana 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 Nevada 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Utah and Idaho. 
 
 0.2 
 4.5 
 2.6 
 
 2.3 
 
 3.9 
 
 20.2 
 
 2.6 
 
 0.5 
 4.3 
 2.5 
 
 0.1 
 9.1 
 
 Total. 
 
 1913-14. 
 
 Arizona 
 
 California 
 
 Colorado 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Kansas 
 
 Michigan' 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 Montana 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 Nevada 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Utah and Idaho. 
 
 4.9 
 
 1.3 
 3.5 
 2.2 
 
 4.2 
 
 5.3 
 
 0.8 
 4.6 
 1.3 
 
 0.0 
 6.0 
 
 0.3 
 6.5 
 5.7 
 2.6 
 
 
 14 
 
 3.6 
 
 \2.6 
 7.3 
 
 14.4 
 6.8 
 
 42.9 
 4.1 
 
 Total. 
 
 7.9 
 14.3 
 0.4 
 2.4 
 7.1 
 
 12.2 
 4.8 
 7.2 
 2.8 
 
 24.9 
 0.7 
 
 11.8 
 7.0 
 
 10.9 
 7.0 
 
 12.5 
 0.2 
 
 0.7 
 14.7 
 
 4.8 
 
 29.0 
 3.8 
 3.0 
 
 7.0 7.8 
 
 14.2 
 
 9.0 
 
 1.7 
 5.5 
 6.9 
 7.1 
 
 17.5 
 
 10.3 
 
 7.4 
 
 5.3 
 
 0.6 
 15.5 
 
 9.7 
 
 2.8 
 
 4.5 
 
 10.1 
 
 9.7 
 
 18.7 
 
 9.9 
 
 0.0 
 
 8.8 
 
 3.6 
 0.6 
 2.1 
 
 6.7 
 
 0.1 
 4.3 
 
 11.6 
 8.9 
 5.4 
 
 15.3 
 3.4 
 1.2 
 7.6 
 3.6 
 7.1 
 
 14.5 
 2.3 
 
 5.2 
 5.7 
 8.6 
 
 13.4 
 0.6 
 
 10.5 
 5.0 
 7.2 
 
 19.5 
 3.9 
 
 Jan. 
 
 14.5 
 
 3.0 
 11.9 
 20.8 
 
 6.5 
 19.2 
 10.2 
 
 7.7 
 29.3 
 
 6.4 
 
 Feb. 
 
 7.3 9.6 
 
 4.3 
 8.8 
 8.9 
 
 36.2 
 5.4 
 
 12.8 
 5.4 
 9.1 
 
 50.3 
 
 23.0 
 3.9 
 
 5.7 
 
 7.2 
 
 9.9 
 
 5.9 
 6.2 
 2.2 
 0.9 
 6.2 
 
 5.5 
 
 8.5 
 8.0 
 5.6 
 0.1 
 9.9 
 
 7.4 
 7.6 
 8.0 
 1.6 
 4.0 
 0.2 
 
 28.1 
 6.6 
 9.5 
 L7 
 
 8.8 
 
 22.1 
 
 18.3 
 
 4.4 
 
 0.0 
 
 5.8 
 19.2 
 
 2.8 
 
 7.4 
 10.7 
 10.9 
 19.8 
 12.8 
 23.4 
 
 9.1 
 15.2 
 35.5 
 24.2 
 
 5.4 
 
 0.4 
 12.3 
 18.0 
 13.2 
 
 6.8 
 12.4 
 22.6 
 15.2 
 
 7.1 
 16.7 
 
 Total. 
 
 8.4 
 
 9.6 
 19.3 
 22.3 
 22.1 
 21.2 
 12.8 
 15.9 
 
 3.5 
 25.1 
 
 6.7 
 
 0.0 
 
 9.4 
 
 0.1 
 
 7.9 
 
 7.1 
 7.3 
 0.9 
 0.3 
 14.3 
 
 7.5 
 
 10.1 
 6.6 
 2.4 
 0.0 
 
 19.2 
 
 0.0 
 
 7.7 
 8.5 
 0.3 
 0.0 
 9.7 
 
 0.1 
 
 12.1 
 
 6.5 
 
 16.7 
 
 8.0 
 
 5.8 
 2.6 
 
 8.5 
 
 8.3 
 
 10.6 
 
 16.4 
 31.7 
 8.6 
 7.6 
 4.4 
 18.5 
 5.7 
 
 7.5 
 10.0 
 31.9 
 
 1.8 
 19.9 
 40.5 
 11.9 
 10.0 
 58.1 
 20.4 
 
 1.8 
 
 13.1 
 
 15.1 
 
 14.8 
 
 9.9 
 10.1 
 27.0 
 
 6.4 
 36.2 
 15.0 
 17.2 
 19.6 
 
 3.6 
 11.4 
 
 9.2 
 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 
 100.0 
 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 
 16.3 
 
 5.7 
 
 5.6 
 
 13.1 
 
 4.1 
 
 16.7 
 
 22.0 
 
 5.4 
 
 9.2 
 
 12.6 
 
 10.6 
 
 4.9 
 
 2.5 
 
 11.6 
 
 15.3 
 
 5.8 
 
 22.1 
 
 5.2 
 
 9.7 
 
 8.7 
 
 2.4 
 
 22.2 
 
 5.2 
 
 8.0 
 
 9.6 10.5 
 
 1.4 
 9.1 
 3.1 
 4.0 
 
 19.5 
 0.6 
 9.2 
 7.8 
 8.1 
 
 24.6 
 2.4 
 
 100.0 
 
 7. 2 9. 5 
 
 7.6 
 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 100.0 
 
 100.0 
 
 1 Includes the sugar sold from the Decatur, Ind., factory. 
 
 The above table shows that the companies with factories in Michi- 
 gan sold practically all of their product before April, except in the 
 year 1912-13. In that year 22.5 per cent of the total amount was 
 sold during the period from April to September, no doubt due to 
 the fact that many of the factories did not close the 1911-12 cam- 
 paign until March. In California manufacture begins earlier than 
 in other States and about one-third of the product is sold in August 
 
 f 
 
 Y 
 
 / 
 
 V 
 
 i 
 
 105 
 
 and September, although large quantities are sold in each month. 
 In Colorado, Montana, Utah, and Idaho a larger per cent is mar- 
 keted later in the year, and the companies with factories in Utah 
 and Idaho in 2 of the 4 years sold more than 30 per cent of their 
 product during June and July. The product of the companies in 
 Nevada, Ohio, Arizona, Iowa, and Minnesota is small and is disposed 
 of shortly after it is made. In Arizona manufacturing usually begins 
 in July, a large part of their product being sold during July and 
 August. In Kansas and Nebraska the product is sold at various 
 times of the year, but usually the larger per cent of it is disposed 
 of by the end of February. In 2 years, however, the Garden City 
 Sugar & Land Co. sold about 40 per cent of its product in March. 
 
 Of the total amount sold by the companies included less than ont- 
 half was sold during the sugar-making season. In 1910-11 49 per 
 cent was sold during the period from August 1 to January 1; in 
 1911-12 45.3 per cent, in 1912-13 44 per cent, and in 1913-14 43.6 
 per cent. In the latter year the per cent was even less than shown 
 since the quantities sold during January and February by certain 
 California companies which closed their books January 1 is not 
 included. In three of the four years more sugar was sold in Febru- 
 ary than in any other month. While the total product amounts to 
 only about one-sixth of the sugar consumed in the United States, 
 if it were all put on the market during the producing period no 
 doubt the effect on prices for cane granulated sugar would be quite 
 noticeable. Beet sugar is produced during only five or six months of 
 the year and most of it in three or four months, but it is sold through- 
 out the year. Not more than 16.3 per cent of the product in any year 
 is sold in a single month. That the average price for cane refined 
 sugar is more often higher than loAver while beet sugar is being made 
 is shown in the statement below. As the campaigns of certain fac- 
 tories sometimes extend into January, the average price for the six 
 months from February 1 to July 31 has been compared with the 
 average price for the six months ending January 31. 
 
 AVERAGE QUOTATIONS FOR GRANULATED SUGAR AT NEW YORK, FEBRUARY, 
 
 1906, TO JANUARY, 1915, BY 6-MONTH PERIODS. 
 [Cents pe." pound.] 
 
 Feb. 1 to July 31. 
 Aug. 1 to Jan. 31. 
 
 1914-15 
 
 1913-14 
 
 3.97 
 5.63 
 
 4.20 
 4.25 
 
 1912-13 
 
 5.15 
 4.79 
 
 1911-12 
 
 4.79 
 5.99 
 
 1910-11 1909-10 
 
 5.08 
 
 4.82 
 
 4.68 
 4.90 
 
 1908-9 
 
 1907-8 
 
 5.12 
 4.73' 
 
 4.68 
 4.&4 
 
 1906-7 
 
 4.43 
 4.63 
 
 \ 
 
 It is noted in the above statement that the price of sugar was 
 higher during the period in which beet sugar is made in 5 of the 9 
 years than during the period in which no beet sugar is made. The 
 average price during the latter period for the 9 years was 4.68 cents 
 per pound as compared with 4.93 cents for the period in which beet 
 sugar is produced. 
 
106 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Quotations of granulated sugar at New York by months, for the 
 26 years ending with 1915, are shown in Table 27, at the end of this 
 chapter. This table also shows the price of Cuban raw sugar 96 de- 
 grees duty paid and the margin between raw and refined sugar at 
 ] New York. In some years prices of granulated sugars were lower 
 during the beet-sugar producing period and in some they were higher. 
 In 1908, 1910, and 1912 the range was lower during the beet season. 
 In 1909, 1911, and 1914 it was higher. In 1913 there was not much 
 variation. If prices were uniformly lower during the beet-produc- 
 ing season it would indicate that it was due to the influence of beet 
 sugar. Since this is not the case, the cause of lower prices in some 
 years must be sought elsewhere than in the sale of beet sugar. Fluc- 
 tuations in price are probably due mainly to world conditions in the 
 sugar market and in times past no doubt monopolistic conditions have 
 had considerable influence on prices in this country. 
 
 In this connection it is of interest to note that the prices of sugar 
 are considerably higher in those sections of the country where there 
 is little or no competition from Cuban sugar. This lack of competi- 
 tion is due mainly, if not entirely, to high freight rates from refin- 
 ing centers. A compilation of weekly quotations in Detroit, Denver, 
 and San Francisco for beet sugar has been made for the year 1913-14 
 and the differences between the quotations in these markets and the 
 New York quotations for granulated cane sugar are shown in Table 
 26 below. At practically all times the quotations for beet sugar in 
 these three markets are above the quotations for cane sugar in New 
 York. The quotations for Detroit were taken from the Detroit News 
 and the Detroit Free Press ; those for Denver were supplied by the 
 Great Western Sugar Co., while those for San Francisco were taken 
 from the San Francisco Examiner. 
 
 Table 26 —EXCESS OF DETROIT, DENVER. AND SAN FRANCISCO QUOTATIONS FOR 
 GRANITLATED SUGAR (BEET) OVER NEW YORK QUOTATIONS (CANE), WEEKLY 
 
 1913 AND 1914. icents per 100 pounds.] 
 
 DISTRIBUTION OF SUGAB. 
 
 107 
 
 1913 
 
 Date. 
 
 Jan. 2.. 
 9., 
 16. 
 23. 
 30. 
 Feb. 6. 
 13. 
 20. 
 27. 
 
 Detroit 
 over 
 New 
 
 York.» 
 
 $0.25 
 .24 
 
 .24 
 
 .24 
 .39 
 .43 
 
 .44 
 .48 
 .38 
 
 Denver 
 
 over 
 
 New 
 
 York. 
 
 SO. 40 
 .54 
 ,54 
 .54 
 .59 
 .63 
 .59 
 .63 
 .63 
 
 San 
 Fran- 
 cisco 
 over 
 
 New 
 York. 
 
 1914 
 
 $0.20 
 .24 
 .24 
 .24 
 .29 
 .33 
 .29 
 .33 
 .33 
 
 Date. 
 
 Jan. 8.. 
 
 15. 
 
 22. 
 
 29. 
 Feb. 5. 
 
 12. 
 
 19. 
 
 26. 
 Mar. 5. 
 
 Detroit 
 over 
 New 
 
 York. 
 
 $0.33 
 .23 
 .23 
 .23 
 .23 
 .23 
 .33 
 .38 
 .38 
 
 Denver 
 over 
 New 
 
 York. 
 
 $0.53 
 .53 
 .53 
 .53 
 .53 
 .43 
 .43 
 .43 
 .43 
 
 San 
 Fran- 
 cisco 
 over 
 New 
 York. 
 
 $0.23 
 .23 
 .23 
 .23 
 .23 
 .13 
 .13 
 .13 
 .13 
 
 
 t 
 
 < 
 
 / 
 
 V 
 
 < 
 
 Table 26.— EXCESS OF DETROIT, DENVER, AND SAN FRANCISCO QUOTATIONS 
 FOR GRANULATED SUGAR (BEET) OVER NEW YORK QUOTATIONS (CANE), 
 WEEKLY, 1913 AND 1914 — Continued. 
 
 1013 
 
 1 
 
 1914 
 
 Date. 
 
 Detroit 
 over 
 New 
 
 York.i 
 
 Denver 
 over 
 New 
 
 York. 
 
 San 
 Fran- 
 cisco 
 over 
 New 
 York. 
 
 Date. 
 
 Detroit 
 over 
 New 
 
 York. 
 
 Denver 
 over 
 New 
 
 York. 
 
 San 
 Fran- 
 cisco 
 over 
 New 
 York. 
 
 Mar 6 ..... 
 
 $0.34 
 .39 
 .43 
 .33 
 .33 
 .43 
 .33 
 .28 
 .28 
 
 (1) 
 
 $0.59 
 .59 
 .63 
 .63 
 .63 
 .73 
 .73 
 .68 
 .58 
 .58 
 .58 
 .68 
 .58 
 .58 
 .58 
 .58 
 .59 
 .49 
 .49 
 .49 
 .49 
 .49 
 .39 
 .49 
 .49 
 .59 
 .69 
 .69 
 .69 
 .59 
 .54 
 .63 
 .58 
 .48 
 .48 
 .54 
 .54 
 .54' 
 .54 
 .58 
 .58 
 .53 
 .53 
 .53 
 
 $0.29 
 .29 
 .33 
 .33 
 .33 
 .43 
 .23 
 .18 
 .18 
 .28 
 .28 
 .38 
 .28 
 .28 
 .28 
 .28 
 .29 
 .19 
 .19 
 .19 
 .19 
 .19 
 .09 
 .19 
 .19 
 .29 
 .39 
 .39 
 .39 
 .29 
 .54 
 .43- 
 .28 
 .18 
 .18 
 .24 
 .24 
 .24 
 .24 
 .28 
 .28 
 .23 
 .23 
 .33 1 
 
 Mar.l2 
 
 $0.48 
 
 .43 
 
 .48 
 
 .48 
 
 .57 
 
 .57 
 
 .51 
 
 .51 
 
 .42 
 
 .33 
 
 .38 
 
 .38 
 
 .38 
 
 .38 
 
 .29 
 
 .39 
 
 .39 
 
 .39 
 
 .49 
 
 .49 
 
 .63 
 
 .50 
 
 .29 
 
 .80 
 
 .79 
 
 .79 
 
 .79 
 
 .79 
 
 1.27 
 
 1.03 
 
 .62 
 
 .87 
 
 .47 
 
 .51 
 
 .60 
 
 .50 
 
 .25 
 
 .25 
 
 .35 
 
 .35 
 
 .40 
 
 .50 
 
 .40 
 
 $0.53 
 .43 
 .43 
 
 .43 
 
 .52 
 .52 
 .46 
 .46 
 .47 
 .43 
 .43 
 .43 
 .43 
 .43 
 .44 
 .44 
 .44 
 .44 
 .44 
 .44 
 .48 
 «.05 
 .49 
 .50 
 .49 
 .49 
 .49 
 .49 
 .97 
 .73 
 .42 
 .42 
 .52 
 .36 
 .15 
 .15 
 .15 
 .25 
 .45 
 .65 
 .55 
 .65 
 .45 
 
 $0.23 
 
 13 
 
 19 
 
 .06 
 
 20 
 
 26 
 
 .OS 
 
 27 
 
 Apr.2 
 
 .08 
 
 Anr 3 
 
 9 
 
 .17 
 
 10 
 
 i6 
 
 .17 
 
 17 . . 
 
 23 
 
 .11 
 
 24 . . 
 
 30 
 
 .11 
 
 Mav 1 
 
 May7 
 
 .12 
 
 8 
 
 14 
 
 .08 
 
 15 
 
 21 
 
 .06 
 
 22 
 
 
 28 
 
 .06 
 
 28 
 
 
 June4 
 
 .06 
 
 June 5 
 
 
 11 
 
 .06 
 
 12 
 
 
 18 
 
 .09 
 
 19 
 
 
 25 
 
 .00 
 
 26 
 
 
 July 2 
 
 .00 
 
 Julv 2 
 
 
 9 
 
 .09 
 
 10 
 
 
 16 
 
 .09 
 
 17 
 
 
 23 
 
 .09 
 
 24 
 
 
 30 
 
 .13 
 
 31 
 
 
 Aug.6 
 
 «.40 
 
 Aue. 7 
 
 
 13 
 
 «.06 
 
 14 
 
 • 
 
 20 
 
 «.05 
 
 21 
 
 
 27 
 
 «.06 
 
 28 
 
 
 Sept. 3 
 
 «.06 
 
 Sept. 4 
 
 
 11 
 
 «.06 
 
 11 
 
 
 17 
 
 «.06 
 
 18 ... 
 
 
 24 
 
 .42 
 
 25 
 
 
 Oct. 1 
 
 .18 
 
 Oct. 2 
 
 
 8 
 
 .17 
 
 9 
 
 
 15 
 
 .17 
 
 16 
 
 
 22 
 
 .27 
 
 23 .... 
 
 
 29 
 
 .36 
 
 30 . . 
 
 
 Nov.5 
 
 .15 
 
 Nov 6 
 
 .49 
 .49 
 .49 
 .39 
 .43 
 .33 
 .38 
 .33 
 .43 
 
 12 
 
 .15 
 
 13 
 
 19 
 
 .15 
 
 20 
 
 25 
 
 .15 
 
 26.. . .. 
 
 Dec. 3 
 
 .25 
 
 Dec. 4. . 
 
 10 
 
 .25 
 
 11 
 
 17 
 
 .25 
 
 18 
 
 24 
 
 .25 
 
 24 ... 
 
 30 
 
 .15 
 
 31 
 
 Weekly average 
 
 
 
 
 Weekly average 
 
 .37 
 
 .67 
 
 .27 
 
 .48 
 
 .45 
 
 .12 
 
 1 No quotations in Detroit from May 8 to Oct. 30. 
 
 « Under. 
 
 \/ 
 
 I No quotations in Detroit from May 8 to Oct. 30. 
 
«KiMi 
 
 Htm 
 
 HPI 
 
 ^ 
 
 / 
 
 108 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 No quotations for Detroit were available from the sources used 
 from May to October, inclusive, 1913. This is due to the fact that 
 during that year there was but little beet sugar upon that market dur- 
 ing these months. The 1912 crop had been sold by the end of April 
 and the 1913 crop was not on the market until about November 1. 
 
 The margin between the quotations in Denver and New York were 
 generally considerably wider than the margins between the other 
 markets and New York. The only exception was between Detroit 
 •ind New York during a few months in 1914. From about August 1 
 to the middle of September, 1914, the San Francisco price was 
 .lightly under the New York price, and this is true with respect to 
 Denver for a few days near August 1. The probable explanation for 
 the disturbed margins from August to November, inclusive, 1914, is 
 that the sugar market was rapidly adancing about this time on ac- 
 count of war conditions in Europe. 
 
 The more narrow margins between New York, Detroit, and ban 
 Francisco are due to the fact that sugar from the Atlantic seaboard 
 can reach the natural markets of Michigan sugar factories upon a 
 low freight rate, and that the cane sugar refineries in San Francisco 
 compete with the beet-sugar factories in California. To reach Den- 
 ver cane sugar must pay an ocean and rail rate of 71 cents from New 
 York or an all-rail rate of 62 cents from New Orleans. The com- 
 \ parisons shown in the table clearly indicate that the competition of 
 >cane sugar from the eastern refineries and the presence of cane- 
 ' sugar refineries in San Francisco tend to reduce the price. Ihe 
 average excess of the San Francisco price over New York due to the 
 competition of cane sugar was 27 cents in 1913 and only 12 cents in 
 1914 while in Denver, where there is little cane sugar competition, 
 the average excess over New York was 57 cents in 1913 and 45 cents 
 in 1914 The average excess of prices in Detroit over those of INew 
 York in 1914 was 48 cents, but as stated this was due to abnormal 
 conditions. The average excess of Detroit over New York for six 
 months in 1913 was only 37 cents. 
 
 o- r^ir^T TTON^ OF R \W SUGAR AND REFINED GRANULATED SUGAR AT 
 ^NEWYORK?InD MARGIN BETWEF^N RAW AND REFINED, BY WEEKS, 1890 TO 1914. 
 
 DISTKIBUTION OF SUGAB. 
 
 109 
 
 Dates. 
 
 Jan. 
 
 1890.> 
 
 2 
 
 9 
 
 16 
 
 23 
 
 30 
 
 Granu- 
 lated. 
 
 Cuban 
 centrifu- 
 gals 96° 
 (duty 
 paid). 
 
 Cents. 
 6.50 
 6.50 
 6.50 
 6.50 
 6.375 
 
 Cents. 
 5.75 
 
 5.75 
 
 5.625 
 
 5.688 
 
 5.625 
 
 Margin 
 between 
 raw and 
 refined. 
 
 Cents. 
 0.75 
 
 .75 
 
 .875 
 .812 
 .75 
 
 Dates. 
 
 1890. 
 
 Feb. 6. 
 
 13. 
 
 20. 
 
 27. 
 Mar. 6. 
 
 Granu- 
 lated. 
 
 Cents. 
 6.25 
 
 6.375 
 
 6.313 
 
 6.313 
 
 6.375 
 
 Cuban 
 centrifu- 
 gals 96° 
 (duty 
 paid). 
 
 Margin 
 between 
 raw and 
 refined. 
 
 Cents. 
 5.625 
 
 5.625 
 
 5.625 
 
 5.625 
 
 5.688 
 
 Cents. 
 0.625 
 
 .75 
 
 .688 
 
 V .688 
 
 .687 
 
 t Less 2 per 
 
 cent for cash, for granulated; less 2§ per cent for cash, for Cuban centrifugal 90' (duty paid). 
 
 Table 27.— QUOTATIONS OF RAW SUGAR AND REFINED GRANULATED SUGAR 
 
 AT NEW YORK, ETC. — Continued. 
 
 Dates. 
 
 r 
 
 t 
 
 Apr. 
 
 May 
 
 < 
 
 1890. 
 Mar. 13 
 
 20 
 
 27 
 
 3 
 
 10 
 
 17 
 
 24 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 15 
 
 22 
 
 29 
 
 June 5 
 
 12 
 
 19 
 
 26 
 
 July 3 
 
 10 
 
 17 
 
 24 
 
 31 
 
 Aug. 7 
 
 14 
 
 Sept 
 
 Oct. 
 
 / 
 
 Nov. 
 
 > 
 
 Dec. 
 
 21. 
 28. 
 
 4. 
 11. 
 18. 
 25. 
 
 2. 
 
 9. 
 16. 
 23- 
 30. 
 
 6. 
 13. 
 20. 
 28. 
 
 4. 
 11. 
 18. 
 26. 
 31. 
 
 Average. 
 
 1891. 
 
 Jan. 8. 
 15. 
 22. 
 29. 
 
 Granu- 
 lated. 
 
 Cents. 
 6.438 
 6.313 
 6.125 
 6.063 
 6.032 
 6.188 
 6.188 
 6.188 
 6.063 
 6.032 
 6.00 
 6.125 
 6.344 
 6.781 
 6.625 
 6.250 
 6.25 
 6.281 
 6.25 
 6.156 
 6.125 
 6.063 
 6.125 
 6.188 
 6.188 
 6.50 
 6.625 
 6.625 
 6.625 
 6.625 
 6.625 
 6.625 
 6.625 
 6.50 
 6.375 
 6.125 
 6.125 
 6.125 
 6.125 
 6.125 
 6.00 
 6.00 
 6.00 
 
 6.171 
 
 Cuban 
 centrifu- 
 gals 96° 
 (dutv 
 paid). 
 
 Cents. 
 5.688 
 5.688 
 5.438 
 5.375 
 5.375 
 5.50 
 5.50 
 5.563 
 5.563 
 5.375 
 5.375 
 5.438 
 5.50 
 5.563 
 5.438 
 5.375 
 5.375 
 5.375 
 5.438 
 5.438 
 5.50 
 5.50 
 5.625 
 5.625 
 5.688 
 5.875 
 6.063 
 6.063 
 6.00 
 5.938 
 5.938 
 6.00 
 6.00 
 5.938 
 5.875 
 5.50 
 5.50 
 5.375 
 5.375 
 5.313 
 5.25 
 5.25 
 5.25 
 
 5.445 
 
 Margin 
 between 
 raw and 
 refined. 
 
 5. 84 5. 12 
 
 5. 84 5. 12 
 
 6.13 5.50 
 
 6. 00 5. 50 
 
 ' About 2< per 
 
 Cents. 
 0.750 
 .625 
 .687 
 .688 
 .657 
 .688 
 .688 
 .625 
 .500 
 .657 
 .625 
 .687 
 .844 
 1.218 
 1.187 
 .875 
 .875 
 .906 
 .812 
 .718 
 .625 
 .5ti3 
 .50 ! 
 .563 
 .50 
 .625 
 .562 
 .562 
 .625 
 .687 
 .687 
 .625 
 .625 
 .562 
 .50 
 .625 
 .625 
 .75 
 .75 
 .812 
 .75 
 .75 
 .75 
 
 ,726 
 
 .72 
 
 .72 
 .63 
 .50 
 
 Dates. 
 
 1891. 
 Feb. 5. - . . 
 
 12,... 
 
 19..-. 
 
 26.... 
 Mar. 5 — 
 
 12. . . . 
 
 19.--. 
 
 26.... 
 
 Apr. 21... 
 
 9..-. 
 
 16.... 
 
 23..-. 
 
 30.-.. 
 May 7 
 
 14..-- 
 
 21-... 
 
 28.... 
 June 4 
 
 11.... 
 
 18.--. 
 
 25.... 
 
 July 2.... 
 
 9.--. 
 
 16--.- 
 
 23..-. 
 
 30.... 
 Aug. 6.... 
 
 13---- 
 
 20-... 
 
 27.... 
 Sept. 3 
 
 10- - - - 
 
 17.... 
 
 24-... 
 
 Oct. 1-... 
 
 8..-- 
 
 15. . - . 
 
 22.--- 
 
 29--.- 
 Nov. 5 
 
 12 
 
 19 
 
 25 
 
 3 
 
 10 
 
 17 
 
 24 
 
 31 
 
 Dec. 
 
 Granu- 
 lated. 
 
 Cents. 
 6.13 
 6.37 
 6.37 
 6.41 
 6.61 
 6.37 
 6.13 
 6.13 
 4.50 
 4.50 
 4.50 
 4.50 
 4.50 
 4.375 
 4.50 
 4.25 
 4.18 
 4.125 
 4.06 
 4.06 
 4.18 
 4.25 
 4.25 
 4.31 
 4.25 
 4.25 
 4.06 
 4.125 
 4.25 
 4.18 
 4.25 
 4.31 
 4.375 
 4.375 
 4.375 
 4.375 
 4.375 
 4.06 
 4.125 
 4.06 
 4.06 
 4.25 
 4.18 
 4.18 
 4.18 
 4.00 
 4.00 
 4.00 
 
 Average 
 
 pound duty taken off April 1 1891. 
 
 4.641 
 
 Cuban 
 centrifu- 
 gals 96° 
 (duty 
 paid). 
 
 Cents. 
 5.50 
 5.62 
 5.62 
 5.62 
 5.62 
 5.62 
 5.56 
 5.6S 
 3.53 
 3.625 
 3.50 
 3.50 
 3.44 
 3.25 
 3.25 
 3.25 
 3.25 
 3.375 
 3.375 
 3.31 
 3.44 
 3.375 
 3.31 
 3.375 
 3.44 
 3.31 
 3.375 
 3.44 
 3.44 
 3.44 
 3.44 
 3.50 
 3.44 
 3.44 
 3.31 
 3.375 
 3.44 
 3.27 
 3.31 
 3.44 
 3.50 
 3.50 
 3.50 
 3.50 
 3.375 
 3.31 
 3.375 
 3.375 
 
 Margin 
 between 
 raw and 
 refined. 
 
 3.863 
 
 Gents, 
 0.63 
 .75 
 .75 
 .79 
 .99 
 .75 
 .57 
 .45 
 .97 
 .875 
 1.00 
 1.00 
 1.06 
 1.125 
 1.25 
 1.00 
 .93 
 .75 
 .685 
 .75 
 .74 
 .875 
 .94 
 .935 
 .81 
 .94 
 .685 
 .685 
 .81 
 .74 
 .81 
 .81 
 .935 
 .935 
 1.065 
 1.00 
 .935 
 .79 
 .815 
 .62 
 .56 
 .75 
 .68 
 .68 
 .805 
 .69 
 .625 
 .625 
 
 778 
 
 V 
 
 1 
 

 1 
 
 110 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Tablb 27.— quotations OF RAW SUGAR AND REFINED GRANULATED SUGAR 
 
 AT NEW YORK, ETC.— Continued. 
 
 Dates. 
 
 1892 
 Jan. 7 
 
 14 
 
 21 
 
 28 
 
 Feb. 4 
 
 11 
 
 18 
 
 25 
 
 Mar. 3 
 
 10 
 
 17 
 
 24 
 
 31 
 
 Apr. 7 
 
 14 
 
 21 
 
 28 
 
 May 5 
 
 12 
 
 19 
 
 26 
 
 June 2 
 
 9 
 
 16 
 
 23 
 
 30 
 
 July 7 
 
 14 
 
 21 
 
 28 
 
 Aug. 4 
 
 11 
 
 18 
 
 25 
 
 Sept. 1 
 
 8 
 
 15 
 
 22 
 
 29 
 
 Oct. 6 
 
 13 
 
 20 
 
 27." 
 
 Nov. 3 
 
 10 
 
 17 
 
 25 
 
 Dec. 1 
 
 8 
 
 Granu- 
 lated. 
 
