News

a.z
Babaee, B., Sadeghi-shoae, M., aghashahi, A., Mirzaei, M., Kakueinezhad, M., Fasahat, P., sadegh kohestani, M., yaghoubi niko, B. (2025). Effect of clamp cover type and lime spraying on fodder beet storage .. , 40(1), 109-122. doi: 10.22092/jsb.2025.366088.1361
Babak Babaee; Mehdi Sadeghi-shoae; alireza aghashahi; M.R. Mirzaei; Mozhdeh Kakueinezhad; P. Fasahat; manocher sadegh kohestani; batol yaghoubi niko. "Effect of clamp cover type and lime spraying on fodder beet storage .". , 40, 1, 2025, 109-122. doi: 10.22092/jsb.2025.366088.1361
Babaee, B., Sadeghi-shoae, M., aghashahi, A., Mirzaei, M., Kakueinezhad, M., Fasahat, P., sadegh kohestani, M., yaghoubi niko, B. (2025). 'Effect of clamp cover type and lime spraying on fodder beet storage .', , 40(1), pp. 109-122. doi: 10.22092/jsb.2025.366088.1361
Babaee, B., Sadeghi-shoae, M., aghashahi, A., Mirzaei, M., Kakueinezhad, M., Fasahat, P., sadegh kohestani, M., yaghoubi niko, B. Effect of clamp cover type and lime spraying on fodder beet storage .. , 2025; 40(1): 109-122. doi: 10.22092/jsb.2025.366088.1361

Effect of clamp cover type and lime spraying on fodder beet storage .

چغندرقند
Article 9, Volume 40, Issue 1, February 2025, Pages 109-122    PDF (806.29 K)
Document Type: Scientific - Research
DOI: 10.22092/jsb.2025.366088.1361
Authors
Babak Babaee* 1; Mehdi Sadeghi-shoae1; alireza aghashahi2; M.R. Mirzaei3; Mozhdeh Kakueinezhad4; P. Fasahat5; manocher sadegh kohestani6; batol yaghoubi niko6
1Assistant professor of Sugar Beet Seed Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran.
2Associate Professor of animal Science Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran.
3Associate professor of Sugar Beet Seed Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran.
4Assistant professor of Seed and Plant Improvement Institute- Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran.
5Associate professor of Sugar Beet Seed Institute (SBSI) - Agricultural Research Education and Extension, Karaj,Iran
6Expert of the research institute for breeding and preparation of sugar beet seeds - Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Karaj, Iran
Abstract
Fodder beet storage in the clamp is important in providing animal feed. The present study was conducted to evaluate the effect of cover type, spraying, and storage duration on the quality of fodder beet at Motahari Research Station in Karaj in two years of 2021 and 2022. The experiment was performed in split plot in time based on randomized complete block design with three replications. Fodder beet silo was formed every year next to the field from the beginning of November and was kept for five months. The main plots consisted of cover type in four types of 10 cm thick wheat stubble (a1), waterproof propylene cover with air permeability (a2), 10 cm thick wheat stubble together with waterproof propylene cover with air permeability (a3), and silo without cover (a4). Fodder beet roots were sprayed with 3% lime as sub-plots (b) in two levels of without spraying (b1) and spraying (b2), and storage duration (c) was performed for 150 days including five sampling treatments of 30 (c1), 60 (c2), 90 (c3), 120 (C4) and 150 (c5) days. The measurement of the minimum and maximum temperature of the environment and the silos was done by placing four thermometers in the center of the silos and one thermometer in the environment. Accumulation Degree Day (ADD), sucrose content, root dry matter, soluble amino acids, crude protein, marc and rot rate were among the qualitative indices that were measured during the storage period of fodder beet in silo. Results showed that in 2021 and 2022, the average total daily temperature of the environment during the five months of silos was 1019 and 993 oC, respectively, and the average total accumulation degree days of uncovered- and covered silos was 634 and 627 oC, respectively. The average score of infection and spoilage of fodder beet in silo with propylene covering for 150 days of storage was 1.35±0.25 from 9 which was significantly (P<0.05) lower than silo with stubble covering (1.68±0.16) and silo without cover (6.6±0.24). Spraying of lime juice caused a significant reduction of 200 g day-1 in the weight loss of fodder beet root in the silo. Considering the lack of significant difference between the dry matter of fodder beet in the silo and the total accumulation degree day of 398-425 oC and the spoilage and infection score of 1.68-1.35, the best storage period is recommended up to 120 days for areas similar to Karaj.
Keywords
Fodder beet quality; animal feed; beet storage method; accumulated degree days
References

Abdollahian Noghabi M, Babaee B, Mansouri B, Noshad H. Effect of on-farm storage method on root mass and sugar losses of sugar beet. Journal of Sugar Beet. 2009; 25 (1) 71-85. Doi: https://doi.org/10.22092/JSB.2009.976.

Anonymous. How clamping can cut losses. Sugar Beet Review. 1993; 61, No.4, 23- 27.

Anonymous. Official methods of analysis (17th Edition). Association of official Analytical chemists (AOAC). 2000; Washington, D.C.

Anonymous. Official Methods of Analysis. Association on Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC). 1990; Arlington, VA, USA.

