bercles on clover is impotent on vetch. Hence, for the thrifty growth of a given legumen, say clover, the soil must contain the corresponding form of germ life. If this 'clover germ' is absent, the only way to 'successfully grow clover on poor and medium soils is to use liberal quantities of nitrogenous fertilizers, an expensive operation. If the proper germs are present and if all other conditions are favorable, as drainage, proper mechanical condition and a sufficiency of phosphoric acid, potash and lime, clover plants will thrive and be largely independent of the soil nitrogen, drawing a large part of their supply from the atmosphere.

"Are most soils naturally stocked with the micro-organisms necessary to the thrifty growth of every kind of cultivated leguminous plants? Our experiments, of which a part are recorded in this bulletin, show that in some southern soils the germs essential to the thrifty growth of certain legumens are wanting or else present in insufficient number. Their absence from many southern soils explains why the opinion is so prevalent that in some localities that the clovers are not suited to the extreme south."

The fact that the experiments of the Alabama Station were nearly all conducted with species of the legumen family not cultivated in the north, robs their results of much of their value to us, but enough has been proven to show that the experiment is worthy of further investigation, and no doubt our northern experiment stations will take the matter up and test the theory upon the more commonly cultivated clovers and leguminous plants.

BEET SUGAR.

Correspondence from Montgomery, Cumberland, Greene, Wayne and Erie counties indicates that the question of the production of beet sugar in Pennsylvania is again attracting attention and that there is some disposition on the part of the farmers to make an examination into the question of cost and profit, and it is to be regretted that the Department is not in the possession of any recent data from which to furnish information.

In 1877 a similar interest was shown in Chester, Delaware and other southeastern and southern counties of the State, and the writer then. as the representative of the State Board of Agriculture, was in a position to be able to give some assistance in the way of analyses of samples of beets of different kinds grown under the same conditions

and of different kinds grown under different conditions. Over forty analyses were made of samples raised on the Eastern Experimental Farm, in Chester county, and by members of the Experimental Farm Club, which met there.

Of the theory of sugar beet production (for the sugar only) Prof. Goessman writes as follows: "The rules by which beets are successfully raised for feeding purposes do not apply to a successful production of the beet for sugar. In the first case quantity is the main aim; in the second, besides quantity, a good quality is essential. A good sugar beet is expected to contain not less than twelve per cent. of sugar, a small percentage of saline substance and the least possible amount of nitrogenous constituents. The more nitrogenous compounds there are present the less sugar will be noticed, for they exert a controlling influence on the formation of sugar in growing beet sugar. The saline substances, on the other hand, do not affect injuriously the formation of sugar, yet they place it under very disadvan tageous circumstances, as far as its final separation in a crystalized form is concerned. They favor the production of molasses, and thus increase the expenses of manufacture. The history of the beet sugar industry of later years is not without many illustrations of these damaging experiences. Some late experiments in this country no doubt owe their failure, in part at least, to the fact that virgin soil, rich in vegetable mold and saline constituents has been used for the cultiva tion of the sugar beet. Judging from analogy, we cannot but consider the reported gigantic roots and unusually large crops per acre as unfavorable features of some recent attempts in beet sugar manufacture."

Although I have watched the various attempts to make the production of sugar from the beet profitable during the past twenty years, I have thus far received no information which leads me to very materially alter or amend the opinion expressed in my annual report of 1877 to the State Board of Agriculture (page 201). It is true that the introduction of centrifugal and other improved machinery may have so altered the relative conditions so as to reduce the cost of manufacture, but experiments will soon demonstrate this. It is also possible that, by a careful selection of seed and soil we can so increase the percentage of sugar and decrease that of impurities as to make the crop profitable, but thus far no practical experiments in our own State have proven this.

In 1877 I wrote as follows:

"It has been demonstrated that if the percentage of sugar in the roots does not come up to a certain point, its manufacture will not prove profitable. Let us then first establish the fact that there are at least special soils in Pennsylvania which will grow beets having the required percentage of sugar, and next that its manufacture will pay,

and capital will not long be wanting. It will not do to assume that because this industry is found profitable in France and Germany, or even in California, that it will be equally lucrative in Pennsylvania. If mere bulk of roots was all that is needed we should have no fears of the success of the enterprise, but this is far from being the primary consideration. If, on the other hand, we attempt its manufacture from roots not rich enough in the sugar producing elements and depend upon State bounty to furnish the balance between cost and the actual market value of the sugar, we shall find that as soon as this aid is withdrawn the industry will fail. It would be better not to start at all than to commence upon a false basis and rear upon it a fabric which will eventually fall, if from no other cause, because of the insecure foundations. The assumption that Pennsylvania can grow beets rich in sugar is as yet unsupported by that kind of proof that is absolutely necessary before capital can be induced to lend its aid. We have no desire to discourage any attempts which have been made or which are being made to place this industry on the list with many others which have given our State her present position among her sister states, but it is our desire to have no false steps made."

