The ongoing climate change with increasingly frequent, prolonged drought during the vegetation period is a significant factor affecting production of field crops, including durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.). One of the approaches to effectively protect plants from drought stress is the foliar application of bioactive substances and selection of appropriate genetic material for specific location conditions. In this study, the impacts of brown seaweed based and humic substance-based biostimulants were researched. The positive impact of bioactive substances on grain yield has been reported in many studies. However, the impact on quality components is questionable and not well investigated. In this study, a highly significant (α < 0.01) positive impact of bioactive substances on grain yield was confirmed. The highest grain yield was observed on the fertilized variant with humic substances (4.03 t ha−1). When compared to control, there was a high statistically significant difference. The biofertilization impact on quality components was weakly positive in most cases, although without statistical significance (α > 0.05). The study included evaluating the interactions biofertilization–weather conditions (BW) and biofertilization–variety (BV). According to the ANOVA results, a highly significant impact in BW on grain yield was found, and in BV, a highly significant impact on protein content, falling number, and gluten content (α < 0.01) and significant impact on grain yield and vitreousness were found (α < 0.05). Correlation analysis among the monitored parameters was performed. The results that we obtained from the multi-annual field research may contribute to sustainable arable farming in areas with a lack of rainfall during vegetation. By foliar application of bioactive substances, we achieved a significant increase in the yield of durum wheat while maintaining or increasing the quality parameters of the grain.

The application of biostimulants in agriculture is considered an economically and ecologically acceptable and, above all, a sustainable method of cultivation of field crops. This study aimed to investigate the impact of biostimulating agents on the production and growth parameters of the sugar beet. In 2018 and 2019, an experiment was conducted in which the effect of four types of treatment (B0–B3) on two varieties of sugar beet (Alpaca, Gorila) was observed. The results show that the beets treated with treatment type B3 (combination of humic acids, essential amino acids, biopolymers, and soil bacteria) had the significantly highest yield of roots compared with the control type. However, parameters such as sugar content, polarized sugar yield, white sugar content, and white sugar yield were the highest in condition B2, treated with an agent containing soil bacteria. Furthermore, biostimulants positively affected the leaf area index, with significant growth observed, especially in condition B3. Another important finding was that in the interaction analysis, the biostimulants had positive effects in dry conditions and on elevated values of traits of Alpaca variety caused by treatment in condition B2. In terms of relationships between individual parameters, an interesting finding was that there was only a weak relationship between root yield and sugar content (Rs = 0.0715), which indicates that biostimulants increase production size while maintaining or increasing its quality.

Abstract:The risk rate of sugar beet growing was analyzed by using the algorithm for modelling and generating the random numbers based on the conditions determined in advance and the statistical distribution of sugar beets yield, the total costs, earnings and gross profit. on the bases of results of the analysis of economic risks of sugar beet production in years 1995-2009, it follows that the sugar beet growing in all regions is highly risky in the czech republic. The subsidy SAPS and ToP-UP per 1 hectare of sugar beet have a positive impact on its economics though not sufficient enough. in practice, it means that it is highly probable that the break-even point will not be achieved and thereby it is highly probable that the fixed costs are not covered and the update of machines is significantly limited. This happens mainly in the marginal regions. if the agricultural companies count on the separate sugar payment, the sugar beet growing is in all regions of the czech republic with acceptable risk.

The possibility of sweet sorghum cultivation with different inter-row distances (20, 50, 75 cm) was verified in small scale plots with 3 cultivars (Bovital, Goliath, Sucrosorgho). The maize cv. Atletico (rows 75 cm) was used as a control. The influence of row width and cultivar on fresh and dry biomass, methane and biogas production per area was statistically significant. The methane and biogas production was evaluated in laboratory, via fermentation in Oxi Top Control Merck bottles. Generally, sorghum was more productive than maize. The highest biogas production per hectare was found in case of 25 cm row spacing. Goliath was the most yielding cultivar (in all parameters). The experiment proved possibility to produce biomass from sorghum in narrow rows for biogas stations in the Czech Republic.

The effect of sugar beet seed (primed and non-primed) on field emergence and root yield of sugar beet was examined. The experiment was realized in the years 2012–2014 at an Experiment Field Station of Warsaw University of Life Sciences – SGGW Faculty of Agriculture and Biology in Skierniewice (51°97'N, 20°19'E) in Poland. The experimental factor was diversified seed material of the same cultivar of sugar beet – typical seeds, traditionally prepared for sowing (non-primed seeds) and seeds before sowing, subjected to the process of priming. On average for the three years of the study, no significant effect of seed priming on the field emergence was found. On the other hand, the sugar beet emergence on plots with primed seeds was faster, more even and uniform. Seed priming, on average for the three years of the study, significantly increased the mean root mass during harvest. In contrast, priming the seeds did not cause an increase in the final plant density. No significant effect of seed priming on root yield was found, both on average for the studied period and in particular years of the study.