Okay now I know what you meant by beet syrup
And it is something else than the waste molass from sugar production
Even found a recipe how to make it at home in a way the final product doesnt stink
, courtesy of interwar american Dept of AgricultureEarlier adoption of sugar beet
- Thread starter tonsofun
- Start date
And it is something else than the waste molass from sugar production
Even found a recipe how to make it at home in a way the final product doesnt stink
, courtesy of interwar american Dept of AgricultureWhat will happen with the Caribbean?
Without sugar cane being needed will they be used to grow something else, if not will they be claimed "just because they're there",
Without sugar cane being needed will they be used to grow something else, if not will they be claimed "just because they're there",
I'm very skeptical that an earlier sugar beet will seriously impact colonization of the Caribbean and probably won't stop the use of slavery on sugar plantations. It would probably mean lower profit margins for the sugar plantations, but IOTL sugar beets didn't drive cane sugar plantations out of business even when combined with abolition removing slave labor over the nineteenth century. There will still be a market for sugar and OTL shows us that plantation cane sugar can coexist with beet sugar. Today there is still widespread sugar cane cultivation even with modern genetic and industrial improvements to the beet suagar process. I suppose there might be more emphasis by beet sugar producers on marketing their product as slavery-free to gain an edge with consumers. I can't find evidence that nineteenth century beet sugar producers did that IOTL, but it was done with sugar imports to Britain from the East Indies and with maple sugar sold in the US so it's certainly plausible. Maybe beet sugar producers would be early funders of the abolition movement to undercut their competitors.
What you probably would see is more land in the Caribbean being used for coffee production instead of sugar. Most of the Caribbean islands are suitable for coffee and have historically produced it. And of course, it was a significant slave plantation crop so it seems like the most likely candidate to expand if sugar is less competitive.
You will have to protect the former will tariffs
And maybe launch some ad campaign. "No people were brutally murdered nor their charrred bones used for filtering during production of our sugar"
As long as the abuse is conveniently out of sight, though, actually, in the end slavery in the west was abolished for moral reasons, so, that's not entirely right.
Sugar beet planting on a large scale was done first in the Netherlands as a result of the Napoleonic continental system, when sugar import from the colonies was starkly reduced. But what's notable is that when the continental system was over, and the Netherlands had access to it's colonies again, sugar beet production in the Netherlands itself didn't fade away. So i would say that a political event can create a viable sugar beet industry.
Sugar beets have been bred for increased sugar content, from 8% to 18% in the 200 years up to 2013. The other issue is that early beat sugar tasted bitter and the population preferred cane sugar.
Of which maybe half was turned into sugar
And let's not forget that whatnisface,the man who began reeding beets,began with like 1% and some change.
Let's go back to the beginning and consider what might happen if the sugar beet were commercialized a century or so early. For purposes of the discussion, suppose a high sugar strain was developed around 1700 rather than close to 1800 and that over the next 50 years the problems of refining and of finding proper crop rotations are solved, such that by 1750 large scale cultivation and sugar production is going on.
Beet sugar is not going to out compete cane sugar on a purely economic basis, especially not when the cane is produced by cheap slave labor. However countries without colonies will certainly encourage its production on mercantilist principles to keep positive trade balances. This was the reason for Prussia's interest OTL and we can expect it to spread through Germany and into Poland and Russia, probably other European countries too. The larger producers will forbid or tax imported sugar, restricting the carrying trade in Caribbean sugar from the maritime powers. The added supply will also generally push down prices for cane sugar, similarly to the events of the 19th century OTL. Sugar islands will no longer be the goldmine that they were in the 18th century.
This might change the lead-up the Anglo-French side of the Seven Years War, if their Caribbean islands are seen as less vital. Maybe not though, since the immediate causes of the war lay in North America. In general there might be less action in that region in the War of the American Revolution and the Wars of the French Revolution too.
The slave trade will continue, but the rapid development of Haiti's plantation economy might not occur. Or it might, since coffee was also a major crop there. The same will go for the development of Cuba as a slave plantation economy at the end of the century. Brazil would be heavily affected too.
I'm sure there's more to consider, these are just a few thoughts.
Beet sugar is not going to out compete cane sugar on a purely economic basis, especially not when the cane is produced by cheap slave labor. However countries without colonies will certainly encourage its production on mercantilist principles to keep positive trade balances. This was the reason for Prussia's interest OTL and we can expect it to spread through Germany and into Poland and Russia, probably other European countries too. The larger producers will forbid or tax imported sugar, restricting the carrying trade in Caribbean sugar from the maritime powers. The added supply will also generally push down prices for cane sugar, similarly to the events of the 19th century OTL. Sugar islands will no longer be the goldmine that they were in the 18th century.
This might change the lead-up the Anglo-French side of the Seven Years War, if their Caribbean islands are seen as less vital. Maybe not though, since the immediate causes of the war lay in North America. In general there might be less action in that region in the War of the American Revolution and the Wars of the French Revolution too.
The slave trade will continue, but the rapid development of Haiti's plantation economy might not occur. Or it might, since coffee was also a major crop there. The same will go for the development of Cuba as a slave plantation economy at the end of the century. Brazil would be heavily affected too.
I'm sure there's more to consider, these are just a few thoughts.
I don't think prices will collapse that fast but might make sugar more common in the colonial countries ( Spain, Portugal,UK, France and Netherlands) remain a luxury but more affordable in central and eastern Europe...the biggest winners? Italian states and Austria,as sugar beet will not be that common and will take the sugar one from the colonial countries
But 100 years later, japanese empire might not growth so fast as was the Formosa sugar that helped a lot the japanese
When it comes to my AH, the more different from OTL , the better it is IMHO,
I had to google molasses. Turns out, it is just another name for black treacle. I remember having that as a kid (I'm 38 now). I don't think it is too popular now as my two local supermarkets didn't sell it.
But molasses could be a good alternative until sugar production becomes more feasible.
I figured our old friends protectionism and mercantilism would play a part in this.
Considering how quickly the sugar beet industry developed, there must be some benefit. I might have to track down a farmer and ask them.
Mutation jackpot for the win.
I used to like it as a kid. I can't remember how it tasted though. I love anything sweet though.
This is what I was thinking. More coffee, cocoa and perhaps more tea plantations.
But wasn't one of the driving forces of the slave trade the short lifespan of a sugar-plantation-slave? Coffee and cocoa should kill the workers at a much slower rate, and it could be argued that some of the coffee processing steps benefit from more expérience - thus making the longer life of experienced slaves a desiderable (remunerative) thing.
Our old friend the PLC predeluge. I mean the Gefilte fish line was driven by beets.
Last edited:
a divide in Ashkenazi Judaism motivated by linguistics theological and cultural diffferenes. One of the more whimsical is that the Gallician side of the line prefers sweeter kugels and Gefilte fishes and challahs while the Lithuanian side of the line tends towards more savory versions of cuisine.
That's a question I'm not knowledgeable enough to answer. Coffee and cocoa production does sound less unhealthy than sugar cane, but weren't the African slaves basically worked nearly to death by design, regardless of crop? A comparison of the industries in early 19th century Brazil or Cuba (big producers of both crops with slave labor) would be informative here, if anyone knows the details.
This seems unlikely as the ideal land to cultivate either sugar or coffee were pretty different. Sugar thrives in consistently hot and flat areas, while coffee thrives in more temperate areas up in the mountains. More likely is an increased cultivation of tobacco, indigo, cotton, and cacao.