Abstract
Fodder beet and sugar beet were sown on 4 to 6 dates between late August and mid December 1980 at 4 sites in Canterbury. On 2 irrigated sites, sugar yields were 15 to 17 t/ha for late August and early September sowings, thereafter sugar yields declined at a rate of over 100 kg/ha for each day sowing was delayed. On non-irrigated sites, sugar yields for equivalent early September sowings were 450Jo lower than for irrigated sites but declined more slowly with later sowing to become equal to irrigated sites from late November. Sowing date had little effect on root sugar content. There was little difference in sugar yield between sugar beet and fodder beet because, despite the fodder beet yielding 35% more root fresh weight, its sugar content was 27% lower.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
At irrigated sites, early sowings yielded 15 to 17 t/ha of sugar.
Verbatim
e0“On 2 irrigated sites, sugar yields were 15 to 17 t/ha for late August and early September sowings”
t0“SUGAR BEET AND FODDER BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
On irrigated sites, delayed sowing reduced sugar yield by over 100 kg/ha per day.
Verbatim
e0“thereafter sugar yields declined at a rate of over 100 kg/ha for each day sowing was delayed”
t0“SUGAR BEET AND FODDER BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
Early September sugar yields at non-irrigated sites were reported as 450Jo lower than irrigated sites.
Verbatim
e0“On non-irrigated sites, sugar yields for equivalent early September sowings were 450Jo lower than for irrigated sites”
t0“SUGAR BEET AND FODDER BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
With later sowing, non-irrigated sugar yields declined more slowly and equaled irrigated yields from late November.
Verbatim
e0“sugar yields for equivalent early September sowings were 450Jo lower than for irrigated sites but declined more slowly with later sowing to become equal to irrigated sites from late November”
t0“SUGAR BEET AND FODDER BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
Sowing date had little effect on beet root sugar content.
- Taxon
- SUGAR BEET AND FODDER BEETt0
- Treatment
- Sowing datee0
- Outcome
- root sugar contente0
- Direction
- little effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Sowing date had little effect on root sugar content.”
t0“SUGAR BEET AND FODDER BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugar yield differed little between sugar beet and fodder beet.
- Taxon
- sugar beet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0 - Outcome
- sugar yielde0
- Direction
- little differencee0
- Comparator
- fodder beete0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was little difference in sugar yield between sugar beet and fodder beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Fodder beet yielded 35% more root fresh weight than sugar beet.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“the fodder beet yielding 35% more root fresh weight”
Claim · model-written summary
Fodder beet sugar content was 27% lower than sugar beet.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“its sugar content was 27% lower”
t0“SUGAR BEET AND FODDER BEET”
The same questions in other papers
climate site · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →sowing time · quality: sugar starch · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.