Cercospora Leaf Spot of Sugar Beet Robert M
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Cherry Leaf Spot
CHERRY LEAF SPOT 695 maturely defoliated produced fewer blossoms the following year, the flowers were poorly developed and slower in opening, fewer cherries ripened, and the cherries were smaller. Many fruit spurs died, and the crop was greatly reduced on the spurs that survived. By reducing shoot growth and spur Cherry development, the defoliation lowered the yield for several years. Following the worst outbreak of Leaf Spot cherry leaf spot on record in the Cum- berland-Shenandoah Valley in 1945, thousands of sour cherry trees died and F. H. Lewis many others had severe injuries. In Virginia on trees defoliated in Cherry leaf spot, caused by the para- May and June of 1945, the average sitic fungus Coccomyces hiemalis^ is one of weight of the buds in late summer was the major factors that determine the 90 milligrams.' The buds on trees that cost of producing cherries and the had retained their foliage averaged 147 yield and quality of the fruit. milligrams in weight. The smaller buds The disease occurs on the sour did not have enough vitality to survive cherry, Prunus cerasus, sweet cherry, P, the winter. All unsprayed trees died. avium, and the mahaleb cherry, P, None of the trees died in one orchard mahaleb, wherever they are grown where sprays had delayed defoliation under conditions that favor the sur- 4 weeks or more. vival of the fungus. That includes our Heavy early defoliation in West Vir- eastern and central producing areas ginia in 1945 stimulated the produc- and the more humid areas in the West. tion of secondary growth on 64 percent Because it has been most serious on of the terminals about 2 weeks after sour cherry in the Eastern and Central harvest. -
Relationships Among Impurity Components, Sucrose, and Sugarbeet Processing Quality
2 Journal of Sugar Beet Research Vol. 52 Nos. 1 & 2 Relationships Among Impurity Components, Sucrose, and Sugarbeet Processing Quality L. G. Campbell and K.K. Fugate USDA-ARS Northern Crop Science Laboratory, Fargo, ND 58102-2765 Corresponding author: Larry Campbell ([email protected]) DOI: 10.5274/jsbr.52.1.2 ABSTRACT Sodium, potassium, amino-nitrogen, and invert sugar are nat- urally-occurring constituents of the sugarbeet root, referred to as impurities, which impede sucrose extraction during rou- tine factory operations. Three germplasm lines selected for low sodium, potassium, or amino-nitrogen and a line selected for high amino-nitrogen concentration from the same parental population and two lines selected from another source, one for high and the other for low amino-nitrogen concentration, were the basis for examining relationships among the impurity components and between the impurity components and sucrose concentration, sucrose loss to mo- lasses, and sucrose extraction rate. Concentrations of the three impurity components were altered through selection; however, in no case did this result in a consistent significant increase in sucrose concentration or estimates of the propor- tion of the sucrose that would be extracted. Correlation analyses indicated a larger role for sodium than for potas- sium or amino-nitrogen in determining relative sucrose con- centration. Selection for low sodium concentration, however, did not increase the percent extractable sucrose, relative to the parental population. The probability of significant im- provement in the processing quality of elite germplasm by re- ducing the concentration of individual impurity components appears to be low, based upon the populations examined in this study. -
Biotechnology Statement Sugar Beet Derived Granulated, Brown And
Biotechnology statement Sugar beet derived granulated, brown and liquid sugar produced by our partners, Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC, Spreckels Sugar Company, and Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative, and marketed by NSM has been extracted from sugar beets grown from seed utilizing Monsanto event H7-1. The pure sugar does not contain genetically modified DNA and or proteins derived from genetically modified DNA. In the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (December 21, 2018), described in 7 CFR Part 66, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has affirmed “that foods with undetectable modified genetic material are not bioengineered foods.” Pursuant to 7 CFR Part 66 §66.9 (b)(2) the refining process completely excludes all genetic components. The sugar has been tested and shown to be PCR negative. The sugar is the same as that produced from traditional beet seed. Therefore, no bioengineered food labeling is required. Powdered sugar is produced by fracturing beet or cane sugar crystals to a defined particle size resulting in the various grades (6X,10X,12X, etc.) and adding a small amount (2- 4% by weight) of cornstarch. The cornstarch is added as an anti-caking agent to promote the flowability of the product. Powdered sugar is produced using two grades of cornstarch. Conventional cornstarch may be derived from genetically modified corn, and the powdered sugar could, therefore, be considered genetically modified. Identity preserved (IP) cornstarch is added to cane sugar to produce a non-GMO powdered sugar and is designated as non-GMO. Granulated and liquid cane sugar provided by National Sugar Marketing LLC (NSM) has been produced from sugar cane that has not been genetically modified nor does it contain genetically modified DNA and or proteins. -
Effect of Foliar Fungicides on Relative Chlorophyll Content, Green Leaf Area, Yield and Test Weight of Winter Wheat
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by SHAREOK repository EFFECT OF FOLIAR FUNGICIDES ON RELATIVE CHLOROPHYLL CONTENT, GREEN LEAF AREA, YIELD AND TEST WEIGHT OF WINTER WHEAT By NATHALIA GRAF-GRACHET Bachelor of Science in Agricultural Engineering Universidade Federal de São Carlos Araras, São Paulo, Brazil 2012 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE May, 2015 EFFECT OF FOLIAR FUNGICIDES ON RELATIVE CHLOROPHYLL CONTENT, GREEN LEAF AREA, YIELD AND TEST WEIGHT OF WINTER WHEAT Thesis Approved: Dr. Robert M. Hunger Thesis Adviser Dr. John Damicone Dr. Jeffrey Edwards Dr. Mark Payton ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I express my immense gratitude to my adviser, Dr. Robert Hunger. I am not able to describe the impact his guidance has had in my life. It is certainly beyond everything I ever deserved. I am very fortunate for having such an extraordinary mentor. For her guidance, I express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Carla Garzon, who kindly offered me incredible opportunities at OSU. A special thank you to all faculty and staff members of the Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology. I extend this special thank you to all the friends I have made here in the US, and to my dearest friends in Brazil. I am extremely lucky for having such amazing people in my life. Finally, I express my simple gratitude to my parents and sister, Mario, Roseli and Marina, who are the most important people in my life. -
The Case for Neonicotinoids in Pelleted Sugar Beet Seeds
International Confederation of European Beet Growers CONFEDERATION INTERNATIONALE INTERNATIONALE VEREINIGUNG DES BETTERAVIERS EUROPEENS EUROPÄISCHER RÜBENANBAUER * * CONFEDERAZIONE INTERNAZIONALE MIĘDZYNARODOWA KONFEDERACJA DEI BIETICOLTORI EUROPEI EUROPEJSKICH PLANTATORÓW BURAKA 111/9 Boulevard Anspachlaan – B-1000 Brussels Tel: +32 2 504 60 90 – Fax: +32 2 504 60 99 www.cibe-europe.eu D.58/2.4.2018 Brussels, 2nd April 2018 The case for neonicotinoids in pelleted sugar beet seeds Introduction Within the context of the current debate on neonicotinoids, CIBE wishes to explain with the present note that the use of neonicotinoid-treated beet seed pellets is a good agricultural practice in sustainable sugar beet growing. 