Abstract
In 2010-2012, in Sahryń (Lubelskie Voivodeship), a field experiment was carried out, the aim of which was to assess the cost-effectiveness of foliar nutrition of sugar beet with marine calcite Herbagreen Basic containing silicon. The fertilizer was applied in two variants: 1) 1 kg/ha at the 4-6 leaf stage of sugar beet (BBCH 14-16) + 2 kg/ha 21 days later; 2) 2 kg/ha at the 4-6 leaf stage of sugar beet (BBCH 14-16) + 2 kg/ha 21 days later; the effects were compared with the control (without foliar nutrition with marine calcite). Additionally, in the years 2011-2012, an identical experiment was carried out with another sugar beet cultivar. For each combination, the gross production value, foliar nutrition costs, the net production value and profitability index were calculated. The total cost of application of foliar calcite was 190 and 240 PLN/ha. The gross production value of sugar beet in experiment 1, on average over three years of research, increased in combination 1 by 24.8% and in combination 2 by 25.6% compared to the control; in experiment 2, on average for 2 years of research, in combination 1 by 15.7%, and in combination 2 by 15.0%. The increase in the net production value in experiment 1 amounted to 22.8 and 23.2% respectively, and in experiment 2 - 13.9 and 12.8%. The indicator of the profitability of foliar nutrition with marine calcite in experiment 1, on average, for the period 2010-2012, amounted to 12.6 in combination 1 and 10.3 in combination 2. In experiment 2, the index of profitability of foliar nutrition, on average, for the period 2011-2012, reached the value of 8.96 for object 1 and 6.77 for object 2.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar calcite application cost 190 PLN/ha for combination 1.
- Taxon
- sugar beet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1 - Treatment
- foliar calcitee0
- Outcome
- total cost of application of foliar calcitee0
- Value
- 190e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The total cost of application of foliar calcite was 190 and 240 PLN/ha.”
e1“foliar nutrition of sugar beet with marine calcite”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar calcite application cost 240 PLN/ha for combination 2.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Treatment
- foliar calcitee0
- Outcome
- total cost of application of foliar calcitee0
- Value
- 240 PLN/hae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The total cost of application of foliar calcite was 190 and 240 PLN/ha.”
e1“foliar nutrition of sugar beet with marine calcite”
Claim · model-written summary
In experiment 1, combination 1 raised gross production value by 24.8% compared with control.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- combination 1e0
- Outcome
- gross production valuee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 24.8%e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The gross production value of sugar beet in experiment 1, on average over three years of research, increased in combination 1 by 24.8% and in combination 2 by 25.6% compared to the control”
Claim · model-written summary
In experiment 1, combination 2 raised gross production value by 25.6% compared with control.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- combination 2e0
- Outcome
- gross production valuee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 25.6%e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The gross production value of sugar beet in experiment 1, on average over three years of research, increased in combination 1 by 24.8% and in combination 2 by 25.6% compared to the control”
Claim · model-written summary
In experiment 2, combination 1 raised gross production value by 15.7% compared with control.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- combination 1e0
- Outcome
- gross production valuee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 15.7%e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The gross production value of sugar beet in experiment 1, on average over three years of research, increased in combination 1 by 24.8% and in combination 2 by 25.6% compared to the control; in experiment 2, on average for 2 years of research, in combination 1 by 15.7%, and in combination 2 by 15.0%”
Claim · model-written summary
In experiment 2, combination 2 raised gross production value by 15.0% compared with control.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- combination 2e0
- Outcome
- gross production valuee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 15.0%e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The gross production value of sugar beet in experiment 1, on average over three years of research, increased in combination 1 by 24.8% and in combination 2 by 25.6% compared to the control; in experiment 2, on average for 2 years of research, in combination 1 by 15.7%, and in combination 2 by 15.0%”
Claim · model-written summary
In experiment 1, net production value rose 22.8% with combination 1.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Treatment
- foliar nutritione1
- Outcome
- net production valuee0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 22.8e0
- Qualifier
- experiment 1e0
- Comparator
- controle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The increase in the net production value in experiment 1 amounted to 22.8 and 23.2% respectively, and in experiment 2 - 13.9 and 12.8%.”
e1“foliar nutrition of sugar beet with marine calcite”
e2“effects were compared with the control”
Claim · model-written summary
In experiment 1, net production value rose 23.2% with combination 2.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Treatment
- foliar nutritione1
- Outcome
- net production valuee0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 23.2%e0
- Qualifier
- experiment 1e0
- Comparator
- controle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The increase in the net production value in experiment 1 amounted to 22.8 and 23.2% respectively, and in experiment 2 - 13.9 and 12.8%.”
e1“foliar nutrition of sugar beet with marine calcite”
e2“effects were compared with the control”
Claim · model-written summary
In experiment 2, net production value rose 13.9% with combination 1.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Treatment
- foliar nutritione1
- Outcome
- net production valuee0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 13.9e0
- Qualifier
- experiment 2e0
- Comparator
- controle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The increase in the net production value in experiment 1 amounted to 22.8 and 23.2% respectively, and in experiment 2 - 13.9 and 12.8%.”
e1“foliar nutrition of sugar beet with marine calcite”
e2“effects were compared with the control”
Claim · model-written summary
In experiment 2, net production value rose 12.8% with combination 2.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Treatment
- foliar nutritione1
- Outcome
- net production valuee0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 12.8%e0
- Qualifier
- experiment 2e0
- Comparator
- controle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The increase in the net production value in experiment 1 amounted to 22.8 and 23.2% respectively, and in experiment 2 - 13.9 and 12.8%.”
e1“foliar nutrition of sugar beet with marine calcite”
e2“effects were compared with the control”
Claim · model-written summary
Profitability index in experiment 1 was 12.6 for combination 1.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Treatment
- combination 1e0
- Outcome
- indicator of the profitabilitye0
- Value
- 12.6e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The indicator of the profitability of foliar nutrition with marine calcite in experiment 1, on average, for the period 2010-2012, amounted to 12.6 in combination 1 and 10.3 in combination 2.”
e1“gross production value of sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Profitability index in experiment 1 was 10.3 for combination 2.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Treatment
- combination 2e0
- Outcome
- indicator of the profitabilitye0
- Value
- 10.3e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The indicator of the profitability of foliar nutrition with marine calcite in experiment 1, on average, for the period 2010-2012, amounted to 12.6 in combination 1 and 10.3 in combination 2.”
e1“gross production value of sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Profitability index in experiment 2 was 8.96 for object 1.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Treatment
- object 1e0
- Outcome
- index of profitabilitye0
- Value
- 8.96e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In experiment 2, the index of profitability of foliar nutrition, on average, for the period 2011-2012, reached the value of 8.96 for object 1 and 6.77 for object 2.”
e1“gross production value of sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Profitability index in experiment 2 was 6.77 for object 2.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Treatment
- object 2e0
- Outcome
- index of profitabilitye0
- Value
- 6.77e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In experiment 2, the index of profitability of foliar nutrition, on average, for the period 2011-2012, reached the value of 8.96 for object 1 and 6.77 for object 2.”
e1“gross production value of sugar beet”
The same questions in other papers
micronutrient · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results agree
10 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 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.