Prof. S. V. Lebedev

Opportunities

and

Prospects

of the Sugar Industry

in the Minusinsk District

Tomsk

1930

Prof. S. V. Lebedev.

Opportunities and Prospects of the Sugar Industry in the Minusinsk District

In the history of the emergence and development of the idea of organizing a sugar industry in Siberia, the present Minusinsk District—more precisely, the former Minusinsk Territory—played an extraordinarily large role, as an obvious argument in favor of the correctness of the indicated idea.

The reason for this lies in the fact that in the 1890s, here, 60 versts from the town of Minusinsk, there arose, and then for about 10 years operated, a sugar factory belonging to Gusev.

The existence of this factory clearly demonstrated the possibility of industrial beet-growing in the Minusinsk Territory. In connection with this, in 1915 there was advanced, and subsequently practically carried out, the idea of a broad survey of Siberia with the aim of identifying Siberian regions suitable for the cultivation of sugar beet on an industrial scale. As a result, in the following years, in the Pri-Altai regions work was widely developed to organize experimental beet-growing there; in connection with this, at the present time, 130 versts south of the town of Barnaul, at the Aleiskaya station of the Altai Railway, work has already begun on the construction of a sugar factory there.

Despite all this, the Minusinsk District as a whole remains, for the time being, completely unexamined and, up to the present, almost untouched with respect to determining its suitability for the sugar industry.

The reasons for this, at first glance, strange situation lie in the conditions under which the Gusev sugar factory that once existed here arose, and also in those entirely accidental circumstances by which the question of the site for the first sugar factory in Siberia, then being contemplated by the government, was decided.

As is known, in 1884 the Government itself called upon private initiative and private capital to establish sugar factories in Siberia, while the pioneers of this cause were offered large premiums in the form of a remission, for a certain period—at first in full and then in part—of the excise duty on the sugar produced by such factories. However, the possibility of obtaining these premiums was linked to the obligation to build the factories eligible for premiums by a definite date.

An extremely poor knowledge of Siberia, its harsh and distinctive climate, its sparsely populated character, and its remoteness by thousands of versts from the centers of the sugar industry—all this caused the absence of an appropriate response from the industrial circles of European Russia. The businessmen and capitalists of Siberia itself, having not the slightest idea of the new and unknown here, and moreover complex chemical—

¹ “On Measures for the Development of the Sugar Industry in Siberia”—S. V. Lebedev. 1921, Tomsk, 6 pp.

…in sugar-beet production, quite naturally, were deaf to the appeals of the Government. Under such conditions there remained only one possibility—a fortunate chance which, as it were, fate wished to bestow upon Siberia; but, as it turned out later, it was limited to one fleeting smile, as a result of which there arose in Siberia at that time not the vital plant of the normal type and scale on which the government of 1884 had counted, but only a kind of hint of it in the form of the Minusinsk Gusev Sugar Factory, which, before it had time to appear, had already begun to wither and perish. Nevertheless, the significance of the Gusev factory for the process of the birth and development of the idea of a Siberian sugar industry is very great. It became the initial point of support for all subsequent constructions in Siberia in this respect.

However, the significance and value of the Minusinsk sugar factory as an argument for the possibility of a sugar industry both in Siberia and in the Minusinsk District itself may be very different, depending on the circumstances of its origin. If this factory was the consequence of some capricious will, and moreover of a person ignorant and accidental in this field, his whim or his desire, on the off chance, to try to seize large bonuses, or, finally, his wish to speculate in organizing a new and unusual enterprise for the region, then, obviously, such an occurrence in the industrial life of Siberia can inspire very little interest and still less confidence in the results of the enterprise’s activity obtained in this way.

The fact of the emergence of the Gusev factory acquires an entirely different meaning if the idea of establishing it, the choice of its site in the Minusinsk region, and in general the entire plan for organizing this Siberian sugar enterprise proceeded from a serious desire to begin and then subsequently develop this undertaking, relying at the same time on the possession of sufficient knowledge, material means, and technical forces, in connection with the personal acquaintance of the organizers of the enterprise with the conditions of Siberia in general and of the Minusinsk region in particular.

In the literary primary source on the Gusev sugar factory, namely in A. V. Adrianov’s Essays on the Minusinsk Region¹, the author of this work, who through his service in the excise administration came into direct contact with this factory and personally knew both the owner Gusev himself and the condition of his enterprise, writes in his work, on pp. 48–49, the following passage, quoted below.

“The beet-sugar factory of Gusev on the river Oe arose in 1889. If one does not count the unsuccessful attempt in Barnaul², this was the first and only sugar factory in Siberia, but it too existed for only a short time, ceasing production in 1898. During the 9 years of its operation the factory produced in all 123,608 poods of granulated sugar, or about 15.5 thousand poods per year on average; of this quantity, 29,552 poods were processed into refined sugar. Prices for sugar remained fairly high—7 rubles 20 kopecks per pood of granulated sugar and 8 rubles 20 kopecks per pood of refined sugar. Both in terms of the scale of production and the high prices of the product, the factory had no appreciable significance in the economic life of the region and shared the fate

all the industrial enterprises that arose in the region in the eighteenth century. A production enterprise begun by a minor placer-mining official who had become wealthy was organized extremely ineptly and lacked the necessary capital, which was the immediate cause of its demise. Meanwhile, good beet harvests, a steady and assured market, proximity to a navigable river, and so forth, represented favorable conditions for the existence of sugar production in the region.”

From the text cited, one might conclude that the emergence of the Minusinsk factory was something accidental, some unexpected response from a remote Siberian corner to the government’s appeal, where an enterprising gold prospector, deeply believing in his inalienable good fortune—in the so-called “luck”—without any knowledge of the business, without sufficient resources, decided to try his hand at an entirely new undertaking, unknown both to him personally and to Siberia, and to seize upon those golden mountains which the government promised to the “enterprising” founders of future Siberian sugar factories. However, such an interpretation meets with objection already in Adrianov’s subsequent account itself, where, by the time the sugar factory was established, Gusev proves to be a fairly substantial industrialist, the owner of a glassworks and a grist mill. In addition, it seems very doubtful that a native Siberian, contrary to his inherent caution, would risk entering upon an undertaking unknown to him, requiring the expenditure of large funds which could find reliable application in a whole series of enterprises well known and customary for the region.

All this allows one to think that, in the process by which the Minusinsk factory came into being, Gusev was not the initial, but the final link in that long chain of separate aspirations of various persons and their ventures, whose first beginnings must be sought not in Siberia, but, of course, in European Russia—possibly in Petersburg, whence the government appeal of 1884 originated—or else in the south, in the beet-sugar districts, where this appeal could find a natural response among sugar manufacturers and beet growers.

All these considerations had long compelled the writer of these lines to seek those threads that might connect the beet-sugar world of European Russia with the Minusinsk factory. The only person who came to Minusinsk from that world was the first director of Gusev’s sugar factory—engineer Isaev; but the brevity of his stay, during only one first campaign, also indicates a very weak connection between him and Gusev and Siberia.

All the rest of the personnel of the subsequent years of operation of the Minusinsk factory, in this respect, as later accretions, no longer presented any interest in the question under consideration.

In searching for persons involved in the initial organization of the Minusinsk sugar factory, the author of this article, during his personal visit to that factory as early as 1904, and also to the city of Minusinsk, happened to hear mention of the surname Danilov, a major Siberian gold industrialist at that time and the owner or lessee of a distillery in the Minusinsk region. However, it was not possible to establish his relation to the organization of the sugar factory. Danilov and Gusev had long since died, and there were no other persons who could answer the question of interest. Only much later, in 1924 and the following years, did the author of the present article succeed in establishing the true organizers of the Minusinsk sugar factory. This was helped by a meeting

in Moscow with S. N. Gordenin, a well-known figure in the sugar industry. The latter, as it turned out, had also been the initiator of the practical implementation of the first steps toward the establishment of the Minusinsk sugar factory. The interesting report received from S. N. Gordenin was subsequently confirmed and supplemented by certain further information about the above-mentioned gold industrialist Danilov. This was obtained already in Siberia from her old industrial figures, well acquainted with the history of the region’s industrial life¹.

The new information from the initial pages of the history of the sugar business in Siberia yields what is set forth below.

In the eighties of the nineteenth century, S. N. Gordenin, who was connected with the interests of agriculture, returned from abroad, where he had gone to study agriculture in general and beet-sugar farming in particular. In connection with this, thanks to his acquaintance in Petersburg with the Siberian gold industrialist Danilov, Gordenin became interested in the governmental decree of 1884 concerning the establishment in Siberia of pioneer sugar factories. As a result, Gordenin and Danilov, also inviting the director of the Isayev sugar factory, arranged a trip to Siberia in order personally to ascertain the possibilities there for establishing sugar factories. Having traveled from Tyumen on horseback through the Omsk and Altai districts, they arrived in the Minusinsk region, where there were mines, a distillery, and other enterprises belonging to Danilov. The Minusinsk region was recognized by Gordenin and Isayev as an area suitable for establishing a sugar factory there. In connection with this, a suitable site was also selected there for the sugar factory and its beet-sugar farming. Then a petition was initiated for the allotment of land for this purpose. But when, in this respect, the matter had already been sufficiently prepared, S. N. Gordenin was compelled, by force of personal circumstances, to abandon the idea of Siberia; in connection with this, Danilov gave up his intention, and the whole affair, which had already begun to be prepared for realization, passed into the hands of Gusev, who was married to a relative of Danilov. Thus the idea of organizing the Siberian factory fell into accidental hands, to a person completely unfamiliar with this business, while at the same time possessing insufficient means for it.

The engineer Isayev, invited by Gusev as builder and director of the sugar factory, after the very first year of the factory’s work, fell out with the owner of the factory and left Siberia.

Gusev’s death, which followed soon after this, finally undermined the undertaking that had been begun. It quickly came to a standstill, and in 1899 the factory was closed. Later, because of promissory-note debts, it passed into the hands of the Pasheinykh, which gave the factory nothing.

Finally, during the period of the revolution this factory was partly sold off and partly perished in a fire.

In view of the above new data concerning the circumstances of the emergence of the Minusinsk factory, the latter acquires an entirely different meaning with respect to its significance for assessing the possibilities of the sugar industry in Siberia. It is obvious that this is no longer a negative indicator. The economic ruin of this enterprise—

enterprise in the present case has no significance, since it is the consequence of entirely accidental attendant circumstances.

The results of beet sowing at the Minusinsk plant for 1890–99, despite their apparent lack of success, prove to be the best evidence of the possibility here of undoubted success for industrial beet cultivation on a small scale. This position is clearly demonstrated by the data on the quality of the beets and on their sowings at the Gusev plant during 1892–98, given below in Tables I and II.

TABLE I.

Quality of the beets of the Ivanovo sugar factory for 1892–1899.

Production periods	Normal juice — Brix	Normal juice — Sugar	Normal juice — Non-sugar	Normal juice — Purity	Technical merit
1892–3	16.19	13.10	3.09	80.09	10.59
1893–4	16.3	14.03	2.27	86.07	12.07
1894–5	16.68	14.00	2.68	84.0	11.76
1895–6	15.4	12.70	2.70	82.46	10.47
1896–7	14.4	11.84	2.56	82.22	9.72
1897–8	15.24	12.65	2.59	83.0	10.50
1898–9	17.6	15.13	2.47	85.97	13.01
Average	16.0	13.35	2.65	82.4	11.03

In assessing the quality of the sugar beet obtained from the sowings of the Gusev sugar factory, and taking into account that at that time it was, in general, considerably lower than at present, it must be acknowledged as quite good.

The data of Table II, when the successive changes in yield by year on the factory and peasant sowings of the Gusev factory are compared, lead to a definite conclusion as to what the Minusinsk region can yield with respect to the harvest of sugar beet.

The successive changes in beet yield on the factory plantations clearly depict the picture of the gradual collapse of the entire enterprise, when the harvests, from 178 berkovets per desyatina in 1892 under Engineer Isaev, began to fall rapidly, reaching after Gusev’s death, in 1898, 42.5 berk. At the same time, on the peasants’ sowings, left to themselves, without any supervision or direction, without improvements, over the same period the beet yield increased from 33.5 to 87.7 berkovets per desyatina.

This speaks in favor of the fact that sugar-beet sowings in the Minusinsk region can, under normal conditions, be quite satisfactory in terms of yield as well.

TABLE II.

Periods	Sown land, desyatinas — factory	Sown land, desyatinas — planters’	Sown land, desyatinas — total	Beets received at the factory — factory	Beets received at the factory — planters’	Beets received at the factory — total	Yield per desyatina — factory, berkóvets of 10 poods	Yield per desyatina — planters’, berkóvets of 10 poods	Sugar obtained — total, poods	Sugar obtained — from 10 poods of beet, pounds
1892–3	192	108	300	343,522	39,199	397,723	178	33.5	20,206	21.2
1893–4	214	56	270	201,750	111,167	212,917	94.5	21	17,093	32.1
1894–5	320	45	365	276,576	14,513	321,089	86.5	99	28,411	33.1
1895–6	215	28	243	182,168	23,148	205,317	84.5	31	15,127	29.5
1896–7	300	70	370	196,187	49,863	246,050	65.5	71	19,279	31.2
1897–8	171	129	300	92,448	98,565	191,513	54.5	76.5	17,167	35.0
1898–9	70	44	114	29,853	38,827	68,602	42.5	87.7	6,000	35.1
Average	226	78	304	188,098	131,184	232,184	86.5	67	17,578	30.2

There is no doubt that Gordenin, Isaev, and Danilov became sufficiently well acquainted with the Minusinsk region when they decided to set up a sugar factory here and selected a suitable site for it. However, no traces remain in this respect.

The later surveys, which spread widely throughout Siberia and were concentrated in the Cis-Altai districts, left the Minusinsk region almost untouched.

Under such conditions, in approaching at the present time an assessment of the Minusinsk District from the standpoint of the possibility of a sugar industry here, the case of the Gusev factory must be regarded only as evidence that in the said district there are localities where sugar beet can be cultivated quite successfully on a small industrial scale.

Given the extremely variable and capricious relief of the district and the patchiness of its climate and soils, the question naturally arises as to the extent to which the conditions of beet growing at the Gusev factory may be extended generally to the Minusinsk District. On the other hand, a modern sugar factory, with its foundation—the beet-growing enterprise—besides a known climate and soil, is also closely connected with certain agricultural, industrial, and economic conditions of the region and with the degree of its settlement.

In view of this, the question posed here concerning the possibilities and prospects of the sugar industry in the Minusinsk District requires special elucidation, which is the task of the present work.

II.

The Minusinsk District lies between 51°45′ and 55°15′ north latitude and between 62°15′ and 68°30′ east longitude (from Pulkovo). It is situated in the eastern part of the Minusinsk Basin, formed by the Eastern and Western Sayans, which border it from the north, east, and south, where the Sailyuget Range appears with its branches and spurs. On the western side, the said basin is bounded by the Abakan Range, the Kuznetsk Alatau, and partly by mountain groups of the Altai. All these mountain systems surround the Minusinsk Basin in an unbroken ring, broken only in the north.

Cutting deep into the basin with their numerous branches and spurs, the surrounding mountain systems form, in the south, east, and partly in the north of the Minusinsk Basin, mountainous regions with a very complex dissected relief. In the southern, southwestern, and southeastern parts of the basin, the latter is represented by long ridges of mountain chains, forming an extraordinarily complex and tangled labyrinth. Throughout their extent the mountain chains are covered with forest, predominantly coniferous. The most elevated parts of the ranges rise beyond the limits of tree vegetation, forming goltsy. Many peaks of the Sayans are covered with perpetual snow.

On passing toward the middle of the Minusinsk Basin, the elevations decrease, dropping to 250–350 meters above sea level. In general, the southern and eastern territory is higher than the western and northern.

Geologically, the ranges of the basin are ancient mountains of Decembric age, composed of greatly altered sedimentary rocks, penetrated by various eruptive—

...masses. The entire middle part is formed by Devonian deposits, which represent an alternation of clayey limestones with red, gray, and partly greenish sandstones. The area of the Devonian deposits is a flat elevation with a steppe character, furrowed by rows of low irregularities with soft, rounded outlines, and with an overall rusty-reddish coloration; the summits of all hills of Devonian age are exposed, and wherever rocks that are more difficult to disintegrate protrude, these elevations diversify the landscape with their fanciful forms. Sparse irrigation and the almost complete absence of woody vegetation outside the riverbanks complete the overall picture of the central expanses.

Almost throughout its entire territory the Minusinsk Basin is irrigated by the Yenisei, flowing from south to north, with its numerous and powerful tributaries. The right-hand tributaries are considerably more numerous; they are more powerful and more significant in their length and in the number of small rivers flowing into them. Among the right-hand tributaries of the Yenisei, the rivers Us, Oya, Syda, and Tuba stand out by their size, the latter being formed from large mountain rivers: the Amyl, Kazyr, and Kizir. The left side of the Yenisei is comparatively poorly irrigated by its tributaries. The largest of them is the Abakan River, with a whole series of small rivers flowing into it from both sides. In the south, among the left tributaries of the Yenisei, the Kentigir River may also be noted.

Having received the Abakan and Tuba rivers, the Yenisei becomes more powerful, reaching on average 600 meters in width. After the inflow of the left tributary—the Syda—with the approach to the mountain elevations, the plain of the Yenisei begins noticeably to diminish, to narrow, and the tributaries gradually disappear. Passing the confluence of the Syda River, the Yenisei, having united its waters into one powerful channel cutting into the mountain ranges that bound the Minusinsk Basin in the north, leaves its limits.

The brief description of the Minusinsk Basin given above is necessary in order to make clear certain distinctive features and particularities of the natural-historical, climatic, soil, and other conditions of the Minusinsk District that interests us, which, together with the Khakass District, occupies the territory of the above-named basin.

The Khakass District, with a total area of 54,472 sq. km., occupies the western part of the basin, lying along the left banks of the Yenisei and Abakan rivers. The entire eastern part is occupied by the Minusinsk District, with an area of 77,139 sq. km. It borders in the south and southeast on the Uryankhai Territory, or the Tannu-Tuva Republic, and in the northwest on the Krasnoyarsk and Kansk districts.

The Minusinsk District, possessing an extremely complex relief, includes the most varied elevations, beginning with the level of eternal mountain snows and ending with the levels of Siberian agricultural expanses. This makes it clear that, in questions concerning the possibilities of the sugar industry, the Minusinsk District can interest us only in that part of it which is occupied by agriculture or to which agriculture can extend. Accordingly, in the further exposition we shall understand the Minusinsk District in this specified sense. The latter may be divided into the following vertical zones: foothills—up to 500–600 meters, mountains—up to 1,500 m, and high mountains (above 1,500 m). From the agricultural point of view, this division into zones appears in the following form: a) the steppe zone and the transition to forest-steppe, b) forest-steppe, c) subtaiga and taiga, and d) forest dachas.

To characterize the elevations of the steppe districts of the Minusinsk okrug, the following data may be cited: the plain parts of the near-Abakan steppes lie at a level of 300–315 meters absolute elevation; the city of Minusinsk lies at a level of 247.4 m; the Minusinsk Experimental Field—225 m. As one moves toward the southwestern corner of the steppes, upward along the Abakan River, the elevations increase: the village of Beyskoye—447 m, the village of Tabatskoye—450 m; to the east of the Yenisei River the steppe also rises: the village of Gorodok—252 m, the village of Kuragino—282 m, the village of Bugurtak—293 m. The watershed heights north of the Tuba River fluctuate within the range of 400–450 m, while the watershed south of the Tuba has an elevation of 350–400 meters.

The Minusinsk steppe may be defined as a foothill region with an elevation level between 280 and 320 meters absolute elevation. Thus, in terms of absolute elevation, the forest-steppe differs comparatively little from the adjoining steppe districts; however, the difference in climatic conditions creates a somewhat different landscape relative to the steppe zone. The relief of the forest-steppe is undulating. It is calmer in the southern part from the Tuba and more hilly in the northern. Outcrops of bedrock are comparatively rare and are found only on the summits of elevations. The rivers here flow in broad, well-developed valleys. As a feature of the relief characteristic of the northern part of the forest-steppe (north of the parallel of the village of Kuragino), one should note the development of closed basins, the bottoms of which are occupied by damp, in places marshy lowlands, and sometimes also lakes. The general character of the terrain of the Minusinsk forest-steppe, when viewed from elevated points, recalls a picture of a disorderly agitated and then frozen water surface. There are no individual sharply prominent points here.

The elevation of the Minusinsk forest-steppe may generally be characterized by the following data: the village of Malaya Inya—320 m, Grigoryevka—344 m, Verkhniy-Kuzhebar—315 m. From the data cited it is evident that, as one approaches the foothills of the Sayan, the absolute elevation of the forest-steppe increases.

The expanded part of the valley of the Usa River and of some of its tributaries should also be assigned to the forest-steppe. This valley lies in the southern mountainous part of the okrug, occupied by the mountainous Usinsk district. It is separated from the general area of the okrug’s forest-steppe by a broad mountainous expanse formed by the Oysky Range, extending from the Sayan from east to west, and by the Taskyl Range following it, running in the same direction. The complete isolation, inaccessibility, and small area of the valley of the Usa River—situated, moreover, at an elevation of 690 meters and more above sea level—make it, in the present case, entirely uninteresting.

Given the extremely slight degree of study of the Minusinsk okrug, the delineation of its individual zones, shown below on the appended map, is not the result of any special investigations in this direction. This division is only an approximate outline, but one that emerged as a result of general surveys and works devoted to the study of the Yenisei region in general—works, for example, by A. Ya. Tugarinov—and as a result of a more detailed consideration and assessment of particular localities and individual districts of the okrug, which the agronomic personnel directing the agricultural life of the Minusinsk region constantly have to undertake in their everyday work. In this connection, the zone of the steppes of the Minusinsk okrug is defined on the appended map as follows.

