IMPORTANCE OF CULTIVAR AND HARVEST DATE ON THE YIELD AND PROCESSING QUALITY OF SUGAR BEET
Stevan Đ.RКНТvШjОvТća, Jasna P. GrЛТća, Rada C. JОvtТć-MuĉТЛКЛТća and Vlada M. FТХТpШvТćb
a
University of Novi Sad, Institute for Food Technology, Bulevar cara Lazara 1, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia bЈDЋ IЧstТtut "TКЦТš", NШvШsОХУКЧsФТ put γγ, βθ 000 ЈКЧţОvШ, ЋОrЛТК
TСО rОsuХts КssОssОН ПrШЦ suРКr ЛООt ЦТМrШtrТКХs Кt KХjКjТćОvШ (SОrЛТК) ТЧ 2010
harvested at three harvest periods demonstrated that the average root yield tended to increase from the first to the third harvest period. The average increase in root yield between the first and the second harvest period was 29.06 t ha-1 or 32.76%, between the second and the third period 14.77 t ha-1 or 12.54% and between the first and the third period 43.83 t ha-1 or 49.40%. In average, the content of sugar in root showed a similar tendency. The highest increase in this parameter was registered between the second and the third harvest period and it amounted to 1.00% abs. Other indicators of sugar beet processing quality showed a slow increase or slight decrease depending on the harvest date, probably due to plentiful rainfall in September. Mean granulated sugar yield had an increasing tendency: 3.413 t ha-1 or 32.82% between the first and the second harvest period, 2.820 t ha-1 or 20.42% between the second and the third and 6.233 t ha-1 or 59.94% between the first and the third period.
KEY WORDS: sugar beet, harvest date, cultivar, yield, processing quality
INTRODUCTION
Sugar beet taproot yield, including granulated sugar yield, and overall processing quality depend on many factors. The study conducted by Glattkowski and Marlander (1) showed that the influence of year and interaction of year and locality account for more than 50% in the variation in taproot yields. The influence of the cultivar was high but considerably lower than the year effect and its contribution to variation in the taproot yield reaches around 4%.
Glattkowski and Marlander (2) found a much higher influence of cultivar on the pro-cessing quality of sugar beet, especially on the sugar utilization expressed in percents on beet. This influence was estimated to reach 10.0%. However, the influence of harvest da-te is 3.0% on the root yield, i.e. 5.5% on the sugar yield (1). Much higher was the influen-ce of harvest date in relation to sugar beet utilization (in % on beet) which amounted to
8.50% (2). According to Wolf and Marlander (3), the cultivar effect on the yield of gra-nulated sugar was 1.1%.
EXPERIMENTAL
A varietal microtrial involving 14 suРКr ЛООt МuХtТvКrs аКs sОt Кt KХУКУТšОvШ (ЋОrЛТК) ТЧ 2010. A randomized block design was used. Each cultivar was sawn at four replicate plots with six rows. The trial was sown in the third decade of March. Sugar beet was harvested at three harvest dates, in the middle of August and by the end of September and October. A basic plot for harvest was 9.8 m2. The yield of taproots was determined on the fields. The tested cultivars were highly tolerant to Cercospora beticola and rhizomania, whereas some of them were also tolerant to Rhizoctonia solani. The microtrial plots were optimally treated regarding fertilization, pest and weed control with respect to conditions characteristic for the growing region.
Laboratory analyses were done in the laboratory of the Institute for Food Technology, Novi Sad, Serbia according to the following methods:
- Sugar content in beet by the method of cold digestion; - Alpha-amino-N according to Stanek-Pavlas (1934/35);
- Potassium and sodium content by atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AAS). The other quality parameters were calculated according to the following formulas: - Sugar content in molasses (SM) (% on root) according to Reinelfeld et al. (4): SM = 0.343 x (K+Na)+0.094 x alpha amino N-0.31. where K, Na and alpha amino N are given in mmol/100 g of root;
- Sugar utilization (SU) (% on root) according to Reinelfeld et al. (4):
SU = D-SM-0.6. where D is sugar content (%). SM is sugar content in molasses (%). 0.6 refers to total losses;
- Granulated sugar yield (GSY) (t ha-1): GSY = RY x SU.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The lowest taproot yield at the earliest harvest date (Aug. 19, 2011) of 71.20 t ha-1 (Table 1) was registered for cultivar Standard II, whereas the highest was 106.00 t ha-1 for Elmo. The difference between the cultivars was 34.80 t ha-1 or 32.83%. Mean taproot yield averaged over the 14 tested cultivars was 88.71 t ha-1 which can be regarded as rather high for such early harvest date.