 4.04 
 
 3.92 
 
 3.92 
 
 3.92 
 
 3.92 
 
 3.92 
 
 3.92 
 
 3.92 
 
 4.07 
 
 4.19 
 
 4.29 
 
 4.29 
 
 4.28 
 
 4.28 
 
 4.28 
 
 4.18 
 
 4.18 
 
 4.22 
 
 4.22 
 
 4.22 
 
 4.22 
 
 4.22 
 
 4.28 
 
 4.28 
 
 4.22 
 
 4.28 
 
 4.22 
 
 4.16 
 
 4.16 
 
 4.22 
 
 4.23 
 
 4.23 
 
 4.35 
 
 4.47 
 
 4.71 
 
 4.90 
 
 4.90 
 
 4.90 
 
 4.90 
 
 4.72 
 
 4.72 
 
 4.72 
 
 4.72 
 
 4.72 
 
 4.60 
 
 4.60 
 
 4.60 
 
 4.60 
 
 4.60 
 
 Cuban 
 centrifu- 
 gals 96' 
 (duty 
 paid). 
 
 Cents. 
 3.50 
 3.47 
 3.47 
 3.44 
 3.44 
 3.44 
 3.44 
 3.41 
 3.41 
 3.375 
 3.375 
 3.25 
 3.125 
 3.125 
 3.125 
 3.125 
 3.125 
 3.125 
 3.125 
 3.06 
 3.06 
 3.06 
 3.125 
 3.125 
 3.18 
 3.125 
 3.125 
 3.06 
 3.06 
 3.125 
 3.125 
 3.18 
 3.25 
 3.375 
 3.56 
 3.56 
 3.56 
 3.625 
 3.75 
 3.50 
 3.50 
 3.44 
 3.44 
 3.375 
 3.375 
 3.375 
 3.375 
 3.376 
 3.375 
 
 Margin 
 between 
 raw and 
 refined. 
 
 Cents. 
 0.54 
 .45 
 .45 
 .48 
 .48 
 .48 
 .48 
 .51 
 .66 
 .815 
 .915 
 1.04 
 1.155 
 1.155 
 1.155 
 1.055 
 1.056 
 1.095 
 1.095 
 1.16 
 1.16 
 1.16 
 1.165 
 1.155 
 1.04 
 1.155 
 .995 
 1.10 
 1.10 
 1.095 
 1.105 
 1.05 
 1.10 
 1.095 
 1.15 
 1.34 
 1.34 
 1.276 
 1.15 
 1.22 
 1.22 
 1.28 
 1.28 
 1.345 
 1.225 
 1.225 
 1.225 
 1.225 
 1.226 
 
 Dates. 
 
 1892. 
 
 Dec. 15. 
 22. 
 29. 
 
 Average. 
 
 1893. 
 
 Jan. 
 
 Feb. 
 
 Mar. 
 
 Apr. 
 
 May 
 
 June 
 
 July 
 
 Aug. 
 
 Sept. 
 
 Oct. 
 
 5. 
 12. 
 19. 
 26. 
 
 2. 
 
 9. 
 16. 
 23. 
 
 2. 
 
 9. 
 16. 
 23. 
 30. 
 
 6. 
 13. 
 20. 
 27. 
 
 4. 
 11. 
 18. 
 25. 
 
 1. 
 
 8. 
 15. 
 22. 
 29. 
 
 6. 
 13. 
 20. 
 27. 
 
 3. 
 10. 
 17. 
 24. 
 31. 
 
 7- 
 14. 
 21. 
 28. 
 
 5. 
 12. 
 19. 
 26. 
 
 Granu- 
 lated. 
 
 Cents. 
 4.60 
 4.60 
 4.60 
 
 4.346 
 
 Cuban 
 centrifu- 
 gals 96° 
 (duty 
 paid). 
 
 Cents. 
 3.375 
 3.44 
 3.44 
 
 4.60 
 4.60 
 4.60 
 4.60 
 4.60 
 4.60 
 4.54 
 4.47 
 4.47 
 4.47 
 4.47 
 4.54 
 4.72 
 4.84 
 4.84 
 3.90 
 5.08 
 5.08 
 5.20 
 5.08 
 5.08 
 5.08 
 5.21 
 5.27 
 5.27 
 5.27 
 5.27 
 5.34 
 5.34 
 5.08 
 5.08 
 5.08 
 5.08 
 5 08 
 5.08 
 5.08 
 5.08 
 5.08 
 5.08 
 5.08 
 5.08 
 5.08 
 5.08 
 
 Margin 
 between 
 raw and 
 refined. 
 
 3.311 
 
 3.44 
 
 3.44 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.44 
 
 3.44 
 
 3.44 
 
 3.375 
 
 3.375 
 
 3.375 
 
 3.34 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.625 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.875 
 
 4.00 
 
 4.00 
 
 4.125 
 
 4.00 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.50 
 
 4.50 
 
 4.375 
 
 4.375 
 
 4.375 
 
 4.18 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.84 
 
 3.875 
 
 3.875 
 
 3.875 
 
 4.00 
 
 4.00 
 
 Cents. 
 1.225 
 1.16 
 1.16 
 
 1.035 
 
 1.16 
 
 1.16 
 
 1.10 
 
 1.10 
 
 1.16 
 
 1.16 
 
 1.10 
 
 1.095 
 
 1.095 
 
 1.095 
 
 1.13 
 
 1.04 . 
 
 1.095 
 
 1.09 
 
 1.09 
 
 1.025 
 
 1.08 
 
 1.08 
 
 1.075 
 
 1.08 
 .83 
 .83 
 .96 
 .77 
 .77 
 .895 
 .895 
 .965 
 
 1.16 
 
 1.33 
 
 1.33 
 
 1.33 
 
 1.33 
 
 1.58 
 
 1.58 
 
 1.58 
 
 1.33 
 
 1.24 
 
 1.205 
 
 1.205 
 
 1.205 
 
 1.08 
 
 1.08 
 
 ..J.I, 
 
 DISTRIBUTION OF SUGAR. 
 
 Ill 
 
 
 Table 27.— QUOTATIONS OF RAW SUGAR AND REFINED GRANULATED SUGAR 
 
 AT NEW YORK, ETC.— Continued. 
 
 Dates. 
 
 ^ I- 
 
 ( 
 
 1893. 
 Nov. 2 
 
 9.... 
 
 Dec. 
 
 Y 
 
 16. 
 
 23. 
 
 1. 
 
 7. 
 14. 
 21. 
 28. 
 
 Avers^e.. 
 1894. 
 
 Jan. 
 
 < 
 
 Feb. 
 
 Mar. 
 
 / 
 
 Apr. 
 
 May 
 
 June 
 
 >' 
 
 July 
 
 Aug. 
 
 V I 
 
 A 
 
 Sept. 
 
 4. 
 
 11. 
 18. 
 25. 
 
 1. 
 
 8. 
 15. 
 23. 
 
 1. 
 
 8. 
 15. 
 22. 
 29. 
 
 5. 
 12. 
 19. 
 26. 
 
 3. 
 10. 
 17. 
 24. 
 31. 
 
 7. 
 14. 
 21. 
 28. 
 
 5. 
 
 12. 
 
 19. 
 
 26. 
 
 2. 
 
 9. 
 
 16., 
 
 23., 
 
 30.. 
 
 6.. 
 
 13.. 
 
 Granu- 
 lated. 
 
 Cuban 
 centrifu- 
 gals 96° 
 (dutv 
 paid). 
 
 Cents. 
 4.72 
 
 4.47 
 
 4.47 
 
 4.23 
 
 4.23 
 
 4.23 
 
 4.23 
 
 4.23 
 
 4.10 
 
 4.842 
 
 3.74 
 3.98 
 4.10 
 4.04 
 3.98 
 4.04 
 4.17 
 4.17 
 4.17 
 4.17 
 4.17 
 3.98 
 3.98 
 3.98 
 3.98 
 3.98 
 3.98 
 •3.86 
 3.91 
 3.91 
 3.91 
 3.86 
 3.80 
 3.98 
 3.98 
 3.98 
 3.98 
 3.98 
 4.23 
 4.23 
 4.35 
 4.47 
 4.47 
 4.60 
 U.72 
 4.72 
 4.72 
 
 1 
 
 Cents. 
 3.25 
 
 3.25 
 
 3.18 
 
 3.00 
 
 3.00 
 
 3.00 
 
 2.875 
 
 2.875 
 
 2.875 
 
 3.689 
 
 2.75 
 
 2.875 
 
 3.00 
 
 3.00 
 
 3.06 
 
 3.25 
 
 3.31 
 
 3.31 
 
 3.18 
 
 3.18 
 
 3.18 
 
 3.00 
 
 2.875 
 
 2.875 
 
 2.875 
 
 2.75 
 
 2.81 
 
 2.875 
 
 2.91 
 
 2.81 
 
 2.75 
 
 2.875 
 
 3.00 
 
 3.125 
 
 3.125 
 
 3.125 
 
 3.125 
 
 3.18 
 
 3.125 
 
 3.125 
 
 3.125 
 
 3.375 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.75 
 
 Margin 
 between 
 raw and 
 refined. 
 
 CefUs. 
 1.47 
 
 1.22 
 
 1.29 
 
 1.23 
 
 1.23 
 
 1.23 
 
 1.355 
 
 1.355 
 
 1.225 
 
 1.153 
 
 .99 
 1.105 
 1.10 
 1.04 
 .92 
 .79 
 .86 
 .86 
 .99 
 .99 
 .99 
 .98 
 1.105 
 1.105 
 1.105 
 1.23 
 1.17 
 .985 
 1.00 
 1.10 
 1.16 
 .985 
 .80 
 .855 
 .855 
 .855 
 .855 
 .80 
 1.105 
 1.105 
 1.225 
 1.095 
 .97 
 .85 
 .97 
 .97 
 .97 
 
 Dates. 
 
 1894. 
 Sept. 20... 
 
 27... 
 
 Oct. 
 
 Nov. 
 
 Dec. 
 
 4. 
 11. 
 18. 
 25. 
 
 1. 
 
 8. 
 15. 
 22. 
 29. 
 
 6. 
 13. 
 20. 
 27. 
 
 Average. 
 
 1895. 
 
 Jan. 
 
 Feb. 
 
 Mar. 
 
 Apr. 
 
 May 
 
 June 
 
 July 
 
 3. 
 10. 
 17. 
 24. 
 31. 
 
 7. 
 14. 
 21. 
 28. 
 
 7. 
 14. 
 21. 
 28. 
 
 4. 
 11. 
 18. 
 25. 
 
 2. 
 
 9. 
 16. 
 23. 
 31. 
 
 6. 
 13. 
 20. 
 27., 
 5., 
 11.. 
 18.. 
 25.. 
 
 1.. 
 
 Granu- 
 lated. 
 
 Aug. 
 Including 40 per cent duty from Aug. 28, 1894. 
 
 Cents. 
 4.54 
 
 4.41 
 
 4.35 
 
 4.35 
 
 4.35 
 
 4.35 
 
 3.98 
 
 4.10 
 
 4.10 
 
 3.98 
 
 3.98 
 
 3.80 
 
 3.74 
 
 3.74 
 
 3.74 
 
 4.12 
 
 3.74 
 
 3.74 
 
 3.74 
 
 3.74 
 
 3.74 
 
 3.68 
 
 3.68 
 
 3.74 
 
 3.74 
 
 3.80 
 
 3.86 
 
 3.86 
 
 3.86 
 
 3.86 
 
 3.86 
 
 3.86 
 
 3.86 
 
 3.98 
 
 4.35 
 
 4.35 
 
 4.35 
 
 4.35 
 
 4.35 
 
 4.35 
 
 4.35 
 
 4.35 
 
 4.35 
 
 4.35 
 
 4.35 
 
 4.35 
 
 4.35 
 
 Cuban 
 
 centrifu- 
 gals 96° 
 (duty 
 paid). 
 
 Cents. 
 3.75 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.25 
 
 3.125 
 
 3.125 
 
 3.24 
 
 Margin 
 between 
 raw and 
 refined. 
 
 Centt. 
 0.79 
 
 .66 
 
 .60 
 
 .60 
 
 .85 
 
 .85 
 
 .48 
 
 .60 
 
 .60 
 
 .48 
 
 .48 
 
 .30 
 
 .49 
 
 .615 
 
 .615 
 
 ,88 
 
 3.00 
 
 .74 
 
 3.00 
 
 .74 
 
 3.00 
 
 .74 
 
 3.03 
 
 .71 
 
 3.09 
 
 .65 
 
 3.125 
 
 .555 
 
 3.00 
 
 .68 
 
 3.00 
 
 .74 
 
 3.00 
 
 .74 
 
 3.00 
 
 .80 
 
 3.00 
 
 .86 
 
 3.00 
 
 .86 
 
 3.00 
 
 .86 
 
 3.00 
 
 .86 
 
 3.00 
 
 .86 
 
 3.00 
 
 .86 
 
 3.00 
 
 .86 
 
 3.125 
 
 .855 
 
 3.25 
 
 1.10 
 
 3.375 
 
 .975 
 
 3.375 
 
 .975 
 
 3.375 
 
 .975 
 
 3.375 
 
 .975 
 
 3.31 
 
 1.04 
 
 3.31 
 
 1.04 
 
 3.25 
 
 1.10 
 
 3.25 
 
 1.10 
 
 3.25 
 
 1.10 
 
 3.25 
 
 1.10 
 
 3.25 
 
 1.10 
 
 3.25 
 
 1.10 
 
112 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Tablbs 27.— quotations OF RAW SUGAR AND REFINED GRANULATED SUGAR 
 
 AT NEW YORK, ETC. — Continued. 
 
 DISTRIBUTION OF SUGAR. 
 
 113 
 
 Dates. 
 
 1895. 
 
 Aug. 
 
 Oct. 
 
 8. 
 15. 
 22. 
 29. 
 Sept. 5. 
 12. 
 19. 
 26. 
 
 3. 
 10. 
 17. 
 24. 
 31. 
 
 7. 
 14. 
 21. 
 27. 
 
 5. 
 12. 
 19. 
 27. 
 
 Nov. 
 
 Dec. 
 
 ill 
 
 Average. 
 
 1896. 
 
 Jan. 
 
 Feb. 
 
 Mar. 
 
 Apr. 
 
 May 
 
 June 
 
 3. 
 
 9- 
 16. 
 23- 
 30. 
 
 6. 
 13. 
 20. 
 27. 
 
 5. 
 12. 
 19. 
 26. 
 
 2. 
 
 9. 
 16. 
 23. 
 30. 
 
 7. 
 14- 
 21. 
 28. 
 
 4. 
 Il- 
 ls. 
 
 Granu- 
 lated. 
 
 Cents. 
 4.35 
 
 4.35 
 4.23 
 4.10 
 4.16 
 4.23 
 4.41 
 4.47 
 4.53 
 4.47 
 4.47 
 4.35 
 4.23 
 4.23 
 4.23 
 4.23 
 4.35 
 4.35 
 4.35 
 4.35 
 4.72 
 
 4.152 
 
 4.72 
 4.59 
 4.59 
 4.72 
 4.66 
 4.58 
 4.65 
 4.72 
 4.72 
 4.72 
 4.72 
 4.84 
 4.84 
 4.84 
 5.08 
 5.20 
 5.20 
 5.14 
 5.08 
 5.08 
 4.84 
 4.97 
 4.72 
 4.78 
 4.66 
 
 Cuban 
 centrifu- 
 gals 96" 
 (duty 
 paid). 
 
 Ceiits. 
 3.31 
 
 3.31 
 
 3.25 
 
 3.25 
 
 3.25 
 
 3.25 
 
 3.31 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.56 
 
 3.625 
 
 3.625 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.40 
 
 3.375 
 
 3.375 
 
 3.375 
 
 3.375 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.75 
 
 Margin 
 between 
 raw and 
 refined. 
 
 3.27 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.875 
 
 3.875 
 
 3.875 
 
 4.00 
 
 4.125 
 
 4.125 
 
 4.125 
 
 4.125 
 
 4.18 
 
 4.18 
 
 4.18 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.375 
 
 4.31 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.00 
 
 4.00 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.81 
 
 3.625 
 
 Cents. 
 1.04 
 
 1.04 
 .98 
 .85 
 .91 
 .98 
 
 1.10 
 .97 
 .97 
 .845 
 .845 
 .85 
 .83 
 .855 
 .855 
 .855 
 .975 
 .85 
 .85 
 .85 
 .97 
 
 .882 
 
 .97 
 .84 
 .84 
 .845 
 .775 
 .705 
 .65 
 .595 
 .595 
 .595 
 .595 
 .66 
 .66 
 .66 
 .83 
 .825 
 .89 
 .89 
 .83 
 .83 
 .84 
 .97 
 .97 
 .97 
 1.035 
 
 Dates. 
 
 June 
 July 
 
 Aug. 
 
 Sept. 
 
 Oct. 
 
 Nov 
 
 Dec. 
 
 1896. 
 25-... 
 
 2... 
 
 9.... 
 16--.. 
 23-..- 
 30--.- 
 
 6-..- 
 13-... 
 20--.- 
 27. . - - 
 
 3.... 
 10. . - - 
 17.... 
 24.-.. 
 
 1.... 
 
 8-... 
 15...- 
 22. - - - 
 29.... 
 
 5 
 
 12..-. 
 19.... 
 27..-. 
 
 3..-. 
 10--.. 
 17.... 
 24.... 
 31.... 
 
 Average 
 
 1897. 
 
 Jan. 7... 
 
 14.. 
 
 21.. 
 
 28.. 
 Feb. 4... 
 
 11.. 
 
 18-. 
 
 25- 
 Mar.4.. 
 
 IL 
 
 18. 
 
 25. 
 Apr. 1.. 
 
 8.. 
 • 15. 
 
 22. 
 
 29. 
 May 6.. 
 
 Granu- 
 lated. 
 
 Cents. 
 4.47 
 
 4.60 
 
 4.47 
 
 4.47 
 
 4.35 
 
 4.35 
 
 4.60 
 
 4.60 
 
 4.47 
 
 4.47 
 
 4.47 
 
 4.47 
 
 4.47 
 
 4.47 
 
 4.24 
 
 3.98 
 
 3.86 
 
 3.86 
 
 3.98 
 
 3.98 
 
 4.23 
 
 4.10 
 
 4.10 
 
 4.10 
 
 4.10 
 
 4.10 
 
 4.10 
 
 4.10 
 
 4.532 
 
 Cuban 
 centrifu- 
 gals 96° 
 (duty 
 paid). 
 
 Cents. 
 3.50 
 3.50 
 3.44 
 3.375 
 3.31 
 3.31 
 3.50 
 3.375 
 3.375 
 3.375 
 3.25 
 3.25 
 3.06 
 3.00 
 3.06 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 3.00 
 
 • 3.25 
 3.25 
 3.44 
 3.25 
 3.25 
 3.31 
 3.25 
 3.25 
 3.18 
 3.18 
 
 Margin 
 between 
 raw and 
 refined. 
 
 3.624 
 
 4.10 
 
 3.18 
 
 .92 
 
 4.10 
 
 3.18 
 
 .92 
 
 3.98 
 
 3.18 
 
 .80 
 
 3.98 
 
 3.18 
 
 .80 
 
 3.98 
 
 3.18 
 
 .80 
 
 4.10 
 
 3.18 
 
 .92 
 
 4.10 
 
 3.25 
 
 .85 
 
 4.10 
 
 3.25 
 
 .85 
 
 3.98 
 
 3.25 
 
 .73 
 
 4.10 
 
 3.18 
 
 ^ .92 
 
 4.23 
 
 3.25 
 
 .98 
 
 4.23 
 
 3.31 
 
 .92 
 
 4.47 
 
 3.375 
 
 1.095 
 
 4 47 
 
 3.375 
 
 1.095 
 
 4.23 
 
 3.28 
 
 .95 
 
 4.23 
 
 3.25 
 
 .98 
 
 4.23 
 
 3.25 
 
 .98 
 
 4.29 
 
 3.31 
 
 .98 
 
 Cents. 
 0.97 
 1.10 
 1.03 
 1.095 
 1.04 
 1.04 
 1.10 
 1.225 
 1.095 
 1.095 
 1.22 
 1.22 
 1.41 
 1.47 
 1.18 
 .98 
 .86 
 .86 
 .73 
 .73 
 .79 
 .85 
 .85 
 .79 
 .85 
 .85 
 .92 
 .92 
 
 .908 
 
 '1 
 
 f 
 
 Y 
 
 < 
 
 / 
 
 V 
 
 Table 27.— QUOTATIONS OF RAW SUGAR AND REFINED GRANULATED SUGAR 
 
 AT NEW YORK, ETC. — Continued. 
 
 Dates. 
 
 1897. 
 May 13 
 
 20 
 
 27 
 
 June 3 
 
 10 
 
 17 
 
 24 
 
 July 1 
 
 8 
 
 15 
 
 22 
 
 29 
 
 Aug. 5 
 
 12 
 
 19 
 
 26 
 
 Sept. 2 
 
 9 
 
 16 
 
 23 
 
 30 
 
 Oct. 7 
 
 14 
 
 21'. 
 
 28 
 
 Nov.4 
 
 11 
 
 18 
 
 26 
 
 Dec. 2 
 
 9 
 
 16 
 
 23 
 
 30 
 
 Average... 
 
 1898. 
 
 Jan. 
 
 Feb. 
 
 Mar. 
 
 6- 
 13. 
 20- 
 27- 
 
 3- 
 10- 
 17- 
 24. 
 
 3. 
 10. 
 17- 
 
 Granu- 
 lated. 
 
 Cents. 
 4.29 
 4.23 
 4.23 
 4.23 
 4.47 
 4.47 
 4.47 
 4.47 
 4.59 
 4.59 
 4.66 
 
 14.72 
 4.72 
 4.72 
 4.72 
 4.72 
 4.72 
 4.815 
 4.815 
 4.815 
 4.85 
 4.85 
 4.85 
 4.85 
 4.72 
 4.72 
 4.72 
 4.72 
 4.72 
 4.72 
 4.72 
 4.84 
 4.96 
 4.96 
 
 4.503 
 
 Cuban 
 centrifu- 
 gals 96° 
 (dutv 
 paid). 
 
 Cents. 
 3.31 
 3.25 
 3.25 
 3.31 
 3.50 
 3.50 
 3.50 
 3.50 
 3.50 
 3.625 
 3.625 
 
 «3.75 
 3.75 
 3.75 
 3.75 
 3.75 
 3.75 
 3.875 
 3.875 
 3.94 
 3.94 
 3.875 
 3.875 
 3.81 
 3.81 
 3.81 
 3.81 
 3.875 
 3.875 
 3.875 
 3.94 
 4.00 
 4.125 
 4.25 
 
 3.5^7 
 
 4.96 
 4.96 
 4.96 
 4.84 
 4.84 
 4.96 
 4.96 
 5.02 
 4.96 
 4.84 
 ...| 4.84 
 
 1 Including 1.95 
 « From July 24, 
 
 4.18 
 
 4.18 
 
 4.06 
 
 4.06 
 
 4.06 
 
 4. IS 
 
 4.18 
 
 4.18 
 
 4.18 
 
 4.125 
 
 4.06 
 
 Margin 
 between 
 raw and 
 refined. 
 
 Cents. 
 0.98 
 
 .98 
 
 .98 
 
 .92 
 
 .97 
 
 .97 
 
 .97 
 
 .97 
 
 1.09 
 .%5 
 
 1.035 
 .97 
 .97 
 .97 
 .97 
 .97 
 .97 
 .94 
 .94 
 .875 
 .91 
 .975 
 .975 
 
 1.04 
 .91 
 .91 
 .91 
 .845 
 .845 
 .845 
 .78 
 .84 
 .835 
 .71 
 
 .946 
 
 .78 
 
 .78 
 
 .90 
 
 .78 
 
 .78 
 
 .78 
 
 .78 
 
 .84 
 
 .78 
 
 .715 
 
 .78 
 
 r-o I 
 
 Dates. 
 
 Mar. 
 
 Apr. 
 
 May 
 
 June 
 
 July 
 
 Aug. 
 
 Sept. 
 
 Oct. 
 
 Nov. 
 
 De^ 
 
 1898. 
 
 24-... 
 31.... 
 
 7---. 
 
 14..-. 
 21.-.. 
 28--.. 
 
 5..-. 
 12- - - . 
 19-.-. 
 26- - - . 
 
 2---. 
 
 9---- 
 16-.-- 
 23---- 
 30-.-. 
 
 7.... 
 14.-.- 
 21-..- 
 28---- 
 
 4-.-. 
 11.-.- 
 18.-.. 
 25---. 
 
 1.... 
 
 8.-.. 
 15- . . . 
 22...- 
 29.... 
 
 6.... 
 13-... 
 20-... 
 27.--- 
 
 3.--. 
 10- - - . 
 17-..- 
 25-..- 
 
 1.-.- 
 
 8.--- 
 15-.-- 
 22... 
 29 
 
 Average. 
 
 1899. 
 
 Jan. 
 
 5. 
 12. 
 19. 
 26. 
 
 Granu- 
 lated. 
 
 Cents. 
 4.84 
 4.84 
 4.96 
 4.90 
 4.96 
 5.15 
 5.15 
 5. OS 
 5.08 
 5.08 
 5.08 
 5.08 
 5.08 
 5.08 
 5.08 
 5.08 
 5.08 
 5.08 
 5.08 
 5.08 
 5.08 
 5.08 
 5.08 
 5.15 
 5.21 
 5.21 
 5.21 
 5.08 
 4.72 
 4.72 
 4.72 
 4.78 
 4.78 
 4.72 
 4.96 
 4.96 
 4.96 
 4.96 
 4.84 
 4.75 
 4.72 
 
 4.965 
 
 4.69 
 4.72 
 4.72 
 4.72 
 
 Cuban 
 centrifu- 
 gals 96° 
 (duty 
 paid). 
 
 Margin 
 between 
 raw and 
 refined. 
 
 Cents. 
 4.00 
 
 4.125 
 
 4.125 
 
 4.125 
 
 4.125 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.18 
 
 4.18 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.31 
 
 4.31 
 
 4.31 
 
 4.31 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.125 
 
 4.125 
 
 4.125 
 
 4.125 
 
 4.125 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.31 
 
 4.375 
 
 4.375 
 
 4.375 
 
 4.31 
 
 4.31 
 
 4.21 
 
 4.18 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.31 
 
 4.31 
 
 4.31 
 
 4.44 
 
 4.50 
 
 4.44 
 
 4.44 
 
 4.44 
 
 4.375 
 
 4.31 
 
 4.235 
 
 4.31 
 4.31 
 4.25 
 4.25 
 
 Cents. 
 
 a84 
 
 .715 
 
 .835 
 
 .775 
 
 .835 
 
 .90 
 
 .97 
 
 .90 
 
 .83 
 
 .71 
 
 .77 
 
 .77 
 
 .77 
 
 .83 
 
 .83 
 
 .955 
 
 .955 
 
 .95S 
 
 .955 
 
 .955 
 
 .83 
 
 .83 
 
 .77 
 
 .775 
 
 .835 
 
 .835 
 
 .« 
 
 .77 
 
 .51 
 
 .54 
 
 .47 
 
 .47 
 
 .47 
 
 .41 
 
 .52 
 
 .46 
 
 .52 
 
 .52 
 
 .40 
 
 .375 
 
 .41 
 
 730 
 
 .38 
 .41 
 
 .47 
 .47 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 cents per pound duty from July 24, 1897. 
 
 1897, duty on raw sugar was 1.685 cents per pound. 
 
H^'.^r^'ri^ ■ ■ 1t<-^ 
 
 y 
 
 114 THE BEET SUGAB INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Table 27.— QUOTATIONS OF RAW SUGAR AND REFINED GRANULATED SUGAR 
 
 AT NEW YORK. ETC. — Continued. 
 
 DISTRIBUTION OP SUGAB. 
 
 115 
 
 Dates. 
 
 Feb 
 
 1899. 
 , 2 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 16 
 
 
 23 
 
 Mar 
 
 . 2 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 16 
 
 
 23 
 
 
 30 
 
 Apr 
 
 6 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 20 
 
 
 27 
 
 May 
 
 4 
 
 
 11 
 
 
 18 
 
 
 25 
 
 June 
 
 1 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 22 
 
 
 29 
 
 July 
 
 6 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 20 :.. 
 
 
 27 
 
 Aug. 
 
 3 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 17 
 
 
 24 
 
 
 31 
 
 Sept. 
 
 7 
 
 
 14 
 
 
 21 
 
 
 28 
 
 Oct. 
 
 5 
 
 
 12 
 
 
 19 
 
 
 26 
 
 Nov. 
 
 2 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 16 
 
 
 23 
 
 Dec. 
 
 1 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 14 
 
 
 21 
 
 
 28 
 
 
 Average 
 
 
 Grsmu- 
 lated. 
 
 Cents. 
 4.72 
 
 4.72 
 
 4.72 
 
 4.72 
 
 4.72 
 
 4.84 
 
 4.84 
 
 4.84 
 
 4.84 
 
 4.84 
 
 4.96 
 
 4.96 
 
 4.96 
 
 5.08 
 
 5.08 
 
 5.08 
 
 5.08 
 
 5.08 
 
 5.21 
 
 5.21 
 
 5.21 
 
 5.21 
 
 5.21 
 
 5.21 
 
 5.21 
 
 5.21 
 
 5.21 
 
 5.21 
 
 5.21 
 
 4.99 
 
 4.99 
 
 4.99 
 
 4.925 
 
 4.795 
 
 4.795 
 
 4.795 
 
 4.795 
 
 4.795 
 
 4.795 
 
 4.795 
 
 4.795 
 
 4.795 
 
 4.795 
 
 4.795 
 
 4.795 
 
 4.795 
 
 4.795 
 
 4.795 
 
 4.919 
 
 Cuban 
 centrifu- 
 gals 96° 
 (duty 
 paid). 
 
 Cents. 
 4.31 
 
 4.31 
 
 4.31 
 
 4.375 
 
 4.375 
 
 4.41 
 
 4.375 
 
 4.375 
 
 4.44 
 
 4.50 
 
 4.56 
 
 4.625 
 
 4.625 
 
 4.75 
 
 4.625 
 
 4.625 
 
 4.625 
 
 4.62.5 
 
 4.69 
 
 4.69 
 
 4.625 
 
 4.50 
 
 4.50 
 
 4.44 
 
 4.375 
 
 4.50 
 
 4.56 
 
 4.56 
 
 4.50 
 
 4.50 
 
 4.50 
 
 4.44 
 
 4.375 
 
 4.375 
 
 4.31 
 
 4.31 
 
 4.31 
 
 4.31 
 
 4.31 
 
 4.31 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.419 
 
 Margin 
 between 
 raw and 
 refined. 
 
 Cents. 
 0.41 
 
 .41 
 
 .41 
 
 .345 
 
 .345 
 
 .43 
 
 .405 
 
 .465 
 
 .40 
 
 .34 
 
 .40 
 
 .335 
 
 .335 
 
 .33 
 
 .455 
 
 .455 
 
 .455 
 
 .455 
 
 .52 
 
 .52 
 
 .585 
 
 .71 
 
 .71 
 
 .77 
 
 .835 
 
 .71 
 
 .65 
 
 .65 
 
 .71 
 
 .49 
 
 .49 
 
 .55 
 
 .55 
 
 .42 
 
 .485 
 
 .485 
 
 .485 
 
 .485 
 
 .485 
 
 .485 
 
 .545 
 
 .545 
 
 .545 
 
 .545 
 
 .545 
 
 .545 
 
 .545 
 
 .545 
 
 .50 
 
 Dates. 
 
