THE ZNFLUENCE OF NEW SUGAR

3521* PRODUCTEON METHODS ON

TIME AND COST REQUIREMENTS
m Mitzi-2:61AM, 1946

Thesis for the Degree 05 M. S.
MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE
CLARENCE EDMUND EOENSGE

1947‘

maslé

0"

 

Thisistocertiigthatthe

thesis entitled

"The Influence of New Sugar Beet Production Methods
on Time and Cost Requirements in Michigan, 19146."

presented by
Clarence E. Johnson
has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for
l. S. degree in Farm Management

gm. 4.4,?

Major professor

Date May 28219117 ,

 

 

 

< m D 2. 92.23.:
no 3 3 a. an an 2 on an 3 a: 2” an

e z n z 2:
mamaa mammamamaamm mamamaeomammam
_ a:uuauuaeamenu-aaaaonraaomnmomamaceaanuaaaaaamwaaaaaaa
--.3.~.~h--FpphsfifihfispfihhfifiFhphfi--h-h-hh--~h
awm«aameowmummoumooaouuaouuumuamaumammumuuuuammmmuammm
gunmanmamawmmmmmmmmmmrmmmnnmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmfimm
q¢w¢evvvve~eweevvvqueewweee.w¢ev¢evee¢~.<v.cv¢eoree¢v
mmaan"maymmmmmnnmnmmrnmnnnmnnnnnnnnnmwnnnmnnnnnnmmnnrn
«NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN----~N~N------fi--~
_________________.—__—______________——_*____r____—____

3:: 2: fl :2 2 :2a:53312232333338an :3822393233333..an3:".3 332::

a:ace:aaaaaaaaaeeaaeeuaaaaueaaaaeaaaecaaaaaearraroeaaa

I—

At
‘IP
to
{*4
~‘.
1.”:
I
.
-
L...
Lu

 

 

THE INTEUENCE OF NEW'SUGAR BERT PRODUCTIGI'METHODS

on TIME AND COST REQUIREMENTS IN MICHIGAN, 191:6

3:

CLARENCE EDMUND JOHNSON
_ .

A.THESIS

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTEB.OF SCIENCE

Department of Farm Management

June 19H?

”H E519

 

VITA

Clarence Edmund Johnson

PERSONAL
Age: 29 years A Religion: Protestant

Birthplace: Polk County, WisConsin Height: 5 ft. 8 in.

Nationaltiy: American *‘ weight: '155
Marital status: married Health: excellent
EDUCATION

North.Rranch High School. North Branch, Minnesota: graduated 1936.
College of Agriculture, University of Minnesota: Bachelor of Science
Major: Animal Husbandry. '

AFFILIATION
FarmHouse fraternity.

PRACTICAL TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE
Reared on'a general livestock farm in Chisago County, Minnesota.
Three years with the United States Marine Corps Reserve; twenty-two
months in the Pacific Theater of Operations as a troop officer with
the Fourth Marine Division. Rank: Iiret Lieutenant.

One year at Michigan State College on a graduate fellowship from
Beet Sugar DeveloPment Foundation, Fort Collins. Colorado.

189101

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author is indebted to the Beet Sugar Development Foundation
of Fort Collins, Colorado, for granting the funds which made this study
possible.

The author is also indebted to Dr. K. T. wright, Professor E. R.
Hill and to other members of the Farm Management Department of Michigan
State College for assistance in the conduct of this study and in giving
advice and counsel in the preparation of this manuscript.

Acknowledgement is given to Mr. P. A. Reeve and to Mr. A..A. Schupp
of the Farmers and.Manufacturers Beet Sugar Association of Saginaw, Michigan,
and to field.managers of local beet sugar companies for advice and informap
tion used.in this study.

Appreciation iszalso expressed to farmers who c00perated in supply-

ing the basic information for this study.

INTRODUCTION

CONTENTS

Statement of problem . . . . . . . .
Need for the study . . . . .
Purpose of the study . . . . . . . .

TRENDS IN SUGAR.BEET PRODUCTION IN MICHIGAN

SUMMARY OF RECENT TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS

METHODS USED IN COLLECTING DATA . .

EXPLANATION OF ITEMS.
TOTAL BEET COSTS AND RETURNS.

EFFECT OF PRODUCTION PRACTICES ON COSTS
Plowing and "fitting" - time of Operation and.power used

Fertilizer and.manure - amounts used . . . . . . . . .
Blocking and thinning — contract versus farm labor . . .
Seed and.planting - segmented.versus whole seed. .

Cultivating - number of times. . . . . . . . . .

EFFECT

OF HARVESTING PRACTICES ON COSTS
Lifting - tractor versus horse work .
Pulling and tapping - contract versus farm labor. .

Mechanical harvesting. . . . . . . .

EFFECTS OF MARKETING-PRACTICES ON COSTS

Loading - hand. handpmechanical and mechanical .
Trucking — farm labor versus trucking hired. .

Freight — railroad .

APPENDIX

BIBLIOGRAPHY

P'P‘P'

11
15
17
22

ta
ta
1+2

50
51
53

55

10

m manner or as won me PRODUCTION mesons
1 1L6

 

01mm. 3‘" :

  

. " “LOW

     

Clarence ldmund Johnson

IITROIIICTI ON

The Problem: During years when the cost of labor has been high
and when the supply of hand labor has been inadequate. some farmers have
reduced their sugar beet acreage. This has stimulated the development of
new labor saving methods in sugar beet production. particularly in the use
of segmented seed and mechanical harvesters. Sugar beet growers are con-
cerned (l) with the effect of these new developments on the costs and
returns'of sugar beet production. and (2) to what extent such developments
may reduce or entirely replace contract labor operations.

The leed for the 8393;: Unless farmers are able to reduce the
hand labor requirements and increase the efficiency of sugar beet production.
the crop may not be able to cayete successfully with other crops for the
good land on Niobium farms. Thus this study is needed to discover the
effect of the new developments in the sugar beet industry on the following:

(1) Production costs and returns.

(2) Replacement of contract labor.

(3) Timing of blocking and thinning and of harvesting.

(ll) Other production techniques.

Jig-p ose and Objectives of the Study: This study was made for the
purpose of helping Michigan farmers produce sugar beets more efficiently

by determining the effect of new production developments on costs in sugar

beet production. Specific objectives were as follows:

(1) To compare the differences in time and costs in blocking and
thinning sugar beets when regular and segmented seed are used,

(2) To compare the differences in time and costs in hand harvesting
and mechanical harvesting.

(3) To determine the most advantageous time to perform each opera-
tion. I

(it) To compare the difference in costs of marketing following
different methods of harvesting.

(5) To evaluate non-cost advantages of improved methods of

production.

Imus IN SUGAR DIET PRODUCTION IN MICHIGAN

During the last thirty years the acreage of sugar beets produced
in Michigan has ranged between 56.000 and 160.000 acres (Table 1). Three
times during this period the acreage has reached approximately 150.000
acres. and twice it has declined almost to 50,000 acres. The periods of
extreme reduction in acreage have been a serious threat to the survival
of the industry. During these periods several factories were forced to
close and have had their beets processed at other factories. Even with
109 .900 acres of beets produced in 19%. four of the 11+ sugar beet
factories in Michigan had their beets processed elsewhere. Millions of
dollars are invested in these idle factories and the companies cannot
withstand many successive years of low production.

In addition to affecting the Operation of the factories. the wide
variations in the acreage of sugar beets have also affected incomes of
farmers from this source. Cash receipts from the beets in Michigan have
varied from 2.5 million dollars to 15 million dollars during this period.
(Appendix. table 1).

Several factors have brought about the fluctuations in the sugar

beet acreage. Among the most important are (a) the price of beets in

relation to beans. (b) the price of beets in'relation to all farm products.
‘ (c) lield of beets per acre. ((1) farm Legs rates. (e) gailable labor
m. and (f) weather conditions durigg planting-gene). harvesting seasons.

The crop that competes with beets to the greatest extent in the

 

 

Saginaw valley is beans. More favorable prices for beans have usually been
reflected in lower beet acreages during the following year. Similarly.

the prices of other craps and livestock have influenced faners in making

adJustments in their farm enterprises causing them to place greater
emphasis on crops and livestock that appear to be the most profitable.

Average beet yields have fluctuated from 5 to ll tons per acre
during the past 30 years. leather conditions are largely responsible
for these differences. ' 'hen yields of beets have been high. acreage of
beats the following year usually has been increased.

Since hand labor has been one of the major items of expense in
raising beets. the level of wage rates in relation to prospective prices
for beets has had an influence on the acreage planted. When farmers have
had difficulty with inefficient or inadequate labor. the tendency has been
to plant other craps the next year in preference to beets.

Unfavorable weather conditions during the spring in some years has
made it impossible to plant the entire acreage of beets contracted and
early frosts or heavy fall rains have even made it impossible to harvest
all of the beets. Past experience has also shown that severe fall weather
encourages migratory laborers to leave early. often before harvesting is
completed. All of these factors have their influence not only on the
individual farmer but on the prosperity of the entire sugar beet industry.

Indexes of some of the more important factors show how the acreage
of sugar beets was affected during the period from 1915 to 19% (Table l
and figure 1). l'he acreage of sugar beets produced in a given year was
affected by conditions that existed the previous year as well as by the
outlook. Iherefore. there is a lag of one year in acreage in relation to
other factors as plotted on the graph. The graph shows the effects of
the yield per acre. and the effects of the ratio of sugar beet prices to

bean prices and to the average prices of farm products on sugar beet acreage

the following year.

In 1917 the acreage of beets harvested was at a low point" of 82.000
acres. There was a reduction of 18.000 acres from the previous year and a
reduction of 1l-0.000 acres fron 1915. This was caused partly by the low
average yield of 5.1 tons in 1916 and an unfavorable relationship between
beet prices and other farm products and between beats and wages. Although
prices for farm crops rose rapidly during 1915. 1916. and 1917. the index
of the price of beans rose to more than twice that of beets.

In 1920 and 1921 sugar beet production rose to about 150.000 acres.
a steady increase since'19l7. Part of this increase in acreage was due to
the patriotic efforts of farmers to increase sugar supplies badly needed
during and following the first World War. In addition. the price of beets
reached a peak of $12.52 per tonin 1919. The index of best prices was
about on par with other crops in 1919 and sonewhat above the index of
wages. The average yield of beets had been increasing since 1917 and
reached a high point of 8.8 tons per acre in 1920. All of these conditions
stimulated hid: production of beets during the few years following world
War I.

Beet acreage again drapped to su.ooo acres in 1922 during the
post-war slump in farm prices and at a tine when yields had begun to
decline. The ratio between the index of best prices and the index of
prices of all farm products had dropped from 101: in 1919 to 79 in 1921
which was partly responsible for the low acreage of beets in 1922. More
favorable prices in 1923 again brought beet production up to 150.000 acres
in 1929. From 1925 beet acreage declined steadily to 58.000 acres in 1929.

This period was typified by relatively unfavorable prices of beets conpared

6

to other craps. high wages. and also by steadily declining average yields.
Although beet prices were generally about 25 percent above the 1910-11}
base period. other farm products were 50 to 60 percent and wages were

70 to 80 percent above the base period. Average yields had declined

to 5.8 tons per acre in 1929.

During the depression period. sugar beet acreage again began to
rise until it reached an all-time high of 160.000 acres in 1933. Yields
also had'been at a high level of 10 tons per acre during 1931 and 1932.
Prices of all farm products and labor rates had declined steadily after
the break in 1929. however. the price of beets was still near the 1910-1h
level and in a very favorable position in relation to other craps. One
reason that sugar beet prices did not drOp as far as did other farm
products is that the protective tariff curtailed imports of foreign sugar.

From the record acreage of 1933. sugar beet acreage was reduced
steadily to 81.000 acres in 1937. a decrease of about 50 percent in four
years. During this period average yields fluctuated considerably. and.
except for the reduced yield in 1933 and 1935. eeened to have little
influence on acreage. Severe drouth was partly responsible for decreased
yields in 1935. Although prices in general began to rise. the relationship
of the price of beets to other crops became less favorable.

Another year of high production was 1939 when 137.000 acres were
harvested. an increase of 56.000 acres from 1937. Prices for all farm
. products had declined to an index of 97 and beans had declined to 87 while
the price of lager beets was at an index of 128. Iron 1939 there was a
downward trend to 56.000 acres in 19”} which was the lowest acreage

harvested since the beginning of the century. Although the average yield

7
of boats increased to a.high.point of 11.1 tons per acre in l9hl and.the
price of beets remained.high compared to other farm.prices. the high wages
and.the difficulty in obtaining an adequate supply of hand labor encouraged
farmers to produce other crops requiring less labor. The high yield of
11.1 tons per acre in l9hl. however. was partly responsible for the increase
in acreage from 108,000 acres in l9hl to 128.000 in l9h2 but the acreage
dropped to 56.000 the following year. Factors responsible for the labor
shortage during this period.were the movement of agricultural workers into
industrial work. the drafting of men into military service and the lafik
of transportation facilities to import migratory labor from the southern

states.

Since l9h3 there has'been a gradual increase in sugaIVbeets
harvested to 109,000 acres in 19%. almost double that of 19%}. During
this period the labor supply beccie more adequate. Some prisoners of
war were used in sugar beet areas during the late war years. In addition.
the sugar companies' labor recruiting services have become more adequate
in the southern states where there is an excess of labor of the type used
in blocking. thinning and in harvesting sugar beets. Also during this
period the price of beets reached.the highest point in history. and recent
developments in segmented seed and mechanization have made it possible to
reduce at least a.part of the need for hand labor formerly required to
produce sugar beets. .

In order to maintain its status or even increase its size in the
state. the sugar beet industry depends on the cooperation cf the individual
farmer. In order to obtain and retain that cooperation. the sugar beet

industry must keep pane-in the technology of producing sugar beets with

that of other agricultural enterprises.

9

Table l-SUGAR BRET AGREAGE AND SELECTED PRIW INDEES IN MICHIGANJSI J46
finger beet acreage; :Index offiatio of Sgar beet_prices to:

 

 

 

 

. Beet Dry All farm Farm
I“; Fifted Harvested Prices‘ Beans" products" ngs’"
Thousand acres
19lo-lh , 100 100 100 100
1915 Not 122 ion 73 99 100
1 Available 100 107 1‘7 30 91
17 82 1H1 38 7k 100
18 115 176 59 88 111
19 12h 219 101 101 120
1920 12: 176 10h 81 78
21 1 107 97 79 73
22 8k 126 72 96 A 88
2 109 16h 88 115 96
2 150 155 105 113 90
1925 115 123 79 80 73
26 118 122 95 75 69
27 99 125 68 81 70
28 71 126 51 77 71
29 66 58 1MB 72 90 82
1930 89 83 1h9 110 103 99
31 62 60 112 200 119 103
32 128 123 98 213 133 126
3 173 160 102 1&6 1 1H8
3 150 127 131 15k 1117 16h
1935 136 12k 133 190 128 1H5
36 113 10h 11k 61 95 107
37 92 81 137 173 10h 10
38 1H1 13h 138 2H2 135 11
39 1h3 137 128 1&7 132 106
1910 1M2 131 1110 130 132 113
#1 115 108 158 112 122 101
ha 159 129 1 113 10k 87
:3 69 56 22 122 111 90
80 68 253 136 127 88
19h5 106 90 2k 127 115 77
n6 _;@0 .199. 28 15 119 8d

 

 

 

" Personal correspondence with P. A. Reeve. l'armers and Manufacturers
Beet Sugar Association. Saginaw. Hich. (Price indexes include govern-
ment payments.) _

" Michigan l‘arm Economics Ghartboolc - 19147.
"W Crap and Livestock Report for Michigan. 19%

f The ratios of sugar best price indexes to other price indexes were
obtained by dividing the index of sugar beet prices by the other index
numbers for the same year.

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

we e ... H..
.P. .11. e..-. 1 7. . .. .1... ... .
- ..1.. 1 fr--- .. -.-..- .T.
“MT-U0 00. OH. an 1+.-
l' w r 1‘ ‘ . lYlllolleleltlo
v.... ..t...... t--. ..-. e... -., .
er Iv.'.olbvle- e040 ete «...-1 eke .
ffloreot,o .91.» e.» n a... .5...
19L70009.0906L .- p.. 1» .

. .. c C r .

14

retell. t r..+1 I- ..v..- .. -.
HI...¢ e It:

.
---- -e...
no-.- -l-..

b t
- 1 ..c 1.-
tet. .e 1.
one .Oles

_
..1. e.-1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. t 1 3LT- T441

 

 

 

 

 

 

         

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-\N-...-. ....1e...1--r.-T-+ -¢-1.v-1. ...l ...- .1 -.--1.5 . .
1
e...e..ve.t-polr¢1?ele|1 Y t i aft-4L 1 . Vtettto '1-9-$9 111J\t.\0164. ... . a . .-
s
% t r ible? e... not. 5.» 4. di..9 int evVQLYT ....va. ..1..
-Lttwthtis-tr.v.ove.-.r..e.lo..1vY--O1 - . d r . .p.a...1.-....1.. -.1v
1 L .-.-1...-.. - Dblt‘h- a
r _ ad .
e.vt¢'..ene-e.e ..Vclvet.1.|etlbbl ve-tr- ...- oe1' .. e.. e :..ai el.v .1 .l.
p.190 v.e.ee VelelT IVOITI cit; o.vo..~v.‘.1TV.II1§It 157?. watt-V eb.»t. ‘yte-VJYA-le t - 7. :VI 0.01 ct. . 1 .-ea. . . _v.. ..
1
7??! .olttle-VI?§IA\O|++I\. T?“ .- Civil-ole.ee.lveoltl t+-\o|9l?ei wit. eves tteti fee. [ectouT-iie-e e... 1... e . I... . ...91. ee.
chtT-trt. t-e..h...- .ed. .-.. ...-1...- o--£n.1... v... .... ...- t.-. .1111 .... .... ... 1.1. .t. 4.. ...-.... .r
r s 1
-o-¢\vcn.v.. v... .«eV evetnvebtilve.. 0... .V1. .v.e .. e -. etc. ..0. .n.1l .-.».71 e 10--. o.r-w.¢- .v .-
....Ae-eei v.19- e-tYOA-twew'bo e 7.. .evevveo‘voelleI....v e.ee. . .. .... us...
QteL-ltete ele?. true: evle ... . .et ..I-T‘tt-(tre-th Qv..v ee4.v e... 1. ... .
..--W .1:
rt 1.1» t
. a
...e ..... .1. .e..
.
.ee. ..qa ....1 u. 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

r>—>7Hv
_.-
.1
‘1

.t-. .. ..-
e
i a

.939 else .vlt. 0.0e o + lvve..e... ott. v.t. 5+ t.
t.t.1f.-.I¢v1YJ+vLvb...- - e ....H.... ....H.... ...-1
To-ttoe o.-. . .tlfo.H-o.1 ..--w.t-to .+.-v

tlr » t >

.1 a fi
..rrn.etek.eee .... .4 . ile-ITT.-.e v.rtehe... .. .
..e. .e.. .....u1... .1 + e.».+..1e v. -....11 -..-
e49..r§eeeree.c yttlv'vo-in3tv91Teeo. .. .... ....e...o ..'.+.-1-1 ye...
e401! .94. ee e ev‘YLTt-te‘nneeet visa or sent ss.>veus| ..I ‘etti we r
1 n

vet! eeoeneee: .... .15. ..e. ...-0.... e .
1f..orfi?t?-v#dloltlt I t-t .... .49 ...l+.»£.¢ 1....
1 1 ....e...-n .a .-
v-d.e|ldr0.e.eel ......... .e .

e... ..
e... - 1 .
1. . g.-
+.. .. .

y >
9.-.. :e .1
.1... on. .
H.... 4. -
VI-nt-ev 14v?
.+ ..

