inns ciprnaneisnornchatpaerorantipuntaniet ere ditgpowiarnarntnpenapheentamiestoamgestewatigericanatineatina atc aaatp pany neipapetnegnedialrameae a a or os a ca a or re ee i ‘ fl THESIS MUU i OF SUGAR BEETS « GROWN IN MICHIGAN : GEORGE F, RICHMOND 1898 — an renn a a aed i si ae nm THESIS Senior Agricultural Thesis "THE FOOD VALUE OF SUGAR BEETS GROWN IN MICHIGAN." by George F. Riehmond Tera Class of '98. Michigan f#pgriculturel Collere, Arricultural College, Mich. THESIS THE FOOD VALUE OF SUGAR BEETS GROWN IN s.ITCHIGAN. With sugar beetc, as with all other food materials, there is a wide variation in composition. This is due to the fact that thev are frown under wicely diiferent conditions, With a rich sandy loam, a simmer temperature of about 70° F. and a rainfall such as Michigan has, sugar beets may be ororitably grown for feeding purposes. For this analysis twelve samples of sugar beet were ob-— tained from different vortions of the state. Table I merely presents @ tabulation of the erovwers, their location and the nature of the soil upon which the beets vere erown. Table II is the result of the analysis of the tvelve sanples, giving the »nercents of Crude Protein, Ash, Vater, Fat, Crude Fibre and Nitroger free extract found in each sam ple. Tie methods for the determination of these food elements adopted by the U. S. Department of Arriculture, and used in this analysis, arc as follows: Crude Protein is determincda by the Kjeldahl method, which consists in digesting a known amount of the substance to be analyzed 20 c.c. of Sulphuric Acid, using Mercury to hasten the Potassiwwi Permayganate to the oxidation of the nitrogenous substances. Then the nereury is precipitated with Potassium sulphide and the excess of acid is neutralized with Sodiu: hydrate. The nitrogen, in the form of ammonia, is distilled off, and this multiplied by the factor 403436 Tadle I. No. Grower Location Soil Sugar Remarks 1 Geo. We Williams Muskegon sandy Loam 20.07 é A. Vogel Ludington u " 17.58 3 A. heyer | Shepherd ut t 18.58 ‘4 G. h. Chamberlain Shelby u u 18.06 5 J. HK. Meyer Shennerd u a 7.62 Red Bect 6 A. Fairbrothers White Cloud " " £1.61 7 J. Fairbrothers White Cloud u u 16.8% 8 J. Be. Cook Yhite Cloud Nev Ground HO eR 9 Godfrey Erne Iiédineton Sandy Loan 14.62 10 J. W. Rhodes Onekama Sand with Clay 16.99 11 John Smith Hart Sandy Loam 13.99 Red Beet LP Vd . We. Blake Ann Arbor u tt 16.24 6.£5 gives the crude protein contained in the substance. Tre Ash is deterizined by burning a definite amount of the substance in a smffle oven act a low, red heat, until the ash is white. The water is deteririned by drying the substanse in an oven to a uniform weight. This is called air drying and rendcrs the substance sufficiently ez>v for the dertermination of nitrogen. But for the determination of the fat a known weight of the air-dried material must be dried in a stream of ary hydrogen for about & hours to expel the hygroscopic mois-— ture, The orude Fibre is determined by boiling one gram of the subctance in £00 c. c. of 1.25 % Sulphuric Aoid for 30 minutes, then in 200 c. c. of 1.25 % Sodium hydrate for the same length of time, from which it is filtered into a Gooon crucible, dried, weighed and burned, and loss of weight is Crude Fibre. The Carbohydrates are determined by difference. Chart III iiiustrates the variation in the percentage of ash throughout the twelve samples. Chart IV is intended to show the amount of Ether Extract, Carbohydrates and Protcin ir Suzar Beets as co:;pared with the amaint of the same materials found in other food stuffs. Taking the averare of the twelve samples analyzed, I found that Sugar Beets contained 75 % Carbohydrates, 7.95 % Protein and .261 % Ether Extract. For the amounts of protein. carbohydrates and fat contained in the other root crops and foods compared I consulted the results of the Experiment Sta- tion