UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS. COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. SUGAR BEETS IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY. By G. W. SHAW. BULLETIN No. 176. (Berkeley, Cal., January 30, 1906.) SACRAMENTO : W. W. SHANNON, - - - SUPERINTENDENT STATE PRINTING 1906 BENJAMIN IDE WHEELER, Ph.D., LL. ,D., President of the University, EXPERIMENT STATION STAFF. E. W. HILGARD, Ph.D., LL-D., Director and Chemist. (Absent on leave.) E. J. WICKSON, M.A., Acting Director and Horticulturist. W. A. SETCHELL, Ph.D., Botanist. ElyWOOD MEAD, M.S., C.E., Irrigation Engineer. C. W. WOODWORTH, M.S., Entomologist. R. H. LOUGHRIDGE, Ph.D., Agricultural Geologist and Soil Physicist. (Soils and Alkali.) M. E. JAFFA, M.S., Assistant Chemist. (Foods, Nutrition.) G. W. SHAW, M.A., Ph.D., Assistant Chemist. (Cereals, Oils, Beet-Sugar .), GEORGE E. COLBY, M.S., Assistant Chemist. (Fruits, Waters, Insecticides^ A. R. WARD, B.S.A., D.V.M., Veterinarian and Bacteriologist . E. W. MAJOR, B.Agr., Animal Industry. RALPH E. SMITH, B.S., Plant Pathologist. E. H. TWIGHT, B.Sc, Diplom€ E.A.M., Viticulturist. F. T. BIOLETTI, M.S., Viticulturist. WARREN T. CLARKE, B.S., Assistant Entomologist and Asst. Supt. Farmers'' Institutes. H. M. HALL, M.S., Assistant Botanist. GEORGE ROBERTS, M.S., Assistant Chemist, in charge of Fertilizer Control. C. M. HARING, D.V.M., Assistant Veterinarian and Bacteriologist. ALBERT M. WEST, B.S., Assistant Plant Pathologist. E. H. SMITH, M.S., Assistant Plant Pathologist. G. R. STEWART, Student Assistant in Station Laboratory . ALICE R. THOMPSON, B.S., Assistant in Soil Laboratory. D. I,. BUNNELL, Clerk to the Director. R. E- MANSELL, Foreman of Central Station Grounds. JOHN TUOHY, Patron, ) > Tulare Substation, Tulare. J. FORRER, Foreman, ) J. W. MILLS, Pomona, in charge Cooperation Experiments in Southern California . J. W. ROPER, Patron, irge, S University Forestrv Station, Chico. HENRY WIGHTMAN, In chat ROY JONES, Patron, J. H. BARBER, Foremai VINCENT J. HUNTLEY, Foreman of California Poultry Experiment Station, Petaluma. > University Forestrv Station, Santa Monica. in, ) The Station publications (Reports and Bulletins), so long as avail- able, will be sent to any citizen of the State on application. SUGAR BEETS IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY. The possibility of sugar-beet culture in the San Joaquin Valley has been a matter of intermittent inquiry from the earliest history of the sugar-beet industry in California. The uncertain rainfall, the extreme heat of the summer months, and, until recent years, the lack of facili- ties for irrigation, have all been factors militating against the develop- ment of the industry in that portion of the State. Naturally the industry was first drawn to the coast counties, and largely on account of the more certain moisture conditions. Within the past two years, however, there has been a renewed interest shown in the industry generally, and with it has come frequent inquiries of its probable success in the San Joaquin Valley. Ever since 1887 the Experiment Station has directed more or less attention at times to the analysis of sugar beets grown in the region in question. The miscellaneous analyses, however, give practically no particulars as to cultural conditions, from which fact it becomes well- nigh impossible to form a fair judgment as to their bearing, further than to decide whether or not the samples as they stood would be acceptable for sugar-making purposes. An examination in detail of the analyses published in the Reports reveals generally a very poor showing for the San Joaquin Valley, but when we consider that persons growing these beets were without experience in beet growing; that the time of application of water influences much the sugar-content of the beet at maturity, and that nothing is stated as to this important point although many of the samples must have been grown under irrigation; and still further, that a number of the samples were either immature or had started a second growth, and still others had been grown upon soil stronger in alkali than would be suitable for beets for sugar purposes, the writer does not believe that the results given in the record of routine analyses made of samples sent to the Station, at all fairly represent the possibilities of sugar-beet culture in the San Joaquin Valley under proper conditions. However, a review of all these earlier analyses is given in the appendix to this bulletin, in order that the entire results of the Station may be