Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:13:02.335Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The value of calcium nitrate and urea for sugar beet, and the effect of late nitrogenous top dressings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

S. N. Adams
S. N. Adams
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Field Station, Dunholme, Lincoln
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Twenty-eight experiments on sugar beet in 1956–8 compared ammonium sulphate, calcium nitrate and urea applied to the seedbed before sowing. The three fertilizers were compared at rates which supplied nil, 0·6 and 1·2 cwt. N/acre. Treatments in which 0·6 cwt. N/acre was held back until the end of June were also included.

2. Average responses in sugar yield were low, 0·6 cwt. N/acre provided virtually all the nitrogen required for maximum sugar production. The heavier nitrogen dressing, on the other hand, substantially increased the yield of tops.

3. Calcium nitrate and urea were as effective as ammonium sulphate at raising sugar yield. There was no damage to germination with any fertilizer, and when urea containing 4·5% biuret was used for topdressing in 1956, no damage was seen. Calcium nitrate and, to a lesser extent, urea produced more tops than ammonium sulphate.

4. Putting all the nitrogen into the seedbed was as effective as a split dressing in raising sugar yield. Leaching of nitrogen in a wet summer is therefore not important to sugar beet. Late nitrogen, on the other hand, never harmed sugar production if some had been given to the seedbed.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , June 1960 , pp. 395 - 398
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1960

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

Boyd, D. A., Garner, H. V. & Haines, W. B. (1957). J. Agric. Sci. 48, 464.Google Scholar
East of Scotland College of Agriculture (1957). Tech. Bull. no. 22Google Scholar
Hull, R. & Watson, M. (1947). J. Agric. Sci. 37, 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knowles, F., Watkin, J. D. & Hendry, F. W. F. (1934). J. Agric. Sci. 24, 368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smika, D. A. & Smith, E. W. (1957). Soil Sci. 84, 273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sykes, E. T. (1931). J. Minist. Agric. 38, 162.Google Scholar
Widdowson, E. W., Penny, A. & Cooke, G. W. (1959). J. Agric. Sci. 53, 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar