OCR Text |
Show FARM MEAOTAIBIEMPES" j GROWERS' SIDE OF CONTROVERSY , ... ARISING OYER SUGAR BEET PRICES IThp Weber County Farm bureau to :tay issued i statement signed bv janies R. Beus, chairman of the supar beet committee, in which the .sugar beet price controversy with the Amalgamated Amal-gamated Sugar company is presented from' the standpoint of the br.rcau. The statement: 'Statement "authorized by the suernj beet committee of the Weber County .Farm Bureau: , ln reply to recent statements ap pcaiing in the local press as to why one local sugar company cannot approve ap-prove of the 1920 sugar beet schedule as agreed to by themajority of the .sugar companies of this state, wo sub-Tiit sub-Tiit thc following statenient: " "he farmers of this slate have bren working for and advocating a ratio contract which' would base the price of beets entirely on the price of sugar1 ind when once established woul.l ad just questions on the price of beets from year to ycat Considerable op-poi'ior op-poi'ior to this nian has been manifest mani-fest by Jhe manuuiclurors, in so much tho.f up lo date it has been impossible to adopt a purely ratio contract. The .be;r glowers, however, held that ihcyj wr:e willing to accept for this year the I ?12 10 price for sugar beets which j the comp.iny( vas willing to pay, this price to be based on 11 cent sugar, with a 1.00 increase jier ton for each 1 ?cnt raise in seaboard price "of sugar above 11 cents. "The $12.-00 per ton, based on 11 cent sugar, is "a lower ratio than 'lhat used for 1S10 when ?10.00 per (on war pad, based on 9 cent sugar, 'a ratio ra-tio which the manager of one ot our lor I companies said was fair and Just. "In adjusting prices for the cr.ming' season, the' sugar beet committee of thr- Utah State Farm bureau, crt-op- eraiinr with the majority of the jugar cor.ipaiues, tried to ar;-no at a ligur? which would be just aiuTfair 'o the manufacturer and the producer and esi)(cially to make allowances foi I ho wer.Ke' independent companies. They realized that the price paid for i.eets mi:sl. bp governed by what the newer small factories 'would be able to pay. This committee spent many- hours in going over figures submitted by the Amalgamated Sugar' company, which this company s-aid did not warrant the schedule 'referred to. After delibera dots as to costs of producing beets, coat of manufacture, sugar extraction and thc sugar market, it was the opin-iou opin-iou of the committee that this com-ipany com-ipany was in just as good a position r not belter than some, lo adopt p.-ice an; ratio agreed lo by the other -iom-paries. , "Replying in detail to statement in Ocden Standard of Inarch 16th weich reads: " 'Tlie beets grown in Weber county aveiacv aooul iy per cent- in sugar content, whereas the beets grown for the Great Western 'Sugar companv av er;.ge about 1C per cent' This statement state-ment was based on 1919 sugar extraction extrac-tion uLich was lhc lowesL extraction in tjio history of the industry. 1'his sand year the growers' tonnage was also way below normal; botli condi-tioi.'b condi-tioi.'b being-caused by thc abnormal drought which occurred in Utah, and Idaho. The average sugar extraction in '.I;o Amalgamated territory, for tne pa'.t eleven years, based on infoima-tioi: infoima-tioi: supplied by ,this company, is 15.40 per cent, with an average "over the same period of 1G.13 per cent for the Ogden factory, 15.2 per cent for the Logan factory, and l-t.88 per cenr for tlu Lcwiston faclory. In comparing suar con'tect it appears to us ;hat plants operating in the same territory should be considered rather than re-fervinr re-fervinr to the Great Western bich operates in Colorado. 'It v true that the agreement NwUh Ih2 Utah-Idaho Sugar companv and cUier cpmpanies provided for increased increas-ed payment on advance in sugar market mar-ket only when a normal crop, stipulated stipulat-ed in certain number of bags is produced pro-duced The Utah-Idaho agreement calls for a flroductlo of 3,500,000 bags which is their average output. They have in addition thrown in all sugar produced from two extra faptories which have recently been purchased. Their extraction in 191S without the additional factories was 1.700,000 J.ags. Thus the sugar companies are given' amrle protection for an abnormally' low sugar production thereby allowing th-. m all the advance in sugar. "We are fully aware of lhc amount of money returned to the fanners In thi.' county for s beets, which is about -3 of the nm mi 'imntinri i.i . recent statement: fully aware of ih cost or jduclng these beets, also of the valuo of the sugar manufactu.-ed, anti or the results i ' a sugar factory does not operate. For these reasons we have considered qarefully all angles an-gles of this question and for this" same reason we were somewhat surprised to lead again the old statement that unless such and such is done "We will close our factories." The responsibility responsibili-ty of closing the factories will not be on rhe larmers. 'We are of the-unanimous opinion th t the- objections are not a mere difference dif-ference of price with the company mentioned, but one of opposition to a' MM i uniform contract and a lack of d-rim to co-operate with the Farm Bureau which represents the growers of this stale. "JAMES R. BEL'S. "Chairman Sugar Beet Committee." |