SB 235 ■ C64 'Opy 1 .ALUMET PLANTATION, PARISH ST. MARY, LOUISIANA. SORGHUM Sugar Plant for Lower Louisiana. RECORD AND DISCUSSION OF FIELD AND LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS, SEASONS OF i88g-go. By K. E). CooivtBS, Clmemist. IvOUISVILIvB, KY. : cot^rier- journal jou printing company iSqi. CALUMET PLANTATION, PARISH ST. MARY, LOUISIANA. SORGHUM Sugar Plant for Lower Louisiana. RECORD AND DISCUSSION OF FIEID AND LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS, SEASONS OE i88g-go. By R. E. CooiviBS, Chemist. LOUISVILLK, KY. : COURIER-JOURXAI. JOU PRINTING COMPANY. 1S9I. ^ lant, which thus cheats a large invested capital of its due interest for nine months of each year. These considerations have led many to inquire for means of extending the productive season of the sugarhouse and refinery, and no satisfactory means has been sug- gested except that of securing a supplemental crop which might ripen in a shorter time than does tropical cane, and so permit the mill to commence operations at an earlier date. The sugar beet and sorghum cane have both been proposed as iiuxiliaries to the present cane crop ; but an investigation of this subject was made by Mr. W. J. Thompson in 1887, and its result was such that he was led to Ijelieve that the beet, although so well established in Europe and of such promise elsewhere in America, would never be adapted to the soil and climate of Southern Louis- iana, nor to the agricultural processes and methods of cultivation required upon a cane estate. On the other hand, Mr. Thompson's earliest investigations convinced him that sorghum offered such promise of success as would warrant cultural experiment with this plant, and he accordingly made a careful selection of varieties in the light of the experience which had been gained by Dr. C. A. Crampton and Mr. A. A. Denton at the U. S. Sorghum Experi- ment Station at Sterling, Kansas. Seed was procured from these L'-entlemen, and in 1889 was begun in earnest the search for, or (3) (level()[)ment of, a variety of sorghum suited to the climate and alluvial soil of lower Jjonisiaiia. This is believed to be the first systematic work of the sort ever undertaken with this plant l)y a private individual. Mr, Daniel Thompson, proprietor of the Calu- met plantation, having in this case remained its sole patron. The objects kept in view have been: Study of the cultural methods best adapted to the plant under the conditions presented by the environment, and its acclimatization to these conditions; an ultimate selection of those varieties which experience will have shown to be best adapted to the liabitat, after acclimatization and careful comparison of the more promising among them, and to determine whether any of these are promising enough to sanction a continuance of the experiments. For the purpose of such com- parison, it was necessary to plant and cultivate alike, and to other- wise insure essentially like conditions in the case of every variety entering the competition; to afterward sample all in like manner, and to secure considerable numbers of juice analyses made upon uniformly drawn average samples taken at intervals throughout the period of maturity; an improvement of each variety, so far as possible, by selection of seed for again planting, from those indi- viduals only which were found to possess desirable qualities in a maximum degree, this requiring separate analyses of the juices from a very large number of individual stalks; incidentally, the study of certain collateral and practical questions which had risen regarding the sorghum plant, such as its stability, variability^ tonnage, needs in details of manufacture and the like. No effort was made to secure an improved plant by other than these four methods : acclimatization, improved culture, selection from among varieties, and propagation from the best individual canes. Hybridization and other methods present great induce- ment, but neither time nor facilities for them have yet offered at this place. These experiments have now been prosecuted for two seasons, and so considerable a mass of material has been accumulated that it appears wise it should be co-ordinated, formulated and discussed, for guidance in further experimentation, and for S3'stematic preser- vation and reference. As a result of past labors, it is now proposed by Mr. W. J. Thompson, under whose direction all the work has been performed, to discard the less promising varieties and to con- centrate future effort upon a few which have already been recog- ^uze(l as luiving sucli superior merit as to eucourage the hope of eveiituall}^ securing for the tropical cane plantations of Louisiana a profitable supplemental sugar crop. That the sorghum plant is, in general, adapted to growtli in Louisiana, the large fields raised year after year for stock feeding- bear sufficient testimony; when grown for this purpose, moreover, it is so carelessly planted and so poorly (when at all) cultivated, that the good crops usually obtained intimate what it may be pos- sible to accomplish with a suitable sugar-producing variety, if given the attention it should properly receive. That sorghum of the better varieties contains sufficient cane- sugar to make its profitable extraction worth striving for, is shown by the many analyses which have been made upon its juices, and have been published from time to time; and that such extraction may be secured, is believed by many who have convincingly proved their faith by persistent attempts to do so in Kansas and other States, with varying, and it must be granted, not generally with the hoped for success. But the list of failures in endeavors to manu- facture sugar commercially from sorghum has had more weight than is just, for it should be considered that the fault lies not entirely with the intrinsic defects of the cane. There have con- tributed to these failures not only badly constructed apparatus, unskilled labor, delaj^s in erection of factories and ill-chosen loca- tion of these with regard to water-supply and transportation, but also the fact that the cane delivered has in many instances been utterlv unfit to be worked, owing to improper culture, harvesting too early or too late, or allowing it to lie cut and exposed in the field until practically valueless before hauling to the factory. And it may he said, that not all these attempts have been quite without encouragement to tlieir promoters. Of the many known varieties of sorghum, some are productive of cane-sugar in large degree, and others in less, or not at all. The sugar-yielding sorts all vary widely in form, size and suitabil- ity to diftereut soils and climatic conditions, these qualities being most constant in types which have been longest cultivated. Such diflt'erences make it possible to select at the outset the varieties likely to be adapted to a given localit}-, and bj' experiment with a number of these to find which are best fitted for growth tliere. Afterward, by selection of seed from single stalks found by obser- vation and analysis to possess desirable traits of form and growth 6 and qualities of juice, planting this seed and continuing the selec- tion from the new plants produced, it is almost certain that in course of time a stable variety may be perfected, which will pre- sent the valuable characteristics of the original stalk, and the long cultivation of this new variety will tend to make it fixed and per- manent. Experiments in the directions indicated have been continued during 1889 and 1890, as said before, under the direction of Mr. W. J. Thompson ; and the following report shows, as briefly as tlie subject admits, their result. In the work of 1890 the elficient aid of Mr. W. Y. Ivemper, of Glencoe, La., as analyst in the laboratory, made possible a far wider range of experiment and a more extended system of inves- tigation than could be undertaken the previous year, and much credit is due to him. CULTURAL EXPERIMENTS OF 1889. In pursuit of these experiments, in 1889, a piece of compara- tively new, stiff black land, on which an earlier crop of corn had perished from drouth, was chosen as a convenient site. When the heavy and prolonged rains which followed the drouth sufficiently abated to permit of working the soil, it was replowed, ridged and opened, and the seed was drilled in by hand and covered with the hand-hoe to a uniform depth of one inch. All this was accomplished during the forenoon of June 19th, the rains setting in again the same afternoon. Sixteen plots were made, in rows each distant two hundred feet from the next parallel one, with the same space between adjoining ends. By June 24th, the fifth day from planting, all but three plots had come to a satisfactory stand, and all but two by the seventh day, June 20th. The seed of these two plots failed to germinate almost completely. The rains which recommenced on the afternoon of the day of planting, continuing sixty-three days, /'. c, until August 21st, prevented the use of fer- tilizers, and even allowed no cultivation except a careful hoeing and the turning of a few furrows to the rows, which Avas done on July 20th, the twenty-sixth day from seeding, the canes at this time averaging one foot in height. After August 21st, however, the weather changed and con- tinued drouthy until the end of the growing season, except for one heavy rain on September 25th, the ninet3'-eighth day. On November 19th, finally, the one hundred tind fifty-third day, a severe freeze destroyed all the canes then standing and put an end to the season's work. The sixteen i)lots were of the varieties and description given helow. The seed from which the Calumet sorghum was raised this year (1880) was obtained from Sterling, Kansas; and to estab- lish a standard forjudging our own work, analyses are given for vixch variety Avhich were made at Sterling in 1888, these being, in most cases, analyses of the j^arerd j^lot, but in several instances where this could not be assured, the best average or single stalk analyses of the rarictij at that station for 1888 is given instead, and the fact is so stated. The serial number of the Sterling plot when known is also specitied. It will be understood that all these analyses are made upon the juice expressed by the small experimental mill. Average analyses are made upon the mixed juice of an arbitrary number of canes selected to represent as nearly as possible the character of the whole plot sampled, and single stalk analyses upon the juice of individual canes chosen from the plot by outward signs as the best in form, size, maturity and the like, and further selected for the laboratory by the Brix spindle test of their juices. PLOT No. 1. EARLY ORANGE. Planted with seed from Pl.it No. S4, Sterliiig. Kansas. ISSS, the stock having long been resident in that .State. The best average analvsi.s for the parent (Sterling) plot. 1888: Solids. 17.5S; Suero.se. 1-2.82; Purity. 72.92: Glucose, 1.33. Be>t reeord toi' this variety and year at Sterling, a single stalk selected from a large field: .Sdlids. 22.18: Sucrose, 17.05; Purity. 70.87. Best average analysis of derivate plot. Calumet, 1889, one hundred and thirty day.s from planting: Solids, 21.30; Sucro.se, 16.02; Purity. 75.21; Glucose, l.Uo. Best single stalk analysi.s. Calumet, 1889: Solids, 22.30; Sucrose. 17.37; Purity, 77.89, this on the one hundred and thirty- seventh day from seeding. This Calumet plot was planted on a ditchliaiik and tliiniieil. when the plants were about 4 inches high, to a stand of one plant to :! inches. Seed-heads generally in sight by the sixty-third day from planting; seed beginning to hai'den on the ninety-tirst day. Analyses eommenced on this plot October 5th, the one hundred and eighth day. Not much lodg- ing, due to wind, was noticed in this plot, though many eanes were lost through the effect of -'red disease"' and the injury from the trtipical borer {Chilo sncchnrnlh), both of Avhicb attacked these canes seriously. Sup)iliniental heads and off-shoots from the base were very common. PLOT No. 2. EARLY ORANGE. Planted with seed from Plot No. liS. Sterling. Kansas, 1888, the stock having been received there from Louisiana that vear. The best averagi' >amjde analyses for the parent ( Stevliiii;- 1 and drrivate (Ciiluiurt) plots are: Sterling Plot No. G8, 1888: Solids, 17.!>0; SutTose, 12.90: riirity, 72.07; Glucose, 1.13. Calumet Plot No. 2. 1889: Solids, 21.40; Sucrose, 16.30; Purity, 76.16; Glucose. 2.50, this last analysis on the one hundred and twenty- sixth day. Best single stalk analysis of parent plot, 1888: Solids, 16.31; Sucrose, 14.43; Purity, 88.47. Best single stalk of derivate plot 1889: Solids, 23.50; Sucrose, 18.05; Puritj', 76.80; the latter made one hundred and eighteen days after seeding. The Calumet plot was planted on a ditchliank. A few seed-heads were in sight, and the canes were about 7 feet in height hy the sixty-third day. Little lodging was observed, though there was more sprouting than in case of Plot No. 1. Less injury was sustained from borers and disease (the "red disease"' mentioned, "Bacillus sorghi"' being its reputed cause) fliaii the jireceding plot. PLOT No. 3. LINK'S HYBRID. Seed prohabhj from Plot --O.'- Sterling. Kan- sas, 1888. Best average analysis of parent plot : Solids. ; Sucrose. 14.09; Purity, . Of derivate plot: Solids. 20.70; Sucrose, 16.44; Purity, 79.42; Glucose, 1.16, one hundi-ed and eleven days after planting. The best single stalk analysis with this variei;^ at Sterling, 1888: Solids. ; Sucrose, 16.51; Purity, . The best single stalk analysis of the derivate plot. 1889: Solids. 22.00; Sucros.-, 18.26; Purity, 83.00. on the one hundred and eighteenth day. Plot located on a ditchbank. Seed-heads were forming on the sixty- third day. On the one hundred and seventh day these canes had readied a height of about ten feet, and the seed was already hardening. Although at Sterling this variety was said to lodge badly, the fault was not apparent here. But slight ihjin'v was ^ufferi'd by it here from disease or from the borer, and this, together with the uniformly high juice analyses obtained, made it one of the favorite varieties of the season. PLOT No. 4. WHITE INDIA. Planted with seed from Sterling. Kansas; parent plot not certain, but probably No. 69, of 1888, of which plot the best average analysis was : Solids, 17.67; Sucrose, 13.07; Purity, 73.96; Glu- cose, 1.02. No average analyses could be made on the derivate (1889) plot. The best single stalk analysis of the variety at Sterling in 1888 is not known. That of the derivate plot was: Solids, 22.00; Sucrose, 17.31; Purity. 78.70; Glucose, 1.31, one hundred and twenty days from seeding. This plot was one not planted on a ditchbank. and may have had poor drainage in consrcjuenee. No satisfactory stand was obtained, the seed not germinating well; and the few plants that came were yellow in color and of irregular size, perhaps because too thin on the ground to shade the roots. Sixty-nine days after seeding, these stalks appeared more healthy, were of large diameter and about 7| to 8 feet tall. On the one hundred and twenty-tirst day the seed were becoming hard and the lower leaves dying. Lodging was noticed among these canes, few as there were. Large and heavy seed-heads were grown, of the character- istic whiteness. About forty-five canes were obtained from the plot, (juite free of disease and borers. Defective gennination was olis('r\ed in this variety at Sterliu"- the vear before. 