z,-

 

ABSTRACT

THE EFFECT OF TIME AND RATE OF APPLICATION OF NITROGEN, DATE OF
HARVEST AND VARIOUS PRODUCTION PRACTICES ON THE YIELD
AND SUCROSE CONTENT OF SUGAR BEETS

by Charles Stanley Baldwin

In a three-year experiment on Brookston clay loam, the effect of
time and rate of application of nitrogen was studied on the yield and
sucrose content of sugar beets. Maximum yield of sugar was obtained
when nitrogen was applied as a preplant application at 90 or 120 pounds
per acre or as a sidedressing in mid-June at 60 or 90 pounds per acre.

A harvest delay of 28 days resulted in an increase of 1017 pounds
of sugar per acre, representing an average increase of 36 pounds per
acre per day.

The date of harvest was the most important factor affecting the
sucrose content of beets. The order of importance of the variables on

differences in sucrose content was:

Date of harvest }> Time of nitrogen application >

Rate of nitrogen application > Interactions.

The rate of nitrogen application and date of harvest were about
equal in effect and accounted for the majority of the variation in root
yield. The order of importance of the variables on differences in root

yield was:

Rate of nitrogen application 1‘! Date of harvest >)

Time of nitrogen application S) Interactions.

Charles Stanley Baldwin

The date of harvest was the most important factor contributing to
differences in sugar yield. The order of importance of the variables on

the variation in sugar yield was:

Date of harvest )5) Rate of nitrogen application ’>

Time of nitrogen application )> Interactions.

From a three-year survey of 2618 sugar beet farmers (representing
29h57 acres of beets), various production practices were correlated with
the yield and sucrose content. Regression and partial correlation
coefficients were calculated for 11 production practices.

On coarse-textured soils the production practices accounted for
approximately 36 percent of the total variation in yield and sucrose
content of beets. The majority of the variability in sucrose content
was accounted for by date of planting, date of harvest, and rate of
nitrogen application. Variations in root and sugar yield were due
primarily to the date of planting and rate of nitrogen application.

On fine-textured soils the production practices accounted for approx-
imately 25 percent of the total variation in yield and sucrose content of
beets. Variations in sucrose content were associated mainly with date of
planting and date of harvest. The date of planting was the major factor
causing variation in root and sugar yield each year. Nitrogen in 1961,
tile drainage in 1962, and K20 in 1963 made significant contributions to

root and sugar yield differences.

THE EFFECT OF TIME AND RATE OF APPLICATION OF NITROGEN, DATE
OF HARVEST AND VARIOUS PRODUCTION PRACTICES ON THE

YIELD AND SUCROSE CONTENT OF SUGAR BEETS

By

Charles Stanley Baldwin

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Soil Science

196A

TO MARLENE

This thesis is affectionately dedicated to
my wife for her unfailing encouragement
and willing assistance and sacrifices

during this investigation.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author wishes to express his appreciation to:
Drs. J. F. Davis, E. C. Doll, L. S. Robertson, B. G. Ellis, and R. L. Cook
of the Soil Science Department and Dr. R. S. Bandurski of the Botany Depart-
ment, Michigan State University, and Dr. G. C. Ashton of the Department of
Physics, Ontario Agriculture College, Guelph, Ontario, for their assist-
ance and counsel during this investigation.

The co-operation and assistance of Mr. C. E. Broadwell and the
Canada and Dominion Sugar Company in collecting data, harvesting, and
chemical analyses; and the Farmers and Manufacturers Beet Sugar Associa-
tion for financial assistance of the statistical calculations was sin-
cerely appreciated.

The financial support of the Ontario Department of Agriculture

is gratefully acknowledged and appreciated.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

EXPERIMEN T I:

CONTENT OF SUGAR BEETS .
LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . .
Rate of nitrogen application

Time of nitrogen application
Date of harvest . . . . . . . . . .
Nitrate nitrogen content of petioles
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . .
Soil description . . . . . . . . .
Statistical design and treatments .
Cultural practices . . . . . . . .

Sampling and harvesting . . . . . .

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . .

The effect of date of harvest, and time

THE

YIELD AND

and

The effect of date of harvest, and time and
of nitrogen on root yield . . . . . . . . .

The effect of date of harvest, and time and

of nitrogen on sugar yield

The effect of date of harvest, and time and
of nitrogen on beet top yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A visual rating of the intensity of cercospora leaf blight

A visual rating of the intensity of nitrogen deficiency symptom

rate of
of nitrogen on the sucrose content of sugar beets .

rate of

rate of

rate of

SUCROSE

THE EFFECT OF TIME AND RATE OF APPLICATION OF NITRO-
GEN AND OF HARVEST DATE ON

application

application

application

application

Petiole analyses for nitrate nitrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . .

General discussion

iv

0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O

Page

0) (I) O\ 0\ {Two

10

ll

13

13

l7

25

27

30
33

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Page

EXPERIMENT II: A SURVEY OF THE PRODUCTION PRACTICES AFFECTING YIELD

AND SUCROSE CONTENT OF SUGAR BEETS IN ONTARIO,

CANADA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
LITE? TURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
List of data collected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
List of comparisons made . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

APPENDIX 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O 107

7.

9.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

LIST OF TABLES

Soil tests results from the experimental locations . . . . .

The time of preplant and sidedressed nitrogen applications .

The monthly rainfall during the growing season . . . . . . . .
Date of petiole samplings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dates of sugar beet harvest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The effect of time and rate of application of nitrogen, and of
harvest date on the sucrose content of sugar beets, 1961,
1962 arid- 1963 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O

The effect of time and rate of application of nitrogen and of
harvest date on the three-year average of yield and sucrose
content of sugar beets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The R2 values for date of harvest, time and rate of applica-
tion of nitrogen and their interactions on the sucrose con-
tent of sugar beets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The effect of time and rate of application of nitrogen, and of
harvest date on the tons of beet roots per acre, 1961, 1962
am 1963 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O I O O

The R2 values for date of harvest, time and rate of applica-
tion of nitrogen and their interactions on the tons of roots

per acre 0 O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

The effect of time and rate of application of nitrogen, and of
harvest date on the pounds of sugar per acre, 1961, 1962 and

1963 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

The R2 values for date of harvest, time and rate of applica-
tion of nitrogen and their interactions on the yield of
sugar per acre 0 O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

The effect of time and rate of application of nitrogen and of
harvest date on the tons of beet tops per acre, 1961, 1962
and 1963 O O O O O O C C O C O O O O O O O C C O O C O O O O

The effect of time and rate of application of nitrogen on root
to top ratios of sugar beets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vi

Page

10

ll

12

14

15

l6

18

20

22

24

26

28

LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Table Page

15. The effect of time and rate of application of nitrogen on the
incidence of cercospora blight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

16. The effect of time and rate of application of nitrogen on
nitrogen deficiency symptoms of the sugar beets at the time
of early harvest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

17. The effect of time and rate of application of nitrogen on the
nitrate nitrogen content of sugar beet petioles in 1961,
1962 and 1963 C C O O C O C C C O C O O O C O C O O O C O O 32

18. A comparison of three combination of treatments selected from
the three-year averages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

19. The effect of three treatment combinations on the yield and
sucrose content of sugar beets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

20. Probability levels for significant differences between treat-
ment3f0r196l,19623nd1963 .eeeeeeeeeeeeee 35

21. Probability levels for significant differences between inter-
aCtionS for 1961, 1962 and 1963 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 37

22. The effect of districts on the yield and sucrose content of
sugar beets in 1961, 1962 and 1963 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

23. The effect of soil texture on the yield and sucrose content of
sugar beets in 1961, 1962 and 1963 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

24. The effect of tile drainage on yield and sucrose content of
sugar beets in 1961, 1962 and 1963 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

25. Regression coefficients and partial correlation coefficients
of the sucrose content due to various production practices
of beets grown on coarse-textured soils . . . . . . . . . . 52

26. Regression coefficients and partial correlation coefficients
of the root yield due to various production practices of
beets grown on fine-textured soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

2?. Regression coefficients and partial correlation coefficients
of the sugar yield due to various production practies of
beets grown on fine-textured soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

28. The effect of legumes the preceding years on the yield and
sucrose content of sugar beets in 1961, 1962 and 1963 . . . 55

29. The effect of the previous crop on the yield and sucrose con-
tent of sugar beets grown on fall—plowed, fine-textured
soils in 1961, 1962 and 1963 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
vii

Table

300

31.

320

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

41.

42.

“30

LIST OF TABLES (continued)

The effect of the amount of manure applied on the yield and
sucrose content of sugar beets grown on fine-textured soils
in 1961, 1962 and 1963 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e

The effect of the year of application of manure on the yield
and sucrose content of sugar beets grown on fine-textured
soils in 1961, 1962 and 1963 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The effect of time of plowing on the yield and sucrose con-
tent of sugar beets in 1961, 1962 and 1963 . . . . . . . .

Regression coefficients and partial correlation coefficients
of the sucrose content due to various production practices
of beets grown on fine-textured soils . . . . . . . . . . .

The effect of depth of plowing on the yield and sucrose con-
tent or sugar beets in 1961, 1962 and 1963 e e e e e e e e

The effect of the number of times worked prior to planting on
the yield and sucrose content of sugar beets grown on fine-
textured soils in 1961, 1962 and 1963 . . . . . . . . . . .

The effect of the number of times worked prior to planting on
the yield and sucrose content of sugar beets grown on
coarse-textured soils in 1961, 1962 and 1963 . . . . . . .

The effect of soil test on the yield and sucrose content of
sugar beats in 1961, 1962 and 1963 e e e e e e e e e e e e

The effect of date of planting on the yield and sucrose con-
tent of sugar beets grown on fine-textured soils in 1961,
1962 and 1963 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

The effect of date of planting on the yield and sucrose con-
tent of sugar beets grown on coarse-textured soils in 1961,
1962 and 1963 O O O C O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O I

Regression coefficients and partial correlation coefficients
of the root yield due to various production practices of
beets grown on coarse-textured soils . . . . . . . . . . .

Regression coefficients and partial correlation coefficients
of the sugar yield due to various production practices of
beets grown on coarse-textured soils . . . . . . . . . . .

The effect of row width on the yield and sucrose content of
sugar baets in 1961, 1962 and 1963 e e e e e e e e e e e e

The effect of method of application of fertilizer on the
yield and sucrose content of sugar beets in 1961, 1962 and

1963 O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O 0

viii

Page

57

59

6O

61

62

64

65

66

67

69

70

71

72

73

Table
44.

45.

49.

500

51.

520

53.

54.

55.

56.

LIST OF TABLES (continued)

The effect of method of application of nitrogen on the yield
and sucrose content of sugar beets in 1961, 1962 and 1963 .

The effect of time of sidedressing nitrogen on the yield and
sucrose content of sugar beets in 1961, 1962 and 1963 . . .

The effect of total pounds of nitrogen per acre on the yield
and sucrose content of sugar beets grown on fine-textured
soils in 1961, 1962 and 1963 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The effect of total pounds of nitrogen per acre on the yield
and sucrose content of sugar beets grown on coarse-textured
50fl5m1961,19623nd1963eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

The effect of total pounds of P205 per acre on the yield and
sucrose content of sugar beets grown on fine-textured soils
in 1961’ 1962 and 1963 O O O O O I O 0 l O O O O O O O O O O

The effect of total pounds of P20 per acre on the yield and
sucrose content of sugar beets rown on coarse-textured
30i13m196l,19623nd1963eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeo

The effect of total pounds of K20 per acre on the yield and
sucrose content of sugar beets grown on fine-textured soils
in 1961’ 1962 and 1963 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O

The effect of total pounds of K20 per acre on the yield and
sucrose content of sugar beets grown on coarse-textured
501131111961, l962and1963................

The effect of date of harvest on the yield and sucrose content
of sugar beets in 1961, 1962 and 1963 . . . . . . . . . . .

The effect of the total pounds of fertilizer applied on the
yield and sucrose content of sugar beets grown on tiled-
drained, fine-textured soils in 1961, 1962 and 1963 . . . .

The effect of the interaction of nitrogen material with the
method of application, on the yield and sucrose content of
sugar beets grown on fine-textured soils in 1961, 1962 and

1963 O O O O C O O O O C O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

The effect of the interaction of nitrogen material with time
of sidedressing, on the yield and sucrose content of sugar
beets grown on fine-textured soils in 1961, 1962 and 1963 .

The effect of the interaction of planting date (April 11-20)
with the date of harvest, on the yield and sucrose content
of sugar beets grown on fine-textured soils in 1961, 1962
and 1963 C O C O O C O O C O C O C O O O O C O O C O O 0 O 0

ix

Page

76

77

79

8O

81

83

84

85

87

88

89

9O

Table

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
7o.
71.
72.

LIST OF TABLES (continued)

The effect of the interaction of planting date (May 1-10) with
the date of harvest, on the yield and sucrose content of
sugar beets grown on fine-textured soils in 1961, 1962 and

1963 O C O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

The effect of the interaction of planting date (May 11-20)
with the date of harvest, on the yield and sucrose content
of sugar beets grown on fine-textured soils in 1961, 1962
and 1963 O O O C O C O O O C O C O C O C C 0 O O C O C C O O

The R2 values for the various production practices on the
yield and sucrose content of sugar beets grown on coarse-
textured soils in 1961, 1962 and 1963 . . . . . . . . . . .

The R2 values for the various production practices on the
yield and sucrose content of sugar beets grown on fine-
textured soils in 1961, 1962 and 1963 . . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of variance of sucrose content data, 1961 . . . . . .

Analysis of variance of root yield data, 1961 . . . . . . . .

Analysis of variance of sugar yield data, 1961 . . . . . . . .

Analysis of variance of top yield data, 1961 . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of variance of sucrose content data, 1962 . . . . . .

Analysis of variance of root yield data, 1962 . . . . . . . .

Analysis of variance of sugar yield data, 1962 . . . . . . . .

Analysis of variance of top yield data, 1962 . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of variance of sucrose content data, 1963 . . . . . .

Analysis of variance of root yield data, 1963 . . . . . . . .

Analysis of variance of sugar yield data, 1963 . . . . . . . .

AnalySiS Of variance or top yield data, 1963 e e e e e e e e e

Page

91

93

94

95
107

109
111
113
114
116
118
120
121
123
125

127

INTRODUCTION

A marked increase in the rates of nitrogen applied to sugar beets in
recent years has been accompanied by a decrease in the sucrose content of
the roots. This apparent depression of sucrose content caused by nitrogen
fertilization may be associated with both the rate and time of application.

The general trend of higher yield accompanied by a lowering of the
sucrose content suggests that yield and sucrose content may be negatively
correlated. When all other production practices are held constant, such
as on one farm, nitrogen may decrease the sucrose content. However, when
production practices are not held constant, such a correlation may not be
evident. Stout (1961) observed that frequently farms having the highest
yields produced sugar beets well above the average in sucrose content.
High yields of roots and high sucrose content are evidently not incompati-
gle, but the factors responsible for their concomitant occurrence may not
be clearly recognized.

The objectives of this study are to evaluate: (1) the effect of time
and rate of application of nitrogen, (2) the date of harvest, and (3) var-
ious field production practices on the yield and sucrose content of sugar

beets e

EXPERIMENT I

THE EFFECT OF TIME AND RATE OF APPLICATION OF NITROGEN AND OF HARVEST

DATE ON THE YIELD AND SUCROSE CONTENT OF SUGAR BEETS

Field experiments were conducted on a Brookston clay loam soil at the
Western Ontario Agricultural School in 1961, 1962 and 1963. A different lo-
cation was used each year to study the effect of time and rate of applica-
tion of nitrogen and of harvest date on the yield and sucrose content of

sugar beets.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The role of nitrogen fertilizer is closely associated with the efficient
production of sugar beets. An adequate supply of nitrogen is essential for
optimum yield, but excess may result in an increase in yield of roots with
a lower sucrose content. Headden (1912) showed that beets required large
quantities of nitrogen, but that the sucrose content was depressed when the
available supply was excessive. Since then, many reports have shown that
excessive nitrogen lowered the sucrose content of beet roots. (Gardener
and Robertson, 1942; Bee gt;§1,, 1954; Ogden, 1958; Finkner gt_gl., 1959;
Schmehl, 1963). Hac et a1. (1950) noted a reduction in sucrose content by '

 

applications as high as 240 pounds of nitrogen (N) per acre, but the yield
of sugar per acre was not reduced. This inverse relationship between ni-
trogen and sucrose content was partially explained by walker and Hac (1952)
on the basis of growth and storage potential, and by Ulrich (1942) on the

2

3

basis of environmental factors such as intensity of sunlight, night and
day temperatures and nitrogen supply. Doxtator and Bauserman(1952) sug-
gested that sodium and potassium may also be melassigenic substances that
could serve to modify the sucrose content of sugar beets. Finkner gt_§1.
(1959) reported that excessive phosphate fertilization failed to offset
the reduction in sucrose content of roots caused by excess nitrogen.
Although many production practices affect the quality and quantity of
sugar beets, nitrogen fertilization is particularly critical and every ef-
fort should be made to apply near optimum amounts of nitrogen to the crop.
The "optimum" level of nitrogen as used in this manuscript may be defined
as that level of nitrogen fertilization which produces the maximum yield
per acre. Actual determinations of the Optimum nitrogen level prior to
planting is extremely difficult because of the many environmental factors
that affect the availability of both soil and fertilizer nitrogen. Rounds
'§£_§1. (1958) suggested that the nitrogen level could be determined by
cropping and fertilizer histories and soil tests. This view was partially

shared by Tolman and Johnson (1958).
Rate of nitrogen application

A wide range of optimum nitrogen levels for sugar beets is reported in
the literature. Bland (1958) in a threegyear experiment, found that the
optimum rate of nitrogen was 90 pounds per acre where cereal straw was
plowed under, and less than 90 pounds per acre when no straw was plowed
under. Manure applications did not affect the Optimum nitrogen rate. Ap-
plications of nitrogen greater than 90 pounds per acre increased yield of
beet tops but not of roots and decreased the sucrose content of roots.
Krantz and MacKenzie (1954), in studying the effect of nitrogen on yield

and quality of sugar beets grown at three widely varying soil fertility

levels in a one-year experiment, reported yield increases of roots as high
as 14 tons per acre. The yield of sugar per acre was increased from 1.72
to 3.73 tons per acre. Decoux §t_§l. (1946) found that the sucrose con-
tent was increased by nitrogen rates up to 90 pounds per acre, but it was
decreased when higher rates of nitrogen were applied. Primost (1958) ob-
tained maximum root yields when 140 pounds of nitrogen were applied in
conjunction with ample phosphorus and potassium without lowering the suc-
rose content. Hill and Dubetz (1952) found the optimum levels of side-
dressed nitrogen to be between 40 and 60 pounds per acre. Tolman and
Johnson (1958) found that 80 to 100 pounds of nitrogen per acre was usually
sufficient for sugar beets grown in short-season areas, but in long-season
areas and on new land, up to 200 pounds per acre were needed. Williams
and Ririe (1957) reported optimum rates of nitrogen applications of 160
pounds per acre on fallowed land, 240 pounds per acre after barley, and
80 pounds per acre after a vetch crop. Hill (1952) observed that opti-
mum levels of 40 to 60 pounds of nitrogen per acre had little or no ef-
fect on sucrose content. Carlson and Herring (1954) observed that nitro-
gen tended to reduce the sucrose content at each of five locations. On
one soil the sucrose content of beets that received 60 pounds of nitrogen
per acre was 2 percent lower than the sucrose content of beets grown on
the phosphated check. Rounds gt_§l. (1958) concluded that the effect of
nitrogen fertilization was more pronounced than the effect of the varie-

ties tested.
Time of nitrogen application

Adams (1960) found no yield differences between various sources of
nitrogen, and 60 pounds per acre resulted in maximum sugar yield. Nitro-

gen plowed down was as effective in increasing sugar yield as sidedressing.

No reduction in sugar yield resulted from late applications of nitrogen if
some had been applied as a preplant or at planting time. Davis gt_§l.
(1946) noted that one sidedressing of nitrogen approximately seven weeks
after the beets were planted increased yields of roots to a greater extent
than where the same amount of nitrogen was applied in two applications.
Alexander and Cormany (1950), reporting on one-year data, found no signi-
ficant yield increases in Colorado and wyoming where rates of nitrogen
were increased from 0 to 120 and O to 80 pounds of nitrogen per acre,
respectively. Where the lZO-pound rate was applied, the sucrose content
of the roots was depressed slightly. In Montana, increases in.yield of
roots were obtained when increments of 40,60 and 80 pounds of nitrogen per
acre were applied. High rates of nitrogen applied on or after August 10
resulted in low sugar yields and low sucrose content. In addition, these
workers reported no increase in yield resulting from applying the same
amount of nitrogen in 2 or 3 sidedress applications as compared to a sin-
gle early application. wauthy (1953) found that broadcasting nitrogen in
the spring and discing-in was preferable to autumn plowdown in increasing
sugar beet yields. Joret and Hiroux (1951) concluded that the root yield
was affected little, if any, by variations in time of application of nitro-
gen. Hill (1952) in Alberta reported that 100 pounds of nitrogen per acre
applied on June 28 did not affect the sucrose content but did increase the
yield of roots. The same amount of nitrogen applied on August 2 did not
affect root yield but did lower the sucrose content. Haddock (1949)

noted no difference in yield of roots due to sidedressing nitrogen in mid-
season as compared to sidedressing in early season. Beet root yields were
not increased by applying the same amount of nitrogen in two applications

rather than applying it in a one sidedressing application. Leavitt and

Stier (1954) working with anhydrous ammonia found that the optimum rate was
125 pounds of nitrogen per acre. When the rate was increased to 615 pounds
of nitrogen sidedressed at thinning time no further reduction in sucrose
content occurred, and no plant injury was noted. Applications of nitro-
gen sidedressed later than thinning time had been previously shown to be

less effective in increasing yields than earlier applications.
Date of harvest

Hilhaet a1. (1954) reported that root and sugar yields were in-

 

creased 4.7 and 0.84 tons per acre, respectively, when harvest was de-
layed 34 days. The sucrose content was increased by 0.8 percent. Holley
and Bennett (1962) noted average daily gains of 0.12 tons of roots and

52 pounds of sugar per acre when harvest was delayed 34 days. Cook gt_§l,
(1962) found over a threeqyear period, that the date of harvest did not
affect the yield of sugar beet roots.

Nitrate nitrogen content of petioles

Ulrich (1954) noted that beet plants that were continually supplied
with all required nutrients failed to "sugar-up" or "ripen” in the green-
house. Depriving the plants of nitrogen increased the sucrose content of
roots to 12.1 percent while that of non-deficient beets fell to 7.1 per-
cent. In 1950 Ulrich reported that the critical nitrate level of recently
matured petioles was about 2,000 ppm in greenhouse experiments. The cri-
tical level was that level of nitrate in the petioles that resulted in a
satisfactory growth and yield of sugar beets. In the field, recently
matured petioles appeared to have a critical nitrate level of about 1,000

ppm. In both pot and field experiments, plants with a high nitrogen

content were lower in sucrose content than "low-nitrogen" plants.

Afanasiev gt_§l, (1954) concluded that the nitrate nitrogen content of

beet petioles should be about 1,000 ppm in August for Mbntana conditions.
The sucrose content before mid-August was negatively correlated with final
yield. Ulrich in 1956 showed that the increase in sucrose content during
ripening of sugar beets in the greenhouse was induced by low night tem-
peratures (490 to 17°C) and a deficiency of nitrogen. Krantz and MaoKenzie
(1954) reported the nitrate content of petioles should be maintained above
the critical levels until 11 or 12 weeks before harvest. Haddock (1949)
stated that establishing a critical nitrogen level in the plant was of

doubtful value unless the season of the year was also specified.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

Three similar experiments were conducted in 1961, 1962 and 1963.
Each year, sugar beets were grown on a location that had been cropped
without fertilizer for at least three years. Corn was grown for two
years immediately preceding the experimental year, and soybeans preceded

the first corn crop.
Soil description

The plot areas were located on Brookston clay loam, tiled at 40-foot
intervals. This soil is similar in type and texture to the soils upon
which the greater percentage of the commercial beets are grown in On-
tario. These experiments were located on the Experimental Farm at Ridge-
town, in the 11th and 12th Lots in the 9th Concession of Howard Township
in the County of Kent, Province of Ontario. The surface soil contained
30 to 35 percent clay and 35 to 40 percent sand. Soil test results from
samples obtained from 0-8 inches prior to treatment each.year are given
in Table 1. Phosphorus was determined by the modified PAZ test of Smith
and Sheard (195?). Potash was extracted by a solution 0.1 N with respect
to ammonium acetate and 0.05 N with respect to sulfuric acid, as described
by Heeg.l The pH determinations were made on a soil paste. Magnesium was
determined by a revision of the Spurway and Lawton (1949) test.

 

laseg, 1'. J. Unpublished methods used by the Department of Soil
Science. Ontario Agricultural College, Guelph, Ontario Canada.

TABLE l.--Soil tests results from the experimental locations

 

 

Year pH P205 K20 Mg

 

Pounds per acre

1961 7.0 187 127 156
1962 7.6 110 92 130
1963 7.4 195 117 69

 

Statistical design and treatments

The plots were laid out in a randomized split-plot design with three
replications. Each plot contained four rows of boots and was 8 feet wide
by 17 feet 9 inches long. The experimental area each.year was 160 by 250
feet. The main plot treatments consisted of three dates of harvest
(Table 5) and the sub-plot treatments were a 6x4 factorial arrangement of
6 rates of nitrogen (0,30,60,90,120 and 150 pounds of N per acre) and 4
times of applications (Table 2).

TABLE 2.--The time of preplant and sidedressed nitrogen applications

 

 

Time of nitrogen application

 

 

Year
Preplant Mid-June Mid-July_ Mid-Aug.
Sidedressing
1961 April 19 June 14 July 14' Aug. 15
1962 April 20 June 18 July 16 Aug. 15

1963 April 22 June 21 July 17 Aug. 15

10

Preplant applications of nitrogen were broadcast by hand and disced
into the surface soil. Sidedressed nitrogen was placed in bands to one
side of the beet row and approximately 2% to 3 inches below the soil sur-
The sidedressings

face. The nitrogen was applied as ammonium nitrate.

were applied at approximately one-month intervals.
Cultural practices

The experimental areas were fall-plowed at a depth of approximately
10 inches. Each.year, an application of 800 pounds of 0-20-20 fertilizer
per acre was drilled to a depth of 3 to 4 inches on all plots prior to
planting.

Mbnogerm seed was spaced 2 or 2% inches apart in 24-inch rows, and
were thinned to one beet per 12 inches in mid-June. The beets were
planted on May 5, May 18 and May 3 in 1961, 1962 and 1963, respectively.

The monthly rainfall from April to the date of the last harvest was

quite variable (Table 3).

TABLE 3.--The monthly rainfall during the growing season

 

 

 

 

Month
Year Total
Apr. Rhy' June July Aug. Sept. ,Oct. Nov.8
Inches per month
1961 6.43 2.04 3.75 2.47 3.93 3.34 1.06 0.29 23.3
1962 1.75 1.12 4.06 3.61 5.65 2.97 0.91 0.94 21.0
1963 4.10 3.44 2.11 2.79 1.53 1.31 0.37 0.14 15.8

 

aRainfall from November 1 to date of last harvest only.

ll

Beets planted on April 21 in 1962 were replanted on May 18 because
of the formation of a crust on the surface of the soil which resulted in

a poor emergence of the plants.
Sampling and harvesting

Each.year, petiole samples for nitrate analyses were taken at about
2-week intervals from mid-July to mid-September (Table 41 About 12
petioles were taken from plants in the center two rows of each plot.

Nitrate was determined by the diphenylamine test described by Ulrich

_e_1_:__a_l_. (1959).

TABLE 4.--Date of petiole samplings

 

Sampling number

 

 

Year 1 2 3 4 5
Date of sampling

1961 July 14 July 28 Aug. 14 Sept. 1-2 Sept. 15

1962 July 13 July 31 Aug. 14 Sept. 29 Sept. 14

1963 July 17 July 31 Aug. 14 Sept. 29 Sept. 13

 

When a petiole sampling date coincided with a nitrogen application date,

petiole samplings were taken before sidedressing with nitrogen.

Before the early harvest each.year a visual cercospora blight rating

was made on each plot according to the Kleinwanzlebener rating chart.l

 

1Kleinwanzlebener Cercospora-Tafel. Verlag Dr. Buhrbanck and Co. K.G.

Berlin und Holzminden.

12
At the same time, a visual nitrogen rating was made. A rating of 1 to 5
was assigned depending on the decreasing intensity of the green color of
the beet leaves.
The beets were hand harvested and hand topped. The dates of harvest

are given in Table 5.

TABLE 5.--Dates of sugar beet harvest

 

 

Date of harvest

 

 

Year

Early Medium Late
1961 Oct. 10 Oct. 24 Nov. 7
1962 Oct. 9 Oct. 23 Nov. 6
1963 Oct. 8 Oct. 22 Nov. 5

 

Root and top weights were taken from 15 feet of each of the two center
rows. From each plot, two lots of 5 beets each were scrubbed free of
soil for sucrose determination. Within twenty-four hours of harvest the
sucrose content of the fresh beet roots was determined at the Canada and
Dominion Sugar Company Limited laboratories, Chatham Ontario, by the
polarimetric procedure of Bates and associates (1942). The yield of sugar
per acre was calculated from the sucrose content and the yield of roots

per acre.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The effect of date of harvest, and time and rate of application of

nitrogen on the sucrose content of sugar beets

The sucrose content of beets generally increased as the date of har-
vest was delayed (Table 6). In 1962 and 1963, the sucrose content of
beets harvested at the medium.and late dates was higher than that of
earlybharvested beets. Delaying the harvest for 28 days (early to late
harvest) increased the average sucrose content of beets harvested in 1961,
1962 and 1963 by 1.1 percent. The average sucrose content of beets har-
vested at the medium and late dates did not differ (Table 7). The sta-
tistical values (Table 8) indicate that date of harvest was the most
important factor affecting sucrose content. This factor accounted for
43, 65 and 72 percent of the total variation in sucrose content in
1961, 1962 and 1963, respectively.

Beets to which nitrogen was applied as a preplant application or as
a mid-June sidedressing had a higher sucrose content than beets to which
nitrogen was applied as a miquugust sidedressing (Table 6). Beets to
which nitrogen was sidedressed in mid-July tended to have a higher suc-
rose content than beets to which nitrogen was sidedressed in miquugust.
In general, the lowest sucrose content was obtained in beets to which
nitrogen was applied late and which were harvested early. The time of
nitrogen application did not affect the average sucrose content of beets,
except for a slight reduction where the nitrogen was applied in mid-
August (Table 7). The statistical values (Table 8) indicate that the

13

- .,\\ - -.-ne:., .v..\\..~ e d..\\r.fi Innudatleet .h nfitn‘I-el
. .., .e .

:tOI. .ul..ll\l .vweu u.. -.-c. a.‘.~.e . -¢.. be... yet .Ie .uc. e o 5.01. Ito-st 0.8-en. I .stu wtnz\\'| I'le‘~ C.~ J..\e\-\

one Some ..mm mm Nosed .

.pmoh one has ma memes Ham mo somaheasoo new soHHm
.mpmoe omcmm oHdfioHsz 302: m.cmocsa seem oopmasoawo needs» me

 

 

 

 

mo.H oo.H ma.a Aao.v

2.6 Rho $6 $3 o8

mm.a mm.a oe.a Aao.v

Ho.H oo.H oH.H Amo.v em
a.om e.o~ «.ma o.oa e.oH a.eH a.ma e.mH o.eH one
N.o~ a.o~ o.na m.oH e.oa o.mH a.ma m.oH o.oa owe
m.o~ m.o~ o.oa e.oa o.aa H.mH o.ma e.na o.eH oo meannosoooan
m.o~ m.om e.oH o.aa N.AH m.ma H.oa o.ma o.ma oo resonates:
o.o~ a.o~ o.oH o.aa m.aa o.mH N.oa m.ma m.mH on
o.am o.om m.oH m.oa e.aa m.ma o.na m.na H.ma omH
o.Hm m.Hm m.oa o.aa m.aa o.nH ~.oH o.oH o.mH owe
~.H~ o.- a.oa o.aa e.aa o.mH m.oH m.oa e.ma oo meannesoooan
a.o~ o.HN o.oH o.aa m.ea o.oH m.oa H.oa m.ma oo adsouoaz
H.H~ H.Hm o.oa o.aa a.aa m.oH o.oH o.oH m.oa om
~.Hm o.am s.oH e.aa e.aa ~.oH m.oa H.oa m.mH one
o.HN m.HN o.oH N.aH n.5H o.oH m.oH m.oH o.nH oNH
o.om m.a~ o.oa o.aa o.aa H.oH m.oH o.mH m.ma oo meaooeeoooao
H.Hm a.o~ o.oH o.aa a.ea a.oH o.oa m.oH «.ma oo enoouoaz
m.Hm H.H~ H.om m.aa a.aa a.oH m.oa o.oH m.ma on
H.H~ o.H~ o.oa n.aa H.aa o.oH N.oa ~.oH e.oH one
m.om o.Hm o.oH H.aH a.aa n.oa ~.oH o.oH m.mH oNH
o.o~ o.a~ o.oH m.aa m.AH o.oH o.oH o.ma m.mH om seeaoesi
m.a~ m.H~ e.oH N.AH o.aa e.oH m.oa e.oH o.mH oo
o.om o.o~ m.oa o.eH 5.5H e.oa e.oH n.oa m.ma om
n.o~ n.o~ e.oH ~.aH m.ea m.oe s.oH H.oH o.na o

anemone nsoouom

ease erase: antes eons asses: eases open asset: .aaeeu open sea

meme mood Home ensues eaae

 

 

pmo>umn me open caducedaamm comoupfiz

 

mood one «one .Hooa .noeoo semen
mo outpace omoeosm on» no sumo pmo>oe£ no one .nowoopa: we coapmoaaome no open one asap mo poowme onHead mqm<a

15

TABLE 7.--The effect of time and rate of application of nitrogen and of
harvest date on the threegyear average of yield and sucrose content of
sugar beets

 

 

 

Percent Tons Pounds Tons
Treatment sucrose roots sugar tops
per acre per acre per acre
Harvest date
Early 17.0 17.2 5719 11.4
Medium 18.1 17.9 6357 10.3
Late 18.1 18.9 6736 8.7
Time of application
of nitrogen
Preplant 17.8 18.4 6424 9.2
Mid-June 17.9 18.5 6506 10.6
Mid-July 17.8 17.7 6214 10.7
Mid-August 17.4 17.3 5921 10.0
Rate of nitrogen
application
(lbs. N per acre)
0 17.7 16.2 5655 6.8
30 17.9 17.5 6062 8.4
60 17. 8 18. 3 6433 10.0
90 17.7 19.0 6594 11.3
120 17.6 18.5 6429 11.7
150 17.6 18.5 6359 12.5

 

16

conundmaamamlno: monononp

00.0 n condoamacmam 000 mm H0000 hummmooozm

 

 

00.0 000.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000
00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000
00.0 00.0 00.0 000.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000
mm 0000 pmo>hwm opmv pmobnmm 0200 e000 coapmoaamam 0000
x x N z 2 Ho pmophdm udow
«H0000 osa0 camp z 0000 z 0000

 

 

mpoon ummsm mo pcopcoo omoposm on» no
uncapowuepna 000:0 0cm somonpac mo coapmofiamaw mo 0000 0:0 020» .pmo>0mn mo 0000 pom

mosam> 0m 000--.0 00000

17
time of nitrOgen application accounted for 12, 9 and 9 percent of the
total variation in sucrose content in 1961, 1962, and 1963, respectively.
The interaction of harvest date and time of nitrogen application accounted
for l, 1 and 0 percent of the variation in sucrose content in 1961, 1962
and 1963, respectively.

In 1961 beets that had received 30 pounds of nitrogen per acre were
higher in sucrose content than those that received 150 pounds of nitro-
gen. This was particularly evident when the nitrogen was applied in
mid-July or mid-August to beets that were harvested early. The variabil-
ity in sucrose content in 1962 and 1963 was largely accounted for by
nitrogen rates applied in mid-August to beets that were harvested at the
early or medium dates. In general, most of the significant variation in
sucrose content attributed to rates of nitrogen resulted from differences
between the sucrose content of beets that received 120 or more or 30 or
less pounds per acre. Nitrogen rates greater than 30 pounds per acre re-
duced the sucrose content slightly (Table 7).

The interaction of rate of nitrogen application and date of har-
vest accounted for 4, 1 and 1 percent of the total variation in sucrose
content in 1961, 1962 and 1963, respectively. The interaction of rate
of nitrogen with time of application accounted for 4, 4 and 2 percent
of the total variation in sucrose content in 1961, 1962 and 1963, re-
spectively. The interaction of rate of nitrogen, time of application,
and date of harvest, on the sucrose content was not significant.

The effect of date of harvest, and time and rate of
application of nitrogen on root yield

In 1961 and 1962 the date of harvest did not affect root.yield
(Table 9). The root yield variation in 1963 was significant, possibly

 

 

 

A,
fins. .0 Keri" Ivar.“ LII at.“ I]... ‘Ull'. ”I... ”‘U 0‘0 JU'P‘LG tI‘IH!'-\K g‘.‘<s~\

18

.0000 o:o 0:0 :0 0:005 000 no :00000Q800 000 30000 mo000> m0

 

 

 

 

00.0 00.0 00.0 000.0

00.0 00.0 00.0 000.0 000

00.0 00.0 00.0 000.0

00.0 00.0 00.0 000.0 00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00 000000000000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00 000000.00:
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00 000000000000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00 0000.002
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00 000000000000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00 0:00-00:
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00 00000000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0

0000 neg upoen me 0:00

0000 00000: 00000 0000 00000: 00000 0000 00000: .00000 0000 000

0000 0000 0000 000000 0000

 

 

pmo>0wn mo e009 :0000000090 camohpdz

 

 

0000 000 0000 .0000 .0000 000
00000 0009 we 0:00 on» :o 0000 000>000 mo 0:0 .:omopp0: no :0000000000 no 0000 0:0 0500 no 000000 o:0nu.0 mqmda

19
due to the dry season. Precipitation after the medium harvest date in-
creased the yield in the last harvest. Delaying harvest for 28 days in-
creased the average root yield in 1961, 1962 and 1963 by 1.7 tons per
acre (Table 7). The statistical values presented in Table 10 indicate
that date of harvest accounted for 13, 6 and 58 percent of the total
variation in root yield in 1961, 1962 and 1963, respectively.

Time of application of nitrogen affected the yield of roots in 1961.
Beets that received nitrogen as a preplant or as a mid-June sidedressing
in 1962 and 1963, had a higher root yield than beets that received nitro-
gen in mid-August (Table 9). There was a gradual decrease in root yield
as nitrogen was applied later than the date of the mid-June sidedressing.
The average root yield was the same when nitrogen was applied as a pre-
plant or as a mid-June sidedressing. The statistical values (Table 10)
indicate that time of nitrogen application accounted for 9, 4 and 3 per-
cent of the total variation in root yield in 1961, 1962 and 1963, respec-
tively. The interaction of harvest date with time of nitrogen applica-
tion accounted for l, O and 1 percent of the variation in root yield in
1961, 1962 and 1963, respectively.

In 1961 and 1962 higher yields of roots were obtained where nitrogen
was applied at 60 or 90 pounds per acre to beets in mid-June than where
30 or less pounds per acre was used. When nitrogen was applied as a
preplant, beets that received 90 or more pounds per acre had a higher
root yield than beets that received nitrogen at 60 or less pounds per
acre. NitrOgen applied in mid-July or in miquugust had little affect
on root yield. In 1963 beets that received nitrogen at 30 or more pounds
per acre as a preplant had a higher root yield than beets that did not

receive nitrOgen, especially when the beets were harvested at the medium

20

00:00000:w00|:o: 0000:0an

00.0 n 00:00000:m00 000 mm 00000 0000000020

 

 

00.0 00.0 00.0 000.0 00.0 000.0 00.0 0000
00.0 000.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 000.0 000.0 0000
000.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 000.0 0000
mm 0000 000000m 0000 000000m 0809 0000 :0000000000 0000
x x x z z 00 000>00m 000»
000000 0000 0000 z 0000 z 0000

 

 

0000 000 00000 no 0:00 000 :o
0:00000000:0 000:0 0:0 :000000: mo :0000000000 00 0000 0:0 050p .000>00n 00 0000 000

005H0> mm 009:3.0H mumda

21
date. When nitrogen was applied in mid-June or in mid-July, beets that
received nitrogen at 30 or more pounds per acre had higher root yields
than beets that received no nitrogen, particularly when the beets were
harvested late. On the average, root yield gradually increased as the
rate of nitrogen increased from O to 90 pounds per acre. When beets re-
ceived nitrogen at rates higher than 90 pounds per acre root yield de-
creased (Table 7). The statistical values given in Table 10 indicate
that the total variation due to rate of nitrogen was 14, no and 19 per-
cent; the interaction of rate of nitrogen with date of harvest 1,01 and
0 percent; and the interaction of rate of nitrogen with time of applica-
tion 3, 3 and 0 percent in root yield for 1961, 1962 and 1963, respec-
tively. The interaction of rate of nitrogen, time of application, and
date of harvest on root yield was not significant.
The effect of date of harvest, and time and rate of
application of nitrogen on sugar yield

The sugar yield was calculated from the sucrose content and the tons
of roots per acre.

Mbst of the differences in yield of sugar (1961 and 1962) due to
the date of harvest were due to a higher yield in beets that were har-
vested at the medium or late dates over beets that were harvested early.
In 1961 and 1962 (Table 11) sugar yields from beets harvested at the
medium or late dates were not different. In 1963 sugar yields from
beets harvested late were higher than those that were harvested at the
early or medium dates. Delaying harvest for 28 days (Table 7) increased
the average sugar yield in 1961, 1962 and 1963, 1017 pounds per acre.
This represents an increase of 36 pounds of sugar per acre per day of

delayed harvest beyond the early harvest date. The initial 14 days of

22

.0000 0:0 0:0 :0 0:00: 000 00 :000000000 000 30000 00:00> 00

 

 

 

 

 

 

000 0000 0000 000.0

000 000 000 000.0 000

000 0000 0000 000.0

000 0000 0000 000.0 00
0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 000
0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 000
0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 00 000000000000
0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 00 000000-00:
0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 00
0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 000
0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 000
0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 00 000000000000
0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 00 0000-000
0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 00
0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 000
0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 000
0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 00 000000000000
0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 00 0000-00:
0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 00
0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 000
0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 000
0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 00 00000000
0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 00
0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 00
0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0

0000 000 00000 00 00::00

0000 s:00oz 0000a 0000 50000: 00000 0000 0500002 0000a 0000 000

0000 0000 , 0000 000000 0000

000>000 00 0009 , :0000000000 :mmmn00z

 

 

0000 0:0 0000 .0000 .0000 :00
00000 00 000000 000 00 0000 0000000 00 000 .00000000 00 00000000000 00 0000 000 0000 00 000000 o00--.00 00000

23

harvest delay resulted in an increase of 638 pounds of sugar, or a daily
increase of 46 pounds per acre as compared to an increase of 379 pounds of
sugar, or a daily increase of 27 pounds per acre for the last 14 days de-
lay. The statistical values indicate that the date of harvest accounted
for 2h, 26 and 61 percent of the total variation in sugar yield in 1961,
1962 and 1963 respectively (Table 12).

In 1961 and 1962, beets that received nitrogen as a preplant or as a
mid-June sidedressing had a higher sugar yield than beets that received
nitrogen in mid-July or mid-August. Beets that were sidedressed with ni-
trogen in mid-July had a slightly higher yield of sugar than beets that
were sidedressed in mid-August. The time of nitrogen application did not
affect the yield of sugar in 1963. On the average, beets to which nitro-
gen was applied in mid-June had the highest yield of sugar (Table 7). A
gradual reduction in sugar yield occurred when nitrogen was sidedressed to
beets later than mid-June. Beets that received nitrogen as a preplant had
a sugar yield slightly lower than beets that received nitrogen in mid-June.
The statistical values indicate that the time of nitrogen application
accounted for 11, 6 and 5 percent; and, the interaction of time of nitro-
gen application with date of harvest 1, 0 and 1 percent of the total var-
iation in sugar yield in 1961, 1962 and l963,respectively.

In 1961 and 1962, beets that received nitrogen at 90 or more pounds
per acre as a preplant had a higher yield of sugar than beets that re-
ceived 30 or less pounds per acre (Table 11). When nitrogen was applied
as a mid-June sidedressing at 60 or 90 pounds per acre, beets had a higher
sugar yield than those that received 30 or less pounds per acre. In 1962,
beets that received 60 or 90 pounds of nitrogen per acre in mid-July had a

greater yield of sugar than beets to which no nitrogen was applied, par-
ticularly when the beets were harvested at the medium date. Nitrogen

2h

00:00000:w00::0: 0000:0nn

00.0 u 00:00000:w00 pom mm 0000» 0000000020

 

 

00.0 00.0 00.0 000.0 00.0 000.0 00.0 0000
00.0 000.0 000.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000
00.0 00.0 00.0 n 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000
mm 0000 pmo>u0m 0000 pmo>h0m 0:09 0000 :0000000000 0000
x x x z z 00 0000:0m :00»
000000 0000 0000 z 0000 z 0000

 

 

0:00 :00 00000 no 00000 on» :0
0:00po0:00:0 000:» 0:0 :000000: 00 :0000000000 mo 0000 0:0 0:0» .pmo>h0£ no 0000 :00

000000 00 000--.00 00000

25

applied in midnAugust did not affect the yield of sugar. In l963, beets
that received nitrogen as a preplant application at 120 or 150 pounds per
acre had a higher yield of sugar than beets that received 30 or less pounds
per acre, particularly when the beets were harvested early. Beets that re-
ceived nitrogen at 60 or 90 pounds per acre in mid-June had a higher yield
of sugar than beets that received 30 or less pounds per acre. Beets to
which nitrogen was applied at 90 and 120 pounds per acre in mid-July had
a higher sugar yield than those that received no nitrogen. Maximum yield
of sugar was produced from beets that received 90 pounds of nitrogen per
acre (Table 7). A gradual reduction in sugar yield resulted when beets
received more, or less than 90 pounds of nitrogen per acre. The statisti-
cal values presented in Table 12 show that the rate of nitrogen application
accounted for 8, 23 and 17 percent; the interaction of rate of nitrogen
application with date of harvest 2, O and 1 percent; and the interaction
of rate of nitrogen with time of application 5, 5 and 1 percent of the to-
tal variation in sugar yield in 1961, 1962 and 1963, respectively. In 1963
the interaction of rate of nitrogen, time of application, and date of har-
vest had a significant effect on the yield of sugar.
The effect of date of harvest, and time and rate of
application of nitrogen on beet top yield

The yield of beet tops in 1963 was lower than in the previous two years
possibly due to the shortage of rainfall during the 1963 season (Table 13).
On the average, the yield of tops gradually decreased as the harvest date
was delayed (Table 7). Early harvested beets yielded 11.4 tons of tops per
acre compared to 8.7 tons from beets harvested late. Top yields were high-
est where nitrogen was sidedressed in mid-June or mid-July and lowest ‘ .~

where applied as a preplant. There was a gradual increase in top yield as

et tops

per acre, 1961, 1962 and 1963

TABLE 13.-The effect of time and rate of application of nitrogen and of harvest date on the tons of be

 

 

Date of harvest

Nitrogen application

 

 

1963
Early Medium Late

Pounds

Tim

1962

Medium Late

Tons of taps per acre

1961
Early Medium Late

Early

per acre

 

 

 

l+.2 4.0

m

8.2 7.4

8.9

8.5 6.4

9.5

“Qt-{Hm
o e e o 0
33-300

NO\OO\C“\
O O C O .
mdmuno

Hwomc—I
O O O O O
mdxoxocx

who: N

O O O O 0

040+

cuq>uxux

. O C O O

u>c>rac3<>
0104040+

HNQMH
O...

(DOM-{mm

r-h—Ir-Ir-i

“000$
.0 0..
QDHNMN

HHHH

30
60
90
120
150

Preplant

26

Ncntnmw
e e e o 0
“WORK

riuw01c0<3
O C O O .
uxwab~wnd>

QBONW
0 e o o o
momma)

“47r-INt—l
O O
Oxma'xooo
HHHH

30
60
90
120
150

sidedressing

Mid-June

(Dd'NO\r-I
O O O O O
mmzxwm

oxmomr-i
e o e o e
“\OBFCI)

(I)\OU\U'\r-l
C O O O C
x-"\\OCI)OZ)CI)

«“0me
O O O O O
OMHdN

HHHH

SMNr-lI-‘l

H330!“
r-lHHr-ia-i

[\ONmi
C

e
NNNNO
HHH N

momma
00.0.

30
6O
90
120
150

Mid-July
Sidedressing

MONOM
O O O O O
:rxnxnxoxo

NMWNM
. O O O O
d\O\0\O\O

mmmr-Ia)
. O O O I
“\00 mm

30
60
90
120
150

Mid-August
sidedressing

 

its:

0.
CO

(“H-IN
on

C
Hr-l

2.23
2.94

(1)
"N“

(x

00
00

l\
O

O
OH

1.75
2.32

aR values allow for comparison of all means in any one year.

27

the rate of nitrogen increased from 0 to 150 pounds per acre. Beets that
did not receive nitrogen had a top yield of 6.8 tons per acre, whereas
beets that received 150 pounds per acre had a yield of 12.5 tons per acre.
The effect of time and rate of application of nitrogen on the root to
top ratios are presented in Table 14. Each year the root to top ratio
gradually decreased as the rate of nitrogen increased. Beets that did not
receive nitrogen had a root to tOp ratio between 2.1 and 3.0 as compared
to a range of 1.0 to 2.2 when beets received 150 pounds of nitrogen per
acre. These data indicate that a negative correlation exists between the

rate of nitrogen applied and root to top ratios.
A visual rating of the intensity of cercospora leaf blight

The effect of time and rate of application of nitrogen on the incidence
of cercospora leaf blight (Cercospora beticola) is presented in Table 15.
There was considerable variation of blight incidence for the three years.
The blight was severe on all plots in 1961, moderate in 1962, and not pre-
sent in 1963. The disease was less severe in 1962 as time of nitrogen ap-
plication was delayed. Beets that received nitrogen as a preplant showed
the highest incidence of blight. Beets that received nitrogen in mid-
August showed the least incidence of blight. The intensity of the blight
decreased as the amount of nitrogen applied increased.

A visual rating of the intensity of nitrogen
deficiency symptoms

Nitrogen was the only nutrient deficiency observed in any year. Color
differences of foliage were observed for all rates of nitrogen at every
application time except for the mid-July and mid—August applications dur-

ing dry periods.

28

TABLE 14.--The effect of time and rate of application of nitrogen on root
to top ratios of sugar beets

 

 

Nitrogen application

 

 

 

 

Time Pounds
per acre 1961 1962 1963
Root:top ratio

0 2.4 2.1 3.0

30 2.4 2.2 2.9

60 2.0 1.8 2.8

Preplant 90 2.0 1.6 2.8
120 2.0 1.3 2.5

150 1.9 1.3 2.2

30 2.1 1.6 2.5

Mid-June 60 2.0 1.6 2.3
sidedressing 90 1.9 1.3 2.1
120 1.6 1.2 1.9

150 1.5 1.2 1.8

30 1.9 1.7 2.4

Mid-July’ 60 1.7 1.4 2.2
sidedressing 90 1.5 1.4 1.9
120 1.7 1.1 2.0

150 1.3 1.2 1.8

30 2.2 1.6 2.7

Hid-August 60 1.8 1.6 2.4
sidedressing 90 1.7 1.2 2.2
120 1.4 1.3 2.1

150 1.6 1.0 2.1

 

29

TABLE 15.--The effect of time and rate of application of nitrogen on the
incidence of cercospora blighta

 

 

Nitrogen application

 

Time Pounds
per acre 1961 1962 1963 Average

 

 

Cercospora rating
3.6 1.1 2.9

e
O

1.0 2.8
2.9

30

60

Preplant 90
120

150

30

Mid-June 60
sidedressing 90
120

150

30

Mid-July 6O
sidedressing 90
120

150

30

Mid-August 60
sidedressing 90
120

150

e
o

O
WVOVO 00000 00000 00000

NUNWW
e e e

e
e e e

ee e
00000 000
00

.
e e
OOOWU ‘QOOVO WUWQO OWVVU
e 0
00°00 00000
e

.0
ee
0 e e e

e
e
e e

HWUW-F’ OWUQV (pm-Pm“

mwtwp utter F¢Pkk taker #
HHHHH HHHHy HHHHH HHHH

NNNNN NNNNN NNNNN

NNyNN

 

aCerospora rating
1 - Normal healthy leaves

2 - First spots (spore colonies) formed on outer leaves
3 - First appearance of spore colonies on inner leaves
4 - Spore colonies joined forming large areas of dead tissue
5 - Leaf and leaf stalks dead and drying up i

30

Visual nitrogen ratings are given in Table 16. On the average when
nitrogen was applied as a preplant or as a sidedressing in mid-June, beets
at the time of early harvest showed a deficiency of nitrogen regardless of
the rate of application. Beets that received nitrogen at 120 or 150 pounds
per acre in mid-July or in mid-August did not show nitrogen deficiency at
the time of early harvest. Beets that received adequate nitrogen for max-
imum sugar'yield showed slight yellowing at the time of early harvest.

When beet leaves did not show a deficiency of nitrogen at early harvest
this tended to indicate that nitrogen had been applied late, and at 120 or

150 pounds per acre.
Petiole analyses for nitrate nitrogen

The effect of time and rate of application of nitrogen on the nitrate
content of the petioles is shown in Table 17. Results between years were
in good agreement for similar sampling dates and treatments except where
nitrogen was applied in mid-August. Nitrate content of beet petioles
that received nitrogen in mid-August was variable. This variability prob-
ably is associated with rainfall, as in 1963, nitrogen applied in mid-August
was not detected in the petioles. The data indicate that when nitrogen was
applied as a preplant or as a sidedressing in mid-June at 60 or 90 pounds
per acre, the nitrate level of the petioles was very low or nil 6 to 8
weeks prior to the early harvest. This suggests that for maximum sugar
production the level of nitrogen in the petiole should be low for approx.
imately 8 to 12 weeks prior to harvest.

