SUGAR-BEET GROWING.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1100, 12 April 1911, Page 10

SUGAR-BEET GROWING.

;thj3 proposals in England. In recent discussions upon tho prospective profitableness of establishing the beet-sugar industry in this country (says tho London paper, the "Live stock Journal"), it appears to have been assumed that beet would displacemangolds. If that were tho case," the scheme might be dismissed at • once, as any reduction in the acreage of mangolds .would tell against stpck-raisin* and feeding and milk production, the two : most- profitable 'b.'anches of our agriculture. The only profitable seope for the proposed enterprise lies in the conversion of some.of our large area of inferior grass into arable land. - Such a change, by means of an increase in , cultivated feeding crops in a rotation, 'in'addition to the by-products of sugarbeet manufacture, would greatly increase food fjr JivD stock. It has" had this effect in Germany, where . increased stock-keeping has followed the establish'ment of sus.ir. factories in fresh, districts. The-crux of the question, is as to whyt-he-,- beet-sugar manufacturers would .bo ab!a to pay £1 per ton for beet delivered."

The "Farmer and-.Stockbreeder,"'an-other English publication, savs: Ac .a meeting of the Surveyors 4 Institution, Mr. F. J. Lloyd, speaking on the question of sugar-beet growing in Great Britain, said the-Government had been asked to assist "the' industry for five years, but who would invest capital on a chance that, at the end of five years, it would be lost? In the United States, for many years, the Government had done everything in its power to foster the beot-sugar industry and for no pursuit had the Department, of Agriculture been more anxious, yet every factory .but one started prior to 1890 had failed. To-day there ■ were sixty-throe factories, and their balance on a capital of over 91 m.illijii dollars practically represented 2i per, cent, interest. Ho was puzzled to know on what grounds financiers wero i.'sked to invest capital in ah undertaking; for beet-sugaV production'. He had failed to obtain a businesslike prospectus which would cany conviction as to the profit; likely to accrue. When the subject was mooted some tinw ago.sat the Chamber of Agriculture, he (Professor;' Lloyd) expressed tho opinion- that it would prove a failure and a farce. Subsequent very careful restudy of the wholo question and cf all the unrest information thereon had strengthened lather-than shaken that opinion.