In the same report from which the above quotation is taken, I find the following relating to the importance of the manufacture of sugar to the United States, written by Lea Pusey:

"In 1847 the gold mines of California were discovered, and the silver mines soon after. Since their discovery (up to 1877), the amount of both mined in that region is very near $1,000,000,000. It would be natural to suppose that from such a vast sum we would have retained an ample sufficiency. But such is not the fact. And why? One of the most prominent reasons is that during that period we have imported and consumed over $1,250,000,000 worth of sugar. While we have squandered our gold for sugar, France, by preserving, in a wise policy of the protection of this industry (beet sugar manufacture) for the national benefit, has for the last ten years produced sufficient sugar for home consumption, and now is exporting a large surplus, and without any mines of gold or silver, possesses to-day, according to the best authority, over $1,200,000,000 of the precious metals, of which $360,000,000 has been accumulated during the last seven years, and after paying an unprecedented indemnity to Germany within that time."

Recent experiments have proven that beets can be raised in this State which show over eighteen per cent. of sugar, but such cases are rather the exception than the rule, and from results attained within the past year in our own State, we infer that the average percentage of juice has not exceeded 12. The extremes reported by our Experiment Station are stated as being 18.8 and 6.85, the average being 12.45 per cent.

During the year 1877 the Eastern Experimental Farm Club met

Number.

semi-monthly at the Eastern Experimental Farm in Chester county; the club resolved to institute a series of careful experiments, having for their object the production of beets for sugar rather than for stock, and were promised the co-operation of the State Board of Agriculture in the work. A large amount of seed of different varieties was procured and distributed among its members and selected roots produced from this seed were sent to the State Board of Agriculture to be tested for their sugar contents. From the result of this test, as shown by the following tables, it will be seen that, taking Dr. Goessman's estimate of twelve per cent. as necessary for profit, the product was not sufficiently rich in sugar to warrant any attempt at manufacture. I have followed the table by a condensed statement showing just how much each crop represented in the test produced, and from the table following the report it will be noted that there was no trouble in obtaining a large crop of beets. The tables are as follows:

These samples were grown under the following conditions:

1. Grown by Charles Ramsey; sandy loam sub-soil; barn-yard manure, plowed under in the spring, bone in the row; previous crop for two years, melons; harvested, September 30.

Per cent. of sugar and total solids.

2. Same soil and same treatment as No. 1.

4. William Rutherford; clay loam; barn-yard manure, plowed in; planted May 30, harvested, October 12.

5. N. J. Sharpless; agrillaceous loam, clay sub-soil; in potatoes previous year; twelve cords of barn-yard manure per acre, plowed in; planted May 28, harvested October 11.

6. N. J. Sharpless, same soil as No. 5; no yard manure; equal parts by bulk of bone, plaster and manure from chicken house, at the rate of one and one-half tons per acre; planted and harvested the same time as No. 5.

7. William Swayne; strong limestone loam; Coe's phosphate, manure from the chicken house and ground bone in equal bulk, at the rate of six hundred pounds per acre, harrowed in; planted May 11, harvested October 1.

8. Same as No. 7.

9. Same as No. 7, but no fertilizer.

10. Same as No. 9.

11. Same as Nos. 9 and 10.

12. Same as last specimens.

13. Same as last specimens.

14. Experimental Farm; mocaceous loam, porous sub-soil; phosphate, plowed in; planted May 26, harvested October 13.

15. Same as 14.

16. Same as 14.

17. Same as 14.

18. Same as 14.

19. Same as 14.

20. Same as 14.

21. Experimental Farm, micaceous soil, porous sub-soil; fertilized with $10.00 worth of Challenge phosphate (High Grade rock).

22. Fertilized by Lenning's phosphate.

23. Fertilized by ground bone; cost $10.00.

24. Fertilized by sulphate of potash; cost $10.00.

25. Fertilized by muriate of potash; cost $10.00.

26. Fertilized by Popplein's truck phosphate; cost $10.00.

27. Fertilized by AA nitrogen; cost $10.00.

28. Fertilized by nitrate of soda.

29. No fertilizer.

30. Fertilized by Pacific Guano; cost $10.00.

31. Fertilized by sulphate of ammonia; cost $10.00.

32. Fertilized by Stockbridge's manure; cost $10.00.

33. C. C. Hood; clay loam; cropped with potatoes for two years; hog pen manure in the row; planted May 18, harvested October 11.

34. Same as 33.

35. David C. Swayne; clay loam, flint and slate; two years with corn; manure from chicken house.