J 3 S The Colorado Experiment Station 
S 75-7 grams, Z R 929.3 grams, the defoliated beets averaged E R 
79 1 - 2 grams and Z R 701.3 grams. The increase in the weight of 
the loots from 1 Sept, to 8 .Nov. was for E R normal development 
2 5°-4 grams, defoliated 165.9, Z R normal development 419.0 
grams, defoliated 191*0. In the case of R R the average weight of 
the beets was depressed 84.5 grams or 9*6 percent of the weight of 
the normally developed beets, in the case of Z R the averag weight 
was depressed 228 grams or 24.5 percent of the weight of the nor¬ 
mally developed beets. The latter figure, approximately 25 percent, 
is the same as obtained by weighing the beets produced by these 
rows and their check. This applies to both varieties. The per¬ 
centage of sugar in the normally developed E R variety, harvested 
8 Nov., was 15.6, in the defoliated beets harvested same date 14.3, in 
normally developed Z R 15*6, defoliated 13.2. The normally de- 
a eloped variety E R to which nitre had been applied contained 14.6 
ardthe Z R variety 14.5 percent sugar. In the case of the variety 
E R the depression of the percentage of sugar in the beet was about 
the same as that produced by defoliation, 1.0 against 1.3 percent. 
The difference can scarcely be explained by an increase in the yield 
caused by the nitrate for according to the field weights given me 
there was a decrease in the crop caused by the nitre. This is not in 
haimony with our observations on the relative size of the beets dur¬ 
ing the season, according to which there should have been an in¬ 
crease of the crop of from 1,200 to 2,000 pounds per acre. In the 
case of the variety Z R the nitrate caused a depression in the per¬ 
centage of sugar of 1.1 and the defoliation 2.4 percent. The yields 
returned to me for these plots, one-enth acre each, were for E R 
2 3-7 3.1x1 24.3 tons per acre, for Z R 20.8 and 22.4 tons per acre. 
The check plots were the higher in both cases, which I fear is a cler¬ 
ical error due to exchanging the plots in recording them. I am per¬ 
sonally fully convinced that this is the case, but I have given the 
1 ecoi d as it stands. The average of these yields is more than twice 
that of this section for 1910. 
The object of our experiment was not to obtain further data 
regarding these factors which had previously been determined and 
with which our results agree in so far as they are parallel, but to see 
what the effect upon the principal factors in the quality of the beets 
for factory purposes might be. The question with us is why have 
the beets in the Arkansas Valley fallen off so in quality? I do not 
know that the yield per acre has fallen off, I do not believe that it 
has. The average yield for the 120 fields, representing approxi¬ 
mately 2,500 acres, is 12.4 tons, an average which is not exceeded 
in any section of the state. On the other hand the sugar content 
a\ ei aged only 13*9 percent as they were delivered to the factory,, 
and I may add that this is within 0.3 percent of the average for the 
