EFFECT OF APPLIED NUTRIENTS ON THE CHEMICAL
COMPOSITION OF SOIL AND GREEN SUGAR BEET
TISSUE AND THE YIELD AND SUCROSE CONTENT OF
SUGAR BEET ROOTS

By
GEORGE ROBERT McQUEEN

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Soil Science
1958

Approved:

ProQuest Number: 10008382

All rights reserved
INFORM ATION TO ALL USERS
The quality o f this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete m anuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

uest
ProQuest 10008382
Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346

ABSTRACT
Field experiments on sugar beets were conducted at 17
locations in the Saginaw valley - Thumb area of Michigan.
The effect of several factors on the chemical composition of
leaf petioles, the yield of roots, and the percent sucrose
was determined.

These factors included (l) heavy fertilizer

applications for the establishment of nutrient levels, (2 )
foliar application of nutrients, (3 ) fertilizer ratios and
rates of application, and (4) deep plowing and rates of
fertilizer application.
Treatments of 0, 750, and 1500 pounds per acre of
ammonium nitrate; 2 2 0 8 , 3 6 8 0 and 5 5 2 0 pounds per acre of 49
percent treble superphosphate; and 1 7 ^5 * 3 6 7 5 * and 4725 pounds
per acre of 6 0 percent nuriate of potash did not establish
field levels of these nutrients corresponding to laboratory
fixation tests of the soil.

Soil nitrate levels were

increased by the heaviest application of ammonium nitrate but
phosphorus levels were not affected by phosphorus applica­
tions.

Soil potassium was increased by potassium applica­

tions to levels higher than desired but application of the
heaviest amount resulted in no higher level than the medium
application.

Nitrates In the petioles from areas receiving the two
higher nitrogen applications were increased markedly hut
phosphorus was decreased.
The yield of roots was significantly increased by the
addition of nitrogen but percent sucrose was decreased.

The

interaction of nitrogen and potassium was significant in that,
at the lowest nitrogen level, the addition of potassium
reduced yield of roots but, with the higher amounts of nitro­
gen applied, yield of roots was not reduced.
The lack of agreement of soil test values reached in the
laboratory and the field together with lack of correlation of
chemical composition to nutrient levels in the soil was prob­
ably due to the nutrient supplying and fixing power of the
soil, the physical condition of the soil and/or weather con­
ditions.
The application of phosphorus to a soil low in phosphorus
or as a foliar spray increased the phosphorus concentration of
the tissue.

Nitrogen applications resulted In a decrease in

the phosphorus concentration of the tissue.

Foliar sprays of

phosphorus tended to increase the concentration of phosphorus
in the tissue in proportion to the amount applied but did not
appear to appreciably Influence the yield of roots or percent
sucrose.

Where various ratios of fertilizer were applied, precise
correlations could not be made due to variability with respect
to soil type, soil tests, and fertilizer amounts and ratios.
However, the following general trends are suggested.

On soils

medium or low in potassium the concentration of potassium and
sodium in the petiole Increased during the growing season and
usually increased with increasing amounts of applied potassium
fertilizer.

On soils low in phosphorus the concentration of

phosphorus in the tissue increased with increasing amounts of
applied potassium fertilizer.
The differences between yield of roots from areas where
various fertilizer ratios were applied were small except In
one case.

In this case where the soil was low in phosphorus

and low to medium In potassium, increasing the amount of K20
applied from 0 to 80 pounds per acre resulted In an increased
yield of roots of about 46 percent.

This would indicate that

an x- 2 - 1 ratio of fertilizer is probably adequate for these
soils.
The effect of date of sampling on chemical composition
of the petiole varied with location and would fall Into four
categories; (l) no distinct trend, (2 ) increase, (3 ) decrease,
and (4) highest concentration at intermediate dates.
Soil penetrometer data indicate that soil compaction is
an important deterrent to high yields.

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

EFFECT OF APPLIED NUTRIENTS ON THE CHEMICAL
COMPOSITION OF SOIL AND GREEN SUGAR BEET
TISSUE AND THE YIELD AND SUCROSE CONTENT OF
SUGAR BEET ROOTS

By
GEORGE ROBERT McQUEEN

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Soil Science
1958

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to express his gratitude to Dr. R. L.
Cook and Dr. J. P. Davis for their encouragement, assistance
and guidance in developing the research reported in this
thesis.
Special appreciation is extended to Mr. P. A. Reeve of
the Farmers and Manufacturers Beet Sugar Association, Mr. M.
G. Frakes of Michigan Sugar Company, Mr. G. E. Nickol of
Monitor Sugar Company, and to the cooperating farmers on
whose land these experiments were carried out.
Special appreciation is acknowledged to my wife,
Marilyn, for the patience, encouragement and assistance
tendered in completion of this research.

VITA
George Robert McQueen
candidate for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Final examination, May 13* 1956, 10:00 A.M., Room 210,
Agriculture Hall
Thesis:
Effect of Applied Nutrients on the Chemical Composition
of Soil and Green Sugar Beet Tissue and the Yield and
Sucrose Content of Sugar Beet Roots.
Outline of Studies:
Major subject:

Soil Science

Minor subjects:

Crop Production, Plant Physiology

Biographical Items:
Born; April 29, 1926, Snover, Michigan
Married; August 30, 1947* to Marilyn T. Cooley, and
presently have four girls and a boy
Undergraduate studies; Michigan State University,
1946-1949* B.S. degree with major in Soil Science
Graduate studies; Michigan State University, 1949-1950,
M.S. degree with major in Soil Science and minors in
Agricultural Engineering and Agricultural Economics.
Michigan State University, 1951-1956.

Experience:
Born and raised on a dairy - general crop farm in
Sanilac County, Michigan
Served two years in United States Infantry during
World War II including duty in Europe
Three years as research agronomist with Farmers and
Manufacturers Beet Sugar Association
Four years as plant physiologist with The Dow
Chemical Company developing new chemical plant
growth regulators
Farmed own and rented land for five years in the
Saginaw Valley area
One paper accepted for publication
Holder of patent number 2763539* Method and composition
for the control of the growth of vegetation
Member of Sigma Xi
Member of American Society of Agronomy

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION

1

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2

Soil composition effect on sucrose

2

Effect of heavy nutrient applications on sucrose

2

Plant tissue analysis

2

Nutrient relations to sucrose content

3

Effect of heavy nutrient applications on yield

3

Analytical methods

5

Map of test area

7

Legal description of farms and soil types

8

PART I.

NUTRIENT LEVELS

10

Procedure

10

Results and discussion

12

Analysis of variance

16

PART II.

PHOSPHORUS-NITROGEN INTERACTION AND
FOLIAR APPLICATIONS

20

Procedure

20

Results and discussion

22

PART III.

FERTILIZER RATIOS

27

Procedure

27

Results and discussion

28

Page
PART IV.

DEPTH OF

PLOWING

45

Procedure

45

Results and discussion

47

SUMMARY

54

BIBLIOGRAPHY

57

LIST OP TABLES
Table
1.

Page
The effect of applied nutrients on soil test
values, percent sucrose and yield of roots
and gross sugar, Rader farm - - - - - - - - - - -

2.

12

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

3.

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

4.

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

5.

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

6.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The effect of one, two and three foliar sprays
Qp
of P^ on specific activity of sugar beet
petioles at two locations, 1 9 5 2 - - - - - - - - -

7.

23

32

The effect of applied P*-'

-2 5

to various portions of

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

26

Table
8.

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

9.

28

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

10.

29

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

11.

30

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

31

Page

Table
12.

The effect of fertilizers on the chemical
composition of sugar beet petioles (four
sampling dates), percent sucrose and yield
of roots and gross sugar per acre on Capac
silt loam, Draher farm, 1 9 5 6 - - - - - - - - - -

13-

32

The effect of fertilizers on the chemical
composition of sugar beet petioles (three
sampling dates), percent sucrose and yield
of roots and gross sugar per acre on Kawkawlin
loam, 0 1Laughlin farm, 1 9 5 6

14.

- - - - - - - - - -

33

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

15*

34

The effect of fertilizers on the chemical
composition of sugar beet petioles (four
sampling dates), on Nester loam, Hauck farm,
1956 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

16.

----

___

35

The effect of fertilizers on the chemical
composition of sugar beet petioles (four
sampling dates) on Capac loam, Draher farm, 1 9 5 6 - 36

Page

Table
17-

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

18.

38

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

19.

- - - -----------

39

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

20.

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

- - - - - - - - - - -

4l

Page

Table
21.

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

22.

47

The effect of depth of plowing on the
chemical composition of sugar beet petioles
(four sampling dates), percent sucrose and
yield of roots and gross sugar per acre on
Sims clay loam, Gremel

2 3 . The effect of depth of

farm, 1956 - - - - - - plowing on sprangling

of sugar beet roots, Kurzer farm,
24. The effect of depth of

50

1956

- - - -

53

plowing on soil

moisture content at various depths,
September 21, 1956, Kurzer farm - - - - - - - -

53

LIST OF PLATES

Plate

1.

Page

Locations of farms included in this study in the
Saginaxtf valley and Thumb area of Michigan - - - - - - - -

7

2.

Equipment used for deep plowing - - - - - - - - - - - - -

45p

3.

None

4.

Sprangly beet roots on land plowed at a conventional
Depth - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

5.

53p

Yields of sprangly and well shaped beet roots from deep
and conventional plowed areas - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

53pa

INTRODUCTION
Yield responses of sugar beets to applications of nitro­
gen, phosphorus, and potassium fertilizers have varied from
several tons per acre to an actual decrease, particularly when
high rates of nitrogen have been applied.

Excess quantities

of nitrogen may also decrease the percent of sucrose in the
roots.
Therefore, fertilization of sugar beets should be con­
cerned with increasing tonnage or increasing percent sucrose
or both.
This paper presents data from studies of some of the var­
iables Involved in fertilization of sugar beets and suggests
practices for more efficient and effective use of fertilizers.

1

REVIEW OP LITERATURE
Wiley (l6*) found that soil variation produced large
differences in yield of sugar beet roots but had little
effect upon the sugar percentage.

Andrlik (2) observed that

heavy applications of nitrogen decreased percent sucrose in
sugar beet roots, heavy applications of manure produced no
injurious effect and addition of potash and phosphorus largely
reduced the injurious effect of applications of up to one
thousand pounds per acre of nitrate of soda.

Lill and Rather

(5 ) reported that heavy applications of phosphate or a com­
bination of phosphate and sodium nitrate profitably increased
sugar beet yields following alfalfa in a rotation, but sodium
nitrate alone did not increase yields.

Roboz (7) found that,

as the quantity of phosphate and potash applied to the soil
increased, the sucrose percentage of beet roots was increased.
However, beets growing on plots receiving insufficient amounts
of phosphate and potash contained a lower content of sugar.
Analysis of the plant tissue of sugar beets by Zitkowski,
Potvliet and Reed (17)> Andrlik and Urban (3)* U. S. D. A.
(14), and Wilfarth and Wimmer (1 5 ) showed that a positive
correlation existed between the phosphorus content and percent
sucrose of the root.

However, as the phosphorus content in

* Numbers in parentheses refer to literature cited.
2

the beet tops decreased the percent sucrose in the roots
increased.

Alexander, et.al. (l) noted a nitrogen - phos­

phorus interaction in the foliar tissue at late sampling
dates.

Schropp and Arenz (8 ) and Andrlik and Urban (3) also

found that sulfur was a major factor in improving percent
sucrose.

A probable explanation is that the sulfur decreased

the non-protein nitrogen content of the plant.
The use of plant and soil analysis for the determination
of optimum nutrient application and utilization has been
studied and reported quite extensively in recent years.
Ulrich (13) correlated sugar beet weight with the concentra­
tion of nutrients in the tops.

His findings indicated that

plants possibly had three levels of nutrition for each
nutrient:

l) an adequacy or luxury concentration at which no

increase in plant growth is found with increasing concentra­
tions, 2 ) level of transition or poverty adjustment, and
3 ) level of starvation at which the nutrient concentrations

are relatively constant but yields differ in accordance with
the nutrients available.
Carlson (4) recognized through soil tests on two soil
types and tissue tests of the tops and roots of sugar beets
that phosphate influenced top and root development.

Skuderna

and Doxtator (10), Tolman (12) and Skuderna (9) found that
results from application of various ratios of fertilizers
3

varied with the location and levels of fertility of the
fields investigated.

Heavy rates of application were found

to he uneconomical.