The steppe zone begins in the northern part of the district, somewhat away from the right bank of the Yenisei, north of the Syda River. From here the eastern boundary of the steppe zone runs in a broken line to the southeast toward the villages of N. Pokrovka, Dyatlovskoe, and Kuraginskoe. Near the latter it reaches the Tuba River. Here, shifting somewhat to the west of the village of Kochergino, the boundary proceeds in a southwesterly direction toward the village of Lugovskoe, where, descending somewhat farther south, it reaches the right bank of the Yenisei River. Crossing to its left bank and leaving a narrow coastal strip of forest-steppe, the boundary runs southwest to the village of Oznachennaya. From there the boundary of the steppes, following the edge of the foothill ridges of the western Sayans, reaches the intersection of the Abakan River with the district boundary. From here the boundary of the steppe belt abruptly changes its direction northward and, ascending along the right bank of the Abakan River, goes to the place where it joins the Yenisei; here, crossing to the left bank of the Yenisei and heading north, first along its bank and then somewhat away from it, the steppe boundary continues in the direction of the river channel, leaving a narrow coastal forest-steppe strip 4–10 kilometers wide. Farther on, moving northward, the steppe boundary approaches the extreme northern end of the steppe-zone belt, located, as indicated earlier, somewhat north of the Syda River.

At its widest point the steppe zone extends from west to east for about 70 km, narrowing in both its southern and northern parts. In general, the steppe zone runs in the direction of the left banks of the Abakan and the Yenisei, lying along both in the form of something like a segment with the corresponding bend.

The forest-steppe zone is arranged in the same kind of segment, enclosing the steppe area of Minusinsk District on the eastern side and separating it by a narrow coastal strip from the Yenisei River, beginning at the northern edge of the district and ending at the mouth of the Tuba River.

The forest-steppe belt, which in the middle reaches almost the same width as the steppe belt, narrows greatly in the south, turning between the Yenisei and the Abakan into a very narrow ribbon 5–10 km wide.

The entire forest-steppe zone of Minusinsk District is enclosed by an arc-shaped narrow belt of the subtaiga and taiga zone, which extends throughout the district from its extreme northern boundary to the place where the southern boundary of the district intersects the Abakan River. All the remaining space of the district is occupied by highlands. It is self-evident that the subtaiga and taiga zones are of no significance for agriculture.

III.

In considering Minusinsk District from the standpoint of the possibility of sugar-beet cultivation here, it would naturally be necessary to dwell in greater detail on temperature changes, as well as on the amount and distribution of precipitation in the forest-steppe and steppe belts of the district. However, given the negligible number of meteorological stations in the district, the short duration of their existence, and the episodic nature of their work, in this respect one has to deal with extremely limited and wholly insufficient material. The characteristic meteorological points are the stations: Balakhtino, Minusinsk, the village of Kuragino, V. Suetuk, the village of Ermakovskoe, Gusevsky sugar factory, and Nizhnyaya Bulanka. In this connection, in order to make it possible to present more clearly the significance of the meteorological data cited for Minusinsk District,

data with respect to the cultivation of sugar beet; at the same time, below are given the corresponding data for typical points of individual beet-growing districts in the European part of the USSR. Such points may be taken as: Zemetchino, Tambov gubernia, the city of Tula, Voronezh, Kharkov, Kiev, and Samara. This comparison should also be supplemented with the corresponding data for Barnaul, which is a characteristic point of the Altai districts that at present have already been recognized as unconditionally suitable for the industrial cultivation of sugar beet under the distinctive Siberian conditions.

The climate of the Minusinsk District, owing to the diversity of the structure of its surface, proves to be very uneven for the various districts and localities of the okrug. For a characterization of the climatic conditions of the Minusinsk District in general, and especially of the regions of its mountain landscape, the available network of meteorological stations and points is extremely sparse and therefore far from sufficient. The geographer Tugarinov, on the basis of a number of his own and others’ observations, equates the high-mountain parts of the mountain regions, in their temperature regime, with localities of the far north during the summer months; however, the annual mean will prove to be considerably higher here. He also notes for this zone great humidity of the air, heavy cloudiness of the upper belt, strong downpours accompanied by thunderstorms, abundant dews, and dense fogs.

For the steppe zone the following data are characteristic: the annual means for the steppe stations will be: for Ust-Kala (Beysky District) 1.40, Minusinsk 0.6, Balandino (Abakan District) 0.4. The summer mean for Minusinsk is 18.9, for Kala 18.1° and for Balandino—17.5°. July is warmest, with a maximum summer mean for Minusinsk of 20.7. The winter mean for Minusinsk is −18.1°, for Ust-Kala −15.4. The data on minimum temperatures are of interest. In this respect we have information only for Minusinsk. Absolute minima recorded here are −50.4 in December, −49.2 in January, for April −25.1°, for May −11.1°; even in July frosts of up to 2.4° occur; in August a fall below zero has also been observed, and only for July have no negative temperatures been recorded, although the temperature may fall to 2.9°.

All these figures show clearly to what dangers vegetation and agricultural crops are exposed here during their sprouting and first period of life.

The moment at which a mean temperature of 5° arrives, associated with the beginning of vegetation and the sowing of spring crops, falls for Minusinsk on April 26; in autumn the shift occurs again on October 3, i.e. the vegetation period is defined as 159 days. Somewhat farther north, for Balandino, the same period is calculated at 151 days (from May 1 to Oct. 30).

The mean of the vegetation period for the steppe zone is +14.5. The forest-steppe belt lies in the region of annual means of 0.8; the mean of the vegetation period here is 14.8. The vegetation period begins on April 26 and ends on October 2, i.e. its duration is 158 days. For the Usinsk forest-steppe the annual mean is determined at −4.5°; in this respect it approaches localities lying beyond the limits of the agricultural zone, i.e. approximately north of 59.5° N latitude. Nevertheless, the mean of the vegetation period here is above 12.0, which guarantees the possibility of agriculture. The unusually low annual mean is explained by the low temperatures of winter, which has −27.2°, while spring is only −2.6°, i.e. in this region winter is colder than in Turu-

than in Abakansk (−26.2), while the spring is colder than in Yeniseysk. The warmest month is July (17.1). All these extremes depend on the district’s position in the mountains, at an elevation of 662 m above sea level. The growing season is measured at 139 days, beginning on May 7 and ending on September 23.

Precipitation. In the center of the Uryankhai basin, at the confluence of the B. and M. Yenisey, about 160 mm falls.

Stations located in the eastern half of Minusinsk District, at the foot of the mountains, already record a larger amount of precipitation, and in localities adjoining the mountain-taiga outskirts this amount rises to 500 mm. Farther into the Eastern Sayan, and especially in its watershed part, precipitation falls in still greater quantity.

Ol’khovka Station in the Kizyr system, over 10 months (March–December), showed more than 660 mm, while the temporary station of the geobotanical expedition of the former Resettlement Administration on the Oi Ridge, over one and a half months (July–mid-August) in 1913, recorded 432 mm.

In the steppe districts the amount of annual precipitation decreases considerably. Thus Kuragino, lying in the Tuba valley, in a narrow wedge by which the steppe extends upward along the valley of this river, has 367.2 mm, and Minusinsk 299 mm. But deviations from long-term averages are possible both upward and downward. For example, for Minusinsk 452 mm were recorded in 1903 (max.), and 179 mm in 1901 (min.). The monthly minima and maxima for Minusinsk are illustrated by the following table:

	May	June	July	August	September
Minimum	2.0	10.0	10.0	23.0	2.0
Maximum	20.5	26.6	37.2	48.7	17.5

Snow cover appears at Kuragino in the first third of November, and in the Minusinsk area in mid-November. By the end of December the depth of the cover at Minusinsk reaches 8 cm, and at the beginning of March it does not exceed 10 cm. Peripheral localities have a more substantial snow cover (Balandino—27 cm, Kuragino—30 cm maximum in the first third of March). By May 1 the snow has everywhere disappeared, and in the twenties of April in the open steppe. The breaking up of the Yenisey River begins earliest near the village of Oznachennaya; near the town of Minusinsk it occurs on average around April 27. The freezing of the river at Minusinsk also occurs on average on November 18. Thus, in Minusinsk the Yenisey remains free of ice cover for about 205 days. Subtracting from this the time of the spring ice drift and the autumn ice formation, we obtain a navigation period of 140–150 days. The Tuba opens earlier than the Yenisey—on average April 24—and freezes likewise several days later—around November 23. The Oya River and, in general, the smaller forest-steppe rivers open around mid-April and freeze around mid-November.

For the forest-steppe, the amount of annual precipitation is characterized by the following data. The Usinsk forest-steppe region yields 287 mm per year. North of the Tuba River, Saibar and Idra (the Idrinsky district) receive respectively 342 and 270.8 mm; south of the Tuba, the village of Zherlyk, lying near the boundary of the steppes, has 390.7 mm; farther come those approaching the mountains: Ermakovskoye 435.4, V. Suetuk 477.2, and N. Bulanka as much as 531.7 (20 years of observations). However, N. Bulanka lies at an elevation of 914 m.

above sea level, and V. Suetuk—480 m. Thus, an increase in the amount of precipitation in connection with altitude is observed. In individual years there are known excesses of the average annual amounts by 25 percent and more, just as decreases from the average by 27–30 percent are also observed. According to data from meteorological stations in the steppe and forest-steppe zones, snow cover in the Minusinsk District first appears in the taiga foothills—Ermakovskoe and V. Suetuk—which is observed in the second ten-day period of October; and at the end of the named month it is already recorded by all forest-steppe stations, reaching by that time 5 cm in the village of Ermakovskoe. From that time there is a steady increase in the snow cover, continuing until mid-February and in places until the end of February. From that time, in all the more southerly localities of the steppe and forest-steppe zone of the district, the snow cover begins to diminish, and by May 1 the snow has already disappeared everywhere. The greatest depth of snow at Ermakovskoe reaches 36 cm.

The prevailing wind in the steppes, as throughout the entire south of the district, is southwesterly; less often westerly and northwesterly winds occur. The quietest months are the winter months; winds are observed most often in summer.

Regarding cloudiness, it may be said that it is least in March in the south of the steppe expanses and in February in the northern part; autumn is comparatively overcast.

The comparisons indicated above are presented in Table III with respect to temperature and in Table V with respect to precipitation.

TABLE III.

Region	Place	III	IV	V	VI	VII	VIII	IX	X	XI	Annual mean
Minusinsk District	Balandino (Abakan region)	−10.5	0.8	9.9	16.4	20.0	17.5	9.3	0.3	−9.7	−0.1
Minusinsk District	Minusinsk (Minusinsk region)	−8.9	2.3	11.1	17.7	19.9	18.4	10.7	1.1	−8.8	1.0
Minusinsk District	Gusevsk. sugar factory (Ermakovsk. region)	−5.8	1.9	8.9	14.9	17.6	15.1	9.3	2.1	−6.0	1.7
European beet-sowing regions of the USSR	Zemyatchino (Tambov Gubernia)	−0.3	3.9	10.0	18.1	20.5	18.4	12.2	5.2	−2.3	4.4
European beet-sowing regions of the USSR	Tula	−4.3	4.2	12.2	18.0	13.3	17.3	10.9	5.2	−2.0	4.7
European beet-sowing regions of the USSR	Voronezh	−4.1	5.9	14.6	19.7	20.9	19.1	12.6	6.2	−1.8	5.8
European beet-sowing regions of the USSR	Kharkov	−2.3	7.1	15.3	19.1	21.2	19.8	14.5	7.4	0.3	6.8
European beet-sowing regions of the USSR	Kiev	−0.6	7.1	14.2	18.0	19.8	18.7	13.9	7.7	1.2	7.6
European beet-sowing regions of the USSR	Samara	−7.0	4.5	14.0	18.7	21.3	19.2	12.4	4.7	−2.7	4.1
	Barnaul	−9.9	1.3	12.2	18.0	20.0	18.0	11.1	1.1	−7.8	2.8

Speaking of temperature conditions, one must also note the frosts for the Minusinsk District. This is a phenomenon common to all Siberia, characteristic also of the districts near the Altai. According to the “chronicles” of the Nikolaevsk Main Observatory for the years 1900–1909, the spring frosts in Minusinsk fall in the period from April 18 to May 1 and, as an exception, on June 1, which occurred in 1906. The greatest absolute minimum for the period May–June, new style, reached \(-11.1^\circ\text{C}\), which was observed on May 2, 1909. The greatest absolute minimum for August–September 1909 reached \(-7.0^\circ\); the earliest frost for the city of Minusinsk during the same period, 1900–1909, was observed on September 16, with the temperature falling to \(-5.0^\circ\text{C}\).

It is not without interest to compare these data for Minusinsk with the corresponding data for Barnaul, which is given in Table IV (see p. 17).

The data on frosts for the Minusinsk District are provided for the city of Minusinsk. It should be expected that the danger of frosts for the more southern localities of the steppe and forest-steppe parts of the District is no less great, but owing to the absence of corresponding meteorological observations there is no possibility of providing exact numerical data on this question.

With respect to the quantity and distribution of atmospheric precipitation, the Minusinsk District is characterized by the data given by us in Table V. In order to reveal their significance more clearly, they are compared with the corresponding data of characteristic points of the old beet-sowing regions in the USSR, as well as of the newly forming sugar-beet region in Siberia—the Altai sugar region with its central meteorological point in Barnaul.

From Table V it is evident that, in the quantity and distribution of precipitation, the steppe and forest-steppe parts of the Minusinsk District are very heterogeneous. The smallest quantity of precipitation is received by the northern districts of the District, for example the Abakan District. In the direction toward the south, the amount of precipitation increases. It also increases when moving from west to east, with the transition from the western, comparatively low-lying steppe zones adjoining the Yenisei and Abakan rivers, to the more elevated territories lying to the east, southeast, and northeast of the District. In these two principal directions there is an increase of precipitation across the District, not counting local shifts that are the consequence of accidental changes in the topography of the locality. Speaking of the precipitation of the Minusinsk District, one cannot fail to note that, according to the data of the Minusinsk station, the total annual quantity of precipitation over the last 25 years has been increasing.

If this increase, taken by five-year periods, is not constant and the periods of increase are replaced by periods of subsequent decreases, nevertheless each decrease exceeds the preceding one. Such, at least, are the conclusions for the period 1886–1915. This phenomenon, as Shostakovich has already noted, proves to be common to all Eastern Siberia.

It is very probable that connected with this is the frequently observed alternation of very productive and noticeably unproductive periods for the same sufficiently extensive regions of Siberia.

Comparing the southern districts of the Minusinsk District with the Altai districts (Barnaul), one may note their considerable similarity, but the Barnaul District, being more humid in the total amount of precipitation, has this chiefly in the winter period.

TABLE IV.

District	Spring frosts: greatest absolute minimum (May–June, new style): temperature	Spring frosts: greatest absolute minimum: years observed	Spring frosts: greatest absolute minimum: date, new style	Spring frosts: greatest absolute minimum: date, old style	Spring frosts: latest frost: temperature	Spring frosts: latest frost: years observed	Spring frosts: latest frost: date, new style	Spring frosts: latest frost: date, old style	Autumn frosts: greatest absolute minimum (Aug.–Sept., new style): temperature	Autumn frosts: greatest absolute minimum: years observed	Autumn frosts: greatest absolute minimum: date, new style	Autumn frosts: greatest absolute minimum: date, old style	Autumn frosts: earliest frost: temperature	Autumn frosts: earliest frost: years observed	Autumn frosts: earliest frost: date, new style	Autumn frosts: earliest frost: date, old style
Minusinsk	−11.1	1901	May 2	April 19	−2.4	1906	June 1	May 19	−7.0	1909	September 24	September 11	−5.0	1904	September 16	September 3
Barnaul	−15.4	1901	May 2	April 19	−1.5	1900	June 14	June 1	−5.2	1903	September 28	September 15	−0.4	1900	September 13	August 31

TABLE V

Amount and distribution of precipitation in millimeters.

Districts	Location	I	II	III	IV	V	VI	VII	VIII	IX	X	XI	XII	Per year	Apr.–Oct.	Apr.–May	May–June	June–Aug.	Sept.–Oct.
Minusinsk District	Balakhtino (Abakan raion)	10	5	5	10	30	45	55	60	30	20	10	10	290	250	40	75	160	50
Minusinsk District	City of Minusinsk (same raion)	10	5	5	15	30	50	50	65	30	20	10	10	300	260	45	80	165	50
Minusinsk District	Village of Kuragino (same raion)	15	5	10	20	40	55	60	70	35	25	15	15	365	305	60	95	185	60
Minusinsk District	Village of V. Suetuk (Karatu raion)	15	10	10	30	60	65	75	75	50	40	25	20	475	395	90	125	215	110
Minusinsk District	Village of Ermakovskoye (same raion)	15	10	15	25	45	60	60	60	60	40	25	20	435	350	70	105	180	100
	Zemetchino (Tambov province)	25	30	25	25	40	55	50	45	45	40	40	30	450	300	65	95	150	85
	Bogorodsk (Tula province)	30	20	30	35	50	70	75	60	45	50	30	30	535	355	85	[[unclear: value]]	205	95
European beet-sugar regions	Voronezh	32.9	30.4	22.2	40.2	46.0	53.8	50.0	42.8	31.9	44.7	32.3	47.8	477.8	312.2	87.0	102.6	158.6	76.6
European beet-sugar regions	Kharkov	39.2	30.9	40.8	57.4	44.3	75.1	56.4	41.2	35.0	56.7	49.3	52.2	578.5	366.1	101.7	119.4	172.1	91.7
European beet-sugar regions	Kiev	36.2	37.5	37.1	50.0	46.8	78.5	80.6	50.2	51.2	51.2	39.9	37.3	596.6	408.5	96.8	125.3	209.4	102.4
European beet-sugar regions	Timashyovo (Samara province)	20	20	10	20	35	40	25	25	35	35	30	25	340	235	55	75	110	70
Altai regions	Barnaul	50.6	20.8	24.0	18.6	38.0	53.6	65.4	55.4	55.4	51.2	37.1	48.4	511.2	330.3	56.6	91.6	174.1	99.6

A comparison of the Minusinsk district with the old beet-sugar regions of the USSR indicates that, in its southern territory, the Minusinsk forest-steppe and steppe districts approach the Tambov and Tula districts, occupying an intermediate position between them, while at the same time noticeably surpassing the Samara district and lagging considerably behind the Kiev and Kharkov districts. This kind of relationship among the districts is determined not only by the total annual amount of precipitation, but also by its distribution over time. In the present case, when approaching an assessment of the Minusinsk district with respect to its suitability for the sugar industry, it is more convenient to consider the distribution of atmospheric precipitation not in terms of the usual, generally accepted division of the year into four equal periods, taken as the equal periods of winter, spring, summer, and autumn, but somewhat differently—namely, linking it, on the one hand, with the duration of the vegetation period, determined for the Minusinsk district by mean monthly temperatures—April–October; and, on the other hand, taking account of the separate stages of beet development in the first year of its growth. In this connection, for the climatic conditions of the Minusinsk, as well as the Barnaul, district, it is possible to distinguish separate periods of its development that are essential for the success of beet cultivation, namely: a) April–May—the time of sowing and the period of the initial formation of the plant; b) May–June—the period of development of the tops; c) June–August—the time of increase in the mass of the beet root; and d) September–October—the period of enrichment of the root with sugar.

In each of these periods, the sugar-beet crop presents characteristic, and at the same time very different, requirements as to the quantity of precipitation it needs. Considering from this standpoint the comparisons in Table VI, one may arrive at more definite conclusions in the evaluation of the Minusinsk district.

The corresponding data for the village of Balandino, characterizing the Abakan district, indicate its unsuitability for the cultivation of sugar beet. After a winter very poor in precipitation comes a droughty spring, followed by a summer dry in its first half. Under such conditions, the comparatively considerable quantity of rains falling in July and August, as compared with the preceding period, can no longer remedy the situation. With a short, cold, albeit dry, autumn, the cultivation of sugar beet is, of course, out of place in this district. The same may also be said of the neighboring Idrinsky district. The mountainous character of this district, while somewhat increasing its humidity, at the same time causes a general lowering of temperature, which is a substantial negative factor.

The Minusinsk district, represented in Table V by data for the town of Minusinsk, is characterized by them, like the Abakan district, on the negative side. Although the total amount of precipitation here is somewhat greater, it is nevertheless insufficient for the entirely successful development of sugar beet. With respect to the Minusinsk district, in the present case it should be noted that its actual meteorological conditions do not correspond to the readings of the station in the town of Minusinsk. The reason for this lies in the exceptional, and moreover unfavorable and not corresponding to the conditions of the district, location of the Minusinsk meteorological station. Owing to this, the southern half of the Minusinsk district, which is in considerably better conditions, should be characterized not by the Minusinsk, but to a certain extent by the Ermakovskaya meteorological station.

The Karatuz District, in its forest-steppe part, determined by the conditions of the V. Suetka meteorological station, as well as the Ermakovskoe District, within the area covered by its station, are characterized by data on the amount and distribution of precipitation over individual periods as favorable for the cultivation of sugar beet. In this respect they come fairly close to the Tula, Tambov, and even Voronezh districts. In relation to the Samara district, Ermakovskoe and V. Suetka (Karatuz) prove to be more favorable for beet cultivation.

The considerable superiority of the southern Russian districts over the Siberian ones is established with complete clarity by the data of the same Table V.

Comparing the climatic conditions of Barnaul and the Ermakovskoe District, one may note the significant similarity of these points; moreover, the climatic conditions of the latter district are comparatively milder: judging by the monthly averages, the beginning of spring and the end of autumn are warmer here, with a less hot summer than in Barnaul.

In drawing all the above conclusions about the Minusinsk Okrug and about its separate districts, one should not forget the extraordinary motleyness and diversity of the relief of this okrug. This is inevitably reflected in temperature variations and in the amount and distribution, by seasons of the year, of precipitation over the territory of the steppe and forest-steppe, whose topography in places proves still rather whimsical.

