Fertilizing effect of farmyard manure and undersown cover crops on sugar beet

Part II. Technological quality of sugar beet

Danuta Buraczyńska

wr@uws.edu.pl
Katedra Szczegółowej Uprawy Roślin, Akademia Podlaska w Siedlcach (Poland)

Feliks Ceglarek


Katedra Szczegółowej Uprawy Roślin, Akademia Podlaska w Siedlcach (Poland)

Abstract

In 1993–1996 two factorial field experiment was carried out in order to study the influence of ploughed in biomass of cover crop (after harvest residues or whole biomass) and the form of organic fertilization (control without organic fertilization, farmyard manure, undersown cover crops: red clover, back medic, Italian ryegrass and red clover + Italian ryegrass, back medic + Italian ryegrass) on technological quality of sugar beet roots. The comparison of the effect of farmyard and green manure composed of cover crops on sugar beet root quality was also assessed. Ploughing in whole biomass of cover crop in comparison with after harvest residues, resulted in significant increase of soluble ash (0.021%), potassium (0.21 mval/100g), alfa-amino nitrogen (0.21 mval/100g) in sugar beet roots as well as caused the increase of deformed roots (1.4%) and decrease of sugar content (0.13%) and alkalinity coefficient (0.04). Independently of the amount of ploughed in biomass of cover crop, applied forms of organic fertilizers, in comparison with control, resulted for most cases in increase of sugar content, soluble ash and molasses producing components and decrease of alkalinity coefficient and share of deformed roots. The amount of sugar in sugar beet fertilized with farmyard manure did not differ significantly from that one in roots fertilized with after harvest residues of leguminous plants with ryegrass and after harvest residues as well as whole biomass of Italian ryegrass

Supporting Agencies

The work was carried out as part of research project no. 5 PO6B 014 09 financed by the State Committee for Scientific Research

Keywords:

cover crop, farmyard manure, sugar beet, quality, undersown

Adamiak J., Adamiak E. 1996. Wpływ różnych form nawożenia organicznego na wysokość i jakość plonu buraka cukrowego. Zesz. Nauk. AR Szczecin 172, Rol. 62: 3 — 8.
Google Scholar

Ceglarek F., Buraczyńska D. 2002. Działanie nawozowe obornika i międzyplonów wsiewek stosowanych pod burak cukrowy. Cz. I. Wschody, obsada i plony buraka cukrowego. Biul. IHAR 222: 247 — 254.
Google Scholar

Ceglarek F., Gąsiorowska B., Zarzecka K. 1995. Plonowanie i wartość technologiczna buraka cukrowego w zależności od zróżnicowanego nawożenia organicznego i nawożenia mineralnego. Zesz. Nauk Rol. WSRP Siedlce 39: 57 — 71.
Google Scholar

Gandecki R., Malak D., Śniady R., Zimny L. 1999. Plonowanie buraka cukrowego przy zróżnicowanym nawożeniu organicznym i wzrastających dawkach azotu mineralnego. Zesz. Nauk. AR Wrocław 361, Konferencje XXII: 189— 95.
Google Scholar

Gutmański I. 1990. Działanie wapna, obornika i terminu zbioru na efektywność dawek azotu stosowanych pod buraki cukrowe. Cz. I. Wschody, plonowanie i jakość przetwórcza buraka cukrowego. Biul. IHAR 176: 59 — 82.
Google Scholar

Kuszelewski L., Łabętowicz J. 1986. Współdziałanie nawożenia mineralnego i organicznego w kształtowaniu żyzności gleby. Rocz. Gleb. XXXVII, 2/3: 411 — 419.
Google Scholar

Malicki L., Podstawka E. 1989. Wybrane aspekty nawożenia buraka cukrowego w świetle doświadczeń na średnich i ciężkich glebach Lubelszczyzny. Post. Nauk Rol. 2: 63 — 75.
Google Scholar

