3B ^'^^.t. bfeiUMMXC 2 19 _^"-^^""^'"Hxg^ ^, ""^The sugar beet IN NORTH CAROLINA. REPORT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE ON THE RESULTS OP Experiments with the Sugar Beet IN THE COUNTIES OF AX«ON, BEAUFORT, BURKE, CABARRUS, CHATHAM, DUPLIN, EDGECOMBE, GRANVILLE, ORANGE and WAKE, ;by ALBERT R L^^DOUX, PL D, CHEMIST TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, AND Director of the State Experiment and Fertilizer Control Station, at the State University. CHAPEL HILL, N. C RALEIGH: FARMER AND MECHANIC STEAM BOOK, JOB OFFICE & BOOK BINDERY. 1878. i^is^-y- 'W^^ , ■ . ..' ^ "''TW''"r^"''"'^'''"^Wi S. E| Cornell University MM Library The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924003302480 Cornell University Library SB 219.L47 The sugar beet in NortljS^^^^^^ THE SUGAR BEET IN NORTH CAROLINA. EBPOKT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE ON THE KESULTS OF Experiments with the Sugar Beet IN THE COUNTIES OF ANSON, BEAUFORT, BURKE, CABARRUS, CHATHAM, DUPLIN* EDGECOMBE, GRANVILLE, ORANGE and WAKE, BY ALBERT R. LEDOQX/Pli. D., CHEMIST TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, AND Director of the State Experiment and Fertilizer Control Station, at the State University. CHAPEL HILL, N. C. RALEIGH: PARMER AND MECHANIC STEAM BOOK, JOB OFFICE &, BOOK BINDERY. 18 7 8. S6 316154 REPORT. Hon. L. L. Polk, Commissioner of Agriculture^ Dear Sir: I have the honor to lay before you the follow- ing report upon the Sugar Beets grown in this State, and sent to the Experiment Station for analysis. It is a matter of pro- found regret to myself, as it is to you and the other members of the Board of Agriculture, that so few and meagre returns have been made for the trouble you have taken, and the seeds sent out. The correspondence of those experimenters who have made any report will point out many of the causes of failure. Chief among them, perhaps, is the fact that the seeds did not reach their destination until late in April, or early in May, a full month too late. There are other causes undoubtedly which had their influence, and prominent among them, no doubt, was a lack of full knowledge as to the proper means of culti- vation. With this in view, I have embodied in my report at some length, a synopsis of the best German experience. Owing to a desire to awaken an increased and intelligent interest in the subject, I have also added a brief resume of the present state of the Sugar Beet industry in this country, and some other matters which may be found practically valuable. Though the results of your efforts to have the State fairly represented have been so unfortunately few in number, yet the analyses of the product of the ten counties represented iu my report are by no means discouraging. While in no case does the per centage of sugar reach 12, yet the average of all is much higher than that obtained in some States, and quite encouraging. At any rate I hope that the present report may (4) be the means of keeping up the interest in the^State, and that by beginning in season, and with the help of this year's ex- perience, and with new light on the subject, we can show the- world next year that the results we hoped^to attain cau h& fully realized. Yours respectfully, ALBERT R. LEDOUX, Agricultural Expenment Station,. State University, Chapel Hill, N.. C^ January 9ih, 1878. SUGAR. Sugar, in the form with which we are most familiar — the «o-called " Cane Sugar" — has been known and used from the ■most remote ages in India and China, the very name cora- 4ng down to us through the Arabic or Persian language, and it is known as " Sukkar" in Arabia at the present day. The ■" Calamus," and " Sweet reed" of the Bible are also supposed .to refer to the Sugar Cane. The manufacture of Sugar came slowly into Europe, en- 4«ring by way of Venice in the 10th century. Strabo, Arrian, Pliny and others had already mentioned in their Jiiatorical accounts of the nearer Orient, the occurrance of a plant — undoubtedly the Cane — which yielded a syrup that •was eaten as honey with bread, and was brought originally from India and Ethiopia. Pliny says further that it was called " Sacoharum," and that sometimes when allowed to flow from the bruised plant ,it would form a white, solid substance resembling salt, which was used as a medicine. The early crusaders found the Syrians indulging in a sweet juice " extracted from a Cane which they broke up in mortars, and sometimes allowed this extract to stand in the sun and evaporate, when a whitish substance separated out, which was eaten with l)read." The crusaders got some of the seed, and bringing hack samples of the Cane, they introduced its cultivation into Ehodes, Sicily and Crete in the 9th century. Thus spreading from the Levant as a starting point, the process of manufacture reached Venice m 996, Spain and Portugal -coming next, and finally in 1319 Sugar became an article of importation into Great Britain in considerable quantity. (6) It is by no means improbable that the Spaniards found the Sugar Cane already growing, when they discovered the West Indies ; at any rate with their wonderful adaptability of soil and climate, and the subsequent introduction of slave labor, they soon came into complete control of the sugar mar- kets, and in the 16th century India, Europe, and the Medi- terranean Islands were driven out of all competition, and their manufactures languished. There are three chief saccharine substances, differing slightly in chemical composition, which are more or less fa- miliar to us. These are called " Cane Sugar," •' G-rape Su- gar," and " Milk Sugar." The last gives to milk its sweet taste, and is found only in that animal secretion of which it constitutes from 3 to 10 per cent. It is made from whey, on quite a large scale among the mountain dairies of Switzer- land, and finds its chief use as a vehicle for Homeopathic medicines, and in some localities as an article of food. It is white, hard, and brittle. Grape Sugar, called also " Glucose," is undoubtedly the most abundant and widely distributed in nature of the three forms of sugar. It gives to almost all fruits their sweet taste, and is the main cause of the sweetness in nearly all our cultivated vegetables. It can moreover be made artifi- cially from starch by a very simple process, and yields readily to fermentation, forming Alcohol, and on this ac- count it is coming more and more into demand for the man- ufacture of beers and alcoholic liquors. It is not crystali- zable. Cane Sugar is to every one a familiar friend, and needs no description. It is the most common of all our so-called lux- uries ; the last we give up when compelled to economize. *It is claimed by some political economists that the con- * In 1866, at the close of the war, the consumption of sugar per capita, in the United States was only one half what it was in ISTU. (7) sumption of Sugar will give a very fair idea of the wealth and prosperity of a people. Unlike Grape Sugar, Cane Sugar is produced by compar- atively few plants, in sufficient quantity to render its ex- traction profitable. The Sugar Cane, Chinese Cane, (or Sorghum) the Sugar Maple, a few species of Palm and the Sugar Beet being the only