4

Analytical methods
Soil samples were analyzed for pH, nitrates, phosphorus,
and potassium by either the Spurway reserve or the Spurway
active testing procedures (11).
Green tissue samples consisted of petioles from young,
fully expanded leaves from each of fifteen sugar beet plants.
Samples consisting of ten grams of thinly sliced tissue
taken from the petiole approximately one-third of the distance
from the base to the leaf blades were analyzed.

This material

was added to 100 ml. of distilled water and one-fourth tea­
spoon of activated charcoal and then mascerated in a Waring
Blendor for a period of two minutes.

After passing through

Whatman No. 1 filter paper the filtrate was analyzed directly
for K and Na using a Perkin-Elmer flame photometer.

Phos­

phorus was determined by adding six drops of a standard
ammonium molybdate - hydrochloric acid solution to 10 ml. of
extract, then reducing with three drops of F-S reducing
agent.

The solution was allowed to stand 15 minutes.

A

Goleman colorimeter equipped with a red filter and utilizing
a wave length of 5 6 5 niu was used to determine colorimetrically
the amount of phosphorus in the solution.

Five drops of ten

percent Brucine (alkaloid) in chloroform was added to three
ml. of extract, followed by the addition of six ml. of con­
centrated sulfuric acid (specific gravity 1.84).
5

The solu­

tion was allowed to stand twenty minutes.

A Coleman colori­

meter* equipped with a blue filter and utilizing a wave length
of 420 mu was used to determine colorimetrically the amount
of nitrate in the solution.

Calcium and magnesium were deter­

mined with a Beckman flame photometer.
Yields were taken by weighing the topped roots harvested
from the center two rows of four-row plots.

6

'O
c
cd

>>
<D
cd

>

%
£

bO

cd

CO
CD

si

-P

£

•H

!»
'S
'P
CQ

63

•H
iCj
*P
£
T3
cd

T5
£
iH
O
£

£
cd

bO
*H

FQ

r

* OJ

£

O
*H
-P
cd

o
o
pi

M
CD
-e

cd

<D
£
cd

€
£
,c
e-»

(1 3 )

CQ

Midland

tQ si
S
o
£ •H
o3 s
<£
<£
o
o

-p
o
*H
-P
cd

£

00

cd
.—t
i— i

4

CD
rQ

cd
CQ
H

cd

i—i

P-.

?

o

Legal descriptions of farms and soil types
included in this study

1.

C. Bobit farm - Gratiot county; Bethany township;
T12N, R2W, sec. 26.
Parkhill loam.

2.

C. Charboneau farm - Bay county; Fraser township;
T16N, R4E, sec. 30.
Kawkawlin loam.

3*

H. Draher farm - Sanilac county; Elmer township;
T U N , R13E, sec. 6 .
Capac loam

4.

H. Draher farm - Sanilac county; Moore township;
T12N, R13E, sec. 32.
Capac loam and silt loam.

5-

0. Foret farm - Bay county; Hampton township;
T14N, R 6 E, sec. 27.
Essexville sandy loam.

6.

H. Geiser farm - Bay county; Monitor township;
T14N, R4e , sec. 30.
Sims loam.

7.

H. Gremel farm - Huron county; Sebewaing township;
T15N, R9E, sec. 9*
Sims clay loam and Kawkawlin loam.

8.

R. Hauck farm - Isabella county; Nottawa township;
T15N, R5W, sec. 15.
Nester loam.

9.

A. Kurzer farm - Huron county; Sebewaing township;
T15N, R9E, sec. 32.
Kawkawlin sandy loam and Sims sandy loam.

10.

Meylan and Streffling farm - Bay county; Monitor township;
T14N, R4E, sec. 13.
Kawkawlin loam.
8

11.

P. 0 !Laughlin farm - Bay county; Fraser township;
T16N, R4E, sec. 2 9 .
Kawkawlin loam.

12.

E. Rader farm - Saginaw county; Saginaw township;
T12N, R4E, sec. 34.
Wisner clay loam.

13.

E. Sprenger farm - Midland county; Geneva township;
T15N, R2W, sec. 2.
Kawkawlin loam.

14.

W. Steckert farm - Saginaw county; Saginaw township;
T12N, R4E, sec. 20.
Kawkawlin loam and Brookston loam.

15-

A. Timm farm - Bay county; Portsmouth township;
T13N, R 6 E, sec. 5Whittemore sandy clay loam - Whittemore sandy loam.

16.

R. Wackerle farm - Bay county; Monitor township;
Tl4N, R4E, sec. 10.
Sims clay loam.

17.

W. Wieland farm - Bay county; Monitor township;
Tl4N, R4E, sec. 13.
Sims clay loam and Kawkawlin loam - Bannister sandy
loam smears.

9

PART I.

NUTRIENT LEVELS
Procedure

Soil fixation tests utilizing the Spurway active test­
ing method for NO-^, P, and K were made on Wisner clay loam
(location 1 2 ) in order to estimate the nutrient application
rates for the establishment of field soil levels of 2 5 , 5 0 ,
and 75 p.p.m. of NO^; 5 , 10, and 15 p.p.m. of P; and 1 5 , 30,
and 45 p.p.m. of K.

Treble superphosphate containing 49

percent PgO^ at rates of 2 2 0 8 , 3 6 8 0 , and 5 5 2 0 pounds per acre
and potassium chloride containing 6 0 percent K 2 0 at rates of
1 7 B5 > 3 6 7 5 t and 4725 pounds per acre were broadcast on the

surface of the soil on May 1.

The plots were harrowed twice

with a spring tooth harrow to mix the fertilizer with the
soil.

Ammonium nitrate containing 33*5 percent N was

dressed in bands on the soil surface on July 2 7 thand

side2 9 th

at rates of 0 , 7 5 0 , and 1 5 0 0 pounds per acre.
Sugar beet seed (var. 216X226) was planted May 3rd, but
emergence was slow.

The beets emerged following O . 8 7 inches

of rainfall on May 22nd and 23rd, but beets in the field
adjoining had emerged shortly after planting.

The beets were

blocked and thinned June 15th, and harvested October 21st.
The plots were each 0.01 acre in area and each treatment was
replicated 6 times in a modified latin square design.
10

The soil was sampled by taking eight cores to a depth
of 6 inches from each plot on June 2 9 th, August 2 9 th, and
September 6 th, and analyzed by the Spurway active method
for NO^, P, and K.

11

Results and discussion
Table 1.

The effect of applied nutrients on soil test
values, percent sucrose and yield of roots and
gross sugar, Rader farm.

Desired level
(p.p.m.)
NOo
P
K
3

Tested level
(p.p.m.)*
NOo
P
K

Tons
per
acre
**

Percent
sucrose
**

Pounds
gross
sugar
oer
acre

25

5

15

0

3-1

32

17.1

19.2

6559

25

5

30

0

4.0

67

16.4

1 8 .9

6176

25

5

45

2

3.6

69

14.3

1 8 .7

5330

25

10

15

3

3.4

36

16.4

19.3

6326

25

10

30

1

3.8

51

1 5 .6

1 8 .8

5853

25

10

45

2

3-7

64

13.9

1 8 .9

5246

25

15

15

6

3.4

38

1 5 .6

1 9 .O

5913

25

15

30

1

3.4

49

1 5 .6

1 8 .5

5766

25

15

45

0

3.7

59

14.5

1 8 .5

5357

50

5

15

1

3.8

46

18.4

15.3

5651

50

5

30

1

4.0

60

1 7 .6

1 5 .2

5419

50

5

45

5

3.7

63

17.1

14.8

5054

50

10

15

l

3.6

40

1 8 .6

14 . 9

5539

50

10

30

3

3-6

64

17.1

1 5 .I

5133

50

10

45

1

3.5

64

1 8 .1

15.5

5592

12

Table 1.

(continued)

Desired level
(p.p.m.)
NO 3
P
K

Tested level
(p.p.m.)*
NO 3
P
* K

Tons
per
acre
**

Percent
sucrose
**

Pounds
gross
sugar
per
acre

50

15

15

0

3.7

31

1 7 .8

15.1

5365

50

15

30

9

3-5

60

1 8 .1

1 5 .1

5457

50

15

45

1

3-7

67

1 6 .9

l4.6

4917

75

5

15

31

3.5

34

1 7 .0

14.5

4901

75

5

30

33

3.6

67

1 8 .0

14.1

5044

,75

5

45

28

3.8

51

1 8 .2

14.1

5096

75

10

15

35

3.5

51

1 6 .4

14.3

4662

75

10

30

12

3-6

60

1 5 .6

14.3

4425

75

10

45

103

3-6

68

1 7 .6

14.9

5271

75

15

15

19

3-6

50

1 7 .9

14.5

5167

75

15

30

11

3*7

64

1 6 .3

14.1

4572

75

15

45

33

3*9

54

1 8 .6

1 3 .8

5142

3

3*2

3

Adjacent field
*

Average of two samples.

**

Average of six replications.
Petiole samples were taken August 2 9 th, September 8 th,

and September 11th by removing young, fully expanded petioles
from fifteen plants.
13

of green
on the chemical composition
The effect of applied nutrients
2.
Table

W
i— 1
rH

o o o
00 oocu
-=j- v o v o
t— Cr-— t—

o o o
0J P O O
p v o
m
t— c~— t— *

o o o
p cm vo
vo vo p
p
p
p

o o
o o rH
m o j
vo P

LPvVO P
co oo

P O O P
O O V rH
i— 1
rH

oo onvo
o n o j o\
i— 11— i

rH P O O
vo m v o

CM P-rJvo m v o

t P i—1o
-=j-vo o n

O

o

o o o
oo o vo
-=j- o n o n

o o o
onvo o

o o o
vo o o
onvo vo

o
m
oo
p

o
CM
P
tp

o
m
on
P

o
O
on
t—

o o
H 4
c m -rjEv— P *

o o o
o n p o o
m v o m
p

p

p

U
0
£
B
0
p
ft
0
CO

•
S
•
•
ft

P-t

ft
00
o

s

u
a
5h

<1)
iri
w

-P
rj
0

U
0
5-i

ft
ft
'O
0
0
Ph
xj
-p

o

o

o

O

O

0
2
CQ
CO
ft
ft
0
i— !
O
*H

o
o\
OJ
p

00

0
ft
•V
CO
0
-P
Ctf
TJ

oj

Sh
0
£
B
0
P
ft
0
CO

£
0
0

U
bQ

ft

P
C
0
P
£
o
o
p
c
0
ft
Sh
p

o
o
CO
p

V O -=3" rH
oo o co
i— !

o
o
oo
C—

o
o
oo
C—

o
on
co
P

o o o
on o
o
00 O\00
p

p

p

o

o

o

o
o
co
p

o
o
oo
p

cncncn

o o
CM o
P O O
t*— i p

o o o
C M CM C O
p
p
m
p

p

p

o vo co
P o o c o
i— !