9 PLOT No. 5. RED LIBERIAN. Planted with seed from Sterling, Kansa.'^, 188.S. Parent |»lot unknown. The best sucrose obtained on an average sample of the variety for that year and station was 14.76 per cent. The only average sample analysis of the derivate plot at Calumet, 1889: Solid.-, 17.20; Sucrose, 9.87; Purity, 57.88; Glucose, 2.74, one hundred and eleven days after planting. The best sucrose obtained for a single stalU (if this variety at Sterling, 1888, was 17.(19 per cent. Best single stalk derivate plot. 1889: Solids. 21.70; Sucrose, 15.13; Purity. 68.77; this analyzed on the one hun(hvd and thirty-ninth day. The plot was not on a ditchbank. Seed-heads were all in sight, and just darkening on the ninety-first day. One supplemental head on each cane; not much injury from l)ui-crs. but a great deal from the "red disease" was suilered by this plot, and very little lodging occurred, although the canes were quite slender. PLOT No. 6. LATE ORANGE. Planted with seed from Plot No. 89, Sterling. Kansas. 1888. Maxinuini average analysis ftu' that plot and year: Solids. 17.99; Sucrose, 12.7o; Purity, 70.76; Glucose. 2.32. Maximum average analysis of derivate plot. 1889: Solids, 20.70; Sucrose, 16.44; Purity, 79.42; Gluco.se, 2.39, on the one hundred and twenty-sixth day. The best single stalk secured fnvm the parent plot (No. 89) was a variation from the type, analyzing: Solids, 18.78; Sucrose, 13.64; Purity. 72.6:'.; Glucose, 2.94. Best single stalk analysis of derivate plot, 1889: Solids, 22.80; Sucrose, 18.11; Purity, 79.42; Gluense. 1.17, on the one hundred and thirty-first day. This was another of the plots not on ditchbanks. and thought to have suffered for lack of drainage. Seed-heads began to show about sixty- seven days after planting, coming earliest on the canes at one end of the plot, which were taller there than elsewhere. Some lodging was caused by wind, but comparatively little injury was suffered from borers or disease. PLOT No. 7. HONDURAS. Planted with seed from Plot No. 64, Sterling, Kan- sas. 1S,S8. Best average analy.sis of parent })!ot. 1888: Solid.s. 15.-54; Sucrose, 9.-54; Purity, 61.39; Glucose, 3.24. Of derivate plot, 1889: Solid.s, 1.3.50; Sucrose, 7.45; Purity, -55.18; Glucose. 3.9-5, this being the only average sample cut from the Calumet plot, and taken on the one hundred and eleventh day. Best single stalk analysis of parent plot is not known. A cane from a "variation'' jilot of Hondura.s, at Sterling, 1888, gave: Solids, 20.00; Sucrose, 14.90; Purity. 74.50; Glucose, 1.02. Best single .stalk of derivate plot, 1889: Solids, 16.40; Sucrose. 10.68; Purity, 65.12, on the one hundred and thirty-second day. Planted on a ditchbank. On the sixty-third day from seeding, this plot was irregular and of sickly color, though large in stalk, and no signs of heading were apparent; many roots had sprung from the joints near the ground. On the ninety-first day this ])lot had become one of the best in size of cane.«, which were quite thick on the row, and averaged 11 to 12 feet tall, with .seed-heads just darkening. This plot was perhaps the latest maturing of all, and was cut down by the frost of November 19th. the one hundred and fifty-third day from its planting, and before matu- . rity was reached. Borers damaged these canes a little, and they were much diseased. 10 PLOT No. 8. IMPROVED ORANGE. Planted with seed from Sterling, Kaus..-. 1888. The parent plot is unknown, and no analyses of the variety at Sterling for that year are available; the statement was furnished witli the seed, however, that the variety attains "15.00 per eent. sucrose. "" Best average analysis of derivate plot, 1889: Solids, r.t.20; Sucmse. 14.81; Purity, 77.14; Glucose, 2.16, on the one hundred mid thirteenth day. Best single stalk analysis of derivate plot, 188!i : Solids, 21.liO: Sucrose, 17.10; Purity. 70.12; Glucose, 1.9!i, on the one hundivd and thirteenth day. Planted on a ditehl)ani<. On the sixty-ninth day nearly all these canes showed seed-heads, were about 8 feet in height and fairly uniform in size, though of pale foliage. Seed were turning hard by tiie iiinctv- tirst day. This plot was not very successful in the tirld ; the rani'< were (juitc slender and badly injured by the borer, only one other plot having stif- fered more from this cause'. Lodging was not noticeable, but the cane> bore many sujjplemental heads, often two to the stalk. PLOT No. 9. GOOSENECK. Planted with seed believed tn be fn.m Pint Xn. 7ti, Stei'ling, Kansas, 1888. Best average analysis of that ]il.it (after frosts and before maturity): Solids, 18.00; Sucrose, 11.78; Purity, 6.5.44; (ilu- cose, 2.60. The only average analysis of the derivate i)lot, 1889: Solids, 17.00; Sucrose, 11.74; Purity, 69.06; Glucose, 3.]]. on the one hundred and eleventh day. No single stalk analysis of this variety at Sterling can be had. The best single stalk of the derivate plot, 1889, was: S(dids. 19.90; Sucrose, 15..58; Purity, 78.29; (41ueose, 1.71; tliis analyzed on the one hundred and thirty-second day from seeding. Planted on a ditchbank. By the sixty-ninth day the canes of this plot were about 8 feet tall, of good color and of quite large diameter, but not thick on the row. One of the worst -'suckered'^ plots at that date, its seed-heads just coming into view. There was no regularity in the ripening of thp seed, and from the violent variations of form among them it seemed certain that these canes were derived from crossed seed. Many stalks resembling Orange and Amber ty]ies were noti<-e(l. The characteristic .pendent seed-head of this variety seems an objec- tion, as a possible source of inconvenience in handling in the tield and at the cane-carrier. PLOT No. 10. (STERLING PLOT No. 51, OF 1888.) Plant,,! with seed from Plot No. 51, Sterling, 188S, at which station the Nariety held a good rec- ord for purity of juice, the best average sample being, for 1888: Solids, 17.77; Sucrose, 12.80; Purity, 72.03 ; Glucose, 2.27. The only average analysis for the derivate plot, 1889: Solid-s 14.20; Sucrose, 8.17; Purity, 57.53; Glucose, 2.96, one hundred and eleven days from })lanting. The best single stalk analysis at Sterling for 1888 can not be given ; that for the derivate (Calumet) plot, 1889, was: Solids, 20.70; Sucrose, 15.67; Purity, 75.70, on the one hundred and thirty-seventh day. Planted on a ditchbank, but still seemed to lack proper drainage. Seed-heads were irregular in time of appearing, and the cani's not uni- form in development. On the sixty-ninth day the majority of these canes were but 5 feet in height, of sickly color (this especially marked ^it one 11 end of tlu' row), ami without seed-heads, while a lew stalks were nearly 11 feet tall and with heads well out. More uniformity in iieight and general appearanee was gained by the ninety-first day. hut the plot was the yellowest of any, though handsome otherwise. No evidences of ero.ssing or impurity of stock were detected. The plot continued slow in growth, and fell hehind toward the last, having only fairly thick canes of but average (8 feet) height. Not much lodging was observed, but a great deal of suc-kering from about the roots. PLOT No. 11. (STERLING PLOT No. 36, OF 1888.) Ph.nte.l with seed from Sterling Plot No. 36, of 1888. Best average analysis obtained with canes of the parent plot, 1888: Solids, 15.32; Sucrose, lO.'J'.l ; Purity, 67.17; Glucose, 0.63. The only average analysis of derivate jilot, ISS'.i : Solids, 13.30; Sucrose, 7.85; Purity, 5U.02 ; Glucose, '2.W. on the ,nie hundred and eie\'entli day. Best single stalk.analysis of parent plot unknown. That of the deri- vate plot, 188'J: Solids, 18.60; Sucrose, 12.73; Pvu-ity. 6H.S7; Glucose. 1.97, made on the one hundred and thirty-third day. Not planted on a ditcbbank. The plants were injured while very small by "bud worms." Seed-heads appeared, irregularly, about >eveuty- eight days after planting. On the one hundred and nineteenth day thi- plot was apparently unhealthy and showed evidences of mixed breetling. Slim canes, not nearly as mature as most other plots at the sanu' date, and very little lodged by winds. Borers were very muiierou> in these canes, and some stalks wei'c badly diseased and redanie mw, not so close to the ditchbank. Much more advanced than its duplicate, having seed-heads out by the sixty-ninth day. at this date being some 9i feet tall and very handsome. On the one hundred and twenty-ninth day, the canes, though still quite erect, were >i)routing from every joint and rooting badly from several of the l'>wer nodes. These were th<' largest canes grown at Calumet in 1889, hut never matured. Tlie be>t single stalk of Plot 1 1 P was analy/.ed on the one hundred and ninth day, giving: Solids, 13.20; Sucro>e, (;.08 ; Purity. 46. OC; (ilucose, 2.52. After this day's analysis no further work was doni' with Ihe jilot, others then at maturity claiming all the time which could he i;-i\en to them. PLOT No. 12. (STERLING PLOT No. 15, OP 1888, SORGHUM BICOLOR.) Planted with seed froui Plot No. 15, Sterling, 1888. Best averagv analy- sis of parent plot, 1888: Solids, 18.64 ; Sucrose, 12.S7; Purity. 69.05; Glucose, 0.65. [The derivate Plot No. 12 was wholly of small, slender canes, badly lodged, sprouted and infested with borers. Having so many varieties of vastly better promise, no seed selection was attempted from this, no analyses were made, and the variety was omitted from the list for 1890 planting.] PLOT No. 13. (STERLING PLOT No. 14, OF 1888.) Planted with seed from Plot No. 14, Sterfect stand resulted, but from the canes produced vvc xcril wA\i secured because of a "blight" or fungus disease whicli ruined 16 these (Mitirrly at an early >ta,i;'e. ^Nlany lieads a]i]H.'are lie wholly ehatf. 'I'lie \ai'iely lia- hrcii aliamloiu'd, for the |>feseiit at least, and IK'eds III! I'urtlie!' liielltinii. PLOT No. 5. RED L.IBERIAN. Thinted with >eed fn.m two selected head> cf Caliiiiiet Plot Nil. 5. (if 18811. Tl:e defivati' phit exliiljited s„ o-vcat departure from tiie type of this \ariety. and its eaiies \aried so endlessly amoiii;' thom.scdves, that hut one analysis was made u]>on them, since the followini;' ])lnt was of eane> hetter suited to our Work. PLOT No. 5A. RED LIBERIAN. Tlantrd with >e,-d from a ^in-le head, selected from Sterlino;, Kansas, Plot Xo. 181, of is'H'.t. This head was received from Dr. C A. ('ramiiton. The juice of the parenf cane analyzed: Solids, 2-J..jt): .Sucrose, if,. 8:1 ; I'urity, 74,(jO; (ilucox-, 1 ,:U ; Non-sugar, 4.89. Hest average and single .-talk analyse.- of the jiarent plot are not at hand. Best a\-erai;'t' analysis of derix'ate plot, IS'.iO: Sidids, 18.72; >Sucr...se, 12.80; Parity, 68.38; Gluco-se, 3.28; Non-sugar, 2.69, on the one hundred and thirty-niiitli day of grciwth. Best single stalk from derivate plot. IStlO: Sidi.l.-, 10. S2; Sucrose. 15.00: Purity, 75.68, on the one hundred and thirty-seventh day. The stalk ^-iving thi.- analysis, iiowever, was not at all like the IJeil Liherian type, and its seed were not retained. Seed-heads appeared on these canes eighty-one days after ]>hinting, W'hen the average heiglit was about 7.] feet, and brittle seed were tirst noted on the one hundred and twentieth day. 3rore irregularity existed in the plot than was anticipated in the oftspring of a single head, and several variations were so much larger and finer in appearance than the rest that their seed were preserved, contrary to the rule of saving from a variety only seed of the best typical canes, it lieing re(piisite to maintain siabUiiij as well as other qualities of a stock. AVet weather and its con- sequence.*, sprouting, etc., early ended the work upon this plot, the seed molding and spoiling so that selection became impracticable. PLOT No. 6. LATE ORANGE. Planted witli seed from five star-heads grown in Calumet Plot No. 6, of 1889. Their mean analysis: Solids, 21.72; Sucrose, 17.06; Purify, 78.55. Best average analysis of ]iarent plot. 1889: S.did.s 20.70; Sucro.se, 16.44; Purity, 79.42 (Glueo.se not deter- mined), on the onehundi-ed and twenty-sixth day. Best average analysis of the derivate plot, 1890: Solids, 20.68; Sucrose, 16.80; Purity, 78.82: Glucose, 1.41 ; Non-sugar, 2.97, on the one hundred and twentieth day. Best .single stalk of parent plot, 1889: Solids, 22.80; Sucrose, 18.11; Purity, 79.43; Gluco.«e, 1.17; Non-sugar, 8.52, on the one hundred ami thirty-first day. Best single stalk of derivate plot. 1890: Solids, 20.92; Sucrose, 16.60; Purity, 79.85; Glucose, 2.19; Non->ugar, 2.13, on the one hundred and twenty-first day. Seed-heads were for the most }iart out by the eighty-tirst day. the canes then averaging 7J feet in height. Seed were nearly all hard and brittle by the one hundred and twentictii day, and already beginning to germinate from the damp, hot weather; this .sjtrouting was so general that very little of the seed selected from Plot No. 6 was considered reliable. Lodging was a pronounced fault with the plot. 7. HONDURAS VARIATION. Plant. ■.! witli >L'ed tVuin iw.. licads i;ru\vn in Plot No. 117, Sterling, Kan.sa.-^, 188!t, that plot havin<;- been (ierivcd fnini a single head. Mean analysi.s of the parent canes: Solids, •J2.00; Sucrose, 16.08; Pnrity, 77.18. Best average and single stalk ansilyses of }iai'ent plot are nut yet received. Best average analysis of derivate plot, 189U: Solids, -^0.11; Sucrose, 15.55; Purity, 77.82; Glu- cose, l.l2'J; Non-sugar, 3.34, on the one hundred and twenty-sixth day. Best single stalk of derivate |.lot, 1890: Solids, 19.92; Sucrose, 15.35; Purity, 77. 0-"). one hundred and thirty-one days from planting. Owing lo failure in ubtaining satisfactory seed from Calumet Plot No. 7, 1889 ( Honduras), and a wish to continue experiment with a variety so exeellent in point of size and form, this variation (said to he earlier than the type) was substituted, the seed being obtained fmm the United States Department of Agriculture, through the kindness of Dr. C. A. Crarapton. Nearh' all seed-heads wert' in sight by the eighty-tirst day, the canes then averaging about 8 feet in height, but much .slenderer than ordinary Honduras. Hard seed were noted on the one hundred and twentieth day. In height, diameter and form, these canes were quite irregular, although they were derived from two seed-heads, both selected at Sterling on the same date, and thus presumablj' equally matui-e. Less lodged by wind than most plots of the tirst planting, but equally with them sprouted and tillered. A variety hardly of sufficient merit to warrant its culture an-- other season, as it has been decided to limit future experiment to a mini- mum number of these. 8. IMPROVED ORANGE. Phmted with seed from live star-heads selected from Calumet Plot No. 8, of 1889. Mean analysis of these: Solids, 21. 