members of the vegetable kingdom from which it is obtained in any quantity. IS'or can it be made artificially. Of the above mentioned sources of Cane Sugar, Sugar Cane supplies G6 per cent., Sugar Beets 28 per cent., the Palms 5 per cent., and the Maple 1 per cent. In the Report of the United States Commissioner of Agri- culture for 1876, we find the following tables, showing the consumption, source and cost of the sugar used in this country. SOURCE AND CONSUMPTION. " The commercial estimate of the supply of the past year is as follows : TONS. Cane Sugar, domestic and foreign G:]8,SU9 Cane Sugar received on the Pacific coast 23,300 Cane Sugar made from Molasses -13,600 Maple Sugar 13,000 Domestic Beet, Sorghum, etc. , 2,000' Taken for consumption in 1876 725,269 Taken for consumption in 1875 773,002 On the basis of a population of 45,000,000 the consump- tion would be 36 pounds to each in 1876, and 88 for the population in 1875. The sugar supply of the commercial world in 1875 was 3,457,623 tons, of which 40 per cent, was Beet Sugar made in Europe. Cuba produced one-third of the Cane Sugar; the other West India Islands and Brazil, (8) Java and Mauritius, are all prominent sources of supply. The [following is an estimate from high authority of the quantities produced of both kinds in 1875 : CANE SD&AR. TONS. Cuba ; 700,000 Porto Eico 80,000 British, Dutch, and Danish West Indies 250,000 Java 200,000 Brazil : 170,000 Manila -. 130,000 China 120,000 Mauritius 100,000 Martinique and Guadaloupe 100,000 Louisianna 75,000 Peru 50,000 Egypt 40,000 Central America and Mexico 40,000 Reunion 30,000 British India and Penang 30,000 Honolulu 10,000 Natal 10,000 Australia 51,000 Total tons 2,140,000 BEET-ROOT SUGAR. TONS. German Empire 346,646 France 462,259 Russia and Poland 245,000 Austria and Hungary 153,922 Belgium 79,796 Holland, and other countries 30,000 Total tons 1,317,623 (9) COST. " The cost of these sweets is a serious burden upon the country. We have the soil to produce a full supply, eiiher of cane or beet sugar and laborers sufl'ering for work, aud measures should be taken for a rapid increase of home pro- duction. The details of the cost of the sugar used in this country, subject to a slight reduction from re-exportation, are thus given in the statistics of the customs receipts : FISCAL YEAR OF 1876. Sugar, brown pounds, 1 ,414,254,663 $55,702,903 Sugar, refined pounds, 19,931 1,685 Molasses .gallons, 89,026,200 8,157,470 Melada, syrup, &c pounds, 79,702,878 2,415,995 Candy, &c pounds, 87,955 18,500 $66,296,553' Beside the cane proper, and sugar beet, a few other sources of sugar have been suggested or tried in this country. Among the most prominent being sorghum, the maple, and recently watermelons. SORflHUM. Quoting again from the report of the Agricultural Bureau for 1876: " As an estimate for twenty-one years since the introduc- tion of sorghum, 11,000,000 gallons of syrup per annum might approximate the product. At an average value of 65 cents (it is less now) the value of the annual product would be $7,150,000. The sugar of sorghum is a small item, yet in fourteen years, in Ohio alone, it amounts to (10) 506,000 lbs. Including sugar and forage, the annual value must be not less than $8,000,000, and the aggregate value $168,000,000 since its introduction by the Department of Agriculture." MAPLE SUGAR. This industry which is of less importance in our Southern country, is nevertheless of considerable value to the United States. The total amount of sugar and syrup obtained from this source in 1870 was equivalent to about .57,000,000 pounds of sugar, which at 10 cents per pound gives a total value of $5,700,000. The manufacture of sugar from watermelons is of more interest to our people than that from the sugar maple, and we shall watch with interest an experiment now in progress in California. A stock company, with a capital of $2,000,- 000 is about commencing operations, and though chemists and manufacturers are rather doubtful of their financial success, they enthusiastically claim that they can obtain 10 per cent of sugar from the juice, alcohol from the pulp and rind, and 25 per cent, of oil for table use from the seeds.* THE SUGAR BEET. Having thus briefly examined the other sources of cane sugar, let us now turn to the Sugar-Beet. As long ago as 1747 a German chemist discovered the presence of cane sugar in the white and red beet, and in 1796 the first factory for the manufacture of beet sugar was established in Prussia. The great cost of cane sugar made the new idea of obtaining it from a domestic source exeeed- * At some future day I hops to be able to make some experiments with the Sweet Potato, which has a large per ceutage of grape sujjar and starch, and may yet possibly form the basis of a large industry m North Caro- lina and the other Southern States. (11) iugly alluring. The experiment spread through Europe-, with many a failure, many a lesson gained through the loss of enormous fortunes invested; now taxed, now protected hy the Governments, with constant improvements in culti>- vation and machinery, until at the present day nearly one-- third of the cane sugar used by the civilized world is ob- tained from beets. At first the percentage of crystalizable- sugar in the juice -of the beets was low, and only with im- proved means of cultivation, the results of many experi- ments, did the French and German agriculturists learn to- produce a uniform average of 12 per cent, or over. The beet is a natural growth in several localities, abound- ing in a wild state on the Mediterranean coast. The present varieties of sugar beet are the result of cultivation and hy- bridization. Before speaking of the results of our experiments in this^ country to raise the beet profitably, I have deemed it besfr- to present to our farmers a synopsis of the results obtained by the European experimenters, and which show what treat- ment the beet requires from the cultivator to give uniformly good results. This information is clearly and concisely stated in Dr. Stammer's " Lehrbuch der Zuckerindustrie," and I beg to be. allowed to give a somewhat free translation of the valuable chapter on the CULTIVATION OF THE BEET. 1. " The Soil. — Although neither by chemical analysis nor by examination of the physical properties, can we tell in every case that a certain soil will or will not grow the beet successfully, yet experience has shown that, in general, successful culture requires a soil loose; deep, rather more rich in humus; more loamy and limey than sandy; with porous sub- soil, and a warm, sunny exposure. Of course not deficient in any of the necessary ingredients of plant food, which may (12) easily be the case, when the potash and phosphoric acid have been too largely drawn upon. The recognition of a suitable soil for sugar beets presents greater difficulties than for many other plants, for they obtain most of their indispensable nutriment, by means of their long root, from the sub-soil, and the composition of this sub-soil is therefore of immense importance. It is on this account that the experiments hitherto, with superficial ma- nuring, have yielded no uniform results. We manure that portion of the soil, to be sure, from