 1900. 
 
 Jan. 
 
 Feb 
 
 Mar. 
 
 Apr. 
 
 May 
 
 June 
 
 July 
 
 Aug. 
 
 Sept. 
 
 Oct. 
 
 Nov. 
 
 Dec. 
 
 4. 
 
 11. 
 
 18. 
 
 25. 
 1. 
 8. 
 
 15. 
 
 23. 
 1. 
 8. 
 
 15. 
 
 22. 
 
 29. 
 5. 
 
 12. 
 
 19. 
 
 26. 
 3. 
 
 10. 
 
 17. 
 
 24. 
 
 31. 
 7., 
 
 14., 
 
 21.. 
 
 28.. 
 
 5.. 
 
 12.. 
 
 19.. 
 26.. 
 
 2.. 
 
 9.. 
 16.. 
 23.. 
 30.. 
 
 6.. 
 13.. 
 20.. 
 27.. 
 
 4.. 
 11.. 
 18.. 
 25.. 
 
 1.. 
 
 8.. 
 15.. 
 22.. 
 30.. 
 
 6.. 
 13.. 
 
 Granu- 
 lated. 
 
 Cents. 
 4.75 
 
 4.85 
 
 4.85 
 
 4.95 
 
 5.00 
 
 5.00 
 
 5.00 
 
 5.00 
 
 5.00 
 
 4.90 
 
 4.90 
 
 4.95 
 
 4.95 
 
 4.925 
 
 4.95 
 
 4.95 
 
 4.95 
 
 4.95 
 
 4.95 
 
 4.9S 
 
 5.10 
 
 5.30 
 
 5.40 
 
 5.50 
 
 5.50 
 
 5.59 
 
 5.69 
 
 5.79 
 
 5.89 
 
 5.89 
 
 5.89 
 
 5.86 
 
 5.86 
 
 5.86 
 
 5.88 
 
 5.88 
 
 5.88 
 
 5.88 
 
 5.88 
 
 5.49 
 
 5.49 
 
 5.49 
 
 5.49 
 
 5.49 
 
 5.34 
 
 5.34 
 
 5.34 
 
 5.265 
 
 5.315 
 
 5.315 
 
 Cuban 
 centrifu- 
 gals 96° 
 (duty 
 paid). 
 
 Cents. 
 4.25 
 
 4.31 
 
 4.375 
 
 4.375 
 
 4.44 
 
 4.50 
 
 ' 4.44 
 
 4.44 
 
 4.375 
 
 4.31 
 
 4.375 
 
 4.44 
 
 4.44 
 
 4.375 
 
 4.50 
 
 4.44 
 
 4.42 
 
 4.47 
 
 4.44 
 
 4.47 
 
 4.50 
 
 4.56 
 
 4.625 
 
 4.625 
 
 4.625 
 
 4.69 
 
 4.75 
 
 4.75 
 
 4.81 
 
 4.875 
 
 4.875 
 
 4.81 
 
 4.875 
 
 4.875 
 
 4.875 
 
 4.94 
 
 5.00 
 
 5.00 
 
 5.00 
 
 4.91 
 
 4.75 
 
 4.75 
 
 4.625 
 
 4.375 
 
 4.375 
 
 4.375 
 
 4.375 
 
 4.375 
 
 4.44 
 
 4.41 
 
 Margin 
 between 
 raw and 
 refined. 
 
 Cents. 
 0.50 
 .54 
 .475 
 .575 
 .56 
 .50 
 .56 
 .56 
 .625 
 .59 
 .525 
 .51 
 .51 
 .55 
 .45 
 .51 
 .53 
 .48 
 .51 
 .48 
 .60 
 .74 
 .775 
 .875 
 .875 
 .90 
 .94 
 1.04 
 1.08 
 1.015 
 1.015 
 1.05 
 .985 
 .985 
 1.005 
 .94 
 .88 
 .88 
 .88 
 .58 
 .74 
 .74 
 .865 
 1.115 
 .965 
 .965 
 .965 
 .89 
 .876 
 .905 . 
 
 f 
 
 < 
 
 / 
 
 ■i % 
 
 V 
 
 k 
 
 Table 27.— QUOTATIONS OF RAW SUGAR AND REFINED GRANULATED SUGAB 
 
 AT NEW YORK, ETC. — Continued. 
 
 Dates. 
 
 Granu- 
 lated. 
 
 Cuban 
 
 centrifu- 
 
 .gals 96° 
 
 (duty 
 
 paid). 
 
 Margin 
 between 
 raw and 
 refined. 
 
 Dates. 
 
 Granu- 
 lated. 
 
 Cuban 
 centrifu- 
 gals 96° 
 (duty 
 paid). 
 
 Margin 
 between 
 raw and 
 refined. 
 
 1900. 
 Dec 20 
 
 Cents. 
 5.315 
 
 5.315 
 
 Cents. 
 4.376 
 
 4.376 
 
 Cents. 
 0.94 
 
 .94 
 
 1 
 
 1 1901. 
 Nov. 7 
 
 Cents. 
 4.75 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.46 
 
 4.37 
 
 Cents. 
 3.75 
 
 3.72 
 
 3.69 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.66 
 
 Cents. 
 1.00 
 
 27 
 
 14 
 
 .93 
 
 
 21 
 
 .96 
 
 Average 
 
 6.32 
 
 4.566 
 
 .764 
 
 29 
 
 .90 
 90 
 
 1901. 
 
 6.24 
 5.34 
 5.34 
 6.24 
 6.24 
 6.24 
 6.24 
 5.24 
 5.24 
 5.24 
 5.00 
 .6.00 
 5.00 
 6.00 
 6.10 
 6.20 
 5.20 
 5.20 
 5.29 
 5.29 
 6.29 
 5.22 
 5.22 
 5.22 
 5.22 
 6.215 
 6.215 
 5.216 
 5.145 
 6.145 
 5.145 
 5.10 
 5.10 
 5.00 
 6.00 
 5.00 
 6.00 
 6.00 
 6.00 
 4.85 
 4.85 
 4.85 
 4.86 
 4.86 
 
 4.376 
 
 4.375 
 
 4.375 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.26 
 
 4.26 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.22 
 
 4.19 
 
 4.06 
 
 4.00 
 
 4.03 
 
 4.03 
 
 4.06 
 
 4.10 
 
 4.19 
 
 4.19 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.28 
 
 4.28 
 
 4.28 
 
 4.26 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.26 
 
 4.26 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.19 
 
 4.15 
 
 4.19 
 
 4.16 
 
 4.125 
 
 4.00 
 
 4.00 
 
 3.81 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.76 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.81 
 
 3.81 
 
 .866 
 .965 
 .966 
 .99 
 
 • 99 
 
 • 99 
 .99 
 
 1.02 
 
 1.05 
 
 1.18 
 
 1.00 
 
 .97 
 
 .97 
 
 .94 
 
 1.00 
 
 1.01 
 
 1.01 
 
 .96 
 
 1.01 
 
 1.01 
 
 1.01 
 
 .97 
 
 .97 
 
 .97 
 
 .97 
 
 .966 
 
 .965 
 
 1.025 
 
 .995 
 
 .966 
 
 .986 
 
 .976 
 
 1.10 
 
 1.00 
 
 1.19 
 
 1.25 
 
 1.25 
 
 1.25 
 
 1.25 
 
 1.10 
 
 1.10 
 
 1.10 
 
 1.04 
 
 1.04 
 
 12 
 
 .90 
 
 Jan. 3 
 
 19 
 
 .71 
 
 10 
 
 26 
 
 .71 
 
 • 17 
 
 Average — 
 
 1902. 
 Jan. 2 
 
 
 24 1 
 
 31 
 
 6.05 
 
 4.047 
 
 1.003 
 
 =™ 
 
 Feb. 7 
 
 4.48 
 
 4.48 
 
 4.39 
 
 4.485 
 
 4.485 
 
 4.485 
 
 4.485 
 
 4.535 
 
 4.535 
 
 4.485 
 
 4.485 
 
 4.485 
 
 4.535 
 
 4.51 
 
 4.51 
 
 4.51 
 
 4.51 
 
 4.46 
 
 4.46 
 
 4.41 
 
 4.41 
 
 4.41 
 
 4.41 
 
 4.45 
 
 4.41 
 
 4.41 
 
 4.41 
 
 4.41 
 
 4.41 
 
 4.41 
 
 4.41 
 
 4.41 
 
 4.41 
 
 4.41 
 
 4.41 
 
 4.41 
 
 4.41 
 
 4.45 
 
 3.625 
 
 3.56 
 
 3.375 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.69 
 
 3.69 
 
 3.625 
 
 3.625 
 
 3.625 
 
 3.375 
 
 3.40 
 
 3.44 
 
 3.625 
 
 3.625 
 
 3.375 
 
 3.375 
 
 3.44 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.44 
 
 3.44 
 
 3.44 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.31 
 
 3.375 
 
 3.31 
 
 3.31 
 
 3.375 
 
 3.375 
 
 3.40 
 
 3.40 
 
 3.375 
 
 3.375 
 
 3.41 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.47 
 
 
 14 
 
 .855 
 
 21 
 
 9 
 
 .92 
 
 28 
 
 16 
 
 1.015 
 
 Mar. 7 
 
 23 
 
 .985 
 
 14 
 
 30 
 
 .795 
 
 21 
 
 Feb. 6 
 
 .7A5 
 
 28 
 
 13 
 
 .86 
 
 Apr. 4 r 
 
 20 
 
 .91 
 
 11 
 
 27 
 
 .91 
 
 18 
 
 Mar. 6 
 
 1.11 
 
 25 . . .. 
 
 • 13 
 
 1.085 
 
 May 2 
 
 20 
 
 1.045 
 
 9 
 
 27 
 
 .91 
 
 16 
 
 Apr. 3 
 
 .885 
 
 23 
 
 10 
 
 1.135 
 
 81 
 
 17 
 
 1.135 
 
 Juno 6 ^ . . , 
 
 24 
 
 1.07 
 
 13 
 
 May 1 
 
 .96 
 
 20 
 
 8 
 
 .96 
 
 27 
 
 15 
 
 91 
 
 July 3 
 
 22 
 
 .97 
 
 11 
 
 29 
 
 .97 
 
 18 
 
 June 5 
 
 .97 
 
 25 
 
 12 
 
 .05 
 
 Aug. 1 
 
 19 
 
 .91 
 
 8 
 
 26 
 
 1.10 
 
 15 
 
 July 3 
 
 1.035 
 
 22 
 
 10 
 
 1.10 
 
 29 
 
 17 
 
 1.10 
 
 Sept. 5 
 
 24 
 
 1.035 
 
 12 
 
 31 
 
 1.035 
 
 20 
 
 Aug. 7 
 
 1.01 
 
 26 
 
 14 
 
 1.01 
 
 Oct. 3 
 
 21 
 
 1 035 
 
 10 
 
 28 
 
 1.085 
 
 17 
 
 Sept. 4 
 
 1.00 
 
 24 
 
 11 
 
 .91 
 
 31 
 
 18 
 
 .96 
 
^;»^_ 
 
 116 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 DISTRIBUTION OF SUGAE. 
 
 117 
 
 \\\ 
 
 Table 27.— QUOTATIONS OF RAW SUGAR AND REFINED GRANULATED SUGAR 
 
 AT NEW YORK, ETC.— Continued. 
 
 Dates. 
 
 Granu- 
 lated. 
 
 Cuban 
 centrifu- 
 gals 96° 
 (duty 
 paid). 
 
 Margin 
 between 
 raw and 
 refined. 
 
 Dates. 
 
 Granu- 
 lated. 
 
 Cuban 
 centrifu- 
 gals 96° 
 (duty 
 paid). 
 
 Margin 
 between 
 raw and 
 refined. 
 
 1902. 
 Sept. 25 
 
 Cents. 
 4.45 
 4.41 
 4.41 
 4.41 
 4.41 
 4.41 
 4.31 
 4.21 
 4.41 
 4.50 
 4.60 
 4.70 
 4.60 
 4.55 
 4.55 
 
 Genu. 
 3.50 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.56 
 
 3.625 
 
 3.625 
 
 3.625 
 
 3.69 
 
 3.81 
 
 3.875 
 
 3.97 
 
 3.94 
 
 3.94 
 
 3.94 
 
 3.875 
 
 Ccnls. 
 0.95 
 .91 
 .91 
 .85 
 .785 
 .785 
 .685 
 .52 
 .60 
 .625 
 .63 
 .76 
 .66 
 .61 
 .675 
 
 1903. 
 Aug. 6 
 
 Cents. 
 4.875 
 4.775 
 4.825 
 4.825 
 4.825 
 4.825 
 4.775 
 4.775 
 4.775 
 4.55 
 4.55 
 4.55 
 4.50 
 4.50 
 4.60 
 4.45 
 4.36 
 4.36 
 4.36 
 4.36 
 4.36 
 4.31 
 
 Cents. 
 3.72 
 
 3.72 
 
 3.81 
 
 3.875 
 
 3.875 
 
 3.875 
 
 3.875 
 
 3.91 
 
 3.91 
 
 3.86 
 
 3.875 
 
 3.875 
 
 3.875 
 
 3.81 
 
 3.81 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.69 
 
 3.625 
 
 3.625 
 
 3.56 
 
 »3.47 
 
 Cents. 
 1.166 
 
 Oct. 2 
 
 13 
 
 1.055 
 
 9 
 
 20. 
 
 1.015 
 
 16 
 
 27 
 
 .95 
 
 23 
 
 Sept. 3 
 
 .95 
 
 30 
 
 10 
 
 .96 
 
 Nov. 6 
 
 17 
 
 .90 
 
 13 
 
 24 
 
 .865 
 
 20 
 
 Oct. 1 
 
 .865 
 
 28 
 
 8 
 
 .70 
 
 Dec. 4 
 
 15 
 
 .675 
 
 11 
 
 22 
 
 .675 
 
 18 
 
 29 
 
 .625 
 
 24 
 
 Nov. 5 
 
 .69 
 
 31 
 
 12 
 
 .69 
 
 
 19 
 
 
 
 4.455 
 
 3.542 
 
 .913 
 
 .70 
 
 Average 
 
 27 
 
 .61 
 
 
 4.55 
 
 4.68 
 
 4.68 
 
 4.68 
 
 4.55 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.58 
 
 4.625 
 
 4.675 
 
 4.675 
 
 4.625 
 
 4.625 
 
 4.55 
 
 4.55 
 
 4.675 
 
 4.75 
 
 4.76 
 
 4.75 
 
 4.725 
 
 4.726 
 
 4.70 
 
 4.70 
 
 4.725 
 
 4.725 
 
 4.725 
 
 4.675 
 
 4.675 
 
 4.775 
 
 4.876 
 
 4.875 
 
 3.875 
 
 3.875 
 
 3.81 
 
 3.69 
 
 3.625 
 
 3.69 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.76 
 
 3.78 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.72 
 
 3.625 
 
 3.66 
 
 3.60 
 
 3.59 
 
 3.69 
 
 3.69 
 
 3.69 
 
 3.69 
 
 3.69 
 
 3.625 
 
 3.59 
 
 3.59 
 
 3.59 
 
 3.56 
 
 3.56 
 
 3.66 
 
 3.69 
 
 3.69 
 
 3.66 
 
 .676 
 .805 
 .87 
 
 .926 
 .86 
 .83 
 .875 
 .895 
 .926 
 .906 
 1.00 
 .99 
 1.05 
 1.085 
 1.06 
 1.06 
 1.06 
 1.035 
 1.036 
 1.075 
 1.11 
 1.136 
 1.136 
 1.165 
 1. 115 • 
 1.116 
 1.085 
 1.185 
 1.216 
 
 Dec. 3 
 
 .67 
 
 1903. 
 Jan. 8 
 
 10 
 
 .735 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 .735 
 
 15 
 
 24 
 
 
 22 
 
 .80 
 
 31 
 
 
 
 .84 
 
 29 
 
 Average 
 
 1904. 
 Jan. 7 
 
 
 
 
 Feb. 5 
 
 4.638 
 
 3.72 
 
 
 11 
 
 .918 
 
 19 
 
 4.36 
 4.36 
 4. 31', 
 4.20 
 4.26 
 4.20 
 4.26 
 4.26 
 4.31 
 4.41 
 4.50 
 4.50 
 4.50 
 4.50 
 4.40 
 4.40 
 4.55 
 4.55 
 4.55 
 4.76 
 4.80 
 4.80 
 4.75 
 
 3.47 
 3.35 
 3.31 
 3.31 
 3.35 
 3.35 
 3.35 
 3.38 
 3.44 
 3.44 
 3.50 
 
 3.eo 
 
 3.67 
 3.67 
 3.61 
 3.54 
 3.70 
 3.73 
 3.75 
 3.88 
 3.95 
 3.95 
 3.875 
 
 
 26 
 
 .89 
 
 Mar. 5 
 
 14 
 
 1.01 
 
 12 
 
 21 
 
 1.05 
 
 19 
 
 28 
 
 .95 
 
 26 
 
 Feb. 4 
 
 .91 
 
 Apr. 2 
 
 11 
 
 .91 
 
 9 
 
 18 
 
 .91 
 
 16 
 
 25 
 
 .88 
 
 23 
 
 Mar, 3 
 
 .87 
 
 30 
 
 10 
 
 .97 
 
 May 7 
 
 17 
 
 1.00 
 
 14 
 
 24 
 
 .90 
 
 21 
 
 31 
 
 .83 
 
 28 
 
 Apr. 7 
 
 .83 
 
 JuTif» 4 
 
 14 
 
 .79 
 
 11 
 
 21 ! 
 
 28 
 
 May 5 1 
 
 12 ' 
 '■^ 
 
 19 i 
 
 ^ 
 
 June 2 j 
 
 9 i 
 
 .m 
 
 18. i 
 
 .85 
 
 25 
 
 .82 
 
 July 2 
 
 .80 
 
 9 
 
 .87 
 
 16 
 
 .85 
 
 23 
 
 .85 
 
 30 
 
 .875 
 
 I Since Dec. 27, 1903, sugar imported from Cuba has been allowed a concession of 20 per cent and assessed 
 1.348 cents per pound duty. 
 
 Table 27.— QUOTATIONS OF RAW SUGAR AND REFINED GRANULATED SUGAR 
 
 AT NEW YORK, ETC. — Continued. 
 
 Dates. 
 
 1904. 
 
 June 16. 
 
 23. 
 
 30. 
 
 July 7.. 
 
 14.. 
 
 21.. 
 
 28.. 
 
 Aug. 4.. 
 
 11.. 
 
 18.. 
 
 25.. 
 
 Sept. 1. 
 
 8. 
 
 15. 
 
 22. 
 
 29. 
 
 Oct. 6... 
 
 13.. 
 
 20.. 
 
 27.. 
 
 Nov. 3. . 
 
 10.. 
 
 17.. 
 
 23.. 
 
 Dec. 1.. 
 
 8.. 
 
 15.. 
 
 22.. 
 
 29.. 
 
 Average. 
 
 1905. 
 
 Jan. 
 
 Feb. 
 
 Mar. 
 
 Granu- 
 lated. 
 
 Cents. 
 4.75 
 
 4.75 
 
 4.75 
 
 4.85 
 
 4.85 
 
 4.85 
 
 4.95 
 
 5.00 
 
 5.00 
 
 4.95 
 
 4.95 
 
 5.00 
 
 5.00 
 
 4.95 
 
 4.95 
 
 5.00 
 
 4.90 
 
 4.90 
 
 4.80 
 
 4.80 
 
 5.00 
 
 5.26 
 
 5.30 
 
 5.30 
 
 5.30 
 
 5.40 
 
 5.50 
 
 5.60 
 
 5.60 
 
 Cuban 
 centrifu- 
 gals 96' 
 (duty 
 paid). 
 
 4.7837 
 
 6 6.70 
 
 12 6.80 
 
 19 5.90 
 
 26 6.00 
 
 2 6.00 
 
 9 5.90 
 
 16 6.90 
 
 23 5.90 
 
 2 5.90 
 
 9.... 6.90 
 
 16 5.90 
 
 23 5.90 
 
 30 5.90 
 
 Apr. 6 5.90 
 
 13 5.90 
 
 20 5.90 
 
 27 6.90 
 
 May 4 5.90 
 
 87731—17 ^9 
 
 Cents. 
 3.84 
 
 3.94 
 
 3.94 
 
 3.94 
 
 3.94 
 
 3.94 
 
 3.94 
 
 4.06 
 
 4.125 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.31 
 
 4.31 
 
 4.31 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.31 
 
 4.29 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.22 
 
 4.41 
 
 4.41 
 
 4.625 
 
 4.75 
 
 4.75 
 
 4.75 
 
 4.875 
 
 4.875 
 
 4.875 
 
 3.98391 
 
 4.875 
 
 5.06 
 
 5.24 
 
 5.25 
 
 5.26 
 
 4.94 
 
 4.94 
 
 5.06 
 
 5.125 
 
 5.06 
 
 4.88 
 
 4.84 
 
 4.81 
 
 4.94 
 
 4.88 
 
 4.72 
 
 4.625 
 
 4.625 
 
 Margin 
 between 
 raw and 
 refined. 
 
 Cents. 
 0.91 
 
 .81 
 .81 
 .91 
 .91 
 .91 
 1.01 
 .94 
 .875 
 .70 
 .70 
 .69 
 .69 
 .64 
 .70 
 .69 
 .61 
 .65 
 .55 
 .58 
 .59 
 .84 
 .675 
 .55 
 .55 
 .65 
 .625 
 .025 
 .725 
 
 Dates. 
 
 1905. 
 
 June 
 
 July 
 
 Aug. 
 
 7998 
 
 0.825 
 
 .74 
 
 .66 
 
 .75 
 
 .75 
 
 .96 
 
 .96 
 
 .84 
 
 .775 
 
 .84 
 1.02 
 1.06 
 1.09 
 
 .96 
 1.02 
 1.18 
 1.276 
 1.275 I 
 
 May 11. 
 18. 
 25. 
 1. 
 8. 
 15. 
 22. 
 29. 
 6. 
 13. 
 20. 
 27. 
 3. 
 10. 
 17. 
 24. 
 31. 
 7. 
 14. 
 21. 
 28. 
 5. 
 12. 
 19. 
 26.. 
 2.. 
 9.. 
 16.. 
 23.. 
 29.. 
 7.. 
 14.. 
 21.. 
 28.. 
 
 Sept 
 
 Oct. 
 
 Nov. 
 
 A/©C« 
 
 Average. 
 
 1906. 
 
 Jan. 
 
 Feb. 
 
 Mar. 
 
 4. 
 11. 
 18. 
 25. 
 
 1. 
 
 8. 
 15. 
 21- 
 
 1. 
 
 8. 
 15. 
 22. 
 29. 
 
 Granu- 
 lated. 
 
 Cents. 
 5.70 
 
 5.50 
 
 5.60 
 
 5.60 
 
 6.60 
 
 5.60 
 
 5.36 
 
 5.25 
 
 5.26 
 
 6.16 
 
 5.05 
 
 4.90 
 
 6.05 
 
 5.10 
 
 5.10 
 
 5.10 
 
 5.00 
 
 5.00 
 
 4.90 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.56 
 
 4.55 
 
 4.55 
 
 4.45 
 
 4.46 
 
 4.35 
 
 4.35 
 
 4.36 
 
 4.45 
 
 4.45 
 
 4.45 
 
 4.45 
 
 4.45 
 
 4.45 
 
 5.247 
 
 Cuban 
 
 centrifu- 
 gals 96° 
 (duty 
 paid).. 
 
 Cents. 
 4.50 
 
 4.34 
 
 4.375 
 
 4.375 
 
 4.375 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.31 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.19 
 
 4.00 
 
 4.00 
 
 4.06 
 
 4.06 
 
 4.125 
 
 >1.125 
 
 4.00 
 
 4.00 
 
 4.00 
 
 3.875 
 
 3.625 
 
 3.69 
 
 3.61 
 
 3.625 
 
 3.58 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.44 
 
 3.44 
 
 3.55 
 
 3.56 
 
 3.56 
 
 3.625 
 
 3.626 
 
 3.625 
 
 Margin 
 between 
 raw and 
 refined. 
 
 Cents. 
 L2Q 
 
 L16 
 
 L225 
 
 1.225 
 
 1.225 
 
 1.35 
 
 1.04 
 
 1.00 
 
 1.065 
 
 1.155 
 
 LOS 
 
 .M 
 
 .90 
 
 .97 
 
 .97 
 
 LIO 
 
 LOO 
 
 LOO 
 
 L025 
 
 L025 
 
 .86 
 
 .94 
 
 .925 
 
 .87 
 
 .95 
 
 .85 
 
 .91 
 
 .91 
 
 • .00 
 
 .825 
 .825 
 .825 
 
 4.267 
 
 .98 
 
 4.45 
 
 3.625 
 
 .825 
 
 4.55 
 
 3.75 
 
 .70 
 
 4.35 
 
 3.626 
 
 .725 
 
 4.35 
 
 3.56 
 
 .79 
 
 4.36 
 
 3.50 
 
 .85 
 
 4.35 
 
 3.36 
 
 .99 
 
 4.30 
 
 3.36 
 
 .9* 
 
 4.30 
 
 3.36 
 
 .94 
 
 4.35 
 
 3.39 
 
 .90 
 
 4.45 
 
 3.44 
 
 LOl 
 
 4.45 
 
 3.52 
 
 .93 
 
 4.46 
 
 3.56 
 
 .89 
 
 4.45 
 
 3.50 
 
 .05 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 < 
 
 |l[ 
 
118 THE BEET SUGAE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Table 27.— QUOTATIONS OF RAW SUGAR AND REFINED GRANULATED SUGAR 
 
 AT NEW YORK, ETC. — Continued. 
 
 » IT 
 
 DISTEIBUTION OF SUGAB. 
 
 119 
 
 Dates. 
 
 3906. 
 Apr. 6 
 
 12 
 
 19 
 
 26 
 
 May 3 
 
 10 
 
 17 
 
 24 
 
 31 
 
 June 7 
 
 14 
 
 21 
 
 28 
 
 July 5 
 
 12 
 
 19 
 
 26 
 
 Aug. 2 
 
 9 
 
 16 
 
 23 
 
 30 
 
 Sept. 6 
 
 13 
 
 20 
 
 27 
 
 4 
 
 11 
 
 18 
 
 25 
 
 1 
 
 8 , 
 
 15 , 
 
 22 
 
 28 , 
 
 Dec. 6 
 
 13 
 
 20 
 
 27 
 
 Oct. 
 
 Nov. 
 
 Average. 
 
 1907. 
 
 Jan. 3. 
 
 Feb. 
 
 10. 
 17. 
 24. 
 31. 
 7. 
 14. 
 
 Granu- 
 lated. 
 
 Cents. 
 4.55 
 4.45 
 4.40 
 4.30 
 4.40 
 4.45 
 4.35 
 4.35 
 4.35 
 4.45 
 4.45 
 4.45 
 4.45 
 4.55 
 4.55 
 4.45 
 4.65 
 4.65 
 4.75 
 4.75 
 4.65 
 4.65 
 4.65 
 4.75 
 4.75 
 4.75 
 4.55 
 4.65 
 4.65 
 4.65 
 4.55 
 4.55 
 4.55 
 4.55 
 4.55 
 4.62 
 4.62 
 4.62 
 4.62 
 
 4.516 
 
 4.62 
 4.50 
 4.62 
 4.60 
 4.65 
 4.50 
 4.55 
 
 Cuban 
 centrifu- 
 gals 96° 
 (duty 
 paid). 
 
 Cents. 
 3.55 
 3.48 
 3.42 
 3.375 
 3.48 
 3.48 
 3.42 
 3.42 
 3.45 
 3.47 
 3.50 
 3.50 
 3.61 
 3.75 
 3.72 
 3.72 
 3.75 
 3.80 
 3.875 
 3.875 
 3.94 
 4.00 
 4.00 
 4.09 
 4.09 
 4.06 
 4.00 
 4.00 
 4.00 
 4.00 
 3.88 
 3.81 
 3.81 
 3.81 
 3.84 
 3.84 
 3.875 
 3.875 
 3.58 
 
 3.69 
 
 3.56 
 3.56 
 3.50 
 3.48 
 3.48 
 3.42 
 3.42 
 
 Margin 
 between 
 raw and 
 refined. 
 
 Cents. 
 1.00 
 .97 
 .98 
 .925 
 .92 
 .97 
 .93 
 .93 
 .90 
 .98 
 .95 
 .95 
 .84 
 .80 
 .83 
 .73 
 .90 
 .85 
 .875 
 .875 
 .71 
 .65 
 .65 
 .66 
 .66 
 .69 
 .55 
 .65 
 .65 
 .65 
 .67 
 .74 
 .74 
 .74 
 .71 
 .78 
 .745 
 .745 
 1.04 
 
 .826 
 
 1.06 
 .94 
 1.12 
 1.12 
 1.17 
 1.08 
 1.13 
 
 Dates. 
 
 1907. 
 
 Feb. 
 
 Mar. 
 
 Apr. 
 
 May 
 
 June 
 
 21. 
 28. 
 
 7. 
 14. 
 21. 
 28. 
 
 4. 
 11. 
 18. 
 25. 
 2.. 
 9.. 
 16. 
 23. 
 29. 
 
 6. 
 13. 
 20. 
 27. 
 
 July 3. 
 
 Aug. 
 
 Sept 
 
 Oct. 
 
 Nov. 
 
 Dec. 
 
 11. 
 18. 
 25. 
 
 1. 
 
 8. 
 15. 
 22. 
 29. 
 
 6. 
 12. 
 19. 
 26. 
 
 3. 
 10. 
 17. 
 24. 
 31. 
 7.. 
 14. 
 21. 
 27. 
 
 5. 
 12. 
 19. 
 26. 
 
 Average. 
 
 Granu- 
 lated. 
 
 1908. 
 
 Jan. 2. 
 9. 
 
 Cents. 
 4.55 
 
 4.55 
 
 4.55 
 
 4.55 
 
 4.55 
 
 4.55 
 
 4.55 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.60 
 
 4.60 
 
 4.70 
 
 4.85 
 
 4.85 
 
 4.85 
 
 4.85 
 
 4.85 
 
 4.85 
 
 4.85 
 
 4.85 
 
 4.75 
 
 4.75 
 
 4.70 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.60 
 
 4.60 
 
 4.60 
 
 4.55 
 
 4.55 
 
 4.55 
 
 4.55 
 
 4.65 
 
 Cuban 
 centrifu- 
 gals 96° 
 (duty 
 paid). 
 