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

e .- -1 . .
c . A1
4
.-.H.... --..-. - . C H
«.-.-tt. 1,..h.... .-.. .
elk .. .... ...-L1. . .
Ll»
f.-+.. .--. .
a eeta. . sens >4.elbl:|119 y
. ev-to 77¢ OeIVAfislat eves e.. lit+t1viw .9...
H -v. .1. .-..v e9170o¢1vt 11111 ...... . e
e .
4
e .1 .... r-.- ... .. e. . .11.. e.
o ...-e. .....Heee. e.e. .9et. ..v e... e...
H . 1+ 1.. ...- .... .... .... .... 111-..... ....-
.-ett yttYoYttlL$IX$1 1+...-r.v-Tt ... .. . .--. .... if... ..ev...... o?v¥¥l97ti 9-.-...e... ...-l-rv..- .1.1H.... ..1e ».-.. 11t1e.... .. 1.
- + w [i *1 F L - 4 t
VOIo-llete. .Tt.e..tv ..ee .e.d«eet In 1. 1 - Q. . . VI, «J..en.:.. .I..+to?»4vv.y ..1 e. v-..1. _ .1
11:1 : IL::- nbu. moan pun-a.- 0613 :1:- zi :
rceo-f-.99. .etie...e -t ....o ..-.M11 .eveav..- . ..1 . ..;.+ u-‘A .- +.. - t... e. .fi.1..1.- ..o-V-+..t-VL~1+-Yt..r..- e..-. ....
T... .... .-.1. v-1 1 -11. ..- -. ...-....1 ......... ...-.... ..-...T. -..-...- ....h.--1 v.-..e.-.. --.. .... .
b ‘ . . > . r 4 1
Vivi: OIO-vrot‘ah .. e . .0.ae.-. .. .eaqtltl ...e . .1» . e . e
91 t- c . . e . e ....v .e . . e e e f e . e o do [.90 . e, o lv-etitl+ Vt-lr'L b e-.s-O-+.I$+tt-YOA-b e fl e e . c Yeui *6 re V e e vVn 5‘ . e . .. . t . I a e . .
T..e. v.vt.loOIoeY&oL1?1 o+ .I+t.t.;.. .v, .00. .Tel $7349.90. rec-keoe...1.e.oev-e. .....t... ...- .... . ....o. n...
.-o- -1...1-+.-.T-.. i- --T-.-p. I1.-- LT. -.-:- -. ..-...- -....- ...f...:: 1.1.-.. ..
- , T 1. - r- 1 - . 11::
reeo.eeevv.ve.|.vv 10.91 OVetp .w .i-ee” ... ....e..ee 4~.beritnelv.e.cHee-e ee-ttlvltwtwt-T bebb+tt.. ovtl-oittl ..ttkl .. to.» vet. .n..¢--t.¢ 1.. .
.eututlvlntlIt veto-Yvetes bee.» 5+ . fieeleue es- e -VIVOI_.O|e|tI.9»LeIe.-ee tele- eves-1‘11 7st- ere. .s-hele .v.. to s .1 ¢.. .n .e
Welteev.ve es.. caev u..t~.trVe t.... e. .ee-r..1. rt...tv.elet o '16 e.v. ObIOLvA-Yel?weet-He.tln..v. .-.e. .ue....qttL..l. e... .. «..wv-T e ..
.llvvevbo .e._ e. ..eet4.-.. 10t.v . .e.t».-1 cte- .v.v.o .. .9.e-teux.1etldo.. .e.. .e........ . .1. .h... v-- vt1. ....4.... ....
a.” 11 1 e » {cl L F List! I. I... .Isdd L ff. 1.
a 1 1J1 114 4 .l
1.1.1.-. .-. CHM-1...- ...-f.-. ........ ...-..- ...l... ...-..,-l . .. lie-I.- .fTLftl ...- It. .Uc E... .firHHdNHII»-il-. .. H-.. -..
1.... t... .... ..+.1:-.1. .... .... .... ..--17.... .... ... ....+... -.- .... +.o-1$.IT91--i-. .... ... -.t1nvtL- 1.... ....g.... .... ..t.m-... .11. .... ....a-.1. 1h..-
vee-le s-e-eenexewe-vvfite161Yet. .te. eeOv-v.v.ee eats-«e90. ..ve+o.. ttlova-b.i. tel. .... tYex eeec ..v. ee.. ..9- .tOe .... ..eo tee. At-et eet. eeeeeeeo. .et. -... t....+e.e ....
.Lseunei-vvvt.-..neve.or e..- ct.» .eot1vV191 ....+e.t.L-.VA.1...- .v.1 .... . ....&.e.. ...e .v.. ..1.-1.-9.. ...» .... .94- -.1t-. A..- ...e ecclewt+rerLIAY-te.1. ..--e... h..
h LI} .4 [l b _ > 0
W..v. title lee.s £9.91ewtt-O o... .e.. ebb. VQVt 1;... as .eev its» .... .ee 11.. set .te-ewe O ee.1H-e.e .r‘trlet. .e.» .t.e no.1 .vlvlb +eeee . .e v. e ...vv... ....
.anleblvibttl ell... vetwnevee eeeufi evtllvleiie- .... .eee .711A.e.. .70. e... .e . .... eye; eeie 1. .e..r.e.v- e... .ee. .ase.1.... e-ely..ee. v-I.-enT.o.. t1.. .... 1 .. ...
e-Vl?e '9-e4|¢.|. .‘ t‘l.+ tire! ovbeve .01. telolit.v0\e1.. .... .... «reenter. tr... .e. eeee e.’ ctr. ...e .u.v.ve¢v. elvvv eelo. o.et .tvclol rt... .... 04.. oletH-! . 1e. .
. to. .e v. vtNOJ “4’. e to seen! vee.Y.YLYxsetle e!9 bevy eiw’en bet? .e eele .. . . c .-1‘ eat . see-e. . its. . v1 $919 ee+aJ .evlee .e. . eeele '06- veue|re ob-» lotue Ylortl‘tto eee.e es. en v.90 e.s..1 . u . . u . . a.
p y r L h r Ll! .. r s
xl . \il ‘ i a
v..'. .e.. .... ..v.- .u eevVOev vvet ..e. . .ea. tran. .rn . .a. . -eIe-tvote. . . oe|11rvt1eneesie_,. -e ..w ..e. .e.- ..erw1 . be eet1¢ .YQt-t-I134e e. -. ... .... .e -.
vae-e rev. e..e .¢.Ov . r ..fvv..9Y¢ ..Vrt1.tve e e-Vev .v-t .vt. .1. ctr. 1eev 1ee1 e. -.rv.1eee. essences. -..t 6,107 ett’nle‘le.VOv-o...r .eie eeve 4eet ..e- .... eeve .eee.-..t.v .M.|.
r the..-Oe 0'01. Tfi-th..#l. .o.>1rte§.Lrio-Te.qet.e t... .95). cot-tweet. p.-. 9.... ?.'.ee-.. .. ..v. -... .... .... ..e.ee.ep .e.| ev.. -.?t\+et.. u...mAYo-leotit .... .... .... cete>1-.- ....-
1 L e 1 d - r t - 1 - .u r 4% toll.
vv-ere.roe. eta. ..fVlTVLtIt-nvt.6. .1Qlet-.1.vio .-.. ..-. ....1tttt .e.. o... ..eL ....e....- .-Q.... t-.. .... .... .... .... .... rip-1 ...- eer¥1oltwewttzrlbé .... .... .... c»- .-....... 1...1.
...-4,..- ...v .eoe tee. .v.revee.£. .ee.fi-1...-i eeleupw.... .eee....e.. ..elvll 1».. ..et ..9. o..§eo...e ..ee .tltIT1W-10Ivlf .... .... .ee.o e...» 1eeente.e.e .eeeM1eeev.0.4190.1n.es...%e... eeeelieloe. tee-*1... 1+...
79.,fte eel-v.0 3Y1. 177.1 vole ...-VTYLL O‘..eo.ve?4e1 A+$1§ -ce.e .e..e..ev .JfiTv-e-e att. e... t-.v. .-.vev+.... . .... tee: u... ..e. te-vo betel ....ns-e.. ..e>.e.e1 .tbtnvv-ov. est. .... ..Ql see! V‘YAVX-e-v.e. ....
.».. ...v. ...e .... ve-v-ew-cc. ..w. +... 1e--.\e~.+f. ..eew.... ....-»-e... .e-.e .... -ee.».t-el .l-L- .e.1o...1 ...-e t... .-..»Teae ..ee ..1i1feov ...-e. .e.o 9v... vee.H.ot.1...- . .. ..1.».1 . .». 1
- r r >>Ae_ 1 p 1}. t . hrrb r . a» a . .. p > 1H 1 y t t P r .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UD_Z4HO ”2 CW)

 

mC0m2m 032sz 00- 20- u+w

I

 

11

SUMMARY 01' REGENT TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS

_ One of the objectives of research workers in the sugar beet
industry is to introduce new methods to increase efficiency and reduce
the cost of producing sugar beets, thus making it possible for farmers
to receive larger net returns for their beets.

High labor costs and an insufficient labor supply have been
factors in stimulating the development of labor saving methods. Mechani-
sation of the industry will relieve the labor problem. at least in part
for spring work. and it is possible to eliminate entirely the need for
contract labor in harvesting. Mechanisation will also make it possible
and more practical for each farmer to increase his acreage of beets.
Veather conditions cannot be controlled but mechanization will speed up
Operations to the extent that work can be done quickly while weather
is most favorable.

Some of the more important developments in labor saving methods
in producing sugar beets that have taken place or are in emerimental
stages are the use of segmented and pelleted seed, mechanical harvesters.
improved beet drills. mechanical blockers. mechanical loaders and chemical
weed controls.

_8_ggmented or sheared seed is a processed seed containing a hid:
percentage of single germs. It is produced by a shearing and grading
process by which the regular or multiple germ seed cluster is broken into
segments. The new type of seed was introduced in 1942 after extensive
experimental tests. In l91I-5 about 30 percent and in 1946 about 70 percent
of the beets in Michigan were planted with segmented seed. The advantage

in using segmented seed is in obtaining more uniform placement with a high

12
percentage of single plants. thns reducing the labor requirements in hand
blocking and thinning or in making the stands more adaptable for mechani-
cal blocking. Results frm experiments under controlled conditions have
shown that the labor requirements for blocking and thinning stands planted
with segmented seed are 30 to NO percent less than that required for
regular or whole seed.‘

related seed is processed further by encasing the single ger-
seed in a water soluble pellet about the sise of a small pea. i'his type
of seed. as yet in an experimental stage. is being developed in an attempt
to obtain more uniformity in seed placement that is possible with a seg-
nented seed.

Mechanical blockers are not as yet of much importance in Michigan.
The common method of blocking and thinning has been with hand labor using
either short or long hoes and spacing blocks at 12 to 11} inches. These
blocks are then thinned to a single plant. Mechanical blockers are being
developed. however. and it can be expected that they will become increasingly
important as techniques of planting and weed control are perfected.

Several types of mechanical blockers are in the experimental stage.
These are (1) may type. (2) cross blockers. (3) chemical blockers. and
(1t) flame blockers. Row- type blockers are either one or two row machines.
very similar to cotton chappers used in the South. having an adjustable
revolving knife which cuts out uniform blocks in each row. Gross blockers
are similar to standard cultivators with shovels or sweeps and are aper-

ated across the rows to cut out blocks of desirable widths. The most

 

"' Bell. 3. W” LABOR SAVINGS ESULTING FROM USE OF SEGMENTED SEED. Pro-

ceedings American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists. Eastern United
States and Canada. Detroit. Mich. . 191V].

13
recently developed cross-blockers have hydraulic adJustments for varying
the widths of blocks. Chemical and flame blockers have shields which
protect the beets within the block while the beets and.weeds between the
blocks are destroyed.by chemical sprays or a flame. The row type and~
cross-blockers appear to be the most practical. Flame and chemical
blockers are am yet too expensive for the average farmer to operate.

Chemical weed control methods are being developed. some for use
before planting. and others as direct sprays. None of these have reached
a standard of performance or are of a low enough cost of operation to be
of practical use by farmers.

Magical gpgatr beet harvests; have been used for many years in
the more friable soils of the western states where soil moisture can be
regulated by irrigation. The harvesters used in the West have not been
practical for use in Michigan soils which are generally harder. less
uniform in texture. frequently quite stony. and subject to-extremes in
moisture conditions. During the last few years. mechanical harvesters
have been developed to operate quite successfully in the variable soil
conditions in Michigan.

Mechanical sugar beet harvesters were introduced.on a commercial
scale in this area in 19h}. Although there were five different makes of
harvesters in uee in this area.in.l9h6. one make of machine was by far
the most popular. There are two general types of harvesters. (1) those
that top the beats in the ground. and (2) those that top the beets after
lifting. The machine that is in most common'use in Michigan is of the
latter type. The principle function of these machines is lifting and

tapping. In addition. most of them have elevators that load the beets

lll»

directly to a wagon or truck. or they can be adjusted to windrow the
beats. Other machines have tanks or happers that hold the beets until
the end of the row is reached. There the beets are elevated to trucks
or dumped to be loaded at a later time. About 135 machines were used in
Michigan in 19% and harvested about 9170 acres.’

Mbeet loader; are of two types. (1) fork—in or hand-mechani-
cal loaders and (2) pick-up or mechanical leaders. The first type consists
principally of an elevator with a happer into which the beets are forked.
The elevator loads the beats into a truck or wagon and is udally powered
by a power take-off from the tractor that pulls the machine. A. pick-up
loader is similar except that it has a revolving pick-up mechanism that
picks the beets from the ground and places them on the elevator. The
power is supplied either by a motor mounted on the loader or by a power
take-off attachment from the tractor. Only one man is required to Operate
most of these machines. Some pick-up loaders are capable of loading

piled beets as well as windrowed beets.

" Reeve. P. 5.. RESULTS SECURED WITH SUGAR BEET HARVESTERS IN THE EASTERN
AREA 13 19%. Proceedings American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists.
lastern United States and Canada. Detroit. Mich.. 19W. ' ' I

15

METHODS USED IN COLLECTING DATA

It was originally intended to select seven sugar beet growers to
keep time and cost records from each of eleven factory districts in central.
eastern. and south-eastern Michigan. l'inal selection varied from five to
twelve growers in each district. Growers were selected mostly through the
recommendations of district field managers. The sugar beet factories in
Michigan and the distribution of growers who kept records for this study
are shown in Figure 2.

An attempt was made to get a fair representation of growers using
different methods of production. Comparisons desired were (1) the type
of seed used. (2) kind of labor used for hand work. (3) methods of
harvesting. and (N) methods of loading. No consideration was given to
acreage in selecting growers. nor was any particular attempt made to
obtain a representative sample of the whole beet indnstry in the state.
Forms were provided the farmers on which to keep records. (Appendix.
pages 3-9).

Seventy-one growers completed records out of 85 who started the
project. These 71' growers kept time and cost records on 88 fields from
the beginning of the season until harvesting was completed. Most growers
‘ had only one field of sugar beets. Where there was more than one field
and where cultural practices were similar. one record was kept. Where
cultural practices varied. separate records were kept. As a means of
obtaining the greatest possible accuracy. farmers' records were checked
with all available information from factory records.

Time records on some spring work were partly estimates since the

project was not started until after the season had begun. In several

16
instances. farmers found it impossible to keop daily records of hours. and
estimates were made in these cases.

Each grower was visited three times. at planting time. during the
middle of the summer and.after harvesting was completed. 0n the first
and second.visits. the records were brought as nearly as possible up to

date and on the final visit the records were completed.

 

 

 

I“! Iona

 

 

MICHIGAN '

 

 

 

“25!... ..
sameness: , mu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Best‘sugar factories

Farmer cooperators

 

 

 

Efrenrn 9 - Super Ran-l:

'Il'nntnrinn 111 Mi nh-Ip-nn nnfi Lanai-.1 one of Var-meme Whn

 

 

1?

EXPLANATION OF ITEMS

farm Labor: All labor except contract labor and any farm labor

 

used for blocking. thinning. hoeing or pulling and tapping were included
in farm labor. For the most part it included.farm labor used for machine
operation. Rates for farm labor were the farmers' own estimates. Variap
tions in estimates were from 50 cents to $1.25 per hour and averaged 81
cents. For greater accuracy in making comparison of costs on various
Operations. the labor charges were adjusted to the average rate.

Hand Labor: Hand labor included contract labor and farm labor
used in blocking. thinning. hoeing and in hand harvesting. Rates for
contract labor were established.by the United States Department of Agri-
culture. The rate for blocking. thinning and hoeing was $18.00 per acre
where segmented seed was planted and $20.00 per acre where whole seed was
used. Rates for harvesting were based on yield.per acre and varied.from
$1.hl per ton for a 16 ton yield to $2.10 per ton for a M ton yield. The
minimum payment was $8.00 an acre. All charges for contract labor were
obtained from factory statements of growers' deductions or from growers'
own records where contract labor was hired on an hourly basis and.paid
by the farmers in cash.

Tractor work: Dates for tractor work were determined on the basis
of plow capacity. These rates were based on previous studies made on
tractor costs and adjusted to present price levels. The rate for one
plow tractors was set at 60 cents per hour. two plow tractors at 75 cents
and three plow tractors at 90 cents per hour. A.few trackbtype tractors
were used and charged at the rate of $1.25 per hour. The average rate

for all tractor work was 73 cents per hour.

18

Horse Work: Rates for horse work were based on the hourly cost of
one horse and were taken from farmers' estimates. Estimates varied from
25 to 1I0 cents per hour and averaged 3’4 cents. Most of the horse work
was used for "fitting“. planting. cultivating and lifting. Only one
farmer used horses for plowing. The total cost of horse work was less
than one percent of the total cost of producing beets and only about ten
percent of the total power costs.

Equipment Use: The costs of all machinery used in the production
of sugar beets except tractor and truck use were included in equipment use.
In arriving at a charge for equipment use. the total annual cost of opera-
tion of each machine was determined. A charge was made proportional to
the amount each machine was used on the sugar beet crap for the season.
The total annual cost of each machine was determined by adding depreciation
based on the normal expected life of the machine. interest at five per-
cent of the investment. taxes. insurance and housing at two percent of the
investment. and the average annual cost of repairs.

l'arm Truck Use: Zl'arm truck costs were determined from farmers'
records of mileage traveled and on their estimates of truck Operation
costs per mile. Estimates on Operation costs varied from 7 to 15 cents
per mile with most estimated around 10 cents.