Babaee B, Abdollahian Noghabi M, Noshad H, Masoudi S. Effects of on-farm storage cover types and method of topping on sugar losses in sugar beet. Journal of Sugar Beet. 2007; 23 (1) 67-77.
Doi:https://doi.org/10.22092/JSB.2007.1253

Babaee B, Abdollahian Noghabi M, Mahmoudi SB. Effect of lime concentrations on reduction of sugar and mass losses of sugar beet in storage. Journal of Sugar Beet. 2010; 26 (1) 81-91.
Doi:https://doi.org/10.22092/JSB.2010.765

Burcky K, Maier J. Sugar loss in beets stored in field clamps with and without cover. Zukerindustrie. 2005; 130. No. 12, 891-896.

Clark P, Givens DI, Brunnen JM. The chemical composition, digestibility and energy value of fodder-beet roots. Animal feed science and technology. 1987; 18, 225-231.

Cooke DA, Scott RK. The Sugar Beet Crop Science in to Practice. Chapman and Hall, London. 1993; 683pp.

Enchev S, Dimcheva E, Kikindonov T. Dynamics of dry mass accumulation in sugar beet, fodder beet and table beet. Journal of mountain agriculture on the Balkans. 2018; 21 (3), 162-171.

Ensminger ME, Olentine CG. Feed and nutrition complete. Ensminger publishing Co. 1978; 1,417 pp.

Gunther I. Proc. 58. IIRB winter congress. 1995; 453-473.

Hartley HO. The maximum F-ratio as a short cut test for homogeneity of variance, Biometrika, 1950; 37, 308-312.

Hoffmann CM. Root quality of sugar beet. Sugar Tech. 2010; 12:3-4, 276–287.

Hoffmann CM, Kenter C. Yield potential of sugar beet–have we hit the ceiling?’, Frontiers in plant science. 2018; (9) 289.

Huijbregts T, Legrund G, Hoffman C, Olsson R, Olsson A. Long-term storage of sugar beet in North-West Europe. COBRI report. 2013; No. 01, 58 papers.

Jaggard KW, Clark CJA, May MJ, McCullach S, Draycott AP. Change in the weight and quality of sugar beet root in storage clamps on farms. Journal of Agricultural Science. 1997; 129, 287-301.

Jones JB. Laboratory Guide for Conducting Soil Tests and Plant Analysis. CRC Press LLC. 2001; 365pp.

Legrand G, Wauters A. New experiments on long term storage of sugar beets: Effect of different storage temperatures according to the thermal time and effect of the harvesting conditions according to different varieties. Proceedings of the 73th IIRB congress. 2012; Brussels IIRB, 21-27.

Lescure JP. Beet Sugar Processing. The international commission for uniform methods of sugar analysis (ICUMSA). 1998; General Subject 8, 153-161.

Luterbacher MC, Asher MJC, Beyer W, Mandolino G, Scholten OE, Frese L, Biancardi E, Stevanato P, Mechelke W, Slyvchenko O. Sources of resistance to diseases of sugar beet in related Beta germplasm: Soil borne diseases. Euphytica. 2005; 141: 49-63.

Matthew C, Nelson NJ, Ferguson D, Xie Y. Fodder beet revisited. Agronomy New Zealand. 2011; (41) 39-48.

Oldfield JF, Dutton JV. Brit. Sugar Beet Review. 1969; 31, 15-18.

Olsson R. Lagringen hänger på dig, din jord och sorten [Storability depends on you, your soil, and variety]. Betodlaren. 2012; (3) 46-52.

Rapp P. Conservation: Téréos compte en degrés-jours. Cultivar. 2009; (630) 44-46.

Roggo Y, Duponchel L, Huvenne JP. quality evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris) by near-infrared spectroscopy. Journal of agricultural food chemistry. 2004; 52, 1055-1061.

Sadeghzadeh Hemayati S, Mahmoudi Sb, Hosseinpour M, Ahmadi M. Promotional guidelines for fodder beet cultivation. Fodder beet cultivation promotion guidelines. 2018; ISBN: 978-964-520-616-9.

Sadeghi Shoa M, Jalilian Ali, Pedram A, Rezaei J, Mirzaei MR, Nemati R. A test to determine the agronomic value of fodder beet varieties. Final report of the research institute for breeding and preparation of sugar beet seeds. 2019; 19 pages.

Sheikh al-Islami R. The beet silage cover on the side of the field is standardized. Translation. Journal of Iranian sugar industries affiliated with Iranian sugar factories. 2005; (174) 29-30.

Uchkunov I, Raikov S. Productive and economical qualities of red beet candidate varieties. Annual of “konstantin preslavski” University Shumen. 2008; l (XVIII B 3) 11-21, Bg.

Van der poel PW, Schiweck H, Schwartz T. Sugar technology beet and cane sugar manufacture. Verlag Dr Albert Bartens KG. 1998; 1120 papers.

Zhang Q, Greenway H. Anoxia tolerance and anaerobic catabolism of aged beetroot storage tissues. Journal of experimental botany. 1994; 45(274), 567-575.

Statistics
Article View: 297
PDF Download: 268


counter
Journal management system. designed by sinaweb