The sugar content in beet taproots, averaged over all tested cultivars, reached 13.94% according to expectations. Akku produced the lowest sugar content (13.23%) whereas Sandor was the best (14.75%). The difference in this parameter between these cultivars was 1.52% abs.
Table 1. ЋuРКr ЛООt ЦТМrШtrТКХ НКtК КssОssОН Кt KХУКУТšОvШ ТЧ β010 (tСО ПТrst СКrvОst НКtО)
No Variety
Root yield (t ha-1)
Sugar content
(%)
Sugar utilization
(% on beet)
Molasses sugar content
(% on beet)
K Na
Alpha-amino -N
Granulated sugar
yield (t ha-1)
mmol/100oS
1 Akku 102.00 13.23 10.48 2.15 35.98 12.55 21.09 10.685
2 Eike 80.40 13.31 10.94 1.77 32.53 8.56 16.00 8.799
3 Standard I 100.80 13.35 11.03 1.72 29.96 9.66 17.00 11.120
4 Elmo 106.00 13.39 10.89 1.90 33.46 10.16 16.65 11.540
5 Elvis 98.80 14.08 11.99 1.49 28.91 4.26 14.70 11.850
6 Standard II 71.20 14.14 11.90 1.64 28.01 8.42 13.65 8.474
7 Fred 100.00 14.64 12.67 1.37 25.68 4.58 11.34 12.674
8 Markus 84.80 14.69 12.75 1.34 25.19 3.68 14.43 10.809
9 Kontrola I Rh 80.00 13.72 11.45 1.67 28.64 9.69 13.63 9.160
10 Prestige Rh 96.80 14.09 11.82 1.67 27.32 10.43 11.92 11.439
11 Sandor 79.20 14.75 12.93 1.22 23.19 4.00 10.98 10.242
12 Kontrola II 89.60 14.20 12.23 1.37 25.35 6.13 10.99 10.958
13 Victor 72.40 13.60 11.57 1.43 23.38 10.66 11.76 8.378
14 Tibor 80.00 13.90 11.83 1.47 23.60 9.86 14.24 9.463
Average 88.71 13.94 11.75 1.59 27.94 8.05 14.17 10.399
The highest taproot yield at the second harvest date (Table 2) was also achieved by Elmo, reaching 131.33 t ha-1, whereas Elvis was the lowest with 106.00 t ha-1. The difference between these cultivars was 25.33 t ha-1 or 19.29%. The average taproot yield was high, 117.77 t ha-1 at this period. The average increase in the taproot yield in com-parison to the one achieved during the first harvest date was 29.06 t ha-1 or 24.65%. Cul-tivar Tibor had the highest sugar content in the taproots (15.22%) whereas Standard I had the lowest (13.42%). The difference in this parameter between the first and the last ran-ked cultivars was 1.80% abs. The overall average sugar content in the taproots was 14.27% abs. and was higher for 0.33% abs.
Owing to the high root yield (127.83 t ha-1) and excellent sugar content (14.75%), the cultivar Eike produced the highest granulated sugar yield of 15.705 t ha-1. However, the lowest Akku achieved 12.001 t ha-1, so the difference was 3.704 t ha-1 or 23.58%. The average granulated sugar content was high (13.812 t ha-1 or 24.71%).
Cultivar Elmo gave the highest root yield (149.17 t ha-1) at the third harvest date (Table 3), whereas Standard II was the poorest with 112.5 t ha-1. The difference in this parameter was 36.67 t ha-1 or 24.58%. Similar results were reported by Marlander (5). The average root yield was high (132.54 t ha-1) and it was higher by14.77 t ha-1 or 11.14% in comparison to the average yield achieved in the second harvest period. The highest in the sugar content in taproot was Elvis (16.22%) and the lowest was Standard I (13.54%). The difference in this parameter was rated high, amounting to 2.68% abs. The average value of sugar content in taproots was 15.27%, and it increased by 1.00% abs in comparison to that in the second harvest period.
As seen in Tables 1-3 the parameters that characterize the processing quality of sugar beet (sugar utilization in % on beet and sugar content in molasses on beet) vary signifi-cantly depending on the cultivar and harvest date.
Cultivar Sandor (Table 1) showed the lowest sugar content in molasses (1.22% on beet), whereas it was significantly higher for Akku (2.15%). The difference between the best and the worse performing cultivar was 0.93% and difference in the average sugar content was 1.59%.
