2022, Issue 3, Volume 14

INTEGRATED NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT FOR MAXIMUM YIELD OF SUGAR BEET IN TERMS ETHANOL AND SUSTAINABLE SOIL HEALTH

Ashok Kumar, Seema Paroha*, Lokesh Babar and Tej Pal Verma

National Sugar Institute, Kanpur

Received-27.02.2022, Revised-12.03.2022, Accepted-25.03.2022

Abstract: The present investigation entitled to evaluate the effect of nutrient management on the growth and productivity of three different varieties of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris.) namely LKC-2000, Subhra and LS-6 in agriculture farm of NSI, Kanpur carried out during two consecutive years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. The seeds were procured from Indian Institute of Sugar Cane Research, Lucknow. Ten treatments using different Rates of alternative (STR) and conventional (FP) fertilizers were take viz T1 as (Control) – N120P60K60; T2 as (FP) -N150P60K60; T3 as (100% STR) – N140P72K40; T4 as (125% STR) – N175P90K50; T5 as N150P60K60 (FP) + 5 t FYM; T6 as N150P60K60 (FP) + 1 t Vermi (FP); T7 as N140P72K40 (100 % STR) + 5 t FYM; T8– N140P72K40 (100 % STR) + 1 t Vermi; T9 as N175P90K50 (125 % STR) + 5 t FYM and T10 as N175P90K50 (125 % STR) +1 t Vermi. Results from the experiment revealed that use of 100% STR & 125% STR alone and along with standard dose of FYM and vermi significantly increased plant height, root length, root diameter, fresh and dry weight of root, root yield and nutrient uptake (NPK) of sugar beet than sole use of NPK ie control (T1) as well as FP (T2).  All the three varieties of sugar beet similarly responded to the treatments but LKC-2000 and Subhra responded comparatively best than LS-6 variety. LKC-2000, gave the highest value of total reducing sugar (18.29%) followed by Subhra (17.95 %) & LS-6 variety (17.60 %).  LKC-2000 gave ethanol yield of around 129.4 AL/ton followed by Subhra with 119.6 AL/ton and LS-6 with 101.26 AL/ton.      

Keywords: Sugar Beet, Ethanol, Energy, Biofuel, Total Reducing Sugar

References

Ahmad, S., Zubair, M., Iqbal, N., Cheema, N.M. and Mahmood, K. (2012). Evaluation of sugar beet hybrid varieties under Thal-Kumbi in Pakistan. J. Agric. Biol., 14(4):605-608.

Google Scholar

Amin, M., Khan, A. and Khan, D. (1989). Effect of date of sowing on yield and quality of sugarbeets. Pakistan J. Agric. Res. 10 (1): 30-33.

Google Scholar

Brar Navjot Singh, Dhillon Buta Singh, Saini, K.S. and Sharma, P.K. (2015). Agronomy of sugarbeet cultivation-A review; Agricultural Reviews, Volume 36 (3) 2015 : 184-197.

Google Scholar

Burba, M., Huijbregts, T. and Hilscher, E. (2001). Zur bestimmung des lbslichen gesamt-stickstoffs in zuckerruben mit nah-lnfrarot- spektrometrie. Zuckerind, 126, 367-375.

Google Scholar

Balakrishnan, A. and Selvakumar, T. (2008). Integrated nitrogen management for tropical sugarbeet hybrids. Sugar Tech.10 (2): 177-180.

Google Scholar

Ebrahimian, H.R., Sadegheian, S.Y., Jahadakbar, M.R. and Abbasi, Z. (2009). Study of adaptability and stability of sugar beet monogerm cultivars in different locations of Iran. J. Sugar Beet, 24: 1–13.

Google Scholar

Wyse, R. E. and. Dexter, S. T. (1971). Effect of agronomic and storage practices on raffinose, reducing sugar, and amino acid content of sugarbeet varieties. J. of the A.S.S.B.T. J. 6 : 369-83.

Google Scholar

Zahoor, A., Faridullah, Paigham, S., Sanaullah, B., Kakar, K. M., Haytham El-Sharkawi, Honna, T. and Yamamoto, Y. (2007). Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) response to different planting methods and row geometries I: Effect on plant growth and yield. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci.s 53:49-61.

Google Scholar