Datasets:

SantiagoPG

/

ocr_texts

like 0

what is the first subtitle under the the title of '4 basic patterns'?

xnjh0227

xnjh0227_p0, xnjh0227_p1, xnjh0227_p2, xnjh0227_p3, xnjh0227_p4, xnjh0227_p5, xnjh0227_p6, xnjh0227_p7, xnjh0227_p8, xnjh0227_p9, xnjh0227_p10, xnjh0227_p11, xnjh0227_p12, xnjh0227_p13, xnjh0227_p14, xnjh0227_p15, xnjh0227_p16, xnjh0227_p17, xnjh0227_p18, xnjh0227_p19

1. Equity Participation, Equity Participation, equity participation

National Corporation for Housing Partnerships Sour nttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/xnjh0227 ...A Key to Ending the Low and Moderate Rent Housing Problem Contents Purpose of the National Housing Partnership 1 Goals 2 Organization 4 and 5 Activities and Services 6 and 7 Low and Moderate Income Housing Programs 8 and 9 Three Basic Patterns for Development 10 and 11 Stockholders 12 4 National Corporation for Housing Partnerships 1133 15th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005 (202)466-8200 (The place a man lives is more than just another commodity, service or possession; it is a symbol of his status, an extension of his personality, a part of his identity, a determinant of many of the benefits - and disadvantages - of society that will come to him and his family: schooling, police protection, municipal serv- ices, neighborhood environment, access (or lack of ac- cess) to a hundred possibilities of life and culture." "Segments of the urban poor today know and feel their relative deprivation, in housing or in other regards, to an unprecedented degree. The overwhelming con- trast of their own living condition with that of the wealthy majority is brought home everyday by modern means of communication." "There is a complex relation among the quality of housing, the behavior of people, the condition of a neighborhood, and the life of the poor." "These relationships are by no means simple. Better housing, alone, will not overcome all the ills of today's poverty, but better housing is one essential part of the effort to do so., From The Report of the President's Committee on Urban Housing, December 11, 1968 1 Source Usal 227 Goal The President's Committee on Urban Housing believed that American business should have a way to turn con- of the cern for the nation's housing problems into commitment to solve them. The Committee recommended the adop- tion of Title IX of the Housing and Urban Development Housing Act of 1968. The National Corporation for Housing Part- nerships and the National Housing Partnership are the Partnership first organizations to be established by the President under the authority of this new law. The Partnership and the Corporation are financed entirely with private capital. Their mission is to use to accelerate these funds as development seed money and for equity investment in housing for low and moderate income private families. The capital of the Partnership will be combined with that of other available investors to furnish the equity development used in conjunction with 90% government insured mort- gages. The initial Partnership capital of approximately of low and $40 million should produce approximately $1.6 billion in construction - about 100,000 new or rehabilitated moderate rent homes. The National Housing Partnership offers attractive advantages for local partners - individuals, corpora- housing tions, institutions - as well as public and community organizations: For local families and individuals - it develops de- cent and attractive housing and offers an opportunity to participate in planning, management, and ultimately ownership. For the local community and non-profit organizations - it provides the know-how and cash to produce needed low and moderate income housing. For the local builder - it offers seed money and pro- gram assistance which can generate more construction with a chance to earn builder and developer profits and tax savings. For the local architect, engineer and lawyer - it stim- ulates business and expands the local tax-preferred in- vestment opportunities. For the local investors - it combines profit potential and attractive social investment with limited risks and offers an expert and financially able partner to produce the housing. As the past decade will be remembered for giant strides in the peaceful uses of the atom, the jet age, and the conquering of space, the National Housing Part- nership hopes to make the '70's memorable for housing achievement. Carter stage Carter L. Burgess Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the National Corporation for Housing Partnerships 2 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/xnjh0227 Organization of the National Corporation for Housing Partnerships and Local Partnerships NATIONAL INVESTORS NCHP NHP FEES FOR SERVICES RISK SERVICES CAPITAL LOCAL PARTICIPANTS LOCAL VENTURERS Architect NCHP Lawyer LOCAL Builders, Builder VENTURE Contractors, Mortgagee Non-Profit Corporations, or Consultants Community Development Groups RISK CAPITAL Local PROJECT Partners LOCAL INVESTORS EQUITY NHP and Local Local Venturers Investors other Local Investors FEES FOR SERVICES 90% FHA Insured Mortgage TAX SAVINGS CASH DISTRIBUTION 4 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/xnjh0227 The Corporation and the Partnership are two linked contribute capital to the project or it might also provide entities jointly referred to as the "Venture." Together assistance in different phases of development such as they provide the money and technical staff to produce obtaining debt or equity financing or securing govern- housing for low and moderate income families. ment approvals. Benefits for Investors in National Housing Partnership The Corporation - Management The bulk of the funds of the National Housing The National Corporation for Housing Partnerships Partnership will be used to organize and invest in local is the staff arm of the Venture. It has received five per- limited partnerships formed to build and operate hous- cent of the total capital invested in the Venture and will ing and related facilities for low and moderate income assist the development of local projects on an invest- families. Investor return will be similar to that available ment or consulting basis. from normal real estate investment and will produce the The Corporation will serve as the general partner of following benefits: The National Housing Partnership - the investing arm of the Venture - and in this capacity will be the link between the Corporation's development functions and Income Tax Cash Savings. The most substantial re- the Partnership's investment role. turn of the Venture will be the tax savings generated by The Corporation will provide a wide range of services the several developments owned in part by the Part- to local housing programs. These services might in- nership. Expenses during construction and accelerated clude establishing joint ventures with local builders and depreciation produce income tax losses that can be off- community groups, forming local partnerships, and set against other taxable income. Resulting tax savings assisting in the development of architectural, engineer- will be passed to investors through the Partnership. ing and construction plans. Aid may be provided in preparing applications for government insurance and subsidy, arranging financing, assuring timely construc- Cash Distributions. Regulations governing the proj- tion, and in all other activities needed to achieve the ects in which the Venture will invest permit a local development of the project. partnership to make an annual distribution of cash After completion of the development, the Corporation of up to 6% of the initial stated equity of the project. will assist in management of the housing including the To the extent such cash is returned to the Partnership, introduction and use of modern budgeting, accounting there could be a distribution to its investors. and reporting practices and policies. If the Partnership has invested in a project, the Corporation will manage its interests. Further, it may Cash Proceeds from Sale of Project. The availability assist in the formation of tenant cooperatives and non- of proceeds for distribution from sale of all or a portion profit organizations that may ultimately purchase the of a local project will depend upon the terms of the local project. Aid could be provided in arranging for sale, the unamortized balance of the mortgage and the financing of such purchases and in counseling as to income taxes payable. The Board of Directors will de- property acquisition and management. cide whether to distribute or re-invest such funds. The National Partnership - Capital Additional Return. The Venture may also engage in The National Housing Partnership has received other housing and related activities such as development ninety-five percent of the investment in the Venture. It of facilities and enterprises to support the production will act as the principal source of risk capital (seed of low and moderate income housing, research, tech- money) and equity. nical assistance and construction loan financing. These activities may produce earnings that could be available The Local Partnership for distribution. Housing projects in which the Venture participates may originate in several ways. In most instances the Venture will have an active role in originating projects. For example, it may join with a local developer, builder, Benefits for Investors in Local Projects non-profit housing corporation, community group or The Venture's local partner will receive tax savings others in identifying an appropriate site, obtaining archi- and cash distributions in proportion to its share of the tectural and engineering plans, processing government local project with fees for any services it performs. applications, securing financing and completing all other The local parties can also obtain cash upon the sale of action necessary to bring a project to construction. any portion of their interest in the project. For these purposes, a joint venture agreement may be entered into between the Venture and the local partici- Benefits for Local Participants pants and "seed money" advanced. When the project Local builders, construction workers, engineers, archi- reaches an appropriate point, a limited partnership will tects, lawyers and financial institutions will also benefit be formed and equity capital accepted from other by payment for services. The community will obtain investors. real estate taxes. The best return goes to the tenants The Venture may also invest in projects already being, who will enjoy attractive, safe and sanitary housing at a or about to be, developed. In such cases, it might only price that is reasonably related to their incomes. 5 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/xnjh0227 Activities The National Corporation for Housing Partnerships functions both as a participant in local ventures and as and Services of a consultant. It offers a full range of investment and consultant services. The Corporation can serve as joint venturer or sole National developer to initiate and execute projects. Seed money may be loaned or advanced when appropriate. Corporation for The National Housing Partnership will ultimately in- vest in suitable low and moderate income projects. The Partnership will own 25%, or more if other investors are Housing not available, of most projects that the National Corpo- ration for Housing Partnerships helps develop. Partnerships In most cases the local builder-developer community or non-profit organization will be a general partner with responsibility for management and operation of the housing. as a The Corporation's consulting services are available, on a fee basis, to corporations, public officials, organi- developer, zations, or individuals interested in developing low and moderate income housing. investment partner The Corporation offers, either on a consulting basis as a co-sponsor or developer, these services: and A Washington Office for Local Developers With an office in Washington, D. C. the Corporation consultant is a valuable communication center with the Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Development, the Federal National Mortgage Association, other federal housing agencies and the Congress. NATIONAL CORPORITON Seed Money When the Corporation participates in the development FOR HOUSING PARTNERSHES of local housing, it will advance risk capital or make a secured loan for land acquisition, preparation of archi- tectural plans, and organization of the project. Equity Investment The National Housing Partnership will make part of the ultimate equity investment in local developments for low and moderate income families. The Partnership will invite local equity investment so that, where possible, it's investment will not exceed 25% of the total equity. Site Evaluation The Corporation will evaluate the proposed projects, their economic feasibility, market requirements and suitability as housing for low and moderate income families. Assistance with FHA Processing The Corporation will prepare applications and work with federal, state and local agencies to obtain project approvals. Help with Financing Arrangements Applications for construction and permanent financing will be completed and processed in cooperation with banks, insurance companies, mortgage bankers, and other financial institutions. Project Coordination The Corporation will supervise and coordinate the preparation of the development program, architectural plans, financing, construction, leasing and management. Program Planning The Corporation will identify different federal, state and local programs designed to assist in the construc- tion of low and moderate income housing. Banking In appropriate situations the Corporation may assist builders to obtain financing, bonds, or letters of credit, Citizen Planning The Corporation will coordinate with local citizen groups to ensure that development program is consistent with the objectives of the community. Focus on Because production of housing for low and mod- erate income families under existing cost conditions is generally not feasible without assistance, the National government- Housing Partnership will be active primarily in federal, state and locally-assisted programs. These programs assisted include: Federally-Assisted Multifamily Rental Housing - FHA housing programs The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administers a variety of federal programs for low and moderate income housing. In general, these pro- grams provide for two forms of federal assistance: sub- sidies of rents or mortgage payments, and mortgage loan insurance. The programs of primary interest to the Ven- ture are the Section 236 (which generally supersedes the Section 221(d)3 and Section 202 housing programs, Rent Supplement and Section 221(d)4 programs. Section 236 Under the basic Section 236 program, 90% mortgages for limited dividend sponsors are insured for 40 years. Rents for low to moderate income families depend on location and size of family (between $3,000 and $10,500 a year) and are based on a mortgage bearing interest at 1%. The government makes up the differ- ence between that rate and the FHA maximum market interest rate to the lender. Rent Supplement With the rent supplement program, lower rentals can be achieved because the assistance payment can be as much as 70% of total occupancy cost. Section 222(d)4 The Section 222(d)4 is a market rental program for moderate income, elderly, handicapped or displaced persons. FHA assisted projects pay local real estate taxes except when exempted by local statutes. 8 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/xnjh0227 Federally-Assisted Public Housing Federally-Assisted Sales Housing The Public Housing Program administered by HUD The Section 235 program provides monthly subsidy through local housing authorities will also be of inter- payments similar to those under Sec. 236, for low and est to the Partnership. moderate income families to purchase homes. The Corporation anticipates developing such housing but Leasing generally only as part of a land development program. The Venture will be active in the leasing programs. State-Assisted Programs The Partnership expects to form local ventures to pur- The National Housing Partnership expects to partic- chase or construct housing projects for lease to a ipate in state and local programs for development or local housing authority in accord with a federal guar- sale of rental housing for low and moderate income fam- antee agreement. Low income families would be ilies. eligible to lease the units from the housing authority. The tenants' rent would be assisted by the federal Non-Assisted Housing contract to the local housing authority. The National Housing Partnership may invest in non- assisted housing development which can produce hous- Turnkey ing at rents which low and moderate income families can The Turnkey Public Housing Program enables a pri- afford. vate developer to construct housing projects for sale to local housing authorities. Permanent financing is based on tax-exempt bonds. The Partnership will not give major attention to this program because tax sav- ings are lost when the project is transferred to the local housing authority. Turnkey Management This program contemplates private management of projects owned by Local Public Housing Authorities. It includes no assistance other than that available in conventional public housing programs. When the Corporation has developed local management capa- bility, it would be interested in administering public housing contracts. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/xnjh0227 9 4 Basic patterns Initial Planning Step 1 The Corporation has developed several patierns of LOCAL DEVELOPER STAFF ASSISTANCE operation tailored to the needs of local developers, NCHP Land builders, contractors, non-profit housing corporations, Architectural Plans local public officials, community development groups Construction Contract FHA Insurance SECURED NON-INTEREST BEARING and others engaged in producing low and moderate Mortgage Commitment SEED MONEY LOANS income housing. Methods of operation are flexible and will evolve as the Corporation grows and as the needs of the industry change. 1. Equity Participation Under the first and simplest approach, the Partner- ship would enter into an agreement to purchase 25% of the equity in a local project just prior to the start of construction. This produces valuable cash flow to the builder. The planning of the project, including the ad- vance of all seed money for land, architecture and financing would be the responsibility of the local de- veloper (Step 1). The equity purchase makes the Corp- oration's FHA processing skills available. Prior to construction, the local developer would com- Equity Participation plete the organization of the local partnership that will sponsor and own the project. The Partnership would acquire 25% of the equity and the local developer and Loan and Equity Participation other investors would purchase the balance (Step 2). The local developer would serve as the general partner of the local partnership. By contractual relationship with the local partnership, this developer would assume the principal production responsibility and receive the major portion of benefits except for tax savings. These would LOCAL DEVELOPER be shared among the parties in accord with their equity NCHP (Step 3). JOINT VENTURE After the project is completed, the cash flow and tax benefits are passed to the partners in proportion to their CASH & SERVICES CASH & SERVICES ownership (Step 4). LOCAL DEVELOPER NCHP Land Architectural Plans 2. The Secured Loan and Equity Participation Construction Contract FHA Insurance This is designed to provide hard-to-find risk capital Mortgage Commitment for builders, local developers, contractors, non-profit housing corporations, and community development groups. The Venture will advance as a secured loan a por- tion of the seed money required to initiate a project (Step 1). The Corporation would provide limited guid- ance and assistance. Prior to construction (Step 2) the Partnership would acquire a 25% equity interest. The purchase price would reflect the seed money loan which is repaid at initial closing of the FHA mortgage out of mortgage proceeds. The development and management stages (Steps 3 and 4) are the same as in the Equity Participation Joint Venture illustration. 10 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/xnjh0227 Partnership Organization Development Management Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 REPAYMENT OF LOAN LOCAL DEVELOPER NCHP LOCAL DEVELOPER NCHP LOCAL DEVELOPER NCHP Land ASSIGNMENT Architectural Plans STAFF OF RIGHTS Construction Contract ASSISTANCE DEVELOPMENT FHA Insurance FEES FOR SUPERVISION PROFITS Mortgage Commitment SERVICES, IF ANY LOCAL LIMITED LOCAL LIMITED BUILDERS LOCAL LIMITED DISTRIBUTION DISTRIBUTION EQUITY FEE TAX SAVINGS DISTRIBUTION SPONSOR DURING SPONSOR FEES (cash & depreciation) SPONSOR CONSTRUCTION GENERAL LIMITED GENERAL LIMITED GENERAL LIMITED PARTNER(S) PARTNERS PARTNER(S) PARTNERS PARTNER(S) PARTNERS Land Architectural Plans Construction Contract 25% EQUITY FHA Insurance (cash & depreciation) EQUITY Mortgage Commitment TAX SAVINGS CONTRIBUTION DURING EQUITY CONSTRUCTION (cash & depreciation) MORTGAGE PAYMENTS 90% MORTGAGE NHP NHP PROCEEDS NHP LOCAL MORTGAGEE LOCAL MORTGAGEE LOCAL INVESTORS & FHA INVESTORS & FHA INVESTORS LOCAL DEVELOPER LOCAL DEVELOPER NCHP NCHP JOINT VENTURE DEVELOPMENT JOINT VENTURE PROFITS DEVELOPMENT BUILDERS PROFITS EQUITY LOCAL FEE LOCAL NCHP NCHP FEES FOR (cash & depreciation) SUPERVISION DEVELOPER DEVELOPER SERVICES, Land DEVELOPMENT PROFITS IF ANY Architectural Plans Construction Contract STAFF TAX SAVINGS STAFF LOCAL LIMITED FHA Insurance LOCAL LIMITED DURING CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE ASSISTANCE DISTRIBUTION Mortgage Commitment DISTRIBUTION SPONSOR TAX SAVINGS SPONSOR ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS DURING GENERAL LIMITED CONSTRUCTION GENERAL LIMITED LOCAL LIMITED PARTNER(S) PARTNERS DISTRIBUTION PARTNER(S) PARTNERS SPONSOR Land 25% EQUITY Architectural Plans (cash & depreciation) Construction Contract GENERAL LIMITED FHA Insurance PARTNER(S) PARTNERS Mortgage Commitment EQUITY MORTGAGE PAYMENTS (cash & depreciation) NHP NHP NHP EQUITY 90% MORTGAGE CONTRIBUTION PROCEEDS & FHA LOCAL MORTGAGEE LOCAL MORTGAGEE LOCAL INVESTORS INVESTORS & FHA INVESTORS 11 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/xnjh0227 for development 3. The Joint Venture Here the Venture offers a full range of services as a partner in the project. The Corporation and a local builder or community organization would organize a joint venture and the corporate staff would assist at every stage of develop- ment (Step 1). The Corporation would provide all or a share of the seed money and a cash investment to com- plete the project. A local partnership would be formed to sponsor the project and in most cases the local co-venturer would act as the general partner (Step 2). By assuming a proportional share of the development risks and by advancing cash and staff time, the Venture would own a part of the project as a full partner. Before construction begins, the Venture would ar- range a sale of 50% of its interest to local limited part- ners and retain a 25% interest in the local partnership (Step 2). Unlike the previous illustrations, the Corporation would assume development risks and share in the result- ing profits (Step 3). Like the other cases the tax savings and cash flow generated during management would be distributed in proportion to the partners' investment (Step 4). 4. Direct Development In appropriate situations the Corporation is prepared to develop a project alone. The Corporation would in- vest all of the seed money and retain a builder and other professionals to perform on a fee basis. Prior to construction, the Corporation would arrange for the sale of 75% of its interest to local limited partners and hold 25% in the local partnership. The tax savings and cash flow, as in the other cases, would be shared in proportion to the partners' investment. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/xnjh0227 Stockholders of NCHP AFL-CIO First Federal Savings and Loan Lazard Freres & Co. Aetna Life Insurance Company Association of Phoenix The Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company Alcoa Ventures, Inc. First Federal Savings and Loan Lear Siegler, Inc. J. C. Penney Company, Inc. Alden's Inc. Association of Chicago Levi Strauss & Co. People's Savings Bank Alliance for Labor Action First & Merchants National Bank Ling-Temco-Vought, Inc. Phelps Dodge Corporation Allied Chemical Corporation The First National Bank of Atlanta Litton Industries, Inc. The Philadelphia National Bank American Airlines, Inc. The First National Bank of Boston The Lomas & Nettleton Company The Philadelphìa Savings Fund Society American Bank and Trust Co. of Pa. The First National Bank of Chicago Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company Philip Morris, Incorporated American Express Company First National Bank in Dallas Manufacturers National Bank of Detroit Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company American Mortgage Company The First National Bank of Denver Marine Midland Banks, Inc. PIC Realty Corporation (subsidiary of American National Bank and Trust The First National Bank of Memphis Marine National Exchange Bank of Prudential Insurance Company of Company of Chicago Milwaukee America) First National Bank of Oregon American Standard, Inc. First National Bank in St. Louis Martin Marietta Corporation Pioneer National Title Insurance The First National Bank of St. Paul Masonite Corporation Company Armco Steel Corporation Pittsburgh National Bank Armstrong Cork Company First National City Bank The Maytag Company Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company First National State Bank of New Jersey McGraw-Hill, Inc. Polaroid Corporation Potlatch Forests, Inc. Atlas Chemical Industries, Inc. First Pennsylvania Bank The Mead Corporation Avco Savings and Loan Association Medusa Portland Cement Company The Procter & Gamble Distributing First Union National Bank/Cameron- Company Baltimore Federal Savings and Loan Brown Company Mellon National Bank and Trust Company Association Fluor Corporation Mercantile Trust Company, N. A. Provident National Corporation Bank of America, National Trust (Provident National Bank) Ford Motor Company Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Savings Association Midwest Federal Savings and Loan Assoc Public Service Electric and Gas Company The Bank of California, N.A. Franklin New York Corporation Pullman, Incorporated Bank cl Delaware Fruehauf Corporation Miller Brewing Company The Quaker Oats Company First Citizens Bank & Trust Company Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. Bankers Trust Company RCA Corporation Bechtel Corporation GAF Corporation Mobil Oil Corporation Raychem Corporation Beneficial Corporation General Electric Company The Montana Power Company Raytheon Company Berks Title Insurance Company General Motors Corporation Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated Republic National Bank of Dallas Bohemia Lumber Co., Inc. Georgia-Pacific Corporation (subsidiary of Marcor, Inc.) Republic Steel Corporation Boise Cascade Corporation Reynolds Metals Company The Bowery Savings Bank The Riggs National Bank of Washington Brunswick Corporation Rohr Corporation Burlington Industries Foundation Santa Barbara Savings and Loan C.I.T. Corporation Association Carrier Corporation Scott Paper Company Castle & Cooke, Inc. Scovill Manufacturing Company Caterpillar Tractor Company Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. Celanese Corporation Sears, Roebuck and Co. Central National Bank in Chicago Security Pacific National Bank Central National Bank of Cleveland Shenandoah Life Insurance Company Certain-teed Products Corporation A. O. Smith Corporation The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. Southwest Forest Ind., Inc. Chemical Bank Southern California Edison Company Chicago Title and Trust Company Southern California Gas Company The Citizens & Southern National Spartans Industries, Inc. Bank of South Carolina Standard Oil Company (Indiana) City Investing Company State Street Bank & Trust Company Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. Stewart Title Guaranty Company Columbia Federal Savings and Loan Suburban Trust Company Association Talman Federal Savings and Loan Columbus Savings and Loan Association of Chicago Association The Tappan Company Profit Sharing Commerce Bancshares, Inc. Chase Manhattan Bank Chairman David Rockefeller & Retirement Fund Commonwealth Land Title Insurance presents a check for $10,512,500 representing the initial payment on the Tenneco Foundation Company $42 million subscribed by investors to NCHP President Ray A. Watt. Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. Company Federal Savings and The Travelers Insurance Companies Loan Association The Girard Company (Girard Trust Bank) Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of Treadwell Corporation The Community Savings Bank of Glendale Federal Savings and New York U.S. Plywood-Champion Papers, Inc. Rochester, New York Loan Association Mountain States Investment Corporation UGI Corporation The Connecticut Bank and Trust Great Western Savings and Loan Association The Mutual Life Insurance Company of Union Bank, a subsidiary of Company New York Unionamerica, Inc. Consumers Power Company Gulf Oil Corporation The National Bank of Commerce in Union Dime Savings Bank Container Corporation of America Hammermill Paper Company New Orleans Union Oil Company of California Continental Assurance Company John Hancock Mutual Life The National Bank of Washington Union Trust Company of Maryland, Continental Can Company, Inc. Insurance Company The National Cash Register Company Baltimore, Md. Continental Illinois National Bank The Hanna Mining Company National Commercial Bank & Trust United California Bank and Trust Company of Chicago H. J. Heinz Company Company, Albany, N.Y. United States Gypsum Crane Co. Hercules, Incorporated National Distillers and Chemical The United States National Bank of Crocker-Citizens National Bank Hewlett-Packard Company Corporation Omaha Cummins Engine Company, Inc. Humble Oil and Refining Company National Newark & Essex Bank United States National Bank of Oregon Dart Industries, Inc. IBM Corporation The National Shawmut Bank of Boston United States Steel Corporation Deere & Company Inland Steel Company National Steel Corporation Universal Oil Products Company Delaware Trust Company International Brotherhood of NELRECO Troy, Inc. The UpJohn Company Del Monte Corporation Electrical Workers New England Merchants National Bank USM Corporation The Detroit Edison Company International Paper Company of Boston Utah Construction & Mining Co. Di Giorgio Corporation International Telephone & Telegraph The New York Bank for Savings The Valley National Bank of Arizona E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company Corporation New York Life Insurance Company Virginia National Bank Eli Lilly and Company Irving Trust Company North Carolina Mutual Life Insurance Wachovia Bank & Trust Company, N.A. Jewel Companies, Inc. Company El Paso Natural Gas Co. Jim Walter Corporation The Equitable Life Assurance Johns-Manville Corporation North Carolina National Bank Washington Gas Light Company Society of U.S. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation Northern Illinois Gas Company Washington Heights Federal Savings and Kaiser Cement & Gypsum Corporation The Northern Trust Company Loan Association The Equitable Trust Company Kaiser Industries Corporation Northwestern National Life Erie County Savings Bank Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Insurance Company Evans Products Company Kaiser Steel Corporation Western Pennsylvania National Bank Farmers Bank of the State of Kennecott Copper Corporation Occidental Life Insurance Company of California Westinghouse Electric Corporation Delaware Kerr-McGee Corporation West Side Federal Savings and Loan Fibreboard Corporation Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. Olin Corporation Association of Fairview Park Otis Elevator Company The Firestone Tire & Rubber Company Kimberly-Clark Corporation Weyerhaeuser Company Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation First Bank System, Inc. Kirsch Company Whirlpool Corporation Owens-Illinois, Inc. Koppers Company, Inc. The Wickes Corporation First City National Bank of Houston PPG Industries, Inc. First Federal Savings and Loan Kraftco Corporation Wilmington Trust Company Association of Detroit Pacific Gas and Electric Company World Airways, Inc. Lamar Life Insurance Company Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company Xerox Corporation 12 Source: Ittps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/xnjh0227 INCORPORATORS* of the National Corporation for Housing Partnerships Edgar F. Kaiser, Chairman, meeting with Incorporators Ernest C. Arbuckle Carter L. Burgess D. C. Burnham Edward J. Daly Edwin D. Etherington **Gilbert W. Fitzhugh William A. Hewitt Edgar F. Kaiser James J. Ling John L. Loeb Everett Mattson George Meany Andre Meyer David Rockefeller Stuart T. Saunders Leon N. Weiner John H. Wheeler *Appointed by the President under Title IX of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 Resigned July, 1969 to head Department of Defense study panel President Richard Nixon meeting with Incorporators NCHP has Broad Endorsement "You can be sure of the Administration's interest and support in the venture of the National Corporation for Housing Partnerships. It is my hope that the Corporation will begin operations at the earliest. feasible date." PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON October 22, 1969 (Telegram to NCHP Incorporators) "The Partnership is a new and considered response to an urgent national problem. It will create an adequately capitalized, professionally managed corporation to help reach our goal: to build a yearly average of 600,000 housing units for low and moderate income families over the next 10 years - a tenfold increase in the current rate of production." PRESIDENT LYNDON B. JOHNSON September 13, 1968 "We urge cooperation with Corporations and partner- ships created under Title IX of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, specifically with the National Corporation for Housing Partnerships." SECRETARY GEORGE ROMNEY Department of Housing & Urban Development "To help attract these elements of the business com- munity (skills and organization that have not yet been applied to the production of low and moderate income housing on the scale that is needed) we are proposing, pursuant to the recommendation of the Kaiser Committee, that the Congress authorize the formation of privately funded partnerships that could operate on a national scale." SECRETARY ROBERT C. WEAVER Department of Housing & Urban Development Before the Subcommittee on Housing & Urban Affairs March 5, 1968 "We seek business involvement in meeting the urgent housing needs of the nation. The National Corporation for Housing Partnerships will provide a means for this involvement." SECRETARY MAURICE H. STANS Department of Commerce "... The Conference commends Congress for authoriz- ing the National Housing Partnerships, endorses the crea- tion of the National Corporation for Housing Partnerships and all other private efforts to produce housing for low and moderate income families." U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS Annual Meeting - June 18, 1969 "NAHRO endorses recent efforts to involve private enterprise more fully in housing and urban development- - creation of the National Corporation for Housing Partner- ships in the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 and recent efforts of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to accelerate the private participation in housing technology and marketing. Both of these efforts are aimed at bringing the investment resources, manage- ment techniques, and research capacity of private enter- prise to the urban field. JOURNAL OF HOUSING - NAHRO November 1969 NCHP Officers Experts in many RAY A. WATT fields President CARTER L. BURGESS Mr. Watt formerly headed R. A. Watt Co., Chairman and Chief a subsidiary of Boise Cascade Corp., Executive Officer from which he resigned in February, 1969, to serve as a special consultant to Mr. Burgess is a former U.S. Ambassador the Secretary of Housing and Urban to Argentina and Special Consultant to Development. The company, which he the Secretary of Commerce. For ten founded in Southern California in 1947, years he headed American Machine and is one of the nation's largest home Foundry Co. and is a former president building firms. Mr. Watt is a director of Trans World Airlines. He was Assistant of American Mobilehome Corp., a Secretary of Defense for Manpower in developer of mobile home parks, a the Eisenhower Administration. Mr. member of the National Association of Burgess is a director of American Home Builders, and has served as a Airlines, Ford Motor Co., P. Morgan & member of the Advisory Committee to Co., and Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. the California State Real Estate of New York and Smith, Kline & French Commissioner. Laboratories. E. THOMAS STODDARD HOWARD R. MOSKOF Special Assistant - Controller Vice President - Operations Prior to joining the Corporation, Mr. Moskof served as Executive Mr. Stoddard was an independent Director of the President's consultant, Controller of Liberty Committee on Urban Housing, Equities Corporation, and Manager which originated the recom- GEORGE W. DeFRANCEAUX with Touche Ross & Co. mendation for establishment of Executive Vice President He was with Touche Ross & Co. the National Corporation for Mr. DeFranceaux is the former chairman for nine years, serving as manager Housing Partnerships. He is a and president of Frederick W. Berens, in charge of an audit staff of former Deputy Director and Inc., Washington based mortgage twenty professionals, with General Counsel of the District of banking firm having three wholly-owned responsibility for utilization, Columbia Redevelopment Land subsidiaries. He was first president training and quality control. Agency. He is a former U.S. and director of Associated Mortgage His experience includes defense Attorney for the District of Companies, Inc., which acquired the and other government contracting, Connecticut, and earlier served Berens company in 1962. He is currently including job cost accounting the New Haven Redevelopment chairman of Frederick W. Berens Sales, and control systems. Agency in various capacities and Inc., a real estate sales entity not as Director of the New Haven connected with the mortgage corporation. Legal Aid Bureau. He is a member He is a director in other organizations of the Bars of Connecticut, New engaged in various phases of the real York and the District of Columbia. estate business and is also a member of the Advisory Committee, Federal Nationa Mortgage Association. SIDNEY FREIDBERG Vice President and General Counsel Mr. Freidberg has had broad experience in law, real estate and public service. A graduate of Yale Law School, he has practiced in New York and Washington, and has written extensively for legal periodicals. Mr. Freidberg has been the president and general partner of several syndicates for the development of urban housing, and has been active in community relations. He served in the O.S.S. and the War Production Board, and was counsel to a Select Committee of the Congress. Most recently, he has been Commissioner of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the U.S., by appointment of the President. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/xnjh0227 4 National Corporation for Housing Partnerships 1133 15th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005 (202)466-8200 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/xnjh0227

Which department's secretary receive a copy of the letter?

mqxv0228

mqxv0228_p1

secretary of agriculture, agriculture

COMPTROLIER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548 B-118622 To the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives Here is our report on the administration of sugar marketing quotas established by the Sugar Act of 1948, as amended. The ac- tivities discussed in this report are administered by the Agricul- tural Stabilization and Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Our review was made pursuant to the Budget and Acm counting Act, 1921 (31 U.S.C. 53), and the Accounting and Auditing Act of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 67). Copies of this report are being sent to the Director, Bureau of the Budget, and to the Secretary of Agriculture. There B. Comptroller General of the United States Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mqxv0228

who administrated the activities discussed in this report ?

mqxv0228

mqxv0228_p1

The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture., Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, the agricultural stabilization and conservation service, U.S. department of agriculture.

COMPTROLIER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548 B-118622 To the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives Here is our report on the administration of sugar marketing quotas established by the Sugar Act of 1948, as amended. The ac- tivities discussed in this report are administered by the Agricul- tural Stabilization and Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Our review was made pursuant to the Budget and Acm counting Act, 1921 (31 U.S.C. 53), and the Accounting and Auditing Act of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 67). Copies of this report are being sent to the Director, Bureau of the Budget, and to the Secretary of Agriculture. There B. Comptroller General of the United States Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mqxv0228

In which year the accounting and auditing act (31 U.S.C 67) came in to force?

mqxv0228

mqxv0228_p1

1950

COMPTROLIER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548 B-118622 To the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives Here is our report on the administration of sugar marketing quotas established by the Sugar Act of 1948, as amended. The ac- tivities discussed in this report are administered by the Agricul- tural Stabilization and Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Our review was made pursuant to the Budget and Acm counting Act, 1921 (31 U.S.C. 53), and the Accounting and Auditing Act of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 67). Copies of this report are being sent to the Director, Bureau of the Budget, and to the Secretary of Agriculture. There B. Comptroller General of the United States Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mqxv0228

who signed the signature in this letter?

mqxv0228

mqxv0228_p1

comptroller general of the united states, Comptroller General of the United States

COMPTROLIER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548 B-118622 To the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives Here is our report on the administration of sugar marketing quotas established by the Sugar Act of 1948, as amended. The ac- tivities discussed in this report are administered by the Agricul- tural Stabilization and Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Our review was made pursuant to the Budget and Acm counting Act, 1921 (31 U.S.C. 53), and the Accounting and Auditing Act of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 67). Copies of this report are being sent to the Director, Bureau of the Budget, and to the Secretary of Agriculture. There B. Comptroller General of the United States Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mqxv0228

who is the editor of the upbeet magazine ?

ftxv0228

ftxv0228_p0, ftxv0228_p1, ftxv0228_p2, ftxv0228_p3, ftxv0228_p4, ftxv0228_p5, ftxv0228_p6, ftxv0228_p7, ftxv0228_p8

Mr. Larry L. McGhee, Mr. Larry L. McGhee,

Research Work Plan Proposal A. Title of Investigation: Can hand-labor be eliminated in sugarbeet production by integrating new herbicides into an effective weed control system? B. Location of Study and Date Planned for Initiation: Bay Farm, Fort Collins, Colorado. April, 1975. C. Technical Personnel: USDA - E. E. Schweizer (Project Leader) CSU - J. Eshel (Collaborator) D. Background and Objectives. Many annual weeds can be controlled satisfactorily in sugarbeets with the use of mechanical equipment and herbicides, but complete weed control is difficult to obtain. Failure to control weed species, such as lambsquarters, pigweed, or kochia, before thinning hinders the com- plete mechanization of sugarbeet production because labor is often needed to hoe those weeds that escape. Combinations of effective preplanting and postemergence herbicides have consistently controlled over 95% of the pigweed and grass species in our field studies. Control of kochia has generally exceeded 80% when the postemergent herbicides were applied to kochia that was 1 inch or less in diameter and before it had begun to elongate. By determining the competitive effects of specific densities of kochia on sugarbeet root yield in our weed research program, we can now predict the percentage reduction in root yield that a specific density of kochia causes if it remains in a crop after thinning. The relationship between the number of kochia plants present in 100 feet of row after thinning and their effect on root yield is shown below. 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Number of kochia plants per 100 feet of row Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -2- The calculated percentage values for densities of 1 to 10 kochia plants are as follows: Number of kochia per 100 feet of row: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 % reduction in root yield: 6.1 7.9 9.7 11.5 13.3 15.2 17.0 18.8 20.6 22.4 The predictive equation that we used was most accurate when the kochia density was less than 20 plants per 100 feet of row. We found that with the above densities, we could consistently predict within 5% of the actual yield reductions. We feel confident that this predictive equation can be used by growers to determine whether they can justify the use of hand labor to remove those kochia plants that remain after thinning. Furthermore, we believe that we are now in a position to use this equation to compare how effective new herbicides and a herbistat (plant growth regulator) are in eliminating or reducing weed competition all season. Today, we have several new herbicide mixtures that either completely kill the weeds or suppress weed growth for many weeks thereafter. Unfortun- ately, we do not know how long these weeds are suppressed because they are normally removed during the thinning process. This study is designed to determine the direct effect of specific herbicide treatments on sugar- beets and the competitiveness of weeds present after thinning on sugar- beets. The latter effect will be studied by counting the kochia present after thinning. If the growth of kochia is not suppressed by the herbi- cide treatments, then the predicted reduction in root yield should be within 5% of the actual yield. Conversely, if the growth of kochia is suppressed by the herbicide treatments, then the actual reduction in yield should be less than the predicted value. In 1974, we evaluated several herbicide mixtures that reduced the stand of weeds by 90% or more. These mixtures (see E.2 for specific treatments) will be integrated into several effective weed control systems. We expect these herbicides and the herbistat to kill many weeds, suppress the growth of others, and prevent some weeds from pro- ducing viable weed seed. Therefore, our objectives will be to determine: a. whether new herbicide mixtures and a new herbistat (plant growth regulator) can be used in sequential treatments to eliminate the need for hand-weeding, b. whether weeds not killed by the herbistat will produce viable weed seed, and C. the effects of these sequential treatments on root yield, sucrose production, and purity. E. Experimental Plans and Procedure: 1. General. Conventional field equipment will be used to apply the herbicides and to produce the crop. Pelleted sugarbeet seed will be planted every 3 inches with a precision Milton Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -3- planter. Herbicides, applied preplanting, will be incorporated with a Lilliston rolling cultivator. The postemergent herbicide and herbistat treatments will be applied as topical sprays when sugarbeets have 4 and 8 true leaves, respectively. 2. Specific Plans Plot size: main plots (herbicides and herbistat) - 8 rows X 60 ft subplots (hand-weeding vs. no weeding all season) - 8 rows X 30 ft Replications : 4 Design: split plot Soil type: clay loam, organic matter - 1.5%, pH 7.8 Duration: 1975, with possible continuation in 1976 Treatments a No. Preplanting Postemergence Herbistat 1 Ro-Neet + Nortron none none d 2 Ro-Neet + Nortron none MBR 12325 3 Ro-Neet + Nortron Nortron + SN503° b none 4 Ro-Neet + Nortron Nortron + SN503 MBR 12325 5 Ro-Neet + Nortron Hoe 23408 + SN503° none 6 Ro-Neet + Nortron Hoe 23408 + SN503 MBR 12325 7 untreated weed-free check none none 8 untreated weedy-check none MBR 12325 a 1b/A each of Ro-Neet plus Nortron b12 1b/A of Nortron + 3/4 1b/A of SN503 C1 1b/A each of Hoe 23408 plus SN503 (SN503 is an equal mixture of Betanal and Betanal-475) d or 1/2 1b/A of MBR 12325 F. Records and Data to be Secured. 1. Weed counts and visual ratings before thinning, after application of MBR 12325, and prior to harvest in weedy subplots. 2. Prethinning and postthinning sugarbeet stand counts. 3. Sugarbeet ratings at weekly intervals following postemergence appli- - cations as long as any suppression is noticeable. 4. Yield of roots, sucrose percentage, and purity determinations in October from center four rows of each plot. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -4- G. Budget Estimates. ARS contributions include salaries for professional, technical, and--. secretarial services; land, field, and laboratory equipment; and shop and laboratory facilities. Supplementary funding of $3,000 is requested from the Grower-G.W. Joint Committee, Inc. to enable us to expand our program to include the objectives outlined herein. This additional funding will be used primarily for part- time labor to thin the sugarbeets, weed the weed-free plots all season, harvest the crop, and to wash, weigh, and analyze the roots for sucrose and purity. H. Administration of Funds. Colorado State University will be responsible for administering any funds provided by the Grower-G. W. Joint Research Committee, Inc. in partial support of this project. 1. Estimated Time to Complete. 1. Final results will be summarized in December, 1975. 2. After the results have been analyzed, and if certain treatments indicate that a crop of sugarbeets can be grown profitably without the need of any hand-labor, necessary revisions will be proposed to expand the study in 1976. Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 Reprinted from Weed Science, Vol. 21, November 1973, No. 6. Predicting Sugarbeet Root Losses Based on Kochia Densities¹ E. E. SCHWEIZER² Abstract. The reduction in root yield (Y) of sugarbeets (Beta redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). The initial vulgaris L.) caused by specific densities (X) of kochia [Kochia stand of redroot pigweed was reduced 76 to 100%. Ko- scoparia (L.) Schrad.] was predicted by using the linear equa- chia and redroot pigweed that were not controlled by culti- tion Y = 4.30 + 1.81 X. This equation was most accurate vation, mechanical thinning, and herbicides competed when the kochia density was 20 plants or less per 30.5 m of with sugarbeets for the entire season. In some systems, row. In 28 of 30 weed-control systems, where kochia densi- redroot pigweed emerged after thinning when the sugar- ties ranged from 0.2 to 16.5 plants per 30.5 m of row, the beet stand was not uniform. Annual grasses were con- predicted yield reductions were within 5% of the actual yield trolled with herbicides. reductions. Before harvest, kochia and redroot pigweed plants in INTRODUCTION each weed-controlled system were counted. Predicted yield reductions were calculated by using the polynomial W ITHIN the last decade, researchers have derived sev- regression equations and the kochia-density values ob- eral equations to estimate the crop losses caused by tained from 42 weed-control systems that were evaluated specific weed infestations (3, 4, 8). The relationship be- from 1969 through 1972. The 42 weed-control systems tween yield of a given crop and the density of a specific evaluated over the 4-year period included 27 different weed has been expressed generally in the form of a simple herbicide treatments and six untreated, weedy cultivated regression equation. To use these equations, the weed- plots. Nine of the 23 herbicide treatments were evaluated free yield has to be known, as well as the density of the for two consecutive years. weed stand or the weight of the weed species. In the irrigated areas of the central High Plains and RESULTS Intermountain West, kochia infests more than 63,000 ha of sugarbeets (5). Kochia is not controlled in these areas The polynomial regression equation appropriate for at planting, because most growers use a preplanting appli- predicting the reduction in root yield depended on the cation of a thiocarbamate herbicide, which controls only number of kochia densities. The equations that gave a 20% or less of the kochia. Growers who use a comple- statistically good fit to the data for variable densities of mentary post-emergence treatment can expect to reduce kochia per 30.5 m of row are as follows: a cubic equation the initial stand of kochia by 75 to 95%. Thus, some for densities of 4, 10, 20, 50, and 100 plants where Y = kochia plants remain to compete with sugarbeets. 1.01 + 2.60X - 0.0363X² + 0.00018X³, with r2 = This paper will (a) describe how information published 0.974; a quadratic equation for densities of 4, 10, 20, and in a previous paper on the competitive effects of five densi- 50 plants where Y = 1.85 + 2.38X - 0.0232X², with ties of kochia on the root yield of sugarbeets (7) was used r2 = 0.954; and a linear equation for densities of 4, 10, to derive equations to predict the reductions in root yield and 20 plants where Y = 4.30 + 1.81X, with r2 = 0.884. caused by specific densities of kochia in mixed weed popu- lations and (b) show that these reductions in root yield can The relation between percentage reduction in root yield be predicted by simply knowing the density of kochia pres- and kochia density as predicted by the three equations is ent in a given area. shown in Figure 1. Of the three equations, the linear equa- tion was the most accurate in predicting the reductions in METHODS yield for kochia densities of 20 plants or less per 30.5 m To determine whether we could predict the reduction of row (Figure 2). However, at these densities the pre- in yield (Y) caused by a specific density of kochia (X), dicted reductions in yield were similar with all three polynomial regression equations were derived by regress- equations (Table 1). For example, where kochia densities ing kochia densities of 4, 10, 20, 50, and 100 plants per ranged from 0.2 to 16.5 plants per 30.5 m of row in 30 30.5 m of row on sugarbeet root yield. These densities were weed-control systems, the predicted yield reductions, using replicated four times over a 2-year period in a random- the linear, quadratic, and cubic equations, were within 5% ized complete-block design (7). of the actual yield reductions for 28, 24, and 24 of these To test these polynomial regression equations, we used systems, respectively. data from several known weed-control systems that had At densities of more than 20 plants per 30.5 m of row, reduced the stand of kochia from about 1 to 99%. The reductions in yield could be predicted better with either the quadratic or cubic equations (Table 1) than with the other major weed species present in these systems was linear equation. 1Received for publication May 7, 1973. Cooperative investiga- DISCUSSION tions of the Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr. and the Colorado State Univ. Exp. Sta. Published with the approval of the Director We have shown that the reductions in root yield of of the Colorado State Univ. Exp. Sta. as Scientific Series Paper No. 1838. sugarbeets caused by kochia competition can be predicted 2lant Physiol., Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr., Colorado best with a linear equation when kochia densities are less State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80521. than 20 plants per 30.5 m of row. This is the density level Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 565 Source: https://wwvw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 WEED S CIENCE 100 50 Y = 4.30 + 1.81X LINEAR 80 CUBIC 40 60 30 40 20 QUADRATIC 20 o o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 NUMBER OF KOCHIA PLANTS PER 30.5 m OF ROW Figure 1. Relation between kochia density and root yield as pre- dicted by the linear, quadratic, and cubic equations. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 expected in commercial fields after thinning. An obvious restriction in using the linear equation is when the kochia NUMBER OF KOCHIA PLANTS PER 30.5 m OF ROW density approaches zero, because at zero the Y intercept Figure 2. Relation between kochia density and root yield as pre- is 4.30. However, in testing this equation against eight dicted by the linear equation. The 95% confidence intervals are weed-control where the from 0.2 to 0.9 systems plants per 30.5 m kochia of row, densities the predicted ranged indicated in the shaded area on each side of the regression line. yield reductions were within 6% of the actual yield re- ductions. The redroot pigweed densities ranged from 0.6 to 26 Predicting the reductions in root yield by simply know- plants per 30.5 m of row, with a mean of 6.8. At the ing the density of kochia in a given area increases the use- higher densities, reductions in root yield might be ex- fulness of this method for assessing losses in sugarbeets. pected, because root yields have been reduced by 17% In some crop-weed associations, yield reductions are better where 12.5 redroot pigweed plants per 30.5 m of row correlated with weight of weeds than with weed density competed all season with sugarbeets (1). These densities (4, 6). In other crop-weed associations, crop losses could apparently did not affect our predictions, because most of be estimated by the use of an "index of competition", but the redroot pigweed plants emerged too late in the season expected weed-free yield has to be known (3). to develop their full competitive potential. Previous weed- Our success in predicting within 5% of the actual yield competition studies in sugarbeets have shown that the later reductions for most weed-control systems depended on an annual weed emerges, the less competitive it is (2). minimizing weed competition during the entire growing Although these redroot pigweed densities did not affect season. Annual grasses were controlled completely with our predictions, other broadleaf weeds, such as common herbicides. Although kochia and some redroot pigweed lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) and common sun- seedlings emerged with the crop, most redroot pigweed flower (Helianthus annuus L.), could. These annual broad- plants present at harvest had emerged after thinning in leaf weeds emerge with, or shortly after, the crop, are tall, those systems where the sugarbeet stand was not uniform. produce dense shade, and are more competitive than those Table 1. Actual and predicted yield reductions of sugarbeet roots as affected by specific densities of kochia, which competed all season under different weed-control systems. Actual Predicted yield reductions Kochia Year Weed-control systems yield plants reduction Linear Quadratic Cubic (number/30.5 m of row) (%) (%) (%) (%) 1969 Cycloate R 1913-phenmedipham 0.4 2.9 5.0 2.8 2.0 Cycloate + R 11913-phenmedipham 0.6 5.7 5.4 3.3 2.6 1970 'ycloate-phenmedipham-EPTC 1.1 8.1 6.3 4.4 3.8 1971 1972 Cycloate-phenmedipham 3.6 9.1 10.8 10.1 9.9 1969 Cycloate-phenmedipham 6.2 15.8 15.5 15.7 15.8 16.5 30.1 34.2 34.8 34.9 1971 Cycloate 1971 Cycloate 27.9 43.1 54.8 50.1 49.2 43.3 49.6 82.7 61.4 60.1 1969 Delachlor-phenmedipham-pyrazon Delachlor 55.4 68.7 104.6 62.5 64.2 1969 Chemical names of herbicides: R 11913 is 3'-hydroxypropionanilide isopropylcarbamate; cycloate is S-ethylN-ethylthiocyclohexanecarbamate; delachlor is 2-chloro-N-(isobutoxymethyl)-2',6'-acetoxylidide; EPTC is S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate; phenmedipham is methyl m-hyhroxycarbanilate m-methylcarbanilate; and pyrazon is.5-amino-4-chloro-2-phenyl-3(2H)-pyridazinone. Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 566 Source: :https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 SCHWEIZER : SUGARBEET ROOT LOSSES that are short. Because common lambsquarters and com- LITERATURE CITED mon sunflower are similar to kochia in their competitive 1. BRIMHALL, P. B., E. W. CHAMBERLAIN, and H. P. ALLEY. abilities, similar polynomial regression equations could be 1965. Competition of annual weeds and sugarbeets. Weeds derived for these species. 13:33-35. Depending on the initial infestation of kochia, we have 2. DAWSON, J. H. 1965. Competition between irrigated sugar- observed 0.3 to 6.2 plants per 30.5 m of row in our most beets and annual weeds. Weeds 13:245-249. selective weed-control systems before thinning. The cur- 3. DEW, D. A. 1972. An index of competition for estimating rent trend is to thin all sugarbeets with electronic ma- crop loss due to weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 52:921-927. chines. Since the machines cannot distinguish between 4. NODA, K., K. OzAWA, and K. IBARAKI. 1968. Studies on the damage of rice plants due to weed competition (effect of weed and sugarbeet plants, weeds remain in the row after barnyardgrass competition on growth, yield, and some eco- thinning. This means a grower needs to know whether it physiological aspects of rice plants). Bull. Kyushu Agr. will be economical to remove those plants that remain. Exp. Sta. 13:345-367. For these growers the linear equation will be useful in 5. SCHWEIZER, E. E. and J. H. DAWSON. 1970. Weed control determining whether they can justify the use of hand labor methods, losses and costs due to weeds, and benefits of to remove the kochia plants that remain after thinning. weed control in sugarbeets. Pages 344-356 in FAO Inter- national Conference on Weed Control. Weed Sci. Soc. For example, if two kochia plants remain per 30.5 m of Amer., Urbana, III. row after thinning, the predicted reduction in root yield 6. THURLOW, D. L. and G. A. BUCHANAN. 1972. Competition would be 7.9%. The decision to remove these plants with of sicklepod with soybeans. Weed Sci. 20:379-384. a hoe would depend on the difference between the ex- 7. WEATHERSPOON, D. M. and E. E. SCHWEIZER. 1971. Compe- pected loss in yield and the established wage scale for tition between sugarbeets and five densities of kochia. hand labor. In 1971 growers had to pay a minimum of Weed Sci. 19:125-128. $27.18 per hectare to remove weeds with a hoe after 8. ZAKHARENKO, V. A. 1968. Investigating the competitive thinning, and 7.9% of an average 42.5 tons/ha yield for ability of weeds and crop plants in relation to herbicide application. Khimiya sell Khoz. 6:447-452. (Taken from our Loveland district was valued at $58.93. Thus, it would Weed Abstr. 18:205.1969). have paid to remove the weeds. Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 567 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 PURCHASED BY THE USDA FOR OFFICIAL USE Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE CROPS RESEARCH LABORATORY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 July 10, 1973 Mr. Larry L. McGhee, Editor Upbeet Magazine The Great Western Sugar Company P.O. Box 5308T. A. Denver, Colorado 80217 Dear Mr. McGhee: Your company plays a vital role in disseminating useful research information to your growers through your popular publication. Our group at Fort Collins is part of the total sugarbeet research endeavor in the USA. In general, we publish most of our research results in professional journals. We know that research published in professional journals is often quite technical. None-the-less, we feel as editor of your company's magazine you would be interested in receiving reprints of published information from our group. At least, in this way, we can keep you abreast of what we are doing in sugarbeet production in Colorado. We have placed your name on our mailing list for reprints of cur- rent information. We would appreciate any comments you may have on this idea, and also would like to know if we have contacted the right person in your company. Sincerely, E. E. Schweizer Plant Physiologist Enclosures Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228

What is written right below the logo?

qllk0226

qllk0226_p0, qllk0226_p1, qllk0226_p2, qllk0226_p3

diabetes etiology, DIABETES ETIOLOGY

TO: ISRF Members DATE: April 15, 1977 SUBJECT: Recent Literature on Diabetes ISRF BIBLIOGRAPHIC SURVEY Thi DIABETES ETIOLOGY Please add to your loose-leaf - folder the following: - "Effect of carbohydrate restriction and high carbohydrate diets on men with chemical diabetes.' - "Specially designed sweeteners and food for diabetics -- a real need? - "Nutritional factors in the etiology of diabetes." Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/qllk0226 ISRF BIBLIOGRAPHIC SURVEY - DIABETES ETIOLOGY Anderson, James W. * - Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 30:402-408, March 1977 "Effect of carbohydrate restriction and high carbohydrate diets on men with chemical diabetes. " Abstract: "The influence of low carbohydrate (CHO) diets, starvation, and high CHO diets on glucose tolerance tests (GTT) and plasma insulin responses of men with chemical diabetes was studied. The GTT and insulin responses of these seven lean diabetic men were unchanged when the carbohydrate content of the diet was reduced from 44 to 20% of calories. After a 48-hr fast a significant deterioration of the GTT was observed in these diabetic men but the percentage change was identical to that reported previously for normal men. The fasting plasma glucose values of seven lean and four obese men with chemical diabetes were significantly lower after one week on a 75% CHO diet than values on a 44% CHO diet. The 75% CHO diet also was accompanied by slight improvements in the oral and intravenous GTT and by slightly lower plasma insulin responses. The improvement in glucose metabolism on high CHO diets appears to result from increased insulin sensitivity. Serum triglyceride values were approximately 55% higher on the 75% CHO diet than values on the 44% CHO diet for the 11 men but these differences were not statistically significant. These studies support previous observations and suggest that high CHO diets may be beneficial in the management of certain diabetic patients. However, further studies are required to determine the long-term effects of high CHO diets containing natural foods on the glucose and lipid metabolism of diabetic patients. " p. 402 From the Medical Service, Veterans Administration Hospital and Dept. of Medicine, U. of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, Kentucky, USA. H/C/P Source: https:/lwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/qllk0226 ISRF BIBLIOGRAPHIC SURVEY- - DIABETES ETIOLOGY Lenner, Ragnhild Arvidsson* - Am. J. Clin. Nutrition 29:726-733, July 1976 "Specially designed sweeteners and food for diabetics -- a real need? Abstract: "In the first part of this study, the effect of four iso- caloric mixed breakfast meals on the blood glucose and urinary glucose losses was tested in nine adult diabetics and in three healthy subjects, ages 60 to 75. Three of the test meals con- sisted of a base diet supplemented with applesauce sweetened with sucrose, fructose, or sorbitol. In the fourth test meal, the starch was increased together with saccharine. In the second part of the study, analyses for free glucose and sucrose in several tinned food preparations, ordinary as well as food preparations specially designed for diabetics, were performed. The amount of sucrose equivalents (Seq) in one ordinary serving of the various products was estimated. No significant differences among sucrose, fructose, and sorbitol-containing meals with respect to the effect on the blood glucose level or on glucosuria were found. The saccharine-containing meal gave a significantly greater blood glucose increase at 60 min only. The amount of sucrose in ordinary marinated foods, such as herring, cucumber, and common beet was negligible. Water-packed fruits supplied one-half of the amount of Seq or less, compared with fruits packed in sorbitol-sweetened syrup. The amount of Seq in the latter products as well as in fruits packed in unsweetened juice equalled that of the fleshy substance of ordinary sucrose-sweetened products. It was concluded that fructose or sorbitol has no advantages over sucrose, as regards the effect on blood glucose in well-regulated adult dibetics [sic], and that it seems unnecessary to have specially sweetened foods designed for diabetics. " p. 726 From the Institute of Clinical Nutrition, University of Goteborg, Sahlgren's Hospital, Goteborg, Sweden H/S/P Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/qllk0226 ISRF BIBLIOGRAPHIC SURVEY - DIABETES ETIOLOGY West, Kelly M.*, Edna L. Oakley, Mary E. Sanders, Mary E. Mako, Arthur H. Rubenstein - Manuscript for ISRF Use Only "Nutritional Factors in the Etiology of Diabetes.' Summary: "Many different nutritional factors influence risk of diabetes. The most important of these is excessive consumption of calories. It is not generally appreciated that lowest rates of diabetes prevail in populations that consume diets highest in carbohydrate. Prevalence of diabetes has increased sharply in many populations at a time when qualitative changes in diet have occurred. Among the variables commonly associated temporally with rising rates of diabetes have been decrease of exercise and increase of dietary fat, sugar, and calories. Although not decisive, some data in animals and man are consistent with the possibility that high levels of sugar consumption might increase risk of diabetes. There is also negative experimental evidence on this question. In general, intrapopulation studies have failed to show a relationship between sugar consumption and risk of diabetes.' "An epidemic of obesity and diabetes has recently occurred in Oklahoma Indians at a time when sugar consumption was increasing sharply. But detailed studies revealed no evidence of a causal effect of dietary sugar. Although rates of diabetes are about three times as great as in white Americans, the average level of sugar consumption was about the same in these Indians as in U.S. whites. The great intraindividual variations in sugar consumption in the Indians provided an excellent opportunity to compare individuals and subgroups in whom levels of sugar consumption differed as much as two-to fourfold. Obese persons appeared to eat no more sugar than lean individuals. No relationship was found between sugar consumption and insulin secretion or levels of serum triglycerides. Seventy-siz persons with previously undiscovered diabetes had been consuming no more sugar than control subjects with normal glucose tolerance. " University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA. E/S/P Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/qllk0226

What is the title at the top of the second column?

khnk0226

khnk0226_p4, khnk0226_p5, khnk0226_p6, khnk0226_p7, khnk0226_p8, khnk0226_p9, khnk0226_p10, khnk0226_p11

Insecticides

seed technology by Lloyd Crook Dr. Alvin W. Erichsen Dr. Akio Suzuki Dr. Robert K. Oldemeyer Lloyd Crook Plant Spacing Manager Seed Processing and Improvement Recommendations Crook, originally from Lewistown, Montana, Planting sugarbeets to final stand offers earned his B.S. Degree in Agricultural the most inexpensive and labor Education at Montana State University in saving solution to the problem of mech- 1960. After that, he studied for his Master's anizing the crop. For this reason, Degree and taught vocational agriculture studies were conducted in Ohio from at Joliet, Montana. 1969 to 1971 and in Colorado, Kansas, In 1962, Lloyd joined Great Western as Crook Erichsen Nebraska and Wyoming in 1972 to agriculturist. Duties in that capacity were at determine the feasibility of this system. Scottsbluff, Nebraska and then Sterling, Colorado. He joined the Mono-Hy Seed Divi- 1 From results obtained through the sion in 1973. above tests plus expanding grower inter- est and successes, further studies were made in 1973 in Nebraska and Dr. Alvin W. Erichsen Kansas. Senior Plant Breeder Erichsen, originally from South Dakota, Two years data from 16 locations earned his B.S. Degree in Agronomy at South indicate that planting to stand can give Dakota State University where he Suzuki Oldemeyer the grower satisfactory yields and completed graduate studies in cytogenetics returns compared to hand blocked beets and plant breeding and was awarded a Center. Currently he is involved with develop- if he will plan and execute the Ph.D. in 1962. ment of Mono-Hy varieties and in the program carefully. establishment of an efficient data processing During postdoctoral fellowship work at system at the research center. 1. Space seed at 4-6 inch intervals, the University of Illinois he produced and depending on soil and climate condi- worked with trisomics in sorghum and Dr. Robert K. Oldemeyer tions. Do not space seed over 6 interspecific hybrids in the genus Glycine. Manager In 1963 he joined Great Western as a inches apart. Variety Development plant breeder. Current responsibilities involve 2. Place special emphasis on the care GW's sugarbeet breeding program. Bob Oldemeyer hails from a sugarbeet farm and operation of the planter to insure near Brush, Colorado. He graduated accurate spacing. from Colorado State University in 1947 with 3. Develop a thorough herbicide Dr. Akio Suzuki a B.S. Degree in Agronomy. After program as weeds can defeat the Plant Breeder graduating he served with the United States labor-saving purpose of space planting. After earning his Bachelor's Degree in Army in World War II. 4. Irrigate for emergence if rainfall is Agronomy from Hokkaido University in limited. Japan (1961), Suzuki began his career at the In 1950 after receiving his Masters and Ph.D. National Institute of Genetics in Japan. Degree in Plant Genetics and Plant As a research associate, he conducted basic Pathology from the University of Wisconsin, Conclusions and Observations genetic studies of rice. In 1963 he came he joined Great Western as a plant Presented in the following table are the to the U.S. as a graduate student, and breeder. Bob shared responsibilities in devel- average results at 14 locations where majored in genetics at North Carolina State opment of GW Monogerm varieties. He beets were spaced 2 inches apart and also helped initiate and develop the GW University. hand blocked and also planted at 4, 6, hybrid sugarbeet program. Seed handling, and 8 inch intervals with no stand adjust- Following his graduation with a Ph.D. Degree processing and a purchasing system of GW ment employed. in 1968, he joined the plant breeding staff was instituted while Oldemeyer served at Great Western's Agricultural Research as Seed Production and Processing Manager in 1971-72. He is now involved with developing varieties for distribution wherever beets are grown globally. 4 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/khnk0226 When planting pellets we should Plant Spacing Results - 1972-1973 consider the following factors: 14 Locations - Nebraska, Kansas, Wyoming, and Colorado 1. Due to better spacing, the seeding rate can be reduced in most cases by Percent 1 or 2 seeds per foot. Treatment Tons/A Sugar Purity Sugar/A 2. If more than 5 seeds per foot are planted, pellets will not be of much Hand Blocked 20.1 15.1 92.6 5151 benefit. 4" Seed Spacing 18.0* 15.1 92.5 4824* 3. At 4 or 5 seeds per foot, pelleted seed 6" Seed Spacing 18.9 14.9 92.2 4787 will enhance electronic thinner 8" Seed Spacing 18.7* 15.0 92.5 4787* operation by reducing the number of LSD .05 1.21 .27 .41 306 double plants. 4. Pellets offer the best possible seed *Significantly below hand blocked beets placement when space planting to final stand with 2 to 3 seeds per foot. 5. For optimum results with pelleted Hand blocked beets yielded .4 to 2.1 Pelleted Seed seed, the planter must be in top tons more than space planted beets. Recommendations condition and a baffle should be used Sugar content and purity was statistically to avoid excess weight on the rotating equal to hand blocked beets at the Pelleted seed is very uniform in shape seed plate which can cause grinding. 4, 6 and 8 inch spacing. Recoverable and size and will plant more precisely sugar per acre was significantly lower than the hand blocked beets on all than bare seed. The heavier weight of pelleted seed also enhances even space planted treatments. Average beet emergence for all tests was 57.5%. spacing which decreases double plants and skips. Concern that pellets need Conclusions and Observations One test had only 26.4% emergence and two tests were above 75% with large amounts of germination moisture The average emergence of bare and seems exaggerated with the new the average range being 50-75%. pelleted seed from 17 tests in 1972 and 8 small size which has a very thin coating. tests in 1973 are presented below: Summary Considering labor costs and the close Percent Emergence range of yields in space planted Treatment Mont. Wyo. Nebr. Kans. Colo. Ohio Aver. versus hand blocked beets, it would appear that net income would be about No. 1 Bare Seed 52.6 74.5 72.6 49.1 68.4 68.7 64.3 the same with either method. Germain's Pellet 55.4 71.4 69.6 49.9 64.4 70.7 63.6 Since emergence may vary by as much Asgrow Pellet 53.7 67.8 74.1 50.4 64.4 63.9 62.4 as 50%, enough seed must be planted to assure a profitable plant population Differences that exist at a location are not significant. over this range. The ability and determination of the grower and local soil and moisture conditions are Summary all factors to weigh carefully when Two years of emergence testing indicate considering planting to seed. that pelleted seed does not differ much from bare seed in this respect. With increasing emphasis being placed on precision planting, pelleted seed offers some definite advantages over bare seed and is worthy of serious consideration. 5 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/khnk0226 herbicides by Dr. Edward F. Sullivan Herbicide recommendations remain Betanal 475 - Temporary labels exist essentially the same as those given for on Betanal 475 and Betanal tank 1973 and are given in detail in the 1974 mix (1:1 ratio; Betanal + Betanal Growers Guide. Especially recommend- 475) for 1974. Fortunately, twice ed is increased usage of the soil- as much Betanal 475 will be available applied postplant herbicides Eptam and for 1974 as in 1973. Results from Treflan and for postemergence Betanal 475 were very good in 1973, application, Betanal 475. especially for control of redroot pigweed, common lambsquarters, Results show consistently reliable and mustard and shepherd's purse. The effective weed control occurs when Betanal tank mix was more using preplant/postplant herbicide effective mainly because of improved applications. A single preplant applica- control of kochia and wild buck- tion of Ro-Neet, Pre-Beta or Pyramin wheat. Control of foxtail species and + Herbicide 283 is not adequate barnyardgrass is poor with both for season-long weed control in most Betanal herbicides. However, addition fields. of Dalapon improves effectiveness when grassy weeds predominate. Crop injury may result from a Dalapon + Betanal mixture when stress conditions prevail. Consequently, care Dr. Edward F. Sullivan should be exercised with this Senior Agronomist mixture. Sullivan, originally from Scarborough, Maine, earned a Bachelor's Degree in Agronomy at the University of Maine in 1949. His Ph.D. Degree in Agronomy was from Cornell University in 1953. He served as assistant professor at the University of Illinois; also Pennsylvania State University. As senior agronomist, Sullivan's extensive responsibilities involve domestic as well as foreign associations. His work is well known throughout the world for his great contributions to weed control in sugarbeets. 6 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/khnk0226 Afternoon and evening spraying helps Temporary labels on Nortron and Summary and Conclusions to prevent Betanal injury when H-22234 are expected for 1974. Every In 1973, sixty-seven separate experiments temperatures during the day are effort is being expended to make consisting of 2 to 17 treatments each above 85° F. Also, avoid spraying, if these herbicides available to growers were conducted at five research sites. possible, when the crop is under as soon as possible. Longmont, Scottsbluff, Goodland, stress from preplant herbicide, Lovell and Billings were the locations. drought, freeze, disease, insect injury Treflan Label Change - The label now Several herbicide combinations or close cultivation. On hot days, reads - apply Treflan as a broadcast, revealed immediate promise. Of these, close cultivation appears to make overtop spray when plants are best performances were obtained seedling beets susceptible to between two and six inches tall. from Nortron, H-22234 and Betanal tank excessive damage from Betanal Exposed beet roots should be covered mix (SN-503). Sequential applications herbicides. with soil prior to Treflan application consisting of preplant/postplant to reduce possibility of girdling. herbicides including Nortron/Nortror + Experimental Herbicides - Nortron Care should be taken that Betanal 503 demonstrated superior (NC-8438) and H-22234 have given incorporation machinery does not effectiveness and residual weed control. consistently good preplant weed damage the sugarbeet toproot. The control since 1970. Nortron is very label phrase "after blocking effective for control of kochia, but is and thinning" has been deleted. weak on lambsquarters. H-22234 Granular Treflan is not labeled for controls redroot pigweed, foxtail use on sugarbeets. Use Treflan species and barnyardgrass better than at the 0.5 lb/A dose on beets, unless Ro-Neet. experience has shown that the 0.75 lb/A dose can be tolerated. Summary of preplant herbicides at Longmont, Scottsbluff, and Goodland, 1970-73 Beets Weeds Dose Injury Stand Pigweed Kochia Lambs. Brdlv. Grass Total Treatment lb/A (Scores and seedling counts as % of untreated check) Nortron 2.2 11 110 96 64 72 81 96 86 H-22234 4.5 10 100 97 46 61 74 94 80 Ro-Neet 5.5 11 103 88 24 75 66 83 71 Pyramin + Nortron 2.5 + -2.5 10 131 99 79 81 92 97 94 Nortron + H-22234 2.1 +2.1 9 113 96 70 76 88 97 91 Ro-Neet + Nortron 2.2 + 2.2 12 109 98 60 97 83 96 86 Pyramin + H-22234 4.1 +4.1 5 105 99 40 100 82 94 86 7 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/khnk0226 nematodes & insecticides by Dr. Y. Mok Yun Nematodes 2. Apply using soil incorporation or place at 2 to 4 inches deep. Cover- Both root-knot and cyst nematodes can ing or incorporation may be be effectively controlled with fumigants accomplished with Spring tines, or granular nematicides. Recom- power incorporation, Russ-Ken, mendations for 1974 are: Hawkins Shoes or similar tools. 3. Planting should follow immediately Fumigants - Telone, D-D after Temik application. and Vidden-D 1. Apply in spring or fall. Fall Soil samples for nematode analysis fumigation generally produces best should be sent to GW Grower Service results. However, spring applica- Centers or the Agricultural Research tion of fumigants can be very Center at Longmont; and if the effective under good soil and tests show a viable cyst count of 10 or weather conditions. more per pound of soil, treatment 2. Before application, fields should is vitally necessary. be reasonably well worked, free from clods and stalks or stubble. Conclusions and Observations 3. Fumigant should be applied at the Field tests in 1973 generally confirm rate of 15 to 20 gallons per acre previous evaluations that establish fumi- with penetration release approxi- gant superiority when compared mately 12 to 14 inches deep. Dr. Y. Mok Yun with granular Temik. Exceptions noted 4. Immediately following application in favor of Temik are confined to heavy Entomologist the soil surface should be sealed soils that were moist at the time of Originally from Korea, Yun came to the by either tractor tires, rollers, treatment. Concerning Temik, improved United States where he earned his B.S. cultipackers or similar means. application procedures seem necessary Degree in Horticulture and Entomology from Roller or packers are best. to achieve desired consistency of Washington State University and Oregon State University respectively. He completed 5. Planting should be delayed 3 to 5 performance. Combination controls of graduate studies for his Masters and Ph.D. days after fumigant application. fumigant + granular or granular + Degree in Entomology at Michigan State 6. In general, fumigants are less granular (Temik + Furadan) were not University in Lansing. In Michigan, effective on wet or heavy clay soils. more effective than singular applications Yun served as one of the original researchers of either Telone or Temik. Field working on biology, ecology and control Granular Nematicide - Temik 10G research established the following of the cereal leaf beetle first discovered in 1. Apply a 4 to 7 inch wide band observations: Michigan in 1962. spaced for planting in its center. Upon completion of studies at Michigan State University, he joined Great Western's research staff as entomologist. He is Subject Fumigant Temik currently responsible for research projects on insect, nematode and other disease problems. Wet soil Ineffective Effective if not too wet Lt. & Med. Soils More effective Least effective Heavy soils Ineffective Effective Fall application Recommended Not recommended Grower application Less easy Easy Soil moisture loss* Low High Moisture required None Yes for activation Approx. Cost $40/acre $40/acre *After application 8 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/khnk0226 I Extensive nematicide control studies Insecticides Successful postemergence applications involved 23 small plots and 12 require timely applications and strip tests in Colorado, Nebraska and Major research efforts were concerned adequate moisture for activation- Wyoming. Telone effectiveness was with studies on root maggot, flea usually irrigation. dramatically demonstrated in tests at beetle larvae and webworms. Scottsbluff, Nebraska. A new For extremely heavy maggot infestations, compound, Dow-3855 was very effective Sugarbeet Root Maggots sequential insecticide applications even at low application rates of For 1974, registered insecticides for give better control. The economics of 6 gallons per acre. control of sugarbeet root maggot are: sequential applications are only favorable when very heavy infestations Repeated evaluations confirm Dyfonate and Temik-Most effective are present. secondary benefits from fumigation for Diazinon and Thimet-Effective crops following beets. For example, Dasanit and Vapotox*-Least effective Recommendations include the following: in some areas dry bean yields increased *Colorado only 3.9 bushels per acre. Similarly, Planting time pinto bean yields went up seven bushels In Wyoming, 15 lbs/A of Temik 10G or application Postemergence per acre. Without question, primary 12.5-15 lbs/A of Dyfonate 10G are Dyfonate 10G + Temik 10G benefits of fumigation for increased recommended immediately preceding 12.5-15 lbs/acre - 15 lbs/acre sugarbeet yields almost always returns planting in 4 to 5 inch bands with extra net profits. But when you incorporation by spring-tines, Russ-Ken, Dyfonate 10G + Diazinon 14G consider secondary benefits from the or power incorporators. 12.5-15 lbs/acre - 11 lbs/acre same fumigation, the case is quite Temik 10G + Diazinon 14G clear. Fumigate when yields are low or Single applications of either Dyfonate 15 lbs/acre - 11 lbs/acre declining. If questionable, take or Temik have given very satisfactory soil samples. control. In Montana, 15 lbs/A of Temik 10G or Extensive testing revealed better control 12.5-15 lbs/A of Dyfonate 10G are In 1973, extensive analysis for possible Temik residues was effected. Root in the Powell area when using recommended for application in a 4 to 5 and foliage samples were tested from 22 Dyfonate. However, band application of inch band with power incorporation locations where application rates Temik was effective in the Heart or with Russ-Ken or spring tine incorpor- Mountain area. Temik did not give ation immediately before planting. had been as high as 40 lbs. per acre. Importantly, none of the samples tested consistently satisfactory results in the In Colorado, 15 lbs/A of Temik 10G just before harvesting contained Powell-Lovell area. 12.5-15 lbs/A of Dyfonate 10G or 11-14 excessive Temik residues. Side-injection applications of Dyfonate lbs/A of Diazinon 14G are recommend- and Temik were extensively tested ed applied as in Montana. and found to be very effective. In spite of very effective results, it should be noted that the side-injection technique Flea Beetle Larvae has not yet been approved for Registered insecticides do not exist commercial use although efforts are specifically for controlling flea beetle being made to have it labelled in time for larvae. However, Dyfonate 10G and spring planting. Diazinon 14G have given satisfactory control when applied at planting time Although post-emergence applications and incorporated 2 inches deep. alone are less effective than planting Control of flea beetle larvae is a side time treatments, 15 lbs/A of Temik 10G benefit when these insecticides are used or 11-14 lbs/A of Diazinon 14G applied for root maggot control. in a 4 to 5 inch band over the row with light soil incorporation when flies first appear is beneficial. 9 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/khnk0226 Webworms applied either with a Russ-Ken or Observations Foliar application of 21 lbs/A of Dylox side-injection. Temik was best when An experimental compound, AC-92100 80SP, 2 lbs/A of Sevin 80S or 1.5 pts/A applied side-injection. In the side- was tested quite extensively in of Parathion 4C is recommended injection method, the chemical is Wyoming and Colorado with excellent when small worms first appear. placed below the seed and on the side results. It has been named Counter, (Parathion applied only by adjacent to the irrigated row. The side- and should be available after 1974. licensed operators) injection application at planting time requires irrigation to be effective. Since Another compound, Altosid, which is of Conclusions many Colorado and Montana growers the hormone type, gave reasonable Dyfonate, a registered insecticide, gave do not normally irrigate early, the side- maggot control in the first year of testing superior control of sugarbeet root injection method will be used mostly by in 1973. For example, adult fly maggot in extensive strip trials and small Wyoming growers. emergence was reduced by 70%. plot tests. There was no evidence of The recommendations given result from phytotoxicity. It was most effective when work in the Powell area in 83 strip tests consisting of 6 to 12 rows each conducted on 64 different farms. Sugarbeet Root Maggot Insecticide Strip Trial Powell, Wyoming The table at left shows root damage ratings and root yields from 12 strip Damage trials at Powell. Each field received Dosage Application Rating3 Root Wt. No. different combinations. Insecticide Lb/A Method¹ Time2 (1-5) Tons/A Locations The difference in root yield between Temik 15 PI AP 1.80 18.5 2 untreated check and best treatment in Dyfonate 15 PI AP 2.00 17.9 1 each location was from 2.2 to 9.1 tons Temik 15 SI AP 1.88 17.8 7 per acre with an average of 4.3 tons Diazinon 11 SI AP 1.65 21.0 3 per acre increase in the treated plots. Dyfonate 15 SI AP 1.66 18.5 8 Diazinon 14 RK AP 1.95 18.3 1 In addition to the extensive strip trials, Dyfonate 15 RK AP 1.50 18.4 2 additional research was conducted Diazinon 14 PI AP on 24 replicated small plots in Wyoming + Dyfonate 15 ST PO 1.90 21.3 1 and Colorado. Control results and Dyfonate 10 SI AP comparisons were more evident in + Diazinon 11 ST PO 1.51 22.3 6 Wyoming since the Colorado infestation Dyfonate 10 SI AP was very minimal in 1973. + Dyfonate 15 ST PO 1.49 23.0 4 Dyfonate 10 SI AP The table at right shows results of + Thimet 10 ST PO 1.65 22.1 2 insecticide placement studies conducted Dyfonate 10 SI AP in Powell, Wyoming. Both root FFuradan 15 ST PO 2.00 24.9 1 damage ratings made in July and root Temik 15 ST PO 1.60 20.8 1 yields are shown. Dyfonate 15 ST PO 1.90 19.1 1 Check - - - 3.63 16.5 12 Dyfonate and Temik were the two best materials in this test. Temik treated 1 PI = Power incorporation, SI = Side injection, RK = Russ-Ken incorporation, beets showed more maggot damage ST = Spring tines in July, but they yielded more at harvest 2 AP 1 At planting, PO = Postemergence time. 3 Root damage rating scale of 1 to 5 was used; 1 = no damage, 5 - severe damage 10 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/khnk0226 Sugarbeet Root Maggot Insecticide Placement Study Powell, Wyoming Preplant¹ Postemergence² Chemical PI RK SI FD Mean ST BCD SI Mean PI&ST3 Root Damage Rating (1-5)4 Dyfonate 1.88 1.30 2.35 - 1.85 1.93 1.48 2.88 2.09 Temik 2.70 2.20 1.90 2.58 2.25 2.25 1.88 2.55 2.23 Diazinon 2.95 2.80 3.23 3.03 3.00 2.80 2.38 2.88 2.68 Thimet - - - - - 2.08 1.98 2.80 2.29 Furadan 2.98 - - - - 2.53 - - - Dyfo. + Diaz. 1.45 Temik + Diaz. 2.03 Diaz. + Diaz. 2.48 Mean 2.61 2.10 2.49 2.33 1.91 2.76 Check 3.32 Yield (Tons/A) Dyfonate 15.5 16.3 15.3 - 15.7 14.5 15.4 15.0 15.0 Temik 15.6 16.4 17.2: 15.2 16.4 15.9 15.5 15.0 15.5 Diazinon 13.0 15.1 13.8 13.9 14.0 14.6 15.0 15.4 15.5 Thimet - - - - - 15.7 15.3 15.1 15.4 Furadan 16.2 - - - - 15.1 - - - Dyfo. + Diaz. 15.4 Temik + Diaz. 16.7 Diaz. + Diaz. 14.2 Mean 14.7 15.9 15.4 15.2 15.3 15.1 14.4 Check 1 PI = Power incorporation, RK = Russ-Ken incorporation, SI Side injection, FD = In front of planter disks 2 ST Spring tines, BCD - Behind cultivator disks, SI - Side injection 3 Power incorporation at planting plus spring tine postemergence 4 Root damage rating scale of 1 to 5 was used; 1 = no damage, 5 = severe damage Russ-Ken and side injection methods Very little crop damage resulted from were generally more effective than power flea beetle larvae or webworms in incorporation. Temik was particularly 1973. And the probability of serious 1974 effective when side injected. One activity is negligible. It is significant application made at planting time was that controls for maggots automatically as effective as two applications, one at reduce webworm and flea beetle planting time and the second, larvae populations. postemergence. 11 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/khnk0226

which country's department of agriculture is this letter from?

ftxv0228

ftxv0228_p0, ftxv0228_p1, ftxv0228_p2, ftxv0228_p3, ftxv0228_p4, ftxv0228_p5, ftxv0228_p6, ftxv0228_p7, ftxv0228_p8

united states department of agriculture, United States

Research Work Plan Proposal A. Title of Investigation: Can hand-labor be eliminated in sugarbeet production by integrating new herbicides into an effective weed control system? B. Location of Study and Date Planned for Initiation: Bay Farm, Fort Collins, Colorado. April, 1975. C. Technical Personnel: USDA - E. E. Schweizer (Project Leader) CSU - J. Eshel (Collaborator) D. Background and Objectives. Many annual weeds can be controlled satisfactorily in sugarbeets with the use of mechanical equipment and herbicides, but complete weed control is difficult to obtain. Failure to control weed species, such as lambsquarters, pigweed, or kochia, before thinning hinders the com- plete mechanization of sugarbeet production because labor is often needed to hoe those weeds that escape. Combinations of effective preplanting and postemergence herbicides have consistently controlled over 95% of the pigweed and grass species in our field studies. Control of kochia has generally exceeded 80% when the postemergent herbicides were applied to kochia that was 1 inch or less in diameter and before it had begun to elongate. By determining the competitive effects of specific densities of kochia on sugarbeet root yield in our weed research program, we can now predict the percentage reduction in root yield that a specific density of kochia causes if it remains in a crop after thinning. The relationship between the number of kochia plants present in 100 feet of row after thinning and their effect on root yield is shown below. 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Number of kochia plants per 100 feet of row Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -2- The calculated percentage values for densities of 1 to 10 kochia plants are as follows: Number of kochia per 100 feet of row: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 % reduction in root yield: 6.1 7.9 9.7 11.5 13.3 15.2 17.0 18.8 20.6 22.4 The predictive equation that we used was most accurate when the kochia density was less than 20 plants per 100 feet of row. We found that with the above densities, we could consistently predict within 5% of the actual yield reductions. We feel confident that this predictive equation can be used by growers to determine whether they can justify the use of hand labor to remove those kochia plants that remain after thinning. Furthermore, we believe that we are now in a position to use this equation to compare how effective new herbicides and a herbistat (plant growth regulator) are in eliminating or reducing weed competition all season. Today, we have several new herbicide mixtures that either completely kill the weeds or suppress weed growth for many weeks thereafter. Unfortun- ately, we do not know how long these weeds are suppressed because they are normally removed during the thinning process. This study is designed to determine the direct effect of specific herbicide treatments on sugar- beets and the competitiveness of weeds present after thinning on sugar- beets. The latter effect will be studied by counting the kochia present after thinning. If the growth of kochia is not suppressed by the herbi- cide treatments, then the predicted reduction in root yield should be within 5% of the actual yield. Conversely, if the growth of kochia is suppressed by the herbicide treatments, then the actual reduction in yield should be less than the predicted value. In 1974, we evaluated several herbicide mixtures that reduced the stand of weeds by 90% or more. These mixtures (see E.2 for specific treatments) will be integrated into several effective weed control systems. We expect these herbicides and the herbistat to kill many weeds, suppress the growth of others, and prevent some weeds from pro- ducing viable weed seed. Therefore, our objectives will be to determine: a. whether new herbicide mixtures and a new herbistat (plant growth regulator) can be used in sequential treatments to eliminate the need for hand-weeding, b. whether weeds not killed by the herbistat will produce viable weed seed, and C. the effects of these sequential treatments on root yield, sucrose production, and purity. E. Experimental Plans and Procedure: 1. General. Conventional field equipment will be used to apply the herbicides and to produce the crop. Pelleted sugarbeet seed will be planted every 3 inches with a precision Milton Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -3- planter. Herbicides, applied preplanting, will be incorporated with a Lilliston rolling cultivator. The postemergent herbicide and herbistat treatments will be applied as topical sprays when sugarbeets have 4 and 8 true leaves, respectively. 2. Specific Plans Plot size: main plots (herbicides and herbistat) - 8 rows X 60 ft subplots (hand-weeding vs. no weeding all season) - 8 rows X 30 ft Replications : 4 Design: split plot Soil type: clay loam, organic matter - 1.5%, pH 7.8 Duration: 1975, with possible continuation in 1976 Treatments a No. Preplanting Postemergence Herbistat 1 Ro-Neet + Nortron none none d 2 Ro-Neet + Nortron none MBR 12325 3 Ro-Neet + Nortron Nortron + SN503° b none 4 Ro-Neet + Nortron Nortron + SN503 MBR 12325 5 Ro-Neet + Nortron Hoe 23408 + SN503° none 6 Ro-Neet + Nortron Hoe 23408 + SN503 MBR 12325 7 untreated weed-free check none none 8 untreated weedy-check none MBR 12325 a 1b/A each of Ro-Neet plus Nortron b12 1b/A of Nortron + 3/4 1b/A of SN503 C1 1b/A each of Hoe 23408 plus SN503 (SN503 is an equal mixture of Betanal and Betanal-475) d or 1/2 1b/A of MBR 12325 F. Records and Data to be Secured. 1. Weed counts and visual ratings before thinning, after application of MBR 12325, and prior to harvest in weedy subplots. 2. Prethinning and postthinning sugarbeet stand counts. 3. Sugarbeet ratings at weekly intervals following postemergence appli- - cations as long as any suppression is noticeable. 4. Yield of roots, sucrose percentage, and purity determinations in October from center four rows of each plot. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -4- G. Budget Estimates. ARS contributions include salaries for professional, technical, and--. secretarial services; land, field, and laboratory equipment; and shop and laboratory facilities. Supplementary funding of $3,000 is requested from the Grower-G.W. Joint Committee, Inc. to enable us to expand our program to include the objectives outlined herein. This additional funding will be used primarily for part- time labor to thin the sugarbeets, weed the weed-free plots all season, harvest the crop, and to wash, weigh, and analyze the roots for sucrose and purity. H. Administration of Funds. Colorado State University will be responsible for administering any funds provided by the Grower-G. W. Joint Research Committee, Inc. in partial support of this project. 1. Estimated Time to Complete. 1. Final results will be summarized in December, 1975. 2. After the results have been analyzed, and if certain treatments indicate that a crop of sugarbeets can be grown profitably without the need of any hand-labor, necessary revisions will be proposed to expand the study in 1976. Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 Reprinted from Weed Science, Vol. 21, November 1973, No. 6. Predicting Sugarbeet Root Losses Based on Kochia Densities¹ E. E. SCHWEIZER² Abstract. The reduction in root yield (Y) of sugarbeets (Beta redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). The initial vulgaris L.) caused by specific densities (X) of kochia [Kochia stand of redroot pigweed was reduced 76 to 100%. Ko- scoparia (L.) Schrad.] was predicted by using the linear equa- chia and redroot pigweed that were not controlled by culti- tion Y = 4.30 + 1.81 X. This equation was most accurate vation, mechanical thinning, and herbicides competed when the kochia density was 20 plants or less per 30.5 m of with sugarbeets for the entire season. In some systems, row. In 28 of 30 weed-control systems, where kochia densi- redroot pigweed emerged after thinning when the sugar- ties ranged from 0.2 to 16.5 plants per 30.5 m of row, the beet stand was not uniform. Annual grasses were con- predicted yield reductions were within 5% of the actual yield trolled with herbicides. reductions. Before harvest, kochia and redroot pigweed plants in INTRODUCTION each weed-controlled system were counted. Predicted yield reductions were calculated by using the polynomial W ITHIN the last decade, researchers have derived sev- regression equations and the kochia-density values ob- eral equations to estimate the crop losses caused by tained from 42 weed-control systems that were evaluated specific weed infestations (3, 4, 8). The relationship be- from 1969 through 1972. The 42 weed-control systems tween yield of a given crop and the density of a specific evaluated over the 4-year period included 27 different weed has been expressed generally in the form of a simple herbicide treatments and six untreated, weedy cultivated regression equation. To use these equations, the weed- plots. Nine of the 23 herbicide treatments were evaluated free yield has to be known, as well as the density of the for two consecutive years. weed stand or the weight of the weed species. In the irrigated areas of the central High Plains and RESULTS Intermountain West, kochia infests more than 63,000 ha of sugarbeets (5). Kochia is not controlled in these areas The polynomial regression equation appropriate for at planting, because most growers use a preplanting appli- predicting the reduction in root yield depended on the cation of a thiocarbamate herbicide, which controls only number of kochia densities. The equations that gave a 20% or less of the kochia. Growers who use a comple- statistically good fit to the data for variable densities of mentary post-emergence treatment can expect to reduce kochia per 30.5 m of row are as follows: a cubic equation the initial stand of kochia by 75 to 95%. Thus, some for densities of 4, 10, 20, 50, and 100 plants where Y = kochia plants remain to compete with sugarbeets. 1.01 + 2.60X - 0.0363X² + 0.00018X³, with r2 = This paper will (a) describe how information published 0.974; a quadratic equation for densities of 4, 10, 20, and in a previous paper on the competitive effects of five densi- 50 plants where Y = 1.85 + 2.38X - 0.0232X², with ties of kochia on the root yield of sugarbeets (7) was used r2 = 0.954; and a linear equation for densities of 4, 10, to derive equations to predict the reductions in root yield and 20 plants where Y = 4.30 + 1.81X, with r2 = 0.884. caused by specific densities of kochia in mixed weed popu- lations and (b) show that these reductions in root yield can The relation between percentage reduction in root yield be predicted by simply knowing the density of kochia pres- and kochia density as predicted by the three equations is ent in a given area. shown in Figure 1. Of the three equations, the linear equa- tion was the most accurate in predicting the reductions in METHODS yield for kochia densities of 20 plants or less per 30.5 m To determine whether we could predict the reduction of row (Figure 2). However, at these densities the pre- in yield (Y) caused by a specific density of kochia (X), dicted reductions in yield were similar with all three polynomial regression equations were derived by regress- equations (Table 1). For example, where kochia densities ing kochia densities of 4, 10, 20, 50, and 100 plants per ranged from 0.2 to 16.5 plants per 30.5 m of row in 30 30.5 m of row on sugarbeet root yield. These densities were weed-control systems, the predicted yield reductions, using replicated four times over a 2-year period in a random- the linear, quadratic, and cubic equations, were within 5% ized complete-block design (7). of the actual yield reductions for 28, 24, and 24 of these To test these polynomial regression equations, we used systems, respectively. data from several known weed-control systems that had At densities of more than 20 plants per 30.5 m of row, reduced the stand of kochia from about 1 to 99%. The reductions in yield could be predicted better with either the quadratic or cubic equations (Table 1) than with the other major weed species present in these systems was linear equation. 1Received for publication May 7, 1973. Cooperative investiga- DISCUSSION tions of the Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr. and the Colorado State Univ. Exp. Sta. Published with the approval of the Director We have shown that the reductions in root yield of of the Colorado State Univ. Exp. Sta. as Scientific Series Paper No. 1838. sugarbeets caused by kochia competition can be predicted 2lant Physiol., Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr., Colorado best with a linear equation when kochia densities are less State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80521. than 20 plants per 30.5 m of row. This is the density level Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 565 Source: https://wwvw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 WEED S CIENCE 100 50 Y = 4.30 + 1.81X LINEAR 80 CUBIC 40 60 30 40 20 QUADRATIC 20 o o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 NUMBER OF KOCHIA PLANTS PER 30.5 m OF ROW Figure 1. Relation between kochia density and root yield as pre- dicted by the linear, quadratic, and cubic equations. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 expected in commercial fields after thinning. An obvious restriction in using the linear equation is when the kochia NUMBER OF KOCHIA PLANTS PER 30.5 m OF ROW density approaches zero, because at zero the Y intercept Figure 2. Relation between kochia density and root yield as pre- is 4.30. However, in testing this equation against eight dicted by the linear equation. The 95% confidence intervals are weed-control where the from 0.2 to 0.9 systems plants per 30.5 m kochia of row, densities the predicted ranged indicated in the shaded area on each side of the regression line. yield reductions were within 6% of the actual yield re- ductions. The redroot pigweed densities ranged from 0.6 to 26 Predicting the reductions in root yield by simply know- plants per 30.5 m of row, with a mean of 6.8. At the ing the density of kochia in a given area increases the use- higher densities, reductions in root yield might be ex- fulness of this method for assessing losses in sugarbeets. pected, because root yields have been reduced by 17% In some crop-weed associations, yield reductions are better where 12.5 redroot pigweed plants per 30.5 m of row correlated with weight of weeds than with weed density competed all season with sugarbeets (1). These densities (4, 6). In other crop-weed associations, crop losses could apparently did not affect our predictions, because most of be estimated by the use of an "index of competition", but the redroot pigweed plants emerged too late in the season expected weed-free yield has to be known (3). to develop their full competitive potential. Previous weed- Our success in predicting within 5% of the actual yield competition studies in sugarbeets have shown that the later reductions for most weed-control systems depended on an annual weed emerges, the less competitive it is (2). minimizing weed competition during the entire growing Although these redroot pigweed densities did not affect season. Annual grasses were controlled completely with our predictions, other broadleaf weeds, such as common herbicides. Although kochia and some redroot pigweed lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) and common sun- seedlings emerged with the crop, most redroot pigweed flower (Helianthus annuus L.), could. These annual broad- plants present at harvest had emerged after thinning in leaf weeds emerge with, or shortly after, the crop, are tall, those systems where the sugarbeet stand was not uniform. produce dense shade, and are more competitive than those Table 1. Actual and predicted yield reductions of sugarbeet roots as affected by specific densities of kochia, which competed all season under different weed-control systems. Actual Predicted yield reductions Kochia Year Weed-control systems yield plants reduction Linear Quadratic Cubic (number/30.5 m of row) (%) (%) (%) (%) 1969 Cycloate R 1913-phenmedipham 0.4 2.9 5.0 2.8 2.0 Cycloate + R 11913-phenmedipham 0.6 5.7 5.4 3.3 2.6 1970 'ycloate-phenmedipham-EPTC 1.1 8.1 6.3 4.4 3.8 1971 1972 Cycloate-phenmedipham 3.6 9.1 10.8 10.1 9.9 1969 Cycloate-phenmedipham 6.2 15.8 15.5 15.7 15.8 16.5 30.1 34.2 34.8 34.9 1971 Cycloate 1971 Cycloate 27.9 43.1 54.8 50.1 49.2 43.3 49.6 82.7 61.4 60.1 1969 Delachlor-phenmedipham-pyrazon Delachlor 55.4 68.7 104.6 62.5 64.2 1969 Chemical names of herbicides: R 11913 is 3'-hydroxypropionanilide isopropylcarbamate; cycloate is S-ethylN-ethylthiocyclohexanecarbamate; delachlor is 2-chloro-N-(isobutoxymethyl)-2',6'-acetoxylidide; EPTC is S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate; phenmedipham is methyl m-hyhroxycarbanilate m-methylcarbanilate; and pyrazon is.5-amino-4-chloro-2-phenyl-3(2H)-pyridazinone. Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 566 Source: :https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 SCHWEIZER : SUGARBEET ROOT LOSSES that are short. Because common lambsquarters and com- LITERATURE CITED mon sunflower are similar to kochia in their competitive 1. BRIMHALL, P. B., E. W. CHAMBERLAIN, and H. P. ALLEY. abilities, similar polynomial regression equations could be 1965. Competition of annual weeds and sugarbeets. Weeds derived for these species. 13:33-35. Depending on the initial infestation of kochia, we have 2. DAWSON, J. H. 1965. Competition between irrigated sugar- observed 0.3 to 6.2 plants per 30.5 m of row in our most beets and annual weeds. Weeds 13:245-249. selective weed-control systems before thinning. The cur- 3. DEW, D. A. 1972. An index of competition for estimating rent trend is to thin all sugarbeets with electronic ma- crop loss due to weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 52:921-927. chines. Since the machines cannot distinguish between 4. NODA, K., K. OzAWA, and K. IBARAKI. 1968. Studies on the damage of rice plants due to weed competition (effect of weed and sugarbeet plants, weeds remain in the row after barnyardgrass competition on growth, yield, and some eco- thinning. This means a grower needs to know whether it physiological aspects of rice plants). Bull. Kyushu Agr. will be economical to remove those plants that remain. Exp. Sta. 13:345-367. For these growers the linear equation will be useful in 5. SCHWEIZER, E. E. and J. H. DAWSON. 1970. Weed control determining whether they can justify the use of hand labor methods, losses and costs due to weeds, and benefits of to remove the kochia plants that remain after thinning. weed control in sugarbeets. Pages 344-356 in FAO Inter- national Conference on Weed Control. Weed Sci. Soc. For example, if two kochia plants remain per 30.5 m of Amer., Urbana, III. row after thinning, the predicted reduction in root yield 6. THURLOW, D. L. and G. A. BUCHANAN. 1972. Competition would be 7.9%. The decision to remove these plants with of sicklepod with soybeans. Weed Sci. 20:379-384. a hoe would depend on the difference between the ex- 7. WEATHERSPOON, D. M. and E. E. SCHWEIZER. 1971. Compe- pected loss in yield and the established wage scale for tition between sugarbeets and five densities of kochia. hand labor. In 1971 growers had to pay a minimum of Weed Sci. 19:125-128. $27.18 per hectare to remove weeds with a hoe after 8. ZAKHARENKO, V. A. 1968. Investigating the competitive thinning, and 7.9% of an average 42.5 tons/ha yield for ability of weeds and crop plants in relation to herbicide application. Khimiya sell Khoz. 6:447-452. (Taken from our Loveland district was valued at $58.93. Thus, it would Weed Abstr. 18:205.1969). have paid to remove the weeds. Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 567 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 PURCHASED BY THE USDA FOR OFFICIAL USE Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE CROPS RESEARCH LABORATORY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 July 10, 1973 Mr. Larry L. McGhee, Editor Upbeet Magazine The Great Western Sugar Company P.O. Box 5308T. A. Denver, Colorado 80217 Dear Mr. McGhee: Your company plays a vital role in disseminating useful research information to your growers through your popular publication. Our group at Fort Collins is part of the total sugarbeet research endeavor in the USA. In general, we publish most of our research results in professional journals. We know that research published in professional journals is often quite technical. None-the-less, we feel as editor of your company's magazine you would be interested in receiving reprints of published information from our group. At least, in this way, we can keep you abreast of what we are doing in sugarbeet production in Colorado. We have placed your name on our mailing list for reprints of cur- rent information. We would appreciate any comments you may have on this idea, and also would like to know if we have contacted the right person in your company. Sincerely, E. E. Schweizer Plant Physiologist Enclosures Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228

what is the P.O. Box number?

ftxv0228

ftxv0228_p0, ftxv0228_p1, ftxv0228_p2, ftxv0228_p3, ftxv0228_p4, ftxv0228_p5, ftxv0228_p6, ftxv0228_p7, ftxv0228_p8

5308T.A.

Research Work Plan Proposal A. Title of Investigation: Can hand-labor be eliminated in sugarbeet production by integrating new herbicides into an effective weed control system? B. Location of Study and Date Planned for Initiation: Bay Farm, Fort Collins, Colorado. April, 1975. C. Technical Personnel: USDA - E. E. Schweizer (Project Leader) CSU - J. Eshel (Collaborator) D. Background and Objectives. Many annual weeds can be controlled satisfactorily in sugarbeets with the use of mechanical equipment and herbicides, but complete weed control is difficult to obtain. Failure to control weed species, such as lambsquarters, pigweed, or kochia, before thinning hinders the com- plete mechanization of sugarbeet production because labor is often needed to hoe those weeds that escape. Combinations of effective preplanting and postemergence herbicides have consistently controlled over 95% of the pigweed and grass species in our field studies. Control of kochia has generally exceeded 80% when the postemergent herbicides were applied to kochia that was 1 inch or less in diameter and before it had begun to elongate. By determining the competitive effects of specific densities of kochia on sugarbeet root yield in our weed research program, we can now predict the percentage reduction in root yield that a specific density of kochia causes if it remains in a crop after thinning. The relationship between the number of kochia plants present in 100 feet of row after thinning and their effect on root yield is shown below. 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Number of kochia plants per 100 feet of row Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -2- The calculated percentage values for densities of 1 to 10 kochia plants are as follows: Number of kochia per 100 feet of row: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 % reduction in root yield: 6.1 7.9 9.7 11.5 13.3 15.2 17.0 18.8 20.6 22.4 The predictive equation that we used was most accurate when the kochia density was less than 20 plants per 100 feet of row. We found that with the above densities, we could consistently predict within 5% of the actual yield reductions. We feel confident that this predictive equation can be used by growers to determine whether they can justify the use of hand labor to remove those kochia plants that remain after thinning. Furthermore, we believe that we are now in a position to use this equation to compare how effective new herbicides and a herbistat (plant growth regulator) are in eliminating or reducing weed competition all season. Today, we have several new herbicide mixtures that either completely kill the weeds or suppress weed growth for many weeks thereafter. Unfortun- ately, we do not know how long these weeds are suppressed because they are normally removed during the thinning process. This study is designed to determine the direct effect of specific herbicide treatments on sugar- beets and the competitiveness of weeds present after thinning on sugar- beets. The latter effect will be studied by counting the kochia present after thinning. If the growth of kochia is not suppressed by the herbi- cide treatments, then the predicted reduction in root yield should be within 5% of the actual yield. Conversely, if the growth of kochia is suppressed by the herbicide treatments, then the actual reduction in yield should be less than the predicted value. In 1974, we evaluated several herbicide mixtures that reduced the stand of weeds by 90% or more. These mixtures (see E.2 for specific treatments) will be integrated into several effective weed control systems. We expect these herbicides and the herbistat to kill many weeds, suppress the growth of others, and prevent some weeds from pro- ducing viable weed seed. Therefore, our objectives will be to determine: a. whether new herbicide mixtures and a new herbistat (plant growth regulator) can be used in sequential treatments to eliminate the need for hand-weeding, b. whether weeds not killed by the herbistat will produce viable weed seed, and C. the effects of these sequential treatments on root yield, sucrose production, and purity. E. Experimental Plans and Procedure: 1. General. Conventional field equipment will be used to apply the herbicides and to produce the crop. Pelleted sugarbeet seed will be planted every 3 inches with a precision Milton Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -3- planter. Herbicides, applied preplanting, will be incorporated with a Lilliston rolling cultivator. The postemergent herbicide and herbistat treatments will be applied as topical sprays when sugarbeets have 4 and 8 true leaves, respectively. 2. Specific Plans Plot size: main plots (herbicides and herbistat) - 8 rows X 60 ft subplots (hand-weeding vs. no weeding all season) - 8 rows X 30 ft Replications : 4 Design: split plot Soil type: clay loam, organic matter - 1.5%, pH 7.8 Duration: 1975, with possible continuation in 1976 Treatments a No. Preplanting Postemergence Herbistat 1 Ro-Neet + Nortron none none d 2 Ro-Neet + Nortron none MBR 12325 3 Ro-Neet + Nortron Nortron + SN503° b none 4 Ro-Neet + Nortron Nortron + SN503 MBR 12325 5 Ro-Neet + Nortron Hoe 23408 + SN503° none 6 Ro-Neet + Nortron Hoe 23408 + SN503 MBR 12325 7 untreated weed-free check none none 8 untreated weedy-check none MBR 12325 a 1b/A each of Ro-Neet plus Nortron b12 1b/A of Nortron + 3/4 1b/A of SN503 C1 1b/A each of Hoe 23408 plus SN503 (SN503 is an equal mixture of Betanal and Betanal-475) d or 1/2 1b/A of MBR 12325 F. Records and Data to be Secured. 1. Weed counts and visual ratings before thinning, after application of MBR 12325, and prior to harvest in weedy subplots. 2. Prethinning and postthinning sugarbeet stand counts. 3. Sugarbeet ratings at weekly intervals following postemergence appli- - cations as long as any suppression is noticeable. 4. Yield of roots, sucrose percentage, and purity determinations in October from center four rows of each plot. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -4- G. Budget Estimates. ARS contributions include salaries for professional, technical, and--. secretarial services; land, field, and laboratory equipment; and shop and laboratory facilities. Supplementary funding of $3,000 is requested from the Grower-G.W. Joint Committee, Inc. to enable us to expand our program to include the objectives outlined herein. This additional funding will be used primarily for part- time labor to thin the sugarbeets, weed the weed-free plots all season, harvest the crop, and to wash, weigh, and analyze the roots for sucrose and purity. H. Administration of Funds. Colorado State University will be responsible for administering any funds provided by the Grower-G. W. Joint Research Committee, Inc. in partial support of this project. 1. Estimated Time to Complete. 1. Final results will be summarized in December, 1975. 2. After the results have been analyzed, and if certain treatments indicate that a crop of sugarbeets can be grown profitably without the need of any hand-labor, necessary revisions will be proposed to expand the study in 1976. Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 Reprinted from Weed Science, Vol. 21, November 1973, No. 6. Predicting Sugarbeet Root Losses Based on Kochia Densities¹ E. E. SCHWEIZER² Abstract. The reduction in root yield (Y) of sugarbeets (Beta redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). The initial vulgaris L.) caused by specific densities (X) of kochia [Kochia stand of redroot pigweed was reduced 76 to 100%. Ko- scoparia (L.) Schrad.] was predicted by using the linear equa- chia and redroot pigweed that were not controlled by culti- tion Y = 4.30 + 1.81 X. This equation was most accurate vation, mechanical thinning, and herbicides competed when the kochia density was 20 plants or less per 30.5 m of with sugarbeets for the entire season. In some systems, row. In 28 of 30 weed-control systems, where kochia densi- redroot pigweed emerged after thinning when the sugar- ties ranged from 0.2 to 16.5 plants per 30.5 m of row, the beet stand was not uniform. Annual grasses were con- predicted yield reductions were within 5% of the actual yield trolled with herbicides. reductions. Before harvest, kochia and redroot pigweed plants in INTRODUCTION each weed-controlled system were counted. Predicted yield reductions were calculated by using the polynomial W ITHIN the last decade, researchers have derived sev- regression equations and the kochia-density values ob- eral equations to estimate the crop losses caused by tained from 42 weed-control systems that were evaluated specific weed infestations (3, 4, 8). The relationship be- from 1969 through 1972. The 42 weed-control systems tween yield of a given crop and the density of a specific evaluated over the 4-year period included 27 different weed has been expressed generally in the form of a simple herbicide treatments and six untreated, weedy cultivated regression equation. To use these equations, the weed- plots. Nine of the 23 herbicide treatments were evaluated free yield has to be known, as well as the density of the for two consecutive years. weed stand or the weight of the weed species. In the irrigated areas of the central High Plains and RESULTS Intermountain West, kochia infests more than 63,000 ha of sugarbeets (5). Kochia is not controlled in these areas The polynomial regression equation appropriate for at planting, because most growers use a preplanting appli- predicting the reduction in root yield depended on the cation of a thiocarbamate herbicide, which controls only number of kochia densities. The equations that gave a 20% or less of the kochia. Growers who use a comple- statistically good fit to the data for variable densities of mentary post-emergence treatment can expect to reduce kochia per 30.5 m of row are as follows: a cubic equation the initial stand of kochia by 75 to 95%. Thus, some for densities of 4, 10, 20, 50, and 100 plants where Y = kochia plants remain to compete with sugarbeets. 1.01 + 2.60X - 0.0363X² + 0.00018X³, with r2 = This paper will (a) describe how information published 0.974; a quadratic equation for densities of 4, 10, 20, and in a previous paper on the competitive effects of five densi- 50 plants where Y = 1.85 + 2.38X - 0.0232X², with ties of kochia on the root yield of sugarbeets (7) was used r2 = 0.954; and a linear equation for densities of 4, 10, to derive equations to predict the reductions in root yield and 20 plants where Y = 4.30 + 1.81X, with r2 = 0.884. caused by specific densities of kochia in mixed weed popu- lations and (b) show that these reductions in root yield can The relation between percentage reduction in root yield be predicted by simply knowing the density of kochia pres- and kochia density as predicted by the three equations is ent in a given area. shown in Figure 1. Of the three equations, the linear equa- tion was the most accurate in predicting the reductions in METHODS yield for kochia densities of 20 plants or less per 30.5 m To determine whether we could predict the reduction of row (Figure 2). However, at these densities the pre- in yield (Y) caused by a specific density of kochia (X), dicted reductions in yield were similar with all three polynomial regression equations were derived by regress- equations (Table 1). For example, where kochia densities ing kochia densities of 4, 10, 20, 50, and 100 plants per ranged from 0.2 to 16.5 plants per 30.5 m of row in 30 30.5 m of row on sugarbeet root yield. These densities were weed-control systems, the predicted yield reductions, using replicated four times over a 2-year period in a random- the linear, quadratic, and cubic equations, were within 5% ized complete-block design (7). of the actual yield reductions for 28, 24, and 24 of these To test these polynomial regression equations, we used systems, respectively. data from several known weed-control systems that had At densities of more than 20 plants per 30.5 m of row, reduced the stand of kochia from about 1 to 99%. The reductions in yield could be predicted better with either the quadratic or cubic equations (Table 1) than with the other major weed species present in these systems was linear equation. 1Received for publication May 7, 1973. Cooperative investiga- DISCUSSION tions of the Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr. and the Colorado State Univ. Exp. Sta. Published with the approval of the Director We have shown that the reductions in root yield of of the Colorado State Univ. Exp. Sta. as Scientific Series Paper No. 1838. sugarbeets caused by kochia competition can be predicted 2lant Physiol., Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr., Colorado best with a linear equation when kochia densities are less State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80521. than 20 plants per 30.5 m of row. This is the density level Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 565 Source: https://wwvw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 WEED S CIENCE 100 50 Y = 4.30 + 1.81X LINEAR 80 CUBIC 40 60 30 40 20 QUADRATIC 20 o o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 NUMBER OF KOCHIA PLANTS PER 30.5 m OF ROW Figure 1. Relation between kochia density and root yield as pre- dicted by the linear, quadratic, and cubic equations. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 expected in commercial fields after thinning. An obvious restriction in using the linear equation is when the kochia NUMBER OF KOCHIA PLANTS PER 30.5 m OF ROW density approaches zero, because at zero the Y intercept Figure 2. Relation between kochia density and root yield as pre- is 4.30. However, in testing this equation against eight dicted by the linear equation. The 95% confidence intervals are weed-control where the from 0.2 to 0.9 systems plants per 30.5 m kochia of row, densities the predicted ranged indicated in the shaded area on each side of the regression line. yield reductions were within 6% of the actual yield re- ductions. The redroot pigweed densities ranged from 0.6 to 26 Predicting the reductions in root yield by simply know- plants per 30.5 m of row, with a mean of 6.8. At the ing the density of kochia in a given area increases the use- higher densities, reductions in root yield might be ex- fulness of this method for assessing losses in sugarbeets. pected, because root yields have been reduced by 17% In some crop-weed associations, yield reductions are better where 12.5 redroot pigweed plants per 30.5 m of row correlated with weight of weeds than with weed density competed all season with sugarbeets (1). These densities (4, 6). In other crop-weed associations, crop losses could apparently did not affect our predictions, because most of be estimated by the use of an "index of competition", but the redroot pigweed plants emerged too late in the season expected weed-free yield has to be known (3). to develop their full competitive potential. Previous weed- Our success in predicting within 5% of the actual yield competition studies in sugarbeets have shown that the later reductions for most weed-control systems depended on an annual weed emerges, the less competitive it is (2). minimizing weed competition during the entire growing Although these redroot pigweed densities did not affect season. Annual grasses were controlled completely with our predictions, other broadleaf weeds, such as common herbicides. Although kochia and some redroot pigweed lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) and common sun- seedlings emerged with the crop, most redroot pigweed flower (Helianthus annuus L.), could. These annual broad- plants present at harvest had emerged after thinning in leaf weeds emerge with, or shortly after, the crop, are tall, those systems where the sugarbeet stand was not uniform. produce dense shade, and are more competitive than those Table 1. Actual and predicted yield reductions of sugarbeet roots as affected by specific densities of kochia, which competed all season under different weed-control systems. Actual Predicted yield reductions Kochia Year Weed-control systems yield plants reduction Linear Quadratic Cubic (number/30.5 m of row) (%) (%) (%) (%) 1969 Cycloate R 1913-phenmedipham 0.4 2.9 5.0 2.8 2.0 Cycloate + R 11913-phenmedipham 0.6 5.7 5.4 3.3 2.6 1970 'ycloate-phenmedipham-EPTC 1.1 8.1 6.3 4.4 3.8 1971 1972 Cycloate-phenmedipham 3.6 9.1 10.8 10.1 9.9 1969 Cycloate-phenmedipham 6.2 15.8 15.5 15.7 15.8 16.5 30.1 34.2 34.8 34.9 1971 Cycloate 1971 Cycloate 27.9 43.1 54.8 50.1 49.2 43.3 49.6 82.7 61.4 60.1 1969 Delachlor-phenmedipham-pyrazon Delachlor 55.4 68.7 104.6 62.5 64.2 1969 Chemical names of herbicides: R 11913 is 3'-hydroxypropionanilide isopropylcarbamate; cycloate is S-ethylN-ethylthiocyclohexanecarbamate; delachlor is 2-chloro-N-(isobutoxymethyl)-2',6'-acetoxylidide; EPTC is S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate; phenmedipham is methyl m-hyhroxycarbanilate m-methylcarbanilate; and pyrazon is.5-amino-4-chloro-2-phenyl-3(2H)-pyridazinone. Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 566 Source: :https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 SCHWEIZER : SUGARBEET ROOT LOSSES that are short. Because common lambsquarters and com- LITERATURE CITED mon sunflower are similar to kochia in their competitive 1. BRIMHALL, P. B., E. W. CHAMBERLAIN, and H. P. ALLEY. abilities, similar polynomial regression equations could be 1965. Competition of annual weeds and sugarbeets. Weeds derived for these species. 13:33-35. Depending on the initial infestation of kochia, we have 2. DAWSON, J. H. 1965. Competition between irrigated sugar- observed 0.3 to 6.2 plants per 30.5 m of row in our most beets and annual weeds. Weeds 13:245-249. selective weed-control systems before thinning. The cur- 3. DEW, D. A. 1972. An index of competition for estimating rent trend is to thin all sugarbeets with electronic ma- crop loss due to weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 52:921-927. chines. Since the machines cannot distinguish between 4. NODA, K., K. OzAWA, and K. IBARAKI. 1968. Studies on the damage of rice plants due to weed competition (effect of weed and sugarbeet plants, weeds remain in the row after barnyardgrass competition on growth, yield, and some eco- thinning. This means a grower needs to know whether it physiological aspects of rice plants). Bull. Kyushu Agr. will be economical to remove those plants that remain. Exp. Sta. 13:345-367. For these growers the linear equation will be useful in 5. SCHWEIZER, E. E. and J. H. DAWSON. 1970. Weed control determining whether they can justify the use of hand labor methods, losses and costs due to weeds, and benefits of to remove the kochia plants that remain after thinning. weed control in sugarbeets. Pages 344-356 in FAO Inter- national Conference on Weed Control. Weed Sci. Soc. For example, if two kochia plants remain per 30.5 m of Amer., Urbana, III. row after thinning, the predicted reduction in root yield 6. THURLOW, D. L. and G. A. BUCHANAN. 1972. Competition would be 7.9%. The decision to remove these plants with of sicklepod with soybeans. Weed Sci. 20:379-384. a hoe would depend on the difference between the ex- 7. WEATHERSPOON, D. M. and E. E. SCHWEIZER. 1971. Compe- pected loss in yield and the established wage scale for tition between sugarbeets and five densities of kochia. hand labor. In 1971 growers had to pay a minimum of Weed Sci. 19:125-128. $27.18 per hectare to remove weeds with a hoe after 8. ZAKHARENKO, V. A. 1968. Investigating the competitive thinning, and 7.9% of an average 42.5 tons/ha yield for ability of weeds and crop plants in relation to herbicide application. Khimiya sell Khoz. 6:447-452. (Taken from our Loveland district was valued at $58.93. Thus, it would Weed Abstr. 18:205.1969). have paid to remove the weeds. Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 567 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 PURCHASED BY THE USDA FOR OFFICIAL USE Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE CROPS RESEARCH LABORATORY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 July 10, 1973 Mr. Larry L. McGhee, Editor Upbeet Magazine The Great Western Sugar Company P.O. Box 5308T. A. Denver, Colorado 80217 Dear Mr. McGhee: Your company plays a vital role in disseminating useful research information to your growers through your popular publication. Our group at Fort Collins is part of the total sugarbeet research endeavor in the USA. In general, we publish most of our research results in professional journals. We know that research published in professional journals is often quite technical. None-the-less, we feel as editor of your company's magazine you would be interested in receiving reprints of published information from our group. At least, in this way, we can keep you abreast of what we are doing in sugarbeet production in Colorado. We have placed your name on our mailing list for reprints of cur- rent information. We would appreciate any comments you may have on this idea, and also would like to know if we have contacted the right person in your company. Sincerely, E. E. Schweizer Plant Physiologist Enclosures Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228

in which location is the great western sugar company located?

ftxv0228

ftxv0228_p0, ftxv0228_p1, ftxv0228_p2, ftxv0228_p3, ftxv0228_p4, ftxv0228_p5, ftxv0228_p6, ftxv0228_p7, ftxv0228_p8

Colorado, Denver, Denver, Colorado 80217

Research Work Plan Proposal A. Title of Investigation: Can hand-labor be eliminated in sugarbeet production by integrating new herbicides into an effective weed control system? B. Location of Study and Date Planned for Initiation: Bay Farm, Fort Collins, Colorado. April, 1975. C. Technical Personnel: USDA - E. E. Schweizer (Project Leader) CSU - J. Eshel (Collaborator) D. Background and Objectives. Many annual weeds can be controlled satisfactorily in sugarbeets with the use of mechanical equipment and herbicides, but complete weed control is difficult to obtain. Failure to control weed species, such as lambsquarters, pigweed, or kochia, before thinning hinders the com- plete mechanization of sugarbeet production because labor is often needed to hoe those weeds that escape. Combinations of effective preplanting and postemergence herbicides have consistently controlled over 95% of the pigweed and grass species in our field studies. Control of kochia has generally exceeded 80% when the postemergent herbicides were applied to kochia that was 1 inch or less in diameter and before it had begun to elongate. By determining the competitive effects of specific densities of kochia on sugarbeet root yield in our weed research program, we can now predict the percentage reduction in root yield that a specific density of kochia causes if it remains in a crop after thinning. The relationship between the number of kochia plants present in 100 feet of row after thinning and their effect on root yield is shown below. 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Number of kochia plants per 100 feet of row Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -2- The calculated percentage values for densities of 1 to 10 kochia plants are as follows: Number of kochia per 100 feet of row: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 % reduction in root yield: 6.1 7.9 9.7 11.5 13.3 15.2 17.0 18.8 20.6 22.4 The predictive equation that we used was most accurate when the kochia density was less than 20 plants per 100 feet of row. We found that with the above densities, we could consistently predict within 5% of the actual yield reductions. We feel confident that this predictive equation can be used by growers to determine whether they can justify the use of hand labor to remove those kochia plants that remain after thinning. Furthermore, we believe that we are now in a position to use this equation to compare how effective new herbicides and a herbistat (plant growth regulator) are in eliminating or reducing weed competition all season. Today, we have several new herbicide mixtures that either completely kill the weeds or suppress weed growth for many weeks thereafter. Unfortun- ately, we do not know how long these weeds are suppressed because they are normally removed during the thinning process. This study is designed to determine the direct effect of specific herbicide treatments on sugar- beets and the competitiveness of weeds present after thinning on sugar- beets. The latter effect will be studied by counting the kochia present after thinning. If the growth of kochia is not suppressed by the herbi- cide treatments, then the predicted reduction in root yield should be within 5% of the actual yield. Conversely, if the growth of kochia is suppressed by the herbicide treatments, then the actual reduction in yield should be less than the predicted value. In 1974, we evaluated several herbicide mixtures that reduced the stand of weeds by 90% or more. These mixtures (see E.2 for specific treatments) will be integrated into several effective weed control systems. We expect these herbicides and the herbistat to kill many weeds, suppress the growth of others, and prevent some weeds from pro- ducing viable weed seed. Therefore, our objectives will be to determine: a. whether new herbicide mixtures and a new herbistat (plant growth regulator) can be used in sequential treatments to eliminate the need for hand-weeding, b. whether weeds not killed by the herbistat will produce viable weed seed, and C. the effects of these sequential treatments on root yield, sucrose production, and purity. E. Experimental Plans and Procedure: 1. General. Conventional field equipment will be used to apply the herbicides and to produce the crop. Pelleted sugarbeet seed will be planted every 3 inches with a precision Milton Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -3- planter. Herbicides, applied preplanting, will be incorporated with a Lilliston rolling cultivator. The postemergent herbicide and herbistat treatments will be applied as topical sprays when sugarbeets have 4 and 8 true leaves, respectively. 2. Specific Plans Plot size: main plots (herbicides and herbistat) - 8 rows X 60 ft subplots (hand-weeding vs. no weeding all season) - 8 rows X 30 ft Replications : 4 Design: split plot Soil type: clay loam, organic matter - 1.5%, pH 7.8 Duration: 1975, with possible continuation in 1976 Treatments a No. Preplanting Postemergence Herbistat 1 Ro-Neet + Nortron none none d 2 Ro-Neet + Nortron none MBR 12325 3 Ro-Neet + Nortron Nortron + SN503° b none 4 Ro-Neet + Nortron Nortron + SN503 MBR 12325 5 Ro-Neet + Nortron Hoe 23408 + SN503° none 6 Ro-Neet + Nortron Hoe 23408 + SN503 MBR 12325 7 untreated weed-free check none none 8 untreated weedy-check none MBR 12325 a 1b/A each of Ro-Neet plus Nortron b12 1b/A of Nortron + 3/4 1b/A of SN503 C1 1b/A each of Hoe 23408 plus SN503 (SN503 is an equal mixture of Betanal and Betanal-475) d or 1/2 1b/A of MBR 12325 F. Records and Data to be Secured. 1. Weed counts and visual ratings before thinning, after application of MBR 12325, and prior to harvest in weedy subplots. 2. Prethinning and postthinning sugarbeet stand counts. 3. Sugarbeet ratings at weekly intervals following postemergence appli- - cations as long as any suppression is noticeable. 4. Yield of roots, sucrose percentage, and purity determinations in October from center four rows of each plot. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -4- G. Budget Estimates. ARS contributions include salaries for professional, technical, and--. secretarial services; land, field, and laboratory equipment; and shop and laboratory facilities. Supplementary funding of $3,000 is requested from the Grower-G.W. Joint Committee, Inc. to enable us to expand our program to include the objectives outlined herein. This additional funding will be used primarily for part- time labor to thin the sugarbeets, weed the weed-free plots all season, harvest the crop, and to wash, weigh, and analyze the roots for sucrose and purity. H. Administration of Funds. Colorado State University will be responsible for administering any funds provided by the Grower-G. W. Joint Research Committee, Inc. in partial support of this project. 1. Estimated Time to Complete. 1. Final results will be summarized in December, 1975. 2. After the results have been analyzed, and if certain treatments indicate that a crop of sugarbeets can be grown profitably without the need of any hand-labor, necessary revisions will be proposed to expand the study in 1976. Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 Reprinted from Weed Science, Vol. 21, November 1973, No. 6. Predicting Sugarbeet Root Losses Based on Kochia Densities¹ E. E. SCHWEIZER² Abstract. The reduction in root yield (Y) of sugarbeets (Beta redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). The initial vulgaris L.) caused by specific densities (X) of kochia [Kochia stand of redroot pigweed was reduced 76 to 100%. Ko- scoparia (L.) Schrad.] was predicted by using the linear equa- chia and redroot pigweed that were not controlled by culti- tion Y = 4.30 + 1.81 X. This equation was most accurate vation, mechanical thinning, and herbicides competed when the kochia density was 20 plants or less per 30.5 m of with sugarbeets for the entire season. In some systems, row. In 28 of 30 weed-control systems, where kochia densi- redroot pigweed emerged after thinning when the sugar- ties ranged from 0.2 to 16.5 plants per 30.5 m of row, the beet stand was not uniform. Annual grasses were con- predicted yield reductions were within 5% of the actual yield trolled with herbicides. reductions. Before harvest, kochia and redroot pigweed plants in INTRODUCTION each weed-controlled system were counted. Predicted yield reductions were calculated by using the polynomial W ITHIN the last decade, researchers have derived sev- regression equations and the kochia-density values ob- eral equations to estimate the crop losses caused by tained from 42 weed-control systems that were evaluated specific weed infestations (3, 4, 8). The relationship be- from 1969 through 1972. The 42 weed-control systems tween yield of a given crop and the density of a specific evaluated over the 4-year period included 27 different weed has been expressed generally in the form of a simple herbicide treatments and six untreated, weedy cultivated regression equation. To use these equations, the weed- plots. Nine of the 23 herbicide treatments were evaluated free yield has to be known, as well as the density of the for two consecutive years. weed stand or the weight of the weed species. In the irrigated areas of the central High Plains and RESULTS Intermountain West, kochia infests more than 63,000 ha of sugarbeets (5). Kochia is not controlled in these areas The polynomial regression equation appropriate for at planting, because most growers use a preplanting appli- predicting the reduction in root yield depended on the cation of a thiocarbamate herbicide, which controls only number of kochia densities. The equations that gave a 20% or less of the kochia. Growers who use a comple- statistically good fit to the data for variable densities of mentary post-emergence treatment can expect to reduce kochia per 30.5 m of row are as follows: a cubic equation the initial stand of kochia by 75 to 95%. Thus, some for densities of 4, 10, 20, 50, and 100 plants where Y = kochia plants remain to compete with sugarbeets. 1.01 + 2.60X - 0.0363X² + 0.00018X³, with r2 = This paper will (a) describe how information published 0.974; a quadratic equation for densities of 4, 10, 20, and in a previous paper on the competitive effects of five densi- 50 plants where Y = 1.85 + 2.38X - 0.0232X², with ties of kochia on the root yield of sugarbeets (7) was used r2 = 0.954; and a linear equation for densities of 4, 10, to derive equations to predict the reductions in root yield and 20 plants where Y = 4.30 + 1.81X, with r2 = 0.884. caused by specific densities of kochia in mixed weed popu- lations and (b) show that these reductions in root yield can The relation between percentage reduction in root yield be predicted by simply knowing the density of kochia pres- and kochia density as predicted by the three equations is ent in a given area. shown in Figure 1. Of the three equations, the linear equa- tion was the most accurate in predicting the reductions in METHODS yield for kochia densities of 20 plants or less per 30.5 m To determine whether we could predict the reduction of row (Figure 2). However, at these densities the pre- in yield (Y) caused by a specific density of kochia (X), dicted reductions in yield were similar with all three polynomial regression equations were derived by regress- equations (Table 1). For example, where kochia densities ing kochia densities of 4, 10, 20, 50, and 100 plants per ranged from 0.2 to 16.5 plants per 30.5 m of row in 30 30.5 m of row on sugarbeet root yield. These densities were weed-control systems, the predicted yield reductions, using replicated four times over a 2-year period in a random- the linear, quadratic, and cubic equations, were within 5% ized complete-block design (7). of the actual yield reductions for 28, 24, and 24 of these To test these polynomial regression equations, we used systems, respectively. data from several known weed-control systems that had At densities of more than 20 plants per 30.5 m of row, reduced the stand of kochia from about 1 to 99%. The reductions in yield could be predicted better with either the quadratic or cubic equations (Table 1) than with the other major weed species present in these systems was linear equation. 1Received for publication May 7, 1973. Cooperative investiga- DISCUSSION tions of the Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr. and the Colorado State Univ. Exp. Sta. Published with the approval of the Director We have shown that the reductions in root yield of of the Colorado State Univ. Exp. Sta. as Scientific Series Paper No. 1838. sugarbeets caused by kochia competition can be predicted 2lant Physiol., Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr., Colorado best with a linear equation when kochia densities are less State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80521. than 20 plants per 30.5 m of row. This is the density level Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 565 Source: https://wwvw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 WEED S CIENCE 100 50 Y = 4.30 + 1.81X LINEAR 80 CUBIC 40 60 30 40 20 QUADRATIC 20 o o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 NUMBER OF KOCHIA PLANTS PER 30.5 m OF ROW Figure 1. Relation between kochia density and root yield as pre- dicted by the linear, quadratic, and cubic equations. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 expected in commercial fields after thinning. An obvious restriction in using the linear equation is when the kochia NUMBER OF KOCHIA PLANTS PER 30.5 m OF ROW density approaches zero, because at zero the Y intercept Figure 2. Relation between kochia density and root yield as pre- is 4.30. However, in testing this equation against eight dicted by the linear equation. The 95% confidence intervals are weed-control where the from 0.2 to 0.9 systems plants per 30.5 m kochia of row, densities the predicted ranged indicated in the shaded area on each side of the regression line. yield reductions were within 6% of the actual yield re- ductions. The redroot pigweed densities ranged from 0.6 to 26 Predicting the reductions in root yield by simply know- plants per 30.5 m of row, with a mean of 6.8. At the ing the density of kochia in a given area increases the use- higher densities, reductions in root yield might be ex- fulness of this method for assessing losses in sugarbeets. pected, because root yields have been reduced by 17% In some crop-weed associations, yield reductions are better where 12.5 redroot pigweed plants per 30.5 m of row correlated with weight of weeds than with weed density competed all season with sugarbeets (1). These densities (4, 6). In other crop-weed associations, crop losses could apparently did not affect our predictions, because most of be estimated by the use of an "index of competition", but the redroot pigweed plants emerged too late in the season expected weed-free yield has to be known (3). to develop their full competitive potential. Previous weed- Our success in predicting within 5% of the actual yield competition studies in sugarbeets have shown that the later reductions for most weed-control systems depended on an annual weed emerges, the less competitive it is (2). minimizing weed competition during the entire growing Although these redroot pigweed densities did not affect season. Annual grasses were controlled completely with our predictions, other broadleaf weeds, such as common herbicides. Although kochia and some redroot pigweed lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) and common sun- seedlings emerged with the crop, most redroot pigweed flower (Helianthus annuus L.), could. These annual broad- plants present at harvest had emerged after thinning in leaf weeds emerge with, or shortly after, the crop, are tall, those systems where the sugarbeet stand was not uniform. produce dense shade, and are more competitive than those Table 1. Actual and predicted yield reductions of sugarbeet roots as affected by specific densities of kochia, which competed all season under different weed-control systems. Actual Predicted yield reductions Kochia Year Weed-control systems yield plants reduction Linear Quadratic Cubic (number/30.5 m of row) (%) (%) (%) (%) 1969 Cycloate R 1913-phenmedipham 0.4 2.9 5.0 2.8 2.0 Cycloate + R 11913-phenmedipham 0.6 5.7 5.4 3.3 2.6 1970 'ycloate-phenmedipham-EPTC 1.1 8.1 6.3 4.4 3.8 1971 1972 Cycloate-phenmedipham 3.6 9.1 10.8 10.1 9.9 1969 Cycloate-phenmedipham 6.2 15.8 15.5 15.7 15.8 16.5 30.1 34.2 34.8 34.9 1971 Cycloate 1971 Cycloate 27.9 43.1 54.8 50.1 49.2 43.3 49.6 82.7 61.4 60.1 1969 Delachlor-phenmedipham-pyrazon Delachlor 55.4 68.7 104.6 62.5 64.2 1969 Chemical names of herbicides: R 11913 is 3'-hydroxypropionanilide isopropylcarbamate; cycloate is S-ethylN-ethylthiocyclohexanecarbamate; delachlor is 2-chloro-N-(isobutoxymethyl)-2',6'-acetoxylidide; EPTC is S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate; phenmedipham is methyl m-hyhroxycarbanilate m-methylcarbanilate; and pyrazon is.5-amino-4-chloro-2-phenyl-3(2H)-pyridazinone. Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 566 Source: :https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 SCHWEIZER : SUGARBEET ROOT LOSSES that are short. Because common lambsquarters and com- LITERATURE CITED mon sunflower are similar to kochia in their competitive 1. BRIMHALL, P. B., E. W. CHAMBERLAIN, and H. P. ALLEY. abilities, similar polynomial regression equations could be 1965. Competition of annual weeds and sugarbeets. Weeds derived for these species. 13:33-35. Depending on the initial infestation of kochia, we have 2. DAWSON, J. H. 1965. Competition between irrigated sugar- observed 0.3 to 6.2 plants per 30.5 m of row in our most beets and annual weeds. Weeds 13:245-249. selective weed-control systems before thinning. The cur- 3. DEW, D. A. 1972. An index of competition for estimating rent trend is to thin all sugarbeets with electronic ma- crop loss due to weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 52:921-927. chines. Since the machines cannot distinguish between 4. NODA, K., K. OzAWA, and K. IBARAKI. 1968. Studies on the damage of rice plants due to weed competition (effect of weed and sugarbeet plants, weeds remain in the row after barnyardgrass competition on growth, yield, and some eco- thinning. This means a grower needs to know whether it physiological aspects of rice plants). Bull. Kyushu Agr. will be economical to remove those plants that remain. Exp. Sta. 13:345-367. For these growers the linear equation will be useful in 5. SCHWEIZER, E. E. and J. H. DAWSON. 1970. Weed control determining whether they can justify the use of hand labor methods, losses and costs due to weeds, and benefits of to remove the kochia plants that remain after thinning. weed control in sugarbeets. Pages 344-356 in FAO Inter- national Conference on Weed Control. Weed Sci. Soc. For example, if two kochia plants remain per 30.5 m of Amer., Urbana, III. row after thinning, the predicted reduction in root yield 6. THURLOW, D. L. and G. A. BUCHANAN. 1972. Competition would be 7.9%. The decision to remove these plants with of sicklepod with soybeans. Weed Sci. 20:379-384. a hoe would depend on the difference between the ex- 7. WEATHERSPOON, D. M. and E. E. SCHWEIZER. 1971. Compe- pected loss in yield and the established wage scale for tition between sugarbeets and five densities of kochia. hand labor. In 1971 growers had to pay a minimum of Weed Sci. 19:125-128. $27.18 per hectare to remove weeds with a hoe after 8. ZAKHARENKO, V. A. 1968. Investigating the competitive thinning, and 7.9% of an average 42.5 tons/ha yield for ability of weeds and crop plants in relation to herbicide application. Khimiya sell Khoz. 6:447-452. (Taken from our Loveland district was valued at $58.93. Thus, it would Weed Abstr. 18:205.1969). have paid to remove the weeds. Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 567 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 PURCHASED BY THE USDA FOR OFFICIAL USE Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE CROPS RESEARCH LABORATORY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 July 10, 1973 Mr. Larry L. McGhee, Editor Upbeet Magazine The Great Western Sugar Company P.O. Box 5308T. A. Denver, Colorado 80217 Dear Mr. McGhee: Your company plays a vital role in disseminating useful research information to your growers through your popular publication. Our group at Fort Collins is part of the total sugarbeet research endeavor in the USA. In general, we publish most of our research results in professional journals. We know that research published in professional journals is often quite technical. None-the-less, we feel as editor of your company's magazine you would be interested in receiving reprints of published information from our group. At least, in this way, we can keep you abreast of what we are doing in sugarbeet production in Colorado. We have placed your name on our mailing list for reprints of cur- rent information. We would appreciate any comments you may have on this idea, and also would like to know if we have contacted the right person in your company. Sincerely, E. E. Schweizer Plant Physiologist Enclosures Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228

who is the plant physiologist?

ftxv0228

ftxv0228_p0, ftxv0228_p1, ftxv0228_p2, ftxv0228_p3, ftxv0228_p4, ftxv0228_p5, ftxv0228_p6, ftxv0228_p7, ftxv0228_p8

E.E. Schweizer

Research Work Plan Proposal A. Title of Investigation: Can hand-labor be eliminated in sugarbeet production by integrating new herbicides into an effective weed control system? B. Location of Study and Date Planned for Initiation: Bay Farm, Fort Collins, Colorado. April, 1975. C. Technical Personnel: USDA - E. E. Schweizer (Project Leader) CSU - J. Eshel (Collaborator) D. Background and Objectives. Many annual weeds can be controlled satisfactorily in sugarbeets with the use of mechanical equipment and herbicides, but complete weed control is difficult to obtain. Failure to control weed species, such as lambsquarters, pigweed, or kochia, before thinning hinders the com- plete mechanization of sugarbeet production because labor is often needed to hoe those weeds that escape. Combinations of effective preplanting and postemergence herbicides have consistently controlled over 95% of the pigweed and grass species in our field studies. Control of kochia has generally exceeded 80% when the postemergent herbicides were applied to kochia that was 1 inch or less in diameter and before it had begun to elongate. By determining the competitive effects of specific densities of kochia on sugarbeet root yield in our weed research program, we can now predict the percentage reduction in root yield that a specific density of kochia causes if it remains in a crop after thinning. The relationship between the number of kochia plants present in 100 feet of row after thinning and their effect on root yield is shown below. 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Number of kochia plants per 100 feet of row Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -2- The calculated percentage values for densities of 1 to 10 kochia plants are as follows: Number of kochia per 100 feet of row: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 % reduction in root yield: 6.1 7.9 9.7 11.5 13.3 15.2 17.0 18.8 20.6 22.4 The predictive equation that we used was most accurate when the kochia density was less than 20 plants per 100 feet of row. We found that with the above densities, we could consistently predict within 5% of the actual yield reductions. We feel confident that this predictive equation can be used by growers to determine whether they can justify the use of hand labor to remove those kochia plants that remain after thinning. Furthermore, we believe that we are now in a position to use this equation to compare how effective new herbicides and a herbistat (plant growth regulator) are in eliminating or reducing weed competition all season. Today, we have several new herbicide mixtures that either completely kill the weeds or suppress weed growth for many weeks thereafter. Unfortun- ately, we do not know how long these weeds are suppressed because they are normally removed during the thinning process. This study is designed to determine the direct effect of specific herbicide treatments on sugar- beets and the competitiveness of weeds present after thinning on sugar- beets. The latter effect will be studied by counting the kochia present after thinning. If the growth of kochia is not suppressed by the herbi- cide treatments, then the predicted reduction in root yield should be within 5% of the actual yield. Conversely, if the growth of kochia is suppressed by the herbicide treatments, then the actual reduction in yield should be less than the predicted value. In 1974, we evaluated several herbicide mixtures that reduced the stand of weeds by 90% or more. These mixtures (see E.2 for specific treatments) will be integrated into several effective weed control systems. We expect these herbicides and the herbistat to kill many weeds, suppress the growth of others, and prevent some weeds from pro- ducing viable weed seed. Therefore, our objectives will be to determine: a. whether new herbicide mixtures and a new herbistat (plant growth regulator) can be used in sequential treatments to eliminate the need for hand-weeding, b. whether weeds not killed by the herbistat will produce viable weed seed, and C. the effects of these sequential treatments on root yield, sucrose production, and purity. E. Experimental Plans and Procedure: 1. General. Conventional field equipment will be used to apply the herbicides and to produce the crop. Pelleted sugarbeet seed will be planted every 3 inches with a precision Milton Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -3- planter. Herbicides, applied preplanting, will be incorporated with a Lilliston rolling cultivator. The postemergent herbicide and herbistat treatments will be applied as topical sprays when sugarbeets have 4 and 8 true leaves, respectively. 2. Specific Plans Plot size: main plots (herbicides and herbistat) - 8 rows X 60 ft subplots (hand-weeding vs. no weeding all season) - 8 rows X 30 ft Replications : 4 Design: split plot Soil type: clay loam, organic matter - 1.5%, pH 7.8 Duration: 1975, with possible continuation in 1976 Treatments a No. Preplanting Postemergence Herbistat 1 Ro-Neet + Nortron none none d 2 Ro-Neet + Nortron none MBR 12325 3 Ro-Neet + Nortron Nortron + SN503° b none 4 Ro-Neet + Nortron Nortron + SN503 MBR 12325 5 Ro-Neet + Nortron Hoe 23408 + SN503° none 6 Ro-Neet + Nortron Hoe 23408 + SN503 MBR 12325 7 untreated weed-free check none none 8 untreated weedy-check none MBR 12325 a 1b/A each of Ro-Neet plus Nortron b12 1b/A of Nortron + 3/4 1b/A of SN503 C1 1b/A each of Hoe 23408 plus SN503 (SN503 is an equal mixture of Betanal and Betanal-475) d or 1/2 1b/A of MBR 12325 F. Records and Data to be Secured. 1. Weed counts and visual ratings before thinning, after application of MBR 12325, and prior to harvest in weedy subplots. 2. Prethinning and postthinning sugarbeet stand counts. 3. Sugarbeet ratings at weekly intervals following postemergence appli- - cations as long as any suppression is noticeable. 4. Yield of roots, sucrose percentage, and purity determinations in October from center four rows of each plot. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -4- G. Budget Estimates. ARS contributions include salaries for professional, technical, and--. secretarial services; land, field, and laboratory equipment; and shop and laboratory facilities. Supplementary funding of $3,000 is requested from the Grower-G.W. Joint Committee, Inc. to enable us to expand our program to include the objectives outlined herein. This additional funding will be used primarily for part- time labor to thin the sugarbeets, weed the weed-free plots all season, harvest the crop, and to wash, weigh, and analyze the roots for sucrose and purity. H. Administration of Funds. Colorado State University will be responsible for administering any funds provided by the Grower-G. W. Joint Research Committee, Inc. in partial support of this project. 1. Estimated Time to Complete. 1. Final results will be summarized in December, 1975. 2. After the results have been analyzed, and if certain treatments indicate that a crop of sugarbeets can be grown profitably without the need of any hand-labor, necessary revisions will be proposed to expand the study in 1976. Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 Reprinted from Weed Science, Vol. 21, November 1973, No. 6. Predicting Sugarbeet Root Losses Based on Kochia Densities¹ E. E. SCHWEIZER² Abstract. The reduction in root yield (Y) of sugarbeets (Beta redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). The initial vulgaris L.) caused by specific densities (X) of kochia [Kochia stand of redroot pigweed was reduced 76 to 100%. Ko- scoparia (L.) Schrad.] was predicted by using the linear equa- chia and redroot pigweed that were not controlled by culti- tion Y = 4.30 + 1.81 X. This equation was most accurate vation, mechanical thinning, and herbicides competed when the kochia density was 20 plants or less per 30.5 m of with sugarbeets for the entire season. In some systems, row. In 28 of 30 weed-control systems, where kochia densi- redroot pigweed emerged after thinning when the sugar- ties ranged from 0.2 to 16.5 plants per 30.5 m of row, the beet stand was not uniform. Annual grasses were con- predicted yield reductions were within 5% of the actual yield trolled with herbicides. reductions. Before harvest, kochia and redroot pigweed plants in INTRODUCTION each weed-controlled system were counted. Predicted yield reductions were calculated by using the polynomial W ITHIN the last decade, researchers have derived sev- regression equations and the kochia-density values ob- eral equations to estimate the crop losses caused by tained from 42 weed-control systems that were evaluated specific weed infestations (3, 4, 8). The relationship be- from 1969 through 1972. The 42 weed-control systems tween yield of a given crop and the density of a specific evaluated over the 4-year period included 27 different weed has been expressed generally in the form of a simple herbicide treatments and six untreated, weedy cultivated regression equation. To use these equations, the weed- plots. Nine of the 23 herbicide treatments were evaluated free yield has to be known, as well as the density of the for two consecutive years. weed stand or the weight of the weed species. In the irrigated areas of the central High Plains and RESULTS Intermountain West, kochia infests more than 63,000 ha of sugarbeets (5). Kochia is not controlled in these areas The polynomial regression equation appropriate for at planting, because most growers use a preplanting appli- predicting the reduction in root yield depended on the cation of a thiocarbamate herbicide, which controls only number of kochia densities. The equations that gave a 20% or less of the kochia. Growers who use a comple- statistically good fit to the data for variable densities of mentary post-emergence treatment can expect to reduce kochia per 30.5 m of row are as follows: a cubic equation the initial stand of kochia by 75 to 95%. Thus, some for densities of 4, 10, 20, 50, and 100 plants where Y = kochia plants remain to compete with sugarbeets. 1.01 + 2.60X - 0.0363X² + 0.00018X³, with r2 = This paper will (a) describe how information published 0.974; a quadratic equation for densities of 4, 10, 20, and in a previous paper on the competitive effects of five densi- 50 plants where Y = 1.85 + 2.38X - 0.0232X², with ties of kochia on the root yield of sugarbeets (7) was used r2 = 0.954; and a linear equation for densities of 4, 10, to derive equations to predict the reductions in root yield and 20 plants where Y = 4.30 + 1.81X, with r2 = 0.884. caused by specific densities of kochia in mixed weed popu- lations and (b) show that these reductions in root yield can The relation between percentage reduction in root yield be predicted by simply knowing the density of kochia pres- and kochia density as predicted by the three equations is ent in a given area. shown in Figure 1. Of the three equations, the linear equa- tion was the most accurate in predicting the reductions in METHODS yield for kochia densities of 20 plants or less per 30.5 m To determine whether we could predict the reduction of row (Figure 2). However, at these densities the pre- in yield (Y) caused by a specific density of kochia (X), dicted reductions in yield were similar with all three polynomial regression equations were derived by regress- equations (Table 1). For example, where kochia densities ing kochia densities of 4, 10, 20, 50, and 100 plants per ranged from 0.2 to 16.5 plants per 30.5 m of row in 30 30.5 m of row on sugarbeet root yield. These densities were weed-control systems, the predicted yield reductions, using replicated four times over a 2-year period in a random- the linear, quadratic, and cubic equations, were within 5% ized complete-block design (7). of the actual yield reductions for 28, 24, and 24 of these To test these polynomial regression equations, we used systems, respectively. data from several known weed-control systems that had At densities of more than 20 plants per 30.5 m of row, reduced the stand of kochia from about 1 to 99%. The reductions in yield could be predicted better with either the quadratic or cubic equations (Table 1) than with the other major weed species present in these systems was linear equation. 1Received for publication May 7, 1973. Cooperative investiga- DISCUSSION tions of the Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr. and the Colorado State Univ. Exp. Sta. Published with the approval of the Director We have shown that the reductions in root yield of of the Colorado State Univ. Exp. Sta. as Scientific Series Paper No. 1838. sugarbeets caused by kochia competition can be predicted 2lant Physiol., Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr., Colorado best with a linear equation when kochia densities are less State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80521. than 20 plants per 30.5 m of row. This is the density level Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 565 Source: https://wwvw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 WEED S CIENCE 100 50 Y = 4.30 + 1.81X LINEAR 80 CUBIC 40 60 30 40 20 QUADRATIC 20 o o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 NUMBER OF KOCHIA PLANTS PER 30.5 m OF ROW Figure 1. Relation between kochia density and root yield as pre- dicted by the linear, quadratic, and cubic equations. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 expected in commercial fields after thinning. An obvious restriction in using the linear equation is when the kochia NUMBER OF KOCHIA PLANTS PER 30.5 m OF ROW density approaches zero, because at zero the Y intercept Figure 2. Relation between kochia density and root yield as pre- is 4.30. However, in testing this equation against eight dicted by the linear equation. The 95% confidence intervals are weed-control where the from 0.2 to 0.9 systems plants per 30.5 m kochia of row, densities the predicted ranged indicated in the shaded area on each side of the regression line. yield reductions were within 6% of the actual yield re- ductions. The redroot pigweed densities ranged from 0.6 to 26 Predicting the reductions in root yield by simply know- plants per 30.5 m of row, with a mean of 6.8. At the ing the density of kochia in a given area increases the use- higher densities, reductions in root yield might be ex- fulness of this method for assessing losses in sugarbeets. pected, because root yields have been reduced by 17% In some crop-weed associations, yield reductions are better where 12.5 redroot pigweed plants per 30.5 m of row correlated with weight of weeds than with weed density competed all season with sugarbeets (1). These densities (4, 6). In other crop-weed associations, crop losses could apparently did not affect our predictions, because most of be estimated by the use of an "index of competition", but the redroot pigweed plants emerged too late in the season expected weed-free yield has to be known (3). to develop their full competitive potential. Previous weed- Our success in predicting within 5% of the actual yield competition studies in sugarbeets have shown that the later reductions for most weed-control systems depended on an annual weed emerges, the less competitive it is (2). minimizing weed competition during the entire growing Although these redroot pigweed densities did not affect season. Annual grasses were controlled completely with our predictions, other broadleaf weeds, such as common herbicides. Although kochia and some redroot pigweed lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) and common sun- seedlings emerged with the crop, most redroot pigweed flower (Helianthus annuus L.), could. These annual broad- plants present at harvest had emerged after thinning in leaf weeds emerge with, or shortly after, the crop, are tall, those systems where the sugarbeet stand was not uniform. produce dense shade, and are more competitive than those Table 1. Actual and predicted yield reductions of sugarbeet roots as affected by specific densities of kochia, which competed all season under different weed-control systems. Actual Predicted yield reductions Kochia Year Weed-control systems yield plants reduction Linear Quadratic Cubic (number/30.5 m of row) (%) (%) (%) (%) 1969 Cycloate R 1913-phenmedipham 0.4 2.9 5.0 2.8 2.0 Cycloate + R 11913-phenmedipham 0.6 5.7 5.4 3.3 2.6 1970 'ycloate-phenmedipham-EPTC 1.1 8.1 6.3 4.4 3.8 1971 1972 Cycloate-phenmedipham 3.6 9.1 10.8 10.1 9.9 1969 Cycloate-phenmedipham 6.2 15.8 15.5 15.7 15.8 16.5 30.1 34.2 34.8 34.9 1971 Cycloate 1971 Cycloate 27.9 43.1 54.8 50.1 49.2 43.3 49.6 82.7 61.4 60.1 1969 Delachlor-phenmedipham-pyrazon Delachlor 55.4 68.7 104.6 62.5 64.2 1969 Chemical names of herbicides: R 11913 is 3'-hydroxypropionanilide isopropylcarbamate; cycloate is S-ethylN-ethylthiocyclohexanecarbamate; delachlor is 2-chloro-N-(isobutoxymethyl)-2',6'-acetoxylidide; EPTC is S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate; phenmedipham is methyl m-hyhroxycarbanilate m-methylcarbanilate; and pyrazon is.5-amino-4-chloro-2-phenyl-3(2H)-pyridazinone. Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 566 Source: :https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 SCHWEIZER : SUGARBEET ROOT LOSSES that are short. Because common lambsquarters and com- LITERATURE CITED mon sunflower are similar to kochia in their competitive 1. BRIMHALL, P. B., E. W. CHAMBERLAIN, and H. P. ALLEY. abilities, similar polynomial regression equations could be 1965. Competition of annual weeds and sugarbeets. Weeds derived for these species. 13:33-35. Depending on the initial infestation of kochia, we have 2. DAWSON, J. H. 1965. Competition between irrigated sugar- observed 0.3 to 6.2 plants per 30.5 m of row in our most beets and annual weeds. Weeds 13:245-249. selective weed-control systems before thinning. The cur- 3. DEW, D. A. 1972. An index of competition for estimating rent trend is to thin all sugarbeets with electronic ma- crop loss due to weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 52:921-927. chines. Since the machines cannot distinguish between 4. NODA, K., K. OzAWA, and K. IBARAKI. 1968. Studies on the damage of rice plants due to weed competition (effect of weed and sugarbeet plants, weeds remain in the row after barnyardgrass competition on growth, yield, and some eco- thinning. This means a grower needs to know whether it physiological aspects of rice plants). Bull. Kyushu Agr. will be economical to remove those plants that remain. Exp. Sta. 13:345-367. For these growers the linear equation will be useful in 5. SCHWEIZER, E. E. and J. H. DAWSON. 1970. Weed control determining whether they can justify the use of hand labor methods, losses and costs due to weeds, and benefits of to remove the kochia plants that remain after thinning. weed control in sugarbeets. Pages 344-356 in FAO Inter- national Conference on Weed Control. Weed Sci. Soc. For example, if two kochia plants remain per 30.5 m of Amer., Urbana, III. row after thinning, the predicted reduction in root yield 6. THURLOW, D. L. and G. A. BUCHANAN. 1972. Competition would be 7.9%. The decision to remove these plants with of sicklepod with soybeans. Weed Sci. 20:379-384. a hoe would depend on the difference between the ex- 7. WEATHERSPOON, D. M. and E. E. SCHWEIZER. 1971. Compe- pected loss in yield and the established wage scale for tition between sugarbeets and five densities of kochia. hand labor. In 1971 growers had to pay a minimum of Weed Sci. 19:125-128. $27.18 per hectare to remove weeds with a hoe after 8. ZAKHARENKO, V. A. 1968. Investigating the competitive thinning, and 7.9% of an average 42.5 tons/ha yield for ability of weeds and crop plants in relation to herbicide application. Khimiya sell Khoz. 6:447-452. (Taken from our Loveland district was valued at $58.93. Thus, it would Weed Abstr. 18:205.1969). have paid to remove the weeds. Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 567 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 PURCHASED BY THE USDA FOR OFFICIAL USE Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE CROPS RESEARCH LABORATORY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 July 10, 1973 Mr. Larry L. McGhee, Editor Upbeet Magazine The Great Western Sugar Company P.O. Box 5308T. A. Denver, Colorado 80217 Dear Mr. McGhee: Your company plays a vital role in disseminating useful research information to your growers through your popular publication. Our group at Fort Collins is part of the total sugarbeet research endeavor in the USA. In general, we publish most of our research results in professional journals. We know that research published in professional journals is often quite technical. None-the-less, we feel as editor of your company's magazine you would be interested in receiving reprints of published information from our group. At least, in this way, we can keep you abreast of what we are doing in sugarbeet production in Colorado. We have placed your name on our mailing list for reprints of cur- rent information. We would appreciate any comments you may have on this idea, and also would like to know if we have contacted the right person in your company. Sincerely, E. E. Schweizer Plant Physiologist Enclosures Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228

how much rate of reduction in root yield for the 4 kochi plants per 100 feet of row for densities value?

ftxv0228

ftxv0228_p0, ftxv0228_p1, ftxv0228_p2, ftxv0228_p3, ftxv0228_p4, ftxv0228_p5, ftxv0228_p6, ftxv0228_p7, ftxv0228_p8

11.5

Research Work Plan Proposal A. Title of Investigation: Can hand-labor be eliminated in sugarbeet production by integrating new herbicides into an effective weed control system? B. Location of Study and Date Planned for Initiation: Bay Farm, Fort Collins, Colorado. April, 1975. C. Technical Personnel: USDA - E. E. Schweizer (Project Leader) CSU - J. Eshel (Collaborator) D. Background and Objectives. Many annual weeds can be controlled satisfactorily in sugarbeets with the use of mechanical equipment and herbicides, but complete weed control is difficult to obtain. Failure to control weed species, such as lambsquarters, pigweed, or kochia, before thinning hinders the com- plete mechanization of sugarbeet production because labor is often needed to hoe those weeds that escape. Combinations of effective preplanting and postemergence herbicides have consistently controlled over 95% of the pigweed and grass species in our field studies. Control of kochia has generally exceeded 80% when the postemergent herbicides were applied to kochia that was 1 inch or less in diameter and before it had begun to elongate. By determining the competitive effects of specific densities of kochia on sugarbeet root yield in our weed research program, we can now predict the percentage reduction in root yield that a specific density of kochia causes if it remains in a crop after thinning. The relationship between the number of kochia plants present in 100 feet of row after thinning and their effect on root yield is shown below. 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Number of kochia plants per 100 feet of row Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -2- The calculated percentage values for densities of 1 to 10 kochia plants are as follows: Number of kochia per 100 feet of row: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 % reduction in root yield: 6.1 7.9 9.7 11.5 13.3 15.2 17.0 18.8 20.6 22.4 The predictive equation that we used was most accurate when the kochia density was less than 20 plants per 100 feet of row. We found that with the above densities, we could consistently predict within 5% of the actual yield reductions. We feel confident that this predictive equation can be used by growers to determine whether they can justify the use of hand labor to remove those kochia plants that remain after thinning. Furthermore, we believe that we are now in a position to use this equation to compare how effective new herbicides and a herbistat (plant growth regulator) are in eliminating or reducing weed competition all season. Today, we have several new herbicide mixtures that either completely kill the weeds or suppress weed growth for many weeks thereafter. Unfortun- ately, we do not know how long these weeds are suppressed because they are normally removed during the thinning process. This study is designed to determine the direct effect of specific herbicide treatments on sugar- beets and the competitiveness of weeds present after thinning on sugar- beets. The latter effect will be studied by counting the kochia present after thinning. If the growth of kochia is not suppressed by the herbi- cide treatments, then the predicted reduction in root yield should be within 5% of the actual yield. Conversely, if the growth of kochia is suppressed by the herbicide treatments, then the actual reduction in yield should be less than the predicted value. In 1974, we evaluated several herbicide mixtures that reduced the stand of weeds by 90% or more. These mixtures (see E.2 for specific treatments) will be integrated into several effective weed control systems. We expect these herbicides and the herbistat to kill many weeds, suppress the growth of others, and prevent some weeds from pro- ducing viable weed seed. Therefore, our objectives will be to determine: a. whether new herbicide mixtures and a new herbistat (plant growth regulator) can be used in sequential treatments to eliminate the need for hand-weeding, b. whether weeds not killed by the herbistat will produce viable weed seed, and C. the effects of these sequential treatments on root yield, sucrose production, and purity. E. Experimental Plans and Procedure: 1. General. Conventional field equipment will be used to apply the herbicides and to produce the crop. Pelleted sugarbeet seed will be planted every 3 inches with a precision Milton Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -3- planter. Herbicides, applied preplanting, will be incorporated with a Lilliston rolling cultivator. The postemergent herbicide and herbistat treatments will be applied as topical sprays when sugarbeets have 4 and 8 true leaves, respectively. 2. Specific Plans Plot size: main plots (herbicides and herbistat) - 8 rows X 60 ft subplots (hand-weeding vs. no weeding all season) - 8 rows X 30 ft Replications : 4 Design: split plot Soil type: clay loam, organic matter - 1.5%, pH 7.8 Duration: 1975, with possible continuation in 1976 Treatments a No. Preplanting Postemergence Herbistat 1 Ro-Neet + Nortron none none d 2 Ro-Neet + Nortron none MBR 12325 3 Ro-Neet + Nortron Nortron + SN503° b none 4 Ro-Neet + Nortron Nortron + SN503 MBR 12325 5 Ro-Neet + Nortron Hoe 23408 + SN503° none 6 Ro-Neet + Nortron Hoe 23408 + SN503 MBR 12325 7 untreated weed-free check none none 8 untreated weedy-check none MBR 12325 a 1b/A each of Ro-Neet plus Nortron b12 1b/A of Nortron + 3/4 1b/A of SN503 C1 1b/A each of Hoe 23408 plus SN503 (SN503 is an equal mixture of Betanal and Betanal-475) d or 1/2 1b/A of MBR 12325 F. Records and Data to be Secured. 1. Weed counts and visual ratings before thinning, after application of MBR 12325, and prior to harvest in weedy subplots. 2. Prethinning and postthinning sugarbeet stand counts. 3. Sugarbeet ratings at weekly intervals following postemergence appli- - cations as long as any suppression is noticeable. 4. Yield of roots, sucrose percentage, and purity determinations in October from center four rows of each plot. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -4- G. Budget Estimates. ARS contributions include salaries for professional, technical, and--. secretarial services; land, field, and laboratory equipment; and shop and laboratory facilities. Supplementary funding of $3,000 is requested from the Grower-G.W. Joint Committee, Inc. to enable us to expand our program to include the objectives outlined herein. This additional funding will be used primarily for part- time labor to thin the sugarbeets, weed the weed-free plots all season, harvest the crop, and to wash, weigh, and analyze the roots for sucrose and purity. H. Administration of Funds. Colorado State University will be responsible for administering any funds provided by the Grower-G. W. Joint Research Committee, Inc. in partial support of this project. 1. Estimated Time to Complete. 1. Final results will be summarized in December, 1975. 2. After the results have been analyzed, and if certain treatments indicate that a crop of sugarbeets can be grown profitably without the need of any hand-labor, necessary revisions will be proposed to expand the study in 1976. Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 Reprinted from Weed Science, Vol. 21, November 1973, No. 6. Predicting Sugarbeet Root Losses Based on Kochia Densities¹ E. E. SCHWEIZER² Abstract. The reduction in root yield (Y) of sugarbeets (Beta redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). The initial vulgaris L.) caused by specific densities (X) of kochia [Kochia stand of redroot pigweed was reduced 76 to 100%. Ko- scoparia (L.) Schrad.] was predicted by using the linear equa- chia and redroot pigweed that were not controlled by culti- tion Y = 4.30 + 1.81 X. This equation was most accurate vation, mechanical thinning, and herbicides competed when the kochia density was 20 plants or less per 30.5 m of with sugarbeets for the entire season. In some systems, row. In 28 of 30 weed-control systems, where kochia densi- redroot pigweed emerged after thinning when the sugar- ties ranged from 0.2 to 16.5 plants per 30.5 m of row, the beet stand was not uniform. Annual grasses were con- predicted yield reductions were within 5% of the actual yield trolled with herbicides. reductions. Before harvest, kochia and redroot pigweed plants in INTRODUCTION each weed-controlled system were counted. Predicted yield reductions were calculated by using the polynomial W ITHIN the last decade, researchers have derived sev- regression equations and the kochia-density values ob- eral equations to estimate the crop losses caused by tained from 42 weed-control systems that were evaluated specific weed infestations (3, 4, 8). The relationship be- from 1969 through 1972. The 42 weed-control systems tween yield of a given crop and the density of a specific evaluated over the 4-year period included 27 different weed has been expressed generally in the form of a simple herbicide treatments and six untreated, weedy cultivated regression equation. To use these equations, the weed- plots. Nine of the 23 herbicide treatments were evaluated free yield has to be known, as well as the density of the for two consecutive years. weed stand or the weight of the weed species. In the irrigated areas of the central High Plains and RESULTS Intermountain West, kochia infests more than 63,000 ha of sugarbeets (5). Kochia is not controlled in these areas The polynomial regression equation appropriate for at planting, because most growers use a preplanting appli- predicting the reduction in root yield depended on the cation of a thiocarbamate herbicide, which controls only number of kochia densities. The equations that gave a 20% or less of the kochia. Growers who use a comple- statistically good fit to the data for variable densities of mentary post-emergence treatment can expect to reduce kochia per 30.5 m of row are as follows: a cubic equation the initial stand of kochia by 75 to 95%. Thus, some for densities of 4, 10, 20, 50, and 100 plants where Y = kochia plants remain to compete with sugarbeets. 1.01 + 2.60X - 0.0363X² + 0.00018X³, with r2 = This paper will (a) describe how information published 0.974; a quadratic equation for densities of 4, 10, 20, and in a previous paper on the competitive effects of five densi- 50 plants where Y = 1.85 + 2.38X - 0.0232X², with ties of kochia on the root yield of sugarbeets (7) was used r2 = 0.954; and a linear equation for densities of 4, 10, to derive equations to predict the reductions in root yield and 20 plants where Y = 4.30 + 1.81X, with r2 = 0.884. caused by specific densities of kochia in mixed weed popu- lations and (b) show that these reductions in root yield can The relation between percentage reduction in root yield be predicted by simply knowing the density of kochia pres- and kochia density as predicted by the three equations is ent in a given area. shown in Figure 1. Of the three equations, the linear equa- tion was the most accurate in predicting the reductions in METHODS yield for kochia densities of 20 plants or less per 30.5 m To determine whether we could predict the reduction of row (Figure 2). However, at these densities the pre- in yield (Y) caused by a specific density of kochia (X), dicted reductions in yield were similar with all three polynomial regression equations were derived by regress- equations (Table 1). For example, where kochia densities ing kochia densities of 4, 10, 20, 50, and 100 plants per ranged from 0.2 to 16.5 plants per 30.5 m of row in 30 30.5 m of row on sugarbeet root yield. These densities were weed-control systems, the predicted yield reductions, using replicated four times over a 2-year period in a random- the linear, quadratic, and cubic equations, were within 5% ized complete-block design (7). of the actual yield reductions for 28, 24, and 24 of these To test these polynomial regression equations, we used systems, respectively. data from several known weed-control systems that had At densities of more than 20 plants per 30.5 m of row, reduced the stand of kochia from about 1 to 99%. The reductions in yield could be predicted better with either the quadratic or cubic equations (Table 1) than with the other major weed species present in these systems was linear equation. 1Received for publication May 7, 1973. Cooperative investiga- DISCUSSION tions of the Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr. and the Colorado State Univ. Exp. Sta. Published with the approval of the Director We have shown that the reductions in root yield of of the Colorado State Univ. Exp. Sta. as Scientific Series Paper No. 1838. sugarbeets caused by kochia competition can be predicted 2lant Physiol., Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr., Colorado best with a linear equation when kochia densities are less State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80521. than 20 plants per 30.5 m of row. This is the density level Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 565 Source: https://wwvw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 WEED S CIENCE 100 50 Y = 4.30 + 1.81X LINEAR 80 CUBIC 40 60 30 40 20 QUADRATIC 20 o o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 NUMBER OF KOCHIA PLANTS PER 30.5 m OF ROW Figure 1. Relation between kochia density and root yield as pre- dicted by the linear, quadratic, and cubic equations. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 expected in commercial fields after thinning. An obvious restriction in using the linear equation is when the kochia NUMBER OF KOCHIA PLANTS PER 30.5 m OF ROW density approaches zero, because at zero the Y intercept Figure 2. Relation between kochia density and root yield as pre- is 4.30. However, in testing this equation against eight dicted by the linear equation. The 95% confidence intervals are weed-control where the from 0.2 to 0.9 systems plants per 30.5 m kochia of row, densities the predicted ranged indicated in the shaded area on each side of the regression line. yield reductions were within 6% of the actual yield re- ductions. The redroot pigweed densities ranged from 0.6 to 26 Predicting the reductions in root yield by simply know- plants per 30.5 m of row, with a mean of 6.8. At the ing the density of kochia in a given area increases the use- higher densities, reductions in root yield might be ex- fulness of this method for assessing losses in sugarbeets. pected, because root yields have been reduced by 17% In some crop-weed associations, yield reductions are better where 12.5 redroot pigweed plants per 30.5 m of row correlated with weight of weeds than with weed density competed all season with sugarbeets (1). These densities (4, 6). In other crop-weed associations, crop losses could apparently did not affect our predictions, because most of be estimated by the use of an "index of competition", but the redroot pigweed plants emerged too late in the season expected weed-free yield has to be known (3). to develop their full competitive potential. Previous weed- Our success in predicting within 5% of the actual yield competition studies in sugarbeets have shown that the later reductions for most weed-control systems depended on an annual weed emerges, the less competitive it is (2). minimizing weed competition during the entire growing Although these redroot pigweed densities did not affect season. Annual grasses were controlled completely with our predictions, other broadleaf weeds, such as common herbicides. Although kochia and some redroot pigweed lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) and common sun- seedlings emerged with the crop, most redroot pigweed flower (Helianthus annuus L.), could. These annual broad- plants present at harvest had emerged after thinning in leaf weeds emerge with, or shortly after, the crop, are tall, those systems where the sugarbeet stand was not uniform. produce dense shade, and are more competitive than those Table 1. Actual and predicted yield reductions of sugarbeet roots as affected by specific densities of kochia, which competed all season under different weed-control systems. Actual Predicted yield reductions Kochia Year Weed-control systems yield plants reduction Linear Quadratic Cubic (number/30.5 m of row) (%) (%) (%) (%) 1969 Cycloate R 1913-phenmedipham 0.4 2.9 5.0 2.8 2.0 Cycloate + R 11913-phenmedipham 0.6 5.7 5.4 3.3 2.6 1970 'ycloate-phenmedipham-EPTC 1.1 8.1 6.3 4.4 3.8 1971 1972 Cycloate-phenmedipham 3.6 9.1 10.8 10.1 9.9 1969 Cycloate-phenmedipham 6.2 15.8 15.5 15.7 15.8 16.5 30.1 34.2 34.8 34.9 1971 Cycloate 1971 Cycloate 27.9 43.1 54.8 50.1 49.2 43.3 49.6 82.7 61.4 60.1 1969 Delachlor-phenmedipham-pyrazon Delachlor 55.4 68.7 104.6 62.5 64.2 1969 Chemical names of herbicides: R 11913 is 3'-hydroxypropionanilide isopropylcarbamate; cycloate is S-ethylN-ethylthiocyclohexanecarbamate; delachlor is 2-chloro-N-(isobutoxymethyl)-2',6'-acetoxylidide; EPTC is S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate; phenmedipham is methyl m-hyhroxycarbanilate m-methylcarbanilate; and pyrazon is.5-amino-4-chloro-2-phenyl-3(2H)-pyridazinone. Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 566 Source: :https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 SCHWEIZER : SUGARBEET ROOT LOSSES that are short. Because common lambsquarters and com- LITERATURE CITED mon sunflower are similar to kochia in their competitive 1. BRIMHALL, P. B., E. W. CHAMBERLAIN, and H. P. ALLEY. abilities, similar polynomial regression equations could be 1965. Competition of annual weeds and sugarbeets. Weeds derived for these species. 13:33-35. Depending on the initial infestation of kochia, we have 2. DAWSON, J. H. 1965. Competition between irrigated sugar- observed 0.3 to 6.2 plants per 30.5 m of row in our most beets and annual weeds. Weeds 13:245-249. selective weed-control systems before thinning. The cur- 3. DEW, D. A. 1972. An index of competition for estimating rent trend is to thin all sugarbeets with electronic ma- crop loss due to weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 52:921-927. chines. Since the machines cannot distinguish between 4. NODA, K., K. OzAWA, and K. IBARAKI. 1968. Studies on the damage of rice plants due to weed competition (effect of weed and sugarbeet plants, weeds remain in the row after barnyardgrass competition on growth, yield, and some eco- thinning. This means a grower needs to know whether it physiological aspects of rice plants). Bull. Kyushu Agr. will be economical to remove those plants that remain. Exp. Sta. 13:345-367. For these growers the linear equation will be useful in 5. SCHWEIZER, E. E. and J. H. DAWSON. 1970. Weed control determining whether they can justify the use of hand labor methods, losses and costs due to weeds, and benefits of to remove the kochia plants that remain after thinning. weed control in sugarbeets. Pages 344-356 in FAO Inter- national Conference on Weed Control. Weed Sci. Soc. For example, if two kochia plants remain per 30.5 m of Amer., Urbana, III. row after thinning, the predicted reduction in root yield 6. THURLOW, D. L. and G. A. BUCHANAN. 1972. Competition would be 7.9%. The decision to remove these plants with of sicklepod with soybeans. Weed Sci. 20:379-384. a hoe would depend on the difference between the ex- 7. WEATHERSPOON, D. M. and E. E. SCHWEIZER. 1971. Compe- pected loss in yield and the established wage scale for tition between sugarbeets and five densities of kochia. hand labor. In 1971 growers had to pay a minimum of Weed Sci. 19:125-128. $27.18 per hectare to remove weeds with a hoe after 8. ZAKHARENKO, V. A. 1968. Investigating the competitive thinning, and 7.9% of an average 42.5 tons/ha yield for ability of weeds and crop plants in relation to herbicide application. Khimiya sell Khoz. 6:447-452. (Taken from our Loveland district was valued at $58.93. Thus, it would Weed Abstr. 18:205.1969). have paid to remove the weeds. Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 567 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 PURCHASED BY THE USDA FOR OFFICIAL USE Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE CROPS RESEARCH LABORATORY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 July 10, 1973 Mr. Larry L. McGhee, Editor Upbeet Magazine The Great Western Sugar Company P.O. Box 5308T. A. Denver, Colorado 80217 Dear Mr. McGhee: Your company plays a vital role in disseminating useful research information to your growers through your popular publication. Our group at Fort Collins is part of the total sugarbeet research endeavor in the USA. In general, we publish most of our research results in professional journals. We know that research published in professional journals is often quite technical. None-the-less, we feel as editor of your company's magazine you would be interested in receiving reprints of published information from our group. At least, in this way, we can keep you abreast of what we are doing in sugarbeet production in Colorado. We have placed your name on our mailing list for reprints of cur- rent information. We would appreciate any comments you may have on this idea, and also would like to know if we have contacted the right person in your company. Sincerely, E. E. Schweizer Plant Physiologist Enclosures Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228

In which year was several herbicide mixtures that reduced the stand of weeds by 90% or more were tested?

ftxv0228

ftxv0228_p0, ftxv0228_p1, ftxv0228_p2, ftxv0228_p3, ftxv0228_p4, ftxv0228_p5, ftxv0228_p6, ftxv0228_p7, ftxv0228_p8

1974

Research Work Plan Proposal A. Title of Investigation: Can hand-labor be eliminated in sugarbeet production by integrating new herbicides into an effective weed control system? B. Location of Study and Date Planned for Initiation: Bay Farm, Fort Collins, Colorado. April, 1975. C. Technical Personnel: USDA - E. E. Schweizer (Project Leader) CSU - J. Eshel (Collaborator) D. Background and Objectives. Many annual weeds can be controlled satisfactorily in sugarbeets with the use of mechanical equipment and herbicides, but complete weed control is difficult to obtain. Failure to control weed species, such as lambsquarters, pigweed, or kochia, before thinning hinders the com- plete mechanization of sugarbeet production because labor is often needed to hoe those weeds that escape. Combinations of effective preplanting and postemergence herbicides have consistently controlled over 95% of the pigweed and grass species in our field studies. Control of kochia has generally exceeded 80% when the postemergent herbicides were applied to kochia that was 1 inch or less in diameter and before it had begun to elongate. By determining the competitive effects of specific densities of kochia on sugarbeet root yield in our weed research program, we can now predict the percentage reduction in root yield that a specific density of kochia causes if it remains in a crop after thinning. The relationship between the number of kochia plants present in 100 feet of row after thinning and their effect on root yield is shown below. 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Number of kochia plants per 100 feet of row Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -2- The calculated percentage values for densities of 1 to 10 kochia plants are as follows: Number of kochia per 100 feet of row: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 % reduction in root yield: 6.1 7.9 9.7 11.5 13.3 15.2 17.0 18.8 20.6 22.4 The predictive equation that we used was most accurate when the kochia density was less than 20 plants per 100 feet of row. We found that with the above densities, we could consistently predict within 5% of the actual yield reductions. We feel confident that this predictive equation can be used by growers to determine whether they can justify the use of hand labor to remove those kochia plants that remain after thinning. Furthermore, we believe that we are now in a position to use this equation to compare how effective new herbicides and a herbistat (plant growth regulator) are in eliminating or reducing weed competition all season. Today, we have several new herbicide mixtures that either completely kill the weeds or suppress weed growth for many weeks thereafter. Unfortun- ately, we do not know how long these weeds are suppressed because they are normally removed during the thinning process. This study is designed to determine the direct effect of specific herbicide treatments on sugar- beets and the competitiveness of weeds present after thinning on sugar- beets. The latter effect will be studied by counting the kochia present after thinning. If the growth of kochia is not suppressed by the herbi- cide treatments, then the predicted reduction in root yield should be within 5% of the actual yield. Conversely, if the growth of kochia is suppressed by the herbicide treatments, then the actual reduction in yield should be less than the predicted value. In 1974, we evaluated several herbicide mixtures that reduced the stand of weeds by 90% or more. These mixtures (see E.2 for specific treatments) will be integrated into several effective weed control systems. We expect these herbicides and the herbistat to kill many weeds, suppress the growth of others, and prevent some weeds from pro- ducing viable weed seed. Therefore, our objectives will be to determine: a. whether new herbicide mixtures and a new herbistat (plant growth regulator) can be used in sequential treatments to eliminate the need for hand-weeding, b. whether weeds not killed by the herbistat will produce viable weed seed, and C. the effects of these sequential treatments on root yield, sucrose production, and purity. E. Experimental Plans and Procedure: 1. General. Conventional field equipment will be used to apply the herbicides and to produce the crop. Pelleted sugarbeet seed will be planted every 3 inches with a precision Milton Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -3- planter. Herbicides, applied preplanting, will be incorporated with a Lilliston rolling cultivator. The postemergent herbicide and herbistat treatments will be applied as topical sprays when sugarbeets have 4 and 8 true leaves, respectively. 2. Specific Plans Plot size: main plots (herbicides and herbistat) - 8 rows X 60 ft subplots (hand-weeding vs. no weeding all season) - 8 rows X 30 ft Replications : 4 Design: split plot Soil type: clay loam, organic matter - 1.5%, pH 7.8 Duration: 1975, with possible continuation in 1976 Treatments a No. Preplanting Postemergence Herbistat 1 Ro-Neet + Nortron none none d 2 Ro-Neet + Nortron none MBR 12325 3 Ro-Neet + Nortron Nortron + SN503° b none 4 Ro-Neet + Nortron Nortron + SN503 MBR 12325 5 Ro-Neet + Nortron Hoe 23408 + SN503° none 6 Ro-Neet + Nortron Hoe 23408 + SN503 MBR 12325 7 untreated weed-free check none none 8 untreated weedy-check none MBR 12325 a 1b/A each of Ro-Neet plus Nortron b12 1b/A of Nortron + 3/4 1b/A of SN503 C1 1b/A each of Hoe 23408 plus SN503 (SN503 is an equal mixture of Betanal and Betanal-475) d or 1/2 1b/A of MBR 12325 F. Records and Data to be Secured. 1. Weed counts and visual ratings before thinning, after application of MBR 12325, and prior to harvest in weedy subplots. 2. Prethinning and postthinning sugarbeet stand counts. 3. Sugarbeet ratings at weekly intervals following postemergence appli- - cations as long as any suppression is noticeable. 4. Yield of roots, sucrose percentage, and purity determinations in October from center four rows of each plot. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -4- G. Budget Estimates. ARS contributions include salaries for professional, technical, and--. secretarial services; land, field, and laboratory equipment; and shop and laboratory facilities. Supplementary funding of $3,000 is requested from the Grower-G.W. Joint Committee, Inc. to enable us to expand our program to include the objectives outlined herein. This additional funding will be used primarily for part- time labor to thin the sugarbeets, weed the weed-free plots all season, harvest the crop, and to wash, weigh, and analyze the roots for sucrose and purity. H. Administration of Funds. Colorado State University will be responsible for administering any funds provided by the Grower-G. W. Joint Research Committee, Inc. in partial support of this project. 1. Estimated Time to Complete. 1. Final results will be summarized in December, 1975. 2. After the results have been analyzed, and if certain treatments indicate that a crop of sugarbeets can be grown profitably without the need of any hand-labor, necessary revisions will be proposed to expand the study in 1976. Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 Reprinted from Weed Science, Vol. 21, November 1973, No. 6. Predicting Sugarbeet Root Losses Based on Kochia Densities¹ E. E. SCHWEIZER² Abstract. The reduction in root yield (Y) of sugarbeets (Beta redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). The initial vulgaris L.) caused by specific densities (X) of kochia [Kochia stand of redroot pigweed was reduced 76 to 100%. Ko- scoparia (L.) Schrad.] was predicted by using the linear equa- chia and redroot pigweed that were not controlled by culti- tion Y = 4.30 + 1.81 X. This equation was most accurate vation, mechanical thinning, and herbicides competed when the kochia density was 20 plants or less per 30.5 m of with sugarbeets for the entire season. In some systems, row. In 28 of 30 weed-control systems, where kochia densi- redroot pigweed emerged after thinning when the sugar- ties ranged from 0.2 to 16.5 plants per 30.5 m of row, the beet stand was not uniform. Annual grasses were con- predicted yield reductions were within 5% of the actual yield trolled with herbicides. reductions. Before harvest, kochia and redroot pigweed plants in INTRODUCTION each weed-controlled system were counted. Predicted yield reductions were calculated by using the polynomial W ITHIN the last decade, researchers have derived sev- regression equations and the kochia-density values ob- eral equations to estimate the crop losses caused by tained from 42 weed-control systems that were evaluated specific weed infestations (3, 4, 8). The relationship be- from 1969 through 1972. The 42 weed-control systems tween yield of a given crop and the density of a specific evaluated over the 4-year period included 27 different weed has been expressed generally in the form of a simple herbicide treatments and six untreated, weedy cultivated regression equation. To use these equations, the weed- plots. Nine of the 23 herbicide treatments were evaluated free yield has to be known, as well as the density of the for two consecutive years. weed stand or the weight of the weed species. In the irrigated areas of the central High Plains and RESULTS Intermountain West, kochia infests more than 63,000 ha of sugarbeets (5). Kochia is not controlled in these areas The polynomial regression equation appropriate for at planting, because most growers use a preplanting appli- predicting the reduction in root yield depended on the cation of a thiocarbamate herbicide, which controls only number of kochia densities. The equations that gave a 20% or less of the kochia. Growers who use a comple- statistically good fit to the data for variable densities of mentary post-emergence treatment can expect to reduce kochia per 30.5 m of row are as follows: a cubic equation the initial stand of kochia by 75 to 95%. Thus, some for densities of 4, 10, 20, 50, and 100 plants where Y = kochia plants remain to compete with sugarbeets. 1.01 + 2.60X - 0.0363X² + 0.00018X³, with r2 = This paper will (a) describe how information published 0.974; a quadratic equation for densities of 4, 10, 20, and in a previous paper on the competitive effects of five densi- 50 plants where Y = 1.85 + 2.38X - 0.0232X², with ties of kochia on the root yield of sugarbeets (7) was used r2 = 0.954; and a linear equation for densities of 4, 10, to derive equations to predict the reductions in root yield and 20 plants where Y = 4.30 + 1.81X, with r2 = 0.884. caused by specific densities of kochia in mixed weed popu- lations and (b) show that these reductions in root yield can The relation between percentage reduction in root yield be predicted by simply knowing the density of kochia pres- and kochia density as predicted by the three equations is ent in a given area. shown in Figure 1. Of the three equations, the linear equa- tion was the most accurate in predicting the reductions in METHODS yield for kochia densities of 20 plants or less per 30.5 m To determine whether we could predict the reduction of row (Figure 2). However, at these densities the pre- in yield (Y) caused by a specific density of kochia (X), dicted reductions in yield were similar with all three polynomial regression equations were derived by regress- equations (Table 1). For example, where kochia densities ing kochia densities of 4, 10, 20, 50, and 100 plants per ranged from 0.2 to 16.5 plants per 30.5 m of row in 30 30.5 m of row on sugarbeet root yield. These densities were weed-control systems, the predicted yield reductions, using replicated four times over a 2-year period in a random- the linear, quadratic, and cubic equations, were within 5% ized complete-block design (7). of the actual yield reductions for 28, 24, and 24 of these To test these polynomial regression equations, we used systems, respectively. data from several known weed-control systems that had At densities of more than 20 plants per 30.5 m of row, reduced the stand of kochia from about 1 to 99%. The reductions in yield could be predicted better with either the quadratic or cubic equations (Table 1) than with the other major weed species present in these systems was linear equation. 1Received for publication May 7, 1973. Cooperative investiga- DISCUSSION tions of the Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr. and the Colorado State Univ. Exp. Sta. Published with the approval of the Director We have shown that the reductions in root yield of of the Colorado State Univ. Exp. Sta. as Scientific Series Paper No. 1838. sugarbeets caused by kochia competition can be predicted 2lant Physiol., Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr., Colorado best with a linear equation when kochia densities are less State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80521. than 20 plants per 30.5 m of row. This is the density level Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 565 Source: https://wwvw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 WEED S CIENCE 100 50 Y = 4.30 + 1.81X LINEAR 80 CUBIC 40 60 30 40 20 QUADRATIC 20 o o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 NUMBER OF KOCHIA PLANTS PER 30.5 m OF ROW Figure 1. Relation between kochia density and root yield as pre- dicted by the linear, quadratic, and cubic equations. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 expected in commercial fields after thinning. An obvious restriction in using the linear equation is when the kochia NUMBER OF KOCHIA PLANTS PER 30.5 m OF ROW density approaches zero, because at zero the Y intercept Figure 2. Relation between kochia density and root yield as pre- is 4.30. However, in testing this equation against eight dicted by the linear equation. The 95% confidence intervals are weed-control where the from 0.2 to 0.9 systems plants per 30.5 m kochia of row, densities the predicted ranged indicated in the shaded area on each side of the regression line. yield reductions were within 6% of the actual yield re- ductions. The redroot pigweed densities ranged from 0.6 to 26 Predicting the reductions in root yield by simply know- plants per 30.5 m of row, with a mean of 6.8. At the ing the density of kochia in a given area increases the use- higher densities, reductions in root yield might be ex- fulness of this method for assessing losses in sugarbeets. pected, because root yields have been reduced by 17% In some crop-weed associations, yield reductions are better where 12.5 redroot pigweed plants per 30.5 m of row correlated with weight of weeds than with weed density competed all season with sugarbeets (1). These densities (4, 6). In other crop-weed associations, crop losses could apparently did not affect our predictions, because most of be estimated by the use of an "index of competition", but the redroot pigweed plants emerged too late in the season expected weed-free yield has to be known (3). to develop their full competitive potential. Previous weed- Our success in predicting within 5% of the actual yield competition studies in sugarbeets have shown that the later reductions for most weed-control systems depended on an annual weed emerges, the less competitive it is (2). minimizing weed competition during the entire growing Although these redroot pigweed densities did not affect season. Annual grasses were controlled completely with our predictions, other broadleaf weeds, such as common herbicides. Although kochia and some redroot pigweed lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) and common sun- seedlings emerged with the crop, most redroot pigweed flower (Helianthus annuus L.), could. These annual broad- plants present at harvest had emerged after thinning in leaf weeds emerge with, or shortly after, the crop, are tall, those systems where the sugarbeet stand was not uniform. produce dense shade, and are more competitive than those Table 1. Actual and predicted yield reductions of sugarbeet roots as affected by specific densities of kochia, which competed all season under different weed-control systems. Actual Predicted yield reductions Kochia Year Weed-control systems yield plants reduction Linear Quadratic Cubic (number/30.5 m of row) (%) (%) (%) (%) 1969 Cycloate R 1913-phenmedipham 0.4 2.9 5.0 2.8 2.0 Cycloate + R 11913-phenmedipham 0.6 5.7 5.4 3.3 2.6 1970 'ycloate-phenmedipham-EPTC 1.1 8.1 6.3 4.4 3.8 1971 1972 Cycloate-phenmedipham 3.6 9.1 10.8 10.1 9.9 1969 Cycloate-phenmedipham 6.2 15.8 15.5 15.7 15.8 16.5 30.1 34.2 34.8 34.9 1971 Cycloate 1971 Cycloate 27.9 43.1 54.8 50.1 49.2 43.3 49.6 82.7 61.4 60.1 1969 Delachlor-phenmedipham-pyrazon Delachlor 55.4 68.7 104.6 62.5 64.2 1969 Chemical names of herbicides: R 11913 is 3'-hydroxypropionanilide isopropylcarbamate; cycloate is S-ethylN-ethylthiocyclohexanecarbamate; delachlor is 2-chloro-N-(isobutoxymethyl)-2',6'-acetoxylidide; EPTC is S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate; phenmedipham is methyl m-hyhroxycarbanilate m-methylcarbanilate; and pyrazon is.5-amino-4-chloro-2-phenyl-3(2H)-pyridazinone. Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 566 Source: :https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 SCHWEIZER : SUGARBEET ROOT LOSSES that are short. Because common lambsquarters and com- LITERATURE CITED mon sunflower are similar to kochia in their competitive 1. BRIMHALL, P. B., E. W. CHAMBERLAIN, and H. P. ALLEY. abilities, similar polynomial regression equations could be 1965. Competition of annual weeds and sugarbeets. Weeds derived for these species. 13:33-35. Depending on the initial infestation of kochia, we have 2. DAWSON, J. H. 1965. Competition between irrigated sugar- observed 0.3 to 6.2 plants per 30.5 m of row in our most beets and annual weeds. Weeds 13:245-249. selective weed-control systems before thinning. The cur- 3. DEW, D. A. 1972. An index of competition for estimating rent trend is to thin all sugarbeets with electronic ma- crop loss due to weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 52:921-927. chines. Since the machines cannot distinguish between 4. NODA, K., K. OzAWA, and K. IBARAKI. 1968. Studies on the damage of rice plants due to weed competition (effect of weed and sugarbeet plants, weeds remain in the row after barnyardgrass competition on growth, yield, and some eco- thinning. This means a grower needs to know whether it physiological aspects of rice plants). Bull. Kyushu Agr. will be economical to remove those plants that remain. Exp. Sta. 13:345-367. For these growers the linear equation will be useful in 5. SCHWEIZER, E. E. and J. H. DAWSON. 1970. Weed control determining whether they can justify the use of hand labor methods, losses and costs due to weeds, and benefits of to remove the kochia plants that remain after thinning. weed control in sugarbeets. Pages 344-356 in FAO Inter- national Conference on Weed Control. Weed Sci. Soc. For example, if two kochia plants remain per 30.5 m of Amer., Urbana, III. row after thinning, the predicted reduction in root yield 6. THURLOW, D. L. and G. A. BUCHANAN. 1972. Competition would be 7.9%. The decision to remove these plants with of sicklepod with soybeans. Weed Sci. 20:379-384. a hoe would depend on the difference between the ex- 7. WEATHERSPOON, D. M. and E. E. SCHWEIZER. 1971. Compe- pected loss in yield and the established wage scale for tition between sugarbeets and five densities of kochia. hand labor. In 1971 growers had to pay a minimum of Weed Sci. 19:125-128. $27.18 per hectare to remove weeds with a hoe after 8. ZAKHARENKO, V. A. 1968. Investigating the competitive thinning, and 7.9% of an average 42.5 tons/ha yield for ability of weeds and crop plants in relation to herbicide application. Khimiya sell Khoz. 6:447-452. (Taken from our Loveland district was valued at $58.93. Thus, it would Weed Abstr. 18:205.1969). have paid to remove the weeds. Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 567 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 PURCHASED BY THE USDA FOR OFFICIAL USE Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE CROPS RESEARCH LABORATORY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 July 10, 1973 Mr. Larry L. McGhee, Editor Upbeet Magazine The Great Western Sugar Company P.O. Box 5308T. A. Denver, Colorado 80217 Dear Mr. McGhee: Your company plays a vital role in disseminating useful research information to your growers through your popular publication. Our group at Fort Collins is part of the total sugarbeet research endeavor in the USA. In general, we publish most of our research results in professional journals. We know that research published in professional journals is often quite technical. None-the-less, we feel as editor of your company's magazine you would be interested in receiving reprints of published information from our group. At least, in this way, we can keep you abreast of what we are doing in sugarbeet production in Colorado. We have placed your name on our mailing list for reprints of cur- rent information. We would appreciate any comments you may have on this idea, and also would like to know if we have contacted the right person in your company. Sincerely, E. E. Schweizer Plant Physiologist Enclosures Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228

how much rate of stand of weeds are reduced when several herbicides mixtures are evaluated in 1974?

ftxv0228

ftxv0228_p0, ftxv0228_p1, ftxv0228_p2, ftxv0228_p3, ftxv0228_p4, ftxv0228_p5, ftxv0228_p6, ftxv0228_p7, ftxv0228_p8

