ASSBT Biennial Meeting – Feb. 24 – Feb 27, 2025 in Long Beach, CA
object(WP_Term)#4338 (11) { ["term_id"]=> int(198) ["name"]=> string(19) "Volume 61, Number 1" ["slug"]=> string(18) "volume-61-number-1" ["term_group"]=> int(0) ["term_taxonomy_id"]=> int(198) ["taxonomy"]=> string(5) "issue" ["description"]=> string(0) "" ["parent"]=> int(0) ["count"]=> int(5) ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" ["term_order"]=> string(1) "1" }

Effects of Sugarbeet Processing Precipitated Calcium Carbonate on Crop Production and Soil Properties

David D. Tarkalson1, Dave L. Bjorneberg1, Oliver T. Neher2, Davey Olsen2, Greg Dean2

1USDA-ARS Northwest Soils and Irrigation Research Laboratory, Kimberly, ID; 2Amalgamated Sugar Company, Boise, ID

Corresponding Author: David D. Tarkalson (david.tarkalson@ usda.gov)

Abstract

Precipitated calcium carbonate (PCC) lime is a byproduct of sucrose extraction from sugarbeet processing factories in Idaho. Each year 351,000 Mg PCC is produced and stockpiled at sugarbeet factories in Idaho. There currently are no large-scale disposal strategies for the PCC and these stockpiles continue to grow each year. The simplest solution would be to apply more of the PCC directly to agricultural fields each year, however the effects of PCC on high pH soils and southern Idaho crop rotations are not well understood. A study was conducted at the USDA-ARS laboratory in Kimberly, ID to determine the effects of PCC application to an alkaline silt loam soil on sugarbeet, dry bean and barley production and soil properties. Three PCC treatments (rate and timing) and an untreated control were compared.  The PCC had no effects on crop production factors and most soil properties. The only significant effect of PCC treatments was an increase in soil phosphorus (P) concentrations compared to the control. This indicates the PCC can serve as a P fertilizer. For all three crops in this study, PCC was applied at rates that resulted in applied P levels that were 1.6 to 5.3 times greater than even the highest published recommended P rates. Compared to the control, bicarbonate soil P concentrations increased by 25% and 73% for the final PCC application amounts of 26.9 Mg ha-1 (6.7A treatment) and 89.7 Mg ha-1 (6.7A and 89.7T treatments), respectively. The PCC used in this study can safely be applied (at rates up to 87.9 Mg ha-1) to heavier textured alkaline soils in the local growing area. Disposing of PCC in this way represents a viable strategy for reducing PCC stockpiles.

Precipitated calcium carbonate (PCC) is a byproduct of sucrose extraction from sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.). Other commonly used terms for PCC are beet lime and spend lime. The PCC is the by-product formed as a result of impurity removal during the purification of the sucrose. Impurities that need to be removed include organic molecules, phosphorus, magnesium, calcium, potassium and sodium (Hergert et al. 2017). To remove impurities from the sugarbeet sucrose liquid juice stream, calcium oxide and carbon dioxide are added to the stream to form calcium carbonate (CaCO3) that precipitates out of the liquid juice stream with the impurities. The combination of the CaCO3 and impurities form the PCC which is removed from the juice stream as a solid material.

Lime materials (PCC, calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, calcium and magnesium carbonates, marl, blast-furnace slag, fly ash, and wastewater treatment sludge) are often used in agriculture to ameliorate the negative effects of soil acidification on crop production (Havlin et. al, 1999). These effects include Al and/or Mn toxicity, H ion toxicity, decreased bioavailability of some plant nutrients (Mg, Ca, K, P, and Mo), and inhibition of root growth (Marschner, 1995).  An estimated 25 to 30% of world soils are acidic (Havlin et. al, 1999). In 1999, over 6.7 million Mg of agricultural lime was applied to acid soils in the U.S. (USGS, 2022). In agroecosystems, soil acidification is mainly attributed to the nitrification process (Tarkalson et al., 2006) and is enhanced by leaching of basic cations and conjugate bases such as nitrate ions and the removal of bases in harvested crops (Barak et al., 1997; Bouman et al., 1995; Dick, 1983; Heenan and Taylor, 1995; Juo et al., 1995; Lilienfein et al., 2000; Tarkalson et al., 2006).  The incomplete return of neutralizing anions when nitrates are taken up by plants also contributes to soil acidification (Tarkalson et al., 2006). Soil acidification is common in areas with excess water leaching through soils due to higher rainfall amounts (typically >500 mm/yr) and lower soil base content (Miller and Gardiner, 2001). Periodic application of liming materials is often used on these soils to increase or maintain their productivity.