m
p
^ ■ o c o
rH r-H

on on on
^t-ovo
r-H

o n ^ f -aJ"
CM V O P
1— I

on o p
vo co co

o

o

o o o
O^d* O
on cm on

o
P
cm

o o o
oo c o m
i— 1
i— 1

<x
O
S

•H

o
o
VO
p

o
o
on

o

o
OJ
p
[p

o

o
o
on
o­

O

O

o o o
O
o
onvo P
t— t—

o
O
on
o-

-=j- P ft
coco vo
rH

r n o m
O O CT\
i— 1 i— I

vo on p
00 O
rH
<— I i— 1

o

o

o

o o o
^j-OOJ
m e n p
p

p

p

o

o o
O O
onvo

o o
VO P
co p v o
vo P V O

o o o
v o v o on
ov cm m
vo P V O

o o o
CO
-^0
onvo^j-

o o p ^ j-3- o n v o

^
p

-=d- G \ O v
oo p m

o

o o
o m
rH o n P

o o o
VOVO-^o n o n m

o o o
o m m
vo^t P

m

p

p

p

o\
CM
P

CQ

ft

-p

ctf

&0

co
0
i— 1
o
*n
■p
0

•a;
on
o
S

o

o

o

o

o

o

cm

oj

p

m
m

ft
-P
0
0

&

1— 1
i— t 0
W
ft >
O 0-f-Sr*
CQ 1— 1 •

B
• ft
ft
•
ft ft ft
CQ P
-r—
0 P
on
o
Pi P

135 P
0 C
u 0

£

m o
in
r H 0O-=J-

m o m
r-H on.=j-

m o m
i— 1 PO-=3*

m o
m
f t on^t*

m

m

o o o
i— 11— 11— i

m m m
i— 11—
11—
i

m

o o o
i—
11
—
11—
i

m m m
i— 1 1
—
11—
i

o o o
mmm

o o o
mmm

o o o
mmm

m

m

m mm

mmm

mmm

OJ OJ OJ

0J 0J 0J

0J 0J 0J

s

14

m

m

p

o
m
on^-

p

o
m
on^t

rH
i—
I
—>
•
€
•
a
•

a
v—^
0
H
C
Q
CQ
•H
P
0
i—
1
O
-H
i■
>
i"'
0
a

•
OJ
0

i—
1

JO
aj
Eh

0

VO i—
1i—
1
mmoo

i—ico i—
i
v o m is

o o o
o vo 3*
oooom

o _o
_o
-J- 00
-J0J 3* 0J

o o o
ovvo co
00 003*

00

o o o
o o o
o com
VO O 0J
oo moo
OJ CT\VO
N~ D
"—t"— 3 3 3

£
•H

o

00
OJ

i>-

0\

LA

o o o
0J OJvo
vo vo m
c— t—

o
in
VO
in-

in-

OJ 00-3"
movoo

00 rH C^.
3003

3* O INVO00 00

3-

3* oo oo

o o o
mvo vo

o o o
vo mvo
00-3* CO

o o o
3 mvo
0J 3* oo

o

W

o o o
3* VO OJ
3 OJ INvo t--IN-

o o o
0-3* m
OV-3 oo
VONN

o o o
O 0J o
Ov0J CO
VQ 3 3

P-t

VO rHOO
3* oovo

00

3* rH
m 3vo

oo c—o
vo-3* m

OO
o

o o o
O LArH
oo rH m

o o o
vo oj o
VO3- OO

o o o
03* m
VO 0J iH

mo m
rH 0O-3

m om
rH 003*

mo m
<
—
1003*

mmm

o o o
*—
11—
11—
i

mmm
rH rH rH

mmm

mmm

mmm

p -t

a

0

o\
OJ
p
CQ

PS
&0
pS

rH
0
w
•H >
O Q)'—«•
C
Q(—
I •
c
PJ
3
TO p • P~r
0 £ a
£ 0 •
*H *h a
CQ £*■—
OO
0 p
o
Q Pt
!3
£

rH

VO 1313

o o o
vo coo
ovrnoo
VO 3 3

o o o
o o oo

OJ OJvo
inoj o-

CO oo
o
55

-P
£
0
p
£
O
o
p
£
0
*H
£
P
PS
!3

003* m

£
£ a
0
P
a
0
CO oo
o
s

0
0

£
&0

o o o
oj mvo
H 0O S
s s s

£

£
0
P
£
0
P

£

/—
-S
TO
0
PS
£
iH
P
£
o
O
^

w

£■
—D
—t—

In- t—t—

15

o
0
JO!
o
T3
rH
0
•H

P

c
0
o
a
•o
TJ
<c

Yields of roots were taken from each plot and the per­
cent sucrose determined.
Table 3-

Pinal analysis of variance table for 1950.

Source

DF

total

161

674.0

765.9

replicates

5

53-4

3 0 .2

P

2

3.9

4.5

2 .6

1.3

445

10

8 6 .2

8 .6

1 0 .2

1 .0

572

2

13.4

6.7

2 .2

1 .2

10

22.9

2.3

5.9

.6

266

4

1 0 .2

2.5

4.2

l.l

448

rep. x P x K 20

60.4

3.0

1 6 .2

.8

376

N

2

152.9

76.4**

647-9

N x K

4

61.7

1 5 .4 **

1.3

.3

2,059**

rep. x N ]
rep. x Nx K,r 30

6 8 .1

2.3

11.5

.4

414

N x P

4

12.5

3-1

•5

.1

246

N x P x K

8

1 8 .3

2.3

1 .6

.2

308

rep. x N x
j- 6 0
P x K
remainder

105.3

1 .8

31.5

•5

21 5

rep. x P
K
rep. x K
P x K

Yield of roots
Sums of
Mean
squares squares

*

Significant at the 5% level.

**

Significant at the 1$ level.

16

Per cent sucrose
Sums of
Mean
squares square s

324.0**

Gross
sugar
Mean
squares
(x 1 0 0 0 )

1,694*

1 1 ,3 5 8 **

The data in Table 1 show that the desired or predicted
nutrient levels in the soil were not obtained.

The applica­

tions of phosphate showed no significant differences due to
rates, and only a slight increase over the phosphorus found
in the untreated field samples.

Potassium levels were

increased markedly over the untreated field samples.

The

potassium levels obtained, however, were about twice as high
as desired for levels of 15 and 30 p.p.m.

Soil tests for the

45 p.p.m. predicted level were only slightly higher than for
the 30 p.p.m. level.

The nitrate levels indicated by the

soil tests from field samples were lower than the predicted
levels except in one case where levels of 75* 1 0 , and 45
p.p.m. of NO^, P, and K respectively were attempted.

These

differences from the desired levels could be due in part to
insufficient mixing of the phosphorus and potassium carriers
with the soil and subsequent difficulty in obtaining a
representative sample.

The failure to account for all of

the nitrogen added to the soil apparently was due to its
rapid and almost complete uptake by the sugar beet plants as
shown by the green tissue tests in Table 2.
The yield data in Tables 1 and 3 show that the yield of
roots was significantly increased at the one percent level
by the addition of nitrogen, but the highest level of nitro­
gen was no better than the medium.
17

Both percent sucrose and

gross sugar, however, were significantly reduced at the one
percent level by the addition of either the medium or high­
est level of nitrogen.
Phosphorus applications had no effect on yield of roots,
percent sucrose, or gross sugar.
The application of potassium significantly decreased
gross sugar per acre at the 25 p.p.m. and 5 0 p.p.m. levels.
The interaction of nitrogen and potassium was significant at
the one percent level on yield of roots and gross sugar per
acre (Table l).
The data in Table 2 show that the plant tissue was very
high in nitrates throughout the season where nitrogen was
applied at the 50 and 75 p.p.m. rates.

The resulting

increase in top growth observed could account in part for
the failure to find nitrates by the soil test.
No marked differences were found in phosphorus content
of petioles where different amounts of phosphate were applied.
Where nitrogen was applied at levels of 50 and 75 p.p.m., the
phosphorus content was higher in tissue where nitrate was
present than where it was absent.
The potassium content of the tissue samples from the
plots was not materially different from that obtained from
the adjacent field.

However, the tissue sampled from beets

growing on plots receiving 3 0 and 45 p.p.m. levels did not

18

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

19

PART II.

PHOSPHORUS - NITROGEN INTERACTION
AND FOLIAR APPLICATIONS
Procedure

A location having a history of marked crop response to
phosphate was selected on Parkhill loam (location l).

Phos­

phate as 1 8 percent superphosphate was applied at rates of
0, 60, or 120 pounds of P 2 0^ per acre.

Certain plots

received 1 0 weekly or 5 bi-weekly foliar sprays of a satu­
rated water solution of 1 8 percent superphosphate amounting
to 2.8 pounds per acre for each spraying.

Other plots

received two foliar applications of urea at a rate of 1 0
pounds per acre.

Nitrogen was applied to the soil surface

of all plots at the time of blocking and thinning at rates
of 0, 50, or 100 pounds of nitrogen per acre.

All plots

received 6 0 pounds of K 2 0 at the time of planting.
Sugar beet seed was planted May 18, 1951> using the
disease-resistant variety 48333-00.
and thinned June 12th.

The beets were blocked

Green tissue samples of the sugar

beet petioles were taken October 15th and analyzed color!metrically for phosphorus.

The plots were 0.01 acre in size

and the treatments duplicated.

Yields were taken by harvest­

ing the center two rows from each plot on October 18th and
percent sucrose was determined.
20

Radioactive phosphorus,

as PO^ in 0.043 N HC1 at a

concentration of 0 .3 $ of H^POjj, was applied at two locations
as a foliar spray to sugar beets.
was used throughout the test.

The original P^ 2 source

Treatments consisted of 1, 2,

and 3 sprays at two-week intervals with the final spray
applied two weeks before taking green tissue samples on
August 28th.

Each plot was 0.005 acre in area and each

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

21

The

Results and discussion
Table 4.

The effect of applied phosphate and nitrogen on
the phosphorus content of green sugar beet
petioles sampled October 15* 1951 > Bobit farm.
p.p.m. Phosphorus
Pounds N per acre
100
0
50

Pounds P 2 O5
acre
(soil)

Pounds P 2° 5
per acre
(spray)

0

0

0

79

39

87

120

0

0

171

247

165

0

243

200

137

20

238

147

140

120

Pounds
urea
per acre

14
(5 sprays)

120

(2 sprays)

The increase in phosphorus concentration in the green
tissue with applications of phosphorus to the soil is appar­
ent.

The differences shown in Table 4 are in agreement with

the data (Table 2) showing the interaction between nitrogen
and phosphorus concentrations in green tissue in that, when
nitrogen is applied, the concentration of phosphorus in the
green tissue decreases.

The apparent inconsistency in phos­

phorus concentration at the 5 0 pound nitrogen and 1 2 0 pound
P 2 0 5 application might be due to experimental error.
It is doubtful if this inverse nitrogen:phosphorus ratio
is a "dilution" factor attributable to stimulated tissue
growth due to the applied nitrogen.
22

No differences in top

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

Table 5*

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

Pounds
P2 0 5
per acre
(soil)

Pounds
P2 0 5
per acre
(spray)
0

0

Pounds
nitrogen
per acre

Tons roots
per acre*
-

0

50
100
0

60

0

120

120
(5

120

120

14
sprays)

28
(10 sprays)
20 (urea)
(2 sprays)

-

1 7 .6

Pounds
gross
sugar
per acre*
6864
3846

1 9 . 5 (1 )
1 1 .8 **
1 2 .3 **

16.4
15.7

3890

1 6 .5
1 6 .4

18.4
16.6
16.2

5429
5202

0
50
100

16.1

0
50
100

17.3 , ,
18.2 (1)
1 8 . 0 (l)

1 8 .1
1 7 .2

15.9

6229
6260
5724

50

1 5 .I
1 8 .8

17.4
16.3

5223
6129

100

19-3

1 6 .1

6181

0

17.5

1 7 .6

6142
6ll6
7127

0

50

1 8 .2

100

20.4

0

1 6 .4
1 7 .8
1 9 .2

50

100
*
**
(1)

Per cent
sucrose*

average of two replications
poor stand
one plot yield only

23

16.8
17-5
18.2
1 6 .7
I6 . 5

6055

5936
5951

6316

Yield results (Table 5) show a possible interaction of
nitrogen and phosphorus in the yield and sucrose content of
roots.

With the addition of each increment of nitrogen at

the higher rates of phosphate application to the soil, the
yield of roots increased and the percent sucrose decreased.
With the addition of each increment of phosphorus and phos­
phate sprays the yield increased and, with the weekly spray­
ing of phosphate, the percent sucrose apparently was maintained
at levels nearly as high with the application of nitrogen as
without added nitrogen.
This might indicate that, if the phosphorus content of
the plant can be maintained at a high concentration just
prior to harvest, the percent sucrose could be at a high
level even if nitrates were available to the plant.

Prom

the results of Part I this would appear to be best accom­
plished by one or two phosphate sprays applied one to two
weeks prior to harvest.

Further experimental work should

establish the best spray material and time of spraying.

24

Table 6.

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

Pounds P 2 O^
per acre
(spray)

Number
of
sprays

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

1.7

1

3090

955

3.4

2

4708

1809

5.1

3

4479

2566

* average of twelve samples (counts per minute)

In another experiment the

spray was applied to the

plant in three different ways; (l) to one-half of the plant,
(2) to the crown, and (3) to the new growth.

The counts

found in petioles taken from various positions on the plant
are shown in Table 7*

25

Table 7*

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

Position of
tissue sample

new leaves

Region of Application
One-half
of plant
Crown
New growth
Rader Wieland Rader Wieland Rader Wieland
farm
farm
farm
farm
farm
farm
Specific activity (counts per minute)
2145

2040

1430

1324

1490

1331

mature leaves

477

500

455

598

884

471

mature leaves
(sprayed)

2458

1760

The data in Tables 6 and 7 show that phosphorus accumu­
lates in the sugar beet petioles with successive sprayings,
and the amount accumulated is related directly to the amount
applied.

The applied phosphate accumulates in new tissue

regardless of the plant portion to which it is applied.
Therefore, to achieve the highest concentration of phosphate
in the green tissue, the entire plant should be sprayed.

26

PART III.

FERTILIZER RATIOS
Procedure

A number of fields on farms In the Saginaw valley and
Thumb area of Michigan were fertilized at various rates of
phosphate and potash to study such effects on the yield of
roots and chemical composition of the green tissue of sugar
beets.

Soil tests were by the Spurway reserve method (ll).

