| OCR Text |
Show j Reasons For Planting Beets Pointed Out By Company 62.43 of the total beet acreage in our Utah areas averaged 16.52 tons per acre and grossed, to date, $103.37 per acre, exclusive of tops. In Utah the average yield of beets per acre is well in excess of national nation-al average. There is no eason why our growers, pioneers in the indus-I indus-I try, should lose heart, and relinquish the production of beets to others. Sugar beets have become the mainstay of many communities in this state. Asubstantial shortage in plantings this year could indirectly injure many, besides the immediate parties in interest. You and we must carry on, for without consistently sustained production, there is no future here for the industry. Yours respectfully, Utah-Idaho Sugar Company. A discussion of the 1940 beet contract con-tract and reasons for planting beets this year are advanced in a letter addressed to growers of this district. The contents of the letter follows: March 21, 1940 TO OUR SPANISH FORK DISTRICT BEET GROWERS: ; As you probably know, we recently spent a number of days with Association As-sociation representatives from the Upper Snake River and Utah areas in an endeavor to negotiate a contract con-tract to cover the 1940 crop of sugar beets. Little has been said in the press concerning our position; as a grower of this Company you are entitled en-titled to know it. Conditions in the beet sugar industry, in-dustry, and in the county at large, are no better today than in 1939. We share with you the hope that they will improve; they may well do so by next October when the sales accounting year on 1940 sugar commences. com-mences. In all beet producing areas, other than Utah and Idaho, 1939 contracts with growers have been accepted for 1940 without change. So far as we are aware, there is no section in the nation where an increase in the price payable for beets has been accorded. ac-corded. Representatives of your Association As-sociation have asked that an exception ex-ception be made in this territory. In addition to a subsatntial price increase, they have proposed modification modi-fication of certain basic contract provisions which have obtained for many years. These are so necessary that, in our opinion, they cannot be abandoned if the industry is to survive sur-vive in the inter-mountain region. Each and all of the modifications requested have been given careful consideration by our Company, but it is not felt that present conditions justify any change in last year's agreement beyond a moderate price increase at certain levels. The Department of Agriculture has already announced that 1940 benefit payments will be made to all growers who have beet contracts with processors and comply with the regulations upon which these payments pay-ments are conditioned. It is sincerely hoped that you will find our contract acceptable when issued. It will bear comparison, we believe, with the agreements negotiated nego-tiated this year with other processors. proces-sors. One should remember, in that connection, that companies operating operat-ing in Utah and Idaho are 10c per bag (25c to 30c per ton of beets) further away from important markets mar-kets than their competitors in North em Colorado. Freight on materials which must be brought in from the East is higher here than there. These are but two of the handicaps we face. We have aimed to serve our grow- j ers in ways other than the mere j purchase of their product. Under the contract such service does not enter, of course, into the computa- tion of the price payable for beets but it is by no means negligible. Outlying districts have been aided; increased volume resulting therefrom there-from has reduced costs. You may be interested to know that the price for pulp which you pay is substantially substant-ially lower than that quoted to growers grow-ers by competing processors in other areas. Heavy losses of planted beets caused by recent floods in the Sacramento Sac-ramento Valley, and continued drought on the eastern slope of the Rockies, have resulted in a ruling by the Department of Agriculture removing all beet planting restrictions restric-tions in 1940. While the equity of such a decision is apparent, it could result in greatly increased production produc-tion in some areas, and from such production could come a lowering of marketing quotas in sections where for any reason planting fell off substantially. Growers would be vitally affected by such a reduction, reduc-tion, for as the processor's marketing market-ing quota decreases the growers' market for beets disappears in like proportion. Normally, under the 1937 Sugar Act 'and the same will doubtless be true of its successor act) planting allotments for individual growers, as well as for factory districts, are influenced by past plan tings. To assure favorable allotments from vera- to year, a wise grower will maintain a normal, consistent planting plant-ing record. The position in the industry in-dustry of either processor or grower, once lest, may not b:; regained without with-out great sacrifice, extending, perhaps, per-haps, over a period of years. The picture has its brighter side. When compared with other agricultural agricul-tural crops which are suitable for this area, sugar beets still remtin one of the surest and most sati factory fac-tory of all, as is demonstrated by the following statistics: For the two-year period 5937-1938: G5.4r;'r of the total beet acreage in our Utah areas averaged 1 0.89 tons per acre and grovd $.103.10 per acre, exclusive of tops. For the (wn-ycar period of 1938-19.19: 1938-19.19: 66.95','' of the total beet acreage in our Utah area averaged 16.85 tons per acre and grossed, to date, $102.29 per acre, exclusive of tops. For the three-year period 1937-1938-1939: |