In the North Central U.S. sugarbeet producing area soils are often acidic and PCC is used to raise soil pH as well as to suppress Aphanomyces cochliodes, a pathogenic oomycete that causes sugarbeet root damage (dampening off and rot) (Olsson et al., 2019; Lien et al., 2016; Brantner et al., 2015; Windels et al., 2008). Although, PCC has been applied to alkaline soils in the region without negative effects on crop production (Christenson et al., 2000). In Michigan, sugar beet growers apply approximately 220,000 tons of PCC annually (Clark et. al, 2015). Because PCC has value as an ameliorator of low pH soils, it is widely used (Barber, 1984). This prevents the kind of accumulation of PCC at North Central U.S. sugarbeet factories that is so common, and problematic, in the Pacific Northwest growing area (Clark et. al, 2015). In one study in Minnesota, PCC applied at rates ranging from 6 to 23.8 Mg ha-1 increased soil pH from 6.5 to 7.5 and sugar beet sucrose yield from 4,400 to 10,300 kg ha-1, respectively. This increase in yield was attributed to ameliorating negative effects associated with low soil pH. In soils with high Aphanomyces cochliodes disease pressure, PCC applications have been shown to ameliorate root damage and yield losses (Lien et al., 2016; Brantner et al., 2015).

In the Amalgamated Sugar Company growing area in Idaho, Oregon and Washington calcareous soils prevail. High in base cations, these soils typically have pH’s in the range 7.5-8.5. These soils do not cause the same negative effects on crop production as those associated with acidic soils and therefore do not require lime applications to adjust soil pH. The soil pathogen Aphanomyces cochliodes is also present in this growing region and PCC is often applied to reduce its damaging effects, however this accounts for a very small proportion of overall PCC production each year and is not in itself a solution for reducing the ever-growing stockpiles of PCC at the factories. Additional uses for PCC are required.

The simplest way to dispose of the PCC is to apply it each year to the agricultural soils within an economically feasible proximity to the sugarbeet factories. This could only be considered if there was confidence that the PCC caused no harm either to the soil chemical /physical properties, to sugarbeet productivity, or to the other crops commonly grown in rotation with sugarbeet. Additional questions regarding lime source applications to soils are potential negative effects from added salts and metals. The main soluble salts in the soil are composed of the combinations of the cations sodium (Na+), calcium (Ca+2), magnesium (Mg+2), ammonium (NH4+), and potassium (K+), and the anions chloride (Cl), sulfate (SO4-2), bicarbonate (HCO3), carbonate (CO2-2), and nitrate (NO3) (Miller and Gardiner, 2001). High soluble salts concentrations lower the osmotic water potential in soil resulting in plants being unable to draw water into the roots, resulting in water deficiencies in plants. Additionally, high soluble salts in the root zone can compromise sugarbeet seed germination and emergence resulting in poor stand counts (Walter et al., 1951). Preliminary research on the effects of PCC applied to arid alkaline soils (Scottsbluff NE, Ft. Morgan CO, and Torrington WY) showed no negative effects on the emergence of sugarbeet (Hergert et al., 2017).  Hergert et al. (2017) stated that additional research was needed to evaluate the effects of PCC on soil characteristics and plant growth under field conditions. In addition, when land applying amendments, concentrations of potentially toxic metals need to be considered. Some common metals that can be toxic to plants if soluble concentrations in soils are high enough are Al, Cu, Zn, Cd, and Pb (Angulo-Bejarano et al., 2021).

The Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC’s major sugarbeet processing factories (Paul, ID; Twin Falls, ID; and Nampa, ID) produce approximately 351,000 Mg of PCC annually (Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC, personal conversation). In 2018, PCC stockpiles at these factories totaled approximately 11.4 million Mg. Without an offsite beneficial use or disposal method for the PCC, the stockpiles will continue to grow. The difficulty in finding more land to stockpile PCC due to availability issues and high land prices, and potential environmental issues have resulted in the need for Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC to find more offsite beneficial use or disposal methods

The objective of the study was to assess the effects of added PCC to a common alkaline soil on a sugarbeet-dry bean-barley rotation yields and soil chemical properties.  The data will be used to determine if PCC can be land applied on high pH soils.