90%, 90% or more

Research Work Plan Proposal A. Title of Investigation: Can hand-labor be eliminated in sugarbeet production by integrating new herbicides into an effective weed control system? B. Location of Study and Date Planned for Initiation: Bay Farm, Fort Collins, Colorado. April, 1975. C. Technical Personnel: USDA - E. E. Schweizer (Project Leader) CSU - J. Eshel (Collaborator) D. Background and Objectives. Many annual weeds can be controlled satisfactorily in sugarbeets with the use of mechanical equipment and herbicides, but complete weed control is difficult to obtain. Failure to control weed species, such as lambsquarters, pigweed, or kochia, before thinning hinders the com- plete mechanization of sugarbeet production because labor is often needed to hoe those weeds that escape. Combinations of effective preplanting and postemergence herbicides have consistently controlled over 95% of the pigweed and grass species in our field studies. Control of kochia has generally exceeded 80% when the postemergent herbicides were applied to kochia that was 1 inch or less in diameter and before it had begun to elongate. By determining the competitive effects of specific densities of kochia on sugarbeet root yield in our weed research program, we can now predict the percentage reduction in root yield that a specific density of kochia causes if it remains in a crop after thinning. The relationship between the number of kochia plants present in 100 feet of row after thinning and their effect on root yield is shown below. 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Number of kochia plants per 100 feet of row Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -2- The calculated percentage values for densities of 1 to 10 kochia plants are as follows: Number of kochia per 100 feet of row: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 % reduction in root yield: 6.1 7.9 9.7 11.5 13.3 15.2 17.0 18.8 20.6 22.4 The predictive equation that we used was most accurate when the kochia density was less than 20 plants per 100 feet of row. We found that with the above densities, we could consistently predict within 5% of the actual yield reductions. We feel confident that this predictive equation can be used by growers to determine whether they can justify the use of hand labor to remove those kochia plants that remain after thinning. Furthermore, we believe that we are now in a position to use this equation to compare how effective new herbicides and a herbistat (plant growth regulator) are in eliminating or reducing weed competition all season. Today, we have several new herbicide mixtures that either completely kill the weeds or suppress weed growth for many weeks thereafter. Unfortun- ately, we do not know how long these weeds are suppressed because they are normally removed during the thinning process. This study is designed to determine the direct effect of specific herbicide treatments on sugar- beets and the competitiveness of weeds present after thinning on sugar- beets. The latter effect will be studied by counting the kochia present after thinning. If the growth of kochia is not suppressed by the herbi- cide treatments, then the predicted reduction in root yield should be within 5% of the actual yield. Conversely, if the growth of kochia is suppressed by the herbicide treatments, then the actual reduction in yield should be less than the predicted value. In 1974, we evaluated several herbicide mixtures that reduced the stand of weeds by 90% or more. These mixtures (see E.2 for specific treatments) will be integrated into several effective weed control systems. We expect these herbicides and the herbistat to kill many weeds, suppress the growth of others, and prevent some weeds from pro- ducing viable weed seed. Therefore, our objectives will be to determine: a. whether new herbicide mixtures and a new herbistat (plant growth regulator) can be used in sequential treatments to eliminate the need for hand-weeding, b. whether weeds not killed by the herbistat will produce viable weed seed, and C. the effects of these sequential treatments on root yield, sucrose production, and purity. E. Experimental Plans and Procedure: 1. General. Conventional field equipment will be used to apply the herbicides and to produce the crop. Pelleted sugarbeet seed will be planted every 3 inches with a precision Milton Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -3- planter. Herbicides, applied preplanting, will be incorporated with a Lilliston rolling cultivator. The postemergent herbicide and herbistat treatments will be applied as topical sprays when sugarbeets have 4 and 8 true leaves, respectively. 2. Specific Plans Plot size: main plots (herbicides and herbistat) - 8 rows X 60 ft subplots (hand-weeding vs. no weeding all season) - 8 rows X 30 ft Replications : 4 Design: split plot Soil type: clay loam, organic matter - 1.5%, pH 7.8 Duration: 1975, with possible continuation in 1976 Treatments a No. Preplanting Postemergence Herbistat 1 Ro-Neet + Nortron none none d 2 Ro-Neet + Nortron none MBR 12325 3 Ro-Neet + Nortron Nortron + SN503° b none 4 Ro-Neet + Nortron Nortron + SN503 MBR 12325 5 Ro-Neet + Nortron Hoe 23408 + SN503° none 6 Ro-Neet + Nortron Hoe 23408 + SN503 MBR 12325 7 untreated weed-free check none none 8 untreated weedy-check none MBR 12325 a 1b/A each of Ro-Neet plus Nortron b12 1b/A of Nortron + 3/4 1b/A of SN503 C1 1b/A each of Hoe 23408 plus SN503 (SN503 is an equal mixture of Betanal and Betanal-475) d or 1/2 1b/A of MBR 12325 F. Records and Data to be Secured. 1. Weed counts and visual ratings before thinning, after application of MBR 12325, and prior to harvest in weedy subplots. 2. Prethinning and postthinning sugarbeet stand counts. 3. Sugarbeet ratings at weekly intervals following postemergence appli- - cations as long as any suppression is noticeable. 4. Yield of roots, sucrose percentage, and purity determinations in October from center four rows of each plot. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -4- G. Budget Estimates. ARS contributions include salaries for professional, technical, and--. secretarial services; land, field, and laboratory equipment; and shop and laboratory facilities. Supplementary funding of $3,000 is requested from the Grower-G.W. Joint Committee, Inc. to enable us to expand our program to include the objectives outlined herein. This additional funding will be used primarily for part- time labor to thin the sugarbeets, weed the weed-free plots all season, harvest the crop, and to wash, weigh, and analyze the roots for sucrose and purity. H. Administration of Funds. Colorado State University will be responsible for administering any funds provided by the Grower-G. W. Joint Research Committee, Inc. in partial support of this project. 1. Estimated Time to Complete. 1. Final results will be summarized in December, 1975. 2. After the results have been analyzed, and if certain treatments indicate that a crop of sugarbeets can be grown profitably without the need of any hand-labor, necessary revisions will be proposed to expand the study in 1976. Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 Reprinted from Weed Science, Vol. 21, November 1973, No. 6. Predicting Sugarbeet Root Losses Based on Kochia Densities¹ E. E. SCHWEIZER² Abstract. The reduction in root yield (Y) of sugarbeets (Beta redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). The initial vulgaris L.) caused by specific densities (X) of kochia [Kochia stand of redroot pigweed was reduced 76 to 100%. Ko- scoparia (L.) Schrad.] was predicted by using the linear equa- chia and redroot pigweed that were not controlled by culti- tion Y = 4.30 + 1.81 X. This equation was most accurate vation, mechanical thinning, and herbicides competed when the kochia density was 20 plants or less per 30.5 m of with sugarbeets for the entire season. In some systems, row. In 28 of 30 weed-control systems, where kochia densi- redroot pigweed emerged after thinning when the sugar- ties ranged from 0.2 to 16.5 plants per 30.5 m of row, the beet stand was not uniform. Annual grasses were con- predicted yield reductions were within 5% of the actual yield trolled with herbicides. reductions. Before harvest, kochia and redroot pigweed plants in INTRODUCTION each weed-controlled system were counted. Predicted yield reductions were calculated by using the polynomial W ITHIN the last decade, researchers have derived sev- regression equations and the kochia-density values ob- eral equations to estimate the crop losses caused by tained from 42 weed-control systems that were evaluated specific weed infestations (3, 4, 8). The relationship be- from 1969 through 1972. The 42 weed-control systems tween yield of a given crop and the density of a specific evaluated over the 4-year period included 27 different weed has been expressed generally in the form of a simple herbicide treatments and six untreated, weedy cultivated regression equation. To use these equations, the weed- plots. Nine of the 23 herbicide treatments were evaluated free yield has to be known, as well as the density of the for two consecutive years. weed stand or the weight of the weed species. In the irrigated areas of the central High Plains and RESULTS Intermountain West, kochia infests more than 63,000 ha of sugarbeets (5). Kochia is not controlled in these areas The polynomial regression equation appropriate for at planting, because most growers use a preplanting appli- predicting the reduction in root yield depended on the cation of a thiocarbamate herbicide, which controls only number of kochia densities. The equations that gave a 20% or less of the kochia. Growers who use a comple- statistically good fit to the data for variable densities of mentary post-emergence treatment can expect to reduce kochia per 30.5 m of row are as follows: a cubic equation the initial stand of kochia by 75 to 95%. Thus, some for densities of 4, 10, 20, 50, and 100 plants where Y = kochia plants remain to compete with sugarbeets. 1.01 + 2.60X - 0.0363X² + 0.00018X³, with r2 = This paper will (a) describe how information published 0.974; a quadratic equation for densities of 4, 10, 20, and in a previous paper on the competitive effects of five densi- 50 plants where Y = 1.85 + 2.38X - 0.0232X², with ties of kochia on the root yield of sugarbeets (7) was used r2 = 0.954; and a linear equation for densities of 4, 10, to derive equations to predict the reductions in root yield and 20 plants where Y = 4.30 + 1.81X, with r2 = 0.884. caused by specific densities of kochia in mixed weed popu- lations and (b) show that these reductions in root yield can The relation between percentage reduction in root yield be predicted by simply knowing the density of kochia pres- and kochia density as predicted by the three equations is ent in a given area. shown in Figure 1. Of the three equations, the linear equa- tion was the most accurate in predicting the reductions in METHODS yield for kochia densities of 20 plants or less per 30.5 m To determine whether we could predict the reduction of row (Figure 2). However, at these densities the pre- in yield (Y) caused by a specific density of kochia (X), dicted reductions in yield were similar with all three polynomial regression equations were derived by regress- equations (Table 1). For example, where kochia densities ing kochia densities of 4, 10, 20, 50, and 100 plants per ranged from 0.2 to 16.5 plants per 30.5 m of row in 30 30.5 m of row on sugarbeet root yield. These densities were weed-control systems, the predicted yield reductions, using replicated four times over a 2-year period in a random- the linear, quadratic, and cubic equations, were within 5% ized complete-block design (7). of the actual yield reductions for 28, 24, and 24 of these To test these polynomial regression equations, we used systems, respectively. data from several known weed-control systems that had At densities of more than 20 plants per 30.5 m of row, reduced the stand of kochia from about 1 to 99%. The reductions in yield could be predicted better with either the quadratic or cubic equations (Table 1) than with the other major weed species present in these systems was linear equation. 1Received for publication May 7, 1973. Cooperative investiga- DISCUSSION tions of the Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr. and the Colorado State Univ. Exp. Sta. Published with the approval of the Director We have shown that the reductions in root yield of of the Colorado State Univ. Exp. Sta. as Scientific Series Paper No. 1838. sugarbeets caused by kochia competition can be predicted 2lant Physiol., Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr., Colorado best with a linear equation when kochia densities are less State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80521. than 20 plants per 30.5 m of row. This is the density level Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 565 Source: https://wwvw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 WEED S CIENCE 100 50 Y = 4.30 + 1.81X LINEAR 80 CUBIC 40 60 30 40 20 QUADRATIC 20 o o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 NUMBER OF KOCHIA PLANTS PER 30.5 m OF ROW Figure 1. Relation between kochia density and root yield as pre- dicted by the linear, quadratic, and cubic equations. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 expected in commercial fields after thinning. An obvious restriction in using the linear equation is when the kochia NUMBER OF KOCHIA PLANTS PER 30.5 m OF ROW density approaches zero, because at zero the Y intercept Figure 2. Relation between kochia density and root yield as pre- is 4.30. However, in testing this equation against eight dicted by the linear equation. The 95% confidence intervals are weed-control where the from 0.2 to 0.9 systems plants per 30.5 m kochia of row, densities the predicted ranged indicated in the shaded area on each side of the regression line. yield reductions were within 6% of the actual yield re- ductions. The redroot pigweed densities ranged from 0.6 to 26 Predicting the reductions in root yield by simply know- plants per 30.5 m of row, with a mean of 6.8. At the ing the density of kochia in a given area increases the use- higher densities, reductions in root yield might be ex- fulness of this method for assessing losses in sugarbeets. pected, because root yields have been reduced by 17% In some crop-weed associations, yield reductions are better where 12.5 redroot pigweed plants per 30.5 m of row correlated with weight of weeds than with weed density competed all season with sugarbeets (1). These densities (4, 6). In other crop-weed associations, crop losses could apparently did not affect our predictions, because most of be estimated by the use of an "index of competition", but the redroot pigweed plants emerged too late in the season expected weed-free yield has to be known (3). to develop their full competitive potential. Previous weed- Our success in predicting within 5% of the actual yield competition studies in sugarbeets have shown that the later reductions for most weed-control systems depended on an annual weed emerges, the less competitive it is (2). minimizing weed competition during the entire growing Although these redroot pigweed densities did not affect season. Annual grasses were controlled completely with our predictions, other broadleaf weeds, such as common herbicides. Although kochia and some redroot pigweed lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) and common sun- seedlings emerged with the crop, most redroot pigweed flower (Helianthus annuus L.), could. These annual broad- plants present at harvest had emerged after thinning in leaf weeds emerge with, or shortly after, the crop, are tall, those systems where the sugarbeet stand was not uniform. produce dense shade, and are more competitive than those Table 1. Actual and predicted yield reductions of sugarbeet roots as affected by specific densities of kochia, which competed all season under different weed-control systems. Actual Predicted yield reductions Kochia Year Weed-control systems yield plants reduction Linear Quadratic Cubic (number/30.5 m of row) (%) (%) (%) (%) 1969 Cycloate R 1913-phenmedipham 0.4 2.9 5.0 2.8 2.0 Cycloate + R 11913-phenmedipham 0.6 5.7 5.4 3.3 2.6 1970 'ycloate-phenmedipham-EPTC 1.1 8.1 6.3 4.4 3.8 1971 1972 Cycloate-phenmedipham 3.6 9.1 10.8 10.1 9.9 1969 Cycloate-phenmedipham 6.2 15.8 15.5 15.7 15.8 16.5 30.1 34.2 34.8 34.9 1971 Cycloate 1971 Cycloate 27.9 43.1 54.8 50.1 49.2 43.3 49.6 82.7 61.4 60.1 1969 Delachlor-phenmedipham-pyrazon Delachlor 55.4 68.7 104.6 62.5 64.2 1969 Chemical names of herbicides: R 11913 is 3'-hydroxypropionanilide isopropylcarbamate; cycloate is S-ethylN-ethylthiocyclohexanecarbamate; delachlor is 2-chloro-N-(isobutoxymethyl)-2',6'-acetoxylidide; EPTC is S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate; phenmedipham is methyl m-hyhroxycarbanilate m-methylcarbanilate; and pyrazon is.5-amino-4-chloro-2-phenyl-3(2H)-pyridazinone. Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 566 Source: :https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 SCHWEIZER : SUGARBEET ROOT LOSSES that are short. Because common lambsquarters and com- LITERATURE CITED mon sunflower are similar to kochia in their competitive 1. BRIMHALL, P. B., E. W. CHAMBERLAIN, and H. P. ALLEY. abilities, similar polynomial regression equations could be 1965. Competition of annual weeds and sugarbeets. Weeds derived for these species. 13:33-35. Depending on the initial infestation of kochia, we have 2. DAWSON, J. H. 1965. Competition between irrigated sugar- observed 0.3 to 6.2 plants per 30.5 m of row in our most beets and annual weeds. Weeds 13:245-249. selective weed-control systems before thinning. The cur- 3. DEW, D. A. 1972. An index of competition for estimating rent trend is to thin all sugarbeets with electronic ma- crop loss due to weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 52:921-927. chines. Since the machines cannot distinguish between 4. NODA, K., K. OzAWA, and K. IBARAKI. 1968. Studies on the damage of rice plants due to weed competition (effect of weed and sugarbeet plants, weeds remain in the row after barnyardgrass competition on growth, yield, and some eco- thinning. This means a grower needs to know whether it physiological aspects of rice plants). Bull. Kyushu Agr. will be economical to remove those plants that remain. Exp. Sta. 13:345-367. For these growers the linear equation will be useful in 5. SCHWEIZER, E. E. and J. H. DAWSON. 1970. Weed control determining whether they can justify the use of hand labor methods, losses and costs due to weeds, and benefits of to remove the kochia plants that remain after thinning. weed control in sugarbeets. Pages 344-356 in FAO Inter- national Conference on Weed Control. Weed Sci. Soc. For example, if two kochia plants remain per 30.5 m of Amer., Urbana, III. row after thinning, the predicted reduction in root yield 6. THURLOW, D. L. and G. A. BUCHANAN. 1972. Competition would be 7.9%. The decision to remove these plants with of sicklepod with soybeans. Weed Sci. 20:379-384. a hoe would depend on the difference between the ex- 7. WEATHERSPOON, D. M. and E. E. SCHWEIZER. 1971. Compe- pected loss in yield and the established wage scale for tition between sugarbeets and five densities of kochia. hand labor. In 1971 growers had to pay a minimum of Weed Sci. 19:125-128. $27.18 per hectare to remove weeds with a hoe after 8. ZAKHARENKO, V. A. 1968. Investigating the competitive thinning, and 7.9% of an average 42.5 tons/ha yield for ability of weeds and crop plants in relation to herbicide application. Khimiya sell Khoz. 6:447-452. (Taken from our Loveland district was valued at $58.93. Thus, it would Weed Abstr. 18:205.1969). have paid to remove the weeds. Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 567 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 PURCHASED BY THE USDA FOR OFFICIAL USE Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE CROPS RESEARCH LABORATORY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 July 10, 1973 Mr. Larry L. McGhee, Editor Upbeet Magazine The Great Western Sugar Company P.O. Box 5308T. A. Denver, Colorado 80217 Dear Mr. McGhee: Your company plays a vital role in disseminating useful research information to your growers through your popular publication. Our group at Fort Collins is part of the total sugarbeet research endeavor in the USA. In general, we publish most of our research results in professional journals. We know that research published in professional journals is often quite technical. None-the-less, we feel as editor of your company's magazine you would be interested in receiving reprints of published information from our group. At least, in this way, we can keep you abreast of what we are doing in sugarbeet production in Colorado. We have placed your name on our mailing list for reprints of cur- rent information. We would appreciate any comments you may have on this idea, and also would like to know if we have contacted the right person in your company. Sincerely, E. E. Schweizer Plant Physiologist Enclosures Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228

how much rate of actual yield reductions are within as per consistenly prediction from calculated densities

ftxv0228

ftxv0228_p0, ftxv0228_p1, ftxv0228_p2, ftxv0228_p3, ftxv0228_p4, ftxv0228_p5, ftxv0228_p6, ftxv0228_p7, ftxv0228_p8

within 5%, 5%

Research Work Plan Proposal A. Title of Investigation: Can hand-labor be eliminated in sugarbeet production by integrating new herbicides into an effective weed control system? B. Location of Study and Date Planned for Initiation: Bay Farm, Fort Collins, Colorado. April, 1975. C. Technical Personnel: USDA - E. E. Schweizer (Project Leader) CSU - J. Eshel (Collaborator) D. Background and Objectives. Many annual weeds can be controlled satisfactorily in sugarbeets with the use of mechanical equipment and herbicides, but complete weed control is difficult to obtain. Failure to control weed species, such as lambsquarters, pigweed, or kochia, before thinning hinders the com- plete mechanization of sugarbeet production because labor is often needed to hoe those weeds that escape. Combinations of effective preplanting and postemergence herbicides have consistently controlled over 95% of the pigweed and grass species in our field studies. Control of kochia has generally exceeded 80% when the postemergent herbicides were applied to kochia that was 1 inch or less in diameter and before it had begun to elongate. By determining the competitive effects of specific densities of kochia on sugarbeet root yield in our weed research program, we can now predict the percentage reduction in root yield that a specific density of kochia causes if it remains in a crop after thinning. The relationship between the number of kochia plants present in 100 feet of row after thinning and their effect on root yield is shown below. 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Number of kochia plants per 100 feet of row Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -2- The calculated percentage values for densities of 1 to 10 kochia plants are as follows: Number of kochia per 100 feet of row: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 % reduction in root yield: 6.1 7.9 9.7 11.5 13.3 15.2 17.0 18.8 20.6 22.4 The predictive equation that we used was most accurate when the kochia density was less than 20 plants per 100 feet of row. We found that with the above densities, we could consistently predict within 5% of the actual yield reductions. We feel confident that this predictive equation can be used by growers to determine whether they can justify the use of hand labor to remove those kochia plants that remain after thinning. Furthermore, we believe that we are now in a position to use this equation to compare how effective new herbicides and a herbistat (plant growth regulator) are in eliminating or reducing weed competition all season. Today, we have several new herbicide mixtures that either completely kill the weeds or suppress weed growth for many weeks thereafter. Unfortun- ately, we do not know how long these weeds are suppressed because they are normally removed during the thinning process. This study is designed to determine the direct effect of specific herbicide treatments on sugar- beets and the competitiveness of weeds present after thinning on sugar- beets. The latter effect will be studied by counting the kochia present after thinning. If the growth of kochia is not suppressed by the herbi- cide treatments, then the predicted reduction in root yield should be within 5% of the actual yield. Conversely, if the growth of kochia is suppressed by the herbicide treatments, then the actual reduction in yield should be less than the predicted value. In 1974, we evaluated several herbicide mixtures that reduced the stand of weeds by 90% or more. These mixtures (see E.2 for specific treatments) will be integrated into several effective weed control systems. We expect these herbicides and the herbistat to kill many weeds, suppress the growth of others, and prevent some weeds from pro- ducing viable weed seed. Therefore, our objectives will be to determine: a. whether new herbicide mixtures and a new herbistat (plant growth regulator) can be used in sequential treatments to eliminate the need for hand-weeding, b. whether weeds not killed by the herbistat will produce viable weed seed, and C. the effects of these sequential treatments on root yield, sucrose production, and purity. E. Experimental Plans and Procedure: 1. General. Conventional field equipment will be used to apply the herbicides and to produce the crop. Pelleted sugarbeet seed will be planted every 3 inches with a precision Milton Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -3- planter. Herbicides, applied preplanting, will be incorporated with a Lilliston rolling cultivator. The postemergent herbicide and herbistat treatments will be applied as topical sprays when sugarbeets have 4 and 8 true leaves, respectively. 2. Specific Plans Plot size: main plots (herbicides and herbistat) - 8 rows X 60 ft subplots (hand-weeding vs. no weeding all season) - 8 rows X 30 ft Replications : 4 Design: split plot Soil type: clay loam, organic matter - 1.5%, pH 7.8 Duration: 1975, with possible continuation in 1976 Treatments a No. Preplanting Postemergence Herbistat 1 Ro-Neet + Nortron none none d 2 Ro-Neet + Nortron none MBR 12325 3 Ro-Neet + Nortron Nortron + SN503° b none 4 Ro-Neet + Nortron Nortron + SN503 MBR 12325 5 Ro-Neet + Nortron Hoe 23408 + SN503° none 6 Ro-Neet + Nortron Hoe 23408 + SN503 MBR 12325 7 untreated weed-free check none none 8 untreated weedy-check none MBR 12325 a 1b/A each of Ro-Neet plus Nortron b12 1b/A of Nortron + 3/4 1b/A of SN503 C1 1b/A each of Hoe 23408 plus SN503 (SN503 is an equal mixture of Betanal and Betanal-475) d or 1/2 1b/A of MBR 12325 F. Records and Data to be Secured. 1. Weed counts and visual ratings before thinning, after application of MBR 12325, and prior to harvest in weedy subplots. 2. Prethinning and postthinning sugarbeet stand counts. 3. Sugarbeet ratings at weekly intervals following postemergence appli- - cations as long as any suppression is noticeable. 4. Yield of roots, sucrose percentage, and purity determinations in October from center four rows of each plot. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -4- G. Budget Estimates. ARS contributions include salaries for professional, technical, and--. secretarial services; land, field, and laboratory equipment; and shop and laboratory facilities. Supplementary funding of $3,000 is requested from the Grower-G.W. Joint Committee, Inc. to enable us to expand our program to include the objectives outlined herein. This additional funding will be used primarily for part- time labor to thin the sugarbeets, weed the weed-free plots all season, harvest the crop, and to wash, weigh, and analyze the roots for sucrose and purity. H. Administration of Funds. Colorado State University will be responsible for administering any funds provided by the Grower-G. W. Joint Research Committee, Inc. in partial support of this project. 1. Estimated Time to Complete. 1. Final results will be summarized in December, 1975. 2. After the results have been analyzed, and if certain treatments indicate that a crop of sugarbeets can be grown profitably without the need of any hand-labor, necessary revisions will be proposed to expand the study in 1976. Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 Reprinted from Weed Science, Vol. 21, November 1973, No. 6. Predicting Sugarbeet Root Losses Based on Kochia Densities¹ E. E. SCHWEIZER² Abstract. The reduction in root yield (Y) of sugarbeets (Beta redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). The initial vulgaris L.) caused by specific densities (X) of kochia [Kochia stand of redroot pigweed was reduced 76 to 100%. Ko- scoparia (L.) Schrad.] was predicted by using the linear equa- chia and redroot pigweed that were not controlled by culti- tion Y = 4.30 + 1.81 X. This equation was most accurate vation, mechanical thinning, and herbicides competed when the kochia density was 20 plants or less per 30.5 m of with sugarbeets for the entire season. In some systems, row. In 28 of 30 weed-control systems, where kochia densi- redroot pigweed emerged after thinning when the sugar- ties ranged from 0.2 to 16.5 plants per 30.5 m of row, the beet stand was not uniform. Annual grasses were con- predicted yield reductions were within 5% of the actual yield trolled with herbicides. reductions. Before harvest, kochia and redroot pigweed plants in INTRODUCTION each weed-controlled system were counted. Predicted yield reductions were calculated by using the polynomial W ITHIN the last decade, researchers have derived sev- regression equations and the kochia-density values ob- eral equations to estimate the crop losses caused by tained from 42 weed-control systems that were evaluated specific weed infestations (3, 4, 8). The relationship be- from 1969 through 1972. The 42 weed-control systems tween yield of a given crop and the density of a specific evaluated over the 4-year period included 27 different weed has been expressed generally in the form of a simple herbicide treatments and six untreated, weedy cultivated regression equation. To use these equations, the weed- plots. Nine of the 23 herbicide treatments were evaluated free yield has to be known, as well as the density of the for two consecutive years. weed stand or the weight of the weed species. In the irrigated areas of the central High Plains and RESULTS Intermountain West, kochia infests more than 63,000 ha of sugarbeets (5). Kochia is not controlled in these areas The polynomial regression equation appropriate for at planting, because most growers use a preplanting appli- predicting the reduction in root yield depended on the cation of a thiocarbamate herbicide, which controls only number of kochia densities. The equations that gave a 20% or less of the kochia. Growers who use a comple- statistically good fit to the data for variable densities of mentary post-emergence treatment can expect to reduce kochia per 30.5 m of row are as follows: a cubic equation the initial stand of kochia by 75 to 95%. Thus, some for densities of 4, 10, 20, 50, and 100 plants where Y = kochia plants remain to compete with sugarbeets. 1.01 + 2.60X - 0.0363X² + 0.00018X³, with r2 = This paper will (a) describe how information published 0.974; a quadratic equation for densities of 4, 10, 20, and in a previous paper on the competitive effects of five densi- 50 plants where Y = 1.85 + 2.38X - 0.0232X², with ties of kochia on the root yield of sugarbeets (7) was used r2 = 0.954; and a linear equation for densities of 4, 10, to derive equations to predict the reductions in root yield and 20 plants where Y = 4.30 + 1.81X, with r2 = 0.884. caused by specific densities of kochia in mixed weed popu- lations and (b) show that these reductions in root yield can The relation between percentage reduction in root yield be predicted by simply knowing the density of kochia pres- and kochia density as predicted by the three equations is ent in a given area. shown in Figure 1. Of the three equations, the linear equa- tion was the most accurate in predicting the reductions in METHODS yield for kochia densities of 20 plants or less per 30.5 m To determine whether we could predict the reduction of row (Figure 2). However, at these densities the pre- in yield (Y) caused by a specific density of kochia (X), dicted reductions in yield were similar with all three polynomial regression equations were derived by regress- equations (Table 1). For example, where kochia densities ing kochia densities of 4, 10, 20, 50, and 100 plants per ranged from 0.2 to 16.5 plants per 30.5 m of row in 30 30.5 m of row on sugarbeet root yield. These densities were weed-control systems, the predicted yield reductions, using replicated four times over a 2-year period in a random- the linear, quadratic, and cubic equations, were within 5% ized complete-block design (7). of the actual yield reductions for 28, 24, and 24 of these To test these polynomial regression equations, we used systems, respectively. data from several known weed-control systems that had At densities of more than 20 plants per 30.5 m of row, reduced the stand of kochia from about 1 to 99%. The reductions in yield could be predicted better with either the quadratic or cubic equations (Table 1) than with the other major weed species present in these systems was linear equation. 1Received for publication May 7, 1973. Cooperative investiga- DISCUSSION tions of the Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr. and the Colorado State Univ. Exp. Sta. Published with the approval of the Director We have shown that the reductions in root yield of of the Colorado State Univ. Exp. Sta. as Scientific Series Paper No. 1838. sugarbeets caused by kochia competition can be predicted 2lant Physiol., Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr., Colorado best with a linear equation when kochia densities are less State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80521. than 20 plants per 30.5 m of row. This is the density level Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 565 Source: https://wwvw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 WEED S CIENCE 100 50 Y = 4.30 + 1.81X LINEAR 80 CUBIC 40 60 30 40 20 QUADRATIC 20 o o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 NUMBER OF KOCHIA PLANTS PER 30.5 m OF ROW Figure 1. Relation between kochia density and root yield as pre- dicted by the linear, quadratic, and cubic equations. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 expected in commercial fields after thinning. An obvious restriction in using the linear equation is when the kochia NUMBER OF KOCHIA PLANTS PER 30.5 m OF ROW density approaches zero, because at zero the Y intercept Figure 2. Relation between kochia density and root yield as pre- is 4.30. However, in testing this equation against eight dicted by the linear equation. The 95% confidence intervals are weed-control where the from 0.2 to 0.9 systems plants per 30.5 m kochia of row, densities the predicted ranged indicated in the shaded area on each side of the regression line. yield reductions were within 6% of the actual yield re- ductions. The redroot pigweed densities ranged from 0.6 to 26 Predicting the reductions in root yield by simply know- plants per 30.5 m of row, with a mean of 6.8. At the ing the density of kochia in a given area increases the use- higher densities, reductions in root yield might be ex- fulness of this method for assessing losses in sugarbeets. pected, because root yields have been reduced by 17% In some crop-weed associations, yield reductions are better where 12.5 redroot pigweed plants per 30.5 m of row correlated with weight of weeds than with weed density competed all season with sugarbeets (1). These densities (4, 6). In other crop-weed associations, crop losses could apparently did not affect our predictions, because most of be estimated by the use of an "index of competition", but the redroot pigweed plants emerged too late in the season expected weed-free yield has to be known (3). to develop their full competitive potential. Previous weed- Our success in predicting within 5% of the actual yield competition studies in sugarbeets have shown that the later reductions for most weed-control systems depended on an annual weed emerges, the less competitive it is (2). minimizing weed competition during the entire growing Although these redroot pigweed densities did not affect season. Annual grasses were controlled completely with our predictions, other broadleaf weeds, such as common herbicides. Although kochia and some redroot pigweed lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) and common sun- seedlings emerged with the crop, most redroot pigweed flower (Helianthus annuus L.), could. These annual broad- plants present at harvest had emerged after thinning in leaf weeds emerge with, or shortly after, the crop, are tall, those systems where the sugarbeet stand was not uniform. produce dense shade, and are more competitive than those Table 1. Actual and predicted yield reductions of sugarbeet roots as affected by specific densities of kochia, which competed all season under different weed-control systems. Actual Predicted yield reductions Kochia Year Weed-control systems yield plants reduction Linear Quadratic Cubic (number/30.5 m of row) (%) (%) (%) (%) 1969 Cycloate R 1913-phenmedipham 0.4 2.9 5.0 2.8 2.0 Cycloate + R 11913-phenmedipham 0.6 5.7 5.4 3.3 2.6 1970 'ycloate-phenmedipham-EPTC 1.1 8.1 6.3 4.4 3.8 1971 1972 Cycloate-phenmedipham 3.6 9.1 10.8 10.1 9.9 1969 Cycloate-phenmedipham 6.2 15.8 15.5 15.7 15.8 16.5 30.1 34.2 34.8 34.9 1971 Cycloate 1971 Cycloate 27.9 43.1 54.8 50.1 49.2 43.3 49.6 82.7 61.4 60.1 1969 Delachlor-phenmedipham-pyrazon Delachlor 55.4 68.7 104.6 62.5 64.2 1969 Chemical names of herbicides: R 11913 is 3'-hydroxypropionanilide isopropylcarbamate; cycloate is S-ethylN-ethylthiocyclohexanecarbamate; delachlor is 2-chloro-N-(isobutoxymethyl)-2',6'-acetoxylidide; EPTC is S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate; phenmedipham is methyl m-hyhroxycarbanilate m-methylcarbanilate; and pyrazon is.5-amino-4-chloro-2-phenyl-3(2H)-pyridazinone. Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 566 Source: :https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 SCHWEIZER : SUGARBEET ROOT LOSSES that are short. Because common lambsquarters and com- LITERATURE CITED mon sunflower are similar to kochia in their competitive 1. BRIMHALL, P. B., E. W. CHAMBERLAIN, and H. P. ALLEY. abilities, similar polynomial regression equations could be 1965. Competition of annual weeds and sugarbeets. Weeds derived for these species. 13:33-35. Depending on the initial infestation of kochia, we have 2. DAWSON, J. H. 1965. Competition between irrigated sugar- observed 0.3 to 6.2 plants per 30.5 m of row in our most beets and annual weeds. Weeds 13:245-249. selective weed-control systems before thinning. The cur- 3. DEW, D. A. 1972. An index of competition for estimating rent trend is to thin all sugarbeets with electronic ma- crop loss due to weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 52:921-927. chines. Since the machines cannot distinguish between 4. NODA, K., K. OzAWA, and K. IBARAKI. 1968. Studies on the damage of rice plants due to weed competition (effect of weed and sugarbeet plants, weeds remain in the row after barnyardgrass competition on growth, yield, and some eco- thinning. This means a grower needs to know whether it physiological aspects of rice plants). Bull. Kyushu Agr. will be economical to remove those plants that remain. Exp. Sta. 13:345-367. For these growers the linear equation will be useful in 5. SCHWEIZER, E. E. and J. H. DAWSON. 1970. Weed control determining whether they can justify the use of hand labor methods, losses and costs due to weeds, and benefits of to remove the kochia plants that remain after thinning. weed control in sugarbeets. Pages 344-356 in FAO Inter- national Conference on Weed Control. Weed Sci. Soc. For example, if two kochia plants remain per 30.5 m of Amer., Urbana, III. row after thinning, the predicted reduction in root yield 6. THURLOW, D. L. and G. A. BUCHANAN. 1972. Competition would be 7.9%. The decision to remove these plants with of sicklepod with soybeans. Weed Sci. 20:379-384. a hoe would depend on the difference between the ex- 7. WEATHERSPOON, D. M. and E. E. SCHWEIZER. 1971. Compe- pected loss in yield and the established wage scale for tition between sugarbeets and five densities of kochia. hand labor. In 1971 growers had to pay a minimum of Weed Sci. 19:125-128. $27.18 per hectare to remove weeds with a hoe after 8. ZAKHARENKO, V. A. 1968. Investigating the competitive thinning, and 7.9% of an average 42.5 tons/ha yield for ability of weeds and crop plants in relation to herbicide application. Khimiya sell Khoz. 6:447-452. (Taken from our Loveland district was valued at $58.93. Thus, it would Weed Abstr. 18:205.1969). have paid to remove the weeds. Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 567 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 PURCHASED BY THE USDA FOR OFFICIAL USE Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE CROPS RESEARCH LABORATORY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 July 10, 1973 Mr. Larry L. McGhee, Editor Upbeet Magazine The Great Western Sugar Company P.O. Box 5308T. A. Denver, Colorado 80217 Dear Mr. McGhee: Your company plays a vital role in disseminating useful research information to your growers through your popular publication. Our group at Fort Collins is part of the total sugarbeet research endeavor in the USA. In general, we publish most of our research results in professional journals. We know that research published in professional journals is often quite technical. None-the-less, we feel as editor of your company's magazine you would be interested in receiving reprints of published information from our group. At least, in this way, we can keep you abreast of what we are doing in sugarbeet production in Colorado. We have placed your name on our mailing list for reprints of cur- rent information. We would appreciate any comments you may have on this idea, and also would like to know if we have contacted the right person in your company. Sincerely, E. E. Schweizer Plant Physiologist Enclosures Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228

which treatments will be applied as topical sprays when sugarbeets have 4 and 8 true leaves respectively?

ftxv0228

ftxv0228_p0, ftxv0228_p1, ftxv0228_p2, ftxv0228_p3, ftxv0228_p4, ftxv0228_p5, ftxv0228_p6, ftxv0228_p7, ftxv0228_p8

The postemergent herbicide and herbistat treatments, the postemergent herbicide and herbistat treatments

Research Work Plan Proposal A. Title of Investigation: Can hand-labor be eliminated in sugarbeet production by integrating new herbicides into an effective weed control system? B. Location of Study and Date Planned for Initiation: Bay Farm, Fort Collins, Colorado. April, 1975. C. Technical Personnel: USDA - E. E. Schweizer (Project Leader) CSU - J. Eshel (Collaborator) D. Background and Objectives. Many annual weeds can be controlled satisfactorily in sugarbeets with the use of mechanical equipment and herbicides, but complete weed control is difficult to obtain. Failure to control weed species, such as lambsquarters, pigweed, or kochia, before thinning hinders the com- plete mechanization of sugarbeet production because labor is often needed to hoe those weeds that escape. Combinations of effective preplanting and postemergence herbicides have consistently controlled over 95% of the pigweed and grass species in our field studies. Control of kochia has generally exceeded 80% when the postemergent herbicides were applied to kochia that was 1 inch or less in diameter and before it had begun to elongate. By determining the competitive effects of specific densities of kochia on sugarbeet root yield in our weed research program, we can now predict the percentage reduction in root yield that a specific density of kochia causes if it remains in a crop after thinning. The relationship between the number of kochia plants present in 100 feet of row after thinning and their effect on root yield is shown below. 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Number of kochia plants per 100 feet of row Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -2- The calculated percentage values for densities of 1 to 10 kochia plants are as follows: Number of kochia per 100 feet of row: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 % reduction in root yield: 6.1 7.9 9.7 11.5 13.3 15.2 17.0 18.8 20.6 22.4 The predictive equation that we used was most accurate when the kochia density was less than 20 plants per 100 feet of row. We found that with the above densities, we could consistently predict within 5% of the actual yield reductions. We feel confident that this predictive equation can be used by growers to determine whether they can justify the use of hand labor to remove those kochia plants that remain after thinning. Furthermore, we believe that we are now in a position to use this equation to compare how effective new herbicides and a herbistat (plant growth regulator) are in eliminating or reducing weed competition all season. Today, we have several new herbicide mixtures that either completely kill the weeds or suppress weed growth for many weeks thereafter. Unfortun- ately, we do not know how long these weeds are suppressed because they are normally removed during the thinning process. This study is designed to determine the direct effect of specific herbicide treatments on sugar- beets and the competitiveness of weeds present after thinning on sugar- beets. The latter effect will be studied by counting the kochia present after thinning. If the growth of kochia is not suppressed by the herbi- cide treatments, then the predicted reduction in root yield should be within 5% of the actual yield. Conversely, if the growth of kochia is suppressed by the herbicide treatments, then the actual reduction in yield should be less than the predicted value. In 1974, we evaluated several herbicide mixtures that reduced the stand of weeds by 90% or more. These mixtures (see E.2 for specific treatments) will be integrated into several effective weed control systems. We expect these herbicides and the herbistat to kill many weeds, suppress the growth of others, and prevent some weeds from pro- ducing viable weed seed. Therefore, our objectives will be to determine: a. whether new herbicide mixtures and a new herbistat (plant growth regulator) can be used in sequential treatments to eliminate the need for hand-weeding, b. whether weeds not killed by the herbistat will produce viable weed seed, and C. the effects of these sequential treatments on root yield, sucrose production, and purity. E. Experimental Plans and Procedure: 1. General. Conventional field equipment will be used to apply the herbicides and to produce the crop. Pelleted sugarbeet seed will be planted every 3 inches with a precision Milton Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -3- planter. Herbicides, applied preplanting, will be incorporated with a Lilliston rolling cultivator. The postemergent herbicide and herbistat treatments will be applied as topical sprays when sugarbeets have 4 and 8 true leaves, respectively. 2. Specific Plans Plot size: main plots (herbicides and herbistat) - 8 rows X 60 ft subplots (hand-weeding vs. no weeding all season) - 8 rows X 30 ft Replications : 4 Design: split plot Soil type: clay loam, organic matter - 1.5%, pH 7.8 Duration: 1975, with possible continuation in 1976 Treatments a No. Preplanting Postemergence Herbistat 1 Ro-Neet + Nortron none none d 2 Ro-Neet + Nortron none MBR 12325 3 Ro-Neet + Nortron Nortron + SN503° b none 4 Ro-Neet + Nortron Nortron + SN503 MBR 12325 5 Ro-Neet + Nortron Hoe 23408 + SN503° none 6 Ro-Neet + Nortron Hoe 23408 + SN503 MBR 12325 7 untreated weed-free check none none 8 untreated weedy-check none MBR 12325 a 1b/A each of Ro-Neet plus Nortron b12 1b/A of Nortron + 3/4 1b/A of SN503 C1 1b/A each of Hoe 23408 plus SN503 (SN503 is an equal mixture of Betanal and Betanal-475) d or 1/2 1b/A of MBR 12325 F. Records and Data to be Secured. 1. Weed counts and visual ratings before thinning, after application of MBR 12325, and prior to harvest in weedy subplots. 2. Prethinning and postthinning sugarbeet stand counts. 3. Sugarbeet ratings at weekly intervals following postemergence appli- - cations as long as any suppression is noticeable. 4. Yield of roots, sucrose percentage, and purity determinations in October from center four rows of each plot. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -4- G. Budget Estimates. ARS contributions include salaries for professional, technical, and--. secretarial services; land, field, and laboratory equipment; and shop and laboratory facilities. Supplementary funding of $3,000 is requested from the Grower-G.W. Joint Committee, Inc. to enable us to expand our program to include the objectives outlined herein. This additional funding will be used primarily for part- time labor to thin the sugarbeets, weed the weed-free plots all season, harvest the crop, and to wash, weigh, and analyze the roots for sucrose and purity. H. Administration of Funds. Colorado State University will be responsible for administering any funds provided by the Grower-G. W. Joint Research Committee, Inc. in partial support of this project. 1. Estimated Time to Complete. 1. Final results will be summarized in December, 1975. 2. After the results have been analyzed, and if certain treatments indicate that a crop of sugarbeets can be grown profitably without the need of any hand-labor, necessary revisions will be proposed to expand the study in 1976. Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 Reprinted from Weed Science, Vol. 21, November 1973, No. 6. Predicting Sugarbeet Root Losses Based on Kochia Densities¹ E. E. SCHWEIZER² Abstract. The reduction in root yield (Y) of sugarbeets (Beta redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). The initial vulgaris L.) caused by specific densities (X) of kochia [Kochia stand of redroot pigweed was reduced 76 to 100%. Ko- scoparia (L.) Schrad.] was predicted by using the linear equa- chia and redroot pigweed that were not controlled by culti- tion Y = 4.30 + 1.81 X. This equation was most accurate vation, mechanical thinning, and herbicides competed when the kochia density was 20 plants or less per 30.5 m of with sugarbeets for the entire season. In some systems, row. In 28 of 30 weed-control systems, where kochia densi- redroot pigweed emerged after thinning when the sugar- ties ranged from 0.2 to 16.5 plants per 30.5 m of row, the beet stand was not uniform. Annual grasses were con- predicted yield reductions were within 5% of the actual yield trolled with herbicides. reductions. Before harvest, kochia and redroot pigweed plants in INTRODUCTION each weed-controlled system were counted. Predicted yield reductions were calculated by using the polynomial W ITHIN the last decade, researchers have derived sev- regression equations and the kochia-density values ob- eral equations to estimate the crop losses caused by tained from 42 weed-control systems that were evaluated specific weed infestations (3, 4, 8). The relationship be- from 1969 through 1972. The 42 weed-control systems tween yield of a given crop and the density of a specific evaluated over the 4-year period included 27 different weed has been expressed generally in the form of a simple herbicide treatments and six untreated, weedy cultivated regression equation. To use these equations, the weed- plots. Nine of the 23 herbicide treatments were evaluated free yield has to be known, as well as the density of the for two consecutive years. weed stand or the weight of the weed species. In the irrigated areas of the central High Plains and RESULTS Intermountain West, kochia infests more than 63,000 ha of sugarbeets (5). Kochia is not controlled in these areas The polynomial regression equation appropriate for at planting, because most growers use a preplanting appli- predicting the reduction in root yield depended on the cation of a thiocarbamate herbicide, which controls only number of kochia densities. The equations that gave a 20% or less of the kochia. Growers who use a comple- statistically good fit to the data for variable densities of mentary post-emergence treatment can expect to reduce kochia per 30.5 m of row are as follows: a cubic equation the initial stand of kochia by 75 to 95%. Thus, some for densities of 4, 10, 20, 50, and 100 plants where Y = kochia plants remain to compete with sugarbeets. 1.01 + 2.60X - 0.0363X² + 0.00018X³, with r2 = This paper will (a) describe how information published 0.974; a quadratic equation for densities of 4, 10, 20, and in a previous paper on the competitive effects of five densi- 50 plants where Y = 1.85 + 2.38X - 0.0232X², with ties of kochia on the root yield of sugarbeets (7) was used r2 = 0.954; and a linear equation for densities of 4, 10, to derive equations to predict the reductions in root yield and 20 plants where Y = 4.30 + 1.81X, with r2 = 0.884. caused by specific densities of kochia in mixed weed popu- lations and (b) show that these reductions in root yield can The relation between percentage reduction in root yield be predicted by simply knowing the density of kochia pres- and kochia density as predicted by the three equations is ent in a given area. shown in Figure 1. Of the three equations, the linear equa- tion was the most accurate in predicting the reductions in METHODS yield for kochia densities of 20 plants or less per 30.5 m To determine whether we could predict the reduction of row (Figure 2). However, at these densities the pre- in yield (Y) caused by a specific density of kochia (X), dicted reductions in yield were similar with all three polynomial regression equations were derived by regress- equations (Table 1). For example, where kochia densities ing kochia densities of 4, 10, 20, 50, and 100 plants per ranged from 0.2 to 16.5 plants per 30.5 m of row in 30 30.5 m of row on sugarbeet root yield. These densities were weed-control systems, the predicted yield reductions, using replicated four times over a 2-year period in a random- the linear, quadratic, and cubic equations, were within 5% ized complete-block design (7). of the actual yield reductions for 28, 24, and 24 of these To test these polynomial regression equations, we used systems, respectively. data from several known weed-control systems that had At densities of more than 20 plants per 30.5 m of row, reduced the stand of kochia from about 1 to 99%. The reductions in yield could be predicted better with either the quadratic or cubic equations (Table 1) than with the other major weed species present in these systems was linear equation. 1Received for publication May 7, 1973. Cooperative investiga- DISCUSSION tions of the Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr. and the Colorado State Univ. Exp. Sta. Published with the approval of the Director We have shown that the reductions in root yield of of the Colorado State Univ. Exp. Sta. as Scientific Series Paper No. 1838. sugarbeets caused by kochia competition can be predicted 2lant Physiol., Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr., Colorado best with a linear equation when kochia densities are less State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80521. than 20 plants per 30.5 m of row. This is the density level Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 565 Source: https://wwvw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 WEED S CIENCE 100 50 Y = 4.30 + 1.81X LINEAR 80 CUBIC 40 60 30 40 20 QUADRATIC 20 o o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 NUMBER OF KOCHIA PLANTS PER 30.5 m OF ROW Figure 1. Relation between kochia density and root yield as pre- dicted by the linear, quadratic, and cubic equations. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 expected in commercial fields after thinning. An obvious restriction in using the linear equation is when the kochia NUMBER OF KOCHIA PLANTS PER 30.5 m OF ROW density approaches zero, because at zero the Y intercept Figure 2. Relation between kochia density and root yield as pre- is 4.30. However, in testing this equation against eight dicted by the linear equation. The 95% confidence intervals are weed-control where the from 0.2 to 0.9 systems plants per 30.5 m kochia of row, densities the predicted ranged indicated in the shaded area on each side of the regression line. yield reductions were within 6% of the actual yield re- ductions. The redroot pigweed densities ranged from 0.6 to 26 Predicting the reductions in root yield by simply know- plants per 30.5 m of row, with a mean of 6.8. At the ing the density of kochia in a given area increases the use- higher densities, reductions in root yield might be ex- fulness of this method for assessing losses in sugarbeets. pected, because root yields have been reduced by 17% In some crop-weed associations, yield reductions are better where 12.5 redroot pigweed plants per 30.5 m of row correlated with weight of weeds than with weed density competed all season with sugarbeets (1). These densities (4, 6). In other crop-weed associations, crop losses could apparently did not affect our predictions, because most of be estimated by the use of an "index of competition", but the redroot pigweed plants emerged too late in the season expected weed-free yield has to be known (3). to develop their full competitive potential. Previous weed- Our success in predicting within 5% of the actual yield competition studies in sugarbeets have shown that the later reductions for most weed-control systems depended on an annual weed emerges, the less competitive it is (2). minimizing weed competition during the entire growing Although these redroot pigweed densities did not affect season. Annual grasses were controlled completely with our predictions, other broadleaf weeds, such as common herbicides. Although kochia and some redroot pigweed lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) and common sun- seedlings emerged with the crop, most redroot pigweed flower (Helianthus annuus L.), could. These annual broad- plants present at harvest had emerged after thinning in leaf weeds emerge with, or shortly after, the crop, are tall, those systems where the sugarbeet stand was not uniform. produce dense shade, and are more competitive than those Table 1. Actual and predicted yield reductions of sugarbeet roots as affected by specific densities of kochia, which competed all season under different weed-control systems. Actual Predicted yield reductions Kochia Year Weed-control systems yield plants reduction Linear Quadratic Cubic (number/30.5 m of row) (%) (%) (%) (%) 1969 Cycloate R 1913-phenmedipham 0.4 2.9 5.0 2.8 2.0 Cycloate + R 11913-phenmedipham 0.6 5.7 5.4 3.3 2.6 1970 'ycloate-phenmedipham-EPTC 1.1 8.1 6.3 4.4 3.8 1971 1972 Cycloate-phenmedipham 3.6 9.1 10.8 10.1 9.9 1969 Cycloate-phenmedipham 6.2 15.8 15.5 15.7 15.8 16.5 30.1 34.2 34.8 34.9 1971 Cycloate 1971 Cycloate 27.9 43.1 54.8 50.1 49.2 43.3 49.6 82.7 61.4 60.1 1969 Delachlor-phenmedipham-pyrazon Delachlor 55.4 68.7 104.6 62.5 64.2 1969 Chemical names of herbicides: R 11913 is 3'-hydroxypropionanilide isopropylcarbamate; cycloate is S-ethylN-ethylthiocyclohexanecarbamate; delachlor is 2-chloro-N-(isobutoxymethyl)-2',6'-acetoxylidide; EPTC is S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate; phenmedipham is methyl m-hyhroxycarbanilate m-methylcarbanilate; and pyrazon is.5-amino-4-chloro-2-phenyl-3(2H)-pyridazinone. Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 566 Source: :https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 SCHWEIZER : SUGARBEET ROOT LOSSES that are short. Because common lambsquarters and com- LITERATURE CITED mon sunflower are similar to kochia in their competitive 1. BRIMHALL, P. B., E. W. CHAMBERLAIN, and H. P. ALLEY. abilities, similar polynomial regression equations could be 1965. Competition of annual weeds and sugarbeets. Weeds derived for these species. 13:33-35. Depending on the initial infestation of kochia, we have 2. DAWSON, J. H. 1965. Competition between irrigated sugar- observed 0.3 to 6.2 plants per 30.5 m of row in our most beets and annual weeds. Weeds 13:245-249. selective weed-control systems before thinning. The cur- 3. DEW, D. A. 1972. An index of competition for estimating rent trend is to thin all sugarbeets with electronic ma- crop loss due to weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 52:921-927. chines. Since the machines cannot distinguish between 4. NODA, K., K. OzAWA, and K. IBARAKI. 1968. Studies on the damage of rice plants due to weed competition (effect of weed and sugarbeet plants, weeds remain in the row after barnyardgrass competition on growth, yield, and some eco- thinning. This means a grower needs to know whether it physiological aspects of rice plants). Bull. Kyushu Agr. will be economical to remove those plants that remain. Exp. Sta. 13:345-367. For these growers the linear equation will be useful in 5. SCHWEIZER, E. E. and J. H. DAWSON. 1970. Weed control determining whether they can justify the use of hand labor methods, losses and costs due to weeds, and benefits of to remove the kochia plants that remain after thinning. weed control in sugarbeets. Pages 344-356 in FAO Inter- national Conference on Weed Control. Weed Sci. Soc. For example, if two kochia plants remain per 30.5 m of Amer., Urbana, III. row after thinning, the predicted reduction in root yield 6. THURLOW, D. L. and G. A. BUCHANAN. 1972. Competition would be 7.9%. The decision to remove these plants with of sicklepod with soybeans. Weed Sci. 20:379-384. a hoe would depend on the difference between the ex- 7. WEATHERSPOON, D. M. and E. E. SCHWEIZER. 1971. Compe- pected loss in yield and the established wage scale for tition between sugarbeets and five densities of kochia. hand labor. In 1971 growers had to pay a minimum of Weed Sci. 19:125-128. $27.18 per hectare to remove weeds with a hoe after 8. ZAKHARENKO, V. A. 1968. Investigating the competitive thinning, and 7.9% of an average 42.5 tons/ha yield for ability of weeds and crop plants in relation to herbicide application. Khimiya sell Khoz. 6:447-452. (Taken from our Loveland district was valued at $58.93. Thus, it would Weed Abstr. 18:205.1969). have paid to remove the weeds. Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 567 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 PURCHASED BY THE USDA FOR OFFICIAL USE Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE CROPS RESEARCH LABORATORY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 July 10, 1973 Mr. Larry L. McGhee, Editor Upbeet Magazine The Great Western Sugar Company P.O. Box 5308T. A. Denver, Colorado 80217 Dear Mr. McGhee: Your company plays a vital role in disseminating useful research information to your growers through your popular publication. Our group at Fort Collins is part of the total sugarbeet research endeavor in the USA. In general, we publish most of our research results in professional journals. We know that research published in professional journals is often quite technical. None-the-less, we feel as editor of your company's magazine you would be interested in receiving reprints of published information from our group. At least, in this way, we can keep you abreast of what we are doing in sugarbeet production in Colorado. We have placed your name on our mailing list for reprints of cur- rent information. We would appreciate any comments you may have on this idea, and also would like to know if we have contacted the right person in your company. Sincerely, E. E. Schweizer Plant Physiologist Enclosures Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228

what is the rate of organic matter present in clay loam soil?

ftxv0228

ftxv0228_p0, ftxv0228_p1, ftxv0228_p2, ftxv0228_p3, ftxv0228_p4, ftxv0228_p5, ftxv0228_p6, ftxv0228_p7, ftxv0228_p8

1.5%, 1.5

Research Work Plan Proposal A. Title of Investigation: Can hand-labor be eliminated in sugarbeet production by integrating new herbicides into an effective weed control system? B. Location of Study and Date Planned for Initiation: Bay Farm, Fort Collins, Colorado. April, 1975. C. Technical Personnel: USDA - E. E. Schweizer (Project Leader) CSU - J. Eshel (Collaborator) D. Background and Objectives. Many annual weeds can be controlled satisfactorily in sugarbeets with the use of mechanical equipment and herbicides, but complete weed control is difficult to obtain. Failure to control weed species, such as lambsquarters, pigweed, or kochia, before thinning hinders the com- plete mechanization of sugarbeet production because labor is often needed to hoe those weeds that escape. Combinations of effective preplanting and postemergence herbicides have consistently controlled over 95% of the pigweed and grass species in our field studies. Control of kochia has generally exceeded 80% when the postemergent herbicides were applied to kochia that was 1 inch or less in diameter and before it had begun to elongate. By determining the competitive effects of specific densities of kochia on sugarbeet root yield in our weed research program, we can now predict the percentage reduction in root yield that a specific density of kochia causes if it remains in a crop after thinning. The relationship between the number of kochia plants present in 100 feet of row after thinning and their effect on root yield is shown below. 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Number of kochia plants per 100 feet of row Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -2- The calculated percentage values for densities of 1 to 10 kochia plants are as follows: Number of kochia per 100 feet of row: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 % reduction in root yield: 6.1 7.9 9.7 11.5 13.3 15.2 17.0 18.8 20.6 22.4 The predictive equation that we used was most accurate when the kochia density was less than 20 plants per 100 feet of row. We found that with the above densities, we could consistently predict within 5% of the actual yield reductions. We feel confident that this predictive equation can be used by growers to determine whether they can justify the use of hand labor to remove those kochia plants that remain after thinning. Furthermore, we believe that we are now in a position to use this equation to compare how effective new herbicides and a herbistat (plant growth regulator) are in eliminating or reducing weed competition all season. Today, we have several new herbicide mixtures that either completely kill the weeds or suppress weed growth for many weeks thereafter. Unfortun- ately, we do not know how long these weeds are suppressed because they are normally removed during the thinning process. This study is designed to determine the direct effect of specific herbicide treatments on sugar- beets and the competitiveness of weeds present after thinning on sugar- beets. The latter effect will be studied by counting the kochia present after thinning. If the growth of kochia is not suppressed by the herbi- cide treatments, then the predicted reduction in root yield should be within 5% of the actual yield. Conversely, if the growth of kochia is suppressed by the herbicide treatments, then the actual reduction in yield should be less than the predicted value. In 1974, we evaluated several herbicide mixtures that reduced the stand of weeds by 90% or more. These mixtures (see E.2 for specific treatments) will be integrated into several effective weed control systems. We expect these herbicides and the herbistat to kill many weeds, suppress the growth of others, and prevent some weeds from pro- ducing viable weed seed. Therefore, our objectives will be to determine: a. whether new herbicide mixtures and a new herbistat (plant growth regulator) can be used in sequential treatments to eliminate the need for hand-weeding, b. whether weeds not killed by the herbistat will produce viable weed seed, and C. the effects of these sequential treatments on root yield, sucrose production, and purity. E. Experimental Plans and Procedure: 1. General. Conventional field equipment will be used to apply the herbicides and to produce the crop. Pelleted sugarbeet seed will be planted every 3 inches with a precision Milton Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -3- planter. Herbicides, applied preplanting, will be incorporated with a Lilliston rolling cultivator. The postemergent herbicide and herbistat treatments will be applied as topical sprays when sugarbeets have 4 and 8 true leaves, respectively. 2. Specific Plans Plot size: main plots (herbicides and herbistat) - 8 rows X 60 ft subplots (hand-weeding vs. no weeding all season) - 8 rows X 30 ft Replications : 4 Design: split plot Soil type: clay loam, organic matter - 1.5%, pH 7.8 Duration: 1975, with possible continuation in 1976 Treatments a No. Preplanting Postemergence Herbistat 1 Ro-Neet + Nortron none none d 2 Ro-Neet + Nortron none MBR 12325 3 Ro-Neet + Nortron Nortron + SN503° b none 4 Ro-Neet + Nortron Nortron + SN503 MBR 12325 5 Ro-Neet + Nortron Hoe 23408 + SN503° none 6 Ro-Neet + Nortron Hoe 23408 + SN503 MBR 12325 7 untreated weed-free check none none 8 untreated weedy-check none MBR 12325 a 1b/A each of Ro-Neet plus Nortron b12 1b/A of Nortron + 3/4 1b/A of SN503 C1 1b/A each of Hoe 23408 plus SN503 (SN503 is an equal mixture of Betanal and Betanal-475) d or 1/2 1b/A of MBR 12325 F. Records and Data to be Secured. 1. Weed counts and visual ratings before thinning, after application of MBR 12325, and prior to harvest in weedy subplots. 2. Prethinning and postthinning sugarbeet stand counts. 3. Sugarbeet ratings at weekly intervals following postemergence appli- - cations as long as any suppression is noticeable. 4. Yield of roots, sucrose percentage, and purity determinations in October from center four rows of each plot. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -4- G. Budget Estimates. ARS contributions include salaries for professional, technical, and--. secretarial services; land, field, and laboratory equipment; and shop and laboratory facilities. Supplementary funding of $3,000 is requested from the Grower-G.W. Joint Committee, Inc. to enable us to expand our program to include the objectives outlined herein. This additional funding will be used primarily for part- time labor to thin the sugarbeets, weed the weed-free plots all season, harvest the crop, and to wash, weigh, and analyze the roots for sucrose and purity. H. Administration of Funds. Colorado State University will be responsible for administering any funds provided by the Grower-G. W. Joint Research Committee, Inc. in partial support of this project. 1. Estimated Time to Complete. 1. Final results will be summarized in December, 1975. 2. After the results have been analyzed, and if certain treatments indicate that a crop of sugarbeets can be grown profitably without the need of any hand-labor, necessary revisions will be proposed to expand the study in 1976. Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 Reprinted from Weed Science, Vol. 21, November 1973, No. 6. Predicting Sugarbeet Root Losses Based on Kochia Densities¹ E. E. SCHWEIZER² Abstract. The reduction in root yield (Y) of sugarbeets (Beta redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). The initial vulgaris L.) caused by specific densities (X) of kochia [Kochia stand of redroot pigweed was reduced 76 to 100%. Ko- scoparia (L.) Schrad.] was predicted by using the linear equa- chia and redroot pigweed that were not controlled by culti- tion Y = 4.30 + 1.81 X. This equation was most accurate vation, mechanical thinning, and herbicides competed when the kochia density was 20 plants or less per 30.5 m of with sugarbeets for the entire season. In some systems, row. In 28 of 30 weed-control systems, where kochia densi- redroot pigweed emerged after thinning when the sugar- ties ranged from 0.2 to 16.5 plants per 30.5 m of row, the beet stand was not uniform. Annual grasses were con- predicted yield reductions were within 5% of the actual yield trolled with herbicides. reductions. Before harvest, kochia and redroot pigweed plants in INTRODUCTION each weed-controlled system were counted. Predicted yield reductions were calculated by using the polynomial W ITHIN the last decade, researchers have derived sev- regression equations and the kochia-density values ob- eral equations to estimate the crop losses caused by tained from 42 weed-control systems that were evaluated specific weed infestations (3, 4, 8). The relationship be- from 1969 through 1972. The 42 weed-control systems tween yield of a given crop and the density of a specific evaluated over the 4-year period included 27 different weed has been expressed generally in the form of a simple herbicide treatments and six untreated, weedy cultivated regression equation. To use these equations, the weed- plots. Nine of the 23 herbicide treatments were evaluated free yield has to be known, as well as the density of the for two consecutive years. weed stand or the weight of the weed species. In the irrigated areas of the central High Plains and RESULTS Intermountain West, kochia infests more than 63,000 ha of sugarbeets (5). Kochia is not controlled in these areas The polynomial regression equation appropriate for at planting, because most growers use a preplanting appli- predicting the reduction in root yield depended on the cation of a thiocarbamate herbicide, which controls only number of kochia densities. The equations that gave a 20% or less of the kochia. Growers who use a comple- statistically good fit to the data for variable densities of mentary post-emergence treatment can expect to reduce kochia per 30.5 m of row are as follows: a cubic equation the initial stand of kochia by 75 to 95%. Thus, some for densities of 4, 10, 20, 50, and 100 plants where Y = kochia plants remain to compete with sugarbeets. 1.01 + 2.60X - 0.0363X² + 0.00018X³, with r2 = This paper will (a) describe how information published 0.974; a quadratic equation for densities of 4, 10, 20, and in a previous paper on the competitive effects of five densi- 50 plants where Y = 1.85 + 2.38X - 0.0232X², with ties of kochia on the root yield of sugarbeets (7) was used r2 = 0.954; and a linear equation for densities of 4, 10, to derive equations to predict the reductions in root yield and 20 plants where Y = 4.30 + 1.81X, with r2 = 0.884. caused by specific densities of kochia in mixed weed popu- lations and (b) show that these reductions in root yield can The relation between percentage reduction in root yield be predicted by simply knowing the density of kochia pres- and kochia density as predicted by the three equations is ent in a given area. shown in Figure 1. Of the three equations, the linear equa- tion was the most accurate in predicting the reductions in METHODS yield for kochia densities of 20 plants or less per 30.5 m To determine whether we could predict the reduction of row (Figure 2). However, at these densities the pre- in yield (Y) caused by a specific density of kochia (X), dicted reductions in yield were similar with all three polynomial regression equations were derived by regress- equations (Table 1). For example, where kochia densities ing kochia densities of 4, 10, 20, 50, and 100 plants per ranged from 0.2 to 16.5 plants per 30.5 m of row in 30 30.5 m of row on sugarbeet root yield. These densities were weed-control systems, the predicted yield reductions, using replicated four times over a 2-year period in a random- the linear, quadratic, and cubic equations, were within 5% ized complete-block design (7). of the actual yield reductions for 28, 24, and 24 of these To test these polynomial regression equations, we used systems, respectively. data from several known weed-control systems that had At densities of more than 20 plants per 30.5 m of row, reduced the stand of kochia from about 1 to 99%. The reductions in yield could be predicted better with either the quadratic or cubic equations (Table 1) than with the other major weed species present in these systems was linear equation. 1Received for publication May 7, 1973. Cooperative investiga- DISCUSSION tions of the Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr. and the Colorado State Univ. Exp. Sta. Published with the approval of the Director We have shown that the reductions in root yield of of the Colorado State Univ. Exp. Sta. as Scientific Series Paper No. 1838. sugarbeets caused by kochia competition can be predicted 2lant Physiol., Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr., Colorado best with a linear equation when kochia densities are less State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80521. than 20 plants per 30.5 m of row. This is the density level Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 565 Source: https://wwvw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 WEED S CIENCE 100 50 Y = 4.30 + 1.81X LINEAR 80 CUBIC 40 60 30 40 20 QUADRATIC 20 o o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 NUMBER OF KOCHIA PLANTS PER 30.5 m OF ROW Figure 1. Relation between kochia density and root yield as pre- dicted by the linear, quadratic, and cubic equations. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 expected in commercial fields after thinning. An obvious restriction in using the linear equation is when the kochia NUMBER OF KOCHIA PLANTS PER 30.5 m OF ROW density approaches zero, because at zero the Y intercept Figure 2. Relation between kochia density and root yield as pre- is 4.30. However, in testing this equation against eight dicted by the linear equation. The 95% confidence intervals are weed-control where the from 0.2 to 0.9 systems plants per 30.5 m kochia of row, densities the predicted ranged indicated in the shaded area on each side of the regression line. yield reductions were within 6% of the actual yield re- ductions. The redroot pigweed densities ranged from 0.6 to 26 Predicting the reductions in root yield by simply know- plants per 30.5 m of row, with a mean of 6.8. At the ing the density of kochia in a given area increases the use- higher densities, reductions in root yield might be ex- fulness of this method for assessing losses in sugarbeets. pected, because root yields have been reduced by 17% In some crop-weed associations, yield reductions are better where 12.5 redroot pigweed plants per 30.5 m of row correlated with weight of weeds than with weed density competed all season with sugarbeets (1). These densities (4, 6). In other crop-weed associations, crop losses could apparently did not affect our predictions, because most of be estimated by the use of an "index of competition", but the redroot pigweed plants emerged too late in the season expected weed-free yield has to be known (3). to develop their full competitive potential. Previous weed- Our success in predicting within 5% of the actual yield competition studies in sugarbeets have shown that the later reductions for most weed-control systems depended on an annual weed emerges, the less competitive it is (2). minimizing weed competition during the entire growing Although these redroot pigweed densities did not affect season. Annual grasses were controlled completely with our predictions, other broadleaf weeds, such as common herbicides. Although kochia and some redroot pigweed lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) and common sun- seedlings emerged with the crop, most redroot pigweed flower (Helianthus annuus L.), could. These annual broad- plants present at harvest had emerged after thinning in leaf weeds emerge with, or shortly after, the crop, are tall, those systems where the sugarbeet stand was not uniform. produce dense shade, and are more competitive than those Table 1. Actual and predicted yield reductions of sugarbeet roots as affected by specific densities of kochia, which competed all season under different weed-control systems. Actual Predicted yield reductions Kochia Year Weed-control systems yield plants reduction Linear Quadratic Cubic (number/30.5 m of row) (%) (%) (%) (%) 1969 Cycloate R 1913-phenmedipham 0.4 2.9 5.0 2.8 2.0 Cycloate + R 11913-phenmedipham 0.6 5.7 5.4 3.3 2.6 1970 'ycloate-phenmedipham-EPTC 1.1 8.1 6.3 4.4 3.8 1971 1972 Cycloate-phenmedipham 3.6 9.1 10.8 10.1 9.9 1969 Cycloate-phenmedipham 6.2 15.8 15.5 15.7 15.8 16.5 30.1 34.2 34.8 34.9 1971 Cycloate 1971 Cycloate 27.9 43.1 54.8 50.1 49.2 43.3 49.6 82.7 61.4 60.1 1969 Delachlor-phenmedipham-pyrazon Delachlor 55.4 68.7 104.6 62.5 64.2 1969 Chemical names of herbicides: R 11913 is 3'-hydroxypropionanilide isopropylcarbamate; cycloate is S-ethylN-ethylthiocyclohexanecarbamate; delachlor is 2-chloro-N-(isobutoxymethyl)-2',6'-acetoxylidide; EPTC is S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate; phenmedipham is methyl m-hyhroxycarbanilate m-methylcarbanilate; and pyrazon is.5-amino-4-chloro-2-phenyl-3(2H)-pyridazinone. Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 566 Source: :https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 SCHWEIZER : SUGARBEET ROOT LOSSES that are short. Because common lambsquarters and com- LITERATURE CITED mon sunflower are similar to kochia in their competitive 1. BRIMHALL, P. B., E. W. CHAMBERLAIN, and H. P. ALLEY. abilities, similar polynomial regression equations could be 1965. Competition of annual weeds and sugarbeets. Weeds derived for these species. 13:33-35. Depending on the initial infestation of kochia, we have 2. DAWSON, J. H. 1965. Competition between irrigated sugar- observed 0.3 to 6.2 plants per 30.5 m of row in our most beets and annual weeds. Weeds 13:245-249. selective weed-control systems before thinning. The cur- 3. DEW, D. A. 1972. An index of competition for estimating rent trend is to thin all sugarbeets with electronic ma- crop loss due to weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 52:921-927. chines. Since the machines cannot distinguish between 4. NODA, K., K. OzAWA, and K. IBARAKI. 1968. Studies on the damage of rice plants due to weed competition (effect of weed and sugarbeet plants, weeds remain in the row after barnyardgrass competition on growth, yield, and some eco- thinning. This means a grower needs to know whether it physiological aspects of rice plants). Bull. Kyushu Agr. will be economical to remove those plants that remain. Exp. Sta. 13:345-367. For these growers the linear equation will be useful in 5. SCHWEIZER, E. E. and J. H. DAWSON. 1970. Weed control determining whether they can justify the use of hand labor methods, losses and costs due to weeds, and benefits of to remove the kochia plants that remain after thinning. weed control in sugarbeets. Pages 344-356 in FAO Inter- national Conference on Weed Control. Weed Sci. Soc. For example, if two kochia plants remain per 30.5 m of Amer., Urbana, III. row after thinning, the predicted reduction in root yield 6. THURLOW, D. L. and G. A. BUCHANAN. 1972. Competition would be 7.9%. The decision to remove these plants with of sicklepod with soybeans. Weed Sci. 20:379-384. a hoe would depend on the difference between the ex- 7. WEATHERSPOON, D. M. and E. E. SCHWEIZER. 1971. Compe- pected loss in yield and the established wage scale for tition between sugarbeets and five densities of kochia. hand labor. In 1971 growers had to pay a minimum of Weed Sci. 19:125-128. $27.18 per hectare to remove weeds with a hoe after 8. ZAKHARENKO, V. A. 1968. Investigating the competitive thinning, and 7.9% of an average 42.5 tons/ha yield for ability of weeds and crop plants in relation to herbicide application. Khimiya sell Khoz. 6:447-452. (Taken from our Loveland district was valued at $58.93. Thus, it would Weed Abstr. 18:205.1969). have paid to remove the weeds. Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 567 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 PURCHASED BY THE USDA FOR OFFICIAL USE Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE CROPS RESEARCH LABORATORY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 July 10, 1973 Mr. Larry L. McGhee, Editor Upbeet Magazine The Great Western Sugar Company P.O. Box 5308T. A. Denver, Colorado 80217 Dear Mr. McGhee: Your company plays a vital role in disseminating useful research information to your growers through your popular publication. Our group at Fort Collins is part of the total sugarbeet research endeavor in the USA. In general, we publish most of our research results in professional journals. We know that research published in professional journals is often quite technical. None-the-less, we feel as editor of your company's magazine you would be interested in receiving reprints of published information from our group. At least, in this way, we can keep you abreast of what we are doing in sugarbeet production in Colorado. We have placed your name on our mailing list for reprints of cur- rent information. We would appreciate any comments you may have on this idea, and also would like to know if we have contacted the right person in your company. Sincerely, E. E. Schweizer Plant Physiologist Enclosures Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228

what is the plot size for subplots(hand weeding vs no weeding all season)?

ftxv0228

ftxv0228_p0, ftxv0228_p1, ftxv0228_p2, ftxv0228_p3, ftxv0228_p4, ftxv0228_p5, ftxv0228_p6, ftxv0228_p7, ftxv0228_p8

8 rows X 30 ft

Research Work Plan Proposal A. Title of Investigation: Can hand-labor be eliminated in sugarbeet production by integrating new herbicides into an effective weed control system? B. Location of Study and Date Planned for Initiation: Bay Farm, Fort Collins, Colorado. April, 1975. C. Technical Personnel: USDA - E. E. Schweizer (Project Leader) CSU - J. Eshel (Collaborator) D. Background and Objectives. Many annual weeds can be controlled satisfactorily in sugarbeets with the use of mechanical equipment and herbicides, but complete weed control is difficult to obtain. Failure to control weed species, such as lambsquarters, pigweed, or kochia, before thinning hinders the com- plete mechanization of sugarbeet production because labor is often needed to hoe those weeds that escape. Combinations of effective preplanting and postemergence herbicides have consistently controlled over 95% of the pigweed and grass species in our field studies. Control of kochia has generally exceeded 80% when the postemergent herbicides were applied to kochia that was 1 inch or less in diameter and before it had begun to elongate. By determining the competitive effects of specific densities of kochia on sugarbeet root yield in our weed research program, we can now predict the percentage reduction in root yield that a specific density of kochia causes if it remains in a crop after thinning. The relationship between the number of kochia plants present in 100 feet of row after thinning and their effect on root yield is shown below. 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Number of kochia plants per 100 feet of row Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -2- The calculated percentage values for densities of 1 to 10 kochia plants are as follows: Number of kochia per 100 feet of row: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 % reduction in root yield: 6.1 7.9 9.7 11.5 13.3 15.2 17.0 18.8 20.6 22.4 The predictive equation that we used was most accurate when the kochia density was less than 20 plants per 100 feet of row. We found that with the above densities, we could consistently predict within 5% of the actual yield reductions. We feel confident that this predictive equation can be used by growers to determine whether they can justify the use of hand labor to remove those kochia plants that remain after thinning. Furthermore, we believe that we are now in a position to use this equation to compare how effective new herbicides and a herbistat (plant growth regulator) are in eliminating or reducing weed competition all season. Today, we have several new herbicide mixtures that either completely kill the weeds or suppress weed growth for many weeks thereafter. Unfortun- ately, we do not know how long these weeds are suppressed because they are normally removed during the thinning process. This study is designed to determine the direct effect of specific herbicide treatments on sugar- beets and the competitiveness of weeds present after thinning on sugar- beets. The latter effect will be studied by counting the kochia present after thinning. If the growth of kochia is not suppressed by the herbi- cide treatments, then the predicted reduction in root yield should be within 5% of the actual yield. Conversely, if the growth of kochia is suppressed by the herbicide treatments, then the actual reduction in yield should be less than the predicted value. In 1974, we evaluated several herbicide mixtures that reduced the stand of weeds by 90% or more. These mixtures (see E.2 for specific treatments) will be integrated into several effective weed control systems. We expect these herbicides and the herbistat to kill many weeds, suppress the growth of others, and prevent some weeds from pro- ducing viable weed seed. Therefore, our objectives will be to determine: a. whether new herbicide mixtures and a new herbistat (plant growth regulator) can be used in sequential treatments to eliminate the need for hand-weeding, b. whether weeds not killed by the herbistat will produce viable weed seed, and C. the effects of these sequential treatments on root yield, sucrose production, and purity. E. Experimental Plans and Procedure: 1. General. Conventional field equipment will be used to apply the herbicides and to produce the crop. Pelleted sugarbeet seed will be planted every 3 inches with a precision Milton Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -3- planter. Herbicides, applied preplanting, will be incorporated with a Lilliston rolling cultivator. The postemergent herbicide and herbistat treatments will be applied as topical sprays when sugarbeets have 4 and 8 true leaves, respectively. 2. Specific Plans Plot size: main plots (herbicides and herbistat) - 8 rows X 60 ft subplots (hand-weeding vs. no weeding all season) - 8 rows X 30 ft Replications : 4 Design: split plot Soil type: clay loam, organic matter - 1.5%, pH 7.8 Duration: 1975, with possible continuation in 1976 Treatments a No. Preplanting Postemergence Herbistat 1 Ro-Neet + Nortron none none d 2 Ro-Neet + Nortron none MBR 12325 3 Ro-Neet + Nortron Nortron + SN503° b none 4 Ro-Neet + Nortron Nortron + SN503 MBR 12325 5 Ro-Neet + Nortron Hoe 23408 + SN503° none 6 Ro-Neet + Nortron Hoe 23408 + SN503 MBR 12325 7 untreated weed-free check none none 8 untreated weedy-check none MBR 12325 a 1b/A each of Ro-Neet plus Nortron b12 1b/A of Nortron + 3/4 1b/A of SN503 C1 1b/A each of Hoe 23408 plus SN503 (SN503 is an equal mixture of Betanal and Betanal-475) d or 1/2 1b/A of MBR 12325 F. Records and Data to be Secured. 1. Weed counts and visual ratings before thinning, after application of MBR 12325, and prior to harvest in weedy subplots. 2. Prethinning and postthinning sugarbeet stand counts. 3. Sugarbeet ratings at weekly intervals following postemergence appli- - cations as long as any suppression is noticeable. 4. Yield of roots, sucrose percentage, and purity determinations in October from center four rows of each plot. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -4- G. Budget Estimates. ARS contributions include salaries for professional, technical, and--. secretarial services; land, field, and laboratory equipment; and shop and laboratory facilities. Supplementary funding of $3,000 is requested from the Grower-G.W. Joint Committee, Inc. to enable us to expand our program to include the objectives outlined herein. This additional funding will be used primarily for part- time labor to thin the sugarbeets, weed the weed-free plots all season, harvest the crop, and to wash, weigh, and analyze the roots for sucrose and purity. H. Administration of Funds. Colorado State University will be responsible for administering any funds provided by the Grower-G. W. Joint Research Committee, Inc. in partial support of this project. 1. Estimated Time to Complete. 1. Final results will be summarized in December, 1975. 2. After the results have been analyzed, and if certain treatments indicate that a crop of sugarbeets can be grown profitably without the need of any hand-labor, necessary revisions will be proposed to expand the study in 1976. Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 Reprinted from Weed Science, Vol. 21, November 1973, No. 6. Predicting Sugarbeet Root Losses Based on Kochia Densities¹ E. E. SCHWEIZER² Abstract. The reduction in root yield (Y) of sugarbeets (Beta redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). The initial vulgaris L.) caused by specific densities (X) of kochia [Kochia stand of redroot pigweed was reduced 76 to 100%. Ko- scoparia (L.) Schrad.] was predicted by using the linear equa- chia and redroot pigweed that were not controlled by culti- tion Y = 4.30 + 1.81 X. This equation was most accurate vation, mechanical thinning, and herbicides competed when the kochia density was 20 plants or less per 30.5 m of with sugarbeets for the entire season. In some systems, row. In 28 of 30 weed-control systems, where kochia densi- redroot pigweed emerged after thinning when the sugar- ties ranged from 0.2 to 16.5 plants per 30.5 m of row, the beet stand was not uniform. Annual grasses were con- predicted yield reductions were within 5% of the actual yield trolled with herbicides. reductions. Before harvest, kochia and redroot pigweed plants in INTRODUCTION each weed-controlled system were counted. Predicted yield reductions were calculated by using the polynomial W ITHIN the last decade, researchers have derived sev- regression equations and the kochia-density values ob- eral equations to estimate the crop losses caused by tained from 42 weed-control systems that were evaluated specific weed infestations (3, 4, 8). The relationship be- from 1969 through 1972. The 42 weed-control systems tween yield of a given crop and the density of a specific evaluated over the 4-year period included 27 different weed has been expressed generally in the form of a simple herbicide treatments and six untreated, weedy cultivated regression equation. To use these equations, the weed- plots. Nine of the 23 herbicide treatments were evaluated free yield has to be known, as well as the density of the for two consecutive years. weed stand or the weight of the weed species. In the irrigated areas of the central High Plains and RESULTS Intermountain West, kochia infests more than 63,000 ha of sugarbeets (5). Kochia is not controlled in these areas The polynomial regression equation appropriate for at planting, because most growers use a preplanting appli- predicting the reduction in root yield depended on the cation of a thiocarbamate herbicide, which controls only number of kochia densities. The equations that gave a 20% or less of the kochia. Growers who use a comple- statistically good fit to the data for variable densities of mentary post-emergence treatment can expect to reduce kochia per 30.5 m of row are as follows: a cubic equation the initial stand of kochia by 75 to 95%. Thus, some for densities of 4, 10, 20, 50, and 100 plants where Y = kochia plants remain to compete with sugarbeets. 1.01 + 2.60X - 0.0363X² + 0.00018X³, with r2 = This paper will (a) describe how information published 0.974; a quadratic equation for densities of 4, 10, 20, and in a previous paper on the competitive effects of five densi- 50 plants where Y = 1.85 + 2.38X - 0.0232X², with ties of kochia on the root yield of sugarbeets (7) was used r2 = 0.954; and a linear equation for densities of 4, 10, to derive equations to predict the reductions in root yield and 20 plants where Y = 4.30 + 1.81X, with r2 = 0.884. caused by specific densities of kochia in mixed weed popu- lations and (b) show that these reductions in root yield can The relation between percentage reduction in root yield be predicted by simply knowing the density of kochia pres- and kochia density as predicted by the three equations is ent in a given area. shown in Figure 1. Of the three equations, the linear equa- tion was the most accurate in predicting the reductions in METHODS yield for kochia densities of 20 plants or less per 30.5 m To determine whether we could predict the reduction of row (Figure 2). However, at these densities the pre- in yield (Y) caused by a specific density of kochia (X), dicted reductions in yield were similar with all three polynomial regression equations were derived by regress- equations (Table 1). For example, where kochia densities ing kochia densities of 4, 10, 20, 50, and 100 plants per ranged from 0.2 to 16.5 plants per 30.5 m of row in 30 30.5 m of row on sugarbeet root yield. These densities were weed-control systems, the predicted yield reductions, using replicated four times over a 2-year period in a random- the linear, quadratic, and cubic equations, were within 5% ized complete-block design (7). of the actual yield reductions for 28, 24, and 24 of these To test these polynomial regression equations, we used systems, respectively. data from several known weed-control systems that had At densities of more than 20 plants per 30.5 m of row, reduced the stand of kochia from about 1 to 99%. The reductions in yield could be predicted better with either the quadratic or cubic equations (Table 1) than with the other major weed species present in these systems was linear equation. 1Received for publication May 7, 1973. Cooperative investiga- DISCUSSION tions of the Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr. and the Colorado State Univ. Exp. Sta. Published with the approval of the Director We have shown that the reductions in root yield of of the Colorado State Univ. Exp. Sta. as Scientific Series Paper No. 1838. sugarbeets caused by kochia competition can be predicted 2lant Physiol., Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr., Colorado best with a linear equation when kochia densities are less State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80521. than 20 plants per 30.5 m of row. This is the density level Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 565 Source: https://wwvw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 WEED S CIENCE 100 50 Y = 4.30 + 1.81X LINEAR 80 CUBIC 40 60 30 40 20 QUADRATIC 20 o o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 NUMBER OF KOCHIA PLANTS PER 30.5 m OF ROW Figure 1. Relation between kochia density and root yield as pre- dicted by the linear, quadratic, and cubic equations. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 expected in commercial fields after thinning. An obvious restriction in using the linear equation is when the kochia NUMBER OF KOCHIA PLANTS PER 30.5 m OF ROW density approaches zero, because at zero the Y intercept Figure 2. Relation between kochia density and root yield as pre- is 4.30. However, in testing this equation against eight dicted by the linear equation. The 95% confidence intervals are weed-control where the from 0.2 to 0.9 systems plants per 30.5 m kochia of row, densities the predicted ranged indicated in the shaded area on each side of the regression line. yield reductions were within 6% of the actual yield re- ductions. The redroot pigweed densities ranged from 0.6 to 26 Predicting the reductions in root yield by simply know- plants per 30.5 m of row, with a mean of 6.8. At the ing the density of kochia in a given area increases the use- higher densities, reductions in root yield might be ex- fulness of this method for assessing losses in sugarbeets. pected, because root yields have been reduced by 17% In some crop-weed associations, yield reductions are better where 12.5 redroot pigweed plants per 30.5 m of row correlated with weight of weeds than with weed density competed all season with sugarbeets (1). These densities (4, 6). In other crop-weed associations, crop losses could apparently did not affect our predictions, because most of be estimated by the use of an "index of competition", but the redroot pigweed plants emerged too late in the season expected weed-free yield has to be known (3). to develop their full competitive potential. Previous weed- Our success in predicting within 5% of the actual yield competition studies in sugarbeets have shown that the later reductions for most weed-control systems depended on an annual weed emerges, the less competitive it is (2). minimizing weed competition during the entire growing Although these redroot pigweed densities did not affect season. Annual grasses were controlled completely with our predictions, other broadleaf weeds, such as common herbicides. Although kochia and some redroot pigweed lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) and common sun- seedlings emerged with the crop, most redroot pigweed flower (Helianthus annuus L.), could. These annual broad- plants present at harvest had emerged after thinning in leaf weeds emerge with, or shortly after, the crop, are tall, those systems where the sugarbeet stand was not uniform. produce dense shade, and are more competitive than those Table 1. Actual and predicted yield reductions of sugarbeet roots as affected by specific densities of kochia, which competed all season under different weed-control systems. Actual Predicted yield reductions Kochia Year Weed-control systems yield plants reduction Linear Quadratic Cubic (number/30.5 m of row) (%) (%) (%) (%) 1969 Cycloate R 1913-phenmedipham 0.4 2.9 5.0 2.8 2.0 Cycloate + R 11913-phenmedipham 0.6 5.7 5.4 3.3 2.6 1970 'ycloate-phenmedipham-EPTC 1.1 8.1 6.3 4.4 3.8 1971 1972 Cycloate-phenmedipham 3.6 9.1 10.8 10.1 9.9 1969 Cycloate-phenmedipham 6.2 15.8 15.5 15.7 15.8 16.5 30.1 34.2 34.8 34.9 1971 Cycloate 1971 Cycloate 27.9 43.1 54.8 50.1 49.2 43.3 49.6 82.7 61.4 60.1 1969 Delachlor-phenmedipham-pyrazon Delachlor 55.4 68.7 104.6 62.5 64.2 1969 Chemical names of herbicides: R 11913 is 3'-hydroxypropionanilide isopropylcarbamate; cycloate is S-ethylN-ethylthiocyclohexanecarbamate; delachlor is 2-chloro-N-(isobutoxymethyl)-2',6'-acetoxylidide; EPTC is S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate; phenmedipham is methyl m-hyhroxycarbanilate m-methylcarbanilate; and pyrazon is.5-amino-4-chloro-2-phenyl-3(2H)-pyridazinone. Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 566 Source: :https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 SCHWEIZER : SUGARBEET ROOT LOSSES that are short. Because common lambsquarters and com- LITERATURE CITED mon sunflower are similar to kochia in their competitive 1. BRIMHALL, P. B., E. W. CHAMBERLAIN, and H. P. ALLEY. abilities, similar polynomial regression equations could be 1965. Competition of annual weeds and sugarbeets. Weeds derived for these species. 13:33-35. Depending on the initial infestation of kochia, we have 2. DAWSON, J. H. 1965. Competition between irrigated sugar- observed 0.3 to 6.2 plants per 30.5 m of row in our most beets and annual weeds. Weeds 13:245-249. selective weed-control systems before thinning. The cur- 3. DEW, D. A. 1972. An index of competition for estimating rent trend is to thin all sugarbeets with electronic ma- crop loss due to weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 52:921-927. chines. Since the machines cannot distinguish between 4. NODA, K., K. OzAWA, and K. IBARAKI. 1968. Studies on the damage of rice plants due to weed competition (effect of weed and sugarbeet plants, weeds remain in the row after barnyardgrass competition on growth, yield, and some eco- thinning. This means a grower needs to know whether it physiological aspects of rice plants). Bull. Kyushu Agr. will be economical to remove those plants that remain. Exp. Sta. 13:345-367. For these growers the linear equation will be useful in 5. SCHWEIZER, E. E. and J. H. DAWSON. 1970. Weed control determining whether they can justify the use of hand labor methods, losses and costs due to weeds, and benefits of to remove the kochia plants that remain after thinning. weed control in sugarbeets. Pages 344-356 in FAO Inter- national Conference on Weed Control. Weed Sci. Soc. For example, if two kochia plants remain per 30.5 m of Amer., Urbana, III. row after thinning, the predicted reduction in root yield 6. THURLOW, D. L. and G. A. BUCHANAN. 1972. Competition would be 7.9%. The decision to remove these plants with of sicklepod with soybeans. Weed Sci. 20:379-384. a hoe would depend on the difference between the ex- 7. WEATHERSPOON, D. M. and E. E. SCHWEIZER. 1971. Compe- pected loss in yield and the established wage scale for tition between sugarbeets and five densities of kochia. hand labor. In 1971 growers had to pay a minimum of Weed Sci. 19:125-128. $27.18 per hectare to remove weeds with a hoe after 8. ZAKHARENKO, V. A. 1968. Investigating the competitive thinning, and 7.9% of an average 42.5 tons/ha yield for ability of weeds and crop plants in relation to herbicide application. Khimiya sell Khoz. 6:447-452. (Taken from our Loveland district was valued at $58.93. Thus, it would Weed Abstr. 18:205.1969). have paid to remove the weeds. Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 567 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 PURCHASED BY THE USDA FOR OFFICIAL USE Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE CROPS RESEARCH LABORATORY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 July 10, 1973 Mr. Larry L. McGhee, Editor Upbeet Magazine The Great Western Sugar Company P.O. Box 5308T. A. Denver, Colorado 80217 Dear Mr. McGhee: Your company plays a vital role in disseminating useful research information to your growers through your popular publication. Our group at Fort Collins is part of the total sugarbeet research endeavor in the USA. In general, we publish most of our research results in professional journals. We know that research published in professional journals is often quite technical. None-the-less, we feel as editor of your company's magazine you would be interested in receiving reprints of published information from our group. At least, in this way, we can keep you abreast of what we are doing in sugarbeet production in Colorado. We have placed your name on our mailing list for reprints of cur- rent information. We would appreciate any comments you may have on this idea, and also would like to know if we have contacted the right person in your company. Sincerely, E. E. Schweizer Plant Physiologist Enclosures Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228

what is the ph value for clay loam soil?

ftxv0228

ftxv0228_p0, ftxv0228_p1, ftxv0228_p2, ftxv0228_p3, ftxv0228_p4, ftxv0228_p5, ftxv0228_p6, ftxv0228_p7, ftxv0228_p8

7.8

Research Work Plan Proposal A. Title of Investigation: Can hand-labor be eliminated in sugarbeet production by integrating new herbicides into an effective weed control system? B. Location of Study and Date Planned for Initiation: Bay Farm, Fort Collins, Colorado. April, 1975. C. Technical Personnel: USDA - E. E. Schweizer (Project Leader) CSU - J. Eshel (Collaborator) D. Background and Objectives. Many annual weeds can be controlled satisfactorily in sugarbeets with the use of mechanical equipment and herbicides, but complete weed control is difficult to obtain. Failure to control weed species, such as lambsquarters, pigweed, or kochia, before thinning hinders the com- plete mechanization of sugarbeet production because labor is often needed to hoe those weeds that escape. Combinations of effective preplanting and postemergence herbicides have consistently controlled over 95% of the pigweed and grass species in our field studies. Control of kochia has generally exceeded 80% when the postemergent herbicides were applied to kochia that was 1 inch or less in diameter and before it had begun to elongate. By determining the competitive effects of specific densities of kochia on sugarbeet root yield in our weed research program, we can now predict the percentage reduction in root yield that a specific density of kochia causes if it remains in a crop after thinning. The relationship between the number of kochia plants present in 100 feet of row after thinning and their effect on root yield is shown below. 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Number of kochia plants per 100 feet of row Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -2- The calculated percentage values for densities of 1 to 10 kochia plants are as follows: Number of kochia per 100 feet of row: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 % reduction in root yield: 6.1 7.9 9.7 11.5 13.3 15.2 17.0 18.8 20.6 22.4 The predictive equation that we used was most accurate when the kochia density was less than 20 plants per 100 feet of row. We found that with the above densities, we could consistently predict within 5% of the actual yield reductions. We feel confident that this predictive equation can be used by growers to determine whether they can justify the use of hand labor to remove those kochia plants that remain after thinning. Furthermore, we believe that we are now in a position to use this equation to compare how effective new herbicides and a herbistat (plant growth regulator) are in eliminating or reducing weed competition all season. Today, we have several new herbicide mixtures that either completely kill the weeds or suppress weed growth for many weeks thereafter. Unfortun- ately, we do not know how long these weeds are suppressed because they are normally removed during the thinning process. This study is designed to determine the direct effect of specific herbicide treatments on sugar- beets and the competitiveness of weeds present after thinning on sugar- beets. The latter effect will be studied by counting the kochia present after thinning. If the growth of kochia is not suppressed by the herbi- cide treatments, then the predicted reduction in root yield should be within 5% of the actual yield. Conversely, if the growth of kochia is suppressed by the herbicide treatments, then the actual reduction in yield should be less than the predicted value. In 1974, we evaluated several herbicide mixtures that reduced the stand of weeds by 90% or more. These mixtures (see E.2 for specific treatments) will be integrated into several effective weed control systems. We expect these herbicides and the herbistat to kill many weeds, suppress the growth of others, and prevent some weeds from pro- ducing viable weed seed. Therefore, our objectives will be to determine: a. whether new herbicide mixtures and a new herbistat (plant growth regulator) can be used in sequential treatments to eliminate the need for hand-weeding, b. whether weeds not killed by the herbistat will produce viable weed seed, and C. the effects of these sequential treatments on root yield, sucrose production, and purity. E. Experimental Plans and Procedure: 1. General. Conventional field equipment will be used to apply the herbicides and to produce the crop. Pelleted sugarbeet seed will be planted every 3 inches with a precision Milton Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -3- planter. Herbicides, applied preplanting, will be incorporated with a Lilliston rolling cultivator. The postemergent herbicide and herbistat treatments will be applied as topical sprays when sugarbeets have 4 and 8 true leaves, respectively. 2. Specific Plans Plot size: main plots (herbicides and herbistat) - 8 rows X 60 ft subplots (hand-weeding vs. no weeding all season) - 8 rows X 30 ft Replications : 4 Design: split plot Soil type: clay loam, organic matter - 1.5%, pH 7.8 Duration: 1975, with possible continuation in 1976 Treatments a No. Preplanting Postemergence Herbistat 1 Ro-Neet + Nortron none none d 2 Ro-Neet + Nortron none MBR 12325 3 Ro-Neet + Nortron Nortron + SN503° b none 4 Ro-Neet + Nortron Nortron + SN503 MBR 12325 5 Ro-Neet + Nortron Hoe 23408 + SN503° none 6 Ro-Neet + Nortron Hoe 23408 + SN503 MBR 12325 7 untreated weed-free check none none 8 untreated weedy-check none MBR 12325 a 1b/A each of Ro-Neet plus Nortron b12 1b/A of Nortron + 3/4 1b/A of SN503 C1 1b/A each of Hoe 23408 plus SN503 (SN503 is an equal mixture of Betanal and Betanal-475) d or 1/2 1b/A of MBR 12325 F. Records and Data to be Secured. 1. Weed counts and visual ratings before thinning, after application of MBR 12325, and prior to harvest in weedy subplots. 2. Prethinning and postthinning sugarbeet stand counts. 3. Sugarbeet ratings at weekly intervals following postemergence appli- - cations as long as any suppression is noticeable. 4. Yield of roots, sucrose percentage, and purity determinations in October from center four rows of each plot. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -4- G. Budget Estimates. ARS contributions include salaries for professional, technical, and--. secretarial services; land, field, and laboratory equipment; and shop and laboratory facilities. Supplementary funding of $3,000 is requested from the Grower-G.W. Joint Committee, Inc. to enable us to expand our program to include the objectives outlined herein. This additional funding will be used primarily for part- time labor to thin the sugarbeets, weed the weed-free plots all season, harvest the crop, and to wash, weigh, and analyze the roots for sucrose and purity. H. Administration of Funds. Colorado State University will be responsible for administering any funds provided by the Grower-G. W. Joint Research Committee, Inc. in partial support of this project. 1. Estimated Time to Complete. 1. Final results will be summarized in December, 1975. 2. After the results have been analyzed, and if certain treatments indicate that a crop of sugarbeets can be grown profitably without the need of any hand-labor, necessary revisions will be proposed to expand the study in 1976. Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 Reprinted from Weed Science, Vol. 21, November 1973, No. 6. Predicting Sugarbeet Root Losses Based on Kochia Densities¹ E. E. SCHWEIZER² Abstract. The reduction in root yield (Y) of sugarbeets (Beta redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). The initial vulgaris L.) caused by specific densities (X) of kochia [Kochia stand of redroot pigweed was reduced 76 to 100%. Ko- scoparia (L.) Schrad.] was predicted by using the linear equa- chia and redroot pigweed that were not controlled by culti- tion Y = 4.30 + 1.81 X. This equation was most accurate vation, mechanical thinning, and herbicides competed when the kochia density was 20 plants or less per 30.5 m of with sugarbeets for the entire season. In some systems, row. In 28 of 30 weed-control systems, where kochia densi- redroot pigweed emerged after thinning when the sugar- ties ranged from 0.2 to 16.5 plants per 30.5 m of row, the beet stand was not uniform. Annual grasses were con- predicted yield reductions were within 5% of the actual yield trolled with herbicides. reductions. Before harvest, kochia and redroot pigweed plants in INTRODUCTION each weed-controlled system were counted. Predicted yield reductions were calculated by using the polynomial W ITHIN the last decade, researchers have derived sev- regression equations and the kochia-density values ob- eral equations to estimate the crop losses caused by tained from 42 weed-control systems that were evaluated specific weed infestations (3, 4, 8). The relationship be- from 1969 through 1972. The 42 weed-control systems tween yield of a given crop and the density of a specific evaluated over the 4-year period included 27 different weed has been expressed generally in the form of a simple herbicide treatments and six untreated, weedy cultivated regression equation. To use these equations, the weed- plots. Nine of the 23 herbicide treatments were evaluated free yield has to be known, as well as the density of the for two consecutive years. weed stand or the weight of the weed species. In the irrigated areas of the central High Plains and RESULTS Intermountain West, kochia infests more than 63,000 ha of sugarbeets (5). Kochia is not controlled in these areas The polynomial regression equation appropriate for at planting, because most growers use a preplanting appli- predicting the reduction in root yield depended on the cation of a thiocarbamate herbicide, which controls only number of kochia densities. The equations that gave a 20% or less of the kochia. Growers who use a comple- statistically good fit to the data for variable densities of mentary post-emergence treatment can expect to reduce kochia per 30.5 m of row are as follows: a cubic equation the initial stand of kochia by 75 to 95%. Thus, some for densities of 4, 10, 20, 50, and 100 plants where Y = kochia plants remain to compete with sugarbeets. 1.01 + 2.60X - 0.0363X² + 0.00018X³, with r2 = This paper will (a) describe how information published 0.974; a quadratic equation for densities of 4, 10, 20, and in a previous paper on the competitive effects of five densi- 50 plants where Y = 1.85 + 2.38X - 0.0232X², with ties of kochia on the root yield of sugarbeets (7) was used r2 = 0.954; and a linear equation for densities of 4, 10, to derive equations to predict the reductions in root yield and 20 plants where Y = 4.30 + 1.81X, with r2 = 0.884. caused by specific densities of kochia in mixed weed popu- lations and (b) show that these reductions in root yield can The relation between percentage reduction in root yield be predicted by simply knowing the density of kochia pres- and kochia density as predicted by the three equations is ent in a given area. shown in Figure 1. Of the three equations, the linear equa- tion was the most accurate in predicting the reductions in METHODS yield for kochia densities of 20 plants or less per 30.5 m To determine whether we could predict the reduction of row (Figure 2). However, at these densities the pre- in yield (Y) caused by a specific density of kochia (X), dicted reductions in yield were similar with all three polynomial regression equations were derived by regress- equations (Table 1). For example, where kochia densities ing kochia densities of 4, 10, 20, 50, and 100 plants per ranged from 0.2 to 16.5 plants per 30.5 m of row in 30 30.5 m of row on sugarbeet root yield. These densities were weed-control systems, the predicted yield reductions, using replicated four times over a 2-year period in a random- the linear, quadratic, and cubic equations, were within 5% ized complete-block design (7). of the actual yield reductions for 28, 24, and 24 of these To test these polynomial regression equations, we used systems, respectively. data from several known weed-control systems that had At densities of more than 20 plants per 30.5 m of row, reduced the stand of kochia from about 1 to 99%. The reductions in yield could be predicted better with either the quadratic or cubic equations (Table 1) than with the other major weed species present in these systems was linear equation. 1Received for publication May 7, 1973. Cooperative investiga- DISCUSSION tions of the Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr. and the Colorado State Univ. Exp. Sta. Published with the approval of the Director We have shown that the reductions in root yield of of the Colorado State Univ. Exp. Sta. as Scientific Series Paper No. 1838. sugarbeets caused by kochia competition can be predicted 2lant Physiol., Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr., Colorado best with a linear equation when kochia densities are less State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80521. than 20 plants per 30.5 m of row. This is the density level Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 565 Source: https://wwvw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 WEED S CIENCE 100 50 Y = 4.30 + 1.81X LINEAR 80 CUBIC 40 60 30 40 20 QUADRATIC 20 o o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 NUMBER OF KOCHIA PLANTS PER 30.5 m OF ROW Figure 1. Relation between kochia density and root yield as pre- dicted by the linear, quadratic, and cubic equations. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 expected in commercial fields after thinning. An obvious restriction in using the linear equation is when the kochia NUMBER OF KOCHIA PLANTS PER 30.5 m OF ROW density approaches zero, because at zero the Y intercept Figure 2. Relation between kochia density and root yield as pre- is 4.30. However, in testing this equation against eight dicted by the linear equation. The 95% confidence intervals are weed-control where the from 0.2 to 0.9 systems plants per 30.5 m kochia of row, densities the predicted ranged indicated in the shaded area on each side of the regression line. yield reductions were within 6% of the actual yield re- ductions. The redroot pigweed densities ranged from 0.6 to 26 Predicting the reductions in root yield by simply know- plants per 30.5 m of row, with a mean of 6.8. At the ing the density of kochia in a given area increases the use- higher densities, reductions in root yield might be ex- fulness of this method for assessing losses in sugarbeets. pected, because root yields have been reduced by 17% In some crop-weed associations, yield reductions are better where 12.5 redroot pigweed plants per 30.5 m of row correlated with weight of weeds than with weed density competed all season with sugarbeets (1). These densities (4, 6). In other crop-weed associations, crop losses could apparently did not affect our predictions, because most of be estimated by the use of an "index of competition", but the redroot pigweed plants emerged too late in the season expected weed-free yield has to be known (3). to develop their full competitive potential. Previous weed- Our success in predicting within 5% of the actual yield competition studies in sugarbeets have shown that the later reductions for most weed-control systems depended on an annual weed emerges, the less competitive it is (2). minimizing weed competition during the entire growing Although these redroot pigweed densities did not affect season. Annual grasses were controlled completely with our predictions, other broadleaf weeds, such as common herbicides. Although kochia and some redroot pigweed lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) and common sun- seedlings emerged with the crop, most redroot pigweed flower (Helianthus annuus L.), could. These annual broad- plants present at harvest had emerged after thinning in leaf weeds emerge with, or shortly after, the crop, are tall, those systems where the sugarbeet stand was not uniform. produce dense shade, and are more competitive than those Table 1. Actual and predicted yield reductions of sugarbeet roots as affected by specific densities of kochia, which competed all season under different weed-control systems. Actual Predicted yield reductions Kochia Year Weed-control systems yield plants reduction Linear Quadratic Cubic (number/30.5 m of row) (%) (%) (%) (%) 1969 Cycloate R 1913-phenmedipham 0.4 2.9 5.0 2.8 2.0 Cycloate + R 11913-phenmedipham 0.6 5.7 5.4 3.3 2.6 1970 'ycloate-phenmedipham-EPTC 1.1 8.1 6.3 4.4 3.8 1971 1972 Cycloate-phenmedipham 3.6 9.1 10.8 10.1 9.9 1969 Cycloate-phenmedipham 6.2 15.8 15.5 15.7 15.8 16.5 30.1 34.2 34.8 34.9 1971 Cycloate 1971 Cycloate 27.9 43.1 54.8 50.1 49.2 43.3 49.6 82.7 61.4 60.1 1969 Delachlor-phenmedipham-pyrazon Delachlor 55.4 68.7 104.6 62.5 64.2 1969 Chemical names of herbicides: R 11913 is 3'-hydroxypropionanilide isopropylcarbamate; cycloate is S-ethylN-ethylthiocyclohexanecarbamate; delachlor is 2-chloro-N-(isobutoxymethyl)-2',6'-acetoxylidide; EPTC is S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate; phenmedipham is methyl m-hyhroxycarbanilate m-methylcarbanilate; and pyrazon is.5-amino-4-chloro-2-phenyl-3(2H)-pyridazinone. Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 566 Source: :https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 SCHWEIZER : SUGARBEET ROOT LOSSES that are short. Because common lambsquarters and com- LITERATURE CITED mon sunflower are similar to kochia in their competitive 1. BRIMHALL, P. B., E. W. CHAMBERLAIN, and H. P. ALLEY. abilities, similar polynomial regression equations could be 1965. Competition of annual weeds and sugarbeets. Weeds derived for these species. 13:33-35. Depending on the initial infestation of kochia, we have 2. DAWSON, J. H. 1965. Competition between irrigated sugar- observed 0.3 to 6.2 plants per 30.5 m of row in our most beets and annual weeds. Weeds 13:245-249. selective weed-control systems before thinning. The cur- 3. DEW, D. A. 1972. An index of competition for estimating rent trend is to thin all sugarbeets with electronic ma- crop loss due to weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 52:921-927. chines. Since the machines cannot distinguish between 4. NODA, K., K. OzAWA, and K. IBARAKI. 1968. Studies on the damage of rice plants due to weed competition (effect of weed and sugarbeet plants, weeds remain in the row after barnyardgrass competition on growth, yield, and some eco- thinning. This means a grower needs to know whether it physiological aspects of rice plants). Bull. Kyushu Agr. will be economical to remove those plants that remain. Exp. Sta. 13:345-367. For these growers the linear equation will be useful in 5. SCHWEIZER, E. E. and J. H. DAWSON. 1970. Weed control determining whether they can justify the use of hand labor methods, losses and costs due to weeds, and benefits of to remove the kochia plants that remain after thinning. weed control in sugarbeets. Pages 344-356 in FAO Inter- national Conference on Weed Control. Weed Sci. Soc. For example, if two kochia plants remain per 30.5 m of Amer., Urbana, III. row after thinning, the predicted reduction in root yield 6. THURLOW, D. L. and G. A. BUCHANAN. 1972. Competition would be 7.9%. The decision to remove these plants with of sicklepod with soybeans. Weed Sci. 20:379-384. a hoe would depend on the difference between the ex- 7. WEATHERSPOON, D. M. and E. E. SCHWEIZER. 1971. Compe- pected loss in yield and the established wage scale for tition between sugarbeets and five densities of kochia. hand labor. In 1971 growers had to pay a minimum of Weed Sci. 19:125-128. $27.18 per hectare to remove weeds with a hoe after 8. ZAKHARENKO, V. A. 1968. Investigating the competitive thinning, and 7.9% of an average 42.5 tons/ha yield for ability of weeds and crop plants in relation to herbicide application. Khimiya sell Khoz. 6:447-452. (Taken from our Loveland district was valued at $58.93. Thus, it would Weed Abstr. 18:205.1969). have paid to remove the weeds. Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 567 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 PURCHASED BY THE USDA FOR OFFICIAL USE Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE CROPS RESEARCH LABORATORY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 July 10, 1973 Mr. Larry L. McGhee, Editor Upbeet Magazine The Great Western Sugar Company P.O. Box 5308T. A. Denver, Colorado 80217 Dear Mr. McGhee: Your company plays a vital role in disseminating useful research information to your growers through your popular publication. Our group at Fort Collins is part of the total sugarbeet research endeavor in the USA. In general, we publish most of our research results in professional journals. We know that research published in professional journals is often quite technical. None-the-less, we feel as editor of your company's magazine you would be interested in receiving reprints of published information from our group. At least, in this way, we can keep you abreast of what we are doing in sugarbeet production in Colorado. We have placed your name on our mailing list for reprints of cur- rent information. We would appreciate any comments you may have on this idea, and also would like to know if we have contacted the right person in your company. Sincerely, E. E. Schweizer Plant Physiologist Enclosures Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228

where is the location of study conducted ?

ftxv0228

ftxv0228_p0, ftxv0228_p1, ftxv0228_p2, ftxv0228_p3, ftxv0228_p4, ftxv0228_p5, ftxv0228_p6, ftxv0228_p7, ftxv0228_p8

Bay farm , Fort collins , colorado, Bay Farm, Fort Collins, Colorado

Research Work Plan Proposal A. Title of Investigation: Can hand-labor be eliminated in sugarbeet production by integrating new herbicides into an effective weed control system? B. Location of Study and Date Planned for Initiation: Bay Farm, Fort Collins, Colorado. April, 1975. C. Technical Personnel: USDA - E. E. Schweizer (Project Leader) CSU - J. Eshel (Collaborator) D. Background and Objectives. Many annual weeds can be controlled satisfactorily in sugarbeets with the use of mechanical equipment and herbicides, but complete weed control is difficult to obtain. Failure to control weed species, such as lambsquarters, pigweed, or kochia, before thinning hinders the com- plete mechanization of sugarbeet production because labor is often needed to hoe those weeds that escape. Combinations of effective preplanting and postemergence herbicides have consistently controlled over 95% of the pigweed and grass species in our field studies. Control of kochia has generally exceeded 80% when the postemergent herbicides were applied to kochia that was 1 inch or less in diameter and before it had begun to elongate. By determining the competitive effects of specific densities of kochia on sugarbeet root yield in our weed research program, we can now predict the percentage reduction in root yield that a specific density of kochia causes if it remains in a crop after thinning. The relationship between the number of kochia plants present in 100 feet of row after thinning and their effect on root yield is shown below. 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Number of kochia plants per 100 feet of row Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -2- The calculated percentage values for densities of 1 to 10 kochia plants are as follows: Number of kochia per 100 feet of row: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 % reduction in root yield: 6.1 7.9 9.7 11.5 13.3 15.2 17.0 18.8 20.6 22.4 The predictive equation that we used was most accurate when the kochia density was less than 20 plants per 100 feet of row. We found that with the above densities, we could consistently predict within 5% of the actual yield reductions. We feel confident that this predictive equation can be used by growers to determine whether they can justify the use of hand labor to remove those kochia plants that remain after thinning. Furthermore, we believe that we are now in a position to use this equation to compare how effective new herbicides and a herbistat (plant growth regulator) are in eliminating or reducing weed competition all season. Today, we have several new herbicide mixtures that either completely kill the weeds or suppress weed growth for many weeks thereafter. Unfortun- ately, we do not know how long these weeds are suppressed because they are normally removed during the thinning process. This study is designed to determine the direct effect of specific herbicide treatments on sugar- beets and the competitiveness of weeds present after thinning on sugar- beets. The latter effect will be studied by counting the kochia present after thinning. If the growth of kochia is not suppressed by the herbi- cide treatments, then the predicted reduction in root yield should be within 5% of the actual yield. Conversely, if the growth of kochia is suppressed by the herbicide treatments, then the actual reduction in yield should be less than the predicted value. In 1974, we evaluated several herbicide mixtures that reduced the stand of weeds by 90% or more. These mixtures (see E.2 for specific treatments) will be integrated into several effective weed control systems. We expect these herbicides and the herbistat to kill many weeds, suppress the growth of others, and prevent some weeds from pro- ducing viable weed seed. Therefore, our objectives will be to determine: a. whether new herbicide mixtures and a new herbistat (plant growth regulator) can be used in sequential treatments to eliminate the need for hand-weeding, b. whether weeds not killed by the herbistat will produce viable weed seed, and C. the effects of these sequential treatments on root yield, sucrose production, and purity. E. Experimental Plans and Procedure: 1. General. Conventional field equipment will be used to apply the herbicides and to produce the crop. Pelleted sugarbeet seed will be planted every 3 inches with a precision Milton Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -3- planter. Herbicides, applied preplanting, will be incorporated with a Lilliston rolling cultivator. The postemergent herbicide and herbistat treatments will be applied as topical sprays when sugarbeets have 4 and 8 true leaves, respectively. 2. Specific Plans Plot size: main plots (herbicides and herbistat) - 8 rows X 60 ft subplots (hand-weeding vs. no weeding all season) - 8 rows X 30 ft Replications : 4 Design: split plot Soil type: clay loam, organic matter - 1.5%, pH 7.8 Duration: 1975, with possible continuation in 1976 Treatments a No. Preplanting Postemergence Herbistat 1 Ro-Neet + Nortron none none d 2 Ro-Neet + Nortron none MBR 12325 3 Ro-Neet + Nortron Nortron + SN503° b none 4 Ro-Neet + Nortron Nortron + SN503 MBR 12325 5 Ro-Neet + Nortron Hoe 23408 + SN503° none 6 Ro-Neet + Nortron Hoe 23408 + SN503 MBR 12325 7 untreated weed-free check none none 8 untreated weedy-check none MBR 12325 a 1b/A each of Ro-Neet plus Nortron b12 1b/A of Nortron + 3/4 1b/A of SN503 C1 1b/A each of Hoe 23408 plus SN503 (SN503 is an equal mixture of Betanal and Betanal-475) d or 1/2 1b/A of MBR 12325 F. Records and Data to be Secured. 1. Weed counts and visual ratings before thinning, after application of MBR 12325, and prior to harvest in weedy subplots. 2. Prethinning and postthinning sugarbeet stand counts. 3. Sugarbeet ratings at weekly intervals following postemergence appli- - cations as long as any suppression is noticeable. 4. Yield of roots, sucrose percentage, and purity determinations in October from center four rows of each plot. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -4- G. Budget Estimates. ARS contributions include salaries for professional, technical, and--. secretarial services; land, field, and laboratory equipment; and shop and laboratory facilities. Supplementary funding of $3,000 is requested from the Grower-G.W. Joint Committee, Inc. to enable us to expand our program to include the objectives outlined herein. This additional funding will be used primarily for part- time labor to thin the sugarbeets, weed the weed-free plots all season, harvest the crop, and to wash, weigh, and analyze the roots for sucrose and purity. H. Administration of Funds. Colorado State University will be responsible for administering any funds provided by the Grower-G. W. Joint Research Committee, Inc. in partial support of this project. 1. Estimated Time to Complete. 1. Final results will be summarized in December, 1975. 2. After the results have been analyzed, and if certain treatments indicate that a crop of sugarbeets can be grown profitably without the need of any hand-labor, necessary revisions will be proposed to expand the study in 1976. Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 Reprinted from Weed Science, Vol. 21, November 1973, No. 6. Predicting Sugarbeet Root Losses Based on Kochia Densities¹ E. E. SCHWEIZER² Abstract. The reduction in root yield (Y) of sugarbeets (Beta redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). The initial vulgaris L.) caused by specific densities (X) of kochia [Kochia stand of redroot pigweed was reduced 76 to 100%. Ko- scoparia (L.) Schrad.] was predicted by using the linear equa- chia and redroot pigweed that were not controlled by culti- tion Y = 4.30 + 1.81 X. This equation was most accurate vation, mechanical thinning, and herbicides competed when the kochia density was 20 plants or less per 30.5 m of with sugarbeets for the entire season. In some systems, row. In 28 of 30 weed-control systems, where kochia densi- redroot pigweed emerged after thinning when the sugar- ties ranged from 0.2 to 16.5 plants per 30.5 m of row, the beet stand was not uniform. Annual grasses were con- predicted yield reductions were within 5% of the actual yield trolled with herbicides. reductions. Before harvest, kochia and redroot pigweed plants in INTRODUCTION each weed-controlled system were counted. Predicted yield reductions were calculated by using the polynomial W ITHIN the last decade, researchers have derived sev- regression equations and the kochia-density values ob- eral equations to estimate the crop losses caused by tained from 42 weed-control systems that were evaluated specific weed infestations (3, 4, 8). The relationship be- from 1969 through 1972. The 42 weed-control systems tween yield of a given crop and the density of a specific evaluated over the 4-year period included 27 different weed has been expressed generally in the form of a simple herbicide treatments and six untreated, weedy cultivated regression equation. To use these equations, the weed- plots. Nine of the 23 herbicide treatments were evaluated free yield has to be known, as well as the density of the for two consecutive years. weed stand or the weight of the weed species. In the irrigated areas of the central High Plains and RESULTS Intermountain West, kochia infests more than 63,000 ha of sugarbeets (5). Kochia is not controlled in these areas The polynomial regression equation appropriate for at planting, because most growers use a preplanting appli- predicting the reduction in root yield depended on the cation of a thiocarbamate herbicide, which controls only number of kochia densities. The equations that gave a 20% or less of the kochia. Growers who use a comple- statistically good fit to the data for variable densities of mentary post-emergence treatment can expect to reduce kochia per 30.5 m of row are as follows: a cubic equation the initial stand of kochia by 75 to 95%. Thus, some for densities of 4, 10, 20, 50, and 100 plants where Y = kochia plants remain to compete with sugarbeets. 1.01 + 2.60X - 0.0363X² + 0.00018X³, with r2 = This paper will (a) describe how information published 0.974; a quadratic equation for densities of 4, 10, 20, and in a previous paper on the competitive effects of five densi- 50 plants where Y = 1.85 + 2.38X - 0.0232X², with ties of kochia on the root yield of sugarbeets (7) was used r2 = 0.954; and a linear equation for densities of 4, 10, to derive equations to predict the reductions in root yield and 20 plants where Y = 4.30 + 1.81X, with r2 = 0.884. caused by specific densities of kochia in mixed weed popu- lations and (b) show that these reductions in root yield can The relation between percentage reduction in root yield be predicted by simply knowing the density of kochia pres- and kochia density as predicted by the three equations is ent in a given area. shown in Figure 1. Of the three equations, the linear equa- tion was the most accurate in predicting the reductions in METHODS yield for kochia densities of 20 plants or less per 30.5 m To determine whether we could predict the reduction of row (Figure 2). However, at these densities the pre- in yield (Y) caused by a specific density of kochia (X), dicted reductions in yield were similar with all three polynomial regression equations were derived by regress- equations (Table 1). For example, where kochia densities ing kochia densities of 4, 10, 20, 50, and 100 plants per ranged from 0.2 to 16.5 plants per 30.5 m of row in 30 30.5 m of row on sugarbeet root yield. These densities were weed-control systems, the predicted yield reductions, using replicated four times over a 2-year period in a random- the linear, quadratic, and cubic equations, were within 5% ized complete-block design (7). of the actual yield reductions for 28, 24, and 24 of these To test these polynomial regression equations, we used systems, respectively. data from several known weed-control systems that had At densities of more than 20 plants per 30.5 m of row, reduced the stand of kochia from about 1 to 99%. The reductions in yield could be predicted better with either the quadratic or cubic equations (Table 1) than with the other major weed species present in these systems was linear equation. 1Received for publication May 7, 1973. Cooperative investiga- DISCUSSION tions of the Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr. and the Colorado State Univ. Exp. Sta. Published with the approval of the Director We have shown that the reductions in root yield of of the Colorado State Univ. Exp. Sta. as Scientific Series Paper No. 1838. sugarbeets caused by kochia competition can be predicted 2lant Physiol., Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr., Colorado best with a linear equation when kochia densities are less State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80521. than 20 plants per 30.5 m of row. This is the density level Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 565 Source: https://wwvw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 WEED S CIENCE 100 50 Y = 4.30 + 1.81X LINEAR 80 CUBIC 40 60 30 40 20 QUADRATIC 20 o o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 NUMBER OF KOCHIA PLANTS PER 30.5 m OF ROW Figure 1. Relation between kochia density and root yield as pre- dicted by the linear, quadratic, and cubic equations. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 expected in commercial fields after thinning. An obvious restriction in using the linear equation is when the kochia NUMBER OF KOCHIA PLANTS PER 30.5 m OF ROW density approaches zero, because at zero the Y intercept Figure 2. Relation between kochia density and root yield as pre- is 4.30. However, in testing this equation against eight dicted by the linear equation. The 95% confidence intervals are weed-control where the from 0.2 to 0.9 systems plants per 30.5 m kochia of row, densities the predicted ranged indicated in the shaded area on each side of the regression line. yield reductions were within 6% of the actual yield re- ductions. The redroot pigweed densities ranged from 0.6 to 26 Predicting the reductions in root yield by simply know- plants per 30.5 m of row, with a mean of 6.8. At the ing the density of kochia in a given area increases the use- higher densities, reductions in root yield might be ex- fulness of this method for assessing losses in sugarbeets. pected, because root yields have been reduced by 17% In some crop-weed associations, yield reductions are better where 12.5 redroot pigweed plants per 30.5 m of row correlated with weight of weeds than with weed density competed all season with sugarbeets (1). These densities (4, 6). In other crop-weed associations, crop losses could apparently did not affect our predictions, because most of be estimated by the use of an "index of competition", but the redroot pigweed plants emerged too late in the season expected weed-free yield has to be known (3). to develop their full competitive potential. Previous weed- Our success in predicting within 5% of the actual yield competition studies in sugarbeets have shown that the later reductions for most weed-control systems depended on an annual weed emerges, the less competitive it is (2). minimizing weed competition during the entire growing Although these redroot pigweed densities did not affect season. Annual grasses were controlled completely with our predictions, other broadleaf weeds, such as common herbicides. Although kochia and some redroot pigweed lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) and common sun- seedlings emerged with the crop, most redroot pigweed flower (Helianthus annuus L.), could. These annual broad- plants present at harvest had emerged after thinning in leaf weeds emerge with, or shortly after, the crop, are tall, those systems where the sugarbeet stand was not uniform. produce dense shade, and are more competitive than those Table 1. Actual and predicted yield reductions of sugarbeet roots as affected by specific densities of kochia, which competed all season under different weed-control systems. Actual Predicted yield reductions Kochia Year Weed-control systems yield plants reduction Linear Quadratic Cubic (number/30.5 m of row) (%) (%) (%) (%) 1969 Cycloate R 1913-phenmedipham 0.4 2.9 5.0 2.8 2.0 Cycloate + R 11913-phenmedipham 0.6 5.7 5.4 3.3 2.6 1970 'ycloate-phenmedipham-EPTC 1.1 8.1 6.3 4.4 3.8 1971 1972 Cycloate-phenmedipham 3.6 9.1 10.8 10.1 9.9 1969 Cycloate-phenmedipham 6.2 15.8 15.5 15.7 15.8 16.5 30.1 34.2 34.8 34.9 1971 Cycloate 1971 Cycloate 27.9 43.1 54.8 50.1 49.2 43.3 49.6 82.7 61.4 60.1 1969 Delachlor-phenmedipham-pyrazon Delachlor 55.4 68.7 104.6 62.5 64.2 1969 Chemical names of herbicides: R 11913 is 3'-hydroxypropionanilide isopropylcarbamate; cycloate is S-ethylN-ethylthiocyclohexanecarbamate; delachlor is 2-chloro-N-(isobutoxymethyl)-2',6'-acetoxylidide; EPTC is S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate; phenmedipham is methyl m-hyhroxycarbanilate m-methylcarbanilate; and pyrazon is.5-amino-4-chloro-2-phenyl-3(2H)-pyridazinone. Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 566 Source: :https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 SCHWEIZER : SUGARBEET ROOT LOSSES that are short. Because common lambsquarters and com- LITERATURE CITED mon sunflower are similar to kochia in their competitive 1. BRIMHALL, P. B., E. W. CHAMBERLAIN, and H. P. ALLEY. abilities, similar polynomial regression equations could be 1965. Competition of annual weeds and sugarbeets. Weeds derived for these species. 13:33-35. Depending on the initial infestation of kochia, we have 2. DAWSON, J. H. 1965. Competition between irrigated sugar- observed 0.3 to 6.2 plants per 30.5 m of row in our most beets and annual weeds. Weeds 13:245-249. selective weed-control systems before thinning. The cur- 3. DEW, D. A. 1972. An index of competition for estimating rent trend is to thin all sugarbeets with electronic ma- crop loss due to weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 52:921-927. chines. Since the machines cannot distinguish between 4. NODA, K., K. OzAWA, and K. IBARAKI. 1968. Studies on the damage of rice plants due to weed competition (effect of weed and sugarbeet plants, weeds remain in the row after barnyardgrass competition on growth, yield, and some eco- thinning. This means a grower needs to know whether it physiological aspects of rice plants). Bull. Kyushu Agr. will be economical to remove those plants that remain. Exp. Sta. 13:345-367. For these growers the linear equation will be useful in 5. SCHWEIZER, E. E. and J. H. DAWSON. 1970. Weed control determining whether they can justify the use of hand labor methods, losses and costs due to weeds, and benefits of to remove the kochia plants that remain after thinning. weed control in sugarbeets. Pages 344-356 in FAO Inter- national Conference on Weed Control. Weed Sci. Soc. For example, if two kochia plants remain per 30.5 m of Amer., Urbana, III. row after thinning, the predicted reduction in root yield 6. THURLOW, D. L. and G. A. BUCHANAN. 1972. Competition would be 7.9%. The decision to remove these plants with of sicklepod with soybeans. Weed Sci. 20:379-384. a hoe would depend on the difference between the ex- 7. WEATHERSPOON, D. M. and E. E. SCHWEIZER. 1971. Compe- pected loss in yield and the established wage scale for tition between sugarbeets and five densities of kochia. hand labor. In 1971 growers had to pay a minimum of Weed Sci. 19:125-128. $27.18 per hectare to remove weeds with a hoe after 8. ZAKHARENKO, V. A. 1968. Investigating the competitive thinning, and 7.9% of an average 42.5 tons/ha yield for ability of weeds and crop plants in relation to herbicide application. Khimiya sell Khoz. 6:447-452. (Taken from our Loveland district was valued at $58.93. Thus, it would Weed Abstr. 18:205.1969). have paid to remove the weeds. Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 567 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 PURCHASED BY THE USDA FOR OFFICIAL USE Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE CROPS RESEARCH LABORATORY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 July 10, 1973 Mr. Larry L. McGhee, Editor Upbeet Magazine The Great Western Sugar Company P.O. Box 5308T. A. Denver, Colorado 80217 Dear Mr. McGhee: Your company plays a vital role in disseminating useful research information to your growers through your popular publication. Our group at Fort Collins is part of the total sugarbeet research endeavor in the USA. In general, we publish most of our research results in professional journals. We know that research published in professional journals is often quite technical. None-the-less, we feel as editor of your company's magazine you would be interested in receiving reprints of published information from our group. At least, in this way, we can keep you abreast of what we are doing in sugarbeet production in Colorado. We have placed your name on our mailing list for reprints of cur- rent information. We would appreciate any comments you may have on this idea, and also would like to know if we have contacted the right person in your company. Sincerely, E. E. Schweizer Plant Physiologist Enclosures Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228

what is the injury number given for Ro-Neet ?

khnk0226

khnk0226_p4, khnk0226_p5, khnk0226_p6, khnk0226_p7, khnk0226_p8, khnk0226_p9, khnk0226_p10, khnk0226_p11

11

seed technology by Lloyd Crook Dr. Alvin W. Erichsen Dr. Akio Suzuki Dr. Robert K. Oldemeyer Lloyd Crook Plant Spacing Manager Seed Processing and Improvement Recommendations Crook, originally from Lewistown, Montana, Planting sugarbeets to final stand offers earned his B.S. Degree in Agricultural the most inexpensive and labor Education at Montana State University in saving solution to the problem of mech- 1960. After that, he studied for his Master's anizing the crop. For this reason, Degree and taught vocational agriculture studies were conducted in Ohio from at Joliet, Montana. 1969 to 1971 and in Colorado, Kansas, In 1962, Lloyd joined Great Western as Crook Erichsen Nebraska and Wyoming in 1972 to agriculturist. Duties in that capacity were at determine the feasibility of this system. Scottsbluff, Nebraska and then Sterling, Colorado. He joined the Mono-Hy Seed Divi- 1 From results obtained through the sion in 1973. above tests plus expanding grower inter- est and successes, further studies were made in 1973 in Nebraska and Dr. Alvin W. Erichsen Kansas. Senior Plant Breeder Erichsen, originally from South Dakota, Two years data from 16 locations earned his B.S. Degree in Agronomy at South indicate that planting to stand can give Dakota State University where he Suzuki Oldemeyer the grower satisfactory yields and completed graduate studies in cytogenetics returns compared to hand blocked beets and plant breeding and was awarded a Center. Currently he is involved with develop- if he will plan and execute the Ph.D. in 1962. ment of Mono-Hy varieties and in the program carefully. establishment of an efficient data processing During postdoctoral fellowship work at system at the research center. 1. Space seed at 4-6 inch intervals, the University of Illinois he produced and depending on soil and climate condi- worked with trisomics in sorghum and Dr. Robert K. Oldemeyer tions. Do not space seed over 6 interspecific hybrids in the genus Glycine. Manager In 1963 he joined Great Western as a inches apart. Variety Development plant breeder. Current responsibilities involve 2. Place special emphasis on the care GW's sugarbeet breeding program. Bob Oldemeyer hails from a sugarbeet farm and operation of the planter to insure near Brush, Colorado. He graduated accurate spacing. from Colorado State University in 1947 with 3. Develop a thorough herbicide Dr. Akio Suzuki a B.S. Degree in Agronomy. After program as weeds can defeat the Plant Breeder graduating he served with the United States labor-saving purpose of space planting. After earning his Bachelor's Degree in Army in World War II. 4. Irrigate for emergence if rainfall is Agronomy from Hokkaido University in limited. Japan (1961), Suzuki began his career at the In 1950 after receiving his Masters and Ph.D. National Institute of Genetics in Japan. Degree in Plant Genetics and Plant As a research associate, he conducted basic Pathology from the University of Wisconsin, Conclusions and Observations genetic studies of rice. In 1963 he came he joined Great Western as a plant Presented in the following table are the to the U.S. as a graduate student, and breeder. Bob shared responsibilities in devel- average results at 14 locations where majored in genetics at North Carolina State opment of GW Monogerm varieties. He beets were spaced 2 inches apart and also helped initiate and develop the GW University. hand blocked and also planted at 4, 6, hybrid sugarbeet program. Seed handling, and 8 inch intervals with no stand adjust- Following his graduation with a Ph.D. Degree processing and a purchasing system of GW ment employed. in 1968, he joined the plant breeding staff was instituted while Oldemeyer served at Great Western's Agricultural Research as Seed Production and Processing Manager in 1971-72. He is now involved with developing varieties for distribution wherever beets are grown globally. 4 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/khnk0226 When planting pellets we should Plant Spacing Results - 1972-1973 consider the following factors: 14 Locations - Nebraska, Kansas, Wyoming, and Colorado 1. Due to better spacing, the seeding rate can be reduced in most cases by Percent 1 or 2 seeds per foot. Treatment Tons/A Sugar Purity Sugar/A 2. If more than 5 seeds per foot are planted, pellets will not be of much Hand Blocked 20.1 15.1 92.6 5151 benefit. 4" Seed Spacing 18.0* 15.1 92.5 4824* 3. At 4 or 5 seeds per foot, pelleted seed 6" Seed Spacing 18.9 14.9 92.2 4787 will enhance electronic thinner 8" Seed Spacing 18.7* 15.0 92.5 4787* operation by reducing the number of LSD .05 1.21 .27 .41 306 double plants. 4. Pellets offer the best possible seed *Significantly below hand blocked beets placement when space planting to final stand with 2 to 3 seeds per foot. 5. For optimum results with pelleted Hand blocked beets yielded .4 to 2.1 Pelleted Seed seed, the planter must be in top tons more than space planted beets. Recommendations condition and a baffle should be used Sugar content and purity was statistically to avoid excess weight on the rotating equal to hand blocked beets at the Pelleted seed is very uniform in shape seed plate which can cause grinding. 4, 6 and 8 inch spacing. Recoverable and size and will plant more precisely sugar per acre was significantly lower than the hand blocked beets on all than bare seed. The heavier weight of pelleted seed also enhances even space planted treatments. Average beet emergence for all tests was 57.5%. spacing which decreases double plants and skips. Concern that pellets need Conclusions and Observations One test had only 26.4% emergence and two tests were above 75% with large amounts of germination moisture The average emergence of bare and seems exaggerated with the new the average range being 50-75%. pelleted seed from 17 tests in 1972 and 8 small size which has a very thin coating. tests in 1973 are presented below: Summary Considering labor costs and the close Percent Emergence range of yields in space planted Treatment Mont. Wyo. Nebr. Kans. Colo. Ohio Aver. versus hand blocked beets, it would appear that net income would be about No. 1 Bare Seed 52.6 74.5 72.6 49.1 68.4 68.7 64.3 the same with either method. Germain's Pellet 55.4 71.4 69.6 49.9 64.4 70.7 63.6 Since emergence may vary by as much Asgrow Pellet 53.7 67.8 74.1 50.4 64.4 63.9 62.4 as 50%, enough seed must be planted to assure a profitable plant population Differences that exist at a location are not significant. over this range. The ability and determination of the grower and local soil and moisture conditions are Summary all factors to weigh carefully when Two years of emergence testing indicate considering planting to seed. that pelleted seed does not differ much from bare seed in this respect. With increasing emphasis being placed on precision planting, pelleted seed offers some definite advantages over bare seed and is worthy of serious consideration. 5 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/khnk0226 herbicides by Dr. Edward F. Sullivan Herbicide recommendations remain Betanal 475 - Temporary labels exist essentially the same as those given for on Betanal 475 and Betanal tank 1973 and are given in detail in the 1974 mix (1:1 ratio; Betanal + Betanal Growers Guide. Especially recommend- 475) for 1974. Fortunately, twice ed is increased usage of the soil- as much Betanal 475 will be available applied postplant herbicides Eptam and for 1974 as in 1973. Results from Treflan and for postemergence Betanal 475 were very good in 1973, application, Betanal 475. especially for control of redroot pigweed, common lambsquarters, Results show consistently reliable and mustard and shepherd's purse. The effective weed control occurs when Betanal tank mix was more using preplant/postplant herbicide effective mainly because of improved applications. A single preplant applica- control of kochia and wild buck- tion of Ro-Neet, Pre-Beta or Pyramin wheat. Control of foxtail species and + Herbicide 283 is not adequate barnyardgrass is poor with both for season-long weed control in most Betanal herbicides. However, addition fields. of Dalapon improves effectiveness when grassy weeds predominate. Crop injury may result from a Dalapon + Betanal mixture when stress conditions prevail. Consequently, care Dr. Edward F. Sullivan should be exercised with this Senior Agronomist mixture. Sullivan, originally from Scarborough, Maine, earned a Bachelor's Degree in Agronomy at the University of Maine in 1949. His Ph.D. Degree in Agronomy was from Cornell University in 1953. He served as assistant professor at the University of Illinois; also Pennsylvania State University. As senior agronomist, Sullivan's extensive responsibilities involve domestic as well as foreign associations. His work is well known throughout the world for his great contributions to weed control in sugarbeets. 6 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/khnk0226 Afternoon and evening spraying helps Temporary labels on Nortron and Summary and Conclusions to prevent Betanal injury when H-22234 are expected for 1974. Every In 1973, sixty-seven separate experiments temperatures during the day are effort is being expended to make consisting of 2 to 17 treatments each above 85° F. Also, avoid spraying, if these herbicides available to growers were conducted at five research sites. possible, when the crop is under as soon as possible. Longmont, Scottsbluff, Goodland, stress from preplant herbicide, Lovell and Billings were the locations. drought, freeze, disease, insect injury Treflan Label Change - The label now Several herbicide combinations or close cultivation. On hot days, reads - apply Treflan as a broadcast, revealed immediate promise. Of these, close cultivation appears to make overtop spray when plants are best performances were obtained seedling beets susceptible to between two and six inches tall. from Nortron, H-22234 and Betanal tank excessive damage from Betanal Exposed beet roots should be covered mix (SN-503). Sequential applications herbicides. with soil prior to Treflan application consisting of preplant/postplant to reduce possibility of girdling. herbicides including Nortron/Nortror + Experimental Herbicides - Nortron Care should be taken that Betanal 503 demonstrated superior (NC-8438) and H-22234 have given incorporation machinery does not effectiveness and residual weed control. consistently good preplant weed damage the sugarbeet toproot. The control since 1970. Nortron is very label phrase "after blocking effective for control of kochia, but is and thinning" has been deleted. weak on lambsquarters. H-22234 Granular Treflan is not labeled for controls redroot pigweed, foxtail use on sugarbeets. Use Treflan species and barnyardgrass better than at the 0.5 lb/A dose on beets, unless Ro-Neet. experience has shown that the 0.75 lb/A dose can be tolerated. Summary of preplant herbicides at Longmont, Scottsbluff, and Goodland, 1970-73 Beets Weeds Dose Injury Stand Pigweed Kochia Lambs. Brdlv. Grass Total Treatment lb/A (Scores and seedling counts as % of untreated check) Nortron 2.2 11 110 96 64 72 81 96 86 H-22234 4.5 10 100 97 46 61 74 94 80 Ro-Neet 5.5 11 103 88 24 75 66 83 71 Pyramin + Nortron 2.5 + -2.5 10 131 99 79 81 92 97 94 Nortron + H-22234 2.1 +2.1 9 113 96 70 76 88 97 91 Ro-Neet + Nortron 2.2 + 2.2 12 109 98 60 97 83 96 86 Pyramin + H-22234 4.1 +4.1 5 105 99 40 100 82 94 86 7 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/khnk0226 nematodes & insecticides by Dr. Y. Mok Yun Nematodes 2. Apply using soil incorporation or place at 2 to 4 inches deep. Cover- Both root-knot and cyst nematodes can ing or incorporation may be be effectively controlled with fumigants accomplished with Spring tines, or granular nematicides. Recom- power incorporation, Russ-Ken, mendations for 1974 are: Hawkins Shoes or similar tools. 3. Planting should follow immediately Fumigants - Telone, D-D after Temik application. and Vidden-D 1. Apply in spring or fall. Fall Soil samples for nematode analysis fumigation generally produces best should be sent to GW Grower Service results. However, spring applica- Centers or the Agricultural Research tion of fumigants can be very Center at Longmont; and if the effective under good soil and tests show a viable cyst count of 10 or weather conditions. more per pound of soil, treatment 2. Before application, fields should is vitally necessary. be reasonably well worked, free from clods and stalks or stubble. Conclusions and Observations 3. Fumigant should be applied at the Field tests in 1973 generally confirm rate of 15 to 20 gallons per acre previous evaluations that establish fumi- with penetration release approxi- gant superiority when compared mately 12 to 14 inches deep. Dr. Y. Mok Yun with granular Temik. Exceptions noted 4. Immediately following application in favor of Temik are confined to heavy Entomologist the soil surface should be sealed soils that were moist at the time of Originally from Korea, Yun came to the by either tractor tires, rollers, treatment. Concerning Temik, improved United States where he earned his B.S. cultipackers or similar means. application procedures seem necessary Degree in Horticulture and Entomology from Roller or packers are best. to achieve desired consistency of Washington State University and Oregon State University respectively. He completed 5. Planting should be delayed 3 to 5 performance. Combination controls of graduate studies for his Masters and Ph.D. days after fumigant application. fumigant + granular or granular + Degree in Entomology at Michigan State 6. In general, fumigants are less granular (Temik + Furadan) were not University in Lansing. In Michigan, effective on wet or heavy clay soils. more effective than singular applications Yun served as one of the original researchers of either Telone or Temik. Field working on biology, ecology and control Granular Nematicide - Temik 10G research established the following of the cereal leaf beetle first discovered in 1. Apply a 4 to 7 inch wide band observations: Michigan in 1962. spaced for planting in its center. Upon completion of studies at Michigan State University, he joined Great Western's research staff as entomologist. He is Subject Fumigant Temik currently responsible for research projects on insect, nematode and other disease problems. Wet soil Ineffective Effective if not too wet Lt. & Med. Soils More effective Least effective Heavy soils Ineffective Effective Fall application Recommended Not recommended Grower application Less easy Easy Soil moisture loss* Low High Moisture required None Yes for activation Approx. Cost $40/acre $40/acre *After application 8 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/khnk0226 I Extensive nematicide control studies Insecticides Successful postemergence applications involved 23 small plots and 12 require timely applications and strip tests in Colorado, Nebraska and Major research efforts were concerned adequate moisture for activation- Wyoming. Telone effectiveness was with studies on root maggot, flea usually irrigation. dramatically demonstrated in tests at beetle larvae and webworms. Scottsbluff, Nebraska. A new For extremely heavy maggot infestations, compound, Dow-3855 was very effective Sugarbeet Root Maggots sequential insecticide applications even at low application rates of For 1974, registered insecticides for give better control. The economics of 6 gallons per acre. control of sugarbeet root maggot are: sequential applications are only favorable when very heavy infestations Repeated evaluations confirm Dyfonate and Temik-Most effective are present. secondary benefits from fumigation for Diazinon and Thimet-Effective crops following beets. For example, Dasanit and Vapotox*-Least effective Recommendations include the following: in some areas dry bean yields increased *Colorado only 3.9 bushels per acre. Similarly, Planting time pinto bean yields went up seven bushels In Wyoming, 15 lbs/A of Temik 10G or application Postemergence per acre. Without question, primary 12.5-15 lbs/A of Dyfonate 10G are Dyfonate 10G + Temik 10G benefits of fumigation for increased recommended immediately preceding 12.5-15 lbs/acre - 15 lbs/acre sugarbeet yields almost always returns planting in 4 to 5 inch bands with extra net profits. But when you incorporation by spring-tines, Russ-Ken, Dyfonate 10G + Diazinon 14G consider secondary benefits from the or power incorporators. 12.5-15 lbs/acre - 11 lbs/acre same fumigation, the case is quite Temik 10G + Diazinon 14G clear. Fumigate when yields are low or Single applications of either Dyfonate 15 lbs/acre - 11 lbs/acre declining. If questionable, take or Temik have given very satisfactory soil samples. control. In Montana, 15 lbs/A of Temik 10G or Extensive testing revealed better control 12.5-15 lbs/A of Dyfonate 10G are In 1973, extensive analysis for possible Temik residues was effected. Root in the Powell area when using recommended for application in a 4 to 5 and foliage samples were tested from 22 Dyfonate. However, band application of inch band with power incorporation locations where application rates Temik was effective in the Heart or with Russ-Ken or spring tine incorpor- Mountain area. Temik did not give ation immediately before planting. had been as high as 40 lbs. per acre. Importantly, none of the samples tested consistently satisfactory results in the In Colorado, 15 lbs/A of Temik 10G just before harvesting contained Powell-Lovell area. 12.5-15 lbs/A of Dyfonate 10G or 11-14 excessive Temik residues. Side-injection applications of Dyfonate lbs/A of Diazinon 14G are recommend- and Temik were extensively tested ed applied as in Montana. and found to be very effective. In spite of very effective results, it should be noted that the side-injection technique Flea Beetle Larvae has not yet been approved for Registered insecticides do not exist commercial use although efforts are specifically for controlling flea beetle being made to have it labelled in time for larvae. However, Dyfonate 10G and spring planting. Diazinon 14G have given satisfactory control when applied at planting time Although post-emergence applications and incorporated 2 inches deep. alone are less effective than planting Control of flea beetle larvae is a side time treatments, 15 lbs/A of Temik 10G benefit when these insecticides are used or 11-14 lbs/A of Diazinon 14G applied for root maggot control. in a 4 to 5 inch band over the row with light soil incorporation when flies first appear is beneficial. 9 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/khnk0226 Webworms applied either with a Russ-Ken or Observations Foliar application of 21 lbs/A of Dylox side-injection. Temik was best when An experimental compound, AC-92100 80SP, 2 lbs/A of Sevin 80S or 1.5 pts/A applied side-injection. In the side- was tested quite extensively in of Parathion 4C is recommended injection method, the chemical is Wyoming and Colorado with excellent when small worms first appear. placed below the seed and on the side results. It has been named Counter, (Parathion applied only by adjacent to the irrigated row. The side- and should be available after 1974. licensed operators) injection application at planting time requires irrigation to be effective. Since Another compound, Altosid, which is of Conclusions many Colorado and Montana growers the hormone type, gave reasonable Dyfonate, a registered insecticide, gave do not normally irrigate early, the side- maggot control in the first year of testing superior control of sugarbeet root injection method will be used mostly by in 1973. For example, adult fly maggot in extensive strip trials and small Wyoming growers. emergence was reduced by 70%. plot tests. There was no evidence of The recommendations given result from phytotoxicity. It was most effective when work in the Powell area in 83 strip tests consisting of 6 to 12 rows each conducted on 64 different farms. Sugarbeet Root Maggot Insecticide Strip Trial Powell, Wyoming The table at left shows root damage ratings and root yields from 12 strip Damage trials at Powell. Each field received Dosage Application Rating3 Root Wt. No. different combinations. Insecticide Lb/A Method¹ Time2 (1-5) Tons/A Locations The difference in root yield between Temik 15 PI AP 1.80 18.5 2 untreated check and best treatment in Dyfonate 15 PI AP 2.00 17.9 1 each location was from 2.2 to 9.1 tons Temik 15 SI AP 1.88 17.8 7 per acre with an average of 4.3 tons Diazinon 11 SI AP 1.65 21.0 3 per acre increase in the treated plots. Dyfonate 15 SI AP 1.66 18.5 8 Diazinon 14 RK AP 1.95 18.3 1 In addition to the extensive strip trials, Dyfonate 15 RK AP 1.50 18.4 2 additional research was conducted Diazinon 14 PI AP on 24 replicated small plots in Wyoming + Dyfonate 15 ST PO 1.90 21.3 1 and Colorado. Control results and Dyfonate 10 SI AP comparisons were more evident in + Diazinon 11 ST PO 1.51 22.3 6 Wyoming since the Colorado infestation Dyfonate 10 SI AP was very minimal in 1973. + Dyfonate 15 ST PO 1.49 23.0 4 Dyfonate 10 SI AP The table at right shows results of + Thimet 10 ST PO 1.65 22.1 2 insecticide placement studies conducted Dyfonate 10 SI AP in Powell, Wyoming. Both root FFuradan 15 ST PO 2.00 24.9 1 damage ratings made in July and root Temik 15 ST PO 1.60 20.8 1 yields are shown. Dyfonate 15 ST PO 1.90 19.1 1 Check - - - 3.63 16.5 12 Dyfonate and Temik were the two best materials in this test. Temik treated 1 PI = Power incorporation, SI = Side injection, RK = Russ-Ken incorporation, beets showed more maggot damage ST = Spring tines in July, but they yielded more at harvest 2 AP 1 At planting, PO = Postemergence time. 3 Root damage rating scale of 1 to 5 was used; 1 = no damage, 5 - severe damage 10 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/khnk0226 Sugarbeet Root Maggot Insecticide Placement Study Powell, Wyoming Preplant¹ Postemergence² Chemical PI RK SI FD Mean ST BCD SI Mean PI&ST3 Root Damage Rating (1-5)4 Dyfonate 1.88 1.30 2.35 - 1.85 1.93 1.48 2.88 2.09 Temik 2.70 2.20 1.90 2.58 2.25 2.25 1.88 2.55 2.23 Diazinon 2.95 2.80 3.23 3.03 3.00 2.80 2.38 2.88 2.68 Thimet - - - - - 2.08 1.98 2.80 2.29 Furadan 2.98 - - - - 2.53 - - - Dyfo. + Diaz. 1.45 Temik + Diaz. 2.03 Diaz. + Diaz. 2.48 Mean 2.61 2.10 2.49 2.33 1.91 2.76 Check 3.32 Yield (Tons/A) Dyfonate 15.5 16.3 15.3 - 15.7 14.5 15.4 15.0 15.0 Temik 15.6 16.4 17.2: 15.2 16.4 15.9 15.5 15.0 15.5 Diazinon 13.0 15.1 13.8 13.9 14.0 14.6 15.0 15.4 15.5 Thimet - - - - - 15.7 15.3 15.1 15.4 Furadan 16.2 - - - - 15.1 - - - Dyfo. + Diaz. 15.4 Temik + Diaz. 16.7 Diaz. + Diaz. 14.2 Mean 14.7 15.9 15.4 15.2 15.3 15.1 14.4 Check 1 PI = Power incorporation, RK = Russ-Ken incorporation, SI Side injection, FD = In front of planter disks 2 ST Spring tines, BCD - Behind cultivator disks, SI - Side injection 3 Power incorporation at planting plus spring tine postemergence 4 Root damage rating scale of 1 to 5 was used; 1 = no damage, 5 = severe damage Russ-Ken and side injection methods Very little crop damage resulted from were generally more effective than power flea beetle larvae or webworms in incorporation. Temik was particularly 1973. And the probability of serious 1974 effective when side injected. One activity is negligible. It is significant application made at planting time was that controls for maggots automatically as effective as two applications, one at reduce webworm and flea beetle planting time and the second, larvae populations. postemergence. 11 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/khnk0226

What is the parameter given in x-axis of the graph?

mmlh0227

mmlh0227_p0, mmlh0227_p1, mmlh0227_p2, mmlh0227_p3, mmlh0227_p4, mmlh0227_p5, mmlh0227_p6, mmlh0227_p7, mmlh0227_p8, mmlh0227_p9, mmlh0227_p10, mmlh0227_p11

Retention time in hours, retention time in hours

m Dellars A DTODY or AMD 1038 OF GA IN THE JOBNSTOWN PLANT A Progrese Report Le Sybrandt and D. A. Muller Procass Development Laboratory Lovalané, Colorado April 6, 1953 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 à STUDY or HYDROLYSIS AND LOSS OF as IN tix JOHNUTOWN PLANT A Progress Report L. Sybrandt and D. A. Muller Sumary A study of hydrolysis of Glutamie Aeid at the Johnstown plant is underway. It has been found that the rata et which P.C. is converted to GA and the extent of this hydrolysis depends on temparature, time and the alkelinity of the solution. The exparimental results ehow that saccharate hydrolyzes faster than raw waste water when retained under the aame condi- tions. From the data obtained it appesrs that four hours retention is nocess- ary to provids maximum hydrolysis of saccharate. Somewhat longer time is needed to provide hydrolysis is the Moore filtrate is used. Mora conclus- ive information will be gathered in the near future. In addition to hydrolysis, this report deals with losses of GA, i.o. GA that is actually destroyed not merely converted to P.C. This loss varies from 3.8 percent to 9.6 peresnt of the total GA. Additional work on this subject is contemplated to detarmine the factors involved in this des- truction and if possible to remedy this. Introduction Previous studies of cazbonated waste water at Johnstown have shown that, (1) the parcent hydrolysis of GA is erratie and (2) a loas of GA by destruction oecurs. A study of the barium process was proposed to diseovor the sourcas of these veriations and, if possible, to increase and stabilize the level of 04 in the carbonated waste water. This is a brief summary of the work to date. Experisental and Results In proliminary tests at the precipitation station the third tank was sampled periodically during an eight hour interval. The rate of flow in the tanke wes determined by molasses soale tank figures and par- cent BaO in the hydrate and saccharate. The observed fluctuation in hyd- rolysis seemed to be associated with the length of retention of the seccharate in the precipitation tanks. Further atudy of this relationship necessitated a more exact means of determining retention times. Counters were placed on the barium hydrate and molasses proportioners. Sangling was done during extended periods of constant speed operation in the factory to minimise the effect of baek mixing of the saecharate. In spite of these precautions, the calculated retention time is subject to error which in- creasse throughout the process. Because of uncertainty in calculated retention time; labor- atory tests were made in which this time could be precisely controlled. Samples of the firet precipitation tank overflow were rotained in a fifty gallon drum of hot water at 70 - 75°C. These samples consisted of raw Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 waste water from the ancoharate, diluted to 18 RDS, and the sagobarate its.if. They were kapt in this hot water bath in ten liter glass bottles 4 to 6 hours and sumpled periodically. In svery case the saccherata hyd- rolysed faster than the waste water, as shown in Table and Figure I. Rew waste water was also retained at 60°C. which approximates the average temparature of rew waste water in the factory. Hydrolyeis was markedly less in this case than in the waste water hold at 75°C. See Table and Figure I. Beneh soale dats dosa not necessarily duplicate fectory results. bence, further sangling of the Johnstown procese was nocessary. This subsecuent sampling of the raw wusta water at the Moors station has confirmed that the percent hydrolysis of GA is associated with the re- tention time and that additional retention ie needed to insure consisteatly high hyérolymis. See Table and Figure II. The bench asala work auggasted more efficient hydrelysis could be obtained in the sacchazate, due to ite higher temperature and alkalinity; and that a total of at least four hours retention was desirable. There was some doubt about the effeet that this added retention sould have on saccharate workability at the Moore station. Preliminary testa on a factory seale failed to ahow that re- tention materially affected the workability of good ssecharate. However, these teste wera of short duration and not considered conclusivo. An ex- tended test was in which no aypup was returned in order to simulate conditione at Johnstown when the GA plant is opersted, Without recyole, a better vorking seccherate could be anticApated of retention time. Workebility was studied during thrae 4 hour intervals of operation, et retention periods of 4-5, 8 hours each. The operators judged all the saccharate as good working; hones, it appears that it is both fescible and desirubla to retein zather than warte water to obtain added hydrolysis. In addition to those observations of workability, the molasses feed, first and third precipitation tank saccharate, and Meora losd ssechay- ate were mempled. There samples wera analysed for percent hydrolysis and the retention time calculated (Table III). Figure III indieates more hyã- rolysis on the slow run than on the fast run, for a given retention time. Thin suggested that anothar factor affected the rate of hydrolyeis. Tha only veriable in these two runs, that utas evident, was the rate of recyole of the In general, proportionately more saccharate is recycled on a slow run than on a fast run, due to the equipment limitations at Johnstown. Further invostigations of the effee$ of reaycle on bydrolysis is anticipated. Larger soale, batch experiments on both paccherate and waste water retention, at varioue texperaturas end alkalinity, are contemplated. It is hoped thase will onable prediction of the added retention nacessary to insure a stabilized level of hydrolysis. - Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 During this vork with the semples were taken of the esponated waste vater. There was a loss of hydrolyeis of GA upon carbonation. See Table and Figure II. Data from these samplos indieste that this less may be associated with the level of hydrolysis. It is folt that pH and temperature of carbonation may play a part. Further work will be done on this source of losa in hydrolysis. Data from four factory runs (Table IV) indientes that thare la a lose in 04 during the barium trestment. Total 0A ie put on a Potass- 1um basie on the assumption that E remains constant throughout the process and that molasse is the only soures of K. The loss vories from 3.8 percent to 9.6 percent of the GA introduced. There sema to be no loss during earo benation in the factory. This is bas-d on the assumption that no loss of GA occurs in samples that must be in the laboratory before analysis. In Table V, the results of GA and x analysis on retained ssecharate are shown. It appeare that the grontest losa of GA oecurs in the first one to two houra, and further retention dosa not alter the level of GA apprecisbly. The factors involved in the losa of 04 are not evident from the present dato. Temperature and alktalinity are probably factoro. Addition- al data on losses will be gathered on samples retainsd primarily for the hydrolysie study. Recommandations large soale bateh retention tests of saccharsie should be mede to deternine the effect of tempazuture and alkalinity on the rate of hydrolyeis and the rate of destruction of tha GA present. Varistions in rate of reeycle should be studied to detemnina whothor the rato at which saocharste la precipitated affects the rate of hydrolysis. A study os loss of hydrolysis during carbonation should be investigeted. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 Table I EFYSCT OF RETENTION TIME AND TEMPERATURE ON HYDROLYSIS of GA IN SACCHARATE AND RAN WASTE WAT&R Rtne SDate 1953 Sample Temp. Rtn. % Hyd. Rtn. % Hyd. Rtn. % Hyd. Rtn. of Byd. Rtn. % Hyd. CC hrs. hrs. hrs. hrs. hrs. Jan. 13 Sacch. 75 0,8 79.5 1.8 89.7 Jan. 13 Sacch. 75 1.1 89.5 8.1 94.4 3.1 97.5 March 4 Sacch, 70 0.33 78.8 2.0 96.1 3.5 96.9 4.5 96.7 5,5 98.6 March 4 W. W. 70 0.33 80.0 2.0 90.8 4.0 94.0 5.5 94.7 6.85 97.5 March 10 Sacch. 75 - 68 0.25 72,9 1.25 93.5 2.25 95.3 4.25 95.8 March 10 W.W. 78 - 68 0.25 72.9 2.0 88.0 3.0 92.7 4.5 93,8 March 10 Waste H20 64 - 59 0.25 72,9 2.5 80.6 3.5 84.7 5.0 89.5 22.5 97.2 Saccharate and Waste Water are as nearly identical as possible. Waste Water was diluted to 18 RDS from ea. 23 RES Process Development Laboratory March 30, 1953 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 FIGURE / PERCENT HY DROLYSIS VS RETENTION TIME IN HOURS (BASED ON LABORATORY EXPERIMENT) 100 O o o 90 O x x 80 X RAW WASTE WATER AT 60°C RAW WASTE WATER AT 70-80°C RETAINED SACCHARATE AT 70-80°C 70 / 2 3 4 5 6 RETENTION TIME IN HOURS Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 Table II PE HYDROLYSIS OF RAW AND GARBONATED WASTE WATER IN JOENSTOWN PROCESS Vol. BaO Average Retention S Hydrolysis % Hydrolysis pH Date 1953 Tons/Hour Vol. Molasses in Hydrate Hours in Raw W.W. in Carb. W.W. Carb. W.W. Feb. 24 11.0 1.4 29.8 2.0 87.9 82.6 9.3 Feb. 25 6.3 1.27 28.8 3.6 96.2 93.7 9.5 March 9 10.5 1.26 31.3 2.2 92.0 90.0 10.0 Mareh 18 7.2 1.18 29.9 3.3 96.3 93.5 8.6 March 18 10.0 1.83 29.7 2.3 91.0 88.3 8.9 Process Development Laboratory March 30, 1953 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 FIGURE 2 PERCENT HYDROLYSIS VS RETENTION TIME IN HOURS (BASED ON JOHNSTOWN FACTORY OPERATION) 100 90 80 RAW WASTE WATER CARBONATED WASTE WATER TONS MOL. WORKED 13.0 1.0 10.0 7.2 6.0 RETENTION /N HOURS 2!0 3!0 4.0 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 Table III PERCENT HYDROLYSIS OF GA AND RETENTION TIME AT VARIOUS STATIONS Date 1953 Molasses First Precipitation Third Precipitation Moore Tank Carbonation Press Rtn. % Hyd. Rtn. % Hyd. Rtn. % Hyd. Rtn. Rtn. % Hyd. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. March 18 o 16.4 0.5 78.0 1.6 85.3 4.8 94.7 - 92.8 March 18 o 16.4 0,5 82.8 1.6 95.6 3.3 95.9 -- 94.1 3.3 96,2 94.1 March 18 - 0.5 84.6 1.4 91.8 -- - March 18 o 14.8 0.5 81.0 1.4 91.0 3.3 97.6 -- - March 18 o 14.8 0,3 75.6 1.0 77.8 2,3 89,3 -- 86.4 March 18 o 14.8 0.3 65.2 1.0 74.3 2.3 86.2 -- 85.3 Process Development Laboratory March 30, 1953 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 FIGURE 3 PERCENT HYDROLYSIS VS RETENTION TIME IN HOURS (BASED ON JOHNSTOWN FACTORY OPERATION) 100 o 000 8 O 80 60 40 20 8 OPERATION AT/00 TONS MOLASSES PER HOUR OPERATION AT 7.2 TONS MOLASSES PER HOUR 0 2 3 4 RETENTION TIME IN HOURS Source: :https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 Table IV LOSS OF GA IN the SACCEARATE PROCESS 0A on x Lab. Carb. Lab. Card. Fact. Carb. % Loss Loss Houre Molasses W. V. from W. W. from w.W. from in Lab. in Fact. Retention Date 1953 orked 3rd Precip. Hoore Stat. Presses Carb. Carb. Time Jan. 19 36.5 35.2 - - 3.84 - 1.5 - 2.5 Feb. 24 36.4 - 32.9 33.2 9.6 8.8 2.0 Feb. 25 - -- 34.0 34.5 - --- 3.6 March 9 40.0 - 37.3 36.6 6.75 8.5 2.20 Process Development Laboratory March 30, 1953 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 Table V or RITENTION ON TOTAL GA Date 1953 Sample Temp. Rtn. GA/K Rtn. GA/E Rtn. GA/K Rtn. GA/K Rtn. GA/E hrs hrs. hrs. hrs. hrs. Teb. 20 Sacch. 75 3 32.2 4 30.5 5 31.7 6 32.4 7 38.9 W. W. 75 3 32.8 4 33.9 5 33.6 6 32.2 7 32.5 March 4 Sacch. 70 .33 37.6 2.0 37.1 3.5 37.1 4.5 37.0 5.5 36.8 W. W. 70 0.33 37.6 3.0 37.3 4.0 36.7 5.5 37.6 6.25 38.8 March 10 Sacch. 75.68 0.85 44.1 1.25 42.6 2.85 44.1 4.25 43.5 - W. W. 78-68 0.25 44.1 2.0 42.8 3.0 48.3 4.5 41.7 - - N. W. 64-59 0.25 44.1 2.5 43.1 3.5 43.0 5.0 42.5 22.5 42.7 Process Development Laboratory March 30, 1953 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227

What is the label phrase deleted?

khnk0226

khnk0226_p4, khnk0226_p5, khnk0226_p6, khnk0226_p7, khnk0226_p8, khnk0226_p9, khnk0226_p10, khnk0226_p11

after blocking and thinning, "after blocking and thinning"

seed technology by Lloyd Crook Dr. Alvin W. Erichsen Dr. Akio Suzuki Dr. Robert K. Oldemeyer Lloyd Crook Plant Spacing Manager Seed Processing and Improvement Recommendations Crook, originally from Lewistown, Montana, Planting sugarbeets to final stand offers earned his B.S. Degree in Agricultural the most inexpensive and labor Education at Montana State University in saving solution to the problem of mech- 1960. After that, he studied for his Master's anizing the crop. For this reason, Degree and taught vocational agriculture studies were conducted in Ohio from at Joliet, Montana. 1969 to 1971 and in Colorado, Kansas, In 1962, Lloyd joined Great Western as Crook Erichsen Nebraska and Wyoming in 1972 to agriculturist. Duties in that capacity were at determine the feasibility of this system. Scottsbluff, Nebraska and then Sterling, Colorado. He joined the Mono-Hy Seed Divi- 1 From results obtained through the sion in 1973. above tests plus expanding grower inter- est and successes, further studies were made in 1973 in Nebraska and Dr. Alvin W. Erichsen Kansas. Senior Plant Breeder Erichsen, originally from South Dakota, Two years data from 16 locations earned his B.S. Degree in Agronomy at South indicate that planting to stand can give Dakota State University where he Suzuki Oldemeyer the grower satisfactory yields and completed graduate studies in cytogenetics returns compared to hand blocked beets and plant breeding and was awarded a Center. Currently he is involved with develop- if he will plan and execute the Ph.D. in 1962. ment of Mono-Hy varieties and in the program carefully. establishment of an efficient data processing During postdoctoral fellowship work at system at the research center. 1. Space seed at 4-6 inch intervals, the University of Illinois he produced and depending on soil and climate condi- worked with trisomics in sorghum and Dr. Robert K. Oldemeyer tions. Do not space seed over 6 interspecific hybrids in the genus Glycine. Manager In 1963 he joined Great Western as a inches apart. Variety Development plant breeder. Current responsibilities involve 2. Place special emphasis on the care GW's sugarbeet breeding program. Bob Oldemeyer hails from a sugarbeet farm and operation of the planter to insure near Brush, Colorado. He graduated accurate spacing. from Colorado State University in 1947 with 3. Develop a thorough herbicide Dr. Akio Suzuki a B.S. Degree in Agronomy. After program as weeds can defeat the Plant Breeder graduating he served with the United States labor-saving purpose of space planting. After earning his Bachelor's Degree in Army in World War II. 4. Irrigate for emergence if rainfall is Agronomy from Hokkaido University in limited. Japan (1961), Suzuki began his career at the In 1950 after receiving his Masters and Ph.D. National Institute of Genetics in Japan. Degree in Plant Genetics and Plant As a research associate, he conducted basic Pathology from the University of Wisconsin, Conclusions and Observations genetic studies of rice. In 1963 he came he joined Great Western as a plant Presented in the following table are the to the U.S. as a graduate student, and breeder. Bob shared responsibilities in devel- average results at 14 locations where majored in genetics at North Carolina State opment of GW Monogerm varieties. He beets were spaced 2 inches apart and also helped initiate and develop the GW University. hand blocked and also planted at 4, 6, hybrid sugarbeet program. Seed handling, and 8 inch intervals with no stand adjust- Following his graduation with a Ph.D. Degree processing and a purchasing system of GW ment employed. in 1968, he joined the plant breeding staff was instituted while Oldemeyer served at Great Western's Agricultural Research as Seed Production and Processing Manager in 1971-72. He is now involved with developing varieties for distribution wherever beets are grown globally. 4 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/khnk0226 When planting pellets we should Plant Spacing Results - 1972-1973 consider the following factors: 14 Locations - Nebraska, Kansas, Wyoming, and Colorado 1. Due to better spacing, the seeding rate can be reduced in most cases by Percent 1 or 2 seeds per foot. Treatment Tons/A Sugar Purity Sugar/A 2. If more than 5 seeds per foot are planted, pellets will not be of much Hand Blocked 20.1 15.1 92.6 5151 benefit. 4" Seed Spacing 18.0* 15.1 92.5 4824* 3. At 4 or 5 seeds per foot, pelleted seed 6" Seed Spacing 18.9 14.9 92.2 4787 will enhance electronic thinner 8" Seed Spacing 18.7* 15.0 92.5 4787* operation by reducing the number of LSD .05 1.21 .27 .41 306 double plants. 4. Pellets offer the best possible seed *Significantly below hand blocked beets placement when space planting to final stand with 2 to 3 seeds per foot. 5. For optimum results with pelleted Hand blocked beets yielded .4 to 2.1 Pelleted Seed seed, the planter must be in top tons more than space planted beets. Recommendations condition and a baffle should be used Sugar content and purity was statistically to avoid excess weight on the rotating equal to hand blocked beets at the Pelleted seed is very uniform in shape seed plate which can cause grinding. 4, 6 and 8 inch spacing. Recoverable and size and will plant more precisely sugar per acre was significantly lower than the hand blocked beets on all than bare seed. The heavier weight of pelleted seed also enhances even space planted treatments. Average beet emergence for all tests was 57.5%. spacing which decreases double plants and skips. Concern that pellets need Conclusions and Observations One test had only 26.4% emergence and two tests were above 75% with large amounts of germination moisture The average emergence of bare and seems exaggerated with the new the average range being 50-75%. pelleted seed from 17 tests in 1972 and 8 small size which has a very thin coating. tests in 1973 are presented below: Summary Considering labor costs and the close Percent Emergence range of yields in space planted Treatment Mont. Wyo. Nebr. Kans. Colo. Ohio Aver. versus hand blocked beets, it would appear that net income would be about No. 1 Bare Seed 52.6 74.5 72.6 49.1 68.4 68.7 64.3 the same with either method. Germain's Pellet 55.4 71.4 69.6 49.9 64.4 70.7 63.6 Since emergence may vary by as much Asgrow Pellet 53.7 67.8 74.1 50.4 64.4 63.9 62.4 as 50%, enough seed must be planted to assure a profitable plant population Differences that exist at a location are not significant. over this range. The ability and determination of the grower and local soil and moisture conditions are Summary all factors to weigh carefully when Two years of emergence testing indicate considering planting to seed. that pelleted seed does not differ much from bare seed in this respect. With increasing emphasis being placed on precision planting, pelleted seed offers some definite advantages over bare seed and is worthy of serious consideration. 5 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/khnk0226 herbicides by Dr. Edward F. Sullivan Herbicide recommendations remain Betanal 475 - Temporary labels exist essentially the same as those given for on Betanal 475 and Betanal tank 1973 and are given in detail in the 1974 mix (1:1 ratio; Betanal + Betanal Growers Guide. Especially recommend- 475) for 1974. Fortunately, twice ed is increased usage of the soil- as much Betanal 475 will be available applied postplant herbicides Eptam and for 1974 as in 1973. Results from Treflan and for postemergence Betanal 475 were very good in 1973, application, Betanal 475. especially for control of redroot pigweed, common lambsquarters, Results show consistently reliable and mustard and shepherd's purse. The effective weed control occurs when Betanal tank mix was more using preplant/postplant herbicide effective mainly because of improved applications. A single preplant applica- control of kochia and wild buck- tion of Ro-Neet, Pre-Beta or Pyramin wheat. Control of foxtail species and + Herbicide 283 is not adequate barnyardgrass is poor with both for season-long weed control in most Betanal herbicides. However, addition fields. of Dalapon improves effectiveness when grassy weeds predominate. Crop injury may result from a Dalapon + Betanal mixture when stress conditions prevail. Consequently, care Dr. Edward F. Sullivan should be exercised with this Senior Agronomist mixture. Sullivan, originally from Scarborough, Maine, earned a Bachelor's Degree in Agronomy at the University of Maine in 1949. His Ph.D. Degree in Agronomy was from Cornell University in 1953. He served as assistant professor at the University of Illinois; also Pennsylvania State University. As senior agronomist, Sullivan's extensive responsibilities involve domestic as well as foreign associations. His work is well known throughout the world for his great contributions to weed control in sugarbeets. 6 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/khnk0226 Afternoon and evening spraying helps Temporary labels on Nortron and Summary and Conclusions to prevent Betanal injury when H-22234 are expected for 1974. Every In 1973, sixty-seven separate experiments temperatures during the day are effort is being expended to make consisting of 2 to 17 treatments each above 85° F. Also, avoid spraying, if these herbicides available to growers were conducted at five research sites. possible, when the crop is under as soon as possible. Longmont, Scottsbluff, Goodland, stress from preplant herbicide, Lovell and Billings were the locations. drought, freeze, disease, insect injury Treflan Label Change - The label now Several herbicide combinations or close cultivation. On hot days, reads - apply Treflan as a broadcast, revealed immediate promise. Of these, close cultivation appears to make overtop spray when plants are best performances were obtained seedling beets susceptible to between two and six inches tall. from Nortron, H-22234 and Betanal tank excessive damage from Betanal Exposed beet roots should be covered mix (SN-503). Sequential applications herbicides. with soil prior to Treflan application consisting of preplant/postplant to reduce possibility of girdling. herbicides including Nortron/Nortror + Experimental Herbicides - Nortron Care should be taken that Betanal 503 demonstrated superior (NC-8438) and H-22234 have given incorporation machinery does not effectiveness and residual weed control. consistently good preplant weed damage the sugarbeet toproot. The control since 1970. Nortron is very label phrase "after blocking effective for control of kochia, but is and thinning" has been deleted. weak on lambsquarters. H-22234 Granular Treflan is not labeled for controls redroot pigweed, foxtail use on sugarbeets. Use Treflan species and barnyardgrass better than at the 0.5 lb/A dose on beets, unless Ro-Neet. experience has shown that the 0.75 lb/A dose can be tolerated. Summary of preplant herbicides at Longmont, Scottsbluff, and Goodland, 1970-73 Beets Weeds Dose Injury Stand Pigweed Kochia Lambs. Brdlv. Grass Total Treatment lb/A (Scores and seedling counts as % of untreated check) Nortron 2.2 11 110 96 64 72 81 96 86 H-22234 4.5 10 100 97 46 61 74 94 80 Ro-Neet 5.5 11 103 88 24 75 66 83 71 Pyramin + Nortron 2.5 + -2.5 10 131 99 79 81 92 97 94 Nortron + H-22234 2.1 +2.1 9 113 96 70 76 88 97 91 Ro-Neet + Nortron 2.2 + 2.2 12 109 98 60 97 83 96 86 Pyramin + H-22234 4.1 +4.1 5 105 99 40 100 82 94 86 7 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/khnk0226 nematodes & insecticides by Dr. Y. Mok Yun Nematodes 2. Apply using soil incorporation or place at 2 to 4 inches deep. Cover- Both root-knot and cyst nematodes can ing or incorporation may be be effectively controlled with fumigants accomplished with Spring tines, or granular nematicides. Recom- power incorporation, Russ-Ken, mendations for 1974 are: Hawkins Shoes or similar tools. 3. Planting should follow immediately Fumigants - Telone, D-D after Temik application. and Vidden-D 1. Apply in spring or fall. Fall Soil samples for nematode analysis fumigation generally produces best should be sent to GW Grower Service results. However, spring applica- Centers or the Agricultural Research tion of fumigants can be very Center at Longmont; and if the effective under good soil and tests show a viable cyst count of 10 or weather conditions. more per pound of soil, treatment 2. Before application, fields should is vitally necessary. be reasonably well worked, free from clods and stalks or stubble. Conclusions and Observations 3. Fumigant should be applied at the Field tests in 1973 generally confirm rate of 15 to 20 gallons per acre previous evaluations that establish fumi- with penetration release approxi- gant superiority when compared mately 12 to 14 inches deep. Dr. Y. Mok Yun with granular Temik. Exceptions noted 4. Immediately following application in favor of Temik are confined to heavy Entomologist the soil surface should be sealed soils that were moist at the time of Originally from Korea, Yun came to the by either tractor tires, rollers, treatment. Concerning Temik, improved United States where he earned his B.S. cultipackers or similar means. application procedures seem necessary Degree in Horticulture and Entomology from Roller or packers are best. to achieve desired consistency of Washington State University and Oregon State University respectively. He completed 5. Planting should be delayed 3 to 5 performance. Combination controls of graduate studies for his Masters and Ph.D. days after fumigant application. fumigant + granular or granular + Degree in Entomology at Michigan State 6. In general, fumigants are less granular (Temik + Furadan) were not University in Lansing. In Michigan, effective on wet or heavy clay soils. more effective than singular applications Yun served as one of the original researchers of either Telone or Temik. Field working on biology, ecology and control Granular Nematicide - Temik 10G research established the following of the cereal leaf beetle first discovered in 1. Apply a 4 to 7 inch wide band observations: Michigan in 1962. spaced for planting in its center. Upon completion of studies at Michigan State University, he joined Great Western's research staff as entomologist. He is Subject Fumigant Temik currently responsible for research projects on insect, nematode and other disease problems. Wet soil Ineffective Effective if not too wet Lt. & Med. Soils More effective Least effective Heavy soils Ineffective Effective Fall application Recommended Not recommended Grower application Less easy Easy Soil moisture loss* Low High Moisture required None Yes for activation Approx. Cost $40/acre $40/acre *After application 8 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/khnk0226 I Extensive nematicide control studies Insecticides Successful postemergence applications involved 23 small plots and 12 require timely applications and strip tests in Colorado, Nebraska and Major research efforts were concerned adequate moisture for activation- Wyoming. Telone effectiveness was with studies on root maggot, flea usually irrigation. dramatically demonstrated in tests at beetle larvae and webworms. Scottsbluff, Nebraska. A new For extremely heavy maggot infestations, compound, Dow-3855 was very effective Sugarbeet Root Maggots sequential insecticide applications even at low application rates of For 1974, registered insecticides for give better control. The economics of 6 gallons per acre. control of sugarbeet root maggot are: sequential applications are only favorable when very heavy infestations Repeated evaluations confirm Dyfonate and Temik-Most effective are present. secondary benefits from fumigation for Diazinon and Thimet-Effective crops following beets. For example, Dasanit and Vapotox*-Least effective Recommendations include the following: in some areas dry bean yields increased *Colorado only 3.9 bushels per acre. Similarly, Planting time pinto bean yields went up seven bushels In Wyoming, 15 lbs/A of Temik 10G or application Postemergence per acre. Without question, primary 12.5-15 lbs/A of Dyfonate 10G are Dyfonate 10G + Temik 10G benefits of fumigation for increased recommended immediately preceding 12.5-15 lbs/acre - 15 lbs/acre sugarbeet yields almost always returns planting in 4 to 5 inch bands with extra net profits. But when you incorporation by spring-tines, Russ-Ken, Dyfonate 10G + Diazinon 14G consider secondary benefits from the or power incorporators. 12.5-15 lbs/acre - 11 lbs/acre same fumigation, the case is quite Temik 10G + Diazinon 14G clear. Fumigate when yields are low or Single applications of either Dyfonate 15 lbs/acre - 11 lbs/acre declining. If questionable, take or Temik have given very satisfactory soil samples. control. In Montana, 15 lbs/A of Temik 10G or Extensive testing revealed better control 12.5-15 lbs/A of Dyfonate 10G are In 1973, extensive analysis for possible Temik residues was effected. Root in the Powell area when using recommended for application in a 4 to 5 and foliage samples were tested from 22 Dyfonate. However, band application of inch band with power incorporation locations where application rates Temik was effective in the Heart or with Russ-Ken or spring tine incorpor- Mountain area. Temik did not give ation immediately before planting. had been as high as 40 lbs. per acre. Importantly, none of the samples tested consistently satisfactory results in the In Colorado, 15 lbs/A of Temik 10G just before harvesting contained Powell-Lovell area. 12.5-15 lbs/A of Dyfonate 10G or 11-14 excessive Temik residues. Side-injection applications of Dyfonate lbs/A of Diazinon 14G are recommend- and Temik were extensively tested ed applied as in Montana. and found to be very effective. In spite of very effective results, it should be noted that the side-injection technique Flea Beetle Larvae has not yet been approved for Registered insecticides do not exist commercial use although efforts are specifically for controlling flea beetle being made to have it labelled in time for larvae. However, Dyfonate 10G and spring planting. Diazinon 14G have given satisfactory control when applied at planting time Although post-emergence applications and incorporated 2 inches deep. alone are less effective than planting Control of flea beetle larvae is a side time treatments, 15 lbs/A of Temik 10G benefit when these insecticides are used or 11-14 lbs/A of Diazinon 14G applied for root maggot control. in a 4 to 5 inch band over the row with light soil incorporation when flies first appear is beneficial. 9 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/khnk0226 Webworms applied either with a Russ-Ken or Observations Foliar application of 21 lbs/A of Dylox side-injection. Temik was best when An experimental compound, AC-92100 80SP, 2 lbs/A of Sevin 80S or 1.5 pts/A applied side-injection. In the side- was tested quite extensively in of Parathion 4C is recommended injection method, the chemical is Wyoming and Colorado with excellent when small worms first appear. placed below the seed and on the side results. It has been named Counter, (Parathion applied only by adjacent to the irrigated row. The side- and should be available after 1974. licensed operators) injection application at planting time requires irrigation to be effective. Since Another compound, Altosid, which is of Conclusions many Colorado and Montana growers the hormone type, gave reasonable Dyfonate, a registered insecticide, gave do not normally irrigate early, the side- maggot control in the first year of testing superior control of sugarbeet root injection method will be used mostly by in 1973. For example, adult fly maggot in extensive strip trials and small Wyoming growers. emergence was reduced by 70%. plot tests. There was no evidence of The recommendations given result from phytotoxicity. It was most effective when work in the Powell area in 83 strip tests consisting of 6 to 12 rows each conducted on 64 different farms. Sugarbeet Root Maggot Insecticide Strip Trial Powell, Wyoming The table at left shows root damage ratings and root yields from 12 strip Damage trials at Powell. Each field received Dosage Application Rating3 Root Wt. No. different combinations. Insecticide Lb/A Method¹ Time2 (1-5) Tons/A Locations The difference in root yield between Temik 15 PI AP 1.80 18.5 2 untreated check and best treatment in Dyfonate 15 PI AP 2.00 17.9 1 each location was from 2.2 to 9.1 tons Temik 15 SI AP 1.88 17.8 7 per acre with an average of 4.3 tons Diazinon 11 SI AP 1.65 21.0 3 per acre increase in the treated plots. Dyfonate 15 SI AP 1.66 18.5 8 Diazinon 14 RK AP 1.95 18.3 1 In addition to the extensive strip trials, Dyfonate 15 RK AP 1.50 18.4 2 additional research was conducted Diazinon 14 PI AP on 24 replicated small plots in Wyoming + Dyfonate 15 ST PO 1.90 21.3 1 and Colorado. Control results and Dyfonate 10 SI AP comparisons were more evident in + Diazinon 11 ST PO 1.51 22.3 6 Wyoming since the Colorado infestation Dyfonate 10 SI AP was very minimal in 1973. + Dyfonate 15 ST PO 1.49 23.0 4 Dyfonate 10 SI AP The table at right shows results of + Thimet 10 ST PO 1.65 22.1 2 insecticide placement studies conducted Dyfonate 10 SI AP in Powell, Wyoming. Both root FFuradan 15 ST PO 2.00 24.9 1 damage ratings made in July and root Temik 15 ST PO 1.60 20.8 1 yields are shown. Dyfonate 15 ST PO 1.90 19.1 1 Check - - - 3.63 16.5 12 Dyfonate and Temik were the two best materials in this test. Temik treated 1 PI = Power incorporation, SI = Side injection, RK = Russ-Ken incorporation, beets showed more maggot damage ST = Spring tines in July, but they yielded more at harvest 2 AP 1 At planting, PO = Postemergence time. 3 Root damage rating scale of 1 to 5 was used; 1 = no damage, 5 - severe damage 10 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/khnk0226 Sugarbeet Root Maggot Insecticide Placement Study Powell, Wyoming Preplant¹ Postemergence² Chemical PI RK SI FD Mean ST BCD SI Mean PI&ST3 Root Damage Rating (1-5)4 Dyfonate 1.88 1.30 2.35 - 1.85 1.93 1.48 2.88 2.09 Temik 2.70 2.20 1.90 2.58 2.25 2.25 1.88 2.55 2.23 Diazinon 2.95 2.80 3.23 3.03 3.00 2.80 2.38 2.88 2.68 Thimet - - - - - 2.08 1.98 2.80 2.29 Furadan 2.98 - - - - 2.53 - - - Dyfo. + Diaz. 1.45 Temik + Diaz. 2.03 Diaz. + Diaz. 2.48 Mean 2.61 2.10 2.49 2.33 1.91 2.76 Check 3.32 Yield (Tons/A) Dyfonate 15.5 16.3 15.3 - 15.7 14.5 15.4 15.0 15.0 Temik 15.6 16.4 17.2: 15.2 16.4 15.9 15.5 15.0 15.5 Diazinon 13.0 15.1 13.8 13.9 14.0 14.6 15.0 15.4 15.5 Thimet - - - - - 15.7 15.3 15.1 15.4 Furadan 16.2 - - - - 15.1 - - - Dyfo. + Diaz. 15.4 Temik + Diaz. 16.7 Diaz. + Diaz. 14.2 Mean 14.7 15.9 15.4 15.2 15.3 15.1 14.4 Check 1 PI = Power incorporation, RK = Russ-Ken incorporation, SI Side injection, FD = In front of planter disks 2 ST Spring tines, BCD - Behind cultivator disks, SI - Side injection 3 Power incorporation at planting plus spring tine postemergence 4 Root damage rating scale of 1 to 5 was used; 1 = no damage, 5 = severe damage Russ-Ken and side injection methods Very little crop damage resulted from were generally more effective than power flea beetle larvae or webworms in incorporation. Temik was particularly 1973. And the probability of serious 1974 effective when side injected. One activity is negligible. It is significant application made at planting time was that controls for maggots automatically as effective as two applications, one at reduce webworm and flea beetle planting time and the second, larvae populations. postemergence. 11 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/khnk0226

What is the parameter given in y-axis of the graph?

mmlh0227

mmlh0227_p0, mmlh0227_p1, mmlh0227_p2, mmlh0227_p3, mmlh0227_p4, mmlh0227_p5, mmlh0227_p6, mmlh0227_p7, mmlh0227_p8, mmlh0227_p9, mmlh0227_p10, mmlh0227_p11

Percent Hydrolysis

m Dellars A DTODY or AMD 1038 OF GA IN THE JOBNSTOWN PLANT A Progrese Report Le Sybrandt and D. A. Muller Procass Development Laboratory Lovalané, Colorado April 6, 1953 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 à STUDY or HYDROLYSIS AND LOSS OF as IN tix JOHNUTOWN PLANT A Progress Report L. Sybrandt and D. A. Muller Sumary A study of hydrolysis of Glutamie Aeid at the Johnstown plant is underway. It has been found that the rata et which P.C. is converted to GA and the extent of this hydrolysis depends on temparature, time and the alkelinity of the solution. The exparimental results ehow that saccharate hydrolyzes faster than raw waste water when retained under the aame condi- tions. From the data obtained it appesrs that four hours retention is nocess- ary to provids maximum hydrolysis of saccharate. Somewhat longer time is needed to provide hydrolysis is the Moore filtrate is used. Mora conclus- ive information will be gathered in the near future. In addition to hydrolysis, this report deals with losses of GA, i.o. GA that is actually destroyed not merely converted to P.C. This loss varies from 3.8 percent to 9.6 peresnt of the total GA. Additional work on this subject is contemplated to detarmine the factors involved in this des- truction and if possible to remedy this. Introduction Previous studies of cazbonated waste water at Johnstown have shown that, (1) the parcent hydrolysis of GA is erratie and (2) a loas of GA by destruction oecurs. A study of the barium process was proposed to diseovor the sourcas of these veriations and, if possible, to increase and stabilize the level of 04 in the carbonated waste water. This is a brief summary of the work to date. Experisental and Results In proliminary tests at the precipitation station the third tank was sampled periodically during an eight hour interval. The rate of flow in the tanke wes determined by molasses soale tank figures and par- cent BaO in the hydrate and saccharate. The observed fluctuation in hyd- rolysis seemed to be associated with the length of retention of the seccharate in the precipitation tanks. Further atudy of this relationship necessitated a more exact means of determining retention times. Counters were placed on the barium hydrate and molasses proportioners. Sangling was done during extended periods of constant speed operation in the factory to minimise the effect of baek mixing of the saecharate. In spite of these precautions, the calculated retention time is subject to error which in- creasse throughout the process. Because of uncertainty in calculated retention time; labor- atory tests were made in which this time could be precisely controlled. Samples of the firet precipitation tank overflow were rotained in a fifty gallon drum of hot water at 70 - 75°C. These samples consisted of raw Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 waste water from the ancoharate, diluted to 18 RDS, and the sagobarate its.if. They were kapt in this hot water bath in ten liter glass bottles 4 to 6 hours and sumpled periodically. In svery case the saccherata hyd- rolysed faster than the waste water, as shown in Table and Figure I. Rew waste water was also retained at 60°C. which approximates the average temparature of rew waste water in the factory. Hydrolyeis was markedly less in this case than in the waste water hold at 75°C. See Table and Figure I. Beneh soale dats dosa not necessarily duplicate fectory results. bence, further sangling of the Johnstown procese was nocessary. This subsecuent sampling of the raw wusta water at the Moors station has confirmed that the percent hydrolysis of GA is associated with the re- tention time and that additional retention ie needed to insure consisteatly high hyérolymis. See Table and Figure II. The bench asala work auggasted more efficient hydrelysis could be obtained in the sacchazate, due to ite higher temperature and alkalinity; and that a total of at least four hours retention was desirable. There was some doubt about the effeet that this added retention sould have on saccharate workability at the Moore station. Preliminary testa on a factory seale failed to ahow that re- tention materially affected the workability of good ssecharate. However, these teste wera of short duration and not considered conclusivo. An ex- tended test was in which no aypup was returned in order to simulate conditione at Johnstown when the GA plant is opersted, Without recyole, a better vorking seccherate could be anticApated of retention time. Workebility was studied during thrae 4 hour intervals of operation, et retention periods of 4-5, 8 hours each. The operators judged all the saccharate as good working; hones, it appears that it is both fescible and desirubla to retein zather than warte water to obtain added hydrolysis. In addition to those observations of workability, the molasses feed, first and third precipitation tank saccharate, and Meora losd ssechay- ate were mempled. There samples wera analysed for percent hydrolysis and the retention time calculated (Table III). Figure III indieates more hyã- rolysis on the slow run than on the fast run, for a given retention time. Thin suggested that anothar factor affected the rate of hydrolyeis. Tha only veriable in these two runs, that utas evident, was the rate of recyole of the In general, proportionately more saccharate is recycled on a slow run than on a fast run, due to the equipment limitations at Johnstown. Further invostigations of the effee$ of reaycle on bydrolysis is anticipated. Larger soale, batch experiments on both paccherate and waste water retention, at varioue texperaturas end alkalinity, are contemplated. It is hoped thase will onable prediction of the added retention nacessary to insure a stabilized level of hydrolysis. - Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 During this vork with the semples were taken of the esponated waste vater. There was a loss of hydrolyeis of GA upon carbonation. See Table and Figure II. Data from these samplos indieste that this less may be associated with the level of hydrolysis. It is folt that pH and temperature of carbonation may play a part. Further work will be done on this source of losa in hydrolysis. Data from four factory runs (Table IV) indientes that thare la a lose in 04 during the barium trestment. Total 0A ie put on a Potass- 1um basie on the assumption that E remains constant throughout the process and that molasse is the only soures of K. The loss vories from 3.8 percent to 9.6 percent of the GA introduced. There sema to be no loss during earo benation in the factory. This is bas-d on the assumption that no loss of GA occurs in samples that must be in the laboratory before analysis. In Table V, the results of GA and x analysis on retained ssecharate are shown. It appeare that the grontest losa of GA oecurs in the first one to two houra, and further retention dosa not alter the level of GA apprecisbly. The factors involved in the losa of 04 are not evident from the present dato. Temperature and alktalinity are probably factoro. Addition- al data on losses will be gathered on samples retainsd primarily for the hydrolysie study. Recommandations large soale bateh retention tests of saccharsie should be mede to deternine the effect of tempazuture and alkalinity on the rate of hydrolyeis and the rate of destruction of tha GA present. Varistions in rate of reeycle should be studied to detemnina whothor the rato at which saocharste la precipitated affects the rate of hydrolysis. A study os loss of hydrolysis during carbonation should be investigeted. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 Table I EFYSCT OF RETENTION TIME AND TEMPERATURE ON HYDROLYSIS of GA IN SACCHARATE AND RAN WASTE WAT&R Rtne SDate 1953 Sample Temp. Rtn. % Hyd. Rtn. % Hyd. Rtn. % Hyd. Rtn. of Byd. Rtn. % Hyd. CC hrs. hrs. hrs. hrs. hrs. Jan. 13 Sacch. 75 0,8 79.5 1.8 89.7 Jan. 13 Sacch. 75 1.1 89.5 8.1 94.4 3.1 97.5 March 4 Sacch, 70 0.33 78.8 2.0 96.1 3.5 96.9 4.5 96.7 5,5 98.6 March 4 W. W. 70 0.33 80.0 2.0 90.8 4.0 94.0 5.5 94.7 6.85 97.5 March 10 Sacch. 75 - 68 0.25 72,9 1.25 93.5 2.25 95.3 4.25 95.8 March 10 W.W. 78 - 68 0.25 72.9 2.0 88.0 3.0 92.7 4.5 93,8 March 10 Waste H20 64 - 59 0.25 72,9 2.5 80.6 3.5 84.7 5.0 89.5 22.5 97.2 Saccharate and Waste Water are as nearly identical as possible. Waste Water was diluted to 18 RDS from ea. 23 RES Process Development Laboratory March 30, 1953 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 FIGURE / PERCENT HY DROLYSIS VS RETENTION TIME IN HOURS (BASED ON LABORATORY EXPERIMENT) 100 O o o 90 O x x 80 X RAW WASTE WATER AT 60°C RAW WASTE WATER AT 70-80°C RETAINED SACCHARATE AT 70-80°C 70 / 2 3 4 5 6 RETENTION TIME IN HOURS Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 Table II PE HYDROLYSIS OF RAW AND GARBONATED WASTE WATER IN JOENSTOWN PROCESS Vol. BaO Average Retention S Hydrolysis % Hydrolysis pH Date 1953 Tons/Hour Vol. Molasses in Hydrate Hours in Raw W.W. in Carb. W.W. Carb. W.W. Feb. 24 11.0 1.4 29.8 2.0 87.9 82.6 9.3 Feb. 25 6.3 1.27 28.8 3.6 96.2 93.7 9.5 March 9 10.5 1.26 31.3 2.2 92.0 90.0 10.0 Mareh 18 7.2 1.18 29.9 3.3 96.3 93.5 8.6 March 18 10.0 1.83 29.7 2.3 91.0 88.3 8.9 Process Development Laboratory March 30, 1953 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 FIGURE 2 PERCENT HYDROLYSIS VS RETENTION TIME IN HOURS (BASED ON JOHNSTOWN FACTORY OPERATION) 100 90 80 RAW WASTE WATER CARBONATED WASTE WATER TONS MOL. WORKED 13.0 1.0 10.0 7.2 6.0 RETENTION /N HOURS 2!0 3!0 4.0 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 Table III PERCENT HYDROLYSIS OF GA AND RETENTION TIME AT VARIOUS STATIONS Date 1953 Molasses First Precipitation Third Precipitation Moore Tank Carbonation Press Rtn. % Hyd. Rtn. % Hyd. Rtn. % Hyd. Rtn. Rtn. % Hyd. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. March 18 o 16.4 0.5 78.0 1.6 85.3 4.8 94.7 - 92.8 March 18 o 16.4 0,5 82.8 1.6 95.6 3.3 95.9 -- 94.1 3.3 96,2 94.1 March 18 - 0.5 84.6 1.4 91.8 -- - March 18 o 14.8 0.5 81.0 1.4 91.0 3.3 97.6 -- - March 18 o 14.8 0,3 75.6 1.0 77.8 2,3 89,3 -- 86.4 March 18 o 14.8 0.3 65.2 1.0 74.3 2.3 86.2 -- 85.3 Process Development Laboratory March 30, 1953 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 FIGURE 3 PERCENT HYDROLYSIS VS RETENTION TIME IN HOURS (BASED ON JOHNSTOWN FACTORY OPERATION) 100 o 000 8 O 80 60 40 20 8 OPERATION AT/00 TONS MOLASSES PER HOUR OPERATION AT 7.2 TONS MOLASSES PER HOUR 0 2 3 4 RETENTION TIME IN HOURS Source: :https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 Table IV LOSS OF GA IN the SACCEARATE PROCESS 0A on x Lab. Carb. Lab. Card. Fact. Carb. % Loss Loss Houre Molasses W. V. from W. W. from w.W. from in Lab. in Fact. Retention Date 1953 orked 3rd Precip. Hoore Stat. Presses Carb. Carb. Time Jan. 19 36.5 35.2 - - 3.84 - 1.5 - 2.5 Feb. 24 36.4 - 32.9 33.2 9.6 8.8 2.0 Feb. 25 - -- 34.0 34.5 - --- 3.6 March 9 40.0 - 37.3 36.6 6.75 8.5 2.20 Process Development Laboratory March 30, 1953 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 Table V or RITENTION ON TOTAL GA Date 1953 Sample Temp. Rtn. GA/K Rtn. GA/E Rtn. GA/K Rtn. GA/K Rtn. GA/E hrs hrs. hrs. hrs. hrs. Teb. 20 Sacch. 75 3 32.2 4 30.5 5 31.7 6 32.4 7 38.9 W. W. 75 3 32.8 4 33.9 5 33.6 6 32.2 7 32.5 March 4 Sacch. 70 .33 37.6 2.0 37.1 3.5 37.1 4.5 37.0 5.5 36.8 W. W. 70 0.33 37.6 3.0 37.3 4.0 36.7 5.5 37.6 6.25 38.8 March 10 Sacch. 75.68 0.85 44.1 1.25 42.6 2.85 44.1 4.25 43.5 - W. W. 78-68 0.25 44.1 2.0 42.8 3.0 48.3 4.5 41.7 - - N. W. 64-59 0.25 44.1 2.5 43.1 3.5 43.0 5.0 42.5 22.5 42.7 Process Development Laboratory March 30, 1953 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227

What is shown on the x-axis of the graph?

ftxv0228

ftxv0228_p0, ftxv0228_p1, ftxv0228_p2, ftxv0228_p3, ftxv0228_p4, ftxv0228_p5, ftxv0228_p6, ftxv0228_p7, ftxv0228_p8

Number of Kochia plants per 100 feet of row

Research Work Plan Proposal A. Title of Investigation: Can hand-labor be eliminated in sugarbeet production by integrating new herbicides into an effective weed control system? B. Location of Study and Date Planned for Initiation: Bay Farm, Fort Collins, Colorado. April, 1975. C. Technical Personnel: USDA - E. E. Schweizer (Project Leader) CSU - J. Eshel (Collaborator) D. Background and Objectives. Many annual weeds can be controlled satisfactorily in sugarbeets with the use of mechanical equipment and herbicides, but complete weed control is difficult to obtain. Failure to control weed species, such as lambsquarters, pigweed, or kochia, before thinning hinders the com- plete mechanization of sugarbeet production because labor is often needed to hoe those weeds that escape. Combinations of effective preplanting and postemergence herbicides have consistently controlled over 95% of the pigweed and grass species in our field studies. Control of kochia has generally exceeded 80% when the postemergent herbicides were applied to kochia that was 1 inch or less in diameter and before it had begun to elongate. By determining the competitive effects of specific densities of kochia on sugarbeet root yield in our weed research program, we can now predict the percentage reduction in root yield that a specific density of kochia causes if it remains in a crop after thinning. The relationship between the number of kochia plants present in 100 feet of row after thinning and their effect on root yield is shown below. 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Number of kochia plants per 100 feet of row Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -2- The calculated percentage values for densities of 1 to 10 kochia plants are as follows: Number of kochia per 100 feet of row: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 % reduction in root yield: 6.1 7.9 9.7 11.5 13.3 15.2 17.0 18.8 20.6 22.4 The predictive equation that we used was most accurate when the kochia density was less than 20 plants per 100 feet of row. We found that with the above densities, we could consistently predict within 5% of the actual yield reductions. We feel confident that this predictive equation can be used by growers to determine whether they can justify the use of hand labor to remove those kochia plants that remain after thinning. Furthermore, we believe that we are now in a position to use this equation to compare how effective new herbicides and a herbistat (plant growth regulator) are in eliminating or reducing weed competition all season. Today, we have several new herbicide mixtures that either completely kill the weeds or suppress weed growth for many weeks thereafter. Unfortun- ately, we do not know how long these weeds are suppressed because they are normally removed during the thinning process. This study is designed to determine the direct effect of specific herbicide treatments on sugar- beets and the competitiveness of weeds present after thinning on sugar- beets. The latter effect will be studied by counting the kochia present after thinning. If the growth of kochia is not suppressed by the herbi- cide treatments, then the predicted reduction in root yield should be within 5% of the actual yield. Conversely, if the growth of kochia is suppressed by the herbicide treatments, then the actual reduction in yield should be less than the predicted value. In 1974, we evaluated several herbicide mixtures that reduced the stand of weeds by 90% or more. These mixtures (see E.2 for specific treatments) will be integrated into several effective weed control systems. We expect these herbicides and the herbistat to kill many weeds, suppress the growth of others, and prevent some weeds from pro- ducing viable weed seed. Therefore, our objectives will be to determine: a. whether new herbicide mixtures and a new herbistat (plant growth regulator) can be used in sequential treatments to eliminate the need for hand-weeding, b. whether weeds not killed by the herbistat will produce viable weed seed, and C. the effects of these sequential treatments on root yield, sucrose production, and purity. E. Experimental Plans and Procedure: 1. General. Conventional field equipment will be used to apply the herbicides and to produce the crop. Pelleted sugarbeet seed will be planted every 3 inches with a precision Milton Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -3- planter. Herbicides, applied preplanting, will be incorporated with a Lilliston rolling cultivator. The postemergent herbicide and herbistat treatments will be applied as topical sprays when sugarbeets have 4 and 8 true leaves, respectively. 2. Specific Plans Plot size: main plots (herbicides and herbistat) - 8 rows X 60 ft subplots (hand-weeding vs. no weeding all season) - 8 rows X 30 ft Replications : 4 Design: split plot Soil type: clay loam, organic matter - 1.5%, pH 7.8 Duration: 1975, with possible continuation in 1976 Treatments a No. Preplanting Postemergence Herbistat 1 Ro-Neet + Nortron none none d 2 Ro-Neet + Nortron none MBR 12325 3 Ro-Neet + Nortron Nortron + SN503° b none 4 Ro-Neet + Nortron Nortron + SN503 MBR 12325 5 Ro-Neet + Nortron Hoe 23408 + SN503° none 6 Ro-Neet + Nortron Hoe 23408 + SN503 MBR 12325 7 untreated weed-free check none none 8 untreated weedy-check none MBR 12325 a 1b/A each of Ro-Neet plus Nortron b12 1b/A of Nortron + 3/4 1b/A of SN503 C1 1b/A each of Hoe 23408 plus SN503 (SN503 is an equal mixture of Betanal and Betanal-475) d or 1/2 1b/A of MBR 12325 F. Records and Data to be Secured. 1. Weed counts and visual ratings before thinning, after application of MBR 12325, and prior to harvest in weedy subplots. 2. Prethinning and postthinning sugarbeet stand counts. 3. Sugarbeet ratings at weekly intervals following postemergence appli- - cations as long as any suppression is noticeable. 4. Yield of roots, sucrose percentage, and purity determinations in October from center four rows of each plot. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 -4- G. Budget Estimates. ARS contributions include salaries for professional, technical, and--. secretarial services; land, field, and laboratory equipment; and shop and laboratory facilities. Supplementary funding of $3,000 is requested from the Grower-G.W. Joint Committee, Inc. to enable us to expand our program to include the objectives outlined herein. This additional funding will be used primarily for part- time labor to thin the sugarbeets, weed the weed-free plots all season, harvest the crop, and to wash, weigh, and analyze the roots for sucrose and purity. H. Administration of Funds. Colorado State University will be responsible for administering any funds provided by the Grower-G. W. Joint Research Committee, Inc. in partial support of this project. 1. Estimated Time to Complete. 1. Final results will be summarized in December, 1975. 2. After the results have been analyzed, and if certain treatments indicate that a crop of sugarbeets can be grown profitably without the need of any hand-labor, necessary revisions will be proposed to expand the study in 1976. Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 Reprinted from Weed Science, Vol. 21, November 1973, No. 6. Predicting Sugarbeet Root Losses Based on Kochia Densities¹ E. E. SCHWEIZER² Abstract. The reduction in root yield (Y) of sugarbeets (Beta redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). The initial vulgaris L.) caused by specific densities (X) of kochia [Kochia stand of redroot pigweed was reduced 76 to 100%. Ko- scoparia (L.) Schrad.] was predicted by using the linear equa- chia and redroot pigweed that were not controlled by culti- tion Y = 4.30 + 1.81 X. This equation was most accurate vation, mechanical thinning, and herbicides competed when the kochia density was 20 plants or less per 30.5 m of with sugarbeets for the entire season. In some systems, row. In 28 of 30 weed-control systems, where kochia densi- redroot pigweed emerged after thinning when the sugar- ties ranged from 0.2 to 16.5 plants per 30.5 m of row, the beet stand was not uniform. Annual grasses were con- predicted yield reductions were within 5% of the actual yield trolled with herbicides. reductions. Before harvest, kochia and redroot pigweed plants in INTRODUCTION each weed-controlled system were counted. Predicted yield reductions were calculated by using the polynomial W ITHIN the last decade, researchers have derived sev- regression equations and the kochia-density values ob- eral equations to estimate the crop losses caused by tained from 42 weed-control systems that were evaluated specific weed infestations (3, 4, 8). The relationship be- from 1969 through 1972. The 42 weed-control systems tween yield of a given crop and the density of a specific evaluated over the 4-year period included 27 different weed has been expressed generally in the form of a simple herbicide treatments and six untreated, weedy cultivated regression equation. To use these equations, the weed- plots. Nine of the 23 herbicide treatments were evaluated free yield has to be known, as well as the density of the for two consecutive years. weed stand or the weight of the weed species. In the irrigated areas of the central High Plains and RESULTS Intermountain West, kochia infests more than 63,000 ha of sugarbeets (5). Kochia is not controlled in these areas The polynomial regression equation appropriate for at planting, because most growers use a preplanting appli- predicting the reduction in root yield depended on the cation of a thiocarbamate herbicide, which controls only number of kochia densities. The equations that gave a 20% or less of the kochia. Growers who use a comple- statistically good fit to the data for variable densities of mentary post-emergence treatment can expect to reduce kochia per 30.5 m of row are as follows: a cubic equation the initial stand of kochia by 75 to 95%. Thus, some for densities of 4, 10, 20, 50, and 100 plants where Y = kochia plants remain to compete with sugarbeets. 1.01 + 2.60X - 0.0363X² + 0.00018X³, with r2 = This paper will (a) describe how information published 0.974; a quadratic equation for densities of 4, 10, 20, and in a previous paper on the competitive effects of five densi- 50 plants where Y = 1.85 + 2.38X - 0.0232X², with ties of kochia on the root yield of sugarbeets (7) was used r2 = 0.954; and a linear equation for densities of 4, 10, to derive equations to predict the reductions in root yield and 20 plants where Y = 4.30 + 1.81X, with r2 = 0.884. caused by specific densities of kochia in mixed weed popu- lations and (b) show that these reductions in root yield can The relation between percentage reduction in root yield be predicted by simply knowing the density of kochia pres- and kochia density as predicted by the three equations is ent in a given area. shown in Figure 1. Of the three equations, the linear equa- tion was the most accurate in predicting the reductions in METHODS yield for kochia densities of 20 plants or less per 30.5 m To determine whether we could predict the reduction of row (Figure 2). However, at these densities the pre- in yield (Y) caused by a specific density of kochia (X), dicted reductions in yield were similar with all three polynomial regression equations were derived by regress- equations (Table 1). For example, where kochia densities ing kochia densities of 4, 10, 20, 50, and 100 plants per ranged from 0.2 to 16.5 plants per 30.5 m of row in 30 30.5 m of row on sugarbeet root yield. These densities were weed-control systems, the predicted yield reductions, using replicated four times over a 2-year period in a random- the linear, quadratic, and cubic equations, were within 5% ized complete-block design (7). of the actual yield reductions for 28, 24, and 24 of these To test these polynomial regression equations, we used systems, respectively. data from several known weed-control systems that had At densities of more than 20 plants per 30.5 m of row, reduced the stand of kochia from about 1 to 99%. The reductions in yield could be predicted better with either the quadratic or cubic equations (Table 1) than with the other major weed species present in these systems was linear equation. 1Received for publication May 7, 1973. Cooperative investiga- DISCUSSION tions of the Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr. and the Colorado State Univ. Exp. Sta. Published with the approval of the Director We have shown that the reductions in root yield of of the Colorado State Univ. Exp. Sta. as Scientific Series Paper No. 1838. sugarbeets caused by kochia competition can be predicted 2lant Physiol., Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr., Colorado best with a linear equation when kochia densities are less State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80521. than 20 plants per 30.5 m of row. This is the density level Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 565 Source: https://wwvw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 WEED S CIENCE 100 50 Y = 4.30 + 1.81X LINEAR 80 CUBIC 40 60 30 40 20 QUADRATIC 20 o o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 NUMBER OF KOCHIA PLANTS PER 30.5 m OF ROW Figure 1. Relation between kochia density and root yield as pre- dicted by the linear, quadratic, and cubic equations. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 expected in commercial fields after thinning. An obvious restriction in using the linear equation is when the kochia NUMBER OF KOCHIA PLANTS PER 30.5 m OF ROW density approaches zero, because at zero the Y intercept Figure 2. Relation between kochia density and root yield as pre- is 4.30. However, in testing this equation against eight dicted by the linear equation. The 95% confidence intervals are weed-control where the from 0.2 to 0.9 systems plants per 30.5 m kochia of row, densities the predicted ranged indicated in the shaded area on each side of the regression line. yield reductions were within 6% of the actual yield re- ductions. The redroot pigweed densities ranged from 0.6 to 26 Predicting the reductions in root yield by simply know- plants per 30.5 m of row, with a mean of 6.8. At the ing the density of kochia in a given area increases the use- higher densities, reductions in root yield might be ex- fulness of this method for assessing losses in sugarbeets. pected, because root yields have been reduced by 17% In some crop-weed associations, yield reductions are better where 12.5 redroot pigweed plants per 30.5 m of row correlated with weight of weeds than with weed density competed all season with sugarbeets (1). These densities (4, 6). In other crop-weed associations, crop losses could apparently did not affect our predictions, because most of be estimated by the use of an "index of competition", but the redroot pigweed plants emerged too late in the season expected weed-free yield has to be known (3). to develop their full competitive potential. Previous weed- Our success in predicting within 5% of the actual yield competition studies in sugarbeets have shown that the later reductions for most weed-control systems depended on an annual weed emerges, the less competitive it is (2). minimizing weed competition during the entire growing Although these redroot pigweed densities did not affect season. Annual grasses were controlled completely with our predictions, other broadleaf weeds, such as common herbicides. Although kochia and some redroot pigweed lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) and common sun- seedlings emerged with the crop, most redroot pigweed flower (Helianthus annuus L.), could. These annual broad- plants present at harvest had emerged after thinning in leaf weeds emerge with, or shortly after, the crop, are tall, those systems where the sugarbeet stand was not uniform. produce dense shade, and are more competitive than those Table 1. Actual and predicted yield reductions of sugarbeet roots as affected by specific densities of kochia, which competed all season under different weed-control systems. Actual Predicted yield reductions Kochia Year Weed-control systems yield plants reduction Linear Quadratic Cubic (number/30.5 m of row) (%) (%) (%) (%) 1969 Cycloate R 1913-phenmedipham 0.4 2.9 5.0 2.8 2.0 Cycloate + R 11913-phenmedipham 0.6 5.7 5.4 3.3 2.6 1970 'ycloate-phenmedipham-EPTC 1.1 8.1 6.3 4.4 3.8 1971 1972 Cycloate-phenmedipham 3.6 9.1 10.8 10.1 9.9 1969 Cycloate-phenmedipham 6.2 15.8 15.5 15.7 15.8 16.5 30.1 34.2 34.8 34.9 1971 Cycloate 1971 Cycloate 27.9 43.1 54.8 50.1 49.2 43.3 49.6 82.7 61.4 60.1 1969 Delachlor-phenmedipham-pyrazon Delachlor 55.4 68.7 104.6 62.5 64.2 1969 Chemical names of herbicides: R 11913 is 3'-hydroxypropionanilide isopropylcarbamate; cycloate is S-ethylN-ethylthiocyclohexanecarbamate; delachlor is 2-chloro-N-(isobutoxymethyl)-2',6'-acetoxylidide; EPTC is S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate; phenmedipham is methyl m-hyhroxycarbanilate m-methylcarbanilate; and pyrazon is.5-amino-4-chloro-2-phenyl-3(2H)-pyridazinone. Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 566 Source: :https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 SCHWEIZER : SUGARBEET ROOT LOSSES that are short. Because common lambsquarters and com- LITERATURE CITED mon sunflower are similar to kochia in their competitive 1. BRIMHALL, P. B., E. W. CHAMBERLAIN, and H. P. ALLEY. abilities, similar polynomial regression equations could be 1965. Competition of annual weeds and sugarbeets. Weeds derived for these species. 13:33-35. Depending on the initial infestation of kochia, we have 2. DAWSON, J. H. 1965. Competition between irrigated sugar- observed 0.3 to 6.2 plants per 30.5 m of row in our most beets and annual weeds. Weeds 13:245-249. selective weed-control systems before thinning. The cur- 3. DEW, D. A. 1972. An index of competition for estimating rent trend is to thin all sugarbeets with electronic ma- crop loss due to weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 52:921-927. chines. Since the machines cannot distinguish between 4. NODA, K., K. OzAWA, and K. IBARAKI. 1968. Studies on the damage of rice plants due to weed competition (effect of weed and sugarbeet plants, weeds remain in the row after barnyardgrass competition on growth, yield, and some eco- thinning. This means a grower needs to know whether it physiological aspects of rice plants). Bull. Kyushu Agr. will be economical to remove those plants that remain. Exp. Sta. 13:345-367. For these growers the linear equation will be useful in 5. SCHWEIZER, E. E. and J. H. DAWSON. 1970. Weed control determining whether they can justify the use of hand labor methods, losses and costs due to weeds, and benefits of to remove the kochia plants that remain after thinning. weed control in sugarbeets. Pages 344-356 in FAO Inter- national Conference on Weed Control. Weed Sci. Soc. For example, if two kochia plants remain per 30.5 m of Amer., Urbana, III. row after thinning, the predicted reduction in root yield 6. THURLOW, D. L. and G. A. BUCHANAN. 1972. Competition would be 7.9%. The decision to remove these plants with of sicklepod with soybeans. Weed Sci. 20:379-384. a hoe would depend on the difference between the ex- 7. WEATHERSPOON, D. M. and E. E. SCHWEIZER. 1971. Compe- pected loss in yield and the established wage scale for tition between sugarbeets and five densities of kochia. hand labor. In 1971 growers had to pay a minimum of Weed Sci. 19:125-128. $27.18 per hectare to remove weeds with a hoe after 8. ZAKHARENKO, V. A. 1968. Investigating the competitive thinning, and 7.9% of an average 42.5 tons/ha yield for ability of weeds and crop plants in relation to herbicide application. Khimiya sell Khoz. 6:447-452. (Taken from our Loveland district was valued at $58.93. Thus, it would Weed Abstr. 18:205.1969). have paid to remove the weeds. Volume 21, Issue 6 (Nov.), 1973 567 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 PURCHASED BY THE USDA FOR OFFICIAL USE Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE CROPS RESEARCH LABORATORY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 July 10, 1973 Mr. Larry L. McGhee, Editor Upbeet Magazine The Great Western Sugar Company P.O. Box 5308T. A. Denver, Colorado 80217 Dear Mr. McGhee: Your company plays a vital role in disseminating useful research information to your growers through your popular publication. Our group at Fort Collins is part of the total sugarbeet research endeavor in the USA. In general, we publish most of our research results in professional journals. We know that research published in professional journals is often quite technical. None-the-less, we feel as editor of your company's magazine you would be interested in receiving reprints of published information from our group. At least, in this way, we can keep you abreast of what we are doing in sugarbeet production in Colorado. We have placed your name on our mailing list for reprints of cur- rent information. We would appreciate any comments you may have on this idea, and also would like to know if we have contacted the right person in your company. Sincerely, E. E. Schweizer Plant Physiologist Enclosures Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ftxv0228

What does the graph represents?