Trucki_ng Hired and Freight: The cost of trucking hired included
both the cost of loading and trucking since no separate rates were made
for the two Operations. These rates varied from $1.05 to $3.00 per ton
and averaged $1.91}. Freight was the charge for rail transportation from
weighing stations to the factories where distances were too great to make

trucking practical. Freight rates averaged $1.16 per ton.

19
£956. Use and Taxes: The cost of land use was determined by taking
five percent of the estimated normal agricultural value of the land and
adding average real estate taxes per acre. Land values varied from $100
to $200 and averaged $161. Interest on land averaged $8.08 and taxes
averaged 83 cents per‘ acre making a total land use charge of $8.91. Taxes
ranged from ’45 cents to $1.25 per acre. .

m: The costs of barnyard manure. straw plowed under and green
manure craps were combined. Barnyard manure spread on the field was
charged at the rate of $2.00 per ton. Forty percent of this value was
lharged where manure had been applied within a year prior to planting
beets. 30 percent if applied within the second year. 20 percent if
applied within the third year. and 10 percent if applied within the fourth
year before the 19% crap. Craps plowed under that were considered of
importance were rye seedings and grain straw. Some alfalfa and sweet
clover sod was plowed under for beets but the stands varied considerably.
The value of these craps was determined by the cost of seed and sowing.
or on the farmers‘ estimates.

Fertilizer and Minor Elements: Fertilizer costs used were those
reported by farmers or. if actual costs were not available. charges were
made at standard rates for the particular analysis of fertilizer used.
Prices of fertilizer of the same analysis varied only slightly in the
parts of the state included in this study. The cost of minor elements
was added .to the cost of the fertilizer. Minor elements included borax.
manganese sulphate and capper sulphate. The entire cost of commercial
fertiliser was charged against the beet crap since only in very dry years

would any appreciable fertilizer remain for succeeding craps. The average

20
cost of commercial fertilizer was $35.62 per ton. The most common fert-
iliser analyses used were 2-16-8 and 2-12-6. A few'farmers used 3-12-12.
0-12-12. 3-9— 18. and 0-20-0.

Salt was used by three farmers at a cost of about $8.50 per ton
and applied at the rate of about 500 pounds per acre. ‘

§_e_e_d: All sugar beet seed was supplied by the sugar companies.

The cost of'segented seed was 50 cents per pound in all factory districts
except one where. it was 60 cents. The price charged for whole seed was

20 cents per pound in all but the one district where it was 27 cents. One
factory district furnished seed at the regular price or a drill and seed
of either kind for $3.00 per acre.

Overhead: In order to include the part of general farm expenses
that could nut be charged directly to the best crap. an overhead charge
was made. This was calculated at five percent of all other expenses
exclusive of marketing costs. Trucking hired and freight constituted
the greater portion of marketing costs and since those items had no direct
influence on general farm Operating costs. all marketing costs were omitted
in determing overhead.

Miscellaneous costs: Miscellaneous costs included house rent for
contract labor. interest on advances made to the growers by the sugar
companies and dues paid to the beat sugar associations. 0

House rent for labor was charged generally at 50 cents per acre
where contract labor was used. and where the dwelling was not furnished
by the farmer. In a few cases. where contract labor was not used for
harvesting. the charge for house rent was only 25 cents an acre. 0n farms

where the farmers provided the dwellings for laborers. depreciation was

considered.

Most growers requested that the companies advance payment for
contract labor. These payments were deducted.from the growers' returns
when the beets were delivered. Interest was charged on.payments for
spring labor at the rate of about 1.9 percent for the period the payments
were advanced.

Association dues were bducted from each grower's returns in all
but one district where no association dues were charged.for 1935. The
rate varied from two to three cents per ton. These dues were paid to
local beet sugar associations and partly to the Parmers and Manufacturers
Beet Sugar Association for further research and administrative work in the

beet sugar industry.

22

TOTAL BEET COSTS AND ETUBNS

The 88 records in this study on sugar beets included a total of
1518 acres planted and 1,491+ acres harvested (Table 3). About 50 acres
or about 3.2 percent of that planted.was abandoned.because of poor stands.
drowning out. or lack of contract labor for blocking and thinning. The
average acreage harvested.per grower was 21 acres. Acreage of individual
growers varied from 3.0 to 125 acres.

The total production of sugar beets on these farms was 1M.727 net
tone or an average of 9.9 tons per acre. This average is more than one
ton per acre greater than the state average production for 19N6. Yields
on individual farms varied from 3.7 to 15.2 tons per acre.

The average cost of all operations in producing sugar beets from
the 88 records used in this study'was $92.92 per acre and costs varied
from $5h to $1h9. (Table 3). Ton costs averaged.$9.hh and.varied from
$3.75 to $23.75. '

. Hand labor was by far the largest single item of expense in
producing beets. The average cost of this item on all farms included in
this study was $29.36 per acre or 31.6 percent of all costs. This figure.
however. does net represent hand labor in harvesting on all farms since
one-fourth.of the men used mechanical harvesters and.those costs were
included in farm labor. power and equipment use. On farms where hand
labor was used.for blocking. thinning. hoeing and.harvesting. the average
cost was $35.hl per acre. This cost was somewhat higher than it would
have been on a straight contract basis because labor costs were higher on
farms where farmers did their own work. and.a few farmers who used contract

labor opent extra time hoeing their own beets.

23

Table 3 - TOTAL SUGAR.BEET PRODUCTIOR. COSTS AND RETURNS OR 71 FARMS IR

111chch 19%

Rather of farmers who kept records. . . . . . . . . . ...... 71
number of records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . 88
Total acres planted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1333
Total acres harvested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Average acres harvested.per record. . . . . ........... 17
Total net tons produced . . . . . . . .............. 1h.727
Average yield.per acre (tons) .................. 9.9
Average value of land.per acre. . . . ............. . $161
Average cost of fertiliser per ton. . . . ............ t$36
Average pounds of fertilizer applied.per acre . . . . ...... 37“
Pounds of seed used.per acre: Segmented. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3
“010 eeeeeee e e eeeeeee 907
Cost per 00st per Percent
COSTS ‘ acre ‘ .322 of total
Rand labor ........... $ 29.36 $ 2.98 31.6 ~
l'arm labor. . . . ........ 13.32 . 1.314 111.3
Tractor work. . . . . . . . . . 7.26 .75 7.8
3013.0 work. e e e e e e e e e e .81 'A .08 0.9
Equipment use . . . . . . . . . 5.58 .57 6.0
lhml truck use. . . . . . . . . 1.95 .20 2.1
Trucking hired and. freight. . . 10.711 1.09 11.5 ~
Land- 1110 and tGIOB. e e e e e e 8091 .90 9e6
Manure ............. 1.96 .20 2.1
Iertiliser. . . . ....... 6.75 .69 7.3
5.96" O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 1.76 .18 1.9
Overhead. . . . . ....... 3.61 .37 3.9
Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . .21 .99 1.0
TOTAL COSTS $92.92 $9.MM 100.0
RETURNS ' ‘
Gross Return on Beets . . .$l60.85 $16.25

Credit for Beet Taps. .
Total Credits. . .
Less total costs

NET RETURN OR'BEETS . . .

' Explanations of cost

0...
O
O...
.0
.4“.
P
:1:
.0
«-
H
0.
£53“
on

. . .$ 7h.68 $ 7.119

_.1

items are given on page 17.

2n

Il'arm labor. consisting mostly of machine Operation. was the next
highest cost which averaged $13.32 per acre or 11+.3 percent of the total
costs. The average rate per. hour for farm labor was 81 cents.

Custom work hired and freigh_t_ was the third highest cost. Items
included were some lifting and mechanical harvesting in addition to trucking
hired and freight. These costs averaged $10.71!» per acre or 11.5 percent
of the total costs. .One farmer had his beets lifted and two farmers had
their beets machine harvested by custom work. Loading and trucking was
hired for marketing beets from 19 fields. Eight farmers shipped their
beets by freight from weigh stations to the factories.

Land use and taxes was the next highest item of cost which averaged
$8.91 per acre or 9.6 percent of the total. Tractor work amounted to
$7.26 or 7.8 percent of the total. Fertiliser costs averaged $6.75 per
acre or 7.3 percent. huipment use was next at $5.58 or 6.0 percent.

All other costs including horse work. farm truck. use. manure. seed. over-
head and miscellaneous amounted to $11.00 per acre or the remaining 12
percent of the total costs. .

Expenses in producing sugar beets were also separated into _p_r_o_—
duction costs. harvesting costs and marketing costs (Table 1|»). These
costs are averages. for the total acreage included infithis study even
though most farms did not have charges for all items.

Production costs. or costs up to harvesting. included labor.
power and equipment expenses through cultivating. charges for land use.
fertiliser. manure. seed. overhead and miscellaneous items. Production
costs averaged $57.73 per acre and $5.87 per ton. Hand labor was the

largest item in. production costs and averaged $19349 per acre. Other

25
items in order of their importance were land use and taxes at $8.91 per
acre. fertiliser at $6.75 per acre. farm labor at $6.53 and tractor work
at $5.05 per acre. The average of all other items of production costs
was‘ $11.00 per acre. Production costs were about 62 percent of the total

costs of producing._ harvesting and marketing beets.

Table ‘4 - SUGAR REET PRODUCTION. HARVESTING AND MARKETING COSTS ON 71
IARMS IN MICHIGAN. 12146

 

 

 

 

00st per Cost per Percent
Item acre ton of totja_1_
Production Costs: '
Randlabor.. .... . . . . .$19.’+9 $1.98 21.0
Tarn labor . . . . . . . . . . . 6.53 . .66 7.0
Tractor work . . . . . ...... 5.05 .52 5.1+
Horse work . . . . . . ..... . .60 . .6
Equipment use. . . . . . . . . . 2.16 .22 2.3
Land use and taxes . . . . . . . 8.91 .90 9.6
Hanure........... .. 1.96 .20 2.1
Fertiliser . . . . . . . . . . . 6.75 .69 7.3
Seed . . . . . . . . . ..... . 1.76 .18 1.9
Overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.51 .37 3.9
Miscellaneous. . . . . . . . . . .91 .fi 1.0
Total . . . . . . . . . . $57.73 $ 5.87 62.1%
Harvesting Costs: 1
Hand.labor . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 9.87 $ 1.00 10.6
Farm labor . . . . ......... 3.68 .37 lM)
Tractor work . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8’+ .19 2.0
Horsework............ .21 .02 0.2
lquipment use. . . . . . . . . __2.._95, _..3£2 __'L.2
Tat“ e e e e e e e e e e $18.55 $1.88 20.0%
Iarketm Costs:
J'arm labor . . . . . . ...... $ 3.11 $0.31 3.1;
hBCtor work e e e e e e eeeee e37 - son 00";
Tara truck use . . . . ..... . 1.95 .20 2.1
Equipment use. . . . . . . . . . .60 .06 0.6
Trucking hired . . . . . . . . . 9.08 .92 9.3
Freight. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,53 .16 .1.6
Total . . . . . . . . . . . $16.6h $1.69 17.9%
Total of all items. . . . . . . . . $ 9.hh 100.0%

$92.92

 

 

26

Harvestinigosts included labor. power and equipment expenses in
lifting. pulling and tapping. mechanical harvesting and pitting. The
average cost per acre for harvesting on 71 farms was $18.55 which was
about 20 percent of all costs. The largest item of expense in harvesting
was hand labor which averaged $9.87 per acre. About one-fourth of the
growers used mechanical harvesters and had no charges for hand labor for
pulling and twping. Tarn labor costs averaged $3.68 per acre in harvesting.
This cost was relatively high because labor used. in mechanical harvesting
was included in that item. Equipment use was also high at $2.95 per acre
because of the hidi cost of mechanical harvester use. \

Marketing costs averaged $16.6“ per acre and were about 18 percent
of the total costs. The highest. item of expense in marketing was trucking
hired which averaged $9.08 per acre for the 71 fans. l'arm labor. truck
use and freight were Other maJor items of expense in marketing. Only 8
farmers shipped beets by freight and. because this item was quite high on
those farms. the average cost on all farms was $1.53 Per acre and 16 cents
per ton. .

Costs were also separated by gperatiopp and averages were based on
the total acreage included in this study (Table 5). Since all Operations
were not performed on each farm. the average costs do not indicate the
actual acre costs of doing each Operation but merely the average costs on
all farms. ‘

The highest cost Operation was blocking and thinning which averaged
$19.18 per acre. All fields of beets included in this study were blocked
and thinned with hand labor. The rates for this work he established by

the United States Department of Agriculture for 19146 was $18.00 per acre

for beets p1anted.with segmented seed and.$20.00 per acre for beets

27

planted with whole seed. Variations in the costs of this work were not

very large except on farms where the work was done by farm labor.

Table 5 . SUGAR mm 008135 13! OPERATIONS 0N L1 FARMS m MICHIGAN. 19146

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gostgper acre Cost
Hand Farm Equip- WOrk per
ngration labor labor Power ment hired Total ton
Production
Operations:
Plowing — $ 1.0u $0.97 $0.31 — $ 2.32 $0.2M
Fitting " 1.83 . 1071 e51 " . )6.05 an].
Broadcasting
fertilizer - .19 .1h .13 - .36 .05
Planting " "’ e66 en's e56 " 1e7o e17
Blocking and
thinning $19.n9 -‘ - -6 - 19.?9 1.38
Cultivating . "' 2e 1 as e "’ E. 1
szal $19.59 $6.53 $5.65 $2.12 $33.83 {3‘11}?
esting . . . . . .
Qperations:
Lifting - $ 1.23 $1.00 $0.3h $ 0.03 $ 2.60 $0.26
Rand Harvesting 9.87 . - - . - - . 9.87 ,1.00
Mech. ' - 2.11 .86 2.37 .10 5.1: .52
Fitting "' e e1 e 2 "’ e2 10
Total $ 9.87 $ 3.67 2.05 $2.83 $ 0.13 $18.55 $1.88
Marketing ' ' ' ‘ ‘
_Qper§tions: - $ .11 § .37 $2.55 $10.61 $16.6h $1.69
Total Operation ' . . ‘
2922* $29.36 $13.32 $8.07 $7.53 $10.71; $69.02 $7.01
Other Production Cests: I . . .
Mbnure and cover crOps . . . ............... $ 1.96 $0.20
Fertilizer . . . . ' . . . ....... . . . 6.75 . .69
Seed . . . . g . . . . ........ . . . . . . 1.76 .18
Land use . . . . . . . . . . ..... . ..... 8.91 .90
Overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 3.61 .37
Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .%9
Tatal e e e e e e ..... e o e e e e e e e $23e90 $2e 3
Total Costs . e . ... . e . . . . . . . e . . . . .

 

Hand.harvesting was

$92.92

89.nn

next highest operation which averaged $9.87

28
on all farms. About three-fourths of the farmers harvested by this
method. The average cost of all harvesting including hand labor and
mechanical methods was $18.55 per acre.

Other operation costs in order of their importance were cultivating.
mechanical harvesting. fitting. lifting. plowing. planting. pitting and
broadcasting fertilizer. The average cost of these Operations on all forms
was $23.02 per acre or about 25 percent of all costs.

. Hand labor required on these farms for blocking. thinning. hoeing
and harvesting averaged 19 hours per acre (Table 6). Hand labor was used
to block and thin all beets. The average hours required for all blocking.
thinning and hoeing was 32.1 hours per acre. Not all beets were harvested
by hand. On farms where hand labor was used. it took 27.6 hours to pull and
top an acre of beets yielding an average of 9.9 tons. Where contract labor
was used both for spring work and for harvesting the average total time
required was 59.7 hours.

The average hours of farm labor spent in plowing. fitting. planting.
cultivating. harvesting. etc.. was only 16.14 hours. Operations that took
the most time were marketing. cultivating. mechanical harvesting and fitting
ground for planting. These farms used an average of 2.1+ hours of horse work
per acre for beets or 1.2 hours for a team. Tractors were used an average
of 9.9 hours per acre for beets of which about 70 percent was used in pro-
duction work through cultivating. Although most farm labor was used for
machine Operation. there were more man hours than tractor hours because
several machines. especially harvesters. required at least two men.

Notable changes have taken place during the last ten years in labor

requirements. As a comparison to labor and power requirements as determined

29

by this study. during the period from 1933 to 1936 it took 72 hours of

hand labor. 15.1 hours of farm labor for machine operation. 26.5 hours of

horse work and 21% hours of tractor work per acre of beets.‘ Hand labor

requirements have been reduced to about 70 percent of the amount required

in 1933 to 1936. Factors that have brought about this reduction were the

use of segmented seed. improved weed control. improved cultural methods. the

replacement of hand labor by mechanical harvesters and the use of mechanical

loaders. Farm labor requirements have remained about the same as ten.years

ago but a.part of this farm labor is now used in mechanical harvesting which

is replacing hand harvesting. Improved.machines and techniques have made

it possible to do the same

Table 6 - AVERAGE HOURS or

work much faster than was possible ten years ago.

LABOR AND POWER PER AORR IN SUGAR BEET PRODUCTION
IN MICHIGAN. 19% ..

 

 

 

* Hand * Farm ”7 Tracts: ' “Horse
Operation labor " labor work work
‘ Hours Hours Hours Hours
P10W1ng. o e e e o e e e e - 1.3 1.2 0.1
Fitting. e e o e e e e e - 2.3 2.1 0.2
Broadcasting fertilizer. . . - 0.2 0.2 0.1
Planting e e e e e e e o e o "' 0.8 006 002
Cultivating. . . . .’. . . . - 3.5 2.8 1.2
Blocking.and thinning. . . . 52.1 - .;:_ -
Total Production. . . . 32.1 8.1 6.9 1.8
Lifting. e e e e e e e e e e - 1.5 191 Oe6
Pulling and tapping. . . . . 17.1 - - -
Machine harvesting . . . . .- 2.6 1.1 .-
Fittings 0 e e e e e e e - 9‘3- M '-
Total harvesting. . . . 17.1 M.5 2.5 0.6
Total marketingL . . . - 3 8 .5 -
Total production. harvesting.
and marketing. 0 e e e e e e E02 160,4 909 201'.

 

** Several Operations represent records only from a.part of the farms but
average hours are based on the total acreage included.in this study.

 

* Wright. K. T. . SUGAR BEET COSTS AND RETURNS IN MICHIGAN. Mich. Agr.
Exp. Stan Spec. BuJ-e 3050

30

There has been a reversal of the hours of tractor and horse work
used for sugar beets from that of ten years ago. The average hours of
horse work from 1933 to 1936 was 26.5 hours per acre and the hours of
tractor work was 2.h. In this study the awerage hours of horse work on
beets'was 2.M and the average hours of tractor work was 9.9 Per acre. The
cost of horse work was only 10 percent of the power costs and only about
one percent of all costs.

Returns: The average price received for beets in Michigan in 19M6
was $16.25 per ton including government payments.‘I Prices varied slightly
from one factory district to another because of differences in sucrose
content of the beets. The average gross returns per acre was $160.85 based
on an average yield of 9.9 tons.

credit was also given for beet tops. The average of all estimates
on the value of beet tops was $6.75 per acre. Estimates were made only
by farmers who fed the best tops. however. the average value was used.for
all farms whether taps were fed or left on the fields for fertiliser.