2G; Sucrose, 16.45; Purity, 77.38. Best average analysis of parent plot, 1889: Solids, 19.20; Sucrose, 14.81; Purity, 77.14; Gluco.se, 2.16; Non-sugar, 2.23, on the one hundred and thirteenth day. Best average analysis of derivate plot, 1890 : Solids, 21.22; Sucro.«e, 16.45; Purity, 77.52 ; Glucose, 1.48; Non-sugar, 8.29, on the one hundred and thirty-ninth day. Best single .stalk of parent plot, 1889: Solids, 21.60; Sucrose, 17.10; Purity, 79.12, on-the one hundred and thirteenth day. Best single stalk of "derivate plot, 1890: Solids, 24.04; Sucrose, 18.25; Purity, 75.91, on the one hundred and twenty-seventh day. Seed-heads made their appearance by the eighty-first day, the canes at the time being very slender and but 6o feet high. By the one hundred and twentieth day the seed were becoming brittle, and tlie average height of the canes had reached 8 feet, still quite slender, and with many sup- plemental heads coming out. Few seed-heads were saved from this plot, these which were kept being of doubtful vitality, as this varietj' was one of the worst in respect to the sprouting of its seed from the wet weather. Kather badly bent and lodged toward the last. PLOT No. 9. GOOSENECK. Planted w ith the seed of a single cane selected from Calumet Plot No. 9, of 1889. Owing to the miserable condition of the wind-tangled and slender canes produced in the derivate plot, and their evidently hybridized nature, no analytical work Avas undertaken with them. The down-turned head of the variet\' is considered, mfireox'er, a 18 faulty form, and tliis drawback is not appaiviitly i'oiii|n'iisatod for l.y any s])ecia] merit in other directions, for whicli reasons nolliiiii;- further will 1)e attempted with it. PLOT No. 10. (STERLING, KAN., PLOT No. 51, OF 1888.) Planted with seed from the best two canes selcete(l from Calumet Plot No. 10, of 1889. Mean analysis of the two: Solids, liO.oU; Sucrose, l'>.'2!»; Purity, 74. 5'.l. The only average analysis of the parent plot, 188'.>: Solids, 14.20; Sucrose, 8.17; Purity, 57.53, on the one hundred arul eleventh day from ))lanting. Best average analysis of derivate plot, 1890: Solids, 19.42; Sucrose, 14.50; Purity, 74.66; Glucose, 1.2.3; Non-sugar, 3.69, on the one hundred and fcn-ty-ninth diiy. Best single stalk analysis of parent plot, 1889: Solid.s, 20.70; Sucrose, 15.67; Purity, 75.70, on the one hnndi'cd and thirty-seventh day. Best single stalk of derivate plot, 1890: Solids, 20.38; Sucrose, 15.50; Purity, 71',. OC. on the one hundi-ed and thirty-third day. Most of these canes headetl out hy the si'venty-sixtli day, heing very irregular in height, ranging from 4 to 8 feet, one end of the row haxing the tallest canes, but all quite slender. Brittle seed were notml on the one hundred and twentieth day, hut the heads wei-e below the average in productiveness. Pew well-developed canes were raised, and many supplenu'iital heads were formed. Not a Siitisfactoi'v plot. PLOT No. 11. (STERLING, KAN., PLOT No. 36, OF 1888.) Planted with seed from th.- hest two canes selectetl from Calumet Plot No. 11, 1889. Mean analysis of the two parent canes, 1889: Solids, 16.60; Sucrose. 12.01; Purity, 71.14. Hut one average sample was taken from the parent plot, 1889: Solids, 13.30; Sucrose, 7..S5; Purity, 59.02 ; Glucose, 2.96; Non-sugar, 2.49, on the one hundred and eleventh day. Best average amilysis of canes from derivate plot, 1890: Solids, 18.27; Sucrose, 11.60; Purity, 63.45; Glucose, 1.99; Non-sugar, 4.68, on the one hundred and fortieth day. Best single stalk analysis of parent plot, 1889: Solids. 18.60; Sucrose, 12.73; Purity, 68.87, on the one hundred and thirty-third day. Best single stalk analysis of derivate plot, 1890: Solids, 18.72; Siu'rose, 13.90; l*urity. 74.25, on the one hundred and thirty-seventh day. Heads were \cry generally in \ iew by the ninety-sixth day, hut in size and de\'elo))nient the canes wtalks, 18,s9: Solids, 24.44; Sucr.>si., 19 r.t.07; Purity, 78.44. Best average and single stalk analyses ,.t' imicnt plot, 1889, are not at hand. B^est average analysis of derivatc plot. 1890: Solids, 20.91; Sucrose, 1G.25; Purity, 77.71; Glucose, 0.72 ; Non- sugar, 3.94, on tlie one hundred and twenty-sixth day. Best single stalk analysis, derivate plot, 1890: Solids, 23.02; Sucrose, 18.10; Purity, 78.63; Glucose, 0.47; Non-sugsir, 4.46, on the one hundred and thirty- eighth day from planting. A variety previously untried on Calumet, and recommended as '• Ilemarkable for its low glucose and high purity;" said, also, tobe verv tV('(> from offshoots. Heads made their first appearance about the eighty-third day at om- end of the row where canes averaged six to seven feet tall, .the other end liaving shorter and more backM'ard plants. The canes of this plot woe far the slenderest grown this season, though locality and ]io..r cultiN ution nuiy be res)ionsible for this, as the row was so close to tln' cdgr of tin- ditchbank that no effective working could be given to the snil mi that side. No sprouting except the usual supplemental heads, oiil' to each stalk. Seed were all hard aneed of tlie best two canes selected from Calumet Plot No. 13, of 1889. Mean analysis of these two canes : Solids, 20.0."> ; Sucrose, 14.0:'.; Purity. 72.97. But one average analysis of parent plot, 1889: Solids, 17.20; Sucrose, 10.11; Puritj-, 58.37; Glucose, :;.]2; Non-sugar, 3.97, on the one hundred and eleventh day. Best iiverage analysis of deri- vatc plot. 1890: Solids, 17.84; Sucrose. 13.0'); Purity. 73.15; Glucose, 1.54; Non-sugar, 3.25, on the one hundred and forty-first day. Best single stalk of parent plot, 1^i90: Solid,-, 19.60; Sucrose, 14.69; Purity, 75.08, one hundred and twenty-five days after seeding. Best single stalk of derivate plot, 1890: Solids, 20.19; Sucrose, 15.35; Purity. 76.02, on the one hundred and thirty-sixth day. Heads wei-e ju.st appearing on the seventy-sixth day, while the canes were very uneven in height, and hard seed were found on the one hun- dred and twentieth day, at which time more uniformity in size had been reached. Seed-heads were of the open type, with few sprays. A large proportion of the seed was spoiled by the wet, sunless weather, and two or more supplemental heads were developed on each stalk. Lodgini;- was considerable. PLOT No. 14. EARLY ORANGE (STANDARD PLOT;. Planted with a ))or- tion of the se(^d originally received from Sterling, Kans., it having been grown there in 1888; it is identical with the seed u.«ed for Calumet Plot No. 2, of 1889, and was reserved for planting in 1890. This standard ])lot, as Avell as No. 15. Link's Hybrid, was designed to afford means of deciding whether progress was made by one season's selection work. It was thought ihi.- might be leui'iied on comparing the ^tandal•d ]»lot with 20 tlic pidt nf tlir fnniMM' VL-AV IVniii tliL' saiiir scei!, aiiil by tlu' iiupruvciiK-nt ()i- the i-i'\ers(' imtrd in tln' Inriiicr, (ilitaiuing an approxiinatc factur to lie added to or ^> appeared irregularly, the first eoming ahout the seventy-sixth day. the canes then uneven in lieight, ranging from 5 to 8| feet. "Seed had commeneed to liarden ])y the one hundred and twenty-first day, the eano at tliis time varying from 9 to 11 feet tall, some of them slender, but on the wliolc stocky and handsome, exeept for numerous oftshoots. Panicles large. loose and drooping. Seed resisting damp weather quite well. Save th<- tendency to sprouting, this was among the hest varieties. PLOT No. 18. UBEHLANA. Planted with seed from Sterling, Kaii>., Plot Nd. ;;4. of 1889, the parent canes being Brix spindh; seleetion.s, all selected upon full analysis, having been retained at Sterling. Best average analysis of canes from parent plot, Sterling, 1889: Solids, 19.34; Su<-rose, 14.07: Purity, 72.75; Glucose. 1.97; Non-sugar, 3.30. Best av(M-agc analysis of derivate plot, 1S90: Solids, 19.15; Sucrose, 14.10; Purity, 73.63; Glu- cose, 2.14; Non-sugar, 2.91, on the one hundred and forty-first day. Best single stalk of parent plot. Sterling, 1889: Solids, 19.98; Sucrose, 14.81; Purity, 74.12. Best single stalk of derivate plot, 1890: Solids. 19.95; Sucrose. 14.(50; Purity, 73.18. on thi> one hundred iind thirty- fourth day after idauting. Seed-heads showed about the ninety-sixth day, the canes averaging 10 feet in height. Hard seed first noted on the one hundred and thirty-tliird day. the canes at this period being very uniform in development and ahout 10^ to 11 feet tall. These were tlie largest canes, in diameter, of the season, bearing seed ]dentifidly in the large, o])en paniele>. Some tillering from thi' base was observed, but very little other s|iroutiin;- compared with most varieties. A promising cane in size, form and juice- ])roductiveness, liut the i|uality of the juice was under the avei'age. PLOT No.l9. LINK'S HYBRID AND WHITE INDIA(Cross). Seed obtain. d from Sterling, Kans. Small canes, jioor juice and badly sprouteil and mildewed seed were the characteristic features of the ])lot. Fault- of cultivation and soil may explain the first two, but the last failing i- a bad one, and but too strongly suggestive of the usual experience witli White India stock in the Calunu't ex])eriments. The variety will not be con- tinued. Comparison of the l)est average analysis of eacli of tlie fore- going varieties in 1890, with the corresponding analysis of 1880. shows marked improvement in quality of juice in the following: Calumet Plot No. 10 (Sterling Plot No. 51, 1888); Calumet Plot No. 13 (Sterling Plot No. 14, 1888) ; slight advance in case of Cal- .umet Plot No. 1, Early Orange; Plot No. 8, Improved Orange; Plot No. 18, Ubehlana. No material difference exists between analyses of 1889 and 1890 in case of Plot No. 2, Early Orange : Plot No. G, Late Orange; Plot No. 14, the "standard" jilot of Earl}- 22 Oran«j:e. Plot No. 8, Link's Hybrid; Plot No. 4, White India, and Plot No. 17, Planter's Friend, all show decided decline. Sev- eral varieties, no analyses of which were made at Calumet, or of which the Sterling analyses are not available, can not, of course, be compared, nor an}' decision reached as to their improvement or retrogression. A few plots were so close to ditchbanks that one side could not be cultivated. Rain is thought to liave so hurried the growth of the canes in many instances, and to have so earl}' jiroduced the various forms of oft'shoots, that a normal maximum was never attained. Some plots even reached their highest analj^sis and began to decline before the seed were entirely matured. The second series or planting of sorghum was made on April 25th, thirty-two days after the tirst was seeded and in the same location, the land at this date being in good order, but very moist. This planting was of three varieties, each a duplicate of a plot of the earlier series. The following are their descriptions: PLOT No. 20. EARLY ORANGE, rianted with a i<.'^^<'rvcd {.nrtion of tin- svpil used for Calumet Plot No. 2 (which see for derivation, etc.). Best aver- age analysis of this derivate plot, 1890: Solids, 18.75; Suerose, 14.5-5; Purity, 77.60; Glucose, 2.41; Non-sugar, 1.79, on the one hundred and ninth day. Best single stalk analysis dei-ivate plot, 1890: Solids, 20.42; Sucrose, 15.85; Purity, 77. G2, on the one hundred and twenty-third day. The seed from which this plot grew, although hadly weevil-eaten, came up finely and gave a perfect stand. The surrounding cro]i (corn) was high at the time this (second) series of plots was seeded, and the young sorghum was shaded by it rather too much. This row also suf- fered from want of ciiltivation on the side next the ditchhank. Seed- heads had fornu'd on the sixty-fourth day, the canes averaging five feet tall, but slender and uneven in development. Hard and brittle seed were noted on the one hundred and twelfth day. These canes were slendei-er than those of Plots 1, 2 and 14, which were of the same variety. The seed did not sprout on the heads, but gained a peculiar '•bleached" look. Wind bent the stalks greatly, and on the whole the plot was not consid- ered a success. PLOT No. 21. LINK'S HYBRID. Planted with a portion of seed reserved from that used fm- CaUnuet Plot No. 3, 1890. Best average sample of this derivate plot, 1890: Solids, 19.92; Sucrose, 14.60; Purity, 73.29; Glucose, 0.94; Non-sugar, 4.83, on the one hundred and niueteehth day from seed- ing. Best single stalk of ttiis derivate plot, 1890: Solids, 19.85; Sucrose, 16.00; Purity, 80.60, on the one hundred and thirtieth day. Condition of land, shade, etc.. as in case of plot No. 20, preceding. Seed-heads formed by the ^ixty-fourth day, the canes being then (|uite 23 « uniform hi dovolupinent and ranging in height from 6^ to 7 feet. Hard seed were found on the one hundred and twelfth day, the eanes« at this time standing some 11 feet tall, with many supplemental heads and other ottshoots, although the foliage was yet quite green. Many canes were hntken hy the wind and lost, and lodging was frecpicnt from the same eause. The eancs of this plot were of fair diameter, larger tlian those of th(^ duplicate plot No. 8, of the first series, and were of hetter size and gen- eral appearance than plots 20 and 22. But few perfect seed were formed on the heads of this plot, and many of these were lost tlirouuli rust and hlight, though none sprouted. PLOT No. 22. UNDENDEBUIiE. ( For derivation, etc., see Calumet Plot No. 12, 18U0, of which this is a duplicate.) Best average analysis of this plot, 1890: 8ol ids, 21.52; Sucrose, 16.60 ; Purity, 77.14 ; Glucose, 0.69 ; Non-sugar, 4.23, on the one hundi-ed and nineteenth day. Best single stalk analysis of this plot, 1890: Solids, 20.79 ; Sucrose, 17,60; Purity, 84.65, on the one hundred and twenty-third day after planting. The stand in this plot was defective, and many plants were lo.st while quite small through the attacks of a gray worm ahout three-(iuarters of an inch long, wliich entered the stalk below ground and burrowed upward through it. The canes began heading out by the sixtj^-foui*th day, hut this only among the larger ones, great irregularity of develo))- ment existing. Seed had begun to harden on the one hundred and twelfth day, but with gi-eat \:iriation in this respect in different |)arts of the row- The plot, although of comparatively slender canes, was a vast improvement upon its duplicate of the earlier planting in this: in the laboratory, analyses of these stalks ranked among the highest in Sucrose and in Puritv. Heavy rains and work on tlie levees in face of threatened floods continued to prevent proper attention being paid to the sorghnni experiments until May 12tli. On this and the following day, the first and second plantings, now very foul with grass from the enforced neglect, were hoed, the second planting having at this hits near the plantation residence in a garden which had never been manured. The soil was deeply spaded and thrown up into Iteds, in which tlie seed was sown liy hand in drills. This locality was chosen as a place safer from the incursions of men and stock than the fields, and in this respect it proved satisfactory, although it was found otherwise objectionable. The plots from single seed-heads Avero Colnnin Cane, Early Orange^ Link's Hybrid and Late Orange. In addition to those named, three special plots were made a few days later. One of these, Plot I^o. 23, was of a variety from India, ALapore Jowar, its first trial in America being this season (1890). This plot was planted near the first four in the garden referred to. The two remaining, JnTos. 