31

TABLE 16.--The effect of time and rate of application of nitrogen on
nitrogen deficiency symptoms of the sugar beets at the time of early
harvesta

 

 

Nitrogen application

 

 

Time Pounds
per acre 1961 1962 1963 Average
N deficiency ratings
0 5.0 4.7 5-0 4.9
30 5.0 3.7 5.0 4.6
60 3.7 3-3 4.7 3.9
Preplant 90 3.7 2.7 4.7 3.7
120 3.0 2.3 3.6 3.0
150 3.0 2.0 4.0 3.0
30 4.0 3.3 4.3 3.9
Hid-June 60 ' 3.7 2.7 4.0 3.5
Sidedressing 90 3.0 2.0 300 207
120 2.7 2.0 2.7 2.5
150 2.7 2.0 2.3 2.3
30 3.7 3.0 4.3 3.7
Mid-July" 60 3.0 2.7 3.3 3.0
sidedressing 90 2.7 2.0 2.3 2.3
120 2.3 1.3 2.0 1.9
150 1.7 2.0 1.7 1.8
30 4.0 300 400 307
Hiquugust 60 3.0 1.7 2.7 2.5
sidedressing 90 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.7
120 1.7 1.0 2.0 1.6
150 1.0 1.0 1.7 1.2

 

‘Nitrogen rating
1 - Dark abnormally green leaves
2 - Normal green leaf color

3 - Slight yellowing of the leaves

4 - Moderate yellowing of the leaves
5 - Severe yellowing of the leaves

32

 

 

 

 

O H O H OO OO N H ON OO OOH NO O N NH OOH
O O O O ON ON O O N O NO ON H O O ONH
O O O H OH OO O O OO OO OOH ON O O OO OO OOHOOONOOOHO
O O O O OO N O O N O OO OH O O ON OO OOOOOOIOOO
O O O O OO O O OH O N O OH O O N OO
ON NO OO OOH NO N NO +OOH +OOH O OO NO OOH NH ON OOH
HO NH ON OO OO O OO +OOH +OOH OH NN OOH OOH OO NN ONH
HH OH NN NO OO O O NO +OOH N NH OO +OOH NH NH OO OOHOOONOOOHO
H H OH OO OO O O NO +OOH NN O ON NO NN NN OO OHseueHz
O O H ON NO O N OH NO OH O N ON ON ON OO
O O OO OOH +OOH N NN +OOH +OOH ON ON OO NO OO OOH OOH
O O NO NO +OOH O OH OO +OOH NO O OH NO OO +OOH ONH
H NH ON OOH +OOH O N OO OOH NN O ON NO NO OOH OO OOHOOONOoOHO
O O OH OO OOH O O O O OO O N O. O OO OO oes0.0Hz
O O O OO OOH O O O ON OO N O OH OO OO OO
H O OO OOH OOH O OH NO +OOH +OOH H OH OH ON OO OOH
O O OH ON OO O H OO +OOH +OOH H N OH HN OOH ONH
O O O ON OO O H OH +OOH +OOH H N NN ON NN OO OONHOONO
O O H ON NO O O O OO NO O O O OO ON OO
O O O H OO O O O N OO O O O H OO OO
O N O O OO O N H O NN O O O O OH O
opwupan no and

OH ON OH HO NH OH ON OH HO OH OH N-H OH ON OH .NON Noe
.OOOO .OOO .Os< NHOO OHOO .OOOO .OOO .OOO. aHsO .OHOO .peom .NOOO .O=< OHOO NHOO nuance oaHN

OOOH NOOH HOOH

 

mcaadean we open

coaneoaadde newspaaz

 

 

OOOH One NOOH .HOOH :H uoHOHNOO
noon ummsm no psopnoo damaged: Nashua: on» :0 somoupan Ho noaamodaddd no open new and» Ho poemmo onaul.NH qu<e

33
General discussion

The data in Table 18 illustrate three combinations of treatments cal-
culated from the three year averages. The "normal" combination was se-
lected to correspond to the most common practice of the commercial sugar
beet growers. The "best" combination was selected to give the maximum
yield of sugar per acre. The "poorest" combination was selected to ob-

tain the lowest yield of sugar per acre.

TABLE 18.--A comparison of three combination of treatments selected from
the threegyear averages

 

 

Treatment combination

 

 

 

Treatment
fBest Normal Poorest
Rate of application
(pounds N per acre) 90 60 0
Time of application of N Mid-June .Mid-June
Date of harvest Late Medium Early

The best combination of treatments occurred where 90 pounds of nitrogen per
acre were sidedressed in mid-June to beets harvested late. The poorest
combination of treatments was obtained where beets did not receive nitro-
gen and harvested early. The normal practice of the commercial beet grow-
ers was to apply 60 pounds of nitrogen per acre in mid-June and harvest at
the medium date.

The yield data corresponding to the treatment combination are shown
in Table 19. The best treatment combination selected resulted in 742 and

34

2167 pounds of sugar per acre higher than the normal and poorest combina-
tion,respectively. The best combination of treatments had a root yield
advantage over the normal and poorest combinations of 1.8 and 4.8 tons

per acre respectively.

TABLE l9.--The effect of three treatment combinations on the yield and
sucrose content of sugar beets

 

 

 

Combination Percent Tons roots Pounds sugar
sucrose per acre per acre
Best 18.4 21.7 7848
Normal 18.3 19.9 7106
Poorest 17.2 16.9 5681

 

A summary of the probability levels for significant differences of
treatments is given in Table 20. Yield of roots was affected by date of
harvest in 1963. This possibly was due to a very dry season followed by
rain between the medium and the late harvest dates.‘ This resulted in an
increased root yield at the last harvest. The sucrose content and sugar
yield were significantly affected by the date of harvest each year. Time
of application of nitrogen affected root yields in 1961 and the sucrose
content of beets each year. Date of harvest and rate of nitrogen affected
sugar yield each year. Time of application of nitrogen affected sugar
yield in 1961 and 1962. Yield and suicrose content were affected each year
by the rate of application of nitrogen. Differences in beet top yield
were obtained each.year for each treatment except for the date of harvest
in 1963.

A summary of the probability levels for significant differences of

35

TABLE 20.--Probability levels for significant differences between treat-
ments for 1961. 1962 and 19638‘

 

 

Treatments

—_

Date of harvest

Percent sucrose

Tons of roots per acre
Pounds of sugar per acre
Tons of tops per acre

Time of application cf nitrogen

Percent sucrose

Tons of roots per acre
Pounds of sugar per acre
Tons of taps per acre

Rate of application of nitrogen

Percent sucrose

Tons of roots per acre
Pounds of sugar per acre.
Tons of tops per acre

1961

1962

1963

-————-—-Probability levels-——————-

.01

.05
.05

.01
.01
.01

.05
.05
.05
.01

.01

NS
.05
.01

.01

NS
.05
.05

.01
.01
.01
.01

.01
.01
.01

NS

.01

NS
.01

.05
.01
.01
.01

 

8‘Taken from appendix tables 61 u>72 inclusive.

36

interactions is given in Table 21. Although considerable significant dif-
ferences were noted for the interactions, they contributed a relatively
small amount to the observed variability.

The preplant and mid-June sidedressing of nitrogen were approximately
equal and both superior to the last two sidedressing times when root and
sugar yield are considered. The highest yield of roots and sugar was ob-
tained when beets were harvested late. However, most of the significant
differences attributed to date of harvest resulted from higher yield and
sucrose content of beets harvested at the medium or late date over beets
that were harvested early. There were few instances where beets that were
harvested late had higher yields and sucrose content than beets that were
harvested at the medium date.

The greatest decrease in sugar yield resulted from nitrogen applica-
tions made in mid-July or mid-August to beets harvested early. Nitrogen
applied late to beets harvested early resulted in roots of low sucrose
content rather than a low root yield. Therefore if nitrogen is not ap-
plied till late in the growing season beet harvest should be delayed as
long as possible.

Maximum sugar yield was obtained where nitrogen was applied at 90
to 120 pounds per acre as a preplant application, or 60 to 90 pounds per

acre as a sidedressing in mid-June.

37

TABLE 21.--Probability levels for significant differences between inter-
actions for 1961, 1962 and 1963‘

 

 

Interaction 1961 1962 1963

 

Probability levels

 

 

Harvest date x Treatments

Percent sucrose NS NS NS
Tons of roots per acre NS NS NS
Pounds of sugar per acre .05 NS .01

Harvest date x Rate of nitrogen

Percent sucrose .01 .05 .05
Tons of roots per acre .05 .05 NS
Pounds of sugar per acre .01 NS .05

Time of N application x Rate of N

Percent sucrose NS .05 .05
Tons of roots per acre .01 .01 NS
Pounds of sugar per acre .01 .01 NS

Harvest date x Sidedressing of N

Percent sucrose .05 .05 NS
Tons of roots per acre .05 NS .05
Pounds of sugar per acre .05 NS .05

Rate of N x Sidedressing of N

Percent sucrose .05 .01 .01
Tons of roots per acre .05 .01 NS
Pounds of sugar per acre .05 .01 NS

 

aTaken from appendix tables 61 to 72 inclusive.

EXPERIMENT II
A SURVEY OF THE PRODUCTION PRACTICES AFFECTING YIELD AND SUCROSE
CONTENT OF SUGAR BEETS IN ONTARIO, CANADA
LITERATURE REVIEW

The majority of the investigations concerning productidh practices of
sugar beets have dealt mainly with yield of beet roots, with less emphasis
on sugar production. Cook et a1. (1962) reported that root yields on tile-

 

drained soil were 3.4 tons higher than those on non-tiled soil. Nickol
in 1962 stated that "no matter what kind of year -~ wet or dry, cold or
not, -- the evidence is always the same. Tile drainage is a must for
sugar beet production".

Research results on the relationship of tillage practices and sugar
beet yields are somewhat controversial. Research on the advantages of fall
plowing over Spring plowing are not in complete agreement, (Miller, 1943;
Lill and Rather, 1943; and Morris and Afanasiev, 1946). beford and
Dexter (1955) reported that seedbed preparation without tillage produced
better and more vigorous stands, and higher yields of beets than where the
soil was spring plowed. Cook gt_gl. (1962) reported that beets grown on
fall-plowed land outqyielded those on spring-plowed land by 2.4 tons per
acre. Mbrris and Afanasiev (1947) suggested that time of plowing was de-
pendent upon the previous crop.

Deep plowing of soil for sugar beets is generally considered better
than shallow plowing (Cook et al., 1962; Morris and Afanasiev, 1946).

 

38

39

However, Doneen (1947) reported that deep plowing had little or no effect
on growth, yield and sucrose content of beets. Good stands and yields of
sugar beets were obtained by Cook (1950) on plots where the soil had been
plowed and fitted in one operation. Similar results were reported by
Cook, Davis and Frakes (1962).

In a rotation experiment in Southern Alberta, the sucrose content of
sugar beets grown in a legume rotation was consistently lower than that
of sugar beets grown in a comparable non-legume rotation. No yield dif-
ferences were noted. Hill and Dubetz (1952) noted that fall-applied
manure or spring-applied commercial nitrogen did not affect the sucrose
content of sugar beets. Crimes (1959) reported that legumes in the ro-
tation increased the beet root yield but not the yield of sugar per acre.
Nuckols and Harris (1948), however, reported that legumes grown in rota-
tion.with sugar beets increased the yield of roots but depressed the suc-
rose content slightly. Rhoades and Harris (1954) found marked differences
in both yield and sucrose content of beets due to cropping practices and
manure application over a 37qyear period. Robertson gt_§;, in 1952
reported poor yields of beets grown in 1946 to 1950 following alfalfa, al-
though higher>yields were previously reported from 1941 to 1945 in the
same rotation experiment (Cook gt_al., 1946). This difference was attri-
buted to moisture fluctuation during the initial five years. Guttay gt_al,
in 1958 observed that lower beet yields were produced where alfalfa pre-
ceded the beet crop. Lill and Rather (1943) reported that the number of
organisms causing black root of beets was high where the crop followed
alfalfa. Corn and soybeans grown preceding the beet crop resulted in a
more favourable soil condition than when cats or sugar beets were the pre-
ceding crop (Deming, 1948; Lill, 1946; Cook gt_§l,. 1962). Stockinger
23.!lw (1963) reported that the effect of cropping sequence was due to the

40

differences in the soil nitrogen supplying power. This could be offset by
nitrogen fertilization. Gregg and Harrison (1950) observed marked differ-
ences in beet yields depending upon the type of grass sod in the preceding
crop.

The value of livestock manure for beets is dependent upon factors,
such as the existing fertility conditions and nitrogen applications.
Nuckols (1942) reported that greater returns were obtained with manure on
low-yielding fields than on highly productive fields. Moderate applica-
tions of manure, approximately 10-12 tons per acre, have given best re-
sults where manure has been used in the rotation (Grimes, 1959; Nuckols
and Harris, 1948).

Root and sugar yield is markedly influenced by the date of planting
of the sugar beet crop. A reduction in root yield of 2 to 4 tons per
acre has been reported, due to delayed plantings (Harris g§_al.. 1956;
Nuckols, 1946). Many investigations have indicated that the sucrose con-
tent of beets was unaffected by the beet planting date (Skuderna, 1942;

Harris, et al., 1950; Harris, et al., 1956; Cook et al., 1962). Harris

 

g§_§;. (1950) reported that variations in yield due to the date of plant-
ing was associated with the occurrence of early frosts. Nuckols (1946)
however, concluded that "any frost damage to early-planted beets was less
hazardous than insufficient moisture for the germination of late-planted
beets".

.Murphy and Carsner (1946) found a progressive decrease in root yield
and sucrose content as the row widths increased from 22" to 44". Similar
findings have been reported by other workers (Tolman, 1946; Doxtator,
1948; Haddock, 1949). Deming 1948 noted that sugar yield was reduced as
row widths increased beyond 20 inches.

41

The amount of fertilizer to apply to a sugar beet crop depends on
many factors. The existing nutrient level and.organic matter content is
of prime importance (Cook and Turk, 1958). Generally, mineral soils have
given best response to sugar beet yields when 600 - 1000 pounds per acre
of fertilizer have been applied (Guttay, gt_§l,, 1958; Cook and Millar,
1946; Berger, 1950; Cook et al., 1962). The optimum level of nutrients

 

to apply tend to fluctuate with current fertilizer and sugar prices.
Davis gt_§l, (1959) in a study of phosphorus and potassium levels reported
that potassium slightly increased the sucrose content of the beets.

Several fertilizer placement practices are in use by the beet growers.
Research data concerning method of fertilizer application for beets have
met with.varying results (Cooke, 1949; Cooke, 1951; Davis, gt_§l., 1961).
Broadcasting the fertilizer and plowing or discing-in has given as good
as, or higher yield of beets than where the fertilizer has been applied as
a band application at planting, or by applying the same amount of ferti-
lizer in several applications (Cooke, 1949; Nelson, 1950). Davis gt_§l,
(1962) found that planting time fertilizer placed in a band three inches
directly below the seed stimulated early growth and increased root and
sugar yields over fertilizer that was placed in a band 1% inches to the
side and 3 inches below the seed. Planting-time rates of 6~24—12 at 150
and 300 pounds per acre placed directly below the seed increased root and
sugar yield even where 400 and 800 pounds per acre of P205 had been
plowed under.

Production practices concerning the time and rate of nitrogen applica-
tion and date of harvest on the yield and sucrose content of beets were
discussed in Experiment I.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

The survey of production practices of sugar beet growers in Southern
Ontario was conducted in 1961, 1962 and 1963, with the co-operation of the
Canada and Dominion Sugar Company, Chatham Ontario. Each load of beets
delivered by the farmers was sampled for sucrose content.

With the assistance of Company fieldmen data were collected from 2618
farmers, representing 29,457 acres of sugar beets. This acreage repre-
sents approximately 80 percent of the acreage of the beets grown in On-
tario in 1961, 1962 and 1963.

The data were coded and punched on IBM cards for analysis:

List of data collected
1. District. Three districts.
2. Year. 1961 to 1963.
3. Fieldmen. Nine in total.

4. Soil texture. Clay and clay loams, sand and sandy loams, combina-
tions.

5. Tile drained. Yes, no, partly.

6. Pounds seed per acre. (monogerm): 0-0.5, 0.6-0.9, 1.0-1.4, 1.5-1.9.
2.0-2.4, 2.5-2.9. 300.304, 305.309, over 3090

7. Pounds seed per acre (processed). Same breakdown as monogerm classi-
fication.

8. Pounds seed per acre (whole). 0-0.9, 1.0-1.9, 2.0-2.9. 3.0-3.9,
“00"“099 500’5099 600-609: 700-7099 over 7090

9. Pounds seed per acre. Combination (Whole-Processed-Mbnogerm). 0-0.5,

0.6-0.9, 1.0-1.4, 1.5-1.9, 2.0-2.4, 2.5-2.9, 3.0-3.4, 3.5-3.9, 4.0-4.5,
over 4.5.

42

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.
17.
18.

19.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

43

Previous crop (lst year). Corn, vegetables, beans, wheat, spring
grain, clover, alfalfa, sweet clover, grass sod, tobacco, beets,
potatoes, others.

Legumes preceding years. lst year, 2nd year, 3rd year, none.

Manure application (Tons per acre). 1-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, over 19,
none 0

Manure and year of application. 1963, 1962, 1961, 1960, 1959, 1958,
1957, none.

Plowing practice. Fall, spring, none.

Depth of plowing (inches). Less than 3.9, 4.0-5.9, 6.0-7.9, 8.0-9.9,
10.0-11.9, over 12.0, not plowed.

Soil test. Yes, no.
Soil test recommendation followed. Yes, no, partly.

Times worked between plowing and planting. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, over 9.

Fertilizer application method. Plowdown, broadcast, drill, combi-
nation.

Pounds fertilizer with drill (pounds per acre) None, 1-99, 100-199,
200-299, 300-399, 400-499, 500-599, 600-699, 700 and over.

Total pounds fertilizer used (pounds per acre) None, 1-199, 200-399,
400-599. 600-799, 800-999. 1000-1199. 1200-1399, 1400 and over.

Fertilizer ratio used with drill. 0-x-x, 1-1-1, 1-2-3, 1-3-1, 1-4-2,
l-4-4, 1-6-5, 1-6-3, others.

Nitrogen material used. Ammonium nitrate, urea, anhydrous ammonia,
nitrate-urea, aqua ammonia, cyanamid, others, none, combination.

Nitrogen application method. Pre-plant, sidedress, combination, none.

Time of sidedressing nitrogen. Before June 1, June 1-14, June 15-30,
July 1-14, July 15-31, August 1-14, August 15 and later, no side-
dressing.

Total pounds per acre nitrogen used. 0-19, 20-39, 40-49, 50-59,
60-69, 70-79, 80-89, 90-99, 100-119, 120 or more.

Total pounds per acre phosphate (P20 ) used. 0-49, 50-74, 75-99,
100-124, 125-149, 150-174, 175-199, 00-224, 225-249, 250 or more.

Total pounds per acre potash (K20) used. 0-24, 25-49, 50-74,
75-99, 100-124, 125-149, 150-174, 175-199, 200-224, 225 or more.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

7.
8.
9.
10.
ll.
12.

44

Date of planting, actual planting date or average planting date, e.g.
Mar. 1-31, Apr. 1-30, May 1-31, June 1-30.

Row width (inches). Less than 22, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38
and over.

Date of harvest. Before Oct. 1, Oct. 1-7, Oct. 8-14, Oct. 15-21,
Oct. 22-28, Oct. 29-Nov. 4, Nov. 5-11, Nov. 12-18, after Nov. 18.

Minor elements. No minor elements, boron, manganese, sodium, mag-
nesium, zinc, others, combination.

Acres harvested.

Total tons beets.

Percent sugar.

Total tons sugar.

County. Eight counties.

Townships. Eighty townships.

Tons per acre beets.

Date planted. Before Mar. 21, Mar. 21-30, Apr. 1-10, Apr. 11-20,
Apr. 21-30, May 1-10, May 11-20, May 21-30, May 31-June 9, after June 9.
From these analyses the following list of comparisons were made:
Districts.

Coarse-textured versus fine-textured soils.

Tile drainage.

The effect of legumes in preceding years.

The effect of previous craps.

Manure application - amount.

Manure - year of application.

Fall plowing versus spring plowing.

Depth of plowing.

Number of times worked prior to planting.

Soil test.

Date of planting.

45

13. Row width.

14. Time of sidedressing nitrogen.

15. Nitrogen application method.

16. Total pounds of nitrogen per acre.

17. Total pounds of phosphate per acre.

18. Total pounds of potash per acre.

19. Fertilizer application method.

20. Date of harvest.

21. Total pounds of fertilizer applied.

22. Relationship of nitrogen material and application method.
23. Relationship of nitrogen material and time of sidedressing nitrogen.

24. Relationship of planting date and date of harvest.

Eleven production practices were selected and used in computing cor-
relation and regression analyses. The computer program CORE 2 ROUTINE
was used in these calculations on the CDC 3600 (AES Program Description 4).8
The independent variables were:

tile drainage

-- date of planting

rate of nitrogen

-- row spacing

-- pounds of K20 per acre
-- pounds of P205 per acre
date of harvest

depth of plowing

-- time of plowing

-- legumes grown in preceding years
-- number of times worked

The three dependent variables were: (1) sucrose content (f), (2) tons

of roots per acre and (3) pounds of sugar per acre. The regression

 

aThis description was written by D. F. Kiel and W. L. Ruble, Agricul-
iggal Experiment Station, Michigan State University, Computer Laboratory,
3.

46

coefficients of the production practices represent the actual deviations
from the yield and sucrose content (Ye). The regression constant (YE) was
calculated for sugar beets that were grown the second year after a legume
crop, on tiled-drained soil that was spring-plowed at 8-10 inches and

then worked 7 times before planting (April 11 to 20) in 26 -inch rows. The
partial correlation coefficients indicate the correlation coefficient of a

variable when the others are constant.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Data for the individual years are presented with the weighted aver-
ages for the three years. The weighted average takes into consideration
the number of acres each.year for each factor. Unless otherwise stated,
the discussion pertains to the weighted averages. Approximately 80 per-
cent of the acreage of beets is grown on fine-textured soils. Where re-
sults from coarse-textured soils are discussed, sufficient acreage exists
so that reasonable confidence is assured. Any yields represented by less
than 500 acres should be interpreted with caution.

The average yield and sucrose content data show considerable varia-
tion between the three areas (Table 22). Beets grown on the fine-tex-
tured soils in the wallaceburg area had 2 tons of roots and 1004 pounds
of sugar per acre more than beets grown in the Chatham area and 4.3 tons
of roots and 1545 pounds of sugar higher than those produced in the weigh
Station areas. The beets grown in the wallaceburg and Weigh Station areas
were approximately0.6 percent higher in sucrose content than beets grown
in the Chatham area. A similar trend in results was obtained from beets
grown on the coarse-textured soils.

On the average, beets grown on coarse-textured soils had a root
yield 0.6 tons per acre higher than beets grown on fine-textured soils.
However, since the sucrose content of beets grown on fine-textured soils
was 0.3 percent higher than that of beets grown on coarse-textured soils
the yield of sugar was similar (Table 23).

Beets that were grown on tile-drained soil yielded about 4.0 tons of

roots and 1200 pounds of sugar per acre higher than beets grown on

47

 

OOOHOOOO

 

 

 

OOOO 0.0H O.OH NON OOHO O.NH N.HH OON OONO H.OH 0.0H NHO OOOO 0.0H 0.0H OOH OOHoz
Oomm 0.0H O.NH HNNN mmNm N.NH N.OH HHNH once N.OH 0.0H Hmoa onHm o.mH H.NH on: mnonooeaaez
OONO 0.0H 0.0H OOON ONOO O.NH 0.0H NOO OOOO 0.0H 0.0H OOO OOOO 0.0H H.OH HOOH suspsso
OHHoO Oenspxepueeneoo
escapeam
OOOO N.OH 0.0H OHON NONO O.NH 0.0H OOHO NNOO 0.0H O.NH NOON NOOO O.OH N.OH OHOH suHss
Oman o.NH N.OH Neon nmmm N.NH 0.0H mem coco N.OH 0.0H noun Nmmm H.OH 0.0H HONN masseoeaaex
OOHO 0.0H N.OH OOON ONHO O.NH N.OH OHON OOOO 0.0H H.NH NONN OHOO O.OH N.NH OOHN sOsONOO
Oaaoe ceaspxopnocam
.4 Ned once .4 mod names .4 mod once .4 mod .4 mod each .4 mod .4 mod once .4 mod
meme» neon epoch Haney amuse noem epoch meno4 news» .oem spoon eono4 pause seem epoch noue4 Opedupean
nucoom m mace eucsom & ance messed u uses muesom % mace
emenebe oeunuaes OOOH NOOH mea

 

 

 

 

 

OOOH Os. NOOH .HOOH OH asses sums. No Os.ssos ensues» use OHOH» as» so OOOHNOOHO us soon». one--.NN OHO<H

9
.4.

 

made»

 

ONOO 0.0H 0.0H HOHO OOOO O.NH N.OH OOHN OOOO 0.0H O.NH OOON HHOO 0.0H O.NH OOOH SENS
neeaeoo
madam

HONO 0.0H N.OH ONOON OOOO N.NH 0.0H OOOO OONO 0.0H H.OH NOON OOOO 0.0H O.NH OOOO Oshawa»

sedan

.4 use each .4 mod comes .4 men once .4 mod .4 Ned omen .4 mod .4 Ned each .4 men annexe»

Heme» seem epoch Hence amuse seem epoch Oomo4 pause noon epoch Oeno4 memos lcom epoch meme4 Haom

mucsom m mace

 

omenebe eepnmdez

menace m mace

season a once

mucsom m mace

 

 

mwaa

 

NomH

 

HmmH

 

 

 

OOOH use NOOH .HOOH oH spoon news» no unopeoo oneness use vaoah on» no annexe» HHOO mo poomuo ens::.mm uqm49

50

non-tiled soil (Table 24). Most of the observed differences in sugar pro-
duction was due to differences in root yield rather than in sucrose content.
Statistically,a beets grown on non-tiled,coarse—textured soils had a higher
sucrose content than'beets on tiled soilsin.l961 (Table 25). The reverse
was true in 1963. In 1963, on fine-textured, tiled-drained soils beets had
higher root and sugar yields than beets grown on non-tiled soils (Tables 26
and 27).

The influence of elapsed time between growing an alfalfa or clover crop
and growing a sugar beet crop on fine-textured soils is illustrated in Table
28. The lowest root and sugar yield was obtained where legumes had been
grown the preceding year. On fine-textured soils this yield was lower than
where legumes were not grown in the rotation. Where the legume was grown
the second or third year preceding the beet crop sugar yield was approxima-
tely 425 pounds per acre higher than that of beets grown immediately after
the legume. The sucrose content of beets was higher when legumes were in the
rotation than where they were not. The sucrose content of beets increased
with increasing proximity of the legumes to the beet crop in the rotation.

The preceding crop had a marked influence on the root and sugar yield
of beets grown on fine-textured soils (Table 29). Yield of roots and
sugar were 17.0 and 5508, 16.3 and 5314, 15.2 and 5077, 15.6 and 5086 tons
and pounds per acre, respectively, where the preceding crop was corn, veg-
etables, beans, and wheat.

Fifteen percent of the beet acreage received manure in the rotation on
fine-textured soils (Table 30). The highest yield of roots and sugar was
obtained when 10 to 14 tons per acre of manure were applied. This yield
wtzs 2.3 tons of roots and 786 pounds of sugar per acre increase over

beets that received 1 to 9 tons of manure per acre. Manure applications
aWhen statistical significance is discussed, reference is made to the
0.0 5 probability level.