mmlh0227

mmlh0227_p0, mmlh0227_p1, mmlh0227_p2, mmlh0227_p3, mmlh0227_p4, mmlh0227_p5, mmlh0227_p6, mmlh0227_p7, mmlh0227_p8, mmlh0227_p9, mmlh0227_p10, mmlh0227_p11

percent hydrolysis vs retention time in hours, Percent Hydrolysis VS Retention Time in Hours (Based on Laboratory Experiment)

m Dellars A DTODY or AMD 1038 OF GA IN THE JOBNSTOWN PLANT A Progrese Report Le Sybrandt and D. A. Muller Procass Development Laboratory Lovalané, Colorado April 6, 1953 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 à STUDY or HYDROLYSIS AND LOSS OF as IN tix JOHNUTOWN PLANT A Progress Report L. Sybrandt and D. A. Muller Sumary A study of hydrolysis of Glutamie Aeid at the Johnstown plant is underway. It has been found that the rata et which P.C. is converted to GA and the extent of this hydrolysis depends on temparature, time and the alkelinity of the solution. The exparimental results ehow that saccharate hydrolyzes faster than raw waste water when retained under the aame condi- tions. From the data obtained it appesrs that four hours retention is nocess- ary to provids maximum hydrolysis of saccharate. Somewhat longer time is needed to provide hydrolysis is the Moore filtrate is used. Mora conclus- ive information will be gathered in the near future. In addition to hydrolysis, this report deals with losses of GA, i.o. GA that is actually destroyed not merely converted to P.C. This loss varies from 3.8 percent to 9.6 peresnt of the total GA. Additional work on this subject is contemplated to detarmine the factors involved in this des- truction and if possible to remedy this. Introduction Previous studies of cazbonated waste water at Johnstown have shown that, (1) the parcent hydrolysis of GA is erratie and (2) a loas of GA by destruction oecurs. A study of the barium process was proposed to diseovor the sourcas of these veriations and, if possible, to increase and stabilize the level of 04 in the carbonated waste water. This is a brief summary of the work to date. Experisental and Results In proliminary tests at the precipitation station the third tank was sampled periodically during an eight hour interval. The rate of flow in the tanke wes determined by molasses soale tank figures and par- cent BaO in the hydrate and saccharate. The observed fluctuation in hyd- rolysis seemed to be associated with the length of retention of the seccharate in the precipitation tanks. Further atudy of this relationship necessitated a more exact means of determining retention times. Counters were placed on the barium hydrate and molasses proportioners. Sangling was done during extended periods of constant speed operation in the factory to minimise the effect of baek mixing of the saecharate. In spite of these precautions, the calculated retention time is subject to error which in- creasse throughout the process. Because of uncertainty in calculated retention time; labor- atory tests were made in which this time could be precisely controlled. Samples of the firet precipitation tank overflow were rotained in a fifty gallon drum of hot water at 70 - 75°C. These samples consisted of raw Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 waste water from the ancoharate, diluted to 18 RDS, and the sagobarate its.if. They were kapt in this hot water bath in ten liter glass bottles 4 to 6 hours and sumpled periodically. In svery case the saccherata hyd- rolysed faster than the waste water, as shown in Table and Figure I. Rew waste water was also retained at 60°C. which approximates the average temparature of rew waste water in the factory. Hydrolyeis was markedly less in this case than in the waste water hold at 75°C. See Table and Figure I. Beneh soale dats dosa not necessarily duplicate fectory results. bence, further sangling of the Johnstown procese was nocessary. This subsecuent sampling of the raw wusta water at the Moors station has confirmed that the percent hydrolysis of GA is associated with the re- tention time and that additional retention ie needed to insure consisteatly high hyérolymis. See Table and Figure II. The bench asala work auggasted more efficient hydrelysis could be obtained in the sacchazate, due to ite higher temperature and alkalinity; and that a total of at least four hours retention was desirable. There was some doubt about the effeet that this added retention sould have on saccharate workability at the Moore station. Preliminary testa on a factory seale failed to ahow that re- tention materially affected the workability of good ssecharate. However, these teste wera of short duration and not considered conclusivo. An ex- tended test was in which no aypup was returned in order to simulate conditione at Johnstown when the GA plant is opersted, Without recyole, a better vorking seccherate could be anticApated of retention time. Workebility was studied during thrae 4 hour intervals of operation, et retention periods of 4-5, 8 hours each. The operators judged all the saccharate as good working; hones, it appears that it is both fescible and desirubla to retein zather than warte water to obtain added hydrolysis. In addition to those observations of workability, the molasses feed, first and third precipitation tank saccharate, and Meora losd ssechay- ate were mempled. There samples wera analysed for percent hydrolysis and the retention time calculated (Table III). Figure III indieates more hyã- rolysis on the slow run than on the fast run, for a given retention time. Thin suggested that anothar factor affected the rate of hydrolyeis. Tha only veriable in these two runs, that utas evident, was the rate of recyole of the In general, proportionately more saccharate is recycled on a slow run than on a fast run, due to the equipment limitations at Johnstown. Further invostigations of the effee$ of reaycle on bydrolysis is anticipated. Larger soale, batch experiments on both paccherate and waste water retention, at varioue texperaturas end alkalinity, are contemplated. It is hoped thase will onable prediction of the added retention nacessary to insure a stabilized level of hydrolysis. - Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 During this vork with the semples were taken of the esponated waste vater. There was a loss of hydrolyeis of GA upon carbonation. See Table and Figure II. Data from these samplos indieste that this less may be associated with the level of hydrolysis. It is folt that pH and temperature of carbonation may play a part. Further work will be done on this source of losa in hydrolysis. Data from four factory runs (Table IV) indientes that thare la a lose in 04 during the barium trestment. Total 0A ie put on a Potass- 1um basie on the assumption that E remains constant throughout the process and that molasse is the only soures of K. The loss vories from 3.8 percent to 9.6 percent of the GA introduced. There sema to be no loss during earo benation in the factory. This is bas-d on the assumption that no loss of GA occurs in samples that must be in the laboratory before analysis. In Table V, the results of GA and x analysis on retained ssecharate are shown. It appeare that the grontest losa of GA oecurs in the first one to two houra, and further retention dosa not alter the level of GA apprecisbly. The factors involved in the losa of 04 are not evident from the present dato. Temperature and alktalinity are probably factoro. Addition- al data on losses will be gathered on samples retainsd primarily for the hydrolysie study. Recommandations large soale bateh retention tests of saccharsie should be mede to deternine the effect of tempazuture and alkalinity on the rate of hydrolyeis and the rate of destruction of tha GA present. Varistions in rate of reeycle should be studied to detemnina whothor the rato at which saocharste la precipitated affects the rate of hydrolysis. A study os loss of hydrolysis during carbonation should be investigeted. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 Table I EFYSCT OF RETENTION TIME AND TEMPERATURE ON HYDROLYSIS of GA IN SACCHARATE AND RAN WASTE WAT&R Rtne SDate 1953 Sample Temp. Rtn. % Hyd. Rtn. % Hyd. Rtn. % Hyd. Rtn. of Byd. Rtn. % Hyd. CC hrs. hrs. hrs. hrs. hrs. Jan. 13 Sacch. 75 0,8 79.5 1.8 89.7 Jan. 13 Sacch. 75 1.1 89.5 8.1 94.4 3.1 97.5 March 4 Sacch, 70 0.33 78.8 2.0 96.1 3.5 96.9 4.5 96.7 5,5 98.6 March 4 W. W. 70 0.33 80.0 2.0 90.8 4.0 94.0 5.5 94.7 6.85 97.5 March 10 Sacch. 75 - 68 0.25 72,9 1.25 93.5 2.25 95.3 4.25 95.8 March 10 W.W. 78 - 68 0.25 72.9 2.0 88.0 3.0 92.7 4.5 93,8 March 10 Waste H20 64 - 59 0.25 72,9 2.5 80.6 3.5 84.7 5.0 89.5 22.5 97.2 Saccharate and Waste Water are as nearly identical as possible. Waste Water was diluted to 18 RDS from ea. 23 RES Process Development Laboratory March 30, 1953 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 FIGURE / PERCENT HY DROLYSIS VS RETENTION TIME IN HOURS (BASED ON LABORATORY EXPERIMENT) 100 O o o 90 O x x 80 X RAW WASTE WATER AT 60°C RAW WASTE WATER AT 70-80°C RETAINED SACCHARATE AT 70-80°C 70 / 2 3 4 5 6 RETENTION TIME IN HOURS Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 Table II PE HYDROLYSIS OF RAW AND GARBONATED WASTE WATER IN JOENSTOWN PROCESS Vol. BaO Average Retention S Hydrolysis % Hydrolysis pH Date 1953 Tons/Hour Vol. Molasses in Hydrate Hours in Raw W.W. in Carb. W.W. Carb. W.W. Feb. 24 11.0 1.4 29.8 2.0 87.9 82.6 9.3 Feb. 25 6.3 1.27 28.8 3.6 96.2 93.7 9.5 March 9 10.5 1.26 31.3 2.2 92.0 90.0 10.0 Mareh 18 7.2 1.18 29.9 3.3 96.3 93.5 8.6 March 18 10.0 1.83 29.7 2.3 91.0 88.3 8.9 Process Development Laboratory March 30, 1953 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 FIGURE 2 PERCENT HYDROLYSIS VS RETENTION TIME IN HOURS (BASED ON JOHNSTOWN FACTORY OPERATION) 100 90 80 RAW WASTE WATER CARBONATED WASTE WATER TONS MOL. WORKED 13.0 1.0 10.0 7.2 6.0 RETENTION /N HOURS 2!0 3!0 4.0 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 Table III PERCENT HYDROLYSIS OF GA AND RETENTION TIME AT VARIOUS STATIONS Date 1953 Molasses First Precipitation Third Precipitation Moore Tank Carbonation Press Rtn. % Hyd. Rtn. % Hyd. Rtn. % Hyd. Rtn. Rtn. % Hyd. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. March 18 o 16.4 0.5 78.0 1.6 85.3 4.8 94.7 - 92.8 March 18 o 16.4 0,5 82.8 1.6 95.6 3.3 95.9 -- 94.1 3.3 96,2 94.1 March 18 - 0.5 84.6 1.4 91.8 -- - March 18 o 14.8 0.5 81.0 1.4 91.0 3.3 97.6 -- - March 18 o 14.8 0,3 75.6 1.0 77.8 2,3 89,3 -- 86.4 March 18 o 14.8 0.3 65.2 1.0 74.3 2.3 86.2 -- 85.3 Process Development Laboratory March 30, 1953 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 FIGURE 3 PERCENT HYDROLYSIS VS RETENTION TIME IN HOURS (BASED ON JOHNSTOWN FACTORY OPERATION) 100 o 000 8 O 80 60 40 20 8 OPERATION AT/00 TONS MOLASSES PER HOUR OPERATION AT 7.2 TONS MOLASSES PER HOUR 0 2 3 4 RETENTION TIME IN HOURS Source: :https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 Table IV LOSS OF GA IN the SACCEARATE PROCESS 0A on x Lab. Carb. Lab. Card. Fact. Carb. % Loss Loss Houre Molasses W. V. from W. W. from w.W. from in Lab. in Fact. Retention Date 1953 orked 3rd Precip. Hoore Stat. Presses Carb. Carb. Time Jan. 19 36.5 35.2 - - 3.84 - 1.5 - 2.5 Feb. 24 36.4 - 32.9 33.2 9.6 8.8 2.0 Feb. 25 - -- 34.0 34.5 - --- 3.6 March 9 40.0 - 37.3 36.6 6.75 8.5 2.20 Process Development Laboratory March 30, 1953 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227 Table V or RITENTION ON TOTAL GA Date 1953 Sample Temp. Rtn. GA/K Rtn. GA/E Rtn. GA/K Rtn. GA/K Rtn. GA/E hrs hrs. hrs. hrs. hrs. Teb. 20 Sacch. 75 3 32.2 4 30.5 5 31.7 6 32.4 7 38.9 W. W. 75 3 32.8 4 33.9 5 33.6 6 32.2 7 32.5 March 4 Sacch. 70 .33 37.6 2.0 37.1 3.5 37.1 4.5 37.0 5.5 36.8 W. W. 70 0.33 37.6 3.0 37.3 4.0 36.7 5.5 37.6 6.25 38.8 March 10 Sacch. 75.68 0.85 44.1 1.25 42.6 2.85 44.1 4.25 43.5 - W. W. 78-68 0.25 44.1 2.0 42.8 3.0 48.3 4.5 41.7 - - N. W. 64-59 0.25 44.1 2.5 43.1 3.5 43.0 5.0 42.5 22.5 42.7 Process Development Laboratory March 30, 1953 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mmlh0227

What is the name of the lake ?

yznh0227

yznh0227_p0, yznh0227_p1, yznh0227_p2, yznh0227_p3, yznh0227_p4, yznh0227_p5, yznh0227_p6, yznh0227_p7, yznh0227_p8

COHITI LAKE, cohiti lake

EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS By Mariput Period Assigned to/Discussed With/ ITEM Authorized REMARKS 4/16 4/15 9:45 called Ken opp-Sme - Quintana said KO on plune-cak back 4/15 10:45 called Ken Opp-sec. Hazel said KO out of office - / left tel. no. message to call back & 4/15 2:00 Allonquerque Journal sports desk - recommended call Chamber of Commerce 4/15 2:30 Chamber of Commerce in Albuguergue 3:05 Albuguerque Tribune sports editor -said call back tomorrow-no one there 3:35 Santa Fe New Mexican 4:00 Bureau of Parks and Recreation in Santu Fe il 4:10 Kenopp in meeting- will he happy to falk with me". - call back Monday 4/18 9:10 Jerry Hammer of ACE asked further questions concerning lake 48 109 A 108° B 107 o C 106 O D 105 E 104 o F 103 o , s Wetter horn Ph. Uncompathgre Pk. 4,309 14,017 À Horn's Pk. 38 Mt. Sneffels 14,150 A o /Lake Çity San Luis Pk 14.014 Saguache Moffat À 13,447 38 Ouray Redcloud Ph. Monticello Telluride 1,434 4 Crestona Pk. Mt. Wilson Silverton LA NEW MEXICO 14,294 14,246 Q O Rio Grande GREAT SAND DUNES SCALE Hermosa Pk. Res. Center O NAT'L MON. o 5 10 20 30 40 50 60MI. 12,574. 13,830 o Rico Rio Grande Pyramid O Hooper o 510 20 30 40 50 60 KM. Del Norte Walsenburg South River Pk. State Capitals 1 Dolores Hesperus Pk. Graham Pk. 13,145 Monte Vista County Seats 1 13,225 12,517 A Bennett Pk. A 13,189 R Alamosa A Blanca HOVENWEEP NAT'L MON. Cortez Vallecito Montezuma Pk. Res. 13,131 YUCCA HOUSE NAT'L MON Pagosa MESA VERDE Summit Pk.À Platoro Res. Cr. Trinchera Pk. A NAT'L PARK b Durango Springs 13,272 Conejos Pk. 13,546 13,180 UTE MOUNTAIN SOUTHERN UTE Navajo Pk. Purgatoire (Trinidad Carrizozo INDIAN RES. IND. RES. 11,330 Conejos Sanchez Ma Res. 37 R. Jaroso Branson 37 of Only point in the La Plata Navajo Lumberton Ute Pk.) (10.120 Costilla UNITED STATES )AZTEC RUÍNS Cedar Hill Res. Chama San Antonio Pk. OAmalia NAT'L MON. common to four Duice 10.935 Monero Costilla Pk Vermeji O Raton Dry state boundaries Flora Vista Brazos Ph. a 12,580 0 Aztec Park P. Folsom can Shiprock 11,410 A A 0 S day = T CAPULIN MT NAT'L MON. NAVAJO Farmington Des Moines NAVAJO Boulder Rutheron Park View Ocerro o Ship Rock & DAM Lip a C L F A 7,178 Bloomfield Blanco . Questao Red Capulin 1. Pajarito Tierra Amarilla River Seneca Tres ompañer, Burford USEI Vado Las Tablas Piedras WhealerO ( Eagle Nest Grenville 2 L. Cristobal 13,161 Mount Dora INDIAN o anjilon Maxwell S N J U A N Petaca) 2 Cebolla Arroyoo QValdez Ute Vallecitos Hondo PArroyo Seco EaglePark cinacimarron a French Clayton R o El Pradoos Taos A R R I B A L'a Madera Pueblo I Nest L. Springer o Taos(s PUEBLO IND. RES. Miami Rivero U N 0 N CANYON DE 9 El Rito? Carson oRanches of Taos Farley ladstone /CHELLY Newcomb Lindrith Ojo Caliente OToadlena PAbbott Gallina RESERVATION Canones Abiquiu amisasco Vadito is de Ocate River Regina O |Youngsville< addarte Chacon a Cr. Sedan >NATIONAL Ojo vo Coyote dGuadalu'pita Tramper o MONUMENT CHACO CANYON| Hernandez Sarco Mills OStead o NAT'L MON, O Clano Très Ritos ) Nacimiento Pk. San Juan Pueblot Ojo Feliz Levy o -36 Crystal .La Jara uz OTruchas ampas Holmán Cuba) 19.820 OCordova (Rainsville Wagon Mound a Hayden 36 Navajo Espanolag Chimayo AN Truchas Mora UNIÓN 911. Cleveland 0 R A Roy o Bueyeros 0 Tohatchi San;lidefonso OCundiyo Pk. 13,1100 of NAT'L MON. SAlbert\ z LOS ALAMOS a CPUEBLO H A R N G Pojoaque O RES; LO Ledoux Buena Vista Amistad Ventana o Los Alamos- :Cueva Valmora Mora R Solano o Mexican White Nambe, Cowles Rociada Watrous Window Rock/ Springs Jemez Springs OPonderosa Rock Baldu Pk, or no Mosquero S A Tesugued 12,623! Sapello St. 0 Crownpoint N D V A ANDELIER Sabinoso (1) Michaels MON R A El Porvenir Gamerco, K I N E Y Jemez Cochiti, Montezuma Rehoboth Santal 10,546 Gallegos Nara Visa OPueblo Conchas Mentmore, PUEBLO Pecos o Las Vegas Mo I G U E Reservoir 3 and Penablanca S As San Ysidro INDIAN Stol FT. PECOS NAT'L MON. Romeroville Gallup Cr. 3 Zia Pueblo RES. Domingo WINGATE APMY Fort Wingate Lamy Rowe Lourdes Trujillo Pueblo- Cerrillos San Jose Thoreau to Jemez Canyon's Felipe Trementina CONCHAS DAM Lypton: o U McGaffey Bluewater, Res. O Serafina R L. O Prewitt Algodon Madrid Galisteo Soham Conchas Conchas Dam (Ribera Logan Riverl - s San Mateo Bernalillo Placitas SANT FE Garita Ute Res. S. Bluewater Mt. Tayior o Sena Corrales Sandia Pk Golden Rencona (ian 110,609 Milan, 11,389 Villanueya TOSA Glenrio (Ramáh a Grants Seboyeta Los Ranchos Alameda OSandia Park Leyba Anton Chico© O Endee San R. San Ratael Cu bero OPaguate\ de Albuquerque, Fidel Cedar Crest Stanley Montoya Tucumcari Dilia San Jon O Colonias Zuni E MORRO NAT'L MON o a Newki irk O Bard (jeras 35 to E! Morro Dahlia ZUNI INDIAN RIS Acomit Cuervo o O' is I Q U A 35 Cara 4 I o PUL wh B E R N I I. L o Monarty " @ Santa Rosa Quay - - 13 3 I - Protects . EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS By Period Assigned to/Discussed With/ ITEM Authorized REMARKS 4/14 called Ken Opp 4x - secretary told me he was in meeting and on phone Joe Quintana suggested / call governor of Pueblo Cochin (465-2244) 4/14 called Fred Cordero (gov. of P.C) he knew of no "old-timer 11 / could talk to, suggested / see him 4/14 2:00 Jerry Hammer, any curps of engineers -much information, very helpful 4/15 9:45 Ken Opp- sec. Sue Quinta said Ken on phone, call back 4/15 10:45 sec. Hazel said Ken Opp out of office. 1 left telno. and message to call back 4/15 2:00 Abuquerque Journal Sports desk- recommended / call Chamber of Commene 4115 2:30 Albuquerque Chamber of Commine 4/15 3:05 Albuguerque Tribum Sports ed - call back Mon no one there 4/15 3:35 Santa Fe New Mexican - no info 4/15 4:00 Burean of Parks and Recreation in Santa Fe- no info 4/15 4:10 Ken Opp in meeting call back Monday 4/18 9:10 Jerry Hammer of ACE. - further info on lake 4/18 10:20 Ken opp- - answered ques, wants apy of article before published let 4/18 11:00 Albug Chamber offommene - address for brodure TILCO/ TELEPHONE 303/831 ORD? P.O. BOX 88/DENY ER. COLORADO 80201 April 18, 1977 Cochiti Lake Recreation Area P. 0. Box 66 Cochiti Lake, New Mexico 87041 Dear Sirs: The Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce has informed me that a one-page brochure describing Cochiti Lake and its facilities is available through your office. Please send me a copy of this brochure and any additional literature that is available. The address is listed above. Thank you. Sincerely, Mary P. Murphy Mary P. Murphy Source: :https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 SOURCES Ken 0pp Project Manager, Great Western Cities P. 0. Box 66 Cochiti Lake, NM 87041 (505) 465-2211 Jerry Hammer Army Corps of Engineers or Ed Shirley (505) 242-8302 Fred Cordero Governor Pueblo-Cochit - Indian Reservation (505) 465-2244, 465-2245 Albuquerque Journal (505) 842-2300 Albuquerque Tribune (Sports) (505) 842-2378 Santa Fe New Mexican (505) 983-3303 Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce (505) 842-0220 Santa Fe Bureau (505) 988-8068 Director of Parks and Recreation Cochiti Lake Public Use Area P. 0. Box 66 Cochiti Lake, New Mexico 87041 Newsweek Magazine about 3/4/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 COHITI LAKE Location: on 6300 acres of pueblo de Cochiti Indian Resveration north central NM, 41 miles south of Santa Fe, 49 miles north of Albuquerque Dam: Structure is 10 largest earth filled dam in U.S. 5.4 miles long with 2 lane highway on top hydrolically operated gates 251 feet high 85 ft water depth at dam control tower height of 25 story bldg. Lake: made by dam; backs up into White Rock Canyon legislated by Congress for flood control and reduce sedimentation water does not come from Rio Grande but through San Juan- Chame pipeline from Colorado River Basin construction on dam did not begin til 70, completed 75 corps is instructed to maintain 50,000 acre ft. in 1k surface of lake is 5,321.25 ft above mean sea level 1200 surface acres of water from control tower to end is 711/2 miles long 2 1/2 miles from tower lake goes into White Rock Canyon wider closer to dam (1/2 mile wide) approx. 1/3 lake suitable for rec activities, although fisherman can go further in to the vaious canyons and arroyos Rec. Facilities : at present, there is one rec. facility built land belongs to pueblo cohiti, Univ. of NM regents, Banalier monument, rec. facility has three loops Loop A: picnic area-parking facilities for 55 cars-tables and shelters-29 shelters, 53 tables Loop B: camping loop-38 sites-pull-out sites-electrical hook-up table and picnic grill at sites Loop C; 29 total shelters, 42 tables 2 comfort stations with flush toilets! 1 trailer dump for holding containers Roads: Roads paved to boat ramp gravel surface in rec. loops Boat Ramp : contracted by ACE 4 lane boat ramp Marina : responsibility of Pueblo-Cochiti (who transferred responsibility to GW?) last summer were 2i boat slips this summer 21 more to be built total will be 121 slips marina is floating with walkway from pier anchored in cove floating because of flooding Boat Capacity: because lake is wakeless, law forbids fast boating, motor boats and water-skiing therefore, lake should be able to handle 150 boats safely Policing: Corps maintains jurisdiction will give citations is backed up (or in some cases, backs up) deputy sheriffs from county who can patrol area Maintainance: responsibility of Pueblo-Cochiti through Memorandum of Understanding BUT Town Charter transfers responsibility to GWC (?) Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 Fish: many kinds of fish those stocked by state include rainbow, wall-eyed pike, large mouth bass, blue-gill, crappie -- catfish and bass kinds not stocked by state good fishing last yr. except for pike which is hoped to be better this yr. lake froze solid past two winters: this yr. did not thaw til last month catfish fishing good up canyon and arroyos. Meda canyon, glen cnyon, sanchex canyon in summer, trout found in open water bass found along shore lines (northeat) where trees located Shoreline: about 21 miles of shoreline, only 5 miles offer access to lake rest is steep canyon walls Towns: Pueblo indian town is 1/2 mile downstream from lake Cochiti Lake is right across road from recreational areas Climate: semi-hot insummer (last yr high was 99°) but exceptionally dry cold in winter (40° to low of - -17°) very windy this time of yr and in summer-winds of 25 mph - good for sailing especially catamaran Visitors: last wkend (Fri-Mon) 5,000 users of park estimate of 80% from albuquerque/santa fe area Residents: : Cochiti Lake: approx. 180 small Spanish communities: 500 Pueblo Cochiti: 500 Last summer park had over 300,000 visitors and it did not open til June This yr, expect over 400,000 people. Eventually hope to handle 1 1/2 million visitors each yr. Visitor center will open in July 77. Natl Park Service has proposed another center as extension of Banelier Monument. Rec. facility opened in June 76. Cost: Dam was $90 Million, estimate $94 million with rec facility Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 JERRY HAMMER Visitors to Park: estimates 80% from Santa Fe and Albuquerque area 60% of these are regular users -- sailboaters, small power boat users Other Natural Attractions Bandelier Nat'l Monument 45 miles by road, (improved) 22 miles by cross-country trail CochitiPueblo reservation 6 miles SW natural geological formation Tent Rocks ghost towns, mining towns archaeological sites, which they with the Park Service try to protect, painted caves, historical sites Admission fee: .50 per person, 1.00 minimum, 2.50 maximum: camping 4.00 fee goes to Pueblo Boats cannot be rented for use on the lake, but Pueblo are planning to open a concession sometime in the next few years. Parking: in addition to parking in picnic and camping loops, there is parking on either side of the boat ramp and parking extending from the lake out which will accomodate 200 cars Swimming permitted at your own risk; there is no established beach Water-skiing forbidden because no-wake lake First Aid: Some first aid at the corps office town of Cochiti Lake has emergency medical team and ambulance service. Competition from other areas: Elephant Butte is about 200 miles south smaller, non-permanent lakes up north of the area KEN OPP GWC owns and operates marina and is responsible for maintenance under written Memorandum of Understanding. Eventually maintenance may pass back to the Pueblo-Cochiti Slips on the marina are available for $200 a season, money goes to GWC Courtesy dock is availabel through the army corps of engineer's boat ramp No eating facilities, no food store, no gas station Boat rental and eating facilities are being considered About 250 full-time residents of Cochiti Lake Camping facilities are available through GWC for residents. These are located not by the lake but up the hill from the lake. Cochiti Lake residents pay regular entrance fees for use of lake and park. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 Albuquerque Journal Sports Desk: no information- in the words of the person on duty "We probably wrote something about it, but I don't remember when. II Suggested I call Chamber of Commerce. Chamber of Commerce: woman there had a pamphlet which she read from- gave admission fee: 50 per person 4.00 for trailer hook-up. She does not know who is in charge whether state, National Park or what. Did know there was camping, also said there was snorkling and swimming. Gave me address, suggested I write for more information. Address is simply Lake Cochiti and PO Box. I asked who put out the pamphlet- she replied there was no indication. Santa Fe New Mexican: No one at the sports desk. The person I talked to tried to get information from others. Says it is run by Pueblo-Cochiti, costs 1.00 to go swimming or "get down to the lake" but costs nothing to get in (in other words, no admission fee). He said that no boats can be rented there. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227

which company contracted the boat ramp

yznh0227

yznh0227_p0, yznh0227_p1, yznh0227_p2, yznh0227_p3, yznh0227_p4, yznh0227_p5, yznh0227_p6, yznh0227_p7, yznh0227_p8

ACE

EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS By Mariput Period Assigned to/Discussed With/ ITEM Authorized REMARKS 4/16 4/15 9:45 called Ken opp-Sme - Quintana said KO on plune-cak back 4/15 10:45 called Ken Opp-sec. Hazel said KO out of office - / left tel. no. message to call back & 4/15 2:00 Allonquerque Journal sports desk - recommended call Chamber of Commerce 4/15 2:30 Chamber of Commerce in Albuguergue 3:05 Albuguerque Tribune sports editor -said call back tomorrow-no one there 3:35 Santa Fe New Mexican 4:00 Bureau of Parks and Recreation in Santu Fe il 4:10 Kenopp in meeting- will he happy to falk with me". - call back Monday 4/18 9:10 Jerry Hammer of ACE asked further questions concerning lake 48 109 A 108° B 107 o C 106 O D 105 E 104 o F 103 o , s Wetter horn Ph. Uncompathgre Pk. 4,309 14,017 À Horn's Pk. 38 Mt. Sneffels 14,150 A o /Lake Çity San Luis Pk 14.014 Saguache Moffat À 13,447 38 Ouray Redcloud Ph. Monticello Telluride 1,434 4 Crestona Pk. Mt. Wilson Silverton LA NEW MEXICO 14,294 14,246 Q O Rio Grande GREAT SAND DUNES SCALE Hermosa Pk. Res. Center O NAT'L MON. o 5 10 20 30 40 50 60MI. 12,574. 13,830 o Rico Rio Grande Pyramid O Hooper o 510 20 30 40 50 60 KM. Del Norte Walsenburg South River Pk. State Capitals 1 Dolores Hesperus Pk. Graham Pk. 13,145 Monte Vista County Seats 1 13,225 12,517 A Bennett Pk. A 13,189 R Alamosa A Blanca HOVENWEEP NAT'L MON. Cortez Vallecito Montezuma Pk. Res. 13,131 YUCCA HOUSE NAT'L MON Pagosa MESA VERDE Summit Pk.À Platoro Res. Cr. Trinchera Pk. A NAT'L PARK b Durango Springs 13,272 Conejos Pk. 13,546 13,180 UTE MOUNTAIN SOUTHERN UTE Navajo Pk. Purgatoire (Trinidad Carrizozo INDIAN RES. IND. RES. 11,330 Conejos Sanchez Ma Res. 37 R. Jaroso Branson 37 of Only point in the La Plata Navajo Lumberton Ute Pk.) (10.120 Costilla UNITED STATES )AZTEC RUÍNS Cedar Hill Res. Chama San Antonio Pk. OAmalia NAT'L MON. common to four Duice 10.935 Monero Costilla Pk Vermeji O Raton Dry state boundaries Flora Vista Brazos Ph. a 12,580 0 Aztec Park P. Folsom can Shiprock 11,410 A A 0 S day = T CAPULIN MT NAT'L MON. NAVAJO Farmington Des Moines NAVAJO Boulder Rutheron Park View Ocerro o Ship Rock & DAM Lip a C L F A 7,178 Bloomfield Blanco . Questao Red Capulin 1. Pajarito Tierra Amarilla River Seneca Tres ompañer, Burford USEI Vado Las Tablas Piedras WhealerO ( Eagle Nest Grenville 2 L. Cristobal 13,161 Mount Dora INDIAN o anjilon Maxwell S N J U A N Petaca) 2 Cebolla Arroyoo QValdez Ute Vallecitos Hondo PArroyo Seco EaglePark cinacimarron a French Clayton R o El Pradoos Taos A R R I B A L'a Madera Pueblo I Nest L. Springer o Taos(s PUEBLO IND. RES. Miami Rivero U N 0 N CANYON DE 9 El Rito? Carson oRanches of Taos Farley ladstone /CHELLY Newcomb Lindrith Ojo Caliente OToadlena PAbbott Gallina RESERVATION Canones Abiquiu amisasco Vadito is de Ocate River Regina O |Youngsville< addarte Chacon a Cr. Sedan >NATIONAL Ojo vo Coyote dGuadalu'pita Tramper o MONUMENT CHACO CANYON| Hernandez Sarco Mills OStead o NAT'L MON, O Clano Très Ritos ) Nacimiento Pk. San Juan Pueblot Ojo Feliz Levy o -36 Crystal .La Jara uz OTruchas ampas Holmán Cuba) 19.820 OCordova (Rainsville Wagon Mound a Hayden 36 Navajo Espanolag Chimayo AN Truchas Mora UNIÓN 911. Cleveland 0 R A Roy o Bueyeros 0 Tohatchi San;lidefonso OCundiyo Pk. 13,1100 of NAT'L MON. SAlbert\ z LOS ALAMOS a CPUEBLO H A R N G Pojoaque O RES; LO Ledoux Buena Vista Amistad Ventana o Los Alamos- :Cueva Valmora Mora R Solano o Mexican White Nambe, Cowles Rociada Watrous Window Rock/ Springs Jemez Springs OPonderosa Rock Baldu Pk, or no Mosquero S A Tesugued 12,623! Sapello St. 0 Crownpoint N D V A ANDELIER Sabinoso (1) Michaels MON R A El Porvenir Gamerco, K I N E Y Jemez Cochiti, Montezuma Rehoboth Santal 10,546 Gallegos Nara Visa OPueblo Conchas Mentmore, PUEBLO Pecos o Las Vegas Mo I G U E Reservoir 3 and Penablanca S As San Ysidro INDIAN Stol FT. PECOS NAT'L MON. Romeroville Gallup Cr. 3 Zia Pueblo RES. Domingo WINGATE APMY Fort Wingate Lamy Rowe Lourdes Trujillo Pueblo- Cerrillos San Jose Thoreau to Jemez Canyon's Felipe Trementina CONCHAS DAM Lypton: o U McGaffey Bluewater, Res. O Serafina R L. O Prewitt Algodon Madrid Galisteo Soham Conchas Conchas Dam (Ribera Logan Riverl - s San Mateo Bernalillo Placitas SANT FE Garita Ute Res. S. Bluewater Mt. Tayior o Sena Corrales Sandia Pk Golden Rencona (ian 110,609 Milan, 11,389 Villanueya TOSA Glenrio (Ramáh a Grants Seboyeta Los Ranchos Alameda OSandia Park Leyba Anton Chico© O Endee San R. San Ratael Cu bero OPaguate\ de Albuquerque, Fidel Cedar Crest Stanley Montoya Tucumcari Dilia San Jon O Colonias Zuni E MORRO NAT'L MON o a Newki irk O Bard (jeras 35 to E! Morro Dahlia ZUNI INDIAN RIS Acomit Cuervo o O' is I Q U A 35 Cara 4 I o PUL wh B E R N I I. L o Monarty " @ Santa Rosa Quay - - 13 3 I - Protects . EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS By Period Assigned to/Discussed With/ ITEM Authorized REMARKS 4/14 called Ken Opp 4x - secretary told me he was in meeting and on phone Joe Quintana suggested / call governor of Pueblo Cochin (465-2244) 4/14 called Fred Cordero (gov. of P.C) he knew of no "old-timer 11 / could talk to, suggested / see him 4/14 2:00 Jerry Hammer, any curps of engineers -much information, very helpful 4/15 9:45 Ken Opp- sec. Sue Quinta said Ken on phone, call back 4/15 10:45 sec. Hazel said Ken Opp out of office. 1 left telno. and message to call back 4/15 2:00 Abuquerque Journal Sports desk- recommended / call Chamber of Commene 4115 2:30 Albuquerque Chamber of Commine 4/15 3:05 Albuguerque Tribum Sports ed - call back Mon no one there 4/15 3:35 Santa Fe New Mexican - no info 4/15 4:00 Burean of Parks and Recreation in Santa Fe- no info 4/15 4:10 Ken Opp in meeting call back Monday 4/18 9:10 Jerry Hammer of ACE. - further info on lake 4/18 10:20 Ken opp- - answered ques, wants apy of article before published let 4/18 11:00 Albug Chamber offommene - address for brodure TILCO/ TELEPHONE 303/831 ORD? P.O. BOX 88/DENY ER. COLORADO 80201 April 18, 1977 Cochiti Lake Recreation Area P. 0. Box 66 Cochiti Lake, New Mexico 87041 Dear Sirs: The Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce has informed me that a one-page brochure describing Cochiti Lake and its facilities is available through your office. Please send me a copy of this brochure and any additional literature that is available. The address is listed above. Thank you. Sincerely, Mary P. Murphy Mary P. Murphy Source: :https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 SOURCES Ken 0pp Project Manager, Great Western Cities P. 0. Box 66 Cochiti Lake, NM 87041 (505) 465-2211 Jerry Hammer Army Corps of Engineers or Ed Shirley (505) 242-8302 Fred Cordero Governor Pueblo-Cochit - Indian Reservation (505) 465-2244, 465-2245 Albuquerque Journal (505) 842-2300 Albuquerque Tribune (Sports) (505) 842-2378 Santa Fe New Mexican (505) 983-3303 Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce (505) 842-0220 Santa Fe Bureau (505) 988-8068 Director of Parks and Recreation Cochiti Lake Public Use Area P. 0. Box 66 Cochiti Lake, New Mexico 87041 Newsweek Magazine about 3/4/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 COHITI LAKE Location: on 6300 acres of pueblo de Cochiti Indian Resveration north central NM, 41 miles south of Santa Fe, 49 miles north of Albuquerque Dam: Structure is 10 largest earth filled dam in U.S. 5.4 miles long with 2 lane highway on top hydrolically operated gates 251 feet high 85 ft water depth at dam control tower height of 25 story bldg. Lake: made by dam; backs up into White Rock Canyon legislated by Congress for flood control and reduce sedimentation water does not come from Rio Grande but through San Juan- Chame pipeline from Colorado River Basin construction on dam did not begin til 70, completed 75 corps is instructed to maintain 50,000 acre ft. in 1k surface of lake is 5,321.25 ft above mean sea level 1200 surface acres of water from control tower to end is 711/2 miles long 2 1/2 miles from tower lake goes into White Rock Canyon wider closer to dam (1/2 mile wide) approx. 1/3 lake suitable for rec activities, although fisherman can go further in to the vaious canyons and arroyos Rec. Facilities : at present, there is one rec. facility built land belongs to pueblo cohiti, Univ. of NM regents, Banalier monument, rec. facility has three loops Loop A: picnic area-parking facilities for 55 cars-tables and shelters-29 shelters, 53 tables Loop B: camping loop-38 sites-pull-out sites-electrical hook-up table and picnic grill at sites Loop C; 29 total shelters, 42 tables 2 comfort stations with flush toilets! 1 trailer dump for holding containers Roads: Roads paved to boat ramp gravel surface in rec. loops Boat Ramp : contracted by ACE 4 lane boat ramp Marina : responsibility of Pueblo-Cochiti (who transferred responsibility to GW?) last summer were 2i boat slips this summer 21 more to be built total will be 121 slips marina is floating with walkway from pier anchored in cove floating because of flooding Boat Capacity: because lake is wakeless, law forbids fast boating, motor boats and water-skiing therefore, lake should be able to handle 150 boats safely Policing: Corps maintains jurisdiction will give citations is backed up (or in some cases, backs up) deputy sheriffs from county who can patrol area Maintainance: responsibility of Pueblo-Cochiti through Memorandum of Understanding BUT Town Charter transfers responsibility to GWC (?) Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 Fish: many kinds of fish those stocked by state include rainbow, wall-eyed pike, large mouth bass, blue-gill, crappie -- catfish and bass kinds not stocked by state good fishing last yr. except for pike which is hoped to be better this yr. lake froze solid past two winters: this yr. did not thaw til last month catfish fishing good up canyon and arroyos. Meda canyon, glen cnyon, sanchex canyon in summer, trout found in open water bass found along shore lines (northeat) where trees located Shoreline: about 21 miles of shoreline, only 5 miles offer access to lake rest is steep canyon walls Towns: Pueblo indian town is 1/2 mile downstream from lake Cochiti Lake is right across road from recreational areas Climate: semi-hot insummer (last yr high was 99°) but exceptionally dry cold in winter (40° to low of - -17°) very windy this time of yr and in summer-winds of 25 mph - good for sailing especially catamaran Visitors: last wkend (Fri-Mon) 5,000 users of park estimate of 80% from albuquerque/santa fe area Residents: : Cochiti Lake: approx. 180 small Spanish communities: 500 Pueblo Cochiti: 500 Last summer park had over 300,000 visitors and it did not open til June This yr, expect over 400,000 people. Eventually hope to handle 1 1/2 million visitors each yr. Visitor center will open in July 77. Natl Park Service has proposed another center as extension of Banelier Monument. Rec. facility opened in June 76. Cost: Dam was $90 Million, estimate $94 million with rec facility Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 JERRY HAMMER Visitors to Park: estimates 80% from Santa Fe and Albuquerque area 60% of these are regular users -- sailboaters, small power boat users Other Natural Attractions Bandelier Nat'l Monument 45 miles by road, (improved) 22 miles by cross-country trail CochitiPueblo reservation 6 miles SW natural geological formation Tent Rocks ghost towns, mining towns archaeological sites, which they with the Park Service try to protect, painted caves, historical sites Admission fee: .50 per person, 1.00 minimum, 2.50 maximum: camping 4.00 fee goes to Pueblo Boats cannot be rented for use on the lake, but Pueblo are planning to open a concession sometime in the next few years. Parking: in addition to parking in picnic and camping loops, there is parking on either side of the boat ramp and parking extending from the lake out which will accomodate 200 cars Swimming permitted at your own risk; there is no established beach Water-skiing forbidden because no-wake lake First Aid: Some first aid at the corps office town of Cochiti Lake has emergency medical team and ambulance service. Competition from other areas: Elephant Butte is about 200 miles south smaller, non-permanent lakes up north of the area KEN OPP GWC owns and operates marina and is responsible for maintenance under written Memorandum of Understanding. Eventually maintenance may pass back to the Pueblo-Cochiti Slips on the marina are available for $200 a season, money goes to GWC Courtesy dock is availabel through the army corps of engineer's boat ramp No eating facilities, no food store, no gas station Boat rental and eating facilities are being considered About 250 full-time residents of Cochiti Lake Camping facilities are available through GWC for residents. These are located not by the lake but up the hill from the lake. Cochiti Lake residents pay regular entrance fees for use of lake and park. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 Albuquerque Journal Sports Desk: no information- in the words of the person on duty "We probably wrote something about it, but I don't remember when. II Suggested I call Chamber of Commerce. Chamber of Commerce: woman there had a pamphlet which she read from- gave admission fee: 50 per person 4.00 for trailer hook-up. She does not know who is in charge whether state, National Park or what. Did know there was camping, also said there was snorkling and swimming. Gave me address, suggested I write for more information. Address is simply Lake Cochiti and PO Box. I asked who put out the pamphlet- she replied there was no indication. Santa Fe New Mexican: No one at the sports desk. The person I talked to tried to get information from others. Says it is run by Pueblo-Cochiti, costs 1.00 to go swimming or "get down to the lake" but costs nothing to get in (in other words, no admission fee). He said that no boats can be rented there. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227

How many boats the lake should be able to handle safely?

yznh0227

yznh0227_p0, yznh0227_p1, yznh0227_p2, yznh0227_p3, yznh0227_p4, yznh0227_p5, yznh0227_p6, yznh0227_p7, yznh0227_p8

150 boats, 150

EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS By Mariput Period Assigned to/Discussed With/ ITEM Authorized REMARKS 4/16 4/15 9:45 called Ken opp-Sme - Quintana said KO on plune-cak back 4/15 10:45 called Ken Opp-sec. Hazel said KO out of office - / left tel. no. message to call back & 4/15 2:00 Allonquerque Journal sports desk - recommended call Chamber of Commerce 4/15 2:30 Chamber of Commerce in Albuguergue 3:05 Albuguerque Tribune sports editor -said call back tomorrow-no one there 3:35 Santa Fe New Mexican 4:00 Bureau of Parks and Recreation in Santu Fe il 4:10 Kenopp in meeting- will he happy to falk with me". - call back Monday 4/18 9:10 Jerry Hammer of ACE asked further questions concerning lake 48 109 A 108° B 107 o C 106 O D 105 E 104 o F 103 o , s Wetter horn Ph. Uncompathgre Pk. 4,309 14,017 À Horn's Pk. 38 Mt. Sneffels 14,150 A o /Lake Çity San Luis Pk 14.014 Saguache Moffat À 13,447 38 Ouray Redcloud Ph. Monticello Telluride 1,434 4 Crestona Pk. Mt. Wilson Silverton LA NEW MEXICO 14,294 14,246 Q O Rio Grande GREAT SAND DUNES SCALE Hermosa Pk. Res. Center O NAT'L MON. o 5 10 20 30 40 50 60MI. 12,574. 13,830 o Rico Rio Grande Pyramid O Hooper o 510 20 30 40 50 60 KM. Del Norte Walsenburg South River Pk. State Capitals 1 Dolores Hesperus Pk. Graham Pk. 13,145 Monte Vista County Seats 1 13,225 12,517 A Bennett Pk. A 13,189 R Alamosa A Blanca HOVENWEEP NAT'L MON. Cortez Vallecito Montezuma Pk. Res. 13,131 YUCCA HOUSE NAT'L MON Pagosa MESA VERDE Summit Pk.À Platoro Res. Cr. Trinchera Pk. A NAT'L PARK b Durango Springs 13,272 Conejos Pk. 13,546 13,180 UTE MOUNTAIN SOUTHERN UTE Navajo Pk. Purgatoire (Trinidad Carrizozo INDIAN RES. IND. RES. 11,330 Conejos Sanchez Ma Res. 37 R. Jaroso Branson 37 of Only point in the La Plata Navajo Lumberton Ute Pk.) (10.120 Costilla UNITED STATES )AZTEC RUÍNS Cedar Hill Res. Chama San Antonio Pk. OAmalia NAT'L MON. common to four Duice 10.935 Monero Costilla Pk Vermeji O Raton Dry state boundaries Flora Vista Brazos Ph. a 12,580 0 Aztec Park P. Folsom can Shiprock 11,410 A A 0 S day = T CAPULIN MT NAT'L MON. NAVAJO Farmington Des Moines NAVAJO Boulder Rutheron Park View Ocerro o Ship Rock & DAM Lip a C L F A 7,178 Bloomfield Blanco . Questao Red Capulin 1. Pajarito Tierra Amarilla River Seneca Tres ompañer, Burford USEI Vado Las Tablas Piedras WhealerO ( Eagle Nest Grenville 2 L. Cristobal 13,161 Mount Dora INDIAN o anjilon Maxwell S N J U A N Petaca) 2 Cebolla Arroyoo QValdez Ute Vallecitos Hondo PArroyo Seco EaglePark cinacimarron a French Clayton R o El Pradoos Taos A R R I B A L'a Madera Pueblo I Nest L. Springer o Taos(s PUEBLO IND. RES. Miami Rivero U N 0 N CANYON DE 9 El Rito? Carson oRanches of Taos Farley ladstone /CHELLY Newcomb Lindrith Ojo Caliente OToadlena PAbbott Gallina RESERVATION Canones Abiquiu amisasco Vadito is de Ocate River Regina O |Youngsville< addarte Chacon a Cr. Sedan >NATIONAL Ojo vo Coyote dGuadalu'pita Tramper o MONUMENT CHACO CANYON| Hernandez Sarco Mills OStead o NAT'L MON, O Clano Très Ritos ) Nacimiento Pk. San Juan Pueblot Ojo Feliz Levy o -36 Crystal .La Jara uz OTruchas ampas Holmán Cuba) 19.820 OCordova (Rainsville Wagon Mound a Hayden 36 Navajo Espanolag Chimayo AN Truchas Mora UNIÓN 911. Cleveland 0 R A Roy o Bueyeros 0 Tohatchi San;lidefonso OCundiyo Pk. 13,1100 of NAT'L MON. SAlbert\ z LOS ALAMOS a CPUEBLO H A R N G Pojoaque O RES; LO Ledoux Buena Vista Amistad Ventana o Los Alamos- :Cueva Valmora Mora R Solano o Mexican White Nambe, Cowles Rociada Watrous Window Rock/ Springs Jemez Springs OPonderosa Rock Baldu Pk, or no Mosquero S A Tesugued 12,623! Sapello St. 0 Crownpoint N D V A ANDELIER Sabinoso (1) Michaels MON R A El Porvenir Gamerco, K I N E Y Jemez Cochiti, Montezuma Rehoboth Santal 10,546 Gallegos Nara Visa OPueblo Conchas Mentmore, PUEBLO Pecos o Las Vegas Mo I G U E Reservoir 3 and Penablanca S As San Ysidro INDIAN Stol FT. PECOS NAT'L MON. Romeroville Gallup Cr. 3 Zia Pueblo RES. Domingo WINGATE APMY Fort Wingate Lamy Rowe Lourdes Trujillo Pueblo- Cerrillos San Jose Thoreau to Jemez Canyon's Felipe Trementina CONCHAS DAM Lypton: o U McGaffey Bluewater, Res. O Serafina R L. O Prewitt Algodon Madrid Galisteo Soham Conchas Conchas Dam (Ribera Logan Riverl - s San Mateo Bernalillo Placitas SANT FE Garita Ute Res. S. Bluewater Mt. Tayior o Sena Corrales Sandia Pk Golden Rencona (ian 110,609 Milan, 11,389 Villanueya TOSA Glenrio (Ramáh a Grants Seboyeta Los Ranchos Alameda OSandia Park Leyba Anton Chico© O Endee San R. San Ratael Cu bero OPaguate\ de Albuquerque, Fidel Cedar Crest Stanley Montoya Tucumcari Dilia San Jon O Colonias Zuni E MORRO NAT'L MON o a Newki irk O Bard (jeras 35 to E! Morro Dahlia ZUNI INDIAN RIS Acomit Cuervo o O' is I Q U A 35 Cara 4 I o PUL wh B E R N I I. L o Monarty " @ Santa Rosa Quay - - 13 3 I - Protects . EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS By Period Assigned to/Discussed With/ ITEM Authorized REMARKS 4/14 called Ken Opp 4x - secretary told me he was in meeting and on phone Joe Quintana suggested / call governor of Pueblo Cochin (465-2244) 4/14 called Fred Cordero (gov. of P.C) he knew of no "old-timer 11 / could talk to, suggested / see him 4/14 2:00 Jerry Hammer, any curps of engineers -much information, very helpful 4/15 9:45 Ken Opp- sec. Sue Quinta said Ken on phone, call back 4/15 10:45 sec. Hazel said Ken Opp out of office. 1 left telno. and message to call back 4/15 2:00 Abuquerque Journal Sports desk- recommended / call Chamber of Commene 4115 2:30 Albuquerque Chamber of Commine 4/15 3:05 Albuguerque Tribum Sports ed - call back Mon no one there 4/15 3:35 Santa Fe New Mexican - no info 4/15 4:00 Burean of Parks and Recreation in Santa Fe- no info 4/15 4:10 Ken Opp in meeting call back Monday 4/18 9:10 Jerry Hammer of ACE. - further info on lake 4/18 10:20 Ken opp- - answered ques, wants apy of article before published let 4/18 11:00 Albug Chamber offommene - address for brodure TILCO/ TELEPHONE 303/831 ORD? P.O. BOX 88/DENY ER. COLORADO 80201 April 18, 1977 Cochiti Lake Recreation Area P. 0. Box 66 Cochiti Lake, New Mexico 87041 Dear Sirs: The Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce has informed me that a one-page brochure describing Cochiti Lake and its facilities is available through your office. Please send me a copy of this brochure and any additional literature that is available. The address is listed above. Thank you. Sincerely, Mary P. Murphy Mary P. Murphy Source: :https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 SOURCES Ken 0pp Project Manager, Great Western Cities P. 0. Box 66 Cochiti Lake, NM 87041 (505) 465-2211 Jerry Hammer Army Corps of Engineers or Ed Shirley (505) 242-8302 Fred Cordero Governor Pueblo-Cochit - Indian Reservation (505) 465-2244, 465-2245 Albuquerque Journal (505) 842-2300 Albuquerque Tribune (Sports) (505) 842-2378 Santa Fe New Mexican (505) 983-3303 Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce (505) 842-0220 Santa Fe Bureau (505) 988-8068 Director of Parks and Recreation Cochiti Lake Public Use Area P. 0. Box 66 Cochiti Lake, New Mexico 87041 Newsweek Magazine about 3/4/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 COHITI LAKE Location: on 6300 acres of pueblo de Cochiti Indian Resveration north central NM, 41 miles south of Santa Fe, 49 miles north of Albuquerque Dam: Structure is 10 largest earth filled dam in U.S. 5.4 miles long with 2 lane highway on top hydrolically operated gates 251 feet high 85 ft water depth at dam control tower height of 25 story bldg. Lake: made by dam; backs up into White Rock Canyon legislated by Congress for flood control and reduce sedimentation water does not come from Rio Grande but through San Juan- Chame pipeline from Colorado River Basin construction on dam did not begin til 70, completed 75 corps is instructed to maintain 50,000 acre ft. in 1k surface of lake is 5,321.25 ft above mean sea level 1200 surface acres of water from control tower to end is 711/2 miles long 2 1/2 miles from tower lake goes into White Rock Canyon wider closer to dam (1/2 mile wide) approx. 1/3 lake suitable for rec activities, although fisherman can go further in to the vaious canyons and arroyos Rec. Facilities : at present, there is one rec. facility built land belongs to pueblo cohiti, Univ. of NM regents, Banalier monument, rec. facility has three loops Loop A: picnic area-parking facilities for 55 cars-tables and shelters-29 shelters, 53 tables Loop B: camping loop-38 sites-pull-out sites-electrical hook-up table and picnic grill at sites Loop C; 29 total shelters, 42 tables 2 comfort stations with flush toilets! 1 trailer dump for holding containers Roads: Roads paved to boat ramp gravel surface in rec. loops Boat Ramp : contracted by ACE 4 lane boat ramp Marina : responsibility of Pueblo-Cochiti (who transferred responsibility to GW?) last summer were 2i boat slips this summer 21 more to be built total will be 121 slips marina is floating with walkway from pier anchored in cove floating because of flooding Boat Capacity: because lake is wakeless, law forbids fast boating, motor boats and water-skiing therefore, lake should be able to handle 150 boats safely Policing: Corps maintains jurisdiction will give citations is backed up (or in some cases, backs up) deputy sheriffs from county who can patrol area Maintainance: responsibility of Pueblo-Cochiti through Memorandum of Understanding BUT Town Charter transfers responsibility to GWC (?) Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 Fish: many kinds of fish those stocked by state include rainbow, wall-eyed pike, large mouth bass, blue-gill, crappie -- catfish and bass kinds not stocked by state good fishing last yr. except for pike which is hoped to be better this yr. lake froze solid past two winters: this yr. did not thaw til last month catfish fishing good up canyon and arroyos. Meda canyon, glen cnyon, sanchex canyon in summer, trout found in open water bass found along shore lines (northeat) where trees located Shoreline: about 21 miles of shoreline, only 5 miles offer access to lake rest is steep canyon walls Towns: Pueblo indian town is 1/2 mile downstream from lake Cochiti Lake is right across road from recreational areas Climate: semi-hot insummer (last yr high was 99°) but exceptionally dry cold in winter (40° to low of - -17°) very windy this time of yr and in summer-winds of 25 mph - good for sailing especially catamaran Visitors: last wkend (Fri-Mon) 5,000 users of park estimate of 80% from albuquerque/santa fe area Residents: : Cochiti Lake: approx. 180 small Spanish communities: 500 Pueblo Cochiti: 500 Last summer park had over 300,000 visitors and it did not open til June This yr, expect over 400,000 people. Eventually hope to handle 1 1/2 million visitors each yr. Visitor center will open in July 77. Natl Park Service has proposed another center as extension of Banelier Monument. Rec. facility opened in June 76. Cost: Dam was $90 Million, estimate $94 million with rec facility Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 JERRY HAMMER Visitors to Park: estimates 80% from Santa Fe and Albuquerque area 60% of these are regular users -- sailboaters, small power boat users Other Natural Attractions Bandelier Nat'l Monument 45 miles by road, (improved) 22 miles by cross-country trail CochitiPueblo reservation 6 miles SW natural geological formation Tent Rocks ghost towns, mining towns archaeological sites, which they with the Park Service try to protect, painted caves, historical sites Admission fee: .50 per person, 1.00 minimum, 2.50 maximum: camping 4.00 fee goes to Pueblo Boats cannot be rented for use on the lake, but Pueblo are planning to open a concession sometime in the next few years. Parking: in addition to parking in picnic and camping loops, there is parking on either side of the boat ramp and parking extending from the lake out which will accomodate 200 cars Swimming permitted at your own risk; there is no established beach Water-skiing forbidden because no-wake lake First Aid: Some first aid at the corps office town of Cochiti Lake has emergency medical team and ambulance service. Competition from other areas: Elephant Butte is about 200 miles south smaller, non-permanent lakes up north of the area KEN OPP GWC owns and operates marina and is responsible for maintenance under written Memorandum of Understanding. Eventually maintenance may pass back to the Pueblo-Cochiti Slips on the marina are available for $200 a season, money goes to GWC Courtesy dock is availabel through the army corps of engineer's boat ramp No eating facilities, no food store, no gas station Boat rental and eating facilities are being considered About 250 full-time residents of Cochiti Lake Camping facilities are available through GWC for residents. These are located not by the lake but up the hill from the lake. Cochiti Lake residents pay regular entrance fees for use of lake and park. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 Albuquerque Journal Sports Desk: no information- in the words of the person on duty "We probably wrote something about it, but I don't remember when. II Suggested I call Chamber of Commerce. Chamber of Commerce: woman there had a pamphlet which she read from- gave admission fee: 50 per person 4.00 for trailer hook-up. She does not know who is in charge whether state, National Park or what. Did know there was camping, also said there was snorkling and swimming. Gave me address, suggested I write for more information. Address is simply Lake Cochiti and PO Box. I asked who put out the pamphlet- she replied there was no indication. Santa Fe New Mexican: No one at the sports desk. The person I talked to tried to get information from others. Says it is run by Pueblo-Cochiti, costs 1.00 to go swimming or "get down to the lake" but costs nothing to get in (in other words, no admission fee). He said that no boats can be rented there. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227

How many miles are the shoreline?

yznh0227

yznh0227_p0, yznh0227_p1, yznh0227_p2, yznh0227_p3, yznh0227_p4, yznh0227_p5, yznh0227_p6, yznh0227_p7, yznh0227_p8

About 21 miles, about 21 miles

EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS By Mariput Period Assigned to/Discussed With/ ITEM Authorized REMARKS 4/16 4/15 9:45 called Ken opp-Sme - Quintana said KO on plune-cak back 4/15 10:45 called Ken Opp-sec. Hazel said KO out of office - / left tel. no. message to call back & 4/15 2:00 Allonquerque Journal sports desk - recommended call Chamber of Commerce 4/15 2:30 Chamber of Commerce in Albuguergue 3:05 Albuguerque Tribune sports editor -said call back tomorrow-no one there 3:35 Santa Fe New Mexican 4:00 Bureau of Parks and Recreation in Santu Fe il 4:10 Kenopp in meeting- will he happy to falk with me". - call back Monday 4/18 9:10 Jerry Hammer of ACE asked further questions concerning lake 48 109 A 108° B 107 o C 106 O D 105 E 104 o F 103 o , s Wetter horn Ph. Uncompathgre Pk. 4,309 14,017 À Horn's Pk. 38 Mt. Sneffels 14,150 A o /Lake Çity San Luis Pk 14.014 Saguache Moffat À 13,447 38 Ouray Redcloud Ph. Monticello Telluride 1,434 4 Crestona Pk. Mt. Wilson Silverton LA NEW MEXICO 14,294 14,246 Q O Rio Grande GREAT SAND DUNES SCALE Hermosa Pk. Res. Center O NAT'L MON. o 5 10 20 30 40 50 60MI. 12,574. 13,830 o Rico Rio Grande Pyramid O Hooper o 510 20 30 40 50 60 KM. Del Norte Walsenburg South River Pk. State Capitals 1 Dolores Hesperus Pk. Graham Pk. 13,145 Monte Vista County Seats 1 13,225 12,517 A Bennett Pk. A 13,189 R Alamosa A Blanca HOVENWEEP NAT'L MON. Cortez Vallecito Montezuma Pk. Res. 13,131 YUCCA HOUSE NAT'L MON Pagosa MESA VERDE Summit Pk.À Platoro Res. Cr. Trinchera Pk. A NAT'L PARK b Durango Springs 13,272 Conejos Pk. 13,546 13,180 UTE MOUNTAIN SOUTHERN UTE Navajo Pk. Purgatoire (Trinidad Carrizozo INDIAN RES. IND. RES. 11,330 Conejos Sanchez Ma Res. 37 R. Jaroso Branson 37 of Only point in the La Plata Navajo Lumberton Ute Pk.) (10.120 Costilla UNITED STATES )AZTEC RUÍNS Cedar Hill Res. Chama San Antonio Pk. OAmalia NAT'L MON. common to four Duice 10.935 Monero Costilla Pk Vermeji O Raton Dry state boundaries Flora Vista Brazos Ph. a 12,580 0 Aztec Park P. Folsom can Shiprock 11,410 A A 0 S day = T CAPULIN MT NAT'L MON. NAVAJO Farmington Des Moines NAVAJO Boulder Rutheron Park View Ocerro o Ship Rock & DAM Lip a C L F A 7,178 Bloomfield Blanco . Questao Red Capulin 1. Pajarito Tierra Amarilla River Seneca Tres ompañer, Burford USEI Vado Las Tablas Piedras WhealerO ( Eagle Nest Grenville 2 L. Cristobal 13,161 Mount Dora INDIAN o anjilon Maxwell S N J U A N Petaca) 2 Cebolla Arroyoo QValdez Ute Vallecitos Hondo PArroyo Seco EaglePark cinacimarron a French Clayton R o El Pradoos Taos A R R I B A L'a Madera Pueblo I Nest L. Springer o Taos(s PUEBLO IND. RES. Miami Rivero U N 0 N CANYON DE 9 El Rito? Carson oRanches of Taos Farley ladstone /CHELLY Newcomb Lindrith Ojo Caliente OToadlena PAbbott Gallina RESERVATION Canones Abiquiu amisasco Vadito is de Ocate River Regina O |Youngsville< addarte Chacon a Cr. Sedan >NATIONAL Ojo vo Coyote dGuadalu'pita Tramper o MONUMENT CHACO CANYON| Hernandez Sarco Mills OStead o NAT'L MON, O Clano Très Ritos ) Nacimiento Pk. San Juan Pueblot Ojo Feliz Levy o -36 Crystal .La Jara uz OTruchas ampas Holmán Cuba) 19.820 OCordova (Rainsville Wagon Mound a Hayden 36 Navajo Espanolag Chimayo AN Truchas Mora UNIÓN 911. Cleveland 0 R A Roy o Bueyeros 0 Tohatchi San;lidefonso OCundiyo Pk. 13,1100 of NAT'L MON. SAlbert\ z LOS ALAMOS a CPUEBLO H A R N G Pojoaque O RES; LO Ledoux Buena Vista Amistad Ventana o Los Alamos- :Cueva Valmora Mora R Solano o Mexican White Nambe, Cowles Rociada Watrous Window Rock/ Springs Jemez Springs OPonderosa Rock Baldu Pk, or no Mosquero S A Tesugued 12,623! Sapello St. 0 Crownpoint N D V A ANDELIER Sabinoso (1) Michaels MON R A El Porvenir Gamerco, K I N E Y Jemez Cochiti, Montezuma Rehoboth Santal 10,546 Gallegos Nara Visa OPueblo Conchas Mentmore, PUEBLO Pecos o Las Vegas Mo I G U E Reservoir 3 and Penablanca S As San Ysidro INDIAN Stol FT. PECOS NAT'L MON. Romeroville Gallup Cr. 3 Zia Pueblo RES. Domingo WINGATE APMY Fort Wingate Lamy Rowe Lourdes Trujillo Pueblo- Cerrillos San Jose Thoreau to Jemez Canyon's Felipe Trementina CONCHAS DAM Lypton: o U McGaffey Bluewater, Res. O Serafina R L. O Prewitt Algodon Madrid Galisteo Soham Conchas Conchas Dam (Ribera Logan Riverl - s San Mateo Bernalillo Placitas SANT FE Garita Ute Res. S. Bluewater Mt. Tayior o Sena Corrales Sandia Pk Golden Rencona (ian 110,609 Milan, 11,389 Villanueya TOSA Glenrio (Ramáh a Grants Seboyeta Los Ranchos Alameda OSandia Park Leyba Anton Chico© O Endee San R. San Ratael Cu bero OPaguate\ de Albuquerque, Fidel Cedar Crest Stanley Montoya Tucumcari Dilia San Jon O Colonias Zuni E MORRO NAT'L MON o a Newki irk O Bard (jeras 35 to E! Morro Dahlia ZUNI INDIAN RIS Acomit Cuervo o O' is I Q U A 35 Cara 4 I o PUL wh B E R N I I. L o Monarty " @ Santa Rosa Quay - - 13 3 I - Protects . EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS By Period Assigned to/Discussed With/ ITEM Authorized REMARKS 4/14 called Ken Opp 4x - secretary told me he was in meeting and on phone Joe Quintana suggested / call governor of Pueblo Cochin (465-2244) 4/14 called Fred Cordero (gov. of P.C) he knew of no "old-timer 11 / could talk to, suggested / see him 4/14 2:00 Jerry Hammer, any curps of engineers -much information, very helpful 4/15 9:45 Ken Opp- sec. Sue Quinta said Ken on phone, call back 4/15 10:45 sec. Hazel said Ken Opp out of office. 1 left telno. and message to call back 4/15 2:00 Abuquerque Journal Sports desk- recommended / call Chamber of Commene 4115 2:30 Albuquerque Chamber of Commine 4/15 3:05 Albuguerque Tribum Sports ed - call back Mon no one there 4/15 3:35 Santa Fe New Mexican - no info 4/15 4:00 Burean of Parks and Recreation in Santa Fe- no info 4/15 4:10 Ken Opp in meeting call back Monday 4/18 9:10 Jerry Hammer of ACE. - further info on lake 4/18 10:20 Ken opp- - answered ques, wants apy of article before published let 4/18 11:00 Albug Chamber offommene - address for brodure TILCO/ TELEPHONE 303/831 ORD? P.O. BOX 88/DENY ER. COLORADO 80201 April 18, 1977 Cochiti Lake Recreation Area P. 0. Box 66 Cochiti Lake, New Mexico 87041 Dear Sirs: The Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce has informed me that a one-page brochure describing Cochiti Lake and its facilities is available through your office. Please send me a copy of this brochure and any additional literature that is available. The address is listed above. Thank you. Sincerely, Mary P. Murphy Mary P. Murphy Source: :https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 SOURCES Ken 0pp Project Manager, Great Western Cities P. 0. Box 66 Cochiti Lake, NM 87041 (505) 465-2211 Jerry Hammer Army Corps of Engineers or Ed Shirley (505) 242-8302 Fred Cordero Governor Pueblo-Cochit - Indian Reservation (505) 465-2244, 465-2245 Albuquerque Journal (505) 842-2300 Albuquerque Tribune (Sports) (505) 842-2378 Santa Fe New Mexican (505) 983-3303 Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce (505) 842-0220 Santa Fe Bureau (505) 988-8068 Director of Parks and Recreation Cochiti Lake Public Use Area P. 0. Box 66 Cochiti Lake, New Mexico 87041 Newsweek Magazine about 3/4/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 COHITI LAKE Location: on 6300 acres of pueblo de Cochiti Indian Resveration north central NM, 41 miles south of Santa Fe, 49 miles north of Albuquerque Dam: Structure is 10 largest earth filled dam in U.S. 5.4 miles long with 2 lane highway on top hydrolically operated gates 251 feet high 85 ft water depth at dam control tower height of 25 story bldg. Lake: made by dam; backs up into White Rock Canyon legislated by Congress for flood control and reduce sedimentation water does not come from Rio Grande but through San Juan- Chame pipeline from Colorado River Basin construction on dam did not begin til 70, completed 75 corps is instructed to maintain 50,000 acre ft. in 1k surface of lake is 5,321.25 ft above mean sea level 1200 surface acres of water from control tower to end is 711/2 miles long 2 1/2 miles from tower lake goes into White Rock Canyon wider closer to dam (1/2 mile wide) approx. 1/3 lake suitable for rec activities, although fisherman can go further in to the vaious canyons and arroyos Rec. Facilities : at present, there is one rec. facility built land belongs to pueblo cohiti, Univ. of NM regents, Banalier monument, rec. facility has three loops Loop A: picnic area-parking facilities for 55 cars-tables and shelters-29 shelters, 53 tables Loop B: camping loop-38 sites-pull-out sites-electrical hook-up table and picnic grill at sites Loop C; 29 total shelters, 42 tables 2 comfort stations with flush toilets! 1 trailer dump for holding containers Roads: Roads paved to boat ramp gravel surface in rec. loops Boat Ramp : contracted by ACE 4 lane boat ramp Marina : responsibility of Pueblo-Cochiti (who transferred responsibility to GW?) last summer were 2i boat slips this summer 21 more to be built total will be 121 slips marina is floating with walkway from pier anchored in cove floating because of flooding Boat Capacity: because lake is wakeless, law forbids fast boating, motor boats and water-skiing therefore, lake should be able to handle 150 boats safely Policing: Corps maintains jurisdiction will give citations is backed up (or in some cases, backs up) deputy sheriffs from county who can patrol area Maintainance: responsibility of Pueblo-Cochiti through Memorandum of Understanding BUT Town Charter transfers responsibility to GWC (?) Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 Fish: many kinds of fish those stocked by state include rainbow, wall-eyed pike, large mouth bass, blue-gill, crappie -- catfish and bass kinds not stocked by state good fishing last yr. except for pike which is hoped to be better this yr. lake froze solid past two winters: this yr. did not thaw til last month catfish fishing good up canyon and arroyos. Meda canyon, glen cnyon, sanchex canyon in summer, trout found in open water bass found along shore lines (northeat) where trees located Shoreline: about 21 miles of shoreline, only 5 miles offer access to lake rest is steep canyon walls Towns: Pueblo indian town is 1/2 mile downstream from lake Cochiti Lake is right across road from recreational areas Climate: semi-hot insummer (last yr high was 99°) but exceptionally dry cold in winter (40° to low of - -17°) very windy this time of yr and in summer-winds of 25 mph - good for sailing especially catamaran Visitors: last wkend (Fri-Mon) 5,000 users of park estimate of 80% from albuquerque/santa fe area Residents: : Cochiti Lake: approx. 180 small Spanish communities: 500 Pueblo Cochiti: 500 Last summer park had over 300,000 visitors and it did not open til June This yr, expect over 400,000 people. Eventually hope to handle 1 1/2 million visitors each yr. Visitor center will open in July 77. Natl Park Service has proposed another center as extension of Banelier Monument. Rec. facility opened in June 76. Cost: Dam was $90 Million, estimate $94 million with rec facility Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 JERRY HAMMER Visitors to Park: estimates 80% from Santa Fe and Albuquerque area 60% of these are regular users -- sailboaters, small power boat users Other Natural Attractions Bandelier Nat'l Monument 45 miles by road, (improved) 22 miles by cross-country trail CochitiPueblo reservation 6 miles SW natural geological formation Tent Rocks ghost towns, mining towns archaeological sites, which they with the Park Service try to protect, painted caves, historical sites Admission fee: .50 per person, 1.00 minimum, 2.50 maximum: camping 4.00 fee goes to Pueblo Boats cannot be rented for use on the lake, but Pueblo are planning to open a concession sometime in the next few years. Parking: in addition to parking in picnic and camping loops, there is parking on either side of the boat ramp and parking extending from the lake out which will accomodate 200 cars Swimming permitted at your own risk; there is no established beach Water-skiing forbidden because no-wake lake First Aid: Some first aid at the corps office town of Cochiti Lake has emergency medical team and ambulance service. Competition from other areas: Elephant Butte is about 200 miles south smaller, non-permanent lakes up north of the area KEN OPP GWC owns and operates marina and is responsible for maintenance under written Memorandum of Understanding. Eventually maintenance may pass back to the Pueblo-Cochiti Slips on the marina are available for $200 a season, money goes to GWC Courtesy dock is availabel through the army corps of engineer's boat ramp No eating facilities, no food store, no gas station Boat rental and eating facilities are being considered About 250 full-time residents of Cochiti Lake Camping facilities are available through GWC for residents. These are located not by the lake but up the hill from the lake. Cochiti Lake residents pay regular entrance fees for use of lake and park. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 Albuquerque Journal Sports Desk: no information- in the words of the person on duty "We probably wrote something about it, but I don't remember when. II Suggested I call Chamber of Commerce. Chamber of Commerce: woman there had a pamphlet which she read from- gave admission fee: 50 per person 4.00 for trailer hook-up. She does not know who is in charge whether state, National Park or what. Did know there was camping, also said there was snorkling and swimming. Gave me address, suggested I write for more information. Address is simply Lake Cochiti and PO Box. I asked who put out the pamphlet- she replied there was no indication. Santa Fe New Mexican: No one at the sports desk. The person I talked to tried to get information from others. Says it is run by Pueblo-Cochiti, costs 1.00 to go swimming or "get down to the lake" but costs nothing to get in (in other words, no admission fee). He said that no boats can be rented there. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227

what is the distance of the lake from Albuquerque?

yznh0227

yznh0227_p0, yznh0227_p1, yznh0227_p2, yznh0227_p3, yznh0227_p4, yznh0227_p5, yznh0227_p6, yznh0227_p7, yznh0227_p8

49 MILES, 49 miles north of Albuquerque

EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS By Mariput Period Assigned to/Discussed With/ ITEM Authorized REMARKS 4/16 4/15 9:45 called Ken opp-Sme - Quintana said KO on plune-cak back 4/15 10:45 called Ken Opp-sec. Hazel said KO out of office - / left tel. no. message to call back & 4/15 2:00 Allonquerque Journal sports desk - recommended call Chamber of Commerce 4/15 2:30 Chamber of Commerce in Albuguergue 3:05 Albuguerque Tribune sports editor -said call back tomorrow-no one there 3:35 Santa Fe New Mexican 4:00 Bureau of Parks and Recreation in Santu Fe il 4:10 Kenopp in meeting- will he happy to falk with me". - call back Monday 4/18 9:10 Jerry Hammer of ACE asked further questions concerning lake 48 109 A 108° B 107 o C 106 O D 105 E 104 o F 103 o , s Wetter horn Ph. Uncompathgre Pk. 4,309 14,017 À Horn's Pk. 38 Mt. Sneffels 14,150 A o /Lake Çity San Luis Pk 14.014 Saguache Moffat À 13,447 38 Ouray Redcloud Ph. Monticello Telluride 1,434 4 Crestona Pk. Mt. Wilson Silverton LA NEW MEXICO 14,294 14,246 Q O Rio Grande GREAT SAND DUNES SCALE Hermosa Pk. Res. Center O NAT'L MON. o 5 10 20 30 40 50 60MI. 12,574. 13,830 o Rico Rio Grande Pyramid O Hooper o 510 20 30 40 50 60 KM. Del Norte Walsenburg South River Pk. State Capitals 1 Dolores Hesperus Pk. Graham Pk. 13,145 Monte Vista County Seats 1 13,225 12,517 A Bennett Pk. A 13,189 R Alamosa A Blanca HOVENWEEP NAT'L MON. Cortez Vallecito Montezuma Pk. Res. 13,131 YUCCA HOUSE NAT'L MON Pagosa MESA VERDE Summit Pk.À Platoro Res. Cr. Trinchera Pk. A NAT'L PARK b Durango Springs 13,272 Conejos Pk. 13,546 13,180 UTE MOUNTAIN SOUTHERN UTE Navajo Pk. Purgatoire (Trinidad Carrizozo INDIAN RES. IND. RES. 11,330 Conejos Sanchez Ma Res. 37 R. Jaroso Branson 37 of Only point in the La Plata Navajo Lumberton Ute Pk.) (10.120 Costilla UNITED STATES )AZTEC RUÍNS Cedar Hill Res. Chama San Antonio Pk. OAmalia NAT'L MON. common to four Duice 10.935 Monero Costilla Pk Vermeji O Raton Dry state boundaries Flora Vista Brazos Ph. a 12,580 0 Aztec Park P. Folsom can Shiprock 11,410 A A 0 S day = T CAPULIN MT NAT'L MON. NAVAJO Farmington Des Moines NAVAJO Boulder Rutheron Park View Ocerro o Ship Rock & DAM Lip a C L F A 7,178 Bloomfield Blanco . Questao Red Capulin 1. Pajarito Tierra Amarilla River Seneca Tres ompañer, Burford USEI Vado Las Tablas Piedras WhealerO ( Eagle Nest Grenville 2 L. Cristobal 13,161 Mount Dora INDIAN o anjilon Maxwell S N J U A N Petaca) 2 Cebolla Arroyoo QValdez Ute Vallecitos Hondo PArroyo Seco EaglePark cinacimarron a French Clayton R o El Pradoos Taos A R R I B A L'a Madera Pueblo I Nest L. Springer o Taos(s PUEBLO IND. RES. Miami Rivero U N 0 N CANYON DE 9 El Rito? Carson oRanches of Taos Farley ladstone /CHELLY Newcomb Lindrith Ojo Caliente OToadlena PAbbott Gallina RESERVATION Canones Abiquiu amisasco Vadito is de Ocate River Regina O |Youngsville< addarte Chacon a Cr. Sedan >NATIONAL Ojo vo Coyote dGuadalu'pita Tramper o MONUMENT CHACO CANYON| Hernandez Sarco Mills OStead o NAT'L MON, O Clano Très Ritos ) Nacimiento Pk. San Juan Pueblot Ojo Feliz Levy o -36 Crystal .La Jara uz OTruchas ampas Holmán Cuba) 19.820 OCordova (Rainsville Wagon Mound a Hayden 36 Navajo Espanolag Chimayo AN Truchas Mora UNIÓN 911. Cleveland 0 R A Roy o Bueyeros 0 Tohatchi San;lidefonso OCundiyo Pk. 13,1100 of NAT'L MON. SAlbert\ z LOS ALAMOS a CPUEBLO H A R N G Pojoaque O RES; LO Ledoux Buena Vista Amistad Ventana o Los Alamos- :Cueva Valmora Mora R Solano o Mexican White Nambe, Cowles Rociada Watrous Window Rock/ Springs Jemez Springs OPonderosa Rock Baldu Pk, or no Mosquero S A Tesugued 12,623! Sapello St. 0 Crownpoint N D V A ANDELIER Sabinoso (1) Michaels MON R A El Porvenir Gamerco, K I N E Y Jemez Cochiti, Montezuma Rehoboth Santal 10,546 Gallegos Nara Visa OPueblo Conchas Mentmore, PUEBLO Pecos o Las Vegas Mo I G U E Reservoir 3 and Penablanca S As San Ysidro INDIAN Stol FT. PECOS NAT'L MON. Romeroville Gallup Cr. 3 Zia Pueblo RES. Domingo WINGATE APMY Fort Wingate Lamy Rowe Lourdes Trujillo Pueblo- Cerrillos San Jose Thoreau to Jemez Canyon's Felipe Trementina CONCHAS DAM Lypton: o U McGaffey Bluewater, Res. O Serafina R L. O Prewitt Algodon Madrid Galisteo Soham Conchas Conchas Dam (Ribera Logan Riverl - s San Mateo Bernalillo Placitas SANT FE Garita Ute Res. S. Bluewater Mt. Tayior o Sena Corrales Sandia Pk Golden Rencona (ian 110,609 Milan, 11,389 Villanueya TOSA Glenrio (Ramáh a Grants Seboyeta Los Ranchos Alameda OSandia Park Leyba Anton Chico© O Endee San R. San Ratael Cu bero OPaguate\ de Albuquerque, Fidel Cedar Crest Stanley Montoya Tucumcari Dilia San Jon O Colonias Zuni E MORRO NAT'L MON o a Newki irk O Bard (jeras 35 to E! Morro Dahlia ZUNI INDIAN RIS Acomit Cuervo o O' is I Q U A 35 Cara 4 I o PUL wh B E R N I I. L o Monarty " @ Santa Rosa Quay - - 13 3 I - Protects . EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS By Period Assigned to/Discussed With/ ITEM Authorized REMARKS 4/14 called Ken Opp 4x - secretary told me he was in meeting and on phone Joe Quintana suggested / call governor of Pueblo Cochin (465-2244) 4/14 called Fred Cordero (gov. of P.C) he knew of no "old-timer 11 / could talk to, suggested / see him 4/14 2:00 Jerry Hammer, any curps of engineers -much information, very helpful 4/15 9:45 Ken Opp- sec. Sue Quinta said Ken on phone, call back 4/15 10:45 sec. Hazel said Ken Opp out of office. 1 left telno. and message to call back 4/15 2:00 Abuquerque Journal Sports desk- recommended / call Chamber of Commene 4115 2:30 Albuquerque Chamber of Commine 4/15 3:05 Albuguerque Tribum Sports ed - call back Mon no one there 4/15 3:35 Santa Fe New Mexican - no info 4/15 4:00 Burean of Parks and Recreation in Santa Fe- no info 4/15 4:10 Ken Opp in meeting call back Monday 4/18 9:10 Jerry Hammer of ACE. - further info on lake 4/18 10:20 Ken opp- - answered ques, wants apy of article before published let 4/18 11:00 Albug Chamber offommene - address for brodure TILCO/ TELEPHONE 303/831 ORD? P.O. BOX 88/DENY ER. COLORADO 80201 April 18, 1977 Cochiti Lake Recreation Area P. 0. Box 66 Cochiti Lake, New Mexico 87041 Dear Sirs: The Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce has informed me that a one-page brochure describing Cochiti Lake and its facilities is available through your office. Please send me a copy of this brochure and any additional literature that is available. The address is listed above. Thank you. Sincerely, Mary P. Murphy Mary P. Murphy Source: :https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 SOURCES Ken 0pp Project Manager, Great Western Cities P. 0. Box 66 Cochiti Lake, NM 87041 (505) 465-2211 Jerry Hammer Army Corps of Engineers or Ed Shirley (505) 242-8302 Fred Cordero Governor Pueblo-Cochit - Indian Reservation (505) 465-2244, 465-2245 Albuquerque Journal (505) 842-2300 Albuquerque Tribune (Sports) (505) 842-2378 Santa Fe New Mexican (505) 983-3303 Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce (505) 842-0220 Santa Fe Bureau (505) 988-8068 Director of Parks and Recreation Cochiti Lake Public Use Area P. 0. Box 66 Cochiti Lake, New Mexico 87041 Newsweek Magazine about 3/4/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 COHITI LAKE Location: on 6300 acres of pueblo de Cochiti Indian Resveration north central NM, 41 miles south of Santa Fe, 49 miles north of Albuquerque Dam: Structure is 10 largest earth filled dam in U.S. 5.4 miles long with 2 lane highway on top hydrolically operated gates 251 feet high 85 ft water depth at dam control tower height of 25 story bldg. Lake: made by dam; backs up into White Rock Canyon legislated by Congress for flood control and reduce sedimentation water does not come from Rio Grande but through San Juan- Chame pipeline from Colorado River Basin construction on dam did not begin til 70, completed 75 corps is instructed to maintain 50,000 acre ft. in 1k surface of lake is 5,321.25 ft above mean sea level 1200 surface acres of water from control tower to end is 711/2 miles long 2 1/2 miles from tower lake goes into White Rock Canyon wider closer to dam (1/2 mile wide) approx. 1/3 lake suitable for rec activities, although fisherman can go further in to the vaious canyons and arroyos Rec. Facilities : at present, there is one rec. facility built land belongs to pueblo cohiti, Univ. of NM regents, Banalier monument, rec. facility has three loops Loop A: picnic area-parking facilities for 55 cars-tables and shelters-29 shelters, 53 tables Loop B: camping loop-38 sites-pull-out sites-electrical hook-up table and picnic grill at sites Loop C; 29 total shelters, 42 tables 2 comfort stations with flush toilets! 1 trailer dump for holding containers Roads: Roads paved to boat ramp gravel surface in rec. loops Boat Ramp : contracted by ACE 4 lane boat ramp Marina : responsibility of Pueblo-Cochiti (who transferred responsibility to GW?) last summer were 2i boat slips this summer 21 more to be built total will be 121 slips marina is floating with walkway from pier anchored in cove floating because of flooding Boat Capacity: because lake is wakeless, law forbids fast boating, motor boats and water-skiing therefore, lake should be able to handle 150 boats safely Policing: Corps maintains jurisdiction will give citations is backed up (or in some cases, backs up) deputy sheriffs from county who can patrol area Maintainance: responsibility of Pueblo-Cochiti through Memorandum of Understanding BUT Town Charter transfers responsibility to GWC (?) Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 Fish: many kinds of fish those stocked by state include rainbow, wall-eyed pike, large mouth bass, blue-gill, crappie -- catfish and bass kinds not stocked by state good fishing last yr. except for pike which is hoped to be better this yr. lake froze solid past two winters: this yr. did not thaw til last month catfish fishing good up canyon and arroyos. Meda canyon, glen cnyon, sanchex canyon in summer, trout found in open water bass found along shore lines (northeat) where trees located Shoreline: about 21 miles of shoreline, only 5 miles offer access to lake rest is steep canyon walls Towns: Pueblo indian town is 1/2 mile downstream from lake Cochiti Lake is right across road from recreational areas Climate: semi-hot insummer (last yr high was 99°) but exceptionally dry cold in winter (40° to low of - -17°) very windy this time of yr and in summer-winds of 25 mph - good for sailing especially catamaran Visitors: last wkend (Fri-Mon) 5,000 users of park estimate of 80% from albuquerque/santa fe area Residents: : Cochiti Lake: approx. 180 small Spanish communities: 500 Pueblo Cochiti: 500 Last summer park had over 300,000 visitors and it did not open til June This yr, expect over 400,000 people. Eventually hope to handle 1 1/2 million visitors each yr. Visitor center will open in July 77. Natl Park Service has proposed another center as extension of Banelier Monument. Rec. facility opened in June 76. Cost: Dam was $90 Million, estimate $94 million with rec facility Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 JERRY HAMMER Visitors to Park: estimates 80% from Santa Fe and Albuquerque area 60% of these are regular users -- sailboaters, small power boat users Other Natural Attractions Bandelier Nat'l Monument 45 miles by road, (improved) 22 miles by cross-country trail CochitiPueblo reservation 6 miles SW natural geological formation Tent Rocks ghost towns, mining towns archaeological sites, which they with the Park Service try to protect, painted caves, historical sites Admission fee: .50 per person, 1.00 minimum, 2.50 maximum: camping 4.00 fee goes to Pueblo Boats cannot be rented for use on the lake, but Pueblo are planning to open a concession sometime in the next few years. Parking: in addition to parking in picnic and camping loops, there is parking on either side of the boat ramp and parking extending from the lake out which will accomodate 200 cars Swimming permitted at your own risk; there is no established beach Water-skiing forbidden because no-wake lake First Aid: Some first aid at the corps office town of Cochiti Lake has emergency medical team and ambulance service. Competition from other areas: Elephant Butte is about 200 miles south smaller, non-permanent lakes up north of the area KEN OPP GWC owns and operates marina and is responsible for maintenance under written Memorandum of Understanding. Eventually maintenance may pass back to the Pueblo-Cochiti Slips on the marina are available for $200 a season, money goes to GWC Courtesy dock is availabel through the army corps of engineer's boat ramp No eating facilities, no food store, no gas station Boat rental and eating facilities are being considered About 250 full-time residents of Cochiti Lake Camping facilities are available through GWC for residents. These are located not by the lake but up the hill from the lake. Cochiti Lake residents pay regular entrance fees for use of lake and park. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 Albuquerque Journal Sports Desk: no information- in the words of the person on duty "We probably wrote something about it, but I don't remember when. II Suggested I call Chamber of Commerce. Chamber of Commerce: woman there had a pamphlet which she read from- gave admission fee: 50 per person 4.00 for trailer hook-up. She does not know who is in charge whether state, National Park or what. Did know there was camping, also said there was snorkling and swimming. Gave me address, suggested I write for more information. Address is simply Lake Cochiti and PO Box. I asked who put out the pamphlet- she replied there was no indication. Santa Fe New Mexican: No one at the sports desk. The person I talked to tried to get information from others. Says it is run by Pueblo-Cochiti, costs 1.00 to go swimming or "get down to the lake" but costs nothing to get in (in other words, no admission fee). He said that no boats can be rented there. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227

When did the Rec. facility opened?

yznh0227

yznh0227_p0, yznh0227_p1, yznh0227_p2, yznh0227_p3, yznh0227_p4, yznh0227_p5, yznh0227_p6, yznh0227_p7, yznh0227_p8

June 76

EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS By Mariput Period Assigned to/Discussed With/ ITEM Authorized REMARKS 4/16 4/15 9:45 called Ken opp-Sme - Quintana said KO on plune-cak back 4/15 10:45 called Ken Opp-sec. Hazel said KO out of office - / left tel. no. message to call back & 4/15 2:00 Allonquerque Journal sports desk - recommended call Chamber of Commerce 4/15 2:30 Chamber of Commerce in Albuguergue 3:05 Albuguerque Tribune sports editor -said call back tomorrow-no one there 3:35 Santa Fe New Mexican 4:00 Bureau of Parks and Recreation in Santu Fe il 4:10 Kenopp in meeting- will he happy to falk with me". - call back Monday 4/18 9:10 Jerry Hammer of ACE asked further questions concerning lake 48 109 A 108° B 107 o C 106 O D 105 E 104 o F 103 o , s Wetter horn Ph. Uncompathgre Pk. 4,309 14,017 À Horn's Pk. 38 Mt. Sneffels 14,150 A o /Lake Çity San Luis Pk 14.014 Saguache Moffat À 13,447 38 Ouray Redcloud Ph. Monticello Telluride 1,434 4 Crestona Pk. Mt. Wilson Silverton LA NEW MEXICO 14,294 14,246 Q O Rio Grande GREAT SAND DUNES SCALE Hermosa Pk. Res. Center O NAT'L MON. o 5 10 20 30 40 50 60MI. 12,574. 13,830 o Rico Rio Grande Pyramid O Hooper o 510 20 30 40 50 60 KM. Del Norte Walsenburg South River Pk. State Capitals 1 Dolores Hesperus Pk. Graham Pk. 13,145 Monte Vista County Seats 1 13,225 12,517 A Bennett Pk. A 13,189 R Alamosa A Blanca HOVENWEEP NAT'L MON. Cortez Vallecito Montezuma Pk. Res. 13,131 YUCCA HOUSE NAT'L MON Pagosa MESA VERDE Summit Pk.À Platoro Res. Cr. Trinchera Pk. A NAT'L PARK b Durango Springs 13,272 Conejos Pk. 13,546 13,180 UTE MOUNTAIN SOUTHERN UTE Navajo Pk. Purgatoire (Trinidad Carrizozo INDIAN RES. IND. RES. 11,330 Conejos Sanchez Ma Res. 37 R. Jaroso Branson 37 of Only point in the La Plata Navajo Lumberton Ute Pk.) (10.120 Costilla UNITED STATES )AZTEC RUÍNS Cedar Hill Res. Chama San Antonio Pk. OAmalia NAT'L MON. common to four Duice 10.935 Monero Costilla Pk Vermeji O Raton Dry state boundaries Flora Vista Brazos Ph. a 12,580 0 Aztec Park P. Folsom can Shiprock 11,410 A A 0 S day = T CAPULIN MT NAT'L MON. NAVAJO Farmington Des Moines NAVAJO Boulder Rutheron Park View Ocerro o Ship Rock & DAM Lip a C L F A 7,178 Bloomfield Blanco . Questao Red Capulin 1. Pajarito Tierra Amarilla River Seneca Tres ompañer, Burford USEI Vado Las Tablas Piedras WhealerO ( Eagle Nest Grenville 2 L. Cristobal 13,161 Mount Dora INDIAN o anjilon Maxwell S N J U A N Petaca) 2 Cebolla Arroyoo QValdez Ute Vallecitos Hondo PArroyo Seco EaglePark cinacimarron a French Clayton R o El Pradoos Taos A R R I B A L'a Madera Pueblo I Nest L. Springer o Taos(s PUEBLO IND. RES. Miami Rivero U N 0 N CANYON DE 9 El Rito? Carson oRanches of Taos Farley ladstone /CHELLY Newcomb Lindrith Ojo Caliente OToadlena PAbbott Gallina RESERVATION Canones Abiquiu amisasco Vadito is de Ocate River Regina O |Youngsville< addarte Chacon a Cr. Sedan >NATIONAL Ojo vo Coyote dGuadalu'pita Tramper o MONUMENT CHACO CANYON| Hernandez Sarco Mills OStead o NAT'L MON, O Clano Très Ritos ) Nacimiento Pk. San Juan Pueblot Ojo Feliz Levy o -36 Crystal .La Jara uz OTruchas ampas Holmán Cuba) 19.820 OCordova (Rainsville Wagon Mound a Hayden 36 Navajo Espanolag Chimayo AN Truchas Mora UNIÓN 911. Cleveland 0 R A Roy o Bueyeros 0 Tohatchi San;lidefonso OCundiyo Pk. 13,1100 of NAT'L MON. SAlbert\ z LOS ALAMOS a CPUEBLO H A R N G Pojoaque O RES; LO Ledoux Buena Vista Amistad Ventana o Los Alamos- :Cueva Valmora Mora R Solano o Mexican White Nambe, Cowles Rociada Watrous Window Rock/ Springs Jemez Springs OPonderosa Rock Baldu Pk, or no Mosquero S A Tesugued 12,623! Sapello St. 0 Crownpoint N D V A ANDELIER Sabinoso (1) Michaels MON R A El Porvenir Gamerco, K I N E Y Jemez Cochiti, Montezuma Rehoboth Santal 10,546 Gallegos Nara Visa OPueblo Conchas Mentmore, PUEBLO Pecos o Las Vegas Mo I G U E Reservoir 3 and Penablanca S As San Ysidro INDIAN Stol FT. PECOS NAT'L MON. Romeroville Gallup Cr. 3 Zia Pueblo RES. Domingo WINGATE APMY Fort Wingate Lamy Rowe Lourdes Trujillo Pueblo- Cerrillos San Jose Thoreau to Jemez Canyon's Felipe Trementina CONCHAS DAM Lypton: o U McGaffey Bluewater, Res. O Serafina R L. O Prewitt Algodon Madrid Galisteo Soham Conchas Conchas Dam (Ribera Logan Riverl - s San Mateo Bernalillo Placitas SANT FE Garita Ute Res. S. Bluewater Mt. Tayior o Sena Corrales Sandia Pk Golden Rencona (ian 110,609 Milan, 11,389 Villanueya TOSA Glenrio (Ramáh a Grants Seboyeta Los Ranchos Alameda OSandia Park Leyba Anton Chico© O Endee San R. San Ratael Cu bero OPaguate\ de Albuquerque, Fidel Cedar Crest Stanley Montoya Tucumcari Dilia San Jon O Colonias Zuni E MORRO NAT'L MON o a Newki irk O Bard (jeras 35 to E! Morro Dahlia ZUNI INDIAN RIS Acomit Cuervo o O' is I Q U A 35 Cara 4 I o PUL wh B E R N I I. L o Monarty " @ Santa Rosa Quay - - 13 3 I - Protects . EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS By Period Assigned to/Discussed With/ ITEM Authorized REMARKS 4/14 called Ken Opp 4x - secretary told me he was in meeting and on phone Joe Quintana suggested / call governor of Pueblo Cochin (465-2244) 4/14 called Fred Cordero (gov. of P.C) he knew of no "old-timer 11 / could talk to, suggested / see him 4/14 2:00 Jerry Hammer, any curps of engineers -much information, very helpful 4/15 9:45 Ken Opp- sec. Sue Quinta said Ken on phone, call back 4/15 10:45 sec. Hazel said Ken Opp out of office. 1 left telno. and message to call back 4/15 2:00 Abuquerque Journal Sports desk- recommended / call Chamber of Commene 4115 2:30 Albuquerque Chamber of Commine 4/15 3:05 Albuguerque Tribum Sports ed - call back Mon no one there 4/15 3:35 Santa Fe New Mexican - no info 4/15 4:00 Burean of Parks and Recreation in Santa Fe- no info 4/15 4:10 Ken Opp in meeting call back Monday 4/18 9:10 Jerry Hammer of ACE. - further info on lake 4/18 10:20 Ken opp- - answered ques, wants apy of article before published let 4/18 11:00 Albug Chamber offommene - address for brodure TILCO/ TELEPHONE 303/831 ORD? P.O. BOX 88/DENY ER. COLORADO 80201 April 18, 1977 Cochiti Lake Recreation Area P. 0. Box 66 Cochiti Lake, New Mexico 87041 Dear Sirs: The Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce has informed me that a one-page brochure describing Cochiti Lake and its facilities is available through your office. Please send me a copy of this brochure and any additional literature that is available. The address is listed above. Thank you. Sincerely, Mary P. Murphy Mary P. Murphy Source: :https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 SOURCES Ken 0pp Project Manager, Great Western Cities P. 0. Box 66 Cochiti Lake, NM 87041 (505) 465-2211 Jerry Hammer Army Corps of Engineers or Ed Shirley (505) 242-8302 Fred Cordero Governor Pueblo-Cochit - Indian Reservation (505) 465-2244, 465-2245 Albuquerque Journal (505) 842-2300 Albuquerque Tribune (Sports) (505) 842-2378 Santa Fe New Mexican (505) 983-3303 Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce (505) 842-0220 Santa Fe Bureau (505) 988-8068 Director of Parks and Recreation Cochiti Lake Public Use Area P. 0. Box 66 Cochiti Lake, New Mexico 87041 Newsweek Magazine about 3/4/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 COHITI LAKE Location: on 6300 acres of pueblo de Cochiti Indian Resveration north central NM, 41 miles south of Santa Fe, 49 miles north of Albuquerque Dam: Structure is 10 largest earth filled dam in U.S. 5.4 miles long with 2 lane highway on top hydrolically operated gates 251 feet high 85 ft water depth at dam control tower height of 25 story bldg. Lake: made by dam; backs up into White Rock Canyon legislated by Congress for flood control and reduce sedimentation water does not come from Rio Grande but through San Juan- Chame pipeline from Colorado River Basin construction on dam did not begin til 70, completed 75 corps is instructed to maintain 50,000 acre ft. in 1k surface of lake is 5,321.25 ft above mean sea level 1200 surface acres of water from control tower to end is 711/2 miles long 2 1/2 miles from tower lake goes into White Rock Canyon wider closer to dam (1/2 mile wide) approx. 1/3 lake suitable for rec activities, although fisherman can go further in to the vaious canyons and arroyos Rec. Facilities : at present, there is one rec. facility built land belongs to pueblo cohiti, Univ. of NM regents, Banalier monument, rec. facility has three loops Loop A: picnic area-parking facilities for 55 cars-tables and shelters-29 shelters, 53 tables Loop B: camping loop-38 sites-pull-out sites-electrical hook-up table and picnic grill at sites Loop C; 29 total shelters, 42 tables 2 comfort stations with flush toilets! 1 trailer dump for holding containers Roads: Roads paved to boat ramp gravel surface in rec. loops Boat Ramp : contracted by ACE 4 lane boat ramp Marina : responsibility of Pueblo-Cochiti (who transferred responsibility to GW?) last summer were 2i boat slips this summer 21 more to be built total will be 121 slips marina is floating with walkway from pier anchored in cove floating because of flooding Boat Capacity: because lake is wakeless, law forbids fast boating, motor boats and water-skiing therefore, lake should be able to handle 150 boats safely Policing: Corps maintains jurisdiction will give citations is backed up (or in some cases, backs up) deputy sheriffs from county who can patrol area Maintainance: responsibility of Pueblo-Cochiti through Memorandum of Understanding BUT Town Charter transfers responsibility to GWC (?) Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 Fish: many kinds of fish those stocked by state include rainbow, wall-eyed pike, large mouth bass, blue-gill, crappie -- catfish and bass kinds not stocked by state good fishing last yr. except for pike which is hoped to be better this yr. lake froze solid past two winters: this yr. did not thaw til last month catfish fishing good up canyon and arroyos. Meda canyon, glen cnyon, sanchex canyon in summer, trout found in open water bass found along shore lines (northeat) where trees located Shoreline: about 21 miles of shoreline, only 5 miles offer access to lake rest is steep canyon walls Towns: Pueblo indian town is 1/2 mile downstream from lake Cochiti Lake is right across road from recreational areas Climate: semi-hot insummer (last yr high was 99°) but exceptionally dry cold in winter (40° to low of - -17°) very windy this time of yr and in summer-winds of 25 mph - good for sailing especially catamaran Visitors: last wkend (Fri-Mon) 5,000 users of park estimate of 80% from albuquerque/santa fe area Residents: : Cochiti Lake: approx. 180 small Spanish communities: 500 Pueblo Cochiti: 500 Last summer park had over 300,000 visitors and it did not open til June This yr, expect over 400,000 people. Eventually hope to handle 1 1/2 million visitors each yr. Visitor center will open in July 77. Natl Park Service has proposed another center as extension of Banelier Monument. Rec. facility opened in June 76. Cost: Dam was $90 Million, estimate $94 million with rec facility Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 JERRY HAMMER Visitors to Park: estimates 80% from Santa Fe and Albuquerque area 60% of these are regular users -- sailboaters, small power boat users Other Natural Attractions Bandelier Nat'l Monument 45 miles by road, (improved) 22 miles by cross-country trail CochitiPueblo reservation 6 miles SW natural geological formation Tent Rocks ghost towns, mining towns archaeological sites, which they with the Park Service try to protect, painted caves, historical sites Admission fee: .50 per person, 1.00 minimum, 2.50 maximum: camping 4.00 fee goes to Pueblo Boats cannot be rented for use on the lake, but Pueblo are planning to open a concession sometime in the next few years. Parking: in addition to parking in picnic and camping loops, there is parking on either side of the boat ramp and parking extending from the lake out which will accomodate 200 cars Swimming permitted at your own risk; there is no established beach Water-skiing forbidden because no-wake lake First Aid: Some first aid at the corps office town of Cochiti Lake has emergency medical team and ambulance service. Competition from other areas: Elephant Butte is about 200 miles south smaller, non-permanent lakes up north of the area KEN OPP GWC owns and operates marina and is responsible for maintenance under written Memorandum of Understanding. Eventually maintenance may pass back to the Pueblo-Cochiti Slips on the marina are available for $200 a season, money goes to GWC Courtesy dock is availabel through the army corps of engineer's boat ramp No eating facilities, no food store, no gas station Boat rental and eating facilities are being considered About 250 full-time residents of Cochiti Lake Camping facilities are available through GWC for residents. These are located not by the lake but up the hill from the lake. Cochiti Lake residents pay regular entrance fees for use of lake and park. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 Albuquerque Journal Sports Desk: no information- in the words of the person on duty "We probably wrote something about it, but I don't remember when. II Suggested I call Chamber of Commerce. Chamber of Commerce: woman there had a pamphlet which she read from- gave admission fee: 50 per person 4.00 for trailer hook-up. She does not know who is in charge whether state, National Park or what. Did know there was camping, also said there was snorkling and swimming. Gave me address, suggested I write for more information. Address is simply Lake Cochiti and PO Box. I asked who put out the pamphlet- she replied there was no indication. Santa Fe New Mexican: No one at the sports desk. The person I talked to tried to get information from others. Says it is run by Pueblo-Cochiti, costs 1.00 to go swimming or "get down to the lake" but costs nothing to get in (in other words, no admission fee). He said that no boats can be rented there. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227

What was the cost of Dam?

yznh0227

yznh0227_p0, yznh0227_p1, yznh0227_p2, yznh0227_p3, yznh0227_p4, yznh0227_p5, yznh0227_p6, yznh0227_p7, yznh0227_p8

Dam was $90 million, estimate $94 million with rec facility, $90 million

EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS By Mariput Period Assigned to/Discussed With/ ITEM Authorized REMARKS 4/16 4/15 9:45 called Ken opp-Sme - Quintana said KO on plune-cak back 4/15 10:45 called Ken Opp-sec. Hazel said KO out of office - / left tel. no. message to call back & 4/15 2:00 Allonquerque Journal sports desk - recommended call Chamber of Commerce 4/15 2:30 Chamber of Commerce in Albuguergue 3:05 Albuguerque Tribune sports editor -said call back tomorrow-no one there 3:35 Santa Fe New Mexican 4:00 Bureau of Parks and Recreation in Santu Fe il 4:10 Kenopp in meeting- will he happy to falk with me". - call back Monday 4/18 9:10 Jerry Hammer of ACE asked further questions concerning lake 48 109 A 108° B 107 o C 106 O D 105 E 104 o F 103 o , s Wetter horn Ph. Uncompathgre Pk. 4,309 14,017 À Horn's Pk. 38 Mt. Sneffels 14,150 A o /Lake Çity San Luis Pk 14.014 Saguache Moffat À 13,447 38 Ouray Redcloud Ph. Monticello Telluride 1,434 4 Crestona Pk. Mt. Wilson Silverton LA NEW MEXICO 14,294 14,246 Q O Rio Grande GREAT SAND DUNES SCALE Hermosa Pk. Res. Center O NAT'L MON. o 5 10 20 30 40 50 60MI. 12,574. 13,830 o Rico Rio Grande Pyramid O Hooper o 510 20 30 40 50 60 KM. Del Norte Walsenburg South River Pk. State Capitals 1 Dolores Hesperus Pk. Graham Pk. 13,145 Monte Vista County Seats 1 13,225 12,517 A Bennett Pk. A 13,189 R Alamosa A Blanca HOVENWEEP NAT'L MON. Cortez Vallecito Montezuma Pk. Res. 13,131 YUCCA HOUSE NAT'L MON Pagosa MESA VERDE Summit Pk.À Platoro Res. Cr. Trinchera Pk. A NAT'L PARK b Durango Springs 13,272 Conejos Pk. 13,546 13,180 UTE MOUNTAIN SOUTHERN UTE Navajo Pk. Purgatoire (Trinidad Carrizozo INDIAN RES. IND. RES. 11,330 Conejos Sanchez Ma Res. 37 R. Jaroso Branson 37 of Only point in the La Plata Navajo Lumberton Ute Pk.) (10.120 Costilla UNITED STATES )AZTEC RUÍNS Cedar Hill Res. Chama San Antonio Pk. OAmalia NAT'L MON. common to four Duice 10.935 Monero Costilla Pk Vermeji O Raton Dry state boundaries Flora Vista Brazos Ph. a 12,580 0 Aztec Park P. Folsom can Shiprock 11,410 A A 0 S day = T CAPULIN MT NAT'L MON. NAVAJO Farmington Des Moines NAVAJO Boulder Rutheron Park View Ocerro o Ship Rock & DAM Lip a C L F A 7,178 Bloomfield Blanco . Questao Red Capulin 1. Pajarito Tierra Amarilla River Seneca Tres ompañer, Burford USEI Vado Las Tablas Piedras WhealerO ( Eagle Nest Grenville 2 L. Cristobal 13,161 Mount Dora INDIAN o anjilon Maxwell S N J U A N Petaca) 2 Cebolla Arroyoo QValdez Ute Vallecitos Hondo PArroyo Seco EaglePark cinacimarron a French Clayton R o El Pradoos Taos A R R I B A L'a Madera Pueblo I Nest L. Springer o Taos(s PUEBLO IND. RES. Miami Rivero U N 0 N CANYON DE 9 El Rito? Carson oRanches of Taos Farley ladstone /CHELLY Newcomb Lindrith Ojo Caliente OToadlena PAbbott Gallina RESERVATION Canones Abiquiu amisasco Vadito is de Ocate River Regina O |Youngsville< addarte Chacon a Cr. Sedan >NATIONAL Ojo vo Coyote dGuadalu'pita Tramper o MONUMENT CHACO CANYON| Hernandez Sarco Mills OStead o NAT'L MON, O Clano Très Ritos ) Nacimiento Pk. San Juan Pueblot Ojo Feliz Levy o -36 Crystal .La Jara uz OTruchas ampas Holmán Cuba) 19.820 OCordova (Rainsville Wagon Mound a Hayden 36 Navajo Espanolag Chimayo AN Truchas Mora UNIÓN 911. Cleveland 0 R A Roy o Bueyeros 0 Tohatchi San;lidefonso OCundiyo Pk. 13,1100 of NAT'L MON. SAlbert\ z LOS ALAMOS a CPUEBLO H A R N G Pojoaque O RES; LO Ledoux Buena Vista Amistad Ventana o Los Alamos- :Cueva Valmora Mora R Solano o Mexican White Nambe, Cowles Rociada Watrous Window Rock/ Springs Jemez Springs OPonderosa Rock Baldu Pk, or no Mosquero S A Tesugued 12,623! Sapello St. 0 Crownpoint N D V A ANDELIER Sabinoso (1) Michaels MON R A El Porvenir Gamerco, K I N E Y Jemez Cochiti, Montezuma Rehoboth Santal 10,546 Gallegos Nara Visa OPueblo Conchas Mentmore, PUEBLO Pecos o Las Vegas Mo I G U E Reservoir 3 and Penablanca S As San Ysidro INDIAN Stol FT. PECOS NAT'L MON. Romeroville Gallup Cr. 3 Zia Pueblo RES. Domingo WINGATE APMY Fort Wingate Lamy Rowe Lourdes Trujillo Pueblo- Cerrillos San Jose Thoreau to Jemez Canyon's Felipe Trementina CONCHAS DAM Lypton: o U McGaffey Bluewater, Res. O Serafina R L. O Prewitt Algodon Madrid Galisteo Soham Conchas Conchas Dam (Ribera Logan Riverl - s San Mateo Bernalillo Placitas SANT FE Garita Ute Res. S. Bluewater Mt. Tayior o Sena Corrales Sandia Pk Golden Rencona (ian 110,609 Milan, 11,389 Villanueya TOSA Glenrio (Ramáh a Grants Seboyeta Los Ranchos Alameda OSandia Park Leyba Anton Chico© O Endee San R. San Ratael Cu bero OPaguate\ de Albuquerque, Fidel Cedar Crest Stanley Montoya Tucumcari Dilia San Jon O Colonias Zuni E MORRO NAT'L MON o a Newki irk O Bard (jeras 35 to E! Morro Dahlia ZUNI INDIAN RIS Acomit Cuervo o O' is I Q U A 35 Cara 4 I o PUL wh B E R N I I. L o Monarty " @ Santa Rosa Quay - - 13 3 I - Protects . EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS By Period Assigned to/Discussed With/ ITEM Authorized REMARKS 4/14 called Ken Opp 4x - secretary told me he was in meeting and on phone Joe Quintana suggested / call governor of Pueblo Cochin (465-2244) 4/14 called Fred Cordero (gov. of P.C) he knew of no "old-timer 11 / could talk to, suggested / see him 4/14 2:00 Jerry Hammer, any curps of engineers -much information, very helpful 4/15 9:45 Ken Opp- sec. Sue Quinta said Ken on phone, call back 4/15 10:45 sec. Hazel said Ken Opp out of office. 1 left telno. and message to call back 4/15 2:00 Abuquerque Journal Sports desk- recommended / call Chamber of Commene 4115 2:30 Albuquerque Chamber of Commine 4/15 3:05 Albuguerque Tribum Sports ed - call back Mon no one there 4/15 3:35 Santa Fe New Mexican - no info 4/15 4:00 Burean of Parks and Recreation in Santa Fe- no info 4/15 4:10 Ken Opp in meeting call back Monday 4/18 9:10 Jerry Hammer of ACE. - further info on lake 4/18 10:20 Ken opp- - answered ques, wants apy of article before published let 4/18 11:00 Albug Chamber offommene - address for brodure TILCO/ TELEPHONE 303/831 ORD? P.O. BOX 88/DENY ER. COLORADO 80201 April 18, 1977 Cochiti Lake Recreation Area P. 0. Box 66 Cochiti Lake, New Mexico 87041 Dear Sirs: The Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce has informed me that a one-page brochure describing Cochiti Lake and its facilities is available through your office. Please send me a copy of this brochure and any additional literature that is available. The address is listed above. Thank you. Sincerely, Mary P. Murphy Mary P. Murphy Source: :https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 SOURCES Ken 0pp Project Manager, Great Western Cities P. 0. Box 66 Cochiti Lake, NM 87041 (505) 465-2211 Jerry Hammer Army Corps of Engineers or Ed Shirley (505) 242-8302 Fred Cordero Governor Pueblo-Cochit - Indian Reservation (505) 465-2244, 465-2245 Albuquerque Journal (505) 842-2300 Albuquerque Tribune (Sports) (505) 842-2378 Santa Fe New Mexican (505) 983-3303 Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce (505) 842-0220 Santa Fe Bureau (505) 988-8068 Director of Parks and Recreation Cochiti Lake Public Use Area P. 0. Box 66 Cochiti Lake, New Mexico 87041 Newsweek Magazine about 3/4/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 COHITI LAKE Location: on 6300 acres of pueblo de Cochiti Indian Resveration north central NM, 41 miles south of Santa Fe, 49 miles north of Albuquerque Dam: Structure is 10 largest earth filled dam in U.S. 5.4 miles long with 2 lane highway on top hydrolically operated gates 251 feet high 85 ft water depth at dam control tower height of 25 story bldg. Lake: made by dam; backs up into White Rock Canyon legislated by Congress for flood control and reduce sedimentation water does not come from Rio Grande but through San Juan- Chame pipeline from Colorado River Basin construction on dam did not begin til 70, completed 75 corps is instructed to maintain 50,000 acre ft. in 1k surface of lake is 5,321.25 ft above mean sea level 1200 surface acres of water from control tower to end is 711/2 miles long 2 1/2 miles from tower lake goes into White Rock Canyon wider closer to dam (1/2 mile wide) approx. 1/3 lake suitable for rec activities, although fisherman can go further in to the vaious canyons and arroyos Rec. Facilities : at present, there is one rec. facility built land belongs to pueblo cohiti, Univ. of NM regents, Banalier monument, rec. facility has three loops Loop A: picnic area-parking facilities for 55 cars-tables and shelters-29 shelters, 53 tables Loop B: camping loop-38 sites-pull-out sites-electrical hook-up table and picnic grill at sites Loop C; 29 total shelters, 42 tables 2 comfort stations with flush toilets! 1 trailer dump for holding containers Roads: Roads paved to boat ramp gravel surface in rec. loops Boat Ramp : contracted by ACE 4 lane boat ramp Marina : responsibility of Pueblo-Cochiti (who transferred responsibility to GW?) last summer were 2i boat slips this summer 21 more to be built total will be 121 slips marina is floating with walkway from pier anchored in cove floating because of flooding Boat Capacity: because lake is wakeless, law forbids fast boating, motor boats and water-skiing therefore, lake should be able to handle 150 boats safely Policing: Corps maintains jurisdiction will give citations is backed up (or in some cases, backs up) deputy sheriffs from county who can patrol area Maintainance: responsibility of Pueblo-Cochiti through Memorandum of Understanding BUT Town Charter transfers responsibility to GWC (?) Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 Fish: many kinds of fish those stocked by state include rainbow, wall-eyed pike, large mouth bass, blue-gill, crappie -- catfish and bass kinds not stocked by state good fishing last yr. except for pike which is hoped to be better this yr. lake froze solid past two winters: this yr. did not thaw til last month catfish fishing good up canyon and arroyos. Meda canyon, glen cnyon, sanchex canyon in summer, trout found in open water bass found along shore lines (northeat) where trees located Shoreline: about 21 miles of shoreline, only 5 miles offer access to lake rest is steep canyon walls Towns: Pueblo indian town is 1/2 mile downstream from lake Cochiti Lake is right across road from recreational areas Climate: semi-hot insummer (last yr high was 99°) but exceptionally dry cold in winter (40° to low of - -17°) very windy this time of yr and in summer-winds of 25 mph - good for sailing especially catamaran Visitors: last wkend (Fri-Mon) 5,000 users of park estimate of 80% from albuquerque/santa fe area Residents: : Cochiti Lake: approx. 180 small Spanish communities: 500 Pueblo Cochiti: 500 Last summer park had over 300,000 visitors and it did not open til June This yr, expect over 400,000 people. Eventually hope to handle 1 1/2 million visitors each yr. Visitor center will open in July 77. Natl Park Service has proposed another center as extension of Banelier Monument. Rec. facility opened in June 76. Cost: Dam was $90 Million, estimate $94 million with rec facility Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 JERRY HAMMER Visitors to Park: estimates 80% from Santa Fe and Albuquerque area 60% of these are regular users -- sailboaters, small power boat users Other Natural Attractions Bandelier Nat'l Monument 45 miles by road, (improved) 22 miles by cross-country trail CochitiPueblo reservation 6 miles SW natural geological formation Tent Rocks ghost towns, mining towns archaeological sites, which they with the Park Service try to protect, painted caves, historical sites Admission fee: .50 per person, 1.00 minimum, 2.50 maximum: camping 4.00 fee goes to Pueblo Boats cannot be rented for use on the lake, but Pueblo are planning to open a concession sometime in the next few years. Parking: in addition to parking in picnic and camping loops, there is parking on either side of the boat ramp and parking extending from the lake out which will accomodate 200 cars Swimming permitted at your own risk; there is no established beach Water-skiing forbidden because no-wake lake First Aid: Some first aid at the corps office town of Cochiti Lake has emergency medical team and ambulance service. Competition from other areas: Elephant Butte is about 200 miles south smaller, non-permanent lakes up north of the area KEN OPP GWC owns and operates marina and is responsible for maintenance under written Memorandum of Understanding. Eventually maintenance may pass back to the Pueblo-Cochiti Slips on the marina are available for $200 a season, money goes to GWC Courtesy dock is availabel through the army corps of engineer's boat ramp No eating facilities, no food store, no gas station Boat rental and eating facilities are being considered About 250 full-time residents of Cochiti Lake Camping facilities are available through GWC for residents. These are located not by the lake but up the hill from the lake. Cochiti Lake residents pay regular entrance fees for use of lake and park. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 Albuquerque Journal Sports Desk: no information- in the words of the person on duty "We probably wrote something about it, but I don't remember when. II Suggested I call Chamber of Commerce. Chamber of Commerce: woman there had a pamphlet which she read from- gave admission fee: 50 per person 4.00 for trailer hook-up. She does not know who is in charge whether state, National Park or what. Did know there was camping, also said there was snorkling and swimming. Gave me address, suggested I write for more information. Address is simply Lake Cochiti and PO Box. I asked who put out the pamphlet- she replied there was no indication. Santa Fe New Mexican: No one at the sports desk. The person I talked to tried to get information from others. Says it is run by Pueblo-Cochiti, costs 1.00 to go swimming or "get down to the lake" but costs nothing to get in (in other words, no admission fee). He said that no boats can be rented there. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227

How many visitors were there in the park last summer?

yznh0227

yznh0227_p0, yznh0227_p1, yznh0227_p2, yznh0227_p3, yznh0227_p4, yznh0227_p5, yznh0227_p6, yznh0227_p7, yznh0227_p8

over 300,000 visitors

EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS By Mariput Period Assigned to/Discussed With/ ITEM Authorized REMARKS 4/16 4/15 9:45 called Ken opp-Sme - Quintana said KO on plune-cak back 4/15 10:45 called Ken Opp-sec. Hazel said KO out of office - / left tel. no. message to call back & 4/15 2:00 Allonquerque Journal sports desk - recommended call Chamber of Commerce 4/15 2:30 Chamber of Commerce in Albuguergue 3:05 Albuguerque Tribune sports editor -said call back tomorrow-no one there 3:35 Santa Fe New Mexican 4:00 Bureau of Parks and Recreation in Santu Fe il 4:10 Kenopp in meeting- will he happy to falk with me". - call back Monday 4/18 9:10 Jerry Hammer of ACE asked further questions concerning lake 48 109 A 108° B 107 o C 106 O D 105 E 104 o F 103 o , s Wetter horn Ph. Uncompathgre Pk. 4,309 14,017 À Horn's Pk. 38 Mt. Sneffels 14,150 A o /Lake Çity San Luis Pk 14.014 Saguache Moffat À 13,447 38 Ouray Redcloud Ph. Monticello Telluride 1,434 4 Crestona Pk. Mt. Wilson Silverton LA NEW MEXICO 14,294 14,246 Q O Rio Grande GREAT SAND DUNES SCALE Hermosa Pk. Res. Center O NAT'L MON. o 5 10 20 30 40 50 60MI. 12,574. 13,830 o Rico Rio Grande Pyramid O Hooper o 510 20 30 40 50 60 KM. Del Norte Walsenburg South River Pk. State Capitals 1 Dolores Hesperus Pk. Graham Pk. 13,145 Monte Vista County Seats 1 13,225 12,517 A Bennett Pk. A 13,189 R Alamosa A Blanca HOVENWEEP NAT'L MON. Cortez Vallecito Montezuma Pk. Res. 13,131 YUCCA HOUSE NAT'L MON Pagosa MESA VERDE Summit Pk.À Platoro Res. Cr. Trinchera Pk. A NAT'L PARK b Durango Springs 13,272 Conejos Pk. 13,546 13,180 UTE MOUNTAIN SOUTHERN UTE Navajo Pk. Purgatoire (Trinidad Carrizozo INDIAN RES. IND. RES. 11,330 Conejos Sanchez Ma Res. 37 R. Jaroso Branson 37 of Only point in the La Plata Navajo Lumberton Ute Pk.) (10.120 Costilla UNITED STATES )AZTEC RUÍNS Cedar Hill Res. Chama San Antonio Pk. OAmalia NAT'L MON. common to four Duice 10.935 Monero Costilla Pk Vermeji O Raton Dry state boundaries Flora Vista Brazos Ph. a 12,580 0 Aztec Park P. Folsom can Shiprock 11,410 A A 0 S day = T CAPULIN MT NAT'L MON. NAVAJO Farmington Des Moines NAVAJO Boulder Rutheron Park View Ocerro o Ship Rock & DAM Lip a C L F A 7,178 Bloomfield Blanco . Questao Red Capulin 1. Pajarito Tierra Amarilla River Seneca Tres ompañer, Burford USEI Vado Las Tablas Piedras WhealerO ( Eagle Nest Grenville 2 L. Cristobal 13,161 Mount Dora INDIAN o anjilon Maxwell S N J U A N Petaca) 2 Cebolla Arroyoo QValdez Ute Vallecitos Hondo PArroyo Seco EaglePark cinacimarron a French Clayton R o El Pradoos Taos A R R I B A L'a Madera Pueblo I Nest L. Springer o Taos(s PUEBLO IND. RES. Miami Rivero U N 0 N CANYON DE 9 El Rito? Carson oRanches of Taos Farley ladstone /CHELLY Newcomb Lindrith Ojo Caliente OToadlena PAbbott Gallina RESERVATION Canones Abiquiu amisasco Vadito is de Ocate River Regina O |Youngsville< addarte Chacon a Cr. Sedan >NATIONAL Ojo vo Coyote dGuadalu'pita Tramper o MONUMENT CHACO CANYON| Hernandez Sarco Mills OStead o NAT'L MON, O Clano Très Ritos ) Nacimiento Pk. San Juan Pueblot Ojo Feliz Levy o -36 Crystal .La Jara uz OTruchas ampas Holmán Cuba) 19.820 OCordova (Rainsville Wagon Mound a Hayden 36 Navajo Espanolag Chimayo AN Truchas Mora UNIÓN 911. Cleveland 0 R A Roy o Bueyeros 0 Tohatchi San;lidefonso OCundiyo Pk. 13,1100 of NAT'L MON. SAlbert\ z LOS ALAMOS a CPUEBLO H A R N G Pojoaque O RES; LO Ledoux Buena Vista Amistad Ventana o Los Alamos- :Cueva Valmora Mora R Solano o Mexican White Nambe, Cowles Rociada Watrous Window Rock/ Springs Jemez Springs OPonderosa Rock Baldu Pk, or no Mosquero S A Tesugued 12,623! Sapello St. 0 Crownpoint N D V A ANDELIER Sabinoso (1) Michaels MON R A El Porvenir Gamerco, K I N E Y Jemez Cochiti, Montezuma Rehoboth Santal 10,546 Gallegos Nara Visa OPueblo Conchas Mentmore, PUEBLO Pecos o Las Vegas Mo I G U E Reservoir 3 and Penablanca S As San Ysidro INDIAN Stol FT. PECOS NAT'L MON. Romeroville Gallup Cr. 3 Zia Pueblo RES. Domingo WINGATE APMY Fort Wingate Lamy Rowe Lourdes Trujillo Pueblo- Cerrillos San Jose Thoreau to Jemez Canyon's Felipe Trementina CONCHAS DAM Lypton: o U McGaffey Bluewater, Res. O Serafina R L. O Prewitt Algodon Madrid Galisteo Soham Conchas Conchas Dam (Ribera Logan Riverl - s San Mateo Bernalillo Placitas SANT FE Garita Ute Res. S. Bluewater Mt. Tayior o Sena Corrales Sandia Pk Golden Rencona (ian 110,609 Milan, 11,389 Villanueya TOSA Glenrio (Ramáh a Grants Seboyeta Los Ranchos Alameda OSandia Park Leyba Anton Chico© O Endee San R. San Ratael Cu bero OPaguate\ de Albuquerque, Fidel Cedar Crest Stanley Montoya Tucumcari Dilia San Jon O Colonias Zuni E MORRO NAT'L MON o a Newki irk O Bard (jeras 35 to E! Morro Dahlia ZUNI INDIAN RIS Acomit Cuervo o O' is I Q U A 35 Cara 4 I o PUL wh B E R N I I. L o Monarty " @ Santa Rosa Quay - - 13 3 I - Protects . EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS By Period Assigned to/Discussed With/ ITEM Authorized REMARKS 4/14 called Ken Opp 4x - secretary told me he was in meeting and on phone Joe Quintana suggested / call governor of Pueblo Cochin (465-2244) 4/14 called Fred Cordero (gov. of P.C) he knew of no "old-timer 11 / could talk to, suggested / see him 4/14 2:00 Jerry Hammer, any curps of engineers -much information, very helpful 4/15 9:45 Ken Opp- sec. Sue Quinta said Ken on phone, call back 4/15 10:45 sec. Hazel said Ken Opp out of office. 1 left telno. and message to call back 4/15 2:00 Abuquerque Journal Sports desk- recommended / call Chamber of Commene 4115 2:30 Albuquerque Chamber of Commine 4/15 3:05 Albuguerque Tribum Sports ed - call back Mon no one there 4/15 3:35 Santa Fe New Mexican - no info 4/15 4:00 Burean of Parks and Recreation in Santa Fe- no info 4/15 4:10 Ken Opp in meeting call back Monday 4/18 9:10 Jerry Hammer of ACE. - further info on lake 4/18 10:20 Ken opp- - answered ques, wants apy of article before published let 4/18 11:00 Albug Chamber offommene - address for brodure TILCO/ TELEPHONE 303/831 ORD? P.O. BOX 88/DENY ER. COLORADO 80201 April 18, 1977 Cochiti Lake Recreation Area P. 0. Box 66 Cochiti Lake, New Mexico 87041 Dear Sirs: The Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce has informed me that a one-page brochure describing Cochiti Lake and its facilities is available through your office. Please send me a copy of this brochure and any additional literature that is available. The address is listed above. Thank you. Sincerely, Mary P. Murphy Mary P. Murphy Source: :https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 SOURCES Ken 0pp Project Manager, Great Western Cities P. 0. Box 66 Cochiti Lake, NM 87041 (505) 465-2211 Jerry Hammer Army Corps of Engineers or Ed Shirley (505) 242-8302 Fred Cordero Governor Pueblo-Cochit - Indian Reservation (505) 465-2244, 465-2245 Albuquerque Journal (505) 842-2300 Albuquerque Tribune (Sports) (505) 842-2378 Santa Fe New Mexican (505) 983-3303 Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce (505) 842-0220 Santa Fe Bureau (505) 988-8068 Director of Parks and Recreation Cochiti Lake Public Use Area P. 0. Box 66 Cochiti Lake, New Mexico 87041 Newsweek Magazine about 3/4/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 COHITI LAKE Location: on 6300 acres of pueblo de Cochiti Indian Resveration north central NM, 41 miles south of Santa Fe, 49 miles north of Albuquerque Dam: Structure is 10 largest earth filled dam in U.S. 5.4 miles long with 2 lane highway on top hydrolically operated gates 251 feet high 85 ft water depth at dam control tower height of 25 story bldg. Lake: made by dam; backs up into White Rock Canyon legislated by Congress for flood control and reduce sedimentation water does not come from Rio Grande but through San Juan- Chame pipeline from Colorado River Basin construction on dam did not begin til 70, completed 75 corps is instructed to maintain 50,000 acre ft. in 1k surface of lake is 5,321.25 ft above mean sea level 1200 surface acres of water from control tower to end is 711/2 miles long 2 1/2 miles from tower lake goes into White Rock Canyon wider closer to dam (1/2 mile wide) approx. 1/3 lake suitable for rec activities, although fisherman can go further in to the vaious canyons and arroyos Rec. Facilities : at present, there is one rec. facility built land belongs to pueblo cohiti, Univ. of NM regents, Banalier monument, rec. facility has three loops Loop A: picnic area-parking facilities for 55 cars-tables and shelters-29 shelters, 53 tables Loop B: camping loop-38 sites-pull-out sites-electrical hook-up table and picnic grill at sites Loop C; 29 total shelters, 42 tables 2 comfort stations with flush toilets! 1 trailer dump for holding containers Roads: Roads paved to boat ramp gravel surface in rec. loops Boat Ramp : contracted by ACE 4 lane boat ramp Marina : responsibility of Pueblo-Cochiti (who transferred responsibility to GW?) last summer were 2i boat slips this summer 21 more to be built total will be 121 slips marina is floating with walkway from pier anchored in cove floating because of flooding Boat Capacity: because lake is wakeless, law forbids fast boating, motor boats and water-skiing therefore, lake should be able to handle 150 boats safely Policing: Corps maintains jurisdiction will give citations is backed up (or in some cases, backs up) deputy sheriffs from county who can patrol area Maintainance: responsibility of Pueblo-Cochiti through Memorandum of Understanding BUT Town Charter transfers responsibility to GWC (?) Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 Fish: many kinds of fish those stocked by state include rainbow, wall-eyed pike, large mouth bass, blue-gill, crappie -- catfish and bass kinds not stocked by state good fishing last yr. except for pike which is hoped to be better this yr. lake froze solid past two winters: this yr. did not thaw til last month catfish fishing good up canyon and arroyos. Meda canyon, glen cnyon, sanchex canyon in summer, trout found in open water bass found along shore lines (northeat) where trees located Shoreline: about 21 miles of shoreline, only 5 miles offer access to lake rest is steep canyon walls Towns: Pueblo indian town is 1/2 mile downstream from lake Cochiti Lake is right across road from recreational areas Climate: semi-hot insummer (last yr high was 99°) but exceptionally dry cold in winter (40° to low of - -17°) very windy this time of yr and in summer-winds of 25 mph - good for sailing especially catamaran Visitors: last wkend (Fri-Mon) 5,000 users of park estimate of 80% from albuquerque/santa fe area Residents: : Cochiti Lake: approx. 180 small Spanish communities: 500 Pueblo Cochiti: 500 Last summer park had over 300,000 visitors and it did not open til June This yr, expect over 400,000 people. Eventually hope to handle 1 1/2 million visitors each yr. Visitor center will open in July 77. Natl Park Service has proposed another center as extension of Banelier Monument. Rec. facility opened in June 76. Cost: Dam was $90 Million, estimate $94 million with rec facility Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 JERRY HAMMER Visitors to Park: estimates 80% from Santa Fe and Albuquerque area 60% of these are regular users -- sailboaters, small power boat users Other Natural Attractions Bandelier Nat'l Monument 45 miles by road, (improved) 22 miles by cross-country trail CochitiPueblo reservation 6 miles SW natural geological formation Tent Rocks ghost towns, mining towns archaeological sites, which they with the Park Service try to protect, painted caves, historical sites Admission fee: .50 per person, 1.00 minimum, 2.50 maximum: camping 4.00 fee goes to Pueblo Boats cannot be rented for use on the lake, but Pueblo are planning to open a concession sometime in the next few years. Parking: in addition to parking in picnic and camping loops, there is parking on either side of the boat ramp and parking extending from the lake out which will accomodate 200 cars Swimming permitted at your own risk; there is no established beach Water-skiing forbidden because no-wake lake First Aid: Some first aid at the corps office town of Cochiti Lake has emergency medical team and ambulance service. Competition from other areas: Elephant Butte is about 200 miles south smaller, non-permanent lakes up north of the area KEN OPP GWC owns and operates marina and is responsible for maintenance under written Memorandum of Understanding. Eventually maintenance may pass back to the Pueblo-Cochiti Slips on the marina are available for $200 a season, money goes to GWC Courtesy dock is availabel through the army corps of engineer's boat ramp No eating facilities, no food store, no gas station Boat rental and eating facilities are being considered About 250 full-time residents of Cochiti Lake Camping facilities are available through GWC for residents. These are located not by the lake but up the hill from the lake. Cochiti Lake residents pay regular entrance fees for use of lake and park. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 Albuquerque Journal Sports Desk: no information- in the words of the person on duty "We probably wrote something about it, but I don't remember when. II Suggested I call Chamber of Commerce. Chamber of Commerce: woman there had a pamphlet which she read from- gave admission fee: 50 per person 4.00 for trailer hook-up. She does not know who is in charge whether state, National Park or what. Did know there was camping, also said there was snorkling and swimming. Gave me address, suggested I write for more information. Address is simply Lake Cochiti and PO Box. I asked who put out the pamphlet- she replied there was no indication. Santa Fe New Mexican: No one at the sports desk. The person I talked to tried to get information from others. Says it is run by Pueblo-Cochiti, costs 1.00 to go swimming or "get down to the lake" but costs nothing to get in (in other words, no admission fee). He said that no boats can be rented there. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227

Which company's name is on the letterhead?

jxbx0227

jxbx0227_p13, jxbx0227_p14, jxbx0227_p15, jxbx0227_p16, jxbx0227_p17, jxbx0227_p18, jxbx0227_p19

GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY, Great Western Sugar company

EQUIPMENT TO RAISE 800 ACRES OF BEETS New Cost 3 - 4030 J.D. Tractors - $46,500 3 - 4 Bottom Plows - 7,800 2 - 14' Disks - 3,800 2 - Packer Mulchers - 2,400 2 - 12 Row Cultivators - 4,000 1 - 12 Row Beet Planter - 5,000 1 - 6 Row Top Saver - 7,500 2 - 3 Row Lifter Loaders - 22,000 3 - Trucks - 18' Box + Tag Axle - 24,000 1 - Broadcast Boom Sprayer - 1,000 NEW MAIN EQUIPMENT ONLY = $124,000 Misc. Hand Tools - Welder - Irrigat. - Cult. Tools - 2,000 $126,000 TO HANDLE 800 ACRES Hire or Lease 3 More Trucks at Harvest Possibly Lease 1 Tractor for 30 Days OR If you have 800 acres beets custom farmed - 800 acres X $230/acre = $184,000 EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS 1 - 6 Row Top Saver Can Top 40 Acres/Day 2 - 3 Row Lifter Loaders Can Lift 40 Acres/Day 6 Row Top Saver - $ 7,500 3 Row Lifter Loader - $11,000 6 Row Lifter Loader - $15,000 (3 Tons/Minute) 4030 J.D. Tractor - $15,500 4 Bottom Plow . - $ 2,600 14' Disk - $ 1,900 12 Row Beet Planter - $ 2,000 - 6 Row Cultivator + Tools - $ 3,000 Packer Mulcher 15' - $ 1,200 2 1/2 Ton Tag Axle Truck - $12,000 With Box and Hoist Source: Great Western Sugar Company TO: Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy August 22, 1973 Distribution List - J. Krentler G. Bogden R. Mally T. Army D. Dinkel R. Perkins R. Fisher R. Fertig D. Quinn C. lianing G. Gibson J. Van Wijk B. Phillips J. Gray M. Rebhan Dist. Gen. Mgrs. Each Factory Acctg. Office Dist. Agric. Mgrs. Asst. Dist. Agric. Mgrs. Dist. Acctg. Mgrs. Factory Agric. Mgrs. FROM: M. E. Rebhan SUBJECT: Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy (Supplement to General Credit Policy 4/25/72 Page #2, Item E) Attached is a formalized version of the generally unwritten policy that we have been operating under for several years. This policy has been approved at the appropriate management level and although there is no great need for it at this point in time it should be filed along with your General Credit Policy File referred to above. If you have any questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact John Gray or me. M. Roban MER:jb 3 attachments ASS Source: https:/www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 GROWER LOAN SPONSORSHIP POLICY General The program of Grower Loan Sponsorship is to promote beet acreage increase in Great Western Sugar and Northern Ohio Suger territories and to assist our growers in obtaining financial assistance on sugar beet crops when the grower's banking connections will not or cannot handle normal financing However, it is not the intent nor the desire of the Company to subsidize high risk growers or to compete with our local bankers in beet crop financing. The overall size of the Sponsorship Program (in dollars) as well as deviations, if any, from policy shall be determined annually by the V.P. Operations and the V.P. Finance. Unwillingness or inability of the grower's bank to handle normal financing may be due to (1) bank at legal limit for that grower and unable to interest a participating bank, (2) bank short of lendable funds, (3) bank unwilling for personal reasons to vork with the grower. Under the three foregoing categories the Company will merely assist the grower in finding normal financing at an alternative bank. In the grey area between normal and high risk financing, it may be necessary for the Company to offer a bank some inducement or sponsorship as described more fully in following paragraphs. Bank Loan Sponsorship Company sponsorship of an operating bank loan should not exceed 75% guaranty to the bank on any loss the bank might incur on such loan. A loss is recognized when the grower has liquidated all of his assets in settlement of business debts and has discontinued growing beets. If local banks have no problem under the three categories in Paragraph No. 3 above and are not agreeable to a 75% guaranty, there is every indication that the loan is too "high risk" for further consideration. Company sponsored loans, as indicated in the above paragraph, will cover only operating expenses related to a sugar beet crop. In unusual cases only, we will consider sponscring a beet equipment lcan guaranty covered by security agreement. Direct Loan Sponsorship If a financing bank cannot be provided with or without a 75% guaranty and the grower is not a definite "high risk", the V.P. of Finance may consider sponsorship through a direct factory accounts receivable loan. Such a loan would be subject to a First Mortgage Security Agreement and interest at First Naticnal City, N.Y.C. prime plus 1 1/2% on closing date and with due regard to local state interest rate maximums. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 Page 2. Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy Procedures A request for grower assistance shall originate in the Agricultural Department on our form entitled "Request to V.P. .Finance for Grower Financial- Assistance". The request and related support documents are to be forwarded progressively to the District Accounting Manager, District General Manager and V.P. Operations for review and concurrence in recommendation. It is the responsibility of the V.P. of Finance to approve or reject the request. If the request is approved, the V.P. of Finance will co-ordinate financing efforts supplying all prior signers of the document with progress reports. MER 8/22/73 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY REQUEST TO V.P. FINANCE FOR GROWER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Grower Phone ress Location of farm (receiving station) Bank (current or previous) Phone Bank/contact Number of acres if this request is filled If request is not filled Agriculturalist: (originator of this request) (name, address and phone) Reason for request (why not bankable) (Attach copy of balance sheet and operating statement. Also machinery list if any under this request.) Amount required under this request: Operating $ Equipment $ We recommend that Great Western Sugar Company provide finances or financial backing for this grower up to the amount specified and for the purposes listed. Dist.Acct.Mgr. Date Dist.Genl.Mgr. Date V.P.Operations Date Instructions: 1. Originated by Agriculturist, 4. Forward to V.P. Finance, 2. Review and recommendation by 5. V.P. Finance to instruct Dist. Acct.Mg District Personnel, with carbons to all concerned. 3. viver GreatWee Sungar Company GREAT WESTERN SUGAR FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM Letter of Understanding Great Western Sugar Company is initiating and coordinating a "Great Western Sugar Fellowship Program. " The purpose of this program is to improvise, coordinate and place into effect a system of expanding and improving farm management techno- logy. In this connection, Great Western Sugar Company will cooperate with Colorado State University, other state universities, progressive sugarbeet growers, and graduates to provide an opportunity for these graduates to enter into or share in farm management positions. Col. To effectuate this program, the below signed graduate of Pennsylvania State Uni- versity, the grower and Great Western Sugar Company have entered into this Letter of Understanding to set forth the agreement reached between the below signed parties to this Letter, of Understanding. The graduate will be employed by and work with the below signed grower at the grower's farm or farms. The grower will pay the graduate $450 per month and will employ the graduate for the period of this agreement, which will extend for a duration of two (2) years from the date hereof. The aim of this relationship will be to develop a viable partnership and/or an expansion and sharing of opportunities in farming operations. Great Western Sugar Company will cooperate with the grower and furnish information which will help improve his farm management techniques with the intent that he will be able to expand his acreage and develop a more productive farm.operation. The grower agrees to plant at least 25 percent of irrigated land under his control in sugarbeets. Great Western Sugar Company agrees to give to the graduate, for the period of time he is employed by the grower under this, agreement, the sum of $250 per month. This money will be the graduate's and the graduate will be responsible for applicable taxes on this amount. The Sugar Company is giving this money to the graduate and the graduate in no sense will be employed by the Sugar Company and will owe no legal obligation to the Sugar Company. It is understood that any of the parties hereto may cancel this agreement at any time, and the obligations under this agreement will cease as of the time of cancellation. In the event the graduate is the party who desires to cancel the agreement, the Sugar Company will use its best efforts to attempt to find another graduate to participate in this agreement. By their below placed signatures, the three parties agree to the broad outlines contained in this Letter of Understanding and will conduct themselves accordingly. GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY By (Graduate) (Grower) Source: https:l//www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227

Which company's balance sheet is given here?

jlbx0227

jlbx0227_p0, jlbx0227_p1, jlbx0227_p2, jlbx0227_p3, jlbx0227_p4, jlbx0227_p5, jlbx0227_p6, jlbx0227_p7, jlbx0227_p8, jlbx0227_p9, jlbx0227_p10, jlbx0227_p11, jlbx0227_p12, jlbx0227_p13, jlbx0227_p14, jlbx0227_p15, jlbx0227_p16, jlbx0227_p17, jlbx0227_p18, jlbx0227_p19

GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., INC.

GH BRIEFING 6-11-75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I. GH is not worth buying for what is has earned or will earn under "normal" conditions; i.e., buy, refine, sell sugar. EBIT $600 M to $1.500M Needs $6-9MM WC to continue Can be purchased for $4-8 MM (they expect $10MM) Our "cost" is $10-17MM. . II. GH has excellent 1. Facilities at Reserve 2. Technical support personnel at Reserve 3. Distribution network relative to GW. t 2,100, on 00 3, III. GH could be a good speculative investment 2.4 Hog Low Provides A. "LONG.LIMIT 7,200,000 2, 400,000 Balance to GWS beet business 21.000,000 5.7,100 2,200,00 3.0000 Take % of Sugar Broker/dist $ 6,200,000 wwword ? 400.00 = Entry to foreign refined market 10% "Improvement on cost of raws = $16MM profit contribution" We must get a "participating K".- HFTS: 2X the Bet. on 121,000 IV. Net; get into GH as low as possible, 4 3 Emphasize the Raws problem< : Slim down overhead 95° Devise a plan that can target for $20MM EBIT. Actual Potented V hmp Ratio 73 74 AT, impiral 1.6 2.6 1.9mm Gll 4% 2.6% G,8 Source:https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., INC. PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1967. - 1970 1971 & 1974 1971 Profit Before Tax, Interest and Supervision Fees $ 11,130 M $ 6,614 M $ 4,528 M Average Per Year . 2,783 3,307 4,528 1974 Supervision (506) (506) .' (506) 1974 Interest (2,213) (2,213) (2,213) Projected Annual Profit 64 588 1,809 Investment Required to Return 10% $ 640 M $ 5,880 M $ 18,090 M 30% 213 1,950 6,030 15% 426 3,920 12,600 Production (CWT) 32,824 M CWT 19,050 M CWT 10,502 M CWT Average Per Year 8,206 9,525 10,502 1.5 33 Objective: - Get 30 day option - Full P & L information (operating statistics) - Manufacturing costs (operating statistics) Be Prepared To: - Sign LOI - Offer $4 Mm Low $5 Mm Mid $6 Mm High for 30% return before taxes $10 Mm Absolute Top Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co., INC. BALANCE SHEETS December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 ASSETS Current assets: Cash $ 2,150,212 $ 1,295,521 Federal income tax refund 1,020,891 Accounts and notes receivable: Trade 17,277,055 8,652,194 Affiliates 67,279 463,344 Inventories 12,503,941 13,094,401 Prepaid insurance and other 392,086 185,945 Total current assets 33,411,464 23,691,405 Property, plant and equipment, at cost: Land 373,300 373,300 Buildings 6,208,224 5,905,359 Machinery and equipment 14,791,863 13,812,393 Delivery and other automotive equipment 89,307 89,307 Leasehold improvements 50,662 27,707 21,513,356 20,208,066 Less accumulated depreciation 6,975,497 5,995,392 14,537,859 14,212,674 Other assets: Deferred income. taxes 1,492,919 Sundry deferred charges 368,352 629,849 Notes receivable 2,500 110,500 Advances to affiliates 126,733 1,990,504 740,349 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,428 LIABILITIES Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities: Trade $ 31,834,490 $ 6,998,742 Affiliates 846,938 356,860 Notes payable 19,019,761 14,534,993 Current portion of long-term debt 103,317 308,828 Total current liabilities (18,393) 51,804,506 22,199,423 Mortgage and notes payable, current portion above: 10-1/2% First Mortgage Note 4,747,501 4,836,043 Other notes payable 124,451 180,306 4,871,952 5,016,349 Advances from affiliates 3,178,135 3,171,156 Deferred income taxes 788,190 STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY (DEFICIT) Common stock, $100 par value; 1,041 shares authorized, issued and outstanding 104,100 104,100 Paid-in capital 2,323,239 . 2,323,239 Retained earnings (deficit), as annexed (12,342,105) 5,041,971 (9,914,765) 7,469,310 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,418 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-MENDERSON SUGAR co., , INC. PRO FORMA BALANCE SHEET AT 5/31/75 IN HANDS OF OTHERS - ON LIFO ASSETS Cash $ 1,395 Accounts Receivable 12,464 - Inventories Sugar 272,000 cwt at $11.11 3,022 Processing cost 386 Spare parts 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 19,631 Fixed assets - Net 14,353 Other assets and deferred charges 411 TOTAL ASSETS $ 34,395 LIABILITIES = Notes payable - banks $ 14,253 Notes payable - La. raw mills 7,369 Need commu Current portion of long-term debt 115 Accounts payable and accrued 3,334 2,2 Total Current Liabilities 25,071 Long-term debt 4,815 Deferred taxes 872 Deferred futures profit 716 Stockholders' equity 2,921 TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 34,395 1975 ceremated income Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Soùrce: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/j)bx0227 GODCHAUX-IENDERSON SUGAR co., INC. ESTIMATED WORKING CAPITAL MAY 31, 1975 000's omitted Current Assets Cash $ 1,395 Accounts receivable 12,464 Note receivable - U.S. Sugar Co. 240 Inventories: Raw sugar (Massequite), 40,458 cwt @ $17 688 Refined, 216,216 cwt @ $22 4,757 Spare parts, bags, mdse. for resale 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 21,908 Current Liabilities Bank notes payable 14,253 Current portion of long-term debt 115 Total notes payable 14,368 La. raw sugar payables 7,369 Other trade payables and accruals 1,755 Total Current Liabilities 23,492 Net Estimated Working Capital (Deficit) ($ 1,584) CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co. INC. ESTIMATED NET INCOME JANUARY ] THROUGH MAY 31, 1975 Pre-tax income, 4/30/75 $ 388,221 Estimated profit on April inventory liquidation 346,750 Deferred inventory liquidation profit, 4/30/75 6,329,205 Last estimated of May income 187,723 7,251,899 Estimate of income from inventory liquidation in month of May: Cwt actual, 96°, , 4/30/75 485,000 Cwt actual, 96°; 5/31/75 272,000 Liquidated 213,000 Spread ($27 May Cost - $11) x 16 $3,408,000 May liquidation profit 3,408,000 Total estimated pre-tax income 10,659,899 Book taxes at 37% consolidated rate 3,944,163 Estimated net income $ 6,715,736 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR co. INC. 2 ESTIMATED STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY MAY 31, 1975 Capital stock $ 104,100 Paid in capital, existing balance 2,323,239 Additional contributions to be made by Southern Industries 5,345,000 Total capital stock and paid-in 7,772,339 Retained earnings (deficit), 1/1/75 (12,342,104) Estimated net income, 1/1-5/31/75 6,715,736 Retained earnings (deficit), 5/31/75 ( 5,626,368) Total Estimated Stockholder's Equity, 5/31/75 $ 2,145,971 776 2,921 5. cash 3,6 2 2146 8.6 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF INCOME (LOSS) AND RETAINED EARNINGS (DEFICIT) for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Net sales $270,994,584 $121,429,038 Cost of sales 282,649,140 117,395,585 Gross profit (loss) (11,654,556) 4,033,453 Selling, general and administrative expenses 3,259,352 2,468,224 (14,913,908) 1,565,229 Other income, net 143,984 54,687 16.4mm (14,769,924) 1,619,916 Interest deductions 2,192,152 1,197,210 Income (loss) before provision (credit) for taxes 4 14,2mm (16,962,076) 422,706 Provision (credit) for income taxes: Federal: Current (990,891) (277,206) Deferred (2,251,109) 181,357 State - current 19,089 (3,242,000) (76,760) Net income (loss) the 7.1mm (13,720,076) 499,466 Retained earnings, January 1, restated 5,041,971 4,667,505 (8,678,105) 5,166,971 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 Retained earnings (deficit), December 31 $(12,342,105) $ _5,041,971 See notes to financial statements. 3 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., , INC. Statement of Change in Financial Position 1/1/15 - 4/30/75 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income $ 1244,579 Depreciation and amortization 383,018 Deferred income taxes -0- Working capital provided from operations 627,597 Decrease in other assets 4,525 Increase in deferred liabilities 8,373,106 $ 9,005,228 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment $ : 293,428 Reduction to mortgage and notes payable 56,909 Increase in deferred charges 264,575 $ 614,912 Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Changes in working capital Current assets: Cash $ (1,169,483) Receivables a 230th (7,434,849) Inventories (4,138,565) Prepaid insurance and other. 338,681 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities + 2,3sta $ (20,787,991) Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (6,541) $ (20,794,532) Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income (loss) $(13,720,076) $ 499,466 Expenses (credit) not affecting working capital in the current year: Depreciation and amortization 1,060,770 819,542 Deferred income taxes (2,251,109) 181,357 Working capital provided from (applied to) operations for the year (14,910,415) 1,500,365 Increase in advances from affiliates 6,979 Increase in mortgage and notes payable 9,430 1,022,000 Property sales and retirements, less accumulated depreciation 53,470 15,535 Other 212,764 63,670 (14,627,772) 2,601,570 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment 1,439,425 2,778,888 Reduction in mortgage and notes payable 153,827 278,496 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 5,257,252 3,182,384 Decrease in working capital $ (19,885,024) $ (580,814) Change in working capital - increase (decrease) : Current assets: Cash $ 854,691 $ 703,853 Receivables 9,249,687 (635,126) Inventories (590,460) 2,042,128 Prepaid insurance and other 206,141 (32,598 9,720,059 2,078,257 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (25,325,826) 3,143,444 Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (4,279,257) (5,802,515) (29,605,083) (2,659,071 Decrease in working capital $(19,885,024) $ (580,814 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 - SUCAR C.O. INC. VARIOUS SINTISTICS 1/1/74 .. 12/31/174 (BEFORE LIFO) PROFIT CONTRIBUTION Net Profit Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Add: Supervision Fees 506,000 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 14,675,927 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 SIC Note Interest 45,913 Interest Expense 1,986,461 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 60,914 Debt Amortization 14,752 Profit Contribution 16,383,957 ABEREVIATED FLOW OF FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Less: Income Tax 7,084,964 Net Income $ 7,084,963 Add: Depreciation and Amortization 1,052,693 Cash Flow $ 8,137,656. Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt 800,082 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 8,937,738 drwanch Less: Dividends 3.664,000 Capital Expenditures 1,377,877 Net Flow of Funds - Surplus/(Deficit) $ 3,895,861 NET WORKING CAPITAL @ 12/31/74 $ 5,480,545 Repairs $ 1,653,955 Refined Sugar Produced CWT 8,547,969 = it n Operating Days - Refinery 233 321 Average Production per Operating Day $ 36,687 27 \ IIIN E. Ladd 5/19/75 Söurce: https://www.industrydócuments,ucsf.edutddrst T1xx0227 VARIOUS STATISTICS 1967 - 1973 7 YEAR 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 TOTAL PROFIT CONTRIBUTION is 196 P Net Profit Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 Add: Supervision Fees 108,701 116,733 141,000 553,719 635,000 600,000 475,200 2,630,353 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 1,546,380 $ 1,864,135.1 $,1,718,417 $ 3,055,741 $ 3,866,801 $ 1,111,305 $ 897,906 $14,060,685 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 - 105,000 735,000 SIC Note Interest 138,214 145,798 138,661 131,661 124,747 117,925 111,636 908,642 Interest Expense 461,912 469,086 500,094 414,888 399,240 550,819 979,364 3,775,403 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 26,933 30,683 32,257 29,098 31,987 42,390 43,155 236,503 Debt Amortization 3,008 3,009 a - 6,017 1 Profit Contribution $ 2,281,447 $ 2,617,711 $ 2,494,129 $ 3,736,388 $ 4,527,775 $ 1,927,439 $ 2,137,061 $19,722,250 =085. ASBREVIATED FLCW 07 FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 (633) Less: Income Tax 586,061 804,000 816,551 1,069,802 1,153,238 26,466 (76,760) 4,379,358 Net Incone $ 851,618 $ 943,402 $ 760,866 $ 1,432,220 $ 2,078,563 $ 484,839 $ 499,466 $ 7,050,974 Add: Depreciation & Amortization 378,075 426,909 496,715 536,092 599,874 674,623 819,542 3,931,530 Cash Flow $ 1,229,693 $ 1,370,311 $ 1,257,581 $ 1,968,312 $ 2,678,437 $ 1,159,462 $ 1,319,008 $10,982,604 Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt (603,062) (492,620) (333,174) (495,412) 1,865,581 3,351,521 743,504 4,036,338 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 626,631 $ 877,691 $ 924,407 $ 1,472,900 $ 4,544,013 $ 4,510,983 $ 2,062,512 $15,019,142 NO Less: Dividends -0- 375,000 330,000 530,000 : 660,000 330,000 125,000 2,350,000 Capital Expenditures 1,694,961 1,099,561 942,281 755,946 2,619,417 4,187,602 2,773,893 14,078,656 Net Flou of Funds - Surplus/(Doficit) $ (1,068,330) $ (596,870) $. (347,371) $ 186,954 $ 1,264,601 $ (6,619) $ (841,376) $(1,409,514) Net Working Capital at Year-End $ 1,738,296 $ 960,279 $ 531,173 $ 499,751 $ 1,171,294 $ 2,220,053 $ 2,216,941 $ 1,627,025 Repairs $ 1,160,277 $ 1,229,468 $ 1,156,668 $ 1,326,567 $ 1,475,224 $ 1,414,386 $1.1,383,014 $ 9,145,604 Refined Sugar Produced (Cwt.) 7,270,838 8,317,724 7,741,365 9,494,161 10,502,424 9,170,169 8,457,433 - Operating Days - Refinery 268 277 246 299 .312 280 247 Average Production per Operating Day (Cwt.) 27,130 30,028 31,495 31,817 33,694 32,751 34,185 E. Ladd . 3/28/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I a - 0.042 °C - - - - it. Co N T O 0= of n- F- 8 80 . ********** i. .7 -0 *********** ++++++++4 - - CUMVERCA RAN 7 CONVERCA 3 es (--) CF- a n a - D an nca [= HE' - In a g 2 - Filent - NOTE. o THIS MAP REDUCED KALF SIZE MAP OF PLANT LATOUT na Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 (10,000) 31,000 (43,000 24,000 (4,000) LEARTYPE OUNTY OUTUNE NITED STATES - (3,000) MAP NO.117 AMERICAN MAD SOMPANY.INC $ Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SALARIED ORGANIZATION MAY 1, 1975 Operations, J. A. Metzler 2 Purchasing 6 Cincinnati 5 13 Marketing, E. R. Fleming 2 Administration 10 Sales 8 20 Finance, H. L. Kirk 4 Credit 4 Billing 3 Machine Room 2 1.3 Accounting, R. L. Crawford 11 Refinery, A. Garcia 2 Maintenance 23 Quality Assurance 10 Engineering 4 Administration 19 Operations 35 Service 2 95 Mobile, Administration and Service 6 TOTAL 158 40 158 101 67 T. Source: https://wvww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/doce 51jTbx02.27 to HOURLY ORCANIZATION - RESERVE - MAY 1, 1975 Manning is based cn requirement of two full shifts plus skeleton crew on the third shift in Pecking, and six palletized crews and two hand loading crews in Shipping. Raw Receiving 3 Affination 9 Clarification 9 Char House 18 Granulators 6 Pan Floor 16 Refined Centrifugal 12 Pre-Packaging 14 Packaging 80 Shipping - Packages 51 Shipping - Bulk 6 Liquid Sugar 6 Yard Crew 4 Sanitation 12 Security 6 Commissary 4 Laboratory 8 Utilities 12 Dock 6 Painters 8 Construction 14 Truck Drivers 5 Electrical 15 Maintenance Shops 13 Area Mechanics 20 Operations Mechanics 12 Total Required for 369* Operation *There are approximately 30 additional people on the payroll who act as vacation replacements, absentee replacements, training, etc. 360 1.58 40 Source: https:.//wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs[ilbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES 1. Information known: A. Sugar refinery at Reserve, Louisiana - 32 miles west of New Orleans on the Mississippi River. B. Liquid sugár processing plant and distribution terminal at Cincinnati, Ohio and leases sugar packaging operations at Buffalo, New York and (Chicago, Illinois 12/1/74. C. Owns 8 hydraulic material processing dredges, owns or has long term leases on 11 towboats and 88 cargo barges and under short term leases has 15 towboats and 30 barges. D. Also owns ready-mixed concrete operations and a mixer fleet in Mobile; asphalt plants at Woodstock, Margerum and Mobile, Alabama: a concrete block plant at Mobile, and supporting sales depots at Mobile, Ft. Walton Beach and Pensacola, Florida, and New Orleans owns or leases 8 stone quarries and crushing plants at Mobile, Baltimore and Houston, and chemical lime plants at Morgan City, La., and Saginaw, Ala. Company leases 2 slag processing facilities at Columbia, Tenn. E. Mineral Reserves--Company leases shell deposits from the states of Alabama and Louisiana, estimated to contain 100 million tons; leases gravel deposits estimated to contain 10 million tons owns an asphaltic limestone deposit estimated to contain 1,500,000 tons; and leases lime- stone deposits estimated to contain 200 million tons. F. Raws: 25% from U.S. 75% from Foreign G. Campaign: 312 days in 1971 280 days in 1972 247 days in 1973 232 days in 1974 H. Refined Sugar Production Production Year (Million cwts) 1971 10.5 1972 9.2 1973 8.4 1974 8.5 1. Sells sugar under two tradenames: 1. Henderson Superfine 2. Godchaux Brand continued Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES, continued Page 2 J. Current assets $53 Million. K. Long term debt $34 Million. L. Cost of replacing cane facilities: 1) Processing - $25 million Mill (3500 ton/day grind) 2) Refinery - $45 million (700 ton/day raw sugar) X 2 = 99mm II. Data needed: A. What it costs for Raws - Domestic - Foreign B. Operating costs (cost of production including G & A percent of refined sugar). C. Where receive raws from D. Costs to market place E. Financial data up to net income F. Present contractual arrangements III. To Receive 30% ROI before tax: @ 20,000 $ 6mm Example 1: Cost Proc + Profit for Price for RAWS: Raws Freight G & A 30% ROI Ref. Sugar (U.S.)25% @ 126 + 0 + 2.56 + 16 15.5 (Foreign 75% @ 7c + 1.8€ + 2.56 + 1c 12.3 TOTAL Weight Price For Refined Sugar 13.1 IV. Potential Areas to Increase Profits A. Grain Exports $45 2.47 50 B. Foreign raw prices based on refined sugar prices when sold. 11,2 C. Participating contract with growers based on refined sugar prices or foreign raws. 14/11/11 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 The President of Southern Industries Reports. Net soles for the first quarter ended March 31, 1975 were $74,686,000 compared to $51,505,000 for the same period in 1974. Net income for the period was $1,482,000 equal to $1.03 per share compared to a net loss of $1,830,000 (restated) equal to a loss of $1.23 per shore in 1974. By.product line the basic materials group had a 165% increase in pre-tox cornings over last year. This group occounted for $916,000 or opproximately 38% of pre-tax eornings. The sugar division contributed $1,437,000 or 61% to the results. With the exception of low sugar volume, the demand for our other products and materials remains strong. Your attention is directed to the notes to the following statements for a further explanation of the financial results of the first quorter. D. E. Dowson, Jr. April 22, 1975 President 1 Sales and Income (Loss) by Product Line For the three months ended March 31, 1975 and 1974 (000 omitted) SALES INCOME (LOSS) 1974 1975 1974 1975 Restated Sugor $56,118 $35,758 $ 1,437 S( 3,381) Bosic Materials 15,515 12,977 916 345 Hordwore and Machinery 3,051 2,770 58 92 Other (Non-operating) 2 - ( 58) ( 32) $74,686 $51,505 $ 2,353 $( 2,976) Income Toxes Credit (and Provision) ( 871) 1,145 Net Income (Loss) $ 1,482 $( 1,830) Per Shore $ 1.03 S( 1.22) Consolidated Financial Condition (000 omitted) March 31 1974 1975 Restated Current assets $ 50,419 $ 39,516 Current liobilities 51,420 30,445 Net current assets ( 1,001) 9,071 Properties - net 47,325 44,500 Other ossets 6,874 5,749 Total ossets less current licbilities 53,198 59,320 Long term debt (including debt due within one year) 33 33,151 32,101 Other licbilities 1,847 2,318 Total long term debt and other licbilities 55 34,998 34,419 Net assets $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Stockholders' equity: Common stock (1,433,096 shares outstanding) $ 6,059 $ 6,059 Retoined income and capital surplus 12,141 18,842 Total stockholders' equity $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Notes to Financial Statements (1) The income (les) by product line includes o statistical ollocation of corporale costs including interest expense. (2) Figures for 1974 have been restated to reflect changing to the lost in, first out (LIFO) method from the first in, first out (FIFO) and overage cost methods of accounting for the row sugar content of sugor inventories. If the FIFO and overage cost methods hod been used by the Com- pony, these inventories, and consequently net current assets, would hove been $14,803,000 and 54, 166,000 higher than reported at March 31, 1975 and 1974 (restated), respectively. (3) Results for the three months ended March 31, 1975 include income of $2,373,000 from reducing quantities of row sugar inventories under the uro method to on anticipated yeor-end level (substontially less than quantities on hand of the beginning of 1975). (4) A net operoting loss collyover available from 1974 will offsei the first $6,815,000 of taxoble income in 1975 and thus eliminate payment of toxes. The provision for toxas at March 31, 1975 of $871,000 represents a charge for deferred income taxes not currently payable. (5) Net income per shore bosed on 1,433,096 shares outstanding. (6) Depreciation and amortization included above omounted to $1,485,000 ond $1,265,000 in 1975 and 1974, respectively. P) Above figures subject to yeor-end audit. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227

Who is this letter addressed to ?

jxbx0227

jxbx0227_p13, jxbx0227_p14, jxbx0227_p15, jxbx0227_p16, jxbx0227_p17, jxbx0227_p18, jxbx0227_p19

Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy, GROWER LOAN SPONSORSHIP POLICY

EQUIPMENT TO RAISE 800 ACRES OF BEETS New Cost 3 - 4030 J.D. Tractors - $46,500 3 - 4 Bottom Plows - 7,800 2 - 14' Disks - 3,800 2 - Packer Mulchers - 2,400 2 - 12 Row Cultivators - 4,000 1 - 12 Row Beet Planter - 5,000 1 - 6 Row Top Saver - 7,500 2 - 3 Row Lifter Loaders - 22,000 3 - Trucks - 18' Box + Tag Axle - 24,000 1 - Broadcast Boom Sprayer - 1,000 NEW MAIN EQUIPMENT ONLY = $124,000 Misc. Hand Tools - Welder - Irrigat. - Cult. Tools - 2,000 $126,000 TO HANDLE 800 ACRES Hire or Lease 3 More Trucks at Harvest Possibly Lease 1 Tractor for 30 Days OR If you have 800 acres beets custom farmed - 800 acres X $230/acre = $184,000 EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS 1 - 6 Row Top Saver Can Top 40 Acres/Day 2 - 3 Row Lifter Loaders Can Lift 40 Acres/Day 6 Row Top Saver - $ 7,500 3 Row Lifter Loader - $11,000 6 Row Lifter Loader - $15,000 (3 Tons/Minute) 4030 J.D. Tractor - $15,500 4 Bottom Plow . - $ 2,600 14' Disk - $ 1,900 12 Row Beet Planter - $ 2,000 - 6 Row Cultivator + Tools - $ 3,000 Packer Mulcher 15' - $ 1,200 2 1/2 Ton Tag Axle Truck - $12,000 With Box and Hoist Source: Great Western Sugar Company TO: Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy August 22, 1973 Distribution List - J. Krentler G. Bogden R. Mally T. Army D. Dinkel R. Perkins R. Fisher R. Fertig D. Quinn C. lianing G. Gibson J. Van Wijk B. Phillips J. Gray M. Rebhan Dist. Gen. Mgrs. Each Factory Acctg. Office Dist. Agric. Mgrs. Asst. Dist. Agric. Mgrs. Dist. Acctg. Mgrs. Factory Agric. Mgrs. FROM: M. E. Rebhan SUBJECT: Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy (Supplement to General Credit Policy 4/25/72 Page #2, Item E) Attached is a formalized version of the generally unwritten policy that we have been operating under for several years. This policy has been approved at the appropriate management level and although there is no great need for it at this point in time it should be filed along with your General Credit Policy File referred to above. If you have any questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact John Gray or me. M. Roban MER:jb 3 attachments ASS Source: https:/www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 GROWER LOAN SPONSORSHIP POLICY General The program of Grower Loan Sponsorship is to promote beet acreage increase in Great Western Sugar and Northern Ohio Suger territories and to assist our growers in obtaining financial assistance on sugar beet crops when the grower's banking connections will not or cannot handle normal financing However, it is not the intent nor the desire of the Company to subsidize high risk growers or to compete with our local bankers in beet crop financing. The overall size of the Sponsorship Program (in dollars) as well as deviations, if any, from policy shall be determined annually by the V.P. Operations and the V.P. Finance. Unwillingness or inability of the grower's bank to handle normal financing may be due to (1) bank at legal limit for that grower and unable to interest a participating bank, (2) bank short of lendable funds, (3) bank unwilling for personal reasons to vork with the grower. Under the three foregoing categories the Company will merely assist the grower in finding normal financing at an alternative bank. In the grey area between normal and high risk financing, it may be necessary for the Company to offer a bank some inducement or sponsorship as described more fully in following paragraphs. Bank Loan Sponsorship Company sponsorship of an operating bank loan should not exceed 75% guaranty to the bank on any loss the bank might incur on such loan. A loss is recognized when the grower has liquidated all of his assets in settlement of business debts and has discontinued growing beets. If local banks have no problem under the three categories in Paragraph No. 3 above and are not agreeable to a 75% guaranty, there is every indication that the loan is too "high risk" for further consideration. Company sponsored loans, as indicated in the above paragraph, will cover only operating expenses related to a sugar beet crop. In unusual cases only, we will consider sponscring a beet equipment lcan guaranty covered by security agreement. Direct Loan Sponsorship If a financing bank cannot be provided with or without a 75% guaranty and the grower is not a definite "high risk", the V.P. of Finance may consider sponsorship through a direct factory accounts receivable loan. Such a loan would be subject to a First Mortgage Security Agreement and interest at First Naticnal City, N.Y.C. prime plus 1 1/2% on closing date and with due regard to local state interest rate maximums. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 Page 2. Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy Procedures A request for grower assistance shall originate in the Agricultural Department on our form entitled "Request to V.P. .Finance for Grower Financial- Assistance". The request and related support documents are to be forwarded progressively to the District Accounting Manager, District General Manager and V.P. Operations for review and concurrence in recommendation. It is the responsibility of the V.P. of Finance to approve or reject the request. If the request is approved, the V.P. of Finance will co-ordinate financing efforts supplying all prior signers of the document with progress reports. MER 8/22/73 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY REQUEST TO V.P. FINANCE FOR GROWER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Grower Phone ress Location of farm (receiving station) Bank (current or previous) Phone Bank/contact Number of acres if this request is filled If request is not filled Agriculturalist: (originator of this request) (name, address and phone) Reason for request (why not bankable) (Attach copy of balance sheet and operating statement. Also machinery list if any under this request.) Amount required under this request: Operating $ Equipment $ We recommend that Great Western Sugar Company provide finances or financial backing for this grower up to the amount specified and for the purposes listed. Dist.Acct.Mgr. Date Dist.Genl.Mgr. Date V.P.Operations Date Instructions: 1. Originated by Agriculturist, 4. Forward to V.P. Finance, 2. Review and recommendation by 5. V.P. Finance to instruct Dist. Acct.Mg District Personnel, with carbons to all concerned. 3. viver GreatWee Sungar Company GREAT WESTERN SUGAR FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM Letter of Understanding Great Western Sugar Company is initiating and coordinating a "Great Western Sugar Fellowship Program. " The purpose of this program is to improvise, coordinate and place into effect a system of expanding and improving farm management techno- logy. In this connection, Great Western Sugar Company will cooperate with Colorado State University, other state universities, progressive sugarbeet growers, and graduates to provide an opportunity for these graduates to enter into or share in farm management positions. Col. To effectuate this program, the below signed graduate of Pennsylvania State Uni- versity, the grower and Great Western Sugar Company have entered into this Letter of Understanding to set forth the agreement reached between the below signed parties to this Letter, of Understanding. The graduate will be employed by and work with the below signed grower at the grower's farm or farms. The grower will pay the graduate $450 per month and will employ the graduate for the period of this agreement, which will extend for a duration of two (2) years from the date hereof. The aim of this relationship will be to develop a viable partnership and/or an expansion and sharing of opportunities in farming operations. Great Western Sugar Company will cooperate with the grower and furnish information which will help improve his farm management techniques with the intent that he will be able to expand his acreage and develop a more productive farm.operation. The grower agrees to plant at least 25 percent of irrigated land under his control in sugarbeets. Great Western Sugar Company agrees to give to the graduate, for the period of time he is employed by the grower under this, agreement, the sum of $250 per month. This money will be the graduate's and the graduate will be responsible for applicable taxes on this amount. The Sugar Company is giving this money to the graduate and the graduate in no sense will be employed by the Sugar Company and will owe no legal obligation to the Sugar Company. It is understood that any of the parties hereto may cancel this agreement at any time, and the obligations under this agreement will cease as of the time of cancellation. In the event the graduate is the party who desires to cancel the agreement, the Sugar Company will use its best efforts to attempt to find another graduate to participate in this agreement. By their below placed signatures, the three parties agree to the broad outlines contained in this Letter of Understanding and will conduct themselves accordingly. GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY By (Graduate) (Grower) Source: https:l//www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227

What is the date on the letter

jxbx0227

jxbx0227_p13, jxbx0227_p14, jxbx0227_p15, jxbx0227_p16, jxbx0227_p17, jxbx0227_p18, jxbx0227_p19

AUGUST 22, 1973

EQUIPMENT TO RAISE 800 ACRES OF BEETS New Cost 3 - 4030 J.D. Tractors - $46,500 3 - 4 Bottom Plows - 7,800 2 - 14' Disks - 3,800 2 - Packer Mulchers - 2,400 2 - 12 Row Cultivators - 4,000 1 - 12 Row Beet Planter - 5,000 1 - 6 Row Top Saver - 7,500 2 - 3 Row Lifter Loaders - 22,000 3 - Trucks - 18' Box + Tag Axle - 24,000 1 - Broadcast Boom Sprayer - 1,000 NEW MAIN EQUIPMENT ONLY = $124,000 Misc. Hand Tools - Welder - Irrigat. - Cult. Tools - 2,000 $126,000 TO HANDLE 800 ACRES Hire or Lease 3 More Trucks at Harvest Possibly Lease 1 Tractor for 30 Days OR If you have 800 acres beets custom farmed - 800 acres X $230/acre = $184,000 EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS 1 - 6 Row Top Saver Can Top 40 Acres/Day 2 - 3 Row Lifter Loaders Can Lift 40 Acres/Day 6 Row Top Saver - $ 7,500 3 Row Lifter Loader - $11,000 6 Row Lifter Loader - $15,000 (3 Tons/Minute) 4030 J.D. Tractor - $15,500 4 Bottom Plow . - $ 2,600 14' Disk - $ 1,900 12 Row Beet Planter - $ 2,000 - 6 Row Cultivator + Tools - $ 3,000 Packer Mulcher 15' - $ 1,200 2 1/2 Ton Tag Axle Truck - $12,000 With Box and Hoist Source: Great Western Sugar Company TO: Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy August 22, 1973 Distribution List - J. Krentler G. Bogden R. Mally T. Army D. Dinkel R. Perkins R. Fisher R. Fertig D. Quinn C. lianing G. Gibson J. Van Wijk B. Phillips J. Gray M. Rebhan Dist. Gen. Mgrs. Each Factory Acctg. Office Dist. Agric. Mgrs. Asst. Dist. Agric. Mgrs. Dist. Acctg. Mgrs. Factory Agric. Mgrs. FROM: M. E. Rebhan SUBJECT: Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy (Supplement to General Credit Policy 4/25/72 Page #2, Item E) Attached is a formalized version of the generally unwritten policy that we have been operating under for several years. This policy has been approved at the appropriate management level and although there is no great need for it at this point in time it should be filed along with your General Credit Policy File referred to above. If you have any questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact John Gray or me. M. Roban MER:jb 3 attachments ASS Source: https:/www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 GROWER LOAN SPONSORSHIP POLICY General The program of Grower Loan Sponsorship is to promote beet acreage increase in Great Western Sugar and Northern Ohio Suger territories and to assist our growers in obtaining financial assistance on sugar beet crops when the grower's banking connections will not or cannot handle normal financing However, it is not the intent nor the desire of the Company to subsidize high risk growers or to compete with our local bankers in beet crop financing. The overall size of the Sponsorship Program (in dollars) as well as deviations, if any, from policy shall be determined annually by the V.P. Operations and the V.P. Finance. Unwillingness or inability of the grower's bank to handle normal financing may be due to (1) bank at legal limit for that grower and unable to interest a participating bank, (2) bank short of lendable funds, (3) bank unwilling for personal reasons to vork with the grower. Under the three foregoing categories the Company will merely assist the grower in finding normal financing at an alternative bank. In the grey area between normal and high risk financing, it may be necessary for the Company to offer a bank some inducement or sponsorship as described more fully in following paragraphs. Bank Loan Sponsorship Company sponsorship of an operating bank loan should not exceed 75% guaranty to the bank on any loss the bank might incur on such loan. A loss is recognized when the grower has liquidated all of his assets in settlement of business debts and has discontinued growing beets. If local banks have no problem under the three categories in Paragraph No. 3 above and are not agreeable to a 75% guaranty, there is every indication that the loan is too "high risk" for further consideration. Company sponsored loans, as indicated in the above paragraph, will cover only operating expenses related to a sugar beet crop. In unusual cases only, we will consider sponscring a beet equipment lcan guaranty covered by security agreement. Direct Loan Sponsorship If a financing bank cannot be provided with or without a 75% guaranty and the grower is not a definite "high risk", the V.P. of Finance may consider sponsorship through a direct factory accounts receivable loan. Such a loan would be subject to a First Mortgage Security Agreement and interest at First Naticnal City, N.Y.C. prime plus 1 1/2% on closing date and with due regard to local state interest rate maximums. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 Page 2. Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy Procedures A request for grower assistance shall originate in the Agricultural Department on our form entitled "Request to V.P. .Finance for Grower Financial- Assistance". The request and related support documents are to be forwarded progressively to the District Accounting Manager, District General Manager and V.P. Operations for review and concurrence in recommendation. It is the responsibility of the V.P. of Finance to approve or reject the request. If the request is approved, the V.P. of Finance will co-ordinate financing efforts supplying all prior signers of the document with progress reports. MER 8/22/73 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY REQUEST TO V.P. FINANCE FOR GROWER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Grower Phone ress Location of farm (receiving station) Bank (current or previous) Phone Bank/contact Number of acres if this request is filled If request is not filled Agriculturalist: (originator of this request) (name, address and phone) Reason for request (why not bankable) (Attach copy of balance sheet and operating statement. Also machinery list if any under this request.) Amount required under this request: Operating $ Equipment $ We recommend that Great Western Sugar Company provide finances or financial backing for this grower up to the amount specified and for the purposes listed. Dist.Acct.Mgr. Date Dist.Genl.Mgr. Date V.P.Operations Date Instructions: 1. Originated by Agriculturist, 4. Forward to V.P. Finance, 2. Review and recommendation by 5. V.P. Finance to instruct Dist. Acct.Mg District Personnel, with carbons to all concerned. 3. viver GreatWee Sungar Company GREAT WESTERN SUGAR FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM Letter of Understanding Great Western Sugar Company is initiating and coordinating a "Great Western Sugar Fellowship Program. " The purpose of this program is to improvise, coordinate and place into effect a system of expanding and improving farm management techno- logy. In this connection, Great Western Sugar Company will cooperate with Colorado State University, other state universities, progressive sugarbeet growers, and graduates to provide an opportunity for these graduates to enter into or share in farm management positions. Col. To effectuate this program, the below signed graduate of Pennsylvania State Uni- versity, the grower and Great Western Sugar Company have entered into this Letter of Understanding to set forth the agreement reached between the below signed parties to this Letter, of Understanding. The graduate will be employed by and work with the below signed grower at the grower's farm or farms. The grower will pay the graduate $450 per month and will employ the graduate for the period of this agreement, which will extend for a duration of two (2) years from the date hereof. The aim of this relationship will be to develop a viable partnership and/or an expansion and sharing of opportunities in farming operations. Great Western Sugar Company will cooperate with the grower and furnish information which will help improve his farm management techniques with the intent that he will be able to expand his acreage and develop a more productive farm.operation. The grower agrees to plant at least 25 percent of irrigated land under his control in sugarbeets. Great Western Sugar Company agrees to give to the graduate, for the period of time he is employed by the grower under this, agreement, the sum of $250 per month. This money will be the graduate's and the graduate will be responsible for applicable taxes on this amount. The Sugar Company is giving this money to the graduate and the graduate in no sense will be employed by the Sugar Company and will owe no legal obligation to the Sugar Company. It is understood that any of the parties hereto may cancel this agreement at any time, and the obligations under this agreement will cease as of the time of cancellation. In the event the graduate is the party who desires to cancel the agreement, the Sugar Company will use its best efforts to attempt to find another graduate to participate in this agreement. By their below placed signatures, the three parties agree to the broad outlines contained in this Letter of Understanding and will conduct themselves accordingly. GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY By (Graduate) (Grower) Source: https:l//www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227

What is total assets in dollars?

jlbx0227

jlbx0227_p0, jlbx0227_p1, jlbx0227_p2, jlbx0227_p3, jlbx0227_p4, jlbx0227_p5, jlbx0227_p6, jlbx0227_p7, jlbx0227_p8, jlbx0227_p9, jlbx0227_p10, jlbx0227_p11, jlbx0227_p12, jlbx0227_p13, jlbx0227_p14, jlbx0227_p15, jlbx0227_p16, jlbx0227_p17, jlbx0227_p18, jlbx0227_p19

$ 34,395, 34,935

GH BRIEFING 6-11-75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I. GH is not worth buying for what is has earned or will earn under "normal" conditions; i.e., buy, refine, sell sugar. EBIT $600 M to $1.500M Needs $6-9MM WC to continue Can be purchased for $4-8 MM (they expect $10MM) Our "cost" is $10-17MM. . II. GH has excellent 1. Facilities at Reserve 2. Technical support personnel at Reserve 3. Distribution network relative to GW. t 2,100, on 00 3, III. GH could be a good speculative investment 2.4 Hog Low Provides A. "LONG.LIMIT 7,200,000 2, 400,000 Balance to GWS beet business 21.000,000 5.7,100 2,200,00 3.0000 Take % of Sugar Broker/dist $ 6,200,000 wwword ? 400.00 = Entry to foreign refined market 10% "Improvement on cost of raws = $16MM profit contribution" We must get a "participating K".- HFTS: 2X the Bet. on 121,000 IV. Net; get into GH as low as possible, 4 3 Emphasize the Raws problem< : Slim down overhead 95° Devise a plan that can target for $20MM EBIT. Actual Potented V hmp Ratio 73 74 AT, impiral 1.6 2.6 1.9mm Gll 4% 2.6% G,8 Source:https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., INC. PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1967. - 1970 1971 & 1974 1971 Profit Before Tax, Interest and Supervision Fees $ 11,130 M $ 6,614 M $ 4,528 M Average Per Year . 2,783 3,307 4,528 1974 Supervision (506) (506) .' (506) 1974 Interest (2,213) (2,213) (2,213) Projected Annual Profit 64 588 1,809 Investment Required to Return 10% $ 640 M $ 5,880 M $ 18,090 M 30% 213 1,950 6,030 15% 426 3,920 12,600 Production (CWT) 32,824 M CWT 19,050 M CWT 10,502 M CWT Average Per Year 8,206 9,525 10,502 1.5 33 Objective: - Get 30 day option - Full P & L information (operating statistics) - Manufacturing costs (operating statistics) Be Prepared To: - Sign LOI - Offer $4 Mm Low $5 Mm Mid $6 Mm High for 30% return before taxes $10 Mm Absolute Top Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co., INC. BALANCE SHEETS December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 ASSETS Current assets: Cash $ 2,150,212 $ 1,295,521 Federal income tax refund 1,020,891 Accounts and notes receivable: Trade 17,277,055 8,652,194 Affiliates 67,279 463,344 Inventories 12,503,941 13,094,401 Prepaid insurance and other 392,086 185,945 Total current assets 33,411,464 23,691,405 Property, plant and equipment, at cost: Land 373,300 373,300 Buildings 6,208,224 5,905,359 Machinery and equipment 14,791,863 13,812,393 Delivery and other automotive equipment 89,307 89,307 Leasehold improvements 50,662 27,707 21,513,356 20,208,066 Less accumulated depreciation 6,975,497 5,995,392 14,537,859 14,212,674 Other assets: Deferred income. taxes 1,492,919 Sundry deferred charges 368,352 629,849 Notes receivable 2,500 110,500 Advances to affiliates 126,733 1,990,504 740,349 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,428 LIABILITIES Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities: Trade $ 31,834,490 $ 6,998,742 Affiliates 846,938 356,860 Notes payable 19,019,761 14,534,993 Current portion of long-term debt 103,317 308,828 Total current liabilities (18,393) 51,804,506 22,199,423 Mortgage and notes payable, current portion above: 10-1/2% First Mortgage Note 4,747,501 4,836,043 Other notes payable 124,451 180,306 4,871,952 5,016,349 Advances from affiliates 3,178,135 3,171,156 Deferred income taxes 788,190 STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY (DEFICIT) Common stock, $100 par value; 1,041 shares authorized, issued and outstanding 104,100 104,100 Paid-in capital 2,323,239 . 2,323,239 Retained earnings (deficit), as annexed (12,342,105) 5,041,971 (9,914,765) 7,469,310 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,418 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-MENDERSON SUGAR co., , INC. PRO FORMA BALANCE SHEET AT 5/31/75 IN HANDS OF OTHERS - ON LIFO ASSETS Cash $ 1,395 Accounts Receivable 12,464 - Inventories Sugar 272,000 cwt at $11.11 3,022 Processing cost 386 Spare parts 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 19,631 Fixed assets - Net 14,353 Other assets and deferred charges 411 TOTAL ASSETS $ 34,395 LIABILITIES = Notes payable - banks $ 14,253 Notes payable - La. raw mills 7,369 Need commu Current portion of long-term debt 115 Accounts payable and accrued 3,334 2,2 Total Current Liabilities 25,071 Long-term debt 4,815 Deferred taxes 872 Deferred futures profit 716 Stockholders' equity 2,921 TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 34,395 1975 ceremated income Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Soùrce: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/j)bx0227 GODCHAUX-IENDERSON SUGAR co., INC. ESTIMATED WORKING CAPITAL MAY 31, 1975 000's omitted Current Assets Cash $ 1,395 Accounts receivable 12,464 Note receivable - U.S. Sugar Co. 240 Inventories: Raw sugar (Massequite), 40,458 cwt @ $17 688 Refined, 216,216 cwt @ $22 4,757 Spare parts, bags, mdse. for resale 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 21,908 Current Liabilities Bank notes payable 14,253 Current portion of long-term debt 115 Total notes payable 14,368 La. raw sugar payables 7,369 Other trade payables and accruals 1,755 Total Current Liabilities 23,492 Net Estimated Working Capital (Deficit) ($ 1,584) CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co. INC. ESTIMATED NET INCOME JANUARY ] THROUGH MAY 31, 1975 Pre-tax income, 4/30/75 $ 388,221 Estimated profit on April inventory liquidation 346,750 Deferred inventory liquidation profit, 4/30/75 6,329,205 Last estimated of May income 187,723 7,251,899 Estimate of income from inventory liquidation in month of May: Cwt actual, 96°, , 4/30/75 485,000 Cwt actual, 96°; 5/31/75 272,000 Liquidated 213,000 Spread ($27 May Cost - $11) x 16 $3,408,000 May liquidation profit 3,408,000 Total estimated pre-tax income 10,659,899 Book taxes at 37% consolidated rate 3,944,163 Estimated net income $ 6,715,736 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR co. INC. 2 ESTIMATED STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY MAY 31, 1975 Capital stock $ 104,100 Paid in capital, existing balance 2,323,239 Additional contributions to be made by Southern Industries 5,345,000 Total capital stock and paid-in 7,772,339 Retained earnings (deficit), 1/1/75 (12,342,104) Estimated net income, 1/1-5/31/75 6,715,736 Retained earnings (deficit), 5/31/75 ( 5,626,368) Total Estimated Stockholder's Equity, 5/31/75 $ 2,145,971 776 2,921 5. cash 3,6 2 2146 8.6 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF INCOME (LOSS) AND RETAINED EARNINGS (DEFICIT) for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Net sales $270,994,584 $121,429,038 Cost of sales 282,649,140 117,395,585 Gross profit (loss) (11,654,556) 4,033,453 Selling, general and administrative expenses 3,259,352 2,468,224 (14,913,908) 1,565,229 Other income, net 143,984 54,687 16.4mm (14,769,924) 1,619,916 Interest deductions 2,192,152 1,197,210 Income (loss) before provision (credit) for taxes 4 14,2mm (16,962,076) 422,706 Provision (credit) for income taxes: Federal: Current (990,891) (277,206) Deferred (2,251,109) 181,357 State - current 19,089 (3,242,000) (76,760) Net income (loss) the 7.1mm (13,720,076) 499,466 Retained earnings, January 1, restated 5,041,971 4,667,505 (8,678,105) 5,166,971 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 Retained earnings (deficit), December 31 $(12,342,105) $ _5,041,971 See notes to financial statements. 3 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., , INC. Statement of Change in Financial Position 1/1/15 - 4/30/75 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income $ 1244,579 Depreciation and amortization 383,018 Deferred income taxes -0- Working capital provided from operations 627,597 Decrease in other assets 4,525 Increase in deferred liabilities 8,373,106 $ 9,005,228 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment $ : 293,428 Reduction to mortgage and notes payable 56,909 Increase in deferred charges 264,575 $ 614,912 Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Changes in working capital Current assets: Cash $ (1,169,483) Receivables a 230th (7,434,849) Inventories (4,138,565) Prepaid insurance and other. 338,681 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities + 2,3sta $ (20,787,991) Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (6,541) $ (20,794,532) Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income (loss) $(13,720,076) $ 499,466 Expenses (credit) not affecting working capital in the current year: Depreciation and amortization 1,060,770 819,542 Deferred income taxes (2,251,109) 181,357 Working capital provided from (applied to) operations for the year (14,910,415) 1,500,365 Increase in advances from affiliates 6,979 Increase in mortgage and notes payable 9,430 1,022,000 Property sales and retirements, less accumulated depreciation 53,470 15,535 Other 212,764 63,670 (14,627,772) 2,601,570 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment 1,439,425 2,778,888 Reduction in mortgage and notes payable 153,827 278,496 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 5,257,252 3,182,384 Decrease in working capital $ (19,885,024) $ (580,814) Change in working capital - increase (decrease) : Current assets: Cash $ 854,691 $ 703,853 Receivables 9,249,687 (635,126) Inventories (590,460) 2,042,128 Prepaid insurance and other 206,141 (32,598 9,720,059 2,078,257 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (25,325,826) 3,143,444 Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (4,279,257) (5,802,515) (29,605,083) (2,659,071 Decrease in working capital $(19,885,024) $ (580,814 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 - SUCAR C.O. INC. VARIOUS SINTISTICS 1/1/74 .. 12/31/174 (BEFORE LIFO) PROFIT CONTRIBUTION Net Profit Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Add: Supervision Fees 506,000 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 14,675,927 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 SIC Note Interest 45,913 Interest Expense 1,986,461 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 60,914 Debt Amortization 14,752 Profit Contribution 16,383,957 ABEREVIATED FLOW OF FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Less: Income Tax 7,084,964 Net Income $ 7,084,963 Add: Depreciation and Amortization 1,052,693 Cash Flow $ 8,137,656. Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt 800,082 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 8,937,738 drwanch Less: Dividends 3.664,000 Capital Expenditures 1,377,877 Net Flow of Funds - Surplus/(Deficit) $ 3,895,861 NET WORKING CAPITAL @ 12/31/74 $ 5,480,545 Repairs $ 1,653,955 Refined Sugar Produced CWT 8,547,969 = it n Operating Days - Refinery 233 321 Average Production per Operating Day $ 36,687 27 \ IIIN E. Ladd 5/19/75 Söurce: https://www.industrydócuments,ucsf.edutddrst T1xx0227 VARIOUS STATISTICS 1967 - 1973 7 YEAR 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 TOTAL PROFIT CONTRIBUTION is 196 P Net Profit Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 Add: Supervision Fees 108,701 116,733 141,000 553,719 635,000 600,000 475,200 2,630,353 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 1,546,380 $ 1,864,135.1 $,1,718,417 $ 3,055,741 $ 3,866,801 $ 1,111,305 $ 897,906 $14,060,685 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 - 105,000 735,000 SIC Note Interest 138,214 145,798 138,661 131,661 124,747 117,925 111,636 908,642 Interest Expense 461,912 469,086 500,094 414,888 399,240 550,819 979,364 3,775,403 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 26,933 30,683 32,257 29,098 31,987 42,390 43,155 236,503 Debt Amortization 3,008 3,009 a - 6,017 1 Profit Contribution $ 2,281,447 $ 2,617,711 $ 2,494,129 $ 3,736,388 $ 4,527,775 $ 1,927,439 $ 2,137,061 $19,722,250 =085. ASBREVIATED FLCW 07 FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 (633) Less: Income Tax 586,061 804,000 816,551 1,069,802 1,153,238 26,466 (76,760) 4,379,358 Net Incone $ 851,618 $ 943,402 $ 760,866 $ 1,432,220 $ 2,078,563 $ 484,839 $ 499,466 $ 7,050,974 Add: Depreciation & Amortization 378,075 426,909 496,715 536,092 599,874 674,623 819,542 3,931,530 Cash Flow $ 1,229,693 $ 1,370,311 $ 1,257,581 $ 1,968,312 $ 2,678,437 $ 1,159,462 $ 1,319,008 $10,982,604 Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt (603,062) (492,620) (333,174) (495,412) 1,865,581 3,351,521 743,504 4,036,338 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 626,631 $ 877,691 $ 924,407 $ 1,472,900 $ 4,544,013 $ 4,510,983 $ 2,062,512 $15,019,142 NO Less: Dividends -0- 375,000 330,000 530,000 : 660,000 330,000 125,000 2,350,000 Capital Expenditures 1,694,961 1,099,561 942,281 755,946 2,619,417 4,187,602 2,773,893 14,078,656 Net Flou of Funds - Surplus/(Doficit) $ (1,068,330) $ (596,870) $. (347,371) $ 186,954 $ 1,264,601 $ (6,619) $ (841,376) $(1,409,514) Net Working Capital at Year-End $ 1,738,296 $ 960,279 $ 531,173 $ 499,751 $ 1,171,294 $ 2,220,053 $ 2,216,941 $ 1,627,025 Repairs $ 1,160,277 $ 1,229,468 $ 1,156,668 $ 1,326,567 $ 1,475,224 $ 1,414,386 $1.1,383,014 $ 9,145,604 Refined Sugar Produced (Cwt.) 7,270,838 8,317,724 7,741,365 9,494,161 10,502,424 9,170,169 8,457,433 - Operating Days - Refinery 268 277 246 299 .312 280 247 Average Production per Operating Day (Cwt.) 27,130 30,028 31,495 31,817 33,694 32,751 34,185 E. Ladd . 3/28/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I a - 0.042 °C - - - - it. Co N T O 0= of n- F- 8 80 . ********** i. .7 -0 *********** ++++++++4 - - CUMVERCA RAN 7 CONVERCA 3 es (--) CF- a n a - D an nca [= HE' - In a g 2 - Filent - NOTE. o THIS MAP REDUCED KALF SIZE MAP OF PLANT LATOUT na Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 (10,000) 31,000 (43,000 24,000 (4,000) LEARTYPE OUNTY OUTUNE NITED STATES - (3,000) MAP NO.117 AMERICAN MAD SOMPANY.INC $ Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SALARIED ORGANIZATION MAY 1, 1975 Operations, J. A. Metzler 2 Purchasing 6 Cincinnati 5 13 Marketing, E. R. Fleming 2 Administration 10 Sales 8 20 Finance, H. L. Kirk 4 Credit 4 Billing 3 Machine Room 2 1.3 Accounting, R. L. Crawford 11 Refinery, A. Garcia 2 Maintenance 23 Quality Assurance 10 Engineering 4 Administration 19 Operations 35 Service 2 95 Mobile, Administration and Service 6 TOTAL 158 40 158 101 67 T. Source: https://wvww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/doce 51jTbx02.27 to HOURLY ORCANIZATION - RESERVE - MAY 1, 1975 Manning is based cn requirement of two full shifts plus skeleton crew on the third shift in Pecking, and six palletized crews and two hand loading crews in Shipping. Raw Receiving 3 Affination 9 Clarification 9 Char House 18 Granulators 6 Pan Floor 16 Refined Centrifugal 12 Pre-Packaging 14 Packaging 80 Shipping - Packages 51 Shipping - Bulk 6 Liquid Sugar 6 Yard Crew 4 Sanitation 12 Security 6 Commissary 4 Laboratory 8 Utilities 12 Dock 6 Painters 8 Construction 14 Truck Drivers 5 Electrical 15 Maintenance Shops 13 Area Mechanics 20 Operations Mechanics 12 Total Required for 369* Operation *There are approximately 30 additional people on the payroll who act as vacation replacements, absentee replacements, training, etc. 360 1.58 40 Source: https:.//wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs[ilbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES 1. Information known: A. Sugar refinery at Reserve, Louisiana - 32 miles west of New Orleans on the Mississippi River. B. Liquid sugár processing plant and distribution terminal at Cincinnati, Ohio and leases sugar packaging operations at Buffalo, New York and (Chicago, Illinois 12/1/74. C. Owns 8 hydraulic material processing dredges, owns or has long term leases on 11 towboats and 88 cargo barges and under short term leases has 15 towboats and 30 barges. D. Also owns ready-mixed concrete operations and a mixer fleet in Mobile; asphalt plants at Woodstock, Margerum and Mobile, Alabama: a concrete block plant at Mobile, and supporting sales depots at Mobile, Ft. Walton Beach and Pensacola, Florida, and New Orleans owns or leases 8 stone quarries and crushing plants at Mobile, Baltimore and Houston, and chemical lime plants at Morgan City, La., and Saginaw, Ala. Company leases 2 slag processing facilities at Columbia, Tenn. E. Mineral Reserves--Company leases shell deposits from the states of Alabama and Louisiana, estimated to contain 100 million tons; leases gravel deposits estimated to contain 10 million tons owns an asphaltic limestone deposit estimated to contain 1,500,000 tons; and leases lime- stone deposits estimated to contain 200 million tons. F. Raws: 25% from U.S. 75% from Foreign G. Campaign: 312 days in 1971 280 days in 1972 247 days in 1973 232 days in 1974 H. Refined Sugar Production Production Year (Million cwts) 1971 10.5 1972 9.2 1973 8.4 1974 8.5 1. Sells sugar under two tradenames: 1. Henderson Superfine 2. Godchaux Brand continued Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES, continued Page 2 J. Current assets $53 Million. K. Long term debt $34 Million. L. Cost of replacing cane facilities: 1) Processing - $25 million Mill (3500 ton/day grind) 2) Refinery - $45 million (700 ton/day raw sugar) X 2 = 99mm II. Data needed: A. What it costs for Raws - Domestic - Foreign B. Operating costs (cost of production including G & A percent of refined sugar). C. Where receive raws from D. Costs to market place E. Financial data up to net income F. Present contractual arrangements III. To Receive 30% ROI before tax: @ 20,000 $ 6mm Example 1: Cost Proc + Profit for Price for RAWS: Raws Freight G & A 30% ROI Ref. Sugar (U.S.)25% @ 126 + 0 + 2.56 + 16 15.5 (Foreign 75% @ 7c + 1.8€ + 2.56 + 1c 12.3 TOTAL Weight Price For Refined Sugar 13.1 IV. Potential Areas to Increase Profits A. Grain Exports $45 2.47 50 B. Foreign raw prices based on refined sugar prices when sold. 11,2 C. Participating contract with growers based on refined sugar prices or foreign raws. 14/11/11 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 The President of Southern Industries Reports. Net soles for the first quarter ended March 31, 1975 were $74,686,000 compared to $51,505,000 for the same period in 1974. Net income for the period was $1,482,000 equal to $1.03 per share compared to a net loss of $1,830,000 (restated) equal to a loss of $1.23 per shore in 1974. By.product line the basic materials group had a 165% increase in pre-tox cornings over last year. This group occounted for $916,000 or opproximately 38% of pre-tax eornings. The sugar division contributed $1,437,000 or 61% to the results. With the exception of low sugar volume, the demand for our other products and materials remains strong. Your attention is directed to the notes to the following statements for a further explanation of the financial results of the first quorter. D. E. Dowson, Jr. April 22, 1975 President 1 Sales and Income (Loss) by Product Line For the three months ended March 31, 1975 and 1974 (000 omitted) SALES INCOME (LOSS) 1974 1975 1974 1975 Restated Sugor $56,118 $35,758 $ 1,437 S( 3,381) Bosic Materials 15,515 12,977 916 345 Hordwore and Machinery 3,051 2,770 58 92 Other (Non-operating) 2 - ( 58) ( 32) $74,686 $51,505 $ 2,353 $( 2,976) Income Toxes Credit (and Provision) ( 871) 1,145 Net Income (Loss) $ 1,482 $( 1,830) Per Shore $ 1.03 S( 1.22) Consolidated Financial Condition (000 omitted) March 31 1974 1975 Restated Current assets $ 50,419 $ 39,516 Current liobilities 51,420 30,445 Net current assets ( 1,001) 9,071 Properties - net 47,325 44,500 Other ossets 6,874 5,749 Total ossets less current licbilities 53,198 59,320 Long term debt (including debt due within one year) 33 33,151 32,101 Other licbilities 1,847 2,318 Total long term debt and other licbilities 55 34,998 34,419 Net assets $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Stockholders' equity: Common stock (1,433,096 shares outstanding) $ 6,059 $ 6,059 Retoined income and capital surplus 12,141 18,842 Total stockholders' equity $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Notes to Financial Statements (1) The income (les) by product line includes o statistical ollocation of corporale costs including interest expense. (2) Figures for 1974 have been restated to reflect changing to the lost in, first out (LIFO) method from the first in, first out (FIFO) and overage cost methods of accounting for the row sugar content of sugor inventories. If the FIFO and overage cost methods hod been used by the Com- pony, these inventories, and consequently net current assets, would hove been $14,803,000 and 54, 166,000 higher than reported at March 31, 1975 and 1974 (restated), respectively. (3) Results for the three months ended March 31, 1975 include income of $2,373,000 from reducing quantities of row sugar inventories under the uro method to on anticipated yeor-end level (substontially less than quantities on hand of the beginning of 1975). (4) A net operoting loss collyover available from 1974 will offsei the first $6,815,000 of taxoble income in 1975 and thus eliminate payment of toxes. The provision for toxas at March 31, 1975 of $871,000 represents a charge for deferred income taxes not currently payable. (5) Net income per shore bosed on 1,433,096 shares outstanding. (6) Depreciation and amortization included above omounted to $1,485,000 ond $1,265,000 in 1975 and 1974, respectively. P) Above figures subject to yeor-end audit. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227

Who wrote this letter?

jxbx0227

jxbx0227_p13, jxbx0227_p14, jxbx0227_p15, jxbx0227_p16, jxbx0227_p17, jxbx0227_p18, jxbx0227_p19

M. E. Rebhan.

EQUIPMENT TO RAISE 800 ACRES OF BEETS New Cost 3 - 4030 J.D. Tractors - $46,500 3 - 4 Bottom Plows - 7,800 2 - 14' Disks - 3,800 2 - Packer Mulchers - 2,400 2 - 12 Row Cultivators - 4,000 1 - 12 Row Beet Planter - 5,000 1 - 6 Row Top Saver - 7,500 2 - 3 Row Lifter Loaders - 22,000 3 - Trucks - 18' Box + Tag Axle - 24,000 1 - Broadcast Boom Sprayer - 1,000 NEW MAIN EQUIPMENT ONLY = $124,000 Misc. Hand Tools - Welder - Irrigat. - Cult. Tools - 2,000 $126,000 TO HANDLE 800 ACRES Hire or Lease 3 More Trucks at Harvest Possibly Lease 1 Tractor for 30 Days OR If you have 800 acres beets custom farmed - 800 acres X $230/acre = $184,000 EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS 1 - 6 Row Top Saver Can Top 40 Acres/Day 2 - 3 Row Lifter Loaders Can Lift 40 Acres/Day 6 Row Top Saver - $ 7,500 3 Row Lifter Loader - $11,000 6 Row Lifter Loader - $15,000 (3 Tons/Minute) 4030 J.D. Tractor - $15,500 4 Bottom Plow . - $ 2,600 14' Disk - $ 1,900 12 Row Beet Planter - $ 2,000 - 6 Row Cultivator + Tools - $ 3,000 Packer Mulcher 15' - $ 1,200 2 1/2 Ton Tag Axle Truck - $12,000 With Box and Hoist Source: Great Western Sugar Company TO: Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy August 22, 1973 Distribution List - J. Krentler G. Bogden R. Mally T. Army D. Dinkel R. Perkins R. Fisher R. Fertig D. Quinn C. lianing G. Gibson J. Van Wijk B. Phillips J. Gray M. Rebhan Dist. Gen. Mgrs. Each Factory Acctg. Office Dist. Agric. Mgrs. Asst. Dist. Agric. Mgrs. Dist. Acctg. Mgrs. Factory Agric. Mgrs. FROM: M. E. Rebhan SUBJECT: Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy (Supplement to General Credit Policy 4/25/72 Page #2, Item E) Attached is a formalized version of the generally unwritten policy that we have been operating under for several years. This policy has been approved at the appropriate management level and although there is no great need for it at this point in time it should be filed along with your General Credit Policy File referred to above. If you have any questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact John Gray or me. M. Roban MER:jb 3 attachments ASS Source: https:/www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 GROWER LOAN SPONSORSHIP POLICY General The program of Grower Loan Sponsorship is to promote beet acreage increase in Great Western Sugar and Northern Ohio Suger territories and to assist our growers in obtaining financial assistance on sugar beet crops when the grower's banking connections will not or cannot handle normal financing However, it is not the intent nor the desire of the Company to subsidize high risk growers or to compete with our local bankers in beet crop financing. The overall size of the Sponsorship Program (in dollars) as well as deviations, if any, from policy shall be determined annually by the V.P. Operations and the V.P. Finance. Unwillingness or inability of the grower's bank to handle normal financing may be due to (1) bank at legal limit for that grower and unable to interest a participating bank, (2) bank short of lendable funds, (3) bank unwilling for personal reasons to vork with the grower. Under the three foregoing categories the Company will merely assist the grower in finding normal financing at an alternative bank. In the grey area between normal and high risk financing, it may be necessary for the Company to offer a bank some inducement or sponsorship as described more fully in following paragraphs. Bank Loan Sponsorship Company sponsorship of an operating bank loan should not exceed 75% guaranty to the bank on any loss the bank might incur on such loan. A loss is recognized when the grower has liquidated all of his assets in settlement of business debts and has discontinued growing beets. If local banks have no problem under the three categories in Paragraph No. 3 above and are not agreeable to a 75% guaranty, there is every indication that the loan is too "high risk" for further consideration. Company sponsored loans, as indicated in the above paragraph, will cover only operating expenses related to a sugar beet crop. In unusual cases only, we will consider sponscring a beet equipment lcan guaranty covered by security agreement. Direct Loan Sponsorship If a financing bank cannot be provided with or without a 75% guaranty and the grower is not a definite "high risk", the V.P. of Finance may consider sponsorship through a direct factory accounts receivable loan. Such a loan would be subject to a First Mortgage Security Agreement and interest at First Naticnal City, N.Y.C. prime plus 1 1/2% on closing date and with due regard to local state interest rate maximums. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 Page 2. Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy Procedures A request for grower assistance shall originate in the Agricultural Department on our form entitled "Request to V.P. .Finance for Grower Financial- Assistance". The request and related support documents are to be forwarded progressively to the District Accounting Manager, District General Manager and V.P. Operations for review and concurrence in recommendation. It is the responsibility of the V.P. of Finance to approve or reject the request. If the request is approved, the V.P. of Finance will co-ordinate financing efforts supplying all prior signers of the document with progress reports. MER 8/22/73 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY REQUEST TO V.P. FINANCE FOR GROWER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Grower Phone ress Location of farm (receiving station) Bank (current or previous) Phone Bank/contact Number of acres if this request is filled If request is not filled Agriculturalist: (originator of this request) (name, address and phone) Reason for request (why not bankable) (Attach copy of balance sheet and operating statement. Also machinery list if any under this request.) Amount required under this request: Operating $ Equipment $ We recommend that Great Western Sugar Company provide finances or financial backing for this grower up to the amount specified and for the purposes listed. Dist.Acct.Mgr. Date Dist.Genl.Mgr. Date V.P.Operations Date Instructions: 1. Originated by Agriculturist, 4. Forward to V.P. Finance, 2. Review and recommendation by 5. V.P. Finance to instruct Dist. Acct.Mg District Personnel, with carbons to all concerned. 3. viver GreatWee Sungar Company GREAT WESTERN SUGAR FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM Letter of Understanding Great Western Sugar Company is initiating and coordinating a "Great Western Sugar Fellowship Program. " The purpose of this program is to improvise, coordinate and place into effect a system of expanding and improving farm management techno- logy. In this connection, Great Western Sugar Company will cooperate with Colorado State University, other state universities, progressive sugarbeet growers, and graduates to provide an opportunity for these graduates to enter into or share in farm management positions. Col. To effectuate this program, the below signed graduate of Pennsylvania State Uni- versity, the grower and Great Western Sugar Company have entered into this Letter of Understanding to set forth the agreement reached between the below signed parties to this Letter, of Understanding. The graduate will be employed by and work with the below signed grower at the grower's farm or farms. The grower will pay the graduate $450 per month and will employ the graduate for the period of this agreement, which will extend for a duration of two (2) years from the date hereof. The aim of this relationship will be to develop a viable partnership and/or an expansion and sharing of opportunities in farming operations. Great Western Sugar Company will cooperate with the grower and furnish information which will help improve his farm management techniques with the intent that he will be able to expand his acreage and develop a more productive farm.operation. The grower agrees to plant at least 25 percent of irrigated land under his control in sugarbeets. Great Western Sugar Company agrees to give to the graduate, for the period of time he is employed by the grower under this, agreement, the sum of $250 per month. This money will be the graduate's and the graduate will be responsible for applicable taxes on this amount. The Sugar Company is giving this money to the graduate and the graduate in no sense will be employed by the Sugar Company and will owe no legal obligation to the Sugar Company. It is understood that any of the parties hereto may cancel this agreement at any time, and the obligations under this agreement will cease as of the time of cancellation. In the event the graduate is the party who desires to cancel the agreement, the Sugar Company will use its best efforts to attempt to find another graduate to participate in this agreement. By their below placed signatures, the three parties agree to the broad outlines contained in this Letter of Understanding and will conduct themselves accordingly. GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY By (Graduate) (Grower) Source: https:l//www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227