Total credits for the beet crap ayeraged $167.60 per acre and $16.93
per ton. Total credits less total expenses of $92.92 per acre or $9.hh per
ton left an average net return on beets of $7h.68 per acre or $7.M9 per ton.

Net returns per acre varied from a gain of $185.79'to a loss of $37.51.

 

’ Reeve. P. A». Iarmers and Manufacturers Beet Sugar.Association. Saginaw.
Michigan. Personal correspondence with the author. May 6. 'M7.

EFFECTS or PRODUCTION PRACTICES ON COSTS

Production costs. including all Operations up to harvesting. charges
for land use. manure. fertilizer. seed. overhead and miscellaneous items.
averaged $57.73 per acre and $5.87 Per ton (Tables 1t and 5). These were
discussed briefly in the previous section. The practices that caused
variation in yields. costs or time required to perform production Operations
are discussed in more detail in this section.

Plowing and "Fitting“: Out of 88 fields. 13 fields were not plowed
for beets. Host of the fields that were not plowed had beans in the rotation
preceding beets. 0f the 75 fields that were plowed. only one was plowed
with horses (Table 7). An average of 1.5 man hours per acre were required
to plow with‘tractors as compared to 2.1+ hours per acre with horses.

Although one record is insufficient for reliable comparison. it does indicate
that the use of horses increases costs because of the longer time required

to perform the work. This is particularly true where labor rates are high.

Table 7 - PLOWING METHODS AND COSTS on SUGAR mums IN MICHIGAN. 19h6

 

 

 

. Slumber Acres per_ field Labor Gostper £0
Method 'records record m acre mag. Labor Power Machine Total
tons
Pall:
Tractor 20 11.6 10. 1.9 $1.50 $1.u2 $0.h1 $3.33
Horse 1 2&9 6. 2.1: ,l.95 .1.20 . .61 3.76
firing:
Tractor M2 16.6 9.5 1.2 .97 .92 .3h 2.23
22th firing
Ed Fall:
Tractor 12 28.2 10.2 1.8 1.1m 1.32 ,35 4.09

 

 

M 75 LL? 9.1 1.5 inzo gage $9.36 $3.68

The average yield of beets from fall plowed land was 0.“ tons per

32
acre greater than the yield from spring plowed land assuming other conditions
to be the same. l'actors that might have been partly responsible for this
difference were firmer seed beds and more soil moisture retained after fall
plowing.

An average of 2.3 hours were spent per acre in “fitting” ground for
beets (Table 8). "Pitting" included all harrowing. dragging. disking. rolling.
and cultipacking. The average cost of this work was $1l.05 an acre. Costs
of “fitting“ by different methods varied from $3.68 per acre to $M.86. The
cost of “fitting" land not plowed was 57 cents: per acre more than on land
that was plowed. however. the combined plowing and ”fitting“ cost was $2.11

less per acre on land that was not plowed.

 

Table 8 - ITITTINCI COSTS TOR SUGAB.BEETS IN MICHIGAN 1 M6
"'"—"‘""fi

 

 

. umbir Acres perfiield Labor 0st per acre
Xethod records record per acre HrsLA. Labor Power Machine Tot;l_
tons
After fall

p10'1ng 21 12.3 9.9 2.1 $1.7M $1.55 $0.5M $3.83
After spring . . . .

plowing he 16.6 9.5 2.1 1.66 1.52 .50 3.68
lo plowing 13 15.5 10.6 2.h 1.96 1.85 M9 8.30

Mixed methods 12 28,2 10.2 2.1 2.17 2.15 4.5” 1$.86
Awergge 88 _11.0 .9.9 :2g3 $1.83 $1.11 $9.51 §h,og

 

 

 

Higher costs could be expected in "fitting" following fall plowing
than following spring plowing because more harrowing was necessary to pre-
pare the seed bed. Higher costs where 'fitting" followed mixed methods of
plowing may be a reflection of the general inefficiency of those farmers in
more time spent on small fields or in working the same fields by different
methods.

The yield of beets was also 0.9 tons higher on land that was not

plowed.~ The same factors. firmer seedbeds and more soil moisture retained.

33
may hare been conditions that influenced.yie1ds on land not plowed even to
a greater extent than on land that was fall plowed. The spring and summer
of 1936 were very dry and.any measures used to conserve moisture during that
season undoubtedly were reflected.in higher yields. Since most of the fields
that were not plowed.were in beans the preceding year. there probably was a
carry-over of fertiliser nutrients that had a considerable influence on
best yields.

fertiliser and lanure: Where camercial fertiliser was broadcast
in addition to row applicatiOn. the average amount used was #87 pounds per
acre (Table 9). where applied only in the row. the application was only
313-pounds per acre. The yield of beets where fertiliser was broadcast in
addition to row application was 1.0 tons per acre more than where fertiliser
was applied only at the time of planting.’ Differences in soil types may
also have been a factor in increasing yields where heavier applications of
fertiliser were used. however. adequate information was not available to
determine the effect of soils on yield. Where fertiliser was broadcast.
the cost of fertiliser per acre was $2.73 more flhan where applied only in
the row. The cost of application was $1.28 per acre making a total cost
of $u.Ol more per acre where fertiliser was broadcast. No separate cost of
applying fertiliser was considered when.put on at the time of planting since
it was a coibined operation and the additional expense would.be negligible.
Total fertiliser applications varied from 118 pounds to 718 pounds
and averaged.37h pounds per acre. The records were sorted into three

groups based on total fertiliser used disregarding method of application

 

‘ Dr. R. L. Cook. Soils Department. Michigan State College. stated that
this was not an unreasonable increase to aspect from the added.amount
of fertiliser.

3h

Table 9 - FERTILIZER APPLICATION METHODS AND ACRE COSTS 0N SUGAR BEETS
IN MICHIGéN.719h6

 

 

 

Method WVAEreSI Y 101d .. Appli-
' of Number per per Isrtilizer cation Total
application records record acre Lbs.[A. Castle. cost Cost
tons

 

Broadcast and

h37 $8.814 $1.28 $9.72

 

 

in row 3H 15.2 10.5
In row only 5” 18.1 9.54, 314 45.71 . - 5.71
Difference - - 1.0 l1}. ' _$2.73 $1.28 $h.01

(Table 10). Nineteen records in the low group averaged 208 pounds of
”fertilizer per acre. 39 records in the medium group ayeraged 36h~pounds
per acre. and 30 records in the high group averaged 550 pounds per acre.
There was a difference of 3MB pounds of fertilizer between the low and
high groups. a difference in costs of $7.13 including the cost of broad~
casting. and a difference of 1.3 tons per acre in yield. Higher yields
may have been due partly to larger amounts of fertilizer used but other
good.management practices may be equally responsible. None of the farmers
in the low group broadcast fertilizer. 23 percent in the middle group. and
83 percent of the high group broadcast fertilizer in addition to applying

it in the row.

Table 10 - FERTILIZER USE BY QUANTITY AND COSTS ON SUGAR.BEETS IN

 

 

 

 

‘ - MICHIGAN.g;9u6

gianifiy of *Numbe Acres per “Yield’ Aw. fort. Fields COst

ert zer recor s record ' per acregper acre broadcast per acre *

- ounds tons pounds
0 - 2 9 19 17.8 ' 9.0 208 0 $ 3.70
250 - hh9 39 20.3 10.0 36h 9 . 6.77
_&50 — over 30 12,1 p10.3 550 25* 10.83
216228: 88 11.0 9 .9 371+ 37+ 8 7.21

 

* Costs include both fertilizer and.the application costs where fertilizer
was broadcast.

During the past four years. barnyard manure was applied 0n #1 or

nearly one-half of the fields on which records were kept for this study.

35
The usual application was about 8 to 10 tons per acre. Manure was valued
at $2.00 per ton spread on the fields. Torty'percent of the value was
charged against the beet crap where manure was applied during the first
year prior to planting beets. 30 percent where applied during the second
year. 20 percent for the third year and 10 percent where applied during
the fourth.year prior to planting‘beets. The average charge for manure
applied on these fields. was $h.l9 per acre.

Applications of commercial fertiliser on fields where manure had
been applied during the past four years averaged 338 pounds per acre.
Applications on fields where no manure had.been applied averaged 39”
pounds or 60 pounds more per acre. This would indicate that farmers
generally apply less commercial fertiliser on land that has been manured
recently.

Blocking and Thinnigg: The average time required.by contract
labor to block and thin beets was 31.5 hours per acre where segmented
seed.was planted as compared to 3h.9 hours per acre where whole seed.wae
‘used (Table 11). This was 3.h hours per acre less on fields p1anted.with
segmented seed. a saving of about 10 percent in labor requirements. Where
contract labor was used. the cost of blocking and thinning was $1.25 per
acre less where segmented seed was planted than where whole seed was used.
The rates for blocking and.thinning established.by the United States
Department of Agriculture were $2.00 lower per acre for plantings of
segmented seed than for whole seed. however. some farm labor was used for
hoeing after contract labor. and several farmers were charged the maximum
rate even though they used segmented seed.

There were considerable variations in time. costs and yields where

36
farmers block and.thinned their own beets. however. only 8 records were
available where the work was done by this method. The advantage of using
segmented seed.was more pronounced in those records than in the ones where
contract labor was used. Other crapping practices than the difference in
type of seed used may have been at least partly responsible for the higher
yields. lower time requirements. and. lower costs where segmented seed was

used.

Table 11 - EFFECT OF SEED TYPE ON BLOCKING AND THINNING SUGAR BEETS IN

 

 

 

 

_ MICHIGAN, 19%
Seed type Number Acres per Yield Hours 50st
gpd.labor records record per acre per acre pgr acre
tons
Segmented Seed: .
Contract labor 56 19.1 9.9 31.5 $18.92
ram labor ‘ 6 9.5 12.6 . 25.9 .20.96
W '
Contract labor 2h 11+.7 9.6 3h.9 20.16
ram labOr 2 8.6 1.2 15.; 36.51;

 

[vergge as 1.1.0 9.9 32.1 $19.18

Only 8 out of 71 farmers who kept records. or 11 pehcent. blocked.
and thinned their own beets (Table 12). This group had only 5 percent of
the total acreage. All others used contract labor. No farmers in this
study used.mechanical methods of blocking. The average acreage of beets
on farms where blocking and thinning was done by farm labor was only 9.3
acres as compared to 17.8 acres on farms where contract labor was used.
There was a difference in yield_of about 1.6 tons more per acre where
farmers did their on hand labor.

Although the average time required to block and thin beets by
fame labor was almost two hours less per acre than that required where

contract labor was used. the cost per acre was $5.36 more. This is due

37

to the difference in labor rates of 21 cents more per hour for farm labor.f

Table 12 — BLOCKING'AND THINNING METHODS AND COSTS ON SUGAR.BEETS IN

 

 

 

 

MICHIGAN. 1gn6
Number Acres per Yield Hours Rate per Cost per
Method records record per acre per acre hour acre
tons
Contract labor 80 17.8 ° 9.7 32.2 $0.60 $19.22
rem labor 8 9.3 11.3 30.3 _ .g; .21l.58
Difference — - 1.6 -1.9g $0.21 $ 5.36

Normally the most desirable time to block and thin sugar beets is
within the first two weeks after the row can be seen plainly. weather
conditions during some years may have an influence in determining the
best time. especially when stands have not emerged.uniformly because of
variable moisture conditions.

usually in about two weeks after the plants have emerged; they are
about at the Ifour leaf” stage. Experiments have indicated a decrease in
yield when blocking and thinning was delayed beyond the second week after
emergence.‘? After the beets have passed the ”four leaf” stage there is
more danger of weakening the remaining plants in the thinning process.

With the use of segmented seed. it is possible to obtain more uniform

 

' Actual payments for contract labor and time spent by contract labor
in doing the work as reported.by the farmers themselves were used.in
calculating the hourly rate for contract labor. An accurate record was
not available for the hours of contract labor on all farms but the hours
were adjusted on the basis of records that were complete. Most farmers
experienced difficulty in keeping records on time spent by contract
labor because all of the workers did not usually start or finish at
regular times each day nor did the same number of laborers always work
on the same fields on successive days. Very frequently men. women.
and children all worked tOgether in the same fields. This condition
made it difficult to keep records on the basis of hours of adult labor.

H Lill. J. G.. SUGAR BEET CULTURE IN THE mm was or me UNITED
STATES. U. 5. Dept. of Agr. Farmer's Bud. 1637.

38
placement than is possible with whole seed. This may be a factor in re—
ducing the damage in thinning and it may also be possible to delay thinning
without danger to the stand if the work can be done without distrubing the
remaining plants.

Seed and Plantipg: Segmented seed was used on 1121+ acres or on
about 75 percent of the acreage of beets covered in this study. The
average rate of planting segmented seed was 3.3 pounds per acre. Whole
seed was used on 369 acres at the average rate of 9.7 pounds per acre.

There was a difference in yield of 0.53 tons per acre in favor of
segmented seede Although the difference is not large and yields may have
been affected by other conditions in 1914-6. it may indicate that more uni-
form and more vigorous stands of beets were obtained with segmented seed
than with whole seed. Experiments under controlled conditions have indi-
cated that beets planted with‘segmented seed out-yielded beets planted with
whole seed by an average of 6.6 percent. I The reason given for the increased
yield was that seedlings from plats planted with segmented seed were damaged
to a lesser extent in the thinning process than were seedlings from whole
seed.'_'

The average cost of all seed was $1.76 per acre. The cost of
segmented seed averaged $1.68 and the cost of whole seed. averaged $2.00
per acre. This was a saving of 32 cents per acre in using segmented seed.

The net difference in using segmented seed compared to whole seed

on the farms included in this study were (1) a saving of 32 cents per acre

 

* Bell. R. W. , Robertson. L. S. and Cook. H. L. . THE EFFECT OF SHEARING
SUGAR-BEET SEED ON STAND OF BEETS. ON LABOR REQUIREIJENTS AT THE TIME 01'
BLOCKING AND THINNING AND ON YIELD OF BEETS. Mich. Agr. Em. Sta. Quart.
3111.. Vol. 28. No. 2. Nov. ”45.

39
in seed costs. (2) a saving of 3.14 hours of labor per acre in blocking and
thinning where contract labor was used. (3) a saving of $1.25 per acre in
the cost of contract labor for blocking and thinning. and (M) an increase
in yields of about a half a ton per acre.

There was very little difference in labor needs and costs between
the use of horses and tractors in planting (Table 13). Because of the
greater accuracy of planting attained at slow speeds. tractors were seldom
driven faster than three miles per hour. l'or this reason. there was not a
very large saving in time by planting with a tractor. However. the total
difference in costs between the two methods was 29 cents less per acre
where tractors were used. The average time required to plant beets was
0.8 hours per acre and the average cost for labor. power and machine use

was $1.71 an acre.

 

Table 11 - PLANTING METHODS AND 008T; ON SUGAR mums m MICHIGAN. 1.216

 

 

 

Number Acres per Yield Labor Cost per fire
Methods records record per acre Hrs/A. Labor Power Higgins Total
tons

Tractor 77 17.2 9.7 0.8 $0.66 $o.h6 $0.55 $1.6
Horse 11 15.3 10. 0.9 . .7g, . .63 11_.61 .1.9

Ayerage 88 111.0 9.9 0.8 $0.66 $0.h8 $0.56 $1.70

 

Cultivatgg: The average cost of cultivating was $5.81 per acre
(Table 11L). Labor costs averaged $2.81. power $2.35. and. machine costs
averaged 65 cents per acre. The cost where beets were cultivated with
horses was $3.03 more per acre than where tractors were used.

Beets were cultivated an average of 14.5 times where tractors were
used compared to 1L7 times where horses were used. Seventy-five fields
were cultivated entirely with tractors. 11 fields were cultivated entirely

with horses and both horses and tractors were used on two fields. The

ho

acreage on which horses were used for cultivating was only about 10 per-

cent of the total acreage included in this study but horse work amounted

to 25 percent of the total power costs in cultivating.

An average of 2.2

man hours more per acre was required where horses were used for cultivating

than where tractors were used.

c in- CULTIVATING'METHODS AND COSTS on SUGAR.BEETS IN MICHIGAN. 19u6

imes Number Acres per Yield Labor
Power cult. records record

Cost per; acre

per acre Hrs/A. Labor Power Machine Total

 

 

 

 

 

 

toms
Tractor B 10 17.3 12.0 1. 8 $1.uu $1.12 $0.57 $£.13
26 19.3 9.6 3. o .2.h0 .2.oo . .h6 . 8
5 30 17.8 10.2 3.5 2.82 2.11 .86 6.12
6 9 13.1 8.2 6 3.75 3.31 .91 8.00
______ng A5 15 317.1 10.0 3 .__$3_._5_5_§§_.1L so. 68 85.1131
Horse 1 6 11.5 7.3 5.11 $M.3ll$3.1|5 $0.38 $8.17
5 2 16.6 10.5 3. u .2.78 ,2.30 . .51 .5.59
6 3 8.8 10.6 7. 9 6.h3 5.82 .65 12.90
1+; m :11 113.3 8.6 5.11 $11.16 $3.632; $0.116 $81M
Mixed ’ ' ‘ '
Methods 6.0 2 9.3 9.9 10.0 $8.12 $11.91 $0.39 $13.12
Average ‘ I . ‘
all cult. u.6 88 17.0 9.9

3.5 $2.81 $2.35 $0.65 $ 5.81

4L

Costs were progressively higher as the number of cultivations

increased where tractors were used. There was a difference of $.87

between three and six cultivations.

$1.62 per additional cultivation.

The costs increased at an average of

141

EFFECTS OF HARVESTING-PEAOTIGES ON COSTS

harvesting costs included all costs of lifting. pulling and top-
ping, mechanical harvesting. and.pitting or piling. The average cost of
harvesting per acre on all farms was $18.55 (Table h and 5).

Lifting: Of the total acreage included in this study. 922 acres
or about 62 percent of the'beets were lifted.with the use of horses or
tractors and were pulled and topped.by Rand. Mechanical harvesters were
used on the rest of the beets.

The awerage cost of lifting was $M.27 per acre (Table 15). The
average time required.per acre to lift beets was 2.5 hours. The cost of
lifting with tractors was $2.11 less than the cost of lifting with horses.
One farmer hired a man. tractor and.machine to lift his beets at the rate
of $2.00 per acre. Lifting with.h0rses required about 1.2 hours more per
acre or about a third.m0re time than lifting with tractors. This again
shows an advantage in the lower costs and shorter time required.for

'tractor operations compared to horse work.

Table 15 - LIFTING METHODS AND COSTS ON SUGAR.EEETS IN MICHIGAN.719N6

 

 

 

 

 

 

number Acres per Yield Labor Costgpergapre
Method. records recoqufi per acre Hrs/A. Labor Power Machine Total
tons
Tractor 61 12.7 10.2 2.1 $1.91 $1.51 $0.56 $3.98
Horses 8 15.1 8.6 3.6 2.92 .2.62 . .55 .6.09
.gired .l: 2M.8 43.7 - - - - 2.00
O

 

 

 

Ayerage 70 13,2 10.. 2:2.5 $2.05 $1.66 $0.56 $qu1

Pulling and Topping: 0f the total acres included.in this study. 88h
acres or 5“ percent of the beets were harvested'by contract labor. Only 38
acres or about 3 percent of the beets were pulled and topped.by hand labor.