51

OONO O.OH 0.0H OHO OOOO O.NH 0.0H OOH HNOO H.OH 0.0H OO OOOO N.OH N.OH ONN oz
OOOO ,0.0H H.NH OONO NONO O.NH H.OH ONON NNOO 0.0H O.NH OONN HHHO 0.0H O.NH OmOH so»
Oaaoe veusexouneeneoo

 

 

 

OOH: m.OH O.NH OOOH OONO N.NH 0.0H com MNmO 0.0H N.OH Hon Hoes m.OH 0.0H ONO oz

mean 0.0H m.OH oamam ooam N.NH 0.0H wmmm OmNm 0.0H «.ma men NNOO 0.0H N.NH mama so»
mHHce eonsnxepuocah

.4 mod once .4 Ned memos .4 men moon .4 mod .4 Ned once .4 mod .4 non omen .4_Aem emesdenc

memes seam spoon Hence News» seem spoon eeno4 gems» norm epoch eeno4 human seem epoch eeuo4 odds

massed u once unused w ecoa messed u enoa nuance & coca

sOssoss O.OOOHOO OOOH NOOH HOOH

 

 

 

 

 

 

OOOH use NOOH .HOOH ca cocoa hams» me acepnoo caches» use race» so ewenaanv oHap no avenue emanu.¢~ uqm4a

52

LHBLE 25.-—Regression coefficients and partial correlation coefficients of the suc-
rose content due to various production practices of beets grown on coarse-textured

 

 

 

 

 

_ soils
_‘ 1961 1962 1963 Average
Deviation Partial Partial Partial Partial
from: Variable Reg'n corr. Reg'n corr. .Reg'n corr. Reg'n corr.
coeff. coeff. coeff. coeff. coeff. coeff. coeff. coeff.
A
Y: 15.00 16.08 17.78 16.26
Non-tiling 1.01 .359** .22 .024 -.54 -.242* .20 .026
Plant- Apr. 1-10 -.30 -.051 -.29 -.062 -.17 -.073 -.94 -.117'
ing Apr.21-30 .56 .078 .14 .078 —.08 -.086 -.32 -.1o7*
April may 1-10 -.47 -.089 -.25 -.106 -.10 -.132 -.22 -.054**
11-20 May 1.1-20 e18 .036 "e 20 "e072 '013 ‘0150 -051 -0123**
)May 20 ..31 -.059 -.15 -.055 -.20 -.134 -.97 -.177
26 inch (26" .64 .248: .21 .107 .03 .041 .37 .091
rows >26" .63 .210 .41 -.173 .15 .131 .26 .054
< Oct. 15 -.90 -.276‘* -.34 -.107 -.92 -.421** -1.01 -.156**
Har- 0¢t.15—21 -.06 -.032 .20 .089 -.19 -.161 -.88 -.213**
vest Oct.29-Nov.4 -.21 -.099 .38 -.168 .06 .083 .24 .063.
Get-22-28 >NOVO ’4‘ “012 -0055 '02? -0138 .06 .080 .36 .100
Plowed <8" mowed -.41 -.255” .09 .059 -.00 -.001 .11 .041
8-10" >10" plowgd .54 .201“ .16 .018 -.09 -.092 .60 .109“
Fall plowed .12 .078 .08 .053 -.09 -.l38 .25 .085
Legume lst year -- -- .13 .069 .06 .076 .23 .052
2nd yr. 3rd year —.44 —.102 .10 .049 .00 .010 -.18 -.039**
prec. none -019 "e056 .00 0001 .0? 0100 “.76 “.220
(it .32 .117 -.23 -.075 .30 .147 -.34 -.057
7 u’ .16 .073 -e 26 .e111 .15 0168 ‘018 -0043
times 5 .16 .083 -.13 -.067 .20 .242‘ -.16 -.045
worked 6 .73 .270 -.28 -.108 .07 .076 .27 .059
> 7 017 0057 '007 '0029 .09 .089 .25 .052
Nb -.06 -.219* -.03 -.127 -.00 -.028 -.01 -.021
P205° -.08 -.2o4‘ .04 -.094 .00 .001 .07 .089,
x20 0 -.06 -.142 -.07 -.163 -.01 -.055 -.08 -.095

 

7S

aYc = Percent sucrose of beets grown the 2nd year after a legume crop, on tiled-
drained soil that was spring-plowed at 8-10", worked 7 times then planted in 26" rows
on April 11-20.

bDeviations due to 10-pound increments of nitrogen (lst two and 9th increments were

20 pounds).

cDeviations due to 25

0-49 pounds).
I"Denotes significance at 0.05 level.
‘*Denotes significance at 0.01 level.

-pound increments of P205 and K20 (lst increment of P205 was

53

JABLE 26.--Regression coefficients and partial correlation coefficients of the root
yield due to various production practices of beets grown on fine-textured soils

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1961 1962 .1963 Average,
Deviation Partial Partial Partial Partial
from: Variable Reg'n corr. Reg'n corr. Reg'n corr. Reg'n corr.
coeff. coeff. coeff. coeff. coeff. coeff. coeff. coeff.
I: 15. 25 19. 93 13.17 17.12
Non-tiling -.52 -.020 -4.60 -.100* -1.53 -.086* -3.54 -.116**
Mare 21-30 0 81 e 026* -- "" "" "- e 30 e 003
Plant- Apr. 1-10 1.99 .108 .21 .008 -.08 -.005 .65 .032
ing Apr.21-30 1.18 .043 -.84 -.054 -1.55 -.135:* -.48 -.030
April May 1-10 "e 2“ 'e 014 -2. 88 'e 120** -1. 57 "e 164 * "le 89 ‘e 120**
11-20 May 11—20 -1.04 -.o64 -3.00 -.106* -3.40 -.296** -2.15 -.140**
)Ney-zo -1.52 -.089* 2.82 .077 -3.98 -.204** -1.20 -.058
26 inch < 26" -1. 38 -. 130" -1. 86 -.093* . 28 .026 -.68 -.042
rows >26" —1.95 -.147** -2.60 -.099* -2.10 -.152** -2.50 -.122**
‘(Oct. 15 -.52 -.052 -.40 -.017 -1.06 -.077 —.58 -.032
Har- 0ct.15-21 -.64 -.065* .89 .045 -1.45 -.122** .61 .039
vest Oct.29-Nov.4 .90 .088 -. 69 -.034 .45 .045 «45 -.029
Get. 22'28 > NOV. u e 57 e 052 e on 0002 1.03 e 099* -0 06 -0 003
Plowed < 8" Plowed . 29 . 043 -.78 -.0 56 -. 95 H122" -1.05 -, 096"
840“ > 10" Plowed .63 .046 -. 30 -. 009 2. 56 .170" 1.05 .046
Fall plowed 1.09 .061 -.54 .014 -.18 -.011 .49 .019
Legume lat year “e83 “.056 “e77 -0014'2 "e 22 -0022 -070 -.O(~JJ+
2nd year 3rd.year .07 .005 -.56 -.030 -.63 -.053 -.14 -.008
prec. none -.52 -.044 .27 .016 -.10 -.011 .40 .030
(1+ -.70 -.055 .42 .017 -.49 -.030 -.02 -.001
7 ’4 -.(4'2 -0047 -.42 -0023 "e 33 -0028 "e 17 -0011
times 5 -e 56 -e 066* .39 .022 ”.47 -e0% “.23 -0016
worked 6 -1006 -.101 '0 91+ -.0L|-3 e62 .054 "e 50 "'0 029
>17 -.90 -.075 -1.81 -.062 .50 .040 -.89 -.o46
b
N c .31 .234** .07 .031 .07 .051 -.02 -.010
P205 .19 .092* .02 .003 -.14 -.050 .01 .004
K20 ° .29 .128“ .15 .032 .71 .289** .36 .103**

 

K_
aYc = Tons of root per acre of beets grown the 2nd year after a legume crop, on

tiled-drained soil that was spring-plowed at 8-10", worked 7 times then planted in 26"
rows on April 11-20.

bDeviations due to lO-pound increments of nitrogen (let two and 9th increments were
20 pounds).

cDeviations due to 25

0-49 pounds).
I"Denotes significance at 0.05 level.
**Dsnctes significance at 0.01 level.

-pound increments of P205 and K20 (lst increment of P205 was

54

-Hfi_3 27.--Regression coefficients and partial correlation coefficients of the sugar

yield due to various production practices of beets grownon fine-textured soils

 

 

 

 

 

1961 _19§§____ l 6 Avergge
Deviation Partial Partial Partial Partial
.from: Variable Reg'n corr. Reg'n corr. Reg'n corr. Reg'n corr.
coeff. coeff. coeff. coeff. coeff. coeff. coeff. coeff.
A
I: 4653 6423 4739 5660
Non-tiling -232 -.031 -1599 -.103* -558 -.088* -994 -.101**
Mar.21-30 703 .075 -— -— -- -- -51 -.001
Plant- Apr. 1-10 673 .124** -8 -.000 -37 .006 22 .003
ing Apr.21-30 499 .061 -254 -.049 -558 -.137** -243 -.047
April May 1-10 75 .014 -858 -.106* -560 -.165** -627 -.123**
11-20 May 11-20 -208 -.043 -1019 —.106* -1207 -.296:: -973 -.195::
)May 20 -241 -.048 963 .077 -1398 ..202 -641 -.096
26 inch <26" -452 -.144** -560 -.082 97 .024 -225 -.o43
rows >26n -513 -.l3l*‘ -807 -.091* -750 -.153** -740 -.112**
Har- (Oct. 15 -398 -.133** -196 -.025 -553 -.1l3** -359 -.061
vest Oct.15-21 -215 -.073 344 .051 -637 -.15o** -15 -.003
Oct. Oct.29-Nov.4 316 .105" -286 -.041 193 .053 -11 -.002
22-28 j>Nov. 4 163 .050 -45 -.006 393 .106** 82 .016
Plowed (8" plow“ 103 .052 -166 -.035 -345 -.124*"‘ -260 -.o73*
8-10" >1o~ new 239 .059 -179 -.016 873 .163" 383 .052
Fall plowed 329 -.063 194 .014 -59 -.010 102 .012
Legume lst year -217 -.050 -231 -.037 -94 -.026 -215 -.042
2nd year 3rd year 12 .002 -l92 -.031 -236 -.056 -136 -.024
prec. none -208 -.059 86 .015 -34 -.010 ~50 -.011
< 4 -335 -.089* 185 .022 -172 -.029 -74 -.011
7 4 -161 -.061 -56 -.009 -108 -.026 -53 -.010
times 5 -286 -.112** 134 .022 -154 -.042 -105 -.022
worked 6 -354 -.1l4** -283 -.038 227 -.056 -136 -.025
>'7 -286 -.081 -530 -.054 185 -.042 -173 -.027
Nb 0 83 .210:* 6 .007 23 .046 4 .006
P205 60 .097 19 .010 -55 —.052 8 .006
K90 ° 61 .091‘ 23g .015 245, .281** 124 .108’*

 

aYc = Pounds sugar per
tiled-drained soil that was
rows on April 11-20.

acre of beets grown the 2nd year

after a legume crop, on
spring-plowed at 8-10", worked 7 times then planted in 26"

bDeviations due to lO-pound increments of nitrogen (lst two and 9th increments

were 20 pounds).

cDeviations due to 25-pound increments of P20

was 0-49 pounds).

*Denotes significance at 0.05 level.
*‘Denotes significance at 0.01 level.

5 and K20 (lst increment of P205

55

 

 

 

 

moan m.nH o.oa moon mmmn m.mH u.oa one Haom m.nH H.oH can moo: o.oH n.5H mesa one:
ommm “.ma o.aH How ooon a.mH o.oH ooh «non 4.:a o.oH men mono o.sa 4.oH 03H noon ohm
pawn m.oH H.NH mona ooom a.ua o.oH moo ommm o.ma o.eH omo anon o.oH n.5a no no.» ecu
dean o.oH m.nH mam ooom o.uH o.mH was ode: e.nH o.mH Hos In In In I. neon pea
madam vensuxopsonumoo
Nana o.oH o.oa moHoH and“ m.ma n.oa Joan mflom o.mH o.oa oomm ooom o.oH H.5H so“: age:
mean o.oH o.oH ooom, same N.NH o.ma mafia mooo o.oH o.oH ooma omam o.oa o.aa no: use» ohm
Hana o.oH o.oH omen Noom N.NH n.oH mnsm momm o.mH N.NH ommm oamm .o.ma..o.aa moo use» new
moon o.oH H.mH Hams some N.NH o.nH ommm ammo m.mH 3.5H oHoH nae: N.na m.mH How you» uufl
naaom megapxopnocam
.4 you each .4 you moped .¢ pom omen .< you .< gem omen .« mmm .< non anon .< hen use»
ammsn nosm mpoon Hence uomsm nosm epoch wouo< ammdm nosm muoou mmuo< pmmdm nosm epoch nouuw meuoemhn
mnzdom n mace meadow m mace mvcsom m macs mucsom m mace assumed
omono>a sensedoz moofl Noofl Hoofl

 

 

 

 

 

 

mooa one mood

.Hmma nu nuoen howsn «o unannoo omouosm one vHoflh on» no nuns» mnaveooum on» nosswoa we assume ogeI|.mN “Jada

 

 

 

Haom N.oa u.oH mom mono n.5H m.mH was omao m.oH o.oH mNH ommm o.mH o.eH sod modema<
:NN: 0.0H N.MH mm wad: 0.5H u.HH a: mmm: H.mH N.:H HH 3mm: 5.:a :.¢H a: mason
moo: o.oa H.¢H sod «no: o.nfl m.ma mo moo: a.oH o.ma Hm moo: m.ma m.oH HoH oom ommno
com: m.oH o.mH wmoa woo: N.NH m.ma mmm mamn m.ma $.0H cum ammo :.ma m.¢H mm: noboao
Hem: m.mH n.3H «5% Non: m.ma m.mH can II 1! II II oamm o.mH N.NH «mm mcwMAm HHmam
moon m.oa o.mH ammo some n.5H o.NH mmoa momm o.oH o.eH mama omom o.oa o.oH ooaa soon:
whom n.0H N.mH ovum mum: m.ma N.mH omoH mmom m.mH m.mH mica wHom m.mH :.©H Hon mnmcm
:amm m.wH m.©H mood mnmn 5.5H a.¢a 03w mam: m.ma u.mH HH wmmm m.¢a o.mH mam moanupewo>
My momm N.wd O.NH Hmmm mamm N.NH H.mH mmmm :amm m.mH d.mH ooam 30mm 5.:H N.NH 30mm choc
.< you one .4 you mouow .< you one." .< you .4 god smog .< pom é pom omen .4 you no.3
news» :26 308 .2309 news» team mpoou moped .898 team «poop menus. new?“ team goon 3.34 93.395
madam * anon. 355m u 989 356m & macs mgom m 939
among.» 3.3303 $3” $3 Gm.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

mooa one mooa .Hooa on mane» oonoaxoouoeao
.uozoaaaadou :0 Soon» Shop .395 no #2033 among» 98 33» can no no.8 30.303 2.3 no poommo Bantam mama.

57

 

m.mH mmmu

 

 

 

oamn m.oH o.oH oooofl one: N.NH omnm o.ma H.oH momo omom o.oH o.oH ooom oooz
Hmoo H.wH m.ma 43m mmoe m.nH o.mH mom comm o.na N.mH :ma Noam 4.:H «.mH Haa ones no ma
womn H.0H N.NH mmm amen 5.5H N.NH me snow m.mH H.mH mm: mmnm n.3H m.mH mmm manna
wowm :.wa N.NH coma «Ham n.5H m.wa mmu osmm m.ma m.mH mm: mmam m.:H ¢.mH no: aauoa
omom m.oH o.nH oooa moms 5.5H o.ma oom sown “.ma a.oa own moms m.mH o.oH ooo o-a
.4 you omen .4 non mouse .4 you omen .4 you .4 you one» .4 you . .4 you each .4 mom .4 you use»
house nosm spoon Hopes news» team epoon nouo4 human nosm epoch uono4. newsm noun epoch mono4lnoapeoaammm
muqsom % egos meadow u uses nausea u uses mucsom m mace ounce:
ammuobm downwaoz mood mood Hmma

 

 

 

 

 

 

mwma one mwma .Hmma :4 made» consexopuonau
no macaw muoon news» no pcevcoo caches» use wand» on» no veaanma ounces we assess on» «o poeumo onanu.om mqm4a

58
did not affect the sucrose content of beets. The highest root and sugar
yield of boots grown on fine-textured soils was obtained where manure was
applied during the preceding year (Table 31). Beets grown on soil that
received manure in the rotation had a higher sugar yield than beets on
unmanured soil. The farther the manure application was from the boot
crop year the lower the root yield, but the higher the sucrose content of
the beets.

Beets grown on fall-plowed soil produced approximately 1 ton of roots
and 300 pounds of sugar per acre more than beets grown on spring-plowed
soil (Table 32). In 1962 and 1963, boots on tiled-drained, fine-tex-
tured soils had a significantly higher yield of sugar than beets on un-
tiled soil (Table 31). Time of plowing did not affect the sucrose con-
tent of beets (Table 33). Approximately 90 percent of the fine-textured
soils and about 70 percent of the coarse-textured soils were fall-plowed
for the beets. In Ontario fall plowing is recommended for fine-textured
soils but not for coarse-textured soils. The lowest yield was obtained
where soil was plowed less than 8 inches deep (Table 34). Root and sugar
yields gradually increased as the depth of plowing increased on the fine-
textured soils. Beets grown on fine-textured soils that had been plowed
deeper than 10 inches had a 2.3 tons of roots and a 654 pounds of sugar
per acre increase over beets grown on soil that had been plowed less than
8 inches. The statistical values (Tables 26 and 27) indicate that root
and sugar yield in 1963 of beets on soil plowed less than 8 inches was
negatively correlated with beets on soil plowed 8 to 10 inches, and
positively correlated with beets on soil plowed more than 10 inches.
Beets grown on fine-textured soils that were plowed more than 10 inches
produced 873 pounds of sugar per acre more than beets on soil plowed at

8 to 10 inches deep. Maximum.yield of roots and sugar of beets grown on

 

.

sown o.oH u.oe new oflmm N.NH o.mH ma: omen o.ma o.me men woes o.ma o.mH mew mceoMoonM
nee up

moon o.oa o.oH amen memo N.NH o.me owe omen o.oH N.eH moo seam H.mH N.NH was moaoMoono
Hdo EN

omen o.oH ~.ea omen omno N.NH n.5H oao neon m.mH n.oH amp oomm 5.44 o.mH mom meaooooeo

 

pee» and
o,
5
.4 you each .4 you eouoe .4 non anon .4 son .4 non oeon .4 non .4 you once .4 non amazes me
news» :osm epoch Hence nemue noun epoch eouo4 geese team epoch eouo4 hemse uosm epoch eouo4rcoaoeoaanme
eunaom u once eucsom * ecoa eunsom u mace euasom * mace no nee»

 

 

 

ooeoose oooaoaoz moon Nome Home

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmma one Noma .awma ma eaaoe vounpxopuocam no
cache epoon nemse mo panacea oeonose one vaoah on» :0 causes no noapeoaaame mo ueoh.onp mo poomme 029:1.Hm uqm4a

60

 

 

 

 

3mm: m.ma 3.:H an «no: o.mH ~.mH pa moan m.ma m.wa ma mama m.mH m.ma ma cosoam pcz

mmam m.mH ~.oa Nope memm o.pH o.mH omm ooeo m.mH e.ma Hop omoo m.oH H.pH Hmm weapon

epom o.mH H.pa woe: mmmm p.pH p.mH coma mmmm o.mH m.eH oema ooom o.oa m.pH mead Haee
eaaoe vonspxopueeneoo

Now: 4.44 H.ma :am 0:43 o.mH -m.HH mNH memm m.wH 4.44 mm wmm: n.ma m.mH mom oozoao poz

ooom m.oH m.mH moo omom o.pH n.4fl moo doom p.mH m.pH «pm ommo o.mH H.ma «on weapon

44mm m.oa m.mH omoae omoo p.pH o.oH Hpoe eepm o.me N.ea pomp ooom o.oa H.pH Heem HHee
eaaoe vendpxopuonah

.4 you seen .4 you eenoe .4 you each .4 use .4 non noon .4 non .4 non neon .4 non ooapoeum

geese teem epoch fleece geese teem epoch eono4 geese seam epoch eoac4 news» scam epoch eono4 amazoam

euqsom & egos condom u once eunsom u once ,euqsom u uses

omeaobe oepnwdoz mood mwma mea

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmoa one mood .Hooe on epoch name» no oeooeoo cocoon» one oaoap on» no measoao no can» 46 seamen one--.~m eqm<e

61

;43;a 33.--Regression coefficients and partial correlation coefficients of the suc-
rose content due to various production practices of beets grown on fine-textured

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

soils
1361» 1962 _1363_> Average

Deviation Partial Partial Partial Partial

from: Variable Reg'n corr. Reg’n corr. Reg'n corr. Reg'n corr.
coeff. coeff. coeff. coeff. coeff. coeff. coeff. coeff.

Y: 15.35 16.09 17.98 16.58

Non-tiling -.21 -.031 -.31 -.062 -.02 -.015 .70 .098**

Mar. 21-30 1.11 .l3l** —- -- -- -- -.34 -.016

Plant- Apr. 1-10 .1? 003“ ‘01“ ‘0056 -003 -0022 '045 “0096*

ing Apr.21-30 .31 .043 .09 .056 ..03 -.028 -.20 -.056

April May 1-10 .35 .076 .23 .092* -.00 «.001 .05 .016
11-20 May 11-20 .17 .040 -.13 —.045 -.01 -.017 -.74 -.205**
)May 20 .50 .109“ .05 .015 .06 .031 -.78 -.l60**

26 inch (26* -.06 -.022 .12 .056 -.02 -.024 .04 -.012

rows )26" .27 .077 .10 .038 -.01 -.009 .27 .058
Har- (Oct. 15 -.80 -.285** -.29 -.118** -.67 -.441** -.60 4140*:
vest 0ct.l5-21 -.04 -.017 .16 .076 -.46 -.363"'* -.65 -.179*
Oct. 0ct.29-Nov.4 .09 .036 -.21 -.097* .10 .100* .40 .111"
22-28 )Nov. 4 -.02 -.007 -.19 —.093* .06 .064 .30 .085"
Plowed <8nplowed .04 .025 .24 .160“ -.00 -.002 .30 .120"

8-10" )10”Plowed .17 .047 -.24 -.o69 -.11 -.077 .02 .004

Fall plowed .01 -.003 .04 .011 -.00 -.001 -.16 -.027

Legume lst year .16 .041 .03 .017 -.06 -.066 .03 .008*

2nd yr. 3rd year -.02 -.006 -.05 -.026 -.05 -.043 -.28 -.071
prec. none -. 15 -. 047 -.02 —.014 .01 .012 -. 58 —.l88**

(4 -. 34 -.101* .12 . 048 -.00 -. 004 -.21 -.o44

7 4 -.07 -.031 .23 .116" .04 .041 .00 .000

times 5 -.28 -.123** -.01 -.005 .05 .050 -.07 -.021
worked 6 -e 09 "'e 035 001 0005 e 03 0027 005 o 013*

> 7 -.08 -.026 .15 .049 .01 .015 . 31 .068
Nb 0 -.03 -.102* -.04 -.160** -.01 -.072 .04 .101"

P205 .01 .023 -.04 -.133** -.00 -.016 .02 -.011

K200 .07 -.128“ -.06 .069 -.02 -.105* -.00 .026

3Y = Percent sucrose of beets grown the 2nd year after a legume crop, on tiled-

drained

on April 11-20.

bDeviations due to lO-pound increments of nitrogen (lst two and 9th increments were
20 pounds).

cDeviations due to 25-pound increments of P20

0-49 pounds).
*Denotes significance at 0.05 level.
*‘Denotes significance at 0.01 level.

5

soil that was spring-plowed at 8-10”, worked 7 times then planted in 26" rows

and K20 (lst increment of P205 was

62

 

 

ooem e.oH o.oa one poem p.pH m.mH mod ooeo o.oH o.mH ea mHNm e.oH m.pH mma ee.aauo.oa

eemm e.ma p.pH oeee oeom e.pH o.oH nee mem ~.mH o.eH meme eoom o.oH o.pH eop =e.e-o.e

omam o.oH o.oH oeom «mom p.pH e.mH ope one: p.mH p.mH nee eHeo e.oH m.pa ppp eo.e
madam oonspxopnoeneoo

opom ~.oa m.pH pone oeem m.pH o.oH opm .mmmm o.mH p.pH ooe pmmm H.mH e.eH poo ee.Hauo.oH

opom e.oa e.oa eoema eoem p.pH o.ea memo eoem e.ma p.eH mpmo omHm e.oa o.pH Hmee =e.e-o.o

oaom m.oa e.mH eoem pomo p.pH e.eH empe oomm H.oa H.pH ooem owes o.mH o.oH moee =o.e
naaoe oopspxopnonem

.4 you cook .4 non evoe .4 non oeon .4 you .4 non once .4 you .4 non omen .4 you mafiaoam

nemee scam epoch Hence geese loam epoch eouo4 nemse loam epoch eono4, hemae loam epoch eopo4 no apnea

condom m ance

 

owenobe oopsueo:

eundom u

once

eunsom m

egos

ennsom u

once

 

 

noea

 

mwma

 

Hood

 

 

 

eoea one eoea .Hoea an ocean geese «o oeooeoo encode» one oaoae do» do meaaoao oo ooeoo «6 poouoo oeeuu.oe eqeoa

63
coarse-textured soils was obtained where soil was plowed between 8 and 10
inches deep.

The times worked refers to the number of times a field was worked
after plowing and prior to planting. The number of times worked did not
materially affect root and sugar yield of boots grown on fine-textured
soils (Table 35). The advantage in minimum tillage is due to the reduced
labor and power requirements. 0n coarse-textured soils (Table 36) root
and sugar yield decreased slightly when soil was worked more than four
times. Statistically, the number of times a field was worked had no
affect on the yield and sucrose content of beets.

There was practically no differences in root or sugar yield where
beets were grown on fields that had been tested as compared to those grown
on areas not testedd(Table 37).

Beet planting in Ontario usually occurs during the months of April
and May. Ten-day planting intervals were recorded in this survey. 0n
fine-textured soils (Table 38) beet root and sugar yields gradually de-
creased when planting was delayed beyond April 1 to 10. A marked decline
in yield occurred when beets were planted later than the month of April.
The sucrose content appeared to decrease when beets were planted later
than may 10. Beets that were planted between April 11 and May 10 had the
highest sucrose content. Statistically the date of planting was a prin-
ciple cause of variation in root and sugar yield of beets in 1962 and
1963 (Tables 26 and 27). The yield of beets planted later than April 30
in 1962 and later than April 20 in 1963 were negatively correlated with
the yield of beets planted April 11 to 20. In 1963 the average sugar
yield was reduced about 900 pounds per acre for each lO-day delay of

planting later than April 20.

