Changes in the processing quality of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) during long‐term storage under controlled conditions

Abstract

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.

Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) storage quality in large outdoor piles is impacted by pile management but not by nitrogen fertilizer or cultivar

“…For all parameters, no cultivar by storage date interaction was found in any of the storage seasons (Tables 5Á7), indicating that, in this study, cultivars did not differ in storability in large piles, which was consistent with the N fertility storage trial. Sucrose losses over the storage period were expected (Kenter and Hoffmann 2009) and differences in storage characteristics among sugar beet cultivars were consistent with some (Martin et al 2001b;Kenter and Hoffmann 2009), but not other studies (Campbell and Klotz 2007). Differences among sugar beet cultivars in concentrations of impurity factors, such as sodium, potassium, amino-N and betaine, were observed after 100 d of pile storage (Martin et al 2001b).…”

“…Recent work has suggested that respiration is influenced more by environment and environment by genotype interactions than genotype alone (Campbell and Klotz 2007). Similarly, Kenter and Hoffmann (2009) observed that although sugar beet quality declined over 110 d of storage, there was a difference in sugar beet quality between varieties when the sugar beets were stored at 78C compared with 208C. In our study, the outdoor storage conditions over the three storage seasons were ideal with minimal fluctuations in temperature ( Table 2).…”

“…Small differences in N response among varieties have been observed (Stevens et al 2008), which may contribute to differences among varieties in storage characteristics. There are inconsistent results in the literature regarding cultivar influence on storability, as some studies have found evidence of varietal differences in storability (Akeson and Widner 1981;Martin et al 2001b;Kenter and Hoffmann 2009), while others have not (Campbell and Klotz 2007). Therefore, sugar beet cultivar may be a contributing factor to sugar beet storage losses and should be further evaluated.…”

“…Differences among sugar beet cultivars in concentrations of impurity factors, such as sodium, potassium, amino-N and betaine, were observed after 100 d of pile storage (Martin et al 2001b). Additionally, amino-N, dry matter, sucrose, invert sucrose and raffinose concentrations differed between two cultivars after pile storage (Kenter and Hoffmann 2009). It has therefore been suggested that genetic variability for storability may exist (Kenter and Hoffmann 2009) but cultivar screening under controlled storage conditions selects for good storage characteristics of commercially available cultivars, which ultimately may decrease the likelihood of observing a cultivar by retrieval date interaction in large outdoor piles.…”

Assessment of Different Genotypes of Table Beet for Productivity and Storability

“…о в о щ и р о с с и и № 4 ( 3 7 ) 2 0 1 7 BR868, BR715, BR928, BR707, BR697, BR922, BR817, BR738, BR721, BR632, BR641, BR910, BR782, BR897, BR717, BR299, BR714, BR918, BR891, BR930, BR643, BR899, BR890, BR904, BR629, BR662, BR679, BR784, BR698, BR685, BR733, BR686, BR636, BR289, BR004 4 -not susceptible (0,0%) -51 accessions BR917, BR839, BR680, BR881, BR924, BR798, BR834, BR702, BR929, BR874, BR727, BR703, BR769, BR019, BR914, BR694, BR810, BR722, BR774, BR759, BR688, BR777, BR682, BR837, BR732, BR831, BR835, BR816, BR689, BR765, BR832, BR712, BR696, BR761, BR726, BR739, BR027, BR700, BR818, BR730, BR780, BR779, BR681, BR676, BR734, BR647, BR814, BR723, BR746, BR687, BR883 shown that storability of beet roots is mostly conditioned by the genotype of the studied varieties, by the year, the growth and storage conditions [9][10][11].…”