which the growing beet does long derive nourishment, but not that portion whence the plant obtains its food during the all important period of the formation of sugar. And the chemical means of send- ing the manures down into the sub-soil (viz : by admixture of chloride of sodium,) are by no means so certain in their application that we can trust confidently that invariable results will follow every such experiment. On the other hand, and in perfect accord with this, deep plowing, (subsoiling) has given the best and surest results in beet culture ; and all observations upon the happy influence of the steam plow upon the beet crop, without exception, (if we look at them in the proper light) may be referred back to this cause, deep flowing. From this standpoint all those efforts which have for their aim the improving of the subsoil by mechanical, as icell as by chemical means are the most important in beet cidtivdiion. In other words, on one hand the deeper cultivation of the ground, on the other the sub-soiling ['untergrunddungung,' (manur- ing the subsoil.)] Chemical analysis of that portion of the soil -which we are accustomed to call the sub-soil ('acker krum') with a view to the cultivation of sugar beets, save in exceptional cases, is of little or no importance or use. And as far as the phys- ical properties are concerned, experiment is always the best means of ascertaining whether a soil is suited for beet culture (13) or not. Of course such soils as do not meet the general re- quirements mentioned above are out of the question ; for ex- ample, such as are too sandy, wet or stony. And on the other- hand, those soils which, from their origin would be expected to possess those elements of plant food most abundant in the ash of the beet, will more probably show a better adapta- bility for beet culture. We should not, however, draw too hasty conclusions from the result of a single experiment. The work expended upon the soil becomes perceptible only by degrees, hence a field only becomes a good beet-growing field by degrees." MANURING. 2, " Manuring should always first of all give back to the ground what the harvest has removed from it, and not only the mineral (inorganic) constituents, but also the nitrogen. Nothing is surer than that a soil to which a full return of plant food is not made, loses by degrees its poicer to produce the crop required in normal quantity and composition. The experimental cultivation of the beet with artificially prepared fertili- zing liquids has been much less pursued than with other plants, and therefore the relartion between the composition of these liquids and the development of the beet is not yet de- termined. "We lack also the basis upon which to predicate the direct action of manures upon the beet. Here lies the difiiculty, above indicated, of applying the manurial sub- stances to that layer of the soil whence the beet principally derives its nourishment. Hence in the present state of our knowledge and of our fertilizers, the object of our fertiliza- tion can be nothing more than the retaining in good condition of a soil tvhich is already suitable for beet cidture." " After the above remarks it will not be thought aston- ishing when we say that all the laborious and painstaking experiments with the manuring and culture of beets have as (14) yet given no results uniform and everywhere applicable. Such results we can only expect from a study of those laws which may be deduced from the artificial cultivation of the beet in special liquids. And yet it is in no contradiction of these facts when we :advise the beet culturist to keep up constant experiments with fertilizers upon different sells. It is in such cases only .necessary to determine the particular form and quantity of manure which under the peculiar local conditions gives the best returns. And in many cases some particular form of manure will prove the best, but the power to produce a safe .^nd invariable influence upon the crop will only seldom be attained. The effect of those factors ever which we have no power, climate and weather, are of infinitely greater in- fluence than the small alterations which we can produce by tthe augmentation, deterioration, or maintenance of good ■■condition of soil within the circumscribed limits of artificial fertilization." " Experience has taught that those beets which are raised upon fields manured with fresh — especially stable manure are less suited for manufacturing purposes. On this account the rule has long been established that the manure should not be applied directly to the beets, but to some other pre- vious crop, or, that beets should be cultivated as the 2nd or 3rd in a series of rotation. Unfortunately this rule, most important to the manufacturer, was not so generally observed in earlier times as it should have been, so that very often on account of heavy manuring large crops were obtained, but ,at the expense of the sugar, or quality of the juice. This rule is especially applicable to stable manure, and that from cess-pools ; less so to the so-called " artificial ferti- lizers" which, when they are not employed directly in too great quantities, are followed by fewer injurious effects. The principal constituents which must be taken into ac- •count in reckoning the addition to and removal of plant food (15) from the soil by beets, are Potash, Phosphoric Acid, Mag. nesia and Nitrogen. As the amount harvested differs with the soil and other circumstances, we will therefore employ for our calculations following, the mean proportion of these four substances present in 1000 lbs of beets and beet tops, as determined by analysis : 1,000 lbs of Roots Leaves CONTAIN : Potash 3.9 lbs. 6.5 lbs. Phosphoric Acid 0.8" 1.3 " Magnesia 0.5 •' 2.7 " Nitrogen 1.6" 3.0 " Ash 7.1 " 18.1 " We see from this table, by noticing the proportion be- tween roots and leaves, that the removal from the soil by the leaves is so considerable, that it should receive quite especial consideration in the calculation, when the tops are not returned to the field immediately after the harvest. The latter proceeding is to be urged all the more, since on most beet farms there is a deficiency of fodder, and it is a temptation to replace the loss in fodder by feeding the tops. From this standpoint, the wide spread custom of paying for pulling the beets by giving the tops to the laborer for his work, is an evil which should be striven against. It is pretty certain that a full compensation to fields so treated cannot be effected. "The removal of potash can be easily reckoned, as in the following illustration, for example, and thereby we can show what return of potash is needed, if the field is to con- tinue to produce plants containing potash. In one distillery in France, which is, to be sure, rather exceptional in the enormous business it does, over 82,000 lbs. of molasses per (16) day are converted into alcohol, equivalent to the yearly harvest of 79,000 acres of beets. The residue from this molasses is worked up into potash and soda salts. These salts were originally extracted from the soil in minute quan- tities, little by little, by the long and tedious processes of vegetation ; processes artificially