 Cents. 
 3.38 
 
 3.42 
 
 3.51 
 
 3.50 
 
 3.51 
 
 3.58 
 
 3.61 
 
 3.735 
 
 3.765 
 
 3.73 
 
 3.765 
 
 3.83 
 
 3.86 
 
 3.92 
 
 3.90 
 
 3.84 
 
 3.73 
 
 3.71 
 
 3.876' 
 
 3.835 
 
 3.835 
 
 3.835 
 
 3.94 
 
 3.94 
 
 3.94 
 
 3.89 
 
 3.89 
 
 3.92 
 
 3.92 
 
 3.95 
 
 3.95 
 
 3.95 
 
 3.95 
 
 3.95 
 
 3.90 
 
 3.90 
 
 3.90 
 
 3.90 
 
 3.80 
 
 3.70 
 
 3.625 
 
 3.625 
 
 3.85 
 
 3.85 
 
 3.85 
 
 3.753 
 
 4.55 
 4.75 
 
 3.85 
 3.94 
 
 Margin 
 between 
 raw and 
 refined. 
 
 Cents. 
 1.17 
 
 1.13 
 
 1.04 
 
 1.05 
 
 1.04 
 
 .97 
 
 .94 
 
 .915 
 
 .885 
 
 .87 
 
 .835 
 
 .87 
 
 .99 
 
 .93 
 
 .95 
 
 1.01 
 
 1.12 
 
 1.14 
 
 .975 
 
 1.015 
 
 .915 
 
 .915 
 
 .76 
 
 .71 
 
 .71 
 
 .76 
 
 .76 
 
 .73 
 
 .73 
 
 .70 
 
 .70 
 
 .70 
 
 .70 
 
 .70 
 
 .75 
 
 .75 
 
 .75 
 
 .75 
 
 .80 
 
 .90 
 
 .975 
 
 .925 
 
 .70 
 
 .70 
 
 .70 
 
 .897 
 
 ( 
 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 -> * 
 
 y 
 
 Table 27.— QUOTATIONS OF RAW SUGAR AND REFINED GRANULATED SUGAR 
 
 AT NEW YORK, ETC. — Continued. 
 
 Dates. 
 
 < 
 
 .70 
 .81 
 
 Jan. 
 
 1908. 
 16 
 
 
 23 
 
 
 30 
 
 Feb. 
 
 6 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 20 
 
 ' 
 
 27 
 
 Mar 
 
 5 
 
 
 12 
 
 
 19 
 
 
 26 
 
 Apr. 
 
 2 
 
 9 
 
 
 16 
 
 
 23 
 
 
 30 
 
 May 
 
 7 
 
 14 
 
 
 21 
 
 
 28 
 
 June 
 
 4 
 
 
 11 
 
 
 18 
 
 
 25 
 
 July 
 
 2 
 
 9 
 
 
 16 
 
 
 23 
 
 
 30 
 
 Aug. 
 
 6 
 
 13 
 
 
 20 
 
 
 27 
 
 Sept. 
 
 3 
 
 10 
 
 
 17 
 
 
 24..... 
 
 Oct. 
 
 1 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 15 . 
 
 
 22 
 
 
 29 
 
 Nov. 
 
 5 
 
 
 12 
 
 
 19 
 
 
 25 
 
 Dec. 
 
 3 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 17..... 
 
 Granu- 
 lated. 
 
 CerUs. 
 4.75 
 
 4.76 
 
 4.76 
 
 4.75 
 
 4.66 
 
 4.55 
 
 4.66 
 
 4.75 
 
 4.85 
 
 5.06 
 
 6.25 
 
 6.26 
 
 6.25 
 
 5.35 
 
 5.36 
 
 6.35 
 
 5.15 
 
 6.35 
 
 5.36 
 
 5.20 
 
 6.20 
 
 6.20 
 
 5.26 
 
 6.25 
 
 5.26 
 
 6.26 
 
 5.25 
 
 6.26 
 
 6.15 
 
 6.05 
 
 5.06 
 
 6.06 
 
 4.75 
 
 4.95 
 
 4.96 
 
 4.95 
 
 4.96 
 
 4.95 
 
 4.86 
 
 4.86 
 
 4.76 
 
 4.86 
 
 4.75 
 
 4.60 
 
 4.56 
 
 4.55 
 
 4.56 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.60 
 
 Cuban 
 centrifu- 
 gals 96° 
 (duty 
 paid). 
 
 CeiUs. 
 3.92 
 
 3.80 
 
 3.76 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.67 
 
 3.67 
 
 3.885 
 
 3.89 
 
 4.05 
 
 4.126 
 
 4.36 
 
 4.36 
 
 4.36 
 
 4.36 
 
 4.42 
 
 4.42 
 
 4.36 
 
 4.36 
 
 4.24 
 
 4.27 
 
 4.36 
 
 4.40 
 
 4.31 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.39 
 
 4.39 
 
 4.36 
 
 4.26 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.125 
 
 4.08 
 
 4.08 
 
 3.90 
 
 3.96 
 
 3.90 
 
 3.96 
 
 3.98 
 
 3.98 
 
 3.98 
 
 3.96 
 
 4.04 
 
 3.98 
 
 3.96 
 
 3.94 
 
 3.94 
 
 3.94 
 
 3.92 
 
 3.86 
 
 3.77 
 
 Margin 
 between 
 raw and 
 refined. 
 
 Cents. 
 0.83 
 
 .96 
 
 1.00 
 
 1.00 
 
 .98 
 
 .88 
 
 .765 
 
 .86 
 
 .80 
 
 .92 
 
 .89 
 
 .89 
 
 .89 
 
 .995 
 
 .93 
 
 .93 
 
 .79 
 
 .99 
 
 1.11 
 
 .93 
 
 .84 
 
 .80 
 
 .94 
 
 1.00 
 
 .86 
 
 .86 
 
 .89 
 
 1.00 
 
 .90 
 
 .925 
 
 .97 
 
 .97 
 
 .85 
 
 .99 
 
 1.06 
 
 1.00 
 
 .97 
 
 .97 
 
 .87 
 
 .89 
 
 .71 
 
 .87 
 
 .80 
 
 .66 
 
 .61 
 
 .61 
 
 .63 
 
 .69 
 
 .83 
 
 Dates. 
 
 1908. 
 
 Dec. 23. 
 30. 
 
 Average. 
 
 1909. 
 Jan. 7 
 
 14 
 
 21 
 
 28 
 
 Feb. 4.... 
 
 10.... 
 
 18.... 
 
 25.... 
 Mar. 4 
 
 11.... 
 
 18.... 
 
 25.... 
 
 Apr. 1 
 
 7.... 
 
 15.... 
 
 22.... 
 
 29.... 
 May 6 
 
 13 
 
 20 
 
 27 
 
 June 3 
 
 10.... 
 
 17.... 
 
 24.... 
 July 1 
 
 8..... 
 
 15 
 
 22 
 
 29 
 
 Aug. 6 
 
 12.... 
 
 19.... 
 
 26.... 
 
 Sept. 2 
 
 9.... 
 
 16.... 
 
 23.... 
 
 30.... 
 Oct. 7 
 
 14....' 
 
 21 
 
 28 
 
 Granu- 
 lated. 
 
 Cuban 
 centrifu- 
 gals 96° 
 (duty 
 paid). 
 
 Margin 
 between 
 raw and 
 refined. 
 
 Cents. 
 
 Cents. 
 
 Cents. 
 
 4.60 
 
 3.70 
 
 0.80 
 
 4.50 
 
 3.67 
 
 i .83 
 
 4.940 
 
 4.064 
 
 .876 
 
 4.45 
 
 3.73 
 
 .72 
 
 4.50 
 
 3.73 
 
 .77 
 
 4.50 
 
 3.67 
 
 .» 
 
 4.60 
 
 3.67 
 
 .8$ 
 
 4.60 
 
 3.64 
 
 .8& 
 
 4.50 
 
 3.61 
 
 .» 
 
 4.30 
 
 3.61 
 
 .69 
 
 4.40 
 
 3.735 
 
 .66& 
 
 4.45 
 
 3.736 
 
 .71& 
 
 4.56 
 
 3.80 
 
 .75 
 
 4.70 
 
 3.92 
 
 .78 
 
 4.70 
 
 3.92 
 
 .78 
 
 4.80 
 
 3.985 
 
 .815 
 
 4.80 
 
 3.985 
 
 .815 
 
 4.80 
 
 3.92 
 
 .88 
 
 4.80 
 
 3.86 
 
 .94 
 
 4.90 
 
 3.92 
 
 .98 
 
 4.90 
 
 3.86 
 
 1.04 
 
 4.75 
 
 3.92 
 
 .83 
 
 4.70 
 
 3.96 
 
 .76 
 
 4.80 
 
 3.92 
 
 .88 
 
 4.80 
 
 3.89 
 
 .91 
 
 4.60 
 
 3.86 
 
 .74 
 
 4.70 
 
 3.92 
 
 .78 
 
 4.75 
 
 3.92 
 
 .83 
 
 4.70 
 
 3.92 
 
 .78 
 
 4.70 
 
 3.92 
 
 .78 
 
 4.70 
 
 3.92 
 
 .78 
 
 4.70 
 
 3.96 
 
 .75 
 
 4.80 
 
 3.985 
 
 .815 
 
 4.80 
 
 4.05 
 
 .75 
 
 4.80 
 
 4.08 
 
 .72 
 
 4.80 
 
 4.11 
 
 .69 
 
 4.90 
 
 4.11 
 
 .79 
 
 4.90 
 
 4.17 
 
 .73 
 
 4.90 ' 
 
 4.20 
 
 .70 
 
 6.00 j 
 
 4.21 
 
 .79 
 
 4.85 
 
 4.235 
 
 .615 
 
 4.85 
 
 4.235 
 
 .615 
 
 4.86 1 
 
 4.235 
 
 .615 
 
 4.90 
 
 4.27 
 
 .63 
 
 4.90 
 
 4.30 
 
 .60 
 
 4.90 ! 
 
 4.30 
 
 .60 
 
 
120 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Table 27.— QUOTATIONS OF RAW SUGAR AND REFINED GRANULATED SUGAR 
 
 AT NEW YORK, ETC.— Continued. 
 
 DISTRIBUTION OF SUGAR. 
 
 121 
 
 Dates. 
 
 Nov 
 
 1909. 
 . 4 
 
 
 11 
 
 
 18 
 
 
 24 
 
 Dec 
 
 2 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 16 
 
 
 23 
 
 
 30 
 
 Jan. 
 
 Average 
 
 1910. 
 
 6 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 20 
 
 
 27 
 
 Feb. 
 
 3 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 17 
 
 
 24 
 
 Mar. 
 
 3 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 17 
 
 
 23 
 
 
 31 
 
 Apr. 
 
 7 
 
 
 14 
 
 
 21 
 
 
 28 
 
 Mav 
 
 5 
 
 
 12 
 
 
 19 
 
 
 26 
 
 June 
 
 2 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 16 
 
 
 23 
 
 
 30 
 
 July 
 
 7 
 
 14 
 
 
 21 
 
 
 28 
 
 Aug. 
 
 4 
 
 11 
 
 
 18 
 
 
 25 
 
 Sept. 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 
 16 
 
 Granu- 
 lated. 
 
 CenU. 
 4.95 
 
 5.00 
 
 5.00 
 
 5.00 
 
 5.00 
 
 5.00 
 
 5.00 
 
 4.80 
 
 4.80 
 
 4.762 
 
 4.80 
 
 4.90 
 
 4.90 
 
 4.90 
 
 4.90 
 
 4.90 
 
 4.90 
 
 5.00 
 
 5.10 
 
 5.20 
 
 5.20 
 
 5.20 
 
 5.10 
 
 5.10 
 
 5.05 
 
 5.10 
 
 5.10 
 
 5.10 
 
 5.20 
 
 5.20 
 
 5.20 
 
 4.95 
 
 5.10 
 
 5.10 
 
 5.10 
 
 5.00 
 
 5.05 
 
 5.05 
 
 5.10 
 
 5.10 
 
 5.05 
 
 5.10 
 
 5.10 
 
 5.20 
 
 5.20 
 
 5.00 
 
 5.00 
 
 Cuban 
 
 centnfu- 
 
 gals 96° 
 
 (dutv 
 
 paid). 
 
 Centf. 
 4.30 
 
 4.45 
 
 4.42 
 
 4.36 
 
 4.33 
 
 4.315 
 
 4.17 
 
 4.02 
 
 4.02 
 
 4.005 
 
 4.02 
 
 4.11 
 
 4. OS 
 
 4 08 
 
 4.17 
 
 4.11 
 
 4.20 
 
 4.36 
 
 4.39 
 
 4.36 
 
 4.36 
 
 4.36 
 
 4.36 
 
 4.36 
 
 4.36 
 
 4.30 
 
 4.30 
 
 4.30 
 
 4.24 
 
 4.24 
 
 4.27 
 
 4.24 
 
 4.24 
 
 4.17 
 
 4.24 
 
 4.30 
 
 4.33 
 
 4.30 
 
 4.36 
 
 4.36 
 
 4.36 
 
 4.39 
 
 4.42 
 
 4.45 
 
 4.425 
 
 4.36 
 
 4.36 
 
 Margin 
 between 
 raw and 
 refined. 
 
 Cents. 
 0.65 
 
 .55 
 
 .58 
 
 .64 
 
 .67 
 
 .685 
 
 .83 
 
 .78 
 .78 
 
 .757 
 
 0.78 
 .79 
 .82 
 .82 
 .73 
 .79 
 .70 
 .64 
 .71 
 .84 
 .84 
 .84 
 .74 
 .74 
 .69 
 .80 
 .80 
 .80 
 .96 
 .96 
 .93 
 .71 
 .86 
 .93 
 .86 
 .70 
 .72 
 .75 
 .74 
 .74 
 .69 
 .71 
 .68 
 .75 
 .775 
 .64 
 .64 
 
 Dates. 
 
 1910. 
 Sept. 22 — 
 
 29.... 
 
 Oct. 
 
 Nov 
 
 Dec. 
 
 Jan. 
 
 Feb, 
 
 Mar. 
 
 Apr. 
 
 May 
 
 June 
 
 July 
 
 6. 
 13. 
 20. 
 27. 
 
 3. 
 10. 
 17. 
 23. 
 
 1. 
 
 8. 
 15. 
 22. 
 29. 
 
 Aug. 
 
 Average. 
 
 1911. 
 5 
 
 12 
 
 19 
 
 26 
 
 2 
 
 9 
 
 16 
 
 23 
 
 2 
 
 9 
 
 16 
 
 23 
 
 30 
 
 6 
 
 12 
 
 20 
 
 27 
 
 4 
 
 11 
 
 18 
 
 25 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 15 
 
 22 
 
 29 
 
 6 
 
 13 
 
 20 
 
 27 
 
 3 
 
 Granu- 
 lated. 
 
 Cents. 
 5.00 
 
 5.00 
 
 4.95 
 
 4.85 
 
 4.75 
 
 4.70 
 
 4.55 
 
 4.55 
 
 4.55 
 
 4.55 
 
 4.55 
 
 4.75 
 
 4.75 
 
 4.75 
 
 4.75 
 
 4.966 
 
 Cuban 
 centrifu- 
 gals 96° 
 (duty 
 paid). 
 
 Cents. 
 4.24 
 4.05 
 3.95 
 3.90 
 3.85 
 3.86 
 3.80 
 3.86 
 3.90 
 3.90 
 3.93 
 4.05 
 4.00 
 3.985 
 3.985 
 
 4.19 
 
 4.75 
 
 3.86 
 
 4.75 
 
 3.675 
 
 4.60 
 
 3.515 
 
 4.60 
 
 3.42 
 
 4.55 
 
 3.45 
 
 4.55 
 
 3.48 
 
 4.55 
 
 3.545 
 
 4.55 
 
 3.67 
 
 4.55 
 
 3.73 
 
 4.65 
 
 3.76 
 
 4.75 
 
 3.83 
 
 4.75 
 
 3.92 
 
 4.75 
 
 3.86 
 
 4.655 
 
 3.86 
 
 4.606 
 
 3.86 
 
 4.802 
 
 3.92 
 
 4.802 
 
 3.92 
 
 4.802 
 
 3.795 
 
 4.802 
 
 3.86 
 
 4.802 
 
 3.86 
 
 4.802 
 
 3.86 
 
 4.802 
 
 3.86 
 
 4.90 
 
 3.86 
 
 4.90 
 
 3.89 
 
 4.90 
 
 3.98 
 
 4.90 
 
 3.98 
 
 4.90 
 
 4.05 
 
 5.047 
 
 4.23 
 
 5.047 
 
 4.36 
 
 5.341 
 
 4.61 
 
 5.537 
 
 4.61 
 
 Margin 
 between 
 raw and 
 refined. 
 
 Cents. 
 
 0.76 
 .95 
 
 1.00 
 .95 
 .90 
 .84 
 .75 
 .69 
 .65 
 .65 
 .62 
 .70 
 . 75 
 .765 
 .765 
 
 776 
 
 C.89 
 1.075 
 1.085 
 1.18 
 1.10 
 1.07 
 1.005 
 .88 
 .82 
 .89 
 .92 
 .83 
 .89 
 .795 
 .746 
 .882 
 .882 
 1.007 
 .942 
 .942 
 .942 
 .942 
 1.04 
 1.01 
 .92 
 .92 
 .85 
 .817 
 .687 
 .731 
 .927 
 
 9 
 
 Table 27.— QUOTATIONS OF RAW SUGAR AND REFINED GRANULATED SUGAR 
 
 AT NEW YORK, ETC. — Continued. 
 
 T 
 
 7 
 
 Dates. 
 
 Granu- 
 lated. 
 
 Cuban 
 centrifu- 
 gals 96° 
 (duty 
 paid). 
 
 Margin 
 between 
 raw and 
 refined. 
 
 Dates. 
 
 Granu- 
 lated. 
 
 Cuban 
 
 centrifu- 
 gals 96° 
 (dutv 
 paid). 
 
 Margin 
 between 
 raw and 
 refined - 
 
 1911. 
 An«r 10 
 
 Cents, 
 5.537 
 
 5.635 
 
 5.831 
 
 6.125 
 
 6.37 
 
 6.615 
 
 6.615 
 
 6.615 
 
 6.615 
 
 6.615 
 
 6.615 
 
 6.566 
 
 6.37 
 
 6.174 
 
 6.076 
 
 5.978 
 
 5.88 
 
 5.537 
 
 5.635 
 
 5.635 
 
 5.635 
 
 CenU, 
 4.8675 
 
 4.92 
 
 5.00 
 
 5.25 
 
 5.75 
 
 5.75 
 
 5.92 
 
 5.965 
 
 5.80 
 
 5.96 
 
 5.96 
 
 5.735 
 
 5.30 
 
 5.12 
 
 5.12 
 
 5.0625 
 
 5.0625 
 
 4.9375 
 
 4.875 
 
 4.715 
 
 4.65 
 
 Cents. 
 0.6695 
 
 .715 
 
 .831 
 
 .875 
 
 .62 
 
 .865 
 
 .695 
 
 .65 
 
 .815 
 
 .655 
 
 .655 
 
 .831 
 
 1.07 
 
 1.054 
 
 .956 
 
 .9155 
 
 .8175 
 
 .5995 
 
 .76 
 
 .92 
 
 .985 
 
 1912. 
 June 27 
 
 CenU. 
 
 4.851 
 
 4.851 
 
 4.851 
 
 4.90 
 
 4.90 
 
 4.90 
 
 4.90 
 
 4.851 
 
 4.90 
 
 4.998 
 
 4.998 
 
 4.998 
 
 4.998 
 
 4.949 
 
 4.851 
 
 4.802 
 
 4.802 
 
 4.802 
 
 4.802 
 
 4.802 
 
 4.802 
 
 4.802 
 
 4.802 
 
 4.802 
 
 4.802 
 
 4.802 
 
 4.802 
 
 Cents. 
 3.83 
 3.77 
 3.80 
 3.985 
 4.05 
 4.05 
 4.05 
 4.05 
 4.11 
 4.235 
 4.36 
 4.36 
 4.30 
 4.17 
 4.14 
 4.11 
 4.11 
 4.05 
 4.05 
 4.05 
 4.05 
 4.05 
 4.05 
 4.05 
 3.92 
 3.92 
 3.92 
 
 Cents. 
 1.021 
 
 17 . ... 
 
 July 3 
 
 1.081 
 
 24 
 
 11 
 
 1.051 
 
 31 
 
 18 
 
 .915 
 
 Sent 7 
 
 25 
 
 .85 
 
 14 . .. 
 
 Aug. 1 ■ 
 
 .85 
 
 21 
 
 8 
 
 .85 
 
 28 
 
 15 
 
 .80 
 
 Oct 5 
 
 22 
 
 .79 
 
 11 
 
 29 
 
 .763 
 
 19 
 
 Sept. 5 
 
 .638 
 
 26 
 
 12 
 
 .638 
 
 Nov 2 
 
 19 
 
 .698 
 
 9 
 
 26 
 
 .779 
 
 16 
 
 Oct. 3 
 
 .711 
 
 ) 
 
 23 . . .. 
 
 10 
 
 .692 
 
 b 
 
 29 
 
 17 
 
 .692 
 
 Dec. 7 
 
 24 
 
 .752 
 
 14 
 
 31 
 
 .752 
 
 • 
 
 21 
 
 Nov. 7 
 
 .752 
 
 28 
 
 14 
 
 .752 
 
 
 - Average 
 
 1912. 
 Jan. 4 
 
 21 
 
 .752 
 
 5.345 
 
 4.453 
 
 .892 
 
 ... ... 
 
 27 
 
 .752 
 
 T)pr« ."i 
 
 .752 
 
 5.537 
 5.39 
 5.39* 
 5.194 
 ' 5.194 
 5.39 
 5.586 
 5.684 
 5.684 
 5.684 
 5.488 
 5.439 
 5.341 
 5.145 
 5.0% 
 5.096 
 4.949 
 4.949 
 4.949 
 4.90 
 4.90 
 4.998 
 5.096 
 4.949 
 4.998 
 
 4.42 
 4.42 
 4.45 
 4.39 
 4.41 
 4.55 
 4.735 
 4.80 
 4.67 
 . 4.52 
 4.52 
 4.42 
 4.36 
 4.30 
 4.11 
 4.11 
 3.985 
 4.05 
 3.985 
 3.92 
 3.92 
 3.985 
 3.92 
 3.92 
 3.86 
 
 1.117 
 
 .97 
 
 .94 
 
 .804 
 
 .784 
 
 .84 
 
 .851 
 
 .884 
 1.014 
 1.164 
 
 .968 
 1.019 
 
 .981 
 
 .845 
 
 .986 
 
 .986 
 
 .964 
 
 .899 
 
 .964 
 
 .98 • 
 
 .98 
 1.013 
 1.176 
 1.029 
 1.138 
 
 12 
 
 .882 
 
 19 
 
 .882 
 
 . 11 
 
 26 
 
 .882 
 
 IS 
 
 ! 
 
 Average 
 
 1913. 
 Jan. 2 
 
 
 
 lo 
 
 25 
 
 5.041 
 
 4.162 
 
 .879 
 
 
 TPoVi 1 
 
 
 
 reo. 1 
 
 8 
 
 4.802 
 4.557 
 4.459 
 4.459 
 4.214 
 4.165 
 4.214 
 4.165 
 4.165 
 4.214 
 4.214 
 4.165 
 4.165 
 4.165 
 4.067 
 4.067 
 4.116 
 4.116 
 4.116 
 
 3.73 
 3.48 
 3.48 
 3.48 
 3.48 
 3.48 
 3.48 
 3.48 
 3.51 
 3.54 
 3.68 
 3.58 
 3.48 
 3.45 
 3.36 
 3.36 
 3.39 
 3.39 
 3.36 
 
 
 / 
 
 15 
 
 1.072 
 
 21 
 
 9 
 
 1.077 
 
 
 29 
 
 16 
 
 .979 
 
 
 Mar. 7 
 
 23 
 
 .979 
 
 
 14 
 
 30 
 
 .734 
 
 • 
 
 21 
 
 Feb 6 
 
 .685 
 
 
 28 
 
 13 
 
 .734 
 
 k 
 
 Apr. 3 
 
 20 
 
 .685 
 
 •V 
 
 11. 
 
 27 
 
 .655 
 
 18 
 
 Mar. 6 
 
 .674 
 
 
 25 
 
 13 
 
 .634 
 
 m 
 
 May 2 
 
 19 
 
 .585 
 
 
 9 
 
 27 
 
 .6&) 
 
 ■ 
 
 16 
 
 Apr. 3 
 
 .n5 
 
 
 23 
 
 10 
 
 .707 
 
 i 
 
 29..' 
 
 17 
 
 1 .707 
 
 June 6 
 
 24 
 
 .726 
 
 • 
 
 13 
 
 20 
 
 May 1 
 
 8 
 
 .726 
 .756 
 
 1 
 
_& m£ • / 
 
 122 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Table 27.— QUOTATIONS OF RAW SUGAR AND REFINED GRANULATED SUGAR 
 
 AT NEW YORK. ETC. — Continued. 
 
 Dates. 
 
 1913. 
 May 15 
 
 22 
 
 28 
 
 June 5 
 
 12 
 
 19 
 
 26 
 
 July 2 
 
 10 
 
 17 
 
 24 
 
 31 
 
 Aug. 7 
 
 14 
 
 21 
 
 28 
 
 Sept. 4 
 
 11 
 
 18 
 
 25 
 
 Oct. 2 
 
 9 
 
 16 
 
 23 
 
 30 
 
 Nov. 6 , 
 
 13 
 
 20 
 
 26 
 
 Dec. 4 
 
 11 
 
 18 , 
 
 24 
 
 31 
 
 Average.. 
 
 1914. 
 Jan. 8 .\ 
 
 15 , 
 
 22 
 
 29 
 
 Feb. 6 
 
 11 
 
 19 
 
 Granu- 
 lated. 
 
 Cents. 
 4.116 
 4.018 
 4.116 
 4.116 
 4.116 
 4.116 
 4.214 
 4.410 
 4.410 
 4.508 
 4.508 
 4.508 
 4.606 
 4.606 
 4.696 
 4.606 
 4.508 
 4.508 
 4.508 
 4.606 
 4.361 
 4.165 
 4.067 
 4.165 
 4.165 
 4.214 
 4.214 
 4.214 
 4.214 
 4.165 
 4.165 
 4.116 
 4.018 
 3.92 
 
 4.278 
 
 3.92 
 3.92 
 3.92 
 3.92 
 3.92 
 3.92 
 3.92 
 
 Cuban 
 centrifu- 
 gals 96° 
 (duty 
 paid). 
 
 Cents. 
 3.30 
 3.30 
 3.33 
 3.33 
 3.33 
 3.33 
 3.36 
 3.48 
 3.54 
 3.57 
 3.54 
 3.64 
 3.73 
 3.73 
 3.73 
 3.76 
 3.76 
 3.76 
 3.73 
 3.61 
 3.45 
 3.48 
 3.48 
 3.48 
 3.61 
 3.54 
 3.64 
 3.70 
 3.61 
 3.54 
 3.54 
 3.23 
 3.23 
 3.23 
 
 3.506 
 
 3.23 
 
 3.29 
 
 3.355 
 
 3.48 
 
 3.48 
 
 3.48 
 
 3.42 
 
 Margin 
 between 
 raw and 
 refined. 
 
 Cents. 
 0.816 
 
 .718 
 
 .786 
 
 .786 
 
 .786 
 
 .786 
 
 .854 
 
 .93 
 
 .87 
 
 .938 
 
 .968 
 
 .868 
 
 .876 
 
 .876 
 
 .876 
 
 .846 
 
 .748 
 
 .748 
 
 .778 
 
 .996 
 
 .911 
 
 .685 
 
 .587 
 
 .685 
 
 .555 
 
 .674 
 
 .574 
 
 .514 
 
 .604 
 
 .625 
 
 .625 
 
 .886 
 
 .788 
 
 .69 
 
 .772 
 
 .69 
 
 .63 
 
 .565 
 
 .44 
 
 .44 
 
 .44 
 
 .50 
 
 Dates. 
 
 1914. 
 Feb. 26... 
 Mar. 51.. 
 
 12... 
 
 19... 
 
 26... 
 
 Apr. 2... 
 
 8... 
 
 16... 
 
 23... 
 
 30... 
 May 7... 
 
 14... 
 
 21... 
 
 28... 
 June 4 — 
 
 11... 
 
 18... 
 
 25... 
 July 2..., 
 9... 
 
 16... 
 
 23... 
 
 30... 
 Aug. 6.... 
 
 13..., 
 
 20... 
 
 27.... 
 Sept. 3..., 
 
 10..., 
 
 17..., 
 
 24... 
 Oct. 1..., 
 8..., 
 
 15.-., 
 
 22..., 
 
 29... 
 Nov. 5 — 
 
 12. . . , 
 
 19... 
 
 25.... 
 Dec. 3.... 
 
 10.... 
 
 17.... 
 
 23.... 
 
 30.... 
 
 Granu- 
 lated. 
 
 Cents. 
 3.92 
 
 3.92 
 3.822 
 3.773 
 3.773 
 3.773 
 3.675 
 3.675 
 3.735 
 3.735 
 3.832 
 3.92 
 4.018 
 4.116 
 4.116 
 4.116 
 4.214 
 4.214 
 4.214 
 4.214 
 4.214 
 4.214 
 4.165 
 4.90 
 6.86 
 7.35 
 6.86 
 . 6.86 
 7.105 
 7.105 
 6.125 
 6.37 
 6.125 
 5.88 
 5.782 
 5.488 
 4.90 
 4.90 
 4.998 
 4.998 
 4.90 
 4.90 
 4.753 
 4.753 
 4.851 
 
 Cuban 
 centrifu- 
 gals 96° 
 (duty 
 paid). 
 
 Cents. 
 3.39 
 3.01 
 2.95 
 3.01 
 2.95 
 2.95 
 2.92 
 2.98 
 3.01 
 3.04 
 3.14 
 3.20 
 3.32 
 3.39 
 3.32 
 3.32 
 3.39 
 3.32 
 3.32 
 3.26 
 3.26 
 3.26 
 3.29 
 4.26 
 6.52 
 6.00 
 6.02 
 6.01 
 6.27 
 5.89 
 5.02 
 5.01 
 5.02 
 4.51 
 4.26 
 3.64 
 3.45 
 4.07 
 4.01 
 4.04 
 3.95 
 3.89 
 3.95 
 4.01 
 4.01 
 
 Margin 
 between 
 raw and 
 refined. 
 
 Cents. 
 0.53 
 
 .91 
 .872 
 .763 
 .823 
 .823 
 .755 
 .695 
 .725 
 .695 
 .692 
 .72 
 .698 
 .726 
 .796 
 .796 
 .824 
 .894 
 .894 
 .954 
 .954 
 .954 
 .875 
 .64 
 .34 
 1.35 
 .84 
 .85 
 .835 
 1.215 
 1.105 
 1.36 
 1.105 
 1.37 
 1.522 
 1.848 
 1.45 
 .83 
 .988 
 .958 
 .95 
 1.01 
 .803 
 .743 
 .841 
 
 1 Full duty on Cuban 96** sugar from Mar. 1, 1914, is 1.0048 cents per pound. Refined sugars will pa7 
 duty according to polariscopic test. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 INVESTMENT, CAPITALIZATION, AND EARNINGS OF BEET-SUGAE 
 
 COMPANIES. 
 
 Section 1. Investment and capitalization. 
 
 The books of 38 beet-sugar companies were examined in 1914, and 
 y adequate financial statements were secured from 37. These 37 com- 
 panies owned the factories that produced 98.6 per cent of all the sugar 
 produced in the United States. 
 
 In determining the net investment no allowance has been made for 
 good will. In every case the exact cost of building, machinery, and 
 other equipment was ascertained as nearly as possible, and this 
 amount was added to the net current assets to arrive at the total net 
 investment. The net current assets consist of the difference between . 
 the amount of inventories, bills and accounts receivable, and cash and . 
 -(^ the amount of bills and accounts payable. The method of ascertaining 
 the cost of buildings and equipment has already been described in the 
 discussion of depreciation (see p. 67) . The value of inventories cov- 
 ering granulated sugar and supplies were generally accepted as stated 
 in the books of the companies, and the book entries for cash, bills, ac- 
 counts, sugar in process, etc., were likewise accepted. 
 
 Comparison of cost of investment with capital LiABiLrnES. — 
 The aggregate outstanding capital stock of the 37 companies con- 
 sidered in this discussion at the close of the fiscal year ending nearest 
 March 1, 1914, was $114,930,622, and these companies had in addition 
 bond and mortgage indebtedness aggregating $10,596,258, or total 
 capital liabilities of $125,526,880. The aggregate net investment 
 shown by the books of the companies was $115,947,775. It thus ap- ) 
 pears that these 37 companies taken collectively were overcapitalized i 
 to the extent of $9,579,105, or 8.3 per cent. ^ 
 
 [• f Taken individually, however, some of these companies were under- 
 
 capitalized, while others were much more heavily overcapitalized 
 than the 37 companies taken as a whole. Table 28 below shows the 
 relation between the capital liabilities and net investment for the 
 individual companies. The amounts of investment and capital are 
 not shown in this comparison because the use of the absolute figures 
 might identify some of the companies. Since such identification 
 would probably serve no useful purpose and might possibly em- 
 
 123 
 
 i' 
 
 \ 
 
* ' «^ 
 
 124 
 
 THE BEET SUGAB INDUSTEY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 barrass some concerns only percentages are used to show the extent 
 to which overcapitalization or undercapitalization exists. The re- 
 lation of investment to capital liabilities for the 37 companies is 
 shown as of the close of the fiscal year ending nearest March 1, 1910, 
 and the fiscal year ending nearest the same date in 1914. 
 
 Table 28.— PERCENTAGE OF OVERCAPITALIZATION OR UNDERCAPITALIZATION OP 
 BEET-SUGAR COMPANIES AT THE END OF THE YEARS 1909-10 AND 19ia— 14. 
 
 Com- 
 pany 
 nnmber. 
 
 1909-10 
 
 1913-14 
 
 • 
 
 Com- 
 pany 
 namoer. 
 
 1909-10 
 
 1913-14 
 
 Over- 
 capitali- 
 zation. 
 
 Under- 
 capitali- 
 zation. 
 
 Over- 
 capitali- 
 zation. 
 
 Under- 
 capitali- 
 zation. 
 
 Over- 
 capitali- 
 zation. 
 
 1 
 Under- 
 capitali- 
 zation. 
 
 Over- 
 capitali- 
 zation. 
 
 Under- 
 capitali- 
 zation. 
 
 1 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 9.48 
 
 29.04 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 40.54 
 
 13.95 
 
 178.34 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 20 
 
 21 
 
 22 
 
 Per cent. 
 85.97 
 95.81 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 129.95 
 
 41.65 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 31.62 
 
 
 39.79 
 
 (0 
 
 .31 
 51.08 
 52.41 
 
 15.03 
 
 4 
 
 20.32 
 
 26.74 
 
 23 
 
 24 
 
 0) 
 
 
 .70 
 
 5 
 
 37.34 
 
 54.50 
 
 66.52 
 
 1,972.51 
 
 16.63 
 
 2.86 
 
 7.70 
 
 9.29 
 
 
 22.07 
 
 6 
 
 18.60 
 35.93 
 
 0) 
 
 11.08 
 
 16.78 
 
 (0 
 
 70.06 
 6.07 
 
 
 25 
 
 
 
 43.31 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 26 
 
 27 
 
 28 
 
 29 
 
 72.02 
 
 (1) 
 
 
 60.10 
 
 8 
 
 0) 
 
 
 71.42 
 
 74.95 
 
 1.94 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 0) 
 5.54 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 0) 
 
 
 30 
 
 31 
 
 32 
 
 33 
 
 34 
 
 26.90 
 
 0) 
 0) 
 0) 
 
 15.53 
 
 12 
 
 78.99 
 
 (») 
 0) 
 
 14.30 
 
 147.20 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 8.24 
 
 106.84 
 
 94.85 
 
 20.61 
 
 14 
 
 35.07 
 0) 
 
 
 84.37 
 
 
 15 
 
 0) 
 36.48 
 
 
 43.51 
 
 16 
 
 27.59 
 
 35 
 
 36 
 
 129.82 
 
 145.57 
 
 
 17 
 
 84.79 
 
 79.85 
 
 26.74 
 34.83 
 
 30.88 
 
 18 
 
 17.65 
 
 20.68 
 
 37 
 
 
 -» 
 
 10.43 
 
 19 
 
 125.47 
 
 60.68 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 1 Organized since 1909. 
 
 The second column in the table shows the relation of capital to 
 investment for each company at the close of the year 1909-10, ex- 
 cept, of course, for the eight companies that were organized after 
 1909. The net assets of companies organized prior to that year have 
 been adjusted from the time of their organization, in order to arrive 
 at a proper figure for this year. The third column of the table shows 
 the corresponding relation for the year 1913-14. The figures for 
 the three years intervening between 1909-10 and 1913-14 are noi; 
 given, because the important figure is that relating to the latest 
 year, while the data for 1909-10 are shown merely to indicate the 
 changes during the five years. 
 
 From the above table it is seen that in 1913-14 14 companies had 
 capital liabilities less than the cost of their net assets. Some of these 
 14 companies, however, were overcapitalized in the beginning. The 
 other 23 companies had capital liabilities greater than the cost of 
 
 
 INVESTMENT, CAPITALIZATION, AND EARNINGS OF COMPANIES. 125 
 
 ! their net assets, and the excess measures their overcapitalization. In 
 the present discussion the cost of investment, as distinguished from 
 its present value, is considered. 
 
 At the beginning of the period covered by the table some of the 
 companies were overcapitalized, but during the intervening years 
 they increased their assets or diminished their capital liabilities, or 
 
 f both, until in 1913-14 they were undercapitalized. On the other 
 hand, some of the companies shown in the table were not overcapi- 
 talized at the beginning of this period, but subsequently they either 
 dissipated their assets or increased their capital stock and bonds 
 without adding anything to their assets, so that they were overcapi- 
 talized in 1913-14. 
 
 / The above points may be ma'de clearer by citing two examples. 
 
 Thus, when company No. 24 began business it was overcapitalized 
 more than 65 per cent, but since then it has earned enough to pay 
 dividends on its outstanding stock and to add to its assets, so that if 
 its property had been sold at the end of 1913-14 for what it cost, the 
 proceeds would have redeemed all its stock at par and left $22 for 
 each $100 share. In the case of company No. 10, the net assets 
 exceeded the capital liabilities by nearly $17 per share at the close 
 of the year 1909-10. During the four years, however, its net assets 
 
 ^. diminished until its capital stock exceeded its net property by $7.70 
 per share. Thus, if this company's assets had been sold at cost at 
 the end of 1913-14 it would have lacked, after paying its debts, more 
 than $7 per share of having enough to redeem its stock at par. 
 
 The most striking fact disclosed by the table is the great extent to 
 which some companies are overcapitalized. Of the 23 overcapitalized 
 companies in 1914, 6 had a capitalization in excess of the cost of \ 
 their net assets of more than 100 per cent, and the capital liabilities 
 of one company was 20 times the cost of its nejb assets. As already~^^ 
 
 / stated, overcapitalization in some cases is due to losses in the business t 
 and not to excessive stock issues at the time of organization. Only a 3 
 few years ago the company just referred to as being highly over- 
 capitalized was undercapitalized to the extent of about 35 per cent, 
 but in recent years it has incurred heavy losses and thereby almost 
 
 . entirely dissipated its assets. In this particular case the holders of 
 
 f the stock have abundant means and they have individually loaned 
 money to the company to meet its current obligations. This is also 
 true of one or two other companies. 
 
 The capital liabilities of most of the companies consist of both 
 stocks and bonds. In case of liquidation the bonds would have to be 
 
 <[ paid off before the stockholders would be entitled to anything. As- 
 
 suming that the 37 companies in the foregoing table could dispose of 
 
 '•''In 
 
 
■* -«_ 
 
 ••m 
 
 126 THE BEET SUGAE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 their assets at cost, 14 of them would be able to pay all their current 
 indebtedness, retire their bonds, and have left more than enough to re- 
 deem all of their stock at par. Under these circumstances the other 
 23 companies would not be able to return to stockholders the par 
 value of their stock. A statement showing the amount av^ailable for 
 each $100 of outstanding stock after paying current debts and re- 
 tiring its bonds is given below. The companies have been arranged 
 in descending order according to the book value of net assets for each 
 $100 of capital stock. 
 
 <r' 
 
 Company 
 ISfo. 
 
 Assets 
 
 available 
 
 for each 
 
 $100 share 
 
 of stock. 
 
 Company 
 No. 
 
 Assets 
 
 available 
 
 for each 
 
 $100 share 
 
 of stock. 
 
 Company 
 No. 
 
 Assets 
 available 
 
 for each 
 $100 share 
 
 of stock. 
 
 Company 
 No. 
 
 Assets 
 
 available 
 
 for each 
 
 $100 share 
 
 of stock. 
 
 4 A 
 
 $475.97 
 250.64 
 183.19 
 176.41 
 158.09 
 146.36 
 136.50 
 133.14 
 128.32 
 126.07 
 
 ^n 
 
 $118.73 
 
 117.69 
 
 111.65 
 
 101.09 
 
 96.86 
 
 96.07 
 
 92.85 
 
 90.50 
 
 84.14 
 
 79.28 
 
 8 
 
 $79.07 
 67.54 
 64.73 
 62.65 
 62.24 
 60.05 
 56.73 
 47.99 
 44.91 
 40.45 
 
 35 
 
 $36.20 
 
 12. 
 
 99 
 
 21 
 
 3 
 
 35.93 
 
 26. 
 
 ^7 
 
 5 
 
 14 
 
 34.57 
 
 34 
 
 2a 
 
 1 
 
 15 
 
 32.68 
 
 25.. 
 
 Oil 
 
 90 
 
 19 
 
 20 
 
 27.95 
 
 36 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 27 
 
 27.21 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 28 
 
 7 
 
 4.83 
 
 4 
 
 99 
 
 13 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 O^. ......... 
 
 11 
 
 33 
 
 * 
 
 ^4.......... 
 
 18 
 
 2 
 
 31 
 
 
 IB. ......... 
 
 
 
 
 The above statement brings out clearly the status of the stock 
 in each of the companies, but it takes no account of possible de- 
 preciation of the property or increase in the value of assets. Fur- 
 thermore, the lack of sufficient assets to cover stock at par does 
 not necessarily mean that in case of the liquidation of a company 
 the stockholders would lose. This might be so if they had paid 
 more for their stock than the books of the companies indicated it 
 to be worth. For example, if all the stockholders of company 6 
 paid par for their stock, each of them would stand to lose $40 on 
 each $100 share in case of liquidation, unless net assets were worth 
 more than their book value. On the other hand, if the stock of 
 this company had been acquired by a holder at a discount of 40 
 per cent, then in case of liquidation he would lose practically 
 nothing, since the company presumably has at least $60 available 
 for the redemption of each $100 share of stock. 
 
 A number of the overcapitalized companies have been able to 
 earn and pay dividends upon all their stock. Overcapitalization, 
 therefore, does not necessarily imply unsuccessful business. Two 
 among the largest beet-sugar corporations in the country are con- 
 siderably overcapitalized, neither one of them having a cost of assets 
 
 
 INVESTMENT, CAPITALIZATION, AND EARNINGS OF COMPANIES. 127 
 
 ! equal to 65 per cent of its capital stock. Some of the more exten- 
 sively overcapitalized companies, however, have not been successful, 
 and their present poor showing of net assets as compared with out- 
 standing stock is largely due to losses in business. ^ 
 
 Section 2. Relations of earnings to capital employed. 
 
 r In the discussion of the relation of capital obligations to investment, 
 
 comparisons were based on net assets as determined by their cost. In 
 order to determine the rate of profit in any busmess the usual method 
 which is generally satisfactory is to compare the net earnings with the? 
 net assets. A comparison of the rate of earnings on this basis, how-J 
 ever, would not be entirely satisfactory for the companies here under 
 consideration because the net assets of some concerns are less than the 
 capital actually employed in the business, while in others it is more. 
 Certain companies have large surpluses which are not used in their 
 business at all. It is evident that if the rate of profit on the sugar 
 business is the question to be determined, such surpluses, which are 
 often invested in other lines of business, should be excluded in com- 
 puting the capital employed in the sugar business. On the other 
 hand, certain companies which have been particularly unfortunate 
 have no current assets, their current payables exceeding the sum of 
 
 X their inventories, receivables, and cash. Consequently, the profit or 
 loss of their business would be related to a net investment less than 
 the value of their plants. In such cases it is necessary, in order to 
 show what was earned on the capital actually employed in the sugar 
 business, to disregard the net assets and to take plant and plant site, 
 materials and supplies, and a reasonable amount for additional 
 working capital. According to this method of treatment, the rate 
 of loss in companies which have suffered heavy reverses and have 
 borrowed relatively large amounts on current notes appear less ab- 
 
 ^ normal than they would if the computations were made on the basis 
 of net assets. Furthermore, this method gives a fairer view of the 
 relation of profit and loss to the capital actually employed, because 
 it is obvious that not only plant and inventory but additional work- 
 ing capital to finance the purchase of material and to pay for labor 
 ^ V are necessary. 
 f In the following discussion of the rate of profit in the beet sugar 
 
 industry, both methods are used, namely, net assets and estimated 
 capital actually employed. In the former case, however, such part 
 of the assets as are not invested in the beet sugar business are 
 excluded as well as any returns from such outside investment. The 
 
 { results in the aggregate for all the companies show, however, that it 
 makes little difference which method is used, the chief difference is 
 
 <m 
 
128 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 in the results of certain individual companies whose financial con- 
 ditions were of an exceptional character. When the second method 
 was used, it was necessary to determine the amount of working 
 capital that seemed necessary to conduct the business. This should 
 be sufficient to purchase material and supplies to meet pay roll and 
 . other expenses until the sales of sugar will take care of operating 
 ^ expenses. The relation of working to total capital or to total value 
 " of product varies in different industries. In some it is comparatively 
 . small because the money used in the business is turned over rapidly. 
 In others it is large because the capital is turned over not more than 
 
 once or twice in a year. 
 
 On account of the peculiar nature of the beet-sugar industry, work- 
 ing capital is not turned over in a short period and it is therefore 
 necessarily large in proportion to the total. A beet-sugar factory 
 operates only about three months in a year. This fact also raises 
 the ratio between the necessary working capital and the total value 
 of the products. Beets constitute a large item in the total cost of 
 sugar. These must be paid for practically within the short operatmg 
 period. This principle applies likewise to most other operating ex- 
 .C^penses, particularly labor and supplies. Returns from the sale of 
 the product probably do not amount to very much within the first 20 
 or 30 days of operation. Hence, from about a fourth to one-third of 
 the total operating expenses must be borne before there is any return. 
 On the other hand, it must be considered that while the fixed capital 
 can not be used during a large part of the year, the amount required 
 for working capital may be loaned out when not needed for operating 
 the beet-sugar business or for carrying stocks of sugar. 
 
 It is difficult to determine just what should be allowed for working 
 
 capital and consequently what should be considered adequate capital 
 
 employed as a whole. It would seem that half of the cost of pro- 
 
 • duction for a season is an ample allowance for this item, and this 
 
 basis has been adopted in the following computations. 
 
 Earnings in the sugar business.— A part of the capital of some 
 companies is employed in other ways than in the manufacture of 
 sugar, such as farming. It thus became necessary to segregate the 
 capital employed in the sugar business- from the total employed in 
 all business for those companies that had other interests. It was not 
 necessary to make a similar adjustment for earnings because the earn- 
 ings on sugar were always separately shown in the books. It was 
 necessary, however, to make some adjustment in both capital em- 
 ployed and earnings when depreciation was taken into account. The 
 net cost of depreciable property Avas diminished by the amount of 
 depreciation computed according to the method already explained 
 
 • ' 
 
 \\ 
 
 t; 
 
 r 
 
 < 
 
 / 
 
 '\ 
 
 
 (^ 
 
 \ 
 
 '(• 
 
 «• 
 
 < 
 
 investment, capitalization, and earnings of companies. 129 
 
 and the earnings of the companies were likewise diminished. 
 
 The purpose here is to show what capital is employed in the beet- 
 sugar business and what it has earned. The segregation of the sugar 
 manufacturing business from the total business of some of these com- 
 panies discloses the fact that while some have lost money upon their 
 aggregate business, upon their sugar business they have had a profit. 
 Their farming operations have frequently shown losses, and where 
 profits have been earned at all they were usually small. It would be 
 misleading to judge the results from manufacturing beet sugar if 
 those results were in any way modified by profits or losses in farming 
 or in any other business. 
 Section 3. Rates of earnings on capital employed. 
 
 The amount of capital employed by each of the 37 companies for 
 which data were secured has been determined according to the 
 method described. Of these 37 companies, 2 operated only 3 years 
 during the period covered, 4 operated only 2 years, and 2 operated 
 only 1 year. These 8 companies have not been included in the main 
 table of earnings because to do so might disclose their identity. 
 Separate lines at the bottom of the table show the earnings of the 
 8 companies that operated less than 5 years and the earnings of all 
 the 37 companies. 
 
 The actual amount of capital employed and the actual amount of 
 earnings are not shown for any company. To disclose these amounts 
 might possibly identify some concern, and for this reason only the 
 rate of earnings is shown. These earnings represent the difference 
 between what it cost to produce and to market the sugar and what it 
 sold for net. The period covered is the 5 years from 1909-10 to 
 1913-14. For convenience in showing readily the effect of depreci- 
 ation upon earnings, two computations have been made, one exclud- 
 ing depreciation, and the other including it. The results of both 
 computations are shown in parallel columns in Table 29 following. 
 
 .11 
 
 
 ■■■: , 
 ■■«• 
 
 I 
 
 ( 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
130 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Table 29.— RATES OF EARNINGS ON CAPITAL EMPLOYED, TAKING ACCOUNT OF 
 DEPRECIATION, IN THE MANUFACTURE OF BEET SUGAR, ALLOWING ONE-HALF 
 OF THE TOTAL COST OF PRODUCTION FOR WORKING CAPITAL, BY YEARS, AND 
 AVERAGES FOR 5 YEARS, 1909-10 TO 1913-14, INCLUSIVE. 
 
 
 Not including depreciation. 
 
 Including depreciation 
 
 • 
 
 Company No. 
 
 1900- 
 10 
 
 1910- 
 11 
 
 P.ct. 
 12.5 
 
 3.8 
 13.6 
 
 L3 
 15.0 
 
 5.5 
 7.6 
 6.5 
 2.5 
 18.7 
 
 7.4 
 1.0 
 
 n.o 
 
 2.4 
 25.0 
 
 22.1 
 11.5 
 5.4 
 18.5 
 13.4 
 
 19.2 
 47.7 
 2.3 
 16.4 
 12.2 
 
 19.1 
 
 4.2 
 
 25.3 
 
 29.5 
 
 1911- 
 12 
 
 191^ 
 13 
 
 1913- 
 14 
 
 Aver- 
 age for 
 5 years. 
 
 1909- 
 10 
 
 1910- 
 11 
 
 1911- 
 12 
 
 1912- 
 13 
 
 1913- 
 14 
 
 Aver- 
 age for 
 5 years. 
 
 1 .• 
 
 P.ct. 
 17.2 
 14.3 
 19.1 
 9.2 
 23.8 
 
 6.8 
 15.0 
 10.0 
 
 4.1 
 30.7 
 
 14.1 
 5.7 
 
 21.3 
 2.7 
 
 23.2 
 
 16.3 
 8.6 
 
 7.8 
 
 8.7 
 
 22.6 
 
 24.1 
 
 50.2 
 
 3.9 
 
 6.6 
 
 14.1 
 
 19.2 
 5.5 
 7.5 
 
 26.9 
 
 P.ct. 
 2.1 
 
 17.4 
 
 16.1 
 
 10.7 
 
 8.6 
 
 11.0 
 136.6 
 
 11.3 
 
 122.8 
 
 6.4 
 
 13.5 
 
 110.0 
 
 10.2 
 
 4.3 
 
 25.4 
 
 23.2 
 3.0 
 11.5 
 24.4 
 26.2 
 
 30.4 
 50.2 
 12.9 
 16.1 
 18.9 
 
 19.9 
 
 5.3 
 
 20.4 
 
 32.2 
 
 P.ct. 
 3.0 
 
 2.0 
 6.0 
 7.1 
 2.1 
 
 4.5 
 
 123.3 
 
 14.1 
 
 6.3 
 
 4.0 
 
 3.1 
 
 15.6 
 
 3.6 
 
 3.4 
 
 26.5 
 
 9.3 
 4.0 
 8.3 
 8.8 
 15.3 
 
 26.1 
 25.1 
 13.4 
 17.9 
 12.0 
 
 5.6 
 
 111.3 
 
 18.9 
 
 32.1 
 
 P.ct. 
 4.7 
 2.1 
 
 19.0 
 
 4.8 
 10.9 
 
 16.5 
 
 18.6 
 
 2.0 
 
 1.3 
 
 9.4 
 
 11.3 
 13.6 
 
 4.7 
 17.2 
 
 4.3 
 
 7.6 
 18.0 
 
 6.2 
 17.2 
 
 6.5 
 
 9.0 
 5.8 
 6.0 
 8.8 
 7.2 
 
 2.5 
 15.4 
 18.9 
 16.7 
 
 P. ct. 
 
 6.6 
 
 1.5 
 
 14.0 
 
 6.7 
 
 11.6 
 
 3.7 
 
 110.9 
 
 2.3 
 
 12.6 
 
 13.5 
 
 3.5 
 
 13.1 
 
 8.4 
 
 L2 
 
 20.4 
 
 15.4 
 
 3.8 
 
 7.9 
 
 10.2 
 
 16.2 
 
 21.5 
 35.2 
 7.7 
 13.4 
 12.7 
 
 12.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 18.3 
 
 27.3 
 
 P.ct. 
 18.7 
 20.7 
 114.9 
 7.2 
 23.4 
 
 3.4 
 
 14.1 
 
 8.5 
 
 0.0 
 
 31.5 
 
 14.3 
 2.2 
 20.5 
 1L3 
 26.7 
 
 18.5 
 5.6 
 4.8 
 7.5 
 
 22.6 
 
 24.5 
 
 63.4 
 
 .1 
 
 3.3 
 
 14.2 
 
 16.2 
 1.3 
 4.6 
 
 30.0 
 
 P.ct. 
 12.8 
 8.9 
 17.9 
 13.8 
 14.0 
 
 1.9 
 
 5.4 
 
 4.4 
 
 11.9 
 
 18.1 
 
 5.7 
 13.0 
 
 8.6 
 1L8 
 30.9 
 
 27.8 
 
 9.4 
 
 2.2 
 
 22.1 
 
 11.9 
 
 19.5 
 60.2 
 12.3 
 14.8 
 12.1 
 
 16.7 
 
 0.0 
 
 23.8 
 
 34.1 
 
 P.ct. 
 
 11.1 
 
 119.7 
 
 110.8 
 
 10.4 
 
 6.7 
 
 9.4 
 
 147.8 
 
 15.6 
 
 135.5 
 
 3.9 
 
 18.3 
 
 115.1 
 
 8.0 
 
 L6 
 
 32.5 
 
 30.2 
 1L5 
 9.3 
 3L1 
 28.6 
 
 34.4 
 64.2 
 12.7 
 15.2 
 22.2 
 
 17.9 
 
 1.2 
 
 19.1 
 
 38.7 
 
 P.ct. 
 
 11.0 
 
 12.3 
 3.5 
 5.2 
 
 11.7 
 
 L7 
 135.5 
 110.5 
 
 3.7 
 .3 
 
 1.2 
 
 111.2 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 33.2 
 
 9.2 
 
 .3 
 
 5.9 
 
 8.2 
 
 15.4 
 
 30.0 
 31.6 
 14.1 
 18.0 
 12.6 
 
 2.4 
 
 119.4 
 
 18.0 
 
 40.1 
 
 P.ct. 
 
 1.3 
 
 12.2 
 
 116.3 
 
 1.6 
 
 9.7 
 
 113.2 
 
 116.9 
 
 12.2 
 
 17.6 
 
 7.8 
 
 17.5 
 110.3 
 
 1.2 
 117.2 
 
 L6 
 
 6.7 
 117.3 
 
 3.5 
 117.0 
 
 4.6 
 
 7.8 
 4.0 
 3.2 
 6.8 
 5.4 
 
 iLl 
 
 112.7 
 
 18.7 
 
 19.2 
 
 P.ct. 
 4.2 
 
 2 
 
 13.3 
 
 3 
 
 18.8 
 
 4 
 
 4.4 
 
 6 
 
 10.1 
 
 6 
 
 .2 
 
 7 
 
 117.8 
 
 9 
 
 1L3 
 
 10 
 
 19.2 
 
 12 
 
 12.4 
 
 13 
 
 .4 
 
 14 
 
 18.0 
 
 16 
 
 5.7 
 
 17 
 
 13.2 
 
 18 
 
 24.4 
 
 19 
 
 18.3 
 
 20 
 
 1.2 
 
 21 
 
 5.3 
 
 22 
 
 10.2 
 
 24 
 
 16.0 
 
 25 
 
 23.2 
 
 26 
 
 44.8 
 
 27 
 
 5.4 
 
 29 
 
 11.8 
 
 30 
 
 13.3 
 
 34 
 
 9.3 
 
 35 
 
 16.1 
 
 36 
 
 16.7 
 
 37 
 
 32.4 
 
 
 
 29 companies operating 
 5 years 
 
 16.6 
 
 14.7 
 
 15.3 
 n5.9 
 
 10.1 
 •6.3 
 
 6.1 
 «1.2 
 
 12.2 
 <4.7 
 
 16.3 
 
 14.4 
 
 15.6 
 «12.8 
 
 9.0 
 •2.8 
 
 3.7 
 1*2.6 
 
 11.6 
 
 8 companies operating 
 lejw than 5 vears 
 
 U.3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total, all companies 
 
 16.6 
 
 14.7 
 
 15.3 
 
 9.8 
 
 5.7 
 
 12.0 
 
 16.3 
 
 14.4 
 
 15.5 
 
 8.6 
 
 3.1 
 
 n.2 
 
 iLoss. 
 
 1 Two companies. 
 
 8 Six companies. 
 
 ' Eight companies. 
 
 The 29 companies included in the body of the foregoing table 
 produced 5,753,021,000 pounds of sugar in the 5 years covered by 
 this report, which was 95 per cent of all the beet sugar manufactured 
 in the United States during that period. The average annual rate of 
 earnings for these 29 companies during the period covered, after 
 
 f 
 
 / 
 
 \ 
 
 r' 
 
 ' s 
 
 ) 
 
 V 
 
 INVESTMENT, CAPITALIZATION, AND EARNINGS OF COMPANIES. 131 
 
 taking account of depreciation, was 11.6 per cent. This was only 
 six-tenths of 1 per cent less than the average earnings when deprecia- 
 tion was not taken into account. It should be noted that in the year 
 1909-10 only one company showed a loss, while in 1913-14 10 com- 
 panies showed a loss without taking depreciation into account, and 
 13 showed losses when depreciation is considered. The highest aver- 
 age rate of earnings in any year, after deducting depreciation, was 
 16.3 per cent in 1909-10, and the lowest was 3.7 per cent in 1913-14. ^ 
 In no other year did the earnings fall below 9 per cent. Even 
 in the poorest year of the period (1913-14) each of the 7 companies 
 producing 29 per cent of the total product for that year, earned 
 over 6 per cent, and each of the 9 companies producing 69 per cent . 
 of the total product earned over 4J per cent of its capital. -^ 
 
 The heavy losses of the few companies in 1911-12 were due to their 
 inability to work up all the beets they purchased before they spoiled, 
 and their losses on this account were very heavy. These companies 
 all operated in the Lake States. Company No. 7, after allowing for 
 depreciation,'lost nearly 48 per cent of the capital it had employed in 
 its business in that year. This company borrowed money to con- 
 tinue its business, and again in the next year lost more than one-third 
 of the capital it had employed, and in the next year again it resorted 
 to borrowing and lost nearly 17 per cent. 
 
 Company No. 26 showed the best results, it having earned an aver- 
 age of nearly 45 per cent on its capital employed during the 5-year 
 period. Twelve companies had average earnings of more than 10 
 per cent during the period. The poorest results are shown for fac- 
 tory No. 7, which showed an average loss of nearly 18 per cent for 
 the period. At the beginning of the period this company earned 14 
 per cent, but it had very heavy losses in 1911 and in 1912. 
 
 The low average earnings in 1913-14 were due mainly to a slump iu 
 the price of granulated sugar. The average net price in 1913-14 was 
 about 96 cents per 100 pounds less than was realized the year before 
 and more than $1 per 100 pounds less than for any other year in the 
 5-year period under consideration. 
 
 It will be noted that some companies show a higher rate of earn- 
 ings after deducting depreciation than they do when depreciation 
 is not taken into account. This is true of companies 25 and 26 
 throughout the entire period except in 1913-14. This apparent in- 
 consistency is due to the fact that accumulated depreciations prior 
 to 1909 had greatly reduced net investment in depreciable property. 
 For example, the depreciable property of company No. 26 cost ap- 
 proximately $433,000 when it began business in 1899. By 1909 addi- 
 tions to the plant had been made until the cost was $501,000. In 
 the meantime, however, depreciation had accrued until at the be- 
 
 V 
 
 I 
 
'■a ifc 
 
 "•y •■» 
 
 -—. *.^, 
 
 (| 
 
 i I 
 
 132 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 ginning of 1909 this amounted to $229,000, and the actual net cost 
 of depreciable property was, therefore, reduced to $272,000. Only 
 those companies that have been in operation a comparatively long 
 period of years and which had made comparatively small additions 
 to their investment would show any such results. The earnings of 
 companies that began business only a few years prior to 1909, and 
 which have since then made considerable additions to their depreci- 
 able property are of course not similarly affected by making deduc- 
 tions for depreciation. Generally the effect of the depreciation 
 charge is to reduce the average rate of earnings during the 5-year 
 period. 
 
