Effects of potassium, sodium and chloride fertiliser rates on fodder beet yield and quality in Canterbury

Abstract

There is renewed interest in fodder beet (Beta vulgaris L.) production in the South Island of New Zealand. However, recommended agronomic practices for maximising productivity and quality are limited. Two experiments investigating the effects of different rates (kg/ha) of potassium (K; 150 or 300), sodium (Na; 100 or 200) and chloride (Cl; 240) fertiliser application on fodder beet dry matter (DM) production, nutrient concentration and uptake were carried out at Southbridge (2011) and Bankside (2012), Canterbury, New Zealand. Final DM yield was unaffected by the treatments: averaging 32 t DM/ha at Southbridge and 21 t DM/ha at Bankside. However, there was a significant interaction between K and both Cl and Na, on DM yield at Southbridge. Specifically, yield increased to 38 t DM/ha with Na and decreased to 30 t DM/ha with Cl, in the presence of K. Application of K, Na, and Cl fertiliser increased the respective tissue mineral concentration and respective total uptake for both the bulb and shoot components. Potassium tended to depress crude protein, neutral detergent fibre and ash content of the bulbs and increase the metabolisable energy and soluble sugar. The combination of low fibre and high soluble sugar concentrations puts animals at risk of rumen acidosis. These results suggest that fodder beet crops subjected to high rate of soil and/ or fertiliser K should be supplemented with feed high in crude protein and fibre. Key words: Beta vulgaris L., agronomic practices, mineral concentration, mineral uptake, quality attributes.

Fodder Beet (Beta Vulgaris L.) Yield and Quality Attributes as Affected by Sowing Date, Age at Harvest and Boron Application

“…Forages produced in warmer temperatures tend to be of lower quality compared to those produced in cooler temperatures (Ball et al, 2001). Roots of fodder beet were observed to show less values for each of the NDF, ADF, and ADL fractions than shoots which is supported by the results of Chakwizira et al (2013). Fodder beet generally (roots and shoots) comprises less amount of fibers (of any of the three fiber fractions) than other forage crops including forage cowpea, Sudan grass, and pearl millet (Salama and Zeid 2016).…”

“…Caution should be taken when feeding animals on fodder beet alone, as a combination of low crude protein and low fiber with high soluble sugar concentrations, characterizing the crop, may reduce rumen pH and put animals at risk of rumen acidosis (Nichol et al, 2003). Despite fodder beet being a good source of energy for livestock and offers good quality silage (Eriksson et al, 2004), a diet consisting of only fodder beet would be suboptimal if fed without supplementation (Chakwizira et al, 2013). It is, thus, recommended to feed fodder beet mixed with concentrates (Mousa, 2011), or other forage grasses (Kaur et al, 2016).…”

Supplementation of Spring Pasture with Harvested Fodder Beet Bulb Alters Rumen Fermentation and Increases Risk of Subacute Ruminal Acidosis during Early Lactation

“…New Zealand dairy farms have come to rely on fodder beet to increase body condition scores (BCS) within a short 6-8-week timeframe over the winter dry cow period. The popularity of fodder beet (FB) is driven by the potential to obtain large yields (>20 t dry matter: DM/ha) of high metabolizable energy bulbs (~12 MJ ME) that are~90% utilized when grazed in situ [1][2][3]. The versatility to either graze in situ or harvest FB bulbs has led to systems which graze FB during late lactation and harvest residual winter FB to supplement the post-partum herbage supply in spring.…”

Modelling feeding strategies to improve milk production, rumen function and discomfort of the early lactation dairy cow supplemented with fodder beet

“…In the last 5 years, fodder beet (Beta vulgaris; FB) has been widely adopted as a winter forage crop or as a supplement for early and late-lactation dairy cows in ryegrass pasture-based (Lolium perenne) systems of New Zealand. Although the use of FB has declined slightly within the last 2 years, popularity of FB has previously been driven by the high yield potential >20 t dry matter (DM)/ha (Chakwizira et al, 2013(Chakwizira et al, , 2016, high crop utilization >90% (Saldias and Gibbs, 2016) and the versatility to graze FB in autumn and winter or harvest bulb to supplement herbage in spring. FB is rich in water soluble carbohydrate (WSC) which accounts for over 60% of the biomass (Clark et al, 1987) and contains minimal proportions of fibre (<200 g/kg DM) and crude protein (CP; <100 g/kg DM) (Dalley et al, 2017).…”