1. Neonicotinoid seed treatment in sugar beet does not endanger non-target organisms (including pollinators) and the environment Sugar beet is not attractive to pollinators since it does not flower/produce pollen during the growing period used for sugar production. The release of neonicotinoids to the environment via guttation or harvest residues is very low because: sugar beet is a low guttation crop with few and small droplets, and only at high humidity level (>90%); due to this comparative rareness of crop guttation in sugar beet (see illustration below), exposure to neonicotinoids from guttation seems to be unlikely because guttation droplets from sugar beet are unlikely to serve as a preferred source for e.g. water foraging bees; neonicotinoids and their metabolites occur in very low concentrations in the soil after harvest. This low concentration, combined with the fact that practically no flowering plants are found in a beet field during the early stage of crop development (EFSA Peer reviews of the pesticide risk assessment for the active substances imidacloprid & clothianidin, November 2016) and especially after harvest, makes it less likely that non-target organisms in general and pollinators in particular risk being exposed to neonicotinoids (Baker et al 2002). -
Picture Tour: Growing Sugarbeets
1 Picture Tour: Growing Sugarbeets Saginaw Valley Research and Extension Center agbioresearch.msu.edu Images of: Plowing · Planting · Crop emergence · Growth · Fields · Harvest PLOWING Most beet ground is either moldboard or chisel plowed in the fall. Better stands are often achieved if the soil is worked early and seeds are planted into a stale seed bed. Land is tilled in the spring to level the ground and incorporate fertilizer, usually the day before or the day of planting. 2 Sugar beets are typically planted from March 31 to May 15. PLANTING Beets are planted in rowspacings from 15-30". Rows are planted as straight as possible to make it easier to cultivate and harvest. 3 Seed is dropped into the row and pressed firmly into moisture. CROP EMERGENCE Beets generally emerge 1-2 weeks after planting. 4 Leaves emerge in pairs. Beets are most susceptible to injury from frost, wind, disease, herbicides etc. during the first 30 days. 5 GROWTH As beets grow, the leaves develop a waxy coat and the taproot grows downward in search of water and nutrients. During July the root enlarges and stores sugar created by photosynthesis .Sugar beet roots continue to grow until harvest. 6 As beets mature the crown often extends above the surface of the soil. FIELDS Sugar beets will usually fill the rows by the end of June. Beet leaves continue to grow and expand, utilizing all available sunlight. 7 HARVEST Beet leaves are removed prior to harvest with a rotating drum topper. Rubber flails remove leaves and petioles in the topping operation. -
Cephaleuros Species, the Plant-Parasitic Green Algae
Plant Disease Aug. 2008 PD-43 Cephaleuros Species, the Plant-Parasitic Green Algae Scot C. Nelson Department of Plant and Environmental Protection Sciences ephaleuros species are filamentous green algae For information on other Cephaleuros species and and parasites of higher plants. In Hawai‘i, at least their diseases in our region, please refer to the technical twoC of horticultural importance are known: Cephaleu- report by Fred Brooks (in References). To see images of ros virescens and Cephaleuros parasiticus. Typically Cephaleuros minimus on noni in American Samoa, visit harmless, generally causing minor diseases character- the Hawai‘i Pest and Disease Image Gallery (www.ctahr. ized by negligible leaf spots, on certain crops in moist hawaii.edu/nelsons/Misc), and click on “noni.” environments these algal diseases can cause economic injury to plant leaves, fruits, and stems. C. virescens is The pathogen the most frequently reported algal pathogen of higher The disease is called algal leaf spot, algal fruit spot, and plants worldwide and has the broadest host range among green scurf; Cephaleuros infections on tea and coffee Cephaleuros species. Frequent rains and warm weather plants have been called “red rust.” These are aerophilic, are favorable conditions for these pathogens. For hosts, filamentous green algae. Although aerophilic and ter- poor plant nutrition, poor soil drainage, and stagnant air restrial, they require a film of water to complete their are predisposing factors to infection by the algae. life cycles. The genus Cephaleuros is a member of the Symptoms and crop damage can vary greatly depend- Trentepohliales and a unique order, Chlorophyta, which ing on the combination of Cephaleuros species, hosts and contains the photosynthetic organisms known as green environments. -
Ethanol from Sugar Beets: a Process and Economic Analysis
Ethanol from Sugar Beets: A Process and Economic Analysis A Major Qualifying Project Submitted to the faculty of WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Bachelor of Science Emily Bowen Sean C. Kennedy Kelsey Miranda Submitted April 29th 2010 Report submitted to: Professor William M. Clark Worcester Polytechnic Institute This report represents the work of three WPI undergraduate students submitted to the faculty as evidence of completion of a degree requirement. WPI routinely publishes these reports on its website without editorial or peer review. i Acknowledgements Our team would first like to thank Professor William Clark for advising and supporting our project. We greatly appreciate the guidance, support, and help he provided us with throughout the project. We also want to thank the scientists and engineers at the USDA who provided us with the SuperPro Designer file and report from their project “Modeling the Process and Costs of Fuel Ethanol Production by the Corn Dry-Grind Process”. This information allowed us to thoroughly explore the benefits and disadvantages of using sugar beets as opposed to corn in the production of bioethanol. We would like to thank the extractor vendor Braunschweigische Maschinenbauanstalt AG (BMA) for providing us with an approximate extractor cost with which we were able to compare data gained through our software. Finally, we want to thank Worcester Polytechnic Institute for providing us with the resources and software we needed to complete our project and for providing us with the opportunity to participate in such a worthwhile and rewarding project. ii Abstract The aim of this project was to design a process for producing bioethanol from sugar beets as a possible feedstock replacement for corn. -
Plant Pathology
Plant Pathology 330-1 Reading / Reference Materials CSU Extension Fact Sheets o Aspen and poplar leaf spots – #2.920 o Backyard orchard: apples and pears [pest management] – #2.800 o Backyard orchard: stone fruits [pest management] – #2.804 o Bacterial wetwood – #2.910 o Cytospora canker – #2.937 o Diseases of roses in Colorado – #2.946 o Dollar spot disease of turfgrass – #2.933 o Dutch elm disease – #5.506 o Dwarf mistletoe management – #2.925 o Fairy ring in turfgrass – #2.908 o Fire blight – #2.907 o Forest fire – Insects and diseases associated with forest fires – #6.309 o Friendly pesticides for home gardens – #2.945 o Greenhouse plant viruses (TSWV-INSV) – #2.947 o Honeylocust diseases – #2.939 o Juniper-hawthorn rust – #2.904 o Juniper-hawthorn rust – #2.904 o Leaf spot and melting out diseases – #2.909 o Necrotic ring spot in turfgrass – #2.900 o Non-chemical disease control – #2.903 o Pesticides – Friendly pesticides for home gardens – #2.945 o Pinyon pine insects and diseases – #2.948 o Powdery mildew – #2.902 o Roses – Diseases of roses in Colorado – #2.946 o Russian olive decline and gummosis – #2.942 o Strawberry diseases – #2.931 o Sycamore anthracnose – #2.930 CSU Extension Publications o Insects and diseases of woody plants of the central Rockies – 506A Curriculum developed by Mary Small, CSU Extension, Jefferson County • Colorado State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture and Colorado counties cooperating. • CSU Extension programs are available to all without discrimination. • No endorsement of products named is intended, nor is criticism implied of products not mentioned. -
Proximate, Chemical Compositions and Sensory Properties of Wine Produced from Beetroot (Beta Vulgaris)
Chemical Science Review and Letters ISSN 2278-6783 Research Article Proximate, Chemical Compositions and Sensory Properties of Wine Produced from Beetroot (Beta vulgaris) Ezenwa Mo1*, Eze Ji1 and Okolo Ca2 1Department of Food Science and Technology, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria 2Department of Food Science and Technology, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria Abstract Table wine was produced from juice which had been The vitamin and mineral contents of the anaerobic and extracted from washed and peeled beetroot. Fermentation aerobic fermented wine samples were Pro-vitamin A of the juice lasted for 21days at room temperature and (24.16-25.83mg/100mL), Vitamin B1, (0.523- aging for 21days at below 100C. The wine sample 0.433mg/100mL), Vitamin C (1.697- produced under anaerobic and aerobic fermentation was 1.873mg/100mL), Vitamin E (0.315-0.374mg/100mL) coded BN and BA respectively. A commercial table wine and iron content (0.750-0.773mg/100mL), potassium (WBO) was used as reference sample. There were (28.360-29.056 mg/100mL), Magnesium (0.780-0.803 gradual changes in the physicochemical properties of the mg/100mL). The commercial sample was the most must as fermentation (aerobic and anaerobic) and ageing preferred with highest score (7.70) in general lasted. There was reduction in the pH from 4.7 to 3.9, acceptability. The anaerobic fermented wine sample Specific gravity from 1.092 to 1.021, 0Brix from 21.84 to was more preferred with higher score (7.13) in general 6.22 and increase were recorded for alcohol from 0 to 8.4 acceptability. -
Feeding Sugar Beet Byproducts to Cattle AS1365
AS1365 (Revised) Feeding Sugar Beet Byproducts to Cattle Reviewed by variety of options to choose from in Sugar Beet Processing alternative feeds; however, the choice Greg Lardy To better understand the nutrient of those feeds depends on several NDSU Animal Sciences characteristics of sugar beet Department Head factors, including availability and byproducts, understanding the nutrient composition, as well as process that is used to extract storage and handling characteristics. sugar from sugar beets is important. The Red River Valley region of One possibility is to incorporate At the processing plant, foreign Minnesota and North Dakota, along sugar beet byproducts into the diet. material, small beets and leaves with the Yellowstone and Upper Beet byproducts are fed predominantly are removed from the beets prior to Missouri River Valley regions of in northeastern South Dakota, western processing. This material is known North Dakota and Montana, are Minnesota and eastern North Dakota, as “sugar beet tailings,” which important sugar beet-producing as well as western North Dakota and also is used as livestock feed. regions. In fact, Minnesota, North eastern Montana. This is due to the The sugar beets are sliced into long Dakota and Montana ranked 1, 3 availability and the perishable strips called cossettes. The cossettes and 5, respectively, in sugar beet nature of the wet byproducts. are cooked in hot water to remove the production in 2014. Together, these sugar. This process is called diffusion. three states produced more than The predominant byproducts fed in At the end of the diffusion process, 52 percent of the U.S. sugar beet crop this region are wet beet pulp and beet the hot water and sugar mixture is in 2014. -
Beets Beta Vulgaris
Beets Beta vulgaris Entry posted by Yvonne Kerr Schick, Hamilton Horizons student in College Seminar 235 Food for Thought: The Science, Culture, and Politics of Food, Spring 2008. (Photo from flilkcr.com) Scientific Classification1 Kingdom: Plantae Division: Magnoliophyta Class: Magnoliopsida Order: Caryophyllales Family: Chenopodiaceae Genis: Beta Species: vulgaris Binomial name Beta vulgaris Etymology The beet is derived from the wild beet or sea beet (Beta maritima) which grows on the coasts of Eurasia.2 Ancient Greeks called the beet teutlion and used it for its leaves, both as a culinary herb and medicinally. The Romans also used the beet medicinally, but were the first to cultivate the plant for its root. They referred to the beet as beta.3 Common names for the beet include: beetroot, chard, European sugar beet, red garden beet, Harvard beet, blood turnip, maangelwurzel, mangel, and spinach beet. Botanical Description The beetroot, commonly called the beet, is a biennial plant that produces seeds the second year of growth and is usually grown as an annual for the fleshy root and young 1 Wikipedia Foundation, Inc., website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beets. 2 A Modern Herbal website: http://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/b/beetro28.html. 3 Health Diaries website: http://www.healthdiaries.com/eatthis/25-facts-about-beets.html. leaves. The Beta vulgaris has three basic varieties: chard, grown specifically for its leaves; beets, grown for its bulbous root, with edible leaves (with varieties in white, yellow and red roots); and sugar beets, grown for making sugar from the long, thick root. The beet is a root vegetable with purple-green variegated leaves.