inimitable. They are ex- clusively used in chemical industries, and not returned to the soil. If we calculate the amount of potash which is removed from 79,000 acres in the molasses and add to it besides that removed with the raw sugar, we find it reaches at least 28,000 cwt. per year, for which compensation must be made. * * * * As in this case only the potash is considered which was obtained in the final product, these figures are much below the reality ; really deceptive in fact, when we think of what is lost by imperfect extraction, and left in the press cake, &c., &c. In this way should every farmer calculate, in order to find out whether there is danger, either in the near or distant future, that his land should become poor in potash. That such a result will happen is certain, even though a particularly bountiful supply of potash in the soil may put it off for some time." " The form in which the above mentioned plant constitu- ents should be returned to the soil, is fixed as far as the phos- phoric acid and magnesia are concerned ; partly also for the nitrogen. Super phosphates, with more or less accom- panying nitrogen (naturally present or added) may always be used. The magnesia may come from the waste material of sugar manufacture, with which direct investigation has shown it is nearly all returned to the soil, although the state of sub-division does not insure entirely even distribution. This latter defect may be partly remedied by cutting up or composting. It is to be recommended from time to time to make calculations based on analysis of the manurial sub- stances employed, so as to ascertain the amount of phosphoric (17) acid, and especially magnesia, added to the soil. For these last two substances this (calculation) is easily made. More difficult is the question of the potash which has been re- moved by the crop. Manuring with potash salts is fre- quently undervalued, and undoubtedly because large and tangible results were expected which failed to appear, while the chief end of potash manures is neither in augmenting nor bettering the crop, but in causing it to hold its own. This re- sult is especially noticeable from the fact that no diminution takes place in the yield, which would certainly be the case in a greater or less number of years if the compensation was not complete. ***** A further consideration, and such an one as would greatly modify the results, iies in the form of the potash compound employed. There is no other point on which the opinions of practical men so much differ as in this, and continually are new compounds declared to be the best ; but of universal application alone is the rule above, that we should always mix the potash salts with common salt (N^aCl), in order to insure their being conveyed to the lower soil ; also the ad- mixture of magnesia salts, when these have not been ap- plied in some other way. None of the potash salts from natural deposits possess any peculiar merit above the others. But those having an admixture of organic matter seem to me to be preferable. * * * * j^or this pur- pose, that potash coming from the beet itself — the residue rich in lime, the molasses, &c. — is most valuable and should be returned to the field when possible. One should not believe, however, that potash sufficient for the development of the plant has been added when the molasses and other waste products of the beet harvest have been returned to the field. "Without taking into considera- tion the leaves, which may have been left upon the field, a very large amount of potash is still necessary, and the mo- lasses alone does not restore the amount needed bv a good 2 (18) deal, as an easy calculation will show. In manufactories where raw sugar is sold, much potash is disposed of with the sugar, and in all manufactories the waste water always carries off potash compounds, and although in compara- tively small amounts, yet in sufficient quantity to account for the difference betvv'een the amount of potash found in the beet, and in the molasses- This is no theoretical consid- eration, but one founded upon exact comparative analyses." " There are however large tracts of beet growing country where, on account of the present state of things, or owing to their locality, this style of manuring (with beet re- fuse) is difficult or impossible. For such, as also for the ever present deficit above mentioned, we are thrown back upon the "Potash salts," and this must be the case on many farms till an easier method of manuring with beet refuse [press cake] is discovered. Without allowing myself to go into the question as to which is the best Potash salt, and why such dissimilar results from manuring are observed, I will nevertheless point out the fact that the universally good results which follow the manuring with beet refuse [press cake] will serve as a kind of guide board for us; that is, that the present method of applying the Potash salts broad cast over the field should be supplanted by another, viz : dissolving the salt in liquids tchich are rich in organic matter. We should certainly expect that a solution of the Potash salt in the urine from the stalls and stables for example, would insure a very equal distribution of the Potash in the soil, and in fact in a form better suited to the assimilative powers of the plant, than scattering about small crystals of an inorganic Potash compound. Naturally this same result may be reached in other ways, as for example, by mixing a concentrated water solution with the other manure, or with the compost heap and applying to the field the manure thus enriched with Potash. Experience and personal ex- periment will point out the preferable way. (19) The advantages of such mixing of Potash salts with the stable liquids (often accomplished by farmers by strewing the Potash salt about the stalls) are thus enumerated by Frank. 1. The sulphate of magnesia contained in the Potash salts holds (retains) the Ammonia and Phosphoric Acid. 2nd. The too rapid fermentation of the urine is prevented. 3rd. The prevention of the loss of Ammonia, and too rapid fermentation make the manure sweeter and more healthy. 4oli. The tediousness of scattering broadcast is obviated, and a much better sub-division and distribution upon the field are obtained. 5th. The cost of manuring with Potash is thus lessened, as the cheaper Potash salts, on account of the magnesia they contain are better for dissolving in this manner. 