 

 

 

 

omom m.wH 4.mH Goad new: m.mH u.ma mom amen m.mH 3.5H now was: n.4H m.oa mom 0
eoem o.oH H.oa eeme Hue: p.pH e.eH eeoa opom e.mH o.oa ooaa oeam e.oH ~.pH ooe p
moem o.oH o.oa eeom moom p.pH e.oH mane eepm e.ma e.ea mmmm ommm o.mH m.pH eeea o
eoem ~.oa e.oa oaam flee: p.pH H.oa eoofl eoom e.mH o.oH oepa epeo e.oa e.oa oema m
mamm n.0H H.0H HAN: HNm: N.NH m.ma Hama moon H.OH 3.5H whoa Odom o.mH m.mH mméa :
eoem H.oa o.oa ammo omeo o.pa m.~H one eoem o.oH p.ea mep poeo o.oH o.oH eon e
“w oeom e.ma o.oH pee Heom e.pa e.oH om ammo m.oa e.eH eo pemm o.oH o.ea omH N
.4 you seen .4 non eenoe .4 poo neon .4 hem .4 non each .4 mom .4 non seen .4 you ooxaoa
pews» loom epoch Hence nemse loom cocoa eeuo4 neMde loam epoch eono4 nemae loom epoch eouo4 moses
eoneom m coca eonsom * coca eonoom u once eonoom u mace
oweao>e oopnwaoz mead Noma Homa

 

 

 

 

 

moma one mood .4094 ad e440» oeustopaonam no ozone epoen
nemse Mo unannoo oeoaooe one oHooh on» no undaneam on Medan ooxnoz mead» we genes: on» no poeuuo onauu.mm uqm4e

65

 

 

 

 

:0? N64 o.m.n 3m mmom pup...” 4.2” m9” Rom Nana m.m mma Home mid me.” me Q
mama N.wH H.04 one mmdm b.5H 4.mH com Noun m.nH 0.5H mum was: m.¢H o.wH and m
oeflm 13 e.mH noun eoeo ope H4: eom pemm e.mH o.pH ope See 1}: pod epe o
.Npom ooa H5 peed eemm ope p.mH mom moom puma den eep Noe: 1}: e.pa eHm m
omen m.ma o.wH NNHH Home m.mH n.5H mom dmmm o.mH m.mH mmm Ham: H.4H N.NH mmm :
oeem on: pod mom ommm ope o.mH en epeo flea ode pom oopm l}: o.o~ own e
pemm «.mn «.3 mo eemo e.pH ope ma 8mm o.mH 8e.” pm mmom ms: men oo m
.4 non omen .4_non eonoe .4 non each .4 pen .4 non mean .4 non .4 non neon .4 non ooxnoz
newse nosm ences Hence newse nosm epoch eono4 neuse uosm epoch eono4 nemse nosm epoch eono4 eonae
eonsom a unoa eonsom & enoa eonsom u once eonsom m ance

82.2... 8.335 Sen woes Gen

 

 

 

 

 

 

noea one Noaa .Homa n4 eaaoe oonspxenuoeneoo no nzonm eneon
news» we onepnoo oeonose one oHoeh.onn no wnflpnean op ocean ooxnoz mend» no nonnsn ego no avenue enaun.om mqm4a

66

 

 

 

 

opom e.o4 e.o4 4mm: pemm p.p4 o.m4 eoe4 poom o.m4 e.o4 moo4 ooee p.o4 o.o4 4po4 on
opom o.m4 e.o4 o4m4 emeo e.p4 e.p4 men ooee e.o4 m.o4 4om ee4m e.e4 p.o4 eeo eon
e440e oonsnxopnoeneoo
e4em e.o4 e.o4 m4eom Heee p.p4 4.:4 o44e ompm e.m4 4.o4 ooop ooom e.o4 o.o4 4eom oz
9.4mm 4.04 064 444m R3 4344 4.m4 wee omen 464 m.m4 omm mmwm main m.e4 2&4 no»
e44oe oonspxopuon4m
.4 non oeon .4 non mouse .4 non soon .4 non .4 non omen .4 non .4 non mean .4 non peep
news» sosm epoon 4epoa nemse sosm epoch eono4 geese aosm epoon eono4 nemse nosm epoch eono4 44cm
eonsom m enoa eonsom * once eonscm & ones eonsom a ones
omeno>e ooonw4o3 mom4 Nom4 4om4

 

 

 

 

 

 

eoen one eoen .4oe4 en eeeoo neene no oneenoe coonoee one once» one no one» ance no econno one--.pe annoy

67

 

 

 

 

N044 o.m4 0.44 0044 amen w.m4 m.m wmm 00m: n.04 o.m4 N0 N00: n.04 n.04 0504 omI4N he:
ppoe o.m4 o.o4 emee emee p.p4 4.44 e4e4 omom e.m4 e.m4 one pooo e.e4 o.o4 4oom oeu44 nee
5540 p.04 0.04 4044 N000 m.e4 n.44 m0mm 4040 4.04 4.04 m0n m4Nm m.d4 0.54 0004 0434 he:
44mm m.o4 p.o4 emme e4ee p.p4 o.m4 e444 oopm o.o4 o.o4 eoem omom o.o4 4.e4 4m4 oes4e .nnn
eeom o.o4 o.p4 eooo 4oem p.p4 e.m4 meme opom o.m4 o.o4 eoem oemm p.e4 p.e4 o4e omu44 .non
ooom 4.o4 o.o4 oeoe 4eem o.p4 o.m4 eop e~4o p.m4 m.e4 ooo ooom p.e4 o.oe 4oo o4-4 .nnn
.4 non neon .4 non mouse .4 non oeon .4 gen .4 non eeon .4 non .4 non oeon .4 non wn4pne4n
nemse nosm eooon 4epoa nemse scsm epoch eono4 nemse nosm epoch eono4 nemse nosm epoch eono4 mo open
eonsom u ones eonsom u once eonsom * enca eonsom m once

oeenoee ocenonoz eoe4 ~oe4 4oe4

 

 

 

 

 

 

n0m4 one N0m4 .40m4 n4 e44ou
oonsnxopnen4m no neonm epoon nemse mo pnepnoo caches» one o4e4h can no wn4pne4n no epeo no poommo one:n.mm uqm49

68

The effect of planting date on the yield of beets grown on coarse-
textured soils was similar to that obtained on the fine-textured soils,
(Tables 39, 40 and 41).

Approximately 66 percent of the beets were planted in 24-inch rows.
The root and sugar7yield was reduced where beets were planted in rows
wider than 26 inches (Table 42). Boots planted in 26-inch rows on fine-
textured soils had a root and sugar yield increase of 3.8 tons and 1091
pounds per acre, respectively, over beets planted in 28-inch rows. 0n
coarse-textured soils beets planted in 26-inch rows had a root and sugar
increase of 2.9 tons and 887 pounds per acre, respectively, over beets
planted in 28-inch rows. Row spacing did not affect the sucrose content
of boots. The statistical values indicate that each.year for beets
planted on fine-textured soils in rows wider than 26 inches the root and
sugar yield was significantly lower than that from beets planted in 26-
inch rows. In 1961, 1962 and 1963 this reduction was 513, 807 and 750
pounds of sugar per acre, respectively (Table 27).

The highest root and sugar yield on fine-textured soils was ob-
tained when fertilizer was applied as a combination of the drill and
broadcast methods (Table 43). The drill method of fertilizer applica-
tion refers to fertilizer that was applied at planting in a band to one
side and below, or directly below the seed. Beets grown on soils to which
fertilizer was broadcast had a higher root and sugar yield than beets to
which fertilizer was applied at planting time. The method of fertilizer
application did not affect the sucrose content of beets.

The maximum root and sugar yield of beets on coarse-textured soils
was obtained where the fertilizer was broadcast. Beets with which ferti-
lizer was drilled at planting time produced the lowest yield of sugar and

69

 

 

 

 

some a.ma m.mH mom mamm 5.5H m.sH «NH mean m.na e.ma me has: m.ea a.ma sue omuau an:
snow o.wa m.mfl soda eomm N.NH p.ea men need m.nfl m.ma cad owes n.2H 0.0H and omuaa as:
flown n.0a ~.oH emma seam m.ma m.ea mam one: o.me m.ma own amen «.3H m.ua Hem case as:
emmm e.ma “.ma OHHH eoem n.5H o.oa mom comm o.mH o.ma Ham moan H.mH e.ma mm omaam .sd4
moon e.ma 5.5H some snmm m.aH e.ma use moan a.ma m.ma mom roam «.3H s.o~ mm omufla .sdq
mama e.ma e.ma mam memo m.aa o.ma so rune e.ma m.ea mm mamm m.mH ~.o~ and oa-a .sd4
.4 god omom .4 and means .4 you one.” .4 you .4 god omom .4 god .4 you each .4 you 9395.3
human :26 308 Haven. human :26 3.009 @984 human :26 3.08 3.34 news» :26 308 «0.84 no 3.3
mugged u econ. 358m u econ. 355m a 309 unused u mace

sadness censuses meme some Heme

 

 

 

 

 

 

meme use meme .Homa an edge»
nonsvxeauoeuuoo do 8.8.5 325 human no 33:3 3825 use 39E 23 no ufiafiam no 33 mo poem: 23...: .mm H.349

7O

-iELE 40.--Regression coefficients and partial correlation coefficients of the root
yield due to various production practices of beets grown on coarse-textured soils

 

 

 

1961 1962 1963 Avera e
Deviation Partial Partial Partial EartiaI
from: Variable Reg' n corr. Reg' n corr. Reg' 11 corr. Reg' n corr.
coeff. coeff. coeff. coeff. coeff. coeff. coeff. coeff.
A
I: 17.03 15.98 11.38 14.69
Non-tiling -l.96 -.177 -.38 -.008 -1.98 -.085 -l.45 -.073
Apr. 1-10 -1.36 -.056 -.29 -.012 -2.47 -.097 .66 .032
Plant- Apr. 21-30 '1e99 "e067 -0 78 -0091 e00 e000 -.05 "e005*
ing May 1-10 -4.03 -.181 -3.19 -.268** .09 .010 -1.28 -.120**
April may 11-20 .4.13 -.192: -2.46 -.177 -1.38 -.144 -1.45 -.133**
11-20 > may 20 “AVE“ -e 205 '3e70 -0268** "e 86 -0053 -2000 “elul
26 51.11011 (26” '54? -e01+6 "e 88 "e091 e72 e070 "eu'9 “.046
rows > 26" e 88 e072 -0 18 'e 016 -1. 07 "e 084 "e 26 "’e 021
‘(Oct. 15 -.27 -.021 1.4 .097 1.52 .069 1.02 .061
Har- 0Ct015-21 -1. 54 "'e 178 -2e 0 "e 188 e 59 .04“ -e 10 "e 010
vest 0ct.29.Nov.4 1.77 .198* 1.69 .154 .43 .049 .52 .052
Oct.22-28 )Nov. 4 1.32 .143 .99 .107 .90 .105 .55 .058
Plowed <8" Plowed -.36 -.056 -2.18 -.276" -.98 -.134 -1.28 -.172**
8‘10" >10” Flawed -1e 39 'e127 “4&8? 'e113 e31 e027 “092 "e064
Fall plowed 1.10 .161 - .46 -.059 -.15 -.020 -.11 -.015
Legume lst year -- -- -1.74 -.185 -.84 -.092 —l.43 -.124**
2nd year 3rd year 1.80 .101 -1.01 -.097 .25 .024 .11 .009
prec. none 0 35 e 025 -1e 25 'e 15"" "e 82 '0 10“ "o 27 .003].
(1+ 1.71 .148 2.69 .181 2.40 .105 2.89 .182**
7 4 -.76 -.080 -.41 -.037 1.37 .135 .70 .063
times 5 -.53 -.067 1.04 .114 .21 .023 .68 .072
Worked 6 -087 “0080 -e74 -0059 e03 .002 '03? -0030
)H? .03 -.002 -.82 -.067 .48 .043 -.23 -.018
Nb c .30 .267" .36 .280:* .24 .183 .29 .222**
P205 .15 .095 .51 .224 .07 .029 .23 .107:
x20 ° .28 .139 .27 .134 .56 .266** .30 .143 *

 

A
aYc = Tons of roots per acre of beets grown the 2nd year after a legume crop, on
tiled-drained soil that was spring-plowed at 8-10", worked 7 times then planted in 26"
rows on April 11-20.

bDeviations due to lO-pound increments of nitrogen (lst two and 9th increments were
20 pounds .

cDeviations due to 25-pound increments of P205 and K20 (lst increment of P205 was
0-49 pounds) e

*Denctes significance at 0.05 level.
**Denotes significance at 0.01 level.

71

IiQLE 41.-~Regression coefficients and partial correlation coefficients of the sugar
yield due to various production practices of beets grown on coarse-textured soils

 

 

 

 

 

1961 1962 l 6 Average_
Deviation Partial Partial Partial Partial
from: Variable Reg'n corr. .Reg'n corr. Reg'n corr. .Reg'n corr.
coeff. coeff. coeff. coeff. coeff. coeff. coeff. coeff.
3?: 5026 5119 4048 4732
Non-tiling -215 -.065 -52 -.003 -870 -.103 -357 -.059
Apr. 1-10 -477 -.065 -174 -.025 -933 -.104 -128 -.020
Plant- Apr.21-3O -294 -.033 -188 -.072 —24 -.006 -102 -.030
ing May 1-10 -1278 -.l90* -1053 -.289*‘ -1 -.000 -452 -.137**
April may 11-20 .1095 -.169 -823 -.l95* -534 -.158 -613 -.182**
11-20 ) May 20 -1393 -.208"' -ll98 -.285** -358 -.063 -928 -.211"‘*
26 inch < 26" 92 .029 -187 -.064 270 .073 — 6 -.002
rows ) 26" 485 .131 94 .027 -330 -.O73 LI- -.001
Har- < Oct. 15 -369 -.093 393 .084 279 .036 18 .003
vest Oct.15-21 -452 -.173 -560 -.169 152 .032 -289 .089
0ct. 0ct.29-Nov.4 442 .164 376 .113 180 .057 237 .076*
22-28 > Nov. 4 375 .134 228 .081 353 .116 309 .106
Plowed < 8~Plowed.243 -.123 -667 -.278** -352 -.136 -380 -.166**
8-10" > 10" Flawed-183 -.0 5 5 -1557 -. 120 84 .020 -82 .018
Fall plowed 352 .170 -124 -.053 -81 -.030 35 .014
Legume 1st year -- -- -513 -.179 -282 -.087 -393 -.111’
2nd year 3rd year 378 .071 -274 -.087 92 .026 -20 -.005
prec. none 66 .015 -410 -.165 -273 -.097 -359 -.132**
<T4 602 .173 741 .165 933 .116 783 .161**
7 4 -179 -.062 -280 -.083 525 .146 170 .050
times 5 -96 -.o40 253 .091 126 .039 159 .055
worked 6 l .000 -345 -.091 22 .005 -30 -.008
) 7 77 .021 -30 5 -.083 189 .048 25 .006
Nb 0 66 .196* 106 .270** 87 .184 87 .219**
P205 12 .024 181 .260*‘ 22 .023 44 .066
K20 c , 60 .100 62 .100 201 .270** 127 .196**

 

ale = Pounds sugar per acre of beets grown the 2nd year after a legume crop, on

tiled-drained soil that was spring-plowed at 8-10", worked 7 times then.planted in 26"
rows on April 11-20.

bDeviations due to lO-pound increments of nitrogen (lst two and 9th increments
were 20 pounds).

°Deviations due to 25-pound increments of P205 and x20 (1st increment of 2205
was 0-49 pounds).

#:Denotes significance at 0.05 level.
Denotes significance at 0.01 level.

72

 

 

 

 

050: 5.04 5.44 45m4 0cm: 0.54 m.n4 04m mmm: 5.04 0.44 N45 0054 0.44 4.04 mam 0N

N000 0.04 0.54 400 0mmm 5.54 n.04 45m 0000 N.04 5.04 com omom 4.44. 0.54 0mm 0m

m000 0.04 4.54 e~5m 4000 5.54 5.04 5504 5050 5.04 5.m4 om~4 0500 s.s4 5.54 4444 am
0440» couapxopuomneoo

40m: 0.04 5.m4 mam 55mm 0.54 0.5 w~4 44mm «.04 4.04 00 5M0: 4.44 4.04 mm4 ones no on

555s 5.04 4.44 0055 0055 5.54 «.44 mom4 0000 4.04 4.54 eo~4 5004 4.04 0.04 405 mm

comm «.04 5.54 .M4om 4000 5.54 0.04 4444 5No0 5.04 N.m4 0044 Nm00 5.44 5.04 4m5 0N

55mm n.04 0.04 50504 0040 5.54 0.44 mmo0 0050 5.04 4.04 45mm m0om 0.44 4.54 N40: 4m
m44on vensnxopnoe4h

.4 you once .4 non moped .4 and once .4 non .4 god omen .4 pen .4 and each .4 non Anenoq4v

news» team epoch 4epou news» team swoon 00404 news» loam epoch eoho4 news» team spoon nohe4 44043.30m

unseen u egos unused m «:05 unasom % mace nausea u mmoa

emeuobe 00440403 m0m4 N054 4054

 

 

 

 

 

5054 use 5054 .4054 s4 eases semen «e essence oneness use e4e45 one so eee4s son He scenes ess--.~s 44545

73

 

 

 

 

0500 0.04 0.54 0004 4000 0.54 0.04 0004 0000 0.04 0.54 0404 5440 0.44 5.54 0044 40440040200
0000 4.04 0.04 0504 0000 0.54 5.04 050 0040 5.04 4.04 000 4004 0.44 5.04 000 44440
0400 4.04 0.54 055 5050 0.54 0.04 004 0450 5.04 0.04 504 0454 0.44 5.04 504 $8380
04400 004540041004000
5540 0.04 0.04 40404 4000 5.54 5.44 0000. 4400 0.04 4.04 4044 0000 0.44 0.04 0050 00400040000
0054 0.04 4.04 5045 0044 5.54 0.04 5000 5500 4.04 5.54 4000 0454 0.04 5.04 0040 44449
0400 0.04 4.04 0500 4040 0.54 0.44 0004 5000 5.04 0.54 4444 0000 c.04 4.54 005 essoeeoam
04400 veneexopten4h
.4 000 0000 .4 000 00400 .4 400 0004 .4 400 .4 non e000 .4_0em .4 400 0004 .4 000 004403
00050 0000 04000 40405 40000 I000 00000 00004 40000 1000 04000 00004 40000 1000 04000 00404 c0440o44000
000005 0 0009 002005 0 0:05 000005 0 0005 00:005 0 0005 4004444405
oneness 8204s: 0054 0054 4054

 

 

 

 

 

0054 0:0 0054 .4054
04 04009 40000 00 4004000 0004000 000 04040 on» :0 4004444000 40 00400044000 00 weapon «0 000000 04531.04 04044

74
roots. Beets grown on soil where fertilizer was broadcast had a 0.6 higher
sucrose content than beets that were grown on soil that received fertilizer
in a combination of methods.

Beets grown on soils to which nitrogen was applied as a preplant had
higher root and sugar yields than beets that received nitrogen as a side-
dressing (Table 44). On fine-textured soils,beets that had nitrogen as a
preplant application resulted in an increase of 1.3 tons of roots and 459
pounds of sugar per acre more than beets to which nitrogen was applied as
a sidedressing. The method of nitrogen application did not affect the
sucrose content of the beets. Approximately 60 percent of the beets
received nitrogen as a sidedressing; whereas, about 20 percent of the
beets received nitrogen as a preplant application. The remaining 20 per-
cent of the beets received no additional nitrogen other than that applied
with the mixed fertilizer.

The percent sucrose was not affected by the time of sidedressing
nitrogen (Table 45). When beets received nitrogen later than a mid-June
sidedressing marked reductions in root and sugar yield resulted.

The root and sugar yield of beets that received nitrogen as a pre-
plant application (Table 44) was similar to the yield when beets received
nitrogen as an early sidedressing (June 1 to 14, Table 45). Therefore,
the yield advantage of beets that received nitrogen as a preplant appli-
cation over beets that received nitrogen as a sidedressing (Table 44)
was possibly due to nitrogen sidedressings that were made later than mid-
June.

The root and sugar yield of beets grown on fine-textured soils grad-
ually increased with increasing rates of nitrogen up to 70 to 90 pounds
per acre (Table 46). Beyond this rate of nitrogen yields appeared to leVel

off. The sucrose content of beets was not affected by nitrogen applications

75

 

 

 

 

5440 0.04 0.04 504 0040 0.04 0.04 04 0000 0.04 0.04 000 0504 0.44 0.04 00 004484008
0040 0.04 5.04 4500 0000 5.54 5.04 5044 0040 0.04 0.54 0004 0554 0.44 4.54 005 08400040
0000 5.04 0.54 0004 0400 0.54 5.04 000 5040 5.44 0.04 500 5500 4.44 4.04 000 40045045
04400 004044041004000
4000 0.54 0.04 000 0000 5.54 0.04 000 4040 4.04 4.04 0 0000 0.04 0.54 00 00440040000
4000 0.04 0.04 05044 0004 5.54 5.04 0000 4000 5.04 4.04 5540 0400 0.04 0.04 0000 000400040
0450 4.04 0.54 0404 0000 0.54 0.04 5040 0000 5.04 0.54 0044 4000 0.44 4.54 005 40045045
04400 0040400410045
.4 405 0004 .4 405 00400 .4 405 0004 .4 405 .4 405 0004 .4 405 .4 405 0004 .4 405 000400
40000 1000 04004 40405 40000 1000 04004 00404 40000 1000 04004 00404 40000 1000 04004 00404 00440044550
000005 0 0005 000005 0. 0005 000005 0 0005 000005 0 0005 00004442
004.85 00400403 0054 0054 4054

 

 

 

 

 

 

0054 0:0 0054 .4054

04 04004 40000 40 4004000 0004000 000 04045 004 00 00004440 50 00440044550 50 000403 40 400550 00511.44 04045

76

 

 

 

4004 0.04 0.04 504 0004 5.54 0.04 05 0400 4.04 0.04 04 4004 4.44 5.44 40 4414 000.
4040 0.04 0.04 0400 0500 0.54 0.04 000 4000 0.04 0.04 045 0054 0.44 0.04 000 00104 0000
5500 4.04 5.54 5004 4000 5.54 0.04 004 0450 5.04 0.04 050 0400 0.44 4.54 050 4414 0000
0550 0.04 5.54 054 I I l 1.. 5040 4.04 5.54 004 0000 4.04 5.54 04 4o§0v
04400 004044041004000
4004 0.04 5.04 0504 0040 0.54 5.5 004 0400 5.04 4.04 004 4554 0.04 0.04 000 44-4 443.
5400 0.04 0.04 4045 0054 5.54 0.04 4000 0050 5.04 4.04 0450 0000 5.44 0.04 0400 00104 0000
5500 0.04 4.54 5000 0000 0.54 0.04 4540 0400 0.04 5.04 4040 0440 0.44 4.04 005 4414 0000
4000 0.04 0.04 404 4444 0.54 4.04 544 0000 0.04 5.54 400 0500 5.44 4.54 44 4 280V
04400 0040440410045
.4 405 0004 .4 405 00400 .4 405 0004 .4 405 .4 405 0004 .4 405 .4 405 0004 .4 405 00004440
40000 1000 04004 40405 40000 1000 04004 00404 40000 1000 04004 00404 40000 1000 04004 00404,m04000400040
000005 a 0005 000005 0 0005 000005 0 0005 000005 5 0005 50 0045
0004000 00400403 0054 0054 4054

 

 

 

 

 

 

0054 000 0054
.4054 04 04004 40000 50 4004000 0004000 000 04045 004 00 00004440 004000400040 50 0044 50 400550 00511.04 04045

77

 

 

 

 

8mm “.3 5.2 mmmm 3% ES m5 moi 3R “.3 «.2 08 mmmm .1: 3.2 Sm mflA
N+3m o.od Add omom amen m.~.d mead NANA whom m.nd A.od Ndm mmmm mead o.md mom adduced
3mm néd o.md omom 0mm: N.NH aid need mgw find 0.8 05.0 mddm 55A .aKd 5mm manom
RR 0.2 93 .33 $3 93 3: 5w 3% 5.3 «.3 m8 3% 3.3 93 m2. 8-8
3% .13 ES 3% Eon 5.5 «3: $2 Rom o.ma o.ma mama 3mm fifl v.3 :3 35.2.
mmnm Add N.Nd andu mama N.NH d.mA de gmm o.md Add mmm omom mid ASA moo mwuow
8mm o.od mdd mmmm mom: N.NA m.nd mmm mowm Add AKA mom #odm A.nd N.Nd ommd mmnom
com: Néd :.md NANA mom: o.md :.NA Am: moon Add +~§A 3mm in? Nfid m.mA nmo 3:3
as mg 3: 3%.. 8+3 5.2 N.NH RN. moon o.mH mad 33 one: 0.3 m5 omm mmnom
3R: Ndd “AA 5mm mdmm mind o.dA +3N mob: o.od mead mom 3mm: m.md oéd 3m mdlo
.4 you 32 .< you no.8.» .4 you one." .4 you .4 you 38 .4 pa .< you 38 .4 you .4 non
paws» :25 300A ASS. .395 :26 300.” 3.34 human :26 300." 3.84 human town 308 no.8 couched:
2:33 % neon. 35.8 n Boa £2.53 m anon. 358m u 9.89 3.909 A38.
09225 confide: mood mood dwod

 

 

 

 

 

 

$3 9.8 «Rd .33 5 addon caspxounofiu no
Esau 303. .39..» mo unopnoo 03.83 and 3lo 23 no 0.8a yon douche—E no 3869 A30» no Somme 25.13 Manda

78
from 0 to 90 pounds per acre. Beets that received more than 90 pounds of
nitrogen per acre had higher sucrose contents than beets that received
less than 90 pounds. This was possibly associated with the high sucrose
content of beets in 1963 regardless of the amount of nitrogen applied and
the relatively large acreages of beets that received more than 90 pounds
of nitrogen per acre. In 1961 and 1962 the sucrose content of beets de-
creased when more than 70 to 80 pounds of nitrogen was applied. The sta-
tistical values (Table 33) indicate that nitrogen applications were nega-
tively correlated with sucrose content in 1961 and 1962. In 1961, nitro-
gen was positively correlated with root and sugar yield.

The effect of nitrogen on the yield of beets grown on coarse-tex-
tured soils (Table 47) was similar to that obtained on the fine-textured
soils. Nitrogen applications were negatively correlated with sucrose
content in 1961 only (Table 25). Nitrogen was positively correlated with
root and sugar yields in 1961 and 1962 (Tables MO and 41).

The root and sugar yield of beets grown on fine-textured soils grad-
ually increased as the amount of P205 applied increased from 0 to 175
pounds per acre (Table 48). Beets grown on soil to which 125 to 149
pounds of P205 was applied had the highest sucrose content. Statistically
P205 was found to be negatively correlated with the sucrose content in 1962
(Table 33). Root and sugar yields were positively correlated with P205
applications in 1961.

Maximum sugar yield was produced from beets grown on coarse-textured
soils where 100 to 175 pounds of P205 per acre was applied (Table #9).
Phosphorus (as P205) was negatively correlated with sucrose content in
1961 (Table 25). Root and sugar yields were positively correlated with
P205 applications in 1962 (Tables 40 and 41).