Materials and Methods

This study was conducted from 2014 to 2020 at the USDA-ARS Northwest Irrigation & Soils Research Lab in Kimberly, ID on a Portneuf silt loam (coarse-silty mixed superactive, mesic Durixerollic Xeric Haplocalcids). The treatments included four PCC (obtained from the Twin Falls Idaho factory) application rate/timings. Table 1 outlines the treatments application details. The treatments included:

  1. 0 Mg PCC ha-1 (control)
  2. 7 Mg PCC ha-1 fall applied in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017
  3. 4 3 Mg PCC ha-1 fall applied in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017
  4. 7 Mg ha-1 applied in the fall of 2014.

Treatments 3 and 4 contained the same cumulative rate of 89.7 Mg ha-1 (Table 1).  The treatments were arranged in a randomized block design and each treatment was replicated four times. Each plot was 6.7 m wide and 18.3 m long.  Soils were sampled in the spring and fall of each year. Samples were collected from 0 to 0.3 m depth.  In the fall of each year the soil sampling was done before PCC application. Soil sampling dates are in Table 1. The soil samples were analyzed for pH (Kalra, 1995), electrical conductivity (EC) (Rhoades, 1996), bicarbonate extractable P (Olsen et al., 1954), NO3-N and NH4-N (Mulvaney, 1996), Total C and N using a FlashEA1112 CN analyzer (CE, Elantech, Lakewood, NJ), and total elements (P, K, Ca, Na, Al, Cu, Zn, Cd, Pb) with ICP-OES detection (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996).  Due to the significant concentration of P in the PCC (Tables 2 and 3) and the marginal crop requirement concentrations in the soil over the study area (site bicarbonate extractable P average = 18.1 mg kg-1), to eliminate the crop productivity responses to P, in spring 2015, 450 kg P2O5 ha-1 (mono ammonium phosphate fertilizer) was applied over the entire study area. Soil fertilizer recommendations were determined each year based on University of Idaho recommendations for sugarbeet (Walsh et al., 2019; 168 kg N ha-1 and 224 kg K2O ha-1 in 2015, and 78 kg N ha-1 in 2018), dry bean (Moore et al., 2012; no fertilizer recommended), and barley (Robertson and Stark, 2003; 168 kg N ha-1).

 

Table 1. For each year of the study, precipitated calcium carbonate (PCC) treatment annual rates and cumulative total amounts applied (in parentheses), crop grown, soil sample date, and lime application date in Idaho.

Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Crop Sugarbeet Dry Bean Barley Sugarbeet Dry Bean Barley
——————————————–Mg ha-1——————————————–
Control 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
6.7A 6.7 (6.7) 6.7 (13.5) 6.7 (20.2) 6.7 (26.9) 0 (26.9) 0 (26.9) 0 (26.9)
22.4A 22.4 (22.4) 22.4 (44.8) 22.4 (67.3) 22.4 (89.7) 0 (89.7) 0 (89.7) 0 (89.7)
89.7T 89.7 (89.7) 0 (89.7) 0 (89.7) 0 (89.7) 0 (89.7) 0 (89.7) 0 (89.7)
Soil Sample Date Oct. 29 Nov. 17 Nov. 15 Oct. 25 Nov. 14 Oct. 24 Oct. 16
Lime Application Date Oct. 30 Nov. 18 Nov. 30 Oct. 31

 

Table 2.  Selected average chemical characteristics and constituent contents of the PCC used in this study.

CCE (%) 81
pH 8.4
EC  (μS cm-1) 2280
NO3-N (mg kg-1) 183.8
NH4-N (mg kg-1) 8.5
P (mg kg-1) 6559
K (mg kg-1) 1008
Ca (mg kg-1) 289069
Na (mg kg-1) 453.2
Al (mg kg-1) 3636
Cu (mg kg-1) 16.3
Zn (mg kg-1) 36.2
Cd (mg kg-1) 0.40
Pb (mg kg-1) 0.92

 

Table 3. Total rates of selected constituents applied from the PCC treatments. Rates are based on total lime applied for each treatment: 26.9, 89.7, and 89.7 Mg ha-1 for the 6.7A, 22.4A, 89.7T treatments, respectively.

Constituent 6.7A 22.4A 89.7T
——————Total kg ha-1——————
NO3-N 4.9 16.5 16.5
NH4-N 0.23 0.76 0.76
P 176 588 588
P2O5 404 1347 1347
K 27.1 90.4 90.4
K2O 32.5 108 108
Ca 7776 25930 25930
Na 12.2 40.7 40.7
Al 98 326 326
Cu 0.4 1.5 1.5
Zn 1.0 3.2 3.2
Cd 0.011 0.036 0.036
Pb 0.025 0.083 0.083

 

