Short report: evaluation of sugar production from sugar beet in 2021

Document Type : Soortnote

Authors

1 Assistant professor of Sugar Beet Seed Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor of Sugar Beet Seed Institute(SBSI), Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran.

Abstract

The type of cultivar, agricultural management, soil diseases, environmental conditions, the topping method, and the duration of storage are factors affecting root yield, sugar content, and extraction coefficient of sugar in sugar beet. The aim of this report was to compare the operation information of sugar factories in the country for two years of 2020 and 2021. Evaluation of the operation statistics of the country's sugar factories in 2021 showed that 1461965 tons sugar was produced, of which 881480 tons (60.3%) was extracted from sugar beet and 580465 tons (39.7%) derived from sugar cane. Compared with the production of 1602639 tons of sugar in 2020 of which 767047 tons were from sugar beet (47.9%) and 835592 tons (52.1%) from sugarcane, about 8.8% decrease in production was observed in 2021. However, the production of sugar from sugar beet increased by 12.4% in 2021 compared with 2020, and the sowing area in 2021 for both spring and autumn (121813 ha) increased by about 13.4% compared with 2020. Whilst, the average sugar content and extraction coefficient of sugar in 2021 was 16.35 and 80.53%, respectively which was 0.6 and 1.47% lower than 2020, respectively as a consequence of incomplete topping and the storage period of sugar beet in the silo of sugar factories.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Abdullahian Nougabi M, Babaee B. The correct method of topping sugar beet roots. Extention deparment of agricultural research education and extension organization, 2016; Extensional Magazine, Registration Number 46611. [In Persian]
Allison MF, Armstrong MJ, Jaggard, KW, Todd AD, Milford GF. An analysis of the agronomic, economic and environmental effects of applying N fertilizer to sugar beet (Beta vulgaris). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 1996; 127(4): 475–486. doi:10.1017/S0021859600078709.
Babaee B, Khanmohammadi Khorrami MR, Bagheri Gramrudi A, Abdollahian Noghabi M. Effect of sugar beet root weight on estimation of sucrose using densitometry method versus polarimetry method. Journal of Sugar Beet. 2020; 36 (2): 129-138. doi:10.22092/JSB.2021.356267.1291. [In Persian]
Buchholz K, Marlander B, Puke H, Glattkowski H, Thielecke K. Neubewertung des technischen wertes vonzuckerru ben. Zuckerindustrie. 1995; 120: 113–121. [In German]
Burba M, Schiweck H. Nichtzuckerbilanz und ionenb ilanz im Dicksaft als grundlagen einer qualita tsbewertung von Zuckerru ben—Teil 2. Zuckerindustrie. 1993; 118: 921–936. [In German]
Campbell LG. Sugar Beet Quality Improvement. Journal of Crop Production. 2002; 5(1/2): 395-413. doi:10.1300/J144v05n01_16.
Cooke DA, Scott RK. The Sugar Beet Crop Science in to Practice. Chapman and Hall, 1993; London.
Dedek J. Der Ursprung und das Wesen der Melasse, Zeitschrift des Vereins der deutschen. Zuckerindustrie. 1927; 77: 495–561. [In German]
Devillers P. Pre´vision du sucre me´lasse. Sucre France. 1988; 129: 190–200.
Hoffmann CM, Huijbregts T, Van Swaaij N, Jansen R. Impact of different environments in Europe on yield and quality of sugar beet genotypes. European Journal of Agronomy. 2009; 30: 17–26. doi:10.1016/j.eja.2008.06.004.
Hoffmann CM. Root Quality of Sugar beet. Sugar Tech. 2010; 12 (3-4): 276–287. doi:10.1007/s12355-010-0040-6.
Huijbregts T. New Dutch sugar recovery formula for sugar beet. Zuckerindustrie. 1999; 124: 698–701. [In German]
Mack G, Hoffmann CM. Organ-specific adaptation to low precipitation in solute concentration of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). European Journal of Agronomy. 2006; 25(3): 270–279. doi:10.1016/j.eja.2006.06.004.
Pidgeon JD, Werker AR, Jaggard KW, Richter GM, Lister DH, Jones PD. Climatic Impact on the productivity of sugar beet in Europe, 1961–1995. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 2001; 109(1): 27–37. doi:10.1016/S0168-1923(01)00254-4.
Pollach G, Hein W, Rosner G, Berninger H. Assessment of beet quality including rhizomania-infected beet. Zuckerindustrie. 1991; 116: 689–700. [In German]
Reinefeld E, Emmerich A, Baumgarten G, Winner C, Beib U. Zur Voraussage des Melassezuckers aus Ru benanalysen. Zucker. 1974; 27: 2–15.
Ruiz-Holst M, Martin FD, Burba M, Elias PD, Diener G. Assessment of the technical quality of sugar beet in Southern Spain. Zuckerindustrie. 2003; 128: 879–887. [In German]
Van der poel PW, Schiweck H, Schwartz T. Sugar technology beet and cane sugar manufacture. Berlin, Dr. Albert Bartens KG. 1998; chapter 2.
Wieninger L, Kubadinow N. Beziehungen zwischen ru benanalysen und technischer bewertung von Zuckerru ben. Zucker. 1971; 24: 599–604. [In German]
Journal of Sugar Beet
Volume 38, Issue 1
September 2022
Pages 137-143

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics