effect of applied nutrients on the chemical george …

EFFECT OF APPLIED NUTRIENTS ON THE CHEMICALCOMPOSITION OF SOIL AND GREEN SUGAR BEET

TISSUE AND THE YIELD AND SUCROSE CONTENT OFSUGAR BEET ROOTS

ByGEORGE ROBERT McQUEEN

AN ABSTRACT

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Soil Science

1958

Approved:

ProQuest Number: 10008382

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

uestProQuest 10008382

Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved.This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC.789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346

ABSTRACT

Field experiments on sugar beets were conducted at 17 locations in the Saginaw valley - Thumb area of Michigan.The effect of several factors on the chemical composition of leaf petioles, the yield of roots, and the percent sucrose was determined. These factors included (l) heavy fertilizer applications for the establishment of nutrient levels, (2 ) foliar application of nutrients, (3 ) fertilizer ratios and rates of application, and (4) deep plowing and rates of fertilizer application.

Treatments of 0, 750, and 1500 pounds per acre of ammonium nitrate; 2 2 0 8, 36 8 0 and 5 5 2 0 pounds per acre of 49 percent treble superphosphate; and 1 7^5 * 3 6 7 5* and 4725 pounds per acre of 60 percent nuriate of potash did not establish field levels of these nutrients corresponding to laboratory fixation tests of the soil. Soil nitrate levels were increased by the heaviest application of ammonium nitrate but phosphorus levels were not affected by phosphorus applications. Soil potassium was increased by potassium applications to levels higher than desired but application of the heaviest amount resulted in no higher level than the medium application.

Nitrates In the petioles from areas receiving the two higher nitrogen applications were increased markedly hut phosphorus was decreased.

The yield of roots was significantly increased by the addition of nitrogen but percent sucrose was decreased. The interaction of nitrogen and potassium was significant in that, at the lowest nitrogen level, the addition of potassium reduced yield of roots but, with the higher amounts of nitrogen applied, yield of roots was not reduced.

The lack of agreement of soil test values reached in the laboratory and the field together with lack of correlation of chemical composition to nutrient levels in the soil was probably due to the nutrient supplying and fixing power of the soil, the physical condition of the soil and/or weather conditions.

The application of phosphorus to a soil low in phosphorus or as a foliar spray increased the phosphorus concentration of the tissue. Nitrogen applications resulted In a decrease in the phosphorus concentration of the tissue. Foliar sprays of phosphorus tended to increase the concentration of phosphorus in the tissue in proportion to the amount applied but did not appear to appreciably Influence the yield of roots or percent sucrose.

Where various ratios of fertilizer were applied, precise correlations could not be made due to variability with respect to soil type, soil tests, and fertilizer amounts and ratios. However, the following general trends are suggested. On soils medium or low in potassium the concentration of potassium and sodium in the petiole Increased during the growing season and usually increased with increasing amounts of applied potassium fertilizer. On soils low in phosphorus the concentration of phosphorus in the tissue increased with increasing amounts of applied potassium fertilizer.

The differences between yield of roots from areas where various fertilizer ratios were applied were small except In one case. In this case where the soil was low in phosphorus and low to medium In potassium, increasing the amount of K20 applied from 0 to 80 pounds per acre resulted In an increased yield of roots of about 46 percent. This would indicate that an x-2 -1 ratio of fertilizer is probably adequate for these soils.

The effect of date of sampling on chemical composition of the petiole varied with location and would fall Into four categories; (l) no distinct trend, (2 ) increase, (3 ) decrease, and (4) highest concentration at intermediate dates.

Soil penetrometer data indicate that soil compaction is an important deterrent to high yields.

Plowing to a depth of sixteen inches decreased the soil pH and the percent of sprangly roots hut tended to increase soil moisture retention.

EFFECT OF APPLIED NUTRIENTS ON THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF SOIL AND GREEN SUGAR BEET

TISSUE AND THE YIELD AND SUCROSE CONTENT OF SUGAR BEET ROOTS

ByGEORGE ROBERT McQUEEN

A THESIS

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Soil Science

1958

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express his gratitude to Dr. R. L. Cook and Dr. J. P. Davis for their encouragement, assistance and guidance in developing the research reported in this thesis.

Special appreciation is extended to Mr. P. A. Reeve of the Farmers and Manufacturers Beet Sugar Association, Mr. M. G. Frakes of Michigan Sugar Company, Mr. G. E. Nickol of Monitor Sugar Company, and to the cooperating farmers on whose land these experiments were carried out.

Special appreciation is acknowledged to my wife, Marilyn, for the patience, encouragement and assistance tendered in completion of this research.

VITAGeorge Robert McQueen

candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Final examination, May 13* 1956, 10:00 A.M., Room 210, Agriculture Hall

Thesis:Effect of Applied Nutrients on the Chemical Composition of Soil and Green Sugar Beet Tissue and the Yield and Sucrose Content of Sugar Beet Roots.

Outline of Studies:Major subject: Soil ScienceMinor subjects: Crop Production, Plant Physiology

Biographical Items:Born; April 29, 1926, Snover, Michigan Married; August 30, 1947* to Marilyn T. Cooley, and

presently have four girls and a boy Undergraduate studies; Michigan State University,

1946-1949* B.S. degree with major in Soil Science Graduate studies; Michigan State University, 1949-1950,

M.S. degree with major in Soil Science and minors in Agricultural Engineering and Agricultural Economics. Michigan State University, 1951-1956.

Experience:Born and raised on a dairy - general crop farm in

Sanilac County, Michigan Served two years in United States Infantry during World War II including duty in Europe

Three years as research agronomist with Farmers and Manufacturers Beet Sugar Association

Four years as plant physiologist with The Dow Chemical Company developing new chemical plant growth regulators

Farmed own and rented land for five years in the Saginaw Valley area

One paper accepted for publication

Holder of patent number 2763539* Method and compositionfor the control of the growth of vegetation

Member of Sigma Xi

Member of American Society of Agronomy

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PageINTRODUCTION 1REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2

Soil composition effect on sucrose 2

Effect of heavy nutrient applications on sucrose 2Plant tissue analysis 2Nutrient relations to sucrose content 3Effect of heavy nutrient applications on yield 3Analytical methods 5Map of test area 7Legal description of farms and soil types 8

PART I. NUTRIENT LEVELS 10Procedure 10Results and discussion 12Analysis of variance 16

PART II. PHOSPHORUS-NITROGEN INTERACTION ANDFOLIAR APPLICATIONS 20Procedure 20Results and discussion 22

PART III. FERTILIZER RATIOS 27Procedure 27

Results and discussion 28

PagePART IV. DEPTH OF PLOWING 45

Procedure 45

Results and discussion 47

SUMMARY 54BIBLIOGRAPHY 57

LIST OP TABLES

Table Page

1. The effect of applied nutrients on soil test values, percent sucrose and yield of rootsand gross sugar, Rader farm - - - - - - - - - - - 12

2. The effect of applied nutrients on the chemical composition of green sugar beetpetioles at three different dates, Rader farm - - 14

3. Pinal analysis of variance table for 1950 - - - - 16

4. The effect of applied phosphate and nitrogenon the phosphorus content of green sugar beet petioles sampled October 1 5, 1951* Bobit farm - - 22

5 . The effect of soil applications of phosphate and foliar applications of phosphate and urea at three nitrogen levels on the yield of roots, percent sucrose and gross sugar per acre ofBobit farm, 1951 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 23

6 . The effect of one, two and three foliar spraysQpof P^ on specific activity of sugar beet

petioles at two locations, 19 5 2 - - - - - - - - - -2 53 27. The effect of applied P*-' to various portions of

the sugar beet plant on the specific activity of sugar beet petioles - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 26

Table Page

8 . The effect of fertilizers on the chemical composition of sugar beet petioles (three sampling dates), percent sucrose and yield of roots and gross sugar per acre on Whittemere sandy clay loam and sandy loam,Timm farm, 1956 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 28

9 . The effect of fertilizers on the chemical composition of sugar beet petioles (three sampling dates), percent sucrose and yield of roots and gross sugar per acre onEssexville sandy loam, Foret farm, 1956 - - - - 29

10. The effect of fertilizers on the chemical composition of sugar beet petioles (three sampling dates), percent sucrose and yield of roots and gross sugar per acre on Simsloam, Geiser farm, 1956 - - - - - - - - - - - - 30

11. The effect of fertilizers on the chemical composition of sugar beet petioles (three sampling dates), percent sucrose and yield of roots and gross sugar per acre on Sims clay loam and Kawkawlin loam, Meylan and Streffling farm, 1956 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 31

Table Page

12. The effect of fertilizers on the chemicalcomposition of sugar beet petioles (four sampling dates), percent sucrose and yield of roots and gross sugar per acre on Capac silt loam, Draher farm, 1956 - - - - - - - - - - 32

13- The effect of fertilizers on the chemicalcomposition of sugar beet petioles (three sampling dates), percent sucrose and yield of roots and gross sugar per acre on Kawkawlin loam, 0 1Laughlin farm, 1956 - - - - - - - - - - 33

14. The effect of fertilizers on the chemicalcomposition of sugar beet petioles (four sampling dates), percent sucrose and yield of roots and gross sugar per acre on Kawkawlin learn, Sprenger farm, 1956 - - - - - - - - - - - - 34

15* The effect of fertilizers on the chemicalcomposition of sugar beet petioles (four sampling dates), on Nester loam, Hauck farm,1956 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- _ _ _ 35

16. The effect of fertilizers on the chemicalcomposition of sugar beet petioles (four sampling dates) on Capac loam, Draher farm, 1956 - 36

Table Page

17- The effect of fertilizers on the chemical composition of sugar beet petioles (three sampling dates), percent sucrose and yield of roots and gross sugar per acre on Kawkawlin loam, Charboneau farm, 1956. - - - - - - - - - - 38

18. The effect of fertilizers on the chemical composition of sugar beet petioles (four sampling dates), percent sucrose and yield of roots and gross sugar per acre on Sims clay loam, Wieland farm, 1956 - - - ----------- 39

1 9 . The effect of fertilizers on the chemical composition of sugar beet petioles (four sampling dates), percent sucrose and yield of roots and gross sugar per acre on Simsclay loam, Wackerle farm, 1956 - - - - - - - - - - 4 0

20. The effect of fertilizers on the chemical composition of sugar beet petioles (two sampling dates), percent sucrose and yieldof foots and gross sugar per acre on Kawkawlin loam, Steckert farm, 1956 - - - - - - - - - - - 4l

Table Page

21. The effect of depth of plowing on the chemical composition of sugar beet petioles (four sampling dates), percent sucrose and yield of roots and gross sugar per acre on Kawkawlin sandy loam, Kurzer farm, 1956 - - - - 4 7

22. The effect of depth of plowing on the chemical composition of sugar beet petioles (four sampling dates), percent sucrose and yield of roots and gross sugar per acre onSims clay loam, Gremel farm, 1956 - - - - - - - 50

2 3 . The effect of depth of plowing on spranglingof sugar beet roots, Kurzer farm, 1956 - - - - 53

24. The effect of depth of plowing on soilmoisture content at various depths,September 21, 1956, Kurzer farm - - - - - - - - 53

LIST OF PLATES

Plate Page

1. Locations of farms included in this study in the

Saginaxtf valley and Thumb area of Michigan - - - - - - - - 7

2. Equipment used for deep plowing - - - - - - - - - - - - - 45p

3. None

4. Sprangly beet roots on land plowed at a conventionalDepth - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 53p

5. Yields of sprangly and well shaped beet roots from deep

and conventional plowed areas - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 53pa

INTRODUCTION

Yield responses of sugar beets to applications of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium fertilizers have varied from several tons per acre to an actual decrease, particularly when high rates of nitrogen have been applied. Excess quantities of nitrogen may also decrease the percent of sucrose in the roots.

Therefore, fertilization of sugar beets should be concerned with increasing tonnage or increasing percent sucrose or both.

This paper presents data from studies of some of the variables Involved in fertilization of sugar beets and suggests practices for more efficient and effective use of fertilizers.

1

REVIEW OP LITERATURE

Wiley (l6*) found that soil variation produced large differences in yield of sugar beet roots but had little effect upon the sugar percentage. Andrlik (2) observed that heavy applications of nitrogen decreased percent sucrose in sugar beet roots, heavy applications of manure produced no injurious effect and addition of potash and phosphorus largely reduced the injurious effect of applications of up to one thousand pounds per acre of nitrate of soda. Lill and Rather (5 ) reported that heavy applications of phosphate or a combination of phosphate and sodium nitrate profitably increased sugar beet yields following alfalfa in a rotation, but sodium nitrate alone did not increase yields. Roboz (7) found that, as the quantity of phosphate and potash applied to the soil increased, the sucrose percentage of beet roots was increased. However, beets growing on plots receiving insufficient amounts of phosphate and potash contained a lower content of sugar.

Analysis of the plant tissue of sugar beets by Zitkowski, Potvliet and Reed (17)> Andrlik and Urban (3)* U. S. D. A. (14), and Wilfarth and Wimmer (1 5 ) showed that a positive correlation existed between the phosphorus content and percent sucrose of the root. However, as the phosphorus content in

* Numbers in parentheses refer to literature cited.

2

the beet tops decreased the percent sucrose in the roots increased. Alexander, et.al. (l) noted a nitrogen - phosphorus interaction in the foliar tissue at late sampling dates. Schropp and Arenz (8 ) and Andrlik and Urban (3) also found that sulfur was a major factor in improving percent sucrose. A probable explanation is that the sulfur decreased the non-protein nitrogen content of the plant.

The use of plant and soil analysis for the determination of optimum nutrient application and utilization has been studied and reported quite extensively in recent years.Ulrich (13) correlated sugar beet weight with the concentration of nutrients in the tops. His findings indicated that plants possibly had three levels of nutrition for each nutrient: l) an adequacy or luxury concentration at which noincrease in plant growth is found with increasing concentrations, 2 ) level of transition or poverty adjustment, and 3 ) level of starvation at which the nutrient concentrations are relatively constant but yields differ in accordance with the nutrients available.

Carlson (4) recognized through soil tests on two soil types and tissue tests of the tops and roots of sugar beets that phosphate influenced top and root development. Skuderna and Doxtator (10), Tolman (12) and Skuderna (9) found that results from application of various ratios of fertilizers

3

varied with the location and levels of fertility of the fields investigated. Heavy rates of application were found to he uneconomical.

4

Analytical methods

Soil samples were analyzed for pH, nitrates, phosphorus, and potassium by either the Spurway reserve or the Spurway active testing procedures (11).

Green tissue samples consisted of petioles from young, fully expanded leaves from each of fifteen sugar beet plants.

Samples consisting of ten grams of thinly sliced tissue taken from the petiole approximately one-third of the distance from the base to the leaf blades were analyzed. This material was added to 100 ml. of distilled water and one-fourth teaspoon of activated charcoal and then mascerated in a Waring Blendor for a period of two minutes. After passing through Whatman No. 1 filter paper the filtrate was analyzed directly for K and Na using a Perkin-Elmer flame photometer. Phosphorus was determined by adding six drops of a standard ammonium molybdate - hydrochloric acid solution to 10 ml. of extract, then reducing with three drops of F-S reducing agent. The solution was allowed to stand 15 minutes. A Goleman colorimeter equipped with a red filter and utilizing a wave length of 565 niu was used to determine colorimetrically the amount of phosphorus in the solution. Five drops of ten percent Brucine (alkaloid) in chloroform was added to three ml. of extract, followed by the addition of six ml. of concentrated sulfuric acid (specific gravity 1.84). The solu

5

tion was allowed to stand twenty minutes. A Coleman colorimeter* equipped with a blue filter and utilizing a wave length of 420 mu was used to determine colorimetrically the amount of nitrate in the solution. Calcium and magnesium were determined with a Beckman flame photometer.

Yields were taken by weighing the topped roots harvested from the center two rows of four-row plots.

6

'Occd

>><Dcd>%£bOcdCO

CDsi-P

£•H

!»'S'PCQ63•HiCj*P

£

T3cdT5£iHO ££ cd

bO*H

tQ siS o£ •Ho3 s<£

<£o

ocd

CQ <D£ £O cd*H

-P€cd

o £o ,cpi e-»

rFQ * OJ

MCD-ecd

i—iP-.

(13

) Midland

cd0 0 .—t

i— i4 CD

rQcdCQH

-po*H-Pcd£o

?

Legal descriptions of farms and soil types included in this study

1. C. Bobit farm - Gratiot county; Bethany township;T12N, R2W, sec. 26.Parkhill loam.2. C. Charboneau farm - Bay county; Fraser township;T16N, R4E, sec. 30.Kawkawlin loam.3* H. Draher farm - Sanilac county; Elmer township;TUN, R13E, sec. 6 .Capac loam4. H. Draher farm - Sanilac county; Moore township;T12N, R13E, sec. 32.Capac loam and silt loam.5- 0. Foret farm - Bay county; Hampton township;T14N, R6E, sec. 27.Essexville sandy loam.6 . H. Geiser farm - Bay county; Monitor township;

T14N, R4e , sec. 30.Sims loam.7. H. Gremel farm - Huron county; Sebewaing township;

T15N, R9E, sec. 9*Sims clay loam and Kawkawlin loam.8 . R. Hauck farm - Isabella county; Nottawa township;

T15N, R5W, sec. 15.Nester loam.9 . A. Kurzer farm - Huron county; Sebewaing township;

T15N, R9E, sec. 32.Kawkawlin sandy loam and Sims sandy loam.10. Meylan and Streffling farm - Bay county; Monitor township;

T14N, R4E, sec. 13.Kawkawlin loam.

8

11. P. 0 !Laughlin farm - Bay county; Fraser township; T16N, R4E, sec. 2 9 .Kawkawlin loam.12. E. Rader farm - Saginaw county; Saginaw township; T12N, R4E, sec. 34.Wisner clay loam.13. E. Sprenger farm - Midland county; Geneva township; T15N, R2W, sec. 2.

Kawkawlin loam.14. W. Steckert farm - Saginaw county; Saginaw township; T12N, R4E, sec. 20.Kawkawlin loam and Brookston loam.15- A. Timm farm - Bay county; Portsmouth township;

T13N, R6E, sec. 5-Whittemore sandy clay loam - Whittemore sandy loam.16. R. Wackerle farm - Bay county; Monitor township; Tl4N, R4E, sec. 10.

Sims clay loam.1 7 . W. Wieland farm - Bay county; Monitor township;

Tl4N, R4E, sec. 13.Sims clay loam and Kawkawlin loam - Bannister sandy loam smears.

9

PART I. NUTRIENT LEVELS

Procedure

Soil fixation tests utilizing the Spurway active testing method for NO- , P, and K were made on Wisner clay loam (location 1 2) in order to estimate the nutrient application rates for the establishment of field soil levels of 2 5, 5 0 , and 75 p.p.m. of NO^; 5 , 10, and 15 p.p.m. of P; and 1 5, 30, and 45 p.p.m. of K. Treble superphosphate containing 49 percent PgO^ at rates of 2 2 0 8, 3 6 8 0, and 5 5 2 0 pounds per acre and potassium chloride containing 60 percent K20 at rates of 1 7B5 > 3 6 7 5t and 4725 pounds per acre were broadcast on the surface of the soil on May 1. The plots were harrowed twice with a spring tooth harrow to mix the fertilizer with the soil. Ammonium nitrate containing 33*5 percent N was side-dressed in bands on the soil surface on July 2 7th and 29that rates of 0 , 7 5 0, and 1 5 0 0 pounds per acre.

Sugar beet seed (var. 216X226) was planted May 3rd, butemergence was slow. The beets emerged following O .8 7 inches of rainfall on May 22nd and 23rd, but beets in the field adjoining had emerged shortly after planting. The beets were blocked and thinned June 15th, and harvested October 21st.The plots were each 0.01 acre in area and each treatment was replicated 6 times in a modified latin square design.

10

The soil was sampled by taking eight cores to a depth of 6 inches from each plot on June 29th, August 29th, and September 6th, and analyzed by the Spurway active method for NO^, P, and K.

11

Results and discussion

Table 1. The effect of applied nutrients on soil testvalues, percent sucrose and yield of roots and gross sugar, Rader farm.

Desired level Tested level Tons Percent Pounds(p.p.m.) (p.p.m.)* per sucrose grossNOo P K NOo P K acre ** sugar3 ** oer

acre25 5 15 0 3-1 32 17.1 19.2 655925 5 30 0 4.0 67 16.4 1 8 . 9 6176

25 5 45 2 3.6 69 14.3 1 8 . 7 5330

25 10 15 3 3.4 36 16.4 19.3 6326

25 10 30 1 3.8 51 1 5 .6 1 8 . 8 585325 10 45 2 3-7 64 13.9 1 8 .9 5246

25 15 15 6 3.4 38 1 5 .6 1 9 .O 591325 15 30 1 3.4 49 1 5 .6 1 8 .5 576625 15 45 0 3.7 59 14.5 1 8 .5 5357

5 0 5 15 1 3.8 46 18.4 15.3 5651

50 5 30 1 4.0 60 1 7 .6 1 5 . 2 541950 5 45 5 3.7 63 17.1 14.8 5054

50 10 15 l 3.6 40 1 8 .6 14. 9 553950 10 30 3 3-6 64 17.1 1 5 .I 513350 10 45 1 3.5 64 1 8 .1 15.5 5592

1 2

Table 1. (continued)Desired level (p.p.m.) Tested level (p.p.m.)* Tonsper

acre**

Percent sucrose **Poundsgrosssugarperacre

NO3 P K NO3 P * K

50 15 15 0 3.7 31 1 7 . 8 15.1 536550 15 30 9 3-5 60 1 8 .1 1 5 .1 545750 15 45 1 3-7 67 1 6 . 9 l4.6 4917

75 5 15 31 3.5 34 1 7 . 0 14.5 490175 5 30 33 3.6 67 1 8 . 0 14.1 5044,75 5 45 28 3.8 51 1 8 . 2 14.1 5096

75 10 15 35 3.5 51 1 6 .4 14.3 466275 10 30 12 3-6 60 1 5 . 6 14.3 4425

75 10 45 103 3-6 68 1 7 . 6 14.9 5271

75 15 15 19 3-6 50 1 7 . 9 14.5 516775 15 30 11 3*7 64 1 6 . 3 14.1 457275 15 45 33 3*9 54 1 8 . 6 1 3 . 8 5142

Adjacent field 3 3*2 3

* Average of two samples.** Average of six replications.

Petiole samples were taken August 2 9th, September 8th,and September 11th by removing young, fully expanded petioles from fifteen plants.

13

Table

2. The effect of

applied

nutrients

on the chemical composition

of green o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oW 0 0 o o c u 0J P O O p c m v o o o rH m O H 4 o n p o o

i— 1 -=j- v o v o p v o m v o v o p m o j o n o n c m -rj- m v o mrH t— Cr-— t— t— c~— t— * p p p v o P P t— Ev— P * p p p

U0• £ LPvVO P P O O P o o o n v o rH P O O CM P-rJ- t P i—1 o

S B P-t o j c o o o O O V rH o n o j o\ v o m v o v o m v o -=j-vo o n• 0 ft i— 1 rH i— 11— ip

• ftft 0

CO 00 o o o o o o o o oo o o o O O O o o o o o o v o o n v o o v o o o0

2 o n -=j- o n o n c n c n c n o n v o v oCQCO

s ftu fta5h 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oi— ! o \ o o o o o n o n o o m o o CM CM o CM CM C O

O OJ V O C O o o o o c o 0 0 O \ 0 0 o o c o o o P P O O p p m<1)iri *H 0 0 p p p C— C— P p p p p p p t p t*— i p p p pw0 Shft 0

£ V O -=3" rH o v o c o m p o n o n o n o n ^ f -aJ" o n o p•V £ B ft o o o c o P o o c o ^ ■ o c o ^ t - o v o CM V O P v o c o c oCO 0 0 i— ! i— ! rH r-H r-H 1— I0 0 P-P U ftCtf bQ 0TJ CO <x o o o o o o o o o

O o o o o o o o O O O ^ d * O P O O o o c o m-Prj

•H S o n c m o n c m o n v o i— 1 i— 10 PU C0 05-i Pft £ft o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o'O o O o O OJ o ^ j - O O J V O P v o v o o n C O -^0

o n v o P o n p o n m e n p c o p v o o v c m m onv o ^ j -0 p t— t— o - [ p o p p p v o P V O v o P V O p p p0 c o \Ph 0 CMx j ft-p Sh P -=j- P ft r n o m v o o n p o o p ^ j- ^ o j m -=d- G \ O v

p CQ ft c o c o v o O O CT\ 0 0 O rH -3- o n v o p p m o o p m-p rH i— 1 i— I <— I i— 1ctf &0

co •a;0 on o o o o o o o o oi— 1 o o o o o o o o o o c m o m V O V O - ^ - o m mo S rH o n P o n o n m v o ^ t P*n■p0ft-P 1— 10 i— t 0 W m o i n m o m m o m m o m m o m m o m0 ft > rH 0O-=J- r-H on.=j- i— 1 PO-=3* ft on^t* p o n ^ - p o n ^ t& O 0-f-Sr*

CQ 1— 1 •B

135 P • ft m m m o o o m m m m m m o o o m m m0 C ft i— 11— 11— i i— 11—11—i i—11—11—i i— 11—11—iu 0 •ft ft ftCQ P-r—0 P on m mm mmm mmm o o o o o o o o oPi P o OJ OJ OJ 0J 0J 0J 0J 0J 0J mmm mmm mmm

£ s

14

o o o o o o o o ow oj mvo o o oo vo coorH H 0O S 003* m ovrnooi—I s s s VO 1313 VO 3 3£—> 0• £ OJ OJ vo VO i—1 i—1 i—i co i—i€ £ a inoj o- mmoo vom is• 0

a P• aa 0

v— CO oo o o o o o o o o oo o vo 3* _-J- 00 _-J- ovvo co0H s oooom 0J 3* 0J 00 003*CQCQ•HP0 o o o o o o o o oi—1 o com VO O 0J 0J OJ voO oo moo OJ CT\VO vo vo m-Hi ■> 00 N~ D"— t"— 3 3 3 c— t—i"'0 £a 0

P OJ 00-3" 00 rH C. 3* O IN-£ £ p -t movoo 3 0 0 3 VO 00 000 00 P£ a&0 0

CO oo o o o o o o o o o£ o mvo vo vo mvo 3 mvo•H 55 3* oo oo 00-3* CO 0J 3* oo-P£0p£O o o o o o o o o oo W 3* VO OJ 0-3* m O 0J o3 OJ IN- OV-3 oo Ov 0J COp vo t--IN- VO N N VQ 3 3£ o\0 OJ*H£ p VO rHOO 0 0 3* rH oo c— oP CQ P-t 3* oovo m 3vo vo-3* mPS PS!3 &0

pSOO o o o o o o o o o/—-S o O LArH vo oj o 0 3 * m

TO oo rH m VO 3- OO VO 0J iH0PS£iHP£ rHo rH 0 w m o m m o m m o mO •H > rH 0O-3 rH 003* <—1 003*^ O Q)'—«•

CQ(—I • cJ• TO P3p • P~r m m m o o o m m m

OJ 0 £ a *—11—11—i rH rH rH£ 0 •

0 *H *h ai—1 CQ £*■—JO 0 p OO mmm mmm mmmaj Q Pt o £■— D— t— In- t— t—Eh £ !3

o00OJi>-

0\LA

oinVOin-in-3-

o

o0JO!oT3rH0•H

Pc0oa•oTJ<c

15

Yields of roots were taken from each plot and the percent sucrose determined.

Table 3- Pinal analysis of variance table for 1950.Source DF Yield of roots Per cent sucrose Gross

Sums of squares Meansquares Sums of squares Mean s quare s

sugar Mean squares (x 1 0 0 0)total 161 674.0 765.9replicates 5 53-4 3 0 . 2

P 2 3.9 4.5 2 . 6 1.3 445rep. x P 10 8 6 . 2 8 . 6 1 0 .2 1 . 0 572K 2 13.4 6.7 2 . 2 1 . 2 1,694*rep. x K 10 22.9 2.3 5.9 . 6 266

P x K 4 1 0 . 2 2.5 4.2 l.l 448rep. x P x K 20 60.4 3.0 1 6 . 2 . 8 376N 2 152.9 76.4** 647-9 324.0** 1 1,3 5 8**N x K 4 61.7 1 5 .4 ** 1.3 .3 2,059**rep. x N ] rep. x Nx K,r 30 6 8 . 1 2.3 11.5 .4 414N x P 4 12.5 3-1 • 5 .1 246N x P x K 8 1 8 . 3 2.3 1 . 6 .2 308

rep. x N x P x K remainder j- 60 105.3 1 . 8 31.5 • 5 215

* Significant at the 5% level.** Significant at the 1$ level.

16

The data in Table 1 show that the desired or predicted nutrient levels in the soil were not obtained. The applications of phosphate showed no significant differences due to rates, and only a slight increase over the phosphorus found in the untreated field samples. Potassium levels were increased markedly over the untreated field samples. The potassium levels obtained, however, were about twice as high as desired for levels of 15 and 30 p.p.m. Soil tests for the 45 p.p.m. predicted level were only slightly higher than for the 30 p.p.m. level. The nitrate levels indicated by the soil tests from field samples were lower than the predicted levels except in one case where levels of 75* 1 0, and 45 p.p.m. of NO^, P, and K respectively were attempted. These differences from the desired levels could be due in part to insufficient mixing of the phosphorus and potassium carriers with the soil and subsequent difficulty in obtaining a representative sample. The failure to account for all of the nitrogen added to the soil apparently was due to its rapid and almost complete uptake by the sugar beet plants as shown by the green tissue tests in Table 2.

The yield data in Tables 1 and 3 show that the yield of roots was significantly increased at the one percent level by the addition of nitrogen, but the highest level of nitrogen was no better than the medium. Both percent sucrose and

17

gross sugar, however, were significantly reduced at the one percent level by the addition of either the medium or highest level of nitrogen.

Phosphorus applications had no effect on yield of roots, percent sucrose, or gross sugar.

The application of potassium significantly decreased gross sugar per acre at the 25 p.p.m. and 5 0 p.p.m. levels. The interaction of nitrogen and potassium was significant at the one percent level on yield of roots and gross sugar per acre (Table l).

The data in Table 2 show that the plant tissue was very high in nitrates throughout the season where nitrogen was applied at the 50 and 75 p.p.m. rates. The resulting increase in top growth observed could account in part for the failure to find nitrates by the soil test.

No marked differences were found in phosphorus content of petioles where different amounts of phosphate were applied. Where nitrogen was applied at levels of 50 and 75 p.p.m., the phosphorus content was higher in tissue where nitrate was present than where it was absent.

The potassium content of the tissue samples from the plots was not materially different from that obtained from the adjacent field. However, the tissue sampled from beets growing on plots receiving 30 and 45 p.p.m. levels did not

18

differ from each other but tended to show a higher potassium concentration than where the 15 p.p.m. treatment was applied.

19

PART II. PHOSPHORUS - NITROGEN INTERACTION AND FOLIAR APPLICATIONS

Procedure

A location having a history of marked crop response to phosphate was selected on Parkhill loam (location l). Phosphate as 1 8 percent superphosphate was applied at rates of 0, 60, or 120 pounds of P20^ per acre. Certain plots received 1 0 weekly or 5 bi-weekly foliar sprays of a saturated water solution of 18 percent superphosphate amounting to 2.8 pounds per acre for each spraying. Other plots received two foliar applications of urea at a rate of 10

pounds per acre. Nitrogen was applied to the soil surface of all plots at the time of blocking and thinning at rates of 0, 50, or 100 pounds of nitrogen per acre. All plots received 6 0 pounds of K20 at the time of planting.

Sugar beet seed was planted May 18, 1951> using the disease-resistant variety 48333-00. The beets were blocked and thinned June 12th. Green tissue samples of the sugar beet petioles were taken October 15th and analyzed color!- metrically for phosphorus. The plots were 0.01 acre in size and the treatments duplicated. Yields were taken by harvesting the center two rows from each plot on October 18th and percent sucrose was determined.

20

Radioactive phosphorus, as PO^ in 0.043 N HC1 at aconcentration of 0 .3$ of H POjj, was applied at two locations as a foliar spray to sugar beets. The original P^ 2 source was used throughout the test. Treatments consisted of 1, 2, and 3 sprays at two-week intervals with the final spray applied two weeks before taking green tissue samples on August 28th. Each plot was 0.005 acre in area and each treatment was replicated six times in a randomized block design.

The green tissue was oven dried, compressed into uniform discs one inch in diameter and weighing two grams each. The disc were placed in an autoscaler and specific activity measured during four time intervals.

21


Table 4. The effect of applied phosphate and nitrogen on the phosphorus content of green sugar beet petioles sampled October 15* 1951 > Bobit farm.

Pounds P2O5 acre (soil)Pounds P2° 5 per acre (spray)

Poundsurea p.p.m.Pounds

Phosphorus N per acreper acre 0 50 100

0 0 0 79 39 871 2 0 0 0 171 247 165

12 0 14(5 sprays)0 243 200 137

12 0 20(2 sprays) 238 147 140

The increase in phosphorus concentration in the green tissue with applications of phosphorus to the soil is apparent. The differences shown in Table 4 are in agreement with the data (Table 2) showing the interaction between nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in green tissue in that, when nitrogen is applied, the concentration of phosphorus in the green tissue decreases. The apparent inconsistency in phosphorus concentration at the 50 pound nitrogen and 1 2 0 pound P20 5 application might be due to experimental error.

It is doubtful if this inverse nitrogen:phosphorus ratio is a "dilution" factor attributable to stimulated tissue growth due to the applied nitrogen. No differences in top

22

growth were apparent between any of the plots at these two rates of nitrogen application nor between the two rates

Table 5* The effect of soil applications of phosphate andfoliar applications of phosphate and urea at three nitrogen levels on the yield of sugar beet roots, percent sucrose, and gross sugar per acre, Bobitfarm, 1 9 5 1.

Pounds Pounds Pounds Tons roots Per cent PoundsP205 P205 nitrogen per acre* sucrose* grossper acre per acre per acre - - sugar(soil) (spray) per acre*

0 0 0 1 9 .5 (1 ) 1 7 .6 686450 1 1 .8** 16.4 3846100 1 2 .3** 15.7 38 9 0

60 0 0 1 6 . 5 18.4 605550 1 6 . 4 16.6 5 4 2 9100 16.1 16.2 52 0 2

120 0 0 17.3 , , 1 8 .1 622950 18.2 (1) 1 7 . 2 6260100 1 8 . 0 (l) 15.9 5724

120 14 0 1 5 .I 17.4 52 2 3(5 sprays) 50 1 8 . 8 16.3 61 2 9

100 19-3 1 6 .1 6181120 28 0 17.5 1 7 . 6 6142

(10 sprays) 50 1 8 . 2 16.8 6ll6100 20.4 17-5 7127

120 20 (urea) 0 1 6 . 4 18.2 5936(2 sprays) 50 1 7 . 8 1 6 . 7 5951100 1 9 . 2 I6 . 5 6 3 1 6

* average of two replications** poor stand(1) one plot yield only

23

Yield results (Table 5) show a possible interaction of nitrogen and phosphorus in the yield and sucrose content of roots. With the addition of each increment of nitrogen at the higher rates of phosphate application to the soil, the yield of roots increased and the percent sucrose decreased. With the addition of each increment of phosphorus and phosphate sprays the yield increased and, with the weekly spraying of phosphate, the percent sucrose apparently was maintained at levels nearly as high with the application of nitrogen as without added nitrogen.

This might indicate that, if the phosphorus content of the plant can be maintained at a high concentration just prior to harvest, the percent sucrose could be at a high level even if nitrates were available to the plant. Prom the results of Part I this would appear to be best accomplished by one or two phosphate sprays applied one to two weeks prior to harvest. Further experimental work should establish the best spray material and time of spraying.

24

Table 6. The effect of one, two and three foliar spraysof P^2 on specific activity of sugar beet petioles at two locations, 1 9 5 2.

Pounds P2O^ per acre (spray)

Numberofsprays

Specific activity of plants*, c.p.m.Rader farm Wieland farm

1.7 1 3090 9553.4 2 4708 18095.1 3 4479 2566

* average of twelve samples (counts per minute)

In another experiment the spray was applied to theplant in three different ways; (l) to one-half of the plant, (2) to the crown, and (3) to the new growth. The counts found in petioles taken from various positions on the plant are shown in Table 7*

25

Table 7* The effect of applied P-^ to various portions of the sugar beet plant on the specific activity of sugar beet petioles.

Position of Region of Applicationtissue sample One-half of plant Crown New growthRader Wieland Rader Wieland Rader farm farm farm farm farm

Wielandfarm

Specific activity (counts per minute)new leaves 2145 2040 1430 1324 1490 1331mature leaves 477 5 0 0 455 598 884 471mature leaves (sprayed) 2458 1760

The data in Tables 6 and 7 show that phosphorus accumulates in the sugar beet petioles with successive sprayings, and the amount accumulated is related directly to the amount applied. The applied phosphate accumulates in new tissue regardless of the plant portion to which it is applied. Therefore, to achieve the highest concentration of phosphate in the green tissue, the entire plant should be sprayed.

26

PART III. FERTILIZER RATIOS

Procedure

A number of fields on farms In the Saginaw valley and Thumb area of Michigan were fertilized at various rates of phosphate and potash to study such effects on the yield of roots and chemical composition of the green tissue of sugar beets. Soil tests were by the Spurway reserve method (ll).

Duplicate plots in the fields were planted and harvested. Duplicate green tissue samples were taken at various timesduring the season with the last sample taken as near toharvest as practical. They were analyzed for N, P, K, and Na.

The results from individual farms together with the soil tests in the plot area are shown in Tables 8 through 20.

Penetrometer (6) readings were taken at each location.

27

Table

8. The eff

ect of

fertilizers


of sug

ar beet

petioles (th

ree sampling dates),

percent

sucrose and yie

ld of

roots

and gro

ss sug

ar per acr

e on

Whittemore san

dy cla

y loa

m and sandy

loam,

Timm

farm,

1956.

Results' and discussion•

-pf t rH<L> OJ

V I

•<D hOOO

£ OJCQ <CQ•H-P

£Q) •<D bO£ £ onbO

£•H

-P£0)

£-P •£ -p£ —1

<D OJf t COO

S••

• bOCOft £ 0J

<D£Ocd

£<Dftgq

££oft

to£ G\

oCV1win

oOJ

p-l

PL,

lAi OJ ,

t—COi—I o

CO t"—.r j- Oh O OJ 0 O Hi—I i—I i—I i—1

vo onvo i—t on in oo

5s;

o oj oo oO O h O h O OJ i—! i—I OJ

«H O C * -0v o o o o o on

oo o onooOh Oh VO

i n co m orH f> - rH

in in o o orH rH £—

CVI OJ OJ O VQ V O V O -=t

cd

o o o o Oh i—I i—I vo m i n i n mi— 1 1 — 1 1 — 1 1 — i

o n o oOhLj- 00 -=J-o n cvj cu o n

o i n o o o j vo o v = j-rH OhCO rH rH

o o o oOJ VO rHOO C h in o on

m o n

o o o o vo o r - o o n v o co on on on on on

o o o o rH c o on in oj vo onoo o n o n cv i oj

in co i n orH V- rH Lj- ■— i i— i

i n in co orH rH m -L j-

OJ oj oj o vo vo vo -=t

<DCQ £CQ OO cd£to £

<0CQ ftT3£ ££ cdO to

P-i £CQ

m -o n o nD rH C"—vo co onLj- Lj-

-P CD£ CQ<D OO ££ OCD £ft CQ

vo in in • • •

o o oOJ OJ OJ

CQ■P 0)O £O 0£ cd

CQ ££ CDO

Ehft

00 OJ • * •

i—11—f oji— 11— 11— i

m o o ini—1 0"— i—I

i n i n coi—I i—i t—

OJ OJ OJVQVOVO

28

Soil

tests

for pH,

pou

nds P and K per acr

e: 7.6

; 205

; 48

and

7-9;

138;

11

respectively for the 0-6 and 12-

18 inc

h samples.

The penetrometer pressure

required to

insert

0-4 and 0-6 inc

hes was 40

and 60

pounds

respectively.

Table

9* The effect of

fertilizers


of sugar

beet

petioles

(three sampling dates),

percent

sucrose

and yield

of roots

•# -PVO ft rH

m 0 OJov COI— 1

£gcd •ft CD bOOO

G G OJ-P CQ <qCD GQGO -Pft

G*\ 0 •s 0 bOcd G G OVo bO <Ci—i

G•HnG Pcd GCQ CD

•HCD GrH P •rH G -P•H G ft rH> 0 OJX ft COCD OCQCQ •w £•G ft ♦O a bOCOft G OJCD <CGocdG0 •ft bO

G C OGcdbOGCQOQCQOGbO CD O

G OJ'O o «G cdcd G

0 mft oOJCQ ftO

O sft

ft

o o v o is- o j c m

rH V O C Ovo vo

C O O O OJ Eft !>-VO

-=t OJ LTV<J\0\0\i—I i—1 i—I

OMA CT\ O— t-—

■=t covo Cr\ Ovm

o o o O m o

o o o o o mi—11—ii n m mOJ OJ OJ

cd

o o o o m ovovco vo

o o oov ov i—Ic--vo c**-

o o oI A H tr—-=t -=3* OO

o o oOJ OJ m r o i v - m m oo

o o oi— ! i— I C Oco m c—OJ OJ OJ

o o oOJ i— ! i— I rH V O C O OO OJ OJ

o o o o mo

o o o o o m

m m mOJ OJ OJ

0CQ GCQ oO cdG r— !bO G CO0 i I ICQ ft l t i • •%'O OO£ oG cd HO bOft G • " X

CQ o o•

D—TJGcd

mm* *\

P 0 o oG 0 <J\0 O i i i 1— Io G i i iG o * n0 Gft GQ m

• •0GocdG0ftCO

P 0O GO O -=J" C OG cd • • • GOJ i— I i— i cdCQ G i— 1 i— 1 i—1G 0 ftO ftEH 03

oft

Kfto o oo mo Gi—i i—i Oft

CQP

o o o 0o o m 0i— 11— i P

H•H

mmm OOJ OJ OJ CO

29

respectively for the 0-6 and 12-18

inch

samples.


required to

insert 0-4 and 0-7 inches was 40

and 70

pounds respectively.

Table

10.

The effect of

fertilizers


of sugar

beet

petioles


percent

sucrose

and yield

of roots

and gross

sugar

per acr

e on

Sims loam,

Geiser farm,

1956.

-pa, cm 0 cvj co

0 b O O£ £ onCQ <cCQ•HP

£0 •0 b O O£ £ rHbO <C£•rH

P£0*H£P •£ P£ ft CM

0 CMft COO

Bft •• b O O

ft £ o n<

bO O£ r-J<5

0 O£ CMo Wcd£0 inft oCMCQ ftTJ££o sP h

ft

co oo o- irvt'-t--i—11—11—i

ocom4-o o n

COO rH O rH rH

rH IS - inoo oo coI—I I—I I—I

o^t o-=t on

o cvj in cvi s~cni—11—11—i

LTV c o mvo onvo

in in on vo vo on

vovovo

cd

o o ovo VO CVJ CM CM rH

o o oVO iH VO CM O\C0

O O Ooo on on oo avco

o o oCM CT\00o in in

o o o on cnvo vo on CM CM

o o orH O CM rH O rHon on on

in on in vo onvo

in in onvo vo on

vovovorH i—I i—I

0CQ £CQ Oo cd£ c n 0bO £ i n o v e n S - £

0 i n n -4- £CQ f t CM o o o ** CQTJ i n 4 i n CO CQ£ £ -=4 0£ cd £O bO ••X ftft £ S-

CQ • £

P 0 * ** 0£ CQ o x:0 O in cr\-=f on Eho £ m m m rH£ o a\co a\0 £ i— 11— 11— i • •N •ft CQ on IQ

CQp 0o £o o in co o£ cd

o n c m onCQ £ rH i—1 rH£ 0oEh ft

in on in vo onvo

in in onvo vo on

vovovoi—11—i i—i

s- 0) p 0) B o £ -p 0vo a on oi—i

£Oj

>5rH0)>•HPO0OrCQ<D£CQT3

ft Oft

• CDS - rH

vo£Cd

<D£ocd£CDftw

ft o B 4cdCQ

x:o£•rH

CO

T3 CM £ rHcdft

CQcd5CQCDx:0 £ *H

D—1OTD £cd o tQ £xi vo cd

§ 0 4 oft CD

x: pkft £O£ ft

IO

0 ftmPCQCDP

1--- 1•HOco

p£CDCQ£•H!S>

iH O CD P >•H P O0 *Hft £CQ0£

a*0£

30

Table

11.

The effect of

fertilizers


of sugar

beet

petioles


percent

sucrose

and yield

of roots

and gross

sugar

per acre on

Kawkawlin

loam,

Meylan and Streffling

field, 1956.

PftCVJCD CVJ

0 CO£toCQ•H •P b O O

£ C O£ C<D0£bQ •

b O O£ £ rH

£CL)

•£ Pp ftCVJ£ CD CVJ£ CO

O•

• b O O£ C O

• <aft•ft •

b O O£ rHd

<D£Ocd£0ftw73

oPH

OCVJwi noOJ

PH

Ph

in cvj cvjcod- mov=fr 1—1 coH H rH OJ

rH O h o h o h o h t s - m m m m1—11— 11— 11— 11— 1

CO -d* d--d*-d~V O CVJ CVJ OJ CVJ r-H OJ CV1 CVJ CVJ

o h a o o i n c o C O I S -OHd* S -

ino 0 0 0CVJ

O H V O V O V O V O 0 0 O H O H O H O HI— 1 I— I I— I I— 1 1— I

0 0 OJW W WCO o o o o d * o m t n

CO IS- to- £— S-d" I— I I— I 1— I I— I

CVJ O H O H O H O H rH C O C O C O C O

cd

w

0 0 0 0 0 vo m o o o j cvjO O H H V O(—I I—I I—I I—1

0 0 0 0 0 m m m m i nO H O H O H O H O H

O O O O O OJ o o o o v o v o v o v o v o

O O O O O ES - d rH CVJ c o CV1 C O IS- C O m o o ^ t ^ t rH

O O O O O C O IS- IS- ts- ts-o m m m m d co 00 c o co

O O O O O00 o o o o d * m m m m d * c o c o c o c o

d -■ 00 1— 1 1— 1CO

CVJ 0 0 OJW W W Wco o o o o d- o m m

00 ts- ts- is-s-d * i— 11— 11— 11—1

1—11—11—11—1

CVJ O H O H O H O H rH C O C O C O C O

CDCQ £to OO cd£bO £

CDra ft73£ ££ cdO bOPH £CQ

P CD£ CQCD OO ££ 0CD £PH to

CQ-P CDO £O O£ cdCQ ££ CDO ftE-i

to73

1—1 -d* c O d vo 0 0d O H d rH £ ftlOH O CO VO £d m-d- d • ■» tQ 0OO to VOCO 01—1 £ 73ft £* *\ cdd £* 0 •s

s- P vo0 mS0£ £ 0CO rH 00 O cd P m• • • • 000 ohcooo £1—1 1—I 1—1 rH s- 0 m00 ft CO* «\ 0 toCO XI cdCO Eh £i—1

to• • 0CO CQ X!■ 0 0IftrH CO OH ES- rH £• • • ■ ft •HCO CO CVJ CVJ • • SrH rH rH rH CD cd rH£ CQ 1—IO Icd x: O0£ £ 73O •H £ft cd00W 1—11 0073 CVJ t£ 1— 1 Ocd 73 r\

PH £ vocd 1CQ 073 vo,--s. £ 1 •ld £ 0 d-N -N. (3 0 tO i—1 i—1 co ft 0 OCVJ 0 0 cvj X!W W W W *\ p P--W W W £

ft £ 000 0 0 0 0 O to-d- 0 m m £ c£ £rH O •rH ■Cm SsrH 0 r—ItQ 0 p 0p > >O D S S S S CQ •H 73 •H-d" 1—1 1—11—j 1—1 0 P 0 P

1—1 1—11—11—1 P O £ O0 •H 01--[ ft £ ft•H tQ O toCVJ OH OH OH OH 0 0 0 0rH CO CO CO CO CO £ £ £

31

Table

12.

The eff

ect of

fertilizers


of sug

ar beet

petioles (fo

ur sampling dates),

percent

sucros

e and yie

ld of

roots

and gro

ss sug

ar per acr

e on

Capac

silt

loam,

Draher far

m, 1956.

CD£ooj£oftCOTD

PftCTv CD i—ICO

50 rH £ on

<D£mCQ •*H 5Q-=tP £ rH

<■!£CD<D£ •50 50

£ 0J£ <C•H4J£CD

£ •P P£ f t O V£ 0) rH

CO

O• •

5 0 1— 1• £ cn

Or <*:

ft50-zJ- £ rH

PcVJ

oOJ

ir\ o

OJcu

rH COLPiOJ t—-=f POCVJ

OVrH-zj- CT\ VO VO

cvi cvi co t—VO CFV D— zj-

VO rH VO G\

onvo oncrvb- CTVl>-

POCO OJ t— OJ CO LOO

z=i- o rnoj ovcrv t>-i— 1 1 — 1 1 — 1 1 — i

vo oj r—oo0\0 CTvC i—! OJ ■—I i—I

o o o oCVJ CO -zj-

o o o oCO 00 00 00

o o o oCVJ OJ OJ cu

&Is

o o o o t>-oo t cntH 00 CTWO

o o o o co^j- cn t— vo D"-VO vo

o o o oiH H4- OJ[>-00 VO vo

o o o orH C7V OJ VOVO

o o o oVO LOOVOJ CO-3- OMTV CO CVJ i—I i—Io o o o vo-zt cn oo vo cooo oo i—i cvj i—i i—i

o o o o vo O-Zt VO O i>-V£D l>- COCV1 0J CVJ

o o o o VO -zf vo vo OVrH O vo OJ c o c o oo

o o o o0J CO -zj- rH

o o o o00 CO 00 00

o o o oOJ OJ OJ CVJ

<DCQ £CQ OO cd£50 £<DCQ ftTJd ££ cdO 50PH £

CQ

CQP CDO £O O£ <d

OQ ££ CDO ftEh

ChVO voco CO 0J (Hc-vo o voCO CO co CVJ

p CD£ CQCD Oo ££ oCD £tu CQ

CVJ O 00 c—oo co ti-oo1— I I— I I— I I— 1

iH'.OO.• • * *o o >—

I—J I—1

o o o oOJ 0 0 -zj- rH

o o o o CO OO 0 0 oo

o o o oCVJ CVJ CVJ CVJ

32

Soil

tests

for pH,

pou

nds P and K per acre:

7*0;

4l;

99

and

7.5;

15; 39


18 inc

h samples.


required to

insert

0-4 and 0-8 inc

hes was

35

and 60

pounds

respectively

Table

13.

The effect of

fertilizers


of sugar

beet

petioles


percent

sucrose

and yield

of roots

and gross

sugar

per acr

e on

Kawkawlin

loam,

O'Laughlin farm,

1956-

• 0-P C O H h o o o co Gftoo on co ft co men to o0 I—1 i—1 i—! 00 VO -=d* o cdCO I—I GbO G0 1 1 1CO ft 1 1 I•ofH C• -=3* on ft o o o >-i MP cd0 bOO Ph t— m oj cd t—ooo o bop P on ft SZi OOOCTi ft PCO c 1—1 mEO•Hft

g0 • on.}- vo m o o0 bQO OHVO t— on onG P i—1 i—1 i—1 !>-CO 0^bO *=a;£ft p 0-P £ co£ 0 O O p-0 O Sh • • •ft G o i—1 i—I oG 0 P OJ OJ OJft • ft 02P ft on moo o o o£ ftco CAOJ CO OJ CAO0 ft 1—1 I—1 oj mtpft CO OJ H OJO•S•ft . o o t- o o o• boo 55 o\ w OJ OJ oa p on HenovOJ OJ OJ coPO 0O GSh O IIIcd 1 1 10 on VO rH o o o CObOO t'— OA-=f mcA o\ £ Sh£ i—1 I—1 I—1 1—1 o o o O 0on on on EH ft

0 o o m o o m o o m oG OJ l a w m moj m moj mo wcdG0 ma o o o m o o m o o mOJ mmcvj mmoi mmojto CL,HQO 55 on on on on on on on on onPh <—11—f i—i i—11—11—i i—i i—11—i

ONon• •>i—i

0ShPCO100 COco G 0

f t f t g• *\ G o0 f t• P

0 osoG 0

£ P Gcd 0 cd

1ftG0f t o

vo

•0

,£

vo

o Eh oon■ •

onCO

f t to cd' • 0 £t>=» i—1

ftCO00 cd ,£

Sh CO oOcd jC

G*H

ShoG o0 •H i—i

f t

■0

00rH

IOJ

io0G

G i—1 cdcd

f t0G «N

I f t

CO0Of t

cd

vo1o0

1o

1o,£P p

Kf t Sh

G0G O

f tCOGO f t •

f t >5f t O rHm 0 P 0

P > >00 *H T3 f t0 P 0 pp O G o0 ft 0i—i ft P f t£0 01 COo 0 0 0

CO G G G

33

Table

14.

The eff

ect of

fertilizers


of sug

ar beet

petioles (fo

ur sampling dates),

percent

sucros

e and yie

ld of

roots

and gro

ss sug

ar per acr

e on

Kawkawlin

loam,

Sprenger far

m, 1

95

6.

• 0p cnoo j- on O O O O in £poo t>-CO VO-zt onvo oj oj in 00 I—1 1—1 rH rH C^C^O OJ 0 cdco 1—11—1 £bQ £ is-o ovoo0 vo VO OJ 0CO p vo iH on m• TJ on on on onp on0 cocvi O O O O £ £pi>- in 0 0 1—i HOnOJH £ cd0 t—11—11—11—1 rH O-tH OJ O bOCD co a 1—1 1—1 1—I P ££3m P-I mCO♦H • OM>-0 [>- O O O OP bom OVOVCVIOV m«H t>-oo£ rH 1—1 1—1 1—1 1—1 OJ£ rH 1—1 )—I rH(DCD P£ £bO • 0 on 0 co O O O O 0 P50 0 vo 0 in CO crwo tr- 0 *H v o m m£ £ on OJ OJ rH m t"-a\o £ £ 00 co co co•H <c t—! 0 £P aP£0•H •£ p cncpiono O O O OP poo [>-00^-00 rH in 1—1 o\0 iH 1—1 1—11—1 cr\onmi>- P 0£ CO OJ OJ OJ OJ £ w0 O t—oo CO rH0 £ • # • •O £ 0 00 t*- [S-CO• 0 £ 1—I I—1 1—1 1—1•p Honoon O O O O P-i cmB a s O^C^ <J\ ononvo vo• 0 VO O OJ rHP CO moj oj onP

• ,H t>-OJ O O O Obom 000000 in OJ OJ VO 03£ rH 1—11—11—11—1 .=}■ rHOO 0- P 0on on oj oj O £O O ^-voo^-£ cd • • • *rH O rH iH• O iH vo co O O O O m £ 1—1 1—1 1—I 1—1bO O t-CTNCJV OJ -=j- 0 OJ £ 0£ on OJ 1—I 1—1 O 1—1 OJ 1—1 O Pon E-*

0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O£ CM ino m m o m m o m0 1—11—t 1—1 rH i—11—1cd£ 1 /"N0P li \O O O O O O O O O O O O OOJ O O O O O O O O O O O OCO Pu 1—1 1—I I—1 1—1 H i—1 rH rH H H H H£p0 ininmLO m m m m m m m mP-I VOVOVOVO vovovovo vovovovo

3 4

Soil

tests

for pH

pounds

P and K per acre:

7*3;

193;

267

and

7*2;

151;

79


18 inc

h samples.


required to

insert

0-4

, 0-8, and

0-12 inc

hes was

25, 45,

and

55 pounds

respectively.

Table

15.

The effect of

fertilizers


of sugar

beet

petioles

(four

sampling dates),

percent

sucrose

and yield

of roots

and gross

sugar

per acre on

Nester loam,

Hauck

farm,

1956.

•p m o o on ojftco ct\oj m v o0 ft i—! i—1CO

p C— OJ 5-COP ! 3 m m f t 000 r—1<L> CO£ fttoCOft • vo m o ojP 50 in ft O i—I OJ£ i—i 1—i 1—1 1—t 1—1£CDCD£50 • CO 5— OJ 0050 oj o -3-vo£ £ (ft) 1— 1 1—1 1—1ft Cft£CDft •u P ft ft 00 00-p ftOO m m m o j£ 0 1—I ft ft£ to

o• p oj o cn ojs ftis- oo m o o• 0 ftft coft a

v m o v = t oj50 m vo oo m o o£ i i i—11— i r—11—i

. f t O ^ t O O50 oo m m£ on rH i—1 >—E<

CD o O O O O£ OJ rH OJ VOo W OJ ftcd£CD mft o O O O OOJ cn oj oj ojCO ft i—11—11—11—i'O

o a m o o oft on oooo co

cd£5

W

0 iO O O O CQ £ oOJ 0O-3 OO ra O 0 raOJ i—I i—I o o cd p 01—1 1—1 1—1 1—I £ to £50£ moj t>-oj 0 •0 ft m 3 ft £ £CO P on ft o m cr ftT) onon-3- on VO 0 0o o o o £ £ i—i£ >OJ 0O3 OJ £ cd ftO O r—I t—1 o 50 • n 0 Pr—J i—1 i—t i—1 Pu £ 3 £ OCO £ 0• «\to Pm to too o o o • 0 0ft m 3- oo D- £ £o c o o m Pft ft T3 10£ £ rOp cd 0 G£ i>> P po o o o 0 p 0 oft m oj 3 o oooj ts-m vo & PO VD0OOO £ £ 00 co coco vo O1—1 0 £ ft £ mputP4 P 3• ■>03 £ ro3 0 £P cdo o o o •vo mmvo m 0 •>i—i m i—11—i p 0 •.£ mOJ OJ OJ OJ £ to vo EH on0 o vo m ft t—O £ • • • ■ • • •v£ o m m i s m 0 *m0 £ l—1 ■—1 r—I i—I £ to OJo o o o P-4to o 0m oj o m cd i—l CO3 o-m j- P cdOJ OJ OJ OJ £ £ £0 cdP CO to0o o o o w -£ -£o-ooo co co o ot— oj oj m P 0 TD £ £on on oj oj o £ £ *H fto O CO -3- vo O cd£ cd • • • • CO OJOJ OJ 003 Ph i—!fto o o o CO £ r—J i—1 i—1 i—) 1 1moj 3-co £ 0 to OJ om o m 3 o p TJ i—1003 oj on Eh G rap rO £O £ cdP cdvo 00w 1 iP o oo o o o O O O Oft OJ VD ■—I OJ vo £ 0 •vOJ ft OJ ft O -£ 3p 1oCO £p o pO O O O o o o o CO <n £OO OJ OJ OJ OOOJ OJ OJ 0 01—1 1—1 1—1 1—I 1—t 1—1 1—1 1—1 P raft £i—1 0 ft