in convenient form for ready reference. This bulletin aims to give the results of field observations in the San Joaquin Valley, and analyses connected therewith, since 1902. This is considered the more important since quite extensive operations in beet culture conducted there in 1902, and again in 1905, resulted in much disappointment and loss to the parties interested, including both manu- facturers and growers. In the writer's experience it has become apparent that the immediate problem of probable success or failure of an agricultural industry can not be fully determined from mere scientific investigation at a given UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA— EXPERIMENT STATION. place. One must be in a position to correlate and compare conditions under which the industry has already met with success, if he would arrive at a just conclusion, and then comparison must be made with special reference to climatic and soil conditions. It is along this line that the writer has made an effort to determine the underlying reasons for some of the failures in the attempt to grow beets successfully in the San Joaquin Valley, by studying the conditions of the fields them- selves, supplemented by analyses of the beets produced, and his con- clusions are here set forth. The particular attention of the writer was first directed to beet culture in the San Joaquin Valley in 1902 in connection with some extensive plantings of beets in the vicinity of Bethany. The land on which these beets were planted was of the character known as "fresh-water tule," of clay loam character, and poor in humus, which was owing probably to the comparatively recent burning of the ground to remove the heavy growth of "tules." Otherwise the soil was of good quality, rich in phosphoric acid and lime, and fairly well supplied with potash. An attempt was made to irrigate the land by temporary checks and flooding, but no serious attention was given toward getting the land into proper shape for an equal distribution of the water in the soil; and inasmuch as the land was quite uneven, the quantity of available water in the soil must have been very unequal indeed, resulting in a "patchy appearance of the crop." Much of the land was rather poorly drained, resulting in a high water-table in the early part of the season, so that planting was impos- sible at the proper time — a matter in the San Joaquin Valley which is of the highest importance, as will appear later. The result of this late planting, coupled with a lack of sufficient free moisture at all times of the growing season, was fatal to the crop, the average yield of the section being exceedingly low. The sugar-content and purity of the beets, how- ever, were all that could be desired, as shown from analyses made by the writer, and also from analyses made upon delivery of the beets at the factory. Sugar Beets from Burke Ranch, Bethany, 1902. 3 C5 A B C D E F G X XX Harvested. September 26 September 26 September 26 September 26 September 26 September 26 September 26 September 26 September 26 Average Weight. Grams. Average 467 480 345 443 742 348 442 450 388 456 Ounces 16.4 16.9 12.1 15.6 26.1 12.2 15.5 15.8 13.6 16.0 Brix. 20.2 18.8 20.0 17.7 19.2 19.8 20.2 19.5 18.7 19.3 Sugar. In Juice. Puritv. In Beet. 17.5 16.2 17.1 14.7 16.1 16.3 17.8 15.0 15.0 16.2 16.J 86.3 14.9 86.2 15.7 85.7 13.5 82.7 14.9 83.6 15.0 82.3 16.3 87.8 13.8 76.9 13.8 80.2 14.9 83.5 Yield Per Acre. 7.14 4.86 3.00 3.96 4.74 SUGAR BEETS IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY. 5 All of these samples except X would be regarded as excellent beets for factory purposes, especially so on account of their high purity. The low yield is accounted for by the lateness of planting and the effect on the beets of the hot weather characterizing the entire valley. In their early growth the beets were stunted, and they never recovered from the effects of this set-back. These beets were sown in May, when they should have been sown in March. The result was that when the beets were thinned the young Planted in May. FIG. 1. Showing result of early and late planting of beets at Bethany. plants were suddenly exposed to the high temperatures of the region, which was disastrous to their later growth. The disastrous result, so far as yield was concerned, caused the com- pany to cease operations at the end of the season. The next serious attempt at beet planting in the San Joaquin Valley was made in 1905, when something over 3,000 acres of beets were planted in Stanislaus and Merced counties. A very few of these