6th. The expense for plaster which otherwise would have to be employed is obviated." [Dr. Stammer here goes on to prove the value of the sugar beet refuse, and gives the three methods of applying it usually em- ployed, viz : leading the liquids in pipes to the field from a reservoir, carrying it there in barrels, etc., or burning it and then applying the ashes. The first is too expensive for general use, and the the latter causes a loss in nitrogen ARXil * * * * * * " If we ask what quantity of the above recommended manures should be used, surely no farmer would expect a special, universally applicable answer, and I will only re- call the general rule that it is always desirable, if not actually necessary, to restore to afield all the mineral elements of plant food, and from 2 to B times ths amount of Ammonia removed by the crop. I will further remark that an excessive applica- tion of Potash and Phosphoric Acid (the cost of Ammonia will insure that the above given proportion is not exceeded.) has no injurious effect upon the beet, at least not within the limits caused by errors in calculation, or mistakes in practice. On the other hand writers are beginning to agree (20) that excessive application will not increase the yield in the same proportion. ***** * * * * ''In speaking of the purely agricultural part of the work of sugar beet culture, I will only point out the importance, the necessity oi deep cultivation, and though the subsoil, according to its character, need not always be turned up, it must be pulverized and drained as well as possible — an axiom which cultivation by steam has fixed beyond a doubt." ***** " I think I can not better close this short consideration of the most important points in the development of the beet,, than by giving the most important rules in a brief and concise form : 1. Be exceedingly careful in choosing j-^our land and your ^eed. 2. Spare no pains in applying the manure. For this pur- pose take into consideration, not only the debtor and credit sides of theyield ol the field, but also the compensation that the ground requires for the constituents removed by the harvest, and their proper return in manure. 3. A rotation of crops must be observed, and such lields kept out of the number used for beets, which show their un- suitableness for beet culture. 4. Beet culture must not be on too large a scale, when one wishes larger harvests and good beets, and larger latlier than smaller harvests of grain, than he obtained before going into the beet culture. 5. The preparation of the soil must take place at the proper time, in a proper way, and with proper tools. 6. The seed should be sown as early as the state of the- ground and the climate will allow. 7. Be not too tardy in pulling up the beets. S. The hoe should be used as often and as much as possi- Jjle. 9. The harvest must not be put off. **■)(■ (21) 10. Never cease to observe and learn. 11. Protect the birds, which destroy the hurtful insects, and wage against their enemies a ceaseless warfare." This excellent advice of Dr. Stammer, embodying the experience of French and German agriculturists, contains much by which we may profit, not only in our experiments with the beet, but also in our general farming. As before said, the cultivation of the sugar beet has spread to all parts of Europe, and but slight trouble seems to have arisen on account of tlie difference of climate, for we find the beet growing, and manufactories running in Russia, Sweden, Bohemia, Austria, France, Germany, Hol- land, Belgium, etc., etc. In this country nearlj'- every one of the northern States and many of the western have made greater or less experi- ments on growing the beet, and have usually stopped there. In many instances a fair per centage of sugar was found in the juice, even Canada comparing very favorably with the old world in that respect. Statistics of these experiments are not easily accessible, but I will give below some of the results attained in several States, and will refer the reader to the various State reports for the details. Average amount of sugar in beets raised in the following localities : Per cent, sugar. Westchester county, N. Y., 1872, 8.70 Dutchess county, " " 10.97 Washington " (a) " " 11.70 " " (b) " " 9.50 Herkimer " " " 11.00 Orleans " " " 12.40 Amherst, Massachusetts, 1870, 12.70 «' " 1871, 10.79 (22) Amherst, Massachusetts, 1872, 7-37 Montreal, Canada, 1973, 8.86 Bridgeville, Delaware, 1876, ., 2.75 Camden, " " -7.40 Newark, " " 3.70 Seaford, " " 2.00 Wyoming, " " 5.50 Wilmington, " " 3.00 Harbeson, " " 2.88 Milton, " " 3.90 Dover, " " 4.40 Felton, " " 4.75 Ellendale, " " 2.00 Milford, " " 14.70 Lincoln, " " 3.00 Harrington, " " 5.10 Pleasant Hill, " " 7.74 Falkland, " " 13.00 Farmington, " " 5.70 Woodstown, New Jersey, " 4.30 Pennsgrove, " " 3.90 Pedricktown, " "' 420 Sharpsburg, Maryland, " 6.20 Omaha, Nebraska, " 13.50 Lincoln, " " 13.50 (1 8 other localities in Nebraska gave an average of over 15.50 per cent., the highest being 15.61, the lowest 7.20 per cent. Virginia Agricultural Experiment farm, 1872, (a) 13.72 u (b) 10.17 There have been many other experiments in growing the beet in different States, but they do not differ in general re- sults from those cited above. It will be seen that in many cases very excellent results were obtained, and yet in spite- (23)- of this fact there has been comparatively little done in the line of manufacture. I have not thought it necessary to cite the variety of seed used in the several cases, nor the character of soil and cultivation employed. • MANUFACTURE OF BEET SUGAR. The history of the efforts to make sugar profitably from the beet in this country can be very easily told. The fol- lowing are the principal experiments in that direction : David L. Child, of Northampton, Mass., made 1,300 lbs. of sugar from beets grown on his own farm in 1838. Yield, 13 tons of beets per acre, at a cost of $42. In 1853 Gennert Bros., from Germany, started a beetfar"^! of 2,400 acres, at Chatsworth, Ills. The land " analyzed well," yet failed to yield satisfactory results. Drought, poor seed, floods, &c., also militated against them, and in 1870 they removed to Freeport, Ills., and, if I am not mistaken, have but lately closed their factory, having produced 200,- 000 lbs. of sugar in 1870, at a reasonable profit. In 1867 a company was formed in Wisconsin, at Fond du Lac, under the lead of Messrs. Bonesteel and Otto, but ou a small scale, the works having a limited capacity. They have recently consolidated with a California company which is still working successfully in that State. In 1870 a co-operative company of farmers started a smalJ factory, and were quite successful, at Black Hawk, Wiscon- sin. A deficiency in their water supply seems to have been their greatest drawback. The largest and most successful experiment was institu- ted in California. In 1860 Mr. Speckman made an attempt at,beet culture near San Francisco. The soil was not suit- able and he abandoned the enterprise. In 1869 Mr. Went- worth instituted another experiment at Alvarado, and suc- ceeded in extracting from his beets several hundred pounds .((24) of sugar. Capitalists became interested and a company was formed which, under the management of General Huchison, has had quite a success. The two German ex- perimenters from Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, Messrs. Bone- steel and Otto, were taken into the cempany, as already stated. Drought and other causes interfered with their suc- cess at times, but in 1871 they reported an average yield of 15 tons of beets per acre, and a product of 1,000,000 pounds of sugar. Another company is now formed in California, and the industry seems to have gained more of a foothold on the Pacific coast than elsewhere. Besides the above experiments many individuals have raised the beet and extracted the sugar on a smaller scale. Prof. Goessman, with apparatus improvised for the occa- sion, obtained a yield of from 8 to 9 per cent, of sugar from beets grown in Massachusetts, or at the rate of nearly 2,000 pounds of sugar per acre. The number of failures to make the business pay has been due to a variety of causes; prominent among them a lack of sufficient capital to outlive the unavoidable delays and expense of getting a good start, neglecting to determine beforehand how cheaply a good beet can be raised, &c., &c. Bad management, too, had its share of the blame. One company failed, I am told, because they selected for the site of their works the summit of a hill ; very picturesque, to he sure, and giving a fine outlook over their acres of grow- ing beets, but unfortunately the extra expense of carting all their fuel and beets up hill and pumping up all their water ate up the profits, and the company failed. Anotiier com- pany bought the works, moved them down the hill and are now said to be doing tolerably well. There are many sanguine people both in tljis country and in Europe who point to the sugar beet indnstrj' as one of groat importance to Ameiica, and embodying the poten- tial elements of great wealth to our people. And they point (25) to our climate, soils and improving methods of agriculture; to the comparatively limited area where the cane can thrive, in support of their views. But there are others who point to thiB price of labor, the expensive processes compared with those necessary for the raising and working up of the sugar cane, and the small profits now being made by our cane sugar manufacturers and refiners, and declare the whole idea a snare and a delusion. To show the profit and loss side of the question, T will append a calculation made by Mr. H. P. Humphrey, of Philadelphia, a distinguished sugar chemist, who has given much thought and time to the subject. He has addressed a circular to capitalists and others in the hope that a care- ful and thorough experiment, backed by capital, may be made to prove finally the possibility or impossibility of planting this new industry firmly in our midst. After quoting the statistics I have already recorded to show the amount of beet sugar produced in the world in 1865-'76, Mr. Humphrey goes on to say : " The following table I'epresents the statistics of the Ger- man Empire in regard to the beet sugar industry, as gath- ered from data in " Stammer's Jahresbericht," the most re- liable authority obtainable : 1836-'37 . . . 1841-'43 . . . 1846-'47 . . . 1856-'57 .... 1866-'67 . . . 1873-'74 . . . 1874-'75 . . . ^ d M 3 » o a. m 3 3 u c3 bO . P .is to m M S 9 m o . -= a C3 200,000 3,913,371 10,001,508 13,389,827 10,535,207 6 u CD -L3 0) without breaking the roots, and pack them in a good strong crate or box, so made as to admit passage of air. Mark the box plainly, " Department of Agriculture," Raleigh, N. C, and send it by Express. We will pay all charges. In packing use green leaves or grass. This lot is designed for analysis by the Agricultural Chemist, and whatever expense is in- curred in packing and shipping will be paid by this De- partment. L. L. POLK, Commissioner:'' As already stated, we are disappointed in the meagre re- turns received and the general low per centage of sugar obtained. As will be seen from the letters of some of the- experimenters, there are several general reasons for these results; unfavorable season, the ravages of insects, &c., &c. While the unavoidable but unfortunate delay in sending out the seeds is another cause of the comparative failure. I will now give the results of my analyses of the samples, received. (34) ANALYSES. In eacli case I have determined : (1.) The weight of the beets. (2.) Specific gravity of the juice. (3.) Water in the juice. (4.) Cane sugar in the juice. <(•>.) Substances in juice other than cane sugar (by dif- ference.) The beets were carefully cleansed by brushing and rub- bing, without washing, and grated by hand on a large tin grater. The pulp was subjected to pressure in thick cloths, or in an iron screw press. The method of analysis was, briefly, as follows: The water was determined in the usual way by heating a certain portion mixed with a weighted amount of pure, dry sand, at 212° F. until the weight remained constant. The sugar was determined in an accurately measured por- tion of the juice by means of an excellent "polariscope.''* The determinations were duplicated in almost every case, and the figures given are the average of all observations. LOT Xx 1. Raised by Mr. J. 0. I'ass, Faison's, Duplin county. Re- ceived in September. Weight of largest 15|^ozs. " " smallest GJ- •' Average of twenty beets 9.6 " *Iam deeply indebted to Dr. Arno Belir, of the sugar refinoi-v of Messrs. Matthiessen & WircherR, .Jersey City, for the loan of a valuable iustrument, by which I wns enabled to eommenoe work promptly without annoyance from a dclav in receiving the instrument oi-Jereil by the Department from Dr. Seheililer, of Berlin. (35) Speciiic gravity of juice 1.0417 FEB CENT. Water 86.63 Sugar 6.46 Solids other than sugar 6.91 100.00 A "check" analysis on a second lot of the same beets gave the following results: o Specific gravity 1.0396 Sugar 6.44 perct. Mr. .J. C. Pass reports upon this lot raised by him as fol- lows : " It is possible that the soil on which the beets were planted, though well drained and very fertile, contains an excess of saline and alkaline substances. The specimen sent is not above the average. Land planted, 40x89 feet, (1-12 acre.) Fertilizers used, acid phosphate ^Navassa), 40 lbs.; wood ashes, about one bushel. Quality of land, rich loam. Mode of preparation, flushed with a one-horse plow and sub-soiled 15 inches deep, and thrown into ridges 22 inches apart. Quantity of seed sown, quarter of a pound, less one table- spoonful. Seeds put into water to soak the 25th April, rolled in wood ashes and planted tlie 26th and lightly cov- ered, from which a stand of about 85 per cent, was obtained (7 inch drill space desired). The re-set beets from thinning the hills were of no value. Cultivation consisted in plowing one time and hoe-worked four times. (36) The cut-worm attacked the plants in spring. Some of the- tubers commenced decaying in the latter part of July. The bugs attacked the tops about the middle of August, and have proved about as destructive to beet tops as the- army worm to the cotton plant. Dug 910 lbs. of roots, including debris of tops left by the- bugs." LOT NO 2, liaised by Mr. .J. W. Telletier, ^iforehead city, Beaufort <.'ounty. Received in September. Total weight 7 lbs. Weight of lai'gest 1 lb. 2^ ozs- " " smallest .jj ozs. Average of 10 312 " Specific gravity of juice 1.0390 I'BK CENT. Water 87.28 Sugar o.l2 Solids other than sugar , 7.60 100.00 jSIr. Pelletier reports as follows : "Eeceived seed, May 8th, 1877. tSoil, gray sand, with yellow sub-soil ■d' reparation, broke up ten inches deep. Manured with ashes at the rate of 20 bushels per acre,. with same amount of cotton seed. Planted seed 11th May. in drills two feet apart and ten inches in drill. Onftivaiwn.