24 and 25, were placed in the field with the plots of the second series. The necessary thinning was given these plots on June 2d. While the plots in the garden were very young, insects becauie so numerous among them that an application of Paris green was made, but this, while it killed the insects, also destroyed nearly all the foliage, and from the eftects of this loss of their leaves the plants never seemed to fully recover. Ph^ts "D" (Late Orange) and jSTo. 23 (Alapore Jowar) were further injured by the shade of several large live-oaks near them and did not grow well. From single heads were derived the following : PLOT "A." COLMAN CANE. The original unix'digreea seed, from a AugU- head, was phiiited at Sterling, Kan., in Plot No. l.'jS, of 1888. The be.«t single stalk selected from that plot gave jniee analysis: .Solids. 22. 50; 25 Sucrose, 17.18; Purity, 76.:J5; Glucose, 0.58; Nnn-sui;;ir, 4.74, on tlic one hundred and forty-fourth day from planting, this hciu'; Sci'ial Xn. .652, of Sterling, 1888. The seed of the foregoing >lalk. i-lantcii at Sterling as Plot No. 293, of 1889, afforded as its best single caiir one willi the following analysis (Serial No. 13,103): Solids, ; Sucro>r, 20.72: Parity, ; Glucose, ; Non-sugar, , on tlic one huiulrcd and lifty-fourth day of grt>\vth. Of its seed-head. No. 13,103, one-half was sent to Calumet by Mr. A. A. Denton, and there jilanted as Plot '•A," 1890. The canes of this plot were all analyzed, one by one, the mean analysis of the whole number (96) being: Soli(i>. T.L'.il ; Suero-e. 15.12; Purity, 75.94. The best' single stalk secured fniin Plot '-A,' 1890: Solids, 22.68; Sucrose, 17.85; Purity, 7S.7] ; Glucose. 0.53; Non-sugar, 4. .30, on the one hundred and seventli day of growth. Seed-heads appeared by the sixty-seventh day, the, caiio at that date being irregular in height, ranging from 6.V to 9.} feet. NVlwn >eed had begun to harden, about the one hundred and third day, ^reat uniformity had been gained, tlie canes being stocky, erect and liandsonie. 'N'ery few seed were lost from sprouting, and wind did not ajipreciably affect the plot, which wa- tl:e most successful one in every way of tlie third series. PLOT "B." EARLY ORANGE. Planted with seed from tbe be,4 -ingle >talk selected fmni Cahimct Plot No. 2, of 1889. The analysis of the stalk furnishing this >eed was: Solids, 23.50; Sucrose, iS.O-j; Purity, 76.80: Glucose, 1.42; Non-sugar, 4.03, on the one hundred and seventeenth dav from idanting. Becau.se of the small size of many canes of thi.- ])lot and the danuiged (sprouted) seed, the original intention of analyz- ing each individual .stalk could not be carried out, but every healthy cane was sepai'ately analyzed, and when the number of tlie>e was ex- hausted, the remaining one hundred were cut, mille(l and tlie mixed juice analyzed as an average sample. The mean of all the analyses ot the plot (made on one hundred and sixty-eight cane> in all) was: .Solids, 13.95; Sucrose, 9.32; Purit}% 66.81. Best single stalk analyzed in Plot "B:" Solids, 20.28; Sucrose, 15.35; Purity, 75.69; Glucose, 0.59; Non- sugar, 4.34, on the one hundred and seventh day of <;rowth. The amily- sis of the large iiverage sample: Solids, 12.76; Suerosi'. S.OO: Purity, 62.69; Glucose, 1.43; Non-sugar, 3.33, on the oni- hundred and twenty- second day. Seed-heads were nearly all in sight by the sixty-seveiitii ihty. tbe canes being at an average lieight of 8 feet, but very un-uniform. By the one hundred and third day the seed weiv almost all hard. Tlie canes of this plot were of better size than those in the other plots of Early ()rang<' of this year, such as Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 20. but were prostrated by the wind and lodged badly. ^Mueh seed was rendered worthies.- tbrouiib siirouting. PLOT "C." LINK'S HYBRID. Planted with seed of tiie best single cane selected from Calumet Plot No. 3, of 1889, the juice of the ])arent cane having given upon analysis: Solids, 22.00; Sucrose, 18.2t»; Purity. 83.00: Gluco.se, 1.47 ; Non-sugar, 2.27, on its one hundred and eighteenth day. Sixty-live single stalk analj'ses were made upon canes of this derivatc plot, and when all that were fit for seed selection had been used, the reununing 72 stalks were cut and analyzed as an average sample, the mean ;inalysis ot 26 the wliulc miinbtT (18(j) Ix-iiiy: Solids, ItJ.lU; Siktosc, 12.01; Purity, 74.59. The bes^t single stalk analysis of this plot was: Solids, 19.48; Sucrose, 15.60; Purity, 78.54; Glucose, 0.36; Non-sugar, 3.52, on the one hundred and ninth day. The large average sample, 72 canes cut on the one hundred and twenty-fourth day, furnished a juice analysis of : Solids, 15.08; Sucrose, 11.25; Purity, 74,()U; Glucose, 0.3;i; Non-sugar, 3.50. Seed-heads were out hy the sixty-seviMith day, the canes then being d tliem. Not many scccl were foi'ined on the heads, but these remained sound. .Many supplemi'Utal heads and other offshoots developed. PLOT "D." LATE ORANGE. Planted with seed of tin- h.-st single cane selected from Calumet Plot No. H. of 1889, the juice of tiie parent cane showing upon analysis: Solids, 22.80; Sucrose, 18.11; Purity, 79.42; Gluco.se. 1.17; Non-sugar, 3.52, on the one hundnid and thirty-first day of growth. But eight single stalk analyses of this derivate j)lot could be made : The one hundred and thirty-four canes renniining after these (and a small average sample) were cut. were divided itiid analyxed as two samples. Mean of all analyses made u)io«i the plot (comprising one hundred and forty^-seven canes): Solids, 12.05; Sucrose, 7.70; Purity. 03.90. The largest of the aventge samples analyzed (com|irising one hundred and sixteen canes), cut on the one hundred and nineteenth day, gave: Solids. 11.94; Sucrose, 7. Ho; Purity, ti4,15; Glucose, 2.18; Non-sugar, 2.11. Best single stalk analysis of Plot "D:" Solids, 14.58; Sucrose, 10,20; Purity, 69.96 : Glucose, 1.85; Non-sugar, 2.53. on thr .me hun- di-ed and nintli day. The canes of this plot, though uniform in all regards, were very slen- der and inferior. On the sixty-seventh day, when the mean height was about 7 feet, all the seed-heads had appeai'ed, and a few were beginning to darken in color. About the ninety-fifth day the seed were hard and ])rittle. This was the worst situated of the four lettered plots, being not only w(n'st-.shaded by the live-oaks, but located, besides, upon a narrow belt of stifl^" clay, which traversed the garden, intersecting a large part of this row. These canes were not so badly wind-wrecked as those of the Early Orange plot. '■ H." though much bent and lodged. Of tlie four plots just described, " A " (Colinau Cane) was farth- est from the oaks, and did not materially suffer from tlie inffuence of their sliade. It was also located in a portion of the garden attbrding soil of moderately loose texture, its character becoming stiffer and more clayey as the other plots, "B," "C" and " D, " were jipproached. At the ends of each row (where drainage was best) grew the 27 laigest and finest-looking canes, and the plots were progressively of handsomer and better plants as the}' were further from the shade and clayey land. As these four plots were in a portion of the garden upon which IK) fertilizer had ever been used, tankage was applied (equivalent in amount to 450 pounds per acre) on the twenty-eighth daj' after l»hinting, thorough spading having been given these plots a day or two in advance. The wisdom of this fertilization was afterward questioned. l>v comparison of analyses, the best single cane of each of the four plots is seen to be far inferior to the parent cane from which each was derived. Cohnan Cane, of the first planting, Plot No. 16, did not furnish so good a single-stalk analysis as did Plot " A."' *'B"" (Early Orange) and " C " (Link's Hybrid) fall not very far belli ml the plots of these varieties of the second series, but coni- l>are much less favorably with those of the first planting. Plot *'D "' (Late Orange) gave results which have no comparative value, as its nornuil growth was prevented, by shade and other influences mentioned, to an extreme degree. On the whole, no marked im- provement was observed in these four, due to their derivation from single-selected heads, excepting as to uniformity, which was very marked in " A " and (piite noticeable in "B " and " C " [the irregu- hu'ity of size existing in I'lot " B "' at an early period disappeared at a hiter stage]. The three " special "plots mentioned a few pages back Avere the following, all of them planted with seed sent by Mr. A. A. Denton, of Sterling, Kan. : PLOT No. 23. ALAPORE JOWAR. Plant. m1 witli s.v.l from .SLTliiig. Kan., the variotv described as one tVoui which siiyar has been habitually made by primitive processes in India. Previously to 1.S90 the variety has never been tried in America, and no I'elialde recoi-ds of it are to lie had. This seed was planted near Plots "A." " l>,' "('," "]>," but in a part of the narden e\en worse shaded. Few canes were secured and fewer could be analyzed because of their very small size. The highest single stalk analysis was: .Solids, 17.SS; Sucrose, 12.B0; Purity, 70.47; (jrlucose, 0.65; Non-sugar, 4.()o, on the one hundred and fourth day of growth. The canes were dry and corky and yielded but little juice. The firm, compact seed-head is bent over as in the "Gooseneck" form, and in this lies one objection to the variety. No further trial will pi-ob- ablv be "-iven it on Calumet. 28 > PLOT No. 24. LINK'S HYBRID VARIATION. Planted in the o),,.!, tirld xvith xi'cd rcft'ived from Stei'lint;-, Kan. (No analyses niailc ) PLOT No. 25. LINK'S HYBRID AND AMBER (Cross), riaiiled in tiu field, near tlie t'dre^-dinsj;, w itli seed i'cci'i\ cd from Sti'i'lini;-. A'ery sleiidei- <'anes, iiiueli daniati'ed 1)y wind and >|iri)nting. (No analyses made.) Laboratory work of the second season, 1890, began on July 19th, the one hundred and seventeenth daj^ after the planting of the 24th of March preceding, several plots of that series appear- ing then sufiiciently mature to need attention, and during the ensuing week ten plots were examined. Average sam})les of each were taken, and analyses of these made in order to determine their state of maturity, to contrast their value and to decide wliich [)]ots were ready for the work of seed-selection. All the varieties of Orange of the tirst planting and Link's Hybrid (Plot jSTo. 3) were found very near full maturitj', and upon these the siugle-stalk Avork was begun at once, liainy weather had now set in, attended with liigh temperatures, and this continued sixty-nine days, or until September 25th, with dis- astrous eifect upon all the plantings, causing an abnornud develop- ment of offshoots, and producing much germination of the seeS. SUCROSK. PIRITV. GLUCUSK. Edi-lii Oriniijr, Au-ur^t oO, IS'.K). Fifteen can es 17.45 10.50 tiO.l? 2.70 Who]e reiiKiining plot 16.55 12.05 72.81 1.0»i Wh iff India, September 4. 1890. Fifteen canes 11). 72 13.10 66.33 1.87 AVh. lie rcniiiinini;- plot 17.45 12.65 72.40 0.65 Viidfuilehulr (siinie date). Pift.'.-n eanes 18.45 12.50 67.75 1.35 WIimIc reniaininii- ]ilot 16.45 11.90 72.34 0.51 We are hence justified in considering that the average samples taken have somewhat fairly represented the character of the plots which they were intended to represent, the variations beino- in both directions and counteractinff one anotlier. It is certain that our average samples liave not been too high. The above plots, when these experiments were made, had passed maximum and were no longer useful for seed selection ; but it can not be admitted that this fact injures the value of the test, whicli was simply the decision Avhether a small number of the canes could, with sufficient accuracy, be held to represent tlie whole. During the 1890 experiments, an error was committed in phmt- ing many of the seed-selection plots with seed from more than one head. This was done under the fear lest a single head might not furnish enough seed to give a sufficient quantity of canes, and be- cause, in some cases, it was desirable that there should be two plots made from the same lot. A misapprehension of the percent- age of fertile seed led to this mistake, and the thinning re(|uired by the plots was evidence that single heads would have furnished all the seed ordinarily needed. Future plots for the jmrpose of growing pedigreed seed will, tlierefore, be planted from single heads only. A record of all the varieties of sorghum which have been tried on Calumet is given in Table I., commencing in each case with the best average sample analyses obtained at the station from which they were brought, in the season preceding the first trial at Calumet. The analyses are of average samples taken from the i)arent plots, when they are known, and when not, from the variety only, such substitution being indicated when it has been made. i -1888.- lli'cui-il 111' Vaiii'tics tried on Caliiim't. Average Analyses. 1 889. Kaiiy (trail!.'!' iKai Kiirlv Orauf!;!' (I-a. Link's Hvl.riii . Wliiii- IiiiHa . . Iti-il Lil.i-iiini . . Lilt.- iiiiiii^v . . i.hii' liiipn •li (ii-i SIlTlillji 1.1,11. N„ Sti-iliiiK pint. Nil Stcrliii!; pldt, N.i Steiiiiij; pliit. N. ■■Wliii.- Iii.Um . 1 ,SKS I 1 SSS ) ISSS) Sterling, Sti'iliiig, SteiiiiiK, StwrliiiB, StPiliiiK, Stcilinft, Stri-liiiK, StCTlillJi-. StvrUiiK, StiTliii!.', Sti'i-liiiji, Sli'i-liiifi, StiTlill-, SIcllilliT. .• ~ t - ^ - '■^ 72.'.1J l.:i:i 7-^. 117 l.Ki 7:i.iM; 1.02 711. 7ii 2.:!2 (ll.:ili :!.24 (•.■•|.44 2. (ill 7-J.ii:i 2.27 (I.C'j 74.41 D'l.Cl i!i;i IlKMAKKS. :).(;2 2.7" 4.4(1 Karly Oiaii^ic ( Ka Karlv Oi'iiiini' ( ''ii Link's Ilvl.riil . Wliit,. In.lia . . 'Ki'.l LiLiriiiii . Lati' (liiiii^v . . Muii.li linpr, Ml dr. ik . lis;- 1. 1.. I, :.i..t, 1.1..I, St.'ili StiTli llcllill) I'll. llMl. 1,1. 111.' ('..Iniaii ('.111. I'lantfi's i''ri Ubehlana . Link's llvl. lll.lia (Cr. Calillii.-l CalniiiHt Calunii't Caluiii,'! Caliliiii't CahiliK-t Cahuiu't <'aliiiii,-t Cahinu-t ('ahii,i,'t Caliilu.'f CaluiiH't L'aliiiiH-t Sterling, Sterling, Sterling, Sterling, Sterling, IMai.lii La. I'lai.t'i. La. Vhilit'ii La. nalifli La. I'lalit'n La. I'lalifn La. I'lalit'n La. riaiifii La. Plaill'li La. I'ial.fli La. I'laiil'li La. I'lalifli La. Kiiii Kan. . Kan. Kan. . Kan. . 11!. (12 1(i.:iii li;.44 14. Nl 11.74 S.17 7.V21 7(i.l(> 711.42 MAX .".7.:w 7!l.42 2.2:i 2.1."> ' 2!4!i ) Nil average analyses inarle ; iiieaii of t all single stalks given insteail. Sterling analyses of 18811 not kii. Sterling analyses of 1889 not km Sterling analyses of 188!) not kii. -1890. Karly Orange (Kan. seeil) , Early Orange (La. wed) Link's Ilyl.iid Wl.il.- la.li.i . '•■K,.,l Lil...,i„„ Late llraiig.' . lli.ii.liniis (.liseontii ■ange eiie.k ne.l) (1888) (1888) Sl.Tliiig],!.,!, Sl.Tlilig pi, It, SliTlii.g plot, No.l.