But it has been argued, and with some degree of plausibility, that a general adoption of this manufacture in England is unadvisable, inasmuch as every acre of land so occupied, will substract so much from the breadth of corn grown; and, consequently, that a positive injury will be inflicted in exchange for at best an uncertain good. This, I say, is the drift of the argument; but to those who are acquainted with the management of land it will be sufficient to remark, that the mangel wurzel intended for sugar will form, as now, for cattle, only one certain defined portion of the farm called a shift, generally consisting of about a fourth of the arable land—for instance, if 200 acres are under the plough, they will be thus divided

I am aware that the substitution of mangel wurzel for turnips may be objected to, as not affording a sufficiency of food for sheep, without which the land cannot be kept in good heart. On this I would only remark, that for the sake of ensuring a produce so important and so profitable as sugar, it is not unreasonable to expect that some sacrifice should be made on the part of the farmer; and I readily admit, that to a certain extent, this sacrifice must consist in an abridgment of the supplies of winter food for the flock, and an infringement on the customary mode of consuming it on the ground. I have called it the customary mode, but it is well known that such is only the case on light dry soils, and that on those of a contrary description, the whole crop is not unfrequently carted off the field; the larger roots to be consumed by bullocks, in yards and homestalls; and the tops, offal, &c., by sheep and lean stock on the pastures, or some dry contiguous inclosure, usually a wheat stubble. Now, the offal of the mangel wurzel, consisting of the tops and cuttings of the plants, may be disposed of in a similar manner for the stock sheep; and those intended for fattening must be provided with oil cake, corn, or other artificial food, a practice which, however undesirable, and even indefensible in common cases, is both allowable and desirable where a crop so profitable as sugar is said to be, furnishes the means of purchasing them.

In like manner the making of sugar on a farm has been objected to, as tending to the permanent injury of the land by

the abstraction of the best parts of the roots, viz., their saccharine juices; thereby depriving the land of so much manure as these, if consumed by cattle, would produce. How, it has been asked, can we reasonably expect that the pulp, the mere residuum after the nutricious particles of the root have been taken from it, should possess any powers to fatten cattle, much less any powers at all equal to those possessed by the root itself when given whole, as it grew? I know of no better answer to this question, than by appealing to the practice of those who are in the habit of using it year after year on a large scale. From 100 to 150 bullocks are not unfrequently fattened in a season in one of these sugar-making establishments in France. They are there usually bought in at £5 and sold out at £11 each. "But the weight of nutritive matter is so much diminished by pressing out the juices, that surely a great loss must be occasioned thereby.". A loss in weight of root there undoubtedly is, as we have already shown, 34 tons of root yielding but 10 tons of pulp. A beast is allowed 55 lbs. (say in round numbers cwt.) of pulp per day. The same beast would consume of raw root I cwt. in a day, therefore the 10 tons of pulp would last as long as 20 tons of root. But there were 34 tons pressed; consequently these 34 tons ought, if these premises be correct, to be equal to 17 tons, instead of 10 tons of pulp. We have therefore a loss, or an apparent loss of 7 tons of pulp, equal, for fattening purposes, to 14 tons of root. This deficiency consists in the sugar and the aqueous matter; one part of which is turned to profit, the other it is well to be rid of; it being injurious rather than otherwise, especially for fattening cattle. The question, therefore, is, whether 20 tons of root, in which is included a considerable weight of aqueous and extraneous matter, are equal in point of nutriment to 10 tons of pulp which, though much of the saccharine juice has been extracted from it, has also been deprived of every particle that would tend to counteract the fattening properties of the root? I hardly think it would, and am inclined to the belief that 10 tons of pulp would in a given time produce much more beef than double the weight of raw root. In this opinion I am corroborated by a practice which, I am told, has of late obtained in Gloucestershire and part of Monmouthshire, namely, that of rasping and pressing the roots of the mangel wurzel, solely with a view to getting rid of the watery particles-the whole of the juice, sugar and all, (at least so much of it as with the common presses they can obtain), is thus thrown away. If this pays, surely the retaining the

sugar, and only parting with the deleterious particles, will pay still better; for, as to the expence of the operation, it will cost no more to perform it well than inefficiently.

It will be recollected, too, that the animal charcoal, ashes, &c., made use of in the manufactory, are valuable additions to the manure of a farm, and, in the opinion of many, fully counterbalance any loss occasioned by the deprivation of the saccharine matter contained in the roots.

PART THE THIRD.

Cultivation of Mangel Wurzel in Great Britain as Food for Cattle.

I shall only add a few remarks on the culture of this root, as at present practised in some of the best agricultural districts in England; referring occasionally to such authorities as in my opinion ought to, and doubtless will be, respected by men of science and experience.

