234 TiMEHRl. 



to say an increase equal to 20*7 0/0 ; in the third place 

 the surplus on massecuite in tons which is I2'82 

 against 15*52, being for every 100 tons cane worked up 

 a surplus of 2*7 tons massecuite equal to 21*06 0/0; in 

 the fourth place the surplus on ist sugar, which amounts 

 to 7*95 against 9"62 being for every 100 tons cane worked 

 up, a surplus of 1*67 tons ist sugar equal to 21 0/0; in 

 the 5th place, the recovery of chemically clean sugar in 

 the ist sugar from 100 parts sugar in the cane which 

 increases from 58' 1 1 to 70*29, equal to 20.96 0/0 ; in the 

 sixth place the number of tons cane required for i ton of 

 1st sugar being 12*57 ^y double crushing and only 10*39 

 by diffusion ; in the seventh place we see that the re- 

 covery of ist sugar on the indicated sugar in theclarifier 

 juice remains untouched, being 75*8 and 75*6, therefore, 

 useless for showing an improvement by any method of 

 obtaining juice from the cane ; in the eighth place we 

 find that in the mill fa6lory, one acre had a return of 

 2.22 tons of ist sugar, whilst the diffusion fa6lory had 

 only 21 1 tons per acre, due to a bad field crop. 



This shows plainly that we must know the field crops 

 as well as the work in the buildings. We see from the 

 record that the diffusion estate only reaped 22 tons cane 

 per acre, if it had reaped 28 tons the tons first sugar per 

 acre would have turned out to the amount of 2*69, which is 

 equal to a surplus of 2 1 per cent. Knowing, therefore, the 

 average number of tons cane which an estate with double 

 crushing reaps from its fields, one has only to multiply 

 this figure with Vo J in order to know how many tons ist 

 sugar we can expe6l per acre with diffusion properly 

 carried out. Or, we may multiply the amount of 1st 

 sugar obtained by double crushing with the figure 1*3 11, 