The PCC was uniformly surface broadcast using a manure spreader. Following PCC applications each fall the entire study area was disked, moldboard plowed, and roller harrowed.  The study area was planted to sugarbeet (BTS 21RR25) in 2015 and 2018, dry beans (Ruby Small Red) in 2016 and 2019, and barley (Moravian 69) in 2017 and 2020. The crops were furrow irrigated to meet estimated crop evapotranspiration (ETc) rates (Wright, 1982).  The harvest areas within each plot for each crop were 18.7, 25.5, and 25.5 m2 for sugarbeet, dry bean, and barley, respectively. Sugarbeets were harvested using a custom 2 row (1.1176 m) research harvester attached to a New Holland (Turin, Italy) TM90 tractor. Sugarbeets from the plots harvest areas were removed from the soil and placed onto a load cell platform where each plot weights were measured, and two 8 beet subsamples were collected.  Subsamples were sent to the Amalgamated Sugar Company tare lab for analysis of percent sugar and quality parameters (conductivity and nitrates).  Percent sugar was determined using an Autopol 880 polarimeter (Rudolph Research Analytical, Hackettstown, NJ), a half-normal weight sample dilution, and aluminum sulfate clarification method [ICUMSA Method GS6-3 1994] (Bartens, 2005). Conductivity was measured using a Foxboro conductivity meter Model 871EC (Foxboro, Foxboro, MA) and nitrate was measured using a Denver Instruments Model 250 multimeter (Denver Instruments, Denver, CO) with Orion probes 900200 and 9300 BNWP (Krackler Scientific, Inc., Albany, NY). Recoverable sucrose yield per ton of roots was estimated by: [(extraction)(0.01)(gross sucrose/ha)]/(t/ha), where extraction = 250 + [[(1255.2)(conductivity) – (15000)(percent sucrose – 6185)]/[(percent sucrose)(98.66 – [(7.845)(conductivity)])] ] and gross sucrose = (t/ha)(percent sucrose)(0.01)(1000 kg/t). Dry bean and barley were harvested with an Almaco (Nevada, Iowa, U.S.) PMC20 Plot Master Combine with a 1.524 m wide cutting head, The harvested grain and beans were collected in sacks, weighed, and yield determined.

Analysis of variance was determined for treatment main effects for production factors (sugarbeet root yield, sugarbeet ERS yield, sugarbeet root sucrose concentration, sugarbeet root brei nitrate concentration, barley grain yield, and dry bean yield) using a randomized block design model in Statistix 8.2 (Analytical Software, Tallahassee, FL).  For significant (0.05 probability level) main effects, the LSD mean separation method were used to determine treatment differences.

Results and Discussion

There were no significant impacts of PCC on sugarbeet, dry bean, and barley crop yields in years 2015, 2016, 2017, 2019, and 2020. (Table 4). However, in 2018, sugarbeet root yield was lower for the control treatment compared to the 22.4A treatment (Table 4) but there was no difference between the control and the remaining two PCC treatments (6.7A and 89.7T) or between the 22.4A treatment and the other two PCC treatments. This significant difference was not easily interpreted according to PCC application rates and timings, thus any negative or positive effects associated with PCC could not be determined. In 2018, both the 22.4A and 89.7T treatments had the same total lime application rate of 89.7 kg ha-1 (Table 1). In both sugarbeet crop years (2015 and 2018) PCC had no significant effect on sucrose concentration, sugar quality indicators (conductivity and nitrates) (Table 4), or seed germination (data not shown). The average sugarbeet populations at harvest in 2015 and 2018 were 110,00 and 122,000 plants ha-1, respectively. Plant populations were not determined for barley and dry beans.

The calcium carbonate equivalency (CCE) is the acid neutralizing value of PCC compared to 100% calcium carbonate. The average CCE of PCC used in this study was 81%. This PCC is a good lime source compared to other by-product related lime sources. For example, Class C fly ash (by-product of subbituminous coal combustion) utilized in Nebraska as an agricultural lime source has an average CCE of 40-45% (Tarkalson et al., 2005; Yunusa et al., 2012).  Despite PCC’s acid neutralizing value and at the high rates applied in this study, none of the PCC treatments caused significant increases in soil pH in any of the years measured (Table 5). The PCC pH (8.4) was not much higher than many alkaline soils in the arid western U.S. The research area for this study had control treatment (no PCC) pH levels ranging from 7.8 to 8.1 across sampling times (Table 5). The average EC value of the PCC was 2280 µS cm-1 (Table 2). Although this was much higher than the control soil (average 569 µS cm-1) it did not result in any significant increase in soil EC even at the highest applied rate (Table 5). This could explain why sugarbeet sugar quality, which is negatively influenced by high salts, remained unaffected by any PCC treatment.

The PCC contained a significant amount of crop nutrients P and K (Table 2). The PCC additions increased soil bicarbonate extractable and total P concentrations (Table 5). Across all crops and PCC treatments, PCC applied between 1.6 and 5.3 times more P2O5 than the highest recommended rates for sugarbeet, barley and dry bean (Walsh et al., 2019; Moore et al., 2012; Robertson and Stark, 2003) (Table 3). Across all crops and PCC treatments, PCC applied between 0.07 and 0.42 times more K2O than the highest recommended rate (Table 3). The PCC was not a significant source of available N (Table 2 and 3).

Comparisons between the soil in 2014 prior to PCC applications and the PCC material showed that PCC contained 6.6, 5.0, 1.8, and 1.2 times higher concentrations of P, Ca, Na, and Cu than the soil, respectively.  At the rates of PCC applied in the study, the masses of Na and Cu added to the soil were minimal. Precipitated calcium carbonate applied at a cumulative amount of 26.9 kg ha-1 (6.7A treatment) increased total soil Na and Cu masses by 1.2% and 0.82% in the top 0.3 m of soil, respectively. Precipitated calcium carbonate applied at a cumulative amount of 89.7 kg ha-1 increased total soil Na and Cu masses by 3.9% and 2.7% in the top 0.3 m of soil, respectively. The only constituent that increased in concentration in the soil over time compared to the control was P (Table 5). All other measurements and constituent concentrations did not increase in the soil after lime applications across time. The soil (0-0.3 m) contains 3.5, 5.0, 1.8, 1.4, and 12.4-times higher concentrations of K, Al, Zn, Cd, and Pb than the PCC, respectively.  Because the PCC was incorporated into the top 0.3 m layer, the addition of PCC cannot increase the total concentrations of K, Al, Zn, Cd and Pb in the soil. Overall, PCC additions at rates in this study only increased soil P concentrations thus serving as a P source.  Compared to the control, the bicarbonate soil P concentrations increased by 25% and 73% for the final PCC application amounts of 26.9 kg ha-1 (6.7A treatment) and 89.7 kg ha-1 (6.7A and 89.7T treatments), respectively. The applied PCC at all rates did not negatively impact soil properties.  Christenson et al. (2000) showed that PCC application rates up to 5.6 Mg ha-1 increased the concentrations of Mn and Zn in sugarbeet and soybean leaves but did not affect yields compared to no PCC. The concentrations of Mn and Zn in the PCC was not reported in the study (Christenson et al., 2000).

The elements Al, Cu, Zn, Cd and Pb when in sufficient plant available concentrations can be toxic to plants (Angulo-Bejarano et al., 2021). However, there were no negative impacts on crop production from these elements.

Table 4. Sugarbeet production factors and analysis of variance (ANOVA) for production factors (significance at p>f = 0.05). Bolded p>f values were significant at the 0.05 probability level. Within each production factor, study, and year values with the same letters are not different at the 0.05 probability level. Sugarbeet root yields are reported at approximately 77% water content. Barley and dry bean yields are reported based on dry matter.

Year Crop Treatment Cumulative Lime Applied Prior to Listed Year Crop (Mg ha-1) ——————–Production Measurements——————-
Root Yield Sucrose Yield Sucrose Root Nitrate Root Conductivity
Mg ha-1 kg ha-1 g kg-1 mg kg-1 mmhos
2015 Sugarbeet Control 0 92.2 14024 17.8 140 0.70
6.7A 6.7 87.8 13383 17.8 139 0.69
22.4A 22.4 88.0 13310 17.7 140 0.70
89.7T 89.7 91.8 13940 17.7 136 0.68
    Mean 89.9 13664.4 17.7 138.9 0.70
    p>f   0.444 0.300 0.991 0.699 0.969
2016 Dry Bean No treatment yields measured due to significant crop damage from hailstorm in early June.
  Yield
kg ha-1
2017 Barley Control 0 5879
6.7A 20.2 5527
22.4A 67.3 5600
89.7T 89.7 5168
Mean 5543
p>f   0.306
  Root Yield Sucrose Yield Sucrose Root Nitrate Root Conductivity
Mg ha-1 kg ha-1 g kg-1 mg kg-1 mmhos
2018 Sugarbeet Control 0 64.0 b 10697 19.3 84.0 0.64
6.7A 26.9 73.5 ab 11871 18.9 90.2 0.75
22.4A 89.7 83.6 a 13154 18.4 129.3 0.73
89.7T 89.7 71.5 ab 11514 18.8 78.8 0.71
Mean 73.2 11809 18.8 95.6 0.70
p>f   0.042 0.082 0.253 0.456 0.256
  Yield        
kg ha-1
2019 Dry Bean Control 0 3635
6.7A 26.9 4079
22.4A 89.7 4041
89.7T 89.7 4130
Mean 3971  
p>f   0.317  
  Yield  
kg ha-1  
2020 Barley Control 0 7341  
  6.7A 26.9 7359  
  22.4A 89.7 7309  
  89.7T 89.7 7108  
  Mean 7279  
  p>f   0.905  