Potash had no effect on the sucrose content of beets grown on

9
7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

38“ 0.3 an: 33 Ron 5.2 v.3 ma 8% mad o.mH 33m mmmm 3.2 $2 «2 mflA
ommm o.oa «.ma mam mmoo 5.5H H.NH 3mm “mam 3.mH 3.ma con ommm n.3H o.ma Ham maanooa
Odum w.md N.NA NNN pemm w.mA N.oA mam Nodo m.MA “.md mwd dam: n.4d d.md and mmnom
mmnm H.0H N.NH «mm 3emm m.aa n.0a mum 30mm o.ma o.pfi 3o3 no3m n.3a m.mH «ma dance
moon d.md N.md édm ounm m.ud A.MA 5mm maom c.4d o.dN 40m mam: N.¢A o.md MNN which
mmm3 o.ma «.ma 530 pemm 0.5H e.ma sow Ha33 H.wa n.nH 3am Hmmm n.3H «.mH oma mono»
3H~m m.ma n.ma Hon awe“ m.aH “.ma mm mafia e.ma m.ea as mmm3 m.3H o.ma and amnom
3om3 «.ma a.ma oa3 umo3 5.5H H.ma om 33mm a.mH m.eH mma 3~m3 n.3a o.ma «mm m3uo3
5mm: n.0d m.#d mam 4mm: N.NA m.~d mom awdm o.md N.wd ndN 4mm: 0.3A o.nd hNd mnuom
oaa3 a.ma o.ma Hem mmm3 m.ma m.~a mm can3 m.nH o.ma o3H H~w3 H.mH m.ma oma mfluo
.4 you seep .4 non mouse .4 non each .4 mom .4 you omen .4 men .4 non anon .4.Aem .4 you
news» team naoon deaoa news» noun snoop uopo4 human seam epoch ueno4 news» team epoch nono4 cowonpdc
nuczom u uses aussom u uses unnaom m «sea eunaom % ance mucosa dunes
cusses“ weaned»: mama Neda mea

 

 

mood one mood .Aomd ad uddon venspxepnenuuoo no
macaw naoen news» no psopcoo oneness use ododh on» no once you nemonpdn no unused done» no assume one:n.m¢ uqm49

mw

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmon m.nH H.ma 3mm mmmn o.ma .3.wH 3mm mmmm H.0H o.mH m3 ommm 3.¢H ~.ma m3m 3mHAn
03mm 3.0a m.ma «mm m3mm o.ma m.ea 0mm 3moo H.9H m.ea mmm mmm3 m.3H H.ca mom 3mauoma
33mm m.ea w.oa mmam mmmm m.mH m.3H coca maam o.oa H.ma mme mmmm «.ma m.mH mm3 m3H-m~H
m3mm 3.eH 0.0H omen mmon m.mH «.3H mmmw ommm o.ma m.mH o3o~ oamm m.3a o.ma NmHH 3mauooa
mmmm 3.0a 3.0a ommm mmm3 m.mH m.ma moau mmmn m.mH e.ma mama mmmm m.3H m.mH 3o~H mm-nm
oflmm m.ea 0.0H ~33m mom3 m.mH m.mH a3ma omom o.oH e.ma mama omam o.ma a.mH mama 3m-om
Hom3 m.ma e.ma «Hon mmm3 e.ma m.mH 3mm “mom m.ma m.ma mmoa omm3 o.ma H.na m3~H m3-o
mm“ ”mm g mm“ mm“... ”mm an a...” a“ an mm...” mm an .5. .. a...
358m u anon. aged m use“. 355m u 309 season % Boa aged depoa
omauosa conned»: mmma moma Hmma

 

 

 

 

mead use mead .Awmd 5 eddoe v0.3

no :3on Been news» no unsung 393:» one ododh on» so 0.8a hem

am» -oeao
o m no season Hana» mo assume ons--.m3 Hanan

l
8

 

 

 

 

 

3am m.3a 3.ma mmm. moom m.ma m.ma 3m ammm m.ma m.ma mm 83 3.ma 3.ma oma 3maA
540m m.md d.md mum mmmm m.hd m.md um N530 d.od A.om mdd Mdmn N.nd m.md MMA nudlond
Ndmm N.MA 0.0d mmm omom N.NA o.md cum mmmn m.md m.md 04m nmdm o.#d m.md mud madtmmd
damn d.mA m.md Numd «mam n.5d 3.mA MAo wdon m.3d ¢.om do: mam: n.4A o.md 0mm nNAIOOA
Ammm N.©d n.0d ammd mmmn o.nd N.MA on: whom m.md A.wd mmm anon n.4d m.md mum mmnmn
Mann N.Od m.cd Amnd «mum m.md d.wd 44m nwnm m.nd 4.5d Ndm mam: 0.4A A.md mwm nmtom
nnmm m.md m.wd mam mmmm m.mA m.3d mmd Conn o.mA m.md NAM mom: n.4d m.md mmn mnno

.4 non coon .4 non neaoe .4 non omen .4 non .4 non omom .4 you .4 non seen .4 non .4 non momm
nemnm nonm epoch depoa pawn» nonm epoch moao4 henna uonm spoon moao4 human nonm «poop eono4 unnnon deuce
munnom u ance munnom u ance munnom & nnoa nunnom u unoa

amassed 82303 mwma moma amma

 

 

 

 

 

nmad una mood .domd na ndaoo connpxopnouueoo
no nzoaw spoon Adana no unannoo onononu nne vdodh on» no open non

mowm no ounnom Annon no poomuo onaln.m4 udm49

82

fine-textured soils (Table 50). The root and sugar yield gradually in-
creased as the amount of K20 applied increased over the entire range of
application (0 to 175 or more pounds per acre). Potassium applications
were negatively correlated with sucrose content in 1961 and 1963 (Table 33%
Root and sugar yields were positively correlated with K20 applications in
1961 and 1963 (Tables 26 and 27).

The effect of K20 on the yield of beets on coarse-textured soils was
similar to that obtained on the fine-textured soils (Table 51). The sta-
tistical values (Tables 26 and 27) indicate that in 1963, root and sugar
yield was positively correlated with K20 applications.

The effect of harvest date on the yield and sucrose content of beets
was recorded at 7-day intervals. Maximum sugar yield was produced from
beets on fine-textured soils when harvested between October 15 and Novem-
ber 4 (Table 52). The sucrose content of beets gradually increased as
the harvest date was delayed. Root yield gradually decreased when beets
were harvested later than October 28. Statistical values (Table 33)
show that the date of harvest had considerable effect on the sucrose
content, particularly in 1962 and 1963. Beets harvested before October 22
had a significantly lower yield of sugar, and beets harvested after
October 28 had a higher yield of sugar than beets harvested between
October 22 and 28 in 1961 and 1963.

Maximum root and sugar yield was obtained on coarse-textured soils
when beets were harvested from October 29 to November 4 (Table 52). The
sucrose content increased over the entire range of harvest intervals.
Beets that were harvested prior to October 15 in 1961 and 1963 had a
significantly lower sucrose content than beets harvested October 22 to 28
(Table 25). The date of harvest showed few significant differences in

the root and sugar yields.

3
8

 

 

 

 

awao m.ma m.ma mmm comm m.ma m.ma 3o3 «moo m.ma 3.ma ~3m amen m.ma N.a~ mma 3ma.A
Odmm o.od m.md mow mdmn m.md m.md mmm ONnm m.md 0.0N Nod mdmm d.md m.md 54d audnomd
méom w.od m.md sand mdoo o.md d.nd 0mm QONw m.md m.md 5mm omNm o.MA m.ud ANN mnAImNA
m33m 3.ma m.ma mmm3 mmmm m.ma m.3a aaom mmmm m.ma m.ma mwma ma3n m.3a m.ma mmm 3mauooa
333m m.ma m.ma mm~3 mman m.ma m.3a omoa ommm m.ma a.ma mmma 30mm m.3a o.ma mmma mmnmm
mwdn n.0d m.md oodm non: N.NA m.NA mde «mum m.mA A.md oomd 040m o.MA N.OA Nmad snnon
mmm3 m.ma m.3a mmm3 mmo3 m.ma 3.aa anna o33n o.oa o.ma amma a3m3 a.na m.ma mnma m3unm
~mm3 m.ma a.na mm3a oamm m.ma o.aa mo3 3ooe m.ma m.ma om3 wmm3 m.3a m.ma m3n 3~-o

.4 non omen .4 non nonon .4.uon econ .4 non .4 non omen .4 pen .4 non one» .4 men .4 non omm
news» uonm epoch depoa news» nonm spoon eono4 human sonm epoch moao4 news» nonm epoon mono4 nonnon deuce
nonnom m anon nonnom u anoe eonnom u once nonnom R nnos

oaapobe oepnuae3 mood Nwmd dead.

 

 

 

 

 

mead onn Nwad .Aomd nd uddon oehnnxovnendu

no nzoam uuoen house we anovnoo oneness one odedh on» no anon non ONM no nonnon dope» no noouuo onsnc.on mqm4e

hw
no

 

 

 

 

Nddw 5.0A m.md NNn Anne m.hd m.md moN mmom m.md m.md mm 4m4: m.nd m.md do and
3mmm m.wd m.ud mam mNAQ m.NA N.Nd omd 045m m.md m.md mod 0mm: m.MA d.md Am 4BAIOMA
83m m.ma o.ma mmm 33mm.ma o.ma 3mm «mom 3.ma m.ma mmm 8mm m.3a 0.8 oma m3anmma
mmmm 0.0A m.md mood mmmm m.md w.wd 0AM owmm m.md N.NA 5mm 4ndm m.MA m.wd mdn #NAIOOA
44mm m.wd m.wd Nmm swam N.Nd m.mA :0: wan o.©d m.md mo: NNNn 0.3A m.NA and manna
#Nom m.md m.MA “MNA :45: N.NA n.MA mmm 04mm m.md m.md mom 40m: m.3d o.md mmm amsom
5mm: m.4d 4.0A Ann dwwd m.nd d.md «Nd Nmom o.MA m.wd mnN mob: n.4d N.wd Nmm malnN
won: d.©d m.nA de 0mm: A.md N.nd mm mmwm m.md o.md on dmNn 4.4A m.3d mm #Nlo

.4 non omen .4 non women .4 non each .4 non .4 non seen .4 non .4 non each .4 pen .4 non ONN
pawn» uonm epoch Annoy gown» nonm epoch eepo4 pawn» nonm epoch nono4 newnm loom epoch moao4 nonnon dupes
monnom m ance nonnom m ance nonnom n ance nonnom u once

amass... Enema»: mama mmma aoma

 

 

 

 

 

mwmd one Nwmd .domd na edaoo oennaxouuonueoo
no nzonm epoen news» no anounoo euonono one ododh on» no anon non own no nonnom done» no voouue onauc.dn unm4a

85

 

 

 

 

 

3am3 m.ma m.3a aom mmmm m.ma m.3a mmm ama3 m.ma m.ma amm mmom m..3a m.ma mm ma .>ozA
mm3m 3.ma m.ma mmma mmmm m.ma m.ma 3am m3am m.ma m.ma aa3 mamm 3.3a a.ma omm aaum .soz
mmmm m.ma m.ma am3a mmmm m.ma m.ma amm m3mm 3.3a m.ma mm3 ommm 3.3a m.ma mmm 3.>ozum~ .soo
mo3m o.ma m.ma amma mmmm m.ma m.ma oa3 mmmm m.ma m.ma mam mmm3 m.3a o.ma ao3 mmumm .poo
ommm m.ma o.ma mmaa mmm3 m.ma m.ma oma oamm m.ma m.ma 3mm mmm3 m.3a m.ma mm3 amuma .soo
mmmm m.3a m.ma mmm m3m3 m.ma m.3a m3 3mmm m.ma m.ma maa 3am3 m.ma m.ma ama ma .poo
oddom oonnpxopnomnwoo
mmm3 a.ma 0.3a amm m3m3 m.ma m.ma mam mmm3 m.ma m.ma mmm aomm m.ma m.a~ ma mauma .soz
mmmm m.ma m.ma mmmm mmmm m.ma m.3a mama mmmm m.ma 3.ma mmm mmm3 m.3a m.ma mmm aaum .soz
mmmm m.ma a.ma mom3 mmmm m.ma m.3a 3mm~ mmmm m.ma m.ma mama mmmm m.ma m.ma mmoa 3.>oz-m~ .poo
ammm m.ma m.ma ammm amm3 m.ma a.3a 33am omom o.ma o.ma mmom mmom m.3a a.ma mmma mm-~m .poo
aamm m.ma m.ma mmmm mmm3 3.ma m.ma mmma mmmm m.ma m.ma amam omam m.ma a.ma mmam amuma .poo
mmom m.ma m.ma m3ma m3m3 a.ma m.ma mmm mmmm m.ma o.ma mmm mmm3 3.3a a.ma mm ma .poouv
maaom monapxomuoqam
.4 non each .4 non monoe .4 non anon .4 non .4 non one .4 non .4lnen each .4 non panorama
nmmnm nonm epoch dupes awmnm Ionm epoch mono4 ummnm nonm epoch neao4 ammnm nonm epoch noao4 we open
monnom m anon. monnom a once monnom u anon. nonnom m anon.
omams>m moaamaoz mmma mmma amma

 

 

 

 

 

 

mood one Nomd .dwmd na mpoon ammnm Mo unopnoo omoaonm one vodh can no pmo>hnn mo opno Ho pooHHo onaII.Nm Mdm4a

86

Maximum.yield of roots and sugar from beets grown on fine-textured
soils was produced where 800 to 1200 total pounds of fertilizer was ap-
plied (Table 53). The sucrose content of beets increased as the total
pounds of fertilizer applied increased from 200 to 1200 pounds per acre.
Approximately 30 percent of the beets received 400 to 600 pounds of fer-
tilizer per acre that gave a beet sugar yield of 4990 pounds; whereas,
about 5 percent of the beets received 1000 to 1200 pounds of fertilizer
per acre which resulted in a sugar yield of 6016 pounds per acre. The
highest sugar yield of beets grown on coarse-textured soils was obtained
where 600 to 800 pounds of fertilizer was applied (Table 53).

Maximum root and sugar yield was produced when ammonium nitrate or
anhydrous ammonia were applied as a preplant application (Table 54). The
interaction of nitrogen materials with time of sidedressing (Table 55)
indicates that beet root and sugar yield was highest when nitrogen was
sidedressed early (before June 15). Root and sugar yield was very simi-
lar when ammonium nitrate or anhydrous ammonia were applied as a preplant
(Table 54) or as an early sidedressing (Table 55). The sucrose content
of beets was reduced when ammonium nitrate or anhydrous ammonia were
applied later than.mid-June. Approximately 54 and 62 percent of the
beets that were sidedressed with anhydrous ammonia and ammonium nitrate,
respectively, received the application later than June 15.

Beets planted on fine-textured soils between April 11 and 20
(Table 56) or between May 1 and 10 (Table 57) produced maximum sugar
yield when the beets were harvested between October 15 and November 11.
The root yield gradually decreased when beets were harvested later than
the October 15 tDZl. The highest yield of sugar from.beets planted late

(May 11-20) on fine-textured soils was obtained when beets were harvested

 

fig“ i4 If?

 

 

8?

 

 

 

comm a.ma m.ma m3a mo3m m.ma m.ma mma momm m.ma m.ma mma mmm3 m.ma m.ma mm mmaa-oooa
ma3m m.ma m.ma oama 3mmm m.ma m.ma oo3 mmam m.3a a.ma mom mamm m.ma 3.ma mo3 mmm-oom
03mm m.ma m.ma mama ommm m.ma m.ma mmoa 3mmm m.ma m.ma mmm momm m.3a m.ma am3 mmmuoom
mmom a.ma m.ma moma am3m m.ma 3.ma mmm 3mmm m.ma m.ma mmm mmm3 m.3a m.ma a3m mmmuoo3
m3m3 m.ma m.ma ama mmoa m.ma m.m m mm33 a.ma m.ma m3 mam3 m.3a m.ma maa mmm-ooa
add on oonnfiaopuomnnoo
amom a.ma m.ma m3a m3mm m.ma m.ma mm om3m m.ma 3.ma ma m3om 3u3a o.aa mm mmma-ooaa
maom m.ma m.ma amm 3aam m.ma m.ma mmm mmmm m.ma a.ma 3ma 3mmm m.3a m.ma mma mmaa-oooa
03mm m.ma o.ma 3amm mmmm m.ma a.ma 3mma ammm m.ma a.ma mmaa 3mmm m.3a m.ma mmm mmmuoom
m33m 3.ma m.ma ammm maom m.ma a.3a mmmm mmmm m.ma m.ma m3mm mmam m.3a m.ma mmma mmmuoom
mmm3 a.ma 3.ma mamm omm3 m.ma 3.aa mmoa mo3m o.ma m.ma amaa oaom m.ma m.ma maaa mmm-oo3
amm3 m.ma a.ma moma mma3 m.ma m.aa mma mm3m a.ma m.ma amm m3m3 a.ma 3.3a mmm mmmuooa
maaom eonapxoauoeam
.4 non oeon .4 non nonoe .4 non omen .4 non .4 non o»on .4 non .4 non omen .4 non oeadnna
news» uonm upoon Annoy newn» loom epoon mono4 news» nonm »uoon meno4 newn» nonm mpoon »ono4 noaadapnom
nonnom m mnoa monnom m once monnom u mnoa monnom m »noa monnen Annoy
saunasa moaaaaoz mmma amma amma

 

 

 

 

 

 

momd ona mood .Awmd na »dao» oonnpxouuonam .oonaanonoodau no nSonw
muooo newn» mo unopnoo omonon» one ododh on» no ooadnne neaaAApnom mo monnon done» on» no pecan» onsnn.mn Ham4a

 

 

—v._.—-——-_——
. . "
_.._._.,—

-u-

88

 

 

 

 

omam 3.ma m.ma omma amm3 m.ma m.ma maaa mmmm m.ma m.ma amm maom m.3a a.ma mam ooonoooa»

momm w.od m.ma 3mm 0Non m.ma A.3d mm: moan m.mA m.wd 3NN emon N.3A m.ma med unednonm
ednonne esonohnn4

mmmm o.od 3.ma andd mmm: m.md a.ma mmm Name a.ma d.0N w3w omdm o.md a.md mm »»onoooam

nddm m.ma m.ma 3NN mode m.md m.dd mdd ammo m.md N.AN mm coon c.3d m.3d wN unednonm

eon:
wean m.ma m.ma mmom mmm3 m.ma 0.3a mmwm mdwm m.ma m.ma mm3m neon a.ma m.wd mmmm »»onoooam
wmwm m.ma o.md ommN mean m.md o.md mend ommm m.ma m.ma mmm mdmm m.3d m.md mow onednonm
openpan asanonn4

.4 non oeon .4 non nonoe .4 non oeon .4 non .4 non eeon .4 non .4 non oeon .4 non nowonpan no

news» nosm epoon depoa news» nosm epoon eono4 news» nosm epoon eeno4 news» nosm eaoon »ono4 noaaeoadnne

eonsom m enoa eonsom a enoa eonsom m enos eonsom R anon no oonpoz

owenoee oopnwaoz mood Nmmd dead

 

 

 

 

 

 

mood one Nmmd .domd na edao» oonspxopuondm no nzonw epoon news» no unopnoo oeonos»
one maoam one no .ooaoaoaamoe no monooa on» sea: aeanoooe eoaonoan no noasoenoaea on» no soonno ooauu.3m enema

89

 

 

 

mmmm m.ma a.ma 0mm Ndom m.md c.3d mdd ammo m.md m.ma Q33 030m o.md m.ma we omand ensm
m3mm m.ma m.ma mo3 mdm3 m.ma 3.md mom omom m.ma m.AN com a: cl II II 3A:d onsm
eon:
ween a.ma m.ma and Nwmm m.ma m.m w3 Nmmm o.md m.dd ma mmm3 3.ma m.ma moa 3Aud hasm
amm3 m.ma a.ma mwdd duo: m.ma m.dd 3m3 wwmm m.ma o.ma mmm mmm3 m.3d A.md mmm omnmd onsm
oamm m.ma 3.ma mmaa mamm m.ma a.ma mmm ammm m.ma m.ma 3m3 m3mm m.3a o.ma mm 3a-a omom
eanonne esonomnn4
03m3 a.ma a.3a mmm momm m.ma m.ma mma 3mmm m.ma m.ma om m3m3 m.ma m.ma mmm 3a-a maaa
m3am a.ma m.ma mmm3 3am3 m.ma m.ma amaa mmmm m.ma o.ma mama maom a.ma m.ma mmma om-ma oesa
a3mm m.ma 3.ma mmam mmmm m.ma m.ma coma m3om m.ma m.ma mmma om3m o.ma m.ma a3m 3a-a omom
mmmn a.ma m.ma 3ma mmm3 m.ma 3.ma mm 003m m.md m.ma mma wam m.3d A.mA dd A ensmhv
openpan nsanonn4
.4 non o»on .4 non »»noe .4 non oeon .4 non .4 non seen .4 non .4 non oeon .4 non nowonpan
news» was» epoon depoa news» nosm epoon »»no4 news» nosm epoon eono4 news» nosm mpoon eono4 wnaeeonoeoa»
monsom n enoa eonsom * enoa eonsom m enoa eonsom & enoa no maaa
oaeoooe monomaoz mmma amma amma

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mood one mood .Awmd na eddo» oonsnxopnonam no nzonw »9003 news» no pnepnoo
omonos» one odoam one no .wnaemonoooa» mo onap nod: deanopen nowonvan mo noapoenopna on» no woemmo onaua.mm mam4a

 

 

ll llllllll'nll

 

 

 

 

mmmm m.ma m.ma 8a I I I I mmmm m.ma m.ma ooa I I I I ma .sozA
Non: mowd n.MA non 50mm m.md m.md mmd MONm m.md N.Od NMA II II II II mAINA .boz
Odom o.md m.md mmm Nanm 0.5A N.md ndn mmum m.md N.wd Adm mmnm o.nd m.md m3 Adam .>oz
menu m.wd O.NA mONA nmmm m.wd m.md New :mmn m.nd w.5d no: mum: dead n.ud A: n.>oznmN .poo
mnnm m.md N.Nd onmd mmNm m.mA m.nd omo Nddw o.md d.mA mNm eoem o.MA A.MN no mNINN .uoo
mmmm m.ma o.ma mmma mom3 3.ma a.3a aam mma» m.ma m.ma maaa 3mmm 3.3a m.ma ma aaIma .ooo
m3am a.ma a.ma oom mmm3 o.ma 3.3a m3m mamm m.ma o.ma mom omm3 a.3a a.ma m3 3a-m .ooo
mm3m m.ma m.ma aa .3 n: .I .u. mm3m m.ma m.ma aa I: I: I. I. mua .ooo
.4 non eeon .4 non eenoe .4 non »»on .4 non .4 non oeon .4 non .4 non »»on .4 non p»»>nen
news» nosm epoon dense news» nos» euoon eono4 news» nos» epoon eeno4 news» nos» epoon eono4 no open
eonsom m enoa eonsom u »noa »onsom u enoe eonsom a enoa

owene>e oepnwae: mood Nomd dmmd

 

 

 

 

 

 

mood one Nwmd .domd na »dao» oenspxevnonau no neonw »»eoo news» no pnopnoo »»onos»
o5 oaoan 2: so .ooog no opom of fin. Sasaa aanoé one afiofiao no eoaooonoooa one no soonno oonusom an»:

91

 

 

 

 

oom3 a.ma m .aa oaa 83 m.ma m .aa mm mam3 3.ma 3.3a a3 I I I. I ma .3: A
4mm: odd o.md AON Addm d.m.d +4.0A med Nd? Add Add mm. dead odd m..dN MA .deNd .boz
NONm o.mA add 4nd onnm mohd odd no: ddwn m.md MdA Add Amom mid N.NH on AdIm $02
mmm“ Afid ddd mde 40mm m.md m.mad bNm uddm Add domd dad dMNm n.nd o.mA mam 4obozImN ..._.oo
mma» m.ma m.ma mmm m3mm m.ma a.ma om3 3m3m a.ma o.ma aaa mmm3 m.3a o.ma mma ma..aa .ooo
8N“ odd m dd mNm N84 n.~.d and NdN AmNm Add add nod 69% o.md NdA Nam ANImA .800
833- m.ma m.ma 3om moa3 a.ma m.aa mma mmm3 m.ma m.ma ma mmm3 a.3a 3.ma aaa 3a..» .soo
NAN»: m .nd Nomd dd I. I. I... .I. NAB: m.md Ndd dd I... I. I. I... sud .900
.4 non neon .4 non »»noe .4 non o»on .4 non .4 non seen .4 non .4 non mean .4 non peosnen
news» Iosm eaoon depoa news» Iosm »poon eono4 news» nosm eveon »»no4 news» -esw epoon »ono4 we even
nonsom % enoa eonsom % enoa »onsom m »noa nonsom & enoa
oaonooo oosoaaoz . mmma amma amma

 

 

 

 

 

 

ndmd one Ndmd .ddmd na edae» oensaxoeuendn no neonw »»een news» no pnepnoo eeonos»
one ododh 2:. no 3:253 no oaeo 0A.... and: AodIA 553 undo wndvnedm Ho nodaoenennd on... we avenue unallosm an.

92

between October 15 and November 4 (Table 58). In general, the inter-
action of planting with harvest date indicates that regardless of plant-
ing time maximum sugar yield was produced when beets were harvested be-
tween October 15 and November 11.

The R2 values for the production practices on the yield and sucrose
content of beets grown on coarse-textured soils are shown in Table 59.

In general, date of planting, date of harvest and rate of nitrogen ap-
plication accounted for most of the variation in sucrose content of
beets. Most of the variation in root and sugar yield was accounted for
by date of planting and rate of nitrogen application. Potassium appli-
cations accounted for a major share of the variation in root and sugar
yield in 1963.

The R2 values for the production practices on the yield and sucrose
content of beets grown on fine-textured soils are given in Table 60. The
date of planting and date of harvest were the main factors contributing
to the variation in sucrose content. In 1963 the date of harvest accounted
for approximately 90 percent of the observed variation in sucrose content.
The date of planting had the most effect on the root and sugar yield var-
iation. Nitrogen applications in 1961, tile-drainage in 1962, and plow-
ing depth and K20 applications in 1963 accounted for considerable varia-
tion in root and sugar yield.

Generally more variation in yield and sucrose content was accounted
for in beets grown on coarse-textured soils than on the fine-textured
soils. The production practices accounted for 36 percent of the total

variation on coarse-textured soils and 25 percent on fine-textured soils.

3
9

E i «E. . LEE...

 

 

eonsom u enoa

 

oweno>e oosnwaoz

 

»onsom & enoa

.»onsom m nnoa

»onsom . &

enos.

 

 

mmma

 

Ndmd

 

Admd

 

aaa3 m.ma a.ma m3a . ammm m.ma m.ma 3m maam m.ma o.ma ma a3m3 a.ma 3.ma Ama aa .oozqu
. ma33 .m.ma m.ma . mm3 . 3aa3 m.ma m.aa mma aom3 a.ma a.3a. .aa mmm3 o43a m.ma oma aaym .ooz
mmm: 4.dd. d.nw mmm nNNn m.md._m.dd 0mm dab: m.dd. A.Md Nd .nmdm d.dA N.md don. éobowamN .poo
mdwn m.dd m.dd dmdd dad: 545d d.dd. MNN . wand o.dA m.dd mu mma: m.4d n.dA mmm. ..mNINN .doo
m3m3. 3.ma 3.ma mmma .amam 3.ma 3.m . ama mmom m.ma a.ma m3a mmm3 mm3a m.ma maoa am-ma .eoo
m3m3..a.ma 3.ma . ma3 mamm m.ma a.ma _ aaa . mmm3 m.ma m.ma ma. m3a3 a.3a .m.3a mma. . 3a-m ”poo
mao3 .o.ma m.aa m .. .4 .. ‘I. .. .. .. .. wac3 m.ma m.aa m m-a .ooo
.4 non eeon .4.n»n eonoe .4 non eeon .4.n»n .4 non oeon .4 non .4 non o»on..4 non , .p»o>nen
news» -osm epoon deuce .news» -osm epoon eono4 news» nosm epoon eeno4 news» -osm esoon eono4 no open

 

 

Mdmd one Ndmd .ddmd na »dao» oonsexeaaonan no neonw epoon news» no snosnoo oeonos»
one oaoam on» no .ooooneo no opom on» sea: aoa-aa.nenv.oooo aoaooeao no.ooasoenoeoa on» no ooonno oon--.mm mamen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on. no. oo. om. om. no. oo. oo. om. oo. mm. on. nonon

No. mo. oo. oo. oo. mo. oo. oo. No. no. «o. oo. ooxno: moans
No. no. mo. no. mo. mo. no. no. oo. no. no. oo. onaon wonoooono woodman
oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. No. no. oo. oo. oo. monsono no osnn
No. no. oo. oo. mo. no. oo. oo. no. no. oo. on. monaono no spoon
No. no. oo. oo. no. mo. oo. oo. oo. on. oo. oo. oooo noo>nom
oo. oo. oo. oo. no. oo. oo. no. no. oo. no. oo. mono
oo. nn. oo. no. mo. on. oo. no. no. oo. oo. oo. own
oo. oo. oo. no. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. no. no. no. noon: zoo
oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. nn. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. cooononz
oo. No. on. oo. oo. mo. on. oo. oo. oo. oo. nn. oooo monooono
no. oo. oo. no. oo. no. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. omoanono.onnn

mm
.o>< moon moon noon .o>< moon moon noon .o>< moon Noon noon onoannoo
vnonh nwwsm unonh poem omonos» psoonom

 

 

noon on» mean .nwmn an »nno» sonsnxop-»»n»oo so saonw
mnoon nmws» mo pconcoo omonos» on» sneak on» so »oonpo»nm consosuonm msonnmn can nom

mound» No oon...oo unmon

95

_

n . . ..
r‘ullllfllfi iii—11.1.31

o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on. oo. oo. om. on. oo. oo. om. mm. on. on. om. nonon

oo. no. no. oo. oo. no. no. no. no. oo. mo. mo. ooxnoz oosnn
oo. oo. oo. no. no. oo. oo. oo. oo. no. oo. no. onoon monoooono ooaomon
oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. monsono no osnn
no. oo. oo. oo. no. oo. oo. oo. no. no. oo. oo. monzono no spoon
no. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. no. oo. no. mo. on. undo nooonom
oo. oo. oo. no. oo. oo. oo. no. oo. oo. no. oo. noun
no. on. oo. No. No. nn. oo. oo. oo. No. oo. no. own
oo. oo. no. oo. oo. oo. no. no. no. oo. no. no. noono.=om
oo. no. oo. oo. oo. no. oo. oo. no. oo. oo. mo. oomonnnz
oo. nn. oo. nn. no. on. oo. on. oo. no. oo. oo. onoo monnoono
no. no. mo. oo. .mo. no. oo. oo. no. oo. oo. oo. oooonono.onnn

mm
.o>< ooon moon noon .o>< moon Noon noon .ooo moon Noon noon onoonna>
unon» nwwsm snonh uoom omonos» pcoonom

 

 

moaa 6:» wood .Hmma Ga uHHo» UonstOplondm no Enonw

mnoon nmws» no unonsoo o»onos» on» vaonh any so »oonpo»nm nonposvonm usonnmb on» non »osn»> mm one--.oo mqm4a

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

EXPERIMENT I: THE EFFECT OF TIME AND RATE OF NITROGEN
APPLICATION AND DATE OF HARVEST ON THE YIELD AND
SUCROSE CONTENT OF SUGAR BEETS
The effect of time and rate of application of nitrogen and date of
harvest was studied on the yield and sucrose content of sugar beets L

grown on Brookston clay loam soil.

