400 Journal of Agriculture, Victoria. [10 July, 1919. 



Evaporation and Power. — On this item the. committee found it impossible to 

 come to agreement. Mr. Pearson claimed that with his evaporator he treated 

 3^ tons of juice per ton of firewood, and estimated tlie total cost per ton of 

 sugar in dried juice to be 17s. 9d., taking firewood at lis. per ton. and assuming 

 that one-third of the evaporation would be by waste steam from the power plant. 

 He also allowed 7 tons of water evaporated by one ton of coal, and, taking 

 coal at 28s. per ton, made a total cost of coal fuel of f 1 2s. 6d. per ton sugar. 



The committee made extensive inquiries regarding this question, but found 

 it difficult to obtain reliable data regarding the type of evaporator proposed by 

 Mr. Pearson. The outcome of inquiries points to an evaporation efficiency of 

 less than 4 tons of water from the juice,, per ton of coal burnt. _ The discrepancy 

 between the estimate of the committee and Mr. Pearson's figure is of vital 

 importance to the wliole question, and Mr. Pearson suggests that a trial should 

 be made with an evaporator, constructed to his design, to be used daring the 

 coming Maffra campaign. He is confident that he would be able to prove the 

 efficiency of the evaporator in question. 



Pulp. — Mr. Pearson claims that press pulp, owing to its high food value and 

 comparatively low water content, is worth at least 28s. 6d. per ton. This pulp 

 would contain probably 40 per cent, solid matter. The Maffra pulp, containing 

 from 8 to 20 per cent, solids, fetches 2s. per ton. It is admitted that its food 

 value should command a much higlier i)rice, but dairy farmers require educating 

 regarding its value, and in the meantime it would not be wise to assume a price 

 that could not be obtained for several years. The committee consider that 10s. 

 per ton is the maximum price that could be generally secured at present. The 

 theoretical amount of pulp is 1.386 tons. This has been taken at 1.25 tons, to 

 make an allowance for loss in handling and drying. 



Water has not been charged for. The cost would depend on the district. 



CONCLUSIOXS. 



In compiling estimates in respect of probable revenue and expenditure, tlie 

 committee (because it was anxious to stimulate an important industry) invari- 

 ably sought to put the best case for the juicerj'. In most items costs were cut 

 down to bedrock. Calculations in regard to revenue were based on Maffra 

 operations in 1917-18, when the price of sugar was as high as £28 lOs. per ton, 

 a selling value that may not be maintained. As a set-off, in the same campaign 

 the sugar content of the beet was lower than normal, being only 14.45 per cent. 



The estimates when brought into juxtaposition show the following result:- — 



f s. d. 

 Cost per ton crystalizable sugar in dried juice .. .. . . 20 7 11 



Value at Maffra factorv . . . . . . . . . . 19 15 6 



Showing a loss per ton sugar of . . . . . . . . 115 



(In the absence of precise knowledge as to the cost of evaporating the juice, 

 the committee has decided that it is not in a position to recommend juiceries 

 as an economic proposition. If Mr. Pearson's estimate as to cost of evaporation 

 ■were confirmed, the net result would be a profit of about £2 a ton of sugar. 

 Mr. Pearson asks that an experimental evaporator be tested tliis year at Maffra, 

 for which he estimates the cost to be £250. The committee neither recommends 

 nor opposes this proposal.) 



Travelling Juicery. — Mr Pearson submitted estimates of costs of a travelling 

 juicery which, he claimed, would be cheaper to operate than the stationary press 

 juicery. There would be undoubtedly numbers of advantages were a ])lant taken 

 from farm to farm as the crop was ready. On the other hand, the farmer would 

 be required to provide water supply, shed, and pulp silo. Mr. Pearson stated 

 that the cost of cartage to a stationary juicery would be saved to the farmer, 

 but the farmer would take the risk of the beet being of low sugar content. As 

 the Committee considered that only wealthy farmers could provide the necessary 

 equipment, and as the fundamental difference in estimated cost of evaporation 

 again applied, it Avas decided not to make any recommendation. 



Mr. Williams is of opinion that any increased profits due to extended opera- 

 tions should not be invested in more costly methods of manufacture, but should 

 be distributed between the growers of the beet and the consumer of the sugar, 

 consistent with a just return to the industry itself. 



