Sugar Beets. 
15 
crop from ten plots sown between April 10th and 20th was 27.7 
tons; from ten plots sown between May 1st and 10th was 24.3 tons; 
from ten plots sown between May 15th and 26th was 20.4 tons; 
and from ten plots sown between May 31st and June 10th was 15.3. 
The percentage of sugar in these various crops scarcely differed 
at all, 0.76 of one per cent, being the maximum difference, and 3.2 
was the maximum difference in purity. The difference in crop, 
however, is very decidedly in favor of very early planting. 
The question of the distance between rows is recurred 
to again, and a former recommendation is repeated, i. e., mak¬ 
ing the alternate spaces between rows narrower and wider. The 
distances advocated are eleven and twenty-seven inches. The chief 
advantage claimed is in irrigating, also an increase of crop. 
IRRIGATING UP THE SEED. 
Twelve experiments were made with irrigating up the seed, 
and a like number without irrigation. Of the twelve experiments 
with irrigation none failed, of those without irrigation two failed. 
The crops from the twelve irrigated at the time of planting averaged 
26.3 tons to the acre. The crops from the ten plots which came up, 
but which were not irrigated at the time of planting, averaged 25.4 
tons to the acre. 
INSECTS INJURIOUS TO BEETS. 
The earliest observations on this subject seem to have been 
made by Prof. C. P. Gillette in 1894, when he records the leaf hop¬ 
pers Gnathodus abdominalis, Platymetopius acutus, and Agallia uhleri , 
as doing injury to beets in the vicinity of Grand Junction, also a 
mealy bug, Dadylopius solani, as infesting the crowns of the plant. 
The next mention of injury to beets by insects is in 1897, when the 
writer’s patch of beets was seriously injured by the leaf hoppers 
Agallia uhleri, A. sanguineolenta, A. cinerea , and the striped beetle 
Systena taeniata. Later Monoxia puncticollis , and also the blister 
beetle, Macrobases unicolor, did some damage. 
In 1899 the beet arm 3 T -worm (Laphygma flavimaculata) made its 
appearance near Grand Junction, and was very destructive. It did 
not appear in injurious numbers in this locality in 1900. Prof. 
Gillette and his assistant, Mr. E. D. Ball, found but few specimens 
of either the first or second brood. Prof. Gillette (Thirteenth An¬ 
nual Report of the Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station) says 
of this failure of the insect to appear the second season : The very 
sudden appearance of this insect, which had never before been con¬ 
sidered injurious, in such destructive numbers, and its equally sud¬ 
den disappearance, is quite remarkable. Particularly is this so from 
the fact that the fall brood of worms in 1899 were but little parasit¬ 
ized, and the moths matured in enormous numbers. The latter 
