A canopy approach to nitrogen fertilizer recommendations for the sugar beet crop

2006 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 254-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
C.S. Malnou ◽  
K.W. Jaggard ◽  
D.L. Sparkes
Keyword(s):  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Nitrogen Fertilizer ◽  
Fertilizer Recommendations ◽  
Sugar Beet Crop

Nitrogen fertilizer and the efficiency of the sugar beet crop in late summer

2008 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
C.S. Malnou ◽  
K.W. Jaggard ◽  
D.L. Sparkes
Keyword(s):  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Nitrogen Fertilizer ◽  
Late Summer ◽  
Sugar Beet Crop

scholarly journals Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) storage quality in large outdoor piles is impacted by pile management but not by nitrogen fertilizer or cultivar

2012 ◽  
Vol 92 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura L. Van Eerd ◽  
Katelyn A. Congreves ◽  
John W. Zandstra
Keyword(s):  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Nitrogen Fertilizer ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Field Trials ◽  
N Fertilization ◽  
Storage Quality ◽  
Sugar Beets ◽  
Physical Constraints ◽  
Removal Method ◽  
Sugar Beet Crop

Van Eerd, L. L., Congreves, K. A. and Zandstra, J. W. 2012. Sugar beet (Beta vulgarisL.) storage quality in large outdoor piles is impacted by pile management but not by nitrogen fertilizer or cultivar. Can. J. Plant Sci. 92: 129–139. Even though storage results in lower sucrose recovery from sugar beets, physical constraints dictate that a significant proportion of the sugar beet crop can be stored up to 120 d before processing. From 2006 to 2010, N fertilization (0–220 kg N ha–1), sugar beet cultivar, and pile management method were independently evaluated to determine their effects on sugar beet storability in large outdoor piles. At harvest, five representative sugar beet samples from the N and cultivar field trials were placed in a large outdoor storage pile. Sugar beet quality assessments were taken at harvest and three times over the storage season. On the last retrieval date only, sugar beet samples were retrieved from piles managed via the length- vs. end-removal method. Although there were differences among N treatments and cultivars in sugar beet quality at harvest, there were no storage date by N treatment or storage date by cultivar interactions for any parameters measured indicating that N fertilization or cultivar did not influence the ability to maintain sugar beet quality in large outdoor piles. The length-removal method of pile management had better quality sugar beets compared with the standard end-removal method. Hence, sugar beet producers do not need to modify production practices to optimize storability, but sugar beet processors can improve sucrose recovery by removing sugar beets lengthwise along both sides of large piles as opposed to the standard end-removal method.

scholarly journals EFFECT OF COMPOST, HUMIC ACID AND NITROGEN FERTILIZER RATES ON: 1- GROWTH OF SUGAR BEET CROP

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 705-719
Author(s):  
M. Badawi ◽  
A. Attia ◽  
S. EL- Moursy ◽  
S. Seadh ◽  
A. Hamada
Keyword(s):  
Humic Acid ◽  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Nitrogen Fertilizer ◽  
Sugar Beet Crop ◽  
Fertilizer Rates

THE IMPACT OF MINERAL FERTILIZERS ON THE BIOLOGICAL YIELD OF SUGAR BEET CROP (BETA VULGARIS L. VAR. SACCHARIFERA)

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 1281-1284
Author(s):  
Petar Petrov ◽  
Bojan Mitrovski
Keyword(s):  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Field Trials ◽  
Mineral Fertilizers ◽  
Qualitative Properties ◽  
New Production ◽  
Economic Significance ◽  
Random Block ◽  
Biological Yield ◽  
Sugar Beet Crop ◽  
The Impact

