.18 



BULLETIN 963, U. S. DEPARTMEISJ-T OF AGEICULTUEE. 



IMPORTANCE OF YIELD. 



On practically every farm there are opportunities to place the field 

 work upon a more efficient basis. Every operator is willing to 

 concede that some slight change in present methods would un- 

 doubtedly be a step in the direction of greater crop yields. It has 

 been pointed out that the sugar beet is not always grown in the 

 regular cropping system. Continuous culture may therefore be 

 preventing the grower from getting maximum results. In other 

 cases a lack of fertility may be the limiting factor, although in all 

 four districts nearly every grower gave considerable attention to the 

 application of farm manure. Inadequate preparation of soil or 

 careless seeding may give a poor stand, which makes a good yield 

 impossible, or the blocking and thinning may be done in such a way 

 as to interfere seriously with the stand. These are factors which 

 should be kept in mind throughout the season, and if weak places 

 are found in the present methods of operation and management they 

 should be corrected as far as possible. 



Table XIII. — Variation in cost per ton — summary, Utah and Idaho sugar beet districts, 



1918 and 1919 (220 records). 



Cost per 

 ton. 



Num- 

 ber 

 of rec- 

 ords . 



Cumu- 

 lative 



percent- 

 age of 



records. 



Acres. 



Cumu- 

 lative 



Produc- 

 tion. 



Cumulative 

 production. 



Cumu- 

 lative 



percent- 

 age of 



produc- 

 tion. 



Seeded. 



Har- 

 vested. 



percent- 

 age of 

 har- 

 vested 



acreage. 



$5.00 

 6.00 

 7.00 

 8.00 

 9.00 

 10.00 

 11.00 

 12.00 

 13.00 

 14.00 

 15.00 

 16.00 

 17.00 

 18.00 

 19.00 

 20.00 

 21.00 

 22.00 

 23.00 

 24.00 

 25.00 

 26.00 

 27.00 

 28.00 

 29.00 

 30.00 

 31.00 

 32.00 

 33.00 

 34.00 

 35.00 



2 



15 



23 



37 



37 



23 



23 



15 



8 



8 



7 



4 



6 



1 



2 



2 



1 



0.9 

 7.7 

 18.1 

 34.9 

 51.7 

 62.1 

 72.6 

 79.4 

 83.0 

 86.6 

 89.8 

 91.6 

 94.3 

 94.8 

 95.7 

 96.6 

 97.1 



15 



171.3 

 291.5 

 486.5 

 536 



290. 75 

 253 

 134.2 



85. 33 



69 



59.5 



38.25 



91 

 5 



52.75 



17 



85 



15 



171.3 

 287.5 

 478.5 

 536 



275, 25 

 247 

 134.2 



79.33 



69 



58.5 



35.25 



63.5 

 5 



52.75 



13 



85 



0.6 



7.1 

 17.9 

 36.0 

 56.2 

 66.6 

 75.9 

 81.0 

 84.0 

 86.6 

 88.8 • 

 90.1 

 92.5 

 92.7 

 94.7 

 95.2 

 98.4 



Tom. 



365 

 3, .328. 5 

 4,790.78 

 7,831.3 

 7,861.8 

 3,619.3 

 3,026 

 1,410.9 



746.7 



592.2 



488.3 



293 



566. 75 

 71.75 



300.7 

 77 



595 



Tom. 

 365 

 3, 693. 50 

 8, 484. 28 

 16,31.5.58 

 24, 177. 38 

 27,796.68 

 30,822.68 

 32,233.58 

 32,980.28 

 33, 572. 48 

 34,060.78 

 34,353.78 

 34,920.53 

 34,992.28 

 35,292.98 

 35,369.98 

 35,964.98 



1.0 

 10.2 

 23.4 

 45.0 

 66.7 

 76.7 

 85.1 

 89.0 

 91.1 

 92.7 

 94.1 

 94.9 

 96.5 

 96.7 

 97.5 

 97.7 

 99.3 



















2 



98.0 



13.75 



13.75 



98.9 



78 



36,042.98 



99.5 



















1 



98.5 



15 



15 



99.5 



67.5 



36, 110. 48 



99.7 



















1 



99.0 



5 



5 



99.7 



30 



36, 140. 48 



99.8 



































1 

 1 



99.5 

 100.0 



20 



4 



5 



4 



99.9 

 100.0 



35 



12 



36, 175. 48 

 36, 187. 48 



99.9 

 100.0 



Average cost per ton, $9.49. Average yield per acre, 13.7 tons. 



RANGE IN ACRE COSTS. 



The accompanying range tables are devoted exclusively to varia- 

 tions in unit cost per ton. It is of interest also to compare the indi- 

 viduals which are included in this study from the standpoint of acre 

 costs. These figures are given in Table XVIII. 