*H >m o o o m o o o o •H oon oooo oo on oooo on CO P p

35

V O

<Di—IPcdEh

•Pp a cn(D 0 1— 10 • COo v o

inShccJ i— i •bO bfl rHP P mCO g

0S

<4H cd Po <M COCO

p Sh *H bO nfo 0 P P tH•H p <*;P cd P•H Sh 0CO « 0O Sh •& •s bO bOg g P OJo cd P <Co o

i— i •HrH Pcd o Po cd 0t

Picd

*HSh •

CD o P P-P P a c nO Po P 0

COi— 1

0 <n.p op ✓-- V

CO • •p 0 g bO i— 1o p • P m

cd PiCO T3 •Sh PiO bON P **H •H bO nf-rH rH P i— i•H PiP gS-l cd0 CO

U bOOh P P OJO O

CiHc

P V __OO CO<*H 0<H rHCD o

*H 0 oCD P U OJP 0 OEH Pi cd

U0PiCOO

LTVOOJCM

(U

CT\ rHV O 0 0 t— S

PO t"— t r~H OJ SCO s

vooo i—1 Lf\crv [>-00 oo

S O H C V ! rH OJ VO O

CO o o o o in cocoI—I

is-co s o4 H O

in moo inVO -=t 04 VO <H

VO CO OJ Scn OMnni— i i— 11— 11— t

s m o in on ismojrH OJ

in in in inS S S S

CO 0000(0vo vovovo

VO rHOO rH^4- isco in

cncvi SOJOOOO rH S I—i

ts t- SVOVO 00 0 0 oI—I

o co in in oj onvo oi—i

OJ t i—I OJ-=t o on ini—11—11—i

0 CVI4 - 0 OJ O M SIS

s h ont- vo s v o v o

o o -=j- in meni—i

t s m o in on ts in ojrH cvi

o o o oLnininini— 1 1 — 1 1 — 1 1 — i

o n o n o n o n V O V O V O V O

ocooo oj s m m s

-=t svo mCJMSO O

iH cvi h- m sooco s

nr- o o m s ensvo

0\04* OJmncvjcvii—11—11—i

vom-vonr-iH S O N S H

s t n o in m s m o ji—t OJ

in in m inOJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ

m m m mVOVOVOVO

36

Table

16.

(continued)

• O O O O o o o o o o o obO i—I bO COO CM rH co CT\coin O'* CM -=3* coP CO «=C S COCO CO CO CO CM COCO cm co no co0•bO i—1 cd o o o o o o o o o o o o inO'* ShPP co o vornvo in VO LftVOVO in in in ts- w ■<c CQ >>CM 0 rHCO Sh 00P •-p o o o o o o o o o o o o * ft >•rHCO ftON vocooMn ts-t- CO Is- -=d" CM Is- CM rH P pCO 0 i-1 mcM m^f o .3- in in co in cm i—i • 0 o•H CQ i—11—11—11—i CM i—1 i—1 i—| rH i—! i—1 i—I -P 0-P 0 ft

p . o o o o O O O O O O O O 13 £o CQ00 bO •—I OOOO CM CM CM 00 CM IS- vo r o\o £ Sh P0 P CO coco-j- -3- in CM CO rH CM _zj- CM cd ■PP cd i—1 i—1 i—1 rH 1—1 1—1 1—I 1—1 i—1 i—1 i—1 i—1 0 CQbC P5 P 13On 0 r~jP • o o o o o o o o O O O O vo ft P•H bOJ* OM—1 o i—1 O VO CM VO co ts-o o rH OP i—1 OSCM CO o COO CM rH a\CM CO OS 0 ft] -> <Z H H H rH i—1 i—I i—I i—1 rH £1P -=3r o0 CM vo•H • o o o o O O O OP bO 0\VO in rH rH inCOrH • n • 13-P p OJ tr-is-s-co O IS-VD s- s- CQ PP <u 1—I • 0 cdp vo i—1& in<+H • • • £ COo o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 cdftCJ'* ts-in t cm ts-covo o O COCO:=t p CQ CQ• 0 rH novo cm in rH in is- IS- cm ij- in o cds CQ -=j- co in-=t -=}* :=t CO CM cd .Pr\ &ft P OP CQ• • o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 tH 0ft bO i—1 vooo in co vo O C CTN covo on cm ft .P^ CO cscm in in mcM-3-vo S 0 0 4 co OC coj-t-t* CO t f- t COCO-f-.=t rH P1 •H13 CM• o o o o o o o o o o o o P rH 00bp-=t VQCO CM CO -=t CM rHCO O'* rH VO VD cd 1P «-H COVO VO COO IS-CM Sen ID o< COit -=t -=t j=j- _=t in cod* -=t -=t CM Pcd 13m P• O O O O o o o o 13 vo cdbO t"—i—I S— OS VO COO S- P 13 OJ ts--=t in CM in CM 00 P o ■=t<q H-.=t J=t t •=3- CO o ift 0 o.P-P -pK p

ft p 00 o NLQO m stno in s-uno in o CQp OJ co is-in cm co t— in cm co is-in cm Sh Cm Po i—I CM rH CM rH CM O *»Hcd <P

r—1 Op CQ 0 ■P0 m -P >ft o in in in in O O O O in in in in CQ •H 13OJ t— t— t t— in in in in CM CM CM CM 0 -P 0

pui i—11—11— 11—i CM CM CM CM -P O P<T3 0 •HrH ft Ppj •H CQ a*o ts: co co m co CO CO coco CO CO CO CO o 0 0Pm VO VO VO VO vovovovo vovovovo CQ Sh P

37

Table

17.

The effect of

fertilizers


of sugar

beet

petioles


percent

sucrose

and yield

of roots

and gross

sugar

per acre on

Kawkawlin

loam,

Charboneau farm,

1956*

•■pftOO0 1—ICQ

•0 &OO£ £ cnCQ <*:CQ*H1 £0 •0 600Sh £ rH60*=33G•H-P£0Sh-P •£ -P£ ftoo0 rHOh CQO•£si •• 600ft £ cn<5

CDgocdGCDftra

hOOO rH

OOJWinoCVJCM

PM

00 CT\VOcv=t vo

00 O-rH i— I i— I i— t

OJ OJ t-E— V O CT\

rH VO^h -=t CT\COi—1

o o\ o oo

OJ t"~— i—Ivo

VO rH V Ooo vooorH i—I i—I

v o VO rHoo covo1— I I— I I— I

Cd

o o oCT\ i— 1

cr\ i—( LnI—1

OJ o orH b- inrH n o

o o oVO I—I rH O rH I—I rH

o o o -vo n t— o ini—I CO i—I

o o o O CO o CO OMM OJ OJ co

o o oOvOJ cvi OJ oo oo

VO rH VOoo vooo

V O V O rHcoco voI—1 I—I I—It—1—

tQ 0gCQ 00 td

g60ShCQ 0

OhT3£ Sh£ td0 60PM £CQ

I I II I I

-P 0£ CQ0 OO ShG O0 £Pm CQo c o v o

■ • *rH O O OJ 0J OJ

CQ-P 0O ShO OG cdCQ ££ 0OEh

ft

vo rH vo 00 v o c oI—I I—I I—I

vo VO rHoo oovo

1>—t— -Cj- -=t

38

Soil tests

for pH,

pounds P and K per acre:

7*4;

J6;

71 and

7*7;

7; 39

respec

tively for the 0-6 and 12-

18 inc

h samples.

The penetrometer pressure required

to insert 0-4

, 0-6, and

0-8

inches was

40,

55*

and

65 pounds respectively.

Table

18.

The effect of

fertilizers


of sugar

beet

petioles (four

sampling dates)* percent

sucrose

and yield

of roots

and gross

sugar

per acr

e on

Sims cla

y loa

m., Wieland

farm,

1956.

-pftoj 0 CVI CO•bOOP on

<DPCQCQ •bOO-P P rH«=SG00GbO r—I t—P 0JG

•H

40GCD*HG •-P -PP PH OlG CD OJ

COCmO•B bOO• P onftsi

b O O P i-J <c

i— i tr—p OJ

CD OG 0J0 cd

MGCD mft 0OJCQp

0h

0Oh

o m t w o vo onm

i—i oo t OiHCO

£>- OM - c ovc

on co lt\ vo cooi—I i—!

co oj m oo t—ooi— 1 1 — i

inj- omoj

o oj vo o oo ovO J i— I i— I

CO VQ-=tco cr\ov

o o oCO-=J-0O

o o oC O 0 0

o o oOJ OJ OJ

cd

o o oO rH COoj comi—11—11—io o o OJ O- oo j o j m

o o oOJ-3-jzJ- O i—I i—I

o o o m m voi—I O CF\rH rH

O O Omoj o\ oj m-^r o n o j j=t

o o oo - c o OJ oj v o on o n o n o n

o o oi—1 i—ICF> rH JCfo j o n o n

o o ol>-OJ o -innco o n o n o n

o o o CO -d* co

o o oCOCO-=t

o o oOJ OJ OJ

0CQ GCQ 0O cdGbOG

CDCQ ft

PC GP cdO bOP-i PCQ

CQ- P CDO GO 0G cdCQ GG CDO ft

E h

m cr\vo00 OJl- OV CT\ rH-=j* -=j- m

- P CDG CQCD OO GG OCD POh CQ

i—! OJ i—Io d dOJ OJ OJ

OJ 00 OJ OJ OJI—I I—1 1—I

o o o CO -=J- co

o o o 0O C O 4 -

o o oCVI OJ OJ

vo CDGrH P

CQ* ^ CQ >3a\ CD rHvo G CD1—1 ft >

* *“S G •rHP >m CD O

• - P CDCD f ts CQ0 CDp G GG - Pcd CD CQG P

Q \CDf t §m OCD

* *\ gEh Oco vo• pm CQ G

. CD cd1—1& O• • sCD cdG CQ CQO cdcd G £G 0G CQCD •rH 0ft G00 0W 1—I G1 ♦iH

P O JG 1—1vocd 1p 0Oh Gcd pCQ G

P vo1 cdS 0 -3 -O 1ft CD OG

- P ■ PGO h G 0O CQG <M GO •Hci-H >s1—1 OCQ CD - P

- P >IQ •H PCD - P 0

- P O GCD •H

rH f t P•H CQO CD 0

CO G G

39

Table

19.

The effect of

fertilizers


of sugar

beet

petioles (four

sampling dates),

percent

sucrose

and yield

of roots

and gross

sugar

per acr

e on

Sims cla

y loa

m to

Pickford cla

y loam,

Wackerle farm,

1956.