The pages of the Farmer's Journal abound with communications on this subject, but as many of my readers may not have an opportunity of consulting the back numbers of this paper, it will, perhaps, be interesting here to recapitulate, in as condensed a form as possible, the substance of what has been said at different times by different correspondents.

The Farmer's Journal was established in 1807; but the first mention of "mangel wurtzel," (as the writer calls it), or the white sugar beet," is by a correspondent, signing himself "Agricola," July 11th, 1808, who speaks, not of the root, but of the leaves, in high terms as food for cattle, alleging that he has found them to amount to 25 loads an acre, at 18 cwt. a load, and conjectures that additional cuttings, or rather strippings may be obtained from the same roots.*

* To this opinion, I beg respectfully, but decidedly to demur. Stripping the leaves from a plant can never be other than injurious to that plant. I have tried it, and I say with confidence, it will not do. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul;nay, worse; it robs Peter, but does not pay Paul. For though I admit the abstraction of a certain weight of leaves, and have occasionally thrown them on pastures, in the hope of tempting my cows and sheep to eat them, yet I never could succeed in so doing so long as a blade of grass remained thereon. And be it observed, that they must be consumed, if consumed at all, at a time when, as Shakspeare says, "there is no need of such vanity:" in plain English, when there is a tolerable bite of grass under foot, and as long as this remains it is hope. less to expect them to take to any other green food.-S. T.

March 12, 1810.—Messrs. Gibbs and Co., show some specimens of mangel worzel roots, and Dutch mangel worzel. Notwithstanding this attempt to bring it into public notice, I find no mention of it till

April 20, 1812.—When a writer from the Isle of Ely solicits information concerning it as "a rara avis in agriculture."

1813.

Jan. 18.-Another to the same effect.

Feb. 1.-"A Farmer" recommends sowing the seed on stitches or balks, the width of the balks being 36 inches; has grown 50 tons an acre of roots and 5 of tops.

A note, by the editor, states the result of an inspection of Sir Mordaunt Martin's crop at Burnham, in Norfolk.

Feb. 15.—Sir Mordaunt Martin describes his plan of sowing. Prefers drilling it with Cook's drill, burying the seed very lightly. The middle of May the best time for sowing. His method of storing is as follows:-The leaves are broken off by hand in October, the centre bud being left untouched. Heaps are then made of them in rows; the intervals between which being wide enough for a cart to pass. The roots are then heaped in the same manner as and between the heaps of leaves. The roots are afterwards packed in a shallow trench, about four feet wide, and piled up in the form of the roof of a house, on which is spread haulm or straw; this last is covered with the earth or mould that came out of the trench, well beaten with a spade. In this way the roots have kept well even to the following harvest.

The most taper roots are selected with the smallest tops, to pack by themselves for seed. When all danger from frost is over, these are planted up to the crown, and covered with long muck to protect them from hares.

J. C. Curwen, Esq., in the same paper, states that he had grown 50 tons an acre of the root.

March 15.—Sir Mordaunt Martin seems to entertain an idea that mangel wurzel will not do on strong soils, and feels surprised that Mr. Curwen had raised such heavy crops on his farm; the largest roots he (Sir M.) ever grew, being upon a bare gravel. Alludes to the correspondence between himself and Dr. Lettsom on this subject.

July 19.-A correspondent complains of the failure of a crop, owing, probably, as the editor suggests, to bad seed. A report then follows, by the Hon. Richard Peters, President of the Philadelphia Agricultural Society. Has cultivated it

extensively for several years. For cattle, sheep, and store hogs, no root equals it: has occasionally given it to horses. A fattening bullock will eat one half his weight of turnips, and about one-fourth of potatoes, in twenty-four hours. Is persuaded, of the mangel wurzel he will not consume anything like this proportion.* Considers those of a rose-coloured skin, with the interior solid and white, not laminated and mottled, as the best.

August 2.-John Moseley, Esq., of Tofts, near Brandon, accounts for the failure of a crop (mentioned July 19) from the want of sun in the summer and autumn of the preceding year.

November 8.—A letter from the Bishop of Derry to Edward Boyd, Esq., strongly recommends the culture of this root. His lordship says, that a cow will eat 16 stone (of 14 lbs.) of the roots and leaves together, in twenty-four hours.†

The following very useful table is appended to the above letter:

:

TABLE SHEWING THE WEIGHT PER ACRE BY THE WEIGHT PER SQUARE YARD.

January 17.—A Hertfordshire farmer, who dates from Hatfield, answers some queries which had appeared in a former

* About 112 or 120 lbs., as I have stated, is found to be the quantity which a beast of 50 to 60 stones (of 14 lbs.) will consume in twenty-four hours. Of Swedish turnips, from 160 lbs. per day is required for a bullock of the same

size.

+ This does not appear to agree with the statement in the foregoing note, but it will be recollected, that a cow will consume a greater quantity of food than a fatting beast.

NEW SERIES, VOL. I, NO. II.

T