Duplicate plots in the fields were planted and harvested.
Duplicate green tissue

samples were taken at various times

during the season with

the last sample taken as near to

harvest as practical.

They were analyzed for N, P, K, and

Na.
The results from individual farms together with the soil
tests in the plot area

are shown in Tables 8 through 20.

Penetrometer (6) readings were taken at each location.

27

•
-p
f t rH
<L> OJ
VI

OJ ,

o

o

o

o

Ohi—Ii
—
Ivo

i—I o

m in in m
i— 1 1 —

11—

11—

i

<D
CQ £
CQ O

O
£

cd

to £

<0

•
<D hOOO
£ OJ
CQ <
CQ
•H
-P

PL,

CO t"—.r j- Oh
O OJ 0 O H

i— Ii—I i— I i—1

o

n o

on

cvj

o

OhLj-00-=J-

cd

cu o n

CQ
T3

ft

£
£

£
cd

m -o n o n

D rH C"—
vo c o on

Lj-^ Lj-

O to

P-i £

CQ

£

Q)

vo onvo i
—t
on inoo

•

<D bO
£ on
£
bO

o

in o o
v o o v = jrH
OhCO
rH rH

oj

£
•H
-P
£
0)
£
-P
£
£
ft
O

•

-p
—1
<D OJ
CO

o oj oo o
O O hO hO
OJ i—! i—I OJ

o o o o
OJ VO rH O O
C h in o on
m on

«H O C * - 0
v o o o o o on

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

-P
£
<D
O
£
CD

ft

CD
CQ
O vo in in
•
•
•
£
O o o o
OJ OJ OJ
£
CQ

S

•

•

ft

•
bOCO
£ 0J

5s;

CQ

■P
O
O
£

to

£

oo o
Oh

o o o o
rH c o o n i n
oj v o onoo
o n o n c v i oj

onoo
Oh VO

G\

<D o
£ CV1
O w

in co i n o

in co m o
rH f> - rH

rH V- rH Lj■—

i

0)
£

00 OJ

0
cd

CQ £

*

•

i—11—f

•

oj

i— 1 1 — 1 1 — i

£ CD
O ft
Eh

m o o in

i
—10"—i
—I

i— i

cd

£
<D i n
ft o
gq

Table

lAi t—CO

£
£
o

ft

OJ
p-l

in in o o o
rH rH £—

in in co o
rH rH m -L j-

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

vo vo vo -=t

OJ

28

oj o j

o

in i n co

i
—Ii
—it—
OJ OJ OJ

VQVOVO

Soil tests for pH, pounds P and K per acre: 7.6; 205; 48 and 7-9; 1 3 8 ; 11
respectively for the 0-6 and 12-18 inch samples. The penetrometer pressure
required to insert 0-4 and 0-6 inches was 40 and 60 pounds respectively.

8.

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

Results' and discussion

The effect of fertilizers on the chemical composition of sugar beet
petioles (three sampling dates), percent sucrose and yield of roots

VO
m
ov

oj

cm

I— 1

0
CQ G
CQ o
O cd
G

r— !
CO

bOG

£

g

cd
ft
-P
CD

G
O

ft
*\
s

cd
o

i—
i

n

•
CD b O O O
G GOJ
CQ <q
GQ

G

0
0

CD

G
o
cd
G

••%
OO

o
H

• "X

oo

•
bO

C O O O OJ
Eft !>-VO

TJ
G
cd

o o o
I A H

tr—

-=t-=3*OO

m
m

G

**\
CD
•H

G
O

I
i

•H

CQ

CD
CQ
CQ
w

cd

I
t

•

bO <C

P

>
X

vovo

o o o
ovovi—I
c--vo c**-

i
l

D—

G G OV

G
cd

CD
rH
rH
•H

ft

rH V O C O

0
CQ ft
'O
£
G cd
O bO
ft G
CQ

-P

G
G

•

P

G -P
G ft rH

0 OJ
ft CO

-=t O J LTV

<J\0\0\
i
—Ii
—1i
—I

O

o o o

P
G
0
o
G
0

0
0
O
G
o

ft

GQ

oo

<J\
i
i

i
i

i
i

*n

G

m

OJ OJ
mroivm m
oo

••

G

•

o
cd

£

•
♦
ft
a bOCO
ft G OJ
<C

•

0

ft
G
cd
bO
G

1— I

0

bO

GC O

OMA

CT\ O — t-—

o o o
i— ! i— I C O
co m c—
OJ OJ OJ

■=t covo

Cr\Ovm

o o o
OJ i— ! i— I
rH V O C O
O O O J OJ

G
0
ft

CO
P
0
O G
O O
G cd
CQ

G

G0
O ft
E
H

-=J" C O

•
•
•
OJ i— I i— i
i— 1 i— 1 i—
1

G
cd
ft
03

o

CQ

ft

OQ
CQ

O
G
bO

'O
G
cd

CD O

G OJ
o «
cd
G
0

Table 9*

o o o
o m ov
ovco vo

o o v o is-

ft rH
0 OJ
CO

m
ft o
OJ
CQ ft

o o o
O mo

o o o
o mo

K
ft
o o o
o mo
G
i—
i
i—
i
O
ft

o o o
o o m

o o o
o o m

o o o
o o m

i
—11—i

i— 11— i

CQ
P
0

0
P

O

O
ft

s

in m

m

OJ OJ OJ

m m m
OJ OJ OJ

29

mmm
OJ OJ OJ

H
•H
O
CO

respectively for the 0-6 and 12-18 inch samples. The penetrometer pressure
required to insert 0-4 and 0-7 inches was 40 and 70 pounds respectively.

•

-P

#

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

a,cm
0 cvj
co

10.

o o o

v o VO CVJ

i—11—11—i

CM CM rH

0
CQ
CQ

£
O

o

cd
cn

£

bO £
0

0

b O O

£

£ on
<c

CQ
CQ
•H
P
£
0
0
£
bO

•
b O O
£ rH

ft

ocom
4-o o n

o o o

cd VO iHVO

CM O\C0

COO rH
O rH rH

CQ f t
TJ

£
£
O

£
cd
bO

ft

£
CQ

in oven
i n n -4CM o o o
in ^4 in

O O O

<C

ft

•
P
f t CM
0 CM
CO

o o o
CM CT\00
o in in

rH I S - in

oo oo co

I—II—II
—I

0

0

£ CQ
0
O
o £
£ o

in
cr\-=f
m m m

0

i— 11— 11— i

ft

£
CQ

a\co a\

o x:
o n Eh
rH
••N •
o n IQ
• CD
S - rH

<D
£
o

B
•
b O O

£ on

o^t o
-=ton

cd

o o o
oncn

vo vo
on CM CM

<

£ r-J
<5

o o o

rH O CM
rH O rH

i
—11—11—i

on on on

in on in
vo onvo

LTV c o m

vo onvo

CQ

ft

in
CM

o

CQ ft
£
£
o s

cd

0

inco o

£

cd

CQ

—1rH
£ rH i

£
o
Eh

on

cm

on

0

tQ

inon in
vo onvo

in in on
vo vo on

in in on
vo vo on

vovovo

vovovo

vovovo

TJ

30

CD

x:

ft £

ft

in in on
vo vo on

rH i—I i—I

CQ

0
£
w
*H
T3 CM
£ rH D—1
cd
TD O
CO

cd o

i
—11—ii
—i

£

cd

§ 0 4I
o
ft CD O
^ px: p
£
k
ft £ CD
O CQ
£ ft £
0
•H
ft !S>
m

Ph

CQ

x: 5

£ £
ft

cd
0

£
Cd

cd

xi vo

0 OCM
£
o W

vo

B ^4

CD •rH
CQ

o £
o o

bO O

ft

o

p

o cvj in
cvi s~cn

>5
rH
0)

ft o

O

ft
•
ft

CQ
CQ
0

s- 0) O
p 0
0) Or
B CQ
£ o <D
Oj £ £
-p
0 CQ
vo a T3
on o
i
—i ft
O
***

oo on on
oo avco

P

£
**

CO

£
••X ft >
S•H
• £ P

£
P
£
0
*H
£
P
£
£

0

S- £

-=4

•rH

£
Table

co oo oirvt'-t--

-p

iH O
CD P

>

P
CQ •H
CD P
P
0

O
*H
1
--f
t
£1
•H CQ a*
O 0 0

co

£ £

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

0
£
to
CQ
•H
P
£
<D
0
£
bQ
£

incvjcvjcodmov=fr 1—1co

P
ftCVJ
CD CVJ
CO

0 0 0 0 0

vo m o o

H H rH OJ

oj

cvj

O O H H V O

(
—II
—II
—II
—1

CD
CQ £
to O
O cd
£
bO £

CD

•
b O O
£ CO
C

ra ft
Ph

rH O h o h o h o h
t s - m m m m

cd

0 0 0 0 0
m m m m
in
OH OH OH OH OH

1— 11— 1 1— 11— 11— 1

73
£ £
£ cd

•
b O O
£ rH

OOOOO

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

OJ o o o o
vovo vovovo

£

£
£

P
ftCVJ
CD CVJ
CO

OOOOO

o h ao o
in co
C O IS-OHd* S-

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

O
•
•

ft
•
ft

•
b O O
£ CO

ino 0 0 0

w

CVJ

<a

•
b O O
£ rH
d

OOOOO
o mmmm

C O IS- IS- ts- tsd

OHVO V O V O V O
00 OH OH OH OH

I— 1 I— I I— I I— 1 1— I

co

0
0c o c o

OOOOO

00 o o o o
d* m m m m
d* co co co co

£

0

CD £
PH to

0
ftl
0

VO

0

CD
CQ

CD O
O £

•

vo 0
rH £
£
•■
» tQ
OO to
CO 0
1— 1 £

73
ft £
**\
cd
£
d
* 0
•s
s- P vo
0 m
S

O bO
PH £

P

£

1
—1-d* c O d
d O H d
OH O CO VO
d m-d- d

CQ

£
CL)

p

to
73

CO rH 00 O
• • • •
00 ohcooo
1
— 11
— I1
— 1 rH

£ £ 0
cd P m
0
£
s- 0 m
00 ft CO

*«\ 0 to
CO XI cd
CO Eh £
i—1
CQ
-P
O
O
£

CD
£
O
cd

CQ £
£ CD
O ft
E-i

IftrH CO OH

• • • ■

CO CO CVJ CVJ
rH rH rH rH

•
•
CO CQ
■ 0
ES- rH
••
CD
£
O
cd

to

0
X!
0

£

ft •H

S
cd rH
CQ 1
—I

I
x: O
0

£ £ 73
O •H £
ft
cd
00
—1
W 1

1 00

73 CVJ

,--s.
■0
1
— 11
— 1CO
0 0 OJ

d
-N
-N.(3
O
i— 1 i—
1 co
CVJ 0 0 cvj
W
W W W
--W W W

o
o

00 0 0 0 0
-d0 m m

d-

0 0

OJ

WWW

<D O
£
O wCVJ
cd
£
ft

0

w

73

o
PH

CO o o o o
d*

o

m t n

in

oOJ

C O IS- to- £— S d " I— I I— I 1— I I— I

0
CVJ

W

co o
d-

WWW
o
m

o
m

00 ts-ts-is-sd * i—

11— 11— 11—1

1—11—11—11—1

PH

rH

O D S S S S
-d" 1
—11
— 11— j 1
—1
1—

1
1
—11
—
1
1
—
1

t
£ 1— 1 O
cd
73 r\
PH £ vo
cd 1
CQ
0
73 vo
1 •l
£
£ 0 d
t
0
ft 0 O
X!
*\ p P
£
ft £ 0
O to
£ c£ £
O
•rH
Cm
rH 0
tQ 0 p
p >
CQ •H 73
0 P
0
P O £
0 •H

1
--[ ft £
•H tQ O
CVJ O H O H O H O H
rH C O C O C O C O

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

31

CVJ OH OH OH OH
rH CO CO CO CO

0

0

CO £

0

£

■
Ss
r—I
0
>
•H
P
O
0

ft

to

0

£

rH COLPiOJ
t—-=f POCVJ

o o o o

t>-oo^t cn
t
H00 CTWO

CQ
CQ

<D

£
O
O cd
£
50 £

<D

50 rH

£ on
<D
£

P

vo D"-VOvo
&
Is

m

CQ
*H

o o o o
co^j- cn t—

OVrH-zj- CT\
VO VO

•
5Q-=t
£ rH
<■!

cvicvico t—

o o o o

VO rH VO G\

o o o o

VO CFV D— zj-

CQ ft
TJ
d £
£ cd
O 50
PH £
CQ

ChVO voco
CO 0J (H
c-vo o vo
CO COcoCVJ

iH H4- OJ
[>-00 VOvo

£
CD

<D
£
50
£
•H

•
50
£ 0J
<C

rH C7V OJ VO
VO

4J
£
CD

£
P
£
£

•

P

onvo oncrv
b - CTVl>-

ftOV
0) rH

CO

o o o o

VO L O O V O J

p
£
CD
o
£
CD
tu

CD
CQ
O CVJ O 0 0 c—
£
o oo co ti-oo
£ 1— I I— I I— I I— 1
CQ

CQ
P
O
O
£

CD
£
O iH'.OO.
•
•
<d

CO-3-OMTV
COCVJi
—Ii
—I

O
•

•
5 0 1— 1

• £ cn
O r <*:

POCO OJ t—
OJ CO LOO

o o o o
vo-zt cn oo
vo cooo oo
i—i cvj i—i i—i

ft
50-zJ£ rH

^PcVJ

z=i-o rnoj

ovcrvt>-

i—

11—

11—

11—

i

o o o o

vo O-Zt VO

O i>-V£D l>COCV1 0J CVJ

vo oj r—oo
0\0 CTvC^
i— ! OJ ■— I i— I

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

CD o

£

o

OJ

o o o o

CVJ CO -zj-

oj

o o o o

0JCO-zjrH

OQ £
£ CD
O ft
Eh

o o

*

I—J I—1

*

>—

o o o o
OJ 0 0 -zjrH

Table

12.

