No abstract

The yield of sugar beet has continuously increased in the past decades. The question arises, whether this progress will continue in the future. A key factor for increasing yield potential of the crop is breeding progress. It was related to a shift in assimilate partitioning in the plant toward more storage carbohydrates (sucrose), whereas structural carbohydrates (leaves, cell wall compounds) unintendedly declined. The yield potential of sugar beet was estimated at 24 t sugar ha-1. For maximum yield, sufficient growth factors have to be available and the crop has to be able to fully utilize them. In sugar beet, limitations result from the lacking coincidence of maximum irradiation rates and full canopy cover, sink strength for carbon assimilation and high water demand, which cannot be met by rainfall alone. After harvest, sugar losses during storage occur. The paper discusses options for a further increase in yield potential, like autumn sowing of sugar beet, increasing sink strength and related constraints. It is prospected that yield increase by further widening the ratio of storage and structural carbohydrates will come to its natural limit as a certain cell wall stability is necessary. New challenges caused by climate change and by prolonged processing campaigns will occur. Thus breeding for improved pathogen resistance and storage properties will be even more important for successful sugar beet production than a further increase in yield potential itself.

Long-term storage of sugar beet is an option to extend the processing campaign of the sugar factories in Europe. In the present study, changes in the processing quality of sugar beet were quantified during 110 days of storage at 7 and 20°C. During storage, the concentration of sucrose decreased whereas K, Na, amino N, betaine, invert sugar and raffinose accumulated in the beets, i.e. quality was impaired markedly. At 7°C, the changes in sucrose concentration were relatively small but the formation of invert sugar and raffinose caused considerable losses in beet quality. Thus, long-term storage at low temperature is appropriate to prolong the campaign but processing costs will increase. Quality assessment with two formulae showed that measurements of K, Na and amino N are insufficient to evaluate stored sugar beets for recoverable sugar. Due to its increase in storage, the concentration of invert sugar should also be taken into account.

No abstract

The chemical composition of sugar beet is the most important parameter affecting its processing. Sugar factories require beet with high concentrations of sucrose and low concentrations of melassigenic substances to maximise the amount of extractable sugar. In order to plan the processing campaign, forecasts of root and sugar yield by prediction models are possible but there are no means to predict the technical quality of the beet. In the present study, the seasonal development and physiological relationships of different parameters of sugar beet quality were analysed. In order to estimate possibilities for quality forecasts, the concentrations of beet quality variables in October were correlated with corresponding quality measurements in late summer and to weather variables during the growing season by linear regressions. In 2000 and 2001, 27 field trials were conducted on commercial farm fields in all sugar beet growing areas in Germany. From June to October, sequential samples were taken every 4 weeks and the concentrations of sucrose, potassium, sodium, total soluble nitrogen, α-amino nitrogen, nitrate, betaine, reducing sugars and marc in the beet were determined. The sucrose concentration increased progressively until the final harvest date in autumn, whereas the concentrations of the melassigenic substances decreased markedly until late summer and remained fairly constant as the season progressed. Marc concentration was the most stable of the parameters analysed. The sucrose concentration was positively correlated with the concentrations of dry matter, betaine and marc, but negatively with nitrate concentration and leaf yield throughout the season. The correlation between the concentrations of sucrose and nitrogenous compounds measured in summer and their final concentrations in autumn was rather weak. However, it was close for potassium, sodium and marc and a satisfactory prediction of their final concentrations was possible by the end of August. Based on weather data, beet quality was not predictable. Therefore, it seems to be difficult to integrate beet quality parameters into prediction models.