Miczyński J., Siwicki S. 1954. Międzyplony nawozowe w uprawie buraka cukrowego. Rocz. Nauk Rol., Ser. A, 70, 2: 251 — 81.
Google Scholar

Miczyński J., Siwicki S. 1960. Międzyplony nawozowe w uprawie buraków cukrowych. Cz. II. Wsiewki międzyplonowe. Rocz. Nauk Rol., Ser. A, 83, 2: 311 — 48.
Google Scholar

Ostrowska D., Kucińska B. 1998. Wpływ wzrastającego nawożenia azotem oraz różnych form nawozów organicznych na plon i jakość buraka cukrowego. Rocz. AR Poznań, CCCVII, Rol. 52, z. 1: 273 — 278.
Google Scholar

Ostrowska D., Kucińska B., Artyszak A. 2000. Efektywność produkcji buraka cukrowego w warunkach zróżnicowanego nawożenia organicznego i azotem, w płodozmianie trójpolowym. Rocz. Nauk Rol., Ser. A, 115, 1–4: 67 — 3.
Google Scholar

Siwicki S. 1971. Wartość nawozowa międzyplonów i obornika w uprawie buraków cukrowych. Biul. IHAR 105: 59 — 71.
Google Scholar

Słowiński H., Prośba-Białczyk U., Pytlarz-Kozicka M. 1995. Wpływ nawożenia na plon buraka cukrowego. Zesz. Nauk. AR Wrocław 262, Rol. LXIII: 45 — 54.
Google Scholar

Szymczak-Nowak J., Nowakowski M., Kostka-Gościniak D., Redo L., Banaszak H. 1997. Wpływ nawożenia słomą na zdrowotność i plonowanie wybranych odmian buraka cukrowego. Progres in Plant Protection, 37 (2): 260 — 262.
Google Scholar


Published
2002-06-28

Cited by

Buraczyńska, D. and Ceglarek, F. (2002) “Fertilizing effect of farmyard manure and undersown cover crops on sugar beet: Part II. Technological quality of sugar beet”, Bulletin of Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute, (222), pp. 255–262. doi: 10.37317/biul-2002-0070.

Authors

Danuta Buraczyńska 
wr@uws.edu.pl
Katedra Szczegółowej Uprawy Roślin, Akademia Podlaska w Siedlcach Poland

Authors

Feliks Ceglarek 

Katedra Szczegółowej Uprawy Roślin, Akademia Podlaska w Siedlcach Poland

Statistics

Abstract views: 6
PDF downloads: 3


License

Copyright (c) 2025 Danuta Buraczyńska, Feliks Ceglarek

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Upon submitting the article, the Authors grant the Publisher a non-exclusive and free license to use the article for an indefinite period of time throughout the world in the following fields of use:

  1. Production and reproduction of copies of the article using a specific technique, including printing and digital technology.
  2. Placing on the market, lending or renting the original or copies of the article.
  3. Public performance, exhibition, display, reproduction, broadcasting and re-broadcasting, as well as making the article publicly available in such a way that everyone can access it at a place and time of their choice.
  4. Including the article in a collective work.
  5. Uploading an article in electronic form to electronic platforms or otherwise introducing an article in electronic form to the Internet or other network.
  6. Dissemination of the article in electronic form on the Internet or other network, in collective work as well as independently.
  7. Making the article available in an electronic version in such a way that everyone can access it at a place and time of their choice, in particular via the Internet.

Authors by sending a request for publication:

  1. They consent to the publication of the article in the journal,
  2. They agree to give the publication a DOI (Digital Object Identifier),
  3. They undertake to comply with the publishing house's code of ethics in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), (http://ihar.edu.pl/biblioteka_i_wydawnictwa.php),
  4. They consent to the articles being made available in electronic form under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, in open access,
  5. They agree to send article metadata to commercial and non-commercial journal indexing databases.

Most read articles by the same author(s)