In connection with this, when characterizing the climate of the Minusinsk Okrug in general as a whole, or assessing its suitability for particular crops, it is necessary in each separate case to take an individual approach not only to one district or another, but also to separate, comparatively limited territories that may be of interest with respect to the possibilities here of, for example, industrial beet sowing in connection with proposals for the construction of a sugar factory here.

This makes it understandable why the nearly ten-year experience of the Gusev sugar factory—experience on an industrial scale—nevertheless proves still insufficient for the Minusinsk Okrug with respect to clarifying the general degree of its suitability for the development here of the sugar industry. Given the indicated features of the okrug under consideration, in order to answer the question posed, a network of experimental sowings of sugar beet, scattered throughout the entire expanse of the okrug, is necessary. By means of these initially exploratory, and then more intensive, experimental beet sowings over the course of 2–3 years, the possible districts of future industrial beet sowing in the Minusinsk Okrug must be outlined and then definitively established.

The soils of the Minusinsk Okrug, almost untouched by study, are fairly diverse. In the mountainous landscape, at an elevation of about 600 meters, in the zone of mixed forests, soils of the type of gray forest lands are observed, passing higher up into podzols.

For the steppe districts, chernozems are characteristic; in the lowest parts of the valleys, solonchaks are developed, sometimes covered with a crust of salts. Toward the periphery of the steppe districts, the chernozems deteriorate and pass into degraded ones. In most cases the subsoil consists of sands.

The soil cover of the forest-steppe may be defined as a complex of chernozems and degraded chernozems. In all cases, the chernozems and degraded chernozems lie on loess-like loams.

rich in carbonates, deposited on the bedrock in a layer from several centimeters to several meters.

Such is the general characterization of the soils of the Minusinsk District. In the present case we are interested in the soils of the steppe and forest-steppe zones of the district. The materials devoted to this question are extremely scanty and are of a reconnaissance character. With respect to the steppes there are materials chiefly in the form of “preliminary reports of the geobotanical expeditions of the former Resettlement Administration.” The areas surveyed do not by any means cover the entire region of interest to us; the separate reports, moreover, do not depict with an equal degree of completeness the picture of the soil cover of particular districts. That is why it does not seem possible to give any fairly detailed characterization of the soils of the steppe belt of the Minusinsk District.

The characteristic soils of the steppe belt of the Minusinsk District are chernozems. In contrast to the chernozems of the steppes lying north of the Batenëv Ridge, the soils of the steppes of the Minusinsk District, situated south of the named ridge, are distinguished by features reflecting the more continental climatic conditions here. Horizon A is lighter, containing less humus; the effervescence horizon is also higher. In connection with this, Stasevich¹ definitely calls them chestnut soils. The known diversity in soil respects is introduced by the previously noted undulating relief of the district’s steppe zone. On more level sections, complexes of chestnut soils with deep-columnar solonetzes are characteristic here. In the hilly steppe, with the dominance of the same type, solonetzes are absent. It should also be noted that there are extensive areas of clayey sands. They lie on the right bank of the Abakan River in the middle part of its steppe course. Being turfed, they are covered with the flora of the neighboring steppe; however, their considerable areas with disturbed vegetation cover, representing rich material for the work of the wind, are being strongly blown out. This entire section, as well as a strip of similar sands on the right side of the very lower part of the Abakan’s course, must be considered completely infertile. In the hilly steppe the soils are characteristically coarse; in areas of outcrops of horizons they are gristly; in the more elevated parts a fattening of the soil is observed. In the broad alluvial valley of the Abakan there occur soils of the bog type.

East of the Yenisei the soil conditions change. Only parts of the right bank closest to the Yenisei and to the lower course of the Tuba River have a soil cover analogous to that of the left-bank steppe. The remaining part of the district’s steppe region is covered with chernozems, and, moreover, fairly thick ones. In the most depressed sections of the valleys solonchaks are developed, sometimes covered with a crust of salts; when ascending the slope they are usually bordered by a narrow belt of structural solonetzes. Higher up lie chernozems, and on the southern slopes they are less thick, poor in humus, and have a higher effervescence. Toward the periphery of the steppe region the chernozems become more fattened or pass into degraded ones. It should be noted that sands, occupying the lower parts of the watersheds, develop as a subsoil. The predominance of chernozems is evidently connected with the orography of the region. First of all, it is considerably elevated in comparison with the left-bank steppe. The average height of the watershed of the Syda and Tuba is approximately 400–450 meters; south of the Tuba, 350—

¹ Soil investigations in the Minusinsk uezd. Proceedings of the Soil-Botanical Expedition, 1909.

400 meters. As is known, these are the elevations at which, in the left-bank part, the chernozems are located. On the other hand, as was already noted in considering the climatic conditions, here the steppe region receives a relatively greater amount of precipitation and is bordered by a belt of forest-steppe, the transition into which is gradual.

For the entire steppe region one must note a phenomenon that is extremely important for agriculture, on the one hand, and that affects the soil cover, on the other. This is the blowing away of the soil. All fine soil particles are carried off by the strong and prolonged winds that occur in autumn and early spring, so that the humus horizon gradually diminishes. Under these conditions, during plowing the plow quite often brings up horizon B, which mixes with A and, enriching it with carbonates, causes it to effervesce already from the surface. In those cases where the subsoil contains pebbles, the latter strew the field, giving it a dreary, infertile character, as occurs, for example, in the Kaibal steppe in the part adjoining the Yenisei, south of Abakan. According to the observations of soil scientists, the surfaces of low plowed fields are lowered by 20–30 cm in comparison with the neighboring virgin lands. An analogous picture is also observed on sands, with the fine earth being carried away and the sand becoming mobile.

Turning to the question of the soils of the forest-steppe of the Minusinsk District, it must be said that the available materials in this respect give only the most schematic picture of the soil conditions of this zone of the district. According to the preliminary report of the soil scientist Blagoveshchensky, what is first of all sharply emphasized is the connection of soil types with elevation, i.e., their vertical zonality. The second condition determining the character of the soils proves to be the direction of the slopes. Thus, up to an elevation of 400 m, southern slopes are occupied by steppe vegetation on chernozems, whereas on the northern slopes forest already predominates on degraded soils. As one rises toward the edge of the taiga, the forest wins for itself ever larger and larger areas, spreading also onto the southern slopes. The natural open areas become steadily smaller.

Blagoveshchensky cites no other soil types, apart from chernozems and degraded chernozems, for the forest-steppe belt. Thus, in soil terms, the belt of the Minusinsk forest-steppe may be defined as a complex of chernozems and degraded chernozems, situated, depending on the topography of the regions, on the border with the mountain taiga and alternating with the soils of gray forest lands and podzols. In all cases, the chernozems and degraded chernozems lie on loess-like loams, rich in carbonates, deposited upon bedrock with a thickness ranging from several centimeters to several meters. Their thickness is related to the relief, and it is clear that atmospheric waters and, to a certain extent, wind take part in their accumulation.

The above scheme of the distribution of soil types, and chiefly their vertical zonality, gives grounds for regarding the Minusinsk forest-steppe as an intrazonal phenomenon conditioned by orography. This circumstance must have essential significance in assessing the Minusinsk District with respect to its suitability and capacity for a possible sugar industry here.

The vegetation of the Minusinsk District changes depending on the zone in which we consider it.

The entire mountainous region is covered with continuous forests, mixed in the lower belt, and above 1,000 meters almost entirely coniferous; moreover, the upper forest belt is formed chiefly by cedar. It rises higher into the mountains than the other species. At the upper limit of the forest there develop alpine meadows and tundras, which above 2.5 thousand meters give way to barren rock screes. Both the boundary of the vertical distribution of individual species of trees, shrubs, and, together with them, herbaceous forms, and the belts of vegetation as a whole vary depending on the aspect of the slopes and the geographical position of the localities. Naturally, in the Western Sayan all vertical boundaries are higher than anywhere in the Eastern Sayan, situated 2–3 degrees farther north.

The steppe districts of the okrug may be regarded as predominantly grass steppe. Here the conspicuous element of the foothill landscape is feather grass. Alongside the usual steppe grasses, broad-leaved herbs are also not uncommon; in settled areas tea, pikulnik, and patches of licorice also occur, while in places with sandy subsoil the ordinary plants of such places are found.

Woody vegetation appears in the steppes depending on the elevation of the locality and the aspect of the slopes, when conditions are created that permit its growth there. The pioneers of afforestation are birch and larch. Small copses of these species, accompanied among the shrubs by wild rose, cotoneaster, and badalazhnik, are scattered in broken patches on northern slopes or fringe narrow hollows in the northern parts.

Characteristic also are pine forests confined to sands that extend in more or less long ridges within the steppe, mostly from north to south. Such surviving pine forests are found near Minusinsk by the village of Lugavskoye and by the village of Oznachennaya. There is woody vegetation also along river valleys, in the form of the willows and bird cherry usual in this case; along the Yenisei there is also poplar, which plays the most prominent role in the southern part of the steppe belt of the okrug.

Forest-steppe. In the area of the Usinsk forest-steppe basin, tree stands cover the northern slopes. Their tall and sparse groves also extend along the valleys of streams. Here birch and spruce join the larch, especially in the damper places.

In the belt of the Minusinsk forest-steppe, the vegetation has undergone strong human influence. The preserved forests predominate on northern slopes. In proximity to pure steppes, the herbaceous plants still include a large number of steppe inhabitants, but here they mingle also with those that normally avoid open places. As one approaches the margin of the mountains, in birch woods with an admixture of pine, the plant cover becomes entirely alien to the steppe region: it is a mixed flora of light deciduous forests, forest edges, and meadows, indicating considerable soil moisture. Where there is increased moistening, aspen appears, more rarely fir and spruce. Along the valleys of numerous streams, bird cherry develops luxuriantly, and nearer the mountains, spruce. The riparian floodplain lowlands present luxuriant meadows of moisture-loving plants, distinguished by vigorous growth and density; sometimes they are solonetzic. Usually these are haymaking areas. With an excess of moisture, sedge hummock communities spread, and the water bodies contain characteristic marsh and aquatic vegetation.

Let us dwell further on the forests of the Minusinsk District. Without touching on descriptions of the wood–vegetation community of the district, we shall cite the following figures to characterize the conditions of its forestry.

The total forest area is 3.86 million hectares; the usable area is 2.69 million hectares. By composition, the stands are distributed as follows: with a predominance of pine—1.27 million hectares; spruce and fir—1.68 million hectares; cedar and larch—732 thousand hectares; birch and aspen—1.38 million hectares.

Taking the forest-covered area as 2.69 million hectares, and the possible use as 70 cubic feet per hectare, we find that the total allowable cut of timber could reach 0.88 million cubic sazhen per year; in reality, the estimated cut amounts to only about 119 thousand cubic sazhen. The weak exploitability of the forests, apart from the limited demand, is further explained by the fact that a large part of the forests is located in hard-to-access mountainous terrain.

There are six forest districts in the okrug: Svedinskoye, Minusinskoye, Ermakovskoye, Usinskoye, Beyskoye, and Shushenskoye.

The animal world of the Minusinsk District bears the imprint of zonality.

Among the characteristic animals of the mountain region, first place must be given to the maral (Cervus canadensis asiaticus). Its range wholly embraces the region of the Eastern Sayan. A relative of it, the reindeer, appearing only rarely in the mountain forests, grazes in whole herds on the high-mountain meadows and tundras, especially in the Eastern Sayans. Among the purely mountain animals one should also note the alpine wolf, the Sayan mountain mole, some species of shrews and small rodents. The sable lives in the cedar forest; on the southern slopes of the Western Sayan—the mountain goat, which here is a common inhabitant—does not pass over to the northern slopes. In the foothills and the middle belt there is the bear.

The fauna of the forest-steppe proves, in terms of species, to be the most diverse. Among mammals there is found a comparatively very small number of representatives that would be characteristic exclusively of this region; the majority also occur in the belt of continuous forests, as well as not infrequently in the open steppe. Such are: the ground squirrel, the common hamster, the badger, the polecat, which does not go deep into the taiga; alongside them we encounter the fox, the wolf, the hare, the mountain weasel, the least weasel, all widely distributed in the forest region far to the north.

In connection with the richness of the animal world and, in particular, the varied value of fur-bearing animals in the Minusinsk District, especially in the regions adjacent to the foothills of the Sayans, fur hunting is widely developed and plays a significant role in the budget of the local economy. In the rest of the district’s territory, this trade has only subsidiary significance.

The Minusinsk District, generously endowed in terms of natural surface riches, is even richer with respect to its subsoil. Among the useful minerals of this district it is necessary to note: gold, copper, iron, manganese, common salt, Glauber’s salt, Iceland spar and feldspar, radioactive ores, and refractory clays.

To this it must be added that on the left bank of the Yenisei, within the limits of the already neighboring Khakass District, but in immediate proximity to the Minusinsk District and, in particular, near the town of Minusinsk, lies a very rich coal basin. Here, 35 versts from ...

north of the city of Minusinsk and 8 versts from the bank of the Yenisei River, to which a railway branch line has been laid, are the Chernogorsk mines. Fifteen versts from Minusinsk, on the right side of the Abakan River and on the left side of the Yenisei, lie the Kalyagino coal mines, and 400 versts to the southwest, on the right bank of the Abakan River, are the Izykh mines. Within the Khakass District itself, to the west, 100 versts from the city of Minusinsk, there is an asbestos deposit.

The concentration of the mineral wealth of the Minusinsk District is mainly associated with the systems of the Kizyr, Kazyr, Amyl, and Abakan rivers, as well as with the upper reaches of the Sisima River. Gold, both placer and lode, is very widespread along the southern slopes of the Eastern Sayan. Many gold-bearing deposits here are located in two systems: a) the Kizyr system along the Kizyr River, with the tributaries Dzheb, Chibizhek, Olkhovka, and others; b) the Sisima system in the upper reaches of the Sisima River, with the tributary Seyba. A well-known gold-bearing area is the Olkhovka area with its Artemovsk mine. The ore reserves of the Artemovsk deposit, according to preliminary exploration, are estimated at 500,000 tons. Gold-bearing areas also exist along the systems of the Kazyr and Amyl rivers. Here placer gold was extracted, but lode centers also exist. On the northern slope of the Western Sayan both lode and placer deposits are known, but so far only the placers are being worked, distinguished by their rich gold content. Here one may note the South Abakan system, which in the past yielded a sufficient quantity of gold. The Usinsk area of the district has so far been very little surveyed, but everything known about it indicates that this area may be regarded as a center of accumulation of ore gold. Despite the gold-bearing character of the Minusinsk District, it is still used very little; the chief obstacle to the development of the gold industry here is the lack of roads, the scant exploration, and the remoteness of this district.

In addition to gold, deposits of copper are widely distributed in the Minusinsk District and the neighboring Khakass District. The slight degree to which the region has been surveyed in this respect does not allow the size of the copper reserves of the Minusinsk region to be precisely established. However, the data of preliminary geological surveys, as well as the past history of copper mining in the Minusinsk region (the “Yuliya” mine, the Ulen deposit, the Erbinsk group on the left bank of the Yenisei, and the Maina group, located on both sides of the Yenisei), all indicate significant copper reserves in the Minusinsk and Khakass districts.

Iron is represented by contact-metamorphic deposits of the Irbinsk, Ubeisk, Irzhinsk, and other groups.

The presumed ore reserves amount to billions of tons, which provides grounds for the possibility that, in time, a metallurgical industry may arise in the Minusinsk region. In the Idrinsk area of the Minusinsk District there is also a still little-studied manganese deposit 2 kilometers from the village of Nikulino.

Among the riches of the Minusinsk District one should also include common salt. Its deposits occur here in the form of lakes, where the salts are found in solution and have apparently resulted from leaching by waters of Devonian rocks. From a technical standpoint these deposits are represented here by brine lakes: Beyskoe (15 versts from Beyskoe station, with brine strength up to 6° Baumé), Tatarskoe (15 versts from the city of Minusinsk to the southeast), and Lake Altaiskoe (12 versts from the village of Altaiskoe), with brine strength of 14–15° Baumé. There is a proposal concerning the su-

deposits of rock salt. Besides lakes, predominantly with common salt, there are also bitter-salt lakes containing sodium sulfate, found in part also in the lakes Altaiskoe, Beiskoe, Tagarskoe, and others.

In the Minusinsk district there are also refractory clays (near the villages of Shunerskoe and Ochury).

The Minusinsk district is rich in limestones. Gray bituminous limestones are widely distributed throughout the Minusinsk district. In most cases they are noticeably marbleized, often to the point of complete transition into marble. In places the limestones appear dolomitized and at the same time noticeably silicified. So far the limestones are used only for obtaining lime, and their high qualities are revealed thereby, but special investigations of the chemical and physical properties of the Minusinsk limestones have not yet been carried out.

Alongside limestones there is a considerable number of rich deposits of marble; for example, along the Baraksana River in the basin of the Oya River there is a fine-banded gray marble. Along the Yenisei River upstream from the village of Oznachennaya there are significant bands of white marbles, among which there are also pink varieties. Large deposits of industrial importance lie on the right bank of the Yenisei, at Kordon, 25 km from the village of Oznachennaya.

IV.

The total area of the Minusinsk district amounts to 77,139 sq. km.; 24,190 sq. km., or 31.8%, has been developed by the population, while the remaining 52,949 sq. km., or 68.7%, are uninhabited, consisting chiefly of mountainous-taiga spaces.

The area of peasant land use (land allotments) equals 20,315 sq. km., or 83.9% of the developed territory. The remaining 3,875 sq. km., or 16.1%, consists of state forests and other lands located within the developed territory.

The total population of the Minusinsk district, according to the results of the All-Union demographic census of 1926, is 316,906 persons of both sexes. Of the total number of inhabitants, towns and urban-type settlements account for 7.1% of the total population of the district. The rural population is 293,775 persons, including 48.7% men and 51.3% women. Thus, per 1 sq. km of the geographical surface of the Minusinsk district there are 4.1 persons; per 1 sq. km of territory developed by the population, 12.2 persons; and per 1 sq. km of peasant land-use area, 15.5 persons on average for the whole Minusinsk district.

The percentage of resettled population in the district relative to the total rural population, according to the data of the All-Russian Agricultural Census of 1917, is 43.8%. How the process of colonization of the district developed over the last 80 years may be judged from the distribution, by years, of the households settled in the district. This is given in Table VI, where the number of households, as a percentage of the total number of households settled over 30 years, is shown for individual five-year periods.

TABLE VI.

Period of years:	before 1892	1896	1900	1901	1905	1906	1910	1911	1915	1916	1917	Total
% of settled households	29.8%	18.1%	18.1%	7.4%	7.4%	24.9%	24.9%	17.4%	17.4%	2.4%	2.4%	100%

At present the district is closed to resettlement.

In all, in the Minusinsk District in 1926 there were 967 populated localities, of which 1 was a town and 2 were urban-type settlements. For every 100 sq. km. of the district’s total area there are 1.2 populated localities, not counting the town and the urban-type settlements, with a population of 416 persons. In the town of Minusinsk there are about 23 thousand inhabitants; in addition, the district has up to 50 villages with a population of from 1.5–2 to 2.5–3.5 thousand inhabitants, and up to 20 villages and hamlets with a population of 1–1.5 thousand persons.

The district is divided into eight raions: 1) Abakan, 2) Idrinsky, 3) Kuraginsky, 4) Minusinsk, 5) Karatuzsky, 6) Beisky, 7) Ermakovsky, and 8) Usinsky.

The location and distribution of the raions over the territory of the district, and the related characterization of each of them in terms of natural-historical, climatic, soil, and other conditions, are sufficiently determined by the preceding description and analysis in this respect of the district as a whole, in connection with the accompanying map of the district and the boundaries of its individual raions marked on it.

The concentration of all the populated localities of the Minusinsk District, as is evident from the accompanying map, in the steppe and forest-steppe belts, with only a narrow bordering strip of the subtaiga zone included, clearly indicates that the life of this entire district is most closely connected with agriculture. And, indeed, agriculture is the principal factor in both the past and present life of the district, at present absorbing about 70% of its available rural population. The second place after crop farming, in terms of its importance, is occupied by animal husbandry. All other branches of extractive and processing industry—such as mining, food processing, the fur trade, the cedar-nut trade, etc.—all this as yet has only relatively slight significance for the Minusinsk District.

In this connection, in what follows we shall dwell chiefly on agriculture, on its condition and on the tendencies of its subsequent development. This is all the more necessary in the present case because agriculture is, as it were, the environment whose condition to a considerable degree determines the fundamental question of interest to it: the possibilities and conditions for the development of the sugar industry in the Minusinsk District.

The diversity of the district’s natural-historical conditions noted above creates very unequal conditions for agriculture in its individual raions. Therefore, in the question of interest to it—the possibility of a sugar industry—not only a general characterization of the entire district as a whole is important, but also the identification, at least in general outline, of its individual raions.

The northernmost of them are those lying on the right side of the Tuba River: the Abakan, Idrinsky, and Kuraginsky raions. The first of them, mountainous over a considerable part of its area, is situated as a belt along the Yenisei, as a result of which landing-stage interests play a prominent role in its life. Grain farming, with a predominance of rye, and, in part, fishing and hunting are the principal occupations of the population of this raion.

The Idrinsky raion, predominantly mountainous—with possibilities for the mining industry—lies mainly in the subtaiga and mountain-forest zones. The steppe and forest-steppe zones are only slightly included. Climatic conditions are comparatively severe.

The Kuragino district, in its eastern part, is high-mountainous; here people engage exclusively in hunting and, in part, in forestry trades. In the subtaiga zone there are crops, but only for household use. Grain farming, however, belongs to the western forest-steppe belt and to the partly captured steppe belt, where it proceeds quite successfully with the development of wheat sowings. Closer to the subtaiga lie the sowings of flax and hemp.

The Karatuz district has the same character as the Kuragino district, but the steppe zone is absent here. Grain farming, then hunting, and the floating of predominantly fuel wood constitute the principal occupations of the inhabitants of this district.