 Rates of earnings by groups of companies. — ^A fuller signifi- 
 cance of the rates of earnings in the industry as a whole will be 
 seen from a grouping of the companies according to their earnings 
 and according to the percentage of the total sugar they produced. 
 Ap already stated, 29 companies included in the body of Table 20 
 produced 95 per cent of all the beet sugar made in the United States 
 during the 5 years ending with the campaign 1913-14. • In the state- 
 ment below the 29 companies have been grouped according to their 
 rates of earnings, after deducting depreciation, and it shows what 
 percentage of all the sugar produced by these 29 companies and of 
 all the sugar produced in the United States was produced by each 
 group : 
 
 Group. 
 
 Group I.., 
 Group II. 
 Group III 
 Group IV. 
 Group V. . 
 
 Number ! 
 of com- 
 panies. 
 
 Rate of earnings. 
 
 16 
 13 
 
 7 
 13 
 
 9 
 
 Over 5 per cent 
 
 0ver9per cent 
 
 Over 16 per cent 
 
 Less than 5 per cent.. 
 Loss 
 
 Per cent of 
 production 
 of 29 com- 
 panies. 
 
 86 
 78 
 56 
 14 
 10 
 
 Per cent of 
 total pro- 
 duction in 
 United 
 States. 
 
 8> 
 75 
 58 
 
 131 
 
 9i 
 
 The earnings shown in the above groups are net after making 
 deductions for depreciation. It is worthy of note that the 13 com- 
 panies earning less than 5 per cent during the period produced only 
 13J per cent of the total production of the country. None of the 
 companies in this group earned as much as 4J per cent, and 9 of 
 them operated at an absolute loss. It should also be particularly 
 noted that the companies producing 78 per cent of the production of 
 the 29 companies and 75 per cent of the total production of the 
 United States earned an average of more than 9 per cent on the 
 capital employed during the five-year period. 
 
 
 k 
 
 ) 
 
 INVESTMENT, CAPITALIZATION, AND EARNINGS OF COMPANIES. 133 
 
 Section 4. Bates of earningfs on net investment. 
 
 The earnings shown and discussed in the preceding section are net 
 on the capital actually employed in the business regardless of whether 
 it was owned or borrowed and after depreciation has been deducted. 
 The annual rates of earnings on net investment, computed in the 
 usual way, diflPer slightly from those in Table 29. Such a statement 
 of earnings is shown in Table 30 below. 
 
 Tablb 30— annual RATES OF EARNINGS FROM SUGAR ON NET INVESTMENT IN THE 
 SUGAR BUSINESS, BY COMPANIES, 1909-10 TO 1913-14, AND THE AVERAGE ANNUAL 
 RATE OF EARNINGS FOR THE 5 YEARS. 
 
 [Note.— No company operating less than 5 years is included in this table.] 
 
 Company No. 
 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
 
 5. 
 
 6.. 
 7.- 
 9.. 
 10. 
 12. 
 
 13. 
 14. 
 16. 
 17. 
 
 18. 
 
 19. 
 20. 
 21. 
 22. 
 24. 
 
 25. 
 26. 
 27. 
 29. 
 30. 
 
 04. 
 35. 
 36. 
 37. 
 
 Avera g e 
 for 29 
 compa- 
 nies 
 
 P.ct. 
 18.2 
 15.0 
 
 110.8 
 
 9.0 
 
 23.0 
 
 7.1 
 16.1 
 13.2 
 
 4.5 
 36.0 
 
 15.3 
 6.1 
 
 21.6 
 3.1 
 
 14.8 
 
 21.8 
 9.0 
 7.9 
 8.8 
 
 17.9 
 
 18.9 
 
 46.4 
 
 4.2 
 
 6.2 
 
 14.7 
 
 20.1 
 5.1 
 6.5 
 
 27.0 
 
 16.0 
 
 Not including depreciation. 
 
 
 P.ct. 
 14.7 
 
 4.7 
 14.8 
 
 1.5 
 15.8 
 
 5.4 
 
 8.2 
 
 9.2 
 
 2.8 
 
 23.9 
 
 9.2 
 1.2 
 
 14.0 
 2.9 
 
 13.8 
 
 25.1 
 11.5 
 5.7 
 19.3 
 10.2 
 
 12.8 
 39.7 
 2.3 
 20.9 
 12.2 
 
 21.8 
 
 3.8 
 
 23.6 
 
 28.6 
 
 I 
 
 14.2 
 
 P.ct. 
 2.2 
 
 19.8 
 
 18.4 
 
 11.9 
 
 10.5 
 
 11.0 
 
 148.7 
 
 11.8 
 
 124.3 
 
 7.9 
 
 15.6 
 
 114.3 
 
 13.8 
 
 6.2 
 
 17.3 
 
 25.0 
 2.8 
 12.3 
 24.0 
 19.0 
 
 19.5 
 41.0 
 11.8 
 14.7 
 19.3 
 
 24.0 
 
 5.3 
 
 17.9 
 
 32.9 
 
 14.9 
 
 87731—17 10 
 
 CO 
 
 e!, 
 
 1-1 
 at 
 
 P. Ct. 
 
 3.6 
 2.6 
 8.1 
 7.2 
 2.5 
 
 5.6 
 
 133.4 
 
 15.5 
 
 7.9 
 
 3.5 
 
 3.2 
 
 17.1 
 
 4.7 
 
 4.8 
 18.7 
 
 10.2 
 4.1 
 
 10.0 
 8.5 
 
 12.4 
 
 15.0 
 20.1 
 11.8 
 20.6 
 11.1 
 
 5.9 
 
 1 11.4 
 
 14.8 
 
 34.0 
 
 a> 
 
 9.9 
 
 P. a. 
 
 5.7 
 
 2.9 
 
 1 11.3 
 
 5.0 
 
 12.0 
 
 19.4 
 
 110.3 
 
 2.5 
 
 1.3 
 
 8.3 
 
 11.6 
 14.1 
 
 5.3 
 19.4 
 
 3.2 
 
 8.8 
 17.8 
 
 7.2 
 18.6 
 
 5.5 
 
 5.4 
 5.4 
 5.4 
 9.2 
 7.1 
 
 2.8 
 16.0 
 14.9 
 16.4 
 
 o 
 
 
 6.0 
 
 P.ct. 
 7.7 
 1.9 
 
 15.2 
 
 7.0 
 
 12.8 
 
 4.2 
 
 1 13.2 
 
 3.1 
 
 12.9 
 
 14.4 
 
 4.3 
 13.8 
 10.3 
 
 1.6 
 13.5 
 
 17.7 
 
 3.7 
 
 8.8 
 
 10.6 
 
 12.8 
 
 13.9 
 30.1 
 7.4 
 14,0 
 12.6 
 
 13.3 
 
 1.8 
 15.5 
 27.5 
 
 Including depreciation. 
 
 11.9 
 
 P.ct. 
 20.3 
 22.5 
 
 118.3 
 
 7.1 
 
 22.6 
 
 3.6 
 
 15.4 
 
 12.4 
 
 .0 
 
 37.9 
 
 16.0 
 2.3 
 20.8 
 1 1.6 
 15.'3 
 
 27.2 
 5.9 
 4.9 
 7.6 
 
 17.2 
 
 18.6 
 
 57.1 
 
 .1 
 
 3.0 
 
 15.1 
 
 17.1 
 1.2 
 3.9 
 
 30.1 
 
 
 15.5 
 
 P.ct. 
 
 16.2 
 
 1.3 
 
 1 11.1 
 
 4.3 
 
 14.9 
 
 1.9 
 
 5.9 
 
 7.1 
 
 12.2 
 
 24.2 
 
 7.8 
 13.8 
 11.3 
 12.3 
 14.3 
 
 32.3 
 9.4 
 2.4 
 
 23.5 
 
 8.7 
 
 12.0 
 47.4 
 12.4 
 19.6 
 12.2 
 
 19.2 
 
 .0 
 
 22.0 
 
 32.7 
 
 I 
 
 CO 
 
 P.ct. 
 
 11.3 
 137.1 
 116.1 
 
 12.1 
 8.4 
 
 9.4 
 
 168.7 
 
 18.3 
 
 38.8 
 
 5.1 
 
 116.6 
 123.0 
 
 11.5 
 2.6 
 
 19.3 
 
 32.5 
 1 1.4 
 10.1 
 30.4 
 19.4 
 
 2.0 i 
 
 4.9 
 
 11.2 
 
 13.5 
 
 22.9 
 
 22.1 
 
 1.3 
 
 16.6 
 
 39.9 
 
 P.ct. 
 
 11.3 
 
 14.3 
 5.2 
 5.2 
 
 12.1 
 
 2.2 
 159.6 
 1 16.3 
 
 I 
 
 P.et. 
 . 1.7 
 
 14.1 
 
 122.3 
 
 1.7 
 
 11.1 
 
 121.9 
 121.9 
 
 13.2 
 5.2 i 19.2 
 
 .2! 6.6 
 
 13.6 
 
 15.0 
 
 1.2 
 
 1 15.1 
 
 1.1 
 
 .1 
 
 20.8 
 
 10.3 
 
 .3 
 
 7.5 
 
 7.8 
 
 11.9 
 
 15.2 
 23.3 
 11.8 
 21.4 
 11.3 
 
 2.5 
 
 119.6 
 
 13.7 
 
 43.4 
 
 110.5 
 112.4 
 
 1.4 
 127.1 
 
 1.0 
 
 8.1 
 116.6 
 
 4.3 
 
 122.9 
 
 3.7 
 
 4.1 
 
 3.6 
 
 2.8 
 
 7.2 
 
 5.3 
 
 11.3 
 
 114.7 
 
 14.2 
 
 18.7 
 
 8.7 3.6 
 
 1 Loss. 
 
 W Mi 
 
 
 p.ct. 
 
 5.1 
 
 15.5 
 
 112.2 
 
 4.7 
 
 11.4 
 
 .2 
 123.0 
 
 11.9 
 1 10.9 
 
 13.5 
 
 .5 
 
 110.2 
 
 7.2 
 
 14.6 
 
 14.2 
 
 21.8 
 
 .3 
 
 6.1 
 
 10.8 
 
 12.1 
 
 13.6 
 36.3 
 5.0 
 12.5 
 13.1 
 
 10.5 
 16.0 
 14.0 
 32.7 
 
 11.2 
 
 I 
 
 
 
A ■ A?!^*' J- ■ 
 
 *«■ 
 
 134 THE BEET SUGAB INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 The average rate of earnings from sugar on the net investment 
 for the 29 companies for the five years, after deducting deprecia- 
 tion, is only four-tenths of 1 per cent less than the average rate on 
 the capital employed. The difference in the earnings computed on 
 this basis and on the basis used in Table 29, after taking deprecia- 
 tion into account, is less than 1 per cent in each year during the 
 period. 
 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 EFFICIENCY IN THE BEET-SUGAR INDUSTRY. 
 
 \ 
 
 /., 
 
 \ ■! 
 
 I 
 
 Section 1. Principal elements to consider in studying efficiency. 
 
 Speaking broadly, efficiency in production means the degree of I 
 cheapness with which an article can be produced and sold. In this J 
 broad sense every element of cost must be included. In a narrower 
 I sense productive efficiency refers to the cheapness with which me- 
 chanical processes can be performed. In a practical sense efficiency^ 
 is only relative ; that is to say, a factory in any industry is efficient 
 or inefficient only as compared with some other factory or with some 
 recognized standard. A fair basis of comparison is the average 
 results of several well-equipped, well-located, and well-managed 
 plants with the results of plants not so well located or so well 
 equipped and managed. This would seem to be more reasonable 
 
 i than to adopt as a standard the results of the best factory in an 
 industry. Such a factory would indicate the possibilities under the 
 most favorable conditions, but it would not indicate probabilities 
 under ordinarily favorable conditions. 
 
 The elements of efficiency may be grouped into two classes, 
 namely, mechanical and economic. Or, to put it another waj^, it 
 may be said that there are two phases of efficienc}^, namely, factory 
 efficiency and business efficiency. A factory may be mechanically 
 efficient and yet utterly fail. Its conversion of raw materials int^ 
 the finished product may be at the lowest possible cost, but if on 
 account of location or for other reasons its raw material has cost 
 too much or if the expense of distributing its product is excessive, 
 it can not succeed. On the other hand, a manufacturing plant may 
 be situated to the best possible advantage, but if it is equipped 
 with poor machinery, or even with good machinery badly arranged, 
 it is apt to fail. 
 Mechanical elements. — The principal mechanical elements in- 
 
 I volved in a study of efficiency are equipment and organization. By ^ 
 
 equipment is meant the kind of appliances, machinery, and processes 
 used; by organization is meant the adaptation of buildings to the 
 
 ^ purposes for which they are used and the arrangement and coordi- 
 
 V nation of appliances and machinery. In respect to mechanical equip- 
 ment and organization, three comparisons are important. The first 
 
 135 
 
 %/ 
 
 •■)- 
 
 1/ 
 
 vA 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 •11 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
I « 
 
 136 
 
 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 / 
 
 is a comparison of factories of substantially like equipment and 
 eqtial capacity; the second is a comparison of factories with like 
 equipment and organization, but of unequal capacity; the third is 
 a comparison of factories of equal capacity and similar organiza- 
 tion, but with unlike equipments. The first is practically a com- 
 parison of organization and arrangement of machinery. The second 
 resolves itself into a comparison of large and small scale operations. 
 
 It is this second comparison that is now receiving attention from 
 business men and economists. The third comparison is a test of the 
 merits of different appliances, machines, t)r processes. 
 
 Exact comparisons under all of these different circumstances re- 
 quire that the raw material used and the manufactured product 
 turned out shall be substantially identical in character, condition, and 
 quality. Identical raw material becomes especially important where, 
 as in the case of the beet-sugar industry, it constitutes a very large 
 percentage of the total cost. It is obvious therefore that a wide 
 variation in the quality of beets makes impossible any exact compari- 
 son of the general efficiency of beet-sugar factories even though all 
 the other elements are favorable. Strictly speaking, factory efficiency 
 need not take account of anything except equipment and organiza- 
 tion. Therefore, if the same quality of beets were used in the fac- 
 tories compared, the element of raw material could be entirely elimi- 
 nated in arriving at relative factory efficiency. This, however, is not 
 the case, and here lies difficulty in a study of efficiency in this 
 industry. 
 
 Economic elements to be considered. — The most important eco- 
 nomic elements are location of plant, distribution of product, and 
 business management. From the standpoint of business success, 
 which is the final test, the economic elements in the beet-sugar in- 
 dustry are perhaps of greatest importance. Some of the best- 
 equipped sugar factories in the country have been unsuccessful be- 
 cause of bad location in respect to raw materials. Others have faileu 
 because of bad business judgment in the construction of plants, or 
 other matters. 
 
 DirncuLTiEs in a comparative study of efficiency in beet- 
 suGAR FACTORIES. — Similarity in the fundamental elements necessary 
 to exact comparisons of efficiency in the beet-sugar industry are sel- 
 dom if ever found. In fact, there is such a lack of harmony among 
 these elements, as found in various factories, as to compel all' com- 
 parisons to be more or less general. In the first place, as already 
 pointed out, there is a wide variation in the quality of beets used 
 in different factories and sometimes a wide variation of the quality 
 used in the same factory in different years. The value of beets 
 depends upon the quantity of sugar they contain and the purity of 
 the sugar content. These elements vary widely. Some beets test 
 
 
 i 
 
 EFFICIENCY IN THE BEET-SUGAR INDUSTRY. 
 
 137 
 
 ! 18or20percent sugar, .while others test not over half as much. The 
 purity of the beets as worked in factories ranges from as low as 7T 
 to above 88 per cent. Upon these elements depends the possible 
 quantity of sugar that can be extracted. On account of variation 
 in the quality of beets, sugar extraction varies from only about 200 
 pounds of sugar per ton of beets in some factories for some years to 
 
 V over 300 pounds in others. While this variation in the principal 
 raw. material does not preclude a comparison of factory efficiency, it 
 does affect its exactness. This is so because the cost of working 
 beets of high quality differs from the cost of working low-quality 
 
 beets. 
 
 A peculiar feature of the beet-sugar industry is the fact that nd 
 factory can operate more than a few months in each year. The rea-\ 
 son for this has been explained (see p. 2). The length of time that) 
 a factory can be operated depends upon the quantity of available! 
 fresh beets and varies from less than two months to sometimes as 
 much as four months. The average is less than three months. This 
 variation in periods of operation disturbs fair comparisons of me- 
 chanical efficiency. This is so because certain fixed charges and some ) 
 charges for labor do not stop when the factory closes, and all must be/ 
 p ,, charged to the sugar produced. Of course the shorter the time of' 
 
 [ X operation the less the quantity of sugar produced and the greater 
 are the fixed charges per 100 pounds. Furthermore, certain factory 
 employees are retained the entire year and a part of the time they 
 are not profitably engaged. Thus the element of labor cost is pro- 
 portionately increased by a short period of operation. \ 
 In spite of these difficulties, however, some valuable comparison^ 
 can be made. From the mass of data ^cured it is possible to com- 
 pare groups of factories having low manufacturing costs witli other 
 groups having high costs. It is also possible to compare the results 
 of large plants with those of small ones. 
 
 Probably the surest test of an efficient factory is the percentage of 
 sugar lost in the course of manufacture, or to put it another way, the 
 percentage of available sugar that is saved. Comparisons of economic 
 efficiency are more easily made. It is easy to demonstrate that some 
 
 V factories are badly located and that no matter how efficient they may 
 f) be mechanically they can not be profitably operated. This sort of 
 
 comparison clearly indicates some mistakes that have been made in 
 selecting locations for beet-sugar manufacture. 
 
 Section 2. Comparisons based on scale of operations. 
 i : The capacity of a beet-sugar factory is measured by the numoer 
 of tons of beets which can be sliced in a dav of 24 hours. The sizQ 
 of a factory should depend upon the field from which the beets arej 
 to be drawn and its possibilities. It is the usual plan in erecting 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 t' L ' m iii 
 
t! 
 
 138 THE BEET SUGAE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 factories to build them so that their capacity, may be later increased. 
 How large to build a factory is no more than a guess, especially in 
 communities where beet growing is not established. There is no' 
 doubt that districts that gave little promise have afterwards became 
 remarkable beet districts, while others which were thought to be 
 promising have resulted in failures. 
 
 iJ/!!!™"^ ^^^ ''''^''"'^ *** *^^ ^'•^^ factories built was small. In 
 1896 there were seven factories reported to be in operation, none of 
 which had a rated capacity of more than 1,000 tons. Four were 
 rated at only 350 tons. In later years, as the industry became more 
 fimly established, larger factories were built or the capacity of the 
 o der ones increased. During the campaign year 1913-14 there were 
 71 factories in open^tion. From the best information available 26 
 of these were rated as having a daily slicing capacity of 1,000 tons 
 or more. In addition to this number 22 were capable of slicing 700 
 tons or more per day, 23 were rated as less than 700-ton plants, only 
 4 of which were less than 500-ton plants. 
 
 Due to local conditions it is rather difficult to compare the efficiency 
 of large and small plants. It can be seen that the increase in th. 
 .reight on beets might easily overcome any advantage obtained by 
 large-scale operation. The importance of being favorably located 
 IS discussed elsewhere (see p. 141). Although the extraction is 
 not increased m the larger factory it is the opinion of men well 
 informed regarding the industry that the operating costs, especially 
 the cost of labor and overhead charges, are less per bag of sugar 
 produced. The views of certain managers on this point are of in- 
 terest. The general manager of one of the largest beet-sugar con- 
 cerns in the United States, in a statement to the commission regard- 
 ing the. efficiency of large and small plants, said : 
 
 Assuming that size is the only essential point of difference 
 
 vfr^'j^-fJ^'^lT' ^""^ 'T^'l''^'^ ''"'• «^P«rience t^re would he 
 very little difference in the efficiency of a large and a small fac- 
 tory, with the slight difference in favor of the large factZ & 
 mam reason for this is that a large factory's overhead Yipens^ 
 per bag of sugar would not be quite so largYas that of a smaHel 
 lactory; but this overhead expense is such a small part of the 
 total cost of producing a bag of sugar that the saving would be 
 nominal. A large house might also make a slight saving in 
 "Operating Labor" per bag of sugar. The saviSg mentioned^ 
 however, might easily be offset by a heavier average freight rate 
 per ton of beets m case of the larger factory, as it would un- 
 
 ioSdlE smluer. '" '*' '"^^^^ ^^'^ " ^^**^^ '^^^^^'^'^^ ^^^"^ 
 The manager of another important company was even more em- 
 phatic m his statement, which was as follows: 
 
 Concerning the efficiency of large and small plants having the 
 same equipment, would say that the figures you are gathering 
 
 EPFICIENCT IN THE BEET-SUGAE INDUSTRY. 
 
 139 
 
 
 < 
 
 } 
 
 \ 
 
 { 
 
 should show very distinctly that the plant of large capacity can 
 produce sugar at a less cost than one of a smaller capacity. I 
 believe you will find, however, in comparing these figures, that 
 the lesser cost is due mostly to labor and not to materials used, 
 although there is some slight saving in the amount of material 
 used per ton of beets in a large factory as against a small one. 
 I think you will find that the greater saving is the cost of over- 
 hauling and maintaining the factory. 
 
 Statements received from others engaged in the industry were in 
 accordance with the above, especially with regard to labor costs. 
 There was some difference of opinion as to how large a factory should 
 be before the highest degree of efficiency was attained. Naturally 
 these differences were due to the different conditions in the various 
 localities. An exception was noted in the statement submitted by an 
 official of the Utah-Idaho Sugar Co., in which he said that Utah and 
 Idaho were better adapted to small plants of say 450 tons normal 
 capacity. This was attributed to the fact that small factories could 
 be worked to their utmost capacity, whereas if the capacity were 
 increased the territory would necessarily have to be extended which 
 was not advisable because of the uncertainty of railroad accommo- 
 dations. For example, if sufficiemt cars could not be had beets would - 
 have to be piled at loading stations which would entail an additional 
 expense in reloading and also greater shrinkage on account of more 
 beets being exposed to atmospheric conditions. 
 
 The table below shows the results of factories according to their 
 size. For comparative purposes, the total number of factories oper- 
 ating during the campaign 1913-14 have been divided into four 
 groups: Group I includes the factories which sliced less than 500 
 tons of beets per day; Group II, those slicing more than 500 tons 
 but less than 800; Group III, those slicing more than 800 tons but 
 less than 1,200; and Group IV, those slicing more than 1,200 tons 
 per day. 
 
 Table 31.— AVERAGE COST PER 100 POUNDS OF SUGAR PRODUCED, BY GROUPS, FOR 
 
 THE YEAR 1913-14. . 
 
 v 
 
 Cost of beets. 
 
 Labor. 
 
 $0. 419 
 
 .326 
 
 -.228 
 
 .217 
 
 Re- 
 pairs 
 and 
 mainte- 
 nance. 
 
 Admin- 
 istra- 
 tive 
 and 
 oflace 
 ex- 
 pense. 
 
 other 
 
 ex- 
 pense 
 
 less 
 credits. 
 
 
 • 
 
 Paid 
 fermer 
 
 for 
 beets. 
 
 Freight. 
 
 other 
 beet 
 ex- 
 pense. 
 
 Total. 
 
 Net 
 
 factory 
 cost 
 
 Group I (12 factories) 
 
 Group II (25 factories) 
 
 Group III (20 factories) .... 
 Group IV (12 factories) 
 
 $2,572 
 2.235 
 2.230 
 2.121 
 
 $0,306 
 .183 
 .151* 
 .135 
 
 80.307 
 .217 
 .158 
 .130 
 
 $3,185 
 2.635 
 2.539 
 2.386 
 
 $0. 216 
 .195 
 .139 
 .122 
 
 $0,279 
 .202 
 .172 
 .179. 
 
 $0,426 
 .261 
 .224 
 .398 
 
 $4,523 
 3.619 
 3.302 
 3.302 
 
 The foregoing table shows that the net cost is without exception 
 lowest in the groups which include the largest factories, ranging from 
 
 % 
 
 \ 
 
 ii 
 
/ 
 
 140 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 $3,302 in Group IV to $4,525 in Group I. This is due to a large 
 extent to the difference in beet cost. The largest factories as a rule 
 are situated in the best beet regions. The average price per ton of 
 beets paid the farmers by the factories in the various groups is 
 $5.67, $5.57, $5.65, and $6.04, respectively. The average cost for beets 
 per 100 pounds of sugar produced in Group I was 33.7 cents more 
 than m Group II and 34.2 cents more than in Group III. The aver- 
 age price per ton paid for beets was highest in Group IV, yet the beet 
 cost per bag of sugar was lower in that group than in any other. The 
 operatmg costs, excluding the cost of beets, are lower in the larger fac- 
 tories. The average costs of labor, repairs and maintenance, and 
 admimstrative and office expense are materially lower in Groups III 
 and IV. The largest difference is in the cost of labor, the average 
 cost m Group IV being only 21.7 cents per bag, as compared with 
 41.9 cents m Group I. 
 
 The difference in the costs for Groups III and IV are not great 
 for any item. The average for other expenses less credits is higher 
 IP the latter group, since most of these factories are equipped 
 with Steffens houses (see p. 147), thus reducing the credit allowed 
 for molasses. In fact the operating costs, excluding the cost of 
 ^ beets, IS 10.9 cents less in Group III than in Group IV. This may 
 be offset by the profit on the additional sugar extracted by this 
 process, but it is evident any important advantage obtained by 
 lactones m Group IV as compared with those in Group III is only 
 m the cost of beets. • 
 
 In Table 21 (p. 81) it is noted that the average cost of produc- 
 tion for the 5-year period covered was more than 4 cents per pound 
 in 28 factories. Of this number, only one was rated in 1913 as 
 having a capacity of more than 1,000 tons per day, while 17 were 
 rated as less than 700-ton plants. The average cost was less than 
 4 cents but more than 3^ cents per pound in 17 factories, 10 of 
 which were rated as being capable of slicing more than 1,000 tons 
 pes day. In 26 factories the average cost was less than 3* cents 
 per pound, the rated capacity of 15 being more than 1,000 tons. 
 The largest factories are included in this group, and outside of the 
 factories m Ltah and Idaho there was only one whose capacity was 
 less than 800 tons per day. Thus it is seen that, as a rule, the costs 
 are higher in the smaller factory. It should be noted that the hi^h 
 cost of production in the majority of the small factories is due 
 to their inability to get a sufficient supply of beets, rather than 
 to their limited capacity. There is no doubt but that the effi- 
 ciency of a factory depends largely on its being able to work near 
 Its ful capacity. As the size of the factory is increased it becomes 
 more difficult to obtain a sufficient supply of beets, so that in certain 
 localities small plants are probably just as efficient, if not more 
 
 / 
 
 EFFICIENCY IN THE BEET-SUGAR INDUSTRY. 
 
 141 
 
 / 
 
 < 
 
 \ so, than larger factories would be. An example is noted in the 
 case of the Utah-Idaho Sugar Co. This company has only one 
 factory of a greater daily capacity than 1,200 tons, but the costs 
 of its 600 and 800 ton factories compare favorably with the costs 
 of the larger factory. Thus it is shown that while the results by 
 comparison, in general, are in favor of large-scale operations, a 
 \ comparison of individual factories would sometimes be favorable 
 to small ones. 
 
 Section 3. Important economic advantage of favorable location. 
 
 It is obvious that mechanical efficiency is possible almost anywhere. 
 This is not by any means true as to economic efficiency. In respect 
 to the latter, location is of prime importance. This must be con- 
 sidered with respect to the quality and quantity of beets which cau 
 be and which are likely to be produced in the vicinity, the procuring 
 of factory supplies and labor at comparatively low cost, and prox- 
 imity to markets for sugar and the by-products from its manufac- 
 ture. While it may not be possible for a factory to have the great- 
 est advantage in all of these respects, it should be located with due 
 regard to all and with particular regard to the first. 
 
 Location with respect to the supply of beets. — It is probable 
 that a great majority of the failures among beet sugar factories has 
 been due to poor location in respect to the supply of beets. There 
 should be a supply sufficient to assure an operating period of ap- 
 proximately 3 months at least. These beets must contain a sufficient 
 percentage of sugar to warrant their manufacture. It would thus 
 seem that in locating a factory the first element to be considered is 
 the quality of beets that can be grown in a locality and, second, the 
 quantity. While the climate and soil in a large part of the United 
 States will permit the growing of sugar beets, the beets grown in a 
 large portion of this area do not have a high sugar content. This 
 materially limits the area in which factories can be built with the 
 reasonable expectation of success. This report shows that as a 
 rule the beet cost of the factory is lowest in the factory located in 
 the regions where the best beets are grown, and since the beet cost 
 represents such a large percentage of the total cost, the net factory 
 cost of sugar is also usually lower in these factories. While the 
 higher average extraction in some factories is due to the employ^ 
 ment of the Steffens process and also to a slight extent to superior 
 mechanical efficiency, it is mainly due to the difference in the quality 
 of the beets worked. 
 
 ^ The 75 factories operating all or part of the time during the 5 
 
 years ending with the season 1913-14 have been divided into three 
 groups according to the average extraction of sugar per ton of beets 
 
 f 
 
II 
 
 142 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 sliced. Group I includes those in which the average extraction was 
 more than 270 pounds per ton, Group II embraces those in which 
 the extraction was more than 240 pounds but less than 270 pounds, 
 and those having an average extraction of less than 240 pounds are 
 included in Group III. The results are shown in Table 32 below : 
 
 Table 32.— COMPARISON OF THE AVERAGE COST OF BEETS AND THE NET COST OF 
 PRODUCTION, NOT INCLUDING DEPRECIATION, DURING THE 5-YEAR PERIOD 1909-13, 
 BY FACTORIES GROUPED ACCORDING TO THE AMOUNT OF SUGAR EXTRACTED PER 
 TON OF BEETS SLICED. 
 
 Group I (includes 18 factories). . 
 Group II (includes 27 factories) . 
 Group III (includes 30 factories) 
 
 Total for United States. . . 
 
 Cost of beets. 
 
 Average 
 Extrac- 
 tion 
 (pounds). 
 
 Per ton Per 100 
 
 of beets I jwunds 
 
 sliced. I (u sugar. 
 
 299.6 
 255.4 
 221.7 
 
 $6.46 
 6.54 
 7.18 
 
 264.5 
 
 6.68 
 
 Net cost. 
 
 Per ton 
 of beets 
 sliced. 
 
 S2. 16 
 2.56 
 3.24 
 
 $9.51 
 8.97 
 9.25 
 
 2.52 
 
 9.27 
 
 Per 100 
 pounds 
 of sugar. 
 