In the second harvest period, the best sugar utilization in % on beet was recorded for Tibor (12.90%) and the poorest for Elmo (10.61%) (Table 2). The maximal difference could be considered as rather high, 2.29%. The average sugar utilization was 11.73%, reaching a level similar to that achieved in the first harvest period, which is presumably due to the occurrence of retrovegetation in some cultivars as a consequence of enormous precipitations (Table 1).
The lowest sugar content in molasses (in % on beet) was achieved by Kontrola II (1.64%) and the highest by Akku (2.29%). The difference was 0.65% and the average value was 1.94%.
Table 2. ЋuРКr ЛООt ЦТМrШtrТКХ НКtК КssОssОН Кt KХУКУТšОvШ ТЧ β010 (the second harvest date)
No Variety
Root yield (t ha-1)
Sugar content
(%)
Sugar utilization
(% on beet)
Molasses sugar content
(% on beet)
K Na
Alpha-amino -N
Granulated sugar yield (t ha-1)
mmol/100oS
1 Akku 108.17 13.99 11.09 2.29 37.01 11.82 19.71 12.001
2 Eike 127.83 14.75 12.29 1.86 29.31 9.40 15.59 15.705
3 Standard I 128.17 13.42 10.94 1.88 30.58 11.85 18.51 14.022
4 Elmo 131.33 13.44 10.61 2.23 36.46 10.76 28.55 13.938
5 Elvis 106.00 14.56 12.10 1.86 29.13 8.77 20.11 12.825
6 Standard II 109.33 14.39 11.55 2.25 32.33 14.29 18.81 12.625
7 Fred 127.17 14.67 12.34 1.73 27.86 8.80 14.02 15.691
8 Markus 110.17 14.30 11.86 1.83 28.10 9.84 21.10 13.069
9 Kontrola I Rh 106.67 14.16 11.45 2.11 30.53 14.34 17.87 12.217
10 Prestige Rh 117.17 13.53 10.78 2.14 30.90 16.56 19.79 12.634
11 Sandor 120.00 14.16 11.81 1.75 26.18 11.33 17.61 14.173
12 Kontrola II 109.83 15.07 12.83 1.64 26.48 7.48 13.54 14.095
13 Victor 126.50 14.13 11.72 1.80 26.45 12.13 18.43 14.829
14 Tibor 120.50 15.22 12.90 1.72 26.41 7.60 17.87 15.543
Average 117.77 14.27 11.73 1.94 29.84 11.07 18.68 13.812
The best figure for sugar utilization (in % on beet) in the third harvest period was performed by the cultivar Kontrola II (13.79%) and the poorest achievement was by Akku (10.48%). The maximal difference in this parameter was high, reaching 3.31% abs. In average, sugar utilization was high, 12.60%, higher than in the previous harvest periods.
cultivars was very high (1.38%), the overall average figure was 2.07%, and it was the highest in relation to the previous harvest periods.
Potassium content in sugar beet (Tables 1-3), averaged over three harvest periods, ranged from 27.94 to 29.84 mmol/100oS. However, the potassium content depends on the tested cultivar; it showed significant variation: the lowest content was found for the culti-var Sandor harvested in the third period (22.61 mmol/100oS) whereas Akku was the highest (43.37 mmol/100oS), also in the third period.
Table 3. ЋuРКr ЛООt ЦТМrШtrТКХ НКtК КssОssОН Кt KХУКУТšОvШ ТЧ β010 (tСО third harvest date)
No Variety
Root yield (t ha-1)
Sugar content
(%)
Sugar utilization
(% on beet)
Molasses sugar content
(% on beet)
K Na
Alphaamino -N
Granulated sugar
yield (t ha-1)
mmol/100oS
1 Akku 145.83 14.02 10.48 2.94 43.37 17.05 26.46 15.277
2 Eike 145.00 15.10 12.05 2.45 34.77 12.91 20.66 17.468
3 Standard I 133.33 13.54 10.49 2.45 37.00 15.88 23.71 13.989
4 Elmo 149.17 14.14 10.71 2.83 40.74 18.95 18.39 15.977
5 Elvis 125.00 16.22 13.77 1.85 26.63 8.01 14.98 17.217
6 Standard II 112.50 15.85 12.94 2.31 27.44 16.72 14.38 14.563
7 Fred 143.33 16.11 13.74 1.77 25.57 8.32 13.47 19.698
8 Markus 133.33 15.43 13.07 1.76 26.96 8.10 14.45 17.433
9 Kontrola I Rh 116.67 15.99 13.23 2.16 27.77 14.07 11.88 15.432
10 Prestige Rh 127.50 14.95 12.69 1.66 23.88 10.84 13.65 16.177
11 Sandor 136.67 15.66 13.41 1.65 22.61 10.41 12.77 18.326
12 Kontrola II 121.67 15.95 13.79 1.56 25.45 6.14 9.15 16.783
13 Victor 130.50 15.08 12.65 1.83 23.94 13.46 14.39 16.508
14 Tibor 135.00 15.70 13.33 1.77 24.52 8.79 19.62 17.996
Average 132.54 15.27 12.60 2.07 29.33 12.12 16.28 16,632
Averaged over the three harvest periods, sodium content was low and ranged from 8.05 mmol/100oS in the first harvest period, to 12.12 mmol/100oS in the second harvest period. The variations in the sodium content within the cultivars were significant and the differences were two- and three-fold. Regarding the alpha-amino-N averaged over the harvest dates, it can be concluded that the figures did not significantly differ and were in the range of normal values for our agroecological conditions (around 15.00 mmol/100oS). However, significant variations of this parameter exist within cultivars, which ranged from 2- to 2.5-fold in magnitude.