-|(il SU-iliiig pl.)t. No. 14 (1,SS8) Hi.ii.lanis Variation . . . Iiiiileiuloliaio .... Colmaii Cniie Planter's Friend Ubehlana Link's Hybrid and Wlii India (Cross) .Vlapore Jowar Caliiinet Caluniet ralninet Calumet Caluniet Caliini,.t Caluin.'t Call t Cul.ini.t Cal.ii.i..t CalilMi.'t Calllin.t Cal.ini.'l CaliiMi.f Cahini.'l (!aliinu't Calumet Calumet I'lant'i Planfi Plant' Plant' 15.55 14.65 15.8IJ 15.25 12.80 1U.30 nisi i4!5(l ll.GO i.3!05 15.55 I6.'25 16.;i5 15.55 14.10 68.;i8 78.82 77.:i2 77.71 78..-17 14.00 7:i.i;i 10.50 74.211 1.35 .■).(i7 O.Uli 2.'JII Calumet I'lot, N.I. .■•|.\. f N.i an..lvt ( Ibis pi N" satisfactory b il.i from Sterling to n'pla 111. I Caliim t Plot N... ■t Plot .\.l ; of 18811. *Secd grov is not known. I'lot No. 131, of 18SII, of wlii.h 111,, h. :n Table II., following, presents the result of all the single stalk analyses of sorghuni made here, in a form to facilitate comparison of the work done in 1889 and 18!»0, and to show the improvement (or its reverse) resulting from one 3'ear's propagation by selected stock. In actual Held experiments, single varieties have been rep- resented in different plots, of various origin or dates of planting ; but to avoid needless complication each variety has been treated, 1 collating the analyses, as though of but one plot, and time of seeding, no distinction, for example, being made between Plots 1 and 2 of Early Orange, or the 1890 Plots 3, 21 and " C " of Link's Hybrid, the former two having different origin and the latter three being plantings of different date. The standard of purity and sucrose adopted, it should be said, is quite arbitrary, and is hosen as a fair average for our sorghum. H -£ H I. ffl|3 ''A ^ > o ^ o St,? cOrH c oj'^O^ a; o c -* t- ;^ 2 W (M lO 2 2 2 I- q; c i^ i^ ' ^ rr S' <» i - O O CO 05 Qj a; ^ -f v: ^ I — ^ X -^ ■* l^ o i^ l^ t^ 1-^ t-^ CM '2f p " E oi k! i: 00 X X X X X i_o '^T T— I . GJ O •- ^^^2; ii «= i^ OS :: !ili-i;>p:;i-^!x|>^;5x^i^ t-' CO CO 2 «' 2 CO 2 2 2 «5 Oicoco 2jC^ a; CO CO a,i-ii:^ CO d ■ 2 -O 2 -N CO 2 T-J r^ OOl~i— '^COi— l-rflXySOW X X X X X X X X X X X X '^C^COO e^^ ' 1-H CO lO ■>* SP^.2 S ?r "O • c o d d P Jr-^ 'g C' :„ re ^ !^ >^ 1^ ^ ^ W M J 2 g ^ S irj ^, M b£ >^-'^^ 5 k5 ^ rS £ S .S .S .S .= 33 111 the foregoing table, the only marked improvement in both sucrose and purity is exhibited by Improved Orange. Early Orange gained slightly in purit}', while falling oif greatly in sucrose content. Link's Hybrid shows decline in V)Oth sucrose and purit}', which is true also of Late Orange. Several varieties failed altogether to attain the standard of purity or sucrose in either year, and in case of these, as also of varieties cultivated here for but one of the seasons given, no improvement or depreciation is shown in the table. Unfortunately, in the two seasons thus contrasted, an important condition for rendering the comparison a fair one was lacking, due to the disturbing influence of the opposite character of the grow- ing seasons experienced by tlie plantings of the two j^ears, the first season (1889) giving a wet period during germination, and a drontli later on, and the second (1890) reversing the order com- pletely tortile first series of experiments, and giving the two later ones a wet season throughout. It is impossible to say just in what way, or how much these varying seasons have infinenced the cult- ural work, but tliat their efl'ect has been the prime factor in the many irregularities encountered seems almost certain. In Table III. are given the best three analyses of single stalks for each plot grown at Calumet during 1890. A few varieties are omitted, which for various reasons were not subjected to sufficient analyses to warrant their insertion. The highest percentages of sucrose and of purity are taken, regardless of the full analysis of the canes, and in many instances the highest percentage in sucrose may be furnished by the stalk giving purity third in rank, etc. The highest analysis for each planting and plot of a variety is given. .^z; So I ' ■^. ?. =^s 525= s'i >,- a ^^.C i_0 C.^w g„Q -^O -i^wi. »*^Q "- "_c^ .2.£Tf< "©.Ssi sSx B2'^. s5o [3A,C^ ja.S --£- 5--^ "^"^ ■f'"^ '^'"'? =-''" .= Z_5 -S^S f^S ~^= 5^^ '-^ "^ -•-w ;"c~ Sc^ -ro . .. 3i&.2!- « — S ;-^S,3^ (cP-S. Oft Early Oniiige (Plot No. 2) of the first planting is seen to be better in pnrity tlian the same variety grown later in Plot No. 20. which in tnrn is better than Plot "B," of the third planting. Link's Hybrid appears to lose sucrose but to retain pnrity, as the date of planting is later, but the differences of soil may have much intiuence in both cases. The two plantings of Undendebule show but slight difference, which is true also of Colman Cane, Plots Nos. 1») and "A." Careful examination of all average analyses, field notes and seed-heads of both seasons has led to the selection of several vari- eties which show special excellence in points considered essential in sorghum, which is to be grown for its sugar. Table IV. shows the varieties which in either year have been noted for possessing any one or more of such characters. 3 >-• i '3d > I H 5 =^ ffl iJ I ^ t^ en £ '- = :r 5d 5 _3 ^ P ^ '?■. i- a^ ^' ^ = .'^ = tfj ^ 2 ^ ,^ ^ — ^ 7i .— ' 3 — « ■T ^ ^ o s: J 2 3 .2 .5 M 1^ ;^ ^ ^ — . ^^ O 1 ^ "5 .i. „ 0) 1 = J -^ i; t ^. CO ea ~ P 5 = = i H ^ 3 "^ i. a ■; — • .. ^ H i ^ _5 '^ ?c S M z'. 5 TI :j "2 - "i u- ;d 13 ni ^ H ^ -• . -= CD r 1 = S) bp = 'tH ^ >. w' - 2 ~ "^ B " "" 1 r ~ 1 '* (D Tc ia £ ■^ 'a. 1^ = 3 ij '^ .5 1 i it _CJ & i5 "i^ ^ o ? ■f c "Z ^ z -; "■ -S ^' — '/- V. -t ^ '"' 't- — e -; ■~ C: i 3 ' xf o S ^ '■-' a ■^ e; _■ ^ § c t^ ^ J s r is 5 ^ 5 _ pa ^ H — _^^ 'ri tB IT ■i c 6 i S 3 ^ s y. - u 3 7 s' = ] c^ 3 — ^ X r£i u ^ 2 ;r ^ o »3 nc S= !j rj — 5 ■3 z r .;z 0) ^ « s i 00 >. 'Z 3 00 ^ g = 't: H ^ ^ ^ -^ d iJ S ' ft M to bij EJ ^ H ►^ 1 O it t ^^ J i M h: X. 1 - ';; H _■ |2 c> CQ 1' M 1 ;• it 1 ^ — :i >-. >^ C 2 ^ B =- 5 •^ u ; X (D Tc -^ ii "C '^ -r i = >3 5 m Zi a i M :2 SB M. : •r' y, y Z _^ ~ — ~ ic ^ i ^ Tc ■t: ^ t: ';:. Z _5 ~ i3 .~ ,n: ^ ■i "^ — H I-— ■■^ — ■/; _' C — t- _ ^ p ™ -^ X •A E^ i a X 37 The varieties mentioned in Table V. as producing the "best seed" have been chosen not onl}- regarding the quantity of seed produced, but also its freedom from sprouting in damp weather and immunity from rust or bliglit, alid its fertility so far as this may be judged from the result of two years' propagating. Free- dom from sprouting seems to depend largely upon the character of the panicle ami its tendency to retain water. Size of stalk is, of course, based u}><)u comparison among our own plots. Vari('tii'> noted i'ov \iiln:ilili' ([ualitio during botli season.- Plantntion. •ultui'f on C'aluint't High Siiorosf. Late Orange. Early ((range. Iniiirovod Orange. Hittii Puritv. Link's Hvliiiil. Late Orange. Imimived Onc'ge. Low Xoii -sugar. Late Orange. Kiirlv Orange. Link's llyliriil. Early Orange. Laige Canes. Link's Hvlirid. Table IV. includes several varieties in the 1S!)0 list, which, not being grown here the season preceding, can not appear in Table v., although in the single year's trial they have given higher analyses than, and in other respects have rivaled, many older varieties. As seen in Table IV., Link's Hybrid and Early Orange each occurs e/r/hf tinns in the list for the two years, Late Orange six and Improved Orange fire times. Gooseneck is mentioned foar times in the 1889 list, as are Golman Cane, Undendebule and Planter's Friend in that of 1890. Red Liberian and ITbehlana appear three times each ; the former in l>oth years, the latter in 1890 only. Llaving considered the merits of varieties tried at Calumet during 1889 and 1890, these which follow are chosen as worthy of eontinued experiment; and as this work is to be pursued another year, selection from among them is recommended, if all are not again planted: Link's Hybrid, l^ate Orange, Improved Orange, Early Orange, Colman Cane, rndendebule, Planter's Friend, Ubeh- lana'and Sterling Plot No. 14, of 1888. White India gave much promise the first year of its trial here, altliough but few canes were raised because of faulty seed, which failed to germinate well. These few, however, were of good size 38 and produced juice of t^ood (juality. But in 1890 the seed ivoni large and apparently strong canes of the former season yielded canes much smaller and slenderer than tliose of the parent plot, and scarcely any seed was crtjtaiiied from them, the glumes lieing either empty or inclosing bliglited grains, crumlding on pressure. This, perhaps, was partly the effect of wet weather, but it seems also probable tiiat the sparse stand of 1889 may have hindered perfect fertilization of the flowers. Although in many orders of plants cross-pollenization is necessary to fertiHty, the writer can not say whether this is in any degree true also with sorglium. Should White India be retained here, entirely new stock should l)e procured. Red Liberian might with advantage be continued, though it has not given very good results in the fleld or laboratory thus far at Calumet. After heading the list of varieties for excellence at Sterling in 1888, it fairly fell out of the race at that station again in 1889. Its growth here as a forage crop for many years, and with entire success, shows the titness of the variet}', from the purely agricultural standpoint to the local conditions of climate, soil, etc., and by selection it might l)e improved. DISEASE, DAMAGE BY INSECTS, ETC. While carrying on the cultural experiments with sorghum. quite full notes were kept of the diseases, a'onormal hal)its of growth and insect depredations affecting the plant from timeto time. Early in course of the work of 1889, Mr. Thoiupson noticed that many canes broke off very mysteriously a short dis- tance above o-ronnd and on examination he found this to be the work of a burrowing larva. After laboratory work commenced, many canes were found attacked in this manner by the " tropical borer" {Chilo saccharalis), v:h\ch enters near a node or joint of the stalk and tunnels through the stem until the next joint stops liis progress, canes thus injured usually developing an intense red coloration of the pith and juice of the punctured section, this often extending several joints above and below the one eaten into. The deserted burrows were sometimes occupied l)y colonies of a small beetle not identified. The cane borer was unusually common, that season, in the tropical cane crop. A diseased condition of many canes was also very noticea])le : when split longitudinally the }>ith was more or less extensively 39 and deeply red, and tlie juice expressed from sueli stalks was colored in the same manner. The leaves, sheaths and })ortions of the stem exhibited patches of dark reddish orange, these often nearly black centrally. This diseased'condition is treated at some length in Bulletin No. 5, of the Kansas State Agricultural Col- lege, for 1888, and is attributed to a microscopic organism, Bacil- lus sorf/hi, said to exist in the affected plants and in the soils where they have been grown. According to the notes on tliis subject, the varieties which in -1889 were found worst injured by borers (varying from '20 to 90 per cent, of the whole number of canes examined) were : Early Orange (Plot ISTo. 1), both plots of White India, Improved Orange, Calumet Plot No. 11 (Sterl. Plot No. 36, 1888) and Calumet Plots 13 and loP (Sterl. Plot No. 14, 1888). Less damage was sustained by Red Liberian, Late Orange, Honduras and Calumet Plot No. 10 (.^terl. Plot No. 51, 1888). Plot No. 2 of Early Orange was almost free from borers, and Link's Hybrid notably so. Worst affected by the Bacillus sorf/hi were Plot No. 1, of Early Orange, Red Liberian, Honduras and Calumet Plot No. 10. Late Orange, Improved Orange, Gooseneck and Calumet Plot No. 11 were not so much diseased, and Plot No. 1 of Early Orange, Link's Hybrid, both plots of White India and the du|>licate Cain- met Plots Nos. 13 and 13P scarcely at all. Ants are sometimes troublesome eating the seed while it is in a soft condition, but they are not numerous, and their inroads are usually confined to a few canes in one or two rows. The freedom from the cane borer noticed in the sorghum as well as in the tropical cane of 1890, is considered to have resulted from the very warm winter of 1889 and 1890, inducing premature emergence of the grubs, and their probable destruction in great numbers by tlie late and severe freeze of March, 1890. The dis- ease caused by the B. sorghi was comparatively rare also among the 1890 plots, and occurred often enough to ])e notic^ed only in the following : Early Orange, L^behlana, Liidv's Hybrid, Undeu- debule and Late Orange, affecting canes of these varieties ecjually in the first, second and third plantings. The tendency of sorghum cane to sprout supplemental secd- heads from the axils of the leaves is a common fault, and though these offshoots are usually few and confined to the upper part of the stalk, yet in long-continued rains, or after injury to the stem. 40 the wliok' energy of the plant seems devoted to their production, two and even more growing from every joint. Additional stalks or tillers oi'ten start from tlie base of the eane, some of these connected with the original rootstock, depriving the parent stem of part of its proper nourishment ; others, with their own rootlets, exhausting the soil to no useful purpose, and in this manner being analogous to any " weeds." Adventitious roots form, sometimes, at one t)r more of the lower nodes. All tliese growths, when present in a considerable degree, detract from the value of the crop as a source of sugar by lowering the quality of the juice and inter- fering with the easy removal of tops and "■ trash." Cultivating before the plants have spread their roots far later- ally, and care to guard against disturbing them will reduce the tillering measurably ; and though we can not regulate the influence of weather, Ave can choose varieties and select canes for seed which show least propensity to offshoots. The summer of 1890 furnished in this nuitter an excellent, though unsought, test of the varieties grown here, for those which could undergo the incessant rains and murky weather of that season and still remain reasonably free from this defect are to be commended. Colman Cane and Ubehlana are two varieties which deserve special mention in this connec- tion. In the experimental culture of sorghum, preservation of desir- able strains is often made difficult or impossible from causes which injure the seed or aitect its vitality. Insects, blight, and the influ- ence of unfavorable weather are the chief factors in this ; and since the number of canes grown for selection purposes is necessarily limited, and the varieties must be planted in isolated rows, tlie damage is generally considerable when it occurs, and not many canes escape. Se[)aration of such plots from surrounding crops increases liability to injury from insects especially, all varieties sutiering equally in this. Blight, rust, or mildew is frequent in wet or cloudy seasons, but seems to attack the seed of some varie- ties more than that of others equally exposed, the worst sufterers among the Calumet [»lots having been those of White India, of which not one reliable seed-head was produced in 1890, though very little seed of other sorts was lost through this cause in either year. Another and widely felt result of wet weather, during the har- vest of 1890, was a general sprouting which took place among 41 tlie seed wliile yet on tlie lieads, all which had so geniiiiiated, of course being utterly valueless for planting. Least sprouting of the seed took place with Colman Cane, Ubehlana, Link's Hybrid, Undendebule and Planter's Friend, and from Early Orange, of three }>lantings, most of the seed was saved in apparently good condition. Sorghum shares all these liabilities to damage in com- mon with most otlier cereals, and allusion i-s made to them chietly to point out some of the ol)Stacles which must be met in the attempt to develop the plant by seed selection. (^uite aside from the mischief done by insects to the seed while still in the field, another and more insidious— because often un- noticed — danger springs from the hatching of eggs ("nits") of weevils and other pests, which are put away with the selectelentifully witli Persian insect powder. About two weeks after the seed-selection work had ended, on examination of one of the larger packages of seed, Avhich contained a large quantit}' of the insect powder, it was found infested with small beetles and their grubs, in lively health, and several small moths fluttered weakly about or clung to the sides of the can. Furtlier search revealed the fact that almost every lot of seed was in a similar condition. An ap[)lication of ether was made experimental!