 ^.17 
 3.51 
 4.17 
 
 3.50 
 
 A particularly significant fact disclosed by the foregoing table is 
 that the cost of beets per ton was lowest for those having the high^ 
 est sugar extraction. This was due to two main causes — first, the 
 factories working the poorest beets had difficulty in getting them at 
 all and had to pay the farmer more than the sugar in them was 
 worth; and, second, the difficulty in securing beets forced them to 
 be brought from a wider territory, with the result that incidental 
 expenses and freight charges were inordinately high. The average 
 cost of beets per ton in Group I, with an extraction of almost exactly 
 300 pounds per ton, was $6.46, while in Group III, with an average 
 extraction of only 222 pounds, the cost of beets was $7.18 per ton. 
 In other words, the factories in Group III paid 72 cents more for 
 222 pounds of sugar than those in Group I paid for 300 pounds. 
 This condition is strikingly reflected in the cost of beets per 100 
 pounds of sugar. In Group I, with an extraction of approximately 
 300 pounds per ton, the factory paid $1.08 per 100 pounds less for 
 the sugar in the beets than was paid by the factories in Group III 
 that had an extraction of only 222 pounds. The cost of beets per 100 
 pounds of sugar was 40 cents more in Group II than in Group I, 
 although the extraction per ton of beets was 44 pounds less. 
 
 The net cost in Group I, where the cost of beets was lowest, was 
 exactly $1 less than in Group III, where the cost of beets was highest, 
 and it was 34 cents less than in Group II, where the cost of beets was 
 40 cents higher. The difference in the cost of beets per 100 pounds of 
 sugar more than accounts for the difference in the net cost of produc- 
 
 1- 
 
 r 
 
 y^ 
 
 K 
 
 p 
 
 /9 
 
 f' 
 
 't 
 
 K 
 
 EFFICIENCY IN THE BEET-SUGAR INDUSTRY. 
 
 143 
 
 tion in each case. It is thus apparent that a low cost of production 
 must depend primarily on a low beet cost, and the lowest beet cost is 
 in the factories in regions that produce the best beets. Of the fac- 
 tories whose net cost was more than $3.50 per 100 pounds, in only 
 three was the average extraction more than 270 pounds, and their 
 high cost is due to the fact that not enough beets were secured for a 
 profitable run. Of those whose net cost was less than $3.50 per 100 
 pounds, in only one case was the average extraction less than 235 
 pounds per ton, and it was able to secure its beets at much below the 
 average cost. The factories included in Group I produced 47 per 
 cent of the total quantity produced by the 75 factories during thi- 
 period, while the factories included in Groups II and III produced 
 31 per cent and 22 per cent, respectively. 
 
 All of the factories having the most favorable location with respect 
 to the quality of beets are located west of the Mississippi Kiver. The 
 18 factories included in Group I of Table 32 are all in that region. 
 Of these, 8 are in California, 5 in Colorado, 2 in Idaho, and 1 each 
 in Utah, Montana, and Kansas. Of the 27 factories in Group II, 20 
 are west of the Mississippi. Of this 20, 7 are in Colorado, 4 each in 
 California and Utah, 3 in Idaho, and 1 each in Nebraska and Ne- 
 vada. Of the remaining 7, 6 are in Michigan and 1 in Wisconsin. 
 Of the 30 factories having an extraction of less than 240 pounds of 
 sugar per ton of beets, only 10 are west of the Mississippi. These 
 figures emphasize the superior quality of the beets grown in Colo- 
 rado and the West as compared with those grown in the Lake States. 
 
 One of the chief inherent disadvantages of the industry is the 
 shortness of the campaign, the average length of the campaign in 
 California for the five-year period being only 109 days and this was 
 from 12 to 63 days longer than in any other State. The results in 
 many factories would be much more satisfactory if enough beets 
 could be had to insure a longer campaign. This is shown by the 
 following excerpt from a statement issued by the officers of one com- 
 pany to its stockholders at the end of the 1913 campaign : 
 
 The campaign just closed has been like the four preceding 
 ones, extremely disappointing. The tonnage of beets secured 
 has not been sufficient to give our mill a profitable run. The 
 burden of debt accumulated as the result of the many adverse 
 circumstances against which the company has had to contend 
 has become so great that it can no longer be carried. 
 
 It is obvious that the overhead charges for salaries, taxes, etc., are 
 practically the same in a factory whether it operated for a long or 
 short period. The average cost for these items per 100 pounds of 
 sugar produced are therefore higher in factories operating for a short 
 time. This is also often true of other items of cost. This is shown 
 by the higher manufacturing cost for such factories as compared 
 
-:t 
 
 144 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. . 
 
 with the cost of those which operated for a longer period. The 
 average manufacturing cost of the factories whose average campaign 
 for the 5-year period was less than 70 days was $1.40 per 100 pounds, 
 as compared with 95 cents for those which were in operation longer 
 than 70 days. Of the 19 factories whose average length of campaign 
 was less than 70 days in only 3 was the manufacturing cost less than 
 $1, while in 5 it was more than $2 per 100 pounds of sugar produced. 
 
 A concrete idea of the importance of a sufficient supply of beets to 
 operate a factory at its normal capacity can be had by considering a 
 few instances where the supply was greatly deficient. It is generally 
 agreed among beet sugar manufacturers that the highest efficiency in 
 a beet sugar factory depends mainly upon being operated at practi- 
 cally full capacity for a period of 100 days. The figures used in these 
 illustrations are based upon such an operating period. A factory, 
 mechanically well equipped, and having a capacity of 900 tons, had 
 only about 30,000 tons of beets in 1913, when it should have had 
 90,000 tons. Another factory with a daily capacity of 500 tons sliced 
 during that year less than 8,000 tons, when the most efficient opera- 
 tion would have required 50,000 tons. Still another, with a daily 
 capacity of 600 tons sliced less than 17,000 tons of beets instead of 
 60J300 tons which it should have had. These are striking examples 
 of economic inefficiency, and a number of others almost if not quite 
 as significant could be cited. 
 
 Inability to secure a sufficient quantity of beets, however, can not 
 always be -foreseen. This is especially true in localities where the in- 
 dustry is not well established. The failure of irrigation projects, 
 the introduction of better paying crops, or the general dissatisfaction 
 among growers may change what promises to be an ideal beet region 
 into a poor one. In one case it is said that as an inducement the 
 chamber of commerce of a certain town represented to the promoters 
 of a factory that they had signed contracts for the growing of several 
 thousand acres of beets. After the factory had been moved there, it 
 developed that the contracts were signed largely by people who owned 
 no land and who never intended to grow beets. In other cases larger 
 factories have been built than the immediate vicinity would or could 
 supply, and the factory has been either compelled to grow its own 
 beets at a higher cost or secure its beets at a greater distance from the 
 factory with a .consequent inordinately high cost. The lack of 
 beets in certain sections may also be due to the fact that the facto- 
 ries and growers have failed to fully realize the proper relation that 
 should be maintained between the factory and the beet grower. 
 
 Labor and factory supplies are less important, since the cost for 
 these items represents a smaller per cent of the total cost. Differences 
 in costs are also due to the difference in the size of the factory, as 
 
 tV 
 
 •J 
 
 
 r 
 
 ' t 
 
 \ 
 
 il. 
 
 ., 1 1# 
 
 EFFICIENCY IN THE BEET-SUGAR INDUSTRY. 
 
 145 
 
 shown in section 2 (see p. 137) . Differences in the labor costs and ad- 
 ministrative and office expense are also due to the fact that wages 
 and salaries are materially higher in the West than in the Lake 
 States. The cost of fuel also varies to some extent in the various 
 factories. It is not probable that the high cost of freight on the 
 supplies used in connection with the manufacture of sugar or even 
 the high cost of labor would preclude any factory from manufactur- 
 ing sugar profitably if sufficient beets of a good quality were avail- 
 able. 
 
 Advantage of proximity to markets. — Since the price of beet 
 sugar is based primarily on the price of refined cane sugar at the 
 seaboard, it is obvious that any advantage obtained in markets must l 
 be due to the location of the factories Avith respect to this competi- 
 tion. Prices for sugar, therefore, are higher at interior markets than 
 at points nearer the refineries. The factories which have the greatest j 
 advantage in this respect, however, are located in the sections of the 
 country which consume the least sugar, so that their advantage is 
 not as great as it would be if they were able to sell all of their prod- 
 uct locally or in near-by States. The average price received by the 
 factories in the various States and the cost of selling per 100 pounds 
 of sugar, including freight, during the five-year period is shown in 
 the following table : 
 
 Table 33.-COMPARISON OF THE AVERAGE PRICES RECEIVED FOR BEET SUGAR; 
 THE COST OF SELLING AND THE NET PRICE RECEIVED AT THE FACTORY PER 100 
 POUNDS, FOR THE 5-YEAR PERIOD 1909^13, BY STATES. 
 
 State. 
 
 Selling 
 price. 
 
 Cost of 
 selling. 
 
 Net price 
 at factory. 
 
 California 
 
 $4. 8795 
 4.9231 
 5.0835 
 4.8251 
 4.9327 
 4.7C02 
 5.1573 
 4.9838 
 
 $0. 4574 
 .4462 
 .5780 
 .3010 
 .2616 
 .3429 
 .4953 
 .2986 
 
 S4. 4221 
 
 Colorado 
 
 4.4769 
 
 Utah-Idaho 
 
 4.5055 
 
 Michigan i 
 
 4.5241 
 
 Wisconsin ^ 
 
 4. 6711 
 
 Ohio 
 
 4.4173 
 
 Montana-Nebraska 
 
 4.6620 
 
 Other States 2 
 
 4.6852 
 
 
 
 Total, United States 
 
 4.9277 
 
 .4278 
 
 4.4999 
 
 
 
 1 Includes factories at Decatur, Ind., and Paulding, Ohio. 
 
 > Includes factories in Arizona, Nevada, Kansas, Oregon, Minnesota, and Iowa. 
 
 In the above table it is seen that the price at which sugar is sold 
 is highest in Montana-Nebraska and Utah-Idaho and lowest in Ohio 
 and Michigan. In California competition with the refineries at San 
 Francisco is encountered so that the selling price is lower than in 
 other Western States. Factories, although located at a great dis- 
 tance from the large consuming centers, are enabled to realize as 
 high an average price for their product as those which disposed of 
 
 j 
 
 V 
 
1 1 
 
 a 
 
 146 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 their product on lower freight rates. For example, in Utah-Idaho 
 the average net price received was only 2 cents per 100 pounds less 
 than the price in Michigan, although the cost of selling, including 
 the freight, was 28 cents more. The average net price received at 
 the factory was highest for the factories included in the group 
 " Other States," Wisconsin and Montana-Nebraska, while the lowest 
 was in Ohio and California. The larger part of the product of the 
 factories in the first-named States is disposed of locally or in adjoin- 
 ing States, thus giving them a decided advantage over companies 
 which must sell the greater part of their product in competitive 
 territory on higher freight rates. In two companies the average net 
 price received for the five-year period was $5.11 and $5.29 per 100 
 pounds, respectively, while the average for all companies in the 
 United States was only $4.50. In large companies, however, the dif- 
 ference in the average net price received is less, rarely exceeding 20 
 or 30 cents per 100 pounds. 
 
 Some advantage is also obtained in the marketing of the two chief 
 by-products from the manufacture of sugar, namely, pulp and 
 molasses. In Chapter III (see p. 61), the net value of these products 
 s affecting the net cost of production is discussed. In Table 10 
 ^(see p. 82), it is shown that the profit from these sources is greater 
 in the factories located in the Lake States than in factories located 
 in the West. The advantage obtained with respect to molasses is 
 largely overcome, however, by the use of certain processes by which 
 a large per cent of the sugar in the molasses is extracted. 
 
 Section 4. Comparisons based on factory equipment. 
 
 Most of the beet-sugar factories in the United States are similarly 
 equipped, except as to that portion of their equipment provided for 
 the utilization of by-products. There are but two by-products 
 resulting from the manufacture of sugar from beets that have any 
 important value. These are pulp and molasses. A number of 
 factories have special equipment for the better utilization of one or 
 both of these by-products. Pulp and molasses are both utilized to 
 advantage by all factories. Some, however, are so situated as to 
 require special equipment for their most advantageous utilization. . 
 Pulp is utilized entirely as a food for stock, and this is in a great 
 measure also true of molasses, though the latter is used to some 
 extent in the manufacture of alcohol. 
 
 Where pulp can not be sold to advantage in its green state at the 
 factory, it is necessary to dry it in order that it may be shipped at 
 a reasonable cost. The molasses resulting from the process of sugar 
 manufacture contains a large percentage of sugar, and unless there 
 is a profitable market for the molasses itself it is often profitable 
 to extract the sugar left therein. There are two or three processes 
 
 •I 
 
 ')'••' 
 
 ( 
 
 / 
 
 a 
 
 h 
 
 I 
 
 A 
 
 !'■ 
 
 ^ii 
 
 EFFICIENCY IN THE BEET-SUGAR INDUSTRY. 
 
 147 
 
 for the extraction of sugar from molasses, but that principally used 
 in this country is known as the Steffens process. 
 
 Steffens process. — While beet sugar molasses contains a large per 
 cent of sugar it is not used for human food because of the large 
 quantity of mineral salts present. These mineral substances prevent 
 the sugar from crystalizing by t\m use of the ordinary processes of 
 clarifying, and special processes have been employed in extracting 
 the sugar from the molasses. As just stated, the most common 
 method is the Steffens process. About 25 pounds of sugar are ex- 
 tracted from the molasses resulting from the working of each ton of 
 beets. All the sugar in the molasses, however, is not recovered, the 
 proportion varying from 80 to 90 per cent of the sugar content of 
 the molasses. By the Steffens process a larger percentage of the 
 sugar is recovered than by other processes. 
 
 Whether it is profitable to use this process depends upon the price 
 of molasses and of sugar. If the market value of molasses is high, 
 say about $12 to $15 per ton, it is the general opinion that it is not 
 profitable to install a Steffens plant unless tile price of sugar is very 
 high. The manager of an e^astern factory stated that he questioned 
 the practicability of operating a Steffens house, even after the plant 
 had been constructed, with molasses at $12 per ton ; and that if the 
 price of molasses had been as high when the industry was started 
 in this country as it is now no Steffens plants would have been 
 erected. Since molasses is used chiefly for a stock food, much de- 
 pends therefore on the location of the factory. Factories near the 
 stock- feeding sections may be able to dispose of their molasses at a 
 high price while those some distance from these markets may find it 
 more profitable to convert as much of their molasses into sugar as 
 possible. A few factories are able to dispose of their molasses to 
 manufacturers of alcohol. 
 
 In 1913 there were at least 26 factories equipped with Steffens 
 houses. Of these 6 were located in California, six in Colorado, 5 in 
 Michigan, 2 each in Ohio and Wisconsin, and 1 each in Kansas, Ne- 
 braska, Montana, Utah, and Idaho. The Steffens plants in the Wis- 
 consin factories have not been operated for some years. It is im- 
 portant to note in this connection that more molasses is subjected to 
 this process than that produced by the factories operating Steffens 
 houses. Some concerns buy molasses from other factories and some 
 companies having two or more factories have a Steffens plant in one 
 and ship the molasses from their other plants to this factory. For 
 instance, the Great Western Sugar Co. has 9 plants located in north- 
 ern Colorado, only 4 of which are equipped with Steffens houses, but 
 the molasses from the other 5 plants is worked up in these 4 Steffens 
 plants. 
 
 1| 
 I 
 
 f 
 
I 
 
 
 I 
 
 t 
 
 148 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 During the season of 1913-14 there were 23 factories operating 
 
 aftf 'thi' f ■ ^\' Tu'^' P^**"* "" "'^ ^««'<^-' molasse^that -r, 
 in sir fT ?'*^ 'T. '''^^^^ *'^^*'"«'^ ""« process-was 17.2 
 
 remaining 46 factories in operation that year amounted to 39 1 cents 
 
 as much from this by-product as was realized by the factories which 
 sold their entire output of molasses would have had to extract enough 
 additional sugar to overcome all expenses incidental to operating S 
 maintaining the process, and in addition about 5*, pounds from each 
 ton of beets worked, assuming that the net value of sugar wSl 
 cents per pound. The costs incidental to the Steffens procesf werSot 
 reported separately by all companies and as stated above mZfac 
 
 idTtaW r ''""^ f ''••^'' **^'"™^' ^" *^* tJ^^ St^ffen« coste in- 
 
 cidental to workmg up their own product can not be ascertained 
 
 However the cost of operating and maintaining the process in two 
 
 ZTT'l '"*?" T'v!* ^'^ "*>* P"-'^^- mola'^'wVs onTy 
 about 10 cents per ton of beets worked. The cost- per ton of beets 
 worked no doubt would be somewhat higher in a smaUer factory bu 
 .t IS apparently fair to assume that if the factories which had Steffens 
 plants increased their average extraction 10 pounds they reaHzed as 
 
 The average extraction for the factories not employing the process 
 
 wh ch hT^i'^ 'T""^' "'^"^ *^^ ^--^« extraction of rS 
 
 vvmie this difference is partially due to the better qualitv of beets 
 
 StSt" *" *'t 1'^*""^^^ ^"^^^ "^*^^-<^ from' the mo^ase^lv 
 the latter factories. In the statement below are shown the results for 
 
 the five years 1909 to 1913 in two California factoriS, one w hh 
 Steffens process and one without, where the difference in qualitv of 
 tee s was not great. The average purity of the beets worked by each 
 factory was above 85 per cent. ^ 
 
 Factory No. 1 
 
 (without Steffens 
 
 process). 
 
 Factory No. 2 
 (with Steffens proc- 
 ess). 
 
 1909-10. 
 1910-11. 
 1911-12. 
 1912-13. 
 1913-14. 
 
 tion. content. 
 
 content. 
 
 Average, 5 years. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 18.88 
 18. 8i 
 18.87 
 18.87 
 18.06 
 
 Pounds. 
 304.4 
 
 310.6 
 
 311.2 
 
 298.6 
 
 281.0 
 
 Average 
 extrac- 
 tion. 
 
 18.68 
 
 300.5 
 
 Percent. 
 17.33 
 
 18.28 
 
 18.03 
 
 18.80 
 
 18.57 
 
 18.16 
 
 Pounds. 
 306.4 
 
 337.6 
 341 8 
 341.2 
 345. S 
 
 i 
 
 ,t- 
 
 V 
 
 EFFICIENCY IN THE BEET-SUGAE INDUSTRY. 
 
 149 
 
 333.6 
 
 Factory No. 1 was not equipped with a Steffens plant, and 
 although the average sugar content of its beets was generally higher 
 than m factory No. 2, the extraction in each year was less than in 
 the latter factory. The purity of the beets worked in factory No. 
 1 was also higher than in factory No. 2 in 4 of the 5 years, and in 
 1913-14 practically the same. For the 5-year period the sugar con- 
 tent of the beets sliced in the former factory was 0.52 per cent 
 higher, while the average extraction was 33 pounds per ton less. 
 Thus it is seen that by employing this process the extraction is mate- 
 rially increased. While the per cent of increase would be less in 
 factories shcing a lower grade of beets, the average extraction for 
 all factories would probably have been increased 25 pounds per ton 
 of beets had the molasses from all factories been subjected to this 
 process. 
 
 While it would seem that if the extraction could be increased by 
 this amount, a Steffens house would almost be necessary to the 
 equipment of an efficient factory, it should be borne in mind that the 
 cost of mstalling the process is high and much more labor is required 
 m a factory so equipped. Companies which have more than one 
 factory might find it profitable to install a Steffens house at one 
 of Its factories, which could utilize the molasses from those not so 
 equipped, while a company with only one factory and of small 
 capacity could not do so at a profit. Others have a good market for 
 their molasses, so that a company adding this process should be 
 governed largely by the conditions peculiar to its own factory or 
 factories. 
 
 Pulp driers.— When beets are worked about 80 per cent of their 
 weight comes out in the form of palp. As this pulp comes from the 
 factory it contains a small amount of sugar, most of the nonsugars 
 or impurities shown in the chemical analysis of the beets and a large 
 per cent of water. In the green or undried state it can not be kept 
 for any great length of time nor can it be profitably transported anv 
 considerable distance. It is used for stock^food, and where it can nJt 
 be fed to cattle or sheep in the locality of the factory it must eithei 
 be dried for shipment or go to waste. In the earlier days of the in^ 
 dustry practically all the pulp was disposed of at the factory. In 
 fact, much of it was given away to farmers supplying the factory 
 with beets. It is said that in the State of Michigan there were times 
 when considerable pulp had to be removed as waste. This fact prob 
 ably resulted in the installation of driers, since the first drying appli- 
 ances were installed in that State. 
 
 The pulp is dried in revolving cylindrical drums, the heat being 
 applied either directly from hot gases or indirectly by steam. The 
 more recently installed driers are of the steam type! 
 87731—17 11 
 
 f 
 
 !| 
 
 M 
 
 I 
 
 raan^sr 
 
150 THE BEET SUGAR INDtTSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 An increased demand for dried pulp is indicated by the number 
 of factories which have added driers to their plant equipment in 
 recent years. In 1908, according to the report issued by the Depart- 
 ment of Agriculture (Report No. 90, Progress of the Beet Sugar In- 
 dustry in the United States, 1908) there were only 11 factories which 
 had driers, all of which were located in the Lake States. In 191o 
 there were 30 factories reporting sales of dried pulp. These factories 
 were distributed as follows: Fifteen in Michigan, 5 in California, 4 
 m Wisconsin, 3 in Ohio, and 1 each in Indiana, Kansas, and Minne- 
 sota. It will be noted that the 5 factories in California have installed 
 driers since 1908, and that there are no driers in Colorado. The 
 absence of pulp driers in Colorado factories is no doubt due mainly 
 to the fact that there is sale for the pulp to the cattle feeders in the 
 vicinity of the factories and partly to the fact that these factories are 
 such a distance from other cattle- feeding regions that freight on the 
 pulp is so high as to absorb most of the profits. 
 
 In some localities dried pulp is sold for as much as $20 per ton. 
 The comparative advantage of selling pulp green or dried is diffi- 
 cult to state with exactness. This depends of course upon the location 
 of the factory with respect to cattle feeders and upon the price of 
 other foods. One factory in California sells its pulp in the wet state, 
 and during the three years ending with the season 1913 realized a 
 profit for pulp of only 12 cents per ton of beets worked. In another 
 California factory, equipped with a drier, the profit was $1.11 per 
 ton of beets worked. The installation of a drier costs approximately 
 $100,000, and with the prices for dried pulp that have prevailed in 
 recent years this seems to be a profitable investment. 
 
 In Table 19 (see p. 82) there is shown the average net value of 
 pulp per 100 pounds of sugar produced during the 5-year period by 
 States. It will be noticed that the averages for Wisconsin, Michigan, 
 and Ohio, where most of the factories are equipped with driers, are 
 materially higher than in other States. Since the date of installation 
 of pulp driers in a number of factories is not precisely known to the 
 commission it is not possible to make comparisons in the industry 
 as a whole except for the one year 1913-14. Of the 69 factories 
 operating in that year from which reports were obtained 30 reported 
 the sale of dried pulp. The net profit on pulp realized by those 
 factories having driers was 21.2 cents per 100 pounds of sugar pro- 
 duced, while in the other 39 factories which had no driers the profit 
 
 was only 5.7 cents. 
 
 The importance of this by-product is also indicated by a com- 
 parison of the profits from this source with the total earnings for 
 all companies. The total earnings in the beet sugar business in 
 1913-14 before deducting depreciation was $5,777,226.92, and 
 $1,610,351.78, or 28 per cent of this, was net receipts on pulp. If 
 
 i 
 
 () 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 / 
 
 t^ 
 
 < 
 
 r^ 
 
 /. 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 > 
 
 i 
 
 EFFICIENCY IN THE BEET-SUGAR INDUSTKY. 
 
 151 
 
 all the factories operating in that year had been equipped with pulp 
 driers and had they all realized this rate of profit on pulp, the 
 earnings in the industry as a whole would have increased nearly 
 $1,500,000. While it is not reasonable to assume that all factories 
 could have realized so large a profit from this source, due to the faci 
 that some are inaccessible to the markets, these figures do indicate 
 that a pulp drier is a very important factor in the efficient equipment 
 of those factories within reach of dried pulp markets. 
 
 Section 5. Conclusions. 
 
 There is opportunity for materially increased efficiency in many 
 beet sugar factories. The figures in Table 17 (see p. 78) abundantly 
 confirm this view. During the 5 years covered by this report fac- 
 tory numbered 17, as shown in that table, had an average conver- 
 sion cost of only 44 cents per 100 pounds of sugar, not including 
 depreciation. Other factories in the same vicinity, and some of 
 them operated by the same company that operates factory No. 17, 
 had a cost of from 65 cents to $1. Factory No. 26 had a conver- 
 sion cost of 87 cents, while factory No. 25, operated by the same 
 company in the same State, had a cost of $1.16. Factory No. 37 
 had a cost of 77 cents, while other factories operated by the same 
 company in the same immediate region had costs ranging as high 
 as $1.08. The costs of conversion here enumerated are the net cost 
 after deducting the net profits from by-products. The factories In 
 each of the groups here enumerated operated under similar condi 
 tions with respect to the supply and quality of beets. Comparisons 
 of this sort could be multiplied. 
 
 While it is not to be expected that every beet sugar factory could 
 reduce its conversion cost to 44 cents per 100 pounds, it is not 
 unreasonable to conclude that no factory that is well located with 
 respect to an ample supply of beets of good quality should have a 
 net conversion cost of as much as $1 per 100 pounds of sugar. 
 It at least seems probable that with even ordinary regard for effi- 
 ciency in equipment and methods of operation the average cost of 
 conversion in a considerable number of factories could be greatly 
 reduced. Of course no degree of efficiency in operation can result 
 in a low cost of conversion for those factories so situated as to have 
 an inadequate supply of beets or those in regions where the quality 
 of the beets is extremelv low. 
 
 I 
 
SUGAR MANUFACTUREES AND BEET GKOWEES. 
 
 153 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 RELATIONS BETWEEN SUGAR MANTJFACTTJRERS AND BEET 
 
 GROWERS. 
 
 Section 1. Interdependence of the two interests. 
 
 Perhaps no other manufacturing industry is so sensibly dependent 
 upon agriculture as the beet sugar industry. On the other hand, no 
 other branch of farming of equal importance is so entirely dependent 
 upon a strictly local industry. Other industries are dependent upon 
 the farmer for their principal raw material, but their relations with 
 the farmer are so distant as not to be a sensitive factor. The cotton 
 manufacturer and the miller must depend upon the cotton and grain 
 grower respectively for their supplies of raw material, but millions of 
 farmers in various parts of the world grow these commodities. These 
 farm products are of such a character and their manufacture is -of 
 such a nature that they can be economically shipped thousands of 
 miles. Thus the farmer and the manufacturer may be widely sep- 
 arated. 
 
 Sugar beets, however, can not be economically shipped a long dis- 
 tance. Only about 12J per cent of the weight of beets is extractable 
 sugar, the extreme range being from about 10 per cent to about 16 
 per cent, and the average is about 12^ per cent. Thus, if freight 
 charges on a ton of beets is 40 cents, or 2 cents per 100 pounds, the 
 charge on the extractable sugar will average about 16 cents per 100 
 pounds. It is apparent, therefore, that the sugar factory and the beet 
 grower must be near each other; otherwise, the farmer must sell his 
 beets at a lower price than he can afford. The sugar manufacturer 
 must obtain his beets at a price that will enable him to sell his prod- 
 uct in competition with cane sugar or he will fail. Furthermore, be- 
 fore a sugar factory is built, owners of capital should be assured of a 
 sufficient quantity of beets not merely for one year but for several 
 years. 
 
 These conditions result in a close bond of common interest between 
 the manufacturer and the farmer. This interdependence, however, 
 is not evenly balanced because when the farmer can grow other crops 
 at a profit equal to or greater than that derived from beets he is likely 
 to do so. That is to say, if for any reason beets should not be as 
 satisfactory as some other crop, he can generally utilize his land 
 
 152 
 
 • 
 
 ,i«-( 
 
 \ without suffering disadvantage. The farmer therefore is not en- 
 tirely dependent upon the sugar factory. If he expects to grow beets 
 at all, however, he must have a factory reasonably near him. It may 
 be argued by some that the manufacturer is not entirely dependent 
 upon the farmer for the reason that he has the alternative of grow- 
 ing his own supply of beets. Practical experience, however, does not 
 support this argument. In general, the growing of beets by the 
 manufacturer in sufficient quantity to supply his factory is not 
 feasible. Sometimes the necessary land can not be had, and even 
 when it can experience has frequently failed to commend this method 
 of obtaining a beet supply. The results of farming operations en- 
 gaged in by sugar manufacturers have often resulted in loss. Prac- 
 tically, therefore, the manufacturer is dependent upon the farmer for 
 his supply of beets. 
 
 The history of the beet-sugar industry in this country has conclu- 
 sively demonstrated this interdependence of the two interests. With 
 few exceptions no beet-sugar factory has been successful where it 
 could not depend upon the farmers in the community where it was 
 erected. The failure of a number of factories, and probably most of 
 those that have been unsuccessful, has been due to the unwillingness 
 or the inability of the farmers to supply a sufficient quantity of beets, 
 or if the quantity was sufficient the quality was too low to be profit- 
 able to the factory. This close relation between the sugar ,manuf ac- 
 turer and the beet grower suggests the desirability of hearty, friendly 
 cooperation between the two interests. . 
 
 Section 2. Contract prices for beets. 
 
 Practically all sugar-beet growers enter into contract with the 
 sugar manufacturers for the sale of their beets before the seed are 
 planted. It is a rare thing to find a farmer growing beets without 
 a contract. This is due in the first place to the fact that the beet- 
 sugar manufacturer must have reasonable assurance of a sufficient 
 quantity of beets to operate his factory, and in the second place to 
 the desire of farmers generally to have some assurance in advance 
 of planting as to the price they will receive for their beets. 
 
 There are numerous variations in the terms of the contracts, 
 particularly in respect to the price that is to be paid. Speaking 
 broadly, all prices are based on the sugar content of the beets. In 
 many cases, however, this basis embraces a considerable range of 
 sugar content, and it is therefore rather indefinite. Generally there is 
 a base price for a specified range in the percentage of sugar and a 
 ^/ I J scale of advance in price as the percentage increases above the maxi- 
 
 lum of the basis range. In other cases there is a flat rate for all 
 beets where the sugar content does not fall below a certain per cent. 
 
 7 
 t 
 
11 
 
 154 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 There is also frequently a imnimum content below which the factory 
 will not take the beets. Sometimes there is a limitation as to the 
 maximum size of the beets, those that are extremely large not being 
 desirable. 
 
 That portion of the contract relating to the price to be paid for 
 beets during the past 2 or 3 years is shown below for several com- 
 panies operating in the principal beet sugar producing sections. 
 These contracts do not cover all the factories, but they represent those 
 companies that produce the bulk of the beet sugar. 
 
