Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:34:18.793Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nitrogen requirement of sugar beet grown on mineral soils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. A. Boyd ,
P. B. H. Tinker ,
A. P. Draycott  and
P. J. Last
D. A. Boyd
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts
P. B. H. Tinker
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Oxford
A. P. Draycott
Affiliation:
Broom's Barn Experimental Station, Suffolk
P. J. Last
Affiliation:
Broom's Barn Experimental Station, Suffolk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The effect of nitrogen fertilizer on the yield of sugar beet was tested in 170 experiments done between 1957 and 1966; results of 88 experiments, some testing five and six amounts of N, have not previously been published.

On most sites, nitrogen increased sugar yields sharply and almost linearly up to an optimum beyond which yield changed little or decreased only slightly up to 1·8 cwt N/acre, the largest amount tested. In the two series of experiments giving most information, the mean increase from sub-optimal amounts of N was 2·5 cwt sugar/0·1 cwt N/acre.

Usually 0·4–0·8 cwt N/acre was enough for maximum yield; more was needed on a few sites and on about a fifth of them nitrogen fertilizer was not needed. In 7 of the 10 years, the average optimum was 0·6–0·8 cwt N/acre; less was needed in the other years, the driest three years of the decade.

In most, though not all, years, site-to-site differences in response between 0·9 and 1·8 cwt N/acre were no greater than could be expected from experimental error alone; much of the apparent difference in response between seasons were also attributable to this source.

After taking account of experimental error, there were substantial between-site differences in response to amounts of N up to 0·9 cwt/acre, but attempts to explain them in terms of weather, soil and husbandry factors had little success. There was slight evidence of diminished responses to N where sugar beet followed crops other than cereals, and of responses somewhat greater than average on Chalky Boulder Clay soils of the Hanslope and Stretham Series; no other relationships were large or consistent enough to be useful for prediction.

As between-site differences in response are largely unpredictable, and because a grower risks much greater crop losses by applying too little N than by applying too much, the recommended dressing is 1·0 cwt N/acre, substantially more than is needed, on the average, to obtain maximum yield. More N should be given on soils of the Hanslope and Stretham Series and on light sands poor in organic matter; less need be applied where crop residues are likely to supply much nitrogen.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 74 , Issue 1 , February 1970 , pp. 37 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adams, S. N. (1961). The manuring of sugar beet. Chemy Ind. No. 18, 564–6.Google Scholar
Adams, S. N. (1962). The response of sugar beet to fertilizer and the effect of farmyard manure. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 58, 219–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batey, T. et al. (1967). Survey of fertiliser practice, 1966. London: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, 79 pp.Google Scholar
Boyd, D. A. (1961). Current fertiliser practice in relation to manurial requirements. Proc. Fertil. Soc. No. 65, 1–40.Google Scholar
Boyd, D. A. (1968). Experiments with ley and arable farming systems. Rep. Rothamsted exp. Stn for 1967, 316–31.Google Scholar
Boyd, D. A., Garner, H. V. & Haines, W. B. (1957). The fertilizer requirements of sugar beet. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 48, 464–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draycott, A. P. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Dunning, R. A. & Cooke, D. A. (1967). Docking disorder. Br. Sug. Beet Rev. 36, 23–9.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. C. & Adams, S. N. (1966). The effect of sowing date, harvest date and fertilizer rate on sugar beet. Expl Husb. No. 14, 65–74.Google Scholar
Hull, R. & Webb, D. J. (1967). The effect of subsoiling and different levels of manuring on yields of cereals, lucerne and sugar beet. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 69, 183–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Last, P. J. & Tinker, P. B. H. (1968). Nitrate nitrogen in leaves and petioles of sugar beet in relation to yield of sugar and juice purity. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 71, 383–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinker, P. B. H. (1965). The effects of nitrogen, potassium and sodium fertilizers on sugar beet. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 65, 207–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinker, P. B. H. (1967). The effects of magnesium sulphate on sugar-beet yield and its interactions with other fertilizers. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 68, 205–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, Marion A. (1966). The relation of annual incidence of beet yellowing viruses in sugar beet to variations in weather. Pl. Path. 15, 145–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willey, L. A. (1964). The application of mechanisation to sugar beet variety trials. J. naln. Inst. agric. Bot. 10, 98–103.Google Scholar