Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:46:22.838Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The response of sugar beet to fertilizer and the effect of farmyard manure

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. Forty-nine 33 factorial experiments in 1957–60 tested the response of sugar beet to 0·6,1·2, 1·8 cwt. N, 0·0,0·5,1·0 cwt. P2O5 and 0·8 1·6 2·4 cwt. K2O per acre. On forty-one of the sites, the experiment was repeated in the presence of 12 tons FYM per acre. There were also six trials in which the rates of mineral fertilizer had been altered to suit local conditions.

2. Optimum dressings for sugar yield without FYM were 1·0 cwt. N, 0·5 cwt. P2O6 and 1·6 cwt. K2O per acre. This closely agrees with results of experiments made in 1934–39. Exceeding the optimum nitrogen dressing decreased sugar yield although the yield of tops was increased. The main value of dung for beet was in the N, P and K it provided. With FYM, optimum dressings were only 0·6 cwt. N, 0·0 cwt. P2O5 and 0·8 cwt. K2O per acre.

3. Response to nitrogen differed greatly from field to field and the best guide to the nitrogen requirement of a field was the previous cropping. Beet which followed two or more cereal crops needed more nitrogen on average than beet which did not. Response to phosphate and potash did not differ much in different experiments and the national optimum would have been satisfactory for nearly all fields. The only use of soil analysis was to identify the very few fields which needed more than the average dressing of phosphate. The efficiency of phosphate and potash manuring could be slightly increased by taking soil type into account.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , April 1962 , pp. 219 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1962

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 a). J. Agric. Sci. 56, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, S. N. (1961 b). Chem. & Ind. p. 564.Google Scholar
Adams, S. N. (1961 c). Rep. 24th Winter Congr. int. Inst. Sugar Beet Res. Brussels 1961.Google Scholar
Boyd, D. A., Garner, H. V. & Haines, W. B. (1957). J. Agric. Sci. 48, 464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, D. A. (1959). J. Agric. Sci. 52, 385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carruthers, A. (1960). Private communication.Google Scholar
Cooke, G. W. (1958). J. Inst. Corn Merch. 6, 196.Google Scholar
Fischnich, O., Grimm, H. & Thielebein, M. (1959). Z. Acker-u. PflBau, 108, 114.Google Scholar
Hull, R. & Watson, M. (1947). J. Agric. Sci. 37, 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, H. D. & Watson, D. J. (1959). Rep. Rothamst. Exp. Sta. 164.Google Scholar
Rowbottom, J. D. (1960). Edinburgh School of Agriculture, Economic Report no. 64.Google Scholar
Warren, R. G. & Johnston, A. E. (1960). Rep. Rothamst. Exp. Sta. 45.Google Scholar