}', and a small quantity drop})ed into each packet, when all were tightl}' closed again, packed away, and n(»t again looked into during the busy months of tlie "grinding" which then followed. Five months later another examination of the stock of seed was made, and in the large can referred to (con- taining a general selection of seed from Colman Cane) was found another and even larger throng of beetles, if anything more active than before, and the same was found to be the discour- aging state of things in nearly the whole stock, excepting among the smaller packets of seed from single heads, which had been more readily cleaned when first packed. These facts suggest the thought that, should sorglium l)ecome a recognized sugar crop in Louisiana, the business of raising high 42 class seed would probably be better U'ft to otbers than tlie sugar- growers, for special experience, watchfulness and care that few could find time to give are required I))' the work. Better success, also, might be met by importing seed for this cro[> from secti(uis Avhere less difficulty is encountered from the m3'riads of destructive insects which swarm here and make the sorghum-lield their home, infesting the seed-heads, depositing their eggs among them and making it imperative to take every precaution and keep continual watch, which may even then be unavailing to preserve the gath- ered seed. Suitable varieties of sorghum being once established, these could be preserved and propagated at some tit Louisiana station, and suffit-ient seed sent elsewhere each year — say, to Kan- sas — where might be grown the larger supply required for the next year's crop here, thus keeping the variety acclimatized to Louisiana, while raising the field seed elsewhere, with less risk of its failing to germinate when planted. TIME FOR PLANTING. Once successful in finding or originating a protitable variety of sorghum cane for the sugar plantations of Louisiana, it then l)c- comes essential to learn what is the best time to plant it in order that the crop may be mature in time to l)e liarvested and gotten entirely out of the way before the later tropical cane needs atten- tion. Varieties which have thus far done best here have required about one hundred and twent}^ days' growth from the time of seed- ing to that of maturity ; and as an auxiliar}^ crop would best be " milled'' during the six or seven weeks prior to October 15tli. it seems that a first planting made about May 1st, succeeded by a smaller one two weeks later, would, with ordinarily good weather, insure ripe cane throughout su(;h a season. Separate plantings made at Calumet with several varieties failed to throw the lioped for light upon this (question, owing to the ab- normal grow^tli induced by an untoward season ; a like trial an- otlier year may succeed better, and will probably be made. STABILITY AND VARIABILITY OF SORGHUM. In a sugar-producing plant it is an important requirement that when its maximum content of sugar has been reached, this shall be sustained for a reasonable i)eriod, and not too rapidl}' decline: -^5 for it is not usiuilly profitable to harvest a crop until its liigliest value can be realized. Sorgliiim, it has quite often been said, be- gins to fall off very soon in sugar and purity after its niaxinuuu has been attained, but many varieties tried on this plantation have, on the contrary, continued to show a high juice analysis tor [)eriods ranging from twenty to thirty days. In 1880, for example, when the dry weather of the later autumn favored a slow and regular development, Link's Hybrid furnished, during one month, eanos yielding uniformly above fourteen ]»er cent, sucrose with a purity averaging seventy-live per cent, and over; and during 1890. though suckering badly from the damp, hot season, ecpuiUy good cane of the same variety was found by analj'sis throughout the period ex- tending from July 21st to August 18th, and other varieties did as well as this. The wide diflerence in sugar content and other (pialities noted among single canes grown from seed of the same i)arent stalk under (apparently) identical conditions, has been often remarked by those who liave made sorghum a subject of experiment. When investigating the merits and failings of any plant proposed as an adjunct to or substitute for tropical cane, it is natural that the latter should l)e made the standard of comparison. With this in view, a number of analyses have been made in the course of the Calumet experiments, liaving for their object a determination and comparison of the variation in juice-constituents of sorghum and ordinary Louisiana cane, one stalk with another. In 1889 this subject could not be given as much attention as it deserved. Ten adjacent stalks of Link's Hybrid sorghum were cut and analyzed separately, and ten stalks of -'Purple"" and " Ribbon " cane (mixed) were taken from the field and treated in like manner on the same date. The result of this experiment is shown in full in Table YT.,and from the figures there given it w^ould seem that the variation among the stalks of tropical cane is the greater. A single experiment of this sort, however, on so few canes, is far from conclusive. A more extensive experiment of the same character was made in 1890, and a comparison was made of two varieties of sorghum, with each other and with tropical cane: the degree of variation is expressed in form of percentage, from which the general deduction may be made that variability (stalk with stalk) is a trait shaa-ed in nearly equal degree by sorghum and its more prosperous relative. 44 Tlie latter experiment is given in Tal)le VII. Table VI., also, strikingl}' illustrates the ditt'erence of -the two plants in content of non-sugar, the great excess of this group of bodies in the sorghum cane juice appearing on comparison of the two "non-sugar" col- umns, and serving to accentuate what is hiter said concerning their intluence and composition. ('oiiiparisoii Suriilanii tnni Trojiinil Cimi' as in Viiriuliiliiii .\iiioikj Uiiscli'rieil Single Sidlks „f Karl,. Jiutli Grown Upon Caliinict Plantation, Lonisiana, Sea.son of 1889. 80R(;1IL':M — LINK'S H VI? Kill. SIM ;ar cane- -"PI l!l LE' AND " lilBBON." Ten (1(1) Adjacent Ciines t NnVMirilie alien fro ■ 4, iss'.p in till' r 46 COMPARISON OF LARGE AND SMALL CANES, AND OF CANES WITH LARGE AND SMALL SEED-HEADS. On August 1, 1(S90, thirty canes of Link's Hybrid were cut, selecting tlio largest stalks, and the next day thirty of the smallest from the same plot. The canes were ground singly, and their juices tested by the Brix spindle, the twelve samples giving the highest per cent, solids l)eing analyzed in case of eacli set. Four of the large and two of the small canes gave juices containing sucrose at or al)ove sixteen per cent. LARGE AND SMALL CANES, AVERAGE. LARGE CANES. SMALL CANES. 20.91 1.').29 73.12 Solids . . . . . 20 72 Sucrose . . . . Purity . . . l.-).7'.i . . . 76.21 As the above figures show, the choice is in favor of the larger oanes. The general work of the season, however, indicates that no prediction can be safel}- made which is based on the size of stalk, always provided that their stage of growth is the same, and that canes so compared are of varieties not too widely differing in the period required to attain maturity. At the same time with the preceding experiment, samples were drawn from a plot of Colman Cane selecting twenty each of canes with respectively the largest and smallest seed-heads to be found. Of the canes with largest heads, ten gave juices passing the arbi- trary Brix te-st, and in like manner nine samples of juice were selected from the eanes with the smallest heads. Eight of these juices, in each set, were found to contain sucrose sixteen per cent, or over. LARGE AND SMALL SEED-HEADS, AVERAGE. LAKUK SMALL HEADS. ' HEADS. Solids Sucrose I'uritv 20.90 21.33 1C.22 16.28 77.61 76.32 47 T\\c (littereiice in tlie analyses is not sufiiciont to demonstrate tliat the size of the seed-head is any index of the (jnality of the jniee in tlie cane. T^^BXjE "VIII. Hn Auiiii>t :l (IS'.K)). riot No. 1 of Earlv Oriiiiuv l>cini;- u-clcss i\>v further seed x'lfttiiui, the top- of oiie-li:ilf tile caiies Vet standing were removed, and the I'eiuainder of tlie ])lot left intact. Analyses were made at weekiy intiTvals. takini;- a like numlier of eanes from thi' ••'ropiied" and •■ Untopped "' pavt> of the plot to maki^ eoin- jiarison. The tigures olitaineil indicate that no marked ditterence is produced in canes whicdi have attained maturity and ripened tlieir seed. That top)iin!;- vei-y immature canes would have l)ent'ticial intluenee is, to say the least, very douhtfuk as the secondary head> which Mould incvitahly he ]iut forth to rt'phicc the loss miii-ht hasten the deterioration of >uch c;ine, 35rOT TOIPIPEID. -• ^ . j ■- — .£ r > ' r _, — - *- r — ■*- -'i — z = - -_ :, z '-, 1. ^ i "■ ,* X y — " - ■/. ■^6 -- • u.:;.-) ^ " 5 a,^ "^ i-J. A 11 li list tj 10 lil.'.t.j ;i.'.« 2.111 ]4.r.;i "AJii) 24.:!0 .4 AiiKUst \> 1(1 l'.l.(l.-| 14.1". 71. 27 1..-.2 10.74 :!.38 2:1.88 IS7 Anf-iist r.i ir. 1.S.22 t:!.i"i 71.:;.:. 1 .20 !l.i»2 ;i.oy :3u.2;! nij August 25 ir. 17.■2^2 12.O0 72. r.!) .'JT 7.70 3.75 .30.(HI Ave iV) is.r.i i:i..".ii 72..-.1 • 1.47 10.80 ;!.G4 26.00 TOIPI^EX) ^^TJCS-TJST 3. •- :L _^ . .1 1 = ~ ~ ■^ Z z ^. i£ JcE J- I = — ^ -A - ?.'Z ■- u ^ § L'?, y. 4.5 .Vuffust 10 10.45 i:i.oo 71.41 1.7:5 12.45 :5.82 27.41 .-.5 August 12 10 10.05 i:!.85 72.05 l.Ol 11.62 :5..50 25.02 Mi Aiifiiist 10 15 18.82 i;i.(j5 72..51 i.:{l 0..50 :i.80 28.28 H7 .Xiiiinst 25 15 15.02 II.IKI 70.42 1.6:5 14.82 2.00 27.18 Ave ■itjir .... m 18.24 i:i.lo 71.82 1.57 11.90 :i..57 27.25 YIELDS PER ACRE. In 1889 u few experiments were undertaken for the purpose of learning sometliing of the yield per acre of sorghum cane. This was done with the varieties (Early Orange Plot Xo. 2, Link's Ilyhrid Plot Xo. •> and Late Orange Plot JTo. »)) which were at that time most promising in the light of lahoratory and held work. Table IX. (chiefly the work of Mr. W. J. Thompson) is given below, showing the result: F'u'hl Ej-pcrlnieidK 'm Surnhuin, 1889-90. Yirldn per Acre. NUMI-Kit ('ANKi- Uute Weight of field cane. ll>s Weight of eleaii cane, ihs Weight of seed-heads and 15 in. stems, ll)s. . Weight of trash hy ditferenee, Ihs Weight of elean seed, Ihs Average weight of fi(dd cane, pei'eanc Ihs. Average weightof elean eane, )ier cane, Ihs. Average weight of seed-lieads and 15 in. stems. ))er eane, Ihs Average weight of trash, per cane, Ihs. . . Average weight of (dean seed, per eane, Ihs Solids, sjiindle Hiicrose, single polaiMzation Glucose Solids, not sugar Ash . . . . ■ not sugar Organic so Parity (tIucosc I'atio Availahle sugar (8.. l.MI.) per cent. . . . Average canes per acre 1 cane to I) in.. 7 ft. rows, tons .Vverage canes i)er aci-e 1 cane to o in., 4 ft. rows, tons . . . . Average tonnage field cane per acre, 1 cane to 3 in., 7 ft. row.s, field cane .... Average tonnage field cane per acre, 1 cane to 3 in., 4 ft. rows, field cane .... Average tonmige clean cane per acre, 1 cane to 3 in., 7 ft. rows, clean cane . . . . Average tonnage clean canepor aci-e, 1 cane to 3 in., 4 ft. rows, (dean can(^ .... Average clean .seed jit^r acre, 1 cane to 4 in., 7 ft. rows, Ihs Average clean .seed }ier acre, 1 cane to 4 in.. 4 ft. rows, lbs Available sugar per acre, 1 cane to 4 in., 7 ft. rows, lbs Available sugar ])er acre. 1 cane to 4 in., 4 ft. rows, lbs Availalile sugar )H'>- t<)n. clean cane, 7 ft. rows Available sugar jxm- ton, (dean cane. 4 ft. rows Oct. 23. 18 2.75 0.933 0.600 0.100 0. 21.40 16.30 2.50 2.00 0.8024 1 . 7976 76.16 15.33 12.55 43.560 13.068 2742.175 209.83 Oct. 23. 32J 22' 3 ~\ 2^5 1.048 0.71 0.097 0.241 20.70 16.44 1.16 3.10 0.8876 2.2124 79.42 7.05 14.70 43.560 m . 50 245.76 Oct. 