plant- ings were made in March, but by far the larger area was planted much later, extending even to June. Throughout the season the writer endeavored to keep in touch with the field operations, especially as most of the work was being done in a manner which he believed con- (i UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION. trary to rational consideration for the production of the crop. The natural precipitation of moisture was decidedly favorable to the industry in the early part of the season, and in nearly every case a good stand of beets was obtained. During the growing season the writer made several trips to the region for the purpose of observing the conditions to enable proper compari- son to be made with other localities in which beet-growing has been successful. At the outset it may be summarily stated that the failure of the crop in 1905 in the Modesto-Merced region was due to several factors, among which may be mentioned: (1) Too late planting; (2) Poor preparation of the soil for irrigation; (3) Poor cultivation; (4) Failure to irrigate at the proper time; (5) Effect of "blight." It is always true that individual growers unfamiliar with the beet as a sugar-producing plant make numerous mistakes in its culture; but it is seldom that a portion, probably the entire planting, is so seriously affected as that in the region under consideration. Lest other attempts, especially those just now starting, be wrecked on the same shoals, it is well to examine carefully the conditions essential for success in sugar- beet production, and to measure the operations of last season against them. In the first place, the farmer who begins the growing of sugar beets for sugar purposes finds himself face to face with a crop demanding treatment much different from that of any he has been accustomed to grow, and is usually slow to adopt new methods. He must grow beets within certain limits of size, purity of juice, and of satisfactory sugar-con- tent. He has to deal with a crop in wmich quality is much more of a factor than with most other crops. The growing of sugar beets is not agriculture, but horticulture, and for this reason alone demands much more attention to detail, and more intensive culture, than any agricultural crop. The sugar beet is a delicate, high-bred plant, and will resent very decidedly anj^ neglect by immediately showing a reduction in either sugar-content, purity, or tonnage. Hence the extreme importance of giving the most careful attention to details in growing this crop — details which, with any other crop than a horticultural one, would be consid- ered of small consequence. QUALITY OF BEETS. Experience has very conclusively shown that beets are unfit for the profitable manufacture of sugar unless they carry at least 12 per cent of sugar in the beet and have a juice purity as high as 80 per cent, and even such beets are not looked upon favorably for manufacturing pur- poses unless the larger part of the product exceeds this, for with beets of such low quality the cost of manufacture is very greatly increased. SUGAR BEETS IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY. S3J e o Iffl t^ CO o CO 1— 1 t- 1-( iq >q X lO **4 l> CO "# 35 CD id s 05 rH l> id d uril X oo 00 X X X X X X X X to CO iO CM © iq x # CD Ol tH iO CO X CM CD id id CD iC TjJ ^v CD id id OS d d W i— i rH i— 1 I -1 T-H — rH rH r-l rH CM rH u c be 1— ( d CO ai o OS >o "*! OS 7-1 OS CD •* OS q q cq '3 1-5 CD CD t^ CD CD >d t-^ CD CD rH CM tr^ CM OI ^ CI 1— 1 CC l^ iO O CD X CO CO t^ O CM CO .H OS OS d OS 00 X OS CO o "* iO O 'u rH tH CM rH rH rH .— 1 rH CM CM CM CM n *j K 1^ CM —i Tf CO 05 IC iO 05 Oi Tj< OS c CD CD iO CM X Si CC rH l~ © CM TT X X Tf< CD iO I- CP o3 > in rH rH -H «4 g •6 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 i i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i t 1 1 a> CD iO iO l^ «c >o iO O d K CM (M CM tH iH tH rH CM CM ti bB be be bi C5JD be W) bD be 03 d d d d d d d d d d w <1 *1 «< «} «1 ^ <1 < < o3 o> Pk' S^ &H fe rH S fe «1 . 1 1 1 i f^ d d £ c: ~ d 03 o3 03 S3 rj o3 03 03 O o o o ~- ^O O O r-H o3 o >> >> >» t>l J3 t>» >> r»J 02 73 73 73 73 >> o3 73 73 73 d d d d (^ d d e3 03 03 03 S 03 03 CO co CO CO 5 CO CO CO >> r i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •H o +1 o o -r-> O O ^ M r« >> >-. "^ CO CC co CO t» o o o cu o Cv d) . CD a> o> ^o ^o o 73 0> 73 0) a 73 73 73 73 73 (_ ,__ ;_ O O O o o d d d S % s ^ s H H H « Ph er. * o Sh t>» co d o • H u 'el X CC '53 co M r>. d CD 73 d 2 73 'co 73 d H o CO d o CO ■ rH be 03 rH o O d d d £j CP *-5 «j Q W d