How much is total current liabilities?

jlbx0227

jlbx0227_p0, jlbx0227_p1, jlbx0227_p2, jlbx0227_p3, jlbx0227_p4, jlbx0227_p5, jlbx0227_p6, jlbx0227_p7, jlbx0227_p8, jlbx0227_p9, jlbx0227_p10, jlbx0227_p11, jlbx0227_p12, jlbx0227_p13, jlbx0227_p14, jlbx0227_p15, jlbx0227_p16, jlbx0227_p17, jlbx0227_p18, jlbx0227_p19

25,071

GH BRIEFING 6-11-75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I. GH is not worth buying for what is has earned or will earn under "normal" conditions; i.e., buy, refine, sell sugar. EBIT $600 M to $1.500M Needs $6-9MM WC to continue Can be purchased for $4-8 MM (they expect $10MM) Our "cost" is $10-17MM. . II. GH has excellent 1. Facilities at Reserve 2. Technical support personnel at Reserve 3. Distribution network relative to GW. t 2,100, on 00 3, III. GH could be a good speculative investment 2.4 Hog Low Provides A. "LONG.LIMIT 7,200,000 2, 400,000 Balance to GWS beet business 21.000,000 5.7,100 2,200,00 3.0000 Take % of Sugar Broker/dist $ 6,200,000 wwword ? 400.00 = Entry to foreign refined market 10% "Improvement on cost of raws = $16MM profit contribution" We must get a "participating K".- HFTS: 2X the Bet. on 121,000 IV. Net; get into GH as low as possible, 4 3 Emphasize the Raws problem< : Slim down overhead 95° Devise a plan that can target for $20MM EBIT. Actual Potented V hmp Ratio 73 74 AT, impiral 1.6 2.6 1.9mm Gll 4% 2.6% G,8 Source:https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., INC. PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1967. - 1970 1971 & 1974 1971 Profit Before Tax, Interest and Supervision Fees $ 11,130 M $ 6,614 M $ 4,528 M Average Per Year . 2,783 3,307 4,528 1974 Supervision (506) (506) .' (506) 1974 Interest (2,213) (2,213) (2,213) Projected Annual Profit 64 588 1,809 Investment Required to Return 10% $ 640 M $ 5,880 M $ 18,090 M 30% 213 1,950 6,030 15% 426 3,920 12,600 Production (CWT) 32,824 M CWT 19,050 M CWT 10,502 M CWT Average Per Year 8,206 9,525 10,502 1.5 33 Objective: - Get 30 day option - Full P & L information (operating statistics) - Manufacturing costs (operating statistics) Be Prepared To: - Sign LOI - Offer $4 Mm Low $5 Mm Mid $6 Mm High for 30% return before taxes $10 Mm Absolute Top Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co., INC. BALANCE SHEETS December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 ASSETS Current assets: Cash $ 2,150,212 $ 1,295,521 Federal income tax refund 1,020,891 Accounts and notes receivable: Trade 17,277,055 8,652,194 Affiliates 67,279 463,344 Inventories 12,503,941 13,094,401 Prepaid insurance and other 392,086 185,945 Total current assets 33,411,464 23,691,405 Property, plant and equipment, at cost: Land 373,300 373,300 Buildings 6,208,224 5,905,359 Machinery and equipment 14,791,863 13,812,393 Delivery and other automotive equipment 89,307 89,307 Leasehold improvements 50,662 27,707 21,513,356 20,208,066 Less accumulated depreciation 6,975,497 5,995,392 14,537,859 14,212,674 Other assets: Deferred income. taxes 1,492,919 Sundry deferred charges 368,352 629,849 Notes receivable 2,500 110,500 Advances to affiliates 126,733 1,990,504 740,349 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,428 LIABILITIES Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities: Trade $ 31,834,490 $ 6,998,742 Affiliates 846,938 356,860 Notes payable 19,019,761 14,534,993 Current portion of long-term debt 103,317 308,828 Total current liabilities (18,393) 51,804,506 22,199,423 Mortgage and notes payable, current portion above: 10-1/2% First Mortgage Note 4,747,501 4,836,043 Other notes payable 124,451 180,306 4,871,952 5,016,349 Advances from affiliates 3,178,135 3,171,156 Deferred income taxes 788,190 STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY (DEFICIT) Common stock, $100 par value; 1,041 shares authorized, issued and outstanding 104,100 104,100 Paid-in capital 2,323,239 . 2,323,239 Retained earnings (deficit), as annexed (12,342,105) 5,041,971 (9,914,765) 7,469,310 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,418 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-MENDERSON SUGAR co., , INC. PRO FORMA BALANCE SHEET AT 5/31/75 IN HANDS OF OTHERS - ON LIFO ASSETS Cash $ 1,395 Accounts Receivable 12,464 - Inventories Sugar 272,000 cwt at $11.11 3,022 Processing cost 386 Spare parts 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 19,631 Fixed assets - Net 14,353 Other assets and deferred charges 411 TOTAL ASSETS $ 34,395 LIABILITIES = Notes payable - banks $ 14,253 Notes payable - La. raw mills 7,369 Need commu Current portion of long-term debt 115 Accounts payable and accrued 3,334 2,2 Total Current Liabilities 25,071 Long-term debt 4,815 Deferred taxes 872 Deferred futures profit 716 Stockholders' equity 2,921 TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 34,395 1975 ceremated income Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Soùrce: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/j)bx0227 GODCHAUX-IENDERSON SUGAR co., INC. ESTIMATED WORKING CAPITAL MAY 31, 1975 000's omitted Current Assets Cash $ 1,395 Accounts receivable 12,464 Note receivable - U.S. Sugar Co. 240 Inventories: Raw sugar (Massequite), 40,458 cwt @ $17 688 Refined, 216,216 cwt @ $22 4,757 Spare parts, bags, mdse. for resale 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 21,908 Current Liabilities Bank notes payable 14,253 Current portion of long-term debt 115 Total notes payable 14,368 La. raw sugar payables 7,369 Other trade payables and accruals 1,755 Total Current Liabilities 23,492 Net Estimated Working Capital (Deficit) ($ 1,584) CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co. INC. ESTIMATED NET INCOME JANUARY ] THROUGH MAY 31, 1975 Pre-tax income, 4/30/75 $ 388,221 Estimated profit on April inventory liquidation 346,750 Deferred inventory liquidation profit, 4/30/75 6,329,205 Last estimated of May income 187,723 7,251,899 Estimate of income from inventory liquidation in month of May: Cwt actual, 96°, , 4/30/75 485,000 Cwt actual, 96°; 5/31/75 272,000 Liquidated 213,000 Spread ($27 May Cost - $11) x 16 $3,408,000 May liquidation profit 3,408,000 Total estimated pre-tax income 10,659,899 Book taxes at 37% consolidated rate 3,944,163 Estimated net income $ 6,715,736 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR co. INC. 2 ESTIMATED STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY MAY 31, 1975 Capital stock $ 104,100 Paid in capital, existing balance 2,323,239 Additional contributions to be made by Southern Industries 5,345,000 Total capital stock and paid-in 7,772,339 Retained earnings (deficit), 1/1/75 (12,342,104) Estimated net income, 1/1-5/31/75 6,715,736 Retained earnings (deficit), 5/31/75 ( 5,626,368) Total Estimated Stockholder's Equity, 5/31/75 $ 2,145,971 776 2,921 5. cash 3,6 2 2146 8.6 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF INCOME (LOSS) AND RETAINED EARNINGS (DEFICIT) for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Net sales $270,994,584 $121,429,038 Cost of sales 282,649,140 117,395,585 Gross profit (loss) (11,654,556) 4,033,453 Selling, general and administrative expenses 3,259,352 2,468,224 (14,913,908) 1,565,229 Other income, net 143,984 54,687 16.4mm (14,769,924) 1,619,916 Interest deductions 2,192,152 1,197,210 Income (loss) before provision (credit) for taxes 4 14,2mm (16,962,076) 422,706 Provision (credit) for income taxes: Federal: Current (990,891) (277,206) Deferred (2,251,109) 181,357 State - current 19,089 (3,242,000) (76,760) Net income (loss) the 7.1mm (13,720,076) 499,466 Retained earnings, January 1, restated 5,041,971 4,667,505 (8,678,105) 5,166,971 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 Retained earnings (deficit), December 31 $(12,342,105) $ _5,041,971 See notes to financial statements. 3 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., , INC. Statement of Change in Financial Position 1/1/15 - 4/30/75 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income $ 1244,579 Depreciation and amortization 383,018 Deferred income taxes -0- Working capital provided from operations 627,597 Decrease in other assets 4,525 Increase in deferred liabilities 8,373,106 $ 9,005,228 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment $ : 293,428 Reduction to mortgage and notes payable 56,909 Increase in deferred charges 264,575 $ 614,912 Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Changes in working capital Current assets: Cash $ (1,169,483) Receivables a 230th (7,434,849) Inventories (4,138,565) Prepaid insurance and other. 338,681 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities + 2,3sta $ (20,787,991) Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (6,541) $ (20,794,532) Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income (loss) $(13,720,076) $ 499,466 Expenses (credit) not affecting working capital in the current year: Depreciation and amortization 1,060,770 819,542 Deferred income taxes (2,251,109) 181,357 Working capital provided from (applied to) operations for the year (14,910,415) 1,500,365 Increase in advances from affiliates 6,979 Increase in mortgage and notes payable 9,430 1,022,000 Property sales and retirements, less accumulated depreciation 53,470 15,535 Other 212,764 63,670 (14,627,772) 2,601,570 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment 1,439,425 2,778,888 Reduction in mortgage and notes payable 153,827 278,496 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 5,257,252 3,182,384 Decrease in working capital $ (19,885,024) $ (580,814) Change in working capital - increase (decrease) : Current assets: Cash $ 854,691 $ 703,853 Receivables 9,249,687 (635,126) Inventories (590,460) 2,042,128 Prepaid insurance and other 206,141 (32,598 9,720,059 2,078,257 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (25,325,826) 3,143,444 Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (4,279,257) (5,802,515) (29,605,083) (2,659,071 Decrease in working capital $(19,885,024) $ (580,814 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 - SUCAR C.O. INC. VARIOUS SINTISTICS 1/1/74 .. 12/31/174 (BEFORE LIFO) PROFIT CONTRIBUTION Net Profit Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Add: Supervision Fees 506,000 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 14,675,927 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 SIC Note Interest 45,913 Interest Expense 1,986,461 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 60,914 Debt Amortization 14,752 Profit Contribution 16,383,957 ABEREVIATED FLOW OF FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Less: Income Tax 7,084,964 Net Income $ 7,084,963 Add: Depreciation and Amortization 1,052,693 Cash Flow $ 8,137,656. Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt 800,082 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 8,937,738 drwanch Less: Dividends 3.664,000 Capital Expenditures 1,377,877 Net Flow of Funds - Surplus/(Deficit) $ 3,895,861 NET WORKING CAPITAL @ 12/31/74 $ 5,480,545 Repairs $ 1,653,955 Refined Sugar Produced CWT 8,547,969 = it n Operating Days - Refinery 233 321 Average Production per Operating Day $ 36,687 27 \ IIIN E. Ladd 5/19/75 Söurce: https://www.industrydócuments,ucsf.edutddrst T1xx0227 VARIOUS STATISTICS 1967 - 1973 7 YEAR 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 TOTAL PROFIT CONTRIBUTION is 196 P Net Profit Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 Add: Supervision Fees 108,701 116,733 141,000 553,719 635,000 600,000 475,200 2,630,353 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 1,546,380 $ 1,864,135.1 $,1,718,417 $ 3,055,741 $ 3,866,801 $ 1,111,305 $ 897,906 $14,060,685 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 - 105,000 735,000 SIC Note Interest 138,214 145,798 138,661 131,661 124,747 117,925 111,636 908,642 Interest Expense 461,912 469,086 500,094 414,888 399,240 550,819 979,364 3,775,403 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 26,933 30,683 32,257 29,098 31,987 42,390 43,155 236,503 Debt Amortization 3,008 3,009 a - 6,017 1 Profit Contribution $ 2,281,447 $ 2,617,711 $ 2,494,129 $ 3,736,388 $ 4,527,775 $ 1,927,439 $ 2,137,061 $19,722,250 =085. ASBREVIATED FLCW 07 FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 (633) Less: Income Tax 586,061 804,000 816,551 1,069,802 1,153,238 26,466 (76,760) 4,379,358 Net Incone $ 851,618 $ 943,402 $ 760,866 $ 1,432,220 $ 2,078,563 $ 484,839 $ 499,466 $ 7,050,974 Add: Depreciation & Amortization 378,075 426,909 496,715 536,092 599,874 674,623 819,542 3,931,530 Cash Flow $ 1,229,693 $ 1,370,311 $ 1,257,581 $ 1,968,312 $ 2,678,437 $ 1,159,462 $ 1,319,008 $10,982,604 Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt (603,062) (492,620) (333,174) (495,412) 1,865,581 3,351,521 743,504 4,036,338 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 626,631 $ 877,691 $ 924,407 $ 1,472,900 $ 4,544,013 $ 4,510,983 $ 2,062,512 $15,019,142 NO Less: Dividends -0- 375,000 330,000 530,000 : 660,000 330,000 125,000 2,350,000 Capital Expenditures 1,694,961 1,099,561 942,281 755,946 2,619,417 4,187,602 2,773,893 14,078,656 Net Flou of Funds - Surplus/(Doficit) $ (1,068,330) $ (596,870) $. (347,371) $ 186,954 $ 1,264,601 $ (6,619) $ (841,376) $(1,409,514) Net Working Capital at Year-End $ 1,738,296 $ 960,279 $ 531,173 $ 499,751 $ 1,171,294 $ 2,220,053 $ 2,216,941 $ 1,627,025 Repairs $ 1,160,277 $ 1,229,468 $ 1,156,668 $ 1,326,567 $ 1,475,224 $ 1,414,386 $1.1,383,014 $ 9,145,604 Refined Sugar Produced (Cwt.) 7,270,838 8,317,724 7,741,365 9,494,161 10,502,424 9,170,169 8,457,433 - Operating Days - Refinery 268 277 246 299 .312 280 247 Average Production per Operating Day (Cwt.) 27,130 30,028 31,495 31,817 33,694 32,751 34,185 E. Ladd . 3/28/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I a - 0.042 °C - - - - it. Co N T O 0= of n- F- 8 80 . ********** i. .7 -0 *********** ++++++++4 - - CUMVERCA RAN 7 CONVERCA 3 es (--) CF- a n a - D an nca [= HE' - In a g 2 - Filent - NOTE. o THIS MAP REDUCED KALF SIZE MAP OF PLANT LATOUT na Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 (10,000) 31,000 (43,000 24,000 (4,000) LEARTYPE OUNTY OUTUNE NITED STATES - (3,000) MAP NO.117 AMERICAN MAD SOMPANY.INC $ Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SALARIED ORGANIZATION MAY 1, 1975 Operations, J. A. Metzler 2 Purchasing 6 Cincinnati 5 13 Marketing, E. R. Fleming 2 Administration 10 Sales 8 20 Finance, H. L. Kirk 4 Credit 4 Billing 3 Machine Room 2 1.3 Accounting, R. L. Crawford 11 Refinery, A. Garcia 2 Maintenance 23 Quality Assurance 10 Engineering 4 Administration 19 Operations 35 Service 2 95 Mobile, Administration and Service 6 TOTAL 158 40 158 101 67 T. Source: https://wvww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/doce 51jTbx02.27 to HOURLY ORCANIZATION - RESERVE - MAY 1, 1975 Manning is based cn requirement of two full shifts plus skeleton crew on the third shift in Pecking, and six palletized crews and two hand loading crews in Shipping. Raw Receiving 3 Affination 9 Clarification 9 Char House 18 Granulators 6 Pan Floor 16 Refined Centrifugal 12 Pre-Packaging 14 Packaging 80 Shipping - Packages 51 Shipping - Bulk 6 Liquid Sugar 6 Yard Crew 4 Sanitation 12 Security 6 Commissary 4 Laboratory 8 Utilities 12 Dock 6 Painters 8 Construction 14 Truck Drivers 5 Electrical 15 Maintenance Shops 13 Area Mechanics 20 Operations Mechanics 12 Total Required for 369* Operation *There are approximately 30 additional people on the payroll who act as vacation replacements, absentee replacements, training, etc. 360 1.58 40 Source: https:.//wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs[ilbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES 1. Information known: A. Sugar refinery at Reserve, Louisiana - 32 miles west of New Orleans on the Mississippi River. B. Liquid sugár processing plant and distribution terminal at Cincinnati, Ohio and leases sugar packaging operations at Buffalo, New York and (Chicago, Illinois 12/1/74. C. Owns 8 hydraulic material processing dredges, owns or has long term leases on 11 towboats and 88 cargo barges and under short term leases has 15 towboats and 30 barges. D. Also owns ready-mixed concrete operations and a mixer fleet in Mobile; asphalt plants at Woodstock, Margerum and Mobile, Alabama: a concrete block plant at Mobile, and supporting sales depots at Mobile, Ft. Walton Beach and Pensacola, Florida, and New Orleans owns or leases 8 stone quarries and crushing plants at Mobile, Baltimore and Houston, and chemical lime plants at Morgan City, La., and Saginaw, Ala. Company leases 2 slag processing facilities at Columbia, Tenn. E. Mineral Reserves--Company leases shell deposits from the states of Alabama and Louisiana, estimated to contain 100 million tons; leases gravel deposits estimated to contain 10 million tons owns an asphaltic limestone deposit estimated to contain 1,500,000 tons; and leases lime- stone deposits estimated to contain 200 million tons. F. Raws: 25% from U.S. 75% from Foreign G. Campaign: 312 days in 1971 280 days in 1972 247 days in 1973 232 days in 1974 H. Refined Sugar Production Production Year (Million cwts) 1971 10.5 1972 9.2 1973 8.4 1974 8.5 1. Sells sugar under two tradenames: 1. Henderson Superfine 2. Godchaux Brand continued Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES, continued Page 2 J. Current assets $53 Million. K. Long term debt $34 Million. L. Cost of replacing cane facilities: 1) Processing - $25 million Mill (3500 ton/day grind) 2) Refinery - $45 million (700 ton/day raw sugar) X 2 = 99mm II. Data needed: A. What it costs for Raws - Domestic - Foreign B. Operating costs (cost of production including G & A percent of refined sugar). C. Where receive raws from D. Costs to market place E. Financial data up to net income F. Present contractual arrangements III. To Receive 30% ROI before tax: @ 20,000 $ 6mm Example 1: Cost Proc + Profit for Price for RAWS: Raws Freight G & A 30% ROI Ref. Sugar (U.S.)25% @ 126 + 0 + 2.56 + 16 15.5 (Foreign 75% @ 7c + 1.8€ + 2.56 + 1c 12.3 TOTAL Weight Price For Refined Sugar 13.1 IV. Potential Areas to Increase Profits A. Grain Exports $45 2.47 50 B. Foreign raw prices based on refined sugar prices when sold. 11,2 C. Participating contract with growers based on refined sugar prices or foreign raws. 14/11/11 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 The President of Southern Industries Reports. Net soles for the first quarter ended March 31, 1975 were $74,686,000 compared to $51,505,000 for the same period in 1974. Net income for the period was $1,482,000 equal to $1.03 per share compared to a net loss of $1,830,000 (restated) equal to a loss of $1.23 per shore in 1974. By.product line the basic materials group had a 165% increase in pre-tox cornings over last year. This group occounted for $916,000 or opproximately 38% of pre-tax eornings. The sugar division contributed $1,437,000 or 61% to the results. With the exception of low sugar volume, the demand for our other products and materials remains strong. Your attention is directed to the notes to the following statements for a further explanation of the financial results of the first quorter. D. E. Dowson, Jr. April 22, 1975 President 1 Sales and Income (Loss) by Product Line For the three months ended March 31, 1975 and 1974 (000 omitted) SALES INCOME (LOSS) 1974 1975 1974 1975 Restated Sugor $56,118 $35,758 $ 1,437 S( 3,381) Bosic Materials 15,515 12,977 916 345 Hordwore and Machinery 3,051 2,770 58 92 Other (Non-operating) 2 - ( 58) ( 32) $74,686 $51,505 $ 2,353 $( 2,976) Income Toxes Credit (and Provision) ( 871) 1,145 Net Income (Loss) $ 1,482 $( 1,830) Per Shore $ 1.03 S( 1.22) Consolidated Financial Condition (000 omitted) March 31 1974 1975 Restated Current assets $ 50,419 $ 39,516 Current liobilities 51,420 30,445 Net current assets ( 1,001) 9,071 Properties - net 47,325 44,500 Other ossets 6,874 5,749 Total ossets less current licbilities 53,198 59,320 Long term debt (including debt due within one year) 33 33,151 32,101 Other licbilities 1,847 2,318 Total long term debt and other licbilities 55 34,998 34,419 Net assets $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Stockholders' equity: Common stock (1,433,096 shares outstanding) $ 6,059 $ 6,059 Retoined income and capital surplus 12,141 18,842 Total stockholders' equity $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Notes to Financial Statements (1) The income (les) by product line includes o statistical ollocation of corporale costs including interest expense. (2) Figures for 1974 have been restated to reflect changing to the lost in, first out (LIFO) method from the first in, first out (FIFO) and overage cost methods of accounting for the row sugar content of sugor inventories. If the FIFO and overage cost methods hod been used by the Com- pony, these inventories, and consequently net current assets, would hove been $14,803,000 and 54, 166,000 higher than reported at March 31, 1975 and 1974 (restated), respectively. (3) Results for the three months ended March 31, 1975 include income of $2,373,000 from reducing quantities of row sugar inventories under the uro method to on anticipated yeor-end level (substontially less than quantities on hand of the beginning of 1975). (4) A net operoting loss collyover available from 1974 will offsei the first $6,815,000 of taxoble income in 1975 and thus eliminate payment of toxes. The provision for toxas at March 31, 1975 of $871,000 represents a charge for deferred income taxes not currently payable. (5) Net income per shore bosed on 1,433,096 shares outstanding. (6) Depreciation and amortization included above omounted to $1,485,000 ond $1,265,000 in 1975 and 1974, respectively. P) Above figures subject to yeor-end audit. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227

What is this letter about?

lgjh0227

lgjh0227_p0, lgjh0227_p1, lgjh0227_p2, lgjh0227_p3, lgjh0227_p4, lgjh0227_p5, lgjh0227_p6

dinner, Invitation for dinner

Mr. Robert R. Owen President The Great Western Sugar Company P.O.I Box 5308 Denver, Colorado 80217 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227 I will attend D I will be unable to attend the dinner on Wednesday December II, 1968 Name Address Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227 Robert R.Owen President The Great Western Sugar Company requests the pleasure of your company at dinner Wednesday, December eleventh Nineteen hundred and sixty-eight at The Elk's Club Sterling. Colorado R.S.V.P. 6:00 P.M.-Social Hour (Reply Card 7:00 P.M.-Dinner Enclosed) Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227 November 22, 1968 TO: R. J. Fisher FROM: Charlotte Crenshaw SUBJECT: Plans for Dinner Meeting in Sterling, December' 11, 1968 Attached to this report is a copy of the basic floorplan of the Dining Room of the Elk's Club in Sterling. Engraved invitations have been ordered. The outer envelopes have been delivered and are being addressed at this time. The invitations are scheduled to be mailed either November 26 or November 27. It has been decided to set up two bars. They will be located as indicated on the floorplan. The bar costs will be tabulated on a per drink basis. Drinks range from 50ç to 806 apiece. A running tape will be kept on cash registers located at each bar and will be tallied at the end of the cocktail hour. An organist will be hired for the evening by Mr. Garner. The organ will be placed as indicated on the floorplan. The organist will start playing a few minutes before six and will continue to play through the dinner hour. The following menu has been decided on: appetizer - Tomato Juice Relish Dishes will be on the tables Salad - Tossed Salad, choice of dressing entree - Roast Prime Rib of Beef, au jus Baked potato Buttered peas dessert - Apple Pie The cost of this meal is $4.00 per person, including tax and gratuity. We will pass out cigars after dinner. It is suggested that we use the "Sweet News for 11 gift packs as we are doing at Greeley for the favors. One at each table will be marked to indicate the winner of the centerpiece. The head table will be set for 12, but can easily be enlarged to include more, if necessary. All other tables will seat 12 and will be placed as indicated on the floorplan. A standing lecturn will be used for speakers. The Elks Club will provide all necessary microphones. The lecturn will be placed as indicated on the floorplan. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227 Page Two The centerpieces have been ordered from Hamilton's in Sterling. They will consist of the following: Head Table - floral arrangement done in red and white for Christmas theme. Blue spruce will also be used. All other tables - All other centerpieces will consist of artificial flowers, leaves, etc. and will be centered around sleighs, bells, etc. all of which will denote Christmas. A minister will be present for the Invocation before dinner. Mr. Garner has suggested that we put up a small sign outside the entrance to the Dining area to guide GW guests to the proper door. If this is thought necessary, a sign will have to be painted for this purpose. The only item remaining to be taken care of is the reservation of a number of rooms at a motel in Sterling for people who will be driving long distances or in the event of bad weather the evening of the 11th. esc CC: F. G. Holmes L. E. Butler J. D. Edmiston J. S. Lyon W. C. McGuffey Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227 x X ALL AREAS MARKED WITH AN X INDICATES TABLES AND CHAIRS FOR BAR COCKTAIL HOUR Lecturn HE AD TABLE X There will be seven rows across of these tables which will seat 12 people. BAR Entrance Organ X Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227 December 3, 1968 FROM: The Great Western Sugar Company Denver, Colorado CONTACT: James Lyon Director, Information Services 534-2182, Ext. 272 FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1968 Nearly 200 community leaders from sugarbeet areas of Northeastern Colorado and Southwestern Nebraska will be guests at a dinner to be held by The Great Western Sugar Company in Sterling, Colorado, on Wednesday evening, December 11. Host will be Robert R. Owen of Denver, president of Great Western Sugar. The guests will be from communities throughout the company's factory districts of Fort Morgan, Sterling, and Ovid, Colorado, whose sugarbeet areas extend into the southwestern and central parts of Nebraska. The dinner will also be attended by other company officers from Denver, along with management staff members from the sugar factories at Fort Morgan, Sterling and Ovid. The Sterling banquet at the Elks Club is one of a series to be held this winter by Great Western in the principal cities of the company's territory. The dinner meetings follow the form of the annual management tour of factory locations of past years, but provide for a much broader representation of community leaders to meet with Great Western officials. - 30 - Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227

What is the dinner date mentioned here?

lgjh0227

lgjh0227_p0, lgjh0227_p1, lgjh0227_p2, lgjh0227_p3, lgjh0227_p4, lgjh0227_p5, lgjh0227_p6

Wednesday,December eleventh Nineteen hundred and sixty-eight

Mr. Robert R. Owen President The Great Western Sugar Company P.O.I Box 5308 Denver, Colorado 80217 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227 I will attend D I will be unable to attend the dinner on Wednesday December II, 1968 Name Address Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227 Robert R.Owen President The Great Western Sugar Company requests the pleasure of your company at dinner Wednesday, December eleventh Nineteen hundred and sixty-eight at The Elk's Club Sterling. Colorado R.S.V.P. 6:00 P.M.-Social Hour (Reply Card 7:00 P.M.-Dinner Enclosed) Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227 November 22, 1968 TO: R. J. Fisher FROM: Charlotte Crenshaw SUBJECT: Plans for Dinner Meeting in Sterling, December' 11, 1968 Attached to this report is a copy of the basic floorplan of the Dining Room of the Elk's Club in Sterling. Engraved invitations have been ordered. The outer envelopes have been delivered and are being addressed at this time. The invitations are scheduled to be mailed either November 26 or November 27. It has been decided to set up two bars. They will be located as indicated on the floorplan. The bar costs will be tabulated on a per drink basis. Drinks range from 50ç to 806 apiece. A running tape will be kept on cash registers located at each bar and will be tallied at the end of the cocktail hour. An organist will be hired for the evening by Mr. Garner. The organ will be placed as indicated on the floorplan. The organist will start playing a few minutes before six and will continue to play through the dinner hour. The following menu has been decided on: appetizer - Tomato Juice Relish Dishes will be on the tables Salad - Tossed Salad, choice of dressing entree - Roast Prime Rib of Beef, au jus Baked potato Buttered peas dessert - Apple Pie The cost of this meal is $4.00 per person, including tax and gratuity. We will pass out cigars after dinner. It is suggested that we use the "Sweet News for 11 gift packs as we are doing at Greeley for the favors. One at each table will be marked to indicate the winner of the centerpiece. The head table will be set for 12, but can easily be enlarged to include more, if necessary. All other tables will seat 12 and will be placed as indicated on the floorplan. A standing lecturn will be used for speakers. The Elks Club will provide all necessary microphones. The lecturn will be placed as indicated on the floorplan. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227 Page Two The centerpieces have been ordered from Hamilton's in Sterling. They will consist of the following: Head Table - floral arrangement done in red and white for Christmas theme. Blue spruce will also be used. All other tables - All other centerpieces will consist of artificial flowers, leaves, etc. and will be centered around sleighs, bells, etc. all of which will denote Christmas. A minister will be present for the Invocation before dinner. Mr. Garner has suggested that we put up a small sign outside the entrance to the Dining area to guide GW guests to the proper door. If this is thought necessary, a sign will have to be painted for this purpose. The only item remaining to be taken care of is the reservation of a number of rooms at a motel in Sterling for people who will be driving long distances or in the event of bad weather the evening of the 11th. esc CC: F. G. Holmes L. E. Butler J. D. Edmiston J. S. Lyon W. C. McGuffey Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227 x X ALL AREAS MARKED WITH AN X INDICATES TABLES AND CHAIRS FOR BAR COCKTAIL HOUR Lecturn HE AD TABLE X There will be seven rows across of these tables which will seat 12 people. BAR Entrance Organ X Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227 December 3, 1968 FROM: The Great Western Sugar Company Denver, Colorado CONTACT: James Lyon Director, Information Services 534-2182, Ext. 272 FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1968 Nearly 200 community leaders from sugarbeet areas of Northeastern Colorado and Southwestern Nebraska will be guests at a dinner to be held by The Great Western Sugar Company in Sterling, Colorado, on Wednesday evening, December 11. Host will be Robert R. Owen of Denver, president of Great Western Sugar. The guests will be from communities throughout the company's factory districts of Fort Morgan, Sterling, and Ovid, Colorado, whose sugarbeet areas extend into the southwestern and central parts of Nebraska. The dinner will also be attended by other company officers from Denver, along with management staff members from the sugar factories at Fort Morgan, Sterling and Ovid. The Sterling banquet at the Elks Club is one of a series to be held this winter by Great Western in the principal cities of the company's territory. The dinner meetings follow the form of the annual management tour of factory locations of past years, but provide for a much broader representation of community leaders to meet with Great Western officials. - 30 - Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227

what is the venue of the dinner?

lgjh0227

lgjh0227_p0, lgjh0227_p1, lgjh0227_p2, lgjh0227_p3, lgjh0227_p4, lgjh0227_p5, lgjh0227_p6

"The Elks Club Sterling,Colorado"

Mr. Robert R. Owen President The Great Western Sugar Company P.O.I Box 5308 Denver, Colorado 80217 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227 I will attend D I will be unable to attend the dinner on Wednesday December II, 1968 Name Address Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227 Robert R.Owen President The Great Western Sugar Company requests the pleasure of your company at dinner Wednesday, December eleventh Nineteen hundred and sixty-eight at The Elk's Club Sterling. Colorado R.S.V.P. 6:00 P.M.-Social Hour (Reply Card 7:00 P.M.-Dinner Enclosed) Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227 November 22, 1968 TO: R. J. Fisher FROM: Charlotte Crenshaw SUBJECT: Plans for Dinner Meeting in Sterling, December' 11, 1968 Attached to this report is a copy of the basic floorplan of the Dining Room of the Elk's Club in Sterling. Engraved invitations have been ordered. The outer envelopes have been delivered and are being addressed at this time. The invitations are scheduled to be mailed either November 26 or November 27. It has been decided to set up two bars. They will be located as indicated on the floorplan. The bar costs will be tabulated on a per drink basis. Drinks range from 50ç to 806 apiece. A running tape will be kept on cash registers located at each bar and will be tallied at the end of the cocktail hour. An organist will be hired for the evening by Mr. Garner. The organ will be placed as indicated on the floorplan. The organist will start playing a few minutes before six and will continue to play through the dinner hour. The following menu has been decided on: appetizer - Tomato Juice Relish Dishes will be on the tables Salad - Tossed Salad, choice of dressing entree - Roast Prime Rib of Beef, au jus Baked potato Buttered peas dessert - Apple Pie The cost of this meal is $4.00 per person, including tax and gratuity. We will pass out cigars after dinner. It is suggested that we use the "Sweet News for 11 gift packs as we are doing at Greeley for the favors. One at each table will be marked to indicate the winner of the centerpiece. The head table will be set for 12, but can easily be enlarged to include more, if necessary. All other tables will seat 12 and will be placed as indicated on the floorplan. A standing lecturn will be used for speakers. The Elks Club will provide all necessary microphones. The lecturn will be placed as indicated on the floorplan. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227 Page Two The centerpieces have been ordered from Hamilton's in Sterling. They will consist of the following: Head Table - floral arrangement done in red and white for Christmas theme. Blue spruce will also be used. All other tables - All other centerpieces will consist of artificial flowers, leaves, etc. and will be centered around sleighs, bells, etc. all of which will denote Christmas. A minister will be present for the Invocation before dinner. Mr. Garner has suggested that we put up a small sign outside the entrance to the Dining area to guide GW guests to the proper door. If this is thought necessary, a sign will have to be painted for this purpose. The only item remaining to be taken care of is the reservation of a number of rooms at a motel in Sterling for people who will be driving long distances or in the event of bad weather the evening of the 11th. esc CC: F. G. Holmes L. E. Butler J. D. Edmiston J. S. Lyon W. C. McGuffey Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227 x X ALL AREAS MARKED WITH AN X INDICATES TABLES AND CHAIRS FOR BAR COCKTAIL HOUR Lecturn HE AD TABLE X There will be seven rows across of these tables which will seat 12 people. BAR Entrance Organ X Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227 December 3, 1968 FROM: The Great Western Sugar Company Denver, Colorado CONTACT: James Lyon Director, Information Services 534-2182, Ext. 272 FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1968 Nearly 200 community leaders from sugarbeet areas of Northeastern Colorado and Southwestern Nebraska will be guests at a dinner to be held by The Great Western Sugar Company in Sterling, Colorado, on Wednesday evening, December 11. Host will be Robert R. Owen of Denver, president of Great Western Sugar. The guests will be from communities throughout the company's factory districts of Fort Morgan, Sterling, and Ovid, Colorado, whose sugarbeet areas extend into the southwestern and central parts of Nebraska. The dinner will also be attended by other company officers from Denver, along with management staff members from the sugar factories at Fort Morgan, Sterling and Ovid. The Sterling banquet at the Elks Club is one of a series to be held this winter by Great Western in the principal cities of the company's territory. The dinner meetings follow the form of the annual management tour of factory locations of past years, but provide for a much broader representation of community leaders to meet with Great Western officials. - 30 - Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227

what is the time of Social Hour?

lgjh0227

lgjh0227_p0, lgjh0227_p1, lgjh0227_p2, lgjh0227_p3, lgjh0227_p4, lgjh0227_p5, lgjh0227_p6

6:00 P.M.

Mr. Robert R. Owen President The Great Western Sugar Company P.O.I Box 5308 Denver, Colorado 80217 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227 I will attend D I will be unable to attend the dinner on Wednesday December II, 1968 Name Address Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227 Robert R.Owen President The Great Western Sugar Company requests the pleasure of your company at dinner Wednesday, December eleventh Nineteen hundred and sixty-eight at The Elk's Club Sterling. Colorado R.S.V.P. 6:00 P.M.-Social Hour (Reply Card 7:00 P.M.-Dinner Enclosed) Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227 November 22, 1968 TO: R. J. Fisher FROM: Charlotte Crenshaw SUBJECT: Plans for Dinner Meeting in Sterling, December' 11, 1968 Attached to this report is a copy of the basic floorplan of the Dining Room of the Elk's Club in Sterling. Engraved invitations have been ordered. The outer envelopes have been delivered and are being addressed at this time. The invitations are scheduled to be mailed either November 26 or November 27. It has been decided to set up two bars. They will be located as indicated on the floorplan. The bar costs will be tabulated on a per drink basis. Drinks range from 50ç to 806 apiece. A running tape will be kept on cash registers located at each bar and will be tallied at the end of the cocktail hour. An organist will be hired for the evening by Mr. Garner. The organ will be placed as indicated on the floorplan. The organist will start playing a few minutes before six and will continue to play through the dinner hour. The following menu has been decided on: appetizer - Tomato Juice Relish Dishes will be on the tables Salad - Tossed Salad, choice of dressing entree - Roast Prime Rib of Beef, au jus Baked potato Buttered peas dessert - Apple Pie The cost of this meal is $4.00 per person, including tax and gratuity. We will pass out cigars after dinner. It is suggested that we use the "Sweet News for 11 gift packs as we are doing at Greeley for the favors. One at each table will be marked to indicate the winner of the centerpiece. The head table will be set for 12, but can easily be enlarged to include more, if necessary. All other tables will seat 12 and will be placed as indicated on the floorplan. A standing lecturn will be used for speakers. The Elks Club will provide all necessary microphones. The lecturn will be placed as indicated on the floorplan. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227 Page Two The centerpieces have been ordered from Hamilton's in Sterling. They will consist of the following: Head Table - floral arrangement done in red and white for Christmas theme. Blue spruce will also be used. All other tables - All other centerpieces will consist of artificial flowers, leaves, etc. and will be centered around sleighs, bells, etc. all of which will denote Christmas. A minister will be present for the Invocation before dinner. Mr. Garner has suggested that we put up a small sign outside the entrance to the Dining area to guide GW guests to the proper door. If this is thought necessary, a sign will have to be painted for this purpose. The only item remaining to be taken care of is the reservation of a number of rooms at a motel in Sterling for people who will be driving long distances or in the event of bad weather the evening of the 11th. esc CC: F. G. Holmes L. E. Butler J. D. Edmiston J. S. Lyon W. C. McGuffey Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227 x X ALL AREAS MARKED WITH AN X INDICATES TABLES AND CHAIRS FOR BAR COCKTAIL HOUR Lecturn HE AD TABLE X There will be seven rows across of these tables which will seat 12 people. BAR Entrance Organ X Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227 December 3, 1968 FROM: The Great Western Sugar Company Denver, Colorado CONTACT: James Lyon Director, Information Services 534-2182, Ext. 272 FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1968 Nearly 200 community leaders from sugarbeet areas of Northeastern Colorado and Southwestern Nebraska will be guests at a dinner to be held by The Great Western Sugar Company in Sterling, Colorado, on Wednesday evening, December 11. Host will be Robert R. Owen of Denver, president of Great Western Sugar. The guests will be from communities throughout the company's factory districts of Fort Morgan, Sterling, and Ovid, Colorado, whose sugarbeet areas extend into the southwestern and central parts of Nebraska. The dinner will also be attended by other company officers from Denver, along with management staff members from the sugar factories at Fort Morgan, Sterling and Ovid. The Sterling banquet at the Elks Club is one of a series to be held this winter by Great Western in the principal cities of the company's territory. The dinner meetings follow the form of the annual management tour of factory locations of past years, but provide for a much broader representation of community leaders to meet with Great Western officials. - 30 - Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227

When was the dinner scheduled?

lgjh0227

lgjh0227_p0, lgjh0227_p1, lgjh0227_p2, lgjh0227_p3, lgjh0227_p4, lgjh0227_p5, lgjh0227_p6

7:00 P.M, 7:00 P.M.

Mr. Robert R. Owen President The Great Western Sugar Company P.O.I Box 5308 Denver, Colorado 80217 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227 I will attend D I will be unable to attend the dinner on Wednesday December II, 1968 Name Address Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227 Robert R.Owen President The Great Western Sugar Company requests the pleasure of your company at dinner Wednesday, December eleventh Nineteen hundred and sixty-eight at The Elk's Club Sterling. Colorado R.S.V.P. 6:00 P.M.-Social Hour (Reply Card 7:00 P.M.-Dinner Enclosed) Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227 November 22, 1968 TO: R. J. Fisher FROM: Charlotte Crenshaw SUBJECT: Plans for Dinner Meeting in Sterling, December' 11, 1968 Attached to this report is a copy of the basic floorplan of the Dining Room of the Elk's Club in Sterling. Engraved invitations have been ordered. The outer envelopes have been delivered and are being addressed at this time. The invitations are scheduled to be mailed either November 26 or November 27. It has been decided to set up two bars. They will be located as indicated on the floorplan. The bar costs will be tabulated on a per drink basis. Drinks range from 50ç to 806 apiece. A running tape will be kept on cash registers located at each bar and will be tallied at the end of the cocktail hour. An organist will be hired for the evening by Mr. Garner. The organ will be placed as indicated on the floorplan. The organist will start playing a few minutes before six and will continue to play through the dinner hour. The following menu has been decided on: appetizer - Tomato Juice Relish Dishes will be on the tables Salad - Tossed Salad, choice of dressing entree - Roast Prime Rib of Beef, au jus Baked potato Buttered peas dessert - Apple Pie The cost of this meal is $4.00 per person, including tax and gratuity. We will pass out cigars after dinner. It is suggested that we use the "Sweet News for 11 gift packs as we are doing at Greeley for the favors. One at each table will be marked to indicate the winner of the centerpiece. The head table will be set for 12, but can easily be enlarged to include more, if necessary. All other tables will seat 12 and will be placed as indicated on the floorplan. A standing lecturn will be used for speakers. The Elks Club will provide all necessary microphones. The lecturn will be placed as indicated on the floorplan. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227 Page Two The centerpieces have been ordered from Hamilton's in Sterling. They will consist of the following: Head Table - floral arrangement done in red and white for Christmas theme. Blue spruce will also be used. All other tables - All other centerpieces will consist of artificial flowers, leaves, etc. and will be centered around sleighs, bells, etc. all of which will denote Christmas. A minister will be present for the Invocation before dinner. Mr. Garner has suggested that we put up a small sign outside the entrance to the Dining area to guide GW guests to the proper door. If this is thought necessary, a sign will have to be painted for this purpose. The only item remaining to be taken care of is the reservation of a number of rooms at a motel in Sterling for people who will be driving long distances or in the event of bad weather the evening of the 11th. esc CC: F. G. Holmes L. E. Butler J. D. Edmiston J. S. Lyon W. C. McGuffey Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227 x X ALL AREAS MARKED WITH AN X INDICATES TABLES AND CHAIRS FOR BAR COCKTAIL HOUR Lecturn HE AD TABLE X There will be seven rows across of these tables which will seat 12 people. BAR Entrance Organ X Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227 December 3, 1968 FROM: The Great Western Sugar Company Denver, Colorado CONTACT: James Lyon Director, Information Services 534-2182, Ext. 272 FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1968 Nearly 200 community leaders from sugarbeet areas of Northeastern Colorado and Southwestern Nebraska will be guests at a dinner to be held by The Great Western Sugar Company in Sterling, Colorado, on Wednesday evening, December 11. Host will be Robert R. Owen of Denver, president of Great Western Sugar. The guests will be from communities throughout the company's factory districts of Fort Morgan, Sterling, and Ovid, Colorado, whose sugarbeet areas extend into the southwestern and central parts of Nebraska. The dinner will also be attended by other company officers from Denver, along with management staff members from the sugar factories at Fort Morgan, Sterling and Ovid. The Sterling banquet at the Elks Club is one of a series to be held this winter by Great Western in the principal cities of the company's territory. The dinner meetings follow the form of the annual management tour of factory locations of past years, but provide for a much broader representation of community leaders to meet with Great Western officials. - 30 - Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgjh0227

how many can 2-3 Row Lifter Loaders can Lift per day ?

jxbx0227

jxbx0227_p13, jxbx0227_p14, jxbx0227_p15, jxbx0227_p16, jxbx0227_p17, jxbx0227_p18, jxbx0227_p19

40 Acres/Day

EQUIPMENT TO RAISE 800 ACRES OF BEETS New Cost 3 - 4030 J.D. Tractors - $46,500 3 - 4 Bottom Plows - 7,800 2 - 14' Disks - 3,800 2 - Packer Mulchers - 2,400 2 - 12 Row Cultivators - 4,000 1 - 12 Row Beet Planter - 5,000 1 - 6 Row Top Saver - 7,500 2 - 3 Row Lifter Loaders - 22,000 3 - Trucks - 18' Box + Tag Axle - 24,000 1 - Broadcast Boom Sprayer - 1,000 NEW MAIN EQUIPMENT ONLY = $124,000 Misc. Hand Tools - Welder - Irrigat. - Cult. Tools - 2,000 $126,000 TO HANDLE 800 ACRES Hire or Lease 3 More Trucks at Harvest Possibly Lease 1 Tractor for 30 Days OR If you have 800 acres beets custom farmed - 800 acres X $230/acre = $184,000 EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS 1 - 6 Row Top Saver Can Top 40 Acres/Day 2 - 3 Row Lifter Loaders Can Lift 40 Acres/Day 6 Row Top Saver - $ 7,500 3 Row Lifter Loader - $11,000 6 Row Lifter Loader - $15,000 (3 Tons/Minute) 4030 J.D. Tractor - $15,500 4 Bottom Plow . - $ 2,600 14' Disk - $ 1,900 12 Row Beet Planter - $ 2,000 - 6 Row Cultivator + Tools - $ 3,000 Packer Mulcher 15' - $ 1,200 2 1/2 Ton Tag Axle Truck - $12,000 With Box and Hoist Source: Great Western Sugar Company TO: Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy August 22, 1973 Distribution List - J. Krentler G. Bogden R. Mally T. Army D. Dinkel R. Perkins R. Fisher R. Fertig D. Quinn C. lianing G. Gibson J. Van Wijk B. Phillips J. Gray M. Rebhan Dist. Gen. Mgrs. Each Factory Acctg. Office Dist. Agric. Mgrs. Asst. Dist. Agric. Mgrs. Dist. Acctg. Mgrs. Factory Agric. Mgrs. FROM: M. E. Rebhan SUBJECT: Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy (Supplement to General Credit Policy 4/25/72 Page #2, Item E) Attached is a formalized version of the generally unwritten policy that we have been operating under for several years. This policy has been approved at the appropriate management level and although there is no great need for it at this point in time it should be filed along with your General Credit Policy File referred to above. If you have any questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact John Gray or me. M. Roban MER:jb 3 attachments ASS Source: https:/www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 GROWER LOAN SPONSORSHIP POLICY General The program of Grower Loan Sponsorship is to promote beet acreage increase in Great Western Sugar and Northern Ohio Suger territories and to assist our growers in obtaining financial assistance on sugar beet crops when the grower's banking connections will not or cannot handle normal financing However, it is not the intent nor the desire of the Company to subsidize high risk growers or to compete with our local bankers in beet crop financing. The overall size of the Sponsorship Program (in dollars) as well as deviations, if any, from policy shall be determined annually by the V.P. Operations and the V.P. Finance. Unwillingness or inability of the grower's bank to handle normal financing may be due to (1) bank at legal limit for that grower and unable to interest a participating bank, (2) bank short of lendable funds, (3) bank unwilling for personal reasons to vork with the grower. Under the three foregoing categories the Company will merely assist the grower in finding normal financing at an alternative bank. In the grey area between normal and high risk financing, it may be necessary for the Company to offer a bank some inducement or sponsorship as described more fully in following paragraphs. Bank Loan Sponsorship Company sponsorship of an operating bank loan should not exceed 75% guaranty to the bank on any loss the bank might incur on such loan. A loss is recognized when the grower has liquidated all of his assets in settlement of business debts and has discontinued growing beets. If local banks have no problem under the three categories in Paragraph No. 3 above and are not agreeable to a 75% guaranty, there is every indication that the loan is too "high risk" for further consideration. Company sponsored loans, as indicated in the above paragraph, will cover only operating expenses related to a sugar beet crop. In unusual cases only, we will consider sponscring a beet equipment lcan guaranty covered by security agreement. Direct Loan Sponsorship If a financing bank cannot be provided with or without a 75% guaranty and the grower is not a definite "high risk", the V.P. of Finance may consider sponsorship through a direct factory accounts receivable loan. Such a loan would be subject to a First Mortgage Security Agreement and interest at First Naticnal City, N.Y.C. prime plus 1 1/2% on closing date and with due regard to local state interest rate maximums. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 Page 2. Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy Procedures A request for grower assistance shall originate in the Agricultural Department on our form entitled "Request to V.P. .Finance for Grower Financial- Assistance". The request and related support documents are to be forwarded progressively to the District Accounting Manager, District General Manager and V.P. Operations for review and concurrence in recommendation. It is the responsibility of the V.P. of Finance to approve or reject the request. If the request is approved, the V.P. of Finance will co-ordinate financing efforts supplying all prior signers of the document with progress reports. MER 8/22/73 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY REQUEST TO V.P. FINANCE FOR GROWER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Grower Phone ress Location of farm (receiving station) Bank (current or previous) Phone Bank/contact Number of acres if this request is filled If request is not filled Agriculturalist: (originator of this request) (name, address and phone) Reason for request (why not bankable) (Attach copy of balance sheet and operating statement. Also machinery list if any under this request.) Amount required under this request: Operating $ Equipment $ We recommend that Great Western Sugar Company provide finances or financial backing for this grower up to the amount specified and for the purposes listed. Dist.Acct.Mgr. Date Dist.Genl.Mgr. Date V.P.Operations Date Instructions: 1. Originated by Agriculturist, 4. Forward to V.P. Finance, 2. Review and recommendation by 5. V.P. Finance to instruct Dist. Acct.Mg District Personnel, with carbons to all concerned. 3. viver GreatWee Sungar Company GREAT WESTERN SUGAR FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM Letter of Understanding Great Western Sugar Company is initiating and coordinating a "Great Western Sugar Fellowship Program. " The purpose of this program is to improvise, coordinate and place into effect a system of expanding and improving farm management techno- logy. In this connection, Great Western Sugar Company will cooperate with Colorado State University, other state universities, progressive sugarbeet growers, and graduates to provide an opportunity for these graduates to enter into or share in farm management positions. Col. To effectuate this program, the below signed graduate of Pennsylvania State Uni- versity, the grower and Great Western Sugar Company have entered into this Letter of Understanding to set forth the agreement reached between the below signed parties to this Letter, of Understanding. The graduate will be employed by and work with the below signed grower at the grower's farm or farms. The grower will pay the graduate $450 per month and will employ the graduate for the period of this agreement, which will extend for a duration of two (2) years from the date hereof. The aim of this relationship will be to develop a viable partnership and/or an expansion and sharing of opportunities in farming operations. Great Western Sugar Company will cooperate with the grower and furnish information which will help improve his farm management techniques with the intent that he will be able to expand his acreage and develop a more productive farm.operation. The grower agrees to plant at least 25 percent of irrigated land under his control in sugarbeets. Great Western Sugar Company agrees to give to the graduate, for the period of time he is employed by the grower under this, agreement, the sum of $250 per month. This money will be the graduate's and the graduate will be responsible for applicable taxes on this amount. The Sugar Company is giving this money to the graduate and the graduate in no sense will be employed by the Sugar Company and will owe no legal obligation to the Sugar Company. It is understood that any of the parties hereto may cancel this agreement at any time, and the obligations under this agreement will cease as of the time of cancellation. In the event the graduate is the party who desires to cancel the agreement, the Sugar Company will use its best efforts to attempt to find another graduate to participate in this agreement. By their below placed signatures, the three parties agree to the broad outlines contained in this Letter of Understanding and will conduct themselves accordingly. GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY By (Graduate) (Grower) Source: https:l//www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227

what is the date of the letter?

yznh0227

yznh0227_p0, yznh0227_p1, yznh0227_p2, yznh0227_p3, yznh0227_p4, yznh0227_p5, yznh0227_p6, yznh0227_p7, yznh0227_p8

APRIL 18, 1977, April 18, 1977

EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS By Mariput Period Assigned to/Discussed With/ ITEM Authorized REMARKS 4/16 4/15 9:45 called Ken opp-Sme - Quintana said KO on plune-cak back 4/15 10:45 called Ken Opp-sec. Hazel said KO out of office - / left tel. no. message to call back & 4/15 2:00 Allonquerque Journal sports desk - recommended call Chamber of Commerce 4/15 2:30 Chamber of Commerce in Albuguergue 3:05 Albuguerque Tribune sports editor -said call back tomorrow-no one there 3:35 Santa Fe New Mexican 4:00 Bureau of Parks and Recreation in Santu Fe il 4:10 Kenopp in meeting- will he happy to falk with me". - call back Monday 4/18 9:10 Jerry Hammer of ACE asked further questions concerning lake 48 109 A 108° B 107 o C 106 O D 105 E 104 o F 103 o , s Wetter horn Ph. Uncompathgre Pk. 4,309 14,017 À Horn's Pk. 38 Mt. Sneffels 14,150 A o /Lake Çity San Luis Pk 14.014 Saguache Moffat À 13,447 38 Ouray Redcloud Ph. Monticello Telluride 1,434 4 Crestona Pk. Mt. Wilson Silverton LA NEW MEXICO 14,294 14,246 Q O Rio Grande GREAT SAND DUNES SCALE Hermosa Pk. Res. Center O NAT'L MON. o 5 10 20 30 40 50 60MI. 12,574. 13,830 o Rico Rio Grande Pyramid O Hooper o 510 20 30 40 50 60 KM. Del Norte Walsenburg South River Pk. State Capitals 1 Dolores Hesperus Pk. Graham Pk. 13,145 Monte Vista County Seats 1 13,225 12,517 A Bennett Pk. A 13,189 R Alamosa A Blanca HOVENWEEP NAT'L MON. Cortez Vallecito Montezuma Pk. Res. 13,131 YUCCA HOUSE NAT'L MON Pagosa MESA VERDE Summit Pk.À Platoro Res. Cr. Trinchera Pk. A NAT'L PARK b Durango Springs 13,272 Conejos Pk. 13,546 13,180 UTE MOUNTAIN SOUTHERN UTE Navajo Pk. Purgatoire (Trinidad Carrizozo INDIAN RES. IND. RES. 11,330 Conejos Sanchez Ma Res. 37 R. Jaroso Branson 37 of Only point in the La Plata Navajo Lumberton Ute Pk.) (10.120 Costilla UNITED STATES )AZTEC RUÍNS Cedar Hill Res. Chama San Antonio Pk. OAmalia NAT'L MON. common to four Duice 10.935 Monero Costilla Pk Vermeji O Raton Dry state boundaries Flora Vista Brazos Ph. a 12,580 0 Aztec Park P. Folsom can Shiprock 11,410 A A 0 S day = T CAPULIN MT NAT'L MON. NAVAJO Farmington Des Moines NAVAJO Boulder Rutheron Park View Ocerro o Ship Rock & DAM Lip a C L F A 7,178 Bloomfield Blanco . Questao Red Capulin 1. Pajarito Tierra Amarilla River Seneca Tres ompañer, Burford USEI Vado Las Tablas Piedras WhealerO ( Eagle Nest Grenville 2 L. Cristobal 13,161 Mount Dora INDIAN o anjilon Maxwell S N J U A N Petaca) 2 Cebolla Arroyoo QValdez Ute Vallecitos Hondo PArroyo Seco EaglePark cinacimarron a French Clayton R o El Pradoos Taos A R R I B A L'a Madera Pueblo I Nest L. Springer o Taos(s PUEBLO IND. RES. Miami Rivero U N 0 N CANYON DE 9 El Rito? Carson oRanches of Taos Farley ladstone /CHELLY Newcomb Lindrith Ojo Caliente OToadlena PAbbott Gallina RESERVATION Canones Abiquiu amisasco Vadito is de Ocate River Regina O |Youngsville< addarte Chacon a Cr. Sedan >NATIONAL Ojo vo Coyote dGuadalu'pita Tramper o MONUMENT CHACO CANYON| Hernandez Sarco Mills OStead o NAT'L MON, O Clano Très Ritos ) Nacimiento Pk. San Juan Pueblot Ojo Feliz Levy o -36 Crystal .La Jara uz OTruchas ampas Holmán Cuba) 19.820 OCordova (Rainsville Wagon Mound a Hayden 36 Navajo Espanolag Chimayo AN Truchas Mora UNIÓN 911. Cleveland 0 R A Roy o Bueyeros 0 Tohatchi San;lidefonso OCundiyo Pk. 13,1100 of NAT'L MON. SAlbert\ z LOS ALAMOS a CPUEBLO H A R N G Pojoaque O RES; LO Ledoux Buena Vista Amistad Ventana o Los Alamos- :Cueva Valmora Mora R Solano o Mexican White Nambe, Cowles Rociada Watrous Window Rock/ Springs Jemez Springs OPonderosa Rock Baldu Pk, or no Mosquero S A Tesugued 12,623! Sapello St. 0 Crownpoint N D V A ANDELIER Sabinoso (1) Michaels MON R A El Porvenir Gamerco, K I N E Y Jemez Cochiti, Montezuma Rehoboth Santal 10,546 Gallegos Nara Visa OPueblo Conchas Mentmore, PUEBLO Pecos o Las Vegas Mo I G U E Reservoir 3 and Penablanca S As San Ysidro INDIAN Stol FT. PECOS NAT'L MON. Romeroville Gallup Cr. 3 Zia Pueblo RES. Domingo WINGATE APMY Fort Wingate Lamy Rowe Lourdes Trujillo Pueblo- Cerrillos San Jose Thoreau to Jemez Canyon's Felipe Trementina CONCHAS DAM Lypton: o U McGaffey Bluewater, Res. O Serafina R L. O Prewitt Algodon Madrid Galisteo Soham Conchas Conchas Dam (Ribera Logan Riverl - s San Mateo Bernalillo Placitas SANT FE Garita Ute Res. S. Bluewater Mt. Tayior o Sena Corrales Sandia Pk Golden Rencona (ian 110,609 Milan, 11,389 Villanueya TOSA Glenrio (Ramáh a Grants Seboyeta Los Ranchos Alameda OSandia Park Leyba Anton Chico© O Endee San R. San Ratael Cu bero OPaguate\ de Albuquerque, Fidel Cedar Crest Stanley Montoya Tucumcari Dilia San Jon O Colonias Zuni E MORRO NAT'L MON o a Newki irk O Bard (jeras 35 to E! Morro Dahlia ZUNI INDIAN RIS Acomit Cuervo o O' is I Q U A 35 Cara 4 I o PUL wh B E R N I I. L o Monarty " @ Santa Rosa Quay - - 13 3 I - Protects . EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS By Period Assigned to/Discussed With/ ITEM Authorized REMARKS 4/14 called Ken Opp 4x - secretary told me he was in meeting and on phone Joe Quintana suggested / call governor of Pueblo Cochin (465-2244) 4/14 called Fred Cordero (gov. of P.C) he knew of no "old-timer 11 / could talk to, suggested / see him 4/14 2:00 Jerry Hammer, any curps of engineers -much information, very helpful 4/15 9:45 Ken Opp- sec. Sue Quinta said Ken on phone, call back 4/15 10:45 sec. Hazel said Ken Opp out of office. 1 left telno. and message to call back 4/15 2:00 Abuquerque Journal Sports desk- recommended / call Chamber of Commene 4115 2:30 Albuquerque Chamber of Commine 4/15 3:05 Albuguerque Tribum Sports ed - call back Mon no one there 4/15 3:35 Santa Fe New Mexican - no info 4/15 4:00 Burean of Parks and Recreation in Santa Fe- no info 4/15 4:10 Ken Opp in meeting call back Monday 4/18 9:10 Jerry Hammer of ACE. - further info on lake 4/18 10:20 Ken opp- - answered ques, wants apy of article before published let 4/18 11:00 Albug Chamber offommene - address for brodure TILCO/ TELEPHONE 303/831 ORD? P.O. BOX 88/DENY ER. COLORADO 80201 April 18, 1977 Cochiti Lake Recreation Area P. 0. Box 66 Cochiti Lake, New Mexico 87041 Dear Sirs: The Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce has informed me that a one-page brochure describing Cochiti Lake and its facilities is available through your office. Please send me a copy of this brochure and any additional literature that is available. The address is listed above. Thank you. Sincerely, Mary P. Murphy Mary P. Murphy Source: :https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 SOURCES Ken 0pp Project Manager, Great Western Cities P. 0. Box 66 Cochiti Lake, NM 87041 (505) 465-2211 Jerry Hammer Army Corps of Engineers or Ed Shirley (505) 242-8302 Fred Cordero Governor Pueblo-Cochit - Indian Reservation (505) 465-2244, 465-2245 Albuquerque Journal (505) 842-2300 Albuquerque Tribune (Sports) (505) 842-2378 Santa Fe New Mexican (505) 983-3303 Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce (505) 842-0220 Santa Fe Bureau (505) 988-8068 Director of Parks and Recreation Cochiti Lake Public Use Area P. 0. Box 66 Cochiti Lake, New Mexico 87041 Newsweek Magazine about 3/4/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 COHITI LAKE Location: on 6300 acres of pueblo de Cochiti Indian Resveration north central NM, 41 miles south of Santa Fe, 49 miles north of Albuquerque Dam: Structure is 10 largest earth filled dam in U.S. 5.4 miles long with 2 lane highway on top hydrolically operated gates 251 feet high 85 ft water depth at dam control tower height of 25 story bldg. Lake: made by dam; backs up into White Rock Canyon legislated by Congress for flood control and reduce sedimentation water does not come from Rio Grande but through San Juan- Chame pipeline from Colorado River Basin construction on dam did not begin til 70, completed 75 corps is instructed to maintain 50,000 acre ft. in 1k surface of lake is 5,321.25 ft above mean sea level 1200 surface acres of water from control tower to end is 711/2 miles long 2 1/2 miles from tower lake goes into White Rock Canyon wider closer to dam (1/2 mile wide) approx. 1/3 lake suitable for rec activities, although fisherman can go further in to the vaious canyons and arroyos Rec. Facilities : at present, there is one rec. facility built land belongs to pueblo cohiti, Univ. of NM regents, Banalier monument, rec. facility has three loops Loop A: picnic area-parking facilities for 55 cars-tables and shelters-29 shelters, 53 tables Loop B: camping loop-38 sites-pull-out sites-electrical hook-up table and picnic grill at sites Loop C; 29 total shelters, 42 tables 2 comfort stations with flush toilets! 1 trailer dump for holding containers Roads: Roads paved to boat ramp gravel surface in rec. loops Boat Ramp : contracted by ACE 4 lane boat ramp Marina : responsibility of Pueblo-Cochiti (who transferred responsibility to GW?) last summer were 2i boat slips this summer 21 more to be built total will be 121 slips marina is floating with walkway from pier anchored in cove floating because of flooding Boat Capacity: because lake is wakeless, law forbids fast boating, motor boats and water-skiing therefore, lake should be able to handle 150 boats safely Policing: Corps maintains jurisdiction will give citations is backed up (or in some cases, backs up) deputy sheriffs from county who can patrol area Maintainance: responsibility of Pueblo-Cochiti through Memorandum of Understanding BUT Town Charter transfers responsibility to GWC (?) Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 Fish: many kinds of fish those stocked by state include rainbow, wall-eyed pike, large mouth bass, blue-gill, crappie -- catfish and bass kinds not stocked by state good fishing last yr. except for pike which is hoped to be better this yr. lake froze solid past two winters: this yr. did not thaw til last month catfish fishing good up canyon and arroyos. Meda canyon, glen cnyon, sanchex canyon in summer, trout found in open water bass found along shore lines (northeat) where trees located Shoreline: about 21 miles of shoreline, only 5 miles offer access to lake rest is steep canyon walls Towns: Pueblo indian town is 1/2 mile downstream from lake Cochiti Lake is right across road from recreational areas Climate: semi-hot insummer (last yr high was 99°) but exceptionally dry cold in winter (40° to low of - -17°) very windy this time of yr and in summer-winds of 25 mph - good for sailing especially catamaran Visitors: last wkend (Fri-Mon) 5,000 users of park estimate of 80% from albuquerque/santa fe area Residents: : Cochiti Lake: approx. 180 small Spanish communities: 500 Pueblo Cochiti: 500 Last summer park had over 300,000 visitors and it did not open til June This yr, expect over 400,000 people. Eventually hope to handle 1 1/2 million visitors each yr. Visitor center will open in July 77. Natl Park Service has proposed another center as extension of Banelier Monument. Rec. facility opened in June 76. Cost: Dam was $90 Million, estimate $94 million with rec facility Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 JERRY HAMMER Visitors to Park: estimates 80% from Santa Fe and Albuquerque area 60% of these are regular users -- sailboaters, small power boat users Other Natural Attractions Bandelier Nat'l Monument 45 miles by road, (improved) 22 miles by cross-country trail CochitiPueblo reservation 6 miles SW natural geological formation Tent Rocks ghost towns, mining towns archaeological sites, which they with the Park Service try to protect, painted caves, historical sites Admission fee: .50 per person, 1.00 minimum, 2.50 maximum: camping 4.00 fee goes to Pueblo Boats cannot be rented for use on the lake, but Pueblo are planning to open a concession sometime in the next few years. Parking: in addition to parking in picnic and camping loops, there is parking on either side of the boat ramp and parking extending from the lake out which will accomodate 200 cars Swimming permitted at your own risk; there is no established beach Water-skiing forbidden because no-wake lake First Aid: Some first aid at the corps office town of Cochiti Lake has emergency medical team and ambulance service. Competition from other areas: Elephant Butte is about 200 miles south smaller, non-permanent lakes up north of the area KEN OPP GWC owns and operates marina and is responsible for maintenance under written Memorandum of Understanding. Eventually maintenance may pass back to the Pueblo-Cochiti Slips on the marina are available for $200 a season, money goes to GWC Courtesy dock is availabel through the army corps of engineer's boat ramp No eating facilities, no food store, no gas station Boat rental and eating facilities are being considered About 250 full-time residents of Cochiti Lake Camping facilities are available through GWC for residents. These are located not by the lake but up the hill from the lake. Cochiti Lake residents pay regular entrance fees for use of lake and park. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 Albuquerque Journal Sports Desk: no information- in the words of the person on duty "We probably wrote something about it, but I don't remember when. II Suggested I call Chamber of Commerce. Chamber of Commerce: woman there had a pamphlet which she read from- gave admission fee: 50 per person 4.00 for trailer hook-up. She does not know who is in charge whether state, National Park or what. Did know there was camping, also said there was snorkling and swimming. Gave me address, suggested I write for more information. Address is simply Lake Cochiti and PO Box. I asked who put out the pamphlet- she replied there was no indication. Santa Fe New Mexican: No one at the sports desk. The person I talked to tried to get information from others. Says it is run by Pueblo-Cochiti, costs 1.00 to go swimming or "get down to the lake" but costs nothing to get in (in other words, no admission fee). He said that no boats can be rented there. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227

what is the cost of 4030 J.D. Tractor ?

jxbx0227

jxbx0227_p13, jxbx0227_p14, jxbx0227_p15, jxbx0227_p16, jxbx0227_p17, jxbx0227_p18, jxbx0227_p19

$15,500

EQUIPMENT TO RAISE 800 ACRES OF BEETS New Cost 3 - 4030 J.D. Tractors - $46,500 3 - 4 Bottom Plows - 7,800 2 - 14' Disks - 3,800 2 - Packer Mulchers - 2,400 2 - 12 Row Cultivators - 4,000 1 - 12 Row Beet Planter - 5,000 1 - 6 Row Top Saver - 7,500 2 - 3 Row Lifter Loaders - 22,000 3 - Trucks - 18' Box + Tag Axle - 24,000 1 - Broadcast Boom Sprayer - 1,000 NEW MAIN EQUIPMENT ONLY = $124,000 Misc. Hand Tools - Welder - Irrigat. - Cult. Tools - 2,000 $126,000 TO HANDLE 800 ACRES Hire or Lease 3 More Trucks at Harvest Possibly Lease 1 Tractor for 30 Days OR If you have 800 acres beets custom farmed - 800 acres X $230/acre = $184,000 EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS 1 - 6 Row Top Saver Can Top 40 Acres/Day 2 - 3 Row Lifter Loaders Can Lift 40 Acres/Day 6 Row Top Saver - $ 7,500 3 Row Lifter Loader - $11,000 6 Row Lifter Loader - $15,000 (3 Tons/Minute) 4030 J.D. Tractor - $15,500 4 Bottom Plow . - $ 2,600 14' Disk - $ 1,900 12 Row Beet Planter - $ 2,000 - 6 Row Cultivator + Tools - $ 3,000 Packer Mulcher 15' - $ 1,200 2 1/2 Ton Tag Axle Truck - $12,000 With Box and Hoist Source: Great Western Sugar Company TO: Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy August 22, 1973 Distribution List - J. Krentler G. Bogden R. Mally T. Army D. Dinkel R. Perkins R. Fisher R. Fertig D. Quinn C. lianing G. Gibson J. Van Wijk B. Phillips J. Gray M. Rebhan Dist. Gen. Mgrs. Each Factory Acctg. Office Dist. Agric. Mgrs. Asst. Dist. Agric. Mgrs. Dist. Acctg. Mgrs. Factory Agric. Mgrs. FROM: M. E. Rebhan SUBJECT: Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy (Supplement to General Credit Policy 4/25/72 Page #2, Item E) Attached is a formalized version of the generally unwritten policy that we have been operating under for several years. This policy has been approved at the appropriate management level and although there is no great need for it at this point in time it should be filed along with your General Credit Policy File referred to above. If you have any questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact John Gray or me. M. Roban MER:jb 3 attachments ASS Source: https:/www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 GROWER LOAN SPONSORSHIP POLICY General The program of Grower Loan Sponsorship is to promote beet acreage increase in Great Western Sugar and Northern Ohio Suger territories and to assist our growers in obtaining financial assistance on sugar beet crops when the grower's banking connections will not or cannot handle normal financing However, it is not the intent nor the desire of the Company to subsidize high risk growers or to compete with our local bankers in beet crop financing. The overall size of the Sponsorship Program (in dollars) as well as deviations, if any, from policy shall be determined annually by the V.P. Operations and the V.P. Finance. Unwillingness or inability of the grower's bank to handle normal financing may be due to (1) bank at legal limit for that grower and unable to interest a participating bank, (2) bank short of lendable funds, (3) bank unwilling for personal reasons to vork with the grower. Under the three foregoing categories the Company will merely assist the grower in finding normal financing at an alternative bank. In the grey area between normal and high risk financing, it may be necessary for the Company to offer a bank some inducement or sponsorship as described more fully in following paragraphs. Bank Loan Sponsorship Company sponsorship of an operating bank loan should not exceed 75% guaranty to the bank on any loss the bank might incur on such loan. A loss is recognized when the grower has liquidated all of his assets in settlement of business debts and has discontinued growing beets. If local banks have no problem under the three categories in Paragraph No. 3 above and are not agreeable to a 75% guaranty, there is every indication that the loan is too "high risk" for further consideration. Company sponsored loans, as indicated in the above paragraph, will cover only operating expenses related to a sugar beet crop. In unusual cases only, we will consider sponscring a beet equipment lcan guaranty covered by security agreement. Direct Loan Sponsorship If a financing bank cannot be provided with or without a 75% guaranty and the grower is not a definite "high risk", the V.P. of Finance may consider sponsorship through a direct factory accounts receivable loan. Such a loan would be subject to a First Mortgage Security Agreement and interest at First Naticnal City, N.Y.C. prime plus 1 1/2% on closing date and with due regard to local state interest rate maximums. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 Page 2. Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy Procedures A request for grower assistance shall originate in the Agricultural Department on our form entitled "Request to V.P. .Finance for Grower Financial- Assistance". The request and related support documents are to be forwarded progressively to the District Accounting Manager, District General Manager and V.P. Operations for review and concurrence in recommendation. It is the responsibility of the V.P. of Finance to approve or reject the request. If the request is approved, the V.P. of Finance will co-ordinate financing efforts supplying all prior signers of the document with progress reports. MER 8/22/73 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY REQUEST TO V.P. FINANCE FOR GROWER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Grower Phone ress Location of farm (receiving station) Bank (current or previous) Phone Bank/contact Number of acres if this request is filled If request is not filled Agriculturalist: (originator of this request) (name, address and phone) Reason for request (why not bankable) (Attach copy of balance sheet and operating statement. Also machinery list if any under this request.) Amount required under this request: Operating $ Equipment $ We recommend that Great Western Sugar Company provide finances or financial backing for this grower up to the amount specified and for the purposes listed. Dist.Acct.Mgr. Date Dist.Genl.Mgr. Date V.P.Operations Date Instructions: 1. Originated by Agriculturist, 4. Forward to V.P. Finance, 2. Review and recommendation by 5. V.P. Finance to instruct Dist. Acct.Mg District Personnel, with carbons to all concerned. 3. viver GreatWee Sungar Company GREAT WESTERN SUGAR FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM Letter of Understanding Great Western Sugar Company is initiating and coordinating a "Great Western Sugar Fellowship Program. " The purpose of this program is to improvise, coordinate and place into effect a system of expanding and improving farm management techno- logy. In this connection, Great Western Sugar Company will cooperate with Colorado State University, other state universities, progressive sugarbeet growers, and graduates to provide an opportunity for these graduates to enter into or share in farm management positions. Col. To effectuate this program, the below signed graduate of Pennsylvania State Uni- versity, the grower and Great Western Sugar Company have entered into this Letter of Understanding to set forth the agreement reached between the below signed parties to this Letter, of Understanding. The graduate will be employed by and work with the below signed grower at the grower's farm or farms. The grower will pay the graduate $450 per month and will employ the graduate for the period of this agreement, which will extend for a duration of two (2) years from the date hereof. The aim of this relationship will be to develop a viable partnership and/or an expansion and sharing of opportunities in farming operations. Great Western Sugar Company will cooperate with the grower and furnish information which will help improve his farm management techniques with the intent that he will be able to expand his acreage and develop a more productive farm.operation. The grower agrees to plant at least 25 percent of irrigated land under his control in sugarbeets. Great Western Sugar Company agrees to give to the graduate, for the period of time he is employed by the grower under this, agreement, the sum of $250 per month. This money will be the graduate's and the graduate will be responsible for applicable taxes on this amount. The Sugar Company is giving this money to the graduate and the graduate in no sense will be employed by the Sugar Company and will owe no legal obligation to the Sugar Company. It is understood that any of the parties hereto may cancel this agreement at any time, and the obligations under this agreement will cease as of the time of cancellation. In the event the graduate is the party who desires to cancel the agreement, the Sugar Company will use its best efforts to attempt to find another graduate to participate in this agreement. By their below placed signatures, the three parties agree to the broad outlines contained in this Letter of Understanding and will conduct themselves accordingly. GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY By (Graduate) (Grower) Source: https:l//www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227

Which is the equipment that costs $7,500 ?

jxbx0227

jxbx0227_p13, jxbx0227_p14, jxbx0227_p15, jxbx0227_p16, jxbx0227_p17, jxbx0227_p18, jxbx0227_p19

6 row top saver, 6 Row Top Saver

EQUIPMENT TO RAISE 800 ACRES OF BEETS New Cost 3 - 4030 J.D. Tractors - $46,500 3 - 4 Bottom Plows - 7,800 2 - 14' Disks - 3,800 2 - Packer Mulchers - 2,400 2 - 12 Row Cultivators - 4,000 1 - 12 Row Beet Planter - 5,000 1 - 6 Row Top Saver - 7,500 2 - 3 Row Lifter Loaders - 22,000 3 - Trucks - 18' Box + Tag Axle - 24,000 1 - Broadcast Boom Sprayer - 1,000 NEW MAIN EQUIPMENT ONLY = $124,000 Misc. Hand Tools - Welder - Irrigat. - Cult. Tools - 2,000 $126,000 TO HANDLE 800 ACRES Hire or Lease 3 More Trucks at Harvest Possibly Lease 1 Tractor for 30 Days OR If you have 800 acres beets custom farmed - 800 acres X $230/acre = $184,000 EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS 1 - 6 Row Top Saver Can Top 40 Acres/Day 2 - 3 Row Lifter Loaders Can Lift 40 Acres/Day 6 Row Top Saver - $ 7,500 3 Row Lifter Loader - $11,000 6 Row Lifter Loader - $15,000 (3 Tons/Minute) 4030 J.D. Tractor - $15,500 4 Bottom Plow . - $ 2,600 14' Disk - $ 1,900 12 Row Beet Planter - $ 2,000 - 6 Row Cultivator + Tools - $ 3,000 Packer Mulcher 15' - $ 1,200 2 1/2 Ton Tag Axle Truck - $12,000 With Box and Hoist Source: Great Western Sugar Company TO: Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy August 22, 1973 Distribution List - J. Krentler G. Bogden R. Mally T. Army D. Dinkel R. Perkins R. Fisher R. Fertig D. Quinn C. lianing G. Gibson J. Van Wijk B. Phillips J. Gray M. Rebhan Dist. Gen. Mgrs. Each Factory Acctg. Office Dist. Agric. Mgrs. Asst. Dist. Agric. Mgrs. Dist. Acctg. Mgrs. Factory Agric. Mgrs. FROM: M. E. Rebhan SUBJECT: Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy (Supplement to General Credit Policy 4/25/72 Page #2, Item E) Attached is a formalized version of the generally unwritten policy that we have been operating under for several years. This policy has been approved at the appropriate management level and although there is no great need for it at this point in time it should be filed along with your General Credit Policy File referred to above. If you have any questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact John Gray or me. M. Roban MER:jb 3 attachments ASS Source: https:/www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 GROWER LOAN SPONSORSHIP POLICY General The program of Grower Loan Sponsorship is to promote beet acreage increase in Great Western Sugar and Northern Ohio Suger territories and to assist our growers in obtaining financial assistance on sugar beet crops when the grower's banking connections will not or cannot handle normal financing However, it is not the intent nor the desire of the Company to subsidize high risk growers or to compete with our local bankers in beet crop financing. The overall size of the Sponsorship Program (in dollars) as well as deviations, if any, from policy shall be determined annually by the V.P. Operations and the V.P. Finance. Unwillingness or inability of the grower's bank to handle normal financing may be due to (1) bank at legal limit for that grower and unable to interest a participating bank, (2) bank short of lendable funds, (3) bank unwilling for personal reasons to vork with the grower. Under the three foregoing categories the Company will merely assist the grower in finding normal financing at an alternative bank. In the grey area between normal and high risk financing, it may be necessary for the Company to offer a bank some inducement or sponsorship as described more fully in following paragraphs. Bank Loan Sponsorship Company sponsorship of an operating bank loan should not exceed 75% guaranty to the bank on any loss the bank might incur on such loan. A loss is recognized when the grower has liquidated all of his assets in settlement of business debts and has discontinued growing beets. If local banks have no problem under the three categories in Paragraph No. 3 above and are not agreeable to a 75% guaranty, there is every indication that the loan is too "high risk" for further consideration. Company sponsored loans, as indicated in the above paragraph, will cover only operating expenses related to a sugar beet crop. In unusual cases only, we will consider sponscring a beet equipment lcan guaranty covered by security agreement. Direct Loan Sponsorship If a financing bank cannot be provided with or without a 75% guaranty and the grower is not a definite "high risk", the V.P. of Finance may consider sponsorship through a direct factory accounts receivable loan. Such a loan would be subject to a First Mortgage Security Agreement and interest at First Naticnal City, N.Y.C. prime plus 1 1/2% on closing date and with due regard to local state interest rate maximums. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 Page 2. Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy Procedures A request for grower assistance shall originate in the Agricultural Department on our form entitled "Request to V.P. .Finance for Grower Financial- Assistance". The request and related support documents are to be forwarded progressively to the District Accounting Manager, District General Manager and V.P. Operations for review and concurrence in recommendation. It is the responsibility of the V.P. of Finance to approve or reject the request. If the request is approved, the V.P. of Finance will co-ordinate financing efforts supplying all prior signers of the document with progress reports. MER 8/22/73 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY REQUEST TO V.P. FINANCE FOR GROWER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Grower Phone ress Location of farm (receiving station) Bank (current or previous) Phone Bank/contact Number of acres if this request is filled If request is not filled Agriculturalist: (originator of this request) (name, address and phone) Reason for request (why not bankable) (Attach copy of balance sheet and operating statement. Also machinery list if any under this request.) Amount required under this request: Operating $ Equipment $ We recommend that Great Western Sugar Company provide finances or financial backing for this grower up to the amount specified and for the purposes listed. Dist.Acct.Mgr. Date Dist.Genl.Mgr. Date V.P.Operations Date Instructions: 1. Originated by Agriculturist, 4. Forward to V.P. Finance, 2. Review and recommendation by 5. V.P. Finance to instruct Dist. Acct.Mg District Personnel, with carbons to all concerned. 3. viver GreatWee Sungar Company GREAT WESTERN SUGAR FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM Letter of Understanding Great Western Sugar Company is initiating and coordinating a "Great Western Sugar Fellowship Program. " The purpose of this program is to improvise, coordinate and place into effect a system of expanding and improving farm management techno- logy. In this connection, Great Western Sugar Company will cooperate with Colorado State University, other state universities, progressive sugarbeet growers, and graduates to provide an opportunity for these graduates to enter into or share in farm management positions. Col. To effectuate this program, the below signed graduate of Pennsylvania State Uni- versity, the grower and Great Western Sugar Company have entered into this Letter of Understanding to set forth the agreement reached between the below signed parties to this Letter, of Understanding. The graduate will be employed by and work with the below signed grower at the grower's farm or farms. The grower will pay the graduate $450 per month and will employ the graduate for the period of this agreement, which will extend for a duration of two (2) years from the date hereof. The aim of this relationship will be to develop a viable partnership and/or an expansion and sharing of opportunities in farming operations. Great Western Sugar Company will cooperate with the grower and furnish information which will help improve his farm management techniques with the intent that he will be able to expand his acreage and develop a more productive farm.operation. The grower agrees to plant at least 25 percent of irrigated land under his control in sugarbeets. Great Western Sugar Company agrees to give to the graduate, for the period of time he is employed by the grower under this, agreement, the sum of $250 per month. This money will be the graduate's and the graduate will be responsible for applicable taxes on this amount. The Sugar Company is giving this money to the graduate and the graduate in no sense will be employed by the Sugar Company and will owe no legal obligation to the Sugar Company. It is understood that any of the parties hereto may cancel this agreement at any time, and the obligations under this agreement will cease as of the time of cancellation. In the event the graduate is the party who desires to cancel the agreement, the Sugar Company will use its best efforts to attempt to find another graduate to participate in this agreement. By their below placed signatures, the three parties agree to the broad outlines contained in this Letter of Understanding and will conduct themselves accordingly. GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY By (Graduate) (Grower) Source: https:l//www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227

What is the P.O Box Number in the letter?

yznh0227

yznh0227_p0, yznh0227_p1, yznh0227_p2, yznh0227_p3, yznh0227_p4, yznh0227_p5, yznh0227_p6, yznh0227_p7, yznh0227_p8

66

EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS By Mariput Period Assigned to/Discussed With/ ITEM Authorized REMARKS 4/16 4/15 9:45 called Ken opp-Sme - Quintana said KO on plune-cak back 4/15 10:45 called Ken Opp-sec. Hazel said KO out of office - / left tel. no. message to call back & 4/15 2:00 Allonquerque Journal sports desk - recommended call Chamber of Commerce 4/15 2:30 Chamber of Commerce in Albuguergue 3:05 Albuguerque Tribune sports editor -said call back tomorrow-no one there 3:35 Santa Fe New Mexican 4:00 Bureau of Parks and Recreation in Santu Fe il 4:10 Kenopp in meeting- will he happy to falk with me". - call back Monday 4/18 9:10 Jerry Hammer of ACE asked further questions concerning lake 48 109 A 108° B 107 o C 106 O D 105 E 104 o F 103 o , s Wetter horn Ph. Uncompathgre Pk. 4,309 14,017 À Horn's Pk. 38 Mt. Sneffels 14,150 A o /Lake Çity San Luis Pk 14.014 Saguache Moffat À 13,447 38 Ouray Redcloud Ph. Monticello Telluride 1,434 4 Crestona Pk. Mt. Wilson Silverton LA NEW MEXICO 14,294 14,246 Q O Rio Grande GREAT SAND DUNES SCALE Hermosa Pk. Res. Center O NAT'L MON. o 5 10 20 30 40 50 60MI. 12,574. 13,830 o Rico Rio Grande Pyramid O Hooper o 510 20 30 40 50 60 KM. Del Norte Walsenburg South River Pk. State Capitals 1 Dolores Hesperus Pk. Graham Pk. 13,145 Monte Vista County Seats 1 13,225 12,517 A Bennett Pk. A 13,189 R Alamosa A Blanca HOVENWEEP NAT'L MON. Cortez Vallecito Montezuma Pk. Res. 13,131 YUCCA HOUSE NAT'L MON Pagosa MESA VERDE Summit Pk.À Platoro Res. Cr. Trinchera Pk. A NAT'L PARK b Durango Springs 13,272 Conejos Pk. 13,546 13,180 UTE MOUNTAIN SOUTHERN UTE Navajo Pk. Purgatoire (Trinidad Carrizozo INDIAN RES. IND. RES. 11,330 Conejos Sanchez Ma Res. 37 R. Jaroso Branson 37 of Only point in the La Plata Navajo Lumberton Ute Pk.) (10.120 Costilla UNITED STATES )AZTEC RUÍNS Cedar Hill Res. Chama San Antonio Pk. OAmalia NAT'L MON. common to four Duice 10.935 Monero Costilla Pk Vermeji O Raton Dry state boundaries Flora Vista Brazos Ph. a 12,580 0 Aztec Park P. Folsom can Shiprock 11,410 A A 0 S day = T CAPULIN MT NAT'L MON. NAVAJO Farmington Des Moines NAVAJO Boulder Rutheron Park View Ocerro o Ship Rock & DAM Lip a C L F A 7,178 Bloomfield Blanco . Questao Red Capulin 1. Pajarito Tierra Amarilla River Seneca Tres ompañer, Burford USEI Vado Las Tablas Piedras WhealerO ( Eagle Nest Grenville 2 L. Cristobal 13,161 Mount Dora INDIAN o anjilon Maxwell S N J U A N Petaca) 2 Cebolla Arroyoo QValdez Ute Vallecitos Hondo PArroyo Seco EaglePark cinacimarron a French Clayton R o El Pradoos Taos A R R I B A L'a Madera Pueblo I Nest L. Springer o Taos(s PUEBLO IND. RES. Miami Rivero U N 0 N CANYON DE 9 El Rito? Carson oRanches of Taos Farley ladstone /CHELLY Newcomb Lindrith Ojo Caliente OToadlena PAbbott Gallina RESERVATION Canones Abiquiu amisasco Vadito is de Ocate River Regina O |Youngsville< addarte Chacon a Cr. Sedan >NATIONAL Ojo vo Coyote dGuadalu'pita Tramper o MONUMENT CHACO CANYON| Hernandez Sarco Mills OStead o NAT'L MON, O Clano Très Ritos ) Nacimiento Pk. San Juan Pueblot Ojo Feliz Levy o -36 Crystal .La Jara uz OTruchas ampas Holmán Cuba) 19.820 OCordova (Rainsville Wagon Mound a Hayden 36 Navajo Espanolag Chimayo AN Truchas Mora UNIÓN 911. Cleveland 0 R A Roy o Bueyeros 0 Tohatchi San;lidefonso OCundiyo Pk. 13,1100 of NAT'L MON. SAlbert\ z LOS ALAMOS a CPUEBLO H A R N G Pojoaque O RES; LO Ledoux Buena Vista Amistad Ventana o Los Alamos- :Cueva Valmora Mora R Solano o Mexican White Nambe, Cowles Rociada Watrous Window Rock/ Springs Jemez Springs OPonderosa Rock Baldu Pk, or no Mosquero S A Tesugued 12,623! Sapello St. 0 Crownpoint N D V A ANDELIER Sabinoso (1) Michaels MON R A El Porvenir Gamerco, K I N E Y Jemez Cochiti, Montezuma Rehoboth Santal 10,546 Gallegos Nara Visa OPueblo Conchas Mentmore, PUEBLO Pecos o Las Vegas Mo I G U E Reservoir 3 and Penablanca S As San Ysidro INDIAN Stol FT. PECOS NAT'L MON. Romeroville Gallup Cr. 3 Zia Pueblo RES. Domingo WINGATE APMY Fort Wingate Lamy Rowe Lourdes Trujillo Pueblo- Cerrillos San Jose Thoreau to Jemez Canyon's Felipe Trementina CONCHAS DAM Lypton: o U McGaffey Bluewater, Res. O Serafina R L. O Prewitt Algodon Madrid Galisteo Soham Conchas Conchas Dam (Ribera Logan Riverl - s San Mateo Bernalillo Placitas SANT FE Garita Ute Res. S. Bluewater Mt. Tayior o Sena Corrales Sandia Pk Golden Rencona (ian 110,609 Milan, 11,389 Villanueya TOSA Glenrio (Ramáh a Grants Seboyeta Los Ranchos Alameda OSandia Park Leyba Anton Chico© O Endee San R. San Ratael Cu bero OPaguate\ de Albuquerque, Fidel Cedar Crest Stanley Montoya Tucumcari Dilia San Jon O Colonias Zuni E MORRO NAT'L MON o a Newki irk O Bard (jeras 35 to E! Morro Dahlia ZUNI INDIAN RIS Acomit Cuervo o O' is I Q U A 35 Cara 4 I o PUL wh B E R N I I. L o Monarty " @ Santa Rosa Quay - - 13 3 I - Protects . EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS By Period Assigned to/Discussed With/ ITEM Authorized REMARKS 4/14 called Ken Opp 4x - secretary told me he was in meeting and on phone Joe Quintana suggested / call governor of Pueblo Cochin (465-2244) 4/14 called Fred Cordero (gov. of P.C) he knew of no "old-timer 11 / could talk to, suggested / see him 4/14 2:00 Jerry Hammer, any curps of engineers -much information, very helpful 4/15 9:45 Ken Opp- sec. Sue Quinta said Ken on phone, call back 4/15 10:45 sec. Hazel said Ken Opp out of office. 1 left telno. and message to call back 4/15 2:00 Abuquerque Journal Sports desk- recommended / call Chamber of Commene 4115 2:30 Albuquerque Chamber of Commine 4/15 3:05 Albuguerque Tribum Sports ed - call back Mon no one there 4/15 3:35 Santa Fe New Mexican - no info 4/15 4:00 Burean of Parks and Recreation in Santa Fe- no info 4/15 4:10 Ken Opp in meeting call back Monday 4/18 9:10 Jerry Hammer of ACE. - further info on lake 4/18 10:20 Ken opp- - answered ques, wants apy of article before published let 4/18 11:00 Albug Chamber offommene - address for brodure TILCO/ TELEPHONE 303/831 ORD? P.O. BOX 88/DENY ER. COLORADO 80201 April 18, 1977 Cochiti Lake Recreation Area P. 0. Box 66 Cochiti Lake, New Mexico 87041 Dear Sirs: The Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce has informed me that a one-page brochure describing Cochiti Lake and its facilities is available through your office. Please send me a copy of this brochure and any additional literature that is available. The address is listed above. Thank you. Sincerely, Mary P. Murphy Mary P. Murphy Source: :https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 SOURCES Ken 0pp Project Manager, Great Western Cities P. 0. Box 66 Cochiti Lake, NM 87041 (505) 465-2211 Jerry Hammer Army Corps of Engineers or Ed Shirley (505) 242-8302 Fred Cordero Governor Pueblo-Cochit - Indian Reservation (505) 465-2244, 465-2245 Albuquerque Journal (505) 842-2300 Albuquerque Tribune (Sports) (505) 842-2378 Santa Fe New Mexican (505) 983-3303 Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce (505) 842-0220 Santa Fe Bureau (505) 988-8068 Director of Parks and Recreation Cochiti Lake Public Use Area P. 0. Box 66 Cochiti Lake, New Mexico 87041 Newsweek Magazine about 3/4/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 COHITI LAKE Location: on 6300 acres of pueblo de Cochiti Indian Resveration north central NM, 41 miles south of Santa Fe, 49 miles north of Albuquerque Dam: Structure is 10 largest earth filled dam in U.S. 5.4 miles long with 2 lane highway on top hydrolically operated gates 251 feet high 85 ft water depth at dam control tower height of 25 story bldg. Lake: made by dam; backs up into White Rock Canyon legislated by Congress for flood control and reduce sedimentation water does not come from Rio Grande but through San Juan- Chame pipeline from Colorado River Basin construction on dam did not begin til 70, completed 75 corps is instructed to maintain 50,000 acre ft. in 1k surface of lake is 5,321.25 ft above mean sea level 1200 surface acres of water from control tower to end is 711/2 miles long 2 1/2 miles from tower lake goes into White Rock Canyon wider closer to dam (1/2 mile wide) approx. 1/3 lake suitable for rec activities, although fisherman can go further in to the vaious canyons and arroyos Rec. Facilities : at present, there is one rec. facility built land belongs to pueblo cohiti, Univ. of NM regents, Banalier monument, rec. facility has three loops Loop A: picnic area-parking facilities for 55 cars-tables and shelters-29 shelters, 53 tables Loop B: camping loop-38 sites-pull-out sites-electrical hook-up table and picnic grill at sites Loop C; 29 total shelters, 42 tables 2 comfort stations with flush toilets! 1 trailer dump for holding containers Roads: Roads paved to boat ramp gravel surface in rec. loops Boat Ramp : contracted by ACE 4 lane boat ramp Marina : responsibility of Pueblo-Cochiti (who transferred responsibility to GW?) last summer were 2i boat slips this summer 21 more to be built total will be 121 slips marina is floating with walkway from pier anchored in cove floating because of flooding Boat Capacity: because lake is wakeless, law forbids fast boating, motor boats and water-skiing therefore, lake should be able to handle 150 boats safely Policing: Corps maintains jurisdiction will give citations is backed up (or in some cases, backs up) deputy sheriffs from county who can patrol area Maintainance: responsibility of Pueblo-Cochiti through Memorandum of Understanding BUT Town Charter transfers responsibility to GWC (?) Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 Fish: many kinds of fish those stocked by state include rainbow, wall-eyed pike, large mouth bass, blue-gill, crappie -- catfish and bass kinds not stocked by state good fishing last yr. except for pike which is hoped to be better this yr. lake froze solid past two winters: this yr. did not thaw til last month catfish fishing good up canyon and arroyos. Meda canyon, glen cnyon, sanchex canyon in summer, trout found in open water bass found along shore lines (northeat) where trees located Shoreline: about 21 miles of shoreline, only 5 miles offer access to lake rest is steep canyon walls Towns: Pueblo indian town is 1/2 mile downstream from lake Cochiti Lake is right across road from recreational areas Climate: semi-hot insummer (last yr high was 99°) but exceptionally dry cold in winter (40° to low of - -17°) very windy this time of yr and in summer-winds of 25 mph - good for sailing especially catamaran Visitors: last wkend (Fri-Mon) 5,000 users of park estimate of 80% from albuquerque/santa fe area Residents: : Cochiti Lake: approx. 180 small Spanish communities: 500 Pueblo Cochiti: 500 Last summer park had over 300,000 visitors and it did not open til June This yr, expect over 400,000 people. Eventually hope to handle 1 1/2 million visitors each yr. Visitor center will open in July 77. Natl Park Service has proposed another center as extension of Banelier Monument. Rec. facility opened in June 76. Cost: Dam was $90 Million, estimate $94 million with rec facility Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 JERRY HAMMER Visitors to Park: estimates 80% from Santa Fe and Albuquerque area 60% of these are regular users -- sailboaters, small power boat users Other Natural Attractions Bandelier Nat'l Monument 45 miles by road, (improved) 22 miles by cross-country trail CochitiPueblo reservation 6 miles SW natural geological formation Tent Rocks ghost towns, mining towns archaeological sites, which they with the Park Service try to protect, painted caves, historical sites Admission fee: .50 per person, 1.00 minimum, 2.50 maximum: camping 4.00 fee goes to Pueblo Boats cannot be rented for use on the lake, but Pueblo are planning to open a concession sometime in the next few years. Parking: in addition to parking in picnic and camping loops, there is parking on either side of the boat ramp and parking extending from the lake out which will accomodate 200 cars Swimming permitted at your own risk; there is no established beach Water-skiing forbidden because no-wake lake First Aid: Some first aid at the corps office town of Cochiti Lake has emergency medical team and ambulance service. Competition from other areas: Elephant Butte is about 200 miles south smaller, non-permanent lakes up north of the area KEN OPP GWC owns and operates marina and is responsible for maintenance under written Memorandum of Understanding. Eventually maintenance may pass back to the Pueblo-Cochiti Slips on the marina are available for $200 a season, money goes to GWC Courtesy dock is availabel through the army corps of engineer's boat ramp No eating facilities, no food store, no gas station Boat rental and eating facilities are being considered About 250 full-time residents of Cochiti Lake Camping facilities are available through GWC for residents. These are located not by the lake but up the hill from the lake. Cochiti Lake residents pay regular entrance fees for use of lake and park. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227 Albuquerque Journal Sports Desk: no information- in the words of the person on duty "We probably wrote something about it, but I don't remember when. II Suggested I call Chamber of Commerce. Chamber of Commerce: woman there had a pamphlet which she read from- gave admission fee: 50 per person 4.00 for trailer hook-up. She does not know who is in charge whether state, National Park or what. Did know there was camping, also said there was snorkling and swimming. Gave me address, suggested I write for more information. Address is simply Lake Cochiti and PO Box. I asked who put out the pamphlet- she replied there was no indication. Santa Fe New Mexican: No one at the sports desk. The person I talked to tried to get information from others. Says it is run by Pueblo-Cochiti, costs 1.00 to go swimming or "get down to the lake" but costs nothing to get in (in other words, no admission fee). He said that no boats can be rented there. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yznh0227

What is monthly company cost per student?

jxbx0227

jxbx0227_p0, jxbx0227_p1, jxbx0227_p2, jxbx0227_p3, jxbx0227_p4, jxbx0227_p5, jxbx0227_p6, jxbx0227_p7, jxbx0227_p8, jxbx0227_p9, jxbx0227_p10, jxbx0227_p11

$250

THE GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY INCREASED SUGARBEET ACREAGE PROPOSAL North Central Colorado District Northeast Colorado District Nebraska District Prepared By George Lapaseotes W. c. McGuffey October 17, 1973 Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 INDEX General Objectives, Assumptions, and Procedures 1-3 District Maps 4-6 District Objectives and Procedures 7 Development of New Areas 8 Development of Old Areas 9 Capital Requirements 10 Production Statistics. 11-13 Enclosures back Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy Fellowship Program Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 OBJECTIVE: Increase the acreage of sugar beets in the NCC, NEBR., and NEC Districts of the Company by assisting growers to expand their beet growing operation or establishing new growers to become specialized in beet production. Develop six 800 acre units under sprinkler irrigation in each of the three areas plus any old area combinations that can be realized. ASSUMPTIONS: I. Declining acreage is in part, a result of a greater demand of time, labor, capital, and management resources for beet production in relation to other crops (i.e., corn, beans, and brewing barley) . II. Economic competition from other crops this year has become a more dominant factor in the problem of maintaining beet acreage. III. The combination of the above makes it increasingly difficult to find growers willing to continue producing sugar beets or to generate replacements who will venture into beet production. The goal of this project is to search out and secure suitable land and individuals interested in growing beets on a special- ized basis. IV. The crux of the problem is people. The motivation, finance, technical assistance and rewards to the grower can be in part provided by The Great Western Sugar Company and should be of such magnitude to induce and keep people in the business. V. The average age of the beet grower is in the mid-fifties, and younger agri-business men have not been coming into the beet business in adequate numbers. VI. Corporate farming is the least desirable vector in producing beet acreage, although returns could be good but the Company would be assuming the maximum risk. A partnership or tenant arrangement to produce an incentive for growing beets is a better choice and our main objective. It should be understood, however, that weather can be the major factor between a profit and a loss. PROCEDURE: I. Survey the availability of land in both the old established beet growing areas and also the potential under the pivot sprinkler system. This land should be within a 40-50 mile radius ($1.50 truck freight) of a slicing factory. A. Land Availability. 1. Landowners inclination. a. Willing to raise beets himself. b. Wants beets but needs a tenant. C. Would like to have a partner. Source: https://www.industrydotements.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 2. Water supply. 3. Previous use of soil sterilants, i.e., (Atrazine). . 4. Quality of land. II. This project and survey to be coordinated by George Lapaseotes acting through the District Agricultural Managers and the Grower Service Centers (for NCC and NEBR. only) . A. Aerial plotting. B. Letter to prospective landowners. C. Personal interviews with landowners. III. Secure beet growers for land available. A. Contact all established beet growers desiring an expanded operation either in older beet growing districts or in a developing pivot sprinkler area. B. Contact and interview prospective new growers presently related to beet production (sons of growers, hired hands, etc.) or other agri-business types to create or determine if they have an interest in undertaking a beet production operation. c. Consider and allow a limited number of agriculturalists to enter beet production either on a full-time basis with the Company's support or in a part-time arrangement while fulfilling their present job responsibilities. Options: 1. Tenant grown. a. Existing growers. b. New young farmers. C. Agriculturalists. 2. Company grown. a. Service Centers. b. Agriculturalists or farm manager. 3. Company and Tenant Partnership grown. a. Beet growers. b. Service Center and/or agriculturalist. Source: https://www.industrydogt2ments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 C. Consider a contract with an agriculturalist to produce 1,000 acres of beets for a 3-5 year term on a 50/50 partnership basis. Salary all or in part to be paid by Company during this period. IV. Build beet receiving stations where appropriate to receive new tonnage developed from a minimum of 800 acres of beets. V. The Company must become involved in varying degrees in financial assistance to this select group of beet growers. A. Underwrite loans. B. Assist with machinery, chemicals, and cultural services through the Grower Service Center. C. Provide some limited man-power support via Grower Service Center personnel, student fellowship program and possible weekend work for the dump repair personnel (union - no Great Western involvement, they must work for the grower) VI. Financial Impact. Assumption: The goal of 14,000 acres increased beet production would provide $1,036,000 gross annual revenue to the Company (at $74/acre). Company financial support could amount to a minimum of $500,000 which is recoverable. Company financial capital improvements could amount to $348,000, plus $57,000 for fellowship arrangements, for a total of $405,000. A. It costs about $230/acre to produce a crop of beets. B. 800 acre operation ideal size for pivot sprinklers, and with production cost of $184,000 by the operator. (See detail in Statistical Section) -3- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 :edunos in is vigjuno (511) 28 >y other et 00V80103 products 0 o N : papor REMAYS said is 2 n usna nonucy 1 unjund speim 14 1 E BICKS jues it2 ivin tz SIPHARP! is so o 7VNC curs ayen 9: Apoca 1: < 3 12 su 9 individed pran oun puea S % 99 CR st energy EMOIN ved youy encourse ansent (1) I 87 3 e 1 2 9; ti SOI L9 unos - eyepas Cir sz aje8y CF Aaye 211 SJBIANOT Ja(ssey pues CO jeeg. (itt) 000M310N3 12 3 sueAg 83AN30 000 GE jungsens 1113 3083W1100 I bl : 01313 2 mospoom . 9C 9 25 2103 is N ) a o inek 12 NVO8OW 1803 suir, usnig 01 E M. sue] 80 PS ase , preubia ulpuer A evoluan SUEADE F.E ONYPJA. e PW FAY 12 op vosyper ejpesau ts 12 usjauso 1 d : HE 0 MaN , T N 3 0 my 12 3 12 11 ways out 12 , '0100 projector. 18 R 01 00:9 n 4 14 712 3NN3A3H3 C8 1 & a W ! X oe UC) JO purprised ,00.00 Ampiço o ,001-501 "sot- 6 8 L Kimball have Blutt. : CHEYENNE 11 liad 31 Carpenter VYOMING 6 1 85 Hereford - Vigink Date 1, is Carr Rockport (aller Grover "eather pas The Forks Livermore PAWNEE Dover 26 Owl Conyon EFTI Nunn use. [v.rikington heotar 14 form 17 CN. ERU. Fleming . linti HONAL Teds Place , Ft. Pierce Purcell 23 1: Pennoce this Station **** Belivõe Collins 2200 P 19 14 in 06 R Eaton Galeton FOREST Sererance Merino Windsor *Point Cin Masonville HRS 14. Rice. Blocks (1) (n) Estes Loveland Greeley Messex x , ", Uricin Evans 44 Hast 1, Wriden Campion La Shyder E Salle Lon Lane Harbse Berthoud Peckham I Print. is 6 1258 Sprint: Citcrest to 3) Franie Pare 65 (34 ons Wiggins Fort Brush But PSS ) TE Plattealle Morganl 11 it Akret 64 :one Hyde o Yuma - Raynond Longmont 54 Firectone Fort 12 Eckley T M Frederick Lupton Wray Lard ; Dacono x BOULDER Lafayette the 6 Anena bills. Brighton Wondrow 2 ville (e Vernon Mass Heartstrong 23 Broomfield V G T O N x F. SEE INSET MAP 63 Abart y e M A Thornton 44 ON REVERSE isand : Westminster DENVER 14 Golden Arva Aurora Last Wattins, 30 TRennett St. asburg 35 Chance 10 20 10 Anton am 36 6 36 Idalia 4 X Lindon 17 22 11 36 x 3 Byers DENVER Cape 59 563 Miles 10 Joes " 17 / " ST. JOSEPH MO. form - , ( 1E LOWHY BUMI it Crall Kark fr QHale Nursen Engl: Evergreen A li A : H 0 E Thurman x Littleton PANGE : 35 ", 83 suspen 31 71 DE Pk. Parker $ 10 Kass'er 25 n Sars Lodviers', - Agate ss Setal Foxton 25 Hilltop / A F Pine 401 287) B tialo (C)S ranktown ST 67 EL 4250 Estabrock Cr. 9 Elizabeth 15 ii. Burlington Castle Kiowa PIKE 1 1, B I Vora x Rock River Seicert NATL 16 Devil : 16 Bend EL 5280 Genoa Bovina 7 Arriba 11 42 Flagler - a III and FOR. need A 20 86 ¿Limon 2 14 Dechers 24 1. Kuhn's Crossiny 12427 Larkspur 24) Elbert o... 9 16 13 1. N C o L N Fondis Doby > Westcreck Palmer Simli Matheson | Hugo 21 Ware Lake os 0: Y ource ocumen its ucsf. 129 vi ANE RIDGE INDIAN K,le Maile Parmelee Edgement Cikids Patricia 18 o Igloo 2. .. to PORCUPINE INDIAN 52 . 18 is is A Cenne's St Francis Batesland P.r , , o 0 Ardmore is 18 S DAK o Mays.Je Miniteclar " (& 20 Nenzel Montrose Network Stote as :0 Orelia o is " 0 9 Vale e Chadron 2 el Gordon a Nom o Attine 20 Ci.nton 120 :- Marrisch` Fromation , 1 Rushville Oo 0 Hay Sprs the Andrews w lasse D 250 Simeon : Sake ite Gien 385 in 15 K E R Y a Kennedy 2° 8 Peters Saffe pade o u x D:- Dunfap 27 purt cke fer G. ", --- I. Gard i. s H E R I o A N Crarcth L 53 L Wells E: 2 L. l. A Prentice 385 ferea Ters LO a Joy 1. Long o , Cherry B o x 8 u E Lake Prior Yala Like the Walter L 0 Marah L LD Kuntrick TALLIANCE Jease L Stumy Cramp L : i D7 2° Elsworth Whitmar Hecla Seneca 7 Antioch Myarris Mullen 6 1.20 Binghim 2 9 Mitchell Like . 23 o 27 o 20 R.g. a G R A N T 335 T H SCOTTSBLUFF 5: H o o K E R S c o T T $ . 0 " 16 Gering fratare Orlaado R R : Bayard Lake G-Js McGraw o & a Acreport Glena le Saron L 47:8 TAree M: L Late Calera Bridgepert D E N Arther 72 - Flats MC P H E R S o N Farrisburz, 24 T H u R 21 92 Tryon A N € R Lisca Rinzgo' el 1.) Pena a Oshkosh i) Lewellen 97 - Pec Gast Lemoyne 27 E N N E Kirgsley Dom 27 Lake so dville 80 Muntsmon 26 Keystone . 2: K - M B A L' L Sidney Co'ton Sural NON odgepote " > o E U E L Chappell . 30 29 30 351 1 Re D,e burn L § Lorenza " 30 COLO 25 julisturg Peetz Sedgwick 61 887 F. 24 32 L - N c 3: is Creek € R * - N $ Dickens Grant 23 21 125 385 Madrid (is.e Tax Grainton Wallace Somerset 23 Brandon " " 33 60 North 2: Yenarge Wellfleet 25 Ne 12 2 Bickingham STERLING Hemp Haxtun Stonehom 14 co. 14 G Holyoke et : G tamar c H s E acalez 10.1112 Imperial is 6 . H A Y E Center Enders as (13) Chima, Wanneta 385 C E -6 - 6 1- - T c H c o et -Cutant o o Y Stratten Trenten l'u R i Sounce dusi Al /docul m Maz'st 2 NCC NEBR NEC OBJECTIVE: Increased acres of sugar beets for maintaining the existing five North Central Colorado factories, four Nebraska factories, and three Northeast Colorado factories. PROCEDURE: Bob Abrams - Project Leader - NCC Paul Blome - Project Leader - Nebraska Jim Gonyou - Project Leader - NEC Lay out the program procedure of how to increase sugar beet acreage and set a deadline of three weeks to contact all potential landowners of beet growing farms. The monetary investment valuation of this proposed program would approximate $405,600 and would be a big morale booster to the Agricultural Staff. It would also be designed to offer and allow an agriculturalist to leave the profession and enter the beet growing business, which could be underwritten by the Company. This should be done prior to growers' listing equipment for farm auctions and as soon after September 1st as possible because of terminations, present lease agreements, etc. In underwriting operating loans or the Company share of producing a beet crop, an additional $500,000 could be required on a short-term basis. The possibility of the two Service Centers entering into the growing of 500 or 600 acres of beets each should also be explored, and a man put in charge who is a potential manager or who has the capabilities of handling a large-scale farming operation. It may be possible to visit depressed beet growing areas such as Hardin, Montana, and Fremont County, Wyoming, to recruit young beet growers who no longer have the opportunity to grow beets. because of other companies' withdrawals from those particular areas. The plan would be to make the initial move to expand the larger acreage in the circle irrigation area east of the present NCC District and within a 40 mile radius of the Nebraska and NEC factories and presently known beet growing farms, but also to show dry land farmers that beets will pay for land faster and with more assurance than any other competitive crop that they can now grow; that beets are priced from year to year fairly consistently; and sell the other merits of the beet crop at small new grower educational meetings, breakfasts, dinners, etc. Housing and buildings may be a problem in recruiting a new, young grower in some of the dry land areas, but perhaps this could be solved by a willing landowner who would agree to include in his long-range plans the modernizing of an older house, construction of a shop, feed lots, etc. -7- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 DEVELOP NEW AREA ADDITIONAL BEET ACRES - NCC - NEBR - NEC 1. Conduct an aerial and land survey under the direction of the District Agricultural Manager to find out how many irrigated circles are within a 40 mile radius of any of our existing factories. 2. Determine how many total acres are available under sprinkler irrigation within this radius and how many acres cannot be immediately planted to beets because of atrazine, etc. 3. Example: 100 circles (per each District or 300 circles total) X 132 acres per circle = 13,200 acres : 1/2 = 6,600 acres a. Assumption: 40 mile radius truck freight route -- $1.50 per ton 4. Have Agricultural Managers talk to every landowner of the circles to see if the landowner: a. is interested in beets; b. is willing to raise beets himself; c. wants beets on his farm but needs a tenant; d. would like to have a partner in growing the crop. 5. Proposal: The Company will install an inland station for 800 acres. 6. Assumption: The Company would find six (per district, 18 - total) ambitious, young and energetic beet growers and/or interested agriculturalists who want to enter or expand an agricultural operation as specialized sugar beet growers. a. The Company would either finance or underwrite loans; b. The Company would provide each grower with one or two men, preferably college graduates or agriculturalists, on a basis similar to the fellowship program; C. Each grower in the program would specialize in six circles (780 acres) of beets, minimum; d. The Company would arrange to put the land package together, help with lease agreements, etc. 7. The Company would decide on and place the most outstanding field man to of serve the six growers per district, or 4,680 acres, regardless of the number factory districts in which the acreage is involved. Agriculturalist with minimum tillage experience preferred. 8. The Company would assist growers to obtain fertilizer and herbicides at a reduced cost. a. The Company would agree to offer temporary help to the grower with people from the dump repair crew or from some source in the factory during the grower's critical need, such as the two weeks of cultivating, weekend help, etc. 9. Run ads in papers which serve this area: "Beets wanted - Are you interested? - Call The Great Western Sugar Company" - Let farmers know we want them as growers. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 INCREASE ACRES IN OLD AREA ADDITIONAL BEET ACRES - NCC - NEBR - NEC 1. Agriculturalists to survey every non-beet-growing farm within the boundaries of the present factory districts. a. Agriculturalists will personally talk with every landowner where no beets are now grown; b. The Company will offer farm management service to the landowner to help him obtain an adjoining beet grower or a new beet grower, whichever the situation dictates; c. Encourage and sell farm management service to absentee landowners allowing field men and/or service centers to manage farms as agents with the Company being paid a fee for its service, the emphasis on beets for every farm, more money to the landowner and grower, thus more money to the Company. 2. Many growers are faced with a shortage of general farm labor, and if a man desires to raise more acres of beets and has a labor problem in being spread out too thin, then the Company would offer him a fellowship student, providing he grows 500 acres or more of beets. 3. Adopt a Company policy and provide as a service to all farmers in general a farm placement labor center with a headquarters at each of our factory locations. This service would aid and be a part of public relations and would cost the grower or the man being placed nothing. -9- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Additional equipment needed, ,at the Service Centers to enter sugar beet growing Platteville $ 66,000 Scottsbluff $ 6,000 $ 72,000 2.. Six Fellowship Students per district - 18 total (a) $250/month Company cost per student $19,200 per district per year $ 57,600 3. Establish three new Receiving Stations per district - nine total (a) 3 Scales $60,000 (b) 3 Land Sites 10 acres X $100/acre = $1,000 X 3 = $3,000 (c) Grade Sites $ 3,000 (d) Electrify Stations $10,000 (e) Transfer 3 Used Piles $ 6,000 (f) Upgrade 3 Used Piles $10,000 $92,000 Per District X 3 $276,000 TOTAL = $405,600 4. Short-Term Operating Money Estimated $500,000 PAYBACK If an acre of beets is worth $74.00 to the Company, then 5,500 additional acres of beets for the Company would pay for the $405,600 proposal. We': re assuming the Company would not lose any money out of the $500,000 for operating as short- term money in the long pull. NOTE: No interest is figured in the above numbers nor has any tax advantage been accounted for in the study. $74.00 derived by Financial Planning using curvilinear regression equations; based on present and estimated future pulp and sugar prices; normal acreage and a normal curve of 112 day campaign with a 10 day surrounding increment. -10- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227

what is the cost of new main Equipment only ?

jxbx0227

jxbx0227_p13, jxbx0227_p14, jxbx0227_p15, jxbx0227_p16, jxbx0227_p17, jxbx0227_p18, jxbx0227_p19

$124,000

EQUIPMENT TO RAISE 800 ACRES OF BEETS New Cost 3 - 4030 J.D. Tractors - $46,500 3 - 4 Bottom Plows - 7,800 2 - 14' Disks - 3,800 2 - Packer Mulchers - 2,400 2 - 12 Row Cultivators - 4,000 1 - 12 Row Beet Planter - 5,000 1 - 6 Row Top Saver - 7,500 2 - 3 Row Lifter Loaders - 22,000 3 - Trucks - 18' Box + Tag Axle - 24,000 1 - Broadcast Boom Sprayer - 1,000 NEW MAIN EQUIPMENT ONLY = $124,000 Misc. Hand Tools - Welder - Irrigat. - Cult. Tools - 2,000 $126,000 TO HANDLE 800 ACRES Hire or Lease 3 More Trucks at Harvest Possibly Lease 1 Tractor for 30 Days OR If you have 800 acres beets custom farmed - 800 acres X $230/acre = $184,000 EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS 1 - 6 Row Top Saver Can Top 40 Acres/Day 2 - 3 Row Lifter Loaders Can Lift 40 Acres/Day 6 Row Top Saver - $ 7,500 3 Row Lifter Loader - $11,000 6 Row Lifter Loader - $15,000 (3 Tons/Minute) 4030 J.D. Tractor - $15,500 4 Bottom Plow . - $ 2,600 14' Disk - $ 1,900 12 Row Beet Planter - $ 2,000 - 6 Row Cultivator + Tools - $ 3,000 Packer Mulcher 15' - $ 1,200 2 1/2 Ton Tag Axle Truck - $12,000 With Box and Hoist Source: Great Western Sugar Company TO: Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy August 22, 1973 Distribution List - J. Krentler G. Bogden R. Mally T. Army D. Dinkel R. Perkins R. Fisher R. Fertig D. Quinn C. lianing G. Gibson J. Van Wijk B. Phillips J. Gray M. Rebhan Dist. Gen. Mgrs. Each Factory Acctg. Office Dist. Agric. Mgrs. Asst. Dist. Agric. Mgrs. Dist. Acctg. Mgrs. Factory Agric. Mgrs. FROM: M. E. Rebhan SUBJECT: Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy (Supplement to General Credit Policy 4/25/72 Page #2, Item E) Attached is a formalized version of the generally unwritten policy that we have been operating under for several years. This policy has been approved at the appropriate management level and although there is no great need for it at this point in time it should be filed along with your General Credit Policy File referred to above. If you have any questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact John Gray or me. M. Roban MER:jb 3 attachments ASS Source: https:/www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 GROWER LOAN SPONSORSHIP POLICY General The program of Grower Loan Sponsorship is to promote beet acreage increase in Great Western Sugar and Northern Ohio Suger territories and to assist our growers in obtaining financial assistance on sugar beet crops when the grower's banking connections will not or cannot handle normal financing However, it is not the intent nor the desire of the Company to subsidize high risk growers or to compete with our local bankers in beet crop financing. The overall size of the Sponsorship Program (in dollars) as well as deviations, if any, from policy shall be determined annually by the V.P. Operations and the V.P. Finance. Unwillingness or inability of the grower's bank to handle normal financing may be due to (1) bank at legal limit for that grower and unable to interest a participating bank, (2) bank short of lendable funds, (3) bank unwilling for personal reasons to vork with the grower. Under the three foregoing categories the Company will merely assist the grower in finding normal financing at an alternative bank. In the grey area between normal and high risk financing, it may be necessary for the Company to offer a bank some inducement or sponsorship as described more fully in following paragraphs. Bank Loan Sponsorship Company sponsorship of an operating bank loan should not exceed 75% guaranty to the bank on any loss the bank might incur on such loan. A loss is recognized when the grower has liquidated all of his assets in settlement of business debts and has discontinued growing beets. If local banks have no problem under the three categories in Paragraph No. 3 above and are not agreeable to a 75% guaranty, there is every indication that the loan is too "high risk" for further consideration. Company sponsored loans, as indicated in the above paragraph, will cover only operating expenses related to a sugar beet crop. In unusual cases only, we will consider sponscring a beet equipment lcan guaranty covered by security agreement. Direct Loan Sponsorship If a financing bank cannot be provided with or without a 75% guaranty and the grower is not a definite "high risk", the V.P. of Finance may consider sponsorship through a direct factory accounts receivable loan. Such a loan would be subject to a First Mortgage Security Agreement and interest at First Naticnal City, N.Y.C. prime plus 1 1/2% on closing date and with due regard to local state interest rate maximums. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 Page 2. Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy Procedures A request for grower assistance shall originate in the Agricultural Department on our form entitled "Request to V.P. .Finance for Grower Financial- Assistance". The request and related support documents are to be forwarded progressively to the District Accounting Manager, District General Manager and V.P. Operations for review and concurrence in recommendation. It is the responsibility of the V.P. of Finance to approve or reject the request. If the request is approved, the V.P. of Finance will co-ordinate financing efforts supplying all prior signers of the document with progress reports. MER 8/22/73 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY REQUEST TO V.P. FINANCE FOR GROWER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Grower Phone ress Location of farm (receiving station) Bank (current or previous) Phone Bank/contact Number of acres if this request is filled If request is not filled Agriculturalist: (originator of this request) (name, address and phone) Reason for request (why not bankable) (Attach copy of balance sheet and operating statement. Also machinery list if any under this request.) Amount required under this request: Operating $ Equipment $ We recommend that Great Western Sugar Company provide finances or financial backing for this grower up to the amount specified and for the purposes listed. Dist.Acct.Mgr. Date Dist.Genl.Mgr. Date V.P.Operations Date Instructions: 1. Originated by Agriculturist, 4. Forward to V.P. Finance, 2. Review and recommendation by 5. V.P. Finance to instruct Dist. Acct.Mg District Personnel, with carbons to all concerned. 3. viver GreatWee Sungar Company GREAT WESTERN SUGAR FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM Letter of Understanding Great Western Sugar Company is initiating and coordinating a "Great Western Sugar Fellowship Program. " The purpose of this program is to improvise, coordinate and place into effect a system of expanding and improving farm management techno- logy. In this connection, Great Western Sugar Company will cooperate with Colorado State University, other state universities, progressive sugarbeet growers, and graduates to provide an opportunity for these graduates to enter into or share in farm management positions. Col. To effectuate this program, the below signed graduate of Pennsylvania State Uni- versity, the grower and Great Western Sugar Company have entered into this Letter of Understanding to set forth the agreement reached between the below signed parties to this Letter, of Understanding. The graduate will be employed by and work with the below signed grower at the grower's farm or farms. The grower will pay the graduate $450 per month and will employ the graduate for the period of this agreement, which will extend for a duration of two (2) years from the date hereof. The aim of this relationship will be to develop a viable partnership and/or an expansion and sharing of opportunities in farming operations. Great Western Sugar Company will cooperate with the grower and furnish information which will help improve his farm management techniques with the intent that he will be able to expand his acreage and develop a more productive farm.operation. The grower agrees to plant at least 25 percent of irrigated land under his control in sugarbeets. Great Western Sugar Company agrees to give to the graduate, for the period of time he is employed by the grower under this, agreement, the sum of $250 per month. This money will be the graduate's and the graduate will be responsible for applicable taxes on this amount. The Sugar Company is giving this money to the graduate and the graduate in no sense will be employed by the Sugar Company and will owe no legal obligation to the Sugar Company. It is understood that any of the parties hereto may cancel this agreement at any time, and the obligations under this agreement will cease as of the time of cancellation. In the event the graduate is the party who desires to cancel the agreement, the Sugar Company will use its best efforts to attempt to find another graduate to participate in this agreement. By their below placed signatures, the three parties agree to the broad outlines contained in this Letter of Understanding and will conduct themselves accordingly. GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY By (Graduate) (Grower) Source: https:l//www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227

How much is the short term operating money estimated?

jxbx0227

jxbx0227_p0, jxbx0227_p1, jxbx0227_p2, jxbx0227_p3, jxbx0227_p4, jxbx0227_p5, jxbx0227_p6, jxbx0227_p7, jxbx0227_p8, jxbx0227_p9, jxbx0227_p10, jxbx0227_p11

$500,000

THE GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY INCREASED SUGARBEET ACREAGE PROPOSAL North Central Colorado District Northeast Colorado District Nebraska District Prepared By George Lapaseotes W. c. McGuffey October 17, 1973 Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 INDEX General Objectives, Assumptions, and Procedures 1-3 District Maps 4-6 District Objectives and Procedures 7 Development of New Areas 8 Development of Old Areas 9 Capital Requirements 10 Production Statistics. 11-13 Enclosures back Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy Fellowship Program Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 OBJECTIVE: Increase the acreage of sugar beets in the NCC, NEBR., and NEC Districts of the Company by assisting growers to expand their beet growing operation or establishing new growers to become specialized in beet production. Develop six 800 acre units under sprinkler irrigation in each of the three areas plus any old area combinations that can be realized. ASSUMPTIONS: I. Declining acreage is in part, a result of a greater demand of time, labor, capital, and management resources for beet production in relation to other crops (i.e., corn, beans, and brewing barley) . II. Economic competition from other crops this year has become a more dominant factor in the problem of maintaining beet acreage. III. The combination of the above makes it increasingly difficult to find growers willing to continue producing sugar beets or to generate replacements who will venture into beet production. The goal of this project is to search out and secure suitable land and individuals interested in growing beets on a special- ized basis. IV. The crux of the problem is people. The motivation, finance, technical assistance and rewards to the grower can be in part provided by The Great Western Sugar Company and should be of such magnitude to induce and keep people in the business. V. The average age of the beet grower is in the mid-fifties, and younger agri-business men have not been coming into the beet business in adequate numbers. VI. Corporate farming is the least desirable vector in producing beet acreage, although returns could be good but the Company would be assuming the maximum risk. A partnership or tenant arrangement to produce an incentive for growing beets is a better choice and our main objective. It should be understood, however, that weather can be the major factor between a profit and a loss. PROCEDURE: I. Survey the availability of land in both the old established beet growing areas and also the potential under the pivot sprinkler system. This land should be within a 40-50 mile radius ($1.50 truck freight) of a slicing factory. A. Land Availability. 1. Landowners inclination. a. Willing to raise beets himself. b. Wants beets but needs a tenant. C. Would like to have a partner. Source: https://www.industrydotements.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 2. Water supply. 3. Previous use of soil sterilants, i.e., (Atrazine). . 4. Quality of land. II. This project and survey to be coordinated by George Lapaseotes acting through the District Agricultural Managers and the Grower Service Centers (for NCC and NEBR. only) . A. Aerial plotting. B. Letter to prospective landowners. C. Personal interviews with landowners. III. Secure beet growers for land available. A. Contact all established beet growers desiring an expanded operation either in older beet growing districts or in a developing pivot sprinkler area. B. Contact and interview prospective new growers presently related to beet production (sons of growers, hired hands, etc.) or other agri-business types to create or determine if they have an interest in undertaking a beet production operation. c. Consider and allow a limited number of agriculturalists to enter beet production either on a full-time basis with the Company's support or in a part-time arrangement while fulfilling their present job responsibilities. Options: 1. Tenant grown. a. Existing growers. b. New young farmers. C. Agriculturalists. 2. Company grown. a. Service Centers. b. Agriculturalists or farm manager. 3. Company and Tenant Partnership grown. a. Beet growers. b. Service Center and/or agriculturalist. Source: https://www.industrydogt2ments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 C. Consider a contract with an agriculturalist to produce 1,000 acres of beets for a 3-5 year term on a 50/50 partnership basis. Salary all or in part to be paid by Company during this period. IV. Build beet receiving stations where appropriate to receive new tonnage developed from a minimum of 800 acres of beets. V. The Company must become involved in varying degrees in financial assistance to this select group of beet growers. A. Underwrite loans. B. Assist with machinery, chemicals, and cultural services through the Grower Service Center. C. Provide some limited man-power support via Grower Service Center personnel, student fellowship program and possible weekend work for the dump repair personnel (union - no Great Western involvement, they must work for the grower) VI. Financial Impact. Assumption: The goal of 14,000 acres increased beet production would provide $1,036,000 gross annual revenue to the Company (at $74/acre). Company financial support could amount to a minimum of $500,000 which is recoverable. Company financial capital improvements could amount to $348,000, plus $57,000 for fellowship arrangements, for a total of $405,000. A. It costs about $230/acre to produce a crop of beets. B. 800 acre operation ideal size for pivot sprinklers, and with production cost of $184,000 by the operator. (See detail in Statistical Section) -3- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 :edunos in is vigjuno (511) 28 >y other et 00V80103 products 0 o N : papor REMAYS said is 2 n usna nonucy 1 unjund speim 14 1 E BICKS jues it2 ivin tz SIPHARP! is so o 7VNC curs ayen 9: Apoca 1: < 3 12 su 9 individed pran oun puea S % 99 CR st energy EMOIN ved youy encourse ansent (1) I 87 3 e 1 2 9; ti SOI L9 unos - eyepas Cir sz aje8y CF Aaye 211 SJBIANOT Ja(ssey pues CO jeeg. (itt) 000M310N3 12 3 sueAg 83AN30 000 GE jungsens 1113 3083W1100 I bl : 01313 2 mospoom . 9C 9 25 2103 is N ) a o inek 12 NVO8OW 1803 suir, usnig 01 E M. sue] 80 PS ase , preubia ulpuer A evoluan SUEADE F.E ONYPJA. e PW FAY 12 op vosyper ejpesau ts 12 usjauso 1 d : HE 0 MaN , T N 3 0 my 12 3 12 11 ways out 12 , '0100 projector. 18 R 01 00:9 n 4 14 712 3NN3A3H3 C8 1 & a W ! X oe UC) JO purprised ,00.00 Ampiço o ,001-501 "sot- 6 8 L Kimball have Blutt. : CHEYENNE 11 liad 31 Carpenter VYOMING 6 1 85 Hereford - Vigink Date 1, is Carr Rockport (aller Grover "eather pas The Forks Livermore PAWNEE Dover 26 Owl Conyon EFTI Nunn use. [v.rikington heotar 14 form 17 CN. ERU. Fleming . linti HONAL Teds Place , Ft. Pierce Purcell 23 1: Pennoce this Station **** Belivõe Collins 2200 P 19 14 in 06 R Eaton Galeton FOREST Sererance Merino Windsor *Point Cin Masonville HRS 14. Rice. Blocks (1) (n) Estes Loveland Greeley Messex x , ", Uricin Evans 44 Hast 1, Wriden Campion La Shyder E Salle Lon Lane Harbse Berthoud Peckham I Print. is 6 1258 Sprint: Citcrest to 3) Franie Pare 65 (34 ons Wiggins Fort Brush But PSS ) TE Plattealle Morganl 11 it Akret 64 :one Hyde o Yuma - Raynond Longmont 54 Firectone Fort 12 Eckley T M Frederick Lupton Wray Lard ; Dacono x BOULDER Lafayette the 6 Anena bills. Brighton Wondrow 2 ville (e Vernon Mass Heartstrong 23 Broomfield V G T O N x F. SEE INSET MAP 63 Abart y e M A Thornton 44 ON REVERSE isand : Westminster DENVER 14 Golden Arva Aurora Last Wattins, 30 TRennett St. asburg 35 Chance 10 20 10 Anton am 36 6 36 Idalia 4 X Lindon 17 22 11 36 x 3 Byers DENVER Cape 59 563 Miles 10 Joes " 17 / " ST. JOSEPH MO. form - , ( 1E LOWHY BUMI it Crall Kark fr QHale Nursen Engl: Evergreen A li A : H 0 E Thurman x Littleton PANGE : 35 ", 83 suspen 31 71 DE Pk. Parker $ 10 Kass'er 25 n Sars Lodviers', - Agate ss Setal Foxton 25 Hilltop / A F Pine 401 287) B tialo (C)S ranktown ST 67 EL 4250 Estabrock Cr. 9 Elizabeth 15 ii. Burlington Castle Kiowa PIKE 1 1, B I Vora x Rock River Seicert NATL 16 Devil : 16 Bend EL 5280 Genoa Bovina 7 Arriba 11 42 Flagler - a III and FOR. need A 20 86 ¿Limon 2 14 Dechers 24 1. Kuhn's Crossiny 12427 Larkspur 24) Elbert o... 9 16 13 1. N C o L N Fondis Doby > Westcreck Palmer Simli Matheson | Hugo 21 Ware Lake os 0: Y ource ocumen its ucsf. 129 vi ANE RIDGE INDIAN K,le Maile Parmelee Edgement Cikids Patricia 18 o Igloo 2. .. to PORCUPINE INDIAN 52 . 18 is is A Cenne's St Francis Batesland P.r , , o 0 Ardmore is 18 S DAK o Mays.Je Miniteclar " (& 20 Nenzel Montrose Network Stote as :0 Orelia o is " 0 9 Vale e Chadron 2 el Gordon a Nom o Attine 20 Ci.nton 120 :- Marrisch` Fromation , 1 Rushville Oo 0 Hay Sprs the Andrews w lasse D 250 Simeon : Sake ite Gien 385 in 15 K E R Y a Kennedy 2° 8 Peters Saffe pade o u x D:- Dunfap 27 purt cke fer G. ", --- I. Gard i. s H E R I o A N Crarcth L 53 L Wells E: 2 L. l. A Prentice 385 ferea Ters LO a Joy 1. Long o , Cherry B o x 8 u E Lake Prior Yala Like the Walter L 0 Marah L LD Kuntrick TALLIANCE Jease L Stumy Cramp L : i D7 2° Elsworth Whitmar Hecla Seneca 7 Antioch Myarris Mullen 6 1.20 Binghim 2 9 Mitchell Like . 23 o 27 o 20 R.g. a G R A N T 335 T H SCOTTSBLUFF 5: H o o K E R S c o T T $ . 0 " 16 Gering fratare Orlaado R R : Bayard Lake G-Js McGraw o & a Acreport Glena le Saron L 47:8 TAree M: L Late Calera Bridgepert D E N Arther 72 - Flats MC P H E R S o N Farrisburz, 24 T H u R 21 92 Tryon A N € R Lisca Rinzgo' el 1.) Pena a Oshkosh i) Lewellen 97 - Pec Gast Lemoyne 27 E N N E Kirgsley Dom 27 Lake so dville 80 Muntsmon 26 Keystone . 2: K - M B A L' L Sidney Co'ton Sural NON odgepote " > o E U E L Chappell . 30 29 30 351 1 Re D,e burn L § Lorenza " 30 COLO 25 julisturg Peetz Sedgwick 61 887 F. 24 32 L - N c 3: is Creek € R * - N $ Dickens Grant 23 21 125 385 Madrid (is.e Tax Grainton Wallace Somerset 23 Brandon " " 33 60 North 2: Yenarge Wellfleet 25 Ne 12 2 Bickingham STERLING Hemp Haxtun Stonehom 14 co. 14 G Holyoke et : G tamar c H s E acalez 10.1112 Imperial is 6 . H A Y E Center Enders as (13) Chima, Wanneta 385 C E -6 - 6 1- - T c H c o et -Cutant o o Y Stratten Trenten l'u R i Sounce dusi Al /docul m Maz'st 2 NCC NEBR NEC OBJECTIVE: Increased acres of sugar beets for maintaining the existing five North Central Colorado factories, four Nebraska factories, and three Northeast Colorado factories. PROCEDURE: Bob Abrams - Project Leader - NCC Paul Blome - Project Leader - Nebraska Jim Gonyou - Project Leader - NEC Lay out the program procedure of how to increase sugar beet acreage and set a deadline of three weeks to contact all potential landowners of beet growing farms. The monetary investment valuation of this proposed program would approximate $405,600 and would be a big morale booster to the Agricultural Staff. It would also be designed to offer and allow an agriculturalist to leave the profession and enter the beet growing business, which could be underwritten by the Company. This should be done prior to growers' listing equipment for farm auctions and as soon after September 1st as possible because of terminations, present lease agreements, etc. In underwriting operating loans or the Company share of producing a beet crop, an additional $500,000 could be required on a short-term basis. The possibility of the two Service Centers entering into the growing of 500 or 600 acres of beets each should also be explored, and a man put in charge who is a potential manager or who has the capabilities of handling a large-scale farming operation. It may be possible to visit depressed beet growing areas such as Hardin, Montana, and Fremont County, Wyoming, to recruit young beet growers who no longer have the opportunity to grow beets. because of other companies' withdrawals from those particular areas. The plan would be to make the initial move to expand the larger acreage in the circle irrigation area east of the present NCC District and within a 40 mile radius of the Nebraska and NEC factories and presently known beet growing farms, but also to show dry land farmers that beets will pay for land faster and with more assurance than any other competitive crop that they can now grow; that beets are priced from year to year fairly consistently; and sell the other merits of the beet crop at small new grower educational meetings, breakfasts, dinners, etc. Housing and buildings may be a problem in recruiting a new, young grower in some of the dry land areas, but perhaps this could be solved by a willing landowner who would agree to include in his long-range plans the modernizing of an older house, construction of a shop, feed lots, etc. -7- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 DEVELOP NEW AREA ADDITIONAL BEET ACRES - NCC - NEBR - NEC 1. Conduct an aerial and land survey under the direction of the District Agricultural Manager to find out how many irrigated circles are within a 40 mile radius of any of our existing factories. 2. Determine how many total acres are available under sprinkler irrigation within this radius and how many acres cannot be immediately planted to beets because of atrazine, etc. 3. Example: 100 circles (per each District or 300 circles total) X 132 acres per circle = 13,200 acres : 1/2 = 6,600 acres a. Assumption: 40 mile radius truck freight route -- $1.50 per ton 4. Have Agricultural Managers talk to every landowner of the circles to see if the landowner: a. is interested in beets; b. is willing to raise beets himself; c. wants beets on his farm but needs a tenant; d. would like to have a partner in growing the crop. 5. Proposal: The Company will install an inland station for 800 acres. 6. Assumption: The Company would find six (per district, 18 - total) ambitious, young and energetic beet growers and/or interested agriculturalists who want to enter or expand an agricultural operation as specialized sugar beet growers. a. The Company would either finance or underwrite loans; b. The Company would provide each grower with one or two men, preferably college graduates or agriculturalists, on a basis similar to the fellowship program; C. Each grower in the program would specialize in six circles (780 acres) of beets, minimum; d. The Company would arrange to put the land package together, help with lease agreements, etc. 7. The Company would decide on and place the most outstanding field man to of serve the six growers per district, or 4,680 acres, regardless of the number factory districts in which the acreage is involved. Agriculturalist with minimum tillage experience preferred. 8. The Company would assist growers to obtain fertilizer and herbicides at a reduced cost. a. The Company would agree to offer temporary help to the grower with people from the dump repair crew or from some source in the factory during the grower's critical need, such as the two weeks of cultivating, weekend help, etc. 9. Run ads in papers which serve this area: "Beets wanted - Are you interested? - Call The Great Western Sugar Company" - Let farmers know we want them as growers. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 INCREASE ACRES IN OLD AREA ADDITIONAL BEET ACRES - NCC - NEBR - NEC 1. Agriculturalists to survey every non-beet-growing farm within the boundaries of the present factory districts. a. Agriculturalists will personally talk with every landowner where no beets are now grown; b. The Company will offer farm management service to the landowner to help him obtain an adjoining beet grower or a new beet grower, whichever the situation dictates; c. Encourage and sell farm management service to absentee landowners allowing field men and/or service centers to manage farms as agents with the Company being paid a fee for its service, the emphasis on beets for every farm, more money to the landowner and grower, thus more money to the Company. 2. Many growers are faced with a shortage of general farm labor, and if a man desires to raise more acres of beets and has a labor problem in being spread out too thin, then the Company would offer him a fellowship student, providing he grows 500 acres or more of beets. 3. Adopt a Company policy and provide as a service to all farmers in general a farm placement labor center with a headquarters at each of our factory locations. This service would aid and be a part of public relations and would cost the grower or the man being placed nothing. -9- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Additional equipment needed, ,at the Service Centers to enter sugar beet growing Platteville $ 66,000 Scottsbluff $ 6,000 $ 72,000 2.. Six Fellowship Students per district - 18 total (a) $250/month Company cost per student $19,200 per district per year $ 57,600 3. Establish three new Receiving Stations per district - nine total (a) 3 Scales $60,000 (b) 3 Land Sites 10 acres X $100/acre = $1,000 X 3 = $3,000 (c) Grade Sites $ 3,000 (d) Electrify Stations $10,000 (e) Transfer 3 Used Piles $ 6,000 (f) Upgrade 3 Used Piles $10,000 $92,000 Per District X 3 $276,000 TOTAL = $405,600 4. Short-Term Operating Money Estimated $500,000 PAYBACK If an acre of beets is worth $74.00 to the Company, then 5,500 additional acres of beets for the Company would pay for the $405,600 proposal. We': re assuming the Company would not lose any money out of the $500,000 for operating as short- term money in the long pull. NOTE: No interest is figured in the above numbers nor has any tax advantage been accounted for in the study. $74.00 derived by Financial Planning using curvilinear regression equations; based on present and estimated future pulp and sugar prices; normal acreage and a normal curve of 112 day campaign with a 10 day surrounding increment. -10- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227

To handle 800 Acres how many more trucks need to be hired or taken for lease ?

jxbx0227

jxbx0227_p13, jxbx0227_p14, jxbx0227_p15, jxbx0227_p16, jxbx0227_p17, jxbx0227_p18, jxbx0227_p19

3

EQUIPMENT TO RAISE 800 ACRES OF BEETS New Cost 3 - 4030 J.D. Tractors - $46,500 3 - 4 Bottom Plows - 7,800 2 - 14' Disks - 3,800 2 - Packer Mulchers - 2,400 2 - 12 Row Cultivators - 4,000 1 - 12 Row Beet Planter - 5,000 1 - 6 Row Top Saver - 7,500 2 - 3 Row Lifter Loaders - 22,000 3 - Trucks - 18' Box + Tag Axle - 24,000 1 - Broadcast Boom Sprayer - 1,000 NEW MAIN EQUIPMENT ONLY = $124,000 Misc. Hand Tools - Welder - Irrigat. - Cult. Tools - 2,000 $126,000 TO HANDLE 800 ACRES Hire or Lease 3 More Trucks at Harvest Possibly Lease 1 Tractor for 30 Days OR If you have 800 acres beets custom farmed - 800 acres X $230/acre = $184,000 EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS 1 - 6 Row Top Saver Can Top 40 Acres/Day 2 - 3 Row Lifter Loaders Can Lift 40 Acres/Day 6 Row Top Saver - $ 7,500 3 Row Lifter Loader - $11,000 6 Row Lifter Loader - $15,000 (3 Tons/Minute) 4030 J.D. Tractor - $15,500 4 Bottom Plow . - $ 2,600 14' Disk - $ 1,900 12 Row Beet Planter - $ 2,000 - 6 Row Cultivator + Tools - $ 3,000 Packer Mulcher 15' - $ 1,200 2 1/2 Ton Tag Axle Truck - $12,000 With Box and Hoist Source: Great Western Sugar Company TO: Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy August 22, 1973 Distribution List - J. Krentler G. Bogden R. Mally T. Army D. Dinkel R. Perkins R. Fisher R. Fertig D. Quinn C. lianing G. Gibson J. Van Wijk B. Phillips J. Gray M. Rebhan Dist. Gen. Mgrs. Each Factory Acctg. Office Dist. Agric. Mgrs. Asst. Dist. Agric. Mgrs. Dist. Acctg. Mgrs. Factory Agric. Mgrs. FROM: M. E. Rebhan SUBJECT: Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy (Supplement to General Credit Policy 4/25/72 Page #2, Item E) Attached is a formalized version of the generally unwritten policy that we have been operating under for several years. This policy has been approved at the appropriate management level and although there is no great need for it at this point in time it should be filed along with your General Credit Policy File referred to above. If you have any questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact John Gray or me. M. Roban MER:jb 3 attachments ASS Source: https:/www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 GROWER LOAN SPONSORSHIP POLICY General The program of Grower Loan Sponsorship is to promote beet acreage increase in Great Western Sugar and Northern Ohio Suger territories and to assist our growers in obtaining financial assistance on sugar beet crops when the grower's banking connections will not or cannot handle normal financing However, it is not the intent nor the desire of the Company to subsidize high risk growers or to compete with our local bankers in beet crop financing. The overall size of the Sponsorship Program (in dollars) as well as deviations, if any, from policy shall be determined annually by the V.P. Operations and the V.P. Finance. Unwillingness or inability of the grower's bank to handle normal financing may be due to (1) bank at legal limit for that grower and unable to interest a participating bank, (2) bank short of lendable funds, (3) bank unwilling for personal reasons to vork with the grower. Under the three foregoing categories the Company will merely assist the grower in finding normal financing at an alternative bank. In the grey area between normal and high risk financing, it may be necessary for the Company to offer a bank some inducement or sponsorship as described more fully in following paragraphs. Bank Loan Sponsorship Company sponsorship of an operating bank loan should not exceed 75% guaranty to the bank on any loss the bank might incur on such loan. A loss is recognized when the grower has liquidated all of his assets in settlement of business debts and has discontinued growing beets. If local banks have no problem under the three categories in Paragraph No. 3 above and are not agreeable to a 75% guaranty, there is every indication that the loan is too "high risk" for further consideration. Company sponsored loans, as indicated in the above paragraph, will cover only operating expenses related to a sugar beet crop. In unusual cases only, we will consider sponscring a beet equipment lcan guaranty covered by security agreement. Direct Loan Sponsorship If a financing bank cannot be provided with or without a 75% guaranty and the grower is not a definite "high risk", the V.P. of Finance may consider sponsorship through a direct factory accounts receivable loan. Such a loan would be subject to a First Mortgage Security Agreement and interest at First Naticnal City, N.Y.C. prime plus 1 1/2% on closing date and with due regard to local state interest rate maximums. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 Page 2. Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy Procedures A request for grower assistance shall originate in the Agricultural Department on our form entitled "Request to V.P. .Finance for Grower Financial- Assistance". The request and related support documents are to be forwarded progressively to the District Accounting Manager, District General Manager and V.P. Operations for review and concurrence in recommendation. It is the responsibility of the V.P. of Finance to approve or reject the request. If the request is approved, the V.P. of Finance will co-ordinate financing efforts supplying all prior signers of the document with progress reports. MER 8/22/73 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY REQUEST TO V.P. FINANCE FOR GROWER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Grower Phone ress Location of farm (receiving station) Bank (current or previous) Phone Bank/contact Number of acres if this request is filled If request is not filled Agriculturalist: (originator of this request) (name, address and phone) Reason for request (why not bankable) (Attach copy of balance sheet and operating statement. Also machinery list if any under this request.) Amount required under this request: Operating $ Equipment $ We recommend that Great Western Sugar Company provide finances or financial backing for this grower up to the amount specified and for the purposes listed. Dist.Acct.Mgr. Date Dist.Genl.Mgr. Date V.P.Operations Date Instructions: 1. Originated by Agriculturist, 4. Forward to V.P. Finance, 2. Review and recommendation by 5. V.P. Finance to instruct Dist. Acct.Mg District Personnel, with carbons to all concerned. 3. viver GreatWee Sungar Company GREAT WESTERN SUGAR FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM Letter of Understanding Great Western Sugar Company is initiating and coordinating a "Great Western Sugar Fellowship Program. " The purpose of this program is to improvise, coordinate and place into effect a system of expanding and improving farm management techno- logy. In this connection, Great Western Sugar Company will cooperate with Colorado State University, other state universities, progressive sugarbeet growers, and graduates to provide an opportunity for these graduates to enter into or share in farm management positions. Col. To effectuate this program, the below signed graduate of Pennsylvania State Uni- versity, the grower and Great Western Sugar Company have entered into this Letter of Understanding to set forth the agreement reached between the below signed parties to this Letter, of Understanding. The graduate will be employed by and work with the below signed grower at the grower's farm or farms. The grower will pay the graduate $450 per month and will employ the graduate for the period of this agreement, which will extend for a duration of two (2) years from the date hereof. The aim of this relationship will be to develop a viable partnership and/or an expansion and sharing of opportunities in farming operations. Great Western Sugar Company will cooperate with the grower and furnish information which will help improve his farm management techniques with the intent that he will be able to expand his acreage and develop a more productive farm.operation. The grower agrees to plant at least 25 percent of irrigated land under his control in sugarbeets. Great Western Sugar Company agrees to give to the graduate, for the period of time he is employed by the grower under this, agreement, the sum of $250 per month. This money will be the graduate's and the graduate will be responsible for applicable taxes on this amount. The Sugar Company is giving this money to the graduate and the graduate in no sense will be employed by the Sugar Company and will owe no legal obligation to the Sugar Company. It is understood that any of the parties hereto may cancel this agreement at any time, and the obligations under this agreement will cease as of the time of cancellation. In the event the graduate is the party who desires to cancel the agreement, the Sugar Company will use its best efforts to attempt to find another graduate to participate in this agreement. By their below placed signatures, the three parties agree to the broad outlines contained in this Letter of Understanding and will conduct themselves accordingly. GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY By (Graduate) (Grower) Source: https:l//www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227

How many fellowship students per district?

jxbx0227

jxbx0227_p0, jxbx0227_p1, jxbx0227_p2, jxbx0227_p3, jxbx0227_p4, jxbx0227_p5, jxbx0227_p6, jxbx0227_p7, jxbx0227_p8, jxbx0227_p9, jxbx0227_p10, jxbx0227_p11

Six, SIX

THE GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY INCREASED SUGARBEET ACREAGE PROPOSAL North Central Colorado District Northeast Colorado District Nebraska District Prepared By George Lapaseotes W. c. McGuffey October 17, 1973 Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 INDEX General Objectives, Assumptions, and Procedures 1-3 District Maps 4-6 District Objectives and Procedures 7 Development of New Areas 8 Development of Old Areas 9 Capital Requirements 10 Production Statistics. 11-13 Enclosures back Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy Fellowship Program Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 OBJECTIVE: Increase the acreage of sugar beets in the NCC, NEBR., and NEC Districts of the Company by assisting growers to expand their beet growing operation or establishing new growers to become specialized in beet production. Develop six 800 acre units under sprinkler irrigation in each of the three areas plus any old area combinations that can be realized. ASSUMPTIONS: I. Declining acreage is in part, a result of a greater demand of time, labor, capital, and management resources for beet production in relation to other crops (i.e., corn, beans, and brewing barley) . II. Economic competition from other crops this year has become a more dominant factor in the problem of maintaining beet acreage. III. The combination of the above makes it increasingly difficult to find growers willing to continue producing sugar beets or to generate replacements who will venture into beet production. The goal of this project is to search out and secure suitable land and individuals interested in growing beets on a special- ized basis. IV. The crux of the problem is people. The motivation, finance, technical assistance and rewards to the grower can be in part provided by The Great Western Sugar Company and should be of such magnitude to induce and keep people in the business. V. The average age of the beet grower is in the mid-fifties, and younger agri-business men have not been coming into the beet business in adequate numbers. VI. Corporate farming is the least desirable vector in producing beet acreage, although returns could be good but the Company would be assuming the maximum risk. A partnership or tenant arrangement to produce an incentive for growing beets is a better choice and our main objective. It should be understood, however, that weather can be the major factor between a profit and a loss. PROCEDURE: I. Survey the availability of land in both the old established beet growing areas and also the potential under the pivot sprinkler system. This land should be within a 40-50 mile radius ($1.50 truck freight) of a slicing factory. A. Land Availability. 1. Landowners inclination. a. Willing to raise beets himself. b. Wants beets but needs a tenant. C. Would like to have a partner. Source: https://www.industrydotements.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 2. Water supply. 3. Previous use of soil sterilants, i.e., (Atrazine). . 4. Quality of land. II. This project and survey to be coordinated by George Lapaseotes acting through the District Agricultural Managers and the Grower Service Centers (for NCC and NEBR. only) . A. Aerial plotting. B. Letter to prospective landowners. C. Personal interviews with landowners. III. Secure beet growers for land available. A. Contact all established beet growers desiring an expanded operation either in older beet growing districts or in a developing pivot sprinkler area. B. Contact and interview prospective new growers presently related to beet production (sons of growers, hired hands, etc.) or other agri-business types to create or determine if they have an interest in undertaking a beet production operation. c. Consider and allow a limited number of agriculturalists to enter beet production either on a full-time basis with the Company's support or in a part-time arrangement while fulfilling their present job responsibilities. Options: 1. Tenant grown. a. Existing growers. b. New young farmers. C. Agriculturalists. 2. Company grown. a. Service Centers. b. Agriculturalists or farm manager. 3. Company and Tenant Partnership grown. a. Beet growers. b. Service Center and/or agriculturalist. Source: https://www.industrydogt2ments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 C. Consider a contract with an agriculturalist to produce 1,000 acres of beets for a 3-5 year term on a 50/50 partnership basis. Salary all or in part to be paid by Company during this period. IV. Build beet receiving stations where appropriate to receive new tonnage developed from a minimum of 800 acres of beets. V. The Company must become involved in varying degrees in financial assistance to this select group of beet growers. A. Underwrite loans. B. Assist with machinery, chemicals, and cultural services through the Grower Service Center. C. Provide some limited man-power support via Grower Service Center personnel, student fellowship program and possible weekend work for the dump repair personnel (union - no Great Western involvement, they must work for the grower) VI. Financial Impact. Assumption: The goal of 14,000 acres increased beet production would provide $1,036,000 gross annual revenue to the Company (at $74/acre). Company financial support could amount to a minimum of $500,000 which is recoverable. Company financial capital improvements could amount to $348,000, plus $57,000 for fellowship arrangements, for a total of $405,000. A. It costs about $230/acre to produce a crop of beets. B. 800 acre operation ideal size for pivot sprinklers, and with production cost of $184,000 by the operator. (See detail in Statistical Section) -3- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 :edunos in is vigjuno (511) 28 >y other et 00V80103 products 0 o N : papor REMAYS said is 2 n usna nonucy 1 unjund speim 14 1 E BICKS jues it2 ivin tz SIPHARP! is so o 7VNC curs ayen 9: Apoca 1: < 3 12 su 9 individed pran oun puea S % 99 CR st energy EMOIN ved youy encourse ansent (1) I 87 3 e 1 2 9; ti SOI L9 unos - eyepas Cir sz aje8y CF Aaye 211 SJBIANOT Ja(ssey pues CO jeeg. (itt) 000M310N3 12 3 sueAg 83AN30 000 GE jungsens 1113 3083W1100 I bl : 01313 2 mospoom . 9C 9 25 2103 is N ) a o inek 12 NVO8OW 1803 suir, usnig 01 E M. sue] 80 PS ase , preubia ulpuer A evoluan SUEADE F.E ONYPJA. e PW FAY 12 op vosyper ejpesau ts 12 usjauso 1 d : HE 0 MaN , T N 3 0 my 12 3 12 11 ways out 12 , '0100 projector. 18 R 01 00:9 n 4 14 712 3NN3A3H3 C8 1 & a W ! X oe UC) JO purprised ,00.00 Ampiço o ,001-501 "sot- 6 8 L Kimball have Blutt. : CHEYENNE 11 liad 31 Carpenter VYOMING 6 1 85 Hereford - Vigink Date 1, is Carr Rockport (aller Grover "eather pas The Forks Livermore PAWNEE Dover 26 Owl Conyon EFTI Nunn use. [v.rikington heotar 14 form 17 CN. ERU. Fleming . linti HONAL Teds Place , Ft. Pierce Purcell 23 1: Pennoce this Station **** Belivõe Collins 2200 P 19 14 in 06 R Eaton Galeton FOREST Sererance Merino Windsor *Point Cin Masonville HRS 14. Rice. Blocks (1) (n) Estes Loveland Greeley Messex x , ", Uricin Evans 44 Hast 1, Wriden Campion La Shyder E Salle Lon Lane Harbse Berthoud Peckham I Print. is 6 1258 Sprint: Citcrest to 3) Franie Pare 65 (34 ons Wiggins Fort Brush But PSS ) TE Plattealle Morganl 11 it Akret 64 :one Hyde o Yuma - Raynond Longmont 54 Firectone Fort 12 Eckley T M Frederick Lupton Wray Lard ; Dacono x BOULDER Lafayette the 6 Anena bills. Brighton Wondrow 2 ville (e Vernon Mass Heartstrong 23 Broomfield V G T O N x F. SEE INSET MAP 63 Abart y e M A Thornton 44 ON REVERSE isand : Westminster DENVER 14 Golden Arva Aurora Last Wattins, 30 TRennett St. asburg 35 Chance 10 20 10 Anton am 36 6 36 Idalia 4 X Lindon 17 22 11 36 x 3 Byers DENVER Cape 59 563 Miles 10 Joes " 17 / " ST. JOSEPH MO. form - , ( 1E LOWHY BUMI it Crall Kark fr QHale Nursen Engl: Evergreen A li A : H 0 E Thurman x Littleton PANGE : 35 ", 83 suspen 31 71 DE Pk. Parker $ 10 Kass'er 25 n Sars Lodviers', - Agate ss Setal Foxton 25 Hilltop / A F Pine 401 287) B tialo (C)S ranktown ST 67 EL 4250 Estabrock Cr. 9 Elizabeth 15 ii. Burlington Castle Kiowa PIKE 1 1, B I Vora x Rock River Seicert NATL 16 Devil : 16 Bend EL 5280 Genoa Bovina 7 Arriba 11 42 Flagler - a III and FOR. need A 20 86 ¿Limon 2 14 Dechers 24 1. Kuhn's Crossiny 12427 Larkspur 24) Elbert o... 9 16 13 1. N C o L N Fondis Doby > Westcreck Palmer Simli Matheson | Hugo 21 Ware Lake os 0: Y ource ocumen its ucsf. 129 vi ANE RIDGE INDIAN K,le Maile Parmelee Edgement Cikids Patricia 18 o Igloo 2. .. to PORCUPINE INDIAN 52 . 18 is is A Cenne's St Francis Batesland P.r , , o 0 Ardmore is 18 S DAK o Mays.Je Miniteclar " (& 20 Nenzel Montrose Network Stote as :0 Orelia o is " 0 9 Vale e Chadron 2 el Gordon a Nom o Attine 20 Ci.nton 120 :- Marrisch` Fromation , 1 Rushville Oo 0 Hay Sprs the Andrews w lasse D 250 Simeon : Sake ite Gien 385 in 15 K E R Y a Kennedy 2° 8 Peters Saffe pade o u x D:- Dunfap 27 purt cke fer G. ", --- I. Gard i. s H E R I o A N Crarcth L 53 L Wells E: 2 L. l. A Prentice 385 ferea Ters LO a Joy 1. Long o , Cherry B o x 8 u E Lake Prior Yala Like the Walter L 0 Marah L LD Kuntrick TALLIANCE Jease L Stumy Cramp L : i D7 2° Elsworth Whitmar Hecla Seneca 7 Antioch Myarris Mullen 6 1.20 Binghim 2 9 Mitchell Like . 23 o 27 o 20 R.g. a G R A N T 335 T H SCOTTSBLUFF 5: H o o K E R S c o T T $ . 0 " 16 Gering fratare Orlaado R R : Bayard Lake G-Js McGraw o & a Acreport Glena le Saron L 47:8 TAree M: L Late Calera Bridgepert D E N Arther 72 - Flats MC P H E R S o N Farrisburz, 24 T H u R 21 92 Tryon A N € R Lisca Rinzgo' el 1.) Pena a Oshkosh i) Lewellen 97 - Pec Gast Lemoyne 27 E N N E Kirgsley Dom 27 Lake so dville 80 Muntsmon 26 Keystone . 2: K - M B A L' L Sidney Co'ton Sural NON odgepote " > o E U E L Chappell . 30 29 30 351 1 Re D,e burn L § Lorenza " 30 COLO 25 julisturg Peetz Sedgwick 61 887 F. 24 32 L - N c 3: is Creek € R * - N $ Dickens Grant 23 21 125 385 Madrid (is.e Tax Grainton Wallace Somerset 23 Brandon " " 33 60 North 2: Yenarge Wellfleet 25 Ne 12 2 Bickingham STERLING Hemp Haxtun Stonehom 14 co. 14 G Holyoke et : G tamar c H s E acalez 10.1112 Imperial is 6 . H A Y E Center Enders as (13) Chima, Wanneta 385 C E -6 - 6 1- - T c H c o et -Cutant o o Y Stratten Trenten l'u R i Sounce dusi Al /docul m Maz'st 2 NCC NEBR NEC OBJECTIVE: Increased acres of sugar beets for maintaining the existing five North Central Colorado factories, four Nebraska factories, and three Northeast Colorado factories. PROCEDURE: Bob Abrams - Project Leader - NCC Paul Blome - Project Leader - Nebraska Jim Gonyou - Project Leader - NEC Lay out the program procedure of how to increase sugar beet acreage and set a deadline of three weeks to contact all potential landowners of beet growing farms. The monetary investment valuation of this proposed program would approximate $405,600 and would be a big morale booster to the Agricultural Staff. It would also be designed to offer and allow an agriculturalist to leave the profession and enter the beet growing business, which could be underwritten by the Company. This should be done prior to growers' listing equipment for farm auctions and as soon after September 1st as possible because of terminations, present lease agreements, etc. In underwriting operating loans or the Company share of producing a beet crop, an additional $500,000 could be required on a short-term basis. The possibility of the two Service Centers entering into the growing of 500 or 600 acres of beets each should also be explored, and a man put in charge who is a potential manager or who has the capabilities of handling a large-scale farming operation. It may be possible to visit depressed beet growing areas such as Hardin, Montana, and Fremont County, Wyoming, to recruit young beet growers who no longer have the opportunity to grow beets. because of other companies' withdrawals from those particular areas. The plan would be to make the initial move to expand the larger acreage in the circle irrigation area east of the present NCC District and within a 40 mile radius of the Nebraska and NEC factories and presently known beet growing farms, but also to show dry land farmers that beets will pay for land faster and with more assurance than any other competitive crop that they can now grow; that beets are priced from year to year fairly consistently; and sell the other merits of the beet crop at small new grower educational meetings, breakfasts, dinners, etc. Housing and buildings may be a problem in recruiting a new, young grower in some of the dry land areas, but perhaps this could be solved by a willing landowner who would agree to include in his long-range plans the modernizing of an older house, construction of a shop, feed lots, etc. -7- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 DEVELOP NEW AREA ADDITIONAL BEET ACRES - NCC - NEBR - NEC 1. Conduct an aerial and land survey under the direction of the District Agricultural Manager to find out how many irrigated circles are within a 40 mile radius of any of our existing factories. 2. Determine how many total acres are available under sprinkler irrigation within this radius and how many acres cannot be immediately planted to beets because of atrazine, etc. 3. Example: 100 circles (per each District or 300 circles total) X 132 acres per circle = 13,200 acres : 1/2 = 6,600 acres a. Assumption: 40 mile radius truck freight route -- $1.50 per ton 4. Have Agricultural Managers talk to every landowner of the circles to see if the landowner: a. is interested in beets; b. is willing to raise beets himself; c. wants beets on his farm but needs a tenant; d. would like to have a partner in growing the crop. 5. Proposal: The Company will install an inland station for 800 acres. 6. Assumption: The Company would find six (per district, 18 - total) ambitious, young and energetic beet growers and/or interested agriculturalists who want to enter or expand an agricultural operation as specialized sugar beet growers. a. The Company would either finance or underwrite loans; b. The Company would provide each grower with one or two men, preferably college graduates or agriculturalists, on a basis similar to the fellowship program; C. Each grower in the program would specialize in six circles (780 acres) of beets, minimum; d. The Company would arrange to put the land package together, help with lease agreements, etc. 7. The Company would decide on and place the most outstanding field man to of serve the six growers per district, or 4,680 acres, regardless of the number factory districts in which the acreage is involved. Agriculturalist with minimum tillage experience preferred. 8. The Company would assist growers to obtain fertilizer and herbicides at a reduced cost. a. The Company would agree to offer temporary help to the grower with people from the dump repair crew or from some source in the factory during the grower's critical need, such as the two weeks of cultivating, weekend help, etc. 9. Run ads in papers which serve this area: "Beets wanted - Are you interested? - Call The Great Western Sugar Company" - Let farmers know we want them as growers. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 INCREASE ACRES IN OLD AREA ADDITIONAL BEET ACRES - NCC - NEBR - NEC 1. Agriculturalists to survey every non-beet-growing farm within the boundaries of the present factory districts. a. Agriculturalists will personally talk with every landowner where no beets are now grown; b. The Company will offer farm management service to the landowner to help him obtain an adjoining beet grower or a new beet grower, whichever the situation dictates; c. Encourage and sell farm management service to absentee landowners allowing field men and/or service centers to manage farms as agents with the Company being paid a fee for its service, the emphasis on beets for every farm, more money to the landowner and grower, thus more money to the Company. 2. Many growers are faced with a shortage of general farm labor, and if a man desires to raise more acres of beets and has a labor problem in being spread out too thin, then the Company would offer him a fellowship student, providing he grows 500 acres or more of beets. 3. Adopt a Company policy and provide as a service to all farmers in general a farm placement labor center with a headquarters at each of our factory locations. This service would aid and be a part of public relations and would cost the grower or the man being placed nothing. -9- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Additional equipment needed, ,at the Service Centers to enter sugar beet growing Platteville $ 66,000 Scottsbluff $ 6,000 $ 72,000 2.. Six Fellowship Students per district - 18 total (a) $250/month Company cost per student $19,200 per district per year $ 57,600 3. Establish three new Receiving Stations per district - nine total (a) 3 Scales $60,000 (b) 3 Land Sites 10 acres X $100/acre = $1,000 X 3 = $3,000 (c) Grade Sites $ 3,000 (d) Electrify Stations $10,000 (e) Transfer 3 Used Piles $ 6,000 (f) Upgrade 3 Used Piles $10,000 $92,000 Per District X 3 $276,000 TOTAL = $405,600 4. Short-Term Operating Money Estimated $500,000 PAYBACK If an acre of beets is worth $74.00 to the Company, then 5,500 additional acres of beets for the Company would pay for the $405,600 proposal. We': re assuming the Company would not lose any money out of the $500,000 for operating as short- term money in the long pull. NOTE: No interest is figured in the above numbers nor has any tax advantage been accounted for in the study. $74.00 derived by Financial Planning using curvilinear regression equations; based on present and estimated future pulp and sugar prices; normal acreage and a normal curve of 112 day campaign with a 10 day surrounding increment. -10- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227

possibly 1 tractor can be taken to lease for how many days ?

jxbx0227

jxbx0227_p13, jxbx0227_p14, jxbx0227_p15, jxbx0227_p16, jxbx0227_p17, jxbx0227_p18, jxbx0227_p19

30 days, 30, 30 DAYS

EQUIPMENT TO RAISE 800 ACRES OF BEETS New Cost 3 - 4030 J.D. Tractors - $46,500 3 - 4 Bottom Plows - 7,800 2 - 14' Disks - 3,800 2 - Packer Mulchers - 2,400 2 - 12 Row Cultivators - 4,000 1 - 12 Row Beet Planter - 5,000 1 - 6 Row Top Saver - 7,500 2 - 3 Row Lifter Loaders - 22,000 3 - Trucks - 18' Box + Tag Axle - 24,000 1 - Broadcast Boom Sprayer - 1,000 NEW MAIN EQUIPMENT ONLY = $124,000 Misc. Hand Tools - Welder - Irrigat. - Cult. Tools - 2,000 $126,000 TO HANDLE 800 ACRES Hire or Lease 3 More Trucks at Harvest Possibly Lease 1 Tractor for 30 Days OR If you have 800 acres beets custom farmed - 800 acres X $230/acre = $184,000 EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS 1 - 6 Row Top Saver Can Top 40 Acres/Day 2 - 3 Row Lifter Loaders Can Lift 40 Acres/Day 6 Row Top Saver - $ 7,500 3 Row Lifter Loader - $11,000 6 Row Lifter Loader - $15,000 (3 Tons/Minute) 4030 J.D. Tractor - $15,500 4 Bottom Plow . - $ 2,600 14' Disk - $ 1,900 12 Row Beet Planter - $ 2,000 - 6 Row Cultivator + Tools - $ 3,000 Packer Mulcher 15' - $ 1,200 2 1/2 Ton Tag Axle Truck - $12,000 With Box and Hoist Source: Great Western Sugar Company TO: Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy August 22, 1973 Distribution List - J. Krentler G. Bogden R. Mally T. Army D. Dinkel R. Perkins R. Fisher R. Fertig D. Quinn C. lianing G. Gibson J. Van Wijk B. Phillips J. Gray M. Rebhan Dist. Gen. Mgrs. Each Factory Acctg. Office Dist. Agric. Mgrs. Asst. Dist. Agric. Mgrs. Dist. Acctg. Mgrs. Factory Agric. Mgrs. FROM: M. E. Rebhan SUBJECT: Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy (Supplement to General Credit Policy 4/25/72 Page #2, Item E) Attached is a formalized version of the generally unwritten policy that we have been operating under for several years. This policy has been approved at the appropriate management level and although there is no great need for it at this point in time it should be filed along with your General Credit Policy File referred to above. If you have any questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact John Gray or me. M. Roban MER:jb 3 attachments ASS Source: https:/www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 GROWER LOAN SPONSORSHIP POLICY General The program of Grower Loan Sponsorship is to promote beet acreage increase in Great Western Sugar and Northern Ohio Suger territories and to assist our growers in obtaining financial assistance on sugar beet crops when the grower's banking connections will not or cannot handle normal financing However, it is not the intent nor the desire of the Company to subsidize high risk growers or to compete with our local bankers in beet crop financing. The overall size of the Sponsorship Program (in dollars) as well as deviations, if any, from policy shall be determined annually by the V.P. Operations and the V.P. Finance. Unwillingness or inability of the grower's bank to handle normal financing may be due to (1) bank at legal limit for that grower and unable to interest a participating bank, (2) bank short of lendable funds, (3) bank unwilling for personal reasons to vork with the grower. Under the three foregoing categories the Company will merely assist the grower in finding normal financing at an alternative bank. In the grey area between normal and high risk financing, it may be necessary for the Company to offer a bank some inducement or sponsorship as described more fully in following paragraphs. Bank Loan Sponsorship Company sponsorship of an operating bank loan should not exceed 75% guaranty to the bank on any loss the bank might incur on such loan. A loss is recognized when the grower has liquidated all of his assets in settlement of business debts and has discontinued growing beets. If local banks have no problem under the three categories in Paragraph No. 3 above and are not agreeable to a 75% guaranty, there is every indication that the loan is too "high risk" for further consideration. Company sponsored loans, as indicated in the above paragraph, will cover only operating expenses related to a sugar beet crop. In unusual cases only, we will consider sponscring a beet equipment lcan guaranty covered by security agreement. Direct Loan Sponsorship If a financing bank cannot be provided with or without a 75% guaranty and the grower is not a definite "high risk", the V.P. of Finance may consider sponsorship through a direct factory accounts receivable loan. Such a loan would be subject to a First Mortgage Security Agreement and interest at First Naticnal City, N.Y.C. prime plus 1 1/2% on closing date and with due regard to local state interest rate maximums. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 Page 2. Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy Procedures A request for grower assistance shall originate in the Agricultural Department on our form entitled "Request to V.P. .Finance for Grower Financial- Assistance". The request and related support documents are to be forwarded progressively to the District Accounting Manager, District General Manager and V.P. Operations for review and concurrence in recommendation. It is the responsibility of the V.P. of Finance to approve or reject the request. If the request is approved, the V.P. of Finance will co-ordinate financing efforts supplying all prior signers of the document with progress reports. MER 8/22/73 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY REQUEST TO V.P. FINANCE FOR GROWER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Grower Phone ress Location of farm (receiving station) Bank (current or previous) Phone Bank/contact Number of acres if this request is filled If request is not filled Agriculturalist: (originator of this request) (name, address and phone) Reason for request (why not bankable) (Attach copy of balance sheet and operating statement. Also machinery list if any under this request.) Amount required under this request: Operating $ Equipment $ We recommend that Great Western Sugar Company provide finances or financial backing for this grower up to the amount specified and for the purposes listed. Dist.Acct.Mgr. Date Dist.Genl.Mgr. Date V.P.Operations Date Instructions: 1. Originated by Agriculturist, 4. Forward to V.P. Finance, 2. Review and recommendation by 5. V.P. Finance to instruct Dist. Acct.Mg District Personnel, with carbons to all concerned. 3. viver GreatWee Sungar Company GREAT WESTERN SUGAR FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM Letter of Understanding Great Western Sugar Company is initiating and coordinating a "Great Western Sugar Fellowship Program. " The purpose of this program is to improvise, coordinate and place into effect a system of expanding and improving farm management techno- logy. In this connection, Great Western Sugar Company will cooperate with Colorado State University, other state universities, progressive sugarbeet growers, and graduates to provide an opportunity for these graduates to enter into or share in farm management positions. Col. To effectuate this program, the below signed graduate of Pennsylvania State Uni- versity, the grower and Great Western Sugar Company have entered into this Letter of Understanding to set forth the agreement reached between the below signed parties to this Letter, of Understanding. The graduate will be employed by and work with the below signed grower at the grower's farm or farms. The grower will pay the graduate $450 per month and will employ the graduate for the period of this agreement, which will extend for a duration of two (2) years from the date hereof. The aim of this relationship will be to develop a viable partnership and/or an expansion and sharing of opportunities in farming operations. Great Western Sugar Company will cooperate with the grower and furnish information which will help improve his farm management techniques with the intent that he will be able to expand his acreage and develop a more productive farm.operation. The grower agrees to plant at least 25 percent of irrigated land under his control in sugarbeets. Great Western Sugar Company agrees to give to the graduate, for the period of time he is employed by the grower under this, agreement, the sum of $250 per month. This money will be the graduate's and the graduate will be responsible for applicable taxes on this amount. The Sugar Company is giving this money to the graduate and the graduate in no sense will be employed by the Sugar Company and will owe no legal obligation to the Sugar Company. It is understood that any of the parties hereto may cancel this agreement at any time, and the obligations under this agreement will cease as of the time of cancellation. In the event the graduate is the party who desires to cancel the agreement, the Sugar Company will use its best efforts to attempt to find another graduate to participate in this agreement. By their below placed signatures, the three parties agree to the broad outlines contained in this Letter of Understanding and will conduct themselves accordingly. GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY By (Graduate) (Grower) Source: https:l//www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227

What is the amount derived by Financial planning?

jxbx0227

jxbx0227_p0, jxbx0227_p1, jxbx0227_p2, jxbx0227_p3, jxbx0227_p4, jxbx0227_p5, jxbx0227_p6, jxbx0227_p7, jxbx0227_p8, jxbx0227_p9, jxbx0227_p10, jxbx0227_p11

$74.00

THE GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY INCREASED SUGARBEET ACREAGE PROPOSAL North Central Colorado District Northeast Colorado District Nebraska District Prepared By George Lapaseotes W. c. McGuffey October 17, 1973 Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 INDEX General Objectives, Assumptions, and Procedures 1-3 District Maps 4-6 District Objectives and Procedures 7 Development of New Areas 8 Development of Old Areas 9 Capital Requirements 10 Production Statistics. 11-13 Enclosures back Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy Fellowship Program Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 OBJECTIVE: Increase the acreage of sugar beets in the NCC, NEBR., and NEC Districts of the Company by assisting growers to expand their beet growing operation or establishing new growers to become specialized in beet production. Develop six 800 acre units under sprinkler irrigation in each of the three areas plus any old area combinations that can be realized. ASSUMPTIONS: I. Declining acreage is in part, a result of a greater demand of time, labor, capital, and management resources for beet production in relation to other crops (i.e., corn, beans, and brewing barley) . II. Economic competition from other crops this year has become a more dominant factor in the problem of maintaining beet acreage. III. The combination of the above makes it increasingly difficult to find growers willing to continue producing sugar beets or to generate replacements who will venture into beet production. The goal of this project is to search out and secure suitable land and individuals interested in growing beets on a special- ized basis. IV. The crux of the problem is people. The motivation, finance, technical assistance and rewards to the grower can be in part provided by The Great Western Sugar Company and should be of such magnitude to induce and keep people in the business. V. The average age of the beet grower is in the mid-fifties, and younger agri-business men have not been coming into the beet business in adequate numbers. VI. Corporate farming is the least desirable vector in producing beet acreage, although returns could be good but the Company would be assuming the maximum risk. A partnership or tenant arrangement to produce an incentive for growing beets is a better choice and our main objective. It should be understood, however, that weather can be the major factor between a profit and a loss. PROCEDURE: I. Survey the availability of land in both the old established beet growing areas and also the potential under the pivot sprinkler system. This land should be within a 40-50 mile radius ($1.50 truck freight) of a slicing factory. A. Land Availability. 1. Landowners inclination. a. Willing to raise beets himself. b. Wants beets but needs a tenant. C. Would like to have a partner. Source: https://www.industrydotements.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 2. Water supply. 3. Previous use of soil sterilants, i.e., (Atrazine). . 4. Quality of land. II. This project and survey to be coordinated by George Lapaseotes acting through the District Agricultural Managers and the Grower Service Centers (for NCC and NEBR. only) . A. Aerial plotting. B. Letter to prospective landowners. C. Personal interviews with landowners. III. Secure beet growers for land available. A. Contact all established beet growers desiring an expanded operation either in older beet growing districts or in a developing pivot sprinkler area. B. Contact and interview prospective new growers presently related to beet production (sons of growers, hired hands, etc.) or other agri-business types to create or determine if they have an interest in undertaking a beet production operation. c. Consider and allow a limited number of agriculturalists to enter beet production either on a full-time basis with the Company's support or in a part-time arrangement while fulfilling their present job responsibilities. Options: 1. Tenant grown. a. Existing growers. b. New young farmers. C. Agriculturalists. 2. Company grown. a. Service Centers. b. Agriculturalists or farm manager. 3. Company and Tenant Partnership grown. a. Beet growers. b. Service Center and/or agriculturalist. Source: https://www.industrydogt2ments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 C. Consider a contract with an agriculturalist to produce 1,000 acres of beets for a 3-5 year term on a 50/50 partnership basis. Salary all or in part to be paid by Company during this period. IV. Build beet receiving stations where appropriate to receive new tonnage developed from a minimum of 800 acres of beets. V. The Company must become involved in varying degrees in financial assistance to this select group of beet growers. A. Underwrite loans. B. Assist with machinery, chemicals, and cultural services through the Grower Service Center. C. Provide some limited man-power support via Grower Service Center personnel, student fellowship program and possible weekend work for the dump repair personnel (union - no Great Western involvement, they must work for the grower) VI. Financial Impact. Assumption: The goal of 14,000 acres increased beet production would provide $1,036,000 gross annual revenue to the Company (at $74/acre). Company financial support could amount to a minimum of $500,000 which is recoverable. Company financial capital improvements could amount to $348,000, plus $57,000 for fellowship arrangements, for a total of $405,000. A. It costs about $230/acre to produce a crop of beets. B. 800 acre operation ideal size for pivot sprinklers, and with production cost of $184,000 by the operator. (See detail in Statistical Section) -3- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 :edunos in is vigjuno (511) 28 >y other et 00V80103 products 0 o N : papor REMAYS said is 2 n usna nonucy 1 unjund speim 14 1 E BICKS jues it2 ivin tz SIPHARP! is so o 7VNC curs ayen 9: Apoca 1: < 3 12 su 9 individed pran oun puea S % 99 CR st energy EMOIN ved youy encourse ansent (1) I 87 3 e 1 2 9; ti SOI L9 unos - eyepas Cir sz aje8y CF Aaye 211 SJBIANOT Ja(ssey pues CO jeeg. (itt) 000M310N3 12 3 sueAg 83AN30 000 GE jungsens 1113 3083W1100 I bl : 01313 2 mospoom . 9C 9 25 2103 is N ) a o inek 12 NVO8OW 1803 suir, usnig 01 E M. sue] 80 PS ase , preubia ulpuer A evoluan SUEADE F.E ONYPJA. e PW FAY 12 op vosyper ejpesau ts 12 usjauso 1 d : HE 0 MaN , T N 3 0 my 12 3 12 11 ways out 12 , '0100 projector. 18 R 01 00:9 n 4 14 712 3NN3A3H3 C8 1 & a W ! X oe UC) JO purprised ,00.00 Ampiço o ,001-501 "sot- 6 8 L Kimball have Blutt. : CHEYENNE 11 liad 31 Carpenter VYOMING 6 1 85 Hereford - Vigink Date 1, is Carr Rockport (aller Grover "eather pas The Forks Livermore PAWNEE Dover 26 Owl Conyon EFTI Nunn use. [v.rikington heotar 14 form 17 CN. ERU. Fleming . linti HONAL Teds Place , Ft. Pierce Purcell 23 1: Pennoce this Station **** Belivõe Collins 2200 P 19 14 in 06 R Eaton Galeton FOREST Sererance Merino Windsor *Point Cin Masonville HRS 14. Rice. Blocks (1) (n) Estes Loveland Greeley Messex x , ", Uricin Evans 44 Hast 1, Wriden Campion La Shyder E Salle Lon Lane Harbse Berthoud Peckham I Print. is 6 1258 Sprint: Citcrest to 3) Franie Pare 65 (34 ons Wiggins Fort Brush But PSS ) TE Plattealle Morganl 11 it Akret 64 :one Hyde o Yuma - Raynond Longmont 54 Firectone Fort 12 Eckley T M Frederick Lupton Wray Lard ; Dacono x BOULDER Lafayette the 6 Anena bills. Brighton Wondrow 2 ville (e Vernon Mass Heartstrong 23 Broomfield V G T O N x F. SEE INSET MAP 63 Abart y e M A Thornton 44 ON REVERSE isand : Westminster DENVER 14 Golden Arva Aurora Last Wattins, 30 TRennett St. asburg 35 Chance 10 20 10 Anton am 36 6 36 Idalia 4 X Lindon 17 22 11 36 x 3 Byers DENVER Cape 59 563 Miles 10 Joes " 17 / " ST. JOSEPH MO. form - , ( 1E LOWHY BUMI it Crall Kark fr QHale Nursen Engl: Evergreen A li A : H 0 E Thurman x Littleton PANGE : 35 ", 83 suspen 31 71 DE Pk. Parker $ 10 Kass'er 25 n Sars Lodviers', - Agate ss Setal Foxton 25 Hilltop / A F Pine 401 287) B tialo (C)S ranktown ST 67 EL 4250 Estabrock Cr. 9 Elizabeth 15 ii. Burlington Castle Kiowa PIKE 1 1, B I Vora x Rock River Seicert NATL 16 Devil : 16 Bend EL 5280 Genoa Bovina 7 Arriba 11 42 Flagler - a III and FOR. need A 20 86 ¿Limon 2 14 Dechers 24 1. Kuhn's Crossiny 12427 Larkspur 24) Elbert o... 9 16 13 1. N C o L N Fondis Doby > Westcreck Palmer Simli Matheson | Hugo 21 Ware Lake os 0: Y ource ocumen its ucsf. 129 vi ANE RIDGE INDIAN K,le Maile Parmelee Edgement Cikids Patricia 18 o Igloo 2. .. to PORCUPINE INDIAN 52 . 18 is is A Cenne's St Francis Batesland P.r , , o 0 Ardmore is 18 S DAK o Mays.Je Miniteclar " (& 20 Nenzel Montrose Network Stote as :0 Orelia o is " 0 9 Vale e Chadron 2 el Gordon a Nom o Attine 20 Ci.nton 120 :- Marrisch` Fromation , 1 Rushville Oo 0 Hay Sprs the Andrews w lasse D 250 Simeon : Sake ite Gien 385 in 15 K E R Y a Kennedy 2° 8 Peters Saffe pade o u x D:- Dunfap 27 purt cke fer G. ", --- I. Gard i. s H E R I o A N Crarcth L 53 L Wells E: 2 L. l. A Prentice 385 ferea Ters LO a Joy 1. Long o , Cherry B o x 8 u E Lake Prior Yala Like the Walter L 0 Marah L LD Kuntrick TALLIANCE Jease L Stumy Cramp L : i D7 2° Elsworth Whitmar Hecla Seneca 7 Antioch Myarris Mullen 6 1.20 Binghim 2 9 Mitchell Like . 23 o 27 o 20 R.g. a G R A N T 335 T H SCOTTSBLUFF 5: H o o K E R S c o T T $ . 0 " 16 Gering fratare Orlaado R R : Bayard Lake G-Js McGraw o & a Acreport Glena le Saron L 47:8 TAree M: L Late Calera Bridgepert D E N Arther 72 - Flats MC P H E R S o N Farrisburz, 24 T H u R 21 92 Tryon A N € R Lisca Rinzgo' el 1.) Pena a Oshkosh i) Lewellen 97 - Pec Gast Lemoyne 27 E N N E Kirgsley Dom 27 Lake so dville 80 Muntsmon 26 Keystone . 2: K - M B A L' L Sidney Co'ton Sural NON odgepote " > o E U E L Chappell . 30 29 30 351 1 Re D,e burn L § Lorenza " 30 COLO 25 julisturg Peetz Sedgwick 61 887 F. 24 32 L - N c 3: is Creek € R * - N $ Dickens Grant 23 21 125 385 Madrid (is.e Tax Grainton Wallace Somerset 23 Brandon " " 33 60 North 2: Yenarge Wellfleet 25 Ne 12 2 Bickingham STERLING Hemp Haxtun Stonehom 14 co. 14 G Holyoke et : G tamar c H s E acalez 10.1112 Imperial is 6 . H A Y E Center Enders as (13) Chima, Wanneta 385 C E -6 - 6 1- - T c H c o et -Cutant o o Y Stratten Trenten l'u R i Sounce dusi Al /docul m Maz'st 2 NCC NEBR NEC OBJECTIVE: Increased acres of sugar beets for maintaining the existing five North Central Colorado factories, four Nebraska factories, and three Northeast Colorado factories. PROCEDURE: Bob Abrams - Project Leader - NCC Paul Blome - Project Leader - Nebraska Jim Gonyou - Project Leader - NEC Lay out the program procedure of how to increase sugar beet acreage and set a deadline of three weeks to contact all potential landowners of beet growing farms. The monetary investment valuation of this proposed program would approximate $405,600 and would be a big morale booster to the Agricultural Staff. It would also be designed to offer and allow an agriculturalist to leave the profession and enter the beet growing business, which could be underwritten by the Company. This should be done prior to growers' listing equipment for farm auctions and as soon after September 1st as possible because of terminations, present lease agreements, etc. In underwriting operating loans or the Company share of producing a beet crop, an additional $500,000 could be required on a short-term basis. The possibility of the two Service Centers entering into the growing of 500 or 600 acres of beets each should also be explored, and a man put in charge who is a potential manager or who has the capabilities of handling a large-scale farming operation. It may be possible to visit depressed beet growing areas such as Hardin, Montana, and Fremont County, Wyoming, to recruit young beet growers who no longer have the opportunity to grow beets. because of other companies' withdrawals from those particular areas. The plan would be to make the initial move to expand the larger acreage in the circle irrigation area east of the present NCC District and within a 40 mile radius of the Nebraska and NEC factories and presently known beet growing farms, but also to show dry land farmers that beets will pay for land faster and with more assurance than any other competitive crop that they can now grow; that beets are priced from year to year fairly consistently; and sell the other merits of the beet crop at small new grower educational meetings, breakfasts, dinners, etc. Housing and buildings may be a problem in recruiting a new, young grower in some of the dry land areas, but perhaps this could be solved by a willing landowner who would agree to include in his long-range plans the modernizing of an older house, construction of a shop, feed lots, etc. -7- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 DEVELOP NEW AREA ADDITIONAL BEET ACRES - NCC - NEBR - NEC 1. Conduct an aerial and land survey under the direction of the District Agricultural Manager to find out how many irrigated circles are within a 40 mile radius of any of our existing factories. 2. Determine how many total acres are available under sprinkler irrigation within this radius and how many acres cannot be immediately planted to beets because of atrazine, etc. 3. Example: 100 circles (per each District or 300 circles total) X 132 acres per circle = 13,200 acres : 1/2 = 6,600 acres a. Assumption: 40 mile radius truck freight route -- $1.50 per ton 4. Have Agricultural Managers talk to every landowner of the circles to see if the landowner: a. is interested in beets; b. is willing to raise beets himself; c. wants beets on his farm but needs a tenant; d. would like to have a partner in growing the crop. 5. Proposal: The Company will install an inland station for 800 acres. 6. Assumption: The Company would find six (per district, 18 - total) ambitious, young and energetic beet growers and/or interested agriculturalists who want to enter or expand an agricultural operation as specialized sugar beet growers. a. The Company would either finance or underwrite loans; b. The Company would provide each grower with one or two men, preferably college graduates or agriculturalists, on a basis similar to the fellowship program; C. Each grower in the program would specialize in six circles (780 acres) of beets, minimum; d. The Company would arrange to put the land package together, help with lease agreements, etc. 7. The Company would decide on and place the most outstanding field man to of serve the six growers per district, or 4,680 acres, regardless of the number factory districts in which the acreage is involved. Agriculturalist with minimum tillage experience preferred. 8. The Company would assist growers to obtain fertilizer and herbicides at a reduced cost. a. The Company would agree to offer temporary help to the grower with people from the dump repair crew or from some source in the factory during the grower's critical need, such as the two weeks of cultivating, weekend help, etc. 9. Run ads in papers which serve this area: "Beets wanted - Are you interested? - Call The Great Western Sugar Company" - Let farmers know we want them as growers. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 INCREASE ACRES IN OLD AREA ADDITIONAL BEET ACRES - NCC - NEBR - NEC 1. Agriculturalists to survey every non-beet-growing farm within the boundaries of the present factory districts. a. Agriculturalists will personally talk with every landowner where no beets are now grown; b. The Company will offer farm management service to the landowner to help him obtain an adjoining beet grower or a new beet grower, whichever the situation dictates; c. Encourage and sell farm management service to absentee landowners allowing field men and/or service centers to manage farms as agents with the Company being paid a fee for its service, the emphasis on beets for every farm, more money to the landowner and grower, thus more money to the Company. 2. Many growers are faced with a shortage of general farm labor, and if a man desires to raise more acres of beets and has a labor problem in being spread out too thin, then the Company would offer him a fellowship student, providing he grows 500 acres or more of beets. 3. Adopt a Company policy and provide as a service to all farmers in general a farm placement labor center with a headquarters at each of our factory locations. This service would aid and be a part of public relations and would cost the grower or the man being placed nothing. -9- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Additional equipment needed, ,at the Service Centers to enter sugar beet growing Platteville $ 66,000 Scottsbluff $ 6,000 $ 72,000 2.. Six Fellowship Students per district - 18 total (a) $250/month Company cost per student $19,200 per district per year $ 57,600 3. Establish three new Receiving Stations per district - nine total (a) 3 Scales $60,000 (b) 3 Land Sites 10 acres X $100/acre = $1,000 X 3 = $3,000 (c) Grade Sites $ 3,000 (d) Electrify Stations $10,000 (e) Transfer 3 Used Piles $ 6,000 (f) Upgrade 3 Used Piles $10,000 $92,000 Per District X 3 $276,000 TOTAL = $405,600 4. Short-Term Operating Money Estimated $500,000 PAYBACK If an acre of beets is worth $74.00 to the Company, then 5,500 additional acres of beets for the Company would pay for the $405,600 proposal. We': re assuming the Company would not lose any money out of the $500,000 for operating as short- term money in the long pull. NOTE: No interest is figured in the above numbers nor has any tax advantage been accounted for in the study. $74.00 derived by Financial Planning using curvilinear regression equations; based on present and estimated future pulp and sugar prices; normal acreage and a normal curve of 112 day campaign with a 10 day surrounding increment. -10- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227

what is the New Cost of 2 - Packer Mulchers

jxbx0227

jxbx0227_p13, jxbx0227_p14, jxbx0227_p15, jxbx0227_p16, jxbx0227_p17, jxbx0227_p18, jxbx0227_p19

2,400

EQUIPMENT TO RAISE 800 ACRES OF BEETS New Cost 3 - 4030 J.D. Tractors - $46,500 3 - 4 Bottom Plows - 7,800 2 - 14' Disks - 3,800 2 - Packer Mulchers - 2,400 2 - 12 Row Cultivators - 4,000 1 - 12 Row Beet Planter - 5,000 1 - 6 Row Top Saver - 7,500 2 - 3 Row Lifter Loaders - 22,000 3 - Trucks - 18' Box + Tag Axle - 24,000 1 - Broadcast Boom Sprayer - 1,000 NEW MAIN EQUIPMENT ONLY = $124,000 Misc. Hand Tools - Welder - Irrigat. - Cult. Tools - 2,000 $126,000 TO HANDLE 800 ACRES Hire or Lease 3 More Trucks at Harvest Possibly Lease 1 Tractor for 30 Days OR If you have 800 acres beets custom farmed - 800 acres X $230/acre = $184,000 EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS 1 - 6 Row Top Saver Can Top 40 Acres/Day 2 - 3 Row Lifter Loaders Can Lift 40 Acres/Day 6 Row Top Saver - $ 7,500 3 Row Lifter Loader - $11,000 6 Row Lifter Loader - $15,000 (3 Tons/Minute) 4030 J.D. Tractor - $15,500 4 Bottom Plow . - $ 2,600 14' Disk - $ 1,900 12 Row Beet Planter - $ 2,000 - 6 Row Cultivator + Tools - $ 3,000 Packer Mulcher 15' - $ 1,200 2 1/2 Ton Tag Axle Truck - $12,000 With Box and Hoist Source: Great Western Sugar Company TO: Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy August 22, 1973 Distribution List - J. Krentler G. Bogden R. Mally T. Army D. Dinkel R. Perkins R. Fisher R. Fertig D. Quinn C. lianing G. Gibson J. Van Wijk B. Phillips J. Gray M. Rebhan Dist. Gen. Mgrs. Each Factory Acctg. Office Dist. Agric. Mgrs. Asst. Dist. Agric. Mgrs. Dist. Acctg. Mgrs. Factory Agric. Mgrs. FROM: M. E. Rebhan SUBJECT: Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy (Supplement to General Credit Policy 4/25/72 Page #2, Item E) Attached is a formalized version of the generally unwritten policy that we have been operating under for several years. This policy has been approved at the appropriate management level and although there is no great need for it at this point in time it should be filed along with your General Credit Policy File referred to above. If you have any questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact John Gray or me. M. Roban MER:jb 3 attachments ASS Source: https:/www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 GROWER LOAN SPONSORSHIP POLICY General The program of Grower Loan Sponsorship is to promote beet acreage increase in Great Western Sugar and Northern Ohio Suger territories and to assist our growers in obtaining financial assistance on sugar beet crops when the grower's banking connections will not or cannot handle normal financing However, it is not the intent nor the desire of the Company to subsidize high risk growers or to compete with our local bankers in beet crop financing. The overall size of the Sponsorship Program (in dollars) as well as deviations, if any, from policy shall be determined annually by the V.P. Operations and the V.P. Finance. Unwillingness or inability of the grower's bank to handle normal financing may be due to (1) bank at legal limit for that grower and unable to interest a participating bank, (2) bank short of lendable funds, (3) bank unwilling for personal reasons to vork with the grower. Under the three foregoing categories the Company will merely assist the grower in finding normal financing at an alternative bank. In the grey area between normal and high risk financing, it may be necessary for the Company to offer a bank some inducement or sponsorship as described more fully in following paragraphs. Bank Loan Sponsorship Company sponsorship of an operating bank loan should not exceed 75% guaranty to the bank on any loss the bank might incur on such loan. A loss is recognized when the grower has liquidated all of his assets in settlement of business debts and has discontinued growing beets. If local banks have no problem under the three categories in Paragraph No. 3 above and are not agreeable to a 75% guaranty, there is every indication that the loan is too "high risk" for further consideration. Company sponsored loans, as indicated in the above paragraph, will cover only operating expenses related to a sugar beet crop. In unusual cases only, we will consider sponscring a beet equipment lcan guaranty covered by security agreement. Direct Loan Sponsorship If a financing bank cannot be provided with or without a 75% guaranty and the grower is not a definite "high risk", the V.P. of Finance may consider sponsorship through a direct factory accounts receivable loan. Such a loan would be subject to a First Mortgage Security Agreement and interest at First Naticnal City, N.Y.C. prime plus 1 1/2% on closing date and with due regard to local state interest rate maximums. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 Page 2. Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy Procedures A request for grower assistance shall originate in the Agricultural Department on our form entitled "Request to V.P. .Finance for Grower Financial- Assistance". The request and related support documents are to be forwarded progressively to the District Accounting Manager, District General Manager and V.P. Operations for review and concurrence in recommendation. It is the responsibility of the V.P. of Finance to approve or reject the request. If the request is approved, the V.P. of Finance will co-ordinate financing efforts supplying all prior signers of the document with progress reports. MER 8/22/73 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY REQUEST TO V.P. FINANCE FOR GROWER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Grower Phone ress Location of farm (receiving station) Bank (current or previous) Phone Bank/contact Number of acres if this request is filled If request is not filled Agriculturalist: (originator of this request) (name, address and phone) Reason for request (why not bankable) (Attach copy of balance sheet and operating statement. Also machinery list if any under this request.) Amount required under this request: Operating $ Equipment $ We recommend that Great Western Sugar Company provide finances or financial backing for this grower up to the amount specified and for the purposes listed. Dist.Acct.Mgr. Date Dist.Genl.Mgr. Date V.P.Operations Date Instructions: 1. Originated by Agriculturist, 4. Forward to V.P. Finance, 2. Review and recommendation by 5. V.P. Finance to instruct Dist. Acct.Mg District Personnel, with carbons to all concerned. 3. viver GreatWee Sungar Company GREAT WESTERN SUGAR FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM Letter of Understanding Great Western Sugar Company is initiating and coordinating a "Great Western Sugar Fellowship Program. " The purpose of this program is to improvise, coordinate and place into effect a system of expanding and improving farm management techno- logy. In this connection, Great Western Sugar Company will cooperate with Colorado State University, other state universities, progressive sugarbeet growers, and graduates to provide an opportunity for these graduates to enter into or share in farm management positions. Col. To effectuate this program, the below signed graduate of Pennsylvania State Uni- versity, the grower and Great Western Sugar Company have entered into this Letter of Understanding to set forth the agreement reached between the below signed parties to this Letter, of Understanding. The graduate will be employed by and work with the below signed grower at the grower's farm or farms. The grower will pay the graduate $450 per month and will employ the graduate for the period of this agreement, which will extend for a duration of two (2) years from the date hereof. The aim of this relationship will be to develop a viable partnership and/or an expansion and sharing of opportunities in farming operations. Great Western Sugar Company will cooperate with the grower and furnish information which will help improve his farm management techniques with the intent that he will be able to expand his acreage and develop a more productive farm.operation. The grower agrees to plant at least 25 percent of irrigated land under his control in sugarbeets. Great Western Sugar Company agrees to give to the graduate, for the period of time he is employed by the grower under this, agreement, the sum of $250 per month. This money will be the graduate's and the graduate will be responsible for applicable taxes on this amount. The Sugar Company is giving this money to the graduate and the graduate in no sense will be employed by the Sugar Company and will owe no legal obligation to the Sugar Company. It is understood that any of the parties hereto may cancel this agreement at any time, and the obligations under this agreement will cease as of the time of cancellation. In the event the graduate is the party who desires to cancel the agreement, the Sugar Company will use its best efforts to attempt to find another graduate to participate in this agreement. By their below placed signatures, the three parties agree to the broad outlines contained in this Letter of Understanding and will conduct themselves accordingly. GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY By (Graduate) (Grower) Source: https:l//www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227

What is the date of the letter?

pzxv0228

pzxv0228_p0, pzxv0228_p1, pzxv0228_p2, pzxv0228_p3, pzxv0228_p4, pzxv0228_p5, pzxv0228_p6, pzxv0228_p7, pzxv0228_p8, pzxv0228_p9, pzxv0228_p10

October 15, 1974, OCTOBER 15, 1974

THE Great Western Sugar COMPANY September 26, 1974 Mr. A. A. D'Amico Nash Engineering Company 222 Milwaukee Street Denver, Colorado 80206 Dear Mr. D'Amico: As I promised in our recent meeting, I am enclosing a photograph of our Kemp factory in Goodland, Kansas. It is our newest factory, having gone on-stream in 1968, and I feel our most attractive from a photographic standpoint. If, for some reason, you find this photo unacceptable, please let us know and we'll try to come up with something more suitable. I have, incidentally, notified the factory managers at the factories in which you indicated an interest, so you should have no trouble in obtaining cooperation when you set up your photo arrangements. Sincerely, Larry L. McGhee, Director Communications LLM/mk cc: Mr. Don Berra POST OFFICE BOX 5308 DENVER, COLORADO 80217 (303) 893-4600 A SUBSIDIARY OF GREAT WESTERN UNITED CORPORATION Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pzxv0228 THE Great Western Sugar COMPANY October 28, 1974 Mr. Wayne Wood 1412 Meeker Drive Longmont, Colorado Dear Wayne We are enclosing the Great Western Railway story as revised by various people in the railway company. We've done our best not to make major changes but have edited it here and there in an attempt to improve the accuracy a little. Sorry we are so slow in getting it back to you. Hope this will not cause you any problems. I had intended to give you a ring regarding the recent meeting of the local chapter of the Agri-Marketing Association but found that I would be unable to attend the meeting myself. Would like very much for you to attend the November meeting as my guest if you are interested. I will let you know the date and time, etc. Best regards, Larry L. McGhee, Director Communications LLM/mk Enclosure POST OFFICE BOX 5308 DENVER, COLORADO 80217 (303) 893-4600 A SUBSIDIARY OF GREAT WESTERN UNITED CORPORATION Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pzxv0228 FORM 60 THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE T. G. McNay SUPERINTENDENT LOVELAND. COLORADO October 15, 1974 Larry: I marked out a few areas that were overstated. For the sake of expediency, the rest of the article is OK as is. Tom Me May Super intendent. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pzxv0228 GW CAMPAIGNS FOR SUGAR: AGAINST WEEDS The Great Western Railway operating out of Loveland, Colo., is certainly not the oldest nor longest railroad in the United States. But it is, quite possibly, one of the sweetest short-line railroads in the nation. It exists as a subsidiary of The Great Western Sugar Co. of Denver, to carry GW freight. And that freight is literally thousands millions of tons of Colorado sugar beets. While carrying sugarCoets, there's something else that commands attention on the GW Railway. It's weeds! Over 42 1/2 miles of main track, 15 miles of branch tracks and 15.6 and sidings. 19 miles of yard track, Frank Shuman as Roadmaster and Thomas McNay as assistant roadmaster, direct a maintenance program that keeps trains running throughout the year, but especially during the critical fall beet harvest. A key problem that plagues sugar beet farmers in the field also threatens efficient maintenance for the GW Railway. Weed and grass control means the difference between excellent or average yields to the grower. "The same thing is true for us," says McNay. "our biggest problem is general maintenance. If the tracks aren't hrpt clear of weeds and grasses, then we just can't get our work done. McNay has two section gangs, each with four men and a foreman to complete all jobs from track-bed inspections to rail replacement. "The major jobs of this railroad are made easier through annual chemical vegetation management programs," explains McNay. "We have tried many methods, but the need for control is always there.' Source: -2- Advantages of good weed control, according to Mchay, include fire prevention and control, improved track-bed drainage, longer life for ties, ease of track inspections and generally favorable working conditions. `our men don't have to climb through head high weeds," says Nay That rail maintenance in general and vegetation control programs in specific have been successful through the years is indicated by the fact that ties are still in the track-bed dating back to the mid- 1930's.The Railway system built in << when the sugar beet industry was was first established in Colorado. aw trains once hauled 10021 passengersbut TOW to haul only SEE REWRITE suger beets, refined sugar and all the material needed for processing. Two regularly scheduled runs of GW trains move down the main tracks and processing seasen each day. During the sugar beet campaign (as the harvest is called) 1 five diesels may be hauling up to 60 or 70 hopper cars of beets from the numerous dump sites that dot the Colorado landscape east of the Rockies Colorado With schedules like this, McNay's men can afford little time on a vegetation management program, even though it is the key to his general maintenance plan. Annual treatment for weed control begins in mid-April and just three days later it's over. The key is an application of "Hyvar" X-L bromacil weed killer, with some spot spraying with 2-4-D and some use of 2-3-6 TBA. Gone are the days of hand scythe, rail mowers and back- breaking labor. In fact, cutting and chopping have been gone for nearly 15 years. Early chemical treatment programs were based on "Telvar" monuron weed killer; later "Hyvar" X-WS was used. In 1973, -3- Shuman and McNay switched to "Hyvar" X-L, a liquid product. 10,000 Shuman and McNay have engineered a unique your- tank car to cover their track. Utilizing a GW-built air-agitation system, the "Hyvar" X-L is mixed for nearly an hour before the tank car is rolled from the yard; there's little returning for another load during the day. "I bet most beet growers would like to have that tank capacity in treating a field," jokes McNay. With 30 lbs. psi and moving at 10 mph, McNay is at the controls of an 11-foot spray boom that generally covers the ballast section of the track. Utilizing a hand gun and hose from his command post, McNay gives dese an extra to heavy clumps of grasses that may have developed beyond the ballast. If need be, a 600-gallon tank-trailer is pulled behind a hand car to spray 2-4-D outside the ballast section for con- trol of puncturevine and broadleaf weeds. "Hyvar" X-L in the "little trailer" is also used to cover bridges and culverts. The trailer is also used for spot work on Canada thistle, where 2-3-6 TBA may be used. "The 'Hyvar' program we established several years ago," explains McNay, "is the type of vegetation control we had been needing for quite some time. It has been much easier to keep our road open. To prevent breakthrough problems, we have been looking at "Krovar" I weed killer for a year. But "Hyvar" will remain the base.' McNay notes that many sugar beet fields and irrigation canals border the GW Railway rights-of-way. The GW chemical vegetation manage- ment program has caused no "downstream" problems. "The farmers watch pretty close, too, " says McNay. Source:https:t/www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pzxv0228 -4- Weeds and brush can be a problem on any railway, but McNay and Shuman have the formula for success: One basic treatment that provides year-long control. ###### 6/4/74 Souree:https:Hwww.industryeocuments.uest.edurdoes/pzxv0228 PHOTO CAPTIONS 1. OPEN TRACK, easy to inspect, results from good vegetation management, like the tracks here. A Great Western Sugar refinery and the towering Mountains are seen on the horizon. ROCKY 2. INSPECTING THE ROADBED along the GWR right-of-way is the responsibility of assistant roadmaster Thomas McNay of Loveland, Colo. R 10000 3. GWR SPRAYING PROGRAM depends on a special 14000 gal. tank car equipped with spray booms and hand guns. The tank car makes it possible for McNay to cover 50miles of track in two days. 4. SWITCHES ARE A PRIME TARGET of the spring spraying program. "Hyvar" X-L x is applied at 2 1/2 pounds gallor pe- per acre acre to achieve good control. 5. PLANNING GWR SPRAYING OPERATIONS are roadmaster Frank Shuman (left), Joe B. Baker (Center) and Tom McNay. They depend on good weed control to simplify other maintenance. # # # # # # 6/4/74 (74-34) Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pzxy0228 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pzxv0228 2 3 Source: ittps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pzxv0228 4 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pzxv0228