'I 32 i 21' 1.0s>i 0.70 0.10 0.283 20.70 16.44 2.39 1.87 0.8470 1 .0230 .79.42 14.53 43.. "'(iO 15.46 15.24 5275.32 244.24 4!) Availal)K' sugar per aei'c and per ton is calculated on tlic basis ot" twelve }»er cent, tiber and ei^'lity-eiglit per cent, juice, and an extraction of ninety-six per cent, on tlie total juice, which diltu- sion gives in reasonably good practice. It is understood tliat an experiment on so snuiU a scale is not a fair one, but it is as close an a}>proximation as could l)e reached, and is of value in comparing one variety- with another. CHEMICAL STANDARDS IN SEED SELECTION. When a large number of canes have lieen analyzed, and the time arrives when selection must be made from among their seed- heads of those which it is desirable to save, tlie question arises as to what shall be retained and what rejected. To clioose the proper seed wouhl be quite a simple matter were hut one constit- uent — sucrose, for example — to be considered. In reality there are four — sucrose, purity, glucose and non-sugar — each of which should have due intluence upon tlie choice. Tlie ideal sugar plant would be one containing in its juice onl}^ sugar (sucrose) and water, and the neai'er a sorghum juice approximates in its analy- sis to this composition, the more valuable is it. We find our juice, however, to contain besides sucrose and water varying pro[)ortions of other substances, the best known of them being glucose, which, with numerous imperfectly understood organic bodies (starch, organic acids, gums, etc., collectively termed " or- ganic non-sugars") form a large part of the solids, and injure the (piality of the juice. Ileuce j)iirif)/ of J nice (per cent, ratio of suci'ose to total solids) should be one of the chief standards. High purity and high eucrose content are usually, though not invariably, co-existent, and it seems the best plan to make the first selections upon purit}^ as a basis. Having done this, the majoritj^ of tlie seed-heads have been eliminated, and there remains a comparatively small number derived from canes of high and nearly equal purity of juice and sucrose content, from which it now remains to select a few which shall V)e representative of the highest type of excellence. At this stage it seems to l)e the common practice to make tlie final selec- tion from tlie heads representing canes of lowest per cent, glucose, but during work hei'e the belief has been reached that this pro- cedure is not the best. Analyses indicate that for approximately 50 (•((iial jmi'ity, tlic /iiiicf coiilainiiii;' mosl glucose, lins hdsl of tlic liiiijliU' ohjcclioiiabK' stardiy and ornminv coiistitucnts, and the actual work of (■alunict factory for tlic jiast three years lias con- clusively i>roven tliat the presence of glucose exerts not nearly so great an influence in retarding or preventing crystallization as is generally sn[)posed to be the case. For tlio reasons wliicb have been outlined, it lias been decided to hereafter ignore the gbicose, and base selection u})on the fol- lowing characters: high pnri/>/, h/fr cent, of sucrose to 51 tlie total solids ot' a Jurh' or (»tliei- sui^'ar i)ro(lurt, then i^-iveii two juices with equal purity, but one of high and the other of low per cent, solids (Brix), the former would in any case be the one finally chosen, for it contains more sucrose for an equal quantity of cane or juice, with the collateral advantage of less water to be evapo- rated . Quite often juices with the same per cent, solids are found to vary from one to two or more per cent, in purity, and thus no reliable prediction can be nuide of the latter from the Brix indi- cation, though, in general, purity, within rather uncertain limits, is in direct proportion to the amount of solids. The ordinary spindle selection is in the long run not far astray, and is a fair, though rough, means of obtaining seed of good quality when the knowledge or appliances for more complete polariscopic analysis is not at hand. Though by use of the spindle we may lose some few desirable canes in the preliminary selection, yet there is avoided the w^aste of time and the useless analytical w^ork which otherwise would be incurred. TOTAL SOLIDS BY THE BRIX SPINDLE AND BY DRYING. Purity has been calculated as usual in the work of the Calumet laboratory on the per cent, solids obtained by correcting for temperature the reading of the Brix spindle. To find approx- imately the error of this method, some forty determinations of the actual solids of the juice were made by drying samples (2 grammes) of juice to constant weight in the water-oven at 98° C, the sample being contained in a flat, shallow i)latinum dish, and evaporated without the use of sand or other accessory. The difference be- tween the actual solids so determined and the corrected Brix was quite variable, but the latter was nearly always much too high, ranging from 0.1 to 0.8 and averaging 0.42. The inconstant amount of difference is chiefly due to the fact that the relative proportions of the variolis bodies not sucrose, with their varying specific gravity, are not always the same. Were the purity calculated on tlie trne solids, it would be uni- forndy and considerably higher, giving sorghum a l)etter recoi'd than herein appears. 52 MARC. Much time was devoted to estimation of mare, ?'. f., solids of the cane not soluble in water, in several varieties of the 1890 sor- ghum, to determine which, if any of them, was least woody, and to compare the general result with sugar cane. It is regretted that no data could be obtained for 1889, as that season was very dry throughout the period of growth, and interesting comparison could be made with this jear's figures, obtained in a wet time. The accejited opinion seems to ])e that canes are more or less woody as their growth is made in dry or in wet weather. The analyses given in Table X. indicate that the marc varies in an inverse ratio to the diameter of the stalk, and it seems probable that of two plantings of a variety of sorghum, one having wet and the other dry weather, the former, if of lower marc, will be so because of its larger canes rather than of any change in its juice-composition, for it appears to be very unlikely that any plant simply because excess of water is su[)plied to it, will take u[i of that element more than its normal functions require. Com- })arison of the average marc of Undendebule, the slenderest of the season's canes, with that of Fbehlana, the stockiest, will illustrate this influence of size. Wide ditference of Hbre (marc) in samples from the same plot were frequent, owing to irregularity in the size of canes growing- side by side. The necessity for using the healthiest canes for seed selection often prevented taking fair samples for marc determina- tion, but the best was done that could be under the circumstances; and as all plots were cut into for seed selection to about the same degree, results are practically comparable, jilot with plot. The average percentage of marc on all the varieties exam- ined was 12.73, about three per cent, higher than the commoidy given figures for tropical cane. T^BLE 2^. i^j^:rc Days A Hilly si > \ AIM i;tv. Date. Eroiii Prr ( V'llt . I'i'r < 'rut. KKMAltKS. Nmii'liiT. Plantiii-. :Mair. .Illirc. 1 Kiiily Oi'iiiiiir. .Iiilv lit. 117 l:!.7S Nil. 22 •J Eiiil.v Oiiinjic Julv 111. 117 I2.S4 S7.II1 42 Kiulv (Miiiifii'. Anil. li. l:i.-. II.. -.4 SS.4I; A:\ Kiilly diiuijii'. An-, i:. l:;.-, ll.::i SS.IllI 4.". Eui-ly (tiaiij;c. All-. (1. l:;.-| 11.117 ss.;!:i 47 Eiirly Oniiif;<'. An-. (1. 1 l:i.-> 12. '.1:1 S7.III i;'.i Karly Oniii.;ri'. Au-. 12. i Id'.l l:!..!7 sil.il:! 1(H Kiirly OiiiiiK''. An-. 22. 1 nil 1 1 .22 S.V.7.S 122 Early Oraiijii'. An-. 2li. ' 12:1 111.11.-. sii.:i.-i l:ir, Eailv Oiaii^c. ri 12.W s7.:i(l 147 Early Onmiic. Sept. 2. 1 i:i(i 14.!l!l S."..lll 171ii Early Oraii?;.'. Sept. l(i. ! 122 1 1 1 .:!4 SN.Illl —A vera -f ..f Links Hvhri.l. Early Oraii-c . •hilv 21. ■ ll'.t 12.:!(1 S7.(l4 ' 4 1:1. '.12 Ml. (IS S4 Links Hvlirid. All-. IS. 1 1-17 i.-..:;i S4.(lll 11.-. Links llvbrid. An-. 24. 121 111.77 S! 1.2:1 12:! Link's llvlirid. All-. 21;. 12:! 11.7.-. SS,2.-, i:!7 Links lIvlinM. An-. 211. 1211 12.r.:i S7.47 ]+s Links llyl.rid. ScjiV. 2. l:;ii I2.7!l S7.2I --A\rra-r (.1 I'll.lvlj.li'lMllr. Links An-. l."i. llyl.rid . 12.S.-I S7.1.-. ;.-, 144 17.27 S2.7:! ,s:. l-ndciiilcl.iilc. Ans. I'-l. 14M ' 14.;ill s.").7ii Kill rndciMlci.Ml,.. Aiiji. 22. llil ' l:!.lll sr,.s4 124 I'lKll'IMll'lHllr. An-. 2(). 12.i 11. ill ss.iui i:!S rnil.'iMlclMilc. AU}.. 2!l. 1211 ! l:i.(lll S(i.:i4 Nil rniHl('l>iil.'. Sept. 2. i:iii 1 1.(111 SS.lll .■ 144 111.11:. sii.:i.-, 102 n.i'lilaiia. An-. 21. l.-,li ll.:!2 SS.IIS Larji'i'st raric--: ruin pa re will. -AM^rajivof Culiiian I'aui'. riadi .Uilv 2S. laiia . . 1211 111.1)11 sy.iii rndciid.dMilc. 211 12.1o S7..sr. lio (•(iliiiaii Cane. Ansi. 11. 140 i:!.17 su.sri Ko.l l.ilM.riaii. I'cdiMan CalH' . . 12.(111 S7.:i4 -,-, Am.^. 111. |:;:i lii.lMl SI 1.04 En. in I'l. It N... .".A. ."ki lied Lilifriaii. .Vim. 10. \,.l kUMun lil..">4 s:!.4(i Ei.'l.l siir-lniiii 1 fc.ra^i' rni|i 1. '.IS l^lantci's iMJi'iid. An-. 211. I4!i l:!.l!i SIl.Sl Tiital avcrajic . 12.7:! STARCH AND_OTHER NON-S UGARS. To the bodies iieitlier siierose noi' glucose, wliicli form u part of the solids in the juice of sorglmiu caiie and other sugar plants, the name "non-sugar"' may be a[>propriately given, their percentage, of course, being found l)y subtracting the sum of sucrose and glu- 54 cose from the total solids. The presence in large [iroportion of" tliese iiou-sugars is perhaps the most discouraging ohstacle, from the chemical standpoint, to the economic extraction of the con- tained sugar from sorghum Juice, for these, consisting as they do chieliy of gum-like suhstances and organic acids, act chemically hy restraining from crystallization and inverting the sucrose, as well as mechanicall}' hy making pro[)er j.>urging of the masse ciiltes very difficult. The inorganic portion of non-sugar, which consists of silica, }>ota8h and lime salts, etc., is not very great and may he disre- garded ; hut the orr/anic portion is very harmful, and a successful method for its removal by clarification is yet to he discovered. '^' Before intelligent investigation in this direction is practicable, knowledge must be acquired of the chemical nature and properties of the bodies with which we have to deal. Many analyses have been made at different times and in various places, through which man}' of the constituents of sorghum juice have been separated and recognized, but very many are still imperfectly or not at all identified. Among other organic substances, the presence of malic, tartaric and citric acids, together with starch, has been fully estab- lished, the two former and the latter of these existing in consider- able quantity. Tartaric and citric acids are eliminated (j[uite per- fectly by lime as employed in ordinary clarification, and malic acid perhaps as well. Of all tlie bodies mentioned, however, starch is without doubt the worst in its ett'ects. In the mill-juice of all varieties of sorghum examined in this laboratory, this substance has been found in ({uantity, occurring as a grayish-white, creamy sediment at the bottom of vessels in whicli raw juice has stood aside for an hour or so. By washing and decanting, about five grammes of pure white starch were on one occasion obtained from about as many litres of juice, a very considerable part of the origi- nal amount being lost in the eifort to separate the associated impu- rities. All milling processes will extract starch from sorghum cane, and the more perfect the mill, the greater the amount of it, for it exists ■■ Ncri'K. — .siiUT tlir fiirctioiiiL:,' \\;i> written, a iiirtlmil lia> hern )ii-(i|i<)>(m1 Iiv Dr. 11. W. Wiley, of til.' I'liited States I )e|)ai-| iiielit nt' .Vnriellltiire. fur the ivinoval (ifstareli ami iiuiii fVuiii >()rj;luiiii juiees liy a elai'ilieatidii in wliicli iirecipitat ion with alcohnl is llie iinpiirtant I'eatui'e. 'Phis uiav sddii he trieil oii an indiislrial scale, and it>sueeess means a new iniinilse tn tin' snru'lnnn sui;'ar industi'v. ill I lie stalk in tlu' conditioii of niiniitc imhcddcd oTaindcs, and in proportion as tiic cane is nioix' tlioroui;-ldy disintegrated, more starcli-graiiis are freed to be washed out hy tlie jniee. When onee introduced, stareli ean not he separated from tlie raw juiee except possibl}' b\' filtration (scarcely practicable), or by allowing the juice to stand until the starch has subsided, which lattei- method avouUI render loss by fermentation certain. Starch, suspended in the raw mill-juice as exceedingly tine, in- soluble granules, becomes ^ohihlc as soon as the temperature is raised to 50° V. (167° V. ) during the ensuing clarification, for at this temperature the granules swell, their enveloi)es rupture and the contents are discharged as a pasty mass whicli afterward remains in solution at all common tem[>eratures, and no means for its }>re- cipitation is known which can be employed in the sugarhouse. Part of the now soluble starch, perhaps all of it, is converted to (lexfriyt by the lime of the clarifier and by the continued boiling of subsequent processes, showing itself finally in the centrifugal as a heavy, clinging gum, w^hich obstructs the meshes of the wire-cloth and renders purging (separation' of the molasses) almost and often altogetlier impossible. Diffusion has therefore been found the l)est means of extracting the juice from sorghum cane, quite aside from the superior com- pleteness of this process over milling. The process of comminut- ing meclianically ruptures fewer of the vegetable cells and there- fore frees fewer of the included starch granules than mill crushing, and what remains is enclosed by unbroken cellular tissue; starcli, being colloidal or gum-like, is not osmosed by water passed over the chips. Again, such starch grains as are freed to be carried by the current of juice from one cell to the next, throngh the battery, will be partially filtered out by entanglement among the chips through which it passes, and what p)asses on from one cell will tlius be more or less completely removed in the next, and so on, a juice finall}^ leaving the battery which contains but little more starch than what is washed from the chips of the last cell in the series. But in diffusion as ordinarily emplo3'ed with cane, an element is introduced which luis not been taken into account in the pre- vious paragraph — that is to say, the fcniperature at which the battery is operated ; for, as has been said, the insoluble granular form of starch changes and becomes pasty and soluble at 50° C, not to be after^vard removed by means of filtration. With the starcli whicli is still L'licloscd in tlm cclliihii- striuiliirc of the chips, this is not so ini[)oi"tiuil ; Init when it is lejili/.ed tliatin eucheell ot" cliips there existent und torn snrtaees aggregating many thousand s(|uare feet in extent, stuchled with liall-ind>e(hled starcli grains, it is plain that, as soon as tlie teniperatui-e mentioned is reached, there become soluble, and tlius go into the juice immediately, not only tlie already' suspende) the considerable cost of o< the analytical work which such selection involves. (4.) DitTusioii or some analoo-ous process is al)solLitely necessary, instead of the cane-mill, for the extraction of its juices when the latter are to be worked for sugar. {■).) Tlie extraction should be carried on at a temperature below 50° C. The marc is too liio;h to permit of reasonably good extractive results, even from the repeated crusli- ings of the Calumet 8-roller mill, and juices so secured will fail to produce sugar in paying quantities, owing to the presence of starch, gums, etc., consequent upon the grinding process. (6.) Improve- ment in the purity of the juices is of more economic importance for the present than any mere increase of the sugar content with- out such increased purity. (7.) Seed-selection work should be confined as strictly as may be to the best varieties already possessed, and propagation from single heads followed without deviation. The conclusion tliat any variety of the sorglium cane promises to become an economic source of commercial sugar, esjjecially in Louisiana, may not appear warranted by the repeated failures to produce sugar from it with profit elsewhere. In tlie following table, Xo. XI., is given, to a close approximation, the average com- position of Calumet sorghum juice for several leading varieties, for the years 1889 and 1890 : Summarv of all average analyses of six varietios (1889-90). VARIETY. Solids. Sucrose. Purity. Early Orange . . Late Orange . . Inipmved Orange Link's Hybrid . Ciilinan Cane . . Undendelnile . . 