COST OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS IN UTAH AND IDAHO. 

 Table XIV. — Variation in cost per ton — Lehi, Utah (1918). 



19 



Cost per 

 ton. 



Num- 

 ber 

 of rec- 

 ords. 



Cumu- 

 lative 



percent, 

 age of 



records. 



Acres. 



Cumu- 

 lative 

 percent- 

 age of 

 har- 

 vested 

 area. 



Produc- 

 tion. 



Cumulative 

 production. 



Cumu- 

 lative 

 percent- 

 age of 

 produc- 

 tion. 



Seeded. 



Har- 

 vested. 















Tons. 



Tons. 





$5.00 



1 



2.3 











1.6 



1.35 



135 



2.8 



6.00 



1 



4.6 



6 



6 



3.6 



130 



265 



5. 5 



7.00 



4 



13.7 



29 



29 



13.2 



615 



880 



18.0 



8.00 



7 



29.6 



48.5 



48.5 



29.1 



942.1 



1,822.1 



37.4 



9.00 



7 



45.5 



51.5 



51.5 



46.1 



902 



2,724.1 



.55.8 



10.00 



9 



65.9 



81 



77 



71.6 



1,051 



3,775.1 



77.4 



11.00 



6 



79.5 



28 



28 



80.9 



432 



4,207.1 



86.1 



12.00 



4 



88.6 



30 



30 



90.7 



364 



4,571.1 



93.5 



13.00 



1 



90.9 



4 



4 



92.0 



60 



4,631.1 



94.7 



14.00 



1 



93.2 



9 



9 



95.0 



117 



4,748.1 



97.1 



15.00 



2 



97.7 



12.5 



11.. 5 



98.7 



108.5 



4,856.6 



99.3 



16.00 

 17.00 

 18.00 

 19.00 

 20.00 



""i" 



97.7 

 97.7 

 97.7 

 97.7 

 100.0 







98.7 

 98.7 

 98.7 

 98.7 

 100.0 







99.3 

 99.3 

 99.3 

 99.3 

 100.0 



























8 



4 



32 



4,888.6 



Average cost per ton, S9.41. 



Average jield per acre, 16.1 tons. 



Note. — Approximately 80 per cent of the operators in this district produced sugar beets at a cost of $11 

 per ton or less. The imit costs for the groups, S5 to Sll, inclusive, embraced 81 per cent of the harvested 

 acreage and S6 per cent of the total production. Tlie farm having the lowest unit cost in tliis district se- 

 cured" a yield of 27 tons jier acre, whereas the farm reporting the highest unit cost at a yield of s tons per 

 acre. It should also be noted that in the latter case only 50 per cent of the seeded acreage was harvested. 



Table XV. — Variation in cost per ton — Garland, Utah {1918). 



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 



1 



7 



9 

 18 

 10 



4 



7 



...... 



...... 



1.7 

 13.8 

 29.4 

 60.4 

 77.6 

 84.5 

 96.6 

 96.6 

 96.6 

 98.3 

 98.3 

 98.3 

 100.0 



10 



49.5 

 109 

 303 

 159 

 37 



88.5 



10 



49. .5 

 109 

 299 

 150 



37 



86.5 



1.3 

 7.8 

 22.0 

 60.9 

 81.7 

 86.6 

 97.9 

 97.9 

 97.9 

 99.1 

 99.1 

 99.1 

 100.0 



Tons. 



230 

 1,031.7 

 1,915.5 

 4,866.5 

 2,309.5 



598 

 1,070 



Tom. 

 230 

 1,261.7 

 3,177.2 

 8,043.7 

 10,353.2 

 10,951.2 

 12,021.2 



1.9 

 10.4 

 26.2 

 66. 4 

 85. 4 

 90.3 

 99.1 

 99.1 

 99.1 

 99.6 

 99.6 

 99.6 

 100.0 











9 



9 



64 



12, 085. 2 











7 



7 



49 



12,134.2 



Average cost per ton, $8.29. 



Average yield per acre, 15.8 tons. 



Note. — The lowest unit cost in this area was ?5 ]ier t on, and the operator who obtained tliis result had a 

 yield of 23 tons uer acre. The highest unit cost was $17 per ton on a farm having a yield of 7 tons jieracre. 

 The groups in this district which had costs ranging from S5 to $9 per ton included approximately 78 per 

 cent of the operators, 82 per cent of the harvested acreage, and 85 per cent of the total production. 



The lowest cost per acre was S75.48 and the liighest was S253.66. 

 The hirgest single group, having Si farms, reported acre costs of from 

 S125 to SloO, while the second largest group, with 70 farms, had acre 

 costs of from SlOO to $125. These two groups taken together con- 

 stitute approximately 69 per cent of the total number of farms visited, 