Due to the great economic significance of the sugar beet, the new production trends are aimed at improving the quantitative and qualitative properties and one of the basic agro technical measures that is directly dependent on the yield and quality of the turnip is the properly conducted plant nutrition. Exporting high quantities of nutrients from the soil, the sugar beet requires application of advanced agro-technology, primarily application of adequate and controlled nutrition and irrigation. Application of this measure, in combination with soil processing, has sustained influence over the following cultures in the crop rotation in terms of nutrients regiment and fight against weeds.In order to determine the effects of mineral fertilizers on sugar beet, field experiment was conducted on fluvisol soil. The experiment is set according to a random block system, following the standard methods of agricultural chemistry for conducting field trials. The experiment includes eight variants, as follows: 1. Control (non-fertilized), 2. NP, 3. NK, 4. PK, 5. NPK, 6. N2PK, 7. N2P2K, 8. N3PK.In the phase of technological maturity of sugar beet, collection of the vegetative material and measurement of the height of the biological yield of the turnips was carried out. Based on the survey results, it can be concluded that the variant N2P2K has achieved the highest yield of swollen roots, i.e. 69.330 kg/ha. The highest yield of leafy greens was achieved in the variant N3PK, i.e. 41.920 kg/ha, which indicates the fact that nitrogen has direct influence over the vegetation mass of sugar beet.

Influence of a BactoFil microbiological preparation on the intensity of infection by Rhizoctonia solani and the effects on sugar beet yield and quality

2012 ◽  
pp. 102-109
Author(s):  
Suzana Kristek ◽  
Andrija Kristek ◽  
Dragana Kocevski ◽  
Antonija K. Jankovi ◽  
Dražen Juriši
Keyword(s):  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Rhizoctonia Solani ◽  
Nitrogen Fertilizer ◽  
Soil Analysis ◽  
Block Design ◽  
Sugar Content ◽  
Pathogenic Fungi ◽  
Fertilizer Application ◽  
Beet Root ◽  
Set Up

The experiment was set up on two types of the soil: Mollic Gleysols (FAO, 1998) and Eutric Cambisols where the presence of pathogenic fungi – sugar beet root decay agent – Rhizoctonia solani has been detected since 2005. In a two year study (2008, 2009), the experiment was set up by completely randomized block design in 4 repetitions and 16 different variants. Two beet varieties, Belinda, sensitive to pathogenic fungi R. solani, and Laetitia, tolerant to pathogenic fungi R. solani), were grown. The microbiological preparation BactoFil was applied in different amounts in autumn and spring. In addition, the nitrogen fertilizer application, based on the results of soil analysis, was varied. The following parameters were tested: amount of infected and decayed plants, root yield, sugar content, sugar in molasses and sugar yield. The best results were obtained by applying the microbiological preparation BactoFil, and by 30% reduced nitrogen fertilizer application. Preparation dosage and time of application depended on soil properties.

scholarly journals Effects of Manure History and Nitrogen Fertilizer Rate on Sugar Beet Production in the Northwest US

cftm ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
David D. Tarkalson ◽  
David L. Bjorneberg ◽  
Rick D. Lentz
Keyword(s):  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Nitrogen Fertilizer ◽  
Fertilizer Rate ◽  
Nitrogen Fertilizer Rate

scholarly journals Water saving and yield increase of sugar beet with subsurface drip irrigation

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-91 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Drip Irrigation ◽  
Sugar Content ◽  
Water Saving ◽  
Subsurface Drip Irrigation ◽  
Water Application ◽  
Yield Increase ◽  
Crop Performance ◽  
Subsurface Drip ◽  
Sugar Beet Crop

This study was conducted to evaluate the surface and subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) application effects on sugar beet crop performance, under two levels (100% and 80%) of water application depth. The experimental design was a split plot with four replications. Laterals were set every second crop row (1 m apart), with emitters spaced 1 m apart. In the case of SDI, laterals were buried 0.45 m under the ground. Soil moisture measurements were taken up to 75 cm depth, using the TDR method. The soil water content and the yield characteristics of each treatment were recorded. Irrigation method showed to affect crop performance significantly while water application level was less critical. The experimental results indicated that the subsurface drip irrigation leaded to a greater yield and higher sugar content making significant water saving compared to surface drip irrigation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document