( ( 



< < 

 (< 

 < ( 

 << 



— 161 — 



tivation, and fertilizing, that we ordinarily give our mangel crop. 

 At the time of harvest three of the intervening rows of mangels, 

 as well as the sugar beets, were weighed with the following re- 

 sults : 



Lbs. per acre. 

 Row i, Mangel, Long Red, 60370 



2, Sugar beet, Simon Le Grand's White Improved, . . . 40450 



3, Mangel, Long Red, 66590 



4, Sugar beet, Bulteau Desprez Richest, 70950 



5, Sugar beet, Dippe's Kleinwanzleben, 40450 



6, Sugar beet, Florimond Desprez Richest, 44800 



" 7, Mangel, Long Red, 61600 



11 8, Sugar beet, Dippe's Vilmorin, 34230 



Taking the average of the different varieties of sugar beet, and 



of the three rows of mangels, and reducing the whole to tons per 



acre, as an easier means of comparison, we have : 



5 varieties of Sugar beet averaged 23. 1 tons per acre. 



3 rows Long Red Mangel averaged • . 31.4 tons per acre. 



A difference of 36 per cent, in favor of the mangels, though one 

 variety of the sugar beet yielded considerably more than the man- 

 gels. Moreover it is fully twice the labor to harvest the sugar 

 beets, so that it would seem clear that, if roots are to be raised for 

 stock, so far as yield per acre is concerned, mangels are much to 

 be preferred to sugar beets. 



Below is shown the average percentage composition in food 

 constituents of two analyses each of mangels and sugar beets : 



Sugar Beets. Mangels. 



Water, 86.18 ... . 90.32 



Ash, 78 72 



Crude Protein, 1.12 .... 1.10 



Ether Extract (fat), 10 12 



Crude fiber, . . . 95 67 



Nitrogen-free Extract (Carbhydrates), . . 10.87 .... 7.07 



100.00 100.00 



Nutritive ratio as 1 is to 10.8 7.3 



It will be seen that the main difference in the two is in the less 

 amount of water and greater amount of nitrogen-free extract 

 (sugar) in the sugar beets. Since beets are usually fed in connec- 

 tion with other foods in such quantities that they do not materi- 

 ally affect the nutritive ratio of the whole ration, we may throw 

 this difference aside and consider only the difference in dry mat- 