Conclusions

The PCC used in this study can safely be applied (at rates up to 89.7 kg ha-1) to heavier textured alkaline soils in the local growing area. The application of PCC did not negatively affect sugarbeet, dry bean and barley yields in a silt loam soil. The PCC applied at rates up to 89.7 kg ha-1 was not a significant source of toxic elements to plants. Although the pH of PCC was higher than the soil, PCC rates application rates up to 89.7 kg ha-1 did not increase soil pH. The sugarbeet PCC used in this study could be used as a P fertilizer. In soils that have high soil P, PCC can potentially increase negative surface water impacts. The extent of the environmental impacts will vary based on management practices that affects the amount of runoff that enters off-site water streams. Practices that reduce runoff will reduce risks.

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5. Fall soil sample analysis and analysis of variance (significance at p>f = 0.05) for selected variables for treatments across years of the study. Bolded p>f values were significant at the 0.05 probability level.

Year Treatment Cumulative Lime Applied Prior to Soil Sample pH EC Bicarbonate P Total Inorganic N Total

P

Total K Total Ca Total Na Total Al Total Cu Total Zn Total Cd Total Pb
Mg ha-1 μS cm-1 —————————————————————mg kg-1—————————————————————
2014 Control 0 7.9 409 20.0 12.6 975 3421 64734 290.6 17766 12.6 64.3 0.54 11.8
6.7A 0 7.8 412 22.3 11.3 1004 3552 55531 243.1 18356 13.5 66.5 0.55 11.7
22.4A 0 7.8 393 14.2 10.6 968 3593 55675 249.3 18521 13.6 65.2 0.54 11.2
89.7T 0 7.8 425 17.4 12.3 987 3532 54459 249.6 18355 13.6 64.7 0.54 11.1
p>f   0.903 0.693 0.381 0.412 0.717 0.575 0.662 0.314 0.404 0.662 0.850 0.804 0.611
2015 Control 0 7.8 708 23.5b 25.5 1018b 3362 62567 261.0 17836 12.5 67.6 0.62 11.3
6.7A 6.7 7.8 475 28.1b 29.7 1035b 3709 53458 272.0 18992 13.6 71.4 0.64 11.8
22.4A 22.4 7.9 668 29.3b 21.9 1067b 3534 58949 263.5 18549 13.0 68.6 0.64 11.5
89.7T 89.7 7.9 732 45.8a 23.4 1139a 3582 57703 278.3 18599 13.5 70.4 0.64 11.5
p>f   0.434 0.070 0.020 0.801 0.008 0.267 0.836 0.515 0.220 0.645 0.693 0.599 0.756
2016 Control 0 7.8 498 27.7b 19.8 1082b 3812 60310 268.0 19010 12.8 76.4 0.61 12.4
6.7A 20.2 7.8 533 37.5ab 22.6 1117ab 4182 51918 269.5 20397 13.5 69.6 0.58 11.9
22.4A 67.3 7.8 547 43.3a 20.5 1090b 4071 56805 267.8 19754 13.0 66.7 0.60 11.8
89.7T 89.7 7.9 590 48.7a 24.6 1158a 3942 54630 270.7 19326 13.4 66.7 0.60 11.8
p>f   0.152 0.074 0.015 0.161 0.044 0.362 0.839 0.998 0.322 0.869 0.135 0.756 0.851
2017 Control 0 8.1 578 26.1c 35.4 1055 3639 60024 252.6 18385 12.9 403.0 0.66 11.4
6.7A 26.9 8.1 543 35.6b 25.4 1067 4075 51641 230.9 19864 13.8 106.1 0.63 12.4
22.4A 89.7 8.1 557 49.5a 32.3 1131 3909 55584 250.7 19252 13.7 270.4 0.65 9.5
89.7T 89.7 8.1 454 45.6a 33.3 1123 3880 56154 308.8 19044 13.5 388.9 0.63 9.5
p>f   0.711 0.721 0.001 0.527 0.098 0.195 0.815 0.185 0.231 0.816 0.801 0.679 0.062
2018 Control 0 8.1 596 29.7c 28.5 1016 3615 57880 246.1 18334 13.3 374.5 0.56 10.3
6.7A 26.9 8.1 636 40.2b 46.0 997 3358 51561 294.1 16895 12.9 345.7 0.53 9.6
22.4A 89.7 8.2 627 53.3a 30.8 1129 3755 64397 285.9 18822 13.6 115.0 0.59 11.8
89.7T 89.7 8.1 621 44.0ab 27.7 1142 3791 62528 353.6 19044 14.4 127.5 0.59 11.1
p>f   0.384 0.819 0.005 0.307 0.092 0.517 0.626 0.334 0.366 0.578 0.261 0.289 0.370
2019 Control 0 8.0 697 28.1c 50.3 1053 3625 62728 285.8 18455 13.5 63.0 0.60 12.8
6.7A 26.9 8.1 594 35.8b 37.3 1053 3798 53345 263.1 19026 13.9 64.0 0.60 12.9
22.4A 89.7 8.2 596 47.0a 34.6 1136 3625 60103 280.7 18407 13.9 63.6 0.62 12.4
89.7T 89.7 8.1 706 43.3a 48.5 1141 3502 57258 272.7 17903 13.9 63.4 0.58 12.8
p>f   0.236 0.583 0.001 0.596 0.061 0.780 0.776 0.525 0.783 0.952 0.991 0.530 0.788
2020 Control 0 8.1 502 22.0c 18.8 1030c 3454 60787 258.2 17730 12.9 63.3 0.63 12.4
6.7A 26.9 8.1 467 30.8b 16.9 1060bc 3663 55792 260.1 18561 13.5 64.9 0.65 12.7
22.4A 89.7 8.1 494 44.1a 13.8 1128a 3634 61948 277.9 18549 13.1 62.4 0.63 12.6
89.7T 89.7 8.1 458 37.9a 15.2 1104ab 3615 54092 249.6 18470 13.7 65.6 0.64 12.9
p>f   0.617 0.743 <0.001 0.5237 0.019 0.442 0.802 0.501 0.321 0.802 0.602 0.771 0.861

