8 BULLETIN 963, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
Lehi district. A fairly large percentage of the crop acreage at Lehi 
and in the Garland section was under fallow. There was some fallow 
land on the irrigated farms. This was due to previous crop failure 
or to weed eradication. It may be assumed that the remainder 
of the crops grown on the fallow land were produced under dry 
farming conditions. 
TaBLe II1.—Dvistribution of farm and crop area. 
Utah. Idaho. 
Items of comparison. Tdaho 
: Fallsand| Twin 
Lehi. | Garland. Black Falls. 
foot. 
Nm ber OL FECORES es See 2 eos ie Medes cites die teary Ie see = sae 44 58 74 44 
AROCALAGCTES OCR ATMs woe cere are Mt oe eel ae ege gp a tag 59. 33 92. 98 79. 29 75. 33 
IBercenizonianm ain Gulab eaneass saps seem eee Gaao 70. 3 84.0 92. 3 
IPCrce nO fa EMV CrOPS a2 ss ee erent Se hehe eee ert eae 69. 9 69. 2 78. 0 84. 6 
IN CREST CT OP Sie Se eee tee ia et SRR rica ee cae 41. 49 64. 31 61. 84 63. 74 
Percentage of crop acreage in— 
IAT falliasey e eed iets. Ake ence. ¢ HOSTAL Tale RR oe Be ae peen a Uae ACN a PAST Pei 33.9 21.9 
(Oro) oe a ae Sr Uae De eee aa ea en UNMET lea IPE OR 8 tie eee) 9 5 6 1.0 
SUPaAT WECES SAS se reas Pepe See ee ER Ee Rue eerie erga isi 20.7 21.2 24.5 
IOQEATCOCS Se i pe ee ee iy «eel Ch ly eran aise 2.8" .9 8.4 4.4 
1g ye eg Ol pn, TE Re a cS a ree 6.9 = oat 1.6 
AS YET ree Mes OR eects ere nnIURe f gh unl Clee We SEO es oe nen eR Pa ce 30. 9 295875 26. 8 27.0 
OBS eee OE RUSS 2 ie eats aioe Deapes c Serreen gee, See Re NERS Usk! 3.9 | 4.6 2.0 
IB ATIC Y Presi emer eye a aed te) Sela aes ee pee nee aa oe eee 2.6 UG} .4 ie 7/ 
Priult ANG oar Gene ete nee ee eae eet eee ee ilepl 21 2.4 6.9 
ADEM) igi a Y0 Ieee ee Ree eee el emo UR Re ea ence 9.2 18.3 a) elt 
CANSE Seiocecis Soe ese ee es ORR LBA S Tee eRe «Maen Ree es Seo SMILES AR Neral hee ee ae 5. 9 
Hay and altalta Seeds ye San ea ee ree ARO UE eR Te eee |e ego gee ee 2.8 
Mascelan cous: ict wan se cee ee ee ee ee cas all =F | 1.4 | 2 
COMPARISON OF FARM ESTIMATES WITH FACTORY RECORDS. 
Each sugar factory keeps a record of the acres planted to sugar 
beets and the tonnage harvested on each farm. These figures give 
not only the yield per acre for each farm, but also the average yield 
for the total acreage harvested. It is therefore possible to check a 
majority of the growers’ estimates on acreage, yield, and receipts 
for this crop with the actual acreage, yield, and receipts as shown 
by the factory books. It has been the practice to discard estimates 
which obviously contained grave mistakes. In this way reliable 
figures are made available for comparison.' 
In the former study it was shown that the average estimated 
acreage per farm in the Garland district was 1.06 greater than the 
factory record. There was not much difference in the average yield 
as shown by the two methods in this district, and the cash returns 
were not far apart. The Utah county area indicated a very striking 
correspondence in the acreage and cash returns by the two methods, 
and the difference in yield per acre was insignificant. The Idaho 
Falls records included considerable variation in the yield per acre, 
and this was reflected in the income as reported for this crop. 
1 See Department Bulletin 529, ‘‘The Validity of the Survey Method of Research.” 
