Sugarbeet Biochemical Quality Changes During Factory Pile Storage. Part II. Non-sugars

Abstract

Processing sugarbeet for sucrose production begins with an aqueous extraction. Besides sucrose, the extract also contains other water soluble root chemicals, which are viewed as undesirable " impurities" by the processor. Many impurities are removed or greatly diminished during processing, but some of those that remain reduce sucrose recovery, resulting in a loss of sugar to molasses. We investigated sugarbeet varietal differences in accumulation of several important impurities at harvest and after pile storage at three locations: Sidney MT, Worland WY, and Hereford TX. At each location a group of locally adapted varieties was used. Paired root samples were prepared at harvest. One of each pair immediately was analyzed for sucrose by polarimetry, and a portion of each sucrose filtrate was frozen for subsequent anal)'sis by HPLC for sugars and quality components (Na, K, amino N, betaine). The second sample of each pair, in an air-permeable bag, was placed into the factory storage pile for 110 d at Sidney, 90 d at Worland, or 56 d at Hereford, then recovered and analyzed similarly to unstored samples. Data were anal)'zed separately for each location. Analyses of the sugar components (sucrose, glucose, fructose, and raffinose) have been reported previously. Component concentrations were expressed in g per 100 g sucrose (g/ lOOS) as a relevant way to evaluate processing

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).…”

“…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). Additionally, amino-N, dry matter, sucrose, invert sucrose and raffinose concentrations differed between two cultivars after pile storage (Kenter and Hoffmann 2009).…”

“…In our study, the outdoor storage conditions over the three storage seasons were ideal with minimal fluctuations in temperature ( Table 2). The influence of cultivar on sugar beet storability may be more pronounced under unfavorable storage conditions (Martin et al 2001b). Regardless, the lack of cultivar by storage date interaction for all storage quality parameters measured in all three storage seasons suggests that growers do not need to modify their cultivar selection to minimize storage losses.…”

“…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.…”

Relationships Between Applied Nitrogen Fertilizer and Postharvest Storage Properties of Sugarbeet Roots

“…Evidence is quite limited, but there are observations suggesting that sugarbeet grown under low nitrogen fertility conditions are more susceptible to some common storage rot fungi than roots grown in adequately fertilized soil (Bugbee, 1977;Bugbee, 1982). Minimizing storage losses is complicated by interactions among cultural and environmental conditions during the growing season, harvest conditions, diseases prior to harvest and during storage, and cultivar on sucrose losses during storage (Tungland, 1998;Martin et al, 2001a;2001b;Campbell and Klotz, 2006) This study examines the impact of nitrogen fertilizer rate on changes in processing quality during postharvest storage.…”