Effects of Tillage System and Nitrogen Supply on Sugarbeet Production

Tarkalson, David D.; Bjorneberg, David L.; Moore, Amber

doi:10.5274/jsbr.49.3.79

Cited by 22 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nitrate leaching is typically greater under a cereal than sugarbeet, Beta vulgaris L. (Webb et al 2004), since sugarbeet is a very efficient scavenger of inorganic N (Shepherd and Lord 1996;Tarkalson, Bjorneberg, and Moore 2012). Under sugarbeet, nitrate leaching can be minimized (i) with a late, rather than early harvest since a late harvest allows for better utilization of N mineralized in autumn; (ii) if harvested sugarbeet fields are left fallow over winter, thereby delaying beet residue incorporation, N mineralization, and leaching, rather than being plowed in the fall and sown with a winter cereal (Shepherd and Lord 1996); and (iii) if manure is applied in winter or early spring rather than fall (Thomsen 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Winter Wheat Yield, Quality, and Nitrogen Removal Following Compost- or Manure-Fertilized Sugarbeet

Lehrsch

Brown

Lentz

et al. 2016

Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To efficiently use nitrogen (N) while protecting water quality, one must know how a second-year crop, without further N fertilization, responds in years following a manure application. In an Idaho field study of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) following organically fertilized sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.), we determined the residual (second-year) effects of fall-applied solid dairy manure, either stockpiled or composted, on wheat yield, biomass N, protein, and grain N removal. Along with a no-N control and urea (202 kg N ha ). All materials were incorporated into a Greenleaf silt loam (Xeric Calciargid) at Parma in fall 2002 and 2003 prior to planting first-year sugarbeet. Secondyear wheat grain yield was similar among urea and organic N sources that applied optimal amounts of plant-available N to the preceding year's sugarbeet, thus revealing no measurable second-year advantage for organic over conventional N sources. Both organic amendments applied at high rates to the preceding year's sugarbeet produced greater wheat yields (compost in 2004 and manure in 2005) than urea applied at optimal N rates. On average, second-year wheat biomass took up 49% of the inorganic N remaining in organically fertilized soil after sugarbeet harvest. Applying compost or manure at greater than optimum rates for sugarbeet may increase second-year wheat yield but increase N losses as well.Abbreviations CNS, carbon-nitrogen-sulfur ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Winter Wheat Yield, Quality, and Nitrogen Removal Following Compost- or Manure-Fertilized Sugarbeet

Lehrsch

Brown

Lentz

et al. 2016

Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Information from Idaho was used because cost estimates for Montana were not readily available and farming operations for sugarbeet production are similar for the two states. The ST cost reported by Patterson and Painter (2011) was based on only a single survey respondent so we followed the approach reported by Tarkalson et al (2012) who assumed a custom rate for ST equal to that of moldboard plow operations ($72.43 ha -1 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whereas changing from moldboard plow to ST on the same 80 ha field would save about $1400 in fuel, $3646 in machinery costs and take 72 h less time each year for total annual savings of about $80 ha -1 . In Idaho, Tarkalson et al (2012) reported that tillage costs were 53 to 76% less with ST than with CT. Additional savings may be realized when ST is combined with LEPA irrigation, which requires much lower system water pressure than conventional irrigation methods including MESA. It has been estimated that a 20 to 40% reduction in energy costs may be obtained when converting from high pressure (e.g., circa 500 kPa) to low pressure (e.g., circa 70 kPa) systems (Gilley and Mielke, 1980).…”

Section: Tillage and Fertilizer Application Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Strip Tillage and High‐Efficiency Irrigation Applied to a Sugarbeet–Barley Rotation

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Strip tillage (ST) and high-effi ciency overhead irrigation methods reduce fuel and water inputs compared to conventional practices, but have not been extensively evaluated in sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.)-malt barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) cropping systems. A fi eld study comparing conventional tillage (CT) and ST systems and two sprinkler irrigation methods (mid-elevation spray application, MESA; low-energy precision application, LEPA) was conducted near Sidney, MT, from 2004 to 2008. Strip tillage was performed (for sugarbeet only) using a single operation that left alternating 30-cm wide strips of tilled and untilled soil while fertilizer was simultaneously banded 10 cm below the seed row. Conventional tillage for sugarbeet consisted of six separate tillage operations following a broadcast application of fertilizer. Tillage preceding malt barley consisted of one pass each with a disk and a fi eld cultivator following a broadcast application of fertilizer. Sugarbeet grown with ST yielded as well as when grown with CT. Irrigation method did not aff ect sugarbeet yield. Malt barley yield was not aff ected by irrigation method but was 5.4% lower following ST sugarbeet than when following CT sugarbeet. Tillage and fertilizer application costs for the sugarbeet phase of the 2-yr rotation were estimated to be approximately $141 ha -1 less with ST than with CT representing reductions of 66% for the sugarbeet phase alone and 47% for the 2-yr cropping system. It was concluded that both ST and LEPA are applicable to irrigated sugarbeet-malt barley cropping systems and may provide substantial cost savings compared to conventional practices.

show abstract

“…Strip tillage has been a primary focus and commonly used in crop production worldwide to reduce soil erosion, conserve soil water by maintaining surface crop residues, and reduce tillage costs compared to traditional tillage practices "is defined as the sequence of operations most commonly or historically used in a given geographic area to prepare a seedbed and produce a given crop" (Mitchell et al, 2012). Recently, Tarkalson et al (2012) evaluated and compared the effects of ST and CT practices on sugarbeet root yield in the Pacific Northwest. They concluded that ST can be used to obtain root yield comparable to CT practices and lowered tillage costs by 53 to 76% relative to CT practices used in their study.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Crop Water Productivity of Sugarbeet as Affected by Tillage

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of today's greatest challenges of irrigated agriculture is to produce more food and fiber with less water, which can be accomplished by maximizing crop water productivity (CWP). A study was conducted to evaluate and compare the effect of conventional tillage (CT) and strip tillage (ST) on crop water use (CWU) and CWP of sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.) on clay loam soil in the northern Great Plains (NGP). Seasonal CWU and CWP for sugarbeet root and sucrose yields were determined for the 2006, 2007, and 2008 growing seasons according to the water balance and CWP equations under CT and ST practices. No significant differences due to tillage were found for CWU of sugarbeet. In 2006, CWP for root yield was significantly greater in ST relative to CT due to wind damage early in the spring which reduced sugarbeet plant population in the CT. The mean CWP for root yield across three growing seasons was10% greater for ST than for CT due to the protected soil-plant environment under the ST. The ST greatly reduces wind erosion and the related plant damage. The ST system used 0.0093 m 3 and 0.061 m 3 of irrigation water less than CT system to produce 1 kg of sugarbeet root and 1 kg of sucrose yield, respectively, throughout the growing season. We concluded that ST can be used to produce sugarbeet root yield and CWP comparable to CT or even in some instances greater than CT in areas that are prone to wind damage to sugarbeet seedlings.

show abstract

Effects of Tillage System and Nitrogen Supply on Sugarbeet Production

Cited by 22 publications

References 4 publications

Winter Wheat Yield, Quality, and Nitrogen Removal Following Compost- or Manure-Fertilized Sugarbeet

Winter Wheat Yield, Quality, and Nitrogen Removal Following Compost- or Manure-Fertilized Sugarbeet

Strip Tillage and High‐Efficiency Irrigation Applied to a Sugarbeet–Barley Rotation

Crop Water Productivity of Sugarbeet as Affected by Tillage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About