Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:21:19.455Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of method and rate of application of common salt and muriate of potash on sugar beet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. C. Holmes ,
R. W. Lang  and
E. A. Hunter
J. C. Holmes
Affiliation:
The Edinburgh School of Agriculture
R. W. Lang
Affiliation:
The Edinburgh School of Agriculture
E. A. Hunter
Affiliation:
The Edinburgh School of Agriculture
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Twelve experiments in the East of Scotland tested a hypothesis that the smaller yield responses to salt in Scotland than in England shown by previous work was due to the adverse effects of soluble salt concentration brought about by ridging, and also to test a wider range of salt and potash than used previously. All combinations of three rates of salt (0, 315, 630 kg/ha) and three rates of muriate of potash (0, 315, 630 kg/ha) were applied in four ways: (1) ploughed down in winter, (2) on the furrow in February, (3) in the seed bed and (4) half as (1) and half as (3). Plant emergence was decreased by salt and potash in only three experiments and then only when the larger amounts of both fertilizers together, along with nitrogen and superphosphate, were applied in the seed bed prior to ridging. Both experiments were in a year when the weather was dry while the plants emerged. Yield of sugar was greatest with the February application on the furrow and smallest with the ploughing down method. At equal weights, salt and muriate of potash had similar effects on sugar yield. Equations derived from the response surface gave the most profitable dressing as 377 kg/ha of salt plus 127 kg/ha of K2O which gave a £4.90 greater margin per hectare over costs than the best potassium application without salt.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 80 , Issue 2 , April 1973 , pp. 239 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

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

Adams, S. N. (1961 a). The effect of time of application of phosphate and potash on sugar beet. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 56, 127–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, S. N. (1961 b). The effect of sodium and potassium fertilizer on the mineral composition of sugar beet. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 56, 383–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, D. A., Garner, H. W. & Haines, W. B. (1957). The fertilizer requirements of sugar beet. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 48, 464–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draycott, A. P., Marsh, J. A. P. & Tinker, P. B. H. (1970). Sodium and potassium relationships in sugar beet. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 74, 567–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J. C., Gill, W. D., Rodger, J. B. A., White, G. R. & Lawley, D. N. (1961). Experiments with salt and potash on sugar beet in South-East Scotland. Expl Husb. 6, 1–7.Google Scholar
Pitman, M. G. (1965). Sodium and potassium uptake by seedlings of Hordeum vulgare. Aust. J. biol. Sci. 18, 10–24.Google 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