£

o ir\
ft o

OJ

CO cu
TD

o o o o

o o o o

o o o o

OO 0 0 oo

CO 00 00 00

00 CO 00 00

CO

o o o o
CVJ OJ OJ cu

o o o o
OJ OJ OJ CVJ

CVJ CVJ CVJ CVJ

32

o o o o

Soil tests for pH, pounds P and K per acre: 7*0; 4l; 99 and 7.5; 15; 39
respectively for the 0-6 and 12-18 inch samples. The penetrometer pressure
required to insert 0-4 and 0-8 inches was 35 and 60 pounds respectively

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

P
ftCTv
CD i— I
CO

The effect of fertilizers on the chemical composition of sugar beet
petioles (three sampling dates), percent sucrose and yield of roots
and gross sugar per acre on Kawkawlin loam, O'Laughlin farm, 195613.
Table

•
-P
ftoo
0 I—1
CO

•

0 bOO
pO P on
C

EO
•H

COHh
onco ft
i—1 i—!

-=3*on ft
Ph t— m oj

ft

c

o o o
co men
00VO-=d*
I
—I

o o o
cd t— ooo
SZi OOOCTi
1
—1

0
co G
to o
o cd
G
bO G
0 1 1 1 ON
CO ft 1 1 I on
•foH C
>-i M
••>
P cd
i—i
o bo
co
ft P

ft

m

ft
g

0
0
G
bO
£

ft

g

•*\ G
• P0

o
ft

0

•
bQO
Pi
—1
*=a;

on.^}-vo
OHVO
i—1i—1

mo o
t— on on
!>-CO 0^

ft

-P
£
0
ft
G
ft •
P ft
£ ftco
0 ft
ft CO
O
•
S•
ft .
• boo
a p on

0
bOO
£i
—1

on moo
CAOJ CO
1
—1I—1

o o o
OJ CAO
oj mtp
OJ H OJ

£
cd

Sh

55

o\

onVO rH
t'— OA-=f
I—1I
—11
—1

w

o o o
OJ OJ o
Henov
OJ OJ OJ

o o o
mcA o\
o o o
onon on

O
cd

m
o
OJ

CL,

O 55
Ph

o mo
m

law

o mo
moj m

Sh

co
P
O 0
O G
Sh O
cd
CO
£ Sh

0
ft

III
1 1 1

o o m
mmcvj
onon on
<—11—fi
—i

onon on
i
—11—11—i

33

ft 0

cd ,£
CO o
jC

G

*H

O 0
ft

EH

o mo
moj m

o o m
mmoj

G o

•H i—i
i

00 o
rH
I 0
OJ G

■0
G i—1 cd
cd
0 «N
f t G Ift
cd 1
CO
o
0 vo
1

K
ft

G
O

ft

o o m
mmoi

0
G
cd

o

ft

oOJ
w

o

to cd
ft
' • 0 £
t>=» i—1
CO

0

o o t-

s
o
G
P
0
G
0

1ft f t o
p 0
vo
vo
£ co
0 O O•p-• • • ,£0
O Sh
o Eh o
G o i—1i
—Io on
on
0 P OJ OJ OJ
• CO
ft 02
■

O

0
G
o
cd
G
0
a
to
HQ

0
Sh
P
CO
10
0 CO
G 0

o
1
0 o
,£
P p
G
Sh
0
O CO

ft

G
ft

>5
ft
O
m 0 P
P
>
00 *H T3
0 P 0

•
rH

0
>

ft

p
p O G o
0 ft 0
i
—i ft P f t
£0 01 CO
on onon o 0 0 0
i
—ii
—11—i CO G G G

•
p
pi>0
CD co
£3
m
CO
♦H •
P bom
£ rH
£
(D
CD
£ •
bO
50
£ £ on
•H <c
P
£
0
•H •
£ p
P poo
0 iH
£ CO

cnoo^j- on
t>-COVO-zt
1
—1 rH rH

O O O O
onvo oj oj
C^C^O OJ
1
—11
—1

on0 cocvi
in 0 0 1
—i
t—11—11—11—1

O O O O
HOnOJH
rH O-tH OJ
a 1—1 1
—11—I

OM>-0 [>OVOVCVIOV
1
—1

O O O O
m«H t>-oo
1
—11
—11—1OJ
rH 1
—1)—IrH

P-I

0 on 0 co
0 vo 0 in
OJ OJ rH

O O O O
CO crwo trm t"-a\o
t—!

cncpiono
[>-00^-00
1—1 1
—11—1

O O O O
rH in 1—1o\
cr\onmi>OJ OJ OJ OJ

0
in £
in 0
0 cd
£
bQ £ is-o ovoo
0 vo VO OJ 0
CO p vo iH on m
TJ
on on on on
£ £
£ cd
O bO
P £
m

P
£
0P
0 *H v o m m
£ £ 00 co co co
0 £
P a

P 0
£ w
0 O t—•oo#CO•rH•
0 £
£ 0 00 t*-[S-CO
—11—11
—1
0 £ 1—II
P-i cm

O •
•p
B• a s
0
P CO
P
•
bom
£ rH

Honoon
O^C^ <J\

O O O O
ononvo vo
VO O OJ rH
moj oj on

,H t>-OJ
000000 in
1
—11—11—11—1

O O O O
OJ OJ VO
.=}■rHOO 0onon oj oj

•
bO
£ on

O iHvoco
O t-CTNCJV
OJ 1
—I1—1

O O O O
OJ-=j-0 OJ
O 1—1OJ 1—1
on

O O O O
ino m
1—11—t

O O O O
mo m
1—1rH

O O O O
mo m
i—11—1

O O O O
O O O O
1
—11—II—11—1

O O O O
O O O O
H i—1rH rH

O O O O
O O O O
H H H H

ininmLO
VOVOVOVO

mm mm
vovovovo

m m m m
vovovovo

0 0
£ CM
0
cd
£ 1/"N
0 li\
P OOJ
CO Pu
£
p
0
P-I

34

03
P 0
O £
O O ^-voo^£ cd • • • *
rH O rH iH
m £ 1
—11—11
—I1—1
£ 0
O P
E-*

Soil tests for pH pounds P and K per acre: 7*3; 193; 267
and 7*2; 151; 79
respectively for the 0-6 and 12-18 inch samples. The penetrometer pressure
required to insert 0-4, 0 -8 , and 0-12 inches was 2 5 , 45, and 55 pounds
respectively.

The effect of fertilizers on the chemical composition of sugar beet
petioles (four sampling dates), percent sucrose and yield of roots
and gross sugar per acre on Kawkawlin loam, Sprenger farm, 1 9 5 6 .
14.
Table

•
p
poo
0 I—1
co

The effect of fertilizers on the chemical composition of sugar beet
petioles (four sampling dates), percent sucrose and yield of roots
and gross sugar per acre on Nester loam, Hauck farm, 1956.
15.
Table

•
p
ftco
0 ft
CO

p
P!3
0
<L> CO
£
to
CO
ft •
P
50 in
£ i— i
£
CD
CD
£
50 •
50
£ £ (ft)
ft C
ft
£
CD
ft
u
-p
£
£

m o o on oj
ct\oj m v o
i— ! i— 1

O O O O
OJ 0O-3 OO
OJ i—Ii
—Io
1—11
—11
—11—I

C— OJ 5-CO
m m f t 00
r— 1

o o o o
OJ 0O3 OJ
O O r—It—1
r—Ji
—1i
—ti
—1

cd

£5

ft

o o o o
ft m 3 -oo
ocoom

vo m o oj
ft O i— I OJ
1— i 1— 1 1— t 1— 1

ft

ft

CO 5— OJ 00
oj o -3-vo
1— 1 1— 1 1— 1

o o o o
ft m oj3
O VD0OOO
1
—1

•
P
ftOO
0 1— I
to

ft ft 00 00
m m m o j
ft ft

o o o o
vo m m v o
i—im i—11—i
OJ OJ OJ OJ

p
ftis0
co

oo
ft

o
•
s
•
ft

ft

oj

0
CQ £
ra O
o cd
£
50£ moj t>-oj
0 ft m 3 ft
CO P on
ft o m
onon-3-on
T)
£ £
£ cd
o 50
Pu £
CO

o o o o
m oj o m
3 o-m^jOJ OJ OJ OJ

o cn oj
moo

p
£ i>>
0p
o
oooj ts-m
£ £ 00 co coco
0 £
put P4

p 0
£ to
0 o vo•m• ft•t—■
O £
£ o mmism
—1■—1r—Ii
—I
0 £ l
P-4 to

W

a
v
50 m
£ ii

m o v = t oj
vo oo m o o
i— 11— i r— 11— i

o o o o
o-ooo co
t— oj oj m
on on oj oj

.
50
£ on
<

ftO^tOO
oo
m m
rH
i— 1 >— E

o o o o
moj 3-co
mo m3
003 oj on

CD o
£ OJ
o W
cd

O O O O
rH OJ VO
OJ ft

o o o o
ft OJVD
OJ ft

O O O O
■—IOJvo
OJ ft

£
CD m
ft o
OJ
CO ft
'O

O O O O
cn oj oj oj
i— 11— 11— 11— i

O O O O
OO OJ OJ OJ
1
—11
—11
—11—I

OO O J OJ

m o o o
on o o o o co

mo o o
on oooo oo

o a

ft

35

co
P 0
o £
o O CO•-3•vo•O•
£ cd
OJ OJ 003
CO £ r—Ji
—1i
—1i
—)
£ 0
o p
Eh

o o o o
OJ
1—t1
—11—11
—1

i
o
0 ra
p 0
to £
•
0
£ £
cr ft
VO 0 0
i
—i £ >
ft
•n 0 P
3 £ O
£ 0
•«\ t
o P
m• to to
0 0
D- £ £
P
10
T3
£ £ rO
cd 0 G
P p
0 o
vo & P
vo O
ft £ m
•■>P0 3
3 £ ro
3 0 £
• P cd
m• 0 •>
.£ m
vo EH on
••
•v
0 *m
£ to OJ
o 0
—l CO
cd i
P cd
£ £ £
0 cd
P CO to
0
w -£ -£
o o
TD £ £
£ *H ft
cd
CO OJ
Ph i
—!ft
1 1
to OJ o
i
—
TJ 1
G
ra
p rO £
O £ cd
P cd
vo 00
w 1 i
P o o
£ 0 •v
O -£ 3
p 1
o
CO £
p o p
CO <n £
0
0
P

ft

i— 1 0
*H >
m o o o o •H
on oooo on CO P

ra
£
ft
o
p

p
(D
•
0
o
vo
in
Sh
ccJ i— i
bO
P
g
CO
<4H cd
o <M
p
o
•H
P
•H
CO
O

Sh
0
p
cd
Sh
«
•s

&
g

g
cd
o
i— i

o

o
rH
cd
o

o
cd
Pi
cd
t
CD o
-P
O
P
o

0
.p
p

0
P
CO
CO
*H
P
P
0
0
Sh
bO
P
•H
P
P
0
*H
Sh
P
P
P

•
P
a cn
0 1— 1
CO

CT\

rH

rH

V O 0 0 t—

S

ocooo oj
smm s

•
bfl rH
P m
S

PO t"— t r~H cncvi SOJ
OJ SCO s OOOO rH S
I—i

-=tsvo m

vo i
—1Lf\crv

iH cvih- m
sooco s

VO rH O O

^4- isco in

CJMSO O

(U
bO n f
P tH
<*;

