126 
Journal of Agricultural Research voi. xxvi, No. * 
tissue changes occurring during storage. The chemical analysis was 
made according to the method devised and described by S. F. Sherwood, 
chemist, Sugar-Plant Investigations, United States Department of 
Agriculture . 3 
RESULTS 
Table I gives the tag numbers of beets, the percentage of sugar at 
harvest (fall test), percentage of sugar after storage (spring test), and 
the difference in the percentage of sugar before and after storage. 
Table I .—Percentage of sugar shown by fall and spring tests and the difference between 
the two 
Tag. No. 
Fall 
test. 
Spring 
test. 
Differ¬ 
ence. 
Per cent . 
Per cent . 
Per cent . 
I. 
19. O 
13. 2 
5-8 
2. 
17.4 
12. 6 
4. 8 
4 . 
16. O 
12. 6 
3-4 
8. 
17. 6 
12. 8 
4. 8 
9 . 
16. 4 
14. 2 
2. 2 
18. 
17.4 
14. 2 
3-2 
r 9 . 
14. 6 
12. 4 
2. 2 
20. 
18.6 
15.0 
3- 6 
22. 
18. 2 
14. 6 
3.6 
2.3 . 
17. 6 
14. 2 
3-4 
24. 
17.8 
14. 0 
3-8 
25. 
18. 0 
14. 6 
3-4 
27. 
16.8 
12. 4 
4.4 
28. 
17. 0 
12. 8 
4. 2 
29. 
16.8 
14. 0 
2.8 
30. 
16.8 
14. 0 
2.8 
31. 
18. 0 
13.6 
4.4 
35 . 
16. 2 
14. 6 
1. 6 
o 6 . 
17.4 
14. 0 
3 - 4 
39 . 
20. 0 
16. 6 
3-4 
4 i. 
17.8 
14.4 
3-4 
44 . 
19. 2 
16. 2 
3 - 0 
46 . 
17. 6 
14. 6 
3 -o 
47 . 
17. 6 
13. 6 
4. 0 
48 . 
17. 2 
13. 2 
4. 0 
49 . 
18. 0 
14. 2 
3-8 
54 . 
16.8 
14. 0 
2.8 
55 . 
16. 2 
14. 6 
1. 6 
56 . 
17. 6 
14.4 
3- 2 
58 . 
* 7-4 
13.0 
4.4 
7 ° . 
17. 6 
15-2 
2. 4 
74 . 
19. 6 
17. 0 
2. 6 
78 . 
17.4 
14. 0 
3-4 
79 . 
21. 0 
15.8 
5* 2 
81. 
19.4 
14. 8 
4. 6 
84 . 
15-4 
13.8 
1. 6 
86. 
18. 2 
14.4 
3.8 
87 . 
15.6 
13. 2 
2. 4 
88. 
17.4 
15.6 
1.8 
89 . 
* 7-8 
14. 4 
3-4 
9 ° . 
17. 2 
14. 6 
2. 6 | 
9 i . 
16. 6 
13. 6 
3 -o 
92 . 
16. 0 
14. 0 
2. 0 
93 . 
18. 4 
14. 0 
4. 4 
94 . 
19. 2 
16. 4 
2.8 
95 . 
16.6 
12.8 
3-8 
Tag No. 
Fall 
test. 
Spring 
test. 
Differ¬ 
ence. 
96 . 
Per cent . 
16. 4 
Per cent . 
16. O 
Per cent . 
. 4 
97 . 
17.4 
16. 2 
I. 2 
98 . 
18. 4 
15. 2 
3-2 
99 . 
18. 4 
15.O 
3-4 
100. 
19. O 
16. O 
3 -° 
101 . 
20. O 
16. 4 
3 - 6 
102. 
I9.4 
15-4 
4. 0 
*°3 . 
l8. 4 
17.8 
.6 
104. 
l8. 4 
16. 4 
2. 0 
106. 
17. 2 
i 5-4 
1. 8 
109. 
19. O 
16. 2 
2.8 
no. 
20. 4 
18. 0 
2. 4 
Ill. 
17. 6 
14.4 
3 - 2 
IT 3 . 
17. 6 
14.4 
3 - 2 
114. 
17. 6 
15. 2 
2.4 
”5 . 
15.6 
12. 6 
3.0 
116.. 
18. 2 
15. 6 
2. 6 
IJ 7 . 
18.2 
14. 6 
3- 6 
TI 9 . 
20. 6 
16. 2 
4.4 
120. 
18. 2 
13. 6 
4.6 
121. 
18.8 
14. 8 
4. 0 
122. 
18. 6 
14.4 
4. 2 
J 2 3 . 
17. 0 
14. 2 
2. 8 
124. 
18.6 
14. 4 
4. 2 
J 25 . 
18.8 
15.8 
3 -o 
126. 
19. 6 
15.6 
4.0 
127 . 
17. 6 
15.0 
2. 6 
128. 
15.6 
14.4 
1. 2 
I29 . 
19. 0 
16. 0 
3 -o 
130 . 
18. 4 
16. 6 
1.8 
LU. 
17. 8 
14. 0 
3*9 
132 . 
18. 4 
15.6 
2.8 
I 33 . 
19. 2 
15.0 
4. 2 
I 34 . 
20. 0 
14. 2 
5.8 
*37 . 
16. 2 
12.8 
3-4 
138 . 
17-4 
13. 0 
4. 4 
*39 . 
18.8 
16. 2 
2. 6 
140. 
20. 6 
16. 4 
4.2 
141 . 
15-4 
12. 8 
2. 6 
142 . 
17. 2 
15.0 
2. 2 
r 43 . 
18. 4 
16.8 
1. 6 
144 . 
14. 4 
10. 6 
3.8 
*45 . 
19. 2 
16. 0 
3*2 
146.. 
17. 0 
13. 6 
3*4 
I 47 . 
17. 8 
15.0 
2. 8 
148. 
19. 2 
16. 4 
2. 8 
3 Sherwood, S. F. sucrose in seed beets. In Sugar, v« 23, p, 299-300, igax. 