Who is the superintendent?

pzxv0228

pzxv0228_p0, pzxv0228_p1, pzxv0228_p2, pzxv0228_p3, pzxv0228_p4, pzxv0228_p5, pzxv0228_p6, pzxv0228_p7, pzxv0228_p8, pzxv0228_p9, pzxv0228_p10

T.G. MCNAY, T.G McNay

THE Great Western Sugar COMPANY September 26, 1974 Mr. A. A. D'Amico Nash Engineering Company 222 Milwaukee Street Denver, Colorado 80206 Dear Mr. D'Amico: As I promised in our recent meeting, I am enclosing a photograph of our Kemp factory in Goodland, Kansas. It is our newest factory, having gone on-stream in 1968, and I feel our most attractive from a photographic standpoint. If, for some reason, you find this photo unacceptable, please let us know and we'll try to come up with something more suitable. I have, incidentally, notified the factory managers at the factories in which you indicated an interest, so you should have no trouble in obtaining cooperation when you set up your photo arrangements. Sincerely, Larry L. McGhee, Director Communications LLM/mk cc: Mr. Don Berra POST OFFICE BOX 5308 DENVER, COLORADO 80217 (303) 893-4600 A SUBSIDIARY OF GREAT WESTERN UNITED CORPORATION Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pzxv0228 THE Great Western Sugar COMPANY October 28, 1974 Mr. Wayne Wood 1412 Meeker Drive Longmont, Colorado Dear Wayne We are enclosing the Great Western Railway story as revised by various people in the railway company. We've done our best not to make major changes but have edited it here and there in an attempt to improve the accuracy a little. Sorry we are so slow in getting it back to you. Hope this will not cause you any problems. I had intended to give you a ring regarding the recent meeting of the local chapter of the Agri-Marketing Association but found that I would be unable to attend the meeting myself. Would like very much for you to attend the November meeting as my guest if you are interested. I will let you know the date and time, etc. Best regards, Larry L. McGhee, Director Communications LLM/mk Enclosure POST OFFICE BOX 5308 DENVER, COLORADO 80217 (303) 893-4600 A SUBSIDIARY OF GREAT WESTERN UNITED CORPORATION Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pzxv0228 FORM 60 THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE T. G. McNay SUPERINTENDENT LOVELAND. COLORADO October 15, 1974 Larry: I marked out a few areas that were overstated. For the sake of expediency, the rest of the article is OK as is. Tom Me May Super intendent. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pzxv0228 GW CAMPAIGNS FOR SUGAR: AGAINST WEEDS The Great Western Railway operating out of Loveland, Colo., is certainly not the oldest nor longest railroad in the United States. But it is, quite possibly, one of the sweetest short-line railroads in the nation. It exists as a subsidiary of The Great Western Sugar Co. of Denver, to carry GW freight. And that freight is literally thousands millions of tons of Colorado sugar beets. While carrying sugarCoets, there's something else that commands attention on the GW Railway. It's weeds! Over 42 1/2 miles of main track, 15 miles of branch tracks and 15.6 and sidings. 19 miles of yard track, Frank Shuman as Roadmaster and Thomas McNay as assistant roadmaster, direct a maintenance program that keeps trains running throughout the year, but especially during the critical fall beet harvest. A key problem that plagues sugar beet farmers in the field also threatens efficient maintenance for the GW Railway. Weed and grass control means the difference between excellent or average yields to the grower. "The same thing is true for us," says McNay. "our biggest problem is general maintenance. If the tracks aren't hrpt clear of weeds and grasses, then we just can't get our work done. McNay has two section gangs, each with four men and a foreman to complete all jobs from track-bed inspections to rail replacement. "The major jobs of this railroad are made easier through annual chemical vegetation management programs," explains McNay. "We have tried many methods, but the need for control is always there.' Source: -2- Advantages of good weed control, according to Mchay, include fire prevention and control, improved track-bed drainage, longer life for ties, ease of track inspections and generally favorable working conditions. `our men don't have to climb through head high weeds," says Nay That rail maintenance in general and vegetation control programs in specific have been successful through the years is indicated by the fact that ties are still in the track-bed dating back to the mid- 1930's.The Railway system built in << when the sugar beet industry was was first established in Colorado. aw trains once hauled 10021 passengersbut TOW to haul only SEE REWRITE suger beets, refined sugar and all the material needed for processing. Two regularly scheduled runs of GW trains move down the main tracks and processing seasen each day. During the sugar beet campaign (as the harvest is called) 1 five diesels may be hauling up to 60 or 70 hopper cars of beets from the numerous dump sites that dot the Colorado landscape east of the Rockies Colorado With schedules like this, McNay's men can afford little time on a vegetation management program, even though it is the key to his general maintenance plan. Annual treatment for weed control begins in mid-April and just three days later it's over. The key is an application of "Hyvar" X-L bromacil weed killer, with some spot spraying with 2-4-D and some use of 2-3-6 TBA. Gone are the days of hand scythe, rail mowers and back- breaking labor. In fact, cutting and chopping have been gone for nearly 15 years. Early chemical treatment programs were based on "Telvar" monuron weed killer; later "Hyvar" X-WS was used. In 1973, -3- Shuman and McNay switched to "Hyvar" X-L, a liquid product. 10,000 Shuman and McNay have engineered a unique your- tank car to cover their track. Utilizing a GW-built air-agitation system, the "Hyvar" X-L is mixed for nearly an hour before the tank car is rolled from the yard; there's little returning for another load during the day. "I bet most beet growers would like to have that tank capacity in treating a field," jokes McNay. With 30 lbs. psi and moving at 10 mph, McNay is at the controls of an 11-foot spray boom that generally covers the ballast section of the track. Utilizing a hand gun and hose from his command post, McNay gives dese an extra to heavy clumps of grasses that may have developed beyond the ballast. If need be, a 600-gallon tank-trailer is pulled behind a hand car to spray 2-4-D outside the ballast section for con- trol of puncturevine and broadleaf weeds. "Hyvar" X-L in the "little trailer" is also used to cover bridges and culverts. The trailer is also used for spot work on Canada thistle, where 2-3-6 TBA may be used. "The 'Hyvar' program we established several years ago," explains McNay, "is the type of vegetation control we had been needing for quite some time. It has been much easier to keep our road open. To prevent breakthrough problems, we have been looking at "Krovar" I weed killer for a year. But "Hyvar" will remain the base.' McNay notes that many sugar beet fields and irrigation canals border the GW Railway rights-of-way. The GW chemical vegetation manage- ment program has caused no "downstream" problems. "The farmers watch pretty close, too, " says McNay. Source:https:t/www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pzxv0228 -4- Weeds and brush can be a problem on any railway, but McNay and Shuman have the formula for success: One basic treatment that provides year-long control. ###### 6/4/74 Souree:https:Hwww.industryeocuments.uest.edurdoes/pzxv0228 PHOTO CAPTIONS 1. OPEN TRACK, easy to inspect, results from good vegetation management, like the tracks here. A Great Western Sugar refinery and the towering Mountains are seen on the horizon. ROCKY 2. INSPECTING THE ROADBED along the GWR right-of-way is the responsibility of assistant roadmaster Thomas McNay of Loveland, Colo. R 10000 3. GWR SPRAYING PROGRAM depends on a special 14000 gal. tank car equipped with spray booms and hand guns. The tank car makes it possible for McNay to cover 50miles of track in two days. 4. SWITCHES ARE A PRIME TARGET of the spring spraying program. "Hyvar" X-L x is applied at 2 1/2 pounds gallor pe- per acre acre to achieve good control. 5. PLANNING GWR SPRAYING OPERATIONS are roadmaster Frank Shuman (left), Joe B. Baker (Center) and Tom McNay. They depend on good weed control to simplify other maintenance. # # # # # # 6/4/74 (74-34) Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pzxy0228 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pzxv0228 2 3 Source: ittps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pzxv0228 4 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pzxv0228

To whom the letter is addressed to?

pzxv0228

pzxv0228_p0, pzxv0228_p1, pzxv0228_p2, pzxv0228_p3, pzxv0228_p4, pzxv0228_p5, pzxv0228_p6, pzxv0228_p7, pzxv0228_p8, pzxv0228_p9, pzxv0228_p10

Larry, LARRY

THE Great Western Sugar COMPANY September 26, 1974 Mr. A. A. D'Amico Nash Engineering Company 222 Milwaukee Street Denver, Colorado 80206 Dear Mr. D'Amico: As I promised in our recent meeting, I am enclosing a photograph of our Kemp factory in Goodland, Kansas. It is our newest factory, having gone on-stream in 1968, and I feel our most attractive from a photographic standpoint. If, for some reason, you find this photo unacceptable, please let us know and we'll try to come up with something more suitable. I have, incidentally, notified the factory managers at the factories in which you indicated an interest, so you should have no trouble in obtaining cooperation when you set up your photo arrangements. Sincerely, Larry L. McGhee, Director Communications LLM/mk cc: Mr. Don Berra POST OFFICE BOX 5308 DENVER, COLORADO 80217 (303) 893-4600 A SUBSIDIARY OF GREAT WESTERN UNITED CORPORATION Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pzxv0228 THE Great Western Sugar COMPANY October 28, 1974 Mr. Wayne Wood 1412 Meeker Drive Longmont, Colorado Dear Wayne We are enclosing the Great Western Railway story as revised by various people in the railway company. We've done our best not to make major changes but have edited it here and there in an attempt to improve the accuracy a little. Sorry we are so slow in getting it back to you. Hope this will not cause you any problems. I had intended to give you a ring regarding the recent meeting of the local chapter of the Agri-Marketing Association but found that I would be unable to attend the meeting myself. Would like very much for you to attend the November meeting as my guest if you are interested. I will let you know the date and time, etc. Best regards, Larry L. McGhee, Director Communications LLM/mk Enclosure POST OFFICE BOX 5308 DENVER, COLORADO 80217 (303) 893-4600 A SUBSIDIARY OF GREAT WESTERN UNITED CORPORATION Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pzxv0228 FORM 60 THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE T. G. McNay SUPERINTENDENT LOVELAND. COLORADO October 15, 1974 Larry: I marked out a few areas that were overstated. For the sake of expediency, the rest of the article is OK as is. Tom Me May Super intendent. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pzxv0228 GW CAMPAIGNS FOR SUGAR: AGAINST WEEDS The Great Western Railway operating out of Loveland, Colo., is certainly not the oldest nor longest railroad in the United States. But it is, quite possibly, one of the sweetest short-line railroads in the nation. It exists as a subsidiary of The Great Western Sugar Co. of Denver, to carry GW freight. And that freight is literally thousands millions of tons of Colorado sugar beets. While carrying sugarCoets, there's something else that commands attention on the GW Railway. It's weeds! Over 42 1/2 miles of main track, 15 miles of branch tracks and 15.6 and sidings. 19 miles of yard track, Frank Shuman as Roadmaster and Thomas McNay as assistant roadmaster, direct a maintenance program that keeps trains running throughout the year, but especially during the critical fall beet harvest. A key problem that plagues sugar beet farmers in the field also threatens efficient maintenance for the GW Railway. Weed and grass control means the difference between excellent or average yields to the grower. "The same thing is true for us," says McNay. "our biggest problem is general maintenance. If the tracks aren't hrpt clear of weeds and grasses, then we just can't get our work done. McNay has two section gangs, each with four men and a foreman to complete all jobs from track-bed inspections to rail replacement. "The major jobs of this railroad are made easier through annual chemical vegetation management programs," explains McNay. "We have tried many methods, but the need for control is always there.' Source: -2- Advantages of good weed control, according to Mchay, include fire prevention and control, improved track-bed drainage, longer life for ties, ease of track inspections and generally favorable working conditions. `our men don't have to climb through head high weeds," says Nay That rail maintenance in general and vegetation control programs in specific have been successful through the years is indicated by the fact that ties are still in the track-bed dating back to the mid- 1930's.The Railway system built in << when the sugar beet industry was was first established in Colorado. aw trains once hauled 10021 passengersbut TOW to haul only SEE REWRITE suger beets, refined sugar and all the material needed for processing. Two regularly scheduled runs of GW trains move down the main tracks and processing seasen each day. During the sugar beet campaign (as the harvest is called) 1 five diesels may be hauling up to 60 or 70 hopper cars of beets from the numerous dump sites that dot the Colorado landscape east of the Rockies Colorado With schedules like this, McNay's men can afford little time on a vegetation management program, even though it is the key to his general maintenance plan. Annual treatment for weed control begins in mid-April and just three days later it's over. The key is an application of "Hyvar" X-L bromacil weed killer, with some spot spraying with 2-4-D and some use of 2-3-6 TBA. Gone are the days of hand scythe, rail mowers and back- breaking labor. In fact, cutting and chopping have been gone for nearly 15 years. Early chemical treatment programs were based on "Telvar" monuron weed killer; later "Hyvar" X-WS was used. In 1973, -3- Shuman and McNay switched to "Hyvar" X-L, a liquid product. 10,000 Shuman and McNay have engineered a unique your- tank car to cover their track. Utilizing a GW-built air-agitation system, the "Hyvar" X-L is mixed for nearly an hour before the tank car is rolled from the yard; there's little returning for another load during the day. "I bet most beet growers would like to have that tank capacity in treating a field," jokes McNay. With 30 lbs. psi and moving at 10 mph, McNay is at the controls of an 11-foot spray boom that generally covers the ballast section of the track. Utilizing a hand gun and hose from his command post, McNay gives dese an extra to heavy clumps of grasses that may have developed beyond the ballast. If need be, a 600-gallon tank-trailer is pulled behind a hand car to spray 2-4-D outside the ballast section for con- trol of puncturevine and broadleaf weeds. "Hyvar" X-L in the "little trailer" is also used to cover bridges and culverts. The trailer is also used for spot work on Canada thistle, where 2-3-6 TBA may be used. "The 'Hyvar' program we established several years ago," explains McNay, "is the type of vegetation control we had been needing for quite some time. It has been much easier to keep our road open. To prevent breakthrough problems, we have been looking at "Krovar" I weed killer for a year. But "Hyvar" will remain the base.' McNay notes that many sugar beet fields and irrigation canals border the GW Railway rights-of-way. The GW chemical vegetation manage- ment program has caused no "downstream" problems. "The farmers watch pretty close, too, " says McNay. Source:https:t/www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pzxv0228 -4- Weeds and brush can be a problem on any railway, but McNay and Shuman have the formula for success: One basic treatment that provides year-long control. ###### 6/4/74 Souree:https:Hwww.industryeocuments.uest.edurdoes/pzxv0228 PHOTO CAPTIONS 1. OPEN TRACK, easy to inspect, results from good vegetation management, like the tracks here. A Great Western Sugar refinery and the towering Mountains are seen on the horizon. ROCKY 2. INSPECTING THE ROADBED along the GWR right-of-way is the responsibility of assistant roadmaster Thomas McNay of Loveland, Colo. R 10000 3. GWR SPRAYING PROGRAM depends on a special 14000 gal. tank car equipped with spray booms and hand guns. The tank car makes it possible for McNay to cover 50miles of track in two days. 4. SWITCHES ARE A PRIME TARGET of the spring spraying program. "Hyvar" X-L x is applied at 2 1/2 pounds gallor pe- per acre acre to achieve good control. 5. PLANNING GWR SPRAYING OPERATIONS are roadmaster Frank Shuman (left), Joe B. Baker (Center) and Tom McNay. They depend on good weed control to simplify other maintenance. # # # # # # 6/4/74 (74-34) Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pzxy0228 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pzxv0228 2 3 Source: ittps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pzxv0228 4 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pzxv0228

This is the Preliminary Plot Plan of which Factory ?

lrvx0227

lrvx0227_p0, lrvx0227_p1

GOODLAND SUGAR FACTORY, GoodLand Sugar Factory

AGRICULTURAL WAREHOUSE III PUL/ MATERIAL YARD PELLET WAREHOUSE DIRYER LIME KILN N MACHINE SHOP 1 MAIN FACTORY BLDG BOILER HOUSE SACKING SU6AR WAREHOUSE BULK SUGAR BINS - US ROUTE 24 5-MILES TO GOODLAND GOODLAND SUGAR FACTORY 1"=100' 4-5-67 PRELIMINARY J.S.L. L.R. PLOT PLAN GOODLAND, KANSAS K-100 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs//rvx0227 .00 RADU2 MA3T23W TA3RO 3HT OGAROJOS A3V130 stsO 9les2 vd yd bszu 2 .3WO Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs//rvx0227

How many miles to GoodLand in US ROUTE 24 ?

lrvx0227

lrvx0227_p0, lrvx0227_p1

5-MILES

AGRICULTURAL WAREHOUSE III PUL/ MATERIAL YARD PELLET WAREHOUSE DIRYER LIME KILN N MACHINE SHOP 1 MAIN FACTORY BLDG BOILER HOUSE SACKING SU6AR WAREHOUSE BULK SUGAR BINS - US ROUTE 24 5-MILES TO GOODLAND GOODLAND SUGAR FACTORY 1"=100' 4-5-67 PRELIMINARY J.S.L. L.R. PLOT PLAN GOODLAND, KANSAS K-100 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs//rvx0227 .00 RADU2 MA3T23W TA3RO 3HT OGAROJOS A3V130 stsO 9les2 vd yd bszu 2 .3WO Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs//rvx0227

What is the cabin after Bulk Sugar Bins ?

lrvx0227

lrvx0227_p0, lrvx0227_p1

SUGAR WAREHOUSE, Sugar Warehouse

AGRICULTURAL WAREHOUSE III PUL/ MATERIAL YARD PELLET WAREHOUSE DIRYER LIME KILN N MACHINE SHOP 1 MAIN FACTORY BLDG BOILER HOUSE SACKING SU6AR WAREHOUSE BULK SUGAR BINS - US ROUTE 24 5-MILES TO GOODLAND GOODLAND SUGAR FACTORY 1"=100' 4-5-67 PRELIMINARY J.S.L. L.R. PLOT PLAN GOODLAND, KANSAS K-100 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs//rvx0227 .00 RADU2 MA3T23W TA3RO 3HT OGAROJOS A3V130 stsO 9les2 vd yd bszu 2 .3WO Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs//rvx0227

345 is the Number of which road ?

lrvx0227

lrvx0227_p0, lrvx0227_p1

County Road, COUNTY ROAD

AGRICULTURAL WAREHOUSE III PUL/ MATERIAL YARD PELLET WAREHOUSE DIRYER LIME KILN N MACHINE SHOP 1 MAIN FACTORY BLDG BOILER HOUSE SACKING SU6AR WAREHOUSE BULK SUGAR BINS - US ROUTE 24 5-MILES TO GOODLAND GOODLAND SUGAR FACTORY 1"=100' 4-5-67 PRELIMINARY J.S.L. L.R. PLOT PLAN GOODLAND, KANSAS K-100 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs//rvx0227 .00 RADU2 MA3T23W TA3RO 3HT OGAROJOS A3V130 stsO 9les2 vd yd bszu 2 .3WO Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs//rvx0227

what are the two years taken for the statements ?

jlbx0227

jlbx0227_p0, jlbx0227_p1, jlbx0227_p2, jlbx0227_p3, jlbx0227_p4, jlbx0227_p5, jlbx0227_p6, jlbx0227_p7, jlbx0227_p8, jlbx0227_p9, jlbx0227_p10, jlbx0227_p11, jlbx0227_p12, jlbx0227_p13, jlbx0227_p14, jlbx0227_p15, jlbx0227_p16, jlbx0227_p17, jlbx0227_p18, jlbx0227_p19

1974 and 1973, 1974 AND 1973

GH BRIEFING 6-11-75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I. GH is not worth buying for what is has earned or will earn under "normal" conditions; i.e., buy, refine, sell sugar. EBIT $600 M to $1.500M Needs $6-9MM WC to continue Can be purchased for $4-8 MM (they expect $10MM) Our "cost" is $10-17MM. . II. GH has excellent 1. Facilities at Reserve 2. Technical support personnel at Reserve 3. Distribution network relative to GW. t 2,100, on 00 3, III. GH could be a good speculative investment 2.4 Hog Low Provides A. "LONG.LIMIT 7,200,000 2, 400,000 Balance to GWS beet business 21.000,000 5.7,100 2,200,00 3.0000 Take % of Sugar Broker/dist $ 6,200,000 wwword ? 400.00 = Entry to foreign refined market 10% "Improvement on cost of raws = $16MM profit contribution" We must get a "participating K".- HFTS: 2X the Bet. on 121,000 IV. Net; get into GH as low as possible, 4 3 Emphasize the Raws problem< : Slim down overhead 95° Devise a plan that can target for $20MM EBIT. Actual Potented V hmp Ratio 73 74 AT, impiral 1.6 2.6 1.9mm Gll 4% 2.6% G,8 Source:https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., INC. PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1967. - 1970 1971 & 1974 1971 Profit Before Tax, Interest and Supervision Fees $ 11,130 M $ 6,614 M $ 4,528 M Average Per Year . 2,783 3,307 4,528 1974 Supervision (506) (506) .' (506) 1974 Interest (2,213) (2,213) (2,213) Projected Annual Profit 64 588 1,809 Investment Required to Return 10% $ 640 M $ 5,880 M $ 18,090 M 30% 213 1,950 6,030 15% 426 3,920 12,600 Production (CWT) 32,824 M CWT 19,050 M CWT 10,502 M CWT Average Per Year 8,206 9,525 10,502 1.5 33 Objective: - Get 30 day option - Full P & L information (operating statistics) - Manufacturing costs (operating statistics) Be Prepared To: - Sign LOI - Offer $4 Mm Low $5 Mm Mid $6 Mm High for 30% return before taxes $10 Mm Absolute Top Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co., INC. BALANCE SHEETS December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 ASSETS Current assets: Cash $ 2,150,212 $ 1,295,521 Federal income tax refund 1,020,891 Accounts and notes receivable: Trade 17,277,055 8,652,194 Affiliates 67,279 463,344 Inventories 12,503,941 13,094,401 Prepaid insurance and other 392,086 185,945 Total current assets 33,411,464 23,691,405 Property, plant and equipment, at cost: Land 373,300 373,300 Buildings 6,208,224 5,905,359 Machinery and equipment 14,791,863 13,812,393 Delivery and other automotive equipment 89,307 89,307 Leasehold improvements 50,662 27,707 21,513,356 20,208,066 Less accumulated depreciation 6,975,497 5,995,392 14,537,859 14,212,674 Other assets: Deferred income. taxes 1,492,919 Sundry deferred charges 368,352 629,849 Notes receivable 2,500 110,500 Advances to affiliates 126,733 1,990,504 740,349 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,428 LIABILITIES Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities: Trade $ 31,834,490 $ 6,998,742 Affiliates 846,938 356,860 Notes payable 19,019,761 14,534,993 Current portion of long-term debt 103,317 308,828 Total current liabilities (18,393) 51,804,506 22,199,423 Mortgage and notes payable, current portion above: 10-1/2% First Mortgage Note 4,747,501 4,836,043 Other notes payable 124,451 180,306 4,871,952 5,016,349 Advances from affiliates 3,178,135 3,171,156 Deferred income taxes 788,190 STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY (DEFICIT) Common stock, $100 par value; 1,041 shares authorized, issued and outstanding 104,100 104,100 Paid-in capital 2,323,239 . 2,323,239 Retained earnings (deficit), as annexed (12,342,105) 5,041,971 (9,914,765) 7,469,310 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,418 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-MENDERSON SUGAR co., , INC. PRO FORMA BALANCE SHEET AT 5/31/75 IN HANDS OF OTHERS - ON LIFO ASSETS Cash $ 1,395 Accounts Receivable 12,464 - Inventories Sugar 272,000 cwt at $11.11 3,022 Processing cost 386 Spare parts 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 19,631 Fixed assets - Net 14,353 Other assets and deferred charges 411 TOTAL ASSETS $ 34,395 LIABILITIES = Notes payable - banks $ 14,253 Notes payable - La. raw mills 7,369 Need commu Current portion of long-term debt 115 Accounts payable and accrued 3,334 2,2 Total Current Liabilities 25,071 Long-term debt 4,815 Deferred taxes 872 Deferred futures profit 716 Stockholders' equity 2,921 TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 34,395 1975 ceremated income Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Soùrce: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/j)bx0227 GODCHAUX-IENDERSON SUGAR co., INC. ESTIMATED WORKING CAPITAL MAY 31, 1975 000's omitted Current Assets Cash $ 1,395 Accounts receivable 12,464 Note receivable - U.S. Sugar Co. 240 Inventories: Raw sugar (Massequite), 40,458 cwt @ $17 688 Refined, 216,216 cwt @ $22 4,757 Spare parts, bags, mdse. for resale 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 21,908 Current Liabilities Bank notes payable 14,253 Current portion of long-term debt 115 Total notes payable 14,368 La. raw sugar payables 7,369 Other trade payables and accruals 1,755 Total Current Liabilities 23,492 Net Estimated Working Capital (Deficit) ($ 1,584) CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co. INC. ESTIMATED NET INCOME JANUARY ] THROUGH MAY 31, 1975 Pre-tax income, 4/30/75 $ 388,221 Estimated profit on April inventory liquidation 346,750 Deferred inventory liquidation profit, 4/30/75 6,329,205 Last estimated of May income 187,723 7,251,899 Estimate of income from inventory liquidation in month of May: Cwt actual, 96°, , 4/30/75 485,000 Cwt actual, 96°; 5/31/75 272,000 Liquidated 213,000 Spread ($27 May Cost - $11) x 16 $3,408,000 May liquidation profit 3,408,000 Total estimated pre-tax income 10,659,899 Book taxes at 37% consolidated rate 3,944,163 Estimated net income $ 6,715,736 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR co. INC. 2 ESTIMATED STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY MAY 31, 1975 Capital stock $ 104,100 Paid in capital, existing balance 2,323,239 Additional contributions to be made by Southern Industries 5,345,000 Total capital stock and paid-in 7,772,339 Retained earnings (deficit), 1/1/75 (12,342,104) Estimated net income, 1/1-5/31/75 6,715,736 Retained earnings (deficit), 5/31/75 ( 5,626,368) Total Estimated Stockholder's Equity, 5/31/75 $ 2,145,971 776 2,921 5. cash 3,6 2 2146 8.6 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF INCOME (LOSS) AND RETAINED EARNINGS (DEFICIT) for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Net sales $270,994,584 $121,429,038 Cost of sales 282,649,140 117,395,585 Gross profit (loss) (11,654,556) 4,033,453 Selling, general and administrative expenses 3,259,352 2,468,224 (14,913,908) 1,565,229 Other income, net 143,984 54,687 16.4mm (14,769,924) 1,619,916 Interest deductions 2,192,152 1,197,210 Income (loss) before provision (credit) for taxes 4 14,2mm (16,962,076) 422,706 Provision (credit) for income taxes: Federal: Current (990,891) (277,206) Deferred (2,251,109) 181,357 State - current 19,089 (3,242,000) (76,760) Net income (loss) the 7.1mm (13,720,076) 499,466 Retained earnings, January 1, restated 5,041,971 4,667,505 (8,678,105) 5,166,971 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 Retained earnings (deficit), December 31 $(12,342,105) $ _5,041,971 See notes to financial statements. 3 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., , INC. Statement of Change in Financial Position 1/1/15 - 4/30/75 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income $ 1244,579 Depreciation and amortization 383,018 Deferred income taxes -0- Working capital provided from operations 627,597 Decrease in other assets 4,525 Increase in deferred liabilities 8,373,106 $ 9,005,228 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment $ : 293,428 Reduction to mortgage and notes payable 56,909 Increase in deferred charges 264,575 $ 614,912 Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Changes in working capital Current assets: Cash $ (1,169,483) Receivables a 230th (7,434,849) Inventories (4,138,565) Prepaid insurance and other. 338,681 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities + 2,3sta $ (20,787,991) Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (6,541) $ (20,794,532) Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income (loss) $(13,720,076) $ 499,466 Expenses (credit) not affecting working capital in the current year: Depreciation and amortization 1,060,770 819,542 Deferred income taxes (2,251,109) 181,357 Working capital provided from (applied to) operations for the year (14,910,415) 1,500,365 Increase in advances from affiliates 6,979 Increase in mortgage and notes payable 9,430 1,022,000 Property sales and retirements, less accumulated depreciation 53,470 15,535 Other 212,764 63,670 (14,627,772) 2,601,570 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment 1,439,425 2,778,888 Reduction in mortgage and notes payable 153,827 278,496 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 5,257,252 3,182,384 Decrease in working capital $ (19,885,024) $ (580,814) Change in working capital - increase (decrease) : Current assets: Cash $ 854,691 $ 703,853 Receivables 9,249,687 (635,126) Inventories (590,460) 2,042,128 Prepaid insurance and other 206,141 (32,598 9,720,059 2,078,257 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (25,325,826) 3,143,444 Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (4,279,257) (5,802,515) (29,605,083) (2,659,071 Decrease in working capital $(19,885,024) $ (580,814 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 - SUCAR C.O. INC. VARIOUS SINTISTICS 1/1/74 .. 12/31/174 (BEFORE LIFO) PROFIT CONTRIBUTION Net Profit Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Add: Supervision Fees 506,000 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 14,675,927 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 SIC Note Interest 45,913 Interest Expense 1,986,461 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 60,914 Debt Amortization 14,752 Profit Contribution 16,383,957 ABEREVIATED FLOW OF FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Less: Income Tax 7,084,964 Net Income $ 7,084,963 Add: Depreciation and Amortization 1,052,693 Cash Flow $ 8,137,656. Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt 800,082 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 8,937,738 drwanch Less: Dividends 3.664,000 Capital Expenditures 1,377,877 Net Flow of Funds - Surplus/(Deficit) $ 3,895,861 NET WORKING CAPITAL @ 12/31/74 $ 5,480,545 Repairs $ 1,653,955 Refined Sugar Produced CWT 8,547,969 = it n Operating Days - Refinery 233 321 Average Production per Operating Day $ 36,687 27 \ IIIN E. Ladd 5/19/75 Söurce: https://www.industrydócuments,ucsf.edutddrst T1xx0227 VARIOUS STATISTICS 1967 - 1973 7 YEAR 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 TOTAL PROFIT CONTRIBUTION is 196 P Net Profit Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 Add: Supervision Fees 108,701 116,733 141,000 553,719 635,000 600,000 475,200 2,630,353 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 1,546,380 $ 1,864,135.1 $,1,718,417 $ 3,055,741 $ 3,866,801 $ 1,111,305 $ 897,906 $14,060,685 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 - 105,000 735,000 SIC Note Interest 138,214 145,798 138,661 131,661 124,747 117,925 111,636 908,642 Interest Expense 461,912 469,086 500,094 414,888 399,240 550,819 979,364 3,775,403 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 26,933 30,683 32,257 29,098 31,987 42,390 43,155 236,503 Debt Amortization 3,008 3,009 a - 6,017 1 Profit Contribution $ 2,281,447 $ 2,617,711 $ 2,494,129 $ 3,736,388 $ 4,527,775 $ 1,927,439 $ 2,137,061 $19,722,250 =085. ASBREVIATED FLCW 07 FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 (633) Less: Income Tax 586,061 804,000 816,551 1,069,802 1,153,238 26,466 (76,760) 4,379,358 Net Incone $ 851,618 $ 943,402 $ 760,866 $ 1,432,220 $ 2,078,563 $ 484,839 $ 499,466 $ 7,050,974 Add: Depreciation & Amortization 378,075 426,909 496,715 536,092 599,874 674,623 819,542 3,931,530 Cash Flow $ 1,229,693 $ 1,370,311 $ 1,257,581 $ 1,968,312 $ 2,678,437 $ 1,159,462 $ 1,319,008 $10,982,604 Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt (603,062) (492,620) (333,174) (495,412) 1,865,581 3,351,521 743,504 4,036,338 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 626,631 $ 877,691 $ 924,407 $ 1,472,900 $ 4,544,013 $ 4,510,983 $ 2,062,512 $15,019,142 NO Less: Dividends -0- 375,000 330,000 530,000 : 660,000 330,000 125,000 2,350,000 Capital Expenditures 1,694,961 1,099,561 942,281 755,946 2,619,417 4,187,602 2,773,893 14,078,656 Net Flou of Funds - Surplus/(Doficit) $ (1,068,330) $ (596,870) $. (347,371) $ 186,954 $ 1,264,601 $ (6,619) $ (841,376) $(1,409,514) Net Working Capital at Year-End $ 1,738,296 $ 960,279 $ 531,173 $ 499,751 $ 1,171,294 $ 2,220,053 $ 2,216,941 $ 1,627,025 Repairs $ 1,160,277 $ 1,229,468 $ 1,156,668 $ 1,326,567 $ 1,475,224 $ 1,414,386 $1.1,383,014 $ 9,145,604 Refined Sugar Produced (Cwt.) 7,270,838 8,317,724 7,741,365 9,494,161 10,502,424 9,170,169 8,457,433 - Operating Days - Refinery 268 277 246 299 .312 280 247 Average Production per Operating Day (Cwt.) 27,130 30,028 31,495 31,817 33,694 32,751 34,185 E. Ladd . 3/28/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I a - 0.042 °C - - - - it. Co N T O 0= of n- F- 8 80 . ********** i. .7 -0 *********** ++++++++4 - - CUMVERCA RAN 7 CONVERCA 3 es (--) CF- a n a - D an nca [= HE' - In a g 2 - Filent - NOTE. o THIS MAP REDUCED KALF SIZE MAP OF PLANT LATOUT na Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 (10,000) 31,000 (43,000 24,000 (4,000) LEARTYPE OUNTY OUTUNE NITED STATES - (3,000) MAP NO.117 AMERICAN MAD SOMPANY.INC $ Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SALARIED ORGANIZATION MAY 1, 1975 Operations, J. A. Metzler 2 Purchasing 6 Cincinnati 5 13 Marketing, E. R. Fleming 2 Administration 10 Sales 8 20 Finance, H. L. Kirk 4 Credit 4 Billing 3 Machine Room 2 1.3 Accounting, R. L. Crawford 11 Refinery, A. Garcia 2 Maintenance 23 Quality Assurance 10 Engineering 4 Administration 19 Operations 35 Service 2 95 Mobile, Administration and Service 6 TOTAL 158 40 158 101 67 T. Source: https://wvww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/doce 51jTbx02.27 to HOURLY ORCANIZATION - RESERVE - MAY 1, 1975 Manning is based cn requirement of two full shifts plus skeleton crew on the third shift in Pecking, and six palletized crews and two hand loading crews in Shipping. Raw Receiving 3 Affination 9 Clarification 9 Char House 18 Granulators 6 Pan Floor 16 Refined Centrifugal 12 Pre-Packaging 14 Packaging 80 Shipping - Packages 51 Shipping - Bulk 6 Liquid Sugar 6 Yard Crew 4 Sanitation 12 Security 6 Commissary 4 Laboratory 8 Utilities 12 Dock 6 Painters 8 Construction 14 Truck Drivers 5 Electrical 15 Maintenance Shops 13 Area Mechanics 20 Operations Mechanics 12 Total Required for 369* Operation *There are approximately 30 additional people on the payroll who act as vacation replacements, absentee replacements, training, etc. 360 1.58 40 Source: https:.//wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs[ilbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES 1. Information known: A. Sugar refinery at Reserve, Louisiana - 32 miles west of New Orleans on the Mississippi River. B. Liquid sugár processing plant and distribution terminal at Cincinnati, Ohio and leases sugar packaging operations at Buffalo, New York and (Chicago, Illinois 12/1/74. C. Owns 8 hydraulic material processing dredges, owns or has long term leases on 11 towboats and 88 cargo barges and under short term leases has 15 towboats and 30 barges. D. Also owns ready-mixed concrete operations and a mixer fleet in Mobile; asphalt plants at Woodstock, Margerum and Mobile, Alabama: a concrete block plant at Mobile, and supporting sales depots at Mobile, Ft. Walton Beach and Pensacola, Florida, and New Orleans owns or leases 8 stone quarries and crushing plants at Mobile, Baltimore and Houston, and chemical lime plants at Morgan City, La., and Saginaw, Ala. Company leases 2 slag processing facilities at Columbia, Tenn. E. Mineral Reserves--Company leases shell deposits from the states of Alabama and Louisiana, estimated to contain 100 million tons; leases gravel deposits estimated to contain 10 million tons owns an asphaltic limestone deposit estimated to contain 1,500,000 tons; and leases lime- stone deposits estimated to contain 200 million tons. F. Raws: 25% from U.S. 75% from Foreign G. Campaign: 312 days in 1971 280 days in 1972 247 days in 1973 232 days in 1974 H. Refined Sugar Production Production Year (Million cwts) 1971 10.5 1972 9.2 1973 8.4 1974 8.5 1. Sells sugar under two tradenames: 1. Henderson Superfine 2. Godchaux Brand continued Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES, continued Page 2 J. Current assets $53 Million. K. Long term debt $34 Million. L. Cost of replacing cane facilities: 1) Processing - $25 million Mill (3500 ton/day grind) 2) Refinery - $45 million (700 ton/day raw sugar) X 2 = 99mm II. Data needed: A. What it costs for Raws - Domestic - Foreign B. Operating costs (cost of production including G & A percent of refined sugar). C. Where receive raws from D. Costs to market place E. Financial data up to net income F. Present contractual arrangements III. To Receive 30% ROI before tax: @ 20,000 $ 6mm Example 1: Cost Proc + Profit for Price for RAWS: Raws Freight G & A 30% ROI Ref. Sugar (U.S.)25% @ 126 + 0 + 2.56 + 16 15.5 (Foreign 75% @ 7c + 1.8€ + 2.56 + 1c 12.3 TOTAL Weight Price For Refined Sugar 13.1 IV. Potential Areas to Increase Profits A. Grain Exports $45 2.47 50 B. Foreign raw prices based on refined sugar prices when sold. 11,2 C. Participating contract with growers based on refined sugar prices or foreign raws. 14/11/11 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 The President of Southern Industries Reports. Net soles for the first quarter ended March 31, 1975 were $74,686,000 compared to $51,505,000 for the same period in 1974. Net income for the period was $1,482,000 equal to $1.03 per share compared to a net loss of $1,830,000 (restated) equal to a loss of $1.23 per shore in 1974. By.product line the basic materials group had a 165% increase in pre-tox cornings over last year. This group occounted for $916,000 or opproximately 38% of pre-tax eornings. The sugar division contributed $1,437,000 or 61% to the results. With the exception of low sugar volume, the demand for our other products and materials remains strong. Your attention is directed to the notes to the following statements for a further explanation of the financial results of the first quorter. D. E. Dowson, Jr. April 22, 1975 President 1 Sales and Income (Loss) by Product Line For the three months ended March 31, 1975 and 1974 (000 omitted) SALES INCOME (LOSS) 1974 1975 1974 1975 Restated Sugor $56,118 $35,758 $ 1,437 S( 3,381) Bosic Materials 15,515 12,977 916 345 Hordwore and Machinery 3,051 2,770 58 92 Other (Non-operating) 2 - ( 58) ( 32) $74,686 $51,505 $ 2,353 $( 2,976) Income Toxes Credit (and Provision) ( 871) 1,145 Net Income (Loss) $ 1,482 $( 1,830) Per Shore $ 1.03 S( 1.22) Consolidated Financial Condition (000 omitted) March 31 1974 1975 Restated Current assets $ 50,419 $ 39,516 Current liobilities 51,420 30,445 Net current assets ( 1,001) 9,071 Properties - net 47,325 44,500 Other ossets 6,874 5,749 Total ossets less current licbilities 53,198 59,320 Long term debt (including debt due within one year) 33 33,151 32,101 Other licbilities 1,847 2,318 Total long term debt and other licbilities 55 34,998 34,419 Net assets $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Stockholders' equity: Common stock (1,433,096 shares outstanding) $ 6,059 $ 6,059 Retoined income and capital surplus 12,141 18,842 Total stockholders' equity $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Notes to Financial Statements (1) The income (les) by product line includes o statistical ollocation of corporale costs including interest expense. (2) Figures for 1974 have been restated to reflect changing to the lost in, first out (LIFO) method from the first in, first out (FIFO) and overage cost methods of accounting for the row sugar content of sugor inventories. If the FIFO and overage cost methods hod been used by the Com- pony, these inventories, and consequently net current assets, would hove been $14,803,000 and 54, 166,000 higher than reported at March 31, 1975 and 1974 (restated), respectively. (3) Results for the three months ended March 31, 1975 include income of $2,373,000 from reducing quantities of row sugar inventories under the uro method to on anticipated yeor-end level (substontially less than quantities on hand of the beginning of 1975). (4) A net operoting loss collyover available from 1974 will offsei the first $6,815,000 of taxoble income in 1975 and thus eliminate payment of toxes. The provision for toxas at March 31, 1975 of $871,000 represents a charge for deferred income taxes not currently payable. (5) Net income per shore bosed on 1,433,096 shares outstanding. (6) Depreciation and amortization included above omounted to $1,485,000 ond $1,265,000 in 1975 and 1974, respectively. P) Above figures subject to yeor-end audit. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227

what is the value of coefficient of heat for eaton in the 1st body ?

pklh0227

pklh0227_p0, pklh0227_p1, pklh0227_p2, pklh0227_p3, pklh0227_p4, pklh0227_p5, pklh0227_p6, pklh0227_p7, pklh0227_p8, pklh0227_p9, pklh0227_p10, pklh0227_p11, pklh0227_p12, pklh0227_p13, pklh0227_p14, pklh0227_p15

1001

H. W. DAHLBERG PURTP S A 20032 COEFFICIENT OF HEAT TRANSFER IN EVAPORATORS BASED ON 1950-51 Campaign The Great Western Sugar Company BY J.T. DAVIS April 25 , 1951 Source: https://wwyw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Pounds of Steam or Vapor Condensed Per Hour Coefficient of Heat Exhaust 1st Vap. 2nd Vap. 3rd Vap. 4th Vap Transfer B.T.U. Per Sq. Ft. Con- Con- Con- Con- Con- Per Degree F. Per Hour densed densed densed densed densed 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th lst Body 2nd Body 3rd Body 4th Body 5th Body Body Body Body Body Body Lovell 66211 50027 26785 17262 17262 883 625 471 325 138 Ft. Lupton Greeley 67582 53282 32292 32292 32292 920 651 473 393 158 Eaton 58928 44756 35791 33140 31705 1001 736 580 491 206 Windsor 63743 47369 31103 34938 34938 968 626 479 460 197 Brush 63297 49926 30098 27666 23142 799 651 513 360 145 Wheatland Brighton 65343 43977 27818 23710 19601 751 522 450 307 128 Bayard 71828 42863 30361 27179 22017 848 544 500 371 139 Mitchell 75086 45679 31596 27126 21447 775 520 495 349 126 Lyman Ovid 87800 53844 26962 20032 18050 633 534 354 218 91 Minatare Gering 79561 55024 28701 29536 27548 782 598 439 318 128 Ft. Morgan 96019 52615 37610 12608 7654 661 235 289 122 77 Sterling 70180 50701 35004 19929 18553 803 556 476 259 100 Ft. Collins 142216 96047 44194 51395 51395 774 512 422 354 154 Loveland 118527 75738 61544 16167 10949 696 274 369 119 48 Longmont 138821 94506 35686 47558 47558 786 494 386 325 134 Scottsbluff 128810 98116 59369 41675 33597 757 562 391 236 90 Billings 170900 131977 57248 45886 45886 856 497 375 270 137 Average 92050 63909 37186 29888 27270 805 537 439 310 129 Average by Rienks Formula 810 579 442 282 122 Average by Swenson Formula 780 634 511 353 135 Average Brix of Juice in Bodies 16.2 22.7 30.9 40.9 56.6 -1- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Baro- Gauge Barom- metric Pressure eter Pressure Exhaust Temperatures Degrees Fahrenheit-Vapor Alti- Inches Lbs. Per Steam Ex- 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th tude Hg. Sq. In. * ** haust Body Body Body Body Body Lovell 3830 25.93 12.73 16.8 15.7 244.2 229.5 215.3 198.9 176.7 117.9 Ft. Lupton 4907 24.88 12.22 Greeley 4680 25.10 12.33 17.0 16.5 250.0 232.6 216.2 200.6 180.8 132.8 Eaton 4840 24.95 12.25 13.0 13.1 240.8 226.9 214.5 201.3 182.6 140.3 Windsor 4780 25.00 12.28 15.0 13.9 245.0 227.4 213.3 200.0 180.4 133.3 Brush 4280 25.48 12.51 15.0 10.4 242.8 228.8 214.9 199.5 178.8 128.0 Wheatland 4680 25.10 12.33 Brighton 5000 24.79 12.18 11.2 12.3 243.7 229.8 216.0 199.6 178.2 133.9 Bayard 3780 25.97 12.76 14.0 12.6 240.8 225.9 213.2 197.8 176.2 129.0 Mitchell 3970 25.79 12.66 14.0 11.8 244.7 228.8 214.6 196.8 174.0 123.9 Lyman 4053 25.71 12.63 Ovid 3521 26.22 12.88 13.0 12.4 240.8 227.8 211.1 193.9 172.4 126.6 Minatare 3830 25.92 12.73 Gering 3900 25.86 12.70 14.0 13.5 240.5 224.6 209.1 192.5 171.8 123.6 Ft. Morgan 4339 25.43 12.49 39.3 49.2 283.2°268.5 243.9 221.4 200.6 166.7 Sterling 3934 25.82 12.68 14.0 13.5 242.6 228.3 213.2 193.9 171.6 117.9 Ft. Collins 4960 24.83 12.20 16.8 14.0 242.6 228.0 214.7 199.8 178.2 129.1 Loveland 4980 24.81 12.19 49.0 66.6 295.09278.2 248.1 220.1 195.0 134.6 Longmont 5000 24.79 12.18 17.3 14.3 244.4 229.1 215.7 201.9 180.0 126.7 Scottsbluff 3880 25.88 12.71 18.0 14.3 244.4 228.9 213.6 196.9 176.6 133.4 Billings 3100 26.65 13.09 15.9 15.4 247.3 229.8 215.6 198.3 177.1 121.0 Averages 249.0 233.7 217.8 200.8 179.5 130.5 Reported ** Calculated from Temperatures 294.6 with Superheat -2- 311.0 " " Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Temperature Difference - Degree F. Heating Surface - Square Ft. Exh. lst 2nd 3rd 4th lst 2nd 3rd 4th 5th to lst to 2nd to 3rd to 4th to 5th Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Lovell 5017 5686 3676 2601 2274 14.2 13.5 15.0 20.0 54.7 Ft. Lupton Greeley 4086 4948 4467 4320 4569 17.0 15.8 14.8 18.6 44.4 Eaton 4151 4953 4821 3787 3894 13.5 11.8 12.4 17.4 39.0 Windsor 3641 5382 4993 4036 3983 17.2 13.5 12.6 18.4 44.0 Brush 5617 5617 4003 4003 3440 13.4 13.1 14.2 18.8 46.0 Wheatland Brighton 6211 6211 3962 3874 3803 13.3 13.0 15.1 19.5 40.0 Bayard 5636 6420 4140 3622 3622 14.3 11.8 14.2 19.8 43.4 Mitchell 5933 6292 3750 3622 3621 15.5 13.4 16.5 21.0 46.6 Lyman Ovid 5362 6250 4765 4746 4746 12.3 15.5 15.5 19.0 41.4 5362 Minatare Gering 6293 6019 4128 4809 4809 15.4 14.7 15.4 19.0 44.4 Ft. Morgan 9840 9005 6143 6143 3575 13.6 23.2 20.1 16.2 27.1 Sterling 6060 6171 3983 3782 3720 13.7 14.2 17.9 20.0 49.6 Ft. Collins 6239 7270 3751 3582 3709 14.0 12.4 13.6 19.8 45.4 6239 7270 3709 3582 3582 Loveland 9840 9005 6241 6241 4082 15.8 28.4 25.3 21.0 55.0 Longmont 5520 7344 3566 3566 3566 14.7 12.5 12.5 20.0 49.0 5884 7344 3605 3588 3605 Scottsbluff 5325 5327 4809 4809 4809 14.9 14.4 15.3 18.0 38.4 5514 6293 4809 4809 4809 Billings 5561 9501 4649 4341 3230 17.0 13.4 15.9 19.2 51.5 5561 9501 4649 4341 3230 Averages 14.69 14.98 15.66 19.16 44.70 -3- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BONED Brix of Juice Enter- ing lst Leaving Evaporator Body Average Brix of Juice in - Body 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Lovell 12.9 18.3 27.2 36.7 47.4 66.9 15.6 22.8 32.0 42.0 57.2 Ft. Lupton Greeley 10.6 14.1 19.7 25.9 37.8 69.6 12.4 16.9 22.8 31.8 53.7 Eaton 12.9 16.6 21.6 28.5 40.5 67.5 14.8 19.1 25.0 34.5 54.0 Windsor 10.4 13.9 18.6 24.0 35.5 67.9 12.2 16.2 21.3 29.8 51.7 Brush 13.7 18.2 25.1 32.8 45.4 66.9 16.0 21.6 29.0 39.1 56.2 Wheatland Brighton 14.0 19.4 26.5 34.6 46.6 65.4 16.7 23.0 30.6 40.6 56.0 Bayard 13.7 19.4 25.8 33.7 46.4 66.9 16.6 22.6 29.8 40.0 56.6 Mitchell 12.0 17.2 23.5 31.3 44.0 64.7 14.6 20.4 27.4 37.6 54.4 Lyman Ovid 15.8 23.1 32.7 41.4 51.4 65.9 19.4 27.9 37.0 46.4 58.6 Minatare Gering 13.1 18.3 25.6 32.2 43.9 66.5 15.7 22.0 28.9 38.0 55.2 Ft. Morgan 14.3 22.3 32.9 49.9 60.4 69.2 18.3 27.6 41.4 55.2 64.8 Sterling 14.7 20.3 28.3 38.9 49.5 66.2 17.5 24.3 33.6 44.2 57.8 Ft. Collins 13.6 19.1 26.6 32.4 43.5 66.0 16.4 22.8 29.5 38.0 54.8 Loveland 15.7 22.3 32.2 50.1 58.6 66.3 19.0 27.2 41.2 54.4 62.4 Longmont 14.3 20.2 28.7 34.1 45.4 68.1 17.2 24.4 31.4 39.8 56.8 Scottsbluff 14.1 19.6 27.9 37.5 49.5 66.6 16.8 23.8 32.7 43.5 58.0 Billings 13.3 18.7 27.9 35.5 45.4 62.9 16.0 23.3 31.7 40.4 54.2 Averages 13.5 18.9 26.5 35.3 46.5 66.7 16.2 22.7 30.9 40.9 56.6 -4- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Temperatures - Degrees Fahrenheit Exh. 1st Body 2nd Body 3rd Body 4th Body 5th Body Steam Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Lovell 244.2 229.5 230.0 215.3 216.0 198.9 200.3 176.7 178.9 117.9 122.0 Ft. Lupton Greeley 250.0 232.6 233.0 216.2 216.8 200.6 201.4 180.8 182.0 132.8 136.4 Eaton 240.8 226.9 227.3 214.5 215.1 201.3 202.1 182.6 183.9 140.3 143. Windsor 245.0 227.4 227.8 213.3 213.9 200.0 200.7 180.4 181.6 133.3 136.4 Brush 242.8 228.8 229.4 214.9 215.7 199.5 200.7 178.8 180.7 128.0 132.8 Wheatland Brighton 243.7 229.8 230.4 216.0 216.8 199.6 200.9 178.2 180.1 133.9 138.2 Bayard 240.8 225.9 226.5 213.2 214.1 197.8 199.0 176.2 178.0 129.0 132.8 Mitchell 244.7 228.8 229.2 214.6 215.4 196.8 198.1 174.0 175.8 123.9 127.4 Lyman Ovid 240.8 227.8 228.5 211.1 212.3 193.9 195.6 172.4 174.9 126.6 131.0 Minatare Gering 240.5 224.6 225.1 209.1 209.9 192.5 193.7 171.8 173.5 123.6 127.4 Ft. Morgan 283.2* 268.5 269.6 243.9 245.3 221.4 223.8 200.6 205.2 166.7 173.5 Sterling 242.6 228.3 228.9 213.2 214.1 193.9 195.3 171.6 173.9 117.9 122.0 Ft. Collins 242.6 228.0 228.6 214.7 215.6 199.8 201.1 178.2 180.0 129.1 132.8 Loveland 295.0° 278.2 279.2 248.1 249.8 220.4 222.8 195.0 199.4 134.6 140.0 Longmont 244.4 229.1 229.7 215.7 216.6 201.9 203.2 180.0 181.9 126.7 131.0 Scottsbluff 244.4 228.9229.5 213.6 214.5 196.9 198.3 176.6 178.9 133.4 138.2 Billings 247.3 229.8 230.3 215.6 216.4 198.3 199.7 177.1 179.1 121.0 125.6 Averages 249.0 233.7 234.3 217.8 218.7 200.8 202.2 179.5 181.6 130.5 134.8 * 294.6 With Superheat 311.0 With Superheat -5- Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 *Viscosity Centiposes - Z **Value of - K Juice in Evaporator Body Evaporator Body 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th lst 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Average Lovell .38 .50 . 75 1.45 9.4 23.6 23.1 23.6 23.6 23.7 23.5 Ft. Lupton Greeley .34 .42 .56 .89 5.2 18.4 17.3 17.9 18.8 18.5 18.2 Eaton .37 .44 .58 .95 5.1 27.4 27.4 27.1 26.8 26.9 27.1 Windsor .36 .42 .52 .80 4.6 20.3 19.5 19.8 20.0 20.6 20.0 Brush .39 .49 .66 1.23 7.4 23.4 24.4 23.8 23.4 23.3 23.7 Wheatland Brighton .37 .52 .70 1.31 6.5 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.6 20.8 20.8 Bayard 40 .51 .68 1.30 7.5 23.7 23.5 23.9 24.4 24.0 23.9 Mitchell .37 .47 .64 1.21 6.7 18.5 18.2 19.2 19.9 18.1 18.8 Lyman Ovid 40 .61 .94 1.90 9.5 20.6 21.1 21.5 21.8 20.9 21.2 Gering .40 .51 .72 1.21 7.1 20.3 20.7 20.5 20.3 20.5 20.5 Ft. Morgan .36 .51 .86 2.45 9.5 17.5 5.2 12.4 18.6 27.0 16.1 Sterling .37 .54 .81 1.68 10.8 21.7 21.1 21.5 21.8 21.8 21.6 Ft. Collins .39 .52 .69 1.20 6.4 21.6 21.5 21.4 21.5 21.7 21.5 Loveland .35 .50 .90 2.40 13.0 15.4 4.8 13.1 13.6 11.3 11.6 Longmont .40 .54 .70 1.27 8.1 21.4 21.4 21.6 20.6 22.1 21.4 Scottsbluff .40 .53 .80 1.55 8.5 20.3 20.7 20.4 20.3 20.2 20.4 Billings .38 .51 .76 1.30 6.8 19.1 18.9 17.9 18.3 18.1 18.5 Averages .378 .502 722 1.418 7.771 20.83 19.39 20.38 20.84 21.15 20.52 * From Dwg. 6203 ** D X K - Rienks Formula (K - 20.52) Z C - Coef. of heat transfer D - Temperature Difference -6- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 LOVELL Flash 11.76 18.11 7.42 38.98 20.87 13.45 13.45 13.45 244.2 229.5 215.3 198.9 176.7 117.9 46.86 Z- .38 Z- .50 Z- .75 Z- 1.45 Z- 9.4 4.73 .85 5017 5686 3676 2601 2274 Sq. Ft. 50.74 170.10 230.0 216.0 200. 178.9 122.0 119.38 80.40 59.53 46.08 32.63 Bx. 12.9 Bx. 18.3 Bx. 27.2 Bx. 36.7 Bx. 47.4 Bx.66.9 51.59 38.98 20.87 13.45 13.45 Tons Beets per hour 64.17 Thermo-Compressor LOVELL 15093 23242 9523 50027 26785 17262 17262 17262 60140 K-23.6 K-23.1 K-23.6 K-23.6 K-23.7 *6070 Bx.15.6 Bx.22.8 Bx.32.0 Bx.42.0 Bx.57.2 1091 65120 5017 5686 3676 2601 2274 Sq. Ft. 218306 C-883 C-625 C-471 C-325 C-138 41877 153212 103185 76401 59139 Bx. 66211 50027 26785 17262 17262 Lbs. Beets per hour 128340 GREELEY o Flash 7.58 14.56 22.40 22.40 22.40 22.40 250.0° 232.6 216.2 200.6 180.8 132.8 46.88 2-.34 Z- .42 Z - . .56 Z - .89 Z -5.2 2.34 44.54 4086 4948 4467 4320 4569 Sq. Ft. 175.27 233.0 216.8 201.4 182.0 130.73 93.77 48.97 136.4 71.37 26.57 Bx. 10.6 + Bx. 14.1 Bx. 19.7 Bx. 25.9 t Bx. 37.8 Bx. 69.6 46.88 36.96 22.40 22.40 22.40 Tons Beets per hour 72.08 GREELEY 10927 20990 32292 53282 32292 32292 32292 K- 18.4 k-17.3 k-17.9 k-18.8 k-18.5 67582 Bx. 12.1 Bx.16.9 Bx.22.8 Bx. 31.8 Bx.53.7 3373 64209 4086 4948 4467 4320 4569 Sq. Ft. 252669 C-920 188460 C-651 135179 C-473 102887 C-393 70595 -158 38303 67582 53282 32292 32292 32292 -7- Lbs. Beets per hour 144160 Lovell-Greeley Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 EATON 8.25 6.56 1.94 1.05 26.19 24.25 23.20 32.75 23.20 240.8 226.9 214.5 201.3 182.6 140.3 43.12 Z-37 Z- .44 Z - .58 - z-5.1 2.12 41.00 4151 4953 4821 3787 3894 Sq. Ft. 182.10 227.3 141.11 215.1 108.36 202.1 82.17 183.9 57.92 143.6 34.72 Bx. 12.9 Bx. 16.6 Bx. 21.6 Bx. 28.5 Bx. 40.5 Bx. 67.5 & y v 43.12 32.75 26.19 24.25 23.20 Tons Beets per hour 68.33 EATON 11274 8965 2651 1435 A 31705 44756 35791 33140 31705 K-27.4 K=27.4 K-27.1 K-26.8 K-26.9 58928 Bx.14.8 Bx.19.1 Bx.25.0 Bx.34.5 Bx.54.0 2897 56031 4151 4953 4821 3787 3894 Sq. Ft. 248858 C-100, C-736 C-580 C-491 C-206 192841 148085 112293 79153 47448 58928 44756 35791 33140 31705 Lbs. Beets per hour 136660 WINDSOR - -2.82 Flash to 3rd Vapor 10.87 11.96 -2.82 25.69 34.83 22.87 25.69 25.69 245.0° 227.4 213.3 200.0 180.4 133.3 46.87 Z-.36 Z - .42 Z - .52 Z - o 80 2-4.6 1.17 3641 5382 4993 4036 3983 Sq. Ft. 45.70 182.90 227.8 213.9 200.7 79.48 181.6 137.18 102.35 53.79 136.4 28.10 Bx. 10.4 Bx. 13.9 Bx. 18.6 Bx. 24.0 Bx. 35.5 Bx. 67.9 46.87 34.83 22.87 25.69 25.69 Tons Beets per hour 68.00 WINDSOR 3835 Flash to 2nd Vapor 14783 16266 -3835 34938 47369 31103 34938 34938 K-20.3 K-19.5 K-19.8 K-20.0 K-20.6 63743 Bx.12.2 x.16.2 Bx.21.3 Bx.29.8 Bx.51.7 1591 3641 5382 4993 4036 3983 Sq. Ft. 62152 248744 C-968 186564 C-626 139196 C-479 108093 C-460 73154 C-197 38216 637/33 47369 31103 34938 34938 -8- Lbs. Beets per hour 136000 Eaton-Windsor Source: Ittps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BRUSH 7.15 13.94. 1.71 3.18 16.27 242.8 35.10 21.16 19.45 16.27 228.8 214.9 199.5 178.8 128.0 44.50 Z - .39 Z - .49 Z - . 66 Z -1.23 Z -7.4 2.25 42.25 5617 5617 4003 4003 3440 Sq. Ft. 168.50 229.4 126.24 215. 91.14 200. 69.98 180.7 50.53 132.8 34.26 Bx. 13.7 + Bx. 18.2 Bx. 25.1 Bx. 32.8 Bx. 45.4 Bx. 66.9 + 44.50 35.10 21.16 19.45 16.27 Tons Beets per hour 71.12 BRUSH 10170 19828 2432 4523 A A A 23142 49926 30098 27666 23142 k-23.4 k-24.4 k-23.8 k-23.4 k-23.3 63297 Bx. 16.0 Bx. 21.6 Bx. 29.0 Bx. 39.1 Bx. 56.2 3200 60096 5617 5617 4003 4003 3440 Sq. Ft. 239674 C-799 C-651 C-5-13 C-360 C-145 179564 129638 99540 71874 48731 Y 63297 49926 30098 27666 23142 Lbs. Beets per hour 142240 BRIGHTON 13.20 11.17 2.84 2.84 13.55 243.7 30.40 19.23 16.39 13.55 229.8 216.0 199.6 178.2 133.9 45.17 - Z - .52 Z - o 70 Z -1.31 Z -6.5 1.57 43.60 6211 6211 3962 3874 3803 Sq. Ft. 156.73 230.4 216.8 200.9 63.52 180.1 47.13 138.2 113.15 82.75 33.58 Bx. 14.0 Bx. 19.4 Bx. 26.5 & Bx. 34.6 Bx. 46.6 Bx. 65.4 V 45.17 30.40 19.23 16.39 13.55 Tons Beets per hour 72.33 BRIGHTON 19095 16159 4108 4108 19601 43977 27818 23710 19601 K- 20.9 K- 20.9 K- 20.9 K- 20.6 K= 20.8 65343 Bx. 16.7 Bx. 23.0 Bx. 30.6 Bx. 40.6 Bx. 56.0 2271 6211 6211 3962 3874 3803 63072 Sq. Ft. 226726 C-751 C-522 C-450 C-307 C-128 163683 119706 91888 68178 48577 65343 43977 27818 23710 19601 -9- Lbs. Beets per hourl44660 Brush-Brighton Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BAYARD 18.49 8.33 2.12 3.44 A 14.67 A 4 A 240.8° 28.56 20.23 18.11 14.67 225.9 213. 2 47.86 197. 8 2 .40 176,2 129.0 y Z- o 51 Z -. 68 Z 1.30 ,81 275 47.05 5636 6420 4140 3622 3622 Sq. Ft. 161.89 226. 114.84 214. 86.28 199. 0 66.05 178.0 47.94 132.8 33.27 Bx. 13.74 Bx. 19.4 Bx. 25.8 - Bx. 33.7 t Bx. 46.4 Bx. 66.9 47.86 28.56 20.23 18.11 14.67 Tons Beets per hour 75.04 BAYARD 27750 12502 3182 5163 A 22017 42863 30361 27179 22017 K- 23.7 K-23.5 K-23.9 K-24.4 K-24.0 71828 Bx. 16. 6 Bx. 22.6 6 Bx.29.8 Bx.40.0 Bx.56.6 1216 5636 70613 6420 4140 3622 3622 Sq. Ft. 242965 C-845 172352 C-541 129489 C-500 99128 C-372 71948 C-139 49932 71828 42863 30361 27179 22017 Lbs. Beets per hour 150080 MITCHELL 18. 94 9.20 2.92 3.71 14.01 244.7° 29.84 20.64 17.72 14.01 49.05 228.8 214.6 196.8 174.0 123.9 .27 Z-.37 Z - 64 Z - 1.21 Z - 6.7 48.78 5933 6292 3750 3622 3621 Sq. Ft. 160.80 229.2 112.00 215.4 82.16 198, 61.52 175. 127. 43.80 29.79 Bx. 12.0 V Bx. 17.2 * Bx. 23.5 + Bx. 31.3 Bx. 44.0 Bx. 64.7 49.05 29.84 20.64 17.72 14.01 Tons Beets per hour 76.54 MITCHELL 28993 14083 4470 5679 21447 45679 31596 27126 21447 K - 18.5 K - 18.2 X - 19.2 K - 19.9 75086 K - 18.1 Bx, 14.6 Bx. 20.4 Bx. 27.4 Bx. 37.6 413 Bx, 54.4 74672 5933 6292 3750 3622 3622 246153 C-77 171450 C-520 125771 C-495 94175 C-349 67049 CC126 45602 75086 45679 31596 27126 21447 -10- Lbs. Beets per hour 153080 BAYARD-MITCHELL Source: https://wwvw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 OVID 3.72 Flash to 3 Vapor 19.13 16.68 4.30 1.23 11.20 240.8° 33.41 16.73 12.43 11.20 227.8 211.1 193.9 172.4 126.6 54.48 Z - .40 Z-61 - Z - .94 Z -1.90 Z -9.5 1.94 52.54 10724 6250 4765 4746 4746 Sq. Ft. 166.20 228.5 113.64 212.3 80.23 195.6 63.50 174. 51.07 131. 39.87 Bx. 15.8 Bx. 23.1 Bx. 32.7 Bx. 41.4 Bx. 51.4 Bx 65.9 54.48 33.41 16.73 12.43 11.20 Tons Beets per hour 80.58 OVID 5995 Flash to 3 Vapor 30830 26881 6930 1982 + 18050 53844 26962 20032 18050 K-20.6 K-21.1 K-21.5 K-21-8 K-20.9 87800 Bx.19.4 Bx.27.9 Bx.37.0 3x.46.4 Bx. 58. 6 3127 84673 10724 6250 4765 4746 4746 Sq. Ft. C-633 C-534 C-354 C=218 C-91 87800 53844 26962 20032 18050 Lbs. Beets per hour 161160 GERING -3.06 Flash to 3 Vapor 16.71 18.27 - .58 1.38 19.12 240.5° 38.19 19.92 20.50 19.12 224.6 209.1 192.5 171.8 123.6 55.22 Z- .40 Z .51 Z - . 72 Z- 1.21 Z -7.1 .32 54.90 6293 6019 4128 4809 4809 Sq. Ft. 189.87 225. 134.91 209.9 96.76 193 76.84 173.5 56.34 127.4 37.22 Bx. 13.1 Bx. 18.3 Bx. 25.6 Bx. 32.2 Bx. 43.9 Br. 66.5 V 55.22 38.19 I 19.92 20.50 19.12 Tons beets per hour 72.04 GERING -4409 Flash to 3 Vapor 24076 26323 - 836 1988 27548 55024 28701 29536 27548 K- 20.3 K- 20. K- 20.5 20.3 K- 20.5 79561 Bx. 15.7 Bx. 22.0 Bx. 28.9. Bx. 38,0 Bx. 55.2 461 79100 6293 6019 4128 4809 4809 Sq. Ft. 273565 C-782 194436 C-598 139412 C-439 110711 C-318 81175 C-128 53627 79561 55024 28701 29536 27548 Lbs. Beets per hour 144080 -11- OVID_GERING Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 FT. MORGAN As shown Flash to Vap Total Vap. 22.67 11.31 15.63 4.94 Flash -54 -2,92 -1.65 -2.17 Net Vap. 22.13 8.39 13.98 2.77 A A 4.28 29.42 21.03 7.05 4.28 283.20 +11.4° S.H. 268.5 243.9 221.4 200.6 166.7 53.69 Z-.36 Z o .51 Z .86 Z 2.45 z 9.5 2.14 51.55 9840 9005 6143 6143 3575 Sq. Ft. 142.72 269.6 91.17 245.. 61.75 223.8 40.72 205.2 173.5 33.67 29.39 Bx. 14.3 Bx. 22.3 Bx. 32.9 Bx 49.9 Bx. 60.4 V Bx 69.2 53.69 29.42 21.03 7.05 4.28 Tons Beets per hour 89.42 Total Vap. 40543 20227 FT. MORGAN Flash -966 27953 8835 5222 3881 39577 15005 2951 25002 4954 7654 52615 37610 12608 1 7654 K-17.5 K- 5.2 96016 K- 12. 4 K- 18. 6 K- 27.0 Bx. 18.3 Bx. 27.6 Bx. 41. 4 Bx. 55.2 Bx. 64.8 3827 92192 9840 9005 6143 6143 3575 Sq. Ft. 255240 C-661 163048 C-235 110434 C-289 72824 C-122 60215 C-77 52561 96016 52615 37610 12608 7654 Lbs. Beets per hour 178840 STERLING o Flash to Vapor 12.86 11.87 11.40 .04 4 14.03 242.6° 38.34 26.47 15.07 14.03 228.3 213.2 193.9 171.6 117.9 53.07 Z-.37 Z- o 54 Z- o 81 Z-1.68 Z10.8 1.87 51.20 6060 6171 3983 3782 3720 Sq. Ft. 186.60 228. 135.38 214 97.04 195 70.57 173 55.50 122 41.47 Bx. 14.7 & Bx. 20.3 Bx. 28.3 Bx. 38.9 & Bx. 49.5 Bx. 66.2 53.07 38.34 26.47 11.40 14.03 Tons Beets per hour 66.12 STERLING - Flash to Vapor 17006 15697 15075 1375 18553 50701 25004 19929 18553 K -21.7 A 21.1 A - 21. K - 21.8 K - 21.8 70180 Bx. 17. 5 Bx. 24.3 Bx. 33.6 Bx. 44.2 Bx. 57.8 2473 67707 6060 6171 3983 3782 3720 Sq. Ft. C-803 246760 179027 C-556 128326 C-476 C-259 C-100 93322 73393 54840 70180 50701 35004 19929 18553 -12- Lbs. Beets per hour 132240 FT MORGAN-STERLING Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 FORT COLLINS 2.99 Flash to 3 Vapor 17.84 21.53 -2.99 242.60 21.34 39.88 18.35 21.34 21.34 52.44 228.0 214.7 199.8 178.2 129.1 6.61 z - 5 z - 6. - Z -1.20 Z -6.40 1.33 57.72 12478 14540 7460 7164 7291 Sq. Ft. 199.77 228.6 215.6 201.1 180.0 142.03 62.46 132.8 102.15 83.80 41.12 Bx. 13.61 Bx. 19.1 & Bx. 26.6 v Bx. 32.4 Bx. 43.5 Bx. 66.0 59.05 39.88 18.35 21.34 21.34 Tons Beets per hour 120.42 FORT COLLINS 7201 Flash to 3 Vapor 42966 51853 -7201 51395 96047 44194 51395 51395 126296 K-21.6 K-21.5 k-21.4 k-21.5 K-21.7 15920 Bx. 16.4 Bx.22.8 8x.29.5 Bx.38.0 Bx.54.8 3203 139013° 12478 14540 7460 7164 7291 Sq. Ft. 481126 6-774 C-512 C-422 C-354 C-154 342065 246018 201824 150429 99033 142216 96047 44194 51395 51395 Lbs. Beets per hour 240840 LOVELAND As Shown Flash to Tot. Vap. 15.99 10.45 24.96 5.il Vapor Flash - .08 - 3.54 - 2.87 - 2.57 Net Vap. 15.91 6.91 22.09 2.54 A 5.33 295.0° 36.87 29.96 7.87 5.33 +16.0°S.H 278.2 248.1 220.4 195.0 134.6 57.70 2-.35 Z - .50 Z - . 90 Z - 2.40 Z - 13.0 4.92 52.78 9840 9005 6241 6241 4082 Sq. Ft. 173.50 279.2 249.8 222.8 199.4 140.0 120.72 83.85 53.89 46.02 40.69 Bx. 15.7 V Bx. 22.3 V Bx. 32.2 Bx. 50.1 Bx. 58.6 Bx. 66.3 57.70 36.87 29.96 7.87 5.33 Tons Beets per hour 102.71 LOVELAND 32847 21466 51273 10497 164 7272 5896 5279 32682 14,195 45877 5218 10949 75738 61544 16167 10949 K - 15.4 K- 4.8 K- 13.1 K- 13.6 K- 11.3 118527 Bx. 19.0 Bx. 27.2 Bx. 41.2 Bx. 54.4 Bx.62.4 10107 108421 9840 9005 6241 6241 4082 Sq. Ft. 356404 C-696 C-274 C-369 C-119 C-48 247983 172245 110701 94534 83585 118527 7573,8 61544 16167 10949 -13- Lbs. Beets per hour 205420 FT. COLLINS-LOVELAND Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 LONGMONT -4.87 Flash to Vapor 16.0 24.13 - 4.87 A A 19.51 244.4° 38.77 14.64 19.51 19.51 229.1 215.7 201.9 180.0 126.7 51.84 Z- .40 Z-.54 z_1.27 Z-8.1 2,17 54.78 11404 14688 7171 7154 7171 Sq. Ft. 186.30 229.7 131.52 216,6 92.73 203.2 78.11 181.9 58.68 131.0 39.09 Bx. 14.3 Bx. 20,2 Bx.28.7 Bx.34.1 Bx.45.4 Ex. 68.1 56.95 38.77 14.64 19.51 19.51 Tons Beets per hour 121.88 Thermo Compressor LONGMONT 11871 Flash to 3 Vapor 39026 58819 -11871 47558 94506 35686 47558 47558 126365 K -21.4 N- 21.4 K- 21.6 K- 20.6 K- 22.1 12456 Bx. 17. 2 Bx. 24. 4 Bx. 31.4 Bx. 39.8 Bx. 56.8 5290 133532 11404 14688 7171 7154 7171 Sq. Ft. 454125 320593 226087 190401 142843 95286 138821 94506 35686 47558 47558 Lbs, Beets per hour 243760 SCOTTSBLUFF Flash to o Vapor 11.86 15.35 7.01 3.20 244.4° 13.31 38.87 23.52 16.51 13.31 228.9 213.6 196.9 176.6 133.4 51.03 Z- .40 Z- .53 Z- . 80 Z-1.55 Z-8.6 .30 50.73 10839 11620 9618 9618 9618 Sq. Ft. 181.36 229.5 130.64 214.5 91.77 198 68.25 178. 51.74 138. 38.43 Bx. 14.1 Bx. 19.6 v Bx. 27.9 Bx. 37.5 + Bx. 49.5 Bx. 66.6 51.03 38.87 23.52 16.51 13.31 Tons Beets per hour 126.21 SCOTTSBLUFF Flash to o Vapor 29937 38746 17695 8077 33597 98116 59369 41675 33597 K- 20.3 K- 20.7 K- 20.4 K- 20.3 K- 20.2 128810 Bx, 16. 8 Bx. 23.8 Bx. 32. 7 Bx. 43.5 Bx. 58.0 757 10839 11620 9618 9618 9618 Sq. Ft. 128053 457789 C-757 C-562 231646 C-391 C-230 172277 130602 C-90 329761 97005 128810 98116 59369 41675 33597 -14- Lbs. Beets per hour 252420 LONGMONT-SCOTTSBLUFF Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BILLINGS Flash to o Vapor 10.78 25.65 3 3.90 247.3° A 15,75 45.30 19.65 15.75 15.75 229.8 215.6 198.3 177. 1 121.0 58.66 Z- .38 Z- o 51 Z-.76 Z 1.30 Z-6,8 2.58 56.08 11122 19002 9298 8682 6460 Sq. Ft. 193.31 230.3 137.23 216.1 91.93 199. 72.28 179. 56.53 125 40.78 Bx. 13.3 Bx. 18.7 & Bx. 27.5 Bx.35.5 Bx.45.4 Bx. 62.9 58.66 45.30 19.65 15.75 15.75 Tons Beets per hour 145.67 BILLINGS Flash: to O Vapor 31406 74729 11362 45886 131977 57248 45886 45886 K- 19.1 K-18.9 K-17.9 K- 18.3 K- 18.1 170900 Bx. 16.0 Bx.23.3 Bx.31.7 Bx. 40.4 Bx. 54. 2 7517 163383 11122 19002 9298 8682 6460 Sq.Ft. 563189 C-856 399806 C-497 267829 C-375 210581 C-270 164695 C-13Z 118808 170900 131977 57248 45886 45886 Lbs. Beets per hour 291340 + -15- BILLINGS Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227

what is the value of vapour condensed per hour for bayard in 2nd body ?

pklh0227

pklh0227_p0, pklh0227_p1, pklh0227_p2, pklh0227_p3, pklh0227_p4, pklh0227_p5, pklh0227_p6, pklh0227_p7, pklh0227_p8, pklh0227_p9, pklh0227_p10, pklh0227_p11, pklh0227_p12, pklh0227_p13, pklh0227_p14, pklh0227_p15

42863

H. W. DAHLBERG PURTP S A 20032 COEFFICIENT OF HEAT TRANSFER IN EVAPORATORS BASED ON 1950-51 Campaign The Great Western Sugar Company BY J.T. DAVIS April 25 , 1951 Source: https://wwyw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Pounds of Steam or Vapor Condensed Per Hour Coefficient of Heat Exhaust 1st Vap. 2nd Vap. 3rd Vap. 4th Vap Transfer B.T.U. Per Sq. Ft. Con- Con- Con- Con- Con- Per Degree F. Per Hour densed densed densed densed densed 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th lst Body 2nd Body 3rd Body 4th Body 5th Body Body Body Body Body Body Lovell 66211 50027 26785 17262 17262 883 625 471 325 138 Ft. Lupton Greeley 67582 53282 32292 32292 32292 920 651 473 393 158 Eaton 58928 44756 35791 33140 31705 1001 736 580 491 206 Windsor 63743 47369 31103 34938 34938 968 626 479 460 197 Brush 63297 49926 30098 27666 23142 799 651 513 360 145 Wheatland Brighton 65343 43977 27818 23710 19601 751 522 450 307 128 Bayard 71828 42863 30361 27179 22017 848 544 500 371 139 Mitchell 75086 45679 31596 27126 21447 775 520 495 349 126 Lyman Ovid 87800 53844 26962 20032 18050 633 534 354 218 91 Minatare Gering 79561 55024 28701 29536 27548 782 598 439 318 128 Ft. Morgan 96019 52615 37610 12608 7654 661 235 289 122 77 Sterling 70180 50701 35004 19929 18553 803 556 476 259 100 Ft. Collins 142216 96047 44194 51395 51395 774 512 422 354 154 Loveland 118527 75738 61544 16167 10949 696 274 369 119 48 Longmont 138821 94506 35686 47558 47558 786 494 386 325 134 Scottsbluff 128810 98116 59369 41675 33597 757 562 391 236 90 Billings 170900 131977 57248 45886 45886 856 497 375 270 137 Average 92050 63909 37186 29888 27270 805 537 439 310 129 Average by Rienks Formula 810 579 442 282 122 Average by Swenson Formula 780 634 511 353 135 Average Brix of Juice in Bodies 16.2 22.7 30.9 40.9 56.6 -1- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Baro- Gauge Barom- metric Pressure eter Pressure Exhaust Temperatures Degrees Fahrenheit-Vapor Alti- Inches Lbs. Per Steam Ex- 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th tude Hg. Sq. In. * ** haust Body Body Body Body Body Lovell 3830 25.93 12.73 16.8 15.7 244.2 229.5 215.3 198.9 176.7 117.9 Ft. Lupton 4907 24.88 12.22 Greeley 4680 25.10 12.33 17.0 16.5 250.0 232.6 216.2 200.6 180.8 132.8 Eaton 4840 24.95 12.25 13.0 13.1 240.8 226.9 214.5 201.3 182.6 140.3 Windsor 4780 25.00 12.28 15.0 13.9 245.0 227.4 213.3 200.0 180.4 133.3 Brush 4280 25.48 12.51 15.0 10.4 242.8 228.8 214.9 199.5 178.8 128.0 Wheatland 4680 25.10 12.33 Brighton 5000 24.79 12.18 11.2 12.3 243.7 229.8 216.0 199.6 178.2 133.9 Bayard 3780 25.97 12.76 14.0 12.6 240.8 225.9 213.2 197.8 176.2 129.0 Mitchell 3970 25.79 12.66 14.0 11.8 244.7 228.8 214.6 196.8 174.0 123.9 Lyman 4053 25.71 12.63 Ovid 3521 26.22 12.88 13.0 12.4 240.8 227.8 211.1 193.9 172.4 126.6 Minatare 3830 25.92 12.73 Gering 3900 25.86 12.70 14.0 13.5 240.5 224.6 209.1 192.5 171.8 123.6 Ft. Morgan 4339 25.43 12.49 39.3 49.2 283.2°268.5 243.9 221.4 200.6 166.7 Sterling 3934 25.82 12.68 14.0 13.5 242.6 228.3 213.2 193.9 171.6 117.9 Ft. Collins 4960 24.83 12.20 16.8 14.0 242.6 228.0 214.7 199.8 178.2 129.1 Loveland 4980 24.81 12.19 49.0 66.6 295.09278.2 248.1 220.1 195.0 134.6 Longmont 5000 24.79 12.18 17.3 14.3 244.4 229.1 215.7 201.9 180.0 126.7 Scottsbluff 3880 25.88 12.71 18.0 14.3 244.4 228.9 213.6 196.9 176.6 133.4 Billings 3100 26.65 13.09 15.9 15.4 247.3 229.8 215.6 198.3 177.1 121.0 Averages 249.0 233.7 217.8 200.8 179.5 130.5 Reported ** Calculated from Temperatures 294.6 with Superheat -2- 311.0 " " Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Temperature Difference - Degree F. Heating Surface - Square Ft. Exh. lst 2nd 3rd 4th lst 2nd 3rd 4th 5th to lst to 2nd to 3rd to 4th to 5th Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Lovell 5017 5686 3676 2601 2274 14.2 13.5 15.0 20.0 54.7 Ft. Lupton Greeley 4086 4948 4467 4320 4569 17.0 15.8 14.8 18.6 44.4 Eaton 4151 4953 4821 3787 3894 13.5 11.8 12.4 17.4 39.0 Windsor 3641 5382 4993 4036 3983 17.2 13.5 12.6 18.4 44.0 Brush 5617 5617 4003 4003 3440 13.4 13.1 14.2 18.8 46.0 Wheatland Brighton 6211 6211 3962 3874 3803 13.3 13.0 15.1 19.5 40.0 Bayard 5636 6420 4140 3622 3622 14.3 11.8 14.2 19.8 43.4 Mitchell 5933 6292 3750 3622 3621 15.5 13.4 16.5 21.0 46.6 Lyman Ovid 5362 6250 4765 4746 4746 12.3 15.5 15.5 19.0 41.4 5362 Minatare Gering 6293 6019 4128 4809 4809 15.4 14.7 15.4 19.0 44.4 Ft. Morgan 9840 9005 6143 6143 3575 13.6 23.2 20.1 16.2 27.1 Sterling 6060 6171 3983 3782 3720 13.7 14.2 17.9 20.0 49.6 Ft. Collins 6239 7270 3751 3582 3709 14.0 12.4 13.6 19.8 45.4 6239 7270 3709 3582 3582 Loveland 9840 9005 6241 6241 4082 15.8 28.4 25.3 21.0 55.0 Longmont 5520 7344 3566 3566 3566 14.7 12.5 12.5 20.0 49.0 5884 7344 3605 3588 3605 Scottsbluff 5325 5327 4809 4809 4809 14.9 14.4 15.3 18.0 38.4 5514 6293 4809 4809 4809 Billings 5561 9501 4649 4341 3230 17.0 13.4 15.9 19.2 51.5 5561 9501 4649 4341 3230 Averages 14.69 14.98 15.66 19.16 44.70 -3- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BONED Brix of Juice Enter- ing lst Leaving Evaporator Body Average Brix of Juice in - Body 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Lovell 12.9 18.3 27.2 36.7 47.4 66.9 15.6 22.8 32.0 42.0 57.2 Ft. Lupton Greeley 10.6 14.1 19.7 25.9 37.8 69.6 12.4 16.9 22.8 31.8 53.7 Eaton 12.9 16.6 21.6 28.5 40.5 67.5 14.8 19.1 25.0 34.5 54.0 Windsor 10.4 13.9 18.6 24.0 35.5 67.9 12.2 16.2 21.3 29.8 51.7 Brush 13.7 18.2 25.1 32.8 45.4 66.9 16.0 21.6 29.0 39.1 56.2 Wheatland Brighton 14.0 19.4 26.5 34.6 46.6 65.4 16.7 23.0 30.6 40.6 56.0 Bayard 13.7 19.4 25.8 33.7 46.4 66.9 16.6 22.6 29.8 40.0 56.6 Mitchell 12.0 17.2 23.5 31.3 44.0 64.7 14.6 20.4 27.4 37.6 54.4 Lyman Ovid 15.8 23.1 32.7 41.4 51.4 65.9 19.4 27.9 37.0 46.4 58.6 Minatare Gering 13.1 18.3 25.6 32.2 43.9 66.5 15.7 22.0 28.9 38.0 55.2 Ft. Morgan 14.3 22.3 32.9 49.9 60.4 69.2 18.3 27.6 41.4 55.2 64.8 Sterling 14.7 20.3 28.3 38.9 49.5 66.2 17.5 24.3 33.6 44.2 57.8 Ft. Collins 13.6 19.1 26.6 32.4 43.5 66.0 16.4 22.8 29.5 38.0 54.8 Loveland 15.7 22.3 32.2 50.1 58.6 66.3 19.0 27.2 41.2 54.4 62.4 Longmont 14.3 20.2 28.7 34.1 45.4 68.1 17.2 24.4 31.4 39.8 56.8 Scottsbluff 14.1 19.6 27.9 37.5 49.5 66.6 16.8 23.8 32.7 43.5 58.0 Billings 13.3 18.7 27.9 35.5 45.4 62.9 16.0 23.3 31.7 40.4 54.2 Averages 13.5 18.9 26.5 35.3 46.5 66.7 16.2 22.7 30.9 40.9 56.6 -4- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Temperatures - Degrees Fahrenheit Exh. 1st Body 2nd Body 3rd Body 4th Body 5th Body Steam Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Lovell 244.2 229.5 230.0 215.3 216.0 198.9 200.3 176.7 178.9 117.9 122.0 Ft. Lupton Greeley 250.0 232.6 233.0 216.2 216.8 200.6 201.4 180.8 182.0 132.8 136.4 Eaton 240.8 226.9 227.3 214.5 215.1 201.3 202.1 182.6 183.9 140.3 143. Windsor 245.0 227.4 227.8 213.3 213.9 200.0 200.7 180.4 181.6 133.3 136.4 Brush 242.8 228.8 229.4 214.9 215.7 199.5 200.7 178.8 180.7 128.0 132.8 Wheatland Brighton 243.7 229.8 230.4 216.0 216.8 199.6 200.9 178.2 180.1 133.9 138.2 Bayard 240.8 225.9 226.5 213.2 214.1 197.8 199.0 176.2 178.0 129.0 132.8 Mitchell 244.7 228.8 229.2 214.6 215.4 196.8 198.1 174.0 175.8 123.9 127.4 Lyman Ovid 240.8 227.8 228.5 211.1 212.3 193.9 195.6 172.4 174.9 126.6 131.0 Minatare Gering 240.5 224.6 225.1 209.1 209.9 192.5 193.7 171.8 173.5 123.6 127.4 Ft. Morgan 283.2* 268.5 269.6 243.9 245.3 221.4 223.8 200.6 205.2 166.7 173.5 Sterling 242.6 228.3 228.9 213.2 214.1 193.9 195.3 171.6 173.9 117.9 122.0 Ft. Collins 242.6 228.0 228.6 214.7 215.6 199.8 201.1 178.2 180.0 129.1 132.8 Loveland 295.0° 278.2 279.2 248.1 249.8 220.4 222.8 195.0 199.4 134.6 140.0 Longmont 244.4 229.1 229.7 215.7 216.6 201.9 203.2 180.0 181.9 126.7 131.0 Scottsbluff 244.4 228.9229.5 213.6 214.5 196.9 198.3 176.6 178.9 133.4 138.2 Billings 247.3 229.8 230.3 215.6 216.4 198.3 199.7 177.1 179.1 121.0 125.6 Averages 249.0 233.7 234.3 217.8 218.7 200.8 202.2 179.5 181.6 130.5 134.8 * 294.6 With Superheat 311.0 With Superheat -5- Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 *Viscosity Centiposes - Z **Value of - K Juice in Evaporator Body Evaporator Body 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th lst 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Average Lovell .38 .50 . 75 1.45 9.4 23.6 23.1 23.6 23.6 23.7 23.5 Ft. Lupton Greeley .34 .42 .56 .89 5.2 18.4 17.3 17.9 18.8 18.5 18.2 Eaton .37 .44 .58 .95 5.1 27.4 27.4 27.1 26.8 26.9 27.1 Windsor .36 .42 .52 .80 4.6 20.3 19.5 19.8 20.0 20.6 20.0 Brush .39 .49 .66 1.23 7.4 23.4 24.4 23.8 23.4 23.3 23.7 Wheatland Brighton .37 .52 .70 1.31 6.5 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.6 20.8 20.8 Bayard 40 .51 .68 1.30 7.5 23.7 23.5 23.9 24.4 24.0 23.9 Mitchell .37 .47 .64 1.21 6.7 18.5 18.2 19.2 19.9 18.1 18.8 Lyman Ovid 40 .61 .94 1.90 9.5 20.6 21.1 21.5 21.8 20.9 21.2 Gering .40 .51 .72 1.21 7.1 20.3 20.7 20.5 20.3 20.5 20.5 Ft. Morgan .36 .51 .86 2.45 9.5 17.5 5.2 12.4 18.6 27.0 16.1 Sterling .37 .54 .81 1.68 10.8 21.7 21.1 21.5 21.8 21.8 21.6 Ft. Collins .39 .52 .69 1.20 6.4 21.6 21.5 21.4 21.5 21.7 21.5 Loveland .35 .50 .90 2.40 13.0 15.4 4.8 13.1 13.6 11.3 11.6 Longmont .40 .54 .70 1.27 8.1 21.4 21.4 21.6 20.6 22.1 21.4 Scottsbluff .40 .53 .80 1.55 8.5 20.3 20.7 20.4 20.3 20.2 20.4 Billings .38 .51 .76 1.30 6.8 19.1 18.9 17.9 18.3 18.1 18.5 Averages .378 .502 722 1.418 7.771 20.83 19.39 20.38 20.84 21.15 20.52 * From Dwg. 6203 ** D X K - Rienks Formula (K - 20.52) Z C - Coef. of heat transfer D - Temperature Difference -6- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 LOVELL Flash 11.76 18.11 7.42 38.98 20.87 13.45 13.45 13.45 244.2 229.5 215.3 198.9 176.7 117.9 46.86 Z- .38 Z- .50 Z- .75 Z- 1.45 Z- 9.4 4.73 .85 5017 5686 3676 2601 2274 Sq. Ft. 50.74 170.10 230.0 216.0 200. 178.9 122.0 119.38 80.40 59.53 46.08 32.63 Bx. 12.9 Bx. 18.3 Bx. 27.2 Bx. 36.7 Bx. 47.4 Bx.66.9 51.59 38.98 20.87 13.45 13.45 Tons Beets per hour 64.17 Thermo-Compressor LOVELL 15093 23242 9523 50027 26785 17262 17262 17262 60140 K-23.6 K-23.1 K-23.6 K-23.6 K-23.7 *6070 Bx.15.6 Bx.22.8 Bx.32.0 Bx.42.0 Bx.57.2 1091 65120 5017 5686 3676 2601 2274 Sq. Ft. 218306 C-883 C-625 C-471 C-325 C-138 41877 153212 103185 76401 59139 Bx. 66211 50027 26785 17262 17262 Lbs. Beets per hour 128340 GREELEY o Flash 7.58 14.56 22.40 22.40 22.40 22.40 250.0° 232.6 216.2 200.6 180.8 132.8 46.88 2-.34 Z- .42 Z - . .56 Z - .89 Z -5.2 2.34 44.54 4086 4948 4467 4320 4569 Sq. Ft. 175.27 233.0 216.8 201.4 182.0 130.73 93.77 48.97 136.4 71.37 26.57 Bx. 10.6 + Bx. 14.1 Bx. 19.7 Bx. 25.9 t Bx. 37.8 Bx. 69.6 46.88 36.96 22.40 22.40 22.40 Tons Beets per hour 72.08 GREELEY 10927 20990 32292 53282 32292 32292 32292 K- 18.4 k-17.3 k-17.9 k-18.8 k-18.5 67582 Bx. 12.1 Bx.16.9 Bx.22.8 Bx. 31.8 Bx.53.7 3373 64209 4086 4948 4467 4320 4569 Sq. Ft. 252669 C-920 188460 C-651 135179 C-473 102887 C-393 70595 -158 38303 67582 53282 32292 32292 32292 -7- Lbs. Beets per hour 144160 Lovell-Greeley Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 EATON 8.25 6.56 1.94 1.05 26.19 24.25 23.20 32.75 23.20 240.8 226.9 214.5 201.3 182.6 140.3 43.12 Z-37 Z- .44 Z - .58 - z-5.1 2.12 41.00 4151 4953 4821 3787 3894 Sq. Ft. 182.10 227.3 141.11 215.1 108.36 202.1 82.17 183.9 57.92 143.6 34.72 Bx. 12.9 Bx. 16.6 Bx. 21.6 Bx. 28.5 Bx. 40.5 Bx. 67.5 & y v 43.12 32.75 26.19 24.25 23.20 Tons Beets per hour 68.33 EATON 11274 8965 2651 1435 A 31705 44756 35791 33140 31705 K-27.4 K=27.4 K-27.1 K-26.8 K-26.9 58928 Bx.14.8 Bx.19.1 Bx.25.0 Bx.34.5 Bx.54.0 2897 56031 4151 4953 4821 3787 3894 Sq. Ft. 248858 C-100, C-736 C-580 C-491 C-206 192841 148085 112293 79153 47448 58928 44756 35791 33140 31705 Lbs. Beets per hour 136660 WINDSOR - -2.82 Flash to 3rd Vapor 10.87 11.96 -2.82 25.69 34.83 22.87 25.69 25.69 245.0° 227.4 213.3 200.0 180.4 133.3 46.87 Z-.36 Z - .42 Z - .52 Z - o 80 2-4.6 1.17 3641 5382 4993 4036 3983 Sq. Ft. 45.70 182.90 227.8 213.9 200.7 79.48 181.6 137.18 102.35 53.79 136.4 28.10 Bx. 10.4 Bx. 13.9 Bx. 18.6 Bx. 24.0 Bx. 35.5 Bx. 67.9 46.87 34.83 22.87 25.69 25.69 Tons Beets per hour 68.00 WINDSOR 3835 Flash to 2nd Vapor 14783 16266 -3835 34938 47369 31103 34938 34938 K-20.3 K-19.5 K-19.8 K-20.0 K-20.6 63743 Bx.12.2 x.16.2 Bx.21.3 Bx.29.8 Bx.51.7 1591 3641 5382 4993 4036 3983 Sq. Ft. 62152 248744 C-968 186564 C-626 139196 C-479 108093 C-460 73154 C-197 38216 637/33 47369 31103 34938 34938 -8- Lbs. Beets per hour 136000 Eaton-Windsor Source: Ittps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BRUSH 7.15 13.94. 1.71 3.18 16.27 242.8 35.10 21.16 19.45 16.27 228.8 214.9 199.5 178.8 128.0 44.50 Z - .39 Z - .49 Z - . 66 Z -1.23 Z -7.4 2.25 42.25 5617 5617 4003 4003 3440 Sq. Ft. 168.50 229.4 126.24 215. 91.14 200. 69.98 180.7 50.53 132.8 34.26 Bx. 13.7 + Bx. 18.2 Bx. 25.1 Bx. 32.8 Bx. 45.4 Bx. 66.9 + 44.50 35.10 21.16 19.45 16.27 Tons Beets per hour 71.12 BRUSH 10170 19828 2432 4523 A A A 23142 49926 30098 27666 23142 k-23.4 k-24.4 k-23.8 k-23.4 k-23.3 63297 Bx. 16.0 Bx. 21.6 Bx. 29.0 Bx. 39.1 Bx. 56.2 3200 60096 5617 5617 4003 4003 3440 Sq. Ft. 239674 C-799 C-651 C-5-13 C-360 C-145 179564 129638 99540 71874 48731 Y 63297 49926 30098 27666 23142 Lbs. Beets per hour 142240 BRIGHTON 13.20 11.17 2.84 2.84 13.55 243.7 30.40 19.23 16.39 13.55 229.8 216.0 199.6 178.2 133.9 45.17 - Z - .52 Z - o 70 Z -1.31 Z -6.5 1.57 43.60 6211 6211 3962 3874 3803 Sq. Ft. 156.73 230.4 216.8 200.9 63.52 180.1 47.13 138.2 113.15 82.75 33.58 Bx. 14.0 Bx. 19.4 Bx. 26.5 & Bx. 34.6 Bx. 46.6 Bx. 65.4 V 45.17 30.40 19.23 16.39 13.55 Tons Beets per hour 72.33 BRIGHTON 19095 16159 4108 4108 19601 43977 27818 23710 19601 K- 20.9 K- 20.9 K- 20.9 K- 20.6 K= 20.8 65343 Bx. 16.7 Bx. 23.0 Bx. 30.6 Bx. 40.6 Bx. 56.0 2271 6211 6211 3962 3874 3803 63072 Sq. Ft. 226726 C-751 C-522 C-450 C-307 C-128 163683 119706 91888 68178 48577 65343 43977 27818 23710 19601 -9- Lbs. Beets per hourl44660 Brush-Brighton Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BAYARD 18.49 8.33 2.12 3.44 A 14.67 A 4 A 240.8° 28.56 20.23 18.11 14.67 225.9 213. 2 47.86 197. 8 2 .40 176,2 129.0 y Z- o 51 Z -. 68 Z 1.30 ,81 275 47.05 5636 6420 4140 3622 3622 Sq. Ft. 161.89 226. 114.84 214. 86.28 199. 0 66.05 178.0 47.94 132.8 33.27 Bx. 13.74 Bx. 19.4 Bx. 25.8 - Bx. 33.7 t Bx. 46.4 Bx. 66.9 47.86 28.56 20.23 18.11 14.67 Tons Beets per hour 75.04 BAYARD 27750 12502 3182 5163 A 22017 42863 30361 27179 22017 K- 23.7 K-23.5 K-23.9 K-24.4 K-24.0 71828 Bx. 16. 6 Bx. 22.6 6 Bx.29.8 Bx.40.0 Bx.56.6 1216 5636 70613 6420 4140 3622 3622 Sq. Ft. 242965 C-845 172352 C-541 129489 C-500 99128 C-372 71948 C-139 49932 71828 42863 30361 27179 22017 Lbs. Beets per hour 150080 MITCHELL 18. 94 9.20 2.92 3.71 14.01 244.7° 29.84 20.64 17.72 14.01 49.05 228.8 214.6 196.8 174.0 123.9 .27 Z-.37 Z - 64 Z - 1.21 Z - 6.7 48.78 5933 6292 3750 3622 3621 Sq. Ft. 160.80 229.2 112.00 215.4 82.16 198, 61.52 175. 127. 43.80 29.79 Bx. 12.0 V Bx. 17.2 * Bx. 23.5 + Bx. 31.3 Bx. 44.0 Bx. 64.7 49.05 29.84 20.64 17.72 14.01 Tons Beets per hour 76.54 MITCHELL 28993 14083 4470 5679 21447 45679 31596 27126 21447 K - 18.5 K - 18.2 X - 19.2 K - 19.9 75086 K - 18.1 Bx, 14.6 Bx. 20.4 Bx. 27.4 Bx. 37.6 413 Bx, 54.4 74672 5933 6292 3750 3622 3622 246153 C-77 171450 C-520 125771 C-495 94175 C-349 67049 CC126 45602 75086 45679 31596 27126 21447 -10- Lbs. Beets per hour 153080 BAYARD-MITCHELL Source: https://wwvw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 OVID 3.72 Flash to 3 Vapor 19.13 16.68 4.30 1.23 11.20 240.8° 33.41 16.73 12.43 11.20 227.8 211.1 193.9 172.4 126.6 54.48 Z - .40 Z-61 - Z - .94 Z -1.90 Z -9.5 1.94 52.54 10724 6250 4765 4746 4746 Sq. Ft. 166.20 228.5 113.64 212.3 80.23 195.6 63.50 174. 51.07 131. 39.87 Bx. 15.8 Bx. 23.1 Bx. 32.7 Bx. 41.4 Bx. 51.4 Bx 65.9 54.48 33.41 16.73 12.43 11.20 Tons Beets per hour 80.58 OVID 5995 Flash to 3 Vapor 30830 26881 6930 1982 + 18050 53844 26962 20032 18050 K-20.6 K-21.1 K-21.5 K-21-8 K-20.9 87800 Bx.19.4 Bx.27.9 Bx.37.0 3x.46.4 Bx. 58. 6 3127 84673 10724 6250 4765 4746 4746 Sq. Ft. C-633 C-534 C-354 C=218 C-91 87800 53844 26962 20032 18050 Lbs. Beets per hour 161160 GERING -3.06 Flash to 3 Vapor 16.71 18.27 - .58 1.38 19.12 240.5° 38.19 19.92 20.50 19.12 224.6 209.1 192.5 171.8 123.6 55.22 Z- .40 Z .51 Z - . 72 Z- 1.21 Z -7.1 .32 54.90 6293 6019 4128 4809 4809 Sq. Ft. 189.87 225. 134.91 209.9 96.76 193 76.84 173.5 56.34 127.4 37.22 Bx. 13.1 Bx. 18.3 Bx. 25.6 Bx. 32.2 Bx. 43.9 Br. 66.5 V 55.22 38.19 I 19.92 20.50 19.12 Tons beets per hour 72.04 GERING -4409 Flash to 3 Vapor 24076 26323 - 836 1988 27548 55024 28701 29536 27548 K- 20.3 K- 20. K- 20.5 20.3 K- 20.5 79561 Bx. 15.7 Bx. 22.0 Bx. 28.9. Bx. 38,0 Bx. 55.2 461 79100 6293 6019 4128 4809 4809 Sq. Ft. 273565 C-782 194436 C-598 139412 C-439 110711 C-318 81175 C-128 53627 79561 55024 28701 29536 27548 Lbs. Beets per hour 144080 -11- OVID_GERING Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 FT. MORGAN As shown Flash to Vap Total Vap. 22.67 11.31 15.63 4.94 Flash -54 -2,92 -1.65 -2.17 Net Vap. 22.13 8.39 13.98 2.77 A A 4.28 29.42 21.03 7.05 4.28 283.20 +11.4° S.H. 268.5 243.9 221.4 200.6 166.7 53.69 Z-.36 Z o .51 Z .86 Z 2.45 z 9.5 2.14 51.55 9840 9005 6143 6143 3575 Sq. Ft. 142.72 269.6 91.17 245.. 61.75 223.8 40.72 205.2 173.5 33.67 29.39 Bx. 14.3 Bx. 22.3 Bx. 32.9 Bx 49.9 Bx. 60.4 V Bx 69.2 53.69 29.42 21.03 7.05 4.28 Tons Beets per hour 89.42 Total Vap. 40543 20227 FT. MORGAN Flash -966 27953 8835 5222 3881 39577 15005 2951 25002 4954 7654 52615 37610 12608 1 7654 K-17.5 K- 5.2 96016 K- 12. 4 K- 18. 6 K- 27.0 Bx. 18.3 Bx. 27.6 Bx. 41. 4 Bx. 55.2 Bx. 64.8 3827 92192 9840 9005 6143 6143 3575 Sq. Ft. 255240 C-661 163048 C-235 110434 C-289 72824 C-122 60215 C-77 52561 96016 52615 37610 12608 7654 Lbs. Beets per hour 178840 STERLING o Flash to Vapor 12.86 11.87 11.40 .04 4 14.03 242.6° 38.34 26.47 15.07 14.03 228.3 213.2 193.9 171.6 117.9 53.07 Z-.37 Z- o 54 Z- o 81 Z-1.68 Z10.8 1.87 51.20 6060 6171 3983 3782 3720 Sq. Ft. 186.60 228. 135.38 214 97.04 195 70.57 173 55.50 122 41.47 Bx. 14.7 & Bx. 20.3 Bx. 28.3 Bx. 38.9 & Bx. 49.5 Bx. 66.2 53.07 38.34 26.47 11.40 14.03 Tons Beets per hour 66.12 STERLING - Flash to Vapor 17006 15697 15075 1375 18553 50701 25004 19929 18553 K -21.7 A 21.1 A - 21. K - 21.8 K - 21.8 70180 Bx. 17. 5 Bx. 24.3 Bx. 33.6 Bx. 44.2 Bx. 57.8 2473 67707 6060 6171 3983 3782 3720 Sq. Ft. C-803 246760 179027 C-556 128326 C-476 C-259 C-100 93322 73393 54840 70180 50701 35004 19929 18553 -12- Lbs. Beets per hour 132240 FT MORGAN-STERLING Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 FORT COLLINS 2.99 Flash to 3 Vapor 17.84 21.53 -2.99 242.60 21.34 39.88 18.35 21.34 21.34 52.44 228.0 214.7 199.8 178.2 129.1 6.61 z - 5 z - 6. - Z -1.20 Z -6.40 1.33 57.72 12478 14540 7460 7164 7291 Sq. Ft. 199.77 228.6 215.6 201.1 180.0 142.03 62.46 132.8 102.15 83.80 41.12 Bx. 13.61 Bx. 19.1 & Bx. 26.6 v Bx. 32.4 Bx. 43.5 Bx. 66.0 59.05 39.88 18.35 21.34 21.34 Tons Beets per hour 120.42 FORT COLLINS 7201 Flash to 3 Vapor 42966 51853 -7201 51395 96047 44194 51395 51395 126296 K-21.6 K-21.5 k-21.4 k-21.5 K-21.7 15920 Bx. 16.4 Bx.22.8 8x.29.5 Bx.38.0 Bx.54.8 3203 139013° 12478 14540 7460 7164 7291 Sq. Ft. 481126 6-774 C-512 C-422 C-354 C-154 342065 246018 201824 150429 99033 142216 96047 44194 51395 51395 Lbs. Beets per hour 240840 LOVELAND As Shown Flash to Tot. Vap. 15.99 10.45 24.96 5.il Vapor Flash - .08 - 3.54 - 2.87 - 2.57 Net Vap. 15.91 6.91 22.09 2.54 A 5.33 295.0° 36.87 29.96 7.87 5.33 +16.0°S.H 278.2 248.1 220.4 195.0 134.6 57.70 2-.35 Z - .50 Z - . 90 Z - 2.40 Z - 13.0 4.92 52.78 9840 9005 6241 6241 4082 Sq. Ft. 173.50 279.2 249.8 222.8 199.4 140.0 120.72 83.85 53.89 46.02 40.69 Bx. 15.7 V Bx. 22.3 V Bx. 32.2 Bx. 50.1 Bx. 58.6 Bx. 66.3 57.70 36.87 29.96 7.87 5.33 Tons Beets per hour 102.71 LOVELAND 32847 21466 51273 10497 164 7272 5896 5279 32682 14,195 45877 5218 10949 75738 61544 16167 10949 K - 15.4 K- 4.8 K- 13.1 K- 13.6 K- 11.3 118527 Bx. 19.0 Bx. 27.2 Bx. 41.2 Bx. 54.4 Bx.62.4 10107 108421 9840 9005 6241 6241 4082 Sq. Ft. 356404 C-696 C-274 C-369 C-119 C-48 247983 172245 110701 94534 83585 118527 7573,8 61544 16167 10949 -13- Lbs. Beets per hour 205420 FT. COLLINS-LOVELAND Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 LONGMONT -4.87 Flash to Vapor 16.0 24.13 - 4.87 A A 19.51 244.4° 38.77 14.64 19.51 19.51 229.1 215.7 201.9 180.0 126.7 51.84 Z- .40 Z-.54 z_1.27 Z-8.1 2,17 54.78 11404 14688 7171 7154 7171 Sq. Ft. 186.30 229.7 131.52 216,6 92.73 203.2 78.11 181.9 58.68 131.0 39.09 Bx. 14.3 Bx. 20,2 Bx.28.7 Bx.34.1 Bx.45.4 Ex. 68.1 56.95 38.77 14.64 19.51 19.51 Tons Beets per hour 121.88 Thermo Compressor LONGMONT 11871 Flash to 3 Vapor 39026 58819 -11871 47558 94506 35686 47558 47558 126365 K -21.4 N- 21.4 K- 21.6 K- 20.6 K- 22.1 12456 Bx. 17. 2 Bx. 24. 4 Bx. 31.4 Bx. 39.8 Bx. 56.8 5290 133532 11404 14688 7171 7154 7171 Sq. Ft. 454125 320593 226087 190401 142843 95286 138821 94506 35686 47558 47558 Lbs, Beets per hour 243760 SCOTTSBLUFF Flash to o Vapor 11.86 15.35 7.01 3.20 244.4° 13.31 38.87 23.52 16.51 13.31 228.9 213.6 196.9 176.6 133.4 51.03 Z- .40 Z- .53 Z- . 80 Z-1.55 Z-8.6 .30 50.73 10839 11620 9618 9618 9618 Sq. Ft. 181.36 229.5 130.64 214.5 91.77 198 68.25 178. 51.74 138. 38.43 Bx. 14.1 Bx. 19.6 v Bx. 27.9 Bx. 37.5 + Bx. 49.5 Bx. 66.6 51.03 38.87 23.52 16.51 13.31 Tons Beets per hour 126.21 SCOTTSBLUFF Flash to o Vapor 29937 38746 17695 8077 33597 98116 59369 41675 33597 K- 20.3 K- 20.7 K- 20.4 K- 20.3 K- 20.2 128810 Bx, 16. 8 Bx. 23.8 Bx. 32. 7 Bx. 43.5 Bx. 58.0 757 10839 11620 9618 9618 9618 Sq. Ft. 128053 457789 C-757 C-562 231646 C-391 C-230 172277 130602 C-90 329761 97005 128810 98116 59369 41675 33597 -14- Lbs. Beets per hour 252420 LONGMONT-SCOTTSBLUFF Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BILLINGS Flash to o Vapor 10.78 25.65 3 3.90 247.3° A 15,75 45.30 19.65 15.75 15.75 229.8 215.6 198.3 177. 1 121.0 58.66 Z- .38 Z- o 51 Z-.76 Z 1.30 Z-6,8 2.58 56.08 11122 19002 9298 8682 6460 Sq. Ft. 193.31 230.3 137.23 216.1 91.93 199. 72.28 179. 56.53 125 40.78 Bx. 13.3 Bx. 18.7 & Bx. 27.5 Bx.35.5 Bx.45.4 Bx. 62.9 58.66 45.30 19.65 15.75 15.75 Tons Beets per hour 145.67 BILLINGS Flash: to O Vapor 31406 74729 11362 45886 131977 57248 45886 45886 K- 19.1 K-18.9 K-17.9 K- 18.3 K- 18.1 170900 Bx. 16.0 Bx.23.3 Bx.31.7 Bx. 40.4 Bx. 54. 2 7517 163383 11122 19002 9298 8682 6460 Sq.Ft. 563189 C-856 399806 C-497 267829 C-375 210581 C-270 164695 C-13Z 118808 170900 131977 57248 45886 45886 Lbs. Beets per hour 291340 + -15- BILLINGS Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227

What is the Decrease in working capital for the year 1974 ?

jlbx0227

jlbx0227_p0, jlbx0227_p1, jlbx0227_p2, jlbx0227_p3, jlbx0227_p4, jlbx0227_p5, jlbx0227_p6, jlbx0227_p7, jlbx0227_p8, jlbx0227_p9, jlbx0227_p10, jlbx0227_p11, jlbx0227_p12, jlbx0227_p13, jlbx0227_p14, jlbx0227_p15, jlbx0227_p16, jlbx0227_p17, jlbx0227_p18, jlbx0227_p19

$(19,885,024)

GH BRIEFING 6-11-75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I. GH is not worth buying for what is has earned or will earn under "normal" conditions; i.e., buy, refine, sell sugar. EBIT $600 M to $1.500M Needs $6-9MM WC to continue Can be purchased for $4-8 MM (they expect $10MM) Our "cost" is $10-17MM. . II. GH has excellent 1. Facilities at Reserve 2. Technical support personnel at Reserve 3. Distribution network relative to GW. t 2,100, on 00 3, III. GH could be a good speculative investment 2.4 Hog Low Provides A. "LONG.LIMIT 7,200,000 2, 400,000 Balance to GWS beet business 21.000,000 5.7,100 2,200,00 3.0000 Take % of Sugar Broker/dist $ 6,200,000 wwword ? 400.00 = Entry to foreign refined market 10% "Improvement on cost of raws = $16MM profit contribution" We must get a "participating K".- HFTS: 2X the Bet. on 121,000 IV. Net; get into GH as low as possible, 4 3 Emphasize the Raws problem< : Slim down overhead 95° Devise a plan that can target for $20MM EBIT. Actual Potented V hmp Ratio 73 74 AT, impiral 1.6 2.6 1.9mm Gll 4% 2.6% G,8 Source:https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., INC. PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1967. - 1970 1971 & 1974 1971 Profit Before Tax, Interest and Supervision Fees $ 11,130 M $ 6,614 M $ 4,528 M Average Per Year . 2,783 3,307 4,528 1974 Supervision (506) (506) .' (506) 1974 Interest (2,213) (2,213) (2,213) Projected Annual Profit 64 588 1,809 Investment Required to Return 10% $ 640 M $ 5,880 M $ 18,090 M 30% 213 1,950 6,030 15% 426 3,920 12,600 Production (CWT) 32,824 M CWT 19,050 M CWT 10,502 M CWT Average Per Year 8,206 9,525 10,502 1.5 33 Objective: - Get 30 day option - Full P & L information (operating statistics) - Manufacturing costs (operating statistics) Be Prepared To: - Sign LOI - Offer $4 Mm Low $5 Mm Mid $6 Mm High for 30% return before taxes $10 Mm Absolute Top Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co., INC. BALANCE SHEETS December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 ASSETS Current assets: Cash $ 2,150,212 $ 1,295,521 Federal income tax refund 1,020,891 Accounts and notes receivable: Trade 17,277,055 8,652,194 Affiliates 67,279 463,344 Inventories 12,503,941 13,094,401 Prepaid insurance and other 392,086 185,945 Total current assets 33,411,464 23,691,405 Property, plant and equipment, at cost: Land 373,300 373,300 Buildings 6,208,224 5,905,359 Machinery and equipment 14,791,863 13,812,393 Delivery and other automotive equipment 89,307 89,307 Leasehold improvements 50,662 27,707 21,513,356 20,208,066 Less accumulated depreciation 6,975,497 5,995,392 14,537,859 14,212,674 Other assets: Deferred income. taxes 1,492,919 Sundry deferred charges 368,352 629,849 Notes receivable 2,500 110,500 Advances to affiliates 126,733 1,990,504 740,349 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,428 LIABILITIES Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities: Trade $ 31,834,490 $ 6,998,742 Affiliates 846,938 356,860 Notes payable 19,019,761 14,534,993 Current portion of long-term debt 103,317 308,828 Total current liabilities (18,393) 51,804,506 22,199,423 Mortgage and notes payable, current portion above: 10-1/2% First Mortgage Note 4,747,501 4,836,043 Other notes payable 124,451 180,306 4,871,952 5,016,349 Advances from affiliates 3,178,135 3,171,156 Deferred income taxes 788,190 STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY (DEFICIT) Common stock, $100 par value; 1,041 shares authorized, issued and outstanding 104,100 104,100 Paid-in capital 2,323,239 . 2,323,239 Retained earnings (deficit), as annexed (12,342,105) 5,041,971 (9,914,765) 7,469,310 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,418 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-MENDERSON SUGAR co., , INC. PRO FORMA BALANCE SHEET AT 5/31/75 IN HANDS OF OTHERS - ON LIFO ASSETS Cash $ 1,395 Accounts Receivable 12,464 - Inventories Sugar 272,000 cwt at $11.11 3,022 Processing cost 386 Spare parts 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 19,631 Fixed assets - Net 14,353 Other assets and deferred charges 411 TOTAL ASSETS $ 34,395 LIABILITIES = Notes payable - banks $ 14,253 Notes payable - La. raw mills 7,369 Need commu Current portion of long-term debt 115 Accounts payable and accrued 3,334 2,2 Total Current Liabilities 25,071 Long-term debt 4,815 Deferred taxes 872 Deferred futures profit 716 Stockholders' equity 2,921 TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 34,395 1975 ceremated income Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Soùrce: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/j)bx0227 GODCHAUX-IENDERSON SUGAR co., INC. ESTIMATED WORKING CAPITAL MAY 31, 1975 000's omitted Current Assets Cash $ 1,395 Accounts receivable 12,464 Note receivable - U.S. Sugar Co. 240 Inventories: Raw sugar (Massequite), 40,458 cwt @ $17 688 Refined, 216,216 cwt @ $22 4,757 Spare parts, bags, mdse. for resale 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 21,908 Current Liabilities Bank notes payable 14,253 Current portion of long-term debt 115 Total notes payable 14,368 La. raw sugar payables 7,369 Other trade payables and accruals 1,755 Total Current Liabilities 23,492 Net Estimated Working Capital (Deficit) ($ 1,584) CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co. INC. ESTIMATED NET INCOME JANUARY ] THROUGH MAY 31, 1975 Pre-tax income, 4/30/75 $ 388,221 Estimated profit on April inventory liquidation 346,750 Deferred inventory liquidation profit, 4/30/75 6,329,205 Last estimated of May income 187,723 7,251,899 Estimate of income from inventory liquidation in month of May: Cwt actual, 96°, , 4/30/75 485,000 Cwt actual, 96°; 5/31/75 272,000 Liquidated 213,000 Spread ($27 May Cost - $11) x 16 $3,408,000 May liquidation profit 3,408,000 Total estimated pre-tax income 10,659,899 Book taxes at 37% consolidated rate 3,944,163 Estimated net income $ 6,715,736 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR co. INC. 2 ESTIMATED STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY MAY 31, 1975 Capital stock $ 104,100 Paid in capital, existing balance 2,323,239 Additional contributions to be made by Southern Industries 5,345,000 Total capital stock and paid-in 7,772,339 Retained earnings (deficit), 1/1/75 (12,342,104) Estimated net income, 1/1-5/31/75 6,715,736 Retained earnings (deficit), 5/31/75 ( 5,626,368) Total Estimated Stockholder's Equity, 5/31/75 $ 2,145,971 776 2,921 5. cash 3,6 2 2146 8.6 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF INCOME (LOSS) AND RETAINED EARNINGS (DEFICIT) for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Net sales $270,994,584 $121,429,038 Cost of sales 282,649,140 117,395,585 Gross profit (loss) (11,654,556) 4,033,453 Selling, general and administrative expenses 3,259,352 2,468,224 (14,913,908) 1,565,229 Other income, net 143,984 54,687 16.4mm (14,769,924) 1,619,916 Interest deductions 2,192,152 1,197,210 Income (loss) before provision (credit) for taxes 4 14,2mm (16,962,076) 422,706 Provision (credit) for income taxes: Federal: Current (990,891) (277,206) Deferred (2,251,109) 181,357 State - current 19,089 (3,242,000) (76,760) Net income (loss) the 7.1mm (13,720,076) 499,466 Retained earnings, January 1, restated 5,041,971 4,667,505 (8,678,105) 5,166,971 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 Retained earnings (deficit), December 31 $(12,342,105) $ _5,041,971 See notes to financial statements. 3 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., , INC. Statement of Change in Financial Position 1/1/15 - 4/30/75 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income $ 1244,579 Depreciation and amortization 383,018 Deferred income taxes -0- Working capital provided from operations 627,597 Decrease in other assets 4,525 Increase in deferred liabilities 8,373,106 $ 9,005,228 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment $ : 293,428 Reduction to mortgage and notes payable 56,909 Increase in deferred charges 264,575 $ 614,912 Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Changes in working capital Current assets: Cash $ (1,169,483) Receivables a 230th (7,434,849) Inventories (4,138,565) Prepaid insurance and other. 338,681 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities + 2,3sta $ (20,787,991) Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (6,541) $ (20,794,532) Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income (loss) $(13,720,076) $ 499,466 Expenses (credit) not affecting working capital in the current year: Depreciation and amortization 1,060,770 819,542 Deferred income taxes (2,251,109) 181,357 Working capital provided from (applied to) operations for the year (14,910,415) 1,500,365 Increase in advances from affiliates 6,979 Increase in mortgage and notes payable 9,430 1,022,000 Property sales and retirements, less accumulated depreciation 53,470 15,535 Other 212,764 63,670 (14,627,772) 2,601,570 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment 1,439,425 2,778,888 Reduction in mortgage and notes payable 153,827 278,496 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 5,257,252 3,182,384 Decrease in working capital $ (19,885,024) $ (580,814) Change in working capital - increase (decrease) : Current assets: Cash $ 854,691 $ 703,853 Receivables 9,249,687 (635,126) Inventories (590,460) 2,042,128 Prepaid insurance and other 206,141 (32,598 9,720,059 2,078,257 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (25,325,826) 3,143,444 Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (4,279,257) (5,802,515) (29,605,083) (2,659,071 Decrease in working capital $(19,885,024) $ (580,814 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 - SUCAR C.O. INC. VARIOUS SINTISTICS 1/1/74 .. 12/31/174 (BEFORE LIFO) PROFIT CONTRIBUTION Net Profit Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Add: Supervision Fees 506,000 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 14,675,927 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 SIC Note Interest 45,913 Interest Expense 1,986,461 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 60,914 Debt Amortization 14,752 Profit Contribution 16,383,957 ABEREVIATED FLOW OF FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Less: Income Tax 7,084,964 Net Income $ 7,084,963 Add: Depreciation and Amortization 1,052,693 Cash Flow $ 8,137,656. Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt 800,082 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 8,937,738 drwanch Less: Dividends 3.664,000 Capital Expenditures 1,377,877 Net Flow of Funds - Surplus/(Deficit) $ 3,895,861 NET WORKING CAPITAL @ 12/31/74 $ 5,480,545 Repairs $ 1,653,955 Refined Sugar Produced CWT 8,547,969 = it n Operating Days - Refinery 233 321 Average Production per Operating Day $ 36,687 27 \ IIIN E. Ladd 5/19/75 Söurce: https://www.industrydócuments,ucsf.edutddrst T1xx0227 VARIOUS STATISTICS 1967 - 1973 7 YEAR 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 TOTAL PROFIT CONTRIBUTION is 196 P Net Profit Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 Add: Supervision Fees 108,701 116,733 141,000 553,719 635,000 600,000 475,200 2,630,353 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 1,546,380 $ 1,864,135.1 $,1,718,417 $ 3,055,741 $ 3,866,801 $ 1,111,305 $ 897,906 $14,060,685 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 - 105,000 735,000 SIC Note Interest 138,214 145,798 138,661 131,661 124,747 117,925 111,636 908,642 Interest Expense 461,912 469,086 500,094 414,888 399,240 550,819 979,364 3,775,403 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 26,933 30,683 32,257 29,098 31,987 42,390 43,155 236,503 Debt Amortization 3,008 3,009 a - 6,017 1 Profit Contribution $ 2,281,447 $ 2,617,711 $ 2,494,129 $ 3,736,388 $ 4,527,775 $ 1,927,439 $ 2,137,061 $19,722,250 =085. ASBREVIATED FLCW 07 FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 (633) Less: Income Tax 586,061 804,000 816,551 1,069,802 1,153,238 26,466 (76,760) 4,379,358 Net Incone $ 851,618 $ 943,402 $ 760,866 $ 1,432,220 $ 2,078,563 $ 484,839 $ 499,466 $ 7,050,974 Add: Depreciation & Amortization 378,075 426,909 496,715 536,092 599,874 674,623 819,542 3,931,530 Cash Flow $ 1,229,693 $ 1,370,311 $ 1,257,581 $ 1,968,312 $ 2,678,437 $ 1,159,462 $ 1,319,008 $10,982,604 Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt (603,062) (492,620) (333,174) (495,412) 1,865,581 3,351,521 743,504 4,036,338 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 626,631 $ 877,691 $ 924,407 $ 1,472,900 $ 4,544,013 $ 4,510,983 $ 2,062,512 $15,019,142 NO Less: Dividends -0- 375,000 330,000 530,000 : 660,000 330,000 125,000 2,350,000 Capital Expenditures 1,694,961 1,099,561 942,281 755,946 2,619,417 4,187,602 2,773,893 14,078,656 Net Flou of Funds - Surplus/(Doficit) $ (1,068,330) $ (596,870) $. (347,371) $ 186,954 $ 1,264,601 $ (6,619) $ (841,376) $(1,409,514) Net Working Capital at Year-End $ 1,738,296 $ 960,279 $ 531,173 $ 499,751 $ 1,171,294 $ 2,220,053 $ 2,216,941 $ 1,627,025 Repairs $ 1,160,277 $ 1,229,468 $ 1,156,668 $ 1,326,567 $ 1,475,224 $ 1,414,386 $1.1,383,014 $ 9,145,604 Refined Sugar Produced (Cwt.) 7,270,838 8,317,724 7,741,365 9,494,161 10,502,424 9,170,169 8,457,433 - Operating Days - Refinery 268 277 246 299 .312 280 247 Average Production per Operating Day (Cwt.) 27,130 30,028 31,495 31,817 33,694 32,751 34,185 E. Ladd . 3/28/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I a - 0.042 °C - - - - it. Co N T O 0= of n- F- 8 80 . ********** i. .7 -0 *********** ++++++++4 - - CUMVERCA RAN 7 CONVERCA 3 es (--) CF- a n a - D an nca [= HE' - In a g 2 - Filent - NOTE. o THIS MAP REDUCED KALF SIZE MAP OF PLANT LATOUT na Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 (10,000) 31,000 (43,000 24,000 (4,000) LEARTYPE OUNTY OUTUNE NITED STATES - (3,000) MAP NO.117 AMERICAN MAD SOMPANY.INC $ Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SALARIED ORGANIZATION MAY 1, 1975 Operations, J. A. Metzler 2 Purchasing 6 Cincinnati 5 13 Marketing, E. R. Fleming 2 Administration 10 Sales 8 20 Finance, H. L. Kirk 4 Credit 4 Billing 3 Machine Room 2 1.3 Accounting, R. L. Crawford 11 Refinery, A. Garcia 2 Maintenance 23 Quality Assurance 10 Engineering 4 Administration 19 Operations 35 Service 2 95 Mobile, Administration and Service 6 TOTAL 158 40 158 101 67 T. Source: https://wvww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/doce 51jTbx02.27 to HOURLY ORCANIZATION - RESERVE - MAY 1, 1975 Manning is based cn requirement of two full shifts plus skeleton crew on the third shift in Pecking, and six palletized crews and two hand loading crews in Shipping. Raw Receiving 3 Affination 9 Clarification 9 Char House 18 Granulators 6 Pan Floor 16 Refined Centrifugal 12 Pre-Packaging 14 Packaging 80 Shipping - Packages 51 Shipping - Bulk 6 Liquid Sugar 6 Yard Crew 4 Sanitation 12 Security 6 Commissary 4 Laboratory 8 Utilities 12 Dock 6 Painters 8 Construction 14 Truck Drivers 5 Electrical 15 Maintenance Shops 13 Area Mechanics 20 Operations Mechanics 12 Total Required for 369* Operation *There are approximately 30 additional people on the payroll who act as vacation replacements, absentee replacements, training, etc. 360 1.58 40 Source: https:.//wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs[ilbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES 1. Information known: A. Sugar refinery at Reserve, Louisiana - 32 miles west of New Orleans on the Mississippi River. B. Liquid sugár processing plant and distribution terminal at Cincinnati, Ohio and leases sugar packaging operations at Buffalo, New York and (Chicago, Illinois 12/1/74. C. Owns 8 hydraulic material processing dredges, owns or has long term leases on 11 towboats and 88 cargo barges and under short term leases has 15 towboats and 30 barges. D. Also owns ready-mixed concrete operations and a mixer fleet in Mobile; asphalt plants at Woodstock, Margerum and Mobile, Alabama: a concrete block plant at Mobile, and supporting sales depots at Mobile, Ft. Walton Beach and Pensacola, Florida, and New Orleans owns or leases 8 stone quarries and crushing plants at Mobile, Baltimore and Houston, and chemical lime plants at Morgan City, La., and Saginaw, Ala. Company leases 2 slag processing facilities at Columbia, Tenn. E. Mineral Reserves--Company leases shell deposits from the states of Alabama and Louisiana, estimated to contain 100 million tons; leases gravel deposits estimated to contain 10 million tons owns an asphaltic limestone deposit estimated to contain 1,500,000 tons; and leases lime- stone deposits estimated to contain 200 million tons. F. Raws: 25% from U.S. 75% from Foreign G. Campaign: 312 days in 1971 280 days in 1972 247 days in 1973 232 days in 1974 H. Refined Sugar Production Production Year (Million cwts) 1971 10.5 1972 9.2 1973 8.4 1974 8.5 1. Sells sugar under two tradenames: 1. Henderson Superfine 2. Godchaux Brand continued Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES, continued Page 2 J. Current assets $53 Million. K. Long term debt $34 Million. L. Cost of replacing cane facilities: 1) Processing - $25 million Mill (3500 ton/day grind) 2) Refinery - $45 million (700 ton/day raw sugar) X 2 = 99mm II. Data needed: A. What it costs for Raws - Domestic - Foreign B. Operating costs (cost of production including G & A percent of refined sugar). C. Where receive raws from D. Costs to market place E. Financial data up to net income F. Present contractual arrangements III. To Receive 30% ROI before tax: @ 20,000 $ 6mm Example 1: Cost Proc + Profit for Price for RAWS: Raws Freight G & A 30% ROI Ref. Sugar (U.S.)25% @ 126 + 0 + 2.56 + 16 15.5 (Foreign 75% @ 7c + 1.8€ + 2.56 + 1c 12.3 TOTAL Weight Price For Refined Sugar 13.1 IV. Potential Areas to Increase Profits A. Grain Exports $45 2.47 50 B. Foreign raw prices based on refined sugar prices when sold. 11,2 C. Participating contract with growers based on refined sugar prices or foreign raws. 14/11/11 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 The President of Southern Industries Reports. Net soles for the first quarter ended March 31, 1975 were $74,686,000 compared to $51,505,000 for the same period in 1974. Net income for the period was $1,482,000 equal to $1.03 per share compared to a net loss of $1,830,000 (restated) equal to a loss of $1.23 per shore in 1974. By.product line the basic materials group had a 165% increase in pre-tox cornings over last year. This group occounted for $916,000 or opproximately 38% of pre-tax eornings. The sugar division contributed $1,437,000 or 61% to the results. With the exception of low sugar volume, the demand for our other products and materials remains strong. Your attention is directed to the notes to the following statements for a further explanation of the financial results of the first quorter. D. E. Dowson, Jr. April 22, 1975 President 1 Sales and Income (Loss) by Product Line For the three months ended March 31, 1975 and 1974 (000 omitted) SALES INCOME (LOSS) 1974 1975 1974 1975 Restated Sugor $56,118 $35,758 $ 1,437 S( 3,381) Bosic Materials 15,515 12,977 916 345 Hordwore and Machinery 3,051 2,770 58 92 Other (Non-operating) 2 - ( 58) ( 32) $74,686 $51,505 $ 2,353 $( 2,976) Income Toxes Credit (and Provision) ( 871) 1,145 Net Income (Loss) $ 1,482 $( 1,830) Per Shore $ 1.03 S( 1.22) Consolidated Financial Condition (000 omitted) March 31 1974 1975 Restated Current assets $ 50,419 $ 39,516 Current liobilities 51,420 30,445 Net current assets ( 1,001) 9,071 Properties - net 47,325 44,500 Other ossets 6,874 5,749 Total ossets less current licbilities 53,198 59,320 Long term debt (including debt due within one year) 33 33,151 32,101 Other licbilities 1,847 2,318 Total long term debt and other licbilities 55 34,998 34,419 Net assets $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Stockholders' equity: Common stock (1,433,096 shares outstanding) $ 6,059 $ 6,059 Retoined income and capital surplus 12,141 18,842 Total stockholders' equity $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Notes to Financial Statements (1) The income (les) by product line includes o statistical ollocation of corporale costs including interest expense. (2) Figures for 1974 have been restated to reflect changing to the lost in, first out (LIFO) method from the first in, first out (FIFO) and overage cost methods of accounting for the row sugar content of sugor inventories. If the FIFO and overage cost methods hod been used by the Com- pony, these inventories, and consequently net current assets, would hove been $14,803,000 and 54, 166,000 higher than reported at March 31, 1975 and 1974 (restated), respectively. (3) Results for the three months ended March 31, 1975 include income of $2,373,000 from reducing quantities of row sugar inventories under the uro method to on anticipated yeor-end level (substontially less than quantities on hand of the beginning of 1975). (4) A net operoting loss collyover available from 1974 will offsei the first $6,815,000 of taxoble income in 1975 and thus eliminate payment of toxes. The provision for toxas at March 31, 1975 of $871,000 represents a charge for deferred income taxes not currently payable. (5) Net income per shore bosed on 1,433,096 shares outstanding. (6) Depreciation and amortization included above omounted to $1,485,000 ond $1,265,000 in 1975 and 1974, respectively. P) Above figures subject to yeor-end audit. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227

what is the value of average by rienks formula for coefficient of heat in 1st body ?

pklh0227

pklh0227_p0, pklh0227_p1, pklh0227_p2, pklh0227_p3, pklh0227_p4, pklh0227_p5, pklh0227_p6, pklh0227_p7, pklh0227_p8, pklh0227_p9, pklh0227_p10, pklh0227_p11, pklh0227_p12, pklh0227_p13, pklh0227_p14, pklh0227_p15

810

H. W. DAHLBERG PURTP S A 20032 COEFFICIENT OF HEAT TRANSFER IN EVAPORATORS BASED ON 1950-51 Campaign The Great Western Sugar Company BY J.T. DAVIS April 25 , 1951 Source: https://wwyw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Pounds of Steam or Vapor Condensed Per Hour Coefficient of Heat Exhaust 1st Vap. 2nd Vap. 3rd Vap. 4th Vap Transfer B.T.U. Per Sq. Ft. Con- Con- Con- Con- Con- Per Degree F. Per Hour densed densed densed densed densed 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th lst Body 2nd Body 3rd Body 4th Body 5th Body Body Body Body Body Body Lovell 66211 50027 26785 17262 17262 883 625 471 325 138 Ft. Lupton Greeley 67582 53282 32292 32292 32292 920 651 473 393 158 Eaton 58928 44756 35791 33140 31705 1001 736 580 491 206 Windsor 63743 47369 31103 34938 34938 968 626 479 460 197 Brush 63297 49926 30098 27666 23142 799 651 513 360 145 Wheatland Brighton 65343 43977 27818 23710 19601 751 522 450 307 128 Bayard 71828 42863 30361 27179 22017 848 544 500 371 139 Mitchell 75086 45679 31596 27126 21447 775 520 495 349 126 Lyman Ovid 87800 53844 26962 20032 18050 633 534 354 218 91 Minatare Gering 79561 55024 28701 29536 27548 782 598 439 318 128 Ft. Morgan 96019 52615 37610 12608 7654 661 235 289 122 77 Sterling 70180 50701 35004 19929 18553 803 556 476 259 100 Ft. Collins 142216 96047 44194 51395 51395 774 512 422 354 154 Loveland 118527 75738 61544 16167 10949 696 274 369 119 48 Longmont 138821 94506 35686 47558 47558 786 494 386 325 134 Scottsbluff 128810 98116 59369 41675 33597 757 562 391 236 90 Billings 170900 131977 57248 45886 45886 856 497 375 270 137 Average 92050 63909 37186 29888 27270 805 537 439 310 129 Average by Rienks Formula 810 579 442 282 122 Average by Swenson Formula 780 634 511 353 135 Average Brix of Juice in Bodies 16.2 22.7 30.9 40.9 56.6 -1- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Baro- Gauge Barom- metric Pressure eter Pressure Exhaust Temperatures Degrees Fahrenheit-Vapor Alti- Inches Lbs. Per Steam Ex- 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th tude Hg. Sq. In. * ** haust Body Body Body Body Body Lovell 3830 25.93 12.73 16.8 15.7 244.2 229.5 215.3 198.9 176.7 117.9 Ft. Lupton 4907 24.88 12.22 Greeley 4680 25.10 12.33 17.0 16.5 250.0 232.6 216.2 200.6 180.8 132.8 Eaton 4840 24.95 12.25 13.0 13.1 240.8 226.9 214.5 201.3 182.6 140.3 Windsor 4780 25.00 12.28 15.0 13.9 245.0 227.4 213.3 200.0 180.4 133.3 Brush 4280 25.48 12.51 15.0 10.4 242.8 228.8 214.9 199.5 178.8 128.0 Wheatland 4680 25.10 12.33 Brighton 5000 24.79 12.18 11.2 12.3 243.7 229.8 216.0 199.6 178.2 133.9 Bayard 3780 25.97 12.76 14.0 12.6 240.8 225.9 213.2 197.8 176.2 129.0 Mitchell 3970 25.79 12.66 14.0 11.8 244.7 228.8 214.6 196.8 174.0 123.9 Lyman 4053 25.71 12.63 Ovid 3521 26.22 12.88 13.0 12.4 240.8 227.8 211.1 193.9 172.4 126.6 Minatare 3830 25.92 12.73 Gering 3900 25.86 12.70 14.0 13.5 240.5 224.6 209.1 192.5 171.8 123.6 Ft. Morgan 4339 25.43 12.49 39.3 49.2 283.2°268.5 243.9 221.4 200.6 166.7 Sterling 3934 25.82 12.68 14.0 13.5 242.6 228.3 213.2 193.9 171.6 117.9 Ft. Collins 4960 24.83 12.20 16.8 14.0 242.6 228.0 214.7 199.8 178.2 129.1 Loveland 4980 24.81 12.19 49.0 66.6 295.09278.2 248.1 220.1 195.0 134.6 Longmont 5000 24.79 12.18 17.3 14.3 244.4 229.1 215.7 201.9 180.0 126.7 Scottsbluff 3880 25.88 12.71 18.0 14.3 244.4 228.9 213.6 196.9 176.6 133.4 Billings 3100 26.65 13.09 15.9 15.4 247.3 229.8 215.6 198.3 177.1 121.0 Averages 249.0 233.7 217.8 200.8 179.5 130.5 Reported ** Calculated from Temperatures 294.6 with Superheat -2- 311.0 " " Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Temperature Difference - Degree F. Heating Surface - Square Ft. Exh. lst 2nd 3rd 4th lst 2nd 3rd 4th 5th to lst to 2nd to 3rd to 4th to 5th Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Lovell 5017 5686 3676 2601 2274 14.2 13.5 15.0 20.0 54.7 Ft. Lupton Greeley 4086 4948 4467 4320 4569 17.0 15.8 14.8 18.6 44.4 Eaton 4151 4953 4821 3787 3894 13.5 11.8 12.4 17.4 39.0 Windsor 3641 5382 4993 4036 3983 17.2 13.5 12.6 18.4 44.0 Brush 5617 5617 4003 4003 3440 13.4 13.1 14.2 18.8 46.0 Wheatland Brighton 6211 6211 3962 3874 3803 13.3 13.0 15.1 19.5 40.0 Bayard 5636 6420 4140 3622 3622 14.3 11.8 14.2 19.8 43.4 Mitchell 5933 6292 3750 3622 3621 15.5 13.4 16.5 21.0 46.6 Lyman Ovid 5362 6250 4765 4746 4746 12.3 15.5 15.5 19.0 41.4 5362 Minatare Gering 6293 6019 4128 4809 4809 15.4 14.7 15.4 19.0 44.4 Ft. Morgan 9840 9005 6143 6143 3575 13.6 23.2 20.1 16.2 27.1 Sterling 6060 6171 3983 3782 3720 13.7 14.2 17.9 20.0 49.6 Ft. Collins 6239 7270 3751 3582 3709 14.0 12.4 13.6 19.8 45.4 6239 7270 3709 3582 3582 Loveland 9840 9005 6241 6241 4082 15.8 28.4 25.3 21.0 55.0 Longmont 5520 7344 3566 3566 3566 14.7 12.5 12.5 20.0 49.0 5884 7344 3605 3588 3605 Scottsbluff 5325 5327 4809 4809 4809 14.9 14.4 15.3 18.0 38.4 5514 6293 4809 4809 4809 Billings 5561 9501 4649 4341 3230 17.0 13.4 15.9 19.2 51.5 5561 9501 4649 4341 3230 Averages 14.69 14.98 15.66 19.16 44.70 -3- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BONED Brix of Juice Enter- ing lst Leaving Evaporator Body Average Brix of Juice in - Body 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Lovell 12.9 18.3 27.2 36.7 47.4 66.9 15.6 22.8 32.0 42.0 57.2 Ft. Lupton Greeley 10.6 14.1 19.7 25.9 37.8 69.6 12.4 16.9 22.8 31.8 53.7 Eaton 12.9 16.6 21.6 28.5 40.5 67.5 14.8 19.1 25.0 34.5 54.0 Windsor 10.4 13.9 18.6 24.0 35.5 67.9 12.2 16.2 21.3 29.8 51.7 Brush 13.7 18.2 25.1 32.8 45.4 66.9 16.0 21.6 29.0 39.1 56.2 Wheatland Brighton 14.0 19.4 26.5 34.6 46.6 65.4 16.7 23.0 30.6 40.6 56.0 Bayard 13.7 19.4 25.8 33.7 46.4 66.9 16.6 22.6 29.8 40.0 56.6 Mitchell 12.0 17.2 23.5 31.3 44.0 64.7 14.6 20.4 27.4 37.6 54.4 Lyman Ovid 15.8 23.1 32.7 41.4 51.4 65.9 19.4 27.9 37.0 46.4 58.6 Minatare Gering 13.1 18.3 25.6 32.2 43.9 66.5 15.7 22.0 28.9 38.0 55.2 Ft. Morgan 14.3 22.3 32.9 49.9 60.4 69.2 18.3 27.6 41.4 55.2 64.8 Sterling 14.7 20.3 28.3 38.9 49.5 66.2 17.5 24.3 33.6 44.2 57.8 Ft. Collins 13.6 19.1 26.6 32.4 43.5 66.0 16.4 22.8 29.5 38.0 54.8 Loveland 15.7 22.3 32.2 50.1 58.6 66.3 19.0 27.2 41.2 54.4 62.4 Longmont 14.3 20.2 28.7 34.1 45.4 68.1 17.2 24.4 31.4 39.8 56.8 Scottsbluff 14.1 19.6 27.9 37.5 49.5 66.6 16.8 23.8 32.7 43.5 58.0 Billings 13.3 18.7 27.9 35.5 45.4 62.9 16.0 23.3 31.7 40.4 54.2 Averages 13.5 18.9 26.5 35.3 46.5 66.7 16.2 22.7 30.9 40.9 56.6 -4- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Temperatures - Degrees Fahrenheit Exh. 1st Body 2nd Body 3rd Body 4th Body 5th Body Steam Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Lovell 244.2 229.5 230.0 215.3 216.0 198.9 200.3 176.7 178.9 117.9 122.0 Ft. Lupton Greeley 250.0 232.6 233.0 216.2 216.8 200.6 201.4 180.8 182.0 132.8 136.4 Eaton 240.8 226.9 227.3 214.5 215.1 201.3 202.1 182.6 183.9 140.3 143. Windsor 245.0 227.4 227.8 213.3 213.9 200.0 200.7 180.4 181.6 133.3 136.4 Brush 242.8 228.8 229.4 214.9 215.7 199.5 200.7 178.8 180.7 128.0 132.8 Wheatland Brighton 243.7 229.8 230.4 216.0 216.8 199.6 200.9 178.2 180.1 133.9 138.2 Bayard 240.8 225.9 226.5 213.2 214.1 197.8 199.0 176.2 178.0 129.0 132.8 Mitchell 244.7 228.8 229.2 214.6 215.4 196.8 198.1 174.0 175.8 123.9 127.4 Lyman Ovid 240.8 227.8 228.5 211.1 212.3 193.9 195.6 172.4 174.9 126.6 131.0 Minatare Gering 240.5 224.6 225.1 209.1 209.9 192.5 193.7 171.8 173.5 123.6 127.4 Ft. Morgan 283.2* 268.5 269.6 243.9 245.3 221.4 223.8 200.6 205.2 166.7 173.5 Sterling 242.6 228.3 228.9 213.2 214.1 193.9 195.3 171.6 173.9 117.9 122.0 Ft. Collins 242.6 228.0 228.6 214.7 215.6 199.8 201.1 178.2 180.0 129.1 132.8 Loveland 295.0° 278.2 279.2 248.1 249.8 220.4 222.8 195.0 199.4 134.6 140.0 Longmont 244.4 229.1 229.7 215.7 216.6 201.9 203.2 180.0 181.9 126.7 131.0 Scottsbluff 244.4 228.9229.5 213.6 214.5 196.9 198.3 176.6 178.9 133.4 138.2 Billings 247.3 229.8 230.3 215.6 216.4 198.3 199.7 177.1 179.1 121.0 125.6 Averages 249.0 233.7 234.3 217.8 218.7 200.8 202.2 179.5 181.6 130.5 134.8 * 294.6 With Superheat 311.0 With Superheat -5- Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 *Viscosity Centiposes - Z **Value of - K Juice in Evaporator Body Evaporator Body 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th lst 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Average Lovell .38 .50 . 75 1.45 9.4 23.6 23.1 23.6 23.6 23.7 23.5 Ft. Lupton Greeley .34 .42 .56 .89 5.2 18.4 17.3 17.9 18.8 18.5 18.2 Eaton .37 .44 .58 .95 5.1 27.4 27.4 27.1 26.8 26.9 27.1 Windsor .36 .42 .52 .80 4.6 20.3 19.5 19.8 20.0 20.6 20.0 Brush .39 .49 .66 1.23 7.4 23.4 24.4 23.8 23.4 23.3 23.7 Wheatland Brighton .37 .52 .70 1.31 6.5 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.6 20.8 20.8 Bayard 40 .51 .68 1.30 7.5 23.7 23.5 23.9 24.4 24.0 23.9 Mitchell .37 .47 .64 1.21 6.7 18.5 18.2 19.2 19.9 18.1 18.8 Lyman Ovid 40 .61 .94 1.90 9.5 20.6 21.1 21.5 21.8 20.9 21.2 Gering .40 .51 .72 1.21 7.1 20.3 20.7 20.5 20.3 20.5 20.5 Ft. Morgan .36 .51 .86 2.45 9.5 17.5 5.2 12.4 18.6 27.0 16.1 Sterling .37 .54 .81 1.68 10.8 21.7 21.1 21.5 21.8 21.8 21.6 Ft. Collins .39 .52 .69 1.20 6.4 21.6 21.5 21.4 21.5 21.7 21.5 Loveland .35 .50 .90 2.40 13.0 15.4 4.8 13.1 13.6 11.3 11.6 Longmont .40 .54 .70 1.27 8.1 21.4 21.4 21.6 20.6 22.1 21.4 Scottsbluff .40 .53 .80 1.55 8.5 20.3 20.7 20.4 20.3 20.2 20.4 Billings .38 .51 .76 1.30 6.8 19.1 18.9 17.9 18.3 18.1 18.5 Averages .378 .502 722 1.418 7.771 20.83 19.39 20.38 20.84 21.15 20.52 * From Dwg. 6203 ** D X K - Rienks Formula (K - 20.52) Z C - Coef. of heat transfer D - Temperature Difference -6- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 LOVELL Flash 11.76 18.11 7.42 38.98 20.87 13.45 13.45 13.45 244.2 229.5 215.3 198.9 176.7 117.9 46.86 Z- .38 Z- .50 Z- .75 Z- 1.45 Z- 9.4 4.73 .85 5017 5686 3676 2601 2274 Sq. Ft. 50.74 170.10 230.0 216.0 200. 178.9 122.0 119.38 80.40 59.53 46.08 32.63 Bx. 12.9 Bx. 18.3 Bx. 27.2 Bx. 36.7 Bx. 47.4 Bx.66.9 51.59 38.98 20.87 13.45 13.45 Tons Beets per hour 64.17 Thermo-Compressor LOVELL 15093 23242 9523 50027 26785 17262 17262 17262 60140 K-23.6 K-23.1 K-23.6 K-23.6 K-23.7 *6070 Bx.15.6 Bx.22.8 Bx.32.0 Bx.42.0 Bx.57.2 1091 65120 5017 5686 3676 2601 2274 Sq. Ft. 218306 C-883 C-625 C-471 C-325 C-138 41877 153212 103185 76401 59139 Bx. 66211 50027 26785 17262 17262 Lbs. Beets per hour 128340 GREELEY o Flash 7.58 14.56 22.40 22.40 22.40 22.40 250.0° 232.6 216.2 200.6 180.8 132.8 46.88 2-.34 Z- .42 Z - . .56 Z - .89 Z -5.2 2.34 44.54 4086 4948 4467 4320 4569 Sq. Ft. 175.27 233.0 216.8 201.4 182.0 130.73 93.77 48.97 136.4 71.37 26.57 Bx. 10.6 + Bx. 14.1 Bx. 19.7 Bx. 25.9 t Bx. 37.8 Bx. 69.6 46.88 36.96 22.40 22.40 22.40 Tons Beets per hour 72.08 GREELEY 10927 20990 32292 53282 32292 32292 32292 K- 18.4 k-17.3 k-17.9 k-18.8 k-18.5 67582 Bx. 12.1 Bx.16.9 Bx.22.8 Bx. 31.8 Bx.53.7 3373 64209 4086 4948 4467 4320 4569 Sq. Ft. 252669 C-920 188460 C-651 135179 C-473 102887 C-393 70595 -158 38303 67582 53282 32292 32292 32292 -7- Lbs. Beets per hour 144160 Lovell-Greeley Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 EATON 8.25 6.56 1.94 1.05 26.19 24.25 23.20 32.75 23.20 240.8 226.9 214.5 201.3 182.6 140.3 43.12 Z-37 Z- .44 Z - .58 - z-5.1 2.12 41.00 4151 4953 4821 3787 3894 Sq. Ft. 182.10 227.3 141.11 215.1 108.36 202.1 82.17 183.9 57.92 143.6 34.72 Bx. 12.9 Bx. 16.6 Bx. 21.6 Bx. 28.5 Bx. 40.5 Bx. 67.5 & y v 43.12 32.75 26.19 24.25 23.20 Tons Beets per hour 68.33 EATON 11274 8965 2651 1435 A 31705 44756 35791 33140 31705 K-27.4 K=27.4 K-27.1 K-26.8 K-26.9 58928 Bx.14.8 Bx.19.1 Bx.25.0 Bx.34.5 Bx.54.0 2897 56031 4151 4953 4821 3787 3894 Sq. Ft. 248858 C-100, C-736 C-580 C-491 C-206 192841 148085 112293 79153 47448 58928 44756 35791 33140 31705 Lbs. Beets per hour 136660 WINDSOR - -2.82 Flash to 3rd Vapor 10.87 11.96 -2.82 25.69 34.83 22.87 25.69 25.69 245.0° 227.4 213.3 200.0 180.4 133.3 46.87 Z-.36 Z - .42 Z - .52 Z - o 80 2-4.6 1.17 3641 5382 4993 4036 3983 Sq. Ft. 45.70 182.90 227.8 213.9 200.7 79.48 181.6 137.18 102.35 53.79 136.4 28.10 Bx. 10.4 Bx. 13.9 Bx. 18.6 Bx. 24.0 Bx. 35.5 Bx. 67.9 46.87 34.83 22.87 25.69 25.69 Tons Beets per hour 68.00 WINDSOR 3835 Flash to 2nd Vapor 14783 16266 -3835 34938 47369 31103 34938 34938 K-20.3 K-19.5 K-19.8 K-20.0 K-20.6 63743 Bx.12.2 x.16.2 Bx.21.3 Bx.29.8 Bx.51.7 1591 3641 5382 4993 4036 3983 Sq. Ft. 62152 248744 C-968 186564 C-626 139196 C-479 108093 C-460 73154 C-197 38216 637/33 47369 31103 34938 34938 -8- Lbs. Beets per hour 136000 Eaton-Windsor Source: Ittps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BRUSH 7.15 13.94. 1.71 3.18 16.27 242.8 35.10 21.16 19.45 16.27 228.8 214.9 199.5 178.8 128.0 44.50 Z - .39 Z - .49 Z - . 66 Z -1.23 Z -7.4 2.25 42.25 5617 5617 4003 4003 3440 Sq. Ft. 168.50 229.4 126.24 215. 91.14 200. 69.98 180.7 50.53 132.8 34.26 Bx. 13.7 + Bx. 18.2 Bx. 25.1 Bx. 32.8 Bx. 45.4 Bx. 66.9 + 44.50 35.10 21.16 19.45 16.27 Tons Beets per hour 71.12 BRUSH 10170 19828 2432 4523 A A A 23142 49926 30098 27666 23142 k-23.4 k-24.4 k-23.8 k-23.4 k-23.3 63297 Bx. 16.0 Bx. 21.6 Bx. 29.0 Bx. 39.1 Bx. 56.2 3200 60096 5617 5617 4003 4003 3440 Sq. Ft. 239674 C-799 C-651 C-5-13 C-360 C-145 179564 129638 99540 71874 48731 Y 63297 49926 30098 27666 23142 Lbs. Beets per hour 142240 BRIGHTON 13.20 11.17 2.84 2.84 13.55 243.7 30.40 19.23 16.39 13.55 229.8 216.0 199.6 178.2 133.9 45.17 - Z - .52 Z - o 70 Z -1.31 Z -6.5 1.57 43.60 6211 6211 3962 3874 3803 Sq. Ft. 156.73 230.4 216.8 200.9 63.52 180.1 47.13 138.2 113.15 82.75 33.58 Bx. 14.0 Bx. 19.4 Bx. 26.5 & Bx. 34.6 Bx. 46.6 Bx. 65.4 V 45.17 30.40 19.23 16.39 13.55 Tons Beets per hour 72.33 BRIGHTON 19095 16159 4108 4108 19601 43977 27818 23710 19601 K- 20.9 K- 20.9 K- 20.9 K- 20.6 K= 20.8 65343 Bx. 16.7 Bx. 23.0 Bx. 30.6 Bx. 40.6 Bx. 56.0 2271 6211 6211 3962 3874 3803 63072 Sq. Ft. 226726 C-751 C-522 C-450 C-307 C-128 163683 119706 91888 68178 48577 65343 43977 27818 23710 19601 -9- Lbs. Beets per hourl44660 Brush-Brighton Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BAYARD 18.49 8.33 2.12 3.44 A 14.67 A 4 A 240.8° 28.56 20.23 18.11 14.67 225.9 213. 2 47.86 197. 8 2 .40 176,2 129.0 y Z- o 51 Z -. 68 Z 1.30 ,81 275 47.05 5636 6420 4140 3622 3622 Sq. Ft. 161.89 226. 114.84 214. 86.28 199. 0 66.05 178.0 47.94 132.8 33.27 Bx. 13.74 Bx. 19.4 Bx. 25.8 - Bx. 33.7 t Bx. 46.4 Bx. 66.9 47.86 28.56 20.23 18.11 14.67 Tons Beets per hour 75.04 BAYARD 27750 12502 3182 5163 A 22017 42863 30361 27179 22017 K- 23.7 K-23.5 K-23.9 K-24.4 K-24.0 71828 Bx. 16. 6 Bx. 22.6 6 Bx.29.8 Bx.40.0 Bx.56.6 1216 5636 70613 6420 4140 3622 3622 Sq. Ft. 242965 C-845 172352 C-541 129489 C-500 99128 C-372 71948 C-139 49932 71828 42863 30361 27179 22017 Lbs. Beets per hour 150080 MITCHELL 18. 94 9.20 2.92 3.71 14.01 244.7° 29.84 20.64 17.72 14.01 49.05 228.8 214.6 196.8 174.0 123.9 .27 Z-.37 Z - 64 Z - 1.21 Z - 6.7 48.78 5933 6292 3750 3622 3621 Sq. Ft. 160.80 229.2 112.00 215.4 82.16 198, 61.52 175. 127. 43.80 29.79 Bx. 12.0 V Bx. 17.2 * Bx. 23.5 + Bx. 31.3 Bx. 44.0 Bx. 64.7 49.05 29.84 20.64 17.72 14.01 Tons Beets per hour 76.54 MITCHELL 28993 14083 4470 5679 21447 45679 31596 27126 21447 K - 18.5 K - 18.2 X - 19.2 K - 19.9 75086 K - 18.1 Bx, 14.6 Bx. 20.4 Bx. 27.4 Bx. 37.6 413 Bx, 54.4 74672 5933 6292 3750 3622 3622 246153 C-77 171450 C-520 125771 C-495 94175 C-349 67049 CC126 45602 75086 45679 31596 27126 21447 -10- Lbs. Beets per hour 153080 BAYARD-MITCHELL Source: https://wwvw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 OVID 3.72 Flash to 3 Vapor 19.13 16.68 4.30 1.23 11.20 240.8° 33.41 16.73 12.43 11.20 227.8 211.1 193.9 172.4 126.6 54.48 Z - .40 Z-61 - Z - .94 Z -1.90 Z -9.5 1.94 52.54 10724 6250 4765 4746 4746 Sq. Ft. 166.20 228.5 113.64 212.3 80.23 195.6 63.50 174. 51.07 131. 39.87 Bx. 15.8 Bx. 23.1 Bx. 32.7 Bx. 41.4 Bx. 51.4 Bx 65.9 54.48 33.41 16.73 12.43 11.20 Tons Beets per hour 80.58 OVID 5995 Flash to 3 Vapor 30830 26881 6930 1982 + 18050 53844 26962 20032 18050 K-20.6 K-21.1 K-21.5 K-21-8 K-20.9 87800 Bx.19.4 Bx.27.9 Bx.37.0 3x.46.4 Bx. 58. 6 3127 84673 10724 6250 4765 4746 4746 Sq. Ft. C-633 C-534 C-354 C=218 C-91 87800 53844 26962 20032 18050 Lbs. Beets per hour 161160 GERING -3.06 Flash to 3 Vapor 16.71 18.27 - .58 1.38 19.12 240.5° 38.19 19.92 20.50 19.12 224.6 209.1 192.5 171.8 123.6 55.22 Z- .40 Z .51 Z - . 72 Z- 1.21 Z -7.1 .32 54.90 6293 6019 4128 4809 4809 Sq. Ft. 189.87 225. 134.91 209.9 96.76 193 76.84 173.5 56.34 127.4 37.22 Bx. 13.1 Bx. 18.3 Bx. 25.6 Bx. 32.2 Bx. 43.9 Br. 66.5 V 55.22 38.19 I 19.92 20.50 19.12 Tons beets per hour 72.04 GERING -4409 Flash to 3 Vapor 24076 26323 - 836 1988 27548 55024 28701 29536 27548 K- 20.3 K- 20. K- 20.5 20.3 K- 20.5 79561 Bx. 15.7 Bx. 22.0 Bx. 28.9. Bx. 38,0 Bx. 55.2 461 79100 6293 6019 4128 4809 4809 Sq. Ft. 273565 C-782 194436 C-598 139412 C-439 110711 C-318 81175 C-128 53627 79561 55024 28701 29536 27548 Lbs. Beets per hour 144080 -11- OVID_GERING Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 FT. MORGAN As shown Flash to Vap Total Vap. 22.67 11.31 15.63 4.94 Flash -54 -2,92 -1.65 -2.17 Net Vap. 22.13 8.39 13.98 2.77 A A 4.28 29.42 21.03 7.05 4.28 283.20 +11.4° S.H. 268.5 243.9 221.4 200.6 166.7 53.69 Z-.36 Z o .51 Z .86 Z 2.45 z 9.5 2.14 51.55 9840 9005 6143 6143 3575 Sq. Ft. 142.72 269.6 91.17 245.. 61.75 223.8 40.72 205.2 173.5 33.67 29.39 Bx. 14.3 Bx. 22.3 Bx. 32.9 Bx 49.9 Bx. 60.4 V Bx 69.2 53.69 29.42 21.03 7.05 4.28 Tons Beets per hour 89.42 Total Vap. 40543 20227 FT. MORGAN Flash -966 27953 8835 5222 3881 39577 15005 2951 25002 4954 7654 52615 37610 12608 1 7654 K-17.5 K- 5.2 96016 K- 12. 4 K- 18. 6 K- 27.0 Bx. 18.3 Bx. 27.6 Bx. 41. 4 Bx. 55.2 Bx. 64.8 3827 92192 9840 9005 6143 6143 3575 Sq. Ft. 255240 C-661 163048 C-235 110434 C-289 72824 C-122 60215 C-77 52561 96016 52615 37610 12608 7654 Lbs. Beets per hour 178840 STERLING o Flash to Vapor 12.86 11.87 11.40 .04 4 14.03 242.6° 38.34 26.47 15.07 14.03 228.3 213.2 193.9 171.6 117.9 53.07 Z-.37 Z- o 54 Z- o 81 Z-1.68 Z10.8 1.87 51.20 6060 6171 3983 3782 3720 Sq. Ft. 186.60 228. 135.38 214 97.04 195 70.57 173 55.50 122 41.47 Bx. 14.7 & Bx. 20.3 Bx. 28.3 Bx. 38.9 & Bx. 49.5 Bx. 66.2 53.07 38.34 26.47 11.40 14.03 Tons Beets per hour 66.12 STERLING - Flash to Vapor 17006 15697 15075 1375 18553 50701 25004 19929 18553 K -21.7 A 21.1 A - 21. K - 21.8 K - 21.8 70180 Bx. 17. 5 Bx. 24.3 Bx. 33.6 Bx. 44.2 Bx. 57.8 2473 67707 6060 6171 3983 3782 3720 Sq. Ft. C-803 246760 179027 C-556 128326 C-476 C-259 C-100 93322 73393 54840 70180 50701 35004 19929 18553 -12- Lbs. Beets per hour 132240 FT MORGAN-STERLING Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 FORT COLLINS 2.99 Flash to 3 Vapor 17.84 21.53 -2.99 242.60 21.34 39.88 18.35 21.34 21.34 52.44 228.0 214.7 199.8 178.2 129.1 6.61 z - 5 z - 6. - Z -1.20 Z -6.40 1.33 57.72 12478 14540 7460 7164 7291 Sq. Ft. 199.77 228.6 215.6 201.1 180.0 142.03 62.46 132.8 102.15 83.80 41.12 Bx. 13.61 Bx. 19.1 & Bx. 26.6 v Bx. 32.4 Bx. 43.5 Bx. 66.0 59.05 39.88 18.35 21.34 21.34 Tons Beets per hour 120.42 FORT COLLINS 7201 Flash to 3 Vapor 42966 51853 -7201 51395 96047 44194 51395 51395 126296 K-21.6 K-21.5 k-21.4 k-21.5 K-21.7 15920 Bx. 16.4 Bx.22.8 8x.29.5 Bx.38.0 Bx.54.8 3203 139013° 12478 14540 7460 7164 7291 Sq. Ft. 481126 6-774 C-512 C-422 C-354 C-154 342065 246018 201824 150429 99033 142216 96047 44194 51395 51395 Lbs. Beets per hour 240840 LOVELAND As Shown Flash to Tot. Vap. 15.99 10.45 24.96 5.il Vapor Flash - .08 - 3.54 - 2.87 - 2.57 Net Vap. 15.91 6.91 22.09 2.54 A 5.33 295.0° 36.87 29.96 7.87 5.33 +16.0°S.H 278.2 248.1 220.4 195.0 134.6 57.70 2-.35 Z - .50 Z - . 90 Z - 2.40 Z - 13.0 4.92 52.78 9840 9005 6241 6241 4082 Sq. Ft. 173.50 279.2 249.8 222.8 199.4 140.0 120.72 83.85 53.89 46.02 40.69 Bx. 15.7 V Bx. 22.3 V Bx. 32.2 Bx. 50.1 Bx. 58.6 Bx. 66.3 57.70 36.87 29.96 7.87 5.33 Tons Beets per hour 102.71 LOVELAND 32847 21466 51273 10497 164 7272 5896 5279 32682 14,195 45877 5218 10949 75738 61544 16167 10949 K - 15.4 K- 4.8 K- 13.1 K- 13.6 K- 11.3 118527 Bx. 19.0 Bx. 27.2 Bx. 41.2 Bx. 54.4 Bx.62.4 10107 108421 9840 9005 6241 6241 4082 Sq. Ft. 356404 C-696 C-274 C-369 C-119 C-48 247983 172245 110701 94534 83585 118527 7573,8 61544 16167 10949 -13- Lbs. Beets per hour 205420 FT. COLLINS-LOVELAND Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 LONGMONT -4.87 Flash to Vapor 16.0 24.13 - 4.87 A A 19.51 244.4° 38.77 14.64 19.51 19.51 229.1 215.7 201.9 180.0 126.7 51.84 Z- .40 Z-.54 z_1.27 Z-8.1 2,17 54.78 11404 14688 7171 7154 7171 Sq. Ft. 186.30 229.7 131.52 216,6 92.73 203.2 78.11 181.9 58.68 131.0 39.09 Bx. 14.3 Bx. 20,2 Bx.28.7 Bx.34.1 Bx.45.4 Ex. 68.1 56.95 38.77 14.64 19.51 19.51 Tons Beets per hour 121.88 Thermo Compressor LONGMONT 11871 Flash to 3 Vapor 39026 58819 -11871 47558 94506 35686 47558 47558 126365 K -21.4 N- 21.4 K- 21.6 K- 20.6 K- 22.1 12456 Bx. 17. 2 Bx. 24. 4 Bx. 31.4 Bx. 39.8 Bx. 56.8 5290 133532 11404 14688 7171 7154 7171 Sq. Ft. 454125 320593 226087 190401 142843 95286 138821 94506 35686 47558 47558 Lbs, Beets per hour 243760 SCOTTSBLUFF Flash to o Vapor 11.86 15.35 7.01 3.20 244.4° 13.31 38.87 23.52 16.51 13.31 228.9 213.6 196.9 176.6 133.4 51.03 Z- .40 Z- .53 Z- . 80 Z-1.55 Z-8.6 .30 50.73 10839 11620 9618 9618 9618 Sq. Ft. 181.36 229.5 130.64 214.5 91.77 198 68.25 178. 51.74 138. 38.43 Bx. 14.1 Bx. 19.6 v Bx. 27.9 Bx. 37.5 + Bx. 49.5 Bx. 66.6 51.03 38.87 23.52 16.51 13.31 Tons Beets per hour 126.21 SCOTTSBLUFF Flash to o Vapor 29937 38746 17695 8077 33597 98116 59369 41675 33597 K- 20.3 K- 20.7 K- 20.4 K- 20.3 K- 20.2 128810 Bx, 16. 8 Bx. 23.8 Bx. 32. 7 Bx. 43.5 Bx. 58.0 757 10839 11620 9618 9618 9618 Sq. Ft. 128053 457789 C-757 C-562 231646 C-391 C-230 172277 130602 C-90 329761 97005 128810 98116 59369 41675 33597 -14- Lbs. Beets per hour 252420 LONGMONT-SCOTTSBLUFF Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BILLINGS Flash to o Vapor 10.78 25.65 3 3.90 247.3° A 15,75 45.30 19.65 15.75 15.75 229.8 215.6 198.3 177. 1 121.0 58.66 Z- .38 Z- o 51 Z-.76 Z 1.30 Z-6,8 2.58 56.08 11122 19002 9298 8682 6460 Sq. Ft. 193.31 230.3 137.23 216.1 91.93 199. 72.28 179. 56.53 125 40.78 Bx. 13.3 Bx. 18.7 & Bx. 27.5 Bx.35.5 Bx.45.4 Bx. 62.9 58.66 45.30 19.65 15.75 15.75 Tons Beets per hour 145.67 BILLINGS Flash: to O Vapor 31406 74729 11362 45886 131977 57248 45886 45886 K- 19.1 K-18.9 K-17.9 K- 18.3 K- 18.1 170900 Bx. 16.0 Bx.23.3 Bx.31.7 Bx. 40.4 Bx. 54. 2 7517 163383 11122 19002 9298 8682 6460 Sq.Ft. 563189 C-856 399806 C-497 267829 C-375 210581 C-270 164695 C-13Z 118808 170900 131977 57248 45886 45886 Lbs. Beets per hour 291340 + -15- BILLINGS Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227

what is the value of average by swenson formula for the coefficient of heat in 5th body ?

pklh0227

pklh0227_p0, pklh0227_p1, pklh0227_p2, pklh0227_p3, pklh0227_p4, pklh0227_p5, pklh0227_p6, pklh0227_p7, pklh0227_p8, pklh0227_p9, pklh0227_p10, pklh0227_p11, pklh0227_p12, pklh0227_p13, pklh0227_p14, pklh0227_p15

135

H. W. DAHLBERG PURTP S A 20032 COEFFICIENT OF HEAT TRANSFER IN EVAPORATORS BASED ON 1950-51 Campaign The Great Western Sugar Company BY J.T. DAVIS April 25 , 1951 Source: https://wwyw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Pounds of Steam or Vapor Condensed Per Hour Coefficient of Heat Exhaust 1st Vap. 2nd Vap. 3rd Vap. 4th Vap Transfer B.T.U. Per Sq. Ft. Con- Con- Con- Con- Con- Per Degree F. Per Hour densed densed densed densed densed 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th lst Body 2nd Body 3rd Body 4th Body 5th Body Body Body Body Body Body Lovell 66211 50027 26785 17262 17262 883 625 471 325 138 Ft. Lupton Greeley 67582 53282 32292 32292 32292 920 651 473 393 158 Eaton 58928 44756 35791 33140 31705 1001 736 580 491 206 Windsor 63743 47369 31103 34938 34938 968 626 479 460 197 Brush 63297 49926 30098 27666 23142 799 651 513 360 145 Wheatland Brighton 65343 43977 27818 23710 19601 751 522 450 307 128 Bayard 71828 42863 30361 27179 22017 848 544 500 371 139 Mitchell 75086 45679 31596 27126 21447 775 520 495 349 126 Lyman Ovid 87800 53844 26962 20032 18050 633 534 354 218 91 Minatare Gering 79561 55024 28701 29536 27548 782 598 439 318 128 Ft. Morgan 96019 52615 37610 12608 7654 661 235 289 122 77 Sterling 70180 50701 35004 19929 18553 803 556 476 259 100 Ft. Collins 142216 96047 44194 51395 51395 774 512 422 354 154 Loveland 118527 75738 61544 16167 10949 696 274 369 119 48 Longmont 138821 94506 35686 47558 47558 786 494 386 325 134 Scottsbluff 128810 98116 59369 41675 33597 757 562 391 236 90 Billings 170900 131977 57248 45886 45886 856 497 375 270 137 Average 92050 63909 37186 29888 27270 805 537 439 310 129 Average by Rienks Formula 810 579 442 282 122 Average by Swenson Formula 780 634 511 353 135 Average Brix of Juice in Bodies 16.2 22.7 30.9 40.9 56.6 -1- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Baro- Gauge Barom- metric Pressure eter Pressure Exhaust Temperatures Degrees Fahrenheit-Vapor Alti- Inches Lbs. Per Steam Ex- 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th tude Hg. Sq. In. * ** haust Body Body Body Body Body Lovell 3830 25.93 12.73 16.8 15.7 244.2 229.5 215.3 198.9 176.7 117.9 Ft. Lupton 4907 24.88 12.22 Greeley 4680 25.10 12.33 17.0 16.5 250.0 232.6 216.2 200.6 180.8 132.8 Eaton 4840 24.95 12.25 13.0 13.1 240.8 226.9 214.5 201.3 182.6 140.3 Windsor 4780 25.00 12.28 15.0 13.9 245.0 227.4 213.3 200.0 180.4 133.3 Brush 4280 25.48 12.51 15.0 10.4 242.8 228.8 214.9 199.5 178.8 128.0 Wheatland 4680 25.10 12.33 Brighton 5000 24.79 12.18 11.2 12.3 243.7 229.8 216.0 199.6 178.2 133.9 Bayard 3780 25.97 12.76 14.0 12.6 240.8 225.9 213.2 197.8 176.2 129.0 Mitchell 3970 25.79 12.66 14.0 11.8 244.7 228.8 214.6 196.8 174.0 123.9 Lyman 4053 25.71 12.63 Ovid 3521 26.22 12.88 13.0 12.4 240.8 227.8 211.1 193.9 172.4 126.6 Minatare 3830 25.92 12.73 Gering 3900 25.86 12.70 14.0 13.5 240.5 224.6 209.1 192.5 171.8 123.6 Ft. Morgan 4339 25.43 12.49 39.3 49.2 283.2°268.5 243.9 221.4 200.6 166.7 Sterling 3934 25.82 12.68 14.0 13.5 242.6 228.3 213.2 193.9 171.6 117.9 Ft. Collins 4960 24.83 12.20 16.8 14.0 242.6 228.0 214.7 199.8 178.2 129.1 Loveland 4980 24.81 12.19 49.0 66.6 295.09278.2 248.1 220.1 195.0 134.6 Longmont 5000 24.79 12.18 17.3 14.3 244.4 229.1 215.7 201.9 180.0 126.7 Scottsbluff 3880 25.88 12.71 18.0 14.3 244.4 228.9 213.6 196.9 176.6 133.4 Billings 3100 26.65 13.09 15.9 15.4 247.3 229.8 215.6 198.3 177.1 121.0 Averages 249.0 233.7 217.8 200.8 179.5 130.5 Reported ** Calculated from Temperatures 294.6 with Superheat -2- 311.0 " " Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Temperature Difference - Degree F. Heating Surface - Square Ft. Exh. lst 2nd 3rd 4th lst 2nd 3rd 4th 5th to lst to 2nd to 3rd to 4th to 5th Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Lovell 5017 5686 3676 2601 2274 14.2 13.5 15.0 20.0 54.7 Ft. Lupton Greeley 4086 4948 4467 4320 4569 17.0 15.8 14.8 18.6 44.4 Eaton 4151 4953 4821 3787 3894 13.5 11.8 12.4 17.4 39.0 Windsor 3641 5382 4993 4036 3983 17.2 13.5 12.6 18.4 44.0 Brush 5617 5617 4003 4003 3440 13.4 13.1 14.2 18.8 46.0 Wheatland Brighton 6211 6211 3962 3874 3803 13.3 13.0 15.1 19.5 40.0 Bayard 5636 6420 4140 3622 3622 14.3 11.8 14.2 19.8 43.4 Mitchell 5933 6292 3750 3622 3621 15.5 13.4 16.5 21.0 46.6 Lyman Ovid 5362 6250 4765 4746 4746 12.3 15.5 15.5 19.0 41.4 5362 Minatare Gering 6293 6019 4128 4809 4809 15.4 14.7 15.4 19.0 44.4 Ft. Morgan 9840 9005 6143 6143 3575 13.6 23.2 20.1 16.2 27.1 Sterling 6060 6171 3983 3782 3720 13.7 14.2 17.9 20.0 49.6 Ft. Collins 6239 7270 3751 3582 3709 14.0 12.4 13.6 19.8 45.4 6239 7270 3709 3582 3582 Loveland 9840 9005 6241 6241 4082 15.8 28.4 25.3 21.0 55.0 Longmont 5520 7344 3566 3566 3566 14.7 12.5 12.5 20.0 49.0 5884 7344 3605 3588 3605 Scottsbluff 5325 5327 4809 4809 4809 14.9 14.4 15.3 18.0 38.4 5514 6293 4809 4809 4809 Billings 5561 9501 4649 4341 3230 17.0 13.4 15.9 19.2 51.5 5561 9501 4649 4341 3230 Averages 14.69 14.98 15.66 19.16 44.70 -3- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BONED Brix of Juice Enter- ing lst Leaving Evaporator Body Average Brix of Juice in - Body 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Lovell 12.9 18.3 27.2 36.7 47.4 66.9 15.6 22.8 32.0 42.0 57.2 Ft. Lupton Greeley 10.6 14.1 19.7 25.9 37.8 69.6 12.4 16.9 22.8 31.8 53.7 Eaton 12.9 16.6 21.6 28.5 40.5 67.5 14.8 19.1 25.0 34.5 54.0 Windsor 10.4 13.9 18.6 24.0 35.5 67.9 12.2 16.2 21.3 29.8 51.7 Brush 13.7 18.2 25.1 32.8 45.4 66.9 16.0 21.6 29.0 39.1 56.2 Wheatland Brighton 14.0 19.4 26.5 34.6 46.6 65.4 16.7 23.0 30.6 40.6 56.0 Bayard 13.7 19.4 25.8 33.7 46.4 66.9 16.6 22.6 29.8 40.0 56.6 Mitchell 12.0 17.2 23.5 31.3 44.0 64.7 14.6 20.4 27.4 37.6 54.4 Lyman Ovid 15.8 23.1 32.7 41.4 51.4 65.9 19.4 27.9 37.0 46.4 58.6 Minatare Gering 13.1 18.3 25.6 32.2 43.9 66.5 15.7 22.0 28.9 38.0 55.2 Ft. Morgan 14.3 22.3 32.9 49.9 60.4 69.2 18.3 27.6 41.4 55.2 64.8 Sterling 14.7 20.3 28.3 38.9 49.5 66.2 17.5 24.3 33.6 44.2 57.8 Ft. Collins 13.6 19.1 26.6 32.4 43.5 66.0 16.4 22.8 29.5 38.0 54.8 Loveland 15.7 22.3 32.2 50.1 58.6 66.3 19.0 27.2 41.2 54.4 62.4 Longmont 14.3 20.2 28.7 34.1 45.4 68.1 17.2 24.4 31.4 39.8 56.8 Scottsbluff 14.1 19.6 27.9 37.5 49.5 66.6 16.8 23.8 32.7 43.5 58.0 Billings 13.3 18.7 27.9 35.5 45.4 62.9 16.0 23.3 31.7 40.4 54.2 Averages 13.5 18.9 26.5 35.3 46.5 66.7 16.2 22.7 30.9 40.9 56.6 -4- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Temperatures - Degrees Fahrenheit Exh. 1st Body 2nd Body 3rd Body 4th Body 5th Body Steam Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Lovell 244.2 229.5 230.0 215.3 216.0 198.9 200.3 176.7 178.9 117.9 122.0 Ft. Lupton Greeley 250.0 232.6 233.0 216.2 216.8 200.6 201.4 180.8 182.0 132.8 136.4 Eaton 240.8 226.9 227.3 214.5 215.1 201.3 202.1 182.6 183.9 140.3 143. Windsor 245.0 227.4 227.8 213.3 213.9 200.0 200.7 180.4 181.6 133.3 136.4 Brush 242.8 228.8 229.4 214.9 215.7 199.5 200.7 178.8 180.7 128.0 132.8 Wheatland Brighton 243.7 229.8 230.4 216.0 216.8 199.6 200.9 178.2 180.1 133.9 138.2 Bayard 240.8 225.9 226.5 213.2 214.1 197.8 199.0 176.2 178.0 129.0 132.8 Mitchell 244.7 228.8 229.2 214.6 215.4 196.8 198.1 174.0 175.8 123.9 127.4 Lyman Ovid 240.8 227.8 228.5 211.1 212.3 193.9 195.6 172.4 174.9 126.6 131.0 Minatare Gering 240.5 224.6 225.1 209.1 209.9 192.5 193.7 171.8 173.5 123.6 127.4 Ft. Morgan 283.2* 268.5 269.6 243.9 245.3 221.4 223.8 200.6 205.2 166.7 173.5 Sterling 242.6 228.3 228.9 213.2 214.1 193.9 195.3 171.6 173.9 117.9 122.0 Ft. Collins 242.6 228.0 228.6 214.7 215.6 199.8 201.1 178.2 180.0 129.1 132.8 Loveland 295.0° 278.2 279.2 248.1 249.8 220.4 222.8 195.0 199.4 134.6 140.0 Longmont 244.4 229.1 229.7 215.7 216.6 201.9 203.2 180.0 181.9 126.7 131.0 Scottsbluff 244.4 228.9229.5 213.6 214.5 196.9 198.3 176.6 178.9 133.4 138.2 Billings 247.3 229.8 230.3 215.6 216.4 198.3 199.7 177.1 179.1 121.0 125.6 Averages 249.0 233.7 234.3 217.8 218.7 200.8 202.2 179.5 181.6 130.5 134.8 * 294.6 With Superheat 311.0 With Superheat -5- Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 *Viscosity Centiposes - Z **Value of - K Juice in Evaporator Body Evaporator Body 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th lst 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Average Lovell .38 .50 . 75 1.45 9.4 23.6 23.1 23.6 23.6 23.7 23.5 Ft. Lupton Greeley .34 .42 .56 .89 5.2 18.4 17.3 17.9 18.8 18.5 18.2 Eaton .37 .44 .58 .95 5.1 27.4 27.4 27.1 26.8 26.9 27.1 Windsor .36 .42 .52 .80 4.6 20.3 19.5 19.8 20.0 20.6 20.0 Brush .39 .49 .66 1.23 7.4 23.4 24.4 23.8 23.4 23.3 23.7 Wheatland Brighton .37 .52 .70 1.31 6.5 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.6 20.8 20.8 Bayard 40 .51 .68 1.30 7.5 23.7 23.5 23.9 24.4 24.0 23.9 Mitchell .37 .47 .64 1.21 6.7 18.5 18.2 19.2 19.9 18.1 18.8 Lyman Ovid 40 .61 .94 1.90 9.5 20.6 21.1 21.5 21.8 20.9 21.2 Gering .40 .51 .72 1.21 7.1 20.3 20.7 20.5 20.3 20.5 20.5 Ft. Morgan .36 .51 .86 2.45 9.5 17.5 5.2 12.4 18.6 27.0 16.1 Sterling .37 .54 .81 1.68 10.8 21.7 21.1 21.5 21.8 21.8 21.6 Ft. Collins .39 .52 .69 1.20 6.4 21.6 21.5 21.4 21.5 21.7 21.5 Loveland .35 .50 .90 2.40 13.0 15.4 4.8 13.1 13.6 11.3 11.6 Longmont .40 .54 .70 1.27 8.1 21.4 21.4 21.6 20.6 22.1 21.4 Scottsbluff .40 .53 .80 1.55 8.5 20.3 20.7 20.4 20.3 20.2 20.4 Billings .38 .51 .76 1.30 6.8 19.1 18.9 17.9 18.3 18.1 18.5 Averages .378 .502 722 1.418 7.771 20.83 19.39 20.38 20.84 21.15 20.52 * From Dwg. 6203 ** D X K - Rienks Formula (K - 20.52) Z C - Coef. of heat transfer D - Temperature Difference -6- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 LOVELL Flash 11.76 18.11 7.42 38.98 20.87 13.45 13.45 13.45 244.2 229.5 215.3 198.9 176.7 117.9 46.86 Z- .38 Z- .50 Z- .75 Z- 1.45 Z- 9.4 4.73 .85 5017 5686 3676 2601 2274 Sq. Ft. 50.74 170.10 230.0 216.0 200. 178.9 122.0 119.38 80.40 59.53 46.08 32.63 Bx. 12.9 Bx. 18.3 Bx. 27.2 Bx. 36.7 Bx. 47.4 Bx.66.9 51.59 38.98 20.87 13.45 13.45 Tons Beets per hour 64.17 Thermo-Compressor LOVELL 15093 23242 9523 50027 26785 17262 17262 17262 60140 K-23.6 K-23.1 K-23.6 K-23.6 K-23.7 *6070 Bx.15.6 Bx.22.8 Bx.32.0 Bx.42.0 Bx.57.2 1091 65120 5017 5686 3676 2601 2274 Sq. Ft. 218306 C-883 C-625 C-471 C-325 C-138 41877 153212 103185 76401 59139 Bx. 66211 50027 26785 17262 17262 Lbs. Beets per hour 128340 GREELEY o Flash 7.58 14.56 22.40 22.40 22.40 22.40 250.0° 232.6 216.2 200.6 180.8 132.8 46.88 2-.34 Z- .42 Z - . .56 Z - .89 Z -5.2 2.34 44.54 4086 4948 4467 4320 4569 Sq. Ft. 175.27 233.0 216.8 201.4 182.0 130.73 93.77 48.97 136.4 71.37 26.57 Bx. 10.6 + Bx. 14.1 Bx. 19.7 Bx. 25.9 t Bx. 37.8 Bx. 69.6 46.88 36.96 22.40 22.40 22.40 Tons Beets per hour 72.08 GREELEY 10927 20990 32292 53282 32292 32292 32292 K- 18.4 k-17.3 k-17.9 k-18.8 k-18.5 67582 Bx. 12.1 Bx.16.9 Bx.22.8 Bx. 31.8 Bx.53.7 3373 64209 4086 4948 4467 4320 4569 Sq. Ft. 252669 C-920 188460 C-651 135179 C-473 102887 C-393 70595 -158 38303 67582 53282 32292 32292 32292 -7- Lbs. Beets per hour 144160 Lovell-Greeley Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 EATON 8.25 6.56 1.94 1.05 26.19 24.25 23.20 32.75 23.20 240.8 226.9 214.5 201.3 182.6 140.3 43.12 Z-37 Z- .44 Z - .58 - z-5.1 2.12 41.00 4151 4953 4821 3787 3894 Sq. Ft. 182.10 227.3 141.11 215.1 108.36 202.1 82.17 183.9 57.92 143.6 34.72 Bx. 12.9 Bx. 16.6 Bx. 21.6 Bx. 28.5 Bx. 40.5 Bx. 67.5 & y v 43.12 32.75 26.19 24.25 23.20 Tons Beets per hour 68.33 EATON 11274 8965 2651 1435 A 31705 44756 35791 33140 31705 K-27.4 K=27.4 K-27.1 K-26.8 K-26.9 58928 Bx.14.8 Bx.19.1 Bx.25.0 Bx.34.5 Bx.54.0 2897 56031 4151 4953 4821 3787 3894 Sq. Ft. 248858 C-100, C-736 C-580 C-491 C-206 192841 148085 112293 79153 47448 58928 44756 35791 33140 31705 Lbs. Beets per hour 136660 WINDSOR - -2.82 Flash to 3rd Vapor 10.87 11.96 -2.82 25.69 34.83 22.87 25.69 25.69 245.0° 227.4 213.3 200.0 180.4 133.3 46.87 Z-.36 Z - .42 Z - .52 Z - o 80 2-4.6 1.17 3641 5382 4993 4036 3983 Sq. Ft. 45.70 182.90 227.8 213.9 200.7 79.48 181.6 137.18 102.35 53.79 136.4 28.10 Bx. 10.4 Bx. 13.9 Bx. 18.6 Bx. 24.0 Bx. 35.5 Bx. 67.9 46.87 34.83 22.87 25.69 25.69 Tons Beets per hour 68.00 WINDSOR 3835 Flash to 2nd Vapor 14783 16266 -3835 34938 47369 31103 34938 34938 K-20.3 K-19.5 K-19.8 K-20.0 K-20.6 63743 Bx.12.2 x.16.2 Bx.21.3 Bx.29.8 Bx.51.7 1591 3641 5382 4993 4036 3983 Sq. Ft. 62152 248744 C-968 186564 C-626 139196 C-479 108093 C-460 73154 C-197 38216 637/33 47369 31103 34938 34938 -8- Lbs. Beets per hour 136000 Eaton-Windsor Source: Ittps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BRUSH 7.15 13.94. 1.71 3.18 16.27 242.8 35.10 21.16 19.45 16.27 228.8 214.9 199.5 178.8 128.0 44.50 Z - .39 Z - .49 Z - . 66 Z -1.23 Z -7.4 2.25 42.25 5617 5617 4003 4003 3440 Sq. Ft. 168.50 229.4 126.24 215. 91.14 200. 69.98 180.7 50.53 132.8 34.26 Bx. 13.7 + Bx. 18.2 Bx. 25.1 Bx. 32.8 Bx. 45.4 Bx. 66.9 + 44.50 35.10 21.16 19.45 16.27 Tons Beets per hour 71.12 BRUSH 10170 19828 2432 4523 A A A 23142 49926 30098 27666 23142 k-23.4 k-24.4 k-23.8 k-23.4 k-23.3 63297 Bx. 16.0 Bx. 21.6 Bx. 29.0 Bx. 39.1 Bx. 56.2 3200 60096 5617 5617 4003 4003 3440 Sq. Ft. 239674 C-799 C-651 C-5-13 C-360 C-145 179564 129638 99540 71874 48731 Y 63297 49926 30098 27666 23142 Lbs. Beets per hour 142240 BRIGHTON 13.20 11.17 2.84 2.84 13.55 243.7 30.40 19.23 16.39 13.55 229.8 216.0 199.6 178.2 133.9 45.17 - Z - .52 Z - o 70 Z -1.31 Z -6.5 1.57 43.60 6211 6211 3962 3874 3803 Sq. Ft. 156.73 230.4 216.8 200.9 63.52 180.1 47.13 138.2 113.15 82.75 33.58 Bx. 14.0 Bx. 19.4 Bx. 26.5 & Bx. 34.6 Bx. 46.6 Bx. 65.4 V 45.17 30.40 19.23 16.39 13.55 Tons Beets per hour 72.33 BRIGHTON 19095 16159 4108 4108 19601 43977 27818 23710 19601 K- 20.9 K- 20.9 K- 20.9 K- 20.6 K= 20.8 65343 Bx. 16.7 Bx. 23.0 Bx. 30.6 Bx. 40.6 Bx. 56.0 2271 6211 6211 3962 3874 3803 63072 Sq. Ft. 226726 C-751 C-522 C-450 C-307 C-128 163683 119706 91888 68178 48577 65343 43977 27818 23710 19601 -9- Lbs. Beets per hourl44660 Brush-Brighton Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BAYARD 18.49 8.33 2.12 3.44 A 14.67 A 4 A 240.8° 28.56 20.23 18.11 14.67 225.9 213. 2 47.86 197. 8 2 .40 176,2 129.0 y Z- o 51 Z -. 68 Z 1.30 ,81 275 47.05 5636 6420 4140 3622 3622 Sq. Ft. 161.89 226. 114.84 214. 86.28 199. 0 66.05 178.0 47.94 132.8 33.27 Bx. 13.74 Bx. 19.4 Bx. 25.8 - Bx. 33.7 t Bx. 46.4 Bx. 66.9 47.86 28.56 20.23 18.11 14.67 Tons Beets per hour 75.04 BAYARD 27750 12502 3182 5163 A 22017 42863 30361 27179 22017 K- 23.7 K-23.5 K-23.9 K-24.4 K-24.0 71828 Bx. 16. 6 Bx. 22.6 6 Bx.29.8 Bx.40.0 Bx.56.6 1216 5636 70613 6420 4140 3622 3622 Sq. Ft. 242965 C-845 172352 C-541 129489 C-500 99128 C-372 71948 C-139 49932 71828 42863 30361 27179 22017 Lbs. Beets per hour 150080 MITCHELL 18. 94 9.20 2.92 3.71 14.01 244.7° 29.84 20.64 17.72 14.01 49.05 228.8 214.6 196.8 174.0 123.9 .27 Z-.37 Z - 64 Z - 1.21 Z - 6.7 48.78 5933 6292 3750 3622 3621 Sq. Ft. 160.80 229.2 112.00 215.4 82.16 198, 61.52 175. 127. 43.80 29.79 Bx. 12.0 V Bx. 17.2 * Bx. 23.5 + Bx. 31.3 Bx. 44.0 Bx. 64.7 49.05 29.84 20.64 17.72 14.01 Tons Beets per hour 76.54 MITCHELL 28993 14083 4470 5679 21447 45679 31596 27126 21447 K - 18.5 K - 18.2 X - 19.2 K - 19.9 75086 K - 18.1 Bx, 14.6 Bx. 20.4 Bx. 27.4 Bx. 37.6 413 Bx, 54.4 74672 5933 6292 3750 3622 3622 246153 C-77 171450 C-520 125771 C-495 94175 C-349 67049 CC126 45602 75086 45679 31596 27126 21447 -10- Lbs. Beets per hour 153080 BAYARD-MITCHELL Source: https://wwvw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 OVID 3.72 Flash to 3 Vapor 19.13 16.68 4.30 1.23 11.20 240.8° 33.41 16.73 12.43 11.20 227.8 211.1 193.9 172.4 126.6 54.48 Z - .40 Z-61 - Z - .94 Z -1.90 Z -9.5 1.94 52.54 10724 6250 4765 4746 4746 Sq. Ft. 166.20 228.5 113.64 212.3 80.23 195.6 63.50 174. 51.07 131. 39.87 Bx. 15.8 Bx. 23.1 Bx. 32.7 Bx. 41.4 Bx. 51.4 Bx 65.9 54.48 33.41 16.73 12.43 11.20 Tons Beets per hour 80.58 OVID 5995 Flash to 3 Vapor 30830 26881 6930 1982 + 18050 53844 26962 20032 18050 K-20.6 K-21.1 K-21.5 K-21-8 K-20.9 87800 Bx.19.4 Bx.27.9 Bx.37.0 3x.46.4 Bx. 58. 6 3127 84673 10724 6250 4765 4746 4746 Sq. Ft. C-633 C-534 C-354 C=218 C-91 87800 53844 26962 20032 18050 Lbs. Beets per hour 161160 GERING -3.06 Flash to 3 Vapor 16.71 18.27 - .58 1.38 19.12 240.5° 38.19 19.92 20.50 19.12 224.6 209.1 192.5 171.8 123.6 55.22 Z- .40 Z .51 Z - . 72 Z- 1.21 Z -7.1 .32 54.90 6293 6019 4128 4809 4809 Sq. Ft. 189.87 225. 134.91 209.9 96.76 193 76.84 173.5 56.34 127.4 37.22 Bx. 13.1 Bx. 18.3 Bx. 25.6 Bx. 32.2 Bx. 43.9 Br. 66.5 V 55.22 38.19 I 19.92 20.50 19.12 Tons beets per hour 72.04 GERING -4409 Flash to 3 Vapor 24076 26323 - 836 1988 27548 55024 28701 29536 27548 K- 20.3 K- 20. K- 20.5 20.3 K- 20.5 79561 Bx. 15.7 Bx. 22.0 Bx. 28.9. Bx. 38,0 Bx. 55.2 461 79100 6293 6019 4128 4809 4809 Sq. Ft. 273565 C-782 194436 C-598 139412 C-439 110711 C-318 81175 C-128 53627 79561 55024 28701 29536 27548 Lbs. Beets per hour 144080 -11- OVID_GERING Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 FT. MORGAN As shown Flash to Vap Total Vap. 22.67 11.31 15.63 4.94 Flash -54 -2,92 -1.65 -2.17 Net Vap. 22.13 8.39 13.98 2.77 A A 4.28 29.42 21.03 7.05 4.28 283.20 +11.4° S.H. 268.5 243.9 221.4 200.6 166.7 53.69 Z-.36 Z o .51 Z .86 Z 2.45 z 9.5 2.14 51.55 9840 9005 6143 6143 3575 Sq. Ft. 142.72 269.6 91.17 245.. 61.75 223.8 40.72 205.2 173.5 33.67 29.39 Bx. 14.3 Bx. 22.3 Bx. 32.9 Bx 49.9 Bx. 60.4 V Bx 69.2 53.69 29.42 21.03 7.05 4.28 Tons Beets per hour 89.42 Total Vap. 40543 20227 FT. MORGAN Flash -966 27953 8835 5222 3881 39577 15005 2951 25002 4954 7654 52615 37610 12608 1 7654 K-17.5 K- 5.2 96016 K- 12. 4 K- 18. 6 K- 27.0 Bx. 18.3 Bx. 27.6 Bx. 41. 4 Bx. 55.2 Bx. 64.8 3827 92192 9840 9005 6143 6143 3575 Sq. Ft. 255240 C-661 163048 C-235 110434 C-289 72824 C-122 60215 C-77 52561 96016 52615 37610 12608 7654 Lbs. Beets per hour 178840 STERLING o Flash to Vapor 12.86 11.87 11.40 .04 4 14.03 242.6° 38.34 26.47 15.07 14.03 228.3 213.2 193.9 171.6 117.9 53.07 Z-.37 Z- o 54 Z- o 81 Z-1.68 Z10.8 1.87 51.20 6060 6171 3983 3782 3720 Sq. Ft. 186.60 228. 135.38 214 97.04 195 70.57 173 55.50 122 41.47 Bx. 14.7 & Bx. 20.3 Bx. 28.3 Bx. 38.9 & Bx. 49.5 Bx. 66.2 53.07 38.34 26.47 11.40 14.03 Tons Beets per hour 66.12 STERLING - Flash to Vapor 17006 15697 15075 1375 18553 50701 25004 19929 18553 K -21.7 A 21.1 A - 21. K - 21.8 K - 21.8 70180 Bx. 17. 5 Bx. 24.3 Bx. 33.6 Bx. 44.2 Bx. 57.8 2473 67707 6060 6171 3983 3782 3720 Sq. Ft. C-803 246760 179027 C-556 128326 C-476 C-259 C-100 93322 73393 54840 70180 50701 35004 19929 18553 -12- Lbs. Beets per hour 132240 FT MORGAN-STERLING Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 FORT COLLINS 2.99 Flash to 3 Vapor 17.84 21.53 -2.99 242.60 21.34 39.88 18.35 21.34 21.34 52.44 228.0 214.7 199.8 178.2 129.1 6.61 z - 5 z - 6. - Z -1.20 Z -6.40 1.33 57.72 12478 14540 7460 7164 7291 Sq. Ft. 199.77 228.6 215.6 201.1 180.0 142.03 62.46 132.8 102.15 83.80 41.12 Bx. 13.61 Bx. 19.1 & Bx. 26.6 v Bx. 32.4 Bx. 43.5 Bx. 66.0 59.05 39.88 18.35 21.34 21.34 Tons Beets per hour 120.42 FORT COLLINS 7201 Flash to 3 Vapor 42966 51853 -7201 51395 96047 44194 51395 51395 126296 K-21.6 K-21.5 k-21.4 k-21.5 K-21.7 15920 Bx. 16.4 Bx.22.8 8x.29.5 Bx.38.0 Bx.54.8 3203 139013° 12478 14540 7460 7164 7291 Sq. Ft. 481126 6-774 C-512 C-422 C-354 C-154 342065 246018 201824 150429 99033 142216 96047 44194 51395 51395 Lbs. Beets per hour 240840 LOVELAND As Shown Flash to Tot. Vap. 15.99 10.45 24.96 5.il Vapor Flash - .08 - 3.54 - 2.87 - 2.57 Net Vap. 15.91 6.91 22.09 2.54 A 5.33 295.0° 36.87 29.96 7.87 5.33 +16.0°S.H 278.2 248.1 220.4 195.0 134.6 57.70 2-.35 Z - .50 Z - . 90 Z - 2.40 Z - 13.0 4.92 52.78 9840 9005 6241 6241 4082 Sq. Ft. 173.50 279.2 249.8 222.8 199.4 140.0 120.72 83.85 53.89 46.02 40.69 Bx. 15.7 V Bx. 22.3 V Bx. 32.2 Bx. 50.1 Bx. 58.6 Bx. 66.3 57.70 36.87 29.96 7.87 5.33 Tons Beets per hour 102.71 LOVELAND 32847 21466 51273 10497 164 7272 5896 5279 32682 14,195 45877 5218 10949 75738 61544 16167 10949 K - 15.4 K- 4.8 K- 13.1 K- 13.6 K- 11.3 118527 Bx. 19.0 Bx. 27.2 Bx. 41.2 Bx. 54.4 Bx.62.4 10107 108421 9840 9005 6241 6241 4082 Sq. Ft. 356404 C-696 C-274 C-369 C-119 C-48 247983 172245 110701 94534 83585 118527 7573,8 61544 16167 10949 -13- Lbs. Beets per hour 205420 FT. COLLINS-LOVELAND Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 LONGMONT -4.87 Flash to Vapor 16.0 24.13 - 4.87 A A 19.51 244.4° 38.77 14.64 19.51 19.51 229.1 215.7 201.9 180.0 126.7 51.84 Z- .40 Z-.54 z_1.27 Z-8.1 2,17 54.78 11404 14688 7171 7154 7171 Sq. Ft. 186.30 229.7 131.52 216,6 92.73 203.2 78.11 181.9 58.68 131.0 39.09 Bx. 14.3 Bx. 20,2 Bx.28.7 Bx.34.1 Bx.45.4 Ex. 68.1 56.95 38.77 14.64 19.51 19.51 Tons Beets per hour 121.88 Thermo Compressor LONGMONT 11871 Flash to 3 Vapor 39026 58819 -11871 47558 94506 35686 47558 47558 126365 K -21.4 N- 21.4 K- 21.6 K- 20.6 K- 22.1 12456 Bx. 17. 2 Bx. 24. 4 Bx. 31.4 Bx. 39.8 Bx. 56.8 5290 133532 11404 14688 7171 7154 7171 Sq. Ft. 454125 320593 226087 190401 142843 95286 138821 94506 35686 47558 47558 Lbs, Beets per hour 243760 SCOTTSBLUFF Flash to o Vapor 11.86 15.35 7.01 3.20 244.4° 13.31 38.87 23.52 16.51 13.31 228.9 213.6 196.9 176.6 133.4 51.03 Z- .40 Z- .53 Z- . 80 Z-1.55 Z-8.6 .30 50.73 10839 11620 9618 9618 9618 Sq. Ft. 181.36 229.5 130.64 214.5 91.77 198 68.25 178. 51.74 138. 38.43 Bx. 14.1 Bx. 19.6 v Bx. 27.9 Bx. 37.5 + Bx. 49.5 Bx. 66.6 51.03 38.87 23.52 16.51 13.31 Tons Beets per hour 126.21 SCOTTSBLUFF Flash to o Vapor 29937 38746 17695 8077 33597 98116 59369 41675 33597 K- 20.3 K- 20.7 K- 20.4 K- 20.3 K- 20.2 128810 Bx, 16. 8 Bx. 23.8 Bx. 32. 7 Bx. 43.5 Bx. 58.0 757 10839 11620 9618 9618 9618 Sq. Ft. 128053 457789 C-757 C-562 231646 C-391 C-230 172277 130602 C-90 329761 97005 128810 98116 59369 41675 33597 -14- Lbs. Beets per hour 252420 LONGMONT-SCOTTSBLUFF Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BILLINGS Flash to o Vapor 10.78 25.65 3 3.90 247.3° A 15,75 45.30 19.65 15.75 15.75 229.8 215.6 198.3 177. 1 121.0 58.66 Z- .38 Z- o 51 Z-.76 Z 1.30 Z-6,8 2.58 56.08 11122 19002 9298 8682 6460 Sq. Ft. 193.31 230.3 137.23 216.1 91.93 199. 72.28 179. 56.53 125 40.78 Bx. 13.3 Bx. 18.7 & Bx. 27.5 Bx.35.5 Bx.45.4 Bx. 62.9 58.66 45.30 19.65 15.75 15.75 Tons Beets per hour 145.67 BILLINGS Flash: to O Vapor 31406 74729 11362 45886 131977 57248 45886 45886 K- 19.1 K-18.9 K-17.9 K- 18.3 K- 18.1 170900 Bx. 16.0 Bx.23.3 Bx.31.7 Bx. 40.4 Bx. 54. 2 7517 163383 11122 19002 9298 8682 6460 Sq.Ft. 563189 C-856 399806 C-497 267829 C-375 210581 C-270 164695 C-13Z 118808 170900 131977 57248 45886 45886 Lbs. Beets per hour 291340 + -15- BILLINGS Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227

what is the date taken for the two years ?

jlbx0227

jlbx0227_p0, jlbx0227_p1, jlbx0227_p2, jlbx0227_p3, jlbx0227_p4, jlbx0227_p5, jlbx0227_p6, jlbx0227_p7, jlbx0227_p8, jlbx0227_p9, jlbx0227_p10, jlbx0227_p11, jlbx0227_p12, jlbx0227_p13, jlbx0227_p14, jlbx0227_p15, jlbx0227_p16, jlbx0227_p17, jlbx0227_p18, jlbx0227_p19

December 31, DECEMBER 31

GH BRIEFING 6-11-75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I. GH is not worth buying for what is has earned or will earn under "normal" conditions; i.e., buy, refine, sell sugar. EBIT $600 M to $1.500M Needs $6-9MM WC to continue Can be purchased for $4-8 MM (they expect $10MM) Our "cost" is $10-17MM. . II. GH has excellent 1. Facilities at Reserve 2. Technical support personnel at Reserve 3. Distribution network relative to GW. t 2,100, on 00 3, III. GH could be a good speculative investment 2.4 Hog Low Provides A. "LONG.LIMIT 7,200,000 2, 400,000 Balance to GWS beet business 21.000,000 5.7,100 2,200,00 3.0000 Take % of Sugar Broker/dist $ 6,200,000 wwword ? 400.00 = Entry to foreign refined market 10% "Improvement on cost of raws = $16MM profit contribution" We must get a "participating K".- HFTS: 2X the Bet. on 121,000 IV. Net; get into GH as low as possible, 4 3 Emphasize the Raws problem< : Slim down overhead 95° Devise a plan that can target for $20MM EBIT. Actual Potented V hmp Ratio 73 74 AT, impiral 1.6 2.6 1.9mm Gll 4% 2.6% G,8 Source:https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., INC. PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1967. - 1970 1971 & 1974 1971 Profit Before Tax, Interest and Supervision Fees $ 11,130 M $ 6,614 M $ 4,528 M Average Per Year . 2,783 3,307 4,528 1974 Supervision (506) (506) .' (506) 1974 Interest (2,213) (2,213) (2,213) Projected Annual Profit 64 588 1,809 Investment Required to Return 10% $ 640 M $ 5,880 M $ 18,090 M 30% 213 1,950 6,030 15% 426 3,920 12,600 Production (CWT) 32,824 M CWT 19,050 M CWT 10,502 M CWT Average Per Year 8,206 9,525 10,502 1.5 33 Objective: - Get 30 day option - Full P & L information (operating statistics) - Manufacturing costs (operating statistics) Be Prepared To: - Sign LOI - Offer $4 Mm Low $5 Mm Mid $6 Mm High for 30% return before taxes $10 Mm Absolute Top Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co., INC. BALANCE SHEETS December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 ASSETS Current assets: Cash $ 2,150,212 $ 1,295,521 Federal income tax refund 1,020,891 Accounts and notes receivable: Trade 17,277,055 8,652,194 Affiliates 67,279 463,344 Inventories 12,503,941 13,094,401 Prepaid insurance and other 392,086 185,945 Total current assets 33,411,464 23,691,405 Property, plant and equipment, at cost: Land 373,300 373,300 Buildings 6,208,224 5,905,359 Machinery and equipment 14,791,863 13,812,393 Delivery and other automotive equipment 89,307 89,307 Leasehold improvements 50,662 27,707 21,513,356 20,208,066 Less accumulated depreciation 6,975,497 5,995,392 14,537,859 14,212,674 Other assets: Deferred income. taxes 1,492,919 Sundry deferred charges 368,352 629,849 Notes receivable 2,500 110,500 Advances to affiliates 126,733 1,990,504 740,349 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,428 LIABILITIES Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities: Trade $ 31,834,490 $ 6,998,742 Affiliates 846,938 356,860 Notes payable 19,019,761 14,534,993 Current portion of long-term debt 103,317 308,828 Total current liabilities (18,393) 51,804,506 22,199,423 Mortgage and notes payable, current portion above: 10-1/2% First Mortgage Note 4,747,501 4,836,043 Other notes payable 124,451 180,306 4,871,952 5,016,349 Advances from affiliates 3,178,135 3,171,156 Deferred income taxes 788,190 STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY (DEFICIT) Common stock, $100 par value; 1,041 shares authorized, issued and outstanding 104,100 104,100 Paid-in capital 2,323,239 . 2,323,239 Retained earnings (deficit), as annexed (12,342,105) 5,041,971 (9,914,765) 7,469,310 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,418 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-MENDERSON SUGAR co., , INC. PRO FORMA BALANCE SHEET AT 5/31/75 IN HANDS OF OTHERS - ON LIFO ASSETS Cash $ 1,395 Accounts Receivable 12,464 - Inventories Sugar 272,000 cwt at $11.11 3,022 Processing cost 386 Spare parts 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 19,631 Fixed assets - Net 14,353 Other assets and deferred charges 411 TOTAL ASSETS $ 34,395 LIABILITIES = Notes payable - banks $ 14,253 Notes payable - La. raw mills 7,369 Need commu Current portion of long-term debt 115 Accounts payable and accrued 3,334 2,2 Total Current Liabilities 25,071 Long-term debt 4,815 Deferred taxes 872 Deferred futures profit 716 Stockholders' equity 2,921 TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 34,395 1975 ceremated income Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Soùrce: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/j)bx0227 GODCHAUX-IENDERSON SUGAR co., INC. ESTIMATED WORKING CAPITAL MAY 31, 1975 000's omitted Current Assets Cash $ 1,395 Accounts receivable 12,464 Note receivable - U.S. Sugar Co. 240 Inventories: Raw sugar (Massequite), 40,458 cwt @ $17 688 Refined, 216,216 cwt @ $22 4,757 Spare parts, bags, mdse. for resale 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 21,908 Current Liabilities Bank notes payable 14,253 Current portion of long-term debt 115 Total notes payable 14,368 La. raw sugar payables 7,369 Other trade payables and accruals 1,755 Total Current Liabilities 23,492 Net Estimated Working Capital (Deficit) ($ 1,584) CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co. INC. ESTIMATED NET INCOME JANUARY ] THROUGH MAY 31, 1975 Pre-tax income, 4/30/75 $ 388,221 Estimated profit on April inventory liquidation 346,750 Deferred inventory liquidation profit, 4/30/75 6,329,205 Last estimated of May income 187,723 7,251,899 Estimate of income from inventory liquidation in month of May: Cwt actual, 96°, , 4/30/75 485,000 Cwt actual, 96°; 5/31/75 272,000 Liquidated 213,000 Spread ($27 May Cost - $11) x 16 $3,408,000 May liquidation profit 3,408,000 Total estimated pre-tax income 10,659,899 Book taxes at 37% consolidated rate 3,944,163 Estimated net income $ 6,715,736 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR co. INC. 2 ESTIMATED STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY MAY 31, 1975 Capital stock $ 104,100 Paid in capital, existing balance 2,323,239 Additional contributions to be made by Southern Industries 5,345,000 Total capital stock and paid-in 7,772,339 Retained earnings (deficit), 1/1/75 (12,342,104) Estimated net income, 1/1-5/31/75 6,715,736 Retained earnings (deficit), 5/31/75 ( 5,626,368) Total Estimated Stockholder's Equity, 5/31/75 $ 2,145,971 776 2,921 5. cash 3,6 2 2146 8.6 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF INCOME (LOSS) AND RETAINED EARNINGS (DEFICIT) for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Net sales $270,994,584 $121,429,038 Cost of sales 282,649,140 117,395,585 Gross profit (loss) (11,654,556) 4,033,453 Selling, general and administrative expenses 3,259,352 2,468,224 (14,913,908) 1,565,229 Other income, net 143,984 54,687 16.4mm (14,769,924) 1,619,916 Interest deductions 2,192,152 1,197,210 Income (loss) before provision (credit) for taxes 4 14,2mm (16,962,076) 422,706 Provision (credit) for income taxes: Federal: Current (990,891) (277,206) Deferred (2,251,109) 181,357 State - current 19,089 (3,242,000) (76,760) Net income (loss) the 7.1mm (13,720,076) 499,466 Retained earnings, January 1, restated 5,041,971 4,667,505 (8,678,105) 5,166,971 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 Retained earnings (deficit), December 31 $(12,342,105) $ _5,041,971 See notes to financial statements. 3 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., , INC. Statement of Change in Financial Position 1/1/15 - 4/30/75 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income $ 1244,579 Depreciation and amortization 383,018 Deferred income taxes -0- Working capital provided from operations 627,597 Decrease in other assets 4,525 Increase in deferred liabilities 8,373,106 $ 9,005,228 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment $ : 293,428 Reduction to mortgage and notes payable 56,909 Increase in deferred charges 264,575 $ 614,912 Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Changes in working capital Current assets: Cash $ (1,169,483) Receivables a 230th (7,434,849) Inventories (4,138,565) Prepaid insurance and other. 338,681 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities + 2,3sta $ (20,787,991) Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (6,541) $ (20,794,532) Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income (loss) $(13,720,076) $ 499,466 Expenses (credit) not affecting working capital in the current year: Depreciation and amortization 1,060,770 819,542 Deferred income taxes (2,251,109) 181,357 Working capital provided from (applied to) operations for the year (14,910,415) 1,500,365 Increase in advances from affiliates 6,979 Increase in mortgage and notes payable 9,430 1,022,000 Property sales and retirements, less accumulated depreciation 53,470 15,535 Other 212,764 63,670 (14,627,772) 2,601,570 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment 1,439,425 2,778,888 Reduction in mortgage and notes payable 153,827 278,496 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 5,257,252 3,182,384 Decrease in working capital $ (19,885,024) $ (580,814) Change in working capital - increase (decrease) : Current assets: Cash $ 854,691 $ 703,853 Receivables 9,249,687 (635,126) Inventories (590,460) 2,042,128 Prepaid insurance and other 206,141 (32,598 9,720,059 2,078,257 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (25,325,826) 3,143,444 Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (4,279,257) (5,802,515) (29,605,083) (2,659,071 Decrease in working capital $(19,885,024) $ (580,814 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 - SUCAR C.O. INC. VARIOUS SINTISTICS 1/1/74 .. 12/31/174 (BEFORE LIFO) PROFIT CONTRIBUTION Net Profit Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Add: Supervision Fees 506,000 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 14,675,927 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 SIC Note Interest 45,913 Interest Expense 1,986,461 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 60,914 Debt Amortization 14,752 Profit Contribution 16,383,957 ABEREVIATED FLOW OF FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Less: Income Tax 7,084,964 Net Income $ 7,084,963 Add: Depreciation and Amortization 1,052,693 Cash Flow $ 8,137,656. Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt 800,082 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 8,937,738 drwanch Less: Dividends 3.664,000 Capital Expenditures 1,377,877 Net Flow of Funds - Surplus/(Deficit) $ 3,895,861 NET WORKING CAPITAL @ 12/31/74 $ 5,480,545 Repairs $ 1,653,955 Refined Sugar Produced CWT 8,547,969 = it n Operating Days - Refinery 233 321 Average Production per Operating Day $ 36,687 27 \ IIIN E. Ladd 5/19/75 Söurce: https://www.industrydócuments,ucsf.edutddrst T1xx0227 VARIOUS STATISTICS 1967 - 1973 7 YEAR 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 TOTAL PROFIT CONTRIBUTION is 196 P Net Profit Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 Add: Supervision Fees 108,701 116,733 141,000 553,719 635,000 600,000 475,200 2,630,353 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 1,546,380 $ 1,864,135.1 $,1,718,417 $ 3,055,741 $ 3,866,801 $ 1,111,305 $ 897,906 $14,060,685 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 - 105,000 735,000 SIC Note Interest 138,214 145,798 138,661 131,661 124,747 117,925 111,636 908,642 Interest Expense 461,912 469,086 500,094 414,888 399,240 550,819 979,364 3,775,403 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 26,933 30,683 32,257 29,098 31,987 42,390 43,155 236,503 Debt Amortization 3,008 3,009 a - 6,017 1 Profit Contribution $ 2,281,447 $ 2,617,711 $ 2,494,129 $ 3,736,388 $ 4,527,775 $ 1,927,439 $ 2,137,061 $19,722,250 =085. ASBREVIATED FLCW 07 FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 (633) Less: Income Tax 586,061 804,000 816,551 1,069,802 1,153,238 26,466 (76,760) 4,379,358 Net Incone $ 851,618 $ 943,402 $ 760,866 $ 1,432,220 $ 2,078,563 $ 484,839 $ 499,466 $ 7,050,974 Add: Depreciation & Amortization 378,075 426,909 496,715 536,092 599,874 674,623 819,542 3,931,530 Cash Flow $ 1,229,693 $ 1,370,311 $ 1,257,581 $ 1,968,312 $ 2,678,437 $ 1,159,462 $ 1,319,008 $10,982,604 Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt (603,062) (492,620) (333,174) (495,412) 1,865,581 3,351,521 743,504 4,036,338 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 626,631 $ 877,691 $ 924,407 $ 1,472,900 $ 4,544,013 $ 4,510,983 $ 2,062,512 $15,019,142 NO Less: Dividends -0- 375,000 330,000 530,000 : 660,000 330,000 125,000 2,350,000 Capital Expenditures 1,694,961 1,099,561 942,281 755,946 2,619,417 4,187,602 2,773,893 14,078,656 Net Flou of Funds - Surplus/(Doficit) $ (1,068,330) $ (596,870) $. (347,371) $ 186,954 $ 1,264,601 $ (6,619) $ (841,376) $(1,409,514) Net Working Capital at Year-End $ 1,738,296 $ 960,279 $ 531,173 $ 499,751 $ 1,171,294 $ 2,220,053 $ 2,216,941 $ 1,627,025 Repairs $ 1,160,277 $ 1,229,468 $ 1,156,668 $ 1,326,567 $ 1,475,224 $ 1,414,386 $1.1,383,014 $ 9,145,604 Refined Sugar Produced (Cwt.) 7,270,838 8,317,724 7,741,365 9,494,161 10,502,424 9,170,169 8,457,433 - Operating Days - Refinery 268 277 246 299 .312 280 247 Average Production per Operating Day (Cwt.) 27,130 30,028 31,495 31,817 33,694 32,751 34,185 E. Ladd . 3/28/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I a - 0.042 °C - - - - it. Co N T O 0= of n- F- 8 80 . ********** i. .7 -0 *********** ++++++++4 - - CUMVERCA RAN 7 CONVERCA 3 es (--) CF- a n a - D an nca [= HE' - In a g 2 - Filent - NOTE. o THIS MAP REDUCED KALF SIZE MAP OF PLANT LATOUT na Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 (10,000) 31,000 (43,000 24,000 (4,000) LEARTYPE OUNTY OUTUNE NITED STATES - (3,000) MAP NO.117 AMERICAN MAD SOMPANY.INC $ Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SALARIED ORGANIZATION MAY 1, 1975 Operations, J. A. Metzler 2 Purchasing 6 Cincinnati 5 13 Marketing, E. R. Fleming 2 Administration 10 Sales 8 20 Finance, H. L. Kirk 4 Credit 4 Billing 3 Machine Room 2 1.3 Accounting, R. L. Crawford 11 Refinery, A. Garcia 2 Maintenance 23 Quality Assurance 10 Engineering 4 Administration 19 Operations 35 Service 2 95 Mobile, Administration and Service 6 TOTAL 158 40 158 101 67 T. Source: https://wvww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/doce 51jTbx02.27 to HOURLY ORCANIZATION - RESERVE - MAY 1, 1975 Manning is based cn requirement of two full shifts plus skeleton crew on the third shift in Pecking, and six palletized crews and two hand loading crews in Shipping. Raw Receiving 3 Affination 9 Clarification 9 Char House 18 Granulators 6 Pan Floor 16 Refined Centrifugal 12 Pre-Packaging 14 Packaging 80 Shipping - Packages 51 Shipping - Bulk 6 Liquid Sugar 6 Yard Crew 4 Sanitation 12 Security 6 Commissary 4 Laboratory 8 Utilities 12 Dock 6 Painters 8 Construction 14 Truck Drivers 5 Electrical 15 Maintenance Shops 13 Area Mechanics 20 Operations Mechanics 12 Total Required for 369* Operation *There are approximately 30 additional people on the payroll who act as vacation replacements, absentee replacements, training, etc. 360 1.58 40 Source: https:.//wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs[ilbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES 1. Information known: A. Sugar refinery at Reserve, Louisiana - 32 miles west of New Orleans on the Mississippi River. B. Liquid sugár processing plant and distribution terminal at Cincinnati, Ohio and leases sugar packaging operations at Buffalo, New York and (Chicago, Illinois 12/1/74. C. Owns 8 hydraulic material processing dredges, owns or has long term leases on 11 towboats and 88 cargo barges and under short term leases has 15 towboats and 30 barges. D. Also owns ready-mixed concrete operations and a mixer fleet in Mobile; asphalt plants at Woodstock, Margerum and Mobile, Alabama: a concrete block plant at Mobile, and supporting sales depots at Mobile, Ft. Walton Beach and Pensacola, Florida, and New Orleans owns or leases 8 stone quarries and crushing plants at Mobile, Baltimore and Houston, and chemical lime plants at Morgan City, La., and Saginaw, Ala. Company leases 2 slag processing facilities at Columbia, Tenn. E. Mineral Reserves--Company leases shell deposits from the states of Alabama and Louisiana, estimated to contain 100 million tons; leases gravel deposits estimated to contain 10 million tons owns an asphaltic limestone deposit estimated to contain 1,500,000 tons; and leases lime- stone deposits estimated to contain 200 million tons. F. Raws: 25% from U.S. 75% from Foreign G. Campaign: 312 days in 1971 280 days in 1972 247 days in 1973 232 days in 1974 H. Refined Sugar Production Production Year (Million cwts) 1971 10.5 1972 9.2 1973 8.4 1974 8.5 1. Sells sugar under two tradenames: 1. Henderson Superfine 2. Godchaux Brand continued Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES, continued Page 2 J. Current assets $53 Million. K. Long term debt $34 Million. L. Cost of replacing cane facilities: 1) Processing - $25 million Mill (3500 ton/day grind) 2) Refinery - $45 million (700 ton/day raw sugar) X 2 = 99mm II. Data needed: A. What it costs for Raws - Domestic - Foreign B. Operating costs (cost of production including G & A percent of refined sugar). C. Where receive raws from D. Costs to market place E. Financial data up to net income F. Present contractual arrangements III. To Receive 30% ROI before tax: @ 20,000 $ 6mm Example 1: Cost Proc + Profit for Price for RAWS: Raws Freight G & A 30% ROI Ref. Sugar (U.S.)25% @ 126 + 0 + 2.56 + 16 15.5 (Foreign 75% @ 7c + 1.8€ + 2.56 + 1c 12.3 TOTAL Weight Price For Refined Sugar 13.1 IV. Potential Areas to Increase Profits A. Grain Exports $45 2.47 50 B. Foreign raw prices based on refined sugar prices when sold. 11,2 C. Participating contract with growers based on refined sugar prices or foreign raws. 14/11/11 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 The President of Southern Industries Reports. Net soles for the first quarter ended March 31, 1975 were $74,686,000 compared to $51,505,000 for the same period in 1974. Net income for the period was $1,482,000 equal to $1.03 per share compared to a net loss of $1,830,000 (restated) equal to a loss of $1.23 per shore in 1974. By.product line the basic materials group had a 165% increase in pre-tox cornings over last year. This group occounted for $916,000 or opproximately 38% of pre-tax eornings. The sugar division contributed $1,437,000 or 61% to the results. With the exception of low sugar volume, the demand for our other products and materials remains strong. Your attention is directed to the notes to the following statements for a further explanation of the financial results of the first quorter. D. E. Dowson, Jr. April 22, 1975 President 1 Sales and Income (Loss) by Product Line For the three months ended March 31, 1975 and 1974 (000 omitted) SALES INCOME (LOSS) 1974 1975 1974 1975 Restated Sugor $56,118 $35,758 $ 1,437 S( 3,381) Bosic Materials 15,515 12,977 916 345 Hordwore and Machinery 3,051 2,770 58 92 Other (Non-operating) 2 - ( 58) ( 32) $74,686 $51,505 $ 2,353 $( 2,976) Income Toxes Credit (and Provision) ( 871) 1,145 Net Income (Loss) $ 1,482 $( 1,830) Per Shore $ 1.03 S( 1.22) Consolidated Financial Condition (000 omitted) March 31 1974 1975 Restated Current assets $ 50,419 $ 39,516 Current liobilities 51,420 30,445 Net current assets ( 1,001) 9,071 Properties - net 47,325 44,500 Other ossets 6,874 5,749 Total ossets less current licbilities 53,198 59,320 Long term debt (including debt due within one year) 33 33,151 32,101 Other licbilities 1,847 2,318 Total long term debt and other licbilities 55 34,998 34,419 Net assets $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Stockholders' equity: Common stock (1,433,096 shares outstanding) $ 6,059 $ 6,059 Retoined income and capital surplus 12,141 18,842 Total stockholders' equity $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Notes to Financial Statements (1) The income (les) by product line includes o statistical ollocation of corporale costs including interest expense. (2) Figures for 1974 have been restated to reflect changing to the lost in, first out (LIFO) method from the first in, first out (FIFO) and overage cost methods of accounting for the row sugar content of sugor inventories. If the FIFO and overage cost methods hod been used by the Com- pony, these inventories, and consequently net current assets, would hove been $14,803,000 and 54, 166,000 higher than reported at March 31, 1975 and 1974 (restated), respectively. (3) Results for the three months ended March 31, 1975 include income of $2,373,000 from reducing quantities of row sugar inventories under the uro method to on anticipated yeor-end level (substontially less than quantities on hand of the beginning of 1975). (4) A net operoting loss collyover available from 1974 will offsei the first $6,815,000 of taxoble income in 1975 and thus eliminate payment of toxes. The provision for toxas at March 31, 1975 of $871,000 represents a charge for deferred income taxes not currently payable. (5) Net income per shore bosed on 1,433,096 shares outstanding. (6) Depreciation and amortization included above omounted to $1,485,000 ond $1,265,000 in 1975 and 1974, respectively. P) Above figures subject to yeor-end audit. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227

Which company's statistics are this?

jlbx0227

jlbx0227_p0, jlbx0227_p1, jlbx0227_p2, jlbx0227_p3, jlbx0227_p4, jlbx0227_p5, jlbx0227_p6, jlbx0227_p7, jlbx0227_p8, jlbx0227_p9, jlbx0227_p10, jlbx0227_p11, jlbx0227_p12, jlbx0227_p13, jlbx0227_p14, jlbx0227_p15, jlbx0227_p16, jlbx0227_p17, jlbx0227_p18, jlbx0227_p19

GODCHAUX-HENDERSOM SUGAR CO., INC.