References

Analytical Software  (2003)  Statistix 8.  Tallahassee, FL.

Angulo-Bejarano, P.I., J. Puente-Rivera, and R. Cruz-Ortega. 2021. Metal and metalloid toxicity on plants: An overview on molecular aspects. Plants. 10, 635.  https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10040635

Barak P., B.O. Jobe, A.R. Krueger, L.A. Petersen, D.A. Laird. 1997. Effects of long-term soil acidification due to nitrogen fertilizer inputs in Wisconsin. Plant Soil 197:61-69.

Barber,  S.A.   1984.  Liming materials  and practices,  pp.  171-209.  In:  F. Adams (ed.), Soil Acidity and Liming.  2nd ed. Agron. 12. American Society of Agronomy, Madison,WI

Bartens, A., 2005. International Commission for Uniform Methods of Sugar Analysis Methods Book 2005. p. 431. Dr. Albert Bartens KG, Berlin, Germany.

Bouman, O.T., D. Curtin, C.A. Campbell, V.O. Biederbeck and H. Ukainetz. 1995. Soil acidification from long-term use of anhydrous ammonia and urea. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59:1488-1494.

Brantner, J.R., C.E. Windels, A.L. Sims, and C.A. Bradley. 2015. Ten years after a single field application of spent lime: effects on soil pH, Aphanomyces root rot, and sugarbeet yield and quality. 2014 Sugarbeet Res. Ext. Rept. 45:168-173.

Christenson, D.R., P.B. Brimhall, L. Hubbell, and C.E. Bricker. 2000. Yield of sugar beet, corn, field bean, and wheat as affected by lime application on alkaline soils. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 31:1145-1154.

Clark, G.M., L.A. Hubbell, J.F. Stewart, and B.J. Groulx. 2015. In: American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists Proceedings from the 40th Biennial Meeting. February 23-27. Clearwater Beach, FL.

Dick, W.A. 1983. Organic carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus concentrations and pH in soil profiles as affected by tillage intensity. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. J. 47:102-107.

Havlin, J.L., J.D. Beaton, S.L. Tisdale, and W.L. Nelson.  1999.  Soil fertility and fertilizers:  An introduction to nutrient management.  6th ed.  Prentice Hall.  Upper Saddle River, N.J.

Heenan, D.P. and A.C. Taylor. 1995. Soil pH decline in relation to rotation, tillage, stubble retention and nitrogen fertilizer in S.E. Australia. Soil Use Manag. 11:4-9.

