THE OBJECTIVE IN PRODUCTION IGl 



advocate its development ; that is why I include it in 

 the list of possible developments. There is no doubt 

 that we can produce sugar beet of a very good quality 

 and with a heavy sucrose percentage ; but it is a crop 

 that requires much labour — can it be made to pay at the 

 present high rate of wages ? I am more than doubtful. 

 It would be a great boon if it could be done, for not only 

 should we have a home-grown supply of sugar, but the 

 beet pulp — the residuum after extracting the sugar — 

 is very good food for stock. The cultivation of this crop 

 is much the same as for mangolds, but from the farmer's 

 point of view it has a great advantage — mangolds are 

 sown in May and fed during the winter months to the 

 live stock, which is not sold till the following year ; so 

 the farmer is not paid for his mangolds, except where 

 they are used for feeding dairy cows, for a twelve-month 

 or more. The sugar beet is also sown in May ; but the 

 sugar factorv' buys the crop in the autumn, and the turn- 

 over is completed in six months. This is a great practical 

 advantage ; though it is one that the farmer will require 

 educating up to before he fully realizes it. 



The question is : will it be possible to induce the 

 surrounding farmers to grow the 5000 acres of sugar beet, 

 which is the minimum necessary to feed a factory ? If 

 produced under the four-year system it would require 

 a total area of 20,000 acres, supposing each farmer to 

 have one quarter of his land under sugar beet — which 

 in practice would be impossible. Personally, 1 do 

 not think the farmer will consider it an attractive propo- 

 sition. The great argument for making every effort to 

 introduce sugar beet cultivation is its beneficial effect 

 upon the cultivation of the land. I'he development of 

 the beet crop on the Continent was one of the chief causes 

 of the general improvement in agriculture there. 

 II 