GH BRIEFING 6-11-75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I. GH is not worth buying for what is has earned or will earn under "normal" conditions; i.e., buy, refine, sell sugar. EBIT $600 M to $1.500M Needs $6-9MM WC to continue Can be purchased for $4-8 MM (they expect $10MM) Our "cost" is $10-17MM. . II. GH has excellent 1. Facilities at Reserve 2. Technical support personnel at Reserve 3. Distribution network relative to GW. t 2,100, on 00 3, III. GH could be a good speculative investment 2.4 Hog Low Provides A. "LONG.LIMIT 7,200,000 2, 400,000 Balance to GWS beet business 21.000,000 5.7,100 2,200,00 3.0000 Take % of Sugar Broker/dist $ 6,200,000 wwword ? 400.00 = Entry to foreign refined market 10% "Improvement on cost of raws = $16MM profit contribution" We must get a "participating K".- HFTS: 2X the Bet. on 121,000 IV. Net; get into GH as low as possible, 4 3 Emphasize the Raws problem< : Slim down overhead 95° Devise a plan that can target for $20MM EBIT. Actual Potented V hmp Ratio 73 74 AT, impiral 1.6 2.6 1.9mm Gll 4% 2.6% G,8 Source:https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., INC. PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1967. - 1970 1971 & 1974 1971 Profit Before Tax, Interest and Supervision Fees $ 11,130 M $ 6,614 M $ 4,528 M Average Per Year . 2,783 3,307 4,528 1974 Supervision (506) (506) .' (506) 1974 Interest (2,213) (2,213) (2,213) Projected Annual Profit 64 588 1,809 Investment Required to Return 10% $ 640 M $ 5,880 M $ 18,090 M 30% 213 1,950 6,030 15% 426 3,920 12,600 Production (CWT) 32,824 M CWT 19,050 M CWT 10,502 M CWT Average Per Year 8,206 9,525 10,502 1.5 33 Objective: - Get 30 day option - Full P & L information (operating statistics) - Manufacturing costs (operating statistics) Be Prepared To: - Sign LOI - Offer $4 Mm Low $5 Mm Mid $6 Mm High for 30% return before taxes $10 Mm Absolute Top Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co., INC. BALANCE SHEETS December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 ASSETS Current assets: Cash $ 2,150,212 $ 1,295,521 Federal income tax refund 1,020,891 Accounts and notes receivable: Trade 17,277,055 8,652,194 Affiliates 67,279 463,344 Inventories 12,503,941 13,094,401 Prepaid insurance and other 392,086 185,945 Total current assets 33,411,464 23,691,405 Property, plant and equipment, at cost: Land 373,300 373,300 Buildings 6,208,224 5,905,359 Machinery and equipment 14,791,863 13,812,393 Delivery and other automotive equipment 89,307 89,307 Leasehold improvements 50,662 27,707 21,513,356 20,208,066 Less accumulated depreciation 6,975,497 5,995,392 14,537,859 14,212,674 Other assets: Deferred income. taxes 1,492,919 Sundry deferred charges 368,352 629,849 Notes receivable 2,500 110,500 Advances to affiliates 126,733 1,990,504 740,349 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,428 LIABILITIES Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities: Trade $ 31,834,490 $ 6,998,742 Affiliates 846,938 356,860 Notes payable 19,019,761 14,534,993 Current portion of long-term debt 103,317 308,828 Total current liabilities (18,393) 51,804,506 22,199,423 Mortgage and notes payable, current portion above: 10-1/2% First Mortgage Note 4,747,501 4,836,043 Other notes payable 124,451 180,306 4,871,952 5,016,349 Advances from affiliates 3,178,135 3,171,156 Deferred income taxes 788,190 STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY (DEFICIT) Common stock, $100 par value; 1,041 shares authorized, issued and outstanding 104,100 104,100 Paid-in capital 2,323,239 . 2,323,239 Retained earnings (deficit), as annexed (12,342,105) 5,041,971 (9,914,765) 7,469,310 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,418 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-MENDERSON SUGAR co., , INC. PRO FORMA BALANCE SHEET AT 5/31/75 IN HANDS OF OTHERS - ON LIFO ASSETS Cash $ 1,395 Accounts Receivable 12,464 - Inventories Sugar 272,000 cwt at $11.11 3,022 Processing cost 386 Spare parts 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 19,631 Fixed assets - Net 14,353 Other assets and deferred charges 411 TOTAL ASSETS $ 34,395 LIABILITIES = Notes payable - banks $ 14,253 Notes payable - La. raw mills 7,369 Need commu Current portion of long-term debt 115 Accounts payable and accrued 3,334 2,2 Total Current Liabilities 25,071 Long-term debt 4,815 Deferred taxes 872 Deferred futures profit 716 Stockholders' equity 2,921 TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 34,395 1975 ceremated income Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Soùrce: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/j)bx0227 GODCHAUX-IENDERSON SUGAR co., INC. ESTIMATED WORKING CAPITAL MAY 31, 1975 000's omitted Current Assets Cash $ 1,395 Accounts receivable 12,464 Note receivable - U.S. Sugar Co. 240 Inventories: Raw sugar (Massequite), 40,458 cwt @ $17 688 Refined, 216,216 cwt @ $22 4,757 Spare parts, bags, mdse. for resale 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 21,908 Current Liabilities Bank notes payable 14,253 Current portion of long-term debt 115 Total notes payable 14,368 La. raw sugar payables 7,369 Other trade payables and accruals 1,755 Total Current Liabilities 23,492 Net Estimated Working Capital (Deficit) ($ 1,584) CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co. INC. ESTIMATED NET INCOME JANUARY ] THROUGH MAY 31, 1975 Pre-tax income, 4/30/75 $ 388,221 Estimated profit on April inventory liquidation 346,750 Deferred inventory liquidation profit, 4/30/75 6,329,205 Last estimated of May income 187,723 7,251,899 Estimate of income from inventory liquidation in month of May: Cwt actual, 96°, , 4/30/75 485,000 Cwt actual, 96°; 5/31/75 272,000 Liquidated 213,000 Spread ($27 May Cost - $11) x 16 $3,408,000 May liquidation profit 3,408,000 Total estimated pre-tax income 10,659,899 Book taxes at 37% consolidated rate 3,944,163 Estimated net income $ 6,715,736 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR co. INC. 2 ESTIMATED STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY MAY 31, 1975 Capital stock $ 104,100 Paid in capital, existing balance 2,323,239 Additional contributions to be made by Southern Industries 5,345,000 Total capital stock and paid-in 7,772,339 Retained earnings (deficit), 1/1/75 (12,342,104) Estimated net income, 1/1-5/31/75 6,715,736 Retained earnings (deficit), 5/31/75 ( 5,626,368) Total Estimated Stockholder's Equity, 5/31/75 $ 2,145,971 776 2,921 5. cash 3,6 2 2146 8.6 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF INCOME (LOSS) AND RETAINED EARNINGS (DEFICIT) for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Net sales $270,994,584 $121,429,038 Cost of sales 282,649,140 117,395,585 Gross profit (loss) (11,654,556) 4,033,453 Selling, general and administrative expenses 3,259,352 2,468,224 (14,913,908) 1,565,229 Other income, net 143,984 54,687 16.4mm (14,769,924) 1,619,916 Interest deductions 2,192,152 1,197,210 Income (loss) before provision (credit) for taxes 4 14,2mm (16,962,076) 422,706 Provision (credit) for income taxes: Federal: Current (990,891) (277,206) Deferred (2,251,109) 181,357 State - current 19,089 (3,242,000) (76,760) Net income (loss) the 7.1mm (13,720,076) 499,466 Retained earnings, January 1, restated 5,041,971 4,667,505 (8,678,105) 5,166,971 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 Retained earnings (deficit), December 31 $(12,342,105) $ _5,041,971 See notes to financial statements. 3 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., , INC. Statement of Change in Financial Position 1/1/15 - 4/30/75 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income $ 1244,579 Depreciation and amortization 383,018 Deferred income taxes -0- Working capital provided from operations 627,597 Decrease in other assets 4,525 Increase in deferred liabilities 8,373,106 $ 9,005,228 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment $ : 293,428 Reduction to mortgage and notes payable 56,909 Increase in deferred charges 264,575 $ 614,912 Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Changes in working capital Current assets: Cash $ (1,169,483) Receivables a 230th (7,434,849) Inventories (4,138,565) Prepaid insurance and other. 338,681 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities + 2,3sta $ (20,787,991) Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (6,541) $ (20,794,532) Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income (loss) $(13,720,076) $ 499,466 Expenses (credit) not affecting working capital in the current year: Depreciation and amortization 1,060,770 819,542 Deferred income taxes (2,251,109) 181,357 Working capital provided from (applied to) operations for the year (14,910,415) 1,500,365 Increase in advances from affiliates 6,979 Increase in mortgage and notes payable 9,430 1,022,000 Property sales and retirements, less accumulated depreciation 53,470 15,535 Other 212,764 63,670 (14,627,772) 2,601,570 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment 1,439,425 2,778,888 Reduction in mortgage and notes payable 153,827 278,496 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 5,257,252 3,182,384 Decrease in working capital $ (19,885,024) $ (580,814) Change in working capital - increase (decrease) : Current assets: Cash $ 854,691 $ 703,853 Receivables 9,249,687 (635,126) Inventories (590,460) 2,042,128 Prepaid insurance and other 206,141 (32,598 9,720,059 2,078,257 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (25,325,826) 3,143,444 Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (4,279,257) (5,802,515) (29,605,083) (2,659,071 Decrease in working capital $(19,885,024) $ (580,814 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 - SUCAR C.O. INC. VARIOUS SINTISTICS 1/1/74 .. 12/31/174 (BEFORE LIFO) PROFIT CONTRIBUTION Net Profit Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Add: Supervision Fees 506,000 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 14,675,927 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 SIC Note Interest 45,913 Interest Expense 1,986,461 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 60,914 Debt Amortization 14,752 Profit Contribution 16,383,957 ABEREVIATED FLOW OF FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Less: Income Tax 7,084,964 Net Income $ 7,084,963 Add: Depreciation and Amortization 1,052,693 Cash Flow $ 8,137,656. Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt 800,082 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 8,937,738 drwanch Less: Dividends 3.664,000 Capital Expenditures 1,377,877 Net Flow of Funds - Surplus/(Deficit) $ 3,895,861 NET WORKING CAPITAL @ 12/31/74 $ 5,480,545 Repairs $ 1,653,955 Refined Sugar Produced CWT 8,547,969 = it n Operating Days - Refinery 233 321 Average Production per Operating Day $ 36,687 27 \ IIIN E. Ladd 5/19/75 Söurce: https://www.industrydócuments,ucsf.edutddrst T1xx0227 VARIOUS STATISTICS 1967 - 1973 7 YEAR 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 TOTAL PROFIT CONTRIBUTION is 196 P Net Profit Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 Add: Supervision Fees 108,701 116,733 141,000 553,719 635,000 600,000 475,200 2,630,353 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 1,546,380 $ 1,864,135.1 $,1,718,417 $ 3,055,741 $ 3,866,801 $ 1,111,305 $ 897,906 $14,060,685 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 - 105,000 735,000 SIC Note Interest 138,214 145,798 138,661 131,661 124,747 117,925 111,636 908,642 Interest Expense 461,912 469,086 500,094 414,888 399,240 550,819 979,364 3,775,403 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 26,933 30,683 32,257 29,098 31,987 42,390 43,155 236,503 Debt Amortization 3,008 3,009 a - 6,017 1 Profit Contribution $ 2,281,447 $ 2,617,711 $ 2,494,129 $ 3,736,388 $ 4,527,775 $ 1,927,439 $ 2,137,061 $19,722,250 =085. ASBREVIATED FLCW 07 FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 (633) Less: Income Tax 586,061 804,000 816,551 1,069,802 1,153,238 26,466 (76,760) 4,379,358 Net Incone $ 851,618 $ 943,402 $ 760,866 $ 1,432,220 $ 2,078,563 $ 484,839 $ 499,466 $ 7,050,974 Add: Depreciation & Amortization 378,075 426,909 496,715 536,092 599,874 674,623 819,542 3,931,530 Cash Flow $ 1,229,693 $ 1,370,311 $ 1,257,581 $ 1,968,312 $ 2,678,437 $ 1,159,462 $ 1,319,008 $10,982,604 Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt (603,062) (492,620) (333,174) (495,412) 1,865,581 3,351,521 743,504 4,036,338 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 626,631 $ 877,691 $ 924,407 $ 1,472,900 $ 4,544,013 $ 4,510,983 $ 2,062,512 $15,019,142 NO Less: Dividends -0- 375,000 330,000 530,000 : 660,000 330,000 125,000 2,350,000 Capital Expenditures 1,694,961 1,099,561 942,281 755,946 2,619,417 4,187,602 2,773,893 14,078,656 Net Flou of Funds - Surplus/(Doficit) $ (1,068,330) $ (596,870) $. (347,371) $ 186,954 $ 1,264,601 $ (6,619) $ (841,376) $(1,409,514) Net Working Capital at Year-End $ 1,738,296 $ 960,279 $ 531,173 $ 499,751 $ 1,171,294 $ 2,220,053 $ 2,216,941 $ 1,627,025 Repairs $ 1,160,277 $ 1,229,468 $ 1,156,668 $ 1,326,567 $ 1,475,224 $ 1,414,386 $1.1,383,014 $ 9,145,604 Refined Sugar Produced (Cwt.) 7,270,838 8,317,724 7,741,365 9,494,161 10,502,424 9,170,169 8,457,433 - Operating Days - Refinery 268 277 246 299 .312 280 247 Average Production per Operating Day (Cwt.) 27,130 30,028 31,495 31,817 33,694 32,751 34,185 E. Ladd . 3/28/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I a - 0.042 °C - - - - it. Co N T O 0= of n- F- 8 80 . ********** i. .7 -0 *********** ++++++++4 - - CUMVERCA RAN 7 CONVERCA 3 es (--) CF- a n a - D an nca [= HE' - In a g 2 - Filent - NOTE. o THIS MAP REDUCED KALF SIZE MAP OF PLANT LATOUT na Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 (10,000) 31,000 (43,000 24,000 (4,000) LEARTYPE OUNTY OUTUNE NITED STATES - (3,000) MAP NO.117 AMERICAN MAD SOMPANY.INC $ Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SALARIED ORGANIZATION MAY 1, 1975 Operations, J. A. Metzler 2 Purchasing 6 Cincinnati 5 13 Marketing, E. R. Fleming 2 Administration 10 Sales 8 20 Finance, H. L. Kirk 4 Credit 4 Billing 3 Machine Room 2 1.3 Accounting, R. L. Crawford 11 Refinery, A. Garcia 2 Maintenance 23 Quality Assurance 10 Engineering 4 Administration 19 Operations 35 Service 2 95 Mobile, Administration and Service 6 TOTAL 158 40 158 101 67 T. Source: https://wvww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/doce 51jTbx02.27 to HOURLY ORCANIZATION - RESERVE - MAY 1, 1975 Manning is based cn requirement of two full shifts plus skeleton crew on the third shift in Pecking, and six palletized crews and two hand loading crews in Shipping. Raw Receiving 3 Affination 9 Clarification 9 Char House 18 Granulators 6 Pan Floor 16 Refined Centrifugal 12 Pre-Packaging 14 Packaging 80 Shipping - Packages 51 Shipping - Bulk 6 Liquid Sugar 6 Yard Crew 4 Sanitation 12 Security 6 Commissary 4 Laboratory 8 Utilities 12 Dock 6 Painters 8 Construction 14 Truck Drivers 5 Electrical 15 Maintenance Shops 13 Area Mechanics 20 Operations Mechanics 12 Total Required for 369* Operation *There are approximately 30 additional people on the payroll who act as vacation replacements, absentee replacements, training, etc. 360 1.58 40 Source: https:.//wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs[ilbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES 1. Information known: A. Sugar refinery at Reserve, Louisiana - 32 miles west of New Orleans on the Mississippi River. B. Liquid sugár processing plant and distribution terminal at Cincinnati, Ohio and leases sugar packaging operations at Buffalo, New York and (Chicago, Illinois 12/1/74. C. Owns 8 hydraulic material processing dredges, owns or has long term leases on 11 towboats and 88 cargo barges and under short term leases has 15 towboats and 30 barges. D. Also owns ready-mixed concrete operations and a mixer fleet in Mobile; asphalt plants at Woodstock, Margerum and Mobile, Alabama: a concrete block plant at Mobile, and supporting sales depots at Mobile, Ft. Walton Beach and Pensacola, Florida, and New Orleans owns or leases 8 stone quarries and crushing plants at Mobile, Baltimore and Houston, and chemical lime plants at Morgan City, La., and Saginaw, Ala. Company leases 2 slag processing facilities at Columbia, Tenn. E. Mineral Reserves--Company leases shell deposits from the states of Alabama and Louisiana, estimated to contain 100 million tons; leases gravel deposits estimated to contain 10 million tons owns an asphaltic limestone deposit estimated to contain 1,500,000 tons; and leases lime- stone deposits estimated to contain 200 million tons. F. Raws: 25% from U.S. 75% from Foreign G. Campaign: 312 days in 1971 280 days in 1972 247 days in 1973 232 days in 1974 H. Refined Sugar Production Production Year (Million cwts) 1971 10.5 1972 9.2 1973 8.4 1974 8.5 1. Sells sugar under two tradenames: 1. Henderson Superfine 2. Godchaux Brand continued Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES, continued Page 2 J. Current assets $53 Million. K. Long term debt $34 Million. L. Cost of replacing cane facilities: 1) Processing - $25 million Mill (3500 ton/day grind) 2) Refinery - $45 million (700 ton/day raw sugar) X 2 = 99mm II. Data needed: A. What it costs for Raws - Domestic - Foreign B. Operating costs (cost of production including G & A percent of refined sugar). C. Where receive raws from D. Costs to market place E. Financial data up to net income F. Present contractual arrangements III. To Receive 30% ROI before tax: @ 20,000 $ 6mm Example 1: Cost Proc + Profit for Price for RAWS: Raws Freight G & A 30% ROI Ref. Sugar (U.S.)25% @ 126 + 0 + 2.56 + 16 15.5 (Foreign 75% @ 7c + 1.8€ + 2.56 + 1c 12.3 TOTAL Weight Price For Refined Sugar 13.1 IV. Potential Areas to Increase Profits A. Grain Exports $45 2.47 50 B. Foreign raw prices based on refined sugar prices when sold. 11,2 C. Participating contract with growers based on refined sugar prices or foreign raws. 14/11/11 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 The President of Southern Industries Reports. Net soles for the first quarter ended March 31, 1975 were $74,686,000 compared to $51,505,000 for the same period in 1974. Net income for the period was $1,482,000 equal to $1.03 per share compared to a net loss of $1,830,000 (restated) equal to a loss of $1.23 per shore in 1974. By.product line the basic materials group had a 165% increase in pre-tox cornings over last year. This group occounted for $916,000 or opproximately 38% of pre-tax eornings. The sugar division contributed $1,437,000 or 61% to the results. With the exception of low sugar volume, the demand for our other products and materials remains strong. Your attention is directed to the notes to the following statements for a further explanation of the financial results of the first quorter. D. E. Dowson, Jr. April 22, 1975 President 1 Sales and Income (Loss) by Product Line For the three months ended March 31, 1975 and 1974 (000 omitted) SALES INCOME (LOSS) 1974 1975 1974 1975 Restated Sugor $56,118 $35,758 $ 1,437 S( 3,381) Bosic Materials 15,515 12,977 916 345 Hordwore and Machinery 3,051 2,770 58 92 Other (Non-operating) 2 - ( 58) ( 32) $74,686 $51,505 $ 2,353 $( 2,976) Income Toxes Credit (and Provision) ( 871) 1,145 Net Income (Loss) $ 1,482 $( 1,830) Per Shore $ 1.03 S( 1.22) Consolidated Financial Condition (000 omitted) March 31 1974 1975 Restated Current assets $ 50,419 $ 39,516 Current liobilities 51,420 30,445 Net current assets ( 1,001) 9,071 Properties - net 47,325 44,500 Other ossets 6,874 5,749 Total ossets less current licbilities 53,198 59,320 Long term debt (including debt due within one year) 33 33,151 32,101 Other licbilities 1,847 2,318 Total long term debt and other licbilities 55 34,998 34,419 Net assets $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Stockholders' equity: Common stock (1,433,096 shares outstanding) $ 6,059 $ 6,059 Retoined income and capital surplus 12,141 18,842 Total stockholders' equity $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Notes to Financial Statements (1) The income (les) by product line includes o statistical ollocation of corporale costs including interest expense. (2) Figures for 1974 have been restated to reflect changing to the lost in, first out (LIFO) method from the first in, first out (FIFO) and overage cost methods of accounting for the row sugar content of sugor inventories. If the FIFO and overage cost methods hod been used by the Com- pony, these inventories, and consequently net current assets, would hove been $14,803,000 and 54, 166,000 higher than reported at March 31, 1975 and 1974 (restated), respectively. (3) Results for the three months ended March 31, 1975 include income of $2,373,000 from reducing quantities of row sugar inventories under the uro method to on anticipated yeor-end level (substontially less than quantities on hand of the beginning of 1975). (4) A net operoting loss collyover available from 1974 will offsei the first $6,815,000 of taxoble income in 1975 and thus eliminate payment of toxes. The provision for toxas at March 31, 1975 of $871,000 represents a charge for deferred income taxes not currently payable. (5) Net income per shore bosed on 1,433,096 shares outstanding. (6) Depreciation and amortization included above omounted to $1,485,000 ond $1,265,000 in 1975 and 1974, respectively. P) Above figures subject to yeor-end audit. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227

what is the value of average brix of juice in bodies for the 3rd body ?

pklh0227

pklh0227_p0, pklh0227_p1, pklh0227_p2, pklh0227_p3, pklh0227_p4, pklh0227_p5, pklh0227_p6, pklh0227_p7, pklh0227_p8, pklh0227_p9, pklh0227_p10, pklh0227_p11, pklh0227_p12, pklh0227_p13, pklh0227_p14, pklh0227_p15

30.9

H. W. DAHLBERG PURTP S A 20032 COEFFICIENT OF HEAT TRANSFER IN EVAPORATORS BASED ON 1950-51 Campaign The Great Western Sugar Company BY J.T. DAVIS April 25 , 1951 Source: https://wwyw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Pounds of Steam or Vapor Condensed Per Hour Coefficient of Heat Exhaust 1st Vap. 2nd Vap. 3rd Vap. 4th Vap Transfer B.T.U. Per Sq. Ft. Con- Con- Con- Con- Con- Per Degree F. Per Hour densed densed densed densed densed 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th lst Body 2nd Body 3rd Body 4th Body 5th Body Body Body Body Body Body Lovell 66211 50027 26785 17262 17262 883 625 471 325 138 Ft. Lupton Greeley 67582 53282 32292 32292 32292 920 651 473 393 158 Eaton 58928 44756 35791 33140 31705 1001 736 580 491 206 Windsor 63743 47369 31103 34938 34938 968 626 479 460 197 Brush 63297 49926 30098 27666 23142 799 651 513 360 145 Wheatland Brighton 65343 43977 27818 23710 19601 751 522 450 307 128 Bayard 71828 42863 30361 27179 22017 848 544 500 371 139 Mitchell 75086 45679 31596 27126 21447 775 520 495 349 126 Lyman Ovid 87800 53844 26962 20032 18050 633 534 354 218 91 Minatare Gering 79561 55024 28701 29536 27548 782 598 439 318 128 Ft. Morgan 96019 52615 37610 12608 7654 661 235 289 122 77 Sterling 70180 50701 35004 19929 18553 803 556 476 259 100 Ft. Collins 142216 96047 44194 51395 51395 774 512 422 354 154 Loveland 118527 75738 61544 16167 10949 696 274 369 119 48 Longmont 138821 94506 35686 47558 47558 786 494 386 325 134 Scottsbluff 128810 98116 59369 41675 33597 757 562 391 236 90 Billings 170900 131977 57248 45886 45886 856 497 375 270 137 Average 92050 63909 37186 29888 27270 805 537 439 310 129 Average by Rienks Formula 810 579 442 282 122 Average by Swenson Formula 780 634 511 353 135 Average Brix of Juice in Bodies 16.2 22.7 30.9 40.9 56.6 -1- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Baro- Gauge Barom- metric Pressure eter Pressure Exhaust Temperatures Degrees Fahrenheit-Vapor Alti- Inches Lbs. Per Steam Ex- 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th tude Hg. Sq. In. * ** haust Body Body Body Body Body Lovell 3830 25.93 12.73 16.8 15.7 244.2 229.5 215.3 198.9 176.7 117.9 Ft. Lupton 4907 24.88 12.22 Greeley 4680 25.10 12.33 17.0 16.5 250.0 232.6 216.2 200.6 180.8 132.8 Eaton 4840 24.95 12.25 13.0 13.1 240.8 226.9 214.5 201.3 182.6 140.3 Windsor 4780 25.00 12.28 15.0 13.9 245.0 227.4 213.3 200.0 180.4 133.3 Brush 4280 25.48 12.51 15.0 10.4 242.8 228.8 214.9 199.5 178.8 128.0 Wheatland 4680 25.10 12.33 Brighton 5000 24.79 12.18 11.2 12.3 243.7 229.8 216.0 199.6 178.2 133.9 Bayard 3780 25.97 12.76 14.0 12.6 240.8 225.9 213.2 197.8 176.2 129.0 Mitchell 3970 25.79 12.66 14.0 11.8 244.7 228.8 214.6 196.8 174.0 123.9 Lyman 4053 25.71 12.63 Ovid 3521 26.22 12.88 13.0 12.4 240.8 227.8 211.1 193.9 172.4 126.6 Minatare 3830 25.92 12.73 Gering 3900 25.86 12.70 14.0 13.5 240.5 224.6 209.1 192.5 171.8 123.6 Ft. Morgan 4339 25.43 12.49 39.3 49.2 283.2°268.5 243.9 221.4 200.6 166.7 Sterling 3934 25.82 12.68 14.0 13.5 242.6 228.3 213.2 193.9 171.6 117.9 Ft. Collins 4960 24.83 12.20 16.8 14.0 242.6 228.0 214.7 199.8 178.2 129.1 Loveland 4980 24.81 12.19 49.0 66.6 295.09278.2 248.1 220.1 195.0 134.6 Longmont 5000 24.79 12.18 17.3 14.3 244.4 229.1 215.7 201.9 180.0 126.7 Scottsbluff 3880 25.88 12.71 18.0 14.3 244.4 228.9 213.6 196.9 176.6 133.4 Billings 3100 26.65 13.09 15.9 15.4 247.3 229.8 215.6 198.3 177.1 121.0 Averages 249.0 233.7 217.8 200.8 179.5 130.5 Reported ** Calculated from Temperatures 294.6 with Superheat -2- 311.0 " " Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Temperature Difference - Degree F. Heating Surface - Square Ft. Exh. lst 2nd 3rd 4th lst 2nd 3rd 4th 5th to lst to 2nd to 3rd to 4th to 5th Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Lovell 5017 5686 3676 2601 2274 14.2 13.5 15.0 20.0 54.7 Ft. Lupton Greeley 4086 4948 4467 4320 4569 17.0 15.8 14.8 18.6 44.4 Eaton 4151 4953 4821 3787 3894 13.5 11.8 12.4 17.4 39.0 Windsor 3641 5382 4993 4036 3983 17.2 13.5 12.6 18.4 44.0 Brush 5617 5617 4003 4003 3440 13.4 13.1 14.2 18.8 46.0 Wheatland Brighton 6211 6211 3962 3874 3803 13.3 13.0 15.1 19.5 40.0 Bayard 5636 6420 4140 3622 3622 14.3 11.8 14.2 19.8 43.4 Mitchell 5933 6292 3750 3622 3621 15.5 13.4 16.5 21.0 46.6 Lyman Ovid 5362 6250 4765 4746 4746 12.3 15.5 15.5 19.0 41.4 5362 Minatare Gering 6293 6019 4128 4809 4809 15.4 14.7 15.4 19.0 44.4 Ft. Morgan 9840 9005 6143 6143 3575 13.6 23.2 20.1 16.2 27.1 Sterling 6060 6171 3983 3782 3720 13.7 14.2 17.9 20.0 49.6 Ft. Collins 6239 7270 3751 3582 3709 14.0 12.4 13.6 19.8 45.4 6239 7270 3709 3582 3582 Loveland 9840 9005 6241 6241 4082 15.8 28.4 25.3 21.0 55.0 Longmont 5520 7344 3566 3566 3566 14.7 12.5 12.5 20.0 49.0 5884 7344 3605 3588 3605 Scottsbluff 5325 5327 4809 4809 4809 14.9 14.4 15.3 18.0 38.4 5514 6293 4809 4809 4809 Billings 5561 9501 4649 4341 3230 17.0 13.4 15.9 19.2 51.5 5561 9501 4649 4341 3230 Averages 14.69 14.98 15.66 19.16 44.70 -3- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BONED Brix of Juice Enter- ing lst Leaving Evaporator Body Average Brix of Juice in - Body 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Lovell 12.9 18.3 27.2 36.7 47.4 66.9 15.6 22.8 32.0 42.0 57.2 Ft. Lupton Greeley 10.6 14.1 19.7 25.9 37.8 69.6 12.4 16.9 22.8 31.8 53.7 Eaton 12.9 16.6 21.6 28.5 40.5 67.5 14.8 19.1 25.0 34.5 54.0 Windsor 10.4 13.9 18.6 24.0 35.5 67.9 12.2 16.2 21.3 29.8 51.7 Brush 13.7 18.2 25.1 32.8 45.4 66.9 16.0 21.6 29.0 39.1 56.2 Wheatland Brighton 14.0 19.4 26.5 34.6 46.6 65.4 16.7 23.0 30.6 40.6 56.0 Bayard 13.7 19.4 25.8 33.7 46.4 66.9 16.6 22.6 29.8 40.0 56.6 Mitchell 12.0 17.2 23.5 31.3 44.0 64.7 14.6 20.4 27.4 37.6 54.4 Lyman Ovid 15.8 23.1 32.7 41.4 51.4 65.9 19.4 27.9 37.0 46.4 58.6 Minatare Gering 13.1 18.3 25.6 32.2 43.9 66.5 15.7 22.0 28.9 38.0 55.2 Ft. Morgan 14.3 22.3 32.9 49.9 60.4 69.2 18.3 27.6 41.4 55.2 64.8 Sterling 14.7 20.3 28.3 38.9 49.5 66.2 17.5 24.3 33.6 44.2 57.8 Ft. Collins 13.6 19.1 26.6 32.4 43.5 66.0 16.4 22.8 29.5 38.0 54.8 Loveland 15.7 22.3 32.2 50.1 58.6 66.3 19.0 27.2 41.2 54.4 62.4 Longmont 14.3 20.2 28.7 34.1 45.4 68.1 17.2 24.4 31.4 39.8 56.8 Scottsbluff 14.1 19.6 27.9 37.5 49.5 66.6 16.8 23.8 32.7 43.5 58.0 Billings 13.3 18.7 27.9 35.5 45.4 62.9 16.0 23.3 31.7 40.4 54.2 Averages 13.5 18.9 26.5 35.3 46.5 66.7 16.2 22.7 30.9 40.9 56.6 -4- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Temperatures - Degrees Fahrenheit Exh. 1st Body 2nd Body 3rd Body 4th Body 5th Body Steam Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Lovell 244.2 229.5 230.0 215.3 216.0 198.9 200.3 176.7 178.9 117.9 122.0 Ft. Lupton Greeley 250.0 232.6 233.0 216.2 216.8 200.6 201.4 180.8 182.0 132.8 136.4 Eaton 240.8 226.9 227.3 214.5 215.1 201.3 202.1 182.6 183.9 140.3 143. Windsor 245.0 227.4 227.8 213.3 213.9 200.0 200.7 180.4 181.6 133.3 136.4 Brush 242.8 228.8 229.4 214.9 215.7 199.5 200.7 178.8 180.7 128.0 132.8 Wheatland Brighton 243.7 229.8 230.4 216.0 216.8 199.6 200.9 178.2 180.1 133.9 138.2 Bayard 240.8 225.9 226.5 213.2 214.1 197.8 199.0 176.2 178.0 129.0 132.8 Mitchell 244.7 228.8 229.2 214.6 215.4 196.8 198.1 174.0 175.8 123.9 127.4 Lyman Ovid 240.8 227.8 228.5 211.1 212.3 193.9 195.6 172.4 174.9 126.6 131.0 Minatare Gering 240.5 224.6 225.1 209.1 209.9 192.5 193.7 171.8 173.5 123.6 127.4 Ft. Morgan 283.2* 268.5 269.6 243.9 245.3 221.4 223.8 200.6 205.2 166.7 173.5 Sterling 242.6 228.3 228.9 213.2 214.1 193.9 195.3 171.6 173.9 117.9 122.0 Ft. Collins 242.6 228.0 228.6 214.7 215.6 199.8 201.1 178.2 180.0 129.1 132.8 Loveland 295.0° 278.2 279.2 248.1 249.8 220.4 222.8 195.0 199.4 134.6 140.0 Longmont 244.4 229.1 229.7 215.7 216.6 201.9 203.2 180.0 181.9 126.7 131.0 Scottsbluff 244.4 228.9229.5 213.6 214.5 196.9 198.3 176.6 178.9 133.4 138.2 Billings 247.3 229.8 230.3 215.6 216.4 198.3 199.7 177.1 179.1 121.0 125.6 Averages 249.0 233.7 234.3 217.8 218.7 200.8 202.2 179.5 181.6 130.5 134.8 * 294.6 With Superheat 311.0 With Superheat -5- Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 *Viscosity Centiposes - Z **Value of - K Juice in Evaporator Body Evaporator Body 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th lst 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Average Lovell .38 .50 . 75 1.45 9.4 23.6 23.1 23.6 23.6 23.7 23.5 Ft. Lupton Greeley .34 .42 .56 .89 5.2 18.4 17.3 17.9 18.8 18.5 18.2 Eaton .37 .44 .58 .95 5.1 27.4 27.4 27.1 26.8 26.9 27.1 Windsor .36 .42 .52 .80 4.6 20.3 19.5 19.8 20.0 20.6 20.0 Brush .39 .49 .66 1.23 7.4 23.4 24.4 23.8 23.4 23.3 23.7 Wheatland Brighton .37 .52 .70 1.31 6.5 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.6 20.8 20.8 Bayard 40 .51 .68 1.30 7.5 23.7 23.5 23.9 24.4 24.0 23.9 Mitchell .37 .47 .64 1.21 6.7 18.5 18.2 19.2 19.9 18.1 18.8 Lyman Ovid 40 .61 .94 1.90 9.5 20.6 21.1 21.5 21.8 20.9 21.2 Gering .40 .51 .72 1.21 7.1 20.3 20.7 20.5 20.3 20.5 20.5 Ft. Morgan .36 .51 .86 2.45 9.5 17.5 5.2 12.4 18.6 27.0 16.1 Sterling .37 .54 .81 1.68 10.8 21.7 21.1 21.5 21.8 21.8 21.6 Ft. Collins .39 .52 .69 1.20 6.4 21.6 21.5 21.4 21.5 21.7 21.5 Loveland .35 .50 .90 2.40 13.0 15.4 4.8 13.1 13.6 11.3 11.6 Longmont .40 .54 .70 1.27 8.1 21.4 21.4 21.6 20.6 22.1 21.4 Scottsbluff .40 .53 .80 1.55 8.5 20.3 20.7 20.4 20.3 20.2 20.4 Billings .38 .51 .76 1.30 6.8 19.1 18.9 17.9 18.3 18.1 18.5 Averages .378 .502 722 1.418 7.771 20.83 19.39 20.38 20.84 21.15 20.52 * From Dwg. 6203 ** D X K - Rienks Formula (K - 20.52) Z C - Coef. of heat transfer D - Temperature Difference -6- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 LOVELL Flash 11.76 18.11 7.42 38.98 20.87 13.45 13.45 13.45 244.2 229.5 215.3 198.9 176.7 117.9 46.86 Z- .38 Z- .50 Z- .75 Z- 1.45 Z- 9.4 4.73 .85 5017 5686 3676 2601 2274 Sq. Ft. 50.74 170.10 230.0 216.0 200. 178.9 122.0 119.38 80.40 59.53 46.08 32.63 Bx. 12.9 Bx. 18.3 Bx. 27.2 Bx. 36.7 Bx. 47.4 Bx.66.9 51.59 38.98 20.87 13.45 13.45 Tons Beets per hour 64.17 Thermo-Compressor LOVELL 15093 23242 9523 50027 26785 17262 17262 17262 60140 K-23.6 K-23.1 K-23.6 K-23.6 K-23.7 *6070 Bx.15.6 Bx.22.8 Bx.32.0 Bx.42.0 Bx.57.2 1091 65120 5017 5686 3676 2601 2274 Sq. Ft. 218306 C-883 C-625 C-471 C-325 C-138 41877 153212 103185 76401 59139 Bx. 66211 50027 26785 17262 17262 Lbs. Beets per hour 128340 GREELEY o Flash 7.58 14.56 22.40 22.40 22.40 22.40 250.0° 232.6 216.2 200.6 180.8 132.8 46.88 2-.34 Z- .42 Z - . .56 Z - .89 Z -5.2 2.34 44.54 4086 4948 4467 4320 4569 Sq. Ft. 175.27 233.0 216.8 201.4 182.0 130.73 93.77 48.97 136.4 71.37 26.57 Bx. 10.6 + Bx. 14.1 Bx. 19.7 Bx. 25.9 t Bx. 37.8 Bx. 69.6 46.88 36.96 22.40 22.40 22.40 Tons Beets per hour 72.08 GREELEY 10927 20990 32292 53282 32292 32292 32292 K- 18.4 k-17.3 k-17.9 k-18.8 k-18.5 67582 Bx. 12.1 Bx.16.9 Bx.22.8 Bx. 31.8 Bx.53.7 3373 64209 4086 4948 4467 4320 4569 Sq. Ft. 252669 C-920 188460 C-651 135179 C-473 102887 C-393 70595 -158 38303 67582 53282 32292 32292 32292 -7- Lbs. Beets per hour 144160 Lovell-Greeley Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 EATON 8.25 6.56 1.94 1.05 26.19 24.25 23.20 32.75 23.20 240.8 226.9 214.5 201.3 182.6 140.3 43.12 Z-37 Z- .44 Z - .58 - z-5.1 2.12 41.00 4151 4953 4821 3787 3894 Sq. Ft. 182.10 227.3 141.11 215.1 108.36 202.1 82.17 183.9 57.92 143.6 34.72 Bx. 12.9 Bx. 16.6 Bx. 21.6 Bx. 28.5 Bx. 40.5 Bx. 67.5 & y v 43.12 32.75 26.19 24.25 23.20 Tons Beets per hour 68.33 EATON 11274 8965 2651 1435 A 31705 44756 35791 33140 31705 K-27.4 K=27.4 K-27.1 K-26.8 K-26.9 58928 Bx.14.8 Bx.19.1 Bx.25.0 Bx.34.5 Bx.54.0 2897 56031 4151 4953 4821 3787 3894 Sq. Ft. 248858 C-100, C-736 C-580 C-491 C-206 192841 148085 112293 79153 47448 58928 44756 35791 33140 31705 Lbs. Beets per hour 136660 WINDSOR - -2.82 Flash to 3rd Vapor 10.87 11.96 -2.82 25.69 34.83 22.87 25.69 25.69 245.0° 227.4 213.3 200.0 180.4 133.3 46.87 Z-.36 Z - .42 Z - .52 Z - o 80 2-4.6 1.17 3641 5382 4993 4036 3983 Sq. Ft. 45.70 182.90 227.8 213.9 200.7 79.48 181.6 137.18 102.35 53.79 136.4 28.10 Bx. 10.4 Bx. 13.9 Bx. 18.6 Bx. 24.0 Bx. 35.5 Bx. 67.9 46.87 34.83 22.87 25.69 25.69 Tons Beets per hour 68.00 WINDSOR 3835 Flash to 2nd Vapor 14783 16266 -3835 34938 47369 31103 34938 34938 K-20.3 K-19.5 K-19.8 K-20.0 K-20.6 63743 Bx.12.2 x.16.2 Bx.21.3 Bx.29.8 Bx.51.7 1591 3641 5382 4993 4036 3983 Sq. Ft. 62152 248744 C-968 186564 C-626 139196 C-479 108093 C-460 73154 C-197 38216 637/33 47369 31103 34938 34938 -8- Lbs. Beets per hour 136000 Eaton-Windsor Source: Ittps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BRUSH 7.15 13.94. 1.71 3.18 16.27 242.8 35.10 21.16 19.45 16.27 228.8 214.9 199.5 178.8 128.0 44.50 Z - .39 Z - .49 Z - . 66 Z -1.23 Z -7.4 2.25 42.25 5617 5617 4003 4003 3440 Sq. Ft. 168.50 229.4 126.24 215. 91.14 200. 69.98 180.7 50.53 132.8 34.26 Bx. 13.7 + Bx. 18.2 Bx. 25.1 Bx. 32.8 Bx. 45.4 Bx. 66.9 + 44.50 35.10 21.16 19.45 16.27 Tons Beets per hour 71.12 BRUSH 10170 19828 2432 4523 A A A 23142 49926 30098 27666 23142 k-23.4 k-24.4 k-23.8 k-23.4 k-23.3 63297 Bx. 16.0 Bx. 21.6 Bx. 29.0 Bx. 39.1 Bx. 56.2 3200 60096 5617 5617 4003 4003 3440 Sq. Ft. 239674 C-799 C-651 C-5-13 C-360 C-145 179564 129638 99540 71874 48731 Y 63297 49926 30098 27666 23142 Lbs. Beets per hour 142240 BRIGHTON 13.20 11.17 2.84 2.84 13.55 243.7 30.40 19.23 16.39 13.55 229.8 216.0 199.6 178.2 133.9 45.17 - Z - .52 Z - o 70 Z -1.31 Z -6.5 1.57 43.60 6211 6211 3962 3874 3803 Sq. Ft. 156.73 230.4 216.8 200.9 63.52 180.1 47.13 138.2 113.15 82.75 33.58 Bx. 14.0 Bx. 19.4 Bx. 26.5 & Bx. 34.6 Bx. 46.6 Bx. 65.4 V 45.17 30.40 19.23 16.39 13.55 Tons Beets per hour 72.33 BRIGHTON 19095 16159 4108 4108 19601 43977 27818 23710 19601 K- 20.9 K- 20.9 K- 20.9 K- 20.6 K= 20.8 65343 Bx. 16.7 Bx. 23.0 Bx. 30.6 Bx. 40.6 Bx. 56.0 2271 6211 6211 3962 3874 3803 63072 Sq. Ft. 226726 C-751 C-522 C-450 C-307 C-128 163683 119706 91888 68178 48577 65343 43977 27818 23710 19601 -9- Lbs. Beets per hourl44660 Brush-Brighton Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BAYARD 18.49 8.33 2.12 3.44 A 14.67 A 4 A 240.8° 28.56 20.23 18.11 14.67 225.9 213. 2 47.86 197. 8 2 .40 176,2 129.0 y Z- o 51 Z -. 68 Z 1.30 ,81 275 47.05 5636 6420 4140 3622 3622 Sq. Ft. 161.89 226. 114.84 214. 86.28 199. 0 66.05 178.0 47.94 132.8 33.27 Bx. 13.74 Bx. 19.4 Bx. 25.8 - Bx. 33.7 t Bx. 46.4 Bx. 66.9 47.86 28.56 20.23 18.11 14.67 Tons Beets per hour 75.04 BAYARD 27750 12502 3182 5163 A 22017 42863 30361 27179 22017 K- 23.7 K-23.5 K-23.9 K-24.4 K-24.0 71828 Bx. 16. 6 Bx. 22.6 6 Bx.29.8 Bx.40.0 Bx.56.6 1216 5636 70613 6420 4140 3622 3622 Sq. Ft. 242965 C-845 172352 C-541 129489 C-500 99128 C-372 71948 C-139 49932 71828 42863 30361 27179 22017 Lbs. Beets per hour 150080 MITCHELL 18. 94 9.20 2.92 3.71 14.01 244.7° 29.84 20.64 17.72 14.01 49.05 228.8 214.6 196.8 174.0 123.9 .27 Z-.37 Z - 64 Z - 1.21 Z - 6.7 48.78 5933 6292 3750 3622 3621 Sq. Ft. 160.80 229.2 112.00 215.4 82.16 198, 61.52 175. 127. 43.80 29.79 Bx. 12.0 V Bx. 17.2 * Bx. 23.5 + Bx. 31.3 Bx. 44.0 Bx. 64.7 49.05 29.84 20.64 17.72 14.01 Tons Beets per hour 76.54 MITCHELL 28993 14083 4470 5679 21447 45679 31596 27126 21447 K - 18.5 K - 18.2 X - 19.2 K - 19.9 75086 K - 18.1 Bx, 14.6 Bx. 20.4 Bx. 27.4 Bx. 37.6 413 Bx, 54.4 74672 5933 6292 3750 3622 3622 246153 C-77 171450 C-520 125771 C-495 94175 C-349 67049 CC126 45602 75086 45679 31596 27126 21447 -10- Lbs. Beets per hour 153080 BAYARD-MITCHELL Source: https://wwvw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 OVID 3.72 Flash to 3 Vapor 19.13 16.68 4.30 1.23 11.20 240.8° 33.41 16.73 12.43 11.20 227.8 211.1 193.9 172.4 126.6 54.48 Z - .40 Z-61 - Z - .94 Z -1.90 Z -9.5 1.94 52.54 10724 6250 4765 4746 4746 Sq. Ft. 166.20 228.5 113.64 212.3 80.23 195.6 63.50 174. 51.07 131. 39.87 Bx. 15.8 Bx. 23.1 Bx. 32.7 Bx. 41.4 Bx. 51.4 Bx 65.9 54.48 33.41 16.73 12.43 11.20 Tons Beets per hour 80.58 OVID 5995 Flash to 3 Vapor 30830 26881 6930 1982 + 18050 53844 26962 20032 18050 K-20.6 K-21.1 K-21.5 K-21-8 K-20.9 87800 Bx.19.4 Bx.27.9 Bx.37.0 3x.46.4 Bx. 58. 6 3127 84673 10724 6250 4765 4746 4746 Sq. Ft. C-633 C-534 C-354 C=218 C-91 87800 53844 26962 20032 18050 Lbs. Beets per hour 161160 GERING -3.06 Flash to 3 Vapor 16.71 18.27 - .58 1.38 19.12 240.5° 38.19 19.92 20.50 19.12 224.6 209.1 192.5 171.8 123.6 55.22 Z- .40 Z .51 Z - . 72 Z- 1.21 Z -7.1 .32 54.90 6293 6019 4128 4809 4809 Sq. Ft. 189.87 225. 134.91 209.9 96.76 193 76.84 173.5 56.34 127.4 37.22 Bx. 13.1 Bx. 18.3 Bx. 25.6 Bx. 32.2 Bx. 43.9 Br. 66.5 V 55.22 38.19 I 19.92 20.50 19.12 Tons beets per hour 72.04 GERING -4409 Flash to 3 Vapor 24076 26323 - 836 1988 27548 55024 28701 29536 27548 K- 20.3 K- 20. K- 20.5 20.3 K- 20.5 79561 Bx. 15.7 Bx. 22.0 Bx. 28.9. Bx. 38,0 Bx. 55.2 461 79100 6293 6019 4128 4809 4809 Sq. Ft. 273565 C-782 194436 C-598 139412 C-439 110711 C-318 81175 C-128 53627 79561 55024 28701 29536 27548 Lbs. Beets per hour 144080 -11- OVID_GERING Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 FT. MORGAN As shown Flash to Vap Total Vap. 22.67 11.31 15.63 4.94 Flash -54 -2,92 -1.65 -2.17 Net Vap. 22.13 8.39 13.98 2.77 A A 4.28 29.42 21.03 7.05 4.28 283.20 +11.4° S.H. 268.5 243.9 221.4 200.6 166.7 53.69 Z-.36 Z o .51 Z .86 Z 2.45 z 9.5 2.14 51.55 9840 9005 6143 6143 3575 Sq. Ft. 142.72 269.6 91.17 245.. 61.75 223.8 40.72 205.2 173.5 33.67 29.39 Bx. 14.3 Bx. 22.3 Bx. 32.9 Bx 49.9 Bx. 60.4 V Bx 69.2 53.69 29.42 21.03 7.05 4.28 Tons Beets per hour 89.42 Total Vap. 40543 20227 FT. MORGAN Flash -966 27953 8835 5222 3881 39577 15005 2951 25002 4954 7654 52615 37610 12608 1 7654 K-17.5 K- 5.2 96016 K- 12. 4 K- 18. 6 K- 27.0 Bx. 18.3 Bx. 27.6 Bx. 41. 4 Bx. 55.2 Bx. 64.8 3827 92192 9840 9005 6143 6143 3575 Sq. Ft. 255240 C-661 163048 C-235 110434 C-289 72824 C-122 60215 C-77 52561 96016 52615 37610 12608 7654 Lbs. Beets per hour 178840 STERLING o Flash to Vapor 12.86 11.87 11.40 .04 4 14.03 242.6° 38.34 26.47 15.07 14.03 228.3 213.2 193.9 171.6 117.9 53.07 Z-.37 Z- o 54 Z- o 81 Z-1.68 Z10.8 1.87 51.20 6060 6171 3983 3782 3720 Sq. Ft. 186.60 228. 135.38 214 97.04 195 70.57 173 55.50 122 41.47 Bx. 14.7 & Bx. 20.3 Bx. 28.3 Bx. 38.9 & Bx. 49.5 Bx. 66.2 53.07 38.34 26.47 11.40 14.03 Tons Beets per hour 66.12 STERLING - Flash to Vapor 17006 15697 15075 1375 18553 50701 25004 19929 18553 K -21.7 A 21.1 A - 21. K - 21.8 K - 21.8 70180 Bx. 17. 5 Bx. 24.3 Bx. 33.6 Bx. 44.2 Bx. 57.8 2473 67707 6060 6171 3983 3782 3720 Sq. Ft. C-803 246760 179027 C-556 128326 C-476 C-259 C-100 93322 73393 54840 70180 50701 35004 19929 18553 -12- Lbs. Beets per hour 132240 FT MORGAN-STERLING Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 FORT COLLINS 2.99 Flash to 3 Vapor 17.84 21.53 -2.99 242.60 21.34 39.88 18.35 21.34 21.34 52.44 228.0 214.7 199.8 178.2 129.1 6.61 z - 5 z - 6. - Z -1.20 Z -6.40 1.33 57.72 12478 14540 7460 7164 7291 Sq. Ft. 199.77 228.6 215.6 201.1 180.0 142.03 62.46 132.8 102.15 83.80 41.12 Bx. 13.61 Bx. 19.1 & Bx. 26.6 v Bx. 32.4 Bx. 43.5 Bx. 66.0 59.05 39.88 18.35 21.34 21.34 Tons Beets per hour 120.42 FORT COLLINS 7201 Flash to 3 Vapor 42966 51853 -7201 51395 96047 44194 51395 51395 126296 K-21.6 K-21.5 k-21.4 k-21.5 K-21.7 15920 Bx. 16.4 Bx.22.8 8x.29.5 Bx.38.0 Bx.54.8 3203 139013° 12478 14540 7460 7164 7291 Sq. Ft. 481126 6-774 C-512 C-422 C-354 C-154 342065 246018 201824 150429 99033 142216 96047 44194 51395 51395 Lbs. Beets per hour 240840 LOVELAND As Shown Flash to Tot. Vap. 15.99 10.45 24.96 5.il Vapor Flash - .08 - 3.54 - 2.87 - 2.57 Net Vap. 15.91 6.91 22.09 2.54 A 5.33 295.0° 36.87 29.96 7.87 5.33 +16.0°S.H 278.2 248.1 220.4 195.0 134.6 57.70 2-.35 Z - .50 Z - . 90 Z - 2.40 Z - 13.0 4.92 52.78 9840 9005 6241 6241 4082 Sq. Ft. 173.50 279.2 249.8 222.8 199.4 140.0 120.72 83.85 53.89 46.02 40.69 Bx. 15.7 V Bx. 22.3 V Bx. 32.2 Bx. 50.1 Bx. 58.6 Bx. 66.3 57.70 36.87 29.96 7.87 5.33 Tons Beets per hour 102.71 LOVELAND 32847 21466 51273 10497 164 7272 5896 5279 32682 14,195 45877 5218 10949 75738 61544 16167 10949 K - 15.4 K- 4.8 K- 13.1 K- 13.6 K- 11.3 118527 Bx. 19.0 Bx. 27.2 Bx. 41.2 Bx. 54.4 Bx.62.4 10107 108421 9840 9005 6241 6241 4082 Sq. Ft. 356404 C-696 C-274 C-369 C-119 C-48 247983 172245 110701 94534 83585 118527 7573,8 61544 16167 10949 -13- Lbs. Beets per hour 205420 FT. COLLINS-LOVELAND Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 LONGMONT -4.87 Flash to Vapor 16.0 24.13 - 4.87 A A 19.51 244.4° 38.77 14.64 19.51 19.51 229.1 215.7 201.9 180.0 126.7 51.84 Z- .40 Z-.54 z_1.27 Z-8.1 2,17 54.78 11404 14688 7171 7154 7171 Sq. Ft. 186.30 229.7 131.52 216,6 92.73 203.2 78.11 181.9 58.68 131.0 39.09 Bx. 14.3 Bx. 20,2 Bx.28.7 Bx.34.1 Bx.45.4 Ex. 68.1 56.95 38.77 14.64 19.51 19.51 Tons Beets per hour 121.88 Thermo Compressor LONGMONT 11871 Flash to 3 Vapor 39026 58819 -11871 47558 94506 35686 47558 47558 126365 K -21.4 N- 21.4 K- 21.6 K- 20.6 K- 22.1 12456 Bx. 17. 2 Bx. 24. 4 Bx. 31.4 Bx. 39.8 Bx. 56.8 5290 133532 11404 14688 7171 7154 7171 Sq. Ft. 454125 320593 226087 190401 142843 95286 138821 94506 35686 47558 47558 Lbs, Beets per hour 243760 SCOTTSBLUFF Flash to o Vapor 11.86 15.35 7.01 3.20 244.4° 13.31 38.87 23.52 16.51 13.31 228.9 213.6 196.9 176.6 133.4 51.03 Z- .40 Z- .53 Z- . 80 Z-1.55 Z-8.6 .30 50.73 10839 11620 9618 9618 9618 Sq. Ft. 181.36 229.5 130.64 214.5 91.77 198 68.25 178. 51.74 138. 38.43 Bx. 14.1 Bx. 19.6 v Bx. 27.9 Bx. 37.5 + Bx. 49.5 Bx. 66.6 51.03 38.87 23.52 16.51 13.31 Tons Beets per hour 126.21 SCOTTSBLUFF Flash to o Vapor 29937 38746 17695 8077 33597 98116 59369 41675 33597 K- 20.3 K- 20.7 K- 20.4 K- 20.3 K- 20.2 128810 Bx, 16. 8 Bx. 23.8 Bx. 32. 7 Bx. 43.5 Bx. 58.0 757 10839 11620 9618 9618 9618 Sq. Ft. 128053 457789 C-757 C-562 231646 C-391 C-230 172277 130602 C-90 329761 97005 128810 98116 59369 41675 33597 -14- Lbs. Beets per hour 252420 LONGMONT-SCOTTSBLUFF Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BILLINGS Flash to o Vapor 10.78 25.65 3 3.90 247.3° A 15,75 45.30 19.65 15.75 15.75 229.8 215.6 198.3 177. 1 121.0 58.66 Z- .38 Z- o 51 Z-.76 Z 1.30 Z-6,8 2.58 56.08 11122 19002 9298 8682 6460 Sq. Ft. 193.31 230.3 137.23 216.1 91.93 199. 72.28 179. 56.53 125 40.78 Bx. 13.3 Bx. 18.7 & Bx. 27.5 Bx.35.5 Bx.45.4 Bx. 62.9 58.66 45.30 19.65 15.75 15.75 Tons Beets per hour 145.67 BILLINGS Flash: to O Vapor 31406 74729 11362 45886 131977 57248 45886 45886 K- 19.1 K-18.9 K-17.9 K- 18.3 K- 18.1 170900 Bx. 16.0 Bx.23.3 Bx.31.7 Bx. 40.4 Bx. 54. 2 7517 163383 11122 19002 9298 8682 6460 Sq.Ft. 563189 C-856 399806 C-497 267829 C-375 210581 C-270 164695 C-13Z 118808 170900 131977 57248 45886 45886 Lbs. Beets per hour 291340 + -15- BILLINGS Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227

What is the Net Profit Before Tax?

jlbx0227

jlbx0227_p0, jlbx0227_p1, jlbx0227_p2, jlbx0227_p3, jlbx0227_p4, jlbx0227_p5, jlbx0227_p6, jlbx0227_p7, jlbx0227_p8, jlbx0227_p9, jlbx0227_p10, jlbx0227_p11, jlbx0227_p12, jlbx0227_p13, jlbx0227_p14, jlbx0227_p15, jlbx0227_p16, jlbx0227_p17, jlbx0227_p18, jlbx0227_p19

$14,169,927, 14,169,927, $ 14,169,927

GH BRIEFING 6-11-75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I. GH is not worth buying for what is has earned or will earn under "normal" conditions; i.e., buy, refine, sell sugar. EBIT $600 M to $1.500M Needs $6-9MM WC to continue Can be purchased for $4-8 MM (they expect $10MM) Our "cost" is $10-17MM. . II. GH has excellent 1. Facilities at Reserve 2. Technical support personnel at Reserve 3. Distribution network relative to GW. t 2,100, on 00 3, III. GH could be a good speculative investment 2.4 Hog Low Provides A. "LONG.LIMIT 7,200,000 2, 400,000 Balance to GWS beet business 21.000,000 5.7,100 2,200,00 3.0000 Take % of Sugar Broker/dist $ 6,200,000 wwword ? 400.00 = Entry to foreign refined market 10% "Improvement on cost of raws = $16MM profit contribution" We must get a "participating K".- HFTS: 2X the Bet. on 121,000 IV. Net; get into GH as low as possible, 4 3 Emphasize the Raws problem< : Slim down overhead 95° Devise a plan that can target for $20MM EBIT. Actual Potented V hmp Ratio 73 74 AT, impiral 1.6 2.6 1.9mm Gll 4% 2.6% G,8 Source:https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., INC. PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1967. - 1970 1971 & 1974 1971 Profit Before Tax, Interest and Supervision Fees $ 11,130 M $ 6,614 M $ 4,528 M Average Per Year . 2,783 3,307 4,528 1974 Supervision (506) (506) .' (506) 1974 Interest (2,213) (2,213) (2,213) Projected Annual Profit 64 588 1,809 Investment Required to Return 10% $ 640 M $ 5,880 M $ 18,090 M 30% 213 1,950 6,030 15% 426 3,920 12,600 Production (CWT) 32,824 M CWT 19,050 M CWT 10,502 M CWT Average Per Year 8,206 9,525 10,502 1.5 33 Objective: - Get 30 day option - Full P & L information (operating statistics) - Manufacturing costs (operating statistics) Be Prepared To: - Sign LOI - Offer $4 Mm Low $5 Mm Mid $6 Mm High for 30% return before taxes $10 Mm Absolute Top Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co., INC. BALANCE SHEETS December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 ASSETS Current assets: Cash $ 2,150,212 $ 1,295,521 Federal income tax refund 1,020,891 Accounts and notes receivable: Trade 17,277,055 8,652,194 Affiliates 67,279 463,344 Inventories 12,503,941 13,094,401 Prepaid insurance and other 392,086 185,945 Total current assets 33,411,464 23,691,405 Property, plant and equipment, at cost: Land 373,300 373,300 Buildings 6,208,224 5,905,359 Machinery and equipment 14,791,863 13,812,393 Delivery and other automotive equipment 89,307 89,307 Leasehold improvements 50,662 27,707 21,513,356 20,208,066 Less accumulated depreciation 6,975,497 5,995,392 14,537,859 14,212,674 Other assets: Deferred income. taxes 1,492,919 Sundry deferred charges 368,352 629,849 Notes receivable 2,500 110,500 Advances to affiliates 126,733 1,990,504 740,349 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,428 LIABILITIES Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities: Trade $ 31,834,490 $ 6,998,742 Affiliates 846,938 356,860 Notes payable 19,019,761 14,534,993 Current portion of long-term debt 103,317 308,828 Total current liabilities (18,393) 51,804,506 22,199,423 Mortgage and notes payable, current portion above: 10-1/2% First Mortgage Note 4,747,501 4,836,043 Other notes payable 124,451 180,306 4,871,952 5,016,349 Advances from affiliates 3,178,135 3,171,156 Deferred income taxes 788,190 STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY (DEFICIT) Common stock, $100 par value; 1,041 shares authorized, issued and outstanding 104,100 104,100 Paid-in capital 2,323,239 . 2,323,239 Retained earnings (deficit), as annexed (12,342,105) 5,041,971 (9,914,765) 7,469,310 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,418 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-MENDERSON SUGAR co., , INC. PRO FORMA BALANCE SHEET AT 5/31/75 IN HANDS OF OTHERS - ON LIFO ASSETS Cash $ 1,395 Accounts Receivable 12,464 - Inventories Sugar 272,000 cwt at $11.11 3,022 Processing cost 386 Spare parts 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 19,631 Fixed assets - Net 14,353 Other assets and deferred charges 411 TOTAL ASSETS $ 34,395 LIABILITIES = Notes payable - banks $ 14,253 Notes payable - La. raw mills 7,369 Need commu Current portion of long-term debt 115 Accounts payable and accrued 3,334 2,2 Total Current Liabilities 25,071 Long-term debt 4,815 Deferred taxes 872 Deferred futures profit 716 Stockholders' equity 2,921 TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 34,395 1975 ceremated income Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Soùrce: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/j)bx0227 GODCHAUX-IENDERSON SUGAR co., INC. ESTIMATED WORKING CAPITAL MAY 31, 1975 000's omitted Current Assets Cash $ 1,395 Accounts receivable 12,464 Note receivable - U.S. Sugar Co. 240 Inventories: Raw sugar (Massequite), 40,458 cwt @ $17 688 Refined, 216,216 cwt @ $22 4,757 Spare parts, bags, mdse. for resale 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 21,908 Current Liabilities Bank notes payable 14,253 Current portion of long-term debt 115 Total notes payable 14,368 La. raw sugar payables 7,369 Other trade payables and accruals 1,755 Total Current Liabilities 23,492 Net Estimated Working Capital (Deficit) ($ 1,584) CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co. INC. ESTIMATED NET INCOME JANUARY ] THROUGH MAY 31, 1975 Pre-tax income, 4/30/75 $ 388,221 Estimated profit on April inventory liquidation 346,750 Deferred inventory liquidation profit, 4/30/75 6,329,205 Last estimated of May income 187,723 7,251,899 Estimate of income from inventory liquidation in month of May: Cwt actual, 96°, , 4/30/75 485,000 Cwt actual, 96°; 5/31/75 272,000 Liquidated 213,000 Spread ($27 May Cost - $11) x 16 $3,408,000 May liquidation profit 3,408,000 Total estimated pre-tax income 10,659,899 Book taxes at 37% consolidated rate 3,944,163 Estimated net income $ 6,715,736 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR co. INC. 2 ESTIMATED STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY MAY 31, 1975 Capital stock $ 104,100 Paid in capital, existing balance 2,323,239 Additional contributions to be made by Southern Industries 5,345,000 Total capital stock and paid-in 7,772,339 Retained earnings (deficit), 1/1/75 (12,342,104) Estimated net income, 1/1-5/31/75 6,715,736 Retained earnings (deficit), 5/31/75 ( 5,626,368) Total Estimated Stockholder's Equity, 5/31/75 $ 2,145,971 776 2,921 5. cash 3,6 2 2146 8.6 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF INCOME (LOSS) AND RETAINED EARNINGS (DEFICIT) for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Net sales $270,994,584 $121,429,038 Cost of sales 282,649,140 117,395,585 Gross profit (loss) (11,654,556) 4,033,453 Selling, general and administrative expenses 3,259,352 2,468,224 (14,913,908) 1,565,229 Other income, net 143,984 54,687 16.4mm (14,769,924) 1,619,916 Interest deductions 2,192,152 1,197,210 Income (loss) before provision (credit) for taxes 4 14,2mm (16,962,076) 422,706 Provision (credit) for income taxes: Federal: Current (990,891) (277,206) Deferred (2,251,109) 181,357 State - current 19,089 (3,242,000) (76,760) Net income (loss) the 7.1mm (13,720,076) 499,466 Retained earnings, January 1, restated 5,041,971 4,667,505 (8,678,105) 5,166,971 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 Retained earnings (deficit), December 31 $(12,342,105) $ _5,041,971 See notes to financial statements. 3 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., , INC. Statement of Change in Financial Position 1/1/15 - 4/30/75 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income $ 1244,579 Depreciation and amortization 383,018 Deferred income taxes -0- Working capital provided from operations 627,597 Decrease in other assets 4,525 Increase in deferred liabilities 8,373,106 $ 9,005,228 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment $ : 293,428 Reduction to mortgage and notes payable 56,909 Increase in deferred charges 264,575 $ 614,912 Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Changes in working capital Current assets: Cash $ (1,169,483) Receivables a 230th (7,434,849) Inventories (4,138,565) Prepaid insurance and other. 338,681 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities + 2,3sta $ (20,787,991) Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (6,541) $ (20,794,532) Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income (loss) $(13,720,076) $ 499,466 Expenses (credit) not affecting working capital in the current year: Depreciation and amortization 1,060,770 819,542 Deferred income taxes (2,251,109) 181,357 Working capital provided from (applied to) operations for the year (14,910,415) 1,500,365 Increase in advances from affiliates 6,979 Increase in mortgage and notes payable 9,430 1,022,000 Property sales and retirements, less accumulated depreciation 53,470 15,535 Other 212,764 63,670 (14,627,772) 2,601,570 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment 1,439,425 2,778,888 Reduction in mortgage and notes payable 153,827 278,496 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 5,257,252 3,182,384 Decrease in working capital $ (19,885,024) $ (580,814) Change in working capital - increase (decrease) : Current assets: Cash $ 854,691 $ 703,853 Receivables 9,249,687 (635,126) Inventories (590,460) 2,042,128 Prepaid insurance and other 206,141 (32,598 9,720,059 2,078,257 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (25,325,826) 3,143,444 Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (4,279,257) (5,802,515) (29,605,083) (2,659,071 Decrease in working capital $(19,885,024) $ (580,814 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 - SUCAR C.O. INC. VARIOUS SINTISTICS 1/1/74 .. 12/31/174 (BEFORE LIFO) PROFIT CONTRIBUTION Net Profit Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Add: Supervision Fees 506,000 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 14,675,927 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 SIC Note Interest 45,913 Interest Expense 1,986,461 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 60,914 Debt Amortization 14,752 Profit Contribution 16,383,957 ABEREVIATED FLOW OF FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Less: Income Tax 7,084,964 Net Income $ 7,084,963 Add: Depreciation and Amortization 1,052,693 Cash Flow $ 8,137,656. Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt 800,082 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 8,937,738 drwanch Less: Dividends 3.664,000 Capital Expenditures 1,377,877 Net Flow of Funds - Surplus/(Deficit) $ 3,895,861 NET WORKING CAPITAL @ 12/31/74 $ 5,480,545 Repairs $ 1,653,955 Refined Sugar Produced CWT 8,547,969 = it n Operating Days - Refinery 233 321 Average Production per Operating Day $ 36,687 27 \ IIIN E. Ladd 5/19/75 Söurce: https://www.industrydócuments,ucsf.edutddrst T1xx0227 VARIOUS STATISTICS 1967 - 1973 7 YEAR 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 TOTAL PROFIT CONTRIBUTION is 196 P Net Profit Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 Add: Supervision Fees 108,701 116,733 141,000 553,719 635,000 600,000 475,200 2,630,353 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 1,546,380 $ 1,864,135.1 $,1,718,417 $ 3,055,741 $ 3,866,801 $ 1,111,305 $ 897,906 $14,060,685 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 - 105,000 735,000 SIC Note Interest 138,214 145,798 138,661 131,661 124,747 117,925 111,636 908,642 Interest Expense 461,912 469,086 500,094 414,888 399,240 550,819 979,364 3,775,403 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 26,933 30,683 32,257 29,098 31,987 42,390 43,155 236,503 Debt Amortization 3,008 3,009 a - 6,017 1 Profit Contribution $ 2,281,447 $ 2,617,711 $ 2,494,129 $ 3,736,388 $ 4,527,775 $ 1,927,439 $ 2,137,061 $19,722,250 =085. ASBREVIATED FLCW 07 FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 (633) Less: Income Tax 586,061 804,000 816,551 1,069,802 1,153,238 26,466 (76,760) 4,379,358 Net Incone $ 851,618 $ 943,402 $ 760,866 $ 1,432,220 $ 2,078,563 $ 484,839 $ 499,466 $ 7,050,974 Add: Depreciation & Amortization 378,075 426,909 496,715 536,092 599,874 674,623 819,542 3,931,530 Cash Flow $ 1,229,693 $ 1,370,311 $ 1,257,581 $ 1,968,312 $ 2,678,437 $ 1,159,462 $ 1,319,008 $10,982,604 Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt (603,062) (492,620) (333,174) (495,412) 1,865,581 3,351,521 743,504 4,036,338 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 626,631 $ 877,691 $ 924,407 $ 1,472,900 $ 4,544,013 $ 4,510,983 $ 2,062,512 $15,019,142 NO Less: Dividends -0- 375,000 330,000 530,000 : 660,000 330,000 125,000 2,350,000 Capital Expenditures 1,694,961 1,099,561 942,281 755,946 2,619,417 4,187,602 2,773,893 14,078,656 Net Flou of Funds - Surplus/(Doficit) $ (1,068,330) $ (596,870) $. (347,371) $ 186,954 $ 1,264,601 $ (6,619) $ (841,376) $(1,409,514) Net Working Capital at Year-End $ 1,738,296 $ 960,279 $ 531,173 $ 499,751 $ 1,171,294 $ 2,220,053 $ 2,216,941 $ 1,627,025 Repairs $ 1,160,277 $ 1,229,468 $ 1,156,668 $ 1,326,567 $ 1,475,224 $ 1,414,386 $1.1,383,014 $ 9,145,604 Refined Sugar Produced (Cwt.) 7,270,838 8,317,724 7,741,365 9,494,161 10,502,424 9,170,169 8,457,433 - Operating Days - Refinery 268 277 246 299 .312 280 247 Average Production per Operating Day (Cwt.) 27,130 30,028 31,495 31,817 33,694 32,751 34,185 E. Ladd . 3/28/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I a - 0.042 °C - - - - it. Co N T O 0= of n- F- 8 80 . ********** i. .7 -0 *********** ++++++++4 - - CUMVERCA RAN 7 CONVERCA 3 es (--) CF- a n a - D an nca [= HE' - In a g 2 - Filent - NOTE. o THIS MAP REDUCED KALF SIZE MAP OF PLANT LATOUT na Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 (10,000) 31,000 (43,000 24,000 (4,000) LEARTYPE OUNTY OUTUNE NITED STATES - (3,000) MAP NO.117 AMERICAN MAD SOMPANY.INC $ Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SALARIED ORGANIZATION MAY 1, 1975 Operations, J. A. Metzler 2 Purchasing 6 Cincinnati 5 13 Marketing, E. R. Fleming 2 Administration 10 Sales 8 20 Finance, H. L. Kirk 4 Credit 4 Billing 3 Machine Room 2 1.3 Accounting, R. L. Crawford 11 Refinery, A. Garcia 2 Maintenance 23 Quality Assurance 10 Engineering 4 Administration 19 Operations 35 Service 2 95 Mobile, Administration and Service 6 TOTAL 158 40 158 101 67 T. Source: https://wvww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/doce 51jTbx02.27 to HOURLY ORCANIZATION - RESERVE - MAY 1, 1975 Manning is based cn requirement of two full shifts plus skeleton crew on the third shift in Pecking, and six palletized crews and two hand loading crews in Shipping. Raw Receiving 3 Affination 9 Clarification 9 Char House 18 Granulators 6 Pan Floor 16 Refined Centrifugal 12 Pre-Packaging 14 Packaging 80 Shipping - Packages 51 Shipping - Bulk 6 Liquid Sugar 6 Yard Crew 4 Sanitation 12 Security 6 Commissary 4 Laboratory 8 Utilities 12 Dock 6 Painters 8 Construction 14 Truck Drivers 5 Electrical 15 Maintenance Shops 13 Area Mechanics 20 Operations Mechanics 12 Total Required for 369* Operation *There are approximately 30 additional people on the payroll who act as vacation replacements, absentee replacements, training, etc. 360 1.58 40 Source: https:.//wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs[ilbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES 1. Information known: A. Sugar refinery at Reserve, Louisiana - 32 miles west of New Orleans on the Mississippi River. B. Liquid sugár processing plant and distribution terminal at Cincinnati, Ohio and leases sugar packaging operations at Buffalo, New York and (Chicago, Illinois 12/1/74. C. Owns 8 hydraulic material processing dredges, owns or has long term leases on 11 towboats and 88 cargo barges and under short term leases has 15 towboats and 30 barges. D. Also owns ready-mixed concrete operations and a mixer fleet in Mobile; asphalt plants at Woodstock, Margerum and Mobile, Alabama: a concrete block plant at Mobile, and supporting sales depots at Mobile, Ft. Walton Beach and Pensacola, Florida, and New Orleans owns or leases 8 stone quarries and crushing plants at Mobile, Baltimore and Houston, and chemical lime plants at Morgan City, La., and Saginaw, Ala. Company leases 2 slag processing facilities at Columbia, Tenn. E. Mineral Reserves--Company leases shell deposits from the states of Alabama and Louisiana, estimated to contain 100 million tons; leases gravel deposits estimated to contain 10 million tons owns an asphaltic limestone deposit estimated to contain 1,500,000 tons; and leases lime- stone deposits estimated to contain 200 million tons. F. Raws: 25% from U.S. 75% from Foreign G. Campaign: 312 days in 1971 280 days in 1972 247 days in 1973 232 days in 1974 H. Refined Sugar Production Production Year (Million cwts) 1971 10.5 1972 9.2 1973 8.4 1974 8.5 1. Sells sugar under two tradenames: 1. Henderson Superfine 2. Godchaux Brand continued Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES, continued Page 2 J. Current assets $53 Million. K. Long term debt $34 Million. L. Cost of replacing cane facilities: 1) Processing - $25 million Mill (3500 ton/day grind) 2) Refinery - $45 million (700 ton/day raw sugar) X 2 = 99mm II. Data needed: A. What it costs for Raws - Domestic - Foreign B. Operating costs (cost of production including G & A percent of refined sugar). C. Where receive raws from D. Costs to market place E. Financial data up to net income F. Present contractual arrangements III. To Receive 30% ROI before tax: @ 20,000 $ 6mm Example 1: Cost Proc + Profit for Price for RAWS: Raws Freight G & A 30% ROI Ref. Sugar (U.S.)25% @ 126 + 0 + 2.56 + 16 15.5 (Foreign 75% @ 7c + 1.8€ + 2.56 + 1c 12.3 TOTAL Weight Price For Refined Sugar 13.1 IV. Potential Areas to Increase Profits A. Grain Exports $45 2.47 50 B. Foreign raw prices based on refined sugar prices when sold. 11,2 C. Participating contract with growers based on refined sugar prices or foreign raws. 14/11/11 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 The President of Southern Industries Reports. Net soles for the first quarter ended March 31, 1975 were $74,686,000 compared to $51,505,000 for the same period in 1974. Net income for the period was $1,482,000 equal to $1.03 per share compared to a net loss of $1,830,000 (restated) equal to a loss of $1.23 per shore in 1974. By.product line the basic materials group had a 165% increase in pre-tox cornings over last year. This group occounted for $916,000 or opproximately 38% of pre-tax eornings. The sugar division contributed $1,437,000 or 61% to the results. With the exception of low sugar volume, the demand for our other products and materials remains strong. Your attention is directed to the notes to the following statements for a further explanation of the financial results of the first quorter. D. E. Dowson, Jr. April 22, 1975 President 1 Sales and Income (Loss) by Product Line For the three months ended March 31, 1975 and 1974 (000 omitted) SALES INCOME (LOSS) 1974 1975 1974 1975 Restated Sugor $56,118 $35,758 $ 1,437 S( 3,381) Bosic Materials 15,515 12,977 916 345 Hordwore and Machinery 3,051 2,770 58 92 Other (Non-operating) 2 - ( 58) ( 32) $74,686 $51,505 $ 2,353 $( 2,976) Income Toxes Credit (and Provision) ( 871) 1,145 Net Income (Loss) $ 1,482 $( 1,830) Per Shore $ 1.03 S( 1.22) Consolidated Financial Condition (000 omitted) March 31 1974 1975 Restated Current assets $ 50,419 $ 39,516 Current liobilities 51,420 30,445 Net current assets ( 1,001) 9,071 Properties - net 47,325 44,500 Other ossets 6,874 5,749 Total ossets less current licbilities 53,198 59,320 Long term debt (including debt due within one year) 33 33,151 32,101 Other licbilities 1,847 2,318 Total long term debt and other licbilities 55 34,998 34,419 Net assets $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Stockholders' equity: Common stock (1,433,096 shares outstanding) $ 6,059 $ 6,059 Retoined income and capital surplus 12,141 18,842 Total stockholders' equity $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Notes to Financial Statements (1) The income (les) by product line includes o statistical ollocation of corporale costs including interest expense. (2) Figures for 1974 have been restated to reflect changing to the lost in, first out (LIFO) method from the first in, first out (FIFO) and overage cost methods of accounting for the row sugar content of sugor inventories. If the FIFO and overage cost methods hod been used by the Com- pony, these inventories, and consequently net current assets, would hove been $14,803,000 and 54, 166,000 higher than reported at March 31, 1975 and 1974 (restated), respectively. (3) Results for the three months ended March 31, 1975 include income of $2,373,000 from reducing quantities of row sugar inventories under the uro method to on anticipated yeor-end level (substontially less than quantities on hand of the beginning of 1975). (4) A net operoting loss collyover available from 1974 will offsei the first $6,815,000 of taxoble income in 1975 and thus eliminate payment of toxes. The provision for toxas at March 31, 1975 of $871,000 represents a charge for deferred income taxes not currently payable. (5) Net income per shore bosed on 1,433,096 shares outstanding. (6) Depreciation and amortization included above omounted to $1,485,000 ond $1,265,000 in 1975 and 1974, respectively. P) Above figures subject to yeor-end audit. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227

What is the total cost of Repairs?

jlbx0227

jlbx0227_p0, jlbx0227_p1, jlbx0227_p2, jlbx0227_p3, jlbx0227_p4, jlbx0227_p5, jlbx0227_p6, jlbx0227_p7, jlbx0227_p8, jlbx0227_p9, jlbx0227_p10, jlbx0227_p11, jlbx0227_p12, jlbx0227_p13, jlbx0227_p14, jlbx0227_p15, jlbx0227_p16, jlbx0227_p17, jlbx0227_p18, jlbx0227_p19

$1,653,955, 1,653,955, $ 1,653,955

GH BRIEFING 6-11-75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I. GH is not worth buying for what is has earned or will earn under "normal" conditions; i.e., buy, refine, sell sugar. EBIT $600 M to $1.500M Needs $6-9MM WC to continue Can be purchased for $4-8 MM (they expect $10MM) Our "cost" is $10-17MM. . II. GH has excellent 1. Facilities at Reserve 2. Technical support personnel at Reserve 3. Distribution network relative to GW. t 2,100, on 00 3, III. GH could be a good speculative investment 2.4 Hog Low Provides A. "LONG.LIMIT 7,200,000 2, 400,000 Balance to GWS beet business 21.000,000 5.7,100 2,200,00 3.0000 Take % of Sugar Broker/dist $ 6,200,000 wwword ? 400.00 = Entry to foreign refined market 10% "Improvement on cost of raws = $16MM profit contribution" We must get a "participating K".- HFTS: 2X the Bet. on 121,000 IV. Net; get into GH as low as possible, 4 3 Emphasize the Raws problem< : Slim down overhead 95° Devise a plan that can target for $20MM EBIT. Actual Potented V hmp Ratio 73 74 AT, impiral 1.6 2.6 1.9mm Gll 4% 2.6% G,8 Source:https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., INC. PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1967. - 1970 1971 & 1974 1971 Profit Before Tax, Interest and Supervision Fees $ 11,130 M $ 6,614 M $ 4,528 M Average Per Year . 2,783 3,307 4,528 1974 Supervision (506) (506) .' (506) 1974 Interest (2,213) (2,213) (2,213) Projected Annual Profit 64 588 1,809 Investment Required to Return 10% $ 640 M $ 5,880 M $ 18,090 M 30% 213 1,950 6,030 15% 426 3,920 12,600 Production (CWT) 32,824 M CWT 19,050 M CWT 10,502 M CWT Average Per Year 8,206 9,525 10,502 1.5 33 Objective: - Get 30 day option - Full P & L information (operating statistics) - Manufacturing costs (operating statistics) Be Prepared To: - Sign LOI - Offer $4 Mm Low $5 Mm Mid $6 Mm High for 30% return before taxes $10 Mm Absolute Top Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co., INC. BALANCE SHEETS December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 ASSETS Current assets: Cash $ 2,150,212 $ 1,295,521 Federal income tax refund 1,020,891 Accounts and notes receivable: Trade 17,277,055 8,652,194 Affiliates 67,279 463,344 Inventories 12,503,941 13,094,401 Prepaid insurance and other 392,086 185,945 Total current assets 33,411,464 23,691,405 Property, plant and equipment, at cost: Land 373,300 373,300 Buildings 6,208,224 5,905,359 Machinery and equipment 14,791,863 13,812,393 Delivery and other automotive equipment 89,307 89,307 Leasehold improvements 50,662 27,707 21,513,356 20,208,066 Less accumulated depreciation 6,975,497 5,995,392 14,537,859 14,212,674 Other assets: Deferred income. taxes 1,492,919 Sundry deferred charges 368,352 629,849 Notes receivable 2,500 110,500 Advances to affiliates 126,733 1,990,504 740,349 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,428 LIABILITIES Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities: Trade $ 31,834,490 $ 6,998,742 Affiliates 846,938 356,860 Notes payable 19,019,761 14,534,993 Current portion of long-term debt 103,317 308,828 Total current liabilities (18,393) 51,804,506 22,199,423 Mortgage and notes payable, current portion above: 10-1/2% First Mortgage Note 4,747,501 4,836,043 Other notes payable 124,451 180,306 4,871,952 5,016,349 Advances from affiliates 3,178,135 3,171,156 Deferred income taxes 788,190 STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY (DEFICIT) Common stock, $100 par value; 1,041 shares authorized, issued and outstanding 104,100 104,100 Paid-in capital 2,323,239 . 2,323,239 Retained earnings (deficit), as annexed (12,342,105) 5,041,971 (9,914,765) 7,469,310 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,418 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-MENDERSON SUGAR co., , INC. PRO FORMA BALANCE SHEET AT 5/31/75 IN HANDS OF OTHERS - ON LIFO ASSETS Cash $ 1,395 Accounts Receivable 12,464 - Inventories Sugar 272,000 cwt at $11.11 3,022 Processing cost 386 Spare parts 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 19,631 Fixed assets - Net 14,353 Other assets and deferred charges 411 TOTAL ASSETS $ 34,395 LIABILITIES = Notes payable - banks $ 14,253 Notes payable - La. raw mills 7,369 Need commu Current portion of long-term debt 115 Accounts payable and accrued 3,334 2,2 Total Current Liabilities 25,071 Long-term debt 4,815 Deferred taxes 872 Deferred futures profit 716 Stockholders' equity 2,921 TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 34,395 1975 ceremated income Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Soùrce: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/j)bx0227 GODCHAUX-IENDERSON SUGAR co., INC. ESTIMATED WORKING CAPITAL MAY 31, 1975 000's omitted Current Assets Cash $ 1,395 Accounts receivable 12,464 Note receivable - U.S. Sugar Co. 240 Inventories: Raw sugar (Massequite), 40,458 cwt @ $17 688 Refined, 216,216 cwt @ $22 4,757 Spare parts, bags, mdse. for resale 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 21,908 Current Liabilities Bank notes payable 14,253 Current portion of long-term debt 115 Total notes payable 14,368 La. raw sugar payables 7,369 Other trade payables and accruals 1,755 Total Current Liabilities 23,492 Net Estimated Working Capital (Deficit) ($ 1,584) CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co. INC. ESTIMATED NET INCOME JANUARY ] THROUGH MAY 31, 1975 Pre-tax income, 4/30/75 $ 388,221 Estimated profit on April inventory liquidation 346,750 Deferred inventory liquidation profit, 4/30/75 6,329,205 Last estimated of May income 187,723 7,251,899 Estimate of income from inventory liquidation in month of May: Cwt actual, 96°, , 4/30/75 485,000 Cwt actual, 96°; 5/31/75 272,000 Liquidated 213,000 Spread ($27 May Cost - $11) x 16 $3,408,000 May liquidation profit 3,408,000 Total estimated pre-tax income 10,659,899 Book taxes at 37% consolidated rate 3,944,163 Estimated net income $ 6,715,736 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR co. INC. 2 ESTIMATED STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY MAY 31, 1975 Capital stock $ 104,100 Paid in capital, existing balance 2,323,239 Additional contributions to be made by Southern Industries 5,345,000 Total capital stock and paid-in 7,772,339 Retained earnings (deficit), 1/1/75 (12,342,104) Estimated net income, 1/1-5/31/75 6,715,736 Retained earnings (deficit), 5/31/75 ( 5,626,368) Total Estimated Stockholder's Equity, 5/31/75 $ 2,145,971 776 2,921 5. cash 3,6 2 2146 8.6 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF INCOME (LOSS) AND RETAINED EARNINGS (DEFICIT) for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Net sales $270,994,584 $121,429,038 Cost of sales 282,649,140 117,395,585 Gross profit (loss) (11,654,556) 4,033,453 Selling, general and administrative expenses 3,259,352 2,468,224 (14,913,908) 1,565,229 Other income, net 143,984 54,687 16.4mm (14,769,924) 1,619,916 Interest deductions 2,192,152 1,197,210 Income (loss) before provision (credit) for taxes 4 14,2mm (16,962,076) 422,706 Provision (credit) for income taxes: Federal: Current (990,891) (277,206) Deferred (2,251,109) 181,357 State - current 19,089 (3,242,000) (76,760) Net income (loss) the 7.1mm (13,720,076) 499,466 Retained earnings, January 1, restated 5,041,971 4,667,505 (8,678,105) 5,166,971 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 Retained earnings (deficit), December 31 $(12,342,105) $ _5,041,971 See notes to financial statements. 3 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., , INC. Statement of Change in Financial Position 1/1/15 - 4/30/75 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income $ 1244,579 Depreciation and amortization 383,018 Deferred income taxes -0- Working capital provided from operations 627,597 Decrease in other assets 4,525 Increase in deferred liabilities 8,373,106 $ 9,005,228 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment $ : 293,428 Reduction to mortgage and notes payable 56,909 Increase in deferred charges 264,575 $ 614,912 Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Changes in working capital Current assets: Cash $ (1,169,483) Receivables a 230th (7,434,849) Inventories (4,138,565) Prepaid insurance and other. 338,681 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities + 2,3sta $ (20,787,991) Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (6,541) $ (20,794,532) Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income (loss) $(13,720,076) $ 499,466 Expenses (credit) not affecting working capital in the current year: Depreciation and amortization 1,060,770 819,542 Deferred income taxes (2,251,109) 181,357 Working capital provided from (applied to) operations for the year (14,910,415) 1,500,365 Increase in advances from affiliates 6,979 Increase in mortgage and notes payable 9,430 1,022,000 Property sales and retirements, less accumulated depreciation 53,470 15,535 Other 212,764 63,670 (14,627,772) 2,601,570 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment 1,439,425 2,778,888 Reduction in mortgage and notes payable 153,827 278,496 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 5,257,252 3,182,384 Decrease in working capital $ (19,885,024) $ (580,814) Change in working capital - increase (decrease) : Current assets: Cash $ 854,691 $ 703,853 Receivables 9,249,687 (635,126) Inventories (590,460) 2,042,128 Prepaid insurance and other 206,141 (32,598 9,720,059 2,078,257 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (25,325,826) 3,143,444 Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (4,279,257) (5,802,515) (29,605,083) (2,659,071 Decrease in working capital $(19,885,024) $ (580,814 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 - SUCAR C.O. INC. VARIOUS SINTISTICS 1/1/74 .. 12/31/174 (BEFORE LIFO) PROFIT CONTRIBUTION Net Profit Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Add: Supervision Fees 506,000 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 14,675,927 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 SIC Note Interest 45,913 Interest Expense 1,986,461 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 60,914 Debt Amortization 14,752 Profit Contribution 16,383,957 ABEREVIATED FLOW OF FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Less: Income Tax 7,084,964 Net Income $ 7,084,963 Add: Depreciation and Amortization 1,052,693 Cash Flow $ 8,137,656. Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt 800,082 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 8,937,738 drwanch Less: Dividends 3.664,000 Capital Expenditures 1,377,877 Net Flow of Funds - Surplus/(Deficit) $ 3,895,861 NET WORKING CAPITAL @ 12/31/74 $ 5,480,545 Repairs $ 1,653,955 Refined Sugar Produced CWT 8,547,969 = it n Operating Days - Refinery 233 321 Average Production per Operating Day $ 36,687 27 \ IIIN E. Ladd 5/19/75 Söurce: https://www.industrydócuments,ucsf.edutddrst T1xx0227 VARIOUS STATISTICS 1967 - 1973 7 YEAR 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 TOTAL PROFIT CONTRIBUTION is 196 P Net Profit Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 Add: Supervision Fees 108,701 116,733 141,000 553,719 635,000 600,000 475,200 2,630,353 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 1,546,380 $ 1,864,135.1 $,1,718,417 $ 3,055,741 $ 3,866,801 $ 1,111,305 $ 897,906 $14,060,685 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 - 105,000 735,000 SIC Note Interest 138,214 145,798 138,661 131,661 124,747 117,925 111,636 908,642 Interest Expense 461,912 469,086 500,094 414,888 399,240 550,819 979,364 3,775,403 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 26,933 30,683 32,257 29,098 31,987 42,390 43,155 236,503 Debt Amortization 3,008 3,009 a - 6,017 1 Profit Contribution $ 2,281,447 $ 2,617,711 $ 2,494,129 $ 3,736,388 $ 4,527,775 $ 1,927,439 $ 2,137,061 $19,722,250 =085. ASBREVIATED FLCW 07 FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 (633) Less: Income Tax 586,061 804,000 816,551 1,069,802 1,153,238 26,466 (76,760) 4,379,358 Net Incone $ 851,618 $ 943,402 $ 760,866 $ 1,432,220 $ 2,078,563 $ 484,839 $ 499,466 $ 7,050,974 Add: Depreciation & Amortization 378,075 426,909 496,715 536,092 599,874 674,623 819,542 3,931,530 Cash Flow $ 1,229,693 $ 1,370,311 $ 1,257,581 $ 1,968,312 $ 2,678,437 $ 1,159,462 $ 1,319,008 $10,982,604 Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt (603,062) (492,620) (333,174) (495,412) 1,865,581 3,351,521 743,504 4,036,338 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 626,631 $ 877,691 $ 924,407 $ 1,472,900 $ 4,544,013 $ 4,510,983 $ 2,062,512 $15,019,142 NO Less: Dividends -0- 375,000 330,000 530,000 : 660,000 330,000 125,000 2,350,000 Capital Expenditures 1,694,961 1,099,561 942,281 755,946 2,619,417 4,187,602 2,773,893 14,078,656 Net Flou of Funds - Surplus/(Doficit) $ (1,068,330) $ (596,870) $. (347,371) $ 186,954 $ 1,264,601 $ (6,619) $ (841,376) $(1,409,514) Net Working Capital at Year-End $ 1,738,296 $ 960,279 $ 531,173 $ 499,751 $ 1,171,294 $ 2,220,053 $ 2,216,941 $ 1,627,025 Repairs $ 1,160,277 $ 1,229,468 $ 1,156,668 $ 1,326,567 $ 1,475,224 $ 1,414,386 $1.1,383,014 $ 9,145,604 Refined Sugar Produced (Cwt.) 7,270,838 8,317,724 7,741,365 9,494,161 10,502,424 9,170,169 8,457,433 - Operating Days - Refinery 268 277 246 299 .312 280 247 Average Production per Operating Day (Cwt.) 27,130 30,028 31,495 31,817 33,694 32,751 34,185 E. Ladd . 3/28/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I a - 0.042 °C - - - - it. Co N T O 0= of n- F- 8 80 . ********** i. .7 -0 *********** ++++++++4 - - CUMVERCA RAN 7 CONVERCA 3 es (--) CF- a n a - D an nca [= HE' - In a g 2 - Filent - NOTE. o THIS MAP REDUCED KALF SIZE MAP OF PLANT LATOUT na Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 (10,000) 31,000 (43,000 24,000 (4,000) LEARTYPE OUNTY OUTUNE NITED STATES - (3,000) MAP NO.117 AMERICAN MAD SOMPANY.INC $ Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SALARIED ORGANIZATION MAY 1, 1975 Operations, J. A. Metzler 2 Purchasing 6 Cincinnati 5 13 Marketing, E. R. Fleming 2 Administration 10 Sales 8 20 Finance, H. L. Kirk 4 Credit 4 Billing 3 Machine Room 2 1.3 Accounting, R. L. Crawford 11 Refinery, A. Garcia 2 Maintenance 23 Quality Assurance 10 Engineering 4 Administration 19 Operations 35 Service 2 95 Mobile, Administration and Service 6 TOTAL 158 40 158 101 67 T. Source: https://wvww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/doce 51jTbx02.27 to HOURLY ORCANIZATION - RESERVE - MAY 1, 1975 Manning is based cn requirement of two full shifts plus skeleton crew on the third shift in Pecking, and six palletized crews and two hand loading crews in Shipping. Raw Receiving 3 Affination 9 Clarification 9 Char House 18 Granulators 6 Pan Floor 16 Refined Centrifugal 12 Pre-Packaging 14 Packaging 80 Shipping - Packages 51 Shipping - Bulk 6 Liquid Sugar 6 Yard Crew 4 Sanitation 12 Security 6 Commissary 4 Laboratory 8 Utilities 12 Dock 6 Painters 8 Construction 14 Truck Drivers 5 Electrical 15 Maintenance Shops 13 Area Mechanics 20 Operations Mechanics 12 Total Required for 369* Operation *There are approximately 30 additional people on the payroll who act as vacation replacements, absentee replacements, training, etc. 360 1.58 40 Source: https:.//wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs[ilbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES 1. Information known: A. Sugar refinery at Reserve, Louisiana - 32 miles west of New Orleans on the Mississippi River. B. Liquid sugár processing plant and distribution terminal at Cincinnati, Ohio and leases sugar packaging operations at Buffalo, New York and (Chicago, Illinois 12/1/74. C. Owns 8 hydraulic material processing dredges, owns or has long term leases on 11 towboats and 88 cargo barges and under short term leases has 15 towboats and 30 barges. D. Also owns ready-mixed concrete operations and a mixer fleet in Mobile; asphalt plants at Woodstock, Margerum and Mobile, Alabama: a concrete block plant at Mobile, and supporting sales depots at Mobile, Ft. Walton Beach and Pensacola, Florida, and New Orleans owns or leases 8 stone quarries and crushing plants at Mobile, Baltimore and Houston, and chemical lime plants at Morgan City, La., and Saginaw, Ala. Company leases 2 slag processing facilities at Columbia, Tenn. E. Mineral Reserves--Company leases shell deposits from the states of Alabama and Louisiana, estimated to contain 100 million tons; leases gravel deposits estimated to contain 10 million tons owns an asphaltic limestone deposit estimated to contain 1,500,000 tons; and leases lime- stone deposits estimated to contain 200 million tons. F. Raws: 25% from U.S. 75% from Foreign G. Campaign: 312 days in 1971 280 days in 1972 247 days in 1973 232 days in 1974 H. Refined Sugar Production Production Year (Million cwts) 1971 10.5 1972 9.2 1973 8.4 1974 8.5 1. Sells sugar under two tradenames: 1. Henderson Superfine 2. Godchaux Brand continued Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES, continued Page 2 J. Current assets $53 Million. K. Long term debt $34 Million. L. Cost of replacing cane facilities: 1) Processing - $25 million Mill (3500 ton/day grind) 2) Refinery - $45 million (700 ton/day raw sugar) X 2 = 99mm II. Data needed: A. What it costs for Raws - Domestic - Foreign B. Operating costs (cost of production including G & A percent of refined sugar). C. Where receive raws from D. Costs to market place E. Financial data up to net income F. Present contractual arrangements III. To Receive 30% ROI before tax: @ 20,000 $ 6mm Example 1: Cost Proc + Profit for Price for RAWS: Raws Freight G & A 30% ROI Ref. Sugar (U.S.)25% @ 126 + 0 + 2.56 + 16 15.5 (Foreign 75% @ 7c + 1.8€ + 2.56 + 1c 12.3 TOTAL Weight Price For Refined Sugar 13.1 IV. Potential Areas to Increase Profits A. Grain Exports $45 2.47 50 B. Foreign raw prices based on refined sugar prices when sold. 11,2 C. Participating contract with growers based on refined sugar prices or foreign raws. 14/11/11 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 The President of Southern Industries Reports. Net soles for the first quarter ended March 31, 1975 were $74,686,000 compared to $51,505,000 for the same period in 1974. Net income for the period was $1,482,000 equal to $1.03 per share compared to a net loss of $1,830,000 (restated) equal to a loss of $1.23 per shore in 1974. By.product line the basic materials group had a 165% increase in pre-tox cornings over last year. This group occounted for $916,000 or opproximately 38% of pre-tax eornings. The sugar division contributed $1,437,000 or 61% to the results. With the exception of low sugar volume, the demand for our other products and materials remains strong. Your attention is directed to the notes to the following statements for a further explanation of the financial results of the first quorter. D. E. Dowson, Jr. April 22, 1975 President 1 Sales and Income (Loss) by Product Line For the three months ended March 31, 1975 and 1974 (000 omitted) SALES INCOME (LOSS) 1974 1975 1974 1975 Restated Sugor $56,118 $35,758 $ 1,437 S( 3,381) Bosic Materials 15,515 12,977 916 345 Hordwore and Machinery 3,051 2,770 58 92 Other (Non-operating) 2 - ( 58) ( 32) $74,686 $51,505 $ 2,353 $( 2,976) Income Toxes Credit (and Provision) ( 871) 1,145 Net Income (Loss) $ 1,482 $( 1,830) Per Shore $ 1.03 S( 1.22) Consolidated Financial Condition (000 omitted) March 31 1974 1975 Restated Current assets $ 50,419 $ 39,516 Current liobilities 51,420 30,445 Net current assets ( 1,001) 9,071 Properties - net 47,325 44,500 Other ossets 6,874 5,749 Total ossets less current licbilities 53,198 59,320 Long term debt (including debt due within one year) 33 33,151 32,101 Other licbilities 1,847 2,318 Total long term debt and other licbilities 55 34,998 34,419 Net assets $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Stockholders' equity: Common stock (1,433,096 shares outstanding) $ 6,059 $ 6,059 Retoined income and capital surplus 12,141 18,842 Total stockholders' equity $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Notes to Financial Statements (1) The income (les) by product line includes o statistical ollocation of corporale costs including interest expense. (2) Figures for 1974 have been restated to reflect changing to the lost in, first out (LIFO) method from the first in, first out (FIFO) and overage cost methods of accounting for the row sugar content of sugor inventories. If the FIFO and overage cost methods hod been used by the Com- pony, these inventories, and consequently net current assets, would hove been $14,803,000 and 54, 166,000 higher than reported at March 31, 1975 and 1974 (restated), respectively. (3) Results for the three months ended March 31, 1975 include income of $2,373,000 from reducing quantities of row sugar inventories under the uro method to on anticipated yeor-end level (substontially less than quantities on hand of the beginning of 1975). (4) A net operoting loss collyover available from 1974 will offsei the first $6,815,000 of taxoble income in 1975 and thus eliminate payment of toxes. The provision for toxas at March 31, 1975 of $871,000 represents a charge for deferred income taxes not currently payable. (5) Net income per shore bosed on 1,433,096 shares outstanding. (6) Depreciation and amortization included above omounted to $1,485,000 ond $1,265,000 in 1975 and 1974, respectively. P) Above figures subject to yeor-end audit. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227

what is the given amount in $ for the working capital provided from operations ?

jlbx0227

jlbx0227_p0, jlbx0227_p1, jlbx0227_p2, jlbx0227_p3, jlbx0227_p4, jlbx0227_p5, jlbx0227_p6, jlbx0227_p7, jlbx0227_p8, jlbx0227_p9, jlbx0227_p10, jlbx0227_p11, jlbx0227_p12, jlbx0227_p13, jlbx0227_p14, jlbx0227_p15, jlbx0227_p16, jlbx0227_p17, jlbx0227_p18, jlbx0227_p19

627,597, $627,597

GH BRIEFING 6-11-75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I. GH is not worth buying for what is has earned or will earn under "normal" conditions; i.e., buy, refine, sell sugar. EBIT $600 M to $1.500M Needs $6-9MM WC to continue Can be purchased for $4-8 MM (they expect $10MM) Our "cost" is $10-17MM. . II. GH has excellent 1. Facilities at Reserve 2. Technical support personnel at Reserve 3. Distribution network relative to GW. t 2,100, on 00 3, III. GH could be a good speculative investment 2.4 Hog Low Provides A. "LONG.LIMIT 7,200,000 2, 400,000 Balance to GWS beet business 21.000,000 5.7,100 2,200,00 3.0000 Take % of Sugar Broker/dist $ 6,200,000 wwword ? 400.00 = Entry to foreign refined market 10% "Improvement on cost of raws = $16MM profit contribution" We must get a "participating K".- HFTS: 2X the Bet. on 121,000 IV. Net; get into GH as low as possible, 4 3 Emphasize the Raws problem< : Slim down overhead 95° Devise a plan that can target for $20MM EBIT. Actual Potented V hmp Ratio 73 74 AT, impiral 1.6 2.6 1.9mm Gll 4% 2.6% G,8 Source:https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., INC. PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1967. - 1970 1971 & 1974 1971 Profit Before Tax, Interest and Supervision Fees $ 11,130 M $ 6,614 M $ 4,528 M Average Per Year . 2,783 3,307 4,528 1974 Supervision (506) (506) .' (506) 1974 Interest (2,213) (2,213) (2,213) Projected Annual Profit 64 588 1,809 Investment Required to Return 10% $ 640 M $ 5,880 M $ 18,090 M 30% 213 1,950 6,030 15% 426 3,920 12,600 Production (CWT) 32,824 M CWT 19,050 M CWT 10,502 M CWT Average Per Year 8,206 9,525 10,502 1.5 33 Objective: - Get 30 day option - Full P & L information (operating statistics) - Manufacturing costs (operating statistics) Be Prepared To: - Sign LOI - Offer $4 Mm Low $5 Mm Mid $6 Mm High for 30% return before taxes $10 Mm Absolute Top Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co., INC. BALANCE SHEETS December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 ASSETS Current assets: Cash $ 2,150,212 $ 1,295,521 Federal income tax refund 1,020,891 Accounts and notes receivable: Trade 17,277,055 8,652,194 Affiliates 67,279 463,344 Inventories 12,503,941 13,094,401 Prepaid insurance and other 392,086 185,945 Total current assets 33,411,464 23,691,405 Property, plant and equipment, at cost: Land 373,300 373,300 Buildings 6,208,224 5,905,359 Machinery and equipment 14,791,863 13,812,393 Delivery and other automotive equipment 89,307 89,307 Leasehold improvements 50,662 27,707 21,513,356 20,208,066 Less accumulated depreciation 6,975,497 5,995,392 14,537,859 14,212,674 Other assets: Deferred income. taxes 1,492,919 Sundry deferred charges 368,352 629,849 Notes receivable 2,500 110,500 Advances to affiliates 126,733 1,990,504 740,349 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,428 LIABILITIES Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities: Trade $ 31,834,490 $ 6,998,742 Affiliates 846,938 356,860 Notes payable 19,019,761 14,534,993 Current portion of long-term debt 103,317 308,828 Total current liabilities (18,393) 51,804,506 22,199,423 Mortgage and notes payable, current portion above: 10-1/2% First Mortgage Note 4,747,501 4,836,043 Other notes payable 124,451 180,306 4,871,952 5,016,349 Advances from affiliates 3,178,135 3,171,156 Deferred income taxes 788,190 STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY (DEFICIT) Common stock, $100 par value; 1,041 shares authorized, issued and outstanding 104,100 104,100 Paid-in capital 2,323,239 . 2,323,239 Retained earnings (deficit), as annexed (12,342,105) 5,041,971 (9,914,765) 7,469,310 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,418 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-MENDERSON SUGAR co., , INC. PRO FORMA BALANCE SHEET AT 5/31/75 IN HANDS OF OTHERS - ON LIFO ASSETS Cash $ 1,395 Accounts Receivable 12,464 - Inventories Sugar 272,000 cwt at $11.11 3,022 Processing cost 386 Spare parts 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 19,631 Fixed assets - Net 14,353 Other assets and deferred charges 411 TOTAL ASSETS $ 34,395 LIABILITIES = Notes payable - banks $ 14,253 Notes payable - La. raw mills 7,369 Need commu Current portion of long-term debt 115 Accounts payable and accrued 3,334 2,2 Total Current Liabilities 25,071 Long-term debt 4,815 Deferred taxes 872 Deferred futures profit 716 Stockholders' equity 2,921 TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 34,395 1975 ceremated income Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Soùrce: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/j)bx0227 GODCHAUX-IENDERSON SUGAR co., INC. ESTIMATED WORKING CAPITAL MAY 31, 1975 000's omitted Current Assets Cash $ 1,395 Accounts receivable 12,464 Note receivable - U.S. Sugar Co. 240 Inventories: Raw sugar (Massequite), 40,458 cwt @ $17 688 Refined, 216,216 cwt @ $22 4,757 Spare parts, bags, mdse. for resale 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 21,908 Current Liabilities Bank notes payable 14,253 Current portion of long-term debt 115 Total notes payable 14,368 La. raw sugar payables 7,369 Other trade payables and accruals 1,755 Total Current Liabilities 23,492 Net Estimated Working Capital (Deficit) ($ 1,584) CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co. INC. ESTIMATED NET INCOME JANUARY ] THROUGH MAY 31, 1975 Pre-tax income, 4/30/75 $ 388,221 Estimated profit on April inventory liquidation 346,750 Deferred inventory liquidation profit, 4/30/75 6,329,205 Last estimated of May income 187,723 7,251,899 Estimate of income from inventory liquidation in month of May: Cwt actual, 96°, , 4/30/75 485,000 Cwt actual, 96°; 5/31/75 272,000 Liquidated 213,000 Spread ($27 May Cost - $11) x 16 $3,408,000 May liquidation profit 3,408,000 Total estimated pre-tax income 10,659,899 Book taxes at 37% consolidated rate 3,944,163 Estimated net income $ 6,715,736 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR co. INC. 2 ESTIMATED STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY MAY 31, 1975 Capital stock $ 104,100 Paid in capital, existing balance 2,323,239 Additional contributions to be made by Southern Industries 5,345,000 Total capital stock and paid-in 7,772,339 Retained earnings (deficit), 1/1/75 (12,342,104) Estimated net income, 1/1-5/31/75 6,715,736 Retained earnings (deficit), 5/31/75 ( 5,626,368) Total Estimated Stockholder's Equity, 5/31/75 $ 2,145,971 776 2,921 5. cash 3,6 2 2146 8.6 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF INCOME (LOSS) AND RETAINED EARNINGS (DEFICIT) for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Net sales $270,994,584 $121,429,038 Cost of sales 282,649,140 117,395,585 Gross profit (loss) (11,654,556) 4,033,453 Selling, general and administrative expenses 3,259,352 2,468,224 (14,913,908) 1,565,229 Other income, net 143,984 54,687 16.4mm (14,769,924) 1,619,916 Interest deductions 2,192,152 1,197,210 Income (loss) before provision (credit) for taxes 4 14,2mm (16,962,076) 422,706 Provision (credit) for income taxes: Federal: Current (990,891) (277,206) Deferred (2,251,109) 181,357 State - current 19,089 (3,242,000) (76,760) Net income (loss) the 7.1mm (13,720,076) 499,466 Retained earnings, January 1, restated 5,041,971 4,667,505 (8,678,105) 5,166,971 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 Retained earnings (deficit), December 31 $(12,342,105) $ _5,041,971 See notes to financial statements. 3 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., , INC. Statement of Change in Financial Position 1/1/15 - 4/30/75 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income $ 1244,579 Depreciation and amortization 383,018 Deferred income taxes -0- Working capital provided from operations 627,597 Decrease in other assets 4,525 Increase in deferred liabilities 8,373,106 $ 9,005,228 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment $ : 293,428 Reduction to mortgage and notes payable 56,909 Increase in deferred charges 264,575 $ 614,912 Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Changes in working capital Current assets: Cash $ (1,169,483) Receivables a 230th (7,434,849) Inventories (4,138,565) Prepaid insurance and other. 338,681 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities + 2,3sta $ (20,787,991) Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (6,541) $ (20,794,532) Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income (loss) $(13,720,076) $ 499,466 Expenses (credit) not affecting working capital in the current year: Depreciation and amortization 1,060,770 819,542 Deferred income taxes (2,251,109) 181,357 Working capital provided from (applied to) operations for the year (14,910,415) 1,500,365 Increase in advances from affiliates 6,979 Increase in mortgage and notes payable 9,430 1,022,000 Property sales and retirements, less accumulated depreciation 53,470 15,535 Other 212,764 63,670 (14,627,772) 2,601,570 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment 1,439,425 2,778,888 Reduction in mortgage and notes payable 153,827 278,496 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 5,257,252 3,182,384 Decrease in working capital $ (19,885,024) $ (580,814) Change in working capital - increase (decrease) : Current assets: Cash $ 854,691 $ 703,853 Receivables 9,249,687 (635,126) Inventories (590,460) 2,042,128 Prepaid insurance and other 206,141 (32,598 9,720,059 2,078,257 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (25,325,826) 3,143,444 Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (4,279,257) (5,802,515) (29,605,083) (2,659,071 Decrease in working capital $(19,885,024) $ (580,814 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 - SUCAR C.O. INC. VARIOUS SINTISTICS 1/1/74 .. 12/31/174 (BEFORE LIFO) PROFIT CONTRIBUTION Net Profit Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Add: Supervision Fees 506,000 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 14,675,927 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 SIC Note Interest 45,913 Interest Expense 1,986,461 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 60,914 Debt Amortization 14,752 Profit Contribution 16,383,957 ABEREVIATED FLOW OF FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Less: Income Tax 7,084,964 Net Income $ 7,084,963 Add: Depreciation and Amortization 1,052,693 Cash Flow $ 8,137,656. Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt 800,082 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 8,937,738 drwanch Less: Dividends 3.664,000 Capital Expenditures 1,377,877 Net Flow of Funds - Surplus/(Deficit) $ 3,895,861 NET WORKING CAPITAL @ 12/31/74 $ 5,480,545 Repairs $ 1,653,955 Refined Sugar Produced CWT 8,547,969 = it n Operating Days - Refinery 233 321 Average Production per Operating Day $ 36,687 27 \ IIIN E. Ladd 5/19/75 Söurce: https://www.industrydócuments,ucsf.edutddrst T1xx0227 VARIOUS STATISTICS 1967 - 1973 7 YEAR 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 TOTAL PROFIT CONTRIBUTION is 196 P Net Profit Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 Add: Supervision Fees 108,701 116,733 141,000 553,719 635,000 600,000 475,200 2,630,353 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 1,546,380 $ 1,864,135.1 $,1,718,417 $ 3,055,741 $ 3,866,801 $ 1,111,305 $ 897,906 $14,060,685 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 - 105,000 735,000 SIC Note Interest 138,214 145,798 138,661 131,661 124,747 117,925 111,636 908,642 Interest Expense 461,912 469,086 500,094 414,888 399,240 550,819 979,364 3,775,403 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 26,933 30,683 32,257 29,098 31,987 42,390 43,155 236,503 Debt Amortization 3,008 3,009 a - 6,017 1 Profit Contribution $ 2,281,447 $ 2,617,711 $ 2,494,129 $ 3,736,388 $ 4,527,775 $ 1,927,439 $ 2,137,061 $19,722,250 =085. ASBREVIATED FLCW 07 FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 (633) Less: Income Tax 586,061 804,000 816,551 1,069,802 1,153,238 26,466 (76,760) 4,379,358 Net Incone $ 851,618 $ 943,402 $ 760,866 $ 1,432,220 $ 2,078,563 $ 484,839 $ 499,466 $ 7,050,974 Add: Depreciation & Amortization 378,075 426,909 496,715 536,092 599,874 674,623 819,542 3,931,530 Cash Flow $ 1,229,693 $ 1,370,311 $ 1,257,581 $ 1,968,312 $ 2,678,437 $ 1,159,462 $ 1,319,008 $10,982,604 Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt (603,062) (492,620) (333,174) (495,412) 1,865,581 3,351,521 743,504 4,036,338 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 626,631 $ 877,691 $ 924,407 $ 1,472,900 $ 4,544,013 $ 4,510,983 $ 2,062,512 $15,019,142 NO Less: Dividends -0- 375,000 330,000 530,000 : 660,000 330,000 125,000 2,350,000 Capital Expenditures 1,694,961 1,099,561 942,281 755,946 2,619,417 4,187,602 2,773,893 14,078,656 Net Flou of Funds - Surplus/(Doficit) $ (1,068,330) $ (596,870) $. (347,371) $ 186,954 $ 1,264,601 $ (6,619) $ (841,376) $(1,409,514) Net Working Capital at Year-End $ 1,738,296 $ 960,279 $ 531,173 $ 499,751 $ 1,171,294 $ 2,220,053 $ 2,216,941 $ 1,627,025 Repairs $ 1,160,277 $ 1,229,468 $ 1,156,668 $ 1,326,567 $ 1,475,224 $ 1,414,386 $1.1,383,014 $ 9,145,604 Refined Sugar Produced (Cwt.) 7,270,838 8,317,724 7,741,365 9,494,161 10,502,424 9,170,169 8,457,433 - Operating Days - Refinery 268 277 246 299 .312 280 247 Average Production per Operating Day (Cwt.) 27,130 30,028 31,495 31,817 33,694 32,751 34,185 E. Ladd . 3/28/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I a - 0.042 °C - - - - it. Co N T O 0= of n- F- 8 80 . ********** i. .7 -0 *********** ++++++++4 - - CUMVERCA RAN 7 CONVERCA 3 es (--) CF- a n a - D an nca [= HE' - In a g 2 - Filent - NOTE. o THIS MAP REDUCED KALF SIZE MAP OF PLANT LATOUT na Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 (10,000) 31,000 (43,000 24,000 (4,000) LEARTYPE OUNTY OUTUNE NITED STATES - (3,000) MAP NO.117 AMERICAN MAD SOMPANY.INC $ Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SALARIED ORGANIZATION MAY 1, 1975 Operations, J. A. Metzler 2 Purchasing 6 Cincinnati 5 13 Marketing, E. R. Fleming 2 Administration 10 Sales 8 20 Finance, H. L. Kirk 4 Credit 4 Billing 3 Machine Room 2 1.3 Accounting, R. L. Crawford 11 Refinery, A. Garcia 2 Maintenance 23 Quality Assurance 10 Engineering 4 Administration 19 Operations 35 Service 2 95 Mobile, Administration and Service 6 TOTAL 158 40 158 101 67 T. Source: https://wvww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/doce 51jTbx02.27 to HOURLY ORCANIZATION - RESERVE - MAY 1, 1975 Manning is based cn requirement of two full shifts plus skeleton crew on the third shift in Pecking, and six palletized crews and two hand loading crews in Shipping. Raw Receiving 3 Affination 9 Clarification 9 Char House 18 Granulators 6 Pan Floor 16 Refined Centrifugal 12 Pre-Packaging 14 Packaging 80 Shipping - Packages 51 Shipping - Bulk 6 Liquid Sugar 6 Yard Crew 4 Sanitation 12 Security 6 Commissary 4 Laboratory 8 Utilities 12 Dock 6 Painters 8 Construction 14 Truck Drivers 5 Electrical 15 Maintenance Shops 13 Area Mechanics 20 Operations Mechanics 12 Total Required for 369* Operation *There are approximately 30 additional people on the payroll who act as vacation replacements, absentee replacements, training, etc. 360 1.58 40 Source: https:.//wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs[ilbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES 1. Information known: A. Sugar refinery at Reserve, Louisiana - 32 miles west of New Orleans on the Mississippi River. B. Liquid sugár processing plant and distribution terminal at Cincinnati, Ohio and leases sugar packaging operations at Buffalo, New York and (Chicago, Illinois 12/1/74. C. Owns 8 hydraulic material processing dredges, owns or has long term leases on 11 towboats and 88 cargo barges and under short term leases has 15 towboats and 30 barges. D. Also owns ready-mixed concrete operations and a mixer fleet in Mobile; asphalt plants at Woodstock, Margerum and Mobile, Alabama: a concrete block plant at Mobile, and supporting sales depots at Mobile, Ft. Walton Beach and Pensacola, Florida, and New Orleans owns or leases 8 stone quarries and crushing plants at Mobile, Baltimore and Houston, and chemical lime plants at Morgan City, La., and Saginaw, Ala. Company leases 2 slag processing facilities at Columbia, Tenn. E. Mineral Reserves--Company leases shell deposits from the states of Alabama and Louisiana, estimated to contain 100 million tons; leases gravel deposits estimated to contain 10 million tons owns an asphaltic limestone deposit estimated to contain 1,500,000 tons; and leases lime- stone deposits estimated to contain 200 million tons. F. Raws: 25% from U.S. 75% from Foreign G. Campaign: 312 days in 1971 280 days in 1972 247 days in 1973 232 days in 1974 H. Refined Sugar Production Production Year (Million cwts) 1971 10.5 1972 9.2 1973 8.4 1974 8.5 1. Sells sugar under two tradenames: 1. Henderson Superfine 2. Godchaux Brand continued Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES, continued Page 2 J. Current assets $53 Million. K. Long term debt $34 Million. L. Cost of replacing cane facilities: 1) Processing - $25 million Mill (3500 ton/day grind) 2) Refinery - $45 million (700 ton/day raw sugar) X 2 = 99mm II. Data needed: A. What it costs for Raws - Domestic - Foreign B. Operating costs (cost of production including G & A percent of refined sugar). C. Where receive raws from D. Costs to market place E. Financial data up to net income F. Present contractual arrangements III. To Receive 30% ROI before tax: @ 20,000 $ 6mm Example 1: Cost Proc + Profit for Price for RAWS: Raws Freight G & A 30% ROI Ref. Sugar (U.S.)25% @ 126 + 0 + 2.56 + 16 15.5 (Foreign 75% @ 7c + 1.8€ + 2.56 + 1c 12.3 TOTAL Weight Price For Refined Sugar 13.1 IV. Potential Areas to Increase Profits A. Grain Exports $45 2.47 50 B. Foreign raw prices based on refined sugar prices when sold. 11,2 C. Participating contract with growers based on refined sugar prices or foreign raws. 14/11/11 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 The President of Southern Industries Reports. Net soles for the first quarter ended March 31, 1975 were $74,686,000 compared to $51,505,000 for the same period in 1974. Net income for the period was $1,482,000 equal to $1.03 per share compared to a net loss of $1,830,000 (restated) equal to a loss of $1.23 per shore in 1974. By.product line the basic materials group had a 165% increase in pre-tox cornings over last year. This group occounted for $916,000 or opproximately 38% of pre-tax eornings. The sugar division contributed $1,437,000 or 61% to the results. With the exception of low sugar volume, the demand for our other products and materials remains strong. Your attention is directed to the notes to the following statements for a further explanation of the financial results of the first quorter. D. E. Dowson, Jr. April 22, 1975 President 1 Sales and Income (Loss) by Product Line For the three months ended March 31, 1975 and 1974 (000 omitted) SALES INCOME (LOSS) 1974 1975 1974 1975 Restated Sugor $56,118 $35,758 $ 1,437 S( 3,381) Bosic Materials 15,515 12,977 916 345 Hordwore and Machinery 3,051 2,770 58 92 Other (Non-operating) 2 - ( 58) ( 32) $74,686 $51,505 $ 2,353 $( 2,976) Income Toxes Credit (and Provision) ( 871) 1,145 Net Income (Loss) $ 1,482 $( 1,830) Per Shore $ 1.03 S( 1.22) Consolidated Financial Condition (000 omitted) March 31 1974 1975 Restated Current assets $ 50,419 $ 39,516 Current liobilities 51,420 30,445 Net current assets ( 1,001) 9,071 Properties - net 47,325 44,500 Other ossets 6,874 5,749 Total ossets less current licbilities 53,198 59,320 Long term debt (including debt due within one year) 33 33,151 32,101 Other licbilities 1,847 2,318 Total long term debt and other licbilities 55 34,998 34,419 Net assets $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Stockholders' equity: Common stock (1,433,096 shares outstanding) $ 6,059 $ 6,059 Retoined income and capital surplus 12,141 18,842 Total stockholders' equity $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Notes to Financial Statements (1) The income (les) by product line includes o statistical ollocation of corporale costs including interest expense. (2) Figures for 1974 have been restated to reflect changing to the lost in, first out (LIFO) method from the first in, first out (FIFO) and overage cost methods of accounting for the row sugar content of sugor inventories. If the FIFO and overage cost methods hod been used by the Com- pony, these inventories, and consequently net current assets, would hove been $14,803,000 and 54, 166,000 higher than reported at March 31, 1975 and 1974 (restated), respectively. (3) Results for the three months ended March 31, 1975 include income of $2,373,000 from reducing quantities of row sugar inventories under the uro method to on anticipated yeor-end level (substontially less than quantities on hand of the beginning of 1975). (4) A net operoting loss collyover available from 1974 will offsei the first $6,815,000 of taxoble income in 1975 and thus eliminate payment of toxes. The provision for toxas at March 31, 1975 of $871,000 represents a charge for deferred income taxes not currently payable. (5) Net income per shore bosed on 1,433,096 shares outstanding. (6) Depreciation and amortization included above omounted to $1,485,000 ond $1,265,000 in 1975 and 1974, respectively. P) Above figures subject to yeor-end audit. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227

What is the Net Income?

jlbx0227

jlbx0227_p0, jlbx0227_p1, jlbx0227_p2, jlbx0227_p3, jlbx0227_p4, jlbx0227_p5, jlbx0227_p6, jlbx0227_p7, jlbx0227_p8, jlbx0227_p9, jlbx0227_p10, jlbx0227_p11, jlbx0227_p12, jlbx0227_p13, jlbx0227_p14, jlbx0227_p15, jlbx0227_p16, jlbx0227_p17, jlbx0227_p18, jlbx0227_p19

7,084,963, $ 7,084,963, $7,084,963

GH BRIEFING 6-11-75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I. GH is not worth buying for what is has earned or will earn under "normal" conditions; i.e., buy, refine, sell sugar. EBIT $600 M to $1.500M Needs $6-9MM WC to continue Can be purchased for $4-8 MM (they expect $10MM) Our "cost" is $10-17MM. . II. GH has excellent 1. Facilities at Reserve 2. Technical support personnel at Reserve 3. Distribution network relative to GW. t 2,100, on 00 3, III. GH could be a good speculative investment 2.4 Hog Low Provides A. "LONG.LIMIT 7,200,000 2, 400,000 Balance to GWS beet business 21.000,000 5.7,100 2,200,00 3.0000 Take % of Sugar Broker/dist $ 6,200,000 wwword ? 400.00 = Entry to foreign refined market 10% "Improvement on cost of raws = $16MM profit contribution" We must get a "participating K".- HFTS: 2X the Bet. on 121,000 IV. Net; get into GH as low as possible, 4 3 Emphasize the Raws problem< : Slim down overhead 95° Devise a plan that can target for $20MM EBIT. Actual Potented V hmp Ratio 73 74 AT, impiral 1.6 2.6 1.9mm Gll 4% 2.6% G,8 Source:https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., INC. PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1967. - 1970 1971 & 1974 1971 Profit Before Tax, Interest and Supervision Fees $ 11,130 M $ 6,614 M $ 4,528 M Average Per Year . 2,783 3,307 4,528 1974 Supervision (506) (506) .' (506) 1974 Interest (2,213) (2,213) (2,213) Projected Annual Profit 64 588 1,809 Investment Required to Return 10% $ 640 M $ 5,880 M $ 18,090 M 30% 213 1,950 6,030 15% 426 3,920 12,600 Production (CWT) 32,824 M CWT 19,050 M CWT 10,502 M CWT Average Per Year 8,206 9,525 10,502 1.5 33 Objective: - Get 30 day option - Full P & L information (operating statistics) - Manufacturing costs (operating statistics) Be Prepared To: - Sign LOI - Offer $4 Mm Low $5 Mm Mid $6 Mm High for 30% return before taxes $10 Mm Absolute Top Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co., INC. BALANCE SHEETS December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 ASSETS Current assets: Cash $ 2,150,212 $ 1,295,521 Federal income tax refund 1,020,891 Accounts and notes receivable: Trade 17,277,055 8,652,194 Affiliates 67,279 463,344 Inventories 12,503,941 13,094,401 Prepaid insurance and other 392,086 185,945 Total current assets 33,411,464 23,691,405 Property, plant and equipment, at cost: Land 373,300 373,300 Buildings 6,208,224 5,905,359 Machinery and equipment 14,791,863 13,812,393 Delivery and other automotive equipment 89,307 89,307 Leasehold improvements 50,662 27,707 21,513,356 20,208,066 Less accumulated depreciation 6,975,497 5,995,392 14,537,859 14,212,674 Other assets: Deferred income. taxes 1,492,919 Sundry deferred charges 368,352 629,849 Notes receivable 2,500 110,500 Advances to affiliates 126,733 1,990,504 740,349 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,428 LIABILITIES Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities: Trade $ 31,834,490 $ 6,998,742 Affiliates 846,938 356,860 Notes payable 19,019,761 14,534,993 Current portion of long-term debt 103,317 308,828 Total current liabilities (18,393) 51,804,506 22,199,423 Mortgage and notes payable, current portion above: 10-1/2% First Mortgage Note 4,747,501 4,836,043 Other notes payable 124,451 180,306 4,871,952 5,016,349 Advances from affiliates 3,178,135 3,171,156 Deferred income taxes 788,190 STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY (DEFICIT) Common stock, $100 par value; 1,041 shares authorized, issued and outstanding 104,100 104,100 Paid-in capital 2,323,239 . 2,323,239 Retained earnings (deficit), as annexed (12,342,105) 5,041,971 (9,914,765) 7,469,310 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,418 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-MENDERSON SUGAR co., , INC. PRO FORMA BALANCE SHEET AT 5/31/75 IN HANDS OF OTHERS - ON LIFO ASSETS Cash $ 1,395 Accounts Receivable 12,464 - Inventories Sugar 272,000 cwt at $11.11 3,022 Processing cost 386 Spare parts 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 19,631 Fixed assets - Net 14,353 Other assets and deferred charges 411 TOTAL ASSETS $ 34,395 LIABILITIES = Notes payable - banks $ 14,253 Notes payable - La. raw mills 7,369 Need commu Current portion of long-term debt 115 Accounts payable and accrued 3,334 2,2 Total Current Liabilities 25,071 Long-term debt 4,815 Deferred taxes 872 Deferred futures profit 716 Stockholders' equity 2,921 TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 34,395 1975 ceremated income Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Soùrce: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/j)bx0227 GODCHAUX-IENDERSON SUGAR co., INC. ESTIMATED WORKING CAPITAL MAY 31, 1975 000's omitted Current Assets Cash $ 1,395 Accounts receivable 12,464 Note receivable - U.S. Sugar Co. 240 Inventories: Raw sugar (Massequite), 40,458 cwt @ $17 688 Refined, 216,216 cwt @ $22 4,757 Spare parts, bags, mdse. for resale 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 21,908 Current Liabilities Bank notes payable 14,253 Current portion of long-term debt 115 Total notes payable 14,368 La. raw sugar payables 7,369 Other trade payables and accruals 1,755 Total Current Liabilities 23,492 Net Estimated Working Capital (Deficit) ($ 1,584) CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co. INC. ESTIMATED NET INCOME JANUARY ] THROUGH MAY 31, 1975 Pre-tax income, 4/30/75 $ 388,221 Estimated profit on April inventory liquidation 346,750 Deferred inventory liquidation profit, 4/30/75 6,329,205 Last estimated of May income 187,723 7,251,899 Estimate of income from inventory liquidation in month of May: Cwt actual, 96°, , 4/30/75 485,000 Cwt actual, 96°; 5/31/75 272,000 Liquidated 213,000 Spread ($27 May Cost - $11) x 16 $3,408,000 May liquidation profit 3,408,000 Total estimated pre-tax income 10,659,899 Book taxes at 37% consolidated rate 3,944,163 Estimated net income $ 6,715,736 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR co. INC. 2 ESTIMATED STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY MAY 31, 1975 Capital stock $ 104,100 Paid in capital, existing balance 2,323,239 Additional contributions to be made by Southern Industries 5,345,000 Total capital stock and paid-in 7,772,339 Retained earnings (deficit), 1/1/75 (12,342,104) Estimated net income, 1/1-5/31/75 6,715,736 Retained earnings (deficit), 5/31/75 ( 5,626,368) Total Estimated Stockholder's Equity, 5/31/75 $ 2,145,971 776 2,921 5. cash 3,6 2 2146 8.6 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF INCOME (LOSS) AND RETAINED EARNINGS (DEFICIT) for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Net sales $270,994,584 $121,429,038 Cost of sales 282,649,140 117,395,585 Gross profit (loss) (11,654,556) 4,033,453 Selling, general and administrative expenses 3,259,352 2,468,224 (14,913,908) 1,565,229 Other income, net 143,984 54,687 16.4mm (14,769,924) 1,619,916 Interest deductions 2,192,152 1,197,210 Income (loss) before provision (credit) for taxes 4 14,2mm (16,962,076) 422,706 Provision (credit) for income taxes: Federal: Current (990,891) (277,206) Deferred (2,251,109) 181,357 State - current 19,089 (3,242,000) (76,760) Net income (loss) the 7.1mm (13,720,076) 499,466 Retained earnings, January 1, restated 5,041,971 4,667,505 (8,678,105) 5,166,971 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 Retained earnings (deficit), December 31 $(12,342,105) $ _5,041,971 See notes to financial statements. 3 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., , INC. Statement of Change in Financial Position 1/1/15 - 4/30/75 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income $ 1244,579 Depreciation and amortization 383,018 Deferred income taxes -0- Working capital provided from operations 627,597 Decrease in other assets 4,525 Increase in deferred liabilities 8,373,106 $ 9,005,228 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment $ : 293,428 Reduction to mortgage and notes payable 56,909 Increase in deferred charges 264,575 $ 614,912 Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Changes in working capital Current assets: Cash $ (1,169,483) Receivables a 230th (7,434,849) Inventories (4,138,565) Prepaid insurance and other. 338,681 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities + 2,3sta $ (20,787,991) Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (6,541) $ (20,794,532) Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income (loss) $(13,720,076) $ 499,466 Expenses (credit) not affecting working capital in the current year: Depreciation and amortization 1,060,770 819,542 Deferred income taxes (2,251,109) 181,357 Working capital provided from (applied to) operations for the year (14,910,415) 1,500,365 Increase in advances from affiliates 6,979 Increase in mortgage and notes payable 9,430 1,022,000 Property sales and retirements, less accumulated depreciation 53,470 15,535 Other 212,764 63,670 (14,627,772) 2,601,570 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment 1,439,425 2,778,888 Reduction in mortgage and notes payable 153,827 278,496 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 5,257,252 3,182,384 Decrease in working capital $ (19,885,024) $ (580,814) Change in working capital - increase (decrease) : Current assets: Cash $ 854,691 $ 703,853 Receivables 9,249,687 (635,126) Inventories (590,460) 2,042,128 Prepaid insurance and other 206,141 (32,598 9,720,059 2,078,257 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (25,325,826) 3,143,444 Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (4,279,257) (5,802,515) (29,605,083) (2,659,071 Decrease in working capital $(19,885,024) $ (580,814 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 - SUCAR C.O. INC. VARIOUS SINTISTICS 1/1/74 .. 12/31/174 (BEFORE LIFO) PROFIT CONTRIBUTION Net Profit Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Add: Supervision Fees 506,000 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 14,675,927 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 SIC Note Interest 45,913 Interest Expense 1,986,461 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 60,914 Debt Amortization 14,752 Profit Contribution 16,383,957 ABEREVIATED FLOW OF FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Less: Income Tax 7,084,964 Net Income $ 7,084,963 Add: Depreciation and Amortization 1,052,693 Cash Flow $ 8,137,656. Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt 800,082 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 8,937,738 drwanch Less: Dividends 3.664,000 Capital Expenditures 1,377,877 Net Flow of Funds - Surplus/(Deficit) $ 3,895,861 NET WORKING CAPITAL @ 12/31/74 $ 5,480,545 Repairs $ 1,653,955 Refined Sugar Produced CWT 8,547,969 = it n Operating Days - Refinery 233 321 Average Production per Operating Day $ 36,687 27 \ IIIN E. Ladd 5/19/75 Söurce: https://www.industrydócuments,ucsf.edutddrst T1xx0227 VARIOUS STATISTICS 1967 - 1973 7 YEAR 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 TOTAL PROFIT CONTRIBUTION is 196 P Net Profit Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 Add: Supervision Fees 108,701 116,733 141,000 553,719 635,000 600,000 475,200 2,630,353 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 1,546,380 $ 1,864,135.1 $,1,718,417 $ 3,055,741 $ 3,866,801 $ 1,111,305 $ 897,906 $14,060,685 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 - 105,000 735,000 SIC Note Interest 138,214 145,798 138,661 131,661 124,747 117,925 111,636 908,642 Interest Expense 461,912 469,086 500,094 414,888 399,240 550,819 979,364 3,775,403 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 26,933 30,683 32,257 29,098 31,987 42,390 43,155 236,503 Debt Amortization 3,008 3,009 a - 6,017 1 Profit Contribution $ 2,281,447 $ 2,617,711 $ 2,494,129 $ 3,736,388 $ 4,527,775 $ 1,927,439 $ 2,137,061 $19,722,250 =085. ASBREVIATED FLCW 07 FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 (633) Less: Income Tax 586,061 804,000 816,551 1,069,802 1,153,238 26,466 (76,760) 4,379,358 Net Incone $ 851,618 $ 943,402 $ 760,866 $ 1,432,220 $ 2,078,563 $ 484,839 $ 499,466 $ 7,050,974 Add: Depreciation & Amortization 378,075 426,909 496,715 536,092 599,874 674,623 819,542 3,931,530 Cash Flow $ 1,229,693 $ 1,370,311 $ 1,257,581 $ 1,968,312 $ 2,678,437 $ 1,159,462 $ 1,319,008 $10,982,604 Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt (603,062) (492,620) (333,174) (495,412) 1,865,581 3,351,521 743,504 4,036,338 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 626,631 $ 877,691 $ 924,407 $ 1,472,900 $ 4,544,013 $ 4,510,983 $ 2,062,512 $15,019,142 NO Less: Dividends -0- 375,000 330,000 530,000 : 660,000 330,000 125,000 2,350,000 Capital Expenditures 1,694,961 1,099,561 942,281 755,946 2,619,417 4,187,602 2,773,893 14,078,656 Net Flou of Funds - Surplus/(Doficit) $ (1,068,330) $ (596,870) $. (347,371) $ 186,954 $ 1,264,601 $ (6,619) $ (841,376) $(1,409,514) Net Working Capital at Year-End $ 1,738,296 $ 960,279 $ 531,173 $ 499,751 $ 1,171,294 $ 2,220,053 $ 2,216,941 $ 1,627,025 Repairs $ 1,160,277 $ 1,229,468 $ 1,156,668 $ 1,326,567 $ 1,475,224 $ 1,414,386 $1.1,383,014 $ 9,145,604 Refined Sugar Produced (Cwt.) 7,270,838 8,317,724 7,741,365 9,494,161 10,502,424 9,170,169 8,457,433 - Operating Days - Refinery 268 277 246 299 .312 280 247 Average Production per Operating Day (Cwt.) 27,130 30,028 31,495 31,817 33,694 32,751 34,185 E. Ladd . 3/28/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I a - 0.042 °C - - - - it. Co N T O 0= of n- F- 8 80 . ********** i. .7 -0 *********** ++++++++4 - - CUMVERCA RAN 7 CONVERCA 3 es (--) CF- a n a - D an nca [= HE' - In a g 2 - Filent - NOTE. o THIS MAP REDUCED KALF SIZE MAP OF PLANT LATOUT na Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 (10,000) 31,000 (43,000 24,000 (4,000) LEARTYPE OUNTY OUTUNE NITED STATES - (3,000) MAP NO.117 AMERICAN MAD SOMPANY.INC $ Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SALARIED ORGANIZATION MAY 1, 1975 Operations, J. A. Metzler 2 Purchasing 6 Cincinnati 5 13 Marketing, E. R. Fleming 2 Administration 10 Sales 8 20 Finance, H. L. Kirk 4 Credit 4 Billing 3 Machine Room 2 1.3 Accounting, R. L. Crawford 11 Refinery, A. Garcia 2 Maintenance 23 Quality Assurance 10 Engineering 4 Administration 19 Operations 35 Service 2 95 Mobile, Administration and Service 6 TOTAL 158 40 158 101 67 T. Source: https://wvww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/doce 51jTbx02.27 to HOURLY ORCANIZATION - RESERVE - MAY 1, 1975 Manning is based cn requirement of two full shifts plus skeleton crew on the third shift in Pecking, and six palletized crews and two hand loading crews in Shipping. Raw Receiving 3 Affination 9 Clarification 9 Char House 18 Granulators 6 Pan Floor 16 Refined Centrifugal 12 Pre-Packaging 14 Packaging 80 Shipping - Packages 51 Shipping - Bulk 6 Liquid Sugar 6 Yard Crew 4 Sanitation 12 Security 6 Commissary 4 Laboratory 8 Utilities 12 Dock 6 Painters 8 Construction 14 Truck Drivers 5 Electrical 15 Maintenance Shops 13 Area Mechanics 20 Operations Mechanics 12 Total Required for 369* Operation *There are approximately 30 additional people on the payroll who act as vacation replacements, absentee replacements, training, etc. 360 1.58 40 Source: https:.//wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs[ilbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES 1. Information known: A. Sugar refinery at Reserve, Louisiana - 32 miles west of New Orleans on the Mississippi River. B. Liquid sugár processing plant and distribution terminal at Cincinnati, Ohio and leases sugar packaging operations at Buffalo, New York and (Chicago, Illinois 12/1/74. C. Owns 8 hydraulic material processing dredges, owns or has long term leases on 11 towboats and 88 cargo barges and under short term leases has 15 towboats and 30 barges. D. Also owns ready-mixed concrete operations and a mixer fleet in Mobile; asphalt plants at Woodstock, Margerum and Mobile, Alabama: a concrete block plant at Mobile, and supporting sales depots at Mobile, Ft. Walton Beach and Pensacola, Florida, and New Orleans owns or leases 8 stone quarries and crushing plants at Mobile, Baltimore and Houston, and chemical lime plants at Morgan City, La., and Saginaw, Ala. Company leases 2 slag processing facilities at Columbia, Tenn. E. Mineral Reserves--Company leases shell deposits from the states of Alabama and Louisiana, estimated to contain 100 million tons; leases gravel deposits estimated to contain 10 million tons owns an asphaltic limestone deposit estimated to contain 1,500,000 tons; and leases lime- stone deposits estimated to contain 200 million tons. F. Raws: 25% from U.S. 75% from Foreign G. Campaign: 312 days in 1971 280 days in 1972 247 days in 1973 232 days in 1974 H. Refined Sugar Production Production Year (Million cwts) 1971 10.5 1972 9.2 1973 8.4 1974 8.5 1. Sells sugar under two tradenames: 1. Henderson Superfine 2. Godchaux Brand continued Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES, continued Page 2 J. Current assets $53 Million. K. Long term debt $34 Million. L. Cost of replacing cane facilities: 1) Processing - $25 million Mill (3500 ton/day grind) 2) Refinery - $45 million (700 ton/day raw sugar) X 2 = 99mm II. Data needed: A. What it costs for Raws - Domestic - Foreign B. Operating costs (cost of production including G & A percent of refined sugar). C. Where receive raws from D. Costs to market place E. Financial data up to net income F. Present contractual arrangements III. To Receive 30% ROI before tax: @ 20,000 $ 6mm Example 1: Cost Proc + Profit for Price for RAWS: Raws Freight G & A 30% ROI Ref. Sugar (U.S.)25% @ 126 + 0 + 2.56 + 16 15.5 (Foreign 75% @ 7c + 1.8€ + 2.56 + 1c 12.3 TOTAL Weight Price For Refined Sugar 13.1 IV. Potential Areas to Increase Profits A. Grain Exports $45 2.47 50 B. Foreign raw prices based on refined sugar prices when sold. 11,2 C. Participating contract with growers based on refined sugar prices or foreign raws. 14/11/11 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 The President of Southern Industries Reports. Net soles for the first quarter ended March 31, 1975 were $74,686,000 compared to $51,505,000 for the same period in 1974. Net income for the period was $1,482,000 equal to $1.03 per share compared to a net loss of $1,830,000 (restated) equal to a loss of $1.23 per shore in 1974. By.product line the basic materials group had a 165% increase in pre-tox cornings over last year. This group occounted for $916,000 or opproximately 38% of pre-tax eornings. The sugar division contributed $1,437,000 or 61% to the results. With the exception of low sugar volume, the demand for our other products and materials remains strong. Your attention is directed to the notes to the following statements for a further explanation of the financial results of the first quorter. D. E. Dowson, Jr. April 22, 1975 President 1 Sales and Income (Loss) by Product Line For the three months ended March 31, 1975 and 1974 (000 omitted) SALES INCOME (LOSS) 1974 1975 1974 1975 Restated Sugor $56,118 $35,758 $ 1,437 S( 3,381) Bosic Materials 15,515 12,977 916 345 Hordwore and Machinery 3,051 2,770 58 92 Other (Non-operating) 2 - ( 58) ( 32) $74,686 $51,505 $ 2,353 $( 2,976) Income Toxes Credit (and Provision) ( 871) 1,145 Net Income (Loss) $ 1,482 $( 1,830) Per Shore $ 1.03 S( 1.22) Consolidated Financial Condition (000 omitted) March 31 1974 1975 Restated Current assets $ 50,419 $ 39,516 Current liobilities 51,420 30,445 Net current assets ( 1,001) 9,071 Properties - net 47,325 44,500 Other ossets 6,874 5,749 Total ossets less current licbilities 53,198 59,320 Long term debt (including debt due within one year) 33 33,151 32,101 Other licbilities 1,847 2,318 Total long term debt and other licbilities 55 34,998 34,419 Net assets $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Stockholders' equity: Common stock (1,433,096 shares outstanding) $ 6,059 $ 6,059 Retoined income and capital surplus 12,141 18,842 Total stockholders' equity $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Notes to Financial Statements (1) The income (les) by product line includes o statistical ollocation of corporale costs including interest expense. (2) Figures for 1974 have been restated to reflect changing to the lost in, first out (LIFO) method from the first in, first out (FIFO) and overage cost methods of accounting for the row sugar content of sugor inventories. If the FIFO and overage cost methods hod been used by the Com- pony, these inventories, and consequently net current assets, would hove been $14,803,000 and 54, 166,000 higher than reported at March 31, 1975 and 1974 (restated), respectively. (3) Results for the three months ended March 31, 1975 include income of $2,373,000 from reducing quantities of row sugar inventories under the uro method to on anticipated yeor-end level (substontially less than quantities on hand of the beginning of 1975). (4) A net operoting loss collyover available from 1974 will offsei the first $6,815,000 of taxoble income in 1975 and thus eliminate payment of toxes. The provision for toxas at March 31, 1975 of $871,000 represents a charge for deferred income taxes not currently payable. (5) Net income per shore bosed on 1,433,096 shares outstanding. (6) Depreciation and amortization included above omounted to $1,485,000 ond $1,265,000 in 1975 and 1974, respectively. P) Above figures subject to yeor-end audit. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227

what is the amount of increase in deferred charges in $?

jlbx0227

jlbx0227_p0, jlbx0227_p1, jlbx0227_p2, jlbx0227_p3, jlbx0227_p4, jlbx0227_p5, jlbx0227_p6, jlbx0227_p7, jlbx0227_p8, jlbx0227_p9, jlbx0227_p10, jlbx0227_p11, jlbx0227_p12, jlbx0227_p13, jlbx0227_p14, jlbx0227_p15, jlbx0227_p16, jlbx0227_p17, jlbx0227_p18, jlbx0227_p19

$264,575, 264,575

GH BRIEFING 6-11-75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I. GH is not worth buying for what is has earned or will earn under "normal" conditions; i.e., buy, refine, sell sugar. EBIT $600 M to $1.500M Needs $6-9MM WC to continue Can be purchased for $4-8 MM (they expect $10MM) Our "cost" is $10-17MM. . II. GH has excellent 1. Facilities at Reserve 2. Technical support personnel at Reserve 3. Distribution network relative to GW. t 2,100, on 00 3, III. GH could be a good speculative investment 2.4 Hog Low Provides A. "LONG.LIMIT 7,200,000 2, 400,000 Balance to GWS beet business 21.000,000 5.7,100 2,200,00 3.0000 Take % of Sugar Broker/dist $ 6,200,000 wwword ? 400.00 = Entry to foreign refined market 10% "Improvement on cost of raws = $16MM profit contribution" We must get a "participating K".- HFTS: 2X the Bet. on 121,000 IV. Net; get into GH as low as possible, 4 3 Emphasize the Raws problem< : Slim down overhead 95° Devise a plan that can target for $20MM EBIT. Actual Potented V hmp Ratio 73 74 AT, impiral 1.6 2.6 1.9mm Gll 4% 2.6% G,8 Source:https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., INC. PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1967. - 1970 1971 & 1974 1971 Profit Before Tax, Interest and Supervision Fees $ 11,130 M $ 6,614 M $ 4,528 M Average Per Year . 2,783 3,307 4,528 1974 Supervision (506) (506) .' (506) 1974 Interest (2,213) (2,213) (2,213) Projected Annual Profit 64 588 1,809 Investment Required to Return 10% $ 640 M $ 5,880 M $ 18,090 M 30% 213 1,950 6,030 15% 426 3,920 12,600 Production (CWT) 32,824 M CWT 19,050 M CWT 10,502 M CWT Average Per Year 8,206 9,525 10,502 1.5 33 Objective: - Get 30 day option - Full P & L information (operating statistics) - Manufacturing costs (operating statistics) Be Prepared To: - Sign LOI - Offer $4 Mm Low $5 Mm Mid $6 Mm High for 30% return before taxes $10 Mm Absolute Top Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co., INC. BALANCE SHEETS December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 ASSETS Current assets: Cash $ 2,150,212 $ 1,295,521 Federal income tax refund 1,020,891 Accounts and notes receivable: Trade 17,277,055 8,652,194 Affiliates 67,279 463,344 Inventories 12,503,941 13,094,401 Prepaid insurance and other 392,086 185,945 Total current assets 33,411,464 23,691,405 Property, plant and equipment, at cost: Land 373,300 373,300 Buildings 6,208,224 5,905,359 Machinery and equipment 14,791,863 13,812,393 Delivery and other automotive equipment 89,307 89,307 Leasehold improvements 50,662 27,707 21,513,356 20,208,066 Less accumulated depreciation 6,975,497 5,995,392 14,537,859 14,212,674 Other assets: Deferred income. taxes 1,492,919 Sundry deferred charges 368,352 629,849 Notes receivable 2,500 110,500 Advances to affiliates 126,733 1,990,504 740,349 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,428 LIABILITIES Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities: Trade $ 31,834,490 $ 6,998,742 Affiliates 846,938 356,860 Notes payable 19,019,761 14,534,993 Current portion of long-term debt 103,317 308,828 Total current liabilities (18,393) 51,804,506 22,199,423 Mortgage and notes payable, current portion above: 10-1/2% First Mortgage Note 4,747,501 4,836,043 Other notes payable 124,451 180,306 4,871,952 5,016,349 Advances from affiliates 3,178,135 3,171,156 Deferred income taxes 788,190 STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY (DEFICIT) Common stock, $100 par value; 1,041 shares authorized, issued and outstanding 104,100 104,100 Paid-in capital 2,323,239 . 2,323,239 Retained earnings (deficit), as annexed (12,342,105) 5,041,971 (9,914,765) 7,469,310 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,418 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-MENDERSON SUGAR co., , INC. PRO FORMA BALANCE SHEET AT 5/31/75 IN HANDS OF OTHERS - ON LIFO ASSETS Cash $ 1,395 Accounts Receivable 12,464 - Inventories Sugar 272,000 cwt at $11.11 3,022 Processing cost 386 Spare parts 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 19,631 Fixed assets - Net 14,353 Other assets and deferred charges 411 TOTAL ASSETS $ 34,395 LIABILITIES = Notes payable - banks $ 14,253 Notes payable - La. raw mills 7,369 Need commu Current portion of long-term debt 115 Accounts payable and accrued 3,334 2,2 Total Current Liabilities 25,071 Long-term debt 4,815 Deferred taxes 872 Deferred futures profit 716 Stockholders' equity 2,921 TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 34,395 1975 ceremated income Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Soùrce: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/j)bx0227 GODCHAUX-IENDERSON SUGAR co., INC. ESTIMATED WORKING CAPITAL MAY 31, 1975 000's omitted Current Assets Cash $ 1,395 Accounts receivable 12,464 Note receivable - U.S. Sugar Co. 240 Inventories: Raw sugar (Massequite), 40,458 cwt @ $17 688 Refined, 216,216 cwt @ $22 4,757 Spare parts, bags, mdse. for resale 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 21,908 Current Liabilities Bank notes payable 14,253 Current portion of long-term debt 115 Total notes payable 14,368 La. raw sugar payables 7,369 Other trade payables and accruals 1,755 Total Current Liabilities 23,492 Net Estimated Working Capital (Deficit) ($ 1,584) CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co. INC. ESTIMATED NET INCOME JANUARY ] THROUGH MAY 31, 1975 Pre-tax income, 4/30/75 $ 388,221 Estimated profit on April inventory liquidation 346,750 Deferred inventory liquidation profit, 4/30/75 6,329,205 Last estimated of May income 187,723 7,251,899 Estimate of income from inventory liquidation in month of May: Cwt actual, 96°, , 4/30/75 485,000 Cwt actual, 96°; 5/31/75 272,000 Liquidated 213,000 Spread ($27 May Cost - $11) x 16 $3,408,000 May liquidation profit 3,408,000 Total estimated pre-tax income 10,659,899 Book taxes at 37% consolidated rate 3,944,163 Estimated net income $ 6,715,736 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR co. INC. 2 ESTIMATED STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY MAY 31, 1975 Capital stock $ 104,100 Paid in capital, existing balance 2,323,239 Additional contributions to be made by Southern Industries 5,345,000 Total capital stock and paid-in 7,772,339 Retained earnings (deficit), 1/1/75 (12,342,104) Estimated net income, 1/1-5/31/75 6,715,736 Retained earnings (deficit), 5/31/75 ( 5,626,368) Total Estimated Stockholder's Equity, 5/31/75 $ 2,145,971 776 2,921 5. cash 3,6 2 2146 8.6 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF INCOME (LOSS) AND RETAINED EARNINGS (DEFICIT) for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Net sales $270,994,584 $121,429,038 Cost of sales 282,649,140 117,395,585 Gross profit (loss) (11,654,556) 4,033,453 Selling, general and administrative expenses 3,259,352 2,468,224 (14,913,908) 1,565,229 Other income, net 143,984 54,687 16.4mm (14,769,924) 1,619,916 Interest deductions 2,192,152 1,197,210 Income (loss) before provision (credit) for taxes 4 14,2mm (16,962,076) 422,706 Provision (credit) for income taxes: Federal: Current (990,891) (277,206) Deferred (2,251,109) 181,357 State - current 19,089 (3,242,000) (76,760) Net income (loss) the 7.1mm (13,720,076) 499,466 Retained earnings, January 1, restated 5,041,971 4,667,505 (8,678,105) 5,166,971 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 Retained earnings (deficit), December 31 $(12,342,105) $ _5,041,971 See notes to financial statements. 3 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., , INC. Statement of Change in Financial Position 1/1/15 - 4/30/75 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income $ 1244,579 Depreciation and amortization 383,018 Deferred income taxes -0- Working capital provided from operations 627,597 Decrease in other assets 4,525 Increase in deferred liabilities 8,373,106 $ 9,005,228 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment $ : 293,428 Reduction to mortgage and notes payable 56,909 Increase in deferred charges 264,575 $ 614,912 Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Changes in working capital Current assets: Cash $ (1,169,483) Receivables a 230th (7,434,849) Inventories (4,138,565) Prepaid insurance and other. 338,681 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities + 2,3sta $ (20,787,991) Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (6,541) $ (20,794,532) Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income (loss) $(13,720,076) $ 499,466 Expenses (credit) not affecting working capital in the current year: Depreciation and amortization 1,060,770 819,542 Deferred income taxes (2,251,109) 181,357 Working capital provided from (applied to) operations for the year (14,910,415) 1,500,365 Increase in advances from affiliates 6,979 Increase in mortgage and notes payable 9,430 1,022,000 Property sales and retirements, less accumulated depreciation 53,470 15,535 Other 212,764 63,670 (14,627,772) 2,601,570 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment 1,439,425 2,778,888 Reduction in mortgage and notes payable 153,827 278,496 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 5,257,252 3,182,384 Decrease in working capital $ (19,885,024) $ (580,814) Change in working capital - increase (decrease) : Current assets: Cash $ 854,691 $ 703,853 Receivables 9,249,687 (635,126) Inventories (590,460) 2,042,128 Prepaid insurance and other 206,141 (32,598 9,720,059 2,078,257 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (25,325,826) 3,143,444 Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (4,279,257) (5,802,515) (29,605,083) (2,659,071 Decrease in working capital $(19,885,024) $ (580,814 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 - SUCAR C.O. INC. VARIOUS SINTISTICS 1/1/74 .. 12/31/174 (BEFORE LIFO) PROFIT CONTRIBUTION Net Profit Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Add: Supervision Fees 506,000 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 14,675,927 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 SIC Note Interest 45,913 Interest Expense 1,986,461 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 60,914 Debt Amortization 14,752 Profit Contribution 16,383,957 ABEREVIATED FLOW OF FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Less: Income Tax 7,084,964 Net Income $ 7,084,963 Add: Depreciation and Amortization 1,052,693 Cash Flow $ 8,137,656. Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt 800,082 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 8,937,738 drwanch Less: Dividends 3.664,000 Capital Expenditures 1,377,877 Net Flow of Funds - Surplus/(Deficit) $ 3,895,861 NET WORKING CAPITAL @ 12/31/74 $ 5,480,545 Repairs $ 1,653,955 Refined Sugar Produced CWT 8,547,969 = it n Operating Days - Refinery 233 321 Average Production per Operating Day $ 36,687 27 \ IIIN E. Ladd 5/19/75 Söurce: https://www.industrydócuments,ucsf.edutddrst T1xx0227 VARIOUS STATISTICS 1967 - 1973 7 YEAR 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 TOTAL PROFIT CONTRIBUTION is 196 P Net Profit Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 Add: Supervision Fees 108,701 116,733 141,000 553,719 635,000 600,000 475,200 2,630,353 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 1,546,380 $ 1,864,135.1 $,1,718,417 $ 3,055,741 $ 3,866,801 $ 1,111,305 $ 897,906 $14,060,685 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 - 105,000 735,000 SIC Note Interest 138,214 145,798 138,661 131,661 124,747 117,925 111,636 908,642 Interest Expense 461,912 469,086 500,094 414,888 399,240 550,819 979,364 3,775,403 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 26,933 30,683 32,257 29,098 31,987 42,390 43,155 236,503 Debt Amortization 3,008 3,009 a - 6,017 1 Profit Contribution $ 2,281,447 $ 2,617,711 $ 2,494,129 $ 3,736,388 $ 4,527,775 $ 1,927,439 $ 2,137,061 $19,722,250 =085. ASBREVIATED FLCW 07 FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 (633) Less: Income Tax 586,061 804,000 816,551 1,069,802 1,153,238 26,466 (76,760) 4,379,358 Net Incone $ 851,618 $ 943,402 $ 760,866 $ 1,432,220 $ 2,078,563 $ 484,839 $ 499,466 $ 7,050,974 Add: Depreciation & Amortization 378,075 426,909 496,715 536,092 599,874 674,623 819,542 3,931,530 Cash Flow $ 1,229,693 $ 1,370,311 $ 1,257,581 $ 1,968,312 $ 2,678,437 $ 1,159,462 $ 1,319,008 $10,982,604 Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt (603,062) (492,620) (333,174) (495,412) 1,865,581 3,351,521 743,504 4,036,338 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 626,631 $ 877,691 $ 924,407 $ 1,472,900 $ 4,544,013 $ 4,510,983 $ 2,062,512 $15,019,142 NO Less: Dividends -0- 375,000 330,000 530,000 : 660,000 330,000 125,000 2,350,000 Capital Expenditures 1,694,961 1,099,561 942,281 755,946 2,619,417 4,187,602 2,773,893 14,078,656 Net Flou of Funds - Surplus/(Doficit) $ (1,068,330) $ (596,870) $. (347,371) $ 186,954 $ 1,264,601 $ (6,619) $ (841,376) $(1,409,514) Net Working Capital at Year-End $ 1,738,296 $ 960,279 $ 531,173 $ 499,751 $ 1,171,294 $ 2,220,053 $ 2,216,941 $ 1,627,025 Repairs $ 1,160,277 $ 1,229,468 $ 1,156,668 $ 1,326,567 $ 1,475,224 $ 1,414,386 $1.1,383,014 $ 9,145,604 Refined Sugar Produced (Cwt.) 7,270,838 8,317,724 7,741,365 9,494,161 10,502,424 9,170,169 8,457,433 - Operating Days - Refinery 268 277 246 299 .312 280 247 Average Production per Operating Day (Cwt.) 27,130 30,028 31,495 31,817 33,694 32,751 34,185 E. Ladd . 3/28/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I a - 0.042 °C - - - - it. Co N T O 0= of n- F- 8 80 . ********** i. .7 -0 *********** ++++++++4 - - CUMVERCA RAN 7 CONVERCA 3 es (--) CF- a n a - D an nca [= HE' - In a g 2 - Filent - NOTE. o THIS MAP REDUCED KALF SIZE MAP OF PLANT LATOUT na Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 (10,000) 31,000 (43,000 24,000 (4,000) LEARTYPE OUNTY OUTUNE NITED STATES - (3,000) MAP NO.117 AMERICAN MAD SOMPANY.INC $ Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SALARIED ORGANIZATION MAY 1, 1975 Operations, J. A. Metzler 2 Purchasing 6 Cincinnati 5 13 Marketing, E. R. Fleming 2 Administration 10 Sales 8 20 Finance, H. L. Kirk 4 Credit 4 Billing 3 Machine Room 2 1.3 Accounting, R. L. Crawford 11 Refinery, A. Garcia 2 Maintenance 23 Quality Assurance 10 Engineering 4 Administration 19 Operations 35 Service 2 95 Mobile, Administration and Service 6 TOTAL 158 40 158 101 67 T. Source: https://wvww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/doce 51jTbx02.27 to HOURLY ORCANIZATION - RESERVE - MAY 1, 1975 Manning is based cn requirement of two full shifts plus skeleton crew on the third shift in Pecking, and six palletized crews and two hand loading crews in Shipping. Raw Receiving 3 Affination 9 Clarification 9 Char House 18 Granulators 6 Pan Floor 16 Refined Centrifugal 12 Pre-Packaging 14 Packaging 80 Shipping - Packages 51 Shipping - Bulk 6 Liquid Sugar 6 Yard Crew 4 Sanitation 12 Security 6 Commissary 4 Laboratory 8 Utilities 12 Dock 6 Painters 8 Construction 14 Truck Drivers 5 Electrical 15 Maintenance Shops 13 Area Mechanics 20 Operations Mechanics 12 Total Required for 369* Operation *There are approximately 30 additional people on the payroll who act as vacation replacements, absentee replacements, training, etc. 360 1.58 40 Source: https:.//wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs[ilbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES 1. Information known: A. Sugar refinery at Reserve, Louisiana - 32 miles west of New Orleans on the Mississippi River. B. Liquid sugár processing plant and distribution terminal at Cincinnati, Ohio and leases sugar packaging operations at Buffalo, New York and (Chicago, Illinois 12/1/74. C. Owns 8 hydraulic material processing dredges, owns or has long term leases on 11 towboats and 88 cargo barges and under short term leases has 15 towboats and 30 barges. D. Also owns ready-mixed concrete operations and a mixer fleet in Mobile; asphalt plants at Woodstock, Margerum and Mobile, Alabama: a concrete block plant at Mobile, and supporting sales depots at Mobile, Ft. Walton Beach and Pensacola, Florida, and New Orleans owns or leases 8 stone quarries and crushing plants at Mobile, Baltimore and Houston, and chemical lime plants at Morgan City, La., and Saginaw, Ala. Company leases 2 slag processing facilities at Columbia, Tenn. E. Mineral Reserves--Company leases shell deposits from the states of Alabama and Louisiana, estimated to contain 100 million tons; leases gravel deposits estimated to contain 10 million tons owns an asphaltic limestone deposit estimated to contain 1,500,000 tons; and leases lime- stone deposits estimated to contain 200 million tons. F. Raws: 25% from U.S. 75% from Foreign G. Campaign: 312 days in 1971 280 days in 1972 247 days in 1973 232 days in 1974 H. Refined Sugar Production Production Year (Million cwts) 1971 10.5 1972 9.2 1973 8.4 1974 8.5 1. Sells sugar under two tradenames: 1. Henderson Superfine 2. Godchaux Brand continued Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES, continued Page 2 J. Current assets $53 Million. K. Long term debt $34 Million. L. Cost of replacing cane facilities: 1) Processing - $25 million Mill (3500 ton/day grind) 2) Refinery - $45 million (700 ton/day raw sugar) X 2 = 99mm II. Data needed: A. What it costs for Raws - Domestic - Foreign B. Operating costs (cost of production including G & A percent of refined sugar). C. Where receive raws from D. Costs to market place E. Financial data up to net income F. Present contractual arrangements III. To Receive 30% ROI before tax: @ 20,000 $ 6mm Example 1: Cost Proc + Profit for Price for RAWS: Raws Freight G & A 30% ROI Ref. Sugar (U.S.)25% @ 126 + 0 + 2.56 + 16 15.5 (Foreign 75% @ 7c + 1.8€ + 2.56 + 1c 12.3 TOTAL Weight Price For Refined Sugar 13.1 IV. Potential Areas to Increase Profits A. Grain Exports $45 2.47 50 B. Foreign raw prices based on refined sugar prices when sold. 11,2 C. Participating contract with growers based on refined sugar prices or foreign raws. 14/11/11 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 The President of Southern Industries Reports. Net soles for the first quarter ended March 31, 1975 were $74,686,000 compared to $51,505,000 for the same period in 1974. Net income for the period was $1,482,000 equal to $1.03 per share compared to a net loss of $1,830,000 (restated) equal to a loss of $1.23 per shore in 1974. By.product line the basic materials group had a 165% increase in pre-tox cornings over last year. This group occounted for $916,000 or opproximately 38% of pre-tax eornings. The sugar division contributed $1,437,000 or 61% to the results. With the exception of low sugar volume, the demand for our other products and materials remains strong. Your attention is directed to the notes to the following statements for a further explanation of the financial results of the first quorter. D. E. Dowson, Jr. April 22, 1975 President 1 Sales and Income (Loss) by Product Line For the three months ended March 31, 1975 and 1974 (000 omitted) SALES INCOME (LOSS) 1974 1975 1974 1975 Restated Sugor $56,118 $35,758 $ 1,437 S( 3,381) Bosic Materials 15,515 12,977 916 345 Hordwore and Machinery 3,051 2,770 58 92 Other (Non-operating) 2 - ( 58) ( 32) $74,686 $51,505 $ 2,353 $( 2,976) Income Toxes Credit (and Provision) ( 871) 1,145 Net Income (Loss) $ 1,482 $( 1,830) Per Shore $ 1.03 S( 1.22) Consolidated Financial Condition (000 omitted) March 31 1974 1975 Restated Current assets $ 50,419 $ 39,516 Current liobilities 51,420 30,445 Net current assets ( 1,001) 9,071 Properties - net 47,325 44,500 Other ossets 6,874 5,749 Total ossets less current licbilities 53,198 59,320 Long term debt (including debt due within one year) 33 33,151 32,101 Other licbilities 1,847 2,318 Total long term debt and other licbilities 55 34,998 34,419 Net assets $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Stockholders' equity: Common stock (1,433,096 shares outstanding) $ 6,059 $ 6,059 Retoined income and capital surplus 12,141 18,842 Total stockholders' equity $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Notes to Financial Statements (1) The income (les) by product line includes o statistical ollocation of corporale costs including interest expense. (2) Figures for 1974 have been restated to reflect changing to the lost in, first out (LIFO) method from the first in, first out (FIFO) and overage cost methods of accounting for the row sugar content of sugor inventories. If the FIFO and overage cost methods hod been used by the Com- pony, these inventories, and consequently net current assets, would hove been $14,803,000 and 54, 166,000 higher than reported at March 31, 1975 and 1974 (restated), respectively. (3) Results for the three months ended March 31, 1975 include income of $2,373,000 from reducing quantities of row sugar inventories under the uro method to on anticipated yeor-end level (substontially less than quantities on hand of the beginning of 1975). (4) A net operoting loss collyover available from 1974 will offsei the first $6,815,000 of taxoble income in 1975 and thus eliminate payment of toxes. The provision for toxas at March 31, 1975 of $871,000 represents a charge for deferred income taxes not currently payable. (5) Net income per shore bosed on 1,433,096 shares outstanding. (6) Depreciation and amortization included above omounted to $1,485,000 ond $1,265,000 in 1975 and 1974, respectively. P) Above figures subject to yeor-end audit. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227

what is the name of the given statement ?

jlbx0227

jlbx0227_p0, jlbx0227_p1, jlbx0227_p2, jlbx0227_p3, jlbx0227_p4, jlbx0227_p5, jlbx0227_p6, jlbx0227_p7, jlbx0227_p8, jlbx0227_p9, jlbx0227_p10, jlbx0227_p11, jlbx0227_p12, jlbx0227_p13, jlbx0227_p14, jlbx0227_p15, jlbx0227_p16, jlbx0227_p17, jlbx0227_p18, jlbx0227_p19

statement of change in financial position

GH BRIEFING 6-11-75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I. GH is not worth buying for what is has earned or will earn under "normal" conditions; i.e., buy, refine, sell sugar. EBIT $600 M to $1.500M Needs $6-9MM WC to continue Can be purchased for $4-8 MM (they expect $10MM) Our "cost" is $10-17MM. . II. GH has excellent 1. Facilities at Reserve 2. Technical support personnel at Reserve 3. Distribution network relative to GW. t 2,100, on 00 3, III. GH could be a good speculative investment 2.4 Hog Low Provides A. "LONG.LIMIT 7,200,000 2, 400,000 Balance to GWS beet business 21.000,000 5.7,100 2,200,00 3.0000 Take % of Sugar Broker/dist $ 6,200,000 wwword ? 400.00 = Entry to foreign refined market 10% "Improvement on cost of raws = $16MM profit contribution" We must get a "participating K".- HFTS: 2X the Bet. on 121,000 IV. Net; get into GH as low as possible, 4 3 Emphasize the Raws problem< : Slim down overhead 95° Devise a plan that can target for $20MM EBIT. Actual Potented V hmp Ratio 73 74 AT, impiral 1.6 2.6 1.9mm Gll 4% 2.6% G,8 Source:https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., INC. PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1967. - 1970 1971 & 1974 1971 Profit Before Tax, Interest and Supervision Fees $ 11,130 M $ 6,614 M $ 4,528 M Average Per Year . 2,783 3,307 4,528 1974 Supervision (506) (506) .' (506) 1974 Interest (2,213) (2,213) (2,213) Projected Annual Profit 64 588 1,809 Investment Required to Return 10% $ 640 M $ 5,880 M $ 18,090 M 30% 213 1,950 6,030 15% 426 3,920 12,600 Production (CWT) 32,824 M CWT 19,050 M CWT 10,502 M CWT Average Per Year 8,206 9,525 10,502 1.5 33 Objective: - Get 30 day option - Full P & L information (operating statistics) - Manufacturing costs (operating statistics) Be Prepared To: - Sign LOI - Offer $4 Mm Low $5 Mm Mid $6 Mm High for 30% return before taxes $10 Mm Absolute Top Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co., INC. BALANCE SHEETS December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 ASSETS Current assets: Cash $ 2,150,212 $ 1,295,521 Federal income tax refund 1,020,891 Accounts and notes receivable: Trade 17,277,055 8,652,194 Affiliates 67,279 463,344 Inventories 12,503,941 13,094,401 Prepaid insurance and other 392,086 185,945 Total current assets 33,411,464 23,691,405 Property, plant and equipment, at cost: Land 373,300 373,300 Buildings 6,208,224 5,905,359 Machinery and equipment 14,791,863 13,812,393 Delivery and other automotive equipment 89,307 89,307 Leasehold improvements 50,662 27,707 21,513,356 20,208,066 Less accumulated depreciation 6,975,497 5,995,392 14,537,859 14,212,674 Other assets: Deferred income. taxes 1,492,919 Sundry deferred charges 368,352 629,849 Notes receivable 2,500 110,500 Advances to affiliates 126,733 1,990,504 740,349 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,428 LIABILITIES Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities: Trade $ 31,834,490 $ 6,998,742 Affiliates 846,938 356,860 Notes payable 19,019,761 14,534,993 Current portion of long-term debt 103,317 308,828 Total current liabilities (18,393) 51,804,506 22,199,423 Mortgage and notes payable, current portion above: 10-1/2% First Mortgage Note 4,747,501 4,836,043 Other notes payable 124,451 180,306 4,871,952 5,016,349 Advances from affiliates 3,178,135 3,171,156 Deferred income taxes 788,190 STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY (DEFICIT) Common stock, $100 par value; 1,041 shares authorized, issued and outstanding 104,100 104,100 Paid-in capital 2,323,239 . 2,323,239 Retained earnings (deficit), as annexed (12,342,105) 5,041,971 (9,914,765) 7,469,310 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,418 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-MENDERSON SUGAR co., , INC. PRO FORMA BALANCE SHEET AT 5/31/75 IN HANDS OF OTHERS - ON LIFO ASSETS Cash $ 1,395 Accounts Receivable 12,464 - Inventories Sugar 272,000 cwt at $11.11 3,022 Processing cost 386 Spare parts 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 19,631 Fixed assets - Net 14,353 Other assets and deferred charges 411 TOTAL ASSETS $ 34,395 LIABILITIES = Notes payable - banks $ 14,253 Notes payable - La. raw mills 7,369 Need commu Current portion of long-term debt 115 Accounts payable and accrued 3,334 2,2 Total Current Liabilities 25,071 Long-term debt 4,815 Deferred taxes 872 Deferred futures profit 716 Stockholders' equity 2,921 TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 34,395 1975 ceremated income Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Soùrce: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/j)bx0227 GODCHAUX-IENDERSON SUGAR co., INC. ESTIMATED WORKING CAPITAL MAY 31, 1975 000's omitted Current Assets Cash $ 1,395 Accounts receivable 12,464 Note receivable - U.S. Sugar Co. 240 Inventories: Raw sugar (Massequite), 40,458 cwt @ $17 688 Refined, 216,216 cwt @ $22 4,757 Spare parts, bags, mdse. for resale 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 21,908 Current Liabilities Bank notes payable 14,253 Current portion of long-term debt 115 Total notes payable 14,368 La. raw sugar payables 7,369 Other trade payables and accruals 1,755 Total Current Liabilities 23,492 Net Estimated Working Capital (Deficit) ($ 1,584) CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co. INC. ESTIMATED NET INCOME JANUARY ] THROUGH MAY 31, 1975 Pre-tax income, 4/30/75 $ 388,221 Estimated profit on April inventory liquidation 346,750 Deferred inventory liquidation profit, 4/30/75 6,329,205 Last estimated of May income 187,723 7,251,899 Estimate of income from inventory liquidation in month of May: Cwt actual, 96°, , 4/30/75 485,000 Cwt actual, 96°; 5/31/75 272,000 Liquidated 213,000 Spread ($27 May Cost - $11) x 16 $3,408,000 May liquidation profit 3,408,000 Total estimated pre-tax income 10,659,899 Book taxes at 37% consolidated rate 3,944,163 Estimated net income $ 6,715,736 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR co. INC. 2 ESTIMATED STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY MAY 31, 1975 Capital stock $ 104,100 Paid in capital, existing balance 2,323,239 Additional contributions to be made by Southern Industries 5,345,000 Total capital stock and paid-in 7,772,339 Retained earnings (deficit), 1/1/75 (12,342,104) Estimated net income, 1/1-5/31/75 6,715,736 Retained earnings (deficit), 5/31/75 ( 5,626,368) Total Estimated Stockholder's Equity, 5/31/75 $ 2,145,971 776 2,921 5. cash 3,6 2 2146 8.6 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF INCOME (LOSS) AND RETAINED EARNINGS (DEFICIT) for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Net sales $270,994,584 $121,429,038 Cost of sales 282,649,140 117,395,585 Gross profit (loss) (11,654,556) 4,033,453 Selling, general and administrative expenses 3,259,352 2,468,224 (14,913,908) 1,565,229 Other income, net 143,984 54,687 16.4mm (14,769,924) 1,619,916 Interest deductions 2,192,152 1,197,210 Income (loss) before provision (credit) for taxes 4 14,2mm (16,962,076) 422,706 Provision (credit) for income taxes: Federal: Current (990,891) (277,206) Deferred (2,251,109) 181,357 State - current 19,089 (3,242,000) (76,760) Net income (loss) the 7.1mm (13,720,076) 499,466 Retained earnings, January 1, restated 5,041,971 4,667,505 (8,678,105) 5,166,971 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 Retained earnings (deficit), December 31 $(12,342,105) $ _5,041,971 See notes to financial statements. 3 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., , INC. Statement of Change in Financial Position 1/1/15 - 4/30/75 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income $ 1244,579 Depreciation and amortization 383,018 Deferred income taxes -0- Working capital provided from operations 627,597 Decrease in other assets 4,525 Increase in deferred liabilities 8,373,106 $ 9,005,228 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment $ : 293,428 Reduction to mortgage and notes payable 56,909 Increase in deferred charges 264,575 $ 614,912 Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Changes in working capital Current assets: Cash $ (1,169,483) Receivables a 230th (7,434,849) Inventories (4,138,565) Prepaid insurance and other. 338,681 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities + 2,3sta $ (20,787,991) Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (6,541) $ (20,794,532) Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income (loss) $(13,720,076) $ 499,466 Expenses (credit) not affecting working capital in the current year: Depreciation and amortization 1,060,770 819,542 Deferred income taxes (2,251,109) 181,357 Working capital provided from (applied to) operations for the year (14,910,415) 1,500,365 Increase in advances from affiliates 6,979 Increase in mortgage and notes payable 9,430 1,022,000 Property sales and retirements, less accumulated depreciation 53,470 15,535 Other 212,764 63,670 (14,627,772) 2,601,570 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment 1,439,425 2,778,888 Reduction in mortgage and notes payable 153,827 278,496 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 5,257,252 3,182,384 Decrease in working capital $ (19,885,024) $ (580,814) Change in working capital - increase (decrease) : Current assets: Cash $ 854,691 $ 703,853 Receivables 9,249,687 (635,126) Inventories (590,460) 2,042,128 Prepaid insurance and other 206,141 (32,598 9,720,059 2,078,257 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (25,325,826) 3,143,444 Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (4,279,257) (5,802,515) (29,605,083) (2,659,071 Decrease in working capital $(19,885,024) $ (580,814 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 - SUCAR C.O. INC. VARIOUS SINTISTICS 1/1/74 .. 12/31/174 (BEFORE LIFO) PROFIT CONTRIBUTION Net Profit Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Add: Supervision Fees 506,000 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 14,675,927 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 SIC Note Interest 45,913 Interest Expense 1,986,461 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 60,914 Debt Amortization 14,752 Profit Contribution 16,383,957 ABEREVIATED FLOW OF FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Less: Income Tax 7,084,964 Net Income $ 7,084,963 Add: Depreciation and Amortization 1,052,693 Cash Flow $ 8,137,656. Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt 800,082 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 8,937,738 drwanch Less: Dividends 3.664,000 Capital Expenditures 1,377,877 Net Flow of Funds - Surplus/(Deficit) $ 3,895,861 NET WORKING CAPITAL @ 12/31/74 $ 5,480,545 Repairs $ 1,653,955 Refined Sugar Produced CWT 8,547,969 = it n Operating Days - Refinery 233 321 Average Production per Operating Day $ 36,687 27 \ IIIN E. Ladd 5/19/75 Söurce: https://www.industrydócuments,ucsf.edutddrst T1xx0227 VARIOUS STATISTICS 1967 - 1973 7 YEAR 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 TOTAL PROFIT CONTRIBUTION is 196 P Net Profit Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 Add: Supervision Fees 108,701 116,733 141,000 553,719 635,000 600,000 475,200 2,630,353 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 1,546,380 $ 1,864,135.1 $,1,718,417 $ 3,055,741 $ 3,866,801 $ 1,111,305 $ 897,906 $14,060,685 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 - 105,000 735,000 SIC Note Interest 138,214 145,798 138,661 131,661 124,747 117,925 111,636 908,642 Interest Expense 461,912 469,086 500,094 414,888 399,240 550,819 979,364 3,775,403 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 26,933 30,683 32,257 29,098 31,987 42,390 43,155 236,503 Debt Amortization 3,008 3,009 a - 6,017 1 Profit Contribution $ 2,281,447 $ 2,617,711 $ 2,494,129 $ 3,736,388 $ 4,527,775 $ 1,927,439 $ 2,137,061 $19,722,250 =085. ASBREVIATED FLCW 07 FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 (633) Less: Income Tax 586,061 804,000 816,551 1,069,802 1,153,238 26,466 (76,760) 4,379,358 Net Incone $ 851,618 $ 943,402 $ 760,866 $ 1,432,220 $ 2,078,563 $ 484,839 $ 499,466 $ 7,050,974 Add: Depreciation & Amortization 378,075 426,909 496,715 536,092 599,874 674,623 819,542 3,931,530 Cash Flow $ 1,229,693 $ 1,370,311 $ 1,257,581 $ 1,968,312 $ 2,678,437 $ 1,159,462 $ 1,319,008 $10,982,604 Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt (603,062) (492,620) (333,174) (495,412) 1,865,581 3,351,521 743,504 4,036,338 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 626,631 $ 877,691 $ 924,407 $ 1,472,900 $ 4,544,013 $ 4,510,983 $ 2,062,512 $15,019,142 NO Less: Dividends -0- 375,000 330,000 530,000 : 660,000 330,000 125,000 2,350,000 Capital Expenditures 1,694,961 1,099,561 942,281 755,946 2,619,417 4,187,602 2,773,893 14,078,656 Net Flou of Funds - Surplus/(Doficit) $ (1,068,330) $ (596,870) $. (347,371) $ 186,954 $ 1,264,601 $ (6,619) $ (841,376) $(1,409,514) Net Working Capital at Year-End $ 1,738,296 $ 960,279 $ 531,173 $ 499,751 $ 1,171,294 $ 2,220,053 $ 2,216,941 $ 1,627,025 Repairs $ 1,160,277 $ 1,229,468 $ 1,156,668 $ 1,326,567 $ 1,475,224 $ 1,414,386 $1.1,383,014 $ 9,145,604 Refined Sugar Produced (Cwt.) 7,270,838 8,317,724 7,741,365 9,494,161 10,502,424 9,170,169 8,457,433 - Operating Days - Refinery 268 277 246 299 .312 280 247 Average Production per Operating Day (Cwt.) 27,130 30,028 31,495 31,817 33,694 32,751 34,185 E. Ladd . 3/28/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I a - 0.042 °C - - - - it. Co N T O 0= of n- F- 8 80 . ********** i. .7 -0 *********** ++++++++4 - - CUMVERCA RAN 7 CONVERCA 3 es (--) CF- a n a - D an nca [= HE' - In a g 2 - Filent - NOTE. o THIS MAP REDUCED KALF SIZE MAP OF PLANT LATOUT na Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 (10,000) 31,000 (43,000 24,000 (4,000) LEARTYPE OUNTY OUTUNE NITED STATES - (3,000) MAP NO.117 AMERICAN MAD SOMPANY.INC $ Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SALARIED ORGANIZATION MAY 1, 1975 Operations, J. A. Metzler 2 Purchasing 6 Cincinnati 5 13 Marketing, E. R. Fleming 2 Administration 10 Sales 8 20 Finance, H. L. Kirk 4 Credit 4 Billing 3 Machine Room 2 1.3 Accounting, R. L. Crawford 11 Refinery, A. Garcia 2 Maintenance 23 Quality Assurance 10 Engineering 4 Administration 19 Operations 35 Service 2 95 Mobile, Administration and Service 6 TOTAL 158 40 158 101 67 T. Source: https://wvww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/doce 51jTbx02.27 to HOURLY ORCANIZATION - RESERVE - MAY 1, 1975 Manning is based cn requirement of two full shifts plus skeleton crew on the third shift in Pecking, and six palletized crews and two hand loading crews in Shipping. Raw Receiving 3 Affination 9 Clarification 9 Char House 18 Granulators 6 Pan Floor 16 Refined Centrifugal 12 Pre-Packaging 14 Packaging 80 Shipping - Packages 51 Shipping - Bulk 6 Liquid Sugar 6 Yard Crew 4 Sanitation 12 Security 6 Commissary 4 Laboratory 8 Utilities 12 Dock 6 Painters 8 Construction 14 Truck Drivers 5 Electrical 15 Maintenance Shops 13 Area Mechanics 20 Operations Mechanics 12 Total Required for 369* Operation *There are approximately 30 additional people on the payroll who act as vacation replacements, absentee replacements, training, etc. 360 1.58 40 Source: https:.//wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs[ilbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES 1. Information known: A. Sugar refinery at Reserve, Louisiana - 32 miles west of New Orleans on the Mississippi River. B. Liquid sugár processing plant and distribution terminal at Cincinnati, Ohio and leases sugar packaging operations at Buffalo, New York and (Chicago, Illinois 12/1/74. C. Owns 8 hydraulic material processing dredges, owns or has long term leases on 11 towboats and 88 cargo barges and under short term leases has 15 towboats and 30 barges. D. Also owns ready-mixed concrete operations and a mixer fleet in Mobile; asphalt plants at Woodstock, Margerum and Mobile, Alabama: a concrete block plant at Mobile, and supporting sales depots at Mobile, Ft. Walton Beach and Pensacola, Florida, and New Orleans owns or leases 8 stone quarries and crushing plants at Mobile, Baltimore and Houston, and chemical lime plants at Morgan City, La., and Saginaw, Ala. Company leases 2 slag processing facilities at Columbia, Tenn. E. Mineral Reserves--Company leases shell deposits from the states of Alabama and Louisiana, estimated to contain 100 million tons; leases gravel deposits estimated to contain 10 million tons owns an asphaltic limestone deposit estimated to contain 1,500,000 tons; and leases lime- stone deposits estimated to contain 200 million tons. F. Raws: 25% from U.S. 75% from Foreign G. Campaign: 312 days in 1971 280 days in 1972 247 days in 1973 232 days in 1974 H. Refined Sugar Production Production Year (Million cwts) 1971 10.5 1972 9.2 1973 8.4 1974 8.5 1. Sells sugar under two tradenames: 1. Henderson Superfine 2. Godchaux Brand continued Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES, continued Page 2 J. Current assets $53 Million. K. Long term debt $34 Million. L. Cost of replacing cane facilities: 1) Processing - $25 million Mill (3500 ton/day grind) 2) Refinery - $45 million (700 ton/day raw sugar) X 2 = 99mm II. Data needed: A. What it costs for Raws - Domestic - Foreign B. Operating costs (cost of production including G & A percent of refined sugar). C. Where receive raws from D. Costs to market place E. Financial data up to net income F. Present contractual arrangements III. To Receive 30% ROI before tax: @ 20,000 $ 6mm Example 1: Cost Proc + Profit for Price for RAWS: Raws Freight G & A 30% ROI Ref. Sugar (U.S.)25% @ 126 + 0 + 2.56 + 16 15.5 (Foreign 75% @ 7c + 1.8€ + 2.56 + 1c 12.3 TOTAL Weight Price For Refined Sugar 13.1 IV. Potential Areas to Increase Profits A. Grain Exports $45 2.47 50 B. Foreign raw prices based on refined sugar prices when sold. 11,2 C. Participating contract with growers based on refined sugar prices or foreign raws. 14/11/11 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 The President of Southern Industries Reports. Net soles for the first quarter ended March 31, 1975 were $74,686,000 compared to $51,505,000 for the same period in 1974. Net income for the period was $1,482,000 equal to $1.03 per share compared to a net loss of $1,830,000 (restated) equal to a loss of $1.23 per shore in 1974. By.product line the basic materials group had a 165% increase in pre-tox cornings over last year. This group occounted for $916,000 or opproximately 38% of pre-tax eornings. The sugar division contributed $1,437,000 or 61% to the results. With the exception of low sugar volume, the demand for our other products and materials remains strong. Your attention is directed to the notes to the following statements for a further explanation of the financial results of the first quorter. D. E. Dowson, Jr. April 22, 1975 President 1 Sales and Income (Loss) by Product Line For the three months ended March 31, 1975 and 1974 (000 omitted) SALES INCOME (LOSS) 1974 1975 1974 1975 Restated Sugor $56,118 $35,758 $ 1,437 S( 3,381) Bosic Materials 15,515 12,977 916 345 Hordwore and Machinery 3,051 2,770 58 92 Other (Non-operating) 2 - ( 58) ( 32) $74,686 $51,505 $ 2,353 $( 2,976) Income Toxes Credit (and Provision) ( 871) 1,145 Net Income (Loss) $ 1,482 $( 1,830) Per Shore $ 1.03 S( 1.22) Consolidated Financial Condition (000 omitted) March 31 1974 1975 Restated Current assets $ 50,419 $ 39,516 Current liobilities 51,420 30,445 Net current assets ( 1,001) 9,071 Properties - net 47,325 44,500 Other ossets 6,874 5,749 Total ossets less current licbilities 53,198 59,320 Long term debt (including debt due within one year) 33 33,151 32,101 Other licbilities 1,847 2,318 Total long term debt and other licbilities 55 34,998 34,419 Net assets $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Stockholders' equity: Common stock (1,433,096 shares outstanding) $ 6,059 $ 6,059 Retoined income and capital surplus 12,141 18,842 Total stockholders' equity $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Notes to Financial Statements (1) The income (les) by product line includes o statistical ollocation of corporale costs including interest expense. (2) Figures for 1974 have been restated to reflect changing to the lost in, first out (LIFO) method from the first in, first out (FIFO) and overage cost methods of accounting for the row sugar content of sugor inventories. If the FIFO and overage cost methods hod been used by the Com- pony, these inventories, and consequently net current assets, would hove been $14,803,000 and 54, 166,000 higher than reported at March 31, 1975 and 1974 (restated), respectively. (3) Results for the three months ended March 31, 1975 include income of $2,373,000 from reducing quantities of row sugar inventories under the uro method to on anticipated yeor-end level (substontially less than quantities on hand of the beginning of 1975). (4) A net operoting loss collyover available from 1974 will offsei the first $6,815,000 of taxoble income in 1975 and thus eliminate payment of toxes. The provision for toxas at March 31, 1975 of $871,000 represents a charge for deferred income taxes not currently payable. (5) Net income per shore bosed on 1,433,096 shares outstanding. (6) Depreciation and amortization included above omounted to $1,485,000 ond $1,265,000 in 1975 and 1974, respectively. P) Above figures subject to yeor-end audit. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227

what is the amount of increase in working capital in $ ?