— Plowed 25th May, ]6th June, Otli July and 28th July, with a small turn plow, and followed each plow- ing with hoe. Yield, l'")0 buslu'ls per acre. I have no experience in raising the sugar beet, but the ordinary beet, planted the lirst of March, would yield at least twice as large a crop as when planted the 1 1th of May. The land should have been plowed at least a month before planting." Mr. J. H. Swindell writes as follows : " I turned over nay seed to Mr. John W. Pelletier, one of rthe best farmers of our section. I would add to Mr. Pelle- •tier's report that we have had this season entirely too much rain for beets to do well. I am satisfied he would have done nmch better but for this and not having received the seed ■earlier." LOT No. 3. Raised by James Norwood, Esq. Hillsboro,' Orange county. Keceived in September. Total weight 25i lbs. Weight of largest 3 " " smallest 1 " jA-verage weight of 13 9. " Specific gravity of juice 1.0322 PfK CENT. Water 88.54 .Siiffar 10.24 Solids other than sugar 1.22 100.00 Mr. Norwood reports as follows : " Planted on the 27th April, the seed already sprouted, on a piece of ground 5 by 33 yards, in rows 2| feet apart ; when about an inch high gave a dressing of 2 bushels of half-slacked ashes along the line of plants, and thinned them to 12 inches apart; then with a good cultivator stirred the ashes well in. About a month afterwards, sowed 2 bushels -of ashes broadcast and gave the patch a deep and thorough stirring with a cultivator. Afterwards kept the weeds and grass out. (38) The piece of land is not rich, would bring 4 barrels of corn to the acre, is red clay soil ; no sand in it ; was twice ploughed in the last of the winter, and thoroughly broken up 9 inches deep. I will deliver a sample of the beets, and you will find them too large, probably:" LOT No 4, Raised by Capt. Jno. Hutchins, 4 miles from Chapel Hill, Orange county. Total weight 14 J lbs. Weight of largest 4 " " smallest 1^ " Average weight of 6 2f " Specific gravity of juice 1.0408 PER CEHT. Water 90.08 Sugar 4.55 Solids other than sugar 5.37 100.00 Capt. Hutchins reports that he did not attend to the planting or cultivation of the beets in person — in fact did not know they were on his plantation until ready to pull. They were planted in rich bottom land, and had little or no care. LOT xo. 5, Raised by Mr. H. W. Ledbetter, Wadesboro, Anson county. Total weight 18} lbs. Weight of largest 3 "- " " smallest 1 «• Average of 11 2 " Specific gravity of juice 1.0248 (39) PEB CENT. Water 89.79 Sugar 4.30 Solids other than sugar 5.91 100.00 '' I have taken up, placed in a box, and will ship in a few days, as directed, \ bushel of the sugar beets. As you know I did not get the seed until May — they should have been planted several weeks sooner — I planted six short rows in my sweet potato patch, a light loam, rather sandy. Planted 11th of May, used Whann's Raw Bone Superphosphate in drill, about 300 lbs per acre, gave same cultivation as I did cotton adjoining. There came up about half stand, and grew finely ; had no rain until 3rd of June. New beets came np, the older ones were then .about C inches high ; the younger ones never did much, the sun was too hot for them. The beets seemed to do well until the dry hot weather of August, when the tops seemed to die and fall off. They are putting out again new, and seem to be taking the second growth. I estimated the yield to be about 210 bushels per acre. If planted earlier, with suitable preparation of good manure, and good cultivation, the yield would liuve been 3 times as large. The land has a clay sub-soil, red, at about 12 or 14 inches from top. Sorry I did not get the seed in time to make a more complete experiment ; will try again next year." LOT NO. 6. Raised by Dr. G. W. Blacknall, Raleigh, "Wake county. Received in September : Total weight 51f lbs. Weight of largest 5| " " smallest , 3J " Average weight of 12 4 lbs. 4 ozs. Specific gravity of juice 1.0182 (40) PER CEST. Water 92.85 Sugar 4.55 Solids other than sugar 2.60 100.00 No report received. LOT NO. 7. Raised by Mr. .John M. Crenshaw, Forestville, Wake •county. Eeceiyed in October. Total weight 26 lbs. Weight of largest 3 " '< smallest f " Averageof22 2 " Specific gravity of juice 1.0183 PEK CENT. Water 89.06 Sugar 6.97 Solids other than sugar 3.97 100.00 Mr. Crenshaw reports : " They were received late in the season, without any idea of their mission, and were planted and not much attention given them." LOT NO. S. Kaiaed by , Tarboro, Edgecombe county. Received in October. Total weight 23i Ib^. Weight of largest 2 " " smallest J " Average weight of 2.J 1 lb. 6 ozs. Specific gravity of juice 1.0498 (41) PER CENT. "Water 87.99 Sugar; 6.30 Solids other than sugar 5.71 100.00 No report. LOT NO. 9. Kaised by A. M. McPheeters, Raleigh, Wake county Eeceived in October. Total weight IS^lbs. Weight of la rgest lib. " smallest 6oz8. Average weight of 34 11 " Specific gravity ©f juice 1.0378 PEK CENT. Water 86.24 Sugar 10.97 Solids other than sugar 2.79 100.00 No report- LOT NO. 10. Raised by W. M. Blackwell, Oxford, Granville county. Received in October. Total weight 19J lbs. Weight of heaviest IJ lbs. " lightest 7 ozs. Average weight of 32 14 ozs. Specific gravity of juice • 1.04270 PERCENT. Water 84.9G Sugar 11.37 Solids other than sugar 3.67 100.00 (42) A check analysis on another lot gave : Specific gravity 1.04277 Sugar 11.46 pr.et. Mr Blaekwell reports : " I plowed the land about six inches deep with a cast turning plow, and followed in the same furrow with a coulter, breaking the land about 14 or 15 inches deep, and applied 700 lbs. to the acre of "Dixon's Compound," com- posed of equal parts of Peruvian guano, dissolved bone, plas- ter and salt. I planted the seed the 4th of May. As soon as necessary, I thinned them to 8 or 10 inches apart in the drill, rows 22 inches apart. The first working was done with a harrow, the second working a small turning plow was run, throwing one furrow to the beets, and harrow in middle of the row, which was all the plowing I did to them ; each time the hoes followed the plow, chopping out all grass and weeds, and leaving the land nearly level. The seed was planted on sandy soil with yellow^ clay (subsoil ?) The yield was only 140 bushels to the acre. We had the worst seasons I ever saw, owing to excessive wet. My crops of all kinds were seriously inj ured, as we had more rain in my immediate neighborhood than any other part of the country I gave one of my neighbors, W. B. Crews, some of the seed, and his land was better adapted to beets than mine, he using ashes as a fertilizer, his yield was 250 bushels to the acre." LOT NO. 11. Raised by Mr. J. W. Wilson, Morganton, Burke county Received in October. Total weight SOJlbs. Weight of largest S " " smallest .|- " Average weight of 24 1| " Specific gravity of juice 1.0175 (43) PER CENT. Water 92.14 Sugar 5.91 Solids other than sugar 1.9a' 100.00 No Report. LOT NO. 12. Eaised by , Chapel Hill, Orange county. Received in November. Total weight 49 lbs. Weight of largest 2f " " smallest 12ozs. Average weight of 36 lib. 12ozs-. Specific gravity of juice 1.0247 PEK CEBT. Water 94.07 Sugar 3.35 Solids other than sugar 2.58 100.00 These beets were grown upon very rich soil, (in a garden spot) and were fertilized with ashes. LOT KG. 13. Raised by J. W. Wissler, Lockville, Chatham county- Received in November, marked " Imperial, No. 4." Total weight, (but 2 in the lot) 4 lbs. Average weight 2 lbs. Specific gravity of juice 1.0396 (44) PBH CEHT. Water 90.99 Sugar 5.51 Solids other thansugar 3.50 100.00 Mr. Wissler sends samples of 6 lots, and his report accom- panying them will be given after the analysis of all the samples. LOT NO. 14. Raised by Mr. J. W. Wissler, Lockville, Chatham, coun- ty. Received in November, and marked " French, No. 2,' only two beets in the lot. Average weight .'