The cost of contract labor in harvesting averaged $15.53 per acre

1&2
(Table l6).‘ Only six records were available where farmers pulled and
topped their own beets and the acreage of beets on these farms was
usually quite small. averaging only 6.M acres. The cost of pulling and
tapping per acre on these farms was $26.h9. The hours required.by fans
labor to pull and.t0p beets was only 8 hours more per acre than the time
required.for contract labor but the cost was about $11.00 more per acre.
The reason for this difference was that the hourly rate for farm labor
was about 2% cents higher than the rate for contract labor. The cost
of contract labor in harvesting averaged 57 cents per hour and the cost

of farm labor averaged 81 cents.

Table 16 » PULLING AND TOEPING COSTS 1N HARVESTING SUGAR.BNETS 1N

 

 

 

 

hlgglGAE._l9h6 '
Acres Yield Hours .__ __» Cost
Number per per per per per per
Method records record acre ton acre .ggton acre
tons
Contract labor 63 1h.0 10.0 ' 2.7 27.1 $1.55 $15. 3
Farm labor 6 6.H 9.6 .iah 32.7 g§£76 L26;

 

Average 69 71;.h 10.0 2.8 27.6 $1.60 $15.98

Mechanical harvesting: Mechanical harvesters were used by 18
farmers out of the 71 who cooperated on this project. This included records
on 26 fields. a total of 571 acres or about 38 percent of the acreage
included.in this study. Sixteen of the farmers owned.their harvesters and
did.their own work. Two farmers had their beets harvested.by custom work.
Although there were harvesters of several makes in use throughout this
area. all of those on which records were kept were Scott-Urschel machines.

Costs of mechanical harvesting‘flrro machines were owned varied

 

* Contract labor rates as determined.by the Uhited States Department of
Agriculture were $15.60 per acre for beets yielding 10.0 tons per acre.

18
from $6.95 to $18.37 per acre. The average cost was $13.N8 per acre or
$1.39. per ton .(Tables 17 and 18). Custom harvesting ... charged at the
same rate as contract labor'based.0n yield.per acrb with an additional
charge of 25 to 50 cents per ton for lifting. The average charge on the
two farms where beets were custom harvested was $11.58 per acre. This
cost was lower than the costs on other farms because of the difference in
yield which was H.2 tons per acre lower than on farms where harvestbrs

were owned.

Table 11 - ACHH COSTS or MECHANICAL HARVESTING SUGAR BEETS IN MICHIGAN. 19%

 

 

 

 

Number Acres per Yield Labor Cost per acre
Method recordgi record :per acre Hrs/A:2 Labor Power _ggchine Totg;
tons
OwnmaChine 21+ 23.3 9.7 6.8 $5.65 $2.31 $5. 52 $13.1+8
fired 2 6.3 5.5 - . - . - - 11.58

 

 

Lverge 26 22.0 9.6 - - - - $13.“

Table 18 -TON COSTS OF MECHANICAL HARVESTING SUGAR.BEETS IN HICHIGAN.12%

 

 

 

Number Acres per Yield Labor Cost per ton
Method records record per ggre Hrs/I. Labor Power Machine Tote;
tons
Own machine an 23.3 9.7 0.7 $0.58 $0.21; $0.57 $ 1.39
Hired 2 64 5.5_ - . - . - . - . 2.1;

 

Avergge 26 22.0 9.6 .. - - .. i 1:110

The total costs of mechanical harvesting where harvesters were
owner-operated ineluded #2 percent for labor, M1 percent for mashine use
and 17 percent for power.

Hours of man labor used.in machine harvesting averaged 7.0 hours
per acre and varied from 3 to 10. Labor costs averaged $5.65 and varied
from $2.N0 to $8.10 per acre. Farmers having the lowest labor costs used
only two men to operate the tractor and.machine. whereas the high cost

farmers used three and.even four men. The extra men were used as general

hit

mechanics. for topping untapped beets in the load or for picking up stray
beets that were missed by the machines. Some farmers hired extra labor
to pick up beets left in the fields. They found that. with the high
labor costs. the beets left on the field after machine harvesting were
hardly worth the extra cost of picking them up.

Mechanical harvesting required from 1.3 to 3.3 hours of harvester
operation per acrb. On a daily basis. it was possible to harvest from
3 to 7 acres. The speed at which the machines were operated. width of
rows. soil types. soil conditions. and the skill of the operator all had
an effect on the number of acres that could be harvested in a day.

The cost of harvester use varied from $3.63 to $8.56 per acre and
averaged $5.52. Il'actors causing this variation were number of acres
harvested. depreciation based on the estimated life of the machine. and
repairs. The acres harvested by the 18 owner-Operated harvesters during
the season varied from NO to 128 acres. Depreciation was calculated from
the farmeréi estimates of the expected life of the machines which.varied
from 3 to 10 years. Since almost all the machines were new in 19146. the
value of each machine was considered the same as the original cost. The
purchase price was about $1600 unless extra.parts were added. The average
estimated life was 6 years and depreciation on that basis was $265 per year.
Interest was figured at 5 percent of the purchase price. Insurance. taxes
and housing was charged at 2 percent of the purchase price. The cost of
repairs and new parts was about $90 per machine for the season.

Repair costs varied considerably and were higher on machines that
harvested large acreages. No estimate was made on the cost of ropairs

necessary to condition the machines for the next year's Operation. Since

LL5
‘most of the machines were new in 19N6. repair costs are likely to be higher
each.year as the machines become older. For practical purposes. repair
costs can be considered.about $1.00 per acre. This estimate is comparable
to that determined in other studies on mechanical harvester use in this
area in 19N6.*

The average power cost for Operating mechanical harvesters was $2.31
per acre and varied from $1.00 to $3.00. Since harvesters are quite heavy
machines, larger tractors were generally used for mechanical harvesting than
for most other operations.

Assuming that depreciation. interest. insurance, taxes and.housing
are constant regardless of the amount of use. and that repairs. labor
costs and power costs are proportional to the acreage. it is possible to
determine the cost per acre for mechanical harvesting for any given acreage
(Table 19). The average costs as determined in this study were need be
this table but acreages are theoretical. The effect of harvester use on
cost per acre is also shown in graphic form (Figure 3). It was found.that
costs were the same for mechanical harvesting as for hand harvesting when
machines harvested a total of about 33 acres yielding 9.9 tons of beets per
acre. Thus. on the basis of these results. a farmer would have to harvest
at least 33 acres of beets with a,machine each season in order that his
costs will be no greater than the cost of hand harvesting.

There was an average saving by mechanical harvesting of $6.77 per

acre or 77 cents per ton. This was determined.by considering the average

 

' Reeve. P. Lu RESULTS SECURED WITH SUGAR BEET HARVESTERS IN THE EASTERN
AREA IN 19h6. Proceedings American Society of Sugar Beet_Technologists.
Eastern United States and Canada. Detroit. Mich.. 1957.

Hentchel. Herbert. COST or OPERATIoN OF SUGAH HHHT ComaINHS IN 19%. Mich.
State Col. Farm Mgt. Dept. unpublished report.

116
cost of lifting at $11.27 per acre (Table 15) and the average of hand
harvesting at $15.98 (Table 16) or'a total of $20.25 per acre. The most
efficient growers saved up to $13.30 an acre by harvesting with mechanical
harvesters and the least efficient saved $1.88 per acre. Savings by
mechanical harvesting varied from almost nothing to about two-thirds of
the cost of hand.harvesting and averaged about one-third. There are also

other factors that should be considered.

Table 19 - EFFECT OF AMOUNT OF BEET HABYESTER.USE ON COSTS PER ACRE '
Acres per machine 20 1+0 60 80 100 120 1140

Fixed costs:
Deprec. 6&16.7$ 265.00 265.00 265.00 265.00 265.00 265.00 265.00
Interest @576 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00
Ins.. taxes.
housing @273 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00

Variable costs:
Repairs @ $1.00

 

 

 

 

per acre . 20.01 no.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 1h0.00

Labor 6 $5.65

_per acre 113.99 226.00 339.00 u52.00 565.00 678.00 791.00

Power 33 $2.31 .

per acre u6.20 .92.n0 138.60 18$ 80 2 00 2 20 2
Total Costs 556129_135.Mo 591%.60 1093.80 1273.00 1452.20 1631.u0
Cost per acre 27.81 18.38 15.2n 13.67 12.73 12.10 ‘11.65
Machine lifting,&

hand topping, 20.25_ 20.25 20.25 20.25 20.25 20.25 20.25
Difference -7.56 1.87 _5.01 6.58 7.52 8.15 8.60

 

* Acreages are theoretioal. Cost items are averages as determined in this
study.
The largest item of expense in mechanical harvesting was labor costs.
Most of these machines were used for the first time in 1946 by inexperienced
operators which undoubtedly resulted in less efficient use than might have

been.possible. It has been demonstrated that only two men are necessary to

.acdum was» a“ confiscmpop mm mowmcoas was mean“ pwoo .Hoofipmaoemp oat mowemcod

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A. < 41 ...
r1... .... 110. .... ....011.1f.... . . ......... .... .... .... 1.. r1...n.... .. . \ . .. . . .. .. .. . .+ . H . . . . ...: . .. .....-...
1.010.. 000. 000. v0.01 1 00001010111. . .011; 00 .01 000100... . v.00.(v00.0. .000 1.0 0.001 . . 00 .00. 1 . u”. no. 00gv. 0o .0 up.” ”Pk“ . $10 a”! s . 0 $001 . . 0‘ . . 010 .h. . 1.
....v0.1. .1..x.1.. ...0 0190. .... ...1. ....h..01111001 .... .011 .... .... 1... ...1 ....I.... --.. 10 .... ....0.. ..H-... + . .. . 100 .. -1..0..1.
.100 ....1 001.1000.A.OIP 0701 1.10 1.10 ..00<1011Y'0101 01.. 001. .0.. 0001T0.0. 100.00... 1000101120 .000101... ..0.+.00. 0.000 0.0. ..0-0.. ...-«00.0 .111 0.0 ...1v..0.
L1 P ( r V , P ...
1.. .1 H ‘ H A .1 .
r..101r.10.0.. .010 11.1 .00.0..00 ..0...1... ..Qtf0101 0.0. .... 1.0. .00. .00917010. .... .010 .70.. ‘ .v010. 0100 .00. .0901011 .01.00..- ....*1.11 .111.00.. .0.. 0... 1.1.5.1..
1 00.-. 00.0 090.0 .000401101v'00.et0 1 00‘100. .000 1.101- 0.00.00 00100v011 000.011 .00.AsO1. 000011011 .V.0§.01.. .910l0|¢|0000 .0100.0 1.00.0000 10-11000. 0. 10.0.1.0.10101.
$1019 000. 10010. 00010 13014.0(: 0000*.0. . 00.10.010.700110 v0.0 0 0.?0000 +001. 1. v (0 .. 0.1.001. .0110 100AY.00.0A 0000F00.0.1 0 .000. .001»0 0.000.0111r01100110t0. . 00 0001¢0V01r010
_ _
T010011... 00.1.0.0. 1l0000010 000.Ht0 0017 0 0|0f¥0010a0$001+r1 0 00 000.A00.0.‘ 001010 '0r00..¢.090 00I00 0 90490100110000 0 100 00+t1v10.00v0000 00.00 1.00 001.
1r
_ ‘ _4
...01 .... .... 11.0 1.001....101 0.0..+00010 01.1010 ..00 000.01 010.10.011.0(70019 00...».011g.00110000 00.114011. ..000H0000 01001'10001 0.01H0..01 000.100 0! .10110000 10000.A00.v 0..L.o4..
_
000l. 1000 100. 11.1%0110I. 1100000.; 0..0..Y.0.. Y?0|0|o00. 10001.010. 01007010. 0.00 00.01.700.710000 010.10.r1--1. .00....00 .00l0v0.00 ..11+.000 ...._0.. 1. 001.0 .00. 0.0.0.0001T0071L....
_ .
($01001? ..0,00L.-01 .0.1IV ..0.O00.0 000. .0190 00110 100. .0-. 10.0 ....40111 1010+.001 .000400100 00011.... 0.-. .0I010 ..000 00.011.010.00. .1010. 0|V++0.00A....+..-0 ...01T1..10. .--.
_
10190.1..0- ...... 010. .110.0A.010V0 .0..+.00. .100 1.01?1I..-10v...1 ..0071.0. 0101011011 1.00;.0.1 .0Y.01-10‘..1..1 10..A..000.... ..0l1r0olfl. .0..00.0. .1..+1*11.1v0... 10.. .10. .1'00.. -1.
r t p r
4 . .1 .—
0... o. ».0 01-0. ... 11 I. 1 .. .... .1.» «10.. .0.00 0. .. 00 0 .01.;1... . .<. ..-..01011. . ....101.. ...1. .01. 11.. .. ‘.. ..1.’0 1. I. 0-.. 011.... ......
T0+0I0 00010 .0001.0V. .0010fitlf1otv0301e010001 0000H0000 v0.0. .1010. 100.v0000fi0000LII1A1c191H00.. 0.00.0.1F100I0. .0..A0010 00l00+.0.. .0.0|0J.+1lol' 00...?1000 .00.+1*1r0 0000. ...: ..1. 1.00 00..e.01.
0011010lf0..1.0000n0$100 .0I0.0 0001.01v1010V0 .00. 01.00 1000v0000LV10c0. 10.0..ch00 0010Av0.10.x0000 ..0. 0.11»..... .00-A.0101 1.0. 00.. .(0101000. .0011»..90 .0..+0 .010 0700.000. .0..0 0. 000050.1c
a? 000. .041 .0... ....0.100.0v+0.. 00.. ..0. ..10 01-1 .... .... ..10 .... .01.. .00.A.... ..0.0.01. 1.1!. .0.. ..0.A.... 101. 0..1 ..0...10. ....+1-0.0 .40? 00.. .-1. .1101.0.0.h....
1r?) (1 P r 1 1 r p a 1
14 4 8
7001011100. 0..10n.0100.0 .00010001011100. 0000 .000 0.0.1 ..0I0101Lv00e. .... 00.0 01.0 ...- ..0.v.00. .0... ..0. .0100...01.10.. .01.a1(.l( .10.! 1.1. .01. .- ..0. ...+.00.A...0.+901..
lblP 0... 0.010 0010. 0000 P ..A00..1.0'1 ..0010101 .P1.. .Y0r>.0~0 r... 0.101. 0000 .00.;.0..Y00.101r.00.4000. 10.010001 0000H01.... .00. 10.0 1.... .1000.?lv170.04.10.
1.I.0v91'0.»00. 000. 0300.17.00? 0100010000 .0.070110.. TO... 0.00 100.0.-001fi000010110. ..00..... .....r??01.00.000r0 0000n.r.. 000AY01T00 1 .1. 0.... .0...*...10.Av...0....
, ,
0.0.01.1.VI0IY 000 01 0010 I101 7.001.700.010 10 . . .001 .0 0.. .00 0. 1 10.0 .0.01. 01 Y. .1010|0|.Y0+0. f1. 00 .1 00.1 . c . .0 0. 0.. n . 0. . . 1 0.1 00.. 0.0 0 00001110191011 . 0.. 0 .0 0 v 0000 . . 1 . . e .1001 0 .0 0~1 . . .
P 1? 1 1 1 lelr 1 >1 Fur P
( 4 it
.00 09.010 >000 .000 01-0 v19000 .00. 0.00-L|0.000 0%.?fiAvl0000 0..09 00.0 0000 110. ..0. .0.. 100.1 .10. .700 .000 00001.09. 101110 ...... 1010.01.0010 000. 01.. .0.. t1lr000.~0001
T1010IIAY0+0e .000va+00 .000H0o1010 000. 00101 .00. 00l1.|00110...v0.0. 100040003 fl...90 0'0. 000. 000.- .01. .00070r.00 100100 000. 0+|010A 10101010L V001 .0.0 000.1 010. .0.. 100101 0101011 01..
r? 1.». .000 00.. 10.0 010-01.000.11000m.00Vr0‘01111010010r000. 101090100.A.0.0.1.0. .000100.1r00.. .0+11r00..0 .00. .... 1.10. 10100 0... ......00. .0... ..1. .1.PA.00.?111.11
7.10....0141.0-. ..0. ..01o.0... .... ..0- ....0.111V.T1... .... ......... ...11v1111. 111...... ..-. 11.1 .... .... r... .... ....v..-1i1v..x.-. ”.... 1......1 .... ...
a r 1. s ..H . P
. 1+1
.. .011n .0'1010.1v..00 10.. ....0.... 100. .011 .01. .... .11. ...1v...0 01.1 11.000.-. .001. 01010.1Y...1*.0.1 0 0.00.... ......1001011mW0. .
11 .001 ....0..00...0..0I0.9¢0.0.. ......1T.r10.§.r..0. .01. .... .... .... ....H.... ....+.... ....100110 ....wo0o. . ... .... .... ...0 1 .. .... a
0.1000. ..00*0(1 00.. ...100011. 0000%.Y0.....00 .00. .01. 0.01 .+..o01.. ...0000-lw.0..1n0.1. .-..01100 . -01 0.0. .... 00..- . .. .1. a
.-+.... ...00.0.1v.00. 011-..00100001v1000|%0170. .... .... .... 1.0.1.11.0o... ...vr111- .-.. .... -...0.1... . v.0(0. f... .1. ... ..111+-1.. 0
P P r P P P 1 P F 1? L
4 .1 4 4 4 4 4
0101.0. 1000;0100 .000 1.1.0. 11......- 00.v0.v.1 .0.. .... 10001110. ..0.¢.0.. .1-1o.0.1 .11- 000- ..Y00.0.. 1 .(.e10.. ..0.0...1 ....p.... .
10 00.. v.00. 0|900 .00. 010.H001010 0.01.0000. .00.. 00.1 ..0. .0101 10519.01- .0005000. 00.010010?! 0190100.00. . (001.000.. ..0...0.00IA.110000..0. ...
1. .-11- ..1. 000111.11111111... -1.0 111.7101..1... .... .... .... ... ....LI.... 11.. .... ...0c.111.1......... . 00..»..1, .... 11l1..-. ...
00+.001Lv..0..100101.00.1.v.o.. 10.1.0... 1001e0v0. 0.011.... .... .0.. .0T1e0.0. .... .011 .-010100. 100.4..0. 0 ...o.... ...- .110I01..01.k.... 0.
L (P 1 — 1 P r 0
_ ,. 4 H .
.. .... .... ...1111.0 ..-. .....-1... .0.1.0... .... .... .... ...1.c...01+.... .... .... ....fi.... .-....... . 1.1 .... .... .....0011».... .
.1 1 1. .... .0111.0110 .... ..1.4...1 .... .V.0..01-...1. 1....10.1A.-1111.0. .... .00.- 1010 11.. ...-01... . ...0..1. ... ..l-...».... +
01 .01. .-0.A..10.A0..-..0.. .1..e..0. 0.910 0000 .00.P..0. 1.01v1l011111110lolv0... 1111611011 1....0l11r000. .010o0vv1 . .....11.n....>.0.0 0... 0.-.. 0.
.. ..0. 1.1 1........ .00. ....0...1110110.0.. 10.1 .1..A10.0 1.1. .1..v.. . ...- 0.101 -0.. ....f.0..».... - 0011.0..1. .... ...0 .01. ..1. a
a 1 1 (I1 P1 .P 1 1+ P
( . 4 JIA
.0 00.. .00. .000 v00100 10. ...0 ..‘0 '000IH1000. 10.00 00.. ..10 1401 .0..f...1 1000L .100 01.0. 000. 1.00 000. . 0.11.0.1 11. . . .0.
00 00?. 10~0H0I0110LT0|0100 1.00. .0100 4000 090.0 01?. 0.90.0.0000 00.0 0.1111 10.001170... 0001v000. .1001 00.00 00.. ..0. . 0001 10.. ..0. c .. v
10111 0.0. 0000 v0|00Y10000 v... 0000 0000 0.00. 0.100 7.090 10.1000.001A0101101(01100.0 1r01 10+1 .1111knv000. ..e.o.00. . 00. .00. .-.- . 0. .0
....... ...0 .... .... .... .. .+.... .0..+.-.1 101. .... .111v.0f1 10.1 .... .... 01.. .... ..1. .......... . ... 1... .... 0 0 .n
P . r P 1 1
1
.1+.... 1.0.1.... 14.0. .01. ...0 .00. 10.0+l0|1.1. ..1. ....v..10.0.. .... .... .... .... ....0.... ......... 10....1 .....0 .. ..
.... .10.. .... 00.0 ft.1 .01. .1.0 .1...100.1+.00. .0001v.10.v001.+111. .011! .... ...0 1.0.. ..1000.0. 1000 .00. .00... 1. .00.».... ....0. o. 0.
r0010 .001 .0..A 00011w1v010 .00 .001. 1.000 1.0.+0’0. 0:0Lvoe0. 0.00001010.111?.01mv00.. 001111001. .0101001010. .... ..0. 1..0+.*0. .01040.00 ...... 1. a
10..v0... .1.-A..0. .00. .00. 1... .0.. 1.00+00.. .011 .0.. .1.-01.L ..0.0..11 .01. ... ..10H.... ...0‘11. ..0 .- ... .0..o....1.....0 .H
.
P P P P F _ » ... .
1 _ A 4 _ 4
..0 ... o. + 0 + .111H... ...».He. ..10 ..0. . .. r
.0+..1. o +. k .... .1.. ..11+0 011100-0F.... . 01 ..
00 .11. .. *0 0 ....o... .0..+0. 0. .01...... . v 0
.. .-. .. 0 + ....0.... ....._.. ..-.+.... . .. .
r t . y
1
1...... .. 0 ...-0.... .0.1'0 0. .1....... . 11
0010 000. .. .1..0*.1-. .1.1 0 0- 101.01... . .1
00 .... .. .....01... .0104(~l11n..10a.1.. . .1
P 1
. a H1 4
.1110.1 .. .1....... ....00 01 ...~.00. 1 .
0e .0. .0 ....0..10 .101>1 0. 11..&1.0. . 0.
0. .l.. .1 .0..~0..0 ..0.00.00111011 ...1 . 1
.. .... .1 .. ...... 1.. 1 .1 ... ... .
0
k1... 0... .0 .... .... 0..41 01 -1001»..- . ...
01... 0.--. 10 .e..x.... .00... 0...0..o1... . 1.
. .... .... ..1.. v .. .00.01... . .1
_
P . _
4 _
6' .000 00 0".II-v- 00.1'v! 010A COQeWIeOO ~00. P010 ‘1'1‘1. 007:
1. .... y. . ......1 .71.... 0. .011. .... .... ...l' 00.. ....
0140001. .0 o ... .0100 ..VO?.01 00.71000‘100. .101 00 00.1 .00.
1- ... .. . .... .... ..011k1Yit. ....a.... ...0...0.I-... ....
h L! P 1 0 P
_ . , 11 H «J i
01 .01. ...10100.1 1.0....0. .1.00.... .01.0111. .01.‘.... ... L....v....0. .. .... ... .... .... ..1. .1. 1‘10.....00... ..0.0.001 .... ....
_ ,
.00..0. 1.1.0000. 1000001000 0..-e..01 .0906110. .0..v..... 01.10. 0. .....000 ....H... ..0. 919111.010.» ....r.» 0.111....
_ . .
.1ar... .0..1+....¢1.00000..m.0..0.0.1 .01110111. .0..v..1. ... c.... ......... .... .... .... .1..0.... .1...... 1111 1..
.0100... ...-01.0.VIV01110.000 .01|+..0. .0..0.... .1004... .1..*0V0. -11.«..0. ....+1... .1.. ..'.0.... ...1H...0 1... .1..
0 P P P 0 F F P P
. ( 4 4 4 . 4 1
.. .00. .-00'0... .010...0..+.. ...... 1001901.. ...1..01. ..0.o...0 .. .+1..1 ..0.0.0..A .... .0.....1 ....<.-l01.. ...
00. ..0 ..0.0..0..v100.000.1 0-...11. .01....v. ..00F.... .00..000.0 .00.».00. ...000011. 01.1 0.0.»... ....»..10 000. .0.10
1..v.. .....FI0.V..1.>..0. ..0...... ....«.1.. ..1.+....1+.0000-... .1. w.... ..0.011.. ..1. 1...~.... ....0 11- .-11171- .
_ _ _ . . .
. .... ....0.... ..0.... .. ..... 1....»11.. .0.0.0.. .0-.0..... 11.1.0.1... ......11 ... .1....... ..0....00 .1.au....
1 e 0 P t
1 _ 1 . Cc
..0... ........1 . .....
000.... ......1.. .. ...... ....0.1.. ..0110. .. 0.1.. .. .... . .... . ....0.... ... v10....... -0... ... 1.1.0....
..0..1. ....W.... ...-+..?. .1..~.... .1..1H.... .1.... ...... .. ....+.... ..1.¢..1. ..1 ...-o .. .... ..11. 1........
.........1....... ....+.... . . ... ..... .... .. ““1”.... ......... .1 ..-. ~.... .... ..l.........
, .
1 1 1 , . 1 ._ name m .. 30d. 1 _1 . 1. 1
1...-..-... .1-.....1. .1111 .11..-. .--.-L.1... .... .-.. .. . I . . . .. up“. ......-.. .. ...i. ...-I-.-......
101000100101 10.. 0‘01. .100 ..0. 001.1 .01. ..1000010r1... 1... .1.. .0. .... .... 1.... .01. .... 10.. .00. .....0... .1 ....1. 10.. 0.1. 0... .0..
71101000 0-101101100 000. .001Ar0101101vcvcv ..0. 00¢0¢00010 00.nove0. 10.1%.... .0111 .70. 00190 0010. 10000 .1... 00v. .0.. 0000a..11+.0. .0 0.;071. 10.. 09'119190. .1..
.-0o111110-;.1.. ......1.. ..0. 0... -.. ....0.... .-....1. .... ...1. .11. .... ...... .0..+.... .... .... ..1. ..-. ....... ...... .. 0.0.... .... 11.. .1... 1..
5 0'1 . 0 P F L 01 L 0 P
.1 < J. 1 4 . 4 4
1.11 ..0. ..1. .... ....0.... ......... ....0.... ....0.... 01..r.1..v.1.11011. .1.e1 . 1.. A... .. 0.... ......1.. .1....... .0.>000. .0.11 1_0. . 0... . .». ...000 0....
_
.1000 0.1. .11...... .l01.v0..0 ..0-6.0.0 ..004...1 .00.0.00-v.01.4.100. 10101.101 11.09.00. ...-4.19.0 ..0.o.0.. ..010100 0110$¥01010 L..1.+.011 ....fi0 0.0 . w.... ....+..l00..4.0..
T1.0IAY00.. 01.1.0.0. 1.01.0.00 .0..e.00. .0.1+1100L001.~1-01 .... 10.. 10.- 0.0. 0.. .00. .010011.. ....o..-. ...0..-.1 1.100010..%000.H.... .111. 0 1. . 0.... ....0..00.A..0.0....
1.00 ..0. .1..00.0. .000+.000 (0.0.01.1. .01.0-0..A.01100.000 ...0 10.1.1000! .11. ... ..0. ....a.... 1....... 1.0.00... .VYOQV... 1... 1.. .1.1H0~0 . av... ....0..10 t...0.10.
» 1 . 1 1 1 a 1 1 _ y a c _
4 4 4 1H .1 4 4 .1 _ 4
_
r010.001v.00.0100. 0.11.01... 0 ....... ....010111000191.0. ...»..1. 1.1.0010. ..11 1-.. 10.111001. .10.0.1.. .1..e.1.. .0....... .0..0.... .011010 0. .11 1.. .....01....H....
_ _
T0001 000..vt.01+0.01 ....+.000n 00..0..0. .0..-F11.1 ...1r.0. .0..0.'..70(.011F011.11 1.10&.0.1 ...-0 ......o....... 1........ .V.0Y.01.. ....0..0. 10..0l(.0.|0(0 11.....10 ..- ..v.
11$|00 00.. .0..01.1. ..100110. 1...H.... ....e..-1. 1.1..0... ....0.10. 1.0.0.0101v00o0*.0.. 010.0..1.. .10....01 .....0.1. .0..0.0.0 .00.0...1 .000.0I1 1- ..1 ..--..1.1 1.001+ .
. _ . .
..-1. .... ......1c. .......1. 1... .. ...0.... ......... ......... ..--10.1-. . ...... ... o 11...... . ...... ...».... ......... ...-..F- .1. 1 0...- .. .~..
. 1 1 \Ir
1.11.0.0. ... ...0. . .101000v.1.1f-1.. .1... .. . ..0..1 01000... . ... 1101.. 1 .1 e. ..110.I11 11. .1011-011VI1 0110.0 .. .. d.. . . .
..v.0+0.00. ....0..0. 01100.01.v...1+.1.. ..1-0<71I00A110|0000.0. .... 0.1.0.0..+..0. ......t. .... .1... .1..f1..0 ....01..0..1.11.1.1¢11.1 .0..0...1 ....9001. .00 .00.0.... 1.... 0..
10.101... 091.0.100. .1.-1010.0AYY-.71+.... .01.?071..0 -....1... .--0 .... .111H... ....1.. .... .... .0..1F.0.. ..110111. ..010.0.. ..000.1.. .1.. 1..0 .1. .01.0.1.11 0.......
_ _ _
.01. .1010. 11....-.11 .0+1+Y..10. .0. .00... ......o01 ....01... ....+.... 1... ......0..A.... ...1W.11.111-A....o.._. ....p... ..1..... v. ..w.... ... --.. ... .......l01111.... .
1 F 1 r k 1 r _1 r 1? c r . 1
4 4 4 ,_ . 4 4 4
.... .... .... ...- .... .-.. ....f.1-...1-v111. ....4.... ....H.... ....». .. ....o .. . .H.--» .01...... .-1101... .10..-.01.01 ...- .... .... .... 00. . ..... .. 0..-+..1.
...100 0.. .... .1.. ..0-0.... 0......11. .... ..11e.0...-... .... .... ........ ... 1. 111. .... ....H.101 ....0...1 10...0... .... ... ...- 1... .1... 1....... ..-.4....
701009fi.0.0. 00?. 00.00 .0005101f01vl0... 0... .1.1.A..V. .0.1+.... ...4..0.A 000%.... ...0011ol .0005001,7(Avr$.. .0.1 1001+.00. 00014.... 1........ ... .0.. .... ... ..0.¢.0l.00. .110
.....-w..l0. .-.. ... .1.1..... L... 11.. ... .-.1 .0.. .... ....0.... ....0.... ........ ...1a011. ......... ..-.H.... .1....... .... 1... .-.1 1... .... ... ....... .1111. ..-.
1 1 h a. r P P b V P
A a . 4 «
Y000.0.1.. .... .00. .0....... .... .... ..v0..1. .. . .... .... . .01..... ....o.... 0.110.... 00.- .... ....o .0. .0.1 .... .... ... ... .0. .00. .... ....o....10..1. ....
....0..0.0.. .1.0r.00. .VY0L.010 1... .00. . v.11.. ..01 ..0. .1.. ..0. ..0.+.... 10.001... .011+..10.A.... 1.0. 000.0r... .... ... .... .... ..01100. ....fiv... .1...1.‘(0.. 01..
....0110 v... .... .... .... .... ...0 .... ....w...1. .... .... .... .... 1... .... ... .1... -........ ..., .... ......... .... .... .01. .... .... .... .0..1i.... ....e.... .........
.0.. .... .... 111... .... ...V .... .... .0.0~111.0|01.100.1A..0. ... ....Lv1..- .... ....... . ...0e... .... .... ...-0.01. .0.1 10.. ...1L0..- .... 0... .... .1.. ....a.... ..1.»-0..
_ P r L A .1. F r P P 1|1 1 r 1
4 . 1 4 4 .
....1~.1.. ......rv....1111..1.......-.. ...- .... ....a.... ....a..- -1.....-. .11.-. . ..-...Z. .. .-.. .....-.l1...+...
.
.0..+.00. .0..0.0.. ...000..101.0...o.... ... .... .... .... ....a... 111...... .110.... .-....11111 .... .... ....0.... .01 .... ... .... ....v11.. ....0.... ...10.0..A0I-......
0101010.Y..0.._.1.. -110. ..1 ..0. ..1- .... .--. ....0.... ....0... ......04. .......1. 0.0.11.0. .10.1 .... .... ..0. .... ..0. ......... .....0... .0011....-.-.....1911111.1.¢.. .
Y0?0.+111.. 11.0... ....00 .0 ...011.0. ...0 .0.1 .111 0... ...1..... 0.0.00... .0..o.0.. 0..Y‘..11..L00.0M0.11 0... 10.. .0111 e..0 ....H1. . 1.+1»0001110.. 000. ..0.»101. 1.11....
n 1 » . P » 1 P P P 1
4 4 .
.00.. 001 ........ .00.0.... .0.. .00. ..0. 0100 0.0.H.00. ..10 ..011hrovt0H..1. ..1.H.... ..0.0.... ....o..0. ...0o.101 .0000100.A..01+.10. ....».0.- .0...x..0. .110 .01.. m. .m.
. ho
000.>.00. ....0.... .00.»..0. .1.. 00.. ..0110101 0001+..1. ..01 .010 001.1 00.. .01. .... ..0...... ....o.... 1......w1 .00.?011. ......0.. .0.*I0|0'. .... .... ..0..... . e...
10.0.01.+0.0. ....+..0. ....10.... .... ... .... .0.. .... .1.. .101 .1.1 .0.1.7.111. .1..0.... ......1.. ....0.... ....4.... ....+.... 11.1”-... .0..¥..-.- .... 1... ....+... 111......
.00....0. ....0.10. ....0.... . .. .... ....~.....1...... .1.0 ..0. 10.10.... 1....0.. .......0. ....o... ....o.... .0110.... .0.0 0.1. ....0010.. .0.. ... .o ....v 10......
r ..1 1 #1 J. 1 1 1r 1 11 R 1b
a 1 14 H 1 ._ (A N
T100.o.... ..1.0.... .1.10.... ..0.A.0.. .110 .0.. 0.00w.0.1v110.e010. 10111....0. .0..>..0.v..0...00. .11.+.. . ...._.00. 1-.1 0.011110.w1..0 ...1oet0.1101.o.... 101.0... 1.. .
7011104.... .....0001- ..0.0100.0.. ..0. ...- .... .... ......0.. ....0..... ..0.1+.... 100.01.... 100. 0+11 .......1. ....4..0. .001.mr.010 ..010..0. 1.1}...000 .0-. .... ....» ... -0.......
.......0. ....v1.....0..000.0.v..0.gv1.0. .0.00.00|..1 ...-o.... .....1... ....«1.0 ....«o... ...010... .01.~-1.. 1........ ..0. 10.. ....e.0.. .010>.0.. .101 1.1. 1.1. .00. .070.....
7.0.0H.000.A..0..00r0 ......000 1.0.»..0. ...010o10110.4..0.. .010W1110 .00I0H001o1 ....00.0 ..1. 0.1 ..0...... ..000.... .000 100. ..0oH... .0.0H0.1. .0..H00.- 100-H.10. ....W....
P 1 1 1 P 1 1r ..P r . 1P L 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 P 1» .1¥ 1 1 , y L
\l .. \1.
..t_24n0_zrc). mCszmgquan (Q

Operate these harvesters under most conditions.

Since beet harvesters were not used extensively in this area before
l9N6, it is difficult to determine how many years they can'be expected to
last and what charges should.be made for depreciation. Estimates on the
expected life of the harvesters varied.between three and ten years and
averaged about six.years. It is possible that many of them may last for
a.nuch longer time than the present estimates. particularly where they are
used for relatively small acreages each season. On the other hand.‘£gpai£
egpenses may have been figured too low for most machines in 19N6 since no
accurate data could be obtained on repairs needed to put the machines in
condition for the next year's harvest.

Another saving in the use of harvesters is in the cost of loading.

 

These costs involve the use of a loader, labor and.power to operate the
loader. or a considerable amount of labor when‘beets are forked.into trucks
from.piles or vindrows. On the other hand, hauling costs would be somewhat
higher when beets are loaded directly from the harvester because of the
additional traveling in the field required'by a truck when loading only one
row at a time.

Most farmers visited were very fayorably impressed.with the oper-

ation of harvesters. A.few. however. expressed some disadvantages. The

 

initial cost of a harvester is quite high and a farmer with a small acreage
of beets can hardly afford to own one unless he plans on doing custom
harvesting. Soil conditions affected the operation of the machine consider-
ably. Dry silt or clay soils tended to form clods which made Operation
difficult. Net soils adhered to working parts of the machines. Stony or

gravelly soils caused excessive wear. A.few farmers expressed Opinions

15.9
that the machines were too complicated in construction especially for hired
help to keep in proper repair and.adjustment. Many farmers were concerned
about excessive packing of the soil resulting from travel in fields by heavy
machines and.by heavily loaded trucks.

In addition to lower costs, there are other advantages which favor

 

harvesting beets mechanically. (l) Harvesting can be delayed later in

the fall for maximum growth of the beets. Opinions eXpressed among farmers
were that harvesting too early reduced yields up to three tons per acre.
With contract labor it is usually necessary to harvest when labor is avail-
able. (2) There is usually an opportunity to wait for ideal weather and
soil conditions rather than harvest when the soil is either too wet or too
dry. (3) Beets can be delivered to the factory promptly to eliminate
shrinkage. Tests have shown that fresh.beets are favored at the factory
because of better storage qualities."I (h) With mechanical harvesters.

the constant uncertainty in obtaining contract labor is eliminated.

 

* wait. 3,, DELIVER! AND STORAGE OF FRESH BEETS. Proceedings American
Society of Sugar Beet Technologists. Eastern United States and Canada.
Detroit, Mich.. l9n7.

