18 BULLETIN 963, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
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 lmiting 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. 
TasLeE XIII.— Variation in cost per ton—summary, Utah and Idaho sugar beet districts, 
1918 and 1919 (220 records). 
| Acres. Cumu- 
A Cumu- lative Gem 
Num-| jative ercent- cave 
Cost per; ber ercent- pe f Produc- | Cumulative | percent- 
ton. |ofrec-|P ooo tion. production. | age of 
ords.| 28¢0f | . Har- bar produc- 
‘| records. | Seeded. | ~tq. | vested on 
acreage. qi 
Tons. Tons. 
$5. 00 2 O89 se ls 15 0.6 365 365 1.0 
6. 09 15 Ue | wiles} 171.3 “1 3, 328. 5 3,6938550 } > 1082 
7.00 23 18:1 1) 291.5 287.5 17.9 4,790. 78 8, 484. 28 23. 4 
8. 00 37 34.9 | 486.5 478.5 36. 0 7,831.3 16,315. 58 45.0 
9. 00 37 51.7 | 536 536 56. 2 7,861.8 24,177.38 66. 7 
10. 00 23 62.1 | 290.75 275. 25 66. 6 3, 619.3 27, 796. 68 76.7 
11. 00 23 72.6 | 253 247 75.9 3, 026 30, 822. 68 85. 1 
12. 00 15 79.4 | 134.2 134. 2 81.0 1,410.9 32, 233. 58 89. 0 
13. 00 8 83.0 | 85.33 79. 33 84. 0 746.7 32, 980. 28 91.1 
14. 00 8 86.6 | 69 69 86. 6 592. 2 33, 572. 48 92.7 
15. 00 7 ee btes ff ee 58. 5 88. 8 488.3 34, 069. 78 94. 1 
16. 00 4 91.6 38. 25 39. 25 90. 1 293 34, 353. 78 94,9 
17. 00 6 94,3 91 63.5 92.5 566. 75 34, 920. 53 96. 5 
18. 00 i 94.8 5 5 92.7 71.75 34, 992. 28 96. 7 
19. 00 2 95. 7 52.75 52. 75 94.7 300. 7 35, 292. 98 97.5 
20. 00 2 96. 6 17 13 95. 2 77 35, 369. 98 97.7 
21. 00 1 97.1 85 85 98. 4 595 35, 964. 98 99.3 
77778 10 aed (eens (eS eee Wes ra er oe 8 fe te SY al ls See sal clas GkuSoorenslNS aacees - 
3% (0, 0 i eee beeen (eee eee Pen ee ae olen Sian ee cae acoSaad dts da sen Secouibodace SSS 
24. 00 2 98. 0 13.75 13.75 98. 9 78 36, 042. 98 99.5 
25100) Ns we Sha Set ee Seale oe a Soe S| ee eh see |S Sane cere Ree e seers | eter eatenees 
26100 ohioccses| Sisees sda SeS cet AS ae a a S| a re sare | teen ee eerste lorem eae 
27. 00 1 98.5 15 15 99.5 67.5 36, 110. 48 99.7 
28:00: Beek S23 Ge8 SS ol eae oe ao ee |B ee ee | Serene eee Se ee oe eee rere 
78) OU tel (SS a Vc ll [eee Ngee ee Sic) Pec eRR aan locacuR ees Sec itaonecsee 
30. 00 1 99. 0 5 5 99.7 30 36, 140. 48 99.8 
21 0 0 a as | Pe (eee a Pee eae ie eo Soe aasoaomecnc| ce doades ac 
yA (ae eee) ence me) MO Ne ee hel (Pee eeg See ie SSSA daemon docs |adeonnucstdedioaces sos: 
BS 0, i Pees Rk ie ieee Aol |e ee ella RCS a ee otecr sede ce Gascecbe 
34. 00 1 99.5 20 5 | 99.9 35 36, 175. 48 $9. 9 
35. 00 1 100. 0 4 + | 100.0 12 36, 187. 48 100. 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. 
