406 Journal of Afjrifiiltare, Victoria. 1 10 July, 1919. 



TJie total costs of tlie ]>ress juicery as above shown may now be placed in 

 juxtaposition with the value at Maffra, thus: — 



75% efiiciency — 

 Wood fuel . . 

 Coal fuel 



40% efficiency- 

 Wood fuel . . 

 Coal fuel . . 



The jjossible profits thus sho\vu are somewhat less than with the infusion 

 juicery, but tliis diminution is solely due to the liiglier percentage allowed for 

 contingencies for the press juicery. 



Travelling Press Juicrries. — That Ijcet juice can be expressed and evaporated 

 on a practical scale aud without difficulty on the farm was shown by Mr. 

 Pearson's experiments 24 years ago. 



If the plant then used had been somewliat enlarged and made portable, it could 

 have been used as a travelling juicery, and moved from farm to farm. Tlie 

 advantages of such a proposition would be numerous; thus: — 



1. There would be no carting of the roots from the farm to. the juicery, so 

 that there would be an average saving of, say, 2s. 6d. per ton on the cost of tlic 

 roots. 



2. There would be no carting of the pulp from the juicery to the farm, thus 

 an average of, say, 2s. 6d. would be added to the value of the pulp. 



3. Xo special building would be required; the work could be done in a farmer's 

 shed; a mere roof without walls would serve. If none were available, the farmer 

 could build one at a cost of £30, which would be required for juicery purposes for 

 only a few day:^ in the year, and would be of permanent use to the farmer. 



4. No weighing would be needed, therefore no weighbridge. 



5. The farmer would tip the roots right on to the washer platfonu, therefore 

 no flume would be needed. 



G. The pulp would be removed at once by the farmer, therefore no pulp bin 

 and no conveyer would lie required. 



7. The farmer would supply the fuel which, on a farm, would be wood; in 

 many cases he would obtain it olY his own land, and at the lowest cost. 



8. The farmer would supply his own bags and the lime. 



9. There would no clerical work and no accounts, except of the simplest. 



10. It could operate on a giiarantee of only 1,600 tons instead of 5,000. 



11. Tlie farmer would receive higher net returns than from a stationary 

 juicery.' 



It follows from all the above that the capital required for a travelling juicery 

 would be much less: in fact, only a1x)ut one-third of that required for a stationary 

 juicery. 



There would, however, be a new cost, namely, that of transporting the plant 

 from ])lace to )dace. But the least consideration demonstrates that this cost 

 would be much less than that of carting the roots and the pulp. The transport 

 of the macliinery presi'iits no practical difficulty. The jness juicery plant is in 

 few parts and comparatively small, and it would be an easy task to put it on 

 wheels. The evaporator would be put on its own wheels and kept on them. The 

 two presses would be hung in a carriage of their own, and kept in it. The 

 rasper, washer, tank, &c., would be placed in a specially-built trolly for transport, 

 and taken out for action. The trolly and the presses would be dragged by the 

 engine, and the eva))orator by four horses. It would not require more than one 

 day's work at the outside for each removal. The cost would, therefore, he a day's 

 wages for the men, plus the cost of fuel and the hire of four horses. The cost, 

 therefore, would be — 



Wages . . ..£448 



Fuel ,050 



Horses . . . 10 



£i 19 8 



or £5 for each trip. An average of ten trips may be assumed for each campaign. 