•p 00 OVCTiftco rH on !>-CD rH I—1 rHCO

ovcm obOO O 0J op o n 1—i 1—1 1— 1<c

CDP ftCQra • OV i—*H bOO LT\ i—1-P p rH i—1<11PCDCDP on on cobO rH t— O'iOVOP OJ i—ip n>•H

Pp(D•Hp •p P o vo op f t o o C7\P CD rH 1—1

CO

o• • oooch

e b O O oooo• P on rH

ft <cf t

• CM IV -ObO O O C T \0P rH •H rH CM<=C

l>i o vo vorH t— o o \ o \p CM CM rH rH*“3

0Pocd0ftcq

oc m

inoCMft

OJ V O CM V - O O t—

CM CM VO 10-0-00

0000 00 ■—I i—I i—I

cd

0o o o CQ PCM o n rH CQ oCM CM o n O cdi— 1 rH t— 1 U

bO P 00 rH o m 00 O M V - O V m pCQ ft 00 o o P

o o o m v o v o ••s CQN O O jH Sh tv— CQH CM c n P cd m 0 CQ1— 1 1— 1 1— 1 O bO <— i P TJ

ft P ftCQ p

h T P Oo o o 0 ftcm v o o n tl PrH O O 0 o1— 1 1— 1 1— 1 g v oT3 O

P £h rocd P p

o o o 0 cd.=t o n o Po n o o o n 0i— i i— 11— i o ft m

rH -=j-0P 0 • «\ X3 •N

P CQ CM EH o<D O o c o o o t>- o nO p • • •P O Ch CT\ O V • CQ

o o o 0 P i— I i— 1 i— 1 CM CQ cdv o m o o ft CQ ♦ 0 £t>-00 IV- IV- i— 1CM CM CM ft CQ

• + g 00 cd X!

CQ oo o o O PrH CT\iH cd jp •rHV O COvOO oCM CM CM P p i— 1

0 •H i— 1ft 1

0 0 oO O O w i— 1v o o m CQ 1 TOtv- IV- V - 4J5 0 T5 CM PCM CM CM O P P i— I cd

O O m o n ^ j * cdSH cd * • • T3m m m ft P o o

o o o CQ p i— 11— 11— i cd im o - v o P 0 CQ om v o o O ft ra v oCM CM o n Eh 1

P oo ift 0 o•» p p

K pft p 0

CM V O CM CM V O CM o CQtv- ontv- tv- o n tv— P ft P

O •H •ft >srH O rHCQ 0 P 0P > >

OJ CM V O CM CM v o CQ •H TZJ •Htv- tv- o n C ' - b - o n 0 P 0 p

P O P o0 •rH 0

i— 1 ft El ft*H CQ CQc o o o o o o o o o o o O 0 0 0i— i i— 11— i I— 1 rH i— 1 CO P P Sh

40

Table

20.

The effect of

fertilizers


of sugar

beet

.PP C M0 CMCQ CO-P •

o voO in£ av .rH b O O<+H £ ono sTD £ 0i— 1 cd £0 CQ•H CQ .

-P *H p£ P C MTD 0 0 CM£ £ COcd O 0

0 00 -P £ •CQ CO W &0 oo £ on£ «\ £ <co £ •iH£ cdCQ o -Pi— 1 £-P 0 •£ £ p0 £ P C Mo i— 1 P 0 CM£ £ £ CO0 cd £p £ <£•v cd O .,— . bOOCQ • £ on0 £ B <-P O •cd PTD 0 «

£ PW o .£ cd p•H P C Mi— 1 £ 0 CMp 0 CO§ PCQ £

cd *O bO w o£ £ £ o nP CQ «c

CQCQ CQ0 Oi— 1 £O faOt H-P TD0 £Pi cd

oCQtd

OPh

cd

p-i

LA LA LTv VO O CVI I—I

0o o o CQ £vo in oo CQ OCM CM 0— o cdi—1 i—1 £

&0 £0

CQ Po o o TDon oo cm £ £rH i—1 CM £ cdi—1 i—1 i—1 O hOPl, p

CQ

o o ot>- vo ooon rH vo-=j* on

o o oon on rHtn rH in-rj"

P 0£ CQ0 oO £O- CO rH £ O

CO VO M- 0 £i—1 i—1 i—1 Ph &Q

On rH VOrH -zj" CMrH rH rH

4 on oC7\ t"- VO CQrH rH rH p 0

O £o o£ cd

CQ £000 £ 0o ptH

rH VO O VO VO OV rH cn o c o c n cn

co t— -=j- co c o oorH rH rH

-=3" O -=j-co cn oo

in in m vo o cvii—i

ininra£cdinc nuicd£CQ0.£0 £vo1oTD£cd

io-pu0CQ£•rHO-PTD0£•H&CDShCDSh£CQCQ0£p

Sh0-P0EoSh-P0£0Oil0£Eh

41

pounds respectively.

The data shown in Tables 8 through 20 were variable in respect to soil type, soil tests and fertilizer application and subsequently no precise correlations could be made. However, the following general observations were evident.

The data in Tables 8 and 9 show that, on soils very high in P but low in K, the concentration of N, P, K and Na in the petiole increased during the growing season. The amount of K in the tissue tended to correlate with the amount of K applied in the fertilizer. Fertilizers had no apparent effect on yield of roots or percent sucrose.

The data in Tables 10 and 11 show that on soils very high in P but medium in K the concentration of K and Na in the petiole increased during the growing season but the concentration of P in the petiole was variable with respect to date of sampling and amounts of phosphate and potash applied. The very low values obtained on the September 22nd tissue test for the K2SO4 application probably was due to experimental error. Fertilizer did not affect yield of roots and percent sucrose to any appreciable degree.

The data in Tables 12 and 13 show that on soils low in P and medium in K the concentration of P, K and Na in the petiole, in general, was directly related to the amounts of potash applied, but the concentration of K in the tissue tended to decrease as the season progressed. The yield of

42

roots was increased by potash application but no effect on percent sucrose (Table 12) occurred.

The data in Tables 14, 15, 16 and 17 show that on soils either high in P and K and/or receiving heavy fertilizer applications the concentration of P and K in the petiole was not correlated with season or treatment. However, the data in Tables 15 and 16 show that Na increased in the petiole during the season. The Ca and Mg contents of the petiole were not affected by fertilization (Table 16). Data in Tables 13 and 14 indicate no apparent effect of fertilizer on yield of roots, percent sucrose or percent purity.

The data in Tables 18 and 19 show that on soils medium in P and K and receiving moderate fertilizer applications the concentration of P and K in the petiole was not correlated with season or fertilizer. However, Na did tend to increase in the tissue during the season. Fertilizers had no significant effect on yield of roots or percent sucrose.

The data in Table 20 show increasing nitrogen applications had no apparent effect on the concentration of P, K and Na in the petiole or on yield of roots and percent sucrose.

No consistent relationship is apparent between nitrogen concentration in the petiole with the amount of fertilizer applied to the soil. Instead, nitrogen concentration in the

43

tissue would appear to be related to possible climatic factors which, in turn, would influence nitrogen availability in the soil.

The data in Tables 8 through 20 show that the only marked yield response (Table 12) was due to application of potassium fertilizer. This occurred when the concentration of K in the petiole at the later sampling dates was less than 2200 p.p.m. and the Na concentration below 1000 p.p.m.

The penetrometer data show that those fields with the highest yield of roots had the lowest readings. This might indicate that soil compaction is an important deterrent to high yields of beets.

Yield of roots, percent sucrose and nutrient concentration in the petiole could not be correlated with soil tests of samples taken at the 12 to 18 inch depth.

44

PART IV. DEPTH OP PLOWING

Procedure

Two experiments located on a Sims clay loam and a Kawkawlin-Sims sandy loam complex in Huron county (locations 7 and 9) were initiated in 1956 to study the effect of depth of plowing on growth of beets.

On the Gremel farm (location 7) the depths of plowing were 10 inches using a moldboard type plow and 16 inches using the disc type plow shown in Plate 2. A 5-20-20 analysis fertilizer was applied about 1 inch to the side and 2 inches below the seed at a rate of 600 to 700 pounds per acre.

Duplicate 0.24 acre plots were planted on April 17th using US 400 variety. The plots were harvested October l8th and yield of roots per acre, percent sucrose and percent purity determined.

Green tissue samples were taken from each plot at various dates during the season and the chemical composition determined. Penetrometer readings were made at different depths on August 13th and September 7th.

On the Kurzer farm (location 9) the depths of plowing were 7 inches using a moldboard type plow and 16 inches using the disc plow. A 5-20-20 analysis fertilizer was used.

45

Plate 2. Equipment used for deep plowin,

45p

The four treatments at each depth of plowing consisted of:0 ; 70 0 pounds per acre plowed under; 700 pounds per acre 1 inch to the side and 2 inches "below the seed at planting time; and 7 0 0 pounds per acre plowed under with 700 pounds per acre 1 inch to the side and 2 inches below the seed at planting time.

Three replications of each treatment were planted to sugar beets May 25th using US 400 variety and 0.005 acres of each were harvested October 18th and yield of roots per acre, percent of sprangly roots, percent sucrose, and percent purity determined.

Green tissue samples were taken at various dates during the season and the chemical composition determined. Penetrometer readings were made at different depths on September 7th. Duplicate soil moisture determinations were made at various depths on September 21st.

46


<H•sSO cd0

G CD 1— 1O CQ

O >a-P ft cd•H O 1— 103 0 OO raOr rae -p S0 O * H0 CD CQ

Oi— ! ft Ocd CD O0 Or•H CDs ShCD <■— «, O.£ ra cd0 CD

p ShCD cd CDS i 0 Or-P 50 O0 O cd0 •H hO

1— 1 050 Or raO•H cu ra> ra ra0 O1— 1 Sh OOr O 50

O<H Cm rOO '— * O

cds i ra-P CD ra »Or rH p voCD 0 0 inO *H 0 cn

p Sh iH<H CDO Or Cm

O e-P P ShO CD rO cdCD CD 1— 1 <MO CD

Cm *H rHCD Sh CD

cd f iCD 50 O CDS i 0 0 ShEH ra cd O

OJ

0 i—I .jQcdEh

•PO 1—10 OJCO

#50002 OJ<cCDOrara •

•H 50 COp O rH

GCDCDSh •50 50

£ OJG <c•H

PG0*HSh •P pG Or rHG 0 OJ

COCmO

s 5000• £ OJ

Or COr

•50 CO0 rH<C

50£ OJ«=C

O bOW G a> si -h .£ p ;s o a o dCD i—I *H Q Qs-'

P h

0vo 00 O O ra ftrH Cn OJ ,=j- ra 0rH OJ CO 0 td

rH rH ft50 Sh0ra aPi* Pj- O O T5pf- 5- in co £ ft1—I 1—1 cn cr\ £ td0 50cd Or £S raIS- cvi 0 0O CO C \ rHOJ r—1 vo 00

Pcn cn 0 0 £1—I 0"v vo Pj- 0 P1—1 00 00 O *Hft ft0 PPH O,

rH CO 0 000 vo pj- IS- P 0rH rH Pi- 00 £ raPf- CO 0 00 ft

ft 00 £OJ 00 0 0 Ph raCO cn 0 m1—I 1—1 cn coCO CO

fcGO vo 0 00 a\ -St -=*■ raCVI 00 00 p 0CO CO 0 ft

O 0ft cdis- m 0 0 ra ft00 00 cn 0 G 0

rH 00 CVI 0 a00 pj- Eh

VO O rH i—1 VO OrH rH

V OOJONto

CO00

pj-G\

00 i—I

VO O

47

18.3

19.4

84 59

64

Table 21. continued.

Soil tests for pH, pounds P and K per acre when plowed 16 inches deep: 7 -0 ; 1 2 1; 142 and 7 *3 ; 9 3 ; 75 respectively for the 0 - 7 and 8 -1 5 inch samples; and when plowed 10 inches deep: 7 *5 ; 3 7 ; 35 and 7 *7 ; 6 6 ; 13 respectively for the 0 -6

and 12-18 inch samples. The penetrometer pressure recordedAugust 13th required to insert 0-4, 0-8, and 0-12 inches was 3 5 * 5 0 , and 50 respectively when plowed 16 inches deep; for the same depth of insertion, 2 5, 35 > and 40 respectivelywhen plowed 10 inches deep. The penetrometer pressurerecorded September 7th required to insert 0-4 and 0-8 inches was 35 and 60 respectively when plowed 16 inches deep; and, for the same depths of insertion, 35 and 50 respectively when plowed to 10 inches.