•
bO
P OJ
<C

•
P
a cn
0 i— 1
CO

oo [>-00 oo

ts^t- S V O
VO 0 0 0 0 o

SOHCV!
rH OJ VO O

o co in in
oj onvo o

CO o o o o
in coco

-=t o on in

I
—I

I—I

i—i

OJ t i—IOJ
i—11—11—i

nr- o

o m s

ensvo

<n
o
✓-- V

CO
0
p
cd
CO T3
Sh
O
bO
N
P
*H •H
rH rH
•H Pi
P
g
S-l cd
0
CO
p
o

Oh
O

•
g
•
Pi
•
Pi

U

V __
P
O
CO
O
<*H 0
rH
<H
CD o
*H
CD P
0
P
EH Pi

4 H O

*
bO nfP i— i

VO -=t 04 VO
<H

vo s v o v o

VO CO OJ S
cn O M n n

o o -=j- in

bO
P OJ
c

P
O
CiH

0

U
O

is-co s o

•
bO i— 1
P m

o
OJ

in m o o in

0 CVI4 - 0
OJ O M S I S

s h on^t- vom-vonr-

rH OJ

cd

iH S O N S

H

men
i—i

i— i i— 11— 11— t

s m o in
on i s m o j

0\04* OJ
i—11—11—i

mncvjcvi

t s m o in
on ts in oj
rH cvi

s t n o in
m s m o j

i—tOJ

U

0
VO

<D

i
—I
P
cd

Eh

Pi
CO

O

LTV

OOJ
CM

in in in in

S SSS

oooo

CO 0000(0

in

OJ OJ OJ OJ
OJ OJ OJ OJ

on on on on
VOVOVOVO

VOVOVOVO

i—

vo vovovo

in in m
i

Lnininin
11—

1 1 — 11—

36

mmmm

•
bOi
—I
P CO
«=C

O O O O
bO COO CM rH
S COCO CO CO

•
bOi
—1
P co
<c

o o o o
o o o o
o vornvo in VO LftVOVO

0 •
P -p
C
O ftON
CO 0 i-1
•H CQ
-P
p .
0 bO•—I
0 P CO
P
bC
P •
•H bO^J*
]-> <PZ i—1
P
0
•H •
P bO
-P p OJ
P <u
p
<+H •
o
tCJ'*
• f
0 rH
C
Q
s

f•
t •

Table 16.

(continued)

—1
ft bOi
^ CO
C

o o o o
-=d"CM Is-CM
co incm i—i
rH i
—!i—1i
—I

o o o o
OOOO CM CM
coco-^j--3—1i
—1i
—1rH
cd i
P5
o o o o
OM—1o i
—1
OSCM CO o
H H H

O O O O
CM00 CM ISin CM CO rH
1
—11—11
—I1—1

O O O O
vo^r o\o
CM _zj-CM
i—1i—1i—1i—1

o o o o
0\VO in rH
tr-is-s-co

O O O O
rH inCOrH
O IS-VD s1—I

o o o o
ts-in^t cm
novo cm in
-=j-co in-=t

o o o o
o o o o
ts-covo o
O COCO:=t
rH in is-IS- cm ij- in
:
=tCOCM
-=}*

oo o o
vooo in co
cscm in in
co^j-^t-^t*

o o o o
o o o o
vo O C^CTN covo on cm
mcM-3-vo S 0 0 4
CO^t^f-^t COCO-^f-.=t

o o o o
O O O O
O VO CMVO co ts-o o
COO CM rH a\CM CO OS
rH i
—1i—Ii—I
i
—1rH

o o o o
O O O O
t"—i—IS— OS VO COO SC
M inCM00
ts--=t in
CO
H-.=tJ=t^t •=3-

m
OJ

o o o o
O'*rHVO VD
Sen
co^d*-=t-=t

s-uno in
co is-incm
rH CM

NLQO m
cois-incm
i
—ICM

s t n o in
co t— in cm
rH CM

inin in in
t— t— t t
—

O O O O
ininin in
in in in in CM CM CM CM
i—11— 11— 11— i CM CM CM CM

pui

<T3
pj
o ts:
Pm

o o o o
in in in ts-

o o o o
ts-^t- CO Iso .3-inin
CM i—1i—1i
—|

•
bO
3 OJ
<q

o

o o o o
O'*CM-=3*co
cm co no co

o o o o
vocooMn
mcM m^f
i
—11—11—11—i

o oo o
o o o o
VQCO CM CO -=t CM rHCO
COVO VO COO IS-CM
COit -=t-=t j=j-_=t in

o
cd

ft

cd

•
bp-=t
P «-H
<

0 o
p OJ
p
0

o o o o
co CT\coin
CO CM COCO

cocom co

VOVO VOVO

COCOcoco

vovovovo

37

CO CO CO CO
vovovovo

0
in Sh
O'* P ■
w
CQ >>
CM 0 rH
CO Sh 0
* ft •>
rH
rH• P p
0 o
-P 0
0 ft
£ CQ
13 o 0
£ Sh P
cd ■P
0 CQ
P 13
O n 0 r~j
vo ft P
rH
O
0 ft
£1
o
-=3r
CM
vo
•n • 13
s- CQ P
• 0 cd
vo i—1
in
•• &
£ CO
0 cd
p CQ CQ
o
cd
cd .P
&
r\
O
P P CQ
0 tH 0
ft
.P
co O
rH P
1 •H
13 CM
P rH 00
1
cd
ID o
CM P
cd 13
m
P
13 vo1 cd
P
t
P o ■=i
o
ft 0 o
.P
-P -p
K
p
p 0
ft
o CQ
Sh Cm P
O
*»H
<P
r—1 O
CQ
0 ■P
-P
>
CQ •H 13
0 -P 0
-P O P
0 •H
rH ft P
•H CQ a*
o 0 0
CQ Sh P

•
0 &OO
£ £ cn
CQ <*:
CQ
*1H^
£
0 •
0 600
Sh £ rH
60 *=33

o o o
CT\ i— 1
cr\ i—( Ln

00 CT\VO

cv=t vo

I
—1

00 O-rH
PM

i— I i— I i— t

Cd

O
Jo o
rHb- in
rH n o

OJ OJ^tE— V O CT\

0
tQ g
CQ 0
0 td

g

I II
I II

60 Sh
0
CQ O
h
T3
£
£

Sh
td

0 60

PM

£
CQ

o o o

VO I—IrH
O rH
I—IrH

G

•H
-P
£
0
Sh
-P •
£ -P
£ ftoo
0 rH
Oh CQ
O
•
£
si •
• 600
ft £ cn
<5

h OO

O rH

C
DO
g OJ
o

cd

W

rH VO^h
-=t CT\CO

i
—1

o o\ o

oo

O
J t"~
—
i—
I
vo

o o o

rH i—Ii—I

covo
■

•

*

rH O O
OJ 0J OJ

o o o
OC
Oo
C
OOM
M
OJ OJ c o

CQ
-P 0
O
Sh
O
O
G
cd

o o o

CQ
£
O
Eh

cvi
OJ o o o o

V O rH V O

o

^-vo n
t—o in
i
—ICO i
—I

OvOJ

oo vooo

-P 0
£ CQ
0 O
O Sh
G O
0 £
Pm CQ

VO rH VO

oo vooo

£
0
ft

vo

rH v o

00 v o c o

I—II
—II—I

Table

17.

G

C
D in
ft o
CVJ
ra CM

vo

VO rH

oo covo

1— II— II— I

VOVO

rH

coco vo
I—1I—II—I

t— 1—

38

vo

VO rH

oo oovo

1>—t—
-Cj--=t

Soil tests for pH, pounds P and K per acre: 7*4; J6; 71 and 7*7; 7; 39 respec­
tively for the 0-6 and 12-18 inch samples. The penetrometer pressure required
to insert 0-4, 0 -6 , and 0-8 inches was 40, 55* and 65 pounds respectively.

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

•
■p
ftOO
01
—I
CQ

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

-p
ftoj
0 CVI
CO
•
bOO
P on
<D
P
CQ
CQ
-P
G
0
0
G
bO
G

18.

O rH CO

i—ioo^t

o
OJ o
O-o
o

OiHCO

oj

oj

m

cd

CQ
CQ

0
G
0

O cd
G

bO G m cr\vo
J^lCD 00 O
CQ ft OV CT\ r
H
P
-=j*-=j-m
C G
P cd
O bO
P-i P
CQ

•

bOO
P rH
«=S

r—It—
P 0J

£>-OM^c^ovc^

onco lt\
vo coo
i—Ii
—!

•H

40
G
CD
*H
G •
-P -P
P PHOl
G CD OJ

o o o
OJ-3-jzJO i
—Ii
—I

b O O

P i-J

<c

p OJ

CQ
CQ
CD

-P
CD

Q \

CD
f t

m
G
CD
O

co oj m
oot—oo
i—

11— i

O O O
moj o\

oj m-^r

CD
CQ
O

* *\

i— ! OJ i— I

G
G O odd
J OJ
CD P OJ O
Oh CQ

G

co

g
Eh
•

m

.

CQ
CD

1—1

i
n^j- o
moj

o oj vo
o oo ov
OJ

i—

I i— I

oo o

o - c o OJ
o j v o on
on on on

o o o
i
—1i—I
CF>rHJCf
oj

co cr\ov

on on

o o o
l>-OJ o innco

CQ
-P
O
O

CD

0

M

G
0

ft

CQ
p

0

Oh

0

m

OJ

0h

O
vo
p
G

cd

OJ 00

OJ
—

G cd
p
OJ OJ OJ
Oh G
CQ G
I—II
—11—I
cd
CQ
G CD
O
vo
ft
P
1
E
S 0
O
ft CD

o o o

CO-=J-0O

oo o
CO-d*co

o o o
CO 00

o o o
OJ O J OJ

oo o

COCO-=t

oo o
OJ OJ OJ
39

0
p
G

cd

h

o o o
CO-=J-co

cd
CD

O

1 ♦iH
G 1 1 vo
1
cd

P

-P

G

§

CD

G

O
0J

CQ
P

O
•• &
s
cd
G CQ CQ
O
cd
cd G £
0
G G CQ
CD •rH
0
ft
G
00 0
W 1—I G

o n o j j=t

on on on

CD

CD
f t
CQ

s
0
CD
G G

cd

i
— IO CF\

rH rH

>3

rH
a\
vo G CD
1— 1 ft >
•rH
**
“
S G P>
CD
O
m•
p
G

o o o
m m vo

-P

CO VQ-=t
i— i tr—

*^

-P
CD

Cm

O
•
B• bOO
P on
ft
si

CD

vo G
rH
P

CD

CO

G

Table

o oo
oj com
i
—11—11—i

o m t w o

vo onm

o o o

0O C O 4 -

o o o
CVIOJ OJ

O h

G
O

-3 -

1
O
■P

G

0
CQ

G <M G
•H
O
ci-H >s
1—1 O
CQ CD
-P
-P
>
IQ
CD
-P
rH
•H
O
CO

•H
-P

P
0

O G
•H
CD
f t
P

CQ
CD

0

G G

Table

19.

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

•

p
ftco
CD rH
CO

00 O V C T i
rH on !>I—1rH

o
o
CM o n
CM C M
i— 1 rH

o
rH
on

0
CQ P
CQ o
O cd

t— 1

U
bO P

00 rH o

0

CD

o
O 0J o
ovcm

bOO
p on
<c

P

o

o

N O O

cd

H CM c n
1— 1 1— 1 1— 1

ft

CQ
ra

•

*H bOO
-P p rH
<11

OV i—
LT\i—1
i—1

P

P

bO rH t—
P OJ
n>

ononco
O'iOVO
i
—i

o o
o n o
o o
i— 11— i

•
P

fto o
CD rH
CO

o vo o
C7\
1—1

o
o o
vo m o o
t > - 0 0 IVCM CM CM

0
CQ
<D O
O p
P O
0 P
ft CQ

o

co oo

• •
Ch CT\ O V
•

i— I i— 1 i— 1

ft

T

•
bO O
P

<c

on

oooch
oooo
rH

o
rH
VO
CM

o o
CT\iH
COvOO
C M CM

P

CM I V - O
O C T \0
•H rH CM

<=C

l>i

rH t—
p CM

o vovo
o o \o \
CM rH rH

*“3

O
vo
tvCM

o
m
m v
CM

O
o
IVCM

O
m
VCM

o o
o-vo
o o
CM o n

0
P

o

o
cm

CM
♦
IV-

P

p

0

cd

ft

w
CQ
4J5 0
O P
O O
SH cd
CQ p
P 0
O ft
Eh

mon^j*
* • •
m m m
i— 11— 11— i

T5
P
cd

ft

P
jp

p
•H

ra

CM V O CM
tv- o n tv—

P

i
0

o

•» p
K
ft p

p

o
P

in
ft o
CM
cq
ft

i— 1

0000 00

■
—Ii
—Ii
—I

*H
co o o o o
i— i i— 1 1— i

40

oooooo
I— 1 r H i— 1

oo
i
o

vo
1
o

ft

O
CO

p
0
CQ

P
•

•H
>s

rH
CM CM v o
C'-b-on

i— 1
i— 1
1
o

T3
cd

CQ
P
CQ
0
P

OJ C M V O
tv- tv- o n

•rH

00
i— 1
1 TO
CM
P
i— I cd

CQ

ft

10-0-00

o
on

• CQ
CQ
cd
£
0
i— 1
ft CQ
0
g
cd X!
CQ
o

O

CM CM VO

m

o
P
0
ft

cd
0

ft

0
o
g vo
O
£h ro

EH

t>-

P
o

CM V O CM
tv- o n t v -

0

CM

ft

OJ V O C M
V - O O t—

p
O

0

O
cd

ft
•
bO O
rH

P

on
o
rH

•+
0

o
•
e
•

TJ

-=j0
•N
•«\ X3

P

p

CQ

P

P

P

•H

CQ
CQ
0

ft

P
cd
o
.=t
on
i— i

p
(D

P

••s

p
P

tl P

rH O O
1— 1 1— 1 1— 1

P

p

0

tv—
m
<— i

h
o
o o
cm v o o n

•H

p

m
m

T3

CD
CD

p

o

1—i 1—1 1— 1

OMV-OV
CQ ft 00 o o
m v o vo
jH Sh
P cd
O bO
ft P
CQ

0

O
P

>
•H TZJ
P
O
0

ft

0

P
•rH

El

CQ
0

0

P

P

rH
0
>
•H
p

o
0
ft
CQ
0
Sh

£ on

£
0
o
£
0
p

cd

£
•v cd
,— .
CQ
0

-P O
cd

TD 0
W

£
•H
i— 1
p
§
CQ

£

£
o
cd

cn

cn

.
P C M
0 CM
CO

ra
£
cd
in
cn

ui
cd
£

o o o
t>- vo oo
on rH vo
-=j*
on

p

in
in

CQ

0

.0£
£

£
W

o o o
on on rH
tn rH in
-rj"

•

&
0o

£ on
£ <c

vo

1

o

•iH

P
£

-P
£
£
P
£
£

<£
O
B

•

O- C
O rH
C
O VO Mi—
1 i—1 i—1

p
PCM
0 CM
CO

o
O £
£ O
0 £

.
bO O
£ on
<

-=j-

co co
rH rH

oo
rH

P h &Q

£

cd

i
o
-p

u

0
CQ

O
n rH VO
rH -zj" C
M
rH rH rH

£

•rH

O

TD

.
PCM
0 CM
CO

4 on o
C
7\ t"- VO
rH rH rH

0

w o
£

£

•H

CQ
p

0
O£
o o
£

*

£
CQ

t—

-P

p

£
cd

TD
co

p-i

P
«
P

£
0
P

0
CQ

0

•

0

O bO
£
P

co

CQ

0
0

•
£

£ £
£ cd
O hO
P
l, p

£

CQ
CQ
*H

£
i— 1
£

TD

0

TD 0

£
cd O
0
0 -P
CQ CO
o
£ «\
o £
£ cd
CQ o
i— 1
-P

o cd
£
&
0£ rH VO O
0 VO VO OV
CQ P rH c n o

cd

-=3" O -=jco cn oo

CQ £

£ 0
o p
tH

on

«c

&

CD
Sh

CD
Sh

£

CQ
CQ

0
£

CQ
CQ CQ
0
O
i— 1 £
O faO
tH
-P TD
0
£
Pi cd

p

Sh
0
-P
0

E
o

Sh
-P
o
CQ
td

in in m

LA LA LTv
VO O CVI

vo

I—I

o

i
—i

cvi

0

£
Oil

0

0

£
Eh

O
Ph

41

pounds respectively.

-P
£

o o o
on oo cm
rH i—
1C
M
i—
1 i—
1 i—
1

b O O

0

20.

0
•H

CQ £
CQ O

cd

.

0

Table

CQ

-P •
o vo
O in
£ av
rH
<+H
o
s
TD £
i— 1 cd

0

o o o
vo in oo
CM CM 0 —
i—1 i—
1

0

The effect of fertilizers

on the chemical

composition

of sugar beet

.
P
P C M
0 CM
CO

The data shown in Tables 8 through 20 were variable in
respect to soil type, soil tests and fertilizer application
and subsequently no precise correlations could be made.
However, the following general observations were evident.
The data in Tables 8 and 9 show that, on soils very
high in P but low in K, the concentration of N, P, K and Na
in the petiole increased during the growing season.

The

amount of K in the tissue tended to correlate with the amount
of K applied in the fertilizer.

Fertilizers had no apparent

effect on yield of roots or percent sucrose.
The data in Tables 10 and 11 show that on soils very high
in P but medium in K the concentration of K and Na in the
petiole increased during the growing season but the concen­
tration of P in the petiole was variable with respect to date
of sampling and amounts of phosphate and potash applied.

The

very low values obtained on the September 22nd tissue test
for the K 2 SO4 application probably was due to experimental
error.

Fertilizer did not affect yield of roots and percent

sucrose to any appreciable degree.
The data in Tables 12 and 13 show that on soils low in
P and medium in K the concentration of P, K and Na in the
petiole, in general, was directly related to the amounts of
potash applied, but the concentration of K in the tissue
tended to decrease as the season progressed.
42

The yield of

roots was increased by potash application but no effect on
percent sucrose (Table 12) occurred.
The data in Tables 14, 15, 16 and 17 show that on soils
either high in P and K and/or receiving heavy fertilizer
applications the concentration of P and K in the petiole was
not correlated with season or treatment.

However, the data

in Tables 15 and 16 show that Na increased in the petiole
during the season.

The Ca and Mg contents of the petiole

were not affected by fertilization (Table 16).

Data in

Tables 13 and 14 indicate no apparent effect of fertilizer
on yield of roots, percent sucrose or percent purity.
The data in Tables 18 and 19 show that on soils medium
in P and K and receiving moderate fertilizer applications
the concentration of P and K in the petiole was not corre­
lated with season or fertilizer.

However, Na did tend to

increase in the tissue during the season.

Fertilizers had

no significant effect on yield of roots or percent sucrose.
The data in Table 20 show increasing nitrogen applica­
tions had no apparent effect on the concentration of P, K
and Na in the petiole or on yield of roots and percent
sucrose.
No consistent relationship is apparent between nitrogen
concentration in the petiole with the amount of fertilizer
applied to the soil.

Instead, nitrogen concentration in the

43

tissue would appear to be related to possible climatic
factors which,

in turn, would influence nitrogen a v a i l ­

a b i l i t y in the soil.
The data in Tables 8 through 20 show that the only
marked yield response
pot a s s i u m fertilizer.

(Table 12) was due to application of
This occurred when the concentration

of K in the petiole at the later sampling dates was less
than 2200 p.p.m. and the Na concentration below 1000 p.p.m.
The penetrometer data show that those fields with the
h ighest yield of roots had the lowest readings.

This might

indicate that soil compaction is an important deterrent to
h i g h yields of beets.
Yield of roots, percent sucrose and nutrient concen­
tration in the petiole could not be correlated with soil
tests of samples taken at the 12 to 18 inch depth.

44

PART IV.

DEPTH OP PLOWING
Procedure

Two experiments located on a Sims clay loam and a
Kawkawlin-Sims sandy loam complex in Huron county (locations
7 and 9) were initiated in 1 9 5 6 to study the effect of depth
of plowing on growth of beets.
On the Gremel farm (location 7) the depths of plowing
were 1 0 inches using a moldboard type plow and 16 inches
using the disc type plow shown in Plate 2.

A 5-20-20

analysis fertilizer was applied about 1 inch to the side and
2 inches below the seed at a rate of 6 0 0 to 7 0 0 pounds per

acre.
Duplicate 0.24 acre plots were planted on April 17th
using US 400 variety.

The plots were harvested October l8 th

and yield of roots per acre, percent sucrose and percent
purity determined.
Green tissue samples were taken from each plot at
various dates during the season and the chemical composition
determined.

Penetrometer readings were made at different

depths on August 13th and September 7th.
On the Kurzer farm (location 9) the depths of plowing
were 7 inches using a moldboard type plow and 1 6 inches
using the disc plow.

A 5-20-20 analysis fertilizer was used.

45

Plate 2.

Equipment used for deep plowin,

45p

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

time; and 7 0 0 pounds per acre plowed under with 7 0 0 pounds
per acre 1 inch to the side and 2 inches below the seed at
planting time.
Three replications of each treatment were planted to
sugar beets May 25th using US 400 variety and 0.005 acres
of each were harvested October 18th and yield of roots per
acre, percent of sprangly roots, percent sucrose, and percent
purity determined.
Green tissue samples were taken at various dates during
the season and the chemical composition determined.

Pene­

trometer readings were made at different depths on September
7th.

Duplicate soil moisture determinations were made at

various depths on September 21st.

46

Results and discussion

•

P

O 1— 1
0 OJ

CD 1— 1
CQ
O >a
-P ft cd
•H O 1— 1
03 0 O
O ra
ra
Or
G
O

CD
O

i— !

ft

cd CD
0
Or
•H
s
CD <■— «,
.£ ra
0
CD
p
CD cd
Si 0
-P

S

CD
O

*H
CQ

ra
ra

O

O

•H

p

CD
Sh
O
cd
Sh
CD
Or

ra

-P CD
Or rH p
CD 0 0
*H 0
Sh
p
<H CD
O Or Cm
O
-P P
O CD rO
CD CD 1— 1
CD
O
*H
Cm
CD Sh
cd
CD 50 O

O

Si

EH

OJ
0

i—I
.jQ
cd

Eh

0

ra

•

O rH

O

O

in co
cn cr\

cd
S

Ph

50CO

rH

IS- cvi
CO
OJ r—1

Or £
ra
0

O

0

C \ rH

vo 00

G

cn cn
1
—I 0"v
1
—1

0

0

vo Pj00 00

P
£
0P

O *H
ft ft

0 P

•H

50 O

s i ra

<c

CD
CD •
Sh
50 50
£ OJ
G <c

CO

00

PH O,

P

O cd
0 •H hO
1— 1 0
50 Or ra
O
•H cu ra
> ra ra
0
O
1— 1 Sh
O
Or O 50
O
<H Cm rO
O '— * O
cd

0

Pi* Pjpf- 51
—I 1
—1

2 OJ

rH

OJ ,=jOJ CO

Cn

0
ra 0
0 td
ft
50 Sh V O
0 OJ
ra a ON
to
T5
£ ft
£ td
0 50

ra ft

84

O

0

#

5000

O

G
0

*H
Sh

•

P p

G Or rH
G 0 OJ
CO
Cm

rH

CO

rH

rH

00 vo

pj- ISPi- 00
Pf- CO

0

0

OJ 00
CO cn
1
—I 1—1

0
0

0
m

O

»

vo
in
cn
iH
e

Sh
cd
<M

rH
CD
fi
CD
0 Sh
cd O

s• 5000
£ OJ
Or C

P
£
0
0
ft
0

0
ra
0 pjft
0 G\

£
Ph ra

19.4

-p

0

rH
rH

CO

O

cn co
CO CO
fcG

Or

•
50CO
0 rH
<C
50
£ OJ
«=C

vo
a\

0 0
St =*■
00
00
CO CO

is- m
00 00

0 0
cn 0
00 CVI
00 pj-

VO

VO O

O

0

CVI

rH

ra
p 0
0 ft
O 0
ft cd
00
ra ft i
—I
G 0
0 a
Eh

18.3

e

vo 00

5964

•s
S
cd
0

<H
O

O bOW

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

rH

O

i—1

rH

47

rH

VO O

Table 21.

continued.

Soil tests for pH, pounds P and K per acre when plowed
1 6 inches deep: 7 -0 ; 1 2 1 ; 142

and 7 *3 ; 9 3 ; 75 respectively

for the 0 - 7 and 8 - 1 5 inch samples; and when plowed 1 0 inches
deep: 7 *5 ; 3 7 ; 35
and 12-18 inch

and

samples.