The Minusinsk district is a steppe district, passing only in its small eastern part into forest-steppe. The surface is hilly, with an average level, relative to the others and, in particular, compared with the neighboring Ermakovo district, that is lower. In the Minusinsk district there are many fresh, saline, and bitter-saline lakes. Birch groves, pine forests, and forest dachas are scattered about. The soils are chestnut; in places there are sands and solonchaks; in the lowlands swamps occur.

The Minusinsk steppe is fertile. The population, chiefly old-settler, is engaged in grain farming; the suburban population is engaged in carting.

The second district lying in the steppe zone is the Beysky district, situated between the Abakan and Yenisei rivers. The Beysk steppe is hilly and lies on a gravelly base covered by a thin soil layer. This district is low in moisture and poor in precipitation. The strong winds characteristic of the district blow away the snow and, in places, the soil layer. To the south, on the border of the foothills, the Beysky district, from east to west, is cut by a narrow strip of forest-steppe that is very rich in soil terms. The southernmost part of the district is occupied by high-mountain areas. The Beysky district is comparatively sparsely settled. The main occupation of the population is grain farming and cattle breeding; in the northern part—sheep breeding. There is a large fine-fleece sheep-breeding farm, the Chetverikov farm.

The Ermakovo district, in its northwestern part, is pure forest-steppe with an average level somewhat higher than the level of the town of Minusinsk; the southern and southeastern half of the district is occupied by the large mountains of the Taskyl range. The relief of the forest-steppe is undulating, with significant rises. There is a general rise toward the south. Forest areas are widely scattered, chiefly birch woods, with pine in places. The soils are rich chestnut soils; there are almost no solonchaks, and sands occur only rarely. The district is well irrigated. The population is comparatively dense and old-settler. Resettlement here began vigorously after the revolution. The main occupation is grain farming; in winter, hunting; cottage industries are encountered: sheepskin, pottery, felt-boot making, etc.—all narrowly local and, moreover, of a rather low level. In places tobacco growing is developed, as well as sowings of sunflower. In the subtaiga belt—hemp and flax. In the Ermakovo district watermelons are successfully grown, and a tendency toward horticulture is also observed. In this same district the Gusevsky sugar factory was once built and operated; it was located on the Ashe River, which flows into the Oya River, the river artery of the Ermakovo district. The soils in the area of the former Gusevsky sugar factory, situated on the right bank of the Oya River, are represented by sandy-loam chernozem with a loess-like B horizon on a sandy subsoil.

The climatic conditions of the Ermakovskoye, Beyskoye, the southern half of the Minusinsk, and the Karatuzskoye districts, in their steppe and forest-steppe zones, are noticeably milder than in the northern districts of the Minusinsk okrug.

A few more words remain to be said about the Usinsk district. The latter, as has already been noted, is an extensive mountainous region, with considerable elevations, and with deep but small river valleys suitable for agriculture. As regards the possibilities for the development of the sugar industry here, this district is of no interest whatever, which is why in the present case we shall not dwell on it.

In order to make it possible to compare and to give, in general outline, a clear idea of the individual districts and of the okrug as a whole, Table VII is given below, in which the Minusinsk okrug and each of its districts are characterized in terms of such elements as the inhabited—suitable and unsuitable—area, the size of the population in terms of the number of households and persons eating; the sown area, and the number of livestock. In addition, in order to reveal economic strength, the amount of the unified agricultural tax for 1926/27 and for 1927/29 is given for the okrug and for its individual districts. For convenience of comparison, for each item, in addition to the numerical expression, a separate column also gives the expression of the district’s relative weight, presented as a percentage ratio to the entire okrug, taken as 100% for each of the items analyzed. This number is placed in the numerator of the fractions in the indicated column. The denominators of the fractions indicate the place occupied under the given item by each district in their general ranking within the okrug (see Table VII).

In Table VII are given the numerical values of the concept introduced into it of a “dvor” or “household,” served by a family. In connection with this it should be noted that the average size of a family in the Minusinsk okrug in 1927 varied by district from 5.08 to 5.45 persons. The average sown area of one household throughout the okrug in 1927 was determined at 4.87 hectares. By year this area changed as follows: in 1917—5.35; in 1923—3.73; in 1926—4.94 hectares.

From Table VII it is evident that the most economically developed and economically strong are the Minusinsk and Kuragino districts; after them come the Abakan and Idrinsk districts; next are the Ermakovskoye and Karatuzskoye districts, and in the last places stand the Beyskoye and Usinsk districts.

Given the great diversity of the Minusinsk okrug in natural-historical terms, and under conditions in the still recent past of a continuous influx of settlers here, the agriculture of this okrug inevitably had to become multitype.

However, the absence of the relevant data in this direction does not allow us to establish, in the indicated respect, any definite subdivision. Therefore, in order to identify the agriculture of the Minusinsk okrug, we must confine ourselves only to its general characterization, giving it in its main contours, determined by the numerical expression of its principal economic elements. These data for the okrug, and where possible also for individual districts, are given below.

TABLE VII.

Economic elements by districts of the Minusinsk Okrug.

Name of districts	Settled area: usable / unusable, dess.	% / place	Population: households / persons	% / place	Sown area, dess.	% / place	Livestock: horses, cattle, sheep, pigs	% / place	ESNK tax: amount 26/27 / 27/28	% / place
Total in the okrug, peasant	1371777 300751	100% 100%	58008 294147	100% 100%	208694	100%	H. . . 162813 Cattle . . 217261 Sm. c. . 416827	100% 100% 100%	1150975 1024162	100% 100%
Abakan	182189 63559	13.6 22.1	7512 38455	13.5 12.6	25379	12.4	H. . . 22133 Cattle . . 34160 Sheep . . 71183 Pigs . . 9411 80624	14.4 16.3 }20.3	147379 127934	18.4 17.4
Idrinsky	197362 44925	15.4 15.3	7817 44429	13.6 15.5	28642	14.3	H. . . 24383 Cattle . . 38087 Sheep . . 69371 Pigs . . 11372 81143	15.3 18.1 }20.2	157797 149074	14.3 13/3
Kuraginsky	222520 40148	16.2 13.4	10279 54272	18.1 19.1	32435	15.2	H. . . 29321 Cattle . . 34953 Sheep . . 72842 Pigs . . 9170 82012	18.1 15.4 }20.1	172090 156439	15.2 15.2
Karatuzsky	193174 38405	14.5 12.5	8509 42285	15.3 15.4	24145	12.6	H. . . 20349 Cattle . . 25430 Sheep . . 43031 Pigs . . 8511 51542	12.6 11.5 }12.4	107857 102905	9.6 10.7
Minusinsky	243980 48309	18.1 16.2	9401 46807	16.2 17.2	54400	26.1	H. . . 29010 Cattle . . 37903 Sheep . . 15347 Pigs . . 9383 24730	17.2 18.2 }6.7	332581 250822	29.1 25.1
Ermakovsky	200397 38143	15.3 12.6	8420 41354	15.4 15.3	25014	12.5	H. . . 20421 Cattle . . 23505 Sheep . . 43121 Pigs . . 7848 50969	13.5 11.6 }12.5	125500 117040	11.5 12.5
Beisky	113134 21850	8.7 7.7	5102 26766	9.7 7.7	16916	8.7	H. . . 14234 Cattle . . 19222 Sheep . . 35483 Pigs . . 3524 39007	9.7 9.7 }9.6	97339 109715	8.7 11.6
Usinsky	18071 5082	1.8 1.8	878 4079	1.8 1.8	1763	1.8	H. . . 2962 Cattle . . 4044 Sheep . . 6392 Pigs . . 408 6800	2.8 2.8 }1.8	10436 10175	1.8 1.8

TABLE VIII.

Characteristics of the average peasant farm of the Minusinsk District.

Elements of agriculture	1913	1917	1923	1927	1913	1927
	Average per one farm	Average per one farm	Average per one farm	Average per one farm	Per 100 persons of population	Per 100 persons of population
Total sown area	5.62	5.77	3.44	4.46	87.9	83.9
Including: rye	1.95	1.36	0.79	0.81	—	—
wheat	1.91	2.24	1.11	2.09	—	—
oats	1.29	1.59	0.82	1.19	—	—
Livestock: horses	3.59	3.78	3.13	3.21	56.2	60.4
of these, working horses	2.63	2.84	2.28	2.17	41.2	40.8
horned cattle	4.54	5.08	3.71	4.55	71.0	85.5
of these: cows	2.41	2.32	1.81	2.02	37.7	38.1
sheep, goats	7.74	10.67	9.44	12.20	111.1	299.4
pigs	0.69	2.08	0.92	1.43	10.9	26.8
Total livestock	21.17	21.61	17.21	21.40	259.2	402.1

TABLE IX.

Proportion of crops in the composition of the sown area in the Minusinsk District.

Crops	1913	1917	1923	1927
	Per 100 desyatinas of total sown area	Per 100 desyatinas of total sown area	Per 100 desyatinas of total sown area	Per 100 desyatinas of total sown area
Winter rye	16.1	11.01	19.92	12.40
Spring rye	18.7	11.65	8.89	5.81
Winter wheat	0.1	0.57	0.05	0.23
Spring wheat	53.9	38.19	52.16	46.69
Barley	0.8	0.79	0.29	0.24
Oats	22.0	27.51	23.81	26.70
Millet	1.7	1.49	2.15	1.26
Buckwheat	1.0	0.83	4.25	0.49
Flax	0.5	0.71	0.76	0.91
Hemp	1.7	1.61	1.15	1.78
Sunflower	—	0.30	—	0.55
Potatoes	—	1.13	—	1.25
Grass sowings	—	1.74	—	0.95
Other crops	2.6	1.56	2.57	0.73
TOTAL	100	100	100	100

TABLE X.

Degree of provision with agricultural implements.

TYPES OF IMPLEMENTS	Per 100 farms, 1917	Per 100 farms, 1920	Per 100 farms, 1924	Per 100 farms, 1926	Per 100 farms, 1927	Per 100 dessiatines of sown area, 1917	Per 100 dessiatines of sown area, 1920	Per 100 dessiatines of sown area, 1924	Per 100 dessiatines of sown area, 1926	Per 100 dessiatines of sown area, 1927
Plows, roe-plows, sabans	2.8	19.7	8.8	10.29	—	0.5	4.0	2.5	2.5	—
Ploughs	81.9	50.6	57.8	72.14	74.71	14.2	11.6	16.2	17.8	16.75
Beet lifters	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.13	0.41	—	—	0.01	—	0.09
Total tillage implements	84.9	76.5	66.8	82.56	75.12	14.7	15.6	18.8	20.3	16.84
Harrows, iron	—	2.6	0.3	0.74	—	—	0.5	0.1	0.2	—
Harrows, with iron teeth	—	154.6	111.5	163.71	165.27	—	31.6	39.7	40.4	36.83
Harrows, wooden	—	5.6	1.1	—	—	—	1.1	0.3	—	—
Seeders	0.4	0.2	0.2	0.35	0.14	0.1	—	0.1	0.1	0.10
Reapers	11.8	10.0	6.8	8.43	10.16	2.1	2.0	1.9	2.1	2.28
Hay mowers	5.1	5.9	3.4	4.58	5.48	0.9	1.2	1.0	1.1	1.23
Horse rakes	—	3.4	3.0	3.48	4.52	—	0.7	0.9	0.9	1.01
Total harvesting implements	16.9	19.3	13.2	16.49	20.16	3.1	3.9	3.9	4.2	4.52
Threshing machines	6.4	6.4	3.5	4.42	1.86	1.1	1.3	1.0	1.1	1.11
Winnowers	18.3	10.7	7.4	7.79	15.04	3.2	2.2	2.1	1.9	3.38
Sorting machines	0.5	7.6	5.5	5.84	—	0.1	1.6	1.5	1.4	—

The general evolution of the Minusinsk District over the period 1917–1928 is revealed by the data of Table XI and is expressed by the size of the district’s entire sown area, the size of its population, the number of farms and, finally, the size of the sown area falling on average to one farm. In addition to the numerical expression by years of one or another of the named items, Table XI also includes the percentage change of each of them in relation to the preceding year.

TABLE XI.

Years	Sown area: total hectares	Sown area: increase in % over preceding year	Population: total	Population: increase in % over preceding year	Number of farms: total	Number of farms: increase in % over preceding year	Per one farm: sown area, in hectares
1917	233.873	100%	224.380	100%	37.074	100%	6,31
1920	241.003	+ 3,05	250.285	+11,51	45.024	+21,44	5,35
1923	181.817	—	257.998	—	48.313	—	3,76
1924	200.732	+10,40	267.078	+ 3,52	51.558	+6,71	3,89
1925	233.685	+16,41	277.110	+ 3,75	53.219	+3,22	4,39
1926	268.401	+14,85	287.651	+ 3,80	54.326	+2,08	4,94
1927	271.575	+ 1,18	297.000	+ 3,27	55.726	+2,58	4,87
1928	300.305	+10,58	306.648	+ 3,20	57.153	+2,56	5,25

The agriculture of the Minusinsk District in terms of the gross output of field husbandry and animal husbandry is characterized by the data of Table XII and Table XIII.

TABLE XII.

Years	Gross output of field husbandry in thousands of centners: total grain crops	Gross output of field husbandry in thousands of centners: including wheat	Gross output of field husbandry in thousands of centners: including grain fodder	Gross output of field husbandry in thousands of centners: oilseeds	Gross output of field husbandry in thousands of centners: fiber	Total, in thousand rubles	Per one eater in 1926–27 prices, rubles
1927—28	2676,4	1336,7	835,0	38,8	23,5	14.168,1	46,20
1928—29	2680,1	1408,4	762,3	46,5	26,8	14.886,8	47,08

TABLE XIII.

Years	Meat	Milk	Wool	Hides, sheepskins	Other products	Total, in prices of 1926–27
	Gross output of animal husbandry, in thousands of rubles	Gross output of animal husbandry, in thousands of rubles	Gross output of animal husbandry, in thousands of rubles	Gross output of animal husbandry, in thousands of rubles	Gross output of animal husbandry, in thousands of rubles	Gross output of animal husbandry, in thousands of rubles
1927–28	3021.6	3627.9	1133.5	1090.9	1880.7	10759.6
1928–29	3331.0	3946.2	1232.2	1214.1	1942.6	11566.1

The ratio of gross and marketable agricultural output, as well as the value relationship between field cultivation and animal husbandry in the Minusinsk District, is presented in Table XIV.

TABLE XIV.

Years	Field cultivation	Animal husbandry	Total	Field cultivation	Animal husbandry
	In thousands of rubles, in prices of 1926–27	In thousands of rubles, in prices of 1926–27	In thousands of rubles, in prices of 1926–27	% ratio	% ratio
GROSS OUTPUT
1927–28	14168.1	10759.5	24927.6	56.84	43.16
1928–29	14886.8	11656.1	26542.9	56.09	43.91
MARKETABLE OUTPUT
1927–28	3441.6	3573.7	7015.3	49.06	50.94
1928–29	3327.6	4180.5	7508.1	44.33	55.67

The data presented, in general, characterize agriculture in the Minusinsk District as showing steady growth and reveal its arable-and-livestock character, with extensive forms and with a tendency toward animal husbandry.

In assessing the agriculture of the Minusinsk District on the basis of the data presented, it must be borne in mind that the latter arose only a few years ago.

Within its present boundaries this district was formed from parts, and moreover not always taken as a whole, of the volosts of the former Minusinsk uezd of the former Yenisei Governorate. Given the very slight degree to which the latter had been studied, with its enormous territory and extreme diversity in climatic, soil, demographic, economic—

…conditions, to characterize the newly formed Minusinsk District on the basis of earlier materials relating to the whole Yenisei Governorate or to its Minusinsk Uezd is a fairly difficult task. At the same time, in a characterization of this kind a certain degree of conditionality is inevitable.

Nevertheless, it was impossible to dispense with the earlier materials relating to the former Yenisei Governorate, since the agriculture of Minusinsk District in its present state is inseparably connected with its past. The latter not only makes it possible to understand the essence of its present situation, but also, to a certain extent, clarifies the paths of its further development.

Turning to the past of the agriculture of Minusinsk District, it is first of all necessary to note its extreme remoteness from economic centers, owing to the absence of permanent convenient lines of communication connecting it with the outside world. Until the construction of the Achinsk–Minusinsk railway, which was joined to the Siberian railway trunk line only in 1926, Minusinsk District could communicate with other markets of Siberia and Russia only during the short summer navigation period, linking up at that time by water along the Yenisei River with the Siberian railway. Under such conditions Minusinsk District was extremely limited in its ability to send its agricultural production beyond the boundaries of its own internal market.

In connection with this, the agriculture of the district was alien to efforts to impart marketability and exportability to its production, steadily preserving the forms of a primitive subsistence economy. The Achinsk–Minusinsk railway, which has now become the main artery for the export of Minusinsk District, was for it an entirely new and, moreover, substantial factor in the development of its agriculture. This phenomenon has already manifested itself in a noticeable increase in the sown area of spring wheat—the principal export product of the district’s agriculture. With regard to livestock raising, the construction of the said railway has also given the district a great deal: it has provided the possibility, instead of driving herds eastward as was formerly done, of exporting meat both to the east and to the west. No less great is the influence of the Achinsk–Minusinsk railway on the possibility of imports into the district, which should first and foremost, and most of all, be reflected in the coming years in the importation of agricultural machinery into Minusinsk District.

With the indicated principal factors concerning the district’s export and import prospects, and with the existence of the railway leading to it, new export possibilities for its agriculture are emerging. However, given the presence of fallow land and a reserve of undeveloped land areas, the agriculture of the district will for quite a long period still develop as field husbandry, with spring wheat having the greatest marketability, while the share of grasses and industrial crops will increase at the expense of rye. As regards animal husbandry, the growth of extensive cattle breeding is anticipated until the threat of the so-called fodder crisis arises. But this, judging by the present situation of Minusinsk District, may not occur very soon.

In the animal husbandry of Minusinsk District, cows constitute the principal type of herd, and the district’s development in this direction lies in shifting onto the tracks of butter production.

Horse breeding, in the district’s export prospects, is represented as a small branch of animal husbandry in the form of the output chiefly of working horses.

The growth of pig breeding should have a certain importance, developing in parallel with the growth of field cultivation, as well as of dairy farming, through the use of the wastes of the latter.

Initially the sheep flock should also grow, but in more distant periods sheep for the Minusinsk District cannot have notable importance, since the fallow land needed for sheep will be more profitable to plow up.

If we turn to how the immediate prospects of agriculture in the Minusinsk District are outlined by its Planning Commission, we find the following ratio:

	In gross output	Field cultivation	Animal husbandry
For 1927/28		56.84%	43.16%
For 1931/32		55.35%	44.65%

	In marketable output	Field cultivation	Animal husbandry
For 1927/28		49.06%	50.94%
For 1931/32		44.26%	55.74%

At the same time, the following change in yields is assumed over the five-year period:

TABLE XV.

	Average yield in 1924–29, per one desyatina, in poods	Yield in 1931–32, per one desyatina, in poods
Winter rye	58.0	63.9
Spring rye	51.6	54.7
Winter wheat	62.5	62.5
Spring wheat	58.3	62.5
Oats	55.0	65.9
Barley	40.3	40.3
Flax (seed, fiber)	22 18	22.9 18.7
Hemp (seed, fiber)	35 22	36.7 23.1
Sunflower	40.0	45.0

The projected increase in yield norms should, naturally, be understood not as a guessing of the natural conditions of the vegetation period of 1931/32, but as the formalization of the results of those measures which, according to the assumptions of the Planning Commission of the Minusinsk

district Executive Committee over the coming five-year period in the sphere of improving land cultivation, increasing sowings with pure-grade grain, and in general in the field of agronomic and other measures connected with the interests of the district’s agriculture.

In general, in the nearest five-year period a quantitative progress in the development of the district’s crop farming is anticipated, while preserving the existing system of farming. At the same time, the principal factor is extensiveness, namely the development of extensive sowings. In livestock raising, an increase in the herd is planned, which also corresponds to the factor of extensiveness.

At the same time, elements of intensiveness must also appear. In the course of time they will find expression in the inevitable reduction of fallow, both in area and by years. Along with this, grass sowing, row crops, and technical crops will begin to enter into the life of the district—crops which already at present are finding a place in individual districts in the form of annually repeated sowings of hemp, flax, and potatoes, as can be seen from the tabular data given above. The entire sum of agronomic measures is likewise an element of intensiveness. It is obvious that over time the fixed capital of the district’s agriculture will also grow in buildings, livestock, and chiefly, for the coming period of years, in agricultural implements and machines, which will increase the district’s power and productivity.

According to the approximate proposals of the agronomist-economist Zefirov, the growth of the fixed capital of peasant agriculture in the Minusinsk District for the period 1926/1932 (without land reclamation) should be as determined by Table XVI.

TABLE XVI.

Years	Buildings	Livestock	Dead inventory (machines, implements)	Total
1926 . . .	24.153	16.323	3.736	44.713
1931–32 . . . . . . .	28.064	21.761	6.589	57.415
1931–32 as % of 1926 .	116.19%	135.30%	176.33%	128.41%

The ratio of the individual items of the fixed capital of peasant agriculture, in percentages for 1927/28, is expressed as follows:

Buildings—52.42%, livestock—38.52%, dead capital—9.06%, total—100%.

It must be expected that the accumulation of fixed capital in the extensive agriculture of the Minusinsk District will, under present conditions, develop only internally, i.e., without state assistance.

Unfortunately, the budgets of peasant farms and their types in the Minusinsk District have not yet been studied, and therefore in this direction—

prospective considerations of the District Planning Commission provide no definite outlines.

The question of collective farms stands quite apart. The character of their development is planned as purely intensive, and their basis must inevitably be state investment. In the prospects for the development of agriculture in the district, collectives are assigned great importance; their role should be very large, but for the time being these farms are only at the initial stage of their development. An idea of this is given by a comparison of the relative weight of the private and collective sectors of the district in field cultivation and animal husbandry, in their gross and marketable output for 1927 and 1928.