CONCLUSION
The results presented in this study, assessed from the microtrial with fourteen sugar ЛООt МuХtТvКrs Кt KХУКУТšОvШ sТtО КЧН СКrvОstОН ТЧ tСrОО pОrТШНs, ХОН to the following con-clusions:
The average sugar content in taproot also increased from the earlier toward the later harvest date; the difference in the sugar content between the first and the second harvest period was 0.33% abs, between the third and the first period, the increase was 1.00% abs, and between the third and the first period it was 1.33% abs.
The average granulated sugar yield also increased from the first to the third harvest period, and the increases were: 3.413 t ha-1 or 32.82% between the second and the first period, 2.820 t ha-1 or 20.42% between the third and the second period, and 6.233 t ha-1 or 59.94% between the third and the first period.
The average value for sugar utilization expressed in percents on beet showed an in-creasing tendency over harvest dates. This parameter was of the same magnitude in the first and the second harvest period, due to abundant precipitations in September (107.9 mm).
Unexpectedly, the lowest sugar content in molasses (in % on beet) was determined in the earliest harvest period. This could be explained by the occurrence of retrovegetation in September due to heavy rainfall, which led to increased content of sugar in molasses in beet harvested in later periods.
Similarly, the contents of non-sugar compounds (K, Na, alpha-amino-N) were the lowest in the first harvest period. This was also a consequence of an unusually rainy Sep-tember.
Acknowledgement
This research is part of the project supported by the Ministry of Science and Tech-nological Development of the Republic of Serbia (III 46001).
REFERENCES
1. Glattkowski, H., Marlander, B.: Zur Frage der Beeinflussbarkeit von Ertrag und Qua-litat beim Anbau von Zuckerruben durch pflanzenbauliche Massnahmen. Zuckerin-dustrie. 119, 7 (1994) 570-575.
2. Glattkowski, H., Marlander, B.: Zur Frage der Beeinflussbarkeit von Ertrag und Qua-litat beim Anbau von Zuckerruben durch pflanzenbauliche Massnahmen. Zucker-industrie. 120, 8 (1995) 668-674.
3. Wolf, I., Marlander, B.: Bedeutung der Sorte fur die Leistung von Zuckerrubenin Abhangigkeit, von Standort, Region und Jahr. Zuckeridustrie. 119, 8 (1994) 671-678. 4. Reinefeld, E., Emmerich, A., Baumgarten, G., Winner, C. and Beiss, U.: Zur
Voraus-sage des Melassezuckers aus Rubenanalysen. Zucher. 27, 1 (1974) 2-15.
5. Marlander, B.: Zuckerruben, Optimierung von Anbauverfahren Zuchtngsfortschrit, Sortenwahl, Ute Bernhardt-Patzold Druckerei und Verlag Stadthagen (1991) pp. 79-92.
Ђ
Ђ. a
, Ja a . a, . - a
M.
a , , 1,
β1000 ,
„ “, γγ, βθ000 ,
, β010. ,
-ђ , ,
ђ . , ђ
29,06 t/ha 32,76 %, o 14,77 t/ha
12,54 %, a o 43,83 t/ha 49,40 %.
, ђ ђ .
, ђ ,
1,00 % .
, ,
.
, ђ .
, 3,413 t/ha 32,82 %,
a 2,820 t/ha 20,42 %, a o 6,233 t/ha 59,94 %.
K : , ђ , , ,