 Contracts in 1913 and 1914.— The contracts for the year 1914 used 
 by most of the companies operating in Michigan provided for the 
 payment for beets as follows: 
 
 Said beets shall be harvested and loaded by the grower for 
 the company on cars, or delivered at factory sheds, at such time 
 and in such quantities as may be directed by the company. The 
 company will not be liable to receive or pay for beets which do 
 not test 12 per cent sugar, are rotten, or otherwise unfit or un- 
 desirable for making sugar. 
 
 For beets delivered under this contract and loaded on cars 
 by the grower, the company will pay five dollars ($5) per ton 
 at loading point ; and for beets delivered to the company's fac- 
 tory by wagon and unloaded by the grower into the company's 
 beet bins, the company will pay five dollars and sixty cents 
 ($5.60) per ton. Both of above prices are to be applied to 
 weight of beets after making deductions for dirt and improper 
 topping. Payments to be made on the 15th of the month follow- 
 ing the delivery of beets. 
 
 Prior to 1914 the contracts of the Michigan companies provided 
 for a rate of $4.50 a ton for beets having a sugar content of not less 
 than 12 per cent and 33^ cents for each additional 1 per cent of 
 sugar. 
 
 Some of the factories in Ohio have had two forms of contract, one 
 with a sliding scale and the other providing for a flat rate. The slid- 
 ing scale contract used in 1913 was as follows : 
 
 For all beets grown and delivered at the factory under the 
 above conditions, the sugar company agrees to pay four dollars 
 and fifty cents ($4.50) per net ton weight for beets, and 33^ 
 cents per ton more for each 1 per cent of increase in the amount 
 of sugar above 12 per cent. 
 
 The grower will be paid under this contract all the beets are 
 worth according to test, and is guaranteed not less than $5 per 
 ton delivered at railwav station. 
 
 The provisions of the flat rate contract were as follows : 
 
 The beets are to be given due care, and as far as practicable 
 the undersigned will follow instructions in regard to selecting 
 
 S) 
 
 r 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 SUGAR MANUFACTURERS AND BEET GROWERS. 
 
 155 
 
 ■I* 
 
 and preparing the soil, seeding, caring for and harvesting the 
 crop. The beets will be paid for at the rate of five dollars ($5) 
 per ton. 
 
 Said beets shall be harvested and delivered by the grower to 
 the company at such times and in such quantities as may be di- 
 rected by the company, allowing each grower his pro rata 
 amount. The company will not be liable to receive or pay for 
 beets improperly topped or which are rotten or otherwise unfit 
 or undesirable for making sugar. 
 
 It will be noted that the 1913 sliding scale contract above quoted 
 guarantees not less than $5 per ton and it is assumed that this guar- 
 antee was made upon the theory that the beets would have a sufficient 
 sugar content to call for $5 per ton under the contract. 
 
 The contract with the beet growers in the vicinity of Billings, 
 Mont., for the year 1913 with regard to prices was as follows : 
 
 Beets delivered and accepted will be paid for by the company 
 as follows: 
 
 $5 per ton for beets testing not less than 12 per cent sugar and under 
 14 per cent. 
 
 5.12^ per ton for beets testing not less than 14 per cent sugar and under 
 14.5 per cent. 
 
 $5.25 per ton for beets testing not less than 14.5 per cent sugar and 
 under 15 per cent. 
 
 $5.50 per ton for beets testing not less than 15 per cent sugar and under 
 15.5 per cent. 
 
 $5.62^ per ton for beets testing not less than 15.5 per cent sugar and 
 under 16 per cent. 
 
 $5.75 per ton for beets testing not less than 16 per cent sugar and under 
 16.5 per cent. 
 
 $5.87^ per ton for beets testing not less than 16.5 per cent sugar and 
 under 17 per cent. 
 
 $6 per ton for beets testing not less than 17 per cent sugar and under 
 17.5 per cent. 
 
 $6.12^ per ton for beets testing not less than 17.5 i)er cent sugar and 
 under 18 per cent. 
 
 $6.25 per ton for beets testing not less than 18 per cent sugar and under 
 18.5 per cent. 
 
 $6.37^ per ton for beets testing not less than 18.5 per cent sugar and 
 under 19 per cent. 
 
 $6.50 per ton for beets testing not less than 19 per cent sugar and under 
 19.5 per cent. 
 
 And 12^ cents per ton additional for each one-half per cent above 19.5 
 per cent. 
 
 The contracts in Montana for 1914 prescribed a base price of $4.75 
 per ton, but because of the increase in the price of sugar when the 
 time of delivery came the growers were paid according to the con- 
 tract for 1913. 
 
 The contract with the growers in the vicinity of ScottsblufF, Nebr., 
 in 1912 and 1913, provided for a flat rate as follows : 
 
 That it, its successors or assigns, will purchase all beets suit- 
 able for sugar-niaking purposes, grown, harvested, and delivered 
 in accordance with the terms, specifications, and requirements of 
 this contract and pay therefor at the rate herein specified (less 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 f 
 
 V 
 
~T ~i Tra -a^^^ii^ma 
 
 JU. 
 
 156 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 the usual deductions for dirt, leaves, and improperly topped or 
 damaged beets), to wit: 
 
 For all beets delivered at factory or designated receiving sta- 
 tions in good condition, of eighty (80) per cent purity or 
 better, and containing twelve (12) per cent or more sugar $5.00 
 
 It being agreed and understood that the company shall not be 
 obliged to receive any beets prior to October 15th containing 
 less than fifteen (15) per cent sugar. 
 
 The contract for 1914 with the growers at Scottsbluff provided for 
 a flat rate of $4.50 per ton, but at the time of delivery the manufac- 
 turers restored the 1913 price. 
 
 The contract with the growers in northern Colorado for 1913 was 
 as follows: 
 
 Beets delivered and accepted will be paid for by the company 
 as follows: "^ 
 
 $5 per ton for beets testing not less than 12 and under 14 per cent sugar 
 $o.l25 per ton for beets testing not less than 14 and under 14.5 per cent 
 sugar. 
 
 $5.25 per ton for beets testing not less than 14.5 and under 15 ner cent 
 sugar. ^ 
 
 $5.50 per ton for beets testing not less than 15 and under 15.5 per cent 
 sugar. ^ 
 
 $5,625 per ton for beets testing not less than 15.5 and under 16 oer cent 
 sugar. ^ 
 
 $5.75 per ton for beets testing not less than 16 and under 16.5 per cent 
 sugar. ^ 
 
 $5,875 per ton for beets testing not less than 16.5 and under 17 oer cent 
 sugar. ^ 
 
 !^ ?o J **^° ^^^ ^^^*^ testing not less than 17 and under 17.5 per cent sugar 
 $6,125 per ton for beets testing not less than 17.5 and under 18 per cent 
 sugar. ^ 
 
 $6.25 per ton for beets testing not less than 18 and under 18.5 per cent 
 sugar. ^ 
 
 $6,375 per ton for beets testing not less than 18.5 and under 19 ner cent 
 sugar. ^ 
 
 $6.50 per ton for beets testing not less than 19 and under 19.5 oer cent 
 sugar. ^ 
 
 And 12^ cents per ton additional for each additional one-half of 1 per cent 
 increase thereafter. ^ 
 
 In 1914 the Great Western Sugar Co. paid a flat rate of $4.50 a ton 
 to some growers in northern Colorado, but generally a sliding-scale 
 contract was adopted that fixed the base price at $4.75. As in the 
 case of Montana and Nebraska, the Great Western restored the 1913 
 price when the price of sugar rose in 1914. 
 
 A contract used by one company in southern Colorado provided 
 the following prices for the year 1913 : 
 
 The company agrees to purchase from first party the net beets 
 grown on acreage as above mentioned. 
 
 First. To pay therefor for all beets grown under this con- 
 tract, after proper tare deductions have been made for dirt, 
 rocks, leaves, and improper topping, as follows : 
 
 $5 per ton for beets testing not less than 12 per cent sugar and under 14 
 per cent. 
 
 $5.12* per ton for beets testing not less than 14 per cent sugar and under 
 14.5 per cent. 
 
 SUGAR MANUFACTURERS AND BEET GROWERS. 157 
 
 $5.25 per ton for beets testing not less than 14.5 per cent sugar and under 
 15 per cent. 
 
 $5.50 per ton for beets testing not less than 15 per cent sugar and under 
 15.5 per cent. 
 
 $5.62^ per ton for beets testing not less than 15.5 per cent sugar and 
 under 16 per cent. 
 
 $5.75 per ton for beets testing not less than 16 per cent sugar and under 
 c^ 16.5 per cent. 
 
 ^'^ $5.82i per ton for beets testing not less than 16.5 per cent sugar and 
 
 » under 17 per cent. 
 
 $6 per ton for beets testing not less than 17 per cent sugar and under 
 I 17.5 per cent. 
 
 $6.12^ per ton for beets testing not less than 17.5 per cent sugar and 
 under 18 per cent. 
 
 $6.25 per ton for b^ets testing not less than 18 per cent sugar and under 
 18.5 per cent. 
 
 $6.27^ per ton for beets testing not less than 18.5 per cent sugar and 
 ^ under 19 per cent 
 
 \ $6.50 per ton for beets testing not less than 19 per cent sugar and under 
 
 19.5 per cent. 
 
 And 12^ cents per ton additional for each additional half of 1 per cent 
 increase thereafter. 
 
 Another factory in southern Colorado in 1913 secured contracts 
 at the following rates : 
 
 For beets delivered, samples of which test not less than twelve 
 (12%) per cent and up to sixteen (16%) per cent sugar to the 
 weight of the beet, and a purity of not less than 80%, per ton of 
 ( 2,000 lbs $5 50 
 
 For beets delivered, samples of which test sixteen (16%) per cent 
 sugar or more, per ton of 2,000 lbs 6. 00 
 
 In 1914 this latter factory adopted the following scale of prices: 
 
 For beets delivered, samples of which test not less than twelve 
 (12%) per cent and up to sixteen (16%) per cent sugar to the 
 weight of the beet, with a purity of not less than 80%, per ton of 
 2,000 lbs $5. 00 
 
 For beets delivered, samples of which test sixteen (16%) per cent 
 sugar to the weight of the beet, and above, with a purity of not less 
 than 80%, per ton of 2,000 lbs 5. 50 
 
 This company stipulated in its contracts for both years that it 
 would not be bound to receive any beets testing less than 12 per cent 
 in sugar or containing less than 80% purity. 
 
 The schedule of prices shown in the contract of another company 
 operating in southern Colorado was as follows : 
 
 For beets testing— Per ton. 
 
 25 per cent sugar ^9^ 33^ 
 
 24 per cent sugar 9 00 
 
 23 per cent sugar g ggj 
 
 22 per cent sugar g 33^ 
 
 21 per cent sugar g oo 
 
 20 per cent sugar 7 qq^ 
 
 19 per cent sugar 7^ 33^ 
 
 18 per cent sugar 7 00 
 
 17 per cent sugar 6.66f 
 
 16 per cent sugar g^ 33^ 
 
 I 
 
 \ 
 
158 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 For beets testing — Per ton. 
 
 15 per cent sugar $6. 00 
 
 14 per cent sugar 5. 66§ 
 
 13 per cent sugar 5. 33i 
 
 12 per cent sugar 5.00 
 
 33i cents per ton additional for eacli per cent above 25 per cent, 
 fractions in proportion. 
 This company reserved the option of rejecting beets showing less 
 than 12 per cent of sugar or less than 80 per cent purity. 
 
 The schedule of prices shown in the contract employed in the vicin- 
 ity of Grand Junction, Colo., in 1913, was as follows: 
 
 Beets delivered and accepted will be paid for by the company as follows : 
 $5 per ton for beets testing not less than 12 per cent sugar and under 
 
 15 per cent. 
 
 $5.25 per ton for beets testing not less than 15 per cent sugar and under 
 
 15.5 per cent. 
 $5,375 per ton for beets testing not less than 15.5 per cent sugar and under 
 
 16 per cent. 
 
 $5.50 per ton for beets testing not less than 16 per cent sugar and under 
 
 16.5 per cent. 
 
 $5,625 per ton for beets testing not less than 16.5 per cent sugar and 
 
 under 17 per cent. 
 
 $5.75 per ton for beets testing not less than 17 per cent sugar and under 
 17.5 per cent. 
 
 $5,875 per ton for beets testing not less than 17.5 per cent sugar and under 
 18 per cent. 
 
 $6 per ton for beets testing not less than 18 per cent sugar and under 
 
 18.5 per cent. 
 $6,125 per ton for beets testing not less than 18.5 per cent sugar and 
 
 under 19 per cent. 
 $6.25 per ton for beets testing not less than 19 per cent sugar and under 
 
 19.5 per cent. 
 $6,375 per ton for beets testing not less than 19.5 per cent sugar and 
 
 under 20 per cent. 
 
 And twelve and one-half cents (12ic.) per ton additional for each one- 
 half per cent above 20 per cent. 
 
 In 1914 this company reduced the price to a flat rate of $4.75 
 
 per ton. 
 
 In 1911, 1912, and 1913 beets were bought under at least two rates 
 in Idaho. The following were the rates paid under one form of 
 contract : 
 
 For all beets in good condition of eighty (80) per cent purity 
 or better, and containing fifteen (15) per cent sugar, five dol- 
 lars ($5) per ton. 
 
 For all beets in good condition of eighty (80) per cent purity, 
 containing no less than twelve (12) per cent and under fifteen 
 (15) per cent sugar, four dollars and twenty-five cents ($4.25) 
 per ton. 
 
 -^ 
 
 ( 
 
 > 
 
 ■* 
 
 *w 
 
 r 
 
 -^ 
 
 ¥ IV 
 
 SUGAR MANUFACTURERS AND BEET GROWERS. 
 
 159 
 
 Under another form of contract the following rates were paid : 
 
 For all beets in good condition of eighty (80) per cent purity 
 or better, and containing fifteen (15) per cent or more sugar, 
 five dollars ($5) per ton. 
 
 For all beets in good condition of eighty (80) per cent purity, 
 containing not less than twelve (12) per cent and under fifteen 
 (15) per cent sugar, four dollars and seventy-five cents ($4.75) 
 
 per ton. 
 
 • 
 
 Under both of the above contracts the sugar company was not 
 bound to receive beets of less than 80 per cent purity or that tested 
 less than 12 per cent sugar. 
 
 In Utah and Idaho in 1913 both a sliding scale and a flat-rate con- 
 tract were in use. The provisions of the flat-rate contract were as 
 follows : 
 
 Such beets shall contain not less than 12 per cent saccharine, 
 with a purity of 80 per cent. 
 
 * »^ * 4e * « * 
 
 It shall be optional with the sugar company to accept or reject 
 any beets not delivered on or before the last day of November. 
 
 4: iF 4c 4c 4: « * 
 
 The sugar company agrees that on or about the loth day of 
 each month it will pay $4.75 per ton at factory for all beets re- 
 ceived during the preceding calendar month. 
 
 The sliding-scale contract in Utah was as follows : 
 
 < 
 
 During the month of September and up to October 20, in- 
 clusive, it will purchase at $5 per ton all beets grown upon 
 • said land that may have an average polarization of not less 
 than 15 per cent saccharine and 80 per cent purity; such beets 
 to be delivered only as ordered by the sugar company, but after 
 October 20 as rapidly as the grower may desire. 
 
 In case any part of the beets raised hereunder shall not be 
 delivered before November 1, or if the delivery of any part 
 thereof shall be stopped before that date because the polariza- 
 tion shall not equal the required standard, then the sugar com- 
 pany agrees thereafter and up to November 30 to purchase all 
 such beets not previously ordered or delivered as may polarize 
 more than 12 per cent and less than 13 per cent saccharine with 
 80 per cent purity at $4.25 per ton; and all containing 13 per 
 cent and less than 14 per cent saccharine with 80 per cent purity, 
 at $4.50 per ton; and all containing 14 per cent and less than 
 15 per cent saccharine with 80 per cent purity, at $4.75 per ton; 
 and all containing 15 per cent or more saccharine with 80 per 
 cent purity, at $5 per ton. 
 
 It shall be optional with the sugar company to accept or reject 
 any beets not delivered on or before the last day of November. 
 
 The above prices were also paid in Utah in 1914. 
 There was considerable variation in the prices paid in California. 
 Those representing the purchase of probably the greater portion of 
 
 I 
 
 r 
 
 ^1 
 
 I 
 
 
160 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 beets grown are here shown. A sliding-scale contract used in 1912, 
 1913, and 1914 by one company was as follows : 
 
 The company will weigh and pay the grower for all beets de- 
 livered and accepted, after above deduction, the following prices 
 per ton of 2,000 pounds : 
 
 Beets testing 15 per cent sugar, $5.25 per ton, with an addi- 
 tional 25 cents per ton for each 1 per cent of sugar above 15 per 
 cent. Fractions of a per cent in proportion. Beets testing under 
 15 per cent sugar down to 11 per cent sugar, $5 per ton. The 
 company reserves the right to reject beets testing under 11 per 
 cent sugar not suitable for making sugar. 
 
 The company will also pay all railroad freights on beets 
 loaded on cars, provided cars be loaded to full capacity. Demur- 
 rage charges shall be paid by the grower. 
 
 A flat-rate contract used by the same company was $5.50 per ton 
 and the company reserved the right to reject beets testing under 
 11 per cent. Another company in 1912 and 1913 paid for its beets 
 on a scale as follows : 
 
 Beets testing fifteen (15) per cent sugar, five ($5) dollars per 
 ton, with an addition of thirty (30) cents per ton for each one 
 (1) per cent of sugar above fifteen (15) per cent and a deduc- 
 tion of twenty-five (25) cents per ton for each one (1) per cent 
 below fifteen (15) per cent, down to and including eleven (11) 
 per cent; fractions in proportion. 
 
 Beets testing under eleven (11) per cent will be accepted as if 
 testing eleven (11) per cent if weighing under five (5) pounds. 
 The factory reserves the right to reject beets testing under 
 eleven (11) per cent sugar and weighing over five (5) pounds. 
 
 In 1909, 1910, 1911, and in 1914 the base price was only $4.50 for 
 beets testing 15 per cent. The contracts for these years had the 
 same reservation for beets testing under 11 per cent as that quoted 
 above. 
 
 Contracts in 1915.— In some sections the contracts offered the 
 farmers in 1915 differed considerably from those adopted in any 
 previous year. In other sections they were substantially the same. 
 
 In Montana and northern Colorado the 1915 contracts were the 
 same as those entered into in 1913 and those made effective in 1914. 
 
 Practically all the factories operating in Michigan adopted a flat 
 rate of $6 per ton in 1915. This was quite an advance over the con- 
 tract price paid in that State in 1914 and considerably higher than 
 was paid in any year prior to that time except for beets that tested 
 above 16 per cent. 
 
 In Utah and Idaho contracts in 1915 generally provided for $5 per 
 ton for beets testing 15 per cent and a deduction of 25 cents per ton 
 for each per cent of sugar less than 15. Some of these contracts, 
 however, provided that the price for all beets testing not below 12 per 
 cent should be $4.75. 
 
 SUGAR MANUFACTURERS AND BEET GROWERS. 
 
 161 
 
 ^M^ 
 
 \ 
 i* 
 
 (( 
 
 # 
 
 t 
 
 V 
 
 r 
 
 i 
 
 '4 
 
 y 
 
 V 
 
 A significant clause was found in the 1915 contracts offered by 
 the companies operating in Ohio and some companies operating in 
 California. The companies in Ohio offered a flat price of $5 per ton 
 for beets delivered at the railroad station, with the provision that if 
 the average price of beet sugar exceeded $5 per 100 pounds the grower 
 would receive as additional compensation per ton of beets the dif- 
 ference between $5 and the average price of sugar. Thus, if the 
 average price of beet sugar per 100 pounds should be $5.75, then the 
 price of beets would be $5.75. Some of the Wisconsin factories en- 
 tered into similar contracts. In California the contracts of some of 
 the factories provided for $4.50 for 15 per cent beets plus 30 cents for 
 each additional per cent, or a deduction of 25 cents for each per cent 
 below 15, and a bonus of 50 cents per ton if the average net selling 
 price of sugar exceeded 4^ cents per pound. At one of the factories 
 in Nebraska a bonus of 50 cents per ton was offered if all the growers 
 together delivered more than 135,000 tons of beets. 
 
 In general, contracts in the Lake States and in California were 
 more favorable than those adopted in any previous year. 
 
 Apparent inconsistencies in contracts. — ^An analysis of these 
 contract prices discloses points of apparent unfairness. The flat rates 
 do not take into account the sugar content above a stated minimum. 
 Thus, for example, if a contract to pay a certain price per ton for 
 beets having a sugar content of 12 per cent is a fair one, that price 
 is manifestly unfair to farmers whose beets test more than 12 per 
 cent and who are paid no more. That the flat rate contract is unfair 
 is recognized by the extent to which manufacturers have adopted a 
 sliding scale of prices graduated according to the sugar content. 
 
 The sliding scale contracts, however, are not free from incon- 
 sistencies. For example, if $4.50 is a fair price for 12 per cent beets 
 then each additional per cent of sugar should be worth at least 37^ 
 cents. And so, if 12 per cent beets are worth $5 per ton then each 
 additional per cent of sugar should be worth at least 41§ cents. No 
 manufacturer in the United States pays as high a price as this for 
 additional sugar in the beet. As a matter of fact each additional 
 per cent of sugar above 12 per cent is worth more relatively than each 
 per cent below 12. Experience shows that a greater percentage of 
 the sugar content is extracted from high-grade beets than from low- 
 grade beets. These apparent inconsistencies were pointed out to 
 an official of one of the large sugar companies, who is one of the 
 best informed men on this subject in the country. He stated that 
 the inconsistencies referred to were not merely apparent but real. 
 As a matter of fact, according to this official, $5 per ton is too high 
 a price for beets testing only 12 per cent. He stated that the ex- 
 perience of his company had been that 16 per cent beets were worth 
 
 f 
 
 I 
 
 A' 
 
162 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 upon an average about $5.75 per ton, or 36 cents for each per cent 
 of sugar. The reason stated for the relatively high price for low- 
 grade beets is that the farmers insist upon a guaranty of a fairly 
 high minimum price. In other words, the farmers in some com- 
 munities will not grow beets at all unless they can have a guaranty 
 of at least $5 per ton. When the minimum price is too high, the 
 manufacturer protects himself by adopting a lower price for the 
 additional sugar. 
 
 If it is assumed, as stated by the authority above referred to, that 
 in beets testing 16 per cent, each per cent of sugar is worth about 
 36 cents, then in actual practice the apparent inconsistencies in the 
 contracts are partially overcome. The factories operating in Colo- 
 rado have paid during the 5 years ending with the compaign of 1914 
 almost exactly 36 cents for each per cent of sugar in the beets as 
 they enter the factory. The percentage of sugar in the beets when 
 introduced into the factory is somewhat lower than the percentage 
 shown when they are tested at the receiving stations. The average 
 sugar content of the beets entering the factories in the State of 
 Colorado for 5 years was a little less than 15^ per cent and the aver- 
 age price paid the farmer for this sugar was almost exactly 36 cents 
 for each per cent of sugar shown in the factory test. In Montana • 
 the discrepancy was greater, the price paid for 17 per cent beets 
 being about 34 cents for each per Cent of sugar. In Utah and Idaho 
 the price was considerably lower, being only about 30 cents for each 
 per cent of sugar. In California the average was about the same ' 
 as in Utah and Idaho. In the Lake States the average price was 
 higher. There it was approximately 40 cents for each per cent of 
 sugar. 
 
 Beside the inconsistencies in the contracts themselves there is a 
 striking contrast between the contracts in various beet -growing 
 sections. Thus, the Michigan manufacturer will pay $4.50 for 12 
 per cent beets, whereas most of the manufacturers in Colorado will 
 pay $5 for beets of the same sugar content. In Utah some of the 
 contracts allow only $5 flat for 15 per cent beets. In other words, 
 they allow 33^ cents for each per cent of sugar in 15 per cent beets, 
 but if the beets should test 18 per cent they will still take them at 
 $5 per ton. The payment of a different price in different sections 
 may be justified by distance from consuming markets or possibly for 
 some other reason, but there is no apparent justification for different 
 prices in the same community by the same company. 
 
 From the standpoint of those who insist upon encouraging the 
 extension of the industry in new and untried localities some of the in- 
 equalities just pointed out may be justified. It is certainly true that 
 capital can not be expected to venture into beet-sugar manufacturing 
 unless there is an assurance of a supply of beets. It is probably 
 
 /► " 
 
 i 
 
 ;> 
 
 I/- 
 
 
 \i 
 
 
 r 
 
 SUGAR MANUFACTURERS AND BEET GROWERS. 
 
 163 
 
 true that farmers would not agree to grow beets unless they were 
 guaranteed a remunerative price for their product, even though 
 the quality might not warrant it. Under such circumstances differ- 
 ences in price not justified by the quality of beets may be necessary to 
 promote the industry in new fields, but their continuation after the 
 quality of the beets has been improved from experience in growing 
 them can not be justified. The maintenance of such a system results 
 in the farmer who grows low-gi-ade beets being paid more than they 
 are worth, while the grower of high-grade beets is paid less. 
 
 Section 3. The test of a fair price for beets. 
 
 The beet grower often complains that he does not receive a fair 
 price for his beets. The sugar manufacturer replies that the farmer 
 makes as much or more money on his beets as he does on any 
 other crop. This is probably, in the main, true. The farmer re- 
 joins with the assertion that the manufacturer makes large profits 
 extracting sugar from beets and that he can afford to pay more 
 for them than he does pay. This also is sometimes true. It is 
 thus seen that the manufacturer applies one test as to the fairness 
 of the price and the beet grower applies another. The contention of 
 the grower that the large profits of the manufacturer would often 
 enable him to pay a higher price than he does pay implies the idea 
 of cooperation. If the profits of a manufacturer are a fair cri- 
 terion for the establishment of the price of beets, then the grower 
 should be willing always to accept a price low enough to enable 
 the manufacturer to realize a profit. In other words, on this basis 
 of establishing the price of beets, when the sugar business is 
 prosperous the beet grower would receive a high price, and when 
 it is not prosperous he would receive a low price. If this system of 
 determining prices had been employed in the past the farmers sup- 
 plying a number of factories would have received a very much 
 lower price for beets than they have received. On the other hand, 
 the farmers in the vicinity of other factories would have received 
 a very much higher price. Some factories have never made much 
 money and have often lost large sums. If the farmers had shared 
 these losses, the results of their beet-growing operations would have 
 l)een disastrous. 
 
 With a fixed price for beets the intelligent, industrious farmer is 
 generally assured a fair return for his efforts. As soon as he har- 
 vests his beets he knows precisely what he has made. This ad- 
 vantage of certainty is unquestionably worth considering. If the 
 price of beets depended absolutely upon the vicissitudes of the sugar 
 market it is doubtful whether any considerable number of farmers 
 would be willing to engage in this branch of agriculture. Upon 
 the whole, therefore, it would seem that the principle involved in 
 
 J L ■ -Jl 
 
164 THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 the present system of determining prices of beets is the more ad- 
 vantageous to the beet grower. This system, however, might be 
 more equitable by basing the fixed price more nearly upon the sugar 
 content and purity of beets. The sugar manufacturer knows the 
 relative value of beets of different tests, and he should be willing 
 to pay a price that will place all farmers upon an equal basis. It 
 is manifestly inequitable to fix a flat price for beets based upon a 
 range of sugar content embracing as much as 2 or 3 per cent. If 
 the farmer who grows 12 per cent beets is entitled to a given amount, 
 say $4.50 per ton, then beets testing 13, 14, or 15 per cent are worth 
 proportionally more and should be paid for on that basis. On the 
 other hand, if the base price is fixed on a sugar content of, say, 15 
 per cent, then the farmer's beets which test below this are not worth 
 as much as the basis price and he should not expect to receive that 
 price for them. 
 
 The reasonableness of basing the price of beets upon the price 
 OF SUGAR.— As already pointed out, the terms of some beet contracts 
 made in 1915 provided for a minimum price for beets and an addi- 
 tion to that price in case the price of sugar should be above a cer- 
 tam figure. Such a basis for determining the price of beets deserves 
 careful consideration. The fixing of the price of a raw material a 
 year in advance of the time when the value of the manufactured 
 product can be determined involves considerable speculative risk. 
 
 If it is practicable to base the price of beets upon the price of 
 
 sugar, such a system would appear to be entirely reasonable and fair. 
 
 Under such circumstances the beet grower would be assured of all his 
 
 beets are worth, and the manufacturer would in no case be compelled 
 
 to pay more than the price of sugar would warrant. It would seem 
 
 much more reasonable to determine the price of beets upon this basis 
 
 than upon the basis of the profits of the manufacturer. It is realized 
 
 that there would be some difficulty in determining the proper relation 
 
 between the price of sugar in the beet and the manufactured product. 
 
 If the price of beets could be determined upon some such basi?, it 
 
 would at least tend to eliminate the controversies that are nov/ so 
 
 frequent between the beet growers and beet sugar manufacturers 
 
 with respect to the price of beets. Whether determining price^^ for 
 
 beets on such a basis would discourage their cultivation is a question 
 
 which only experience could answer. 
 
 O 
 
 j»n 
 
 i 
 
 A 
 
 ^ 
 
 y 
 
 J 
 
n 
 
 .-ii 
 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 
 This book is due on the date indicated below, or at the 
 expiration of a definite period after the date of borrowing, as 
 provided by the library rules or by special arrangement with 
 the Librarian in charge. 
 
 ) 
 
 DATE BORROWED 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 DATE BORROWED 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 '*> ] . '_' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C20(114»)1OOM 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■ 
 
 ftiM 
 
 ^M 
 
 ■r '■1 
 
 ^^H 
 
 
 [ 'M 
 
 ^H 
 
 
 tU 
 
 ^^1 
 
 
 V 
 
 PVHH 
 
 
 H 
 
 TTTT- . 
 
 
 ■: 
 
 
 
 B v:l 
 
 \ 
 
 ^Hu' ''' I^M 
 
 1 
 
 ^^HT .^H 
 
 i, 
 
 ^^Hi ^HJ 
 
 »' 
 
 v -1 
 
 i 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 »>', 
 
 ■■■f..-A 
 
 QAyLAMOUNT 
 
 PAMPHLET MHOU 
 
 Mamm/aetuMi ly 
 6AYLORDBROS.IIICI 
 SyracoM, M. V. 
 StoekteM, CmHS. 
 
 ^^^9^ 
 
 f^l 4 
 
 m 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 
 0041402812 
 
 D510 
 
 Dn25 
 
 D510 
 
 \3n35 
 
 U.S. Federal trade conunission. 
 
 Report on*e beet sugar industry 
 ^S ihe united States. 
 
 MR9- 
 
 / 
 
 / » 
 
 ,.- fc--<f 
 
 / 
 
 'M^ 
 
"'^ 
 
 •>■ ' ~^ >* 
 
 ^' 
 
 ■ W'' 
 
 ■ -i] 
 
END OF 
 TITLE