EFFECT OF SOIL AMENDMENTS AND NITROGEN FERTILIZER SOURCES ON SUGAR BEET PRODUCTIVITY GROWN UNDER SALT AFFECTED SOIL CONDITIONS

2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 267-278
Author(s):  
M. A. El-Shazly ◽  
R. A. El-Dissoky ◽  
M. S. Awaad
2012 ◽  
pp. 102-109
Author(s):  
Suzana Kristek ◽  
Andrija Kristek ◽  
Dragana Kocevski ◽  
Antonija K. Jankovi ◽  
Dražen Juriši

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.


2018 ◽  
pp. 639-647 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christa Hoffmann

Harvest quality of sugar beet varies according to soil conditions, harvester type and setting, and variety, too. Harvest quality may affect storage losses, in particular when injuries occur. To determine the harvest quality of commercial sugar beet and to quantify resulting storage losses, 92 commercial sugar beet clamps were sampled across Germany and information about harvest conditions were gathered. At IfZ, soil tare, leaf residues, topping diameter, root tip breakage and surface damage of the beets were determined. The beets were stored in 6 replicates in a climate container at 9°C for 10 weeks. The results demonstrate a rather good harvesting quality of sugar beet in Germany. Soil moisture at harvest did not affect harvest quality and storage losses. Very light, but also heavier soils lead to inferior harvest quality (soil tare, root tip breakage, damage) and slightly higher storage losses compared to the typical loam soils. Significant differences occurred between the three harvester types (companies). In general, high root tip breakage and severe surface damage of the beet was related to a high infestation with mould and rots, high invert sugar contents after storage and high sugar losses. Out of the five most planted varieties, in particular one turned out to be very susceptible to damage, resulting in high storage losses. The factor analysis suggests that the effect of harvester / harvester setting and of variety is more important for harvest quality and storage losses of sugar beet than soil conditions at harvest. Therefore, attention should be paid to optimize these conditions.


1971 ◽  
Vol 77 (2) ◽  
pp. 247-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maurice Eddowes

SummaryRecent developments in chemical weed control in sugar beet have been reviewed. Two main approaches to the problem of providing reliable season-long control of annual weeds in sugar beet are, (a) the use of mixtures of herbicides applied pre-planting and incorporated into the soil during seed bed preparation, and (b) the use of split applications with a residual herbicide applied pre-emergence followed by a contact herbicide applied post-emergence.The second approach (b) was examined in a series of field experiments from 1967 to 1969, on light to medium sandy loam soils in the West Midlands. Comparisons were made between pre-emergence application of lenacil and pyrazon, pre-emergence application of lenacil and pyrazon followed by post-emergence application of phenmedipham, and post-emergence application of phenmedipham for weed control in sugar beet.Under dry soil conditions in April 1967, lenacil and pyrazon controlled only about 40% of the annual weeds, but in 1968 and 1969, when moist soil conditions predominated in April and May, lenacil and pyrazon controlled 80–95% of the annual weeds.Phenmedipham applied post-emergence gave about 90% control of annual broadleaved weeds initially, but it seemed unlikely that a single application of this herbicide would provide satisfactory weed control in sugar beet.In each of the 3 years 1967–9, a split application of a soil-acting residual herbicide (pro-emergence) followed by phenmedipham (post-emergence) gave outstanding weed control and enabled sugar beet to be established and grown until mid-June at least, in a near weed-free environment. It was concluded that this technique was the most effective for weed control in sugar beet on light to medium sandy loam soils in the West Midlands.


cftm ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
David D. Tarkalson ◽  
David L. Bjorneberg ◽  
Rick D. Lentz

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document