5O

EFFECTS OF MARKETING PRACTICES ON COSTS

Marketing costs included labor. power. equipment use, trucking and
freight costs in delivering the beets from the field to the factory. The
average cost of marketing on all farms was $16.6h per acre. The average
cost per ton was $1.69 (Tables N and 5). .

Loading: Three methods of loading were used.where beets were piled
or windrowed. ”These were (1) hand loading where beets were forked into a
wagon or truck. (2) handpmechanical where fork-in loaders were used. and
(3) mechanical where pickup leaders were used. The average cost of loading

by all methods was $h.7h per acre or MS cents per ton (Tables 20 and 21).

Table 20 - ASHE cosrs or LOADING SUGAR BEETS IN MICHIGAN. 19h6 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Number Acres per_ Yield Labor Cost_per acre
Method records record_per acre Hrs/A. Labor Power Machine Total
' tons
Hand u 5.3 8.5 u.o $3.22 $0.00 $0.00 $3.22
Handymech. 6 21.0 11.0 h.h ‘3.59 .1.69 .l.18 ,6.u6
Mechanical 13 25,1 10.E. 1.5 1.21 .77 2.g;_g $.19
Ayergge 23 20,6 10.5 2.h $1393 $9.93 $ia§3_ $9.7“
Tabl. 21 - TON cosrs or LOADING SUGAR.BEETS IN MICHIGAN. 19h6 ‘
Number Acres per Yield Labor 3 . Cost per ton
Method records record. per acre Hrs/T. Labor Power Machine Total
tone 7 f_ _
Hand. 1" 5.3 8.5 05 $0038 $Oem $0000 $00938
Handemech. 6 21.0 11.0 .n , .32 . .15 . .11 . .58
Mechanical 13 25.1 10.h pg;. .12 .07 .21 .ho
.éyerage 232 20.6 _410.5 .2 $0.19 $0.09 $0.17 $0.h5

These tables include records only where farmers loaded and hauled their
own beets. No records other than total costs were available where

loading and trucking was hired except for a small amount of farm.labor
used to assist in loading.

Analysis of these records did not indicate the expected reduction in

costs from hand.to mechanical methods of loading. Instead. the costs of

51
mechanical methods of loading were found to be higher.

The average cost of hand loading was $3.22 per acre comPared to
$l+.19 for loading with pickup loaders and $6.16 per acre with fork-in
loaders. One factor which contributed to lower acre costs of hand loading
was that yields on those fields were about 2.5 tons per acre lower than on
fields where beets were loaded by fork-in or pickup loaders.

On a tonnage basis. the time required to load by hand was only one-
tenth of an hour more than the time required to load with fork-in loaders.
This was a difference in costs of 6 cents per ton. In addition to labor
costs. there were costs for power and machine use in loading with fork-in
loaders which were negligible in hand loading. The net difference in costs
between these two methods was 20 cents per ton less for hand loading.

Hours of labor required for loading with a pickup loader were slightly
less than one-third of that required for hand loading. The labor cost was
26 cents per ton lower. Power and machine costs, however, were 28 cents per
ton by this method. making a net of 2 cents more in the cost of loading with
pickup loaders than by hand loading. Pickup leaders were relatively
expensive machines considering the amount they were used. The machine cost
of using this method of loading was more than the combined labor and power
cost. .

Even though the costs of both hands-mechanical and mechanical methods
were higher than hand loading, there was an advantage in getting the Job
done faster and in eliminating a large amount of heavy work.

Trucking: Forty-eight percent of the farmers who kept records
trucked their own beets. 38 percent hired both loading and trucking and

11} percent did at least a part of the loading and trucking themselves and

52
hired the rest. One farmer. who was only a.mile from the factory. used
tractors and wagons to haul his beets.

Since separate records were not available for loading where loading
and trucking was hired. the combined costs were used to compare costs of
marketing where farm labor was used and.where the work was hired. The cost
of marketing by farm labor was $7.00 less per acre than where hired (Table
22). The average cost where farmers hauled their own.beets was $10.6M-per
acre. Of this amount $5.50 was for labor and $5.15 was for equipment use.
The average time required to load and.haul beets was 6.8 hours per acre.

The average cost of trucking hired was $17.65 per acre.

Table 22 - ACRE cosrs or MARKETING suasn.nnnms IN MICHIGnN.;3H6*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acres Yield . Cost per acre
Marketing Number per per Labor Equip-
Method ‘ records record acre Hrs/A. Labor ment Hired Total
tons
Term labor:
Loading 26 15.9 10.1 7.1 $5.7M $6.18 $0.00 $11.92
Direct from. . . . .
. harvester 17 20.8 10.0 6e5 5e 23 3e91“ .00 9017
Averagg:: 43 11.8 10.0 6.8 $5.50 $5.15 £9.00 §10.6§
Hired: ‘ ' ‘ .
Loading 31 13.8 9.2 - - - $18.19 $18.19
Direct from . .
harvester 7 1n.0 8.6 - - - 15.26 15.26

MB 9-1 - - - $17-5 5
‘ freight charges not included
There was a saving of 88 cents per ton where farmers marketed their
own beets (Table 23). The total cost per ton was $1.06 where farmers did
their own work as compared to $1.9M where loading and trucking was hired.
The average cost of loading and trucking on all farms was $1.53 per ton.

The average distances of the farms from the factories was very nearly the

53

same for both methods.

Table 23 - TON cosms or MARKETING SUGAR.BEETS IN HIQETGAN, 19h6 ‘

 

 

 

 

 

Acres Yield Cost per ton
Marketing Number per_ per Labor .Equip-
Method recordg; record‘facre HrslT hgpor pment Hired Total
tons '
Tarn labor:

“'fioading 26 15.9 10.1 .7 $0.57 $0.61 $0.00 $1.18

Direct from . . . .
harvester 17 20.8 10.0 .7 .52 .H0 .00 .92
Average It; 17.8 10.0 .1 $0. 55 $0.51: $0.00 $1.06

Hired: ‘ ‘ ‘ '
Loading 31 13.8 9.2 - - - $1.97 $1.97

Pirect from . .
. harvester ‘7 1h.0 8.6 - - - 1.78 1.78

 

 

Average #38 13.9 9.1 - - - $1.98 $1.9M

_ Freight charges not included.

The total cost of marketing was lowest on farms where beets were
leaded directly from methanical harvesters. 0n farms where farmers marketed
their own beets. there was a saving of $2.75 per acre or 26 cents per ton
where beets were loaded directly from mechanical harvesters instead of being
loaded from piles and.windrows.

Where trucking was hired. the saving in marketing direct fram
harvesters was $2.93 per acre or 19 cents per ton. The arerage cost of
all marketing where beets were loaded direct from harvesters was $10.50
per acre or $1.09 per ton. The cost of marketing by all other methods.
including hand and.mechanical loading, averaged $17.11 or $1.72 per ton.
Thus. there was an average saving of $6.61 per acre or 63 cents per ton
by marketing beets directly from harvesters compared to loading and.market-
ing beets from piles or windrows.

Freight: Eight farmers hauled.their beets to weigh statihns and

5h
shipped them by freight from.there to the factories. These farmers lived
an average distance of 52 miles from the factories and.tound it impractical
to truck their beets the whole distance. The average cost of freight was

$1.16 per ton.

55
SIMMRY

Sugar beet growers are facing the problem of deciding whether or
not it. is practical for them to make use of new develOpments in sugar beet
production with their present systems of farming. This study was begun
with the purpose of determining the effect of new methods on time and costs
in producing sugar beets.

Seventy-one farmers in the sugar beet areas of Michigan kept records
on time and costs. The average cost of production was found to be $92.92
per acre. Acre costs varied from $5)+ to $1149. Ton costs averaged $9.14».
and varied from $3.75 to $23.75. “in. average yield on these farms ”...

9.9 tons per acre which was 1.1 tons per acre higher than the average
yield for an beets grown in Michigan in 19%.

Hand labor for blocking. thinning and. harvesting was the largest
single item of expense. This amounted to $35.)” per acre or about 36 per-
cent of all costs on farms where mechanical harvesters were not used.

Farm labor. mostly for machine Operation. was the next highest item of
expense at $13.32 or 13.5 percent of total costs. These two items of
labor together averaged $8.79 or about ’49 percent of all costs.

The average gross. returns for beets on farms included in this study
was $167.60 per acre. This included a credit of $160.85 per acre for beets
and a credit of $6.75 per acre for beet tops. The average price received
for beets was $16.25 per ton in 19% including government payments.

The average net returns on these farms was about $7M.68 per acre or
$7.19 per ton. Net returns varied from a gain of $185.79 per acre to a
loss of $37.51. ' '

New develOpments in labor saving methods on which data were obtained

56

in this study were the use of segmented seed. mechanical harvesters and
mechanical loaders. 'Experimental work is being carried on in this state
on pelleted seed. improved.beet drills. mechanical blockers. and chemical
weed control methods.

Segmented seed was used.by about 70 percent of the beet growers in
Michigan in 19H6. The advantages in using segmented seed.were (1) less
labor required and lower costs for blocking and thinning. (2) lower seed
costs. and (3) higher yields.

Stands of beets planted with segmented seed.were more uniform and
had a higher percentage of single plants. This made it possible to block
and thin beets with long handled boss and reduced.the labor requirements in
hand thinning to a minimum. Results from this study showed that fields
p1anted.with segmented seed required.about 10 percent less hand labor in
blocking and.thinning than where whole seed.was used. Results from
controlled emperiments indicate that labor needs in blocking and.thinning
may'be reduced up to 30 percent by the use of segmented seed.

The rate for blocking and thinning fields p1anted.with segmented
seed as established.by the United States Department of Agriculture for
19h6 was $2.00 less per acre than where whole seed.was planted. The saving
in labor costs where segmented seed was used as determined.by this study
was only $1.25 per acre since many farmers paid the maximum rate regardless
of the kind of seed used. I

The net results of using segmented seed compared to whole seed were
(1) 3.“ hours less contract labor per acre required for blocking and thin-
ning. (2) a saving of $1.25 per acre lower labor costs. (3) a saving of 32

cents per acre in seed costs. and (h) higher yields of about one-half ton

57
per acre.

Mechanical harvesters were used in Michigan on a fairly large scale
for the first time in 1986. There were about 135 machines of five different
makes in use. an increase of more than a hundred machines from the previous
year. Most of these machines were made by the Scott-Miner Company.

It was possible to harvest from 3 to 7 acres per 10 hour day with a
harvester. The average was about u acres a day. or 2.6 hours per acre.
Although the machine could have been Operated.with only two men under most
conditions. several farmers used three men. About 7 hours of farm labor
were spent per acre in operating the harvester.

Costs of harvesting with mechanical harvesters varied from $6.75
to $18.37 and averaged $13.1t8 an acre. This included $5.65 for labor.
$5.52 for machine use and.$2.31 for power. I
‘ The total cost of lifting'and.hand harvesting. the old method. was
$20.25 an acre. There was an average saving of $6.77 per acre by using
mechanical harvesters or one-third of the cost of lifting and hand harvest-
ing. This saving amounted to 77 cents per ton.

Following are some of the other advantages of using mechanical
harvesters in addition to lower costs:

(1) Harvesting can be delayed later for maximum growth of beets
rather than harvesting when migratory labor is available.

(2) Beets can be delivered.promptly to eliminate shrinkage and
retain g00d storage qualities.

(3) The uncertainty in obtaining adequate contract labor is
eliminated.

(h) There is an additional saving in loading costs when beets are

loaded directly into trucks from harvesters as can be done with most machines.

58

It was determined in this study that the theoretical acreage that
could be harvested by machine at the same cost as hand harvesting was
about 35 acres. However. in order to make a best harvester a practical
investment. a farmer should plan to harvest about 75 to 100 acres in order
to make significant savings. This can be done either by increasing his
own acreage or by doing custom harvesting.

Mechanical loaders are being used extensively on farms where beets
are put into piles or windrows after harvesting. The labor cost per ton
of loading with fork-in loaders was found to be only about 20 percent
lower than the cost of hand loading. However. with the additional power
and machine egense the total cost of using fork-in loaders was about
50 percent higher than hand loading.

The total cost of loading with pick-up loaders was very nearly
the same as hand loading. however. labor costs were only about one-third
as much by this method as by hand loading. Power and machine costs made
up the remaining two-thirds of the costs where pickup leaders were used.
Even though the costs of mechanical methods of loading may be as high or
higher then hand loading. there is an advantage in getting the work done
faster and in eliminating the heavy work of forking beets into a wagon or

truck.

APPENDIX

1

Table l - CASH RECEIPTS FROM SUGAR.BEETS. BEANS AND ALL FARM PRODUCTS IN
MICHIGAN. 1915-M6 *
‘ Percent of

‘—

Percent of

 

Year . Beets Beans All Farm- ‘ Beets Beets to all
#7 Products to Beans Farm Products
(1000 dollar87_ (percent)

1915 5912 10792 Not 55 -
16 377 1180M. available 29 -
17 302 ’ 17121 25 g
18 9157 17905 53 -
19 15092 111920 101 -

1920 13305 1301M 102 -
21 7092 9117 77 -
22 M973 11658 n3 -

2 7679 15082 51 -
2 8302 17231 266.063 M8 3.12

1925 7265 18827 280.965 39 2.59
26 5872 15231 286.370 37 2.05
27 5135 16211 271.329 32 1.89
28 3696 20233 276.129 18 1.3a
29 2602 2269M 268.755 11 .97

'1930 3702 15193 229,6u5 2H 1.61
31 3792 7733 157.787 “9 2.26
32 6138 M953 128.799 12%. 1.77
33 6982 83h2 1h6.393 an 1.77
3“ 5793 9606 168.955 60 3.90

1935‘ 5053 9077 189.830 56 2.66
36 5990 12583 2 0. 3 #7 2.58
37 3851 12100 2 8.651 32 1.55
38 6076 82n2 208.000 79 2.92
39 5567 10187 216.801 55 2.57

19ho 5678 11117 230,u32 51 2.h6
M1 6592 1817h 298.350 36 2.21
M2 9208 27366 90.905 35 2.36
M3 3022 29689 7,n76 10 .65
nu 5207 19836 h88.730 26 1.07

19h5 10625** 1M263*§ 501,u27** 72 2.12
96 15559** 592.739: ‘ 1 2.62

 

* Source of data from 1915 to 192k from INCOME PARITY roaicfifEfiLTURE. Partéf.
Sections 11 and 18. 1910-M3. U. S. D t. of Agr.. Bur. of Ag. Econ. _
washington D. 0. Data from 1925 to 19 from CASH RECEIPTS FROM FARMING
BY STATES AND COMMODITIES. U. s. Dept. of Agr., Bur. of Agr. Econ..
washington. D. C. 7 '

** Preliminary ‘

Table 2 — SUGAR BEET ACREAGE AND SELECTED PRICES AND PRICE INDEXES FOR
MICHIGAN. 1915—M6.

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

—*f Prices Indexes of Prices
Acres" Sugar Dry? Sugar _ Dry All farm
Year Planted Harvested beets"I beans*'*beets beans products Hagesl
fivtons 233- _(1910—lu = 100)

1910-1M 5.72 3.23

1915 Not 122 5.91 M.62 10M 1M3 105 10M
16 available 100 6.1M 7.33 107 227 133 117
17 82 8.0M 11.98 1M1 371 191 1M1
18 115 10.08 9.61 172 298 201 159
19 12M 12.52 6.98 219 216 217 183

1920 130 10.08 5.Mg 176 169 218 225
21 l 8 6.10 3.5 107 110 135 1M7
22 8M 7.22 5.61 126 17M 131 1M3
2 109 9.38 6.03 16M 186 1 3 171
2 150 8.85 M.77 155 1M8 137 172

1925 115 7.06 5.03 123 156 153 169
26 118 7.00- M.12 122 128 163 178
27 99 7.16 5.90 125 183 155 179
28 71 7.22 8.00 126 2M8 163 178
29 66 58 8.50 e 6.70 199 207 165 181

1930 89 83 8.50 M.35 1M9 135 1MM 150
31 62 60 6.38 1.80 112 56 9M 109
32 128 123 5.60 1.50 98 M6 6M 78
33 173 160 5.85 2.25 102 70 73 69
3M 150 127 7.50 2.75 131 85 89 80

1935 136 12M 7.63 2.25 133 70 10M 92
36 113 10M 6.52 6.00 11M 186 120 107
37 92 81 7.85 2.55 137 79 132 133‘
38 1M1 13M 7.88 1.85 138 57 102 121
39 1M3 137 7.35 . 2.80 128 87 97 121

19Mo 1M2 131 7.99 .50 1M0 108 106 12M
M1 115 108 9.05 .55 158 1M1 129 157
M2 159 128 9.60 M.8o 169 1M9 161 193
M3 69 56 12.79 5.90 22M 183 202 2M8
MM 80 68 1M.M5 6.00 253 186 199 287

19M5 106 90 13.88 " 6.20 2M 192 211 31M
M6 120 109 16.25 " 12.20 28 378 238 339

 

Sugar beet prices include government payments.
’* Personal correspondence with P. A. Reeve. Farmers and Manufacturers Beet
Sugar Association, Saginaw. Mich.
**‘ Michigan Farm Economics Chartbook - 19M7

é CrOp and Livestock Report for Michigan. 19M6

1.;

.0R SUGAR BEE” TILE AND

Grower's Rams

3

Farm nanagement Department
Michigan Stale College

East Lansing, Lichigan

INDIVIDUAL RECORD
COS? STUDY

Factory District

 

 

Address

.7-.. ...- . -.--..-

Acres of beets planted

 

—~. . .. —._‘~--~

beets harvested

 

-_“_Aeres of

 

--‘.

__wun-m__ltem
Seed furnished:
Lbs .

 

,, seg.( ), whole( )

Financial Summary

Credits

Amount

...——~ 0

lbs. §i_____.__

Amount Item

Seed returned:

--— m-.. -..“... --

Beets delivered:
Gross tons

 

Cost per lb.

 

 

 

, Total '9

 

 

 

 

Fertiliser furnished: Tare
Analysis , lbs
_ Net tons
, o ‘ r C"
Cost per ton ’ lota1.5 . p

Salt:

Drilliront:
make of drill

Credit on beets delivered 5
lbs. 3

 

Other credits;

 

Cos acre

(+-
"G

or

 

 

Contract labor:
Blocking, thinning

Rate per acre

and nosing:

 

1‘"

~—— _ “+9

. c n
,1. Otal 99W ‘1?

 

Topping:

Rate per aore

 

, Totafi

, Total?

 

Other charges:

 

 

 

:25
8
t 7 Total credits Q

K
o

Less charges a

1"Jet return on beets .3

 

 

 

 

 

 

....

 

Field No.
Name - Address

 

County Township Factory District _______,,

DESCRIPTIVE NOTES
Acres planted in beets ______________

 

Kind of soil ___________________

 

Drainage (good. fair. poor) ___________

 

OrOp in field last year_ _ _ _ _ ... ________

 

z’anure applied _______________ Year . tons

 

Year __.____.___-. . tons

 

Fertilizer: Total pounds used __________

 

Pounds per acre ________________

 

Analysis ___________________

 

Minor elements (boron, copper sulphate. salt)

 

Method of application

 

Cost per ton _________________ 3

 

Plowing Qfall. spring. or not at all) ______

 

Kind and size of crop plowed under ______

 

Estimated value of crop plowed under _____ $ ..