jlbx0227

jlbx0227_p0, jlbx0227_p1, jlbx0227_p2, jlbx0227_p3, jlbx0227_p4, jlbx0227_p5, jlbx0227_p6, jlbx0227_p7, jlbx0227_p8, jlbx0227_p9, jlbx0227_p10, jlbx0227_p11, jlbx0227_p12, jlbx0227_p13, jlbx0227_p14, jlbx0227_p15, jlbx0227_p16, jlbx0227_p17, jlbx0227_p18, jlbx0227_p19

$ 8,390,316, 8,390,316, $8,390,316

GH BRIEFING 6-11-75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I. GH is not worth buying for what is has earned or will earn under "normal" conditions; i.e., buy, refine, sell sugar. EBIT $600 M to $1.500M Needs $6-9MM WC to continue Can be purchased for $4-8 MM (they expect $10MM) Our "cost" is $10-17MM. . II. GH has excellent 1. Facilities at Reserve 2. Technical support personnel at Reserve 3. Distribution network relative to GW. t 2,100, on 00 3, III. GH could be a good speculative investment 2.4 Hog Low Provides A. "LONG.LIMIT 7,200,000 2, 400,000 Balance to GWS beet business 21.000,000 5.7,100 2,200,00 3.0000 Take % of Sugar Broker/dist $ 6,200,000 wwword ? 400.00 = Entry to foreign refined market 10% "Improvement on cost of raws = $16MM profit contribution" We must get a "participating K".- HFTS: 2X the Bet. on 121,000 IV. Net; get into GH as low as possible, 4 3 Emphasize the Raws problem< : Slim down overhead 95° Devise a plan that can target for $20MM EBIT. Actual Potented V hmp Ratio 73 74 AT, impiral 1.6 2.6 1.9mm Gll 4% 2.6% G,8 Source:https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., INC. PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1967. - 1970 1971 & 1974 1971 Profit Before Tax, Interest and Supervision Fees $ 11,130 M $ 6,614 M $ 4,528 M Average Per Year . 2,783 3,307 4,528 1974 Supervision (506) (506) .' (506) 1974 Interest (2,213) (2,213) (2,213) Projected Annual Profit 64 588 1,809 Investment Required to Return 10% $ 640 M $ 5,880 M $ 18,090 M 30% 213 1,950 6,030 15% 426 3,920 12,600 Production (CWT) 32,824 M CWT 19,050 M CWT 10,502 M CWT Average Per Year 8,206 9,525 10,502 1.5 33 Objective: - Get 30 day option - Full P & L information (operating statistics) - Manufacturing costs (operating statistics) Be Prepared To: - Sign LOI - Offer $4 Mm Low $5 Mm Mid $6 Mm High for 30% return before taxes $10 Mm Absolute Top Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co., INC. BALANCE SHEETS December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 ASSETS Current assets: Cash $ 2,150,212 $ 1,295,521 Federal income tax refund 1,020,891 Accounts and notes receivable: Trade 17,277,055 8,652,194 Affiliates 67,279 463,344 Inventories 12,503,941 13,094,401 Prepaid insurance and other 392,086 185,945 Total current assets 33,411,464 23,691,405 Property, plant and equipment, at cost: Land 373,300 373,300 Buildings 6,208,224 5,905,359 Machinery and equipment 14,791,863 13,812,393 Delivery and other automotive equipment 89,307 89,307 Leasehold improvements 50,662 27,707 21,513,356 20,208,066 Less accumulated depreciation 6,975,497 5,995,392 14,537,859 14,212,674 Other assets: Deferred income. taxes 1,492,919 Sundry deferred charges 368,352 629,849 Notes receivable 2,500 110,500 Advances to affiliates 126,733 1,990,504 740,349 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,428 LIABILITIES Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities: Trade $ 31,834,490 $ 6,998,742 Affiliates 846,938 356,860 Notes payable 19,019,761 14,534,993 Current portion of long-term debt 103,317 308,828 Total current liabilities (18,393) 51,804,506 22,199,423 Mortgage and notes payable, current portion above: 10-1/2% First Mortgage Note 4,747,501 4,836,043 Other notes payable 124,451 180,306 4,871,952 5,016,349 Advances from affiliates 3,178,135 3,171,156 Deferred income taxes 788,190 STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY (DEFICIT) Common stock, $100 par value; 1,041 shares authorized, issued and outstanding 104,100 104,100 Paid-in capital 2,323,239 . 2,323,239 Retained earnings (deficit), as annexed (12,342,105) 5,041,971 (9,914,765) 7,469,310 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,418 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-MENDERSON SUGAR co., , INC. PRO FORMA BALANCE SHEET AT 5/31/75 IN HANDS OF OTHERS - ON LIFO ASSETS Cash $ 1,395 Accounts Receivable 12,464 - Inventories Sugar 272,000 cwt at $11.11 3,022 Processing cost 386 Spare parts 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 19,631 Fixed assets - Net 14,353 Other assets and deferred charges 411 TOTAL ASSETS $ 34,395 LIABILITIES = Notes payable - banks $ 14,253 Notes payable - La. raw mills 7,369 Need commu Current portion of long-term debt 115 Accounts payable and accrued 3,334 2,2 Total Current Liabilities 25,071 Long-term debt 4,815 Deferred taxes 872 Deferred futures profit 716 Stockholders' equity 2,921 TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 34,395 1975 ceremated income Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Soùrce: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/j)bx0227 GODCHAUX-IENDERSON SUGAR co., INC. ESTIMATED WORKING CAPITAL MAY 31, 1975 000's omitted Current Assets Cash $ 1,395 Accounts receivable 12,464 Note receivable - U.S. Sugar Co. 240 Inventories: Raw sugar (Massequite), 40,458 cwt @ $17 688 Refined, 216,216 cwt @ $22 4,757 Spare parts, bags, mdse. for resale 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 21,908 Current Liabilities Bank notes payable 14,253 Current portion of long-term debt 115 Total notes payable 14,368 La. raw sugar payables 7,369 Other trade payables and accruals 1,755 Total Current Liabilities 23,492 Net Estimated Working Capital (Deficit) ($ 1,584) CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co. INC. ESTIMATED NET INCOME JANUARY ] THROUGH MAY 31, 1975 Pre-tax income, 4/30/75 $ 388,221 Estimated profit on April inventory liquidation 346,750 Deferred inventory liquidation profit, 4/30/75 6,329,205 Last estimated of May income 187,723 7,251,899 Estimate of income from inventory liquidation in month of May: Cwt actual, 96°, , 4/30/75 485,000 Cwt actual, 96°; 5/31/75 272,000 Liquidated 213,000 Spread ($27 May Cost - $11) x 16 $3,408,000 May liquidation profit 3,408,000 Total estimated pre-tax income 10,659,899 Book taxes at 37% consolidated rate 3,944,163 Estimated net income $ 6,715,736 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR co. INC. 2 ESTIMATED STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY MAY 31, 1975 Capital stock $ 104,100 Paid in capital, existing balance 2,323,239 Additional contributions to be made by Southern Industries 5,345,000 Total capital stock and paid-in 7,772,339 Retained earnings (deficit), 1/1/75 (12,342,104) Estimated net income, 1/1-5/31/75 6,715,736 Retained earnings (deficit), 5/31/75 ( 5,626,368) Total Estimated Stockholder's Equity, 5/31/75 $ 2,145,971 776 2,921 5. cash 3,6 2 2146 8.6 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF INCOME (LOSS) AND RETAINED EARNINGS (DEFICIT) for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Net sales $270,994,584 $121,429,038 Cost of sales 282,649,140 117,395,585 Gross profit (loss) (11,654,556) 4,033,453 Selling, general and administrative expenses 3,259,352 2,468,224 (14,913,908) 1,565,229 Other income, net 143,984 54,687 16.4mm (14,769,924) 1,619,916 Interest deductions 2,192,152 1,197,210 Income (loss) before provision (credit) for taxes 4 14,2mm (16,962,076) 422,706 Provision (credit) for income taxes: Federal: Current (990,891) (277,206) Deferred (2,251,109) 181,357 State - current 19,089 (3,242,000) (76,760) Net income (loss) the 7.1mm (13,720,076) 499,466 Retained earnings, January 1, restated 5,041,971 4,667,505 (8,678,105) 5,166,971 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 Retained earnings (deficit), December 31 $(12,342,105) $ _5,041,971 See notes to financial statements. 3 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., , INC. Statement of Change in Financial Position 1/1/15 - 4/30/75 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income $ 1244,579 Depreciation and amortization 383,018 Deferred income taxes -0- Working capital provided from operations 627,597 Decrease in other assets 4,525 Increase in deferred liabilities 8,373,106 $ 9,005,228 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment $ : 293,428 Reduction to mortgage and notes payable 56,909 Increase in deferred charges 264,575 $ 614,912 Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Changes in working capital Current assets: Cash $ (1,169,483) Receivables a 230th (7,434,849) Inventories (4,138,565) Prepaid insurance and other. 338,681 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities + 2,3sta $ (20,787,991) Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (6,541) $ (20,794,532) Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income (loss) $(13,720,076) $ 499,466 Expenses (credit) not affecting working capital in the current year: Depreciation and amortization 1,060,770 819,542 Deferred income taxes (2,251,109) 181,357 Working capital provided from (applied to) operations for the year (14,910,415) 1,500,365 Increase in advances from affiliates 6,979 Increase in mortgage and notes payable 9,430 1,022,000 Property sales and retirements, less accumulated depreciation 53,470 15,535 Other 212,764 63,670 (14,627,772) 2,601,570 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment 1,439,425 2,778,888 Reduction in mortgage and notes payable 153,827 278,496 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 5,257,252 3,182,384 Decrease in working capital $ (19,885,024) $ (580,814) Change in working capital - increase (decrease) : Current assets: Cash $ 854,691 $ 703,853 Receivables 9,249,687 (635,126) Inventories (590,460) 2,042,128 Prepaid insurance and other 206,141 (32,598 9,720,059 2,078,257 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (25,325,826) 3,143,444 Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (4,279,257) (5,802,515) (29,605,083) (2,659,071 Decrease in working capital $(19,885,024) $ (580,814 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 - SUCAR C.O. INC. VARIOUS SINTISTICS 1/1/74 .. 12/31/174 (BEFORE LIFO) PROFIT CONTRIBUTION Net Profit Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Add: Supervision Fees 506,000 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 14,675,927 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 SIC Note Interest 45,913 Interest Expense 1,986,461 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 60,914 Debt Amortization 14,752 Profit Contribution 16,383,957 ABEREVIATED FLOW OF FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Less: Income Tax 7,084,964 Net Income $ 7,084,963 Add: Depreciation and Amortization 1,052,693 Cash Flow $ 8,137,656. Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt 800,082 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 8,937,738 drwanch Less: Dividends 3.664,000 Capital Expenditures 1,377,877 Net Flow of Funds - Surplus/(Deficit) $ 3,895,861 NET WORKING CAPITAL @ 12/31/74 $ 5,480,545 Repairs $ 1,653,955 Refined Sugar Produced CWT 8,547,969 = it n Operating Days - Refinery 233 321 Average Production per Operating Day $ 36,687 27 \ IIIN E. Ladd 5/19/75 Söurce: https://www.industrydócuments,ucsf.edutddrst T1xx0227 VARIOUS STATISTICS 1967 - 1973 7 YEAR 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 TOTAL PROFIT CONTRIBUTION is 196 P Net Profit Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 Add: Supervision Fees 108,701 116,733 141,000 553,719 635,000 600,000 475,200 2,630,353 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 1,546,380 $ 1,864,135.1 $,1,718,417 $ 3,055,741 $ 3,866,801 $ 1,111,305 $ 897,906 $14,060,685 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 - 105,000 735,000 SIC Note Interest 138,214 145,798 138,661 131,661 124,747 117,925 111,636 908,642 Interest Expense 461,912 469,086 500,094 414,888 399,240 550,819 979,364 3,775,403 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 26,933 30,683 32,257 29,098 31,987 42,390 43,155 236,503 Debt Amortization 3,008 3,009 a - 6,017 1 Profit Contribution $ 2,281,447 $ 2,617,711 $ 2,494,129 $ 3,736,388 $ 4,527,775 $ 1,927,439 $ 2,137,061 $19,722,250 =085. ASBREVIATED FLCW 07 FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 (633) Less: Income Tax 586,061 804,000 816,551 1,069,802 1,153,238 26,466 (76,760) 4,379,358 Net Incone $ 851,618 $ 943,402 $ 760,866 $ 1,432,220 $ 2,078,563 $ 484,839 $ 499,466 $ 7,050,974 Add: Depreciation & Amortization 378,075 426,909 496,715 536,092 599,874 674,623 819,542 3,931,530 Cash Flow $ 1,229,693 $ 1,370,311 $ 1,257,581 $ 1,968,312 $ 2,678,437 $ 1,159,462 $ 1,319,008 $10,982,604 Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt (603,062) (492,620) (333,174) (495,412) 1,865,581 3,351,521 743,504 4,036,338 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 626,631 $ 877,691 $ 924,407 $ 1,472,900 $ 4,544,013 $ 4,510,983 $ 2,062,512 $15,019,142 NO Less: Dividends -0- 375,000 330,000 530,000 : 660,000 330,000 125,000 2,350,000 Capital Expenditures 1,694,961 1,099,561 942,281 755,946 2,619,417 4,187,602 2,773,893 14,078,656 Net Flou of Funds - Surplus/(Doficit) $ (1,068,330) $ (596,870) $. (347,371) $ 186,954 $ 1,264,601 $ (6,619) $ (841,376) $(1,409,514) Net Working Capital at Year-End $ 1,738,296 $ 960,279 $ 531,173 $ 499,751 $ 1,171,294 $ 2,220,053 $ 2,216,941 $ 1,627,025 Repairs $ 1,160,277 $ 1,229,468 $ 1,156,668 $ 1,326,567 $ 1,475,224 $ 1,414,386 $1.1,383,014 $ 9,145,604 Refined Sugar Produced (Cwt.) 7,270,838 8,317,724 7,741,365 9,494,161 10,502,424 9,170,169 8,457,433 - Operating Days - Refinery 268 277 246 299 .312 280 247 Average Production per Operating Day (Cwt.) 27,130 30,028 31,495 31,817 33,694 32,751 34,185 E. Ladd . 3/28/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I a - 0.042 °C - - - - it. Co N T O 0= of n- F- 8 80 . ********** i. .7 -0 *********** ++++++++4 - - CUMVERCA RAN 7 CONVERCA 3 es (--) CF- a n a - D an nca [= HE' - In a g 2 - Filent - NOTE. o THIS MAP REDUCED KALF SIZE MAP OF PLANT LATOUT na Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 (10,000) 31,000 (43,000 24,000 (4,000) LEARTYPE OUNTY OUTUNE NITED STATES - (3,000) MAP NO.117 AMERICAN MAD SOMPANY.INC $ Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SALARIED ORGANIZATION MAY 1, 1975 Operations, J. A. Metzler 2 Purchasing 6 Cincinnati 5 13 Marketing, E. R. Fleming 2 Administration 10 Sales 8 20 Finance, H. L. Kirk 4 Credit 4 Billing 3 Machine Room 2 1.3 Accounting, R. L. Crawford 11 Refinery, A. Garcia 2 Maintenance 23 Quality Assurance 10 Engineering 4 Administration 19 Operations 35 Service 2 95 Mobile, Administration and Service 6 TOTAL 158 40 158 101 67 T. Source: https://wvww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/doce 51jTbx02.27 to HOURLY ORCANIZATION - RESERVE - MAY 1, 1975 Manning is based cn requirement of two full shifts plus skeleton crew on the third shift in Pecking, and six palletized crews and two hand loading crews in Shipping. Raw Receiving 3 Affination 9 Clarification 9 Char House 18 Granulators 6 Pan Floor 16 Refined Centrifugal 12 Pre-Packaging 14 Packaging 80 Shipping - Packages 51 Shipping - Bulk 6 Liquid Sugar 6 Yard Crew 4 Sanitation 12 Security 6 Commissary 4 Laboratory 8 Utilities 12 Dock 6 Painters 8 Construction 14 Truck Drivers 5 Electrical 15 Maintenance Shops 13 Area Mechanics 20 Operations Mechanics 12 Total Required for 369* Operation *There are approximately 30 additional people on the payroll who act as vacation replacements, absentee replacements, training, etc. 360 1.58 40 Source: https:.//wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs[ilbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES 1. Information known: A. Sugar refinery at Reserve, Louisiana - 32 miles west of New Orleans on the Mississippi River. B. Liquid sugár processing plant and distribution terminal at Cincinnati, Ohio and leases sugar packaging operations at Buffalo, New York and (Chicago, Illinois 12/1/74. C. Owns 8 hydraulic material processing dredges, owns or has long term leases on 11 towboats and 88 cargo barges and under short term leases has 15 towboats and 30 barges. D. Also owns ready-mixed concrete operations and a mixer fleet in Mobile; asphalt plants at Woodstock, Margerum and Mobile, Alabama: a concrete block plant at Mobile, and supporting sales depots at Mobile, Ft. Walton Beach and Pensacola, Florida, and New Orleans owns or leases 8 stone quarries and crushing plants at Mobile, Baltimore and Houston, and chemical lime plants at Morgan City, La., and Saginaw, Ala. Company leases 2 slag processing facilities at Columbia, Tenn. E. Mineral Reserves--Company leases shell deposits from the states of Alabama and Louisiana, estimated to contain 100 million tons; leases gravel deposits estimated to contain 10 million tons owns an asphaltic limestone deposit estimated to contain 1,500,000 tons; and leases lime- stone deposits estimated to contain 200 million tons. F. Raws: 25% from U.S. 75% from Foreign G. Campaign: 312 days in 1971 280 days in 1972 247 days in 1973 232 days in 1974 H. Refined Sugar Production Production Year (Million cwts) 1971 10.5 1972 9.2 1973 8.4 1974 8.5 1. Sells sugar under two tradenames: 1. Henderson Superfine 2. Godchaux Brand continued Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES, continued Page 2 J. Current assets $53 Million. K. Long term debt $34 Million. L. Cost of replacing cane facilities: 1) Processing - $25 million Mill (3500 ton/day grind) 2) Refinery - $45 million (700 ton/day raw sugar) X 2 = 99mm II. Data needed: A. What it costs for Raws - Domestic - Foreign B. Operating costs (cost of production including G & A percent of refined sugar). C. Where receive raws from D. Costs to market place E. Financial data up to net income F. Present contractual arrangements III. To Receive 30% ROI before tax: @ 20,000 $ 6mm Example 1: Cost Proc + Profit for Price for RAWS: Raws Freight G & A 30% ROI Ref. Sugar (U.S.)25% @ 126 + 0 + 2.56 + 16 15.5 (Foreign 75% @ 7c + 1.8€ + 2.56 + 1c 12.3 TOTAL Weight Price For Refined Sugar 13.1 IV. Potential Areas to Increase Profits A. Grain Exports $45 2.47 50 B. Foreign raw prices based on refined sugar prices when sold. 11,2 C. Participating contract with growers based on refined sugar prices or foreign raws. 14/11/11 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 The President of Southern Industries Reports. Net soles for the first quarter ended March 31, 1975 were $74,686,000 compared to $51,505,000 for the same period in 1974. Net income for the period was $1,482,000 equal to $1.03 per share compared to a net loss of $1,830,000 (restated) equal to a loss of $1.23 per shore in 1974. By.product line the basic materials group had a 165% increase in pre-tox cornings over last year. This group occounted for $916,000 or opproximately 38% of pre-tax eornings. The sugar division contributed $1,437,000 or 61% to the results. With the exception of low sugar volume, the demand for our other products and materials remains strong. Your attention is directed to the notes to the following statements for a further explanation of the financial results of the first quorter. D. E. Dowson, Jr. April 22, 1975 President 1 Sales and Income (Loss) by Product Line For the three months ended March 31, 1975 and 1974 (000 omitted) SALES INCOME (LOSS) 1974 1975 1974 1975 Restated Sugor $56,118 $35,758 $ 1,437 S( 3,381) Bosic Materials 15,515 12,977 916 345 Hordwore and Machinery 3,051 2,770 58 92 Other (Non-operating) 2 - ( 58) ( 32) $74,686 $51,505 $ 2,353 $( 2,976) Income Toxes Credit (and Provision) ( 871) 1,145 Net Income (Loss) $ 1,482 $( 1,830) Per Shore $ 1.03 S( 1.22) Consolidated Financial Condition (000 omitted) March 31 1974 1975 Restated Current assets $ 50,419 $ 39,516 Current liobilities 51,420 30,445 Net current assets ( 1,001) 9,071 Properties - net 47,325 44,500 Other ossets 6,874 5,749 Total ossets less current licbilities 53,198 59,320 Long term debt (including debt due within one year) 33 33,151 32,101 Other licbilities 1,847 2,318 Total long term debt and other licbilities 55 34,998 34,419 Net assets $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Stockholders' equity: Common stock (1,433,096 shares outstanding) $ 6,059 $ 6,059 Retoined income and capital surplus 12,141 18,842 Total stockholders' equity $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Notes to Financial Statements (1) The income (les) by product line includes o statistical ollocation of corporale costs including interest expense. (2) Figures for 1974 have been restated to reflect changing to the lost in, first out (LIFO) method from the first in, first out (FIFO) and overage cost methods of accounting for the row sugar content of sugor inventories. If the FIFO and overage cost methods hod been used by the Com- pony, these inventories, and consequently net current assets, would hove been $14,803,000 and 54, 166,000 higher than reported at March 31, 1975 and 1974 (restated), respectively. (3) Results for the three months ended March 31, 1975 include income of $2,373,000 from reducing quantities of row sugar inventories under the uro method to on anticipated yeor-end level (substontially less than quantities on hand of the beginning of 1975). (4) A net operoting loss collyover available from 1974 will offsei the first $6,815,000 of taxoble income in 1975 and thus eliminate payment of toxes. The provision for toxas at March 31, 1975 of $871,000 represents a charge for deferred income taxes not currently payable. (5) Net income per shore bosed on 1,433,096 shares outstanding. (6) Depreciation and amortization included above omounted to $1,485,000 ond $1,265,000 in 1975 and 1974, respectively. P) Above figures subject to yeor-end audit. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227

what is the net income for the working capital in the given statement ?

jlbx0227

jlbx0227_p0, jlbx0227_p1, jlbx0227_p2, jlbx0227_p3, jlbx0227_p4, jlbx0227_p5, jlbx0227_p6, jlbx0227_p7, jlbx0227_p8, jlbx0227_p9, jlbx0227_p10, jlbx0227_p11, jlbx0227_p12, jlbx0227_p13, jlbx0227_p14, jlbx0227_p15, jlbx0227_p16, jlbx0227_p17, jlbx0227_p18, jlbx0227_p19

$244,579, $ 244,579

GH BRIEFING 6-11-75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I. GH is not worth buying for what is has earned or will earn under "normal" conditions; i.e., buy, refine, sell sugar. EBIT $600 M to $1.500M Needs $6-9MM WC to continue Can be purchased for $4-8 MM (they expect $10MM) Our "cost" is $10-17MM. . II. GH has excellent 1. Facilities at Reserve 2. Technical support personnel at Reserve 3. Distribution network relative to GW. t 2,100, on 00 3, III. GH could be a good speculative investment 2.4 Hog Low Provides A. "LONG.LIMIT 7,200,000 2, 400,000 Balance to GWS beet business 21.000,000 5.7,100 2,200,00 3.0000 Take % of Sugar Broker/dist $ 6,200,000 wwword ? 400.00 = Entry to foreign refined market 10% "Improvement on cost of raws = $16MM profit contribution" We must get a "participating K".- HFTS: 2X the Bet. on 121,000 IV. Net; get into GH as low as possible, 4 3 Emphasize the Raws problem< : Slim down overhead 95° Devise a plan that can target for $20MM EBIT. Actual Potented V hmp Ratio 73 74 AT, impiral 1.6 2.6 1.9mm Gll 4% 2.6% G,8 Source:https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., INC. PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1967. - 1970 1971 & 1974 1971 Profit Before Tax, Interest and Supervision Fees $ 11,130 M $ 6,614 M $ 4,528 M Average Per Year . 2,783 3,307 4,528 1974 Supervision (506) (506) .' (506) 1974 Interest (2,213) (2,213) (2,213) Projected Annual Profit 64 588 1,809 Investment Required to Return 10% $ 640 M $ 5,880 M $ 18,090 M 30% 213 1,950 6,030 15% 426 3,920 12,600 Production (CWT) 32,824 M CWT 19,050 M CWT 10,502 M CWT Average Per Year 8,206 9,525 10,502 1.5 33 Objective: - Get 30 day option - Full P & L information (operating statistics) - Manufacturing costs (operating statistics) Be Prepared To: - Sign LOI - Offer $4 Mm Low $5 Mm Mid $6 Mm High for 30% return before taxes $10 Mm Absolute Top Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co., INC. BALANCE SHEETS December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 ASSETS Current assets: Cash $ 2,150,212 $ 1,295,521 Federal income tax refund 1,020,891 Accounts and notes receivable: Trade 17,277,055 8,652,194 Affiliates 67,279 463,344 Inventories 12,503,941 13,094,401 Prepaid insurance and other 392,086 185,945 Total current assets 33,411,464 23,691,405 Property, plant and equipment, at cost: Land 373,300 373,300 Buildings 6,208,224 5,905,359 Machinery and equipment 14,791,863 13,812,393 Delivery and other automotive equipment 89,307 89,307 Leasehold improvements 50,662 27,707 21,513,356 20,208,066 Less accumulated depreciation 6,975,497 5,995,392 14,537,859 14,212,674 Other assets: Deferred income. taxes 1,492,919 Sundry deferred charges 368,352 629,849 Notes receivable 2,500 110,500 Advances to affiliates 126,733 1,990,504 740,349 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,428 LIABILITIES Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities: Trade $ 31,834,490 $ 6,998,742 Affiliates 846,938 356,860 Notes payable 19,019,761 14,534,993 Current portion of long-term debt 103,317 308,828 Total current liabilities (18,393) 51,804,506 22,199,423 Mortgage and notes payable, current portion above: 10-1/2% First Mortgage Note 4,747,501 4,836,043 Other notes payable 124,451 180,306 4,871,952 5,016,349 Advances from affiliates 3,178,135 3,171,156 Deferred income taxes 788,190 STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY (DEFICIT) Common stock, $100 par value; 1,041 shares authorized, issued and outstanding 104,100 104,100 Paid-in capital 2,323,239 . 2,323,239 Retained earnings (deficit), as annexed (12,342,105) 5,041,971 (9,914,765) 7,469,310 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,418 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-MENDERSON SUGAR co., , INC. PRO FORMA BALANCE SHEET AT 5/31/75 IN HANDS OF OTHERS - ON LIFO ASSETS Cash $ 1,395 Accounts Receivable 12,464 - Inventories Sugar 272,000 cwt at $11.11 3,022 Processing cost 386 Spare parts 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 19,631 Fixed assets - Net 14,353 Other assets and deferred charges 411 TOTAL ASSETS $ 34,395 LIABILITIES = Notes payable - banks $ 14,253 Notes payable - La. raw mills 7,369 Need commu Current portion of long-term debt 115 Accounts payable and accrued 3,334 2,2 Total Current Liabilities 25,071 Long-term debt 4,815 Deferred taxes 872 Deferred futures profit 716 Stockholders' equity 2,921 TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 34,395 1975 ceremated income Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Soùrce: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/j)bx0227 GODCHAUX-IENDERSON SUGAR co., INC. ESTIMATED WORKING CAPITAL MAY 31, 1975 000's omitted Current Assets Cash $ 1,395 Accounts receivable 12,464 Note receivable - U.S. Sugar Co. 240 Inventories: Raw sugar (Massequite), 40,458 cwt @ $17 688 Refined, 216,216 cwt @ $22 4,757 Spare parts, bags, mdse. for resale 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 21,908 Current Liabilities Bank notes payable 14,253 Current portion of long-term debt 115 Total notes payable 14,368 La. raw sugar payables 7,369 Other trade payables and accruals 1,755 Total Current Liabilities 23,492 Net Estimated Working Capital (Deficit) ($ 1,584) CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co. INC. ESTIMATED NET INCOME JANUARY ] THROUGH MAY 31, 1975 Pre-tax income, 4/30/75 $ 388,221 Estimated profit on April inventory liquidation 346,750 Deferred inventory liquidation profit, 4/30/75 6,329,205 Last estimated of May income 187,723 7,251,899 Estimate of income from inventory liquidation in month of May: Cwt actual, 96°, , 4/30/75 485,000 Cwt actual, 96°; 5/31/75 272,000 Liquidated 213,000 Spread ($27 May Cost - $11) x 16 $3,408,000 May liquidation profit 3,408,000 Total estimated pre-tax income 10,659,899 Book taxes at 37% consolidated rate 3,944,163 Estimated net income $ 6,715,736 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR co. INC. 2 ESTIMATED STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY MAY 31, 1975 Capital stock $ 104,100 Paid in capital, existing balance 2,323,239 Additional contributions to be made by Southern Industries 5,345,000 Total capital stock and paid-in 7,772,339 Retained earnings (deficit), 1/1/75 (12,342,104) Estimated net income, 1/1-5/31/75 6,715,736 Retained earnings (deficit), 5/31/75 ( 5,626,368) Total Estimated Stockholder's Equity, 5/31/75 $ 2,145,971 776 2,921 5. cash 3,6 2 2146 8.6 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF INCOME (LOSS) AND RETAINED EARNINGS (DEFICIT) for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Net sales $270,994,584 $121,429,038 Cost of sales 282,649,140 117,395,585 Gross profit (loss) (11,654,556) 4,033,453 Selling, general and administrative expenses 3,259,352 2,468,224 (14,913,908) 1,565,229 Other income, net 143,984 54,687 16.4mm (14,769,924) 1,619,916 Interest deductions 2,192,152 1,197,210 Income (loss) before provision (credit) for taxes 4 14,2mm (16,962,076) 422,706 Provision (credit) for income taxes: Federal: Current (990,891) (277,206) Deferred (2,251,109) 181,357 State - current 19,089 (3,242,000) (76,760) Net income (loss) the 7.1mm (13,720,076) 499,466 Retained earnings, January 1, restated 5,041,971 4,667,505 (8,678,105) 5,166,971 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 Retained earnings (deficit), December 31 $(12,342,105) $ _5,041,971 See notes to financial statements. 3 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., , INC. Statement of Change in Financial Position 1/1/15 - 4/30/75 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income $ 1244,579 Depreciation and amortization 383,018 Deferred income taxes -0- Working capital provided from operations 627,597 Decrease in other assets 4,525 Increase in deferred liabilities 8,373,106 $ 9,005,228 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment $ : 293,428 Reduction to mortgage and notes payable 56,909 Increase in deferred charges 264,575 $ 614,912 Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Changes in working capital Current assets: Cash $ (1,169,483) Receivables a 230th (7,434,849) Inventories (4,138,565) Prepaid insurance and other. 338,681 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities + 2,3sta $ (20,787,991) Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (6,541) $ (20,794,532) Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income (loss) $(13,720,076) $ 499,466 Expenses (credit) not affecting working capital in the current year: Depreciation and amortization 1,060,770 819,542 Deferred income taxes (2,251,109) 181,357 Working capital provided from (applied to) operations for the year (14,910,415) 1,500,365 Increase in advances from affiliates 6,979 Increase in mortgage and notes payable 9,430 1,022,000 Property sales and retirements, less accumulated depreciation 53,470 15,535 Other 212,764 63,670 (14,627,772) 2,601,570 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment 1,439,425 2,778,888 Reduction in mortgage and notes payable 153,827 278,496 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 5,257,252 3,182,384 Decrease in working capital $ (19,885,024) $ (580,814) Change in working capital - increase (decrease) : Current assets: Cash $ 854,691 $ 703,853 Receivables 9,249,687 (635,126) Inventories (590,460) 2,042,128 Prepaid insurance and other 206,141 (32,598 9,720,059 2,078,257 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (25,325,826) 3,143,444 Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (4,279,257) (5,802,515) (29,605,083) (2,659,071 Decrease in working capital $(19,885,024) $ (580,814 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 - SUCAR C.O. INC. VARIOUS SINTISTICS 1/1/74 .. 12/31/174 (BEFORE LIFO) PROFIT CONTRIBUTION Net Profit Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Add: Supervision Fees 506,000 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 14,675,927 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 SIC Note Interest 45,913 Interest Expense 1,986,461 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 60,914 Debt Amortization 14,752 Profit Contribution 16,383,957 ABEREVIATED FLOW OF FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Less: Income Tax 7,084,964 Net Income $ 7,084,963 Add: Depreciation and Amortization 1,052,693 Cash Flow $ 8,137,656. Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt 800,082 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 8,937,738 drwanch Less: Dividends 3.664,000 Capital Expenditures 1,377,877 Net Flow of Funds - Surplus/(Deficit) $ 3,895,861 NET WORKING CAPITAL @ 12/31/74 $ 5,480,545 Repairs $ 1,653,955 Refined Sugar Produced CWT 8,547,969 = it n Operating Days - Refinery 233 321 Average Production per Operating Day $ 36,687 27 \ IIIN E. Ladd 5/19/75 Söurce: https://www.industrydócuments,ucsf.edutddrst T1xx0227 VARIOUS STATISTICS 1967 - 1973 7 YEAR 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 TOTAL PROFIT CONTRIBUTION is 196 P Net Profit Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 Add: Supervision Fees 108,701 116,733 141,000 553,719 635,000 600,000 475,200 2,630,353 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 1,546,380 $ 1,864,135.1 $,1,718,417 $ 3,055,741 $ 3,866,801 $ 1,111,305 $ 897,906 $14,060,685 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 - 105,000 735,000 SIC Note Interest 138,214 145,798 138,661 131,661 124,747 117,925 111,636 908,642 Interest Expense 461,912 469,086 500,094 414,888 399,240 550,819 979,364 3,775,403 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 26,933 30,683 32,257 29,098 31,987 42,390 43,155 236,503 Debt Amortization 3,008 3,009 a - 6,017 1 Profit Contribution $ 2,281,447 $ 2,617,711 $ 2,494,129 $ 3,736,388 $ 4,527,775 $ 1,927,439 $ 2,137,061 $19,722,250 =085. ASBREVIATED FLCW 07 FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 (633) Less: Income Tax 586,061 804,000 816,551 1,069,802 1,153,238 26,466 (76,760) 4,379,358 Net Incone $ 851,618 $ 943,402 $ 760,866 $ 1,432,220 $ 2,078,563 $ 484,839 $ 499,466 $ 7,050,974 Add: Depreciation & Amortization 378,075 426,909 496,715 536,092 599,874 674,623 819,542 3,931,530 Cash Flow $ 1,229,693 $ 1,370,311 $ 1,257,581 $ 1,968,312 $ 2,678,437 $ 1,159,462 $ 1,319,008 $10,982,604 Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt (603,062) (492,620) (333,174) (495,412) 1,865,581 3,351,521 743,504 4,036,338 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 626,631 $ 877,691 $ 924,407 $ 1,472,900 $ 4,544,013 $ 4,510,983 $ 2,062,512 $15,019,142 NO Less: Dividends -0- 375,000 330,000 530,000 : 660,000 330,000 125,000 2,350,000 Capital Expenditures 1,694,961 1,099,561 942,281 755,946 2,619,417 4,187,602 2,773,893 14,078,656 Net Flou of Funds - Surplus/(Doficit) $ (1,068,330) $ (596,870) $. (347,371) $ 186,954 $ 1,264,601 $ (6,619) $ (841,376) $(1,409,514) Net Working Capital at Year-End $ 1,738,296 $ 960,279 $ 531,173 $ 499,751 $ 1,171,294 $ 2,220,053 $ 2,216,941 $ 1,627,025 Repairs $ 1,160,277 $ 1,229,468 $ 1,156,668 $ 1,326,567 $ 1,475,224 $ 1,414,386 $1.1,383,014 $ 9,145,604 Refined Sugar Produced (Cwt.) 7,270,838 8,317,724 7,741,365 9,494,161 10,502,424 9,170,169 8,457,433 - Operating Days - Refinery 268 277 246 299 .312 280 247 Average Production per Operating Day (Cwt.) 27,130 30,028 31,495 31,817 33,694 32,751 34,185 E. Ladd . 3/28/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I a - 0.042 °C - - - - it. Co N T O 0= of n- F- 8 80 . ********** i. .7 -0 *********** ++++++++4 - - CUMVERCA RAN 7 CONVERCA 3 es (--) CF- a n a - D an nca [= HE' - In a g 2 - Filent - NOTE. o THIS MAP REDUCED KALF SIZE MAP OF PLANT LATOUT na Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 (10,000) 31,000 (43,000 24,000 (4,000) LEARTYPE OUNTY OUTUNE NITED STATES - (3,000) MAP NO.117 AMERICAN MAD SOMPANY.INC $ Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SALARIED ORGANIZATION MAY 1, 1975 Operations, J. A. Metzler 2 Purchasing 6 Cincinnati 5 13 Marketing, E. R. Fleming 2 Administration 10 Sales 8 20 Finance, H. L. Kirk 4 Credit 4 Billing 3 Machine Room 2 1.3 Accounting, R. L. Crawford 11 Refinery, A. Garcia 2 Maintenance 23 Quality Assurance 10 Engineering 4 Administration 19 Operations 35 Service 2 95 Mobile, Administration and Service 6 TOTAL 158 40 158 101 67 T. Source: https://wvww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/doce 51jTbx02.27 to HOURLY ORCANIZATION - RESERVE - MAY 1, 1975 Manning is based cn requirement of two full shifts plus skeleton crew on the third shift in Pecking, and six palletized crews and two hand loading crews in Shipping. Raw Receiving 3 Affination 9 Clarification 9 Char House 18 Granulators 6 Pan Floor 16 Refined Centrifugal 12 Pre-Packaging 14 Packaging 80 Shipping - Packages 51 Shipping - Bulk 6 Liquid Sugar 6 Yard Crew 4 Sanitation 12 Security 6 Commissary 4 Laboratory 8 Utilities 12 Dock 6 Painters 8 Construction 14 Truck Drivers 5 Electrical 15 Maintenance Shops 13 Area Mechanics 20 Operations Mechanics 12 Total Required for 369* Operation *There are approximately 30 additional people on the payroll who act as vacation replacements, absentee replacements, training, etc. 360 1.58 40 Source: https:.//wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs[ilbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES 1. Information known: A. Sugar refinery at Reserve, Louisiana - 32 miles west of New Orleans on the Mississippi River. B. Liquid sugár processing plant and distribution terminal at Cincinnati, Ohio and leases sugar packaging operations at Buffalo, New York and (Chicago, Illinois 12/1/74. C. Owns 8 hydraulic material processing dredges, owns or has long term leases on 11 towboats and 88 cargo barges and under short term leases has 15 towboats and 30 barges. D. Also owns ready-mixed concrete operations and a mixer fleet in Mobile; asphalt plants at Woodstock, Margerum and Mobile, Alabama: a concrete block plant at Mobile, and supporting sales depots at Mobile, Ft. Walton Beach and Pensacola, Florida, and New Orleans owns or leases 8 stone quarries and crushing plants at Mobile, Baltimore and Houston, and chemical lime plants at Morgan City, La., and Saginaw, Ala. Company leases 2 slag processing facilities at Columbia, Tenn. E. Mineral Reserves--Company leases shell deposits from the states of Alabama and Louisiana, estimated to contain 100 million tons; leases gravel deposits estimated to contain 10 million tons owns an asphaltic limestone deposit estimated to contain 1,500,000 tons; and leases lime- stone deposits estimated to contain 200 million tons. F. Raws: 25% from U.S. 75% from Foreign G. Campaign: 312 days in 1971 280 days in 1972 247 days in 1973 232 days in 1974 H. Refined Sugar Production Production Year (Million cwts) 1971 10.5 1972 9.2 1973 8.4 1974 8.5 1. Sells sugar under two tradenames: 1. Henderson Superfine 2. Godchaux Brand continued Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES, continued Page 2 J. Current assets $53 Million. K. Long term debt $34 Million. L. Cost of replacing cane facilities: 1) Processing - $25 million Mill (3500 ton/day grind) 2) Refinery - $45 million (700 ton/day raw sugar) X 2 = 99mm II. Data needed: A. What it costs for Raws - Domestic - Foreign B. Operating costs (cost of production including G & A percent of refined sugar). C. Where receive raws from D. Costs to market place E. Financial data up to net income F. Present contractual arrangements III. To Receive 30% ROI before tax: @ 20,000 $ 6mm Example 1: Cost Proc + Profit for Price for RAWS: Raws Freight G & A 30% ROI Ref. Sugar (U.S.)25% @ 126 + 0 + 2.56 + 16 15.5 (Foreign 75% @ 7c + 1.8€ + 2.56 + 1c 12.3 TOTAL Weight Price For Refined Sugar 13.1 IV. Potential Areas to Increase Profits A. Grain Exports $45 2.47 50 B. Foreign raw prices based on refined sugar prices when sold. 11,2 C. Participating contract with growers based on refined sugar prices or foreign raws. 14/11/11 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 The President of Southern Industries Reports. Net soles for the first quarter ended March 31, 1975 were $74,686,000 compared to $51,505,000 for the same period in 1974. Net income for the period was $1,482,000 equal to $1.03 per share compared to a net loss of $1,830,000 (restated) equal to a loss of $1.23 per shore in 1974. By.product line the basic materials group had a 165% increase in pre-tox cornings over last year. This group occounted for $916,000 or opproximately 38% of pre-tax eornings. The sugar division contributed $1,437,000 or 61% to the results. With the exception of low sugar volume, the demand for our other products and materials remains strong. Your attention is directed to the notes to the following statements for a further explanation of the financial results of the first quorter. D. E. Dowson, Jr. April 22, 1975 President 1 Sales and Income (Loss) by Product Line For the three months ended March 31, 1975 and 1974 (000 omitted) SALES INCOME (LOSS) 1974 1975 1974 1975 Restated Sugor $56,118 $35,758 $ 1,437 S( 3,381) Bosic Materials 15,515 12,977 916 345 Hordwore and Machinery 3,051 2,770 58 92 Other (Non-operating) 2 - ( 58) ( 32) $74,686 $51,505 $ 2,353 $( 2,976) Income Toxes Credit (and Provision) ( 871) 1,145 Net Income (Loss) $ 1,482 $( 1,830) Per Shore $ 1.03 S( 1.22) Consolidated Financial Condition (000 omitted) March 31 1974 1975 Restated Current assets $ 50,419 $ 39,516 Current liobilities 51,420 30,445 Net current assets ( 1,001) 9,071 Properties - net 47,325 44,500 Other ossets 6,874 5,749 Total ossets less current licbilities 53,198 59,320 Long term debt (including debt due within one year) 33 33,151 32,101 Other licbilities 1,847 2,318 Total long term debt and other licbilities 55 34,998 34,419 Net assets $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Stockholders' equity: Common stock (1,433,096 shares outstanding) $ 6,059 $ 6,059 Retoined income and capital surplus 12,141 18,842 Total stockholders' equity $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Notes to Financial Statements (1) The income (les) by product line includes o statistical ollocation of corporale costs including interest expense. (2) Figures for 1974 have been restated to reflect changing to the lost in, first out (LIFO) method from the first in, first out (FIFO) and overage cost methods of accounting for the row sugar content of sugor inventories. If the FIFO and overage cost methods hod been used by the Com- pony, these inventories, and consequently net current assets, would hove been $14,803,000 and 54, 166,000 higher than reported at March 31, 1975 and 1974 (restated), respectively. (3) Results for the three months ended March 31, 1975 include income of $2,373,000 from reducing quantities of row sugar inventories under the uro method to on anticipated yeor-end level (substontially less than quantities on hand of the beginning of 1975). (4) A net operoting loss collyover available from 1974 will offsei the first $6,815,000 of taxoble income in 1975 and thus eliminate payment of toxes. The provision for toxas at March 31, 1975 of $871,000 represents a charge for deferred income taxes not currently payable. (5) Net income per shore bosed on 1,433,096 shares outstanding. (6) Depreciation and amortization included above omounted to $1,485,000 ond $1,265,000 in 1975 and 1974, respectively. P) Above figures subject to yeor-end audit. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227

what is the amount for prepaid insurance and others in the statement ?

jlbx0227

jlbx0227_p0, jlbx0227_p1, jlbx0227_p2, jlbx0227_p3, jlbx0227_p4, jlbx0227_p5, jlbx0227_p6, jlbx0227_p7, jlbx0227_p8, jlbx0227_p9, jlbx0227_p10, jlbx0227_p11, jlbx0227_p12, jlbx0227_p13, jlbx0227_p14, jlbx0227_p15, jlbx0227_p16, jlbx0227_p17, jlbx0227_p18, jlbx0227_p19

338,681

GH BRIEFING 6-11-75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I. GH is not worth buying for what is has earned or will earn under "normal" conditions; i.e., buy, refine, sell sugar. EBIT $600 M to $1.500M Needs $6-9MM WC to continue Can be purchased for $4-8 MM (they expect $10MM) Our "cost" is $10-17MM. . II. GH has excellent 1. Facilities at Reserve 2. Technical support personnel at Reserve 3. Distribution network relative to GW. t 2,100, on 00 3, III. GH could be a good speculative investment 2.4 Hog Low Provides A. "LONG.LIMIT 7,200,000 2, 400,000 Balance to GWS beet business 21.000,000 5.7,100 2,200,00 3.0000 Take % of Sugar Broker/dist $ 6,200,000 wwword ? 400.00 = Entry to foreign refined market 10% "Improvement on cost of raws = $16MM profit contribution" We must get a "participating K".- HFTS: 2X the Bet. on 121,000 IV. Net; get into GH as low as possible, 4 3 Emphasize the Raws problem< : Slim down overhead 95° Devise a plan that can target for $20MM EBIT. Actual Potented V hmp Ratio 73 74 AT, impiral 1.6 2.6 1.9mm Gll 4% 2.6% G,8 Source:https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., INC. PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1967. - 1970 1971 & 1974 1971 Profit Before Tax, Interest and Supervision Fees $ 11,130 M $ 6,614 M $ 4,528 M Average Per Year . 2,783 3,307 4,528 1974 Supervision (506) (506) .' (506) 1974 Interest (2,213) (2,213) (2,213) Projected Annual Profit 64 588 1,809 Investment Required to Return 10% $ 640 M $ 5,880 M $ 18,090 M 30% 213 1,950 6,030 15% 426 3,920 12,600 Production (CWT) 32,824 M CWT 19,050 M CWT 10,502 M CWT Average Per Year 8,206 9,525 10,502 1.5 33 Objective: - Get 30 day option - Full P & L information (operating statistics) - Manufacturing costs (operating statistics) Be Prepared To: - Sign LOI - Offer $4 Mm Low $5 Mm Mid $6 Mm High for 30% return before taxes $10 Mm Absolute Top Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co., INC. BALANCE SHEETS December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 ASSETS Current assets: Cash $ 2,150,212 $ 1,295,521 Federal income tax refund 1,020,891 Accounts and notes receivable: Trade 17,277,055 8,652,194 Affiliates 67,279 463,344 Inventories 12,503,941 13,094,401 Prepaid insurance and other 392,086 185,945 Total current assets 33,411,464 23,691,405 Property, plant and equipment, at cost: Land 373,300 373,300 Buildings 6,208,224 5,905,359 Machinery and equipment 14,791,863 13,812,393 Delivery and other automotive equipment 89,307 89,307 Leasehold improvements 50,662 27,707 21,513,356 20,208,066 Less accumulated depreciation 6,975,497 5,995,392 14,537,859 14,212,674 Other assets: Deferred income. taxes 1,492,919 Sundry deferred charges 368,352 629,849 Notes receivable 2,500 110,500 Advances to affiliates 126,733 1,990,504 740,349 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,428 LIABILITIES Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities: Trade $ 31,834,490 $ 6,998,742 Affiliates 846,938 356,860 Notes payable 19,019,761 14,534,993 Current portion of long-term debt 103,317 308,828 Total current liabilities (18,393) 51,804,506 22,199,423 Mortgage and notes payable, current portion above: 10-1/2% First Mortgage Note 4,747,501 4,836,043 Other notes payable 124,451 180,306 4,871,952 5,016,349 Advances from affiliates 3,178,135 3,171,156 Deferred income taxes 788,190 STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY (DEFICIT) Common stock, $100 par value; 1,041 shares authorized, issued and outstanding 104,100 104,100 Paid-in capital 2,323,239 . 2,323,239 Retained earnings (deficit), as annexed (12,342,105) 5,041,971 (9,914,765) 7,469,310 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,418 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-MENDERSON SUGAR co., , INC. PRO FORMA BALANCE SHEET AT 5/31/75 IN HANDS OF OTHERS - ON LIFO ASSETS Cash $ 1,395 Accounts Receivable 12,464 - Inventories Sugar 272,000 cwt at $11.11 3,022 Processing cost 386 Spare parts 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 19,631 Fixed assets - Net 14,353 Other assets and deferred charges 411 TOTAL ASSETS $ 34,395 LIABILITIES = Notes payable - banks $ 14,253 Notes payable - La. raw mills 7,369 Need commu Current portion of long-term debt 115 Accounts payable and accrued 3,334 2,2 Total Current Liabilities 25,071 Long-term debt 4,815 Deferred taxes 872 Deferred futures profit 716 Stockholders' equity 2,921 TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 34,395 1975 ceremated income Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Soùrce: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/j)bx0227 GODCHAUX-IENDERSON SUGAR co., INC. ESTIMATED WORKING CAPITAL MAY 31, 1975 000's omitted Current Assets Cash $ 1,395 Accounts receivable 12,464 Note receivable - U.S. Sugar Co. 240 Inventories: Raw sugar (Massequite), 40,458 cwt @ $17 688 Refined, 216,216 cwt @ $22 4,757 Spare parts, bags, mdse. for resale 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 21,908 Current Liabilities Bank notes payable 14,253 Current portion of long-term debt 115 Total notes payable 14,368 La. raw sugar payables 7,369 Other trade payables and accruals 1,755 Total Current Liabilities 23,492 Net Estimated Working Capital (Deficit) ($ 1,584) CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co. INC. ESTIMATED NET INCOME JANUARY ] THROUGH MAY 31, 1975 Pre-tax income, 4/30/75 $ 388,221 Estimated profit on April inventory liquidation 346,750 Deferred inventory liquidation profit, 4/30/75 6,329,205 Last estimated of May income 187,723 7,251,899 Estimate of income from inventory liquidation in month of May: Cwt actual, 96°, , 4/30/75 485,000 Cwt actual, 96°; 5/31/75 272,000 Liquidated 213,000 Spread ($27 May Cost - $11) x 16 $3,408,000 May liquidation profit 3,408,000 Total estimated pre-tax income 10,659,899 Book taxes at 37% consolidated rate 3,944,163 Estimated net income $ 6,715,736 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR co. INC. 2 ESTIMATED STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY MAY 31, 1975 Capital stock $ 104,100 Paid in capital, existing balance 2,323,239 Additional contributions to be made by Southern Industries 5,345,000 Total capital stock and paid-in 7,772,339 Retained earnings (deficit), 1/1/75 (12,342,104) Estimated net income, 1/1-5/31/75 6,715,736 Retained earnings (deficit), 5/31/75 ( 5,626,368) Total Estimated Stockholder's Equity, 5/31/75 $ 2,145,971 776 2,921 5. cash 3,6 2 2146 8.6 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF INCOME (LOSS) AND RETAINED EARNINGS (DEFICIT) for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Net sales $270,994,584 $121,429,038 Cost of sales 282,649,140 117,395,585 Gross profit (loss) (11,654,556) 4,033,453 Selling, general and administrative expenses 3,259,352 2,468,224 (14,913,908) 1,565,229 Other income, net 143,984 54,687 16.4mm (14,769,924) 1,619,916 Interest deductions 2,192,152 1,197,210 Income (loss) before provision (credit) for taxes 4 14,2mm (16,962,076) 422,706 Provision (credit) for income taxes: Federal: Current (990,891) (277,206) Deferred (2,251,109) 181,357 State - current 19,089 (3,242,000) (76,760) Net income (loss) the 7.1mm (13,720,076) 499,466 Retained earnings, January 1, restated 5,041,971 4,667,505 (8,678,105) 5,166,971 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 Retained earnings (deficit), December 31 $(12,342,105) $ _5,041,971 See notes to financial statements. 3 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., , INC. Statement of Change in Financial Position 1/1/15 - 4/30/75 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income $ 1244,579 Depreciation and amortization 383,018 Deferred income taxes -0- Working capital provided from operations 627,597 Decrease in other assets 4,525 Increase in deferred liabilities 8,373,106 $ 9,005,228 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment $ : 293,428 Reduction to mortgage and notes payable 56,909 Increase in deferred charges 264,575 $ 614,912 Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Changes in working capital Current assets: Cash $ (1,169,483) Receivables a 230th (7,434,849) Inventories (4,138,565) Prepaid insurance and other. 338,681 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities + 2,3sta $ (20,787,991) Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (6,541) $ (20,794,532) Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income (loss) $(13,720,076) $ 499,466 Expenses (credit) not affecting working capital in the current year: Depreciation and amortization 1,060,770 819,542 Deferred income taxes (2,251,109) 181,357 Working capital provided from (applied to) operations for the year (14,910,415) 1,500,365 Increase in advances from affiliates 6,979 Increase in mortgage and notes payable 9,430 1,022,000 Property sales and retirements, less accumulated depreciation 53,470 15,535 Other 212,764 63,670 (14,627,772) 2,601,570 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment 1,439,425 2,778,888 Reduction in mortgage and notes payable 153,827 278,496 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 5,257,252 3,182,384 Decrease in working capital $ (19,885,024) $ (580,814) Change in working capital - increase (decrease) : Current assets: Cash $ 854,691 $ 703,853 Receivables 9,249,687 (635,126) Inventories (590,460) 2,042,128 Prepaid insurance and other 206,141 (32,598 9,720,059 2,078,257 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (25,325,826) 3,143,444 Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (4,279,257) (5,802,515) (29,605,083) (2,659,071 Decrease in working capital $(19,885,024) $ (580,814 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 - SUCAR C.O. INC. VARIOUS SINTISTICS 1/1/74 .. 12/31/174 (BEFORE LIFO) PROFIT CONTRIBUTION Net Profit Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Add: Supervision Fees 506,000 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 14,675,927 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 SIC Note Interest 45,913 Interest Expense 1,986,461 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 60,914 Debt Amortization 14,752 Profit Contribution 16,383,957 ABEREVIATED FLOW OF FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Less: Income Tax 7,084,964 Net Income $ 7,084,963 Add: Depreciation and Amortization 1,052,693 Cash Flow $ 8,137,656. Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt 800,082 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 8,937,738 drwanch Less: Dividends 3.664,000 Capital Expenditures 1,377,877 Net Flow of Funds - Surplus/(Deficit) $ 3,895,861 NET WORKING CAPITAL @ 12/31/74 $ 5,480,545 Repairs $ 1,653,955 Refined Sugar Produced CWT 8,547,969 = it n Operating Days - Refinery 233 321 Average Production per Operating Day $ 36,687 27 \ IIIN E. Ladd 5/19/75 Söurce: https://www.industrydócuments,ucsf.edutddrst T1xx0227 VARIOUS STATISTICS 1967 - 1973 7 YEAR 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 TOTAL PROFIT CONTRIBUTION is 196 P Net Profit Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 Add: Supervision Fees 108,701 116,733 141,000 553,719 635,000 600,000 475,200 2,630,353 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 1,546,380 $ 1,864,135.1 $,1,718,417 $ 3,055,741 $ 3,866,801 $ 1,111,305 $ 897,906 $14,060,685 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 - 105,000 735,000 SIC Note Interest 138,214 145,798 138,661 131,661 124,747 117,925 111,636 908,642 Interest Expense 461,912 469,086 500,094 414,888 399,240 550,819 979,364 3,775,403 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 26,933 30,683 32,257 29,098 31,987 42,390 43,155 236,503 Debt Amortization 3,008 3,009 a - 6,017 1 Profit Contribution $ 2,281,447 $ 2,617,711 $ 2,494,129 $ 3,736,388 $ 4,527,775 $ 1,927,439 $ 2,137,061 $19,722,250 =085. ASBREVIATED FLCW 07 FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 (633) Less: Income Tax 586,061 804,000 816,551 1,069,802 1,153,238 26,466 (76,760) 4,379,358 Net Incone $ 851,618 $ 943,402 $ 760,866 $ 1,432,220 $ 2,078,563 $ 484,839 $ 499,466 $ 7,050,974 Add: Depreciation & Amortization 378,075 426,909 496,715 536,092 599,874 674,623 819,542 3,931,530 Cash Flow $ 1,229,693 $ 1,370,311 $ 1,257,581 $ 1,968,312 $ 2,678,437 $ 1,159,462 $ 1,319,008 $10,982,604 Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt (603,062) (492,620) (333,174) (495,412) 1,865,581 3,351,521 743,504 4,036,338 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 626,631 $ 877,691 $ 924,407 $ 1,472,900 $ 4,544,013 $ 4,510,983 $ 2,062,512 $15,019,142 NO Less: Dividends -0- 375,000 330,000 530,000 : 660,000 330,000 125,000 2,350,000 Capital Expenditures 1,694,961 1,099,561 942,281 755,946 2,619,417 4,187,602 2,773,893 14,078,656 Net Flou of Funds - Surplus/(Doficit) $ (1,068,330) $ (596,870) $. (347,371) $ 186,954 $ 1,264,601 $ (6,619) $ (841,376) $(1,409,514) Net Working Capital at Year-End $ 1,738,296 $ 960,279 $ 531,173 $ 499,751 $ 1,171,294 $ 2,220,053 $ 2,216,941 $ 1,627,025 Repairs $ 1,160,277 $ 1,229,468 $ 1,156,668 $ 1,326,567 $ 1,475,224 $ 1,414,386 $1.1,383,014 $ 9,145,604 Refined Sugar Produced (Cwt.) 7,270,838 8,317,724 7,741,365 9,494,161 10,502,424 9,170,169 8,457,433 - Operating Days - Refinery 268 277 246 299 .312 280 247 Average Production per Operating Day (Cwt.) 27,130 30,028 31,495 31,817 33,694 32,751 34,185 E. Ladd . 3/28/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I a - 0.042 °C - - - - it. Co N T O 0= of n- F- 8 80 . ********** i. .7 -0 *********** ++++++++4 - - CUMVERCA RAN 7 CONVERCA 3 es (--) CF- a n a - D an nca [= HE' - In a g 2 - Filent - NOTE. o THIS MAP REDUCED KALF SIZE MAP OF PLANT LATOUT na Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 (10,000) 31,000 (43,000 24,000 (4,000) LEARTYPE OUNTY OUTUNE NITED STATES - (3,000) MAP NO.117 AMERICAN MAD SOMPANY.INC $ Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SALARIED ORGANIZATION MAY 1, 1975 Operations, J. A. Metzler 2 Purchasing 6 Cincinnati 5 13 Marketing, E. R. Fleming 2 Administration 10 Sales 8 20 Finance, H. L. Kirk 4 Credit 4 Billing 3 Machine Room 2 1.3 Accounting, R. L. Crawford 11 Refinery, A. Garcia 2 Maintenance 23 Quality Assurance 10 Engineering 4 Administration 19 Operations 35 Service 2 95 Mobile, Administration and Service 6 TOTAL 158 40 158 101 67 T. Source: https://wvww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/doce 51jTbx02.27 to HOURLY ORCANIZATION - RESERVE - MAY 1, 1975 Manning is based cn requirement of two full shifts plus skeleton crew on the third shift in Pecking, and six palletized crews and two hand loading crews in Shipping. Raw Receiving 3 Affination 9 Clarification 9 Char House 18 Granulators 6 Pan Floor 16 Refined Centrifugal 12 Pre-Packaging 14 Packaging 80 Shipping - Packages 51 Shipping - Bulk 6 Liquid Sugar 6 Yard Crew 4 Sanitation 12 Security 6 Commissary 4 Laboratory 8 Utilities 12 Dock 6 Painters 8 Construction 14 Truck Drivers 5 Electrical 15 Maintenance Shops 13 Area Mechanics 20 Operations Mechanics 12 Total Required for 369* Operation *There are approximately 30 additional people on the payroll who act as vacation replacements, absentee replacements, training, etc. 360 1.58 40 Source: https:.//wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs[ilbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES 1. Information known: A. Sugar refinery at Reserve, Louisiana - 32 miles west of New Orleans on the Mississippi River. B. Liquid sugár processing plant and distribution terminal at Cincinnati, Ohio and leases sugar packaging operations at Buffalo, New York and (Chicago, Illinois 12/1/74. C. Owns 8 hydraulic material processing dredges, owns or has long term leases on 11 towboats and 88 cargo barges and under short term leases has 15 towboats and 30 barges. D. Also owns ready-mixed concrete operations and a mixer fleet in Mobile; asphalt plants at Woodstock, Margerum and Mobile, Alabama: a concrete block plant at Mobile, and supporting sales depots at Mobile, Ft. Walton Beach and Pensacola, Florida, and New Orleans owns or leases 8 stone quarries and crushing plants at Mobile, Baltimore and Houston, and chemical lime plants at Morgan City, La., and Saginaw, Ala. Company leases 2 slag processing facilities at Columbia, Tenn. E. Mineral Reserves--Company leases shell deposits from the states of Alabama and Louisiana, estimated to contain 100 million tons; leases gravel deposits estimated to contain 10 million tons owns an asphaltic limestone deposit estimated to contain 1,500,000 tons; and leases lime- stone deposits estimated to contain 200 million tons. F. Raws: 25% from U.S. 75% from Foreign G. Campaign: 312 days in 1971 280 days in 1972 247 days in 1973 232 days in 1974 H. Refined Sugar Production Production Year (Million cwts) 1971 10.5 1972 9.2 1973 8.4 1974 8.5 1. Sells sugar under two tradenames: 1. Henderson Superfine 2. Godchaux Brand continued Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES, continued Page 2 J. Current assets $53 Million. K. Long term debt $34 Million. L. Cost of replacing cane facilities: 1) Processing - $25 million Mill (3500 ton/day grind) 2) Refinery - $45 million (700 ton/day raw sugar) X 2 = 99mm II. Data needed: A. What it costs for Raws - Domestic - Foreign B. Operating costs (cost of production including G & A percent of refined sugar). C. Where receive raws from D. Costs to market place E. Financial data up to net income F. Present contractual arrangements III. To Receive 30% ROI before tax: @ 20,000 $ 6mm Example 1: Cost Proc + Profit for Price for RAWS: Raws Freight G & A 30% ROI Ref. Sugar (U.S.)25% @ 126 + 0 + 2.56 + 16 15.5 (Foreign 75% @ 7c + 1.8€ + 2.56 + 1c 12.3 TOTAL Weight Price For Refined Sugar 13.1 IV. Potential Areas to Increase Profits A. Grain Exports $45 2.47 50 B. Foreign raw prices based on refined sugar prices when sold. 11,2 C. Participating contract with growers based on refined sugar prices or foreign raws. 14/11/11 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 The President of Southern Industries Reports. Net soles for the first quarter ended March 31, 1975 were $74,686,000 compared to $51,505,000 for the same period in 1974. Net income for the period was $1,482,000 equal to $1.03 per share compared to a net loss of $1,830,000 (restated) equal to a loss of $1.23 per shore in 1974. By.product line the basic materials group had a 165% increase in pre-tox cornings over last year. This group occounted for $916,000 or opproximately 38% of pre-tax eornings. The sugar division contributed $1,437,000 or 61% to the results. With the exception of low sugar volume, the demand for our other products and materials remains strong. Your attention is directed to the notes to the following statements for a further explanation of the financial results of the first quorter. D. E. Dowson, Jr. April 22, 1975 President 1 Sales and Income (Loss) by Product Line For the three months ended March 31, 1975 and 1974 (000 omitted) SALES INCOME (LOSS) 1974 1975 1974 1975 Restated Sugor $56,118 $35,758 $ 1,437 S( 3,381) Bosic Materials 15,515 12,977 916 345 Hordwore and Machinery 3,051 2,770 58 92 Other (Non-operating) 2 - ( 58) ( 32) $74,686 $51,505 $ 2,353 $( 2,976) Income Toxes Credit (and Provision) ( 871) 1,145 Net Income (Loss) $ 1,482 $( 1,830) Per Shore $ 1.03 S( 1.22) Consolidated Financial Condition (000 omitted) March 31 1974 1975 Restated Current assets $ 50,419 $ 39,516 Current liobilities 51,420 30,445 Net current assets ( 1,001) 9,071 Properties - net 47,325 44,500 Other ossets 6,874 5,749 Total ossets less current licbilities 53,198 59,320 Long term debt (including debt due within one year) 33 33,151 32,101 Other licbilities 1,847 2,318 Total long term debt and other licbilities 55 34,998 34,419 Net assets $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Stockholders' equity: Common stock (1,433,096 shares outstanding) $ 6,059 $ 6,059 Retoined income and capital surplus 12,141 18,842 Total stockholders' equity $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Notes to Financial Statements (1) The income (les) by product line includes o statistical ollocation of corporale costs including interest expense. (2) Figures for 1974 have been restated to reflect changing to the lost in, first out (LIFO) method from the first in, first out (FIFO) and overage cost methods of accounting for the row sugar content of sugor inventories. If the FIFO and overage cost methods hod been used by the Com- pony, these inventories, and consequently net current assets, would hove been $14,803,000 and 54, 166,000 higher than reported at March 31, 1975 and 1974 (restated), respectively. (3) Results for the three months ended March 31, 1975 include income of $2,373,000 from reducing quantities of row sugar inventories under the uro method to on anticipated yeor-end level (substontially less than quantities on hand of the beginning of 1975). (4) A net operoting loss collyover available from 1974 will offsei the first $6,815,000 of taxoble income in 1975 and thus eliminate payment of toxes. The provision for toxas at March 31, 1975 of $871,000 represents a charge for deferred income taxes not currently payable. (5) Net income per shore bosed on 1,433,096 shares outstanding. (6) Depreciation and amortization included above omounted to $1,485,000 ond $1,265,000 in 1975 and 1974, respectively. P) Above figures subject to yeor-end audit. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227

How much is the total current assets in the given form?

jlbx0227

jlbx0227_p0, jlbx0227_p1, jlbx0227_p2, jlbx0227_p3, jlbx0227_p4, jlbx0227_p5, jlbx0227_p6, jlbx0227_p7, jlbx0227_p8, jlbx0227_p9, jlbx0227_p10, jlbx0227_p11, jlbx0227_p12, jlbx0227_p13, jlbx0227_p14, jlbx0227_p15, jlbx0227_p16, jlbx0227_p17, jlbx0227_p18, jlbx0227_p19

21,908

GH BRIEFING 6-11-75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I. GH is not worth buying for what is has earned or will earn under "normal" conditions; i.e., buy, refine, sell sugar. EBIT $600 M to $1.500M Needs $6-9MM WC to continue Can be purchased for $4-8 MM (they expect $10MM) Our "cost" is $10-17MM. . II. GH has excellent 1. Facilities at Reserve 2. Technical support personnel at Reserve 3. Distribution network relative to GW. t 2,100, on 00 3, III. GH could be a good speculative investment 2.4 Hog Low Provides A. "LONG.LIMIT 7,200,000 2, 400,000 Balance to GWS beet business 21.000,000 5.7,100 2,200,00 3.0000 Take % of Sugar Broker/dist $ 6,200,000 wwword ? 400.00 = Entry to foreign refined market 10% "Improvement on cost of raws = $16MM profit contribution" We must get a "participating K".- HFTS: 2X the Bet. on 121,000 IV. Net; get into GH as low as possible, 4 3 Emphasize the Raws problem< : Slim down overhead 95° Devise a plan that can target for $20MM EBIT. Actual Potented V hmp Ratio 73 74 AT, impiral 1.6 2.6 1.9mm Gll 4% 2.6% G,8 Source:https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., INC. PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1967. - 1970 1971 & 1974 1971 Profit Before Tax, Interest and Supervision Fees $ 11,130 M $ 6,614 M $ 4,528 M Average Per Year . 2,783 3,307 4,528 1974 Supervision (506) (506) .' (506) 1974 Interest (2,213) (2,213) (2,213) Projected Annual Profit 64 588 1,809 Investment Required to Return 10% $ 640 M $ 5,880 M $ 18,090 M 30% 213 1,950 6,030 15% 426 3,920 12,600 Production (CWT) 32,824 M CWT 19,050 M CWT 10,502 M CWT Average Per Year 8,206 9,525 10,502 1.5 33 Objective: - Get 30 day option - Full P & L information (operating statistics) - Manufacturing costs (operating statistics) Be Prepared To: - Sign LOI - Offer $4 Mm Low $5 Mm Mid $6 Mm High for 30% return before taxes $10 Mm Absolute Top Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co., INC. BALANCE SHEETS December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 ASSETS Current assets: Cash $ 2,150,212 $ 1,295,521 Federal income tax refund 1,020,891 Accounts and notes receivable: Trade 17,277,055 8,652,194 Affiliates 67,279 463,344 Inventories 12,503,941 13,094,401 Prepaid insurance and other 392,086 185,945 Total current assets 33,411,464 23,691,405 Property, plant and equipment, at cost: Land 373,300 373,300 Buildings 6,208,224 5,905,359 Machinery and equipment 14,791,863 13,812,393 Delivery and other automotive equipment 89,307 89,307 Leasehold improvements 50,662 27,707 21,513,356 20,208,066 Less accumulated depreciation 6,975,497 5,995,392 14,537,859 14,212,674 Other assets: Deferred income. taxes 1,492,919 Sundry deferred charges 368,352 629,849 Notes receivable 2,500 110,500 Advances to affiliates 126,733 1,990,504 740,349 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,428 LIABILITIES Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities: Trade $ 31,834,490 $ 6,998,742 Affiliates 846,938 356,860 Notes payable 19,019,761 14,534,993 Current portion of long-term debt 103,317 308,828 Total current liabilities (18,393) 51,804,506 22,199,423 Mortgage and notes payable, current portion above: 10-1/2% First Mortgage Note 4,747,501 4,836,043 Other notes payable 124,451 180,306 4,871,952 5,016,349 Advances from affiliates 3,178,135 3,171,156 Deferred income taxes 788,190 STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY (DEFICIT) Common stock, $100 par value; 1,041 shares authorized, issued and outstanding 104,100 104,100 Paid-in capital 2,323,239 . 2,323,239 Retained earnings (deficit), as annexed (12,342,105) 5,041,971 (9,914,765) 7,469,310 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,418 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-MENDERSON SUGAR co., , INC. PRO FORMA BALANCE SHEET AT 5/31/75 IN HANDS OF OTHERS - ON LIFO ASSETS Cash $ 1,395 Accounts Receivable 12,464 - Inventories Sugar 272,000 cwt at $11.11 3,022 Processing cost 386 Spare parts 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 19,631 Fixed assets - Net 14,353 Other assets and deferred charges 411 TOTAL ASSETS $ 34,395 LIABILITIES = Notes payable - banks $ 14,253 Notes payable - La. raw mills 7,369 Need commu Current portion of long-term debt 115 Accounts payable and accrued 3,334 2,2 Total Current Liabilities 25,071 Long-term debt 4,815 Deferred taxes 872 Deferred futures profit 716 Stockholders' equity 2,921 TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 34,395 1975 ceremated income Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Soùrce: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/j)bx0227 GODCHAUX-IENDERSON SUGAR co., INC. ESTIMATED WORKING CAPITAL MAY 31, 1975 000's omitted Current Assets Cash $ 1,395 Accounts receivable 12,464 Note receivable - U.S. Sugar Co. 240 Inventories: Raw sugar (Massequite), 40,458 cwt @ $17 688 Refined, 216,216 cwt @ $22 4,757 Spare parts, bags, mdse. for resale 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 21,908 Current Liabilities Bank notes payable 14,253 Current portion of long-term debt 115 Total notes payable 14,368 La. raw sugar payables 7,369 Other trade payables and accruals 1,755 Total Current Liabilities 23,492 Net Estimated Working Capital (Deficit) ($ 1,584) CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co. INC. ESTIMATED NET INCOME JANUARY ] THROUGH MAY 31, 1975 Pre-tax income, 4/30/75 $ 388,221 Estimated profit on April inventory liquidation 346,750 Deferred inventory liquidation profit, 4/30/75 6,329,205 Last estimated of May income 187,723 7,251,899 Estimate of income from inventory liquidation in month of May: Cwt actual, 96°, , 4/30/75 485,000 Cwt actual, 96°; 5/31/75 272,000 Liquidated 213,000 Spread ($27 May Cost - $11) x 16 $3,408,000 May liquidation profit 3,408,000 Total estimated pre-tax income 10,659,899 Book taxes at 37% consolidated rate 3,944,163 Estimated net income $ 6,715,736 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR co. INC. 2 ESTIMATED STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY MAY 31, 1975 Capital stock $ 104,100 Paid in capital, existing balance 2,323,239 Additional contributions to be made by Southern Industries 5,345,000 Total capital stock and paid-in 7,772,339 Retained earnings (deficit), 1/1/75 (12,342,104) Estimated net income, 1/1-5/31/75 6,715,736 Retained earnings (deficit), 5/31/75 ( 5,626,368) Total Estimated Stockholder's Equity, 5/31/75 $ 2,145,971 776 2,921 5. cash 3,6 2 2146 8.6 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF INCOME (LOSS) AND RETAINED EARNINGS (DEFICIT) for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Net sales $270,994,584 $121,429,038 Cost of sales 282,649,140 117,395,585 Gross profit (loss) (11,654,556) 4,033,453 Selling, general and administrative expenses 3,259,352 2,468,224 (14,913,908) 1,565,229 Other income, net 143,984 54,687 16.4mm (14,769,924) 1,619,916 Interest deductions 2,192,152 1,197,210 Income (loss) before provision (credit) for taxes 4 14,2mm (16,962,076) 422,706 Provision (credit) for income taxes: Federal: Current (990,891) (277,206) Deferred (2,251,109) 181,357 State - current 19,089 (3,242,000) (76,760) Net income (loss) the 7.1mm (13,720,076) 499,466 Retained earnings, January 1, restated 5,041,971 4,667,505 (8,678,105) 5,166,971 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 Retained earnings (deficit), December 31 $(12,342,105) $ _5,041,971 See notes to financial statements. 3 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., , INC. Statement of Change in Financial Position 1/1/15 - 4/30/75 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income $ 1244,579 Depreciation and amortization 383,018 Deferred income taxes -0- Working capital provided from operations 627,597 Decrease in other assets 4,525 Increase in deferred liabilities 8,373,106 $ 9,005,228 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment $ : 293,428 Reduction to mortgage and notes payable 56,909 Increase in deferred charges 264,575 $ 614,912 Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Changes in working capital Current assets: Cash $ (1,169,483) Receivables a 230th (7,434,849) Inventories (4,138,565) Prepaid insurance and other. 338,681 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities + 2,3sta $ (20,787,991) Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (6,541) $ (20,794,532) Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income (loss) $(13,720,076) $ 499,466 Expenses (credit) not affecting working capital in the current year: Depreciation and amortization 1,060,770 819,542 Deferred income taxes (2,251,109) 181,357 Working capital provided from (applied to) operations for the year (14,910,415) 1,500,365 Increase in advances from affiliates 6,979 Increase in mortgage and notes payable 9,430 1,022,000 Property sales and retirements, less accumulated depreciation 53,470 15,535 Other 212,764 63,670 (14,627,772) 2,601,570 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment 1,439,425 2,778,888 Reduction in mortgage and notes payable 153,827 278,496 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 5,257,252 3,182,384 Decrease in working capital $ (19,885,024) $ (580,814) Change in working capital - increase (decrease) : Current assets: Cash $ 854,691 $ 703,853 Receivables 9,249,687 (635,126) Inventories (590,460) 2,042,128 Prepaid insurance and other 206,141 (32,598 9,720,059 2,078,257 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (25,325,826) 3,143,444 Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (4,279,257) (5,802,515) (29,605,083) (2,659,071 Decrease in working capital $(19,885,024) $ (580,814 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 - SUCAR C.O. INC. VARIOUS SINTISTICS 1/1/74 .. 12/31/174 (BEFORE LIFO) PROFIT CONTRIBUTION Net Profit Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Add: Supervision Fees 506,000 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 14,675,927 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 SIC Note Interest 45,913 Interest Expense 1,986,461 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 60,914 Debt Amortization 14,752 Profit Contribution 16,383,957 ABEREVIATED FLOW OF FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Less: Income Tax 7,084,964 Net Income $ 7,084,963 Add: Depreciation and Amortization 1,052,693 Cash Flow $ 8,137,656. Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt 800,082 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 8,937,738 drwanch Less: Dividends 3.664,000 Capital Expenditures 1,377,877 Net Flow of Funds - Surplus/(Deficit) $ 3,895,861 NET WORKING CAPITAL @ 12/31/74 $ 5,480,545 Repairs $ 1,653,955 Refined Sugar Produced CWT 8,547,969 = it n Operating Days - Refinery 233 321 Average Production per Operating Day $ 36,687 27 \ IIIN E. Ladd 5/19/75 Söurce: https://www.industrydócuments,ucsf.edutddrst T1xx0227 VARIOUS STATISTICS 1967 - 1973 7 YEAR 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 TOTAL PROFIT CONTRIBUTION is 196 P Net Profit Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 Add: Supervision Fees 108,701 116,733 141,000 553,719 635,000 600,000 475,200 2,630,353 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 1,546,380 $ 1,864,135.1 $,1,718,417 $ 3,055,741 $ 3,866,801 $ 1,111,305 $ 897,906 $14,060,685 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 - 105,000 735,000 SIC Note Interest 138,214 145,798 138,661 131,661 124,747 117,925 111,636 908,642 Interest Expense 461,912 469,086 500,094 414,888 399,240 550,819 979,364 3,775,403 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 26,933 30,683 32,257 29,098 31,987 42,390 43,155 236,503 Debt Amortization 3,008 3,009 a - 6,017 1 Profit Contribution $ 2,281,447 $ 2,617,711 $ 2,494,129 $ 3,736,388 $ 4,527,775 $ 1,927,439 $ 2,137,061 $19,722,250 =085. ASBREVIATED FLCW 07 FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 (633) Less: Income Tax 586,061 804,000 816,551 1,069,802 1,153,238 26,466 (76,760) 4,379,358 Net Incone $ 851,618 $ 943,402 $ 760,866 $ 1,432,220 $ 2,078,563 $ 484,839 $ 499,466 $ 7,050,974 Add: Depreciation & Amortization 378,075 426,909 496,715 536,092 599,874 674,623 819,542 3,931,530 Cash Flow $ 1,229,693 $ 1,370,311 $ 1,257,581 $ 1,968,312 $ 2,678,437 $ 1,159,462 $ 1,319,008 $10,982,604 Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt (603,062) (492,620) (333,174) (495,412) 1,865,581 3,351,521 743,504 4,036,338 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 626,631 $ 877,691 $ 924,407 $ 1,472,900 $ 4,544,013 $ 4,510,983 $ 2,062,512 $15,019,142 NO Less: Dividends -0- 375,000 330,000 530,000 : 660,000 330,000 125,000 2,350,000 Capital Expenditures 1,694,961 1,099,561 942,281 755,946 2,619,417 4,187,602 2,773,893 14,078,656 Net Flou of Funds - Surplus/(Doficit) $ (1,068,330) $ (596,870) $. (347,371) $ 186,954 $ 1,264,601 $ (6,619) $ (841,376) $(1,409,514) Net Working Capital at Year-End $ 1,738,296 $ 960,279 $ 531,173 $ 499,751 $ 1,171,294 $ 2,220,053 $ 2,216,941 $ 1,627,025 Repairs $ 1,160,277 $ 1,229,468 $ 1,156,668 $ 1,326,567 $ 1,475,224 $ 1,414,386 $1.1,383,014 $ 9,145,604 Refined Sugar Produced (Cwt.) 7,270,838 8,317,724 7,741,365 9,494,161 10,502,424 9,170,169 8,457,433 - Operating Days - Refinery 268 277 246 299 .312 280 247 Average Production per Operating Day (Cwt.) 27,130 30,028 31,495 31,817 33,694 32,751 34,185 E. Ladd . 3/28/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I a - 0.042 °C - - - - it. Co N T O 0= of n- F- 8 80 . ********** i. .7 -0 *********** ++++++++4 - - CUMVERCA RAN 7 CONVERCA 3 es (--) CF- a n a - D an nca [= HE' - In a g 2 - Filent - NOTE. o THIS MAP REDUCED KALF SIZE MAP OF PLANT LATOUT na Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 (10,000) 31,000 (43,000 24,000 (4,000) LEARTYPE OUNTY OUTUNE NITED STATES - (3,000) MAP NO.117 AMERICAN MAD SOMPANY.INC $ Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SALARIED ORGANIZATION MAY 1, 1975 Operations, J. A. Metzler 2 Purchasing 6 Cincinnati 5 13 Marketing, E. R. Fleming 2 Administration 10 Sales 8 20 Finance, H. L. Kirk 4 Credit 4 Billing 3 Machine Room 2 1.3 Accounting, R. L. Crawford 11 Refinery, A. Garcia 2 Maintenance 23 Quality Assurance 10 Engineering 4 Administration 19 Operations 35 Service 2 95 Mobile, Administration and Service 6 TOTAL 158 40 158 101 67 T. Source: https://wvww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/doce 51jTbx02.27 to HOURLY ORCANIZATION - RESERVE - MAY 1, 1975 Manning is based cn requirement of two full shifts plus skeleton crew on the third shift in Pecking, and six palletized crews and two hand loading crews in Shipping. Raw Receiving 3 Affination 9 Clarification 9 Char House 18 Granulators 6 Pan Floor 16 Refined Centrifugal 12 Pre-Packaging 14 Packaging 80 Shipping - Packages 51 Shipping - Bulk 6 Liquid Sugar 6 Yard Crew 4 Sanitation 12 Security 6 Commissary 4 Laboratory 8 Utilities 12 Dock 6 Painters 8 Construction 14 Truck Drivers 5 Electrical 15 Maintenance Shops 13 Area Mechanics 20 Operations Mechanics 12 Total Required for 369* Operation *There are approximately 30 additional people on the payroll who act as vacation replacements, absentee replacements, training, etc. 360 1.58 40 Source: https:.//wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs[ilbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES 1. Information known: A. Sugar refinery at Reserve, Louisiana - 32 miles west of New Orleans on the Mississippi River. B. Liquid sugár processing plant and distribution terminal at Cincinnati, Ohio and leases sugar packaging operations at Buffalo, New York and (Chicago, Illinois 12/1/74. C. Owns 8 hydraulic material processing dredges, owns or has long term leases on 11 towboats and 88 cargo barges and under short term leases has 15 towboats and 30 barges. D. Also owns ready-mixed concrete operations and a mixer fleet in Mobile; asphalt plants at Woodstock, Margerum and Mobile, Alabama: a concrete block plant at Mobile, and supporting sales depots at Mobile, Ft. Walton Beach and Pensacola, Florida, and New Orleans owns or leases 8 stone quarries and crushing plants at Mobile, Baltimore and Houston, and chemical lime plants at Morgan City, La., and Saginaw, Ala. Company leases 2 slag processing facilities at Columbia, Tenn. E. Mineral Reserves--Company leases shell deposits from the states of Alabama and Louisiana, estimated to contain 100 million tons; leases gravel deposits estimated to contain 10 million tons owns an asphaltic limestone deposit estimated to contain 1,500,000 tons; and leases lime- stone deposits estimated to contain 200 million tons. F. Raws: 25% from U.S. 75% from Foreign G. Campaign: 312 days in 1971 280 days in 1972 247 days in 1973 232 days in 1974 H. Refined Sugar Production Production Year (Million cwts) 1971 10.5 1972 9.2 1973 8.4 1974 8.5 1. Sells sugar under two tradenames: 1. Henderson Superfine 2. Godchaux Brand continued Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES, continued Page 2 J. Current assets $53 Million. K. Long term debt $34 Million. L. Cost of replacing cane facilities: 1) Processing - $25 million Mill (3500 ton/day grind) 2) Refinery - $45 million (700 ton/day raw sugar) X 2 = 99mm II. Data needed: A. What it costs for Raws - Domestic - Foreign B. Operating costs (cost of production including G & A percent of refined sugar). C. Where receive raws from D. Costs to market place E. Financial data up to net income F. Present contractual arrangements III. To Receive 30% ROI before tax: @ 20,000 $ 6mm Example 1: Cost Proc + Profit for Price for RAWS: Raws Freight G & A 30% ROI Ref. Sugar (U.S.)25% @ 126 + 0 + 2.56 + 16 15.5 (Foreign 75% @ 7c + 1.8€ + 2.56 + 1c 12.3 TOTAL Weight Price For Refined Sugar 13.1 IV. Potential Areas to Increase Profits A. Grain Exports $45 2.47 50 B. Foreign raw prices based on refined sugar prices when sold. 11,2 C. Participating contract with growers based on refined sugar prices or foreign raws. 14/11/11 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 The President of Southern Industries Reports. Net soles for the first quarter ended March 31, 1975 were $74,686,000 compared to $51,505,000 for the same period in 1974. Net income for the period was $1,482,000 equal to $1.03 per share compared to a net loss of $1,830,000 (restated) equal to a loss of $1.23 per shore in 1974. By.product line the basic materials group had a 165% increase in pre-tox cornings over last year. This group occounted for $916,000 or opproximately 38% of pre-tax eornings. The sugar division contributed $1,437,000 or 61% to the results. With the exception of low sugar volume, the demand for our other products and materials remains strong. Your attention is directed to the notes to the following statements for a further explanation of the financial results of the first quorter. D. E. Dowson, Jr. April 22, 1975 President 1 Sales and Income (Loss) by Product Line For the three months ended March 31, 1975 and 1974 (000 omitted) SALES INCOME (LOSS) 1974 1975 1974 1975 Restated Sugor $56,118 $35,758 $ 1,437 S( 3,381) Bosic Materials 15,515 12,977 916 345 Hordwore and Machinery 3,051 2,770 58 92 Other (Non-operating) 2 - ( 58) ( 32) $74,686 $51,505 $ 2,353 $( 2,976) Income Toxes Credit (and Provision) ( 871) 1,145 Net Income (Loss) $ 1,482 $( 1,830) Per Shore $ 1.03 S( 1.22) Consolidated Financial Condition (000 omitted) March 31 1974 1975 Restated Current assets $ 50,419 $ 39,516 Current liobilities 51,420 30,445 Net current assets ( 1,001) 9,071 Properties - net 47,325 44,500 Other ossets 6,874 5,749 Total ossets less current licbilities 53,198 59,320 Long term debt (including debt due within one year) 33 33,151 32,101 Other licbilities 1,847 2,318 Total long term debt and other licbilities 55 34,998 34,419 Net assets $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Stockholders' equity: Common stock (1,433,096 shares outstanding) $ 6,059 $ 6,059 Retoined income and capital surplus 12,141 18,842 Total stockholders' equity $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Notes to Financial Statements (1) The income (les) by product line includes o statistical ollocation of corporale costs including interest expense. (2) Figures for 1974 have been restated to reflect changing to the lost in, first out (LIFO) method from the first in, first out (FIFO) and overage cost methods of accounting for the row sugar content of sugor inventories. If the FIFO and overage cost methods hod been used by the Com- pony, these inventories, and consequently net current assets, would hove been $14,803,000 and 54, 166,000 higher than reported at March 31, 1975 and 1974 (restated), respectively. (3) Results for the three months ended March 31, 1975 include income of $2,373,000 from reducing quantities of row sugar inventories under the uro method to on anticipated yeor-end level (substontially less than quantities on hand of the beginning of 1975). (4) A net operoting loss collyover available from 1974 will offsei the first $6,815,000 of taxoble income in 1975 and thus eliminate payment of toxes. The provision for toxas at March 31, 1975 of $871,000 represents a charge for deferred income taxes not currently payable. (5) Net income per shore bosed on 1,433,096 shares outstanding. (6) Depreciation and amortization included above omounted to $1,485,000 ond $1,265,000 in 1975 and 1974, respectively. P) Above figures subject to yeor-end audit. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227

in which year this estimated working capital is released ?

jlbx0227

jlbx0227_p0, jlbx0227_p1, jlbx0227_p2, jlbx0227_p3, jlbx0227_p4, jlbx0227_p5, jlbx0227_p6, jlbx0227_p7, jlbx0227_p8, jlbx0227_p9, jlbx0227_p10, jlbx0227_p11, jlbx0227_p12, jlbx0227_p13, jlbx0227_p14, jlbx0227_p15, jlbx0227_p16, jlbx0227_p17, jlbx0227_p18, jlbx0227_p19

1975

GH BRIEFING 6-11-75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I. GH is not worth buying for what is has earned or will earn under "normal" conditions; i.e., buy, refine, sell sugar. EBIT $600 M to $1.500M Needs $6-9MM WC to continue Can be purchased for $4-8 MM (they expect $10MM) Our "cost" is $10-17MM. . II. GH has excellent 1. Facilities at Reserve 2. Technical support personnel at Reserve 3. Distribution network relative to GW. t 2,100, on 00 3, III. GH could be a good speculative investment 2.4 Hog Low Provides A. "LONG.LIMIT 7,200,000 2, 400,000 Balance to GWS beet business 21.000,000 5.7,100 2,200,00 3.0000 Take % of Sugar Broker/dist $ 6,200,000 wwword ? 400.00 = Entry to foreign refined market 10% "Improvement on cost of raws = $16MM profit contribution" We must get a "participating K".- HFTS: 2X the Bet. on 121,000 IV. Net; get into GH as low as possible, 4 3 Emphasize the Raws problem< : Slim down overhead 95° Devise a plan that can target for $20MM EBIT. Actual Potented V hmp Ratio 73 74 AT, impiral 1.6 2.6 1.9mm Gll 4% 2.6% G,8 Source:https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., INC. PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1967. - 1970 1971 & 1974 1971 Profit Before Tax, Interest and Supervision Fees $ 11,130 M $ 6,614 M $ 4,528 M Average Per Year . 2,783 3,307 4,528 1974 Supervision (506) (506) .' (506) 1974 Interest (2,213) (2,213) (2,213) Projected Annual Profit 64 588 1,809 Investment Required to Return 10% $ 640 M $ 5,880 M $ 18,090 M 30% 213 1,950 6,030 15% 426 3,920 12,600 Production (CWT) 32,824 M CWT 19,050 M CWT 10,502 M CWT Average Per Year 8,206 9,525 10,502 1.5 33 Objective: - Get 30 day option - Full P & L information (operating statistics) - Manufacturing costs (operating statistics) Be Prepared To: - Sign LOI - Offer $4 Mm Low $5 Mm Mid $6 Mm High for 30% return before taxes $10 Mm Absolute Top Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co., INC. BALANCE SHEETS December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 ASSETS Current assets: Cash $ 2,150,212 $ 1,295,521 Federal income tax refund 1,020,891 Accounts and notes receivable: Trade 17,277,055 8,652,194 Affiliates 67,279 463,344 Inventories 12,503,941 13,094,401 Prepaid insurance and other 392,086 185,945 Total current assets 33,411,464 23,691,405 Property, plant and equipment, at cost: Land 373,300 373,300 Buildings 6,208,224 5,905,359 Machinery and equipment 14,791,863 13,812,393 Delivery and other automotive equipment 89,307 89,307 Leasehold improvements 50,662 27,707 21,513,356 20,208,066 Less accumulated depreciation 6,975,497 5,995,392 14,537,859 14,212,674 Other assets: Deferred income. taxes 1,492,919 Sundry deferred charges 368,352 629,849 Notes receivable 2,500 110,500 Advances to affiliates 126,733 1,990,504 740,349 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,428 LIABILITIES Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities: Trade $ 31,834,490 $ 6,998,742 Affiliates 846,938 356,860 Notes payable 19,019,761 14,534,993 Current portion of long-term debt 103,317 308,828 Total current liabilities (18,393) 51,804,506 22,199,423 Mortgage and notes payable, current portion above: 10-1/2% First Mortgage Note 4,747,501 4,836,043 Other notes payable 124,451 180,306 4,871,952 5,016,349 Advances from affiliates 3,178,135 3,171,156 Deferred income taxes 788,190 STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY (DEFICIT) Common stock, $100 par value; 1,041 shares authorized, issued and outstanding 104,100 104,100 Paid-in capital 2,323,239 . 2,323,239 Retained earnings (deficit), as annexed (12,342,105) 5,041,971 (9,914,765) 7,469,310 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,418 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-MENDERSON SUGAR co., , INC. PRO FORMA BALANCE SHEET AT 5/31/75 IN HANDS OF OTHERS - ON LIFO ASSETS Cash $ 1,395 Accounts Receivable 12,464 - Inventories Sugar 272,000 cwt at $11.11 3,022 Processing cost 386 Spare parts 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 19,631 Fixed assets - Net 14,353 Other assets and deferred charges 411 TOTAL ASSETS $ 34,395 LIABILITIES = Notes payable - banks $ 14,253 Notes payable - La. raw mills 7,369 Need commu Current portion of long-term debt 115 Accounts payable and accrued 3,334 2,2 Total Current Liabilities 25,071 Long-term debt 4,815 Deferred taxes 872 Deferred futures profit 716 Stockholders' equity 2,921 TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 34,395 1975 ceremated income Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Soùrce: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/j)bx0227 GODCHAUX-IENDERSON SUGAR co., INC. ESTIMATED WORKING CAPITAL MAY 31, 1975 000's omitted Current Assets Cash $ 1,395 Accounts receivable 12,464 Note receivable - U.S. Sugar Co. 240 Inventories: Raw sugar (Massequite), 40,458 cwt @ $17 688 Refined, 216,216 cwt @ $22 4,757 Spare parts, bags, mdse. for resale 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 21,908 Current Liabilities Bank notes payable 14,253 Current portion of long-term debt 115 Total notes payable 14,368 La. raw sugar payables 7,369 Other trade payables and accruals 1,755 Total Current Liabilities 23,492 Net Estimated Working Capital (Deficit) ($ 1,584) CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co. INC. ESTIMATED NET INCOME JANUARY ] THROUGH MAY 31, 1975 Pre-tax income, 4/30/75 $ 388,221 Estimated profit on April inventory liquidation 346,750 Deferred inventory liquidation profit, 4/30/75 6,329,205 Last estimated of May income 187,723 7,251,899 Estimate of income from inventory liquidation in month of May: Cwt actual, 96°, , 4/30/75 485,000 Cwt actual, 96°; 5/31/75 272,000 Liquidated 213,000 Spread ($27 May Cost - $11) x 16 $3,408,000 May liquidation profit 3,408,000 Total estimated pre-tax income 10,659,899 Book taxes at 37% consolidated rate 3,944,163 Estimated net income $ 6,715,736 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR co. INC. 2 ESTIMATED STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY MAY 31, 1975 Capital stock $ 104,100 Paid in capital, existing balance 2,323,239 Additional contributions to be made by Southern Industries 5,345,000 Total capital stock and paid-in 7,772,339 Retained earnings (deficit), 1/1/75 (12,342,104) Estimated net income, 1/1-5/31/75 6,715,736 Retained earnings (deficit), 5/31/75 ( 5,626,368) Total Estimated Stockholder's Equity, 5/31/75 $ 2,145,971 776 2,921 5. cash 3,6 2 2146 8.6 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF INCOME (LOSS) AND RETAINED EARNINGS (DEFICIT) for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Net sales $270,994,584 $121,429,038 Cost of sales 282,649,140 117,395,585 Gross profit (loss) (11,654,556) 4,033,453 Selling, general and administrative expenses 3,259,352 2,468,224 (14,913,908) 1,565,229 Other income, net 143,984 54,687 16.4mm (14,769,924) 1,619,916 Interest deductions 2,192,152 1,197,210 Income (loss) before provision (credit) for taxes 4 14,2mm (16,962,076) 422,706 Provision (credit) for income taxes: Federal: Current (990,891) (277,206) Deferred (2,251,109) 181,357 State - current 19,089 (3,242,000) (76,760) Net income (loss) the 7.1mm (13,720,076) 499,466 Retained earnings, January 1, restated 5,041,971 4,667,505 (8,678,105) 5,166,971 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 Retained earnings (deficit), December 31 $(12,342,105) $ _5,041,971 See notes to financial statements. 3 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., , INC. Statement of Change in Financial Position 1/1/15 - 4/30/75 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income $ 1244,579 Depreciation and amortization 383,018 Deferred income taxes -0- Working capital provided from operations 627,597 Decrease in other assets 4,525 Increase in deferred liabilities 8,373,106 $ 9,005,228 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment $ : 293,428 Reduction to mortgage and notes payable 56,909 Increase in deferred charges 264,575 $ 614,912 Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Changes in working capital Current assets: Cash $ (1,169,483) Receivables a 230th (7,434,849) Inventories (4,138,565) Prepaid insurance and other. 338,681 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities + 2,3sta $ (20,787,991) Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (6,541) $ (20,794,532) Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income (loss) $(13,720,076) $ 499,466 Expenses (credit) not affecting working capital in the current year: Depreciation and amortization 1,060,770 819,542 Deferred income taxes (2,251,109) 181,357 Working capital provided from (applied to) operations for the year (14,910,415) 1,500,365 Increase in advances from affiliates 6,979 Increase in mortgage and notes payable 9,430 1,022,000 Property sales and retirements, less accumulated depreciation 53,470 15,535 Other 212,764 63,670 (14,627,772) 2,601,570 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment 1,439,425 2,778,888 Reduction in mortgage and notes payable 153,827 278,496 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 5,257,252 3,182,384 Decrease in working capital $ (19,885,024) $ (580,814) Change in working capital - increase (decrease) : Current assets: Cash $ 854,691 $ 703,853 Receivables 9,249,687 (635,126) Inventories (590,460) 2,042,128 Prepaid insurance and other 206,141 (32,598 9,720,059 2,078,257 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (25,325,826) 3,143,444 Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (4,279,257) (5,802,515) (29,605,083) (2,659,071 Decrease in working capital $(19,885,024) $ (580,814 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 - SUCAR C.O. INC. VARIOUS SINTISTICS 1/1/74 .. 12/31/174 (BEFORE LIFO) PROFIT CONTRIBUTION Net Profit Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Add: Supervision Fees 506,000 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 14,675,927 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 SIC Note Interest 45,913 Interest Expense 1,986,461 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 60,914 Debt Amortization 14,752 Profit Contribution 16,383,957 ABEREVIATED FLOW OF FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Less: Income Tax 7,084,964 Net Income $ 7,084,963 Add: Depreciation and Amortization 1,052,693 Cash Flow $ 8,137,656. Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt 800,082 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 8,937,738 drwanch Less: Dividends 3.664,000 Capital Expenditures 1,377,877 Net Flow of Funds - Surplus/(Deficit) $ 3,895,861 NET WORKING CAPITAL @ 12/31/74 $ 5,480,545 Repairs $ 1,653,955 Refined Sugar Produced CWT 8,547,969 = it n Operating Days - Refinery 233 321 Average Production per Operating Day $ 36,687 27 \ IIIN E. Ladd 5/19/75 Söurce: https://www.industrydócuments,ucsf.edutddrst T1xx0227 VARIOUS STATISTICS 1967 - 1973 7 YEAR 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 TOTAL PROFIT CONTRIBUTION is 196 P Net Profit Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 Add: Supervision Fees 108,701 116,733 141,000 553,719 635,000 600,000 475,200 2,630,353 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 1,546,380 $ 1,864,135.1 $,1,718,417 $ 3,055,741 $ 3,866,801 $ 1,111,305 $ 897,906 $14,060,685 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 - 105,000 735,000 SIC Note Interest 138,214 145,798 138,661 131,661 124,747 117,925 111,636 908,642 Interest Expense 461,912 469,086 500,094 414,888 399,240 550,819 979,364 3,775,403 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 26,933 30,683 32,257 29,098 31,987 42,390 43,155 236,503 Debt Amortization 3,008 3,009 a - 6,017 1 Profit Contribution $ 2,281,447 $ 2,617,711 $ 2,494,129 $ 3,736,388 $ 4,527,775 $ 1,927,439 $ 2,137,061 $19,722,250 =085. ASBREVIATED FLCW 07 FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 (633) Less: Income Tax 586,061 804,000 816,551 1,069,802 1,153,238 26,466 (76,760) 4,379,358 Net Incone $ 851,618 $ 943,402 $ 760,866 $ 1,432,220 $ 2,078,563 $ 484,839 $ 499,466 $ 7,050,974 Add: Depreciation & Amortization 378,075 426,909 496,715 536,092 599,874 674,623 819,542 3,931,530 Cash Flow $ 1,229,693 $ 1,370,311 $ 1,257,581 $ 1,968,312 $ 2,678,437 $ 1,159,462 $ 1,319,008 $10,982,604 Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt (603,062) (492,620) (333,174) (495,412) 1,865,581 3,351,521 743,504 4,036,338 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 626,631 $ 877,691 $ 924,407 $ 1,472,900 $ 4,544,013 $ 4,510,983 $ 2,062,512 $15,019,142 NO Less: Dividends -0- 375,000 330,000 530,000 : 660,000 330,000 125,000 2,350,000 Capital Expenditures 1,694,961 1,099,561 942,281 755,946 2,619,417 4,187,602 2,773,893 14,078,656 Net Flou of Funds - Surplus/(Doficit) $ (1,068,330) $ (596,870) $. (347,371) $ 186,954 $ 1,264,601 $ (6,619) $ (841,376) $(1,409,514) Net Working Capital at Year-End $ 1,738,296 $ 960,279 $ 531,173 $ 499,751 $ 1,171,294 $ 2,220,053 $ 2,216,941 $ 1,627,025 Repairs $ 1,160,277 $ 1,229,468 $ 1,156,668 $ 1,326,567 $ 1,475,224 $ 1,414,386 $1.1,383,014 $ 9,145,604 Refined Sugar Produced (Cwt.) 7,270,838 8,317,724 7,741,365 9,494,161 10,502,424 9,170,169 8,457,433 - Operating Days - Refinery 268 277 246 299 .312 280 247 Average Production per Operating Day (Cwt.) 27,130 30,028 31,495 31,817 33,694 32,751 34,185 E. Ladd . 3/28/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I a - 0.042 °C - - - - it. Co N T O 0= of n- F- 8 80 . ********** i. .7 -0 *********** ++++++++4 - - CUMVERCA RAN 7 CONVERCA 3 es (--) CF- a n a - D an nca [= HE' - In a g 2 - Filent - NOTE. o THIS MAP REDUCED KALF SIZE MAP OF PLANT LATOUT na Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 (10,000) 31,000 (43,000 24,000 (4,000) LEARTYPE OUNTY OUTUNE NITED STATES - (3,000) MAP NO.117 AMERICAN MAD SOMPANY.INC $ Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SALARIED ORGANIZATION MAY 1, 1975 Operations, J. A. Metzler 2 Purchasing 6 Cincinnati 5 13 Marketing, E. R. Fleming 2 Administration 10 Sales 8 20 Finance, H. L. Kirk 4 Credit 4 Billing 3 Machine Room 2 1.3 Accounting, R. L. Crawford 11 Refinery, A. Garcia 2 Maintenance 23 Quality Assurance 10 Engineering 4 Administration 19 Operations 35 Service 2 95 Mobile, Administration and Service 6 TOTAL 158 40 158 101 67 T. Source: https://wvww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/doce 51jTbx02.27 to HOURLY ORCANIZATION - RESERVE - MAY 1, 1975 Manning is based cn requirement of two full shifts plus skeleton crew on the third shift in Pecking, and six palletized crews and two hand loading crews in Shipping. Raw Receiving 3 Affination 9 Clarification 9 Char House 18 Granulators 6 Pan Floor 16 Refined Centrifugal 12 Pre-Packaging 14 Packaging 80 Shipping - Packages 51 Shipping - Bulk 6 Liquid Sugar 6 Yard Crew 4 Sanitation 12 Security 6 Commissary 4 Laboratory 8 Utilities 12 Dock 6 Painters 8 Construction 14 Truck Drivers 5 Electrical 15 Maintenance Shops 13 Area Mechanics 20 Operations Mechanics 12 Total Required for 369* Operation *There are approximately 30 additional people on the payroll who act as vacation replacements, absentee replacements, training, etc. 360 1.58 40 Source: https:.//wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs[ilbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES 1. Information known: A. Sugar refinery at Reserve, Louisiana - 32 miles west of New Orleans on the Mississippi River. B. Liquid sugár processing plant and distribution terminal at Cincinnati, Ohio and leases sugar packaging operations at Buffalo, New York and (Chicago, Illinois 12/1/74. C. Owns 8 hydraulic material processing dredges, owns or has long term leases on 11 towboats and 88 cargo barges and under short term leases has 15 towboats and 30 barges. D. Also owns ready-mixed concrete operations and a mixer fleet in Mobile; asphalt plants at Woodstock, Margerum and Mobile, Alabama: a concrete block plant at Mobile, and supporting sales depots at Mobile, Ft. Walton Beach and Pensacola, Florida, and New Orleans owns or leases 8 stone quarries and crushing plants at Mobile, Baltimore and Houston, and chemical lime plants at Morgan City, La., and Saginaw, Ala. Company leases 2 slag processing facilities at Columbia, Tenn. E. Mineral Reserves--Company leases shell deposits from the states of Alabama and Louisiana, estimated to contain 100 million tons; leases gravel deposits estimated to contain 10 million tons owns an asphaltic limestone deposit estimated to contain 1,500,000 tons; and leases lime- stone deposits estimated to contain 200 million tons. F. Raws: 25% from U.S. 75% from Foreign G. Campaign: 312 days in 1971 280 days in 1972 247 days in 1973 232 days in 1974 H. Refined Sugar Production Production Year (Million cwts) 1971 10.5 1972 9.2 1973 8.4 1974 8.5 1. Sells sugar under two tradenames: 1. Henderson Superfine 2. Godchaux Brand continued Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES, continued Page 2 J. Current assets $53 Million. K. Long term debt $34 Million. L. Cost of replacing cane facilities: 1) Processing - $25 million Mill (3500 ton/day grind) 2) Refinery - $45 million (700 ton/day raw sugar) X 2 = 99mm II. Data needed: A. What it costs for Raws - Domestic - Foreign B. Operating costs (cost of production including G & A percent of refined sugar). C. Where receive raws from D. Costs to market place E. Financial data up to net income F. Present contractual arrangements III. To Receive 30% ROI before tax: @ 20,000 $ 6mm Example 1: Cost Proc + Profit for Price for RAWS: Raws Freight G & A 30% ROI Ref. Sugar (U.S.)25% @ 126 + 0 + 2.56 + 16 15.5 (Foreign 75% @ 7c + 1.8€ + 2.56 + 1c 12.3 TOTAL Weight Price For Refined Sugar 13.1 IV. Potential Areas to Increase Profits A. Grain Exports $45 2.47 50 B. Foreign raw prices based on refined sugar prices when sold. 11,2 C. Participating contract with growers based on refined sugar prices or foreign raws. 14/11/11 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 The President of Southern Industries Reports. Net soles for the first quarter ended March 31, 1975 were $74,686,000 compared to $51,505,000 for the same period in 1974. Net income for the period was $1,482,000 equal to $1.03 per share compared to a net loss of $1,830,000 (restated) equal to a loss of $1.23 per shore in 1974. By.product line the basic materials group had a 165% increase in pre-tox cornings over last year. This group occounted for $916,000 or opproximately 38% of pre-tax eornings. The sugar division contributed $1,437,000 or 61% to the results. With the exception of low sugar volume, the demand for our other products and materials remains strong. Your attention is directed to the notes to the following statements for a further explanation of the financial results of the first quorter. D. E. Dowson, Jr. April 22, 1975 President 1 Sales and Income (Loss) by Product Line For the three months ended March 31, 1975 and 1974 (000 omitted) SALES INCOME (LOSS) 1974 1975 1974 1975 Restated Sugor $56,118 $35,758 $ 1,437 S( 3,381) Bosic Materials 15,515 12,977 916 345 Hordwore and Machinery 3,051 2,770 58 92 Other (Non-operating) 2 - ( 58) ( 32) $74,686 $51,505 $ 2,353 $( 2,976) Income Toxes Credit (and Provision) ( 871) 1,145 Net Income (Loss) $ 1,482 $( 1,830) Per Shore $ 1.03 S( 1.22) Consolidated Financial Condition (000 omitted) March 31 1974 1975 Restated Current assets $ 50,419 $ 39,516 Current liobilities 51,420 30,445 Net current assets ( 1,001) 9,071 Properties - net 47,325 44,500 Other ossets 6,874 5,749 Total ossets less current licbilities 53,198 59,320 Long term debt (including debt due within one year) 33 33,151 32,101 Other licbilities 1,847 2,318 Total long term debt and other licbilities 55 34,998 34,419 Net assets $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Stockholders' equity: Common stock (1,433,096 shares outstanding) $ 6,059 $ 6,059 Retoined income and capital surplus 12,141 18,842 Total stockholders' equity $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Notes to Financial Statements (1) The income (les) by product line includes o statistical ollocation of corporale costs including interest expense. (2) Figures for 1974 have been restated to reflect changing to the lost in, first out (LIFO) method from the first in, first out (FIFO) and overage cost methods of accounting for the row sugar content of sugor inventories. If the FIFO and overage cost methods hod been used by the Com- pony, these inventories, and consequently net current assets, would hove been $14,803,000 and 54, 166,000 higher than reported at March 31, 1975 and 1974 (restated), respectively. (3) Results for the three months ended March 31, 1975 include income of $2,373,000 from reducing quantities of row sugar inventories under the uro method to on anticipated yeor-end level (substontially less than quantities on hand of the beginning of 1975). (4) A net operoting loss collyover available from 1974 will offsei the first $6,815,000 of taxoble income in 1975 and thus eliminate payment of toxes. The provision for toxas at March 31, 1975 of $871,000 represents a charge for deferred income taxes not currently payable. (5) Net income per shore bosed on 1,433,096 shares outstanding. (6) Depreciation and amortization included above omounted to $1,485,000 ond $1,265,000 in 1975 and 1974, respectively. P) Above figures subject to yeor-end audit. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227

what is the amount of prepaid expenses in the current assets ?

jlbx0227

jlbx0227_p0, jlbx0227_p1, jlbx0227_p2, jlbx0227_p3, jlbx0227_p4, jlbx0227_p5, jlbx0227_p6, jlbx0227_p7, jlbx0227_p8, jlbx0227_p9, jlbx0227_p10, jlbx0227_p11, jlbx0227_p12, jlbx0227_p13, jlbx0227_p14, jlbx0227_p15, jlbx0227_p16, jlbx0227_p17, jlbx0227_p18, jlbx0227_p19

394

GH BRIEFING 6-11-75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I. GH is not worth buying for what is has earned or will earn under "normal" conditions; i.e., buy, refine, sell sugar. EBIT $600 M to $1.500M Needs $6-9MM WC to continue Can be purchased for $4-8 MM (they expect $10MM) Our "cost" is $10-17MM. . II. GH has excellent 1. Facilities at Reserve 2. Technical support personnel at Reserve 3. Distribution network relative to GW. t 2,100, on 00 3, III. GH could be a good speculative investment 2.4 Hog Low Provides A. "LONG.LIMIT 7,200,000 2, 400,000 Balance to GWS beet business 21.000,000 5.7,100 2,200,00 3.0000 Take % of Sugar Broker/dist $ 6,200,000 wwword ? 400.00 = Entry to foreign refined market 10% "Improvement on cost of raws = $16MM profit contribution" We must get a "participating K".- HFTS: 2X the Bet. on 121,000 IV. Net; get into GH as low as possible, 4 3 Emphasize the Raws problem< : Slim down overhead 95° Devise a plan that can target for $20MM EBIT. Actual Potented V hmp Ratio 73 74 AT, impiral 1.6 2.6 1.9mm Gll 4% 2.6% G,8 Source:https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., INC. PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1967. - 1970 1971 & 1974 1971 Profit Before Tax, Interest and Supervision Fees $ 11,130 M $ 6,614 M $ 4,528 M Average Per Year . 2,783 3,307 4,528 1974 Supervision (506) (506) .' (506) 1974 Interest (2,213) (2,213) (2,213) Projected Annual Profit 64 588 1,809 Investment Required to Return 10% $ 640 M $ 5,880 M $ 18,090 M 30% 213 1,950 6,030 15% 426 3,920 12,600 Production (CWT) 32,824 M CWT 19,050 M CWT 10,502 M CWT Average Per Year 8,206 9,525 10,502 1.5 33 Objective: - Get 30 day option - Full P & L information (operating statistics) - Manufacturing costs (operating statistics) Be Prepared To: - Sign LOI - Offer $4 Mm Low $5 Mm Mid $6 Mm High for 30% return before taxes $10 Mm Absolute Top Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co., INC. BALANCE SHEETS December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 ASSETS Current assets: Cash $ 2,150,212 $ 1,295,521 Federal income tax refund 1,020,891 Accounts and notes receivable: Trade 17,277,055 8,652,194 Affiliates 67,279 463,344 Inventories 12,503,941 13,094,401 Prepaid insurance and other 392,086 185,945 Total current assets 33,411,464 23,691,405 Property, plant and equipment, at cost: Land 373,300 373,300 Buildings 6,208,224 5,905,359 Machinery and equipment 14,791,863 13,812,393 Delivery and other automotive equipment 89,307 89,307 Leasehold improvements 50,662 27,707 21,513,356 20,208,066 Less accumulated depreciation 6,975,497 5,995,392 14,537,859 14,212,674 Other assets: Deferred income. taxes 1,492,919 Sundry deferred charges 368,352 629,849 Notes receivable 2,500 110,500 Advances to affiliates 126,733 1,990,504 740,349 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,428 LIABILITIES Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities: Trade $ 31,834,490 $ 6,998,742 Affiliates 846,938 356,860 Notes payable 19,019,761 14,534,993 Current portion of long-term debt 103,317 308,828 Total current liabilities (18,393) 51,804,506 22,199,423 Mortgage and notes payable, current portion above: 10-1/2% First Mortgage Note 4,747,501 4,836,043 Other notes payable 124,451 180,306 4,871,952 5,016,349 Advances from affiliates 3,178,135 3,171,156 Deferred income taxes 788,190 STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY (DEFICIT) Common stock, $100 par value; 1,041 shares authorized, issued and outstanding 104,100 104,100 Paid-in capital 2,323,239 . 2,323,239 Retained earnings (deficit), as annexed (12,342,105) 5,041,971 (9,914,765) 7,469,310 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,418 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-MENDERSON SUGAR co., , INC. PRO FORMA BALANCE SHEET AT 5/31/75 IN HANDS OF OTHERS - ON LIFO ASSETS Cash $ 1,395 Accounts Receivable 12,464 - Inventories Sugar 272,000 cwt at $11.11 3,022 Processing cost 386 Spare parts 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 19,631 Fixed assets - Net 14,353 Other assets and deferred charges 411 TOTAL ASSETS $ 34,395 LIABILITIES = Notes payable - banks $ 14,253 Notes payable - La. raw mills 7,369 Need commu Current portion of long-term debt 115 Accounts payable and accrued 3,334 2,2 Total Current Liabilities 25,071 Long-term debt 4,815 Deferred taxes 872 Deferred futures profit 716 Stockholders' equity 2,921 TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 34,395 1975 ceremated income Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Soùrce: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/j)bx0227 GODCHAUX-IENDERSON SUGAR co., INC. ESTIMATED WORKING CAPITAL MAY 31, 1975 000's omitted Current Assets Cash $ 1,395 Accounts receivable 12,464 Note receivable - U.S. Sugar Co. 240 Inventories: Raw sugar (Massequite), 40,458 cwt @ $17 688 Refined, 216,216 cwt @ $22 4,757 Spare parts, bags, mdse. for resale 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 21,908 Current Liabilities Bank notes payable 14,253 Current portion of long-term debt 115 Total notes payable 14,368 La. raw sugar payables 7,369 Other trade payables and accruals 1,755 Total Current Liabilities 23,492 Net Estimated Working Capital (Deficit) ($ 1,584) CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co. INC. ESTIMATED NET INCOME JANUARY ] THROUGH MAY 31, 1975 Pre-tax income, 4/30/75 $ 388,221 Estimated profit on April inventory liquidation 346,750 Deferred inventory liquidation profit, 4/30/75 6,329,205 Last estimated of May income 187,723 7,251,899 Estimate of income from inventory liquidation in month of May: Cwt actual, 96°, , 4/30/75 485,000 Cwt actual, 96°; 5/31/75 272,000 Liquidated 213,000 Spread ($27 May Cost - $11) x 16 $3,408,000 May liquidation profit 3,408,000 Total estimated pre-tax income 10,659,899 Book taxes at 37% consolidated rate 3,944,163 Estimated net income $ 6,715,736 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR co. INC. 2 ESTIMATED STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY MAY 31, 1975 Capital stock $ 104,100 Paid in capital, existing balance 2,323,239 Additional contributions to be made by Southern Industries 5,345,000 Total capital stock and paid-in 7,772,339 Retained earnings (deficit), 1/1/75 (12,342,104) Estimated net income, 1/1-5/31/75 6,715,736 Retained earnings (deficit), 5/31/75 ( 5,626,368) Total Estimated Stockholder's Equity, 5/31/75 $ 2,145,971 776 2,921 5. cash 3,6 2 2146 8.6 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF INCOME (LOSS) AND RETAINED EARNINGS (DEFICIT) for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Net sales $270,994,584 $121,429,038 Cost of sales 282,649,140 117,395,585 Gross profit (loss) (11,654,556) 4,033,453 Selling, general and administrative expenses 3,259,352 2,468,224 (14,913,908) 1,565,229 Other income, net 143,984 54,687 16.4mm (14,769,924) 1,619,916 Interest deductions 2,192,152 1,197,210 Income (loss) before provision (credit) for taxes 4 14,2mm (16,962,076) 422,706 Provision (credit) for income taxes: Federal: Current (990,891) (277,206) Deferred (2,251,109) 181,357 State - current 19,089 (3,242,000) (76,760) Net income (loss) the 7.1mm (13,720,076) 499,466 Retained earnings, January 1, restated 5,041,971 4,667,505 (8,678,105) 5,166,971 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 Retained earnings (deficit), December 31 $(12,342,105) $ _5,041,971 See notes to financial statements. 3 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., , INC. Statement of Change in Financial Position 1/1/15 - 4/30/75 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income $ 1244,579 Depreciation and amortization 383,018 Deferred income taxes -0- Working capital provided from operations 627,597 Decrease in other assets 4,525 Increase in deferred liabilities 8,373,106 $ 9,005,228 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment $ : 293,428 Reduction to mortgage and notes payable 56,909 Increase in deferred charges 264,575 $ 614,912 Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Changes in working capital Current assets: Cash $ (1,169,483) Receivables a 230th (7,434,849) Inventories (4,138,565) Prepaid insurance and other. 338,681 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities + 2,3sta $ (20,787,991) Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (6,541) $ (20,794,532) Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income (loss) $(13,720,076) $ 499,466 Expenses (credit) not affecting working capital in the current year: Depreciation and amortization 1,060,770 819,542 Deferred income taxes (2,251,109) 181,357 Working capital provided from (applied to) operations for the year (14,910,415) 1,500,365 Increase in advances from affiliates 6,979 Increase in mortgage and notes payable 9,430 1,022,000 Property sales and retirements, less accumulated depreciation 53,470 15,535 Other 212,764 63,670 (14,627,772) 2,601,570 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment 1,439,425 2,778,888 Reduction in mortgage and notes payable 153,827 278,496 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 5,257,252 3,182,384 Decrease in working capital $ (19,885,024) $ (580,814) Change in working capital - increase (decrease) : Current assets: Cash $ 854,691 $ 703,853 Receivables 9,249,687 (635,126) Inventories (590,460) 2,042,128 Prepaid insurance and other 206,141 (32,598 9,720,059 2,078,257 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (25,325,826) 3,143,444 Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (4,279,257) (5,802,515) (29,605,083) (2,659,071 Decrease in working capital $(19,885,024) $ (580,814 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 - SUCAR C.O. INC. VARIOUS SINTISTICS 1/1/74 .. 12/31/174 (BEFORE LIFO) PROFIT CONTRIBUTION Net Profit Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Add: Supervision Fees 506,000 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 14,675,927 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 SIC Note Interest 45,913 Interest Expense 1,986,461 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 60,914 Debt Amortization 14,752 Profit Contribution 16,383,957 ABEREVIATED FLOW OF FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Less: Income Tax 7,084,964 Net Income $ 7,084,963 Add: Depreciation and Amortization 1,052,693 Cash Flow $ 8,137,656. Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt 800,082 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 8,937,738 drwanch Less: Dividends 3.664,000 Capital Expenditures 1,377,877 Net Flow of Funds - Surplus/(Deficit) $ 3,895,861 NET WORKING CAPITAL @ 12/31/74 $ 5,480,545 Repairs $ 1,653,955 Refined Sugar Produced CWT 8,547,969 = it n Operating Days - Refinery 233 321 Average Production per Operating Day $ 36,687 27 \ IIIN E. Ladd 5/19/75 Söurce: https://www.industrydócuments,ucsf.edutddrst T1xx0227 VARIOUS STATISTICS 1967 - 1973 7 YEAR 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 TOTAL PROFIT CONTRIBUTION is 196 P Net Profit Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 Add: Supervision Fees 108,701 116,733 141,000 553,719 635,000 600,000 475,200 2,630,353 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 1,546,380 $ 1,864,135.1 $,1,718,417 $ 3,055,741 $ 3,866,801 $ 1,111,305 $ 897,906 $14,060,685 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 - 105,000 735,000 SIC Note Interest 138,214 145,798 138,661 131,661 124,747 117,925 111,636 908,642 Interest Expense 461,912 469,086 500,094 414,888 399,240 550,819 979,364 3,775,403 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 26,933 30,683 32,257 29,098 31,987 42,390 43,155 236,503 Debt Amortization 3,008 3,009 a - 6,017 1 Profit Contribution $ 2,281,447 $ 2,617,711 $ 2,494,129 $ 3,736,388 $ 4,527,775 $ 1,927,439 $ 2,137,061 $19,722,250 =085. ASBREVIATED FLCW 07 FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 (633) Less: Income Tax 586,061 804,000 816,551 1,069,802 1,153,238 26,466 (76,760) 4,379,358 Net Incone $ 851,618 $ 943,402 $ 760,866 $ 1,432,220 $ 2,078,563 $ 484,839 $ 499,466 $ 7,050,974 Add: Depreciation & Amortization 378,075 426,909 496,715 536,092 599,874 674,623 819,542 3,931,530 Cash Flow $ 1,229,693 $ 1,370,311 $ 1,257,581 $ 1,968,312 $ 2,678,437 $ 1,159,462 $ 1,319,008 $10,982,604 Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt (603,062) (492,620) (333,174) (495,412) 1,865,581 3,351,521 743,504 4,036,338 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 626,631 $ 877,691 $ 924,407 $ 1,472,900 $ 4,544,013 $ 4,510,983 $ 2,062,512 $15,019,142 NO Less: Dividends -0- 375,000 330,000 530,000 : 660,000 330,000 125,000 2,350,000 Capital Expenditures 1,694,961 1,099,561 942,281 755,946 2,619,417 4,187,602 2,773,893 14,078,656 Net Flou of Funds - Surplus/(Doficit) $ (1,068,330) $ (596,870) $. (347,371) $ 186,954 $ 1,264,601 $ (6,619) $ (841,376) $(1,409,514) Net Working Capital at Year-End $ 1,738,296 $ 960,279 $ 531,173 $ 499,751 $ 1,171,294 $ 2,220,053 $ 2,216,941 $ 1,627,025 Repairs $ 1,160,277 $ 1,229,468 $ 1,156,668 $ 1,326,567 $ 1,475,224 $ 1,414,386 $1.1,383,014 $ 9,145,604 Refined Sugar Produced (Cwt.) 7,270,838 8,317,724 7,741,365 9,494,161 10,502,424 9,170,169 8,457,433 - Operating Days - Refinery 268 277 246 299 .312 280 247 Average Production per Operating Day (Cwt.) 27,130 30,028 31,495 31,817 33,694 32,751 34,185 E. Ladd . 3/28/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I a - 0.042 °C - - - - it. Co N T O 0= of n- F- 8 80 . ********** i. .7 -0 *********** ++++++++4 - - CUMVERCA RAN 7 CONVERCA 3 es (--) CF- a n a - D an nca [= HE' - In a g 2 - Filent - NOTE. o THIS MAP REDUCED KALF SIZE MAP OF PLANT LATOUT na Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 (10,000) 31,000 (43,000 24,000 (4,000) LEARTYPE OUNTY OUTUNE NITED STATES - (3,000) MAP NO.117 AMERICAN MAD SOMPANY.INC $ Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SALARIED ORGANIZATION MAY 1, 1975 Operations, J. A. Metzler 2 Purchasing 6 Cincinnati 5 13 Marketing, E. R. Fleming 2 Administration 10 Sales 8 20 Finance, H. L. Kirk 4 Credit 4 Billing 3 Machine Room 2 1.3 Accounting, R. L. Crawford 11 Refinery, A. Garcia 2 Maintenance 23 Quality Assurance 10 Engineering 4 Administration 19 Operations 35 Service 2 95 Mobile, Administration and Service 6 TOTAL 158 40 158 101 67 T. Source: https://wvww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/doce 51jTbx02.27 to HOURLY ORCANIZATION - RESERVE - MAY 1, 1975 Manning is based cn requirement of two full shifts plus skeleton crew on the third shift in Pecking, and six palletized crews and two hand loading crews in Shipping. Raw Receiving 3 Affination 9 Clarification 9 Char House 18 Granulators 6 Pan Floor 16 Refined Centrifugal 12 Pre-Packaging 14 Packaging 80 Shipping - Packages 51 Shipping - Bulk 6 Liquid Sugar 6 Yard Crew 4 Sanitation 12 Security 6 Commissary 4 Laboratory 8 Utilities 12 Dock 6 Painters 8 Construction 14 Truck Drivers 5 Electrical 15 Maintenance Shops 13 Area Mechanics 20 Operations Mechanics 12 Total Required for 369* Operation *There are approximately 30 additional people on the payroll who act as vacation replacements, absentee replacements, training, etc. 360 1.58 40 Source: https:.//wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs[ilbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES 1. Information known: A. Sugar refinery at Reserve, Louisiana - 32 miles west of New Orleans on the Mississippi River. B. Liquid sugár processing plant and distribution terminal at Cincinnati, Ohio and leases sugar packaging operations at Buffalo, New York and (Chicago, Illinois 12/1/74. C. Owns 8 hydraulic material processing dredges, owns or has long term leases on 11 towboats and 88 cargo barges and under short term leases has 15 towboats and 30 barges. D. Also owns ready-mixed concrete operations and a mixer fleet in Mobile; asphalt plants at Woodstock, Margerum and Mobile, Alabama: a concrete block plant at Mobile, and supporting sales depots at Mobile, Ft. Walton Beach and Pensacola, Florida, and New Orleans owns or leases 8 stone quarries and crushing plants at Mobile, Baltimore and Houston, and chemical lime plants at Morgan City, La., and Saginaw, Ala. Company leases 2 slag processing facilities at Columbia, Tenn. E. Mineral Reserves--Company leases shell deposits from the states of Alabama and Louisiana, estimated to contain 100 million tons; leases gravel deposits estimated to contain 10 million tons owns an asphaltic limestone deposit estimated to contain 1,500,000 tons; and leases lime- stone deposits estimated to contain 200 million tons. F. Raws: 25% from U.S. 75% from Foreign G. Campaign: 312 days in 1971 280 days in 1972 247 days in 1973 232 days in 1974 H. Refined Sugar Production Production Year (Million cwts) 1971 10.5 1972 9.2 1973 8.4 1974 8.5 1. Sells sugar under two tradenames: 1. Henderson Superfine 2. Godchaux Brand continued Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES, continued Page 2 J. Current assets $53 Million. K. Long term debt $34 Million. L. Cost of replacing cane facilities: 1) Processing - $25 million Mill (3500 ton/day grind) 2) Refinery - $45 million (700 ton/day raw sugar) X 2 = 99mm II. Data needed: A. What it costs for Raws - Domestic - Foreign B. Operating costs (cost of production including G & A percent of refined sugar). C. Where receive raws from D. Costs to market place E. Financial data up to net income F. Present contractual arrangements III. To Receive 30% ROI before tax: @ 20,000 $ 6mm Example 1: Cost Proc + Profit for Price for RAWS: Raws Freight G & A 30% ROI Ref. Sugar (U.S.)25% @ 126 + 0 + 2.56 + 16 15.5 (Foreign 75% @ 7c + 1.8€ + 2.56 + 1c 12.3 TOTAL Weight Price For Refined Sugar 13.1 IV. Potential Areas to Increase Profits A. Grain Exports $45 2.47 50 B. Foreign raw prices based on refined sugar prices when sold. 11,2 C. Participating contract with growers based on refined sugar prices or foreign raws. 14/11/11 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 The President of Southern Industries Reports. Net soles for the first quarter ended March 31, 1975 were $74,686,000 compared to $51,505,000 for the same period in 1974. Net income for the period was $1,482,000 equal to $1.03 per share compared to a net loss of $1,830,000 (restated) equal to a loss of $1.23 per shore in 1974. By.product line the basic materials group had a 165% increase in pre-tox cornings over last year. This group occounted for $916,000 or opproximately 38% of pre-tax eornings. The sugar division contributed $1,437,000 or 61% to the results. With the exception of low sugar volume, the demand for our other products and materials remains strong. Your attention is directed to the notes to the following statements for a further explanation of the financial results of the first quorter. D. E. Dowson, Jr. April 22, 1975 President 1 Sales and Income (Loss) by Product Line For the three months ended March 31, 1975 and 1974 (000 omitted) SALES INCOME (LOSS) 1974 1975 1974 1975 Restated Sugor $56,118 $35,758 $ 1,437 S( 3,381) Bosic Materials 15,515 12,977 916 345 Hordwore and Machinery 3,051 2,770 58 92 Other (Non-operating) 2 - ( 58) ( 32) $74,686 $51,505 $ 2,353 $( 2,976) Income Toxes Credit (and Provision) ( 871) 1,145 Net Income (Loss) $ 1,482 $( 1,830) Per Shore $ 1.03 S( 1.22) Consolidated Financial Condition (000 omitted) March 31 1974 1975 Restated Current assets $ 50,419 $ 39,516 Current liobilities 51,420 30,445 Net current assets ( 1,001) 9,071 Properties - net 47,325 44,500 Other ossets 6,874 5,749 Total ossets less current licbilities 53,198 59,320 Long term debt (including debt due within one year) 33 33,151 32,101 Other licbilities 1,847 2,318 Total long term debt and other licbilities 55 34,998 34,419 Net assets $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Stockholders' equity: Common stock (1,433,096 shares outstanding) $ 6,059 $ 6,059 Retoined income and capital surplus 12,141 18,842 Total stockholders' equity $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Notes to Financial Statements (1) The income (les) by product line includes o statistical ollocation of corporale costs including interest expense. (2) Figures for 1974 have been restated to reflect changing to the lost in, first out (LIFO) method from the first in, first out (FIFO) and overage cost methods of accounting for the row sugar content of sugor inventories. If the FIFO and overage cost methods hod been used by the Com- pony, these inventories, and consequently net current assets, would hove been $14,803,000 and 54, 166,000 higher than reported at March 31, 1975 and 1974 (restated), respectively. (3) Results for the three months ended March 31, 1975 include income of $2,373,000 from reducing quantities of row sugar inventories under the uro method to on anticipated yeor-end level (substontially less than quantities on hand of the beginning of 1975). (4) A net operoting loss collyover available from 1974 will offsei the first $6,815,000 of taxoble income in 1975 and thus eliminate payment of toxes. The provision for toxas at March 31, 1975 of $871,000 represents a charge for deferred income taxes not currently payable. (5) Net income per shore bosed on 1,433,096 shares outstanding. (6) Depreciation and amortization included above omounted to $1,485,000 ond $1,265,000 in 1975 and 1974, respectively. P) Above figures subject to yeor-end audit. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227

what is the amount of net estimated working capital (deficit) ?

jlbx0227

jlbx0227_p0, jlbx0227_p1, jlbx0227_p2, jlbx0227_p3, jlbx0227_p4, jlbx0227_p5, jlbx0227_p6, jlbx0227_p7, jlbx0227_p8, jlbx0227_p9, jlbx0227_p10, jlbx0227_p11, jlbx0227_p12, jlbx0227_p13, jlbx0227_p14, jlbx0227_p15, jlbx0227_p16, jlbx0227_p17, jlbx0227_p18, jlbx0227_p19

$ 1,584, ($ 1,584)

GH BRIEFING 6-11-75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I. GH is not worth buying for what is has earned or will earn under "normal" conditions; i.e., buy, refine, sell sugar. EBIT $600 M to $1.500M Needs $6-9MM WC to continue Can be purchased for $4-8 MM (they expect $10MM) Our "cost" is $10-17MM. . II. GH has excellent 1. Facilities at Reserve 2. Technical support personnel at Reserve 3. Distribution network relative to GW. t 2,100, on 00 3, III. GH could be a good speculative investment 2.4 Hog Low Provides A. "LONG.LIMIT 7,200,000 2, 400,000 Balance to GWS beet business 21.000,000 5.7,100 2,200,00 3.0000 Take % of Sugar Broker/dist $ 6,200,000 wwword ? 400.00 = Entry to foreign refined market 10% "Improvement on cost of raws = $16MM profit contribution" We must get a "participating K".- HFTS: 2X the Bet. on 121,000 IV. Net; get into GH as low as possible, 4 3 Emphasize the Raws problem< : Slim down overhead 95° Devise a plan that can target for $20MM EBIT. Actual Potented V hmp Ratio 73 74 AT, impiral 1.6 2.6 1.9mm Gll 4% 2.6% G,8 Source:https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., INC. PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1967. - 1970 1971 & 1974 1971 Profit Before Tax, Interest and Supervision Fees $ 11,130 M $ 6,614 M $ 4,528 M Average Per Year . 2,783 3,307 4,528 1974 Supervision (506) (506) .' (506) 1974 Interest (2,213) (2,213) (2,213) Projected Annual Profit 64 588 1,809 Investment Required to Return 10% $ 640 M $ 5,880 M $ 18,090 M 30% 213 1,950 6,030 15% 426 3,920 12,600 Production (CWT) 32,824 M CWT 19,050 M CWT 10,502 M CWT Average Per Year 8,206 9,525 10,502 1.5 33 Objective: - Get 30 day option - Full P & L information (operating statistics) - Manufacturing costs (operating statistics) Be Prepared To: - Sign LOI - Offer $4 Mm Low $5 Mm Mid $6 Mm High for 30% return before taxes $10 Mm Absolute Top Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co., INC. BALANCE SHEETS December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 ASSETS Current assets: Cash $ 2,150,212 $ 1,295,521 Federal income tax refund 1,020,891 Accounts and notes receivable: Trade 17,277,055 8,652,194 Affiliates 67,279 463,344 Inventories 12,503,941 13,094,401 Prepaid insurance and other 392,086 185,945 Total current assets 33,411,464 23,691,405 Property, plant and equipment, at cost: Land 373,300 373,300 Buildings 6,208,224 5,905,359 Machinery and equipment 14,791,863 13,812,393 Delivery and other automotive equipment 89,307 89,307 Leasehold improvements 50,662 27,707 21,513,356 20,208,066 Less accumulated depreciation 6,975,497 5,995,392 14,537,859 14,212,674 Other assets: Deferred income. taxes 1,492,919 Sundry deferred charges 368,352 629,849 Notes receivable 2,500 110,500 Advances to affiliates 126,733 1,990,504 740,349 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,428 LIABILITIES Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities: Trade $ 31,834,490 $ 6,998,742 Affiliates 846,938 356,860 Notes payable 19,019,761 14,534,993 Current portion of long-term debt 103,317 308,828 Total current liabilities (18,393) 51,804,506 22,199,423 Mortgage and notes payable, current portion above: 10-1/2% First Mortgage Note 4,747,501 4,836,043 Other notes payable 124,451 180,306 4,871,952 5,016,349 Advances from affiliates 3,178,135 3,171,156 Deferred income taxes 788,190 STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY (DEFICIT) Common stock, $100 par value; 1,041 shares authorized, issued and outstanding 104,100 104,100 Paid-in capital 2,323,239 . 2,323,239 Retained earnings (deficit), as annexed (12,342,105) 5,041,971 (9,914,765) 7,469,310 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,418 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-MENDERSON SUGAR co., , INC. PRO FORMA BALANCE SHEET AT 5/31/75 IN HANDS OF OTHERS - ON LIFO ASSETS Cash $ 1,395 Accounts Receivable 12,464 - Inventories Sugar 272,000 cwt at $11.11 3,022 Processing cost 386 Spare parts 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 19,631 Fixed assets - Net 14,353 Other assets and deferred charges 411 TOTAL ASSETS $ 34,395 LIABILITIES = Notes payable - banks $ 14,253 Notes payable - La. raw mills 7,369 Need commu Current portion of long-term debt 115 Accounts payable and accrued 3,334 2,2 Total Current Liabilities 25,071 Long-term debt 4,815 Deferred taxes 872 Deferred futures profit 716 Stockholders' equity 2,921 TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 34,395 1975 ceremated income Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Soùrce: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/j)bx0227 GODCHAUX-IENDERSON SUGAR co., INC. ESTIMATED WORKING CAPITAL MAY 31, 1975 000's omitted Current Assets Cash $ 1,395 Accounts receivable 12,464 Note receivable - U.S. Sugar Co. 240 Inventories: Raw sugar (Massequite), 40,458 cwt @ $17 688 Refined, 216,216 cwt @ $22 4,757 Spare parts, bags, mdse. for resale 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 21,908 Current Liabilities Bank notes payable 14,253 Current portion of long-term debt 115 Total notes payable 14,368 La. raw sugar payables 7,369 Other trade payables and accruals 1,755 Total Current Liabilities 23,492 Net Estimated Working Capital (Deficit) ($ 1,584) CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co. INC. ESTIMATED NET INCOME JANUARY ] THROUGH MAY 31, 1975 Pre-tax income, 4/30/75 $ 388,221 Estimated profit on April inventory liquidation 346,750 Deferred inventory liquidation profit, 4/30/75 6,329,205 Last estimated of May income 187,723 7,251,899 Estimate of income from inventory liquidation in month of May: Cwt actual, 96°, , 4/30/75 485,000 Cwt actual, 96°; 5/31/75 272,000 Liquidated 213,000 Spread ($27 May Cost - $11) x 16 $3,408,000 May liquidation profit 3,408,000 Total estimated pre-tax income 10,659,899 Book taxes at 37% consolidated rate 3,944,163 Estimated net income $ 6,715,736 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR co. INC. 2 ESTIMATED STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY MAY 31, 1975 Capital stock $ 104,100 Paid in capital, existing balance 2,323,239 Additional contributions to be made by Southern Industries 5,345,000 Total capital stock and paid-in 7,772,339 Retained earnings (deficit), 1/1/75 (12,342,104) Estimated net income, 1/1-5/31/75 6,715,736 Retained earnings (deficit), 5/31/75 ( 5,626,368) Total Estimated Stockholder's Equity, 5/31/75 $ 2,145,971 776 2,921 5. cash 3,6 2 2146 8.6 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF INCOME (LOSS) AND RETAINED EARNINGS (DEFICIT) for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Net sales $270,994,584 $121,429,038 Cost of sales 282,649,140 117,395,585 Gross profit (loss) (11,654,556) 4,033,453 Selling, general and administrative expenses 3,259,352 2,468,224 (14,913,908) 1,565,229 Other income, net 143,984 54,687 16.4mm (14,769,924) 1,619,916 Interest deductions 2,192,152 1,197,210 Income (loss) before provision (credit) for taxes 4 14,2mm (16,962,076) 422,706 Provision (credit) for income taxes: Federal: Current (990,891) (277,206) Deferred (2,251,109) 181,357 State - current 19,089 (3,242,000) (76,760) Net income (loss) the 7.1mm (13,720,076) 499,466 Retained earnings, January 1, restated 5,041,971 4,667,505 (8,678,105) 5,166,971 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 Retained earnings (deficit), December 31 $(12,342,105) $ _5,041,971 See notes to financial statements. 3 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., , INC. Statement of Change in Financial Position 1/1/15 - 4/30/75 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income $ 1244,579 Depreciation and amortization 383,018 Deferred income taxes -0- Working capital provided from operations 627,597 Decrease in other assets 4,525 Increase in deferred liabilities 8,373,106 $ 9,005,228 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment $ : 293,428 Reduction to mortgage and notes payable 56,909 Increase in deferred charges 264,575 $ 614,912 Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Changes in working capital Current assets: Cash $ (1,169,483) Receivables a 230th (7,434,849) Inventories (4,138,565) Prepaid insurance and other. 338,681 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities + 2,3sta $ (20,787,991) Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (6,541) $ (20,794,532) Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income (loss) $(13,720,076) $ 499,466 Expenses (credit) not affecting working capital in the current year: Depreciation and amortization 1,060,770 819,542 Deferred income taxes (2,251,109) 181,357 Working capital provided from (applied to) operations for the year (14,910,415) 1,500,365 Increase in advances from affiliates 6,979 Increase in mortgage and notes payable 9,430 1,022,000 Property sales and retirements, less accumulated depreciation 53,470 15,535 Other 212,764 63,670 (14,627,772) 2,601,570 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment 1,439,425 2,778,888 Reduction in mortgage and notes payable 153,827 278,496 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 5,257,252 3,182,384 Decrease in working capital $ (19,885,024) $ (580,814) Change in working capital - increase (decrease) : Current assets: Cash $ 854,691 $ 703,853 Receivables 9,249,687 (635,126) Inventories (590,460) 2,042,128 Prepaid insurance and other 206,141 (32,598 9,720,059 2,078,257 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (25,325,826) 3,143,444 Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (4,279,257) (5,802,515) (29,605,083) (2,659,071 Decrease in working capital $(19,885,024) $ (580,814 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 - SUCAR C.O. INC. VARIOUS SINTISTICS 1/1/74 .. 12/31/174 (BEFORE LIFO) PROFIT CONTRIBUTION Net Profit Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Add: Supervision Fees 506,000 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 14,675,927 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 SIC Note Interest 45,913 Interest Expense 1,986,461 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 60,914 Debt Amortization 14,752 Profit Contribution 16,383,957 ABEREVIATED FLOW OF FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Less: Income Tax 7,084,964 Net Income $ 7,084,963 Add: Depreciation and Amortization 1,052,693 Cash Flow $ 8,137,656. Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt 800,082 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 8,937,738 drwanch Less: Dividends 3.664,000 Capital Expenditures 1,377,877 Net Flow of Funds - Surplus/(Deficit) $ 3,895,861 NET WORKING CAPITAL @ 12/31/74 $ 5,480,545 Repairs $ 1,653,955 Refined Sugar Produced CWT 8,547,969 = it n Operating Days - Refinery 233 321 Average Production per Operating Day $ 36,687 27 \ IIIN E. Ladd 5/19/75 Söurce: https://www.industrydócuments,ucsf.edutddrst T1xx0227 VARIOUS STATISTICS 1967 - 1973 7 YEAR 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 TOTAL PROFIT CONTRIBUTION is 196 P Net Profit Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 Add: Supervision Fees 108,701 116,733 141,000 553,719 635,000 600,000 475,200 2,630,353 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 1,546,380 $ 1,864,135.1 $,1,718,417 $ 3,055,741 $ 3,866,801 $ 1,111,305 $ 897,906 $14,060,685 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 - 105,000 735,000 SIC Note Interest 138,214 145,798 138,661 131,661 124,747 117,925 111,636 908,642 Interest Expense 461,912 469,086 500,094 414,888 399,240 550,819 979,364 3,775,403 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 26,933 30,683 32,257 29,098 31,987 42,390 43,155 236,503 Debt Amortization 3,008 3,009 a - 6,017 1 Profit Contribution $ 2,281,447 $ 2,617,711 $ 2,494,129 $ 3,736,388 $ 4,527,775 $ 1,927,439 $ 2,137,061 $19,722,250 =085. ASBREVIATED FLCW 07 FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 (633) Less: Income Tax 586,061 804,000 816,551 1,069,802 1,153,238 26,466 (76,760) 4,379,358 Net Incone $ 851,618 $ 943,402 $ 760,866 $ 1,432,220 $ 2,078,563 $ 484,839 $ 499,466 $ 7,050,974 Add: Depreciation & Amortization 378,075 426,909 496,715 536,092 599,874 674,623 819,542 3,931,530 Cash Flow $ 1,229,693 $ 1,370,311 $ 1,257,581 $ 1,968,312 $ 2,678,437 $ 1,159,462 $ 1,319,008 $10,982,604 Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt (603,062) (492,620) (333,174) (495,412) 1,865,581 3,351,521 743,504 4,036,338 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 626,631 $ 877,691 $ 924,407 $ 1,472,900 $ 4,544,013 $ 4,510,983 $ 2,062,512 $15,019,142 NO Less: Dividends -0- 375,000 330,000 530,000 : 660,000 330,000 125,000 2,350,000 Capital Expenditures 1,694,961 1,099,561 942,281 755,946 2,619,417 4,187,602 2,773,893 14,078,656 Net Flou of Funds - Surplus/(Doficit) $ (1,068,330) $ (596,870) $. (347,371) $ 186,954 $ 1,264,601 $ (6,619) $ (841,376) $(1,409,514) Net Working Capital at Year-End $ 1,738,296 $ 960,279 $ 531,173 $ 499,751 $ 1,171,294 $ 2,220,053 $ 2,216,941 $ 1,627,025 Repairs $ 1,160,277 $ 1,229,468 $ 1,156,668 $ 1,326,567 $ 1,475,224 $ 1,414,386 $1.1,383,014 $ 9,145,604 Refined Sugar Produced (Cwt.) 7,270,838 8,317,724 7,741,365 9,494,161 10,502,424 9,170,169 8,457,433 - Operating Days - Refinery 268 277 246 299 .312 280 247 Average Production per Operating Day (Cwt.) 27,130 30,028 31,495 31,817 33,694 32,751 34,185 E. Ladd . 3/28/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I a - 0.042 °C - - - - it. Co N T O 0= of n- F- 8 80 . ********** i. .7 -0 *********** ++++++++4 - - CUMVERCA RAN 7 CONVERCA 3 es (--) CF- a n a - D an nca [= HE' - In a g 2 - Filent - NOTE. o THIS MAP REDUCED KALF SIZE MAP OF PLANT LATOUT na Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 (10,000) 31,000 (43,000 24,000 (4,000) LEARTYPE OUNTY OUTUNE NITED STATES - (3,000) MAP NO.117 AMERICAN MAD SOMPANY.INC $ Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SALARIED ORGANIZATION MAY 1, 1975 Operations, J. A. Metzler 2 Purchasing 6 Cincinnati 5 13 Marketing, E. R. Fleming 2 Administration 10 Sales 8 20 Finance, H. L. Kirk 4 Credit 4 Billing 3 Machine Room 2 1.3 Accounting, R. L. Crawford 11 Refinery, A. Garcia 2 Maintenance 23 Quality Assurance 10 Engineering 4 Administration 19 Operations 35 Service 2 95 Mobile, Administration and Service 6 TOTAL 158 40 158 101 67 T. Source: https://wvww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/doce 51jTbx02.27 to HOURLY ORCANIZATION - RESERVE - MAY 1, 1975 Manning is based cn requirement of two full shifts plus skeleton crew on the third shift in Pecking, and six palletized crews and two hand loading crews in Shipping. Raw Receiving 3 Affination 9 Clarification 9 Char House 18 Granulators 6 Pan Floor 16 Refined Centrifugal 12 Pre-Packaging 14 Packaging 80 Shipping - Packages 51 Shipping - Bulk 6 Liquid Sugar 6 Yard Crew 4 Sanitation 12 Security 6 Commissary 4 Laboratory 8 Utilities 12 Dock 6 Painters 8 Construction 14 Truck Drivers 5 Electrical 15 Maintenance Shops 13 Area Mechanics 20 Operations Mechanics 12 Total Required for 369* Operation *There are approximately 30 additional people on the payroll who act as vacation replacements, absentee replacements, training, etc. 360 1.58 40 Source: https:.//wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs[ilbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES 1. Information known: A. Sugar refinery at Reserve, Louisiana - 32 miles west of New Orleans on the Mississippi River. B. Liquid sugár processing plant and distribution terminal at Cincinnati, Ohio and leases sugar packaging operations at Buffalo, New York and (Chicago, Illinois 12/1/74. C. Owns 8 hydraulic material processing dredges, owns or has long term leases on 11 towboats and 88 cargo barges and under short term leases has 15 towboats and 30 barges. D. Also owns ready-mixed concrete operations and a mixer fleet in Mobile; asphalt plants at Woodstock, Margerum and Mobile, Alabama: a concrete block plant at Mobile, and supporting sales depots at Mobile, Ft. Walton Beach and Pensacola, Florida, and New Orleans owns or leases 8 stone quarries and crushing plants at Mobile, Baltimore and Houston, and chemical lime plants at Morgan City, La., and Saginaw, Ala. Company leases 2 slag processing facilities at Columbia, Tenn. E. Mineral Reserves--Company leases shell deposits from the states of Alabama and Louisiana, estimated to contain 100 million tons; leases gravel deposits estimated to contain 10 million tons owns an asphaltic limestone deposit estimated to contain 1,500,000 tons; and leases lime- stone deposits estimated to contain 200 million tons. F. Raws: 25% from U.S. 75% from Foreign G. Campaign: 312 days in 1971 280 days in 1972 247 days in 1973 232 days in 1974 H. Refined Sugar Production Production Year (Million cwts) 1971 10.5 1972 9.2 1973 8.4 1974 8.5 1. Sells sugar under two tradenames: 1. Henderson Superfine 2. Godchaux Brand continued Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES, continued Page 2 J. Current assets $53 Million. K. Long term debt $34 Million. L. Cost of replacing cane facilities: 1) Processing - $25 million Mill (3500 ton/day grind) 2) Refinery - $45 million (700 ton/day raw sugar) X 2 = 99mm II. Data needed: A. What it costs for Raws - Domestic - Foreign B. Operating costs (cost of production including G & A percent of refined sugar). C. Where receive raws from D. Costs to market place E. Financial data up to net income F. Present contractual arrangements III. To Receive 30% ROI before tax: @ 20,000 $ 6mm Example 1: Cost Proc + Profit for Price for RAWS: Raws Freight G & A 30% ROI Ref. Sugar (U.S.)25% @ 126 + 0 + 2.56 + 16 15.5 (Foreign 75% @ 7c + 1.8€ + 2.56 + 1c 12.3 TOTAL Weight Price For Refined Sugar 13.1 IV. Potential Areas to Increase Profits A. Grain Exports $45 2.47 50 B. Foreign raw prices based on refined sugar prices when sold. 11,2 C. Participating contract with growers based on refined sugar prices or foreign raws. 14/11/11 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 The President of Southern Industries Reports. Net soles for the first quarter ended March 31, 1975 were $74,686,000 compared to $51,505,000 for the same period in 1974. Net income for the period was $1,482,000 equal to $1.03 per share compared to a net loss of $1,830,000 (restated) equal to a loss of $1.23 per shore in 1974. By.product line the basic materials group had a 165% increase in pre-tox cornings over last year. This group occounted for $916,000 or opproximately 38% of pre-tax eornings. The sugar division contributed $1,437,000 or 61% to the results. With the exception of low sugar volume, the demand for our other products and materials remains strong. Your attention is directed to the notes to the following statements for a further explanation of the financial results of the first quorter. D. E. Dowson, Jr. April 22, 1975 President 1 Sales and Income (Loss) by Product Line For the three months ended March 31, 1975 and 1974 (000 omitted) SALES INCOME (LOSS) 1974 1975 1974 1975 Restated Sugor $56,118 $35,758 $ 1,437 S( 3,381) Bosic Materials 15,515 12,977 916 345 Hordwore and Machinery 3,051 2,770 58 92 Other (Non-operating) 2 - ( 58) ( 32) $74,686 $51,505 $ 2,353 $( 2,976) Income Toxes Credit (and Provision) ( 871) 1,145 Net Income (Loss) $ 1,482 $( 1,830) Per Shore $ 1.03 S( 1.22) Consolidated Financial Condition (000 omitted) March 31 1974 1975 Restated Current assets $ 50,419 $ 39,516 Current liobilities 51,420 30,445 Net current assets ( 1,001) 9,071 Properties - net 47,325 44,500 Other ossets 6,874 5,749 Total ossets less current licbilities 53,198 59,320 Long term debt (including debt due within one year) 33 33,151 32,101 Other licbilities 1,847 2,318 Total long term debt and other licbilities 55 34,998 34,419 Net assets $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Stockholders' equity: Common stock (1,433,096 shares outstanding) $ 6,059 $ 6,059 Retoined income and capital surplus 12,141 18,842 Total stockholders' equity $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Notes to Financial Statements (1) The income (les) by product line includes o statistical ollocation of corporale costs including interest expense. (2) Figures for 1974 have been restated to reflect changing to the lost in, first out (LIFO) method from the first in, first out (FIFO) and overage cost methods of accounting for the row sugar content of sugor inventories. If the FIFO and overage cost methods hod been used by the Com- pony, these inventories, and consequently net current assets, would hove been $14,803,000 and 54, 166,000 higher than reported at March 31, 1975 and 1974 (restated), respectively. (3) Results for the three months ended March 31, 1975 include income of $2,373,000 from reducing quantities of row sugar inventories under the uro method to on anticipated yeor-end level (substontially less than quantities on hand of the beginning of 1975). (4) A net operoting loss collyover available from 1974 will offsei the first $6,815,000 of taxoble income in 1975 and thus eliminate payment of toxes. The provision for toxas at March 31, 1975 of $871,000 represents a charge for deferred income taxes not currently payable. (5) Net income per shore bosed on 1,433,096 shares outstanding. (6) Depreciation and amortization included above omounted to $1,485,000 ond $1,265,000 in 1975 and 1974, respectively. P) Above figures subject to yeor-end audit. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227

What is the total cost of buying additional equipment needed at the service centres to enter sugar beet growing?

jxbx0227

jxbx0227_p0, jxbx0227_p1, jxbx0227_p2, jxbx0227_p3, jxbx0227_p4, jxbx0227_p5, jxbx0227_p6, jxbx0227_p7, jxbx0227_p8, jxbx0227_p9, jxbx0227_p10, jxbx0227_p11

$72,000, $72000, $ 72,000

THE GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY INCREASED SUGARBEET ACREAGE PROPOSAL North Central Colorado District Northeast Colorado District Nebraska District Prepared By George Lapaseotes W. c. McGuffey October 17, 1973 Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 INDEX General Objectives, Assumptions, and Procedures 1-3 District Maps 4-6 District Objectives and Procedures 7 Development of New Areas 8 Development of Old Areas 9 Capital Requirements 10 Production Statistics. 11-13 Enclosures back Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy Fellowship Program Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 OBJECTIVE: Increase the acreage of sugar beets in the NCC, NEBR., and NEC Districts of the Company by assisting growers to expand their beet growing operation or establishing new growers to become specialized in beet production. Develop six 800 acre units under sprinkler irrigation in each of the three areas plus any old area combinations that can be realized. ASSUMPTIONS: I. Declining acreage is in part, a result of a greater demand of time, labor, capital, and management resources for beet production in relation to other crops (i.e., corn, beans, and brewing barley) . II. Economic competition from other crops this year has become a more dominant factor in the problem of maintaining beet acreage. III. The combination of the above makes it increasingly difficult to find growers willing to continue producing sugar beets or to generate replacements who will venture into beet production. The goal of this project is to search out and secure suitable land and individuals interested in growing beets on a special- ized basis. IV. The crux of the problem is people. The motivation, finance, technical assistance and rewards to the grower can be in part provided by The Great Western Sugar Company and should be of such magnitude to induce and keep people in the business. V. The average age of the beet grower is in the mid-fifties, and younger agri-business men have not been coming into the beet business in adequate numbers. VI. Corporate farming is the least desirable vector in producing beet acreage, although returns could be good but the Company would be assuming the maximum risk. A partnership or tenant arrangement to produce an incentive for growing beets is a better choice and our main objective. It should be understood, however, that weather can be the major factor between a profit and a loss. PROCEDURE: I. Survey the availability of land in both the old established beet growing areas and also the potential under the pivot sprinkler system. This land should be within a 40-50 mile radius ($1.50 truck freight) of a slicing factory. A. Land Availability. 1. Landowners inclination. a. Willing to raise beets himself. b. Wants beets but needs a tenant. C. Would like to have a partner. Source: https://www.industrydotements.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 2. Water supply. 3. Previous use of soil sterilants, i.e., (Atrazine). . 4. Quality of land. II. This project and survey to be coordinated by George Lapaseotes acting through the District Agricultural Managers and the Grower Service Centers (for NCC and NEBR. only) . A. Aerial plotting. B. Letter to prospective landowners. C. Personal interviews with landowners. III. Secure beet growers for land available. A. Contact all established beet growers desiring an expanded operation either in older beet growing districts or in a developing pivot sprinkler area. B. Contact and interview prospective new growers presently related to beet production (sons of growers, hired hands, etc.) or other agri-business types to create or determine if they have an interest in undertaking a beet production operation. c. Consider and allow a limited number of agriculturalists to enter beet production either on a full-time basis with the Company's support or in a part-time arrangement while fulfilling their present job responsibilities. Options: 1. Tenant grown. a. Existing growers. b. New young farmers. C. Agriculturalists. 2. Company grown. a. Service Centers. b. Agriculturalists or farm manager. 3. Company and Tenant Partnership grown. a. Beet growers. b. Service Center and/or agriculturalist. Source: https://www.industrydogt2ments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 C. Consider a contract with an agriculturalist to produce 1,000 acres of beets for a 3-5 year term on a 50/50 partnership basis. Salary all or in part to be paid by Company during this period. IV. Build beet receiving stations where appropriate to receive new tonnage developed from a minimum of 800 acres of beets. V. The Company must become involved in varying degrees in financial assistance to this select group of beet growers. A. Underwrite loans. B. Assist with machinery, chemicals, and cultural services through the Grower Service Center. C. Provide some limited man-power support via Grower Service Center personnel, student fellowship program and possible weekend work for the dump repair personnel (union - no Great Western involvement, they must work for the grower) VI. Financial Impact. Assumption: The goal of 14,000 acres increased beet production would provide $1,036,000 gross annual revenue to the Company (at $74/acre). Company financial support could amount to a minimum of $500,000 which is recoverable. Company financial capital improvements could amount to $348,000, plus $57,000 for fellowship arrangements, for a total of $405,000. A. It costs about $230/acre to produce a crop of beets. B. 800 acre operation ideal size for pivot sprinklers, and with production cost of $184,000 by the operator. (See detail in Statistical Section) -3- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 :edunos in is vigjuno (511) 28 >y other et 00V80103 products 0 o N : papor REMAYS said is 2 n usna nonucy 1 unjund speim 14 1 E BICKS jues it2 ivin tz SIPHARP! is so o 7VNC curs ayen 9: Apoca 1: < 3 12 su 9 individed pran oun puea S % 99 CR st energy EMOIN ved youy encourse ansent (1) I 87 3 e 1 2 9; ti SOI L9 unos - eyepas Cir sz aje8y CF Aaye 211 SJBIANOT Ja(ssey pues CO jeeg. (itt) 000M310N3 12 3 sueAg 83AN30 000 GE jungsens 1113 3083W1100 I bl : 01313 2 mospoom . 9C 9 25 2103 is N ) a o inek 12 NVO8OW 1803 suir, usnig 01 E M. sue] 80 PS ase , preubia ulpuer A evoluan SUEADE F.E ONYPJA. e PW FAY 12 op vosyper ejpesau ts 12 usjauso 1 d : HE 0 MaN , T N 3 0 my 12 3 12 11 ways out 12 , '0100 projector. 18 R 01 00:9 n 4 14 712 3NN3A3H3 C8 1 & a W ! X oe UC) JO purprised ,00.00 Ampiço o ,001-501 "sot- 6 8 L Kimball have Blutt. : CHEYENNE 11 liad 31 Carpenter VYOMING 6 1 85 Hereford - Vigink Date 1, is Carr Rockport (aller Grover "eather pas The Forks Livermore PAWNEE Dover 26 Owl Conyon EFTI Nunn use. [v.rikington heotar 14 form 17 CN. ERU. Fleming . linti HONAL Teds Place , Ft. Pierce Purcell 23 1: Pennoce this Station **** Belivõe Collins 2200 P 19 14 in 06 R Eaton Galeton FOREST Sererance Merino Windsor *Point Cin Masonville HRS 14. Rice. Blocks (1) (n) Estes Loveland Greeley Messex x , ", Uricin Evans 44 Hast 1, Wriden Campion La Shyder E Salle Lon Lane Harbse Berthoud Peckham I Print. is 6 1258 Sprint: Citcrest to 3) Franie Pare 65 (34 ons Wiggins Fort Brush But PSS ) TE Plattealle Morganl 11 it Akret 64 :one Hyde o Yuma - Raynond Longmont 54 Firectone Fort 12 Eckley T M Frederick Lupton Wray Lard ; Dacono x BOULDER Lafayette the 6 Anena bills. Brighton Wondrow 2 ville (e Vernon Mass Heartstrong 23 Broomfield V G T O N x F. SEE INSET MAP 63 Abart y e M A Thornton 44 ON REVERSE isand : Westminster DENVER 14 Golden Arva Aurora Last Wattins, 30 TRennett St. asburg 35 Chance 10 20 10 Anton am 36 6 36 Idalia 4 X Lindon 17 22 11 36 x 3 Byers DENVER Cape 59 563 Miles 10 Joes " 17 / " ST. JOSEPH MO. form - , ( 1E LOWHY BUMI it Crall Kark fr QHale Nursen Engl: Evergreen A li A : H 0 E Thurman x Littleton PANGE : 35 ", 83 suspen 31 71 DE Pk. Parker $ 10 Kass'er 25 n Sars Lodviers', - Agate ss Setal Foxton 25 Hilltop / A F Pine 401 287) B tialo (C)S ranktown ST 67 EL 4250 Estabrock Cr. 9 Elizabeth 15 ii. Burlington Castle Kiowa PIKE 1 1, B I Vora x Rock River Seicert NATL 16 Devil : 16 Bend EL 5280 Genoa Bovina 7 Arriba 11 42 Flagler - a III and FOR. need A 20 86 ¿Limon 2 14 Dechers 24 1. Kuhn's Crossiny 12427 Larkspur 24) Elbert o... 9 16 13 1. N C o L N Fondis Doby > Westcreck Palmer Simli Matheson | Hugo 21 Ware Lake os 0: Y ource ocumen its ucsf. 129 vi ANE RIDGE INDIAN K,le Maile Parmelee Edgement Cikids Patricia 18 o Igloo 2. .. to PORCUPINE INDIAN 52 . 18 is is A Cenne's St Francis Batesland P.r , , o 0 Ardmore is 18 S DAK o Mays.Je Miniteclar " (& 20 Nenzel Montrose Network Stote as :0 Orelia o is " 0 9 Vale e Chadron 2 el Gordon a Nom o Attine 20 Ci.nton 120 :- Marrisch` Fromation , 1 Rushville Oo 0 Hay Sprs the Andrews w lasse D 250 Simeon : Sake ite Gien 385 in 15 K E R Y a Kennedy 2° 8 Peters Saffe pade o u x D:- Dunfap 27 purt cke fer G. ", --- I. Gard i. s H E R I o A N Crarcth L 53 L Wells E: 2 L. l. A Prentice 385 ferea Ters LO a Joy 1. Long o , Cherry B o x 8 u E Lake Prior Yala Like the Walter L 0 Marah L LD Kuntrick TALLIANCE Jease L Stumy Cramp L : i D7 2° Elsworth Whitmar Hecla Seneca 7 Antioch Myarris Mullen 6 1.20 Binghim 2 9 Mitchell Like . 23 o 27 o 20 R.g. a G R A N T 335 T H SCOTTSBLUFF 5: H o o K E R S c o T T $ . 0 " 16 Gering fratare Orlaado R R : Bayard Lake G-Js McGraw o & a Acreport Glena le Saron L 47:8 TAree M: L Late Calera Bridgepert D E N Arther 72 - Flats MC P H E R S o N Farrisburz, 24 T H u R 21 92 Tryon A N € R Lisca Rinzgo' el 1.) Pena a Oshkosh i) Lewellen 97 - Pec Gast Lemoyne 27 E N N E Kirgsley Dom 27 Lake so dville 80 Muntsmon 26 Keystone . 2: K - M B A L' L Sidney Co'ton Sural NON odgepote " > o E U E L Chappell . 30 29 30 351 1 Re D,e burn L § Lorenza " 30 COLO 25 julisturg Peetz Sedgwick 61 887 F. 24 32 L - N c 3: is Creek € R * - N $ Dickens Grant 23 21 125 385 Madrid (is.e Tax Grainton Wallace Somerset 23 Brandon " " 33 60 North 2: Yenarge Wellfleet 25 Ne 12 2 Bickingham STERLING Hemp Haxtun Stonehom 14 co. 14 G Holyoke et : G tamar c H s E acalez 10.1112 Imperial is 6 . H A Y E Center Enders as (13) Chima, Wanneta 385 C E -6 - 6 1- - T c H c o et -Cutant o o Y Stratten Trenten l'u R i Sounce dusi Al /docul m Maz'st 2 NCC NEBR NEC OBJECTIVE: Increased acres of sugar beets for maintaining the existing five North Central Colorado factories, four Nebraska factories, and three Northeast Colorado factories. PROCEDURE: Bob Abrams - Project Leader - NCC Paul Blome - Project Leader - Nebraska Jim Gonyou - Project Leader - NEC Lay out the program procedure of how to increase sugar beet acreage and set a deadline of three weeks to contact all potential landowners of beet growing farms. The monetary investment valuation of this proposed program would approximate $405,600 and would be a big morale booster to the Agricultural Staff. It would also be designed to offer and allow an agriculturalist to leave the profession and enter the beet growing business, which could be underwritten by the Company. This should be done prior to growers' listing equipment for farm auctions and as soon after September 1st as possible because of terminations, present lease agreements, etc. In underwriting operating loans or the Company share of producing a beet crop, an additional $500,000 could be required on a short-term basis. The possibility of the two Service Centers entering into the growing of 500 or 600 acres of beets each should also be explored, and a man put in charge who is a potential manager or who has the capabilities of handling a large-scale farming operation. It may be possible to visit depressed beet growing areas such as Hardin, Montana, and Fremont County, Wyoming, to recruit young beet growers who no longer have the opportunity to grow beets. because of other companies' withdrawals from those particular areas. The plan would be to make the initial move to expand the larger acreage in the circle irrigation area east of the present NCC District and within a 40 mile radius of the Nebraska and NEC factories and presently known beet growing farms, but also to show dry land farmers that beets will pay for land faster and with more assurance than any other competitive crop that they can now grow; that beets are priced from year to year fairly consistently; and sell the other merits of the beet crop at small new grower educational meetings, breakfasts, dinners, etc. Housing and buildings may be a problem in recruiting a new, young grower in some of the dry land areas, but perhaps this could be solved by a willing landowner who would agree to include in his long-range plans the modernizing of an older house, construction of a shop, feed lots, etc. -7- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 DEVELOP NEW AREA ADDITIONAL BEET ACRES - NCC - NEBR - NEC 1. Conduct an aerial and land survey under the direction of the District Agricultural Manager to find out how many irrigated circles are within a 40 mile radius of any of our existing factories. 2. Determine how many total acres are available under sprinkler irrigation within this radius and how many acres cannot be immediately planted to beets because of atrazine, etc. 3. Example: 100 circles (per each District or 300 circles total) X 132 acres per circle = 13,200 acres : 1/2 = 6,600 acres a. Assumption: 40 mile radius truck freight route -- $1.50 per ton 4. Have Agricultural Managers talk to every landowner of the circles to see if the landowner: a. is interested in beets; b. is willing to raise beets himself; c. wants beets on his farm but needs a tenant; d. would like to have a partner in growing the crop. 5. Proposal: The Company will install an inland station for 800 acres. 6. Assumption: The Company would find six (per district, 18 - total) ambitious, young and energetic beet growers and/or interested agriculturalists who want to enter or expand an agricultural operation as specialized sugar beet growers. a. The Company would either finance or underwrite loans; b. The Company would provide each grower with one or two men, preferably college graduates or agriculturalists, on a basis similar to the fellowship program; C. Each grower in the program would specialize in six circles (780 acres) of beets, minimum; d. The Company would arrange to put the land package together, help with lease agreements, etc. 7. The Company would decide on and place the most outstanding field man to of serve the six growers per district, or 4,680 acres, regardless of the number factory districts in which the acreage is involved. Agriculturalist with minimum tillage experience preferred. 8. The Company would assist growers to obtain fertilizer and herbicides at a reduced cost. a. The Company would agree to offer temporary help to the grower with people from the dump repair crew or from some source in the factory during the grower's critical need, such as the two weeks of cultivating, weekend help, etc. 9. Run ads in papers which serve this area: "Beets wanted - Are you interested? - Call The Great Western Sugar Company" - Let farmers know we want them as growers. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 INCREASE ACRES IN OLD AREA ADDITIONAL BEET ACRES - NCC - NEBR - NEC 1. Agriculturalists to survey every non-beet-growing farm within the boundaries of the present factory districts. a. Agriculturalists will personally talk with every landowner where no beets are now grown; b. The Company will offer farm management service to the landowner to help him obtain an adjoining beet grower or a new beet grower, whichever the situation dictates; c. Encourage and sell farm management service to absentee landowners allowing field men and/or service centers to manage farms as agents with the Company being paid a fee for its service, the emphasis on beets for every farm, more money to the landowner and grower, thus more money to the Company. 2. Many growers are faced with a shortage of general farm labor, and if a man desires to raise more acres of beets and has a labor problem in being spread out too thin, then the Company would offer him a fellowship student, providing he grows 500 acres or more of beets. 3. Adopt a Company policy and provide as a service to all farmers in general a farm placement labor center with a headquarters at each of our factory locations. This service would aid and be a part of public relations and would cost the grower or the man being placed nothing. -9- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Additional equipment needed, ,at the Service Centers to enter sugar beet growing Platteville $ 66,000 Scottsbluff $ 6,000 $ 72,000 2.. Six Fellowship Students per district - 18 total (a) $250/month Company cost per student $19,200 per district per year $ 57,600 3. Establish three new Receiving Stations per district - nine total (a) 3 Scales $60,000 (b) 3 Land Sites 10 acres X $100/acre = $1,000 X 3 = $3,000 (c) Grade Sites $ 3,000 (d) Electrify Stations $10,000 (e) Transfer 3 Used Piles $ 6,000 (f) Upgrade 3 Used Piles $10,000 $92,000 Per District X 3 $276,000 TOTAL = $405,600 4. Short-Term Operating Money Estimated $500,000 PAYBACK If an acre of beets is worth $74.00 to the Company, then 5,500 additional acres of beets for the Company would pay for the $405,600 proposal. We': re assuming the Company would not lose any money out of the $500,000 for operating as short- term money in the long pull. NOTE: No interest is figured in the above numbers nor has any tax advantage been accounted for in the study. $74.00 derived by Financial Planning using curvilinear regression equations; based on present and estimated future pulp and sugar prices; normal acreage and a normal curve of 112 day campaign with a 10 day surrounding increment. -10- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227

what is the amount of total current liabilities ?

jlbx0227

jlbx0227_p0, jlbx0227_p1, jlbx0227_p2, jlbx0227_p3, jlbx0227_p4, jlbx0227_p5, jlbx0227_p6, jlbx0227_p7, jlbx0227_p8, jlbx0227_p9, jlbx0227_p10, jlbx0227_p11, jlbx0227_p12, jlbx0227_p13, jlbx0227_p14, jlbx0227_p15, jlbx0227_p16, jlbx0227_p17, jlbx0227_p18, jlbx0227_p19

23,492

GH BRIEFING 6-11-75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I. GH is not worth buying for what is has earned or will earn under "normal" conditions; i.e., buy, refine, sell sugar. EBIT $600 M to $1.500M Needs $6-9MM WC to continue Can be purchased for $4-8 MM (they expect $10MM) Our "cost" is $10-17MM. . II. GH has excellent 1. Facilities at Reserve 2. Technical support personnel at Reserve 3. Distribution network relative to GW. t 2,100, on 00 3, III. GH could be a good speculative investment 2.4 Hog Low Provides A. "LONG.LIMIT 7,200,000 2, 400,000 Balance to GWS beet business 21.000,000 5.7,100 2,200,00 3.0000 Take % of Sugar Broker/dist $ 6,200,000 wwword ? 400.00 = Entry to foreign refined market 10% "Improvement on cost of raws = $16MM profit contribution" We must get a "participating K".- HFTS: 2X the Bet. on 121,000 IV. Net; get into GH as low as possible, 4 3 Emphasize the Raws problem< : Slim down overhead 95° Devise a plan that can target for $20MM EBIT. Actual Potented V hmp Ratio 73 74 AT, impiral 1.6 2.6 1.9mm Gll 4% 2.6% G,8 Source:https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., INC. PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1967. - 1970 1971 & 1974 1971 Profit Before Tax, Interest and Supervision Fees $ 11,130 M $ 6,614 M $ 4,528 M Average Per Year . 2,783 3,307 4,528 1974 Supervision (506) (506) .' (506) 1974 Interest (2,213) (2,213) (2,213) Projected Annual Profit 64 588 1,809 Investment Required to Return 10% $ 640 M $ 5,880 M $ 18,090 M 30% 213 1,950 6,030 15% 426 3,920 12,600 Production (CWT) 32,824 M CWT 19,050 M CWT 10,502 M CWT Average Per Year 8,206 9,525 10,502 1.5 33 Objective: - Get 30 day option - Full P & L information (operating statistics) - Manufacturing costs (operating statistics) Be Prepared To: - Sign LOI - Offer $4 Mm Low $5 Mm Mid $6 Mm High for 30% return before taxes $10 Mm Absolute Top Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co., INC. BALANCE SHEETS December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 ASSETS Current assets: Cash $ 2,150,212 $ 1,295,521 Federal income tax refund 1,020,891 Accounts and notes receivable: Trade 17,277,055 8,652,194 Affiliates 67,279 463,344 Inventories 12,503,941 13,094,401 Prepaid insurance and other 392,086 185,945 Total current assets 33,411,464 23,691,405 Property, plant and equipment, at cost: Land 373,300 373,300 Buildings 6,208,224 5,905,359 Machinery and equipment 14,791,863 13,812,393 Delivery and other automotive equipment 89,307 89,307 Leasehold improvements 50,662 27,707 21,513,356 20,208,066 Less accumulated depreciation 6,975,497 5,995,392 14,537,859 14,212,674 Other assets: Deferred income. taxes 1,492,919 Sundry deferred charges 368,352 629,849 Notes receivable 2,500 110,500 Advances to affiliates 126,733 1,990,504 740,349 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,428 LIABILITIES Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities: Trade $ 31,834,490 $ 6,998,742 Affiliates 846,938 356,860 Notes payable 19,019,761 14,534,993 Current portion of long-term debt 103,317 308,828 Total current liabilities (18,393) 51,804,506 22,199,423 Mortgage and notes payable, current portion above: 10-1/2% First Mortgage Note 4,747,501 4,836,043 Other notes payable 124,451 180,306 4,871,952 5,016,349 Advances from affiliates 3,178,135 3,171,156 Deferred income taxes 788,190 STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY (DEFICIT) Common stock, $100 par value; 1,041 shares authorized, issued and outstanding 104,100 104,100 Paid-in capital 2,323,239 . 2,323,239 Retained earnings (deficit), as annexed (12,342,105) 5,041,971 (9,914,765) 7,469,310 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,418 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-MENDERSON SUGAR co., , INC. PRO FORMA BALANCE SHEET AT 5/31/75 IN HANDS OF OTHERS - ON LIFO ASSETS Cash $ 1,395 Accounts Receivable 12,464 - Inventories Sugar 272,000 cwt at $11.11 3,022 Processing cost 386 Spare parts 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 19,631 Fixed assets - Net 14,353 Other assets and deferred charges 411 TOTAL ASSETS $ 34,395 LIABILITIES = Notes payable - banks $ 14,253 Notes payable - La. raw mills 7,369 Need commu Current portion of long-term debt 115 Accounts payable and accrued 3,334 2,2 Total Current Liabilities 25,071 Long-term debt 4,815 Deferred taxes 872 Deferred futures profit 716 Stockholders' equity 2,921 TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 34,395 1975 ceremated income Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Soùrce: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/j)bx0227 GODCHAUX-IENDERSON SUGAR co., INC. ESTIMATED WORKING CAPITAL MAY 31, 1975 000's omitted Current Assets Cash $ 1,395 Accounts receivable 12,464 Note receivable - U.S. Sugar Co. 240 Inventories: Raw sugar (Massequite), 40,458 cwt @ $17 688 Refined, 216,216 cwt @ $22 4,757 Spare parts, bags, mdse. for resale 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 21,908 Current Liabilities Bank notes payable 14,253 Current portion of long-term debt 115 Total notes payable 14,368 La. raw sugar payables 7,369 Other trade payables and accruals 1,755 Total Current Liabilities 23,492 Net Estimated Working Capital (Deficit) ($ 1,584) CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co. INC. ESTIMATED NET INCOME JANUARY ] THROUGH MAY 31, 1975 Pre-tax income, 4/30/75 $ 388,221 Estimated profit on April inventory liquidation 346,750 Deferred inventory liquidation profit, 4/30/75 6,329,205 Last estimated of May income 187,723 7,251,899 Estimate of income from inventory liquidation in month of May: Cwt actual, 96°, , 4/30/75 485,000 Cwt actual, 96°; 5/31/75 272,000 Liquidated 213,000 Spread ($27 May Cost - $11) x 16 $3,408,000 May liquidation profit 3,408,000 Total estimated pre-tax income 10,659,899 Book taxes at 37% consolidated rate 3,944,163 Estimated net income $ 6,715,736 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR co. INC. 2 ESTIMATED STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY MAY 31, 1975 Capital stock $ 104,100 Paid in capital, existing balance 2,323,239 Additional contributions to be made by Southern Industries 5,345,000 Total capital stock and paid-in 7,772,339 Retained earnings (deficit), 1/1/75 (12,342,104) Estimated net income, 1/1-5/31/75 6,715,736 Retained earnings (deficit), 5/31/75 ( 5,626,368) Total Estimated Stockholder's Equity, 5/31/75 $ 2,145,971 776 2,921 5. cash 3,6 2 2146 8.6 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF INCOME (LOSS) AND RETAINED EARNINGS (DEFICIT) for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Net sales $270,994,584 $121,429,038 Cost of sales 282,649,140 117,395,585 Gross profit (loss) (11,654,556) 4,033,453 Selling, general and administrative expenses 3,259,352 2,468,224 (14,913,908) 1,565,229 Other income, net 143,984 54,687 16.4mm (14,769,924) 1,619,916 Interest deductions 2,192,152 1,197,210 Income (loss) before provision (credit) for taxes 4 14,2mm (16,962,076) 422,706 Provision (credit) for income taxes: Federal: Current (990,891) (277,206) Deferred (2,251,109) 181,357 State - current 19,089 (3,242,000) (76,760) Net income (loss) the 7.1mm (13,720,076) 499,466 Retained earnings, January 1, restated 5,041,971 4,667,505 (8,678,105) 5,166,971 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 Retained earnings (deficit), December 31 $(12,342,105) $ _5,041,971 See notes to financial statements. 3 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., , INC. Statement of Change in Financial Position 1/1/15 - 4/30/75 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income $ 1244,579 Depreciation and amortization 383,018 Deferred income taxes -0- Working capital provided from operations 627,597 Decrease in other assets 4,525 Increase in deferred liabilities 8,373,106 $ 9,005,228 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment $ : 293,428 Reduction to mortgage and notes payable 56,909 Increase in deferred charges 264,575 $ 614,912 Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Changes in working capital Current assets: Cash $ (1,169,483) Receivables a 230th (7,434,849) Inventories (4,138,565) Prepaid insurance and other. 338,681 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities + 2,3sta $ (20,787,991) Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (6,541) $ (20,794,532) Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income (loss) $(13,720,076) $ 499,466 Expenses (credit) not affecting working capital in the current year: Depreciation and amortization 1,060,770 819,542 Deferred income taxes (2,251,109) 181,357 Working capital provided from (applied to) operations for the year (14,910,415) 1,500,365 Increase in advances from affiliates 6,979 Increase in mortgage and notes payable 9,430 1,022,000 Property sales and retirements, less accumulated depreciation 53,470 15,535 Other 212,764 63,670 (14,627,772) 2,601,570 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment 1,439,425 2,778,888 Reduction in mortgage and notes payable 153,827 278,496 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 5,257,252 3,182,384 Decrease in working capital $ (19,885,024) $ (580,814) Change in working capital - increase (decrease) : Current assets: Cash $ 854,691 $ 703,853 Receivables 9,249,687 (635,126) Inventories (590,460) 2,042,128 Prepaid insurance and other 206,141 (32,598 9,720,059 2,078,257 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (25,325,826) 3,143,444 Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (4,279,257) (5,802,515) (29,605,083) (2,659,071 Decrease in working capital $(19,885,024) $ (580,814 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 - SUCAR C.O. INC. VARIOUS SINTISTICS 1/1/74 .. 12/31/174 (BEFORE LIFO) PROFIT CONTRIBUTION Net Profit Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Add: Supervision Fees 506,000 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 14,675,927 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 SIC Note Interest 45,913 Interest Expense 1,986,461 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 60,914 Debt Amortization 14,752 Profit Contribution 16,383,957 ABEREVIATED FLOW OF FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Less: Income Tax 7,084,964 Net Income $ 7,084,963 Add: Depreciation and Amortization 1,052,693 Cash Flow $ 8,137,656. Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt 800,082 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 8,937,738 drwanch Less: Dividends 3.664,000 Capital Expenditures 1,377,877 Net Flow of Funds - Surplus/(Deficit) $ 3,895,861 NET WORKING CAPITAL @ 12/31/74 $ 5,480,545 Repairs $ 1,653,955 Refined Sugar Produced CWT 8,547,969 = it n Operating Days - Refinery 233 321 Average Production per Operating Day $ 36,687 27 \ IIIN E. Ladd 5/19/75 Söurce: https://www.industrydócuments,ucsf.edutddrst T1xx0227 VARIOUS STATISTICS 1967 - 1973 7 YEAR 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 TOTAL PROFIT CONTRIBUTION is 196 P Net Profit Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 Add: Supervision Fees 108,701 116,733 141,000 553,719 635,000 600,000 475,200 2,630,353 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 1,546,380 $ 1,864,135.1 $,1,718,417 $ 3,055,741 $ 3,866,801 $ 1,111,305 $ 897,906 $14,060,685 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 - 105,000 735,000 SIC Note Interest 138,214 145,798 138,661 131,661 124,747 117,925 111,636 908,642 Interest Expense 461,912 469,086 500,094 414,888 399,240 550,819 979,364 3,775,403 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 26,933 30,683 32,257 29,098 31,987 42,390 43,155 236,503 Debt Amortization 3,008 3,009 a - 6,017 1 Profit Contribution $ 2,281,447 $ 2,617,711 $ 2,494,129 $ 3,736,388 $ 4,527,775 $ 1,927,439 $ 2,137,061 $19,722,250 =085. ASBREVIATED FLCW 07 FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 (633) Less: Income Tax 586,061 804,000 816,551 1,069,802 1,153,238 26,466 (76,760) 4,379,358 Net Incone $ 851,618 $ 943,402 $ 760,866 $ 1,432,220 $ 2,078,563 $ 484,839 $ 499,466 $ 7,050,974 Add: Depreciation & Amortization 378,075 426,909 496,715 536,092 599,874 674,623 819,542 3,931,530 Cash Flow $ 1,229,693 $ 1,370,311 $ 1,257,581 $ 1,968,312 $ 2,678,437 $ 1,159,462 $ 1,319,008 $10,982,604 Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt (603,062) (492,620) (333,174) (495,412) 1,865,581 3,351,521 743,504 4,036,338 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 626,631 $ 877,691 $ 924,407 $ 1,472,900 $ 4,544,013 $ 4,510,983 $ 2,062,512 $15,019,142 NO Less: Dividends -0- 375,000 330,000 530,000 : 660,000 330,000 125,000 2,350,000 Capital Expenditures 1,694,961 1,099,561 942,281 755,946 2,619,417 4,187,602 2,773,893 14,078,656 Net Flou of Funds - Surplus/(Doficit) $ (1,068,330) $ (596,870) $. (347,371) $ 186,954 $ 1,264,601 $ (6,619) $ (841,376) $(1,409,514) Net Working Capital at Year-End $ 1,738,296 $ 960,279 $ 531,173 $ 499,751 $ 1,171,294 $ 2,220,053 $ 2,216,941 $ 1,627,025 Repairs $ 1,160,277 $ 1,229,468 $ 1,156,668 $ 1,326,567 $ 1,475,224 $ 1,414,386 $1.1,383,014 $ 9,145,604 Refined Sugar Produced (Cwt.) 7,270,838 8,317,724 7,741,365 9,494,161 10,502,424 9,170,169 8,457,433 - Operating Days - Refinery 268 277 246 299 .312 280 247 Average Production per Operating Day (Cwt.) 27,130 30,028 31,495 31,817 33,694 32,751 34,185 E. Ladd . 3/28/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I a - 0.042 °C - - - - it. Co N T O 0= of n- F- 8 80 . ********** i. .7 -0 *********** ++++++++4 - - CUMVERCA RAN 7 CONVERCA 3 es (--) CF- a n a - D an nca [= HE' - In a g 2 - Filent - NOTE. o THIS MAP REDUCED KALF SIZE MAP OF PLANT LATOUT na Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 (10,000) 31,000 (43,000 24,000 (4,000) LEARTYPE OUNTY OUTUNE NITED STATES - (3,000) MAP NO.117 AMERICAN MAD SOMPANY.INC $ Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SALARIED ORGANIZATION MAY 1, 1975 Operations, J. A. Metzler 2 Purchasing 6 Cincinnati 5 13 Marketing, E. R. Fleming 2 Administration 10 Sales 8 20 Finance, H. L. Kirk 4 Credit 4 Billing 3 Machine Room 2 1.3 Accounting, R. L. Crawford 11 Refinery, A. Garcia 2 Maintenance 23 Quality Assurance 10 Engineering 4 Administration 19 Operations 35 Service 2 95 Mobile, Administration and Service 6 TOTAL 158 40 158 101 67 T. Source: https://wvww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/doce 51jTbx02.27 to HOURLY ORCANIZATION - RESERVE - MAY 1, 1975 Manning is based cn requirement of two full shifts plus skeleton crew on the third shift in Pecking, and six palletized crews and two hand loading crews in Shipping. Raw Receiving 3 Affination 9 Clarification 9 Char House 18 Granulators 6 Pan Floor 16 Refined Centrifugal 12 Pre-Packaging 14 Packaging 80 Shipping - Packages 51 Shipping - Bulk 6 Liquid Sugar 6 Yard Crew 4 Sanitation 12 Security 6 Commissary 4 Laboratory 8 Utilities 12 Dock 6 Painters 8 Construction 14 Truck Drivers 5 Electrical 15 Maintenance Shops 13 Area Mechanics 20 Operations Mechanics 12 Total Required for 369* Operation *There are approximately 30 additional people on the payroll who act as vacation replacements, absentee replacements, training, etc. 360 1.58 40 Source: https:.//wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs[ilbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES 1. Information known: A. Sugar refinery at Reserve, Louisiana - 32 miles west of New Orleans on the Mississippi River. B. Liquid sugár processing plant and distribution terminal at Cincinnati, Ohio and leases sugar packaging operations at Buffalo, New York and (Chicago, Illinois 12/1/74. C. Owns 8 hydraulic material processing dredges, owns or has long term leases on 11 towboats and 88 cargo barges and under short term leases has 15 towboats and 30 barges. D. Also owns ready-mixed concrete operations and a mixer fleet in Mobile; asphalt plants at Woodstock, Margerum and Mobile, Alabama: a concrete block plant at Mobile, and supporting sales depots at Mobile, Ft. Walton Beach and Pensacola, Florida, and New Orleans owns or leases 8 stone quarries and crushing plants at Mobile, Baltimore and Houston, and chemical lime plants at Morgan City, La., and Saginaw, Ala. Company leases 2 slag processing facilities at Columbia, Tenn. E. Mineral Reserves--Company leases shell deposits from the states of Alabama and Louisiana, estimated to contain 100 million tons; leases gravel deposits estimated to contain 10 million tons owns an asphaltic limestone deposit estimated to contain 1,500,000 tons; and leases lime- stone deposits estimated to contain 200 million tons. F. Raws: 25% from U.S. 75% from Foreign G. Campaign: 312 days in 1971 280 days in 1972 247 days in 1973 232 days in 1974 H. Refined Sugar Production Production Year (Million cwts) 1971 10.5 1972 9.2 1973 8.4 1974 8.5 1. Sells sugar under two tradenames: 1. Henderson Superfine 2. Godchaux Brand continued Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES, continued Page 2 J. Current assets $53 Million. K. Long term debt $34 Million. L. Cost of replacing cane facilities: 1) Processing - $25 million Mill (3500 ton/day grind) 2) Refinery - $45 million (700 ton/day raw sugar) X 2 = 99mm II. Data needed: A. What it costs for Raws - Domestic - Foreign B. Operating costs (cost of production including G & A percent of refined sugar). C. Where receive raws from D. Costs to market place E. Financial data up to net income F. Present contractual arrangements III. To Receive 30% ROI before tax: @ 20,000 $ 6mm Example 1: Cost Proc + Profit for Price for RAWS: Raws Freight G & A 30% ROI Ref. Sugar (U.S.)25% @ 126 + 0 + 2.56 + 16 15.5 (Foreign 75% @ 7c + 1.8€ + 2.56 + 1c 12.3 TOTAL Weight Price For Refined Sugar 13.1 IV. Potential Areas to Increase Profits A. Grain Exports $45 2.47 50 B. Foreign raw prices based on refined sugar prices when sold. 11,2 C. Participating contract with growers based on refined sugar prices or foreign raws. 14/11/11 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 The President of Southern Industries Reports. Net soles for the first quarter ended March 31, 1975 were $74,686,000 compared to $51,505,000 for the same period in 1974. Net income for the period was $1,482,000 equal to $1.03 per share compared to a net loss of $1,830,000 (restated) equal to a loss of $1.23 per shore in 1974. By.product line the basic materials group had a 165% increase in pre-tox cornings over last year. This group occounted for $916,000 or opproximately 38% of pre-tax eornings. The sugar division contributed $1,437,000 or 61% to the results. With the exception of low sugar volume, the demand for our other products and materials remains strong. Your attention is directed to the notes to the following statements for a further explanation of the financial results of the first quorter. D. E. Dowson, Jr. April 22, 1975 President 1 Sales and Income (Loss) by Product Line For the three months ended March 31, 1975 and 1974 (000 omitted) SALES INCOME (LOSS) 1974 1975 1974 1975 Restated Sugor $56,118 $35,758 $ 1,437 S( 3,381) Bosic Materials 15,515 12,977 916 345 Hordwore and Machinery 3,051 2,770 58 92 Other (Non-operating) 2 - ( 58) ( 32) $74,686 $51,505 $ 2,353 $( 2,976) Income Toxes Credit (and Provision) ( 871) 1,145 Net Income (Loss) $ 1,482 $( 1,830) Per Shore $ 1.03 S( 1.22) Consolidated Financial Condition (000 omitted) March 31 1974 1975 Restated Current assets $ 50,419 $ 39,516 Current liobilities 51,420 30,445 Net current assets ( 1,001) 9,071 Properties - net 47,325 44,500 Other ossets 6,874 5,749 Total ossets less current licbilities 53,198 59,320 Long term debt (including debt due within one year) 33 33,151 32,101 Other licbilities 1,847 2,318 Total long term debt and other licbilities 55 34,998 34,419 Net assets $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Stockholders' equity: Common stock (1,433,096 shares outstanding) $ 6,059 $ 6,059 Retoined income and capital surplus 12,141 18,842 Total stockholders' equity $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Notes to Financial Statements (1) The income (les) by product line includes o statistical ollocation of corporale costs including interest expense. (2) Figures for 1974 have been restated to reflect changing to the lost in, first out (LIFO) method from the first in, first out (FIFO) and overage cost methods of accounting for the row sugar content of sugor inventories. If the FIFO and overage cost methods hod been used by the Com- pony, these inventories, and consequently net current assets, would hove been $14,803,000 and 54, 166,000 higher than reported at March 31, 1975 and 1974 (restated), respectively. (3) Results for the three months ended March 31, 1975 include income of $2,373,000 from reducing quantities of row sugar inventories under the uro method to on anticipated yeor-end level (substontially less than quantities on hand of the beginning of 1975). (4) A net operoting loss collyover available from 1974 will offsei the first $6,815,000 of taxoble income in 1975 and thus eliminate payment of toxes. The provision for toxas at March 31, 1975 of $871,000 represents a charge for deferred income taxes not currently payable. (5) Net income per shore bosed on 1,433,096 shares outstanding. (6) Depreciation and amortization included above omounted to $1,485,000 ond $1,265,000 in 1975 and 1974, respectively. P) Above figures subject to yeor-end audit. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227

what is the value of other trade payables and accruals in the current liabilities ?

jlbx0227

jlbx0227_p0, jlbx0227_p1, jlbx0227_p2, jlbx0227_p3, jlbx0227_p4, jlbx0227_p5, jlbx0227_p6, jlbx0227_p7, jlbx0227_p8, jlbx0227_p9, jlbx0227_p10, jlbx0227_p11, jlbx0227_p12, jlbx0227_p13, jlbx0227_p14, jlbx0227_p15, jlbx0227_p16, jlbx0227_p17, jlbx0227_p18, jlbx0227_p19