. 1 lb. 6 ozs. Specific gravity of juice 1.0501 Check " " " 1.0502 PER CBST. Water 85.47 Sugar 10.82 Solids other than sugar 3.71 100.00 LOT NO. 1."). Raised by Mr. J. W. Wissler, at Endor Furnace, (near Egypt) Chatham county. Received in November, and marked " Imperial No. 6," only tioo in lot. Average weight 1 lb. 9* ozs. Specific gravity of juice 1.0380 I'ER CK>T. Water 91.33 Sugar 527 Solids other tiian sugar 3.40 100.00 (45) LOT NO. 16. Raised by Mr. J. "W. Wissler, at Lockville, Chatham county. Received in November, and marked ' Imperial No. 3 ," two in lot. Average weight lib. 10|ozs. Specific gravity of juice 1.0307 PER OKNT, Water 93.21 ' Sugar 5.27 Solids other than sugar 1.52 100.00 LOT NO. 17. Raised by Mr. J. W. "Wissler, at Lockville, Chatham county. Received in November, and marked " French No. 5," two in lot. Average weight li lbs. Specific gravity of juice 1.0522 TER CENT. Water 87.61 Sugar 11.22 Solids other than sugar 1.17 100.00 1,0T No. I'l, Raised by ^Ir. Wissler, at Lockville, Cliatham county. Ricjived in November, and marked "French Xo. 8." Two in hit. Average weigbt 1 lb. 5 ozs. Specific gravity of juice 1.0436 (46) PEB CENT, Water 90.08 ^ugar 7.14 Solids other than sugar 2.78 100.00 Mr. Wissler reports as follows : "Ifo. 1, (Lot No. 16), is the Imperial seed, put in soak on the lltli of May and planted on the 12th, in a lot on river ^low ground). This piece of ground had been used for several years as a cucumber patch. Top-dressed heavily with " Phuine." Plowed deep (about 10 inches) first time, -on the 11th, and again on the 12th, before planting. The ground was nicely pulverized and in good condition for planting. After planting on the 12th (May) we had no rain -until the 9th ®f June, when they came up nicely, and I had them replanted, when it again got dry, and I suppose we had no rain for at least six weeks. Owing to this, I failed in having a stand anywhere. I worked the beets about the same as I would a crop of -corn. After the season got better they commenced growing and were still growing finely when I had them pulled up on the 23d of October. On that night we had a heavy frost, a,nd I was fearful it might injure them to leave them stand ioiiger. No. 2, (Lot No. 14), is the French Beet, planted on same ground, and same as No. 1. No. 3, (Lot No. 18), is the French Beet, planted on same day and treated similarly as Nos. 1 and 2, except that it was .planted on a stiff clay. This lot had been in clover for two years, heavily top-dressed with stable manure, and broke up about the 15th day of February, and again top-dressed with "'■ Phuine " and plowed on the 11th of May. Just before planting, this ground — owing to the dry weather — got so (47) iiard that I never, even by transplanting, got a stand; but late in the summer and fall they seemed to grow well. No. 4, (Lot No. 13), is the Imperial Beet, planted on same ground as No. 3, and treated similarly ; all these beets were gathered on the 23d of October. No. 5 is the French Beet, planted at Endor Furnace, ^near Egypt), on the 16th of May, on a nice, mellow soil neither sandy nor stiff. The ground had been plowed about six weeks before, and I had it plowed again just be- fore planting. After drawing the furrows (whioh I did in all cases with a 'scooter' plow), I had it well sprinkled with ashes, this being the only fertilizer used in Nos. 5 and The seed had been soaked forty-eight hours, and was nicely sprouted when planted. If any difference, the season was drier at Endor than at Lockville, and yet I must con- Widev my success the best there, the beets growing smooth and of a uniform size of form, 2 to 8 lbs. each. No. 6 is the Imperial Beet, treated similar to No. 5. I liad still made another experiment at Buckhorn, but must confess to a failure there. The beet, through neglect and drj' weather grew very slowly, and was not over half pound beets in Oqtober, when gathered, and so green that they soon dried and shriveled up. The last of March or beginning of April is the proper time to plant here, when the beet will have root enough to stand the drought and hot weather of July. One difficulty I had was to keep the beet covered, it seem- ingly having a tendt^ncy to grow out of the ground ; for this reason I shall in future plant three feet apart, instead of two, as this year." LOT No. 19, This was a separate lot of 7 beets which came in the box with 3fr. Wissler's samples. Whether a separate lot, or merely specimens from the other 6 lots, I could not ascer- tain, and so analyzed them. (48) Average weight lib. 13ozs. Specific gravity of juice 1.0421 PER CENT. Water 90.34 Sugar 5.96 Solids other than sugar 3.70 100,00 LOT No. 20, Raised by Mr. Columbus Mills, Concord, Cabarrus county. Total weight 27J lbs. Weight of largest 5 " " smallest 2f " Average weight of 7 3J " Specific gravity of juice 1.0414 PBK CBBT. Water 91.23 Sugar 5.50 Solids other than sugar 3.27 100.00 Mr. Mills reports : "Planted the last of April, and came up sparsely until the June rains; rows 1^ feet apart; ground, a rich loam. They were worked according to the French mode of culti- vation." T.OT No. 21, Raised by , near Chapel Hill, Orange county. Received December 1st. Total weight 16 lbs. . Weight of largest 2| " " " smallest 8 ozs. Average of 12 IJ lbs. Specific gravity of juice 1.0390 (?) (49) Water 89.37 Sugar 7 gj Solids other than sugar, 8.02 100.00 No report. CONCLUSION. While some of the lots analyzed show a very low per centage of sugar, there are, on the other hand, five (more than one-fifth of the whole'' over ten per cent., viz : SUIPLE FBOM PEB OT. SUOAB. Oxford 11.46 Egypt 11.22 Raleigh 10.97 Lockville 10.82 Hillsboro 10.24 Of the remaining sixteen lots more than three-fourths go over^five per cent., by no means a very bad showing. It had been my intention to endeavor, by a careful exami- nation of the results obtained in different localities, and on different soils, and with different management, to be able to point out the cause of failure of one, or the success of another in obtaining beets with a high per centage of sugar. But with the few results that we have been able to gather and the few reports made by the experimenters, we would reach an idle, or at least highly conjectural conclusion. Still, I would recommend our farmers to notice carefully the reports of the experimenters, and compare the results of their labor, and they will oftentimes find valuable hints and suggestions for their guidance next year. 4 ■(50) I will close with the reiteration of the wish that the re- sult of this report may be to keep alive the interest in our experiments, and that another year may find our people ready to give intelligent and eflieient aid to the Department of Agriculture in its eiforts to implant this new industry in our State.