 

Planting: Date

 

Kind of seed used (whole. segmented. pelle‘tZed)

 

Pounds of seed used ______ rate per acre .....- , total

Total cost 0% seed $

 

.‘Vi dth 0f rows ________________

 

Length of rows

 

Number of rows in field ___________

 

Kind of planter used _____________

 

Crop rotation followed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0. I 5
-. Q- -- v w ‘1
. . .. ..

‘ ._

.-. - -- up |
o‘ e

l — -' .

' .-

. ' u
.‘n a we a»
.F -g -9 -

‘- rv. . 4......

s . . I

'Q. ‘I- -. 3‘1 .-

 

e
.q..'l. a. '
. .' "s
s . -
~ I“ Q- '-
.. a. be ‘-

 

 

I,‘
l . I‘Q.I
. . ..-. . —
o a
f. .‘. .....
5 ...~ ne'. .
"I-n. .. ‘ ... s
s I . .... .~.~ a "‘-
. . . .7 1.. I .'
as u .. —- o v -
.- ..... c -- . . o .
e
.‘
.o
I!“ ' O V. V. ‘0' us
i 0 up | o "s '-
~ - . . on -.
.
.~., .7 -
’- s I -‘ I
.- . o. -
.l
I a . - - a.
.I s . u: w,. ’,. .... ... v-
s .
s
s 'n I "
.
o . .
v s
h I
. l‘
n I . 2 ‘
‘ es 0' . 9‘ v s ‘y-
C e C o -s
' .0 I
e o
e o -. .
i ’n ".. . . I . ~-
I e s IO. I. ‘ v. ‘1 —. o
w . a” g c s a I 0“ .I .-
. a .s
>- A. to. a O0 0"
' ' C 0%. m- 0 . ‘Dc c
. ego-cn~ . e .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Field No. 5..
JName Address
County Township Factory district
LABOR AND POWER.RECORD
Date Operation “532%;th hgirnL 8839* Tractor Truck ...
Plowing,
HarrOWing
Dishing
Cult'inachinsnnnqllina
Fertiligipg (commercial)
Planting
Cultivating l.
2.
3.
.é;
5-
Hoeing_ l.
2.
3.
4.
Total
Contract labor on above operation fl
Contract labor used.on acres. Cost per acre $ ‘Total cost $

 

Note: *Enter fractional hours to the nearest quarter hour.
* Hours of work for one horse.

- ...

a
I-.
u I. ,
...,
- a
'v or
...-

 

.4

 

-
-.
s
a a
v--

 

s
.
s
o
-..

 

   

.
.
§ ' D ...
. ‘ .
' "’.‘--‘
_,
. -2
, . .
_!
. . '_ .4:
.
‘ u , O
’1 n
D V e
. ' I
.
I ‘ ,~
0. ., , . ,
.
" .
O - .
e. .
. ,
. - - .
.
I
...,, '
s
..0 H . r
.
.
l . ‘
a
. .. .
. . ...
.
.
. . ..
. . _

 

 

 

Field NO.

 

Name Address

 

County Township Factory district _

DESCRIPTIVE NOTES - BLOCKING AND THINNING

Weed condition of field (clean moderate. weedy) --------
Plants per 100 inches before thinning -------------
Plants per 100 feet after thinning ------------- .—
Spacing desired in rows ....................
Method of blocking and thinning used: (draw line through those not used)

1. Hand blocking and thinning. (a) short hoe. .(b) long hoe.

2. Mechanical blocking with hand thinning. (a) short hoe. (bf) long hoe.

Kind of machine used — -’ ---------------

3. Mechanical blocking and thinning - Machine used - - - '-
Was contract labor used for blocking and thinning or thinning only?
Contract labor used on..___..__.acres. Cost per acre 3; ......— Total cost $

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LABOR AND POKER USED IN BLOCKING AND THINNING

 

"Date .. Condition
(keepeedl Man Hours Tractor Rows covered in of soil

days ..0. {3:31. tagged Hours: Blocked Thinned Blocked. (wet,

as o thinned or ideal

 

 

*If blocking and thinning are done in one operation. enter labor in column headed
"Blocked & thinned; if done separately enter in column headed "Blocked only” and

"TM Wand (.771 V" .

 

 

 

 

   

 

. .
‘ I «
,. . ..
Aor . .
,4 4 . ‘ ' . . .. -
. , .- . . - .
, .
, . ..
_ .
. . - . ' ‘ .
. .
I .-. - .l‘ . i .
o v ‘ .
, ,u .
_. u
.‘ n 1 «.- o .... .
, t . . ...
' . I _ . 4- _ .
I
‘ « J a
‘ u
‘ , - . .
I , v ... g. n -. 7 c I
. ‘ ' . I
.. .... o0 ‘0 '
I . . .. . -. w ‘ . ..
. . .
..
_ .
v' ‘
‘ _ _ . . ... .1 .3 . . .
I. '
. O.
. . ~- -... . . - _‘ .7 . . .. - . .
p
I ‘ o
‘ ‘ n . u
. - . . ‘ I ’
u . '~' ‘ _
’ I
g . - ‘ ~- . 0 '
a
. ‘ . . _ . _ .-
u
. n
' I w . i l
. I . . . t ' ‘ ~ I ‘ . -
' u - I ‘ d.
O I.
l .
, u .0 .
.-
..
, _. .. - .-. , - - .. .
" . . .. u ' 04 v c ’
.
.. .
. ' . "I
. , ' ' . no r
. ‘ i - c ' . - 1 \
n
. . . .
. ‘ l ‘ I .y I n
. g .
- . _ _ u . . . .
“
. ._ .,
I . ‘. . 1"
, Q . , ,
, , . . . ... .v _
. -
a
. . . , ‘ I
. l . n u h '
. A ...
.
. O ‘
. ‘ . . ‘ .
. . .. . A
. I _ l '
_ .
. a
. . .
. u
. ~ . .
. . s. ~
' o -. ‘. - O ‘ . - A ‘U < - 4
_ I . .
5
‘ .
. ‘ " g
. —.
\’ ~
- a ’0 ' o
.
. ,n
. .. o ~
' - - A . .. . .
. ‘0
I
- v . - ...: . _ ... . ‘
i
C
. 7 u n - l ’ ' - .
§
.
. I —. . A. - ‘ '
I
. ' I _ '
t , ‘~ k i ‘
. _ _ .‘ ._ ‘ _ . . ’
.
. ...—... u. ' ""
9
.
. - - . I 5 .. .. .n .. :‘ .
,. .. .-
. .. . . ,. re. . . - .. . .
|
n . 0 Act I ~-- ' ' . ‘
‘ ' 'r ' .- ‘ 0
.
... .1 ... .
~ - a - .- i -
‘ ‘ . .lv - . 'I
. , . t, - ~ . g .. .. ~ - '
, . .
_ , ..., ...- "' ’
‘ . f O , . u . I " .- . ‘ _ .
,.
. v . . .
. . t.- . .4. p I. ,
I .' '. ~o . . y. ... -
. . , I so .
b . . a _, ‘0 . I
. v ' . ‘ I ' . _ - .
‘ _ . ' _ ‘ ’ . . . ., a
to . . ~ -
. ‘ _ . . ., I.‘ r ,. ‘- ...
' ‘ ‘ ' u ~‘. 0 ' " ‘ ' . .

 

-.’

 

 

 

. a
.
,
u .
..
a
I
‘ .
n
o '9
.-
>w- .-
v
u
.-
._
u
I" .
.,
. .
u
‘ Q
I .
. .
s
‘ a
. . ' e
a
c
..0

 

;.
~
-
.
~
a
. .-
...-l-
«1
. -

 

‘
.
.
.4
,0

Field No.

 

Name Address

 

County “wafiship Factory District

DESCaIPTIVL NOTLS - HAJVDSTING SUGAR BLLTS

Stand count per 100 feet before harvesting. . . . . . . . . . . .

 

Acres harvested 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

 

Acres abandoned o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

 

‘ Lethod of harvesting used:

1. Lifting - (horses, traCtor) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

 

2. Pulling and topping — (farm labor,or contract labor) . . .

 

3. Hindrowing or bunching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

hOCOInbj-ningDooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

5. Loading — (direct from combine, from piles, from windrou,
pickup loader, forked into loader, forked into
wagon OP tTUCk) . o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

 

Larketing - (hauled direct to factory, reloaded from wagon to
truck, pitted and reloaded, hauled by freight) . . .

 

Beets hauled miles to factory at

 

 

Beets shipped by freight from to factory at

 

 

Gross tons Of beets produced. 0 o o o o o o a o o o o o o o o o o

 

Tare. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o

 

Net tons sold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

Use Of beet tops . o o o o o o a o o o o o o o o o

 

Value of beet tops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

GAOJEA'S DSTILATD ON HOURLY LABOJ nND PO.na COSTS

 

 

 

 

 

Operators labor. . . . . . 3 . - Horse work per horse . . . . $"“
Other family labor . . . . $ ~ Tractor work . . . , . . . . $
Hired labor other than " Truck use per mile

contract , , , , , , , , , 3 (farm.truck) , . . . . . . s

 

 

 

.I

..
c..."

S

, O
Q ~.‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Field No.
Name Address
County Township Lactory District
LABOR AND‘ POWER RECORD ON HARVLSTINC snow BEETS
Hours .
Date Operation Contract nan (l) Horse(2) Tractor Truck(3) Soil Con-
4 Labor Hours Hours Hours Miles dition
Lifting ' :
i
gulling and topping
_. Bunching or hindrowina
__ Fitting
Logding _l
C _1. . -
Haul ing '
Miscellaneous
Contract labor used on acres, Rate per acre h

 

 

Total $

(1) Do not include contract labor
(2) Hours of work for one horse
(3) miles for farm truck only

 

~ Nu. .-

Name

Field NO.

NO

Address

 

 

County

Township Factory District

 

MACHINBJY USED ON SUGAR BLLTS

 

Machine

Hake, size

d.hodel

Acres Use: Value Dep. Int. Taxes Re-- Mach. T Cost 'c

 

 

Totalkets S75 Ins.2'”',a airs hired otal Beets

 

manure Spreader

 

Plow

 

Disk

 

Spike, tooth
narrow

 

Spring tooth
harrow

 

Rollerlor
Cultm' agker

 

Beet,drill

 

Calibrator

 

Lifter

 

_Qcmhind

 

Loader

 

'Wagon

 

Tractor

 

Truck

 

 

 

Machinery housin

JD.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HISCELLANEOUS COSTS

 

 

Is beet land rented or owned . . . .
Value of land per acre . . . . . . .
Landrentooooooooooe I
Taxesooooooooooooo 0
Trucking and freight (hired) . .
Other charges ( house rent for labor, as
on advances, etC.) . e o o o o o o o o o o o o 0
Overhead (5% of all other costs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

 

0 0'0 0 o o o'd' Q

00......

o

iation dues, interest

 

o
o
o
o
O

0C1

 

 

 

 

 

4 0

-¢

Y“.. fia'ov.,.

o 4 .
t
:
.
n I

.‘ I
‘_.
| i h
p' 0‘ '
, \
'o
. I, P

'c

a
3.
I
I
A
O

. o -
.05 u.
x A.
' I
a. .

,,0.‘ .

a. V
. urn.
a
. n _
m
n
o
.'"
u

BIBLIOGRAPHY

io
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bell R. W.
' l9h7. LABOR SAVINGS RESULTING FROM USE OF SEGRENTED SEED. Pro~
ceedings American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists.
Eastern United States and Canada. Detroit. Mich.. 19h7.

Bell. R. W.. Robertson. L. S. and.Cook. R. L.
19h5. EEEECT or SHEARING SUGAR RENT SEED ON STAND or REETS. ON
LABOR REQUIREMENTS AT THE The CF BLOCKING AND TRINNING.
AND ON YIELD OF ROOTS. Mich. Agr. Exp. Quart. Bul.
28:157-6h._ Nov."u5.

Black. J. D. and Corson. C. T.
19h]. SUGAR: PRODUCE OR IMPORT? University of California,Press.
Berkeley. Calif.

Coons. G. H.
1936. IMPROVING-THE SUGAR.REET. U. s. Agr. Yearbook, pp. 625-56.

Culbertson. J. 0.
19th.. AGRONOMIC CONSIDERATION OD MECHANIzED SUGAR.BEET PRODUCTION.
Journ. Am. Soc. Agron. 36:558—565. July vnu.

Culbertson. J. 0.
19h}... SEGMENTED SUGAR—DENT SEED. Minn. Agr. Ext. Bul. 21:0.

Culbertson. J. 0.
19MO.V SUGAR igET CULTURE IN MINNESOTA. Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Bul. 3 .

Harmer, P. M.
19u3. MUCK SOIL MANAGEMENT FOR SUGAR.BEET PRODUCTION. Mich. Agr.
Exp. Sta. Circ. Bul. 187.

Hentchel, H.
19h7. COST OF OPERATION OF SUGAR.DEET CONDINES IN 19M6. Mich.
State Col. Farm Mgt. Dept. unpublished report.

Higgins. F. H.
1939.. MECHANIZATION MAKES STRIDES TowARD SOLVING RENT FARMING
PROBLEMS. racta About Sugar. 3hz23-7. Dec. '39.

Hill. E. B. '
1939. TYRES CF EARNING IN MICHIGAN. Mich. Aer. E- . Sta. SpeC.
Bul. 206.
3111. E. B.

1922. SUGAR BRET CULTURE. Thesis ( M. Agr.). Mich. State Col.

Ill

L111, J. G.
1939. SUGAR BERT CULTURE IN THE HUI'IID AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES.
U. S. Dept. of Agr.IFarmer's Bul. 1637.

Macy, L. K. and others
1937. CHANGES IN TECHNOLOGY AND LABOR REQUIREMENTS IN CROP PRO-
- DUCTION - SUGAR BEETS. Works Progress Administration.
National Research Project.

McKibben. E. G.. Bell. R. N. and Smith. L. E.
1916. SUGAR BEET RARVESTER TRIALS IN MICHIGAN IN 19kg AND 19%.
Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Quart. Bul. 28:1. Aug. ' 5.

Mervine. E. M.
191+}. LABOR SAVING BY SUGAR BERT I-.ECH.'NIZATION. Agr. Eng.
2h:79_so., Mar. ”:3.

Mervine. E. M. and Barmington, R. D.
191+}. MECHANICAL THINNING OF SUGAR BEETS. Colo. Agr. Ease. Sta.
Bul. M76.

Mervine. E. M.. and Burdick. R. T.
19145. SUGAR BEST GRONERS LOOK TO MECHANICAL HARVESTERS To SOLVE
LABOR PROBLEMS. Colo. Agr. Exp. Farm. Bul. 7:2-I+. Nov. ”45.

Reeve. P. A.
191W. Farmers and Manufacturers Beet Sugar Association. Saginaw.
Mich. Personal correspondencl with the author. May 6. ”+7.

Reeve. P. A.
1914-7. RESULTS SECURED WITH SUGAR BEE-T HARVESTERS IN THE EASTERN
AREA IN 19%. Praceedings American Society of Sugar Beet
TechnOIOgists. Eastern United States and Canada. Detroit.
Mich.. 191w.

Reeve. P. A. and Buschlen. M. J.
191m. IMPROVED TECHNIQUES or SEGANLNTING AND PLANTING SUGAR-BRET
SEED. Mien. Agr. Exp. Quart. Bu1. 26:215—26. rob. um.

Sauve, E. C.
1911.3. SUGAR BEET LOADER. Mich. State Col. Agr. Eng. Bul. 317-1.

Smith. P. B.
191:6. HARVES‘ENG SUGAR BEETS MECHANICAILY. Sugar 1+1:33-5.
Apr. '. .-

Wait. R.
1911?]. DELIVERY AND STORAGE OF FRESH BEETS. Proceedings American
Society of Sugar Beet Technologists. Eastern United States
and Canada. Detroit. Mich.. 1914-7.

West. W. T. .
19%. SUGAR BRET HARVESTERS. Agr. 52:259—62. Sept. ”:5.

£2"

Willcox. O. W. .
19%. MRCHANIZATION OF HARVRSTING. Sugar Lilac—5. Jan. '145,

Wright. K. T.
19140. SUGAR BEET COSTS AND RRTURNS IN MICHIGAN. Mich. Agr. Exp.

Sta. 313699 3‘11! 305-.

wright. K. To
19%. SUGAR BERT PRODUCTION AND INCOME IN MICHIGAN. Mich. State
001., Farm Mgt. Dept. unpublished report. Jul. 18. “#6.

Wright, K. T. and Aylesworth. P. F.
193M. SUGAR BEET COSTS ON 52 MICHIGAN FARMS. Mich. State 00]..
Farm Mgt. Dept. mimeographed report I‘M-128.

Wright. K. T. and Bank. A. M.
1933. SUGAR BEET COSTS ON 1+5 IICHIGAN FARMS. Mich. State Col.
mime ographed report I'M-10M.

Wright. K. T. and Leonard. A. L.
1936. 1935 SUGAR BEET COSTS ON 95 MICHIGAN FARMS. Mich. State.
Col. Farm Mgt. Dept. mimeographed report I‘M-153.

Wright. I. T. and Taylor. R. B.
1937. 1936 SUGAR BEET COSTS ON 87 MICHIGAN FARMS. Mich. State
Col. Farm Mgr. Dept. mimeographed report I‘M-180.

"' "' " "1'9'1i3. CROP REPORT FOR MICHIGAN. U. S. Dept. of Agr. . Bureau of
Agr. Econ._. Kich. .Dept. of Agr. , Lansing.

- " "' HERB. CASH RECEIPTS FROM FARMING BY STATES AND COMMODITIES.
193““. _U. S. Dept.‘ of Agr.. Bureau of Agr. Econ”
Washington. D. C. ’

" " " _I'é'hli. INCOME PARITY FROM AGRICULTURE, Part I. Sections 11 and 18.
1910-18. U. 5. Dept. of Agr., Bur. Agr. Econ.. Washington.
D. C. _ '

" " ’ "fihs. MICHIGAN FARM ECONOMICS CHARTBOOK - 191w. Depts. of Econ.
and, Farm Mgt.. Mich. ”State Col. Agr. Exp. Sta. and. Ext.
Sec. Dec. ”46. ’—

' " " ‘1'9'143. SHEAIE£65EED TESTS snow LABOR SAVING. Sugar 3096 J ourn-
Maro . _ 0

1938. WAGES. Ell/[PLOW CONDITIONS. AND WELFARE OF SUGAR-MET

LADDERS. U. 8. Dept. of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Ser. No. R. 703. _Washington. D. C.

‘f
'1

’t:‘ f?"

3 1;) L1 g .2 a

‘ a

H31"

F.‘ _ J ‘
I" 11" ”a

f“. i '3 _.
us :2 ‘1' hr

'f.‘

i

'7?

 

 

”'TITIi‘flflIITIL Iij: MM fiiflifljflflfllflflfljfijfi 1?th'“