Abstract
Abstract Sugar beet ( Beta vulgaris L. subsp. vulgaris ) is deemed to be one of the most promising bioethanol feedstock crops in northern Japan. To establish viable sugar beet‐based bioethanol production systems, energy‐efficient protocols in sugar beet cultivation are being intensively sought. On this basis, the effects of alternative agronomic practices for sugar beet production on total energy inputs (from fuels and agricultural materials during cultivation and transportation) and ethanol yields (estimated from sugar yields) were assessed in terms of (i) direct drilling, (ii) reduced tillage (no moldboard plowing), (iii) no‐fungicide application, (iv) using a high‐yielding beet genotype, (v) delayed harvesting and (vi) root+crown harvesting. Compared with the conventional sugar beet production system used in the Tokachi region of Hokkaido, northern Japan, which makes use of transplants, direct drilling and no‐fungicide application contributed to reduced energy inputs from raising seedlings and fungicides, respectively, but sugar (or ethanol) yields were also reduced by these practices, to a greater equivalent extent than the reductions in energy inputs. Consequently, direct drilling (6.84 MJ L −1 ) and no‐fungicide application (7.78 MJ L −1 ) worsened the energy efficiency (total energy inputs to produce 1 L of ethanol), compared with conventional sugar beet production practices (5.82 MJ L −1 ). Sugar yields under conventional plow‐based tillage and reduced tillage practices were similar, but total energy inputs were reduced as a result of reduced fuel consumption from not plowing. Hence, reduced tillage showed improved energy efficiency (5.36 MJ L −1 ). The energy efficiency was also improved by using a high‐yielding genotype (5.23 MJ L −1 ) and root+crown harvesting (5.21 MJ L −1 ). For these practices, no major changes in total energy inputs were noted, but sugar yields were consistently increased. Neither total energy inputs nor ethanol yields were affected by extending the vegetative growing period by delaying harvesting.
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Direct drilling reduced seedling production energy inputs.
- Taxon
- Sugar beet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0 - Treatment
- direct drillinge0
- Outcome
- energy inputs from raising seedlingse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- conventional sugar beet production systeme1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“direct drilling and no‐fungicide application contributed to reduced energy inputs from raising seedlings and fungicides, respectively”
t0“Sugar beet”
e1“Compared with the conventional sugar beet production system used in the Tokachi region of Hokkaido, northern Japan”
Claim · model-written summary
No fungicide application reduced fungicide energy inputs.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- no‐fungicide applicatione0
- Outcome
- energy inputs from raising seedlings and fungicidese0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- conventional sugar beet production systeme1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no‐fungicide application contributed to reduced energy inputs from raising seedlings and fungicides, respectively”
t0“Sugar beet”
e1“Compared with the conventional sugar beet production system used in the Tokachi region of Hokkaido, northern Japan”
Claim · model-written summary
Direct drilling reduced sugar or ethanol yield relative to conventional production.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- direct drillinge1
- Outcome
- sugar (or ethanol) yieldse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- conventional sugar beet production systeme2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar (or ethanol) yields were also reduced by these practices”
t0“Sugar beet”
e1“direct drilling and no‐fungicide application contributed to reduced energy inputs from raising seedlings and fungicides, respectively”
e2“Compared with the conventional sugar beet production system used in the Tokachi region of Hokkaido, northern Japan”
Claim · model-written summary
No fungicide application reduced sugar or ethanol yield relative to conventional production.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- no‐fungicide applicatione1
- Outcome
- sugar (or ethanol) yieldse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- conventional sugar beet production systeme2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar (or ethanol) yields were also reduced by these practices”
t0“Sugar beet”
e1“direct drilling and no‐fungicide application contributed to reduced energy inputs from raising seedlings and fungicides, respectively”
e2“Compared with the conventional sugar beet production system used in the Tokachi region of Hokkaido, northern Japan”
Claim · model-written summary
Direct drilling worsened energy efficiency to 6.84 MJ L −1 versus 5.82 MJ L −1 conventionally.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- direct drillinge0
- Outcome
- energy efficiencye0
- Direction
- worsenede0
- Value
- 6.84 MJ L −1e0
- Qualifier
- 5.82 MJ L −1e0
- Comparator
- conventional sugar beet production practicese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“direct drilling (6.84 MJ L −1 ) and no‐fungicide application (7.78 MJ L −1 ) worsened the energy efficiency (total energy inputs to produce 1 L of ethanol), compared with conventional sugar beet production practices (5.82 MJ L −1 )”
t0“Sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