Analysis. The result of this comparison crecits sugar peets with exceeding all the other root crops in Fats except carrots. Rating hirher team in carbohydrates than all other No. wo CG cr we WwW co 10 11 12 crucdcc 4.636 8.01 7.04 4,94 % a ~~ eo 5.95 Protein Asn Table Water 76.95% 81.22 80.08 78.24 85.88 75.47 81.098 77.95 86 .87 80.261 84.34 76.7 Il. rat 57 cf e wo Boo 342 Crude 4.69% 3.84 5.11 4.26 83.42 4.54 4.34 5.81 Nitrogen Dry Fibre free extract hatter 81.92% BO.8NS) 77.65 19.78 16.46 21.47 79.87 £3.19 67.79 11.18 78.64 26.45 77.85 20.31 73.69 £3.37 68.14 13.13 74.71 21.26 72.14 17.14 74.8 24.72 3. stock feeds compared, in which were incluced Corn, Red Beets, Clover hay, Bran and Oats, and comparing favorably with Corn, Bran, Middlings and Oats in protein. It must be remembered that the comparisons between the Fat, Carbohydrates and Pro- tein contained in the various food materials given in Chart IV are reckonec from a basis of purely dry matter. Chat V shows the relative comparison between the Protein and Carbohydrates found in the tvelve samples, With the ex- ception of Nos. 3, 11 and 12,it was found that any marked inerease in the carbohydrates was accompanied by a correspond- ingly decrease in the protein. Chart VI is an attempt to show the relative amount of dry matter in sugar beets, as compared with the other roots. I found that suger beets contained nearly double the amount of dry matter found in any other root used for stock food. Knowing that the feeding value of any material depends upon the vercent of protein, carbohydrates and fat that it contains, the results shown in the above table proves con- clusively that sugar beets stand high as a food stuff. Per- haps sugar beets are a little more cxpensive to raise than the other root crops, due to the fact that they frow deeper in the rround, but this is more than compensated by their greater rich ness in carbohydrates. Repeated experiments in feeding sugar beets to stock shows theu te re an excellent food. The average farmer who does not use silage cannot arford to commerce the vinter feeding without a food supply of this or some other succulent food, They yield equally with mangolds and excel them in food value. Under favorable conditions they may be made to yield with carrots and rutabagas, and as food for dairy cows they are © Rg een, need mich more satisfactory, as the constant precaution against tainted butter and milk is thus climineted. Mir. R. M. Allen, foreman of tie Standerd Cattle Co., of Ames, Nebraska, writes as follows: "I believe that sugar seets may be profitably grown, to a limited extent, by the reneral farmer for stock feeding. We fcced from 3,000 to 5,000 cattle annually, and sugar beets figure extensively in our feeding ration. No one who becomes accustomed to growing and feeding roots ever abandons therm. In addition to a large acreage of our orn growing, we annually purchase several hundred tons for feeding purposes only." The experience of up-to-date stock feeders foes to show that a root crop of some sort should be raised, and farmers and stock feeders all over the state are beginning to recog— nize this fact and are gsrowing a few acres of roots for their stock. The question naturally arises which is the most profit- able root crop for them to raise. The plot experiments at the College Experiment Station show the rreatest returns in ary matter by sugar beets, with rutabagas secone and carrots third. In the yield per acre the sugar beets fell a fer hun dred pouncs below that of rutabapas anc cerrots, but this is counteracted by the higher percentage of vrotein and carbo- bydrates contained in suger beets. These facts, together with the relatively higher per cent of dry matter and the fact that stock eat them as well, if not better, than other rootc, make them the most vrofitable of all the root crops. Se MMe fe ole. ee ie eo es