7 *7 ;6 6 ; 13 respectively for the

0 -6

The penetrometer pressure recorded

August 13th required to insert 0-4, 0-8, and 0-12 inches was
3 5 * 5 0 , and 5 0 respectively when plowed 1 6 inches deep; for

the same depth

of insertion, 2 5 , 35 > and 40 respectively

when plowed 10

inches deep. The penetrometer pressure

recorded September 7th required to insert 0-4 and 0-8 inches
was 3 5 and 6 0 respectively when plowed 16 inches deep; and,
for the same depths of insertion, 35 and 5 0 respectively
when plowed to 1 0 inches.

48

The data

in Table21 show that, on a Sims clay loam,

medium to low

in P and K, the concentration of K in the

tissue at the

last two sampling dates was higher where the

soil had been

deepplowed.

Sodium concentration in the

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

49

Table

22.

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

•

-P
Pi 1— 1
CD CVI
00

cvivo co v o
co t— o 0 0
1—

•

!

oooo

D— V O « H D—
CVI 1
— 11
—11
—)
1
—11
—11
— 11
—1

5000
P CVI

P
p

OOOO

0 5 V O CVJ CVI
CVJ 0 O
CVJ
1— 1 1— 1 1— 1 1
—1

r = j* d— c o l a

VO VO E— 1>—

<c
03

0
ra
•H
.p
P
P
<D

£5

Ph
•

t — 0 5 - ^ j - D—
C O CVJ CVI r H
1
— t 1— 1 1
— 11
—1

5Q CO
P iH
<

50
•

P
♦H

LA LA CO LA
CVJ D— i f D—
CVJ CVJ CVI CVJ

50
P CVJ

OOOO

O OJ vo LA
CVJ
r— 1

oooo
O

P
•
C O LA L A O
0 5 VO 0 5 O
H H H C V I

-p
P H
CD CVI
CO

o
o
o oLTv
O
CVI

vovo ovco

iA0O-=3--=J-

O

•

.

&•
Pr

V O C O LAt—
1
— 10 0 V O 1
—1
I— 1 1— 1 1— 1 1— 1

5000
p CVI

c

si

0 0 0 0

-H* CJ5VOVO

h ovt-m
iAeoco-=t

52:

•
5 0 CO
P rH

0 0 o^tO VO O 0 5
CVJ r H

CVJ

<

-p
P
P -P
0 *H
P P
P P
P P

D 1— I 05 D*—
0 5 0 0 VO D—
LA-=t CO D —
si

- J

J

— si

vo co 1—11—1
CVJ L A O l a
V O CO rH VO

CO CVI COCO

■H- V O C O LA
0 0 0 0 co co

0 0

O

O O O O

D— C O - z j;

00CO00CO

D— D— L A

^j* ro c o c o

-P
O
•H
P
-P
P
P

p
ra Sh
ra 0
0 cd
Sh
50 p
p
ra p
td
c p
P cd
0 50
p p
ra

-P
P
P
0
P
P
P

P
ra
0
P
0
P
ra

ra
■P p
0 P
0 0
P cd
ra P
P P
0 a
Eh

rH-=J- O

oooo

o

o

0 0 0

CVI CVI CVI CVI

CVJ CVI CVI rH

VO 0 5 1—I O

COCVI.it rH

CO CVJ CVJ j j -

0 0 0 CAcvi

I
—II
—II—II—I

0 0 0 0

O 0 5 0 0 D—
CVI D— L A L A
VO-=jLA

p
p

^v
p
p
TD

•

00 0 0 0 vo

50
2 CVI

0 5 0
0 5 0 5
r H CVI ■— 1 1
—1

*=£

ra O
' D CVJ

1

3
O

O
CVI

P
Sh
O

cd
Sh

oooo

§

CO CVI CO^JD— 0 5 rH 0 5
LA-H~ L A LA

TD

P
£
O
1—1

- = j- C— 1 > - ^ *
rH
iH

oooo
oooo
-=t1>—
1—!
1—I

oooo
oooo
-rH
=3-D— t—-rH
=3"

VO VO

VO VO D— D—

v o v o D— C—

o o o o
o o o o

TD

P
£
O
1—1
Or
a
'— ■
---O O O O
0
0
c—
D—

P
Oh
LA P h
1

<H

ra

50
P
P
X l *H X !
-P
£ O
P i O
P
CD r H * H
P — ^
Q
O

1
— 11
—1

D— D—

rH

rH

50

vo vo c—d—
1— I rH

Table 22.

continued.

Soil tests for pH, pounds P and K per acre when plowed
1 6 inches deep: 7-3; 84;

88

and

7-2; 7 2 ;93 respectively

for the 0-7 and 8 - 1 5 inch samples; and, when plowed 7 inches
deep: 7*9; 66; 79

and

7*9; 1 9 9 ; 39 respectively for the

0-6 and 12-18 inch samples.

The penetrometer pressure

required to insert 0-4, 0-7* 10-14 and 1 0 - 1 7 inches was 40,
7 0 , 40 and 6 5 respectively when plowed to 1 6 inches deep;

and, for the same depths

of insertion, 40, 7 0 , 40 and 7 0

respectively when plowed

to7 inches deep.

91

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

Sodium concentration in the tissue

increased during the season.
Fertilizer markedly increased yield of roots.

Where

1400 pounds per acre was applied the highest yield of roots
with an average of 13*8 ton per acre was obtained.

Where

7 0 0 pounds per acre was applied at planting time, the average

yield of roots was 12 . 5 tons per acre.

In this experiment,

700 pounds per acre of fertilizer plowed -under to a depth of
7 inches was apparently nearly as effective as the applica­
tion of 7 0 0 pounds per acre in a band 1 inch to the side and
2 inches below the seed.
Where plowed to a depth of 16 inches, yield of roots
was reduced compared with areas plowed to a depth of 7 inches
by 1.2 ton per acre where no fertilizer was applied and by
1.8 ton per acre where 700 pounds of fertilizer was plowed
under but none applied at planting time.
Where the soil was plowed 16 inches deep, soil test
results show a decrease in pH at both depths of sampling.

52

Table 23,

The effect of depth of plowing on sprangling in
sugar beet roots, Kurzer farm, 1956.

Depth of plowing

Percent sprangly beets

1 6 inches

13

7 inches

39

The data shown in Table 23 indicate that the percent
of sprangly roots as shown in Plate 4 from conventional
plowing was greater than those from deep plowing.

This

difference is indicated by the piles of roots from some
typical plots on the Kurzer farm (Plate 5)Table 24.

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

Depth of plowing
1 6 inches

7 inches

Depth of sample

Percent moisture

4 inches
9-12 inches
1 5 - 1 8 inches

10.5
10.0

4 inches
9-12 inches
1 5 - 1 8 inches

10.0

9-3

8 .7
8 .1

The data in Table 24 indicate that deep plowing may have
increased moisture retention but no yield difference could be
shown.
53

Plate 4,

Sprangly beet roots on land plowed at a conventional depth,

53p

■- “W
- > > - r
.-'•w;. ;.W.

.

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

53 pa

SUMMARY

Treatments of 0 , 750, and 1 5 0 0 pounds per acre of
ammonium nitrate; 2 2 0 8 , 3 6 8 0 and 5 5 2 0 pounds per acre of 49
percent treble superphosphate; and 1 7 8 5 , 3 6 7 5 , and 4725
pounds per acre of 60 percent nuriate of potash did not
establish field levels of these nutrients corresponding to
laboratory fixation tests of the soil.

Soil nitrate levels

were increased by the heaviest application of ammonium
nitrate but phosphorus levels were not affected by phos­
phorus applications.

Soil potassium was increased by

potassium applications to levels higher than desired but
application of the heaviest amount resulted in no higher
level than the medium application.
Nitrates in the petioles from areas receiving the two
higher nitrogen applications were increased markedly but
phosphorus was decreased.
The yield of roots was significantly increased by the
addition of nitrogen but percent sucrose was decreased.

The

interaction of nitrogen and potassium was significant, in
that, at the lowest nitrogen level, the addition of potassium
reduced yield of roots but with the higher amounts of nitro­
gen applied yield of roots was not reduced.

54

The lack of agreement of soil test values reached in the
laboratory and the field together with lack of correlation of
chemical composition to nutrient levels in the soil was p r o b ­
a b l y due to the nutrient supplying and fixing power of the
soil,

the physical condition of the soil and/or weather c o n ­

ditions .
The application of phosphorus to a soil low in phosphorus
or as a foliar spray increased the phosphorus concentration of
the tissue.

Nitrogen applications resulted in a decrease in

the phosphorus concentration of the tissue.

Foliar sprays of

phosphorus tended to increase the concentration of phosphorus
in the

tissue in proportion to the amount applied but did not

appear

toappreciably influence the yield of roots or percent

sucrose.
Where various ratios of fertilizer were applied, precise
correlations could not be made due to variability with respect
to soil type,
However,

soil tests, and fertilizer amounts and ratios.

the following general trends are suggested.

On soils

medium

or low in potassium the concentration of potassium and

sodium

in the petiole increased during the growing season and

usually increased with increasing amounts of applied potassium
fertilizer.

On soils low in phosphorus the concentration of

phosphorus in the tissue increased with increasing amounts of
applied potassium fertilizer.

55

The differences between yield of roots from areas where
various fertilizer ratios were applied were small except in
one case.

In this case where the soil was low in phosphorus

and low to me d i u m in potassium,

increasing the amount of K 20

applied from 0 to 80 pounds per acre resulted in an increased
yield of roots of about 46 percent.

This would indicate that

an x-2-1 ratio of fertilizer is probably adequate for these
soils.
The effect of date of sampling on chemical composition
of the petiole varied with location and would fall into four
categories;
and

(l) no distinct trend,

(2) increase,

(3) decrease,

(4) highest concentration at intermediate dates.
Soil penetrometer data indicate that soil compaction is

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

56

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.

Alexander* J. T.* et.al. The effect of fertilizer
applications on leaf analysis and yield of sugar
beets. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 2:370-379*

1954.

2.

Andrlik* K.
sugar beet.
1907.

The Injurious effect of nitrogen in the
Ztschr. Zukerindus. Bohem. 31:277-284*

3*

Andrlik* K. and J. Urban. The effect of defoliating
sugar beets. Ztschr. Zukerindus. Bohmen. 31:708-761*
1907.

4.

Carlson* W. E. Mineral assimilation cf sugar beets.
Proc. Amer Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 81-100* 1942.

5- Lill* J. G. and H. C. Rather. Sugar beets after alfalfa.
Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Quart. Bui. 26* No. 2* 129-133, 19436. Robertson* L. S. and C. M. Hansen. A recording soil
penetrometer. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Quart. Bui. 33,
1-4* 1950.
7- Roboz* E. Harmful constituents of the beet - factors
which influence the harmful nitrogen. Proc. Amer. Soc.
Sugar Beet Tech. 515-528* 1942.
8. Schropp* W. and B. Arenz. The effect of a sulfur
deficiency on the morphology* yield and nitrogen
economy of some cultivated plants. Bodenkunde u.
Pflanzenernahr. 20:68-81* 1940.
9 . Skuderna* A. W.

Resume of commercial fertilizer studies
with sugar beets. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech.
138-146; 1942.

10.

Skuderna, A. W. and C. W. Doxtator. A study with sugar
beets on two fertility levels of soil. Proc. Amer. Soc.
Sugar Beet Tech. 112-119* 1942.

11.

Spurway, C. H. Soil testing: A practical system of soil
diagnosis. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bui. 132 (3rd
rev.), 1 9 ^ *
57

12.

Tolman, B. Response to nitrogen and phosphate fertili­
zers in the intermountain area. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar
Beet Tech. 45-53, 1946.

13*

Ulrich, A. Plant analysis as a guide to fertilization
of crops. Better Crops with Plant Pood, Amer. Potash
Inst., Inc. No. 6, p. 6, June-July, 195§*

14.

U.S.D.A., Div. of Chem. Bui. 27:54-57, 1 8 9 0 .

15.

Wilfarth, H. and G. Wimmer. The effect on plants of a
deficiency of nitrogen, phosphoric acid or potash.
Jour. Landw. 51:2:129-138, 1 9 0 3 .

16.

Wiley, H. Influence of soil and climate on composition
of sugar beets. U.S.D.A. Div. of Chem. Bui. 74, 19^3*

17.

Zitkowski, M. P., M. P. Potvliet and I. W. Reed.
Composition of sugar beets at various stages of the
growing season. Sugar, 1 8 :2 9 6 -2 9 8 , 1 9 1 6 .

58