No fungicide application worsened energy efficiency to 7.78 MJ L −1 versus 5.82 MJ L −1 conventionally.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- no‐fungicide applicatione0
- Outcome
- energy efficiencye0
- Direction
- worsenede0
- Value
- 7.78 MJ L −1e0
- Qualifier
- 5.82 MJ L −1e0
- Comparator
- conventional sugar beet production practicese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no‐fungicide application (7.78 MJ L −1 ) worsened the energy efficiency (total energy inputs to produce 1 L of ethanol), compared with conventional sugar beet production practices (5.82 MJ L −1 )”
t0“Sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage maintained similar sugar yields to plow based tillage.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- reduced tillage practicese0
- Outcome
- Sugar yieldse0
- Direction
- similare0
- Comparator
- conventional plow‐based tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sugar yields under conventional plow‐based tillage and reduced tillage practices were similar”
t0“Sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage lowered total energy inputs through reduced fuel use.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- not plowinge0
- Outcome
- total energy inputse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- conventional plow‐based tillagee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“total energy inputs were reduced as a result of reduced fuel consumption from not plowing”
t0“Sugar beet”
e1“Sugar yields under conventional plow‐based tillage and reduced tillage practices were similar”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage improved energy efficiency to 5.36 MJ L −1.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- reduced tillagee0
- Outcome
- energy efficiencye0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- 5.36 MJ L −1e0
- Comparator
- conventional sugar beet production practicese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reduced tillage showed improved energy efficiency (5.36 MJ L −1 )”
t0“Sugar beet”
e1“compared with conventional sugar beet production practices (5.82 MJ L −1 )”
Claim · model-written summary
Using a high yielding genotype improved energy efficiency to 5.23 MJ L −1.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- using a high‐yielding genotypee0
- Outcome
- energy efficiencye0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- 5.23 MJ L −1e0
- Comparator
- conventional sugar beet production practicese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“energy efficiency was also improved by using a high‐yielding genotype (5.23 MJ L −1 )”
t0“Sugar beet”
e1“compared with conventional sugar beet production practices (5.82 MJ L −1 )”
Claim · model-written summary
Root and crown harvesting improved energy efficiency to 5.21 MJ L −1.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- root+crown harvestinge0
- Outcome
- energy efficiencye1
- Value
- 5.21 MJ L −1e0
- Comparator
- conventional sugar beet production practicese2
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“root+crown harvesting (5.21 MJ L −1 )”
t0“Sugar beet”
e1“The energy efficiency was also improved by using a high‐yielding genotype”
e2“compared with conventional sugar beet production practices (5.82 MJ L −1 )”
Claim · model-written summary
Using a high yielding genotype increased sugar yields.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- using a high‐yielding genotypee1
- Outcome
- sugar yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- conventional sugar beet production practicese2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For these practices, no major changes in total energy inputs were noted, but sugar yields were consistently increased”
t0“Sugar beet”
e1“energy efficiency was also improved by using a high‐yielding genotype (5.23 MJ L −1 )”
e2“compared with conventional sugar beet production practices (5.82 MJ L −1 )”
Claim · model-written summary
Root and crown harvesting increased sugar yields.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- root+crown harvestinge1
- Outcome
- sugar yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- conventional sugar beet production practicese2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For these practices, no major changes in total energy inputs were noted, but sugar yields were consistently increased”
t0“Sugar beet”
e1“root+crown harvesting (5.21 MJ L −1 )”
e2“compared with conventional sugar beet production practices (5.82 MJ L −1 )”
Claim · model-written summary
High yielding genotype and root and crown harvesting did not materially change energy inputs.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Outcome
- total energy inputse0
- Direction
- no major changese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For these practices, no major changes in total energy inputs were noted”
t0“Sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Delayed harvest did not affect energy inputs or ethanol yields.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- delaying harvestinge0
- Outcome
- total energy inputs nor ethanol yieldse0
- Direction
- affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Neither total energy inputs nor ethanol yields were affected by extending the vegetative growing period by delaying harvesting”
t0“Sugar beet”
The same questions in other papers
transplanting · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →tillage · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 44 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
58 papers more in this group
See all 62 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.