THE ANALYST, 151 [The Editors are not responsible for the opinions of their Correspondents,’J 20 THE EDITORS OF “THI ANALYST.” HONE-GROWN SUGAR, 4,:The Sanctuary, Westminster,, S.W. July, 1884. SIRS,-& ownersof thewofks now in course of construction a t Lattenham,referred to in an article in your current month’s issue, we shall be glad to be allowed to call your attention to some facts relating to these works, and to our proposal to re-introduce into this country the beet sugar industry as a manufacture from home-grown produce, and at the same time to correot some mis- apprehensions into which the writer of the article in question has fallen. And first as to the failure of the works when in operation some fifteen years ago, The reasons for the non-success of MI!. Duncan at Lavenham may be stated simply under three heads, only one of which was alluded to by your correspondent, and that but partially.(1) That at the time the works were started the price of wheat was 66s. per quarter, whereas fhe present price is about 36s. 6d. to 37s., and although the farmers, who at that time began to supply Mr. Duncan with roots, found the then price of wheat a sufficient basis on which to form a ring, with the intention of forcing the price of beets up to 26s. a ton, under the very different conditions which now exist, and with wheat at present prices, no such combination need be feared ; the farmers are well satisfied to sell at 20s. a ton, and we have had offers from substantial men occupying large farms in the Eastern Counties, to deliver roots to us another year a t 16s.even; and as good land may be had there for 20s. an acre, a satisfactory profit would be left for the growers even at this price, Farmers are already asking us to enter into contracts for next year. (2) Mr. Duncan’s procem, so far from being “all right,” as your correspondent says, was clearly at fault from an eoonomical point of view. He boiled the syrup at Lavenham, and then transferred it in tanks to his refinery in London, where it was finished by his alum process. It is needless to point152 THE ANALYST. out the heavy additional railway freight thus incurred in the removal of the syrup. The process of this company is, on the other hand, a direct one, the whole make of sugar is procured from the beet juice at once as refined sugar, at a very considerably less working cost than the alum process involved, whilst with us the finished sugar can be distributed from the works direct to the consumer, (3) Mr.Duncan laboured under difficulties whioh will not exist for us. Under the process worked by him the refuse waters from his factory, with charcoal, and especially the small rootlets from the. beets, were all turned into the river running past the works, polluting the stream very seriously, and, by the fermentation and decay of the vegetable matter thus set up, creating a considerable nuisance, and killing the fish for several miles down. An injunction to stop this was threatened, and was one of the causes which led to. the stoppage of the works, In our process we use no charcoal, and the small rootlets, instead of going to pollute the stream, are diffused, and yield a higher percentage of sugar thzh the large roots themselves.The three reasons given-above for the non-success of Mr. Duncan’s operations at Lavenham, then, do not threaten us. The figrtres given by yo& correspondent as to the acreage necessary to supply our €tictory with roots, are somewhat wide of the mark. He says that 4,000 acres must be under beet cultivation in each year to supply a factory producing 120 tons of sugar a week. Eome of the principal growers in t,his country give eighteen tons of roots as the yield per acre, while Dr. Voelcker puts it M high even as from twenty to twenty-five tons. The chief growers, however, in Mr. Duncan’s time have stated that their average yield of roots was sixteen tons per acre, and taking for the moment eight per cent, as a correct estimate of the yield of sugar from the roots (although we expect to get not much less than ten per cent,) then 4,000 acres x 16 tons per acre = 64,000 tons of roots, yielding at eight per cent.5,120 tons of sugar, which, in the campaign of 100 days, or say fifteen weeks, wouldgive, not 120 tons, but (6,120 3 15=) 341 tons per week. The roots required for an out-turn of 120 tons of sugar per week of seven days would be only 215 tons per day, instead o& tihe 325 suggested by your correspondent, We purpose to turn out 140 tons of sugar per week, and shall only require 250 tons a t eight per cent;., or 200 tona at ten per cent. per day. “7, apprehend no difficulty as to this quantity being (( delivered uninterruptedly throughout the season, Apropos of the acreage of land required, we may mention that to our knowledge one Iarge farmer in France has grown beets on the same Zand for four years in.mcoessiom with the best results. One word as to the 91i0,OOO tons of beet sugar said to have been consumed in the United Kingdom last year. The Board of Trade returns give 1,080,000 tons as the total of both cane and beet sugar consumed during that period, and of this the beet sugar would very little exceed 680,000 tons, Mag we add that. every ton of this sugar which can be produced from home-grown beets is a, clear gain to both the owners and occupiers of land, and indeed to the whole agricultural interest in this country, and a successful issue to our undertaking will mean an advantage spreading far beyond the profit aocrtling to this oompany. Pours, &o BOLTON AND PARTNERS, Limited, TO THJ3 EDITORS OP “THB ANALYST,’’ $Ihs,-aay f be pelrmitted to point out what appears to me t o be the most importmt deductioa to be drawn from the paper of Dr.Muter, printed in your July number 2 It is simply that the solids hot fat ” should be calculated upon the aqueous portion of the milk, Le., after deducting the fat. Surely this fould be a much more scientific method of getting at the constant (1) ratio, than the present one of includibg a factor sb liable to vaw, either naturally or by fraud, as fat. It would be very interesting if Dr. Mnter wotdd calculate the percentage of c‘solids bo€ fat ’’ ih the way suggested, and see how hearly the results agree in the instances he qdotes. It might be convenient to take the water alone, andhot the aqueous fluid as a basfs against which t o compare both the “ solids not fat,” and r6 fat.” ’I am, &c., 87, Bold Street, Liverpool, July 24th, 1884. A, c. ABRA~AN, BOOKS, &c., RECEIVEDL Pbe Cbeknist aha bruggist ; The Brewers’ auardian ; The British Medical Journal The Pharmab ceutical Journal ; The Sanitary Record ; The Miller ; The Provisioner ; The Practitioner ; hew Remedies; ’Proceedings of the American Chemical Society ; The Inventors’ Record ; New York Publio Health ; The Scientific American; Society of Arts Journal; Sanitary Engineer of New York ; Cowkeeper and Dairyman’s Journal ; Sugar Cane ; Country Brewers’ Gartette ; The Medical Itecord ; The Grocers’ Gazette ; London Water Supply, by Crookes, Odling, and Tidy ; Che4cal Review ; Independent Oil and Drug Jourhal and Paint Review ; 8ciehce Monthly I Jcrurnal of the flocietfr of Chemiml hdtwtry 1 The Law of Adulteration, by Herbert,