La Junta tribune., 1917-04-12
SUGAR BEET PROBLEM
Farmer Does Not Receive Enough
for His Beet Crop to Make
II Profitable

Does 1t pay the farmer to grow
sugar beets? Does 1t pay the mer-
chant, the banker and the sugar com
pany?
The most important of these, as
they are the most numerous and
really constitute the foundation of
the business, is the farmer.
From our observation and exper-
fence in our dealings with the far
mers in this valley, during the years
sugar beets have been grown, we are
led to believe that, taken one year
with another and one farmer with
another. the farmers profits, as a
whole, have been small. The fact Is.
a minority have made good profits.
a majority have made little profits.
while great many have not only
made no profits, but have lost
money.
The First National Bank has al
ways been an ardent advocate OF
sugar beet growing and has encour-
aged the industry in every way. We
believed we had figured out every
detail OF the expense and the re-
turns, and we were fully convinced
that there we're large profits In beet
growing: but. after observing the
experience OF the farmers, since the
industry began. and comparing their
past and present condition. We find
the majority have but slightly i'm
proved their condition, many have
become more and more In debt, and
a large number have met with fall
ure, SO that a number OF them are
confronted with the necessity OF SELL
ing their farms as the only way out.
Our farmers are not all good far
mers. but as a class they are as good
farmars as are to be found any
where. They comprise successful
American farmers. Mennonites. Ger
mans. Dunkards and others. We
know these farmers. We have
tramped over their fields We have
kept tab on their bank accounts.
their notes and their success and
failure.
What Is the trouble! The cause
is the farmer does not receive enough
for his beet crop to pay his expenses
and leave a reasonable profit.
First. the average tonnage OF the
majority Is too small. Second. the
price paid for beets has not been re-
munerative. The price for the past
two years especially has not cores
ponded with the increased cost OF
production nor what the increased
price OF sugar justified.
The average tonnage per acre, In
Colorado. has been. according to the
government report. about Tx tons.
This means that the average for the
majority Is probably about . or sh
tons. The average tonnage for 1916
inthis Valley. was but little over
. tons. The price per ton for 1914
was 35.ss. 1915 s5.ss and 1915.
with the war bonus" &s.3S. The
price actually received by the major
,ty OF the farmers was much less
but little above $3.50. and that. too,
for very light tonnage. The ma
iori,y received less than $50 per
acre. Beets cannot be grown with
n profit OF less than $50 or $50 per
acre. For 1917. the price offered
IA 81 more than that OF 1915 ana
80 cents more than that Of 1916. to
which Is to be added an extra 90
cents. provided sugar sells In New
York. December LIST. at ~.
This means So per ton for beets
testing from i2 per cent to ~ per
cent sugar. with an increase OF 20
cents per ton for every ! per cent
test above ~ per cent. and for 10
her cent best. 1926 certain or eS.7b
provided sugar Is Z cents.
The price Of bee,s ought TO be
q fiat price. or. II the price IL to be
graduated. Il ought TO bc determined
by tho price Of sugar. ss well ~ BY
the sugar analysis. This principle
h partially recognized In the 1917
contract. This Ii fair for the beet
grower and the sugar company. II
needs no argument. The price os
every other product tho farmer
grows. Of wheat. corn. beans. hay
cotton. hogs. cattle. sheep. etc.. u
determined by the market. Why
should not the price Of sugar bcets'
The average price Of sugar per cw'
according 10 the government report
for tho six yeap. 1911 10 1915. Wa
~ follows: 1911. es.l7: 1919,
Ss.sS; 1913. $3.50: 1914. sl.s7;
1915. es:7s: 1915. e7.es. 0sasral
average. eS.lo.
Ths price Of sugar for 1918 va