48

The data in Table 21 show that, on a Sims clay loam,medium to low in P and K, the concentration of K in thetissue at the last two sampling dates was higher where thesoil had been deep plowed. Sodium concentration in thetissue increased during the season.

Where the soil was plowed 16 inches deep soil test results show a decrease in pH and an increase in P and K at both depths of sampling.

49

Table

22.

The effect of

depth

of plowing


of sugar

beet petioles (four

sampling dates),

percent

sucrose

and yield

of

roots

and gross

sugar

per acr

e on

Kawkawlin

sandy

loam,

Kurzer farm

1956.

•-P 0 5 V O CVJ CVIPi 1— 1 CVJ 0 O CVJCD CVI 1—1 1— 1 1—1 1—1

0 0

• D— V O « H D—5 0 0 0 CVI 1—1 1—1 1— )

P P CVI 1—1 1—1 1—1 1— 1p <c0ra Ph

• H. p • t — 0 5 - ^ j - D—

5 Q C O C O CVJ CVI r HP P i H 1— t 1—1 1— 1 1—1P <<D

5 0• L A L A C O L A

P 5 0 CVJ D— i f D—♦ H P CVJ CVJ CVJ CVI CVJ

- PPO

• HP •

- P - p C O LA L A OP P H 0 5 V O 0 5 OP CD CVI H H H C V I

CO

O

. • V O C O LAt—& 5 0 0 0 1—1 0 0 V O 1— 1• p CVI I— 1 1— 1 1— 1 1— 1

P r csi 52:

• 0 0 o^t-5 0 C O O V O O 0 5P r H CVJ r H CVJ<

• 00 000vo5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 52 CVI r H CVI ■—1 1—1*=£

Pra O Sh

' D CVJ O o o o o1 cd o o o o

3 O -= j- C— 1 > - ^ *O CVI Sh r H i HOh 1 P

LA P h

<HO 5 0 ra

P PX l * H X ! V O V O D— D—- P £ O 1— 1 1— 1P i O PCD r H * H

Q P — ^

03£5

O O O Ocvivo covo co t— o 0 0

1— !

o o o o r= j* d— c o l aVO VO E— 1>—

O O O O O OJ vo LA CVJ r—1

o o o oO D— D— L A^j* rococo

o o o oO CVI LTvvovo ovcoiA0O-=3--=J-

0 0 0 0-H* CJ5VOVO h ovt-m iAeoco-=t

0 0 0 0O 0 5 0 0 D— CVI D— L A L A VO-=j- LA

o o o oCO CVI CO^J- D— 0 5 rH 0 5 LA-H~ LA LA

o o o oo o o o-=t 1>—1—! 1—I

VO VO D— D— r H r H

pra Shra 00 cdSh50 ppra ptdc pP cd0 50p pra

D 1—I 05 D*— 0500 VO D— LA-=t COD— si - J J — si

vo co 1—11—1CVJ L A O l a V O C O r H V OCO CVI COCO

-pPP -P0 *HP PP PP P-P PP raP 00 PP 0P PP ra

ra■P p0 P0 0P cdra PP P0 aEh

■H- VOCO LA0 0 0 0 co co 0 0 D— C O -z j;00 CO 00 CO

O rH-=J- O O O O Oo o o oCVI CVI CVI CVI

VO 0 5 1—I O

CO CVJ CVJ j j -I—I I—I I—I I—I

o o o o o o o o -=3- D— t—-=3"rH rH

vovo D— C—

o o 0 0 0CVJ CVI CVI rH

COCVI.it rH000 CAcvi

^ vp pp p§

TD

TD TDP P£ £O O1—1 1—1O r a---- '— ■O O O O0 0c— D—

vo vo c—d—1— I rH

50

Table 22. continued.

Soil tests for pH, pounds P and K per acre when plowed16 inches deep: 7-3; 84; 88 and 7-2; 7 2; 93 respectivelyfor the 0-7 and 8 -1 5 inch samples; and, when plowed 7 inches deep: 7*9; 66; 79 and 7*9; 1 9 9; 39 respectively for the0-6 and 12-18 inch samples. The penetrometer pressure required to insert 0-4, 0-7* 10-14 and 1 0 -1 7 inches was 40, 7 0 , 40 and 65 respectively when plowed to 16 inches deep; and, for the same depths of insertion, 40, 7 0 , 40 and 70

respectively when plowed to 7 inches deep.

91

The data in Table 22 show that, on a Kawkawlin-Sims sandy loam complex, medium to low in P and K, the concentration of P and K in the petiole increased with the amount of fertilizer applied. Sodium concentration in the tissue increased during the season.

Fertilizer markedly increased yield of roots. Where 1400 pounds per acre was applied the highest yield of roots with an average of 13*8 ton per acre was obtained. Where 7 0 0 pounds per acre was applied at planting time, the average yield of roots was 12.5 tons per acre. In this experiment, 700 pounds per acre of fertilizer plowed -under to a depth of 7 inches was apparently nearly as effective as the application of 700 pounds per acre in a band 1 inch to the side and 2 inches below the seed.

Where plowed to a depth of 16 inches, yield of roots was reduced compared with areas plowed to a depth of 7 inches by 1.2 ton per acre where no fertilizer was applied and by1.8 ton per acre where 700 pounds of fertilizer was plowed under but none applied at planting time.

Where the soil was plowed 16 inches deep, soil test results show a decrease in pH at both depths of sampling.

5 2

Table 23, The effect sugar beet

of depth of plowing on sprangling in roots, Kurzer farm, 1956.

Depth of plowing Percent sprangly beets16 inches 137 inches 39

The data shown in Table 23 indicate that the percent of sprangly roots as shown in Plate 4 from conventional plowing was greater than those from deep plowing. This difference is indicated by the piles of roots from some typical plots on the Kurzer farm (Plate 5)-

Table 24. The effect of depth of plowing on soil moisture content at various depths, September 21, 1956* Kurzer farm.

Depth of plowing Depth of sample Percent moisture16 inches 4 inches 10.5

9-12 inches 10.01 5 -1 8 inches 9-3

7 inches 4 inches 10.09-12 inches 8 .7

1 5 -1 8 inches 8 .1

The data in Table 24 indicate that deep plowing may have increased moisture retention but no yield difference could be shown.

53

Plate 4, Sprangly beet roots on land plowed at a conventional depth,

53p

■- “W - > > - r ..-'•w;. ;.W.

Plate 5. Yields of sprangly and well shaped beet roots from deep and conventional plowed areas. The two piles on the left (2) are from dee? plowing and on the right (1) are from normal plowing.

53 pa

SUMMARY

Treatments of 0 , 750, and 1500 pounds per acre of ammonium nitrate; 2 2 0 8, 3680 and 5 5 2 0 pounds per acre of 49 percent treble superphosphate; and 1 7 8 5, 3 6 7 5, and 4725 pounds per acre of 60 percent nuriate of potash did not establish field levels of these nutrients corresponding to laboratory fixation tests of the soil. Soil nitrate levels were increased by the heaviest application of ammonium nitrate but phosphorus levels were not affected by phosphorus applications. Soil potassium was increased by potassium applications to levels higher than desired but application of the heaviest amount resulted in no higher level than the medium application.

Nitrates in the petioles from areas receiving the two higher nitrogen applications were increased markedly but phosphorus was decreased.

The yield of roots was significantly increased by the addition of nitrogen but percent sucrose was decreased. The interaction of nitrogen and potassium was significant, in that, at the lowest nitrogen level, the addition of potassium reduced yield of roots but with the higher amounts of nitrogen applied yield of roots was not reduced.

54

The lack of agreement of soil test values reached in the laboratory and the field together with lack of correlation of chemical composition to nutrient levels in the soil was probably due to the nutrient supplying and fixing power of the soil, the physical condition of the soil and/or weather conditions .

The application of phosphorus to a soil low in phosphorus or as a foliar spray increased the phosphorus concentration of the tissue. Nitrogen applications resulted in a decrease in the phosphorus concentration of the tissue. Foliar sprays of phosphorus tended to increase the concentration of phosphorus in the tissue in proportion to the amount applied but did notappear to appreciably influence the yield of roots or percentsucrose.

Where various ratios of fertilizer were applied, precise correlations could not be made due to variability with respect to soil type, soil tests, and fertilizer amounts and ratios. However, the following general trends are suggested. On soils medium or low in potassium the concentration of potassium andsodium in the petiole increased during the growing season andusually increased with increasing amounts of applied potassium fertilizer. On soils low in phosphorus the concentration of phosphorus in the tissue increased with increasing amounts of applied potassium fertilizer.

55

The differences between yield of roots from areas where various fertilizer ratios were applied were small except in one case. In this case where the soil was low in phosphorus and low to medium in potassium, increasing the amount of K 20 applied from 0 to 80 pounds per acre resulted in an increased yield of roots of about 46 percent. This would indicate that an x-2-1 ratio of fertilizer is probably adequate for these soils.

The effect of date of sampling on chemical composition of the petiole varied with location and would fall into four categories; (l) no distinct trend, (2) increase, (3) decrease, and (4) highest concentration at intermediate dates.

Soil penetrometer data indicate that soil compaction is an important deterrent to high yields.

Plowing to a depth of sixteen inches decreased the soil pH and the percent of sprangly roots but tended to increase soil moisture retention.

5 6

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Alexander* J. T.* et.al. The effect of fertilizer applications on leaf analysis and yield of sugar beets. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 2:370-379*1954.2. Andrlik* K. The Injurious effect of nitrogen in the sugar beet. Ztschr. Zukerindus. Bohem. 31:277-284*

1907.3* Andrlik* K. and J. Urban. The effect of defoliating sugar beets. Ztschr. Zukerindus. Bohmen. 31:708-761*

1907.4. Carlson* W. E. Mineral assimilation cf sugar beets.Proc. Amer Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 81-100* 1942.5- Lill* J. G. and H. C. Rather. Sugar beets after alfalfa.Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Quart. Bui. 26* No. 2* 129-133, 1943-6. Robertson* L. S. and C. M. Hansen. A recording soilpenetrometer. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Quart. Bui. 33,1-4* 1950.7- Roboz* E. Harmful constituents of the beet - factorswhich influence the harmful nitrogen. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 515-528* 1942.8. Schropp* W. and B. Arenz. The effect of a sulfur deficiency on the morphology* yield and nitrogen economy of some cultivated plants. Bodenkunde u.Pflanzenernahr. 20:68-81* 1940.9 . Skuderna* A. W. Resume of commercial fertilizer studies with sugar beets. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 138-146; 1942.

10. Skuderna, A. W. and C. W. Doxtator. A study with sugar beets on two fertility levels of soil. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 112-119* 1942.11. Spurway, C. H. Soil testing: A practical system of soil diagnosis. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bui. 132 (3rd

rev.), 19^ *

57

12. Tolman, B. Response to nitrogen and phosphate fertilizers in the intermountain area. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 45-53, 1946.13* Ulrich, A. Plant analysis as a guide to fertilization of crops. Better Crops with Plant Pood, Amer. Potash Inst., Inc. No. 6, p. 6, June-July, 195§*14. U.S.D.A., Div. of Chem. Bui. 27:54-57, 1 8 9 0.15. Wilfarth, H. and G. Wimmer. The effect on plants of a deficiency of nitrogen, phosphoric acid or potash.

Jour. Landw. 51:2:129-138, 1 9 0 3.16. Wiley, H. Influence of soil and climate on composition

of sugar beets. U.S.D.A. Div. of Chem. Bui. 74, 19^3*17. Zitkowski, M. P., M. P. Potvliet and I. W. Reed. Composition of sugar beets at various stages of the growing season. Sugar, 1 8 :2 9 6-2 9 8, 1 9 1 6.

58

effect of applied nutrients on the chemical george …

Documents