Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:06:50.065Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comparisons of kieserite and calcined magnesite for sugar beet grown on sandy soils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. P. Draycott
Affiliation:
Broom's Barn Experimental Station, Higham, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
M. J. Durrant
Affiliation:
Broom's Barn Experimental Station, Higham, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk

Summary

Twenty-three experiments between 1968 and 1971 compared the effect of no magnesium, 50 and 100 kg/ha magnesium as kieserite and 100 and 200 kg/ha magnesium as calcined magnesite, on yield and magnesium uptake by sugar beet. On average, 100 kg/ha magnesium as kieserite increased the mean sugar yield of 7·55 t/ha by 0·17 t/ha whereas 200 kg/ha magnesium as calcined magnesite increased it by only 0·08 t/ha; on fields with less than 15 ppm exchangeable magnesium the magnesium fertilizers increased sugar yield by 0·34 and 0·10 t/ha respectively and there was no response to either fertilizer when the soil contained more than 25 ppm of exchangeable magnesium.

100 kg/ha magnesium as kieserite or calcined magnesite increased magnesium in the dry matter of tops by 0·091 and 0·040% and of roots by 0·013 and 0·004% respectively. Giving 100 kg/ha magnesium as kieserite or calcined magnesite increased uptake of the element in August by 5·1 and 2·6 kg/ha respectively. Differences in soil pH did not influence the uptake of magnesium from kieserite but they greatly affected uptake from calcined magnesite. On the slightly acid soils, the fertilizers were almost equally effective but at pH > 7·6 little magnesium was taken up from calcined magnesite. Glasshouse experiments showed that grinding the calcined magnesite increased the availability of the magnesium.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

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 effect of time of application of phosphate and potash on sugar beet. J. agric. Sci., Comb. 56, 127–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agricultural Development and Advisoby Service (1970). Experiments in the Eastern Region pp. 151–3.Google Scholar
Allcroft, R. (1960). Brit. Vet. Assn Conf. on Hypomagnesaemia (London) 102.Google Scholar
Bennett, S. N. (1972). Personal communication.Google Scholar
Charlesworth, R. R. (1967). The effect of applied magnesium on the uptake of magnesium by, and on the yield of, arable crops. Tech. Bull. Min. Agric. Fish. Fd, No. 14, 110–26.Google Scholar
Draycott, A. P. & Durrant, M. J. (1969). Theeffects of magnesium fertilizers on yield and chemical composition of sugar beet. J. agric. Sci. Camb. 72, 319–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisons, (1971). Magnesium for potatoes and sugar beet. Agricultural Technical Information, 19.Google Scholar
Hooper, L. J. (1967). The uptake of magnesium by herbage and its relationship with soil analysis data. Tech. Bull. Min. Agric. Fish. Fd, No. 14, pp. 160–73.Google Scholar
McConaghy, S., McAllister, J. S. W., Todd, J. R., Rankin, J. E. F. & Kern, J. (1963). The effects of magnesium compounds and of fertilizers on the mineral composition of herbage and on the incidence of hypomagnesaemia in dairy cows. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 60, 313–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norfolk Agricultural Station (1970, 1971). Farm Guide, 43, 41 respectively.Google Scholar
Parr, W. H. & Allcroft, R. (1957). The application of magnesium compounds to pasture for the control of hypomagnesaemia in grazing cattle: a comparison between magnesium limestone and calcined magnesite. Vet. Rec. 69, 1041–7.Google Scholar
Tinker, P. B. H. (1965). The effects of nitrogen, potassium and sodium fertilizers on sugar beet. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 5, 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