TABLE XVII.

Year	Sector	Gross output: field cultivation	Gross output: animal husbandry	Marketable output: field cultivation	Marketable output: animal husbandry
1927	Private	99.06	97.78	99.07	100.00
1927	Collective	0.94	2	0.93	—
1927	Total	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00
1928	Private	93.93	98.86	93.15	100.00
1928	Collective	6.07	1.14	6.85	—
1928	Total	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00

A characterization of agriculture in the Minusinsk District would be incomplete, and its relative weight would prove understated, if one failed to note the non-agricultural earnings of the village. These include occupations of a handicraft type: crafts, semi-crafts, fishing, hunting, gathering of cedar nuts, bee-keeping, etc.

The question of non-agricultural trades and earnings of the village, as is known, has been very little illuminated by research work; for the Minusinsk District it has been identified extremely weakly. Nevertheless, for the agriculture of the latter, the village’s non-agricultural earnings have greater significance than almost anywhere else. One reason for this lies in its remoteness from industrial centers and commercial markets, which, in connection with the district’s isolation, compels its agriculture and village to provide for themselves in many respects by their own efforts.

The total weight of industrial activity and non-agricultural earnings in the agriculture of the Minusinsk District, expressed approximately in terms of net income, amounts to about 20% of the district’s entire conditionally net national-economic income; moreover, the coverage of the population by trades equals about 32% of all farms, not counting the town.

Of the trades directly connected with agriculture, the greatest importance belongs to flour-milling, felt-making, and sheepskin-and-fur-coat production.

All that has been presented above and, in particular, the data of Tables VIII—XIV characterize the agriculture of Minusinsk District as a whole, without revealing the individuality of its regions. Given the generally limited study of the entire district, this latter task is still very little accessible. Meanwhile, the individual regions of the district, as is evident from its general description and from the geographic distribution of the regions, prove to be very dissimilar in their natural-historical and soil conditions, in their elevation above sea level, and so forth. In connection with this, the agriculture of the individual regions must, to a certain degree, differ from one another.

The extent to which this is in fact the case appears very important with respect to the main question that interests us in the present work: the possibilities of the sugar industry in Minusinsk District.

Using the available data in this area, a regional characterization of Minusinsk District in the principal elements of agriculture is given below, as presented in the following Tables XVIII—XXII.

From the data presented it is evident that the most populated and strongest in agricultural terms are the Minusinsk, Kuragino, and Karatuz regions.

V.

The totality of all the conditions of agriculture in Minusinsk District characterizes it as weak and uncultivated. Despite this, its importance in the economy of Minusinsk District is extraordinarily great. The ratio of the relative weight of agriculture and industry in the district reveals the exceptional backwardness of the latter not only in comparison with all-Union norms, but also with Siberian norms, as may be seen from the following comparisons in Table XXIII.

TABLE XXIII.

RELATIVE WEIGHT	Agriculture	Industry	TOTAL
For the entire Union	56%	44%	100%
“ Siberia	73%	27%	100%
“ Minusinsk District	92%	8%	100%

From the foregoing it is evident that industry in Minusinsk District is only in an embryonic state, owing to which Minusinsk District plays the role of an exclusively agricultural factor in the economy of the Siberian Territory. The significance of this situation for the district is very great. It speaks not only of its complete dependence on the import of industrial goods, but at the same time also indicates the negligible import capacity of the district, since almost all its demands are determined only by the primitive needs and requirements of the district’s poorly cultured rural population. This, in turn,

TABLE XVIII.

Value of individual districts in the okrug by branches of rural economy
(in %).

AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE OKRUG TOTAL

Districts	Years	Total sown area	Winter rye	Spring rye	Spring wheat	Oats	Millet	Buckwheat	Spring lentils	Barley	Hemp	Horses, total	Including working horses	Cattle, total	Including cows	Sheep and goats of all ages	Pigs of all ages	Total livestock
Abakansky	1927	12.4	6.9	26.7	14.0	9.4	3.5	12.6	5.2	7.7	14.0	13.4	16.2	15.4	15.7	14.3	15.4
Beysky	1927	9.9	0.2	6.3	14.7	8.8	6.0	6.4	1.3	1.6	9.1	9.3	10.1	9.5	8.9	5.3	9.0
Ermakovsky	1927	13.3	27.7	8.4	6.9	15.1	8.6	5.9	30.7	25.1	12.4	13.0	10.9	11.9	8.5	16.5	10.2
Idrinsky	1927	11.6	17.9	8.7	14.8	15.1	15.9	1.8	13.1	10.6	11.7	13.9	16.5	15.6	13.0	13.6	14.4
Karatuzsky	1927	12.0	21.5	6.3	7.6	13.8	11.6	17.7	30.8	19.7	13.3	12.8	12.5	12.4	9.5	14.8	11.0
Kuraginsky	1927	16.1	17.2	8.8	15.8	17.4	10.4	6.6	12.8	15.3	17.8	15.7	15.7	16.6	15.8	18.7	16.5
Minusinsky	1927	20.9	8.3	31.0	24.1	19.8	13.9	49.4	0.9	3.7	16.3	17.6	14.6	16.2	27.3	10.1	21.8
Usinsky	1927	0.8	0.2	3.8	0.7	0.6	0.1	0.2	0.2	0.3	2.4	2.3	2.5	2.4	1.3	1.7	1.7
In the okrug	1927	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100

TABLE XIX.

Number of peasant households and the population in them.

(By districts).

Districts	Year	Total households	Total population: Men	Total population: Women	Total population: Both sexes	Average family size
Abakan	1927	7389	19359	19064	38423	5,20
Beysky	1927	4951	13379	13597	26976	5,45
Ermakovsky	1927	7791	20700	20634	41334	5,31
Idrinsky	1927	7603	19833	20753	40586	5,34
Karatuzsky	1927	8118	21091	21907	42998	5,30
Kuraginsky	1927	9756	26845	27513	54358	5,57
Minusinsky	1927	3372	23610	24038	47648	5,08
Usinsky	1927	746	2003	1951	3954	5,30

TABLE XX.

Provision of the population with livestock.

(By districts).

Districts	Year	Per 100 persons of population: Sown area	Per 100 persons of population: Horses, total	Per 100 persons of population: Horses, incl. working	Per 100 persons of population: Horned cattle, total	Per 100 persons of population: Horned cattle, incl. cows	Per 100 persons of population: Sheep and goats, total	Per 100 persons of population: Sheep and goats, incl. adult	Per 100 persons of population: Pigs of all ages	Per 100 persons of population: Livestock total
Abakan	1927	80,02	65,34	42,21	106,93	45,33	276,92	156,27	29,47	478,66
Beysky	1927	90,95	60,14	41,67	95,01	39,76	225,88	137,23	15,68	296,71
Ermakovsky	1927	79,68	53,86	38,11	66,72	32,39	140,18	84,48	31,80	292,56
Idrinsky	1927	89,36	65,04	41,36	103,28	43,51	217,79	120,99	36,44	422,55
Karatuzsky	1927	70,18	55,28	36,05	73,47	32,59	150,12	87,84	27,33	306,20
Kuraginsky	1927	73,67	58,45	39,36	77,96	34,41	197,45	110,39	27,37	361,23
Minusinsky	1927	108,98	61,37	44,41	77,34	38,44	389,13	230,85	16,85	544,69
Usinsky	1927	49,01	106,24	68,41	161,33	67,80	220,96	137,40	34,80	523,33

TABLE XXI.

Proportion of crops in the composition of the sown area.
(By districts).

Per 100 dessiatinas of all sowings, the following percentages are accounted for by:

District	Year	Rye, winter	Rye, spring	Wheat, winter	Wheat, spring	Barley	Oats	Millet	Buckwheat	Flax	Hemp	Sunflower	Potato	Grass sowings	Other sowings	Total
Abakan	1927	6,94	12,56	0,15	52,89	0,96	20,23	0,35	0,59	0,38	1,11	0,19	2,59	0,42	0,72	100,0
Bey	1927	0,16	3,67	0,06	69,13	0,24	23,91	0,77	0,32	0,12	0,28	0,06	0,44	0,03	0,11	100,0
Ermakovo	1927	26,02	3,62	0,16	24,32	0,01	30,34	0,82	0,22	2,19	4,73	1,89	1,62	0,06	1,14	100,0
Idrinskoye	1927	15,22	3,47	0,03	47,31	0,19	27,76	1,38	0,06	0,82	2,03	0,14	1,27	0,10	0,12	100,0
Karatuz	1927	22,05	2,99	0,02	33,63	0,01	30,34	1,20	0,69	2,62	2,90	0,50	1,36	0,00	0,31	100,0
Kuragino	1927	13,21	3,19	0,33	45,78	0,06	28,86	3,16	0,20	0,73	1,69	0,34	0,86	1,47	0,11	100,0
Minusinsk	1927	4,95	8,67	0,03	54,58	0,26	25,25	0,84	1,16	0,04	0,32	0,66	0,88	0,56	1,78	100,0
Usinsk	1927	2,74	28,63	0,09	43,73	0,25	21,12	0,16	0,12	0,24	0,68	—	1,26	0,00	0,67	100,0

TABLE XXII

Number of agricultural implements
(by districts).

Districts	Year	Ards, kosuli, sabans	Plows	Bukers	Iron harrows	Wooden harrows with iron	Seed drills	Reapers	Mowers	Horse rakes	Threshing machines of all kinds	Winnowers	Sorters	Triers
Abakan	1927	not recorded	5596	2	11	985	42	790	989	741	360	11	67	17
Beisk	1927	not recorded	3776	8	81	51	33	1214	103	102	165	3	71	11
Ermakov	1927	not recorded	5966	n. d.	11	726	5	402	179	189	364	10	82	41
Idrinsk	1927	not recorded	4626	n. d.	12	970	45	828	502	351	433	11	82	31
Karatuz	1927	not recorded	6735	3	11	409	22	111	68	79	504	7	98	15
Kuragino	1927	not recorded	7902	28	—	8326	31	888	71	70	605	18	69	43
Minusinsk	1927	not recorded	6573	54	15	184	66	1350	1030	860	317	17	68	43
Usinsk	1927	not recorded	453	4	11	92	6	17	116	127	18	1	42	—

creates a gap between the export capacity of the Minusinsk District and its demand for imported goods. Under such conditions, the recently established outbound artery of the district—the Achinsk–Minusinsk railway—loses much of its significance. The way out of this situation should be sought in the development of local industry.

In this connection, it is of interest to clarify the present state of the industry of the Minusinsk District and the possibilities for its further development.

The principal distinctive features of the Minusinsk District—determined by its remoteness, isolation from markets, lack of roads, insufficient study, and sparse population—also characterized its position with regard to industry up to 1914.

However, despite the negative aspects of the Minusinsk District noted above, its enormous wealth, hidden in the depths of the earth in the form of various valuable minerals, began almost from the beginning of the eighteenth century to attract enterprising people here, and in particular Russian and foreign capitalists. The visits of representatives of capital were usually connected with searches and exploration for the most effective riches. Development was often undertaken. However, the largest capitalists, and especially representatives of foreign joint-stock companies, who arrived with expeditions up to 1915, invariably made the possibility of investing their capital directly dependent on the construction of a railway to Minusinsk with an outlet onto the Siberian main line. All these rather persistent explorations were brought to an end by the imperialist war.

As for comparatively small local merchant capital, being pioneering and at the same time rather weak, it chose for itself only those branches of industry which, in addition to being profitable, made it possible to produce products of stable value and were at the same time connected with the fastest turnover of capital, such as, for example, gold-platinum mining, flour milling, and so forth. In the other branches of industry local capital made only small investments, carrying out merely reconnaissance in the sphere of possible large-scale undertakings, with the expectation of subsequently attracting large outside capital. This category includes metallurgical plants, salt works, glass and sugar factories, and the like.

The modern industry of the Minusinsk District represents only the germ of its future industry, which has the potential, in time, to become large-scale and at the same time highly varied in its manifestations.

The basis for the district’s industry is provided by its natural resources—minerals, agriculture, and forestry. In the field of exploitation of the subsoil, at present only the state gold-platinum enterprises “Enzoloto” are operating; earlier, salt, iron, and copper ores were mined on the Irzha and Lugavka (the latter plants have been abandoned because of dilapidation). In 1926 the “Russian Gems” Trust extracted white marble of exceptionally high quality for export abroad. In addition, there was operating at the present time a previously closed plant for the extraction of sulfate, as well as Gusev’s glassworks, which had also been liquidated before 1914.

Given the presence of many rivers with abundant water, the Minusinsk District offers broad possibilities for the installation of hydroelectric stations producing cheap energy; however, because of the high cost of this kind of

installations and, at the same time, given the abundance of hard coal, the industrial prospects of the district rest upon the Minusinsk coal basin*).

The latter, situated at the confluence of the Abakan and Yenisei rivers, stretches from south to north for 100 versts, with a width of 20 versts, forming a basin enclosed on all sides, with an area of about 2,000 sq. kilometers. In view of the great significance of its coal wealth for the development of the district’s industry, we shall dwell somewhat on the latter. The Minusinsk coal trough has a coal-bearing strata thickness of 500 sazhens. The occurrence is regular (the peripheral parts dip toward the center at an angle of 5–20°), continuous (no major displacements of the seams with breaks in continuity have been found). The number of coal seams in the productive stage is several dozen, ranging from insignificant thickness to 4.33 sazhens and more. The groundwater, which must be taken into account in exploitation, is at the level of the Yenisei and Abakan.

The Minusinsk trough lies entirely on the left bank of the Yenisei and is divided by the Abakan River into two sharply distinct parts: 1) the northwestern part—the best in terms of exploitation conditions, with the Chernogorsk and Ach-Mindorsk deposits, and 2) the southeastern part—with the Izykh and Kalyagin deposits.

The useful area of the first part is no more than 250 sq. versts, since the remaining part is covered by the Abakan’s river deposits, up to 15 meters thick, which constitute an excellent filter, and therefore, probably, when the water level in the Abakan rises, there will be such an inflow of water as will greatly impede underground work. The useful area of the second part is about 150 sq. versts. The probable coal reserves in the entire basin exceed 6 billion tons (V. P. Yavorsky). The entire surface of the basin is an almost level treeless plateau. The necessary timber for supports can be delivered along the Yenisei and Abakan rivers, which have colossal forest reserves in their upper reaches.

Coals of various qualities are almost all low-ash, contain little sulfur, and are distinguished by hardness.

The above-mentioned deposits are of industrial significance; of these, the greatest importance belongs to the Chernogorsk deposit. Its mines lie 8–9 versts from the Yenisei, are connected with the pier by a narrow-gauge line, and are 10 versts from the Achinsk–Minusinsk railway. Five seams have been discovered, with a thickness from 1.33 m (“two-arshin”) to 6.85 m (“Gigant”). At present two seams are being worked: “Velikan” — 2.53 m, and “Moshchnyi” — 3.91 m. In their technical equipment and productivity, the Chernogorsk mines occupy first place among the Minusinsk coal-mining enterprises. The coal mined belongs to the caking type (Group II according to Gruner), contains little ash and about 0.5% sulfur, and gives a good yield of coke. The coal possesses very high physical properties and is not subject to spontaneous combustion. Its calorific value is from 6,280 to 6,981 cal. Below is given an analysis of the coal from the Chernogorsk mines according to data of the Siberian Technological Institute in Tomsk (1920).

The Ach-Mindorsk deposit is virtually one with the Chernogorsk deposit and, with further prospecting, will probably merge into a single district about 20 versts long. Here five seams have been found, with a total thickness of about 12 meters. Enormous fires have been found throughout the entire district. Groundwater evidently plays a role in localizing the fires.

*) N. N. Kartashov, “The Minusinsk Coal Basin.”

TABLE XXIV.

Seams	Volatile substances	Coke	Ash	Moisture
“Velikan.” Upper point	38.37	51.00	2.07	8.56
Lower point	40.36	48.92	2.14	8.57
“Moshchny”	35.44	50.31	6.26	7.99
“Dvukharshinny”	38.04	49.67	3.94	8.35

The Izykh deposit is situated 35 versts from Minusinsk and 22 versts from the Yenisei, on the right bank of the Abakan. In 1916 the Izykh mines were acquired by the Ural metallurgical enterprise—the Sysert Mining District—which expected, with this coal, to supply its Ural plants after the construction of the Achinsk–Minusinsk railway. Here 27 seams have been discovered, of which 7 are workable, with a thickness of 13 meters. They are located on the very bank of the Abakan, with a strike perpendicular to the course of the river, and therefore serious account will have to be taken of groundwater. Traces of fires are present. At present the mines are not operating. The coals are of variable composition, from brown coals with low calorific value and non-caking to caking coals. Calorific value ranges from 4900 to 7600 cal. The sulfur content in individual cases reaches 3.18%.

According to V. Yavorsky (Izv. Geol. Kom., vol. 40, p. 94), the analysis of the working seam gave the following:

TABLE XXV.

Mine No. 1	Moisture	Volatile matter without moisture	Coke, resinous	Ash	Sulfur
Upper part of seam	6.55	34.60	52.85	3.65	0.70
Lower part of seam	5.00	38.20	56.79	14.17	0.79

The Kalyaginskoye deposit is located two versts from the Yenisei, on its left bank, 11 versts from Minusinsk. Three seams have been discovered, with a total thickness of 11 meters. Until 1914 the Joint-Stock Company of the South Siberian Mining and Metallurgical Works intended to supply its copper and metallurgical plants with this coal. A seam of 4.33 sazhens is being worked. According to Prof. Nikitin, the average analysis of the coal is as follows: volatiles—37.5%, coke—55.6%; calorific value—7433 calories. The coal is subject to weathering and spontaneous combustion.

According to the data of the Bureau of Records of the Siberian Geological Committee (P. K. Bazhenov), the possible coal reserve of the entire Minusinsk basin is about 6 billion tons. It is obvious that with further geological investigation the quantities of coal reserves identified up to the present time will increase significantly. There is reason to suppose, notwithstanding the fact that Minu-

sinsk coals have hardly been investigated; among them there are extremely valuable metallurgical coals capable of ensuring the development of local metallurgy for many decades.

Given the agricultural orientation of the economy of the Minusinsk region in general and of the district in particular, a relatively solid base naturally also arose for individual branches of industry founded on the commodity output of the district’s agriculture. Since it was impossible to market the commodity surpluses of his agricultural production, the producer inevitably sought, and found—at extremely low prices—a market with the local entrepreneur-industrialist. In certain years of good harvests the price, for example, of high-grade wheat fell to 40 kopecks per pood. Under such conditions, the investment of capital in enterprises for processing agricultural raw materials was, for the Minusinsk region, the sphere of the most effective investment of capital. On this basis there arose here, on a sufficiently solid footing, flour milling, distilling, brewing, yeast production, tanneries, sheepskin-coat production (of course, all on a scale corresponding to the district), and, along the way, sawmills also appeared.

In addition, in an economically unjustified, unproductive, and chaotic manner, a significant share of agricultural output was absorbed by handicraft industry. Under these circumstances, both private and handicraft industry contributed very little to the region’s economic and industrial development.

Such is the general characterization of the industry of the Minusinsk region in the period before the revolution.

Passing over the period of the first years after the nationalization of industry by Soviet power, one may form an idea of the condition and subsequent growth of the industry of the Minusinsk district, beginning in 1924, from the data in the table placed below, which gives a characterization of the district’s census industry according to the annual sums of its gross output for the period 1924–1928.

In accordance with the district’s existing economic structure, census industry, by the sums of gross output in each economic year, has the following grouping:

TABLE XXVI.

Branch of industry	1924–1925: Sum, thous. rub.	1924–1925: %% of total	1925–26: Sum, thous. rub.	1925–26: %	1926–27: Sum, thous. rub.	1926–27: %	1927–28: Sum, thous. rub.	1927–28: %
1. Mining	290.0	24.0	327.9	18.3	420.0	19.4	450.0	13.4
2. Processing of agricultural products
Including: a) grain	608.9	50.0	1074.4	60.1	130.0	60.1	214.0	63.3
b) tobacco	60.1	5.0	117.0	6.5	94.9	4.4	110.0	3.2
c) hides	143.6	11.8	58.4	3.3	26.5	1.2	—	—
d) wool	—	—	29.0	1.6	65.0	3.0	80.0	2.3
3. Timber processing	17.4	1.4	60.6	3.4	125.0	5.8	300.0	8.9
4. Printing	61.4	5.2	87.3	4.9	89.3	4.1	105.0	3.1
5. Electric power	27.2	2.3	34.8	1.9	42.3	2.0	200.0	5.9
Total	1208.8	100%	1789.4	100%	2163.5	100%	3386.0	100%

As industry is grouped by its separate branches can be seen from Table XXVII.

TABLE XXVII.

Branches of industry	1924–25	1925–26	1926–27	1927–28
Mining industry	24.0%	18.3%	19.4%	13.3%
Processing of agricultural products and forest products	68.5%	74.9%	73.8%	77.7%
Serving cultural needs	7.5%	6.8%	8.8%	9.0%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%

Thus, the dominant branch of industry in the district is the industry processing agricultural products. Over the four-year period this branch shows signs of rapid growth, leaving the mining and other industries a very modest place.

To identify the individual directions within industry, we present in the table the dynamics of growth of gross output, taking the output of 1924–25 as 100%.

TABLE XXVIII.

Branches of industry	1924–25	1925–26	1926–27	1927–28
Mining industry	100	113.1%	145.0%	155.1%
Processing of agricultural raw materials and forest products	100%	161.5%	194.2%	316.8%
Serving cultural needs	100%	137.8%	148.5%	357.5%
Total	100%	118.0%	179.0%	280.11%

The data in the tables presented lead to the basic conclusion that the chief direction of industry in the district is the processing of products of agriculture and forestry, while the branches of the mining industry and the industry serving cultural needs (electric power and printing) are only in the initial stage of development.