Hergert, G.W., M.K. Darapuneni, A.M. Aqeel, R.G. Wilson, R.M. Harveson, J.D. Bradshaw, and R.A. Nielsen. 2017.  Agronomic potential of using precipitated calcium carbonate on early plant growth and soil quality in the inter-mountain west – greenhouse studies. J. Sugar Beet Res. 54:35-49.

Juo, A.S.R, A. Dabiri, and K. Franzluebbers. 1995. Acidification of a kaolinitic Alfisol under continuous cropping with nitrogen fertilization in West Africa. Plant Soil 171:245-253.

Kalra, Y.P. 1995. Determination of pH of soils by different methods: Collaborative study. J. AOAC Int. 78:310–324.

Lien, A.K., J.R. Bratner, A.K. Chanda. 2016. Understanding the effect of spend lime on Aphanomyces cochliodes. Sugarbeet Res. Ext. Rep.46:169-173.

Lilienfein J., W. Wilcke, L. Vilela, S.D. Lima, R. Thomas, and W. Zech. 2000. Effect of no-till and conventional tillage systems on the chemical composition of soils solid phase and soil solution of Brazilian savanna oxisols. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 163:411-419.

Marschner, H.  1995.  Mineral nutrition of higher plants. 2nd ed.  Academic Press Inc.  San Diego, CA.

Miller, R.W. and D.T. Gardiner.  2001.  Soils in our environment. 9th ed. Prentice Hall.  Upper Saddle River, N.J.

Moore, A., A. Carey, S. Hines, and B. Brown. 2012. Southern Idaho Fertilizer Guide: Dry Beans. CIS 1189.  University of Idaho Extension. Moscow, ID.

Mulvaney, R.L. 1996. Nitrogen-inorganic forms. p. 1123-1184. In D.L. Sparks (ed.) Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 3. Chemical Methods. SSSA Book Ser. 5. SSSA, Madison, WI.

Olson, R.A., M.B. Rhodes, and A.F. Dreier. 1954. Available phosphorus status of Nebraska soils in relation to series classification, time of sampling and method of measurement. Agron. J. 46:175-180.

Olsson, A., L. Perrson, and S. Olsson. 2019. Influence of soil characteristics on yield response to lime in sugar beet. Geoderma. 337:1208-1217.

Rhoades, J.D. 1996. Salinity: Electrical conductivity and total dissolved solids. p. 417–435. D.L.  Sparks (ed.) Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3. Chemical Methods. SSSA Book Ser. 5. SSSA, Madison, WI.

Robertson L.D., and J.C. Stark. 2003. Idaho spring barley production guide. Bul 742. University of Idaho Extension. Moscow, ID.

Tarkalson, D.D., G.W. Hergert, W.B. Stevens, D.L McCallister, and S. Kachman. 2005.  Fly ash as a liming material for corn production.  Soil Sci. 170:386-398.

Tarkalson, D.D., J.O. Payero, G.W. Hergert, and K.G. Cassman. 2006. Acidification of soil in a dry land winter wheat-sorghum/corn-fallow rotation in the semi-arid Great Plains. Plant Soil. 283:367-379.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Method 3052: Microwave assisted acid digestion of siliceous and organically based matrices. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-12/documents/3052.pdf.  Accessed March 16, 2022.

U.S. Geological Survey National Minerals Information Center [Online].  2022. Available at https://www.usgs.gov/centers/nmic/crushed-stone-statistics-and-information (verified 15 March., 2020).

Walsh, O., D. Tarkalson, A. Moore, G. Dean, D. Ellison, J. Stark, O. Neher, and B. Brown. 2019. Southern Idaho Fertilizer Guide: Sugar Beets. Bul 935.  University of Idaho Extension. Moscow, ID.

Walter, R.H., C.D. Moodie, and R.W. Leamer. 1951. The production of sugar beets on a saline soil as affected by type of leaching. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 1950:448-452.

Windels, C.E., J.R. Brantner, A.L. Sims, and C.A. Bradley. 2008. Long-term effects of a single application of spent lime on sugarbeet, Aphanomyces root rot, rotation crops, and antagonistic microorganisms. 2007 Sugarbeet Res. Ext. Rept. 38:251-262.

Wright, J.L. 1982. New evapotranspiration crop coefficients. J Irr. Drain. Div., Proc. ASCE 108:57-74.

Yunusa, I.A.M, P. Loganathan, S.P. Nissanka. 2012.  Application of coal fly ash in agriculture: A strategic perspective. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42:559-600.

View Article PDF  Back to Issue