Deterioration Sugar Beets Due to Nitrates 43 
few feet away. The questions in this case are: Was there as much 
nitrate formed in the cropped land as in the fallow land ? Had the 
beet crop appropriated the 315.7 pounds? Or had the condition of 
being cropped prevented the formation of the nitrates, i. e., had the 
shading of the ground by a dense growth of leaves in some way 
retarded or prevented the formation of the nitrates or is there some¬ 
thing in the roots of this crop which is inimical to these processes ? 
The two sets of samples given above are not isolated ones. There 
are strips of land separating the series of experimental plots, and 
these gave, on the same date, essentially the same results; the sur¬ 
face foot of the fallow strip showed the presence of 321 pounds of 
sodic nitrate and the samples from the beet plot adjoining it 15.8 
pounds. The preceding samples were taken at Fort Collins. I will 
give one set of samples taken at my request in the Arkansas Valley. 
This set of samples was taken to a depth of six inches, in the rows, 
between the rows and in the turn rows. The six inches of soil in 
the rows showed 180 pounds, that between the rows 360 pounds and 
that in the turn-rows 960 pounds of sodic nitrate per acre. These 
cases are not given for the specific purpose of raising questions rela¬ 
tive to the formation and distribution of the nitrates in cropped and 
uncropped land, particularly to such as is cropped to beets, but to 
show that it is not safe to conclude that, because beets may have 
been grown without the application of fertilizers, particularly with¬ 
out the application of sodic nitrate, they have therefore had no 
abundant, perhaps prejudicial supply of nitrates. This may be true, 
but it is not proven by the fact that we did not add it. My fear is 
that the contrary is true, namely, that our beets often have a marked¬ 
ly prejudicial supply of nitrates furnished them during the season 
and that this is true in so large a percentage of beets grown for com¬ 
mercial purposes that the general result, in the Arkansas Valley and 
also elsewhere in the state, is a decided deterioration in the quality 
of the beets. The deterioration or the low quality of the beets in 
large sections is not seriously questioned but the cause thereof is not 
satisfactorily determined. I have considered some of the causes to 
which it has been attributed and have, as I believe, shown that what¬ 
ever injury may be attributed to these causes, they are not sufficient 
to account for the facts as we find them and that there must be some 
other more generally applicable and at the same time sufficient cause 
for this deterioration. 
The first class of beets to be considered is represented by beets 
grown on ordinarily good land without the application of any fer¬ 
tilizer. The sample of beets harvested 3 Nov. 1910, grown near 
Fort Collins, and an analysis of which has been given on page 37, 
has been given as a typical Colorado beet. The following samples 
have been taken from a variety of soils and should vary both’ on this 