The maximum production of sugar per acre was obtained when nitrogen {

 

was applied as a preplant application at 90 or 120 pounds per acre or as
a mid-June sidedressing at 60 or 90 pounds per acre.
Delayed harvest usually resulted in an increase of root yield and
sucrose content, consequently an increase in sugar yield per acre. On
the average when harvest was delayed 28 days an increase of 1017 pounds
of sugar was obtained, representing a daily increase of approximately 36
pounds per acre per day. The first 14 days of delayed harvest increased
sugar yield more than the last lh-day delay.
The rate of nitrogen application had relatively small effects on
the sucrose content of beets. However, slight reductions in sucrose con-
tent were obtained where nitrogen was applied at rates higher than 30
pounds per acre. High rates of nitrogen applied in mid-July or mid-
August resulted in low sugar and root yields. Nitrogen applied as a mid-
August sidedressing resulted in a reduction in the sucrose content of beets.
On the average date of harvest accounted for most of the variation in
the sucrose content of the sugar beets and accounted for considerably more

variation (>>) than the time of nitrogen application. The decreasing

96

97
order of importance of the treatments on the differences in sucrose con-

tent was as follows:

Date of harvest )) Time of nitrogen application >

Rate of nitrogen application > Interactions.

The rate of nitrogen application and date of harvest were about
equal (3) in accounting for the variability in root yield. The time of
application of nitrogen had a very slight effect on root yield differences.
The decreasing order of importance of the treatments on the variation in

root yields was as follows:

 

Rate of nitrogen application =¢Date of harvest >)

Time of nitrogen application > Interactions.

The date of harvest was the most important variable accounting for
differences in sugar production. The decreasing order of importance of

the treatments on the variation in sugar yield was as follows:

Date of harvest >> Rate of nitrogen application )

Time of nitrogen application > Interactions.

Although several of the treatment interaction effects on the yield
and sucrose content of beets were statistically significant their contri-
bution to the total observed variability was of minor importance. In
general, the interactions accounted for from O to 14 percent of the

observed variation in yield and sucrose content.

98
EXPERIMENT II: A SURVEY OF THE PRODUCTION PRACTICES

AFFECTING YIELD.AND SUCROSE CONTENT OF SUGAR
BEETS IN ONTARIO, CANADA

Several production practices were correlated with the yield and suc-
rose content of sugar beets grown in Southern Ontario in 1961, 1962 and
1963.

On the average, sugar production from beets grown on fine-textured
soils was similar to the yields obtained from beets on coarse-textured
soils. There was a marked yield advantage of beets grown on tile-drained
soil over beets grown on non-tiled soil.

Alfalfa or clover grown the year preceding the beet crop had a de-

 

trimental effect on root and sugar yield but no significant effect on the
sucrose content. Maximum sugar yield was obtained when legumes were
grown one year removed from the beet crop. The previous crop had con-
siderable effects on the root and sugar'yield. When corn was the pre-
ceding crop maximum.root and sugar yield was obtained.

When farmyard manure was applied at 10 to l# tons per acre the year
preceding the beet crop root and sugar'yield increased.

Beets grown on fine-textured soils that had been fall-plowed to a
depth of 10 to 12 inches and on coarse-textured soil to a depth of 8 to
10 inches gave the highest sugar yield. The advantage derived from mini-
mum tillage operations on fine-textured soils would result from a reduc-
tion in labor and expense for seed-bed preparation rather than from in-
creased yields.

Beets planted early (before May 1) and in rows less than 28 inches
wide resulted in maximum sugar production. Nitrogen applied at 70 to 90
pounds per acre as a preplant application or as a sidedressing before mid-

June gave the highest sugar~yield. Root yields were usually reduced by

99

late sidedressings of nitrogen but there was no effect on the sucrose con-
tent of beets.

Maximum sugar production was obtained on fine-textured soils where
150 to 175 pounds per acre of P205 was applied, and where 100 to 175 pounds
was applied on coarse-textured soils. Sugar yield gradually increased with
increasing K20 applications over the entire range of application (0 to 175
or more pounds per acre). Applications of K20 did not affect sucrose con-
tent of beets. The sucrose content seemed to decline when P205 was applied
at rates higher than 125 pounds per acre.

The sucrose content gradually increased with increasing delay of beet
harvest. On fine-textured soils the highest root and sugar yield was ob-
tained when beets were harvested October 15 to November 4. Maximum yield
on coarse-textured soils was obtained when beets were harvested October 22
to November 11.

Maximum sugar yield and the highest sucrose content occurred when 1000
to 1200 total pounds of fertilizer was applied on fine-textured soils, and
600 to 800 pounds per acre on coarse-textured soils.

On the average, regardless of the date of planting beets maximum
sugar production was obtained when beets were harvested between October 15
and November 11.

Eleven production practices were selected and analysed statistically
by the computer program CORE 2 routine for regression and partial corre-
lation coefficients. On coarse-textured soils the production practices
accounted for approximately 36 percent of the total variation in yield and
sucrose content of beets. Most of the differences in sucrose content were
accounted for by date of planting, date of harvest, and nitrogen applica-
tions. The date of planting and rate of nitrogen application had the most

effect on root and sugar yields.

100

On fine-textured soils the production practices accounted for about
25 percent of the total variation in yield and sucrose content of beets.
Date of planting, date of harvest, and rate of nitrogen application had
the most effect on the sucrose content. On the average, the date of
planting was the most important factor affecting the root and sugar yield
of beets. Nitrogen in 1961, tile-drainage in 1962, and K20 applications
in 1963 accounted for considerable variation in root and sugar yield

differences.

Significant differences in root and sugar yield and sucrose content

are discussed when results are presented for each production practice.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, 8. N. 1960. The value of calcium nitrate and urea for sugar
beets, and the effect of late nitrogenous top dressings. Jour.
Agric. Sci. 54:395-398.

Afanasiev, E. E., Frahm, E. E., Morris, H. E., and Johnston, W. B. 1954
Physiology of growth, sugar accumulation and mineral intake of sugar
beets in Montana. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 8:339.

Alexander, J. T., and Germany, C. E. 1950. Effect of rate and date of
nitrogen application on sugar beets. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet

Tech. 6:353-361.

Bates, F. J. and Associates. May 1, 1942. Polarimetry, Saccharimetry
and the sugars. Circular 0440, washington, United States Govern-
ment Printing Office.

Berger, K. C. 1950. Sugar beet fertilization in Wisconsin. Proc. Amer.
Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 6:440-N44.

Bland, B. F. 1958. The use of nitrogen for sugar beets on a heavy loam
soil in Norfolk. Exp. Husbandry. 2:33-36.

Carlson, C. W., and Herring, R. B. l95h. The effect of fertilizer treat-
ments upon yield and sugar content of sugar beets at Garden City,
Kansas. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 8:h2-#7.

Cook, R. L. 1950. Tillage practices and sugar beet yields. Proc. Amer.
Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 6:286-293.

., Millar, C. E., and Robertson, L. S. 1946. Sugar beets in seven
Michigan systems of crop rotation. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech.
#:73-87.

 

., and Turk, L. M. 1958. Fertilizers for sugar beets. Sugar
Beet Jour. No. b, 68-69.

 

., Davis, J. F., and Frakes, M. C. 1962. Production practices
of Michigan sugar beet growers. Mich. Agr. Expt. Sta. Quart. Bull. 44
#3:#O4-429.

Cooke, G. W. l9#9. Placement of fertilizers for row crops. Jour. Agric.
Seie 39: 359-373e

. 1949. Recent developments in fertilizer placement. Farming
3 2 231-23“:

 

lOl

102

Cooke, G. W. 1951. Placement of fertilizers for sugar beets. Jour. Agric.
Sci. 41:17tk-l78e

Davis, J. F., Baten, W. D., and Cook, R. L. 1946. The effect of time of
application and levels of nitrogen, phosphorous and potash on the
growth of sugar beets, with a detailed statistical procedure of con-
founding inra 3x3x3 design. Mich. Agric. Expt. Sta. Tech. Bull. 203.

. 1959. The effect of fertilizers on sugar beets including an
economic optima study of the response. Jour. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet
Tech. 10:424-434.

 

, Nichol, G., and Thurlow, D. 1961. The effect of phosphorus
fertilization and time of application on chemical composition of
foliage and on yield, sucrose content and percent purity of sugar
beet roots. Jour. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 11:406-412.

 

. 1962. The interaction of rates of phosphate application with
fertilizer placement and fertilizer applied at planting time on the
chemical composition of sugar beet tissue, yield, percent sucrose,
and apparent purity of sugar beet roots. Jour. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet

Tech. 12:359-367.

 

Decoux, L., Vanderwaeren, J., and Simon, M. 1946. Effects of increasing
applications of nitrogen in various kinds of fertilizer applied at
two dates to sugar beets. Soils and Fort. 9:57.

Deming, G. W. 1948. The effect of variations in row width and plant popu-
lations on root yields and sucrose percentage of sugar beets at Fort
Collins, Colorado. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 5:280-281.

Doneen, L. D. 1947. Seed-bed preparation and cultivation for sugar beets.
Calif. Agric. Expt. Sta. Bull. 701:16.

Doxtator, C. W. 1948. Sugar beet yields from.varying row spacings and
acre populations. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 276-279.

, and Bauserman, H. M. 1952. Parent-progeny tests for sodium
and potassium content. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 7:319-321.

Finkner,.R. E., Ogden, D. B., Hanzas, P. 0., Olson, R. F. 1959. The
effect of fertilizer treatment on the calcium, sodium, potassium, -
raffinese, galactinol, nine amino acids, and total amino acid con-
tent of the varieties of sugar beets grown in the Red River valley of
Minnesota. Jour. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 10:272-280.

Gardener, R., and Robertson, D. W. 1942. The nitrogen requirement of sugar
beets. Colo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 28 p.32.

Gregg, C. M., and Harrison, 0. M. 1950. A study of the effects of some
different sods and fertilizers on sugar beet yields. Proc. Amer. Soc.
Sugar Beet Tech. 62306-310.

103

Grimes, D. W. 1959. Effect of crop rotation, manure and commercial fer-
tilizers upon yield, percent sugar and gross sugar production of sugar
beets in southwestern Kansas. Jour. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech.
10:364-370.

Guttay, J. R., Cook, R. L., and Robertson, L. S. 1958. Sugar beet pro-
duction in Michigan as affected by cropping sequence and fertility
level. Jour. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 10:66-75.

Hac, L. R., Walker, A. C., and Dowling, B. B. 1950. The effect of ferti-
lization on the glutamic acid content of sugar beets in relation to
sugar production. Proc. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 6:401-411.

. 1954. The effect of fertilization on the glutamic acid con-
tent of sugar beets in relation to sugar production. Proc. Amer. Soc.
Sugar Beet Tech. 8:386-391.

 

Haddock, J. L. 1949. The influence of plant population, soil moisture,
and nitrogen fertilization on the sugar content and yield of sugar
beets. Agron. Journ. 41:79-84.

Harris, L., Pumphrey, F. W., and Rhoads, H. F. 1950. Cultural experiments
with sugar beets in Western Nebraska. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet
TOChe 6: 261-269.

. 1956. Influence of pre-emergence irrigation, planting date,
and planting methods on the production of sugar beets in Western
Nebraska. Jour. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 9:226-232.

 

Headden, W. P. 1912. Deterioration in the quality of sugar beets due to
nitrates formed in the soil. Colo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 183,
p. 178.

Hill, K. W. 1952. Effect of nitrogen supply on the sucrose % of sugar
beets. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 7:201-206.

, and Dubetz, S. 1952. Fertilizer side-dressing studies on
sugar beets in Southern Alberta. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech.

 

Hills, F. J., Burtch, L. M., Holmberg, D. M., and Ulrich, A. 1954. The
response of yield versus sugar type beet varieties to soil nitrogen
levels and time of harvest. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech.
8:64u70.

Joret, G., and Hiroux, H. 1951. Effect of time of application of nitrogen
on sugar beets. Ann. Agron. I:564-567.

Krantz, B. A., and MacKenzie, A. J. 1954. Responses of sugar beets to
nitrogen fertilizer in the Imperial Valley, California. Proc. Amer.
Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 8:36-41.

Leavitt, F. R., and Stier, R. L. 1954. Anhydrous ammonia, the effect of
time, rate and technique of its application in the production of sugar
beets. Proc. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 8:58-63.

104

LeClerg, E. L., Leonard, W. H., and Clark, A. G. 1962. Field Plot
Techniques 2nd edition, Burgess Pub. Co.

Lill, J. G., and Rather, H. C. 1943. Sugar beets after alfalfa. Mich.
Agr. Expt. Sta. Quart. Bull. 26:129-133.

Miller, C. E. 1943. Fall plowing is wasteful. Successful Farming
“1:22-23.

Morris, H. E., and Afanasiev, M. M. 1946. Growing sugar beets follow-
ing alfalfa in Montana. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 4:389-393.

Murphy, A. M., and Carsner, E. 1946. A Wide-and narrow-row test with
sugar beets in Southern Idaho. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tedh.
4:168-169.

Nelson, R. T. 1950. Fertilizers ploughed under versus soil application
at or after'planting. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 62436-439.

Nichol, G. E. 1962. Sugar Beet Production Practices. Sugar Beet Jour.
253120

Nuckols, S. B.' 1942. Use of manures for sugar beets. Proc. Amer. Soc.
Sugar Beet Tech. 3:121-137.

. 1946. Summary of date-of-planting experiments with sugar
beets in Nebraska and wyoming, 1938-1945. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar
Beet Tech. 4:185-190.

 

, and Harris, L. 1948. Effect of crop rotation and manure on
the yield and quality of sugar beets. United States Scotts Bluff
(Nebraska) Field Station. 1930-1941. U.S.D.A. Cir. 779. PP.20.

Ogden, D. B., Finkner, R. F., Olson, R. F., and Hanzas, P. C. 1958. The '
effect of fertilizer treatment upon three different varieties in the
Red River Valley of Minnesota for: I stand, yield, sugar purity and
non-sugars. Jour. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 10:265-271.

Primost, E. 1958. The effect of increasing rates of nitrogen on yields
and quality of sugar beets. Soils and Fert. 21 (6):411.

Rhoades, H. F., and Harris, L. 1954. Cropping and fertilization practices
for the production of sugar beets in western Nebraska. Proc. Amer.
Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 8:71-80.

Robertson, L. 8., Cook, R. L., Rood, P. J., and Turk, L. M. 1952. Ten
year's results from the Ferden rotation and crop sequence experiment.
Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 72172-179.

Rounds, H. G., Rush, G. E., Oldemeyer, D. L., Parrish, C. P., and Rawlnngs,
F. N. 1958. A study and economic appraisal of the effect of nitrogen
fertilization and selected varieties on the production and processing
of sugar beets. Jour. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 10:97-110.

105

Schmehl, W. R., Finkner, R., and Swink, J. 1963. Effect of NitrOgen
Fertilization on Yield.and quality of the sugar beet. Jour. Amer.
Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 12:538-544.

Skuderna, A. W. 1942. Increasing sugar beet yields through early plant-
ing. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 3:147-148.

Smith, J. A., and Sheard, R. W. 1957. Evaluation and calibration of
phosphorus soil test methods for predicting fertilizer requirements of
potatoes. Can. Jour. Soil Sci. 37:134-142.

Spurway, C. M., and Lawton, K. 1949. Soil Testing - A Practical System
of Soil Fertility Diagnosis. Tech. Bull. 132 (4th Revision) Mich.
State College. Agr. Exp. Sta., East Lansing.

Stockinger, K. R., Mackenzie, A. J., and Cary, E. E. 1963. Yield and
quality of sugar beets as affected by cropping systems. Jour. Amer.
Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 12:492-496.

Stout, M. 1961. A new look at some nitrogen relationships affecting the
quality of sugar beets. Jour. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 11:388-399.

Tolman, B. 1946. Population and distribution studies with sugar beets.
Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 4:177-184.

, and Johnson, R. C. 1958. Effect of nitrogen on the yield and
sucrose content of sugar beets. Jour. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech.

 

Ulrich, A. 1942. The relationship of nitrogen to the formation of sugar
in sugar beets. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 3:66-80.

. 1950. Critical nitrate levels of sugar beets estimated from
analysis of petioles and blades with special reference to yields and
sucrose concentrations. Soil Sci. 69:291-309.

 

. 1954. Growth and development of sugar beet plants at two
nitrogen levels in a controlled temperature greenhouse. Proc. Amer.
Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 8:325-338.

 

. 1956. Influence of night temperature and nitrogen nutrition
on the growth, sucrose accumulation and leaf minerals of sugar beet
plants. Plant Phys. 30:250-257.

 

, Hills, F. J., Ririe, D., George, A. G., Morse, M. D., and
Johnson, C. M. 1959. Plant Analysis and Analytical Methods. Dniv.
of Cal. Tech. Bull. 766 Cal. Agr. Expt. Sta.

walker, A. C., and Hac., L. R. 1952. Effect of irrigation practices
upon the nitrogen metabolism of sugar beets. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar
Beet Tech. 7:58-66.

wauthy, R. 1953. Preliminary results of four years of experiments on
early application of mineral nitrogen fertilizers for sugar beets.
Soils and Fert. 16 (2) 148.

106

Williams, W. A., and Ririe, D. 1957. Production of sugar beets following
winter green manure cropping in California: I Nitrogen nutrition,
yield, disease and pest status of sugar beets. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer.
Proc. 21, 88-92.

beford, I. M., and Dexter, S. T. 1955. The effect of cultvral practices
on emergence and uniformity of stand of sugar beets. Agr. Jour. 47
No. 2 pp. 57.

Wbolley, D. G., and Bennett, W. H. 1962. Effect of soil moisture, nitro-
gen, fertilization, variety and harvest date on root yields and suc-
rose content of sugar beets. Jour. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech.

12: 233-237.

APPENDIX

107

TABLE 61.--Analysis of variance of sucrose content data, 1961

 

 

 

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean
Variation Freedom Squares Square 'F'
Replications 2 4.02
Treatments 23 22.27 0.97 1.83‘
Application time 3 8.16 2.72 5.13**
Prepl. vs Other 3 (A) 0.22 0.22 0.42
Sidedressings (S.D.) 7.94: 3.97 7.49"
S.D. (Lin.) B 7.05 7.05 13.30“
s.D. (Quad.) (0) 0.89 0.89 1.68
Rate of nitro en 5 6.60 1.32 2.49*
Rate of N. Lin.) (D) 5.17 5.17 9.76**
Rate of N. (Quad.) (E) 0.53 0.53 1.00
Remainder (F) 0.90 0.30 0.57
A x D 1 0.06 0.06 0.11
A x E 1 0.27 0.27 0.51
A x F 3 0.66 0.22 0.42
B x D 1 3.13 3.13 5.91'
B x a 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
B x F 3 0.22 0.07 0.13
0 x D 1 0.32 0.32 0.60
0 x E 1 2.02 2.02 3.81
C x F 3 0.8“ 0e28 0e53
ERROR (a) (Reps._ x Treat.) 46 24.28 0. 53
TOTAL 71 50.57
HARVEST DATES (H.D.) 2 29.64 14.82 24.30**
H.D. (Lin.) (0) 1 26.86 26.86 44.03**
H.D. (Quad.) (H) 1 2.78 2.78 4.54
ERROR (b) (Reps. x H.D.) 4 2.43 0.61
TOTAL 8 36.09

 

Continued

108

"TABLE 61--Continued."

 

 

 

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean
Variation Freedom Squares Square "F"

Harvest Dates x Treatments 46 16.69 0.36 1.25
H.D. (Lin.) xA 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
H.D. (Quad.) x A 1 0.03 0.03 0.10
H.D. (L) x s 1 0.02 0.02 0.07
H.D. (Q) x B 1 0.30 0.30 1.04
H.D. (L) x c 1 1.72 1.72 5-93'
H.D. (Q) x 0 1 0.14 0.14 0.48
H.D. (L) x D 1 2.75 2.75 9.48**
H.D. (Q) x D 1 1.89 1.89 6.52*
H.D. (L) x s 1 0.07 0.07 0.24
H.D. (Q) x s 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
H.D. x F 6 1.27 0.21 0.72
H.D. (L) x A x D 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
H.D. (Q) x A x D 1 1.23 1.23 4.24*
H.D. (L) x.A x s 1 1.23 1.23 4.24*
H.D. (0) x A x a 1 0.04 0.04 0.14
H.D. x.A x F 6 1.13 0.19 0.66
H.D. (L) x B x D 1 0.76 0.76 2.62
H.D. (Q) x B x D 1 0.29 0.29 1.00
H.D. (L) x.B x E 1 0.03 0.03 0.10
H.D. (Q) x.B x E 1 0.30 0.30 1.04
H.D. x B x F 6 1.49 0.25 0.86
H.D. (L) x 0 x D 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
H.D. (0) x c x D 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
H.D. (L) x c x s 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
H.D. (Q) x C x E 1 0.06 0.06 0.21
H.D. x c x.F 6 1.88 0.31 1.07

ERROR (o)(Reps. x H.D. x Treat.)92 26.66 0.29

GRAND TOTAL 215 125.99

 

* - denotes significance at the 0.05 level

** - denotes significance at the 0.01 level

TABLE 62.--Ana1ysis of variance of root yield data, 1961

109

 

 

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean
Variation Freedom Squares Square “F"
Replications 2 108.64
Treatments 23 794. 51 34. 54 2. 97"
Application time 3 197.85 65.95 5.67"
Prepl. vs Other 3 (A) 97.93 97.93 8.42“
Sidedressings (S.D.) 99.92 49.96 4.29"
S.D. (Lin.) (B) 1 90.60 90.60 7.79"
S.D. (Quad.) (C) 1 9.32 9.32 0.80
Rate of nitrogen 5 184.01 36.80 3.16*
Rate of B. (Lin.) (D) 107.28 107.28 9.22
Rate of N. (Quad.) (8) 45.13 45.13 3.88
Remainder (F) 31.60 10.53 0.91
A x D 1 104.00 104.00 8.94"
A x E l 1.83 1.83 0.16
A x F 3 64.31 21.44 1.84
B x D 1 35.60 35.60 3.06
B x a 1 63.02 63.02 5.42‘
B x R 3 6.95 2.32 0.20
C x D 1 10.43 10.43 0.90
C x E 1 33.13 33.13 2.85
C x F 3 92.66 30.89 2.66
ERROR (a) (Reps. x Treat.) 46 534.806 11.63
TOTAL 71 1437.960
HARVEST DATES (H.D.) 2 140.80 70.40 3.49
H.D. (Lin.) (0) 1 133.93 133.93 6.64
H.D. (Quad.) (H) 1 . 6.87 0.34
ERROR (b) (Reps. x H.D.) 4 80.653 20.16
TOTAL 8

 

Continued

110

"TABLE 62--Continued."

 

 

 

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean
Variation Freedom Squares Square "I“

Harvest Dates x Treatments 46 142.494 3.10 1.48
H.D. (Lin.) x A 1 3.65 3.65 1.75
H.D. (Quad.) x A 1 10.07 0.07 0.03
H.D. (L) X B 1 7087 7087 3077
H.D. (Q) J: B 1 0.20 0.20 0.10
H.D. (L) x c 1 3.87 3.87 1.85..
H.D. (Q) x c 1 11.76 11.76 5.63
H.D. (L) x D 1 11.79 11.79 5.64"
H.D. (Q) x D 1 0.28 0.28 0.13
H.D. (L) x s 1 0.82 0.82 0.39
H.D. (Q) x a 1 0.20 0.20 0.10
H.D. x F 6 8.492 1.42 0.68
H.D. (L) x A x D 1 0.02 0.02 0.01
H.D. (Q) x A x D 1 4.27 4.27 2.04
H.D. (L) x A x a 1 0.05 0.05 0.02
H.D. (Q) x A x E 1 2.68 2.68 1.28
H.D. x.A x F 6 8.96 1.49 0.71
H.D. (L) x B x D 1 0.06 0.06 0.29
H.D. (a; x B x D 1 2.15 2.15 1.03
H.D. (L x B x s 1 14.15 14.15 6.77"
H.D. (Q) x:B x E 1 0.20 0.20 0.10
H.D. x B x r 6 39.36 6.56 3.14"
H.D. (L; x c x D 1 0.10 0.10 0.05
H.D. (Q J: c x D ' 1 4.37 4.37 2.09
H.D. (L) x c x s 1 1.46 1.46 0.70
H.D. (Q) x 0 x a 1 0.03 0.03 0.14
H.D. x c x r 6 17.85 2.98 1.43

ERROR (c)(Reps.x H.D. x Treat.) 92 192.26 2.09

GRAND TOTAL 215 1,994,163

 

w—fi

* - denotes significance at the 0.05 level

** - denotes significance at the 0.01 level

TABLE 63.-~Analysis of variance of sugar yield data, 1961

111

 

 

Source of

Degrees of

Sum of

Mean

 

Variation Freedom Squares Square “F”
Replications 2 7.772.450
Treatments 23 88.553.022 3'850'131 2'83*:
Application time 3 26.482.390 8.827.463 5.48:,
Prepl. vs Other 3 (A) 1 10,712,535 10,712,535 7.86
Sidedressings (S.D.) 2 15,769,855 7,884,927 5.79”
S.D. (Lin.) (B 1 15,292,681 15,292,681 11.23**
S.D. (Quad.) (0) 1 477,174 477,174 0.35
Rate of nitro en 5 14,259,117 2,851,823 2.10
Rate of N. Lin.) (D) 1 5,995,667 5,995,667 4.40*
Rate of N. (Quad.) (a) 1 6,050,649 6,050,649 4.44"
Remainder (F) 3 2,212,801 737,600 0. 54
A x D 1 11,031,320 11,031,320 8.10"
A x E 1 70,796 70,796 0.05
A x r 3 6,781,387 2,260,462 1.66
B x D 1 6,674,596 6,674, 596 4.90"“
B x E 1 6.360.799 6.360.799 4.67*
B x F 3 781,950 260,650 0.19
c x D 1 1,492,464 1,492,464 1.10
c x a 1 5,231,451 5,231,451 3.84
c x F 3 9,388,206 3,129,402 2.30
ERROR (a) (Reps. x Treat.) 46 62,640,039 1,361,740
TOTAL 71 158 , 965 , 511
HARVEST DATE (H.D.) 2 34,596,332 17,298,166 8.22*
H.D. (Lin.) (G) 1 32.343.865 32.343.865 15.37*
H.D. mm.) (H) 1 2,252,467 2,252,467 1.07
ERROR (b) (Reps. x H.D.) 4 8,419,085 2,104,771
TOTAL 8 50.787.86?