18.50 18.28 19.17 19.75 •20.]', 19 .')fi Average 19.23 13.38 13.43 14.40 14.27 15.47 14.(18 14.2(5 72.05 73.67 75.12 72.25 7C..77 74.79 Glucose. 1.93 2.24 2.12 1.10 . ()8 Noil -sugar. 3.24 2.-56 2.65 4.38 4.05 4.15 r4.15 1.47 3.. 50 A comparison of this table with the next, which gives, approxi- mately, the average analysis of sorghum juices actually worked for sugar at Xorthern factories, does much to explain away past manufacturing failures elsewhere and to strengthen the ho})eful conclusion which the work here appears for the present to sanc- tion, although the uncertainty of any conclusion, based upon the comparison of siuall plots with extensive fields, is recognized. 58 The conclusion is not yet warranted that sorghnm, as a source of sugar, can ever attain in Louisiana tlio excellence possible to it in Kansas, or that it can ever rival the tropical cane now grown in the former State. A (.•oni})arison of the analyses and actuall}-- obtained yields, recorded in Tables XI. and XII., indicates the necessity for vast improvement in the purity, even of Calumet sorghum juices, as exhibited in Table XI., before these can claim equality with tropical cane juices. The soi'ghum is at further dis- advantage owing to the quality of the impurities contained in its juices, in the lighter tonnage produced on given areas ot land, and in its smaller percentage of contained juice. The superior amount of sucrose in its juice counts for nothing so long as it remains unavailable in manufacture. But although it is not likely soon to become intrinsically so valuable a source of commercial sugar to the Louisiana planter as his present cane, and although it may never attain the excellence in Louisiana possible to it in Kansas, it must not be forgotten that it need not become such to be equally profitable. Fixed charges on the manufacturing plant and farm equipment, such as interest, depreciation, taxes and insurance, salaries of overseers, clerks, engineers, chemists and others employed by the year and the like, all now and hereafter necessary to the production of sugar from the tropical cane, will continue to be charged to this only. Free from these, which amount to perhaps one-third of the total expense account on the larger plantations, sorghum enters the cane fields at an immense advantage. To this must be added the advantage accruing from a propagation by seed over that by cnttivys, which should reduce the expenses of planting alone by from fifteen to eighteen dollars per acre. This report may fitl}' close with the summary presented in Table XIII. , which sliows the analyses and yields of sugar, per ton, obtained with Louisiana trc^pical cane juices, from 1884 to 1890, inclusive, as given in various puldished reports, and the compari- son of this with Table XII. will prove interesting. Both these tables are the result of lal)()riou8 and careful reviews made by Mr. W. J. Thompson, wliose deep interest and material achieve- ments in advanciuii; the sugar industry are well kno^\•ll. Arcrdije (ktntpa 1(111 AiKili/.fcs of Loin.':iana 1884 ISSfi l.S8(i 1887 1887 1887 1887 1887 1887 1887 1887 1888 1888 1888 1888 188S 1888 1888 1888 188! I 1881t 1880 1880 188! I ISS'.i 18S'.i l.s.sli 188'. I 18! II I 18!M) ISttO First Kiiii Sci-oiiil Kuii Thinl Klin Konitli Kiiii Fifth Kuii . Masiioliii JVIiiaiii>li:« Magnolia IMasiii>lia IMayiKilia Masrnolia Jlaynolia ?ray,-iiiilia Ma-n.ilia Evan Hall Bell.' Allianr,. .... Magnolia Magnolia Des LigiU'S (last liallCt Calnnift, Rattoon Cro]. Oalnniet. Plant I'mii . Evan Hall Belle Allianrr . . . . Souvenir aiagnolia Calumet, Hattoon Crop (!aluniet. Plant ( loji . Evan Hall Belle Allianei' . . Souvenir New Hope Belle T( lH.lo l."i.(l8 lli.l."i l(>.:i7 l.").li:{ U.!I8 l:i.88 l(i.7!l lll.Gli U..")4 14.21 Hi. 411 17.">ll l."i,.S(l !(;.:« li;.:ili I'alo Alto Calumet. Total Crop Caft'ery Central. Total Cr Willswfxxl, Messrs. Seliinidt * Zleglei Average, 1884 to l.S!)(i, iiielnsivc 1.").II7 l(i.:!(l ].">.!>:! l.").(i(l 10.::!!l 1.-...V2 1.">.8!I 1(1.17 l.-..4:i lli.27 17.t)8 15.4(1 ir>.(il lfi.21 1.-I.18 c 5 X s5 .| l-2.(i2 (1.87 2.(1(1 78.14 12.11 1.(12 2.(17 7)1.(14 1.J..-.1 (l..5!l 2.05 8:i..5(l i:i.(i!i (1.77 1.91 8:i.48 12.2(i (1.9!) 1.78 81.. 57 l-2.ilil 0.88 1.49 84. IS n.r>n 0.78 1.57 8:!. 07 14.(5(1 0.4!) 1.7(1 8(1.9(1 18.98 (1.70 1.98 8:i.!)l n..">ii 1.18 1.8(1 79.09 11.(18 1 .:!:! 1.8(1 77.29 14.1(1 (i..'>(i 1.74 .S5.97 l.">.:!0 0.(12 1..58 87.40 l:">.84 O.O.'i 1.01 87.(10 i:;.78 0.97 i.r)7 84.4:i i:i.8!i O.llo 1 .55 84.75 11.711 1.(19 1..5!) 78.2:! r.V',:', 1.117 l.:!0 81.78 12.. i2 1.41 1.7(1 80.10 12.7:^ 0.90 1.91 81.(10 i:!.4(i l.:i4 1..59 K2.10 12.84 1.00 l.(J8 K2.70 12.4(1 1.7(1 1.(17 7.S.4.S 12.114 1.9(1 1.27 no. 02 12.(18 1.58 1.17 81.!):! 1:5.2:! 1.(19 l.:i5 8 1.. -id 14.27 1.72 1.(19 80.(19 12.:!7 1.80 1 .2:5 80,:i4 12.40 1.4:i 1.78 79.45 l:i..">(l 1..57 1.14 K:i.2!l 12.48 l.:so 1.40 82.21 1:!.(I2 1.18 1.(15 82.14 Bnl. Bui. Bui. Bui. Bui. Bui. Bui. Bnl. Bui. Rep<: l!ep, Bnl. Bui. Bui. Hill. Bui. K<.p. Uep. Hep- (i. L Bep, Be],, liepi Bep, Kep, Kep, Hep. i;,.p. Hep, He),, M. 1 No. 5. No. 11, No. 15, No. 18, No. 17, No. 17, No. 17, No. 17, No. 17, rt L. A rt L. A No. 21, No. 21, No. 22, No. 2:^, No. 2:!, W. .1. T rt L. A rt I,. A It L. A . Spene. rt Iluhe irt Hnhe irt L. A. irt L. A. irt r,. A. irt L. A. irt r,. A. irt L. A. irf Huh. irt 1.. V, ;inl. .1 r. S. Dept. Ag] r. S. Dept. Agi r. S. Dept. Agi U. S. Dept. Ag v. S. Dept. Agi U. S. Dept. Ag! U. S. Dept. Agi U. S. Dept. Agi U. S. Dent. Ak-i , Beenel. 1887, i . Beenel, 1887, 1 U. S. Dept. Ag U. S. Dept. Agi U. S. Dept. Ag] V. S. Dept. Agi r. S. Dept. Ag 'liomiison . . . Beenel. elienii . Beenel, eliemi . Beenel. elienii ■r. Lii. Plidilei; '. ert Eilson, eheii crt Edsou. (lien . liernel. eliemi . Beenel, eliemi . Beenel. eliemi . Beenel. eliemi . Beenel, eliemi . Beenel. eliemi rt Edson. elieii 111 Tresekow. c mist. La. rhiiil Arrnigr ('a,Hj,aif/N Analyses of Sornhuu, Jnicr.s Worl;e,J af Son//nmi Sar/ar Faciones, Compiled fron, VanoHs PahUshaJ Reporis. 1882 18815 188:5 188:5 188:5 1884 1885 1885 1885 1885 1886 1886 1886 1886 1886 1886 1887 1887 1888 , 1888 1888 1889 1889 1889 1889 1889 FACTOKY Rio Grande, N. J Wasliiiiiiton. I). C Hi.. (JraiiiU', N. .1 Chainpai^ii, 111 Hutcliiiisuu, Ka8 Ilutcliiiison, Khs Fiaiikliii Sugar Co.. Ottawa. K Ottawa, Kas. First run . . . Ottawa, Kas. Second run . . Rio Grande, N. J Fort Scott, Kas. Fort Scott, Ka.s. Fort Scott, Kas. Fort Scott, Kas. Fort Scott, Kas. Fort Scott, Kas. Fort Scott, Kas. Before Oct. 1st . After Sept. :!()tli Before Oct. 1st . After Sept. :!Otli After Oct. 14th . Means of last three Rio Grande. N. J. Rio Grande, N. J. . . Couvvay Springs, Kas. Douglas, Kas Conway Springs, Kas. Attica, Kas Medicine Lodge, Kas. Meade, Kas Ness Citj', Kas. . . . Average, 1884 to 1889, inclusive 1:5.20 14.81 i:5.6() 14.50 15.69 15.:5(» 15.07 15,7(1 14.62 12.99 17.56 16.6(t 15.6:5 14.77 1:5.17 14.56 16.14 1( 18 17.0:5 15.56 11.11 8..")8 9.75 7.78 U.(l« 10. .")0 9.2:! 10.25 9.06 8.9:i 10.49 8.70 9.;i4 7.74 6.48 7.85 9.,54 8.98 8.2:3 12.42 9.88 11.68 11.59 10.44 10.61 6.:54 9.87 4.08 4.76 :!.:!4 4.10 :i.04 2.90 2.69 "4.01 4.15 :i.57 :s.79 ;5.:!1 ;5.56 :5.4o :5.24 2'.6i :5.oi 1.70 1.72 2.24 :5.85 5.51 :!.:39 2.15 1.96 1.27 0.70 2.87 2.55 2.87 ;5.06 ;5.75 2.72 :5!24 :5.;58 :5.15 ;5.20 1.80 4.:56 4.00 4.95 :3.78 :5.56 4.73 84.17 60.40 71.69 .5:5.()() 70.62 68. (W ()1 .25 65.29 61 .97 68.75 59.7:5 52.41 59.76 52.40 49.20 .5: J. 90 59.11 64.05 58.. 50 6:5.84 58.. -54 6:5.72 68.06 6:5.66 58.88 :58.24 3.08 61.16 liKFKliKNCKS. 15ul. N(i 15m1. N( I5nl. N. Bui. Ni Bui. N< Bui. N( Bui. N( Hul. N( Bui. N( r. S.De r. S. l)e V . S. 1)1' r. S. J>e r. S. I)e r. S. I)e V . S. [)e r. s. i)c U. S. I»e Bui. No. 18, U. S. I)e Bui. No. 14, V. S. l)e Bui. No. 14. r. S. T)c Agrc. A lire. A lire. Agrc. Agrc. Agrc. Agrc. Agrc. Agrc. Agrc. Agrc. Agrc. p.Ofi.H 1 Bui. N (dls . . . 11 niacerat'i oil mill dl mill ill . . Mill of 3i Diftusi(ui , Douldenii Doulde mi Single 3-r( Single 3-i-( Douhl Dittusion Diffusion Mill, hagasse(litfus(M Dittusion 1 Diffusion \ Dittusion ] Dittusion 1 Dittusion f Ditt'usion J Diff"usion Hughes' open diffusion Hughes' open ditfusion Dittusion Hughes' open ditt'usion Dittusion Diffusion Dittusion Dittusion Diffusion 41.60 47.00 95.00 ) j' 21.6 See Bui. No, 18,U.S.Dep Agrc, p. 126 .")2.S0 26.20 99.50 l!i:.M.\l!l\S. Experiments hy Dr. H. W. Wiley. Cane injured by frost. Yield stated is that secured suliseijncnt to Septcmlici- 5tli. Experiments hy Dr. Wiley, two days following ice. Exiieriments hy Dr. Wiley, sevcTi days following ice. Yield hased on field cane, worked without toi)i)ing or cleaning. Based on samples of whole cane i)assed thro' experimental mill. Canes left too long cut. Experiments hy Dr. H. W. Wiley. Experiments hy Dr. Wiley, hased on fresh chip samples i)asse(l through experimental mill. Canes left too long cut. Analy- ses of material actually worke(l. Y'ield hased on clean caiu'. 15nl. No. 20, p. 82. Yield hased on clean cane. 15nl. No. 20, p. 97. Yield hased on clean cane. Bui. No. 26, p. 74. Two sugars. Seconds estimated. Arerf Loinsunxi Cftnf J nice. Cv))ipUc(l F, lACToKV 1884 1885 188(1 1887 1887 1887 1.SS7 1SS7 1887 1887 1887 1888 18SS 1888 1888 188K 1,S8S 188h 188S l8S'.t ]8S'.t 1880 188'.l 188',) 18811 1881 1 iNSit I88'.t IS'.HI 18'.l(t IS! Ml Magnolia JVIuffiioliii IMit};'iiolia Magnolia Muf^nolia, First llnii 3Iaf>;ii<)lia, SccdihI Run Blaiiiiulia. TliinI Uiiii MiiHiiolia, Ki)ii!-tli Iviiii Magnolia, Filtli Run Kvaii Hall Hcllc AlliaiKM^ MaKiH'iia iManiuilia I>cs lni;iirs (last lialt'ul' ca in |iai,nn ) ('aliiinct. Uattooii ('i(>i> (laliimct. IMaiit Croji Kvaii Hall 1{('I1(! AlliaiHc Soil veil ir MasMolia Calumet, l{att(i(iii Ci-oi) Calumet, I'laiit ('nip Kvan Hall 15<-lle Alliaiiee Sduveiiir New H()|ie Belle Terre I'al.) Alto Calumet, Total Crop Cuflerv Central, Total Crop . . . M'illswood, Messrs. Sehmidt A /ieiih Avemj!,e, 1884 to 1811(1. inclusive i:).()7 l(i.:;(( l.").(;:j 1. ■>.(;() IC).:^!) i:>.:)2 l.'>.8!> 1(1.17 1.-..4:! 1(l.-27 17.(18 l.").4(» i:).(il 1(1.21 1."..18 12.(12 12.11 i:!.r,i i:5.()!) 12.2(1 12.(11 11.5:! 14.(1(1 i:j.!i8 11.5(1 11. (IS 14.1(1 15.:)ii i:{.84 i:;.7s i:!.s-i 11.711 l:!.:;:; 12.52 12.7:! i:!.4(i 12.S4 12.4(1 12.1)4 12.(18 i:i.2:i 14.27 12.:i7 12.4(1 1 :'>..")( I 12.48 l:i.02 (1.87 1.02 0.5!) 0.77 0.!)!) 0.88 0.78 0.4!) 0.70 1.18 1 .:!:! 0.5(1 0.(12 (I.! (5 0.117 0.115 1.(11) 1.(17 1.41 0.0(1 \:.'A 1.00 1.7(1 1 .0(1 1.58 1.(1!) 1.72 1.80 1.4:! 1.57 l.:!(i 1.18 2.(1(1 2.(17 2.05 1.01 1.78 1.40 1.57 1.70 1.08 l.Sd l.SO 1.74 1.58 1.01 1.57 1 .55 1.50 l.:!() 1.70 1.01 1.5!) 1.(18 1.(17 1.27 1.17 l.:i5 1.(10 1 .2:'. 1.78 1.14 1.40 1 .(15 78.14 7(1.(14 8:!.5(1 8:}.48 81.57 84.18 8.{.(I7 8(1.0(1 sa.oi 70.01) 77.20 85.07 87.4(1 87.(10 84.4:! 84.75 78.2:! 81.78 80.1(1 81.(10 82.10 S2.7(i 78.48 80.02 81 .0:! si.:i(i 80.(10 S().:i4 7!t.45 s:!.2i) 82.21 82.14 liKFKRKNCES. Bnl. No. 5 Hill. No. 11 Bui. No. l.-i Bui. Xo. 1^ Bui. No. 17 Bui. No. 17 Bui. No. 17 r. S. Deiit. Arit., p. r. S. I)ei)t. Agic. p r. S. Dejit. Agre., j) U. S. Dept. AfiTc, 1)4. :il r. S. Dept. Af>re., p. 1'. .S. Dept. Ajii-c., i>, F. S. Dept. Ajirc., p. Bui. Xo. 17, r. S. Dept. A-i Bui. No. 17, r S. Dept. Atfi Beliort L. A. Beeiiel. 1887, eiieiiiii Keport L. A. Beeiiel, 1887, clieuii Bui. Xo. 21, V. S. I)ei)t. Aiiic. pi Bui. No. 21, r. S. Dept. Afin.. p. Bui. No. 22, r. S. Deiit. Afire., p Bui. No. 2:'., r. S. Dept. Agre., p Bui. Xo. 2:!, V . S. Deiit. Afire., ctjinpi W. .1 . Tlioinpsoii Hejiort L. .\. I'xcuel. elieinist. ISijs. ] Uejiort li. A. Beiuel, eliemist, ISJS. \ Keport L. A. Beeiiel, (heniist, 18! s. j G. L. Sjieiieei-. La. VUotter, IMa.v 1 pHhllshrd Rri„.rts. 4(1 Report lluliert Kdsoii, eliemist. 1 -ISO lleport 11 11 Report L. A Report I.. A Report L. A Report L. A Report [.. A R<-port T.. A ■rt Kdsoii. (lieinist, 1 Becuel, eliemist Beeiiel, eliemist Beeiiel, eliemist Becuel, ehi'iuist Becuel, eliemist. ISkll, | Becuel. eliemist. 18 ReiKirt Hilliert Kdsoii. (liemist. 1 R<'liort L. ^'oll Tresclvow. cliemisr :M. Bird, .liemist. Ln. Plmiln-, .M IS ;sii. ls:;o. )i ls;o. 11 is;!i, 1, is^ii, 1 SI HI IS ll d from (1. 21 (1. 21 (1. 21 K.xti'actioii .Vjipaiii tUf Slireiirs. Bidled two sufiai's onlv. B(dled two siifiars (.nl.v. B(.iled three siifiars. Thirds estimati'd. Thii'ils estimated. Three sufia is. Actnul in- Tlirei' sufiars. .Ml w a.uoi Boih'd two siifiars oiil.v'. Boiled two siiuars only. Boiled foil r su.ua is. Boiled four snuars. Boiled three sugars. Ala Boiled tliree siijiars. No /;////,. ■^tiuiateil. ■elated at tiiiK niacerat ion . •t\\ eeii mills. B<.ilc ISoile Boile Boile Boile Boile B(.ile Boile Boile Boile Bidle B<.ile Bidle Thin Thin .Mace thl-ee siluars. IMaceiated at times In three sufiars. .Maeerat<'d at times he tliree sufiars. .'Macerated at times he two siifi-ars onlv. three HUgars. Thirds estimated at 2( two silfiars only. .Alacerated hetwce two sii.uars only. .Macerated hetwei portion of eroi. for third siiiiars. .^1; lioition of Clop for third sugars. "M jioi-tion of crop for tliird sugars. two siifiars only, three siifiars. three sugars. sugars estinia ted . sil.ua rs estiinateil. twei twe( twe( I lbs. II ha n ha mills mills mills mills, mills. ll het. mills. Maceration hetwei Doiilde maceratioi a( Iv mill ration at first mill. Two sii.uars. actual wc•iglll^ 58 The conclusion is not yet warranted that sorghum, as a source of sue-ar. can ever attain in Louisiana the excellence possible to Compiled From Vafio/is Pabiislicd Kcjnirtu Slii-i'-nill mill. U.s.T.'> 81ii-c(l(lcriiiiil.'i-r()ll mill. ICl.iid Slii-c(l(lcriiu(l.">-n)ll mill. IT'.Mi:! Diffusiiiii ■lin.-li\ Diffusion l.xs.dd DiftiiKiiiii liikiiiiwn. Ditt'usidii iliLdii Diffiisiiiu v!l:!..s(l ■Vn.U mill Vl-AM .">-rnll mill 1-J4.1II Ditlusifiu L'2--!.iKi Slin'ddfiiiiiil.Vn.ll mill. HIT. '.mi Twd.-i-i-dll mills, tiiii.lrm l.-.(i.4ii .".-roll mill r.i2.:i'.i ■Vi-oll mill. m:Hrrati..ii pMI-t oftillir ■l\ASu o-i-oll mill 1-14. :!-i •".-roll mill 1(;4.-J7 ."i-idll mill l:;ii.i:i Diffusion -IVA.W S-i-oU mill ls:i.74 .s-i-oll mill 1.S4.1S .Vn.ll mill 14.-i.il.-, .-|-rcp|l mill li;:!.ii(i .-.-roll mill 1.-.4.S7 ,-.-nill mill 1.-|4.ii.s .'i-n.ll mill \rAA-l .-)-n.ll Miill 14.-..-J(i N-roll mill IM.Cd 7-roll mill I'.ili.S.s 7-roll mill l(i-.'.4ii lilOIAKKS. IJoilcil tlut'i' sugars. iJoilt'd two sugMis omIv. Boili'il two sujiars only. Boili'il thicc sugars. Tliinls .•stiiuatiMl. Tl.inls cstimatcil. • sugars. A'liml /. ■ sugars. .\ll wa- ll two sugars ouly, il two sugars only, d four siigais. il four sugars. d flirc .1 tlir( sugars il tlin il tbr( d t)in il two 1 tlm I two I two Til re Til re Boil. Boili- Hoili lioili lioili r,oil< Boili H.dir Boih' lioili Hoilc Boilr Boilc Boilc Boilr Boiled portion Boil.-(l tw Boih-d tlircc sugars. BoilcMl tliri'c sugars. 'I'liiril sugars cstimMtnl. 'I'liird sugars estimated, .Mae.i-atinu at tiist mill l.,hh sugai's. .' I u gars only sugars. Tl ugars only. ugars only. d iiorti.iu of crop f il jioition id' irop f iilv. lirds ( M:u JIai r tlii r tlii r till eil at ti ■ration ed at ti ed at ti ed at ti stiniati •rated ■rated ■I I sMu-a •il suu-i ■ll SU-II lietween mills l.etwi lietwt lietwi '11 mills. 'U mills.