FIELD STUDIES OF THE CEOWN-GALL OF SUGAR BEETS. 7 



Table II. — Comparison in sugar content and purity of galled beets ivith beets not so 



affected — Continued. 



Condition of beets. 



Solids in 



.juice. 



Test No. 21: 



Galled. 



No galls 

 Test No. 22: 



GaUed.. 



No galls 

 Test No. 23: 



Galled.. 



No galls 

 Test No. 24: 



Galled . . 



No galls 

 Test No. 25: 



GaUed.. 



No galls 

 Test No. 26: 



Galled-. 



No galls 

 Average: 



Galled.. 



No galls 



Per cent. 

 18. 80 

 18.32 



16. 42 

 16. 62 



16.50 

 17.72 



18.70 

 22.12 



14.87 

 22.97 



19.07 

 16.07 



17.01 

 19.66 



■ iigar m 

 juice. 



Per 



cent. 

 16. 50 

 15.90 



13.30 

 13.90 



13.40 

 14.60 



15.30 

 18.00 



13.00 

 19.30 



15.20 

 13.60 



13.85 

 16.21 



Coefficient 

 of purity. 



Per cent. 



87. 76 

 86.79 



80.99 

 82.39 



81.21 

 82.39 



81.81 

 81.37 



87.42 

 84.02 



79.70 

 84.62 



81.35 

 82. 15 



Sugar in 

 the beet. 



Per cent. 

 16.30 

 15.20 



12.60 

 12.40 



11.70 

 13.90 



14.20 

 16.70 



12.20 

 17.60 



13.90 

 12.50 



12.54 

 15.18 



A study of Table II indicates that gall formations on sugar beets 

 have a tendency to reduce both the sugar content and the purity 

 of the roots. The effect upon the sugar content seems to be more 

 marked than upon the purity. Everyone who has studied the indi- 

 viduality of the sugar beet knows that there is a difference in the 

 sugar content and purity of healthy beets growing side by side in 

 the same row. It is not surprising, therefore, that an occasional 

 pair shows qualities favorable to the gaUed beets, as in tests Nos. 

 10 and 21 of Table 11. It is safe to say, however, that in the great 

 majority of cases the formation of gaUs upon the roots of sugar beets 

 has a decidedly injurious effect upon either the purity or the sugar 

 content or upon both these factors of quality in the beet root. 



It seems to be practically impossible to obtain any accurate data 

 regarding the effect of gaUs upon the size of the roots affected. We 

 find the largest as weU as the smallest beets more or less seriously 

 infested with gaUs, as shown in Plate I, A to E, and it is impossible 

 to know whether the gaUed beets would have been larger or smaller 

 if they had been free from galls. In some infested areas the larger 

 beets are more generally galled, while in other infested areas the 

 smaller beets are the ones most generally affected; and since the 

 individuality of the beet embraces the size and shape, as well as the 

 quaUty of the roots, a satisfactory comparison of the weights of the 

 gaUed and not galled beets has not been practicable in any of the 

 areas that have come under the observation of the writer. So far 

 as one can judge from general field observations, however, the gaUs 

 do not seem to have any marked effect upon the size of the beets. 

 Consequently the tonnage or yield of beets per acre does not seem 

 to be appreciably affected by the disease except in those cases in which 

 the gaUs cause the beet roots to decay. 