 

Continued

'TABLE 63--Continued."

112

 

 

 

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean
Variation Freedom. Squares Square "F“

Harvest Dates x Treatments 46 20,416,468 443,836 1.68"I
H.D. (Lin.) x A 1 598,384 598,384 2.27
H.D. (Quad.) x A 1 117,002 117,002 0.44
H.D. (L) x B 1 386,760 386,760 1.47
H.D. (o) x a 1 1,120,464 1,120,464 4.25*
H.D. (L) x C 1 1,021,625 1,021,625 3.87
H.D. (Q) x c 1 1,242,500 1,242,500 4.71‘
H.D. (L) x D 1 2,910,004 2,910,004 11.03“
H.D. (Q) x D 1 423.720 423.720 1.61
H.D. (L) x a 1 35,645 35,645 0.14
H.D. (Q) x E 1 20,848 20,848 0.08
H.D. x r 6 577,612 96,269 0.37
H.D. (L) x.A x D 1 240,010 240,010 0.91
mm<® xAxD 1 anea lawns iW‘
H.D. (L) x A x a 1 408,168 408,168 1.55
H.D. (Q) x A x E 1 49,666 49,666 0.19
H.D. x A x F 6 1,328,008 221,335 0.84
H.D. (L) x B x D 1 84,340 84,340 0.32
H.D. (Q) x B x D 1 409,836 409,836 1.55
H.D. (L) x B x E 1 1,824,017 1,824,017 6.92*
H.D. (Q) x B x a 1 13,634 13,634 0.05
H.D. x B x r 6 3,294,589 549,098 2.08
H.D. (L) x c x D 1 96,881 96,881 0.37
H.D. (Q) J: c x D 1 441,803 441,803 1.68
H.D. (L) x 0 x E 1 106,988 106,988 0.41
H.D. (Q) x c x E 1 1,219 1,219 0.00,
H.D. x c x F 6 2,325,080 387,513 1.47

ERROR (c)(Reps. x H.D. x Treat.) 92 24,268,862 263,792

GRAND TOTAL 215 246,666,258

 

* - denotes significance at the 0.05 level

** - denotes significance at the 0.01 level

113

TABLE 64.--Ana1ysis of variance of top yield data, 1961

 

 

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean
Variation Freedom Squares Square "F”
Replications 2 82.8
Treatments 23 1001. 1 43. 52 10. 41”
Application time 3 65.2 21.73 5.19"".I
Prepl. vs Other 3 1 27.7 27.70 6.62‘
Sidedressings ' 2 37. 5 18.75 4.48"
Rate of nitrogen 5 868.1 173.62 41.53"
ERROR (a) (Reps. x Treat.) 46 192.1 4.18
TOTAL 71 1276.5
HARVEST DATES (H.D.) 2 428.4 214.20 7.19”“
ERROR (b) (Reps. x H.D.) 4 119.1 29.77
TOTAL 8 630.3
Harvest Dates x Treatments 46 136.3 2.96 0.23
ERROR (o)(Reps. x H.D. x Treat.) 92 1152.0 12.52
GRAND TOTAL 215 3112.3

 

* - denotes significance at the 0.05 level
** - denotes significance at the 0.01 level

114

TABLE 65.--Analysis of variance of sucrose content data, 1962

 

 

 

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean
Variation Freedom Squares Square "F”
Replications 2 0.21
Treatments 23 30.60 1.33 5.32"”I
Application time 3 13.25 4.42 17.68**
Prepl. vs Other 3 (A) 1 1.67 1.67 6.68"l
Sidedressings (S.D.) 2 11.58 5.79 23.16**
S.D. (Lin.) (B 1 11.28 11.28 45.12**
S.D. (Quad.) (0) 1 0.28 0.28 1.12
Rate of nitro en 5 7.65 1.53 6.12**
Rate of N. Lin.) (D) l 6.40 6.40 25.60**
Rate of N. (Quad.) (E) 1 0.78 0.78 3.12
Remainder (F) 3 0.47 0.16 0.64
A x D 1 1.39 1.39 5.56*
A x E l 0.02 0.02 0.08
A x F 3 0.66 0.22 0.88
B x D l 5.07 5.07 20.28**
B x E 1 1.06 1.06 4.24*
B x F 3 0.11 0.03 0.12
0 x D 1 0.00 0.00 9 0.01
c x E 1 0.09 0.09 : 0.36
0 x F 3 0.69 0.23 0.92
ERROR (a) (Reps. x Treat.) 46 11.56 0.25
TOTAL 71 42.38
HARVEST DATES (H.D.) 2 79.45 39.73 50.94::
H.D. (Lin.) (0) 1 49.47 49.47 63.42
H.D. (Quad.) (H) l 29.98 29.98 38.44**
ERROR (b) (Reps. x H.D.) 4 3.11 0.78
TOTAL 8 82.78

 

Continued

115

"TABLE 65--Continued."

 

 

 

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean
Variation Freedom Squares Square “F"
Harvest Dates x Treatments 46 11.31 0.245 1.03
H.D. (Lin.) J: A 1 1.25 1.25 5.25“
H.D. (Quad.) x A 1 0.19 0.19 0.80
H.D. (L) x B l 0.96 0.96 4.03"
none (Q) X B 1 0.34 0.3“ 1.43
H.D. (L) x C 1 0.38 0.38 1.60
H.D. (Q; x C 1 0.35 0.35 1.47
H.D. (L x D l 1.02 1.02 4.29“
H.D. (Q) x D l 0.44 0.44 1.81
H.D. (L) x E 1 0.11 0.11 0.46
H.D. (Q) x E 1 0.01 0.01 0.04
H.D. x F 6 1.70 0.28 1.18
H.D. (L) x A x D l 0.28 0.28 1.18
H.D. (Q) x A x D 1 0.26 0.26 1.09
H.D. (L) x.A x E 1 0.06 0.06 0.25
H.D. (Q) x A x E 1 0.05 0.05 0.21
H.D. x.A x F 6 1.13 0.18 0.76
H.D. (L) x.B x D 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
H.D. (Q) x B x D l 0.16 0.16 0.67
H.D. (L) x:B x E 1 0.08 0.08 0.34
H.D. (Q) x B x E w 1 0.01 0.01 0.04
H.D. x B x F 6 1.28 0.21 0.88
H.D. (L) x C x D 1 0.03 0.03 0.13
H.D. (Q) x 0 x D 1 0.16 0.16 0.67
H.D. (L) x C x E 1 0.48 0.48 2.02
H.D. (Q) J: c x E 1 0.56 0.56 2.35
H.D. x C x F 6 0.59 0.09 0.38
ERROR (c)(Reps.x H.D. x.Treat.) 92 21.91 0.238

GRAND TOTAL 215 158.16

 

* - denotes significance at the 0.05 level

** - denotes significance at the 0.01 level

TABLE 66.--Analysis of variance of root yield data, 1962

116

 

 

 

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean
Variation Freedom Squares Square "F'
Replications 2 31.73
Treatments 23 560.01 24.35 3.27MI
Application time 3 24.49 8.16 1.10
Prepl. vs Other 3 (A) 1 1.12 1.12 0.15
Sidedressings (S.D.) 2 23.37 11.69 1.57
S.D. (Lin.) (B l 19.08 19.08 2.56
S.D. (Quad.) (0) 1 4.29 4.29 0.58
Rate of nitro en 5 305.47 61.09 8.20::
Rate of N. Lin.) (D) 1 144.72 144.72 19.43
Rate of N. (Quad.) (E) 1 138.63 138.63 18.61‘*
Remainder (F) 3 22.12 7.37 0.99
A x D 1 87.61 87.61 11.76**
A x E l 2.49 2.49 0.33
A x F 3 9.74 3.25 0.44
B x D 1 23.22 23.22 3.12
B x E l 74.71 74.71 10.03**
B x F 3 7.78 2.59 0.35
c x D 1 2.42 2.42 0.32
c x E l 16.76 16.76 2.25
C x r 3 5.31 1.77 0.24
ERROR (a) (Reps. x Treat.) 46 342.58 7.45
TOTAL 71 934.32
HARVEST DATES (H.D.) 2 42.15 21.07 5.82
H.D. (Lin.) (0; 1 15.47 15.47 4.27
H.D. (Quad.) (H 1 26.68 26.68 7.37
ERROR (b) (Reps. x H.D.) 4 14.48 3.62
TOTAL 8 88.36

 

Continued

 

117

"TABLE 66--Cont1nued."

 

 

 

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean
Variation Freedom Squares Square "F"

Harvest Dates x Treatments 46 114.78 2.50 1.04
H.D. (Lin.) x A 1 2.05 2.05 0.85
H.D. (Quad.) x A 1 0.04 0.04 0.01
H.D. (L) x B 1 0.81 0.81 0.33
H.D. (0) x B 1 0.11 0.11 0.04
H.D. (L) x c 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
H.D. (0) x c 1 0.48 0.48 0.17
H.D. (L) x D l 3.44 3.44 1.43
H.D. (0 x D 1 1.01 1.01 0.42
H.D. (L x E 1 2.85 2.85 1.19
H.D. (0) x E 1 0.01 0.01 0.00
H.D. x N 6 10.13 1.69 0.70
H.D. (L) x A x D 1 0.18 0.18 0.07
H.D. (Q) x A x D 1 0.30 0.30 0.12
H.D. (L) x A x E 1 9.25 9.25 3.85
H.D. (Q) x A x E 1 4.46 4.46 1.86
H.D. x A x r 6 13.68 2.28 0.95
H.D. (L) x B x D 1 0.15 0.15 0.06
H.D. (0) x B x D 1 11. 58 11.58 4.82“
H.D. (L) x B x E 1 0.06 0.06 0.02
H.D. (Q) x B x E 1 0.85 0.85 0.35
H.D. x.B x F 6 13.77 2.29 0.95
H.D. (L) x c x D 1 0.03 0.03 0.01
H.D. (Q) J: 0 x D 1 0.94 0.94 0.39
H.D. (L) x c x E l 6.07 6.07 2.53
H.D. (Q) x 0 x E 1 0.72 0.72 0.30
H.D. x c x F 6 30.336 5.06 2.10

ERROR (c)(Reps. x H.D. x Treat.) 92 220.57 2.40

GRAND TOTAL 215 1326.30

 

* - denotes significance at the 0.05 level
** - denotes significance at the 0.01 level

118

TABLE 67.--Analysis of variance of sugar yield data, 1962

 

 

 

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean
Variation Freedom Squares Square "F”
Replications 2 2.983.848
Treatments 23 75,314,288 3,274,534 3. 90**
Application time 3 8,967,870 2,989,290 3.56
Prepl. vs Other 3 (A) 1 853,544 853,544 1.02
Sidedressings (S.D.) 2 8,114,326 4,057,163 4. 84:*
8.D. (Lin.) (B) 1 7.853.772 7.853.772 9.36
S.D. (Quad.) (0) 1 260,554 260.554 0. 31
Rate of nitro en 5 31,112,673 6,222,534 7. 42::
Rate of N. gLin.) (D; 1 9,218,991 9,218,991 10. 98
Rate of N. Quad.) (E 1 18,803,013 18,803,013 22. 41**
Remainder (F) 3 3,090,669 1,030,223 1.23
A x D 1 12,058,269 12,058,269 14.37*'
A x r 3 1,656,080 552,027 0. 66
B x D 1 6,227,315 6,227,315 7. 42**
a x E 1 10,977,304 10,977,304 13. 08**
B x F 3 774,911 258,304 0. 31
0 x D 1 333.249 333.249 0.40
0 x E 1 2,361,653 2,361,653 2.81
ERROR (a) (Reps. x Treat.) 46 38,597,251 839,071
TOTAL 71 116,895,387
HARVEST DATES (H.D.) 2 31,563,702 15,781,851 17.16*
H.D. (Lin.) (0) 1 16,144,324 16,144,324 17. 55*
H.D. (Quad.) (H) 1 15,419,378 15.419.378 16. 77*
ERROR (b) (Reps. x H.D.) 4 3.678.714 919.679
TOTAL 8 38,226,264

 

Continued

119

"TABLE 67--Continued."

 

 

 

 

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean
Variation Freedom Squares Square "F"

Harvest Dates x Treatments 46 14,994,539 325,968 1.25
H.D. (Lin.) x A 1 13,422 13,422 0.05
H.D. (Quad.) x A 1 16,498 16,498 0.06
H.D. (L) x B 1 572 572 0.00
H.D. (Q) x B 1 7.597 7.597 0.03
H.D. (L) x c 1 45,269 45,269 0.17
H.D. (0) x 0 1 195,070 195,070 0.75
H.D. (L) x D 1 21,300 21,300 0.08
H.D. (Q) x D 1 141,807 141,807 0.54
H.D. (L) x E 1 664,573 664, 573 2.54
H.D. (Q) x E 1 7,625 7,625 0.03
H.D. x F 6 1,140,360 190,060 0.73
H.D. (L) x.A x D 1 11,214 11,214 0.04
H.D. (Q) x A x D 1 13.559 13.559 0.05
H.D. (L) x A x E 1 823.87? 823,877 3.15
H.D. (Q) x A x E 1 922,988 922,988 3.53
H.D. x A x F 6 2,387,478 397,913 1.52
H.D. (L) x B x D 1 17,600 17,600 0.07
H.D. (0) x B x D 1 1,781,509 1,781,509 6.82"
H.D. (L) x B x E 1 14,261 14,261 0.05
H.D. (Q) x B x E 1 154, 371 154,371 0.59
H.D. x B x F 6 1,431,573 238,595 0.91
H.D. (L) x c x D 1 3,136 3,136 0.01
H.D. (0) x c x D 1 34,019 34,019 0.13
H.D. (L) x 0 x E 1 1,317,755 1,317,755 5.04“
H.D. (Q x c x E 1 0 0 0.0
H.D. x 0 x F 6 3,780,986 630,164 2.41

ERROR (c)(Reps. x H.D. x Treat.) 92 24,039,690 261,300

GRAND TOTAL 215 191,172,032

 

* - denotes significance at the 0.05 level

** - denotes significance at the 0.01 level

TABLE 68.-~Analysis of variance of top yield data, 1962

120

 

 

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean
Variation Freedom Squares Square "F”
Replications 2 20.5
Treatments 23 2216.1 96.35 5.59**
Application time 3 160.0 53.33 3.09*
Prepl. vs Other 3 1 159.7 159.70 9.26“
Sidedressings 2 0.3 0.15 0.37
Rate of nitrogen 5 1809.4 361.88 21.00**
ERROR (a) (Reps. x Treat.) 46 792.7 17.23
TOTAL 71 3029.3
HARVEST DATES (H.D.) 2 656.7 328.35 52.11**
ERROR (b) (Reps. x H.D.) 4 25.2 6.30
TOTAL 8 702.4
Harvest Dates x Treatments 46 255.0 5.54 22.16"
ERROR (c)(Reps. x H.D. x Treat.) 92 23.7 0.25
GRAND TOTAL 215 3989.9

 

* - denotes significance at the 0.05 level

** - denotes significance at the 0.01 level

121

TABLE 69.--Analysis Of variance of sucrose content data, l963

 

 

 

Source of Degrees of Sum.of Mean
Variation Freedom Squares Square "F"
Replications 2 1.66
Treatments 23 27.16 1.18 5.46”
Application time 3 13.16 4.39 20. 32"
Prepl. vs Other 3 (A) 1 0.63 0.63 2.96
Sidedressings (S.D.) 2 12.53 6.27 29.03::
S.D. (Lin.) (B) 1 9.66 9.66 44.72.“
S.D. (Quad.) (0) 1 2.87 2.87 13.28 *
Rate of nitro en 5 2.86 0.57 2.64*
Rate of N. Lin.) (D) 1 1.34 1. 34 6.20"
Rate of N. (Quad.) (E) 1 0.18 0.18 0.83
Remainder (F) 3 1.34 0.45 2.08
A x D 1 1.00 1.00 4.63"
A x E 1 0.01 0.01 0.04
A x F 3 2.95 0.98 4. 58"
B x D 1 2.27 2.27 10. 51'"
B x E 1 1.21 1.21 5.60"
B x F 3 0.98 0.33 1.53
c x D 1 0.25 0.25 1.20
0 x E 1 2.44 2.44 11.30"
c x F 3 0.31 0.10 0.46
ERROR (a) (Reps. x Treat.) 46 9.97 0.21
TOTAL 71 38.80
HARVEST DATE (H.D.) 2 103.79 51.90 76.66“
H.D. (Lin.) (0) 1 67.10 67.10 99.11”
H.D. (Quad.) (H) 1 36.69 36.69 54.19"
ERROR (b) (Reps. x H.D.) 4 2.70 0.67 2
TOTAL 8 108.171

 

Continued

122

"TABLE 69--Continued."

 

 

 

Source of Degrees of Sum.of Mean
Variation Freedom Squares Square "F“

Harvest Dates x Treatments 46 14.03 0.31 1.29
H.D. (Lin.) x A 1 0.23 0.23 0.95
H.D. (Quad.) x A l 0.16 0.16 0.67
H.D. (L) x B 1 0.50 0.50 2.08
H.D. (Q) x B 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
H.D. (L) x C 1 0.04 0.04 0.17
H.D. (Q) x c 1 0.71 0.71 2.96
H.D. (L) x D 1 0.48 0.48 2.00
H.D. (0) x D 1 1.01 1.01 4.21“
H.D. (L) x E 1 0.01 0.01 0.04
H.D. (0) x E 1 1.06 1.06 4.42“
H.D. x F 6 1.82 0.30 1.25
H.D. (L) x A x D 1 0.46 0.46 1.92
H.D. (Q) x.A x D 1 0.01 0.01 0.04
H.D. (L) x A x E l 0.12 0.12 0.50
H.D. (Q) x A x E 1 0.40 0.40 1.67
H.D. x A x F 6 1.51 0.25 1.04
H.D. (L) x B x D 1 0.02 0.02 0.08
H.D. (Q; x B x D 1 0.07 0.07 0.29
H.D. (L x B x E 1 0.25 0.25 1.04
H.D. (Q) x B x E 1 0.63 0.63 2.63M
H.D. x.B x F 6 2.40 0.40 10.04
H.D. (L) x C x D 1 0.01 0.01 0.04
H.D. (Q) x O x D 1 0.57 0.57 2.38
H.D. (L) x C x E 1 0.05 0.05 0.21
H.D. (Q) x C x E 1 0.55 0.55 2.29
H.D. x C x F 6 0.86 0.14 0.58

ERROR (c)(Reps. x H.D. x Treat.)92 22.29 0.24

GRAND TOTAL 215 181.63

 

* - denotes significance at the 0.05 level
** - denotes significance at the 0.01 level

123

TABLE 70.-~Ana1ysis of variance of root yield data, 1963

 

 

 

Source of Degrees of Sum of mean
Variation Freedom Squares Square "1'"'
Replications 2 17.56
Treatments 23 186.24 8.10 1.44
Application time 3 17.44 5.82 1.04
Prepl. vs Other 3 (A) 0.08 0.08 0.01
Sidedressings (S.D.) 17.36 8.68 1.54
S.D. (Lin.) (B 14.24 14.24 2.52
S.D. (Quad.) (0 3.13 3.13 0.56
Rate of nitro en 5 117.39 23.57 “-19::
Rate at l. (Lin.) (D) 91.13 91.13 16.22
Rate or N. (01:30.) (E) 22.39 22.39 3.98
Remainder (F) 4.37 1.46 0.26
A x D 1 0.25 0.25 0.04
A x E 1 9.22 9. 22 1.64
A x F 3 6.36 2.12 0.38
B x D 1 2.22 2.22 0.40
B x E 1 0.18 0.18 0.03
B x F 3 14.34 4.78 0.85
c x D 1 5.28 5.28 ' 0.94
c x E 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
c x F 3 13.12 4.38 0.78
ERROR (a) (Reps. x Treat.) 46 258.52 5.62
TOTAL 71 462.33
HARVET DATES (H.D.) 2 347.34 173.67 27.52“
H.D. (Lin.) (0) 1 239.76 239.76 38.00"
H.D. (Quad.) (H) 1 107.59 107.59 17.05“
ERROR (b) (Reps. x H.D.) 4 25.22 6.31
TOTAL

390.13

 

Continued

 

124

"TABLE 70--Continued."

 

 

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean
Variation Freedom Squares Square "F"

Harvest Dates x Treatments 46 65.50 1.42 1.45
H.D. (Lin.) x A 1 6.32 6.32 6.45
H.D. (Quad.) 4x A 1 2.93 2.93 2.99
H.D. (L) x B 1 0027 0027 0e28*
H.D. (Q) x B 1 4.33 4.33 4.42
H.D. (L) x c 1 3.16 3.16 3.22
H.D. (0) x c 1 2.01 2.01 2.05
H.D. (L) x D 1 1.41 1.41 1.44
H.D. (Q) x D 1 0.64 0.64 0.65
H.D. (L) x E 1 0.22 0.22 0.22
H.D. (Q) x E 1 0.32 0.32 0.33
HeDe x F 6 2e25 0e38 0039
H.D. (L; x A x D 1 8.40 8.40 8.57“
H.D. (Q x A x D 1 0.01 0.01 0.01
H.D. (L) x.A x E 1 0.22 0.22 0.22
H.D. (Q) x A x E 1 7.69 7.69 7.85“
H.D. x A x F 6 0.76 0.13 0.13
H.D. (L) X B x D 1 0.39 0039 0.40
H.D. (Q) x B x:D 1 0.20 0.20 0.20
H.D. (L) x B x E 1 0.10 0.10 0.10
mm<® xBxE 1 549 an im
H.D. x48 x F 6 1.80 0.30 0.31
H.D. (L) x c x D 1 0.59 0.59 0.60
mm<® xCxD 1 033 mn my»
H.D. (L) x c x E 1 5.58 5.58 5.69'
H.D. Q x C x E 1 3.09 3.09 3.15
H.D. x C x F 6 7.41 1.24 1.27

ERROR (c) (Reps. x H.D. 1: Treat.) 92 90.45 0.98

GRAND TOTAL 215 990.86

§.""\Hn w... .-

 

[531;

 

* - denotes significance at the 0.05 level
** - denotes significance at the 0.01 level

125

TABLE 71.--Ana1ysis of variance of sugar yield data, 1963

 

 

 

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean
Variation Freedom Squares Square 'F'

Replications 2 3.879.113

Treatments 23 39,994,344 17,388,845 18.19"
Application time 3 7,255,860 2,418,620 2.53

Prepl. vs Other 3 (A) 1 36,932 36,932 0.04
Sidedressings (S.D.) 2 7,218,928 3,609,464 3.78*
S.D. (Lin.) B 1 5,747,290 5,747,290 6.01*
S.D. (Quad.) (0 1 1,471,638 1,471,638 1.54
Rate or nitrogen 5 23,836,450 4,767,290 4.99"
Rate or N. (Lin.) (D) 1 17,613,851 17,613,851 18.42“
Rate of H. (Quad.) (E) 1 5,230,434 5,230,434 5.47*
Remainder (F) 3 992,165 330,721 0.35
A x D 1 2,261 2,261 0.00
A x E 1 1,407,642 1,407,642 1.47
A x F 3 839,126 279.708 0.29
B x D 1 1,030,744 1,030,744 1.08
B x E 1 215,836 215,836 0.23
B x F 3 2.153.959 717.986 0.75
c x D 1 1,216,095 1,216,095 1.27
c x E 1 136,676 136,676 0.14
c x E 3 1,910,426 636,808 0.67

ERROR (a) (Reps. x Treat.) 46 43,977.750 956.038

TOTAL 71 87,851.21?

HARVEST DATES (H.D.) 2 81,445,816 40,722,908 30.16"
H.D. (Lin.) 0 1 73,944,234 73,944,234 54.76"
H.D. (Quad.) (H) 1 7.501.582 7.501.582 5.56

ERROR (b) (Reps. x H.D.) 4 5.401.474 1.350.368

TOTAL 8 90.726.403

 

Continued

 

126

"TABLE 7l--Continued."

 

 

 

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean
Variation Freedom Squares Square "F”
Harvest Dates x Treatments 46 13,625,120 296,198 2.26"".I

H.D. (Lin.) x A 1 1,344,133 1,344,133 10.26”
H.D. (Quad.) x A 1 384,228 384,228 2.93
H.D. (L) x B 1 22,969 22,969 0.17
H.D. (Q) x B 1 789,405 789,405 6.03"“
H.D. (L) x c 1 502,476 502,476 3.84
H.D. (Q) x 0 1 141, 571 141.571 1.08
H.D. (L) x D 1 628,836 628,836 4.80*
H.D. (Q) x D 1 75 75 0.00
H.D. (L) x E 1 16,918 16,918 0.13
H.D. (Q) x E 1 274,160 274,160 2.09
H.D. x E 6 540,269 90,044 0.69
H.D. (L) x A x D 1 1,839,674 1,839,674 14.05"
H.D. (Q) x A x D 1 4,440 4,440 0.03
H.D. (L) x A x E 1 57.178 57,178 0.44
H.D. (Q) x A x E 1 1,677,947 1,677,947 12.81"
H.D. x A x E 6 247,889 41,314 0.32
H.D. (L) x B x D 1 65,085 65,085 0.50
H.D. (Q) x B x D 1 11,324 11,324 0.09
H.D. (L) x B x E 1 50,930 50,930 0.39
H.D. (Q) x B x E 1 1,280,407 1,280,407 9.78"
H.D. x B x E 6 609.783 101,630 0.78
H.D. (L; x 0 x D 1 114,494 114,494 0.87
H.D. (Q x c x D 1 4,490 4,490 0.03
H.D. (L; x c x E 1 992,380 992, 380 7. 58"
H.D. (q x 0 x E 1 907.820 907.820 6.93"
H.D. x 0 x E 6 1,116,242 186,040 1.42
ERROR (c)(Reps. x H.D. x Treat.) 92 12,049,551 130,973
GRAND TOTAL 215 200,373,178

 

* - denotes significance at the 0.05 level
** - denotes significance at the 0.01 level

127

TABLE 72.--Ana1ysis of variance of top yield data, 1963

 

 

 

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean
Variation Freedom Squares Square “F"
Replications 2 19.2
Treatments 23 341.1 14.83 16.66"
Application time 3 55.0 18.33 20.59"
Prepl. vs Other 3 1 32.3 32.30 36.29"
Sidedressings 2 22.7 11.35 12.75,“l
Rate or nitrogen 5 246.8 49.36 55.46"
ERROR (a) (Reps. x Treat.) 46 41.3 0.89
TOTAL 71 401.6
HARVEST DATES (H.D.) 2 17.7 8.85 1.03
ERROR (b) (Reps. x H.D.) 4 34.1 8.52
TOTAL 8 51.8
Harvest Dates x Treatments 46 18.6 0.40 3.07"
ERROR (c)(Reps. x H.D. x Treat.) 92 12.4 0.13
GRAND TOTAL 215 484.4

 

* - denotes significance at the 0.05 level

‘* - denotes significance at the 0.01 level

MITIHIIIITWWIW “(NEWMAN WW
3 1293 0306] 5904