1,755

GH BRIEFING 6-11-75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I. GH is not worth buying for what is has earned or will earn under "normal" conditions; i.e., buy, refine, sell sugar. EBIT $600 M to $1.500M Needs $6-9MM WC to continue Can be purchased for $4-8 MM (they expect $10MM) Our "cost" is $10-17MM. . II. GH has excellent 1. Facilities at Reserve 2. Technical support personnel at Reserve 3. Distribution network relative to GW. t 2,100, on 00 3, III. GH could be a good speculative investment 2.4 Hog Low Provides A. "LONG.LIMIT 7,200,000 2, 400,000 Balance to GWS beet business 21.000,000 5.7,100 2,200,00 3.0000 Take % of Sugar Broker/dist $ 6,200,000 wwword ? 400.00 = Entry to foreign refined market 10% "Improvement on cost of raws = $16MM profit contribution" We must get a "participating K".- HFTS: 2X the Bet. on 121,000 IV. Net; get into GH as low as possible, 4 3 Emphasize the Raws problem< : Slim down overhead 95° Devise a plan that can target for $20MM EBIT. Actual Potented V hmp Ratio 73 74 AT, impiral 1.6 2.6 1.9mm Gll 4% 2.6% G,8 Source:https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., INC. PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1967. - 1970 1971 & 1974 1971 Profit Before Tax, Interest and Supervision Fees $ 11,130 M $ 6,614 M $ 4,528 M Average Per Year . 2,783 3,307 4,528 1974 Supervision (506) (506) .' (506) 1974 Interest (2,213) (2,213) (2,213) Projected Annual Profit 64 588 1,809 Investment Required to Return 10% $ 640 M $ 5,880 M $ 18,090 M 30% 213 1,950 6,030 15% 426 3,920 12,600 Production (CWT) 32,824 M CWT 19,050 M CWT 10,502 M CWT Average Per Year 8,206 9,525 10,502 1.5 33 Objective: - Get 30 day option - Full P & L information (operating statistics) - Manufacturing costs (operating statistics) Be Prepared To: - Sign LOI - Offer $4 Mm Low $5 Mm Mid $6 Mm High for 30% return before taxes $10 Mm Absolute Top Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co., INC. BALANCE SHEETS December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 ASSETS Current assets: Cash $ 2,150,212 $ 1,295,521 Federal income tax refund 1,020,891 Accounts and notes receivable: Trade 17,277,055 8,652,194 Affiliates 67,279 463,344 Inventories 12,503,941 13,094,401 Prepaid insurance and other 392,086 185,945 Total current assets 33,411,464 23,691,405 Property, plant and equipment, at cost: Land 373,300 373,300 Buildings 6,208,224 5,905,359 Machinery and equipment 14,791,863 13,812,393 Delivery and other automotive equipment 89,307 89,307 Leasehold improvements 50,662 27,707 21,513,356 20,208,066 Less accumulated depreciation 6,975,497 5,995,392 14,537,859 14,212,674 Other assets: Deferred income. taxes 1,492,919 Sundry deferred charges 368,352 629,849 Notes receivable 2,500 110,500 Advances to affiliates 126,733 1,990,504 740,349 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,428 LIABILITIES Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities: Trade $ 31,834,490 $ 6,998,742 Affiliates 846,938 356,860 Notes payable 19,019,761 14,534,993 Current portion of long-term debt 103,317 308,828 Total current liabilities (18,393) 51,804,506 22,199,423 Mortgage and notes payable, current portion above: 10-1/2% First Mortgage Note 4,747,501 4,836,043 Other notes payable 124,451 180,306 4,871,952 5,016,349 Advances from affiliates 3,178,135 3,171,156 Deferred income taxes 788,190 STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY (DEFICIT) Common stock, $100 par value; 1,041 shares authorized, issued and outstanding 104,100 104,100 Paid-in capital 2,323,239 . 2,323,239 Retained earnings (deficit), as annexed (12,342,105) 5,041,971 (9,914,765) 7,469,310 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,418 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-MENDERSON SUGAR co., , INC. PRO FORMA BALANCE SHEET AT 5/31/75 IN HANDS OF OTHERS - ON LIFO ASSETS Cash $ 1,395 Accounts Receivable 12,464 - Inventories Sugar 272,000 cwt at $11.11 3,022 Processing cost 386 Spare parts 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 19,631 Fixed assets - Net 14,353 Other assets and deferred charges 411 TOTAL ASSETS $ 34,395 LIABILITIES = Notes payable - banks $ 14,253 Notes payable - La. raw mills 7,369 Need commu Current portion of long-term debt 115 Accounts payable and accrued 3,334 2,2 Total Current Liabilities 25,071 Long-term debt 4,815 Deferred taxes 872 Deferred futures profit 716 Stockholders' equity 2,921 TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 34,395 1975 ceremated income Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Soùrce: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/j)bx0227 GODCHAUX-IENDERSON SUGAR co., INC. ESTIMATED WORKING CAPITAL MAY 31, 1975 000's omitted Current Assets Cash $ 1,395 Accounts receivable 12,464 Note receivable - U.S. Sugar Co. 240 Inventories: Raw sugar (Massequite), 40,458 cwt @ $17 688 Refined, 216,216 cwt @ $22 4,757 Spare parts, bags, mdse. for resale 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 21,908 Current Liabilities Bank notes payable 14,253 Current portion of long-term debt 115 Total notes payable 14,368 La. raw sugar payables 7,369 Other trade payables and accruals 1,755 Total Current Liabilities 23,492 Net Estimated Working Capital (Deficit) ($ 1,584) CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co. INC. ESTIMATED NET INCOME JANUARY ] THROUGH MAY 31, 1975 Pre-tax income, 4/30/75 $ 388,221 Estimated profit on April inventory liquidation 346,750 Deferred inventory liquidation profit, 4/30/75 6,329,205 Last estimated of May income 187,723 7,251,899 Estimate of income from inventory liquidation in month of May: Cwt actual, 96°, , 4/30/75 485,000 Cwt actual, 96°; 5/31/75 272,000 Liquidated 213,000 Spread ($27 May Cost - $11) x 16 $3,408,000 May liquidation profit 3,408,000 Total estimated pre-tax income 10,659,899 Book taxes at 37% consolidated rate 3,944,163 Estimated net income $ 6,715,736 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR co. INC. 2 ESTIMATED STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY MAY 31, 1975 Capital stock $ 104,100 Paid in capital, existing balance 2,323,239 Additional contributions to be made by Southern Industries 5,345,000 Total capital stock and paid-in 7,772,339 Retained earnings (deficit), 1/1/75 (12,342,104) Estimated net income, 1/1-5/31/75 6,715,736 Retained earnings (deficit), 5/31/75 ( 5,626,368) Total Estimated Stockholder's Equity, 5/31/75 $ 2,145,971 776 2,921 5. cash 3,6 2 2146 8.6 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF INCOME (LOSS) AND RETAINED EARNINGS (DEFICIT) for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Net sales $270,994,584 $121,429,038 Cost of sales 282,649,140 117,395,585 Gross profit (loss) (11,654,556) 4,033,453 Selling, general and administrative expenses 3,259,352 2,468,224 (14,913,908) 1,565,229 Other income, net 143,984 54,687 16.4mm (14,769,924) 1,619,916 Interest deductions 2,192,152 1,197,210 Income (loss) before provision (credit) for taxes 4 14,2mm (16,962,076) 422,706 Provision (credit) for income taxes: Federal: Current (990,891) (277,206) Deferred (2,251,109) 181,357 State - current 19,089 (3,242,000) (76,760) Net income (loss) the 7.1mm (13,720,076) 499,466 Retained earnings, January 1, restated 5,041,971 4,667,505 (8,678,105) 5,166,971 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 Retained earnings (deficit), December 31 $(12,342,105) $ _5,041,971 See notes to financial statements. 3 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., , INC. Statement of Change in Financial Position 1/1/15 - 4/30/75 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income $ 1244,579 Depreciation and amortization 383,018 Deferred income taxes -0- Working capital provided from operations 627,597 Decrease in other assets 4,525 Increase in deferred liabilities 8,373,106 $ 9,005,228 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment $ : 293,428 Reduction to mortgage and notes payable 56,909 Increase in deferred charges 264,575 $ 614,912 Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Changes in working capital Current assets: Cash $ (1,169,483) Receivables a 230th (7,434,849) Inventories (4,138,565) Prepaid insurance and other. 338,681 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities + 2,3sta $ (20,787,991) Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (6,541) $ (20,794,532) Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income (loss) $(13,720,076) $ 499,466 Expenses (credit) not affecting working capital in the current year: Depreciation and amortization 1,060,770 819,542 Deferred income taxes (2,251,109) 181,357 Working capital provided from (applied to) operations for the year (14,910,415) 1,500,365 Increase in advances from affiliates 6,979 Increase in mortgage and notes payable 9,430 1,022,000 Property sales and retirements, less accumulated depreciation 53,470 15,535 Other 212,764 63,670 (14,627,772) 2,601,570 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment 1,439,425 2,778,888 Reduction in mortgage and notes payable 153,827 278,496 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 5,257,252 3,182,384 Decrease in working capital $ (19,885,024) $ (580,814) Change in working capital - increase (decrease) : Current assets: Cash $ 854,691 $ 703,853 Receivables 9,249,687 (635,126) Inventories (590,460) 2,042,128 Prepaid insurance and other 206,141 (32,598 9,720,059 2,078,257 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (25,325,826) 3,143,444 Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (4,279,257) (5,802,515) (29,605,083) (2,659,071 Decrease in working capital $(19,885,024) $ (580,814 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 - SUCAR C.O. INC. VARIOUS SINTISTICS 1/1/74 .. 12/31/174 (BEFORE LIFO) PROFIT CONTRIBUTION Net Profit Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Add: Supervision Fees 506,000 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 14,675,927 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 SIC Note Interest 45,913 Interest Expense 1,986,461 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 60,914 Debt Amortization 14,752 Profit Contribution 16,383,957 ABEREVIATED FLOW OF FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Less: Income Tax 7,084,964 Net Income $ 7,084,963 Add: Depreciation and Amortization 1,052,693 Cash Flow $ 8,137,656. Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt 800,082 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 8,937,738 drwanch Less: Dividends 3.664,000 Capital Expenditures 1,377,877 Net Flow of Funds - Surplus/(Deficit) $ 3,895,861 NET WORKING CAPITAL @ 12/31/74 $ 5,480,545 Repairs $ 1,653,955 Refined Sugar Produced CWT 8,547,969 = it n Operating Days - Refinery 233 321 Average Production per Operating Day $ 36,687 27 \ IIIN E. Ladd 5/19/75 Söurce: https://www.industrydócuments,ucsf.edutddrst T1xx0227 VARIOUS STATISTICS 1967 - 1973 7 YEAR 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 TOTAL PROFIT CONTRIBUTION is 196 P Net Profit Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 Add: Supervision Fees 108,701 116,733 141,000 553,719 635,000 600,000 475,200 2,630,353 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 1,546,380 $ 1,864,135.1 $,1,718,417 $ 3,055,741 $ 3,866,801 $ 1,111,305 $ 897,906 $14,060,685 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 - 105,000 735,000 SIC Note Interest 138,214 145,798 138,661 131,661 124,747 117,925 111,636 908,642 Interest Expense 461,912 469,086 500,094 414,888 399,240 550,819 979,364 3,775,403 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 26,933 30,683 32,257 29,098 31,987 42,390 43,155 236,503 Debt Amortization 3,008 3,009 a - 6,017 1 Profit Contribution $ 2,281,447 $ 2,617,711 $ 2,494,129 $ 3,736,388 $ 4,527,775 $ 1,927,439 $ 2,137,061 $19,722,250 =085. ASBREVIATED FLCW 07 FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 (633) Less: Income Tax 586,061 804,000 816,551 1,069,802 1,153,238 26,466 (76,760) 4,379,358 Net Incone $ 851,618 $ 943,402 $ 760,866 $ 1,432,220 $ 2,078,563 $ 484,839 $ 499,466 $ 7,050,974 Add: Depreciation & Amortization 378,075 426,909 496,715 536,092 599,874 674,623 819,542 3,931,530 Cash Flow $ 1,229,693 $ 1,370,311 $ 1,257,581 $ 1,968,312 $ 2,678,437 $ 1,159,462 $ 1,319,008 $10,982,604 Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt (603,062) (492,620) (333,174) (495,412) 1,865,581 3,351,521 743,504 4,036,338 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 626,631 $ 877,691 $ 924,407 $ 1,472,900 $ 4,544,013 $ 4,510,983 $ 2,062,512 $15,019,142 NO Less: Dividends -0- 375,000 330,000 530,000 : 660,000 330,000 125,000 2,350,000 Capital Expenditures 1,694,961 1,099,561 942,281 755,946 2,619,417 4,187,602 2,773,893 14,078,656 Net Flou of Funds - Surplus/(Doficit) $ (1,068,330) $ (596,870) $. (347,371) $ 186,954 $ 1,264,601 $ (6,619) $ (841,376) $(1,409,514) Net Working Capital at Year-End $ 1,738,296 $ 960,279 $ 531,173 $ 499,751 $ 1,171,294 $ 2,220,053 $ 2,216,941 $ 1,627,025 Repairs $ 1,160,277 $ 1,229,468 $ 1,156,668 $ 1,326,567 $ 1,475,224 $ 1,414,386 $1.1,383,014 $ 9,145,604 Refined Sugar Produced (Cwt.) 7,270,838 8,317,724 7,741,365 9,494,161 10,502,424 9,170,169 8,457,433 - Operating Days - Refinery 268 277 246 299 .312 280 247 Average Production per Operating Day (Cwt.) 27,130 30,028 31,495 31,817 33,694 32,751 34,185 E. Ladd . 3/28/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I a - 0.042 °C - - - - it. Co N T O 0= of n- F- 8 80 . ********** i. .7 -0 *********** ++++++++4 - - CUMVERCA RAN 7 CONVERCA 3 es (--) CF- a n a - D an nca [= HE' - In a g 2 - Filent - NOTE. o THIS MAP REDUCED KALF SIZE MAP OF PLANT LATOUT na Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 (10,000) 31,000 (43,000 24,000 (4,000) LEARTYPE OUNTY OUTUNE NITED STATES - (3,000) MAP NO.117 AMERICAN MAD SOMPANY.INC $ Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SALARIED ORGANIZATION MAY 1, 1975 Operations, J. A. Metzler 2 Purchasing 6 Cincinnati 5 13 Marketing, E. R. Fleming 2 Administration 10 Sales 8 20 Finance, H. L. Kirk 4 Credit 4 Billing 3 Machine Room 2 1.3 Accounting, R. L. Crawford 11 Refinery, A. Garcia 2 Maintenance 23 Quality Assurance 10 Engineering 4 Administration 19 Operations 35 Service 2 95 Mobile, Administration and Service 6 TOTAL 158 40 158 101 67 T. Source: https://wvww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/doce 51jTbx02.27 to HOURLY ORCANIZATION - RESERVE - MAY 1, 1975 Manning is based cn requirement of two full shifts plus skeleton crew on the third shift in Pecking, and six palletized crews and two hand loading crews in Shipping. Raw Receiving 3 Affination 9 Clarification 9 Char House 18 Granulators 6 Pan Floor 16 Refined Centrifugal 12 Pre-Packaging 14 Packaging 80 Shipping - Packages 51 Shipping - Bulk 6 Liquid Sugar 6 Yard Crew 4 Sanitation 12 Security 6 Commissary 4 Laboratory 8 Utilities 12 Dock 6 Painters 8 Construction 14 Truck Drivers 5 Electrical 15 Maintenance Shops 13 Area Mechanics 20 Operations Mechanics 12 Total Required for 369* Operation *There are approximately 30 additional people on the payroll who act as vacation replacements, absentee replacements, training, etc. 360 1.58 40 Source: https:.//wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs[ilbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES 1. Information known: A. Sugar refinery at Reserve, Louisiana - 32 miles west of New Orleans on the Mississippi River. B. Liquid sugár processing plant and distribution terminal at Cincinnati, Ohio and leases sugar packaging operations at Buffalo, New York and (Chicago, Illinois 12/1/74. C. Owns 8 hydraulic material processing dredges, owns or has long term leases on 11 towboats and 88 cargo barges and under short term leases has 15 towboats and 30 barges. D. Also owns ready-mixed concrete operations and a mixer fleet in Mobile; asphalt plants at Woodstock, Margerum and Mobile, Alabama: a concrete block plant at Mobile, and supporting sales depots at Mobile, Ft. Walton Beach and Pensacola, Florida, and New Orleans owns or leases 8 stone quarries and crushing plants at Mobile, Baltimore and Houston, and chemical lime plants at Morgan City, La., and Saginaw, Ala. Company leases 2 slag processing facilities at Columbia, Tenn. E. Mineral Reserves--Company leases shell deposits from the states of Alabama and Louisiana, estimated to contain 100 million tons; leases gravel deposits estimated to contain 10 million tons owns an asphaltic limestone deposit estimated to contain 1,500,000 tons; and leases lime- stone deposits estimated to contain 200 million tons. F. Raws: 25% from U.S. 75% from Foreign G. Campaign: 312 days in 1971 280 days in 1972 247 days in 1973 232 days in 1974 H. Refined Sugar Production Production Year (Million cwts) 1971 10.5 1972 9.2 1973 8.4 1974 8.5 1. Sells sugar under two tradenames: 1. Henderson Superfine 2. Godchaux Brand continued Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES, continued Page 2 J. Current assets $53 Million. K. Long term debt $34 Million. L. Cost of replacing cane facilities: 1) Processing - $25 million Mill (3500 ton/day grind) 2) Refinery - $45 million (700 ton/day raw sugar) X 2 = 99mm II. Data needed: A. What it costs for Raws - Domestic - Foreign B. Operating costs (cost of production including G & A percent of refined sugar). C. Where receive raws from D. Costs to market place E. Financial data up to net income F. Present contractual arrangements III. To Receive 30% ROI before tax: @ 20,000 $ 6mm Example 1: Cost Proc + Profit for Price for RAWS: Raws Freight G & A 30% ROI Ref. Sugar (U.S.)25% @ 126 + 0 + 2.56 + 16 15.5 (Foreign 75% @ 7c + 1.8€ + 2.56 + 1c 12.3 TOTAL Weight Price For Refined Sugar 13.1 IV. Potential Areas to Increase Profits A. Grain Exports $45 2.47 50 B. Foreign raw prices based on refined sugar prices when sold. 11,2 C. Participating contract with growers based on refined sugar prices or foreign raws. 14/11/11 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 The President of Southern Industries Reports. Net soles for the first quarter ended March 31, 1975 were $74,686,000 compared to $51,505,000 for the same period in 1974. Net income for the period was $1,482,000 equal to $1.03 per share compared to a net loss of $1,830,000 (restated) equal to a loss of $1.23 per shore in 1974. By.product line the basic materials group had a 165% increase in pre-tox cornings over last year. This group occounted for $916,000 or opproximately 38% of pre-tax eornings. The sugar division contributed $1,437,000 or 61% to the results. With the exception of low sugar volume, the demand for our other products and materials remains strong. Your attention is directed to the notes to the following statements for a further explanation of the financial results of the first quorter. D. E. Dowson, Jr. April 22, 1975 President 1 Sales and Income (Loss) by Product Line For the three months ended March 31, 1975 and 1974 (000 omitted) SALES INCOME (LOSS) 1974 1975 1974 1975 Restated Sugor $56,118 $35,758 $ 1,437 S( 3,381) Bosic Materials 15,515 12,977 916 345 Hordwore and Machinery 3,051 2,770 58 92 Other (Non-operating) 2 - ( 58) ( 32) $74,686 $51,505 $ 2,353 $( 2,976) Income Toxes Credit (and Provision) ( 871) 1,145 Net Income (Loss) $ 1,482 $( 1,830) Per Shore $ 1.03 S( 1.22) Consolidated Financial Condition (000 omitted) March 31 1974 1975 Restated Current assets $ 50,419 $ 39,516 Current liobilities 51,420 30,445 Net current assets ( 1,001) 9,071 Properties - net 47,325 44,500 Other ossets 6,874 5,749 Total ossets less current licbilities 53,198 59,320 Long term debt (including debt due within one year) 33 33,151 32,101 Other licbilities 1,847 2,318 Total long term debt and other licbilities 55 34,998 34,419 Net assets $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Stockholders' equity: Common stock (1,433,096 shares outstanding) $ 6,059 $ 6,059 Retoined income and capital surplus 12,141 18,842 Total stockholders' equity $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Notes to Financial Statements (1) The income (les) by product line includes o statistical ollocation of corporale costs including interest expense. (2) Figures for 1974 have been restated to reflect changing to the lost in, first out (LIFO) method from the first in, first out (FIFO) and overage cost methods of accounting for the row sugar content of sugor inventories. If the FIFO and overage cost methods hod been used by the Com- pony, these inventories, and consequently net current assets, would hove been $14,803,000 and 54, 166,000 higher than reported at March 31, 1975 and 1974 (restated), respectively. (3) Results for the three months ended March 31, 1975 include income of $2,373,000 from reducing quantities of row sugar inventories under the uro method to on anticipated yeor-end level (substontially less than quantities on hand of the beginning of 1975). (4) A net operoting loss collyover available from 1974 will offsei the first $6,815,000 of taxoble income in 1975 and thus eliminate payment of toxes. The provision for toxas at March 31, 1975 of $871,000 represents a charge for deferred income taxes not currently payable. (5) Net income per shore bosed on 1,433,096 shares outstanding. (6) Depreciation and amortization included above omounted to $1,485,000 ond $1,265,000 in 1975 and 1974, respectively. P) Above figures subject to yeor-end audit. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227

How much is the cash dividends declared for the year 1974?

jlbx0227

jlbx0227_p0, jlbx0227_p1, jlbx0227_p2, jlbx0227_p3, jlbx0227_p4, jlbx0227_p5, jlbx0227_p6, jlbx0227_p7, jlbx0227_p8, jlbx0227_p9, jlbx0227_p10, jlbx0227_p11, jlbx0227_p12, jlbx0227_p13, jlbx0227_p14, jlbx0227_p15, jlbx0227_p16, jlbx0227_p17, jlbx0227_p18, jlbx0227_p19

3664000, 3,664,000

GH BRIEFING 6-11-75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I. GH is not worth buying for what is has earned or will earn under "normal" conditions; i.e., buy, refine, sell sugar. EBIT $600 M to $1.500M Needs $6-9MM WC to continue Can be purchased for $4-8 MM (they expect $10MM) Our "cost" is $10-17MM. . II. GH has excellent 1. Facilities at Reserve 2. Technical support personnel at Reserve 3. Distribution network relative to GW. t 2,100, on 00 3, III. GH could be a good speculative investment 2.4 Hog Low Provides A. "LONG.LIMIT 7,200,000 2, 400,000 Balance to GWS beet business 21.000,000 5.7,100 2,200,00 3.0000 Take % of Sugar Broker/dist $ 6,200,000 wwword ? 400.00 = Entry to foreign refined market 10% "Improvement on cost of raws = $16MM profit contribution" We must get a "participating K".- HFTS: 2X the Bet. on 121,000 IV. Net; get into GH as low as possible, 4 3 Emphasize the Raws problem< : Slim down overhead 95° Devise a plan that can target for $20MM EBIT. Actual Potented V hmp Ratio 73 74 AT, impiral 1.6 2.6 1.9mm Gll 4% 2.6% G,8 Source:https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., INC. PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1967. - 1970 1971 & 1974 1971 Profit Before Tax, Interest and Supervision Fees $ 11,130 M $ 6,614 M $ 4,528 M Average Per Year . 2,783 3,307 4,528 1974 Supervision (506) (506) .' (506) 1974 Interest (2,213) (2,213) (2,213) Projected Annual Profit 64 588 1,809 Investment Required to Return 10% $ 640 M $ 5,880 M $ 18,090 M 30% 213 1,950 6,030 15% 426 3,920 12,600 Production (CWT) 32,824 M CWT 19,050 M CWT 10,502 M CWT Average Per Year 8,206 9,525 10,502 1.5 33 Objective: - Get 30 day option - Full P & L information (operating statistics) - Manufacturing costs (operating statistics) Be Prepared To: - Sign LOI - Offer $4 Mm Low $5 Mm Mid $6 Mm High for 30% return before taxes $10 Mm Absolute Top Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co., INC. BALANCE SHEETS December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 ASSETS Current assets: Cash $ 2,150,212 $ 1,295,521 Federal income tax refund 1,020,891 Accounts and notes receivable: Trade 17,277,055 8,652,194 Affiliates 67,279 463,344 Inventories 12,503,941 13,094,401 Prepaid insurance and other 392,086 185,945 Total current assets 33,411,464 23,691,405 Property, plant and equipment, at cost: Land 373,300 373,300 Buildings 6,208,224 5,905,359 Machinery and equipment 14,791,863 13,812,393 Delivery and other automotive equipment 89,307 89,307 Leasehold improvements 50,662 27,707 21,513,356 20,208,066 Less accumulated depreciation 6,975,497 5,995,392 14,537,859 14,212,674 Other assets: Deferred income. taxes 1,492,919 Sundry deferred charges 368,352 629,849 Notes receivable 2,500 110,500 Advances to affiliates 126,733 1,990,504 740,349 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,428 LIABILITIES Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities: Trade $ 31,834,490 $ 6,998,742 Affiliates 846,938 356,860 Notes payable 19,019,761 14,534,993 Current portion of long-term debt 103,317 308,828 Total current liabilities (18,393) 51,804,506 22,199,423 Mortgage and notes payable, current portion above: 10-1/2% First Mortgage Note 4,747,501 4,836,043 Other notes payable 124,451 180,306 4,871,952 5,016,349 Advances from affiliates 3,178,135 3,171,156 Deferred income taxes 788,190 STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY (DEFICIT) Common stock, $100 par value; 1,041 shares authorized, issued and outstanding 104,100 104,100 Paid-in capital 2,323,239 . 2,323,239 Retained earnings (deficit), as annexed (12,342,105) 5,041,971 (9,914,765) 7,469,310 $ 49,939,827 $38,644,418 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-MENDERSON SUGAR co., , INC. PRO FORMA BALANCE SHEET AT 5/31/75 IN HANDS OF OTHERS - ON LIFO ASSETS Cash $ 1,395 Accounts Receivable 12,464 - Inventories Sugar 272,000 cwt at $11.11 3,022 Processing cost 386 Spare parts 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 19,631 Fixed assets - Net 14,353 Other assets and deferred charges 411 TOTAL ASSETS $ 34,395 LIABILITIES = Notes payable - banks $ 14,253 Notes payable - La. raw mills 7,369 Need commu Current portion of long-term debt 115 Accounts payable and accrued 3,334 2,2 Total Current Liabilities 25,071 Long-term debt 4,815 Deferred taxes 872 Deferred futures profit 716 Stockholders' equity 2,921 TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 34,395 1975 ceremated income Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Soùrce: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/j)bx0227 GODCHAUX-IENDERSON SUGAR co., INC. ESTIMATED WORKING CAPITAL MAY 31, 1975 000's omitted Current Assets Cash $ 1,395 Accounts receivable 12,464 Note receivable - U.S. Sugar Co. 240 Inventories: Raw sugar (Massequite), 40,458 cwt @ $17 688 Refined, 216,216 cwt @ $22 4,757 Spare parts, bags, mdse. for resale 1,970 Prepaid expenses 394 Total Current Assets 21,908 Current Liabilities Bank notes payable 14,253 Current portion of long-term debt 115 Total notes payable 14,368 La. raw sugar payables 7,369 Other trade payables and accruals 1,755 Total Current Liabilities 23,492 Net Estimated Working Capital (Deficit) ($ 1,584) CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON - SUGAR co. INC. ESTIMATED NET INCOME JANUARY ] THROUGH MAY 31, 1975 Pre-tax income, 4/30/75 $ 388,221 Estimated profit on April inventory liquidation 346,750 Deferred inventory liquidation profit, 4/30/75 6,329,205 Last estimated of May income 187,723 7,251,899 Estimate of income from inventory liquidation in month of May: Cwt actual, 96°, , 4/30/75 485,000 Cwt actual, 96°; 5/31/75 272,000 Liquidated 213,000 Spread ($27 May Cost - $11) x 16 $3,408,000 May liquidation profit 3,408,000 Total estimated pre-tax income 10,659,899 Book taxes at 37% consolidated rate 3,944,163 Estimated net income $ 6,715,736 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR co. INC. 2 ESTIMATED STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY MAY 31, 1975 Capital stock $ 104,100 Paid in capital, existing balance 2,323,239 Additional contributions to be made by Southern Industries 5,345,000 Total capital stock and paid-in 7,772,339 Retained earnings (deficit), 1/1/75 (12,342,104) Estimated net income, 1/1-5/31/75 6,715,736 Retained earnings (deficit), 5/31/75 ( 5,626,368) Total Estimated Stockholder's Equity, 5/31/75 $ 2,145,971 776 2,921 5. cash 3,6 2 2146 8.6 CMP/bm 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF INCOME (LOSS) AND RETAINED EARNINGS (DEFICIT) for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Net sales $270,994,584 $121,429,038 Cost of sales 282,649,140 117,395,585 Gross profit (loss) (11,654,556) 4,033,453 Selling, general and administrative expenses 3,259,352 2,468,224 (14,913,908) 1,565,229 Other income, net 143,984 54,687 16.4mm (14,769,924) 1,619,916 Interest deductions 2,192,152 1,197,210 Income (loss) before provision (credit) for taxes 4 14,2mm (16,962,076) 422,706 Provision (credit) for income taxes: Federal: Current (990,891) (277,206) Deferred (2,251,109) 181,357 State - current 19,089 (3,242,000) (76,760) Net income (loss) the 7.1mm (13,720,076) 499,466 Retained earnings, January 1, restated 5,041,971 4,667,505 (8,678,105) 5,166,971 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 Retained earnings (deficit), December 31 $(12,342,105) $ _5,041,971 See notes to financial statements. 3 GODCHAUX-HENDERSON SUGAR CO., , INC. Statement of Change in Financial Position 1/1/15 - 4/30/75 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income $ 1244,579 Depreciation and amortization 383,018 Deferred income taxes -0- Working capital provided from operations 627,597 Decrease in other assets 4,525 Increase in deferred liabilities 8,373,106 $ 9,005,228 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment $ : 293,428 Reduction to mortgage and notes payable 56,909 Increase in deferred charges 264,575 $ 614,912 Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Changes in working capital Current assets: Cash $ (1,169,483) Receivables a 230th (7,434,849) Inventories (4,138,565) Prepaid insurance and other. 338,681 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities + 2,3sta $ (20,787,991) Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (6,541) $ (20,794,532) Increase in working capital $ 8,390,316 Ernest F. Ladd, III/gc 6/10/75 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION for the years ended December 31, 1974 and 1973 1974 1973 Working capital provided by (applied to) : Operations: Net income (loss) $(13,720,076) $ 499,466 Expenses (credit) not affecting working capital in the current year: Depreciation and amortization 1,060,770 819,542 Deferred income taxes (2,251,109) 181,357 Working capital provided from (applied to) operations for the year (14,910,415) 1,500,365 Increase in advances from affiliates 6,979 Increase in mortgage and notes payable 9,430 1,022,000 Property sales and retirements, less accumulated depreciation 53,470 15,535 Other 212,764 63,670 (14,627,772) 2,601,570 Working capital applied to: Additions to property, plant and equipment 1,439,425 2,778,888 Reduction in mortgage and notes payable 153,827 278,496 Cash dividends declared 3,664,000 125,000 5,257,252 3,182,384 Decrease in working capital $ (19,885,024) $ (580,814) Change in working capital - increase (decrease) : Current assets: Cash $ 854,691 $ 703,853 Receivables 9,249,687 (635,126) Inventories (590,460) 2,042,128 Prepaid insurance and other 206,141 (32,598 9,720,059 2,078,257 Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (25,325,826) 3,143,444 Notes payable and current portion of long-term debt (4,279,257) (5,802,515) (29,605,083) (2,659,071 Decrease in working capital $(19,885,024) $ (580,814 See notes to financial statements. Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 - SUCAR C.O. INC. VARIOUS SINTISTICS 1/1/74 .. 12/31/174 (BEFORE LIFO) PROFIT CONTRIBUTION Net Profit Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Add: Supervision Fees 506,000 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 14,675,927 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 SIC Note Interest 45,913 Interest Expense 1,986,461 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 60,914 Debt Amortization 14,752 Profit Contribution 16,383,957 ABEREVIATED FLOW OF FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 14,169,927 Less: Income Tax 7,084,964 Net Income $ 7,084,963 Add: Depreciation and Amortization 1,052,693 Cash Flow $ 8,137,656. Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt 800,082 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 8,937,738 drwanch Less: Dividends 3.664,000 Capital Expenditures 1,377,877 Net Flow of Funds - Surplus/(Deficit) $ 3,895,861 NET WORKING CAPITAL @ 12/31/74 $ 5,480,545 Repairs $ 1,653,955 Refined Sugar Produced CWT 8,547,969 = it n Operating Days - Refinery 233 321 Average Production per Operating Day $ 36,687 27 \ IIIN E. Ladd 5/19/75 Söurce: https://www.industrydócuments,ucsf.edutddrst T1xx0227 VARIOUS STATISTICS 1967 - 1973 7 YEAR 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 TOTAL PROFIT CONTRIBUTION is 196 P Net Profit Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 Add: Supervision Fees 108,701 116,733 141,000 553,719 635,000 600,000 475,200 2,630,353 Net Profit Before Supervision Fees $ 1,546,380 $ 1,864,135.1 $,1,718,417 $ 3,055,741 $ 3,866,801 $ 1,111,305 $ 897,906 $14,060,685 Add: SIC Debenture Interest 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 - 105,000 735,000 SIC Note Interest 138,214 145,798 138,661 131,661 124,747 117,925 111,636 908,642 Interest Expense 461,912 469,086 500,094 414,888 399,240 550,819 979,364 3,775,403 Service Fee - St. Louis Terminal 26,933 30,683 32,257 29,098 31,987 42,390 43,155 236,503 Debt Amortization 3,008 3,009 a - 6,017 1 Profit Contribution $ 2,281,447 $ 2,617,711 $ 2,494,129 $ 3,736,388 $ 4,527,775 $ 1,927,439 $ 2,137,061 $19,722,250 =085. ASBREVIATED FLCW 07 FUNDS Net Income Before Tax $ 1,437,679 $ 1,747,402 $ 1,577,417 $ 2,502,022 $ 3,231,801 $ 511,305 $ 422,706 $11,430,332 (633) Less: Income Tax 586,061 804,000 816,551 1,069,802 1,153,238 26,466 (76,760) 4,379,358 Net Incone $ 851,618 $ 943,402 $ 760,866 $ 1,432,220 $ 2,078,563 $ 484,839 $ 499,466 $ 7,050,974 Add: Depreciation & Amortization 378,075 426,909 496,715 536,092 599,874 674,623 819,542 3,931,530 Cash Flow $ 1,229,693 $ 1,370,311 $ 1,257,581 $ 1,968,312 $ 2,678,437 $ 1,159,462 $ 1,319,008 $10,982,604 Add or (Subtract) Long Term Debt (603,062) (492,620) (333,174) (495,412) 1,865,581 3,351,521 743,504 4,036,338 Adjusted Cash Flow $ 626,631 $ 877,691 $ 924,407 $ 1,472,900 $ 4,544,013 $ 4,510,983 $ 2,062,512 $15,019,142 NO Less: Dividends -0- 375,000 330,000 530,000 : 660,000 330,000 125,000 2,350,000 Capital Expenditures 1,694,961 1,099,561 942,281 755,946 2,619,417 4,187,602 2,773,893 14,078,656 Net Flou of Funds - Surplus/(Doficit) $ (1,068,330) $ (596,870) $. (347,371) $ 186,954 $ 1,264,601 $ (6,619) $ (841,376) $(1,409,514) Net Working Capital at Year-End $ 1,738,296 $ 960,279 $ 531,173 $ 499,751 $ 1,171,294 $ 2,220,053 $ 2,216,941 $ 1,627,025 Repairs $ 1,160,277 $ 1,229,468 $ 1,156,668 $ 1,326,567 $ 1,475,224 $ 1,414,386 $1.1,383,014 $ 9,145,604 Refined Sugar Produced (Cwt.) 7,270,838 8,317,724 7,741,365 9,494,161 10,502,424 9,170,169 8,457,433 - Operating Days - Refinery 268 277 246 299 .312 280 247 Average Production per Operating Day (Cwt.) 27,130 30,028 31,495 31,817 33,694 32,751 34,185 E. Ladd . 3/28/74 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 I a - 0.042 °C - - - - it. Co N T O 0= of n- F- 8 80 . ********** i. .7 -0 *********** ++++++++4 - - CUMVERCA RAN 7 CONVERCA 3 es (--) CF- a n a - D an nca [= HE' - In a g 2 - Filent - NOTE. o THIS MAP REDUCED KALF SIZE MAP OF PLANT LATOUT na Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 (10,000) 31,000 (43,000 24,000 (4,000) LEARTYPE OUNTY OUTUNE NITED STATES - (3,000) MAP NO.117 AMERICAN MAD SOMPANY.INC $ Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SALARIED ORGANIZATION MAY 1, 1975 Operations, J. A. Metzler 2 Purchasing 6 Cincinnati 5 13 Marketing, E. R. Fleming 2 Administration 10 Sales 8 20 Finance, H. L. Kirk 4 Credit 4 Billing 3 Machine Room 2 1.3 Accounting, R. L. Crawford 11 Refinery, A. Garcia 2 Maintenance 23 Quality Assurance 10 Engineering 4 Administration 19 Operations 35 Service 2 95 Mobile, Administration and Service 6 TOTAL 158 40 158 101 67 T. Source: https://wvww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/doce 51jTbx02.27 to HOURLY ORCANIZATION - RESERVE - MAY 1, 1975 Manning is based cn requirement of two full shifts plus skeleton crew on the third shift in Pecking, and six palletized crews and two hand loading crews in Shipping. Raw Receiving 3 Affination 9 Clarification 9 Char House 18 Granulators 6 Pan Floor 16 Refined Centrifugal 12 Pre-Packaging 14 Packaging 80 Shipping - Packages 51 Shipping - Bulk 6 Liquid Sugar 6 Yard Crew 4 Sanitation 12 Security 6 Commissary 4 Laboratory 8 Utilities 12 Dock 6 Painters 8 Construction 14 Truck Drivers 5 Electrical 15 Maintenance Shops 13 Area Mechanics 20 Operations Mechanics 12 Total Required for 369* Operation *There are approximately 30 additional people on the payroll who act as vacation replacements, absentee replacements, training, etc. 360 1.58 40 Source: https:.//wwww.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs[ilbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES 1. Information known: A. Sugar refinery at Reserve, Louisiana - 32 miles west of New Orleans on the Mississippi River. B. Liquid sugár processing plant and distribution terminal at Cincinnati, Ohio and leases sugar packaging operations at Buffalo, New York and (Chicago, Illinois 12/1/74. C. Owns 8 hydraulic material processing dredges, owns or has long term leases on 11 towboats and 88 cargo barges and under short term leases has 15 towboats and 30 barges. D. Also owns ready-mixed concrete operations and a mixer fleet in Mobile; asphalt plants at Woodstock, Margerum and Mobile, Alabama: a concrete block plant at Mobile, and supporting sales depots at Mobile, Ft. Walton Beach and Pensacola, Florida, and New Orleans owns or leases 8 stone quarries and crushing plants at Mobile, Baltimore and Houston, and chemical lime plants at Morgan City, La., and Saginaw, Ala. Company leases 2 slag processing facilities at Columbia, Tenn. E. Mineral Reserves--Company leases shell deposits from the states of Alabama and Louisiana, estimated to contain 100 million tons; leases gravel deposits estimated to contain 10 million tons owns an asphaltic limestone deposit estimated to contain 1,500,000 tons; and leases lime- stone deposits estimated to contain 200 million tons. F. Raws: 25% from U.S. 75% from Foreign G. Campaign: 312 days in 1971 280 days in 1972 247 days in 1973 232 days in 1974 H. Refined Sugar Production Production Year (Million cwts) 1971 10.5 1972 9.2 1973 8.4 1974 8.5 1. Sells sugar under two tradenames: 1. Henderson Superfine 2. Godchaux Brand continued Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES, continued Page 2 J. Current assets $53 Million. K. Long term debt $34 Million. L. Cost of replacing cane facilities: 1) Processing - $25 million Mill (3500 ton/day grind) 2) Refinery - $45 million (700 ton/day raw sugar) X 2 = 99mm II. Data needed: A. What it costs for Raws - Domestic - Foreign B. Operating costs (cost of production including G & A percent of refined sugar). C. Where receive raws from D. Costs to market place E. Financial data up to net income F. Present contractual arrangements III. To Receive 30% ROI before tax: @ 20,000 $ 6mm Example 1: Cost Proc + Profit for Price for RAWS: Raws Freight G & A 30% ROI Ref. Sugar (U.S.)25% @ 126 + 0 + 2.56 + 16 15.5 (Foreign 75% @ 7c + 1.8€ + 2.56 + 1c 12.3 TOTAL Weight Price For Refined Sugar 13.1 IV. Potential Areas to Increase Profits A. Grain Exports $45 2.47 50 B. Foreign raw prices based on refined sugar prices when sold. 11,2 C. Participating contract with growers based on refined sugar prices or foreign raws. 14/11/11 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227 The President of Southern Industries Reports. Net soles for the first quarter ended March 31, 1975 were $74,686,000 compared to $51,505,000 for the same period in 1974. Net income for the period was $1,482,000 equal to $1.03 per share compared to a net loss of $1,830,000 (restated) equal to a loss of $1.23 per shore in 1974. By.product line the basic materials group had a 165% increase in pre-tox cornings over last year. This group occounted for $916,000 or opproximately 38% of pre-tax eornings. The sugar division contributed $1,437,000 or 61% to the results. With the exception of low sugar volume, the demand for our other products and materials remains strong. Your attention is directed to the notes to the following statements for a further explanation of the financial results of the first quorter. D. E. Dowson, Jr. April 22, 1975 President 1 Sales and Income (Loss) by Product Line For the three months ended March 31, 1975 and 1974 (000 omitted) SALES INCOME (LOSS) 1974 1975 1974 1975 Restated Sugor $56,118 $35,758 $ 1,437 S( 3,381) Bosic Materials 15,515 12,977 916 345 Hordwore and Machinery 3,051 2,770 58 92 Other (Non-operating) 2 - ( 58) ( 32) $74,686 $51,505 $ 2,353 $( 2,976) Income Toxes Credit (and Provision) ( 871) 1,145 Net Income (Loss) $ 1,482 $( 1,830) Per Shore $ 1.03 S( 1.22) Consolidated Financial Condition (000 omitted) March 31 1974 1975 Restated Current assets $ 50,419 $ 39,516 Current liobilities 51,420 30,445 Net current assets ( 1,001) 9,071 Properties - net 47,325 44,500 Other ossets 6,874 5,749 Total ossets less current licbilities 53,198 59,320 Long term debt (including debt due within one year) 33 33,151 32,101 Other licbilities 1,847 2,318 Total long term debt and other licbilities 55 34,998 34,419 Net assets $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Stockholders' equity: Common stock (1,433,096 shares outstanding) $ 6,059 $ 6,059 Retoined income and capital surplus 12,141 18,842 Total stockholders' equity $ 18,200 $ 24,901 Notes to Financial Statements (1) The income (les) by product line includes o statistical ollocation of corporale costs including interest expense. (2) Figures for 1974 have been restated to reflect changing to the lost in, first out (LIFO) method from the first in, first out (FIFO) and overage cost methods of accounting for the row sugar content of sugor inventories. If the FIFO and overage cost methods hod been used by the Com- pony, these inventories, and consequently net current assets, would hove been $14,803,000 and 54, 166,000 higher than reported at March 31, 1975 and 1974 (restated), respectively. (3) Results for the three months ended March 31, 1975 include income of $2,373,000 from reducing quantities of row sugar inventories under the uro method to on anticipated yeor-end level (substontially less than quantities on hand of the beginning of 1975). (4) A net operoting loss collyover available from 1974 will offsei the first $6,815,000 of taxoble income in 1975 and thus eliminate payment of toxes. The provision for toxas at March 31, 1975 of $871,000 represents a charge for deferred income taxes not currently payable. (5) Net income per shore bosed on 1,433,096 shares outstanding. (6) Depreciation and amortization included above omounted to $1,485,000 ond $1,265,000 in 1975 and 1974, respectively. P) Above figures subject to yeor-end audit. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jlbx0227

what is the temperature of 1st body in vapor for windsor ?

pklh0227

pklh0227_p0, pklh0227_p1, pklh0227_p2, pklh0227_p3, pklh0227_p4, pklh0227_p5, pklh0227_p6, pklh0227_p7, pklh0227_p8, pklh0227_p9, pklh0227_p10, pklh0227_p11, pklh0227_p12, pklh0227_p13, pklh0227_p14, pklh0227_p15

227.4

H. W. DAHLBERG PURTP S A 20032 COEFFICIENT OF HEAT TRANSFER IN EVAPORATORS BASED ON 1950-51 Campaign The Great Western Sugar Company BY J.T. DAVIS April 25 , 1951 Source: https://wwyw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Pounds of Steam or Vapor Condensed Per Hour Coefficient of Heat Exhaust 1st Vap. 2nd Vap. 3rd Vap. 4th Vap Transfer B.T.U. Per Sq. Ft. Con- Con- Con- Con- Con- Per Degree F. Per Hour densed densed densed densed densed 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th lst Body 2nd Body 3rd Body 4th Body 5th Body Body Body Body Body Body Lovell 66211 50027 26785 17262 17262 883 625 471 325 138 Ft. Lupton Greeley 67582 53282 32292 32292 32292 920 651 473 393 158 Eaton 58928 44756 35791 33140 31705 1001 736 580 491 206 Windsor 63743 47369 31103 34938 34938 968 626 479 460 197 Brush 63297 49926 30098 27666 23142 799 651 513 360 145 Wheatland Brighton 65343 43977 27818 23710 19601 751 522 450 307 128 Bayard 71828 42863 30361 27179 22017 848 544 500 371 139 Mitchell 75086 45679 31596 27126 21447 775 520 495 349 126 Lyman Ovid 87800 53844 26962 20032 18050 633 534 354 218 91 Minatare Gering 79561 55024 28701 29536 27548 782 598 439 318 128 Ft. Morgan 96019 52615 37610 12608 7654 661 235 289 122 77 Sterling 70180 50701 35004 19929 18553 803 556 476 259 100 Ft. Collins 142216 96047 44194 51395 51395 774 512 422 354 154 Loveland 118527 75738 61544 16167 10949 696 274 369 119 48 Longmont 138821 94506 35686 47558 47558 786 494 386 325 134 Scottsbluff 128810 98116 59369 41675 33597 757 562 391 236 90 Billings 170900 131977 57248 45886 45886 856 497 375 270 137 Average 92050 63909 37186 29888 27270 805 537 439 310 129 Average by Rienks Formula 810 579 442 282 122 Average by Swenson Formula 780 634 511 353 135 Average Brix of Juice in Bodies 16.2 22.7 30.9 40.9 56.6 -1- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Baro- Gauge Barom- metric Pressure eter Pressure Exhaust Temperatures Degrees Fahrenheit-Vapor Alti- Inches Lbs. Per Steam Ex- 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th tude Hg. Sq. In. * ** haust Body Body Body Body Body Lovell 3830 25.93 12.73 16.8 15.7 244.2 229.5 215.3 198.9 176.7 117.9 Ft. Lupton 4907 24.88 12.22 Greeley 4680 25.10 12.33 17.0 16.5 250.0 232.6 216.2 200.6 180.8 132.8 Eaton 4840 24.95 12.25 13.0 13.1 240.8 226.9 214.5 201.3 182.6 140.3 Windsor 4780 25.00 12.28 15.0 13.9 245.0 227.4 213.3 200.0 180.4 133.3 Brush 4280 25.48 12.51 15.0 10.4 242.8 228.8 214.9 199.5 178.8 128.0 Wheatland 4680 25.10 12.33 Brighton 5000 24.79 12.18 11.2 12.3 243.7 229.8 216.0 199.6 178.2 133.9 Bayard 3780 25.97 12.76 14.0 12.6 240.8 225.9 213.2 197.8 176.2 129.0 Mitchell 3970 25.79 12.66 14.0 11.8 244.7 228.8 214.6 196.8 174.0 123.9 Lyman 4053 25.71 12.63 Ovid 3521 26.22 12.88 13.0 12.4 240.8 227.8 211.1 193.9 172.4 126.6 Minatare 3830 25.92 12.73 Gering 3900 25.86 12.70 14.0 13.5 240.5 224.6 209.1 192.5 171.8 123.6 Ft. Morgan 4339 25.43 12.49 39.3 49.2 283.2°268.5 243.9 221.4 200.6 166.7 Sterling 3934 25.82 12.68 14.0 13.5 242.6 228.3 213.2 193.9 171.6 117.9 Ft. Collins 4960 24.83 12.20 16.8 14.0 242.6 228.0 214.7 199.8 178.2 129.1 Loveland 4980 24.81 12.19 49.0 66.6 295.09278.2 248.1 220.1 195.0 134.6 Longmont 5000 24.79 12.18 17.3 14.3 244.4 229.1 215.7 201.9 180.0 126.7 Scottsbluff 3880 25.88 12.71 18.0 14.3 244.4 228.9 213.6 196.9 176.6 133.4 Billings 3100 26.65 13.09 15.9 15.4 247.3 229.8 215.6 198.3 177.1 121.0 Averages 249.0 233.7 217.8 200.8 179.5 130.5 Reported ** Calculated from Temperatures 294.6 with Superheat -2- 311.0 " " Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Temperature Difference - Degree F. Heating Surface - Square Ft. Exh. lst 2nd 3rd 4th lst 2nd 3rd 4th 5th to lst to 2nd to 3rd to 4th to 5th Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Lovell 5017 5686 3676 2601 2274 14.2 13.5 15.0 20.0 54.7 Ft. Lupton Greeley 4086 4948 4467 4320 4569 17.0 15.8 14.8 18.6 44.4 Eaton 4151 4953 4821 3787 3894 13.5 11.8 12.4 17.4 39.0 Windsor 3641 5382 4993 4036 3983 17.2 13.5 12.6 18.4 44.0 Brush 5617 5617 4003 4003 3440 13.4 13.1 14.2 18.8 46.0 Wheatland Brighton 6211 6211 3962 3874 3803 13.3 13.0 15.1 19.5 40.0 Bayard 5636 6420 4140 3622 3622 14.3 11.8 14.2 19.8 43.4 Mitchell 5933 6292 3750 3622 3621 15.5 13.4 16.5 21.0 46.6 Lyman Ovid 5362 6250 4765 4746 4746 12.3 15.5 15.5 19.0 41.4 5362 Minatare Gering 6293 6019 4128 4809 4809 15.4 14.7 15.4 19.0 44.4 Ft. Morgan 9840 9005 6143 6143 3575 13.6 23.2 20.1 16.2 27.1 Sterling 6060 6171 3983 3782 3720 13.7 14.2 17.9 20.0 49.6 Ft. Collins 6239 7270 3751 3582 3709 14.0 12.4 13.6 19.8 45.4 6239 7270 3709 3582 3582 Loveland 9840 9005 6241 6241 4082 15.8 28.4 25.3 21.0 55.0 Longmont 5520 7344 3566 3566 3566 14.7 12.5 12.5 20.0 49.0 5884 7344 3605 3588 3605 Scottsbluff 5325 5327 4809 4809 4809 14.9 14.4 15.3 18.0 38.4 5514 6293 4809 4809 4809 Billings 5561 9501 4649 4341 3230 17.0 13.4 15.9 19.2 51.5 5561 9501 4649 4341 3230 Averages 14.69 14.98 15.66 19.16 44.70 -3- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BONED Brix of Juice Enter- ing lst Leaving Evaporator Body Average Brix of Juice in - Body 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Lovell 12.9 18.3 27.2 36.7 47.4 66.9 15.6 22.8 32.0 42.0 57.2 Ft. Lupton Greeley 10.6 14.1 19.7 25.9 37.8 69.6 12.4 16.9 22.8 31.8 53.7 Eaton 12.9 16.6 21.6 28.5 40.5 67.5 14.8 19.1 25.0 34.5 54.0 Windsor 10.4 13.9 18.6 24.0 35.5 67.9 12.2 16.2 21.3 29.8 51.7 Brush 13.7 18.2 25.1 32.8 45.4 66.9 16.0 21.6 29.0 39.1 56.2 Wheatland Brighton 14.0 19.4 26.5 34.6 46.6 65.4 16.7 23.0 30.6 40.6 56.0 Bayard 13.7 19.4 25.8 33.7 46.4 66.9 16.6 22.6 29.8 40.0 56.6 Mitchell 12.0 17.2 23.5 31.3 44.0 64.7 14.6 20.4 27.4 37.6 54.4 Lyman Ovid 15.8 23.1 32.7 41.4 51.4 65.9 19.4 27.9 37.0 46.4 58.6 Minatare Gering 13.1 18.3 25.6 32.2 43.9 66.5 15.7 22.0 28.9 38.0 55.2 Ft. Morgan 14.3 22.3 32.9 49.9 60.4 69.2 18.3 27.6 41.4 55.2 64.8 Sterling 14.7 20.3 28.3 38.9 49.5 66.2 17.5 24.3 33.6 44.2 57.8 Ft. Collins 13.6 19.1 26.6 32.4 43.5 66.0 16.4 22.8 29.5 38.0 54.8 Loveland 15.7 22.3 32.2 50.1 58.6 66.3 19.0 27.2 41.2 54.4 62.4 Longmont 14.3 20.2 28.7 34.1 45.4 68.1 17.2 24.4 31.4 39.8 56.8 Scottsbluff 14.1 19.6 27.9 37.5 49.5 66.6 16.8 23.8 32.7 43.5 58.0 Billings 13.3 18.7 27.9 35.5 45.4 62.9 16.0 23.3 31.7 40.4 54.2 Averages 13.5 18.9 26.5 35.3 46.5 66.7 16.2 22.7 30.9 40.9 56.6 -4- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Temperatures - Degrees Fahrenheit Exh. 1st Body 2nd Body 3rd Body 4th Body 5th Body Steam Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Lovell 244.2 229.5 230.0 215.3 216.0 198.9 200.3 176.7 178.9 117.9 122.0 Ft. Lupton Greeley 250.0 232.6 233.0 216.2 216.8 200.6 201.4 180.8 182.0 132.8 136.4 Eaton 240.8 226.9 227.3 214.5 215.1 201.3 202.1 182.6 183.9 140.3 143. Windsor 245.0 227.4 227.8 213.3 213.9 200.0 200.7 180.4 181.6 133.3 136.4 Brush 242.8 228.8 229.4 214.9 215.7 199.5 200.7 178.8 180.7 128.0 132.8 Wheatland Brighton 243.7 229.8 230.4 216.0 216.8 199.6 200.9 178.2 180.1 133.9 138.2 Bayard 240.8 225.9 226.5 213.2 214.1 197.8 199.0 176.2 178.0 129.0 132.8 Mitchell 244.7 228.8 229.2 214.6 215.4 196.8 198.1 174.0 175.8 123.9 127.4 Lyman Ovid 240.8 227.8 228.5 211.1 212.3 193.9 195.6 172.4 174.9 126.6 131.0 Minatare Gering 240.5 224.6 225.1 209.1 209.9 192.5 193.7 171.8 173.5 123.6 127.4 Ft. Morgan 283.2* 268.5 269.6 243.9 245.3 221.4 223.8 200.6 205.2 166.7 173.5 Sterling 242.6 228.3 228.9 213.2 214.1 193.9 195.3 171.6 173.9 117.9 122.0 Ft. Collins 242.6 228.0 228.6 214.7 215.6 199.8 201.1 178.2 180.0 129.1 132.8 Loveland 295.0° 278.2 279.2 248.1 249.8 220.4 222.8 195.0 199.4 134.6 140.0 Longmont 244.4 229.1 229.7 215.7 216.6 201.9 203.2 180.0 181.9 126.7 131.0 Scottsbluff 244.4 228.9229.5 213.6 214.5 196.9 198.3 176.6 178.9 133.4 138.2 Billings 247.3 229.8 230.3 215.6 216.4 198.3 199.7 177.1 179.1 121.0 125.6 Averages 249.0 233.7 234.3 217.8 218.7 200.8 202.2 179.5 181.6 130.5 134.8 * 294.6 With Superheat 311.0 With Superheat -5- Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 *Viscosity Centiposes - Z **Value of - K Juice in Evaporator Body Evaporator Body 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th lst 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Average Lovell .38 .50 . 75 1.45 9.4 23.6 23.1 23.6 23.6 23.7 23.5 Ft. Lupton Greeley .34 .42 .56 .89 5.2 18.4 17.3 17.9 18.8 18.5 18.2 Eaton .37 .44 .58 .95 5.1 27.4 27.4 27.1 26.8 26.9 27.1 Windsor .36 .42 .52 .80 4.6 20.3 19.5 19.8 20.0 20.6 20.0 Brush .39 .49 .66 1.23 7.4 23.4 24.4 23.8 23.4 23.3 23.7 Wheatland Brighton .37 .52 .70 1.31 6.5 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.6 20.8 20.8 Bayard 40 .51 .68 1.30 7.5 23.7 23.5 23.9 24.4 24.0 23.9 Mitchell .37 .47 .64 1.21 6.7 18.5 18.2 19.2 19.9 18.1 18.8 Lyman Ovid 40 .61 .94 1.90 9.5 20.6 21.1 21.5 21.8 20.9 21.2 Gering .40 .51 .72 1.21 7.1 20.3 20.7 20.5 20.3 20.5 20.5 Ft. Morgan .36 .51 .86 2.45 9.5 17.5 5.2 12.4 18.6 27.0 16.1 Sterling .37 .54 .81 1.68 10.8 21.7 21.1 21.5 21.8 21.8 21.6 Ft. Collins .39 .52 .69 1.20 6.4 21.6 21.5 21.4 21.5 21.7 21.5 Loveland .35 .50 .90 2.40 13.0 15.4 4.8 13.1 13.6 11.3 11.6 Longmont .40 .54 .70 1.27 8.1 21.4 21.4 21.6 20.6 22.1 21.4 Scottsbluff .40 .53 .80 1.55 8.5 20.3 20.7 20.4 20.3 20.2 20.4 Billings .38 .51 .76 1.30 6.8 19.1 18.9 17.9 18.3 18.1 18.5 Averages .378 .502 722 1.418 7.771 20.83 19.39 20.38 20.84 21.15 20.52 * From Dwg. 6203 ** D X K - Rienks Formula (K - 20.52) Z C - Coef. of heat transfer D - Temperature Difference -6- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 LOVELL Flash 11.76 18.11 7.42 38.98 20.87 13.45 13.45 13.45 244.2 229.5 215.3 198.9 176.7 117.9 46.86 Z- .38 Z- .50 Z- .75 Z- 1.45 Z- 9.4 4.73 .85 5017 5686 3676 2601 2274 Sq. Ft. 50.74 170.10 230.0 216.0 200. 178.9 122.0 119.38 80.40 59.53 46.08 32.63 Bx. 12.9 Bx. 18.3 Bx. 27.2 Bx. 36.7 Bx. 47.4 Bx.66.9 51.59 38.98 20.87 13.45 13.45 Tons Beets per hour 64.17 Thermo-Compressor LOVELL 15093 23242 9523 50027 26785 17262 17262 17262 60140 K-23.6 K-23.1 K-23.6 K-23.6 K-23.7 *6070 Bx.15.6 Bx.22.8 Bx.32.0 Bx.42.0 Bx.57.2 1091 65120 5017 5686 3676 2601 2274 Sq. Ft. 218306 C-883 C-625 C-471 C-325 C-138 41877 153212 103185 76401 59139 Bx. 66211 50027 26785 17262 17262 Lbs. Beets per hour 128340 GREELEY o Flash 7.58 14.56 22.40 22.40 22.40 22.40 250.0° 232.6 216.2 200.6 180.8 132.8 46.88 2-.34 Z- .42 Z - . .56 Z - .89 Z -5.2 2.34 44.54 4086 4948 4467 4320 4569 Sq. Ft. 175.27 233.0 216.8 201.4 182.0 130.73 93.77 48.97 136.4 71.37 26.57 Bx. 10.6 + Bx. 14.1 Bx. 19.7 Bx. 25.9 t Bx. 37.8 Bx. 69.6 46.88 36.96 22.40 22.40 22.40 Tons Beets per hour 72.08 GREELEY 10927 20990 32292 53282 32292 32292 32292 K- 18.4 k-17.3 k-17.9 k-18.8 k-18.5 67582 Bx. 12.1 Bx.16.9 Bx.22.8 Bx. 31.8 Bx.53.7 3373 64209 4086 4948 4467 4320 4569 Sq. Ft. 252669 C-920 188460 C-651 135179 C-473 102887 C-393 70595 -158 38303 67582 53282 32292 32292 32292 -7- Lbs. Beets per hour 144160 Lovell-Greeley Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 EATON 8.25 6.56 1.94 1.05 26.19 24.25 23.20 32.75 23.20 240.8 226.9 214.5 201.3 182.6 140.3 43.12 Z-37 Z- .44 Z - .58 - z-5.1 2.12 41.00 4151 4953 4821 3787 3894 Sq. Ft. 182.10 227.3 141.11 215.1 108.36 202.1 82.17 183.9 57.92 143.6 34.72 Bx. 12.9 Bx. 16.6 Bx. 21.6 Bx. 28.5 Bx. 40.5 Bx. 67.5 & y v 43.12 32.75 26.19 24.25 23.20 Tons Beets per hour 68.33 EATON 11274 8965 2651 1435 A 31705 44756 35791 33140 31705 K-27.4 K=27.4 K-27.1 K-26.8 K-26.9 58928 Bx.14.8 Bx.19.1 Bx.25.0 Bx.34.5 Bx.54.0 2897 56031 4151 4953 4821 3787 3894 Sq. Ft. 248858 C-100, C-736 C-580 C-491 C-206 192841 148085 112293 79153 47448 58928 44756 35791 33140 31705 Lbs. Beets per hour 136660 WINDSOR - -2.82 Flash to 3rd Vapor 10.87 11.96 -2.82 25.69 34.83 22.87 25.69 25.69 245.0° 227.4 213.3 200.0 180.4 133.3 46.87 Z-.36 Z - .42 Z - .52 Z - o 80 2-4.6 1.17 3641 5382 4993 4036 3983 Sq. Ft. 45.70 182.90 227.8 213.9 200.7 79.48 181.6 137.18 102.35 53.79 136.4 28.10 Bx. 10.4 Bx. 13.9 Bx. 18.6 Bx. 24.0 Bx. 35.5 Bx. 67.9 46.87 34.83 22.87 25.69 25.69 Tons Beets per hour 68.00 WINDSOR 3835 Flash to 2nd Vapor 14783 16266 -3835 34938 47369 31103 34938 34938 K-20.3 K-19.5 K-19.8 K-20.0 K-20.6 63743 Bx.12.2 x.16.2 Bx.21.3 Bx.29.8 Bx.51.7 1591 3641 5382 4993 4036 3983 Sq. Ft. 62152 248744 C-968 186564 C-626 139196 C-479 108093 C-460 73154 C-197 38216 637/33 47369 31103 34938 34938 -8- Lbs. Beets per hour 136000 Eaton-Windsor Source: Ittps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BRUSH 7.15 13.94. 1.71 3.18 16.27 242.8 35.10 21.16 19.45 16.27 228.8 214.9 199.5 178.8 128.0 44.50 Z - .39 Z - .49 Z - . 66 Z -1.23 Z -7.4 2.25 42.25 5617 5617 4003 4003 3440 Sq. Ft. 168.50 229.4 126.24 215. 91.14 200. 69.98 180.7 50.53 132.8 34.26 Bx. 13.7 + Bx. 18.2 Bx. 25.1 Bx. 32.8 Bx. 45.4 Bx. 66.9 + 44.50 35.10 21.16 19.45 16.27 Tons Beets per hour 71.12 BRUSH 10170 19828 2432 4523 A A A 23142 49926 30098 27666 23142 k-23.4 k-24.4 k-23.8 k-23.4 k-23.3 63297 Bx. 16.0 Bx. 21.6 Bx. 29.0 Bx. 39.1 Bx. 56.2 3200 60096 5617 5617 4003 4003 3440 Sq. Ft. 239674 C-799 C-651 C-5-13 C-360 C-145 179564 129638 99540 71874 48731 Y 63297 49926 30098 27666 23142 Lbs. Beets per hour 142240 BRIGHTON 13.20 11.17 2.84 2.84 13.55 243.7 30.40 19.23 16.39 13.55 229.8 216.0 199.6 178.2 133.9 45.17 - Z - .52 Z - o 70 Z -1.31 Z -6.5 1.57 43.60 6211 6211 3962 3874 3803 Sq. Ft. 156.73 230.4 216.8 200.9 63.52 180.1 47.13 138.2 113.15 82.75 33.58 Bx. 14.0 Bx. 19.4 Bx. 26.5 & Bx. 34.6 Bx. 46.6 Bx. 65.4 V 45.17 30.40 19.23 16.39 13.55 Tons Beets per hour 72.33 BRIGHTON 19095 16159 4108 4108 19601 43977 27818 23710 19601 K- 20.9 K- 20.9 K- 20.9 K- 20.6 K= 20.8 65343 Bx. 16.7 Bx. 23.0 Bx. 30.6 Bx. 40.6 Bx. 56.0 2271 6211 6211 3962 3874 3803 63072 Sq. Ft. 226726 C-751 C-522 C-450 C-307 C-128 163683 119706 91888 68178 48577 65343 43977 27818 23710 19601 -9- Lbs. Beets per hourl44660 Brush-Brighton Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BAYARD 18.49 8.33 2.12 3.44 A 14.67 A 4 A 240.8° 28.56 20.23 18.11 14.67 225.9 213. 2 47.86 197. 8 2 .40 176,2 129.0 y Z- o 51 Z -. 68 Z 1.30 ,81 275 47.05 5636 6420 4140 3622 3622 Sq. Ft. 161.89 226. 114.84 214. 86.28 199. 0 66.05 178.0 47.94 132.8 33.27 Bx. 13.74 Bx. 19.4 Bx. 25.8 - Bx. 33.7 t Bx. 46.4 Bx. 66.9 47.86 28.56 20.23 18.11 14.67 Tons Beets per hour 75.04 BAYARD 27750 12502 3182 5163 A 22017 42863 30361 27179 22017 K- 23.7 K-23.5 K-23.9 K-24.4 K-24.0 71828 Bx. 16. 6 Bx. 22.6 6 Bx.29.8 Bx.40.0 Bx.56.6 1216 5636 70613 6420 4140 3622 3622 Sq. Ft. 242965 C-845 172352 C-541 129489 C-500 99128 C-372 71948 C-139 49932 71828 42863 30361 27179 22017 Lbs. Beets per hour 150080 MITCHELL 18. 94 9.20 2.92 3.71 14.01 244.7° 29.84 20.64 17.72 14.01 49.05 228.8 214.6 196.8 174.0 123.9 .27 Z-.37 Z - 64 Z - 1.21 Z - 6.7 48.78 5933 6292 3750 3622 3621 Sq. Ft. 160.80 229.2 112.00 215.4 82.16 198, 61.52 175. 127. 43.80 29.79 Bx. 12.0 V Bx. 17.2 * Bx. 23.5 + Bx. 31.3 Bx. 44.0 Bx. 64.7 49.05 29.84 20.64 17.72 14.01 Tons Beets per hour 76.54 MITCHELL 28993 14083 4470 5679 21447 45679 31596 27126 21447 K - 18.5 K - 18.2 X - 19.2 K - 19.9 75086 K - 18.1 Bx, 14.6 Bx. 20.4 Bx. 27.4 Bx. 37.6 413 Bx, 54.4 74672 5933 6292 3750 3622 3622 246153 C-77 171450 C-520 125771 C-495 94175 C-349 67049 CC126 45602 75086 45679 31596 27126 21447 -10- Lbs. Beets per hour 153080 BAYARD-MITCHELL Source: https://wwvw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 OVID 3.72 Flash to 3 Vapor 19.13 16.68 4.30 1.23 11.20 240.8° 33.41 16.73 12.43 11.20 227.8 211.1 193.9 172.4 126.6 54.48 Z - .40 Z-61 - Z - .94 Z -1.90 Z -9.5 1.94 52.54 10724 6250 4765 4746 4746 Sq. Ft. 166.20 228.5 113.64 212.3 80.23 195.6 63.50 174. 51.07 131. 39.87 Bx. 15.8 Bx. 23.1 Bx. 32.7 Bx. 41.4 Bx. 51.4 Bx 65.9 54.48 33.41 16.73 12.43 11.20 Tons Beets per hour 80.58 OVID 5995 Flash to 3 Vapor 30830 26881 6930 1982 + 18050 53844 26962 20032 18050 K-20.6 K-21.1 K-21.5 K-21-8 K-20.9 87800 Bx.19.4 Bx.27.9 Bx.37.0 3x.46.4 Bx. 58. 6 3127 84673 10724 6250 4765 4746 4746 Sq. Ft. C-633 C-534 C-354 C=218 C-91 87800 53844 26962 20032 18050 Lbs. Beets per hour 161160 GERING -3.06 Flash to 3 Vapor 16.71 18.27 - .58 1.38 19.12 240.5° 38.19 19.92 20.50 19.12 224.6 209.1 192.5 171.8 123.6 55.22 Z- .40 Z .51 Z - . 72 Z- 1.21 Z -7.1 .32 54.90 6293 6019 4128 4809 4809 Sq. Ft. 189.87 225. 134.91 209.9 96.76 193 76.84 173.5 56.34 127.4 37.22 Bx. 13.1 Bx. 18.3 Bx. 25.6 Bx. 32.2 Bx. 43.9 Br. 66.5 V 55.22 38.19 I 19.92 20.50 19.12 Tons beets per hour 72.04 GERING -4409 Flash to 3 Vapor 24076 26323 - 836 1988 27548 55024 28701 29536 27548 K- 20.3 K- 20. K- 20.5 20.3 K- 20.5 79561 Bx. 15.7 Bx. 22.0 Bx. 28.9. Bx. 38,0 Bx. 55.2 461 79100 6293 6019 4128 4809 4809 Sq. Ft. 273565 C-782 194436 C-598 139412 C-439 110711 C-318 81175 C-128 53627 79561 55024 28701 29536 27548 Lbs. Beets per hour 144080 -11- OVID_GERING Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 FT. MORGAN As shown Flash to Vap Total Vap. 22.67 11.31 15.63 4.94 Flash -54 -2,92 -1.65 -2.17 Net Vap. 22.13 8.39 13.98 2.77 A A 4.28 29.42 21.03 7.05 4.28 283.20 +11.4° S.H. 268.5 243.9 221.4 200.6 166.7 53.69 Z-.36 Z o .51 Z .86 Z 2.45 z 9.5 2.14 51.55 9840 9005 6143 6143 3575 Sq. Ft. 142.72 269.6 91.17 245.. 61.75 223.8 40.72 205.2 173.5 33.67 29.39 Bx. 14.3 Bx. 22.3 Bx. 32.9 Bx 49.9 Bx. 60.4 V Bx 69.2 53.69 29.42 21.03 7.05 4.28 Tons Beets per hour 89.42 Total Vap. 40543 20227 FT. MORGAN Flash -966 27953 8835 5222 3881 39577 15005 2951 25002 4954 7654 52615 37610 12608 1 7654 K-17.5 K- 5.2 96016 K- 12. 4 K- 18. 6 K- 27.0 Bx. 18.3 Bx. 27.6 Bx. 41. 4 Bx. 55.2 Bx. 64.8 3827 92192 9840 9005 6143 6143 3575 Sq. Ft. 255240 C-661 163048 C-235 110434 C-289 72824 C-122 60215 C-77 52561 96016 52615 37610 12608 7654 Lbs. Beets per hour 178840 STERLING o Flash to Vapor 12.86 11.87 11.40 .04 4 14.03 242.6° 38.34 26.47 15.07 14.03 228.3 213.2 193.9 171.6 117.9 53.07 Z-.37 Z- o 54 Z- o 81 Z-1.68 Z10.8 1.87 51.20 6060 6171 3983 3782 3720 Sq. Ft. 186.60 228. 135.38 214 97.04 195 70.57 173 55.50 122 41.47 Bx. 14.7 & Bx. 20.3 Bx. 28.3 Bx. 38.9 & Bx. 49.5 Bx. 66.2 53.07 38.34 26.47 11.40 14.03 Tons Beets per hour 66.12 STERLING - Flash to Vapor 17006 15697 15075 1375 18553 50701 25004 19929 18553 K -21.7 A 21.1 A - 21. K - 21.8 K - 21.8 70180 Bx. 17. 5 Bx. 24.3 Bx. 33.6 Bx. 44.2 Bx. 57.8 2473 67707 6060 6171 3983 3782 3720 Sq. Ft. C-803 246760 179027 C-556 128326 C-476 C-259 C-100 93322 73393 54840 70180 50701 35004 19929 18553 -12- Lbs. Beets per hour 132240 FT MORGAN-STERLING Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 FORT COLLINS 2.99 Flash to 3 Vapor 17.84 21.53 -2.99 242.60 21.34 39.88 18.35 21.34 21.34 52.44 228.0 214.7 199.8 178.2 129.1 6.61 z - 5 z - 6. - Z -1.20 Z -6.40 1.33 57.72 12478 14540 7460 7164 7291 Sq. Ft. 199.77 228.6 215.6 201.1 180.0 142.03 62.46 132.8 102.15 83.80 41.12 Bx. 13.61 Bx. 19.1 & Bx. 26.6 v Bx. 32.4 Bx. 43.5 Bx. 66.0 59.05 39.88 18.35 21.34 21.34 Tons Beets per hour 120.42 FORT COLLINS 7201 Flash to 3 Vapor 42966 51853 -7201 51395 96047 44194 51395 51395 126296 K-21.6 K-21.5 k-21.4 k-21.5 K-21.7 15920 Bx. 16.4 Bx.22.8 8x.29.5 Bx.38.0 Bx.54.8 3203 139013° 12478 14540 7460 7164 7291 Sq. Ft. 481126 6-774 C-512 C-422 C-354 C-154 342065 246018 201824 150429 99033 142216 96047 44194 51395 51395 Lbs. Beets per hour 240840 LOVELAND As Shown Flash to Tot. Vap. 15.99 10.45 24.96 5.il Vapor Flash - .08 - 3.54 - 2.87 - 2.57 Net Vap. 15.91 6.91 22.09 2.54 A 5.33 295.0° 36.87 29.96 7.87 5.33 +16.0°S.H 278.2 248.1 220.4 195.0 134.6 57.70 2-.35 Z - .50 Z - . 90 Z - 2.40 Z - 13.0 4.92 52.78 9840 9005 6241 6241 4082 Sq. Ft. 173.50 279.2 249.8 222.8 199.4 140.0 120.72 83.85 53.89 46.02 40.69 Bx. 15.7 V Bx. 22.3 V Bx. 32.2 Bx. 50.1 Bx. 58.6 Bx. 66.3 57.70 36.87 29.96 7.87 5.33 Tons Beets per hour 102.71 LOVELAND 32847 21466 51273 10497 164 7272 5896 5279 32682 14,195 45877 5218 10949 75738 61544 16167 10949 K - 15.4 K- 4.8 K- 13.1 K- 13.6 K- 11.3 118527 Bx. 19.0 Bx. 27.2 Bx. 41.2 Bx. 54.4 Bx.62.4 10107 108421 9840 9005 6241 6241 4082 Sq. Ft. 356404 C-696 C-274 C-369 C-119 C-48 247983 172245 110701 94534 83585 118527 7573,8 61544 16167 10949 -13- Lbs. Beets per hour 205420 FT. COLLINS-LOVELAND Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 LONGMONT -4.87 Flash to Vapor 16.0 24.13 - 4.87 A A 19.51 244.4° 38.77 14.64 19.51 19.51 229.1 215.7 201.9 180.0 126.7 51.84 Z- .40 Z-.54 z_1.27 Z-8.1 2,17 54.78 11404 14688 7171 7154 7171 Sq. Ft. 186.30 229.7 131.52 216,6 92.73 203.2 78.11 181.9 58.68 131.0 39.09 Bx. 14.3 Bx. 20,2 Bx.28.7 Bx.34.1 Bx.45.4 Ex. 68.1 56.95 38.77 14.64 19.51 19.51 Tons Beets per hour 121.88 Thermo Compressor LONGMONT 11871 Flash to 3 Vapor 39026 58819 -11871 47558 94506 35686 47558 47558 126365 K -21.4 N- 21.4 K- 21.6 K- 20.6 K- 22.1 12456 Bx. 17. 2 Bx. 24. 4 Bx. 31.4 Bx. 39.8 Bx. 56.8 5290 133532 11404 14688 7171 7154 7171 Sq. Ft. 454125 320593 226087 190401 142843 95286 138821 94506 35686 47558 47558 Lbs, Beets per hour 243760 SCOTTSBLUFF Flash to o Vapor 11.86 15.35 7.01 3.20 244.4° 13.31 38.87 23.52 16.51 13.31 228.9 213.6 196.9 176.6 133.4 51.03 Z- .40 Z- .53 Z- . 80 Z-1.55 Z-8.6 .30 50.73 10839 11620 9618 9618 9618 Sq. Ft. 181.36 229.5 130.64 214.5 91.77 198 68.25 178. 51.74 138. 38.43 Bx. 14.1 Bx. 19.6 v Bx. 27.9 Bx. 37.5 + Bx. 49.5 Bx. 66.6 51.03 38.87 23.52 16.51 13.31 Tons Beets per hour 126.21 SCOTTSBLUFF Flash to o Vapor 29937 38746 17695 8077 33597 98116 59369 41675 33597 K- 20.3 K- 20.7 K- 20.4 K- 20.3 K- 20.2 128810 Bx, 16. 8 Bx. 23.8 Bx. 32. 7 Bx. 43.5 Bx. 58.0 757 10839 11620 9618 9618 9618 Sq. Ft. 128053 457789 C-757 C-562 231646 C-391 C-230 172277 130602 C-90 329761 97005 128810 98116 59369 41675 33597 -14- Lbs. Beets per hour 252420 LONGMONT-SCOTTSBLUFF Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BILLINGS Flash to o Vapor 10.78 25.65 3 3.90 247.3° A 15,75 45.30 19.65 15.75 15.75 229.8 215.6 198.3 177. 1 121.0 58.66 Z- .38 Z- o 51 Z-.76 Z 1.30 Z-6,8 2.58 56.08 11122 19002 9298 8682 6460 Sq. Ft. 193.31 230.3 137.23 216.1 91.93 199. 72.28 179. 56.53 125 40.78 Bx. 13.3 Bx. 18.7 & Bx. 27.5 Bx.35.5 Bx.45.4 Bx. 62.9 58.66 45.30 19.65 15.75 15.75 Tons Beets per hour 145.67 BILLINGS Flash: to O Vapor 31406 74729 11362 45886 131977 57248 45886 45886 K- 19.1 K-18.9 K-17.9 K- 18.3 K- 18.1 170900 Bx. 16.0 Bx.23.3 Bx.31.7 Bx. 40.4 Bx. 54. 2 7517 163383 11122 19002 9298 8682 6460 Sq.Ft. 563189 C-856 399806 C-497 267829 C-375 210581 C-270 164695 C-13Z 118808 170900 131977 57248 45886 45886 Lbs. Beets per hour 291340 + -15- BILLINGS Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227

what is the temperature of 5th body in juice for bayard ?

pklh0227

pklh0227_p0, pklh0227_p1, pklh0227_p2, pklh0227_p3, pklh0227_p4, pklh0227_p5, pklh0227_p6, pklh0227_p7, pklh0227_p8, pklh0227_p9, pklh0227_p10, pklh0227_p11, pklh0227_p12, pklh0227_p13, pklh0227_p14, pklh0227_p15

132.8

H. W. DAHLBERG PURTP S A 20032 COEFFICIENT OF HEAT TRANSFER IN EVAPORATORS BASED ON 1950-51 Campaign The Great Western Sugar Company BY J.T. DAVIS April 25 , 1951 Source: https://wwyw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Pounds of Steam or Vapor Condensed Per Hour Coefficient of Heat Exhaust 1st Vap. 2nd Vap. 3rd Vap. 4th Vap Transfer B.T.U. Per Sq. Ft. Con- Con- Con- Con- Con- Per Degree F. Per Hour densed densed densed densed densed 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th lst Body 2nd Body 3rd Body 4th Body 5th Body Body Body Body Body Body Lovell 66211 50027 26785 17262 17262 883 625 471 325 138 Ft. Lupton Greeley 67582 53282 32292 32292 32292 920 651 473 393 158 Eaton 58928 44756 35791 33140 31705 1001 736 580 491 206 Windsor 63743 47369 31103 34938 34938 968 626 479 460 197 Brush 63297 49926 30098 27666 23142 799 651 513 360 145 Wheatland Brighton 65343 43977 27818 23710 19601 751 522 450 307 128 Bayard 71828 42863 30361 27179 22017 848 544 500 371 139 Mitchell 75086 45679 31596 27126 21447 775 520 495 349 126 Lyman Ovid 87800 53844 26962 20032 18050 633 534 354 218 91 Minatare Gering 79561 55024 28701 29536 27548 782 598 439 318 128 Ft. Morgan 96019 52615 37610 12608 7654 661 235 289 122 77 Sterling 70180 50701 35004 19929 18553 803 556 476 259 100 Ft. Collins 142216 96047 44194 51395 51395 774 512 422 354 154 Loveland 118527 75738 61544 16167 10949 696 274 369 119 48 Longmont 138821 94506 35686 47558 47558 786 494 386 325 134 Scottsbluff 128810 98116 59369 41675 33597 757 562 391 236 90 Billings 170900 131977 57248 45886 45886 856 497 375 270 137 Average 92050 63909 37186 29888 27270 805 537 439 310 129 Average by Rienks Formula 810 579 442 282 122 Average by Swenson Formula 780 634 511 353 135 Average Brix of Juice in Bodies 16.2 22.7 30.9 40.9 56.6 -1- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Baro- Gauge Barom- metric Pressure eter Pressure Exhaust Temperatures Degrees Fahrenheit-Vapor Alti- Inches Lbs. Per Steam Ex- 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th tude Hg. Sq. In. * ** haust Body Body Body Body Body Lovell 3830 25.93 12.73 16.8 15.7 244.2 229.5 215.3 198.9 176.7 117.9 Ft. Lupton 4907 24.88 12.22 Greeley 4680 25.10 12.33 17.0 16.5 250.0 232.6 216.2 200.6 180.8 132.8 Eaton 4840 24.95 12.25 13.0 13.1 240.8 226.9 214.5 201.3 182.6 140.3 Windsor 4780 25.00 12.28 15.0 13.9 245.0 227.4 213.3 200.0 180.4 133.3 Brush 4280 25.48 12.51 15.0 10.4 242.8 228.8 214.9 199.5 178.8 128.0 Wheatland 4680 25.10 12.33 Brighton 5000 24.79 12.18 11.2 12.3 243.7 229.8 216.0 199.6 178.2 133.9 Bayard 3780 25.97 12.76 14.0 12.6 240.8 225.9 213.2 197.8 176.2 129.0 Mitchell 3970 25.79 12.66 14.0 11.8 244.7 228.8 214.6 196.8 174.0 123.9 Lyman 4053 25.71 12.63 Ovid 3521 26.22 12.88 13.0 12.4 240.8 227.8 211.1 193.9 172.4 126.6 Minatare 3830 25.92 12.73 Gering 3900 25.86 12.70 14.0 13.5 240.5 224.6 209.1 192.5 171.8 123.6 Ft. Morgan 4339 25.43 12.49 39.3 49.2 283.2°268.5 243.9 221.4 200.6 166.7 Sterling 3934 25.82 12.68 14.0 13.5 242.6 228.3 213.2 193.9 171.6 117.9 Ft. Collins 4960 24.83 12.20 16.8 14.0 242.6 228.0 214.7 199.8 178.2 129.1 Loveland 4980 24.81 12.19 49.0 66.6 295.09278.2 248.1 220.1 195.0 134.6 Longmont 5000 24.79 12.18 17.3 14.3 244.4 229.1 215.7 201.9 180.0 126.7 Scottsbluff 3880 25.88 12.71 18.0 14.3 244.4 228.9 213.6 196.9 176.6 133.4 Billings 3100 26.65 13.09 15.9 15.4 247.3 229.8 215.6 198.3 177.1 121.0 Averages 249.0 233.7 217.8 200.8 179.5 130.5 Reported ** Calculated from Temperatures 294.6 with Superheat -2- 311.0 " " Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Temperature Difference - Degree F. Heating Surface - Square Ft. Exh. lst 2nd 3rd 4th lst 2nd 3rd 4th 5th to lst to 2nd to 3rd to 4th to 5th Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Lovell 5017 5686 3676 2601 2274 14.2 13.5 15.0 20.0 54.7 Ft. Lupton Greeley 4086 4948 4467 4320 4569 17.0 15.8 14.8 18.6 44.4 Eaton 4151 4953 4821 3787 3894 13.5 11.8 12.4 17.4 39.0 Windsor 3641 5382 4993 4036 3983 17.2 13.5 12.6 18.4 44.0 Brush 5617 5617 4003 4003 3440 13.4 13.1 14.2 18.8 46.0 Wheatland Brighton 6211 6211 3962 3874 3803 13.3 13.0 15.1 19.5 40.0 Bayard 5636 6420 4140 3622 3622 14.3 11.8 14.2 19.8 43.4 Mitchell 5933 6292 3750 3622 3621 15.5 13.4 16.5 21.0 46.6 Lyman Ovid 5362 6250 4765 4746 4746 12.3 15.5 15.5 19.0 41.4 5362 Minatare Gering 6293 6019 4128 4809 4809 15.4 14.7 15.4 19.0 44.4 Ft. Morgan 9840 9005 6143 6143 3575 13.6 23.2 20.1 16.2 27.1 Sterling 6060 6171 3983 3782 3720 13.7 14.2 17.9 20.0 49.6 Ft. Collins 6239 7270 3751 3582 3709 14.0 12.4 13.6 19.8 45.4 6239 7270 3709 3582 3582 Loveland 9840 9005 6241 6241 4082 15.8 28.4 25.3 21.0 55.0 Longmont 5520 7344 3566 3566 3566 14.7 12.5 12.5 20.0 49.0 5884 7344 3605 3588 3605 Scottsbluff 5325 5327 4809 4809 4809 14.9 14.4 15.3 18.0 38.4 5514 6293 4809 4809 4809 Billings 5561 9501 4649 4341 3230 17.0 13.4 15.9 19.2 51.5 5561 9501 4649 4341 3230 Averages 14.69 14.98 15.66 19.16 44.70 -3- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BONED Brix of Juice Enter- ing lst Leaving Evaporator Body Average Brix of Juice in - Body 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Lovell 12.9 18.3 27.2 36.7 47.4 66.9 15.6 22.8 32.0 42.0 57.2 Ft. Lupton Greeley 10.6 14.1 19.7 25.9 37.8 69.6 12.4 16.9 22.8 31.8 53.7 Eaton 12.9 16.6 21.6 28.5 40.5 67.5 14.8 19.1 25.0 34.5 54.0 Windsor 10.4 13.9 18.6 24.0 35.5 67.9 12.2 16.2 21.3 29.8 51.7 Brush 13.7 18.2 25.1 32.8 45.4 66.9 16.0 21.6 29.0 39.1 56.2 Wheatland Brighton 14.0 19.4 26.5 34.6 46.6 65.4 16.7 23.0 30.6 40.6 56.0 Bayard 13.7 19.4 25.8 33.7 46.4 66.9 16.6 22.6 29.8 40.0 56.6 Mitchell 12.0 17.2 23.5 31.3 44.0 64.7 14.6 20.4 27.4 37.6 54.4 Lyman Ovid 15.8 23.1 32.7 41.4 51.4 65.9 19.4 27.9 37.0 46.4 58.6 Minatare Gering 13.1 18.3 25.6 32.2 43.9 66.5 15.7 22.0 28.9 38.0 55.2 Ft. Morgan 14.3 22.3 32.9 49.9 60.4 69.2 18.3 27.6 41.4 55.2 64.8 Sterling 14.7 20.3 28.3 38.9 49.5 66.2 17.5 24.3 33.6 44.2 57.8 Ft. Collins 13.6 19.1 26.6 32.4 43.5 66.0 16.4 22.8 29.5 38.0 54.8 Loveland 15.7 22.3 32.2 50.1 58.6 66.3 19.0 27.2 41.2 54.4 62.4 Longmont 14.3 20.2 28.7 34.1 45.4 68.1 17.2 24.4 31.4 39.8 56.8 Scottsbluff 14.1 19.6 27.9 37.5 49.5 66.6 16.8 23.8 32.7 43.5 58.0 Billings 13.3 18.7 27.9 35.5 45.4 62.9 16.0 23.3 31.7 40.4 54.2 Averages 13.5 18.9 26.5 35.3 46.5 66.7 16.2 22.7 30.9 40.9 56.6 -4- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Temperatures - Degrees Fahrenheit Exh. 1st Body 2nd Body 3rd Body 4th Body 5th Body Steam Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Lovell 244.2 229.5 230.0 215.3 216.0 198.9 200.3 176.7 178.9 117.9 122.0 Ft. Lupton Greeley 250.0 232.6 233.0 216.2 216.8 200.6 201.4 180.8 182.0 132.8 136.4 Eaton 240.8 226.9 227.3 214.5 215.1 201.3 202.1 182.6 183.9 140.3 143. Windsor 245.0 227.4 227.8 213.3 213.9 200.0 200.7 180.4 181.6 133.3 136.4 Brush 242.8 228.8 229.4 214.9 215.7 199.5 200.7 178.8 180.7 128.0 132.8 Wheatland Brighton 243.7 229.8 230.4 216.0 216.8 199.6 200.9 178.2 180.1 133.9 138.2 Bayard 240.8 225.9 226.5 213.2 214.1 197.8 199.0 176.2 178.0 129.0 132.8 Mitchell 244.7 228.8 229.2 214.6 215.4 196.8 198.1 174.0 175.8 123.9 127.4 Lyman Ovid 240.8 227.8 228.5 211.1 212.3 193.9 195.6 172.4 174.9 126.6 131.0 Minatare Gering 240.5 224.6 225.1 209.1 209.9 192.5 193.7 171.8 173.5 123.6 127.4 Ft. Morgan 283.2* 268.5 269.6 243.9 245.3 221.4 223.8 200.6 205.2 166.7 173.5 Sterling 242.6 228.3 228.9 213.2 214.1 193.9 195.3 171.6 173.9 117.9 122.0 Ft. Collins 242.6 228.0 228.6 214.7 215.6 199.8 201.1 178.2 180.0 129.1 132.8 Loveland 295.0° 278.2 279.2 248.1 249.8 220.4 222.8 195.0 199.4 134.6 140.0 Longmont 244.4 229.1 229.7 215.7 216.6 201.9 203.2 180.0 181.9 126.7 131.0 Scottsbluff 244.4 228.9229.5 213.6 214.5 196.9 198.3 176.6 178.9 133.4 138.2 Billings 247.3 229.8 230.3 215.6 216.4 198.3 199.7 177.1 179.1 121.0 125.6 Averages 249.0 233.7 234.3 217.8 218.7 200.8 202.2 179.5 181.6 130.5 134.8 * 294.6 With Superheat 311.0 With Superheat -5- Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 *Viscosity Centiposes - Z **Value of - K Juice in Evaporator Body Evaporator Body 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th lst 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Average Lovell .38 .50 . 75 1.45 9.4 23.6 23.1 23.6 23.6 23.7 23.5 Ft. Lupton Greeley .34 .42 .56 .89 5.2 18.4 17.3 17.9 18.8 18.5 18.2 Eaton .37 .44 .58 .95 5.1 27.4 27.4 27.1 26.8 26.9 27.1 Windsor .36 .42 .52 .80 4.6 20.3 19.5 19.8 20.0 20.6 20.0 Brush .39 .49 .66 1.23 7.4 23.4 24.4 23.8 23.4 23.3 23.7 Wheatland Brighton .37 .52 .70 1.31 6.5 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.6 20.8 20.8 Bayard 40 .51 .68 1.30 7.5 23.7 23.5 23.9 24.4 24.0 23.9 Mitchell .37 .47 .64 1.21 6.7 18.5 18.2 19.2 19.9 18.1 18.8 Lyman Ovid 40 .61 .94 1.90 9.5 20.6 21.1 21.5 21.8 20.9 21.2 Gering .40 .51 .72 1.21 7.1 20.3 20.7 20.5 20.3 20.5 20.5 Ft. Morgan .36 .51 .86 2.45 9.5 17.5 5.2 12.4 18.6 27.0 16.1 Sterling .37 .54 .81 1.68 10.8 21.7 21.1 21.5 21.8 21.8 21.6 Ft. Collins .39 .52 .69 1.20 6.4 21.6 21.5 21.4 21.5 21.7 21.5 Loveland .35 .50 .90 2.40 13.0 15.4 4.8 13.1 13.6 11.3 11.6 Longmont .40 .54 .70 1.27 8.1 21.4 21.4 21.6 20.6 22.1 21.4 Scottsbluff .40 .53 .80 1.55 8.5 20.3 20.7 20.4 20.3 20.2 20.4 Billings .38 .51 .76 1.30 6.8 19.1 18.9 17.9 18.3 18.1 18.5 Averages .378 .502 722 1.418 7.771 20.83 19.39 20.38 20.84 21.15 20.52 * From Dwg. 6203 ** D X K - Rienks Formula (K - 20.52) Z C - Coef. of heat transfer D - Temperature Difference -6- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 LOVELL Flash 11.76 18.11 7.42 38.98 20.87 13.45 13.45 13.45 244.2 229.5 215.3 198.9 176.7 117.9 46.86 Z- .38 Z- .50 Z- .75 Z- 1.45 Z- 9.4 4.73 .85 5017 5686 3676 2601 2274 Sq. Ft. 50.74 170.10 230.0 216.0 200. 178.9 122.0 119.38 80.40 59.53 46.08 32.63 Bx. 12.9 Bx. 18.3 Bx. 27.2 Bx. 36.7 Bx. 47.4 Bx.66.9 51.59 38.98 20.87 13.45 13.45 Tons Beets per hour 64.17 Thermo-Compressor LOVELL 15093 23242 9523 50027 26785 17262 17262 17262 60140 K-23.6 K-23.1 K-23.6 K-23.6 K-23.7 *6070 Bx.15.6 Bx.22.8 Bx.32.0 Bx.42.0 Bx.57.2 1091 65120 5017 5686 3676 2601 2274 Sq. Ft. 218306 C-883 C-625 C-471 C-325 C-138 41877 153212 103185 76401 59139 Bx. 66211 50027 26785 17262 17262 Lbs. Beets per hour 128340 GREELEY o Flash 7.58 14.56 22.40 22.40 22.40 22.40 250.0° 232.6 216.2 200.6 180.8 132.8 46.88 2-.34 Z- .42 Z - . .56 Z - .89 Z -5.2 2.34 44.54 4086 4948 4467 4320 4569 Sq. Ft. 175.27 233.0 216.8 201.4 182.0 130.73 93.77 48.97 136.4 71.37 26.57 Bx. 10.6 + Bx. 14.1 Bx. 19.7 Bx. 25.9 t Bx. 37.8 Bx. 69.6 46.88 36.96 22.40 22.40 22.40 Tons Beets per hour 72.08 GREELEY 10927 20990 32292 53282 32292 32292 32292 K- 18.4 k-17.3 k-17.9 k-18.8 k-18.5 67582 Bx. 12.1 Bx.16.9 Bx.22.8 Bx. 31.8 Bx.53.7 3373 64209 4086 4948 4467 4320 4569 Sq. Ft. 252669 C-920 188460 C-651 135179 C-473 102887 C-393 70595 -158 38303 67582 53282 32292 32292 32292 -7- Lbs. Beets per hour 144160 Lovell-Greeley Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 EATON 8.25 6.56 1.94 1.05 26.19 24.25 23.20 32.75 23.20 240.8 226.9 214.5 201.3 182.6 140.3 43.12 Z-37 Z- .44 Z - .58 - z-5.1 2.12 41.00 4151 4953 4821 3787 3894 Sq. Ft. 182.10 227.3 141.11 215.1 108.36 202.1 82.17 183.9 57.92 143.6 34.72 Bx. 12.9 Bx. 16.6 Bx. 21.6 Bx. 28.5 Bx. 40.5 Bx. 67.5 & y v 43.12 32.75 26.19 24.25 23.20 Tons Beets per hour 68.33 EATON 11274 8965 2651 1435 A 31705 44756 35791 33140 31705 K-27.4 K=27.4 K-27.1 K-26.8 K-26.9 58928 Bx.14.8 Bx.19.1 Bx.25.0 Bx.34.5 Bx.54.0 2897 56031 4151 4953 4821 3787 3894 Sq. Ft. 248858 C-100, C-736 C-580 C-491 C-206 192841 148085 112293 79153 47448 58928 44756 35791 33140 31705 Lbs. Beets per hour 136660 WINDSOR - -2.82 Flash to 3rd Vapor 10.87 11.96 -2.82 25.69 34.83 22.87 25.69 25.69 245.0° 227.4 213.3 200.0 180.4 133.3 46.87 Z-.36 Z - .42 Z - .52 Z - o 80 2-4.6 1.17 3641 5382 4993 4036 3983 Sq. Ft. 45.70 182.90 227.8 213.9 200.7 79.48 181.6 137.18 102.35 53.79 136.4 28.10 Bx. 10.4 Bx. 13.9 Bx. 18.6 Bx. 24.0 Bx. 35.5 Bx. 67.9 46.87 34.83 22.87 25.69 25.69 Tons Beets per hour 68.00 WINDSOR 3835 Flash to 2nd Vapor 14783 16266 -3835 34938 47369 31103 34938 34938 K-20.3 K-19.5 K-19.8 K-20.0 K-20.6 63743 Bx.12.2 x.16.2 Bx.21.3 Bx.29.8 Bx.51.7 1591 3641 5382 4993 4036 3983 Sq. Ft. 62152 248744 C-968 186564 C-626 139196 C-479 108093 C-460 73154 C-197 38216 637/33 47369 31103 34938 34938 -8- Lbs. Beets per hour 136000 Eaton-Windsor Source: Ittps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BRUSH 7.15 13.94. 1.71 3.18 16.27 242.8 35.10 21.16 19.45 16.27 228.8 214.9 199.5 178.8 128.0 44.50 Z - .39 Z - .49 Z - . 66 Z -1.23 Z -7.4 2.25 42.25 5617 5617 4003 4003 3440 Sq. Ft. 168.50 229.4 126.24 215. 91.14 200. 69.98 180.7 50.53 132.8 34.26 Bx. 13.7 + Bx. 18.2 Bx. 25.1 Bx. 32.8 Bx. 45.4 Bx. 66.9 + 44.50 35.10 21.16 19.45 16.27 Tons Beets per hour 71.12 BRUSH 10170 19828 2432 4523 A A A 23142 49926 30098 27666 23142 k-23.4 k-24.4 k-23.8 k-23.4 k-23.3 63297 Bx. 16.0 Bx. 21.6 Bx. 29.0 Bx. 39.1 Bx. 56.2 3200 60096 5617 5617 4003 4003 3440 Sq. Ft. 239674 C-799 C-651 C-5-13 C-360 C-145 179564 129638 99540 71874 48731 Y 63297 49926 30098 27666 23142 Lbs. Beets per hour 142240 BRIGHTON 13.20 11.17 2.84 2.84 13.55 243.7 30.40 19.23 16.39 13.55 229.8 216.0 199.6 178.2 133.9 45.17 - Z - .52 Z - o 70 Z -1.31 Z -6.5 1.57 43.60 6211 6211 3962 3874 3803 Sq. Ft. 156.73 230.4 216.8 200.9 63.52 180.1 47.13 138.2 113.15 82.75 33.58 Bx. 14.0 Bx. 19.4 Bx. 26.5 & Bx. 34.6 Bx. 46.6 Bx. 65.4 V 45.17 30.40 19.23 16.39 13.55 Tons Beets per hour 72.33 BRIGHTON 19095 16159 4108 4108 19601 43977 27818 23710 19601 K- 20.9 K- 20.9 K- 20.9 K- 20.6 K= 20.8 65343 Bx. 16.7 Bx. 23.0 Bx. 30.6 Bx. 40.6 Bx. 56.0 2271 6211 6211 3962 3874 3803 63072 Sq. Ft. 226726 C-751 C-522 C-450 C-307 C-128 163683 119706 91888 68178 48577 65343 43977 27818 23710 19601 -9- Lbs. Beets per hourl44660 Brush-Brighton Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BAYARD 18.49 8.33 2.12 3.44 A 14.67 A 4 A 240.8° 28.56 20.23 18.11 14.67 225.9 213. 2 47.86 197. 8 2 .40 176,2 129.0 y Z- o 51 Z -. 68 Z 1.30 ,81 275 47.05 5636 6420 4140 3622 3622 Sq. Ft. 161.89 226. 114.84 214. 86.28 199. 0 66.05 178.0 47.94 132.8 33.27 Bx. 13.74 Bx. 19.4 Bx. 25.8 - Bx. 33.7 t Bx. 46.4 Bx. 66.9 47.86 28.56 20.23 18.11 14.67 Tons Beets per hour 75.04 BAYARD 27750 12502 3182 5163 A 22017 42863 30361 27179 22017 K- 23.7 K-23.5 K-23.9 K-24.4 K-24.0 71828 Bx. 16. 6 Bx. 22.6 6 Bx.29.8 Bx.40.0 Bx.56.6 1216 5636 70613 6420 4140 3622 3622 Sq. Ft. 242965 C-845 172352 C-541 129489 C-500 99128 C-372 71948 C-139 49932 71828 42863 30361 27179 22017 Lbs. Beets per hour 150080 MITCHELL 18. 94 9.20 2.92 3.71 14.01 244.7° 29.84 20.64 17.72 14.01 49.05 228.8 214.6 196.8 174.0 123.9 .27 Z-.37 Z - 64 Z - 1.21 Z - 6.7 48.78 5933 6292 3750 3622 3621 Sq. Ft. 160.80 229.2 112.00 215.4 82.16 198, 61.52 175. 127. 43.80 29.79 Bx. 12.0 V Bx. 17.2 * Bx. 23.5 + Bx. 31.3 Bx. 44.0 Bx. 64.7 49.05 29.84 20.64 17.72 14.01 Tons Beets per hour 76.54 MITCHELL 28993 14083 4470 5679 21447 45679 31596 27126 21447 K - 18.5 K - 18.2 X - 19.2 K - 19.9 75086 K - 18.1 Bx, 14.6 Bx. 20.4 Bx. 27.4 Bx. 37.6 413 Bx, 54.4 74672 5933 6292 3750 3622 3622 246153 C-77 171450 C-520 125771 C-495 94175 C-349 67049 CC126 45602 75086 45679 31596 27126 21447 -10- Lbs. Beets per hour 153080 BAYARD-MITCHELL Source: https://wwvw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 OVID 3.72 Flash to 3 Vapor 19.13 16.68 4.30 1.23 11.20 240.8° 33.41 16.73 12.43 11.20 227.8 211.1 193.9 172.4 126.6 54.48 Z - .40 Z-61 - Z - .94 Z -1.90 Z -9.5 1.94 52.54 10724 6250 4765 4746 4746 Sq. Ft. 166.20 228.5 113.64 212.3 80.23 195.6 63.50 174. 51.07 131. 39.87 Bx. 15.8 Bx. 23.1 Bx. 32.7 Bx. 41.4 Bx. 51.4 Bx 65.9 54.48 33.41 16.73 12.43 11.20 Tons Beets per hour 80.58 OVID 5995 Flash to 3 Vapor 30830 26881 6930 1982 + 18050 53844 26962 20032 18050 K-20.6 K-21.1 K-21.5 K-21-8 K-20.9 87800 Bx.19.4 Bx.27.9 Bx.37.0 3x.46.4 Bx. 58. 6 3127 84673 10724 6250 4765 4746 4746 Sq. Ft. C-633 C-534 C-354 C=218 C-91 87800 53844 26962 20032 18050 Lbs. Beets per hour 161160 GERING -3.06 Flash to 3 Vapor 16.71 18.27 - .58 1.38 19.12 240.5° 38.19 19.92 20.50 19.12 224.6 209.1 192.5 171.8 123.6 55.22 Z- .40 Z .51 Z - . 72 Z- 1.21 Z -7.1 .32 54.90 6293 6019 4128 4809 4809 Sq. Ft. 189.87 225. 134.91 209.9 96.76 193 76.84 173.5 56.34 127.4 37.22 Bx. 13.1 Bx. 18.3 Bx. 25.6 Bx. 32.2 Bx. 43.9 Br. 66.5 V 55.22 38.19 I 19.92 20.50 19.12 Tons beets per hour 72.04 GERING -4409 Flash to 3 Vapor 24076 26323 - 836 1988 27548 55024 28701 29536 27548 K- 20.3 K- 20. K- 20.5 20.3 K- 20.5 79561 Bx. 15.7 Bx. 22.0 Bx. 28.9. Bx. 38,0 Bx. 55.2 461 79100 6293 6019 4128 4809 4809 Sq. Ft. 273565 C-782 194436 C-598 139412 C-439 110711 C-318 81175 C-128 53627 79561 55024 28701 29536 27548 Lbs. Beets per hour 144080 -11- OVID_GERING Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 FT. MORGAN As shown Flash to Vap Total Vap. 22.67 11.31 15.63 4.94 Flash -54 -2,92 -1.65 -2.17 Net Vap. 22.13 8.39 13.98 2.77 A A 4.28 29.42 21.03 7.05 4.28 283.20 +11.4° S.H. 268.5 243.9 221.4 200.6 166.7 53.69 Z-.36 Z o .51 Z .86 Z 2.45 z 9.5 2.14 51.55 9840 9005 6143 6143 3575 Sq. Ft. 142.72 269.6 91.17 245.. 61.75 223.8 40.72 205.2 173.5 33.67 29.39 Bx. 14.3 Bx. 22.3 Bx. 32.9 Bx 49.9 Bx. 60.4 V Bx 69.2 53.69 29.42 21.03 7.05 4.28 Tons Beets per hour 89.42 Total Vap. 40543 20227 FT. MORGAN Flash -966 27953 8835 5222 3881 39577 15005 2951 25002 4954 7654 52615 37610 12608 1 7654 K-17.5 K- 5.2 96016 K- 12. 4 K- 18. 6 K- 27.0 Bx. 18.3 Bx. 27.6 Bx. 41. 4 Bx. 55.2 Bx. 64.8 3827 92192 9840 9005 6143 6143 3575 Sq. Ft. 255240 C-661 163048 C-235 110434 C-289 72824 C-122 60215 C-77 52561 96016 52615 37610 12608 7654 Lbs. Beets per hour 178840 STERLING o Flash to Vapor 12.86 11.87 11.40 .04 4 14.03 242.6° 38.34 26.47 15.07 14.03 228.3 213.2 193.9 171.6 117.9 53.07 Z-.37 Z- o 54 Z- o 81 Z-1.68 Z10.8 1.87 51.20 6060 6171 3983 3782 3720 Sq. Ft. 186.60 228. 135.38 214 97.04 195 70.57 173 55.50 122 41.47 Bx. 14.7 & Bx. 20.3 Bx. 28.3 Bx. 38.9 & Bx. 49.5 Bx. 66.2 53.07 38.34 26.47 11.40 14.03 Tons Beets per hour 66.12 STERLING - Flash to Vapor 17006 15697 15075 1375 18553 50701 25004 19929 18553 K -21.7 A 21.1 A - 21. K - 21.8 K - 21.8 70180 Bx. 17. 5 Bx. 24.3 Bx. 33.6 Bx. 44.2 Bx. 57.8 2473 67707 6060 6171 3983 3782 3720 Sq. Ft. C-803 246760 179027 C-556 128326 C-476 C-259 C-100 93322 73393 54840 70180 50701 35004 19929 18553 -12- Lbs. Beets per hour 132240 FT MORGAN-STERLING Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 FORT COLLINS 2.99 Flash to 3 Vapor 17.84 21.53 -2.99 242.60 21.34 39.88 18.35 21.34 21.34 52.44 228.0 214.7 199.8 178.2 129.1 6.61 z - 5 z - 6. - Z -1.20 Z -6.40 1.33 57.72 12478 14540 7460 7164 7291 Sq. Ft. 199.77 228.6 215.6 201.1 180.0 142.03 62.46 132.8 102.15 83.80 41.12 Bx. 13.61 Bx. 19.1 & Bx. 26.6 v Bx. 32.4 Bx. 43.5 Bx. 66.0 59.05 39.88 18.35 21.34 21.34 Tons Beets per hour 120.42 FORT COLLINS 7201 Flash to 3 Vapor 42966 51853 -7201 51395 96047 44194 51395 51395 126296 K-21.6 K-21.5 k-21.4 k-21.5 K-21.7 15920 Bx. 16.4 Bx.22.8 8x.29.5 Bx.38.0 Bx.54.8 3203 139013° 12478 14540 7460 7164 7291 Sq. Ft. 481126 6-774 C-512 C-422 C-354 C-154 342065 246018 201824 150429 99033 142216 96047 44194 51395 51395 Lbs. Beets per hour 240840 LOVELAND As Shown Flash to Tot. Vap. 15.99 10.45 24.96 5.il Vapor Flash - .08 - 3.54 - 2.87 - 2.57 Net Vap. 15.91 6.91 22.09 2.54 A 5.33 295.0° 36.87 29.96 7.87 5.33 +16.0°S.H 278.2 248.1 220.4 195.0 134.6 57.70 2-.35 Z - .50 Z - . 90 Z - 2.40 Z - 13.0 4.92 52.78 9840 9005 6241 6241 4082 Sq. Ft. 173.50 279.2 249.8 222.8 199.4 140.0 120.72 83.85 53.89 46.02 40.69 Bx. 15.7 V Bx. 22.3 V Bx. 32.2 Bx. 50.1 Bx. 58.6 Bx. 66.3 57.70 36.87 29.96 7.87 5.33 Tons Beets per hour 102.71 LOVELAND 32847 21466 51273 10497 164 7272 5896 5279 32682 14,195 45877 5218 10949 75738 61544 16167 10949 K - 15.4 K- 4.8 K- 13.1 K- 13.6 K- 11.3 118527 Bx. 19.0 Bx. 27.2 Bx. 41.2 Bx. 54.4 Bx.62.4 10107 108421 9840 9005 6241 6241 4082 Sq. Ft. 356404 C-696 C-274 C-369 C-119 C-48 247983 172245 110701 94534 83585 118527 7573,8 61544 16167 10949 -13- Lbs. Beets per hour 205420 FT. COLLINS-LOVELAND Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 LONGMONT -4.87 Flash to Vapor 16.0 24.13 - 4.87 A A 19.51 244.4° 38.77 14.64 19.51 19.51 229.1 215.7 201.9 180.0 126.7 51.84 Z- .40 Z-.54 z_1.27 Z-8.1 2,17 54.78 11404 14688 7171 7154 7171 Sq. Ft. 186.30 229.7 131.52 216,6 92.73 203.2 78.11 181.9 58.68 131.0 39.09 Bx. 14.3 Bx. 20,2 Bx.28.7 Bx.34.1 Bx.45.4 Ex. 68.1 56.95 38.77 14.64 19.51 19.51 Tons Beets per hour 121.88 Thermo Compressor LONGMONT 11871 Flash to 3 Vapor 39026 58819 -11871 47558 94506 35686 47558 47558 126365 K -21.4 N- 21.4 K- 21.6 K- 20.6 K- 22.1 12456 Bx. 17. 2 Bx. 24. 4 Bx. 31.4 Bx. 39.8 Bx. 56.8 5290 133532 11404 14688 7171 7154 7171 Sq. Ft. 454125 320593 226087 190401 142843 95286 138821 94506 35686 47558 47558 Lbs, Beets per hour 243760 SCOTTSBLUFF Flash to o Vapor 11.86 15.35 7.01 3.20 244.4° 13.31 38.87 23.52 16.51 13.31 228.9 213.6 196.9 176.6 133.4 51.03 Z- .40 Z- .53 Z- . 80 Z-1.55 Z-8.6 .30 50.73 10839 11620 9618 9618 9618 Sq. Ft. 181.36 229.5 130.64 214.5 91.77 198 68.25 178. 51.74 138. 38.43 Bx. 14.1 Bx. 19.6 v Bx. 27.9 Bx. 37.5 + Bx. 49.5 Bx. 66.6 51.03 38.87 23.52 16.51 13.31 Tons Beets per hour 126.21 SCOTTSBLUFF Flash to o Vapor 29937 38746 17695 8077 33597 98116 59369 41675 33597 K- 20.3 K- 20.7 K- 20.4 K- 20.3 K- 20.2 128810 Bx, 16. 8 Bx. 23.8 Bx. 32. 7 Bx. 43.5 Bx. 58.0 757 10839 11620 9618 9618 9618 Sq. Ft. 128053 457789 C-757 C-562 231646 C-391 C-230 172277 130602 C-90 329761 97005 128810 98116 59369 41675 33597 -14- Lbs. Beets per hour 252420 LONGMONT-SCOTTSBLUFF Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BILLINGS Flash to o Vapor 10.78 25.65 3 3.90 247.3° A 15,75 45.30 19.65 15.75 15.75 229.8 215.6 198.3 177. 1 121.0 58.66 Z- .38 Z- o 51 Z-.76 Z 1.30 Z-6,8 2.58 56.08 11122 19002 9298 8682 6460 Sq. Ft. 193.31 230.3 137.23 216.1 91.93 199. 72.28 179. 56.53 125 40.78 Bx. 13.3 Bx. 18.7 & Bx. 27.5 Bx.35.5 Bx.45.4 Bx. 62.9 58.66 45.30 19.65 15.75 15.75 Tons Beets per hour 145.67 BILLINGS Flash: to O Vapor 31406 74729 11362 45886 131977 57248 45886 45886 K- 19.1 K-18.9 K-17.9 K- 18.3 K- 18.1 170900 Bx. 16.0 Bx.23.3 Bx.31.7 Bx. 40.4 Bx. 54. 2 7517 163383 11122 19002 9298 8682 6460 Sq.Ft. 563189 C-856 399806 C-497 267829 C-375 210581 C-270 164695 C-13Z 118808 170900 131977 57248 45886 45886 Lbs. Beets per hour 291340 + -15- BILLINGS Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227

what is the average value of temperature for 2nd body in vapor

pklh0227

pklh0227_p0, pklh0227_p1, pklh0227_p2, pklh0227_p3, pklh0227_p4, pklh0227_p5, pklh0227_p6, pklh0227_p7, pklh0227_p8, pklh0227_p9, pklh0227_p10, pklh0227_p11, pklh0227_p12, pklh0227_p13, pklh0227_p14, pklh0227_p15

217.8

H. W. DAHLBERG PURTP S A 20032 COEFFICIENT OF HEAT TRANSFER IN EVAPORATORS BASED ON 1950-51 Campaign The Great Western Sugar Company BY J.T. DAVIS April 25 , 1951 Source: https://wwyw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Pounds of Steam or Vapor Condensed Per Hour Coefficient of Heat Exhaust 1st Vap. 2nd Vap. 3rd Vap. 4th Vap Transfer B.T.U. Per Sq. Ft. Con- Con- Con- Con- Con- Per Degree F. Per Hour densed densed densed densed densed 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th lst Body 2nd Body 3rd Body 4th Body 5th Body Body Body Body Body Body Lovell 66211 50027 26785 17262 17262 883 625 471 325 138 Ft. Lupton Greeley 67582 53282 32292 32292 32292 920 651 473 393 158 Eaton 58928 44756 35791 33140 31705 1001 736 580 491 206 Windsor 63743 47369 31103 34938 34938 968 626 479 460 197 Brush 63297 49926 30098 27666 23142 799 651 513 360 145 Wheatland Brighton 65343 43977 27818 23710 19601 751 522 450 307 128 Bayard 71828 42863 30361 27179 22017 848 544 500 371 139 Mitchell 75086 45679 31596 27126 21447 775 520 495 349 126 Lyman Ovid 87800 53844 26962 20032 18050 633 534 354 218 91 Minatare Gering 79561 55024 28701 29536 27548 782 598 439 318 128 Ft. Morgan 96019 52615 37610 12608 7654 661 235 289 122 77 Sterling 70180 50701 35004 19929 18553 803 556 476 259 100 Ft. Collins 142216 96047 44194 51395 51395 774 512 422 354 154 Loveland 118527 75738 61544 16167 10949 696 274 369 119 48 Longmont 138821 94506 35686 47558 47558 786 494 386 325 134 Scottsbluff 128810 98116 59369 41675 33597 757 562 391 236 90 Billings 170900 131977 57248 45886 45886 856 497 375 270 137 Average 92050 63909 37186 29888 27270 805 537 439 310 129 Average by Rienks Formula 810 579 442 282 122 Average by Swenson Formula 780 634 511 353 135 Average Brix of Juice in Bodies 16.2 22.7 30.9 40.9 56.6 -1- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Baro- Gauge Barom- metric Pressure eter Pressure Exhaust Temperatures Degrees Fahrenheit-Vapor Alti- Inches Lbs. Per Steam Ex- 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th tude Hg. Sq. In. * ** haust Body Body Body Body Body Lovell 3830 25.93 12.73 16.8 15.7 244.2 229.5 215.3 198.9 176.7 117.9 Ft. Lupton 4907 24.88 12.22 Greeley 4680 25.10 12.33 17.0 16.5 250.0 232.6 216.2 200.6 180.8 132.8 Eaton 4840 24.95 12.25 13.0 13.1 240.8 226.9 214.5 201.3 182.6 140.3 Windsor 4780 25.00 12.28 15.0 13.9 245.0 227.4 213.3 200.0 180.4 133.3 Brush 4280 25.48 12.51 15.0 10.4 242.8 228.8 214.9 199.5 178.8 128.0 Wheatland 4680 25.10 12.33 Brighton 5000 24.79 12.18 11.2 12.3 243.7 229.8 216.0 199.6 178.2 133.9 Bayard 3780 25.97 12.76 14.0 12.6 240.8 225.9 213.2 197.8 176.2 129.0 Mitchell 3970 25.79 12.66 14.0 11.8 244.7 228.8 214.6 196.8 174.0 123.9 Lyman 4053 25.71 12.63 Ovid 3521 26.22 12.88 13.0 12.4 240.8 227.8 211.1 193.9 172.4 126.6 Minatare 3830 25.92 12.73 Gering 3900 25.86 12.70 14.0 13.5 240.5 224.6 209.1 192.5 171.8 123.6 Ft. Morgan 4339 25.43 12.49 39.3 49.2 283.2°268.5 243.9 221.4 200.6 166.7 Sterling 3934 25.82 12.68 14.0 13.5 242.6 228.3 213.2 193.9 171.6 117.9 Ft. Collins 4960 24.83 12.20 16.8 14.0 242.6 228.0 214.7 199.8 178.2 129.1 Loveland 4980 24.81 12.19 49.0 66.6 295.09278.2 248.1 220.1 195.0 134.6 Longmont 5000 24.79 12.18 17.3 14.3 244.4 229.1 215.7 201.9 180.0 126.7 Scottsbluff 3880 25.88 12.71 18.0 14.3 244.4 228.9 213.6 196.9 176.6 133.4 Billings 3100 26.65 13.09 15.9 15.4 247.3 229.8 215.6 198.3 177.1 121.0 Averages 249.0 233.7 217.8 200.8 179.5 130.5 Reported ** Calculated from Temperatures 294.6 with Superheat -2- 311.0 " " Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Temperature Difference - Degree F. Heating Surface - Square Ft. Exh. lst 2nd 3rd 4th lst 2nd 3rd 4th 5th to lst to 2nd to 3rd to 4th to 5th Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Lovell 5017 5686 3676 2601 2274 14.2 13.5 15.0 20.0 54.7 Ft. Lupton Greeley 4086 4948 4467 4320 4569 17.0 15.8 14.8 18.6 44.4 Eaton 4151 4953 4821 3787 3894 13.5 11.8 12.4 17.4 39.0 Windsor 3641 5382 4993 4036 3983 17.2 13.5 12.6 18.4 44.0 Brush 5617 5617 4003 4003 3440 13.4 13.1 14.2 18.8 46.0 Wheatland Brighton 6211 6211 3962 3874 3803 13.3 13.0 15.1 19.5 40.0 Bayard 5636 6420 4140 3622 3622 14.3 11.8 14.2 19.8 43.4 Mitchell 5933 6292 3750 3622 3621 15.5 13.4 16.5 21.0 46.6 Lyman Ovid 5362 6250 4765 4746 4746 12.3 15.5 15.5 19.0 41.4 5362 Minatare Gering 6293 6019 4128 4809 4809 15.4 14.7 15.4 19.0 44.4 Ft. Morgan 9840 9005 6143 6143 3575 13.6 23.2 20.1 16.2 27.1 Sterling 6060 6171 3983 3782 3720 13.7 14.2 17.9 20.0 49.6 Ft. Collins 6239 7270 3751 3582 3709 14.0 12.4 13.6 19.8 45.4 6239 7270 3709 3582 3582 Loveland 9840 9005 6241 6241 4082 15.8 28.4 25.3 21.0 55.0 Longmont 5520 7344 3566 3566 3566 14.7 12.5 12.5 20.0 49.0 5884 7344 3605 3588 3605 Scottsbluff 5325 5327 4809 4809 4809 14.9 14.4 15.3 18.0 38.4 5514 6293 4809 4809 4809 Billings 5561 9501 4649 4341 3230 17.0 13.4 15.9 19.2 51.5 5561 9501 4649 4341 3230 Averages 14.69 14.98 15.66 19.16 44.70 -3- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BONED Brix of Juice Enter- ing lst Leaving Evaporator Body Average Brix of Juice in - Body 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Lovell 12.9 18.3 27.2 36.7 47.4 66.9 15.6 22.8 32.0 42.0 57.2 Ft. Lupton Greeley 10.6 14.1 19.7 25.9 37.8 69.6 12.4 16.9 22.8 31.8 53.7 Eaton 12.9 16.6 21.6 28.5 40.5 67.5 14.8 19.1 25.0 34.5 54.0 Windsor 10.4 13.9 18.6 24.0 35.5 67.9 12.2 16.2 21.3 29.8 51.7 Brush 13.7 18.2 25.1 32.8 45.4 66.9 16.0 21.6 29.0 39.1 56.2 Wheatland Brighton 14.0 19.4 26.5 34.6 46.6 65.4 16.7 23.0 30.6 40.6 56.0 Bayard 13.7 19.4 25.8 33.7 46.4 66.9 16.6 22.6 29.8 40.0 56.6 Mitchell 12.0 17.2 23.5 31.3 44.0 64.7 14.6 20.4 27.4 37.6 54.4 Lyman Ovid 15.8 23.1 32.7 41.4 51.4 65.9 19.4 27.9 37.0 46.4 58.6 Minatare Gering 13.1 18.3 25.6 32.2 43.9 66.5 15.7 22.0 28.9 38.0 55.2 Ft. Morgan 14.3 22.3 32.9 49.9 60.4 69.2 18.3 27.6 41.4 55.2 64.8 Sterling 14.7 20.3 28.3 38.9 49.5 66.2 17.5 24.3 33.6 44.2 57.8 Ft. Collins 13.6 19.1 26.6 32.4 43.5 66.0 16.4 22.8 29.5 38.0 54.8 Loveland 15.7 22.3 32.2 50.1 58.6 66.3 19.0 27.2 41.2 54.4 62.4 Longmont 14.3 20.2 28.7 34.1 45.4 68.1 17.2 24.4 31.4 39.8 56.8 Scottsbluff 14.1 19.6 27.9 37.5 49.5 66.6 16.8 23.8 32.7 43.5 58.0 Billings 13.3 18.7 27.9 35.5 45.4 62.9 16.0 23.3 31.7 40.4 54.2 Averages 13.5 18.9 26.5 35.3 46.5 66.7 16.2 22.7 30.9 40.9 56.6 -4- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Temperatures - Degrees Fahrenheit Exh. 1st Body 2nd Body 3rd Body 4th Body 5th Body Steam Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Lovell 244.2 229.5 230.0 215.3 216.0 198.9 200.3 176.7 178.9 117.9 122.0 Ft. Lupton Greeley 250.0 232.6 233.0 216.2 216.8 200.6 201.4 180.8 182.0 132.8 136.4 Eaton 240.8 226.9 227.3 214.5 215.1 201.3 202.1 182.6 183.9 140.3 143. Windsor 245.0 227.4 227.8 213.3 213.9 200.0 200.7 180.4 181.6 133.3 136.4 Brush 242.8 228.8 229.4 214.9 215.7 199.5 200.7 178.8 180.7 128.0 132.8 Wheatland Brighton 243.7 229.8 230.4 216.0 216.8 199.6 200.9 178.2 180.1 133.9 138.2 Bayard 240.8 225.9 226.5 213.2 214.1 197.8 199.0 176.2 178.0 129.0 132.8 Mitchell 244.7 228.8 229.2 214.6 215.4 196.8 198.1 174.0 175.8 123.9 127.4 Lyman Ovid 240.8 227.8 228.5 211.1 212.3 193.9 195.6 172.4 174.9 126.6 131.0 Minatare Gering 240.5 224.6 225.1 209.1 209.9 192.5 193.7 171.8 173.5 123.6 127.4 Ft. Morgan 283.2* 268.5 269.6 243.9 245.3 221.4 223.8 200.6 205.2 166.7 173.5 Sterling 242.6 228.3 228.9 213.2 214.1 193.9 195.3 171.6 173.9 117.9 122.0 Ft. Collins 242.6 228.0 228.6 214.7 215.6 199.8 201.1 178.2 180.0 129.1 132.8 Loveland 295.0° 278.2 279.2 248.1 249.8 220.4 222.8 195.0 199.4 134.6 140.0 Longmont 244.4 229.1 229.7 215.7 216.6 201.9 203.2 180.0 181.9 126.7 131.0 Scottsbluff 244.4 228.9229.5 213.6 214.5 196.9 198.3 176.6 178.9 133.4 138.2 Billings 247.3 229.8 230.3 215.6 216.4 198.3 199.7 177.1 179.1 121.0 125.6 Averages 249.0 233.7 234.3 217.8 218.7 200.8 202.2 179.5 181.6 130.5 134.8 * 294.6 With Superheat 311.0 With Superheat -5- Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 *Viscosity Centiposes - Z **Value of - K Juice in Evaporator Body Evaporator Body 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th lst 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Average Lovell .38 .50 . 75 1.45 9.4 23.6 23.1 23.6 23.6 23.7 23.5 Ft. Lupton Greeley .34 .42 .56 .89 5.2 18.4 17.3 17.9 18.8 18.5 18.2 Eaton .37 .44 .58 .95 5.1 27.4 27.4 27.1 26.8 26.9 27.1 Windsor .36 .42 .52 .80 4.6 20.3 19.5 19.8 20.0 20.6 20.0 Brush .39 .49 .66 1.23 7.4 23.4 24.4 23.8 23.4 23.3 23.7 Wheatland Brighton .37 .52 .70 1.31 6.5 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.6 20.8 20.8 Bayard 40 .51 .68 1.30 7.5 23.7 23.5 23.9 24.4 24.0 23.9 Mitchell .37 .47 .64 1.21 6.7 18.5 18.2 19.2 19.9 18.1 18.8 Lyman Ovid 40 .61 .94 1.90 9.5 20.6 21.1 21.5 21.8 20.9 21.2 Gering .40 .51 .72 1.21 7.1 20.3 20.7 20.5 20.3 20.5 20.5 Ft. Morgan .36 .51 .86 2.45 9.5 17.5 5.2 12.4 18.6 27.0 16.1 Sterling .37 .54 .81 1.68 10.8 21.7 21.1 21.5 21.8 21.8 21.6 Ft. Collins .39 .52 .69 1.20 6.4 21.6 21.5 21.4 21.5 21.7 21.5 Loveland .35 .50 .90 2.40 13.0 15.4 4.8 13.1 13.6 11.3 11.6 Longmont .40 .54 .70 1.27 8.1 21.4 21.4 21.6 20.6 22.1 21.4 Scottsbluff .40 .53 .80 1.55 8.5 20.3 20.7 20.4 20.3 20.2 20.4 Billings .38 .51 .76 1.30 6.8 19.1 18.9 17.9 18.3 18.1 18.5 Averages .378 .502 722 1.418 7.771 20.83 19.39 20.38 20.84 21.15 20.52 * From Dwg. 6203 ** D X K - Rienks Formula (K - 20.52) Z C - Coef. of heat transfer D - Temperature Difference -6- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 LOVELL Flash 11.76 18.11 7.42 38.98 20.87 13.45 13.45 13.45 244.2 229.5 215.3 198.9 176.7 117.9 46.86 Z- .38 Z- .50 Z- .75 Z- 1.45 Z- 9.4 4.73 .85 5017 5686 3676 2601 2274 Sq. Ft. 50.74 170.10 230.0 216.0 200. 178.9 122.0 119.38 80.40 59.53 46.08 32.63 Bx. 12.9 Bx. 18.3 Bx. 27.2 Bx. 36.7 Bx. 47.4 Bx.66.9 51.59 38.98 20.87 13.45 13.45 Tons Beets per hour 64.17 Thermo-Compressor LOVELL 15093 23242 9523 50027 26785 17262 17262 17262 60140 K-23.6 K-23.1 K-23.6 K-23.6 K-23.7 *6070 Bx.15.6 Bx.22.8 Bx.32.0 Bx.42.0 Bx.57.2 1091 65120 5017 5686 3676 2601 2274 Sq. Ft. 218306 C-883 C-625 C-471 C-325 C-138 41877 153212 103185 76401 59139 Bx. 66211 50027 26785 17262 17262 Lbs. Beets per hour 128340 GREELEY o Flash 7.58 14.56 22.40 22.40 22.40 22.40 250.0° 232.6 216.2 200.6 180.8 132.8 46.88 2-.34 Z- .42 Z - . .56 Z - .89 Z -5.2 2.34 44.54 4086 4948 4467 4320 4569 Sq. Ft. 175.27 233.0 216.8 201.4 182.0 130.73 93.77 48.97 136.4 71.37 26.57 Bx. 10.6 + Bx. 14.1 Bx. 19.7 Bx. 25.9 t Bx. 37.8 Bx. 69.6 46.88 36.96 22.40 22.40 22.40 Tons Beets per hour 72.08 GREELEY 10927 20990 32292 53282 32292 32292 32292 K- 18.4 k-17.3 k-17.9 k-18.8 k-18.5 67582 Bx. 12.1 Bx.16.9 Bx.22.8 Bx. 31.8 Bx.53.7 3373 64209 4086 4948 4467 4320 4569 Sq. Ft. 252669 C-920 188460 C-651 135179 C-473 102887 C-393 70595 -158 38303 67582 53282 32292 32292 32292 -7- Lbs. Beets per hour 144160 Lovell-Greeley Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 EATON 8.25 6.56 1.94 1.05 26.19 24.25 23.20 32.75 23.20 240.8 226.9 214.5 201.3 182.6 140.3 43.12 Z-37 Z- .44 Z - .58 - z-5.1 2.12 41.00 4151 4953 4821 3787 3894 Sq. Ft. 182.10 227.3 141.11 215.1 108.36 202.1 82.17 183.9 57.92 143.6 34.72 Bx. 12.9 Bx. 16.6 Bx. 21.6 Bx. 28.5 Bx. 40.5 Bx. 67.5 & y v 43.12 32.75 26.19 24.25 23.20 Tons Beets per hour 68.33 EATON 11274 8965 2651 1435 A 31705 44756 35791 33140 31705 K-27.4 K=27.4 K-27.1 K-26.8 K-26.9 58928 Bx.14.8 Bx.19.1 Bx.25.0 Bx.34.5 Bx.54.0 2897 56031 4151 4953 4821 3787 3894 Sq. Ft. 248858 C-100, C-736 C-580 C-491 C-206 192841 148085 112293 79153 47448 58928 44756 35791 33140 31705 Lbs. Beets per hour 136660 WINDSOR - -2.82 Flash to 3rd Vapor 10.87 11.96 -2.82 25.69 34.83 22.87 25.69 25.69 245.0° 227.4 213.3 200.0 180.4 133.3 46.87 Z-.36 Z - .42 Z - .52 Z - o 80 2-4.6 1.17 3641 5382 4993 4036 3983 Sq. Ft. 45.70 182.90 227.8 213.9 200.7 79.48 181.6 137.18 102.35 53.79 136.4 28.10 Bx. 10.4 Bx. 13.9 Bx. 18.6 Bx. 24.0 Bx. 35.5 Bx. 67.9 46.87 34.83 22.87 25.69 25.69 Tons Beets per hour 68.00 WINDSOR 3835 Flash to 2nd Vapor 14783 16266 -3835 34938 47369 31103 34938 34938 K-20.3 K-19.5 K-19.8 K-20.0 K-20.6 63743 Bx.12.2 x.16.2 Bx.21.3 Bx.29.8 Bx.51.7 1591 3641 5382 4993 4036 3983 Sq. Ft. 62152 248744 C-968 186564 C-626 139196 C-479 108093 C-460 73154 C-197 38216 637/33 47369 31103 34938 34938 -8- Lbs. Beets per hour 136000 Eaton-Windsor Source: Ittps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BRUSH 7.15 13.94. 1.71 3.18 16.27 242.8 35.10 21.16 19.45 16.27 228.8 214.9 199.5 178.8 128.0 44.50 Z - .39 Z - .49 Z - . 66 Z -1.23 Z -7.4 2.25 42.25 5617 5617 4003 4003 3440 Sq. Ft. 168.50 229.4 126.24 215. 91.14 200. 69.98 180.7 50.53 132.8 34.26 Bx. 13.7 + Bx. 18.2 Bx. 25.1 Bx. 32.8 Bx. 45.4 Bx. 66.9 + 44.50 35.10 21.16 19.45 16.27 Tons Beets per hour 71.12 BRUSH 10170 19828 2432 4523 A A A 23142 49926 30098 27666 23142 k-23.4 k-24.4 k-23.8 k-23.4 k-23.3 63297 Bx. 16.0 Bx. 21.6 Bx. 29.0 Bx. 39.1 Bx. 56.2 3200 60096 5617 5617 4003 4003 3440 Sq. Ft. 239674 C-799 C-651 C-5-13 C-360 C-145 179564 129638 99540 71874 48731 Y 63297 49926 30098 27666 23142 Lbs. Beets per hour 142240 BRIGHTON 13.20 11.17 2.84 2.84 13.55 243.7 30.40 19.23 16.39 13.55 229.8 216.0 199.6 178.2 133.9 45.17 - Z - .52 Z - o 70 Z -1.31 Z -6.5 1.57 43.60 6211 6211 3962 3874 3803 Sq. Ft. 156.73 230.4 216.8 200.9 63.52 180.1 47.13 138.2 113.15 82.75 33.58 Bx. 14.0 Bx. 19.4 Bx. 26.5 & Bx. 34.6 Bx. 46.6 Bx. 65.4 V 45.17 30.40 19.23 16.39 13.55 Tons Beets per hour 72.33 BRIGHTON 19095 16159 4108 4108 19601 43977 27818 23710 19601 K- 20.9 K- 20.9 K- 20.9 K- 20.6 K= 20.8 65343 Bx. 16.7 Bx. 23.0 Bx. 30.6 Bx. 40.6 Bx. 56.0 2271 6211 6211 3962 3874 3803 63072 Sq. Ft. 226726 C-751 C-522 C-450 C-307 C-128 163683 119706 91888 68178 48577 65343 43977 27818 23710 19601 -9- Lbs. Beets per hourl44660 Brush-Brighton Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BAYARD 18.49 8.33 2.12 3.44 A 14.67 A 4 A 240.8° 28.56 20.23 18.11 14.67 225.9 213. 2 47.86 197. 8 2 .40 176,2 129.0 y Z- o 51 Z -. 68 Z 1.30 ,81 275 47.05 5636 6420 4140 3622 3622 Sq. Ft. 161.89 226. 114.84 214. 86.28 199. 0 66.05 178.0 47.94 132.8 33.27 Bx. 13.74 Bx. 19.4 Bx. 25.8 - Bx. 33.7 t Bx. 46.4 Bx. 66.9 47.86 28.56 20.23 18.11 14.67 Tons Beets per hour 75.04 BAYARD 27750 12502 3182 5163 A 22017 42863 30361 27179 22017 K- 23.7 K-23.5 K-23.9 K-24.4 K-24.0 71828 Bx. 16. 6 Bx. 22.6 6 Bx.29.8 Bx.40.0 Bx.56.6 1216 5636 70613 6420 4140 3622 3622 Sq. Ft. 242965 C-845 172352 C-541 129489 C-500 99128 C-372 71948 C-139 49932 71828 42863 30361 27179 22017 Lbs. Beets per hour 150080 MITCHELL 18. 94 9.20 2.92 3.71 14.01 244.7° 29.84 20.64 17.72 14.01 49.05 228.8 214.6 196.8 174.0 123.9 .27 Z-.37 Z - 64 Z - 1.21 Z - 6.7 48.78 5933 6292 3750 3622 3621 Sq. Ft. 160.80 229.2 112.00 215.4 82.16 198, 61.52 175. 127. 43.80 29.79 Bx. 12.0 V Bx. 17.2 * Bx. 23.5 + Bx. 31.3 Bx. 44.0 Bx. 64.7 49.05 29.84 20.64 17.72 14.01 Tons Beets per hour 76.54 MITCHELL 28993 14083 4470 5679 21447 45679 31596 27126 21447 K - 18.5 K - 18.2 X - 19.2 K - 19.9 75086 K - 18.1 Bx, 14.6 Bx. 20.4 Bx. 27.4 Bx. 37.6 413 Bx, 54.4 74672 5933 6292 3750 3622 3622 246153 C-77 171450 C-520 125771 C-495 94175 C-349 67049 CC126 45602 75086 45679 31596 27126 21447 -10- Lbs. Beets per hour 153080 BAYARD-MITCHELL Source: https://wwvw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 OVID 3.72 Flash to 3 Vapor 19.13 16.68 4.30 1.23 11.20 240.8° 33.41 16.73 12.43 11.20 227.8 211.1 193.9 172.4 126.6 54.48 Z - .40 Z-61 - Z - .94 Z -1.90 Z -9.5 1.94 52.54 10724 6250 4765 4746 4746 Sq. Ft. 166.20 228.5 113.64 212.3 80.23 195.6 63.50 174. 51.07 131. 39.87 Bx. 15.8 Bx. 23.1 Bx. 32.7 Bx. 41.4 Bx. 51.4 Bx 65.9 54.48 33.41 16.73 12.43 11.20 Tons Beets per hour 80.58 OVID 5995 Flash to 3 Vapor 30830 26881 6930 1982 + 18050 53844 26962 20032 18050 K-20.6 K-21.1 K-21.5 K-21-8 K-20.9 87800 Bx.19.4 Bx.27.9 Bx.37.0 3x.46.4 Bx. 58. 6 3127 84673 10724 6250 4765 4746 4746 Sq. Ft. C-633 C-534 C-354 C=218 C-91 87800 53844 26962 20032 18050 Lbs. Beets per hour 161160 GERING -3.06 Flash to 3 Vapor 16.71 18.27 - .58 1.38 19.12 240.5° 38.19 19.92 20.50 19.12 224.6 209.1 192.5 171.8 123.6 55.22 Z- .40 Z .51 Z - . 72 Z- 1.21 Z -7.1 .32 54.90 6293 6019 4128 4809 4809 Sq. Ft. 189.87 225. 134.91 209.9 96.76 193 76.84 173.5 56.34 127.4 37.22 Bx. 13.1 Bx. 18.3 Bx. 25.6 Bx. 32.2 Bx. 43.9 Br. 66.5 V 55.22 38.19 I 19.92 20.50 19.12 Tons beets per hour 72.04 GERING -4409 Flash to 3 Vapor 24076 26323 - 836 1988 27548 55024 28701 29536 27548 K- 20.3 K- 20. K- 20.5 20.3 K- 20.5 79561 Bx. 15.7 Bx. 22.0 Bx. 28.9. Bx. 38,0 Bx. 55.2 461 79100 6293 6019 4128 4809 4809 Sq. Ft. 273565 C-782 194436 C-598 139412 C-439 110711 C-318 81175 C-128 53627 79561 55024 28701 29536 27548 Lbs. Beets per hour 144080 -11- OVID_GERING Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 FT. MORGAN As shown Flash to Vap Total Vap. 22.67 11.31 15.63 4.94 Flash -54 -2,92 -1.65 -2.17 Net Vap. 22.13 8.39 13.98 2.77 A A 4.28 29.42 21.03 7.05 4.28 283.20 +11.4° S.H. 268.5 243.9 221.4 200.6 166.7 53.69 Z-.36 Z o .51 Z .86 Z 2.45 z 9.5 2.14 51.55 9840 9005 6143 6143 3575 Sq. Ft. 142.72 269.6 91.17 245.. 61.75 223.8 40.72 205.2 173.5 33.67 29.39 Bx. 14.3 Bx. 22.3 Bx. 32.9 Bx 49.9 Bx. 60.4 V Bx 69.2 53.69 29.42 21.03 7.05 4.28 Tons Beets per hour 89.42 Total Vap. 40543 20227 FT. MORGAN Flash -966 27953 8835 5222 3881 39577 15005 2951 25002 4954 7654 52615 37610 12608 1 7654 K-17.5 K- 5.2 96016 K- 12. 4 K- 18. 6 K- 27.0 Bx. 18.3 Bx. 27.6 Bx. 41. 4 Bx. 55.2 Bx. 64.8 3827 92192 9840 9005 6143 6143 3575 Sq. Ft. 255240 C-661 163048 C-235 110434 C-289 72824 C-122 60215 C-77 52561 96016 52615 37610 12608 7654 Lbs. Beets per hour 178840 STERLING o Flash to Vapor 12.86 11.87 11.40 .04 4 14.03 242.6° 38.34 26.47 15.07 14.03 228.3 213.2 193.9 171.6 117.9 53.07 Z-.37 Z- o 54 Z- o 81 Z-1.68 Z10.8 1.87 51.20 6060 6171 3983 3782 3720 Sq. Ft. 186.60 228. 135.38 214 97.04 195 70.57 173 55.50 122 41.47 Bx. 14.7 & Bx. 20.3 Bx. 28.3 Bx. 38.9 & Bx. 49.5 Bx. 66.2 53.07 38.34 26.47 11.40 14.03 Tons Beets per hour 66.12 STERLING - Flash to Vapor 17006 15697 15075 1375 18553 50701 25004 19929 18553 K -21.7 A 21.1 A - 21. K - 21.8 K - 21.8 70180 Bx. 17. 5 Bx. 24.3 Bx. 33.6 Bx. 44.2 Bx. 57.8 2473 67707 6060 6171 3983 3782 3720 Sq. Ft. C-803 246760 179027 C-556 128326 C-476 C-259 C-100 93322 73393 54840 70180 50701 35004 19929 18553 -12- Lbs. Beets per hour 132240 FT MORGAN-STERLING Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 FORT COLLINS 2.99 Flash to 3 Vapor 17.84 21.53 -2.99 242.60 21.34 39.88 18.35 21.34 21.34 52.44 228.0 214.7 199.8 178.2 129.1 6.61 z - 5 z - 6. - Z -1.20 Z -6.40 1.33 57.72 12478 14540 7460 7164 7291 Sq. Ft. 199.77 228.6 215.6 201.1 180.0 142.03 62.46 132.8 102.15 83.80 41.12 Bx. 13.61 Bx. 19.1 & Bx. 26.6 v Bx. 32.4 Bx. 43.5 Bx. 66.0 59.05 39.88 18.35 21.34 21.34 Tons Beets per hour 120.42 FORT COLLINS 7201 Flash to 3 Vapor 42966 51853 -7201 51395 96047 44194 51395 51395 126296 K-21.6 K-21.5 k-21.4 k-21.5 K-21.7 15920 Bx. 16.4 Bx.22.8 8x.29.5 Bx.38.0 Bx.54.8 3203 139013° 12478 14540 7460 7164 7291 Sq. Ft. 481126 6-774 C-512 C-422 C-354 C-154 342065 246018 201824 150429 99033 142216 96047 44194 51395 51395 Lbs. Beets per hour 240840 LOVELAND As Shown Flash to Tot. Vap. 15.99 10.45 24.96 5.il Vapor Flash - .08 - 3.54 - 2.87 - 2.57 Net Vap. 15.91 6.91 22.09 2.54 A 5.33 295.0° 36.87 29.96 7.87 5.33 +16.0°S.H 278.2 248.1 220.4 195.0 134.6 57.70 2-.35 Z - .50 Z - . 90 Z - 2.40 Z - 13.0 4.92 52.78 9840 9005 6241 6241 4082 Sq. Ft. 173.50 279.2 249.8 222.8 199.4 140.0 120.72 83.85 53.89 46.02 40.69 Bx. 15.7 V Bx. 22.3 V Bx. 32.2 Bx. 50.1 Bx. 58.6 Bx. 66.3 57.70 36.87 29.96 7.87 5.33 Tons Beets per hour 102.71 LOVELAND 32847 21466 51273 10497 164 7272 5896 5279 32682 14,195 45877 5218 10949 75738 61544 16167 10949 K - 15.4 K- 4.8 K- 13.1 K- 13.6 K- 11.3 118527 Bx. 19.0 Bx. 27.2 Bx. 41.2 Bx. 54.4 Bx.62.4 10107 108421 9840 9005 6241 6241 4082 Sq. Ft. 356404 C-696 C-274 C-369 C-119 C-48 247983 172245 110701 94534 83585 118527 7573,8 61544 16167 10949 -13- Lbs. Beets per hour 205420 FT. COLLINS-LOVELAND Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 LONGMONT -4.87 Flash to Vapor 16.0 24.13 - 4.87 A A 19.51 244.4° 38.77 14.64 19.51 19.51 229.1 215.7 201.9 180.0 126.7 51.84 Z- .40 Z-.54 z_1.27 Z-8.1 2,17 54.78 11404 14688 7171 7154 7171 Sq. Ft. 186.30 229.7 131.52 216,6 92.73 203.2 78.11 181.9 58.68 131.0 39.09 Bx. 14.3 Bx. 20,2 Bx.28.7 Bx.34.1 Bx.45.4 Ex. 68.1 56.95 38.77 14.64 19.51 19.51 Tons Beets per hour 121.88 Thermo Compressor LONGMONT 11871 Flash to 3 Vapor 39026 58819 -11871 47558 94506 35686 47558 47558 126365 K -21.4 N- 21.4 K- 21.6 K- 20.6 K- 22.1 12456 Bx. 17. 2 Bx. 24. 4 Bx. 31.4 Bx. 39.8 Bx. 56.8 5290 133532 11404 14688 7171 7154 7171 Sq. Ft. 454125 320593 226087 190401 142843 95286 138821 94506 35686 47558 47558 Lbs, Beets per hour 243760 SCOTTSBLUFF Flash to o Vapor 11.86 15.35 7.01 3.20 244.4° 13.31 38.87 23.52 16.51 13.31 228.9 213.6 196.9 176.6 133.4 51.03 Z- .40 Z- .53 Z- . 80 Z-1.55 Z-8.6 .30 50.73 10839 11620 9618 9618 9618 Sq. Ft. 181.36 229.5 130.64 214.5 91.77 198 68.25 178. 51.74 138. 38.43 Bx. 14.1 Bx. 19.6 v Bx. 27.9 Bx. 37.5 + Bx. 49.5 Bx. 66.6 51.03 38.87 23.52 16.51 13.31 Tons Beets per hour 126.21 SCOTTSBLUFF Flash to o Vapor 29937 38746 17695 8077 33597 98116 59369 41675 33597 K- 20.3 K- 20.7 K- 20.4 K- 20.3 K- 20.2 128810 Bx, 16. 8 Bx. 23.8 Bx. 32. 7 Bx. 43.5 Bx. 58.0 757 10839 11620 9618 9618 9618 Sq. Ft. 128053 457789 C-757 C-562 231646 C-391 C-230 172277 130602 C-90 329761 97005 128810 98116 59369 41675 33597 -14- Lbs. Beets per hour 252420 LONGMONT-SCOTTSBLUFF Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BILLINGS Flash to o Vapor 10.78 25.65 3 3.90 247.3° A 15,75 45.30 19.65 15.75 15.75 229.8 215.6 198.3 177. 1 121.0 58.66 Z- .38 Z- o 51 Z-.76 Z 1.30 Z-6,8 2.58 56.08 11122 19002 9298 8682 6460 Sq. Ft. 193.31 230.3 137.23 216.1 91.93 199. 72.28 179. 56.53 125 40.78 Bx. 13.3 Bx. 18.7 & Bx. 27.5 Bx.35.5 Bx.45.4 Bx. 62.9 58.66 45.30 19.65 15.75 15.75 Tons Beets per hour 145.67 BILLINGS Flash: to O Vapor 31406 74729 11362 45886 131977 57248 45886 45886 K- 19.1 K-18.9 K-17.9 K- 18.3 K- 18.1 170900 Bx. 16.0 Bx.23.3 Bx.31.7 Bx. 40.4 Bx. 54. 2 7517 163383 11122 19002 9298 8682 6460 Sq.Ft. 563189 C-856 399806 C-497 267829 C-375 210581 C-270 164695 C-13Z 118808 170900 131977 57248 45886 45886 Lbs. Beets per hour 291340 + -15- BILLINGS Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227

What is the cost of 12 row beet planter?

jxbx0227

jxbx0227_p13, jxbx0227_p14, jxbx0227_p15, jxbx0227_p16, jxbx0227_p17, jxbx0227_p18, jxbx0227_p19

$ 2,000, $2,000

EQUIPMENT TO RAISE 800 ACRES OF BEETS New Cost 3 - 4030 J.D. Tractors - $46,500 3 - 4 Bottom Plows - 7,800 2 - 14' Disks - 3,800 2 - Packer Mulchers - 2,400 2 - 12 Row Cultivators - 4,000 1 - 12 Row Beet Planter - 5,000 1 - 6 Row Top Saver - 7,500 2 - 3 Row Lifter Loaders - 22,000 3 - Trucks - 18' Box + Tag Axle - 24,000 1 - Broadcast Boom Sprayer - 1,000 NEW MAIN EQUIPMENT ONLY = $124,000 Misc. Hand Tools - Welder - Irrigat. - Cult. Tools - 2,000 $126,000 TO HANDLE 800 ACRES Hire or Lease 3 More Trucks at Harvest Possibly Lease 1 Tractor for 30 Days OR If you have 800 acres beets custom farmed - 800 acres X $230/acre = $184,000 EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS 1 - 6 Row Top Saver Can Top 40 Acres/Day 2 - 3 Row Lifter Loaders Can Lift 40 Acres/Day 6 Row Top Saver - $ 7,500 3 Row Lifter Loader - $11,000 6 Row Lifter Loader - $15,000 (3 Tons/Minute) 4030 J.D. Tractor - $15,500 4 Bottom Plow . - $ 2,600 14' Disk - $ 1,900 12 Row Beet Planter - $ 2,000 - 6 Row Cultivator + Tools - $ 3,000 Packer Mulcher 15' - $ 1,200 2 1/2 Ton Tag Axle Truck - $12,000 With Box and Hoist Source: Great Western Sugar Company TO: Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy August 22, 1973 Distribution List - J. Krentler G. Bogden R. Mally T. Army D. Dinkel R. Perkins R. Fisher R. Fertig D. Quinn C. lianing G. Gibson J. Van Wijk B. Phillips J. Gray M. Rebhan Dist. Gen. Mgrs. Each Factory Acctg. Office Dist. Agric. Mgrs. Asst. Dist. Agric. Mgrs. Dist. Acctg. Mgrs. Factory Agric. Mgrs. FROM: M. E. Rebhan SUBJECT: Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy (Supplement to General Credit Policy 4/25/72 Page #2, Item E) Attached is a formalized version of the generally unwritten policy that we have been operating under for several years. This policy has been approved at the appropriate management level and although there is no great need for it at this point in time it should be filed along with your General Credit Policy File referred to above. If you have any questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact John Gray or me. M. Roban MER:jb 3 attachments ASS Source: https:/www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 GROWER LOAN SPONSORSHIP POLICY General The program of Grower Loan Sponsorship is to promote beet acreage increase in Great Western Sugar and Northern Ohio Suger territories and to assist our growers in obtaining financial assistance on sugar beet crops when the grower's banking connections will not or cannot handle normal financing However, it is not the intent nor the desire of the Company to subsidize high risk growers or to compete with our local bankers in beet crop financing. The overall size of the Sponsorship Program (in dollars) as well as deviations, if any, from policy shall be determined annually by the V.P. Operations and the V.P. Finance. Unwillingness or inability of the grower's bank to handle normal financing may be due to (1) bank at legal limit for that grower and unable to interest a participating bank, (2) bank short of lendable funds, (3) bank unwilling for personal reasons to vork with the grower. Under the three foregoing categories the Company will merely assist the grower in finding normal financing at an alternative bank. In the grey area between normal and high risk financing, it may be necessary for the Company to offer a bank some inducement or sponsorship as described more fully in following paragraphs. Bank Loan Sponsorship Company sponsorship of an operating bank loan should not exceed 75% guaranty to the bank on any loss the bank might incur on such loan. A loss is recognized when the grower has liquidated all of his assets in settlement of business debts and has discontinued growing beets. If local banks have no problem under the three categories in Paragraph No. 3 above and are not agreeable to a 75% guaranty, there is every indication that the loan is too "high risk" for further consideration. Company sponsored loans, as indicated in the above paragraph, will cover only operating expenses related to a sugar beet crop. In unusual cases only, we will consider sponscring a beet equipment lcan guaranty covered by security agreement. Direct Loan Sponsorship If a financing bank cannot be provided with or without a 75% guaranty and the grower is not a definite "high risk", the V.P. of Finance may consider sponsorship through a direct factory accounts receivable loan. Such a loan would be subject to a First Mortgage Security Agreement and interest at First Naticnal City, N.Y.C. prime plus 1 1/2% on closing date and with due regard to local state interest rate maximums. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 Page 2. Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy Procedures A request for grower assistance shall originate in the Agricultural Department on our form entitled "Request to V.P. .Finance for Grower Financial- Assistance". The request and related support documents are to be forwarded progressively to the District Accounting Manager, District General Manager and V.P. Operations for review and concurrence in recommendation. It is the responsibility of the V.P. of Finance to approve or reject the request. If the request is approved, the V.P. of Finance will co-ordinate financing efforts supplying all prior signers of the document with progress reports. MER 8/22/73 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY REQUEST TO V.P. FINANCE FOR GROWER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Grower Phone ress Location of farm (receiving station) Bank (current or previous) Phone Bank/contact Number of acres if this request is filled If request is not filled Agriculturalist: (originator of this request) (name, address and phone) Reason for request (why not bankable) (Attach copy of balance sheet and operating statement. Also machinery list if any under this request.) Amount required under this request: Operating $ Equipment $ We recommend that Great Western Sugar Company provide finances or financial backing for this grower up to the amount specified and for the purposes listed. Dist.Acct.Mgr. Date Dist.Genl.Mgr. Date V.P.Operations Date Instructions: 1. Originated by Agriculturist, 4. Forward to V.P. Finance, 2. Review and recommendation by 5. V.P. Finance to instruct Dist. Acct.Mg District Personnel, with carbons to all concerned. 3. viver GreatWee Sungar Company GREAT WESTERN SUGAR FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM Letter of Understanding Great Western Sugar Company is initiating and coordinating a "Great Western Sugar Fellowship Program. " The purpose of this program is to improvise, coordinate and place into effect a system of expanding and improving farm management techno- logy. In this connection, Great Western Sugar Company will cooperate with Colorado State University, other state universities, progressive sugarbeet growers, and graduates to provide an opportunity for these graduates to enter into or share in farm management positions. Col. To effectuate this program, the below signed graduate of Pennsylvania State Uni- versity, the grower and Great Western Sugar Company have entered into this Letter of Understanding to set forth the agreement reached between the below signed parties to this Letter, of Understanding. The graduate will be employed by and work with the below signed grower at the grower's farm or farms. The grower will pay the graduate $450 per month and will employ the graduate for the period of this agreement, which will extend for a duration of two (2) years from the date hereof. The aim of this relationship will be to develop a viable partnership and/or an expansion and sharing of opportunities in farming operations. Great Western Sugar Company will cooperate with the grower and furnish information which will help improve his farm management techniques with the intent that he will be able to expand his acreage and develop a more productive farm.operation. The grower agrees to plant at least 25 percent of irrigated land under his control in sugarbeets. Great Western Sugar Company agrees to give to the graduate, for the period of time he is employed by the grower under this, agreement, the sum of $250 per month. This money will be the graduate's and the graduate will be responsible for applicable taxes on this amount. The Sugar Company is giving this money to the graduate and the graduate in no sense will be employed by the Sugar Company and will owe no legal obligation to the Sugar Company. It is understood that any of the parties hereto may cancel this agreement at any time, and the obligations under this agreement will cease as of the time of cancellation. In the event the graduate is the party who desires to cancel the agreement, the Sugar Company will use its best efforts to attempt to find another graduate to participate in this agreement. By their below placed signatures, the three parties agree to the broad outlines contained in this Letter of Understanding and will conduct themselves accordingly. GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY By (Graduate) (Grower) Source: https:l//www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227

What is the cost of 4 bottom plow?

jxbx0227

jxbx0227_p13, jxbx0227_p14, jxbx0227_p15, jxbx0227_p16, jxbx0227_p17, jxbx0227_p18, jxbx0227_p19

$2,600, $ 2,600, $2600

EQUIPMENT TO RAISE 800 ACRES OF BEETS New Cost 3 - 4030 J.D. Tractors - $46,500 3 - 4 Bottom Plows - 7,800 2 - 14' Disks - 3,800 2 - Packer Mulchers - 2,400 2 - 12 Row Cultivators - 4,000 1 - 12 Row Beet Planter - 5,000 1 - 6 Row Top Saver - 7,500 2 - 3 Row Lifter Loaders - 22,000 3 - Trucks - 18' Box + Tag Axle - 24,000 1 - Broadcast Boom Sprayer - 1,000 NEW MAIN EQUIPMENT ONLY = $124,000 Misc. Hand Tools - Welder - Irrigat. - Cult. Tools - 2,000 $126,000 TO HANDLE 800 ACRES Hire or Lease 3 More Trucks at Harvest Possibly Lease 1 Tractor for 30 Days OR If you have 800 acres beets custom farmed - 800 acres X $230/acre = $184,000 EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS 1 - 6 Row Top Saver Can Top 40 Acres/Day 2 - 3 Row Lifter Loaders Can Lift 40 Acres/Day 6 Row Top Saver - $ 7,500 3 Row Lifter Loader - $11,000 6 Row Lifter Loader - $15,000 (3 Tons/Minute) 4030 J.D. Tractor - $15,500 4 Bottom Plow . - $ 2,600 14' Disk - $ 1,900 12 Row Beet Planter - $ 2,000 - 6 Row Cultivator + Tools - $ 3,000 Packer Mulcher 15' - $ 1,200 2 1/2 Ton Tag Axle Truck - $12,000 With Box and Hoist Source: Great Western Sugar Company TO: Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy August 22, 1973 Distribution List - J. Krentler G. Bogden R. Mally T. Army D. Dinkel R. Perkins R. Fisher R. Fertig D. Quinn C. lianing G. Gibson J. Van Wijk B. Phillips J. Gray M. Rebhan Dist. Gen. Mgrs. Each Factory Acctg. Office Dist. Agric. Mgrs. Asst. Dist. Agric. Mgrs. Dist. Acctg. Mgrs. Factory Agric. Mgrs. FROM: M. E. Rebhan SUBJECT: Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy (Supplement to General Credit Policy 4/25/72 Page #2, Item E) Attached is a formalized version of the generally unwritten policy that we have been operating under for several years. This policy has been approved at the appropriate management level and although there is no great need for it at this point in time it should be filed along with your General Credit Policy File referred to above. If you have any questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact John Gray or me. M. Roban MER:jb 3 attachments ASS Source: https:/www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 GROWER LOAN SPONSORSHIP POLICY General The program of Grower Loan Sponsorship is to promote beet acreage increase in Great Western Sugar and Northern Ohio Suger territories and to assist our growers in obtaining financial assistance on sugar beet crops when the grower's banking connections will not or cannot handle normal financing However, it is not the intent nor the desire of the Company to subsidize high risk growers or to compete with our local bankers in beet crop financing. The overall size of the Sponsorship Program (in dollars) as well as deviations, if any, from policy shall be determined annually by the V.P. Operations and the V.P. Finance. Unwillingness or inability of the grower's bank to handle normal financing may be due to (1) bank at legal limit for that grower and unable to interest a participating bank, (2) bank short of lendable funds, (3) bank unwilling for personal reasons to vork with the grower. Under the three foregoing categories the Company will merely assist the grower in finding normal financing at an alternative bank. In the grey area between normal and high risk financing, it may be necessary for the Company to offer a bank some inducement or sponsorship as described more fully in following paragraphs. Bank Loan Sponsorship Company sponsorship of an operating bank loan should not exceed 75% guaranty to the bank on any loss the bank might incur on such loan. A loss is recognized when the grower has liquidated all of his assets in settlement of business debts and has discontinued growing beets. If local banks have no problem under the three categories in Paragraph No. 3 above and are not agreeable to a 75% guaranty, there is every indication that the loan is too "high risk" for further consideration. Company sponsored loans, as indicated in the above paragraph, will cover only operating expenses related to a sugar beet crop. In unusual cases only, we will consider sponscring a beet equipment lcan guaranty covered by security agreement. Direct Loan Sponsorship If a financing bank cannot be provided with or without a 75% guaranty and the grower is not a definite "high risk", the V.P. of Finance may consider sponsorship through a direct factory accounts receivable loan. Such a loan would be subject to a First Mortgage Security Agreement and interest at First Naticnal City, N.Y.C. prime plus 1 1/2% on closing date and with due regard to local state interest rate maximums. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 Page 2. Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy Procedures A request for grower assistance shall originate in the Agricultural Department on our form entitled "Request to V.P. .Finance for Grower Financial- Assistance". The request and related support documents are to be forwarded progressively to the District Accounting Manager, District General Manager and V.P. Operations for review and concurrence in recommendation. It is the responsibility of the V.P. of Finance to approve or reject the request. If the request is approved, the V.P. of Finance will co-ordinate financing efforts supplying all prior signers of the document with progress reports. MER 8/22/73 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY REQUEST TO V.P. FINANCE FOR GROWER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Grower Phone ress Location of farm (receiving station) Bank (current or previous) Phone Bank/contact Number of acres if this request is filled If request is not filled Agriculturalist: (originator of this request) (name, address and phone) Reason for request (why not bankable) (Attach copy of balance sheet and operating statement. Also machinery list if any under this request.) Amount required under this request: Operating $ Equipment $ We recommend that Great Western Sugar Company provide finances or financial backing for this grower up to the amount specified and for the purposes listed. Dist.Acct.Mgr. Date Dist.Genl.Mgr. Date V.P.Operations Date Instructions: 1. Originated by Agriculturist, 4. Forward to V.P. Finance, 2. Review and recommendation by 5. V.P. Finance to instruct Dist. Acct.Mg District Personnel, with carbons to all concerned. 3. viver GreatWee Sungar Company GREAT WESTERN SUGAR FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM Letter of Understanding Great Western Sugar Company is initiating and coordinating a "Great Western Sugar Fellowship Program. " The purpose of this program is to improvise, coordinate and place into effect a system of expanding and improving farm management techno- logy. In this connection, Great Western Sugar Company will cooperate with Colorado State University, other state universities, progressive sugarbeet growers, and graduates to provide an opportunity for these graduates to enter into or share in farm management positions. Col. To effectuate this program, the below signed graduate of Pennsylvania State Uni- versity, the grower and Great Western Sugar Company have entered into this Letter of Understanding to set forth the agreement reached between the below signed parties to this Letter, of Understanding. The graduate will be employed by and work with the below signed grower at the grower's farm or farms. The grower will pay the graduate $450 per month and will employ the graduate for the period of this agreement, which will extend for a duration of two (2) years from the date hereof. The aim of this relationship will be to develop a viable partnership and/or an expansion and sharing of opportunities in farming operations. Great Western Sugar Company will cooperate with the grower and furnish information which will help improve his farm management techniques with the intent that he will be able to expand his acreage and develop a more productive farm.operation. The grower agrees to plant at least 25 percent of irrigated land under his control in sugarbeets. Great Western Sugar Company agrees to give to the graduate, for the period of time he is employed by the grower under this, agreement, the sum of $250 per month. This money will be the graduate's and the graduate will be responsible for applicable taxes on this amount. The Sugar Company is giving this money to the graduate and the graduate in no sense will be employed by the Sugar Company and will owe no legal obligation to the Sugar Company. It is understood that any of the parties hereto may cancel this agreement at any time, and the obligations under this agreement will cease as of the time of cancellation. In the event the graduate is the party who desires to cancel the agreement, the Sugar Company will use its best efforts to attempt to find another graduate to participate in this agreement. By their below placed signatures, the three parties agree to the broad outlines contained in this Letter of Understanding and will conduct themselves accordingly. GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY By (Graduate) (Grower) Source: https:l//www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227

what is the average temperature value for 4th body in juice ?

pklh0227

pklh0227_p0, pklh0227_p1, pklh0227_p2, pklh0227_p3, pklh0227_p4, pklh0227_p5, pklh0227_p6, pklh0227_p7, pklh0227_p8, pklh0227_p9, pklh0227_p10, pklh0227_p11, pklh0227_p12, pklh0227_p13, pklh0227_p14, pklh0227_p15

181.6

H. W. DAHLBERG PURTP S A 20032 COEFFICIENT OF HEAT TRANSFER IN EVAPORATORS BASED ON 1950-51 Campaign The Great Western Sugar Company BY J.T. DAVIS April 25 , 1951 Source: https://wwyw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Pounds of Steam or Vapor Condensed Per Hour Coefficient of Heat Exhaust 1st Vap. 2nd Vap. 3rd Vap. 4th Vap Transfer B.T.U. Per Sq. Ft. Con- Con- Con- Con- Con- Per Degree F. Per Hour densed densed densed densed densed 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th lst Body 2nd Body 3rd Body 4th Body 5th Body Body Body Body Body Body Lovell 66211 50027 26785 17262 17262 883 625 471 325 138 Ft. Lupton Greeley 67582 53282 32292 32292 32292 920 651 473 393 158 Eaton 58928 44756 35791 33140 31705 1001 736 580 491 206 Windsor 63743 47369 31103 34938 34938 968 626 479 460 197 Brush 63297 49926 30098 27666 23142 799 651 513 360 145 Wheatland Brighton 65343 43977 27818 23710 19601 751 522 450 307 128 Bayard 71828 42863 30361 27179 22017 848 544 500 371 139 Mitchell 75086 45679 31596 27126 21447 775 520 495 349 126 Lyman Ovid 87800 53844 26962 20032 18050 633 534 354 218 91 Minatare Gering 79561 55024 28701 29536 27548 782 598 439 318 128 Ft. Morgan 96019 52615 37610 12608 7654 661 235 289 122 77 Sterling 70180 50701 35004 19929 18553 803 556 476 259 100 Ft. Collins 142216 96047 44194 51395 51395 774 512 422 354 154 Loveland 118527 75738 61544 16167 10949 696 274 369 119 48 Longmont 138821 94506 35686 47558 47558 786 494 386 325 134 Scottsbluff 128810 98116 59369 41675 33597 757 562 391 236 90 Billings 170900 131977 57248 45886 45886 856 497 375 270 137 Average 92050 63909 37186 29888 27270 805 537 439 310 129 Average by Rienks Formula 810 579 442 282 122 Average by Swenson Formula 780 634 511 353 135 Average Brix of Juice in Bodies 16.2 22.7 30.9 40.9 56.6 -1- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Baro- Gauge Barom- metric Pressure eter Pressure Exhaust Temperatures Degrees Fahrenheit-Vapor Alti- Inches Lbs. Per Steam Ex- 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th tude Hg. Sq. In. * ** haust Body Body Body Body Body Lovell 3830 25.93 12.73 16.8 15.7 244.2 229.5 215.3 198.9 176.7 117.9 Ft. Lupton 4907 24.88 12.22 Greeley 4680 25.10 12.33 17.0 16.5 250.0 232.6 216.2 200.6 180.8 132.8 Eaton 4840 24.95 12.25 13.0 13.1 240.8 226.9 214.5 201.3 182.6 140.3 Windsor 4780 25.00 12.28 15.0 13.9 245.0 227.4 213.3 200.0 180.4 133.3 Brush 4280 25.48 12.51 15.0 10.4 242.8 228.8 214.9 199.5 178.8 128.0 Wheatland 4680 25.10 12.33 Brighton 5000 24.79 12.18 11.2 12.3 243.7 229.8 216.0 199.6 178.2 133.9 Bayard 3780 25.97 12.76 14.0 12.6 240.8 225.9 213.2 197.8 176.2 129.0 Mitchell 3970 25.79 12.66 14.0 11.8 244.7 228.8 214.6 196.8 174.0 123.9 Lyman 4053 25.71 12.63 Ovid 3521 26.22 12.88 13.0 12.4 240.8 227.8 211.1 193.9 172.4 126.6 Minatare 3830 25.92 12.73 Gering 3900 25.86 12.70 14.0 13.5 240.5 224.6 209.1 192.5 171.8 123.6 Ft. Morgan 4339 25.43 12.49 39.3 49.2 283.2°268.5 243.9 221.4 200.6 166.7 Sterling 3934 25.82 12.68 14.0 13.5 242.6 228.3 213.2 193.9 171.6 117.9 Ft. Collins 4960 24.83 12.20 16.8 14.0 242.6 228.0 214.7 199.8 178.2 129.1 Loveland 4980 24.81 12.19 49.0 66.6 295.09278.2 248.1 220.1 195.0 134.6 Longmont 5000 24.79 12.18 17.3 14.3 244.4 229.1 215.7 201.9 180.0 126.7 Scottsbluff 3880 25.88 12.71 18.0 14.3 244.4 228.9 213.6 196.9 176.6 133.4 Billings 3100 26.65 13.09 15.9 15.4 247.3 229.8 215.6 198.3 177.1 121.0 Averages 249.0 233.7 217.8 200.8 179.5 130.5 Reported ** Calculated from Temperatures 294.6 with Superheat -2- 311.0 " " Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Temperature Difference - Degree F. Heating Surface - Square Ft. Exh. lst 2nd 3rd 4th lst 2nd 3rd 4th 5th to lst to 2nd to 3rd to 4th to 5th Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Body Lovell 5017 5686 3676 2601 2274 14.2 13.5 15.0 20.0 54.7 Ft. Lupton Greeley 4086 4948 4467 4320 4569 17.0 15.8 14.8 18.6 44.4 Eaton 4151 4953 4821 3787 3894 13.5 11.8 12.4 17.4 39.0 Windsor 3641 5382 4993 4036 3983 17.2 13.5 12.6 18.4 44.0 Brush 5617 5617 4003 4003 3440 13.4 13.1 14.2 18.8 46.0 Wheatland Brighton 6211 6211 3962 3874 3803 13.3 13.0 15.1 19.5 40.0 Bayard 5636 6420 4140 3622 3622 14.3 11.8 14.2 19.8 43.4 Mitchell 5933 6292 3750 3622 3621 15.5 13.4 16.5 21.0 46.6 Lyman Ovid 5362 6250 4765 4746 4746 12.3 15.5 15.5 19.0 41.4 5362 Minatare Gering 6293 6019 4128 4809 4809 15.4 14.7 15.4 19.0 44.4 Ft. Morgan 9840 9005 6143 6143 3575 13.6 23.2 20.1 16.2 27.1 Sterling 6060 6171 3983 3782 3720 13.7 14.2 17.9 20.0 49.6 Ft. Collins 6239 7270 3751 3582 3709 14.0 12.4 13.6 19.8 45.4 6239 7270 3709 3582 3582 Loveland 9840 9005 6241 6241 4082 15.8 28.4 25.3 21.0 55.0 Longmont 5520 7344 3566 3566 3566 14.7 12.5 12.5 20.0 49.0 5884 7344 3605 3588 3605 Scottsbluff 5325 5327 4809 4809 4809 14.9 14.4 15.3 18.0 38.4 5514 6293 4809 4809 4809 Billings 5561 9501 4649 4341 3230 17.0 13.4 15.9 19.2 51.5 5561 9501 4649 4341 3230 Averages 14.69 14.98 15.66 19.16 44.70 -3- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BONED Brix of Juice Enter- ing lst Leaving Evaporator Body Average Brix of Juice in - Body 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Lovell 12.9 18.3 27.2 36.7 47.4 66.9 15.6 22.8 32.0 42.0 57.2 Ft. Lupton Greeley 10.6 14.1 19.7 25.9 37.8 69.6 12.4 16.9 22.8 31.8 53.7 Eaton 12.9 16.6 21.6 28.5 40.5 67.5 14.8 19.1 25.0 34.5 54.0 Windsor 10.4 13.9 18.6 24.0 35.5 67.9 12.2 16.2 21.3 29.8 51.7 Brush 13.7 18.2 25.1 32.8 45.4 66.9 16.0 21.6 29.0 39.1 56.2 Wheatland Brighton 14.0 19.4 26.5 34.6 46.6 65.4 16.7 23.0 30.6 40.6 56.0 Bayard 13.7 19.4 25.8 33.7 46.4 66.9 16.6 22.6 29.8 40.0 56.6 Mitchell 12.0 17.2 23.5 31.3 44.0 64.7 14.6 20.4 27.4 37.6 54.4 Lyman Ovid 15.8 23.1 32.7 41.4 51.4 65.9 19.4 27.9 37.0 46.4 58.6 Minatare Gering 13.1 18.3 25.6 32.2 43.9 66.5 15.7 22.0 28.9 38.0 55.2 Ft. Morgan 14.3 22.3 32.9 49.9 60.4 69.2 18.3 27.6 41.4 55.2 64.8 Sterling 14.7 20.3 28.3 38.9 49.5 66.2 17.5 24.3 33.6 44.2 57.8 Ft. Collins 13.6 19.1 26.6 32.4 43.5 66.0 16.4 22.8 29.5 38.0 54.8 Loveland 15.7 22.3 32.2 50.1 58.6 66.3 19.0 27.2 41.2 54.4 62.4 Longmont 14.3 20.2 28.7 34.1 45.4 68.1 17.2 24.4 31.4 39.8 56.8 Scottsbluff 14.1 19.6 27.9 37.5 49.5 66.6 16.8 23.8 32.7 43.5 58.0 Billings 13.3 18.7 27.9 35.5 45.4 62.9 16.0 23.3 31.7 40.4 54.2 Averages 13.5 18.9 26.5 35.3 46.5 66.7 16.2 22.7 30.9 40.9 56.6 -4- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 Temperatures - Degrees Fahrenheit Exh. 1st Body 2nd Body 3rd Body 4th Body 5th Body Steam Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Vapor Juice Lovell 244.2 229.5 230.0 215.3 216.0 198.9 200.3 176.7 178.9 117.9 122.0 Ft. Lupton Greeley 250.0 232.6 233.0 216.2 216.8 200.6 201.4 180.8 182.0 132.8 136.4 Eaton 240.8 226.9 227.3 214.5 215.1 201.3 202.1 182.6 183.9 140.3 143. Windsor 245.0 227.4 227.8 213.3 213.9 200.0 200.7 180.4 181.6 133.3 136.4 Brush 242.8 228.8 229.4 214.9 215.7 199.5 200.7 178.8 180.7 128.0 132.8 Wheatland Brighton 243.7 229.8 230.4 216.0 216.8 199.6 200.9 178.2 180.1 133.9 138.2 Bayard 240.8 225.9 226.5 213.2 214.1 197.8 199.0 176.2 178.0 129.0 132.8 Mitchell 244.7 228.8 229.2 214.6 215.4 196.8 198.1 174.0 175.8 123.9 127.4 Lyman Ovid 240.8 227.8 228.5 211.1 212.3 193.9 195.6 172.4 174.9 126.6 131.0 Minatare Gering 240.5 224.6 225.1 209.1 209.9 192.5 193.7 171.8 173.5 123.6 127.4 Ft. Morgan 283.2* 268.5 269.6 243.9 245.3 221.4 223.8 200.6 205.2 166.7 173.5 Sterling 242.6 228.3 228.9 213.2 214.1 193.9 195.3 171.6 173.9 117.9 122.0 Ft. Collins 242.6 228.0 228.6 214.7 215.6 199.8 201.1 178.2 180.0 129.1 132.8 Loveland 295.0° 278.2 279.2 248.1 249.8 220.4 222.8 195.0 199.4 134.6 140.0 Longmont 244.4 229.1 229.7 215.7 216.6 201.9 203.2 180.0 181.9 126.7 131.0 Scottsbluff 244.4 228.9229.5 213.6 214.5 196.9 198.3 176.6 178.9 133.4 138.2 Billings 247.3 229.8 230.3 215.6 216.4 198.3 199.7 177.1 179.1 121.0 125.6 Averages 249.0 233.7 234.3 217.8 218.7 200.8 202.2 179.5 181.6 130.5 134.8 * 294.6 With Superheat 311.0 With Superheat -5- Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 *Viscosity Centiposes - Z **Value of - K Juice in Evaporator Body Evaporator Body 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th lst 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Average Lovell .38 .50 . 75 1.45 9.4 23.6 23.1 23.6 23.6 23.7 23.5 Ft. Lupton Greeley .34 .42 .56 .89 5.2 18.4 17.3 17.9 18.8 18.5 18.2 Eaton .37 .44 .58 .95 5.1 27.4 27.4 27.1 26.8 26.9 27.1 Windsor .36 .42 .52 .80 4.6 20.3 19.5 19.8 20.0 20.6 20.0 Brush .39 .49 .66 1.23 7.4 23.4 24.4 23.8 23.4 23.3 23.7 Wheatland Brighton .37 .52 .70 1.31 6.5 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.6 20.8 20.8 Bayard 40 .51 .68 1.30 7.5 23.7 23.5 23.9 24.4 24.0 23.9 Mitchell .37 .47 .64 1.21 6.7 18.5 18.2 19.2 19.9 18.1 18.8 Lyman Ovid 40 .61 .94 1.90 9.5 20.6 21.1 21.5 21.8 20.9 21.2 Gering .40 .51 .72 1.21 7.1 20.3 20.7 20.5 20.3 20.5 20.5 Ft. Morgan .36 .51 .86 2.45 9.5 17.5 5.2 12.4 18.6 27.0 16.1 Sterling .37 .54 .81 1.68 10.8 21.7 21.1 21.5 21.8 21.8 21.6 Ft. Collins .39 .52 .69 1.20 6.4 21.6 21.5 21.4 21.5 21.7 21.5 Loveland .35 .50 .90 2.40 13.0 15.4 4.8 13.1 13.6 11.3 11.6 Longmont .40 .54 .70 1.27 8.1 21.4 21.4 21.6 20.6 22.1 21.4 Scottsbluff .40 .53 .80 1.55 8.5 20.3 20.7 20.4 20.3 20.2 20.4 Billings .38 .51 .76 1.30 6.8 19.1 18.9 17.9 18.3 18.1 18.5 Averages .378 .502 722 1.418 7.771 20.83 19.39 20.38 20.84 21.15 20.52 * From Dwg. 6203 ** D X K - Rienks Formula (K - 20.52) Z C - Coef. of heat transfer D - Temperature Difference -6- Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 LOVELL Flash 11.76 18.11 7.42 38.98 20.87 13.45 13.45 13.45 244.2 229.5 215.3 198.9 176.7 117.9 46.86 Z- .38 Z- .50 Z- .75 Z- 1.45 Z- 9.4 4.73 .85 5017 5686 3676 2601 2274 Sq. Ft. 50.74 170.10 230.0 216.0 200. 178.9 122.0 119.38 80.40 59.53 46.08 32.63 Bx. 12.9 Bx. 18.3 Bx. 27.2 Bx. 36.7 Bx. 47.4 Bx.66.9 51.59 38.98 20.87 13.45 13.45 Tons Beets per hour 64.17 Thermo-Compressor LOVELL 15093 23242 9523 50027 26785 17262 17262 17262 60140 K-23.6 K-23.1 K-23.6 K-23.6 K-23.7 *6070 Bx.15.6 Bx.22.8 Bx.32.0 Bx.42.0 Bx.57.2 1091 65120 5017 5686 3676 2601 2274 Sq. Ft. 218306 C-883 C-625 C-471 C-325 C-138 41877 153212 103185 76401 59139 Bx. 66211 50027 26785 17262 17262 Lbs. Beets per hour 128340 GREELEY o Flash 7.58 14.56 22.40 22.40 22.40 22.40 250.0° 232.6 216.2 200.6 180.8 132.8 46.88 2-.34 Z- .42 Z - . .56 Z - .89 Z -5.2 2.34 44.54 4086 4948 4467 4320 4569 Sq. Ft. 175.27 233.0 216.8 201.4 182.0 130.73 93.77 48.97 136.4 71.37 26.57 Bx. 10.6 + Bx. 14.1 Bx. 19.7 Bx. 25.9 t Bx. 37.8 Bx. 69.6 46.88 36.96 22.40 22.40 22.40 Tons Beets per hour 72.08 GREELEY 10927 20990 32292 53282 32292 32292 32292 K- 18.4 k-17.3 k-17.9 k-18.8 k-18.5 67582 Bx. 12.1 Bx.16.9 Bx.22.8 Bx. 31.8 Bx.53.7 3373 64209 4086 4948 4467 4320 4569 Sq. Ft. 252669 C-920 188460 C-651 135179 C-473 102887 C-393 70595 -158 38303 67582 53282 32292 32292 32292 -7- Lbs. Beets per hour 144160 Lovell-Greeley Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 EATON 8.25 6.56 1.94 1.05 26.19 24.25 23.20 32.75 23.20 240.8 226.9 214.5 201.3 182.6 140.3 43.12 Z-37 Z- .44 Z - .58 - z-5.1 2.12 41.00 4151 4953 4821 3787 3894 Sq. Ft. 182.10 227.3 141.11 215.1 108.36 202.1 82.17 183.9 57.92 143.6 34.72 Bx. 12.9 Bx. 16.6 Bx. 21.6 Bx. 28.5 Bx. 40.5 Bx. 67.5 & y v 43.12 32.75 26.19 24.25 23.20 Tons Beets per hour 68.33 EATON 11274 8965 2651 1435 A 31705 44756 35791 33140 31705 K-27.4 K=27.4 K-27.1 K-26.8 K-26.9 58928 Bx.14.8 Bx.19.1 Bx.25.0 Bx.34.5 Bx.54.0 2897 56031 4151 4953 4821 3787 3894 Sq. Ft. 248858 C-100, C-736 C-580 C-491 C-206 192841 148085 112293 79153 47448 58928 44756 35791 33140 31705 Lbs. Beets per hour 136660 WINDSOR - -2.82 Flash to 3rd Vapor 10.87 11.96 -2.82 25.69 34.83 22.87 25.69 25.69 245.0° 227.4 213.3 200.0 180.4 133.3 46.87 Z-.36 Z - .42 Z - .52 Z - o 80 2-4.6 1.17 3641 5382 4993 4036 3983 Sq. Ft. 45.70 182.90 227.8 213.9 200.7 79.48 181.6 137.18 102.35 53.79 136.4 28.10 Bx. 10.4 Bx. 13.9 Bx. 18.6 Bx. 24.0 Bx. 35.5 Bx. 67.9 46.87 34.83 22.87 25.69 25.69 Tons Beets per hour 68.00 WINDSOR 3835 Flash to 2nd Vapor 14783 16266 -3835 34938 47369 31103 34938 34938 K-20.3 K-19.5 K-19.8 K-20.0 K-20.6 63743 Bx.12.2 x.16.2 Bx.21.3 Bx.29.8 Bx.51.7 1591 3641 5382 4993 4036 3983 Sq. Ft. 62152 248744 C-968 186564 C-626 139196 C-479 108093 C-460 73154 C-197 38216 637/33 47369 31103 34938 34938 -8- Lbs. Beets per hour 136000 Eaton-Windsor Source: Ittps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BRUSH 7.15 13.94. 1.71 3.18 16.27 242.8 35.10 21.16 19.45 16.27 228.8 214.9 199.5 178.8 128.0 44.50 Z - .39 Z - .49 Z - . 66 Z -1.23 Z -7.4 2.25 42.25 5617 5617 4003 4003 3440 Sq. Ft. 168.50 229.4 126.24 215. 91.14 200. 69.98 180.7 50.53 132.8 34.26 Bx. 13.7 + Bx. 18.2 Bx. 25.1 Bx. 32.8 Bx. 45.4 Bx. 66.9 + 44.50 35.10 21.16 19.45 16.27 Tons Beets per hour 71.12 BRUSH 10170 19828 2432 4523 A A A 23142 49926 30098 27666 23142 k-23.4 k-24.4 k-23.8 k-23.4 k-23.3 63297 Bx. 16.0 Bx. 21.6 Bx. 29.0 Bx. 39.1 Bx. 56.2 3200 60096 5617 5617 4003 4003 3440 Sq. Ft. 239674 C-799 C-651 C-5-13 C-360 C-145 179564 129638 99540 71874 48731 Y 63297 49926 30098 27666 23142 Lbs. Beets per hour 142240 BRIGHTON 13.20 11.17 2.84 2.84 13.55 243.7 30.40 19.23 16.39 13.55 229.8 216.0 199.6 178.2 133.9 45.17 - Z - .52 Z - o 70 Z -1.31 Z -6.5 1.57 43.60 6211 6211 3962 3874 3803 Sq. Ft. 156.73 230.4 216.8 200.9 63.52 180.1 47.13 138.2 113.15 82.75 33.58 Bx. 14.0 Bx. 19.4 Bx. 26.5 & Bx. 34.6 Bx. 46.6 Bx. 65.4 V 45.17 30.40 19.23 16.39 13.55 Tons Beets per hour 72.33 BRIGHTON 19095 16159 4108 4108 19601 43977 27818 23710 19601 K- 20.9 K- 20.9 K- 20.9 K- 20.6 K= 20.8 65343 Bx. 16.7 Bx. 23.0 Bx. 30.6 Bx. 40.6 Bx. 56.0 2271 6211 6211 3962 3874 3803 63072 Sq. Ft. 226726 C-751 C-522 C-450 C-307 C-128 163683 119706 91888 68178 48577 65343 43977 27818 23710 19601 -9- Lbs. Beets per hourl44660 Brush-Brighton Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BAYARD 18.49 8.33 2.12 3.44 A 14.67 A 4 A 240.8° 28.56 20.23 18.11 14.67 225.9 213. 2 47.86 197. 8 2 .40 176,2 129.0 y Z- o 51 Z -. 68 Z 1.30 ,81 275 47.05 5636 6420 4140 3622 3622 Sq. Ft. 161.89 226. 114.84 214. 86.28 199. 0 66.05 178.0 47.94 132.8 33.27 Bx. 13.74 Bx. 19.4 Bx. 25.8 - Bx. 33.7 t Bx. 46.4 Bx. 66.9 47.86 28.56 20.23 18.11 14.67 Tons Beets per hour 75.04 BAYARD 27750 12502 3182 5163 A 22017 42863 30361 27179 22017 K- 23.7 K-23.5 K-23.9 K-24.4 K-24.0 71828 Bx. 16. 6 Bx. 22.6 6 Bx.29.8 Bx.40.0 Bx.56.6 1216 5636 70613 6420 4140 3622 3622 Sq. Ft. 242965 C-845 172352 C-541 129489 C-500 99128 C-372 71948 C-139 49932 71828 42863 30361 27179 22017 Lbs. Beets per hour 150080 MITCHELL 18. 94 9.20 2.92 3.71 14.01 244.7° 29.84 20.64 17.72 14.01 49.05 228.8 214.6 196.8 174.0 123.9 .27 Z-.37 Z - 64 Z - 1.21 Z - 6.7 48.78 5933 6292 3750 3622 3621 Sq. Ft. 160.80 229.2 112.00 215.4 82.16 198, 61.52 175. 127. 43.80 29.79 Bx. 12.0 V Bx. 17.2 * Bx. 23.5 + Bx. 31.3 Bx. 44.0 Bx. 64.7 49.05 29.84 20.64 17.72 14.01 Tons Beets per hour 76.54 MITCHELL 28993 14083 4470 5679 21447 45679 31596 27126 21447 K - 18.5 K - 18.2 X - 19.2 K - 19.9 75086 K - 18.1 Bx, 14.6 Bx. 20.4 Bx. 27.4 Bx. 37.6 413 Bx, 54.4 74672 5933 6292 3750 3622 3622 246153 C-77 171450 C-520 125771 C-495 94175 C-349 67049 CC126 45602 75086 45679 31596 27126 21447 -10- Lbs. Beets per hour 153080 BAYARD-MITCHELL Source: https://wwvw.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 OVID 3.72 Flash to 3 Vapor 19.13 16.68 4.30 1.23 11.20 240.8° 33.41 16.73 12.43 11.20 227.8 211.1 193.9 172.4 126.6 54.48 Z - .40 Z-61 - Z - .94 Z -1.90 Z -9.5 1.94 52.54 10724 6250 4765 4746 4746 Sq. Ft. 166.20 228.5 113.64 212.3 80.23 195.6 63.50 174. 51.07 131. 39.87 Bx. 15.8 Bx. 23.1 Bx. 32.7 Bx. 41.4 Bx. 51.4 Bx 65.9 54.48 33.41 16.73 12.43 11.20 Tons Beets per hour 80.58 OVID 5995 Flash to 3 Vapor 30830 26881 6930 1982 + 18050 53844 26962 20032 18050 K-20.6 K-21.1 K-21.5 K-21-8 K-20.9 87800 Bx.19.4 Bx.27.9 Bx.37.0 3x.46.4 Bx. 58. 6 3127 84673 10724 6250 4765 4746 4746 Sq. Ft. C-633 C-534 C-354 C=218 C-91 87800 53844 26962 20032 18050 Lbs. Beets per hour 161160 GERING -3.06 Flash to 3 Vapor 16.71 18.27 - .58 1.38 19.12 240.5° 38.19 19.92 20.50 19.12 224.6 209.1 192.5 171.8 123.6 55.22 Z- .40 Z .51 Z - . 72 Z- 1.21 Z -7.1 .32 54.90 6293 6019 4128 4809 4809 Sq. Ft. 189.87 225. 134.91 209.9 96.76 193 76.84 173.5 56.34 127.4 37.22 Bx. 13.1 Bx. 18.3 Bx. 25.6 Bx. 32.2 Bx. 43.9 Br. 66.5 V 55.22 38.19 I 19.92 20.50 19.12 Tons beets per hour 72.04 GERING -4409 Flash to 3 Vapor 24076 26323 - 836 1988 27548 55024 28701 29536 27548 K- 20.3 K- 20. K- 20.5 20.3 K- 20.5 79561 Bx. 15.7 Bx. 22.0 Bx. 28.9. Bx. 38,0 Bx. 55.2 461 79100 6293 6019 4128 4809 4809 Sq. Ft. 273565 C-782 194436 C-598 139412 C-439 110711 C-318 81175 C-128 53627 79561 55024 28701 29536 27548 Lbs. Beets per hour 144080 -11- OVID_GERING Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 FT. MORGAN As shown Flash to Vap Total Vap. 22.67 11.31 15.63 4.94 Flash -54 -2,92 -1.65 -2.17 Net Vap. 22.13 8.39 13.98 2.77 A A 4.28 29.42 21.03 7.05 4.28 283.20 +11.4° S.H. 268.5 243.9 221.4 200.6 166.7 53.69 Z-.36 Z o .51 Z .86 Z 2.45 z 9.5 2.14 51.55 9840 9005 6143 6143 3575 Sq. Ft. 142.72 269.6 91.17 245.. 61.75 223.8 40.72 205.2 173.5 33.67 29.39 Bx. 14.3 Bx. 22.3 Bx. 32.9 Bx 49.9 Bx. 60.4 V Bx 69.2 53.69 29.42 21.03 7.05 4.28 Tons Beets per hour 89.42 Total Vap. 40543 20227 FT. MORGAN Flash -966 27953 8835 5222 3881 39577 15005 2951 25002 4954 7654 52615 37610 12608 1 7654 K-17.5 K- 5.2 96016 K- 12. 4 K- 18. 6 K- 27.0 Bx. 18.3 Bx. 27.6 Bx. 41. 4 Bx. 55.2 Bx. 64.8 3827 92192 9840 9005 6143 6143 3575 Sq. Ft. 255240 C-661 163048 C-235 110434 C-289 72824 C-122 60215 C-77 52561 96016 52615 37610 12608 7654 Lbs. Beets per hour 178840 STERLING o Flash to Vapor 12.86 11.87 11.40 .04 4 14.03 242.6° 38.34 26.47 15.07 14.03 228.3 213.2 193.9 171.6 117.9 53.07 Z-.37 Z- o 54 Z- o 81 Z-1.68 Z10.8 1.87 51.20 6060 6171 3983 3782 3720 Sq. Ft. 186.60 228. 135.38 214 97.04 195 70.57 173 55.50 122 41.47 Bx. 14.7 & Bx. 20.3 Bx. 28.3 Bx. 38.9 & Bx. 49.5 Bx. 66.2 53.07 38.34 26.47 11.40 14.03 Tons Beets per hour 66.12 STERLING - Flash to Vapor 17006 15697 15075 1375 18553 50701 25004 19929 18553 K -21.7 A 21.1 A - 21. K - 21.8 K - 21.8 70180 Bx. 17. 5 Bx. 24.3 Bx. 33.6 Bx. 44.2 Bx. 57.8 2473 67707 6060 6171 3983 3782 3720 Sq. Ft. C-803 246760 179027 C-556 128326 C-476 C-259 C-100 93322 73393 54840 70180 50701 35004 19929 18553 -12- Lbs. Beets per hour 132240 FT MORGAN-STERLING Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 FORT COLLINS 2.99 Flash to 3 Vapor 17.84 21.53 -2.99 242.60 21.34 39.88 18.35 21.34 21.34 52.44 228.0 214.7 199.8 178.2 129.1 6.61 z - 5 z - 6. - Z -1.20 Z -6.40 1.33 57.72 12478 14540 7460 7164 7291 Sq. Ft. 199.77 228.6 215.6 201.1 180.0 142.03 62.46 132.8 102.15 83.80 41.12 Bx. 13.61 Bx. 19.1 & Bx. 26.6 v Bx. 32.4 Bx. 43.5 Bx. 66.0 59.05 39.88 18.35 21.34 21.34 Tons Beets per hour 120.42 FORT COLLINS 7201 Flash to 3 Vapor 42966 51853 -7201 51395 96047 44194 51395 51395 126296 K-21.6 K-21.5 k-21.4 k-21.5 K-21.7 15920 Bx. 16.4 Bx.22.8 8x.29.5 Bx.38.0 Bx.54.8 3203 139013° 12478 14540 7460 7164 7291 Sq. Ft. 481126 6-774 C-512 C-422 C-354 C-154 342065 246018 201824 150429 99033 142216 96047 44194 51395 51395 Lbs. Beets per hour 240840 LOVELAND As Shown Flash to Tot. Vap. 15.99 10.45 24.96 5.il Vapor Flash - .08 - 3.54 - 2.87 - 2.57 Net Vap. 15.91 6.91 22.09 2.54 A 5.33 295.0° 36.87 29.96 7.87 5.33 +16.0°S.H 278.2 248.1 220.4 195.0 134.6 57.70 2-.35 Z - .50 Z - . 90 Z - 2.40 Z - 13.0 4.92 52.78 9840 9005 6241 6241 4082 Sq. Ft. 173.50 279.2 249.8 222.8 199.4 140.0 120.72 83.85 53.89 46.02 40.69 Bx. 15.7 V Bx. 22.3 V Bx. 32.2 Bx. 50.1 Bx. 58.6 Bx. 66.3 57.70 36.87 29.96 7.87 5.33 Tons Beets per hour 102.71 LOVELAND 32847 21466 51273 10497 164 7272 5896 5279 32682 14,195 45877 5218 10949 75738 61544 16167 10949 K - 15.4 K- 4.8 K- 13.1 K- 13.6 K- 11.3 118527 Bx. 19.0 Bx. 27.2 Bx. 41.2 Bx. 54.4 Bx.62.4 10107 108421 9840 9005 6241 6241 4082 Sq. Ft. 356404 C-696 C-274 C-369 C-119 C-48 247983 172245 110701 94534 83585 118527 7573,8 61544 16167 10949 -13- Lbs. Beets per hour 205420 FT. COLLINS-LOVELAND Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 LONGMONT -4.87 Flash to Vapor 16.0 24.13 - 4.87 A A 19.51 244.4° 38.77 14.64 19.51 19.51 229.1 215.7 201.9 180.0 126.7 51.84 Z- .40 Z-.54 z_1.27 Z-8.1 2,17 54.78 11404 14688 7171 7154 7171 Sq. Ft. 186.30 229.7 131.52 216,6 92.73 203.2 78.11 181.9 58.68 131.0 39.09 Bx. 14.3 Bx. 20,2 Bx.28.7 Bx.34.1 Bx.45.4 Ex. 68.1 56.95 38.77 14.64 19.51 19.51 Tons Beets per hour 121.88 Thermo Compressor LONGMONT 11871 Flash to 3 Vapor 39026 58819 -11871 47558 94506 35686 47558 47558 126365 K -21.4 N- 21.4 K- 21.6 K- 20.6 K- 22.1 12456 Bx. 17. 2 Bx. 24. 4 Bx. 31.4 Bx. 39.8 Bx. 56.8 5290 133532 11404 14688 7171 7154 7171 Sq. Ft. 454125 320593 226087 190401 142843 95286 138821 94506 35686 47558 47558 Lbs, Beets per hour 243760 SCOTTSBLUFF Flash to o Vapor 11.86 15.35 7.01 3.20 244.4° 13.31 38.87 23.52 16.51 13.31 228.9 213.6 196.9 176.6 133.4 51.03 Z- .40 Z- .53 Z- . 80 Z-1.55 Z-8.6 .30 50.73 10839 11620 9618 9618 9618 Sq. Ft. 181.36 229.5 130.64 214.5 91.77 198 68.25 178. 51.74 138. 38.43 Bx. 14.1 Bx. 19.6 v Bx. 27.9 Bx. 37.5 + Bx. 49.5 Bx. 66.6 51.03 38.87 23.52 16.51 13.31 Tons Beets per hour 126.21 SCOTTSBLUFF Flash to o Vapor 29937 38746 17695 8077 33597 98116 59369 41675 33597 K- 20.3 K- 20.7 K- 20.4 K- 20.3 K- 20.2 128810 Bx, 16. 8 Bx. 23.8 Bx. 32. 7 Bx. 43.5 Bx. 58.0 757 10839 11620 9618 9618 9618 Sq. Ft. 128053 457789 C-757 C-562 231646 C-391 C-230 172277 130602 C-90 329761 97005 128810 98116 59369 41675 33597 -14- Lbs. Beets per hour 252420 LONGMONT-SCOTTSBLUFF Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227 BILLINGS Flash to o Vapor 10.78 25.65 3 3.90 247.3° A 15,75 45.30 19.65 15.75 15.75 229.8 215.6 198.3 177. 1 121.0 58.66 Z- .38 Z- o 51 Z-.76 Z 1.30 Z-6,8 2.58 56.08 11122 19002 9298 8682 6460 Sq. Ft. 193.31 230.3 137.23 216.1 91.93 199. 72.28 179. 56.53 125 40.78 Bx. 13.3 Bx. 18.7 & Bx. 27.5 Bx.35.5 Bx.45.4 Bx. 62.9 58.66 45.30 19.65 15.75 15.75 Tons Beets per hour 145.67 BILLINGS Flash: to O Vapor 31406 74729 11362 45886 131977 57248 45886 45886 K- 19.1 K-18.9 K-17.9 K- 18.3 K- 18.1 170900 Bx. 16.0 Bx.23.3 Bx.31.7 Bx. 40.4 Bx. 54. 2 7517 163383 11122 19002 9298 8682 6460 Sq.Ft. 563189 C-856 399806 C-497 267829 C-375 210581 C-270 164695 C-13Z 118808 170900 131977 57248 45886 45886 Lbs. Beets per hour 291340 + -15- BILLINGS Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pklh0227

How much tons can the 6 row lifter loader can handle in a minute?

jxbx0227

jxbx0227_p13, jxbx0227_p14, jxbx0227_p15, jxbx0227_p16, jxbx0227_p17, jxbx0227_p18, jxbx0227_p19

3 Tons/Minute, 3 Tons, 3 tons/minute

EQUIPMENT TO RAISE 800 ACRES OF BEETS New Cost 3 - 4030 J.D. Tractors - $46,500 3 - 4 Bottom Plows - 7,800 2 - 14' Disks - 3,800 2 - Packer Mulchers - 2,400 2 - 12 Row Cultivators - 4,000 1 - 12 Row Beet Planter - 5,000 1 - 6 Row Top Saver - 7,500 2 - 3 Row Lifter Loaders - 22,000 3 - Trucks - 18' Box + Tag Axle - 24,000 1 - Broadcast Boom Sprayer - 1,000 NEW MAIN EQUIPMENT ONLY = $124,000 Misc. Hand Tools - Welder - Irrigat. - Cult. Tools - 2,000 $126,000 TO HANDLE 800 ACRES Hire or Lease 3 More Trucks at Harvest Possibly Lease 1 Tractor for 30 Days OR If you have 800 acres beets custom farmed - 800 acres X $230/acre = $184,000 EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS 1 - 6 Row Top Saver Can Top 40 Acres/Day 2 - 3 Row Lifter Loaders Can Lift 40 Acres/Day 6 Row Top Saver - $ 7,500 3 Row Lifter Loader - $11,000 6 Row Lifter Loader - $15,000 (3 Tons/Minute) 4030 J.D. Tractor - $15,500 4 Bottom Plow . - $ 2,600 14' Disk - $ 1,900 12 Row Beet Planter - $ 2,000 - 6 Row Cultivator + Tools - $ 3,000 Packer Mulcher 15' - $ 1,200 2 1/2 Ton Tag Axle Truck - $12,000 With Box and Hoist Source: Great Western Sugar Company TO: Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy August 22, 1973 Distribution List - J. Krentler G. Bogden R. Mally T. Army D. Dinkel R. Perkins R. Fisher R. Fertig D. Quinn C. lianing G. Gibson J. Van Wijk B. Phillips J. Gray M. Rebhan Dist. Gen. Mgrs. Each Factory Acctg. Office Dist. Agric. Mgrs. Asst. Dist. Agric. Mgrs. Dist. Acctg. Mgrs. Factory Agric. Mgrs. FROM: M. E. Rebhan SUBJECT: Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy (Supplement to General Credit Policy 4/25/72 Page #2, Item E) Attached is a formalized version of the generally unwritten policy that we have been operating under for several years. This policy has been approved at the appropriate management level and although there is no great need for it at this point in time it should be filed along with your General Credit Policy File referred to above. If you have any questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact John Gray or me. M. Roban MER:jb 3 attachments ASS Source: https:/www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 GROWER LOAN SPONSORSHIP POLICY General The program of Grower Loan Sponsorship is to promote beet acreage increase in Great Western Sugar and Northern Ohio Suger territories and to assist our growers in obtaining financial assistance on sugar beet crops when the grower's banking connections will not or cannot handle normal financing However, it is not the intent nor the desire of the Company to subsidize high risk growers or to compete with our local bankers in beet crop financing. The overall size of the Sponsorship Program (in dollars) as well as deviations, if any, from policy shall be determined annually by the V.P. Operations and the V.P. Finance. Unwillingness or inability of the grower's bank to handle normal financing may be due to (1) bank at legal limit for that grower and unable to interest a participating bank, (2) bank short of lendable funds, (3) bank unwilling for personal reasons to vork with the grower. Under the three foregoing categories the Company will merely assist the grower in finding normal financing at an alternative bank. In the grey area between normal and high risk financing, it may be necessary for the Company to offer a bank some inducement or sponsorship as described more fully in following paragraphs. Bank Loan Sponsorship Company sponsorship of an operating bank loan should not exceed 75% guaranty to the bank on any loss the bank might incur on such loan. A loss is recognized when the grower has liquidated all of his assets in settlement of business debts and has discontinued growing beets. If local banks have no problem under the three categories in Paragraph No. 3 above and are not agreeable to a 75% guaranty, there is every indication that the loan is too "high risk" for further consideration. Company sponsored loans, as indicated in the above paragraph, will cover only operating expenses related to a sugar beet crop. In unusual cases only, we will consider sponscring a beet equipment lcan guaranty covered by security agreement. Direct Loan Sponsorship If a financing bank cannot be provided with or without a 75% guaranty and the grower is not a definite "high risk", the V.P. of Finance may consider sponsorship through a direct factory accounts receivable loan. Such a loan would be subject to a First Mortgage Security Agreement and interest at First Naticnal City, N.Y.C. prime plus 1 1/2% on closing date and with due regard to local state interest rate maximums. Source: :ttps://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 Page 2. Grower Loan Sponsorship Policy Procedures A request for grower assistance shall originate in the Agricultural Department on our form entitled "Request to V.P. .Finance for Grower Financial- Assistance". The request and related support documents are to be forwarded progressively to the District Accounting Manager, District General Manager and V.P. Operations for review and concurrence in recommendation. It is the responsibility of the V.P. of Finance to approve or reject the request. If the request is approved, the V.P. of Finance will co-ordinate financing efforts supplying all prior signers of the document with progress reports. MER 8/22/73 Source: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227 GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY REQUEST TO V.P. FINANCE FOR GROWER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Grower Phone ress Location of farm (receiving station) Bank (current or previous) Phone Bank/contact Number of acres if this request is filled If request is not filled Agriculturalist: (originator of this request) (name, address and phone) Reason for request (why not bankable) (Attach copy of balance sheet and operating statement. Also machinery list if any under this request.) Amount required under this request: Operating $ Equipment $ We recommend that Great Western Sugar Company provide finances or financial backing for this grower up to the amount specified and for the purposes listed. Dist.Acct.Mgr. Date Dist.Genl.Mgr. Date V.P.Operations Date Instructions: 1. Originated by Agriculturist, 4. Forward to V.P. Finance, 2. Review and recommendation by 5. V.P. Finance to instruct Dist. Acct.Mg District Personnel, with carbons to all concerned. 3. viver GreatWee Sungar Company GREAT WESTERN SUGAR FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM Letter of Understanding Great Western Sugar Company is initiating and coordinating a "Great Western Sugar Fellowship Program. " The purpose of this program is to improvise, coordinate and place into effect a system of expanding and improving farm management techno- logy. In this connection, Great Western Sugar Company will cooperate with Colorado State University, other state universities, progressive sugarbeet growers, and graduates to provide an opportunity for these graduates to enter into or share in farm management positions. Col. To effectuate this program, the below signed graduate of Pennsylvania State Uni- versity, the grower and Great Western Sugar Company have entered into this Letter of Understanding to set forth the agreement reached between the below signed parties to this Letter, of Understanding. The graduate will be employed by and work with the below signed grower at the grower's farm or farms. The grower will pay the graduate $450 per month and will employ the graduate for the period of this agreement, which will extend for a duration of two (2) years from the date hereof. The aim of this relationship will be to develop a viable partnership and/or an expansion and sharing of opportunities in farming operations. Great Western Sugar Company will cooperate with the grower and furnish information which will help improve his farm management techniques with the intent that he will be able to expand his acreage and develop a more productive farm.operation. The grower agrees to plant at least 25 percent of irrigated land under his control in sugarbeets. Great Western Sugar Company agrees to give to the graduate, for the period of time he is employed by the grower under this, agreement, the sum of $250 per month. This money will be the graduate's and the graduate will be responsible for applicable taxes on this amount. The Sugar Company is giving this money to the graduate and the graduate in no sense will be employed by the Sugar Company and will owe no legal obligation to the Sugar Company. It is understood that any of the parties hereto may cancel this agreement at any time, and the obligations under this agreement will cease as of the time of cancellation. In the event the graduate is the party who desires to cancel the agreement, the Sugar Company will use its best efforts to attempt to find another graduate to participate in this agreement. By their below placed signatures, the three parties agree to the broad outlines contained in this Letter of Understanding and will conduct themselves accordingly. GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY By (Graduate) (Grower) Source: https:l//www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jxbx0227