Because of the limited information on handicraft industry in Minusinsk District, its accounting is extremely incomplete. According to data for 1925–26, the quantitative composition in the consolidated groups of the district’s various handicraft trades is as follows:

1. Manufacture of clothing . . . . . . . . . . 777 households
2. Metalworking . . . . . . . . . . 678 “
3. Manufacture of food products . . . . . . 619 “

1. Processing of hides and sheepskins . . . . . . . . . . 511 households
2. Wood processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351 “
3. Chemical industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 “
4. Processing of minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 “
5. Various small occupations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 “
6. Processing of fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 §

Total . . . 3157

In general, the number of households in the Minusinsk District having one or another non-agricultural craft or source of earnings is calculated at 13,094. In addition, there are 5,208 households hiring out their labor, i.e., in all 18,302 households, which amounts to 33%. Thus, the relative weight of separately taken handicraft industries among other non-agricultural occupations of the population, by number of households engaged, is 15%, while hunting accounts for 50% and wage labor for 30%.

By type, the industrial household on average differs somewhat from the average peasant household in the district, being markedly elevated in comparison with the latter.

TABLE XXIX.

	Average per 1 industrial household	Average per 1 peasant household in the District
Eaters	6.2	5.2
Desyatinas sown	4.7	3.7
Total livestock	15.0	18.0
Including: working horses	3.0	2.3
“ “ “ cows	4.1	1.9

Apart from handicraft industries, in the economy of the Minusinsk District poultry raising and beekeeping also have some significance, being most developed in the Idrinsky, Kuraginsky, and Karatuzsky districts.

The Minusinsk District holds a rather honorable place in the procurement of furs. In former years this region supplied a very large quantity of all kinds of fur goods and competed with the rich Angara region. However, the predatory extermination of animals and, in part, an epizootic among the animal population have greatly weakened the fur trade of the Minusinsk region. The scale of the fur trade in the Minusinsk region may be seen from the following figures for procurements in 1925: 2,877 sables, 39,314 squirrels, 4,402 ermines, 591 foxes, 3,784 kolinskies, 74 otters, 65 lynxes, 59 bears, 820 wolves, 25 wolverines, 197 badgers, 6,141 hares, and 2,199 polecats.

TABLE XXX

Gross turnover of the Minusinsk District for 1925–26	In thousands of rubles	In %%
1. Crop production	23,701.8	52.7
2. Animal husbandry, poultry farming, and beekeeping	11,001.6	24.4
3. Forestry	175.1	0.4
4. Fishing	19.0
5. Hunting and trapping	208.9	0.5
Industry:
6. Census industry	1,742.2	3.9
7. Cottage industry	8,131.3	18.1
Total	44,994.9	100%

VI.

The characterization of the Minusinsk District argues that, in terms of its natural wealth, it has diverse possibilities for broad economic and industrial development. However, the prospects for its immediate future in this respect are rather limited. The main reasons for this are its small population, its low cultural and economic level, and also the isolation and extreme remoteness of the district under consideration from industrial centers. Under such conditions, the foundation of the economic well-being of the Minusinsk District, both at the present time and in the nearest period of years, will inevitably remain connected only with agriculture. At the same time, the latter has already to a considerable extent exhausted its former possibilities and requires a transition to new forms associated with the intensification of agriculture, with the introduction of crop rotations, grass sowing, and industrial crops linking agriculture with industry. In this connection it should be noted that, alongside the already beginning spread in the Minusinsk District of sunflower, hemp, flax, and potato cultivation, the cultivation of sugar beet also attracts attention as possible here. The many years of sowings of it by Gusev’s Minusinsk sugar factory, the long period of broad investigation of Siberia with regard to ascertaining the possibility of a sugar industry here, and, finally, the experience of the Altai districts¹, where a sugar factory is already being built at the present time—all this speaks in favor of the possibility of the industrial cultivation of sugar beet in the Minusinsk District. The desirability of this, both from the standpoint of the interests of local agriculture and of the district’s industry, is indi—

There is, of course, no need to dispute this, since it is self-evident. If, in addition, one takes into account the remoteness of the Minusinsk territory from the sugar-producing regions of the USSR that supply it, lying 4–5 thousand kilometers away, then in assessing the significance of the question indicated one must also consider that the transport alone of the sugar needed for Minusinsk and the districts nearest to it, at a carriage cost of about 2 rubles per pood, costs hundreds of thousands of rubles annually. Under such conditions, the expenses for transporting sugar brought from beyond the Urals into Minusinsk and the adjoining districts, over only 7–10 years, would amount to a sum sufficient for the construction here of its own sugar factory, with beet cultivation corresponding to the local sugar needs of the relevant Siberian districts. The emergence of such a Siberian sugar factory would subsequently eliminate unproductive expenditures of millions on transporting Trans-Ural sugar to Siberia. At the same time, the Minusinsk sugar factory would enter into the life of the district as a substantial factor in its economic and industrial development. But, in advancing this proposition, it is necessary to bear in mind that, although the emergence of a sugar industry in the Minusinsk District, on the basis of all that has so far been available, appears at present, generally speaking, quite probable, nevertheless the possibility of building such a factory here in the coming years, under the present conditions of the district, remains as yet unclear and raises several extremely important preliminary questions; without answering them it would be impossible to resolve the main question as well—whether the construction of a sugar factory in the Minusinsk District in the coming years is timely. Among such questions, the most important prove to be: the question of the future beet-growing of the district being supplied with labor; the availability of the corresponding land resources; the character of the beet-sugar economy; the capacity of the projected factory and the identification of a definite site for it that would satisfy the basic requirements for this purpose, i.e., proximity to the necessary railway or river routes of communication, provision with water, fuel, building materials, etc.

In order to resolve all the above, the author of the present work in the summer of 1928 undertook a personal survey of the Minusinsk District. With the assistance of district, regional, land, and resettlement bodies, as well as representatives of agronomy, experimental work, and the local rural population, the question of the possibility of building a sugar factory in the Minusinsk District was subjected here to broad discussion. As a result, the following places were tentatively marked out as suitable for the location of sugar factories here: 1) Sidorovo landing stage, 2) Khvorostetskaya landing stage, and 3) the village of Ivanovsky Zavod, where Gusev’s sugar factory once stood. All of them lie in the southern, fertile, comparatively densely populated part of the district’s forest-steppe, in its Ermakovsky District; all are situated on the right bank of the Yenisei in immediate proximity to this powerful river artery, or very near it, on its tributary, the Oya River, on whose banks, and on those of its tributary the Ashpa River, lies the land fund of the village of Ivanovsky Zavod.

The Sidorovo point, proposed for the factory, lies between the villages of Shushenskoye and Koptyrevo, 8 versts from each in either direction. It is situated on the right bank of the Yenisei, near the Sidorovo landing stage, close to the ferry crossing.

The second site directly for a sugar factory could be the locality near the Khvorostetskaya landing on the Yenisei, 5–6 versts from the village of Shushenskoye and 6–7 versts from the village of Kazantsevo.

A third site for a sugar factory could be the place near the village of Ivanovskii Zavod on the bank of the Oya River, at the point where the Ashpa tributary flows into it; for example, the Gremyachii plot, lying 15 versts from the bank of the Yenisei.

All these sites, as can be seen from the preceding description of the Minusinsk District and judging by the map appended to it, are sufficiently supplied with building materials, coal, water, transport along the Yenisei river route, and, finally, proximity to the railway.

Proceeding from the population of the Minusinsk District and the neighboring Khakass District, as well as from other demand for sugar, the local market would require from the first sugar factory of the district about 500,000 poods of sugar per year. To satisfy such demand, the first sugar factory of the district, taking into account the possibility here of working with frozen and dry beet, could be designed for a daily capacity of 2,000 berkovets of beet (4,000 centners). Such a capacity for the first Minusinsk sugar factory, given that a sufficiently strong beet-growing base is not yet organized here, would fully ensure the prospect of a gradual and painless increase in the annual productivity of the sugar factory without excessive simultaneous expenditure of fixed capital in organizing the enterprise. As for the system of beet farming being organized in the Minusinsk District, it must be thought that it should correspond not to the wheat-and-beet system usual for European regions, but to a beet-and-livestock system; this is indicated by the remoteness of the Minusinsk District from export points, the relative cheapness and abundance of wheat in Siberia, and also the general situation of the domestic and foreign markets, connected with the steady growth in demand for various livestock products, which are expensive relative to wheat. The author also pointed to this circumstance in his previous articles on the question of organizing the sugar industry in Western Siberia.

Regardless of the needs of local markets, the capacity of each newly organized sugar factory in general, and even more so in a region new to beet, is determined above all by the capacity of the available land fund for beet sowing and by that body of live labor from the local rural population which the latter could, after satisfying all its own needs, allocate for cultivating the beet crops needed by the sugar factory. In this connection, the normal and maximum radii of the beet-growing land fund serving a sugar factory placed at the center of the entire land area are taken as 20 and 35 versts.

In the further exposition it is clarified to what extent, under the above-mentioned conditions, each of the sugar factories presumed in the present case at the points designated for them in the Minusinsk District can be supplied with beet crops.

In view of the fact that beet growing in the Minusinsk District is a new undertaking, unfamiliar to its present population, and considering that the beet-sugar economy of each factory should be exemplary, demonstrative, and, moreover, should provide its factory with a sufficient share of raw material, it is therefore proposed that at each

of them must have their own beet-growing state farms with a total area of 10,000 desyatinas for each sugar factory.

VII.

The sizes of the land reserves possible for the sugar industry in Minusinsk District, within radii—normal, 20 versts, and maximum, 35 versts—with centers for sugar factories at the settlements Khvorostetskaya, Sidorovo, and the former Ivanovka sugar factory, are determined by the figures presented in Table XXXI.

As the center of the proposed factory in the village of Ivanovka, the point of intersection of the Ashpa River (right tributary of the Oya River) with the western boundary of the Ivanovka forest allotment was taken provisionally.

TABLE XXXI.

Total developed land, desyatinas (radius 20 versts)	Suitable land, desyatinas (radius 20 versts)	Arable land, desyatinas (radius 20 versts)	Center	Total developed land, desyatinas (radius 35 versts)	Suitable land, desyatinas (radius 35 versts)	Arable land, desyatinas (radius 35 versts)
108,287	90,804	16,859	Settlement Sidorova	258,105	216,389	40,202
94,841	77,591	16,382	Settlement Khvorostetskaya	253,696	210,989	42,425
109,872	91,490	16,941	Former sugar factory Ivanovka	287,777	248,747	35,774

It is of interest to differentiate the entire area of each land reserve by zones, with radii of 5–10 versts, 10–15 versts, etc., up to 35 versts, in order to identify the areas of developed, suitable, and arable land.

By a zone is meant a belt bounded by two radii, with a difference of 5 versts. The differentiation by zones is given in Table XXXII.

TABLE XXXII.

Zone in versts	Settlement Sidorova — total developed land, desyatinas	Settlement Khvorostetskaya — total developed land, desyatinas	Former sugar factory Ivanovka — total developed land, desyatinas	Settlement Sidorova — suitable land, desyatinas	Settlement Khvorostetskaya — suitable land, desyatinas	Ivanovka — suitable land, desyatinas	Settlement Sidorova — arable land, desyatinas	Settlement Khvorostetskaya — arable land, desyatinas	Ivanovka — arable land, desyatinas
0–5	4,404	25,953	3,806	3,691	21,802	3,197	799	3,620	531
5–10	46,289	13,515	9,049	38,814	9,627	7,601	6,946	3,290	1,268
10–15	24,888	8,505	86,396	20,888	7,099	30,539	3,870	1,494	5,322
15–20	32,705	46,508	60,619	27,410	38,971	50,151	5,243	7,278	9,820
20–25	49,862	42,041	58,347	41,804	35,222	48,770	7,703	6,508	9,385
25–30	43,654	81,775	43,125	36,599	68,516	36,129	6,788	13,024	6,606
30–35	56,301	43,923	86,434	47,181	36,848	72,355	8,851	6,510	12,842

It is assumed that the plant, in addition to beets obtained from its own land fund of about 10,000 desyatinas, will also receive planters’ beets through peasant beet-sowing. Moreover, the beets will arrive by cart, it being assumed that the radius will extend to 25–35 versts, and by rafting along the Yenisei and Oya rivers from the districts of the upper course, lying above the proposed sites for the plants within the forest-steppe and steppe zones, beginning from the village of Sayanskoye, i.e., at a distance of 35–60 versts.

In order to determine the beet-growing possibilities of peasant beet-sowing, it will be necessary to dwell in somewhat greater detail on the economic capacity of each separate zone for all three centers proposed for the construction of sugar plants. By economic capacity is meant the availability of land area, labor power, and live and dead inventory. The land funds included within 35-verst radii for all the centers of sugar plants are located in several districts of the administrative Minusinsk Okrug. Thus, the settlements within a radius of 35 versts with the center at Sidorovo belong to the Beysky, Ermakovsky, and Minusinsk districts; with the center at Khvorostyanskaya, to the same districts; and for the center of Ivanovka, settlements of the Karatuzsky district are also added. By zones these settlements are distributed as follows:

TABLE XXXIII.

Zones in versts	Number of populated points	Centers of land funds: Sidorovo landing stage	Centers of land funds: Khvorostyanskaya volost	Centers of land funds: Ivanovka
0–5		2	2
5–10		4	4	3
10–15		5	4	5
15–20		7	3	7
20–25	—	10	[[unclear: number]]	6
25–30	—	6	11	10
30–35	—	12	[[unclear: number]]	10
0–35		49	17	48

The characteristics of these settlements, distributed by zones for each of the indicated centers according to economic capacity, are given in Table XXXIV. (See the table on pp. 54–55.)

This table contains information on the principal items, namely: on the size of the population, male and female working hands, working horses, and the principal elements of agricultural implements with which the cultivation of sugar beet is connected directly or indirectly. It must be said that Table XXXIII does not include the left-bank villages located at a distance of more than 15 versts from the river. This has been done on the grounds that it is unlikely that these settlements, owing to the complexity of trans—

of transport, would begin delivering beets for floating to the factories and, consequently, would also take up beet growing; for this reason they were excluded from the number of settlements supplying beets to the sugar factory. On the same grounds, settlements situated 10 versts from the river, on the left bank, but geographically located below the points designated for the construction of factories and therefore compelled to send beets by water upstream, were excluded.

Since in the Minusinsk district the population is not distributed uniformly everywhere, in connection with this circumstance the zone with the largest radius is not the most powerful zone. Pausing on this point, we see from Table XXXIV, cited below:

For the center Sidorovo: first place in the number of working hands, male and female, of work horses, and in the amount of arable land is held by the zone of 30—35 versts. In the availability of agricultural implements the order of alternation is the same. The zone with a radius of up to 5 versts takes last place in all the enumerated points; only in land occupied by crops and in the actual load per unit of draft power is it greater than in the other zones. Without speaking of the absolute suitability of the zones, we can for the time being confine ourselves only to their comparative assessment. Thus, the zone with a radius of up to 10 versts must be recognized as comparatively more suitable for beet growing. Although it lags behind the zone of 30—35 versts in all items, in terms of transport conditions, in the sense of distance from the factory, it is the most advantageous. Second place is occupied by the zone with a radius of 25 versts.

For the center Khvorostetskaya the following is observed: in provision with working hands, male and female, with work horses, and with convenient and arable land, the zone of 25—30 versts stands in first place, followed by the zone of 15—20 versts. The zones of 20—25 versts and 30—35 versts, with respect to male and female working hands, have a noticeable advantage over the zone of 15—20 versts, yielding to it in all the rest. The higher zones: up to 5 versts, 6—10, and 10—15 versts lag considerably behind those mentioned, and the minimum figure in all items belongs to the zone of 10—15 versts, which includes only one settlement. With respect to % of land occupied by crops, first place is taken by the zone of 5—10 versts. The actual load per unit of draft power is almost the same for all zones, with fluctuations within 0.3%.

Consequently, the greatest economic power in the beet-growing district with the center at Khvorostetskaya landing stage is possessed by the zone of 25—30 versts.

Finally, let us consider the economic power of the separate zones of the center Ivanovka.

In terms of provision in all the above-mentioned items, the highest place is occupied by the zone of 30—35 versts; only its percentage of land occupied by crops is somewhat lower than in the neighboring zones. Gradually decreasing, the zones of 15—20, 20—25, and 25—30 versts follow. Concluding the analysis of the economic power of the separate zones of the beet-growing district with the center at Ivanovka, it should be recognized that the zone of 15—20 versts is the most suitable, excluding the zone of 30—35 versts, which has greater economic power but is less convenient because of its distance from the factory.

Approaching the assessment of districts not by zones, but from the point of view of the capacity of the total land fund of a 20-verst radius, taking it as normal—

Note*): The study of questions concerning the land funds for beet growing in the individual districts of the Minusinsk district was carried out by the author jointly with V. P. Molchanova.

TABLE

Characteristics of the economic capacity of individual beet-growing districts

Zone radius in versts	Number of villages in the zone	Number of households in the zone	Population, both sexes: men	Population, both sexes: women	Population, both sexes: total consumers	Working hands: men	Working hands: women	Working horses	Land, desyatinas: arable land	Land, desyatinas: non-arable land
Center: Pristan	Center: Pristan	Center: Pristan	Center: Pristan	Center: Pristan	Center: Pristan	Center: Pristan	Center: Pristan	Center: Pristan	Center: Pristan	Center: Pristan
0–5	2	170	424	449	873	189	205	264	3691	713
5–10	4	1636	3903	3944	7847	1695	1814	3127	38814	7475
10–15	5	833	2044	2307	4551	983	1069	1802	20888	4006
15–20	7	1155	2904	2875	5780	1248	1358	2351	27411	5295
20–25	7	1474	2699	3847	7546	1630	1773	2993	36421	6998
25–30	7	1463	3337	3524	6861	1482	1612	2726	33455	6467
30–35	11	4105	4690	4861	9551	2063	2244	3880	46599	8990
0–35	43	15836	21807	21201	43008	9290	10075	17143	167188	39938
Center: Pristan	Center: Pristan	Center: Pristan	Center: Pristan	Center: Pristan	Center: Pristan	Center: Pristan	Center: Pristan	Center: Pristan	Center: Pristan	Center: Pristan
0–5	2	971	2221	2279	4500	972	1057	1715	21893	4150
5–10	4	758	1940	1914	3854	832	905	1660	9827	3888
10–15	1	286	688	674	1362	294	320	645	7099	1406
15–20	10	1640	3869	4083	7952	1718	1869	3230	38472	7537
20–25	6	1472	3440	3614	7054	1523	1638	2850	35222	6818
25–30	12	2806	6608	6932	13540	2925	3182	5477	64155	12091
30–35	8	1409	3509	3651	7160	1547	1685	2813	35182	6751
0–35	43	9342	22275	13147	45422	9811	10657	18350	212350	42641
Center: former sugar factory	Center: former sugar factory	Center: former sugar factory	Center: former sugar factory	Center: former sugar factory	Center: former sugar factory	Center: former sugar factory	Center: former sugar factory	Center: former sugar factory	Center: former sugar factory	Center: former sugar factory
0–5	1	151	316	344	660	143	155	252	3188	609
5–10	3	474	668	801	1569	339	369	598	7592	1448
10–15	5	1314	3031	3190	6221	1344	1462	2439	30539	5857
15–20	7	2378	5343	5585	10928	2360	2568	4386	50152	10468
20–25	6	1971	4899	4786	9705	2096	2281	4058	48771	9577
25–30	10	1451	3531	3766	7297	1576	1715	2941	36130	6995
30–35	16	3068	7348	7588	14936	3226	3510	5860	72356	14079
0–35	48	10812	25136	26060	51316	11084	12060	20534	248747	49032

XXXIV

zones. (Excluding left-bank villages, except for riverside ones).

Land, desyatins	Under crops, desyatins — in the field	Under crops, desyatins — in the vegetable garden and homestead	Total under crops, desyatins	% of occupied cultivated land	Actual burden per 1 draft animal	Agricultural implements — plows	Agricultural implements — harrows, iron	Agricultural implements — harrows, wooden with iron	Notes
DOROVA.
404	794	5.32	799	21.6	3.03	122	2.62	1.66	Column 16 obtained by dividing the numbers of column 15 by the corresponding numbers of column 12.
290	6887	59.4	6946	17.9	2.22	1118	2.35	108.40	Column 16 obtained by dividing the numbers of column 15 by the corresponding numbers of column 12.
888	3839	31.7	3871	18.5	2.14	645	3.73	50.8	Column 16 obtained by dividing the numbers of column 15 by the corresponding numbers of column 12.
706	5202	41.2	5243	19.1	2.23	815	6.48	55.4	Column 16 obtained by dividing the numbers of column 15 by the corresponding numbers of column 12.
419	6506	55.7	6562	18.0	2.19	1076	4.96	11.3	Column 16 obtained by dividing the numbers of column 15 by the corresponding numbers of column 12.
890	6057	51.6	6109	18.3	2.24	974	2.67	90.9	Column 16 obtained by dividing the numbers of column 15 by the corresponding numbers of column 12.
499	8634	71.2	8705	18.7	2.24	1348	6.51	106.7	Column 16 obtained by dividing the numbers of column 15 by the corresponding numbers of column 12.
126	37919	316	38225	18.33	2.23	6098	29.32	514
OROSTEYSKAYA.
353	3586	34.2	3620	16.6	2.11	649	1.35	79.2
515	3961	29.0	3990	41.4	2.40	537	1.15	28.2
505	1484	10.2	1494	21.0	2.47	188	0.41	5.3
509	7219	58.9	7278	18.7	2.25	1123	3.76	89.5
040	6455	53.3	6508	18.5	2.28	997	2.11	85.1
526	12068	97.1	12165	18.9	2.22	1919	11.2	141
933	6097	54.3	6151	17.9	2.19	1025	2.15	107
980	40869	337	41206	21.8	2.30	6438	22.12	536
VOD IVANOVKA.
307	526	5.02	531	16.6	2.11	922	0.20	11.6
050	1250	11.9	1262	16.7	2.12	226	0.46	27.6
396	5275	47.2	5822	17.4	2.18	891	1.87	94.6
620	9737	82.7	9820	19.6	2.23	1554	3.36	146
348	9312	73.2	9385	19.2	2.32	1378	2.91	78.7
125	6548	58.1	6606	18.3	2.24	1037	2.68	91.7
435	12734	108	12842	17.7	2.19	2170	6.35	175
779	45382	386	45768	17.9	2.23	7349	17.83	625

...which, under the conditions of sugar production, is usually acceptable and normally permissible in terms of transport costs, our beet-growing districts with the centers of Sidorova Landing, Khvorostetskaya Landing, and the former Ivanovka sugar factory, in consecutive order according to their agricultural capacity, are distributed as shown in Table XXXV.

TABLE No. XXXV.

Normal radius	Centers of beet growing	Lands, desyatinas: total developed and undeveloped lands	Lands, desyatinas: usable land	Arable land: plowland	Arable land: meadow	Arable land: pasture	Agricultural inventory: working horses	Agricultural inventory: plows and [[unclear: implement]]	Harrows: iron	Harrows: wooden
20 versts	Ivanovka	109872	91491	16911	4185	4754	7575	2764	6	280
20 versts	Sidorova	108287	90803	16860	1115	447	7513	2701	15	216
20 versts	Khvorostetskaya	94481	77500	16382	3816	1152	7216	2497	6	202

Thus, first place is occupied by the former Ivanovka sugar factory; second by Sidorovo Landing, and third by Khvorostetskaya Landing. But it must be noted that Sidorova and Khvorostetskaya stand on a floatable river, thanks to which, despite their lesser agricultural capacity, they will have a number of advantages over Ivanovka.

As is known, the industrial cultivation of sugar beet is possible only where there is a sufficient density of population. Above, the uneven distribution of the population by districts in the Minusinsk region was indicated. In view of this, let us determine and compare the densities—geographical, active (developed), and agricultural—in the beet-growing districts of the indicated centers of the Minusinsk region within the normal twenty-verst radius for them. Geographical density is understood in the generally accepted sense. By active, or developed, density is meant the density covering the area actually developed and inhabited by the population, without significant forest and desert spaces; by agricultural density, the density of the area under sowing in fields, vegetable gardens, and farmsteads. In doing so, besides population density—that is, the total number of eaters per square verst—we shall also determine the number of working male and female hands, which is a decisive factor in the possibility of cultivating sugar beet. Comparing the densities found in the beet-growing districts of the Minusinsk region, we arrive at the conclusions given below.

The beet-growing district with its center at Ivanovka is the most densely settled; next comes the district with its center at Sidorova, and last in Table XXXVI is the district with its center at Khvorostetskaya Landing.

TABLE No. XXXVI.

In radius	Name of beet-sowing district	Geographical density per square verst: total eaters	Geographical density per square verst: labor power, men	Geographical density per square verst: labor power, women	Active density per square verst: total eaters	Active density per square verst: labor power, men	Active density per square verst: labor power, women	Landholding density per square verst: total eaters	Landholding density per square verst: labor power, men	Landholding density per square verst: labor power, women
20 v.	Ivanovka	15.3	3.3	3.6	17.6	3.8	4.1	114.4	24.7	26.9
20 v.	Sidorova	15.1	3.2	3.5	17.6	3.8	4.1	113.0	24.4	26.5
20 v.	Khvorostetskaya	14.0	3.0	8.3	18.7	4.0	4.4	107.8	23.3	25.3

All the data cited above make it possible to give a relative assessment of the beet-sowing districts under consideration, but they do not provide an idea of the actual degree of suitability of the districts for industrial beet growing; for this, one of the principal factors is the availability of labor power, the quantity of which cannot be below a certain minimum. In order to clarify this question, let us turn to the balance of labor and draft power by periods of work, counting 28 days for the spring period (from May 5 to June 10) and 95 days for the summer and autumn periods (from June 10 to October 1). This balance is presented below in Table XXXVIII, with the deduction of 6 left-bank villages (except the riparian ones).

We shall determine the expenditure of labor and draft power by their outlays on spring wheat, as the crop which is relatively the most labor-intensive among those usual for the Minusinsk District. According to the standard regulation adopted by the Statistical Bureau and the Main Land Administration, the rates of expenditure per one desyatina, according to the calculations adopted in the Altai beet-sowing district, are determined by the figures of Table XXXVII.

TABLE No. XXXVII.

Name of work	Spring period: men	Spring period: women	Spring period: horses	Autumn and summer periods: men	Autumn and summer periods: women	Autumn and summer periods: horses
Plowing	1.4	0.8	7.0	—	—	—
Harrowing	0.5	0.9	1.4	—	—	—
Tending	—	—	—	—	1.6	—
Harvesting	—	—	—	3.0	—	1.2
Threshing and cleaning	—	—	—	1.65	3.1	0.9
Carting to the homestead and to market	—	—	—	1.0	—	1.0
TOTAL	1.9	1.7	8.4	5.65	4.7	3.1*

*) From the report of agronomist S. A. Shchilin, “On the Question of Organizing the Raw-Material Base of the First Siberian Sugar Factory in the Barnaul District of the Aleisk Region in 1928.”

TABLE No. XXXVIII

Availability by periods of male, female, and draft power in field cultivation by zones.

(Excluding 6 left-bank villages).

Zone, radius in versts	Spring period: horses	Spring period: men	Spring period: women	Summer and autumn period: horses	Summer and autumn period: men	Summer and autumn period: women	Notes
CENTER: SIDOROV PIER.
0–5	7586	5280	5744	25059	17913	19490
5–10	87554	47459	51633	297059	161021	175185	For the spring period, 28 working days were taken: from May 5 to June 10.
10–15	50443	27525	29946	171146	93387	101602	For the spring period, 28 working days were taken: from May 5 to June 10.
15–20	65824	34952	38026	223334	118587	129018	For the spring period, 28 working days were taken: from May 5 to June 10.
20–25	83809	45638	49653	284352	154843	168466
25–30	76338	41495	45146	259005	140788	153173
30–35	108633	57765	62846	368576	195987	213228	For the summer and autumn period, 95 days, counting from June 10 to October 1.
0–35	480187	260114	282994	1628530	882526	942621	For the summer and autumn period, 95 days, counting from June 10 to October 1.
CENTER: KHVOROSTETSKAYA PIER.
0–5	48018	27216	29610	162919	92340	100462
5–10	46482	23309	25360	157709	79085	86041	The columns of the table were obtained by multiplying the number of days in each period (28 and 95) by the number of horses, by the number of male and female working hands separately for each zone.
10–15	16936	8237	8962	57461	27948	30407	The columns of the table were obtained by multiplying the number of days in each period (28 and 95) by the number of horses, by the number of male and female working hands separately for each zone.
15–20	90450	45916	52325	306885	155787	177530	The columns of the table were obtained by multiplying the number of days in each period (28 and 95) by the number of horses, by the number of male and female working hands separately for each zone.
20–25	79796	42652	46416	270736	144720	157482	The columns of the table were obtained by multiplying the number of days in each period (28 and 95) by the number of horses, by the number of male and female working hands separately for each zone.
25–30	153347	81890	89094	520284	277812	302283	The columns of the table were obtained by multiplying the number of days in each period (28 and 95) by the number of horses, by the number of male and female working hands separately for each zone.
30–35	78765	43303	47179	267239	146922	190071	The columns of the table were obtained by multiplying the number of days in each period (28 and 95) by the number of horses, by the number of male and female working hands separately for each zone.
0–35	513794	272523	298946	1843234	924614	1014276
CENTER: FORMER SUGAR FACTORY IVANOVKA.
0–5	7043	3992	4349	23895	13543	14734
5–10	16742	9489	10322	56804	32195	35021
10–15	68298	37625	40935	231724	127655	138885
15–20	122812	66093	71907	416682	224244	243971
20–25	113060	58696	63859	383597	199147	216665
25–30	82336	44132	48015	279356	149733	162908
30–35	164094	90333	98280	556747	306487	333449
0–35	574385	310360	337667	1948805	1053004	1145633

Then, given the available desyatinas of land under cultivation, in each beet-sowing district by zones the required number of working hands and horses will be expressed by the figures of Table XXXIX below.

As a result of the calculations, a remainder of labor and draft power is revealed, presented in Table XL, which is determined as the difference between the corresponding data of Tables XXXVIII and XXXIX, i.e., as the difference between the availability of labor power and the amount of such power required for the cultivation of all available arable land.

If we assume that 25% of the expenditures of female labor in field farming is spent on servicing the household, then, for all districts, expenditures on the household will be expressed as follows (in labor-days):

	Within a radius of 20 versts	Within a radius of 30 versts
Center Sidorova	19.810	44.927
” Khvorostetskaya	16.257	45.126
” Ivanovka	19.898	53.777

Consequently, it follows that, for the female group, the districts have completely unoccupied working days:

	Within a radius of 20 versts	Within a radius of 30 versts
Center Sidorova	326.243	735.523
” Khvorostetskaya	313.156	787.147
” Ivanovka	333.119	877.147

If we take into account the number of male and female working hands and horses, which in the table is expressed in tens of thousands and more for the indicated period, it will become obvious that so large a quantity of unemployed labor power is a very disadvantageous factor in the economy of agriculture. In connection with this, the introduction of labor-intensive crops, in particular sugar beet, will be entirely rational. Let us consider what area of beet plantings can be served by the available supply of free female hands that exists in the districts.

In discussing this question, we shall not touch at all upon the period of sowing it, for in regard to it there can be no concern: this period contains no labor-intensive moments; consequently, attention should be concentrated only on the period of cultivation and digging of the beet. These works coincide with the summer and autumn periods; therefore it is necessary to establish what quantity of beet can be cultivated and dug with the identified surplus of working hands and horses in these periods. In dwelling on this question, it should be said that those assumptions and calculations which took place in the organization, in 1928, of a beet-sugar economy for the planned construction of a sugar factory in the Aleisk district are expressed by Table XLI.

TABLE No. XXXIX.

Number of labor-days required for the cultivation of all arable land within the redistribution boundaries of the zone of the given radius, counting all of it as spring wheat
(Excluding six left-bank villages.)

Zone radius in versts	Spring period — Horses	Spring period — Men	Spring period — Women	Summer and autumn period — Horses	Summer and autumn period — Men	Summer and autumn period — Women	Note
CENTER: SIDOROV PIER.
0–5	6714	1519	1259	2475	4516	3757
5–10	58351	13198	11809	21531	39248	32641
10–15	32513	7354	6580	11999	21869	18192	The expenditure of draft and labor power is taken according to the schedule adopted by the Statistical Bureau and the GZU for one desyatina of spring wheat.
15–20	44014	9962	8911	16251	29627	24614	The expenditure of draft and labor power is taken according to the schedule adopted by the Statistical Bureau and the GZU for one desyatina of spring wheat.
20–25	55124	12478	11155	20342	37076	30842	The expenditure of draft and labor power is taken according to the schedule adopted by the Statistical Bureau and the GZU for one desyatina of spring wheat.
25–30	51315	11617	10385	18938	34515	28712	The expenditure of draft and labor power is taken according to the schedule adopted by the Statistical Bureau and the GZU for one desyatina of spring wheat.
30–35	73127	1654	14800	26987	49157	40946	The expenditure of draft and labor power is taken according to the schedule adopted by the Statistical Bureau and the GZU for one desyatina of spring wheat.
0–35	322185	72649	65022	118572	216053	175512
CENTER: KHVOROSTYANKA PIER.
0–5	30400	6878	6151	11221	20452	17043	The calculation was made as follows: the amount of land under sowing in the field and garden was multiplied successively by the norms required per 1 desyatina, for horses and for working hands—male and female.
5–10	33513	7580	6782	12365	22542	18792	The calculation was made as follows: the amount of land under sowing in the field and garden was multiplied successively by the norms required per 1 desyatina, for horses and for working hands—male and female.
10–15	12334	2800	2511	4556	8144	7924	The calculation was made as follows: the amount of land under sowing in the field and garden was multiplied successively by the norms required per 1 desyatina, for horses and for working hands—male and female.
15–20	61128	13829	12373	22563	41123	34298	The calculation was made as follows: the amount of land under sowing in the field and garden was multiplied successively by the norms required per 1 desyatina, for horses and for working hands—male and female.
20–25	54665	12365	11063	20174	36740	30578	The calculation was made as follows: the amount of land under sowing in the field and garden was multiplied successively by the norms required per 1 desyatina, for horses and for working hands—male and female.
25–30	102188	23114	20681	37712	68753	[[unclear: number]]	The calculation was made as follows: the amount of land under sowing in the field and garden was multiplied successively by the norms required per 1 desyatina, for horses and for working hands—male and female.
30–35	50671	11688	10458	18760	34257	28543	The calculation was made as follows: the amount of land under sowing in the field and garden was multiplied successively by the norms required per 1 desyatina, for horses and for working hands—male and female.
0–35	346189	78294	70052	127741	232820	181785
CENTER: FORMER IVANOVKA SUGAR FACTORY.
0–5	4460	1009	903	1646	3000	2497
5–10	10572	2398	2146	3913	7134	5942
10–15	44704	10112	9047	16498	30069	25033
15–20	82488	18658	16694	30442	55485	46154
20–25	78657	17822	15955	29094	53027	44111
25–30	55888	12551	11230	20478	37322	31047
30–35	107572	24400	21831	39810	72556	60525
0–35	384451	86960	77806	141881	258588	215109

TABLE No. XL.

Remainder of horse and labor days by zones.

Zone radius, in versts	Spring period: horses	Spring period: men	Spring period: women	Summer and autumn period: horses	Summer and autumn period: men	Summer and autumn period: women
CENTER: SIDOROV PIER.
0—5	872	3761	4386	22581	13397	15733
5—10	29203	34260	39824	275525	121773	142536
10—15	17930	20170	23366	159148	71518	83410
15—20	21780	24989	29112	207078	88961	104374
20—25	28688	33170	38498	264010	117768	137625
25—30	25023	29888	34761	240067	106273	124461
30—35	35506	41224	48047	341589	146800	172312
0—35	159002	187465	227992	1509998	666490	762909
CENTER: KHVOROSTELSKAYA PIER.
0—5	17612	20338	23456	151698	71888	83449
5—10	12969	15729	18557	145340	56543	79259
10—15	4382	5398	6421	52829	19504	23382
15—20	29312	32087	39951	284322	114664	143322
20—25	25130	30287	35353	250561	107951	126896
25—30	51159	58776	68413	482572	209108	245107
30—35	27091	31615	36722	248169	112165	131158
0—35	167655	194229	228894	1615493	691824	832573
CENTER: FORMER SUGAR FACTORY IVANOVKA.
0—5	2583	2983	3446	22250	10544	12239
5—10	6140	7091	8176	52892	25065	29089
10—15	23593	27513	31887	215226	97586	113872
15—20	40323	47435	55213	386240	168761	197817
20—25	34224	40864	47904	354502	146120	172554
25—30	26849	31581	46785	258878	112411	131861
30—35	56222	65934	76449	516938	233931	273092
0—35	189934	223400	259861	1806924	794416	930524

Let us take information on the expenditure of labor and draft power for the cultivation of one desyatina of beets from the agronomist S. A. Shilin, from his report “On the Question of Organizing the Raw-Material Base of the 1st Siberian Sugar Factory.”

One desyatina of beets requires labor and draft power¹ according to the data in Table XLI.

TABLE No. XLI.

Description	Men	Women	Horses
Plowing	2	—	4
Cultivation	0.50	—	0.50
Sowing	0.60	—	0.40
Rolling	0.25	—	0.25
Hoeing (with plow)	1.00	1.0	1.00
Thinning	—	0.20	—
Checking	—	24.0	—
Weeding	—	—	—
Digging	—	10.0	—
Hauling	6.0	6.0	16.0
Total	20.35	61	22.15

From the table it is evident that the number of female labor-days required for the cultivation of one desyatina of beets is 61. But it must be stipulated that in this case account was taken of the introduction of mechanical methods of cultivating beets (thinning with horse hoes, or else with horse-drawn plows up to the bouquet stage); ordinarily this figure is higher. If these measures are not adopted, as was done in the calculations by agronomist V. Debogori-Mokrievich,² then the expenditure of female labor-days per desyatina of beets is expressed by the figure 102.

The data of the table presented show that, in cultivating beet sowings, the availability of female working hands is of decisive importance. Under such conditions, if we assume that the entire surplus of female labor in the districts could be directed to the cultivation and digging of beets, it would suffice for:

	Within a radius of 20 versts	Within a radius of 35 versts
Sidorov Center	5.348 desyatinas	12.057 desyatinas
“ Khvorostetskaya	5.131 “	12.904 “
“ Ivanovka	5.461 “	14.379 “

Male and horse labor required for the cultivation of this quantity of dessiatinas sown with beets:

	Within a radius of 20 versts	Within a radius of 20 versts	Within a radius of 35 versts	Within a radius of 35 versts
	Men	Horses	Men	Horses
Sidorov center	111.827	125.892	252.126	283.822
“ Khvorostenskaya	107.352	120.854	269.822	303.760
“ Ivanovka	114.189	128.552	300.673	338.482

The remainder, after the expenditure on the cultivation of sugar beets, of male laboring hands and working horses is as follows:

	Within a radius of 20 versts	Within a radius of 20 versts	Within a radius of 35 versts	Within a radius of 35 versts
	Men	Horses	Men	Horses
Sidorov center	183.822	538.440	414.304	1.226.176
“ Khvorostenskaya	155.247	513.335	422.001	1.311.731
“ Ivanovka	187.704	548.055	493.743	1.468.444

Thus, having determined by the preceding calculations the area under beet sowing for the above-mentioned centers, we establish that counting on such a scale of beet sowing in the Minusinsk region, connected with the full utilization of the population’s free female hands, is not possible. The reason for this lies in the fact that individual peasant farms of the Minusinsk district, of varying capacity, will not all take equal part in beet sowing, owing to the fact that their sowings will be of different scales.

To confirm this, let us turn to the existing grouping of the districts of the Minusinsk region by sown area¹, understanding by this the total sown area.

Size of sowings	In % of the total for all groups
Without sowing and with sowing up to 0.09 dessiatinas	7.9 percent
With sowing from 0.1 to 1.0 dessiatinas	14.0 “
“ “ “ 1.1 “ 2.1 “	16.0 “
“ “ “ 2.1 “ 3.1 “	16.6 “
“ “ “ 3.1 “ 4.1 “	13.0 “
Over	31.6 “
TOTAL	100.0 percent

As can be seen, not all groups can take part in beet sowing; it is necessary to exclude the group without sown area, which amounts to 7.9%.

The groups with large sown areas, over 4.1 desyatinas, amount to 31.6%. Let us assume that they will not immediately take up beet sowing, in view of the fact that large, well-to-do farms may follow another path, along the line of industrial livestock breeding, etc.

Then there remain the groups with sowings of up to 4.1 desyatinas, and they amount to 60.5% in relation to the total number of farms. All the economic groupings of the districts give, as we indicated above, free female labor:

	Within a radius of 20 versts	Within a radius of 35 versts
Sidorov center	326.243	735.523
“ Khvorostetskaya	313.156	787.147
“ Ivanovka	333.119	877.147

But in our further calculations we shall take from this quantity only 60.5%. Consequently, for the group of farms that interests us, the free balance of female labor will be expressed as:

	Within a radius of 20 versts	Within a radius of 35 versts
Sidorov center	197.377	438.941
“ Khvorostetskaya	220.775	476.224
“ Ivanovka	201.537	530.674

The figures thus obtained show what quantity of free female labor can be available in the projected beet-sugar districts of the Minusinsk okrug in the summer and autumn periods.

But it would be erroneous to count on the full utilization of this balance of working time for beets. This can be seen from the fact that even in the old beet-sugar districts, the percentage of farms drawn into regular beet sowing fluctuates between 40 and 50%, and only in a few districts of Ukraine is it higher.

Taking 40% as the maximum utilization of labor in the Minusinsk okrug, the final remaining balance of female labor-days will be equal to:

	Within a radius of 20 versts	Within a radius of 35 versts
Sidorov center	78.951 female labor-days	175.576 female labor-days
“ Khvorostetskaya	88.310 “ “	186.890 “ “
“ Ivanovka	80.615 “ “	212.269 “ “

It was indicated above that the total number of female labor-days expended on one desyatina of beets was calculated, in the case under consideration, at 61 labor-days; consequently, the area of beet sowings in the indicated districts, in desyatinas, may in fact be as follows:

	Within a radius of 20 versts	Within a radius of 35 versts
Sidorov center	78.951 : 61 = 1,294 desyatinas	175.576 : 61 = = 2,878 desyatinas
“ Khvorostetskaya	1,417 desyatinas	186.890 : 61 = = 3,064 desyatinas
“ Ivanovka	1,321 “	212.269 : 61 = = 3,480 desyatinas

Thus, we have established the actually possible area of sowings for 20–35-verst radii.

This actually possible area must be distributed between factory and peasant beet-growing. It is assumed that about 1,500–2,000 desyatinas will fall to peasant beet-growing and 1,000–1,200 desyatinas to factory beet-growing, which, with a four-field system and a 25% beet wedge, will require about 10,000 desyatinas of factory land.

Taking into account the circumstance that the organization of factory beet-growing will be connected with the concentration of labor in the factory districts and the nearest kolkhozes by means of resettlement and settlement from outside—in short, with an increase in the additional labor force—each of the districts under consideration, possessing a supply of working hands, can fully provide for peasant beet-growing.

The above calculations of the possible sown area for each district were made with the introduction of mechanical improvements in the cultivation of beet sowings; and since such mechanization does not exist in peasant farming, the area of peasant beet-growing must accordingly be reduced. Then the surplus of labor power that appears as a result of the reduction of the sown area may be directed to factory beet-growing.

With appropriate measures, the increase in the area of beet sowings will be augmented by involving new farms in beet-growing and by organizing experimental rental points, etc.

The areas of beet sowings within 20–35-verst radii, depending on the effectiveness of the individual zones, may, with appropriate measures, be increased to a greater or lesser degree. Therefore, in the present case we should be interested in the possible degree of participation in industrial beet-growing of the individual zones within the limits of the area accessible for each of the centers we have considered.

In this connection, the question of the possible effectiveness of each of the beet-growing zones of the Minusinsk District is analyzed below. For this purpose let us turn to Table XLII.

Taking into account that a certain number of women’s working days, amounting to 25%, is spent on household work (column 2 of Table XLII), the remainder of entirely unoccupied labor-days that can be used in beet-growing will be expressed by the figures presented in column 3 of the same table. Now converting this quantity of free women’s working days into the equivalent amount of sown area and taking into account, as indicated above, 60.5% of farms capable of sowing beet and the maximum involvement in beet-growing of 40%, we obtain the final, actually possible number of desyatinas of land under sowing. All this is presented in Table XLII.

TABLE No. XLII.

Zones in versts	Sidorova — remaining from field women’s hands: expenditures for domestic maintenance, 25%	Sidorova — remaining from field women’s hands: final surplus of women’s labor-days	Sidorova — possibility of theoretical sowings under beet in desyatinas	Sidorova — area of probable, practical sowing at 60.5% of sown farms and a 40% increase	Khvorostetskaya — remaining from field women’s hands: expenditures for domestic maintenance, 25%	Khvorostetskaya — remaining from field women’s hands: final surplus of women’s labor-days	Khvorostetskaya — possibility of theoretical sowings under beet in desyatinas	Khvorostetskaya — area of probable, practical sowing at 60.5% of sown farms and a 40% increase	Ivanovka — remaining from field women’s hands: expenditures for domestic maintenance, 25%	Ivanovka — remaining from field women’s hands: final surplus of women’s labor-days	Ivanovka — possibility of theoretical sowings under beet in desyatinas	Ivanovka — area of probable, practical sowing at 60.5% of sown farms and a 40% increase
0–5	939	11794	2430	59	4253	70196	1298	311	624	11615	190	46
5–10	8162	134374	2203	333	1376	7763	1271	308	1438	27006	452	109
10–15	4548	78862	1293	313	1756	21026	351	86	6253	107619	1764	427
15–20	6161	98213	1610	390	8552	131570	2209	535	1154	196638	3224	780
20–25	7710	129914	2130	515	7646	119249	1955	473	1103	171452	2811	680
25–30	7178	117283	1923	465	14294	230813	3784	916	7761	124100	2034	492
30–35	1023	171289	2808	679	7228	123930	2032	492	15089	258003	4229	1023

The data in the table give a clear picture of the relative value of each of the zones.

Now let us see how profitable beets will prove to be on the farm. To do this, we shall compare the economic results from one desyatina of beets with the results from one desyatina of spring wheat.

Profitability depends on average yields and prices.

Dwelling on the question of yield, the following information may be cited: according to the data of the statistical bulletin¹), the yield of grain crops in Southwestern Siberia from 1896 to 1925, for each ten-year period, was as follows:

TABLE XLIII.

Years	Winter rye	Spring rye	Spring wheat	Oats	Millet	Potatoes
1896–1905	40	38	45	52	41	360
1906–1915	46	41	47	52	36	363
1916–1925	43	35	36	43	41	406
Average for 1896–1925	43	38	43	49	39	376

According to the data of the “Review of Agricultural Life in the Settled Regions of Asiatic Russia”²), for the former Minusinsk uyezd the yield of spring wheat from one desyatina equals 55.6 poods, with a seeding rate per desyatina of 11.3 poods.

With regard to the yields in the Minusinsk district of grain crops, and in particular wheat, one should note the information of the agronomist-economist I. P. Zefirov from his report of June 15, 1928, on the topic “The Development Trend of Agriculture in the Minusinsk District.” Taking the average yield for the three-year period 1925–1927 as 62.5 poods for winter wheat and 53.3 poods per desyatina for spring wheat, and increasing this yield on account of the proposed cultural measures, agronomist Zefirov assumes that the wheat yield on average in 1931–32 will amount, for both winter and spring wheat, to 62.5 poods per desyatina, with an average seeding rate of about 11.0 poods (10.8–11.6%).

In view of the fact that this information concerns cultural improvements, we shall take the yield of spring wheat as 53 poods.

Comparing all the above data, we see that this figure will not be understated and has been taken with sufficient correctness.

The cost of a pood of wheat in the Minusinsk district, according to the data of the Minusinsk District Planning Commission, in 1926/27 was 78 kopecks (average for the year), and in 1927/28—85 kopecks. In our calculations we shall take the price of 1927/28 as fully established. Under these conditions, the gross income from a desyatina is calculated at 45 rubles 05 kopecks.

TABLE XLIV.

Name of crops	Yield from one desyatina	Price per pood	Value of the grain harvest
Spring wheat	53 poods	85 kop.	45 r. 05 k.

¹) Statistical Bulletin No. 9–10, 1927, p. 78, Novosibirsk, 1927.
²) “Review of Agricultural Life in the Settled Regions of Asiatic Russia,” p. 61, 1914, 17.

The expenditure connected with this harvest will be determined as follows.

The cost of seed material of the higher 3rd-grade product (according to the information of the Minusinsk District Planning Commission¹) is 1—43 kopecks, which will give an expenditure of \(1.43 \times 11 = 15.73\) kopecks. The rental of complex machines (reaper—3 rubles 40 kopecks, thresher—1 ruble 50 kopecks)—4 rubles 90 kopecks.²

Then the expenditure will be expressed in the following figures:

Cost of seed material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 rub. 73 kop.
Rental of machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 rub. 90 kop.

———

. . . . . 20 rub. 63 kop.

Reducing the gross yield by the sum of the necessary expenses, we obtain the net yield (from the sowing of one desyatina). It will be equal to 45 rub. 05 kop. — 20 rub. 63 kop. = 24 rub. 42 kop., which gives payment for one working day of 1 rub. 01 kop. (\(24.42 : 24.14 = 1\) rub. 01 kop.); assuming that the cost of a working day of a horse is equal to the cost of a working day of a man, and that the cost of a woman’s labor day is equal to \(4/5\) of the cost of a man’s working day, we find that for a desyatina of wheat we have an expenditure of 24.04 working days, and for sugar beet—\(20.35 + 22.15 + 47.61 = 91.90\) working days. We shall take the yield of sugar beet from one desyatina as 75 berkovets, which is quite possible, taking into account the results of beet sowing in the Minusinsk region, where the yield of peasant beet, left to itself without any cultural measures, averaged 80 berkovets per desyatina³; the total income from a desyatina, at a price of 2 rub. 15 kop. per berkovets of beet and with the value of 6 poods of press cake and molasses at 12 rub. 75 kop.⁴, will be expressed as 174 rubles.

	Yield per desyatina	Price per berkov.	Value of beet harvest	Value of press cake and molasses	TOTAL
Beet . . . . . . .	75 berk.	2 rub. 15 kop.	161 rub. 25 kop.	12 rub. 75 kop.	174 rub.

Thus, payment for a working day in the cultivation of sugar beet, calculated as \(174 : 91.90\), is determined at 1 rub. 90 kop., i.e., 89 kop. more expensive than in the cultivation of spring wheat.

From this it is evident that beet growing in the Minusinsk District is profitable and has the advantage that it offers the farm the possibility of using the available surplus of labor and horses, in the absence of developed industry in the Minusinsk region, on the farm itself.

VIII.

The possibility of sugar factories in the Minusinsk District has not only local significance, but deserves attention also from the point of view of the prospects of the sugar industry of the USSR as a whole, as a new probable center of sugar production, bringing the latter closer to a large and very remote market, namely Siberia. With the Altai beet-sugar region now coming into being, this task is already being solved to a certain extent. However, even under these conditions the Minusinsk District does not lose its interest, raising only more sharply the question of the size of the area of distribution of the sugar output of this region. With the rapid growth in the size of the Siberian population, and given the unquestionable certainty of a very considerable and at the same time stable increase in per-capita consumption of sugar in Siberia, its demands in this respect must, with time, increase very strongly. In dwelling on this, the following considerations may be adduced.

Both in the prewar period and now, the average norm of per-capita sugar consumption in Siberia lags behind the norm for the whole USSR. At the time when in all Russia before the war about 19.3 pounds of sugar per head were consumed, in Siberia this norm amounted to 15.6 pounds. The reason for this was remoteness from the sugar-producing regions and a very weak commodity-distribution network, owing to the sparse population and the colossal spaces of Siberia.

The total consumption of sugar in Siberia within its pre-revolutionary borders before the war amounted to about 5 million poods. For 1926, the Novosibirsk office of the Sugar Trust calculates sugar consumption on the basis of 10 pounds per head. With the population of the Siberian Territory in 1926 at 8 million persons, this will amount to 2 million poods of sugar per year.

Assuming normal population growth during 1926–1940 and taking into account colonization over these 15 years, we find an increase in the following progression:

Year	Population
1925/26	8,238,000 persons
1929/30	10,027,000 “
1935/36	12,573,000 “
1940/41	15,132,000 “

With respect to consumption, we assume that by 1931 the per-capita norm will reach the prewar level—for Siberia, i.e. 15.6 pounds. By 1936 it will increase to the prewar level for all Russia, i.e., in round numbers, 20 pounds; by 1941 consumption in the Sibkrai will reach the average norm adopted by the plan for restoring the sugar industry for the whole USSR by 1931, i.e. 22 pounds per head.

In general, the norms taken for Siberia are reduced in comparison with the USSR, and even more so in comparison with the central part, which is quite natural and understandable.

Under such conditions, the sugar requirement of the Sibkrai by years for the five-year period appears as follows:

Year	Sugar requirement
1925/26	2,058,000 poods of sugar
1929/30	3,910,000 “ “
1935/36	6,236,000 “ “
1940/41	8,312,000 “ “

The population of all Siberia, according to data of the USSR State Planning Committee, including the Far Eastern Republic, in 1926 is taken, in round numbers, at 12 million; that is, besides the population of Sibkrai, there are in Siberia another 4 million people, i.e., another 33%. Increasing sugar consumption in connection with this, we find the total demand of all Siberia by years: 1926—2.73 million poods of sugar; 1930—5.20 million poods; 1935—8.29 million poods; 1940—11.15 million poods of sugar.

In the eastern direction, Altai sugar and, in general, the sugar of Sibkrai may spread without fearing competition from Trans-Ural sugar. However, Vladivostok, the Ussuri region, and the Far East, because of their remoteness and thanks to the possibility of obtaining sugar there by a cheaper sea route, are already inaccessible to the sugar industry of Sibkrai.

The nearest local markets for the future sugar industry of Sibkrai appear to be Mongolia, Afghanistan, and China. Before the war, in 1913–14, about 250,000 poods of sugar were exported to these countries.

From the above indicative, very cautiously taken, prospective plan for the development of the Siberian sugar market, projected by Sibplan through 1941, it is evident that already at the present time Siberia must turn its attention to the question of its own beet-sugar districts. Given the vast expanses of Siberia, the inevitability for it of reorganizing its agriculture, and the organizing significance which the cultivation of sugar beet has in this respect, it is natural that, in addition to the already actually defined Altai beet-sugar district, it is necessary, in the general plan for unfolding the economic life of Siberia, to think about identifying and preparing still new sugar-producing Siberian districts. Historically, as has already become apparent in this respect from the preceding account, the Minusinsk okrug proves to be such a district. However, the real possibility for the latter to become, alongside the Altai district, a second Siberian sugar-supplying center has not yet been raised for discussion at all. Meanwhile, this question appears deserving of attention. All the information, still very limited and insufficient, that is available to date about the Minusinsk okrug gives grounds for accepting that, for the cultivation of sugar beet, in its natural-historical and other conditions, it is generally very close to the conditions of the Altai okrug. And if at present, in its economic level, in population, and in certain other respects important for the sugar industry, it still lags somewhat behind its western neighbor in Altai, then this naturally may, with time, especially with certain measures, easily pass. However, even if this is achieved, the indicated question is decided depending on the relationship of the prices of South-Russian, Altai, and Minusinsk sugar at the places of its consumption in Siberia. These prices, in turn, depend on the magnitude of the factory cost of sugar at the places of production, and are determined chiefly by still another essential component, namely—the cost of transporting sugar to the place of its consumption in Siberia. Depending on the ratio of the magnitude of the sum of these two components, both the competitive capacity and the sphere of distribution in Siberia of South-Russian, Altai, and Minusinsk sugar will be determined.

As for the factory cost of sugar, it is known to be a function of a very large number of varied factors, such as: the yield of beets, their sugar content, cost, the capacity of the plant, the duration of the campaign, etc.

Varying within fairly wide limits according to place of production and by year, the factory cost for the old beet-growing regions of the European part of the USSR has nevertheless been relatively determined; thus, for example, according to the data of Sakharotrest for 1928, the cost of 1 metric centner of sugar was expressed as follows:

Division	Cost of 1 metric centner of sugar
Kiev Division	17 rubles 61 kopecks
Podolsk Division	19 rubles 20 kopecks
Kharkov Division	17 rubles 68 kopecks
Kursk Division	20 rubles 23 kopecks
Eastern Division	23 rubles 27 kopecks
Average for the entire USSR	18 rubles 60 kopecks

With respect to the cost of sugar at Siberian plants, in the absence as yet of such plants, at present one can cite only approximate, estimated prices adopted in the design of the sugar plant under construction in Altai, in Barnaul District, in the Alei region. These prices for 1928 naturally vary depending on the accepted duration of production. According to the cost estimate of the Construction Department of the Administration of Sakharotrest, with a raw-material contingent of 800,940 metric centners of beets, a sugar yield of 14.62%, and a production duration of 133 days, the cost of one metric centner of sugar is determined at 17 rubles 73.8 kopecks. Under the same conditions, but with 70.6 days of plant operation, 1 metric centner of sugar costs 18 rubles 65 kopecks. According to the data of an expert of the Scientific and Technical Council of the Sugar Industry of the Supreme Council of the National Economy of the USSR, the corresponding cost of one metric centner of sugar, with a yield from beets of 13.02%, production for 133 days, and a plant load of 800,940 metric centners of beets, should correspond to 19 rubles 91 kopecks. The same with 69 days of operation corresponds to a cost of 1 metric centner of sugar of 25 rubles 47 kopecks.

There are as yet no data for determining the factory cost of sugar in Minusinsk District under the present conditions of sugar production. In this connection, taking into account only the closeness of the conditions of Minusinsk District to analogous conditions for the sugar industry in the Altai regions, we shall assume that in both districts the factory cost of sugar will be the same. And since it varies by year, owing to the instability of the individual factors determining it, in the further consideration of the question that interests us in the present case we shall take the price of one metric centner of Siberian sugar as somewhat higher than the above-mentioned value of the cost of one metric centner of sugar for Minusinsk and Altai districts, setting it at 208 rubles 50 kopecks per ton. The cost of imported sugar from the southern regions we shall assign to the Kiev division of Sakharotrest and take as 176 rubles 17 kopecks per ton.

In the subsequent calculations we shall take into account that the distance from the sugar plant in Minusinsk District to the nearest railway—

point, namely the Abakansk railway station, lies on average 65 km by cart road from the possible locations of sugar factories in the Minusinsk District (Hvorostetskaya Ave., Sidorov Ave., and the village of Ivanovsky Zavod). The cost of cart haulage in the Minusinsk District is taken as 15 kopecks per ton-km, i.e., 9 rubles 75 kopecks for the entire distance per ton of sugar. Thus, the cost of one ton of Minusinsk sugar at the Abakansk railway station of dispatch will be 217 rubles 25 kopecks per ton.

In determining the limits of the further distribution of sugar, these limits are naturally linked with railway transport, as the only basic means by which Ukrainian sugar will flow into Siberia and by which Minusinsk and Altai sugar will spread across Siberia to points of destination. At the same time, sugar prices at these points consist of: a) the factory cost of sugar, b) cart delivery of sugar to the points of destination.

In the following approximate calculations, cart delivery from the railway to points of further destination and other expenses are not taken into account, as being the same for the sugar of each of the districts being compared.

The calculation of the cost of railway transportation of sugar has been made on the basis of the general wagonload tariff for the transportation of freight of cooperative, public, and state organizations (tariff schedule No. 153).

Below are diagrams showing the rise in prices when transporting sugar, according to the extent to which the points of destination are removed from the points of its production.

Diagram No. 1 shows the rise in prices when transporting sugar along the main line of the Siberian Railway from west to east, from Achinsk station, with the Achinsk–Minusinsk branch.

Diagram No. 2 gives the change in the prices of sugar transported to the Kolchugino railway line.

Diagram No. 2

Cost of one ton of sugar as a function of the distance of carriage according to the general tariff (tariff scheme No. 55), between the stations Berdichev, Aleksin, and Kuznetsk, transported to the Kolchugino line.

Diagram No. 3 shows the change in the prices of sugar transported eastward from Achinsk station.

Diagram No. 3

Cost of one ton of sugar as a function of the distance of carriage according to the general tariff, between the stations Berdichev, Aleksin, and Abakan, and the stations lying east of Achinsk.

From the diagram it is evident that the sphere of distribution of Minusinsk sugar to the west along the railway line is limited to a distance of 933 km from the railway station Abakan (the point at which Minusinsk sugar enters the railway), or to Oyash station, i.e., without including Novosibirsk and the Altai railway line and along the Kolchugino line as far as Plotnikovo station inclusive, but excluding Kolchugino and Kemerovo (the town of Shcheglovsk). The reason that the Kolchugino line is not entirely within the sphere of influence of Minusinsk sugar is explained by the fact that

that the railway tariff is constructed in such a way that the rate per ton-kilometer decreases depending on the distance of transportation. Thanks to this, when transported along the Kolchugino line, South-Russian sugar is placed in comparatively more advantageous conditions than Siberian sugar, since it has a greater transportation distance, as a result of which the ton-kilometer rate for transporting southern sugar along the Kolchugino line (the supplementary tariff rate) is lower than the rate for transporting Siberian sugar.

The outstripping of Siberian sugar prices by South-Russian sugar when transported along the Kolchugino line is clearly visible from diagram No. 2.

In connection with the construction of a sugar factory in the Barnaul district, and taking as the station at which Altai sugar enters the railway the Aleiskaya station of the Altai railway line, with the factory cost of Altai sugar equal to the cost of Minusinsk sugar, i.e., 208 rubles 50 kopecks per ton, we find that the distribution sphere of Minusinsk sugar will be restricted even more; namely, in the West, to Itat station inclusive, at a distance of 608 km from Abakan station, and in the East at a distance of 890 km, i.e., to Kansk-Yeniseisky station inclusive. In this case, too, Barnaul sugar outstrips the prices of Minusinsk sugar in a manner similar to that indicated above (see diagram No. 3).

The calculations given and presented by the diagrams clearly reveal that the Minusinsk district can only be a sugar-producing region of limited, local significance.

Comparing the territorial capacity of the Altai districts, their population, and the level of economic development with the Minusinsk district, which is considerably weaker in these respects, one must come to the conclusion that, in the prospects for the development of the sugar industry in Siberia, the Altai district has a considerably greater specific weight than the Minusinsk district.

The brief characterization of the Minusinsk district given above, from the standpoint of the possibility of a sugar industry there, suggests that the view widespread in Siberia of this territory as a future sugar-industry region has certain grounds. It is quite probable that in time the Minusinsk district will justify the hopes long placed upon it by Siberia. However, at the present time, for deciding the question of when, where, and what kind of sugar factory should be built in the Minusinsk district, very much is still lacking. In this respect, much preparatory work is still needed for the special study of individual, relatively narrow areas of the district that are already, to a certain extent, emerging in their suitability for industrial beet sowing. This study should concern itself with clarifying climatic, soil, and economic conditions, while at the same time including a survey of these areas and experimental beet sowing in order to elucidate a number of questions concerning the cultivation of sugar beet under the conditions of the Minusinsk district.

At the same time, the identification and securing of the necessary land reserves for future sugar factories and beet-growing farms must also proceed, accompanied by an in-depth survey, in the area of each proposed sugar factory, of peasant farms in order to determine their potential possibilities with regard to beet sowing. It is obvious that questions of land organization and resettlement must likewise attract their proper share of interest and attention.

Tomsk.

Map of the Minusinsk District

Scale: 5 versts in 1 inch.

Names of districts

No.	Name of districts
1.	Pozhinsky
2.	Idrinsky
3.	Kuraginsky

![Map of the Minusinsk District and Krasnoyarsk Territory: soil zones, sugar beet areas, experimental plots, and sugar-refinery site markings.]

Symbols:

Zones:

• Steppe and transitional to forest-steppe
• Forest-steppe
• Subtaiga and taiga
• Forest and taiga

Designations:

• Administrative center
• Railway
• Soil survey boundary
• Place of the proposed sugar refinery
• Location of experimental plots

Districts:

1. Kuraginsky.
2. Minusinsky.
3. Karatuzsky.
4. Beysky.
5. Ermakovsky.
6. Usinsky.

1. According to information of the Minusinsk District Planning Commission, in response to the inquiry of Prof. S. V. Lebedev of April 24, 1929, No. 141. ↩↩↩↩↩↩

2. According to information of the Minusinsk District Planning Commission of 5 IV, No. 134. ↩↩↩

3. Prof. S. V. Lebedev, “On Measures for the Development of the Sugar Industry in Siberia,” Tomsk, 1921. ↩

4. According to information of agronomist S. A. Shilin from his report—“On the Question of Organizing the Raw-Material Base of the 1st Siberian Sugar Factory,” in 1928, in the Barnaul District of the Aleisk region. ↩